King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page




Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store

  • L - OZ
    PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP - GR VIDEOS - GR YOUTUBE - TWITTER - SD1 YOUTUBE    



    To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God: L LAADAH <la’-a-da > ( hD:[]l” [la`dah]): A descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 4:21).

    LAADAN <la,’-a-Daniel > . See LADAN.

    LABAN <la’-ban > : The person named Laban, ˆb;l; [labhan]; ([ Laba>n , Laban ], possibly connected with the root meaning “to be white,” from which in Hebrew the adjective meaning “white” has just this form) is first introduced to the reader of Genesis in the story of the wooing of Rebekah (Genesis 24). He belonged to that branch of the family of Terah that was derived from Abraham’s brother Nahor and his niece Milcah. The genealogy of this branch is traced in Genesis 22:20-24; but, true to its purpose and the place it occupies in the book, this genealogy brings the family down to Rebekah, and there stops without mentioning Laban. Accordingly, when Rebekah is introduced in the narrative of Genesis 24, she is referred to (24:15,24) in a way that recalls to the reader the genealogy already given; but when her brother Laban is introduced (24:29), he is related to his sister by the express announcement, “And Rebekah had brother, and his name was Laban.” In this chapter he takes prominent part in the reception of Abraham’s servant, and in the determination of his sister’s future. That brothers had an effective voice in the marriage of their sisters is evident, not only from extra-Biblical sources, but from the Bible itself; see e.g.

    Song of Solomon of Solomon 8:8. In Genesis 24, however, Laban is perhaps more prominent than even such custom can explain (compare 24:31,50,55), and we are led to see in him already the same forcefulness and egotism that are abundantly shown in the stories from his later life. The man’s eager hospitality (verse 31), coming immediately after his mental inventory of the gifts bestowed by the visitor upon his sister (24:30), has usually, and justly, been regarded as a proof of the same greed that is his most conspicuous characteristic in the subsequent chapters.

    The story of that later period in Laban’s life is so interwoven with the career of Jacob that little need here be added to what is said of Laban in JACOB, III, 2 (which see). By the time of Jacob’s arrival he is already a very old man, for over 90 years had elapsed since Rebekah’s departure.

    Yet even at the end of Jacob’s 20 years’ residence with him he is represented as still energetic and active ( Genesis 31:19,23), not only ready for an emergency like the pursuit after Jacob, but personally superintending the management of his huge flocks.

    His home is in Haran, “the city of Nahor,” that is, the locality where Nahor and his family remained at the time when the rest of Terah’s descendants emigrated to Canaan ( Genesis 11:31; 12:5). Since Haran, and the region about it where his flocks fed, belonged to the district called Aram (see PADDANARAM; MESOPOTAMIA ), Laban is often called “the Aramean” (English Versions of the Bible, “the Syrian,” from Septuagint [oJ Su>rov , ho Suros ]); see Genesis 25:20; 28:5; 31:20,24. It is uncertain how far racial affinity may be read into this term, because the origin and mutual relationships of the various groups or strata of the Sere family are not yet clear. For Laban himself it suffices that he was a Semite, living within the region early occupied by those who spoke the Sere dialect that we call Aramaic. This dialect is represented in the narrative of Genesis as already differentiated from the dialect of Canaan that was Jacob’s mothertongue; for “the heap of witness,” erected by uncle and nephew before they part ( Genesis 31:47), is called by the one Jegar-saha-dutha and by the other Galeed — phrases which are equivalent in meaning, the former Aramaic, the latter Hebrew. (Ungnad, Hebrdische Grammatik, 1912, section 6 puts the date of the differentiation of Aramaic from “Amurritish” at “about 1500 BC”; Skinner, “Genesis,” ICC, argues that Genesis 31:47 is a gloss, following Wellhausen, Dillmann, et al.)

    The character of Laban is interesting to observe. On the one hand it shows a family likeness to the portraits of all his relations in the patriarchal group, preeminently, however, to his sister Rebekah, his daughter Rachel, and his nephew Jacob. The nearer related to Laban such figures are, the more conspicuously, as is fitting, do they exhibit Laban’s mingled cunning, resourcefulness, greed and self-complacency. And, on the other hand, Laban’s character is sui generis; the picture we get of him is too personal and complex to be denominated merely a “type.” It is impossible to resolve this man Laban into a mythological personage — he is altogether human — or into a tribal representative (e.g. of “Syria” over against “Israel” = Jacob) with any degree of satisfaction to the world of scholarship. Whether a character of reliable family tradition, or of popular story-telling, Laban is “a character”; and his intimate connection with the chief personage in Israel’s national recollections makes it highly probable that he is no more and no less historical than Jacob himself (compare JACOB, VI). J. Oscar Boyd LABANA <lab’-a-na > ([ Labana> , Labana ], 1 Esdras 5:29): Called Lebanah in Ezra 2:45.

    LABOR <la’-ber > ( [“ygiy” [yeghia`], lm;[; [`amal]; [ko>pov , kopos ]): The word (noun and verb) denoting hard work or “toil” (thus in the Revised Version (British and American) of Deuteronomy 26:7; Joshua 7:3; Revelation 2:2) represents several Hebrew and Greek words, chiefly those above. Occasionally, as in Habakkuk 3:17 ([ma`aseh]), it stands for “fruit of labor.” Sometimes, in conjunction with “travail,” it refers to childbirth ( Genesis 35:16,17, [yaladh]; compare 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). Examples of the word in the ordinary sense are: of [yeghia`], Genesis 31:42; Job 39:11,16; <19C802> Psalm 128:2; of [`amal], common in Ecclesiastes 1:3,8; 2:10,11,18, etc.; of [kopos ], 1 Corinthians 15:58 (“your labor is not vain,” etc.); 1 Thessalonians 1:3 (“work of faith and labor of love”; compare Hebrews 6:10); Timothy 5:17 (“labor in the word and in teaching”). See WORK; SLAVERY.

    James Orr LACCUNUS <lak’-u-nus > ([ Lakkou~nov , Lakkounos ]; the King James Version Lacunus): One of the sons of Addi who returned with Ezra and had married a foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:31). The name does not, as might have been expected, occur in Ezra 10:30. See note on the passage (in Lange’s Commentary) as to the reconciliation of the lists in 1 Esdras and Ezra.

    LACE <las > ( lytiP; [pathil], variously rendered in Genesis 38:18,25; Exodus 39:3; Numbers 15:38; 19:15; Judges 16:9; Ezekiel 40:3): In modern English the noun “lace” usually denotes a delicate ornamental fabric, but in the word in the sense of “that which binds” is still in perfectly good use, especially in such combinations as “shoelace” etc. It is this latter significance that is found in Exodus 28:28 (“They shall bind .... with a lace of blue”); 28:37; 39:21,31, and in Sirach 6:30 the King James Version, [klw~sma , klosma ] (the Revised Version (British and American) “riband”).

    LACEDAEMONIANS <las-e-de-mo’-ni-anz > ([ Spartia~tai , Spartidtai ]; once only [ Lakedaimo>nioi , Lakedaimonioi ], 2 Macc 5:9): The inhabitants of Sparta or Lacedaemon with whom the Jews claimed some kinship and formed alliances (1 Macc 12:2,5,6,20,21; 14:20,23; 15:23; 2 Macc 5:9).

    The alliance mentioned in 1 Macc 12:5-23 is based, among other grounds, on that of a common descent of Jews and Lacedaemonians from Abraham, for which the only probable presumption — suggested by Ewald — is the similarity of names, “Pelasgi” and Peleg son of Eber ( Genesis 10:25; 11:16). This has been reasonably objected to, and perhaps the most that can be said on this point is that the belief in some relationship between the Jews and the Lacedaemonians seems to have prevailed when 1 Macc was written. The alliance itself is said to have been formed (1 Macc 12:20) between Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians and Onias the high priest; but it is not easy to make out a consistent chronology for the transaction. For the renewal of the alliance (circa 144 BC) by Jonathan (1 Macc 12:5-18) and again by Simon (1 Macc 14:16-23), something can be said, as the Greeks had finally been deprived of independence in 146 BC, and Sparta was only obliged to lend assistance to Rome and may be supposed to have been doing so in helping the Jews against Syria. It is possible, too, that as against Syrian Hellenism the Jews were anxious to show that they had the assistance of distinguished Greeks, though the actual power of Sparta was much reduced from that of former times. The facts, at least of the alliance and the correspondence, seem to be sufficiently attested, though it is not easy to reconcile all the particulars. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10; XIII, v, 8; XIV, xii, 2,3) gives the correspondence at greater length than the writer of the Maccabees. J. Hutchison LACHISH <la’-kish > ( vykil; [lakhish]; Septuagint [ Laci>v , Lachis ] ( Joshua 15:39), [ Mace>v , Maches ]):

    1. LOCATION:

    A town in the foothills of the Shephelah on the border of the Philistine plain, belonging to Judah, and, from the mention of Eglon in connection with it, evidently in the southwestern portion of Judah’s territory.

    Eusebius, Onomasticon locates it 7 miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) toward Daroma, but as the latter place is uncertain, the indication does not help in fixing the site of Lachish. The city seems to have been abandoned about 400 BC, and this circumstance has rendered the identification of the site difficult. It was formerly fixed at Umm Lakis, from the similarity of the name and because it was in the region that the Biblical references to Lachish seem to indicate, but the mound called Tell el-Hesy is now generally accepted as the site. This was first suggested by Conder in (PEFS, 1878, 20), and the excavations carried on at the Tell by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1890-93 confirmed his identification. Tell el- Hesy is situated on a wady, or valley, of the same name (Wady el Hesy), which runs from a point about 6 miles West of Hebron to the sea between Gaza and Askelon. It is a mound on the very edge of the wady, rising some 120 ft. above it and composed of debris to the depth of about 60 ft., in which the excavations revealed the remains of distinct cities which had been built, one upon the ruins of another. The earliest of these was evidently Amorite, and could not have been later than 1700 BC, and was perhaps two or three centuries earlier (Bliss, Mound of Many Cities). The identification rests upon the fact that the site corresponds with the Biblical and other historical notices of Lachish, and especially upon the discovery of a cuneiform tablet in the ruins of the same character as the Tell el- Amarna Letters, and containing the name of Zimridi, who is known from these tablets to have been at one time Egyptian governor of Lachish. The tablets, which date from the latter part of the 15th or early part of the 14th century BC, give us the earliest information in regard to Lachish, and it was then an Egyptian dependency, but it seems to have revolted and joined with other towns in an attack upon Jerusalem, which was also an Egyptian dependency. It was perhaps compelled to do so by the Khabiri who were then raiding this region. The place was, like Gaza, an important one for Egypt, being on the frontier and on the route to Jerusalem, and the importance is seen in the fact that it was taken and destroyed and rebuilt so many times.

    2. HISTORY:

    We first hear of it in the history of Israel when Joshua invaded the land. It was then an Amorite city, and its king, Japhia, joined the confederacy formed by Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, to resist Joshua. They were defeated in the remarkable battle at Gibeon, and the five confederate kings were captured and put to death at Makkedah (Joshua 10 passim; 12:11).

    Lachish was included in the lot of Judah (15:39), and it was rebuilt, or fortified, by Rehoboam ( 2 Chronicles 11:5,9). It was besieged by Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah and probably taken ( 2 Kings 18:13) when he invaded Judah and besieged Jerusalem, but the other references to the siege leave it doubtful ( 2 Kings 18:14,17; 19:8; Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 36:2; 37:8). The Assyrian monuments, however, render it certain that the place was captured. The sculptures on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace picture the storming of Lachish and the king on his throne receiving the submission of the captives (Ball, Light from the East, 190-91). This was in 701 BC, and to this period we may assign the enigmatical reference to Lachish in Micah 1:13, “Bind the chariot to the swift steed, O inhabitant of Lachish: she was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion.” The cause of the invasion of Sennacherib was a general revolt in Phoenicia, Palestine, and Philistia, Hezekiah joining in it and all asking Egypt for aid (Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, chapter ix). Isaiah had warned Judah not to trust in Egypt ( Isaiah 20:5,6; 30:1-5; 31:1), and as Lachish was the place where communication was held with Egypt, being a frontier fortress, perhaps even having an Egyptian garrison, it would be associated with the “sin” of the Egyptian alliance (HGHL, 234).

    The city was evidently rebuilt after its destruction by Sennacherib, for we find Nebuchadnezzar fighting against it during his siege of Jerusalem ( Jeremiah 34:7). It was doubtless destroyed by him, but we are informed by Nehemiah (11:30) that some of the returned Jews settled there after the captivity. It is very likely that they did not reoccupy the site of the ruined city, but settled as peasants in the territory, and this may account for the transference of the name to Umm Lakis, 3 or 4 miles from Tell el-Hesy, where some ruins exist, but not of a kind to suggest Lachish (Bliss, op. cit). No remains of any importance were found on the Tell indicating its occupation as a fortress or city later than that destroyed by the king of Babylon, but it was occupied in some form during the crusades, Umm Lakis being held for a time by the Hospitallers, and King Richard is said to have made it a base of operations in his war with Saladin (HGHL). The Tell itself, if occupied, was probably only the site of his camp, and it has apparently remained since that time without inhabitants, being used for agricultural purposes only. See further, PALESTINE (RECENT EXPLORATION), III, 1.

    H. Porter LACK (forms of rsej; [chacer], “to lack,” ˆyIa” [ayin], “nought”): This word in its various forms has the usual meaning of “want,” “need,” “deficiency.”

    There is but little change in the use of the word in the different versions.

    Sometimes one of the common synonyms is exchanged for the word itself, e.g. in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 21:15 the Revised Version (British and American) has “lack” (“Do I lack madmen?”) where the King James Version has “need of”; Proverbs 5:23, “for lack,” instead of “without”; 6:32, “void of” for “lacketh”; 10:21, “lack” for “want”; 31:11, “lack” for “need”; Isaiah 59:15, “lacking” for “faileth.” In the New Testament “lack” is the translation of [uJstere>w , hustereo ], literally, “to be behind,” and [ejndeh>v , endees ], “in want.” In Luke 8:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “had no” instead of “lacked” in the King James Version. In 2 Corinthians 11:9, the Revised Version gives “my want” for “which was lacking to me” in the King James Version; in Colossians 1:24 “that which is lacking” for “that which is behind”; James 2:15 “lack” for “destitute.” It will readily be seen that sometimes the slight variation helps to explain the meaning. G. H. Gerberding LACUNUS <la-ku’-nus > . See LACCUNUS.

    LAD In the Old Testament this word occurs as the translation of [na`ar], “young person,” “child,” “servant,” the Revised Version (British and American) properly substituting “servant” in 2 Kings 4:19; Judges 16:26 is another passage where either sense of the original word may be intended.

    The word occurs in the New Testament in John 6:9 as the translation of [paida>rion , paidarion ]; in Acts 20:12, [pai~v , pais ] (the King James Version “young man”).

    LADAN <la’-Daniel > ( ˆD:[]l” [la`Daniel], the King James Version, Laadan): (1) A descendant of Ephesiansraim, and an ancestor of Joshua ( Chronicles 7:26). (2) A Levite of the family of Gershon ( 1 Chronicles 23:7,8,9; 26:21), also called LIBNI (which see).

    LADANUM <lad’-a-num > ( flo [loT]): Genesis 37:25 the Revised Version margin; elsewhere MYRRH (which see).

    LADDER <lad’-er > . See SIEGE, 4, (e).

    LADDER OF TYRE ([ JH kli~max [ajpo< th~v kli>makov ] Tu>rou , He klimax (apo tes klimakos ) Turou ]): Not mentioned in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but in Apocrypha (1 Macc 11:59), where it is said that Antiochus VI, after having confirmed Jonathan in the high-priesthood, appointed his brother Simon captain over the territory included between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt. The Ladder has been located at different points on the coast between Tyre and Acre, such as the Ras el-`Abyadh (“Promontorium Album” of the ancient geographers), about 7 miles South of Tyre, and Ras en-Naqurah, about 6 miles farther South, and Ras el- Musheirifeh, a little farther on. These are capes jutting westward into the sea from the ridge which runs parallel to the general line of the coast.

    These capes project more than a mile into the sea, and present a very bold and precipitous front from 200 to 300 ft. in height. The ascent on either side of the promontory is very steep, and at Ras el-`Abyadh steps were cut in the white rock, which led to the identification of this point with the Ladder, but a reference to Josephus (B J, II, x, 2) leads to a different conclusion. He locates it 100 stadia North of Acre, which corresponds fairly well with the southern limit of the whole promontory, which is about 12 miles North of Acre, but not at all with Ras el-`Abyadh. The altitude of el Musheirifeh is greater than that of el-`Abyadh and may have had steps cut in it similar to the latter. It is more probable that the Ladder of Tyre was here, or at en-Naqurah, but the term applied to the whole promontory, which offered a serious obstacle to the passage of armies, or even caravans, since the approach is precipitous on either side, and at Ras el- `Abyadh the road skirts the edge of a sheer precipice, where a misstep would hurl one into the sea some 200 ft. below. The application of the term to the whole promontory seems to be indicated by Josephus, since he speaks of it as one of the mountains which encompass the plain of Ptolemais (Acre) and the highest of all. This would not be true of any one of the three capes mentioned, but would be if the hills behind, which form their base, were included. That it was designated as the Ladder of Tyre rather than of Acre was probably due to the fact that the promontory is nearer the former city (see Thomson, LB, II, edition 1882; SWP, namelists, under the word). H. Porter LADE; LADING <lad > , <lad’-ing > : “To lade” in the sense of “to load” is retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in nearly all passages where the word occurs in the King James Version (but compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) reading of Psalm 68:19; Isaiah 46:1), “They laded us with such things” ( Acts 28:10 the King James Version). The [ejpiti>qhmi , epithithemi ], “to put on,” is rendered by the Revised Version (British and American), “They put on board such things.” Luke 11:46 the Revised Version (British and American) reads “ye load” instead of the King James Version “ye lade.”

    Lading ([forti>on , phortion ]) is found in Acts 27:10 in its usual meaning, “the lading of a ship.”

    LADY <la’-di > : This word should be taken in the sense of “mistress” in Isaiah 47:5,7 (Hebrew [gebhereth]) (so the American Standard Revised Version).

    In Judges 5:29; Esther 1:18 it is the translation of another Hebrew word ([sarah]), best rendered “princess” (so the Revised Version (British and American) in Esther, but not in Judges). In 2 John 1:1,5 it is the translation of [kuri>a , kuria ], which some interpreters regard as a proper name. See CYRIA; JOHN, EPISTLES OF; ELECT LADY.

    LAEL <la’-el > ( lael; [la’el], “belonging to God”): Father of Eliasaph, the prince of the father’s house of the Gershonites ( Numbers 3:24).

    LAHAD <la’-had > ( dh”l; [lahaah]): A descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 4:2).

    LAHAI-ROI <la-hi’-roi > , <la-hi-ro’-i > , <la’hi-roi > ( yairo yj”l” [lachay ro’i]). See BEER-LAHAI-ROI.

    LAHMAM <la’-mam > ( µm;j]l” [lachmam]): A town in the Judean Shephelah ( Joshua 15:40, the Revised Version margin “Lahmas”) possibly the modern [el-Lachm], 2 1/2 miles South of Beit Jibrin.

    LAHMAS <la’-mas > . See LAHMAM.

    LAHMI <la’-mi > ( ymij]l” [lachmi]): According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the brother of Goliath of Gath. See EL-HANAN.

    LAISH <la’-ish > ( vyIl” [layish]): (1) A city in the upper Jordan valley, apparently colonized by the Sidonians, which was captured by the Danires and called DANIEL (which see) ( Judges 18:7, etc.; Isaiah 10:30 the King James Version). In Joshua 19:47 the name appears as “Leshem.” (2) A Benjamite, father of Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michal, David’s wife, was given by Saul ( 1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15).

    LAISHAH <la-i’-sha > , <la’-ish-a > ( hv;y”l” [layshah], the King James Version, Laish): A place named in Isaiah 10:30 with Gallim and Anathoth. It should apparently be sought on the North of Jerusalem. Some would identify Gallim with Beit Jala, near Bethlehem. Conder suggests `Isawiyeh on the eastern slope, to the North-Northeast of the Mount of Olives.

    LAKE <lak > ([li>mnh , limne ]): The word is used ( Luke 5:1,2; 8:22,23,33) of the Lake of Gennesaret or Sea of Galilee, and ( Revelation 19:20; 20:10,14,15; 21:8) of the “lake of fire and brimstone.” Lakes are not abundant in Syria and Palestine. The Dead Sea, which might be called a lake, is in most places in English Versions of the Bible called the Salt Sea.

    It is called by the Arabs Bachr Lut, Sea of Lot. It is a question whether the Waters of Merom ( Joshua 11:5,7) can be identified with the Chuleh, a marshy lake in the course of the Upper Jordan, North of the Sea of Galilee.

    East of Damascus on the edge of the desert there are saltish lakes in which the water of the rivers of Damascus (see 2 Kings 5:12) is gathered and evaporates. In the Lebanon West of Ba`albek is the small Lake Yammuneh, which is fed by copious springs, but whose water disappears in the latter part of the summer, being drained off by subterranean channels. The Lake of Kums on the Orontes is artificial, though ancient. On the lower Orontes is the Lake of Antioch. Alfred Ely Day LAKE OF FIRE ([li>mnh tou~ puro>v , limne tou puros ]): Found in Revelation 19:20; 20:10,14(bis),15. Revelation 21:8 has “the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.” The brimstone in connection with “the lake of fire” occurs also in Revelation 19:20 and 10, the latter being a backward reference to the former passage. In Revelation 20:14 the words, “This is the second death, even the lake of fire” are either a gloss originally intended to elucidate 20:15 through a reference to 20:6, or, if part of the text, formed originally the close of 20:15, whence they became displaced on account of the identity of the words once immediately preceding them in 20:15 with the words now preceding them in 20:14. The “lake of fire” can be called “the second death” only with reference to the lost among men (20:15), not with reference to death and Hades (20:14). In all the above references “the lake of fire” appears as a place of punishment, of perpetual torment, not of annihilation (20:10). The beast (19:20); the pseudo-prophet (19:20; 20:10); the devil (20:10); the wicked of varying description (20:15; 21:8), are cast into it. When the same is affirmed of death and Hades (20:14), it is doubtful whether this is meant as a mere figure for the cessation of these two evils personified, or has a more realistic background in the existence of two demon-powers so named (compare Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:26,54 ff; 2 Esdras 7:31). The Scriptural source for the conception of “the lake of fire” lies in Genesis 19:24, where already the fire and the brimstone occur together, while the locality of the catastrophe described is the neighborhood of the Dead Sea. The association of the Dead Sea with this fearful judgment of God, together with the desolate appearance of the place, rendered it a striking figure for the scene of eschatological retribution. The two other Old Testament passages which have “fire and brimstone” ( Psalm 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22) are dependent on the Genesis passage, with which they have the figure of “raining” in common.

    In Revelation 21:8, “their part” seems to allude to Psalm 11:6, “the portion of their cup.” In Enoch 67:4 ff the Dead Sea appears as the place of punishment for evil spirits. Of late it has been proposed to derive “the lake of fire” from “the stream of fire” which destroys the enemies of Ahura in the Zoroastrian eschatology; so Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1906, 433, 434. But the figures of a stream and a lake are different; compare 2 Esdras 13:9-11, where a stream of fire proceeds from the mouth of the Messiah for the destruction of His enemies. Besides, the Persian fire is, in part, a fire of purification, and not of destruction only (Bousset, 442), and even in the apocalyptic Book of Enoch, the fires of purification and of punishment are not confounded (compare Enoch 67:4 with 90:20). The Old Testament fully explains the entire conception. Geerhardus Vos LAKE OF GENNESARET <ge-nes’-a-ret > . See GALILEE, SEA OF.

    LAKKUM <lak’-um > ( µWQl” [laqqum]; the King James Version, Lakum): An unidentified town on the border of Naphtali, named with Adami, Nekeb and Jabneel, apparently nearer the Jordan ( Joshua 19:33).

    LAMA See ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.

    LAMB <lam > : (1) The most used word is cb,K, [kebhes], “a young ram”; compare Arabic kebsh, “ram”; often of sacrifices; (feminine) hc;b]K” [kabhsah], or hc;b]Kings [kibchsah], “ewe lamb” ( 2 Samuel 12:3); by transposition bc,K, [kesebh], and feminine hB;c]Kings [kisbah] ( Genesis 30:40; Leviticus 3:7; 5:6). (2) rK” [kar], “lamb” ( Deuteronomy 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:9; 2 Kings 3:4). (3) hc, [seh], “one” of the flock ( Genesis 22:7; Leviticus 5:7). (4) ˆaxo [tso’n], “sheep,” “goats,” “flock”; compare Arabic da’n, “sheep” ( Exodus 12:21); and ˆax ˆB, o [ben tso’n] ( <19B404> Psalm 114:4). (5) hl,f; [Taleh], “young lamb”; compare Arabic Tali, “young lamb”; and µyail;f] [Tela’im] ( 1 Samuel 7:9; Isaiah 40:11; 65:25). (6) ˆyrIM]ai [’immerin] ( Ezra 6:9,17; 7:17). (7) [a]rnav , arnas ], accusative plural ( Luke 10:3); diminutive [ajrni>on , arnion ] ( John 21:15; Revelation 5:6, etc.). (8) [ajmno>v , amnos ] ( John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19). See SHEEP.

    Alfred Ely Day LAMB OF GOD ([oJ ajmnoho amnos tou theou ]): This is a title specially bestowed upon our Lord by John the Baptist ( John 1:29-36), “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” In Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs an apocryphal book, probably of the 2nd century — we have the term used for the Messiah, “Honor Judah and Levi, for from them shall arise for you the Lamb of God, saving all nations by grace.” But the term does not seem to have been of any general use until it received its distinctly Christian significance. It has been generally understood as referring to the prophetic language of Jeremiah 11:19, and Isaiah 53:7.

    1. SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF THE TERM:

    It is far more probable, however, that the true source of the expression is to be found in the important place which the “lamb” occupies in the sacrifices, especially of the Priestly Code. In these there was the lamb of the daily morning and evening sacrifice. How familiar this would be to the Baptist, being a member of a priestly family! On the Sabbath the number of the offerings was doubled, and at some of the great festivals a still larger number were laid upon the altar (see Exodus 29:38; Numbers 28:3,9,13). The lamb of the Passover would also occupy a large place in the mind of a devout Israelite, and, as the Passover was not far off, it is quite possible that John may have referred to this as well as to other suggested ideas connected with the lamb. The sacrificial significance of the term seems to be far more probable than the mere comparison of the character of our Lord with meekness and gentleness, as suggested by the words of the prophets, although these contain much more than the mere reference to character (see below). That this became the clearly defined conception of apostolic teaching is clear from passages in Paul and Peter ( 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18 f). In the Book of Revelation the reference to the Lamb occurs 27 times. The word here used differs from that in John. The amnos of the Gospel has become the arnion of the Apocalypse, a diminutive form suggestive of affection. This is the word used by our Lord in His rebuke and forgiveness of Peter ( John 21:15), and is peculiarly touched therefore with an added meaning of pathetic tenderness. Westcott, in his Commentary on John 1:29, refers to the conjecture that there may have been flocks of lambs passing by on their way to Jerusalem to be used at the feast. This is possible, but fanciful. As applied to Christ, the term certainly suggests the meekness and gentleness of our Lord’s nature and work, but could not have been used by John without containing some reference to the place which the lamb bore in the Judaic ritualism.

    2. AS VARIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD:

    The significance of the Baptist’s words has been variously understood.

    Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, among the ancients, Lucke, DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, Alford, among the moderns, refer it to Isaiah 53:7; Grotius, Bengel, Hengstenberg, to the paschal lamb; Baumgarten-Crusius, etc., to the sin offering; Lange strongly urges the influence of the passage in Isaiah 53, and refers to John’s description of his own mission under the influence of the second part of Isaiah, in which he is supported by Schaff. The importance of the Isaiah-thought is found in Matthew 8:17; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 2:22-25.

    3. AS SET FORTH BY ISAIAH:

    It is to be observed that the Septuagint in Isaiah 53:7 translates the Hebrew word for sheep ([seh]), by the Greek word for lamb. In 53:10, the prophet’s “suffering one” is said to have made “his soul an offering for Isaiah sin,” and in 53:4 “he hath borne our griefs,” where bearing involves the conception of sin offering, and as possessing justifying power, the idea of “‘taking away.” John indeed uses not the Septuagint word ([fe>rein , pherein ]), but ([ai]rein , airein ]), and some have maintained that this simply means “put away” or “support,” or “endure.” But this surely loses the suggestion of the associated term “lamb,” which John could not have employed without some reference to its sacrificial and therefore expiatory force. What Lange calls a “germ perception” of atonement must certainly have been in the Baptist’s mind, especially when we recall the Isaiahpassages, even though there may not have been any complete dogmatic conception of the full relation of the death of Christ to the salvation of a world. Even the idea of the bearing of the curse of sin may not be excluded, for it was impossible for an Israelite like John, and especially with his surroundings, to have forgotten the significance of the paschal lamb, both in its memorial of the judgment of Egypt, as well as of the deliverance of Israel. Notwithstanding every effort to take out of this striking phrase its deeper meanings, which involve most probably the combination of all the sources above described, it must ever remain one of the richest mines of evangelical thought. It occupies, in the doctrine of atonement, a position analogous to that brief word of the Lord, “God is a Spirit” ( John 4:24), in relation to the doctrine of God.

    The Lamb is defined as “of God,” that is, of Divine providing. See Isaiah 53; Revelation 5:6; 13:8. Its emphatic and appointed office is indicated by the definite article, and whether we refer the conception to a specific sacrifice or to the general place of a lamb in the sacrificial institution, they all, as being appointed by and specially set apart for God, suggest the close relation of our Lord to the Divine Being, and particularly to His expiatory sacrifice. L. D. Bevan LAME <lam > ( j”sePi [piceach], hken: [nakheh]; [cwlo>v , cholos ]): (1) The condition of being unable or imperfectly able to walk, which unfitted any descendant of Aaron so afflicted for service in the priesthood ( Leviticus 21:18), and rendered an animal unsuitable for sacrifice ( Deuteronomy 15:21). The offering of animals so blemished was one of the sins with which Malachi charges the negligent Jews of his time ( Malachi 1:8-13). (2) Those who suffered from lameness, such as Mephibosheth, whose limbs were injured by a fall in childhood ( 2 Samuel 4:4; 9:3). In the prophetic description of the completeness of the victory of the returning Israelites, it is predicted that the lame shall be made whole and shall leap like a hart ( Jeremiah 3:18; Isaiah 35:6). The unfitness of the lame for warfare gives point to the promise that the lame shall take the prey ( Isaiah 33:23). Job in his graphic description of his helpfulness to the weak before his calamity says, “And feet was I to the lame” ( Job 29:15). The inequality of the legs of the lame is used in Proverbs 26:7 as a similitude of the ineptness with which a fool uses a parable.

    In the enigmatical and probably corrupt passage describing David’s capture of Jerusalem, the lame and blind are mentioned twice. In 2 Samuel 5:6 it was a taunt on the part of the Jebusites that even a garrison of cripples would suffice to keep out the Israelites. The allusion in 5:8 may be read, “Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites let him .... slay both the lame and blind, which hate David’s soul” as it is in Septuagint. The Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) says, “David had offered a reward on that day to the man who should smite the Jebusite and reach the water pipes of the houses, and remove the blind and lame who hated David’s soul.” It is possible, however, that Budde’s emendation is more correct and that it is a threat against the indiscriminate slaughter of the Jebusites: “Whoso slayeth a Jebusite shall bring his neck into peril; the lame and blind are not hated of David’s soul.” The proverbial saying quoted in 5:8 cannot be correct as rendered in the King James Version, for we read in Matthew 21:14 that the lame came to our Lord in the temple and were healed.

    The healing of the lame by our Lord is recorded in Matthew 11:5; 15:30,31; 21:14; Luke 7:22; 14:13. For the apostolic miracles of healing the lame, see CRIPPLE . In Hebrews 21:13 the Christians are counseled to courage under chastisement, lest their despair should cause that which is lame to be “turned out of the way.” Alexander Macalister LAMECH <la’-mek > ( °]m,l, [lemekh]; [ La>mec , Lamech ], “a strong youth”?): (1) The name is first mentioned in Genesis 4:18-24. Here Lamech, the son of Methushael, is named as the last of the descendants of Cain. He was the father of Jabel, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah. As the husband of two wives, namely, Adah and Zillah, he furnishes the first recorded instance of polygamy. It is very instructive to note that this “father of polygamy” at once becomes the first blustering tyrant and a braggadocio; we are fully permitted to draw this conclusion from his so-called “swordlay” ( Genesis 4:23 f). He does not put his trust in God, but in the weapons and implements invented by his sons, or rather these instruments, enhancing the physical and material powers of man, are his God. He glories in them and misconstrues the Divine kindness which insured to Cain freedom from the revenge of his fellow-men. (2) Another Lamech. is mentioned in Genesis 5:25,28 (compare Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:36), the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. His words ( Genesis 5:29) show the great difference between this descendant of Seth and the descendant of Cain. While the one is stimulated to a song of defiance by the worldly inventions of his sons, the other, in prophetical mood, expresses his sure belief in the coming of better times, and calmly and prayerfully awaits the period of comfort and rest which he expected to be ushered in by his son Noah. William Baur LAMEDH <la’-meth > : The 12th letter of Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as “1”. It came also to be used for the number 30. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

    LAMENT <la-ment’ > . See MUSIC.

    LAMENTATION <lam-en-ta’-shun > . See BURIAL, III, 2; IV, 4, 5, 6.

    LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF <lam-en-ta’-shunz > , — The Lamentations of Jeremiah:

    1. NAME:

    This is a collective name which tradition has given to 5 elegies found in the Hebrew Canon that lament the fate of destroyed Jerusalem. The rabbis call this little book hk;yae [’Ekhah] (“how”), according to the word of lament with which it begins, or twOnyqi [qinoth]. On the basis of the latter term the Septuagint calls it [qrh~noi , threnoi ], or Latin Threni, or “Lamentations.”

    2. FORM:

    The little book consists of 5 lamentations, each one forming the contents of a chapter. The first 4 are marked by the acrostic use of the alphabet. In addition, the [qinah] (“elegy”) meter is found in these hymns, in which a longer line (3 or 4 accents) is followed by a shorter (2 or 3 accents). In Lamentations 1 and 2 the acrostic letters begin three such double lines; in Lamentations 4, however, two double lines. In Lamentations 3 a letter controls three pairs, but is repeated at the beginning of each line. In Lamentations 5 the alphabet is wanting; but in this case too the number of pairs of lines agrees with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. 22. In Lamentations 2; 3 and 4, the letter `ayin (`) follows pe (p), as is the case in Psalm 34. Lamentations 1, however, follows the usual order.

    3. CONTENTS:

    These 5 hymns all refer to the great national catastrophe that overtook the Jews and in particular the capital city, Jerusalem, through the Chaldeans, 587-586 BC. The sufferings and the anxieties of the city, the destruction of the sanctuary, the cruelty and taunts of the enemies of Israel, especially the Edomites, the disgrace that befell the king and his nobles, priests and prophets, and that, too, not without their own guilt, the devastation and ruin of the country — all this is described, and appeal is made to the mercy of God. A careful sequence of thought cannot be expected in the lyrical feeling and in the alphabetical form. Repetitions are found in large numbers, but each one of these hymns emphasizes some special feature of the calamity. Lamentations 3 is unique, as in it one person describes his own peculiar sufferings in connection with the general calamity, and then too in the name of the others begins a psalm of repentance. This person did not suffer so severely because he was an exceptional sinner, but because of the unrighteousness of his people. These hymns were not written during the siege, but later, at a time when the people still vividly remembered the sufferings and the anxieties of that time and when the impression made on them by the fall of Jerusalem was still as powerful as ever.

    4. AUTHOR:

    Who is the author of these hymns? Jewish tradition is unanimous in saying that it was Jeremiah. The hymns themselves are found anonymously in the Hebrew text, while the Septuagint has in one an additional statement, the Hebrew style of which would lead us to conclude that it was found in the original from which the version was made. This statement reads: “And it came to pass, after Israel had been taken away captive and Jerusalem had been laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and uttered this lamentation over Jerusalem and said.” The Targum also states that Jeremiah was the author. The rabbis and the church Fathers have no doubts on the subject.

    Jerome (compare on Zechariah 12:11) thinks that 2 Chronicles 35:25 refers to these hymns. The same is said by Josephus (Ant., X, v, 1).

    If this were the case, then the writer of Chronicles would have regarded Lamentations as having been written because of the death of Josiah. But this misunderstanding is not to be ascribed to him. It was easily possible that he was acquainted with lamentations of such a nature, but which afterward were lost. At all events, Jeremiah was by nature adapted to the composition of such elegies, as is proved by his book of prophecies.

    Only in modern times has the authorship of these hymns by Jeremiah been seriously called into question; and it is now denied by most critics. For this they give formal and material reasons: The language of these lamentations shows many similarities to the discourses of Jeremiah, but at the same time also many differences. The claim that the alphabetical scheme is not worthy of Jeremiah is a prejudice caused by the taste of our times. Hebrew poets had evidently been making use of such methods for a long time, as it helps materially in memorizing. At the time of the first acute suffering on account of the destruction of Jerusalem, in fact, he would probably not have made use of it. But. we have in this book a collection of lamentations’ written some time after this great catastrophe. The claim has also been made that the views of Jeremiah and those of the composer or the composers of these poems differ materially. It is said that Jeremiah emphasizes much more strongly the guilt of the people as the cause of the calamity than is done in these hymns, which lament the fate of the people and find the cause of it in the sins of the fathers ( Lamentations 5:7), something that Jeremiah is said not to accept ( Jeremiah 31:29 f). However, the guilt of the people and the resultant wrath of God are often brought out in these hymns; and Jeremiah does not deny (31:29 f) that there is anything like inherited guilt.

    He declares rather that in the blessed future things would be different in this respect. Then, too, we are not to forget that if Jeremiah is the author of these patriotic hymns, he does not speak in them as the prophet and the appointed accuser of his people, but that he is at last permitted to speak as he humanly feels, although there is no lack of prophetical reminiscences (of Lamentations 4:21 f). In these hymns he speaks out of the heart that loves his Jerusalem and his people, and he utters the priestly prayer of intercession, which he was not allowed to do when announcing the judgment over Israel. The fact that he also evinces great reverence for the unfortunate king and his Divinely given hereditary dignity ( Lamentations 4:20), although as a prophet he had been compelled to pronounce judgment over him, would not be unthinkable in Jeremiah, who had shown warm sympathies also for Jehoiachim (22:24,28). A radical difference of sentiment between the two authors is not to be found. On the other hand, a serious difficulty arises if we claim that Jeremiah was not the author of Lamentations in the denunciations of Lamentations over the prophets of Jerusalem (2:14; 4:13). How could the great prophet of the Destruction be so ignored if he himself were not the author of these sentiments? If he was himself the author we can easily understand this omission. In his book of prophecies he has spoken exactly the same way about the prophets. To this must be added, that Lamentations 3 forces us to regard Jeremiah as the author, because of the personal sufferings that are here described. Compare especially Lamentations 3:14,37 f,53 ff,61,63. What other person was during the period of this catastrophe the cynosure of all eyes as was the prophet, especially, too, because he was guiltless? The claim that here, not an individual, but the personified nation is introduced as speaking, is altogether improbable, and in some passages absolutely impossible ( Lamentations 3:14,48).

    This little book must accordingly be closely connected with the person of Jeremiah. If he himself is the author, he must have composed it in his old age, when he had time and opportunity to live over again all the sufferings of his people and of himself. It is, however, more probable, especially because of the language of the poems, that his disciples put this book in the present shape of uniform sentential utterances, basing this on the manner of lamentations common to Jeremiah. In this way the origin of Lamentaions can be understood, which cannot artificially be shaped as his sayings, as in this case the personal feature would be more distinctly expressed. It was probably compiled. from a number of his utterances.

    In the Hebrew Canon this book is found in the third division, called [kethabhim], or Sacred Writings, together with the Psalms. However, the Septuagint adds this book to Jeremiah, or rather, to the Book of Baruch, found next after Jerusalem. The Hebrews count it among the [meghilloth], or Rolls, which were read on prominent anniversary days.

    The day for the Lamentation was the 9th of Abib, the day of the burning of the temple. In the Roman Catholic church it is read on the last three days of Holy Week.

    LITERATURE.

    Comms. of Thenius, Ewald, Nagelsbach, Gerlach, Keil, Cheyne, Oettli, Lohr, Budde; article by Robertson Smith on “Lamentations” in EB. C. von Orelli LAMP; LAMPSTAND <lamp’-stand > ( rynI rne ryne [nir, ner], dyPil” lappidh , Phoenician dP”m]l” [lampadh], whence [lampa>v , lampas ]; [lu>cnov , luchnos ] is also used): [Ner] or [nir] is properly “light” or “a light-giving thing,” hence, “lamp,” and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), but often “candle” in the King James Version. Its use in connection with the tabernacle and the temple ( Exodus 25:37 ff; Chronicles 4:20 f), where oil was employed for light ( Exodus 35:14; Leviticus 24:2), shows that this is its proper meaning. Lappidh is properly “a torch” and is thus rendered generally in the Revised Version (British and American), but “lamp” in Isaiah 62:1, where it is used as a simile. the King James Version renders it “lamp” usually, but “torch” in Nahum 2:3 f; Zechariah 12:6. In Job 12:5 the Revised Version (British and American) renders it “for misfortune,” regarding it as composed of the noun [pidh], and the preposition [l-]. Lampas in Greek corresponds to it, but luchnos is also rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “lamp,” while the King James Version gives “candle,” as in Matthew 5:15 and corresponding passages in the other Gospels.

    1. FORMS AND HISTORY:

    Lamps were in use in very remote times, though we have few allusions to them in the early history of Egypt. There are indications that they were used there. Niches for lamps are found in the tombs of Tell el-Amarna (Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Tell el-Amarna Letters, Part IV, 14).

    Lampstands are also represented (ibid., Part III, 7). Torches were of course used before lamps, and are mentioned in Genesis (15:17 the Revised Version (British and American)), but clay lamps were used in Canaan by the Amorites before the Israelites took possession. The excavations in Palestine have furnished thousands of specimens, and have enabled us to trace the development from about 2000 BC onward. The exploration carried out at Lachish (Tell Hesy) and Gezer (Tell Jezer) by the Palestine Exploration Fund has given ample material for the purpose, and the numerous examples from tombs all over Palestine and Syria have supplied a great variety of forms.

    2. FIGURATIVE USE: “Lamp” is used in the sense of a guide in <19B9105> Psalm 119:105; Proverbs 6:23, and for the spirit, which is called the lamp of Yahweh in man ( Proverbs 20:27), and it of course often signifies the light itself. It is used also for the son who is to succeed and represent his father ( Kings 15:4), and it perhaps is employed in this sense in the phrase, “The lamp of the wicked shall be put out” ( Job 21:17; Proverbs 13:9; and perhaps Job 18:6).

    The early Canaanite or Amorite lamp was a shallow, saucer-like bowl with rounded bottom and vertical rim, slightly pointed or pinched on one side where the lighted end of the wick was placed. This form continued into Jewish times, but was gradually changed until the spout was formed by drawing the rim of the sides together, forming a narrow open channel, the remainder of the rim being rolled outward and flattened, the bottom being also flattened. This was the early Hebrew pattern and persisted for centuries. The open bowl was gradually closed in, first at the spout, where the rim of one side was lapped over the other, and finally the whole surface was closed with only an orifice in the center for receiving the oil, and at the same time the spout was lengthened. This transformation is seen in lamps of the Seleucid period, or from around 300 BC. These lamps have usually a circular foot and sometimes a string-hole on one side. The next development was a circular bowl with a somewhat shorter spout, sometimes being only a bulge in the rim, so that the orifice for the wick falls in the rim, the orifice for filling being quite small at the bottom of a saucer-like depression in the center of the bowl. There is sometimes a loop handle affixed on the side opposite to the spout. Sometimes the handle is horizontal, but commonly vertical. This form is called Roman, and the bowl is often ornamented with mythological human or animal figures (Fig. 5). Other forms are elongated, having numerous wick holes (Fig. 6). The mythological and animal forms were rejected by the Jews as contrary to their traditions, and they made lamps with various other designs on the bowl, such as vine leaves, cups, scrolls, etc. (Figs. 7-11). One very marked Jewish design is the seven-branched candlestick ( Exodus 25:32) of the temple (Fig. 12). The lamps of the parable of the Ten Virgins were probably similar to these ( Matthew 25:1 ff). The latest form of the clay lamp was what is called Byzantine, the bowl of which has a large orifice in the center and tapers gradually to the spout (Fig. 13); they are ornamented commonly with a palm branch between the central orifice and the wickhole, or with a cross. Sometimes there is an inscription on the margin (Fig. 13). The words on this read [ Fwv ku [riou ] feni kasin kalh ?, Phos ku (riou ) pheni pasin kale ],”The light of the Lord shines to all (beautifully?).” Others read, “The Lord is my light”; “beautiful light,” etc.

    These inscriptions determine the period as being Christian. In Roman times, and earlier also, bronze was much used for the finer lamps, often with covers for the orifice and sometimes with chain and ring for hanging.

    Very elaborate designs in this material occur.

    These terra-cotta lamps are found in the tombs and burial places throughout Palestine and Syria, and they were evidently deposited there in connection with the funeral rites. Very few are found in Canaanite tombs, but they become numerous in later times and especially in the early Christian centuries. The symbolism in their use for funeral purposes is indicated by the inscriptions above mentioned (see PEFS, 1904, 326 ff; Explorations in Palestine, by Bliss. Maclister and Wunsch, 4to, published by the Palestine Exploration Fund). These lamps were used by the peasants of the country down to recent times, when petroleum has superseded olive oil for lighting. The writer has seen lamps of the Jewish and Roman period with surface blackened with recent usage. Olive oil was commonly used, but terebinth oil also (Thomson, LB, III, 472). H. Poster LAMPSACUS <lamp’-sa-kus > . See SAMPSAMES.

    LANCE; LANCER; LANCET <lans > , <lan’-ser > , <lan’-set > . See ARMOR , III, 4, (3) ; 1 Kings 18:28 the Revised Version (British and American) “lances.”

    LAND ( (1) ˜r:a, [’erets]; (2) hm;d:a\ [’adhamah]; (3) hdv , agros ], “field”; (6) [cw>ra , chora ], “region”; (7) [cwri>on , chorion ], diminutive of chora ; (8) [xhro>v , xeros ], “dry land”; (9) jr:z”a, [’ezrach], “native” the King James Version “born in the land,” “born among you,” the Revised Version (British and American) “home-born” ( Leviticus 19:34; 14:16; Numbers 15:30); “like a green tree in its native soil” ( Psalm 37:35)): [’Erets] occurs hundreds of times and is used in much the same way as [’adhamah], which also occurs often: e.g. “land of Egypt,” [’erets mitsrayim] ( Genesis 13:10), and [’adhmath mitsrayim] ( Genesis 47:20). The other words occur less often, and are used in the senses indicated above. See COUNTRY; EARTH.

    Alfred Ely Day LAND-CROCODILE (REVISED VERSION (BRITISH AND AMERICAN))] <land-crok’-o-dil > ( j”Ko [koach]; Septuagint [camaile>wn , chamaileon ], Leviticus 11:30; the King James Version Chameleon): [Koach] is found only here, meaning an animal, the fifth in the list of unclean “creeping things.” Elsewhere is it translated “strength” or “power,” and it has been thought that here is meant the desert monitor, Varanus griseus, a gigantic lizard, which is common in Egypt and Palestine, and which attains the length of 4 ft. “Chameleon,” which the King James Version has here, is used by the Revised Version (British and American) for tinshemeth (the King James Version “mole”), the eighth in the list of unclean “creeping things” (compare nasham, “to breathe”; translated “swan” in Leviticus 11:18 margin). While it is by no means certain what animal is meant, there could be no objection to “monitor” or “desert monitor.” “Land-crocodile” is objectionable because it is not a recognized name of any animal. See CHAMELEON; LIZARD.

    Alfred Ely Day LAND LAWS See AGRARIAN LAWS.

    LANDMAK <land’-mark > ( lWbG” [gebhul], literally, “boundary”): The boundary may have been marked, as at present, simply by a furrow or stone. The iniquity of removing a landmark is frequently insisted on ( Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10; Job 24:2 [gebhulah]), its removal being equivalent to theft.

    LANE <lan > ([rJu>mh , rhume ]): An alley or bypath of a city. Occurs once in Luke 14:21, “Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city”; elsewhere translated “street,” e.g. Matthew 6:2; Acts 9:11; Ecclesiasticus 9:7; Tobit 13:18.

    LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT <lan’-gwaj > (Greek). See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE also: I. THE VERNACULAR “KOINE” THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. The Old Point of View: The ghost of the old Purist controversy is now laid to rest for good and all.

    The story of that episode has interest chiefly for the historian of language and of the vagaries of the human intellect. See Winer-Thayer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1869, 12-19, and Schmiedel’s Winer, sectopm 2, for a sketch of this once furious strife. In the 17th century various scholars tried to prove that the Greek of the New Testament was on a paragraph with the literary Attic of the classic period. But the Hebraists won the victory over them and sought to show that it was Hebraic Greek, a special variety, if not dialect, a Biblical Greek The 4th edition of Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (translated by W. Urwick, 1892) quotes, with approval, Rothe’s remark (Dogmatik, 1863, 238): “We may appropriately speak of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of expression out of the language of the country which it has chosen as its sphere, and transforming the linguistic elements which it found ready to hand, and even conceptions already existing, into a shape and form appropriate to itself and all its own.”

    Cremer adds: “We have a very clear and striking proof of this in New Testament Greek.”

    This was only twenty years ago and fairly represented the opinion of that day. Hatch in 1889 (Essays in Biblical Greek,34) held that with most of the New Testament words the key lay in the Septuagint. But Winer (Winer-Thayer, 20) had long ago seen that the vernacular koine was “the special foundation of the diction of the New Testament,” though he still admitted “a Jewish-Greek, which native Greeks did not entirely understand” (p. 27). He did not see the practical identity of New Testament Greek with the vernacular [koine] — (“common” Greek), nor did Schmiedel in the 8. Auflage of Winer (I. Theil; II. Theil, erstes Heft, 1894-97). In the second edition of his Grammar of New Testament Greek (English translation by Thackeray, 1905, 2), Blass sees the dawn of the new day, though his book was first written before it came. Viteau (Etude sur le grec du Nouveau Testament, I, Leviticus verbe, 1893, II, Leviticus sujet, 1896) occupies wholly the old position of a Judaic Greek. An extreme instance of that view is seen in Guillemard’s Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879). 2. The Revolution: A turn toward the truth comes with H. A. A. Kennedy’s Sources of the New Testament Greek (1895). He finds the explanation of the vocabulary of both the Septuagint and the New Testament to be the vernacular which he traces back to Aristophanes. It is a good exercise to read Westcott’s discussion of the “Language of the NT” in DB, III (1888), and then turn to Moulton, “Language of the New Testament,” in the 1-vol HDB. Westcott says: “The chief peculiarities of the syntax of the New Testament lie in the reproduction of Hebrew forms.” Moulton remarks: “There is no reason to believe that any New Testament writer who ever lived in Palestine learned Greek only as a foreign language when he went abroad.” Still better is it to read Moulton, “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery” in Cambridge Biblical Essays (1909, 461-505); Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (1911); or Angus, “The [koine ], the Language of the New Testament,” Princeton Review, January, 1910, 42-92. The revolution has come to stay. It is now clear that the Greek of the New Testament is not a jargon nor a patois. In all essential respects it is just the vernacular [koine ] of the 1st century AD, the lingua franca of the Greek-Roman empire, the legacy of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the East. This world-speech was at bottom the late Attic vernacular with dialectical and provincial influences. It was not a decaying tongue, but a virile speech admirably adapted to the service of the many peoples of the time. The able article in volume III of HDB on the “Language of the New Testament” by Dr. J. H.

    Thayer appeared in 1900, and illustrates how quickly an encyclopedia article may become out of date. There is a wealth of knowledge here displayed, as one would expect, but Thayer still speaks of “this species of Greek,” “this peculiar idiom, .... Jewish Greek,” though he sees that its basis is “the common or spoken Greek.” The last topic discussed by him is “Problems.” He little thought that the biggest “problem” so near solution was the character of the language itself. It was Adolph Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin, who opened the new era in the knowledge of the language of the New Testament. His Bibelstudien (zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums) appeared in 1895. In this epoch-making volume he proved conclusively from the papyri and the inscriptions that many of the seeming Hebraisms in the Septuagint and the New Testament were common idioms in the vernacular [koine ]. He boldly claimed that the bulk of the Hebraisms were falsely so termed, except in the case of translating Greek from the Hebrew or Aramaic or in “perfect” Hebraisms, genuine Greek usage made more common by reason of similarity to the Semitic idiom. In 1897 he produced Neue Bibelstudien, sprachgeschichtliche Beitrage zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Erklarung des Neuen Testaments.

    In 1901 (2nd edition in 1903) these two volumes were translated as one by A. Grieve under the title Bible Studies. Deissmann’s other volumes have confirmed his thesis. The most important are New Light on the New Testament (1907), The Philology of the Greek Bible (1908), Licht vom Osten (1908), Light from the Ancient East (translation by Strachan, 1910), Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). In Light from the Ancient East, Deissmann illustrates the New Testament language with much detail from the papyri, ostraka and inscriptions. He is now at work on a new lexicon of the New Testament which will make use of the fresh knowledge from these sources.

    The otherwise helpful work of E. Preuschen, Vollstandiges griechischdeutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1908-10), fails to utilize the papyri and inscriptions while drawing on the Septuagint and the New Testament Apocrypha and other early Christian literature. But this has been done by Ebeling in his Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum New Testament, 1913. The next step was made by A. Thumb, the great philologian, in his Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus; Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der “koine ” 1901, in which the real character of the koine was for the first time properly set forth.

    Winer and Blass had both lamented the need of a grammar of the koine , and that demand still exists, but Thumb went a long way toward supplying it in this volume. It is to be hoped that he will yet prepare a grammar of the koine . Thumb’s interests cover the whole range of comparative philology, but he has added in this field “Die Forschungen fiber die hellenistische Sprache in den Jahren 1896-1901,” Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, II, 396 f; “Prinzipienfragen der Koina-Forschung,” Neue Jahrb. fur das kl. Alt., 1906; “Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des biblischen Griechisch,” Theologische Rundschau, V, 85-99.

    The other most important name to add is that of J. Hope Moulton, who has the credit of being the first to apply the new knowledge directly to the New Testament Greek His Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena (1906, 2nd edition, 1906, 3rd edition, 1908, German translation in 1911, Einleitung in die Sprache des New Testament) is a brilliant piece of work and relates the Greek of the New Testament in careful detail to the vernacular koine , and shows that in all important points it is the common Greek of the time and not a Hebraic Greek. Moulton probably pressed his point too far in certain respects in his zeal against Hebraisms, but the essential position of Deissmann and Moulton is undoubtedly sound.

    Moulton had previously published the bulk of this material as “Grammatical Notes from the Papyri,” The Expositor, 1901, 271-82; 1903, 104-21, 423-39; The Classical Review, 1901, 31-37, 434-41; 1904, 106- 12, 151-55; “Characteristics of New Testament Greek, “ The Expositor, 1904.

    In 1909 appeared his essay, Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (see above). Since 1908, The Expositor has had a series of papers by J.H.

    Moulton and George Milligan called “Lexical Notes from the Papyri,” which are very useful on the lexical side of the language. Thus the study is fairly launched on its new career. In 1900, A.T. Robertson produced a Syllabus on the New Testament Greek Syntax from the standpoint of comparative philology, which was rewritten in 1908, with the added viewpoint of the papyri researches, as A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (2nd edition, 1909, 3rd edition, 1912; translations in Italian in 1910, German and French in 1911, Dutch in 1912). In October, 1909, S.

    Angus published a good article in the Harvard Theological Review on “Modern Methods in New Testament Philology,” followed in January, 1910, by another in the Princeton Review on “The koine , the Language of the New Testament.” The new knowledge appears also in Jakob Wackernagel, “Die griechische Sprache” (pp. 291-318, 2nd edition, of Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, 1907). L. Radermachcr has set forth very ably “die sprachlichen Vorgange in ihrem Zusammenhang,” in his Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. It is in reality the background of the New Testament Greek and is a splendid preparation for the study of the Greek New Testament. A full discussion of the new knowledge in grammatical detail has been prepared by A.T. Robertson under the title A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Moulton and Schmiedel are planning also to complete their works. 3. The Proof of the New Position: The proof of the new position is drawn from several sources: (1) The Papyri.

    These rolls have lain in the museums of the world many years and attracted little attention. For lists of the chief collections of the papyri see Moulton, Prolegomena, 259-62; Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, xi, xii; Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit; Lautund Wortlehre, vii-x; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 20-41; Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Bibliography. New volumes of papyri as a result of recent explorations in Egypt are published each year. See PAPYRUS , and in the other encyclopedias under the word.

    Most of the papyri discovered belong to the period of the koine (the first three centuries BC and AD in round numbers), and with great wealth of illustration they show the life of the common people of the time, whether in Egypt or Herculaneum (the two chief regions represented). There are various degrees of culture shown, as can be seen in any of the large volumes of Grenfell and Hunt, or in the handbooks of Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri (1905), and of Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). They come from the scrap-heaps of the long ago, and are mainly receipts, contracts, letters of business or love, military documents, etc. They show all grades of culture, from the illiterate with phonetic spelling to the man of the schools. But we have here the language of life, not of the books. In a most startling way one notes the similarities of vocabulary, forms, and syntax between the language of the papyri of the 1st century AD and that of the New Testament books. As early as 1778, F.W. Sturz, made use of the Charta Borgiana, “the first papyrus ever brought to Europe” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 39), and in 1841 Thiersch likewise saw the value of the papyri for the philology of the Septuagint.

    But the matter was not pressed. Lightfoot threw out a hint about the value of letters of the people, which was not followed till Deissmann saw the point; compare Moulton, Prol., 242. It is not necessary here to illustrate the matter at length. Deissmann takes up in detail the “Biblical” words in Thayer’s Lexicon, and has no difficulty in finding most of them in the papyri (or inscriptions). Thus [plhrofore>w , plerophoreo ], is shown to be common in the papyri. See Deissmann, Bible Studies and Light from the Ancient East, for extensive lists. The papyri show also the same meanings for many words once thought peculiar to the Bible or the New Testament.

    An instance is seen in the official sense of [presbu>terov , presbuteros ], in the papyri, 5 [oJ presbu>terov th~v kw>mhv , ho presbuteros les komes ] (Pap. Lugd. A 35 f), “without doubt an official designation” (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 155). So [ajdelfo>v , adelphos ], for members of the community, [ajnastrofh> , anastrophe ], for manner of life, [ajnti>lhmyiv , antilempsis ], “help,” [leitourgi>a , leitourgia ], “public service,” [pa>roikov , paroikos ], “sojourner,” etc. (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 107). R. Helbing (Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1908) and H.

    John Thackeray (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1909) have applied the new knowledge to the language of the Septuagint, and it has been discussed with much ability in the first volumes. The use of the papyri for grammatical purposes is made easier by the excellent volume of E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit; Laut- und Wortlehre (1906), though his “Syntax,” is still a desideratum. Useful also is G. Cronert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903). (2) The Ostraka.

    The literature on this subject is still small in bulk. In 1899 Ulrich Wilcken published Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, and in W.E. Crum produced his book of Christian ostraka called Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and Others. This was followed in 1905 by H.R. Hall’s Coptic and Greek Texts of the Christian Period from Ostraka, Stelae, etc. These broken pieces of pottery were used by the lowest classes as writing material. It was very widely used because it was so very cheap. Wilcken has done more than anyone else to collect and decipher the ostraka. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 46) notes that Cleanthes the Stoic “wrote on ostraka or on leather” because too poor to buy papyrus. So he quotes the apology of a Christian for using potsherd for a letter: “Excuse me that I cannot find papyrus as I am in the country” (Crum, Coptic Ostraca, 55).

    The use of [ajpe>cw , apecho ], on an ostrakon for a receipt in full, illustrates well the frequent use of this word in the New Testament (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 111). (3) The Inscriptions.

    Here caution must be used since many of the inscriptions give, not the vernacular, but the literary language. The official (legal and military) decrees often appear in very formal style. But a number do preserve the vernacular idiom and often have the advantage of being dated. These inscriptions are chiefly on stone, but some are on metal and there are a few wax tablets. The material is vast and is constantly growing. See list of the chief collections in Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East, 10-20.

    Boeckh is the great name here. As early as 1779 Walch (Observationes in Matt. Exodus graecis inscriptionibus) made use of Greek inscriptions for New Testament exegesis, and R.A. Lipsius says that his father (K.H.A.

    Lipsius, author of Grammatische Untersuchungen uber die biblische Gracitat) “contemplated a large grammar of the Greek Bible in which he would have availed himself of the discoveries in modern epigraphy” (Deissmann, Light, etc., 15). Schmiedel has made good use of the inscriptions so far in his revision of Winer; H.A.A. Kennedy (Sources of New Testament Greek, 1895), H. Anz (Subsidia ad Cogn., etc., 1894), R.

    Helbing (Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1908), J. Psichari (Essai sur le Grec de la Septante, 1908), H. John Thackeray (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1909), and R. Meister (Prol. zu einer Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1907) turned to good account the inscriptions for the linguistic problems of the Septuagint, as indeed Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889) had already done. W. Dittenberger added some valuable “Grammatica et orthographica” to his Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (2 volumes, 1903, 1905). See also E. L. Hicks and G. F. Hill, Greek Historical Inscriptions (1901), and Hicks’s paper “On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament,” Classical Review, 1887, 4 ff, 42 ff. W. M. Ramsay’s Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 volumes, 1895, 1897) and his other works show keen insight in the use of the inscriptions. Deissmann’s Bible Studies (1895, 1901) applied the knowledge of the inscriptions to the Septuagint and to the New Testament.

    In his Light from the Ancient East (1910) copious use is made of the inscriptions for New Testament study. Moulton (Prol., 1906, 258 f, for lists) is alive to the value of the inscriptions for New Testament grammar, as indeed was Blass (Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1896) before him.

    Compare further, G. Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander und das Neue Testament (1906); T. Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (1905), and J. Rouffiac, Recherches sur les caracteres du Grec dans le New Testament d’apres les Inscr. de Priene (1911). Special treatises or phases of the grammar of the inscriptions appear in Meisterhans-Schwyzer, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (1900); Nachmanson, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1896); Schweizer, Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften (1898).

    Moulton and Milligan have drawn freely also on the inscriptions for their “Lexical Studies” running in The Expositor (1908 and the years following).

    The value of the inscriptions for the Greek of the New Testament is shown at every turn. For instance, [prwto>tokov , prototokos ], is no longer a “Biblical” word. It appears in a metrical inscription (undated) of Trachonitis on a tomb of a pagan “high priest” and “friend of the gods” (Deissmann, Light, etc., 88); compare Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, etc., number 460. Even [ajga>ph , agape ], occurs on a pagan inscription of Pisidia (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2, 57). See, further, W.H.P. Hatch’s “Some Illustrations of New Testament Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 1908, 134-146. (4) Modern Greek.

    As early as 1834 Heilmeier saw that the modern Greek vernacular went back to the koine (Moulton, Prologoumena, 29), but it is only in recent years that it was clearly seen that the modern Greek of the schools and usually in the newspapers is artificial, and not the real vernacular of today.

    Mullach’s work (Grammatik der griechischen Vulgarsprache, 1856) was deficient in this respect. But Jannaris’ Historical Greek Grammar (1897) carries the history of the vernacular Greek along with the literary style.

    Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, 1892, clears the air very much and connects the modern Greek with the New Testament.

    But it is to Thumb that we are indebted for the best knowledge of the vernacular ([hJ dhmotikh> , he demotike ]) as opposed to the literary language ([hJ kaqareu>ousa , he kathareuousa ]) of today. Mitsotakis (Praktische Grammatik, 1891) had treated both together, though Wied (Die Kunst, die neugriechische Volksprache) gave only the vernacular. But Wied is only elementary. Thumb alone has given an adequate treatment of the modern Greek vernacular, showing its unity and historical contact with the vernacular koine (Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handbook of Modern Greek Vernacular, 1912). Thus one can see the living stream of the New Testament speech as it has come on down through the ages. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of modern Greek vernacular in the knowledge of New Testament Greek. The disappearance of the optative, the vanishing of the infinitive before [i[na , hina ], and itacism are but instances of many others which are luminous in the light of the modern Greek vernacular. See Psichari, Essais de grammaire historique neo-grecque (1886-89). (5) Historical and Comparative Grammar.

    From this source the koine gets a new dignity. It will take one too far afield to sketch here the linguistic revolution wrought since the publication of, and partly caused by, Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik (1857), following Sir William Jones’ discovery of Sanskrit. The great work of Brugmann and Delbruck (Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, I-V, 1892-1909) marks the climax of the present development, though many workers have won distinction in this field. The point to accent here is that by means of comparative philology the Greek language is seen in its proper relations with other languages of the Indo-Germanic family, and the right interpretation of case, preposition, mode, tense, voice, etc., is made possible. The old traditional empiricism is relegated to the scrap-heap, and a new grammatical science consonant with the facts has taken its place. See Delbruck, Introduction to the Study of Language (1882), Giles, Short Manual of Comparative Philology (1901), for a resume of the facts. Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language (1912), applies the new learning to the Greek tongue. The progress in classical scholarship is well shown by Sandys in his History of Classical Scholarship (I-III, 1906-8) and by Gudeman, Geschichte der klass.

    Philologie, 2. Aufl, 1909. Innumerable monographs have enriched the literature of this subject. It is now feasible to see the Greek language as a whole, and grasp its historical unity. Seen in this light the koine is not a dying tongue or a corrupt dialect. It is a normal and natural evolution of the Greek dialects into a world-speech when Alexander’s conquests made it possible. The vernacular koine which has developed into the modern Greek vernacular was itself the direct descendant of the Attic vernacular which had its roots in the vernacular of the earlier dialects. The dialectical developments are closely sketched by Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (1909), and by Buck, Introduction to the Study of Greek Dialects (1910), not to mention the older works of Hoffmann, Meister, etc. Jannaris has undertaken in his Historical Greek Grammar (1897) to sketch and interpret the facts of the Greek tongue throughout its long career, both in its literary and vernacular aspects. He has succeeded remarkably well on the whole, though not quite seeing the truth about the modern Greek vernacular. Schanz is seeking to lay the foundation for still better work by his Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache (1882 and the years following). But the New Testament student must be open to all the new light from this region, and it is very great. See, further, Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griech. Sprache von der hellen. Zeit (1898). 4. Characteristics of the Vernacular “Koine”: As already indicated, the Greek of the New Testament is in the main just the vernacular koine of the 1st century AD, though Greek as used by men of ability and varying degrees of culture. The most striking difference between the vernacular koine and the literary Attic is seen in the vocabulary. The writers in the literary koine show more likeness to the classic Attic, but even they reveal the changes due to the intervening centuries. There was, of course, no violent break. The changes came gradually and naturally. It is mainly at this point that Deissmann has done such brilliant work in his Bible Studies and other books. He has taken the lists of “Biblical” and “ecclesiastical” words, as given by Cremer and Thayer, and has shown from the papyri, ostraka, inscriptions, or koine writers that they are not peculiar to the Bible, but belong to the current speech of the time. The proof is so overwhelming and extensive that it cannot be given here. Some words have not yet been found in the non- Biblical koine , but they may be any day. Some few words, of course, belong to the very nature of Christianity [cristiano>v , christianos ], for instance), but [ajpo>stolov , apostolos ], [baptismo>v , baptismos ], [pa>roikov , paroikos ], [sunagwgh> , sunagoge ], and hundreds of others can no longer be listed as “Biblical.” New meanings come to old words also. Compare [daimo>nion , daimonion ]. It is interesting to note that the New Testament shows many of the words found in Aristophanes, who caught up the vernacular of his day. The koine uses more words from the lower strata of society. Aristotle likewise has many words common in the koine , since he stands at the parting of the ways between the old dialects and the new koine of Alexander’s conquests. The koine develops a fondness for compound and even double compound (sesquipedalian) words; compare, for instance, [ajnekdih>ghtov , anekdiegetos ]; [ajnekla>lhtov , aneklaletos ]; [ajnexereu>nhtov , anexereunetos ]; [ajntapokri>nomai , antapokrinomai ]; [oijkodespo>thv , oikodespotes]; [ojligo>yucov , oligopsuchos ]; [prosanapaplhro>w , prosanapleroo ]; [sunantilamba>nomai , sunantilambanomai ]; [uJperentugca>nw , huperentugchano ]; [crusodaktu>liov , chrusodaktulios ], etc. The use of diminutives is also noteworthy in the koine as in the modern Greek: compare [quga>trion , thugatrion ]; [klina>rion , klinarion ]; [kora>sion , korasion]; [kuna>rion , kunarion ]; [ojna>rion , onarion ]; [ojya>rion , opsarion ]; [ploia>rion , ploiarion]; [wjti>on , otion ], etc. The formation of words by juxtaposition is very common as in [plhro-fore>w , plerophoreo ], [ceiro>-grafon , cheiro-graphon ]. In phonetics it is to be noticed that “ei ”, “oi ”, “h ”, “h| ”, “u ”, “i ” all had the value of “ee ” in “feet.” This itacism was apparent in the early koine . So [ai , ai ] = [e , e ] and [o , o ] and [w , oo ] were not sharply distinguished. The Attic [tt , tt ] became [ss , ss ], except in a few instances, like [ejla>ttw , elatto ], [krei>ttwn , kreitton ]. The tendency toward de-aspiration (compare Ionic) was manifest; compare [ejf j eJlpi>di , eph’ helpidi ], for the reverse process. Elision is less frequent than in Attic, but assimilation is carried farther. The variable final consonants “n” (Numbers) and “s” (sigma) are used generally before consonants. We find “-ei -” for “-iei -” as in [pei~n , pein ]. [ Oujqei>v , outheis ], and [mhqei>v , metheis ], are common till 100 BC, when they gradually disappear before [oujdei>v , oudeis ], and [mhdei>v , medeis ]. In general there is less sense of rhythm and more simplicity and clearness. Some of the subtle refinements of form and syntax of the classic did not survive in the koine vernacular. In accidence only a few points may be noted. In substantives the Ionic [ -rhv , “-res ” is frequent. The Attic second declension vanishes. In the third declension forms like [ Numbers>ktan , nuktan ], show assimilation to the first. Both [ca>rin , charin ], and [ca>rita , charita ], occur. Contraction is sometimes absent (compare Ionic) as in [ojre>wn , oreon ]. Adjectives show forms like [ajsfalh~n , asphalen ], and indeclinable [plh>rhv , pleres ], appears, and [pa~n , pan ], for [pa>nta , panta ] (compare [me>gan , megan ]), [dusi> , dusi ], for [duoi~n , duoin ]. The dual is gone. Even the dual pronouns [eJka>terov , hekateros ], and [po>terov , poteros ], are rare. [ Ti>v , tis], is occasionally used like [o[stiv , hostis ]. [ \Ov eja>n , hos ean ], is more frequent than [o\v a]n , hos an ], in the 1st century AD. The two conjugations blend more and more into one, as the [mi , -mi ] forms vanish.

    There is some confusion in the use of [a>w , -ao ] and [ew , -eo ] verbs, and new presents occur like [ajpokte>nnw , apoktenno ], [ojpta>nw , optano], [sth>kw , steko ]. The forms [gi>nomai , ginomai ], [ginw>skw , ginosko ], are the rule now. There is much increase in aorists like [e]sca , escha ], and imperfects like [ei+ca , eicha ]. The form [osan , -osan ] ([ei]cosan , eichosan ], [e]scosan , eschosan ]) occasionally appears. Quite frequent is a perfect like [de>dwkan , dedokan ], and the augment is often absent in the plu-perfect as in [dedw>kei , dedokei ]. Per contra, a double augment occurs in [ajpekate>sth , apekateste ], and a treble augment in [hjnew>|cqhsan , eneochthesan ]. The temporal augment is often absent with diphthong as in [oijkodomh>qh , oikodomethe ]. The koine Greek has [twsan , -tosan ], not [ntwn , -nton ]. In syntax the tendency is toward simplicity, to short sentences, the paratactic construction, and the sparing use of particles. The vernacular koine avoids both the bombast of Asianism and the artificiality of Atticism. There is, indeed, more freedom in violating the rules of concord as to gender, number, and case. The nominativus pendens is common. The comparative does duty often for the superlative adjective, and the superlative generally has the elative sense. The accusative is increasingly common with verbs. The line between transitive and intransitive verbs is not a hard-and-fast one. The growth in the use of prepositions both with nouns and in composition is quite noticeable, but some of the older prepositions, like [ajmfi> , amphi ], are vanishing. The cases used with various prepositions are changing. The instrumental use of [ejn , en ], is very common. Many new adverbial and prepositional phrases have developed. The optative is nearly dead and the infinitive (apart from the use of [tou~ , tou ], [ejn tw~| , en to ], [eijv to> , eis to ], with the infinitive) is decaying before [i[na , hina ]. The future participle is rare. [ Mh> , me ], begins to encroach on [ouj , ou ], with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is specially common. The direct discourse is more frequent than the indirect. The non-final use of [i[na , hina ], is quite noticeable.

    There are, besides, dialectical and provincial peculiarities, but these do not destroy the real unity of the vernacular koine any more than do individual traits of separate writers.

    II. LITERARY ELEMENTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 245) is disposed to deny any literary quality to the New Testament books save the Epistle to the Hebrews. “The Epistle to the Hebrews shows us Christianity preparing for a flight from its native levels into the higher region of culture, and we are conscious of the beginnings of a Christian world-literature.” He speaks of it also as “a work which seems to hang in the background like an intruder among the New Testament company of popular books.” One feels that this is an extreme position and cannot be justified by the facts. It is true that Peter and John were [ajgra>mmatoi kai< ijdiw~tai , agrammatoi kai idiotai ] ( Acts 4:13), and not men of the schools, but this was certainly not the case with Luke and Paul who were men of literary culture in the truest sense. Luke and Paul were not Atticists, but that artificial idiom did not represent the best type of culture. Deissmann admits that the New Testament has become literature, but, outside of He, he denies any literary quality in its composition. Paul, for instance, wrote only “letters,” not “epistles.” But Romans and Ephesiansesians confront us. See Milligan, Greek Papyri, xxxi, for a protest against the sweeping statement of Deissmann on this point. One need not go to the extreme of Blass, “Die rhythmische Komposition des Hebr. Brides,” Theol. Studien und Kritik, 1902, 420-61; Die Rythmen der asiatischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905, to find in Hebrews and Paul’s writings illustrations of the artificial rules of the Asianists. There is undoubtedly rhythm in Paul’s eloquent passages (compare 1 Corinthians 13; 15), but it is the natural poetic quality of a soul aflame with high passions, not conformity to rules of rhetoric. To deny literary quality to Luke and Paul is to give a narrow meaning to the word “literary” and to be the victim of a theory. Christianity did make use of the vernacular koine , the wonderful world-speech so providentially at hand. But the personal equation figured here as always.

    Men of culture differ in their conversation from illiterate men and more nearly approximate literary style. It is just in Luke, Paul, and the author of He that we discover the literary flavor of men of ability and of culture, though free from artificiality and pedantry. The eloquence of He is that of passion, not of the art of Asianism. Indeed, the Gospels all show literary skill in the use of material and in beauty of language. The Gospel of John has the rare elevation and dignity of the highest type of mind. There is no Atticistic tendency in the New Testament as in Josephus, Ant. There is no posing for the present or for posterity. It is the language of life, the vernacular in the main, but rising at times from the very force of passion to high plateaus of emotion and imagination and poetic grace from the pens of men of real ability, and in some instances of high culture.

    III. THE SEMITIC INFLUENCE.

    It is no longer possible to explain every variation in the New Testament from the classic Attic by the term Hebraism. That easy solution has disappeared. Sooth to say, when the true character of the vernacular koine is understood, there is not very much left to explain. The New Testament Greek as a rule is just normal koine . Milligan (Greek Papyri, xxx) admits on the part of Moulton “an overtendency to minimize” the “presence of undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar.” That is true, and is due to his strong reaction against the old theory of so many Hebraisms.

    The Semiticisms (Hebraisms and Aramaisms) are very natural results of the fact that the vernacular koine was used by Jews who read the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint translation, and who also spoke Aramaic as their native tongue. The Septuagint, as translation of Greek, directly from the Hebrew (or Aramaic), has a much greater number of these Semiticisms.

    See Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900), for the salient facts. Thackeray in his Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909) shows “the [koinh> , koine — the basis of Septuagint Greek” in section 3, and in section 4 discusses “the Semitic element in Septuagint Greek.” The matter varies in different parts of the Septuagint, but in all parts the Semitic influence goes far beyond what it is in the New Testament. In the New Testament we have free composition in Greek, except in certain portions of the Gospels and Acts where Aramaic originals (oral or written) lie beyond the Greek text. So in particular Luke 1, the words of Jesus in Luke 2, and the opening chapters of Acts. See Dalman, Words of Jesus (1902), and J.T. Marshall, “The Aramaic Gospel,” The Expositor, Ser. IV volumes II-VIII; see also ARAMAIC supra. There is, to some extent, translation-Gr, as in the Septuagint. The quotations from the Old Testament are either from the Hebrew original, or, as most frequently, from the Septuagint. In either case we have translation-Greek again. These two classes cover the more obvious Semiticisms if we add Hebrew names (persons and places) and other transliterations like [ajbaddw>n , abbadon ], [ajllhlou>i`a , allelouia ]. The Greek of the Septuagint does not, of course, give a true picture of the Greek spoken by the Jews in Alexandria or in Palestine. But the constant reading of the Septuagint was bound to leave its impress on the style of the people (compare the King James Version and the English language). The surprise, in fact, is not the number of Semiticisms, but, all things considered, the fewness of them. Luke, just because he was a Gentile and so noted the Hebraisms in the Septuagint, shows rather more of them than the other New Testament writers: compare [prose>qeto tri>ton pe>myai , prosetheto triton pempsai ] ( Luke 20:12). Some of the points of style so common in the Septuagint find occasional parallel in the papyri or inscriptions, like [ble>pwn ble>pw , blepon blepo ], [cara~| cai>rw , chara chairo ], [o[n , ov ] .... [hon ] .... [ajuto>n , auton ]. Others are more obviously imitations of the Hebrew style, as in [ajre>skein ejnw>pio>n tinov , areskein enopion tinos ], rather than [ajre>skein tini> , areskein tini ]. But there is a certain dignity and elevation of style so characteristic of the Hebrew Old Testament that reappears in the New Testament. The frequent use of [kai> , kai ], in parts of the New Testament reminds one of the Septuagint and the Hebrew waw (“w”).

    There is, besides, an indefinable tone in the New Testament that is found in the Old Testament. Swete (Apocalypse of John, cxx) laments the tendency to depreciate unduly the presence of Hebraisms in the New Testament. The pendulum may have swung too far away from the truth. It will strike the level, but we shall never again be able to fill our grammars and commentaries with explanations of so many peculiar Hebraisms in the New Testament. On the whole the Greek New Testament is standard vernacular koine .

    IV. INDIVIDUAL PECULIARITIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS.

    There is not space for an extended discussion of this topic. The fact itself calls for emphasis, for there is a wide range in style between Mark’s Gospel and Hebrews, 1 Peter and Romans, Luke’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. There are no Atticists found in the New Testament (compare 4 Macc in the Septuagint and Jos), but there are the less literary writings (Matthew, Mark, the Johannine books, the other catholic epistles) and the more literary writings (Luke’s writings, Paul’s Epistles, and Hebrews). But even so, no hard-and-fast line can be drawn. Moulton, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 484, thinks 2 Peter more like the Atticistic writings, “though certainly the Atticists would have scorned to own a book so full of `solecisms.’” Moulton assumes that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic, and does not credit the notion that the crude “Babu” Greek, to use Abbott’s term, may be Peter’s own uncorrected style (compare Acts 4:13), while Peter may have the smoothing effect of Silvanus’ hand (compare Peter 5:12). A similar explanation is open concerning the grammatical lapses of the Apocalypse, since John is also called [ajgra>mmatov , agrammatos ], in Acts 4:13, whereas the Gospel of John may have had the revision of the elders of Ephesiansesus (compare John 21:24). But whatever the explanation, there is no doubt of the wide divergences style between different books and groups of books in the New Testament list.

    The Lukan, Johannine, Petrine, Pauline groups stand apart, but with cleavages within each group. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts of the Apostles, 1911) has accepted and strengthened the contention of Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909) and of Hobart (Medical Language of Luke, 1882) that the medical terms in the Gospel of Luke and of Acts show that the books were written by the same writer and that a physician, and so Luke. The diversities in style here and there are chiefly due to the sources of information used. Even in the Pauline books, which form so well-marked a collection, striking diversities of language and style appear. But these letters cover a period of some 15 years of intense activity and mental and spiritual development, and treat a great variety of topics.

    They properly reflect the changing phases of Paul’s preaching of the cross of Christ in different places and under varying circumstances and confronting ever fresh problems. The plays of Shakespeare offer a useful parallel. Even in Paul’s old age, in the Pastoral Epistles the stamp of Paul’s spirit is admitted by those who admit only Pauline fragments; compare J.

    Weiss, Beitrage zur Paulinschen Rhetorik (1897). The style is indeed the man, but style is also the function of the subject, and style varies with different periods of a man’s life. E.A. Abbott has made an excellent discussion of the Johannine Vocabulary (1905) and of Johannine Grammar (1906), but special grammars of each writer are hardly to be expected or desired. But Nageli has begun a study of Paul’s vocabulary in his Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (1905). The Gospel of Matthew shows very little of that Hebraism that one would expect from the general purpose and tone of the book. It is possible, of course, that the supposed original was in Aramaic, or, if in Greek, of a more Hebraistic type. Whether the present Greek of Matthew made use of Mark’s Gospel and a collection of Logia (Q), we do not know. Certainly Mark’s Gospel is written in colloquial koine with little evidence of the culture of the schools. Mark is a faithful reporter and does his work with rare simplicity and vividness. He reveals clearly the Aramaic background of Christ’s teaching. The writings of James and Jude do not show that only Greek was spoken in the home at Nazareth, nor that they used only Aramaic. These two epistles are evidently free compositions in Greek with much of the freshness of imagery so manifest in the parables of Jesus Himself. This brief sketch does not do justice to the richness and variety of language in the books of the New Testament.

    V. THE “KOINE” SPOKEN BY JESUS.

    See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE for proof that Jesus spoke that language as the vernacular of the people of Palestine. But Christ spoke the koine also, so that the New Testament is not an idiom that was unknown to the Master. Gwilliam (1-vol HDB, “Language of Christ”) does still deny that Jesus spoke Greek, while Roberts takes the other extreme in his book, Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles (1888). Per contra again, Julicher considers it impossible to suppose that Jesus used Greek (art. “Hellenism” in EB). J. E. H. Thomson, “The Language of Palestine during the Time of our Lord” (Temple, Bible Dictionary) argues convincingly that Palestine was bi-lingual and that Jesus knew and spoke Greek as well as Aramaic Peter evidently spoke in Greek on the Day of Pentecost and was understood by all. Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke in Greek ( Acts 21:37). Jesus taught in Decapolis, a Greek region, in the region of Tyre and Sidon (Greek again). Galilee itself was largely inhabited by Gentiles who spoke Greek. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount, we read that people were present from Decapolis and Perea, besides the mixed multitude from Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem ( Matthew 4:25; Luke 6:17). Thomson proves also that in Matthew’s Gospel the quotation from the Old Testament in the words of Jesus is from the Septuagint, while Matthew’s own quotations are from the Hebrew. The case seems clear. It is not possible to say always when Jesus spoke Greek and when Aramaic. That would depend on the audience. But it is practically certain that Christ Himself knew and spoke at will the vernacular koine , and thus had this linguistic bond with the great world of that era and with lovers of the Greek Testament today.

    LITERATURE.

    The literature on this subject is very extensive. The most important volumes have been mentioned in the discussion above. A.T. Robertson LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT <lan’-gwaj-es > There were only two languages employed in the archetypes of the Old Testament books (apart from an Egyptian or Persian or Greek word here and there), namely, Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, both of which belong to the great family of languages known as Semitic.

    I. THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

    The languages spoken in Southwestern Asia during the historical period dealt with in the Bible have been named Shemitic, after the son of Noah from whom the majority of peoples speaking these languages — Arabs, Hebrews, Arameans and Assyrians ( Genesis 10:21 ff) — were descended. To show, however, that the description does not fit exactly the thing described — the Elamites and Lydians having probably not spoken a Shemitic language, and the Canaanites, including Phoenicians, with the colonists descended from those at Carthage and elsewhere in the Mediterranean coast lands, as well as the Abyssinians (Ethiopians), who did, being reckoned descendants of Ham ( Genesis 9:18; 10:6 ff) — the word is now generally written “Semitic,” a term introduced by Eichhorn (1787). These languages were spoken from the Caspian Sea to the South of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean to the valley of the Tigris. 1. Members of Semitic Family: The following list shows the chief members of this family: (1) South Semitic or Arabic:

    Including the language of the Sabean (Himyaritic) inscriptions, as well as Ge’ez or Ethiopic. Arabic is now spoken from the Caucasus to Zanzibar, and from the East Indies to the Atlantic. (2) Middle Semitic or Canaanitish:

    Including Hebrew, old and new, Phoenician, with Punic, and Moabite (language of MS). (3) North Semitic or Aramaic:

    Including (a) East Aramaic or Syrian (language of Syrian Christians), language of Babylonian Talmud, Mandean; (b) West or Palestinian Aramaic of the Targums, Palestinian Talmud (Gemara), Biblical Aramaic (“Chaldee”), Samaritan, language of Nabatean inscriptions. (4) East Semitic:

    Language of Assyria-Babylonian inscriptions. 2. The Name Hebrew: With the exception of a few chapters and fragments mentioned below, the Old Testament is written entirely in Hebrew. In the Old Testament itself this language is called “the Jews’ “ ( 2 Kings 18:26,28). In Isaiah 19:18 it is called poetically, what in fact it was, “the language (Hebrew “lip”) of Canaan.” In the appendix to the Septuagint of Job it is called Syriac; and in the introduction to Ecclesiasticus it is for the first time — that is, in 130 BC — named Hebrew. The term Hebrew in the New Testament denotes the language of the Old Testament in Revelation 9:11, but in John 5:2; 19:13,17 this term means the vernacular Aramaic.

    In other passages it is doubtful which is meant. Josephus uses the same name for both. From the time of the Targums, Hebrew is called “the sacred tongue” in contrast to the Aramaic of everyday use. The language of the Old Testament is called Old Hebrew in contrast to the New Hebrew of the Mishna, the rabbinic, the Spanish poetry, etc. 3. Old Hebrew Literature: Of Old Hebrew the remains are contained almost entirely in the Old Testament. A few inscriptions have been recovered, i.e., the Siloam Inscriptions, a Hebrew calendar, a large number of ostraka from Samaria, a score of pre-exilic seals, and coins of the Maccabees and of the time of Vespasian and Hadrian. LITERATURE.

    E. Renan, Histoire generale et systeme compare des langues semitiques; F.

    Hommel, Die semit. Volker u. Sprachen; the comparative grammars of Wright and Brockelmann; CIS; article “Semitic Languages” in Encyclopedia Brit, and Murray’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

    II. HISTORY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

    Hebrew as it appears to us in the Old Testament is in a state of decadence corresponding to the present position of spoken Arabic. In the earliest period it no doubt resembled the classical Arabic of the 7th and following centuries. The variations found between the various strata of the language occurring in the Old Testament are slight compared with the difference between modern and ancient Arabic. 1. Oldest Form of Language: Hebrew was no doubt originally a highly inflected language, like classical Arabic. The noun had three cases, nominative, genitive, and accusative, ending in [-um’, [-im], [-am], respectively, as in the Sabean inscriptions.

    Both verbs and nouns had three numbers (singular, dual and plural) and two genders, masculine and feminine In the noun the dual and plural had two cases. The dual and 2nd and 3rd person plural and 2nd person singular feminine of the imperfect of the verb ended in nun. In certain positions the “m” of the endings [-um], [-im], [-am] in the noun was dropped. The verb had three moods, indicative, subjunctive, and jussive, ending in [-u], [-a], and -, respectively; as well as many forms or stems, each of which had an active and passive voice. 2. The Hebrew of the Old Testament: In the Hebrew of the Old Testament most of these inflexions have disappeared. Of the three cases of the noun only the accusative [-am] has survived in a few adverbial forms, such as [’omnam], “truly.” The dual has entirely disappeared from the verb, and also from the noun, with the exception of things that occur in pairs, such as hand, eye, which have no plural. The nom. case of the dual and plural of the noun has disappeared, and the oblique case is used for both. Except in cases of poetic archaism the final nun of the verb has been lost, and, as the final vowels have fallen away in verbs, as well as in nouns, the result is that the jussive forms serve for indicative and subjunctive also. Many of the forms or stems have fallen into desuetude, and the passive forms of two alone are used. 3. Its Uniformity: One of the most remarkable facts connected with the Hebrew of the Old Testament is that although that literature extends through a period of over 1,000 years, there is almost no difference between the language of the oldest parts and that of the latest. This phenomenon is susceptible of several explanations. In the first place, nearly the whole of the Old Testament literature is religious in character, and as such the earliest writings would become the model for the later, just as the Koran — the first prose work composed in Arabic which has survived — has become the pattern for all future compositions. The same was true for many centuries of the influence of Aristophanes and Euripides upon the language of educated Greeks, and, it is said, of the influence of Confucius upon that of the learned Chinese. 4. The Cause Thereof: But a chief cause is probably the fact that the Semitic languages do not vary with time, but with place. The Arabic vocabulary used in Morocco differs from that of Egypt, but the Arabic words used in each of these countries have remained the same for centuries — in fact, since Arabic began to be spoken in them. Similarly, the slight differences which are found in the various parts of the Old Testament are to be ascribed, not to a difference of date, but to the fact that some writers belonged to the Southern Kingdom, some to the Northern, some wrote in Palestine, some in Babylonia (compare Nehemiah 13:23,24; Judges 12:6; 18:3). 5. Differences Due to Age: The Old Testament literature falls into two main periods: that composed before and during the Babylonian exile, and that which falls after the exile.

    But even between these two periods the differences of language are comparatively slight, so that it is often difficult or impossible to say on linguistic grounds alone whether a particular chapter is pre-exilic or postexilic, and scholars of the first rank often hold the most contrary opinions on these points. For instance, Dillmann places the so-called Document P (Priestly Code) before Document D (Deuteronomic Code) in the regal period, whereas most critics date D about 621 and P about 444 BC. 6. Differences of Style: It is needless to add that the various writers differ from one another in point of style, but these variations are infinitesimal compared with those of Greek and Latin authors, and are due, as has been said above, largely to locality and environment. Thus the style of Hosea is quite different from that of his contemporary Amos, and that of Deutero-Isaiah shows very distinctly the mark of its place of composition. 7. Foreign Influences: A much more potent factor in modifying the language was the influence of foreign languages upon Hebrew, especially in respect to vocabulary. The earliest of these was probably Egyptian but of much greater importance was Assyrian, from which Hebrew gained a large number of loan words. It is well known that the Babylonian script was used for commercial purposes throughout Southwestern Asia, even before the Hebrews entered Canaan (see TEXT ), but the influence of Babylon upon Palestine seems to have been greatly exaggerated. The main point of contact is in the mythology, which may have been common to both peoples. In the later, especially post-exilic stages of the language, many Aramaisms are found in respect to syntax as well as vocabulary; and in later phases still, Persian and even Greek words are found. 8. Poetry and Prose: As in other languages, so in Hebrew, the vocabulary of the poetical literature differs from that of the prose writers. In Hebrew, however, there is not the hard-and-fast distinction between these two which obtains in the classics. Whenever prose becomes elevated by the importation of feeling, it falls into a natural rhythm which in Hebrew constitutes poetry. Thus most of the so-called prophetical books are poetical in form. Another mark of poetry is a return to archaic grammatical forms, especially the restoration of the final nun in the verb. 9. Home of the Hebrew Language: The form of Semitic which was indigenous in the land of Canaan is sometimes called Middle Semitic. Before the Israelites entered the country, it was the language of the Canaanites from whom the Hebrews took it over. That Hebrew was not the language of Abraham before his migration appears from the fact that he is called an Aramean ( Deuteronomy 26:5), and that Laban’s native language was Aramaic ( Genesis 31:47). A further point is that the word “Sea” is used for the West and “Negeb” for the South, indicating Palestine as the home of the language (so Isaiah 19:18). 10. Its Antiquity: As the aboriginal inhabitants of the land of Canaan were not Semites, we cannot infer the existence of the Hebrew language any earlier than the first immigrations of Semites into Palestine, that is, during the third millennium BC. It would thus be a much younger member of the Semitic family than Assyrian-Babylonian, which exhibits all the marks of great antiquity long before the Hebrew language is met with. 11. When Hebrew Became a Dead Language: The Babylonian exile sounded the death-knell of the Hebrew language. The educated classes were deported to Babylon or fled to Egypt, and those who remained were not slow to adopt the language used by their conquerors. The old Hebrew became a literary and sacred tongue, the language of everyday life being probably Aramaic. Whatever may be the exact meaning of Nehemiah 8:8, it proves that the people of that time had extreme difficulty in understanding classical Hebrew when it was read to them. Yet for the purpose of religion, the old language continued to be employed for several centuries. For patriotic reasons it was used by the Maccabees, and by Bar Cochba (135 AD). LITERATURE.

    Gesenius, Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und Schrift; Bertheau, “Hebr.

    Sprache” in RE, 2nd edition; see also “Literature” in the following section.

    III. CHIEF CHARACTERISTICS OF HEBREW.

    The special marks which particularly distinguish a language may be found in its alphabet, in its mode of inflection, or in its syntax. 1. Characteristic Sounds: The Hebrew alphabet is characterized by the large number of guttural sounds which it contains, and these are not mere palatals like the Scotch or German chapter, but true throat sounds, such as are not found in the Aryan languages. Hence, when the Phoenician alphabet passed over into Greece, these unpronounceable sounds, [ “ ` “ (`ayin), j “Chronicles” (cheth), h “h” (he), a “ ‘ “ (‘aleph) were changed into vowels, A, E, H, O. In Hebrew the guttural letters predominate. “In the Hebrew dictionaries the four gutturals occupy considerably more than a fourth part of the volume; the remaining eighteen letters occupying considerably less than threefourths.”

    Besides the guttural, there are three strong consonants µ “m” (mem), q “q” (qoph), and x “ts” (tsade), which are sounded with compression of the larynx, and are quite different from our “t,” “k” and “s.” In Greek, the first was softened into a “th” (theta), the other two were dropped as letters but retained as numerals. 2. Letters Representing Two Sounds: Though the Hebrew alphabet comprises no more than 22 letters, these represent some 30 different sounds, for the 6 letters b, g, d, k, p and t, when they fall immediately after a vowel, are pronounced bh(v), gh, dh, kh, ph (f) and th. Moreover, the gutturals j “Chronicles” (cheth) and [ “ ` “ (`ayin) each represent two distinct sounds, which are still in use in Arabic.

    The letter “h” is sometimes sounded at the end of a word as at the beginning. 3. Consonants Representing Vowels: A peculiarity of the Hebrew alphabet is that the letters are all consonants.

    Four of these, however, were very early used to represent vowel and diphthong sounds, namely, a “ ‘ “, “h”, “w” and “y”. So long as Hebrew was a spoken language no other symbols than these 22 letters were used. It was not until the 7th century AD at the earliest that the well-known elaborate system of signs to represent the vowels and other sounds was invented (see TEXT ). 4. The Syllable: A feature of the Hebrew language is that no word or syllable may begin with a vowel: every syllable begins with a consonant. This is also true of the other Semitic languages, except Assyrian-Babylonian. When in the course of word-formation a syllable would begin with a vowel, the slight consonant a ‘ (‘aleph) is prefixed. Moreover, more than two consonants may not stand without vowels intervening, as in the English word “strength.” At most, two consonants may begin a syllable, and even so a slight vowel is sounded between them, as [qero’]. A word may end in two consonants without vowels, as [’amart], but no word or syllable ends in more than two. 5. Three-Letter Roots: The outstanding feature of the Semitic family of languages is the root, consisting of three consonants. Practically, the triliteral root is universal.

    There are a few roots with more than three letters, but many of the quadriliteral roots are formed by reduplication, as kabkab in Arabic. Many attempts have been made to reduce three-letter stems to two-letter by taking the factors common to several roots of identical meaning. Thus µwd [duwm], hmd [damah], µmd [damam], “to be still,” seem all to come from a root µd [d-m]. It is more probable, however, that the root is always triliteral, but may appear in various forms. 6. Conjugations or Derived Stems: From these triliteral roots all parts of the verbs are formed. The root, which, it ought to be stated, is not the infinitive, but the 3rd singular masculine perfect active, expresses the simple idea without qualification, as [shabhar], “he broke.” The idea of intensity is obtained by doubling the middle stem letter, as [shibber], “he broke in fragments”; the passive is expressed by the u-vowel in the first place and the a-vowel in the last, as [shubbar], “it was broken in fragments.” The reflexive sense prefixes an “n” to the simple root, or a t “t” (taw) to the intensive, but the former of these is often used as a passive, as [nishbar], “it was broken,” [hithqaddesh], “he sanctified himself.” The causative meaning is given by prefixing the letter “h”, as [malakh], “he was king,” [himlikh], “he caused (one) to be king.” A somewhat similar method of verb building is found outside the Semitic language, for example, in Turkish. In some of these Semitic languages the number of formations is very numerous. In Hebrew also there are traces of stems other than those generally in use. 7. Absence of Tenses: There are no tenses in Hebrew, in our sense of the word. There are two states, usually called tenses, the perfect and the imperfect. In the first the action is regarded as accomplished, whether in the past or future, as shabhar, “he broke,” “he has broken,” “he will have broken,” or (in prophetic narrative) “he will break”; in the second, the action is regarded as uncompleted, “he will break,” “he was breaking,” “he is breaking,” etc.

    The present is often expressed by the participle. 8. The Pronouns: The different persons, singular and plural, are expressed by affixing to the perfect, and by prefixing to the imperfect, fragments of the personal pronouns, as [shabharti], “I broke,” [shabharnu], “we broke,” nishbor, “we will break,” and so on. The fragments which are added to the perfect to express the nominative of the pronouns are, with some modification, especially the change of “t” into “k”, added to the verb to express the accusative, and to the noun to express the genitive; for example, [shabharta], “you broke,” [shebharekha], “he broke you,” [bethekha], “your house”; [capharnu], “we counted,” [cepharanu], “he counted us,” [ciphrenu], “our book.” 9. Formation of Nouns: The same principles are followed in regard to the noun as to the verb.

    Many nouns consist solely of the three stem-letters articulated with one or with two vowels, except that monosyllables generally become dissyllabic, owing to the difficulty of pronouncing two vowelless consonants together: thus, [melekh], “king,” [cepher], “book,” [goren], “threshingfloor” (instead of [malk], [ciphr], [gorn]), [dabhar], “a word or thing,” [qarobh], “near.”

    Nouns denoting place, instrument, etc., are often formed by prefixing the letter “m” to the root, as [mishpat], “justice” from [shaphat], “he judged,” [mazlegh], “a fork.” Intensity is, given to the root idea, as in the verb, by doubling the middle consonant: thus, [choresh] “working,” [charash] (for [charrash]), “workman”; gonebh, “stealing,” gannabh, “a thief.” Similarly, words denoting incurable physical defects, [’illem], “dumb,” `iwwer, “blind,” [cheresh] (for [chirresh]), “deaf and dumb.” The feminine of nouns, as of the 3rd person of verbs, is formed by adding the letter “t”, which when final is softened to “h”, [gebhirah], “queen-mother,” “mistress,” but [gebhirtekh], “your mistress.” 10. Internal Inflexion: The inflexion of both verbs and nouns is accompanied by a constant lengthening or shortening of the vowels of the word, and this according to two opposite lines. In verbs with vowel-affixes the penultimate vowel disappears, as [halakh], “he went,” [halekhu], “they went”; in the noun the ante-penultimate vowel disappears, as [dabhar], “a word,” plural [debharim]. As the vowel system, as stated above, is very late, the vocalization cannot be accepted as that of the living tongue. It represents rather the cantillation of the synagogue; and for this purpose, accents, which had a musical as well as an interpunctional value, have been added. 11. Syntax of the Verb: Hebrew syntax is remarkable for its simplicity. Simple sentences predominate and are usually connected by the conjunction “and.”

    Subordinate sentences are comparatively rare, but descriptive and temporal clauses are not uncommon. In the main narrative, the predicates are placed at the beginning of the sentence, first simply in the root form (3rd singular masculine), and then only when the subject has been mentioned does the predicate agree with it. Descriptive and temporal clauses may be recognized by their having the subject at the beginning (e.g. Genesis 1:2). A curious turn is given to the narrative by the fact that in the main sentences, if the first verb is perfect, those which follow are imperfect, and vice versa, the conjunction which coordinates them receiving a peculiar vocalization — that of the definite article. In the English Bible, descriptive and temporal clauses are often rendered as if they were parts of the main sentence, for example, in the first verses of Genesis of which the literal translation is somewhat as follows: “At the beginning of God’s creating heaven and earth, when the earth was without form and void, and God’s spirit (or, a great wind) moved upon the face of the water, God said, Let there be light.” It will thus be seen that the structure of Hebrew narrative is not so simple as it appears. 12. Syntax of the Noun: In the Semitic languages, compound words do not occur, but this deficiency is made up by what is called the construct state. The old rule, that the second of two nouns which depend on one another is put in the genitive, becomes, in Hebrew, the first of two such nouns is put in the construct state. The noun in the construct state loses the definite article, and all its vowels are made as short as possible, just as if it were the beginning of a long word: for example, ha-bayith, “the house,” but [beth ha-melekh], “the house of the king,” “the palace”; dabhar, “a word,” but [dibhere ruach], “words of wind,” “windy words.” 13. Poverty of Adjectives: The Hebrew language is very poor in adjectives, but this is made up for by a special use of the construct state just mentioned. Thus to express magnitude the word “God” is added in the Genesis. case, as in the example above ( Genesis 1:2), “a mighty wind” = a wind of God; Psalm 36:6, “the lofty mountains” = the mountains of God (so 68:15); 80:10, “goodly cedars” = cedars of God; so “a holy man” = a man of God; “the sacred box” = the ark of God, and so on; compare in the New Testament, Matthew 27:54, “the son of God” = Luke 23:47, “a righteous (man).” Matthew was thinking in Aramaic, Luke in Greek. A similar use is made of other words, e.g. “stubborn” = hard of neck; “impudent” = hard of face; “extensive” = broad of hands; “miserable” = bitter of soul. LITERATURE.

    The articles on the Hebrew Language in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, 1875, by Noldeke; in Encyclopedia Brit, 9th edition, by Robertson Smith; 11th edition by Noldeke; in the Imperial Bible Dict., 1866, by T. H. Weir; also those in HDB, EB.

    Grammars:

    A. B. Davidson’s Elementary Hebrews Grammar and Syntax; Gesenius, Hebrews Grammar, English translation by Cowley, 2nd edition.

    Dictionaries:

    Brown, Briggs and Driver, Hebrew and English Lexicon; Gesenius, Handworterbuch, 15th edition; Feyerabend, Hebrew-English Pocket Dictionary; Breslau, English and Hebrew Dictionary.

    IV. BIBLICAL ARAMAIC. 1. Aramaic Portions of the Old Testament: The Aramaic portions of the Old Testament are the following: Ezra 4:8 through 6:18; 7:11-26; Daniel 2:4 through 7:28; Genesis 31:47 (two words); Jeremiah 10:11. The language in which they are written used to be called Chaldee, but is now generally known simply as Biblical Aramaic.

    It represents a further declension from classical Semitic as compared with the Hebrew. The following are the principal points in which Biblical Aramaic differs from Hebrew. 2. Phonology: The accent is placed on the last syllable, the first vowel disappearing, e.g. [`abhadh] for Hebrew [`abhadh]. It is curious that the same feature is found in Algerene and Moroccan Arabic: thus [qacr] becomes [qcar]. Dentals take the place of sibilants: [dehabh] for [zahabh]; [telath] for [shalosh]. The strong Hebrew x “ts” (tsade) frequently becomes [ “ ` “ (`ayin), and Hebrew [ “ ` “ (`ayin) becomes a “ ‘ “ (‘aleph): thus, [’ar`a’] for [’erets]; [`uq] for [tsuq]. 3. Grammar: In Hebrew the definite article is the prefix [hal] ([ha-]); in Aramaic the affix [a’]; the latter, however, has almost lost its force. The dual is even more sparingly used than in Hebrew. The passive forms of verbs and those beginning with nun (“n”) are practically wanting; the passive or reflexive forms are made by prefixing the letter “t” to the corresponding active forms, and that much more regularly than in Hebrew, there being three active and three passive forms. 4. Syntax: In regard to syntax there is to be noted the frequent use of the participle instead of a finite verb, as in Hebrew; the disuse of the conjunction “and” with the vocalization of the article; and the disuse of the construct state in nouns, instead of which a circumlocution with the relative [di] is employed, e.g. [tselem di dhehabh], “an image of gold.” The same periphrasis is found also in West African Arabic. 5. Aramaic More Decadent than Hebrew: It will thus be seen that if Hebrew represents a decadent form of an original classical language which was very similar to classical Arabic, Biblical Arabic stands on a still lower level. It is not to be supposed that Hebrew passed into Aramaic, though on the analogy of Arabic that view is not untenable. Rather, the different Semitic languages became fixed at different epochs. Arabic as a literary language crystallized almost at the source; Hebrew and the spoken Arabic of the East far down the stream; and Aramaic and Moroccan Arabic farthest down of all. LITERATURE.

    Kautzsch, Grammatik; Strack, Abriss des bibl. Aramaisch; Marti, Bibl. aram. Sprache; the articles on “Aramaic” or “Chaldee” in the Biblical Dicts. cited under III, and article ARAMAIC LANGUAGE in this Encyclopedia; the Hebrew text of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, edition by Baer.

    Hebrew Dictionaries. generally include Biblical Aramaic.

    V. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEMITES. 1. Concrete and Abstract: The thinking of the Hebrews, like that of other Semites, was done, not in the abstract, but in the concrete. Thus, we find the material put for the immaterial, the expression for the thought, the instrument for the action, the action for the feeling. This mode of expression frequently gives rise to striking anthropomorphisms. Thus we have the eye for watchfulness or care ( Psalm 33:18); the long hand for far-reaching powers ( Isaiah 59:1); broken teeth for defeated malice ( Psalm 3:7); the sword for slaughter ( Psalm 78:62); haughty eyes for superciliousness ( Proverbs 6:17); to say in the heart for to think ( Psalm 10:6). It would be an interesting study to examine to what extent these expressions have been taken over from Hebrew into English. 2. View of Nature: The Hebrew does not know the distinction between animate and inanimate Nature. All Nature is animate ( <19A429> Psalm 104:29). The little hills rejoice ( Psalm 65:12); the mountains skip ( <19B404> Psalm 114:4); the trees clap their hands ( Isaiah 55:12); even the stones may cry out ( Luke 19:40).

    Such expressions are not to be taken as mere poetical figures of speech; they are meant quite literally. All Nature is one: man is merely a part of Nature ( <19A423> Psalm 104:23), even if he be the highest part ( Psalm 8:5).

    Hence, perhaps, it arises that there is no neuter gender in the Semitic languages. 3. Pictorial Imagination: The highly imaginative nature of the Hebrew comes into play when he is recounting past events or writing history. To his mind’s eye all past events are present. He sees history taking place before his eyes as in a picture.

    Thus the perfect may generally be translated by the English past tense with “have,” the imperfect by the English present tense with “is” or “is going to.” In livelier style the participle is used: “They are entering the city, and behold Samuel is coming out to meet them” ( 1 Samuel 9:14). Hence, the oratio recta is always used in preference to the oratio obliqua.

    Moreover, the historian writes exactly as the professional story-teller narrates. Hence, he is always repeating himself and returning upon his own words ( 1 Samuel 5:1,2). 4. Prose and Poetry: A result of the above facts is that there is no hard-and-fast distinction in Hebrew between prose and poetry. Neither is there in Hebrew, or in the Semitic language generally, epic or dramatic poetry, because their prose possesses these qualities in a greater degree than does the poetry of other races. All Hebrew poetry is lyric or didactic. In it there is no rhyme nor meter. The nearest approach to meter is what is called the [qinah] strophe, in which each verse consists of two parallel members, each member having five words divided into three and then two. The best example of this is to be found in Psalm 19:7-9, and also in the Book of LAMENTATIONS (which see), from which the verse has received its name. 5. Hebrew Easy of Translation: From the above description it may be inferred that the language of the Old Testament is one extremely easy of translation into foreign tongues without loss of meaning or rhythm, though it would be extremely difficult to render any modern language into classical Hebrew. Hence, the Psalms, for example, are as fine in their German or English versions as they are in the original. Where the Old Testament has been translated into the language of the country, it has become a classic. The English Bible is as important for the study of the English language as are the plays of Shakespeare. LITERATURE.

    In addition to the articles cited under III, Herder. The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, translation by J. Marsh, 1833; Ed. Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die bibl. Litt. komparativisch dargestellt, 1900; the same author’s brochure on the “Style of Scripture” in HDB, volume V; J. F.

    McCurdy on the “Semites” in the same volume; J. Kennedy, Hebrew Synonyms. Thomas Hunter Weir LANTERN <lan’-tern > ([fano>v , phanos ], [fai>nw , phaino ], “to give light”): Lanterns were carried by the mob which arrested Jesus in Gethsemane ( John 18:3, probably better “torches”). The word “lantern” in the time of early versions had a much wider significance than now. The Romans, however, had lanterns in the times of Christ, made by use of translucent skins, bladders, or thin plates of horn.

    LAODICEA <la-od-i-se’-a > ([ Laodiki>a , Laodikia ]): A city of Asia Minor situated in the Lycos valley in the province of Phrygia, and the home of one of the Seven Churches of Revelation (1:11). Distinguished from several other cities of that name by the appellation Ad Lycum, it was founded by Antiochus II (261-246 BC) of Syria, who named it for his wife Laodike, and who populated it with Syrians and with Jews who were transplanted from Babylonia to the cities of Phrygia and Lydia. Though Laodicea stood on the great highway at the junction of several important routes, it was a place of little consequence until the Roman province of Asia was formed in 190 BC. It then suddenly became a great and wealthy center of industry, famous specially for the fine black wool of its sheep and for the Phrygian powder for the eyes, which was manufactured there (compare Revelation 3:18). In the vicinity was the temple of Men Karou and a renowned school of medicine. In the year 60 AD, the city was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake, but so wealthy were its citizens that they rejected the proffered aid of Rome, and quickly rebuilt it at their own expense (compare Revelation 3:17). It was a city of great wealth, with extensive banking operations (compare Revelation 3:18). Little is known of the early history of Christianity there; Timothy, Mark and Epaphras ( Colossians 1:7) seem to have been the first to introduce it.

    However, Laodicea was early the chief bishopric of Phrygia, and about AD Sagaris, its bishop, was martyred. In 1071 the city was taken by the Seljuks; in 1119 it was recovered to the Christians by John Comnenus, and in the 13th century it fell finally into the hands of the Turks.

    The ruins, now called Eski Hissar, or old castle, lie near the modern Gonjelli on the railroad, and they have long served as a quarry to the builders of the neighboring town of Denizli. Among them nothing from before the Roman period has appeared. One of the two Roman theaters is remarkably well preserved, and there may still be seen the stadium, a colonnade, the aqueduct which brought the water across the valley to the city by an inverted siphon of stone pipes, a large necropolis, and the ruins of three early Christian churches. E. J. Banks LAODICEANS, EPISTLE TO THE <la-od-i-se’-anz > , ([ejn th~| Laodike>wn ejkklhsi>a|????thav , en te Laodikeon ekklesia ] .... [ten ek Laodikias ], “in the church of the Laodiceans .... the epistle from Laodicea,” Colossians 4:16):

    Paul here writes to the Colossians, “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.” What was or what is this epistle?

    I. EXPLANATIONS OF PAUL’S STATEMENT.

    The words used by the apostle may mean: (1) a letter written by the Laodiceans; (2) an epistle written by Paul from Laodicea; (3) an epistle written to the Laodiceans, and to be procured from them by the Colossians. 1. Written by the Laodiceans?: The words may mean a letter written by the Laodiceans. But here it is sufficient to refer to the fact that Paul enjoins the Colossians to procure and to read “the epistle from Laodicea.” How could a command of this kind be given in reference to an epistle written by third parties? How could Paul know that a copy of it had been made by the Laodiceans before sending it off? How could he tell that the Laodiceans would be willing to give away a copy of it? The suppositions involved by this hypothesis are incredible. Besides, the context regards the Epistle to the Colossians, and “that from Laodicea,” as companion epistles, of which the two churches are to make an interchange, so that each church is directed to read both. 2. Written by Paul from Laodicea?: Or, the words may refer to an epistle written by Paul from Laodicea. And it has been suggested that the epistle of which we are in search may be Timothy, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, or Galatians. But in the case of these epistles, the probability is that every one of them was written elsewhere than from Laodicea. At the time when Paul wrote to Colosse, he was a prisoner in Rome, and for this reason alone, it was impossible that he could, at any recent date, have written any epistle from Laodicea. But his own statement ( Colossians 2:1) is that those in Laodicea had not seen his face in the flesh. As he had never been in Laodicea, he could, not have written any epistle from that city. 3. An Epistle Addressed to the Laodiceans: A third possibility is a letter written: (1) not by Paul, but by some other person. But the whole tone of the passage does not favor this suggestion in the least; (2) by Paul, but that the epistle is lost; this is the ordinary interpretation; (3) the apocryphal Latin epistle. “To the Laodiceans.”

    This spurious epistle is a mere compilation clumsily put together; it has no marks of authenticity. Lightfoot (Col, 282) gives its general character thus: it “is a cento of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connection or any clear object. They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. Of course, it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange epistles with the Colossians. The apostle’s injunction in Colossians 4:16 suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It has no doctrinal peculiarities. It is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless” (Lightfoot, in the work quoted 282). See APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES. (4) The only other alternative is that “the epistle from Laodicea” is an epistle to the Laodiceans from Paul himself, which he directs the Colossians to procure from Laodicea. There seems to be not only a high degree of probability, but proof, that the epistle from Laodicea is the epistle known as the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians. Paul therefore had written an epistle to Laodicea, a city which he had twice already mentioned in the Epistle to the Colossians, “For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at Laodicea” ( Colossians 2:1): “Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house” ( Colossians 4:15). Accepting Colossians 4:16 to mean that he wrote to Laodicea at the same time as he wrote to Colosse, what has become of the former ep.? Do we know nothing more of it now than is contained in this reference to it in Colossians? The fact that it was, by Paul’s express command, to be communicated to at least the two churches in Colosse and Laodicea, would make its disappearance and loss very strange.

    II. EVIDENCE FAVORING EPISTLE TO EPHESIANSESIANS.

    But is there any warrant for concluding that it is lost at all? A statement of the facts of the case seems to show that the epistle which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans is extant, but only under another title. The lines of evidence which seem to show that the so-called Epistle to the Ephesiansesians is in reality the epistle written by Paul to the Laodiceans are these:

    It is well known that the words “at Ephesiansesus” (Ephesiansesians 1:1) in the inscription of the epistle are very doubtful. The Revised Version (British and American) reads in the margin, “Some very ancient authorites omit `at Ephesiansesus.’” Among the authorities which omit “at Ephesiansesus” are the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, the best and most ancient authorities existing. 1. Marcion’s Opinion: Tertullian asserts that the heretics, i.e. Marcion, had altered the title, “the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians,” to “the Epistle to the Laodiceans.” But this accusation does not carry with it any doctrinal or heretical charge against Marcion in this respect. “It is not likely,” says Moule (Ephesians, 25), “that Marcion was guilty here, where the change would have served no dogmatic purpose.” And the fact that at that very early period, the first half of the 2nd century, it was openly suggested that the destination of the epistle was Laodicea, is certainly entitled to weight, especially in view of the other fact already mentioned, which is of no less importance, that “at Ephesiansesus” is omitted in the two great manuscripts, the Vatican and the Sinaitic. 2. References in Ephesiansesians and Other Epistles: The “Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” could not be, primarily at least, addressed to Ephesiansesus, because Paul speaks of his readers as persons in regard to whose conversion from heathenism to the faith of Christ he had just recently heard: “For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers” (Ephesiansesians 1:15 f). These words could not well be used in regard to the church at Ephesiansesus, which Paul himself had founded, and in reference to persons among whom he had lived for three years, and where he even knew personally “every one” of the Christians ( Acts 20:31).

    And in Ephesiansesians 3:1 f the King James Version, he writes: “For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward.”

    But how could he ever doubt that the elders of the church in Ephesiansesus ( Acts 20:17), as well as the members of that important church, were ignorant of the fact that a dispensation of the grace of God had been given to him? The inquiry, whether his readers had heard of the one great fact on which his ministry was based, could not apply in any degree to the Christians in Ephesiansesus. The apostle and the Ephesiansesians had a clear and intimate mutual knowledge. They knew him and valued him and loved him well. When he bade the elders of the church farewell, they all fell on his neck and kissed him ( Acts 20:37).

    Clearly therefore the statement that he had just recently heard of their conversion, and his inquiry whether they had heard that a dispensation of the grace of God had been entrusted to him, do not and cannot describe the members of the church in Ephesiansesus. “It is plain,” writes Moule (Ephesians, 26), “that the epistle does not bear an Ephesiansesian destination on the face of it.”

    In the Epistle to the Corinthians there are many local references, as well as allusions to the apostle’s work in Corinth. In the Epistle to the Galatians there are also many references to his work among the people of the churches in Galatia. The same is the case in the Epistle to the Philippians, several names being mentioned of persons known to the apostle. In the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, references also occur to his work among them.

    Turning to the Epistle to the Colossians, and to that to the Romans — Colossae and Rome being cities which he had not visited previous to his writing to the churches there — he knows several persons in Colosse; and in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, he mentions by name no fewer than twenty-six persons in that city.

    How is it then that in “the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” there are no references at all to the three years which he spent in Ephesiansesus? And how also is there no mention of any one of the members of the church or of the elders whom he knew so intimately and so affectionately? “Ephesiansesians” is inexplicable on the ordinary assumption that Ephesiansesus was the city to which the epistle was addressed.

    The other theory, that the epistle was a circular one, sent in the first instance to Laodicea, involves no such difficulty. 3. Ephesiansesian Church Jewish in Origin: Another indication in regard to the primary destination of the epistle is in the words, “ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesiansesians 2:11,12). Do these words describe the church in Ephesiansesus? Was the church there Gentilein its origin? Very far from this, for as a matter of fact it began by Paul preaching the gospel to the Jews, as is narrated at length by Luke in Acts 18. Then in Acts 19, Paul comes again to Ephesiansesus, where he went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months, but when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of the Way before the multitude, he separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

    Here, therefore, is definite proof that the church in Ephesiansesus was not Gentilein its origin. It was distinctly Jewish, but a Gentileelement had also been received into it. Now the church to which Paul writes “the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” was not Jewish at all. He does not speak to his readers in any other way than “you Gentiles.” 4. Ephesiansesians and Colossians Sister Epistles: But an important consideration is that the “Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” was written by Paul at the same sitting almost as that to the Colossians.

    These two are sister epistles, and these along with the Epistle to Philemon were written and sent off at the same time, Onesimus and Tychicus carrying the Epistle to the Colossians ( Colossians 4:7,8,9), Onesimus being the bearer of that to Philem, while Tychicus in addition to carrying the Colossian epistle was also the messenger who carried “the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” (Ephesiansesians 6:21).

    A close scrutiny of Colossians and “Ephesiansesians” shows, to an extent without a parallel elsewhere in the epistles of the New Testament, a remarkable similarity of phraseology. There are only two verses in the whole of Colossians to which there is no parallel in “Ephesiansesians.” The same words are used, while the thought is so varied and so rich, that the one epistle is in no sense a copy or repetition of the other (see list of parallelisms, etc., in Paul’s Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea, T. and T.

    Clark, Edinburgh). Both epistles come warm and instinct with life from the full heart of the great apostle who had not, up to that time, visited either city, but on whom, none the less, there came daily the care of all the churches. 5. Recapitulation: To recapitulate: (1) The words “at Ephesiansesus” in the inscription of the epistle are wanting in the two oldest and best manuscripts. (2) Paul speaks of his readers as persons of whose conversion to Christ he knew only by report. Similarly he speaks of them as knowing only by hearsay of his commission as an apostle of Christ. Also, though he had lived in Ephesiansesus for three years, this epistle does not contain a single salutation. (3) He speaks of his readers as forming a church exclusively of the Gentiles. But the church in Ephesiansesus, so far from being exclusively gentile, was actually Jewish in origin. (4) “Ephesiansesians” was written at the same sitting as Colossians, and the same messenger, Tychicus, carried them both. Therefore as the epistle was not, and could not be, addressed to Ephesiansesus, the conclusion is that it was addressed to some church, and that it was not a treatise sent to the Christian church generally. The words of the first verse of the ep., “to the saints that are,” proves that the name of the place to which it was addressed is all that is lost from the manuscripts, but that the name of the city was there originally, as the epistle came from Paul’s hand.

    Now Paul wrote an epistle to Laodicea at the same time as he wrote to Colosse. He dispatched both epistles by Tychicus. The thought and feeling and even the diction of the two epistles are such that no other explanation is possible but that they came warm from the heart of the same writer at the same time. On all these grounds the conclusion seems inevitable that the Epistle to Laodicea is not lost at all, but that it is identical with the socalled “Epistle to the Ephesiansesians.”

    III. LAODICEA DISPLACED BY EPHESIANSESUS.

    1. A Circular Epistle: How then did Ephesiansesus displace Laodicea? It is explained at once if theory is adopted that the epistle was a “circular” one addressed not to Laodicea only, but to other cities. We know e.g. that the apostle orders it to be taken to the church in Colosse and read there. So also it might have been sent to other cities, such as Hierapolis ( Colossians 4:13) and Ephesiansesus. Hence, if the church in Laodicea were not careful to see that the epistle was returned to them, by those churches to whom they had sent it, it can easily be understood how a copyist in any of those cities might leave out the words “in Laodicea,” as not agreeing with the name of the city where the manuscript actually was at the time. As copies were multiplied, the words “in Ephesiansesus” would be suggested, as the name of the chief city of Asia, from which province the epistle had come to the knowledge of the whole Christian church, and to which, in point of fact, Paul had sent it. The feeling would be natural, that it was in keeping with the fitness of things, that Paul, who had rounded the church in Ephesiansesus, should have written an epistle to the church there. 2. Proof from Biblical Prologues: In an article upon “Marcion and the Canon” by Professor J. Rendel Harris, LL.D., in the The Expository Times, June, 1907, there is reference to the Revue Benedictine for January of that year, which contained a remarkable article by de Bruyne, entitled “Biblical Prologues of Marcionite Origin,” in which the writer succeeded in showing that a very widely spread series of prefaces to the Pauline Epistles, which occur in certain Latin Bibles, must have been taken from a Marcionite Bible. Professor Rendel Harris adds that the prefaces in question may go back to Marcion himself, for in any case the Marcionite hand, from which they come, antedates the Latin tradition in which the prologues are imbedded. “It is clear from Tertullian’s polemic against Marcion, that the Pauline Epistles stood in the following order in the Marcionite Canon: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and 2 Thessalonians, then Ephesiansesians (which Marcion calls by the name of the Epistle to the Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. .... Let us turn to the prologues that are current in Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and other manuscripts for Ephesiansesians and Colossains: the Ephesiansesian prologue runs as follows: `Ephesiansesii sunt Asiani. Hi accepto verbo veritatis perstiterunt in fide. Hosea conlaudat apostolus, scribens eis a Roma de carcere!’ When, however, we turn to the Colossian prologue, we find that it opens as follows: `Colossenses et hi sicut Laodicenses sunt Asiani. Et ipsi praeventi erant a pseudapostolis, nec ad hos accessit apostolus sed et hos per epistolam recorrigit,’ etc. “From this it is clear that originally the prologue to the Laodiceans preceded the prologue to Colossians, and that the Ephesiansesian prologue is a substitute for the Laodicean prologue, which can be partly reconstructed from the references to it in the Colossian prologue. We can see that it had a statement that the Laodiceans belonged to Asia Minor, that they had been under the influence of false apostles, and had never been visited by Paul, who corrects their error by an epistle .... “We have now shown that the original Canon had `Laodiceans, Colossians.’ It is interesting to observe how some Latin manuscripts naively admit this: `You must know that the epistle which we have as that written to the Ephesiansesians, the heretics, and especially the Marcionites, entitle the Epistle to the Laodiceans.’” IV. REASON FOR SUCH AN EPISTLE.

    Assuming therefore that the “Epistle to the Ephesiansesians” is the epistle which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans, various questions arise, such as, Why did he write to the church there? What was there in the state of the church in Laodicea to call for an epistle from him? Was there any heresy there, like the false teaching which existed in the neighboring church in Colosse?

    The answer to such questions is that though we do not possess much information, yet these churches in the province of Asia had many things in common. They had originated at the same time, during the two whole years of Paul’s residence in Ephesiansesus. They were composed of men of the same races, and speaking the same languages. They were subject to the same influences of doctrinal error. The errors into which any one church fell could not fail to affect the others also. These churches were permeated to a large extent by the same ideas, derived both from the current philosophy and from their ancestral heathen religions. They would, therefore, one and all, require the same apostolic instruction and exhortation. This epistle, accordingly, bears a close resemblance to the Epistle to the Colossians, just for the reason that the circumstances of the church in Laodicea were similar to those of the church in Colosse; and also, that the thoughts which filled Paul’s heart as he wrote to Colosse were adapted, in the first place, to counteract the false teaching in Colosse, but they are also the foundation of all Christian experience, and the very life of all Christian truth and doctrine. These are the great thoughts of Christ the Creator of all things, Christ the Upholder of all things, Christ the Reconciler of all things. Such thoughts filling Paul’s heart would naturally find expression in language bearing a close resemblance to that in which he had just written to Colosse.

    It is no more astonishing that Paul should have written to Laodicea, than that he also wrote to Colosse, which was probably the least important of all the cities and churches mentioned in the apostle’s work and career. Neither is it any more to be wondered at that he should have written so profound an epistle as that to “the Ephesiansesians,” than that he should also have given directions that it be sent on to Colosse and read there; for this reason, that the exposition of Christ’s great love to the church and of His giving Himself for it — the doctrine of the grace of God — is the very corrective required by the errors of the false teachers at Colosse, and is also the groundwork of Christian truth and experience for all agesú\parNOTE: A very remarkable circumstance in regard to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is mentioned by Nestle in the preface to his edition of the Latin New Testament, published in Stuttgart in 1906. He writes that “the Epistle to the Laodiceans was for a thousand years part of very many Latin Bibles, and obtained a place in pre-Lutheran German Bibles, together with Jerome’s Epistle to Damasus.” John Rutherfurd LAP The word is the translation of three different Hebrew expressions: qyje [cheq] ( Proverbs 16:33), dg2 Kings 4:39), and ˆx,jo [chotsen] ( Nehemiah 5:13, besides ˆx,je [chatsen], <19C907> Psalm 129:7). In all these passages the meaning is that of a part of oriental clothing, probably the folds of the garment covering the bosom or lap of a person.

    The flowing garments of Orientals invite the use of the same, on the part of speakers, in driving home certain truths enunciated by impressive gesticulation. Every reader of Roman history recalls the impressive incident of Quintus Fabius Maximus (Cunctator), who, in 219 BC, was ambassador of Rome to Carthage, and who, before the city council, holding the folds of his toga in the shape of a closed pouch, declared that he held enclosed in the same both peace and war, whichever the Carthaginians should desire to choose. When the Carthaginians clamored for war, he opened the folds of his garment and said: “Then you shall have war!” Very much like it, Nehemiah, when pleading for united efforts for the improvement of social order, addressed the priests of Jerusalem to get a pledge of their cooperation: “Also I shook out my lap (hotsen ), and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labor, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken out, and emptied” ( Nehemiah 5:13).

    In English Versions of the Bible the verb “to lap” is found, which has no etymological connection with the above-mentioned nouns. It is in Hebrew qq”l; [laqaq] and refers to the loud licking up of water by dogs ( Kings 21:19; 22:38 the King James Version), and in the story of Gideon’s battle against the Midianites, of his 300 warriors ( Judges 7:5 ff). H. L. E. Luering LAPPIDOTH <lap’-i-doth, -doth > ( twOdyPil” [lappidhoth], “flames,” “torches”; the King James Version, Lapidoth): Deborah’s husband ( Judges 4:4). The Hebrew name is a feminine plural like Jeremoth ( 1 Chronicles 7:8), Naboth ( 1 Kings 21:1). The plural is probably intensive. Jewish interpreters have identified Lappidoth (“flames”) with Barak (“lightning”).

    Some have taken the words rendered “wife of Lappidoth” ([’esheth lappidhoth]) as a description of Deborah, and have translated them, “woman of lights,” i.e. maker of wicks for the sanctuary; or “woman of flames,” referring to her prophetic zeal. These explanations are more interesting than probable. John A. Lees LAPWING <lap’-wing > ( tp”ykiWD [dukhiphath]; [e]poy , epops ]): A translation used in early VSS, now universally admitted to be incorrect. The lapwing had a crest, and resembled in size and color the hoopoe (Upupa epops). It appears in the lists of abominations only ( Leviticus 11:19 the King James Version and Deuteronomy 14:18 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) HOOPOE, which see). The lapwing is a plover, and its flesh and eggs are delicious food.

    LASCIVIOUSNESS <la-siv’-i-us-nes > ([ajse>lgeia , aselgeia ], “licentiousness,” “wantonness,” “unbridled lust,” “shamelessness,” “outrageousness”):

    1. SOURCES:

    Etymologists assign three probable sources of aselgeia , namely: (1) from a compound of the alpha privitive (negation) and [ Se>lgh , Selge ], a Pisidian city whose inhabitants according to Thayer (New Testament Lexicon) “excelled in strictness of morals,” but, according to Trench, a place whose people “were infamous for their vices”; (2) from a compound of “a” intense, and [salagei~n , salagein ], “to raise a disturbance or noise”; (3) from a compound of the alpha privitive [a , a -] and [se>lgw , selgo ], or [qe>lgw , thelgo ], “exciting disgust or displeasure.” It evidently means conduct and character that is unbecoming, indecent, unrestrainedly shameless.

    2. AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    Mark uses it in 7:22 with uncertainty as to the vice meant. Paul ( Corinthians 12:21) classes it with uncleanness and fornication as sins to be repented of; also ( Galatians 5:19; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 14:26, “wantonness”) puts it in the same catalogue with other works of the flesh; and (Ephesiansesians 4:19) he refers to some aged ones so covetous, that they made trade of themselves by giving “themselves up to lasciviousness.” The same word is translated “wantonness” in Romans 13:13, meaning wanton manner, filthy words, unchaste movements of the body. Peter ( 1 Peter 4:3) mentions those who “walked in lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries.” He speaks ( 2 Peter 2:2) of “lascivious doings” (the King James Version “pernicious ways”); ( 2 Peter 2:7) “lascivious life” (the King James Version “filthy conversation”); and ( 2 Peter 2:18) of “lasciviousness” (the King James Version “wantonness”), as a means “to entice in the lusts of the flesh.” Jude 1:4 probably does not refer to any form of sensuality in using the word descriptive of “ungodly men” who perverted the faith of some and denied our only Master. William Edward Raffety LASEA <la-se’-a > ([ La>saia , Lasaia ]): A town on the South coast of Crete, miles East of Fair Havens ( Acts 27:8). The ruins were examined in 1856 by G. Brown (see Code of Hammurabi (St. P), chapter xxiii, 640). If Paul’s ship was detained long at this anchorage, it would be necessary to purchase stores from Lasea; and this in addition to the inconvenience of the roadstead (see FAIR HAVENS ) would probably explain the captain’s reluctance to winter there.

    LASHA <la’-sha > ( [v”l; [lasha`]): A place named on the southern boundary of the Canaanites along with Gomorrah, Adnah and Zeboiim ( Genesis 10:19). Eusebius, Onomasticon identifies it with the hot springs at Callirrhoe in Wady Zerqa Ma`in, on the East of the Dead Sea; in this agreeing with Targum Jerusalem. This position, however, seems too far to the North, and possibly the site should be sought on the West of the Arabah. The absence of the article (compare Joshua 15:2) prevents identification with the promontory el-Lisan, which runs into the sea from the eastern shore. Wellhausen (Comp. des Hexateuch., 15) thinks we should read µv;le [lesham], since the Hebrew letters, m “m” (mem) and [ “ ` “ (`ayin), are like each other in their Palmyrene form. We should then have indicated the boundary from Gaza to the Dead Sea, and then from the Dead Sea to Leshem, i.e. Daniel. This is very precarious. No identification is possible. W. Ewing LASSHARON <la-sha’-ron > , <la-shar’-on > ( ˆwOrV;l” [lashsharon] or [la-sharon], the King James Version Sharon): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua, named with Aphek ( Joshua 12:18). Possibly we should here follow the reading of Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), “the king of Aphek in Sharon.” Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. “Saron”) mentions a region between Matthew. Tabor and the Lake of Tiberias called Sarona. This is probably represented by the ancient site Sarona, on the plateau 6 1/2 miles Southwest 2 of Tiberias. If Massoretic Text is correct, this may be the place intended.

    LAST DAY See DAY, LAST.

    LAST DAYS See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    LAST TIME, TIMES ([kairokairos eschatos ], [cro>nov e]scatov , chronos eschatos ] (also plural), [e]scaton tou~ cro>nou , eschaton tou chronou ], [w[ra ejsca>th , hora eschate ]): In the King James Version this phrase occurs in 1 Peter 1:5; 1:20 (plural); 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. The Revised Version (British and American) has, in 1 Peter 1:20, “at the end of the times,” and in 1 John 2:18, “the last hour,” in closer adherence to the Greek. The conception is closely allied to that of “the last day,” and, like this, has its root in the Old Testament conception of “the end of days.” In the Old Testament this designates the entire eschatological period as that which the present course of the world is to issue into, and not, as might be assumed, the closing section of history. It is equivalent to what was later called “the coming aeon” (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ). In the New Testament, on the other hand, the phrase “the last time” does mark the concluding section of the present worldperiod, of the present aeon. In three of the New Testament passages the consciousness expresses itself that these “last times” have arrived, and that the period extending from the appearance or the resurrection of Christ until His Second Coming is the closing part of the present age, that the writer and readers are living in “the last times.” In one passage ( 1 Peter 1:5) “the last time” is projected farther forward into the future, so that it comes to mean the time immediately preceding the reappearance of Christ. Both usages can be readily explained. The days of the Messiah were to the Old Testament writers part of the future world, although to the later Jewish chiliasm they appeared as lying this side of it, because differing from the world to come in their earthly and temporal character. To the early Christians the days of the Messiah appeared more closely assimilated in character to the future world, so that no reason existed on this score for not including them in the latter. Still it was also realized that the Messiah in His first appearance had not brought the full realization of the coming world, and that only His return from heaven would consummate the kingdom of God. Accordingly, the days in which they lived assumed to them the character of an intermediate period, marked off on the one hand from the previous development by the appearance of the Messiah, but equally marked off from the coming eon by His reappearance in glory.

    From a formal point of view the representation resembles the Jewish chiliastic scheme, but with a twofold substantial difference: (a) the chiliastic scheme restricts the Messiah and His work to the last days, and does not carry Him over into the coming world, whereas to the Christian the coming world, no less than the last days, is thoroughly Messianic; (b) to the Jewish point of view both the days of the Messiah and the coming world lie in the future, whereas to the Christian the former have already arrived. It remained possible, however, from the Christian point of view to distinguish within the last times themselves between the immediate present and the future conclusion of this period, and this is done in 1 Peter 1:5. Also in 1 John 2:18 the inference that “the last hour” has come is not drawn from the presence of the Messiah, but from the appearance of the anti-Christian power, so that here also a more contracted conception of the last stage of history reveals itself, only not as future ( 1 Peter 1:5), but as present (hence, “hour” not “time”).

    For literature see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . Geerhardus Vos LASTHENES <las’-the-nez > ([ Lasqe>nhv , Lasthenes ]): A highly placed official under King Demetrius II, Nicator. He is called the king’s “kinsman” (the King James Version “cousin”) and “father” (1 Macc 11:31,32; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iv, 9), but these are to be taken as court titles rather than as denoting blood-relationship. According to Josephus (Ant., XIII, iv, 3) he was a native of Crete, and raised an army for the king when he made his first descent upon the coast, and rendered him ultimately successful in wresting the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas (1 Macc 10:67; Ant, XIII, iv, 3).

    The letter addressed to Lasthenes indicates that he was probably prime minister or grand vizier of the kingdom. J. Hutchinson LATCHET <lach’-et > ( °]wOrc] [serokh]; [iJma>v , himas ]): Leather thong used for tying on sandals (see Genesis 14:23; Mark 1:7 parallel). The stooping to untie the dusty shoe-latchet was esteemed by Orientals a service that was at once petty and defiling, and was usually assigned to menials.

    LATIN <lat’-in > : Was the official language of the Roman Empire as Greek was that of commerce. In Palestine Aramaic was the vernacular in the rural districts and remoter towns, while in the leading towns both Greek and Aramaic were spoken. These facts furnish the explanation of the use of all three tongues in the inscription on the cross of Christ ( Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). Thus the charge was written in the legal language, and was technically regular as well as recognizable by all classes of the people. The term “Latin” occurs in the New Testament only in John 19:20, [ JRwmai`sti> , Rhomaisti ], and in Luke 23:38, [ JRwmai`koi~v , Rhomaikois (grammasin)], according to Codices Sinaiticus, A, D, and N. It is probable that Tertullus made his plea against Paul before Felix (Acts 24) in Latin, though Greek was allowed in such provincial courts by grace of the judge. It is probable also that Paul knew and spoke Latin; compare W.M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 65, and A. Souter, “Did Paul Speak Latin?” The Expositor, April, 1911. The vernacular Latin had its own history and development with great influence on the ecclesiastical terminology of the West. See W. Bury, “The Holy Latin Tongue,” Dublin Review, April, 1906, and Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata, 1874, 480 f. There is no doubt of the mutual influence of Greek and Latin on each other in the later centuries. See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina, 1891; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888.

    It is doubtful if the Latin syntax is clearly perceptible in the koine (see LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ).

    Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 117 f) finds [ejrgasi>an di>dwmi , ergasian didomi ] (operam dare) in an xyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type from 2nd century BC (compare Luke 12:58). A lead tablet in Amorgus has [kri>nw to< di>kaion , krino to dikaion ] (compare Luke 12:57). The papyri (2nd century AD) give [sunai>rw lo>gon , sunairo logon ] (compare Matthew 18:23 f). Moulton (Expositor, February, 1903, 115) shows that [to< iJkanoto hikanon poiein ] (satisfacere), is as old as Polybius. Even [sumbou>lion lamba>nein , sumbouilion lambanien ] (concilium capere), may go with the rest like [su< o]yh| , su opes ] ( Matthew 27:4), for videris (Thayer). Moulton (Prol., 21) and Thumb (Griechische Sprache, 121) consider the whole matter of syntactical Latinisms in the New Testament inconclusive. But see also C.

    Wessely, “Die lateinischen Elemente in der Gracitat d. agypt.

    Papyrusurkunden,” Wien. Stud., 24; Laforcade. Influence du Latin sur le Grec. 83-158.

    There are Latin words in the New Testament: In particular Latin proper names like Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, etc., even among the Christians in the New Testament besides Agrippa, Augustus, Caesar, Claudius, Felix, Festus, Gallio, Julius, etc.

    Besides we find in the New Testament current Latin commercial, financial, and official terms like [ajssa>rion , assarion ] (as), [dhna>rion , denarion ] (denarius), [kenturi>wn , kenturion ] (centurio), [kh~nsov , kenos ] (census), [kodra>nthv , kodrantes ] (quadrans), [kolwni>a , kolonia ] (colonia), [koustwdi>a , koustodia ] (custodia), [legew>n , legeon ] (legio), [le>ntion , lention ] (linteum), [liberti~nov , libertinos ] (libertinus), [li>tra , litra ] (litra), [ma>kellon , makellon ] (macellum), [membra>na , membrana ] (membrana), [mi>lion , milion ] (mille), [mo>diov , modios ] (modius), [xe>sthv , xestes ] (sextarius), [praitw>rion , praitorion ] (praetorium), [sika>riov , sikarios ] (sicarius), [simiki>nqion , simikinthion ] (semicinctium), [souda>rion , soudarion ] (sudarium), [spekoula>twr , spekoulator ] (speculator), [tabe>rna , taberna ] (taberna), [ti>tlov , titlos ] (titulus), [felo>nhv , phelones ] (paenula), [fo>ron , phoron ] (forum), [frage>llion , phragellion ] (flagellum), [fragello>w , phragelloo ] (flagello), [ca>rthv , chartes ] (charta?), [cw~rov , choros ] (chorus).

    Then we meet such adjectives as [ JHrwdianoi> , Herodianoi ], [ Filipph>sioi , Philippesioi ], [ Cristianoi> , Christianoi ], which are made after the Latin model. Mark’s Gospel shows more of these Latin words outside of proper names (compare Romans 16), as is natural if his Gospel were indeed written in Rome. See also LATIN VERSION, THE OLD.

    LITERATURE.

    Besides the literature already mentioned see Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Div II, volume I, 43 ff; Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud (1898, 1899); Hoole, Classical Element in the New Testament (1888); Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (1897); W.

    Schmid, Atticismus, etc. (1887-97); Kapp, Latinismis merito ac falso susceptis (1726); Georgi, Deuteronomy Latinismis N T (1733); Draeger, Historische Syntax der lat. Sprache (1878-81); Pfister, Vulgarlatein und Vulgargriechisch (Rh. Mus., 1912, 195-208). A. T. Robertson LATIN VERSION, THE OLD

    1. THE MOTIVE OF TRANSLATION:

    The claim of Christianity to be the one true religion has carried with it from the beginning the obligation to make its Holy Scriptures, containing the Divine message of salvation and life eternal, known to all mankind.

    Accordingly, wherever the first Christian evangelists carried the gospel beyond the limits of the Greek-speaking world, one of the first requirements of their work was to give the newly evangelized peoples the record of God’s revelation of Himself in their mother tongue. It was through the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament that the great truths of revelation first became known to the Greek and Roman world. It is generally agreed that, as Christianity spread, the Syriac and the Latin versions were the first to be produced; and translations of the Gospels, and of other books of the Old and New Testament in Greek, were in all probability to be found in these languages before the close of the 2nd century.

    2. MULTIPLICITY OF LATIN TRANSLATIONS IN THE 4TH CENTURY:

    Of the earliest translators of the Bible into Latin no record has survived.

    Notwithstanding the careful investigations of scholars in recent years, there are still many questions relating to the origin of the Latin Bible to which only tentative and provisional answers can be given. It is therefore more convenient to begin a study of its history with Jerome toward the close of the 4th century and the commission entrusted to him by Pope Damasus to produce a standard Latin version, the execution of which gave to Christendom the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (see VULGATE ). The need for such a version was clamant. There existed by this time a multiplicity of translations differing from one another, and there was none possessed of commanding authority to which appeal might be made in case of necessity. It was the consideration of the chaotic condition of the existing translations, with their divergences and variations, which moved Damasus to commission Jerome to his task and Jerome to undertake it. We learn particulars from the letter of Jerome in transmitting to his patron the first installment of his revision, the Gospels. “Thou compellest me,” he writes, “to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek.” Anticipating attacks from critics, he says, further: “If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather than better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes?” Accordingly, he hands to the Pontiff the four Gospels to begin with after a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts.

    From Jerome’s contemporary, Augustine, we obtain a similar picture. “Translators from Hebrew into Greek,” he says (Deuteronomy Doctrina Christiana, ii.11), “can be numbered, but Latin translators by no means. For whenever, in the first ages of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who had also a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith.” In the same context he mentions “an innumerable variety of Latin translators,” “a crowd of translators.” His advice to readers is to give a preference to the Itala, “which is more faithful in its renderings and more intelligible in its sense.” What the Itala is, has been greatly discussed. Formerly it was taken to be a summary designation of all the versions before Jerome’s time. But Professor Burkitt (Texts and Studies, IV) strongly urges the view that by this term Augustine designates Jerome’s Vulgate, which he might quite well have known and preferred to any of the earlier translations. However this may be, whereas before Jerome there were those numerous translations, of which he and Augustine complain, after Jerome there is the one preeminent and commanding work, produced by him, which in course of time drove all others out of the field, the great Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) edition, as it came to be called, of the complete Latin Bible.

    3. THE LATIN BIBLE BEFORE JEROME:

    We are here concerned with the subject of the Latin Bible before the time of Jerome. The manuscripts which have survived from the earlier period are known by the general designation of Old Latin. When we ask where these first translations came into existence, we discover a somewhat surprising fact. It was not at Rome, as we might have expected, that they were first required. The language of Christian Rome was mainly Greek, down to the 3rd century. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans in Greek.

    When Clement of Rome in the last decade of the 1st century wrote an epistle in the name of the Roman church to the Corinthians, he wrote in Greek Justin Martyr, and the heretic Marcion, alike wrote from Rome in Greek. Out of 15 bishops who presided over the Roman. See down to the close of the 2nd century, only four have Latin names. Even the pagan emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek If there were Christians in Rome at that period whose only language was Latin, they were not sufficiently numerous to be provided with Christian literature; at least none has survived.

    4. FIRST USED IN NORTH AFRICA:

    It is from North Africa that the earliest Latin literature of the church has come down to us. The church of North Africa early received a baptism of blood, and could point to an illustrious roll of martyrs. It had also a distinguished list of Latin authors, whose Latin might sometimes be rude and mixed with foreign idioms, but had a power and a fire derived from the truths which it set forth. One of the most eminent of these Africans was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who won the martyr’s crown in 257. His genuine works consist of a number of short treatises, or tracts, and numerous letters, all teeming with Scripture quotations. It is certain that he employed a version then and there in use, and it is agreed that “his quotations are carefully made and thus afford trustworthy standards of African Old Latin in a very early though still not the earliest stage” (Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek, 78).

    5. CYPRIAN’S BIBLE:

    Critical investigation has made it clear that the version used by Cyprian survives in a fragmentary copy of Mark and Matthew, now at Turin in North Italy, called Codex Bobbiensis (k), and in the fragments of the Apocalypse and Acts contained in a palimpsest at Paris called Codex Floriacensis (h). It has been found that another MS, Codex Palatinus (e) at Vienna, has a text closely akin to that exhibited in Cyprian, although there are traces of mixture in it. The text of these manuscripts, together with the quotations of the so-called Speculum Augustini (m), is known among scholars as African Old Latin. Another manuscript with an interesting history, Codex Colbertinus (c) contains also a valuable African element, but in many parts of the Gospels it sides also with what is called the European Old Latin more than with k or e. Codex Bobbiensis (k) has been edited with a learned introduction in the late Bishop John Wordsworth’s Old Latin Biblical Texts, the relation of k to Cyprian as well as to other Old Latin texts being the subject of an elaborate investigation by Professor Sanday. That Cyprian, who was not acquainted with Greek, had a written version before him which is here identified is certain, and thus the illustrious bishop and martyr gives us a fixed point in the history of the Latin Bible a century and a half earlier than Jerome.

    6. TERTULLIAN’S BIBLE:

    We proceed half a century nearer to the fountainhead of the African Bible when we take up the testimony of Tertullian who flourished toward the close of the 2nd century. He differed from Cyprian in being a competent Greek scholar. He was thus able to translate for himself as he made his quotations from the Septuagint or the Greek New Testament, and is thus for us by no means so safe a witness to the character or existence of a standard version. Professor Zahn (GK, I, 60) maintains with considerable plausibility that before 210-240 AD there was no Latin Bible, and that Tertullian with his knowledge of Greek just translated as he went along. In this contention, Zahn is not supported by many scholars, and the view generally is that while Tertullian’s knowledge of Greek is a disturbing element, his writings, with the copious quotations from both Old Testament and New Testament, do testify to the existence of a version which had already been for some time in circulation and use. Who the African Wycliffe or Tyndale was who produced that version has not been recorded, and it may in fact have been the work of several hands, the result, as Bishop Westcott puts it, of the spontaneous efforts of African Christians (Canon of the NT7, 263).

    7. POSSIBLE EASTERN ORIGIN OF OLD LATIN:

    Although the evidence has, up to the present time, been regarded as favoring the African origin of the first Latin translation of the Bible, recent investigation into what is called the Western text of the New Testament has yielded results pointing elsewhere. It is clear from a comparison that the Western type of text has close affinity with the Syriac witnesses originating in the eastern provinces of the empire. The close textual relation disclosed between the Latin and the Syriac versions has led some authorities to believe that, after all, the earliest Latin version may have been made in the East, and possibly at Antioch. But this is one of the problems awaiting the discovery of fresh material and fuller investigation for its solution.

    8. CLASSIFICATION OF OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS:

    We have already noticed the African group, so designated from its connection with the great African Fathers, Tertullian and especially Cyprian, and comprising k, e, and to some extent h and m. The antiquity of the text here represented is attested by these African Fathers.

    When we come down to the 4th century we find in Western Europe, and especially in North Italy, a second type of text, which is designated European, the precise relation of which to the African has not been clearly ascertained. Is this an independent text which has arisen on the soil of Italy, or is it a text derived by alteration and revision of the African as it traveled northward and westward? This group consists of the Codex Vercellensis (a) and Codex Vcronensis (b) of the 4th or 5th century at Vercelli and Verona respectively, and there may be included also the Codex Vindobonensis I of the 7th century at Vienna. These give the Gospels, and a gives for John the text as it was read by the 4th-century Father, Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia. The Latin of the Greek-Latin manuscript D (Codex Bezae) is known as d, and much of Irenaeus are classed with this group.

    Still later, Professor Hort says from the middle of the 4th century, a third type, called Italic from its more restricted range, is found. It is represented by Codex Brixianus (f) of the 6th century, now at Brescia, and Codex Monacensis (q) of the 7th century, at Munich. This text is probably a modified form of the European, produced by revision which has brought it more into accord with the Greek, and has given it a smoother Lot aspect.

    The group has received this name because the text found in many of Augustine’s writings is the same, and as he expressed a preference for the Itala, the group was designated accordingly. Recent investigation tends to show that we must be careful how we use Augustine as an Old Latin authority, and that the Itala may be, not a pre-Vulgate text, but rather Jerome’s Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) This, however, is still uncertain; the fact remains that as far as the Gospels are concerned, f and q represent the type of text most used by Jerome.

    9. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS:

    That all these groups, comprising in all 38 codices, go back to one original is not impossible. Still there may have been at first local VSS, and then an official version formed out of them. When Jerome’s revision took hold of the church, the Old Latin representatives for the most part dropped out of notice. Some of them, however, held their ground and continued to be copied down to the 12th and even the 13th century Codex C (Ephesiansraemi) is an example of this; it is a manuscript of the 12th century, but as Professor Burkitt has pointed out (Texts and Studies, IV, “Old Latin,” 11) “it came from Languedoc, the country of the Albigenses.

    Only among heretics isolated from the rest of Western Christianity could an Old Latin text have been written at so late a period.” An instance of an Old Latin text copied in the 13th century is the Gigas Holmiensis, quoted as Gig, now at Stockholm, and so called from its great size. It contains the Acts and the Apocalypse of the Old Latin and the rest of the New Testament according to the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)

    It has to be borne in mind that in the early centuries complete Bibles were unknown. Each group of books, Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation for the New Testament, and Pentateuch, Historical Books, Psalms and Prophets for the Old Testament, has to be regarded separately. It is interesting, also, to note that when Jerome revised, or even retranslated from the Septuagint, Tobit and Judith of the Apocrypha, the greater number of these books, the Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch were left unrevised, and were simply added to the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) from the Old Latin version.

    10. VALUE OF OLD LATIN FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM:

    These Old Latin translations going back in their earliest forms to nearly the middle of the 2nd century are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were made. They are the more valuable inasmuch as they are manifestly very literal translations. Our great uncial manuscripts reach no farther back than the 4th century, whereas in the Old Latin we have evidence — indirect indeed and requiring to be cautiously used — reaching back to the 2nd century. The text of these manuscripts is neither dated nor localized, whereas the evidence of these VSS, coming from a particular province of the church, and being used by Fathers whose period is definitely known, enables us to judge of the type of Greek text then and there in use. In this connection, too, it is noteworthy that while the variations of which Jerome and Augustine complained were largely due to the blunders, or natural mistakes, of copyists, they did sometimes represent various readings in the Greek originals.

    LITERATURE.

    Wordsworth and White, Old Latin Biblical Texts, 4 volumes; F.C. Burkitt, “The Old Latin and the Itala,” Texts and Studies, IV; “Old Latin VSS” by H.A.A. Kennedy in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); “Bibelubersetzungen, Lateinische” by Fritzsche-Nestle in PRE3; Intros to Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener, Gregory, Nestle, and Lake. T. Nicol LATTER DAYS See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    LATTICE <lat’-is > . See HOUSE, II, 1, (9).

    LAUD <lod > : A verb meaning “to praise,” used in Romans 15:11 the King James Version, and <19B701> Psalm 117:1; 145:4. The Revised Version (British and American) either should have avoided the word altogether or else should have used it much more extensively — preferably the latter, as the word is not obsolete in liturgical English.

    LAUGHING-STOCK <laf’-ing-stok > : Something set up to be laughed at; thrice in the Revised Version (British and American) the translation of qwOjc] [sechoq], “laughter,” etc. ( Job 12:4 twice; Jeremiah 20:7; compare Jeremiah 48:26,27,39; Lamentations 3:14). See MOCK, MOCKING.

    LAUGHTER <laf’-ter > ( qj”x; [chaq], qj”c; [tsachaq], “to laugh,” qwOjc] [sechoq], “laughter”; [gela>w , gelao ], [katagela>w , katagelao ]): (1) Laughter as the expression of gladness, pleasurable surprise, is the translation of [tsachaq] ( Genesis 17:17; 18:12,13,15; 21:6), which, however, should perhaps be “laugh at me,” not “with me,” as the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) (so Delitzsch and others; see also Hastings in HDB), not in the sense of derision, but of surprise and pleasure. In the same verse for “God hath made me to laugh,” the Revised Version (British and American) gives in margin, “hath prepared laughter for me,” and this gave his name to the son, the promise of whose birth evoked the laughter ([Yitschaq], Isaac); gelao ( Luke 6:21,25) has the same meaning of gladness and rejoicing; [sechoq], “laughter,” has also this sense ( Job 8:21; <19C602> Psalm 126:2). It is, however, “laughed to scorn” in Job 12:4; the Revised Version (British and American) “laughing-stock”; so Jeremiah 20:7; compare 48:26,27,39; Lamentations 3:14, “derision.” (2) [Sachaq] is used (except Job 29:24; Ecclesiastes 3:4) in the sense of the laughter of defiance, or derision ( Job 5:22; 41:29); in Piel it is often translated “play,” “playing,” “merry” (3) [La`agh] is “to scorn” “to laugh to scorn” ( 2 Kings 19:21; Nehemiah 2:19); [sachaq] has also this sense ( 2 Chronicles 30:10); [tsechoq] ( Ezekiel 23:32); [sechoq] ( Job 12:4); katagelao ( Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:40; Luke 8:53); the simple gelao occurs only in Luke 6:21,25; see above. Katagelao is found in Judith 12:12, “laugh to scorn” (Ecclesiasticus 7:11; 20:17; 1 Macc 10:70, the Revised Version (British and American) “derision”).

    For “laugh” ( Job 9:23) the Revised Version (British and American) has “mock”; for “mocked of his neighbor” and “laughed to scorn” ( Job 12:4) “laughing-stock”; for “shall rejoice in time to come” ( Proverbs 31:25), “laugheth at the time to come”; “laughter” for “laughing” ( Job 8:21). W. L. Walker LAUNCH <lanch > , <lonch > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 1.

    LAVER <la’-ver > ( rwOYKi [kiyor]):

    1. IN THE TABERNACLE:

    Every priest in attendance on the altar of Yahweh was required to wash his hands and his feet before entering upon his official duties ( Exodus 30:19 ff). To this end a laver was ordered to be made as part of the tabernacle equipment ( Exodus 30:17-21; 38:8). Its composition was of brass (bronze), and it consisted of two parts, the bowl and its pedestal or foot ( Exodus 30:18, etc.). This first laver was a small one, and was made of the hand mirrors of the women in attendance upon the altar ( Exodus 38:8). Its place was between the altar and the tabernacle ( Exodus 40:30). See TABERNACLE.

    2. IN THE TEMPLE:

    The difficulty as to the washing of parts of the sacrificial carcasses was overcome, in the temple of Solomon, by the construction of “10 lavers” and a “molten sea” ( 1 Kings 7:23-37; 2 Chronicles 4:2-6; see TEMPLE; SEA, MOLTEN ). We learn from 2 Chronicles 4:6 that the “sea” was for the priests to wash in — therefore took the place of the laver in the tabernacle — and the lavers were used as baths for portions of the burnt offerings. The lavers themselves were artistic works of unusual merit for that age. Like that in the tabernacle, each had its own stand or base, which was cast in a separate piece from the laver. These bases rested on wheels which allowed of the laver being moved from one part of the court to another without being turned about. Five stood on the north and five on the south side of the temple. They were ornamented with “lions, oxen, and cherubim,” and on a lower level, with a series of wreaths or festoons of flowers ( 1 Kings 7:27-37). In modern speech, the lavers may be described as so many circular open tanks for the storage of water. Each laver contained 40 baths (about 320 gals.) of water. Its height was 5 cubits, the locomotive machinery being 3 cubits in height, and the depth of the bowl or tank, judging from its capacity, about 2 cubits. The last we hear of the lavers, apart from their bases, is that the idolatrous king Ahaz cut off the border of the bases, and removed the bases from them ( 2 Kings 16:17). During the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah foretold that the molten sea and the bases (there being then no lavers) should be carried to Babylon ( Jeremiah 27:19). A few years later it is recorded that the bases were broken up, and the brass of which they were made was carried away ( Jeremiah 52:17).

    3. THE LAVER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    The Greek word ([loutro>n , loutron]) occurs twice in the New Testament.

    In Ephesiansesians 5:26, Paul says that Christ gave Himself for the church “that he might sanctify it having cleansed it by the washing (Greek “laver”) of water with the word”; and in Titus 3:5 he says that we are saved “through the washing (Greek “laver”) of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” In these passages the reference is to the constant physical purity demanded of the Jewish priests when in attendance upon the temple.

    Christians are “a holy priesthood,” and are cleansed not by water only, but, in the former passage, “with the word” (compare John 15:3); in the latter, by the “renewing of the Holy Spirit” (compare Ezekiel 36:25; John 3:5). The feet-washing mentioned by Jesus is emblematic of the same thing ( John 13:10). W. Shaw Caldecott LAW, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT <lo > The Greek word for “law” is [no>mov , nomos ], derived from [ne>mw , nemo ], “to divide,” “distribute,” “apportion,” and generally meant anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law; in the New Testament a command, law.Austin’s Definition of Law:

    It may not be amiss to note the definition of law given by a celebrated authority in jurisprudence, the late Mr. John Austin: “A law, in the most general and comprehensive acceptation in which the term, in its literal meaning, is employed, may be said to be a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power over him.”

    Under this comprehensive statement, he classifies “laws set by God to His human creatures, and laws set by men to men.” After analyzing the three ideas, command as the expression of a particular desire; duty or obligation, signifying that one is bound or obliged by the command to pursue a certain course of conduct, and sanction, indicating the evil likely to be incurred by disobedience, he thus summarizes: “The ideas or notions comprehended by the term command are the following: (1) a wish or desire conceived by a rational being that another rational being shall do or forbear; (2) an evil to proceed from the former and to be incurred by the latter in case the latter comply not with the wish; (3) an expression or intimation of the wish by words or other signs.”

    This definition makes it clear that the term “laws of nature” can be used only in a metaphorical sense, the metaphorical application being suggested as Austin shows by the fact that uniformity or stability of conduct is one of the ordinary consequences of a law proper, consequently, “Wherever we observe a uniform order of events, or a uniform order of coexisting phenomena, we are prone to impute that order to a law set by its author, though the case presents us with nothing that can be likened to a sanction or a duty.” As used in the New Testament it will be found generally that the term “law” bears the sense indicated by Austin, and includes “command,” “duty” and “sanction.”

    1. LAW IN THE GOSPELS.

    Naturally we first turn to the Gospels, where the word “law” always refers to the Mosaic law, although it has different applications. That law was really threefold: the Moral Law, as summed up in the Decalogue, the Ceremonial Law, prescribing the ritual and all the typical enactments, and what might be called the Civil or Political Law, that relating to the people in their national, political life. The distinction is not closely observed, though sometimes the reference emphasizes one aspect, sometimes another, but generally the whole Law without any discrimination is contemplated. Sometimes the Law means the whole Old Testament Scriptures, as in John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25. At other times the Law means the Pentateuch, as in Luke 24:44. 1. The Law in the Teaching of Christ: The Law frequently appears in the teaching of Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount He refers most specifically and fully to it. It is frequently asserted that He there exposes the imperfection of the Law and sets His own authority against its authority. But this seems to be a superficial and an untenable view. Christ indeed affirms very definitely the authority of the Law: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets” ( Matthew 5:17). Here the term would seem to mean the whole of the Pentateuch “I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” ( Matthew 5:17,18).

    A similar utterance is recorded in Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.” (1) Authority of the Law Upheld in the Sermon on the Mount.

    The perfection and permanence of the Law as well as its authority are thus indicated, and the following verse in Matthew still further emphasizes the authority, while showing that now the Lord is speaking specifically of the moral law of the Decalogue: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19). These impressive sentences should be borne in mind in considering, the utterances that follow, in which there seems a contrast between the Law and His own teaching, and from which has been drawn the inference that He condemns and practically abrogates the Law. What Jesus really does is to bring out the fullness of meaning that is in the Law, and to show its spirituality and the wideness of its reach. He declares that the righteousness of His disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees ( Matthew 5:20). Their righteousness consisted largely in a punctilious observance of the external requirements of the Law; the disciples must yield heart obedience to the inner spirit of the Law, its external and internal requirements. (a) Christ and Tradition:

    Jesus then proceeds to point out the contrast, not so much between His own teaching and that of the Law, as between His interpretation of the Law and the interpretation of other teachers: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time” (the King James Version), “to them of old time” the Revised Version (British and American) ( Matthew 5:21). Either rendering is grammatically allowable, but in either case it is evidently not the original utterance of Moses, but the traditional interpretation, which He had in view “Ye have heard that it was said”; Christ’s usual way of quoting the Old Testament is, “It is written” or some other formula pointing to the written Word; and as He has just referred to the written Law as a whole, it would be strange if He should now use the formula “It was said” in reference to the particular precepts. Evidently He means what was said by the Jewish teachers. (b) Sin of Murder:

    This is further confirmed by the citations: “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” The second clause is not found in the Pentateuch as a distinct statement, but it is clearly the generalization of the teachers. Christ does not set Himself in opposition to Moses; rather does He enjoin obedience to the precepts of the scribes when, sitting in Moses’ seat, they truly expound the Law ( Matthew 23:1-8). But these teachers had so expounded the command as if it only referred to the act of murder; so Christ shows the full and true spiritual meaning of it: “But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” ( Matthew 5:22). See MURDER. (c) Adultery and Divorce:

    Again, “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery” ( Matthew 5:27). The traditional teaching confined this mainly to the outward act, `But I say unto you,’ says Christ, `that adultery pertains even to the lustful thought’ ( Matthew 5:28). In dealing with this matter He passes to the law of divorce which was one of the civil enactments, and did not stand on the same level with the moral precept against committing adultery, nay, the very carrying out of the civil provision might lead to a real breach of the moral precept, and in the interests of the precept itself, in the very desire to uphold the authority of the moral law, Christ pronounces against divorce on any ground, save that of fornication. Later on, as recorded in Matthew 19:3-9, He was questioned about this same law of divorce, and again He condemns the light way in which divorce was treated by the Jews, and affirms strongly the sanctity of the marriage institution, showing that it was antecedent to the Mosaic code — was from the beginning, and derived its binding force from the Divine pronouncement in Genesis 2:24, rounded upon the nature of things; while as to the Mosaic law of divorce, lie declares that it was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that no other cause than fornication was sufficient to dissolve the marriage tie. This civil enactment, justified originally on account of the inability of the people to rise to the true moral ideal of the Decalogue, Christ claims authority to transcend, but in doing so He vindicates and upholds the law which said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” See DIVORCE. (d) Oaths:

    The next precept Jesus cites is one partly civil and partly ritual, concerning the taking of oaths. The words are not found in the Pentateuch as a definite enactment; they are rather a gathering up of several utterances ( Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21), and again the form of the citation suggests that it is the rabbinical interpretation that is in question. But the kind of swearing allowed by the law was the very opposite of ordinary profane swearing. It was intended, indeed, to guard the 3rd commandment against taking the name of Yahweh in vain. Christ in condemning the flippant oaths allowed by the rabbis was really asserting the authority of that 3rd command; lie was enforcing its spirituality and claiming the reverence due to the Divine name. Into the question how far the words of Christ bear upon oath-taking in a court of law we need not enter. His own response to the adjuration of the high priest when practically put upon His oath ( Matthew 26:63,64) and other instances ( Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5; Hebrews 6:16,17; Revelation 10:5,6) would tend to show that such solemn appeals to God are not embraced in Christ’s prohibition: “Swear not at all”; but undoubtedly the ideal speech is that of the simple asseveration, the “Yes” or “No” of the man, who, conscious that he speaks in the presence of God, reckons his word inviolable, needing no strengthening epithet, though as between man and man an oath may be necessary for confirmation and an end of strife. See OATH. (e) Retaliation:

    He next touches upon the “law of retaliation”: “an eye for an eye” ( Matthew 5:38), and consistently with our understanding of the other sayings, we think that here Christ is dealing with the traditional interpretation which admitted of personal revenge, of men taking the law into their own hands and revenging themselves. Such a practice Christ utterly condemns, and inculcates instead gentleness and forbearance, the outcome of love even toward enemies. This law, indeed, finds place among the Mosaic provisions, but it appears there, not as allowing personal spite to gratify itself in its own way, but as a political enactment to be carried out by the magistrates and so to discountenance private revenge. Christ shows that the spirit of His gospel received by His people would supersede the necessity for these. requirements of the civil code; although His words are not to be interpreted quite literally, for He himself when smitten on the one cheek did not turn the other to the smiter ( John 18:22,23), and the principle of the law of retaliation still holds good in the legislative procedure of all civilized nations, and according to the New Testament teaching, will find place even in the Divine procedure in the day of judgment. See also PUNISHMENT. (f) Love to Neighbors — Love of Enemies:

    The last saying mentioned in the Sermon clearly reveals its rabbinical character: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy” ( Matthew 5:43). The first part is indeed the injunction of the Law, the second part is an unwarrantable addition to it. It is only this part that Christ virtually condemns when He says, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies” ( Matthew 5:44). That the interpretation of these teachers was unwarrantable may be seen from many passages in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Psalms, which set forth the more spiritual aspect of the Law’s requirement; and as to this particular precept, we need only refer to Proverbs 25:21,22, “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat.”

    Christ while condemning the addition unfolds the spiritual import of the command itself, for the love of neighbor rightly interpreted involves love of enemies; and so on another occasion ( Luke 10:25-37) He answers the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” by the parable of the Good Samaritan, showing that everyone in need is our neighbor. See also FORGIVENESS; WRATH.

    The last reference in the Sermon on the Mount to the Law fully bears out the idea that Christ really upheld the authority while elucidating the spirituality of the Law, for He declares that the principle embodied in the “Golden Rule” is a deduction from, is, indeed, the essence of, “the law and the prophets” ( Matthew 7:12). (2) Other References to the Law in the Teaching of Christ.

    We can only glance at the other references to the Law in the teaching of Christ. In Matthew 11:13, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John,” the Law in its teaching capacity is in view, and perhaps the whole of the Pentateuch is meant. In Matthew 12:1-8, in rebutting the charge brought against His disciples of breaking the Sabbath, He cites the case of David and his men eating the showbread, which it was not lawful for any but the priests to partake of; and of the priests doing work on the Sabbath day which in other men would be a breach of the Law; from which He deduces the conclusion that the ritual laws may be set aside under stress of necessity and for a higher good. In that same chapter (12:10-13) He indicates the lawfulness of healing — doing good — on the Sabbath day. (a) Traditions of the Elders and the 5th Commandment:

    In Matthew 15:1-6 we have the account of the Pharisees complaining that the disciples transgressed the traditions of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus retorts upon them with the question: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” citing the specific case of the 5th commandment which was evaded and virtually broken by their ingenious distinction of [qorban]. This is a very instructive incident in its bearing upon the point which we have sought to enforce — that it was the traditional interpretation and not the Law itself which Jesus condemned or corrected. (b) Christ’s Answer to the Young Ruler:

    To the young ruler ( Matthew 19:16-42) He presents the commandments as the rule of life, obedience to which is the door to eternal life, especially emphasizing the manward aspect of the Law’s claims. The young man, professing to have kept them all, shows that he has not grasped the spirituality of their requirements, and it is further to test him that Christ calls upon him to make the “great renunciation” which, after all, is not in itself an additional command so much as the unfolding of the spiritual and far-reaching character of the command, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (c) Christ’s Answer to the Lawyer:

    To the lawyer who asks Him which is the great commandment in the Law, He answers by giving him the sum of the whole moral law. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” ( Matthew 22:35-39).

    In Mark’s report ( Mark 12:31), He adds, “There is none other commandment greater than these,” and in that of Matthew He says, “On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets” ( Matthew 22:40); both utterances showing the high estimation in which He held the Law. (d) References in the Fourth Gospel:

    In His discussion with the Jews, recorded in John 7, He charges them with failure to keep the Law: “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?” (7:19). And referring to the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath day, a deed which had roused their ire, He shows how one law may conflict with another. Moses had enjoined circumcision, and sometimes the time for circumcising would fall on the Sabbath day. Yet with all their reverence for the Sabbath day, they would, in order to keep the law of circumcision, perform the rite on the Sabbath day, and so, He argues, it is unreasonable to complain of Him because on the Sabbath day He had fulfilled the higher law of doing good, healing a poor sufferer. In none of all Christ’s utterances is there any slight thrown upon the Law itself; it is always held up as the standard of right and its authority vindicated. 2. The Law in Relation to the Life of Christ: The passages we have considered show the place of the Law in the teaching of Christ, but we also find that He had to sustain a practical relation to that Law. Born under the Law, becoming part of a nation which honored and venerated the Law, every part of whose life was externally regulated by it, the life of Jesus Christ could not fail to be affected by that Law. We note its operation: (1) In His Infancy.

    On the eighth day He was circumcised ( Luke 2:21), thus being recognized as a member of the covenant nation, partaking of its privileges, assuming its responsibilities. Then, according to the ritual law of purification, He is presented in the temple to the Lord ( Luke 2:22-24), while His mother offers the sacrifice enjoined in the “law of the Lord,” the sacrifice she brings pathetically witnessing to her poverty, “a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons” being the alternative allowed to those who were not able to provide a lamb (Leviticus 12). The Divine approval is set upon this consecrating act, for it is while it is being done concerning Him after “the custom of the law” ( Leviticus 12:27), that the Spirit of God comes upon Simeon and prompts the great prophecy which links all the Messianic hopes with the Baby of Bethlehem.

    Again, according to the Law His parents go up to the Passover feast when the wondrous child has reached His 12th year, the age when a youthful Jew assumed legal responsibility, becoming “a son of the Law,” and so Jesus participates in the festal observances, and His deep interest in all that concerns the temple-worship and the teaching of the Law is shown by His absorption in the conversation of the doctors, whose questions He answers so intelligently, while questioning them in turn, and filling them with astonishment at His understanding ( Luke 2:42-47). (2) In His Ministry.

    In His ministry He ever honors the Law. He reads it in the synagogue. He heals the leper by His sovereign touch and word, but He bids him go and show himself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded ( Matthew 8:4). And again, when the lepers appeal to Him, His response which implies the healing is, “Go and show yourselves unto the priests” ( Luke 17:14). He drives out of the temple those that defile it ( Matthew 21:12,13; John 2:15-17), because of His zeal for the honor of His Father’s house, and so, while showing His authority, emphasizes the sanctity of the temple and its services. So, while claiming to be the Son in the Father’s house, and therefore above the injunctions laid upon the servants and strangers, He nevertheless pays the temple-tax exacted from every son of Israel ( Matthew 17:24-27). He attends the various feasts during His ministry, and when the shadows of death are gathering round Him, He takes special pains to observe the Passover with His disciples. Thus to the ceremonial law He renders continuous obedience, the motto of His life practically being His great utterance to the Baptist: “Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” ( Matthew 3:15). If He obeyed the ceremonial law, unquestionably He obeyed the moral law. His keenest-eyed enemies could find no fault in Him in regard to His moral conduct. His absolute sinlesshess attests the translation of the moral law into actual life. 3. The Law in Relation to the Death of Christ: We enter not upon theological question as to the relation of the death of Christ to the penal inflictions of the Law Divinely enforced on behalf of sinners — that touches the doctrine of the Atonement — we only note the fact that His death was brought about in professed accordance with the Law. The chief priests, in hatred, sent officers to take Him, but overawed by His matchless eloquence, these officers returned empty-handed. In their chagrin, the chief priests can only say that the people who follow Him now not the Law and are cursed ( John 7:49). Nicodemus, on this occasion, ventures to remonstrate: “Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself?” ( John 7:51). This sound legal principle these men are bent on disregarding; their one desire is to put an end to the life of this man, who has aroused their jealousy and hatred, and at last when they get Him into their hands, they strain the forms of the Law to accomplish their purpose. There is no real charge that can be brought against Him. They dare not bring up the plea that He broke the Sabbath, for again and again He has answered their cavils on that score. He has broken no law; all they can do is to bribe false witnesses to testify something to His discredit. The trumpery charge, founded upon a distorted reminiscence of His utterance about destroying the temple, threatens to break down. (1) Christ Charged with Blasphemy under the Jewish Law.

    Then the high priest adjures Him to say upon oath whether or not He claims to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Such a claim would assuredly, if unfounded, be blasphemy, and according to the Law, be punishable by death. On a previous occasion the Jews threatened to stone Him for this — to them — blasphemous claim. Now when Jesus calmly avows that He is the Son of God, the high priest, rending his clothes, declares that no further proof is needed. He has confessed to the blasphemy, and unanimously the council votes Him worthy of death (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22). If Jesus Christ were not what He claimed to be, then the priests were right in holding Him guilty of blasphemy; it never occurred to them to consider whether the claim after all might not be true. (2) Christ Charged with Treason under the Roman Law.

    Not only is the Jewish law invoked to accomplish His death, but also the Roman law. On one other occasion Christ had come into touch with the law of Rome, namely, when asked the ensnaring question by the Herodians as to the lawfulness of giving tribute to Caesar ( Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22). Now the Jews need the Roman governor’s authorization for the death penalty, and Jesus must be tried before him. The charge cannot now be blasphemy — the Roman law will have nothing to say to that — and so they trump up a charge of treason against Caesar.

    In preferring it, they practically renounce their Messianic hopes. The charge, however, breaks down before the Roman tribunal, and only by playing on the weakness of Pilate do they gain their end, and the Roman law decrees His death, while leaving the Jews to see to the carrying out of the sentence. In this the evangelist sees the fulfillment of Christ’s words concerning the manner of His death, for stoning would have been the Jewish form of the death penalty, not crucifixion. See JESUS CHRIST, III, E), ii, 3, 4. 4. How Christ Fulfilled the Law in All Its Parts: Looking at the whole testimony of the Gospels, we can see how it was that Christ fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled the moral law by obeying, by bringing out its fullness of meaning, by showing its intense spirituality, and He established it on a surer basis than ever as the eternal law of righteousness.

    He fulfilled the ceremonial and typical law, not only by conforming to its requirements, but by realizing its spiritual significance. He filled up the shadowy outlines of the types, and, thus fulfilled, they pass away, and it is no longer necessary for us to observe the Passover or slay the daily lamb: we have the substance in Christ. He also cleared the Law from the traditional excrescences which had gathered round it under the hands of the rabbis. He showed that the ceremonial distinction between meats clean and unclean was no longer necessary, but showed the importance of true spiritual purity ( Matthew 15:11; Mark 7:18-23). He taught His disciples those great principles when, after His resurrection, “beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” ( Luke 24:27). And as He opened their mind that they might understand the Scriptures, He declared, “These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me” ( Luke 24:44). John sums this up in his pregnant phrase, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” ( John 1:17). The grace was in contrast to the condemnation of the moral law, the truth was the antithesis to the shadowy outline of the types and ceremonies.

    2. LAW IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

    Without considering questions of authenticity and historicity in relation to this book which professes to be the earliest church history, we briefly note the place of the Law therein indicated. In the book we have an account of the transition from Judaism to fully developed Christianity, and the Law comes into view in various ways. The disciples, like other Jews, observe the feast of Pentecost, and even after the descent of the Spirit, they frequent the temple and observe the hours of prayer. 1. Stephen’s Witness: The full-orbed gospel proclaimed by Stephen arouses the suspicion and enmity of the stricter sects of the Jews, who accuse him before the council of speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the Law. But this was the testimony of suborned witnesses, having doubtless its foundation in the fact that Stephen’s teaching emphasized the grace of the gospel. Stephen’s own defense honors the Law as given by Moses, “who received living oracles” ( Acts 7:38), shows how disloyal the people had been, and closes by charging them not only with rejecting and slaying the Righteous One, but of failing to keep the Law “as it was ordained by angels” ( Acts 7:53). 2. Practice of Peter and Paul: Peter’s strict observance of the ceremonial law is shown in connection with his vision which teaches him that the grace of God may pass beyond the Jewish pale (Acts 10). Paul’s preaching emphasizes the fulfilling the Scriptures, Law and Prophecy, by Jesus Christ. The gist of his message, as given in his first reported sermon, is, “By him everyone that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” ( Acts 13:38 f). The conversion of the Gentiles brings up the question of their relation to the ceremonial law, specifically to circumcision. The decision of the council at Jerusalem treats circumcision as unnecessary for the Gentiles, and only enjoins, in relation to the Mosaic ritual, abstinence from things strangled and from blood (Acts 15). The after-course of events would show that this provision was for the time of transition. Paul, though strongly opposed to the idea of imposing circumcision on the Gentiles, nevertheless without inconsistency and as a concession to Jewish feeling, circumcises Timothy ( Acts 16:3), and himself fulfills the ceremonial enactments in connection with the taking of a vow ( Acts 18:18). He also, following the advice of James, who wished him to conciliate the myriads of believing Jews who were zealous for the Law, and to show them the falseness of the charge that he taught the Jews among the Gentiles “to forsake Moses” (apostasy from Moses), took upon him the ceremonial duty of purifying the “four men that have a vow on them” ( Acts 21:20-26). This involved the offering of sacrifices, and the fact that Paul could do so shows that for the Jews the sacrificial system still remained in force. The sequel to the transaction might raise the question whether, after all, the procedure was a wise one; it certainly did not fulfill the expectations of James. Later on, in his defense before Felix, Paul claims to be loyal to the Jewish faith, worshipping in the temple, and “believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets” ( Acts 24:11-14); and in his address to the Jewish leaders in Rome, he declares that he has “done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers” ( Acts 28:17), and he seeks to persuade them concerning Jesus, “both from the law of Moses and from the prophets” ( Acts 28:23). 3. Allusions to the Roman Law: In the Acts we find several allusions to law other than Jewish. In Acts Paul comes into collision with the Roman law. Beaten and imprisoned by the magistrates of Philippi, he is afterward offered the opportunity of quietly slipping away, but standing on his dignity as a Roman citizen, he demands that the magistrates themselves, who had violated the law by publicly beating uncondemned Romans, should come and set them free.

    This same right as a Roman citizen Paul again asserts when about to be scourged by the command of the centurion ( Acts 22:25), and his protest is successful in averting the indignity. His trial before Felix and Festus well illustrates the procedure under the Roman law, and his appeal, as a Roman citizen, to Caesar had important results in his life.

    3. LAW IN THE EPISTLES.

    The word is used both with and without the article, but though in some cases the substantive without the article refers to law in general, yet in many other places it undoubtedly refers to the Law of Moses. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it is that, where it does refer to the Mosaic Law, the word without the article points to that law, not so much as Mosaic, but in its quality as law. But speaking generally, the word with and without the article is used in reference to the Law of Moses. 1. In Romans: (1) Law as a Standard.

    In Romans Paul has much to say about law, and in the main it is the moral law that he has in view. In this great epistle, written to people at the center of the famous legal system of Rome, many of them Jews versed in the law of Moses and others Gentiles familiar with the idea of law, its nature, its scope and its sway, he first speaks of the Law as a standard, want of conformity to which brings condemnation. He shows that the Gentiles who had not the standard of the revealed Law nevertheless had a law, the law of Nature, a law written upon their heart and conscience. Roman jurisprudence was familiar with the conception of a law of Nature, which became a law of nations (jus gentium), so that certain principles could be assumed as obtaining among those who had not the knowledge of the Roman code; and in accordance with these principles, the dealings between Romans and barbarians could be regulated. Paul’s conception is somewhat similar, but is applied to the spiritual relations of man and God. (2) Gentiles Condemned by the Law of Nature.

    But the Gentiles, not having lived up to the light of that law, are condemned. They have violated the dictates of their own conscience. And the Jews, with the fuller light of their revealed law, have equally failed. In this connection Paul incidentally lays down the great principle that “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” ( Romans 2:13). His great aim, in the epistle, is to show that justification is by faith, but he here asserts that if anyone would have justification through law, then he must keep that law in all its details. The Law will pronounce the doer of it justified, but the mere hearing of the Law without doing it will only increase the condemnation. “As many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law” ( Romans 2:12). Paul does not pronounce upon the question whether a Gentile may be saved by following the light of Nature; he rather emphasizes the negative side that those who have failed shall perish; they have light enough to condemn, is his point. (3) All Men under Condemnation.

    Having proved that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, he closes his great indictment with the statement: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God” ( Romans 3:19). Thus the Law shuts up into condemnation. It is impossible for any sinner to be justified “by the works of the law”; the Law not only condemns but “through the law cometh the knowledge of sin” ( Romans 3:20). It shows how far short men have come of God’s requirements. It is a mirror in which the sinner sees his defilement, but the mirror cannot cleanse, though it shows the need of cleansing. (4) The Redeeming Work of Christ Providing Righteousness Apart from the Law.

    Then setting forth the great redemption of Jesus Christ, the apostle shows that it provides what the Law had failed to provide, a righteousness which can satisfy the requirements of the Law; a righteousness that is indeed “apart from the law,” apart from all men’s attempts to keep the Law, but is nevertheless in deepest harmony with the principles of the Law, and has been witnessed “by the law and the prophets” ( Romans 3:21). (In this passage the “law” seems to mean the Pentateuch, and in Romans 3:19, in view of the preceding citations from the Psalms, it appears to mean the whole Old Testament Scriptures.) Since the righteousness secured by Christ comes upon the sinner through faith, manifestly the works of the Law can have nothing to do with our obtaining of it. But so far is faithrighteousness from undermining the Law, that Paul claims that through faith the Law is established ( Romans 3:31). (5) Abraham’s Blessings Came Not through the Law.

    Proceeding to show that his idea of justification by faith was no new thing, that the Old Testament saint had enjoyed it, he particularly shows that Abraham, even in his uncircumcised state, received the blessing through faith; and the great promise to him and his seed did not come through the Law, but on the principle of faith. (6) Law Worketh Wrath and Intensifieth the Evil of Sin.

    Indeed, so far from blessing coming to sinners by way of the Law, the “law worketh wrath” ( Romans 4:15); not wrath in men against the Law’s restrictions as some have argued, but the holy wrath of God so frequently mentioned by the apostle in this epistle. The Law worketh wrath, inasmuch as when disobeyed it brings on the sinner the Divine disapproval, condemnation; it enhances the guilt of sin, and so intensifies the Divine wrath against it; and it, in a sense, provokes to sin: the sinful nature rebels against the restrictions imposed by the Law, and the very fact of a thing being forbidden arouses the desire for it. This seems what he means in a subsequent passage ( Romans 5:20), “And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound”; as if the very multiplying of restrictions intensified the tendency to sin, brought out the evil in human nature, showed the utter vileness of the sinful heart and the terrible nature of sin, and thus made the need for salvation appear the greater, the very desperateness of the disease showing the need for the remedy and creating the desire for it; the abounding of sin preparing the way for the superabounding of grace. That the presence of Law enhances the evil of sin is further shown by the statement, “But where there is no law, neither is there transgression” ( Romans 4:15); transgression — parabasis — the crossing of the boundary, is, in the strict sense, only possible under law.

    But there may be sin apart from a revealed law, as he has already proved in the 2nd chapter. (7) Law in the Light of the Parallel between Adam and Christ.

    In Romans 5, dealing with the parallel between Adam and Christ he says: “For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (5:13). He cannot mean that men were not held responsible for their sin, or that sin was not in any sense reckoned to their account, for he has in that 2nd chapter proved the opposite; but sin was not so imputed to them as to bring upon them the punishment of death, which they nevertheless did suffer, and that is traced by him to the sin of Adam. These, he says, had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression (5:14); they had not transgressed a positive command as he did, although they had undoubtedly violated the law of conscience, and knew that they were sinners. In drawing out the parallel between Adam and Christ, he plainly indicates that as Adam’s transgression of law brought condemnation on the race, so Christ’s obedience to the Law brings justification. (8) Law and Righteousness.

    So far he may be said to have spoken of the Law in regard to the sinner; and it is mainly the Law in its judicial aspect, the Law in relation to righteousness. The Law reveals righteousness, the Law demands righteousness, the Law condemns for unrighteousness. Redemption is a working out of righteousness. The Law witnesses to the perfect righteousness of Christ. The righteousness secured by Christ meets all the requirements of the Law, while gloriously transcending it. The righteous penalty of the Law has been borne by Christ; the righteous requirements of the Law have been fulfilled by Christ. That perfect righteousness secured apart from the Law, but satisfying to the Law, comes to men not through their relation to the Law, but through faith. Now he proceeds to consider the Law in relation to the saint. (9) The Saint and the Law.

    The believer justified through Christ has died with Christ. The “old man” — the sinful nature — has been crucified with Christ; the condemning power of the Law has terminated in the death of Christ, and through the death of the believer with Christ he has freedom from the condemnation of the Law. “He that hath died is justified from sin” ( Romans 6:7). But though in one aspect the believer is dead, in another he is alive. He dies with Christ, but he rises spiritually with Him, and thus spiritually alive he is “to yield,” “to present” his “members as instruments of righteousness unto God” ( Romans 6:13), and for his comfort he is assured that in this new sphere of life sin shall not have power to bring him under the condemnation of the Law — “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace” ( Romans 6:14). His relationship to the Law has been altered through his union with Christ, and this fact the apostle proceeds to illustrate. He enounces the principle that “the law hath dominion over a man for so long a time as he liveth” ( Romans 7:1).

    Death dissolves all legal objections. The believer, spiritually dead, is not under the dominion of the Law. (10) Illustrated by the Law of the Husband.

    The specific case is then given of a married woman bound by law to her husband, but freed from that law through his death, and in the application, he says, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ” ( Romans 7:4). If the Law in this metaphorical description is the husband while the soul is the wife, as has been most generally understood by commentators, then the application is based on the general thought of death dissolving the legal obligation, the death of the husband involves the death of the woman as a wife, and so he can speak of the death of the believer rather than of the death of the Law.

    Another explanation of the metaphor is that the old sinful state is the husband to which the ego, the personality, was bound by the Law, but that the sinful state being brought to death through Christ, the personality is free to enter into union with Christ. Whatever view is adopted, the leading thought of the apostle is clear, that through the death of Christ the believer is free from the Law: “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held” ( Romans 7:6). (11) The Purity and Perfection of the Law in Its Own Sphere.

    The question is then raised, “Is the law sin?” ( Romans 7:7). The thought is repudiated as unthinkable, but he goes on to show how the law was related to sin, giving from his own experience the exemplification of what he had stated in the 3rd chapter, that by the Law is the knowledge of sin. The Law revealed his sin; the Law aroused the opposition of his nature, and through the working of sin under the prohibition of the Law, he found the tendency to be death. Nevertheless, there is no doubt in his mind that the Law is not responsible for the sin, the Law is not in any manner to be blamed, “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good” ( Romans 7:12). Sin in the light of the holy Law is shown to be exceeding sinful, and the Law itself is known to be spiritual.

    We need not deal with the difficult passage that follows concerning the inner conflict. There has always been much discussion as to whether this is a conflict in the soul of the unregenerate man or of the regenerate — we believe it is in the regenerate, setting forth the experience of the believer — but whatever view is taken, it is clear that the law cannot bring deliverance; the higher part of man’s nature, or the regenerate nature according to the interpretation one adopts, may “consent unto the law that it is good” ( Romans 7:16), may even “delight in the law of God” ( Romans 7:22); but there is another law at work, the law of sin in the members, and the working of this law means captivity and wretchedness from which deliverance can only come through Jesus Christ ( Romans 7:23-25). The word “law” in these verses is used in the sense of principle, “the law of my mind,” “the law of sin,” “the law in my members”; but over against all is the law of God. (12) Freedom from the Penal Claims of the Law.

    The description of the Law as holy, righteous and good, as spiritual, as the object of delight to a true heart, is enough to show that the deliverance which the Christian enjoys is freedom from the penal claims and condemning power of the Law. This is borne out by the exulting conclusion: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” ( Romans 8:1). The Law’s claims, satisfied by Christ, no longer press upon those who are in Him. When the apostle adds, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death” ( Romans 8:2), he is using “law” in the general sense as a principle or power of producing ordered action, and “the law of the Spirit of life” may be taken to mean the method of the Spirit’s working, and indeed may well be a way of describing the gospel itself — the new law, through which the Spirit operates. The other phrase, “law of sin and death,” is not to be taken as meaning the Law of Moses, but the law, the principle of sin producing death mentioned in the previous chapter, unless we think of it as the holy Law which gives the knowledge of sin and brings the condemnation of death. The failure of the Law to produce a satisfactory result is definitely attributed to the weakness of the flesh, which is in effect reflecting the statement of the previous chapter, but all that the Law could not accomplish is accomplished through the work of Christ. In Christ sin is condemned, and in those who are brought into union with Him the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled. (13) The Law Remains as a Rule of Life for the Believer.

    Thus, the Law is not abrogated. It remains as the standard of righteousness, the “rule of life” for believers. The utmost holiness to which they can attain under the influence of the Holy Spirit, is still the “righteousness” which the Law requires. That the apostle’s teaching is far removed from Antinomianism is shown, not only by all that he says in these chapters about the believer’s new life of absolute spiritual service, but by the specific statement in Romans 13:8-10, which at once prescribes the commandments as rules of life (in Ephesiansesians 6:2 he cites and enforces the 5th commandment) and shows how true obedience is possible. “Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.” Then, after specifying several of the commands, he declares that these and all other commands are “summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The man in Christ has found the true principle of obedience. He has entered into the true spirit of the holy law. That is all summed up in love, and he having received the love of Christ, living in His love, sees the Law not as a stern taskmaster condemning, but as a bright vision alluring. He indeed sees the Law embodied in Christ, and the imitation of Christ involves obedience to the Law, but he fulfills the Law not simply as a standard outside, but as a living principle within. Acting according to the dictates of the love begotten at the cross, his life is conformed to the image of Christ, and in so far is conformed to the Law — “Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” In Romans 13:1-7, though the word “law” does not occur, Paul indicates the relation of the Christian to the Roman law, to the sovereignty of Rome in general, showing that “the powers that be are ordained of God” and that in the ideal they are reflections of Divine authority, and as such are to be obeyed. 2. In Galatians: In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul has also a great deal to say about the Law, but as we have dealt so fully with the conception given in Romans, we can only briefly note the teaching of the Galatian Epistle. (1) Law in Relation to Grace and Spiritual Liberty.

    In general, we may say that as the Law in relation to righteousness was the prominent feature in Romans, in Galatians it is the Law in relation to grace and spiritual liberty, and while it was almost exclusively the moral law that Paul had in view in Romans, in Galatians it is rather the Law of Moses in its entirety, with special emphasis upon the ceremonial. He introduces the subject by referring to the episode at Antioch, when he had to rebuke Peter for his “dissimulation” (2:13). He shows the inconsistency of those who knew that they had been “justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law” (2:16), compelling the GentileChristians to live according to the Law, and sums up with the striking statement, “For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God” (2:19). The Law in revealing his sin and pronouncing condemnation, drove him to Christ for justification. Crucified with Christ he has entered into such vital union with Christ that his whole self-life is dominated by the Christ-life: “It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me” (2:20). Here we have the same line of thought as in Romans; then Paul goes on to show that all the blessings of grace which these Christians enjoy have come to them not by way of the Law, but “by the hearing of faith” (3:2-5). Again, citing the case of Abraham as an instance of justification by faith, he shows how utterly opposed the Law is to the grace that brings salvation, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse” (3:10), but in gracious contrast, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (3:13), having Himself borne the curse, and so the blessing of Abraham can come upon the Gentiles through faith (3:18). (2) The Function of the Law Not to Give Life, but to Guide Life As in Romans, he shows that the promise of the inheritance was apart from the Law, was given 430 years before the Law was promulgated, and answers the question as to the purpose of the Law, by saying, “It was added because of transgressions” ( Galatians 3:19), the thought already noted in Romans. Yet the Law was not in its nature opposed to the promise. If any law could have given life, “could make alive,” then so perfect was the Law of Moses that it would have served the purpose; “Verily, righteousness would have been of the law” ( Galatians 3:21).

    The Law was never meant to give life to those who had it not. “He that doeth them shall live in them” ( Galatians 3:12), but the doing implies the possession of life, and the Law only guarantees the continuance of life while it is perfectly obeyed. Law controls life, but cannot confer life. It regulates life, but cannot restore life. It may impel to righteousness, but it cannot impart righteousness. (3) The Law Our Schoolmaster.

    The Law, he shows, was our schoolmaster, our pedagogue, “to bring us unto Christ” ( Galatians 3:24). The Grecian youth was under the charge of a pedagogue during his minority, one part of the pedagogue’s duty being to take the boy, unwilling enough sometimes, to school. In the sense already shown in Romanans, the moral law by showing us our sinfulness leads us to Christ; but here we may take the Law as a whole, including all the ceremonial and typical observances which were designed to lead the people to Christ. (4) The Bondage of the Law.

    But while there was undoubtedly much of privilege for the people under the Mosaic dispensation, there was also something of bondage. And so Paul says, “We were kept in ward under the law” ( Galatians 3:23), and in the next chapter, he speaks of the child, though heir to a great estate, being “under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father” ( Galatians 4:2), which seems to be the same thought as under the pedagogue, and this he calls a state of “bondage” ( Galatians 4:3). The Law guarded and tutored and restrained; the great typical observances, though foreshadowing the grace of the gospel, were yet, in their details, irksome and burdensome, and the mass of rules as to every part of the Jew’s conduct proved to be, speaking after the present-day manner, a system of red tape. Little was left to the free, spontaneous action of the spirit; the whole course of the Jew from the cradle to the grave was carefully marked out. (5) Sonship and Its Freedom from the Law’s Restrictions.

    But in the fullness of time “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” ( Galatians 4:4 f). The gospel of the grace of God embodied in Christ shows its gracious character in that it not only answers the requirements of the moral law and removes its condemnation; fulfills, and by fulfilling abrogates the typical observer of the ceremonial law, but also abolishes all the directions and restrictions given to the Jews as a separate people, and brings its subjects into a condition of liberty where the renewed spirit under the mighty love of Christ can act spontaneously, the great principles of the moral law remaining as its guide, while the minute rules needed for the infancy of the race are no longer appropriate for the “sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:26). And so Paul warns these Christians against turning back to the “weak and beggarly rudiments” and observing “months, and seasons, and years” ( Galatians 4:9,10). 3. In the Other Pauline Epistles: In the remaining Epistles of Paul, little is said of the Law, and we need only indicate the connections in which the word occurs. In 1 Corinthians 7:39 there is a reference to the wife being “bound by the law as long as her husband liveth” (the King James Version). The word “law,” however, is omitted from the critical texts and from the Revised Version (British and American). In the same epistle ( 1 Corinthians 9:8,9; 14:21,34) the word is used of the Pentateuch or the Scriptures as a whole. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul refers to his practice of seeking to win men to Christ by accommodating himself to their standpoint, “to them that are under the law, as under the law”; and in 15:56 occurs the pregnant statement, an echo of Romans, “The power of sin is the law.” In 2 Corinthians the word does not occur, though the legal system is referred to as the ministration of death, in contrast to the gospel ministration of the Spirit (2 Corintians 3).

    The word “law” is once used in Ephesiansesians 2:15, in reference to the work of Christ not only producing harmony between God and man, but between Jew and Gentile: “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” also spoken of as “the middle wall of partition,” and referring especially to the ceremonial enactments.

    In Philippians 3:5,6,9 we have the fine autobiographical passage wherein we see the self-righteous Pharisee reckoning himself “blameless” in the eye of the Law, until convinced of his sin, and led to find in Christ the righteousness “which is through faith,” instead of his own righteousness “which is of the law” (3:9). The word does not occur in Col, but the thought is found of the spiritual circumcision in contrast to the physical, the blotting out through the work of the cross, of the bond written in ordinances and the consequent deliverance of the believer from the bondage of ceremonial observances (2:11-17), those being affirmed to be “a shadow of the things to come,” Christ being the glorious substance.

    In 1 Timothy 1:8,9, we have the two pregnant statements that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully,” and that “law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless.” 4. In the Epistle to the Hebrews: The word “law” occurs 14 times in this epistle, and a great deal of attention is given to the subject, but it is generally the law in its ceremonial and typical aspect that is in question. It is not necessary to look at the matter in detail, but simply to indicate the line of teaching. (1) Harmony with the Pauline Teaching.

    The ancient doubt as to the authorship of the epistle seems today to have crystallized into certainty, albeit the grounds for a conclusion are no stronger than formerly, but in the desire to prove the non-Pauline authorship, too much emphasis is perhaps laid upon the supposed un- Pauline character of the teaching. There is, after all, profound harmony between the teaching of the Pauline Epistles and the teaching of He, and the harmony applies to this matter of the Law. While Paul, as we have seen, gives prominence in Romans to the moral law, in Galatians and elsewhere he deals with the ceremonial law, in much the same way, though not so fully, as the writer to the Hebrews. Such utterances as, “Our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ” ( 1 Corinthians 5:7); “The rock was Christ”; “Now these things were our examples” (types of us) ( 1 Corinthians 10:4-6); “Which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s” ( Colossians 2:17) are exactly in line with the teaching of Hebrews. (2) The Law Transcended by the Gospel.

    The author shows how the Law, which was a word spoken through angels, is transcended by the gospel, which has been spoken by the Lord of the angels, and so demands greater reverence ( Hebrews 2:2-4), and all through the epistle it is the transcendent glory of the gospel dispensation introduced by Christ and ascribed to Him, which is made to shine before us. (3) Law of Priesthood.

    The author deals specifically in Hebrews 7 and 8 with the law of priesthood, showing that Christ’s Priesthood, “after the order of Melchisedek,” surpasses in glory that of the Aaronic priesthood under the law; not only surpasses but supersedes it; the imperfect gives place to the perfect; the shadowy to the real; the earthly to the heavenly; the temporal to the eternal. And as Paul justifies his doctrine of justification apart from the deeds of the Law by reference to the Old Testament teaching, so here the writer finds in the Old Testament prediction of the New Covenant, the basis for all his reasoning, and in his reference to the description of the New Covenant, he is at one with Paul in regard to the moral law, seeing it as now written on the heart, and becoming an internal power, rather than an external precept. See NEW COVENANT. (4) The Law of the Sanctuary and the Sacrifices.

    He next deals with the law of the sanctuary, and in connection therewith considers the law of the sacrifices (Hebrews 9 through 10), and in the same way shows that Christ makes good all that the tabernacle and its services typified, that His one, all-perfect eternal sacrifice takes the place of the many imperfect temporary sacrifices offered under the Law. At the best the Law had “a shadow of the good things to come” ( Hebrews 10:1). The shadow was useful for the time being, the people were greatly privileged in having it, it directed them to the great Figure who cast the shadow. The whole ceremonial system was really a system of grace at the heart of it; in spite of its external rubrics which might well be abused, it made provision for satisfying for the time the breaches of the law; the sacrifices themselves could not take away sin, but periodical forgiveness was conveyed through them, by virtue of their relation to the Coming One. Now the great sacrifice having been offered, eternal redemption is secured, perfect forgiveness obtained, free access into the heavenly Holy Place assured, and the eternal inheritance provided. The Substance of all the shadows has appeared, the shadows pass away, and the great truth indicated by Christ Himself is now fully made known through His Spirit-taught servants.

    Christ, who “is the end of the law (the moral law) unto righteousness to every one that believeth” ( Romans 10:4), is also the end of the ceremonial law, the full realization of all its types and shadows. 5. In the Epistle of James: James mentions the “law” 10 times in his epistle, and in each case it is the moral law. The influence of the Sermon on the Mount is seen throughout the epistle, and some distinct echoes of it are heard, as e.g. the injunction, “Swear not (at all)” (5:12). James has nothing but good to say of the Law, and that fact in the light of the influence of the Sermon on the Mount is enough to show that Christ, in that wonderful discourse, did not disparage the Law, far less abrogate it, but rather exalted and reinforced it. James taught by Christ exalts the Law, glorifies it, in fact seems almost to identify it with the gospel, for in James 1, when speaking of the Word and the importance of hearing and doing it, he in the same breath speaks of looking into “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (1:25). And indeed, it is just possible, as some think, that he means the gospel by the epithet, although it seems better to take it as the Law translated in the gospel, the Law looked at in its spirituality, as the guide of the Christian man who has entered into the spirit of it.

    Even in the Old Testament, as Psalms 19 and 119 specifically show, it was possible for spiritually-minded men to see the beauty of the Law and find delight in its precepts. In James 2:8 he speaks of the “royal law,” and that here he does mean the Mosaic Law is beyond doubt, since he cites the particular requirement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” in this agreeing with his Master and with Paul, finding in love of neighbor the sum of the Law and its true fulfillment. Respect of persons, he affirms, is a breach of this “royal law,” and leads to those indulging in it being “convicted” by the law of transgression (2:9). He then affirms the solidarity of the Law, so that a breach of it in one particular is a breach of the whole, and makes a man “guilty of all” (2:10), a far-reaching principle which Paul had also indicated when quoting in Galatians the words, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” ( Galatians 3:10), and when in Romans 7 he showed that the conviction that he had broken the 10th commandment made him realize that he had broken the whole Law. James then exhorts his readers to speak and act as those who are to be judged by “a law of liberty” (2:12), so that he sets no limit to the range of that law. Finally, in 4:11, he warns them by implication against speaking against the Law or judging the Law, that is, to assume the place of judge instead of “doer of the law.” James could not have used such language unless he had a profound conviction of the perfection of the Law. And it is the perfection of the Law as a rule of life for spiritual men redeemed from its condemnation that James considers it, and so we can call it the perfect law, the law of liberty, the Royal Law. 6. In the Epistles of Peter and John: In the Epistles of Peter and John, the word “law” does not occur, but Peter shows that the holiness of God remains as in the Pentateuch the standard of life, and the example of Christ shows the way ( 1 Peter 2:21), while in the church is found the spiritual realization of the sanctuary, priesthood and sacrifices of the old economy ( 1 Peter 2:5-9). Peter has one reference to the Roman law, enjoining upon his readers obedience to it in the political sphere. John enjoins the keeping of the commandments, these being apparently the commandments of Christ ( 1 John 2:3,4; 5:2), and the test of keeping the commandments is love of the brethren, while hatred of a brother is, as in the Sermon on the Mount, murder. All sin is “lawlessness” ( 1 John 3:4), and the sum of all law-keeping is love of God and love of the brethren, and so the summary of the old Law is echoed and endorsed.

    LITERATURE.

    Chiefly the works on New Testament theology (Weiss, Beyschlag, Schmid, etc.), and on Christian ethics (Martensen, Dorner, Harless, etc.), with commentaries on Pauline Epistles (Romans, etc.); Ritschl, Entstehung der altk. Kirche (2nd edition); Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre und der Erfahrung des Apostels Paulus; J. Denney, in HDB. Archibald M’Caig LAW IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Law, at least as custom, certainly existed among the Hebrews in the times before Moses, as appears from numerous allusions to it, both in matters civil and ceremonial, in the earlier Scriptures. But we have no distinct account of such law, either as to its full contents or its enactment. Law in the Old Testament practically means the Law promulgated by Moses (having its roots no doubt in this earlier law or custom), with sundry later modifications or additions, rules as to which have been inserted in the record of the Mosaic law.

    The following are matters of pre-Mosaic law or custom to which allusion is made in Genesis and Exodus: the offering of sacrifice and the use of altars (Genesis, passim); the religious use of pillars ( Genesis 28:18); purification for sacrifice ( Genesis 35:2); tithes ( Genesis 14:20; 28:22); circumcision ( Genesis 17:10; Exodus 4:25 f); inquiry at a sanctuary ( Genesis 25:22); sacred feasts ( Exodus 5:1, etc.); priests ( Exodus 19:22); sacred oaths ( Genesis 14:22); marriage customs (Genesis 16; 24; 25:6; 29:16-30); birthright ( Genesis 25:31-34); elders ( Genesis 24:2; 50:7; Exodus 3:16); homicide ( Genesis 9:6), etc.

    We proceed at once to the Law of Moses.

    1. TERMS USED.

    The Hebrew word rendered “law” in our Bibles is [torah]. Other synonymous words either denote (as indeed does [torah] itself) aspects under which the Law may be regarded, or different classes of law. 1. Torah (“Law”): [Torah] is from [horah], the Hiphil of [yarah]. The root meaning is “to throw”; hence, in Hiphil the word means “to point out” (as by throwing out the hand), and so “to direct”; and [torah] is “direction.” [Torah] may be simply “human direction,” as the “law of thy mother” in Proverbs 1:8; but most often in the Old Testament it is the Divine law. In the singular it often means a law, the plural being used in the same sense; but more frequently [torah] in the singular is the general body of Divinely given law.

    The word tells nothing as to the way in which the Law, or any part of it, was first given; it simply points out the general purpose of the Law, namely, that it was for the guidance of God’s people in the various matters to which it relates. This shows that the end of the Law lay beyond the mere obedience to such and such rules, that end being instruction in the knowledge of God and of men’s relation to Him, and guidance in living as the children of such a God as He revealed Himself to be. This is dwelt upon in the later Scriptures, notably in Psalm 19 and Psalm 119.

    In the completed Canon of the Old Testament, [torah] technically denotes the Pentateuch ( Luke 24:44) as being that division of the Old Testament Scriptures which contains the text of the Law, and its history down to the death of Moses, the great lawgiver. 2. Synonyms of Torah: (1) Mitswah (“Command”) [Mitswah], “command” (or, in the plural, “commands”), is a term applied to the Law as indicating that it is a charge laid upon men as the expression of God’s will, and therefore that it must be obeyed. (2) `Edhah (“Witness,” “Testimony”) [`Edhah], “witness” or “testimony” (in plural “testimonies”), is a designation of God’s law as testifying the principles of His dealings with His people. So the ark of the covenant is called the “ark of the testimony” ( Exodus 25:22), as containing “the testimony” ( Exodus 25:16), i.e. the tables of the Law upon which the covenant was based. The above terms are general, applying to the [torah] at large; the two next following are of more restricted application. (3) MishpaTim (“Judgments”) [MishpaTim], “judgments”: [MishpaT] in the singular sometimes means judgment in an abstract sense, as in Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 32:4; sometimes the act of judging, as in Deuteronomy 16:18,19; 17:9; 24:17. But “judgments” (in the plural) is a term constantly used in connection with, and distinction from, statutes, to indicate laws of a particular kind, namely, laws which, though forming part of the [torah] by virtue of Divine sanction, originated in decisions of judges upon cases brought before them for judgment. See further below. (4) Chuqqim (“Statutes”) [Chuqqim], “statutes” (literally, “laws engraven”), are laws immediately enacted by a lawgiver. “Judgments and statutes” together comprise the whole law ( Leviticus 18:4; Deuteronomy 4:1,8 the King James Version). So also we now distinguish between consuetudinary and statute law. (5) Piqqudhim (“Precepts”) [Piqqudhim], “precepts”: This term is found only in the Psalms. It seems to mean rules or counsels provided to suit the various circumstances in which men may be placed. The term may perhaps be meant to apply both to the rules of the actual [torah], and to others found, e.g. in the writings of prophets and “wise men.”

    2. THE WRITTEN RECORD OF THE LAW.

    The enactment of the Law and its committal to writing must be distinguished. With regard to the former, it is distinctly stated ( John 1:17) that “the law was given through Moses”; and though this does not necessarily imply that every regulation found in the Pentateuch is his, a large number of the laws are expressly ascribed to him. As regards the latter, we are distinctly told that Moses wrote certain laws or collections of laws ( Exodus 17:14; 24:4,7; Deuteronomy 31:9). These, however, form only a portion of the whole legislation; and therefore, whether the remaining portions were written by Moses, or — if not by him — when and by whom, is a legitimate matter of inquiry.

    It is not necessary here to discuss the large question of the literary history of the Pentateuch, but it must briefly be touched upon. The Pentateuch certainly appears to have reached its present form by the gradual piecing together of diverse materials. Deuteronomy (D) being a separate composition, a distinction would seem to have been clearly established by critical examination between a number of paragraphs in the remaining books which apparently must once have formed a narrative by themselves, and other paragraphs, partly narrative but chiefly legislative and statistical, which appear to have been subsequently added. Without endorsing any of the critical theories as to the relation of these, one to the other, or as to the dates of their composition, we may, in a general way, accept the analysis, and adopt the well-known symbol JE (Jahwist-Elohim) to distinguish the former, and P (Priestly Code) the latter. Confining ourselves to their legislative contents, we find in JE a short but very important body of law, the Law of the Covenant, stated in full in Exodus 20 through 23, and repeated as to a portion of it in Exodus 34:10-28. All the rest of the legislation is contained in P and Deuteronomy. 1. The Critical Dating of the Laws: We are distinctly told in Exodus that the law contained in Exodus through 23 was given through Moses. Rejecting this statement, critics of the school of Wellhausen affirm that its true date must be placed considerably later than the time of Joshua. They maintain that previous to their conquest of Canaan the Israelites were mere nomads, ignorant of agriculture, the practice of which, as well as their culture in general, they first learned from the conquered Canaanites. Therefore (so they argue), as the law of Exodus 20 through 23 presupposes the practice of agriculture, it cannot have been promulgated until some time in the period of the Judges at the earliest; they place it indeed in the early period of the monarchy. All this, however, is mere assumption, support for which is claimed in some passages in which a shepherd life is spoken of, but with utter disregard of others which show that both in the patriarchal period and in Egypt the Israelites also cultivated land. See B.D. Eerdmans, “Have the Hebrews Been Nomads?” The Expositor, August and October, 1908. It can indeed be shown that this law was throughout in harmony with what must have been the customs and conceptions of the Israelites at the age of the exodus (Rule, Old Testament Institutions). Professor Eerdmans in his Alttestamentliche Studien, Part III (1910), vigorously defends the Mosaic origin of the Book of the Covenant.

    The same critics bring down the date of the legislation of Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah, or at most a few years earlier. They affirm (wrongly) that the chief object of Josiah’s reformation narrated in 2 Kings 23 was the centralization of worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They rightly attribute the zeal which carried the reform through to the discovery of the “Book of the Law” (22:8). Then arguing that the frequent previous practice of worship at high places implied the non-existence of any law to the contrary, they conclude that the rule of Deuteronomy 12 was a rule recently laid down by the temple priesthood, and written in a book in Moses’ name, this new book being what was “found in the house of Yahweh.” But this argument is altogether unsound: its grave difficulties are well set out in Moller’s Are the Critics Right? And here again careful study vindicates the Mosaic character of the law of Deuteronomy as a whole and of Deuteronomy 12 in particular. M. Edouard Naville in Lamentations decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias propounds a theory which he supports by a most interesting argument: that the book found was a foundation deposit, which must therefore have been built over by masonry at the erection of the temple by Solomon.

    Equally unsound, however plausible, are the arguments which would make the framing of the Levitical ritual the work of the age of Ezra. The difficulties created by this theory are far greater than those which it is intended to remove. On this also see Moller, Are the Critics Right?

    Rejecting these theories, it will be assumed in the present article that the various laws are of the dates ascribed to them in the Pentateuch; that whatever may be said as to the date of some “of the laws,” all which are therein ascribed to Moses are truly so ascribed. 2. Groups of Laws in P (the Priestly Code): The laws in P are arranged for the most part in groups, with which narrative is sometimes intermingled. These e.g. are some of the groups:

    Exodus 25 through 31; Leviticus 1 through 7; 11 through 15; Numbers through 4, etc. The structure and probable history of these groups are very interesting. That many of them must have undergone interpolation appears certain from the following considerations. Each of the groups, and often one or more paragraphs within a group, is headed by a recurring formula, “Yahweh spake unto Moses (or unto Aaron, or unto Moses and Aaron), saying.” We might at first expect that the contents of each group or paragraph so headed would consist solely of what Yahweh had said unto Moses or Aaron, but this is not always so. Not infrequently some direction is found within such a paragraph which cannot have been spoken to Moses, but must have come into force at some later date. Unless then we reject the statement of the formula, unless we are prepared to say that Yahweh did not speak unto Moses, we can only conclude that these later directions were at some time inserted by an editor into paragraphs which originally contained Mosaic laws only. That this should have been done would be perfectly natural, when we consider that the purpose of such an editor would be not only to preserve (as has been done) the record of the original Law, but to present a manual of law complete for the use of his age, a manual (to use a modern phrase) made complete to date.

    That the passages in question were indeed interpolations appears not only from the fact that their removal rids the text of what otherwise would be grave discrepancies, but because the passages in question sometimes disturb the sequence of the context. Moreover, by thus distinguishing between laws promulgated (as stated) by Moses, and laws to which the formula of statement was not intended to apply, we arrive at the following important result. It is that the former laws can all be shown to be in harmony one with another and with the historical data of the Mosaic age; while the introduction of the later rules is also seen to be what would naturally follow by way of adaptation to the circumstances of later times, and the gradual unfolding of Divine purpose.

    It would be much too long a task here to work this out in detail: it has been attempted by the writer of this article in Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development. Two instances, however, may be mentioned.

    Instances of interpolation — In Exodus 12:43 ff (English Revised Version) we read, “This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof; but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.” This was the original Mosaic rule introduced by the formula in 12:43. But in 12:48,49 it is said that sojourners (when circumcised) may eat of the passover. This was plainly a relaxation of later date, made in accordance with the principle which is enlarged upon in Isaiah 56:3-8.

    According to Leviticus 23:34,39a,40-42, the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast of seven days only. This was the Mosaic rule as appears from the formula in 23:33, and in certain other passages. But as a development in the feast’s observance, an eighth day was subsequently added, and therefore insertions to that effect were made here at 23:36 and 39b. The introduction of this additional day would be in keeping with that elaboration in the observance of the “set feasts” which we find in Numbers 28 and 29, as compared with the simpler observance of the same days ordered in Leviticus 23. Here again the formula in Numbers 28:1 plainly covered a few verses immediately following, but not the whole content of the two chapters.

    Premising then the existence in writing from an early age of numerous groups of Mosaic laws and their subsequent interpolation, the ultimate compilation of these groups together with other matter and their arrangement in the order in which we now find them must have been the work, perhaps indeed of the interpolator, but in any case of some late editor. These numerous groups do not, however, make up the whole legislative contents of the Pentateuch; for a very large portion of these contents consists of three distinct books of law, which we must now examine. These were the “Book of the Covenant,” the “Book of the Law” of Deuteronomy 31:26, and the so-called “Law of Holiness.” 3. The Book of the Covenant: This book, expressly so named ( Exodus 24:7), is stated to have been written by Moses (24:3,1). It must have comprised the contents of Exodus 20 through 23. The making of the covenant at Sinai, led up to by the revealing words of Exodus 3:12-17; 6:2-8; 19:3-6, was a transaction of the very first importance in the religious history of Israel. God’s revelation of Himself to Israel being very largely, indeed chiefly, a revelation of His moral attributes ( Exodus 34:6,7), could only be effectively apprehended by a people who were morally fitted to receive it. Hence, it was that Israel as a nation was now placed by God in a stated relation to Himself by means of a covenant, the condition upon which the covenant was based being, on His people’s part, their obedience to a given law. This was the law contained in the “Book of the Covenant.”

    It consisted of “words of Yahweh” and “Judgments” ( Exodus 24:3 the King James Version). The latter are contained in Exodus 21:1 through 22:17; the former in Exodus 20, in the remaining portion of Exodus 22, and Exodus 23. The “judgments” (the American Standard Revised Version “ordinances”) relate entirely to matters of right between man and man; the “words of Yahweh” relate partly to these and partly to duties distinctively religious. (1) Judgments. Compared with Code of Hammurabi.

    The “judgments” appear to be taken from older consuetudinary law; not necessarily comprising the whole of that law, but so much of it as it pleased God now to stamp with His express sanction and to embody in this Covenant Law. They may well be compared with those contained in the socalled Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, who is thought to have been the Amraphel of Genesis 14. These are called “the judgments of righteousness which Hammurabi the mighty king confirmed.” The resemblances in form and in subject between the two sets of “judgments” are very striking. All alike have the same structure, beginning with a hypothetical clause, “if so and so,” and then giving the rule applicable in the third person. All alike relate entirely to civil, as distinguished from religious, matters, to rights and duties between man and man. All seem to have had a similar origin in judgments passed in the first place on causes brought before judges for decision: both sets therefore represent consuetudinary law. (2) Basis of Law of Covenant. Earlier Customs.

    It is remarkable that, alike in matters of right between man and man, and in matters relating directly to the service of God, the Law of the Covenant did little (if anything) more than give a new and Divinely attested sanction to requirements which, being already familiar, appealed to the general conscience of the community. If, indeed, in the “words of Yahweh” there was any tightening of accustomed moral or (more particularly) religious requirements, e.g. in the first and second commandments of the Decalogue, it would seem to have been by way of enforcing convictions which must have been already gaining hold upon the minds of at least the more thoughtful of the people, and that in large measure through the lessons impressed upon them by the events of their recent history. In no other Way could the Law of the Covenant have appealed to their conscience, and so formed a foundation on which the covenant could be securely based.

    As in the “judgments” we have a ratification of old consuetudinary law; as again in the second table of the Decalogue we have moral rules in accordance with a standard of moral right — no doubt already acknowledged — very similar indeed to that of the “negative confession” in the Egyptian Book of the Dead; so in the more especially religious rules of the Law of the Covenant we find, not new rules or an establishment of new institutions, but a new sanction of what was already old. These “words of Yahweh” assume the rendering of service to Yahweh: they do not enjoin it as if it were a new thing, but they enjoin that the Israelites shall not add to His service also the service of other gods ( Exodus 20:3; 23:24).

    They assume the observance of the three “feasts,” they enjoin that these shall be kept to Yahweh — “unto me,” i.e. “unto me only” ( Exodus 23:14,17). They assume the making of certain offerings to Yahweh, they enjoin that these shall be made liberally — “of the first,” i.e. of the best — and without delay ( Exodus 22:29 f). They assume the rendering of worship by sacrifice, and the existence of an accustomed ritual, and therefore they do not lay down any scheme of ritual, but they give a few directions designed to guard against idolatry, or any practices tending either to irreverence or to low and false conceptions of God ( Exodus 20:4-6,23-26; 22:31; 23:18 f). While insisting upon the observance of the three “feasts,” spoken of as already accustomed, it is remarkable that they contain no command to keep the Passover, which as an annual observance was not yet an accustomed thing.

    This absence of ritual directions is indeed very noticeable. It was in the counsel of God that He would in the near future establish a reconstituted ritual, based upon what was already traditional, but containing certain new elements, and so framed as more and more to foster spiritual conceptions of God and a higher ideal of holiness. This however was as yet a thing of the future. No mention therefore was made of it in the Law of the Covenant; that law was so restricted as that it should at once appeal to the general conscience of the people, and so be a true test of their desire to do what was right. This would be the firm basis on which to build yet higher things. It is impossible to estimate the true character of the subsequent legislation, i.e. of what in bulk is by far the larger part of the [torah] — except by first grasping the true character and motive of the Covenant, and the Covenant Law. See also COVENANT, BOOK OF: PENTATEUCH. 4. The Book of the Law of Deuteronomy 31: Immediately after the making of the Covenant, Moses was called up into the mount, and there received instructions for the erection of the tabernacle, these being followed in due course by the rules of the reconstituted ceremonial of which the tabernacle was to be the home. All these for the present we must pass over.

    Having arrived on the East of the Jordan, Moses, now at the close of his career, addressed discourses to the people, in which he earnestly exhorted them to live up to the high calling with which God had called them, in the land of which they were about to take possession. To this end he embodied in his discourse a statement of the Law by which they were to live. And then, as almost his last public act, he wrote “the words of this law in a book,” and directed that the book should be placed “by the side of the ark of the covenant” ( Deuteronomy 31:24-26). What now was this book?

    Was it Deuteronomy, in whole or in part? The most reasonable answer to this question is that the book actually written by Moses comprised at least the contents of Deuteronomy 5 through 26 and 28. Whether the whole or any parts of the remaining contents of Deuteronomy also formed part of this book, or were subsequently added to it, the whole being brought by a process of editing to our present Deuteronomy, is again a legitimate matter of inquiry.

    Characteristics of Deuteronomy.

    Regarding Deuteronomy 5 through 26 and 28 (with or without parts of other chapters) as the “book” of Deuteronomy 31:24-26, we find that it is a manual of instruction for the people at large — it is not a priest’s manual. It deals with matters of morals, and of religion in its general principles, but only subordinately with matters of ritual: it warns against perils of idolatry and superstitious corruptions, common in the service of other gods, but which might by no means be mixed up with Yahweh’s seryice: it insists upon righteous conduct between man and man, and very strongly inculcates humanity toward the poor and the dependent: it enjoins upon those in authority the impartial maintenance of right, as also fairness, moderation and mercy, in the administration of law and the infliction of punishment: it sets forth the fear of God as the guide of His people’s actions, and the love of God in response to His mercy toward them. It does not lay down any scheme of ritual, though it gives rules ( Deuteronomy 4:3-21) as to things which might not be eaten as unclean; it also gives directions as to the disposal of tithes ( Deuteronomy 14:22-29; 26:12); it enlarges upon the direction in the Law of the Covenant for the observance of the three “feasts,” adding to this the observance of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); it lays down a law (expressed conditionally) restricting to one sanctuary the offering of at least the more solemn sacrifices (Deuteronomy 12); and it frequently inculcates liberality toward the Levites, both on account of the sacred services rendered by them, their dispersal among the tribes, and the precarious character of their livelihood.

    Like the Law of the Covenant it assumes the existence of an accustomed ceremonial, and it is remarkable that when there is occasion to do so it makes use of phraseology (Deuteronomy 12) similar to that of the ritual laws of Moses in Leviticus and Numbers.

    It is quite possible that some interpolations may have been made in the text of Deuteronomy 5 through 26, but not on any sufficient scale to affect the general character of the original book. This “Book of the Law” then was an expansion of the Law of the Covenant, enforcing its principles, giving directions in greater detail for carrying them out, and setting them in a framework of exhortation, warning and encouragement. Thus, its relation to the covenant is indicated by Deuteronomy 26:16-19; 29:1. This is that “book of the Law of Moses” of which frequent mention is made in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. 5. The Law of Holiness: In marked contrast to the numerous rules, sometimes intermingled with narrative, which we find in Exodus 25 through 40; Leviticus 1 through 16, and throughout Numbers, we have in Leviticus 17 through 26 a collection of laws which evidently was once a book by itself. This, from its constant insistence upon holiness as a motive of conduct, has been called “the Law of Holiness.” Though it contains many laws stated to have been spoken by Yahweh to Moses, we are not told by whom it was written, and therefore its authorship and date are a fair subject of inquiry. In its general design it bears much resemblance to the Law of the Covenant, and the Book of the Law contained in Deuteronomy. As in them, and especially in the latter, the laws are set up in a parenetic framework, the whole closing with promise of reward for obedience and a threat of punishment for disobedience (compare Exodus 23:20-33; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). Like them it deals much with moral duties: Leviticus 19 and 20 are practically an expansion of the Decalogue; but it deals also more than they do with ceremonial. With regard to both it sets forth as the motive of obedience the rule, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.”

    A Clue as to Date A clue to its date is to be found in its conception of cleanness. The idea found in the Prophets and the New Testament that moral wrongdoing renders unclean must be based upon some earlier conception, namely, upon the Old Testament conception of ritual uncleanness. Now ritual uncleanness was originally physical uncleanness only; the idea of moral right or wrong did not enter into it at all: this is perfectly clear from the whole contents of Leviticus 11 through 15. On the other hand we find the idea of moral cleanness and uncleanness fully formed in the Psalms, Proverbs, and in the Prophets, including the earlier prophets, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. In H (the Law of Holiness, Leviticus 17 through 26) we find an intermediate conception. We find that whereas in Leviticus 11 through sexual acts which were lawful rendered unclean equally with those which were unlawful, in H, adultery and incest are denounced as rendering specially unclean, the idea being that their technical uncleanness became more intensely unclean through their immorality ( Leviticus 18:24-30).

    Similarly, converse with familiar spirits and wizards, which probably involved physical defilement (perhaps through the ingredients used in charms), is mentioned as specially causing defilement, probably as such technical defilement would be intensified by the unlawfulness of dealing with familiar spirits and wizards at all ( Leviticus 19:31). Sins, however, which did not in themselves entail physical uncleanness, such e.g. as injustice, are not mentioned in H as rendering unclean, though they are so regarded in the Prophets. First, then, we have ritual uncleanness, which is physical only in the rules of Leviticus 11 through 15 (Mosaic rules undoubtedly embodying a pre-Mosaic conception); lastly, we have moral wrong in itself rendering unclean, in the Psalms and the Prophets; intermediately we have the transitional conception in H. The date therefore of the Law of Holiness may be Mosaic, but must be considerably earlier than the earliest of the writing prophets. 6. The Final Compilation: The remaining groups of Mosaic laws would appear to have been extant in their original form (i.e. without interpolation), no doubt in the custody of the priesthood for probably a very considerable time, it may have been for centuries, before their final compilation in their present form. The arrangement of these groups as they now stand, before and after H and with narrative intermingled, is by no means haphazard, as it might at first appear. (1) Exodus.

    As the directions for the erection of the tabernacle with the purpose of its several parts were given to Moses immediately after the making of the covenant, they follow the account of it immediately. Thus Exodus contains the history of the covenant-making, of what led up to it, and of what immediately followed it, namely, the provision of the home for the covenant-worship. (2) Leviticus.

    This book follows with the rules of that worship; not indeed with all its details, but with an account of all that was essential to it. First (in Leviticus 1 through 7) we have the law of sacrifice, including what was so especially peculiar to the covenant-worship, the law of the sin offering. Then in Leviticus 8 through 10 we have the consecration of the tabernacle and its contents, the consecration of its priests and the inauguration of the newly prescribed system of worship. Then in Leviticus 11 through 15 we have the rules for purification from ritual uncleanness, without which it would have been impossible for this system of covenant-worship to be carried on. Then there follows in Leviticus 16 the account of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, the crown and completion of the whole. Thus in these chapters we have an account of the essentials of the newly instituted covenant-worship. And then immediately we have in the Law of Holiness the great motive that underlay both this ceremonial law and the preceding moral and religious law of the Book of the Covenant, namely, the principle that God’s people must be holy, because He is holy. The emphasizing of this principle in H thus closes this whole statement of law, as its first enunciation had introduced it in Exodus 19:6. (3) Numbers.

    The purpose of Numbers is supplementary. Numbers 1 through 6, containing the numbering and ordering of the tribes and rules as to the representative Levitical ministry, sets forth the corporate character of Israel’s service of God. The Israelites were not to be a mere aggregation of tribes, but a single nation, the bond of their union being the covenant with God. The camp itself, ordered and carefully guarded against pollution, was to be a symbol of this holy unity. Num 7 through 10 narrate the remaining occurrences at Sinai, including (9:1-14) the important account of the first commemorative Passover. The remaining chapters contain, alternately, a narrative of events following the departure from Sinai and groups of laws usually in some way connected with the events narrated, but all of them supplementary to the more essential laws already recorded. (4) Deuteronomy.

    As a separate work and based upon sayings and doings at the very close of the 40 years, Deuteronomy naturally follows last.

    3. THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DESIGN OF THE LAW.

    Both in civil matters and in ceremonial the Law had to deal with men who lived in a comparatively early age of human history. Its rules were necessarily adapted in both departments to the standards of the age. At the same time they inculcated principles, the working out of which would by degrees bring about a great advance in men’s conceptions both of what is true and of what is right. 1. The Civil Law: As J.B. Mozley says (Lectures on the Old Testament), “The morality of a progressive revelation is not the morality with which it starts but that with which it concludes”; yet the excellence of the Old Testament Law is evident, not only in its great underlying principles, but in the suitability of its individual rules to promote moral advance. (1) Servants and the Poor.

    We have already noted the similarity between the “judgments” of Exodus 20 and 21 and the “judgments” of Hammurabi, in respect to form and subject. Notwithstanding the practical wisdom found in many of the latter, there is in one matter a marked contrast in spirit between them and the former, for while both the Law of the Covenant and its enlargement in Deuteronomy guarded the interest of and secured justice, and mercy too, to slaves and the poor, the laws of Hammurabi were framed rather in the interests of the well-to-do. Compare (e.g.) with the rule as to a runaway slave in Deuteronomy 23:15 f, the following (Code of Hammurabi, section symbol 16): “If a man has harbored in his house a manservant or a maidservant fugitive from the palace, or a poor man, and has not produced them at the demand of the commandant, the owner of that house shall be put to death.” The Law indeed permitted slavery, an institution universal in the ancient world, but it made provisions which must very greatly have mitigated its hardship. It was enjoined, both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, that after six years’ service a Hebrew manservant should “go out free for nothing,” unless he himself preferred to remain in servitude ( Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). The rule in Exodus 21:7-11 as to women servants was not exactly the same, but it nevertheless guarded their interests, while Hebrew women servants were afterward included in the rule of Deuteronomy 15:12. A still greater amelioration was brought in by a later rule connected with the law of the Jubilee as set out in Leviticus 25:39-55. Again, though servitude was permitted on account of debt, or as a rescue from poverty ( Exodus 21:2,7; Deuteronomy 15:12), manstealing was a capital offense ( Exodus 21:16). (2) Punishments.

    The rule of Exodus 21:22-25 (“eye for eye,” etc.; compare Leviticus 24:19,20; Deuteronomy 19:16-19) sounds harsh to us, but while the justice it sanctioned was rough and ready according to the age, it put a restraint on vindictiveness. The punishment might be so much, but no more: and the same spirit of restraint in punishment is seen in the rule as to flogging ( Deuteronomy 25:2 f). Similarly the rule that murder was to be avenged by “the avenger of blood,” a rule under the circumstances of the age both necessary and salutary, was protected from abuse by the appointment of places of refuge, the rule with respect to which was designed to prepare the way for a better system (see Exodus 21:12-14; Numbers 35:9-24; Deuteronomy 19:1-13). (3) Marriage.

    The marriage customs of the Mosaic age permitted polygamy and concubinage, marriage by purchase or by capture in war, slave-marriage, and divorce. The Law allowed the continuance of these customs, but did not originate them; on the contrary, its provisions were designed to restrict the old license, giving protection to the weaker party, the woman, limiting as far as possible the evils of the traditional system, a system which could not suddenly be changed, and preparing the way for a better. Consider the effect of the following rules: as to slave-wives ( Exodus 21:7-11); captives of war ( Deuteronomy 21:10-14); plurality of wives ( Deuteronomy 21:15-17); adultery ( Exodus 20:14,17; Deuteronomy 22:22); fornication ( Deuteronomy 22:23-29; 23:17,18; Leviticus 21:19); divorce ( Deuteronomy 24:1-4); Levirate marriage ( Deuteronomy 25:5-10); incest ( Leviticus 18:6-18); marriage of priests ( Leviticus 21:7,10-15); royal polygamy ( Deuteronomy 17:17). (4) Sabbaths and Feasts.

    The law as to these, though partly ceremonial, yet served social ends. The Sabbath day gave to all, and particularly to servants and the poor, and domestic cattle too, a needful respite from daily toil; it also served men’s spiritual welfare, and did honor to God ( Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14,15; Exodus 31:12-17). The seventh year’s rest to the land — it also “a sabbath of solemn rest, a sabbath unto Yahweh” — was for the land’s recuperation, but it served also to safeguard common rights at perhaps a time of transition as to customs of land tenure: connected with it also there were rules as to release of slaves and relief of debtors ( Exodus 23:9-11; Leviticus 25:2-7; Deuteronomy 15:1-18). The observance of the Sabbath year as a rest to the land seems to have fallen into disuse, perhaps as early as some 500 years before the Babylonian captivity ( 2 Chronicles 36:21), and it is probable that the Jubilee (the design of which seems to have been to adjust conflicting rights under new customs of land tenure and in the relation of employer to employed) was instituted to take its place (Leviticus 25). The law as to the annual feasts insured both the social advantages of festive gatherings of the people, and their sanctification by the worship of God, and the public recognition of His hand in matters agricultural and political, which were either the occasion of, or connected with, these gatherings. Considerate liberality to the poor and dependent was, on these occasions, especially enjoined ( Exodus 23:14-17; Deuteronomy 16:1-17; 12:12,18,19). 2. The Ceremonial Law: We have already noted that the conception of sin as uncleanness, rendering the sinner therefore unfit for the presence of God, must have been an outgrowth from the earlier conception of purely ritual (physical) uncleanness. This development, and an accompanying sense of the heinousness of sin and of its need of atonement by sacrifice, were undoubtedly brought about by the gradual working of the law of the sin offering ( Leviticus 4:1 through 5:13; 12 through 15; 16). Similarly the rules as to guilt offerings ( Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7) must by degrees have led to a true conception of repentance, as including both the seeking of atonement through sacrifice and restitution for wrong committed. The sin offering was, however, a peculiarly Mosaic institution, marking a development in the sacrificial system. The only sacrifices of which we have any trace in pre-Mosaic times were meal and drink offerings, whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (or, to use the Levitical term, peace offerings). (1) Origin of Sacrifice.

    We read of the offering of sacrifice all through the patriarchal history, and farther back even than Noah in the story of Cain and Abel; and there can be no doubt that the Levitical scheme of sacrifice was based upon, and a development (under Divine ordering) of, the sacrificial system already traditional among the Hebrews. Sacrifice was undoubtedly of Divine origin; yet we have no account, or even hint, of any formal institution of sacrifice. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are spoken of in a way that leaves the impression that they were offered spontaneously, and the most probable assumption would seem to be that the very first offering of sacrifice was the outcome of a spontaneous desire (Divinely implanted, we may be sure) in early men to render service to the higher Being of whose relation to themselves they were, if ever so dimly, conscious.

    Prehistoric research has not yet been able to present to us a distinct picture of primitive men; and even if the results of anthropology were more certain than they can yet claim to be, what in this connection we are concerned in is the conceptions, not of early men everywhere, but of the early ancestors of the Hob race. However infantile their ideas may have been and probably were, there may well have been far more of elementary truth in them — in simple ideas Divinely implanted — than students of anthropology have any knowledge of. Sooner or later early men did make offerings to God; and as the Mosaic sacrificial system was certainly based upon the patriarchal, so we may fairly assume that the ideas underlying the latter were an outgrowth from those which underlay the sacrifice of the patriarch’s own still earlier ancestors.

    It is well observed by Dr. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, p. 315) that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel are called a minchah or present; and this idea of sacrifice as a gift to God most easily accounts for the facts with which we have to deal in the history of Old Testament sacrifice. When early men first made offerings to God, they probably did so in the spirit of young children who give gifts to older persons without knowing whether, or in what way, the gifts will be of any use to them. They simply give in affection what is of value in their own eyes. The one only thing of prime value to the earliest men must have been food; hence, offerings to God were everywhere in the first place offerings of food. But here a difficulty must soon have arisen, for men must have become convinced very soon that the Divine Being did not feed upon the food offered, at least in men’s way of feeding. Ultimately, among the Israelites, the idea of His actual feeding became eliminated altogether ( Psalm 50:13,14), but in the meantime the difficulty seems to have been met by the assumption that the Divine Being consumed an inner essence of food; and this being supposed to be set free by fire, food offered in sacrifice came to be burnt in order to fit it to become the food of God. This certainly appears from Leviticus 3:11,16 (compare Leviticus 21:6,8,17,21).

    Coming, however, to animal as distinguished from vegetable sacrifice, we do not find that its origin can be accounted for as at the first being an offering of food. We learn from Leviticus 17:10-14 that the essential part of animal sacrifice was the offering of the blood, and that blood was offered because blood was life. The idea that life can be given by giving blood lay at the root of a custom which must have been well-nigh universal in primitive times, that of blood covenanting (see H. Clay Trumbull, Blood Covenant). In this, two persons would give each to the other of his own blood, drawn from the living vein. Persons united in blood covenant were supposed, by the commingling of their blood, to become actual sharers of one life. To give to another of one’s own blood was to give one’s own life, i.e. one’s own self, with all the dedication of love and service which that would imply. Now a similar idea would seem to have lain at the root of the primitive offering of blood to God: it was the offering of the life of the offerer.

    In the very first blood offerings it is probable that the blood offered was the blood of the offerer, and that there was no infliction of death — only in this way the dedication of life. The dedicatory rite of circumcision may have been a survival of sacrifice in this its earliest form; so also what is narrated in 1 Kings 18:28. When, however, the blood offered had come to be the blood of a substitute, and that a substitute animal, the sacrifice would come (no doubt soon) to include the slaughter of the animal and further the consumption, in whole or in part, of its carcass by fire as an offering of food. (2) The Levitical Ritual.

    Whether the above theory be accepted or not, in so far as animal sacrifice became an offering of food, it would stand in line with vegetable sacrifice; but in both the excellence of the Levitical ritual stood in this, that while it was framed for a people whose conceptions were in a stage of transition, it was yet adaptable to higher conceptions, and fitted to become at length symbolical of purely spiritual truth. It was through the teaching, not only of prophets but of the Lcvitical ritual itself, and while it was still in full force, that the words of Psalm 50:13,14 were uttered: “Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High.” The Levitical ritual, as respects animal sacrifice in particular, was so framed as, on the one hand, to keep alive the idea of sacrifice as the offering of life, not of death, of life’s dedication, not its destruction, and therefore to make it a true type of Christ’s living sacrifice. On the other hand, the rules of sacrifice guarded against abuses which, as a matter of fact, sprang up widely among the heathen. The rule, e.g. in Leviticus 1:2 and elsewhere, that “ye shall offer your oblation of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock,” excluded human sacrifice. The rule that the first act in every sacrifice must be to slay the creature offered excluded the infliction of unnecessary suffering. The detailed rules as to the offering and disposal of the blood, and the varying modes of disposal of the carcass, kept alive the essential idea of all such sacrifice, and saved it from degenerating into a mere heaping up, as in Egypt, of altars with mere loads of food. The rules of the peace offering, clothing it always with a spiritual motive (see Leviticus 7:12,16), raised it to a level far above the sacrifice of that class among the surrounding heathen, guarding it against their licentious festivity (compare Hosea 2:11-13; 4:13,14; Amos 2:8; 5:21-23) and gross ideas as to the part of God in the feasting. (3) The Law Truly a Torah.

    In every one of its departments the Law proved itself to be indeed a [torah] directing God’s people in the upward way; leading them on from the state of advancement, such as it was, to which they had already attained by Moses’ time, to higher and higher standards, both of faith and of duty, till they were prepared for the gospel of Christ, who Himself said of the old Law, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled” ( Matthew 5:18 the King James Version). Meanwhile we have, in the teaching of the prophets, not a counter influence, not a system rivaling the Law, but its unfolding, both inspired of God, both instruments in His progressive revelation. “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” were the words of Samuel, a faithful servant of the Law, and himself a frequent offerer of sacrifice. What the Law was to the heart of devout Israelites in the prophetic age is seen in the fervent words of Psalm 119.

    4. THE PASSING AWAY OF THE LAW.

    The great general principles of the Law were not transitory but abiding, and reappear under the gospel dispensation. Otherwise, however, i.e. in those particulars, whether ceremonial or civil, in which it was adapted to merely passing needs, the Law passed away when Christ came. It is not always realized that already before Christ came it had begun to pass away.

    The following are illustrations: (1) The whole rationale of the Levitical worship consisted in its being based upon the covenant made at Sinai, and the symbol of the Covenant was the ark containing the tables of the Law and surmounted by the mercyseat.

    Therefore one of its most significant acts was the sprinkling of the blood of sin offering within the veil upon the mercy-seat, or without the veil, but yet before the mercy-seat. But this most significant act could no longer be performed when, after the Babylonian captivity, there was no longer either ark or mercy-seat. (2) The law that tithe should be paid to the Levites, a tithe only of it being paid by them to “Aaron the priest” (Numbers 18), was practicable so long as the priests were a small portion only of the whole Levitical body, as they appear in the history down to the middle period of the monarchy. But by the time of the exile they disappeared from history except as actual temple ministrants, and, after the return from the exile, even these were in number a mere handful compared with the priests ( Ezra 2:36-42; 8:15-20,24- 30; Nehemiah 11:10-19). The attempt to revive the old law ( Nehemiah 10:38,39) was well-intentioned but impracticable: it was evidently soon abandoned ( Nehemiah 13:10-13; Malachi 3:8-10).

    We learn from Josephus that tithes were regarded later as due to the priests, not to the Levites (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii, 8; ix, 2). (3) That the Mosaic law as to divorce was to give place to one more stringent appears not only from our Lord’s words in Matthew 19:7-9, but from Malachi 2:16. (4) It is probable that some of the supplementary rules in Numbers may have been designed for temporary use only, and may have passed away before the close of the Old Testament. It may have been so, e.g., with the law of Numbers 5:11-31, a law probably most useful in the circumstances of the Mosaic age, and perhaps itself an endorsement of a pre-Mosaic custom.

    LITERATURE.

    Driver, Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, with which should be read Moller, Are the Critics Right? and Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; A.B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament; J.B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; Rule, Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament; Hoonacker, Leviticus sacerdoce levitique; Edouard Naville, Lamentations decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias; H. Clay Trumbull, The Blood Covenant; Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord (274 ff, on “bloodoffering”). Ulric Z. Rule LAW, JUDICIAL <joo-dish’-al > : This was the form of Divine law which, under the dominion of God, as the Supreme Magistrate, directed the policy of the Jewish nation, and hence, was binding only on them, not on other peoples.

    The position of Yahweh, as the Supreme Ruler, was made legally binding by a formal election on the part of the national assembly ( Exodus 19:3-8); and that there might be no question about the matter, after the death of Moses, Joshua, in accordance with instructions received by his great predecessor in the office of federal judge, in the public assembly caused the contract to be renewed in connection with most solemn exercises ( Joshua 8:30-35). No legal contract was ever entered into with more formality and with a clearer understanding of the terms by the several parties than was the contract which made it binding on the Hebrews permanently to recognize Yahweh as the Supreme Ruler ( Exodus 24:3-8). He was to be acknowledged as the Founder of the nation ( Exodus 20:2); Sovereign, Ruler, and Judge ( Exodus 20:2-6); and in these capacities was to be the object of love, reverential fear and worship, service, and absolute obedience. Flagrant disregard of their obligations to Him manifested in idolatry or blasphemy was regarded as high treason, and like high treason in all nations and history was punishable by death ( Exodus 20:3-5,7; 22:20; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

    The will of Yahweh in critical cases was to be ascertained through special means ( Numbers 9:8; Judges 1:1,2; 20:18,23,28; 1 Samuel 10:22).

    The ruling official recognized by the Hebrews as a nation was the chief magistrate, but he stood as Yahweh’s vicegerent, and therefore combined various authorities in his person. We must distinguish the functions of the chief magistrate (1) under the republic, (2) under the constitutional monarchy, and (3) under the senatorial oligarchy after the Babylonian captivity.

    Moses was the first chief magistrate under the republic; after him, Joshua, and the other judges. Under the constitutional monarchy, it was the king whose government was limited, for he was to be elected by the people; must be a native Hebrew; must not keep a large cavalry; must not support a harem; must not multiply riches; must be a defender of the national religion; must be guided by law, not whim; must be gracious and condescending to the people ( Deuteronomy 17:15-20). After the Babylonian captivity, the senatorial oligarchy combined ecclesiastical and state authority, later sharing it with the Roman government. See also SANHEDRIN.

    Frank E. Hirsch LAW, ROMAN See ROMAN LAW.

    LAWFUL <lo’-fool > (usually fP;v]mi [mishpaT], “relating to judgment,” or “a pronounced judgment” qyDIx” [tsaddiq], “relating to that which is righteous” or “just”; [e]xesti , exesti ], [eu]nomov , eunomos ], “that which is authorized according to law,” or “a privilege according to legitimate custom” (compare Ezekiel 18:5,19, 21,27; Isaiah 49:24; Matthew 12:10; Acts 16:21; 19:39)): Used of persons: of God, as being righteous both in the punishment of the wicked and the rewarding of the righteous ( <19E517> Psalm 145:17 Hebrew); of man, as being just and equitable in all his dealings with his fellow-man ( Ezekiel 33:19). It is used of things when the same are in accord with a pronounced judgment or a declared will of God, and thus pleasing in His sight ( Mark 3:4). When the course of individual conduct is according to God’s law of righteousness, it is declared to be “lawful” ( Ezekiel 33:19). The word is used in a forensic sense as declaring the legal status of a person conforming to law. The idea of straighthess, rigid adherence to God’s law, whether religious, civil or ceremonial, cannot be excluded from the definition of the word “lawful.”

    Neither the King James Version nor the American Standard Revised Version is consistent in its translation of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “lawful.” Ofttimes the words “just” and “righteous” are used. To arrive at the full and proper meaning of “lawful,” therefore, it is necessary that we study the passages containing these synonymous terms. The written Law of God is the recognized standard by which things, actions and persons are to be judged as being lawful or unlawful. William Evans LAWGIVER <lo’-giv-er > ( qqejom] [mechoqeq]; [nomoqe>thv , nomothetes ]): There are two words, one Hebrew and one Greek, which are translated “lawgiver.”

    The former occurs 7 times in the Old Testament, and in the King James Version in every case except Judges 5:14 is thus translated. In the Revised Version (British and American) it bears the translation “lawgiver” but twice ( Deuteronomy 33:21; Isaiah 33:22), though in the other passages ( Genesis 49:10; Numbers 21:18; Judges 5:14; Psalm 60:7; 108:8) this meaning is retained in the margin. The Greek word occurs in the New Testament but once ( James 4:12), where it has a meaning that is almost the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 33:22.

    In both passages God is declared to be the “lawgiver,” and in the New Testament passage is so called because He has the power to rule and judge, to save and destroy. Man is denied the authority to judge because he is not the lawgiver. God is the lawgiver, and therefore possesses the right to pronounce judgment (compare Isaiah, supra). The word, however, implies more than mere legislative function; it also connotes the idea of ruling.

    Isaiah makes this very plain, since he adds to the statement that God is our judge and lawgiver the further declaration that He is also king. This meaning adheres in the very history of the word. It is based upon the monarchical conception in which the legislative, judicial and administrative functions are all vested in one person. In James the two terms “lawgiver and judge” express the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty. The verb [nomothetein ] occurs in Hebrews 7:11; 8:6, but it does not extend beyond the meaning “to enact laws.”

    The Hebrew word is restricted to poetic passages, and except in Isaiah 33:22 is applied to a tribal or kingly ruler. Moses is pre-eminently the lawgiver in Jewish and Christian circles, but it should be noted that in the Scriptures of neither is he given this title. The primary meaning of the verb from which [mechoqeq] is derived is “to cut,” “to carve,” and a derived meaning is “to ordain.” The meaning of the participle [mechoqeq] is based upon this last. It means (1) the symbol which expresses the lawmaker’s authority, that is, the commander’s staff; and (2) the person who possesses the authority ( Deuteronomy 33:21).

    It has the first of these meanings in Numbers 21:18; Psalm 60:7; 108:8, and probably in Genesis 49:10, though here it may have the second meaning. The parallelism, however, seems to require an impersonal object to correspond to scepter, and so the reading of the text (The Revised Version) is to be preferred to that of the margin (Skinner, at the place). In Deuteronomy 33:21; Judges 5:14; Isaiah 33:22, it means the person who wielded the symbol of authority, that is the prescriber of laws. In a primitive community this would be a military commander. In Genesis 49:10 the “ruler’s staff” is the symbol of kingly authority (Driver), and this verse consequently implies the supremacy of Judah which came in with the Davidic kingdom. This word contains no reference to the Messiah. In Numbers 21:18 there is an allusion to the custom of formally and symbolically opening fountains under the superintendence and at the instruction of the leader of the tribe. Such a custom seems to have been in vogue till comparatively modern times. Gray cites Budde in the New World for March, 1895, and Muir’s Mohamet and Islam, 343 f. In Judges 5:14 the word means “military commander,” as the context shows. This is the meaning also in Deuteronomy 33:21, where it is affirmed that Gad obtained a position worthy of its warlike character. Targum, Vulgate, Peshitta, and some moderns have seen here a reference to the grave of Moses, but Nebo was in Reuben and not in Gad. W. C. Morro LAWLESS <lo’-les > ([a]nomov , anomos ]): While occurring but once in the King James Version ( 1 Timothy 1:9), is translated in various ways, e.g. “without law” ( 1 Corinthians 9:21); “unlawful” ( 2 Peter 2:8 the King James Version); “lawless” ( 1 Timothy 1:9); “transgressor” ( Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37); “wicked” ( Acts 2:23 the King James Version; 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the King James Version). When Paul claims to be “without law,” he has reference to those things in the ceremonial law which might well be passed over, and not to the moral law.

    Paul was by no means an antinomian. Those are “lawless” who break the law of the Decalogue; hence, those who disobey the commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” are lawless ( 1 Timothy 1:9). The civil law is also the law of God. Those breaking it are lawless, hence, called “transgressors.” Those who are unjust in their dealings are also “lawless”; for this reason the hands of Pilate and those who with him unjustly condemned Jesus are called “wicked (unlawful) hands” ( Acts 2:23 the King James Version). The most notable example of lawlessness is the Antichrist, that “wicked (lawless) one” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8). William Evans LAWYER <lo’-yer > ([nomiko>v , nomikos ], “according or pertaining to law,” i.e. legal; as noun, “an expert in law,” “about the law,” “lawyer” ( Matthew 22:35; Luke 7:30; 10:25; 11:45,46,52; 14:3; Titus 3:13)): The work of the “lawyers,” frequently spoken of as “scribes,” also known as “doctors” of the law ( Luke 2:46 margin), was first of all that of jurists.

    Their business was threefold: (1) to study and interpret the law; (2) to instruct the Hebrew youth in the law; (3) to decide questions of the law.

    The first two they did as scholars and teachers, the last as advisers in some court. By virtue of the first-named function, they gradually developed a large amount of common law, for no code can go into such detail as to eliminate the necessity of subsequent legislation, and this usually, to a great extent, takes the form of judicial decisions founded on the code rather than of separate enactment. And so it was among the Hebrews. The provisions of their code were for the most part quite general, thus affording much scope for casuistic interpretation. As a result of the industry with which this line of legal development had been pursued during the centuries immediately preceding our era, the Hebrew law had become a very complicated science; and since it was forbidden to record these judicial decisions, a protracted study was necessary in order to commit them to memory.

    But since the law must have universal application, the views of the individual scribe could not be taken as a standard; hence, the several disciples of the law must frequently meet for discussion, and the opinion of the majority then prevailed. To these meetings the youth interested in the study would be invited, that they might memorize the formulas agreed upon and might clear up the points upon which they were uncertain by asking questions of the recognized doctors ( Luke 2:46).

    Such centers of legal lore, of course, would seldom be found in rural communities; the authorities would naturally gather in large centers of population, especially — until 70 AD — in Jerusalem. While the deliverances of these law schools were purely theoretical, yet they stood in close relation to the practical. Whenever doubt arose regarding the application of the law to a particular case, the question was referred to the nearest lawyer; by him to the nearest company of lawyers, perhaps to the Sanhedrin; and the resultant decision was henceforth authority. Thus the lawyers became law makers, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, which brought an end to the existence of the Sanhedrin, the rabbinical doctors were recognized as the absolute authority in such matters. Frequently a single lawyer of great rank, as for instance Hillel or Gamaliel I, might pronounce dicta of unquestioned recognition with as much authority as a supreme court in our day, though sometimes his opinions were received and corrected by the legal tribunal, especially the Sanhedrin. Of course, frequently, these tribunals were under the sway of such a man’s influence, so that what he said upon his own authority would be ratified in the assembly of the doctors.

    The second function of the lawyers was that of teachers. The renowned rabbis always sought to gather a company of pupils about them whose business it was to repeat the teachers’ law formulas until they had “passed into their flesh and blood.” For the purposes of such instruction as well as for the discussion of the teachers and the students, there were special schoolhouses, which are often mentioned in connection with the synagogues as places of special merit and privilege. In Jerusalem, these law schools were conducted in the temple — probably in the hall dedicated to this special purpose ( Matthew 21:23; 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:46; 20:1; 21:37; John 18:20). The students during the lectures sat on the floor, the teacher on a raised platform, hence, the expression “sitting at the feet of” ( Acts 22:3; Luke 2:46). Finally, the lawyers were called upon to decide cases in court or to act as advisers of the court. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, technical knowledge of the law was not a condition of eligibility to the office of judge. Anyone who could command the confidence of his fellow-citizens might be elected to the position, and many of the rural courts undoubtedly were conducted, as among us, by men of sterling quality but of limited knowledge. Naturally such men would avail themselves of the legal advice of any “doctor” who might be within reach, especially inasmuch as the latter was obliged to give his services gratuitously. And in the more dignified courts of large municipalities; it was a standing custom to have a company of scholars present to discuss and decide any new law points that might arise. Of course, frequently, these men were elected to the office of judge, so that practically the entire system of jurisprudence was in their hands. Frank E. Hirsch LAY; LAYING <la > , <la’-ing > : (1) µyci [sim], “to put,” and the Greek equivalent, [ti>qhmi , tithemi ], are very frequently translated by “to lay.” the Revised Version (British and American) very often changes the King James Version rendering of [sim], but never that of [tithemi ]: 1 Samuel 15:2, “how he set himself against him in the way” (the King James Version “he laid wait for him”); 2 Kings 11:16, “So they made way for her” (the King James Version “And they laid hands on her”); compare 2 Chronicles 23:15; Job 24:12, “God regardeth not the folly” (the King James Version “God layeth not folly”); Job 34:23, “For he needeth not further to consider a man” (the King James Version “For he will not lay upon man more”); Isaiah 28:17, “And I will make justice the line” (the King James Version “Judgment also will I lay to the line”); Job 17:3, “Give now a pledge” (the King James Version “Lay down now”). (2) ˆt”n: [nathan], literally, “to give,” is very commonly translated by “to lay.” the Revised Version (British and American) changes the translation of the King James Version in Ezekiel 4:5, “I have appointed”; Ezekiel 33:28 f, “I will make the land a desolation” (the King James Version “I will lay the land most desolate”). (3) “To lay” of the King James Version is frequently rendered differently in the Revised Version (British and American); Isaiah 54:11, “I will set thy stones” (the King James Version “lay thy stones”); Deuteronomy 29:22, “the sicknesses wherewith Yahweh hath made it sick” (the King James Version “sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon”). For other differences of the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version compare Deuteronomy 21:8; 2 Kings 9:25 m; 2 Kings 12:11; Ezra 8:31; <19A405> Psalm 104:5 m; Isaiah 53:6; Jeremiah 5:26; Mark 7:8; Luke 19:44; James 1:21; 1 Peter 2:1. In most of these passages the change of the Revised Version (British and American) is due to the peculiar use of the word “to lay” in the King James Version. The following expressions are found very frequently: “to lay hands on,” “to lay wait,” “to lay up,” “to lay aside,” “to lay upon,” “to lay down,” etc. “Laying of wait,” the King James Version, is rendered “lying in wait” in Numbers 35:20 ff; Acts 9:24 reads: “But their plot became known” (the King James Version “But their laying await was known”). The “laying on of hands” is a very general expression. See HANDS, LAYING ON OF.

    A. L. Breslich LAZARUS <laz’-a-rus > ([ La>zarov , Lazaros ], an abridged form of the Hebrew name Eleazar, with a Greek termination): Means “God has helped.” In Septuagint and Josephus are found the forms [ jEleaza>r , Eleazar ], and [ jElea>zarov , Eleazaros ]. The name was common among the Jews, and is given to two men in the New Testament who have nothing to do with each other.

    1. LAZARUS OF BETHANY:

    The home of the Lazarus mentioned in John 11:1 was Bethany. He was the brother of Martha and Mary ( John 11:1,2; see also Luke 10:38-41). All three were especially beloved by Jesus ( John 11:5), and at their home He more than once, and probably often, was entertained ( Luke 10:38-41; John 11). As intimated by the number of condoling friends from the city, and perhaps from the costly ointment used by Mary, the family was probably well-to-do. In the absence of Jesus, Lazarus was taken sick, died, and was buried, but, after having lain in the grave four days, was brought back to life by the Saviour ( John 11:3,14,17,43,44). As a result many Jews believed on Jesus, but others went and told the Pharisees, and a council was therefore called to hasten the decree of the Master’s death ( John 11:45-53). Later, six days before the Passover, at a feast in some home in Bethany where Martha served, Lazarus sat at table as one of the guests, when his sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus ( John 12:1-3).

    Many of the common people came thither, not only to see Jesus, but also the risen Lazarus, believed in Jesus, and were enthusiastic in witnessing for Him during the triumphal entry, and attracted others from the city to meet Him ( John 12:9,11,17,18). For that reason the priests plotted to murder Lazarus ( John 12:10). This is all that we really know about the man, for whether the Jews accomplished his death we are not informed, but it seems probable that, satiated with the death of Jesus, they left Lazarus unmolested. Nothing is told of his experiences between death and resurrection (compare Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” xxxi), of his emotions upon coming out of the tomb, of his subsequent life (compare Browning, “A Letter to Karshish”), and not a word of revelation does he give as to the other world. His resurrection has been a favorite subject for various forms of Christian art, and according to an old tradition of Epiphanius he was 30 years old when he was raised from the dead, and lived 30 years thereafter.

    As might be expected this miracle has been vigorously assailed by all schools of hostile critics. Ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing objections to it. But all told, they really amount only to three. (1) The Silence of the Other Gospels.

    There is here, no doubt, some difficulty. But the desire of the early Christians, as many scholars think, to screen the family from danger may have kept the story from becoming current in the oral tradition whence the Synoptics drew their materials, though Matthew was probably an eyewitness. But, in any case, the Synoptics do not pretend to give all the deeds of Jesus, and in the report by them we have few save those which were wrought in Galilee. Each of them has omitted elements of highest interest which others have preserved. Thus, Luke alone gives us the raising of the widow’s son at Nain. John, knowing that the others had omitted this, tells us what he had himself witnessed, since all danger to the family had long ago passed away, as it was of especial interest to his story, and he had recorded no other case of resurrection. At any rate, the Gospel writers do not seem to regard a resurrection from the dead by the power of Jesus as so much more stupendous than other miracles, as they seem to modern scholars and to the Jews, and, moreover, the Synoptics do unconsciously attest this miracle by describing a sudden outburst of popular excitement in favor of Jesus which can be accounted for only by some extraordinary event. (2) The Stupendous Character of the Miracle.

    But to a philosophical believer in miracles this is no obstacle at all, for to omnipotence there are no such things as big miracles or little ones. Of course, Martha’s statement as to the decomposition of the body was only her opinion of the probability in the case, and He, who sees the end from the beginning and who had intended to raise Lazarus, might well in His providence have watched over the body that it should not see corruption.

    When all is said, “He who has created the organic cell within inorganic matter is not incapable of reestablishing life within the inanimate substance.” (3) Its Non-use as an Accusation against Jesus.

    The objection that John 11:47-53 is inconsistent with the fact that in accusing Jesus before Pilate no mention is made of this miracle by the enemies of Jesus has little weight. Who would expect them to make such a self-convicting acknowledgment? The dismay of the priests at the miracle and their silence about it are perfectly compatible and natural.

    No one of the attempted explanations which deny the reality of the miracle can offer even a show of probability. That Lazarus was just recovering from a trance when Jesus arrived; that it was an imposture arranged by the family and sanctioned by Jesus in order to overwhelm His enemies; that it was a fiction or parable translated into a fact and made up largely of synoptic materials, an allegorical illustration of the words, “I am the resurrection, and the life,” a myth — such explanations require more faith than to believe the fables of the Talmud They well illustrate the credulity of unbelief. The narrative holds together with perfect consistency, is distinguished by vivacity and dramatic movement, the people who take part in it are intensely real and natural, and the picture of the sisters perfectly agrees with the sketch of them in Luke. No morbid curiosity of the reader is satisfied. Invented stories are not like this. Even a Renan declares that it is a necessary link in the story of the final catastrophe.

    THE PURPOSE OF THE MIRACLE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN: (1) to show Himself as Lord of life and death just before He should be Himself condemned to die; (2) to strengthen the faith of His disciples; (3) to convert many Jews; (4) to cause the priests to hasten their movements so as to be ready when His hour had come (Plummer, HDB, III, 87).2. The Beggar:

    In the parable in Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus is pictured as in abject poverty in this world, but highly rewarded and honored in the next. It is the only instance of a proper name used in a parable by Jesus. Some think that he was a well-known mendicant in Jerusalem, and have even attempted to define his disease. But this is no doubt simple invention, and, since “in Christ’s kingdom of truth names indicate realities,” this was probably given because of its significance, suggesting the beggar’s faith in God and patient dependence upon Him. It was this faith and not his poverty which at last brought him into Abraham’s bosom. Not one word does Lazarus speak in the parable, and this may also be suggestive of patient submission. He does not murmur at his hard lot, nor rail at the rich man, nor after death triumph over him. The parable is related to that of the Rich Fool ( Luke 12:16-21). This latter draws the veil over the worldling at death; the other lifts it.

    It is also a counterpart of that of the Unjust Steward ( Luke 16:1-13), which shows how wealth may wisely be used to our advantage, while this parable shows what calamities result from failing to make such wise use of riches. The great lesson is that our condition in Hades depends upon our conduct here, and that this may produce a complete reversal of fortune and of popular judgments. Thus, Lazarus represents the pious indigent who stood at the opposite extreme from the proud, covetous, and luxury-loving Pharisee. The parable made a deep impression on the mind of the church, so that the term “lazar,” no longer a proper name, has passed into many languages, as in lazar house, lazaretto, also lazzarone, applied to the mendicants of Italian towns. There was even an order, half-military, halfmonastic, called the Knights of Lazarus, whose special duty it was to minister to lepers.

    The rich man is often styled Dives, which is not strictly a proper name, but a Latin adjective meaning “rich,” which occurs in this passage in the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) But in English literature, as early as Chaucer, as seen in the “Sompnoure’s Tale” and in “Piers Plowman,” it appears in popular use as the name of the Rich Man in this parable. In later theological literature it has become almost universally current. The name Nineuis given him by Euthymius never came into general use, though the Sahidic version has the addition, “whose name was Ninue.” His sin was not in being rich, for Abraham was among the wealthiest of his day, but in his worldly unbelief in the spiritual and eternal, revealing itself in ostentatious luxury and hard-hearted contempt of the poor. Says Augustine, “Seems he (Jesus) not to have been reading from that book where he found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich, for that book is the book of life?” G. H. Trever LEACH <lech > . See HORSELEACH.

    LEAD <led > ( trstate, probably because it was so easily obtained from its ores.

    Lead was found in ancient times in Egypt and the Sinaitic peninsula. There is no lead found in Palestine proper, but in Northern Syria and Asia Minor it occurs in considerable quantities, usually associated with silver. These sources no doubt furnished an important supply in Bible times. It was also brought by the Phoenicians from Spain (Tarshish) ( Ezekiel 27:12) and the British Isles.

    Lead was used, as it still is, all along the Mediterranean shores for sinkers.

    Pieces of Egyptian fishnets probably dating from 1200 BC are now preserved in the British Museum, with their lead sinkers still attached.

    Since lead was the heaviest metal known to the ancients, gold excepted, it was generally used for fish-lines and sounding lines (compare Acts 27:28), especially in the dense waters of the Mediterranean. Moses mentioned the sinking qualities of lead in the sea in his simile of the sinking of Pharaoh’s hosts “as lead in the mighty waters” ( Exodus 15:10).

    Lead was used by the ancients for binding stones together. In most of the ancient ruins of Syria the Arabs have dug holes at the seams between stones in walls and columns in order to remove the iron, bronze, or lead thus used. In the museum of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, there are several specimens of cast-lead sarcophagi dating from the time of Christ.

    In Job 19:23,14, lead is mentioned as used in the engraving of permanent records. Two inferences might he drawn from this passage: either that the letters were cut with a chisel (pen) and then the cutting was filled with lead, or that sheets of lead were used as tablets on which to grave the record with an iron tool. Lead is frequently referred to along with iron, brass, silver and tin ( Numbers 31:22; Ezekiel 22:18,20; 27:12).

    The use of lead for plumblines is implied in Amos 7:7,8; Zechariah 4:10; as a weight in Zechariah 5:7,8. That Old Testament writers understood the use of lead for purifying gold is shown by Jeremiah 6:29 and Ezekiel 22:18-22 (compare Malachi 3:2,3). See METALS; REFINER.

    James A. Patch LEAF; LEAVES <lef > , <levz > : Used in three different senses, with reference: (1) To trees ( hl,[; [`aleh], “a coming up”), Genesis 3:7; 8:11; Leviticus 26:36 ( pr<[; [Tereph]); Ezekiel 17:9; [fu>llon , phullon ]. Figuratively (a) of spiritual blessings ( Ezekiel 47:12; compare Revelation 22:2) and prosperity ( Psalm 1:3); (b) of moral decay ( Isaiah 64:6), and (c) of a formal, empty profession ( Matthew 21:19). (2) To a book ( tl,D< [deleth]), Jeremiah 36:23 (margin “columns”; see 36:2); as the parchment was gradually unfolded the successive columns could be read. (3) To doors ( [l;xe [tsela`], “side,” [l;q] [qela`],”a screen,” “hanging”), 1 Kings 6:34. The door of the Holy Place consisted of two halves, but each half had two leaves (compare Ezekiel 41:24). M. O. Evans LEAGUE <leg > . See CONFEDERACY.

    LEAH <le’-a > ( ha;le [le’ah]; [ Lei>a , Leia ], “weary,” “dull”(?), “wild cow”):

    Rachel’s sister, and the elder daughter of Laban ( Genesis 29:16). We are told that her eyes were “tender” [rakkoth]). Gesenius renders it “weak,” Septuagint [ajsqenei~v , astheneis]; accordingly, she was weakeyed, but by no means “blear-eyed” (compare Vulgate). Her eyes were lacking that luster which always and everywhere is looked upon as a conspicuous part of female beauty. Josephus (Ant., I, xix, 7) says of her, [thcomely countenance.”

    Leah became the wife of Jacob by a ruse on the part of her father, taking advantage of the oriental custom of heavily veiling the prospective bride.

    When taken to task by his irate son-in-law, Laban excused himself by stating it was against the rule of the place “to give the younger before the first-born” ( Genesis 29:21-26). Although Rachel was plainly preferred by Jacob to Leah, still the latter bore him six sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah ( Genesis 29:31 ff), Issachar, Zebulun, and a daughter, Dinah ( Genesis 30:17-21). Up to this time Rachel had not been blessed with children of her own. Thus the lesson is brought home to us that Yahweh has a special and kindly regard for the lowly and despised, provided they learn, through their troubles and afflictions, to look to Him for help and success. It seems that homely Leah was a person of deep-rooted piety and therefore better suited to become instrumental in carrying out the plans of Yahweh than her handsome, but worldly-minded, sister Rachel.

    When Jacob decided to return to the “land of his fathers,” both of his wives were ready to accompany him ( Genesis 31:4,14). Before they reached the end of their journey their courage was sorely tried at the time of the meeting between Jacob and his brother Esau. Although Leah was placed between the handmaids in the front, and Rachel with her son Joseph in the rear, she still cannot have derived much comfort from her position. We may well imagine her feeling of relief when she saw Esau and his 400 men returning to Seir ( Genesis 33:2,16).

    According to Genesis 49:31, Leah was buried at Machpelah. We cannot know for a certainty that she died before Jacob’s going down to Egypt, though it is very likely. If she went down with her husband and died in Egypt, he had her body sent to the family burying-place. Ruth 4:11 discloses the fact that her memory was not forgotten by future generations.

    When Boaz took Ruth for a wife the witnesses exclaimed, “Yahweh make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel.” William Baur LEANNOTH <le-an’-oth > (Psalm 88, title). See PSALMS.

    LEAPING <lep’-ing > . See GAMES.

    LEASING <lez’-ing > ( bz’K; [kazabh] “to devise,” “to fabricate,” hence, “to lie”; occurs but twice in the King James Version ( Psalm 4:2, the Revised Version (British and American) “falsehood”; 5:6, the Revised Version (British and American) “lies”); the Hebrew word is translated “liars” ( <19B611> Psalm 116:11); “lie” or deceive ( Job 6:28)): The idea of treachery, lying, and deceit, lies at the root of this word. Joab’s conduct is a good illustration of the meaning ( 2 Samuel 3:27; 20:8-10). In Psalm 5:6 David is referring to the cunning, treachery, and falsehood of his adversaries; compare 2 Samuel 13:28; 15:7-9. Doubtless David had a special person in mind as being guilty of “leasing,” probably Ahithophel. William Evans LEATHER <leth’-er > . See SKIN; GIRDLE; TANNER.

    LEAVEN <lev’-n > ( raoc] [se’or], ˜mej; [chamets]; [zu>mh , zume ]; Latin fermentum): The nomadic ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Bedouin of today, probably made their bread without leaven; but leaven came to play a great part in their bread-making, their law and ritual, and their religious teaching (see Exodus 12:15,19; 13:7; Leviticus 2:11; Deuteronomy 16:4; Matthew 13:33; 16:6-12; Mark 8:15 f; Luke 12:1; 13:21).

    1. IN BREAD-MAKING.

    The form of leaven used in bread-making and the method of using it were simple and definite. The “leaven” consisted always, so far as the evidence goes, of a piece of fermented dough kept over from a former baking. There is no trace of the use of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those mentioned by Pliny (NH, xviii.26). The lump of dough thus preserved was either dissolved in water in the kneading-trough before the flour was added, or was “hid” in the flour (the King James Version “meal”) and kneaded along with it, as was the case mentioned in the parable ( Matthew 13:33). The bread thus made was known as “leavened,” as distinguished from “unleavened” bread ( Exodus 12:15, etc.). See BREAD.

    2. IN LAW AND RITUAL.

    The ritual prohibition of leaven during “the feast of unleavened bread” including the Passover ( Exodus 23:15, etc.) is a matter inviting restudy.

    For the historical explanation given in the Scriptures, see especially Exodus 12:34-39; 13:3 ff; Deuteronomy 16:3. The antiquity of the prohibition is witnessed by its occurrence in the earliest legislation ( Exodus 23:18; 34:25). A natural reason for the prohibition, like that of the similar exclusion of honey, is sought on the ground that fermentation implied a process of corruption. Plutarch voices this ancient view of the matter when he speaks of it as “itself the offspring of corruption, and corrupting the mass of dough with which it is mixed.” Fermentatum is used in Persius (Sat., i.24) for “corruption.” For this reason doubtless it was excluded also from the offerings placed upon the altar of Yahweh, cakes made from flour without leaven, and these only, being allowed. The regulation name for these “unleavened cakes” was [matstsoth] ( Leviticus 10:12). Two exceptions to this rule should be noted ( Leviticus 7:13; compare Amos 4:5): “leavened bread” was an accompaniment of the thank offering as leavened loaves were used also in the wave offering of Leviticus 23:17. Rabbinical writers regularly use leaven as a symbol of evil (Lightfoot).

    3. IN TEACHING.

    The figurative uses of leaven in the New Testament, no less than with the rabbins, reflect the ancient view of it as “corrupt and corrupting,” in parts at least, e.g. Matthew 16:6 parallel, and especially the proverbial saying twice quoted by Paul, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” ( Corinthians 5:6 f; Galatians 5:9). But as Jesus used it in Matthew 13:33, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,” it is clearly the hidden, silent, mysterious but all-pervading and transforming action of the leaven in the measures of flour that is the point of the comparison.

    LITERATURE.

    Nowack, Hebrew Arch., II, 145 f; Talmud, Berakhoth, 17a; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrew. on Matthew 16:6. George B. Eager LEBANA <le-ba’-na > , <leb’-a-na > ( an:b;l] [lebhana’]), or family of returning exiles ( Ezra 2:45; Nehemiah 7:48; compare 1 Esdras 5:29).

    LEBANON <leb’-a-non > ( ˆwOnb;l] [lebanon]; Septuagint [ Li>banov , Libanos ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Libanus):

    1. NAME:

    Derived from the root ˆbel; [labhen], “to be white,” probably from the snow which covers its summits the greater part of the year. “White mountains” are found in almost every country. The light color of the upper limestone may, however, form a sufficient reason for the name. In prose the article is usually connected with the name. In poetry it is more often without the article. In the Septuagint, however, the article is generally present both in prose and poetry.

    2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION:

    The Lebanon range proper borders the east coast of the Mediterranean, for a distance of 100 miles, running North-Northeast and South-Southwest from the mouth of the Litany river, the classic Leontes (which enters the sea a little North of Tyre), to the mouth of the Eleuthurus (Nahr el-Kebir), a few miles North of Tripolis. This river comes through a depression between Lebanon and the Nuseiriyeh mountains, known as “the entrance to Hamath,” and connects with a caravan route to the Euphrates through Palmyra. For a considerable distance North of the Litany, the mountain summits average from 4,000 to 6,000 ft. in height, and the range is more or less dissected by short streams which enter the Mediterranean. Most prominent of these is the Nahr ez-Zaherany, which, after running 25 or miles in a southerly direction through the center of the range, like the Litany, turns abruptly West opposite Matthew. Hermon, reaching the sea between Tyre and Sidon. In roughly parallel courses Nahr el-`Awleh and Nahr Damur descend to the sea between Sidon and Beyrout, and Nahr Beyrout just North of the city. Throughout this district the mountain recesses are more or less wooded. Opposite Beyrout the range rises in Jebel Sannin to an elevation of 8,560 ft. Thirty miles farther Northeast the summit is reached in Jebel Mukhmal, at an elevation of 10,225 ft., with several others of nearly the same height. An amphitheater here opens to the West, in which is sheltered the most frequented cedar grove, and from which emerges the Nahr Qadisha (“sacred stream”) which enters the Mediterranean at Tripolis. Snow is found upon these summits throughout the year ( Jeremiah 18:14), while formerly the level area between them furnished the snow fields from which a glacier descended several miles into the headwaters of the Qadisha, reaching a level of about 5,000 ft. The glacier deposited in this amphitheater a terminal moraine covering several square miles, which at its front, near Bsherreh, is 1,000 ft. in thickness. It is on this that the grove of cedars referred to is growing.

    The view from this summit reveals the geographical features of the region in a most satisfactory manner. Toward the East lies Coele-Syria (the modern Buka), 7,000 ft. below the summit, bordered on the eastern side by the mountain wall of Anti-Lebanon, corresponding to the cliffs of Moab East of the Jordan valley, opposite Judea. This depression in fact is but a continuation of the great geological fault so conspicuous in the Jordan valley (see ARABAH). As one looks down into this valley, Ba`albek appears at the base of Anti-Lebanon, only 20 miles away. The valley is here about 10 miles wide, and forms the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. To the Northeast the valley of the Orontes is soon obscured by intervening peaks, but to the Southwest the valley of the Litany closes up only where the glistering peak of Matthew. Hermon pierces the sky, as the river turns abruptly toward the sea 40 miles distant. Toward the West, the blue waters of the Mediterranean, only 25 miles distant as the crow flies, show themselves at intervals through the gorges cut by the rapid streams which have furrowed the western flanks of the mountain ( Song of Solomon 4:15); 3,500 ft. beneath is the amphitheater many square miles in area, filled with the terminal moraine from which the Qadisha river emerges, and on which the grove of cedars (compare 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 92:12; Hosea 14:5) appears as a green spot in the center.

    Onward to the West the river gorge winds its way amid numerous picturesque village sites and terraced fields, every foot of which is cultivated by a frugal and industrious people. To the traveler who has made the diagonal journey from Beirut to the cedars, memory fills in innumerable details which are concealed from vision at any one time. He has crossed Nahr el-Kelb (“Dog River”), near its mouth, where he has seen Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions dating from the time of Sennacherib’s invasion.

    Ascending this river, after passing numerous villages surrounded by mulberry and olive groves, vineyards, and fields of wheat, and pausing to study the ruins of a temple dating from Roman times, and having crossed a natural bridge at Jisr el-Hagar with a span of 120 ft., rising 75 ft. above the stream, he arrives, at the end of the second day, at the ruins of the famous temple of Venus destroyed by the order of Constantine on account of the impurity of the rites celebrated in it. Here, too, is a famous spring, typical of many others which gush forth on either side of the Lebanon range from beneath the thick deposits of limestone which everywhere crown its summit. The flow of water is enormous, and at certain seasons of the year is colored red with a mineral matter which the ancients regarded with mysterious reverence (see LB, III, 244). The lower part of the amphitheater is covered with verdure and a scanty growth of pine and walnut trees, but the upper part merges in the barren cliffs which lie above the snow line. Onward, alternately through upturned limestone strata, left by erosion in fantastic forms, and through barren areas of red sandstone, where the cedars of Lebanon would flourish if protected from the depredations of man and his domestic animals, he crosses by turns at higher and higher levels the headwaters of the Ibrahim, Fedar, Jozeh, Byblus and the Botrys rivers, and at length reaches, on the fourth day, the Qadisha, miles below the cedars of Lebanon. Viewed from the Mediterranean the Lebanon range presents a continuous undulating outline of light-colored limestone peaks, the whole rising so abruptly from the sea that through most of the distance there is barely room for a road along the shore, while in places even that is prevented by rocky promontories projecting boldly into the sea. The only harbors of importance are at Beyrout and Tripolis, and these are only partially protected, being open to the Northwest. The eastern face of the range falling down into Coele-Syria is very abrupt, with no foothills and but one or two important valleys.

    3. GEOLOGY:

    Geologically considered, the Lebanon consists of three conformable strata of rock thrown up in an anticline with its steepest face to the East. The lowest of these are several thousand ft. thick, consisting of hard limestone containing few fossils, the most characteristic of which is Cidaris glandaria, from which the formation has been named Glandarian limestone. In its foldings this has been elevated in places to a height of 5,000 ft. Through erosion it is exposed in numerous places, where it presents picturesque castellated columns, whose bluish-gray sides are beautifully fluted by atmospheric agencies. The second formation consists of several hundred feet of red-colored sandstone alternating with soft limestone and clay deposits, occasionally containing a poor quality of bituminous coal, with pyrites and efflorescent salts. It is this that occasionally colors the water of the spring at Adonis. The characteristic fossil is Trigonia syriaca.

    Altogether this formation attains a thickness of 1,000 ft., and it is on its exposed surfaces that the most of the Lebanon pines are found. It contains also many signs of volcanic action. The third formation consists of hippurite limestone, a cretaceous formation, in some places almost wholly composed of fragments of the fossils from which it derives its name. This formation appears on all the highest summits, where in most cases it is nearly horizontal, and in places attains a thickness of 5,000 ft. Between the summits of the range and the foothills this formation has been almost wholly carried away by erosion, thus exposing the underlying formations.

    Cretaceous strata of still later age are found at low levels near the sea, which in places are covered by small deposits of Tertiary limestone, and by a porous sandstone of the Pleistocene age.

    4. SCENERY:

    The scenery of the western slopes of Lebanon is most varied, magnificent, and beautiful, and well calculated, as indeed it did to impress the imagination of the Hebrew poets. Originally it was heavily covered with forests of pine, oak and cedar; but these have for the most part long since disappeared, except in the valley of Nahr Ibrahim, which is still thickly wooded with pine, oak and plane trees. Of the cedars there remain, besides the grove at the head of the Qadisha, only two or three, and they are of less importance. Every available spot on the western flanks of the Lebanon is cultivated, being sown with wheat or planted with the vine, the olive, the mulberry and the walnut. Irrigation is extensively practiced. When we let the eye range from the snowy summits of the mountain over all that lies between them and the orange groves of Sidon on the seashore, we understand why the Arabs say that “Lebanon bears winter on its head, spring on its shoulders, autumn in its lap, while summer lies at its feet.”

    In the more desolate places jackals, hyenas, wolves, and panthers are still found (compare 2 Kings 14:9).

    5. HISTORY:

    The original inhabitants of Lebanon were Hivites and Gebalites ( Judges 3:3; Joshua 13:5,6). The whole mountain range was assigned to the Israelites, but was never conquered by them. It seemed generally to have been subject to the Phoenicians. At present it is occupied by various sects of Christians and Mohammedans, of whom the Maronites, Druzes and Orthodox Greeks are most active and prominent. Since 1860 the region has been under the protection of European powers with a Christian governor. No exact figures are available, but the population at present numbers probably about 275,000.

    Ruins of ancient temples are numerous throughout Lebanon. Bacon estimates that within a radius of 20 miles of Ba`albek there are 15 ruined sun-temples, the grandeur and beauty of which would have made them famous but for the surpassing splendor of Ba`albek.

    6. ANTI-LEBANON:

    Anti-Libanus (Judith 1:7; Joshua 13:5; Song of Solomon 7:4) is an extension northward of the great mountain system facing on the East the great geological fault most conspicuous in the valley of the Jordan (see JORDAN, VALLEY OF), extending from the Gulf of Akabah to Antioch on the Orontes River. The system begins at the Barada River just North of Matthew. Hermon, and, running parallel to Matthew. Lebanon for miles, terminates at Chums, the “entering in of Hamath.” The highest points of the range reach an elevation of over 8,000 ft. Eastward the range merges into the plateau of the great Syrian desert. South of Ba`albek the Yahfufah, a stream of considerable importance, empties into the Litany, while the Barada (the “Abana” of Scripture), rising in the same plateau, flows eastward to Damascus, its volume being greatly increased by fountains coming in from the base of the dissected plateau.

    LITERATURE.

    The geographical and geological descriptions are largely obtained by the writer from an extended excursion through the region in the company of Professor Day of the Protestant College at Beirut, whose knowledge of the region is most intimate and comprehensive. For more detailed information see Robinson, BRP2, II, 435 ff, 493; G. A. Smith, HGHL, 45 ff; Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria; Benjamin W. Bacon, and G.F. Wright in Records of the Past, 1906, V, 67-83, 195-204; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine. George Frederick Wright LEBAOTH <le-ba’-oth > , <-oth > ( twOab;l] [lebha’oth]): An unidentified city in the South of the territory of Judah ( Joshua 15:32). It is the same as Bethlebaoth of Joshua 19:6, which, by a clerical error appears in Chronicles 4:31 as “Beth-biri.”

    LEBBAEUS <le-be’-us > ([ Lebbai~ov , Lebbaios ]): Mentioned in Matthew 10:3 the King James Version as “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus” (the Revised Version (British and American) omits); one of the twelve apostles. See THADDAEUS.

    LEBONAH <le-bo’-na > ( hn:wObl] [lebhonah]): A place on the great north road between Shiloh and Shechem ( Judges 21:19). It is represented by the modern Khan el-Lubban, about 3 miles West-Northwest of Seilun (“Shiloh”), on the way to Nablus. It is a wretched village lying on the slope of a hill, with many rock tombs in the vicinity.

    LECAH <le’-ka > ( hk;le [lekhah]): A descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 4:21).

    LEDGE <lej > ( bl;v; [shalabh]): The word in the sense of side-projection is used in 1 Kings 7:28,29 in connection with the bases of Solomon’s MOLTEN SEA (which see); in 7:35,36, where the King James Version uses the same word, the Revised Version (British and American) has “stay” ([yadh], literally, “hand”). The Revised Version (British and American) likewise has “ledge” (round) for the King James Version “compass” ([karkobh]) in the description of the altar in Exodus 27:5; 38:4 (see ALTAR), and the American Standard Revised Version substitutes “ledge” for “settle” ([`azarah]) in Ezekiel 43:14,17,20; 45:19. See TEMPLE.

    LEEKS <leks > ( ryxj; [chatsir]; [ta< pra>sa , ta prasa ]): This word, elsewhere translated “grass,” is in Numbers 11:5 rendered “leeks” in all the ancient VSS, on account of its association with garlic and onions; such a use of the word occurs in the Talmud The leek (Allium porrum) is much grown today in Palestine, while in ancient Egypt this vegetable was renowned.

    LEES <lez > . See WINE.

    LEFT <left > ( lam”c; [sama’l], “to go to the left,” “to turn to the left,” lwamoc] , lamoc] [semo’l], “the left hand,” yliam;c] [sema’li], “belonging to the left,” “situated on the left”; [ajristero>v , aristeros ], and euphemistically [eujw>numov , euonumos ], literally, “having a good name,” “of good omen”): The words are chiefly used in orientation with or without the addition of the word “hand.” So Abraham says to Lot: “If thou wilt take the left hand ([semo’l]), then I will go to the right; or if thou take the right hand, then I will go to the left ([sama’l])” ( Genesis 13:9).

    Frequently in Hebrew idiom the right hand and the left are mentioned together in order to express the idea “everywhere,” “anywhere,” “altogether” ( Genesis 24:49; Exodus 14:22,29; Numbers 22:26; Deuteronomy 2:27; 5:32; 2 Corinthians 6:7). In the geographical sense the left is synonymous with north ( Genesis 14:15; Joshua 19:27; Ezekiel 16:46; Acts 21:3). While the left hand is considered as weaker than the right (see LEFTHANDED), it is the hand which holds the bow ( Ezekiel 39:3). The left hand is the side from which bad omens come, and therefore less lucky and less honored than the right hand (see HAND, note). H. L. E. Luering LEFTHANDED <left’-hand-ed > ( ˆymiy:Ady’ rFeai [’iTTer yadh-yamin]; Septuagint [ajmfoterode>xiov , amphoterodexios ], i.e. “ambidextrous”): The Hebrew presents a combination of words signifying literally, a man whose right hand is impeded or lame, who therefore uses the left hand instead, or one who by habit prefers the use of the left hand, where others use the right. It is interesting to note that in both instances, where the expression occurs in the Scripture, it refers to individuals belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (which name itself signifies “a son of the right hand”!). The first is Ehud, son of Gera, who killed Eglon, king of Moab, and thereby delivered Israel from paying tribute to the Moabites ( Judges 3:15). The other instance is that of the 700 selected Benjamites, who, though lefthanded, “could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss” ( Judges 20:16; of Chronicles 12:2). H. L. E. Luering LEG (1) qwOv [shoq], Aramaic qv; [shoq]; (2) [r’K; [kara`], dual µyI[“r:K] [kera`ayim]; (3) lglov , skelos ]; the King James Version translates also lb,vo [shobhel], and hd:[;x] [tse`adhah], with “leg,” but mistakenly): (1) The first Hebrew word ([shoq]) denotes the upper leg, and is therefore synonymous with THIGH (which see). It expresses metaphorically the muscular strength, and the pride of the runner. “He taketh no pleasure in the legs of a man” ( <19E710> Psalm 147:10). “His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold” ( Song of Solomon 5:15). If the legs have lost their strength as in the lame or the Beri-beri patient, they become a metaphor for anything useless, inefficient or disappointing: “The legs of the lame hang loose; so is a parable in the mouth of fools” ( Proverbs 26:7). The Aramaic form is found in the description of the image of Nebuchadnezzar, “its legs of iron” ( Daniel 2:33). (2) [Kara`], dual [kera`ayim], the “leg,” “respecting the legs,” mentioned as a portion of the paschal lamb ( Exodus 12:9), or, usually, in connection with the head and the inwards, as a sacrificial portion ( Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 1:9,13; Amos 3:12). The word designates also the legs of leaping insects of the orthopterous family, locusts, etc., which were permitted as food to the Israelites ( Leviticus 11:21). (3) Reghel, literally, “foot” (which see), found in this sense only once: “He (Goliath) had greaves of brass upon his legs” ( 1 Samuel 17:6).

    Two passages of wrong translation in the King James Version have been corrected by the Revised Version (British and American). The virgin daughter of Babylon is addressed: “Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh” ( Isaiah 47:2), the Revised Version (British and American) renders: “Strip off the train (shobhel), uncover the leg,” the idea being that the gentle maid, who has been brought up in affluence and luxury, will have to don the attire of a slave girl and do menial work, for which her former garments are unsuited. The other passage is in Isaiah 3:20, where the King James Version reads: “the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs,” the Revised Version (British and American) corrects: “the headtires ([ts`adhah]), and the ankle chains.”

    In the New Testament the word “leg” is found only in connection with the breaking of the legs of the persons crucified with the Saviour ( John 19:31,32,33). We know from Roman and Greek authors that this was done as a coup de grace to shorten the miseries of criminals condemned to die on the cross. The practice bore the technical name of [skelokopi>a , skelokopia ], Latin crurifragium. The verb [skelokopei~n , skelokopein ] (“to break the legs”), is found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter ( Peter 4:14), where it is distinctly stated that the legs of Jesus were not broken, that His sufferings on the cross might be extended, while the two malefactors crucified with Him were mercifully dispatched in this way. The crurifragium consisted of some strokes with a heavy club or mallet, which always materially hastened the death of the sufferer, and often caused it almost immediately.

    Edersheim, in LTJM, II, 613, suggests that the breaking of legs was an additional punishment, and that it was always followed by a coup de grace, the perforatio or percussio sub alas, a stroke with sword or lance into the side. This, however, is not borne out by any classical information which is known to me, and is contradicted by the statement of the evangelist that Jesus received the percussio, while the malefactors endured the crurifragium. Compare on this subject, especially for parallels from classical authors, Sepp, Das Leben Jesu, VII, 441, and Keim, Jesus von Nazara (English translation), VI, 253, note 3. H. L. E. Luering LEGION <le’-jun > . See ARMY; ARMY, ROMAN.

    LEGISLATION, OF SANCTITY <lej-is-la’-shun > . See ASTRONOMY, I, 5.

    LEHABIM <le-ha’-bim > ( µybih;l; [lehdbhim]): Named in Genesis 10:13; Chronicles 1:11 as descendants of Mizraim. They are probably to be identified with the LUBIM (which see), and the one word may be a corruption of the other.

    LEHI <le’-hi > . See RAMATH-LEHI.

    LEMUEL <lem’-u-el > ( laeWml] [lemu’el], or laewOml] [lemo’-el]): A king whose words, an “oracle (taught him by his mother),” are given in Proverbs 31:1-9; and possibly the succeeding acrostic poem (31:10-31) is from the same source. Instead of translating the word after this name as “oracle” some propose to leave it as a proper name, translating “king of Massa,” and referring for his kingdom to Massa ( Genesis 25:14), one of the sons of Ishmael, supposedly head of a tribe or sheikh of a country. It is to be noted, however, that the words of Agur in the previous chapter are similarly called massa’, “oracle” with not so clear a reason for referring it to a country. See for a suggested reason for retaining the meaning “oracle” in both places, PROVERBS, BOOK OF, II, 6. John Franklin Genung LEND, LOAN <lon > : The translation of 7 Hebrew and 2 Greek vbs.:

    1. LEXICAL USAGES:

    In the Old Testament: hw:l; [lawah], “to join,” “cause to join,” “lend” ( Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 28:12,44; Psalm 37:26; Proverbs 19:17); hv;n; [nashah], “to bite,” “lend” ( Deuteronomy 24:11; Jeremiah 15:10); hv;n: [nashah] (same root as last, though different verb stem, Hiphil), “to cause to bite,” “lend on usury” ( Deuteronomy 15:2; 24:10); °]v”n: [nashakh], “to bite,” “lend” “(cause to lend) on usury” ( Deuteronomy 23:19,20); ˆt”n: [nathan], “to give” ( Leviticus 25:37, the Revised Version (British and American) “to give”); fb”[; [`abhat] (Hiphil), “to cause to borrow,” “to lend” ( Deuteronomy 15:6,8); la”v; [sha’al] (Hiphil), “to cause to ask,” “to lend” ( Exodus 12:36, the Revised Version (British and American) “ask”; 1 Samuel 1:27). In Septuagint [danei>zw , daneizo ], [dani>zw , danizo ], “to lend,” translates hw:l; , tb”[; [lawah], and la”v; [`abaT] in above passages and in Nehemiah 5:4; Proverbs 22:7, and Isaiah 24:2; [kicra>w , kichrao ], also translations hw:l; [lawah] and la”v; [sha’al] ( <19B205> Psalm 112:5; Proverbs 13:11); [da>neion ( -ion ), daneion (-ion )], “loan,” occurs in Deuteronomy 15:8,10; 24:11; 4 Macc 2:8. In the New Testament “lend” translations two Greek verbs, [daneizo], “to lend money” ( Luke 6:34,35, usually in commercial sense); [ Kings>crhmi , kichremi ], “to lend (as a friendly act)” ( Luke 11:5).The substantive “loan,” hl;aev] [she’elah], occurs only once in the Old Testament ( 1 Samuel 2:20 the King James Version and the English Revised Version), not at all in the New Testament.

    2. HISTORY OF LENDING IN THE BIBLE AND APOCRYPHA: (1) Lending on interest to the poor is prohibited in the code in Exodus 22:25. (2) In the code in Deuteronomy 15:1-6; 23:19,20; 24:10,11; 28:12,44, borrowing and lending are taken for granted as existing in Israel, but the creditor is required to release his Hebrew brother as debtor in the 7th year (either the cancellation of the loan (so in Jewish literature and early Christian scholars) or suspension of payment that year (so most modern scholars)), though he may exact payment from a foreigner. Israel may lend, and will be able to lend, because of Yahweh’s blessing, to other nations, but must not borrow from them.

    A pledge, or security, must not be taken in person by the creditor from the house of the debtor, nor kept overnight, if the debtor be poor. (3) The code in Leviticus 25:35-38 requires that the Israelite receive no interest from his poor brother, because of the goodness of Yahweh to Israel. (4) Notwithstanding the prohibition of the early laws against lending on interest or usury, the same seems to have become common in Israel before the exile ( Isaiah 24:2; Jeremiah 15:10), was practiced on the return, and was an evil to be corrected by Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 5:7,10). (5) According to Psalm 37:26; 112:5; Proverbs 19:17, lending to the needy was regarded as a mark of the pious Hebrew, but no interest is to be charged. (6) According to Apocrypha (The Wisdom of Solomon 15:16; Sirach 8:12; 18:33; 20:15,29; 4 Macc 2:8), borrowing is discouraged, and lending is exalted as a mark of the merciful man. (7) Jesus teaches that His followers should lend, even to enemies, to men from whom they have no reasonable hope of expecting anything in return, because thus to do is to be like the Most High ( Luke 6:34,35). He did not discuss lending for commercial purposes, and so does not necessarily forbid it.

    LITERATURE. See Driver on <051501>Deuteronomy 15:1-6; Benzinger, Hebrew Archaeology, (1894), 350 f; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, 150, 10; Plummer on Luke 6:34,35.

    Charles B. Williams LENTILS <len’-tilz > ( µyvid;[\ [’adhashim]; [fako>v , phakos ]; Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 17:28; 23:11; Ezekiel 4:9; the King James Version Lentiles): These are undoubtedly identical with the Arabic `adas, a small, reddish bean, the product of Ervum lens, a dwarf leguminous plant, half a foot high, which is extensively cultivated in Palestine as a summer crop.

    The flour is highly nutritious, and the well-known food, Revalenta arabica, is simply one form, specially prepared; `adas are highly esteemed in Palestine, and are used in soup and as a “pottage” known as mujedderah.

    This last is of a reddish-brown color and is without doubt the “pottage” of Genesis 25:34. Lentils were part of the provisions brought to David when fleeing from Absalom ( 2 Samuel 17:28) and were used in the making of the bread for the prophet Ezekiel (4:9). In a “plot of ground full of lentils,” Shammah, one of David’s “mighty men,” stood and defended it and slew the marauding Philistines ( 2 Samuel 23:11,12). E. W. G. Masterman LEOPARD <lep’-erd > (1) rmen: [namer] ( Song of Solomon 4:8; Isaiah 11:6; Jeremiah 5:6; 13:23; Hosea 13:7; Habakkuk 1:8); compare Arabic nimr, “leopard.” (2) Chaldaic rm”n] [nemar] ( Daniel 7:6). (3) [pa>rdaliv , pardalis ] ( Revelation 13:2; Ecclesiasticus 28:23); compare µyrIm]ni [nimrim] Nimrim ( Isaiah 15:6; Jeremiah 48:34), hr:m]ni [nimrah], Nimrah ( Numbers 32:3), and hr:m]ni tyBe [beth-nimrah], Beth-nimrah ( Numbers 32:36; Joshua 13:27)):

    The leopard is found throughout Africa and ranges through Southern Asia from Asia Minor to Japan, being absent from Siberia and Central Asia. Its range is much the same as that of the lion, which latter, however, does not extend so far to the East. Like other animals of wide range, it has local varieties, but these shade into each other imperceptibly, and the one specific name, Felis pardus, includes all. Leopards live in some of the valleys East and South of the Dead Sea, and in the mountains of Sinai and Northwestern Arabia. They have but rarely been seen of recent years in Lebanon or the more settled portions of Palestine. So far as can be judged from skins which are available for comparison, the leopard of Palestine is rather light in color, and is not as large as. some found in Africa or India. It is not certain that the place-names, NIMRIM, NIMRAH , and BETHNIMRAH (which see), have to do with [namer], “leopard,” but their location is in Moab, where leopards are well known, even at the present day. One of the valleys entering the Dead Sea from the East, South of the Arnon, is called Wadi-en-Numeir (“valley of the little leopard”; [numeir], diminutive of [nimr]).

    In the Bible “leopard” occurs mainly in figurative expressions, as a large and fierce beast. The leopard is mentioned with the lion and bear in Daniel 7:6; Hosea 13:7; Revelation 13:2; with the lion, wolf and bear in Isaiah 11:6; with the lion and wolf in Jeremiah 5:6; with the lion alone in Ecclesiasticus 28:23; with the wolf alone in Habakkuk 1:8.

    The leopard is smaller than the lion and the tiger, but is more active than either. Its swiftness is referred to in Habakkuk 1:8: “Their horses also (of the Chaldeans) are swifter than leopards.” The spots of the leopard are referred to in Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?”

    The Greek [pa>rdaliv , pardalis ], and [pa>nqhr , panther ], were both applied to the leopard. “Panther” is sometimes used of large leopards, while in America, with its corrupt form “painter,” it is one of the names applied to the cougar or puma, Felis concolor, which, as the specific name implies, is not spotted like the leopard, or striped like the tiger. Alfred Ely Day LEPER; LEPROSY <lep’-er > , <lep’-ro-si > ( t[“r’x; [tsara`ath]; [le>pra , lepra ]): A slowly progressing and intractable disease characterized by subcutaneous nodules (Hebrew [se’eth]; Septuagint [oule ]; the King James Version “rising”), scabs or cuticular crusts (Hebrew [cappachath]; Septuagint [semasia ]) and white shining spots appearing to be deeper than the skin (Hebrew [bahereth]; Septuagint [telaugema ]). Other signs are (1) that the hairs of the affected part turn white and (2) that later there is a growth of “quick raw flesh.”

    This disease in an especial manner rendered its victims unclean; even contact with a leper defiled whoever touched him, so while the cure of other diseases is called healing, that of leprosy is called cleansing (except in the case of Miriam ( Numbers 12:13) and that of the Samaritan ( Luke 17:15) where the word “heal” is used in reference to leprosy).

    The disease is described in the Papyrus Ebers as ukhedu (the Coptic name for leprosy is [tseht]). It is also mentioned in ancient Indian and Japanese history. Hippocrates calls it “the Phoenician disease,” and Galen names it “elephantiasis.” In Europe it was little known until imported by the returning soldiers of Pompey’s army after his Syrian campaign in 61 BC; but after that date it is described by Soranus, Aretaeus and other classic authors.

    1. OLD TESTAMENT INSTANCES:

    The first Old Testament mention of this disease is as a sign given by God to Moses ( Exodus 4:6 (Jahwist)), which may be the basis of the story in Josephus’ Apion, I, 31, that Moses was expelled from Heliopolis on account of his being a leper (see also I, 26 and Ant, III, xi, 4). The second case is that of Miriam ( Numbers 12:10), where the disease is graphically described (EP2). In Deuteronomy 24:8 there is a reference to the oral tradition concerning the treatment of lepers, without any details, but in Leviticus 13; 14 (Priestly Code) the rules for the recognition of the disease, the preliminary quarantine periods and the ceremonial methods of cleansing are given at length. It is worthy of note that neither here nor elsewhere is there any mention of treatment or remedy; and Jehoram’s ejaculation implies the belief that its cure could be accomplished only by miracle ( Kings 5:7).

    The case of Naaman ( 2 Kings 5:1) shows that lepers were not isolated and excluded from society among the Syrians. The leprosy of Gehazi ( Kings 5:27) is said to have been the transference of that of Naaman, but, as the incubation period is long, it must have been miraculously inflicted on him. The four lepers of Samaria of 2 Kings 7:3 had been excluded from the city and were outside the gate.

    The leprous stroke inflicted on Uzziah ( 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 26:23) for his unwarrantable assumption of the priestly office began in his forehead, a form of the disease peculiarly unclean ( Leviticus 13:43-46) and requiring the banishment and isolation of the leper. It is remarkable that there is no reference to this disease in the prophetical writings, or in the Hagiographa.

    2. LEPROSY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament, cleansing of the lepers is mentioned as a specific portion of our Lord’s work of healing, and was included in the commission given to the apostles. There are few individual cases specially described, only the ten of Luke 17:12, and the leper whom our Lord touched ( Matthew 8:2; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12), but it is probable that these are only a few out of many such incidents. Simon the leper ( Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3) may have been one of those cured by the Lord.

    3. NATURE AND LOCALITY OF THE DISEASE:

    The disease is a zymotic affection produced by a microbe discovered by Hansen in 1871. It is contagious, although not very readily communicated by casual contact; in one form it is attended with anesthesia of the parts affected, and this, which is the commonest variety now met with in the East, is slower in its course than those forms in which nodular growths are the most prominent features, in which parts of the limbs often drop off. At present there are many lepers to be seen at the gates of the cities in Palestine. It is likewise prevalent in other eastern lands, India, China, and Japan. Cases are also to be seen in most of the Mediterranean lands and in Norway, as well as in parts of Africa and the West Indies and in South America. In former times it was occasionally met with in Britain, and in most of the older English cities there were leper houses, often called “lazarets” from the mistaken notion that the eczematous or varicose ulcers of Lazarus were leprous ( Luke 16:20). Between 1096 and 1472, such leper houses were founded in England. Of this disease King Robert Bruce of Scotland died. There was special medieval legislation excluding lepers from churches and forbidding them to wander from district to district. Leprosy has been sometimes confounded with other diseases; indeed the Greek physicians used the name [lepra ] for the scaly skin disease now called psoriasis. In the priestly legislation there was one form of disease ( Leviticus 13:13) in which the whiteness covers all the body, and in this condition the patient was pronounced to be clean. This was probably psoriasis, for leprosy does not, until a very late stage, cover all the body, and when it does so, it is not white. It has been surmised that Naaman’s disease was of this kind. Freckled spots (Hebrew [bohaq]), which were to be distinguished from true leprosy ( Leviticus 13:39), were either spots of herpes or of some other non-contagious skin disease.

    The modern Arabic word of the same sound is the name of a form of eczema. the Revised Version (British and American) reads for freckled spot “tetter,” an old English word from a root implying itchiness (see Hamlet, I, v, 71).

    The homiletic use of leprosy as a type of sin is not Biblical. The only Scriptural reference which might approach this is Psalm 51:7, but this refers to Numbers 19:18 rather than to the cleansing of the leper. The Fathers regarded leprosy as typical of heresy rather than of moral offenses. (See Rabanus Maurus, Allegoria, under the word “Lepra.”) (1) Leprosy in Garments.

    The occurrence of certain greenish or reddish stains in the substance of woolen or linen fabrics or in articles made of leather is described in Leviticus 13:47 ff, and when these stains spread, or, after washing, do not change their color, they are pronounced to be due to a fretting leprosy ([tsara`ath mam’ereth]), and such garments are to be burnt. As among the fellahin articles of clothing are worn for years and are often hereditary, it is little wonder that they become affected by vegetable as well as animal parasites, and that which is here referred to is probably some form of mildew, such as Penicillium or mold-fungus. The destruction of such garments is a useful sanitary precaution. Possibly this sort of decaying garment was in Job’s mind when he compares himself to a “rotten thing that consumeth, like a garment that is moth-eaten” ( Job 13:28); see also Jude 1:23, “the garment spotted ([espilomenon ]) by the flesh.” (2) Leprosy in the House ( Leviticus 14:34 ff).

    The occurrence of “hollow streaks, greenish or reddish,” in the plaster of a house is regarded as evidence that the wall is affected with leprosy, and when such is observed the occupant first clears his house of furniture, for if the discoloration be pronounced leprous, all in the home would become unclean and must be destroyed. Then he asks the priest to inspect it. The test is first, that the stain is in the substance of the wall, and, second, that it is spreading. In case these conditions are fulfilled, it is pronounced to be leprosy and the affected part of the wall is taken down, its stones cast outside the city, its plaster scraped off and also cast outside the city; new stones are then built in and the house is newly plastered. Should the stain recur in the new wall, then the whole house is condemned and must be destroyed and its materials cast outside the city. The description is that of infection by some fungus attacking whatever organic material is in the mud plaster by which the wall is covered. If in woodwork, it might be the dry rot (Merulius lacrimans), but this is not likely to spread except where there is wood or other organic matter. It might be the efflorescence of mural salt (calcium nitrate), which forms fiocculent masses when decomposing nitrogenous material is in contact with lime; but that is generally white, not green or reddish. Considering the uncleanly condition of the houses of the ordinary fellah, it is little wonder that such fungus growths may develop in their walls, and in such cases destruction of the house and its materials is a sanitary necessity.

    4. THE LEGAL ATTITUDE:

    It should be observed here that the attitude of the Law toward the person, garment or house suspected of leprosy is that if the disease be really present they are to be declared unclean and there is no means provided for cure, and in the case of the garment or house, they are to be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the disease be proved to be absent, this freedom from the disease has to be declared by a ceremonial purification. This is in reality not the ritual for cleansing the leper, for the Torah provides none such, but the ritual for declaring him ceremonially free from the suspicion of having the disease. This gives a peculiar and added force to the words, “The lepers are cleansed,” as a testimony to our Lord’s Divine mission. Alexander Macalister LESHEM <le’-shem > . See LAISH.

    LESSAU <les’-o > ([ Lessaou> , Lessaou ]; the King James Version Dessau): A place mentioned only in 2 Macc 14:16 as the scene of a battle between Nicanor and the Jews. “Dessau” of the King James Version arises from confusion of the captical Greek letters, Lambda (“L”) with Delta (“D”). The place may be identical with ADASA (which see).

    LET ([kate>cw , katecho ]): Usually in the sense of “permit” (Anglo-Saxon, leetan), but also in Old English with meaning of “hinder” (Anglo-Saxon, lettan). This latter sense is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 the King James Version, “Only he who now letteth will let,” where the Revised Version (British and American) has, “Only there is one that restraineth now.”

    LETHECH <le’-thek > ( °]t,l, [lethekh]): A liquid measure equivalent to half a homer ( Hosea 3:2 margin) and containing about 5 1/2 bushels. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

    LETTER <let’-er > . See EPISTLE.

    LETTERS <let’-erz > . See ALPHABET; WRITING.

    LETUSHIM <le-too’-shim > , <le-tu’-shim > ( µyviWfl] [leTushim]): A Dedanite tribe in North Arabia ( Genesis 25:3). With it are connected the ASSHURIM and LEUMMIM (which see).

    LEUMMIM <le-um’-im > ( µyMiaul] [le’ummim]): A Dedanite tribe of North Arabia, connected with the LETUSHIM (which see).

    LEVI (1) <le’-vi > ( ywIle [Lewi]; [ Leui` , Leui ]; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek [ Leuei> , Leuei ]): (1) The 3rd son of Jacob by Leah. See separate article. (2), (3) Two ancestors of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy ( Luke 3:24,29). (4) The apostle Matthew. See MATTHEW.

    LEVI (2) ( ywIle [Lewi]; [ Leuei> , Leuei]): The third of Leah’s sons born to Jacob in Paddan-aram ( Genesis 29:34). In this passage the name is connected with the verb [lawah], “to adhere,” or “be joined to,” Leah expressing assurance that with the birth of this third son, her husband might be drawn closer to her in the bonds of conjugal affection. There is a play upon the name in Numbers 18:2,4, where direction is given that the tribe of Levi be “joined unto” Aaron in the ministries of the sanctuary. The etymology here suggested is simple and reasonable. The grounds on which some modern scholars reject it are purely conjectural. It is asserted, e.g., that the name is adjectival, not nominal, describing one who attaches himself; and this is used to support theory that the Levites were those who joined the Semitic people when they left Egypt to return to Palestine, who therefore were probably Egyptians. Others think it may be a gentilic form [le’ah], “wild cow” (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 146; Stade, Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 152); and this is held to be the more probable, as pointing to early totem worship!

    Levi shared with Simeon the infamy incurred at Shechem by the treacherous slaughter of the Shechemites (Genesis 34). Jacob’s displeasure was expressed at the time ( Genesis 34:3), and the memory was still bitter to him in his last days ( Genesis 49:5 f). The fate predicted for the descendants of Simeon and Levi ( Genesis 49:7), in the case of the latter on account of the tribe’s stedfast loyalty in a period of stern testing, was changed to a blessing ( Exodus 32:26). In later literature the action condemned by Jacob is mentioned with approval (Judith 9:2 ff). Levi was involved in his brothers’ guilt with regard to Joseph (Genesis 37), and shared their experiences in Egypt before Joseph made himself known (Genesis 42 through 45). Three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were born to him in Canaan, and went down with the caravan to Egypt ( Genesis 46:11). Nothing further is known of the personal history of this patriarch. He died and found sepulture in Egypt. For the tribal history and possessions, see PRIESTS AND LEVITES. W. Ewing LEVIATHAN <le-vi’-a-than > ( ˆt;y:w:li [liwyathan ( Job 41:1-34), from hw:l; [lawah], “to fold”; compare Arabic name of the wry neck, Iynx torquilla, [abu-luwa], from kindred [lawa], “to bend”): (1) The word “leviathan” also occurs in Isaiah 27:1, where it is characterized as “the swift serpent .... the crooked serpent”; in <19A426> Psalm 104:26, where a marine monster is indicated; also in Psalm 74:14 and Job 3:8. The description in Job 41 has been thought by some to refer to the whale, but while the whale suits better the expressions denoting great strength, the words apply best on the whole to the crocodile. Moreover, the whale is very seldom found in the Mediterranean, while the crocodile is abundant in the Nile, and has been known to occur in at least one river of Palestine, the Zarqa, North of Jaffa. For a discussion of the behemoth and leviathan as mythical creatures, see EB, under the word “Behemoth” and “Leviathan.” The points in the description which may well apply to the crocodile are the great invulnerability, the strong and close scales, the limbs and the teeth. It must be admitted that there are many expressions which a modern scientist would not use with reference to the crocodile, but the Book of Job is neither modern nor scientific, but poetical and ancient. (2) See ASTRONOMY, II, 2, 5. Alfred Ely Day LEVIRATE; LAW <lev’-i-rat > . See MARRIAGE.

    LEVIS <le’-vis > ([ Leui>v , Leuis ]): 1 Esdras 9:14, properly the Levite of Ezra 10:15; “Shabbethai the Levite” for “Levis and Sabbateus.”

    LEVITES <le’-vits > . See PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

    LEVITICAL CITIES <le-vit’-i-kal >

    1. LEGAL PROVISIONS. 1. Numbers: Numbers 35:1-8 provides that 48 cities should be given to the Levites, each surrounded by a pasturage. The exact details are not quite clear, for in the Hebrew, Numbers 35:4 would naturally be read as meaning that the pasturage was a radius of 1,000 cubits from the city walls, while 35:5 makes each city the center of a square, each side of which was 2,000 cubits long. Extant variants in the versions suggest, however, that the text has suffered slightly in transmission. Originally there seems to have been no discrepancy between the two verses, and it may be doubted whether the intent was that the city was always to be in the mathematical center of the patch. The Levites were to have the right of redeeming the houses at any time, and in default of redemption they were to go out in the Jubilee. The field was not to be sold ( Leviticus 25:32 f). 2. Deuteronomy: Deuteronomy 18:8 undoubtedly recognizes patrimonial possessions of the Levites outside the religious capital, and sees no inconsistency with its earlier statement that Levi had no portion or inheritance with Israel (18:1).

    The explanation lies in the fact that these cities were not a tribal portion like the territories of the secular tribes. The area occupied by the whole jointly would only have amounted to less than 16 miles.

    2. WELLHAUSEN’S VIEW.

    Joshua 21 relates that this command was fulfilled by the allocation of cities, but it is clear that some of those cities were not in fact reduced into possession; see e.g. Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:29 as to Gezer, and Judges 1:27 as to Taanach. Wellhausen treats the whole arrangement as fictitious. His main reasons are: (1) that the arrangement is physically impracticable in a mountainous country, and (2) that “there is not a historical trace of the existence of the Levitical cities.”

    Many remained in the hands of the Canaanites till a late period, while others were “important but by no means ecclesiastical towns” (Prolegomena, 160). Two pages later he says that “four of them were demonstrably famous old seats of worship,” and conjectures that most, if not all, were ancient sanctuaries. He also regards Ezekiel’s scheme of a heave offering of land (Ezekiel 45) as the origin of the idea. Yet “Jerus and the temple, which, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising” (p. 164).

    3. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE. 1. Traces of the Cities: In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth ( 1 Kings 2:26; Jeremiah 1:1; 32), Jattir ( 2 Samuel 20:26, where, as shown in the article PRIESTS AND LEVITES (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh ( 1 Samuel 6:13-15; see PRIESTS AND LEVITES as to the text). (From Amos 7:17 it appears that Amaziah of Bethel had land, but we do not know that he was of Levitical descent or where the land was.) 2. Wellhausen’s Arguments Answered: Further, the fact that many other Levitical cities appear to have been centers of worship points to the presence of priests. Was the great high place of Gibeon ( 1 Kings 3:4) unserved by priests? It is surely natural to suppose that during the period between the capture of the Ark and its transport to Jerusalem there was a tendency for high places to spring up in cities where there were priests rather than elsewhere; indeed there would probably be a disposition on the part of unemployed priests to go astray in a direction that would prove lucrative. 3. Van Hoonacker’s Reply: With regard to the other objection, Van Hoonacker’s answer is convincing: “As to the way in which the measurements were to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually employed. Besides, we are free to believe that he only gives these figures as approximate indications” (Sacerdoce levitique, 433). 4. Ezekiel’s Vision: The same writer’s reply to theory that the idea originated with Ezekiel is wholly admirable. “Strictly we could ask .... whether Ezekiel did not found himself on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. It is only too manifest that the division and appointment of the territory as presented in Ezekiel 48 of the prophet are scarcely inspired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced character of ideal vision; and `as no fancy is pure fancy,’ we ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel’s vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the tabernacle explain themselves in the Priestly Code; we may doubt whether the Levites, deprived of territory ( Ezekiel 44:28) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in Ezekiel 48, explain themselves with equal facility. A camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not the country of Canaan.

    We need not stop there. It is in fact certain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, the means are appropriate to the end” (op. cit., 425 f). 5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell: Lastly there runs through Wellhausen’s discussion the confusion between a city where priests may be dwelling and a priestly city. There were priests in Jerusalem, as there are today in London or Chicago; but none of these three places can be regarded as a priestly city in the same sense as the Levitical cities. Not one of them has ever been a patrimonial city of priests, or could be the origin of such an arrangement.

    While therefore the whole of the cities mentioned in Joshua 21 were certainly not reduced into possession at the time of the conquest, the Wellhausen theory on this matter cannot be sustained.

    LITERATURE.

    J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 159-63; A. Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce levitique, 423-35 (very brilliant and important). Harold M. Wiener LEVITICUS <le-vit’-i-kus > :

    LITERATURE I. General Data.1. Name: The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the first word, ar:q]Yiw’ [wayyiqra’] (Origen [ Oujikra> , Ouikra], by the Septuagint called according to its contents [ Leuitiko>n , Leuitikon], or [ Leueitiko>n , Leueitikon], by the Vulgate, accordingly, “Leviticus” (i.e.

    Liber), sometimes “Leviticum”). The Jews have also another name taken from its contents, namely, µynih\Ko tr’wOT [torath kohanim], “Law of the Priests.” 2. Character of Book: As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in Leviticus 18 through 20, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however, are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration of the priests in Leviticus and 9, the sin and the punishment of two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (10:1 ff), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer (24:10 ff). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat at all. They are mentioned only once and that incidentally in 25:32 ff. The laws are stated to have been given [behar Cinay] (7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34), which expression, on account of Leviticus 11, in which Yahweh is described as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated “upon” but “at” Matthew. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case, at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period of a single month, since the last chronological statement of Exodus 40:17 as the time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year of the Exodus, and Numbers 1:1 takes us to the 1st day of the 2nd month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the priests fills out 8 days ( Leviticus 8:33; 9:1). A sequence in time is indicated only by Leviticus 16:1, which directly connects with what is reported in Leviticus 10 concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in 10:6 ff are connected with the events described in 8:1 through 10:5. The laws are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally given to Moses (compare 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:19,24 (Hebrew 12,17); 7:22,28, etc.); sometimes to Moses and Aaron (compare 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1, etc.), and, rarely, to Aaron alone (10:8). In 10:12 ff, Moses gives some directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare 6:16 (Hebrew 9) ff; 7:37 ff). In 10:16 ff, we have a difference of opinion between Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent application of principles given in Leviticus. Most of these commands are to be announced to Israel (1:2; 4:2; 7:23,19; 9:3 ff; 11:2; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2, etc.); others to the priests (6:9,25 (Hebrew 2,18); 21:2; 22:2, etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (17:2; 22:18), while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was primarily concerned (16:2), beginning with 16:29, without a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to all Israel; compare also 21:24 and 21:2. As the Book of Exodus treats of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (40:34 ff; compare under EXODUS, I, 2), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to restore and maintain this communion with God, notwithstanding the imperfections and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure of the book in detail (see under II, below). 3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness: As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard Leviticus 17 through 25 or 26 as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was united with the other parts.

    It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula: “I am Yahweh your God” (18:2,4; 19:2,4, etc.); or “I am Yahweh” (18:5,6,21; 19:14,16, etc.), or “I am Yahweh .... who hath separated you” (20:24), or “who sanctifieth you” (20:8; 21:8,15,23, etc.).

    To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact, to the land of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (18:3,14 ff; 19:23 ff,29; 20:22 ff; 23; 25), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people (18:3; 19:34; 22:33; 26:13,15, etc.); as, further, the demand for sanctification (19:2), or the warning against desecration (19:12; 21:23, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according to 25:1; 26:46, they are said to have been given at Matthew. Sinai, and because in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.

    Examination of Critical Theory.

    We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities, even if such are found here more frequently than elsewhere, are not restricted to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue ( Exodus 20:2) begins with the words, “I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Exodus 22:31 contains the demand, “Ye shall be holy men unto me.” Exodus 29:44,45 contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further, Exodus 6:6-8; 31:13 f; Leviticus 10:10,11; 11:44; Numbers 15:37-41; 33:52 f,55 f; Deuteronomy 14:2,21). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in these and in other sections scattered remnants of H, especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of opinion on the part of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16 ff), has shown how impossible it is to separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner. In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters, only we do not believe that Leviticus 17 can be added or Leviticus 26 can be taken away from this section; for in Leviticus 17 all the characteristic peculiarities of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in Leviticus 26 the expression “I am Yahweh your God,” or a similar one in 26:12,13,14 f, is found. The subscription in 26:46 connects Leviticus 26 with the preceding; and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in Leviticus 25, found in 26:34 f,43, is not to be overlooked. Finally, also, other legal codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant ( Exodus 23:20-33) and that of Deuteronomy (27:11-28:68) close with the offer of a blessing or a curse.

    The chapters under consideration (Leviticus 18 through 26) are most closely connected with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of their being a separate legal code. For since in Leviticus 1 through 17 all those things which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged over (compare Leviticus through 7, the laws concerning sacrifices; Leviticus 8 through 10, the mediatorship of the priests; Leviticus 11 through 15, the unclean things; Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 17, the use made of blood), we find in Leviticus 18 through 26 an account of the God-pleasing conduct, which admits of nothing that desecrates; namely, Leviticus through 20 contain laws dealing with marriage and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together with the punishments that follow their transgression; Leviticus 21 f determine the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; Leviticus 23 f, the consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; Leviticus 25, the Sabbath and the Jubilee year; Leviticus 26 contains the offer of a blessing or a curse. Leviticus 1 through 17 have, as it were, a negative character; Leviticus 18 through 26 a positive character. In Leviticus 1 through 17 the consciousness of what is unclean, imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated; while in Leviticus 18 through the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence of an interchange of ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the peculiar character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author, who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of Leviticus through 26 are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in preexilic literature oftener than is the case with Leviticus 1 through 17, and particularly the close connection between Ezekiel and H is to be regarded as a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of their having used a common source (see EZEKIEL, II, 2). In Leviticus 26:46 we have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to 25:1; 7:37 f; 1:1, and accordingly regards Leviticus through 26 as a unity; while Leviticus 27, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in 27:34, shows that it is an appendix or a supplement, which is, however, in many ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author.

    2. STRUCTURE. 1. Modern Analyses: Modern criticism ascribes the entire Book of Leviticus, being a special legal code, to the Priestly Code (P). The questions which arise in connection with this claim will be discussed under III, below. At this point we must first try to awaken a consciousness of the fact, that in this special particular, too, the documentary theory has entered upon the stage of total disintegration; that the reasons assigned for the separation of the sources are constantly becoming more arbitrary and subjective; and that the absurd consequences to which they consistently lead from the very outset arouse distrust as to the correctness of the process. Just as in the historical parts the critics have for long been no longer content with J (Jahwist) and E (Elohist), but have added a J1 and Later additions to J, an E1 and Later additions to E, and as Sievers and Gunkel have gone farther, and in detail have completely shattered both J and E into entirely separate fragments (see GENESIS ), So the Priestly Code (P), too, is beginning to experience the same fate. It is high time that, for both the historical and the legal sections, the opposite course be taken, and that we turn from the dismemberment to the combination of these documents; that we seek out and emphasize those features which, in form and content, unite the text into a clear unity. For this reason we lay the greatest stress on these in this section, which deals with the structure of the book, and which treats of the matter (1) negatively and (2) positively (see also EXODUS, II). (1) Theories of Disintegration.

    We have already seen in the article DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, (2) ) in connection with Leviticus 16 an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject. (a) General Considerations:

    If we for the present disregard the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament), not only Leviticus through 26 (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in Leviticus 1 through 7, and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 through 15.

    Concerning Leviticus 16 see above. Then, too, Leviticus 27 is regarded as a supplement and is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called “fundamental document” of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from Leviticus 9 f (also a few matters from Leviticus 8), as also one of the three threads of Leviticus 16, for Leviticus 8 through 10, it is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in Exodus 25 ff, which also are regarded as a part of Pg, and Leviticus 16:1 is claimed to connect again with Leviticus 10 (compare on this point DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2).

    All these separate parts of Leviticus (i.e. Leviticus 1 through 7; 8 through 10; 11 through 15; 16; 17 through 26; 27) are further divided into a number of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., Leviticus through 7, containing the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, Leviticus 1 through 5 and Leviticus 6 through 7; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 through 15 are divided into the separate pieces, Leviticus 11; 12; 13:1 through 46; and these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is considered to be, we can see from Leviticus through 26. (b) Leviticus 17 through 26 Considered in Detail:

    While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = Leviticus 18 through 20 and certain portions from Leviticus 23 through 25; H2 = Leviticus 21 f; H3 = Leviticus 17), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these chapters as follows: “In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces: (i) Leviticus 17:3,4 (5,7a),8,9,10-14; (ii) 18:7-10,12-20,22 f; and this united with (iii) 19:3 f,11 f,27 f,30,31,35,36, which was probably done by the author of (iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely, 18:6,27,25,26,28,30; (iv) 19:9,10,13-18,19,29,32; (v) 19:5-8,23-26; (vi) 20:2 (3) ,6 (27) ; (vii) 20:9,10-21; 19:20; (viii) 21:1b-5,7,9-15,17b-24; 22:3,8,10-14,18b-25,27-30; (ix) 23:10-20,39-43; (x) 24:15-22, except verses 16a(?)b; (xi) 25:2-7 (4) ,18-22,35-38,39,40a,42 f,47,53,15; (xii) 25:8a,9b,10a,13,14-16,17,24 f.

    In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have added de suo the following: 17:5 (beginning); 18:2b- 5,21,24,26a(?),29; 19:33 f,37; 20:4 f,7 f,22-26; 21:6,8; 22:2,9,15 f,31-33; 23:22; 25:11 f; 26:1 f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, 26:3-45, which, by inserting 26:10,34 f,39-43, he changed into a concluding address of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in Leviticus 17 through 26 seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not, however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong to Pg) is seen from an analysis of Leviticus 23. .... As far as the time when these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad quem in a comparison of Nehemiah 8:14-18 with Leviticus 23:36 (P),39 ff (H).

    Only we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these different parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following Leviticus 17 through 26, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to the text. This is sure as far as 23:26-32 is concerned, and is probable as to 24:1-9,10-14,23; 25:32-34; and that this editorial work even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly be concluded from 24:1-9.” (c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment:

    This is also true of all the other sections, as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text, which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child’s play, are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of the critics. The compass of this article makes it impossible to give even as much as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail. But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated, it certainly could never have been again reconstructed. (2) Reasons for Dismemberment.

    We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors. (a) Alleged Repetitions:

    We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In Leviticus 1 through 7 we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (1-5; 6:1 ff); in Leviticus 20 punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described already in Leviticus 18; in 19:3,10; 23:3; 26:2 the Sabbath command is intensified; in 19:5 ff; 22:29 f, we find commands which had been touched upon already in 7:15 ff; 19:9 f we find almost verbally repeated in 23:22; 24:2 ff repeats ordinances concerning the golden candlestick from Exodus 27:20 ff, etc. The existence of these repetitions cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials at different places and from different viewpoints, as is the case in Leviticus 1 through 7 in regard to the sacrifices. Leviticus 18 and 20 (misdeeds and punishments) are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., 24:1 ff, the command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope Leviticus 23 through 24; see below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition by way of an explanation (see EXODUS , II, 2, (5) ). (b) Separation of Materials:

    Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are related. That Leviticus 16 is connected with Leviticus 8 through 10, and these connect with Exodus 25 ff, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the original author? The sacrificial laws in Leviticus 1 through 7 are properly placed before Leviticus 8 through 10, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described as already being made (9:7,15, the sin offering; 9:7,12,16, the burnt offering; 9:17; 10:12, the meal offering; 9:18, the peace offering; 9:3 f, all kinds). In the same way Leviticus 11 through 15, through 15:31, are inwardly connected with Leviticus 16, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from which the Day of Atonement delivers (16:16 f,33). As a matter of course, the original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in 7:22 ff, the command not to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference to the use of the peace offerings in 7:19 ff. This again is the case when, in Leviticus 2, verses 11-13 have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical order and rank in Leviticus 4, a number of special cases are mentioned in 5:1 ff; and when in 5:7 ff commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in 6:19 ff the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references to the meat offerings in general (6:14 ff); or when the share that belongs to the priest (7:8 ff) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (7:1 ff); or the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (7:19 ff) is found connected with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in Leviticus 11 the ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription 11:4,6 f (compare with 11:2). Still more would it be natural to unite different parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character of the sacrifices in 22:17-30 could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in Leviticus 1 through 7. But in Leviticus 22 they are also well placed. On the other hand, the character of Leviticus 1 through 7 would have become too complicated if they were inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action. (c) Change of Singular and Plural:

    Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under consideration (compare Leviticus 10:12 ff; 19:9,11 ff,15 ff, etc.). But how easily this change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the people are regarded as having been distributed into individuals; and in the case of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular, since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too, the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as a whole.

    Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change in number is frequently found in other connections also; compare in the Book of the Covenant ( Exodus 22:20-25,29 f; 23:9 ff; compare Deuteronomy 12:2 ff,13 ff). In regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons addressed are more vividly present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare Leviticus 2:4 ff with 2:1-3, and also 1:2; 3:17; 6:18,21,25 ff). (d) Proofs of Religious Development:

    A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the critics offer in this connection. (3) Insufficiency of These Reasons. (a) In Leviticus 5:1-7, in the section treating of the sin offering (4:1 through 5:13), we find the word [’asham], which also signifies “guilt offering” (compare 5:14 ff; 7:1 ff). Accordingly, it is claimed, the author of 5:1-7 was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds of offerings, and that this part is older than that in 4:1 ff; 5:14 ff. However, in 5:1 ff the word ‘asham is evidently used in the sense of “repentance,” and does not signify “sin offering” at all; at any rate, already in 5:6 f we find the characteristic term [chaTTath] to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely in harmony with the connection. (b) Critics find a contradiction in Leviticus 6:26; 7:33,7, and in 6:29; 7:31,6, since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In 7:8 f, however, where the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal offerings, which, beginning with Leviticus 2, could be regarded as known. Why this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the oral instruction which possibly accompanied the written formulation of these laws; but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author. (c) According to Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 4:3,5,16; 6:20,22; 8:12; 16:32; 21:10,12, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other hand, in Exodus 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; 40:15; Leviticus 7:36; 10:7, all the priests are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it impossible that there was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:12). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and on their garments (compare especially Exodus 29:21 and Leviticus 8:30). Were we here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood, as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III, below), then surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed. But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter! (d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during her periods in Leviticus 15:24 and 20:18 are easily explained by the fact that, in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act, and in the second passage, those which had already set in before. (e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be remembered that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer’s work to find some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally, they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has between different synonyms or his choice in using these.

    All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it nevertheless is the fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily, by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is only transferred to another place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance, namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular mode of solving these difficulties — a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness. On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic, linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not; to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths of the apostle Paul. 2. Structure of the Biblical Text: (1) Structure in General.

    The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the arts GENESIS; EXODUS, II; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2 (compare also EZEKIEL, I, 2, (2) ) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks of being a wellconstructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a corroborative factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details, is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials. We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the Book of Genesis we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above, easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of sets each of 5 pericopes together with an appendix. (a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts:

    Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this separation: (i) Leviticus 1 through 7; (ii) Leviticus 8 through 10; (iii) Leviticus 11 through 15; (iv) Leviticus 16; (v) Leviticus 17.

    Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God: (i) Leviticus 18 through 20; (ii) Leviticus 21 through 22; (iii) Leviticus 23 through 24; (iv) Leviticus 25; (v) Leviticus 26.

    Appendix, Leviticus 27; compare for the number 10 the division of Exodus 1:8 through 7:7; 7:8 through 13:16; 13:17 through 18:27; also the Decalogue, 20:1 ff; 21:1 through 23:19; 32:1 through 35:1; and see EXODUS, II, 2; and in Leviticus probably 18:6-18; 19:9-18, and with considerable certainty 19:1-37 (see below). (b) Correspondence and Connections:

    I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details. Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope (Leviticus 8 through 10 and f) treats particularly of the order of the priests, or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (Leviticus 25) states that the beginning of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16, in the 4th pericope of the 1st set (compare 25:9 with 16:29); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes, which evidently express high stages of development (Leviticus 16 and 17, respectively, Leviticus 25 and 26 treating of the Day of Atonement, of the use made of blood and the purposes of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).

    And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that Leviticus 1 through 17 must precede Leviticus 18 through 26. First that which separates the people from God must be removed, and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8 through presupposes the sacrificial torah (Leviticus 1 through 7; compare under above) and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the concluding formula in 7:37 (compare 8:22-32). The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), which in 16:16 f and 33 is spoken of in connection with the purification of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by Leviticus 11 through 15, or more particularly by the remark in 15:31, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place of Yahweh.

    And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (Leviticus through 10) in 10:10, where the command is given to discriminate between what is holy and what is unholy and to teach Israel accordingly, already point to the contents of Leviticus 11 through 15. The sacrifices, with which the first part in Leviticus 1 through 7 begins, are taken up again by the conclusion in Leviticus 17, in the commandment concerning the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (Leviticus through 20) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.

    Close connections: comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the books of Exodus and Numbers, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly, that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes in Leviticus, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also Exodus 25 through 31; 35 ff, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood, which are most intimately connected with Leviticus. All details in this matter will be left out of consideration. (i) Tabernacle and priesthood: That Leviticus 8 through 10 (the consecration of the priests, etc.), together with Exodus 25 ff, constitutes a single whole is accepted on all hands. But the tent of meeting and its utensils, and also the priesthood, both with and without any emphasis on the Aaronitic origin, are presupposed also in almost each one of the other pericopes of Leviticus; compare for Leviticus 1 through 7, e.g., 1:3,1; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,5,7,14,16,18; 6:26 (tent of meeting); 1:5,12; 3:5; 4:7,25,30; 6:12 (altar of burnt sacrifices); 4:7,18 (altar of incense sacrifices); 4:6,17 (veil); 6:9,19 (court); 1:5,7,8,11; 2:2; 3:2,5,8,13; 6:9,14,16,20,25, etc. (Aaron and his sons as priests); for Leviticus 11 through 15 see 12:4,6; 14:11,23; 15:14,29,31 (sanctuary, tent of meeting, dwelling-place); 11:1; 12:6 f; 13:1 ff; 14:2 ff,33 ff; 15:1 (priesthood); for Leviticus 16 see verses 2,7,16 f,20,23,13 (sanctuary and Holy of Holies tent of meeting); 16:2,12 (veil); 16:2,13 ff (lid of the Ark of the Covenant); 16:12,18,20,33 (altar); 16:1 ff (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 17 see verses 4-6,9 (tent of meeting); 17:6,11 (altar); 17:5 (priesthood); for Leviticus 18 through see 19:30,21 (sanctuary of Yahweh, tent of meeting); 19:22 (priesthood); for Leviticus 21 f see 21:12 (sanctuary); 21:23 (sanctuaries of Yahweh); 21:23 (veil, altar); 21:1 ff,21 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 23; see 23:2,4,21,24,27,36 f (sanctuary); 24:1 ff (candlestick, tent of meeting); 24:5 ff (table of showbread); 23:10,20 (priesthood); 24:3,1 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 26 see verses 2,11,31 (sanctuary, dwelling-place of Yahweh, sanctuaries); for Leviticus 27 see verses 10,33 (sanctuary); 27:8 ff (priesthood). (ii) In the same way the sacrificial laws of Leviticus 1 through 7 are mentioned in the following pericopes as matters that are well known. For Leviticus 8 through 10 see 9:7,15 (sin offering); 9:7,12,16 (burnt offering); 9:17; 10:12 (meal offering); 9:18 (peace offering); 9:3 f (all together); compare also Exodus 29:14,18,28. In Leviticus 9:21; 10:14 f (wave-breasts and heave-thigh) direct reference is made to 7:30-36. In the same manner 10:16 ff presupposes the ordinances dealing with the different ways of offering the sin offerings in 4:3 ff,13 ff; 6:24-30; for Leviticus through 15 see 12:6 ff; 14:12 ff (compare especially 14:13 with 4:24); 14:21 ff; 15:14 f,29 f; for Leviticus 16 see verses 3,5 f,9,11,15,24 f,27; for Leviticus 17 see verses 5 ff,8,11; for Leviticus 18 through 20 see 19:6 ff,21 f (here is therefore the [’asham] found in H, which is claimed to be of a later date); for Leviticus 21 f see 21:6,21 f; 22:17 ff,29 f; for Leviticus 23; 24 see 23:12 f; 18:19,27,37; 24:9; for Leviticus 26 see verses 30 f; for Leviticus 27 compare verses 15,19,27,31 with 5:16; 6:5. (iii) Laws on clean and unclean: The laws in reference to the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11 through 15 are also interwoven with the whole book. For Leviticus 1 through 7 see 5:2 f; 6:27; 7:19 ff; for Leviticus through 10 see 10:10 f; for Leviticus 16 see verses 16,19; for Leviticus see verses 13,15 f; for Leviticus 18 through 20 compare 20:25 with 11:44, and in general with Leviticus 11; for Leviticus 21 f see 21:10; 13:45; 22:3 ff with Leviticus 13 through 15; for Leviticus 27 see verses 11 and 27, as also Leviticus 11. (iv) The laws in reference to the Day of Atonement found in Leviticus are prepared for by those found in Leviticus 11 through 15, namely, in 14:4 ff,49 ff (the ceremony with the two birds in connection with the purification from leprosy), and in 15:31 (compare 16:16,19; see above).

    For Leviticus 23; 24 compare 23:26 ff with 16:29 if, and for 25:9 with 16:29 see above; compare also Exodus 30:10. (v) Leviticus 17 is re-echoed in Leviticus 1 through 7 (7:26 f) and in Leviticus 18 through 20 (19:26). (vi) Finally Leviticus 25 (Year of Rest and Year of Jubilee) is presupposed in Leviticus 26:34 f,43 and in Leviticus 27:17 ff,23 f.

    The above, however, by no means exhausts this list of references and similar thoughts, and we have here given only some leading illustrations.

    What literary tricks must be resorted to when, over against this overwhelming mass of evidence, critics yet insist that the different parts of the book were originally independent writings, especially, too, when the entire tabernacle and utensils of the Aaronitic priesthood, the Day of Atonement, the Year of Jubilee, the whole sacrificial scheme and the laws dealing with the great festivals, the restriction of the slaying of the sacrificial animals to the central sanctuary, are regarded as the products of imagination alone, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis (compare III, below, and see also EXODUS, III, 5; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, 1; EZEKIEL, II, 2). And how little is gained in addition when, as is sometimes done, in a most arbitrary manner, the statements found in Leviticus 1 through 3 concerning the tabernacle of revelation (“tent of meeting”) and concerning Aaron’s sons, or concerning Aaron and his sons together, are regarded as later additions. In Leviticus and Exodus 25 ff; ff, everything is so entirely of one and the same character and has so clearly emanated from one and the same spirit, that it is impossible to separate from this product any constituent parts and to unite these into groups that were originally independent, then to split up these still further and to trace the parts to their sources, and even to construct a scheme of religious and historical development on this reconstruction of the sources. (2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes.

    As the windows and the column capitals of a medieval cathedral are arranged according to different schemes and this divergence is regarded as an enrichment of the structure, thus, too, we find it to be in the structure of the various pericopes of the Book of Leviticus. These latter, too, possess a certain symphony of different tones, but all are rhythmically arranged, and only when united do they produce the entire symphony. (a) The Laws Concerning the Sacrifices (Leviticus 1 through 7):

    In the first place, the five different kinds of sacrifices in Israel are mentioned in succession twice, in Leviticus 1:1 through 7:21: Part I, Leviticus 1 through 5, namely (i) Leviticus 1, burnt offerings; (ii) Leviticus 2, meal offering; (iii) Leviticus 3, peace offerings; (iv) 4:1 through 5:13, sin offering; (v) 5:14-26, guilt offering; Part II, 6:1 through 7:21, namely (i) 6:8-13, burnt offerings; (ii) 6:14-23, meal offering; (iii) 6:24-30, sin offering; (iv) 7:1-7 with appendix, 7:8-10, dealing with that part of the sacrifices which belongs to the priest (see under 1, above), guilt offering; (v) 7:11-21, peace offerings.

    With this is found connected in 7:22-27 the prohibition of the use of the fat or the blood, and in 7:28-36, the laws concerning the wave-breast and the heave-thigh. We have accordingly at once twelve of these laws (compare on Exodus 25:1 through 30:10 in article on EXODUS, II, 2, (5) and on EZEKIEL, I, 2, 5)). But even apart from this we have no right to ascribe Leviticus 1 through 5 and 6:1 through 7:21, on the ground that they are duplicates, to different authors.

    That there is a difference between these two accounts is proved, not only by the fact that the first set of laws from Leviticus 1 through 5 is addressed to all the Israelites (compare 1:2; 4:2), and the second set 6:8; 7:21 to Aaron and his sons (compare 6:9,25); but the second set has also in content a number of altogether different viewpoints as compared with the first set, so that the same author found himself induced or compelled to write both sets. On the other hand, the fact that both have the same author is evident from the very close connection between the two sections. In addition to the fact that both make mention of all five kinds of sacrifices, we can yet compare 3:5 with 6:22 (fat pieces of the peace offering over the burnt sacrifices upon the pieces of wood); and, further, the express reference of 6:17 to Leviticus 4, while 6:30 presupposes the distinct separation of the sin offering, the blood of which is brought into the tent of meeting, from the other sacrifices, as these are given in 4:3 ff,13 ff over against 4:22 ff,27 ff. Leviticus 4, with its reference to the peace offerings (4:10,26,31,35), is again most closely connected with Leviticus 3. We must accordingly insist that the whole account is most intimately interwoven. Over against this, the omission within the first set, Leviticus through 5, in 5:14-16, of the ritual for the peace offering, is sufficiently explained only by the fact that this ritual was to be used in the second set (6:8 through 7:21), and here for the first time only in 7:1-15, which fact again speaks for the same author for both sets and against the supposition that they were merely mechanically united by a redactor. The fact that the second set 6:8 through 7:21 has a different order from that of Leviticus through 5, by uniting the sin offering immediately with the meal offering (6:24 ff with 6:14-23), is probably on account of the similar ordinances in 7:9 and 7:19 (manner of eating the meal offering and the sin offering). On the other hand, the position of the peace offering at the close of the second set (7:11 ff) furnished the possibility of giving to the piece of the entire pericope embraced in 7:22-27,28-36 a suitable conclusion; since 7:22 ff (prohibition of the eating of the fat and the blood), connected with 7:19 ff, contained in 7:28 ff an ordinance that pertained to the peace offering (heave-breast and wave-thigh). At any rate, these last two pieces are to be regarded separately from the rest, since they are no longer addressed to the priests, as is 6:8 through 7:21, but to all Israel; compare 7:23,29. On some other data less intimately connected with the matter, compare above under 1. (b) Consecration of priests and related matters (Leviticus 8 through 10):

    In this pericope, as in the following, down to Leviticus 17 inclusive, but especially from Leviticus 11 on, the principle of division on the basis of the number four predominates, in many cases in the details, too; so that this could scarcely be regarded as an accidental feature (compare also the history of Abraham in Genesis 12 through 26; further, in Exodus 35:4 through 40:38; and in EXODUS, II, 2, (7); Leviticus 16, under DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, (1)); Deuteronomy 12 through 26, too, is probably to be divided on this principle, even to the minutest details (compare finally Leviticus 21 through 22:16; 22:17-30; Leviticus 23 f and 26). (i) Leviticus 8, treating of the first seven days of the consecration of the priests: The outline is found in 8:2, namely Aaron, the sacred garments, the anointing oil, the bullock of the sin offering, two rams, unleavened bread (compare 8:6,7 ff,10 ff,14 ff,18 ff,22 ff,26 ff). (ii) Leviticus 9 the first sacrifices of Aaron and his sons on the 8th day (9:2-4 contain the outline, after the manner of 8:2; compare 9:7 ff,11 ff, the sin offering and the burnt offering of Aaron, with 9:2; also 9:15-18, treating of what the people brought for the sacrifices, with 9:3 f; but it is to be noticed that the meal offering and the peace offering (9:17,18) are given in inverted order from that found in 9:3 f). Here too we find the number seven, if we add the burnt offering for the morning (9:17). (iii) 10:1-7, the sin of Nadab and Abihu and their punishment by death; (iv) 10:8-20, ordinances concerning the priests, occasioned by 8:1 through 10:7 and provided with a new superscription in 10:8, namely 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of the use of wine and intoxicants; 10:9 f, distinction between the holy and the unholy; 10:12-15, the eating of the sacred oblations; 10:16-20, the treatment of the goat for the sin offering. (c) Laws Concerning the Clean and Unclean (Leviticus 11 through 15): (i) Leviticus 11, treating of clean and unclean animals. The outline of the chief contents is found in 11:46 with a free transposition of one number.

    There are accordingly four pieces, namely, 11:2-8, quadrupeds; 11:9-12, water animals; 11:13-23, birds (with an appendix, treating of contact with the unclean, 11:24-28, which give a summary of the animals mentioned (see under 1); 11:29-45, the small animals upon the earth (again in four subdivisions, namely, (1) 11:29-38; (2) 11:39 ff; (3) 11:41 f; (4) 11:44 f). (ii) Leviticus 12 treats of women in confinement, also in four pieces (12:2- 4, birth of a male child; 12:5, birth of a female child; 12:6 f, purification ceremony; 12:8, ordinances in case of extreme poverty). These parts are not joined logically, but in a rather external manner. (iii) The passage 13:1 through 14:53, containing the laws of leprosy, with the subscription in 14:54 ff. (Because seven points are to be enumerated, 14:55 (garments and houses), this is not as in its further exposition separated from the other laws and is placed in their midst.) The exposition contains four pieces, namely, 13:1-44, leprosy on human beings (with concluding 13:45 f), with seven subdivisions, of which the first five longer ones are constructed along fairly parallel lines, and again can be divided into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:1-8; 1:9-17; 1:18-23; 1:24-28; 1:29- 37; 1:38 f; 1:40-44. The significance of the number seven for the structure (see (2), (b), i, above) is akin to that found, e.g., in Exodus 24:18b through 31:18 (see EXODUS, II, 2, (5)); Leviticus 8; 9 (see above); Leviticus 23; 25; and 27; and possibly 26:3-13,14-39 (see below); finally, the whole Book of Exodus is divided into seven parts (see EXODUS, II, 1). 13:47-59, leprosy in connection with garments, with four subdivisions, namely 13:47-50; 13:51 f; 13:53 f; 13:55 ff. The last subdivision can again be readily separated into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:55; 13:56; 13:57; 13:58; 14:1-32, purifications (14:2 being a special superscription), with 4 subdivisions, namely, (i) 14:2b-3a, the leper before the priest; (ii) 14:3b-9, the purification ceremonies on the first seven days, again divided into 4 sub-subdivisions: 14:3b f; 14:5-7; 14:8; 14:9; (iii) 14:10-20, the ceremony of the eighth day (4 sacrifices, namely 14:12-18, guilt offering; 14:19a, sin offering; 14:19b, burnt offering; 14:20, meal offering; in the 4 sacrifices (5:12 through 6:7) there are again 4 different actions: 14:14; 14:15 f; 14:17; 14:18; (iv) 14:21-32 (in cases of poverty) 14:33-53, leprosy in houses, with four subdivisions: 14:33-35; 14:36-38; 14:39-42; 14:43-53. (iv) Leviticus 15, sickness or natural issues, with 4 subdivisions, namely, 15:1-15, checked or running issues together with their purification (15:3-12 contain 12 laws: 15:3; 15:4a; 15:4b; 15:5; 15:6; 15:7; 15:8; 15:9; 15:10a; 15:10b; 15:11; 15:12); 15:16-18, issue of seed; 15:19-24, periods; 15:25-30, other flows of blood and their purification. Leviticus 15:1-15 and 15:16-18 refer to men, and 15:19-24 and 15:25- 30 to women; and in addition to these implied suggestions, as 15:1-15 and 15:25-30 to dealing with abnormal issues and their purification ceremonies, 15:16-18 and 15:19-24 deal with normal issues. (d) The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16): See IV, 1, (2), 2, and under ATONEMENT, DAY OF. (e) Uses and significance of the blood of sacrifices (Leviticus 17): (i) 17:3-7, only one place for killing the Sacrifices and the rejection of all foreign cultures; (ii) 17:8,9, only one place for sacrificing; (iii) 17:10-14, prohibitive of eating the blood; (iv) 17:15, pertaining to carcasses of animals found dead or which have been torn by wild beasts.

    Here the form and the contents of the section have been brought into perfect harmony by the author. Leviticus 17:3 ff,8 ff,10 ff,13 ff begin with same words, and each contains a similar formula in reference to the punishment, while logically 17:10 ff and 13 ff are evidently only subdivisions of the third part in 17:10-14, which treats of the prohibition of eating blood. In the fourth division, again, while in substance connected with the rest, there is lacking the formal agreement with the first three divisions. (f) (g) (Leviticus 18 through 20; 21): These naturally fall each into parts. Leviticus 18 through 20 contain (i) Leviticus 18 f, religious and ethical laws; (ii) Leviticus 20, laws dealing with punishments. (f) (i) Religious and ethical laws (Leviticus 18 f): (a) Leviticus 18: Ordinances with reference to marriage and chastity. Leviticus 18:1-5, introductory; 18:6-18, prohibition of marriage between kindred of blood; 18:19-23, prohibition of other sexual sins; 18:24-30, warnings.

    The subdivision can perhaps be divided into 10 subordinate parts, if it is permitted to combine the different degrees of relationship mentioned in Leviticus 18:12-14 (namely, 18:7,8,9,10,11,12-14,15,16,17,18). Since it, of itself, manifestly consists of 5 ordinances (18:19,20,21,22,23), this whole section, if we are permitted to divide it into 5 commandments (18:2,3a,3b,4,5) and also into 5 (18:24 f,26-28,29,30a,30b), would contain 5 X 5 words; but this is uncertain. (b) Leviticus 19: various commands of the deepest significance. In order to discover the divisions of this chapter we must note the characteristic formula, “I am Yahweh, your Gods” or a similar expression, which often appears at the beginning and at the end of certain divisions, e.g. in series (1) (9) and (10), but which in the middle series appears in each case only once, and which in all the series is found also at the conclusion.

    In this way we can compute 10 tetralogues. Thus after the superscription in 19:2 containing a summary, we have (i) 19:3,1 (19:3a,3b,4a,4b); (ii) 19:5-10 (19:5 f,7 f,9,10); (iii) 19:11 f (19:11a,11b(?),11b(?),12); (iv) 19:13 f (19:13a,13b,14a,14b); (v) 19:15 f (15a,15b,16a,16b); (vi) 19:17 f (19:17a,17b,18a,18b); (vii) 19:19-25 (19:19a,19b,20-22,23-25); (viii) 19:26-28 (19:26a,26b,27,28), (ix) 19:29-32 (19:29,30,31,32); (x) 19:33-36 (19:33,14,35,36); 19:37 constitutes the conclusion of the whole. (Note that the number ten here is certain in the conviction of the present writer; but he is not quite so sure of the number of subdivisions within the main divisions; we may have to do here with pentalogues and not with tetralogues. If this is the case, then the agreements with Leviticus would under certain circumstances be even greater.)

    Possibly groupings of two can yet form a closer union (compare on Exodus 1 through 18; 21 through 23, EXODUS, II, 2, (1-4)). At any rate (iii) and (iv) can be summarized under the general heading of defrauding one’s neighbors; (v) and (vi) under that of observation of the laws; (vii) and (viii) under that of heathen abuses; while (ix) and (x) perhaps intentionally mingle together the religious and cultural and ethical elements, in order thereby already to express that all these things are most intimately connected (but compare also Leviticus 19:12,14,17, in the middle sections). In 19:5 ff,20 ff,23 ff, the author develops his subject somewhat more fully. (f ii) Laws dealing with punishments (Leviticus 20): The regulations in reference to punishments stand in such close relation to the contents of Leviticus 18 and to parts of Leviticus 19, that it is absolutely incomprehensible how the Critics can assign these three chapters to different authors. Even if certain regulations of Leviticus 18 are not found here in Leviticus 20:7,10,17b,18, and even if another order has been followed, this variation, which doubtless also hangs together with a new grouping of the materials, is rather an advantage than a disadvantage for the whole. It is impossible to conceive that a redactor would have altered anything in two entirely parallel and similar texts, or would himself have written a parallel text differing from the other. Leviticus 20 can probably be divided into 4 parts, namely, (i) 20:1-8, punishments for idolatry and witchcraft with a concluding formula, 20:7 f; (ii) 20:9-18, punishment of death for ten crimes, all of which, with the exception of the first, are of a sexual nature (20:9-18). It is a question whether the first in the second group (20:14), i.e. the sixth in the whole series, was intended to be made prominent by the peculiar character of the punishment (burning to death); (iii) 20:19-21, other sexual sins, with lighter punishments; (iv) 20:22-27, with 4 subdivisions (warning, 20:22 f; promise, 20:24; emphatic repetitions of two commands already given, 20:25 ff; (compare with 11:44 ff, and in general with Leviticus 11); and 20:27 with 19:26,31; 20:6).

    Perfectly certain in this chapter is the fact that the different kinds of punishments are likewise decisive for their order. It is doubtless not to be regarded as accidental that both at the beginning and at the end death by stoning is mentioned. (g) ( Leviticus 21:1 through 22:33): (i) Laws concerning the quality of the priests (21:1-22,16); and (ii) concerning sacred oblations (22:17-30) with the subscription 22:31-33. (g i) Qualities of priests: Leviticus 21:1 through 22:16 in four sections (21:1 ff,10 ff,16 ff; 22:1 ff; note also in 21:18-20 the blemishes; in 22:4-8 the 7 cases of uncleanness). (g ii) Sacred oblations: Leviticus 22:17-30 in four sections (22:18- 20,21-25,26-28,29 f). (h) Consecration of seasons, etc. (Leviticus 23; 24): (i) Leviticus 23, laws for the feasts (7 sections, namely, 23:3,4 f,6- 14,15-22,23-25,26-32,33-36, with the appendix that in every particular suits the connection, in 23:39 ff, added to the feast of the tabernacles); (ii) 24:1-4, treating of the sacred candlestick, which represents the moral conduct of the Israelites, and for this reason suits admirably in the connection; as this is true also of (iii) 24:5-9, treating of the showbread, which represents the results of the labor of Israel; (iv) 24:10-23, containing the report of the punishment of a blasphemer of God and of one who cursed.

    Probably the example was made of a person who took the name of God in vain at the time which this chapter describes. But possibly there is a still closer connection to be found with that which precedes. The showbread and the candlestick were found in the holy place, which with its utensils pictured the relation of Israel’s character to their God; while the utensils in the Holy of Holies indicated God’s relation to His people (compare Hengstenberg, Beitrage, III, 644 ff). But since the holy place, in addition to the showbread and the candlestick, contained only the incense altar, which symbolized the prayers of Israel, and as the blasphemer represents the exact opposite of prayer, it is probable that in 24:10 ff prayer is indicated by its counterpart. This section consists of 4 parts, namely, 24:10-12; 24:13-14; 24:15-22 (giving a series of punishments for certain wrongdoings which are more or less closely connected with that found in the text); 24:23. (i) Sabbatic and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25): Sabbatic and Jubilee years in 7 sections, namely, 25:1-7; 25:8-12; 25:13-28; 25:29-34; 25:35-38; 25:39- 46; 25:47-55. (j) Conclusion: Curse and blessing (Leviticus 26): The grand concluding chapter, offering a curse and a blessing and containing all the prophetic utterances of later times in a nutshell, namely, (i) 26:1-2, repetition of four important demands (26:1a,1b,2a,2b); (ii) 26:3-13, the blessing, possibly to be divided into 7 stages, one more spiritual than the other; (iii) 26:4-39, the curse, possibly to be divided into seven stages, one more intense than the other (compare also the play on words 7 times repeated, in reference to shabbath, possibly found in 26:34 f, and certainly found in 26:18,21,24,27 f); (iv) 26:40-45, the mercy finally shown by Yahweh for His covenant’s sake. (k) Appendix: Finally, the appendix in Leviticus 27, dealing with vows and tithes, in 7 parts, namely, 27:1-8; 27:9-13; 27:14-15; 27:16-21; 27:26 f; 27:28-29; 27:30-33.

    3. ORIGIN. 1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis: As in the article ATONEMENT, DAY OF, I, 2, (2), we took a stand against the modern attempts at splitting up the text, and in III, 1 against theory of the late origin of the whole pericope, we must, after trying under II to prove the unity of the Book of Leviticus, yet examine the modern claim that the book as a whole is the product of later times. Since the entire book is ascribed to the Priestly Code (see II, 1 above), the answer to the question as to the time when it was written will depend on the attitude which we take toward the Wellhausen hypothesis, which insists that the Priestly Code was not published until the time of the exile in 444 BC (Nehemiah 8 through 10). (1) The Argument from Silence.

    One of the most important proofs for this claim is the “argument from silence” (argumentum e silentio). How careful one must be in making use of this argument can be seen from the fact that, e.g., the high priest with his full title is mentioned but a single time in the entire Book of Leviticus, namely in 21:10; and that the Levites are not mentioned save once (25:32 ff), and then incidentally. As is well known, it is the adherents of the Wellhausen hypothesis themselves who now claim that the bulk of the entire literature of the Old Testament originated in the post-exilic period and long after the year 444 BC. Leaving out of consideration for the present the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, all of which describe the history of Israel from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), we note that this later literature is not any richer in its references to P than is the older literature; and that in those cases where such references are found in this literature assigned to a late period, it is just as difficult to decide whether these passages refer merely to a custom or to a codified set of laws. (2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System.

    A further proof against the pre-exilic origin of the priestly legislation is found in what is claimed to be the hostile attitude of the prophets to the sacrificial system (compare Amos 5:21 ff; 4:4 f; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6 ff; Isaiah 1:11 ff; Jeremiah 6:20; 7:21 ff; Psalm 40:6; 50:8,9; 51:16 f). But this cannot possibly be an absolute antithesis; for in this case, it would be directed also against the Books of the Covenant and, in part, too, against Deuteronomy, which books in Exodus 20:24; 22:19; 23:18; 34:25; Deuteronomy 12:5 f,11,13,17,26; 15:19-23; 16:2,5 f; 17:1; 18:1,3 also give directions for sacrifices, and which, at least in part, are yet regarded as older writings.

    Further, these passages under discussion are also, in part, assigned to a later and even a very late period (compare even such cases as Psalm 40:6; 50:8 f; 51:16 f; Micah 6:6 ff, and in addition also Malachi 1:10), i.e. they are assigned to a time in which, according to the views of the critics, the priestly laws are said to have had their origin or were already regarded as authoritative. As a rule, the prophets make sacrifices, Sabbaths, sacred places and persons a part of their pictures of the future; cf, as far as sacrifices are concerned, e.g. Jeremiah 17:26; 31:14; 33:14 ff. Finally, Leviticus 26:31 shows how, under certain circumstances, even P can declare sacrifices to be useless. (3) The People’s Disobedience.

    Further, the transgressions of the Levitical laws in the course of Israel’s history cannot be regarded as a proof of the non-existence of the priestly legislation in pre-exilic times. This is clear from an analogous case.

    Idolatry was forbidden by the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 20 through 24; 34), which are recognized as ancient documents; but according to Kings 22 the pious king Josiah down to the year 622 BC takes no offense at idolatry. Even after the reformation, which had been inaugurated in consequence of the finding of the Book of the Law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22 f), idolatry was again practiced in Israel, as is proved by Ezekiel 8 and Jeremiah 44, notwithstanding that the Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy already were extant at that time, even according to the views of the critics.

    But let us pass on to P itself, and not forget that the directions given for the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25), according to Jewish tradition, were never actually observed. According to the reasoning of the critics, this law could not be in existence even in the present day. According to all reports the transgressions of the Divine ordinances began even as early as the Mosaic period; compare Exodus 32 (J, E, golden calf); Amos 5:25; Ezekiel 20; Deuteronomy 12:8 and also Leviticus 17:7 (sacrifice to the Satyrs in Priestly Code). This condition of affairs can readily be understood because the religion of Yahweh does not claim to be an emanation from the spirit of the people, but the result of a revelation from on high. In the light of these facts can we be surprised, that in the times of the Judges, when a great prophetic leader was so often not to be found in Israel, the apostasy was so great and so widespread? But all of these cases of disobedience, that have been demonstrated as actual facts in Israel’s history, are not able to eliminate the fact that there are many data to prove the existence of a central sanctuary already in the earliest history of the people, which fact presupposes as a matter of course that there were also laws for the cults in existence (see EXODUS, III, 5). We must further not forget how the sacrifices of the sons of Samuel ( 1 Samuel 2:11 ff), notwithstanding all their arbitrary conduct, presupposes such passages as Leviticus 7:30-32; 10:15; Exodus 29:31 f; Leviticus 8:31; Numbers 6:19 f; Leviticus 7:23-32; or that the high priest, as described in Priestly Code, is already before the year 444 BC as well-known a character as he is after the exile (compare EZEKIEL, II, 2); or that the question of Haggai 2:11 ff takes into consideration a code of cult- laws, and that the answer is given on the basis of Leviticus 6:27; Numbers 19:22. (4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing.

    To this must be added that the transgressions, to which the critics appeal in proof of their claims, and which they abuse for their own purposes, must in part be interpreted differently from what they are. In the case of sacrificing indiscriminately at any place whatever, and by any person whatever, we have in many cases to deal with extraordinary instances of theophanies (compare Judges 2:1 ff; 6:11 ff; 13:1 ff), as these had been foreseen in Exodus 20:24. Even the Book of Deuteronomy does not insist throughout (compare 16:21) that the sacrifices, must be made at one and the same place (compare also PC: Leviticus 24:31; Joshua 22). After the rejection of Shiloh, at which the central sanctuary had been deposited, as recorded in 1 Samuel 4, the cultural ordinances of Priestly Code, as we learn from Jeremiah 7:11 ff; 26:6; Psalm 78:59 ff, became more or less a dead letter. Even the Books of Chronicles, which throughout record history from the standpoint of the Priestly Code, at this period and down to the dedication of the temple take no offense at the cultural acts of a Solomon in contrast with their attitude toward the conduct of Uzziah (see 2 Chronicles 1:6; 6:1-4; 7:1-7, as compared with 26:16 ff). In the same way the pious people in the Northern Kingdom, after it had, by Divine consent, been separated from the Southern, could not do otherwise than erect altars for themselves, since they could not participate in the worship of the calves in Bethel and Daniel. Further, modern criticism overlooks the fact that what is regular and normal is much less liable to be reported in historical narrative than that which is irregular and abnormal. (5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code.

    It is not possible at this place to enter into further details; we accordingly refer only to EXODUS, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, and especially EZEKIEL, II, 2, where the proof has been furnished that this prophet belongs to a later period than Priestly Code as far as Ezekiel through 48 (containing his picture of the future) in general is concerned, and as far as Ezekiel 44:4 ff (where it is claimed that the prophet first introduces the distinction between priests and Levites) in particular is concerned. All the important problems that are connected with this matter, especially the difficulties which result from the Wellhausen hypothesis, when the questions as to the purpose, the form, the success and the origin of the priestly legislation come under consideration, are discussed in my book, Are the Critics Right? The result of this investigation is all the more noteworthy, as I was myself formerly an adherent of the Wellhausen school, but was forced to the conclusion that this hypothesis is untenable.

    We have here yet to refer to the one fact that the relation of Deuteronomy (D) and the Priestly Code (P), as far as Leviticus in particular is concerned, justifies the scheme of P followed by D as the historical order, while Wellhausen makes D older than P. Deuteronomy 10:8 f; 33:8 ff presuppose more detailed ordinances in reference to the priests such as those which have been given in P. The book of Deuteronomy further takes into account different kinds of sacrifices (compare 12:5 f,11,13,17,26; 15:19-23; 17:1; 18:1,3, such as are described in Leviticus 1 ff). The law in Deuteronomy 14 (ordinances with reference to what is clean) agrees almost word for word with Leviticus 11, and is in such perfect harmony with the linguistic peculiarities of Priestly Code, that Leviticus 11 must be regarded as the original, and not vice versa. Deuteronomy 24:8 f refers directly to the injunctions concerning leprosy, as we find these in Leviticus 13 f, and the Deuteronomic passage is doubtless modeled after that of Leviticus. Deuteronomy 12:15,22; 15:22 cannot be understood at all, except in the light of Leviticus 17:13. Deuteronomy 26:14 ff again expressly takes into account ideas that have been taken from Leviticus 22:3 ff. As far as the laws dealing with the great feasts in Deuteronomy are concerned, it is impossible to understand 16:9 without Leviticus 23:15 ff,10 f; and the designation “feast of tabernacles” in Deuteronomy 16:13 ff cannot even be understood without a reference to such a law as we find in Leviticus 23:39 ff. The other passages to be discussed on this subject lead us to the following results. 2. Connection with Mosaic Period: Even if the Book of Deuteronomy were the product of the 7th century BC, the facts that have been stated above would nevertheless disprove the claim of the Wellhausen hypothesis as to an exilic or post-exilic date for the Priestly Code. But if Deuteronomy, even in its essential and fundamental parts, merely, is Mosaic (compare Are the Critics Right? 1-55), then the Priestly Code which is still older than Deuteronomy must also belong to the Mosaic period. (1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions.

    This conclusion is in this point confirmed still further by a series of facts.

    As Deuteronomy permits the firstborn to be ransomed ( Deuteronomy 14:22 ff), but the Priestly Code demands their consecration in natura ( Leviticus 27:26 f; compare Numbers 18:15 ff), the latter ordinances could be preferred and enforced only during the wandering in the desert, where the whole nation was in the neighborhood of the sanctuary. The fact that the ordinances dealing with the domestic celebration of the Passover in the private houses on the 14th of Nisan and the holy convocation on the 15th of Nisan at the sanctuary could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert (compare Exodus 12:3 ff,6; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16; Leviticus 27:6 ff; Numbers 28:17 ff), and that this was changed in Deuteronomy 16:5 f to correspond to changed conditions, can be seen by reference to EXODUS, III, 3. Still more important is a third command in Leviticus 17 in comparison with Deuteronomy 12. The commandment that every animal that is to be slain is to be brought to the central sanctuary can have a purpose only for the Mosaic period, and could not even have been invented at a later period. Because of the entrance of Israel into Canaan, the Book of Deuteronomy changes this ordinance in such a way that from this time on the killing of the animals is permitted at any place (12:13 ff,20 ff). The different commands in reference to the carcasses of animals that have died and of those torn to pieces are all dependent on Leviticus 17. In Deuteronomy 14:21, it was possible to forbid the use of such animals absolutely for Israel, because from now on, and in contrast to Leviticus 17, the killing of sacrificial animals was permitted at any place (17:13 ff). In Exodus 22:30 all use of such meat could be forbidden, because Leviticus 17, with its command to bring all blood to the sanctuary, had not yet been given. Leviticus, now, on the other hand, forbids this use only to the priests (22:8), and sees in this use in the case of the other Israelites only a transitory defilement (compare Leviticus 17:15; 11:40); and in 7:24 forbids only the use of the fat, but not of the meat of these animals; for now, according to Leviticus 17:1 ff, all the killing is a sacrifice which only those who are clean were permitted to eat and which could not be secured at all times (compare Hoffmann, op. cit., 23 f).

    Our exposition of Leviticus 17:1 ff is, however, in another respect also of the greatest significance, for in 17:4-6,8 f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing; in 17:5,8 also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse 6 the priesthood; so that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial code, the priesthood, such as we find in Exodus 25 ff; 35 ff; Leviticus 1 through 7; Exodus 29; Leviticus 8 through 10:21 ff, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as “into the camp” in 4:11 ff; 6:11; 13:46; 14:3,8 (unconscious contrast to later times); 14:33 ff,40,41,45,53; 16:26-28; 24:10-23; or “into the desert,” in 16:10,21 f. In 6:15,18; 6:6 (compare also 27:2 ff), the words “according to thy estimation” are addressed personally to Moses. In 6:20 a calculation is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while 6:22 is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare 1:5,7,8,11; 2:3; 3:13; 6:9,14,16, etc.). All the laws claim to have been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Matthew. Sinai (see I above). And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron, would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering for himself (Leviticus 16; through 10; 6:19 ff), or that Moses in his view of a certain cultural act had been mistaken (compare Leviticus 10:16 ff)? The law concerning the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall (see II, above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date. Leviticus 18:24 ff can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as being expelled earlier.

    On the other hand, in 18:24, just as is the case with the parallel passage, 20:22 ff, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage 18:27, we further find the archaic form [ha’-el] for [ha’-elleh]; compare in the Pentateuch Genesis 19:8,25; 26:3,4; Deuteronomy 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Just as little does Leviticus 26 take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take offense at prediction of the exile. Leviticus 26 cannot be regarded as a “prophecy after the event,” for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God’s pardon is here promised (compare 26:40 ff). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (26:34,38,41,44), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many nations and countries (compare 26:23,16,39). (2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.

    If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction, looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that Numbers 33, which also is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further, that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare Deuteronomy 14 with Leviticus 11); and, per contra, that the author of Leviticus 26 had the mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare Deuteronomy 28) — all this makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between Leviticus 18:24 ff; 20:22 ff, and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided; but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the laws concerning tithes, Deuteronomy 12:6 f,17 ff; 14:22 ff; 26:12 ff; Leviticus 27:30 ff; Numbers 18:20 ff, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, Deuteronomy 18:3; Leviticus 7:29 ff).

    Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances intelligible. The manner in which in Leviticus 1 ff the different kinds of sacrifices are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices. It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which are older than Moses’ times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character and spirit of the Yahwehreligion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.

    4. THE SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Positive: (1) The Law Contains God’s Will.

    The law contains God’s will, although in transitory form. In the article EZEKIEL under II, 2, (3) we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond it. The leading prophets (Isaiah 40 ff, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in the spirit and in the truth, John 4:20-24). Down to this time, kernel and shell were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return (compare the voice from heaven to Peter, Acts 10:15, “What God hath cleansed, make not thou common,” and Paul’s opposition to all workrighteousness that was based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation; compare Acts 21:17 ff; Romans 14:1 ff; 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff). But these laws and ordinances were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that Leviticus 19 contains also the word, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (19:18), a command which in 19:33 f is even made to cover the strangers too, and which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the chief commandment of the law ( Matthew 22:39); and when in 19:17 f the hatred of the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe atmosphere of Christianity. The entire Leviticus 19 is, in addition, as it were, a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically Jewish national shell (compare Exodus 20:2, exodus out of Egypt; 20:8, Sabbath commandment; 20:12, promise of the holy land; 20:17, slaves), so, too, this is the case in Leviticus 19 (compare 19:3,6 ff,20-22,23-25,29,30,33 f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from Leviticus 26, according to which all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised (26:30 f,41).

    Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property, all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible, and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind the people of God’s more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance, we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the law (compare Matthew 5:17 f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God ( Romans 8:3 f); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in Romans 13:10 he tells us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare 13:8); and according to Romans 7:12, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. (2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.

    But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God’s will.

    It prepares also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In Exodus 25:8; 29:45 f; 40:34 ff the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared, which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus ( John 1:14); and then the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation ( 1 Peter 2:5; Ephesiansesians 4:12) and in the individual ( 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). Through the sacrificial system in Leviticus 1 through 7, and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), we are enabled to understand the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, II). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts, particularly with those of Leviticus (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied, not only by the prophets, but also by the law ( Romans 3:21). (3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ.

    Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness (compare Leviticus 18:3,14 ff; 19:26 ff; 20:2 ff,22 ff; 26:1) and which is in harmony with the elementary stage of Israel’s education in the Old Testament, when the people still stood in need of the “tutor .... unto Christ” ( Galatians 3:23 f; 4:1). This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes. 2. Negative: The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good ( Romans 7:12), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare Romans 8:3); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:13); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands.

    And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare Hebrews 7 through 10). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the forgiveness in Christ ( Romans 3:25). All the sacrifices in Leviticus 1 through 7, e.g., did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (Leviticus 16); and in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption. It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the law (Romans and Galatians).

    The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however, who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous, after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed.

    LITERATURE.

    Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for the Law of Holiness see Horst, Leviticus 17 through 26 and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1884, 112 ff; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368 ff; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft und Leben, 1880, 617 ff; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen, Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl.

    Religion; against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid., “Literature”), and article EZEKIEL in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese. Wilhelm Moller LEVY <lev’-i > . See WAR.

    LEWD; LEWDNESS <lud > , <lud’-nes > ( hM;zI [zimmah], hM;zIm] [mezimmah], tWlb]n’ [nabhluth]; [ponhro>v , poneros ], [rJa|diou>rghma , rhadiourgema ]):

    1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    There are three Hebrew words translated “lewd,” “lewdness”: (1) [Zimmah], meaning a “plan,” a “purpose,” so translated several times and then shading off into “evil plan”; translated also “heinous crime,” “wicked purpose or device.” It is the most frequent word for “lewdness”: Ezekiel 16:27, “lewd way”; found in Judges 20:6; Ezekiel 16:27,43,58; 22:9,11; 23:21,27,29,35,4448,49; 24:13; Hosea 6:9. (2) [Mezimmah] means a “plan,” generally “(evil) machination”; used only in Jeremiah 11:15, “lewdness.” (3) [Nabhluth], meaning “disgrace” in reference to females. Found only in Hosea 2:10; the American Revised Version margin “shame.”

    2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    The word translated “lewd,” “lewdness” in the King James Version occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in each instance is more correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word: (1) [Poneros ], found in Acts 17:5, translated in the American Standard Revised Version “vile.” The Greek word elsewhere is translated “bad,” “evil,” “grievous,” “harmful,” “malicious,” “wicked.” the King James Version “lewd” gives the wrong impression. The idea of unchastity is not present in the text or context. (2) [Rhadiourgema ] likewise occurs only once, namely, Acts 18:14, and is correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version “wicked villany.” The thought of impurity or lewdness is foreign to the meaning in this connection. William Edward Raffety LIBANUS <lib’-a-nus > . See LEBANON.

    LIBATION <li-ba’-shun > . See SACRIFICE.

    LIBERAL; LIBERALITY; LIBERALLY <lib’-er-al > , <lib-er-al’-i-ti > , <lib’-er-al-i > : The different forms of the word all refer to one who is generous, bountiful, willing and ready to give and to help. Both the Hebrew words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament translated into the English word “liberal” have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In Proverbs 11:25, the liberal soul ([nephesh berakhah]) means a soul that carries a blessing. In Isaiah 32:5, the American Standard Revised Version has “bountiful” where the King James Version has “liberal,” and in Isaiah 32:8 “noble” takes the place of “liberal” ([nadhibh]). The principal Greek words are [aJplo>thv , haplotes ] literally, “simplicity,” “sincerity,” and [ca>ric , charis ], “grace,” “favor.” In Corinthians 16:3, “bounty” substitutes “liberality.” It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit. G. H. Gerberding LIBERTINES <lib’-er-tinz > , <li-bur’-tinz > ([ Liberti~noi , Libertinoi ): These were among Stephen’s opponents: “There arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen” ( Acts 6:9). 1. “SYNAGOGUE OF THE LIBERTINES”:

    How many synagogues are denoted? The answer may aid in the interpretation of “Libertines”: (1) The words may be read as denoting one synagogue (Calvin).

    However (a) the number of worshippers would be extremely large, (b) the bond of union is not obvious, (c) rabbinic tradition speaks of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. (2) The double ton (“of them”) seems to denote two parties, the one consisting “of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of Libertines and Cyrenians and Alexandrians,” the other “of them of Cilicia and Asia”, (Winer, Wendt, Holtzmann). But the second ton is dependent on synagogue. “As Cyrenians and Alexandrians both belong to towns .... a change of designation would be necessary when the Jews of whole provinces came to be mentioned: this being the case, the article could not but be repeated, without any reference to the ton before” (Alford). (3) There were three synagogues: (a) that of the Libertines, (b) that of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians and (c) that “of them of Cilicia and Asia” (Alford). There is no grammatical reason for this division, but it is based on an interpretation of “Libertines.” There were “Libertines,” Africans and Asiatics. (4) Each party had a separate synagogue (Schurer, Hausrath). The number of worshippers, their different origin and connections, and the number of synagogues in Jerusalem give weight to this view.

    2. INTERPRETATION OF “LIBERTINES”: (1) They are “freedmen,” liberated slaves or their descendants. Against this it is held that the Greek equivalent ([apeleutheroi ]) would have been used in this case. However, the Roman designation would be common all over the empire. In what sense were they “freedmen”? Various answers are given: (a) they were freedmen from Jewish servitude (Lightfoot); (b) they were Italian freedmen who had become proselytes; (c) they were “the freedmen of the Romans” (Chrysostom), the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome who had been expelled by Tiberius.

    In 63 BC Pompey had taken prisoners of war to Rome. These, being liberated by those who had acquired them as slaves, formed a colony on the banks of the Tiber (Philo, Legat. ad Caium). Tacitus relates that the senate decreed (19 AD) that a number of Jewish Libertines should be transported to Sardinia, and that the rest should leave Italy, unless they renounced, before a certain day, their profane customs (Ann. ii, 85; see also Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 5). Many would naturally seek refuge in Jerusalem and build there a synagogue. (2) They are an African community. There were two synagogues, one of which was Asiatic. In the other were men from two African towns (Cyrene and Alexandria), therefore the Libertines must have been African also, all forming an African synagogue. Various explanations are given: (a) They were inhabitants of Libertum, a town in Africa proper: an “Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Libertinensis” sat in the Synod of Carthage (411 AD). (b) Some emend the text; Wetstein and Blass, following the Armenian VS, conjecture [Libustinon ], “of the Libystines.” Schulthess reads for “Libertines and Cyrenians” ([Libertinon kai Kurenaion ]) “Libyans, those about Cyrene” (Libuon ton kata Kurenen) (compare Acts 2:10).

    These emendations are conjectural; the manuscripts read “Libertines.” It seems, therefore, that 2, (1) (c) above is the correct interpretation. S. F. Hunter LIBERTY <lib’-er-ti > ( rwOrD” [deror], bj;r: [rachabh]; [ejleuqeri>a , eleutheria ]): The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus [deror], Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin ( John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state. In a positive respect, it consists in the possession of holiness, with the will and ability to do what is right and good. Such liberty is possible only in a renewed condition of soul, and cannot exist apart from godliness. Even under the Old Testament godly men could boast of a measure of such liberty ( <19B945> Psalm 119:45, [rachabh], “room,” “breadth”), but it is the gospel of Christ which bestows it in its fullness, in giving a full and clear knowledge of God, discovering the way of forgiveness, supplying the highest motives to holiness and giving the Holy Spirit to destroy the power of sin and to quicken to righteousness. In implanting a new life in the soul, the gospel lifts the believer out of the sphere of external law, and gives him a sense of freedom in his new filial relation to God. Hence, the New Testament expressions about “the glorious liberty” of God’s children ( Romans 8:21 the King James Version; compare Galatians 2:4; 5:13, etc.), about liberty as resulting from the possession of the Spirit ( 2 Corinthians 3:17), about “the perfect law of liberty” ( James 1:25). The instrument through which this liberty is imparted is “the truth” ( John 8:32). Christians are earnestly warned not to presume upon, or abuse their liberty in Christ ( Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16). James Orr LIBNAH <lib’-na > ( hn:b]li [libhnah] “whiteness,” “transparency,” “pavement” (compare Exodus 24:10 where tn’b]li [libhnath], is translated “paved work” or a “compact foundation”); [ Lebna> , Lebna ]): (1) A desert camp of the Israelites between Rimmon-perez and Rissah ( Numbers 33:20,21). Probably the same as Laban ( Deuteronomy 1:1). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL. (2) A town in the Shephelah of Judah ( Joshua 15:42). “Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: and Yahweh delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel. .... And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it” ( Joshua 10:29-31; 12:15). It was one of the cities given to the “children of Aaron” ( Joshua 21:13; 1 Chronicles 6:57). In the reign of Joram, Libnah joined the Edomites in a revolt against the king of Judah ( 2 Kings 8:22; 2 Chronicles 21:10). In the reign of Hezekiah, Libnah was besieged by Sennacherib ( 2 Kings 19:8; Isaiah 37:8). The wife of King Josiah was “Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah,” she was the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah ( 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1).

    The site of this important stronghold remains unknown. In the Eusebius, Onomasticon it is described, under the name Lobana or Lobna, as near Eleutheropolis (Beit Jebrin). All the indications point to a site in the Southwest of the Shephelah, not very far from Lachish. The Palestine Exploration Fund surveyors suggested (PEF, III, 259) the commanding site `Arak el Menshiyeh, or rather the white chalky mound 250 ft. high to the North of this village, and Stanley proposed Tell es Cafi. (Both these identifications are due to the interpretation of Libnah as meaning “whiteness.”) In the PEFS (1897, Sh XX) Conder suggests a ruin called el Benawy, 10 miles Southeast of Lachish. E. W. G. Masterman LIBNI <lib’-ni > ( ynib]li [libhni]): (1) Son of Gershon ( Exodus 6:17; Numbers 3:18; 1 Chronicles 6:17,20). Families who traced their descent from Libni are called Libnites ( Numbers 3:21; 26:58). (2) A son of Merari ( 1 Chronicles 6:29). See LADAN.

    LIBNITES <lib’-nits > ( ynIb]Lh” [ha-libhni]). See LIBNI.

    LIBRARIES <li’-bra-riz > , <li’-brer-iz > :

    A library is a book or books kept for use, not for sale. A one-book library is just as much a library as a one-cell animal is animal. The earliest libraries, like the earliest plants and animals, were very simple, consisting of a few books or perhaps only a single tablet or manuscript. An archive is a library of official documents not in active use; a registry, a library of going documents.

    1. THE BIBLE A LIBRARY:

    The Bible is itself a library. During the Middle Ages it was commonly called, first, “The Divine Library,” and then, “The Library” (Bibliotheca), in the same exclusive sense as it is now known as “The Book” (Biblia as Latin singular). Even the word “Bible” itself is historically “Library” rather than “Book” (for it was originally the neuter plural Biblia, “The Books”; compare Daniel 9:2). The Bible is also a library in that it is an organized collection of books rather than a single work.

    This fact that the Bible is itself a library is increasingly mentioned of late, especially in Old Testament studies (Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History, 1, “The Old Testament as a Library”; Delitzsch, Babel and Bible,4, “the Old Testament, that small library of books of the most multifarious kind”). Its profound bearing on the theory of the composition and inspiration of the Bible (compare BOOK) has given the fact new significance and makes an understanding of the nature of a library one of the best tools for the interpretation of the Bible in the face of modern problems. While it is not possible to elaborate this within these limits, it may be said briefly that the logical end of the application of the doctrine of evolution to books and libraries is that the Bible is, like man, the result of natural selection, and is as unique among books as man among the animals.

    And, whatever may be true of men, in the case of books the formation of a book-library by natural selection tends toward the elimination of error. The more numerous the individuals and the longer the period, the greater the reduction of error, so that the logical inference as to the Bible is that on purely natural grounds it may be, or is, the nearest approximation to inerrancy among books, because of its history as a library. This does not quite lead to the position that the Bible is as unique among books as Jesus Christ among men, but under the doctrine of a creative Providence, it does imply what may be called real superhuman authorship and authority.

    2. MYTHOLOGICAL AND APOCRYPHAL LIBRARIES:

    Somewhat apart from historical libraries, but closely connected with Bible study, are the alleged superhuman libraries, libraries of, or written by, the gods, libraries for the dead and apocryphal libraries. The Vedas are said to have existed as a collection even before the Creator created Himself (Manu 1 21). All religions have their book-gods — Thoth and Seshait, Apollo, Hermes, Minerva, Ida, Bridget, Soma, Brahma, Odin, Kvasir, Ygdrasil and many others. To the ancient Babylonians the whole firmament was a library of “celestial tablets.” The mythological ideas often have important bearing on Biblical doctrines, e.g. the Creation, the Word, the Tree of Life, the Book of Life, the Holy Spirit. Apocryphal libraries include the library which Yahweh is alleged to have formed on the 7th day of creation on a mount East of the Garden of Eden, and other libraries ascribed to Enoch, Noah and Seth. See for this the Old Testament pseudepigrapha.

    3. LIBRARIES FOR THE DEAD:

    Another class of collections of real books, written or gathered for mythological purposes, is what may be called libraries for the dead. It is well known that in most countries of antiquity, at one time or another, and among primitive people like the American Indians, in modern times, it has been the custom to bury with the dead the things which friends thought would be useful in the Elysian fields or happy hunting grounds, or on the way thither — the bow and horse of the warrior, the ushabti servants, children’s playthings, the models of food objects, and so on. This same motive led also to the burying of books with the dead. For long periods in the history of Egypt every Egyptian of any position was buried with one or more books. These books were not his chance possessions, buried with him as, in some burials, all a man’s personal belongings are, but books selected for their usefulness to him after death. For the most part these were of the nature of guidebooks to the way to the heavenly world, magic formulas for the opening of doors, instruction as to the right method of progress toward, or introduction into, paradise, etc. These books were afterward gathered together and form what is now known as “the Book of the Dead” and other such books.

    4. MEMORY LIBRARIES:

    In modern times the actor or professional story-teller often has in memory a collection of remembered books which is in effect a library. Among primitive peoples the medicine-man was literally a library of tribal traditions. The priests of India and the minstrels of Greece or of the Middle Ages often had a large repertory. By the prevailing theory of the origin of the books of the Old Testament such memory traditions, transmitted orally, were the chief source of the Hexateuch, but in view of what is now known of the library situation of the time, this must be doubted.

    5. PREHISTORIC AND PRIMITIVE LIBRARIES:

    In general terms it may be said that when man began not only to make but to keep records, libraries began. Even a memorial stone contains the germ of a mnemonic library. The primitive medicine-man’s collection of notched message sticks, tallies, quipus or wampum belts is a great advance in complexity on these, and the simplest collection of picture narratives of Hottentot or American Indian, an advance on this. A combination of pictures with signs is still another forward step, and this step is already to be found in the Pyrenean caves of the Stone Age (see WRITING). Most of these earliest libraries were kept at the sanctuary. The gathering together of books in libraries had its origin in the ideas of (1) preservation, (2) gathering together like books in order to join together their contents, and (3) circulation — the great modern expansion of the idea.

    The owner of flocks and herds gathers together his lists of cattle or other possessions, his receipts for purchases and record of sales, whether these are recorded on the walls of his cave or on wooden tallies or on knotted cords or on clay tablets gathered in little jars and buried under the floor of his house. Large owners and sovereigns and the temples of Egypt and Assyria gathered large stores of these archival records and with them records of tribute, oracles, etc. As early as 2700 BC we have the account of King Dedkere Isesi, his archival library and his librarian Senezemib. The annals of Thutmose III were preserved in the palace library as well as cut in selections on the walls of the temple. A few years later, and we know that the archival records were kept in a special room in the palace at Amarna — and many of the records themselves were found there. All this was before the year 1300.

    6. MESOPOTAMIAN PERIOD:

    Bible history through Genesis 10 covers the whole civilized world, but its main line up to about 2000 BC is almost wholly Mesopotamian. Up to the time of Abram’s migration from Haran, the history of Biblical libraries and the history of Babylonian and Sumerian libraries are one. Most of the cities mentioned in this period are now known to have had collections of books in those days. At the time when Abram left Haran there were hundreds of collections of written documents in scores of different geographical localities and containing millions of tablets.

    7. PATRIARCHAL PERIOD:

    From Abram’s emigration out of Haran to Jacob’s emigration to Egypt was, on the face of Biblical data, mainly a time of wandering in Palestine, but this was not wholly nomad nor wholly Palestinian. Whether there were libraries in Palestine at this time or not, the Patriarchs were all in close personal contact with the library lands of Babylonia and Egypt. Abram himself was familiar with both Mesopotamia and Egypt. His son Ishmael married an Egyptian, his son Isaac a Mesopotamian. His grandson Jacob married two wives from between the rivers, and had himself 20 years’ residence in the region. While it does not appear that Isaac lived at any time either in Syria or in Egypt, during most of his life all the members of his nearest family, father, mother, wife, sons’ wives, had had from one to three score years’ life in the mother-country. Whether there were public records in this region at this time is another matter, but it would seem that the whole region during the whole period was under the influence of the Babylonian civilization. It was freely traversed by trading caravans, and the Hittite and Mesopotamian records extend at least a little back into this period.

    8. EGYPTIAN PERIOD:

    The Egyptian period of Bible history begins with the immigration of Jacob and his sons, but fringes back to the visit of Abram ( Genesis 12:10-20), if not to Mizraim of Genesis 10:6. On the other hand, it ends properly with the exodus, but fringes forward through frequent points of contact to the flight of the Virgin and Pentecost. Whether the sojourn was 430 or years, or less, it was a long residence at a time when libraries were very flourishing in Egypt. Already at the time of Abram’s visit, collections of books, not only of official accounts, but of religious texts, medical texts, annals, and the like, had been common in Egypt for nearly 1,000 years, and had perhaps existed for 1,000 years or more before that.

    Under the older of the modern datings of the exodus, the period of the sojourn included the times of Thothmes III (Thutmose), and in this reign there are peculiarly interesting records, not only of the existence of temple and palace libraries, but of the nature of their contents. The official recorder of Thothmes III, accompanying him on his campaign in Syria and Palestine, set down each day the events of the day, while he or others also made lists of tribute, spoils, commissary matters, etc. These daily records were deposited in the palace library, as it appears, but a narrative compiled from these and written on a leather roll was deposited in the temple library, and from this roll in turn an abstract was engraved on the walls of the temple, where it remains to this day. This probably gives the library situation of the time in a nutshell: (1) the simple saving of utilitarian documents, often on papyrus or wood tablets, (2) the gathering of books written for information on more durable material, (3) preserving choice books for posterity by a local series of inscriptions.

    The rolls must have been kept in chests or small boxes, like the box containing the medical papyri of King Neferikere some 1,300 years before, or the “many boxes” at Edfu long after. Many pictures of these bookchests or bookcases are found in the monuments (Birt, Buchrolle, 12, ff).

    Again, the palace library of King Akhnaton (circa 1360 BC) at Amarna, which contained collections of the royal foreign correspondence on clay tablets, has been excavated. Its bricks bear the inscription, “Place of the records of the palace of the king,” and some hundreds of tablets from this spot have been recovered.

    At the time of the exodus there were thus probably libraries in all palaces, temples and record offices, although the temple libraries were by no means confined to sacred writings or the palace to secular. There were also at least archives, or registers, in the royal treasury and in all public departments. Schools for scribes were, it would seem, held in the palace, temple and treasury libraries. There were, therefore, apparently, at this time millions of documents or books, in hundreds of organized collections, which could be called archives or libraries.

    9. THE EXODUS:

    Supposing any exodus at all, Moses and Aaron and all the Hebrew “officers” (“scribes” or writers) under the Egyptian taskmasters ( Exodus 5:6,10,14,15,19), brought up as they were in the scribal schools, were of course quite familiar with the Egyptian ways of keeping their books. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the first and chief provision which Moses made for the Tabernacle was a book-chest for the preservation of the sacred directions given by Yahweh. It makes little difference whether the account is taken in its final form, divided horizontally into Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua, or divided perpendicularly into J, E, D, the Priestly Code (P), the fact of the ark and enough of its details are given even in the very oldest sources to show that the authors understood the ark to be a glorified book-chest in or near which were kept written documents: the tables of stone, the inscribed rod, all the testimony given from the mercy-seat which formed its lid, and perhaps the Book of Deuteronomy. The ark is in fact much the size and shape of a portable bookcase, and the Septuagint translation renders the word by the ordinary technical Greek word for the book-chest ([kibotos]; compare Birt, op. cit., 248-49). It appears also to have been the later Hebrew word for book-chest (compare Jewish Encyclopedia, II, ff). At the exodus, whenever that may have been, Moses is alleged to have made the ark the official library, and in it apparently he is thought to have kept the oracles as uttered from time to time and the record of his travels from day to day (as well as the tables of stone), precisely as the scribe of Thutmose recorded his Syrian campaigns from day to day. This record (if it was a record) was in all likelihood on a leather roll, since this became the traditional form of books among the Hebrews, and this too was like the annals of Thutmose. When the tribes separated to North and South, the books may have been either separated or copied, and doubtless they suffered much wear and tear from the harsh times until we find Deuteronomy turning up again in a temple library ( 2 Kings 22:8 ff; Chronicles 34:14 ff).

    The evidence from Egyptian Babylonian, Mitannian, Amorite and Hittite documents shows the existence of official chanceries and by implication of archives throughout the whole region of Syria and Palestine at the time when the “Hebrew” invasion began (Winckler, Tell el-Amarna Tablets).

    10. PALESTINE AT THE CONQUEST:

    The Tell el-Amarna Letters and the tablets from the Hittite archives at Boghaz-keui (Winckler, Deutsche Orientalische Gesellschaft Mitt., 1907, number 35) include actual letters from the princes, elders and governors of dozens of places, scattered all over this region from Egypt to the land of the Hittites and the Mitannians. These places include among others Jerusalem, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Acco, Ashkelon, Gaza, Lachish, Keilah and Aijalon.

    Remains of two of such archival libraries have been dug up — one at Lachish and one at Taanach near Megiddo, both dating back to the 14th century BC.

    Whether there were temple libraries as well does not appear so clearly from external evidence but may probably be inferred from the names, Debir and (perhaps) Nebo, as well as from the well-known fact that each of the many city-lands must have had its center of worship. When it was thought that writing did not exist to any extent in Palestine before the time of David, it was the fashion to account for the name of the city of “Kirjath Sepher,” the “City of Books,” by curious tours de force of conjectural emendation (Sephur for Sepher, Tabor for Debir), but with the recent progress of excavation the possibility of the name has been fully established and the insight of Sayce probably justified.

    11. PERIOD OF THE JUDGES:

    That the situation at the Conquest continued also during the period of the Judges appears from sundry considerations: (1) The fact that all the surrounding nations, Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, Hittites, Mitannians, etc., were literate nations with public archives. (2) The high state of organization under David requires an evolutionary background. (3) Even the extreme (and quite untenable) theory that the Hebrews were illiterate wild Arab nomads and remained so for a long time would actually demonstrate the matter, for, as has been pertinently observed (Sellin, Einl, 7), many at least of the Canaanite cities were not destroyed or even occupied for a long time, but were surrounded by the Hebrews, and finally occupied and assimilated. It follows, therefore, that the archival system continued, and, under this theory, for a long time, until the Hebrews absorbed the culture of their neighbors — and, by inference, libraries with the rest. (4) Taking the evidence of the documents as they stand, the matter is simple enough; various works were kept in or near the ark. Joshua added to these at least the report of a boundary commission ( Joshua 18:9,10) which was brought to the sanctuary, and Samuel “laid up” the book that he wrote “before Yahweh,” i.e. at the ark. Moreover, the Books of Jasher, the Wars of Yahweh, etc., imply a literature which in turn implies libraries. Whenever or however composed, there is no good reason to distrust their historical existence. (5) Even on the extreme critical hypothesis, “Most of the stories found in the first 8 books of the Old Testament originated before or during the age of song and story (circa 1250-1050)” (Kent, Beginnings, 17). (6) To this may also be added, with all reservations, the mysterious metal ephod which appears only in this period. The ephod seems to have been either (a) a case (BDB, 66) or (b) an instrument for consulting an oracle (BDB, 65). The linen ephod had a pouch for the Urim and Thummim. The metal ephod seems to be distinguished from the image and may have contained the written oracular instructions (torah?) as well as the oracular instruments. (7) The Kenite scribes of Jabez ( 1 Chronicles 2:55); the simple fact that a chance captive from Succoth could write out a list of names and some one at least of the rudest 300 survivals of Gideon’s 32,000 primitive warriors in those bloody frontier times could read it, the reference to the staff of the muster-master, marshal or scribe, and the “governors” (inscribers), in Deborah’s Song of Solomon, point in the same direction.

    While, therefore, the times were doubtless wild, the political unity very slight, and the unity of worship even less, there is evidence that there were both political and religious libraries throughout the period.

    12. SAUL TO THE MACCABEES:

    Beginning with the monarchy, the library situation among the Israelites appears more and more clearly to correspond with that of the surrounding nations. The first act the recorded after the choice and proclamation of Saul as king was the writing of a constitution by Samuel and the depositing of this in the sacred archives ( 1 Samuel 10:25). This document Septuagint biblion) was perhaps one of the documents (“words”) of Samuel whose words ( 1 Chronicles 29:29, history, chronicles, acts, book, etc.) seem to have been possibly a register kept by him, perhaps from the time that he succeeded Eli, as later the high-priestly register (day-book) of Johannes Maccabeus was certainly kept from the beginning of his highpriesthood (1 Macc 16:24).

    Whether these “words” of Samuel were equivalent to the technical register or “book of the words of days” or not, such registers were undoubtedly kept from the time of David on, and there is nothing so illuminating as to the actual library conditions of the times as the so-called chronicles, histories or acts — the registers, journals or archives of the time. The rollregister seems to be called in full “the book of the words of days,” or with explanatory fullness “book of the records of the words of days,” but this appears to be an evolution from “words of days” or even “words,” and these forms as well as the abbreviations “book of days” and “book” are used of the same technical work, which is the engrossing in chronological book-form of any series of individual documents — all the documents of a record-office, general or local. The name is used also of histories written up on the basis of these register-books (the Books of Chronicles are in Hebrew, “words of days”) but not themselves records. These charterbooks, of course, so far as they go, mirror the contents of the archives which they transcribe, and the key to the public-library history of the period, both sacred and royal, as regards contents, at least, is to be found in them, while in turn the key to the understanding of this technical bookform itself lies in the understanding of the “word” as a technical bookform.

    The “word” in Hebrew is used of books, speeches, sayings, oracles, edicts, reports, formal opinions, agreements, indictments, judicial decisions, stories, records, regulations, sections of a discourse, lines of poetry, whole poems, etc., as well as acts, deeds, “matters,” “affairs,” events and words in the narrowest sense. It is thus very exactly, as well as literally, translated in the Septuagint by [logos ], which as a technical book-term (Birt, Antikes Buchwesen, 28, 29) means any distinct composition, long or short, whether a law, an epigram, or a whole complex work. The best English equivalent for this “work-complete-in-itself,” in the case of public records, is “document,” and in the case of literary matters, it is “work or writing.”

    The “words” of Samuel or David thus are his “acts” or “deeds” in the sense, not of doings, but of the individual documentary records of those doings quite in the modern sense of the “acts and proceedings” of a convention, or the “deeds” to property.

    In the plural, [dibhre ] and [logoi ] or [logia ] alike mean a collection of documents, works or writings, i.e. “a library.” Sometimes this is used in the sense of archives or library, at other times as a book containing these collected works.

    These collected documents in register-form constituted apparently a continuous series until the time when the Book of Chronicles was written and were extant at that time: the “words” of Samuel, “chronicles” and “last words” of David ( 1 Chronicles 23:27; 27:24), the “book of the words (acts) of Solomon” ( 1 Kings 11:41), the book of the words of days of the kings of Judah, and the book of the words of days of the kings of Israel — the kingdoms after division each having naturally its own records.

    The general situation during the period as to archival matters is pretty well summarized by Moore in the EB. From the time of Solomon, and more doubtfully from the time of David, he recognizes that “records were doubtless kept in the palace,” and that “the temples also doubtless had their records,” while there may have been also local records of cities and towns.

    These records contained probably chief events, treaties, edicts, etc. — probably brief annals “never wrought into narrative memoirs.” The temple records contained annals of succession, repairs, changes, etc. (EB, II, 2021-28). The records were, however, probably not brief, but contained treaties, etc., verbatim in full. To this should moreover be added the significant fact that these archives contained not only business records but also various works of a more or less literary character. Those mentioned include letters, prophecies, prayers, and even poems and Wisdom literature. The “words” of the kings of Israel contained prayers, visions and other matter not usually counted archival. The “acts” (words) of Solomon also contained literary or quasi-literary material. According to Josephus the archives of Tyre contained similar material and this was also true of the Amarna archives (circa 1380 BC) and those at Boghazkeui, as well as of the palace archives of Nineveh and the great temple archives of Nippur and Abu Habeh (Sippara). So, too, in Egypt the palace archives of King Neferikere contained medical works and those of Rameses III, at least, magical works, while the temple archives in the time of Thutmose III (Breasted, Ancient Records) contained military annals, and those of Denderah certainly many works of a non-registerial character. The temples of early Greece also contained literary works and secular laws as well as temple archives proper.

    In short, the palace collections of Israel were no exception to the general rule of antiquity in containing, besides palace archives proper, more or less of religious archives and literary works, while the temple collections contained more or less political records and literary works.

    This record system in Israel and Judah, as appears from the Old Testament itself, was the system of Persia in Old Testament times. It was the system of the Jews in Maccabean times, of Egypt during this whole period and for centuries before and after, and of Northern Syria likewise at about this time (Zakar-Baal, of Gebal, circa 1113 BC). The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, whenever written, reveal the same system, Exodus to Numbers being in the form of a register, and Deuteronomy represented as an abstract prepared for engraving on stone, a use which Joshua is said to have made of it. We have, therefore, the same system existing before and after and on all sides geographically.

    All this neighboring practice points to a system of (1) archival collections, (2) contemporary book registers, (3) contemporary publication by inscription, and, in the light of these, the Old Testament method, from the time of David at least, becomes clear, certainly as to archival collections and registers and hardly less so as to the setting-up of inscriptions in permanent material.

    Even if D is not earlier than 621 BC, it assumes public inscription long before that time, quite comparable in extent to the inscriptions of Thutmose III or King Mesha of Moab, and, although few long inscriptions have been recovered thus far, there is at least the Siloam inscription (compare also Isaiah 30:8; Job 19:23,24; Isaiah 8:1; Jeremiah 17:1; also the Decalogue). Each one of these three elements (even the collection of inscriptions in the temple) was, it must be remembered, called in antiquity a “library.”

    The reference to “the books” in Daniel (9:2) may possibly point to or foreshadow the synagogue library.

    Little weight is generally and properly given to the statement of 2 Macc 2:13, that Nehemiah founded a library and gathered into it the writings “about the kings, the prophets and David, and the letters of the kings concerning votive offerings,” but it is, as a matter of fact, evident that he, as well as Judas Maccabeus, who is linked with him in the statement, must have done just this.

    From the time of the Septuagint translated, the idea of the library (bibliotheke) and even the public library (“books of the people,” i.e. public records) was familiar enough, the Septuagint itself also, according to Josephus, linking the temple library of Jerusalem with the Alexandrian library through the furnishing of books by the former to the latter for copying.

    13. NEW TESTAMENT TIMES:

    With the Roman conquest and the rise of the Idumeans, naturally the methods developed in accordance with Roman practice. It appears from the frequent references of Josephus that the public records were extensive and contained genealogical records as well as official letters, decrees, etc.

    The triple method of record continues. It appears, further (Blau, 96; Krauss, III, 179), that there were libraries and even lending libraries in the schools and synagogues, not of Palestine only, but wherever Jews were settled. Josephus and Chrysostom with the Mishna confirm the already very clear inference from Luke’s account of our Lord’s teaching in the synagogue that at this time, and probably from the beginning of the synagogue, the books, the manner of their keeping and the ritual of their using were already essentially as in the modern synagogue. The first preaching-places of the Christians were the synagogues, and when churches succeeded these, the church library naturally followed, but whether in Bible times or not is a matter of conjecture; they appear at least in very early churches.

    Whether the rich secular literature to which Josephus had access was in public or private libraries does not appear directly. It is well known that it was as much a part of Roman public policy in Herod’s time to found public libraries in the provinces as it was to restore temples. Twenty-four such provincial libraries, chiefly temple libraries, are known.

    The Roman practice of the time still mixed literary with the archival material, and it is likely therefore that the public records of the Jewish temple had in them both Greek and Latin secular books in considerable quantity, as well as the Greek Apocrypha and a large amount of Aramaic or late Hebrew literature of Talmudic character.

    14. BOOKCASES AND BUILDINGS:

    As to the receptacles and places in which the books were kept, we have reference even in the Hebrew period to most of the main forms used among the nations: the wooden box, the clay box or pot, the pouch, and on the other hand, once, the “house of books” so familiar in Egyptian use and apparently referring to an individual chamber or semi-detached building of temple or palace. Most significant, however, is the statement that the books were kept in the palace and temple treasuries or storehouses.

    The sacred ark ([’aron]), whatever it may have originally contained, was looked on when D was written as a sacred wooden book-chest, and the ark in which the teaching priests carried the law about for public reading was in fact likewise a chest.

    Such chests were common among the Jews later, some with lids and some with side-opening (Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 107-108; Blau, 178). It is tempting to find in D, where the book is to be put “by (the King James Version “in”) the side of the ark” ( Deuteronomy 31:26), a chest having both lid and openings in the side, but more likely perhaps D means a separate chest, like the coffer or pouch with the golden mice, which was also put “by the side” ([matstsadh]) of the ark ( 1 Samuel 6:8).

    In the New Testament the “cloak” which Paul left behind at Troas ( Timothy 4:13) was probably (Wattenb., 614; see also Birt and Gardthausen), if not a wooden “capsa,” at least some sort of bookcase or cover.

    The earthen vessel in which Jeremiah (32:14) puts the two “books” (translated “deeds”), one sealed and one unsealed, was one of the commonest bookcases of the ancient world. This information has lately been widely reinforced and associated with Biblical history by the discovery of the Elephantine papyri, which were, for the most part, kept in such clay jars (Meyer, Papyrusfund, 15). The word Pentateuch perhaps harks back to a five-roll jar, but more likely to a basket or wooden box with five compartments (Blau, 65; Birt, Buchrolle, 21, 22). It was the collective label of a five-roll case, whether of earthenware, wood or basket work.

    The pouch or bag bookcase has perhaps its representative in the phylactery ( Matthew 23:5), which was a sort of miniature armarium in that each of the four little rolls of its four compartments was technically a “book” ([cepher]). This name is commonly explained as an amulet guarding against evil spirits, but the term actually occurs in the papyri (Bibliophylax) of the preservation of books.

    The “house of books” ( Ezra 6:1 margin) or “place of books” is a very close parallel to [bibliotheke], by which (in the plural) it is translated in the Septuagint. The phrase was a common term in Egypt for library, perhaps also sometimes for scriptorium or even registry, and it points to a chamber or semi-detached room or building where the book-chests, jars, etc., were kept. That at Edfu is a semi-detached room and contained many such cases.

    While there is little record of libraries in Biblical times, the very formation of the Canon itself, whether by the higher critical process, or by natural processes of gathering whole literary works, implies the gathering together of books, and the temple libraries common to both Egypt and Assyria- Babylonia are almost inevitably implied wherever there was a temple or sanctuary, whatever may be the facts as to the temple libraries. According to Hilprecht there were certainly such libraries and from very ancient times.

    The palace library of Assurbani-pal, though itself a discovery of the last times, brings the story down to the times of the written history. For the rest of the story see literature below, especially Dziatzko, Bibliotheken, and the article on “Libraries” in the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).See also NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.

    In the earlier period at least and including for the Jews the New Testament times, the particular locality in palace or temple seems to have been the treasury. In the Book of Ezra, search for the decree of Cyrus was to be made in the king’s treasure-house ( Ezra 5:17), and was made in the “house of books where the treasures were laid up” ( Ezra 6:1 m). The document was finally found in the palace at Ecbatana — so too in 1 Macc 14:49 the archives are placed in the treasury.

    In New Testament times there had already been a good deal of development in the matter of library buildings. A general type had been evolved which consisted of (1) a colonnade, (2) a lecture-room, a reading-room or assembly room, (3) small rooms for book storage.

    Such accounts as we have of the Alexandrian libraries, with the excavations at Pergamus, Athens and Rome, reveal the same type — the book-rooms, the colonnade where masters walked or sat and talked with their pupils, the rooms for assembly where the senate or other bodies sometimes sat. In short, as long before in Egypt, whether in palace or temple, the place of teaching was the place of books.

    It is significant thus that our Lord taught in the Treasury, which in Herod’s Temple was in the court of the temple proper — probably the porticos under the women’s gallery, some of the adjoining rooms being used for books. As this was within the barrier which no Gentile could pass, Herod must have had also a library of public records in the outer colonnade.See further, NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.LITERATURE .

    Ludwig Blau, Studien zum althebraischen Buchwesen, Strassburg i, E, 1902, 178-80: Sam. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, Leipzig, 1912, III, 193-98; J.W. Clark, Care of Books, Cambridge, 1901; E. C. Richardson, Biblical Libraries: A Sketch of Library History from 3400 BC to 150 AD.

    London. Oxford University Press, 1914.See the literature under WRITING. E. C. Richardson LIBRARY OF NINEVEH See NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.

    LIBYA; LIBYANS <lib’-i-a > , <lib’-i-anz > : In the Old Testament the word occurs in the King James Version in 2 Chronicles 12:3; 16:8; Nahum 3:9 for “Lubim” (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American), however, retains “Libyans” in Daniel 11:43. In Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 30:5; 38:5, the words are replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by PUT (which see). In the New Testament the word “Libya” ([ Libu>h , Libue ]) occurs, in close connection with CYRENE (which see) ( Acts 2:10). Greek and Roman writers apply the term to the African continent, generally excluding Egypt. See LUBIM.

    LICE <lis > ( µyNiKi [kinnim] ( Exodus 8:17,18; <19A531> Psalm 105:31), µNiKi [kinnim] ( Exodus 8:16), µN;Kings [kinnam] ( Exodus 8:17,18); Septuagint [skni~fev , skniphes ] ( Exodus 8:16,18), [tofa , ton sknipha ], once in Exodus 8:18; [skni~pev , sknipes ] ( <19A531> Psalm 105:31); Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) [scniphes ]; according to Liddell and Scott, under the word [skni>y , sknips ], Slav. sknipa = culex):

    The references, both in Exodus and in Psalms, are all to the plague of “lice.” the Revised Version margin suggests “fleas” or “sandflies.” The Septuagint rendering would favor “sandflies” or “mosquitoes,” between which two insects the Old Testament writers would hardly be expected to discriminate. Mosquitoes belong to the order of Diptera, family Culicidae; the sandfly (Plebotomus papataci) to the family of Simuliidae of the same order. The sandflies are much smaller than mosquitoes, and are nearly noiseless, but give a sharp sting which may leave an unpleasant irritation.

    They are abundant in the Levant. In Southern Europe they cause the “three-day fever” or “papataci.” As stated under GNAT (which see), there is little ground other than the authority of the Septuagint for deciding between “lice,” “fleas,” “sand-flies,” or “mosquitoes” as translations of [kinnim]. See also under GNAT the note on ken, the Revised Version margin “gnat” ( Isaiah 51:6). Alfred Ely Day LICENCE <li’-sens > : This word is not found at all in the Revised Version (British and American) (except in Judith 11:14; Ecclesiasticus 15:20; 1 Macc 1:13), and twice only in the King James Version (except in 2 Macc 4:9), both times in Acts. In Acts 21:40 (as translation of [ejpitre>pw , epitrepo ]) the American Standard Revised Version has “leave” where the King James Version has “licence.” In Acts 25:16, “opportunity to make his defense” (as translation of [to>pon ajpologi>av , topon apologias ]) takes the place of “have licence to answer for himself.”

    LIDEBIR <lid’-e-ber > ( rybid”li [lidhebhir]): For “of Debir” in EV; the Revised Version margin suggests the name “Lidebir” ( Joshua 13:26), a city in the territory of Gad. It is probably identical with LO-DEBAR (which see).

    LIE; LYING <li > , ( rq,v, [sheqer] (usually, e.g. Isaiah 9:15; Zechariah 13:3), or bz’K; [kazabh] verb ( Job 34:6; Micah 2:11); [yeu~dov , pseudos ] ( John 8:44; Revelation 21:27), “to speak falsely,” “to fabricate,” “to make a false statement”; [yeu>domai , pseudomai ], in Acts 5:3,1):

    1. LYING DEFINED:

    In its very essence, a lie is something said with intent to deceive. It is not always a spoken word that is a lie, for a life lived under false pretenses, a hypocritical life, may be a lie equally with a false word ( Jeremiah 23:14). A vain thing, like an idol, may be a lie ( Isaiah 59:4), as also a false system ( Romans 3:7). Error, as opposed to truth, is a lie ( John 2:21). The denial of the deity of Jesus Christ is regarded as “the” lie ( 1 John 2:22).

    The origin of lies and lying is traced to Satan who is called “a liar, and the father thereof” ( John 8:44; Acts 5:3). Satan’s dealing with Eve (Genesis 3) furnishes us with a splendid illustration of the first lie, so far as we have any record of it.

    2. A RACIAL SIN:

    The whole race is guilty of this sin: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies” ( Psalm 58:3). It is a part of the old Adamic nature, “the old man” ( Colossians 3:9), which the believer in Jesus Christ is called upon to put off. So prominent a factor is it in the experience of the race that among the condensed catalogue of sins, for the commission of which men are finally condemned, the sin of lying finds its place: “All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” ( Revelation 21:8 the King James Version).

    3. GOD’S ATTITUDE TO IT:

    God’s attitude toward this sin is strongly marked throughout both the Old Testament and New Testament. The righteous are called upon to hate lying ( Proverbs 13:5), to avoid it ( Zephaniah 3:13), to respect not those who lie, and utterly reject their company ( Psalm 40:4; 101:7), to pray to be delivered from it ( <19B929> Psalm 119:29). The wicked are said to love lying ( Psalm 52:3), to delight in it ( Psalm 62:4), to seek after it ( Psalm 4:2), and to give heed to it ( Proverbs 17:4). Lying leads to worse crimes ( Hosea 4:1,2).

    4. THE PENALTY:

    The punishment to be meted out to liars is of the severest kind. They are positively and absolutely excluded from heaven ( Revelation 21:27; 22:15), and those who are guilty of this sin are cast into the lake of fire ( Revelation 21:8). We are reminded of the awful fate meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to God and man ( Acts 5:1-11).

    God will “destroy them that speak lies” ( Psalm 5:6), and “he that uttereth lies shall not escape” ( Proverbs 19:5), yea “a sword is upon the liars” ( Jeremiah 50:36 the King James Version). The liar is thereby debarred from rendering any true and acceptable worship unto the Lord ( Psalm 24:4).

    The Scriptures abound with illustrations of lying and the results and penalties therefor. A careful study of these illustrations will reveal the subtlety of falsehood. Sometimes a lie is a half-truth, as set forth in the story of Satan’s temptation of Eve (Genesis 3). Cain’s lie ( Genesis 4:9) was of the nature of an evasive answer to a direct question. Jacob’s deception of his father, in order that he might inherit the blessing of the firstborn, was a barefaced and deliberate lie ( Genesis 27:19). The answer which Joseph’s brethren gave to their father when he asked them concerning the welfare of their brother Joseph is an illustration, as well as a revelation, of the depth of the wickedness of hearts that deliberately set themselves to falsify and deceive ( Genesis 37:31,32). Even good men are sometimes overtaken in a lie, which, of course, is no more excusable in them than in the wicked; indeed, it is more shameful because the righteous are professed followers of the truth (David in 1 Samuel 21:2). What more striking example of the heinousness of lying in the sight of God can we have than the fate which befell Gehazi who, in order to satisfy a covetous desire for possessions, misrepresented his master Elisha to Naaman the Syrian whom the prophet had healed of his leprosy: “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow” ( Kings 5:22-27)? The story of Peter’s denial of his Lord, and his persistent asseverations that he did not know Him and was not one of His followers, makes us shudder to think that it is possible for a follower of Christ so far to forget himself as not only to lie, but buttress lying with swearing ( Matthew 26:72).

    5. PSEUDOS UNITED WITH OTHER WORDS:

    Throughout the Scriptures we find pseudos joined to other words, e.g. “false apostles” ([yeudapo>stolov , pseudapostolos ], 2 Corinthians 11:13), so called probably because a true apostle delivers the message of another, namely, God, while these “false apostles” cared only for self. Such are from Satan, and, like him, they transform themselves into angels of light, and sail under false colors. We read also of “false prophets” ([yeudoprofh>thv , pseudoprophetes ], Matthew 7:15; compare Jeremiah 23:16 f),thereby meaning those who falsely claim to bring messages from God and to speak in behalf of God. Mention is made also of “false brethren” ([yeuda>delfov , pseudadelphos ], 2 Corinthians 11:26), meaning Judaizing teachers, as in Galatians 2:4; “false teachers” ([yeudodida>skalov , pseudodidaskalos ], 2 Peter 2:1), men whose teaching was false and who falsely claimed the teacher’s office. We read further of “false witnesses” ([yeudo>martuv , pseudomartus ], Mark 26:60); by such are meant those who swear falsely, and testify to what they know is not true. So, too, we find mention of the “false Christs” ([yeudo>cristoi , pseudochristoi ], Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22).

    This personage does not so much deny the existence of a Christ, but rather, on the contrary, builds upon the world’s expectations of such a person, and falsely, arrogantly, blasphemously asserts they he is the Christ promised and foretold. It is the Antichrist who denies that there is a Christ; the false Christ affirms himself to be the Christ. Of course there is a sense in which the man of sin will be both Antichrist and a false Christ. See FALSE CHRISTS; FALSE PROPHETS; FALSE SWEARING, FALSE WITNESS.

    William Evans LIERS-IN-WAIT <li-erz-in-wat’ > ( Judges 9:25; 16:12; 20:36 ff). See AMBUSH.

    LIEUTENANT <lu-ten’-ant > , <lef-ten’-ant > . See SATRAPS.

    LIFE <lif > ( µyYIj” [chayyim], vp,n< [nephesh], j”Wr [ruach], hy:j; [chayah]; [zwh> , zoe ], [yuch> , psuche ], [bi>ov , bios ], [pneu~ma , pneuma ]):

    1. THE TERMS.

    Of the Hebrew terms, [chayah] is the verb which means “to live,” “to have life,” or the vital principle, “to continue to live,” or “to live prosperously.”

    In the Piel it signifies “to give life, or preserve, or quicken and restore life.”

    The Hiphil is much like the Piel. The noun [hayyim] generally used in the plural is an abstract noun meaning “life,” i.e. the possession of the vital principle with its energies and activities. [Nephesh] often means “living being” or “creature.” Sometimes it has the force of the reflexive “self.” At other times it refers to the seat of the soul, the personality, the emotions, the appetites — passions and even mental acts. Frequently it means “life,” the “seat of life,” and in this way it is used about 171 times in the Old Testament, referring to the principle of vitality in both men and animals. [Ruach] signifies “wind,” “breath,” principle or source of vitality, but is never used to signify life proper.

    2. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING. 1. Popular Use of the Term: The term “life” is used in the Old Testament in the popular sense. It meant life in the body, the existence and activity of the man in all his parts and energies. It is the person complete, conscious and active. There is no idea of the body being a fetter or prison to the soul; the body was essential to life and the writers had no desire to be separated from it. To them the physical sphere was a necessity, and a man was living when all his activities were performed in the light of God’s face and favor. The secret and source of life to them was relationship with God. There was nothing good or desirable apart from this relation of fellowship. To overcome or be rid of sin was necessary to life. The real center of gravity in life was in the moral and religious part of man’s nature. This must be in fellowship with God, the source of all life and activity. 2. Complexity of the Idea: The conception of life is very complex. Several meanings are clearly indicated: (1) Very frequently it refers to the vital principle itself, apart from its manifestations ( Genesis 2:7). Here it is the breath of life, or the breath from God which contained and communicated the vital principle to man and made him a [nephesh] or living being (see also Genesis 1:30; 6:17; 7:22; 45:5, etc.). (2) It is used to denote the period of one’s actual existence, i.e. “lifetime” ( Genesis 23:1; 25:7; 47:9; Exodus 6:16,18,20, etc.). (3) The life is represented as a direct gift from God, and dependent absolutely upon Him for its continuance ( Genesis 1:11-27; 2:7; Numbers 16:22). (4) In a few cases it refers to the conception of children, denoting the time when conception was possible ( Genesis 18:10,14 margin; Kings 4:16,17 margin). (5) In many cases it refers to the totality of man’s relationships and activities, all of which make up life ( Deuteronomy 32:47; Samuel 25:29; Job 10:1, etc.). (6) In a few instances it is used synonymously with the means of sustaining life ( Deuteronomy 24:6; Proverbs 27:27). (7) Many times it is used synonymously with happiness or well-being ( Deuteronomy 30:15,19; Ezra 6:10; Psalm 16:11; 30:5; Proverbs 2:19, and frequently). (8) It is always represented as a very precious gift, and offenses against life were to be severely punished ( Genesis 9:4,5; Leviticus 17:14; 24:17).

    Capital punishment is here specifically enjoined because of the value of the life that has been taken. The lexicon talionis required life for life ( Exodus 21:23; Deuteronomy 19:21); and this even applies to the beast ( Leviticus 24:18). The life was represented as abiding in the blood and therefore the blood must not be eaten, or lightly shed upon the ground ( Leviticus 17:15; Deuteronomy 12:23). The Decalogue forbids murder or the taking of human life wrongfully ( Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). Garments taken in pledge must not be kept over night, for thereby the owner’s life might be endangered ( Deuteronomy 24:6). That life was considered precious appears in 2 Kings 10:24; Est 7:7; Job 2:4; Proverbs 4:23; 6:26. The essence of sacrifice consisted in the fact that the life (the [nephesh]) resided in the blood; thus when blood was shed, life was lost ( Deuteronomy 12:23; Leviticus 17:11).

    Oppression on the part of judges and rulers was severely condemned because oppression was detrimental to life. (9) Long life was much desired and sought by the Israelites, and under certain conditions this was possible ( Psalm 91:16).

    The longevity of the ante-diluvian patriarchs is a problem by itself (see ANTEDILUVIANS). It was one of the greatest of calamities to be cut off in the midst of life ( Isaiah 38:10-12; 53:8); that a good old age was longed for is shown by Exodus 20:12; Psalm 21:4; 34:12; 61:6, etc.

    This long life was possible to the obedient to parents ( Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16), and to those obedient to God ( Deuteronomy 4:4; Proverbs 3:1,2; 10:27); to the wise ( Proverbs 3:16; 9:11); to the pure in heart ( Psalm 34:12-14; 91:1-10; Ecclesiastes 3:12,13); to those who feared God ( Proverbs 10:27; Isaiah 65:18-21; 38:2-5, etc.). (10) The possibility of an immortal life is dimly hinted at in the earliest writing, and much more clearly taught in the later.

    The Tree of Life in the midst of the garden indicated a possible immortality for man upon earth ( Genesis 2:9; 3:22,24) (see TREE OF LIFE).

    Failing to partake of this and falling into sin by partaking of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” they were driven forth from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and become immortal beings in their sinful condition. To deprive man of the possibility of making himself immortal while sinful was a blessing to the race; immortality without holiness is a curse rather than a blessing. The way to the tree of life was henceforth guarded by the cherubim and the flame of a sword, so that men could not partake of it in their condition of sin. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of a spiritual immortality in another sphere. Enoch’s fellowship with God led to a bodily translation; so also Elijah, and several hundred years after their deaths, God called Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, implying that they were really alive then. In Isaiah 26:19 there is a clear prophecy of a resurrection, and an end of death. Daniel 12:2 asserts a resurrection of many of the dead, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Some of the psalmists firmly believed in the continuity of the life in fellowship with God ( Psalm 16:10,11; 17:15; 23:6; 49:15; 73:24,25). The exact meaning of some of these statements is difficult to understand, yet this much is clear: there was a revolt against death in many pious minds, and a belief that the life of fellowship with God could not end or be broken even by death itself. See IMMORTALITY. (11) The fundamental fact in the possession of life was vital relationship with God. Men first lived because God breathed into them the breath of life ( Genesis 2:7).

    Man’s vital energies are the outflowing of the spirit or vital energies of God, and all activities are dependent upon the vitalizing power from God.

    When God sends forth His spirit, things are created, and live; when He withdraws that spirit they die ( <19A430> Psalm 104:30). “In his favor is life” ( Psalm 30:5 the King James Version). He is the fountain of life ( Psalm 36:9; 63:3). “All my fountains are in thee” ( Psalm 87:7). The secret of Job’s success and happiness was that the Almighty was with him ( Job 29:2). This fellowship brought him health, friends, prosperity and all other blessings. The consciousness of the fellowship with God led men to revolt against the idea of going to Sheol where this fellowship must cease. They felt that such a relationship could not cease, and God would take them out of Sheol.

    3. IN THE APOCRYPHA.

    A similar conception of life appears here as in the Old Testament. Zoe and peuche are used and occur most frequently in the books of The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclus. In 1 and 2 Esdras the word is little used; 2 Esdras 3:5; 16:61 are but a quotation from Genesis 2:7, and refer to the vital principle; 2 Esdras 14:30, Tobit, Judith, Ad Esther use it in the same sense also. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus use it in several senses closely resembling the use in Proverbs (compare Ecclesiasticus 4:12; Proverbs 3:18; 10:16). In general there is no additional meaning attached to the word.

    The Psalms of Solomon refer to everlasting life in 3:16; 13:10; 14:2,6.

    4. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    Of the Greek terms [bios ] is used at times as the equivalent of the Hebrew [chayyim]. It refers to life extensively, i.e. the period of one’s existence, a lifetime; also to the means of sustaining life, such as wealth, etc. [Psuche ] is also equivalent to [chayyim] at times, but very frequently to [nephesh ] and sometimes to [ruah ]. Thus, it means the vital principle, a living being, the immaterial part of man, the seat of the affections, desires and appetites, etc. The term [zoe ] corresponds very closely to [chayyim], and means the vital principle, the state of one who is animate, the fullness of activities and relationship both in the physical and spiritual realms.

    The content of the word [zoe ] is the chief theme of the New Testament.

    The life is mediated by Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament this life was through fellowship with God, in the New Testament it is through Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Old Testament idea is carried to its completion, its highest development of meaning, being enriched by the supreme teaching and revelation of Jesus Christ. In the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, the center of gravity in human life is in the moral and religious nature of man. 1. In the Synoptic Gospels: The teaching here regarding life naturally links itself with Old Testament ideas and the prevailing conceptions of Judaism. The word is used in the sense of (1) the vital principle, that which gives actual physical existence ( Matthew 2:20; Mark 10:45; Luke 12:22 f; 14:26). (2) It is also the period of one’s existence, i.e. lifetime ( Luke 1:75; 16:25). (3) Once it may mean the totality of man’s relationships and activities ( Luke 12:15) which do not consist in abundance of material possessions. (4) Generally it means the real life, the vital connection with the world and God, the sum total of man’s highest interests. It is called “eternal life” ( Matthew 19:29; 25:46). It is called “life” ( Matthew 18:8,9; 19:17; Mark 9:43,45,46). In these passages Jesus seems to imply that it is almost equivalent to “laying up treasures in heaven,” or to “entering the kingdom of God.” The entering into life and entering the kingdom are practically the same, for the kingdom is that spiritual realm where God controls, where the principles, activities and relationships of heaven prevail, and hence, to enter into these is to enter into “life.” (5) The lower life of earthly relationship and activities must be subordinated to the higher and spiritual ( Matthew 10:39; 16:25; Luke 9:24). These merely earthly interests may be very desirable and enjoyable, but whoever would cling to these and make them supreme is in danger of losing the higher. The spiritual being infinitely more valuable should be sought even if the other relationship should be lost entirely. (6) Jesus also speaks of this life as something future, and to be realized at the consummation of the age ( Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:30), or the world to come.

    This in no wise contradicts the statement that eternal life can be entered upon in this life. As Jesus Himself was in vital relationship with the spiritual world and lived the eternal life, He sought to bring others into the same blessed state. This life was far from being perfect. The perfection could come only at the consummation when all was perfection and then they would enter into the perfect fellowship with God and connection with the spirit-world and its blessed experiences. There is no conflict in His teaching here, no real difficulty, only an illustration of Browning’s statement, “Man never is but wholly hopes to be.” Thus in the synoptists Jesus teaches the reality of the eternal life as a present possession as well as future fruition.

    The future is but the flowering out and perfection of the present. Without the present bud, there can be no future flower. (7) The conditions which Jesus lays down for entering into this life are faith in Himself as the one Mediator of the life, and the following of Him in a life of obedience.

    He alone knows the Father and can reveal Him to others ( Matthew 11:27). He alone can give true rest and can teach men how to live ( Matthew 11:28 f). The sure way to this life is: “Follow me.” His whole ministry was virtually a prolonged effort to win confidence in Himself as Son and Mediator, to win obedience, and hence, bring men unto these spiritual relationships and activities which constitute the true life. 2. In the Fourth Gospel: The fullest and richest teachings regarding life are found here. The greatest word of this Gospel is “life.” The author says he wrote the Gospel in order that “ye may have life” ( John 20:31). Most of the teachings recorded, circle around this great word “life.” This teaching is in no way distinctive and different from that of the synoptists, but is supplementary, and completes the teaching of Jesus on the subject. The use of the word is not as varied, being concentrated on the one supreme subject. (1) In a few cases it refers only to the vital principle which gives life or produces a lifetime ( John 10:11,15-18; 13:37; 15:13). (2) It represents Jesus the Loges as the origin and means of all life to the world. As the preincarnate Loges He was the source of life to the universe ( John 1:4). As the incarnate Loges He said His life had been derived originally from the Father ( John 5:26; 6:57; 10:18).

    He then was the means of life to men ( John 3:15,16; 4:14; 5:21,39,40); and this was the purpose for which He came into the world ( John 6:33,34,51; 10:10). (3) The prevailing reference, however, is to those activities which are the expression of fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. These relationships are called “eternal life” ( John 3:15,16,36; 4:14, etc.).

    The nearest approach to a definition of eternal life is found in John 17:3. Though not a scientific or metaphysical definition, it is nevertheless Jesus’ own description of eternal life, and reveals His conception of it. It is thus more valuable than a formal definition. It is “to know God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.”

    This knowledge is vastly more than mere intellectual perception or understanding. It is moral knowledge, it is personal acquaintance, it is fellowship, a contact, if we may so speak, of personality with personality, an inner affinity and sympathy, an experience of similar thoughts, emotions, purposes, motives, desires, an interchange of the heart’s deepest feelings and experiences. It is a bringing of the whole personality of man into right relationship with the personality of God. This relation is ethical, personal, binding the two together with ties which nothing can separate. It is into this experience that Jesus came to bring men. Such a life Jesus says is satisfying to all who hunger and thirst for it ( John 4:14; 6:35); it is the source of light to all ( John 1:4; 8:12); it is indestructible ( John 6:58; 11:26); it is like a well of water in the soul ( John 4:14); it is procured by personally partaking of those qualities which belong to Jesus ( John 6:53). (4) This life is a present possession and has also a glorious future fruition. (a) To those who exercise faith in Jesus it is a present experience and possession ( John 4:10; 5:24,40). Faith in Him as the Son of God is the psychological means by which persons are brought into this vital relationship with God. Those who exercised the faith immediately experienced this new power and fellowship and exercised the new activities. (b) It has a glorious fruition in the future also ( John 4:36; 5:29; 6:39,44,54). John does not give so much prominence to the eschatological phase of Jesus’ teachings as to the present reality and actual possession of this blessed life. (5) It has been objected that in speaking of the Loges as the source of life John is pursuing a metaphysical line, whereas the life which he so much emphasizes has an ethical basis, and he makes no attempt to reconcile the two.

    The objection may have force to one who has imbibed the Ritschlian idea of performing the impossible task of eliminating all metaphysics from theology. It will not appeal very strongly to the average Christian. It is a purely academic objection. The ordinary mind will think that if Jesus Christ is the source of ethical and eternal life it is because He possesses something of the essence and being of God, which makes His work for men possible.

    The metaphysical and the ethical may exist together, may run concurrently, the one being the source and seat of the other. There is no contradiction.

    Both metaphysics and ethics are a legitimate and necessary exercise of the human mind. 3. In the Acts of the Apostles: In His intercessory prayer, John 17, Jesus said His mission was to give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him (17:2). The record in Acts is the carrying out of that purpose. The word “life” is used in several senses: (1) the vital principle or physical life (17:25; 20:10,24; 27:10,22); (2) also the sum total of man’s relationships and activities upon earth (5:20; 26:4); (3) Jesus Christ is regarded as the source and principle of life, being called by Peter, “the Prince of life” (3:15). Also the life eternal or everlasting is spoken of with the same significance as in the Gospels (11:18; 13:46,48). 4. In the Writings of Paul: Here also the words for “life” are used in various senses: (1) the vital principle which gives physical vitality and existence ( Romans 8:11,38; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 3:22; Philippians 1:20; 2:30); (2) the sum total of man’s relationships and activities ( 1 Corinthians 6:3,4; 1 Timothy 2:2; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:1; 3:10 the King James Version); (3) those relationships with God and with Christ in the spiritual realm, and the activities arising therefrom which constitute the real and eternal life.

    This is mediated by Christ ( Romans 5:10). It is in Christ ( Romans 6:11). It is the free gift of God ( Romans 6:23). It is also mediated or imparted to us through the Spirit ( Romans 8:2,6,9,10; 2 Corinthians 2:16; 3:6; Galatians 6:8). It comes through obedience to the word ( Romans 7:10; Philippians 2:16); and through faith ( 1 Timothy 1:16). It may be apprehended in this life ( 1 Timothy 6:12,19). It is brought to light through the gospel ( 2 Timothy 1:10). It is a reward to those who by patience in well-doing seek it ( Romans 2:7). It gives conquering power over sin and death ( Romans 5:17,18,21). It is the end or reward of a sanctified life ( Romans 6:22). It is a present possession and a hope ( Titus 1:2; 3:7). It will be received in all its fullness hereafter ( Romans 2:7; 2 Corinthians 5:4). Thus Paul’s use of the word substantially agrees with the teaching in the Gospels, and no doubt was largely based upon it. 5. In the Writings of John: In the Johannine Epistles and Revelation, the contents of the term “life” are the same as those in the Fourth Gospel. Life in certain passages ( 1 John 3:16; Revelation 8:9; 11:11; 12:11) is mere physical vitality and existence upon earth. The source of life is Christ Himself ( 1 John 1:1 f; 5:11 f,16). The blessed eternal life in Christ is a present possession to all those who are in fellowship with the Father and the Son ( 1 John 5:11,12). Here is an echo of the words of Jesus ( John 17:3) where John describes the life, the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. It is virtually fellowship with the Father and with the Son ( 1 John 1:2,4). Life is promised to those who are faithful ( Revelation 2:7); and the crown of life is promised to those who are faithful unto death ( Revelation 2:10). The crown of life doubtless refers to the realization of all the glorious possibilities that come through fellowship with God and the Son. The thirsty are invited to come and drink of the water of life freely ( Revelation 21:6; 22:17). The river of life flows through the streets of the New Jerusalem ( Revelation 22:1), and the tree of life blooms on its banks, bearing twelve manner of fruit (22:2,14). See TREE OF LIFE. 6. In the Other Books of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of our lifetime or periods of existence upon earth (2:15; 7:3), likewise of the power of an indissoluble life (7:16); James promises the crown of life to the faithful (1:12). This reward is the fullness of life’s possibilities hereafter. Our lifetime is mentioned in 4:14 and represented as brief as a vapor. Peter in 1 Peter 3:7 speaks of man and wife as joint-heirs of the grace of life, and of loving life ( 1 Peter 3:10), referring to the totality of relationships and activities. The “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” ( 2 Peter 1:3) constitute the whole Christian life involving the life eternal.

    LITERATURE.

    Articles on “Life” in HDB, DCG, Jewish Encyclopedia;on “Soul,” “Spirit,” etc., ibid, and in Encyclopedia Brit, EB, Kitto, Smith, Standard, etc.; Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man; Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology; cornms. on the various passages; Davidson, Old Testament Theology; Oehler and Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Stevens, Johannine Theology and Pauline Theology; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 293 ff; G. Dalman, Words of Jesus; Phillips Brooks, More Abundant Life; B.F. Westcott, Historic Faith; F.J.A. Hort, The Way, the Truth, the Life; J.G. Hoare, Life in John’s Gospels; E. White, Life and Christ; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality; R.J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles and The Testimony of Paul to Christ; commentaries on the various passages; McPherson, “The New Testament View of Life,” The Expositor, I, set. v, 72 ff; Massie, “Two New Testament Words Denoting Life,” The Expositor, II, series iv, 380 ff; Schrenk, Die Johannistische Anschauung yom Leben. J. J. Reeve LIFE, TREE OF See TREE OF LIFE.

    LIFT To make lofty, to raise up. A very common word in English Versions of the Bible representing a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words, although in the Old Testament used chiefly as the translation of ac;n: [nasa’]. Of none of these words, however, is “lift” used as a technical translation, and “lift” is interchanged freely with its synonyms, especially “exalt” (compare Psalm 75:5; 89:24) and “raise” (compare Ecclesiastes 4:10; 2 Samuel 12:17). “Lift” is still perfectly good English, but not in all the senses in which it is used in English Versions of the Bible; e.g. such phrases as “men that lifted up axes upon a thicket” ( Psalm 74:5), “lift up thy feet unto the perpetual ruins” ( Psalm 74:3, etc.), and even the common “lift up the eyes” or “hands” are distinctly archaic. However, almost all the uses are perfectly clear, and only the following need be noted. “To lift up the head” ( Genesis 40:13,19,20; 2 Kings 25:27; Psalm 3:3; Sirach 11:13; Luke 21:28) means to raise from a low condition (but on Psalm 24:7,9 see GATE). To “lift up the horn” ( Psalm 75:5) is to assume a confident position, the figure being taken from fighting oxen (see HORN). “Lift up the face” may be meant literally ( 2 Kings 9:32), or it may denote the bestowal of favor ( Psalm 4:6); it may mean the attitude of a righteous man toward God ( Job 22:26), or simply the attitude of a suppliant ( Ezra 9:6). Burton Scott Easton LIGHT <lit > ( rwOa [’or], rwOam; [ma’or]; [fw~v , phos ]; many other words):

    1. ORIGIN OF LIGHT:

    The creation of light was the initial step in the creation of life. “Let there be light” ( Genesis 1:3) was the first word of God spoken after His creative Spirit “moved” upon the primary material out of which He created the heavens and the earth, and which lay, until the utterance of that word, in the chaos of darkness and desolation. Something akin, possibly, to the all- pervasive electro-magnetic activity of the aurora borealis penetrated the chaotic night of the world. The ultimate focusing of light (on the 4th day of creation, Genesis 1:14) in suns, stars, and solar systems brought the initial creative process to completion, as the essential condition of all organic life. The origin of light thus finds its explanation in the purpose and very nature of God whom John defines as not only the Author of light but, in an all-inclusive sense, as light itself: “God is light” ( 1 John 1:5).

    2. A COMPREHENSIVE TERM:

    The word “light” is Divinely rich in its comprehensiveness and meaning. Its material splendor is used throughout the Scriptures as the symbol and synonym of all that is luminous and radiant in the mental, moral and spiritual life of men and angels; while the eternal God, because of His holiness and moral perfection, is pictured as “dwelling in light unapproachable” ( 1 Timothy 6:16). Every phase of the word, from the original light in the natural world to the spiritual glory of the celestial, is found in Holy Writ. (1) Natural Light.

    The light of day ( Genesis 1:5); of sun, moon and stars; “lights in the firmament” ( Genesis 1:14-18; Psalm 74:16; 136:7; 148:3; Ecclesiastes 12:2; Revelation 22:5). Its characteristics are beauty, radiance, utility. It “rejoiceth the heart” ( Proverbs 15:30); “Truly the light is sweet” ( Ecclesiastes 11:7); without it men stumble and are helpless ( John 11:9,10); it is something for which they wait with inexpressible longing ( Job 30:26; compare <19D006> Psalm 130:6). Life, joy, activity and all blessings are dependent upon light.

    Light and life are almost synonymous to the inhabitants of Palestine, and in the same way darkness and death. Theirs is the land of sunshine. When they go to other lands of clouded skies their only thought is to return to the brightness and sunshine of their native land. In Palestine there is hardly a day in the whole year when the sun does not shine for some part of it, while for five months of the year there is scarcely an interruption of the sunshine. Time is reckoned from sunset to sunset. The day’s labor closes with the coming of darkness. “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening” ( <19A423> Psalm 104:23).

    The suddenness of the change from darkness to light with the rising sun and the disappearance of the sun in the evening is more striking than in more northern countries, and it is not strange that in the ancient days there should have arisen a worship of the sun as the giver of light and happiness, and that Job should mention the enticement of sun-worship when he “beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness” ( Job 31:26). The severest plague in Egypt next to the slaying of the firstborn was the plague of darkness which fell upon the Egyptians ( Exodus 10:23). This love of light finds expression in both Old Testament and New Testament in a very extensive use of the word to express those things which are most to be desired and most helpful to man, and in this connection we find some of the most beautiful figures in the Bible. (2) Artificial Light.

    When natural light fails, man by discovery or invention provides himself with some temporary substitute, however dim and inadequate. The ancient Hebrews had “oil for the light” ( Exodus 25:6; 35:8; Leviticus 24:2) and lamps ( Exodus 35:14; Matthew 5:15). “There were many lights. ([lampa>v , lampas]) in the upper chamber” at Troas, where Paul preached until midnight ( Acts 20:8); so Jeremiah 25:10 the Revised Version (British and American), “light of the lamp;” the King James Version, “candle.” (3) Miraculous Light.

    When the appalling plague of “thick darkness,” for three days, enveloped the Egyptians, terrified and rendered them helpless, “all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings” ( Exodus 10:23). Whether the darkness was due to a Divinely-ordered natural cause or the light was the natural light of day, the process that preserved the interspersed Israelites from the encompassing darkness was supernatural. Miraculous, also, even though through natural agency, was the “pillar of fire” that gave light to the Israelites escaping from Pharaoh ( Exodus 13:21; 14:20; Psalm 78:14), “He led them .... all the night with a light of fire.” Supernatural was the effulgence at Christ’s transfiguration that made “his garments .... white as the light” ( Matthew 17:2). Under the same category Paul classifies `the great light’ that `suddenly shone round about him from heaven’ on the way to Damascus ( Acts 22:6; compare 9:3). In these rare instances the supernatural light was not only symbolic of an inner spiritual light, but instrumental, in part at least, in revealing or preparing the way for it. (4) Mental, Moral, Spiritual Light.

    The phenomena of natural light have their counterpart in the inner life of man. Few words lend themselves with such beauty and appropriateness to the experiences, conditions, and radiance of the spiritual life. For this reason the Scriptures use “light” largely in the figurative sense. Borrowed from the natural world, it is, nevertheless, inherently suited to portray spiritual realities. In secular life a distinct line of demarcation is drawn between intellectual and spiritual knowledge and illumination. Education that enlightens the mind may leave the moral man untouched. This distinction rarely obtains in the Bible, which deals with man as a spiritual being and looks upon his faculties as interdependent in their action. (a) A few passages, however, refer to the light that comes chiefly to the intellect or mind through Divine instruction, e.g. <19B9130> Psalm 119:130, “The opening of thy words giveth light”; so Proverbs 6:23, “The law is light.” Even here the instruction includes moral as well as mental enlightenment. (b) Moral: Job 24:13,16 has to do exclusively with man’s moral attitude to truth: “rebel against the light”; “know not the light.” Isaiah 5:20 describes a moral confusion and blindness, which cannot distinguish light from darkness. (c) For the most part, however, light and life go together. It is the product of salvation: “Yahweh is my light and my salvation” ( Psalm 27:1). “Light,” figuratively used, has to do preeminently with spiritual life, including also the illumination that floods all the faculties of the soul: intellect, conscience, reason, will. In the moral realm the enlightenment of these faculties is dependent wholly on the renewal of the spirit. “In thy light .... we see light” ( Psalm 36:9); “The life was the light of men” ( John 1:4).

    Light is an attribute of holiness, and thus a personal quality. It is the outshining of Deity.3. An Attribute of Holiness: (1) God. “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” ( 1 John 1:5). Darkness is the universal symbol and condition of sin and death; light the symbol and expression of holiness. “The light of Israel will be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame” ( Isaiah 10:17). God, by His presence and grace, is to us a “marvellous light” ( 1 Peter 2:9). The glory of His holiness and presence is the “everlasting light” of the redeemed in heaven ( Isaiah 60:19,20; Revelation 21:23,14; 22:5). (2) Christ.

    Christ, the eternal Word ([lo>gov , logos], John 1:1), who said “Let there be light” ( Genesis 1:3), is Himself the “effulgence of (God’s) glory” ( Hebrews 1:3), “the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world” ( John 1:9) (compare the statements concerning Wisdom in The Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 f and concerning Christ in Hebrews 1:3; and see CREEDS; LOGOS; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY; WISDOM ). As the predicted Messiah, He was to be “for alight of the Gentiles” ( Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). His birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy ( Luke 2:32).

    Jesus called Himself “the light of the world” ( John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46); As light He was “God .... manifest in the flesh ( 1 Timothy 3:16 the King James Version). “The Word was God” ( John 1:1). Jesus as [lo>gov , logos] is the eternal expression of God as a word is the expression of a thought. In the threefold essence of His being God is Life ([zwh> , zoe]) ( John 5:26; 6:57); God is Love ([ajga>ph , agape]) ( 1 John 4:8); God is Light ([fw~v , phos]) ( 1 John 1:5). Thus Christ, the [logos], manifesting the three aspects of the Divine Nature, is Life, Love and Light, and these three are inseparable and constitute the glory. which the disciples beheld in Him, “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” ( John 1:14). In revealing and giving life, Christ becomes “the light of men” ( John 1:4). God gives “the light of the knowledge of (his) glory in the face of Jesus Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 4:6), and this salvation is called “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 4:4).

    Christ is thus the Teacher, Enlightener (“Christ shall give thee light,” Ephesiansesians 5:14 the King James Version), Guide, Saviour of men. (3) Christians.

    All who catch and reflect the light of God and of Christ are called “light,” “lights.” (a) John the Baptist: “a burning and a shining light” ( John 5:35 the King James Version). It is significant that this pre-Christian prophet was termed [lu>cnov , luchnos], while the disciples of the new dispensation are called [fw~v , phos] ( Matthew 5:14): “Ye are the light of the world.” (b) Henceforth Christians and saints were called “children of light” ( Luke 16:8; John 12:36; Ephesiansesians 5:8), and were expected to be “seen as lights in the world” ( Philippians 2:15). (c) The Jew who possessed the law mistakenly supposed he was “a light of them that are in darkness” ( Romans 2:19). (4) The Church.

    Zion was to “shine” because her `light had come’ ( Isaiah 60:1). The Gentiles were to come to her light ( Isaiah 60:3). Her mission as the enlightener of the world was symbolized in the ornamentations of her priesthood. The Urim of the high priest’s breastplate signified light, and the name itself is but the plural form of the Hebrew [’or]. It stood for revelation, and [thummim] for truth. The church of the Christian dispensation was to be even more radiant with the light of God and of Christ. The seven churches of Asia were revealed to John, by the Spirit, as seven golden candlesticks, and her ministers as seven stars, both luminous with the light of the Gospel revelation. In Ephesiansesians, Christ, who is the Light of the world, is the Head of the church, the latter being His body through which His glory is to be manifested to the world, “to make all men see,” etc. (Ephesiansesians 3:9,10). “Unto him be the glory in the church” (Ephesiansesians 3:21), the church bringing glory to God, by revealing His glory to men through its reproduction of the life and light of Christ.

    4. SYMBOLISM:

    Light symbolizes: (1) the eye, “The light of the body is the eye” ( Matthew 6:22, the King James Version; Luke 11:34); (2) watchfulhess, “Let your lights (the Revised Version (British and American) “lamps”) be burning,” the figure being taken from the parable of the Virgins; (3) protection, “armor ( Romans 13:12), the garment of a holy and Christ-like life; (4) the sphere of the Christian’s daily walk, “inheritance of the saints in light” ( Colossians 1:12); (5) heaven, for the inheritance just referred to includes the world above in which “the Lamb is the light thereof”; (6) prosperity, relief (Est 8:16; Job 30:26), in contrast with the calamities of the wicked whose “light .... shall be put out” ( Job 18:5); (7) joy and gladness ( Job 3:20; Psalm 97:11; 112:4); (8) God’s favor, the light of thy countenance” ( Psalm 4:6; 44:3; 89:15), and a king’s favor ( Proverbs 16:15); (9) life ( Psalm 13:3; 49:19; John 1:4).5. Expressive Terms:

    Expressive terms are: (1) “fruit of the light” (Ephesiansesians 5:9), i.e. goodness, righteousness, truth; (2) “light in the Lord” (Ephesiansesians 5:8), indicating the source of light (compare Isaiah 2:5); (3) “inheritance of the saints in light” ( Colossians 1:12), a present experience issuing in heaven; (4) “Father of lights” ( James 1:17), signifying the Creator of the heavenly bodies; (5) “marvellous light” ( 1 Peter 2:9), the light of God’s presence and fellowship; (6) “Walk in the light” ( 1 John 1:7), in the light of God’s teaching and companionship; (7) “abideth in the light” ( 1 John 2:10), in love, Divine and fraternal; (8) “Light of the glorious gospel of Christ “; “light of the knowledge of the glory of God” ( 2 Corinthians 4:4,6 the King James Version). Dwight M. Pratt LIGHT; LIGHTNESS : “Light” is used in Scripture, as in ordinary speech, in the sense of what is small, slight, trivial, easy; “lightness” with the connotation of vacillation or lasciviousness. Thus in the Old Testament, “a light thing,” a small, easy, slight thing ( ll”q; [qalal], 2 Kings 3:18; Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 8:17; 22:7, in the last case “to treat slightingly”). “Lightness” ( lwOq; [qol]) occurs in Jeremiah 3:9 (“the lightness of her whoredom”); in 23:32, the Revised Version (British and American) changes “lightness” (a different word) to “vain boasting.” In the New Testament the phrase occurs in Matthew 22:5, “made light of it” ([ajmele>w , ameleo]), i.e. “treated it with neglect”; and Paul asks ( 2 Corinthians 1:17), “Did I show lightness?” (the Revised Version (British and American) “fickleness”). These examples sufficiently illustrate the meaning. James Orr LIGHTNING <lit’-ning > ( qr:B; [baraq], zyzij\ [chaziz]; [ajstraph> , astrape]): Lightning is caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds or between clouds and the earth. In a thunder-storm there is a rapid gathering of particles of moisture into clouds and forming of large drops of rain. This gathers with it electric potential until the surface of the cloud (or the enlarged water particles) is insufficient to carry the charge, and a discharge takes place, producing a brilliant flash of light and the resulting thunder-clap. Thunderstorms are common in Syria and Palestine during the periods of heavy rain in the spring and fall and are often severe. Lightning is usually accompanied by heavy rainfall or by hail, as at the time of the plague of hail ( Exodus 9:24).See HAIL.

    In the Scriptures it is used: (a) indicating the power of God: The power of God is shown in His command of the forces of Nature, and He is the only one who knows the secrets of Nature: “He made .... a way for the lightning” ( Job 28:26); “He directeth .... his lightning” ( Job 37:3 the King James Version); “Canst thou send forth lightnings, that they may go?” ( Job 38:35); “Ask ye of Yahweh .... that maketh lightnings” ( Zechariah 10:1). See also Psalm 18:14; 97:4; 135:7; Job 36:32; Jeremiah 10:13; (b) figuratively and poetically: David sings of Yahweh, “He sent .... lightnings manifold, and discomfited them” ( Psalm 18:14); used for speed: “The chariots .... run like the lightnings” ( Nahum 2:4): “His arrow shall go forth as the lightning” ( Zechariah 9:14); “The living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning” ( Ezekiel 1:14). The coming of the kingdom is described by Jesus as the shining of the lightning from one part of heaven to another, even “from the east unto the west” ( Matthew 24:27; Luke 17:24); (c) meaning bright or shining: Daniel in his vision saw a man and “his face (was) as the appearance of lightning” ( Daniel 10:6). See also Revelation 4:5; 8:5; 16:18. Alfred H. Joy LIGN-ALOES <lin-al’-oz > , <lig-nal’-oz > .See ALOES.

    LIGURE <lig’-ur > ( Exodus 28:19; 39:12 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “jacinth”).See STONES, PRECIOUS.

    LIKE; LIKEN; LIKENESS; LIKING <lik > , <lik’-n > , <lik’-nes > , <lik’-ing > : (1) As a noun, “like” in modern English is virtually obsolete, except in the phrase “and the like,” which is not found in English Versions of the Bible. “The like,” however, occurs in 1 Kings 10:20 parallel 2 Chronicles 9:19; 2 Chronicles 1:12; Ezekiel 5:9; 18:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) “any one of these things” — the text is uncertain); 45:25; Joel 2:2; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:1 (the Revised Version (British and American) “creatures like those”); Sirach 7:12. “His like” is found in Job 41:33; Sirach 13:15; “their like” in Sirach 27:9. “And such like” ( Galatians 5:21) is only slightly archaic, but “doeth not such like” ( Ezekiel 18:14) is quite obsolete. (2) As an adjective “like” is common in the King James Version in such combinations as “like manner” (frequently), “like weight” ( Exodus 30:34), “like occupation” ( Acts 19:25), etc. Modern English would in most cases replace “like” by “the same,” as has been done in Thessalonians 2:14 the Revised Version (British and American) (compare Romans 15:5; Philippians 2:2). So the Revised Version (British and American) has modernized the archaic “like precious faith” of 2 Peter 1:1 by inserting “a” before “like.” The King James Version’s rendering of 1 Peter 3:21, “the like figure whereunto,” could not have been very clear at any time, and the Revised Version (British and American) has revised completely into “after a true likeness” (margin, “in the antitype”). (3) As an adverb “like” is used in Jeremiah 38:9, “He is like to die”; Jon 1:4, “like to be broken.” the Revised Version (British and American) could have used “likely” in these verses. Most common of all the uses of “like” is the quasi-prepositional construction in “He is like a man,” etc. This is of course good modern English, but not so when “like” is enlarged (as it usually is in the English Versions of the Bible) into the forms “like to” ( Daniel 7:5), “like unto” (very common), “like as” ( Isaiah 26:17, etc.). These forms and the simple “like” are interchanged without much distinction, and the Revised Version (British and American) has attempted little systematizing beyond reducing the occurrences of “like as” (compare Matthew 12:13, and the American Standard Revised Version Isaiah 13:4; Jeremiah 23:29). (4) The verb “like” has two distinct meanings, “be pleased with” and “give pleasure to.” The latter sense occurs in Deuteronomy 23:16 (The King James Version, the English Revised Version), “in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best,” and in Est 8:8; Amos 4:5 the King James Version; Sirach 33:13 (the American Standard Revised Version has “pleaseth” in the three Old Testament passages). The other use of “like” belongs also to modern English, although in a much weakened sense. On account of this weakening, 1 Chronicles 28:4 the King James Version, “liked me to make me king” and Romans 1:28 the King James Version “did not like to retain God,” have become in the Revised Version (British and American) “took pleasure in” and “refused to” (margin “did not approve”).

    It would have been better if Deuteronomy 25:7,8, “like not to take,” had been modified also into “hath no wish to take.” From this use of “like” is derived liking in the modern sense in The Wisdom of Solomon 16:21, tempered itself to every man’s liking” (the Revised Version (British and American) “choice”). In 1 Esdras 4:39, “All men do well like of her works” is a further obsolete use. (5) Liken and “make like” are common. To be noted only is that, in Hebrews 7:3, “made like unto the Son of God,” the sense really is “likened to,” “presented by the writer with the qualities of.” Likeness normally means “a copy of,” but in Psalm 17:15 it means the actual form itself (“form” in the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin); compare Romans 6:5; 8:3; Philippians 2:7, and perhaps Acts 14:11. Closely allied with likeness” is an obsolete use of “liking” (quite distinct from that above) in Job 39:4 the King James Version the English Revised Version, “Their young ones are in good liking” Daniel 1:10, “see your faces worse liking.” The meaning is “appearance,” “appearing,” and the American Standard Revised Version renders “their young ones become strong,” “see your faces worse looking.”

    Likewise varies in meaning from the simple conjunction “and” to a strong adverb, “in exactly the same way.” the Revised Version (British and American) has made some attempt to distinguish the various forces (e.g. compare the King James Version with the Revised Version (British and American) in Luke 22:36; 15:7; 22:20). But complete consistency was not attainable, and in certain instances was neglected deliberately, in order to preserve the familiar wording, as in Luke 10:37, “Go, and do thou likewise.”] Burton Scott Easton LIKHI <lik’-hi > ( yjiq]li [liqchi]): A descendant of Manasseh ( 1 Chronicles 7:19).

    LILITH <lil’-ith > , <li’-lith > .See NIGHT-MONSTER.

    LILY <lil’-i > ( ˆv”Wv [shushan] ( 1 Kings 7:19), hN:v”wOv [shoshannah] ( 2 Chronicles 4:5; Song of Solomon 2:1 f; Hosea 14:5); plural ( Song of Solomon 2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2 f; 7:2; Ecclesiasticus 39:14; 50:8); [kri>non , krinon] ( Matthew 6:28; Luke 12:27)): The Hebrew is probably a loan word from the Egyptian the original s-sh-n denoting the lotus-flower, Nymphaea lotus. This was probably the model of the architectural ornament, translated “lily-work,” which appeared upon the capitals of the columns in the temple porch ( 1 Kings 7:19), upon the top of the pillars ( 1 Kings 7:22) and upon the turned-back rim of the “molten sea” ( 1 Kings 7:26).

    Botanically the word [shoshannah], like the similar modern Arabic Susan, included in all probability a great many flowers, and was used in a way at least as wide as the popular use of the English word “lily.” The expression “lily of the valleys” ( Song of Solomon 2:1) has nothing to do with the plant of that name; the flowers referred to appear to have been associated with the rank herbage of the valley bottoms ( Song of Solomon 4:5); the expression “His lips are as lilies” ( Song of Solomon 5:13) might imply a scarlet flower, but more probably in oriental imagery signifies a sweetscented flower; the sweet scent of the lily is referred to in Ecclesiasticus 39:14, and in 50:8 we read of “lilies by the rivers of water.” The beauty of the blossom is implied in Hosea 14:5, where Yahweh promises that repentant Israel shall “blossom as the lily.” A “heap of wheat set about with lilies” ( Song of Solomon 7:2) probably refers to the smoothed-out piles of newly threshed wheat on the threshing-floors decorated by a circlet of flowers.

    The reference of our Lord to the “lilies of the field” is probably, like the Old Testament references, quite a general one.

    The Hebrew and the Greek very likely include not only any members of the great order Liliaceae, growing in Palestine, e.g. asphodel, squill, hyacinth, ornithogalum (“Star of Bethlehem”), fritillaria, tulip and colocynth, but also the more showy irises (“Tabor lilies” “purple irises,” etc.) and the beautiful gladioli of the Natural Order. Irideae and the familiar narcissi of the Natural Order Amaryllideae.

    In later Jewish literature the lily is very frequently referred to symbolically, and a lotus or lily was commonly pictured on several Jewish coins. E. W. G. Masterman LILY-WORK The ornament of the capitals on the bronze pillars, Jachin and Boaz, in front of Solomon’s temple ( 1 Kings 7:19,22).See LILY; TEMPLE; JACHIN AND BOAZ.

    LIME <lim > (1) dyci [sidh]; compare Arabic shad, “to plaster”; (2) ryGi [gir]; compare Arabic jir, “gypsum” or “quick-lime”; (3) rgIAyneb]a” [’abene-ghir]): [Sidh] is translated “lime” in Isaiah 33:12, “And the peoples shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire,” and in Amos 2:1, “He burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.”

    It is translated “plaster” in Deuteronomy 27:2, “Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster,” also in Deuteronomy 27:4. [Gir] is translated “plaster” in Daniel 5:5, “wrote .... upon the plaster of the wall.” In Isaiah 27:9 we have, “He maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones” ([’abhene-ghir]).

    Everywhere in Palestine limestone is at hand which can be converted into lime. The lime-kiln is a thick-walled, cylindrical or conical, roofless structure built of rough stones without mortar, the spaces between the stones being plastered with clay. It is usually built on the side of a hill which is slightly excavated for it, so that the sloping, external wall of the kiln rises much higher from the ground on the lower side than on the upper. The builders leave a passage or tunnel through the base of the thick wall on the lower side. The whole interior is filled with carefully packed fragments of limestone, and large piles of thorny-burner and other shrubs to serve as fuel are gathered about the kiln. The fuel is introduced through the tunnel to the base of the limestone in the kiln, and as the fire rises through the mass of broken limestone a strong draft is created. Relays of men are kept busy supplying fuel day and night. By day a column of black smoke rises from the kiln, and at night the flames may be seen bursting from the top. Several days are required to reduce the stone to lime, the amount of time depending upon the size of the kiln and upon the nature of the fuel. At the present day, mineral coal imported from Europe is sometimes employed, and requires much less time than the shrubs which are ordinarily used.See CHALKSTONE; CLAY. Alfred Ely Day LIMIT <lim’-it > ( lbuG” [gebhul], “bound”): Occurs once in Ezekiel 43:12 (“limit” of holy mountain). “Limited” ( Psalm 78:41) and “limiteth” ([oJri>zw , horizo], Hebrews 4:7) are changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to “provoked” (the margin retains “limited”) and “defineth” respectively.

    LINE ( wq” [qaw], lb,je [chebhel]): Usually of a measuring line, as Jeremiah 31:39; Ezekiel 47:3; Zechariah 1:16 ([qaw]); Psalm 78:55; Amos 7:17; Zechariah 2:1 ([chebhel]). Other Hebrew words mean simply a cord or thread ( Joshua 2:18,21; 1 Kings 7:15; Ezekiel 40:3). In Psalm 19:4 ([qaw], “Their line is gone out through all the earth”), the reference is probably still to measurement (the heaven as spanning and bounding the earth), though the Septuagint, followed by Romans 10:18, takes it as meaning a musical cord [fqo>ggov , phthoggos]). The “line,” as measure, suggests rule of conduct ( Isaiah 28:10). For “line” in Isaiah 44:13, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “pencil,” margin “red ochre” ([seredh]), and in Corinthians 10:16, “province,” margin “limit” ([kanon]).See also MEASURING LINE; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. James Orr LINEAGE <lin’-e-aj > ([patria>, patria]): Found only once in Luke 2:4 (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “family”), and signifying the line of paternal family descent. A word pregnant in meaning among the Jews, who kept all family records with religious care, as may be seen from the long genealogical records found everywhere in the Old Testament.

    LINEN <lin’-en > ( dB” [badh], “white linen,” used chiefly for priestly robes, ˜WB [buts], “byssus,” a fine white Egyptian linen, called in the earlier writings vve [shesh]; tv,P, [pesheth], “flax,” ˆydIs; [cadhin]; [bu>ssov , bussos], [ojqo>nion , othonion], [li>non , linon], [sindw>n , sindon]): Thread or cloth made of flax.

    1. HISTORY:

    Ancient Egypt was noted for its fine linen ( Genesis 41:42; Isaiah 19:9). From it a large export trade was carried on with surrounding nations, including the Hebrews, who early learned the art of spinning from the Egyptians ( Exodus 35:25) and continued to rely on them for the finest linen ( Proverbs 7:16; Ezekiel 27:7). The culture of flax in Palestine probably antedated the conquest, for in Joshua 2:6 we read of the stalks of flax which Rahab had laid in order upon the roof. Among the Hebrews, as apparently among the Canaanites, the spinning and weaving of linen were carried on by the women ( Proverbs 31:13,19), among whom skill in this work was considered highly praiseworthy ( Exodus 35:25).

    One family, the house of Ashbea, attained eminence as workers in linen ( 1 Chronicles 4:21; 2 Chronicles 2:14).

    2. GENERAL USES:

    Linen was used, not only in the making of garments of the finer kinds and for priests, but also for shrouds, hangings, and possibly for other purposes in which the most highly prized cloth of antiquity would naturally be desired.

    3. PRIESTLY GARMENTS:

    The robes of the Hebrew priests consisted of 4 linen garments, in addition to which the high priest wore garments of other stuffs (Exodus 28; 39; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; 1 Samuel 22:18; Ezekiel 44:17,18).

    Egyptian priests are said to have worn linen robes (Herod. ii.37). In religious services by others than priests, white linen was also preferred, as in the case of the infant Samuel ( 1 Samuel 2:18), the Levite singers in the temple ( 2 Chronicles 5:12), and even royal personages ( Samuel 6:14; 1 Chronicles 15:27). Accordingly, it was ascribed to angels ( Ezekiel 9:2,3,11; 10:2,6,7; Daniel 10:5; 12:6,7). Fine linen, white and pure, is the raiment assigned to the armies which are in heaven following Him who is called Faithful and True ( Revelation 19:14). It is deemed a fitting symbol of the righteousness and purity of the saints ( Revelation 19:8).

    4. OTHER GARMENTS:

    Garments of distinction were generally made of the same material: e.g. those which Pharaoh gave Joseph ( Genesis 41:42), and those which Mordecai wore (Est 8:15; compare also Luke 16:19). Even a girdle of fine linen could be used by a prophet as a means of attracting attention to his message ( Jeremiah 13:1). It is probable that linen wrappers of a coarser quality were used by men ( Judges 14:12,13) and women ( Proverbs 31:22). The use of linen, however, for ordinary purposes probably suggested unbecoming luxury ( Isaiah 3:23; Ezekiel 16:10,13; compare also Revelation 18:12,16). The poorer classes probably wore wrappers made either of unbleached flax or hemp (Ecclesiasticus 40:4; Mark 14:51). The use of a mixture called [sha’aTnez], which is defined ( Deuteronomy 22:11) as linen and wool together, was forbidden in garments.

    5. SHROUDS:

    The Egyptians used linen exclusively in wrapping their mummies (Herod. ii.86). As many as one hundred yards were used in one bandage. Likewise, the Hebrews seem to have preferred this material for winding-sheets for the dead, at least in the days of the New Testament ( Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40; 20:5 ff) and the Talmud (Jerusalem Killayim 9:32b).

    6. HANGINGS:

    The use of twisted linen ([shesh moshzar]) for fine hangings dates back to an early period. It was used in the tabernacle ( Exodus 26:1; 27:9; 35; 36; 38; Josephus, Ant, III, vi, 2), in the temple ( 2 Chronicles 3:14), and no doubt in other places (Mishna, Yoma’, iii.4). Linen cords for hangings are mentioned in the description of the palace of Ahasuerus at Shushan (Est 1:6).7. Other Uses:

    Other uses are suggested, such as for sails, in the imaginary ship to which Tyre is compared ( Ezekiel 27:7), but judging from the extravagance of the other materials in the ship, it is doubtful whether we may infer that such valuable material as linen was ever actually used for this purpose. It is more likely, however, that it was used for coverings or tapestry ( Proverbs 7:16), and possibly in other instances where an even, durable material was needed, as in making measuring lines ( Ezekiel 40:3). Ella Davis Isaacs LINTEL <lin’-tel > .See HOUSE, II, 1, (4) .

    LINUS <li’-nus > ([ Li>nov , Linos] ( 2 Timothy 4:21)): One of Paul’s friends in Rome during his second and last imprisonment in that city. He was one of the few who remained faithful to the apostle, even when most of the Christians had forsaken him. And writing to Timothy when he realized that his execution could not be very far distant — for he was now ready to be offered, and the time of his departure was at hand ( 2 Timothy 4:6) — he sends greeting to Timothy from four friends whom he names, and Linus is one of them. There is a tradition that Linus was bishop of the church at Rome. “It is perhaps fair to assume, though of course there is no certainty of this, that the consecration of Linus to the government of the Roman church as its first bishop was one of the dying acts of the apostle Paul” (H.D.M. Spence, in Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary on 2 Timothy).

    Irenaeus — bishop of Lyons about 178 AD — in his defense of orthodox doctrine against the Gnostics “appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depositories of the apostolic tradition.” The list of Irenaeus commences with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name mentioned by Paul, and whom he states to have been “entrusted with the office of the bishopric by the apostles ..... With the many possibilities of error, no more can safely be assumed of Linus .... than that he held some prominent position in the Roman church” (Lightfoot’s “Dissertation on the Christian Ministry,” in Commentary on Phil, 220 f). “Considering the great rarity of this Greek mythological name as a proper name for persons, we can hardly doubt that here, as Irenaeus has directly asserted, the same Roman Christian is meant who, according to ancient tradition, became after Peter and Paul the first bishop of Rome. Among the mythical characters in Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46 occurs Linos ho Klaudias, who is declared to have been ordained by Paul as the first bishop of Rome. He is thus represented as the son or husband of the Claudia whose name comes after his in 2 Timothy 4:21. “These meager statements have been enlarged upon by English investigators. The Claudia mentioned here is, they hold, identical with the one who, according to Martial, married a certain Pudens (85-90 AD), and she, in turn, with the Claudia Rufina from Britain, who is then made out to be a daughter of the British king, Cogidumnus, or Titus Claudius Cogidubnus. For a refutation of these assumptions, which, even chronologically considered, are impossible, see Lightfoot, Clement, I, 76- 79” (Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 20). John Rutherfurd LION <li’-un > : (1) Occurring most often in the Old Testament is hyer”a” [’aryeh], plural twIyr:a\ [’ardyoth]. Another form, yra\ [’ari], plural µyyIr:a\ [’arayim], is found less often.

    1. NAMES:

    Compare laeyrIa\ [’ari’el], “Ariel” ( Ezra 8:16; Isaiah 29:1,2,7); laer”j” [char’el], “upper altar,” and lyaerIa\ [’ari’el], “altar hearth” (Ezek 43:15); hyer”a” [’aryeh], “Arieh” ( 2 Kings 15:25); yliaer”a” [’ar’eli], “Areli” and “Arelites” ( Genesis 46:16; Numbers 26:17). (2) rypiK] [kephir], “young lion,” often translated “lion” ( Psalm 35:17; Proverbs 19:12; 23:1, etc.). (3) lj”v” [shachal], translated “fierce lion” or “lion” ( Job 4:10; 10:16; 28:8; Hos 5:14). (4) vyIl” [layish], translated “old lion” or “lion” ( Job 4:11; Proverbs 30:30; Isaiah 30:6).

    Compare Arabic laith, “lion”: vyIl” [layish], “Laish,” or “Leshem” (Josh 19:47; Judges 18:7,14,27,29); vyl” [layish], “Laish” ( 1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15). (5) ybil] [lebhi], plural µyaib;l] [lebha’im], “lioness”; also aybil; [labhi’], and aY;bil] [’lebhiya’] ( Genesis 49:9; Numbers 23:24; 24:9); compare town in South of Judah, Lebaoth (Josh 15:32) or Bethlebaoth (Josh 19:6); also Arabic labwat, “lioness “; [Lebweh], a town in Coele-Syria. (6) rWG [aur], rwOG [gor], “whelp,” with [’aryeh] or a pronoun, e.g. “Judah is a lion’s whelp,” [gur ‘aryeh] ( Genesis 49:9); “young ones” of the jackal ( Lamentations 4:3). Also aybil; yneB] [bene labhi’], “whelps (sons) of the lioness” ( Job 4:11); and twOyr:a\ rypiK] [kephir ‘arayoth], “young lion,” literally, “the young of lions” ( Judges 14:5). In Job 28:8, the King James Version has “lion’s whelps” for ˜j”v” yneB] [bene shachats], the Revised Version (British and American) “proud beasts.” the Revised Version margin “sons of pride”; compare Job 41:34 (Hebrew 26). (7) [le>wn , leon ], “lion” ( 2 Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33; Peter 5:8; Revelation 4:7; 5:5; The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17; Ecclesiasticus 4:30; 13:19; Bel and the Dragon 31,32,34). (8) [sku>mnov , skumnos ], “whelp” (1 Macc 3:4).

    2. NATURAL HISTORY:

    The lion is not found in Palestine at the present day, though in ancient times it is known to have inhabited not only Syria and Palestine but also Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula, and its fossil remains show that it was contemporary with prehistoric man in Northwestern Europe and Great Britain. Its present range extends throughout Africa, and it is also found in Mesopotamia, Southern Persia, and the border of India. There is some reason to think that it may be found in Arabia, but its occurrence there remains to be proved. The Asiatic male lion does not usually have as large a mane as the African, but both belong to one species, Fells leo.

    3. FIGURATIVE:

    Lions are mentioned in the Bible for their strength ( Judges 14:18), boldness ( 2 Samuel 17:10), ferocity ( Psalm 7:2), and stealth ( Psalm 10:9; Lamentations 3:10). Therefore in prophetical references to the millennium, the lion, with the bear, wolf, and leopard, is mentioned as living in peace with the ox, calf, kid, lamb and the child ( Psalm 91:13; Isaiah 11:6-8; 65:25). The roaring of the lion is often mentioned ( Job 4:10; <19A421> Psalm 104:21; Isaiah 31:4 (the Revised Version (British and American) “growling”); Jeremiah 51:38; Ezek 22:25; Hos 11:10). Judah is a “lion’s whelp” ( Genesis 49:9), likewise Daniel (Dt 33:22). It is said of certain of David’s warriors ( 1 Chronicles 12:8) that their “faces were like the faces of lions.” David’s enemy ( Psalm 17:12) “is like a lion that is greedy of his prey.” “The king’s wrath is as the roaring of a lion” ( Proverbs 19:12). God in His wrath is “unto Ephesiansraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah” (Hos 5:14). “The devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” ( 1 Peter 5:8). “Lion” occurs in the figurative language of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. The figures of lions were used in the decorations of Solomon’s temple and throne ( 1 Kings 7:29,36; 10:19 f).

    4. NARRATIVE:

    Nearly all references to the lion are figurative. The only notices of the lion in narrative are of the lion slain by Samson ( Judges 14:5); by David ( 1 Samuel 17:34 f); by Benaiah ( 2 Samuel 23:20; 1 Chronicles 11:22); the prophet slain by a lion ( 1 Kings 13:24; also 1 Kings 20:36); the lions sent by the Lord among the settlers in Samaria ( Kings 17:25); Daniel in the lions’ den ( Daniel 6:16). In all these cases the word used is [’aryeh] or [’ari].

    5. VOCABULARY:

    The Arabic language boasts hundreds of names for the lion. Many of these are, however, merely adjectives used substantively. The commonest Arabic names are sab`, ‘asad, laith, and labwat, the last two of which are identified above with the Hebrew [layish] and [labhi’]. As in Arabic, so in Hebrew, the richness of the language in this particular gives opportunity for variety of expression, as in Job 4:10,11: “The roaring of the lion ([’aryeh]), and the voice of the fierce lion ([shachal]), And the teeth of the young lions ([kephirim]), are broken.

    The old lion ([layish]) perisheth for lack of prey, And the whelps of the lioness ([bene labhi’]) are scattered abroad.”

    In Judges 14:5-18, no less than three different terms, [kephir ‘arayoth, aryeh], and [’ari], are used of Samson’s lion. Alfred Ely Day LIP ( hp;c; [saphah], tp,c, [sepheth], “lip,” “language,” “speech,” “talk” (also “rim,” “border,” “shore,” “bank,” etc.), µp;c; [sapham], “(upper) lip,” “moustache,” “beard”; [cei~lov , cheilos ], “lip” (also once, “shore” in the quotation Hebrews 11:12 = Genesis 22:17)): (1) Lips stand in oriental idiom for speech or language, like “mouth,” “tongue”; therefore they stand in parallelism. “The lip of truth shall be established for ever; but a lying tongue is but for a moment” ( Proverbs 12:19). “To shoot out the lip” ( Psalm 22:7) means to make a mocking, contemptuous, scornful face. As the lips are the chief instrument of speech, we find numerous idiomatic phrases for “speaking,” such as: “the utterance of the lips” ( Numbers 30:6,8), “to proceed out of the lips” ( Numbers 30:12), “to open the lips” ( Job 32:20), “to go out of the lips” ( Psalm 17:1). These expressions do not convey, as a rule, the idea that the utterance proceeds merely out of the lips, and that it lacks sincerity and the consent of the heart, but occasionally this is intended, e.g. “This people draw nigh unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me” ( Isaiah 29:13; compare Matthew 15:8). The “fruit of the lips” ( Isaiah 57:19 = Hebrews 13:15) and “calves of the lips” (Hos 14:2 the King James Version) designate the praise and thanksgiving due to God. “Fervent (the King James Version “burning”) lips” ( Proverbs 26:23) are synonymous with eloquence. “To refrain the lips” ( Psalm 40:9; Proverbs 10:19) means to keep silence, where the godless or unwise would wish to assert his rights.

    Numerous other expressions need no further explanation, such as “perverse lips” ( Proverbs 4:24), “uncircumcised lips” ( Exodus 6:12,30), “feigned lips” ( Psalm 17:1), “lying lips” ( Psalm 31:18; Proverbs 10:18; 12:22), “wicked (or false) lips” ( Proverbs 17:4), “unclean lips” ( Isaiah 6:5), “strange (the King James Version “stammering”) lips” ( Isaiah 28:11), “flattering lips” ( Psalm 12:2,3; Proverbs 7:21), “righteous lips” ( Proverbs 16:13). (2) The Hebrew word [sapham] is found only in the phrase “to cover the lip or lips,” which is an expression of mourning, submission and shame.

    The Oriental covers his lips with his hand or a portion of his garment, when he has been sunk into deep grief and sorrow. He expresses, thereby, that he cannot open his mouth at the visitation of God. Differently, however, from common mourners, Ezekiel was forbidden of God “to cover his lips” (Ezek 24:17; see also 24:22), i.e. to mourn in the usual way over Israel’s downfall, as Israel had brought these judgments upon himself. The leper, victim of an incurable disease, walks about with rent clothes and hair disheveled, covering his lips, crying: “Unclean, unclean!” ( Leviticus 13:45). The thought here is that even the breath of such a one may defile.

    The prophet calls upon all seers and diviners, to whom God has refused the knowledge of the future, to cover their lips in shame and confusion ( Micah 3:7). H. L. E. Luering LIQUOR <lik’-er > : Every sort of intoxicating liquor except the beverage prepared from the juice of the grape ( rk;ve [yayin]), according to the usage of the Old Testament, is comprehended under the generic term [shekhar ] (compare [shakhar ], to “be drunk”), rendered “strong drink” (compare Greek [sikera ] in Luke 1:15). The two terms, [yayin ] and [shekhar ], “wine” and “strong drink,” are often found together and are used by Old Testament writers as an exhaustive classification of the beverages in use among the ancient Hebrews ( Leviticus 10:9; 1 Samuel 1:15; Proverbs 20:1, etc.). See WINE; DRINK, STRONG.

    LIST A variant of “lust” (see LUST), meaning “to wish,” found in the King James Version of Matthew 17:12 parallel Mark 9:13; John 3:8, as translation of [qe>lw , thelo ], and in James 3:4 as translation of [bou>lomai , boulomai ]. The last case the English Revised Version has rendered “will,” and the American Standard Revised Version has made the same change throughout. The word is obsolete in modern English, but John 3:8 is still used proverbially, “The wind bloweth where it listeth.”

    LITERATURE; SUB-APOSTOLIC <lit’-er-a-tur > , <sub-ap-os-tol’-ik > (Christian):

    The Sub-apostolic Age is usually held to extend from the death of John, the last surviving apostle, about 100 AD, to the death of Polycarp, John’s aged disciple (155-56 AD). The Christian literature of this period, although as a whole of only moderate intrinsic value, is of historical interest and importance. This is owing to the light which it throws back on apostolic times, and the testimony borne to Christian life, thought, worship, work and organization during an age when the church was under the guidance, mainly, of men who had been associated with the apostles and who might be supposed, therefore, to know their mind. Some writings are omitted from this review, having been dealt with in previous articles. For the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; APOCRYHAL ACTS. For an account of extant fragments of Basilides and Valentinus, see GNOSTICISM. For pseudo-Clementine writings see PETER, EPISTLES OF; SIMON MAGUS.

    1. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. 1. Authorship and Date: Only the larger part had previously been extant, when the complete epistle was recovered in 1875 by Bryennios, bishop of Nicomedia. The high honor in which it was held by early Christendom is attested (1) by its position in Codex Alexandrinus, at the end of the New Testament, and in an ancient Syriac MS, between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles; (2) by its being publicly read in many churches down to the 4th century. (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 16).

    The work is anonymous, but sent in the name of the Roman church.

    Dionysius of Corinth (170 AD) refers to it as written by the agency of (dia) Clement (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 23); Clement of Alexandria states distinctly the Clementine authorship (Strom., iv.17). The writer is evidently leading office-bearer of his church, and is identified with the Clement whom Eusebius designates as third “bishop” (or chief presbyter) of Rome after Peter, and as holding office between 92 and 101 AD (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 34). Clement is further identified by Origen (Commentary on John) and in HE, III, 15 with the Clement of Philippians 4:3; but the name is too common and the interval too long to render this identity more than possible. Some conjecture the writer to be the consul, Flavius Clemens, whom Domitian (his cousin) put to death in 95 AD for alleged “atheism,” i.e. probably, profession of Christianity (see Harnack, Gesch. Lit., I, 253, note 1). But Clement the “bishop” is never otherwise referred to as a martyr, and a member of the imperial family would hardly have been head of the Roman church without so signal a fact being noted by some contemporary or later writer. Lightfoot, with some probability, supposes (Apostolic Fathers, I, 61) that Clement was a “freedman or the son of freedman, belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens.” From Paul’s time ( Philippians 4:22) the imperial household included Christians; and many slaves were men of culture. To such a Christian freedman’s influence the consul’s conversion may have been due.

    Internal evidence points to Clement having been a Hellenist Jew or proselyte of Judaism; for he writes with some classical culture and with knowledge of Old Testament history and of the Septuagint; his style, moreover, has a “strong Hebraistic tinge” (Lightfoot, p. 59). The date of the epistle is fixed approximately by a reference to a persecution at Rome in progress or very recent; this persecution (during Clement’s “episcopate”) was doubtless that by Domitian in 95 AD. Clement’s Epistle is thus not strictly within the Sub-apostolic Age, but it is uniformly included in sub-apostolic literature. 2. Occasion and Contents: The occasion was a church feud at Corinth, and the expulsion of some faithful presbyters. The writer seeks to procure their restoration and to heal the dissension. He quotes Old Testament examples of the evil issue of envy and strife, and of the blessedness of humility, submission and concord. He adduces as a pattern the peace and harmony of Nature. In this connection occurs an anticipation of geographical discovery, when the author writes (chapter xx) of “the impassable ocean and the worlds beyond it” (compare Seneca, Medea ii.375; Strabo i.4; Plut. Mor. ix.41). Paul’s warnings in Corinthians about party spirit are recalled; a not unworthy echo of 1 Corinthians 13 is embodied; and the erring community is solemnly monished.

    In the course of the letter, with obvious reference to 1 Corinthians 15, Clement introduces the resurrection, for which he argues from the Old Testament and from natural analogies. He refers to the phoenix which lives 500 years, and, when dissolution approaches, builds a nest of spices into which it enters to die. As the flesh decays, however, a “worm is generated, which is nurtured from the dead bird’s moisture and putteth forth wings.”

    The fable is mentioned by Herodotus and Pliny.

    A lengthy prayer of intercession for “all sorts and conditions of men” is abruptly introduced near the end, in order, presumably, to imbue Corinthian Christians with that charity which they needed and which is the chief incentive to intercession. The epistle closes with a hopeful anticipation of restored concord and peace. 3. Apologetic Testimony: Apologetic testimony is found to (1) books of the New Testament, namely, to the Pauline authorship of I Corinthians; to Mark’s Gospel, through which (chapter xv) he quotes Isaiah 29:13, reproducing Mark’s variations from the Septuagint; to Acts, through which he similarly quotes (chapter 18) 1 Samuel 13:14; to Romans, Ephesiansesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter (chapters 35, 46, 21, 2, 46, 49, respectively). The parallels between Clement and He are so numerous that the latter work has from early times been ascribed to him by some (Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25).

    But the general type both of thought and of diction is dissimilar; (2) against the Tubingen theory of essential divergence between the doctrine of Peter and of Paul. The chief presbyter of Rome could not have been ignorant of such divergence; yet he refers the partisanship of which the two apostles were victims entirely to the Corinthians, not at all to the apostles (chapter 49). 4. Doctrinal Testimony: Doctrinal testimony is found: (1) to the Trinity, “As God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit” (chapter lviii); (2) to the personality of Christ, “The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty forever.” In union and communion with Christ we have life, are sanctified, possess love, manifest godliness (chapter i, xxxvi); (3) to the atonement: Clement ascribes to Christ’s death not merely subjective moral influence, but objective vicarious efficacy in securing our salvation, without any attempt, however, to explain the mystery.

    Christ hath “given his flesh for our flesh, his life for our lives” (chapter xlix); (4) to justification which is distinctly enunciated as before God through faith (chapter 32). But this faith (as in Paul’s writings) is a “faith which worketh” (chapter 35), and such justification is consistent with our being justified by works before men; (5) to the inspiration of Scripture, which is real (“the Holy Spirit saith”), but not verbal; for quotations are often inexact. Apocryphal books are quoted, but not with a formula indicating Divine authority. 5. Office-Bearers and Organization: (1) The basis of authority is not sacerdotal, but a combination of official succession and popular call; office-bearers are appointed “by the apostles or afterward by men of repute with consent of the whole ecclesia.” (2) Clement indicates no distinction between presbyter and bishop. Officebearers designated as presbyters (chapters 47, 54) are referred to (chapters 42, 44) as filling the office of bishop. Addressing a church on congregational strife and insubordination, he refers to no single bishop in authority over the church. Had the episcopate, in the post-New Testament sense of mono-episcopate, been apostolically enjoined, surely the injunction would have been obeyed or enforced in Corinth. (3) None the less we discern in Clement’s own position and action the anticipation of the later episcopate. Clement is an example of how, through the personal qualities and ecclesiastical services of the man, the status of presiding presbyter developed out of seniority into superiority, out of representativeness into official authority. (4) The early germ of the papacy is disclosed in the passage: “If certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and peril” (chapter 54). Such assumption by a revered man like Clement might give no offense, and the Corinthians plainly needed correction. Still we have here the first stage in the process which ultimately issued in the Roman claim to universal spiritual supremacy. The assumption, however, is not grounded on Clement’s own official position (he speaks always in the 1st person plural), but on the superior dignity of the Roman church. The later theory of supremacy builds Roman authority on the primacy of Peter and his successors; but here the authority of the leading presbyter, in dealing with a provincial church, rests on the suggested primacy of the ecclesia in which he presides. 6. Ritual: (1) The long prayer (chapters 54-56) bears internal evidence of liturgical character, through its balanced and rhythmical style, its somewhat remote relevance to the special object of the ep., and greater suitability for congregational worship, than as part of a counsel to a sister church. This internal testimony is confirmed by the correspondence of the prayer in certain verbal details with the earliest extant liturgies, particularly those of Mark and James, pointing to the early use in the Roman church of forms of prayer afterward incorporated into these liturgies. While there is evidence that down at least to the time (148 AD) of Justin’s 1st Apology (chapter lxvii) a minister offered up prayers of his own composition, this prayer of Clement’s Epistle indicates that before the close of the Apostolic Age, forms of supplication had begun to be introduced, not to the exclusion of “free prayer,” but simply as a mode of congregational devotion countenanced by a venerated leader of the church at Rome. (2) In chapter lvi Clement writes about “compassionate remembrance of them (i.e. the erring brethren) before God and the saints.” By the saints, however, are most probably meant, not the beatified dead, but the living Christian brotherhood, as in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 8:4.

    This epistle leaves on readers’ minds two different yet mutually compatible impressions — impressions both apparently made on the early church, by which the letter was widely read at public worship and yet excluded from the Canon of Scriptures. We realize, on the one hand, the inferiority of this writing to epistles of apostles. Clement’s mind is receptive, not creative; and the freshness of thought characteristic of New Testament writers is absent. What New Testament book, moreover, contains such a foolish legend as that of the phoenix? On the other hand, this epistle breathes much of the spirit, as it adopts in considerable measure the phraseology and style of apostolic writings. It is as if, although the sun of special inspiration had sunk below the horizon, there remained to the church for a while a spiritual afterglow.

    2. THE “DIDACHE” 1. Disappearance and Recovery: The “Didache” or Teaching (longer title, “The Teaching of the Lord, by ([dia ]) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles”). — This work is quoted as “Scripture,” without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa AD, in Strom., i.20). It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the “Teachings socalled of the Apostles,” “recognized by most ecclesiastical writers,” although “not a genuine” composition of apostles. Athanasius (Fest.

    Epistle,39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility. The latest ancient reference to the work from personal knowledge is by Nicephoros (9th century) who includes it among apocryphal writings. Thenceforth it disappears until its recent recovery in 1875 by Bryennios. 2. Date: There is no reliable external testimony to date. Resemblances too considerable to be accidental exist between the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas; but opinion is divided as to priority of composition. Lightfoot and others favor a common lost source. As to internal evidence the simplicity of the Eucharist and of baptism as here described, with no formal admission to the catechumenate (chapter 7); the use of “bishop” to denote the same office-bearer as presbyter; and the expectation of an impending Second Advent — point to an early date. On the other hand it is unlikely that a writing which professes to give the Teaching of the Twelve would be issued until all or most apostles had passed away; and the writer seems to be acquainted with writings of John (Didache, ix.2; x.2; x.5; see Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, 90). Probably the document went through a series of recensions (Harnack in Sch-Herz; Bertlet in DB, V), and the date or dates of composition may be put between 80 and 120 AD. 3. Standpoint, Authorship and Object: The work does not profess to be written by apostles; but the author seems to be a Jewish Christian, for he calls Friday “Preparation Day,” and the style and diction are Hebraic. The work is neither Judaistic nor Ebionite: circumcision, the Sabbath, and special Mosaic observances, are ignored.

    From the book in whole or in part being addressed specially, although not exclusively, to Gentiles, we infer that the community among whom it was composed, while mainly Jewish Christian, made special provision for conversion and instruction of Gentiles. The doctrinal standpoint is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline, but resembles that of James. Canon Spence (Teaching) conjectures plausibly that the author may be Simeon, cousin of James the Lord’s brother, who became chief presbyter of the Jewish Christian community, first at Jerusalem, afterward at Pella, until his martyrdom in 107 AD. 4. Testimony to New Testament Writings: Matthew was certainly in the writer’s hands; for the Didache contains quotations from, or reminiscences of, that Gospel, extending over ten chapters of it. Particularly notable is Didache, viii.2, “Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel; after this manner pray ye, Our Father,” etc. (see also vii.1; ix.5; xvi.6). There are also references to the Gospel of Luke (Didache, iii.5, 16); John’s writings (see above); Acts (Didache, iv.8), Romans (Didache, iv.5), 2 Thessalonians (Didache, xiv.1), 1 Peter (Didache, i.4). No extra-canonical saying of our Lord is recorded. 5. Contents and Notabilia: The contents and notabilia may be examined as follows: (1) Didactic (Chapters i through vi):

    Intended for catechumens in preparation for baptism. This catechetical manual (the earliest of its kind) opens with the words: “There are two ways: one of life and one of death” (suggested probably by Jeremiah 21:8). From this text the writer gives a summary of Christian duty especially toward our neighbor, based on the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount, which is frequently quoted.

    Among notable precepts is a command to fast as well as pray for enemies; a warning against infanticide which, in the case of sickly infants, heathenism approved, and against augury and astrology as generating idolatry; an admonition not to” stretch out one’s hands for receiving and to draw them in for giving”; an injunction to “ share all things with thy brethren, and not to say that they are thine own”; a command to “love some above thine own life”; and a quaint corrective against indiscriminate and ill-informed beneficence: “Let thine alms sweat into thy hands until thou know to whom thou shouldest give.” A precept to “give with thy hands a ransom for sin” may not mean more than that sinful habits are subdued by good works, but it suggests and paves the way for the error of the atoning efficacy of almsgiving. The summary of duty relates chiefly to the second Table of the Law; duty toward God is afterward (so far) dealt with under “worship.” This may account for obedience to parents being strangely omitted; for among the Jews the Fifth Commandment was included in the First Table. (2) Devotional: Worship and Rites (Chapters 7 through 10, 14).

    The Lord’s Prayer is to be used thrice a day. “Heaven” and “debt” are found instead of “heavens” and “debts.” The Doxology is added (with “kingdom” omitted) — its earliest recorded use in this connection.

    Christians are to fast on Wednesday and Friday, the days of the betrayal and crucifixion. Fasting is enjoined for a day or two before baptism, both on baptizer and on baptized; it is recommended to “others who can.”

    There is no mention of oil, salt, or exorcism. The baptismal formula, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” is commanded, confirming the historical trustworthiness of Matthew 28:19. Triple immersion in “living water” is assumed to be normal; but where this is impracticable, other water and affusion are permitted (see TRINE IMMERSION). The Lord’s Supper is dealt with only on its eucharistic side, the writer’s object being not to expound the nature of the rite, but to give models of thanksgiving.

    The phrase, “after being filled give thanks,” suggests that the Agape was still associated with the sacrament: the dissociation had begun when Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 AD. A liturgical element in sacramental worship is indicated by the prescription of forms of thanksgiving for the cup, the broken bread, and spiritual mercies. “Give thanks thus.” The thanksgiving for the cup is as follows: “We give thanks to thee our Father, for the holy vine of David, thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus Christ.” But nothing suggests that the entire service is liturgical, and the forms supplied are not rigidly imposed; for prophets are to offer thanks in such terms as they choose. On the Lord’s Day congregational worship and eucharistic bread-breaking, after confession to God and reconciliation with men, are distinctly enjoined. (3) Ecclesiastical (Chapters xi through xiii, xv).

    Of church office-bearers, two classes are mentioned, ordinary and extraordinary. Of the former (essential to congregational organization) only bishops and deacons are mentioned, i.e. those entrusted with rule and oversight, with their assistants. Presbyter and bishop appear to be still identical, as the former is not specified (compare Philippians 1:1).

    Popular election of these functionaries is indicated: “Elect for yourselves”; without denial, however, of those already in office having a share in the settlement. In the second class, apostles, prophets and teachers are included. “Apostle” is used, not in the narrower sense of men called to the office personally by Christ, but in the wider sense which embraces all whose call to be His ambassadors has been signalized by Divine giftsspecially accredited evangelists unconnected with any particular community. (Among Jewish Christians the designation survived to the 4th century, for the Theodosian Code of that period refers to Jewish presbyters and to those “quos ipsi apostolos vocant.”) These apostles were to be received as the Lord,” and hospitably entertained; but, unlike apostles in the special sense, they were not to remain anywhere longer than “one or two days.” Their function was to scatter the seed widely, and any expression of desire to remain longer was to be discouraged, while a demand for salary from a particular community would be evidence of false apostleship. The special function of prophets and teachers, on the other hand, was the instruction and comfort of church members. They accordingly might be encouraged to settle in a community and receive “first-fruits” for their support. These prophets and teachers, however, were not to supersede the “bishops” or presbyters in ruling, but were to undertake only those functions for which they were specially qualified. On the other hand, bishops and deacons were not to be excluded from preaching and teaching by the settlement of prophets and official teachers in particular communities; and in the Didache may be traced the transition, then being gradually accomplished, of the preaching and teaching functions from extraordinary to ordinary office-bearers. “They also (the bishops and deacons) minister to you the ministry of prophets and teachers: therefore despise them not.” Even before the close of Paul’s ministry, the [episkopos ], whose essential function was rule and oversight, was expected, if not required, also to be [didatikos ], “qualified to teach,” i.e. along with teachers specially set apart for the purpose ( 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17). By the middle of the 2nd century, the prophets had disappeared, and their preaching function had been vested in the office of bishop or presbyter, assisted by the diaconate. (4) Eschatological (Chapter xvi).

    This concluding section consists chiefly of exhortations to watchfulness in view of the Second Advent. The premonitory signs of that Coming are given, with reminiscences from Christ’s eschatological discourses, namely, rise of false prophets, decline of love, persecution, lawlessness, and the appearance of Antichrist, who is designated the World-deceiver. Without definitely stating chiliastic doctrine, the writer suggests it; for in referring to the immediate signals of Christ’s advent (opening in heaven, voice of trumpet, resurrection of dead) he is careful to add “Not of all the dead; but the Lord shall come, and all the saints with Him” — implying that the general resurrection would take place at an after-stage, presumably, as Millennialists held, after the 1,000 years had expired. Without dogmatic authority, and with only moderate spiritual value, the Didache is important historically as a witness to the church’s beliefs, usages and condition during the transition between the Apostolic and the Post-apostolic Age. During that transition period, we see much of the freedom of primitive Christianity mingled with rudiments of ecclesiastical regulations and formularies; and while we cannot assume that every belief and usage recorded in the Didache were sanctioned by apostles, we may reasonably ascribe them to apostolic times, and regard them as not opposed by those apostles within whose view they must have come.

    3. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS. 1. Author and Date: Ignatius was bishop of Antioch early in the 2nd century Origen (Hom. vi on Luke) refers to him as “second after Peter”; Euodius came between (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 22). As he calls himself [ektroma ], “untimely born” (compare 1 Corinthians 15:8), he was probably converted in mature life: the legend of his being the “child” of Matthew 18:3 rests on misinterpretation of his designation “Theophotos.” Traditions current in the 4th century represent him as a disciple of John (Eusebius, Chron.) and ordained by Paul (Apostolical Constitutions, vii.46).

    The Martyrium of Ignatius (6th century) dates his trial at Antioch in the 9th year of Trajan’s reign (107-8 AD) and represents it as conducted before the emperor. Only one visit, however, of Trajan to Antioch is known, in 114-15; neither any Ignatian letter nor Eusebius, nor any other early writer refers to so memorable a circumstance as the presidency of an emperor over a Christian’s trial, and Ignatius speaks of a proposed attempt by Roman friends to secure a reversal of the sentence, which would have been impossible had Trajan personally pronounced it. His alleged presence, therefore, must be rejected as a later embellishment.

    The epistles, so far as genuine, were written after Ignatius’ condemnation, on his way to martyrdom at Rome. 2. Genuineness: The epistles are extant in 3 editions: (1) the longer Greek, of 15 letters now admitted to be largely spurious; (2) a Syriac recension of three letters, now generally held to be a mere epitome; (3) the shorter Greek edition, containing 7 letters of intermediate length, to the Ephesiansesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Romans, and Polycarp.

    Lightfoot, Zahn, and most recent critics accept the substantial genuineness of these seven. The chief external evidence is that of Polycarp (Phil., xiii), who, soon after Ignatius’ death, writes of a letter addressed to himself, of another to the Smyrneans, and of “all the rest which we have by us.” Now 2 Ignatian epistles are addressed to Polycarp and the Christians of Smyrna, while 4 profess to be written by Ignatius at Smyrna, harmonizing well with copies of these being in Polycarp’s possession.

    Further external evidence is supplied by Irenaeus (v.29) who quotes a saying from Ignat., Romans, iv, as that of a martyr, and who uses 8 notable phrases borrowed apparently from Ignatius. This external testimony (only got rid of by an arbitrary assumption of Polycarp’s Epistle being wholly or partly spurious) is supported by strong internal and cumulative evidence: (1) Frequent Grammatical Dislocation:

    Natural in letters written on a journey but unaccountable on the supposition of a later forgery (Romans., i; Mag., ii; Ephesians., i). (2) Geographical Particulars:

    E.g. Ignatius goes by land from Antioch to Smyrna — an unusual route which a forger would hardly invent. (3) Historical Illustrations:

    E.g. conveyance of prisoners from distant provinces to Rome harmonizes with the account by Dion Cassius (lxviii.15) of the magnitude of amphitheatrical exhibitions under Trajan causing extensive orders for human victims from all parts. (4) Theological Evidence:

    E.g. these epistles refer to Judaistic error combined with a type of doctrine denying any real incarnation — a combination which ceased after Ignatius’ time. (5) Ecclesiastical Usage:

    Thus, the [Agape ] still includes the Eucharist (Smyr., viii), whereas soon after Ignatius’ death these were separated (Pliny, Epistle 96; Just., 1 Ap., 65,67). (6) Personal References.

    The writer shows an excess and affectation of self-depreciation — “last of Antiochene Christians” (Trall., xiii) “not worthy to be counted one of the brotherhood” (Romans., ix) — such as a later forger would hardly have introduced. 3. Leading Ideas: (1) Joy and Glory of Martyrdom.

    Heroic courage and loyalty to Christ are united with fanatical craving after a martyr’s death: “I would rather die for Christ than reign over the whole earth” (Romans., vi); “He who is near the sword is near to God” (Smyr., iv). This is noble; but when he writes, “Entice wild beasts to become my sepulchre” (Romans., iv); “May I have joy of the wild beasts and find them prompt”; “Though they be unwilling I will force them” (Romans., iv.5), we realize how Aurelius (recalling perhaps some such case) was moved to write that “death was to be encountered, not as by the Christians like a military display, but solemnly, and not as if one acted in a tragedy” (Med. xi.3). (2) Evil and Peril of Heresy and Schism. “Abstain from heresy”; “These heretics mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison” (Trall., vi); “Flee those evil outshoots, which produce deathbearing fruit” (Trall., xi); “Avoid all divisions as the beginning of evils”; “Nothing is better than unity” (To Polyc., i; Phil., iii). (3) Submission to Office-Bearers, Especially to the Bishop. “Do nothing without your bishop, and be subject to the presbyters” (Mag., vii); “Be on your guard against heresy: and this will be, if ye continue in intimate union with Christ and with the bishop”; “He who does anything without the bishop’s knowledge serveth the devil” (Smyr., ix). The bishop here is higher than “primus inter pares”; he is a new and separate officebearer.

    Yet, without going beyond these epistles, we discern that such an episcopate was not an express apostolic institution. For had Ignatius been able to magnify the office as apostolically enjoined, so zealous a champion of episcopal authority would have adduced such injunction as the most cogent reason for submission. His zeal for the episcopate apparently sprang only from its high ecclesiastical expediency as the most effective agency for maintaining the church’s unity against heresy and schism. 4. Other Notabilia: (1) References to the Gospel of John.

    The Gospel of John is never quoted, but numerous phrases suggest that it was in the writer’s hands. He speaks of Christ “proceeding from the Father,” “doing nothing without the Father,” “in all things pleasing Him who sent Him.” Christ is the “Door of the Father” and “Living water.”

    Satan is the” Prince of this world.” “The Holy Spirit knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth.” (2) Doctrine.

    Ignatius asserts emphatically Christ’s true Divinity: “Our God” (Ephesians., xviii; Trall, vii). The Trinity is frequently suggested, although not expressly affirmed. Christians are “established in the Son, the Father, and the Spirit”; “subject to Christ and the Father, and the Spirit.” With strong support of episcopal authority no sacerdotalism is united. “Priest” occurs only once, “The priests are good: but Christ, the High Priest, is better.” Here, as the context shows, the imperfect Levitical priesthood is contrasted with perfect high-priesthood of Christ. (3) Ecclesiastical Usage.

    Ignatius contains one of the latest references to the [Agape ] as still conjoined with the [Eucharist ]. The letter to Polycarp (chapter iv) contains the earliest allusion to the practice of redeeming Christian slaves at the cost of the congregation. Slaves are not to “long to be set free,” thus implying that such emancipation, while not required as a duty, was often conferred as a privilege. (4) General Characteristics.

    Ignatius presents striking contrast, as a writer, to Clement. Clement is calm, cultured, chaste in diction, but somewhat commonplace and deficient in originality; his best passages are echoes of Scripture. The diction and style of Ignatius are impassioned, rugged, turgid, but pithy, fresh and individualistic.

    4. EPISTLES OF POLYCARP. 1. Date and Genuineness: Polycarp was born not later, perhaps considerably earlier, than 70 AD; for at his martyrdom, of which the now accepted date is 155 or (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II, i, 629), he declared, when invited to abjure his faith, that he had “served Christ for 86 years” (Mart. Pol., ix).

    He was disciple of John, who ordained him as bishop or leading presbyter of Smyrna before 100 AD (Iren., iii.3, 4). Of several letters by Polycarp, only this epistle remains: it professes (chapter xiii) to have been written soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius. The genuineness of the letter is attested by Irenaeus, Polycarp’s own disciple (in the place cited), whose evidence cannot be set aside on the ground of its testimony to the Ignatian letters without an obvious begging of the question. The supposition that the Ignatian letters and Polycarp’s Epistle are parts of one great forgery is otherwise negatived by the very marked difference of style and standpoint between those writings (Lightfoot, l.c., 577). 2. Occasion and Contents: The epistle replies to a letter from the Philippian church inviting his counsel, and asking for epistles of the recently martyred Ignatius. He acknowledges their kind ministry to that martyr and to others, “entwined with saintly fetters,” who had “set a pattern of all patience.” He sends what he has of the letters of Ignatius and asks in return for any information which they might possess. He commends to their careful study Paul’s epistle to themselves, acknowledging his inability to attain to the apostle’s wisdom. With much Scripture language, interwoven with his own matter, and giving to his letter the semblance of an apostolic echo, he exhorts his readers to righteousness and godliness, charity and mercy, and warns them against covetousness, evil-speaking and revenge. He dwells on the mutual relations and obligations of presbyters and deacons, on the one hand, and of the congregation on the other. He repeats John’s admonition against teachers who denied the reality of the incarnation: “Every spirit that confesseth not,” etc. ( 1 John 4:3). He grieves over the lapse of a Philippian presbyter, Valens, who, along with his wife had flagrantly sinned; but he bids his readers not count such as enemies, but seek to recall them from their wanderings. 3. Notabilia: (1) Polycarp mentions only one book of the New Testament, namely, Philippians, but within the brief compass of 200 lines he quotes verses or reproduces phrases from 12 New Testament writings, Matthew, 1 Peter, John, and 9 Pauline Epistles, including three whose early date has been disputed in modern times (1 and 2 Timothy and Ephesiansesians). The absence of any quotation from the Gospel of John is notable, considering his relation to the apostle; but the shortness of the letter prevents any conclusion being drawn against the authenticity of that Gospel; and he quotes (as we have seen) from 1 John, which is a kind of appendix to the Gospel (Lightfoot). (2) At a time when Ignatius had been emphasizing the paramount duty of submission to the bishop, Polycarp, even when enjoining subjection to presbyters, does not mention a bishop. These two inferences are irresistible: (a) there was then no [episkopos ], in the post-New Testament, sense, at Philippi; (b) Polycarp did not consider the defect (?) sufficiently important to ask the Philippians to supply it. Had John instituted the monoepiscopate as the one proper form of church government, surely his disciple Polycarp would have embraced the opportunity, when the Philippians invited his counsel, to inform them of the apostolic ordinance, and to enjoin its adoption.

    5. PAPIAS FRAGMENTS. 1. Author and Date: Papias is called by his younger contemporary Irenaeus (v.33) a “disciple of John and friend of Polycarp.” Eusebius writes (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 36) that he was episkopos of Hierapolis in Phrygia. The Chronicon Paschale (7th century, but embodying materials from older documents) states that he was martyred about the same time as Polycarp (155-56). His work, Exposition of our Lord’s Sayings, was extant in the 13th century, but only fragments quoted by Irenaeus, Eusebius, etc., remain. These bear out the twofold description of Papias by Eusebius, as a “man of little judgment” yet “most learned and well acquainted with the Scriptures” (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39, 36). (But the words of praise in verse may be a gloss.) Papias states that he subjoins to his expositions “whatsoever I learned carefully from the elders and treasured up in my memory .... I was wont to put questions regarding the words of the elders (i.e. presumably men of an earlier generation), what Andrew or Peter said, or what Philip or Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples said, as well as regarding what Aristion, and the presbyter John, the disciple of the Lord, have to say.”

    It is disputed whether Papias here refers to two Johns, the apostle and another disciple of the same name; or to John the apostle in two different relations, i.e. first as one about whose testimony Papias heard from others, and second, as one with whom, also, he held personal communication. In favor of the first view is, (1) Eusebius’ own opinion (in the place cited); (2) the alleged unlikelihood of the same John being twice mentioned in one sentence; (3) a statement by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39) that in his day two monuments ([mnemata]) of “John” existed at Ephesiansesus.

    For the latter view is, (1) no other writer until Eusebius hints the existence of a presbyter John distinct from the apostle; (2) the change in the quotation from “said” to “say” seems to give a reason for John being twice mentioned; some things stated by John having been heard by Papias through “elders,” others having been told him by the apostle himself. The fact that John is called presbyter, instead of apostle, is no insuperable objection, since John so designates himself in 2 John and 3 John; and Jerome denies that the two [mnemata] were both tombs. See Lightfoot, Essay on Papias, and Nicol, Four Gospels, 187 if, who come to divergent conclusions. 2. Testimony to Matthew and Mark: On the testimony to Matthew and Mark see MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF; MARK, GOSPEL OF. 3. Other Notabilia: (1) According to Eusebius, Papias relates the story of “a woman accused before our Lord” — the story, presumably, which eventually crept into John 8; so that to him, in part, is due the preservation of a narrative, which, whether historical or not, finely illustrates the union in our Lord of holy purity and merciful charity. (2) Papias is quoted by the Chronicler Georgius Hamartolos (in a manuscript of the 9th century) as declaring in his Expositon that John “was put to death by the Jews,” and a similar quotation is made by Philip of Side (Epitome manuscript of the 7th-8th centuries). On the bearing of this upon the question of the apostle’s residence at Ephesiansesus see JOHN, THE APOSTLE. (3) Irenaeus (v.32) quotes Papias as writing about a Post-resurrection millennium, and as reporting, on John’s authority, how the Lord said, “The days will come when vines shall grow having each 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 twigs, and on each twig 10,000 shoots,” etc. This may be an exaggerated record (misunderstood by Papias) of some parabolic utterance of Christ, indicating prophetically the wonderful extension of the church.

    6. EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 1. Authorship: This book is first expressly quoted by Clement of Alexandria (circa AD) as the composition of Barnabas, companion of Paul (Strom., ii.6).

    Origen concurs, and calls it a “Catholic ep.” (Con. Celsum, i.63), thus suggesting canonical position; Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25) testifies to the widespread ascription of it to this Barnabas, although he himself regards it as “spurious.” Codex Sinaiticus places it immediately after the New Testament, as being read in churches, and thus suggests its composition by a companion at least of apostles. Against this external testimony, however, to authorship by the Barnabas of Acts, is strong internal evidence: (1) apostolic sinfulness prior to discipleship is spoken of in exaggerated terms hardly credible in a writer who knew the Twelve — “exceedingly lawless beyond all (ordinary) sin” (chapter v) — an echo apparently of Paul’s “sinners of whom I am chief”; (2) ignorance of Jewish rites incomprehensible in a Levite who had lived in Jerusalem, e.g. the priests are said to eat goat’s flesh on the great Day of Atonement; (3) extreme anti-Judaism (see below), inconsistent with the representation of Barnabas in Acts and Galatians. The writer may have been some other Barnabas, a converted Alexandrian Jew, or, more probably, a converted Gentileproselyte, trained in Philo’s school, but ignorant of Jewish rites as practiced at Jerusalem, and possessing little real sympathy with Judaism. 2. Date: The epistle must be dated after 70 AD, as the destruction of Jerusalem is referred to (chapter xvi); also after the publication of the Gospel of John, of which there are several reminiscences. But the absence of any reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Hadrian, in 120 AD, in a passage (chapter xvi) where such allusion might have been expected, suggests a date prior to that year. We may place the writing between 90 and 120 AD. 3. Object and Contents: The object is to deter both Jewish and Gentile Christians from Judaistic lapse by a bold application of the allegorizing method to the Old Testament, far beyond what Philo would have sanctioned. Jewish sacrifices, festivals, Sabbath enactments, temple-worship, distinction of clean and unclean food, are not only not of perpetual obligation, but never were binding at all, even on Jews. Belief in their obligatoriness rests on a slavishly liberal exegesis of the Old Testament, which, properly interpreted, is not a preparation for Christ but Christianity itself in allegorical disguise.

    Ceremonies are simply allegorical enforcements of spiritual worship; distinctions of clean and unclean are merely pictorial representations of the necessity of separation from vice and vicious men; interdict of swine’s flesh means no more than “associate not with swinish men.” The only circumcision really commanded by God is circumcision of the heart.

    Barnabas ignores what Paul realized, that Jewish laws and rites, even literally interpreted, are a Divine discipline of wholesome self-restraint, neighborly consideration and obedience to God. Barnabas not only explains away Old Testament enactments, but finds in trivial Old Testament statements Christian fact and truth. Thus, in Abraham’s circumcision of the 318 men of his house, the 10 and 8 are significantly denoted by the Greek letters “I” and “H”, the initial letters of [Iesous ] (Jesus); while the represented by the Greek “T”, points to the cross. The writer selfcomplacently intimates that “no one has been admitted by me to a more genuine piece of knowledge than this!” (chapter ix).

    When Barnabas, however, leaves obscure allegory for plain exhortation, he writes effectively of the “two ways” of light and darkness. Among edifying admonitions the following are outstanding: “Thou shalt not go to prayer with an evil conscience”; “Thou shalt not let the word of God issue from lips stained with impurity”; “Be not ready to stretch forth thine hands to take, while thou contractest them to give”; “Thou shalt not issue orders with bitterness to thy servant, lest thou fail in reverence to God who is above you both”; “Thou shalt not make a schism, but shalt bring together them who contend”; “The way of darkness is crooked”; “In this way are (among others mentioned) those who labor not to aid him who is overdone with toil” (chapters xix, xx). 4. Notabilia: (1) The Divinity of Christ is emphasized: “Lord of all the world”; “Joint Creator, with the Father, of mankind” (chapter v). (2) The writer, while following the Alexandrian method of allegorical interpretation, is free from the Alexandrian doctrine of the essential evil of matter; the necessity of a real incarnation is affirmed (chapter v). (3) In chapter xi, he writes, “We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” This has been interpreted as involving the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; but the reference may be rather to the regeneration which baptism symbolizes. (4) In chapter xv, the words, “We keep the 8th day with joy, the day on which Jesus rose again,” are the earliest express testimony that the observance of the Lord’s Day was a memorial of our Lord’s resurrection. This observance is distinguished from Jewish Sabbathkeeping which is called an error; the Sabbath really intended to be kept being a period of 1,000 years after the 6,000 years in which all things will be finished (chapter xv). (5) Testimony to New Testament Books, (a) the existence and canonical authority of the Gospel of Matthew are attested (chapter iv) by the quotation of Matthew 22:14, “Many are called, but few chosen,” introduced by the formula, “It is written”; (b) various passages taken together testify to the writer having the Gospel of John in his hands: “Whoso eateth of these shall live for ever” (chapter xi and John 6:58); “Abraham looking before in Spirit to Jesus” (chapter ix and John 8:58); “the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ” (chapter ii and John 13:34); a reference to the brazen serpent as a type of Christ’s suffering, glory and healing power (chapter xii and John 3:14); (c) “Thou shalt not say that anything is thine own” (chapter xix) appears to be a reminiscence of Acts 4:32; (d) the passage in xv, “The day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years,” seems to be an echo of 2 Peter 3:8, and, if so, is the earliest testimony to the existence of that writing, and thus proves its great antiquity, although not its canonicity.

    7. PASTOR (SHEPHERD) OF HERMAS. 1. Authorship and Date: This work is the earliest example, on a large scale, of Christian allegory, and was hardly less popular in the early church than the Pilgrim’s Progress in later times. It was reckoned by many almost, by some altogether, as “Scripture.” Irenaeus quotes it as “Scripture” (iv.20); Clement of Alexandria refers to it as “containing revelations Divinely imparted” (Strom., i.29); Origen regards it as “Divinely inspired” (Commentary on Romans 16:14). It is placed with the Epistle of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus at the close of the New Testament, and was read in many churches down to Jerome’s time (Works, II, 846). The writer represents himself as a slave sold to a Roman Christian lady. He afterward obtained freedom, lived with his family in Rome, became earnestly religious, and saw visions which he imparted the community in this book with a view to repentance and spiritual well-being.

    Origen (followed by Eusebius, Jerome, etc.) ascribes the work to the Hermes of Romans 16:14; but his opinion is pure conjecture (puto).

    The Canon Muratori (170 AD) of Italian authorship describes the work as “recently composed at Rome by the brother of Plus during the latter’s episcopate” (137-54). This distinct local testimony has been widely accepted (Hefele, Lightfoot, Charteris, Cruttwell, etc.). Yet the writer represents himself (Vision, ii.4) as enjoined to send his book to Clement as man in authority in the church, whom it is natural to identify with the chief presbyter of Rome between 92 and 101. This reference, along with the absence of any allusion to Gnosticism or to the mono-episcopate, has led Schaff, Zahn, and others to fix the date of the work at about 100 AD. The external and internal evidence, thus apparently divergent, may be reconciled by supposing (with Kruger and Harnack) that the book was not “written in a single draft”; that portions were issued successively during Clement’s episcopate; and that under Plus (circa 140) the separate issues were gathered into a volume under the title of The Pastor. In Rome, where the author was known, the Canon Muratori attested at once its religious usefulness as a “book to be read” and the absence of any claim to canonical authority. 2. Object and Contents: The purpose of the book is not doctrinal but ethical; it is an allegorical manual of Christian duty with earnest calls to individual repentance and church revival in view of the near Advent.

    The book consists of (1) Five Visions, (2) Twelve Mandates, (3) Ten Similitudes or Parables.

    In (1) the church appears’ to the writer as a venerable matron, then as a tower near completion, thereafter as a Holy Virgin. In the last vision, the Angel of Repentance, in pastoral garb, delivers to him the Mandates and Similitudes. The Mandates deal with chastity, truth, patience, meekness, reverence, prayer, penitence, and warn against grieving the Spirit. In the similitudes the church is again a tower whose stones are examined for approbation or reprobation. Similitudes are also drawn from trees. The vine clinging to the elm signifies union of rich and poor in the church; a large willow from which a multitude receive branches or twigs, some of these blossoming or fruit-bearing, others dry or rotten, symbolizes the diverse effect of law and gospel on different souls. The author, although a Gentile, writes from the standpoint of James rather than of Paul. The closing words summarize his combined ethical and eschatological purpose: “Ye who have received good from the Lord, do good works, lest while ye delay, the tower be completed, and you be rejected.” 3. Notabilia: (1) Montanistic Affinity.

    Hermas, indeed, differs from Montanists in permitting, though not encouraging, second marriage, and recognizing one possible repentance after post-baptismal flagrant sin; but he is also their fore-runner, through his disallowance of readmission after second lapse, through emphatic expectation of an impending Advent, and through his rigorous view of fasting: “On the fast day taste nothing but bread and water.” (2) Fasting, However, Is Regarded Not as an End but as a Means A discipline toward humility, purity, charity. Fasting for charity is illustrated by the injunction (Sim., v.3) to “reckon up the price of what you meant to eat, and give that to one in want.” (3) Absence of Names “Jesus” and “Christ.”

    The names” Jesus and “Christ” never occur. He is “Son of God” and “Lord of His people,” whom “God made to dwell in flesh,” by whom “the whole world is sustained,” who “endured great sufferings that He might do away with the sins of His people” (Sim., .v.6; ix. 14). (4) Church Organization.

    Hermas is charged (Via., ii.4) to “read his writings to (or along with) the presbyters who preside over the church” in Rome. It is reasonable to conclude that no one in that community could then be called “bishop” in the later sense of the holder of an office distinct from and superior to the presbyterate. [Episkopoi ] (“bishops”) are mentioned (Sim., ix.27) as “given to hospitality,” the description of the [episkopos ] in 1 Timothy 3:2, where admittedly bishop = presbyter.

    8. SECOND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT. 1. Nature of Document: This writing is doubly miscalled: it is neither an epistle nor a composition of Clement. Style, thought, and standpoint differ from those of the accepted Ep., and HE, III, 38, suggests that the Clementine authorship was not generally recognized. The recent recovery by Bryennios of the previously lost conclusion proves that the writing is a sermon (chapter xix).

    Antiquity is indicated by (1) the use, as an authority, of the lost heretical Gospel of the Egyptians, which by the time of the Canon Muratori (175 AD) had ceased to be regarded as Scripture by Catholics; (2) the adoption, without Gnostic intention, of phrases which became notably associated, after 150 AD with Gnosticism: “God made male and female: the male is Christ, the female, the church” (chapter xiv). 2. Date and Authorship: The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201). The author is a Gentilepresbyter; he had “worshipped stocks and stones.” The sermon was probably preached at Corinth, for the preacher describes many arriving by sea for the race-course, without mentioning a port, which would be appropriate in a sermon preached to Corinthians. 3. Contents: No text is given, but the sermon starts from Isaiah 54:1, without express quotation; this chapter had probably been read at the service. The discourse, without great literary merit, is earnest and practical. There are exhortations to repentance and good works, to purity, charity, prayer and fasting, with special reference to coming judgment. The standpoint is that of James. “Be not troubled (so the sermon concludes) because we see the unrighteous with abundance, and God’s servants in straits. Let us have faith, brethren and sisters. Had God recompensed the righteous speedily, we should have had training not in piety but in bargaining; and our uprightness would be a mere semblance, since our pursuit would be not of godliness but of gain.” 4. Notabilia: (1) The sermon is the oldest extant in post-New Testament times, and appears to have been read (chapter xix) to a congregation. (2) Sayings of Christ not in our Gospels are quoted: (a) “The Lord, being asked when His kingdom would come, answered:

    When the two shall be one (i.e. when harmony shall prevail?), and when the outside shall be as the inside (i.e. when men shall be as they seem?); and the male with the female, neither male nor female” (interpreted by this preacher ascetically as discountenancing marriage, presumably because “the time is short,” but explained mystically by Clement of Alexandria in Strom., iii.13, as indicating the abolition of all distinctions in God’s kingdom). Clement assigns the passage to the lost Gospel of the Egyptians. (b) “The Lord saith, ye shall be as lambs among wolves. Peter answered: What if the wolves tear the lambs? Jesus said: Let not the lambs fear the wolves: and ye, also, fear not them which kill you, and can do nothing more to you.” (3) No episcopate, apparently, in the post-New Testament sense, existed in the church where this sermon was delivered. Unfaithful men are represented as confessing, “We obeyed not the presbyters when they told us of salvation.” Had a bishop in the later sense been head of the community, obedience to his admonitions would surely have been inculcated. (4) The Christology is high; “We ought to think of Christ as of God”; “When we think mean things of Christ, we expect to receive mean things” (chapter i).

    9. APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES. 1. Recovery and Date: Aristides was an Athenian philosopher, who (according to HE, IV, 3) presented an Apology to Hadrian, presumably when the emperor was at Athens (125 AD). After disappearance in the 17th century, a fragment in an Armenian version was discovered in 1878, and the entire Apology in Syriac was found in 1889. It was then found that almost the whole treatise was imbedded anonymously in a Greek medieval romance, Barlaam and Josaphat. The Apology in the Syriac is inscribed to Antoninus; it may have been addressed to both emperors successively, or the real date may be 137, when they were colleagues in the empire. 2. Contents: The treatise refers to oppression, imprisonment, and other maltreatment endured by Christians, and pleads for their protection against persecution, because of their true and noble creed, and their pure and benevolent lives.

    The writer compares the Christian doctrine of Godhead with that of barbarians, Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and dwells on the elevating influence of Christian belief in Jesus Christ and in a future life. He refers to the abstention of Christians from unchastity, dishonesty and other vices; to their abounding charity and brotherliness which are shown particularly to the widow, the orphan, the poor, the stranger, the oppressed, and even their oppressors. All who become Christians, of however low a station, are brethren. This bright picture has, however, its shadows: “If Christians see that one of their number has died in his sins, over him they weep bitterly as over one about to go into punishment.” This frank acknowledgment of some black sheep gives point to his general testimony, “Blessed is the race of Christians above all men.” 3 Notabilia: (1) A distinct reference to a collection of Christian writings, and especially of Gospels, designated the Gospel, and indicating the existence of a kind of rudimentary New Testament Canon. (2) Similar indication of a rudimentary Apostles’ Creed. Christians are said to believe in God, “the Maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ who was born of a Hebrew virgin, who was transfixed by the Jews; he died and was buried; and Christians state that after three days he rose again and ascended into heaven.” In this early time the virgin birth was apparently a settled matter — part of the Creed. (3) Aristides describes a familiar custom among poor Christians of fasting two or three days, so as to supply with needful food Christians poorer still (Compare Hermas). (4) The Apology is interesting as the earliest known literary tribute of a philosopher to Christianity, and probably the earliest extant defense of the faith, if the Epistle to Diognetus be not ancient. It is notable also as a treatise on Christian evidence drawn not from miraculous credentials, but from the self-evidencing excellence and effect of Christianity.

    Finally, it is interesting as the earliest detailed record of harvest reaped at Athens from seed sown by Paul 80 or 90 years before. Athens appeared at first a barren soil; but by and by this church in a university city took the lead, as this treatise and another lost apology by Quadratus show, in the literary defense of the Christian faith.

    Quadratus is stated in HE IV, 3, to have presented his Apology to Hadrian, and is described by Jerome as “a disciple of the apostles.” In a fragment preserved in HE, he attests the survival (“to our own day”) of some whom Christ had healed.

    10. JUSTIN MARTYR. 1. Incidents of Life: Born of pagan parents at Flavia Neapolis (Nablous), in Samaria about AD — a seeker for truth, who, after trying Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonic philosophies, found in Christ and Christianity the satisfaction of philosophic cravings and spiritual needs. He became a Christian apostle and apologist, wearing still the philosopher’s mantle in token of continued quest after wisdom, but making it now his life-work, not as presbyter, but as itinerating Christian teacher, to impart to pagan, to Jew and also to heretic the truth which he himself had found and prized. After long Christian service, he suffered martyrdom under Aurelius in 166 AD. 2. First Apology: It is addressed to Antoninus and dated 138-48. He approaches the emperor without flattery, and asks judgment after searching inquiry. He answers three charges against Christians: (1) atheism: Justin replies that Christians were atheists only as Socrates was; they disbelieved in so-called gods who were wicked demons or humanly fashioned images; but they worshipped the Father of Righteousness; (2) immorality: Justin admits the existence of pretended Christians who are evil-doers; but Christianity makes the evil good, the licentious chaste, the covetous generous, the revengeful forgiving; (3) disloyalty: this is calumny based on the preaching of Christ’s kingdom which is spiritual, not temporal. Christians are taught and are wont to pay tribute promptly and to pray for rulers regularly.

    Justin then sets forth the credibility and excellence of Christianity, adducing, (1) its pure morality as contrasted with vices condoned by heathens, (2) its noble doctrines — immortality, resurrection, future judgment, incarnation, (3) Old Testament prophecy regarding the Divinity and sufferings of the Christ. His reference to the prediction of a virgin bringing forth Emmanuel (chapter xxxiii) shows that in his day the virgin birth was accepted, although Jews understood by virgin (in Isaiah) merely a young woman, (4) foreshadowings of Christian truth by philosophy, referring especially to Plato’s teaching about the Divine [Logos ] and judgment to come. To refute prevalent calumny Justin describes Sunday service and administration of sacraments in his time. On the Lord’s Day Christians assembled for worship; prophetic Scriptures and “memoirs” by apostles and their followers were read; prayers and thanksgivings were offered and an address delivered by the “president”; bread and wine were distributed and sent by deacons to those absent; and an offering for charitable purposes was made. “As many as believe what is taught, and undertake to live accordingly, are, after prayer and fast, baptized” (chapters lxv, lxvii). 3. Second Apology: This is probably a postscript to the first; Eusebius quotes from both as from one work. After a protest against a recent summary execution of three Christians without proper trial, Justin deals with two popular taunts: (1) “If at death they went to heaven, why did they not commit suicide?”: “We do not shrink from death but from opposing God’s will.” (2) “If God is really on the Christians’ side, why does He allow them to be persecuted?”: “The world by Divine decree is meanwhile under the dominion of angels who have become demons.” Justin here contrasts Christ with Socrates, whom yet he describes as a preacher of the “true but then unknown God” (chapter x): “No one put such faith in Socrates as to die for his convictions.” Christ hath won the faith, “not only of philosophers, but of simple folk who through faith can despise death.”

    Justin, however, testifies clearly and warmly to the Christian element by anticipation, in the higher teachings and aspirations of heathen philosophy through an implanted seed of the Divine [Logos ]; and he recognizes thus a pre-advent ministry of the Son of God, not only in the sheltered fold of Judaism, but in the broad open of heathendom. 4. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew: This Dialogue indicates the attitude of some cultured Jews of that day to Christianity, and the mode in which their objections to it were met. Trypho argued that Jesus did not fulfill Old Testament prophecy which represented the Messiah as establishing a glorious and everlasting kingdom; whereas Jesus was a humble peasant who died an ignominious death; Justin pleads Isaiah 53. Trypho charges Christianity with treason to theocracy through exalting Jesus to Godhead, thus trenching on the Divine unity, and also through repudiating the perpetual obligation of the Law. Justin, in reply, quotes Genesis, “Let us make man,” and also Psalms 45,72, 110, with Isaiah 7 about Emmanuel. The Mosaic Law was intended to be temporary, and was now superseded by the Law of Christ; moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem rendered complete fulfillment of the Jewish Law impracticable. The disputants part on friendly terms, “I have been particularly pleased with this conference,” says Trypho. “If we could confer oftener we should be much helped in reading the Scriptures.” “For my part,” replies Justin, “I would have wished to repeat our conference daily; but since I am about to set sail, I bid you give all diligence in this struggle after salvation.” Of other works ascribed to Justin, two (On the Resurrection and Appeal to the Greeks) may or may not be genuine; the others are spurious. 5. Notabilia: (1) Justin’s Quotations:

    Bearing of Justin’s quotations from “memoirs” on the Age of Our Gospels (see GOSPELS). (2) Testimony to Harmony of Apostolic Doctrine.

    Justin is a disciple of Paul, and a strong anti-Judaist; yet he recognizes thoroughly the Twelve as the true source of Christian teaching, “sent by Christ to teach to all the Word of God” (1 Ap., 39,49; Dial., 42, 109). (3) Diffusion of Christianity:

    From personal knowledge as a traveler, Justin testifies to the wide diffusion of Christianity: “No race of men exists among whom prayers are not offered up to the Father through the name of the crucified Jesus (Dial., 117). (4) Authorship of Revelation: “John, one of the apostles, prophesied, by a revelation made to him, that believers would dwell 1,000 years in Jerus” (Dial., 81) — the earliest direct witness to Johannine authorship, by one who had resided at Ephesiansesus. (5) Belief of the Primitive Church in Our Lord’s True Divinity:

    Writing in the name of Christians as a body, he declares, “Both Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him we adore” (1 Ap., 5). He speaks also of some “who held that Jesus was a mere man” as a small and heretical minority (Dial., 48). He writes elsewhere (1 Ap., 13) of the Son as the object of worship “in the second place”; but this statement, made long before the Arian Controversy necessitated precision of language, does not invalidate his other testimonies. (6) The Holy Spirit:

    As to the Holy Spirit, Justin refers to baptism as administered in “the name of Father, Son, and Spirit” (1 Ap., 61), implying the Divinity of the Third Person; although elsewhere he appears to subordinate Him to the Son, as the Son to the Father. He is to be “worshipped in the third order” (1 Ap., 13). (7) Millenarianism: “I and others are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead and 1,000 years in Jerusalem which will be built, adorned and enlarged” (Dial., 80). He admits, however, that many pure and pious Christians think otherwise. (8) Future punishment:

    On this subject Justin speaks with two voices. In 1 Ap., 8, he writes of “condemned souls suffering eternal punishment, not for a millennial period only.” But in Dial., 5, he introduces an old man who was the immediate means of his conversion as saying that “the wicked shall be punished as long as God shall will them to exist.” (9) Angel-worship:

    In 1 Ap., 6, Justin, when refuting the charge of atheism, writes: “We reverence and worship the Father, and the Son, and the host of other good messengers (or angels), and the Prophetic Spirit.” The context, however, shows that this cult does not necessarily amount to what is usually meant by worship, but simply to veneration and homage. The Greek words here, sebomai and proskuneo, are often used in this lower sense; and the train of thought seems to be this: “You call us atheists; the charge is not true, for we not only believe in one God and Father of all, but in one who is preeminently the Son of God, who was sent by God. We believe further in other heavenly messengers from God, a host of angelic spirits; yea we believe in one who is preeminently God’s Spirit, by whom prophets were inspired. All these are the object in different degrees of our veneration and homage.” Undoubtedly, however, the statement is at best unguarded and misleading. (10) Doctrine of the Sacraments:

    Justin uses “regenerate” as the synonym of “baptized” (1 Ap., 61), but he identifies the two, not as essentially inseparable, but as uniformly associated. As regards the Lord’s Supper, while emphasizing the ideas of commemoration, communion, and thanksgiving, he in one place speaks of the bread and wine being the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Jesus, “from which, by a transmutation, our flesh and blood are nourished” (1 Ap., 66).

    These words tend to transubstantiation; but, in the absence of any controversy at the time, may be no more than a strongly figurative representation of a spiritual participation.

    11. EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 1. Date and Authorship: This short apologetic work is mentioned by no ancient writer, and was unknown until its discovery in 1592 by Henry Stephens in a manuscript which perished in the Strassburg fire of 1870. The manuscript appears to ascribe it to the author of another work (To the Greeks); and this, again, is attributed with some probability on the authority of a Syriac document (600-700 AD) to one Ambrosius, “chief among the Greeks” otherwise unknown (see Birks in DCB, “Ep. to D.”). If genuinely ancient, the epistle probably belongs to the Sub-apostolic Age, for it refers to Christianity as “having only now entered the world, not long ago”; and in chapter xi (written, however, by a different hand or at a different time) the author calls himself a “disciple of the apostles.” Diognetus was a very common Greek name, so that his identification with the tutor of Marcus Aurelius (130-40 AD) is a mere conjecture. Donaldson (Chr. Lit., II, 142) inclines to the belief that the work was composed by one of the many Greeks who came westward in the 14th century and that the author intended merely to write a “good declamation in the old style.” The smart but superficial way in which heathenism and Judaism are dealt with is more befitting a medieval rhetorical exercise than the serious treatment, by a cultured writer, of prevalent religions. 2. Contents: The author, after welcoming the inquiry of Diognetus about Christianity, pours contempt on the pagan worship of gods of wood, stone and metal, without any apparent realization that for cultured heathens of that time such images were not objects, but only symbolic media of worship; and he ridicules Mosaic observances without any recognition of their significance as a Divine educative discipline. But when he proceeds (chapters vii through xii) to describe Christianity, the work merits Hefele’s designation, praestantissima Epistola. Into a world, yea, into human hearts, which had become degenerate and wicked, “God sent no mere servant or angel, but His own Son,” and Him, not as a condemning Judge, or fear-inspiring Tyrant, but as a gracious Saviour. To the inquiry, “If Christianity is so precious, why was Christ sent so late?” the author replies: “In order first to bring home to mankind their unworthiness to attain eternal life through their own works” and their incapacity for salvation apart from Him “who is able to save even what it was impossible (formerly) to save.” But faith in the Son of God now revealed, would lead to “knowledge of the Father”; knowledge of God to “love of Him who hath first so loved us”; and love of God to “imitation of Him and of His lovingkindness.” And wherein consists such imitation? Not in “seeking lordship over those weaker,” or in “showing violence toward those below us”; but in “taking on oneself the burden of one’s neighbor,” even as “God took on Himself the burden of our iniquities, and gave His own Son as a ransom for us.” “He who in whatsoever he may be superior is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, by distributing to the needy what he has received from God, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God.”

    LITERATURE.

    Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, larger and smaller editions; in Clark’s “Ante- Nicene Libary,” Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature (American edition, The Ants- Nicene Fathers); Eusebius, HE, particularly McGiffert’s translation with excellent notes; James Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity; Kruger, History of Early Christian Literature, translation by Gillett; Harnack, Geschichte der altchr.

    Litt.; Zahn, Geschichte des New Testament Kanons; Forschungen zur Gesch. des New Testament Kanons und der altchr. Lift.; Robinson, Texts and Studies, Aristides; Schaff, Oldest Christian Manual: H.D.M. Spence, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Bartlet, article on “Didache” in HDB; Cunningham, Epistle of Barnabas; articles in DCB (Smith and Wace). Henry Cowan LITTER <lit’-er > ( bx; [tsabh]): (1) Used upon backs of camels for easy riding, made of a wooden frame with light mattress and pillows, also a covering above, supported by upright pieces, sometimes having also side awnings for protection from the sun’s rays. Mule litters were made with pairs of shafts projecting before and behind, between which the animals were yoked ( Isaiah 66:20). Litter-wagons ( bx; tlog”[, [’eghloth tsabh]) are mentioned in Numbers 7:3; the horse litter ([fo>rion , phorion ]) is mentioned in 2 Macc 9:8; compare 3:27. (2) hF;mi [miTTah], “palanquin” or “litter of Solomon” ( Song of Solomon 3:7; compare 3:9). See PALANQUIN.

    LITTLE GENESIS See BOOK OF JUBILEES.

    LIVELY; LIVING <liv’-li > , <liv’-ing > ( yj” [chay]; [za>w , zao ]): “Living,” sometimes “lively,” is the translation of [chay] (often also translated “life”); it denotes all beings possessed of life ( Genesis 1:21,24; 2:7,19; Exodus 21:35, “live”); we have frequently the phrase, “the land of the living” (as contrasted with she’ol, the abode of the dead), e.g. Job 28:13; Psalm 27:13; 52:5; Isaiah 38:11; the characteristically Biblical expression, “the living God,” also frequently occurs (Josh 3:10; Samuel 17:26,36; 2 Kings 19:4; Psalm 84:2); also frequently in the New Testament as the translation of [zao ] ( Matthew 16:16; 26:63; John 6:57, “the living Father”; Acts 14:15); “lively” in Exodus 1:19 ([chayeh ]) and Psalm 38:19 denotes fullness of life, vigor; [chayyah ], “a living being,” is mostly confined to Ezekiel, translated “living creatures” (1:5,13,14, etc.), also Genesis 1:28; 8:17, “living thing”; “living” is sometimes applied figuratively to that which is not actually alive; thus we have the phrase “living waters” ( Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13; Zechariah 14:8, “Living waters shall go out from Jerusalem”) in contrast with stagnant waters — waters that can give life; so John 4:10,11 (bubbling up from the spring at bottom of the well); 7:38; Revelation 7:17 the King James Version; “living bread” ( John 6:51); a new and living way ( Hebrews 10:20), perhaps equivalent to “everliving” in Christ; “living stones” ( 1 Peter 2:4,5) are those made alive in Christ; a “living hope” (a hope full of life), 1 Peter 1:3; “living” ([zao ])is sometimes also “manner of life” ( Luke 15:13; Colossians 2:20); [diago ], “to lead or go through,” is also so translated (Tit 3:3); [bios ] is “means of life,” translated “living” ( Mark 12:44; Luke 8:43); “living,” in this sense, occurs in Apocrypha as the translation of [zoe ], “Defraud not the poor of his living” (Ecclesiasticus 4:1).

    The Revised Version (British and American) has “living” for “alive” ( Leviticus 14:4), for “the lively” ( Acts 7:38), for “quick” ( Hebrews 4:12), for “lively” ( 1 Peter 1:3; 2:5), for “conversation” ( 1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 3:11); “living creatures” for “beasts” ( Revelation 4:6; 5:6, etc.); “every living thing” for “all the substance” (Dt 11:6); “living things” for “beasts” ( Leviticus 11:2,47 twice); for “living” ( Psalm 58:9), “the green” (thorns under the pots), margin “Wrath shall take them away while living as with a whirlwind”; for “the book of the living” ( Psalm 69:28), “the book of life”; for “(I am) he that liveth” ( Revelation 1:18), “the Living one”; for “living fountains of waters” ( Revelation 7:17), “fountains of waters of life”; for “trade” ( Revelation 18:17), “gain their living,” margin “work the sea”; for “Son of the living God” ( John 6:69), “the Holy One of God” (emended text). W. L. Walker LIVER <liv’-er > ( dbeK; [qabhedh], derived from a root meaning “to be heavy,” being the heaviest of the viscera; Septuagint [h=par , hepar ]): The word is usually joined with the Hebrew [yothereth] (see CAUL) ( Exodus 29:13,22; Leviticus 9:10,19) as a special portion set aside for the burnt offering.

    This represents the large lobe or flap of the liver, [lobolobos tou hepatos ] (thus, Septuagint and Josephus, Ant, III, ix, 2, (228)).

    Others, however, interpret it as the membrane which covers the upper part of the liver, sometimes called the “lesser omenturn.” Thus, the Vulgate: reticulurn iecoris. It extends from the fissures of the liver to the curve of the stomach. Still others consider it to be the “fatty mass at the opening of the liver, which reaches to the kidneys and becomes visible upon the removal of the lesser omentum or membrane” (Driver and White, Leviticus, 65).

    As in the scholastic psychology of the Middle Ages, the liver played an important part in the science of Semitic peoples. It was the seat of feeling, and thus became synonymous with temper, disposition, character (compare Assyrian kabittu, “liver”, “temper,” “character,” and Arabic kabid, vulgar kibdi). Thus, Jeremiah expresses his profound grief with the words: “My liver is poured upon the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people” ( Lamentations 2:11). The liver is also considered one of the most important and vital parts of the body (compare Virgil, cerebrum, iecur domicilia vitae). A hurt in it is equivalent to death. So we find the fate of a man enticed by the flattering of a loose woman compared to that of the ox that “goeth to the slaughter .... till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life” ( Proverbs 7:22,23; the rest of the verse is obscure as to its meaning).

    In a few passages of the Old Testament, [kabhedh] (“liver”) and [kabhodh] (“glory”) have been confounded, and we are in uncertainty as to the right translation Several authors, to give but one example, would read kabhedh in Psalm 16:9, for reasons of Hebrew poetical parallelism: “Therefore my heart is glad and my liver (English Versions of the Bible, “glory”) rejoiceth.” While this is quite possible, it is not easy to decide, as according to Jewish interpretation “my glory” is synonymous with “my soul,” which would present as proper a parallelism.

    The liver has always played an important role in heathen divination, of which we have many examples in old and modern times among the Greeks, Etrurians, Romans and now among African tribes. The prophet Ezekiel gives us a Biblical instance. The king of Babylon, who had been seeking to find out whether he should attack Jerusalem, inquired by shaking “arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver” (Ezek 21:21 (Hebrew 21:26); compare Tobit 6:4 ff; 8:2). See ASTROLOGY, 3; DIVINATION.

    H. L. E. Luering LIVING CREATURE <liv’-ing kre’-tur > : (1) ( hY:j” vp,n< [nephesh chayyah], or hY:j”h” vp,n< [nephesh hachayyah] ([nephesh], “breath” or “living things”; [chayyah], “living”; compare Arabic nefs, “breath,” chaiy, “living”)): In the account of the creation this term is used of aquatic animals ( Genesis 1:21), of mammals ( Genesis 1:24) and of any animals whatsoever ( Genesis 2:19). (2) ([chayyoth], plural of twOYj” [chayyah]): The name of the “living creatures” of Ezek 1:5-25, which had wings and the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; compare Ezek 10:1-22. (3) (zw~|on , zoon, “living thing,” “animal”): The four “living creatures” (the King James Version “beasts”) of Revelation 4:6, etc., the first like a lion, the second like a calf, the third having a face as of a man, and the fourth like an eagle, having each six wings. See CREATURE, LIVING.

    Alfred Ely Day LIZARD <liz’-ard > : The list of unclean “creeping things” in Leviticus 11:29,30 contains eight names, as follows:

    1. NAMES: (1) dl,jo [choledh], English Versions of the Bible “weasel” (which see); (2) rB;k][“ [`akhbar], English Versions of the Bible “mouse” (which see); (3) bx; [tsabh], the King James Version “tortoise,” the Revised Version (British and American) “great lizard” (which see); (4) hq;n:a\ [’anaqah], the King James Version “ferret,” the Revised Version (British and American) “gecko” (which see); (5) j”Ko [koach], the King James Version “chameleon,” the Revised Version (British and American) “land-crocodile” (which see); (6) ha;f;l] [leTa’ah], English Versions of the Bible “lizard”; compare Arabic laTa’, “to cling to the ground”; (7) fm,jo [chormeT], the King James Version “snail,” the Revised Version (British and American) “sand-lizard” (which see); (8) tm,v,n]Ti [tinshemeth], the King James Version “mole,” the Revised Version (British and American) “chameleon” (which see). In Proverbs 30:28, we find (9) tymim;c] [semamith], the King James Version “spider,” the Revised Version (British and American) “lizard.”

    Since (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) occur as names of animals only in this passage, and as the philological evidence available is in most cases not very convincing, their determination is difficult and uncertain. the Revised Version margin to “gecko” ( Leviticus 11:30) has “Words of uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four kinds of lizards.”

    2. LIZARDS OF PALESTINE:

    Among the many lizards of Palestine, the monitor and thorny-tailed lizard are remarkable for their size, and the chameleon for its striking appearance and habits. On etymological grounds, [koach], the King James Version “chameleon,” the Revised Version (British and American) “landcrocodile,” Septuagint [chamaileon ], has been taken to be the monitor; tsabh, the King James Version “tortoise,” the Revised Version (British and American) “great lizard,” Septuagint [krokodeilos chersaios ], to be the thorny-tailed lizard; and [tinshemeth], the King James Version “mole,” the Revised Version (British and American) “chameleon,” Septuagint [aspalax ], to be the chameleon. On the same grounds, [choledh], English Versions of the Bible “weasel,” Septuagint [gale ], might be the mole-rat. See CHAMELEON; TORTOISE; WEASEL.

    The commonest lizard of Palestine is the rough-tailed agama, Agama stellio, Arabic chirdaun or chirdaun, which is everywhere in evidence, running about on the ground, rocks or walls, frequently lying still basking in the sun, or bobbing its head up and down in the peculiar manner that it has.

    The gecko, Ptyodactylus lobatus, is common in houses. By means of adhesive disks on the under sides of its toes, it clings with ease to smooth walls which other lizards cannot scale. Although perfectly harmless, it is believed to be poisonous, and is much feared. It is called abu-brais, “father of leprosy,” either on account of its supposed poisonous qualities or because it has a semi-transparent and sickly appearance, being of a whitishyellow color with darker spots. It utters a little cry, which may be the reason why the Revised Version (British and American) has “gecko” for [’anaqah]; the King James Version has “ferret.”

    Various species of the genus Lacerta and its allies, the true lizards, may always be found searching for insects on trees and walls. They are scaly, like all lizards, but are relatively smooth and are prettily colored, and are the most attractive members of the group which are found in the country.

    They are called by the Arabs saqqaiyeh or shammuseh.

    The skinks include Scincus officinalis, and allied species. Arabic sa qanqur = Greek [ski>gkov , skigkos ] (skinkos ). They are smooth, light-colored lizards, and are found in sandy places. They cannot climb, but they run and burrow in the sand with remarkable rapidity. The dried body of Scincus officinalis is an important feature of the primitive oriental materia medica, and may be found in the shops (officinae) of the old-style apothecaries.

    3. IDENTIFICATIONS:

    Semamith ( Proverbs 30:28, the King James Version “spider,” the Revised Version (British and American) “lizard”) is one of the “four things which are little .... but .... exceeding wise.” the Revised Version (British and American) reads: “The lizard taketh hold with her hands, Yet is she in kings’ palaces.” The Septuagint (Septuagint) has [kalabw>thv , kalabotes ], which according to Liddell and Scott = [ajskalabw>thv , askalabotes ], “a spotted lizard.” There is no other lizard which fits this passage as does the gecko.

    If Gesenius is correct in deriving [semamith] from the root [samam] (compare Arabic samma, “to poison”), we have another reason for making this identification, in which case we must rule out the rendering of the Revised Version margin, “Thou canst seize with thy hands.”

    For none of the names in Leviticus 11:29,30 have we as many data for identification as for semamith. For [leTa’ah], English Versions of the Bible “lizard,” the Septuagint has [calabw>thv , chalabotes ], which is another variant of [askalabotes ]. If we follow the Septuagint, therefore, we should render [leTa’ah ] “gecko.” Tristram quotes Bochart as drawing an argument that [leTa’ah ] is “gecko” from the Arabic laTa’, “to cling to the ground.” This view is at least in accordance with Septuagint. It is of course untenable if [’anaqah] is “gecko,” but (see FERRET) the writer thinks it quite possible that [’anaqah] may mean the shrew or field-mouse, which is also in agreement with Septuagint. It will not do to follow Septuagint in all cases, but it is certainly safe to do so in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary.

    There seems to be little evidence available for deciding the identity of [chomeT], the King James Version “snail,” the Revised Version (British and American) “sand-lizard.” Septuagint has [sau~ra , saura ], and Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) lacerta, both words for lizard.

    Gesenius refers the word to an obsolete [chamaT], “to bow down,” “to lie upon the ground.” Tristram, NHB, cites Bochart as referring to a word meaning “sand.” Hence, perhaps the Revised Version (British and American) “sand-lizard.” If by this is meant the skink, there is no inherent improbability in the identification.

    We have thus more or less tentatively assigned various words of the list to the monitor, the thorny-tailed lizard, the chameleon, the gecko and the skink, but we have done nothing with the rough-tailed agama and the Lacertae, or true lizards, which are the commonest lizards of Palestine, and this fact must be reckoned against the correctness of the assignment. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American) has this to commend it, that it gives two small mammals followed by six lizards, and is therefore to that extent systematic. It is, however, neither guided in all cases by etymological considerations, nor does it follow Septuagint.

    As none of the etymological arguments is very cogent, the writer can see no harm in consistently following Septuagint, understanding for (1) [gale ], weasel or pole-cat; for (2) [mus ], mouse; for (3) [krokodeilos chersaios ], some large lizard, either the monitor or the thorny-tailed lizard; for (4) [mugale ], shrew or field-mouse; for (5) [chamaileon ], chameleon; for (6) [chalabotes ], gecko; for (7) [saura ], a Lacerta or true lizard; for (8) [aspalax ], mole-rat.

    On the other hand, if etymological considerations are to be taken into account and Septuagint abandoned when it conflicts with them we might have (1) [holedh], mole-rat; (2) [`akhbar], mouse; (3) [tsabh], thorny-tailed lizard; (4) [’anaqah], field-mouse; (5) [koach], monitor; (6) [leTa’ah], gecko; (7) [chomeT], skink; (8) [tinshemeth], chameleon.

    Neither of these lists has the systematic arrangement of that of the Revised Version (British and American), but we must remember that the Biblical writers were not zoologists, as is seen in the inclusion of the bat among birds ( Leviticus 11:19; Dt 14:18), and of the hare and coney among ruminants ( Leviticus 11:5,6; Dt 14:7). Alfred Ely Day LOAF <lof > . See BREAD.

    LO-AMMI <lo-am’-i > ( yMi[Aalo [lo’-`ammi], “not my people”): The 2nd son and 3rd child of Gomer bath-Diblaim, wife of the prophet Hosea (Hos 1:9). An earlier child, a daughter, had been named Lo-ruhamah ( hm;j;rUAalo [lo’- ruchamah], “uncompassionated”). The names, like those given by Isaiah to his children, are symbolic, and set forth Hosea’s conviction that Israel has, through sin, forfeited Yahweh’s compassion, and can no longer claim His protection. Of the bearers of these names nothing further is known; but their symbolism is alluded to in Hos 2:1,23. This latter passage is quoted by Paul ( Romans 9:25 f). See HOSEA; JEZREEL.

    John A. Lees LOCKS <loks > (1) txiyxi [tsitsith ], (2) [r’P, [pera’ ]; (3) hp;l;j]m” [machlaphah], (4) hX;wUq] [qewutstsah ]):

    See in general the article on HAIR. (1) The first word, tsitsith, means really a tassel, such as is worn by the Jews on the four corners of the prayer-shawl or [Tallith ] and on the [’arba` kanephoth ] (Dt 22:12), translated in the New Testament by [kra>spedon , kraspedon ] ( Matthew 9:20; 14:36; 23:5; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:44). Once it is applied to a forelock of hair. The prophet Ezekiel, describing his sensations which accompanied his vision of Jerusalem, says: “He put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerus” (Ezek 8:3). (2) The word [pera`] signifies the uncut and disheveled locks of the Nazirite ( Numbers 6:5) or of the priests, the sons of Zadok (Ezek 44:20). (3) The Book of Judges employs the word machlaphah when speaking of the “seven locks” of Samson ( Judges 16:13,19), which really represent the plaited (etymologically, “interwoven”) strands of hair still worn in our days by youthful Bedouin warriors. (4) [Qewutstsah] ( Song of Solomon 5:2,11) means the luxuriant hair of the Hebrew youth, who was careful of his exterior. It is called bushy (the Revised Version margin “curling”) and black as a raven. the King James Version translations also the word [tsammah] with “locks” ( Song of Solomon 4:1; 6:7; Isaiah 47:2), but the Revised Version (British and American) has corrected this into “veil,” leaving the word “locks” in Song of Solomon 4:1 margin. H. L. E. Luering LOCUST <lo’-kust > : The translation of a large number of Hebrew and Greek words:

    1. NAMES: (1) hB,r”a” [’arbeh] from the root hb;r: [rabhah], “to increase” (compare Arabic raba’, “to increase”). (2) µ[;l]s; [sal`am], from obsolete [?] µ[“l]s” [cal`am], “to swallow down,” “to consume.” (3) lGr”j” [chargol] (compare Arabic charjal, “to run to the right or left,” charjalat, “a company of horses” or “a swarm of locusts,” charjawan, a kind of locust). (4) bg:j; [chaghabh] (compare Arabic chajab, “to hide,” “to cover”). (5) µz;G: [gazam] (compare Arabic jazum, “ to cut off”) (6) ql,y< [yeleq], from the root qq”l; [laqaq] “to lick” (compare Arabic laqlaq, “to dart out the tongue” (used of a serpent)). (7) lysij; [chacil], from the root ls”j; [chacal], “to devour” (compare Arabic chaucal, “crop” (of a bird)). (8) bwOG [gobh], from the obsolete root hb;G: [gabhah] (compare Arabic jabi, “locust,” from the root jaba’, “to come out of a hole”). (9) bGe [gebh], from same root. (10) lx”l;x] [tselatsal] from [?] ll”x; [tsalal] (onomatopoetic), “to tinkle,” “to ring” (compare Arabic call, “to give a ringing sound” (used of a horse’s bit); compare also Arabic Tann, used of the sound of a drum or piece of metal, also of the humming of flies). (11) [ajkri>v , akris ] (genitive [ajkri>dov , akridos ]; diminutive [ajkri>dion , akridion ], whence Acridium, a genus of locusts).

    2. IDENTIFICATIONS: (1), (2), (3) and (4) constitute the list of clean insects in Leviticus 11:21 f, characterized as “winged creeping things that go upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth.” This manifestly refers to jumping insects of the order Orthoptera, such as locusts, grasshoppers and crickets, and is in contrast to the unclean “winged creeping things that go upon all fours,” which may be taken to denote running Orthoptera, such as cockroaches, mole-crickets and earwigs, as well as insects of other orders. ‘Arbeh (1) is uniformly translated “locust” in the Revised Version (British and American). the King James Version has usually “locust,” but “grasshopper” in Judges 6:5; 7:12; Job 39:20; Jeremiah 46:23.

    Septuagint has usually [ajkri>v , akris ], “locust”; but has [brou~cov , brouchos ], “wingless locust,” in Leviticus 11:22; 1 Kings 8:37 ([akris ] in the parallel passage, 2 Chronicles 6:28); Nahum 3:15; and [ajtte>lebov , attelebos ], “wingless locust,” in Nahum 3:17. [’Arbeh] occurs ( Exodus 10:4-19) in the account of the plague of locusts; in the phrase “as locusts for multitude” ( Judges 6:5; 7:12); “more than the locusts .... innumerable” ( Jeremiah 46:23); “The locusts have no king, Yet go they forth all of them by bands” ( Proverbs 30:27). [’Arbeh] is referred to as a plague in Dt 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; Chronicles 6:28; Psalm 78:46; in Joel and in Nahum. These references, together with the fact that it is the most used word, occurring 24 times, warrant us in assuming it to be one of the swarming species, i.e. Pachtylus migratorius or Schistocerca peregrina, which from time to time devastate large regions in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean. [Cal`am] (2), English Versions of the Bible “bald locust,” occurs only in Leviticus 11:22. According to Tristram, NBH, the name “bald locust” was given because it is said in the Talmud to have a smooth head. It has been thought to be one of the genus Tryxalis (T. unguiculata or T. nasuta), in which the head is greatly elongated. [Chargol] (3), the King James Version “beetle,” the Revised Version (British and American) “cricket,” being one of the leaping insects, cannot be a beetle. It might be a cricket, but comparison with the Arabic (see supra) favors a locust of some sort. The word occurs only in Leviticus 11:22. See BEETLE. [Haghabh] (4) is one of the clean leaping insects of Leviticus 11:22 (English Versions of the Bible “grasshopper”). The word occurs in four other places, nowhere coupled with the name of another insect. In the report of the spies ( Numbers 13:33), we have the expression, “We were in our own sight as grasshoppers”; in Eccl 12:5, “The grasshopper shall be a burden”; in Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.” These three passages distinctly favor the rendering “grasshopper” of the English Versions of the Bible. In the remaining passage ( 2 Chronicles 7:13), “.... if I command the locust (English Versions) to devour the land,” the migratory locust seems to be referred to. Doubtless this as well as other words was loosely used. In English there is no sharp distinction between the words “grasshopper” and “locust.”

    The migratory locusts belong to the family Acridiidae, distinguished by short, thick antennae, and by having the organs of hearing at the base of the abdomen. The insects of the family Locustidae are commonly called “grasshoppers,” but the same name is applied to those Acridiidae which are not found in swarms. The Locustidae have long, thin antennae, organs of hearing on the tibiae of the front legs, and the females have long ovipositors. It may be noted that the insect known in America as the seventeen-year locust, which occasionally does extensive damage to trees by laying its eggs in the twigs, is a totally different insect, being a Cicada of the order Rhynchota. Species of Cicada are found in Palestine, but are not considered harmful.

    The Book of Joel is largely occupied with the description of a plague of locusts. Commentators differ as to whether it should be interpreted literally or allegorically (see JOEL). Four names [’arbeh] (1), [gazam] (5), [yeleq] (6) and [chacil] (7), are found in Joel 1:4 and again in 2:25.

    For the etymology of these names, see 1 above. Gazam (Am 4:9; Joel 1:4; 2:25) is in the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly translated “palmer-worm” Septuagint [ka>mph , kampe ], “caterpillar”). [Chacil] in the Revised Version (British and American) ( 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Psalm 78:46; Isaiah 23:4; Joel 1:4; 2:25) is uniformly translated “caterpillar.” The Septuagint has indifferently [brouchos ], “wingless locust,” and [ejrusi>bh , erusibe ], “rust” (of wheat). [Yeleq] ( <19A534> Psalm 105:34; Jeremiah 51:14,27; Joel 1:4b; 2:25; Nahum 3:15b,16) is everywhere “canker-worm” in the Revised Version (British and American), except in <19A534> Psalm 105:34, where the American Standard Revised Version has “grasshopper.” the King James Version has “caterpillar” in Psalms and Jeremiah and “canker-worm” in Joel and Nahum. Septuagint has indifferently [akris ] and [brouchos ]. “Palmerworm” and “canker-worm” are both Old English terms for caterpillars, which are strictly the larvae of lepidopterous insects, i.e. butterflies and moths.

    While these four words occur in Joel 1:4 and 2:25, a consideration of the book as a whole does not show that the ravages of four different insect pests are referred to, but rather a single one, and that the locust. These words may therefore be regarded as different names of the locust, referring to different stages of development of the insect. It is true that the words do not occur in quite the same order in 14 and in 2:25, but while the former verse indicates a definite succession, the latter does not. If, therefore, all four words refer to the locust, “palmer-worm,” “cankerworm,” “caterpillar” and the Septuagint erusibe, “rust,” are obviously inappropriate. [Gobh] (8) is found in the difficult passage (Am 7:1), “.... He formed locusts (the King James Version “grasshoppers,” the King James Version margin “green worms,” Septuagint akris) in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth”; and ( Nahum 3:17) in “.... thy marshals (are) as the swarms of grasshoppers (Hebrew [gobh gobhay]; the King James Version “great grasshoppers”), which encamp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.” The related [gebh] (9) occurs but once, in Isaiah 33:4, also a disputed passage, “And your spoil shall be gathered as the caterpillar ([chacil]) gathereth: as locusts ([gebhim]) leap shall men leap upon it.” It is impossible to determine what species is meant, but some kind of locust or grasshopper fits any of these passages.

    In Dt 28:42, “All thy trees and the fruit of thy ground shall the locust (English Versions of the Bible) possess,” we have (10) [tselatsal], Septuagint [erusibe]). The same word is translated in 2 Samuel 6:5 and <19F005> Psalm 150:5 bis “cymbals,” in Job 41:7 “fish-spears,” and in Isaiah 18:1 “rustling.” As stated in 1, above, it is an onomatopoetic word, and in Dt 28:42 may well refer to the noise of the wings of a flight of locusts.

    In the New Testament we have (11) [akris], “locust,” the food of John the Baptist ( Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6); the same word is used figuratively in Revelation 9:3,1; and also in the Apocrypha (Judith 2:20; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:9; and see 2 Esdras 4:24).

    3. HABITS:

    The swarms of locusts are composed of countless individuals. The statements sometimes made that they darken the sky must not be taken too literally. They do not produce darkness, but their effect may be like that of a thick cloud. Their movements are largely determined by the wind, and while fields that are in their path may be laid waste, others at one side may not be affected. It is possible by vigorous waving to keep a given tract clear of them, but usually enough men cannot be found to protect the fields from their ravages.

    Large birds have been known to pass through a flight of locusts with open mouths, filling their crops with the insects. Tristram, NHB, relates how he saw the fishes in the Jordan enjoying a similar feast, as the locusts fell into the stream. The female locust, by means of the ovipositor at the end of her abdomen, digs a hole in the ground, and deposits in it a mass of eggs, which are cemented together with a glandular secretion. An effective way of dealing with the locusts is to gather and destroy these egg-masses, and it is customary for the local governments to offer a substantial reward for a measure of eggs. The young before they can fly are frequently swept into pits or ditches dug for the purpose and are burned.

    The young are of the same general shape as the adult insects, differing in being small, black and wingless. The three distinct stages in the metamorphosis of butterflies and others of the higher insects are not to be distinguished in locusts. They molt about six times, emerging from each molt larger than before. At first there are no wings. After several molts, small and useless wings are found, but it is only after the last molt that the insects are able to fly. In the early molts the tiny black nymphs are found in patches on the ground, hopping out of the way when disturbed. Later they run, until they are able to fly.

    In all stages they are destructive to vegetation. Some remarkable pictures of their ravages are found in Joel 1:6,7, “For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number; his teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the jaw-teeth of a lioness. He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my figtree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white” (see also 2:2-9,20).

    4. FIGURATIVE:

    Locusts are instruments of the wrath of God ( Exodus 10:4-19; Dt 28:38,42; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Psalm 78:46; 105:34; Nahum 3:15-17; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:9; Revelation 9:3); they typify an invading army ( Jeremiah 51:14,27); they are compared with horses ( Joel 2:4; Revelation 9:7); in Job 39:20, Yahweh says of the horse: “Hast thou made him to leap as a locust?” the King James Version “Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper?” Locusts are among the “four things which are little upon the earth, but .... are exceeding wise” ( Proverbs 30:27). Like the stars and sands of the sea, locusts are a type of that which cannot be numbered ( Judges 6:5; 7:12; Jeremiah 46:23; Judith 2:20). Grasshoppers are a symbol of insignificance ( Numbers 13:33; Eccl 12:5; Isaiah 40:22; 2 Esdras 4:24).

    5. LOCUSTS AS FOOD:

    The Arabs prepare for food the thorax of the locust, which contains the great wing muscles. They pull off the head, which as it comes away brings with it a mass of the viscera, and they remove the abdomen (or “tail”), the legs and the wings. The thoraxes, if not at once eaten, are dried and put away as a store of food for a lean season. The idea of feeding upon locusts when prepared in this way should not be so repellent as the thought of eating the whole insect. In the light of this it is not incredible that the food of John the Baptist should have been “locusts and wild honey” ( Matthew 3:4). See INSECTS.

    Alfred Ely Day LOD; LYDDA ( dwOl [lodh]; [ Lu>dda , Ludda]):

    1. SCRIPTURAL NOTICES:

    Ono and Lod and the towns thereof are said to have been built by Shemed, a Benjamite ( 1 Chronicles 8:12). The children of Lod, Hadid and One, to the number of 725, returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37 (721)). The town lay in the Shephelah, perhaps in [ge ha-charashim], “the valley of craftsmen” ( Nehemiah 11:35). In the New Testament it appears as Lydda. Here the apostle Peter visited the saints and healed the palsied Arenas ( Acts 9:32). Hence he was summoned by messengers from Joppa on the death of Dorcas.

    2. HISTORY FROM MACCABEAN TIMES:

    The three governments of Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim were added to Judea from the country of Samaria by King Demetrius II (1 Macc 11:34). Lydda presided over one of the toparchies under Jerusalem, into which Judea was divided (BJ, III, iii, 5). After the death of Julius Caesar the inhabitants of Lydda and certain other towns, having failed to pay the contributions Cassius demanded, were by him sold into slavery. They were freed by Antony (Ant., XIV, xi, 2; xii, 2). Lydda suffered severely under Cestius Gallus (BJ, II, xix, 1). Along with Jamnia it surrendered to Vespasian (BJ, IV, viii, 1). After the fall of Jerusalem it was noted as a seat of rabbinical learning. The classical name of the city was Diospolis. In the 4th century it was connected with the trade in purple. It became the seat of a bishopric, and the bishop of Lydda was present at the Council of Nicea.

    At Lydda, in 415 AD, took place the trial of Pelagius for heresy.

    Under the Moslems it became capital of the province of Filastin but later it was superseded by er-Ramleh, founded by Khalif Suleiman, whither its inhabitants were removed (Ya’kubi, circa 891 AD). Mukaddasi (circa 985) says that in Lydda “there is a great mosque in which are wont to assemble large numbers of people from the capital (er-Ramleh) and from the villages around. In Lydda, too, is that wonderful church (of George) at the gate of which Christ will slay the antichrist” (quoted by Guy le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 493). It was rebuilt by the Crusaders; but was destroyed by Saladin after the battle of ChaTTin, 1191 AD. It was again restored; but in 1271 it was sacked by the Mengels, and from this blow it has never recovered.

    3. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION:

    The ancient Lod or Lydda is represented by the modern village of Ludd, on the road to Jerusalem, about 11 miles Southeast of Yafa. It is a station on the Jaffa-Jerusalem Railway. It occupies a picturesque hollow in the plain of Sharon, and is surrounded by gardens and orchards, the beauty of which intensifies by contrast the squalor of the village. It was the reputed birthplace of George, and here he is said to have been buried. The one ruin of importance in the place is that of the church which perpetuates his name.

    The town stood on the great caravan road between Babylon and Egypt, near its intersection with that from Joppa to Jerusalem and the East. Its position on these great arteries of commerce meant trade for the inhabitants. “The manufacture and repair of such requisites for the journey as sacks, saddles and strappings would create the skilled labor in cloth, leather, wood and metal that made the neighborhood once the valley of craftsmen” (Mackie, HDB, under the word). Like many other once prosperous cities on these and similar caravan routes, Lydda suffered from diversion of traffic to the sea; and it may be that for none of them is any great revival now possible. W. Ewing LODDEUS <lod-e’-us > ([ Loddeu>v , Loddeus ]; Swete reads [Laadaios ] with [Doldaiosas ] variant in Codex Alexandrinus; the King James Version Daddeus, Saddeus): The captain, who was in the place of the treasury.

    Ezra sent to him for men who “might execute the priests’ office” (1 Esdras 8:46); called “Iddo” in Ezra 8:17.

    LO-DEBAR <lo’-de-bar > , <lo-de’-bar > ( rb;d” wOl [lo dhebhar]): A place in Gilead where dwelt Machir, son of Ammiel, who sheltered Mephibosheth, son of Saul, after that monarch’s death ( 2 Samuel 9:4), until he was sent for by David. This same Machir met David with supplies when he fled to Gilead from Absalom ( 2 Samuel 17:27 f). Possibly it is the same place as Lidebir in Josh 13:26 (Revised Version margin). No certain identification is possible; but Schumacher (Northern ‘Ajlun, 101) found a site with the name Ibdar about 6 1/2 miles East of Umm Qeis, North of the great aqueduct, which may possibly represent the ancient city. Lidebir, at least, seems to be placed on the northern boundary of Gilead. The modern village stands on the southern shoulder of Wady Samar. There is a good spring to the East, a little lower down, while ancient remains are found in the neighborhood. W. Ewing LODGE <loj > ( ˜yli [lin]; [kataskhno>w , kataskenoo ], etc.): To stay or dwell, temporarily, as for the night ( Genesis 32:13,21; Numbers 22:8; Josh 2:1 the King James Version; Josh 4:3; Luke 13:19; Matthew 21:17, aulizomai), or permanently ( Ruth 1:16). In Isaiah 1:8, “a lodge ([melunah]) in a garden of cucumbers,” the meaning is “hut,” “cottage.” “Evil thoughts” are said to “lodge” in the wicked ( Jeremiah 4:14).

    LOFT In 1 Kings 17:23, changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to “chamber.”

    LOFTILY; LOFTINESS; LOFTY <lof’-ti-li > , <lof’-ti-nes > : The first form is only in Psalm 73:8, where it means “haughtily,” as if from on high. The second is found only in Jeremiah 48:29, where the loftiness of Moab also means his haughtiness, his groundless self-conceit.

    Lofty likewise means ‘“haughty,” “lifted up” (compare <19D101> Psalm 131:1; Isaiah 2:11; Proverbs 30:13). In Isaiah 26:5 it refers to a selfsecure and boastful city. In 57:15 it is used in a good sense of God who really is high and supreme. Isaiah uses the word more than all the other sacred writers put together.

    LOG <log > , glo [logh], “deepened,” “hollowed out” ( Leviticus 14:10-24)):

    The smallest liquid or dry measure of the Hebrews, equal to about 1 pint. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

    LOGIA, THE <log’-i-a > , ([ Lo>gia , Logia ]):

    1. THE WORD “LOGIA” AND ITS HISTORY:

    The word [logion ], which is a diminutive of [logos ], was regularly used of Divine utterances. There are examples in the classics, the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus and Philo and in four passages in the New Testament ( Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11) where it is uniformly rendered both in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “oracles.” It is not, therefore, surprising that early Christian writers, who thought of Christ as Divine, applied this term to His sayings also. We find this use, according to the usual interpretation, in the title of the lost work of Papias as preserved by Eusebius, [Logion kuriakon exegesis ], “Exposition of the Lord’s Logia” (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), in that writer’s obscure reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic writing by the apostle Matthew (same place) , and in Polycarp’s Epistle (section symbol 7), “the logia of the Lord.” The modern use of the word is twofold: (a) as the name of the document referred to by Papins which may or may not be the Q of recent inquirers; (b) as the name of recently discovered sayings ascribed to Jesus. For the former compare GOSPELS. The latter is theme of this article.

    2. THE DISCOVERY OF THE LOGIA:

    About 9 1/2 miles from the railway station of Beni Mazar, 121 miles from Cairo, a place now called Behnesa marks the site of an ancient city named by the Greeks Oxyrhynchus, from the name of a sacred fish, the modern binni, which had long been known as a great Christian center in early times and was therefore selected by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt for exploration in behalf of the Egyptian Exploration Fund. They began work on the ruins of the town, January 11, 1897, and on the following day discovered a papyrus leaf inscribed with a number of sayings introduced by the formula legei Iesous, “saith Jesus,” some of which were at once seen to be quite new.

    When excavation was resumed in February, 1903, a second fragment was discovered, which must have belonged to the same or a similar collection, as the formula “saith Jesus” is employed in exactly the same way, and the sayings exhibit the same mixed character. The first of these two fragments was named by the discoverers logia, but the short preface to the second fragment suggests that the word used in the original title may have been logoi, which is found in Acts 20:35 as the title perhaps of a collection of sayings of Jesus used by the apostle Paul. It is convenient, however, to retain logia, at any rate for the present. Other remains of early Christian texts have been found on the same site (compare AGRAPHA) but none of precisely the same character.

    3. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEXTS:

    The first fragment, found and published in 1897, afterward referred to as A, is a leaf from a papyrus book measuring in its present state 5 3/4 X 3/4 inches and having 42 lines on the two pages. As it is broken at the bottom it is impossible, in the absence of another leaf, to ascertain or even conjecture how much has been lost. At the top right-hand corner of one page are the letters iota, alpha, used as numerals, that is 11, and it has been suggested that this, with other characteristics, marks the page as the first of the two. The uncial writing is assigned to the 3rd century, perhaps to the early part of it. The text is fairly complete except at the end of the third [logion ], for the five following lines, and at the bottom. The second fragment, henceforth referred to as B, found in 1903 and published in 1904, has also 42 lines, or rather parts of lines, but on only one page or column, the Christian text being written on the back of a roll the recto of which contained a survey list. The characters of this, too, are uncial, and the date, like that of A, seems to be also the 3rd century, but perhaps a little later. B is unfortunately very defective, the bit of papyrus being broken vertically throughout, so that several letters are lost at the end of each line, and also horizontally for parts of several lines at the bottom.

    4. LOGIA WITH CANONICAL PARALLELS:

    Seven of these sayings, or [logia ], inclusive of the preface of B, have or contain canonical parallels, namely: (1) A1, which coincides with the usual text of Luke 6:42; (2) A5a (according to the editio princeps, 6a), which comes very close to Luke 4:24; (3) A6 (or 7), a variant of Matthew 5:14; (4) the saying contained in the preface of B which resembles John 8:52; (5) B2, ll. 7 f, “The kingdom of heaven is within you,” which reminds us of Luke 17:21; (6) B3, ll. 4 f, “Many that are first shall be last; and the last first,” which corresponds to Mark 10:31; compare Matthew 19:30; Luke 13:30; (7) B4, ll. 2-5, “That which is hidden from thee shall be revealed to thee: for there is nothing hidden that shall not be made manifest,” which is like Mark 4:22 (compare Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2). These parallels or partial parallels — for some of them exhibit interesting variations — are, with one exception, of synoptic character.

    5. NEW SAYINGS:

    The other seven or eight [logia ], although not without possible echoes of the canonical Gospels in thought and diction, are all non-canonical and with one exception new.

    Three of them, namely B2 and 3 (apart from the canonical sayings given above) and 5, may be set aside as too uncertain to be of any value. What is preserved of the first (“Who are they that draw you (MS, us) to the kingdom?” etc.) is indeed very tempting, but the restoration of the lost matter is too precarious for any suggestion to be more than an ingenious conjecture. This is seen by comparing the restoration of this logion by the discoverers, Dr. Swete and Dr. C. Taylor, with that proposed by Delssmann (Licht vom Osten1, 329). While the English scholars take helko in the sense of “draw,” the German takes it in the sense which it has in the New Testament, “drag,” with the result of utter divergence as to the meaning and even the subject of the logion. The logia which remain are undeniably of great interest, although the significance of at least one is exceedingly obscure. The number of the sayings is not certain. Dr. Taylor has shown that in A2 f “and” may couple two distinct utterances brought together by the compiler. If this suggestion is adopted, and if the words after A3 in the editio princeps are regarded as belonging to it and not as the remains of a separate logion, we get the following eight sayings: (1) “Except ye fast to the world (or “from the world”), ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God” (A2a); (2) “Except ye keep the sabbath (Taylor “sabbatize the sabbath”), ye shall not see the Father” (A2b); (3) “I stood in the midst of the world, and in flesh was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them” (A3a); (4) “My soul grieveth over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not their wretchedness and their poverty” (the last clause restored by conjecture) (A3b); (5) “Wherever there are two they are not without God, and where there is one alone I say I am with him (after Blass). Raise the stone and (there) thou shalt find me: cleave the wood (Taylor, “the tree”) and there am I” (A4); (6) “A physician does not work cures on them that know him” (A5b); (7) “Thou hearest with one ear but the other thou hast closed” (largely conjectural but almost certain) (A6); (8) “(There is nothing) buried which shall not be raised” (or “known”) (B4, 1,5).

    6. ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE LOGIA:

    Attempts have been made to trace the collection represented by these fragments (assuming that they belong to the same work) to some lost gospel — the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Harnack, Van Manen), the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Zahn), or the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Batiffol), but without decisive result. That there is a connection of some kind with the last-mentioned apocryphal work is evident from the fact that B1 (“Jesus saith, Let not him who seeks .... cease until he find Him; and having found Him, let him be amazed; and being amazed he shall reign, and reigning shall rest”) is ascribed by Clement of Alexandria to this writing, but that cannot have been the only source. It was probably one of a number drawn on by the compiler. The latter, so far as B is concerned, represents the sayings as spoken by Jesus to “.... and Thomas.” In whatever way the gap is supplied — whether by “Philip,” or “Judas” or “the other disciples” — one of the Twelve known as Thomas is clearly referred to as the medium or one of the media of transmission. It is possible that the short preface in which this statement is made belongs not to the whole collection but to a part of it.

    The whole work may, as Swete suggests (Expository Times, XV, 494), have been entitled “Words of Jesus to the Twelve,” and this may have been the portion addressed to Thomas. The other fragment, A, might belong to a section associated with the name of another apostle. In any case the [Logia ] must have formed part of a collection of considerable extent, as we know of material for 24 pages or columns of about 21 or 22 lines each. So far as can be judged the writing was not a gospel in the ordinary sense of that term, but a collection of sayings perhaps bearing considerable resemblance as to the form to the [Logia ] of Matthew mentioned by Papias.

    The remains of B5, however, show that a saying might be prefaced with introductory matter. Perhaps a short narrative was sometimes appended.

    The relation to the canonical Gospels cannot be determined with present evidence. The sayings preserved generally exhibit the synoptic type, perhaps more specifically the Lukan type, but Johannine echoes, that is, possible traces of the thought and diction represented in the Fourth Gospel, are not absent (compare A, [logia ] 2 f, and preface to B). It seems not improbable that the compiler had our four Gospels before him, but nothing can be proved. There is no distinct sign of heretical influence. The muchdebated saying about the wood and the stone (A4b) undoubtedly lends itself to pantheistic teaching, but can be otherwise understood.

    Under these circumstances the date of the compilation cannot at present be fixed except in a very general way. If our papyri which represent two copies were written, as the discoverers think, in the 3rd century, that fact and the indubitably archaic character of the sayings make it all but certain that the text as arranged is not later than the 2nd century. To what part of the century it is to be assigned is at present undiscoverable. Sanday inclines to about 120 AD, the finders suggest about 140 AD as the terminus ad quem, Zahn dates 160-70 AD, and Dr. Taylor 150-200 AD. Further research may solve these problems, but, with the resources now available, all that can be said is that we have in the Logia of Oxyrhynchus a few glimpses of an early collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus which circulated in Egypt in the 3rd century of great interest and possibly of considerable value, but of completely unknown origin.

    LITERATURE.

    Of the extensive literature which has gathered round the Logia — as many as fifty publications relating to A only in the first few months — only a few can be mentioned here. A was first published in 1897 as a pamphlet and afterward as Number 1 of Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Valuable articles by Cross and Harnack peared in The Expositor, series V, volume VI, 257 ff, 321 ff, 401 ff, an important lecture by Swete in The Expository Times, VIII, ff, 568, and a very useful pamphlet by Sanday and Lock in the same year.

    B appeared in 1904 in pamphlet form and as Number 654 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, with a fuller commentary. Dr. C. Taylor’s pamphlets on A and B issued respectively in 1899 and 1905, and Swete’s lecture on B, The Expositor T, XV, 488 ff, are of exceptional significance for the study of the subject. Compare also Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ (A only), 55-67; Klostermann, Kleine Texte, Numbers 8, pp. 11 f and 11, pp. 17 ff; Resch, Agrapha2, 68-73, 353 f; HDB, article “Agrapha,” extra vol; also articles on “Unwritten Sayings” in HDB, 1909, and DCG. William Taylor Smith LOGOS <log’-os > ([lo>gov , logos ]):

    The doctrine of the [Logos ] has exerted a decisive and far-reaching influence upon speculative and Christian thought. The word has a long history, and the evolution of the idea it embodies is really the unfolding of man’s conception of God. To comprehend the relation of the Deity to the world has been the aim of all religious philosophy. While widely divergent views as to the Divine manifestation have been conceived, from the dawn of Western speculation, the Greek word [logos ] has been employed with a certain degree of uniformity by a series of thinkers to express and define the nature and mode of God’s revelation. [Logos ] signifies in classical Greek both “reason” and “word.” Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of “word,” we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought.

    Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation “thought” is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term [logos ]; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.

    In this article it will be our aim to trace the evolution of the doctrine from its earliest appearance in Greek philosophy through its Hebrew and Alexandrian phases till it attained its richest expression in the writings of the New Testament, and especially in the Fourth Gospel.

    The doctrine may be said to have two stages: a Hellenistic and a Hebrew; or, more correctly, a pre-Christian and a Christian. The theory of Philo and of the Alexandrian thinkers generally may be regarded as the connecting link between the Greek and the Christian forms of the doctrine. The Greek or pre-Christian speculation on the subject is marked by the names of Heraclitus, Plato and the Stoics. Philo paves the way for the Christian doctrine of Paul, Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel.

    1. GREEK SPECULATION.

    The earliest speculations of the Greeks were occupied with the world of Nature, and the first attempts at philosophy take the shape of a search for some unitary principle to explain the diversity of the universe. 1. Heraclitus: Heraclitus was practically the first who sought to account for the order which existed in a world of change by a law or ruling principle. This profoundest of Greek philosophers saw everything in a condition of flux.

    Everything is forever passing into something else and has an existence only in relation to this process. We cannot say things are: they come into being and pass away. To account for this state of perpetual becoming, Heraclitus was led to seek out a new and primary element from which all things take their rise. This substance he conceived to be, not water or air as previous thinkers had conjectured, but something more subtle, mysterious and potent — fire. This restless, all-consuming and yet all-transforming activity — now darting upward as a flame, now sinking to an ember and now vanishing as smoke — is for him at once the symbol and essence of life. But it is no arbitrary or lawless element. If there is flux everywhere, all change must take place according to “measure.” Reality is an “attunement” of opposites, a tension or harmony of conflicting elements.

    Heraclitus saw all the mutations of being governed by a rational and unalterable law. This law he calls sometimes “Justice,” sometimes “Harmony”; more frequently “[Logos ]” or “Reason,” and in two passages at least, “God.” Fire, [Logos ], God are fundamentally the same. It is the eternal energy of the universe pervading all its substance and preserving in unity and harmony the perpetual drift and evolution of phenomenal existence. Though Heraclitus sometimes calls this rational principle God, it is not probable that he attached to it any definite idea of consciousness.

    The [Logos ] is not above the world or even prior to it. It is in it, its inner pervasive energy sustaining, relating and harmonizing its endless variety. 2. Anaxagoras: Little was done by the immediate successors of Heraclitus to develop the doctrine of the [Logos ], and as the distinction between mind and matter became more defined, the term nous superseded that of [Logos ] as the rational force of the world. Anaxagoras was the first thinker who introduced the idea of a supreme intellectual principle which, while independent of the world, governed it. His conception of the nous or “mind” is, however, vague and confused, hardly distinguishable from corporeal matter. By the artificial introduction of a power acting externally upon the world, a dualism, which continued throughout Greek philosophy, was created. At the same time it is to the merit of Anaxagoras that he was the first to perceive some kind of distinction between mind and matter and to suggest a teleological explanation of the universe. 3. Plato: In Plato the idea of a regulative principle reappears. But though the word is frequently used, it is [nous ] and not [Logos ] which determines his conception of the relation of God and the world. The special doctrine of the [Logos ] does not find definite expression, except perhaps in the Timaeus, where the word is employed as descriptive of the Divine force from which the world has arisen. But if the word does not frequently occur in the dialogues, there is not wanting a basis upon which a Logos-doctrine might be framed; and the conception of archetypal ideas affords a philosophical expression of the relation of God and the world. The idea of a dominating principle of reason was lifted to a higher plane by the distinction which Plato made between the world of sense and the world of thought, to the latter of which God belonged. According to Plato, true reality or absolute being consisted of the “Ideas” which he conceived as thoughts residing in the Divine mind before the creation of the world. To these abstract concepts was ascribed the character of supersensible realities of which in some way the concrete visible things of the world were copies or images. Compared with the “Ideas,” the world of things was a world of shadows. This was the aspect of the Platonic doctrine of ideas which, as we shall see, Philo afterward seized upon, because it best fitted in with his general conception of the transcendence of God and His relation to the visible world. Three features of Plato’s view ought to be remembered as having a special significance for our subject: (1) While God is regarded by Plato as the intelligent power by which the world is formed, matter itself is conceived by him as in some sense eternal and partly intractable. (2) While in the Philebus Plato employs the expression, “the regal principle of intelligence in the nature of God” [nou~v basilikosei , nous basilikos en te tou Dios phusei ]), it is doubtful if reason was endowed with personality or was anything more than an attribute of the Divine mind. (3) The ideas are merely models or archetypes after which creation is fashioned. 4. Aristotle: The doctrine of the [Logos ] cannot be said to occupy a distinctive place in the teaching of Aristotle, though the word does occur in a variety of senses (e.g. [ojrqogov , orthos logos ], “right insight,” the faculty by which the will is trained to proper action). Aristotle sought to solve the fundamental problem of Greek philosophy as to how behind the changing multiplicity of appearances an abiding Being is to be thought by means of the concept of development. Plato had regarded the “ideas” as the causes of phenomena — causes different from the objects themselves. Aristotle endeavored to overcome the duality of Plato by representing reality as the essence which contains within itself potentially the phenomena, and unfolds into the particular manifestations of the sensible world. This conception has exerted a powerful influence upon subsequent thought, and particularly upon the monotheistic view of the world. At the same time in working it out, the ultimate “prime-mover” of Aristotle was not materially different from the idea of “the Good” of Plato. And inasmuch as God was conceived as pure thought existing apart from the world in eternal blessedness, Aristotle did not succeed in resolving the duality of God and the universe which exercised the Greek mind. 5. Stoics: It is to the Stoics we must look for the first systematic exposition of the doctrine of the [Logos ]. It is the key to their interpretation of life, both in the realms of Nature and of duty. Interested more in ethical than physical problems, they were compelled to seek general metaphysical basis for a rational moral life. Some unitary idea must be found which will overcome the duality between God and the world and remove the opposition between the sensuous and supersensuous which Plato and Aristotle had failed to reconcile. For this end the Logos-doctrine of Heraclitus seemed to present itself as the most satisfactory solution of the problem. The fundamental thought of the Stoics consequently is that the entire universe forms a single living connected whole and that all particulars are the determinate forms assumed by the primitive power which they conceived as never-resting, allpervading fire. This eternal activity or Divine world-power which contains within itself the conditions and processes of all things, they call [Logos ] or God. More particularly as the productive power, the Deity is named the [lo>gov spermatiko>v , logos spermatikos ], the Seminal [Logos ] or generative principle of the world. This vital energy not only pervades the universe, but unfolds itself into innumerable [logoi spermatikoi ] or formative forces which energize the manifold phenomena of Nature and life. This subordination of all particulars to the [Logos ] not only constitutes the rational order of the universe but supplies a norm of duty for the regulation of the activities of life. Hence, in the moral sphere “to live according to Nature” is the all-determining law of conduct.

    2. HEBREW ANTICIPATION OF DOCTRINE.

    So far we have traced the development of the Logos-doctrine in Greek philosophy. We have now to note a parallel movement in Hebrew thought.

    Though strictly speaking it is incorrect to separate the inner Reason from the outer expression in the term [Logos ], still in the Hellenistic usage the doctrine was substantially a doctrine of Reason, while in Jewish literature it was more especially the outward expression or word that was emphasized. 1. Word as Revelation of God: The sources of this conception are to be found in the Old Testament and in the post-canonical literature. The God who is made known in Scripture is regarded as one who actively reveals Himself. He is exhibited therefore as making His will known in and by His spoken utterances. The “Word of God” is presented as the creative principle ( Genesis 1:3; Psalm 33:6); as instrument of judgment (Hos 6:5); as agent of healing ( <19A720> Psalm 107:20); and generally as possessor of personal qualities ( Isaiah 55:2; <19E715> Psalm 147:15). Revelation is frequently called the “Word of the Lord,” signifying the spoken as distinct from the written word. 2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity: In particular, we may note certain adumbrations of distinction of persons within the Being of God. It is contended that the phrase “Let us make” in Genesis points to a plurality of persons in the God-head. This indefinite language of Genesis is more fully explained by the priestly ritual in Numbers (6:23-26) and in the Psalter. In Jeremiah, Ezra and the vision of Isaiah (6:2-8) the same idea of Divine plurality is implied, showing that the Old Testament presents a doctrine of God far removed from the sterile monotheism of the Koran (compare Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, and Konig). 3. Theophanies: Passing from these indefinite intimations of personal distinction in the inner life of God, we may mention first that series of remarkable apparitions commonly known as the theophanies of the Old Testament. These representations are described as the “Angel of Yahweh” or of “the Covenant”; or as the “Angel of his presence.” This angelic appearance is sometimes identified with Yahweh ( Genesis 16:11,13; 32:29-31; Exodus 3:2; 13:21), sometimes distinguished from Him ( Genesis 22:15; 24:7; 98:12); sometimes presented in both aspects ( Exodus 3:6; Zechariah 1:11). We find God revealing Himself in this way to Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah.

    Who was this angel? The earliest Fathers reply with general unanimity that He was the “Word” or “Son of God.” But while the earlier church teachers distinguished between the “Angel of the Lord” and the Father, the Arians sought to widen the distinction into a difference of natures, since an invisible Being must be higher than one cognizable by the senses.

    Augustine insists upon the Scriptural truth of the invisibility of God as God, the Son not less than the Father. He will not presume, however, to say which of the Divine persons manifested Himself in this or that instance; and his general doctrine, in which he has been followed by most of the later teachers of the church, is that theophanies were not direct appearances of a Person of the Godhead, but self-manifestations of God through a created being. 4. Wisdom: A further development of the conception of a personal medium of revelation is discernible in the description of Wisdom as given in some of the later books of the Old Testament. The wisdom of Jewish Scripture is more than a human endowment or even an attribute of God, and may be said to attain almost to a personal reflex of the Deity, reminding us of the archetypal ideas of Plato. In Job, wisdom is represented as existent in God and as communicated in its highest form to man. It is the eternal thought in which the Divine Architect ever beholds His future creation ( Job 28:23-27). If in Job wisdom is revealed only as underlying the laws of the universe and not as wholly personal, in the Book of Proverbs it is coeternal with Yahweh and assists Him in creation ( Proverbs 8:22-31). It may be doubtful whether this is the language of a real person or only of a poetic personification. But something more than a personified idea may be inferred from the contents of the sapiential books outside the Canon.

    Sirach represents Wisdom as existing from all eternity with God. In Baruch, and still more in Wisdom, the Sophia is distinctly personal — “the very image of the goodness of God.” In this pseudo-Solomonic book, supposed to be the work of an Alexandrian writer before Philo, the influence of Greek thought is traceable. The writer speaks of God’s Word ([me’mera’]) as His agent in creation and judgment. 5. Targums: Finally in the Targums, which were popular interpretations or paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, there was a tendency to avoid anthropomorphic terms or such expressions as involved a too internal conception of God’s nature and manifestation. Here the three doctrines of the Word, the Angel, and Wisdom are introduced as mediating factors between God and the world. In particular the chasm between the Divine and human is bridged over by the use of such terms as [me’mera’] (“word”) and [shekhinah] (“glory”). The [me’mera] proceeds from God, and is His messenger in Nature and history. But it is significant that though the use of this expression implied the felt need of a Mediator, the Word does not seem to have been actually identified with the Messiah.

    3. ALEXANDRIAN SYNTHESIS.

    We have seen that according to Greek thought the [Logos ] was conceived as a rational principle or impersonal energy by means of which the world was fashioned and ordered, while according to Hebrew thought the [Logos ] was regarded rather as a mediating agent or personal organ of the Divine Being. The Hellenistic doctrine, in other words, was chiefly a doctrine of the [Logos ] as Reason; the Jewish, a doctrine of the [Logos ] as Word. Philo: In the philosophy of Alexandria, of which Philo was an illustrious exponent, the two phases were combined, and Hellenistic speculation was united with Hebrew tradition for the purpose of showing that the Old Testament taught the true philosophy and embodied all that was highest in Greek reflection. In Philo the two streams meet and flow henceforth in a common bed. The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His intermediatory Word. As the result of this Philonic synthesis, an entirely new idea of God is formulated. While Philo admits the eternity of matter, he rejects the Greek view that the world is eternal, since it denies the creative activity and providence of God. At the same time he separates Divine energy from its manifestations in the world, and is therefore compelled to connect the one with the other by the interposition of subordinate Powers. These Divine forces are the embodiment of the [ide>ai , ideai ], of Plato and the [a]ggeloi , aggeloi ], of the Old Testament.

    The double meaning of [Logos ] — thought and speech — is made use of by Philo to explain the relation subsisting between the ideal world existing only in the mind of God and the sensible universe which is its visible embodiment. He distinguishes, therefore, between the [Logos ] inherent in God ([lo>gov ejndia>qetov , logos endiathetos ]), corresponding to reason in man, and the [Logos ] which emanates from God ([lo>gov proforiko>v , logos prophorikos ]), corresponding to the spoken Word as the revelation of thought. Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity. The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible world.

    Some special features of the Philonic [Logos ] may be noted: (1) It is distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause. (2) As instrument by which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and man. (3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the visible world, the [Logos ] is “the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God.” It is the “bond” ([desmo>v , desmos ]) holding together all things (De Mundi, i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the destinies of men and nations (same place) . Sometimes Philo calls it the “Man of God”: or the “Heavenly man,” the immortal father of all noble men; sometimes he calls it “the Second God,” “the Image of God.” (4) From this it follows that the [Logos ] must be the Mediator between God and man, the “Intercessor” ([iJke>thv , hiketes ]) or “High Priest,” who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing the [Logos ]. It is “manna,” “bread from heaven,” “the living stream,” the “sword” of Paradise, the guiding “cloud,” the “rock” in the wilderness.

    These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo’s [Logos ] a personal being or a pure abstraction? Philo himself seems to waver in his answer, and the Greek and the Jew in him are hopelessly at issue. That he personifies the [Logos ] is implied in the figures he uses; but to maintain its personality would have been inconsistent with Philo’s whole view of God and the world. His Jewish faith inclines him to speak of the [Logos ] as personal, while his Greek culture disposes him to an impersonal interpretation.

    Confronted with this alternative, the Alexandrian wavers in indecision.

    After all has been said, his [Logos ] really resolves itself into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible universe.

    In the speculations of Philo, whose thought is so frequently couched in Biblical language, we have the gropings of a sincere mind after a truth which was disclosed in its fullness only by the revelation of Pentecost. In Philo, Greek philosophy, as has been said, “stood almost at the door of the Christian church.” But if the Alexandrian thinker could not create the Christian doctrine, he unconsciously prepared the soil for its acceptance. In this sense his Logos-doctrine has a real value in the evolution of Christian thought. Philo was not, indeed, the master of the apostles, but even if he did nothing more than call forth their antagonism, he helped indirectly to determine the doctrine of Christendom.

    4. CHRISTIAN REALIZATION.

    We pass now to consider the import of the term in the New Testament.

    Here it signifies usually “utterance,” “speech” or “narrative.” In reference to God it is used sometimes for a special utterance, or for revelation in general, and even for the medium of revelation — Holy Scripture. In the prologue of the Fourth Gospel it is identified with the personal Christ; and it is this employment of the term in the light of its past history which creates the interest of the problem of the New Testament doctrine. 1. Pauline Doctrine: The author of the Fourth Gospel is not, however, the first New Testament writer who represents Jesus as the [Logos ]. Though Paul does not actually use the word in this connection, he has anticipated the Johannine conception. Christ is represented by Paul as before His advent living a life with God in heaven ( Galatians 4:4; Romans 10:6). He is conceived as one in whose image earthly beings, and especially men, were made ( Corinthians 11:7; 15:45-49); and even as participating in the creation ( Corinthians 8:6). In virtue of His distinct being He is called God’s “own Son” ( Romans 8:32).

    Whether Paul was actually conversant with the writings of Philo is disputed (compare Pfleider, Urchristentum), but already when he wrote to the Colossians and Ephesiansesians the influence of Alexandrian speculation was being felt in the church. Incipient Gnosticism, which was an attempt to correlate Christianity with the order of the universe as a whole, was current. Most noticeable are the pointed allusions to Gnostic watchwords in Ephesians 3:19 (“fullness of God”) and in Colossians 2:3 (“Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden”), where Paul shows that everything sought for in the doctrine of the Pleroma is really given in Christ. The chief object of these epistles is to assert the unique dignity and absolute power of the Person of Christ. He is not merely one of the Eons which make up the Pleroma, as Gnostic teachers affirm, but a real and personal Being in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. He is not merely an inferior workman creating glory for a higher Master. He creates for Himself. He is the end as well as the source of all created. things ( Colossians 1:15-20). Though throughout this epistle the word “[Logos ]” is never introduced, it is plain that the [eijkw>n , eikon ], of Paul is equivalent in rank and function to the [Logos ] of John.

    Each exists prior to creation, each is equal to God, shares His life and cooperates in His work. 2. Doctrine in Hebrews: In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an equally explicit, if not fuller, declaration of the eternal Deity of Christ. Whatever may be said of Paul there can be little doubt that the author of He was familiar with the Philonic writings. Who this writer was we do not know; but his Philonism suggests that he may have been an Alexandrian Jew, possibly even a disciple of Philo. In language seemingly adapted from that source (“Son of God,” “Firstborn,” “above angels,” “Image of God,” “Agent in Creation,” “Mediator,” “Great High Priest” “Melchizedek”) the author of He sneaks of Christ as a reflection of the majesty and imprint of the nature of God, just as in a seal the impression resembles the stamp. The dignity of His title indicates His essential rank. He is expressly dressed as God; and the expression “the effulgence of his glory” (the Revised Version (British and American) [ajpau>gasma , apaugasma ]) implies that He is one with God ( Hebrews 1:3). By Him the worlds have been made, and all things are upheld by the fiat of His word ( Hebrews 1:3). In the name He bears, in the honors ascribed to Him, in His superiority to angels, in His relationship as Creator both to heaven and earth ( Hebrews 1:10), we recognize (in language which in the letter of it strongly reminds us of Philo, yet in its spirit is so different) the description of one who though clothed with human nature is no mere subordinate being, but the possessor of all Divine prerogatives and the sharer of the very nature of God Himself. 3. Doctrine in the Fourth Gospel: In the Fourth Gospel the teaching of Paul and the author of He finds its completest expression. “The letter to the He stands in a sense half-way between Pauline and Johannine teaching” (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, 11). It is, however, too much to say that these three writers represent the successive stages of single line of development. While all agree in emphasizing the fact of Christ’s Divine personality and eternal being, Paul represents rather the religious interest, the Epistle to the Hebrews the philosophical. In the Johannine Christology the two elements are united.

    In discussing the Johannine doctrine of the [Logos ] we shall Speak first of its content and secondly of its terminology. (1) Content of Doctrine.

    The evangelist uses “[Logos ]” 6 times as a designation of the Divine preexistent person of Christ ( John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13), but he never puts it into the mouth of Christ. The idea which John sought to convey by this term was not essentially different from the conception of Christ as presented by Paul. But the use of the word gave a precision and emphasis to the being of Christ which the writer must have felt was especially needed by the class of readers for whom his Gospel was intended. The [Logos ] with whom the Fourth Gospel starts is a Person.

    Readers of the Synoptics had long been familiar with the term “Word of God” as equivalent to the Gospel; but the essential purport of John’s Word is Jesus Himself, His Person. We have here an essential change of meaning. The two applications are indeed connected; but the conception of the perfect revelation of God in the Gospel passes into that of the perfect revelation of the Divine nature in general (compare Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii, 320).

    In the prologue (which, however, must not be regarded as independent of, or having no integral connection with, the rest of the book) there is stated: (a) the relation of the [Logos ] to God; and (b) the relation of the [Logos ] to the world. (a) Relation of Logos to God:

    Here the author makes three distinct affirmations: (i) “In the beginning was the Word.”

    The evangelist carries back his history of our Lord to a point prior to all temporal things. Nothing is said of the origin of the world. As in Genesis 1:1, so here there is only implied that the [Logos ] was existent when the world began to be. When as yet nothing was, the [Logos ] was.

    Though the eternal preexistence of the Word is not actually stated, it is implied. (ii) “The Word was with God.”

    Here His personal existence is more specifically defined. He stands distinct from, yet in eternal fellowship with, God. The preposition [pros ] (bei , Luther) expresses beyond the fact of coexistence that of perpetual intercommunion. John would guard against the idea of mere selfcontemplation on the one hand, and entire independence on the other. It is union, not fusion. (iii) “The Word was God.”

    He is not merely related eternally, but actually identical in essence with God. The notion of inferiority is emphatically excluded and the true Deity of the Word affirmed. In these three propositions we ascend from His eternal existence to His distinct personality and thence to His substantial Godhead. All that God is the [Logos ] is. Identity, difference, communion are the three phases of the Divine relationship. (b) Relation of Logos to the World:

    The [Logos ] is word as well as thought, and therefore there is suggested the further idea of communicativeness. Of this self-communication the evangelist mentions two phases — creation and revelation. The Word unveils Himself through the mediation of objects of sense and also manifests Himself directly. Hence, in this section of the prologue ( John 1:3-5) a threefold division also occurs. (i) He is the Creator of the visible universe. “All things were made through him” — a phrase which describes the [Logos ] as the organ of the entire creative activity of God and excludes the idea favored by Plato and Philo that God was only the architect who molded into cosmos previously existing matter. The term [ejge>neto , egeneto] (“becomes,” werden), implies the successive evolution of the world, a statement not inconsistent with the modern theory of development. (ii) The [Logos ] is also the source of the intellectual, moral and spiritual life of man. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” He is the light as well as the life — the fountain of all the manifold forms of being and thought in and by whom all created things subsist, and from whom all derive illumination (compare 1 John 1:1-3; also Colossians 1:17). But inasmuch as the higher phases of intelligent life involve freedom, the Divine Light, though perfect and undiminished in itself, was not comprehended by a world which chose darkness rather than light ( John 1:5,11). (iii) The climax of Divine revelation is expressed in the statement, The Word became flesh,” which implies on the one hand the reality of Christ’s humanity, and, on the other, the voluntariness of His incarnation, but excludes the notion that in becoming man the [Logos ] ceased to be God. Though clothed in flesh, the [Logos ] continues to be the self-manifesting God, and retains, even in human form, the character of the Eternal One. In this third phase is embodied the highest manifestation of the Godhead. In physical creation the power of God is revealed. In the bestowal of light to mankind His wisdom is chiefly manifested. But in the third especially is His love unveiled. All the perfections of the Deity are focused and made visible in Christ — the “glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” ( John 1:14).

    Thus the Word reveals the Divine essence. The incarnation makes the life, the light and the love which are eternally present in God manifest to men.

    As they meet in God, so they meet in Christ. This is the glory which the disciples beheld; the truth to which the Baptist bore witness ( John 1:7); the fullness whereof His apostles received ( John 1:16); the entire body of grace and truth by which the Word gives to men the power to become the sons of God.

    There is implied throughout that the Word is the Son. Each of these expressions taken separately have led and may lead to error. But combined they correct possible misuse. On the one hand, their union protects us from considering the [Logos ] as a mere abstract impersonal quality; and, on the other, saves us from imparting to the Son a lower state or more recent origin than the Father. Each term supplements and protects the other.

    Taken together they present Christ before His incarnation as at once personally distinct from, yet equal with, the Father — as the eternal life which was with God and was manifested to us. (2) Origin of Terminology.

    We have now to ask whence the author of the Fourth Gospel derived the phraseology employed to set forth his Christology. It will be well, however, to distinguish between the source of the doctrine itself and the source of the language. For it is possible that Alexandrian philosophy might have suggested the linguistic medium, while the doctrine itself had another origin. Writers like Reuss, Keim, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Schmiedel, etc., who contend for the Alexandrian derivation of the prologue, are apt to overlook two considerations regarding the Johannine doctrine: (1) There is no essential difference between the teaching of John and that of the other apostolic writers; and even when the word “[Logos ]” is not used, as in Paul’s case, the view of Christ’s person is virtually that which we find in the Fourth Gospel. (2) The writer himself affirms that his knowledge of Christ was not borrowed from others, but was derived from personal fellowship with Jesus Himself. “We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten.”

    This is John’s summary and witness upon which he proceeds to base the vivid memories of Jesus which follow. The Johannine doctrine is not to be regarded merely as a philosophical account of the nature of God and His creation of the world, but rather as the statement of a belief which already existed in the Christian church and which received fresh testimony and assurance from the evangelist’s own personal experience.

    But the question may still be asked: Even if it was no novel doctrine which John declared, what led him to adopt the language of the [Logos ], a word which had not been employed in this connection by previous Christian writers, but which was prevalent in the philosophical vocabulary of the age? It would be inconceivable that the apostle lighted upon this word by chance or that he selected it without any previous knowledge of its history and value. It may be assumed that when he speaks of the “Word” in relation to God and the world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar to those for whom he wrote and of whose general import he himself was well aware.

    The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was borne in upon John.

    The problem which confronted him was how he could make that truth real to his contemporaries. This he sought to do by using the language of the highest religious thought of his day.

    We have seen that the term “[Logos ]” had undergone a twofold and to some extent parallel evolution. On the one hand, it had a Hebrew and, on the other, a Hellenic history. In which direction are we to look for the immediate source of the Johannine terminology? (a) Hebrew Source:

    As a Palestinian Jew familiar with current Jewish ideas and forms of devout expression, it would be natural for him to adopt a word, or its Greek equivalent, which played so important a part in shaping and expressing the religious beliefs of the Old Testament people. Many scholars consider that we have here the probable source of Johannine language. In the Old Testament, and particularly, in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases, the “Word” is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of Divine action; and the “Word of God” had come to be used in a personal way as almost identical with God Himself. In Revelation 19:13, we have obviously an adoption of this Hebrew use of the phrase. Throughout the Gospel there is evinced a decided familiarity and sympathy with the Old Testament teaching, and some expressions would seem to indicate the evangelist’s desire to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish expectation (e.g. John 1:14,29,31; 2:19; 3:14; 6:32,48-50), and the living embodiment of Israelite truth ( John 1:16; 8:12; 11:25; 14:6). But as against this it has been pointed out by Weizsacker (Apostolisches Zeitalter) that the Word of God is not conceived in the Old Testament as an independent Being, still less as equivalent for the Messiah, and that the rabbinical doctrine which identifies the memra with God is of much later date.

    At the same time the Hebrew cast of thought of the Johannine Gospel and its affinities with Jewish rather than Hellenic modes of expression can hardly be gainsaid. Though John’s knowledge of and sympathy with Palestinian religion may not actually account for his use of the term “[Logos ],” it may have largely colored and directed his special application of it. For, as Neander observes, that name may have been put forward at Ephesiansesus in order to lead those Jews, who were busying themselves with speculations on the [Logos ] as the center of all theophanies, to recognize in Christ the Supreme Revelation of God and the fulfillment of their Messianic hopes. (b) Hellenic Source:

    Other writers trace the Johannine ideas and terms to Hellenic philosophy and particularly to Alexandrian influence as represented in Philo. No one can compare the Fourth Gospel with the writings of Philo without noting a remarkable similarity in diction, especially in the use of the word “[Logos ]”. It would be hazardous, however, on this ground alone to impute conscious borrowing to the evangelist. It is more probable that both the Alexandrian thinker and the New Testament writer were subject to common influences of thought and expression. Hellenism largely colors the views and diction of the early church. Paul takes over many words from Greek philosophy. “There is not a single New Testament writing,” says Harnack (Dogmen-Geschichte, I, 47, note), “which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general culture which resulted from the Hellenizing of the East.” But, while that is true, it must not be forgotten, as Harnack himself points out, “that while the writers of the New Testament breathe an atmosphere created by Greek culture, the religious ideas in which they live and move come to them from the Old Testament.”

    It is hardly probable that John was directly acquainted with the writings of Philo. But it is more than likely that he was cognizant of the general tenor of his teaching and may have discovered in the language which had floated over from Alexandria to Ephesiansesus a suitable vehicle for the utterance of his own beliefs, especially welcome and intelligible to those who were familiar with Alexandrian modes of thought.

    But whatever superficial resemblances there may be between Philo and John (and they are not few or vague), it must be at once evident that the whole spirit and view of life is fundamentally different. So far from the apostle being a disciple of the Alexandrian or a borrower of his ideas, it would be more correct to say that there is clearly a conscious rejection of the Philonic conception, and that the [Logos ] of John is a deliberate protest against what he must have regarded as the inadequate and misleading philosophy of Greece. (c) Contrast between Philo and John:

    The contrast between the two writers is much more striking than the resemblance. The distinction is not due merely to the acceptance by the Christian writer of Jesus as the Word, but extends to the whole conception of God and His relation to the world which has made Christianity a new power among men. The [Logos ] of Philo is metaphysical, that of John, religious. Philo moves entirely in the region of abstract thought, his idea of God is pure being; John’s thought is concrete and active, moving in a region of life and history. Philo’s [Logos ] is intermediate, the instrument which God employs in fashioning the world; John’s [Logos ] is not subsidiary but is Himself God, and as such is not a mere instrument, but the prime Agent in creation. According to Philo the Deity is conceived as an architect who forms the world out of already existent matter. According to John the [Logos ] is absolute Creator of all that is, the Source of all being, life and intelligence. In Philo the [Logos ] hovers between personality and impersonality, and if it is sometimes personified it can hardly be said to have the value of an actual person; in John the personality of the [Logos ] is affirmed from the first and it is of the very essence of his doctrine, the ground of His entire creative energy. The idea of an incarnation is alien to the thought of Philo and impossible in his scheme of the universe; the “Word that has become flesh” is the pivot and crown of Johannine teaching. Philo affirms the absolute incomprehensibility of God; but it is the prime object of the evangelist to declare that God is revealed in Christ and that the [Logos ] is the unveiling through the flesh of man of the selfmanifesting Deity. Notwithstanding the personal epithets employed by Philo, his [Logos ] remains a pure abstraction or attribute of God, and it is never brought into relation with human history. John’s [Logos ], on the other hand, is instinct with life and energy from the beginning, and it is the very heart of his Gospel to declare as the very center of life and history the great historical event of the incarnation which is to recreate the world and reunite God and man.

    From whatever point of view we compare them, we find that Philo and John, while using the same language, give an entirely different value to it.

    The essential purport of the Johannine [Logos ] is Jesus Christ. The adoption of the term involves its complete transformation. It is baptized with a new spirit and henceforth stands for a new conception. From whatsoever source it was originally derived — from Hebrew tradition or Hellenic speculation — on Christian soil it is a new product. It is neither Greek nor Jewish, it is Christian. The philosophical abstraction has become a religious conception. Hellenism and Hebrewism have been taken up and fused into a higher unity, and Christ as the embodiment of the [Logos ] has become the creative power and the world-wide possession of mankind.

    The most probable view is that Philo and John found the same term current in Jewish and Gentilecircles and used it to set forth their respective ideas; Philo, following his predilections for Greek philosophy, to give a Hellenic complexion to his theory of the relation of Divine Reason to the universe; John, true to ,his Hebrew instincts, seeing in the [Logos ] the climax of that revelation of God to man of which the earlier Jewish theophanies were but partial expressions.

    There is nothing improbable in the surmise that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the [Logos ] as Divine Reason which was already shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (Westcott).

    Nor need we take offense that such an important idea should have come to the Biblical author from an extra-Biblical writer (compare Schmiedel, Johannine Writings), remembering only that the author of the Johannine Gospel was no mechanical borrower, but an entirely independent and original thinker who gave to the [Logos ] and the ideas associated with it a wholly-new worth and interpretation. Thus, as has been said, the treasures of Greece were made contributory to the full unfolding of the Gospel.

    5. PATRISTIC DEVELOPMENT.

    The Johannine [Logos ] became the fruitful source of much speculation in Gnostic circles and among the early Fathers regarding the nature of Christ.

    The positive truth presented by the Fourth Gospel was once more broken up, and the various elements of which it was the synthesis became the seeds of a number of partial and one-sided theories respecting the relation of the Father and the Son. The influence of Greek ideas, which had already begun in the Apostolic Age, became more pronounced and largely shaped the current of ante-Nicene theology (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures).

    Gnosticism in particular was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with philosophy; but in Gnostic systems the term “[Logos ]” is only sparingly employed. According to Basilides the “[Logos ]” was an emanation from the [nous ] as personified Wisdom, which again was directly derived from the Father. Valentinus, in whose teaching Gnosticism culminated, taught that Wisdom was the last of a series of Eons which emanated from the Primal Being, and the [Logos ] was an emanation of the first two principles which issued from God — Reason, Faith. Justin Martyr, the first of the sub-apostolic Fathers, sought to unite the Scriptural idea of the [Logos ] as Word with the Hellenic idea of Reason. According to him God produced in His own nature a rational power which was His agent in creation and took the form in history of the Divine Man. Christ is the organ of all revelations, and as the [lo>gov spermatiko>v , logos spermatikos ], He sows the seeds of virtue and truth among the heathen. All that is true and beautiful in the pagan world is to be traced to the activity of the [Logos ] before His incarnation. Tatian and Theophilus taught essentially the same doctrine; though in Tatian there is a marked leaning toward Gnosticism, and consequently a tendency to separate the ideal from the historical Christ.

    Athenagoras, who ascribes to the [Logos ] the creation of all things, regarding it in the double sense of the Reason of God and the creative energy of the world, has a firm grasp of the Biblical doctrine, which was still more clearly expressed by Irenaeus, who held that the Son was the essential Word, eternally begotten of the Father and at once the interpreter of God and the Creator of the world.

    The Alexandrian school was shaped by the threefold influence of Plato, Philo and the Johannine Gospel. Clement of Alexandria views the Son as the [Logos ] of the Father, the Fountain of all intelligence, the Revealer of the Divine Being and the Creator and Illuminator of mankind. He repudiates the idea of the inferiority of the Son, and regards the [Logos ] not as the spoken but as the creative word. Origen seeks to reconcile the two ideas of the eternity and the subordination of the [Logos ], and is in this sense a mediator between the Arian and more orthodox parties and was appealed to by both. According to him the Son is equal in substance with the Father, but there is a difference in essence. While the Father is “the God” ([oJ qeo>v , ho theos ]) and “God Himself” ([aujto>qeov , autotheos ]), the [Logos ] is “a second God” ([deu>terav qeo>v , deuteros theos ]). In the Nicene Age, under the shaping influence of the powerful mind of Athanasius, and, to a lesser degree, of Basil and the two Gregories, the Logos-doctrine attained its final form in the triumphant statement of the Nicene Creed which declared the essential unity, but, at the same time, the personal distinction of the Father and Son. The Council of Nicea practically gathered up the divergent views of the past and established the teaching of the Fourth Gospel as the doctrine of the church.

    LITERATURE. (1) On Greek Logos: Schleiermacher, Herakleitos der Dunkle; Histories of Philosophy, Zeller, Ueberweg, Hitter; Heinze, Die Lehre yore [Logos ] in der Greek Phil. (1872); Aall, Gesch. d. Logosidee in d. Greek Phil. (1896). (2) On Jewish Doctrine: Oehler, O T Theol. (1873); Schurer, Lehrbuch d. New Testament Zeitgesch; Schultz, Old Testament Theol. (3) On Alexandrian Doctrine: Gfrorer, Philo u. die alex. Theosophie (1831); Dahne, Gesch. Darstell. der jud-alex. Religions-Philosophic (1843); Keferstein, Philos Lehre yon den gottlichen Mittelwesen (1846); Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. (1875); Drummond, Philo Judaeus (1888); Reville, La doctrine du [Logos ]; Huber, Die Philosophic der Kirchenvater; Grossmann, Questiones Philoneae (1841); Watson, Philos. Basis of Religion (1907). (4) On Johannine Gospel: Relative comma. of Meyer, Godet, Westcote, Luthardt, E. Scott (1907); Liddon, Divinity of our Lord (“Bampton Lectures,” 1866); Watkins, Modern Criticism on the Fourth Gospel (“Bampton Lectures,” 1890); Gloag, Introduction to Johannine Writing, (1891); Stevens, Johannine Theol. (1894); Drummond, Gospel of John; Bertling, Der Johan. [Logos ] (1907); Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings (1908); Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii; Beyschlag and Weiss, Biblical Theol. of New Testament; Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita (1894); Hatch, Greek Ideas and Usages, Their Influence upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures, 1888). (5) Patristic Period: Harnack, Dogmen-Gesch.; Baur, Kirchen-Gesch.; Dorner, System d. chr.

    Glaubenslehre; Loofs, Leitfaden fur seine Vorlesungen uber Dogmengeschichte; Atzbergen, Die Logoslehre d. heiligen Athanasius (1880). B.D. Alexander LOINS <loinz > ( ˜l;j; [chalats], Aramaic ˜r’j\ [charats], ˆt,mo [mothen], ls,K, [kecel], °]rey: [yarekh]; [ov , osphus ]): This variety of Hebrew synonyms seems to be used rather promiscuously for the loins, though there is no little difference in the secondary meanings of these words. They represent various modes of expressing the loins as the seat of strength and vigor ( Job 40:16, Hebrew [mothen], here used of [Behemoth]), the center of procreative power, the portion of the body which is girded about, and is considered as specially needful of covering, even under primitive conditions of life ( Job 31:20), and where painful disease most effectually unfits a man for work and warfare.

    Jacob receives the Divine promise that “kings shall come out of (his) loins” ([chalats], Genesis 35:11), and we read of 66 souls “that came out of his loins” ([yarekh]) which went into Egypt ( Genesis 46:26). The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Levites as having come out of the loins of Abraham ( Hebrews 7:5).

    As the seat of strength (compare LEG; THIGH), the loins are girded with belts of leather ( 2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4), or cloth, often beautifully embroidered ( Exodus 28:39), or of costly material ( Exodus 39:29; Jeremiah 13:1 f). Girded loins are a sign of readiness for service or endeavor ( Exodus 12:11; 1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Proverbs 31:17; Luke 12:35; 1 Peter 1:13).

    Of God it is said that “he looseth the bond of kings, and bindeth their loins with a girdle,” i.e. strengthens them ( Job 12:18). On the loins the sword is worn ( 2 Samuel 20:8). It is a sign of mourning to gird the loins with sackcloth ( 1 Kings 20:32; Isaiah 32:11; Jeremiah 48:37; Am 8:10; see also the First Papyrus of Elephantine, l. 20). A man whose strength is in his attachment to truth, in other words is faithful, is spoken of as having his loins girt about with truth ( Ephesians 6:14).

    Thus, the Messiah is described: “Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins” ( Isaiah 11:5). One of the most primitive modes of clothing consisted of a fleece tied around the loins ( Job 31:20).

    The condition of unfitness for service is described in that the loins ([kecel]) are filled with a burning ( Psalm 38:7, the King James Version “loathsome disease”), or that “a sore burden” is laid upon the “loins” ([mothen], Psalm 66:11). Thus the loins are made “continually to shake” ( Psalm 69:23), “the joints of (the) loins” ([charats]) are loosed ( Daniel 5:6), the “loins are filled with anguish” ( Isaiah 21:3). It is very likely that originally a disabling lumbago or the painful affections of the gall or the bladder (calculus, etc.) are meant, but very soon the expression becomes merely metaphorical to express personal helplessness, especially that which can but rely upon assistance and help from God. H. L. E. Luering LOIS <lo’-is > ([ Lwi`>v , Lois] ( 2 Timothy 1:5)): The grandmother of Timothy, and evidently the mother of Eunice, Timothy’s mother. The family lived at Lystra ( Acts 16:1). It was on the occasion of Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 14) that Eunice and Timothy were converted to Christ, and it was, in all likelihood, on the same occasion that Lois also became a Christian. Paul speaks of the unfeigned faith that there was in Timothy, and he adds that this faith dwelt at the first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice. This is the only passage where Lois is mentioned; but by comparing 2 Timothy 1:5 with 2 Timothy 3:15 (the King James Version), where Paul refers to Timothy’s having “from a child known the holy scriptures,” it would appear that Lois was associated with Eunice, both in a reverent faith in God and in the careful instruction in the Old Testament which was given to Timothy.See EUNICE; TIMOTHY. John Rutherfurd LONGEVITY <lon-jev’-i-ti > : In the part of Genesis ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), the names and genealogies of the patriarchs are given (Genesis 5; 11). In the three versions which are our chief sources, Massoretic Text, Septuagint and Sam, the age-numbers given for these patriarchs are hopelessly at variance. It is in accord with what we find in the earliest legend of most races that in these chapters a great length of life is ascribed to these; thus Berosus attributes to the first 10 kings of Babylonia a span of 430,000 years, and Hesiod (Works and Days, 129) says that in the Silver Age childhood lasted 100 years, during which a boy was reared and grew up beside his mother. On the other hand the evidence of prehistoric archaeology shows that the rate of development of the individual in the early Stone Age differed very little from that of humanity at the present day. It is possible that, in the case of the Hebrew record, the names of certain pre-Abrahamic patriarchs were derived from an ancient tradition, and that in the desire to fill up the chronology of the period before the call of Abraham, these names were inserted and the time which was supposed to have elapsed was divided among them; on the basis of some such hypothesis as that which is said to have existed among the Jews, that the Messiah should come 4,000 years after Adam.

    We know from the archaeological evidence that the antiquity of primitive man extends to a date very much farther back than 4,000 years. Indeed, we can prove that before 4000 BC there were settled nationalities both in the valley of the Nile and that of the Euphrates, and that among these the duration of individual life was much the same as at the present day. The first three dynasties in Egypt, starting at or about 4400 BC, consisted of consecutive kings, the average length of whose several reigns was about years. The biographic sketches of Biblical persons other than those in Genesis showed that their longevity did not exceed that of our contemporaries. Eli was blind and feeble at 98. At 70 David was bedridden and frail. Manasseh, the king of Judah whose reign was longest, died at 67; Uzziah died at 68. The statement in Psalm 90:10 attributed to Moses is a correct estimate of what has been the expectation of life at all time.

    At the present day among Palestinian fellahin very old men are uncommon.

    I have never seen anyone among them who could prove that he was years of age; the rate of infant mortality is appallingly high. Maturity is earlier, and signs of senility appear among them sooner than among the same class in Great Britain. Alexander Macalister LONGSUFFERING <long-suf’-er-ing > ( µyIP”a” °]ra , makrothumia]): The words [’erekh ‘appayim], translated longsuffering, mean literally, “long of nose” (or “breathing”), and, as anger was indicated by rapid, violent breathing through the nostrils, “long of anger,” or “slow to wrath.” The adjective is applied to God ( Exodus 34:6 the King James Version, in the name of Yahweh as proclaimed to Moses; Numbers 14:18 the King James Version; Psalm 86:15 the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) “slow to anger,” which is also the translation in other places; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Nehemiah 9:17; <19A308> Psalm 103:8; 145:8; Proverbs 15:18; 16:32; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2; Nahum 1:3); it is associated with “great kindness” and “plenteous in mercy.” The substantive occurs in Jeremiah 15:15: “Take me not away in thy longsuffering.” In Eccl 7:8, we have [’erekh ruach], the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “patient in spirit.”

    The word in the New Testament rendered “longsuffering,” [makrothumia] (once [makrothumeo], “to be longsuffering”), which is the rendering of [’erekh ‘appayim] in the Septuagint, is literally, “long of mind or soul” (regarded as the seat of the emotions), opposed to shortness of mind or soul, irascibility, impatience, intolerance. It is attributed to God ( Romans 2:4; 9:22; 2 Peter 3:9), of His bearing long with sinners and slowness to execute judgment on them. It is, therefore, one of “the fruits of the Spirit” in man ( Galatians 5:22) which Christians are frequently exhorted to cherish and show one toward the other ( Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 1:11; 3:12, etc.); it belongs, Paul says, to the love, without which all else is nothing: “Love suffereth long ([makrothumei]), and is kind” ( 1 Corinthians 13:4); The verb [makrothumeo] is sometimes translated by “patience” ( Matthew 18:26,29, “Have patience with me”). Luke 18:7 has been variously rendered; the King James Version has “And shall not God avenge his own elect .... though he bear long with them”; the Revised Version (British and American) “and yet he is longsuffering over them,” the American Revised Version margin “and is he slow to punish on their behalf?” Weymouth (New Testament in Modern Speech) has “although he seems slow in taking action on their behalf,” which most probably gives the sense of the passage; in James 5:7,8 the verb occurs thrice, the King James Version “be patient,” “hath long patience”; the Revised Version (British and American) also translates by “patient”; this, however, as in Matthew 18:26,29, seems to lose the full force of the Greek word. According to Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament, 189), the difference between [hupomone] (“patience”) and [makrothumia] is that the latter word expresses patience in respect to persons, and the former in respect to things; hence, [hupomone] is never ascribed to God; where He is called “the God of patience,” it is as He gives it to His servants and saints. But in James 5:7 it is used with reference to things, and in Colossians 1:11 it is associated with patience (compare Hebrews 6:12,15), suggesting patient endurance of trials and sufferings. In Colossians 1:11 it is also associated with “joy,” indicating that it is not a mere submissiveness, but a joyful acceptance of the will of God, whatever it may be. In The Wisdom of Solomon 15:1; Ecclesiasticus 5:4, we have “longsuffering” ([makrothumos]) ascribed to God; also in Ecclesiasticus 2:11, the Revised Version (British and American) “mercy.” W. L. Walker LOOK <look > : (1) The uses of the simple verb in English Versions of the Bible are nearly all good modern English. In Isaiah 5:2, however, “He looked that it should bring forth grapes” — “look” is used in the sense of “expect.” Compare the King James Version of Sirach 20:14; Acts 28:6, “They looked when he should have swollen” (the Revised Version (British and American) “They expected that he would have swollen”). In 1 Macc 4:54, the King James Version has inserted “look” (omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)) as a simple interjection, without a corresponding word in the Greek (2) “Look upon” means “fix one’s attention on,” and is often so used in English Versions of the Bible without further significance (Eccl 2:11; Luke 22:56, etc.); but in 2 Chronicles 24:22 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), “Yahweh look upon it” means “remember.” However, continual attention given to an object usually denotes that pleasure is found in it, and from this fact such uses as those of Proverbs 23:31, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red,” are derived. In particular, God’s “looking upon” a person becomes a synonym for “showing favor unto,” as in Dt 26:7 the King James Version; Psalm 84:9 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); <19B9132> Psalm 119:132 the King James Version; Luke 1:48 the Revised Version (British and American) only, etc. (the Revised Version (British and American) usually, re-words, in such passages). On the other hand, “look on” may be weakened, as in such phrases as “fair to look unon” ( Genesis 12:11 etc.), where it means only “fair to the sight.” Or as in modern English, “look on” may describe the attitude of the passive spectator, even when applied to God. So Psalm 35:17, “Lord, how long wilt thou look on?” (3) “Look to” usually means “pay attention to,” as in Proverbs 14:15; Jeremiah 39:12; 2 John 1:8, etc., and the Revised Version (British and American) occasionally uses this phrase in place of AV’s “look upon” ( Philippians 2:4). The reverse change is made in the King James Version’s 1 Samuel 16:12, “goodly to look to”; Ezek 23:15, “all of them princes to look to,” but in the latter verse a more drastic revision was needed, for the meaning is “all of them in appearance as princes.” “Look out” may mean “search for” ( Genesis 41:33; Acts 6:3), but may also be used literally, ( Genesis 26:8, etc.). The King James Version’s “looking after those things” in Luke 21:26 has been changed by the Revised Version (British and American) into “expectation of the things.” “Look one another in the face” in 2 Kings 14:8,11 means “meet in battle.” Burton Scott Easton LOOKING-GLASS <look’-ing-glas > ( Exodus 38:8 the King James Version margin “brasen glasses”). See GLASS; MIRROR.

    LOOM <loom > .See WEAVING.

    LOOP <loop > (in plural taol;lu [lula’oth] ( Exodus 26:4 f,10 f; 36:11 f,17)):

    A ring or fold made of blue thread to fasten into the corresponding golden clasps, or taches upon the curtains of the tabernacle, joining them in sets, or pairs.See TABERNACLE.

    LORD; THE LORD <lord > , This English word in our Bible represents one Aramaic, 3 Greek and 9 Hebrew words, two of them in two forms. It thus expresses all grades of dignity, honor, and majesty. It is not always possible to be sure of the sense in which the term is to be taken. In Genesis 18:3; 19:18, the translators waver between interpreting of the Divine Person and a finite angel (compare marginal readings). It represents the most sacred Hebrew name for God, as their covenant God, [Yah], [Yahweh], and the more usual designation of Deity, [’Adhonay], [’Adhon], a term which they adopted to avoid pronouncing the most holy designation. They had placed on Leviticus 24:16 an interpretation that aroused such a dread that they seldom dared use the name at all. When two of the words usually translated “Lord,” both referring to God, occur together, the King James Version renders “Lord God,” and the American Standard Revised Version “Lord Yahweh.” the American Standard Revised Version has adopted the rule of using the covenant name transliterated, instead of the term “Lord,” in which the King James Version adopts the rule of the Hebrews to avoid the holy name.

    The Aramaic designation, [Mare’], occurs only in Daniel (e.g. 2:47; 5:23), and the same word refers to a man (4:24).

    Of the Greek words, [Kurios] is freely used of both the Deity and men. [Despotes], of men in classic usage, occurs only of God, including the ascended Jesus, and is employed only 5 times. [Megistanes] (plural) is found once, of men ( Mark 6:21). [Rabboni] (Hebrew in Greek letters) is applied only to the Christ, and is simply transliterated in the Revised Version (British and American), but rendered “Lord” in the King James Version (compare Mark 10:51).

    Our English versions distinguish the 3 main uses of the term thus: (1) “LORD” represents the Hebrew [Yahweh], Septuagint [Kurios], except where [’Adhonay] or [’Adhon] is combined with [Yahweh] (= “Lord God”); the American Standard Revised Version has in these examples employed the name as it is found in the Hebrew, simply transliterated. (2) “Lord” corresponds to [’Adhonay], [’Adhon], [Mare’], also Greek [Kurios] (see (1) ), and [Despotes], for which the American Standard Revised Version has always “Master” in either the text or the margin. (3) “Lord” (“lord”) translates all the remaining 8 Hebrew words and the Greek words except [Despotes]. It is thus seen that [Kurios] corresponds to all three forms of writing the English term.See JEHOVAH. William Owen Carver LORD OF HOSTS A name or title of God frequently used in the Old Testament, always translated “Yahweh of Hosts” ( twOab;x] hwhy [Yahweh tsebha’oth]) in the American Standard Revised Version, since [Yahweh], never [’Adhonay], is used in this phrase. Evidently the meaning of the title is that all created agencies and forces are under the leadership or dominion of Yahweh, who made and maintains them ( Genesis 2:1; Isaiah 45:12).

    It is used to express Yahweh’s great power.See GOD, NAMES OF, III, 8.

    LORD’S DAY ([hJ kuriakh< hJme>ra, he kuriake hemera ]):

    1. LINGUISTIC:

    Formerly it was supposed that the adjective [kuriakos] (translated “the Lord’s”) was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt. In secular use it signified “imperial,” “belonging to the lord” — the emperor — and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense “belonging to the Lord” — to Christ — was perfectly easy. Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as “Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?” the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the protest against Caesar-worship (see LORD). And it is even possible that the full phrase, “the Lord’s day,” was coined as a contrast to the phrase, “the Augustean day” [hJ sebasthra , he sebaste hemera]), a term that seems to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship.

    2. POST-APOSTOLIC: “Lord’s day” in the New Testament occurs only in Revelation 1:10, but in the post-apostolic literature we have the following references: Ignatius, Ad Mag., ix.1, “No longer keeping the Sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, on which also our Light arose”; Ev. Peter., verse 35, “The Lord’s day began to dawn” (compare Matthew 28:1); verse 50, “early on the Lord’s day” (compare Luke 24:1); Barn 15 9, “We keep the eighth day with gladness,” on which Jesus arose from the dead.” I.e.

    Sunday, as the day of Christ’s resurrection, was kept as a Christian feast and called “the Lord’s day,” a title fixed so definitely as to be introduced by the author of Ev. Peter. into phrases from the canonical Gospels. Its appropriateness in Revelation 1:10 is obvious, as John received his vision of the exalted Lord when all Christians had their minds directed toward His entrance into glory through the resurrection.

    3. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    This “first day of the week” appears again in Acts 20:7 as the day on which the worship of the “breaking of bread” took place, and the impression given by the context is that Paul and his companions prolonged their visit to Troas so as to join in the service. Again, 1 Corinthians 16:2 contains the command, “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store,” where the force of the form of the imperative used (the present for repeated action) would be better represented in English by “lay by on the successive Sundays.” Worship is here not explicitly mentioned (the Greek of “by him” is the usual phrase for “at home”), but that the appropriateness of the day for Christian acts involves an appropriateness for Christian worship is not to be doubted. Indeed, since the seven-day week was unknown to Greek thought, some regular observance of a hebdomadal cycle must have been settled at Corinth before Paul could write his command. Finally, the phrase, “first day in the week” is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19. The word in all passages for “first” is poor Greek ([mi>a , mia ], “one,” for [prw>th , prote ], a Hebraism), and the coincidence of the form of the phrase in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 with the form used by all four evangelists for the Resurrection Day ‘is certainly not accidental; it was the fixed Christian base, just as “Lord’s day” was to the writer of Ev. Peter.

    4. ORIGIN:

    The hebdomadal observance of Sunday points back of Corinth to Jewish- Christian soil, but it is impossible to say when the custom first began. Not, apparently, in the earliest days, for Acts 2:46 represents the special worship as daily. But this could not have continued very long, for waning of the first enthusiasm, necessity of pursuing ordinary avocations, and increasing numbers of converts must soon have made general daily gatherings impracticable. A choice of a special day must have become necessary, and this day would, of course, have been Sunday. Doubtless, however, certain individuals and communities continued the daily gatherings to a much later date, and the appearance of Sunday as the one distinctive day for worship was almost certainly gradual.

    5. SUNDAY AND THE SABBATH:

    Sunday, however, was sharply distinguished from the Sabbath. One was the day on which worship was offered in a specifically Christian form, the other was a day of ritual rest to be observed by all who were subject? the Law of Moses through circumcision ( Galatians 5:3; compare Acts 21:20). Uncircumcised Gentiles, however, were free from any obligation of Sabbath observance, and it is quite certain that in apostolic times no renewal of any Sabbath rules or transfer of them to Sunday was made for Gentileconverts. No observance of a particular “day of rest” is contained among the “necessary things” of Acts 15:28,29, nor is any such precept found among all the varied moral directions given in the whole epistolary literature. Quite on the contrary, the observance of a given day as a matter of Divine obligation is denounced by Paul as a forsaking of Christ ( Galatians 4:10), and Sabbath-keeping is condemned explicitly in Colossians 2:16. As a matter of individual devotion, to be sure, a man might do as he pleased ( Romans 14:5,6), but no general rule as necessary for salvation could be compatible with the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Evidently, then, the fact that the Christian worship was held on Sunday did not sanctify Sunday any more than (say) a regular Wednesday service among us sanctifies Wednesday, noting especially that the apostolic service was held in the evening. For it was felt that Christian enthusiasm would raise every day to the highest religious plane, the decay of that enthusiasm through the long delay of the Parousia not being contemplated.

    6. LATER HISTORY:

    The delay occurred, however, and for human beings in the ordinary routine of life there are necessary, not only set periods of worship, but set periods of relaxation from routine to make worship profitable. And the Christian fundamental doctrine of mercy demands that Christianity, where she has the power, shall give to men relief from the drain of continuous toil.

    The formulation of general rules to carry these principles into effect, however, belongs to a period outside New Testament times, and so does not come within the scope of this Encyclopedia. It is enough to say that the ecclesiastical rules for Sunday were felt to be quite distinct from the laws for Sabbath observance, and that Alcuin (733?-804) is the first to hold that the church had transferred the Sabbath rules as a whole to Sunday. This principle is still maintained in Roman Catholic theology, but at the Reformation was rejected uncompromisingly by both Lutherans (Augsb.

    Conf., II, 7) and Calvinists (Helvet. Conf., XXIV, 1-2) in favor of a literally apostolic freedom (Calvin even proposed to adopt Thursday in place of Sunday). The appearance of the opposite extreme of a genuinely “legalistic” Sabbatarianism in the thoroughly Evangelical Scotch and English Puritanism is an anomaly that is explained by reaction from the extreme laxity of the surroundings.

    7. PRACTICAL:

    Sunday was fixed as the day for Christian worship by general apostolic practice, and the academic possibility of an alteration hardly seems worth discussing. If a literal apostolicity is to be insisted upon, however, the “breaking of bread” must be made part of the Sunday service. Rest from labor for the sake of worship, public and private, is intensely desirable, since the regaining of the general apostolic enthusiasm seems unattainable, but the New Testament leaves us quite free as to details. Rest from labor to secure physical and mental renewal rests on a still different basis, and the working out of details involves a knowledge of sociological and industrial conditions, as well as a knowledge of religious principles. It is the task of the pastor to combine the various principles and to apply them to the particular conditions of his people in their locality, in accordance with the rules that his own church has indubitably the right to lay down — very special attention being given, however, to the highly important matter of the peculiar problem offered by children. In all cases the general principles underlying the rules should be made clear, so that they will not appear as arbitrary legalism, and it is probably best not to use the term “Sabbath” for Sunday. Under certain conditions great freedom may be desirable, and such is certainly not inconsistent with our liberty in Christ. But experience, and not least of all the experience of the first churches of the Reformation, has abundantly shown that much general laxness in Sunday rules invariably results disastrously. See further, ETHICS OF JESUS, I, 3, (1).

    LITERATURE.

    For the linguistic matters, Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910, 361-66. Hessey’s Sunday (ed 1880) (“Bampton Lectures,” 1860) contains a good summary of the history of the problems. Zockler’s “Sonntagsfeier,” PRE, edition 3, XVIII, 1906, 521-29 is the best general survey. In Sch-Herz this article (“Sunday”) is harmed by abbreviation, but an exhaustive bibliography is added. Burton Scott Easton LORD’S PRAYER, THE ( Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4): Prayer occupied an important place in the life and the teachings of Jesus. He was emphatically a man of prayer, praying frequently in private and in public, and occasionally spending whole nights in communion with His heavenly Father. He often spoke to His disciples on the subject of prayer, cautioning them against ostentation, or urging perseverance, faith and large expectation, and He gave them a model of devotion in the Lord’s prayer.

    1. TWOFOLD FORM:

    This prayer is given by the evangelists in two different forms and in two entirely different con nections. In Matthew’s account the prayer is given as a part of the Sermon on the Mount and in connection with a criticism of the ostentation usual in the prayers of the hypocrites and the heathen. Luke introduces the prayer after the Galilean ministry and represents it as given in response to a request from one of His disciples, “Lord teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” It gives us, however, no note of time or place, and it is quite possible that the incident which it records took place much earlier. The later form is much shorter than that of Matthew and the common parts differ materially in language.

    In view of the differences, the reader instinctively inquires whether the prayer was given on two different occasions in these different connections, or the evangelists have presented the same incident in forms derived from different sources, or modified the common source to suit their immediate purposes.

    If the prayer was given only on one occasion, there is little doubt that Luke preserves the true historical circumstances, though not necessarily the accurate point of time or place, or the exact form of language. Such a request made at the close of the prayer of Jesus would be natural, and the incident bears every mark of reality. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to assume that the author of Matthew’s source, remembering the incident, incorporated the prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as an illustration of the injunctions concerning prayer.

    There are many reasons for regarding the Sermon as a collection of sayings spoken on different occasions and summarized for convenience in teaching and memorizing. There is, however, no proof that the prayer was given but once by Jesus. We need not suppose that His disciples were always the same, and we know that He gave instruction in prayer on various occasions. He may have given the model prayer on one occasion spontaneously and at another time on the request of a disciple. It is probable that the two evangelists, using the same or different sources, presented the prayer in such connection as best suited the plan of their narratives. In any case, it is rather remarkable that the prayer is not quoted or directly mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament.

    2. ARRANGEMENT:

    In addition to the opening salutation, “Our Father who art in heaven,” the Lord’s Prayer consists of six petitions. These are arranged in three equal parts. In the first part, the thought is directed toward God and His great purposes. In the second part, the attention is directed to our condition and wants. The two sets of petitions are closely related, and a line of progress runs through the whole prayer. The petitions of the first part are inseparable, as each includes the one which follows. As the hallowing of God’s name requires the coming of His kingdom, so the kingdom comes through the doing of His will. Again, the first part calls for the second, for if His will is to be done by us, we must have sustenance, forgiveness and deliverance from evil. If we seek first the glory of God, the end requires our good. While we hallow His name we are sanctified in Him. The doxology of Matthew and our rituals is not found in the leading manuscripts and is generally regarded as an ancient liturgical addition. For this reason it is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American).

    3. SOURCES:

    The sources of the two accounts cannot be known with certainty. It is hardly correct to say that one account is more original than the other. The original was spoken in Aramaic, while both of the reports are certainly based on Greek sources. The general agreement in language, especially in the use of the unique term [ejpiou>siouv , epiousios ] shows that they are not independent translations of the Aramaic original.

    4. SPECIAL EXPRESSIONS:

    Three expressions of the prayer deserve special notice. The words, “Our Father,” are new in the Bible and in the world. When God is called Father in the Old Testament, He is regarded as Father of the nation, not of the individual. Even in the moving prayer of Isaiah 63:16 (the King James Version), “Doubtless thou art our father,” the connection makes clear that the reference is to God in the capacity of Creator. The thought of God as the Father of the individual is first reached in the Apocrypha: “O Lord, Father and Master of my life” (Sirach 23:1; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 2:16; 14:3). Here also the notion is veiled in the thought of God as Creator. It was left for Jesus the Son to give us the privilege of calling God “Our Father.”

    Of the adjective [epiousion ], “daily” or “needful,” neither the origin nor the exact meaning is or is likely to be known. Whether it is qualitative or temporal depends on its derivation from [ejpei~nai , epeinai ], or [ejpie>nai , epienai]. Our translators usually follow the latter, translating “daily.” the American Standard Revised Version gives “needful” as a marginal rendering.

    The phrase [ajpo< tou~ ponhrou~ , apo tou ponerou ], is equally ambiguous.

    Since the adjective may be either masculine or neut., it is impossible to decide whether “from the evil one” or “from the evil” was intended. The probability is in favor of the masculine. The Oriental naturally thought of evil in the concrete, just as we think of it in the abstract. For this reason the Authorized rendering “from evil” is more real to us. The evil deprecated is moral, not physical.

    5. PURPOSE:

    The Lord’s Prayer was given as a lesson in prayer. As such this simple model surpasses all precepts about prayer. It suggests to the child of God the proper objects of prayer. It supplies suitable forms of language and illustrates the simple and direct manner in which we may trustingly address our heavenly Father. It embraces the elements of all spiritual desire summed up in a few choice sentences. For those who are not able to bring their struggling desires to birth in articulate language it provides an instructive form. To the mature disciple it ever unfolds with richer depths of meaning. Though we learn these words at our mother’s knee, we need a lifetime to fill them with meaning and all eternity to realize their answer.

    LITERATURE.

    The literature of this subject is very extensive. For brief treatment the student will consult the relative sections in the commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and in the Lives of Christ and the articles on the Lord’s Prayer in the several Bible diets. A collection of patristic comment is given by G. Tillmann in his Das Gebet nach der Lehre der Heiligen dargestellt, 2 volumes, Freiburg, 1876. The original comments may be found in any of the standard collections of the Church Fathers.

    Among historical studies may be mentioned, F.H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, Cambridge, 1891, and G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, Leipzig, 1898, English translation, Edinburgh, 1902.

    Among the numerous interpretative treatments, the following are some of the more important: N. Hall, The Lord’s Prayer, Edinburgh, 1889; H.J.

    Van Dyke, The Lord’s Prayer, New York, 1891; J. Ruskin, Letters to the Clergy on the Lord’s Prayer and the Church, late edition, New York, 1896; E. Wordsworth, Thoughts on the Lord’s Prayer, New York, 1898; C.W.

    Stubbs, Social Teachings of the Lord’s Prayer, London, 1900; A.B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, chapter vi, 4th edition, New York, 1905; L.T.

    Chamberlain, The True Doctrine of Prayer, New York, 1906; F.M.

    Williams, Spiritual Instructions on the Lord’s Prayer, New York, 1907. Russell Benjamin Miller LORD’S SUPPER; (EUCHARIST) <u’-ka-rist > GENERAL 1. Definition.

    Eucharist. — The distinctive rite of Christian worship, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the eve of His atoning death, being a religious partaking of bread and wine, which, having been presented before God the Father in thankful memorial of Christ’s inexhaustible sacrifice, have become (through the sacramental blessing) the communion of the body and blood of Christ (compare John 6:54; Acts 2:42; 20:7,11; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23-26). 2. New Testament Sources.

    The New Testament sources of our knowledge of the institution of the Eucharist are fourfold, a brief account thereof being found in each of the Synoptic Gospels and in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians ( Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; Corinthians 11:23-26; compare 10:16,17). 1. Textual Considerations:

    The text of these narratives has been found to need little amendment, save the dropping of a word or two, from each account, that had crept in through the tendency of copyists, consciously or unconsciously, to assimilate the details of parallel passages. The genuineness of Luke 22:19b,20 is absolutely beyond question. Their omission in whole or part, and the alterations in the order of two or three verses in the whole section (22:14-20), characteristic of a very small number of manuscripts, are due to confusion in the minds of a few scribes and translators, between the paschal cup (22:17) and the eucharistic cup (22:20), and to their wellmeant, but mistaken, attempt to improve upon the text before them. 2. Narratives Compared: (1) Mark:

    The briefest account of the institution of the Eucharist is found in Mark 14:22-24. In it the Eucharist is not sharply distinguished from its setting, the paschal meal: “And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” This represents a tradition settled within 20 years of the event described. (2) Matthew: Matthew 26:26-28 gives a few touches by way of revision, apparently from one then present. He adds the exhortation “eat” at the giving of the bread, and puts the personal command, “Drink ye all of it,” in place of the mere statement, “and they all drank of it.” He adds also of the blood that, as “poured out for many,” it is “unto remission of sins.” (3) Pauline:

    The Pauline-account, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (the earliest written down, circa 55 AD), was called forth in rebuke of the scandalous profanation of the Eucharist at Corinth. It gives us another tradition independent of; and supplementary to, that of Mark-Matthew. It claims the authority of the Savior as its source, and had been already made known to the Corinthians in the apostle’s oral teaching. The time of the institution is mentioned as the night of the betrayal. We note of the bread, “This is my body, which is for you,” of the cup, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” and the redoubled command, “This do in remembrance of me.” (4) Luke:

    The narrative given in Luke 22:14-20 is the latest (circa 80 AD) of our New Testament records. Luke had taken pains to follow up everything to its source, and had reedited the oral tradition in the light of his historical researches (1:2,3), and thus his account is of the highest value. Writing for a wider circle of readers, he carefully separates and distinguishes the Eucharist from the paschal meal which preceded it, and puts the statement of Christ about not drinking “from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come,” in its proper place as referring to the paschal cup (compare Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; and Luke 22:15-18). In describing the actual institution of the Eucharist, he gives us an almost verbal identity with the account given by Paul ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). 3. Other Pauline Data:

    We should note the statement appended by Paul to his account of the Institution, wherein he emphasizes the memorial aspect and evidential value of the witness the eucharistic observance would give throughout the ages of the Christian dispensation ( 1 Corinthians 11:26). We should also note the fact upon which the apostle bases his rebuke to the profane (Corinthians, namely, the real, though undefined, identity of the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 11:27-29); an identity established through the blessing pronounced upon them, so that the bread and cup have come to be the “communion of the body of Christ” and the “communion of the blood of Christ,” respectively ( 1 Corinthians 10:15-17). To receive the Eucharist, and also to partake of sacrifices offered to idols, is utterly incompatible with Christian loyalty.

    To receive the Eucharist after a gluttonous, winebibbing [agape ], not recognizing the consecrated elements to be what the Lord Christ called them, is, likewise, a defiance of God. Both acts alike provoke the judgment of God’s righteous anger ( 1 Corinthians 10:21,22; 11:21,22,27-29). 3. Preparation for the Eucharist.

    The institution of the Eucharist had been prepared for by Christ through the object-lesson of the feeding of the five thousand ( Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:35-44; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:4-13), which was followed up by the discourse about Himself as the Bread of Life, and about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood as the nourishment of eternal life. 1. Miracles of Loaves and Fishes:

    This again was clinched by the second object-lesson of the feeding of the four thousand afterward ( Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9). The Lord Christ’s thanksgiving, and His blessing of the loaves and fishes — acts not elsewhere recorded of Him, except at the institution of the Eucharist, and at the self-revealing meal at Emmaus ( Luke 24:30) — deeply impressed those present, as indicating the source whence came His power to satisfy the hunger of the multitude (compare Matthew 14:19; 15:36; Mark 6:41; 8:6,7; Luke 9:16; John 6:11,23). 2. Discourse at Capernaum:

    In the discourse at Capernaum ( John 6:26-58) Christ led the thought of His hearers from earthly to heavenly food, from food that perished to the true bread from heaven. He declared Himself to be the living bread, and, further, that it is through eating His flesh and drinking His blood that they shall possess true life in themselves, and be raised by Him at the last day.

    The difficulties raised by this discourse Christ did not solve at the time. His ascension would but add to them. He asked of His disciples acceptance of His words in faith. Under the administration of the Spirit would these things be realized ( John 6:60-69). The institution of the Eucharist, later, gave the clue to these otherwise “hard” words. Today the Eucharist remains as the explanation of this discourse. A hardy mountaineer, e.g. who had read John 6 many times, could form no notion of its purport.

    When first privileged to be present at the eucharistic service of the Book of Common Prayer, the meaning of feeding upon Christ’s flesh and blood forthwith became apparent to him (see The Spirit of Missions, July, 1911, 572-73). 4. Historical Setting of the Eucharist. 1. Other Acts and Words of Christ on Eve of the Passion:

    We should note the setting in which the institution of the Eucharist was placed. Though the Fourth Gospel does not record this, it gives us many otherwise unknown data of the words of Christ spoken upon the eve of His death, in which historically the institution of the Eucharist was set. The symbolic washing of the feet of the disciples ( John 13:3-10), the “new” commandment ( John 13:34), Christ as the means of access to the Father ( John 14:6), love for Christ to be shown by keeping His commandments ( John 14:15,21,23,24), the sending of the Paraclete Spirit ( John 14:16,17,26; 15:26; 16:13,14), the intimate fellowship of Christ and His disciples, shown in the metaphor of the vine and its branches ( John 15:1-9,13-16) — all these throw their illumination upon the commandment, “This do in remembrance of me” ( Luke 22:19; Corinthians 11:24,25). The efficacy of prayer `in Christ’s name’ ( John 16:23,24,26-28) after His final withdrawal from the midst of His disciples, and His great prayer of self-oblation and intercession for His church throughout time (John 17, especially 17:9-26) must not be forgotten in considering, “This is my body which is given for you” ( Luke 22:19), and, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” ( Matthew 26:28). 2. Sacrificial Language of the Institution:

    The sacrificial connotation of many of the words used in the narratives of institution should be noted: e.g. “body,” “blood,” “covenant,” “given,” “poured out,” “for you,” “for many” “unto remission of sins,” “memorial” (compare Exodus 24:6-8; Leviticus 2:2,9,16; 4:5-7,16-18,34; 17:11,14; 24:7; Numbers 10:10; Hebrews 9:11-28; 10:4-10,19,20).

    The very elements of bread and wine also suggested the idea of sacrifice to those accustomed to their use in the older system of worship (compare Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 15:4-10; 28 and 29 passim). 3. Sacrificial System of Jewish Dispensation:

    The general background, moreover, out of which the institution of the Eucharist stands forth, is the sacrificial system of the older dispensation.

    The chosen people of God, as a priestly race, a holy nation ( Exodus 19:5,6; Dt 7:6), worshipped God with a sequence of offerings, Divinely molded and inspired, which set forth the sovereign majesty and overloading of God, His holiness, and the awe and penitence due from those who would draw nigh unto Him, and their desire for communion with Him.

    The more immediate background of the Eucharist is the Passover, and that without prejudice as to whether the Lord Christ ate the paschal meal with His disciples before He instituted the Eucharist, as seems most probable (compare Luke 22:7-18), or whether He died upon the day of its observance (see article “Preparation,” DCG, II, 409). 4. Paschal Background of the Institution of the Eucharist:

    The Passover was at once a covenant-recalling and a covenant-renewing sacrifice, and the Eucharist, as corresponding to it, was instituted at the time of its yearly observance, and of the immolation of the true paschal lamb, of whose death it interpreted the value and significance ( Exodus 12:3-28; compare 13:3-10; Dt 16:1-8; 1 Corinthians 5:7; John 6:51; 10:10,11,15,17,18; 15:13; 17:19). 5. Sequence of the Institation.

    Let us put before ourselves clearly the sequence of the Lord Christ’s acts and words at the institution of the Eucharist ere we proceed to examine the church’s mode of celebrating this ordinance.

    Points to Be Noted At the close of the paschal Supper, (1) the Lord Christ “took” the bread and cup, respectively, for use in His new rite; (2) He “gave thanks” over them, constituting them a thank offering to God; (3) He “blessed” them to their new and higher potency; (4) He “gave” them to the apostles (the breaking being a requisite preliminary to distribution of the bread); (5) He bade them “Take, eat,” and “Drink ye all of it,” respectively; (6) He declared, of the bread, “This is my body given for you,” of the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant,” or, “This is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you,” “unto remission of sins”; (7) He adds the reiterated command, “This do for my memorial.”

    It is obvious that we are bidden to follow out the same series of acts, and statements, as those of Christ Himself. We should take bread and wine, set them apart by rendering thanks to God over them, presenting them to Him as symbols of Christ’s body and blood, once for all “given” and “poured out” for us; bless them by asking God’s blessing upon them (compare Genesis 14:19; Numbers 6:23-27; Mark 8:7; Luke 2:34; 9:16; 24:50); and receive and give them as the body and blood of Christ; for, “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” ( 1 Corinthians 10:16). It is obvious that we shall not forget, in this connection, the distinction between the natural body of Christ which He took of the Blessed Virgin, and the bread which He held in His hand, and blessed and made to function as His body for our participation and inherence in Him thereby — His sacramental body. The church with her many members united to the Head, and thus to each other, is also called His body mystical ( 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27; Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:24). 6. The Church’s Observance of the Eucharist. 1. Heavenly Background: (1) Christians a Priestly Race:

    We should remember the priestly character of the church of Christ, whose sacrifices are made under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6; compare Acts 1:2,8); and also the eternal priesthood in the heavens of our risen, ascended and ever-living Lord Christ. (2) Christ the Eternal High Priest:

    He laid down His life in order to take it again ( John 10:17), and now in the perfection of His glorified human nature, by His very presence in heaven, He is forever the propitiation inexhaustible for our sins ( Hebrews 2:17 through 3:3; 4:14 through 5:10; 7:1 through 8:7; 9:11- 28; 10:1-25; compare 1 John 2:1,2). As the Lamb slain once for all but alive for evermore, the Lord Christ is the focus of the worship of angels and the redeemed ( Revelation 1:17,18; 5:6-14; 7:9,10), and the Christian disciple has the privilege of feeding upon that eternal Priest and Victim ( Hebrews 13:10; 1 Corinthians 10:16). 2. Celebrated Each Lord’s Day:

    The celebration of the Eucharist was characteristic of the pentecostal church ( Acts 2:42), especially upon the Lord’s Day ( Acts 20:7). Its observance was preceded by the agape ( 1 Corinthians 11:20,34) on the eve (for the circumstances of the institution were closely imitated, and the day was reckoned as beginning at sunset after the Jewish fashion), and thus the Eucharist proper came late into the night, or toward morning ( Acts 20:11). 3. Names of the Eucharist: (1) Eucharist:

    The name” Eucharist” is derived from the eucharistesas (“ gave thanks”) of the institution and was the most widely used term in primitive times, as applied to the whole service, to the consecration of the bread and wine or to the consecrated elements themselves (compare 1 Corinthians 14:16). (2) Lord’s Supper:

    It should be noted that the name, “Lord’s Supper,” belongs to the agape rather than to the Eucharist; its popular use is a misnomer of medieval and Reformation times. (3) Breaking of Bread:

    The term “breaking of bread” ( Acts 2:42; 20:7,11) had little vogue after New Testament times. (4) Communion: “Communion” obviously is derived from 1 Corinthians 10:16. (5) Oblation:

    In connection with the early and frequent use of the word “oblation” (prosphora) and its cognates, we should note Paul’s description of his ministry in terms that suggest the rationale of the prayer of consecration, or eucharistic prayer, as we know it in the earliest liturgical tradition: “that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit” ( Romans 15:16). 7. Post-Apostolic Church. 1. Guidance by the Holy Spirit:

    The same Spirit who guided the church in the determination of the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures, the same Spirit who guided the church in the working out of her explicit formulation of the Christian doctrine of the Godhead, and of the Christ — that self-same Spirit guided the church in the formation and fashioning of her great eucharistic prayer into its norm in the same 4th century. The historic churches of the East, by their faithful adherence to this norm, have been almost undisturbed by the dissensions and disputes of Western Christendom touching the Eucharist. 2. The Early Fathers:

    The glimpses given us in the earlier Fathers of the Eucharist are in entire accord with the more articulate expression of the church’s corporate eucharistic worship, which we find in the liturgical documents and writings of the Nicene era. (1) Ignatian Epistles:

    The Ignatian Epistles show us the Eucharist as the focus of the church’s life and order, the source of unity and fellowship. The Eucharist consecrated by the prayer of the bishop and church is the Bread of God, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the communication of love incorruptible and life eternal (compare Ephesiansesians, 5,13,10; Trallians, 7,8; Romans, 7; Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 7,8; Magnesians, 7). (2) Justin Martyr:

    Justin Martyr tells us that the Eucharist was celebrated on the Lord’s Day, the day associated with creation and with Christ’s resurrection. To the celebrant were brought bread and wine mixed with water, who then put up to God, over them, solemn thanksgiving for His lovingkindness in the gifts of food and health and for the redemption wrought by Christ. The oblations of bread and wine are presented to God in memorial of Christ’s passion, and become Christ’s body and blood through prayer. The Eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving commemorative of Christ’s death; and the consecrated elements the communion of Christ’s body and blood, by reason of the sacramental character bestowed upon them by the invocation of the Divine blessing (compare 1 Apol., 13,15, 66, 67; Dial. with Trypho, 41,70, 117). (3) Irenaeus:

    Irenaeus, also, emphasizes the fact that Christ taught His disciples to offer the new oblation of the New Covenant, to present in thank offering the first-fruits of God’s creatures — bread and wine — the pure sacrifice prophesied before by Malachi. The Eucharist consecrated by the church, through the invocation of God’s blessing, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, just as He pronounced the elements to be at the institution (compare Against Heresies, i.13,1; iv.17,5; 18,1-6; 33,1; v.22,3). (4) Cyprian:

    Cyprian, too, gives evidence of the same eucharistic belief, and alludes very plainly to the “Lift up your hearts,” to the great thanksgiving, and to the prayer of consecration. This last included the rehearsal of what Christ did and said at the institution, the commemoration of His passion, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit (compare Epistle to Caecilius, sections 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 14, 17; Epistle to Epictetus, sections 2, 4; On the Unity of the Church, I, 17; On the Lord’s Prayer, section 31; Firmilian to Cyprian, sections 10, 17). 8. Liturgical Tradition. 1. Outline of Eucharistic Prayer:

    When we proceed to examine the early liturgical remains we find the articulate expression of the church’s sacrifice following along these lines.

    After an introductory summons to the worshippers to “lift up their hearts,” the great eucharistic prayer goes on to pour forth sublime praises to God for all the blessings of creation, and for the fruits of the earth; aligning the praises of the church with the worship of the heavenly host around the throne of God. The love of God in bringing about the redemption of fallen man through the incarnation, and through the self-oblation of His only Son upon the cross is then recalled in deep thankfulness. The institution of the Eucharist in the night of the betrayal is next related, and then, taking up, and fulfilling the command of Christ (`Do this for my memorial’) therein recited, most solemn memorial is made before God, with the antitypical elements, of the death and of the victorious resurrection and ascension of the Lord Christ. Then, as still further carrying out this act of obedience, most humble prayer is made to the Eternal Father for the hallowing of the oblations, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, to be the body and blood of Christ, and to be to those who partake of them, for the imparting of remission of sins, and the bestowal of life eternal. To this great act of praise and prayer the solemn “Amen” of the assembled congregation assents, and thereafter the sacramental gifts are received by the faithful present, with another “Amen” from each recipient to whom they are administered.

    The great eucharistic prayer, as outlined, was the first part of the liturgy to crystallize into written form, and of its component parts the invocation of the Divine blessing upon the elements was probably the first to be written down. 2. Significance of This for Unity:

    Around the simplicity and the depth of such a truly apostolic norm of eucharistic worship, alone, can be gathered into one the now dispersed and divided followers of the Christ, for therein subsist in perfect harmony the Godward and the manward aspects of the memorial He commanded us to make as complementary, not contradictory; and the identity of the consecrated bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is manifested to be in the realm of their spiritual function and potency. LITERATURE.

    E.F. Willis, The Worship of the Old Covenant .... in Relation to That of the New; Frederic Rendall, Sacrificial Language of the New Testament; Maurice Goguel, L’eucharistie des origines a Justin Martyr, 105 ff; W.B.

    Frankland, The Early Eucharist (excellent); H.B. Swete, “Eucharistic Belief in the 2nd and 3rd Cents.,” Journal of Theological Studies, June, 1902, ff; R.M. Woolley, The Liturgy of the Primitive Church; M. Lepin, L’idee du sacrifice dans la religion chretienne; W. Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord; Thomas Brett, A True Scripture Account of the Nature and benefits of the Holy Eucharist, 1736; id, A Discourse Concerning the Necessity of Discerning the Lord’s Body in the Holy Communion, 1720; J.R. Milne, Considerations on Eucharistic Worship; id, The Doctrine and Practice of the Eucharist; H.R. Gummey, The Consecration of the Eucharist; A.J. Maclean, Recent Discoveries Illustrating Early Christian Life and Worship; id, The Ancient Church Orders; L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chretien; J.T. Levens, Aspects of the Holy Communion; John Wordsworth, The Holy Communion; F.E.

    Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western. Henry Riley Gummey HISTORICAL This name of the Lord’s Supper is derived from [eucharistia ], the prayer of consecration, and this in turn points back to Matthew 26:27, “And he took a cup, and gave thanks” ([eucharistesas ]). The most common name is “Lord’s Supper” ([deipnon kuriou] ( 1 Corinthians 11:20)). It is also called “Lord’s table” [(trapeza kuriou ] ( 1 Corinthians 10:21 the King James Version)); while the cup is called “the cup of blessing” ([poterion tes eulogias ] ( 1 Corinthians 10:16)) and “the cup of the Lord” ([poterion kuriou ] ( 1 Corinthians 10:21)). The word [koinonia ] points both to the bread and the cup, whence our common term “communion.” In postapostolic days it became known as [leitourgia ], a sacred ministration, whence our word “liturgy.” It was also named [thusia ], a sacrifice, and musterion, from its mystic character and perhaps from the fact that it was celebrated only in the closed circle of believers. The Roman Catholic church calls it missa or “mass,” from the words congregatio missa est, whereby in post-apostolic times the first part of worship, called the missa cathechumenorum, was closed, and whereby the second part of worship was ushered in, known as the missa fidelium, the sacramental part of worship, only destined for believers. 1. Original Institution: The origin of the Eucharist is described in Matthew 26; Mark 14, and Luke 22. Paul introduces his simple and comprehensive recital of the origin of the institution — the earliest written record of it — with the words: “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” ( Corinthians 11:23). A comparison between the Gospels and Exodus indicates a considerable modification of the original Passover ritual in the days of Jesus (see Smith’s DB, article “Lord’s Supper”). The composite Gospel-picture of the institution of the Eucharist shows us the Saviour in the deep consciousness of the catastrophe about to overwhelm Him, surrounded by treason on the part of Judas and a strange and total lack of appreciation of the true situation on the part of the other disciples. He had greatly `desired to eat this passover with them before he suffered’ ( Luke 22:15), and yet they are wholly unresponsive, the chief question apparently in their minds being the old contention of rank and preeminence.

    Whether or not Judas was present at the eating of the Supper is a moot point, which we will not discuss here. Neither will we touch the question whether or not this Passover-meal was the true Jewish festive meal or an anticipation of it, called pascha only, in allusion to the great feast, which had brought the hundreds of thousands of Jews to Jerusalem (compare Matthew 26; Mark 14 with John 12:1; 13:1,2,29; 18:28; 19:14,31).

    Both Matthew and Mark leave the exact place of the institution of the Supper in the festive meal indefinite, “as they were eating” ( Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22); the words of Luke, “after supper” (22:20), may be a hint in regard to this matter (see John 13:1; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

    But the custom of the early church of celebrating the Eucharist after the [agape ] or “love feast” appears to be strong evidence that the original institution was separate from the paschal festival and followed it. The entire subject of the Eucharist has been called in question by the radical German critics, who point to the absence of the whole matter in John and to the omission of the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” in Matthew and Mark. Its occurrence in Luke is ascribed to Paul’s influence over him and to his familiarity with the story of the institution as described by the apostle. But this position is utterly untenable in the light of the unquestioned fact that the Lord’s Supper as a fixed part of worship was firmly established from the earliest days of the Christian church. The doctrine of Christ’s vicarious suffering is nowhere so clearly enunciated as in the words of the institution of the Supper, “This is my body which is given for you” ( Luke 22:19); “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” ( Matthew 26:28). Small wonder that those who have utterly done away with the doctrine of the vicarious atonement or of substitution should attack the historicity of the Eucharist and should seek by all means to wipe it from the record.

    Jesus bids His followers to observe the new institution “in remembrance of” Him. As Dr. Bavinck says, “The Lord’s Supper is instituted by Christ as a permanent benefit to His church; it is a blessing added to all other blessings to signify and to seal them” (Geref. Dogm., IV, 310). 2. The Elements: As to the elements used in the original institution of the Supper, they were bread and wine. The bread of course was the unleavened bread of the Passover, during which feast every trace of leaven was removed ( Exodus 12:19). The Eastern church, perhaps influenced by the bitter Ebionite spirit of the Judaizers, later adopted the use of common bread (koinos artos); the Western church used unleavened bread. Protestantism left the matter among the adiaphora.

    As regards the wine, the matter has been in dispute from the beginning (see Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature). The early church always used mixed wine, wine and water, following the Jewish custom. Whether the wine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was fermented or unfermented wine, must of course be determined by the Jewish Passover- customs prevailing at that time. The matter is in dispute and is not easily settled.

    Modern Jews quite generally use raisin-wine, made by steeping raisins over night in water and expressing the juice the next day for use at the Passovermeal.

    The ancient Jews, we are told, used for this purpose a thick boiled wine, mixed with water (Mishna, Terumoth, xi). Whether [oinos ], the word used in the New Testament, stands literally, as the name indicates, for fermented wine, or figuratively for the mixed drinks, well known to ancient and modern Jews, is a debatable matter. As late as the 16th century the Nestorian Christians celebrated communion with raisin-wine, and the same is said of the Indian Christians (“St. Thomas Christians”). The word “new,” used by Christ in Matthew 26:29, is believed by some to indicate the character of the wine used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, namely, the juice of grapes fresh pressed out (see Clem. Alex., Paed., xi).

    On the other hand the third Council of Braga explicitly forbade this practice as heretical. It is evident that the whole subject is shrouded in much mystery. Some ancient sects substituted an entirely different element, water and milk, for instance, being used (Epiph., Haer., xlix; Aug., Haer., xxviii). Such customs were utterly condemned by the Council of Braga (675 AD). In general, however, the Christian church, almost from the beginning, seems to have used fermented red wine, either mixed or pure, in the administration of the Eucharist, in order to maintain the correspondence between the symbol and the thing symbolized. 3. The Eucharist in the Apostolic Church: Originally the apostolic church celebrated communion at every meeting for worship. They continued steadfastly in the apostle’s teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers ( Acts 2:42,46).

    Very soon, however, if we may judge from the Acts and the Church Pauline Epistles, its administration was confined to the meeting on the first day of the week. The [agape ] always preceded communion, and at some part of the service the believers, the sexes after the plan of the synagogue being separated, would salute each other with the “holy kiss” ([philema hagion ]) ( 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12). But the introduction of the sacrament, with all its accessories, had evidently occasioned grave abuses at Corinth ( 1 Corinthians 11:34). Paul corrects these in unmistakable language. Thus we received our first written record of the institution of the Supper. In Corinth it seems to have been restricted from the beginning to the first day of the week ( Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). By a slow transition the deipnon was transferred from the midnight hour to the morning. At least we find that Paul kept it after midnight at Troas ( Acts 20:11). It would appear as if the apostle had also partaken of the Lord’s Supper, together with his Christian companions, on board the ship, toward the close of his fateful trip on the Adriatic ( Acts 27:35). 4. The Eucharist in the Post-apostolic Church: In the post-apostolic church the Eucharist continued to be celebrated every Lord’s day. But it separated itself from the preaching of the Word and from prayers, as in the previous period. It was invested with a mystic meaning, something too holy for the common eye, and thus the missa catechumenorum, the open church-meeting, was separated from the missa fidelium, the gathering of believers only, in which the Eucharist was celebrated. Bread, wine, oil, milk, honey, all the ingredients for the [agape ], from which the elements for the Supper were selected, were furnished by the free-will offerings of the believers. These were solemnly set apart by the officiating bishop with a consecrating prayer, [eucharistia ], and thus the sacrament obtained the name “Eucharist.” The gifts themselves were called prosphorai, “oblations,” or [thusiai ], “sacrifices.”

    The sacrificial conception of the Supper was thus gradually created (Ign., Phil., iv; Smyrna, vii, viii; Justin, Apol., i. 66; Dial., xii. 70; Irenaeus, Adv.

    Haer., iv. 18,5). The Eucharist once being conceived as a sacrifice, the conception of the officiating bishop as a priest became logically inevitable.

    The Apostolical Constitutions, xliiI 4 gives us a fair idea of the worship of the church, toward the close of the 3rd century. Even at that early day a well-developed ritual had replaced the simplicity of the worship of the apostolic days. In the African and Eastern churches, baptized children were allowed to partake of communion, through the fear engendered by John 6:53. The regenerative conception of baptism largely influenced this custom. The remnants of the consecrated elements were brought by the deacons to the sick and to imprisoned believers. We have not the space in a brief article like this to enter fully into the development of the doctrinal conception of the Supper as found in the Fathers. Suffice it to say that the symbolical and spiritual concept of the Eucharist, usually defined as the “dynamic” view of the Supper, was advocated by such men as Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen and others.

    On the other hand Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom and John Damascenus developed the “realistic” theory of the Eucharist, and this view again divided itself into the “diophysitic” theory, later called “consubstantiation,” and the “monophysitic” theory, later known as “transubstantiation.” Augustinns, the great Latin Father, knew nothing of theory of tran-substantiation. He taught that communion carries a blessing only for believers, while to the unbelieving it is a curse, and that the true eating of the body of Christ consists in believing (Serm. Ad Infantes, De Civ., x.6; xxii. 10; Tract. 25 in Joann.). Paschasins Radbert (died 865 AD) was the first fully to formulate the realistic view as the doctrine of the Romish church, and although the dynamic view triumphed for a while, the condemnation of Berengarius of Tours (died 1088 AD) proved that by the middle of the 11th century the realistic view of the Supper had become the generally accepted doctrine of the Eucharist. 5. Rome and the Eucharist: The Romish church couches its doctrine of the Eucharist in the word “transubstantiation,” which means the conversion of the substance of the elements used in the Eucharist. The word was first used by Hildebert of Tours (died 1134 AD) in a sermon. The doctrine of the Supper was finally fixed, together with the new term, by Pope Innocent III, at the Lateran Council 1215 AD. It was decided that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ, by the Divine power. This has been the Romish doctrine of the Supper ever since. The bread and wine are changed into the veritable body and blood of Christ, by the words of the institution. By the institution of the Supper, Christ made His disciples priests, wherefore the Eucharist may be administered only by an ordained priest. In the miracle of the sacrament, the “accidents” of the elements — bread and wine — remain, but they are no longer inherent in a subject, the substance in which they inhered being replaced by another. This new substance is the body and blood of Christ, which is hidden from observation under the appearance of the elements. The whole Christ is present in each of these elements, hence, it is not necessary to commune under both forms (sub utraque). In the Romish conception of the Supper communion with Christ is a secondary idea. The main idea is that of the transubstantiation itself, for the Supper is more a sacrifice than a sacrament; thus the mass becomes a sin offering.

    While it feeds faith, keeps us from mortal sin, wards off temporal punishment, unites believers, it also has a potency for those who are not present, and even for the dead in purgatory. Thus the mass became the very heart and center of the entire Romish cult (Conf. Trid., XIII, 21, 22; Cat. Romans., CXII, c. 4; Bellarm, De Sacr. Euch., I, iv; Moehler, Symb., section 34). 6. Luther and the Eucharist: The Reformers rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, the sacrificial conception of the Eucharist, the adoration of the “host,” the withholding of the cup, the efficiency of the Eucharist in behalf of the dead, the entire Romish conception of the sacrament of the Supper. The original position of Luther, that the elements in the Supper were signs and seals of the remission of sins, was soon replaced by the doctrine of “consubstantiation.” The bitter controversy with Carlstadt, and especially the failure of the Marburg Conference, drove Luther forever into the camp of the realists. As early as 1524 he had outlined his doctrine against Carlstadt. He placed himself squarely on the realistic conception of the words of the institution, and held that “the body of Christ in accordance with the will and omnipotence of God and its own ubiquity is really and substantially present in, with and under the Supper, even as His Divine nature is in the human as warmth is in the iron. Wherefore the Supper is physically partaken of by those who are unworthy, albeit to their own destruction” (Bavinck, Geref. Dogm., IV, 318). This doctrine has been fully developed by the Lutheran divines, and is till this day the view of the Lutheran church. 7. Zwingli and the Eucharist: Zwingli essentially sided with Carlstadt in his controversy with Luther, whom he thereby greatly embittered. He interpreted the words of the institution — “this is” — as signifying “this stands for,” “this signifies.”

    This view was fully set forth in a letter to Matthew Alber at Reutlingen in 1524 and was given its final form in his dogmatic tract, Com. de vera et falsa rel. (1525), where he characterizes Luther’s doctrine as “an opinion not only rustic but even impious and frivolous.” The breach was widened by the Marburg Conference of 1529. Reduced to its last analysis, the eucharistic concept of Zwingli is that of a symbolical memorial of the suffering and death of Christ, although Zwingli does not deny that Christ is present to the eye of faith. On the contrary, He is enjoyed through the word and through faith, i.e. in a spiritual way. In the Supper we confess our faith, we express what that faith means to us, and we do it in memory of Christ’s death (Oper., ii.1, 426; iii.239, 326, 459; iv.51, 68). The Zwinglian view has been consciously or unconsciously adopted by a very large portion of the Protestant church. 8. Calvin and the Eucharist: Calvin’s position on the doctrine of the Eucharist tends rather to the Lutheran than to the Zwinglian view. With Zwingli the sacrament is little more than a sign, with Calvin it is both a sign and a seal. The reality of communion with Christ and the benefits of His death, received by a living faith — all this is common to the Lutheran and the Calvinistic views. The Lord’s Supper is far more than a mere memorial service, it is a marvelous means of grace as well. Calvin sides with Zwingli in denying all physical, local or substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he differs from him in making the eucharistic act far more than a confession of faith, and he lays far greater stress than Zwingli on the meaning of its true participation. With Luther he holds that Christ is truly present in the Supper, and he lays stress especially on the mystic union of the believer with Christ. In the Supper both the benefits of Christ’s death and His glorious person are touched. But Christ does not descend in the Supper to the believer, but the latter ascends to Him in heaven. The central thought of the Calvinistic conception of the Supper is this, that the communicant, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, comes in spiritual contact with the entire person of Christ and that he is thus fed unto life eternal. Every close student of Calvin’s works will have to admit that his ideas on the subject are somewhat involved and confusing. This is due no doubt to the mediating position he occupied between Luther and Zwingli. But his position as a whole is quite plain. All his followers agree in holding that (1) Christ is only spiritually present in the Supper; (2) that the participation in the benefits of the Supper must therefore be spiritual, although it is real, and (3) that only true communicants, by a living faith, can communicate therein, and that this participation in the atoning death of the Saviour is sealed to us by the use of the ordained signs of the sacrament. Henry E. Dosker LUTHERAN INTERPRETATION 1. The Term. 1. The Derivation and Meaning: “Eucharist” is the anglicized form of the Greek noun [eucharistia ], which signifies “gratitude,” “thanks,” or “praise offering.” The noun is derived from the verb [eucharisteo ], which, with the verb [eulogeo ] of kindred meaning in Matthew 26:26,27; Mark 14:22,23, is used to describe the action of the Lord in blessing the bread and wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper ( Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23). When used absolutely, as in these places, it signifies “the offering up of praise that is prompted by nothing else than God Himself and His revealed glory” (Cremer). The blessing of the physical elements was part of the sacramental action at subsequent celebrations of the ordinance ( Corinthians 10:16), and thus [eucharistia ] soon (2nd century) came to mean the blessed elements and the entire ordinance in which these were administered. 2. Synonyms:

    Other Scriptural terms for the same ordinance are “Communion” (from [koinonia ], in the twofold sense indicated in 1 Corinthians 10:16,17), “Lord’s Supper” ([kuriakon deipnon ] ( 1 Corinthians 11:20)), “Lord’s Table” ([trapeza kuriou ] ( 1 Corinthians 10:21)), “Breaking of Bread” ([klasis tou artou ] ( Acts 2:42)). The literature of the church developed a great many terms which emphasize one or the other feature of the ordinance. Luther, in his Small Catechism, adopts the name “Sacrament of the Altar,” because it is administered at the altar. The Lutheran Confessions occasionally employ the term “mass,” however, in the original meaning which the early church, not in that which the Roman church, connects with the term (“mass” derived either from missa, “things sent,” because the materials for communion were sent to the place of celebration, or from missio, “a sending (away),” because worshippers who were not members, or minors, were dismissed from the service before the celebration of the Eucharist began; but see McClintock and Strong, Cyclop. of Biblical, Theol., and Eccles. Lit., V, 863). 2. The Ordinance. 1. Source and Norm of the Doctrine of the Eucharist:

    The “seats of doctrine,” i.e. the Scripture texts which must be employed for determining every essential part of the teaching of Scripture regarding the second sacrament of the Christian church, are the words of institution recorded in Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Valuable statements, chiefly concerning the proper use of the sacrament, are found in 1 Corinthians 10:15 ff; 11:20 ff. That these texts are disputed is no reason why a doctrine should not be established from them. No doctrine of the Christian religion could be established, if every text of Scripture had to be withdrawn from the argument, so soon as it had become disputed. John 6:32-59 does not treat of this ordinance, because (1) the ordinance must be dated from the night of the betrayal, which was considerably after the Lord’s discourse at Capernaum; (2) because this passage speaks of “eating the flesh,” not the body, of the Son of man, and of drinking “his blood,” in such a manner that a person’s eternal salvation is made to depend upon this eating and drinking. If this passage were eucharistic, infants, children, persons in durance among pagans, or temporarily deprived of the ministration of the Christian church, hence, unable to commune, could not be saved. 2. Interpretation of the Eucharistic Texts:

    The exposition of the genuine eucharistic texts of Scripture is governed by the common law of Bible exegesis, namely, that every word and statement of Scripture must be understood in its proper and native sense, unless a plain and urgent reason compels the adoption of a figurative interpretation.

    The writers who have recorded the institution of the sacrament have given no hint that they wish to be understood figuratively. The solemn occasion — the Eucharist being the expression of the last will or testament of the Lord — forbids the use of figurative language ( Galatians 3:15). The fact that a statement of Scripture transcends our natural powers of comprehension does not justify us in giving it a figurative meaning. If this rationalistic principle were to be applied in explaining Scripture, we could not retain a single revealed doctrine. Besides, those who have adopted a figurative interpretation are not agreed where to locate the figure in the words of institution. Some claim that the word [touto ], others that esti, others that [to soma mou ] contain a figure, while still others would take the institutional words in their proper sense, but understand the entire ordinance figuratively. 3. Doctrinal Contents of the Eucharistic Passages:

    The eucharistic passages contain: (1) a statement fixing the time and occasion of the institution. It was “in the night in which he was betrayed,” immediately before the beginning of the passio magna of Christ, and in connection with the celebration of the Jewish Passover ( Matthew 26:17 ff). The ordinance which Christ instituted was to take the place of the ancient Passover ( 1 Corinthians 5:7, which text Luther aptly renders: “We, too, have a passover, which is Christ crucified for us”). Jewish custom at the time of Christ seems to have allowed some latitude as regards the time for eating the paschal lamb. Thus the difference between John (18:28; 19:42) and the synoptists is overcome. our Lord was deeply stirred with thoughts of love and affection for His disciples at the time of the institution (13:1). (2) An authoritative declaration of Christ, the God-man, fixing the constituent parts of the sacrament, and the essential features of the sacramental act (speciem actus). This declaration names: (a) The elements of the sacrament, which are of two kinds: bread and wine (materia terrena), and the body and blood of the Lord (materia coelestis) (see Ireneus Adv. Haer., iv.34,363, quoted in Form. Conc.

    Sol. Decl., Art. VII, number 14, 649). There is no law laid down as regards the quality, form, or quantity of the bread (leavened or unleavened, round or oblong, in large loaves, cakes, or in wafer form ready for immediate distribution). Likewise the color and quality of the wine is left undefined. The expression gennema tes ampelou, “fruit of the vine” ( Matthew 26:29), sanctions the use of any substance that has grown on the vine, has been pressed from grapes, and has the characteristics of the substance known as wine. That the wine used by the Lord at that season of the year and in accordance with Jewish custom was fermented wine, there can be no doubt (Hodge, Systematic Theol., III, 616). The use of unfermented wine is apt to introduce an element of uncertainty into the sacrament. The heavenly elements are defined thus: “My body, which is given for you,” “my blood, which is shed for many.” These terms signify the real, substantial, natural body of Christ, and His real, natural blood (Luther: “the true body and blood of our Lord “). Both the earthly and the heavenly elements are really present at the same time in every eucharistic act. To deny either the presence of real bread and wine at any stage during the eucharistic act, as the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation does (against Corinthians 11:26,28), or the real presence of the true body and blood of Christ, as reformed teaching does, is not doing justice to Scripture. (b) The relation of the elements to one another: In offering the physical elements to the disciples the Lord employs the locutio exhibitiva, common to every language of men: He names that which is not seen while giving that which is seen. (“ Here are your spices,” says the grocer delivering the package containing them.) The locutio exhibitiva, except when used by a jester or dishonest person, always states a fact.

    The bread in the Eucharist is the body of Christ, the wine, likewise, is the blood of Christ. The relation is expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 by [koinonia ], “communion.” This term is not the same as metocht, “participation,” which would refer to the communicants (Plummer, HDB, III, 149). Koinonia declares a communion of the bread with the body, of the wine with the blood, of Christ. It is impossible to define the mode and manner of this communion of the earthly with the heavenly elements. Such terms as “consubstantiation,” “impanation,” “invination,” are faulty attempts to define the undefinable. All we can assert is, that in a manner incomprehensible to us the body and blood of the Lord are in a sacramental union with the eucharistic bread and wine. (c) The action required, namely, “take, eat”; “take, drink.” These words refer to the distribution and reception of the sacramental elements. These are essential, the mode is not, unless one wishes to emphasize, e.g. by the breaking of the bread, the merely symbolical meaning of the entire ordinance. Accordingly, it is also immaterial whether the administrant place the elements into the hands of the communicant, who then conveys them to his mouth, or whether the administrant conveys the elements directly to the mouth of the communicant. The acts of distributing and receiving, however, extend to the entire sacramental substance, i.e. not the bread, or the wine, alone are distributed and received, but “in, with, and under the bread” the body, “in, with, and under the wine” the blood, of Christ. The eating and drinking in the Eucharist is of a peculiar kind. It differs from mere natural eating and drinking of common food, and from spiritual eating and drinking, which is a figurative expression signifying the believing appropriation of the Saviour’s atoning work, and which can never be “for judgment.” In natural eating and drinking there would be only bread and wine, not the body and blood of the Lord; in spiritual eating and drinking there would be only the merits of the Redeemer, not bread and wine. In sacramental eating and drinking both the bread and the body, the wine and the blood, of Christ, are sacramentally received, the earthly elements in a natural, the heavenly in a supernatural, undefinable manner, both, however, orally, and both by every communicant. For, according to 1 Corinthians 11:29, also the unworthy communicant receives the Lord’s body, and that for his judgment, “not discerning” it (the King James Version). (d) The end and aim of the ordinance: The Lord says: “This do in remembrance of me.” Paul says: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” These words make the Eucharist an efficient means for strengthening the spiritual union of the disciples with the Lord until His second coming. They are a call for faith on the part of the communicants, and restrict admission to communion to the believing followers of the Lord. Worthy communicants are those who understand the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and hope for His return in glory. (Luther: “The sacrament is instituted for us Christians.”) The duty of self-exploration enjoined upon communicants further emphasizes the purpose of this ordinance.

    Self-exploration embraces knowledge and acknowledgment of our sinful state, confidence in the ever-present forgiveness of God for Christ’s sake, and a sincere purpose to forsake sin and grow in holiness. Accordingly, non-believers, morally irresponsible persons, and persons who lead offensive lives which they will not amend, cannot be admitted to communion ( Matthew 7:6). In 1 Corinthians 10:17 Paul names another purpose: the strengthening of the bonds of brotherly love and fellowship by means of communion. Hence, unity of faith and active Christian charity are required in those who are to commune together ( Matthew 5:23,14), and “close communion,” not “open, or promiscuous communion” is in accord with the teaching of Scripture. In the absence of any fixed rule as to the frequency of a Christian’s communing, the above reasons suffice to induce him to commune frequently (“as often as”). (3) An authoritative statement of Christ concerning the continued use of the sacrament (exercitium actus): “This do.” This means (a) that the action of Christ is to be repeated, i.e., bread and wine should be blessed, distributed and received. The blessing is called the consecration and consists in the reciting of a prayer and the words of the institution. Consecration has no magical effects, it does not produce the sacramental union. On the other hand, it is not a mere meaningless ceremony, but a solemn declaration that in accordance with the will of the Lord, bread and wine are now being separated from their common use, to be devoted to the use which the Lord commanded. It is also a prayer to the Lord to be present in the sacrament; (b) that whenever disciples do as their Lord did, He will connect His body and blood with the earthly substances as He did at the first communion; (c) that besides the blessing of the elements, only the giving, or distribution, and the taking, or reception, of the sacramental elements are proper and essential parts of a sacramental action. A true sacramental action is complete only where these three acts concur: consecration, distribution, reception, and outside of these acts nothing that may be done with the elements possesses the nature of a sacrament or a sacramental action. Offering the consecrated wafer for adoration is no part of the sacrament, but is a form of idolatry (artolatry), because there is no sacramental union except in the act of distributing and receiving the consecrated elements. The withdrawal of the cup from the lay communicants is an unwarranted mutilation of the sacrament ( Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:23). But the grossest perversion of the sacrament, and a standing reproach to the completeness of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord is the offering up of the consecrated elements as an unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, which is being done in the Roman mass ( Hebrews 10:14,18). 3. Difficulties. 1. Question of Possibility: “How can these things be?” This question might be raised against every doctrine of Scripture. The union of the natures in the God-man, the imputation of His merit to the believer, the quickening power of the word of Divine grace, the resurrection of the dead, etc., can all be subjected to the same questioning. 2. The Place of Faith in the Sacrament: “Has faith no place in this sacrament?” Faith does not create, nor help to create the sacrament, neither the administrant’s nor the communicant’s faith. The sacrament is fully constituted in all its parts by the institutional act of the Lord and by His command to continue the observance of it.

    Man’s faith cannot make, man’s unbelief cannot unmake, an ordinance of God. But faith is necessary in order that a communicant may receive the blessings offered in the Eucharist, and testify to his believing relation to the Lord and to his Christian fellowship with the brethren. The sacrament bestows no blessing Exodus opere operato, i.e. by the mere mechanical performance of the physical act. 3. The Words of the Institution: “Are the words of the institution part of the sacred text?” Up to the age of Paulus, they were universally regarded so, and the critical labors of Briggs, P. Gardner, Grafe, Immer, Julicher, etc., which can readily be explained by theological position of these men, lack unity of result and are offset by the labors of Scrivener, Schultzen, R.A. Hoffman, Blass, Beyschlag, etc.

    Christianity as yet sees no reason for discarding the words of the institution and for discontinuing the Eucharist as a Divine ordinance. W. H. T. Dau ACCORDING TO THE BELIEF AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN (DUNKERS) The interest of this denomination in the Lord’s Supper as related to the Passover consists in two points: (1) that the “Lord’s Supper” was not the Jewish Passover, but was eaten the evening before the Jewish feast; and (2) that this “Last Supper” was intended to be perpetuated. This is perpetuated by the Church of the Brethren under the name of “Love Feast” (see [AGAPE ]). I. The Last Supper Was Not the Jewish Passover. 1. Date:

    John gives five distinct intimations of the date: (1) “Now before the feast of the passover” ([ Pro< de< th~v eJorth~v tou~ pa>scoi , Pro de tes heortes tou pascha ]; John 13:1). This shows that the washing of the disciples’ feet, and the discourses at the Last Supper were before the Passover. (2) “Buy what things we have need of for the feast” [ajgo>rason w=n crei>an e]comen eijv thn , agorason hon chreian echomen eis ten heorten ]; John 13:29). This shows that the Supper ([dei~pnon , daiphon ) was not the Passover feast [eJorth>n , heorten ]). (3) “They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Pretorium; and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Pretorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover” ([i[na fa>gwsin to< pa>sca , hina phagosin to pascha ]; John 18:28). This was after the Supper, early on the day of crucifixion, before the Passover. (4) “Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour” ([h+n de< paraskeuh< tou< pa>sca , en de paraskeue tou pascha ]; John 19:14). This again shows conclusively that the Passover was not yet eaten. Jesus is before Pilate; it is the day of the crucifixion, and after the Last Supper. (5) “The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day),” John 19:31, etc. Here we have again a reference to the Preparation ([paraskeuh< tou~ pa>sca , paraskeue tou pascha ]), and also to the Sabbath which, in this case was a “high day” ([h+n galh hJ hJme>ra ejkei>nou tou~ sabba>tou , en gar megale he hemera ekeinou tou sabbatou ]). This shows that the Passover was eaten on Friday evening after sunset on the 15th of Nisan at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. Whenever the Passover fell upon the Sabbath, that Sabbath was a “high day.” 2. Doctrinal:

    Christ is our Passover: died at the time the Passover lamb was slain, hence, after the Last Supper. (1) Christ died at the time the Passover lamb was slain on Friday afternoon, the 14th of Nisan, and thus became Our Passover ( 1 Corinthians 5:7), “For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ.” (2) Jesus, the “Lamb of God” ( John 1:29) corresponds to the Passover lamb ( Exodus 12:3). “Without blemish” ( Exodus 12:5) = Jesus, “who did no sin” ( 1 Peter 2:22-24). The blood of a lamb sprinkled upon houses ( Exodus 12:7,13) corresponds to salvation by the blood of Jesus ( 1 John 1:7-9). (3) Jesus arose the third day and became “the first-fruits of them that are asleep” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4,20,23). The resurrection was on the first day of the week. The sheaf, or first-fruits, was gathered on the 16th of Nisan. Therefore Jesus must have died on Friday the 14th of Nisan, when the Passover lamb was slain; hence, after the Last Supper. 3. Tradition:

    All the early traditions, both Jewish and Christian, agree that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation of the Passover, and they distinguish between the Passover and the Last Supper which was eaten the evening before the Jewish feast. 2. The Perpetuation of the Last Supper. (1) Since the Last Supper was a new institution, there is no more reason for perpetuating one part than another. It is a unit, and each event of that night has its meaning and place. (2) Jesus commanded the disciples to perpetuate feet-washing (see WASHING OF FEET) ( John 13:14,15,17), and likewise He commanded the Eucharist to be perpetuated as a memorial of Him ( Corinthians 11:24,25). Why not the Agape? (3) The Agape was perpetuated by the apostles and disciples. They certainly understood Jesus to mean that the entire services of the Last Supper should be perpetuated, else they would not have done so. 3. Practice of the Church of the Brethren.

    The “Love Feast” commemorates Jesus’ Last Supper with His disciples.

    These Love Feasts are held once or twice each year, always in the evening, by each local church or congregation. Preparatory services on “selfexamination” ( 1 Corinthians 11:28) precede the ordinances. The church pews are converted into tables. The Supper ([dei~pnon , deipnon ]) is made ready beforehand by the deacons and deaconesses. The devotional exercises aim to accomplish special consecration, confession, and reconciliation. Before the eating of the Supper, John 13:1-17 is read and explained, whereupon the brethren proceed to wash one another’s feet, and the sisters likewise by themselves. All tarry one for another ( Corinthians 11:33) until they are ready for the Supper. The officiating elder then calls upon someone to offer prayer for the meal, which is then eaten together. Another prayer of thanksgiving is offered at the close of the meal. After the meal, the officiating elder calls upon one to read the story of Christ’s sufferings (Isaiah 53, or John 19). After a short explanation of the meaning of the symbol, the communicants rise while the officiating elder gives thanks for the bread. He then turns to his brother at his right and breaks a piece of the unleavened bread for him with the words, “My beloved brother, the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ” (see 1 Corinthians 10:16). The brethren then break the bread one to the other, with these words. Likewise the sisters in the same manner. Again the congregation rises while the officiating elder gives thanks for the cup, which is then passed by one to the other with the words “Beloved brother (or sister), the cup of the New Testament is the communion of the blood of Christ” ( 1 Corinthians 10:16). This is followed by prayers of praise and thanksgiving, then a hymn ( Matthew 26:30) and a benediction. 4. The Meaning and Significance of the Love Feast.

    All these ordinances or symbols signify some fundamental virtue in the Christian life. We are commanded to follow our Master who is the Way and the Truth. But these symbols have a real significance, apart from merely “following” or “obeying” the Lord’s command. (1) Feet-washing symbolized humility and service, and also the partial cleansing which all Christians need. (2) The Agape signifies the bread-and-water covenant of brotherhood and peace. It is not only the symbol of true Christian fellowship, but is productive of such fellowship. It is also symbolic of the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb,” which is supremely a symbol of joy. (3) the Eucharist: (a) The broken bread represents the “body of Christ” ( Corinthians 10:16) “which is broken for you” ( 1 Corinthians 11:24 the King James Version); hence, the symbol of sacrifice. It is a memorial of Christ’s sufferings, and a consecration to suffer with Him.

    It means also feeding on Christ, whose flesh we must eat ( John 6:35,51,53,54). (b) The cup represents the blood of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; John 6:53,54). It is the blood covenant that symbolizes the unity of man with God ( John 17:21). Jesus is the vine, we are the branches (John 15). The same mind, spirit, life and love which are in God and Christ are to be in us. LITERATURE.

    C. F. Yoder, God’s Means of Grace; R.H. Miller, Doctrine of Brethren Defended; D. W. Kurtz, Outline of the Fundamental Doctrines (all of Elgin, Illinois, U.S.A.). Daniel Webster Kurtz LORDS OF THE PHILISTINES ( ˆrJudges 3:3; 16:5, etc.; Samuel 5:8,11, etc.), elsewhere called “princes” ([sar], 1 Samuel 18:30; 29:3,4,9), were the petty rulers or kings of the 5 Philistine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath. See PHILISTINES.

    LO-RUHAMAH <lo-roo-ha’-ma > , <lo-roo-ha’-ma > . See LO-AMMI.

    LOSS af;j; [chaTa] “to suffer as one erring, or as a sinner” ( Genesis 31:39, where Jacob assures Laban that he (Jacob) suffered the loss of all animals of the flock torn by beasts); lwOsv] [shekhol], “bereavement” ( Isaiah 47:8 f, where the prophet foretells the humiliation of proud Babylon who shall suffer the loss of her children, and widowhood); µyliKuvi [shikkulim], “bereavement” ( Isaiah 49:20, translated “bereavement” in the Revised Version (British and American), where the prophet promises to the desolate Zion enlargement). In the New Testament the translations of three Greek words: [ajpobolh> , apobole ], “casting away” ( Acts 27:22, where Paul assures the crew and passengers that there shall be no “loss” of life from the storm); [zhmi>a , zemia ], “loss” ( Acts 27:21, referring to the harm sustained in the storm; Philippians 3:7 f, where Paul counts all his natural privileges and attainments as forfeited for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ); [zhmio>w , zemioo ]. “to suffer loss” ( 1 Corinthians 3:15, where Paul says the man whose works are burned shall suffer “loss”; Philippians 3:8, same context as above). Charles B. Williams LOT <lot > :

    1. PERSONALITY.

    The man who bore the name Lot ( fwOl [lot ]; [ Lw>t , Lot ]) is mentioned for the first time in Genesis 11:27, at the beginning of that section of Genesis which is entitled “the generations of Terah.” After Terah’s 3 sons are named, it is added that the third of these, Haran, begat Lot.

    The reason for thus singling out but one of the grandsons of Terah appears in the next verse, where we are told that “Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” For that period in the life of this family, therefore, which begins with the migration from Ur, Lot represents his father’s branch of the family ( Genesis 11:31). It is hardly probable that the relation between Abraham and Lot would have been what it was, had not Haran died; but be this as it may, we read this introduction of Lot into the genealogy of Terah as an anticipation of the story to which it furnishes an introduction, and in which Lot is destined to play an important part.

    The sections of that story in which Lot appears are: in Genesis 11, the migration from Ur to Haran; in Genesis 12, Abraham’s wanderings; in Genesis 13, the separation of Abraham and Lot; in Genesis 14, the campaign of the eastern kings against Sodom and Abraham’s recovery of the captives; and in Genesis 19, the destruction of Sodom.

    In Genesis 14:14,16 Lot is termed the “brother” of Abraham; but that this does not represent a variant tradition is proved by reference to 14:12 of the same chapter (ascribed to “an independent source”) and to 13:8 (ascribed to J; compare 11:28 J).

    2. CAREER. 1. First Period: Lot’s life, as the scanty references to him permit us to reconstruct it, falls into four periods. Of the first period — that previous to the migration from Haran — we know nothing save Lot’s birth in Ur, the death of his father there, the marriage of his sister Milcah to his uncle Nahor (of another sister, Iscah, we learn only the name), and the journey to Haran in company with Terah, Abraham and Sarah. The fact that Sarah’s childlessness and Haran’s death are the only two circumstances related of the family history, may serve to explain why Lot went with Abraham instead of staying with Nahor. A childless uncle and a fatherless nephew may well have remained together with the idea that, even if there was no formal adoption, the nephew might become his uncle’s heir. Certainly, the promise of a numberless seed, so often repeated to the patriarchs, comes first to Abraham immediately after Lot has separated from him (see Genesis 13:6-18). 2. Second Period: In the second period of Lot’s life, we find him the companion of Abraham on his journeys from Mesopotamia to Canaan, through Canaan to Egypt, and back again to the neighborhood of Beth-el. His position is subordinate, for his uncle is head of the family, and oriental custom is uniform and rigorous in the matter of family rule. Hence, the use of the singular number throughout the narrative. What Abraham did, his whole “clan” did. Yet Lot’s position was as nearly independent as these patriarchal conditions admit. When the story reaches the point where it is necessary to mention this fact, the narrator explains, first, the generosity with which Abraham treated his nephew, in permitting him to have “flocks, and herds, and tents” of his own, a quasi-independent economy, and second, that disproportion between their collective possessions and the land’s resources which made separation inevitable. Up to this point the only mention of Lot during this period of wandering is contained in Genesis 13:1, in the words “and Lot with him.” And even here the words are useless (because stating a fact perfectly presumable here as elsewhere), except as they prepare the reader for the story of the separation that is immediately to follow. 3. Third Period: That story introduces the third period of Lot’s career, that of his residence in the [Kikkar] (the Revised Version (British and American) “Plain,” the Revised Version margin “Circle”) and in Sodom. To the fundamental cause of separation, as above stated, the author adds the two circumstances which contributed to produce the result, namely, first, the strife that arose between Abraham’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen, and, second, the presence in the same country of others — the Canaanites and Perizzites — thus reminding his readers that it was no vacant land, through which they might spread themselves absolutely at will and so counteract the operation of the principal cause and the contributory cause already set forth.

    With a magnanimity that must have seemed even greater to minds accustomed to patriarchal authority than it seems to us, and that was in fact much more remarkable than it would be here and now, Abraham offers to his nephew the choice of the land — from the nomad’s point of view. In the “we are brethren” ( Genesis 13:8), the whole force of the scene is crystallized. Lot, who believes himself to have chosen the better part, is thereupon traced in his nomadic progress as far as Sodom, and the reader leaves him for a time face to face with a city whose men “were wicked and sinners against Yahweh exceedingly,” while the narrative moves on with Abraham through that fresh scene of revelation which presented to this man of magnanimity a Divine deed to all the land, and to this man, now left without an heir from among his own kindred (compare Genesis 15:2,3), a Divine pledge of innumerable offspring.

    Lot returns for a moment to our view as the mainspring of Abraham’s motions in the campaign of Genesis 14. We are expressly told that it was “when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive,” that he “led forth his trained men .... and pursued.” On the one hand we hear that Lot now “dwelt in Sodom,” having abandoned the life in tents that he had led since Mesopotamian days, and on the other hand we find in him a foil to the energetic, decisive and successful figure of his uncle — for Lot plays a sorry role, bracketed always with “the women and the goods.”

    This period of his life ends with the annihilation of his chosen home, his wealth, his companions, and all that was his save two daughters, who, it would seem, might better have perished with the rest. Genesis 19, coming immediately after the intercession of Abraham for Sodom that poignantly impresses on the reader’s mind the wickedness of Lot’s environment, exhibits to us the man himself in his surroundings, as they have affected him through well-nigh a score of years (compare 12:4; 17:1). What we see is a man who means well (courtesy, 19:1; hospitality, 19:2,3,6-8; natural shame, 19:7; loyalty, 19:14; and gratitude, 19:19), but who is hopelessly bound up with the moral life of the city through his family connections — alliances that have pulled him down rather than elevated others (19:9,14,26,31-35). The language of 2 Peter 2:7,8 reminds us that Lot was, even at this time of his life, a “righteous” man. Viewed as a part of his environment (the writer has been speaking of Sodom, 19:6), Lot was certainly entitled to be called a “righteous” man, and the term fits the implications of Genesis 18:23-32. Moreover, Genesis 19 itself shows Lot “vexed .... with their lawless deeds” and “sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked” (compare 19:3,7,8,14). Yet the contrast with Abraham is always present in the reader’s mind, so that the most lasting impressions are made by Lot’s selfishness worldliness vacillation and cowardice, not to mention the moral effect made by the closing scene of his life (19:30-38). 4. Fourth Period: The fourth period of Lot’s career is of uncertain duration.

    Upon the destruction of Sodom he dwelt at first in Zoar, the “little” city, spared as a convenient refuge for him and his; but at some time unspecified, he “went up out of Zoar,” for “he feared to dwell in Zoar” — why, we cannot say. This fear was greater than even the evidently great fear he entertained of dwelling in “the mountain” ( Genesis 19:19). In this mountain-country of rocks and caves (Driver in HDB, article “Lot,” cites Buckingham, Travels in Syria, 61-63, 87, as authority for the statement that people still live in caves in this region), Lot and his two remaining daughters dwell; and the biography of this companion of “the friend of God” ends in a scene of incest, which supplies the logical epilogue to a drama of progressive moral deterioration. This bestial cave-man of Genesis 19 is the “brother” of Abraham, but he has reached this goal because his path had led down from Beth-el to Sodom. The origin of the two neighboring and kindred nations, Moab and Ammon, is by the Hebrew tradition traced thus to Lot and his daughters.

    3. PLACE IN LATER LITERATURE.

    In the Bible, Lot finds mention only as the father of Moab and Ammon (Dt 2:9,19; Psalm 83:8), and in the passage in 2 Peter already noticed; and, besides these places, in Luke 17:28-32. Here Lot represents the central figure in the destruction of Sodom, as Noah in the flood in the preceding context (compare the association of these two characters in 2 Peter and the Koran). His deliverance is mentioned, the haste and narrowness of that escape is implied, and his wife’s fate is recalled. In Jewish and Mohammedan lore (including many passages in the Koran itself), Lot is a personage of importance, about whom details are told which fancy has added to the sober traditions of old Israel. But particularly for Mohammed there was point of attachment in Lot’s career, offered in Genesis 19:7,14. Like Mohammed to the men of wicked Mecca, Lot becomes a preacher of righteousness and a messenger of judgment to the men of wicked Sodom. He is one of the line of apostles, sent to reveal God’s will and purpose to his contemporaries.

    4. CRITICAL THEORIES ABOUT THE FIGURE OF LOT.

    The common view of those who deny the historical reality of Lot is that this name simply stands for the ethnic group, Moab and Ammon.

    Wellhausen, e.g., expressly calls “Lot” a national name (Volksname). As to what is told of him in Genesis he remarks: “Were it not for the remarkable depression in which the Dead Sea lies, Sodom and Gomorrah would not have perished; were it not for the little flat tongue of land that reaches out into the swamp from the Southeast, Lot would have fled at once to the mountains of his sons, Moab and Ammon, and not have made the detour by Zoar, which merely serves the purpose of explaining why this corner is excepted from `the overthrow,’ to the territory of which it really belongs” (Prolegomena 6, 323). Meyer confesses that nothing can be made of Lot, because “any characteristic feature that might furnish a point of attachment is entirely lacking.” The first of the families of the Horites of Seir was named Lotan ( Genesis 36:20,22), and this writer believes it “probable that this name is derived from Lot; but that Lot was ever a tribal name (Stammname) follows neither from this fact (rather the contrary) nor from the designation of Moab and the bene `Ammon as `Sons of Lot’ “ (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme, 311; Compare 261, 339). If “Horite” was understood as “cave-dweller,” the story in Genesis 19:30 might be adduced in support of this combination. But the most recent line of reasoning concerning these patriarchal figures makes their names “neither Divine names nor tribal names, whether in actual use or regarded as such, but rather simple personal names like Tom, Dick and Harry. ....

    Typical names they became .... so that .... Israel’s story-tellers would connect the name of Lot with the overthrow of the cities” (Gressmann, article in ZATW, 1910). These names were chosen just because “they were very common at the time when the narratives were stamped into types”; later they became unfashionable, but the story-tellers held fast to the old names. “One sees from this at once into how ancient a time the proper names Abraham and Lot must reach, and understands therefore the more easily how they could be changed into tribal ancestors.” It does not require the cautions, uttered by writers of this way of thinking, against regarding their views as a return to the old historical view of the patriarchs, to remind us that, in spite of all that may be said to the contrary, the present trend of thought among the most radical critics of the Genesistraditions is much mote favorable to that conservative historical view than were the opinions which they have overthrown. So that it may justly be asserted, as Gressmann writes: “Confidence in tradition is in any case on the rise.”

    Lot’s Wife: This woman, unknown by name, figures in the narrative of Lot that relates his escape from Sodom. She is mentioned in Genesis 19 only in verses 15-17, where she is commanded to flee from the doomed city with her husband and daughters, and is laid hold upon by the angelic visitors in their effort to hasten the slow departure; and in 19:26, where she alone of the four fugitives disobeys the warning, looks back, and becomes a “pillar of salt” This disobedience, with the moral state it implied and the judgment it entailed, is held up as an example by Christ in Luke 17:32. In the Scriptures this is all that is said of a person and event that furnished the basis for a great deal of speculation. Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 4) adds to the statement derived from Genesis, “She was changed into a pillar of salt,” the words, “for I visited it, and it still remains even now” (see also The Wisdom of Solomon 10:7).

    Among Christian writers contemporary with and subsequent to Josephus, as well as among the Jews themselves and other Orientals, the same assertion is found, and down to recent times travelers have reported the persistence of such a “pillar of salt,” either on the testimony of natives or as eyewitnesses. The question of the origin and nature of these “pillars” is a part of the larger question of Sodom and its neighborhood (see SALT; SIDDIM; SLIME); for that no one particular “pillar” has persisted through the centuries may be regarded as certain; nor if it had, would the identification of Lot’s wife with it and with it alone be ascertainable. This is just an early, persistent and notable case of that “identification” of Biblical sites which prevails all over the Holy Land. It is to be classed with the myth-and legend-building turn of mind in simple peoples, which has e.g. embroidered upon this Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom such marvelous details and embellishments.

    The principal thing to observe is the vagueness and the simplicity of the story in Genesis. For it does not necessarily imply the “metamorphosis” popularly attributed to it, in the strict sense of that word. And it lacks, even in a narrative like this, where the temptation would be greatest, all indications of that “popular archaeology” or curiosity, which according to some critics, is alleged to have furnished the original motive for the invention of the patriarchal narratives. “She became a pillar of salt,” and “Remember Lot’s wife”: this is the extent of the Biblical allusions. All the rest is comment, or legend, or guess, or “science.” J. Oscar Boyd LOT See DIVINATION.

    LOTAN <lo’-tan > ( ˆf;wOl [loTan]): Son of Seir, a chief (the King James Version “duke”) of Edom ( Genesis 36:20,22,29; 1 Chronicles 1:38 f).

    LOTHASUBUS <loth-a-su’-bus > ([ Lwqa>soubov , Lothasoubos ]): One of those who stood by Ezra at the reading of the law (1 Esdras 9:44); called “Hashum” in Nehemiah 8:4.

    LOTS See DIVINATION.

    LOTS, FEAST OF See PURIM.

    LOTUS, TREES <lo’-tus > ( µylia’x, [tse’elim]; the King James Version shady trees): The trees under which behemoth (the “hippopotams”) rests; “He lieth under the lotus-trees,” “The lotus-trees cover him with their shade” ( Job 40:21,22). The Arabic equivalent is the dom tree, Zizyphus lotus, a species of jujube tree (Natural Order Rhamneae); it has many spines and small globular fruit a little bigger than a pea. It is common in the Jordan valley.

    This plant has nothing to do with the Egyptian lotus. See LILY.

    LOVE <luv > ( bhea; [’ahebh], hb;ha” [’ahabhah], noun; [file>w , phileo ], [ajgapa>w , agapao ], verb; [ajga>ph , agape ], noun): Love to both God and man is fundamental to true religion, whether as expressed in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Jesus Himself declared that all the law and the prophets hang upon love ( Matthew 22:40; Mark 12:28-34).

    Paul, in his matchless ode on love (1 Corinthians 13), makes it the greatest of the graces of the Christian life — greater than speaking with tongues, or the gift of prophecy, or the possession of a faith of superior excellence; for without love all these gifts and graces, desirable and useful as they are in themselves, are as nothing, certainly of no permanent value in the sight of God. Not that either Jesus or Paul underestimates the faith from which all the graces proceed, for this grace is recognized as fundamental in all God’s dealings with man and man’s dealings with God ( John 6:28 f; Hebrews 11:6); but both alike count that faith as but idle and worthless belief that does not manifest itself in love to both God and man. As love is the highest expression of God and His relation to mankind, so it must be the highest expression of man’s relation to his Maker and to his fellowman.

    1. DEFINITION.

    While the Hebrew and Greek words for “love” have various shades and intensities of meaning, they may be summed up in some such definition as this: Love, whether used of God or man, is an earnest and anxious desire for and an active and beneficent interest ins the well-being of the one loved. Different degrees and manifestations of this affection are recognized in the Scriptures according to the circumstances and relations of life, e.g. the expression of love as between husband and wife, parent and child, brethren according to the flesh, and according to grace; between friend and enemy, and, finally, between God and man. It must not be overlooked, however, that the fundamental idea of love as expressed in the definition of it is never absent in any one of these relations of life, even though the manifestation thereof may differ according to the circumstances and relations. Christ’s interview with the apostle Peter on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias ( John 21:15-18) sets before us in a most beautiful way the different shades of meaning as found in the New Testament words [file>w , phileo ], and [ajgapa>w , agapao ]. In the question of Christ, “Lovest thou me more than these?” the Greek verb [ajgapa~|v , agapas ], denotes the highest, most perfect kind of love (Latin, diligere), implying a clear determination of will and judgment, and belonging particularly to the sphere of Divine revelation. In his answer Peter substitutes the word [filw~ , philo ], which means the natural human affection, with its strong feeling, or sentiment, and is never used in Scripture language to designate man’s love to God. While the answer of Peter, then, claims only an inferior kind of love, as compared to the one contained in Christ’s question, he nevertheless is confident of possessing at least such love for his Lord.

    2. THE LOVE OF GOD.

    First in the consideration of the subject of “love” comes the love of God — He who is love, and from whom all love is derived. The love of God is that part of His nature — indeed His whole nature, for “God is love” — which leads Him to express Himself in terms of endearment toward His creatures, and actively to manifest that interest and affection in acts of loving care and self-sacrifice in behalf of the objects of His love. God is “love” ( 1 John 4:8,16) just as truly as He is “light” ( 1 John 1:5), “truth” ( 1 John 1:6), and “spirit” ( John 4:24). Spirit and light are expressions of His essential nature; love is the expression of His personality corresponding to His nature. God not merely loves, but is love; it is His very nature, and He imparts this nature to be the sphere in which His children dwell, for “he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him” ( 1 John 4:16). Christianity is the only religion that sets forth the Supreme Being as Love. In heathen religions He is set forth as an angry being and in constant need of appeasing. 1. Objects of God’s Love: The object of God’s love is first and foremost His own Son, Jesus Christ ( Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Luke 20:13; John 17:24). The Son shares the love of the Father in a unique sense; He is “my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth” ( Isaiah 42:1). There exists an eternal affection between the Son and the Father — the Son is the original and eternal object of the Father’s love ( John 17:24). If God’s love is eternal it must have an eternal object, hence, Christ is an eternal being.

    God loves the believer in His Son with a special love. Those who are united by faith and love to Jesus Christ are, in a different sense from those who are not thus united, the special objects of God’s love. Said Jesus, thou “lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me” ( John 17:23). Christ is referring to the fact that, just as the disciples had received the same treatment from the world that He had received, so they had received of the Father the same love that He Himself had received. They were not on the outskirts of God’s love, but in the very center of it. “For the father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me” ( John 16:27). Here phileo is used for love, indicating the fatherly affection of God for the believer in Christ, His Son. This is love in a more intense form than that spoken of for the world ( John 3:16).

    God loves the world ( John 3:16; compare 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). This is a wonderful truth when we realize what a world this is — a world of sin and corruption. This was a startling truth for Nicodemus to learn, who conceived of God as loving only the Jewish nation. To him, in his narrow exclusiveism, the announcement of the fact that God loved the whole world of men was startling. God loves the world of sinners lost and ruined by the fall. Yet it is this world, “weak,” “ungodly,” “without strength,” “sinners” ( Romans 5:6-8), “dead in trespasses and sins” ( Ephesians 2:1 the King James Version), and unrighteous, that God so loved that He gave His only begotten Son in order to redeem it. The genesis of man’s salvation lies in the love and mercy of God ( Ephesians 2:4 f). But love is more than mercy or compassion; it is active and identifies itself with its object. The love of the heavenly Father over the return of His wandering children is beautifully set forth in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). Nor should the fact be overlooked that God loves not only the whole world, but each individual in it; it is a special as well as a general love ( John 3:16, “whosoever”; Galatians 2:20, “loved me, and gave himself up for me”). 2. Manifestations of God’s Love: God’s love is manifested by providing for the physical, mental, moral and spiritual needs of His people ( Isaiah 48:14,20,21; 62:9-12; 63:3,12). In these Scriptures God is seen manifesting His power in behalf His people in the time of their wilderness journeying and their captivity. He led them, fed and clothed them, guided them and protected them from all their enemies.

    His love was again shown in feeling with His people, their sorrows and afflictions ( Isaiah 63:9); He suffered in their affliction, their interests were His; He was not their adversary but their friend, even though it might have seemed to them as if He either had brought on them their suffering or did not care about it. Nor did He ever forget them for a moment during all their trials. They thought He did; they said, “God hath forgotten us,” “He hath forgotten to be gracious”; but no; a mother might forget her child that she should not have compassion on it, but God would never forget His people. How could He? Had He not graven them upon the palms of His hands ( Isaiah 49:15 f)? Rather than His love being absent in the chastisement of His people, the chastisement itself was often a proof of the presence of the Divine love, “for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” ( Hebrews 12:6-11). Loving reproof and chastisement are necessary oftentimes for growth in holiness and righteousness. Our redemption from sin is to be attributed to God’s wondrous love; “Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” ( Isaiah 38:17; compare Psalm 50:21; 90:8). Ephesians 2:4 f sets forth in a wonderful way how our entire salvation springs forth from the mercy and love of God; “But God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ,” etc. It is because of the love of the Father that we are granted a place in the heavenly kingdom ( Ephesians 2:6-8). But the supreme manifestation of the love of God, as set forth in the Scripture, is that expressed in the gift of His only-begotten Son to die for the sins of the world ( John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8; John 4:9 f), and through whom the sinful and sinning but repentant sons of men are taken into the family of God, and receive the adoption of sons ( 1 John 3:1 f; Galatians 4:4-6). From this wonderful love of God in Christ Jesus nothing in heaven or earth or hell, created or uncreated or to be created, shall be able to separate us ( Romans 8:37 f).

    3. THE LOVE OF MAN. 1. Source of Man’s Love: Whatever love there is in man, whether it be toward God or toward his fellowman, has its source in God — “Love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” ( 1 John 4:7 f); “We love, because he first loved us” ( 1 John 4:19). Trench, in speaking of [agape ], says it is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion. Heathen writers do not use it at all, their nearest approach to it being [philanthropia ] or [philadelphia ] — the love betweeen those of the same blood. Love in the heart of man is the offspring of the love of God. Only the regenerated heart can truly love as God loves; to this higher form of love the unregenerate can lay no claim ( 1 John 4:7,19,21; 2:7-11; 3:10; 4:11 f). The regenerate man is able to see his fellow-man as God sees him, value him as God values him, not so much because of what he is by reason of his sin and unloveliness, but because of what, through Christ, he may become; he sees man’s intrinsic worth and possibility in Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:14-17).

    This love is also created in the heart of man by the Holy Ghost ( Romans 5:5), and is a fruit of the Spirit ( Galatians 5:22). It is also stimulated by the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, more than anyone else, manifested to the world the spirit and nature of true love ( John 13:34; 15:12; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 John 4:9 f). 2. Objects of Man’s Love: God must be the first and supreme object of man’s love; He must be loved with all the heart, mind, soul and strength ( Matthew 22:37 f; Mark 12:29-34). In this last passage the exhortation to supreme love to God is connected with the doctrine of the unity of God (Dt 6:4 f) — inasmuch as the Divine Being is one and indivisible, so must our love to Him be undivided. Our love to God is shown in the keeping of His commandments ( Exodus 20:6; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6). Love is here set forth as more than a mere affection or sentiment; it is something that manifests itself, not only in obedience to known Divine commands, but also in a protecting and defense of them, and a seeking to know more and more of the will of God in order to express love for God in further obedience (compare Dt 10:12). Those who love God will hate evil and all forms of worldliness, as expressed in the avoidance of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life ( Psalm 97:10; 1 John 2:15-17).

    Whatever there may be in his surroundings that would draw the soul away from God and righteousness, that the child of God will avoid. Christ, being God, also claims the first place in our affections. He is to be chosen before father or mother, parent, or child, brother or sister, or friend ( Matthew 10:35-38; Luke 14:26). The word “hate” in these passages does not mean to hate in the sense in which we use the word today. It is used in the sense in which Jacob is said to have “hated” Leah ( Genesis 29:31), that is, he loved her less than Rachel; “He loved also Rachel more than Leah” ( Genesis 29:30). To love Christ supremely is the test of true discipleship ( Luke 14:26), and is an unfailing mark of the elect ( Peter 1:8). We prove that we are really God’s children by thus loving His Son ( John 8:42). Absence of such love means, finally, eternal separation ( 1 Corinthians 16:22).

    Man must love his fellow-man also. Love for the brotherhood is a natural consequence of the love of the fatherhood; for “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” ( John 3:10). For a man to say “I love God” and yet hate his fellowman is to brand himself as “a liar” ( 1 John 4:20); “He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen” ( 1 John 4:20); he that loveth God will love his brother also ( 1 John 4:21). The degree in which we are to love our fellow-man is “as thyself” ( Matthew 22:39), according to the strict observance of law. Christ set before His followers a much higher example than that, however. According to the teaching of Jesus we are to supersede this standard: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” ( John 13:34). The exhibition of love of this character toward our fellow-man is the badge of true discipleship. It may be called the sum total of our duty toward our fellow-man, for “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law”; “for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law” ( Romans 13:8,10). The qualities which should characterize the love which we are to manifest toward our fellow-men are beautifully set forth in 1 Corinthians 13. It is patient and without envy; it is not proud or self-elated, neither does it behave discourteously; it does not cherish evil, but keeps good account of the good; it rejoices not at the downfall of an enemy or competitor, but gladly hails his success; it is hopeful, trustful and forbearing — for such there is no law, for they need none; they have fulfilled the law.

    Nor should it be overlooked that our Lord commanded His children to love their enemies, those who spoke evil of them, and despitefully used them ( Matthew 5:43-48). They were not to render evil for evil, but contrariwise, blessing. The love of the disciple of Christ must manifest itself in supplying the necessities, not of our friends only ( 1 John 3:16-18), but also of our enemies ( Romans 12:20 f).

    Our love should be “without hypocrisy” ( Romans 12:9); there should be no pretense about it; it should not be a thing of mere word or tongue, but a real experience manifesting itself in deed and truth ( 1 John 3:18). True love will find its expression in service to man: “Through love be servants one to another” ( Galatians 5:13). What more wonderful illustration can be found of ministering love than that set forth by our Lord in the ministry of foot-washing as found in John 13? Love bears the infirmities of the weak, does not please itself, but seeks the welfare of others ( Romans 15:1-3; Philippians 2:21; Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 10:24); it surrenders things which may be innocent in themselves but which nevertheless may become a stumbling-block to others ( Romans 14:15,21); it gladly forgives injuries ( Ephesians 4:32), and gives the place of honor to another ( Romans 12:10). What, then, is more vital than to possess such love? It is the fulfillment of the royal law ( James 2:8), and is to be put above everything else ( Colossians 3:14); it is the binder that holds all the other graces of the Christian life in place ( Colossians 3:14); by the possession of such love we know that we have passed from death unto life ( 1 John 3:14), and it is the supreme test of our abiding in God and God in us ( 1 John 4:12,16). William Evans LOVE, BROTHERLY See BROTHERLY LOVE.

    LOVE-FEAST <luv’-fest > . See AGAPE.

    LOVELY <luv’-li > ( bh”a; [’ahabh], bhea; [’ahebh]; [prosfilh>v , prosphiles ]): “Lovely” occurs only 4 times. In 2 Samuel 1:23 it is the translation of [’ahebh], “to be loved” (“Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant (the King James Version margin “sweet”) in their lives”), where it seems to mean “loving” or “lovable.” Two other words are so translated in the Old Testament: [machmadch], “desire” a “desirable thing” ( Song of Solomon 5:16, “He is altogether lovely,” that is, “lovable,” “to be desired,” literally, “all of him lovableness,” or “desirableness”); [aghabhim ] “loves,” or “charms” (Ezek 33:32, “Thou art unto them as a very lovely song,” the King James Version margin “a song of loves,” the Revised Version margin “a love-song”; in 33:31 the same word is translated “much love,” the King James Version margin “They make loves or jests”); in Philippians 4:8 we have [prosphiles ], “very lovely,” or “lovable,” “whatsoever things are lovely.” W. L. Walker LOVER <luv’-er > ( bheao [’ohebh], bhea; [’ahebh]): In the Old Testament [’ohebh], from [’ahebh], “to love,” is sometimes “lover” in the sense of “friend,” in the older English sense of the word ( 1 Kings 5:1, “Hiram was ever a lover of David”; Psalm 38:11; 88:18; Lamentations 1:2); more frequently it has the meaning of “lover” in the special sense, sometimes in the evil sense of the word ( Jeremiah 22:20,22; 30:14; Ezek 16:33,36 f, etc.; Hos 2:5,7,10, etc.); [aghabh ], “to love” ( Jeremiah 4:30), [rea `], “companion” ( Jeremiah 3:1), and [ahabhim], “loves” (Hos 8:9), are also translated “lovers” in this sense.

    In the New Testament the simple word “lover” does not occur, but we have various compound words, [philotheos ] “lover of God” ( 2 Timothy 3:4); [philagathos ], “lover of good,” and [philoxenos ], “lover of hospitality” (Tit 1:8); [philautos ], “lover of self” ( 2 Timothy 3:2); [philedonos ], “lover of pleasure” ( 2 Timothy 3:4).

    In the Revised Version (British and American) we have, for “a lover of hospitality” (Tit 1:8), “given to”; for “covetous” ( Luke 16:14; Timothy 3:2), “lovers of money”; for “not covetous” ( 1 Timothy 3:3), “no lover of money”; for “despisers of them that are good” ( 2 Timothy 3:3), “no lovers of good.” W. L. Walker LOVES <luvz > ( Psalm 45:1, title). See PSALMS.

    LOVINGKINDNESS <luv-ing-kind’-nes > ( ds,j, [hecedh]): “Lovingkindness” in the King James Version always represents this word (30 times), but of [hecedh] there are many other renderings, e.g. “mercy” (frequently), “kindness” (38), “goodness” (12). The word is derived from [chacadh], meaning, perhaps, “to bend or bow oneself,” “to incline oneself”; hence, “to be gracious or merciful.” the English Revised Version has not many changes, but in the American Standard Revised Version “lovingkindness” is invariably employed when [checedh] is used of God, and, as a rule, “kindness” when it is used of man, as in Genesis 21:23; Judges 1:24 (the King James Version “mercy,” the Revised Version (British and American) “deal kindly”); Ruth 3:10; 2 Chronicles 32:32; 35:26 (the King James Version “goodness,”‘); margin “Hebrew: kindness” the Revised Version (British and American) “good deeds”); Job 6:14, etc. Of the uses of the word as on man’s part toward God, the only occurrences are: Jeremiah 2:2, “I remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals,” etc.; Hos 6:4,6, “Your goodness (the Revised Version margin “or kindness”) is as a morning cloud,” “I desire goodness (the King James Version “mercy,” the Revised Version margin “Kindness”), and not sacrifice,” which last passage may denote kindness as toward man.

    When used of God [checedh] denotes, in general, “the Divine Love condescending to His creatures, more especially to sinners, in unmerited kindness” (Delitzsch). It is frequency associated with forgiveness, and is practically equivalent to “mercy” or “mercifulness” ( Exodus 20:6), “showing lovingkindness (the English Revised Version “mercy”) unto thousands of them that love me”; Exodus 34:6 f, “slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness (the English Revised Version “plenteous in mercy”)”; (34:7) “keeping lovingkindness (the English Revised Version “mercy”) for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (compare Numbers 14:18); Micah 7:18, “He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in lovingkindness” (the English Revised Version “mercy”). This quality in Yahweh was one by which He sought to bind His people to Himself. It is greatly magnified in the Old Testament, highly extolled and gloried in, in many of the psalms (Psalm 136 has the constant refrain, “For his lovingkindness endureth forever”). In Dt 7:12 it is associated with the covenant, and in 2 Samuel 7:15 with the covenant with David (compare Isaiah 55:3, etc.). It was something that could always be relied on.

    Being such an essential and distinctive quality of God, the prophets taught that it should also characterize His people. It is part of the Divine requirement in Micah 6:8, “to love kindness” (compare Zechariah 7:9, “Show kindness and compassion every man to his brother”). The want of it in the nation was a cause of Yahweh’s controversy with them, e.g. Hos 4:1, “There is no truth, nor goodness ([checedh) (the King James Version and the English Revised Version “mercy”), nor knowledge of God in the land”; Hos 12:6, “Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep kindness (the King James Version and the English Revised Version “mercy”) and justice, and wait for thy God continually.” Cheyne (Encyclopedia Biblica) regards [checedh] as denoting paternal affection on God’s part, answered by filial and loyal affection and brotherly love on man’s part ([phil adelphia] in the New Testament).

    The word “lovingkindness” does not occur in the New Testament, but as its equivalents we have such terms as “mercy” “goodness,” “kindness,” “brotherly love” (see special articles). W. L. Walker LOW COUNTRY See SHEPHELAH.

    LOWLAND <lo’-land > ( hl;pev] [shephelah]; compare Arabic sufalat, “the lowest part”): The western part of Palestine, including the maritime plain and the foothills. There has been an attempt to restrict the term to the foothills, at least as far as the more ancient documents are concerned, but there can be little doubt that the maritime plain should be included. the Revised Version (British and American) has “lowland” throughout for [shephelah], while the King James Version has “low country” ( 2 Chronicles 26:10; 28:18), “low plains” ( 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 9:27), “plain” ( Jeremiah 17:26; Obadiah 1:19; Zechariah 7:7), “vale” or “valley” (Dt 1:7; Josh 9:1; 10:40). See COUNTRY; SHEPHELAH.

    Alfred Ely Day LOZON <lo’-zon > ([ Lozw>n , Lozon ]): Head of a family of Solomon’s servants (1 Esdras 5:33); called “Darkon” in Ezra 2:56; Nehemiah 7:58.

    LUBIM <lu’-bim > ( µybiWl [lubhim]): A people mentioned in the Old Testament ( 2 Chronicles 12:3; 16:8; Daniel 11:43; Nahum 3:9). In all these cases the word is translated in the King James Version “Libyans”; in the Revised Version (British and American) only in Daniel 11:43. The people so named had their seat in North Africa, West of Egypt (compare Acts 2:10, “the parts of Libya about Cyrene”). See LIBYA. On three different occasions the Libyans invaded Egypt, and at length, in the 10th century BC, succeeded in founding an Egyptian dynasty under SHISHAK (which see).

    LUCAS <lu’-kas > , <loo’-kas > . In Philem 1:24 the King James Version, for “Luke” (Revised Version).

    LUCIFER <lu’-si-fer > , <loo’-si-fer > : The morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus. See ASTROLOGY, 11.

    LUCIUS (1) <lu’-shi-us > , <lu’-shus > ([ Lou>kiov , Loukios ], [ Leu>kiov , Leukios ]): A Roman consul who is said (1 Macc 15:16 ff) to have written a letter to Ptolemy Euergetes securing to Simon the high priest and to the Jews the protection of Rome. As the praenomen only of the consul is given, there has been much discussion as to the person intended. The weight of probability has been assigned to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was one of the consuls in 139-138 BC, the fact of his praenomen being Cneius and not Lucius being explained by an error in transcription and the fragmentary character of the documents. The authority of the Romans not being as yet thoroughly established in Asia, they were naturally anxious to form alliances with the kings of Egypt and with the Jews to keep Syria in check.

    The imperfections that are generally admitted in the transcription of the Roman letter are not such as in any serious degree to invalidate the authority of the narrative in 1 Maccabees. J. Hutchison LUCIUS (2) ([ Lou>kiov , Loukios ]): This name is mentioned twice: (1) In the church at Antioch which sent out Barnabas and Saul as its missionaries were several prophets and teachers, among whom was Lucius of Cyrene ( Acts 13:1). He was probably one of those “men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also” ( Acts 11:20). It has been suggested that he is the same as Luke, but this is merely conjecture. (2) “Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen” were among those who joined Paul in saluting the Christians in Rome ( Romans 16:21). By “kinsmen” Paul means “Jews” (compare Romans 9:3; 16:11,21). This Lucius may have been the same person as (1) , but, as we have no more information about either, we cannot determine this. S. F. Hunter LUCRE <lu’-ker > , <loo’-ker > ( [x”B, [betsa’>; [ke>rdov , kerdos ]): Literally, “gain” ( 1 Samuel 8:3; Tit 1:7), hence, in the New Testament always qualified by “filthy” ( 1 Timothy 3:8, “not greedy of filthy lucre” [aijscrokerdh>v , aischrokerdes ]; so Tit 1:7). The adverb is found in Peter 5:2 (see also Tit 1:11). In 1 Timothy 3:3, the Revised Version (British and American) changes the King James Version to “no lover of money” (ajfila>rgurov , aphilarguros ]).

    LUD; LUDIM <lud > , <lu’-dim > , <lood’-im > ( dWl [ludh], µydIWl [ludhim], µyYIdIWl [ludhiyum], “Ludites”; [ Lou>d , Loud ], [ Loudiei>m , Loudieim ]; Targum Onk: yadwl [ludha’e]):

    1. TWO DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES:

    In Genesis 10:13 Ludim appears as the firstborn of Mizraim (Egypt), and in 10:22 Lud is the fourth son of Shem.

    We have therefore to do with two different nationalities bearing the same name, and not always easy to distinguish. 1 Chronicles 1:11,17 simply repeat the statements of Genesis 10:13,22. In Isaiah 66:19 Lud is mentioned with Tarshish and Pul (generally regarded as a mistake for Phut), Tubal, Javan, and the isles. Accepting this emendation, the passage agrees with Jeremiah 46:9, where the Ludim are spoken of with Kush and Phut as the allies of Egypt; and also with Ezek 27:10, where Lud is referred to with Persia and Put as soldiers of Tyre. Lud, again, is mentioned with Ethiopia (Gush), Put, all the mingled people, Cab, and the children of the land which is in league (or, margin “the land of the covenant”), which were all to fall by the sword (Ezek 30:5).

    2. THE SEMITIC LUD:

    Coming to the Semitic Lud, it is to be noted that the Assyrians called Lydia Lu(d)du, and that the mythical ancestor of the Lydians, according to Herodotus (i.7), was Lydos, and their first king, Agros, was descended from Ninos and Belos, i.e. Assyria and Babylonia. The apparently Assyrian colony in Cappadocia about 2000 BC, who used the Babylonian script, may be regarded as supporting this statement, and that there were other colonies of the same nationality in the neighborhood is implied by the fact that Assyro-Babylonian was one of the official languages of the Hittite state whose capital was Hattu or Boghaz-keui. On the other hand when Gyges sent an embassy to Assur-bani-apli of Assyria, Lu(d)du is described as a country whose name had never before been heard, and whose language was unknown. As, however, the earlier kings of Assyria certainly warred in that district, this statement has to be taken with caution. Perhaps the name had changed in the interval, owing to an immigration similar to that which brought the Hittites into Asia Minor, and caused change in the language at the same time.

    3. NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS SEMITIC LATER:

    Naturally Lydia was not recognizable as Semitic in classical times. The existence of Lud in the neighborhood of Egypt as well as in Asia Minor finds parallels in the Syrian Mucri of the Assyrian inscriptions by the side of the [Mucur] which stood for Egypt, and still more in the Cappadocian Cush (Kusu) of certain Assyrian letters relating to horses, by the side of the Cush (Kusu likewise) which stands for Ethiopia.

    4. EGYPTIAN LUD NOT RECOGNIZABLE:

    Everything points, therefore, to the Semitic Lud and Ludim being Lydia, and the identification may be regarded as satisfactory. It is altogether otherwise with the Egyptian Lud and Ludim, however, about which little can be said at present. The reference to a city which seems to be [Putuyawan] in an inscription mentioning the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar, and apparently referring to an expedition against Amasis, though it may stand for “Grecian Phut,” has very little bearing upon the position of the Egyptian Lud, especially as the text in which it occurs is very mutilated.

    One thing is certain, however: the Hebrews regarded this Lud and Ludim as being Hamitic, and not Semitic. T. G. Pinches LUHITH, ASCENT OF <lu’-hith > , <loo’-hith > , tyjiWLh” hle[\m” [ma`-aleh ha-luchith]): A place named in Isaiah 15:5; Jeremiah 48:5. It is clearly identical with the way, or descent, of Horonaim. Eusebius, Onomasticon places Luhith between Areopolis and Zoar. Some way is intended by which fugitives from the Arabah could reach the uplands of the Moabite plateau. Guthe thinks it may be the road which leads from the district of the ancient Zoar on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea to the uplands through Wady Bene Hammad. Along this track ran also a Roman road. If Horonaim were the higher of the two places, this might account for the way being called the “descent” of Horonaim as going down from that place, and the “ascent” of Luhith as going up thence. Neither place can as yet be identified with certainty. W. Ewing LUKE, THE EVANGELIST <look > , <luk > .

    1. NAME:

    The name Luke ([ Louka~v , Loukas ]) is apparently an abbreviation for [ Loukano>v , Loukanos ]. Old Latin manuscripts frequently have the words CATA LUCANUM as the title of the Third Gospel. (But the form [ Lou>kiov , Loukios ], is also found in inscriptions synonymous with [ Louka~v , Loukas ]; compare Ramsay, The Expositor, December, 1912.)

    It was a common fashion in the koine to abbreviate proper names, as it is today, for that matter (compare Amphias from Amphiatos, Antipas from Antipatros, Apollos from Apollonias, Demas from Demetrios, Zenas from Zenodoros, etc.; and see Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, section 287).

    2. MENTIONED THREE TIMES BY NAME:

    Paul alone names Luke ( Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philem 1:24). He does not mention his own name in the Gospel or in the Acts.

    Compare the silence of the Fourth Gospel concerning the name of the apostle John. There was no particular occasion to mention Luke’s name in the Gospel, except as the author, if he had so wished. The late legend that Luke was one of the Seventy sent out by Jesus (Epiphanius, Haer., ii.51, 11) is pure conjecture, as is the story that Luke was one of the Greeks who came to Philip for an introduction to Jesus ( John 12:20 f), or the companion of Cleopas in the walk to Emmaus ( Luke 24:13). The clear implication of Luke 1:2 is that Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.

    3. A GENTILE:

    In Colossians 4:14 Luke is distinguished by Paul from those “of the circumcision” (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus). Epaphras, Luke, Demas form the Gentilegroup. He was believed by the early Christian writers to have come directly from heathendom to Christianity. He may or may not have been a Jewish proselyte. His first appearance with Paul at Troas (compare the “we”-sections, Acts 16:10-12) is in harmony with this idea. The classic introduction to the Gospel ( Luke 1:1-4) shows that he was a man of culture (compare Apollos and Paul). He was a man of the schools, and his Greek has a literary flavor only approached in the New Testament by Paul’s writings and by the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    4. HOME:

    His home is very uncertain. The text of D (Codex Bezae) and several Latin authorities have a “we-”passage in Acts 11:27. If this reading, the socalled B text of Blass, is the original, then Luke was at Antioch and may have been present at the great event recorded in Acts 13:1 f. But it is possible that the Western text is an interpolation. At any rate, it is not likely that Luke is the same person as Lucius of Acts 13:1. Ramsay (St.

    Paul the Traveler, 389 f) thinks that Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, iv, 6) does not mean to say that Luke was a native of Antioch, but only that he had Antiochian family connections. Jerome calls him Lucas medicus Antiochensis. He certainly shows an interest in Antioch (compare Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26; 15:22,23,30,35; 18:22). Antioch, of course, played a great part in the early work of Paul. Other stories make Luke live in Alexandria and Achaia and narrate that he died in Achaia or Bithynia. But we know that he lived in Philippi for a considerable period. He first meets Paul at Troas just before the vision of the Man from Macedonia ( Acts 16:10-12), and a conversation with Paul about the work in Macedonia may well have been the human occasion of that vision and call. Luke remains in Philippi when Paul and Silas leave ( Acts 16:40, “They .... departed”).

    He is here when Paul comes back on his 3rd tour bound for Jerusalem ( Acts 20:3-5). He shows also a natural pride in the claims of Philippi to the primacy in the province as against Amphipolis and Thessalonica ( Acts 16:12, “the first of the district”). On the whole, then, we may consider Philippi as the home of Luke, though he was probably a man who had traveled a great deal, and may have been with Paul in Galatia before coming to Troas. He may have ministered to Paul in his sickness there ( Galatians 4:14). His later years were spent chiefly with Paul away from Philippi (compare Acts 20:3-28,31, on the way to Jerusalem, at Caesarea, the voyage to Rome and in Rome).

    5. PHYSICIAN:

    Paul ( Colossians 4:14) expressly calls him “the beloved physician.” He was Paul’s medical adviser, and doubtless prolonged his life and rescued him from many a serious illness. He was a medical missionary, and probably kept up his general practice of medicine in connection with his work in Rome (compare Zahn, Intro, III, 1). He probably practiced medicine in Malta ( Acts 28:9 f). He naturally shows his fondness for medical terms in his books (compare Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke; Harnack, New Testament Studies: Luke the Physician, 175-98).

    Harnack adds some examples to those given by Hobart, who has overdone the matter in reality. See further, ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

    6. BROTHER OF TITUS:

    It is possible, even probable (see Souter’s article in DCG), that in Corinthians 8:18 “the brother” is equivalent to “the brother” of Titus just mentioned, that is, “his brother.” If so, we should know that Paul came into contact with Luke at Philippi on his way to Corinth during his 2nd tour (compare also 2 Corinthians 12:18). It would thus be explained why in Acts the name of Titus does not occur, since he is the brother of Luke the author of the book.

    7. CONNECTION WITH PAUL:

    If the reading of Codex Bezae (D) in Acts 11:27 f is correct, Luke met Paul at Antioch before the 1st missionary tour. Otherwise it may not have been till Troas on the 2nd tour. But he is the more or less constant companion of Paul from Philippi on the return to Jerusalem on the 3rd tour till the 2 years in Rome at the close of the Acts. He was apparently not with Paul when Philippians 2:20 was written, though, as we have seen, he was with Paul in Rome when he wrote Colossians and Philemon. He was Paul’s sole companion for a while during the 2nd Roman imprisonment ( 2 Timothy 4:11). His devotion to Paul in this time of peril is beautiful.

    8. AUTHOR OF BOTH GOSPEL AND ACTS:

    For the proof of the Lukan authorship of the Acts see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. For the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel with his name, see LUKE, GOSPEL OF. Our interest in him is largely due to this fact and to his relations with Paul. The Christian world owes him a great debt for his literary productions in the interest of the gospel.

    9. LEGENDS:

    One legend regarding Luke is that he was a painter. Plummer (Commentary on Luke, xxi f) thinks that the legend is older than is sometimes supposed and that it has a strong element of truth. It is true that he has drawn vivid scenes with his pen. The early artists were especially fond of painting scenes from the Gospel of Luke. The allegorical figure of the ox or calf in Ezek 1 and Revelation 4 has been applied to Luke’s Gospel.

    LITERATURE.

    Bible dicts., comms., lives of Paul, instroductions. See also Harnack, “Lukas, der Arzt, der Verfasser” (1906); New Testament Studies: Luke the Physician (1907); Ramsay, Luke the Physician (1908); Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke (1882); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study in the Credibility of Luke (1898); Maclachlan, John, Evangelist and Historian (1912). A. T. Robertson LUKE, THE GOSPEL OF

    1. TEXT:

    The five primary uncials (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephesiansraemi, Bezae) are the chief witnesses for the text of Luke’s Gospel. This group is reinforced by L, Codex Delta and the Freer (Detroit) MS; R, T, X and Xi are also valuable in fragments. The other uncials are of secondary value. The Latin, Egyptian and Syriac versions are also of great importance. There are 4 Latin versions (African, European, Italian, Vulgate), 3 Egyptian (Memphitic, Sahidic, Bohairic), 5 Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitto, Harclean, Palestinian or Jerusalem). Many of the cursive (minuscule) manuscripts are also of considerable worth, as are some of the quotations from the Fathers.

    Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), has advanced theory of two recensions of this Gospel (a longer and a shorter), such as he holds to be true of Acts. In the case of Acts, theory has won some acceptance (see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES), but that is not true of the Gospel to any extent. The Western text of the Gospel is the shorter text, while in Acts it is the longer text. In both instances Blass holds that the shorter text was issued after the longer and original text. His idea is that Luke himself revised and issued the shorter text. In itself this is, of course, possible, since the books are both addressed to an individual, Theophilus. The other edition may have been meant for others. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek explain the omission in the Western text of the Gospel as “Western non-interpolations,” and often hold them to be the true text.

    As samples one may note Luke 10:41; 12:19; 24:36,40,42, where the Western text is the shorter text. This is not always true, however, for in 6:2 ff Codex Bezae (D) has the famous passage about the man working on the Sabbath, which the other documents do not give. In Luke 3:22, D has the reading of Psalm 2:7 (“ Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee”) for the usual text. Zahn (Introduction, III, 38) accepts this as the true text. There is no doubt of the interest and value of the Western readings in Luke, but it cannot be said that Blass has carried his point here.

    The peculiar mutilation of the Gospel by Marcion has an interest of its own.

    2. CANONICITY:

    Plummer (Commentary on Luke, lxxx) says: “In the second half of the 2nd century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative; and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized at a very much earlier date.” On the other hand, Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) says: “This `tradition,’ however, cannot be traced farther back than toward the end of the 2nd century (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Muratorian Fragment); there is no sound basis for the contention of Zahn (II, 175) that the existence of the tradition can also be found as early as in Marcion, because that writer, from his aversion to the Third Gospel (which nevertheless was the only one he admitted into his collection — with alterations it is true) omitted the expression of honor applied to Luke in Colossians 4:14.” Here the two views are well stated. Schmiedel shows dogmatic bias and prejudice against Luke. Julicher, however, frankly admits (Intro, 330) that “the ancients were universally agreed that the writer was that Luke, disciple of Paul, who is mentioned in Philem 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11, and called `the physician’ in Colossians 4:14; presumably a native of Antioch.” This statement bears more directly on the question of authorship than of canonicity, but it is a good retort to the rather cavalier tone of Schmiedel, who is reluctant to admit the facts. The recognition of the Third Gospel in the Muratorian Canon (170 AD) is a fact of much significance. It was used in Tatian’s Diatessaron (circa AD) as one of the four recognized Gospels (compare Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, 3 ff). The fact that Marcion (140 AD) mutilated this Gospel to suit his theology and thus used it is even more significant (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, Appendix). Other heretics like the Valentinians (compare Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 5-7) made use of it, and Heracleon (compare Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iv.9) wrote a commentary on it. Irenaeus (end of the 2nd century) makes frequent quotations from this Gospel. He argues that there could be only “four” Gospels because of the four points of the compass — an absurd argument, to be sure, but a powerful testimony to the general acceptance of this Gospel along with the other three. It is needless to appeal to the presence of the Third Gospel in the Curetonian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the African Latin — versions that date to the 2nd century, not to mention the probability of the early date of the Memphitic (Coptic) versions. Examples of the early use of this Gospel occur in various writings of the 2nd century, as in Justin Martyr (150 AD), the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (circa 140 AD), Celsus (circa AD 160), the Gospel of Peter (2nd century), the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (177 AD), probably also the Didache (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (190-202 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD). It is doubtful about Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp; and the Epistle of Barnabas seems to make no use of the Third Gospel. But Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp quote Acts. But surely the general use and acceptance of the Third Gospel in the early 2nd century is beyond reasonable doubt. It is not easy to decide when the actual use began, because we have so little data from the 1st century (compare Plummer, Commentary, lxxiii).

    The fact that the author was not an apostle affected the order of the book in some lists. Most manuscripts and versions have the common order of today, but the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) is given by D, many Old Latin manuscripts, the Gothic VS, the Apostolical Constitutions.

    The object was probably to place the books by apostles together and first.

    The Old Latin has Luke second (John, Luke, Mark, Matthew), while the Curetonian Syriac has Luke last of the four. The cursives 90 and 399 also have Luke second.

    3. AUTHORSHIP:

    The first writers who definitely name Luke as the author of the Third Gospel belong to the end of the 2nd century. They are the Canon of Muratori (possibly by Hippolytus), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. We have already seen that Julicher (Introduction, 330) admits that the ancients Universally agreed that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. In the early part of the 2nd century the writers did not, as a rule, give the names of the authors of the Gospels quoted by them. It is not fair, therefore, to use their silence on this point as proof either of their ignorance of the author or of denial of Luke’s authorship. Julicher for instance, says (Introduction, 330): “There is no tradition worthy of the name concerning Luke, whom Papias did not mention, or at any rate did not know.” But we owe to Eusebius all the fragments that we have preserved from the writings of Papias. Our ignorance of Papias can hardly be charged up to him. Plummer (Commentary, xii) says that nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the fact that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. On the other hand, Julicher (Introduction, 331) is not willing to let it go as easily as that. He demands appeal to Acts, and there (ibid., 447) he denies the Lukan authorship save as to the “we” sections. J. Weiss (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; das Lukas Evang., 1906, 378) admits that but for Acts no sufficient reason would exist for denying the authorship of the Third Gospel to Luke, the disciple of Paul. A Pauline point of view in this Gospel is admitted generally. Many modern critics take it for granted that the Lukan authorship of Acts is disproved, and hence, that of the Gospel likewise falls by the way. So argue Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Julicher, Pfleiderer, Schurer, Spitta, von Soden, J. Weiss, Weizsacker, Zeller. Men like Blass, Credner, Harnack, Hawkins, Hobart, Klostermann, Plummer, Ramsay, Renan, Vogel, Zahn, stand by the tradition of Lukan authorship, but Harnack is almost irritated (Luke the Physician, 1907, 6), since “the indefensibility of the tradition is regarded as being so clearly established that nowadays it is thought scarcely worth while to reprove this indefensibility, or even to notice the arguments of conservative opponents.” Harnack proceeds to make a plea for a hearing. Jacobus (Standard Bible Dictionary) admits that “Acts tells us nothing more of the author than does the Gospel.” That is true so far as express mention is concerned, but not so far as natural implication goes. It is true that the place to begin the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel is Acts. For detailed discussion of the proof that Luke wrote Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. It is there shown that the line of argument which has convinced Harnack, the leader of the liberal criticism of Germany, ought to convince any openminded critic. It means a good deal when Harnack (Luke the Physician,14) says: “I subscribe to the words of Zahn (Einleitung, II, 427): `Hobart has proved for everyone who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine — in short, a Greek physician.’ “ It is here assumed that the line of argument pursued in the article on ACTS OF THE APOSTLES is conclusive. If so, little remains to be done in the way of special proof for the Gospel. The author of Acts specifically refers ( Acts 1:1) to a former treatise which was likewise addressed to Theophilus. This we find to be the case with the Gospel passing under the name of Luke (1:4). The critics who admit the Lukan authorship of Acts and deny the Lukan authorship of the Gospel are hardly worth considering.

    It is, therefore, largely a work of supererogation to give at length the proof from internal grounds that Luke wrote the Gospel, after being convinced about Acts. Still it may be worth while to sketch in outline the line of argument, even though it is very simple. Plummer (Comm., x-xvii) argues three propositions: “(1) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts. (2) The author of Acts was a companion of Paul. (3) This companion was Luke.”

    Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909) has argued with great minuteness and skill theory that the same linguistic peculiarities occur in all portions of Acts, including the “we-”sections. He accepts the facts set forth by Hawkins (Horae Synopticae) and adds others. He agrees, therefore, that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Harnack is convinced by the exhaustive labors of Hobart (Medical Language of Luke) that this author was a physician, as we know Luke to have been ( Colossians 4:14). He shows this to be true of the author of Acts by the use of “us” in Acts 28:10, showing that the author of Acts received honors along with Paul, probably because he practiced medicine and treated many (compare Barnack, Luke the Physician,15 f). These medical terms occur in the Gospel of Luke also, and the same general linguistic style is found in both the Gospel and Acts. Hawkins has made a careful study of likenesses and variations in style in these two books (compare Horae Synopticae, 15-25, 174-89). The argument is as conclusive as such a line of proof can be expected to be. For further discussion see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 1908, 1-68; Zahn, Introduction, III, 160 ff. There are no phenomena in the Gospel hostile to this position save the Semitic character of Luke 1 and (barring the classical introduction 1:1-4). Luke, though a Gentile, has in these chapters the most Semitic narrative in the New Testament. But the explanation is obvious. He is here using Semitic material (either oral or written), and has with true artistic skill preserved the tone of the original.

    To a certain extent the same thing is true of the opening chapters of Acts.

    4. SOURCES:

    The synoptic problem (see GOSPELS, SYNOPTIC) remains the most difficult one in the realm of New Testament criticism. But the Gospel of Luke yields on the whole more satisfactory results than is yet true of Matthew. (1) Unity.

    If the Lukan authorship of the book is accepted, there remains no serious doubt concerning the unity and integrity of the Gospel. The abridgment of Luke’s Gospel used by Marcion does not discredit those portions of the Gospel omitted by him. They are omitted for doctrinal reasons (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, chapter viii). His readings are of interest from the viewpoint of textual criticism, as are the quotations of other early writers, but his edition does not seriously challenge the value of Luke’s work. (2) Luke’s Method.

    Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction (1:1-4). Here we catch a glimpse of the author’s personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of “those matters which have been fulfilled among us,” in our time. He does not himself claim to have been an eyewitness of “those matters.” As we know already, Luke was a Gentile and apparently never saw Jesus in the flesh. He occupies thus a position outside of the great events which he is to record. He does not disguise his intense interest in the narrative, but he claims the historical spirit. He wishes to assure Theophilus of “the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.” He claims to have investigated “the course of all things accurately from the first,” just as the true historian would. He thus implies that some of the attempts made had been fragmentary at any rate, and to that extent inaccurate. He has also produced an “orderly” narrative by which Theophilus may gain a just conception of the historical progress of the events connected with the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that “many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters” does not deter Luke from his task. The rather he is stirred thereby (“It seemed good to me also”) to give his interpretation of the life and work of Jesus as the result of his researches. He stands not farther away than one generation from the death of Jesus. He has the keen interest natural to a cultured follower of Jesus in the origin of what had become a great world-movement. He is able to get at the facts because he has had intercourse with eyewitnesses of Jesus and His work, “even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” Luke had abundant opportunity during the two years at Caesarea with Paul (Acts 24 through 26) to make careful and extended investigations. Many of the personal followers of Jesus were still living ( 1 Corinthians 15:6). It was a golden opportunity for Luke’s purpose. He had also the written narratives which others (“many”) had already drawn up. We are, then, to expect in Luke’s Gospel a book closely akin to Acts in style and plan, with the historian’s love of accuracy and order, with the author’s own contribution in the assimilation and use of this oral and written material. One would not expect in such a writer slavish copying, but intelligent blending of the material into an artistic whole. (3) The Aramaic Infancy Narrative.

    The very first section in this Gospel ( Luke 1:5 through 2:52) illustrates Luke’s fidelity in the use of his material. Wellhausen drops these two chapters from his edition of Luke’s Gospel as not worthy of consideration.

    That is conjectural criticism run mad and is not to be justified by the example of Marcion, who begins with chapter 4. Wright (Gospel according to Luke in Greek, 1900, viii f; under the word “Luke’s Gospel,” DCG) holds that this section was the last to be added to the Gospel though he holds that it comes from Luke. It may be said in passing that Wright is a stout advocate for the oral source for all of Luke’s Gospel. He still holds out against the “two-document” or any document theory. However, he claims rightly that Luke’s information for these two chapters was private.

    This material did not form part of the current oral Gospel. In Matthew the narrative of the birth of Jesus is given from the standpoint of Joseph, and Mary is kept in the background, according to Eastern feeling (Wright).

    But in Luke the story is told from Mary’s point of view. Luke may, indeed, have seen Mary herself in the years 57-59 AD (or 58-60). He could easily have seen some of Mary’s intimate friends who knew the real facts in the case. The facts were expressly said to have been kept in Mary’s heart. She would tell only to sympathetic ears (compare Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 74 f). It is not possible to discredit Luke’s narrative of the Virgin Birth on a priori grounds (compare Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907; Sweet, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1906). The curious Semitic flavor of this narrative argues strongly for its genuineness, since Luke was a Greek. We do not know whether Luke knew Aramaic or not. That was possible, since he spent these 2 years in Palestine. We do not know whether this information came to him in written form (note especially the hymns of Mary and of Zacharias) or in oral tradition. But it is hardly possible to credit a Greek with the invention of these birthnarratives and poems which ring so true to the soil and the Hebrew life.

    Immediately after Luke’s statement about historical research comes the narrative of the birth of Jesus. It is the first illustration of his work on his sources. (4) Luke’s Relation to Mark’s Gospel.

    Luke knew Mark in Rome ( Colossians 4:10,14; Philem 1:24). He may have met him in Palestine also. Had he seen Mark’s Gospel when he wrote his own? Was it one of the “many” narratives that came under Luke’s eye?

    Wright (compare DCG) denies that Luke had our Mark. He admits that he may have had an Urmarkus or proto-Mark which he heard in oral form, but not the present (written) Gospel of Mark. He thinks that this can best be accounted for by the fact that out of 223 sections in Mark there are 54 not in Luke. But most modern critics have come to the conclusion that both Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as well as other sources.

    Matthew, if he used Mark, in the early chapters, followed a topical arrangement of his material, combining Mark with the other source or sources. But Luke has followed the order of Mark very closely in this part and indeed throughout. Luke has a special problem in 9:51 through 19:27, but the broad general outline follows that of Mark. But it cannot be said that Luke made a slavish use of Mark, if he had this Gospel before him.

    He gives his own touch to each incident and selects what best suits his purpose. It is not possible for us to tell always that motive, but it is idle to suppose that Luke blindly recorded every incident found in every document or every story that came to his ears. He implies in his introduction that he has made a selection out of the great mass of material and has woven it into a coherent and progressive narrative. We may admit with Harnack (New Testament Studies: Sayings of Jesus, xiii) that the Markan problem “has been treated with scientific thoroughness” and that Luke had Mark as one of his sources. The parallel between Luke and Mark in the narrative portion is easily seen in any Harmony of the Gospels, like Broadus or Stevens and Burton. (5) Q (Quelle) or the Logia.

    It is a matter of more uncertainty when we come to the mass of material common to Matthew and Luke, but absent from Mark. This is usually found in the discourses of Jesus. The more generally accepted theory today is that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark and also this collection of Logia called Q for short (Ger. Quelle, “source”). But, while this theory may be adopted as a working hypothesis, it cannot be claimed that it is an established fact. Zahn (compare Introduction) stoutly stands up for the real authorship of the First Gospel of Matthew. Arthur Carr (“Further Notes on the Synoptic Problem,” The Expositor, January, 1911, 543-553) argues strongly for the early date and Matthean authorship of the First Gospel. He says on the whole subject: “The synoptic problem which has of late engaged the speculation of some of our keenest and most laborious students is still unsolved.” He even doubts the priority of Mark’s Gospel. Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 73-89) advocates the priority of Mark to Q. But Harnack balances the problem of “Q and Mark” (Sayings of Jesus, 193-233) and decides in favor of Q. In any case, it is to be noted that the result of critical research into the value of Q is to put it quite on a paragraph with Mark. Harnack is quite impressed with the originality and vivid reality of the matter in Q. The material present in Q cannot be gauged so accurately as that in Mark, since we have the Gospel of Mark in our hands. Where both Matthew and Luke give material not found in Mark, it is concluded that this is drawn from Q.

    But it cannot be shown that Matthew may not have used Q at some points and Luke at still others independently. Besides Q may have contained material not preserved either in Matthew or Luke. A careful and detailed comparison of the material common to both Matthew and Luke and absent from Mark may be found in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 10713; Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, 127-82; Wellhausen, Einleitung, 66; Robertson, “Matthew” in Bible for Home and School, 14-19. But, if it is true that Luke made use of Q as of Mark, he was no mere copyist. No solution of the synoptic problem can ever be obtained on the idea that the Gospels are mere reproductions of previous documents. There was freedom in the use of all the material, both oral and written, and the writer gave his own interpretation to the result. It was often a restatement in the author’s own language, not formal quotation. Wright (DCG) calls this editorial element “editorial notes”; that is, of course, often true when the author makes comments on the matters presented, but “ancient authors took immense pains to reduce the rude chronicles which they used, into literary form” (same place) . The point of all this is that a great deal of criticism of the Gospels is attempting the impossible, for many of the variations cannot possibly be traced to any “source.” Wright (same place) puts it tersely again: “And if in John’s Gospel it is more and more recognized that the mind of the evangelist cast the utterances of our Lord into the peculiar form which they there hold, the same process of redaction may be observed in Luke, who comes nearest of the synoptists to the methods of John.” As a matter of fact, this is as it should be expected. The frank recognition of this point of view marks progress in synoptic criticism. (6) Other Sources.

    There is a large block of material in Luke 9:51 through 18:14 which is given by him alone. There are various sayings like some reported by Matthew (or Mark) in other connections. Some of the incidents are similar to some given elsewhere by Matthew and Mark. There are various theories concerning this position of Luke. Some critics hold that Luke has here put a mass of material which he had left over, so to speak, and which he did not know where to locate, without any notion of order. Against this theory is the express statement of Luke that he wrote an orderly narrative (1:3 f). One is disposed to credit Luke’s own interpretation unless the facts oppose it. It is common for traveling preachers, as was Jesus, to have similar experiences in different parts of the country and to repeat their favorite sayings. So teachers repeat many of their sayings each year to different classes. Indeed, it is just in this section of Luke that the best parts of his Gospel are found (the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, etc.). “The more we consider this collection, the more we are entranced with it. It is the very cream of the Gospel, and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to Luke” Wright DCG) Wright calls this “a Pauline collection, not because Paul is responsible for the material, but because the chapters breathe cosmopolitan spirit of Paul.

    That is true, but Jesus loved the whole world. This side of the teaching of Jesus may have appealed to Luke powerfully because of its reflection in Paul. Matthew’s Gospel was more narrowly Jewish in its outlook, and Mark’s had fewer of the sayings of Christ. But it is to be noted that this special material in Luke extends more or less all through the Gospel.

    Burton (Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 49) calls this special material in Luke 9:51-18:14 “the Perean document.” We do not know, of course, anything of the actual source of this material. Whether Luke has here followed one or more documents, he has, as elsewhere, given his own stamp to the whole, while preserving in a marvelous way the spirit of Jesus. (For the possible parallel between this section of Luke and John see Robertson’s “Notes” to Broadus, Harmony of the Gospels, 249-52.) For the earlier material in Luke not found elsewhere (3:7-15,17,18; 4:2b-13(14,15),16-30; 5:1-11; 6:21-49; 7:1 through 8:3) Burton suggests “the Galilean document” as the source. Wright, on the other hand, proposes “anonymous fragments” as the source of Luke’s material not in the infancy narrative, nor in Mark, nor in Q, nor in the “Pauline” or Perean document. At any rate, it is certain that Luke’s own words of explanation should warn us against drawing too narrow a line around the “sources” used by him. His “many” may well have included a dozen sources, or even more. But it may be said, in a word, that all that criticism has been able to learn on the subject has confirmed the statement of Luke himself concerning his method of research and his use of the material.

    5. CREDIBILITY:

    More fault has been found with Luke as a historian in Acts than in the Gospel. Harnack (Acts of the Apostles) is not disposed to give Luke full credit as a reliable historian. But Ramsay (Luke the Physician,5) champions the reliability of Luke (compare also Paul the Traveler; The Church in the Roman Empire) against the skepticism of Harnack, which is growing less, since in the Theol. Literaturzeitung (July 7, 1906, S. 4) he speaks well of Luke’s ability to secure correct information. So in Luke the Physician (121-45) Harnack urges that the possible “instances of incredibility have been much exaggerated by critics.” He adds about Acts 5:36: “It is also possible that there is a mistake in Jos” (compare Chase, Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles; see also ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

    But the Gospel is not free from attack. The chief matter in the Gospel of Luke which is challenged on historical grounds, apart from the birthnarratives, which some critics treat as legendary, is the census in Luke 2:1 ff. Critics, who in general have accepted Luke’s veracity, have sometimes admitted that here he fell into error and confused the census under Quirinius in 6-7 AD when Quirinius came, after the banishment of Archelaus, to take a census and to collect taxes, much to the indignation of the Jews (compare Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i). It was not known that Quirinius had been governor of Syria before this time, nor was there any other knowledge of a census under Augustus. The case against Luke seemed strong. But Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 227 ff) shows that the inscription at Tibur, as agreed by Mommsen and like authorities, shows that Quirinius “twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus.” He was consul in 12 BC, so that the first mission was after that date. Ramsay shows also from the papyri that the 14-year cycle was used for the Roman census (many census papers are known from AD on). He argues that the first one was instituted by Augustus in 8 BC.

    Herod, as a vassal king, would naturally be allowed to conduct it in the Jewish fashion, not the Roman, and it was probably delayed several years in the provinces. Thus once more Luke is vindicated in a remarkable way (see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, I, 1, (2) ).

    The Acts of the Apostles has come out of the critical ordeal in a wonderful manner, so that Luke’s credit as a historical writer is now very high among those qualified to know the facts. He has been tested and found correct on so many points that the presumption is in his favor where he cannot as yet be verified. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 265) finds Luke “more graphic than historical.”

    6. CHARACTERISTICS:

    He was the most versatile of the Gospel writers. He was a Greek, a Christian, a physician, a man of travel, a man of world-outlook, sympathetic, cultured, poetic, spiritual, artistic, high-minded. His Prologue is the most classic piece of Greek in the New Testament, but the rest of chapter 1 and all of chapter 2 are the most Semitic in tone. The breadth of his literary equipment is thereby shown. He not only uses many medical terms common to technical circles, but he has the physician’s interest in the sick and afflicted, as shown in the large number of miracles of healing narrated. His interest in the poor is not due to Ebionitic prejudice against the rich, but to human compassion for the distressed. His emphasis on the human side of the work of Jesus is not due to Ebionitic denial of the Divinity of Jesus, but to his keen appreciation of the richness of the human life of the Son of God. His rich and varied vocabulary reveals a man who read and mingled with the best life of his time. He wrote his books in the vernacular, but the elevated vernacular of an educated man touched with a distinct literary flavor. His poetic temperament is shown in the preservation of the beautiful hymns of the nativity and in the wonderful parables of Jesus in chapters 10, 15-18. They are reported with rare grace and skill. Luke is fond of showing Christ’s sympathy with women and children, and he has more to say about prayer than the authors of the other Gospels. His interest in individuals is shown by the dedication of both his books to Theophilus. His cosmopolitan sympathies are natural in view of his training and inheritance, but part of it is doubtless due to his association with the apostle Paul. He comes to the interpretation of Jesus from a worldstandpoint and does not have to overcome the Pharisaic limitations incident to one reared in Palestine. It is a matter of rejoicing that we have this book, called by Renan the most beautiful book in the world, as a cultured Greek’s interpretation of the origin of Christianity. He thus stands outside of the pale of Judaism and can see more clearly the world-relations and worlddestiny of the new movement. With Luke, Jesus is distinctly the world’s Saviour. The accent on sin is human sin, not specifically Jewish sin. John in his Gospel came in his old age to look back upon the events in Judea from a non-Jewish standpoint. But he rose to the essentially spiritual and eternal apprehension of Christ, rather than extended his vision, as Luke did, to the cosmopolitan mission and message of Jesus, though this did not escape John. The Gospel of Luke thus has points of affinity with Paul, John and the author of Hebrews in style and general standpoint. But while Luke’s own style is manifest throughout, it is not obtrusive. He hides himself behind the wonderful portrait of Jesus which he has here drawn in undying colors.7. Date:

    The extreme position of Baur and Zeller may be dismissed at once. There is no reason for dating the Gospel of Luke in the 2nd century on the ground that he used Marcion’s Gospel, since it is now admitted all round that Marcion made use of Luke. The supposed use of Josephus by Luke (see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES for discussion and refutation) leads a goodly number of radical scholars (Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Holtzmann, Julicher, Krenkel, Weizsacker, Wernle) to date the book at the end of the 1st century. This is still extreme, as Harnack had already shown in his Chronologie der altchristl. Litt., I, 1897, 246-50. Any use of Josephus by Luke is highly improbable (see Plummer on Luke, xxix). The Gospel was certainly written before Acts ( Acts 1:1) and while Paul was alive, if 1 Timothy 5:18 be taken as a quotation from Luke 10:7, which is by no means certain, however. But it is true that the most natural way to interpret the sudden close of Acts, after 2 years in Rome ( Acts 28:31), is the fact that Luke finished the book at that time (Maclean, 1 volume HDB). Moffatt (Historical New Testament, 273) calls this early date “reactionary” and “extravagant.” But it is supported by Alford, Blass, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guericke, Hahn, Headlam, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Marshall, Nosgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Riehm, Schaff, Schanz, Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and Harnack himself is now ready to join this goodly company. He warns critics against too hasty a closing of the chronological question (Acts of the Apostles, 291), and admits that Acts was written “perhaps so early as the beginning of the 7th decade of the 1st century” (ibid., 297), “the Acts (and therefore also the Gospel).” In the Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911, 124) Harnack says: “It seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical order were written while Paul was still alive.” There is an intermediate date about 80 AD, assigned by Adeney, Bartlett, Plummer, Sanday, Weiss, Wright, on the ground that the investigations mentioned in Luke 1:1-4 describe the use of narratives which could have been written only after a long period of reflection. But that is not a valid objection. There is no sound critical reason why the Gospel of Mark, Q, the infancy narratives, and all the other sources alluded to by this preface could not have been in circulation in Palestine by 55 AD.

    Indeed, Allen writes in The Expository Times (July, 1910): “I see no reason why such an original (Mark’s Gospel in Aramaic) should not have appeared before the year 50 AD.” The other objection to the early date comes out of Luke 21:20, “Jerus compassed with armies” as compared with “the abomination of desolation” in Mark 13:14. The change is so specific that it is held by some critics to be due to the fact that Luke is writing after the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is just as likely (Maclean) that Luke has here interpreted the Hebraism of Mark for his Gentilereaders. Besides, as Plummer (p. xxxi) shows, Luke in 21:5-36 does not record the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed, nor does he change Christ’s “flee to the mountains” to “Pella in North Peraea,” whither the Christians actually fled. Besides, the fact that Acts shows no acquaintance with Paul’s Epistles is best explained on the assumption of the early date.

    The question is thus practically settled in favor of the early date. The place of the writing is not known. The early date naturally falls in with Caesarea (Blass, Michaelis, Thiersch), but there is little to guide one.8. Analysis: (1) Prologue, Luke 1:1-4. (2) Infancy and childhood of John and Jesus, Luke 1:5 through 2:52. (3) Beginning of Christ’s Ministry, Luke 3:1 through 4:13. (4) Galilean Campaign, Luke 4:14 through 9:6. (5) Retirement from Galilee, Luke 9:7-50. (6) Later Judean and Perean Ministry, Luke 9:51 through 19:28. (7) Close of the Public Ministry in Jerusalem, Luke 19:29 through 21:37. (8) The Dreadful End, Luke 21 through 23. (9) Resurrection of Christ, Luke 24.

    LITERATURE.

    See extended list of books at close of article on ACTS OF THE APOSTLES; the extensive list of Commentaries Plummer’s Commentary on Luke can also be consulted. After Plummer the best commentaries on Luke’s Gospel are Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Test.; Weiss’ Meyer Krit.- exeget. Komm.; Godet; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentary Of the many Introduction to the New Testament, Zahn’s is the ablest and most exhaustive (conservative) and Julicher’s is the fairest of the radical school.

    The best of the briefer ones is Gregory’s Canon and Text (1907). Special treatises deserving mention here are Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898); Ev. secundum Lukam (1897); Wellhausen. Das Ev. Lukae (1904); Sense, Origin of the Third Gospel (1901); Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers (1890); Harnack, Luke the Physician (1907), and Sayings of Jesus (1908); The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911); Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909); Hervey. Authenticity of Luke (1892); Hobart, Medical Language of Luke (1882); Litzinger, Die Entstehung des Lukasevangelium und der Apostelgeschichte (1883); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (1898) and Luke the Physician (1908); Resch, Das Kindheit- Evangelium nach Lukas und Matthaus; Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); Vogel, Zur Characteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1897); Weiss, Quellen des Lukasevangelium (1907); Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels and his Gospel according to Luke in Greek (1900). A. T. Robertson LUNATIC(K) <lu’-na-tik > :

    1. EPILEPSY. 1. Incorrect Translation: The English word “lunatic,” which in popular speech signifies a sufferer from any mental derangement, whether periodic or chronic, other than congenital idiocy, appears in the King James Version as a translation of the Greek word [selhnia>zomai , seleniazomai ], in the two passages where it occurs. In the Revised Version (British and American) the word has very properly been displaced by the strictly accurate term “epileptic.” This change is justified not only by the extra-Biblical usage (see Liddell and Scott, under the word), but clearly enough by Matthew 17:15 (compare 4:24), where epilepsy is circumstantially described. 2. Original Meaning: The original meaning of the term [seleniazomai ], “moon-struck,” is connected with the popular belief, widespread and of strange persistency, that the moon, in certain of its phases, is injurious to human beings, especially in the case of diseases of a periodic or remittent character. There are no data by which to determine whether, in the New Testament times, this particular word represented a living and active belief or had passed into the state of usage in which the original metaphor disappears, and the word simply indicates the fact signified without reference to the idea embodied in the etymology. We still use the word “lunatic” to signify a person mentally diseased, although we have long since ceased to believe in the moon’s influence in such cases.

    2. MADNESS.

    The Bible designates “madness,” or alienation of mind, by various terms, all of which seem to be onomatopoetic. These various words seem to be derived from the strange and fierce or mournful cries uttered by the unfortunate victims of this dread malady. In Dt 28:34 the word “maddened” is [G;vum] [meshugga`], participle of [g’v; [shagha`] (compare also 1 Samuel 21:15). With this corresponds the word [mai>nomai , mainomai ], in the New Testament. In 1 Samuel 21:13 (Hebrew 14) the word is a form of the verb ll”h; [chalal], which is also a derivative from the sound indicated.

    In certain cases, though by no means uniformly, madness is ascribed to demon-possession ( Luke 8:26 f) . One is struck by the fact that mental derangement occupies a very small place in Scripture. Louis Matthews Sweet LURK; LURKING-PLACE <lurk > , <lurk’-ing-plas > : “To lurk” means “to lie in wait,” usually with intent to do harm (see Psalm 17:12; Proverbs 1:11,18).

    Lurking-place, a place of hiding, usually for the purpose of murder. See 1 Samuel 23:23; Psalm 10:8.

    LUST (5 Hebrew and 5 Greek words are so rendered, namely: (1) vp,n< [nephesh], (2) tWryrIv] [sheriruth], (3) hw:a\T” [ta’awah], (4) dm”j; [chamadh], (5) hw:a; [’awah]; (1) [ejpiqumi>a , epithumia ], (2) [hJdonh> , hedone ], (3) [ejpipoqe>w , epipotheo ], (4) [o]rexiv , orexis ], (5) [pa>qov , pathos ]):

    The word both as verb and as substantive has a good and a bad meaning. It probably meant at first a strong desire, a craving, abnormal appetite, not only for physical but for spiritual satisfaction. It has come, however, to be confined in its use almost entirely to the bad sense. Some old translations are not accepted now, the word being used in connections which at present seem almost irreverent. Shades of meaning are learned from an examination of the Hebrew and Greek originals.

    1. THE OLD TESTAMENT USE:

    The substantive and verbs are: (1) Nephesh, in Exodus 15:9 and Psalm 78:18 translated “desire”; “My desire shall be satisfied”; “by asking food according to their desire.” A strong but not sensual sense. (2) [Sheriruth], meaning “obstinacy,” evil imagination. Yahweh said ( Psalm 81:12), “I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart,” a willful self-satisfaction. (3) [Ta’awah], “a delight” “a longing satisfaction,” and so it came to mean “sinful pleasure.” Translated in Psalm 78:30, “that which they desired,” intensely longed for, referring to Yahweh’s provision of food in the wilderness. Also in Numbers 11:4 concerning “flesh to eat” it is said the multitude “lusted exceedingly” i.e. “craved eagerly. (4) [Chamadh], the verb meaning “to delight in,” “greatly belove,” “covet,” probably for evil purposes. The young man is warned against the evil woman ( Proverbs 6:25): “Lust not after her beauty.” Here the bad sense is evident, for in the same connection are used such expressions as “harlot,” “adulteress,” “evil woman.” (5) [’Awah], meaning “greatly to desire,” long after, with undue emphasis, with evil spirit though not perhaps with impure thought. In Numbers 11:34 reference is made to a place called [qibhroth hata’wah], “the graves of lust, where “they buried the people that lusted.” <19A614> Psalm 106:14 also refers to the Israelites who “lusted exceedingly.”

    Translated in Dt 12:15,21 “desire of thy soul”; 12:20; 14:26, “thy soul desireth.” These Deuteronomy passages evidently mean lust only in the good sense.

    2. THE NEW TESTAMENT USE:

    As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament we find both meanings of the word. (1) [Epithumia] is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as “fleshly,” “worldly,” as opposed to “spiritual” “heavenly,” “the will of man” as opposed to “the will of God,” but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication; verb in Matthew 5:28; Mark 4:19; John 8:44; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Galatians 5:16,17,24; Tit 2:12; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 John 2:16 f; Jude 1:16,18; Revelation 18:14. (2) [Hedone], delight in sensuality, hence, wicked pleasures; translated in James 4:1,3 “pleasures”: “Your pleasures that war in your members”; “Ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures” (the King James Version “lust”). (3) [Epipotheo] means to crave intensely the wrong possession; translated in James 4:5 “long (the King James Version “lusteth”) unto envying.” (4) [Orexis], used in Romans 1:27, from context evidently meaning “lust” in the worst sense; translated “lust.” (5) [Pathos], meaning “passion” inordinate affection, with the idea in it of suffering; translated in 1 Thessalonians 4:5 “passion of lust.” William Edward Raffety LUTE <lut > ( lb,n< [nebhel]; thus the Revised Version (British and American); the King James Version viol ( Isaiah 5:12)): [Nebhel] is rendered elsewhere by psaltery” or “viol.” The lute was originally an Arabic instrument. It resembled a guitar, though with a longer and more slender neck. The name is derived from Arabic al’ood, with a of article elided; hence, Italian liuto; French luth.See MUSIC.

    LUZ ( zWl [luz]):The Hebrew word means “almond tree” or “almond wood” (OHL, under the word). It may also mean “bone,” particularly a bone of the spine, and might be applied to a rocky height supposed to resemble a backbone (Lagarde, Uebersicht., 157 f). Winckler explains it by Aramaic laudh, “asylum,” which might be suitably applied to a sanctuary (Geschichte Israels). Cheyne (EB, under the word) would derive it by corruption from hx;luj\ [chalutsah], “strong (city).” (1) This was the ancient name of Bethel ( Genesis 28:19; Judges 1:23; compare Genesis 35:6; 48:3; Josh 16:2; 18:13). It has been thought that Josh 16:2 contradicts this, and that the two places were distinct. Referring to Genesis 28:19, we find that the name Bethel was given to “the place,” [ha-maqom], i.e. “the sanctuary,” probably “the place” (28:11, Hebrew) associated with the sacrifice of Abraham (12:8), which lay to the East of Bethel. The name of the city as distinguished from “the place” was Luz. As the fame of the sanctuary grew, we may suppose, its name overshadowed, and finally superseded, that of the neighboring town. The memory of the ancient nomenclature persisting among the people sufficiently explains the allusions in the passages cited. (2) A Bethelite, the man who betrayed the city into the hands of the children of Joseph, went into the land of the Hittites, and there founded a city which he called Luz, after the ancient name of his native place ( Judges 1:26). No satisfactory identification has been suggested. W. Ewing LYCAONIA <lik-a-o’-ni-a > , <li-ka-o’-ni-a > ([ Lukaoni>a , Lukaonia ] ( Acts 14:6), [ Lukaonisti> , Lukaonisti ], ( Acts 14:11, “in the speech of Lycaonia”); Lycaonia is meant, according to the South Galatian view, by the expression [thran , ten Galatiken choran ], in Acts 18:23, and the incidents in Acts 16:1-4 belong to Lycaonia): Was a country in the central and southern part of Asia Minor whose boundaries and extent varied at different periods. In the time of Paul, it was bounded on the North by Galatia proper (but lay in the Roman province Galatia), on the East by Cappadocia, on the South by Cilicia Tracheia, and on the West by Pisidia and Phrygia. The boundary of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra (see ICONIUM). Lycaonia consists of a level plain, waterless and treeless, rising at its southern fringe for some distance into the foothills of Taurus, and broken on its eastern side by the volcanic mass of Kara-Dagh and by many smaller hills. Strabo informs us that King Amyntas of Galatia fed many flocks of sheep on the Lycaonian plain. Much of the northern portion of Lycaonia has been proved by recent discovery to have belonged to the Roman emperors, who inherited the crown lands of Amyntas.

    In Acts 14:6 Lycaonia is summed up as consisting of the cities of Lystra and Derbe and the district (including many villages) lying around them.

    This description refers to a particular division of Lycaonia, which alone is mentioned in the Bible. In the time of Paul, Lycaonia consisted of two parts, a western and an eastern. The western part was a “region” or subdivision of the Roman province Galatia; the eastern was called Lycaonia Antiochiana, after Antiochus of Commagene under whom it had been placed in 37 AD. This non-Roman portion was traversed by Paul; but nothing is recorded of his journey through it (see DERBE). It included the important city of Laranda; and when Lycaonia is described as consisting of the cities of Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding district, the writer is clearly thinking only of the western portion of Lycaonia, which lay in, and formed a “region” of, the province Galatia. This is the tract of country which is meant in Acts 18:23, where it is called the “region” of Galatia, and placed side by side with Phrygia, another region of Galatia. The province Galatia was divided into districts technically known as “regions,” and Roman Lycaonia is called the “region of Galatia” in implied contrast with Antiochian Lycaonia, which lay outside the Roman province. Of the language of Lycaonia. (see LYSTRA) nothing survives except some personal and place names, which are discussed in Kretschmar’s Einleitung in die Gesch. der griech. Sprache.LITERATURE.

    Ramsay, Historical Commentary on Galatians (Introduction); Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition (inscriptions). W. M. Calder LYCIA <lish’-i-a > ([ Lu>kia , Lukia ]): An ancient country forming the southeast portion of Asia Minor. The surface of Lycia is exceedingly rugged, and its lofty mountains rise almost directly from the sea. Over them several trade routes or passes lead from the coast to the interior. Down the mountain sides rush many small rivers, of which the Xanthus is the chief. The history of Lycia, like that of the neighboring countries, forms a part of the history of Asia Minor. Successively it was in the possession of the Persians, of Alexander the Great, of the Seleucid kings and of the Ptolemies. In 188 BC it fell into the hands of the Romans, who gave it to the island of Rhodes; 20 years later, because of its loyalty to Rome, it became free and independent (1 Macc 15:23). In 53 AD, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, it became a Roman province, and in 74 AD it was united with Pamphylia to form a double province over which a Roman governor presided.

    At different times during the history of Lycia, there were about 100 places which issued coins of their own. Pliny speaks of 70 cities which had existed there, but in his age there were but 36. Of these, Patara, Myra and Phaselis are of interest to Bible students. From the coast city of Patara, according to Acts 21 f, Paul took ship for Phoenicia. It was a place celebrated not only as a trading-center, and a port of entry to the interior, but as the seat of the oracle of Apollo, and the birthplace of Nicholas. Myra, though over 2 miles from the coast, possessed a harbor, and was also a trading-center.

    Here, according to Acts 27:5-38, Paul found a grain ship from Alexandria. For some time Myra was the capital of the Roman province; to Christendom it is especially known as the home of Nicholas, who was its bishop and the patron saint of the sailors along the coast. Phaselis, on the border of Pamphylia, was also the home of the bishop.

    Lycia was a stopping-place, rather than the scene of the active work of Paul, and therefore it figures little in the earliest history of Christianity. For a long time the people strongly opposed the introduction of a strange religion, and in 312 AD they even petitioned the Roman emperor Maximin against it. A portion of the petition has been discovered at Arykander. E. J. Banks LYDDA <lid’-a > .See LOD.

    LYDIA (1) <lid’-i-a > ([ Ludi>a , Ludia ]): An important country in the western part of Asia Minor bounded on the North by Mysia, on the East by Phrygia, on the South by Caria, and on the West by the Aegean Sea. Its surface is rugged, but along the valleys between its mountain ranges ran some of the most important highways from the coast cities to the distant interior. Of its many rivers the chief are the Cayster, the Lower Hermus, the Cogamos, the Caicus and, during a part of its course, the Meander.

    Lydia was an exceedingly ancient and powerful kingdom whose history is composed chiefly of that of its individual cities. In 546 BC it fell into the hands of the Persians, and in 334 BC it became a part of Alexander’s empire. After the death of Alexander its possession was claimed by the kings both of Pergamos and of Seleucia, but in 190 BC it became the undisputed possession of the former (1 Macc 8:8). With the death of Attalus III, 133 BC, it was transferred by the will of that king to Rome, and Lydia, which then became but a name, formed, along with Caria, Mysia and Phrygia, a part of the Roman province of Asia (see ASIA).

    Chief among its cities were Smyrna and Ephesiansesus, two of the most important in Asia Minor, and Smyrna is still the largest and wealthiest city of that part of Turkey. At Ephesiansesus, the seat of the goddess Diana, Paul remained longer than elsewhere in Asia, and there his most important missionary work was done (Acts 19). Hence, Lydia figures prominently in the early history of the church; it became Christianized during the residence of the apostle at Ephesiansesus, or soon afterward (see also LUD). E. J. Banks LYDIA (20) ([ Ludi>a , Ludia]): The feminine of Lydian, a native of Lydia, a large country on the West of Asia Minor, and the name of Paul’s first convert in Europe. This name was a popular one for women (compare Horace Odes i.8; iii.9; vi.20), but Ramsay thinks she “was familiarly known in the town by the ethnic that showed her origin” (H D B, under the word “Lydia”; compare Paul the Traveler, 214). It has always been and is still a common custom in the Orient to refer to one living in a foreign land by employing the adjective which designates the nationality. Renan thinks it means “the Lydian”; Thyatira is a city of Lydia. Lydia was (1) living in Philippi, (2) of the city of Thyatira, (3) a seller of the purple-dyed garments from her native town, (4) and “one that worshipped God.”

    Her occupation shows her to have been a woman of some capital. The phrase which describes her religion ([sebomene ton Theon]) is the usual designation for a proselyte. She was in the habit of frequenting a place of prayer by a riverside, a situation convenient for the necessary ablutions required by the Jewish worship, and there Paul and his companions met her. After she had been listening to Paul (Greek imperfect), the Lord opened her heart to give heed to his teaching (“To open is the part of God, to pay attention that of the woman,” Chrysostom). Her baptism and that of her household followed. To prove her sincerity she besought the missionaries to accept the hospitality of her home. Her house probably became the center for the church in Philippi ( Acts 16:14,15,40). Lydia is not mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, but, if Ramsay be correct, she may have been Euodias or Syntyche ( Philippians 4:2). S. F. Hunter LYDIAN <lid’-i-an > .See LYDIA.

    LYE <li > .See NITRE.

    LYING <li’-ing > .See LIE.

    LYSANIAS ([ Lusani>av , Lusanias]): Mentioned in Luke 3:1 as tetrarch of Abilene in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and thus fixing the date of the preaching of John the Baptist in the wilderness at about 26 or 28 AD. A Lysanias is mentioned by Josephus as having ruled over Chalcis and Abilene, and as having been slain by Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra. As this happened about 36 BC, Luke has been charged with inaccuracy. Inscriptions, however, corroborate the view that the Lysanias of Luke was probably a descendant of the Lysanias mentioned by Josephus (compare Schurer, H J the Priestly Code (P), div I, volume II, App. 1, p. 338). C. M. Kerr LYSIAS <lis’-i-as > ([ Lusi>av , Lusias ]): (1) “A noble man, and one of the blood royal” whom Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 166 BC) left with the government of Southern Syria and the guardianship of his son, while he went in person into Persia to collect the revenues which were. not coming in satisfactorily (1 Macc 3:32; 2 Macc 10:11). According to Josephus (Ant., XII, vii, 2), the instructions of Lysias were’ “to conquer Judea, enslave its inhabitants, utterly destroy Jerusalem and abolish the whole nation.” Lysias, accordingly, armed against Judas Maccabeus a large force under Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, Nicanor and Gorgias. Of this force Judas defeated the two divisions under Nicanor and Gorgias near Emmaus (166 BC), and in the following year Lysias himself at Bethsura (1 Macc 4), after which he proceeded to the purification of the temple. In the narration of these campaigns there are considerable differences between the writers of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees which scholars have not found easy to explain. Antiochus died at Babylon on his Persian expedition (164 BC), and Lysias assumed the office of regent during the minority of his son, who was yet a child (1 Macc 6:17). He collected another army at Antioch, and after the recapture of Bethsura was besieging Jerusalem when he learned of the approach of Philip to whom Antiochus, on his deathbed, had entrusted the guardianship of the prince (1 Macc 6:15; 2 Macc 13). He defeated Philip in 163 BC and was supported at Rome, but in the following year he fell with his ward Antiochus into the hands of Demetrius I (Soter), who put both of them to death (1 Macc 7:1- 23). (2) See CLAUDIUS LYSIAS ( Acts 23:26) .J. Hutchison LYSIMACHUS <li-sim’-a-kus > ([ Lusi>macov , Lusimachos ): (1) The son of Ptolemy, of Jerusalem, is named (Additions to Esther 11:1) as the interpreter (translator of the Rest of Esther into Greek).See ESTHER, THE REST OF. (2) Brother of Menelaus, a Greek name said by Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) to have been assumed by Onias, the high priest in the hellenizing days of Antiochus Epiphanes, as the Jewish name Jesus was changed to Jason.

    When Menelaus was summoned to Antioch (2 Macc 4:29) on a charge of malversation, he left Lysimachus as his deputy in the priesthood at Jerusalem. Lysimachus robbed the temple and caused an insurrection in which he met his death beside the treasury (2 Macc 4:42). The name of Lysimachus does not appear in the narrative of these events given by Josephus J. Hutchison LYSTRA <lis’-tra > : The forms [ Lu>stran , Lustran ], and [ Lu>stroiv , Lustrois ], occur. Such variation in the gender of Anatolian city-names is common (see Harnack, Apostelgeschichte, 86; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 128).

    Lystra was visited by Paul 4 times ( Acts 14:6,21; 16:1; 18:23 — the last according to the “South Galatian” theory), and is mentioned in Timothy 3:10 f as one of the places where Paul suffered persecution.

    Timothy resided in Lystra ( Acts 16:1).1. Character and Site:

    Lystra owed its importance, and the attention which Paul paid to it, to the fact that it had been made a Roman colonia by Augustus (see ANTIOCH), and was therefore, in the time of Paul, a center of education and enlightenment. Nothing is known of its earlier, and little of its later, history.

    The site of Lystra was placed by Leake (1820) at a hill near Khatyn Serai, 18 miles South-Southwest from Iconium; this identification was proved correct by an inscription found by Sterrett in 1885. The boundary between Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra. ( Acts 14:6) (see ICONIUM).

    The population of Lystra consisted of the local aristocracy of Roman soldiers who formed the garrison of the colonia, of Greeks and Jews ( Acts 16:1,3), and of native Lycaonians ( Acts 14:11).2. Worship of Paul and Barnabas:

    After Paul had healed a life-long cripple at Lystra, the native population (the “multitude” of Acts 14:11) regarded him and Barnabas as pagan gods come down to them in likeness of men, and called Barnabas “Zeus” and Paul “Hermes.” Commentators on this incident usually point out that the same pair of divinities appeared to Baucis and Philemon in Ovid’s wellknown story, which he locates in the neighboring Phrygia. The accuracy in detail of this part of the narrative in Acts has been strikingly confirmed by recent epigraphic discovery. Two inscriptions found in the neighborhood of Lystra in 1909 run as follows: (1) “Kakkan and Maramoas and Iman Licinius priests of Zeus”; (2) “Toues Macrinus also called Abascantus and Batasis son of Bretasis having made in accordance with a vow at their own expense (a statue of) Hermes Most Great along with a sun-dial dedicated it to Zeus the sun-god.”

    Now it is evident from the narrative in Acts that the people who were prepared to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods were not Greeks or Romans, but native Lycaonians. This is conclusively brought out by the use of the phrase “in the speech of Lycaonia” ( Acts 14:11). The language in ordinary use among the educated classes in Central Anatolian cities under the Roman Empire was Greek; in some of those cities, and especially of course, in Roman colonies, Latin also was understood, and it was used at this period in official documents. But the Anatolian element in the population of those cities continued for a long time to use the native language (e.g. Phrygian was in use at Iconium till the 3rd century of our era; see ICONIUM). In the story in Acts a fast distinction is implied, and in fact existed, between the ideas and practices of the Greeks and the Roman colonists and those of the natives. This distinction would naturally maintain itself most vigorously in so conservative an institution as religious ritual and legend. We should therefore expect to find that the association between Zeus and Hermes indicated in Acts belonged to the religious system of the native population, rather than to that of the educated society of the colony. And this is precisely the character of the cult illustrated in our two inscriptions. It is essentially a native cult, under a thin Greek disguise. The names in those inscriptions can only have been the names of natives; the Zeus and Hermes of Acts and of our inscriptions were a graecized version of the Father-god and Son-god of the native Anatolian system. The college of priests which appears in inscription number (supporting the Bezan variant “priests” for “priest” in Acts 14:13) was a regular Anatolian institution. The miracle performed by Paul, and his companionship with Barnabas would naturally suggest to the natives who used the “speech of Lycaonia” a pair of gods commonly associated by them in a local cult. The two gods whose names rose to their lips are now known to have been associated by the dedication of a statue of one in a temple, of the other in the neighborhood of Lystra.

    LITERATURE.

    Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 407 ff. On the new inscriptions, see Calder, The Expositor, 1910, 1 ff, 148 ff; id, Classical Review, 1910, 67 ff. Inscriptions of Lystra are published in Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition, and in Jour. Hell.

    Stud., 1904 (Cronin). W. M. Calder M MAACAH; MAACHAH <ma’-a-ka > ( hk;[\m” [ma`akhah]): (1) Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Moca> , Mocha ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Mwca> , Mocha ], daughter of Nahor, borne to him by Reumah ( Genesis 22:24). (2) Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Maaca> , Maacha ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Maaca>q , Maachath ], the one wife of David who was of royal rank, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, who became the mother of Absalom ( 2 Samuel 3:3; 1 Chronicles 3:2). (3) [ Maaca> , Maacha ], father of Achish, king of Gath ( 1 Kings 2:39).

    He is probably referred to as “Maoch” in 1 Samuel 27:2. (4) The daughter of Absalom, the favorite wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah ( 1 Kings 15:2; 2 Chronicles 11:20, etc.). Evidently “daughter” must here be understood as “granddaughter,” according to a common oriental usage. Tamar was the only daughter of Absalom. If Tamar married Uriel of Gibeah ( 2 Chronicles 13:2), then Maacah was her daughter. In that case the name Micaiah in this passage would be either a copyist’s error or a variant of Maacah. She must have been a woman of strong personality. Unfortunately, her influence was cast upon the side of idolatry. She maintained her position in the palace, however, till the reign of her grandson Asa. Possibly she acted as regent during his minority.

    Ultimately, she was degraded by him for an act of peculiar infamy ( Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16). (5) Concubine of Caleb, son of Hezron ( 1 Chronicles 2:48). (6) Sister of Huppim and Shuppim the Benjamites, who became the wife of Machir the Manassite, the “father” of Gilead ( 1 Chronicles 7:12,15 f). (7) Wife of Jeiel, the “father” of Gibeon, an ancestress of King Saul ( Chronicles 8:29; 9:35). (8) Father of Hanan, one of David’s mighty men ( 1 Chronicles 11:43). (9) Father of Shephatiah, ruler of the Simeonites under David ( Chronicles 27:16). W. Ewing MAACAH <ma’-a-ka > ( hk;[\m” [ma`akhah]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Mwca~ , Mocha ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Maaca> , Maacha ]): A small Syrian kingdom adjoining that of Geshur on the western border of Bashan, the inhabitants of which are called Maachathites (the Revised Version (British and American) “Maacathites”), whose territory was taken by Jair (Dt 3:14; Josh 12:5). The border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites and all Matthew. Hermon were given to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh 13:11).

    The inhabitants of these kingdoms, however, were not driven out by Israel (Josh 13:13), and at a later day the children of Ammon hired mercenaries from Maacah for their encounter with David. The armies met near Medeba when the “Syrians” from Maacah found themselves opposed to Joab. That famous captain completely routed them ( 2 Samuel 10:6 ff the Septuagint has “Amalek”). In 1 Chronicles 19:6 it is called Arammaacah, Syria-maachah (the King James Version); and in 1 Chronicles 2:23 “Aram” appears instead of “Maacah.”

    It evidently lay between Geshur on the South and Hermon on the North, being probably bounded by Jordan on the West, although no certain indication of boundaries is now possible. They would thus be hemmed in by Israel, which accounts for `Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel” (Josh 13:13).It is possible that Abel-beth-maacah may have been a colony founded by men from Maacah. W. Ewing MAACATHITES <ma-ak’-a-thits > ytik;[\M”h” (hama`akhathi]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [oJ Macatei> , ho Machatei ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Macaqi> , Machathi ]): Mentioned in Scripture are Ahasbai M ( 2 Samuel 23:34), Jaazaniah ( 2 Kings 25:23), Naham ( 1 Chronicles 4:19) and Jezaniah ( Jeremiah 40:8). See preceding article.

    MAADAI <ma-a-da’-i > , <ma’-a-di > ( yd’[\m” [ma`adhay]): Son of Bani; one of those who married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:34).

    MAADIAH <ma-a-di’-a > ( hy:d”[“m” [ma`adhyah], “whose ornament is Jah”): A priest who returned with Zerubbabel ( Nehemiah 12:5). The name also occurs in the form “Moadiah” ( Nehemiah 12:17).

    MAAI <ma-a’-i > , <ma’i > ( y[“m; [ma`ay]): An Asaphite musician who took part in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls ( Nehemiah 12:36).

    MAALEH-ACRABBIM <ma’-a-la-a-krab’-im > , <ma-al’-a- > . See AKRABBIM.

    MAANI <ma’-a-ni > ([ Maani> , Maani ]): (1) the King James Version “Meani” (1 Esdras 5:31), corresponding to “Meunim” in Ezra 2:50; Nehemiah 7:52. (2) the Revised Version (British and American) “Baani,” head of a family, many of whom had married foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34; called “Bani” in Ezra 10:34).

    MAARATH <ma’-a-rath > ( tr:[\m” [ma`arath]): A city in the hill country of Judah, mentioned between Gedor and Beth-anoth (Josh 15:59). The small village of Beit Ummar upon the watershed, a little to the West of the carriage road to Hebron and about a mile from Khirbet Jedur (Gedor), is a probable site.

    There are many rock tombs to its East. The village mosque is dedicated to Nebi Matta, i.e. Matthew. See P E F, III, 305, Sh XXI.

    MAAREH-GEBA <ma’-a-re-ge’-ba > , <-ga’-ba > ( hre[\m” [b”G< [ma`areh gebha`]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Maraaga>be , Maraagabe ]; Codex Alexandrinus [dusmw~n th~v Gabaa> , dusmon tes Gabaa ]): The place where the men of Israel lay in ambush, from which they broke forth upon the children of Benjamin ( Judges 20:33). the King James Version renders “the meadows of Gibeah,” the Revised Version margin “the meadow of Geba (or Gibeah).” The Septuagint’s Codex Alexandrinus affords a clue to the correct reading. It to read place-name. The text must be emended to read [b”G< hre[\m” [mima`arabh legebha`], “to the West of Geba.” Peshitta suggests a reading [mime-`arath gebha`], “from the cave of Geba.” This, however, there is nothing to warrant. W. Ewing MAASAI <ma’-a-si > , <ma-as’-i > ( yc”[]m” [ma`say]; the King James Version, Maasiai): A priest, son of Abdid ( 1 Chronicles 9:12).

    MAASEAS <ma-a-se’-as > ([ Maasai~ov , Maasaios ]; the King James Version Maasias): Grandfather of Baruch (Baruch 1:1); called Mahseiah in Jeremiah 32:12; 51:59.

    MAASEIAH <ma-a-se’-ya > , <ma-a-si’a > ( Why:ce[\m” [ma`aseyahu], “Yahweh’s work”; [ Maassaia> , Maassaia ], and Massaias in the Septuagint): A name common in exilic and late monarchic times (Gray, H P N). (1) A Levite musician named in connection with David’s bringing up of the ark from the house of Obed-edom ( 1 Chronicles 15:18,20). (2) A Levite captain who aided Jehoiada at the coronation of Joash ( 2 Chronicles 23:1). (3) An officer of Uzziah ( 2 Chronicles 26:11). (4) Ahaz’ son, slain by the Ephesiansraimite, Zichri ( 2 Chronicles 28:7). (5) A governor of Jerusalem under Josiah ( 2 Chronicles 34:8). (6) (7) (8) (9) The name of 4 men, 3 of them priests, who had married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:18,21,22,30). (10) Father of Azariah, one of the builders of the wall ( Nehemiah 3:23). (11) One of those who stood at Ezra’s right hand during the reading of the Law ( Nehemiah 8:4). (12) One of the expounders of the Law ( Nehemiah 8:7). (13) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant ( Nehemiah 10:25). (14) A Judahite inhabitant of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 11:5), who in 1 Chronicles 9:5 is called Asaiah. (15) A Benjamite ( Nehemiah 11:7). (16) (17) Name of two priests ( Nehemiah 12:41 f). (18) A priest in Zedekiah’s reign, father of a certain Zephaniah who interviewed the prophet Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 21:1; 29:25; 37:3). (19) Father of the false prophet Zedekiah ( Jeremiah 29:21). (20) A keeper of the threshold in the reign of Jehoiakim ( Jeremiah 35:4). (21) Baaseiah (which see), a Kohathite name ( 1 Chronicles 6:40), is probably a textual error for Maaseiah. (22) the King James Version for Mahseiah, an ancestor of Baruch ( Jeremiah 32:12). John A. Lees MAASIAI <ma-as’-i-i > . See MAASAI.

    MAASMAS <ma-as’-mas > , <ma’-as-mas > ([ Maasma>v , Maasmas ]; Swete reads Maasman; the King James Version Masman, 1 Esdras 8:43): Corresponds to “Shemaiah” in Ezra 8:16.

    MAATH <ma’-ath > ([ Maa>q , Maath ]): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy in the 12th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary ( Luke 3:26).

    MAAZ <ma’-az > ( ˜[“m” [ma`ats]): A descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 2:27).

    MAAZIAH <ma-a-zi’-a > ( Why:z”[“m” [ma`azyahu]): (1) The priest to whom fell the lot for the 24th course ( 1 Chronicles 24:18). (2) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant ( Nehemiah 10:8).

    MABDAI <mab’-da-i > . See MAMDAI.

    MABNABEDAI <mab-nab’-e-di > . See MACHNADEBAI.

    MACALON <mak’-a-lon > ([oiJ ejk Makalw~n , hoi ek Makalon ]; 1 Esdras 5:21): This corresponds to “the men of Michmas” in Ezra 2:27. The mistake has probably arisen through reading Macalon in Greek uncials for “AL”.

    MACCABAEUS; MACCABEES <mak-a-be’-us > ([ Makkabai~ov , Makkabaios ]), MACCABEES, <mak’- a-bez > ([oiJ Makkabai~oi , hoi Makkabaioi ]):

    The name Maccabeus was first applied to Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias generally called in English the Maccabees, a celebrated family who defended Jewish rights and customs in the 2nd century BC (1 Macc 2:1-3). The word has been variously derived (e.g. as the initial letters of [Mi Khamokha, Ba-’elim Yahweh]! “Who is like unto thee among the mighty, O Yahweh?”), but it is probably best associated with [maqqabhah] “hammer,” and as applied to Judas may be compared with the malleus Scotorum and malleus haereticorum of the Middle Ages (see next article).

    To understand the work of the Maccabees, it is necessary to take note of the relation in which the Jews and Palestine stood at the time to the immediately neighboring nations.

    1. PALESTINE UNDER KINGS OF SYRIA. 1. Rivalry of Syria and Egypt: On the division of Alexander’s empire at his death in the year 323 BC, Palestine became a sort of buffer state between Egypt under the Ptolemies on the South, and Syria, under the house of Seleucus, the last survivor of Alexander’s generals, on the North. The kings of Syria, as the Seleucid kings are generally called, though their dominion extended practically from the Mediterranean Sea to India, had not all the same name, like the Ptolemies of Egypt, though most of them were called either Seleucus or Antiochus. For a hundred years after the death of Alexander, the struggle went on as to which of the two powers was to govern Palestine, until in the year 223 came the northern prince under whom Palestine was destined to fall to the Seleucids for good. 2. Palestine Seized by Antiochus the Great: This was Antiochus III, commonly known as Antiochus the Great. He waged two campaigns against Egypt for the possession of Palestine, finally gaining the upper hand in the year 198 BC by his victory at Panium, so called from its proximity to a sanctuary of the god Pan, a spot close to the sources of the Jordan and still called Banias. The Jews helped Antiochus to gain the victory and, according to Josephus, his rule was accepted by the Jews with good will. It is with him and his successors that the Jews have now to deal. Antiochus, it should be noticed, came in contact with the Romans after their conquest of Macedonia in 197, and was defeated by Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia in 190. He came under heavy tribute which he found it difficult to pay, and met his end in 187, while plundering a Greek temple in order to secure its contents. His son and successor Seleucus IV was murdered by his prime minister Heliodorus in 176-175 BC, who reaped no benefit from his crime. 3. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes: The brother of the murdered king succeeded to the throne as Antiochus IV, generally known as Antiochus Epiphanes (“the Illustrious”), a typical eastern ruler of considerable practical ability, but whose early training while a hostage at Rome had made him an adept in dissimulation. Educated in the fashionable Hellenism of the day, he made it his aim during his reign (175-164 BC) to enforce it upon his empire a policy which brought him into conflict with the Jews. Even before his reign many Jews had yielded to the attraction of Greek thought and custom, and the accession of a ruler like Antiochus Epiphanes greatly increased the drift in that direction, as will be found described in the article dealing with the period between the Old and the New Testaments (see BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS).

    Pious Jews meanwhile, men faithful to the Jewish tradition, Chasidim (see HASIDAEANS), as they were called, resisted this tendency, and in the end were driven to armed resistance against the severe oppression practiced by Antiochus in advancing his Hellenizing views. See ASMONEANS.

    2. PALESTINE UNDER THE MACCABEES. 1. Mattathias: Mattathias, a priest of the first 24 courses and therefore of the noblest who dwelt at Modin, a city of Judah, was the first to strike a blow. With his own hand he slew a Jew at Modin who was willing to offer the idolatrous sacrifices ordered by the king, and also Apelles, the leader of the king’s messengers (1 Macc 2:15-28). He fled with his sons to the mountains (168 BC), where he organized a successful resistance; but being of advanced age and unfit for the fatigue of active service, he died in 166 BC and was buried “in the sepulchres of his fathers” at Modin (1 Macc 2:70; Josephus, Ant, XII, vi, 3). He apparently named as his successor his 3rd son, Judas, though it was with real insight that on his deathbed he recommended the four brothers to take Simon as their counselor (1 Macc 2:65). 2. Judas: Judas, commonly called Judas Maccabeus — often called in 2 Maccabees “Judas the Maccabee” — held strongly the opinions of his father and proved at least a very capable leader in guerrilla warfare. He defeated several of the generals of Antiochus — Apollonius at Beth-horon, part of the army of Lysias at Emmaus (166 BC), and Lysias himself at Bethsura the following year. He took possession of Jerusalem, except the “Tower,” where he was subsequently besieged and hard pressed by Lysias and the young king Antiochus Eupator in 163 BC; but quarrels among the Syrian generals secured relief and liberty of religion to the Jews which, however, proved of short duration. The Hellenizing Jews, with ALCIMUS (which see) at their head, secured the favor of the king, who sent Nicanor against Judas. The victory over Nicanor first at Capharsalama and later (161 BC) at Adasa near Beth-horon, in which engagement Nicanor was slain, was the greatest of Judas’ successes and practically secured the independence of the Jews. The attempt of Judas to negotiate an alliance with the Romans, who had now serious interests in these regions, caused much dissatisfaction among his followers; and their defection at Elasa (161 BC), during the invasion under Bacchides, which was undertaken before the answer of the Roman Senate arrived, was the cause of the defeat and death of Judas in battle. His body was buried “in the sepulchres of his fathers” at Modin.

    There is no proof that Judas held the office of high priest like his father Mattathias. (An interesting and not altogether favorable estimate of Judas and of the spiritual import of the revolt will be found in Jerusalem under the High Priests, 97-99, by E.R. Bevan, London, 1904.) 3. Jonathan: Jonathan (called Apphus, “the wary”), the youngest of the sons of Mattathias, succeeded Judas, whose defeat and death had left the patriotic party in a deplorable condition from which it was rescued by the skill and ability of Jonathan, aided largely by the rivalries among the competitors for the Syrian throne. It was in reality from these rivalries that resulted the years (129-64 BC) of the completely independent rule of the Hasmonean dynasty (see ASMONEANS) that elapsed between the Greek supremacy of the Syrian kings and the Roman supremacy established by Pompey. The first step toward the recovery of the patriots was the permission granted them by Demetrius I to return to Judea in 158 BC — the year in which Bacchides ended an unsuccessful campaign against Jonathan and in fact accepted the terms of the latter. After his departure, Jonathan “judged the people at Michmash” (1 Macc 9:73). Jonathan was even authorized to reenter Jerusalem and to maintain a military force, only the “Tower” the [Akra ], as it was called in Greek, being held by a Syrian garrison. See further under ASMONEANS; LACEDAEMONIANS; TRYPHON. 4. Simon: Simon, surnamed Thassi (“the zealous”?) was now the only surviving member of the original Maccabean family, and he readily took up the inheritance. Tryphon murdered the boy-king Antiochus Dionysus and seized the throne of Seleucus, although having no connection with the Seleucid family. Simon accordingly broke entirely with Tryphon after making successful overtures to Demetrius, who granted the fullest immunity from all the dues that had marked the Seleucid supremacy. Even the golden crown, which had to be paid on the investiture of a new high priest, was now remitted. On the 23rd of Ijjar (May), 141, the patriots entered even the [Akra ] “with praise and palm branches, and with harps, and with cymbals and with viols, and with hymns, and with songs” (1 Macc 13:51). Simon was declared in a Jewish assembly to be high priest and chief of the people “for ever, until there should arise a prophet worthy of credence” (1 Macc 14:41), a limitation that was felt to be necessary on account of the departure of the people from the Divine appointment of the high priests of the old line and one that practically perpetuated the highpriesthood in the family of Simon. Even a new era was started, of which the high-priesthood of Simon was to be year 1, and this was really the foundation of the Hasmonean dynasty (see ASMONEANS). 5. John Hyrcanus: John Hyrcanus, one of the sons of Simon, escaped from the plot laid by Ptolemy, and succeeded his father, both as prince and high priest. See ASMONEANS. He was succeeded (104 BC) by his son Aristobulus I who took the final step of assuming the title of king. 6. John and Eleazar: Two members of the first generation of the Maccabean family still remain to be mentioned: (1) John, the eldest, surnamed Gaddis (the King James Version “Caddis”), probably meaning “my fortune,” was murdered by a marauding tribe, the sons of JAMBRI (which see), near Medeba, on the East of the Jordan, when engaged upon the convoy of some property of the Maccabees to the friendly country of the Nabateans (1 Macc 9:35-42). (2) Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, met his death (161 BC) in the early stage of the Syrian war, shortly before the death of Judas. In the battle of Bethzacharias (163 BC), in which the Jews for the first time met elephants in war, he stabbed from below the elephants on which he supposed the young king was riding. He killed the elephant but he was himself crushed to death by its fall (1 Macc 6:43-46). For the further history of the Hasmonean dynasty, see ASMONEANS; MACCABEES, BOOKS OF.

    LITERATURE.

    There is a copious literature on the Maccabees, a family to which history shows few, if any, parallels of such united devotion to a sacred cause. The main authorities are of course the Maccabean Books of the Apocrypha; but special reference may be made to the chapters of Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, dealing with the subject, and to E.R. Bevan.

    Jerusalem under the High Priests, 1904, or to the 2nd volume of House of Seleucus by the same author, 1902. J. Hutchison MACCABEES, BOOKS OF <mak’-a-bez > , 1. 1 MACCABEES. 1. Name: The Hebrew title has perished with the original Hebrew text. Rabbinical writers call the Books of Maccabees µynIwOmv]j”h” yrEp]s [ciphere ha-chashmonim], “The Book of the Hasmoneans” (see ASMONEANS).

    Origen gives to Book I (the only one he seemed to know of) the name [ Sarbhl , Sarbeth Sabanaiel ], evidently a Hebrew or Aramaic name of very uncertain meaning, but which Dalman (Aramaic Grammar, section 6) explains as a corruption of Aramaic words= “The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans” (compare the rabbinical name given above). In the Greek manuscripts N, V (Codex Venetus), the books go under the designation [ Makkabai>wn , Makkabaion ], [Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Gamma Delta, [bi>blov , biblos ], being understood. In the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) the 1st and 2nd books are alone found, and appear under the name Machabaeorum liber primus, secundus. The spelling Machabaeorum reproduces probably the pronunciation current in Jerome’s day.

    The name “Maccabee” belongs strictly only to Judas, who in 2 Maccabees is usually called “the Maccabee” ([oJ Makkabai~ov , ho Makkabaios ]). But the epithet came to be applied to the whole family and their descendants.

    The word means probably “extinguisher” (of persecution) ( yBik]m” [makhbi], from kabhah, “to be extinguished”; so Niese; Josephus, Ant, XII, vi, 1 f; S.J. Curtis, The Name Maccabee). The more usual explanation, “hammerer” ( yb”Q;m” [maqqabhay]), is untenable, as the noun from which it is derived ( tb,Q,m” [maqqebheth]) ( Judges 4:21) denotes a smith’s hammer. 2. Canonicity: Since the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) includes only the first 2 books of Maccabees, these are the only books pronounced canonical by the Council of Trent and included in recognized Protestant versions of the Apocrypha (see APOCRYPHA). That 1 Maccabees was used largely in the early Christian church is proved by the numerous references made to it and quotations from it in the writings of Tertullian (died 220), Clement of Alexandria (died 220), Hippolytus (died 235), Origen (died 254), etc. The last named states that 1 Maccabees is uncanonical, and it is excluded from the lists of canonical writings given by Athanasius (died 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386), and Gregory of Nazianzus (died 390). Indeed, none of the books of the Maccabees was recognized as canonical until the Council of Trent (1553) gave this rank to the first 2 books, and Protestants continue in their confessions to exclude the whole of the Apocrypha from the Bible proper, though Luther maintained that 1 Maccabees was more worthy of a place in the Canon than many books now included in it. 3. Contents: 1 Maccabees gives first of all a brief view of the reign of Alexander the Great and the partition of his kingdom among his successors. Having thus explained the origin of the Seleucid Dynasty, the author proceeds to give a history of the Jews from the accession of Antiochus IV, king of Syria (175 BC), to the death of Simon (135 BC). The events of these 40 years are simply but graphically related and almost entirely in the order of their occurrence. The contents of 1 Maccabees and 2 Macc 4-15 are in the main parallel, dealing with the same incidents; but the simple narrative character of 1 Maccabees, in contrast to the didactic and highly religious as well as supernatural coloring of 2 Maccabees, can easily be seen in these corresponding parts. The victories due to heroism in 1 Maccabees are commonly ascribed to miraculous intervention on the part of God in Maccabees (see 1 Macc 4:1 f; compare 2 Macc 8:23 f). 2 Maccabees is more given to exaggerations. The army of Judas at Bethsura consists of 10,000 according to 1 Macc 4:29, but of 80,000 according to 2 Macc 11:2.

    The following is a brief analysis of 1 Maccabees: (1) 1 Maccabees 1:1-10:

    An account of the rise of the Seleucid Dynasty. (2) 1 Maccabees 1:11-16:24:

    History of the Jews from 175 to 135 BC. (a) 1 Maccabees 1:11-64: Introductory. Some Jews inclined to adopt Greek customs (religious, etc.); Antiochus’ aim to conquer Egypt and to suppress the Jewish religion as a source of Jewish disloyalty.

    Desecration of the Jewish temple: martyrdom of many faithful Jews. (b) 1 Maccabees 2:1-70: The revolt of Mattathias (c) 1 Maccabees 3:1-9:22: Leadership of Judas Maccabeus after his father’s death. Brilliant victories over the Syrians. Purification of the temple. Death of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) and accession of Antiochus V (Eupator) (164 BC). Demetrius I became king of Syria, and Alcimus Jewish high priest (162 BC). Treaty between Jews and Romans.

    Defeat of Jews at Eleasa and death of Judas Maccabeus (161 BC). (d) 1 Maccabees 9:23-12:53: Leadership of Jonathan, 5th son of Mattathias, elected to succeed his brother Judas. He becomes high priest. Political independence of Judea secured. (e) 1 Maccabees 13:31-16:24: Peaceful and prosperous rule of Simon, brother of Jonathan; accession of his son John Hyrcanus (135 BC). 4. Historicity: That the author of 1 Maccabees aims at giving a correct narrative, and that on the whole his account is correct, is the opinion of practically all scholars. The simple, straight-forward way in which he writes inspires confidence, and there can be no doubt that we have here a first-class authority for the period covered (175-135 BC). It is the earliest Jewish history which dates events in reference to a definite era, this era being that of the Seleucids, 312 BC, the year of the founding of that dynasty. The aid received from God is frequently recognized in the book (2:51 ff; 3:18; 4:10 f; 9:46; 16:3), yet it is mainly through personal valor that the Jews conquer, not, as in 2 Maccabees (see III, 3 below), through miraculous Divine interpositions. Ordinary, secondary causes are almost the only ones taken into account, so that the record may be relied upon as on the whole trustworthy. Yet the writer shows the defects which belong to his age and environment, or what from the standpoint of literal history must be counted defects, though, as in the case of 2 Maccabees (compare Chronicles), a writer may have other aims than to record bare objective facts. In 1:1-9 the author errs through ignorance of the real facts as regards Alexander’s partition of his kingdom; and other misstatements of fact due to the same cause occur in 10:1 ff (Alexander (Balas), son of Antiochus Epiphanes) and in 13:31 ff (time of assassination of Antiochus VI by Tryphon). In 6:37 it is said there were 32 men upon each elephant, perhaps a misreading of the original “2 or 3,” although the Indian elephant corps at the turn of this century carried more.

    We know nothing of a Persian village Elymais (1 Macc 6:1). The number of Jewish warriors that fought and the number slain are understated, while there are evident exaggerations of the number of soldiers who fought against them and of those of them who were left dead on the field (see Macc 4:15; 7:46; 11:45-51, etc.).

    But in this book, prayers, speeches and official records abound as they do in Ezra, Nehemiah (see Century Bible, “Ezra,” “Nehemiah,” “Esther,” 12 ff), and many modern Protestant writers doubt or deny the authenticity of a part of those, though that is not necessarily to question their genuineness as part of the original narrative.

    As regards the prayers (1 Macc 3:50-54; 4:30-33) and speeches (1 Macc 2:7-13; 2:50-68; 4:6-11, etc.), there is no valid reason for doubting that they give at least the substance of what was originally said or written, though ancient historians like Thucydides and Livy think it quite right to edit the speeches of their characters, abbreviating, expanding or altering.

    Besides, it is to be remembered that the art of stenography is a modern one; even Dr. Johnson, in default of verbatim reports, had to a large extent to make the speeches which he ostensibly reported.

    There is, however, in the book a large number of official documents, and it is in regard to the authenticity of these that modern criticism has expressed greatest doubt. They are the following: (1) Letter of the Jews in Gilead to Judas (1 Macc 5:10-13). (2) Treaty of alliance between the Romans and Jews; copy written on brass tablets sent to Judas (1 Macc 8:22-32). (3) Letter from King Alexander Balas to Jonathan (1 Macc 10:18-20). (4) Letter from King Demetrius I to Jonathan (1 Macc 10:25-45). (5) Letter from King Demetrius II to Jonathan (1 Macc 11:30-37), together with letter to Lasthenes (1 Macc 11:31-37). (6) Letter from the young prince Antiochus to Jonathan, making the latter high priest (1 Macc 11:57). (7) Letter from Jonathan to the Spartans, asking for an alliance (1 Macc 12:5-18). (8) Earlier letter of the Spartan king Arius to the high priest Onias (1 Macc 12:20-23). (9) Letter from King Demetrius II to Simon (1 Macc 13:36-40). (10) Letter from the Spartans to Simon (1 Macc 14:20-24). (11) A decree of the Jews recognizing the services of Simon and his brothers (1 Macc 14:27-45). (12) Letters from Antiochus VII (Sidetes) to Simon (1 Macc 15:2-9). (13) Message from the Roman consul Lucius to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, asking protection for the Jews (1 Macc 15:16-21). A copy was sent to Simon (1 Macc 15:24).

    Formerly the authenticity of these state documents was accepted without doubt, as they still are by Romanist commentators (Welte, Scholz, etc.). At most, they are but translations of translations, for the originals would be written in Greek and Latin, from which the author would translate into Hebrew. The Greek of our book is a translation from the Hebrew (see II, below).

    Rawlinson (Speaker’s Apocrypha, II, 329) says these documents “have a general air of authenticity.” Most modern scholars reject the letters purporting to emanate from the Romans (numbers 2 and 13 above) and from the Spartans (numbers 8, 10 above), together with Jonathan’s message to the latter (number 7, above), on the ground that they contain some historical inaccuracies and imply others. How could one consul issue official mandates in the name of the Roman republic (see number 13, above)? In number 8 above, it is the king of the Spartans who writes on behalf of his people to Onias the high priest; but it is the [ephoroi ] or rulers who write for the Spartans to Simon. Why the difference? Moreover, in Macc 12:21 the Spartans and Jews are said to be kinsmen (literally, brothers), both alike being descendants of Abraham; so also 14:20. This is admittedly contrary to fact. For a careful examination of these official documents and their objective value, see Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen des Altes Testament, 27-30. Though, however, these documents and some others can be proved incorrect as they stand, they do seem to imply actual negotiations of the kind described; i.e. the Jews must have had communications with the Romans and Spartans, the Jews of Gilead must have sent a missive to Judas (number 1), Alexander Balas did no doubt write to Jonathan, etc., though the author of 1 Maccabees puts the matter in his own way, coloring it by his own patriotic and religious prejudices. 5. Author’s Standpoint and Aim: Though the name of the author is unknown, the book itself supplies conclusive evidence that he belonged to the Sadducee party, the party favored by the Hasmoneans. The aim of the writer is evidently historical and patriotic, yet his attitude toward religious questions is clearly indicated, both directly and indirectly. (1) Nowhere in the book is the Divine Being mentioned under any name except Heaven (1 Macc 3:18 f,50,60; 4:10,55; 12:15, etc.), a designation common in rabbinical Hebrew (Talmud, etc.). As early as 300 BC the sacred name “[Yahweh]” was discarded in favor of “[Adonai]” (Lord) for superstitious reasons. But in 1 Maccabees no strictly Divine name meets us at all. This would seem to suggest the idea of a certain aloofness of God, such as characterized theology of the Sadducee party. Contrast with this the mystic closeness of God realized and expressed by the psalmists and prophets of the Old Testament. (2) The author is a religious patriot, believing that his people have been Divinely chosen and that the cause of Israel is the cause of God. (3) He is also a strict legalist, believing it the duty of every Jew to keep the Law and to preserve its institutions (1 Macc 1:11,15,43,49,54,60,62 f; 2:20 ff,27,42,48,50; 3:21, etc.), and deprecating attempts to compel Jews to desecrate the Sabbath and feast days (1 Macc 1:45), to eat unclean food (1 Macc 1:63) and to sacrifice to idols (1 Macc 1:43). Yet the comparatively lax attitude toward the Sabbath implied in 1 Macc 2:41 ff, involving the principle of Christ’s words, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” ( Mark 2:27), agrees with the Sadducee position against that of the Pharisees. (4) The book teaches that the age of inspiration is past, and that the sacred books already written are the only source of comfort in sorrow and of encouragement under difficulties (1 Macc 12:9). (5) The legitimacy of the high-priesthood of Simon is not once questioned, though it is condemned by both the Deuteronomic law (D), which restricts the priesthood to the tribe of Levi, and by the priestly law (P), which requires in addition that a priest must be of the family of Aaron. This laxity agrees well with the general tenets of the Sadducees. (6) The book contains no trace of the Messianic hope, though it was entertained at the time in other circles (the Pharisees; see MESSIAH, II, 2; PROPHECY); 1 Macc 2:57 is no exception, for it implies no more than a belief that there would be a restoration of the Davidic Dynasty. Perhaps it is implied that that expectation was realized in the Hasmoneans. (7) There is no reference in the book to the doctrine of a resurrection from the dead or to that of the immortality of the soul, though we know that both these beliefs were commonly held by Jews of the time (see Daniel 12:3; Enoch 19; 22:11-14; 9:1,5 ff; 2 Macc 7:9,11,14,29). We know that the Pharisee party believed in a resurrection (see Acts 23:6). The Maccabean heroes fought their battles and faced death without fear, not because, like Moslems, they looked to the rewards of another life, but because they believed in the rightness of their cause and coveted the good name won by their fathers by acts of similar courage and devotion.

    This outline of the doctrines taught or implied in the book makes it extremely likely that the author was a member of the Sadducee party. 6. Date: 1 Maccabees must have been written before the Roman conquest under Pompey, since the writer speaks of the Romans as allies and even friends (8:1,12; 12:1; 14:40); i.e. the composition of the book must have been completed (unless we except chapters 14-16; see below) before 63 BC, when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and Judea became a Roman province.

    We thus get 63 BC as a terminus ad quem. Moreover, the historical narrative is brought down to the death of Simon (16:16), i.e. to 135 BC.

    We have thus an undoubted terminus a quo in 135 BC. The book belongs for certain to the period between 135 and 63 BC. But 1 Macc 16:18-24 implies that John Hyrcanus (died 105 BC) had for some time acted as successor to Simon, and Reuss, Ewald, Fritzsche, Grimm, Schurer, Kautzsch, etc., are probably right in concluding from 16:23 f that John was dead when the book was completed, for we have in this verse the usual formula recording the close of a royal career (see 1 Kings 11:41; Kings 10:34, etc.), and the writer makes it sufficiently understood that all his acts were already “entered in the public annals of the kingdom” (Ewald, History of Israel, V, 463, note), so that repetition was unnecessary. But Bertheau, Keil, Wellhausen and Torrey draw the contrary conclusion, arguing that John had but begun his rule, so that at the time of writing there was practically nothing to record of the doings subsequent to 135, when John succeeded Simon (see EB, III, 2860 (Toy)). In 1 Macc 13:30 we read that the monument erected in 143 BC by Simon in memory of his father and brothers was standing at the time when this book was written, words implying the lapse of say 30 years at least. This gives a terminus a quo of 113 BC. Moreover, the panegyric on Simon (died 135 BC) and his peaceful rule in 14:4-15 leaves the impression that he had been long in his grave. We cannot be far wrong in assigning a date for the book in the early part of the last century BC, say 80 BC.

    Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I, 1882, 80 ff), followed by Wellhausen (IJG, 1894, 222 f), maintained that Josephus (died circa 95), who followed 1 Maccabees up to the end of chapter 13, could not have seen chapters 14 through 16 (or from 14:16?), or he would not have given so meager an account of the high-priesthood of Simon (see Ant, XIII, vi, 7), which the author of 1 Maccabees describes so fully in those chapters.

    But Josephus must have used these chapters or he could not have written of Simon even as fully as he does. 7. Sources: If, as Torrey (EB, III, 2862) holds, we have in 1 Maccabees “the account of one who had witnessed the whole Maccabean struggle from its beginning,” the book having been completed soon after the middle of the 2nd century BC, it may then be assumed that the writer depended upon no other sources than his own. But even in this case one is compelled, contrary to Torrey (loc. cit.), to assume that written sources of his own were used, or the descriptions would not have been so full and the dating so exact. If, however, we follow the evidence and bring down the date of the book to about 80 BC (see I, 6), it must be supposed that the author had access to written sources. It may legitimately be inferred from 1 Macc 9:22 and 16:23 and from the habit of earlier times (see Century Bible, “Ezra,” etc., 11 ff) that official records were kept in the archives of the temple, or elsewhere. These might have contained the state documents referred to in I, 4, some or all, and reports of speeches and prayers, etc. It must be admitted that, unlike the compilers of the historical books of the Old Testament (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc.), the author of Maccabees does not definitely name his written sources. The writer might well be supposed to have kept a kind of diary of his own in which the events of his own early life were recorded. Oral tradition, much more retentive of songs, speeches and the like in ancient than in modern times, must have been a very important source. 8. Original Language: We have the testimony of Origen (see I, 1) and Jerome (Prolog. Galeatus) that the book existed in Hebrew in their day. But it is doubtful whether the words of Origen imply a Hebrew or an Aramaic original, and though Jerome does speak of the book as Hebrew (hebraicus), it has to be remembered that in later times the Greek adjective denoting Hebrew ([eJbrai`sti> , hebraisti ]) and perhaps the corresponding Latin one (hebraicus) often denoted Palestinian Aramaic (see Judges 5:2; 19:13,17; and Kautzsch, Grammatik des bib. Aramaic, 19).

    Hebraisms (or Aramaisms?) abound throughout the book. In the following examples Hebraisms are literally rendered in Greek, though in the latter language they are unidiomatic and often unintelligible: “two years of days” = two full years (1 Macc 1:29, etc.); “month and month” = every month (1 Macc 1:58); “a man (or each one) his neighbor” = each .... the other (1 Macc 2:40; 3:43); “sons of the fortress” = occupants of the fortress (1 Macc 4:2); “against our face” = before us (1 Macc 4:10); “men of power” = warriors (1 Macc 5:32); “of them” = some of them (1 Macc 6:2; compare 7:33, “of the priests” = some of the priests); “the right hand wing” = the southern wing (1 Macc 9:1); “yesterday and the third day” = hitherto (1 Macc 9:44). The above are strictly Hebraisms and not for the most part Aramaisms. The implied use of the “waw-consecutive” in Macc 3:1,41; 8:1; 9:1, and often, points also to a Hebrew, not to an Aramaic origin.. “Heaven” as a substitute for “God,” so common in this book (see I, 5), is perhaps as much an Aramaism as a Hebraism (see Targum Jerusalem Numbers 25:19). Many of the proper names in the book are obviously but trans-literations from the Hebrew; thus, [ Fulistiei>n , Phulistiein ] (1 Macc 3:24); compare Sirach 46:18; 47:7; see the names in 1 Macc 11:34; and Schurer, GJV4, I, 233. 9. Text and Versions: The original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees (see I, 8) must have been lost at a very early time, since we have no evidence of its use by any early writer.

    J.D. Michaells held that Josephus used it, but this idea has been abandoned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Hebrew text of the first half of 1 Macc, edited by A. Schweitzer and taken by him to be a part of the original text, is in reality a translation from the Latin made in the 11th century of our era (so Noldeke, etc.). (1) Greek.

    The Greek text from which the other versions are nearly all made is given in all editions of the Septuagint. It occurs in the uncials Codex Sinaiticus (Fritzsche, X) , Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche, III), and Codex Venetus (8th or 9th century), not in Codex Vaticanus; and in a large number of cursives. Swete (Old Testament in Greek) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus.

    Though the Greek text has so many Hebraisms, it is an exceedingly good rendering, full of spirit and on the whole more idiomatic than the rest of the Septuagint. (2) Latin.

    There are two Latin recensions of the book: (a) that found in the Vulgate, which agrees almost entirely with the Old Latin version. It is in the main a literal rendering of the Greek (b) Sabatier (Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, II) published in 1743 a Latin version of 1 Macc 1 through 13 found in but one manuscript (Sangermanensis). Though it is evidently made from the Greek it differs at many points from the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is probably older than the Old Latin and therefore than the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (3) Syriac.

    There are also two varying texts in this language. (a) The best known is that printed in the Paris Polyglot (Vol. IX), copied with some changes into the London Polyglot (Vol. IV; for readings see volume V). Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocrypha.

    Syriac., 1861) has edited this version, correcting and appending readings. (b) A text differing in many respects from (a) is given by Ceriani in his Codex Ambros. of the Peshitta (1876-83), though this also is made from the Greek For a careful collection of both the above Syriac texts by G. Schmidt, see Z A T W, 1897, 1-47, 233- 62. LITERATURE.

    See literature cited in the foregoing material. For texts and commentaries on the Apocrypha, see APOCRYPHA. The following commentaries deserve special mention: Grimm, Kurz. exeg. Handbuch, etc., to which the commentaries by Keil (1 and 2 Maccabees) and Bissel (Lange) owe very much; Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT; W. Fair-weather and J.S. Black, Cambridge Bible, “1 Maccabees,” and Oesterley in the Oxford Apocrypha edited by R. H. Charles (1913). Of the dict. articles those in E B (Torrey) and H D B (Fairweather) are excellent. See also E. Montet, Essai sur les origines des saduceens et des pharisiens, 1885; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen vor der mak. Erhebung, 1875, 69-76; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabderbucher, 1900. For a very full bibliography see Schurer, GJ V4, III, 198 ff, and his article “Apocrypha” in R E3, and in Sch-Herz. 2. 2 MACCABEES. 1. Name:

    See I, above. The earliest extant mention of the book as 2 Maccabees is in Euseb., Praep. Evang., VIII, 9. Jerome also (Prol. Galeatus) calls it by this name. 2. Canonicity: In the early church 2 Maccabees was much less valued and therefore less read than 1 Maccabees. Augustine was the only church Father to claim for it canonical rank and even he in a controversy with the Donatists who quoted 2 Maccabees, replied that this book had never been received into the Canon. Since they formed an integral part of the Vulgate, 1 and Maccabees were both recognized by the Council of Trent as belonging to the Romanist Canon. 3. Contents: (1) 2 Maccabees 1 through 9:18:

    Two letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt, urging them to keep the Feast of Dedication and in a general way to observe the Law given them by God through Moses. Both letters appear designed to win for the Jerusalem temple the love and devotion which the Jews of Egypt were in danger of lavishing upon the Leontopolis temple in Egypt.

    These letters have no connection with the rest of the book or with each other, and both are undoubted forgeries. There can be no doubt that Maccabees was first of all composed, and that subsequently either the author or a later hand prefixed these letters on account of their affinity in thought to the book as it first existed. See further on these letters II, 4 and 9. (2) 2 Maccabees 2:19-32:

    Introduction to what follows. The author or epitomizer claims that his history (chapter 3 to end of the book) is an epitome in one book of a larger work in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene. But see II, 4, below. (3) 2 Maccabees 3:1 through 15:39 (End of Book):

    History of the rise and progress of the Maccabean wars from 176 BC, to the closing year of the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, to the defeat and death of Nicanor in 161 BC, a period of 15 years. The record in Maccabees begins one year earlier than that of 1 Maccabees, but as the latter reaches down to 135 BC (and probably below 105 BC; see I, 5), Maccabees covers a period of at least 40 years, while 2 Maccabees gives the history of but 15 years (176-161 BC). The history of this period is thus treated: (a) 2 Macc 3:1 through 4:6: Traitorous conduct of the Benjamite Simon in regard to the temple treasures and the high priest; futile attempt of Heliodorus, prime minister of Seleucus IV, to rob the temple (see I, 3, (11) above); (b) 2 Macc 4:7 through 7:42 parallel 1 Macc 1:10-64 with significant variations and additions. Accession of Antiocus Epiphanes (175 BC); the Hellenizing of some Jews; persecution of the faithful; martyrdom of Eleazar and the 7 brethren and their mother (this last not in Maccabees); (c) 2 Macc 8 through 15 (end) parallel 1 Macc 3 through 7, with significant divergences in details. Rise and development of the Maccabean revolt (see I, 3, above). In the closing verses (2 Macc 15:38 ff) the writer begs that this composition may be received with consideration.

    The record of events in 2 Maccabees ends with the brilliant victory of Judas over Nicanor, followed by the death of the latter; but it is strange that the history of the main hero of the book should be dropped in the middle. Perhaps this abrupt ending is due to the writer’s aim to commend to the Jews of Egypt the two new festivals, both connected with the Jerusalem temple: (a) [Chanukkah] (Festival of Dedication) (1:9,18; 2:16; 10:8); (b) Nicanor Day (15:36), to commemorate the defeat and death of Nicanor. To end the book with the account of the institution of the latter gives it greater prominence. 4. Sources: In its present form 2 Maccabees is based ostensibly on two kinds of written sources. (1) In 2 Macc 2:19-32 the writer of 3:1 to the end, which constitutes the book proper, says that his own work is but an epitome, clearly, artistically and attractively set out, of a larger history by one Jason of Cyrene. Most commentators understand this statement literally, and endeavor to distinguish between the parts due to Jason and those due to the epitomizer.

    Some think they see endings of the 5 books reflected in the summaries at 3:40; 7:42; 10:9; 13:26; 15:37. But W.H. Kosters gives cogent reasons for concluding that the reference to Jason is but a literary device to secure for his own composition the respect accorded in ancient, as in a lesser degree in modern, times to tradition. The so-called “epitomizer’’ is in that case alone responsible for the history he gives. The present writer has no hesitation in accepting these conclusions. We read such nowhere a large else of a historian called “Jason,” or of such a large history at his must have been if it extended to 5 books dealing with the events of 15 years, though such a man and so great a work could hardly have escaped notice. Hitzig (Gesch. des Volkes Israels, II, 415) held that Jason or his supposed epitomizer made use of 1 Maccabees, altering, adding and subtracting to suit his purpose. But the different order of the events and the contradictions in statements of facts in the 2 books, as well as the omission from 2 Maccabees of important items found in 1 Maccabees, make Hitzig’s supposition quite untenable. A careful examination of 2 Maccabees has led Grimm, Schurer, Zockler, Wibrich, Cornill, Torrey and others to the conclusion that the author depended wholly upon oral tradition. This gives the best clue to the anachronisms, inconsistencies and loose phrasing which characterize the book. According to 1 Macc 4:26-33, the first campaign of Lysias into Judea took place in 165 BC, the year before the death of Antiochus IV; but 2 Macc 11 tells us that it occurred in 163 BC, i.e. subsequent to the death of Antiochus IV. Moreover, in the latter passage this 1st expedition of Lysias is connected with the grant of freedom to the Jews, which is really an incident of the 2nd expedition, and in 2 Macc 13:1- 24 is rightly mentioned in the account of the 2nd expedition. The writer of 2 Maccabees, relying upon memory, evidently mixes up the stories of two different expeditions. Similarly the invasions of neighboring tribes under Judas, which are represented in 1 Macc 5:1-68 as taking place in quick succession, belong, according to 2 Macc 8:30; 10:15-38; 12:2-45, to separate dates and different sets of circumstances. The statements in Maccabees are obscure and confused, those in 1 Macc 5 clear and straightforward. Though in 2 Macc 10:37 we read of the death of Timotheus, yet in 12:2 ff he appears as a leader in other campaigns. There again the writer’s memory plays him false as he recalls various accounts of the same events. It was Mattathias who gathered together the Jews and organized them for resistance against Syria, if we follow 1 Macc 2:1-70; but 2 Macc 8:1-7 ascribes this role to his son Judas. The purification of the temple took place 3 years subsequent to its profanation, according to Macc 1:54; 4:52, but only 2 years, according to 2 Macc 10:3. (2) The two letters sent from Palestinian to Egyptian Jews (2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18) form no integral part of the original 2 Maccabees. They are clearly forgeries, and abound in inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The second letter, much the longer, gives an account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which is irreconcilable with that in 9:1-28 and also with that in 1 Macc 6:1-16. Nehemiah is said in 1:18 to have rebuilt the temple and altar, a work accomplished by Zerubbabel nearly a century earlier ( Ezra 3:3; 6:15). Nehemiah’s work was to repair the gates and walls ( Nehemiah 3:1-32; 6:1; 7:1; Sirach 49:13). The writer of this letter says (2 Macc 2:3-5) that at the time of the exile, Jeremiah concealed in a cave on Matthew. Pisgah the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense, a statement which no one accepts as correct or even plausible. That the author of the rest of the book is not the composer of the letters is proved by the difference of style and the contradictions in subject-matter. But that he himself prefixed them is made probable by the connecting particle in the Greek ([de> , de ]), though some (Bertholdt, Grimm, Paulus, Kosters) think rather plausibly that the letters were added by a later hand, the connection in the Greek being also introduced by him and not by the author of the rest of the book. It has been maintained that we have but one letter in 2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18, and on the other hand that there are three. But the division into two is quite natural and is almost universally accepted. 5. Historicity: 2 Maccabees belongs to the class of literature called by the Germans Tendenz-Schriften, i.e. writings originating in the desire to teach some doctrine or to correct some supposed error. 1 Maccabees gives us a history of the Maccabean wars as such, taking so little notice of the part played by God that the Divine Being is not so much as mentioned, except under the impersonal form Heaven (compare “Heaven helps those who help themselves”). Nor has 1 Maccabees a word to say about a life beyond the grave. In short, 1 Maccabees is written from the standpoint of the Sadducees, to which party the reigning dynasty (the Hasmonean) belonged.

    The writer of 2 Maccabees is evidently a Pharisee and his aim is not historical but doctrinal; i.e. the book is a historical romance with a purpose, that purpose being to make prominent the outstanding tenets of the Pharisees (see II, 6). Two extreme opinions have been defended as to the historical value of 2 Maccabees: (1) That 2 Maccabees is a strictly historical work, is more trustworthy than 1 Maccabees and is to be followed when the two books differ; so the bulk of Roman Catholics and also Niese and Schlatter. The supernaturalism of the book is to Romanists a recommendation. (2) That 2 Maccabees has virtually no historical value, since it was written for other than historical ends; so Wibrich, Kosters and Kamphausen. But the bulk of Protestant critics of recent times occupy a portion midway between these two opposite opinions, namely, that 1 Maccabees is much more accurate than 2 Maccabees and is to be preferred when the 2 books of Maccabees differ or contradict each other; so Grimm, Reuss, Schurer, Kamphausen. On the other hand, when 2 Maccabees contains historical matter absent from 1 Maccabees it is to be accepted as correct unless opposed by intrinsic improbability or direct contrary evidence. In 2 Macc 3 through 5 we have details concerning the Maccabean revolt not found in 1 Maccabees, and in treatment of episodes or incidents with which Maccabees deals it is often fuller and more specific, as in 2 Macc 10:14-23; 12:7-9 (compare 1 Macc 5:1-5; 12:17-25); 2 Macc 10:24-38 (compare Macc 5:29-44); 2 Macc 12:32-45 (compare 1 Macc 5:65,68,63 f). On the other hand, the account of the celestial appearances in 2 Macc 3:24 ff; 11:8, etc., and the description in 6:18 ff of the martyrdom of Eleazar the scribe and of the 7 brethren and their mother, carry on their face the marks of their legendary and unhistorical character. The edifying remarks scattered throughout the book, many of them pragmatic and reminding one of the Book of Daniel, confirm the impression otherwise suggested, that the author’s aim was didactic and not historical. The book as it stands is a real authority for the ideas prevalent in the writer’s circle at the time of its composition. 6. Teaching of the Book: In general it may be said that the doctrines taught in 2 Maccabees are those of the Pharisees of the day. Several scholars consider 2 Maccabees the answer of Pharisaism to the Sadduceeism of 1 Maccabees (see Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Saducaer; compare Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, 219 ff). But there is evidence enough (see II, 4) that the author of 2 Maccabees had not seen 1 Maccabees. Yet it is equally clear that 2 Maccabees does give prominence to the distinctive tenets of Pharisaism, and it was probably written on that account. (1) The strictest observance of the law is enforced. The violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath countenanced under special circumstances in Macc (2:39-48) is absolutely forbidden in 2 Macc (6:6,11; 8:26 f; 12:38); compare the words of the Pharisees to Petronius when the latter proposed to have a statue of the emperor Caius erected in the temple: “We will die rather than transgress the law” (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, viii, 3). (2) The Pharisaic party took but little interest in political affairs, and supported the Hasmoneans only because and in so far as they fought for the right to observe their religious rites. When, however, they compromised with Hellenism, the Pharisees turned against them and their allies the Sadducees. In this book we miss the unstinted praise accorded the Hasmonean leaders in 1 Maccabees, and it is silent as to the genealogy of the Hasmoneans, the death of Judas Maccabeus and the family grave at Modin. (3) The book reveals thus early the antagonism between the Pharisees and the priestly party, which is so evident in the Gospels. The high-priesthood had through political circumstances become the property of the Maccabees, though they were not of the Aaronic family, or even of the tribe of Levi. The priestly circle became the aristocratic, broad-church party, willing to come to terms with Greek thought and life. Hence, in 2 Maccabees, Jason and Menelaus are fit representatives of the priesthood.

    In the list of martyrs (chapters 6 f) no priest appears, but on the other hand, Eleazar, one of the principal scribes — scribes and Pharisees were then as in New Testament times virtually one party — suffered for his loyalty to the national religion, “leaving his death for an example” (6:18- 31). (4) The temple occupies a high and honorable place in 2 Maccabees, as in the mind of the orthodox party (see 2:19; 3:2; 5:15; 9:16; 13:23; 14:31).

    Great stress is laid on the importance of the feasts (6:6; 10:8, etc.), of sacrifice (10:3), of circumcision (6:10), of the laws of diet (6:18; 11:31).

    The author seems in particular anxious to recommend to his readers (Egyptian Jews) the observance of the two new festivals instituted to commemorate the purification of the temple after its pollution by the Syrians and also the victory over Nicanor. According to this book the [Chanukkah] feast was established immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (10:6 ff), not before this event (1 Macc 4:56), probably to give it additional importance. The book closes with the defeat and death of Nicanor and the founding of the Nicanor Day festival, without mentioning the death of Judas, as though the writer’s aim was to give prominence to the two new festivals. (5) 2 Maccabees shows a Jewish particularism which agrees well with Pharisaism and Scribism, but is opposed to the broader sentiments of the ruling party: Israel is God’s people (1:26); His portion (14:15); He often intervenes miraculously on behalf of Israel and the religion of Israel (3:24- 30; 10:29 f; 11:6-8); even the calamities of the nation are proofs of Divine love because designed for the nation’s good (5:18); but the sufferings brought upon the heathen are penal and show the Divine displeasure (4:38; 5:9; 13:8; 15:32 f). The writer is deadly opposed to the introduction of Greek customs and in particular to the establishment of a gymnasium in Jerusalem (4:7 f; 11:24). The Book of Jubilees, also written by a zealous Pharisee, takes up the same hostile attitude toward foreign customs (see 3:31; 7:20, and the note by R. H. Charles (Book of Jubilees) on the former). (6) This book gives prominence to the doctrine of a resurrection and of a future life about which 1 Maccabees, a document of the Sadducee party, is silent, (compare I, 5 above; see 2 Macc 7:9,11,14,36; 12:43-45; 14:46 (compare IV, 4, below)). The Sadducees, to which the Hasmoneans belonged, denied a resurrection, limiting their conception of religion to the present life, in this agreeing with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures down to the time of the exile (536 BC). But the Pharisees and scribes, though professing to rest their beliefs on the “Law of Moses,” departed from that law in this matter (see Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses). The resurrection is to be a bodily one (2 Macc 7:11,22 f; 14:46) and to a life that is unending (2 Macc 7:9,36). The following related beliefs supported in this book and forming part of the creed of orthodox Pharisaism are adduced by Romanists on behalf of their own teaching: (a) the efficacy of prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:44); (b) the power exercised by the intercession of saints (2 Macc 15:12- 14); Philo (De execrat., 9) and Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 3) held the same doctrine; (c) the atoning character of the martyrdom of the righteous (2 Macc 7:36,38; compare 4 Macc 17:22; see IV, 4, (3) , below). (7) The angelology of 2 Maccabees forms a prominent feature of the book (see 3:24-30; 10:29 f; 11:6-8). The Sadducees accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, though they rejected tradition. They were therefore inconsistent in allowing no place for angelic beings in their creed, though consistent in rejecting the doctrine of a future life. (8) The comparative silence of this book on the question of the Messianic hope is strikingly in contrast with the prominence of the subject in Psalter of Solomon (17:23 ff, etc.; see Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon, lii ff) and other contemporary writings emanating from the Pharisees. But why should the author of 2 Maccabees be expected to give equal prominence to all his opinions in one tract? Some such hope as that connected with the Messiah does, however, seem to be implied in 1:27; 2:18; 7:33; 14:15.

    The present writer holds that one man is responsible for 2 Maccabees in its present form and that the only written source was the 2 letters with which the book opens (1:1 through 2:18) (see II, 4, above). 7. Author: Even if we have to assume an original in 5 books of which 2 Maccabees, as we have it, is but an epitome, it is not possible to distinguish between the sentiments of “Jason” and his epitomizer. The author — assuming but one — was evidently an Egyptian probably an Alexandrian Jew, who nevertheless retained his loyalty to the Jerusalem temple and its constitutions and desired to prevent the alienation of his fellow-countrymen in the same country from the home sanctuary and its feasts, especially the two new feasts, [Chanukkah] (Dedication) and Nicanor Day. The Jews of Egypt had a temple of their own, in opposition to the teaching of the Jewish law (D and P; compare Dt 12:2-18 and Leviticus 17:1-9; 19:30), and it was perhaps the growing influence of this temple that prompted the author to compose this book which sets so much honor upon the Jerusalem temple and its observances. The character of the Greek (see II, 9, below), the ignorance of Palestine and also the deep interest in Egypt which this book reveals — these and other considerations point to the conclusion that the author lived and wrote in Egypt. There is no evidence that Judas Maccabeus (Leon Allatius), or the author of Sirach (Hasse) or Philo the Jew (Honorius d’Autun) or Josephus wrote the book, though it has been ascribed by different scholars to each of the persons named. 8. Date: The book must have been written sufficiently long after 161 BC, the year with which the record closes, to allow mythical tales of the martyrdoms in 2 Macc 6 f and the history of the supernatural appearances in 3:24-30, etc., to arise. If we allow 30 years, or the lifetime of a generation, we come down to say 130 BC as a terminus a quo. There is probably in 15:36 a reference to the Book of Est (so Cornill, Kautzsch and Wellhausen, IJG4, 302 f) which would bring the terminus a quo down to about 100 BC. That 2 Maccabees was written subsequently to 1 Maccabees (i.e. after 80 BC) is made certain by the fact that the Jews now pay tribute to Rome (2 Macc 8:10,36). Since Philo, who died about 40 AD, refers to 2 Macc 4:8 through 7:42 (Quod omnis probus liber, Works, edition Mangey, II, 459), the book must have been composed before 40 AD. This is confirmed by the certainty that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (70 AD), for the city still exists and the temple services are in full operation (3:6 ff, etc.). Hebrews 11:35 f is no doubt an echo of 2 Macc 6:18 through 7:42 and shows that the unknown author of Hebrews had Maccabees before him. The teaching of the book represents the views of the Pharisees about the middle of the last century BC. A date about 40 BC would agree with all the evidence. 9. Original Language: That the original language was Greek is made exceedingly likely by the easy flow of the style and the almost entire absence of Hebraisms (yet see Macc 8:15; 9:5; 14:24). No scholar of any standing has pleaded for a Hebrew original of the present book. Bertholdt, however, argued that the two letters (2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18) were composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic) Ewald held that the 2nd letter (2 Macc 1:11 through 2:18) is from the Hebrew, and Schlunkes that this applies to the 1st only. But the evidence given by these scholars is unconvincing, though the 1st letter is certainly more Hebraic in style than the 2nd letter, the contrary of what Ewald said. 10. Text and Versions: As to the texts and versions, see I, 9, above, where the statements apply here with but slight qualifications. But the book is lacking in Codex Sinaiticus as well as in Codex Alexandrinus. In addition to the Old Latin text and adopted for the Vulgate, we have another Latin text in Codex Ambrosianus, published in 1824 by Peyron; but this book is unrepresented in Sabatier’s collection of Old Latin texts. LITERATURE.

    In addition to the literature mentioned under APOCRYPHA and I above, and in the course of the present article, note the following items:

    Commentary of Moffatt (Oxford Apocrypha); C. Bertheau, De section lib.

    Macc., 1829 (largely quoted by Grimm); W.H. Kosters, “De Polemiek van het tweede boek de Mak,” TT, XII, 491-558; Schlatter, “Jason von Cyrene,” TLZ, 1893, 322; A. Buchler, Die Tobliden u. die Oniaden im II Mak, 1889; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen, etc., 1895, 64; Kamphausen (Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT). The following discussing the two letters (1:1-2:18) deserve mention: Valckenaer, De Aristobulo, 38-44; Schlunkes, Epistolae quae secundo Macc libro I, etc., 1844, 1-9; also Difficiliorum locorum epistolae, etc., 1847; Graetz, “Das Sendschreiben der Palaestinenser an die aegyptischen Gemeinden,” etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums, 1877, 1-16, 49-60; A. Buchler, “Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer,” etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums; see last notice, 1897, 481-500, 529-54); Bruston, “Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine,” ZATW, X, 110-17; W. H. Kosters, “Strekking der brieven in 2 Macc,” TT, 1898, 68-76; Torrey, “Die Briefe Mak,” ZATW, 1900, 225-42. 3. 3 MACCABEES. 1. Name: The name 3 Maccabees, though occurring in the oldest manuscripts and VSS, is quite unsuitable, because the book refers to events which antedate the Maccabean age by about half a century, and also to events in which the Maccabees took no part. But this book tells of sufferings and triumphs on the part of loyal Jews comparable to those of the Maccabean period.

    Perhaps the term Maccabees was generalized so as to denote all who suffered for their faith. Some hold that the book was written originally as a kind of introduction to the Books of Maccabees, which it precedes as Book I in Cotton’s Five Books of Maccabees. But the contents of the book do not agree with this view. Perhaps the title is due to a mistake on the part of a copyist. 2. Canonicity: The book has never been reckoned as canonical by the Western church, as is shown by the fact that it exists in no edition of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and was not included in the Canon by the Council of Trent. It is for the latter reason absent from the Protestant versions of the Apocrypha which contain but the Books of Maccabees (1 and 2). But 3 Maccabees has a place in two uncials of the Septuagint (A and V) and also in the ancient (Peshitta) Syriac version of the Scriptures, and it is given canonical rank in the Apostolical Constitutions (canon 85).

    The book must therefore have been held in high esteem in the early church. 3. Contents: 3 Maccabees is a historical novel in which there is much more romance than history, and more silly and superficial writing than either. It professes to narrate occurrences in the history of the Jews which took place at Jerusalem and at Alexandria in which the Jews were persecuted but in various ways delivered. (1) 3 Maccabees 1:1 through 2:24:

    After conquering at Raphia Antiochus III, the great king of Syria (224-187 BC), Ptolemy IV Philopator, king of Egypt (221-204 BC), resolved to visit Jerusalem and to enter the sanctum (“holy of holies,” [nao>v , naos ]) of the temple to which by the Jewish law access was allowed only to the high priest, and even to him but once a year (Day of Atonement (1:11)). The Jews, priests and people, were in a paroxysm of grief and earnestly entreated him to desist, but he persisted in his plan. They then through Simon, the high priest, 219-199 BC, prayed that God might intervene and avert this desecration. The prayer is answered, the king being paralyzed before realizing his purpose. (2) 3 Maccabees 2:25-30:

    Returned to Alexandria, Ptolemy is exasperated at the failure of his longcherished project and resolves to wreak his vengeance upon the Jews of Egypt. He issues a decree that all Jews in Alexandria who refused to bend the knee to Bacchus should be deprived of all their rights as citizens. (3) 3 Maccabees 2:31 through 4:21:

    A goodly number of Alexandrian Jews refuse to obey the royal mandate, whereupon Ptolemy issues an edict that all the Jews of Egypt, men, women and children, shall be brought in chains to Alexandria and confined in the race-course (hippodrome), with a view to their wholesale massacre. Prior to the massacre there is to be a complete register taken of the names of the assembled Jews. Before the list is complete the writing materials give way and the huge slaughter is averted. (4) 3 Maccabees 4:22 through 6:21:

    The king, still thirsting for the blood of this people, hits upon a different method of compassing their ruin. Five hundred elephants are intoxicated with wine and incense and let loose upon the Jews in the race-course.

    Here we have the principal plot of the book, and we reach the climax in the various providential expedients, childish in their character, of preventing the execution of the king’s purpose. The lesson of it all seems to be that God will deliver those who put their trust in Him. (5) 3 Maccabees 6:22 through 7:23:

    At length the king undergoes a change of heart. He releases the Jews and restores them to all their lost rights and honors. In response to their request, he gives them permission to slay their brother-Jews who, in the hour of trial, had given up their faith. They put to death 300, “esteeming this destruction of the wicked a season of joy” (7:15). 3 Maccabees is made up of a number of incredible tales, the details of which are absurd and contradictory. The beginning of the book has evidently been lost, as appears from the opening words, “Now when Philopator” ([oJ de< Filopa>twr , ho de Philopator ]), and also from the references to an earlier part of the narrative now lost, e.g.: 1:1 (“from those who came back”); 1:2 (“the plot afore mentioned”); 2:25 (“the aforenamed boon companions”), etc. 4. Historicity: The book contains very little that is true history, notwithstanding what Israel Abrahams (see “Literature” to this section), depending largely on Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies), says to the contrary. It is much more manifest than even in the case of 2 Maccabees that the writer’s aim was to convey certain impressions and not to write history (see III, 5).

    The improbabilities of the book are innumerable (see Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 616 f), and it is evident that we have to do here with a combination of legends and fables worked up in feeble fashion with a view to making prominent certain ideas which the author wishes his readers to keep in mind. Yet behind the fiction of the book there are certain facts which prompted much of what the writer says. (1) That Ptolemy IV bore the character of cruelty and capriciousness and effeminacy is borne out by Polybius (204-121 BC) in his History and by Plutarch in his Life of Cleomenes. (2) The brief outline of the war between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III, the latter being conquered at Raphia (chapters 1 f), agrees in a general way with what has been written by Polybius, Livy and Justin. (3) In this book, by the command of Ptolemy, 500 intoxicated elephants are let loose upon the Jews brought bound to the race-course of Alexandria.

    Josephus (Apion, II, v) tells us that Ptolemy VII Physcon, king of Egypt, 145-117 BC, had the Jews of Alexandria, men, women and children, brought bound and naked to an enclosed space and that he had let loose on them a herd of elephants, which, however, turned instead upon his own men, killing a large number of them. The cause of the king’s action was that the Jewish residents of Alexandria sided with his foes. In 3 Maccabees the cause of the action of Ptolemy IV was the failure of his project to enter the sanctum of the Jerusalem temple; this last perhaps a reflection of Macc 3:9 ff, where it is related that Heliodorus was hindered from entering the temple by a ghostly apparition. Now these two incidents, in both of which Jews are attacked by intoxicated elephants, must rest upon a common tradition and have probably a nucleus of fact. Perhaps, as Israel Abrahams holds, the tradition arose from the action of the elephants of Ptolemy in the Battle of Raphia. Most writers think that the reference is to something that occurred in the reign of Ptolemy VII. (4) The shutting-up of the Jews in the racecourse at Alexandria was not improbably suggested by a similar incident in which Herod the Great was the principal agent. (5) In the opinion of Grimm (Comm., 216) we have in the two festivals (3 Macc 6:36; 7:19) and in the existence of the synagogue at Ptolemais an implied reference to some great deliverance vouchsafed to the Jews. 5. Aim and Teaching: 3 Maccabees was probably written by an Alexandrian Jew at a time when the Jews in and around Alexandria were sorely persecuted on account of their religion. The purpose of the author seems to have been to comfort those suffering for the faith by giving examples showing how God stands by His people, helping in all their trials and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies. Note further the following points: (1) The book, unlike 2 Maccabees, is silent as to a bodily resurrection and a future life, though this may be due to pure accident. Hades ([ [Aidhv , Haides ]) in 3 Macc 4:8; 5:42; 6:31, etc., appears to stand only for death, regarded as the end of all human life. (2) Yet the belief in angelic beings is clearly implied (see 6:18 ff). (3) The author has much confidence in the power of prayer (see 2:10; 2:21-24; 5:6-10,13,50 f; 6:1-15, etc.). (4) The book lays stress upon the doctrine that God is on the side of His people (4:21, etc.), and even though they transgress His commandments He will forgive and save them (2:13; 4:13, etc.). 6. Authorship and Date: From the character of the Greek, the interest shown in Alexandrian Judaism, and the acquaintance displayed with Egyptian affairs (see I.

    Abrahams, op. cit., 39 ff), it may be inferred with confidence that the author was a Jew residing in Alexandria. The superior limit (terminus a quo) for the date is some time in the last century BC. Since the existence of the additions to Daniel is implied (see Daniel 6:6), the inferior limit (terminus ad quem) is some time before 70 AD. If the temple had been destroyed, the continuance of the temple services could not have been implied (see 3 Macc 1:8 ff). As the book seems written to comfort and encourage Alexandrian Jews at a time when they were persecuted, Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss and others thought it was written during the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41 AD), when such a persecution took place. But if Ptolemy is intended to represent Caligula, it is strange, as Schurer (GJV4, III, 491) remarks, that the writer does not make Ptolemy claim Divine honors, a claim actually made by Caligula.

    Though Josephus (died 95 AD) could not have known the book, since his version of the same incidents differs so much, yet it must have been written some 30 years before his death, i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 71 AD. 7. Original Language: That 3 Maccabees was composed in Greek is the opinion of all scholars and is proved by the free, idiomatic and rather bombastic character of the language in the Septuagint. 8. Text and Versions: (1) Greek.

    This book occurs in the two unicals Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Venetus (not in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus), in most cursives and also in nearly all editions of the Septuagint. (2) Syriac.

    The Syriac version (Peshitta) reproduced in the Paris and London Polyglot and by Lagarde, Lib. Apocrypha. Vet. Test. It is not a good translation. (3) Latin.

    The earliest Latin translation is that made for the Complutensian Polyglot. (4) English.

    The earliest in English is that of Walter Lynne (1650). LITERATURE.

    Besides the commentaries by Grimm (the best), Bissell (Lange), Kautzsch and Emmet (Oxford Apocrypha), and the articles in HDB (Fairweather, excellent), Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey, good), GJV4 (Schurer), III, 489- 92; HJP, II, iii, 216-19, let the following be noted: A. Hausrath, A History of New Testament Times, 1895, II, 70 ff; Wibrich, Juden u. Griechen; Abrahams, “The Third Book of the Mace,” JQR, IX, 1897, 39-58; A.

    Buchler, Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden, 1899, 172-212. Both Abrahams and Buchler defend the historicity of some parts of 3 Maccabees; Wibrich, “Der historische Kern des III Makk,” Hermes, Bd. 39, 1904, 244-58. For English translation see (1) Henry Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees (Cotton calls it First Book of Maccabees); (2) W.R. Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, and (3) Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English 4. 4 MACCABEES. 1. Name: 4 Maccabees is a philosophical treatise or discourse on the supremacy of pious reason (= religious principle) in the virtuous man. The oldest title of the book, 4 Maccabees ([ Makkabai>wn d , Makkabaion d ], (4) ), occurs in the earliest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.), in the list of the Codex Claromontanus (3rd century?), the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books (5th century?) and the Synopsis of Athanasius (9th century). It obtained this name from the fact that it illustrates and enforces its thesis by examples from the history of the Maccabees. Some early Christian writers, believing 4 Maccabees to be the work of Josephus (see IV, 5), gave it a corresponding title. Eusebius and Jerome, who ascribe the book to Josephus, speak of it under the name of: A Discourse concerning the Supreme Power of Reason. 2. Canonicity: Though absent from the Vulgate, and therefore from the Romanist Canon and from Protestant versions of its Apocrypha,4 Maccabees occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and editions (Fritzsche, Swete, not Tischendorf) of the Septuagint, showing it was highly esteemed and perhaps considered canonical by at least some early Christian Fathers. 3. Contents: This book is a philosophical disquisition in the form of a sermon on the question “Whether pious reason is absolute master of the passions” (4 Macc 1:1). (1) 4 Maccabees 1:1-12:

    First of all, the writer states his theme and the method in which he intends to treat it. (2) 4 Maccabees 1:13 through 3:18:

    He defines his terms and endeavors from general principles to show that pious reason does of right rule the passions. (3) 4 Maccabees 3:19 to End of Book:

    He tries to prove the same proposition from the lives of the Maccabean martyrs. These historical illustrations are based on 2 Macc 6:18 through 7:42 (compare 3 Macc 6).

    Because the book is written as a discourse or sermon and is largely addressed to an apparent audience (4 Macc 1:17; 2:14; 13:10; 18:4), Freudenthal and others think we have here an example of a Jewish sermon delivered as here written. But Jewish preachers based their discourses on Scripture texts and their sermons were more concise and arresting than this book. 4. Teaching: The author’s philosophical standpoint is that of Stoicism, namely, that in the virtuous man reason dominates passion. His doctrine of four cardinal virtues ([fro>nhsiv , phronesis ], [dikaiosu>nh , dikaiosune ], [ajndrei>a , andreia ], [swfrosu>nh , sophrosune ], “Providence,” “Justice” “Fortitude,” “Temperance” (4 Macc 1:18)), is also derived from Stoicism. Though, however, he sets out as if he were a true Stoic, he proceeds to work out his discourses in orthodox Jewish fashion. His all-dominating reason is that which is guided by the Divinely revealed law, that law for the faithful observing of which the martyrs died. The four cardinal virtues are but forms of that true wisdom which is to be obtained only through the Mosaic law (4 Macc 7:15-18). Moreover, the passions are not, as Stoicism taught, to be annihilated, but regulated (4 Macc 1:61; 3:5), since God has planted them (4 Macc 2:21).

    The author’s views approach those of Pharisaism. (1) He extols the self-sacrificing devotion to the law exhibited by the Maccabean martyrs mentioned in 4 Macc 3:9 to the end of the book. (2) He believes in a resurrection from the dead. The souls of the righteous will enjoy hereafter ceaseless fellowship with God (9:8; 15:2; 18:5), but the wicked will endure the torment of fire forever and ever (10:11,15; 12:12; 13:14). Nothing, however, is said of the Pharisees’ doctrine of a bodily resurrection which 2 Maccabees, a Pharisaic document (see II, 6, (6) above), clearly teaches. (3) The martyrdom of the faithful atones for the sins of the people (4 Macc 6:24; 17:19-21; compare Romans 3:25). 5. Authorship and Date: According to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 6), Jerome (De Viris Illust., xiii; C Peleg, ii.6), Suidas (Lex [ jIw>shpov , Iosepos ]) and other early writers, Josephus is the author of this book, and in Greek editions of his works it constitutes the last chapter with the heading: [ Flab.

    JIosh>pou eijv Makkabai>ouv lo>gov, h\ peri< aujtokra>torov logismou~ , Phlab. Iosepou eis Makkabaions logos, e peri autokratoros logismou ], “The Discourse of Flavius Josephus: or concerning the Supreme Power of Reason” (so Niese, Bekker, Dindorf, etc.). But this tradition is negated by the style and thought, which differ completely from those found in the genuine writings of that Jewish historian. Besides this, the author of the book makes large use of 2 Maccabees, of which Josephus was ignorant.

    Moreover, there are traditions equally ancient of a contrary kind.

    The author must have been a Jew and he probably belonged to the Pharisee party (see IV, 7). He was also a Hellenist, for he reveals the influence of Greek thought more than any other apocryphal writer. He was also, it would appear, a resident of Alexandria, for the earliest notices of it occur in literature having an Alexandrian origin, and the author makes considerable use of 2 Maccabees, which emanated from Alexandria.

    It is impossible definitely to fix the date of the book. But it was certainly written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and after the composition of 2 Maccabees, on which it largely depends. A date in the first half of the 1st century of our era would suit all the requirements of the case. 6. Original Language: The book was certainly written in Greek, as all scholars agree. It employs many of the terms of Greek philosophy and it bears the general characteristics of the Greek spoken and written at Alexandria at the commencement of the Christian era. 7. Text and Versions: (1) Greek.

    This book occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and printed editions (Grabe, Breitinger, Apel, Fritzsche, Swete (Codex Alexandrinus with variants of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus) and Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English), also in various Josephus manuscripts and most editions of Josephus, including Naber, but not Niese. (2) Latin.

    No Old Latin version has come down to us. (3) Syriac.

    The Peshitta text is printed in Codex Ambros. (Ceriani) and by Bensley from a manuscript in The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac (agrees mostly with Codex Alexandrinus). Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca Sancta, 1566, I, 39) speaks of having seen another Maccabees. But this was probably “simply a reproduction of Josephus” (Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, iii, 14). LITERATURE.

    Besides the literature mentioned under the other books of Maccabees, under APOCRYPHA, and in the course of the present article, note the following: The commentaries of Grimm (excellent; the only one on the complete book) and Deissmann (in Kautzsch, A pok des Altes Testament, brief but up to date and good); the valuable monograph by Freudenthal:

    Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift uber die Herrschafft der Vernunft (IV. Makkabaerbuch) Untersucht, 1869. See, besides the articles in HDB (Fairweather); Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey); Gfrorer, Philo, etc., II, 1831, 173-200; Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung der jud.-alex. Religions Philosophie, II, 1834, 190-99; and the History of Ewald, IV, 632 ff. There are English translations in Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees, Oxford, 1832; W.R.

    Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scripture; Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English. 5. 5 MACCABEES. 1. Name: The designation 5 Maccabees was first given to the book (now commonly so called) by Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees English, 1832), and it has been perpetuated by Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament, III, 465); Ginsburg (Kitto’s Cycyclopedia of Biblical Literature); Bissell (Apocrypha of the Old Testament) and others. It has been called the Arabic 2 Maccabees (so in the Paris and London Polyglot), and the Arabic Maccabees. The 5 Maccabees in the Translatio Syra Peshitto, edited by Ceriani, is really nothing more than a Syriac version of the 6th book of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews. 2. Canonicity: This book has never been recognized as canonical by either Jews or Christians. 3. Contents: The book is ostensibly a history of the Jews from the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder the temple (186 BC) to about 6 BC. It is really nothing more than a clumsy compilation from 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus (except 5 Macc 12, which is the only original part, and this teems with errors of various kinds); a note at the end of 5 Macc 16 says 1:1 through 16:26 is called The Second Book of Maccabees according to the Translation of the Hebrews. 5 Macc 19 closes with the events narrated at the end of 1 Maccabees. The rest of the book (5 Macc 20 through 59) follows Josephus (BJ, I f) closely. Perhaps the original work ended with Macc 19. Ginsburg (op. cit., III., 17), Bissell (Apocrypha, 639) and Wellhausen (Der arab. Josippus) give useful tables showing the dependence of the various parts of 5 Maccabees on the sources used. 4. Historicity: In so far as this book repeats the contents of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, it has the historical value of the sources used. But in itself the book has no historical worth. The author calls Roman and Egyptian soldiers “Macedonians,” Matthew. Gerizim, “Jezebel,” Samaria “Sebaste,” Shechem “Neapolis” or “Naploris.” Herod and Pilate exchange names.

    Some of the mistakes may of course be traceable to the translation. 5. Original Language: The original work was almost certainly composed in Hebrew, though we have no trace of a Hebrew text (so Ginsburg, op. cit., and Bissell). This conclusion is supported by the numerous Hebraisms which show themselves even in a double translation. The Pentateuch is called the “Torah,” the Hebrew Scriptures are spoken of as “the twenty-four books,” the temple is “the house of God” or “the holy house,” Judea is “the land of the holy house” and Jerusalem is “the city of the holy house.” These and like examples make it probable that the writer was a Jew and that the language he used was Hebrew. Zunz (Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage, 1832, 146 ff), Graetz (Geschichte, V, 281) and Dr. S. Davidson (op. cit., 465) say the book was written in Arabic from Hebrew memoirs. According to Zunz (loc. cit.) and Graetz (loc. cit.) the Jewish history of Joseph ben Gorion (Josippon), the “pseudo-Josephus” (10th century), is but a Hebrew recension of 5 Maccabees (the Arabic 2 Maccabees). On the contrary, Wellhausen (op. cit.) and Schurer (GJV4, I, 159 f) maintain that the shorter narrative in 5 Maccabees represents the extent of the original composition far more correctly than the Hebrew history of Josippon (which ranges from Adam to 70 AD), and than other recensions of the same history. 6. Aim and Teaching: The book was compiled for the purpose of consoling the Jews in their sufferings and encouraging them to be stedfast in their devotion to the Mosaic law. The same end was contemplated in 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees and in a lesser degree in 1 Maccabees, but the author or compiler of the present treatise wished to produce a work which would appeal in the first instance and chiefly to Hebrew (or Arabic?) readers. The author believes in a resurrection of the body, in a future life and a final judgment (5 Macc 5:13,43 f). The righteous will dwell in future glory, the wicked will be hereafter punished (5 Macc 5:49,50 f; 59:14). 7. Authorship and Date: We have no means of ascertaining who the author was, but he must have been a Jew and he lived some time after the destruction of the temple in AD (see 5 Macc 9:5; 21:30; 22:9; 53:8, though Ginsburg regards these passages as late additions and fixes the date of the original work at about BC, when the history ends). The author makes large use of Josephus (died 95 AD), which also favors the lower date. 8. Text and Versions: The Arabic text of the book and a Latin translation by Gabriel Sionita is printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. No other ancient text has come down to us. cotton (op. cit., xxx) errs in saying that there is a Syriac version of the book. LITERATURE.

    The most important literature has been mentioned in the course of the article. The English and earlier German editions of Schurer, GJ V, do not help. The only English translation is that by Cotton made directly from the Latin of Gabriel Sionita. Bissell says that a French version appears as an appendix in the Bible of de Sacy; not, however, in the Nouvelle Edition (1837) in the possession of the present writer. T. Witton Davies MACEDONIA <mas-e-do’-ni-a > ([ Makedoni>a , Makedonia ], ethnic [ Makedw>n , Makedon ],):

    A country lying to the North of Greece, afterward enlarged and formed into a Roman province; it is to the latter that the term always refers when used in the New Testament.

    1. THE MACEDONIAN PEOPLE AND LAND.

    Ethnologists differ about the origin of the Macedonian race and the degree of its affinity to the Hellenes. But we find a well-marked tradition in ancient times that the race comprised a Hellenic element and a non- Hellenic, though Aryan, element, closely akin to the Phrygian and other Thracian stocks. The dominant race, the Macedonians in the narrower sense of the term, including the royal family, which was acknowledged to be Greek and traced its descent through the Temenids of Argos back to Heracles (Herodotus v.22), settled in the fertile plains about the lower Haliacmon (Karasu or Vistritza) and Axius (Vardar), to the North and Northwest of the Thermaic Gulf. Their capital, which was originally at Edessa or Aegae (Vodhena), was afterward transferred to Pella by Philip II. The other and older element — the Lyncestians, Orestians, Pelagonians and other tribes — were pushed back northward and westward into the highlands, where they struggled for generations to maintain their independence and weakened the Macedonian state by constant risings and by making common cause with the wild hordes of Illyrians and Thracians, with whom we find the Macedonian kings in frequent conflict. In order to maintain their position they entered into a good understanding from time to time with the states of Greece or acknowledged temporarily Persian suzerainty, and thus gradually extended the sphere of their power.

    2. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA.

    Herodotus (viii.137-39) traces the royal line from Perdiccas I through Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus, Alcetas and Amyntas I to Alexander I, who was king at the time of the Persian invasions of Greece. He and his son and grandson, Perdiccas II and Archelaus, did much to consolidate Macedonian power, but the death of Archelaus (399 BC) was followed by 40 years of disunion and weakness. 1. Philip and Alexander: With the accession of Philip II, son of Amyntas II, in 359 BC, Macedonia came under the rule of a man powerful alike in body and in mind, an able general and an astute diplomatist, one, moreover, who started out with a clear perception of the end at which he must aim, the creation of a great national army and a nation-state, and worked consistently and untiringly throughout his reign of 23 years to gain that object. He welded the Macedonian tribes into a single nation, won by force and fraud the important positions of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, Olynthus, Abdera and Maronea, and secured a plentiful supply of gold by founding Philippi on the site of Crenides. Gradually extending his rule over barbarians and Greeks alike, he finally, after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), secured his recognition by the Greeks themselves as captain-general of the Hellenic states and leader of a Greco-Macedonian crusade against Persia. On the eve of this projected eastern expedition, however, he was assassinated by order of his dishonored wife Olympias (336 BC), whose son, Alexander the Great, succeeded to the throne. After securing his hold on Thrace, Illyria and Greece, Alexander turned eastward and, in a series of brilliant campaigns, overthrew the Persian empire. The battle of the Granicus (334 BC) was followed by the submission or subjugation of most of Asia Minor.

    By the battle of Issus (333), in which Darius himself was defeated, Alexander’s way was opened to Phoenicia and Egypt; Darius’ second defeat, at Arbela (331), sealed the fate of the Persian power. Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana were taken in turn, and Alexander then pressed eastward through Hyrcania, Aria, Arachosia, Bactria and Sogdiana to India, which he conquered as far as the Hyphasis (Sutlej): thence he returned through Gedrosia, Carmania and Persis to Babylon, to make preparations for the conquest of Arabia. A sketch of his career is given in Macc 1:1-7, where he is spoken of as “Alexander the Macedonian, the son of Philip, who came out of the land of Chittim” (1:1): his invasion of Persia is also referred to in 1 Macc 6:2, where he is described as “the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Greeks,” i.e. the first who united in a single empire all the Greek states, except those which lay to the West of the Adriatic. It is the conception of the Macedonian power as the deadly foe of Persia which is responsible for the description of Haman in Additions to Esther 16:10 as a Macedonian, “an alien in truth from the Persian blood,” and for the attribution to him of a plot to transfer the Persian empire to the Macedonians (verse 14), and this same thought appears in the Septuagint’s rendering of the Hebrew Agagite ([`aghaghi]) in Est 9:24 as Macedonian ([Makedon]). 2. Roman Intervention: Alexander died in June 323 BC, and his empire fell a prey to the rivalries of his chief generals (1 Macc 1:9); after a period of struggle and chaos, three powerful kingdoms were formed, taking their names from Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. Even in Syria, however, Macedonian influences remained strong, and we find Macedonian troops in the service of the Seleucid monarchs (2 Macc 8:20). In 215 King Philip V, son of Demetrius II and successor of Antigonus Doson (229-220 BC), formed an alliance with Hannibal, who had defeated the Roman forces at Lake Trasimene (217) and at Cannae (216), and set about trying to recover Illyria. After some years of desultory and indecisive warfare, peace was concluded in 205, Philip binding himself to abstain from attacking the Roman possessions on the East of the Adriatic. The Second Macedonian War, caused by a combined attack of Antiochus III of Syria and Philip of Macedon on Egypt, broke out in 200 and ended 3 years later in the crushing defeat of Philip’s forces by T. Quinctius Flamininus at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly (compare 1 Macc 8:5). By the treaty which followed this battle, Philip surrendered his conquests in Greece, Illyria, Thrace, Asia Minor and the Aegean, gave up his fleet, reduced his army to 5,000 men, and undertook to declare no war and conclude no alliance without Roman consent. 3. Roman Conquest: In 179 Philip was succeeded by his son Perseus, who at once renewed the Roman alliance, but set to work to consolidate and extend his power. In 172 war again broke out, and after several Roman reverses the consul Lucius Aemilius Paulus decisively defeated the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC (compare 1 Macc 8:5, where Perseus is called “king of Chittim “).

    The kingship was abolished and Perseus was banished to Italy. The Macedonians were declared free and autonomous; their land was divided into four regions, with their capitals at Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella and Pelagonia respectively, and each of them was governed by its own council; commercium and connubium were forbidden between them and the gold and silver mines were closed. A tribute was to be paid annually to the Roman treasury, amounting to half the land tax hitherto exacted by the Macedonian kings. 4. Macedonia a Roman Province: But this compromise between freedom and subjection could not be of long duration, and after the revolt of Andriscus, the pseudo-Philip, was quelled (148 BC), Macedonia was constituted a Roman province and enlarged by the addition of parts of Illyria, Epirus, the Ionian islands and Thessaly.

    Each year a governor was dispatched from Rome with supreme military and judicial powers; the partition fell into abeyance and communication within the province was improved by the construction of the Via Egnatia from Dyrrhachium to Thessalonica, whence it was afterward continued eastward to the Nestus and the Hellespont. In 146 the Acheans, who had declared war on Rome, were crushed by Q. Caecilius Metellus and L.

    Mummius, Corinth was sacked and destroyed, the Achean league was dissolved, and Greece, under the name of Achea, was made a province and placed under the control of the governor of Macedonia. In 27 BC, when the administration of the provinces was divided between Augustus and the Senate, Macedonia and Achea fell to the share of the latter (Strabo, p. 840; Dio Cassius liii.12) and were governed separately by Exodus-praetors sent out annually with the title of proconsul. In 15 AD, however, senatorial mismanagement had brought the provinces to the verge of ruin, and they were transferred to Tiberius (Tacitus, Annals, i.76), who united them under the government of a legatus Augusti pro praetore until, in 44 AD, Claudius restored them to the Senate (Suetonius, Claudius 25; Dio Cassius lx .24).

    It is owing to this close historical and geographical connection that we find Macedonia and Achia frequently mentioned together in the New Testament, Macedonia being always placed first ( Acts 19:21; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:7,8). 5. Later History: Diocletian (284-305 AD) detached from Macedonia Thessaly and the Illyrian coast lands and formed them into two provinces, the latter under the name of Epirus Nova. Toward the end of the 4th century what remained of Macedonia was broken up into two provinces, Macedonia prima and Macedonia secunda or salutaris, and when in 395 the Roman world was divided into the western and eastern empires, Macedonia was included in the latter. During the next few years it was overrun and plundered by the Goths under Alaric, and later, in the latter half of the 6th century, immense numbers of Slavonians settled there. In the 10th century a large part of it was under Bulgarian rule, and afterward colonies of various Asiatic tribes were settled there by the Byzantine emperors. In 1204 it became a Latin kingdom under Boniface, marquis of Monferrat, but 20 years later Theodore, the Greek despot of Epirus, founded a Greek empire of Thessalonica. During the 2nd half of the 14th century the greater part of it was part of the Servian dominions, but in 1430 Thessalonica fell before the Ottoman Turks, and from that time down to the year Macedonia has formed part of the Turkish empire. Its history thus accounts for the very mixed character of its population, which consists chiefly of Turks, Albanians, Greeks and Bulgarians, but has in it a considerable element of Jews, Gypsies, Vlachs, Servians and other races.

    3. PAUL AND MACEDONIA.

    In the narrative of Paul’s journeys as given us in Acts 13 through 28 and in the Pauline Epistles, Macedonia plays a prominent part. The apostle’s relations with the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea will be found discussed under those several headings; here we will merely recount in outline his visits to the province. 1. Paul’s First Visit: On his 2nd missionary journey Paul came to Troas, and from there sailed with Silas, Timothy and Luke to Neapolis, the nearest Macedonian seaport, in obedience to the vision of a Macedonian (whom Ramsay identifies with Luke: see under the word “Philippi”) urging him to cross to Macedonia and preach the gospel there ( Acts 16:9). From Neapolis he journeyed inland to Philippi, which is described as “a city of Macedonia, the first of the district” ( Acts 16:12). Thence Paul and his two companions (for Luke appears to have remained in Philippi for the next 5 years) traveled along the Ignatian road, passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, to Thessalonica, which, though a “free city,” and therefore technically exempt from the jurisdiction of the Roman governor, was practically the provincial capital. Driven thence by the hostility of the Jews, the evangelists preached in Berea, where Silas and Timothy remained for a short time after a renewed outbreak of Jewish animosity had forced Paul to leave Macedonia for the neighboring province of Achaia ( Acts 17:14). Although he sent a message to his companions to join him with all speed at Athens ( Acts 17:15), yet so great was his anxiety for the welfare of the newly founded Macedonian churches that he sent Timothy back to Thessalonica almost immediately ( 1 Thessalonians 3:1,2), and perhaps Silas to some other part of Macedonia, nor did they again join him until after he had settled for some time in Corinth ( Acts 18:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:6). The rapid extension of the Christian faith in Macedonia at this time may be judged from the phrases used by Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, the earliest of his extant letters, written during this visit to Corinth. He there speaks of the Thessalonian converts as being an example “to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia” ( 1 Thessalonians 1:7), and he commends their love “toward all the brethren that are in all Macedonia” ( Thessalonians 4:10). Still more striking are the words, “From you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth” ( Thessalonians 1:8). 2. Paul’s Second Visit: On his 3rd missionary journey, the apostle paid two further visits to Macedonia. During the course of a long stay at Ephesiansesus he laid plans for a 2nd journey through Macedonia and Achaia, and dispatched two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia to prepare for his visit ( Acts 19:21,22). Some time later, after the uproar at Ephesiansesus raised by Demetrius and his fellow-silversmiths ( Acts 19:23-41), Paul himself set out for Macedonia ( Acts 20:1). Of this visit Luke gives us a very summary account, telling us merely that Paul, “when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, .... came into Greece” ( Acts 20:2); but from 2 Corinthians, written from Macedonia (probably from Philippi) during the course of this visit, we learn more of the apostle’s movements and feelings. While at Ephesiansesus, Paul had changed his plans. His intention at first had been to travel across the Aegean Sea to Corinth, to pay a visit from there to Macedonia and to return to Corinth, so as to sail direct to Syria ( 2 Corinthians 1:15,16).

    But by the time at which he wrote the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, probably near the end of his stay at Ephesiansesus, he had made up his mind to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia, as we have seen that he actually did ( 1 Corinthians 16:5,6). From 2 Corinthians 2:13 we learn that he traveled from Ephesiansesus to Troas, where he expected to find Titus. Titus, however, did not yet arrive, and Paul, who “had no relief for (his) spirit,” left Troas and sailed to Macedonia. Even here the same restlessness pursued him: “fightings without, fears within” oppressed him, till the presence of Titus brought some relief ( 2 Corinthians 7:5,6). The apostle was also cheered by “the grace of God which had been given in the churches of Macedonia” ( 2 Corinthians 8:1); in the midst of severe persecution, they bore their trials with abounding joy, and their deep poverty did not prevent them begging to be allowed to raise a contribution to send to the Christians in Jerusalem ( Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:2-4). Liberality was, indeed, from the very outset one of the characteristic virtues of the Macedonian churches. The Philippians had sent money to Paul on two occasions during his first visit to Thessalonica ( Philippians 4:16), and again when he had left Macedonia and was staying at Corinth ( 2 Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:15). On the present occasion, however, the Corinthians seem to have taken the lead and to have prepared their bounty in the previous year, on account of which the apostle boasts of them to the Macedonian Christians ( Corinthians 9:2). He suggests that on his approaching visit to Achaia he may be accompanied by some of these Macedonians ( 2 Corinthians 9:4), but whether this was actually the case we are not told. 3. Paul’s Third Visit: The 3rd visit of Paul to Macedonia took place some 3 months later and was occasioned by a plot against his life laid by the Jews of Corinth, which led him to alter his plan of sailing from Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, to Syria ( 2 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 20:3). He returned to Macedonia accompanied as far as Asia by 3 Macedonian Christians — Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus — and by 4 from Asia Minor. Probably Paul took the familiar route by the Via Egnatia, and reached Philippi immediately before the days of unleavened bread; his companions preceded him to Troas ( Acts 20:5), while he himself remained at Philippi until after the Passover (Thursday, April 7, 57 AD, according to Ramsay’s chronology), when he sailed from Neapolis together with Luke, and joined his friends in Troas ( Acts 20:6). 4. Paul’s Later Visits: Toward the close of his 1st imprisonment at Rome Paul planned a fresh visit to Macedonia as soon as he should be released ( Philippians 1:26; 2:24), and even before that he intended to send Timothy to visit the Philippian church and doubtless those of Berea and Thessalonica also.

    Whether Timothy actually went on this mission we cannot say; that Paul himself went back to Macedonia once more we learn from 1 Timothy 1:3, and we may infer a 5th visit from the reference to the apostle’s stay at Troas, which in all probability belongs to a later occasion ( 2 Timothy 4:13).

    4. THE MACEDONIAN CHURCH. 1. Prominence of Women: Of the churches of Macedonia in general, little need be said here. A striking fact is the prominence in them of women, which is probably due to the higher social position held by women in this province than in Asia Minor (Lightfoot, Philippians4, 55 ff). We find only two references to women in connection with Paul’s previous missionary work; the women proselytes of high social standing take a share in driving him from Pisidian Antioch ( Acts 13:50), and Timothy’s mother is mentioned as a Jewess who believed ( Acts 16:1). But in Macedonia all is changed. To women the gospel was first preached at Philippi ( Acts 16:13); a woman was the first convert and the hostess of the evangelists ( Acts 16:14,15); a slave girl was restored to soundness of mind by the apostle ( Acts 16:18), and long afterward Paul mentions two women as having “labored with (him) in the gospel” and as endangering the peace of the church by their rivalry ( Philippians 4:2,3). At Thessalonica a considerable number of women of the first rank appear among the earliest converts ( Acts 17:4), while at Berea also the church included from the outset numerous Greek women of high position ( Acts 17:12). 2. Marked Characteristics: The bond uniting Paul and the Macedonian Christians seems to have been a peculiarly close and affectionate one. Their liberality and openheartedness, their joyousness and patience in trial and persecution, their activity in spreading the Christian faith, their love of the brethren — these are a few of the characteristics which Paul specially commends in them (1 and 2 Thessalonians; Philippians; 2 Corinthians 8:1-8), while they also seem to have been much freer than the churches of Asia Minor from Judaizing tendencies and from the allurements of “philosophy and vain deceit.” 3. Its Members: We know the names of a few of the early members of the Macedonian churches — Sopater ( Acts 20:4) or Sosipater ( Romans 16:21: the identification is a probable, though not a certain, one) of Berea; Aristarchus ( Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2; Colossians 4:10; Philem 1:24), Jason ( Acts 17:5-9; Romans 16:21?) and Secundus ( Acts 20:4) of Thessalonica; Clement ( Philippians 4:3), Epaphroditus ( Philippians 2:25; 4:18), Euodia ( Philippians 4:2; this, not Euodias (the King James Version), is the true form), Syntyche (same place) , Lydia ( Acts 16:14,40; a native of Thyatira), and possibly Luke (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 201 ff) of Philippi. Gaius is also mentioned as a Macedonian in Acts 19:29, but perhaps the reading of a few manuscripts [ Makedo>na , Makedona ] is to be preferred to the Textus Receptus of the New Testament [ Makedo>nav , Makedonas ] in which case Aristarchus alone would be a Macedonian, and this Gaius would probably be identical with the Gaius of Derbe mentioned in Acts 20:4 as a companion of Paul (Ramsay, op. cit., 280). The later history of the Macedonian churches, together with lists of all their known bishops, will be found in Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, II, 1 ff; III, 1089 ff 1045 f.

    LITERATURE.

    General: C. Nicolaides, Macedonien, Berlin, 1899; Berard, La Macedoine, Paris, 1897; “Odysseus,” Turkey in Europe, London, 1900. Secular History: Hogarth, Philip and Alexander of Macedon, London, 1897, and the histories of the Hellenistic period by Holm, Niese, Droysen and Kaerst.

    Ethnography and Language: O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Gottingen, 1906. Topography and Antiquities: Heuzey and Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macedoine, Paris, 1876; Cousinery, Voyage dans la Macedoine, Paris, 1831; Clarke, Travels 4, VII, VIII, London, 1818; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, London, 1835; Duchesne and Bayet, Memoire sur une mission en Macedoine et au Mont Athos, Paris, 1876; Hahn, Reise von Belgrad nach Saloniki, Vienna, 1861. Coins: Head, Historia Nummorum, 193 f; British Museum Catalogue of Coins: Macedonia, etc., London, 1879. Inscriptions: CIG, numbers 1951-2010; CIL, III, 1 and III, Suppl.; Dimitsas, [ JH Makedoni>a , ...] Athens, 1896. M. N. Tod MACHAERUS <ma-ke’-rus > ([ Macairou~v , Machairous ]): Not mentioned in Scripture, canonical or apocryphal, but its importance in Jewish history justifies its inclusion here. Pliny (NH, v.16,72) speaks of it as, after Jerusalem, the strongest of Jewish fortresses. It was fortified by Alexander Janneus (BJ, VII, vi, 2). It was taken and destroyed by Gabinius (ibid., I, viii, 5; Ant, XIV, v, 4). Herod the Great restored it and, building a city here, made it one of his residences (BJ, VII, vi, 1, 2). It lay within the tetrarchy assigned to Antipas at the death of Herod. The wife of Antipas, daughter of Aretas, privately aware of his infidelity, asked to be sent hither (Ant., XVIII, v, 1).

    Here Josephus has fallen into confusion if he meant by the phrase “a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod” that it was still in Herod’s hands, since immediately he tells us that it was “subject to her father.” It was natural enough, however, that a border fortress should be held now by one and now by the other. It may have passed to Aretas by some agreement of which we have no record; and Herod, unaware that his wife knew of his guilt, would have no suspicion of her design in wishing to visit her father. If this is true, then the Baptist could not have been imprisoned and beheaded at Macherus (ibid., 2). The feast given to the lords of Galilee would most probably be held at Tiberias; and there is nothing in the Gospel story to hint that the prisoner was some days’ journey distant ( Mark 6:14 ff). The citadel was held by a Roman garrison until 66 AD, which then evacuated it to escape a siege (BJ, II, xviii, 6). Later by means of a stratagem it was recovered for the Romans by Bassus, circa 72 AD (BJ, VII, vi, 4).

    The place is identified with the modern Mkaur, a position of great strength on a prominent height between Wady Zerqa Ma`in and Wady el-Mojib, overlooking the Dead Sea. There are extensive ruins. W. Ewing MACHBANNAI <mak’-ba-ni > , <-ba-na’-i > ( yN’B”k]m” [makhbannay]; the King James Version Machbanai): A Gadite who attached himself to David in Ziklag ( 1 Chronicles 12:13).

    MACHBENA <mak-be’-na > ( hn:Bek]m” [makhbenah]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [Macabhna>, Machabena]; Codex Alexandrinus [Macamhna>, Machamena]; the King James Version, Machbenah): A name which occurs in the genealogical list of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 2:49), apparently the name of a place, which may be the same as “Cabbon” (Josh 15:40), probably to be identified with [el-Kubeibeh], about 3 miles South of Beit Jibrin.

    MACHI <ma’-Kings > ( ykim; [makhi]; Peshitta and some manuscripts of Septuagint read “Machir”): A Gadite, father of Geuel, one of the 12 spies ( Numbers 13:15).

    MACHIR; MACHIRITE <ma’-kir > ( rkim; [makhir]; [Macei>r, Macheir]), <ma’-kir-it > : (1) The eldest son of Manasseh ( Genesis 50:23). In Numbers 26:29 it is recorded that Machir begat Gilead, but another narrative informs us that the children of Machir “went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were therein. And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Manasseh; and he dwelt therein” ( Numbers 32:39,40; Josh 17:1,3; compare also 1 Chronicles 2:21,25; 7:14-17; Dt 3:15; Josh 13:31). In the song of Deborah, Machir is used as equivalent to Manasseh ( Judges 5:14). (2) Son of Ammiel, dwelling in Lo-debar ( 2 Samuel 9:4,5), a wealthy landowner who protected Mephibosheth (Meribbaal), son of Jonathan, until assured of the friendly intentions of David (compare Ant, VII, ix, 8).

    Afterward, during the rebellion of Absalom, Machir with others came to David’s assistance at Mahanaim, bringing supplies for the king and his men ( 2 Samuel 17:27 ff). John A. Lees MACHMAS <mak’-mas > . See MICHMASH.

    MACHNADEBAI <mak-nad’-e-bi > , <mak-na-de’-bi > ( yb”D”n’k]m” [makhnaddebhay]): Son of Bani, one of those who married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:40).

    MACHPELAH <mak-pe’-la > ( hl;Pek]M”h” [ha-makhpelah], “the Machpelah”; [to< diplou~n , to diploun], “the double”): The name of a piece of ground and of a cave purchased by Abraham as a place of sepulcher. The word is supposed to mean “double” and refers to the condition of the cave. It is translated “double cave” ([to< diplou~n sph>laion , to diploun spelaion]) in the Septuagint in Genesis 23:17. The name is applied to the ground in Genesis 23:19; 49:30; 50:13, and to the cave in Genesis 23:9; 25:9. In Genesis 23:17 we have the phrase “the field of Ephesiansron, which was in (the) Machpelah.”

    1. SCRIPTURAL DATA:

    The cave belonged to Ephesiansron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, from whom Abraham purchased it for 400 shekels of silver ( Genesis 23:8-16). It is described as “before,” i.e. “to the East of” Mamre ( Genesis 23:17) which ( Genesis 23:19) is described as the same as Hebron (see, too, Genesis 25:9; 49:30; 50:13). Here were buried Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. (Compare however the curious variant tradition in Acts 7:16, “Shechem” instead of “Hebron.”)

    2. TRADITION REGARDING THE SITE:

    Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) speaks of the monuments (mnemeia) of Abraham and his posterity which “are shown to this very time in that small city (i.e. in Hebron); the fabric of which monuments are of the most excellent marble and wrought after the most excellent manner”; and in another place he writes of Isaac being buried by his sons with his wife in Hebron where they had a monument belonging to them from their forefathers (Ant., I, xxii, 1). The references of early Christian writers to the site of the tombs of the patriarchs only very doubtfully apply to the present buildings and may possibly refer to Ramet el-Khalil (see MAMRE). Thus the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 AD) mentions a square enclosure built of stones of great beauty in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried with their wives.

    Antonius Martyr (circa 600) and Arculf (698) also mention this monument.

    Mukaddasi speaks (circa 985) of the strong fortress around the tombs of the patriarchs built of great squared stones, the work of Jinns, i.e. of supernatural beings. From this onward the references are surely to the present site, and it is difficult to believe, if, as good authorities maintain, the great buttressed square wall enclosing the site is work at least as early as Herod, that the earlier references can be to any other site. It is certain that the existing buildings are very largely those which the Crusaders occupied; there are many full references to this place in medieval Moslem writers.

    3. THE CHARAM AT HEBRON:

    The [Charam] at Hebron, which present-day tradition, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, recognizes as built over the cave of Machpelah, is one of the most jealousy guarded sanctuaries in the world. Only on rare occasions and through the exercise of much political pressure have a few honored Christians been allowed to visit the spot. The late King Edward VII in 1862 and the present King George V, in 1882, with certain distinguished scholars in their parties, made visits which have been chiefly important through the writings of their companions — Stanley in 1862 and Wilson and Conder in 1882. One of the latest to be accorded the privilege was C.W. Fairbanks, late vice-president of the United States of America. What such visitors have been permitted to see has not been of any great antiquity nor has it thrown any certain fight on the question of the genuineness of the site.

    The space containing the traditional tombs is a great quadrangle 197 ft. in length (Northwest to Southeast) and 111 ft. in breadth (Northeast to Southwest). It is enclosed by a massive wall of great blocks of limestone, very hard and akin to marble. The walls which are between 8 and 9 ft thick are of solid masonry throughout. At the height of 15 ft. from the ground, at indeed the level of the floor within, the wall is set back about 10 inches at intervals, so as to leave pilasters 3 ft. 9 inches wide, with space between each of 7 ft. all round. On the longer sides there are 16 and on the shorter sides 8 such pilasters, and there are also buttresses 9 ft. wide on each face at each angle. This pilastered wall runs up for 25 ft., giving the total average height from the ground of 40 ft. The whole character of the masonry is so similar to the wall of the Jerusalem [Charam] near the “wailing place” that Conder and Warren considered that it must belong to that period and be Herodian work.

    The southern end of the great enclosure is occupied by a church — probably a building entirely of the crusading period — with a nave and two aisles. The rest is a courtyard open to the air. The cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca are within the church; those of Abraham and Sarah occupy octagonal chapels in the double porch before the church doors; those of Jacob and Leah are placed in chambers near the north end of the [Charam].

    The six monuments are placed at equal distances along the length of the enclosure, and it is probable that their positions there have no relation to the sarcophagi which are described as existing in the cave itself.

    4. THE CAVE:

    It is over this cave that the chief mystery hangs. It is not known whether it has been entered by any man at present alive, Moslem or otherwise. While the cave was in the hands of the Crusaders, pilgrims and others were allowed to visit this spot. Thus Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, writing in AD, says that “if a Jew comes, who gives an additional fee to the keeper of the cave, an iron door is opened, which dates from the times of our forefathers who rest in peace, and with a burning candle in his hand the visitor descends into a first cave which is empty, traverses a second in the same state and at last reaches a third which contains six sepulchres — those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, one opposite the other. ... A lamp burns in the cave and upon the sepulchre continually, both night and day.” The account reminds us of the condition of many Christian tomb-shrines in Palestine today.

    It would appear from the description of modern observers that all entrance to the cave is now closed; the only known approaches are never now opened and can only be reached by breaking up the flags of the flooring.

    Through one of the openings — which had a stone over it pierced by a circular hole 1 ft. in diameter — near the northern wall of the old church, Conder was able by lowering a lantern to see into a chamber some 15 ft. under the church. He estimated it to be some 12 ft. square; it had plastered walls, and in the wall toward the Southeast there was a door which appeared like the entrance to a rock-cut tomb. On the outside of the [Charam] wall, close to the steps of the southern entrance gateway is a hole in the lowest course of masonry, which may possibly communicate with the western cave. Into this the Jews of Hebron are accustomed to thrust many written prayers and vows to the patriarchs.

    The evidence, historical and archaeological seems to show that the cave occupies only the south end of the great quadrilateral enclosure under part only of the area covered by the church. See HEBRON.

    LITERATURE.

    PEF, III., 333-46; PEFS, 1882, 197; 1897, 53; 1912, 145-150; HDB, III., article “Machpelah,” by Warren; Stanley, SP and Lectures on the Jewish Church; “Pal under the Moslems,” PEF; Pilgrim Text Soc. publications. E. W. G. Masterman MACONAH <ma-ko’-na > : the King James Version Mekonah (which see).

    MACRON <ma’-kron > ([ Ma>krwn , Makron ): Ptolemy Macron who had been appointed by Ptolemy Philmetor VI governor of Cyprus and deserted to Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (2 Macc 10:12 ff). Under Antiochus he was governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (2 Macc 8:8). In 1 Macc 3:38 and 2 Macc 4:45 he is called “Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes.” At first he was a fierce and cruel enemy of the Jews and was one of those chosen by Lysias to destroy Israel and reduce Judas Maccabee (same place). Later he apparently relented toward the Jews (2 Macc 10:12), fell into disfavor with Antiochus Eupator, before whom he was accused by the king’s friends, and was so galled by being constantly called traitor that he ended his life with poison (2 Macc 10:13). S. Angus MAD; MADNESS ll”h; [halal], [g’v; [shagha`]; [mani>a , mania ]):

    1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    These words, and derivatives from the same roots are used to express various conditions of mental derangement. Though usually translated “mad,” or “madness” they are often used for temporary conditions to which one would scarcely apply them today except as common colloquial inaccuracies. The madness coupled with folly in Ecclesiastes is rather the excessive frivolity and dissipation on the part of the idle rich (so in 1:17; 2:2-12; 7:25; 9:3; 10:13). The insensate fury of the wicked against the good is called by this name in <19A208> Psalm 102:8. In Dt 28:28-34 it is used to characterize the state of panic produced by the oppression of tyrannical conquerors, or (as in Zechariah 12:4) by the judgment of God on sinners. This condition of mind is metaphorically called a drunkenness with the wine of God’s wrath ( Jeremiah 25:16; 51:7). The same mental condition due to terror-striking idols is called “madness” in Jeremiah 50:38. The madman of Proverbs 26:18 is a malicious person who carries his frivolous jest to an unreasonable length, for he is responsible for the mischief he causes. The ecstatic condition of one under the inspiration of the Divine or of evil spirits, such as that described by Balaam ( Numbers 24:3 f), or that which Saul experienced ( 1 Samuel 10:10), is compared to madness; and conversely in the Near East at the present day the insane are supposed to be Divinely inspired and to be peculiarly under the Divine protection. This was the motive which led David, when at the court of Achish, to feign madness ( 1 Samuel 21:13-15). It is only within the last few years that any provision has been made in Palestine for the restraint even of dangerous lunatics, and there are many insane persons wandering at large there.

    This association of madness with inspiration is expressed in the name “this mad fellow” given to the prophet who came to anoint Jehu, which did not necessarily convey a disrespectful meaning ( 2 Kings 9:11). The true prophetic spirit was, however, differentiated from the ravings of the false prophets by Isaiah (44:25), these latter being called mad by Jeremiah (29:26) and Hosea (9:7).

    The most interesting case of real insanity recorded in the Old Testament is that of Saul, who, from being a shy, self-conscious young man, became, on his exaltation to the kingship, puffed up with a megalomania, alternating with fits of black depression with homicidal impulses, finally dying by suicide. The cause of his madness is said to have been an evil spirit from God ( 1 Samuel 18:10), and when, under the influence of the ecstatic mood which alternated with his depression, he conducted himself like a lunatic ( 1 Samuel 19:23 f), his mutterings are called “prophesyings.”

    The use of music in his case as a remedy ( 1 Samuel 16:16) may be compared with Elisha’s use of the same means to produce the prophetic ecstasy ( 2 Kings 3:15).

    The story of Nebuchadnezzar is another history of a sudden accession of insanity in one puffed up by self-conceit and excessive prosperity. His delusion that he had become as an ox is of the same nature as that of the daughters of Procyus recorded in the Song of Solomon of Silenus by Virgil (Ecl. vi.48).

    2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament the word “lunatic” (seleniazomenoi ) (the King James Version Matthew 4:24; 17:15) is correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “epileptic.” Undoubtedly many of the demoniacs were persons suffering from insanity. The words “mad” or “madness” occur 8 times, but usually in the sense of paroxysms of passion, excitement, and foolishness. Thus in Acts 26:11 Paul says that before his conversion he was “exceedingly mad” (emmainomenos ) against the Christians. In 1 Corinthians 14:23, those who “speak with tongues” in Christian assemblies are said to appear “mad” to the outsider. Rhoda was called “mad” when she announced that Peter was at the door ( Acts 12:15). The madness with which the Jews were filled when our Lord healed the man with the withered hand is called [anoia ], which is literally senselessness ( Luke 6:11), and the madness of Balaam is called [paraphronia ], “being beside himself” ( 2 Peter 2:16). Paul is accused by Festus of having become deranged by overstudy ( Acts 26:24). It is still the belief among the fellahin that lunatics are people inspired by spirits, good or evil, and it is probable that all persons showing mental derangement would naturally be described as “possessed,” so that, without entering into the vexed question of demoniacal possession, any cases of insanity cured by our Lord or the apostles would naturally be classed in the same category. See also LUNATIC.

    Alexander Macalister MADAI <mad’-a-i > , <ma’-di > ( yd’m; [madhay]). See MEDES.

    MADIABUN <ma-di’-a-bun > ([ Madiabou>n , Madiaboun ], the King James Version). See EMADABUN.

    MADIAN <ma’-i-an > (the King James Version Judith 2:26; Acts 7:29 the King James Version). See MIDIAN.

    MADMANNAH <mad-man’-a > ( hN:m”d”m” [madhmannah]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Macari>m , Macharim ]; Codex Alexandrinus [bedebhna> , Bedebena ] (Josh 15:31); Codex Vaticanus [ Marmhna> , Marmena ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Madmhna> , Madmena ] ( 1 Chronicles 2:49)): This town lay in the Negeb of Judah and is mentioned with Hormah and Ziklag. It is represented in Josh 19:5, etc., by Beth-marcaboth. Umm Deimneh, miles North of Beersheba, has been proposed on etymological grounds (PEF, III, 392, 399, Sh XXIV).

    MADMEN <mad’-men > ( ˆmed”m” [madhmen]; [kai< pau~sin pau>setai , kai pausin pausetai ]): An unidentified town in Moab against which Jeremiah prophesied (48:2). The play upon the words here suggests a possible error in transcription: [gam madhmen tiddomi ], “Also, Madmen, thou shalt be silenced.” The initial “M” of “Madmen” may have arisen by dittography from the last letter of [gam]. We should then vocalize it as “Dimon,” which of course is “Dibon.”

    MADMENAH <mad-me’-na > ( hn:med”m” [madhmenah]; [ Madebhna~ , Madebena ]):

    A place mentioned only in Isaiah’s description of the Assyrian advance upon Jerusalem ( Isaiah 10:31). It is not identified.

    MADNESS <mad’-nes > . See MAD, MADNESS.

    MADON <ma’-don > ( ˆwOdm; [madhon]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ MarjrJw>n , Marrhon ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Madw>n , Madon ] (Josh 11:1); Codex Vaticanus [ Marmw>q , Marmoth ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Marw>n , Maron ] (Josh 12:19)): A royal city of the Canaanites named along with Hazor of Galilee. El-Medineh, “the city,” on the heights West of the Sea of Galilee, with which it might possibly be identified, probably dates only from Moslem times. It seems likely that the common confusion of the Hebrew letter daleth d (“d”) for the Hebrew letter resh r (“r”) has occurred, and that we should read “Maron.” The place may be then identified with Meiron, a village with ancient ruins and rock tombs at the foot of Jebel Jermuk, a little to the Northwest of Safed. W. Ewing MAELUS <ma-e’-lus > (LXX: Codex Alexandrinus [ Ma>hlov , Maelos ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Mi>lhlov , Milelos ]): One of those who at Esdras’ request put away his foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:26 = “Mijamin” in the parallel Ezra 10:25).

    MAGADAN <mag’-a-Daniel > , <ma-ga’-Daniel > ([ Magada>n , Magadan ]; the reading of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, [ Magdala> , Magdala ] (the King James Version), but [Magdala ] is unsupported): This name appears only in Matthew 15:39. In the parallel passage, Mark 8:10, its place is taken by Dalmanutha. From these two passages it is reasonable to infer that “the borders of Magadan” and “the parts of Dalmanutha” were contiguous. We may perhaps gather from the narrative that they lay on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. After the feeding of the 4,000, Jesus and His disciples came to these parts. Thence they departed to “the other side” ( Mark 8:13), arriving at Bethsaida. This is generally believed to have been Bethsaida Julias, Northeast of the sea, whence He set out on His visit to Caesarea Philippi. In this case we might look for Dalmanutha and Magadan somewhere South of the Plain of Gennesaret, at the foot of the western hills. Stanley (SP, 383) quotes Schwarz to the effect that a cave in the face of these precipitous slopes bears the name of Teliman or Talmanutha. If this is true, it points to a site for Dalmanutha near `Ain el- Fuliyeh. Magadan might then be represented by el-Mejdel, a village at the Southwest corner of the Plain of Gennesaret. It is commonly identified with Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene, but without any evidence.

    The name suggests that this was the site of an old Hebrew [mighdal], “tower” or “fortress.” The village with its ruins is now the property of the German Roman Catholics. The land in the plain has been purchased by a colony of Jews, and is once more being brought under cultivation.

    The identification with Magdala is made more probable by the frequent interchange of “l” for “n”, e.g. Nathan (Hebrew), Nethel (Aramaic). W. Ewing MAGBISH <mag’-bish > ( cyBig”m” [maghbish]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Magebw>v , Magebos ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Maabei>v , Maabeis ]): An unidentified town in Benjamin, 156 of the inhabitants of which are said to have returned from exile with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:30). It does not appear in Nehemiah’s list ( Nehemiah 7:33). Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), however, has [Magebos ]. The name is probably identical with Magpiash, “one who sealed the covenant” ( Nehemiah 10:20).

    MAGDALA <mag’-da-la > . See MAGADAN.

    MAGDALENE <mag’-da-len > , <mag-da-le’-ne > . See MARY, III.

    MAGDIEL <mag’-di-el > ( laeyDg”m” [maghdi’el]; Genesis 36:43, Septuagint:

    Codex Alexandrinus [ Metoduh>l , Metoduel ]; 1 Chronicles 1:54; Codex Alexandrinus [ Mageduh>l , Mageduel ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Meduh>l , Meduel ]): One of the “dukes” of Edom.

    MAGED <ma’-ged > . See MAKED.

    MAGI, THE <ma’-ji > , ([ Ma>goi , Magoi ] ( Matthew 2:1,7,16, “Wise-men,” the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version, “Magi” the Revised Version margin)):

    1. ORIGINALLY A MEDIAN TRIBE:

    Were originally a Median tribe (Herodotus i.101); and in Darius’ Inscriptions Magush means only a member of that tribe. It was one of them, Bardiya, who pretended to be Smerdis and raised the rebellion against Cambyses. Rabh Magh in Jeremiah 39:3 does not mean “Chief Magus,” but is in Assyrian Rab mugi (apparently “commander”; compare tab mugi sa narkabti, “commander of chariots”), having no connection with “Magus” (unless perhaps Magians were employed as charioteers, Media being famous for its Nisean steeds). The investment of the Magi with priestly functions, possibly under Cyrus (Xen. Cyrop. viii), but probably much later, was perhaps due to the fact that Zoroaster (Zarathustra) belonged, it is said, to that tribe. They guarded the sacred fire, recited hymns at dawn and offered sacrifices of haoma-juice, etc. Herodotus i.132) says they also buried the dead (perhaps temporary burial is meant as in Vendidad, Farg. viii). They were granted extensive estates in Media for their maintenance, and the athravans and other priests mentioned in the Avesta may have been of their number, though only once does the word “Magus” occur in the book (in the compound Moghu-thbish, “Magushater,” Yasna, lxv.7, Geldner’s edition). The Magi even in Herodotus’ time had gained a reputation for “magic” articles (compare Acts 13:6,8).

    They also studied astrology and astronomy (rationes mundani motus et siderum (Amm. Marc., xxiii.6, 32)), partly learned from Babylon.

    2. THE MAGI AT BETHLEHEM:

    These latter studies explain why a star was used to lead them to Christ at Bethlehem, when our Lord was less than two years old ( Matthew 2:16).

    No reliable tradition deals with the country whence these particular magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that “gold, frankincense and myrrh” abounded in Yemen. But the text says they came not from the South but from the East. Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvencus, Prudentius and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. Sargon’s settlement of Israelites in Media (circa 730-728 BC ( 2 Kings 17:6)) accounts for the large Hebrew element of thought which Darmesteter recognizes in the Avesta (SBE, IV, Intro, chapter vi). Median astronomers would thus know Balaam’s prophecy of the star out of Jacob ( Numbers 24:17). That the Jews expected a star as a sign of the birth of the Messiah is clear from the tractate Zohar of the Gemara and also from the title “Son of the Star” (Bar Kokhebha) given to a pseudo-Messiah (130-35 AD). Tacitus (Hist. v.13) and Suetonius (Vesp. iv) tell us how widespread in the East at the time of Christ’s coming was the expectation that “at that time men starting from Judea would make themselves masters of things” (compare Virgil, Ecl. iv). All this would naturally prepare the Magi to follow the star when it appeared. See also ASTROLOGY; ASTRONOMY; DIVINATION; MAGIC; WISE MEN; ZOROASTRIANISM.

    LITERATURE.

    Herodotus; Xenophon; Amm. Marcellinus; Strabo; Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften; Geldner, Avesta; Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dict.; BDB; RE. W. St. Clair Tisdall MAGI, STAR OF See STAR OF THE MAGI.

    MAGIC; MAGICIAN <maj’-ik > , <ma-jish’-an > :

    The word comes from a Greek adjective ([magikh> , magike ]) with which the noun [te>cnh , techne ], “art,” is understood. The full phrase is “magical art” (The Wisdom of Solomon 17:10). But the Greek word is derived from the magi or Zarathustran (Zoroastrian) priests. Magic is therefore historically the art practiced in Persia by the recognized priests of the country. It is impossible in the present article, owing to exigencies of space, to give a full account of this important subject and of the leading views of it which have been put forth. The main purpose of the following treatment will be to consider the subject from the Biblical standpoint.

    1. DEFINITION.

    In its modern accepted sense magic may be described as the art of bringing about results beyond man’s own power by superhuman agencies. In the wide sense of this definition divination is only a species of magic, i.e. magic used as a means of securing secret knowledge, especially a knowledge of the future. Divination and magic bear a similar relation to prophecy and miracle respectively, the first and third implying special knowledge, the second and fourth special power. But divination has to do generally with omens, and it is better for this and other reasons to notice the two subjects — magic and divination — apart as is done in the present work.

    2. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 1. Magic as Impersonal: There are two kinds of magic: (1) impersonal; (2) personal.

    In the first, magic is a species of crude science, for the underlying hypothesis is that there are forces in the world which can be utilized on certain conditions, incantations, magical acts, drugs, etc. The magician in this case connects what on a very slender induction he considers to be causes and effects, mainly on the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    He may not know much of the causal agency; it is enough for him to know that by performing some act or reciting some formula (see CHARM) or carrying some object (see AMULET) he can secure some desired end.

    Frazer (Golden Bough(2), I, 61) says: “Magic is a kind of savage logic, an elementary species of reasoning based on similarity, contiguity and contrast.” But why does the savage draw conclusions from association of ideas? There must be an implied belief in the uniformly of Nature or in the controlling power of intelligent beings. 2. Magic as Personal: In personal magic, living, intelligent, spiritual beings are made the real agents which men by incantations, etc., influence and even control. The magical acts may in an advanced stage include sacrifice, the incantations become prayer.

    Impersonal magic is regarded by most anthropologists, including E.B.

    Tylor and J. Frazer, as more primitive than the second and as a lower form of it. This conclusion rests on an assumption that human culture is always progressive, that the movement is uniformly onward and upward. But this law does not always hold. The religion of Israel as taught in the 8th century BC stands on a higher level ethically and intellectually than that taught in the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Eccelesiastes centuries later. Among the ancient Indians, the Rig Veda occupies much loftier ground than the much later Atharva Veda.

    3. MAGIC AND RELIGION.

    Personal magic in its higher forms shades off into religion, and very commonly the two exist together. It is the practice to speak of sacrifice and prayer as constituting elements of the ancient and modern religions of India. But it is doubtful whether either of these has the same connotation that it bears in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. J. Frazer (Golden Bough (2) , I, 67 ff) says that where the operation of spirits is assumed (and “these cases are exceptional”), magic is “tinged and alloyed with religion.”

    Such an assumption is, he admits, often made and the present writer thinks it is generally made, for even the operation of the laws of association implies it. But Frazer concludes from various considerations that “though magic is .... found to fuse and amalgamate with religion in many ages and in many lands, there are some grounds for thinking that this fusion is not primitive.” It is of course personal magic to which religion stands in closest relations. As soon as man comes to see in the beings by whose power marvels are wrought, personalities capable of emotions like himself and susceptible to persuasion, his magical art becomes an intelligent effort to propitiate these superior beings and his incantations become hymns and prayers. In all religions, Jewish, Moslem, Christian or pagan, when the act or prayer as such is held to produce certain results or to secure certain desired boons, we have to do with a species of magic. The word “religion” is inapplicable, unless it includes the idea of personal faith in a God or gods whose favor depends on moral acts and on ritual acts only in so far as they have a voluntary and ethical character. If it be granted that magic, the lower, precedes religion, the higher, this does not necessarily negative the validity of the religious concept. Mature knowledge is preceded by elementary impressions and beliefs which are subjective without objective correspondences. But this higher knowledge is none the less valid for its antecedents. If it can be proved that the Christian or any other religion has become what it is by gradual ascent from animism, magic, etc., its validity is not by this destroyed or even impaired. Religion must be judged according to its own proper evidence. But see II, end.

    4. MAGIC IN THE BIBLE. 1. Hostility to Magic: The general remarks made on the Bible and divination in DIVINATION, V, have an equal application to the attitude of the Bible toward magic.

    This attitude is distinctly hostile, as it could not but be in documents professing to inculcate the teaching of the ethical and spiritual religion of Israel (see Dt 18:10 f; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6, etc.). Yet it is equally clear that the actual power of magic is acknowledged as clearly as its illegitimacy is pointed out. In P’s account of the plagues (Exodus through 11) it is assumed that the magicians of Egypt had real power to perform superhuman feats. They throw their rods and they become serpents; they turn the waters of the Nile into blood. It is only when they try to produce gnats that they fail, though Aaron had succeeded by Yahweh’s power in doing this and thus showed that Yahweh’s power was greatest. But that the magicians had power that was real and great is not so much as called in question. 2. Potency of Magical Words: Among the ancient Semites (Arabs, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) there was a strong belief in the potency of the magical words of blessing and of curse.

    The mere utterance of such words was regarded as enough to secure their realization. That the narrator of Numbers 22 through 24 (Jahwist) ascribed to Balaam magical power is clear from the narrative, else why should Yahweh be represented as transferring Balaam’s service to the cause of Israel? We have other Biblical references to the power of the spoken word of blessing in Genesis 12:3; Exodus 12:32; Judges 17:2; Samuel 21:3, and of curse in Genesis 27:29; Judges 5:23; Job 3:8 (compare the so-called Imprecatory Psalms, and see Century Bible, “Psalms,” volume II, 216). On the prevalence of the belief among the Arabs, see the important work of Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie, Theil I, 23 ff. 3. Influence of Charms: In Genesis 30:14 (Jahwist) we have an example of the belief in the power of plants (here mandrakes) to stir up and strengthen sexual love, and we read in Arabic literature of the very same superstition in connection with what is called [Yabruch], almost certainly the same plant. Indeed one of the commonest forms in which magic appears is as a love-charm, and as this kind of magic was often exercised by women, magic and adultery are frequently named together in the Old Testament (see 2 Kings 9:22; Nahum 3:4; Malachi 3:5; and compare Exodus 22:18 (17), where the sorceress (the King James Version “witch”) is to be condemned to death). We have an instance of what is called sympathetic magic (for a description of which see Jevons, Introduction to History of Religion,28 ff, and Frazer, Golden Bough(2), I, 49 ff) in Genesis 30:37 ff. Jacob placed before the sheep and goats that came to drink water peeled rods, so that the pregnant ones might bring forth young that were spotted and striped. The [teraphim] mentioned in Genesis 31:19 ff and put away with wizards during the drastic reforms of Josiah ( 2 Kings 23:24; compare Zechariah 10:2) were household objects supposed capable of warding off evil of every kind. The Babylonians and Assyrians had a similar custom. We read of an Assyrian magician that he had statues of the gods Lugalgira and Alamu put on each side of the main entrance to his house, and in consequence he felt perfectly impregnable against evil spirits (see Tallquist, Assyrian. Beach,22).

    In Isaiah 3:2 the [qocem] (“magician” or “diviner”) is named along with the knight warrior, the judge, prophet and elder, among the stays and supports of the nation; no disapproval is expressed or implied with regard to any of them. Yet it is not to be denied that in its essential features pure Yahwism, which enforced personal faith in a pure spiritual being, was radically opposed to all magical beliefs and practices. The fact that the Hebrews stood apart as believers in an ethical and spiritual religion from the Semitic and other peoples by which they were surrounded suggests that they were Divinely guided, for in other respects — art, philosophy, etc. — this same Hebrew nation held a lower place than many contemporary nations.

    5. MAGICAL TERMS USED IN THE BIBLE.

    Many terms employed in the Old Testament in reference to divination have also a magical import. See DIVINATION, VII. For a fuller discussion of Biblical terms connected with both subjects, reference may be made to T.

    Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, 44 iff, 78 ff; see also articles “Divination” and “Magic” in EB, by the present writer. 1. Divination: Here a few brief statements are all that can be attempted. µs,q, [Qecem], usually rendered “divination” (see Numbers 23:23), has primarily a magical reference (Fleischer), though both Wellhausen (Reste des arabischen Heidenthums 2, 133, note 5) and W. Robertson Smith (Jour.

    Phil., XIII, 278) hold that its first use was in connection with divination.

    The Arabic verb (“to exorcise”) and noun (“an oath”) have magical meanings. But it must be admitted that the secondary meaning (“divination”) has almost driven out the other. See under I, where it is held that at bottom magic and divination are one. 2. Sorcery: The verb pv”K; [kashaph], the Revised Version (British and American) “to practice sorcery,” comes, as Fleischer held, from a root denoting “to have a dark appearance,” to look gloomy, to be distressed, then as a suppliant to seek relief by magical means. The corresponding nouns kashshaph and mekashsheph are rendered “sorcerer” in English Versions of the Bible. 3. Enchantment: vj”l” [Lachash], English Versions of the Bible “enchantment,” etc. (see Isaiah 3:3, [nebhon lachash], the Revised Version (British and American) “the skillful enchanter”), is connected etymologically with [nachash], “a serpent,”‘ the “n” and “l” often interchanging in Semitic [Lachash] is, therefore, as might have been expected from this etymology, used specifically of serpent charming (see Jeremiah 8:17; Eccl 10:11; compare vjel”m] [melachesh] in Psalm 58:5 (6) , English Versions of the Bible “charmer”). 4. Amulets: rb,j, [Chebher] occurs in the plural only ( Isaiah 47:9,12, English Versions of the Bible, “enchantments”). It comes from a root meaning “to bind,” and it denotes probably amulets of some kind carried on the person to ward off evil. It seems therefore to be the Biblical equivalent of the Talmudic [ymiq] [qemia`], literally, = “something bound” from [m”q; [qama`], “to bind.” 5. Incantation: rj”vi [Shichar] ( Isaiah 47:11) seems to have an etymological connection with the principal Arabic word for “magic” (sichrun), and is explained by the great majority of recent commentators following J.H.

    Michaelis (Hitzig, Ewald, Dillmann, Whitehouse in Century Bible, etc.) as meaning “to charm away” (by incantations). So also Targum, Rashi, J H and Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmudim, and Midrashic Literature, Michaelis, Eichhorn, etc. 6. Repeated Utterances: The verb [battologe>w , battologeo ] in Matthew 6:7 (= “say not the same thing over and over again”) refers to the superstition that the repeated utterance of a word will secure one’s wish. In India today it is thought that if an ascetic says in one month the name of Radha, Krishna, or Romans 100,000 times, he cannot fail to obtain what he wants (see Kings 18:26). See REPETITION. 7. Impostors: The term [go>htev , goetes ], the Revised Version (British and American) “impostors,” the King James Version “seducers,” is used of a class of magicians who uttered certain magical formulas in a deep, low voice (compare the verb [goa>w , goao ], which = “to sigh,” “to utter low moaning tones”). Herodotus (ii.33) says that there were persons of the kind in Egypt, and they are mentioned also by Euripides and Plato. 8. Witchcraft: Paul in Galatians 5:20 classes with uncleanness, idolatry, etc., what he calls [farmakei>a , pharmakeia ], the King James Version “witchcraft” the Revised Version (British and American) “sorcery.” The word has reference first of all to drugs used in exercising the magical article Note the name Simon Magus, which = Simon the magician ( Acts 8:9 f), and Bar-Jesus, whom Luke calls a magician ([ma>gov , magos ], English Versions of the Bible, “sorcerer”) and to whom he gives also the proper name Elymas, which is really the Arabic `alim = “learned,” and so one skillful in the magical article. See also under AMULET; CHARM; DEMONOLOGY; WITCHCRAFT.

    LITERATURE.

    A Very full bibliography of the subject will be found in T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, xi through xvi. See also the literature under DIVINATION and in addition to the literature cited in the course of the foregoing article, note the following: A. Lehmann, Aberglaube und Zauberei2, 1908; A.C.

    Haddon, Magic and Fetishism, 1906; Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, 1898; Smith, “Witchcraft in the Old Testament,” Biblical Soc., 1902, 23- 35; W.R. Halliday, Greek Divination; A Study of Its Methods and Principles, London, Macmillan (important) and the valuable article on “Magic” by Northwest Thomas in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and also the relevant articles in the Bible dictionaries. T. Witton Davies MAGISTRATE <maj’-is-trat > ( fp”v] [shephaT], corresponding to fp”v; [shaphaT], “to judge,” “to pronounce sentence” ( Judges 18:7)): Among the ancients, the terms corresponding to our “magistrate” had a much wider signification. “Magistrates and judges” ( µyniY:d’w” [shopheTim wedhayyanim]) should be translated “judges and rulers” ( Ezra 7:25). µynig:s] [ceghanim] “rulers” or “nobles,” were Babylonian magistrates or prefects of provinces ( Jeremiah 51:23,28,57; Ezek 23:6). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jewish magistrates bore the same title ( Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 2:16; 4:14; 13:11). The Greek [a]rcwn , archon ], “magistrate” ( Luke 12:58; Tit 3:1 the King James Version), signifies the chief in power ( 1 Corinthians 2:6,8) and “ruler” ( Acts 4:26; Romans 13:3).

    The Messiah is designated as the “prince ([archon ]) of the kings of the earth” ( Revelation 1:5 the King James Version), and by the same term Moses is designated the judge and leader of the Hebrews ( Acts 7:27,35). The wide application of this term is manifest from the fact that it is used of magistrates of any kind, e.g. the high priest ( Acts 23:5); civil judges ( Luke 12:58; Acts 16:19); ruler of the synagogue ( Luke 8:41; Matthew 9:18,23; Mark 5:22); persons of standing and authority among the Pharisees and other sects that appear in the Sanhedrin ( Luke 14:1; John 3:1; Acts 3:17). The term also designates Satan, the prince or chief of the fallen angels ( Matthew 9:34; Ephesians 2:2).

    In the New Testament we also find [strathgo>v , sitrategos ], employed to designate the Roman praetors or magistrates of Philippi, a Roman colony ( Acts 16:20,22,35,36,38). A collective term for those clothed with power (Eng. “the powers”), [ejxousi>ai , exousiai ], is found in Luke 12:11 the King James Version; Romans 13:2,3; Tit 3:1. The “higher powers” ( Romans 13:1) are all those who are placed in positions of civil authority from the emperor down.

    In early Hebrew history, the magisterial office was limited to the hereditary chiefs, but Moses made the judicial office elective. In his time the “heads of families” were 59 in number, and these, together with the 12 princes of the tribes, composed the Sanhedrin or Council of 71. Some of the scribes were entrusted with the business of keeping the genealogies and in this capacity were also regarded as magistrates. Frank E. Hirsch MAGNIFICAL <mag-nif’-i-kal > ( ld’G: [gadhal], in Hiphil “to make great”): Old form retained from Genevan version in 1 Chronicles 22:5; in the American Standard Revised Version “magnificent.”

    MAGNIFICAT <mag-nif’-i-kat > : The name given to the hymn of Mary in Luke 1:46-55, commencing “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” Three old Latin manuscripts substitute the name “Elisabeth” for “Mary” in 1:46, but against this is the authority of all Greek manuscripts and other Latin versions. The hymn, modeled in part on that of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1 ff, is peculiarly suitable to the circumstances of Mary, and plainly could not have been composed after the actual appearance and resurrection of Christ. Its early date is thus manifest.

    MAGNIFY <mag’-ni-fi > (Hiphil of ld’G: [gadhal]; [megalu>nw , megaluno ], “to make great,” “extol,” “celebrate in praise”): Used especially of exaltation of the name, mercy, and other attributes of God ( Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 7:26; Psalm 35:27; 40:16; 70:4; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:46); of God’s “word” ( <19D802> Psalm 138:2); or of Christ ( Acts 19:17; Philippians 1:20). Men also can be “magnified” (Josh 4:14; Chronicles 29:25, etc.). In Romans 11:13, “magnify mine office,” the word (Greek, doxazo ]) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to “glorify.”

    MAGOG <ma’-gog > ( gwOgm; [maghogh]; [ Magw>g , Magog ]): Named among the sons of Japheth ( Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5). Ezekiel uses the word as equivalent to “land of Gog” (Ezek 38:2; 39:6). Josephus identifies the Magogites with the Scythians (Ant., I, vi, 1). From a resemblance between the names Gog and Gyges (Gugu), king of Lydia, some have suggested that Magog is Lydia; others, however, urge that Magog is probably only a variant of Gog (Sayce in HDB). In the Apocalypse of John, Gog and Magog represent all the heathen opponents of Messiah ( Revelation 20:8), and in this sense these names frequently recur in Jewish apocalyptic literature. John A. Lees MAGOR-MISSABIB <ma’-gor-mis’-a-bib > ( bybiS;mi rwOgm; [maghor miccabhibh], “terror on every side”): A name given by Jeremiah to Pashhur ben Immer, the governor of the temple, who had caused the prophet to be beaten and set in the stocks ( Jeremiah 20:3). The same expression is used (not as a proper name) in several other passages ( Psalm 31:13; Jeremiah 6:25; 20:10; 46:5; 49:29; Lamentations 2:22).

    MAGPIASH <mag’-pi-ash > . See MAGBISH.

    MAGUS, SIMON <ma’-gus > . See SIMON MAGUS; MAGI; MAGIC.

    MAHALAH <ma-ha’-la > , <ma’-ha-la > ( hl;j]m” [machlah]; the Revised Version (British and American) has the correct form MAHLAH): A descendant of Manasseh ( 1 Chronicles 7:18).

    MAHALALEL <ma-ha’-la-lel > ( lael]l”h\m” [mahalal’el]; the King James Version Mahalaleel, ma-ha’la-le-el, ma-hal’a-lel): (1) Son of Cainan, the grandson of Seth ( Genesis 5:12 ff; Chronicles 1:2). (2) The ancestor of Athaiah, one of the children of Judah who dwelt in Jerusalem after the return from exile ( Nehemiah 11:4).

    MAHALATH <ma’-ha-lath > ( tl”j\m” [machalath]): (1) In Genesis 28:9 the name of a wife of Esau, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth, called in 36:3, BASEMATH (which see). The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, throughout Genesis 36 retains “Mahalath.” On the other hand, in 26:34 Basemath is said to be “the daughter of Elon the Hittite,” probably a confusion with Adah, as given in 36:2, or corruption may exist in the lists otherwise. (2) One of the 18 wives of Rehoboam, a grand-daughter of David ( Chronicles 11:18). (3) The word is found in the titles of Psalm 53 (the Revised Version (British and American) “set to Mahalath”) and Psalm 88 (the Revised Version (British and American) “set to Mahalath Leannoth,” margin “for singing”). Probably some song or tune is meant, though the word is taken by many to denote a musical instrument. Hengstenberg and others interpret it as indicating the subject of the Psalms. See PSALMS.

    James Orr MAHALI <ma’-ha-li > . See MAHLI.

    MAHANAIM <ma-ha-na’-im > ( µyIn’j\m [machanayim]; the Greek is different in every case where the name occurs, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus also giving variant forms; the dual form may be taken as having arisen from an old locative ending, as, e.g. µyIl”v;Wry” [yerushala(y)im] from an original µLeviticus;Wry” [yerushalem]. In Genesis 32:21 [machaneh] is evidently a parallel form and should be rendered as a proper name, Mahaneh, i.e. Mahanaim): The city must have been one of great strength.

    It lay East of the Jordan, and is first mentioned in the history of Jacob.

    Here he halted after parting from Laban, before the passage of the Jabbok ( Genesis 31:2), “and the angels of God met him.” Possibly it was the site of an ancient sanctuary. It is next noticed in defining the boundaries of tribal territory East of the Jordan. It lay on the border of Gad and Manasseh (Josh 13:26,30). It belonged to the lot of Gad, and was assigned along with Ramoth in Gilead to the Merarite Levites (Josh 21:38; Chronicles 6:80 — the former of these passages affords no justification to Cheyne in saying (EB, under the word) that it is mentioned as a “city of refuge”). The strength of the place doubtless attracted Abner, who fixed here the capital of Ishbosheth’s kingdom. Saul’s chivalrous rescue of Jabesh-gilead was remembered to the credit of his house in these dark days, and the loyalty of Mahanaim could be reckoned on ( 2 Samuel 2:8, etc.). To this same fortress David fled when endangered by the rebellion of Absalom; and in the “forest” hard by, that prince met his fate ( 2 Samuel 17:24, etc.). It was made the center of one of Solomon’s administrative districts, and here Abinadab the son of Iddo was stationed ( 1 Kings 4:14). There seems to be a reference to Mahanaim in Song of Solomon 6:13 the Revised Version (British and American). If this is so, here alone it appears with the article. By emending the text Cheyne would read: “What do you see in the Shulammite? A narcissus of the valleys.”

    It is quite clear from the narrative that Jacob, going to meet his brother, who was advancing from the South, crossed the Jabbok after leaving Mahanaim. It is therefore vain to search for the site of this city South of the Jabbok, and Conder’s suggested identification with some place near el- Buqei`a, East of es-Salt], must be given up.

    On the North of the Jabbok several positions have been thought of. Merrill (East of the Jordan, 433 ff) argues in favor of Khirbet Saleikhat, a ruined site in the mouth of Wady Saleikhat, on the northern bank,3 miles East of Jordan, and 4 miles North of Wady `Ajlun. From its height, 300 ft. above the plain, it commands a wide view to the West and South. One running “by the way of the Plain” could be seen a great way off ( 2 Samuel 18:23). This would place the battle in the hills to the South near the Jordan valley. Ahimaaz then preferred to make a detour, thus securing a level road, while the Cushite took the rough track across the heights. Others, among them Buhl (GAP, 257), would place Mahanaim at Michneh, a partly overgrown ruin 9 miles East of Jordan, and 4 miles North of `Ajlun on the north bank of Wady Machneh. This is the only trace of the ancient name yet found in the district. It may be assumed that Mahanaim is to be sought in this neighborhood. Cheyne would locate it at `Ajlun, near which rises the great fortress Kal`ater-Rabad. He supposes that the “wood of Mahanaim” extended as far as Michneh, and that “the name of Mihneh is really an abbreviation of the ancient phrase.” Others would identify Mahanaim with Jerash, where, however, there are no remains older than Greek-Roman times.

    Objections to either `Ajlun or Michneh are: (1) The reference to this Jordan” in Genesis 32:10, which seems to show that the city was near the river. It may indeed be said that the great hollow of the Jordan valley seems close at hand for many miles on either side, but this, perhaps, hardly meets the objection. (2) The word [kikkar], used for “Plain” in 2 Samuel 18:23, seems always elsewhere to apply to the “circle” of the Jordan. Buhl, who identifies Mahanaim with Michneh, yet cites this verse (G A the Priestly Code (P), 112) as a case in which [kikkar] applies to the plain of the Jordan. He thus prescribes for Ahimaaz a very long race. Cheyne sees the difficulty. The battle was obviously in the vicinity of Mahanaim, and the nearest way from the “wood” was by the rK;Kings [kikkar], “or, since no satisfactory explanation of this reading has been offered by the lj”n’ [nachal, that is to say, the eager Ahimaaz ran along in the wady in which, at some little distance, Mahanaim lay” (EB, under the word).

    The site for the present remains in doubt. W. Ewing MAHANEH-DANIEL <ma’-ha-ne-Daniel > ( ˆd:Ahnej\m” [machaneh-dhan]; [parembolh< Da>n , parembole Daniel ]): This place is mentioned twice: in Judges 13:25 (the King James Version “the camp of Daniel”), and Judges 18:12. In Mahaneh-Daniel, between Zorah and Eshtaol, the spirit of the Lord began to move Samson. Here the 600 marauders of Daniel, coming from Zorah and Eshtaol, encamped behind Kiriath-jearim. It has been thought that these two statements contradict each other; or at least that they cannot both apply to the same place. But if we accept the identification of Zorah with Surah, and of Eshtaol with Eshu`, which there seems no reason to question; and if, further, we identify Kiriath-jearim with Khirbet Erma, which is at least possible, the two passages may be quite reconciled.

    Behind Kiriath-jearim, that is West of Khirbet Erma, runs the Vale of Sorek, on the north bank of which, about 2 miles apart, stand Zorah and Eshtaol; the former 3 1/2 miles, the latter 2 1/2 miles fron khirbet Erma.

    No name resembling Mahanehdan has yet been recovered; but the place may have lain within the area thus indicated, so meeting the conditions of both passages, whether it was a permanent settlement, or derived its name only from the incident mentioned in Judges 18:12. W. Ewing MAHARAI <ma-har’-a-i > , <ma’-ha-ri > ( yr’h\m” [maharay], “impetuous”): One of David’s “braves” ( 2 Samuel 23:28; 1 Chronicles 11:30; 27:13). He was one of the 12 monthly captains of David’s administration, and took the 10th month in rotation. He was of the family of Zerah, and dwelt in Netophah in Judah.

    MAHATH <ma’-hath > ( tj”m” [machath], “snatching”; [ Me>q , Meth ]): (1) One of the Kohathites having charge of the “service of song” in David’s time, son of Amasai ( 1 Chronicles 6:35). Possibly the same as Ahimoth ( 1 Chronicles 6:25). He seems also to be the same as the person named in 2 Chronicles 29:12 during Hezekiah’s time, though it is probable there is some confusion in the narrative. He is there represented as taking part in the new covenant of Hezekiah and the cleansing of the Lord’s house. (2) One of the overseers of the temple under Conaniah and Shimei ( Chronicles 31:13); three passages of Scripture give the name, but it is difficult to individuate these because the genealogy identifies the two first named ( 1 Chronicles 6:35; 2 Chronicles 29:12), while the chronology seems to divide them — one in David’s day, the other in Hezekiah’s. It is not, however, impossible to identify the man of Chronicles 29:12 with him of 2 Chronicles 31:13. Possibly the genealogy has been mistakenly repeated in 2 Chronicles 29:12. Henry Wallace MAHAVITE <ma’-ha-vit > ( µywIj\m” [machawim], “villagers”): The description given to Eliel, one of David’s warrior guard ( 1 Chronicles 11:46), perhaps to distinguish him from the Eliel in the next verse. Massoretic Text is very obscure here.

    MAHAZIOTH <ma-ha’-iz-oth > , <ma-ha’-zi-oth > ( twOayzIj\m” [machazi’oth] “visions”): One of the 14 sons of Heman the Kohathite in the temple choir. “He was leader of the 23rd course of musicians whose function was to blow the horns” ( 1 Chronicles 25:4,30).

    MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ <ma’-her-shal’-al-hash’-baz > ( zB” vj; ll;v; rhem” [maher shalal chash baz], “the spoil speedeth; the prey hasteth”): Asymbolic name given to Isaiah’s son to signify the sharp destruction of Rezin and Pekah by the Assyrian power ( Isaiah 8:1,3). Compare the Greek idea of Nemesis.

    MAHLAH <ma’-la > ( hl;j]m” [machlah] “sickness” or “song,” etymology doubtful): (1) Eldest of Zelophehad’s 5 daughters ( Numbers 26:33; 27:1). As Zelophehad, grandson of Manasseh, had no sons, the daughters successfully claimed their father’s inheritance. The law was altered in their favor on condition that they married into their father’s tribe. They agreed and married their cousins ( Numbers 36:11). The whole chapter should be read and compared with Josh 17:3 ff, because the decision became a precedent. (2) Another (the King James Version “Mahalah”), same Hebrew name as above, daughter of Hammoleketh, grand-daughter of Manasseh ( Chronicles 7:18). Henry Wallace MAHLI <ma’-li > ( ylij]m” [machli], “a sick or weak one”‘): (1) A son of Merari ( Exodus 6:19, the King James Version Mahali; Numbers 3:20), grandson of Levi and founder of the Levitical family of MAHLITES (which see). (2) A son of Mushi, Mahli’s brother, bears the same name ( 1 Chronicles 6:47; 23:23; 24:30). Compare Ezra 8:18 and 1 Esdras 8:47.

    MAHLITES <ma’-lits > ( ylij]m” [machli]): Descendants of Mahli, son of Merari ( Numbers 3:33; 26:58). These Mahlites appear to have followed the example of the daughters of Zelophehad, mutatis mutandis. (See MAHLAH; had the name become the description of a practice?) They married the daughters of their uncle Eleazar ( 1 Chronicles 23:21,22).

    MAHLON <ma’-lon > ( ˆwOlj]m” [machlon], “invalid”): Ruth’s first husband (Ruth 12,5; 4:9,10). In the latter passage is further evidence of the unwillingness to allow a family connection or inheritance to drop (see MAHLAH; MAHLI ). Note that David’s descent and that of his “Greater Son” come through Ruth and Boaz ( Ruth 4:22).

    MAHOL <ma’-hol > ( lwOjm] [machol], “dance”; compare lwOjm;AyneB] [benemachol], “sons of dance”): The father of the 4 sages reputed next in wisdom to Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:31). Their names were Ethan, Heman, Chalcol, Darda.

    MAHSEIAH <ma-se’-ya > , <ma-si’-a > ( hy:sej]m” [machceyah], “Yah a refuge”):

    Grandfather of Baruch ( Jeremiah 32:12) and of Seraiah ( Jeremiah 51:59). The name (not to be confused with MAASEIAH (which see) as the King James Version has done even in the above passages) is spelt “Maaseas” (which see) in Baruch 1:1.

    MAIANNAS <mi-an’-as > ([ Maia>nnav , Maiannas ]; the King James Version Maianeas):

    One of the Levites who taught the law for Esdras (1 Esdras 9:48) = MAASEIAH (which see) in Nehemiah 8:7.

    MAID, MAIDEN <mad > , <mad’-’n > : Used in the King James Version in the sense of a girl or young female; of an unmarried woman or virgin, and of a female servant or handmaid. Thus, it translates several Hebrew words: (1) The more generic word is hr:[\n’ [na`arah], “girl,” feminine form of the common r[“n’ [na`ar], “boy” ( 1 Samuel 9:11; 2 Kings 5:2,4; Est 2:4,7 ff; Job 41:5; Am 2:7) In several places masculine form r[“n’ [na`ar], with feminine form of verb rendered “damsel” ( Genesis 24:14,16,28,55; 34:3,12; Dt 22:15); compare [hJ pai~v , he pais ] ( Luke 8:51,54); see also [paidi>skh , paidiske ], diminutive (Sirach 41:22; Mark 14:66,69; Luke 12:45; [kora>sion , korasion ], Septuagint for [na`arah], “maid,” in Matthew 9:24 f with Job 6:12 f; Susanna verses 15,19). (2) The Hebrew hm;l][“ [`almah], also rendered “maid,” refers to a woman of marriageable age ( Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19), whether married or not, whether a virgin or not. The same word is translated “virgin” in several places ( Genesis 24:43 the King James Version; Song of Solomon 13; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). (3) The word hl;WtB] [bethulah], a common Hebrew word for “virgin,” a chaste woman Septuagint [parqe>nov , parthenos ]), is frequently rendered “maid” and “maiden” ( Exodus 22:16; Judges 19:24; 2 Chronicles 36:17; Psalm 78:63; 148:12; Jeremiah 51:22; Lamentations 5:11; Ezek 9:6; 44:22; Zechariah 9:17; compare Dt 22:14,17, having “the marks (tokens) of virginity”); µyliWtB] [bethulim], rendered “maid.” See VIRGIN. (4) Two Hebrew words covering the idea of service, handmaid, handmaiden, and in numerous passages so rendered: (a) hm;a; [’amah], translated “maid” ( Genesis 30:3; Exodus 2:5; 21:20,26; Leviticus 25:6; Ezra 2:65; Job 19:15; Nahum 2:7); (b) hj;p]vi [shiphchah], “a family servant,” “a handmaid,” so rendered in numerous passages (“maid,” “maiden,” Genesis 16:2 ff; 29:24,29; 30:7,9,10,12,18; Isaiah 24:2; <19C302> Psalm 123:2; Eccl 2:7).

    In the King James Version they are variously translated “maid,” “handmaid,” etc. (5) The rather rare word [a[bra , habra ], “favorite slave,” is rendered “maid” in Judith 10:2,5; 13:9; 16:23; Additions to Esther 15:2,7. (6) [dou>lh , doule ], “female slave,” in the King James Version Judith 12:49 (the Revised Version (British and American) “servant”).

    Maidservant means simply a female slave in the different positions which such a woman naturally occupies. They were the property of their masters; sometimes held the position of concubines ( Genesis 31:33); daughters might be sold by their fathers into this condition ( Exodus 21:7). It is regrettable that no uniform translation was adopted in the King James Version. And in the Revised Version (British and American) compare Tobit 3:7; Judith 10:10; Sirach 41:22. “Maidservants” replaces “maidens” of the King James Version in Luke 12:45. Compare Job 31:13. Edward Bagby Pollard MAIL <mal > . See ARMOR.

    MAIMED <mam’-d > ( ˜Wrj; [charuts]; [kullo>v , kullos ], [ajna>phrov , anaperos ]):

    The condition of being mutilated or rendered imperfect as the result of accident, in contrast to congenital malformation. An animal thus affected was declared to be unfit to be offered in sacrifice as a peace offering ( Leviticus 22:22); although under certain conditions a congenitally deformed animal might be accepted as a free-will offering, apparently the offering of a maimed animal was always prohibited ( Leviticus 22:23,24). The use of such animals in sacrifice was one of the charges brought against the Jews of his time by Malachi (1:8-14). The word is also used to denote those who were so mutilated. Among those made whole by our Lord in Galilee were the maimed as well as the halt ( Matthew 15:30).

    Figuratively the casting off of any evil habit or distracting condition which interferes with the spiritual life is called “maiming” ( Matthew 18:8; Mark 9:43); with this may be taken the lesson in Matthew 19:12. In these passages “maimed” ([kullos ]) is used of injuries of the upper limb, and [cholos ] of those affecting the feet, rendering one halt. Hippocrates, however, uses kullos for a deformation of the legs in which the knees are bent so far outward as to render the patient lame; while he applies the term cholos as a generic name for any distortion, and in one place uses it to describe a mutilation of the head (Prorrhetica, 83). The maimed and the halt are among the outcasts who are to be brought into the gospel feast according to the parable ( Luke 14:13-21). Alexander Macalister MAINSALL <man’-sal > . See SHIPS AND BOATS.

    MAKAZ <ma’-kaz > ( ˜q”m; [maqats]): One of the cities of the 2nd of the districts or prefectures which supplied victuals for Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:9). It is associated with Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan, all three probably identical with cities mentioned (Josh 19:41,42) as on the border of Daniel. Cheyne (EB, II, col. 2906) suggests that Makaz may bc identical with MEJARGON (which see) in the latter list.

    MAKE, MAKER <mak > , <mak’-er > ( hc;[; [`asah], ˆt”n: [nathan], µWc [sum]; [poie>w , poieo ], [ti>hmi , tithemi ], [kaqi>sthmi , kathistemi ]):

    1. AS USED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: “Make” is a frequently used word, meaning “to create,” “construct,” “cause,” “constitute,” etc., and represents different Hebrew words. It is very often in the King James Version (1) the translation of [`asah], “to do,” “make,” etc., usually’ in the sense of constructing, effecting. In Genesis 1:7,16,25,31, etc., it is used of the creation; of the creation of man in the likeness of God (5:1); of the ark (6:14); of a feast (21:8); of the tabernacle and all the things belonging to it ( Exodus 25:8, etc.); of idols ( Isaiah 2:8; Jeremiah 2:28, etc.); (2) of [nathan] (literally, “to give”), chiefly in the sense of constituting, appointing, causing; of a covenant ( Genesis 9:12; 17:2); of Abraham as the father of many nations, etc. ( Genesis 17:5,6); of Ishmael as a great nation ( Genesis 17:20); of Moses as a god to Pharaoh ( Exodus 7:1); of judges and officers (Dt 16:18); of laws ( Leviticus 26:46, etc.); it has the meaning of “to cause” ( Exodus 18:16; 23:27; Numbers 5:21; 1 Samuel 9:22; <19A646> Psalm 106:46); (3) [sum], “to set,” “put,” “lay,” has a similar significance: of Abraham’s seed ( Genesis 13:16; 32:12); Joseph lord of all Egypt ( Genesis 45:9; compare Exodus 2:14; Dt 1:13; 10:22); (4) [shith], with same meaning, occurs ( 2 Samuel 22:12, “He made darkness pavilions round about him”; 1 Kings 11:34; Psalm 18:11; 21:6).

    Other words are [`abhadh] (Aramaic); “to make,” “do,” ( Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 3:1); [`amadh], “to set up” ( 2 Chronicles 11:22; 25:5; Nehemiah 10:32); [`atsabh], “to labor,” etc. ( Job 10:8, the King James Version margin “took pains about me”); [banah], “to build up” ( Genesis 2:22; 1 Kings 22:39); bara’, “to prepare,” “create” ( Numbers 16:30; Psalm 89:47); [yatsagh], “to set up” ( Job 17:6; Jeremiah 51:34); [yatsar], “to form,” “constitute” ( Psalm 74:17; 104:26); [pa`al], “to work,” “make” ( Exodus 15:17; Psalm 7:15); words with special meanings are: [paqadh], “to give a charge” ( 1 Kings 11:28; 2 Kings 25:23); [karath], “to cut,” or “prepare”, “to make a convent or league” ( Genesis 15:18; Exodus 24:8; Josh 9:16); [qashar], “to bind together,” “to make a conspiracy” ( 2 Kings 12:20; 14:19); [parats], “to break forth,” “to make a breach” ( 2 Samuel 6:8; 1 Chronicles 13:11; 15:13); [labhen], “to make brick” ( Genesis 11:3); [labhabh] (denominative of [lebhibhah]), “to make cakes” ( Samuel 13:6,8); [malakh], “to make a king” ( 1 Samuel 8:22; 12:1); among obsolete and archaic words and phrases may be mentioned, “What makest thou in this place?” ( Judges 18:3), the Revised Version (British and American) “doest”; “made” for “pretend” ( 2 Samuel 13:5,6), the Revised Version (British and American) “feign,” “feigned”; “made as if” (Josh 8:15; 9:4), so the Revised Version (British and American); “make for him” (Ezek 17:17), the Revised Version (British and American) “help him”; “make mention” ( Jeremiah 4:16); “make mention of” ( Genesis 40:14; Psalm 87:4); “make account” ( <19E403> Psalm 144:3); “make an end” ( Judges 3:18; 15:17); “make an end” is also “to bring to nought,” “to destroy” ( Isaiah 38:12); “make riddance” ( Leviticus 23:22), the Revised Version (British and American) “wholly reap.” In 1 Macc 16:22, we have “to make him away” as translation of apolesai auton, the Revised Version (British and American) “destroy.”

    Maker is the translation of [`asah] ( Job 4:17; Psalm 95:6), of yatsar ( Isaiah 45:9,11; Habakkuk 2:18 twice), of [charash], “graver” ( Isaiah 45:16), of [pa`al] ( Job 36:3; Isaiah 1:31, or [po`al]).

    2. AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament the chief word for “make” is poieo, “to do,” “make,” etc. ( Matthew 3:3; John 2:16; 5:15); of [, kathistemi ], “to set down,” “to appoint” ( Matthew 24:45,47; Romans 5:19); of [tithemi ], “to set,” “lay” ( Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36); of [diatithemi ], “to set or lay throughout” ( Acts 3:25; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16); of [didomi ], “to give” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:9; Revelation 3:9); of eimi, “to be” ( Mark 12:42); of epiteleo “to complete” ( Hebrews 8:5; Galatians 3:3, “make perfect,” the Revised Version margin “make an end”); of [Kataskeuazo ], “to prepare thoroughly” ( Hebrews 9:2, the Revised Version (British and American) “prepared”); of [ktizo ], “to make” “found” ( Ephesians 2:15); of [plerophoreo ], “to bear “on fully” ( Timothy 4:5, “make full proof of thy ministry,” the Revised Version (British and American) “fulfil”); [doxazo] “to make honorable or glorious” ( 2 Corinthians 3:10); of [peritrepo (eis manian )], “to turn round to raving” ( Acts 26:24, “doth make thee mad,” the Revised Version (British and American) “is turning thee mad,” margin “Greek: turneth thee to madness”); of [emporeuomai ], “to traffic,” “cheat” ( 2 Peter 2:3 “make merchandise of you”); of [eirenopoieo ], “to make peace” ( Colossians 1:20); of [sumballo ], “to throw together” ( Luke 14:31; “to make war,” the Revised Version (British and American) “goeth to encounter”); “made” is frequently the translation of [ginomai ], “to become,” “begin to be” ( Matthew 4:3; 9:16; Mark 2:21,27; John 1:3 (thrice),10, “The world was made through him,” 1:14, “The word was made flesh,” the Revised Version (British and American) “became flesh”; 2:9, water “made wine,” the Revised Version (British and American) “now become wine,” margin “that it had become”; 8:33, “made free”‘ Romans 1:3, Revised Vesion “born” Galatians 3:13, the Revised Version (British and American) “having become a curse for us”; 4:4, the Revised Version (British and American) “born of a woman,” etc.; Philippians 2:7, “was made in the likeness of men,” the Revised Version margin “Greek: becoming in”; 1 Peter 2:7, etc.).

    In addition to the changes in the Revised Version (British and American) already noted may be mentioned, for “maketh collops” ( Job 15:27) “gathered fat”; for “set us in the way of his steps” ( Psalm 85:13), “make his footsteps a way to walk in”; for “did more grievously afflict her” ( Isaiah 9:1), “hath made it glorious”; for “shall make him of quick understanding” ( Isaiah 11:3), ‘his delight shall be in”; for “make sluices and ponds for fish” ( Isaiah 19:10), “they that work for hire,” margin “or make dams “; for “ye that make mention of the Lord” ( Isaiah 62:6), “ye that are Yahweh’s remembrancers”; for “he shall confirm the covenant” ( Daniel 9:27), “he shall make a firm covenant”; for “maketh my way perfect” ( 2 Samuel 22:33), “guideth the perfect in his way” (see margin); for “the desire of a man is his kindness” ( Proverbs 19:22), “that which maketh a man to be desired”; for, “maketh intercession” ( Romans 11:2), “pleadeth”; for hath made us accepted” ( Ephesians 1:6), “freely bestowed on us,” margin “wherewith he endued us”;. for “made himself of no reputation” ( Philippians 2:7), “emptied himself”; for “spoil you” ( Colossians 2:8), “maketh spoil of you”; for “is the enemy of God” ( James 4:4), “maketh himself”; for “worketh abomination or (maketh) a lie” ( Revelation 21:27), “maketh (m” doeth”) an abomination and a lie”; we have “become” for “made” ( Matthew 4:3; Luke 3:5; 4:3), “became” ( Romans 10:20; Corinthians 15:45, bis); “becoming in” for “being made” ( Philippians 2:7 margin). W. L. Walker MAKEBATES <mik’-bats > : This is the plural of the word makebate, which means “one who stirs up strife.” It occurs only in the King James Version margin of 2 Timothy 3:3 and Tit 2:3 as an alternative translation of [dia>boloi , diaboloi ], which the King James Version renders “false accusers,” and the Revised Version (British and American) “slanderers.”

    MAKED <ma’-ked > ([ Make>d , Maked ], [ Make>b , Makeb ]) : A strong city East of the Jordan, not yet identified. It is named along with Bosor, Alema and Casphor (1 Macc 5:26). In 1 Macc 5:36, the King James Version reads “Maged.”

    MAKER <ma’-ker > . See MAKE.

    MAKHELOTH <mak-he’-loth > , <mak-he’-loth > ( tloheq]m” [maqheloth], “assemblies”):

    A desert camp of the Israelites between Haradah and Tahath ( Numbers 33:25,26). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

    MAKKEDAH <ma-ke’-da > ( hd:QeM” [maqqedhah]; [ Makhda> , Makeda ]): A Canaanite royal city which Joshua captured, utterly destroying the inhabitants, and doing to the king as he had done unto the king of Jericho (Josh 10:28; 12:16). It lay in the Shephelah of Judah (Josh 15:41). It was brought into prominence by the flight thither of the 5 kings of the Amorites who, having united their forces for the destruction of Gibeon, were themselves defeated and pursued by Joshua (chapter 10). Seeing their danger, the men of Gibeon sent to the camp at Gilgal beseeching Joshua to save and help them. That energetic commander marched all night with his full strength, fell upon the allies at Gibeon, slew them with a great slaughter, chased the fugitives down the valley by way of Beth-horon, and smote them unto Azekah and unto Makkedah. It was during this memorable pursuit that in response to Joshua’s appeal: “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon,” the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down a whole day, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies.

    The 5 kings sought refuge in the cave at Makkedah, where, by Joshua’s orders, they were blocked in with great stones, until the slaughter of the fugitives should be completed. Then the royal prisoners were brought out, and, after the chiefs of Israel had set their feet upon their necks, Joshua slew them and hanged them on five trees until sunset. This is an illustration of the old practice of impaling enemies after death. The bodies were then cast into the cave where they had sought to hide, and great stones were rolled against the entrance.

    The flight of the allies was past Beth-boron and Azekah to Makkedah.

    Azekah is not identified, but it is named with Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah (Josh 15:41). These are probably represented by Qatrah, Dajan and Na`aneh, so that in this district Makkedah may be sought. The officers of the Palestine Exploration Fund agree in suggesting el-Mughdr, “the cave,” on the northern bank of Wady es-Surar, about 4 miles from the sand dunes on the shore. There are traces of old quarrying and many rock-cut tombs with loculi. “The village stands on a sort of promontory stretching into the valley .... divided into three plateaus; on the lower of these to the South is the modern village, el-Mughar, built in front of the caves which are cut out of the sandstone” (Warren). In no other place in the neighborhood are caves found. The narrative, however, speaks not of caves, but of “the cave,” as of one which was notable. On the other hand the events narrated may have lent distinction to some particular cave among the many. “The cave” would therefore be that associated with the fate of the 5 kings. No certainty is possible. W. Ewing MAKTESH, THE <mak’-tesh > , ( vTek]M”h”” [ha-makhtesh], “the mortar”; compare Judges 15:19, “the mortar,” English Versions of the Bible “hollow place that is in Lehi”): A quarter of Jerusalem so named, it is supposed, on account of the configuration of the ground and associated (Zeph 1:10,11) with the “fish gate” and MISHNEH (which see) or “second quarter.” Most authorities think it was in the northern part of the city, and many consider that the name was derived from the hollowed-out form of that part of the Tyropeon just N. of the walls, where foreign merchants congregated; others have suggested a hollow farther West, now occupied by the muristan and the three long bazaars. E. W. G. Masterman MALACHI <mal’-a-Kings > :

    1. NAME OF THE PROPHET:

    The last book of the Old Testament. Nothing is known of the person of Malachi. Because his name does not occur elsewhere, some scholars indeed doubt whether “Malachi” is intended to be the personal name of the prophet. But none of the other prophetic books of the Old Testament is anonymous. The form ykia;lim” [mal’akhi], signifies “my messenger”; it occurs again in 3:1; compare 2:7. But this form of itself would hardly be appropriate as a proper name without some additional syllable such as Hy: [Yah], whence [mal’akhiah], i.e. “messenger of Yahweh.” Haggai, in fact, is expressly designated “messenger of Yahweh” (Hag 1:13). Besides, the superscriptions prefixed to the book, in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, warrant the supposition that Malachi’s full name ended with the syllable Hy: [-yah]. At the same time the Septuagint translates the last clause of Malachi 1:1, “by the hand of his messenger,” and the Targum reads, “by the hand of my angel, whose name is called Ezra the scribe.”

    Jerome likewise testifies that the Jews of his day ascribed this last book of prophecy to Ezra (V. Praef. in duodecim Prophetas). But if Ezra’s name was originally associated with the book, it would hardly have been dropped by the collectors of the prophetic Canon who, lived only a century or two subsequent to Ezra’s time. Certain traditions ascribe the book to Zerubbabel and Nehemiah; others, still, to Malachi, whom they designate as a Levite and a member of the “Great Synagogue.” Certain modern scholars, however, on the basis of the similarity of the title (1:1) to Zechariah 9:1; 12:1, declare it to be anonymous; but this is a rash conclusion without any substantial proof other than supposition. The best explanation is that of Professor G.G. Cameron, who suggests that the termination of the word “Malachi” is adjectival, and equivalent to the Latin angelicus, signifying “one charged with a message or mission” (a missionary). The term would thus be an official title; and the thought would not be unsuitable to one whose message closed the prophetical Canon of the Old Testament, and whose mission in behalf of the church was so sacred in character (1-vol HDB).

    2. THE PROPHET’S TIMES:

    Opinions vary as to the prophet’s exact date, but nearly all scholars are agreed that Malachi prophesied during the Persian period, and after the reconstruction and dedication of the second temple in 516 BC (compare Malachi 1:10; 3:1,10). The prophet speaks of the people’s governor” (Hebrew [pechah], Malachi 1:8), as do Haggai and Nehemiah (Hag 1:1; Nehemiah 5:14; 12:26). The social conditions portrayed are unquestionably those also of the period of the Restoration. More specifically, Malachi probably lived and labored during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Serious abuses had crept into Jewish life; the priests had become lax and degenerate, defective and inferior sacrifices were allowed to be offered upon the temple altar, the people were neglecting their tithes, divorce was common and God’s covenant was forgotten and ignored; just such abuses as we know from the Book of Nehemiah were common in his day (compare Nehemiah 3:5; 5:1-13). Yet, it is doubtful whether Malachi preached during Nehemiah’s active governorship; for in Malachi 1:8 it is implied that gifts might be offered to the “governor,” whereas Nehemiah tells us that he declined all such ( Nehemiah 5:15,18). On the other hand, the abuses which Malachi attacked correspond so exactly with those which Nehemiah found on his 2nd visit to Jerusalem in 432 BC ( Nehemiah 13:7 ff) that it seems reasonably certain that he prophesied shortly before that date, i.e. between 445 and 432 BC. As Dr. J.M.P. Smith says, The Book of Malachi fits the situation amid which Nehemiah worked as snugly as a bone fits its socket” (ICC, 7).

    That the prophet should exhort the people to remember the law of Moses, which was publicly read by Ezra in the year 444 BC, is in perfect agreement with this conclusion, despite the fact that Stade, Cornill and Kautzsch argue for a date prior to the time of Ezra. On the other hand, Nagelsbach, Kohler, Orelli, Reuss and Volck rightly place the book in the period between the two visits of Nehemiah (445-432 BC).

    3. CONTENTS:

    The book, in the main, is composed of two extended polemics against the priests ( Malachi 1:6 through 2:9) and the people ( Malachi 2:10 through 4:3), opening with a clear, sharp statement of the prophet’s chief thesis that Yahweh still loves Israel ( Malachi 1:2-5), and closing with an exhortation to remember the Law of Moses ( Malachi 4:4-6). After the title or superscription ( Malachi 1:1) the prophecy falls naturally into seven divisions: (1) Malachi 1:2-5, in which Malachi shows that Yahweh still loves Israel because their lot stands in such marked contrast to Edom’s. They were temporarily disciplined; Edom was forever punished. (2) Malachi 1:6 through 2:9, a denunciation of the priests, the Levites, who have become neglectful of their sacerdotal office, indifferent to the Law, and unmindful of their covenant relationship to Yahweh. (3) Malachi 2:10-16, against idolatry and divorce. Some interpret this section metaphorically of Judah as having abandoned the religion of his youth (2:11). But idolatry and divorce were closely related. The people are obviously rebuked for literally putting away their own Jewish wives in order to contract marriage with foreigners (2:15). Such marriages, the prophet declares, are not only a form of idolatry (2:11), but a violation of Yahweh’s intention to preserve to Himself a “godly seed” (2:15). (4) Malachi 2:17 through 3:6, an announcement of coming judgment.

    Men are beginning to doubt whether there is longer a God of justice (2:17). Malachi replies that the Lord whom the people seek will suddenly come, both to purify the sons of Levi and to purge the land of sinners in general. The nation, however, will not be utterly consumed (3:6). (5) Malachi 3:7-12, in which the prophet pauses to give another concrete example of the people’s sins: they have failed to pay their tithes and other dues. Accordingly, drought, locusts, and famine have ensued.

    Let these be paid and the nation will again prosper, and their land will become “a delightsome land.” (6) Malachi 3:13 through 4:3, a second section addressed to the doubters of the prophet’s age. In 2:17, they had said, “Where is the God of justice?” They now murmur: “It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept his charge?” The wicked and the good alike prosper (3:14,15). But, the prophet replies, Yahweh knows them that are His, and a book of remembrance is being kept; for a day of judgment is coming when the good and the evil will be distinguished; those who work iniquity will be exterminated, while those who do righteously will triumph. (7) Malachi 4:4-6, a concluding exhortation to obey the Mosaic Law; with a promise that Elijah the prophet will first come to avert, if possible, the threatened judgment by reconciling the hearts of the nation to one another, i.e. to reconcile the ideals of the old to those of the young, and vice versa.

    4. STYLE:

    Malachi was content to write prose. His Hebrew is clear and forceful and direct; sometimes almost rhythmical. His figures are as numerous as should be expected in the brief remnants of his sermons which have come down to us, and in every case they are chaste and beautiful (1:6; 3:2,3,17; 4:1-3).

    His statements are bold and correspondingly effective. The most original feature in his style is the lecture-like method which characterizes his book throughout; more particularly that of question and answer. His style is that of the scribes. It is known as the didactic-dialectic method, consisting first of an assertion or charge, then a fancied objection raised by his hearers, and finally the prophet’s refutation of their objection. Eight distinct examples of this peculiarity are to be found in his book, each one containing the same clause in Hebrew, “Yet ye say” (1:2,6,7; 2:14,17; 3:7,8,13). This debating style is especially characteristic of Malachi. Ewald called it “the dialogistic” method. Malachi shows the influence of the schools (compare his use of “also” and “again” in 1:13; 2:13, which is equivalent to our “firstly,” “secondly,” etc.).

    5. MESSAGE:

    Malachi’s message has a permanent value for us as well as an immediate value for his own time. He was an intense patriot, and accordingly his message was clean-cut and severe. His primary aim was to encourage a disheartened people who were still looking for Haggai’s and Zechariah’s optimistic predictions to be fulfilled. Among the lessons of abiding value are the following: (1) That ritual is an important element in religion, but not as an end in itself. Tithes and offerings are necessary, but only as the expression of sincere moral and deeply spiritual life ( Malachi 1:11). (2) That a cheap religion avails nothing, and that sacrifices given grudgingly are displeasing to God. Better a temple closed than filled with such worshippers ( Malachi 1:8-10). (3) That divorce and intermarriage with heathen idolaters thwarts the purpose of God in securing to Himself a peculiar people, whose family life is sacred because it is the nursery of a “godly seed” ( Malachi 2:15). (4) That there is eternal discipline in the Law. Malachi places the greatest emphasis upon the necessity of keeping the Mosaic Law. The priests, he says, are the custodians and expounders of the Law. At their mouth the people should seek knowledge. “To undervalue the Law is easy; to appraise it is a much harder task” (Welch). With Malachi, no less than with Christ Himself, not one jot or tittle should ever pass away or become obsolete.

    LITERATURE.

    Driver, “Minor Prophets,” II, NewCentury Bible (1906); G. A. Smith, “The Book of the Twelve Prophets,” Expositor’s Bible (1898); Dods, Post-Exilian Prophets: “Hag,” “Zechariah,” “Malachi”; “Handbooks for Bible Classes”; J. M. P. Smith, ICC (1912). Among the numerous other commentaries on Malachi may be mentioned: Eiselen (1907), Marti (1903), Nowack (1903), Orelli (1908), Wellhausen (1898), Van Hoonacker (1908) and Isopeocul (1908). The various Introductions to the Old Testament should also be consulted, notably those by Driver (1910), Strack (1906), Wildeboer (1903), Gautier (1906), Cornill (1907), Konig (1893); and the articles entitled “Malachi” in the various Dicts. and Bible Encs: e.g. in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902), by C. 0. Torrey; in HDB (1901), by A. O.

    Welch; in 1-vol HDB (1909), by G. G. Cameron; and RE (1905), by Volck. George L. Robinson MALACHY <mal’-a-Kings > : Another form of the name of the prophet “Malachi” (which see), found in the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version of 2 Esdras 1:40.

    MALCAM <mal’-kam > ( µK;l]m” [malkam], “their king”; the King James Version Maleham): (1) A chief of the Benjamites, son of Shaharaim ( 1 Chronicles 8:9). (2) The name of an idol as well as the possessive pronominal form of [melekh ], “king” ( 2 Samuel 12:30 the Revised Version margin; Jeremiah 49:1,3 Septuagint [Melchol ]); Zeph 1:5). In Am 1:15 it appears to be best translated “their king,” as in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). Only a careful examination of the context can determine whether the word is the proper name of the idol (Moloch) or the 3rd personal possessive pronoun for king.

    The idol is also spelt “Milcom” and “Molech.”

    MALCHIAH <mal-ki’-a > . See MALCHIJAH.

    MALCHIEL <mal’-Kings-el > ( laeyKl]m” [malki’el], “God is king”): Grandson of Asher ( Genesis 46:17; Numbers 26:45; 1 Chronicles 7:31).

    MALCHIELITES <mal’-Kings-el-its > ( ylaeyKil]m” [malki’eli]): Descendants of Malchiel ( Numbers 26:45).

    MALCHIJAH <mal-ki’-ja > ( hY:Kil]m” [malkiyah], “Yah is king”; [ Melcei>av , Melcheias ], with variants): (1) A Levite, descendant of Gershom, of those whom David set over the “service of sting” in the worship ( 1 Chronicles 6:40). (2) The head of the 5th course of priests ( 1 Chronicles 24:9). (3) One of the laymen who had taken “strange wives” during the exile ( Ezra 10:25); the “Melchias” of 1 Esdras 9:26. (4) Another of the same name ( Ezra 10:25; two in same verse). Called “Asibias” in 1 Esdras 9:26. (5) Another under the same offense, son of Harim ( Ezra 10:31). “Melchias” in 1 Esdras 9:32. (6) One of the “repairers” who helped with the “tower of the furnaces” ( Nehemiah 3:11). (7) Son of Rechab ruler of Beth-haccerem, repairer of the dung gate ( Nehemiah 3:14). (8) A goldsmith who helped in building the walls of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 3:31). (9) One of those at Ezra’s left hand when he read the law (though possibly one of the above ( Nehemiah 8:4)). In 1 Esdras 9:44 “Melchias.” (10) One of the covenant signatories ( Nehemiah 10:3). (11) The father of Pashhur ( Nehemiah 11:12; Jeremiah 21:1; 38:1). (12) A priest, a singer at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 12:42). (13) ( Why:Kil]m” [malkiyahu] as above with u ending): Son of Hammelech (or, as 1 Kings 22:26; 2 Chronicles 28:7 translate it, “king’s son”). Jeremiah was cast into his dungeon or pit ( Jeremiah 38:6).

    The King James Version spells “Malchiah” or “Malchijah” indifferently with “Melchiah” in Jeremiah 21:1; the English Revised Version has “Malchiah” in Jeremiah 21:1; 38:1,6, elsewhere “Malchijah”; the American Standard Revised Version has “Malchijah” throughout. Henry Wallace MALCHIRAM <mal-ki’-ram > ( µr1 Chronicles 3:18).

    MALCHI-SHUA <mal-Kings-shoo’-a > ( [WvyKil]m” [malkishua`], “my king saves”): One of the sons of Saul ( 1 Samuel 14:49; 31:2, the King James Version “Melchishua”; 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39). He was slain by the Philistines with his brothers at the battle of Gilboa ( 1 Chronicles 10:2; Samuel 31:2).

    MALCHUS <mal’-kus > ([ Ma>lcov , Malchos ], from °]l,m, [melekh ], i.e. “counselor” or “king”): The name of the servant of the high priest Caiaphas whose right ear was smitten off by Simon Peter at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (compare Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50; John 18:10). It is noteworthy that Luke “the physician” alone gives an account of the healing of the wound ( Luke 22:51). As Jesus “touched his ear, and healed him,” the ear was not entirely severed from the head.

    The words of Jesus, “Suffer ye thus far,” may have been addressed either to the disciples, i.e. “Suffer ye that I thus far show kindness to my captors,” or to those about to bind him, i.e. asking a short respite to heal Malchus. They were not addressed directly to Peter, as the Greek form is plural, whereas in Matthew 26:52; John 18:11, where, immediately after the smiting of Malchus, Jesus does address Peter, the singular form is used; nor do the words of Jesus there refer to the healing but to the action of his disciple. A kinsman of Malchus, also a servant of the high priest, was one of those who put the questions which made Peter deny Jesus ( John 18:26). C. M. Kerr MALE <mal > (1) rk;z: [zakhar], rk”z: [zakhar], rWkz: [zakhur] (the root means “to stand out,” “to be prominent,” here a physiological differentiation of the sex, as hb;qen” [neqebhah], “female,” which see); (2) vyai [’ish] literally, “man”; (3) by circumlocution, only in the books of Samuel and Kings, ryqiB] [mashtin beqir]; [oujrw~n proouron pros toichon ], which the Revised Version (British and American) euphemistically renders “manchild” ( 1 Samuel 25:22,34; 1 Kings 14:10)):

    Gesenius has rightly pointed out that this phrase designates young boys, who do not as yet wear clothes, of whom the above description is accurate, while it does not apply in the case of adults, even in the modern Orient. We know this from the statement of Herodotus ii.35, relating to Egypt, and from Judges 3:24; 1 Samuel 24:3. The Greek translates these words with [a]rshn , arsen ], [a]rjrJhn , arrhen ], while 1 Macc 5:28,51 has the adjective [ajrseniko>v , arsenikos ].

    The above words (the phrase [mashtin beqir ] excepted) are used promiscuously of animals and men, e.g. “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male (‘ish) and his female, of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male ([zakhar]) and female” ( Genesis 7:2,3). A careful distinction was made in the use of male and female animals in the rules concerning sacrifice; in some offerings none but males were allowed, in others females were permitted along with the males ( Leviticus 3:6). The same distinction was made in the valuation of the different sexes ( Genesis 32:14,15; Leviticus 27:5). Certain priestly portions were permitted to the Levites or the male descendants of Aaron for food, while women were not permitted to partake of the same ( Numbers 18:10,11).

    As a rule Jewish parents (as is now common in the Orient) preferred male children to daughters. This is seen from the desire for male progeny ( Samuel 1:8-18) and from the ransom paid for firstborn sons to Yahweh ( Exodus 13:12; Luke 2:23). It was reserved to the New Testament to proclaim the equality of the sexes, as it does of races and conditions of men: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28). See WOMAN.

    Among the prominent sins of oriental peoples, “the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel” was one of the most heinous character, that of sodomy, against which God’s people are repeatedly warned. The Greek expression for the devotee of this vice is a compound noun, [ajrsenokoi>thv , arsenokoites ], literally, “he who lies with man,” the abuser of himself with mankind, the sodomite ( Corinthians 6:9), while the Hebrew [qadhesh ], literally means the (male) devotee of lascivious and licentious idolatry (Dt 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14). H. L. E. Luering MALEFACTOR <mal-e-fak’-ter > ([kakopoio>v , kakopoios ], “a bad doer,” i.e. “evildoer,” “criminal”; [kakou~rgov , akourgos ], “a wrongdoer”): The former occurs in John 18:30 the King James Version, the latter, which is the stronger term, in Luke 23:32,39. The former describes the subject as doing or making evil, the latter as creating or originating the bad, and hence, designates the more energetic, aggressive, initiating type of criminality.

    MALELEEL <ma-le’-le-el > , <mal’-e-lel > ([ Maleleh>l , Maleleel ], the King James Version): Greek form of “Mahalalel” ( Luke 3:37); the Revised Version (British and American) “Mahalaleel.”

    MALICE, MALIGNITY <mal’-is > , <ma-lig’-ni-ti > ([kaki>a , kakia ], [ponhro>v , poneros ], [kakoh>qeia , kakoetheia ]): “Malice,” now used in the sense of deliberate ill-will, by its derivation means badness, or wickedness generally, and was so used in Older English. In the Apocrypha it is the translation of kakia, “evil,” “badness” (The Wisdom of Solomon 12:10,20; 16:14; 2 Macc 4:50, the Revised Version (British and American) “wickedness”); in Ecclesiasticus 27:30; 28:7, we have “malice” in the more restricted sense as the translation of menis, “confirmed anger.” In the New Testament “malice” and “maliciousness” are the translation of [kakia ] ( Romans 1:29a; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 14:20; Colossians 3:8); malicious is the translation of [poneros ], “evil” ( 3 John 1:10, the Revised Version (British and American) “wicked”); it also occurs in Additions to Esther 13:4,7, verse 4, “malignant”; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:4, the Revised Version (British and American) that deviseth evil”; 2 Macc 5:23; malignity occurs in Romans 1:29b as the translation of [kakoetheia ], “evil disposition”; “maliciously,” Susanna verses 43,62; 2 Macc 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American) “having ill will.” W. L. Walker MALLOS <mal’-os > , See MALLUS.

    MALLOTHI <mal’-o-thi > , <ma-lo’-thi > ( ytiwOLm” [mallothi], “my discourse”): Son of Heman, a Kohathite singer ( 1 Chronicles 6:33; 25:4). The song service in the house of the Lord was apportioned by David and the captains of the host to the 3 families of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun ( <132501> Chronicles 25:1). Their place in the “courses” was, however, settled by “lot” ( 1 Chronicles 25:8,9). Mallothi was one of Heman’s 17 children — 14 sons and 3 daughters ( 1 Chronicles 25:5) — and was chief of the 19th course of twelve singers into which the temple choir was divided ( 1 Chronicles 25:26). Henry Wallace MALLOWS <mal’-oz > . See SALT-WORT.

    MALLUCH <mal’-uk > ( °]WLm” [mallukh], “counsellor”): (1) A Levite of the sons of Merari, ancestor of Ethan the singer ( Chronicles 6:44; compare 6:29). (2) Son of Bani, among those who had foreign wives ( Ezra 10:29). He is a descendant of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 9:4) and is the Mamuchus of Esdras 9:30. (3) A descendant of Harim, who married a foreign wife ( Ezra 10:32). (4) (5) Two who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 10:4,27). (6) Possibly the same as (4) . One of the priests who returned with Zerubbabel ( Nehemiah 12:2). Doubtless the Melicu of verse 14’s margin. Henry Wallace MALLUCHI <mal’-u-Kings > ( ykiWLm” [mallukhi], “my counselor”): A family of priests that came over with Zerubbabel ( Nehemiah 10:4; 12:14). May be the patronymic MALLUCH, (4) (which see).

    MALLUS <mal’-us > ([ Mallo>v , Mallos ]; the King James Version, Mallos): A city in Cilicia, the inhabitants of which along with those of Tarsus, revolted from Antiochus Epiphanes in protest against his action in giving them to his concubine, Antiochis (2 Macc 4:30). The ancient name was Marlos. The river Pyramos divides about 10 miles from the sea, one branch flowing to the West, the other to the East of the low range of hills along the coast on which stands Kara-Tash. Mallus stood on a height (Strabo, 675) to the East of the western arm, a short distance from the shore. The site is a little West of Kara-Tash, where inscriptions of Antiocheia and Mallus have been found. Tarsus lay about 35 miles to the Northwest. The two cities were rivals in trade. The position of Mallus with her harbor on the shore gave her really no advantage over Tarsus, with her river navigable to the city walls. The fine wagon road over the mountain by way of the Cilician Gates opened for her easy access to the interior, compared with that furnished for Mallus by the old caravan track to the North by way of Adana. This sufficiently explains the greater prosperity of the former city. W. Ewing MALOBATHRON <mal-o-bath’-ron > : the Revised Version margin suggests that this translation may be right instead of Bether in the phrase rt,B, yreh; [hare bether] ( Song of Solomon 2:17). But this spice never grew wild in Palestine, and so could hardly have given its name to a mountain, or mountain range. The name Bether ought therefore to be retained, notwithstanding Wellhausen (Prol. 2, 415). The spice is the leaf of the Cassia lignea tree.

    MALTANNEUS <mal-ta-ne’-us > ([ Maltannai~ov , Maltannaios ], Codex Vaticanus and Swete; [ jAltannai~ov , Altannaios ], Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche — the “M” being perhaps dropped because of the final “M” in the preceding word; the King James Version Altaneus): One of the sons of Asom who put away his “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:33) = “Mattenai” in Ezra 10:33.

    MAMAIAS <ma-ma’-yas > . See SAMAIAS, (3).

    MAMDAI <mam’-da-i > , <mam’-di > (LXX: Codex Vaticanus [ Mamdai> , Mamdai ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Mandai> , Mandai ]): One of those who consented to put away their “strange wives” at Esdras’ order (1 Esdras 9:34) = the King James Version “Mabdai” = “Benaiah” in Ezra 10:35.

    MAMMON <mam’-un > ([ Mamwna~v , Mamonas ]): A common Aramaic word ( ˆwOmm; [mamon ]) for riches, used in Matthew 6:24 and in Luke 16:9,11,13.

    In these passages mammon merely means wealth, and is called “unrighteous,” because the abuse of riches is more frequent than their right use. In Luke 16:13 there is doubtless personification, but there is no proof that there was in New Testament times a Syrian deity called Mammon. The application of the term in Matthew is apparent and requires no comment. In Luke, however, since the statement, “Make to yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness,” follows as a comment on the parable of the Unjust Steward, there is danger of the inference that Jesus approved the dishonest conduct of the steward and advised His disciples to imitate his example. On the contrary, the statement is added more as a corrective against this inference than as an application. `Do not infer,’ He says, that honesty in the use of money is a matter of indifference.

    He that is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much. So if you are not wise in the use of earthly treasure how can you hope to be entrusted with heavenly treasure?’ The commendation is in the matter of foresight, not in the method. The steward tried to serve two masters, his lord and his lord’s creditors, but the thing could not be done, as the sequel shows. Neither can men serve both God and riches exalted as an object of slavish servitude.

    Wealth, Jesus teaches, does not really belong to men, but as stewards they may use wealth prudently unto their eternal advantage. Instead of serving God and mammon alike we may serve God by the use of wealth, and thus lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven. Again, the parable is not to be interpreted as teaching that the wrong of dishonest gain may be atoned for by charity. Jesus is not dealing with the question of reparation. The object is to point out how one may best use wealth, tainted or otherwise, with a view to the future. Russell Benjamin Miller MAMNITANEMUS <mam-ni-ta-ne’-mus > ([ Mamnita>naimov , Mamnitanaimos ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Mamtita>naimov , Mamtitanaimos ]; the King James Version, Mamnitanaimus): 1 Esdras 9:34, where it represents the two names Mattaniah and Mattenai in the parallel Ezra 10:37, which probably represent only one person. It must be a corruption of these names. The Aldine gives a still more corrupt form, [ Mamnimatanai>`mov , Mamnimatanaimos ].

    MAMRE <mam’-re > ( arem]m” [mamre’]; Septuagint [ Mambrh> , Mambre ]): (1) In Genesis 14:24 Mamre is mentioned as the name of one of Abraham’s allies, who in 14:13 is described as the Amorite, brother of Eschcol and Aner.

    1. BIBLICAL DATA:

    The name of the grove of trees is evidently considered as derived from this sheikh or chieftain. The “oaks” (“terebinths”) of Mamre where Abram pitched his tent ( Genesis 14:13; 18:1) are described ( Genesis 13:18) as “in Hebron.” Later on MACHPELAH (which see) is described as “before,” i.e. “to the East of Mamre” ( Genesis 23:17; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13), and Mamre is identified with Hebron itself ( Genesis 23:19).

    2. TRADITIONAL SITES:

    While Mamre has always been looked for in the vicinity of Hebron, the traditions have varied greatly, determined apparently by the presence of a suitable tree. The one site which has a claim on grounds other than tradition is that called Khirbet and `Ain Nimreh (literally, the “ruin” and “spring” of “the leopard”), about 1/2 mile North-Northwest of modern Hebron. The word Nimreh may be a survival of the ancient Mamre, the name, as often happens, being assimilated by a familiar word. The site is a possible one, but, beyond this, the name has not much to commend it.

    Tradition has centered round three different sites at various periods: (1) The modern tradition points to a magnificent oak (Quercus ilex, Arabic Sindian), 1 1/2 miles West-Northwest of the modern city, as the terebinth of Abraham; its trunk has a girth of 32 ft. It is now in a dying condition, but when Robinson visited it (BR, II, 72, 81) it was in fine condition; he mentions a Mohammedan tradition that this was “Abraham’s oak.” Since then the site had been bought by the Russians, a hospice and church have been erected, and the tradition, though of no antiquity, has become crystallized. (2) The second tradition, which flourished from the 16th century down to the commencement of the 19th century, pointed to the hill of Deir el Arba`in (see HEBRON) as that of Mamre, relying especially, no doubt, in its inception on the identity of Mamre and Hebron ( Genesis 23:19). A magnificent terebinth which stood there was pointed out as that of Abraham. The site agrees well with the statement that the cave of Machpelah was “before,” i.e. to the East of Mamre ( Genesis 23:17, etc.). (3) The third and much older tradition, mentioned in several Christian writers, refers to a great terebinth which once stood in an enclosure some 2 miles North of Hebron, near the road to Jerusalem. It is practically certain that the site of this enclosure is the strange Ramet el- Khalil. This is an enclosure some 214 ft. long and 162 ft. wide. The enclosing walls are made of extremely fine and massive masonry and are 6 ft. thick; the stones are very well laid and the jointing is very fine, but the building was evidently never completed. In one corner is a well — Bir el-Khalil — lined with beautiful ashlar masonry, cut to the curve of the circumference.

    It is probable that this enclosure surrounded a magnificent terebinth; if so, it was at this spot that before the days of Constantine a great annual fair was held, attended by Jews, Christians and heathen who united a pay honor to the sacred tree, while the well was on the same occasion illuminated, and offerings were made to it. Similar customs survive today at several shrines in Palestine. Constantine suppressed these “superstitions,” and built a church in the neighborhood, probably the so-called “Abraham’s house,” Beit Ibrahim of today. The tree which stood here is apparently that mentioned by Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) as having continued “since the creation of the world.” At this enclosure, too, Jewish women and children were sold at auction after the suppression of the revolt of Bar Cochba.

    Whatever the origin of the veneration paid to this terebinth — now long centuries dead and gone — early Christian tradition associated it with Abraham and located Mamre here. This tradition is mentioned by Jerome (4th century), by Eucherius (6th century), by Areulphus (700 AD) and by Benjamin of Tudela (1163 AD). Among the modern Jews it is looked upon as the site of “Abraham’s oak.” It is probable that the view that Abraham was connected with this tree is one attached to it much later than its original sanctity; it was originally one of the many “holy trees” of the land venerated by primitive Semitic religions feeling, and the nearness of Hebron caused the Bible story to be attached to it. Judging from the Bible data, it appears to be too far from Hebron and Machpelah to suit the conditions; the site of Mamre must have been nearer to Deir el Arba`in, but it has probably been entirely lost since very early times.

    For a very good discussion about Mamre see Mambre by Le R. P. Abel des Freres Precheurs in the Conferences de Saint Etienne, 1909-10 (Paris). (2) An Amorite chief, owner of the “oaks” mentioned above ( Genesis 14:13,14). E. W. G. Masterman MAMUCHUS <ma-mu’-kus > ([ Ma>moucov , Mamouchos ]): One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:30); identical with “Malluch” in Ezra 10:29.

    MAN See ANTHROPOLOGY.

    MAN, NATURAL <nat’-u-ral > , <nach’-u-ral > ([yucikopsuchikos anthropos ]): Man as he is by nature, contrasted with man as he becomes by grace. This phrase is exclusively Pauline.

    1. BIBLICAL MEANING.

    The classical passage in which it occurs is 1 Corinthians 2:14 King James Version: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” In his anthropology Paul uses four groups of descriptive adjectives in contrasted pairs: (1) the old man and the new man ( Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9; Ephesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10); (2) the outward man and the inward man ( 2 Corinthians 4:16; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16); (3) the carnal man and the spiritual man ( Romans 8:1-14; <460301> Corinthians 3:1,3,4); (4) the natural man and the spiritual man ( 2 Corinthians 2:14; 3:3,4; Ephesians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; 15:46; Galatians 6:1).

    A study of these passages will show that the adjectives “old,” “outward,” “carnal,” and “natural” describe man, from different points of view, prior to his conversion; while the adjectives “new,” “inward” and “spiritual” describe him, from different points of view, after his conversion. To elucidate the meaning, the expositor must respect these antitheses and let the contrasted words throw light and meaning upon each other. 1. The Old Man: The “old man” is the “natural man” considered chronologically — prior to that operation of the Holy Spirit by which he is renovated into the “new man.”

    The old house is the house as it was before it was remodeled; an old garment is the garment as it was before it was re-fashioned; and the “old man” is man as he was before he was regenerated and sanctified by the grace of the Spirit. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” ( Romans 6:6 the King James Version). Here the “old man” is called the “body of sin,” as the physical organism is called the body of the soul or spirit, and is to be “crucified” and “destroyed,” in order that man may no longer be the “servant of sin.” “Put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt. .... Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” ( Ephesians 4:22,24 the King James Version). Here the “old man” is said to be “corrupt,” and we are called upon to “put it off.” The figure is that of putting off old clothes which are unclean, and putting on those garments which have come from the wash clean and snowy white. We have the same idea, in different language and with a slightly different imagery, in Colossians 8:9,10.

    When Paul calls the “natural man” the “old man,” and describes it as the “body of sin” which is “corrupt” in its nature and “deeds,” and tells us that it must be “crucified” and “destroyed” and “put off” in order that we may “not serve sin,” but may have “righteousness” and “true holiness” and “knowledge” and the “image” of God, we get some conception of the moral meaning which he is endeavoring to convey by these contrasts ( Galatians 5:19-24). He has reference to that sinful nature in man which is as old as the individual, as old as the race of which he is a member, which must be graciously renovated according to that gospel which he preached to Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesiansesians, Romans and all the world. See OLD MAN; MAN, NEW, I, 3. 2. The Outward Man: The apostle also establishes a contrast between “the inward man” and “the outward man.” “Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day” ( 2 Corinthians 4:16). Now what sort of man is the “outward man” as contrasted with the “inward man”? In Greek, the [exo-anthropos ] is set over against the [eso-anthropos ]. See OUTWARD MAN. “The contrast here drawn between the `outward’ and the `inward man,’ though illustrated by the contrast in Romans 7:22 between the `law in the members’ and `the inner man,’ and in Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9 between `the old man’ and `the new man’ is not precisely the same.

    Those contrasts relate to the difference between the sensual and the moral nature, `the flesh’ and `the spirit’; this to the difference between the material and the spiritual nature” (Stanley, in the place cited.). “The outward man” is the body, and “the inward man” is the soul, or immaterial principle in the human make-up. As the body is wasted by the afflictions of life, the soul is renewed; what is death to the body is life to the soul; as afflictions depotentiate man’s physical organism, they impotentiate man’s spiritual principle. That is, the afflictions of life, culminating in death itself, have diametrically opposite effects upon the body and upon the soul. They kill the one; they quicken the other. “The inward man” is the whole human nature as renewed and indwelt and dominated by the Spirit of God as interpenetrated by the spirit of grace. As the one is broken down by the adverse dispensations of life, the other is upbuilt by the sanctifying discipline of the Spirit. 3. The Carnal Man: There is another Pauline antithesis which it is necessary for us to interpret in order to understand what he means by the “natural man.” It is the distinction which he draws between the “carnal mind” and the “spiritual mind.” The critical reference is Romans 8:1-14. In this place the “carnal mind” is identified with the “law of death,” and the “spiritual mind” is identified with the “law of the Spirit.” These two “laws” are two principles and codes: the one makes man to be at “enmity against God” and leads to “death”; the other makes him the friend of God, and conducts to “life and peace.” The word “carnal” connotes all that is fallen and sinful and unregenerate in man’s nature. In its gross sense the “carnal” signifies that which is contrary to nature, or nature expressing itself in low and bestial forms of sin. 4. The Natural Man: The “natural man” is the “old man,” the “outward man,” the “carnal man” — man as he is by nature, as he is firstborn, contra-distinguished to man as he is changed by the Spirit, as he is second-born or regenerated. There. is an “old” life, an “outward” life, a “carnal” life, a “natural” life, as contrasted with the “new” life, the “inward” life, the “spiritual” life, the “gracious” life. The “natural man” is a bold and vivid personification of that depraved nature which we inherit from Adam fallen, the source and seat of all actual and personal transgressions.

    2. THEOLOGICAL MEANING.

    We know what we mean by the nature of the lion, by the nature of the lamb. We are using perfectly comprehensible language when we speak of the lion as naturally fierce, and of the lamb when we say he is naturally gentle. We have reference to the dominant dispositions of these animals, that resultant of their qualities which defines their character and spontaneity. So we are perfectly plain when we say that man is naturally sinful. We are but saying that sinfulness is to man what fierceness is to the lion, what gentleness is to the lamb. The “natural man” is a figure of speech for that sinful human nature, common to us all. It is equivalent to the theological phrases: the “sinful inclination,” the “evil disposition,” the “apostate will,” “original sin,” “native depravity.” It manifests itself in the understanding as blindness, in the heart as hardness, in the will as obstinacy. See MAN, NEW.

    Robert Alexander Webb MAN; NEW ([ne>ov , neos ] or [kainokainos anthropos ]): Generally described, the “new man” is man as he becomes under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, contrasted with man as he is by nature. The phrase has (1) its Biblical, and (2) its theological, meanings.

    1. BIBLICAL MEANING.

    There are four Biblical contrasts which must be considered as opposites: (1) the “old man” ([palaios anthropos ]) and the “new man” ([neos anthropos ] or [kainos anthropos ]); (2) the “outward man” ([exoanthropos ]) and the “inward man” ([esoanthropos ]); (3) the “carnal man” ([sarkikos anthropos ]) and the “spiritual man” ([pneumatikos anthropos ]); (4) the “natural man” ([psuchikos anthropos ]) and the “spiritual man” ([pneunatikos anthropos ]).

    These are not four different sorts of men, but four different sorts of man.

    Take up these antitheses in their reverse order, so as to arrive at some clear and impressive conception of what the Biblical writer means by the “new man.” 1. The Spiritual Man: The “spiritual man” is a designation given in opposition to the “carnal man” and to the “natural man” ( Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1,3,4; 2:14; 3:11; 14:37; 15:46; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:3). All three of these terms are personifications of human nature. The “carnal man” is human nature viewed as ruled and dominated by sensual appetites and fleshly desires — as energized by those impulses which have close association with the bodily affections. The “natural man” is human nature ruled and dominated by unsanctified reason — those higher powers of the soul not yet influenced by Divine grace. The “spiritual man” is this same human nature after it has been seized upon and interpenetrated and determined by the Holy Spirit. The word “spiritual” is sometimes used in a poetic and idealistic sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of beauty; sometimes in a metaphysical sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of the soul; but in its prevalent Biblical and evangelical sense it is an adjective with the Holy Spirit as its noun-form. The spiritual life is that life of which the Holy Spirit is the author and preserver; and the “spiritual man” is that nature or character in man which the Holy Spirit originates, preserves, determines, disciplines, sanctifies and glorifies. 2. The Inward Man: The “inward man” is a designation of human nature viewed as internally and centrally regenerated, as contrasted with the “outward man” ( Corinthians 4:16; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16). See MAN, OUWWARD. This phrase indicates the whole human nature conceived as affected from within — in the secret, inside, and true springs of activity — by the Holy Spirit of God. Such a change — regeneration — is not superficial, but a change in the inner central self; not a mere external reformation, but an internal transformation. Grace operates not from the circumference toward the center, but from the center toward the circumference, of life. The product is a man renovated in his “inward parts,” changed in the dynamic center of his heart. 3. The New Man: The “new man” is an appellation yielded by the contrasted idea of the “old man” ( Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9; Ephesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10). The “old” is “corrupt” and expresses itself in evil “deeds”; the “new” possesses the “image of God” and is marked by “knowledge,” “righteousness,” and “holiness.” There are two Greek words for “new” — [neos ] and [kainos ]. The former means new in the sense of young, as the new-born child is a young thing; the latter means “new” in the sense of renovated, as when the house which has been rebuilt is called a new house. The converted man is “new” (neo-anthropos ) in the sense that he is a “babe in Christ,” and “new” (kaino-anthropos ) in the sense that his moral nature is renovated and built over again.

    In the New Testament there are 5 different verbs used to express the action put forth in making the “old man” a “new man.” (1) In Ephesians 2:10 and 4:24, he is said to be “created” ([ktizo ]), and in 2 Corinthians 5:17 the product is called a “new creature” ([kaine kisis ]), a renovated creature. Out of the “old man” the Holy Spirit has created the “new man.” (2) In 1 Peter 1:3,13 and elsewhere, he is said to be “begotten again” ([anagennao ]), and the product is a “babe in Christ” ( <460301> Corinthians 3:1). The “old man” thus becomes the “new man” by a spiritual begetting: his paternity is assigned to the Holy Ghost. (3) In Ephesians 2:5 and elsewhere, he is said to be `quickened’ ([zoopoieo ]), and the product is represented as a creature which has been made “alive from the dead” ( Romans 6:13). The “old man,” being `dead in trespasses and sins’ ( Ephesians 2:1), is brought forth from his sin-grave by a spiritual resurrection. (4) In Ephesians 4:23 he is represented as being made “young” ([ananeoo ]), and the product is a child of the Spirit at the commencement of his religious experience. The “old man,” dating his history back to the fall in Eden, has become, through the Spirit, a young man in Christ Jesus. (5) In 2 Corinthians 4:16 and in Romans 12:2, he is said to be `renovated’ ([anakainoo ]). The “old man” is renovated into the “new man.” Sinful human nature is taken by the Spirit and morally recast.

    2. THEOLOGICAL MEANING.

    The “new man” is the converted, regenerated man. The phrase has its significance for the great theological doctrine of regeneration as it expands into the broad work of sanctification. Is the sinner dead? Regeneration is a new life. Is holiness non-existent in him? Regeneration is a new creation.

    Is he born in sin? Regeneration is a new birth. Is he determined by his fallen, depraved nature? Regeneration is a spiritual determination. Is he the subject of carnal appetites? Regeneration is a holy appetency. Is he thought of as the old sinful man? Regeneration is a new man. Is the sinful mind blind? Regeneration is a new understanding. Is the heart stony?

    Regeneration is a heart of flesh. Is the conscience seared? Regeneration is a good conscience. Is the will impotent? Regeneration is a new impotentiation. The regenerated man is a man with a new governing disposition — a “new man,” an “inward man,” a “spiritual man.” (1) The “New Man” — the Regenerate Man — Is Not a Theological Transubstantiation:

    A being whose substance has been supernaturally converted into some other sort of substance. (2) He Is Not a Scientific Transmutation:

    A species of one kind which has been naturally evolved into a species of another kind. (3) He Is Not a Metaphysical Reconstruction:

    Being with a new mental equipment. (4) He Is an Evangelical Convert:

    An “old man” with a new regnant moral disposition, an “outward man” with a new inward fons et origo of moral life; a “natural man” with a new renovated spiritual heart. See MAN, NATURAL; REGENERATION.

    Robert Alexander Webb MAN OF SIN ([oJ a]nqrwpov th~v aJmarti>av , ho anthropos tes hamartias ]; many ancient authorities read, “man of lawlessness,” [ajnomi>av , anomias ]):

    1. THE PAULINE DESCRIPTION:

    The name occurs in Paul’s remarkable announcement in Thessalonians 2:3-10 of the manifestation of a colossal anti-Christian power prior to the advent, which some of the Thessalonians had been misled into thinking of as immediately impending (2:2). That “day of the Lord,” the apostle declares, will not come till, as he had previously taught them (2:5), there has first been a great apostasy and the revelation of “the man of sin” (or “of lawlessness”; compare 2:8), named also “the son of perdition” (2:3). This “lawless one” (2:8) would exalt himself above all that is called God, or is an object of worship; he would sit in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God (2:4). For the time another power restrained his manifestation; when that was removed, he would be revealed (2:6,7). Then “the mystery of lawlessness,” which was already working, would attain its full development (2:7,8). The coming of this “man of sin,” in the power of Satan, would be with lying wonders and all deceit of unrighteousness, whereby many would be deceived to their destruction (2:9,10). But only for a season (2:6). Jesus would slay (or consume) him with the breath of His mouth (compare Isaiah 11:4), and bring him to nought by the manifestation of His coming ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8).

    2. THE VARYING INTERPRETATIONS:

    Innumerable are theories and speculations to which this Pauline passage has given rise a very full account of these may be seen in the essay on “The Man of Sin” appended to Dr. J. Eadie’s posthumous Commentary on Thessalonians, and in Lunemann’s Commentary, 222 ff, English translation). (1) There is the view, favored by “moderns,” that the passage contains no genuine prediction (Paul “could not know” the future), but represents a speculation of the apostle’s own, based on Daniel 8:23 ff; 11:36 ff, and on current ideas of Antichrist (see ANTICHRIST; BELIAL ; compare Bousset, Der Antichrist, 93 ff, etc.). This view will not satisfy those who believe in the reality of Paul’s apostleship and inspiration. (2) Some connect the description with Caligula, Nero, or other of the Roman emperors. Caligula, indeed, ordered supplication to be made to himself as the supreme god and wished to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Suet. Calig. xxii.33; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, viii).

    But this was long before Paul’s visit to Thessalonica, and the acts of such a madman could not furnish the basis of a prediction so elaborate and important as the present (compare Lunemann and Bousset). (3) The favorite Protestant interpretation refers the prediction to the papacy, in whom, it is contended, many of the blasphemous features of Paul’s representation are unmistakably realized. The “temple of God” is here understood to be the church; the restraining power the Roman empire; “the man of sin” not an individual, but the personification of an institution or system. It is cult, however, to resist the impression that the apostle regards “the mystery of lawlessness” as culminating in an individual — a personal Antichrist — and in any case the representation outstrips everything that can be conceived of as even nominally Christian. (4) There remains the view held by most of the Fathers, and in recent times widely adopted, that “the man of sin” of this passage is an individual in whom, previous to the advent, sin will embody itself in its most lawless and God-denying form. The attempts to identify this individual with historical characters may be set aside; but the idea is not thereby invalidated. The difficulty is that the apostle evidently conceives of the manifestation of the “man of sin” as taking place, certainly not immediately, but at no very remote period — not 2,000 years later — and as connected directly with the final advent of Christ, and the judgment on the wicked (compare 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9), without apparently any reference to a “millennial” period, either before or after.

    It seems safest, in view of the difficulties of the passage, to confine one’s self to the general idea it embodies, leaving details to be interpreted by the actual fulfillment.

    3. THE ESSENTIAL IDEA:

    There is much support in Scripture — not least in Christ’s own teaching (compare Matthew 13:30,37-43; 24:11-14; Luke 18:8) — for the belief that before the final triumph of Christ’s kingdom there will be a period of great tribulation, of decay of faith, of apostasy, of culmination of both good and evil (“Let both grow together until the harvest,” Matthew 13:30), with the seeming triumph for the time of the evil over the good. There will be a crisis-time — sharp, severe, and terminated by a decisive interposition of the Son of Man (“the manifestation of his coming,” the Revised Version margin “Gr presence”), in what precise form may be left undetermined. Civil law and government — the existing bulwark against anarchy (in Paul’s time represented by the Roman power) — will be swept away by the rising tide of evil, and lawlessness will prevail. It may be that impiety will concentrate itself, as the passage says, in some individual head; or this may belong to the form of the apostle’s apprehension in a case where “times and seasons” were not yet fully revealed: an apprehension to be enlarged by subsequent revelations (see REVELATION, BOOK OF), or left to be corrected by the actual course of God’s providence. The kernel of the prediction is not, any more than in the Old Testament prophecies, dependent on its literal realization in every detail. Neither does the final manifestation of evil exclude partial and anticipatory realizations, embodying many of the features of the prophecy. See THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO, III.

    James Orr MAN OF WAR See WAR.

    MAN, OLD See MAN, NEW; OLD MAN.

    MAN, OUTWARD See MAN, NATURAL; OUTWARD MAN.

    MAN, SON OF See SON OF MAN.

    MANAEN <man’-a-en > ([ Manah>n , Manaen ], Greek form of Hebrew name “Menahem,” meaning “consoler”): Manaen is mentioned, with Barnabas, Saul and others, in Acts 13:1, as one of the “prophets and teachers” in the recently rounded Gentile church at Antioch, at the time when Barnabas and Saul were “separated” by Divine call for their missionary service. He is further described as “the foster-brother ([suntrophos ]) of Herod the tetrarch” (i.e. HEROD ANTIPAS (which see)). He was probably brought up and educated with this Herod and his brother Archelaus. An earlier glimpse of Christian influence in Herod’s court is afforded by Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuzas, among the holy women who ministered to Jesus ( Luke 8:3). Manaen may have been related to the older Manaen, the Essene, who, Josephus tells us, foretold the greatness of Herod the Great, and was afterward treated by Herod as his friend (Ant., XV, x, 5). His position in the church at Antioch was evidently an influential one, whether he himself ranked among the “prophets,” or perhaps only among the “teachers.” James Orr MANAHATH <man’-a-hath > ( tj”n’m; [manachath]; [ Macanaqi> , Machanathi ]): (1) A place to which certain Benjamites, victims, apparently, of intra-tribal jealousy, were carried captive ( 1 Chronicles 8:6). Of this town the Manahathites were probably natives. It is possibly denoted by Manocho which Septuagint adds to the list of towns in Judah (Josh 15:59). This place is named along with Bether (Bittir). The name seems to be preserved in that of Malicha, a large village not far from Bittir, Southwest of Jerusalem. The change of “l” to “n”, and vice versa, is not uncommon.

    The same place may be intended by Menuhah ( Judges 20:43 the Revised Version margin), where the King James Version reads “with ease,” and the Revised Version (British and American) “at their resting-place.” (2) One of the sons of Shobal, the son of Seir the Horite ( Genesis 36:23; 1 Chronicles 1:40), the “name-father” of one of the ancient tribes in Matthew. Seir, afterward subdued and incorporated in Edom. W. Ewing MANAHATHITES <man’-a-hath-its > ( twOjWnm] [menuchoth] ( 1 Chronicles 2:52), yTih]n’m; [manachti] ( 1 Chronicles 2:54); Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Mwnaiw> , Monaio ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jAmmani>q , Ammanith ] ( Chronicles 2:52); Codex Vaticanus [ Malaqei> , Malathei ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Mana>q , Manath ], ( 1 Chronicles 2:54); the King James Version, Manahethites): These men were the inhabitants of Manahath.

    They were descendants of Caleb, one-half being the progeny of Shobal, and the other of Salma. In 1 Chronicles 2:52 the Revised Version (British and American) transliterates “Menuhoth,” but Manahathites is preferable.

    MANAHETHITES <man-a-he’-thits > , <ma-na’-heth-its > . See MANAHATHITES.

    MANASSEAS <man-a-se’-as > ([ Manassh>av , Manasseas ]): One of those who had married “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:31); “Manasseh” of Ezra 10:30.

    MANASSEH (1) <ma-nas’-e > ( hV,n’m] [menashsheh], “causing to forget”; compare Genesis 41:51; [ Man [n ]assh> , Man (n )asse ]): (1) The firstborn of Joseph by Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On. See next article. (2) The tribe named from Manasseh, half of which, with Gad and Reuben, occupied the East of Jordan ( Numbers 27:1, etc.). See next article. (3) The “Manasseh” of Judges 18:30,31 the King James Version is really an intentional mistake for the name Moses. A small nun (“n”), a Hebrew letter, has been inserted over and between the first and second Hebrew letters in the word Moses, thus hvnm [maNesheh] for hvm [mosheh]. The reason for this is that the individual in question is mentioned as priest of a brazen image at Daniel. His proper name was Moses. It was felt to be a disgrace that such a one bearing that honored name should keep it intact. The insertion of the nun hides the disgrace and, moreover, gives to the person a name already too familiar with idolatrous practices; for King Manasseh’s 55 years of sovereignty were thus disgraced. (4) King of Judah. See separate article. (5) Son of PAHATH-MOAB (which see), who had married a foreign wife ( Ezra 10:30). Manaseas in 1 Esdras 9:31. (6) The Manasses of 1 Esdras 9:

    33. A layman of the family of Hashum, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s order ( Ezra 10:33).

    In the Revised Version (British and American) of Matthew 1:10 and Revelation 7:6 the spelling “Manasseh” is given for the King James Version “Manasses.” The latter is the spelling of the husband of Judith (Judith 8:2,7; 10:3; 16:22,23,24); of a person named in the last words of Tobit and otherwise unknown (Tobit 14:10), and also the name given to a remarkable prayer probably referred to in 2 Chronicles 33:18, which Manasseh (4) is said to have uttered at the end of his long, unsatisfactory life. See MANASSES, PRAYER OF. In Judges 12:4, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “Manasseh” for the King James Version “Manassites.” Henry Wallace MANASSEH (2)

    1. SON OF JOSEPH:

    Following the Biblical account of Manasseh (patriarch, tribe, and territory) we find that he was the eider of Joseph’s two sons by Asenath, the daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On ( Genesis 41:51). The birth of a son marked the climax of Joseph’s happiness after the long bitterness of his experience. In the joy of the moment, the dark years past could be forgotten; therefore he called the name of the firstborn Manasseh (“causing to forget”), for, said he, God hath made me to forget all my toil. When Jacob was near his end, Joseph brought his two sons to his father who blessed them. Himself the younger son who had received the blessing of the firstborn, Jacob preferred Ephesiansraim, the second son of Joseph, to Manasseh his elder brother, thus indicating the relative positions of their descendants (Genesis 48). Before Joseph died he saw the children of Machir the son of Manasseh ( Genesis 50:23). Machir was born to Manasseh by his concubine, an Aramitess ( 1 Chronicles 7:14). Whether he married Maacah before leaving for Egypt is not said. She was the sister of Huppim and Shuppim. Of Manasseh’s personal life no details are recorded in Scripture. Acccording to Jewish tradition he became steward of his father’s house, and acted as interpreter between Joseph and his brethren.

    2. THE TRIBES IN THE WILDERNESS AND PORTION IN PALESTINE:

    At the beginning of the desert march the number of Manasseh’s men of war is given at 32,200 ( Numbers 1:34 f). At the 2nd census they had increased to 52,700 ( Numbers 26:34). Their position in the wilderness was with the tribe of Benjamin, by the standard of the tribe of Ephesiansraim, on the West of the tabernacle. According to Targum Pseudojon, the standard was the figure of a boy, with the inscription “The cloud of Yahweh rested on them until they went forth out of the camp.”

    At Sinai the prince of the tribe was Gamaliel, son of Pedahzur ( Numbers 2:20). The tribe was represented among the spies by Gaddi, son of Susi ( Numbers 13:11, where the name “tribe of Joseph” seems to be used as an alternative). At the census in the plains of Moab, Manasseh is named before Ephesiansraim, and appears as much the stronger tribe ( Numbers 26:28 ff). The main military exploits in the conquest of Eastern Palestine were performed by Manassites. Machir, son of Manasseh, conquered the Amorites and Gilead ( Numbers 32:39). Jair, son of Manasseh, took all the region of Argob, containing three score cities; these he called by his own name, “Havvoth-jair” ( Numbers 32:41; Dt 3:4,14). Nobah captured Kenath and the villages thereof ( Numbers 32:42; Josh 17:1,5). Land for half the tribe was thus provided, their territory stretching from the northern boundary of Gad to an undetermined frontier in the North, marching with Geshur and Maacah on the West, and with the desert on the East. The warriors of this halftribe passed over with those of Reuben and Gad before the host of Israel, and took their share in the conquest of Western Palestine (Josh 22). They helped to raise the great altar in the Jordan valley, which so nearly led to disastrous consequences (Josh 22:10 ff). Golan, the city of refuge, lay within their territory.

    The possession of Ephesiansraim and Manasseh West of the Jordan appears to have been undivided at first (Josh 17:16 ff). The portion which ultimately fell to Manasseh marched with Ephesiansraim on the South, with Asher and Issachar on the North, running out to the sea on the West, and falling into the Jordan valley on the East (Josh 17:7 ff). The long dwindling slopes to westward and the fiat reaches of the plain included much excellent soil. Within the territory of Issachar and Asher, Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, with their villages, were assigned to Manasseh. Perhaps the men of the West lacked the energy and enterprise of their eastern brethren. They failed, in any case, to expel the Canaanites from these cities, and for long this grim chain of fortresses seemed to mock the strength of Israel (Josh 17:11 ff) Ten cities West of the Jordan, in the portion of Manasseh, were given to the Levites, and 13 in the eastern portion (Josh 21:5,6).

    Manasseh took part in the glorious conflict with the host of Sisera ( Judges 5:14). Two famous judges, Gideon and Jephthah, belonged to this tribe. The men of the half-tribe East of Jordan were noted for skill and valor as warriors ( 1 Chronicles 5:18,23 f). Some men of Manasseh had joined David before the battle of Gilboa ( 1 Chronicles 12:19).

    3. ITS PLACE IN LATER HISTORY:

    Others, all mighty men of valor, and captains in the host, fell to him on the way to Ziklag, and helped him against the band of rovers ( 1 Chronicles 12:20 ff). From the half-tribe West of the Jordan 18,000 men, expressed by name, came to David at Hebron to make him king ( 1 Chronicles 12:31); while those who came from the East numbered, along with the men of Reuben and Gad, 120,000 ( 1 Chronicles 12:37). David organized the eastern tribes under 2,700 overseers for every matter pertaining to God and for the affairs of the king ( 1 Chronicles 26:32). The rulers of Manasseh were, in the West, Joel, son of Pedaiah, and in the East, Iddo, son of Zechariah ( 1 Chronicles 27:20,21). Divers of Manasseh humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem at the invitation of Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover ( 2 Chronicles 30:11). Although not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, they ate the Passover.

    Pardon was successfully sought for them by the king, because they set their hearts to seek God ( 2 Chronicles 30:18 ff).

    Of the eastern half-tribe it is said that they went a-whoring after the gods of the land, and in consequence they were overwhelmed and expatriated by Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria ( 1 Chronicles 5:25 f).

    Reference to the idolatries of the western half-tribe are also found in <143101> Chronicles 31:1; 34:6.

    There is a portion for Manasseh in Ezekiel’s ideal picture (Ezek 48:4), and the tribe appears in the list in Revelation (7:6).

    The genealogies in Josh 17:1 ff; Numbers 26:28-34; 1 Chronicles 2:21-23; 7:14-19 have fallen into confusion. As they stand, they are mutually contradictory, and it is impossible to harmonize them.

    The theories of certain modern scholars who reject the Biblical account are themselves beset with difficulties: e.g. the name is derived from the Arabic, nasa, “to injure a tendon of the leg.” Manasseh, the Piel part., would thus be the name of a supernatural being, of whom the infliction of such an injury was characteristic. It is not clear which of the wrestlers at the Jabbok suffered the injury. As Jacob is said to have prevailed with gods and men, the suggestion is that it was his antagonist who was lamed. “It would appear therefore that in the original story the epithet Manasseh was a fitting title of Jacob himself, which might be borne by his worshippers, as in the case of Gad” (EB, under the word, par. 4).

    It is assumed that the mention of Machir in Judges 5:14 definitely locates the Manassites at that time on the West of the Jordan. The raids by members of the tribe on Eastern Palestine must therefore have taken place long after the days of Moses. The reasoning is precarious. After the mention of Reuben (5:15,16), Gilead (5:17) may refer to Gad. It would be strange if this warlike tribe were passed over (Guthe). Machir, then probably the strongest clan, stands for the whole tribe, and may be supposed to indicate particularly the noted fighters of the eastern half.

    In dealing with the genealogies, “the difficult name” Zelophehad must be got rid of. Among the suggestions made is one by Dr. Cheyne, which first supposes the existence of a name Salhad, and then makes Zelophehad a corruption of this.

    The genealogies certainly present difficulties, but otherwise the narrative is intelligible and self-consistent without resort to such questionable expedients as those referred to above. W. Ewing MANASSEH (3) A king of Judah, son and successor of Hezekiah; reigned 55 years ( <122101> Kings 21:1; 2 Chronicles 33:1), from circa 685 onward. His was one of the few royal names not compounded with the name of Yahweh (his son Amon’s was the only other if, as an Assyrian inscription gives it, the full name of Ahaz was Jehoahaz or Ahaziah); but it was no heathen name like Amon, but identical with that of the elder son of Joseph. Born within Hezekiah’s added 15 years, years of trembling faith and tender hope (compare Isaiah 38:15 f), his name may perhaps memorialize the father’s sacred feelings; the name of his mother Hephzibah too was used long afterward as the symbol of the happy union of the land with its loyal sons ( Isaiah 62:4). All this, however, was long forgotten in the memory of Manasseh’s apostate career.

    1. SOURCES OF HIS LIFE.

    The history (2 Kings 1 through 18) refers for “the rest of his acts” to “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah,” but the body of the account, instead of reading like state annals, is almost entirely a censure of his idolatrous reign in the spirit of the prophets and of the Deuteronomic strain of literature. The parallel history ( 2 Chronicles 33:1-20) puts “the rest of his acts” “among the acts of the kings of Israel,” and mentions his prayer (a prayer ascribed to him is in the Apocrypha) and “the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of Yahweh.” This history of Chronicles mentions his captive journey to Babylon and his repentance ( Chronicles 33:10-13), also his building operations in Jerusalem and his resumption of Yahweh-worship ( 2 Chronicles 33:14-17), which the earlier source lacks. From these sources, which it is not the business of this article either to verify or question, the estimate of his reign is to be deduced.

    2. CHARACTER OF HIS REIGN. 1. Political Situation: During his reign, Assyria, principally under Esar-haddon and Assurbanipal, was at the height of its arrogance and power; and his long reign was the peaceful and uneventful life of a willing vassal, contented to count as tributary king in an illustrious world-empire, hospitable to all its religious and cultural ideas, and ready to take his part in its military and other enterprises. The two mentions of his name in Assyrian inscriptions (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 182) both represent him in this tributary light. His journey to Babylon mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:11 need not have been the penalty of rebellion; more likely it was such an enforced act of allegiance as was perhaps imposed on all provincial rulers who had incurred or would avert suspicion of disloyalty. Nor was his fortification of Jerusalem after his return less necessary against domestic than foreign aggression; the more so, indeed, as in so long and undisturbed a reign his capital, which was now practically synonymous with his realm (Esarhaddon calls him “king of the city of Judah”), became increasingly an important center of wealth and commercial prosperity. Of the specific events of his reign, however, other than religious, less is known than of almost any other. 2. Reactionary Idolatry: That the wholesale idolatry by which his reign is mainly distinguished was of a reactionary and indeed conservative nature may be understood alike from what it sought to maintain and from what it had to react against. On the one side was the tremendous wave of ritual and mechanical heathen cults which, proceeding from the world-centers of culture and civilization (compare Isaiah 2:6-8), was drawing all the tributary lands, Judah with the rest, into its almost irresistible sweep. Manasseh, it would seem, met this not in the temper of an amateur, as had his grandfather Ahaz, but in the temper of a fanatic. Everything old and new that came to his purview was of momentous religious value — except only the simple and austere demands of prophetic insight. He restored the debasing cults of the aboriginal Nature-worship which his father had suppressed, thus making Judah revert to the sterile Baal-cults of Ahab; but his blind credence in the black arts so prevalent in all the surrounding nations, imported the elaborate worship of the heavenly bodies from Babylon, invading even the temple-courts with its numerous rites and altars; even went to the horrid extreme of human sacrifice, making an institution of what Ahaz had tried as a desperate expedient. All this, which to the matured prophetic sense was headlong wickedness, was the mark of a desperately earnest soul, seeking blindly in this wholesale way to propitiate the mysterious Divine powers, his nation’s God among them, who seemed so to have the world’s affairs in their inscrutable control. On the other side, there confronted him the prophetic voice of a religion which decried all insincere ritual (`wickedness and worship,’ Isaiah 1:13), made straight demands on heart and conscience, and had already vindicated itself in the faith which had wrought the deliverance of 701. It was the fight of the decadent formal against the uprising spiritual; and, as in all such struggles, it would grasp at any expedient save the one plain duty of yielding the heart to repentance and trust. 3. Persecution: Meanwhile, the saving intelligence and integrity of Israel, though still the secret of the lowly, was making itself felt in the spiritual movement that Isaiah had labored to promote; through the permeating influence of literature and education the “remnant” was becoming a power to be reckoned with. It is in the nature of things that such an innovating movement must encounter persecution; the significant thing is that already there was so much to persecute. Persecution is as truly the offspring of fear as of fanaticism. Manasseh’s persecution of the prophets and their adherents (tradition has it that the aged Isaiah was one of his victims) was from their point of view an enormity of wickedness. To us the analysis is not quite so simple; it looks also like the antipathy of an inveterate formal order to a vital movement that it cannot understand. The vested interests of almost universal heathenism must needs die hard, and “much innocent blood” was its desperate price before it would yield the upper hand. To say this of Manasseh’s murderous zeal is not to justify it; it is merely to concede its sadly mistaken sincerity. It may well have seemed to him that a nation’s piety was at stake, as if a world’s religious culture were in peril. 4. Return to Better Mind: The Chronicler, less austere in tone than the earlier historian, preserves for us the story that, like Saul of Tarsus after him, Manasseh got his eyes open to the truer meaning of things; that after his humiliation and repentance in Babylon he “knew that Yahweh he was God” ( 2 Chronicles 33:10-13).

    He had the opportunity to see a despotic idolatry, its evils with its splendors, in its own home; a first-fruit of the thing that the Hebrew exiles were afterward to realize. On his return, accordingly, he removed the altars that had encroached upon the sacred precincts of the temple, and restored the ritual of the Yahweh-service, without, however, removing the high places. It would seem to have been merely the concession of Yahweh’s right to a specific cult of His own, with perhaps a mitigation of the more offensive extremes of exotic worship, while the toleration of the various fashionable forms remained much as before. But this in itself was something, was much; it gave Yahweh His chance, so to say, among rivals; and the growing spiritual fiber of the heart of Israel could be trusted to do the rest. It helps us also the better to understand the situation when, only two years after Manasseh’s death, Josiah came to the throne, and to understand why he and his people were so ready to accept the religious sanity of the Deuteronomic law. He did not succeed, after all, in committing his nation to the wholesale sway of heathenism. Manasseh’s reactionary reign was indeed not without its good fruits; the crisis of religious syncretism and externalism was met and passed. John Franklin Genung MANASSES <ma-nas’-ez > ([ Manassh~v , Manasses ]; Codex Vaticanus [Manasse ]): (1) One who had married a “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:33) = “Manasseh” of Ezra 10:33. (2) The wealthy husband of Judith; died of sunstroke when employed at the barley harvest (Judith 8:2 f,7; 10:3; 16:22 ff). (3) A person mentioned in Tobit 14:10, who “gave alms, and escaped the snare of death.” It must be admitted that Manasses here is an awkward reading and apparently interrupts the sense, which would run more smoothly if Manasses were omitted or Achiacharus read. There is great variety of text in this verse. Codex Sinaiticus (followed by Fritzsche, Libri apoc. vet. Test Greek, 1871) reads [en to poiesai me eleemosunen exelthen ], where Manasses is omitted and Achiacharus is understood as the subject. Itala and Syriac go a step further and read Achiacharus as subject.

    But Codex Vaticanus (followed by Swete, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) reads Manasses, which must be the correct reading on the principle of being the most difficult.

    Explanations have been offered (1) that Manasses is simply the Hebrew name for Achiacharus, it not being uncommon for a Jew to have a Greek and a Hebrew name; (2) that on reading [ jAmw>n , Amon ], Manasses was inserted for Achiacharus according to 2 Chronicles 33:22 ff; (3) that Manasses here is an incorrect reading for Nasbas (Tobit 11:18), identified by Grotius with Achiacharus: “It seems impossible at present to arrive at a satisfactory explanation” (Fuller, Speaker’s Commentary). There is as great uncertainty as to the person who conspired against Manasses: [ jAma>n , Aman ], in Codex Alexandrinus, followed by the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), who is by some identified with the Haman of Esther and Achiacharus with Mordecai; [ jAda>m , Adam ], in Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete; Itala Nadab; Syriac Ahab (Acab). (4) A king of Judah ( Matthew 1:10 the King James Version, Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) “Manasseh”), whose prayer forms one of the apocryphal books. See MANASSES, PRAYER OF. (5) The elder son of Joseph ( Revelation 7:6, the King James Version Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) “Manasseh”). S. Angus MANASSES, THE PRAYER OF The Prayer of Manasses purports to be, and may in reality be, the prayer of that king mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:13,18 f.

    1. NAME:

    In Cod. A it is called simply “A Prayer of Manasses,” in the London Polyglot “A Prayer of Manasses, King of the Jews.” Its title in the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is “A Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah, when He Was Held Captive in Babylon.” In Baxter’s Apocrypha, Greek and English this Prayer appears at the end with the heading “A Prayer of Manasses, son of Ezekias” (= Hezekiah).

    2. CANONICITY AND POSITION:

    The Greek church is the only one which has consistently reckoned this Prayer as a part of its Bible. Up to the time of the Council of Trent (1545- 1563 AD), it formed a part of the Vulgate, but by that council it was relegated with 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras to the appendix (which included uncanonical scriptures), “lest they should become wholly lost, since they are occasionally, cited by the Fathers and are found in printed copies. Yet it is wholly absent from the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Sixtus V, though it is in the Appendix of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Clement VIII. Its position varies in manuscripts, versions and printed editions of the Septuagint. It is most frequently found among the odes or canticles following the Psalter, as in Codices Alexandrinus, T (the Zurich Psalter) and in Ludolf’s Ethiopic Psalter. In Swete’s Septuagint the Psalter of Solomon followed by the odes ([ jWdai> , Odai ]), of which The Prayer of Manasseh is the 8th, appear as an Appendix after 4 Maccabees in volume III. It was placed after 2 Chronicles in the original Vulgate, but in the Romanist Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) it stands first, followed by 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras in the apocryphal Appendix. It is found in all manuscripts of the Armenian Bible, where, as in Swete’s Septuagint, it is one of many odes. Though not included in Coverdale’s Bible or the Geneva VS, it was retained (at the close of the Apocrypha) in Luther’s translation, in Mathew’s Bible and in the Bishops’ Bible, whence it passed into our English Versions of the Bible.

    3. CONTENTS:

    According to 2 Chronicles 33 (compare 2 Kings 21) Manasseh was exiled by the Assyrians to Babylon as a punishment for his sins. There he became penitent and earnestly prayed to God for pardon and deliverance. God answered his prayer and restored him to Jerusalem and to the throne.

    Though the prayer is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:13,18 f, it is not given, but this lack has been supplied in the The Prayer of Manasseh of the Apocrypha. After an opening invocation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Judah and their righteous seed, the Creator of all things, most high, yet compassionate, who has ordained repentance, not for perfect ones like the patriarchs who did not need it, but for the like of the person praying, there follows a confession of sin couched for the most part in general terms, a prayer for pardon and a vow to praise God forever if this prayer is answered.

    4. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE:

    The bulk of scholars (Fritzsche, Reuss, Schurer, Ryssel, etc.) agree that this Prayer was composed in Greek. The Greek recension is written in a free, flowing and somewhat rhetorical style, and it reads like an original work, not like a translation. Though there are some Hebraisms, they are not more numerous or striking than usually meet us in Hellenistic Greek. It is of some importance also that, although Jewish tradition adds largely to the legends about Manasseh, it has never supplied a Hebrew version of the Prayer (see TEXT AND VERSIONS, VIII). On the other hand, Ewald (Hist. Isr, I, 186; IV, 217, note 5, German edition, IV, 217 f), Furst (Gesch. der bibl. Lit., II, 399), Budde (ZAW, 1892, 39 ff), Ball (Speaker’s Apocrypha) and others argue for a Hebrew original, perhaps existing in the source named of 2 Chronicles 33:18 f (see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des Altes Testament, 167).

    5. AUTHENTICITY:

    Have we here the authentic prayer of Manasseh offered under the circumstances described in 2 Chronicles 33? Ewald and the other scholars named (see foregoing section), who think the Prayer was composed in Hebrew, say that we have probably here a Greek rendering of the Hebrew original which the Chronicler saw in his source. Ball, on the other hand, though not greatly opposed to this view, is more convinced that the Hebrew original is to be sought in a haggadic narrative concerning Manasseh. Even if we accept the view of Ewald or of Ball, we still desiderate evidence that this Hebrew original is the very prayer offered by the king in Babylon. But the arguments for a Greek original are fairly conclusive. Many Old Testament scholars regard the narrative of the captivity, prayer and penitence of Manasseh as a fiction of the Chronicler’s imagination, to whom it seemed highly improper that this wicked king should escape the punishment (exile) which he richly deserved. So De Wette (Einleitung), Graf (Stud. u. Krit., 1859, 467-94, and Gesch. Bucher des Altes Testament, 174) and Noldeke (Schenkel’s Bibelwerk, “Manasse”). Nothing corresponding to it occurs in the more literal narrative of 2 Kings 21, an argument which, however, has but little weight.

    Recent discoveries of cuneiform inscriptions have taken off the edge of the most important objections to the historicity of this part of Chronicles. See Ball (op. cit., 361 ff) and Bissell (Lange’s Apocrypha, 468). The likeliest supposition is that the author of the Prayer was an Alexandrian Jew who, with 2 Chronicles 33 before him, desired to compose such a prayer as Manasseh was likely to offer under the supposed circumstances. This prayer, written in excellent Alexandrian Greek, is, as Fritzsche points out, an addition to 2 Chronicles 33, corresponding to the prayers of Mordecai and Esther added to the canonical Est (Additions to Esther 13:8 through 14:19), and also to the prayer of Azarias (The Song of Solomon of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:2-22) and the Song of Solomon of the Three Young Men (The Song of Solomon of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:29- 68) appended to the canonical Book of Daniel.

    6. THE AUTHOR AND HIS MOTIVE:

    That the author was an Alexandrian Jew is made probable by the (Greek) language he employs and by the sentiments he expresses. It is strange to find Swete (Expository Times, II, 38 f) defending the Christian authorship of this Prayer. What purpose could the writer seek to realize in the composition and publication of the penitential psalm? In the absence of definite knowledge, one may with Reuss (Das Altes Testament, VI, 436 f) suppose that the Jewish nation was at the time given up to great unfaithfulness to God and to gross moral corruption. The lesson of the Prayer is that God will accept the penitent, whatever his sins, and remove from the nation its load of sufferings, if only it turns to God.

    7. DATE:

    Ewald and Furst (op. cit.) hold that the prayer is at least as old as the Book of Chronicles (300 BC), since it is distinctly mentioned, they say, in Chronicles 33:13,18 f. But the original form was, as seen (compare above), Greek, not Hebrew. Moreover, the teaching of the Prayer is post- Biblical. The patriarchs are idealized to the extent that they are thought perfect and therefore not needing forgiveness (33:8); their merits avail for the sinful and undeserving (33:1) (see Weber, Jud. Theologie, 292). The expressions “God of the Just” (33:8), “God of those who repent” (33:13), belong to comparatively late Judaism. A period about the beginning of the Christian era or (Fritzsche) slightly earlier would suit the character (language and teaching) of the Prayer. The similarity between the doctrines implied in The Prayer of Manasseh and those taught in apocryphal writings of the time confirms this conclusion. There is no need with Bertholdt to bring down the writing to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.

    Fabricius (Liber Tobit, etc., 208) dates the Prayer in the 4th or 5th century AD, because, in his opinion, its author is the same as that of the Apostolical Constitutions which has that date. But the source of this part of the Apostolical Constitutions is the Didaskalia (3rd century), and moreover both these treatises are of Christian origin, the Prayer being the work of an Alexandrian Jew.

    8. TEXT AND VERSIONS: (1) Greek: The Greek text occurs in Codices Alexandrinus, T (Psalterium Turicence 262, Parsons). Swete (OLD TESTAMENT in Greek, III, 802-4) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of T. It is omitted from the bulk of ancient manuscripts and editions of the Septuagint, as also from several modern editions (Tischendorf, etc.). Nestle (Septuaginta Studien, 1899, 3) holds that the Greek text of Codices Alexandrinus, T, etc., has been taken from the Apostolical Constitutions or from the Didaskalia. The common view is that it was extracted by the latter from the Septuagint. (2) Latin: The Latin text in Sabatier (Bib. Sac. Latin, III, 1038) is not by Jerome, nor is it in the manner of the Old Latin; its date is later.

    LITERATURE.

    The outstanding literature has been cited in the foregoing article. Reference may be made to Howorth (“Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible,” PSBA, XXXI, 89 ff: he argues that the narrative concerning Manasseh, including the Prayer in the Apostolical Constitutions, represents a portion of the true Septuagint of 2 Chronicles 33). T. Witton Davies MANASSITES <ma-nas’-its > ( yCin’m] [menashshi]; [oJ Manassh~ , ho Manasse ]):

    Members of the tribe of Manasseh (Dt 4:43; Judges 12:4 the King James Version; 2 Kings 10:33).

    MAN-CHILD <man’-child > (American Standard Revised Version; “man child,” the English Revised Version; not in the King James Version; ryqiB] ˆyTiv]m” [mashtin beqir]): The expression is used with the meaning of “male,” but is found only in the description of the extermination of a whole family, where it is employed to express every male descendant of any age.

    It occurs in 1 Samuel 25:22,34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; Kings 9:8.

    MANDRAKES <man’-draks > ( µyaid:WD [dudha’im]; [ Mandrago>rav , mandragoras ] ( Genesis 30:14 f; Song of Solomon 7:13); the marginal reading “love apples” is due to the supposed connection of [dudha’im] with µydIwOD [dodhim], “love”): Mandrakes are the fruit of the Mandragora officinarum, a member of the Solanaceae or potato order, closely allied to the Atropa belladonna. It is a common plant all over Palestine, flourishing particularly in the spring and ripening about the time of the wheat harvest ( Genesis 30:14). The plant has a rosette of handsome dark leaves, dark purple flowers and orange, tomato-like fruit. The root is long and branched; to pull it up is still considered unlucky (compare Josephus, BJ, VII, vi, 3). The fruit is called in Arabic baid el-jinn, the “eggs of the jinn”; they have a narcotic smell and sweetish taste, but are too poisonous to be used as food. They are still used in folklore medicine in Palestine. The plant was well known as an aphrodisiac by the ancients ( Song of Solomon 7:13). E. W. G. Masterman MANEH; MINA <man’-e > , or <mi’-na > ( hnmna ], “pound” (English Versions of the Bible)): A weight containing 50 shekels, according to Hebrew usage, but which varied according to the standard adopted.

    Estimated on the Phoenician, or commercial, standard, it was equal to 11,200 grains, or about 2 lbs. troy, or about 1,6 lbs. avoirdupois. This is probably the weight intended in 1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69 and Nehemiah 7:71 f (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES). When used in a monetary sense, the [maneh] of silver was worth about 6 pounds shillings, or $34 (in 1915); the gold [maneh] was equal to about pounds 10 shillings, or $510 (in 1915). H. Porter MANES <ma’-nez > ([ Ma>nhv , Manes ]): One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:21). It represents the two names Maaseiah and Elijah of the parallel Ezra 10:21. The real equivalent is probably Maaseiah, Elijah being dropped. the Revised Version margin and the King James Version margin give Harim of Ezra 10:21 as identical — apparently incorrectly, for the words “and of the sons of Harim” ( Ezra 10:21) are simply omitted. the King James Version blunders strangely here in reading Eanes after a misprint [ Ha>nhv , Eanes ] (for [ Ma>nhv , Manes ]) in the Aldine edition.

    MANGER <man’-Jeremiah > ([fa>tnh , phatne ]): Properly the place in a stall or stable where the food of cattle is placed (in the Old Testament “crib” ( Job 39:9; Proverbs 14:4; Isaiah 1:3)); thus also, apparently, in the narrative of the nativity in Luke 2:7,12,16. In Septuagint, the Greek word, representing different Hebrew words, has also the extended meaning of “stall” ( 2 Chronicles 32:28; Habakkuk 3:17); thus also in Luke 13:15, where the Revised Version margin has “manger.” Old tradition says that Jesus was born in a cave in the neighborhood of Bethlehem; even so, a place for food for cattle may have been cut in the side of the rock. James Orr MANI <ma’-ni > ([ Mani> , Mani ]): Head of a family (1 Esdras 9:30) = “Bani” in Ezra 10:29, the form which appears in 1 Esdras 5:12.

    MANIFEST; MANIFESTATION <man’-i-fest > , <man-i-fes-ta’-shun > ([fanero>w , phaneroo ], [fanero>v , phaneros ]): “To manifest” is generally the translation of [phaneroo ], “to make apparent” ( Mark 4:22; John 17:6; Romans 3:21; Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh,” the Revised Version (British and American) “manifested”; 1 John 1:2 twice, etc.); also of [phaneros ], “manifest” ( Acts 4:16; Romans 1:19; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 John 3:10, etc.); “to make manifest” ([phaneroo ]) ( John 1:31; Romans 16:26); of [emphanizo ], “to make fully manifest” ( John 14:21 f); of [emphanes ], “fully manifest” ( Romans 10:20); of [delos ], “evident,” translated “manifest” ( 1 Corinthians 15:27, the Revised Version (British and American) “evident”); of [ekdelos ], “very evident” ( 2 Timothy 3:9, the Revised Version (British and American) “evident”); of [prodelos ], “evident beforehand” ( 1 Timothy 5:25, the Revised Version (British and American) “evident”); of [aphanes ], is “not manifest” ( Hebrews 4:13, “There is no creature that is not manifest in his sight”); “manifest,” occurs once in the Old Testament as the translation of [barar ], “to clear,” “to purify” (Eccl 3:18, the Revised Version (British and American) “prove”); of [phaneros ] (2 Macc 3:28, the Revised Version (British and American) “manifestly”).

    Manifestation is the translation of [apokalupsis ], “uncovering” ( Romans 8:19, “the manifestation of the sons of God,” the Revised Version (British and American) “revealing”); of [phanerosis ], “manifestation” ( Corinthians 12:7; 2 Corinthians 4:2).

    The Revised Version (British and American) has “manifest” for “shew” ( John 7:4); “was manifested” for “appeared” ( Mark 16:12,14); “was manifested to the,” for “shewed himself to his” ( John 21:14); “be made manifest” for “appear” ( 2 Corinthians 5:10; 7:12; Revelation 3:18); “became manifest” for “was made known” ( Acts 7:13); “gave him to be made manifest” for “shewed him openly” ( Acts 10:40); “He who was manifested” for “God was manifest” ( 1 Timothy 3:16) (margin “The word “God,” in place of “He who,” rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.

    Some ancient authorities read which”); “is not yet made manifest” for “doth not yet appear” ( 1 John 3:2); “by the manifestation” for “with the brightness” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8) “be manifested” for “appear” ( Colossians 3:4 twice; 1 Peter 5:4); “if he shall be manifested” for “when he shall appear” ( 1 John 2:28; 3:2), etc. W. L. Walker MANIFESTLY <man’-i-fest-li > ( ha,r”m” [mar’eh], “(in) personal presence”): Has the meaning of “by direct vision,” as in 1 Corinthians 13:12, “face to face,” stating positively ( Numbers 12:8) what the next clause states negatively, namely, “not in dark speeches.” “Apparently” of the King James Version is ambiguous.

    MANIFOLD <man’-i-fold > ( br’ [rabh]; [poiki>lov , poikilos ]): “Manifold,” which occurs only a few times, is in the Old Testament the translation of [rabh ], “many,” “abundant” ( Nehemiah 9:19,27; Am 5:12, where it is equivalent to “many”), and of rabhabh, “to multiply,” “to increase” ( <19A424> Psalm 104:24, “O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works”); [poikilos ], properly, “many colored,” “spotted,” “variegated,” is translated “manifold”: 1 Peter 1:6 margin, “manifold temptations”; 4:10, “manifold grace,” suggests variety, diverseness; [polupoikilos ] has this meaning more intensely ( Ephesians 3:10, “the manifold wisdom of God”). With this may be compared a fine passage in The Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, where it is said that in Wisdom there is “an understanding spirit, holy, one only (the Revised Version (British and American) “alone in kind,” margin “Greek: sole-born”), manifold ([polumeres ]).” In like manner, [pollaplasion ], “manifold more” ( Luke 18:30), indicates the varied elements of the reward of him who is faithful to Christ. In Ecclesiasticus 51:3, we have “manifold afflictions” ([pleion ]). W. L. Walker MANIUS; TITUS <ma’-ni-us > , <ti’-tus > ([ Ti>tov Ma>niov , Tito Manios ], Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Venetus, and the Syriac; [ Ma>nliov , Manlios ], Swete following Codex Alexandrinus; Manilius, Itala and Vulgate, the King James Version, Manlius): Titus Manius and Quintus Memmius were the legates of the Romans who carried a letter unto the Jewish people consenting to the favorable terms which Lysias, the captain of Antiochus, granted to the Jews after his defeat, 163 BC (2 Macc 11:34). That the letter is spurious appears from the facts (1) that it is dated in the 148th year of the Seleucidian era adopted by the Jews and not, after the Romans fashion, according to consulates; (2) that it is also dated the same day as that of Eupator — the 15th of the month Xanthicus; (3) that the Jews had as yet no dealings with the Romans; Judas first heard of the fame of the Romans a year or two years later (1 Macc 8:1 ff), after the death of Nicanor (1 Macc 7:47); (4) that no such names are found among the Roman legati mentioned by Polybius as sent to the East.

    If Manius is not altogether a fabrication, it is difficult to decide exactly who he is. The reading fluctuates between “Manius” and “Manlius.” About the same time a T. Manlius Torquatus was sent by the Romans on an embassy to Egypt to settle a quarrel between Philometor and Euergetes II Physc. on (Polyb. xxxi. 18; Livy xliii.11), but not to Syria, and his colleague was Cn.

    Merula. Perhaps Manius Sergius is intended, who with C. Sulpicius was sent to investigate the state of Greece and to see what Antiochus Epiphanes and Eumanes were doing (165 BC) (Polyb. xxxi.9). But no such name as Titus Manius or Manlius is otherwise found as legate to Asia with a colleague Quintus Memmius. See also MEMMIUS.

    S. Angus MANKIND <man-kind’ > : In Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, the term is applied to men, as distinguished from women; in Job 12:10, to the human race; in James 3:7, to the human nature.

    MANLIUS, TITUS <man’-li-us > . See MANIUS, TITUS.

    MANNA <man’-a > ( ˆm; [man]; [ma>nna , manna ]): The Hebrew man is probably derived, as Ebers suggests, from the Egyptian mennu, “food.” In Exodus 16:15, we have a suggested source of the name, “They said one to another, What is it?” i.e. manhu, which also means, “It is manna” (see margin).

    1. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

    This substance is described as occurring in flakes or small round grains, literally, “hoax frost”; it fell with the dew ( Numbers 11:9) and appeared when the dew left the ground ( Exodus 16:14); “It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey” ( Exodus 16:31). In Numbers 11:8, its taste is described “as the taste of fresh oil,” margin “cakes baked with oil.” “And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came .... unto the borders of the land of Canaan” ( Exodus 16:35). It ceased the day after they ate the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain, in the plains of Jericho (Josh 5:10-12). Although an important article of diet, it was by no means the sole one as seems implied in Numbers 21:15; there are plenty of references (e.g. Exodus 17:3; 24:5; 34:3; Leviticus 8:2,26,31; 9:4; 10:12; 24:5; Numbers 7:13,19 f, etc.) which show that they had other food besides. The food was gathered every morning, “every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted” ( Exodus 16:21); a portion of the previous day’s gathering bred worms and stank if kept ( Exodus 16:20); on the 6th day a double amount was gathered, the Sabbath portion being miraculously preserved ( Exodus 16:22-27). A pot — a golden one ( Hebrews 9:4) — with an omer of manna was “laid up before Yahweh” in the tabernacle ( Exodus 16:33).

    Manna is referred to in Nehemiah 9:20. It is described poetically as “food from heaven” and “bread of the mighty” ( Psalm 78:24 f); as “bread of heaven” ( <19A540> Psalm 105:40); and as “angels’ bread” (2 Esdras 1:19; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:20).

    2. NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

    In John 6:31-63, our Lord frequently refers to “the manna” or “bread from heaven” as typical of Himself. Paul ( 1 Corinthians 10:3) refers to it as “spiritual food,” and in Revelation 2:17 we read, “To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna.”

    Manna, as might be expected, figures largely in rabbinical literature. It was, it is said, adapted to the taste of each individual who could by wishing taste in the manna anything he desired (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 16:21). Manna is reserved as the future food of the righteous (compare Revelation 2:17), for which purpose it is ground in a mill situated in the third heaven (Chag 12b; Tan. Beshallach 22).

    3. NATURAL EXPLANATIONS:

    No substance is known which in any degree satisfies all the requirements of the Scriptural references, but several travelers in the wilderness have reported phenomena which suggest some of the features of the miraculous manna. (1) In the Peninsula of Sinai, on the route of the children of Israel, a species of tamarisk, named in consequence by Ebers Tammaris mannifera, is found to exude a sweet, honey-like substance where its bark is pierced by an insect, Gossyparia mannifera. It collects upon the twigs and falls to the ground. The Arabs who gather it to sell to pilgrims call it mann-essama, “heavenly manna”; it is white at first but turns yellow; in the early morning it is of the consistency of wax but when the sun is hot it disappears. This substance occurs only after mid-summer and for a month or two at most. (2) A second proposal is to identify manna with a lichen — Lecanora esculenta and allied species — which grows in the Arabian and other deserts upon the limestone. The older masses become detached and are rolled about by the wind. When swept together by sudden rain storms in the rainy season they may collect in large heaps. This lichen has been used by the Arabs in time of need for making bread. It is a quite reasonable form of nourishment in the desert, especially when eaten with the sugary manna from the trees. E. W. G. Masterman MANNER; MANNERS <man’-er > , <man’-erz > ( rb;D; [dabhar], °]rethos ], [ou[tw , houtos ]):

    1. AS USED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: “Manner” (probably from manus, “the hand,” mode of handling things, or acting) is in the Bible in general equivalent (1) to way, custom, habit, etc., (2) to kind or sort.

    There are some special senses, however, and archaic usages. It is frequently the translation of [dabhar ], “speaking,” “word,” “thing” ( Genesis 18:25, “That be far from thee to do after this manner” (i.e. in this way); Genesis 32:19, “On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau” (in this way); Genesis 39:19, “After this manner (in this way) did thy servant to me”; Exodus 22:9, “every manner of trespass” (every kind, sort, or way); Dt 15:2; 1 Samuel 17:27,30 bis); also of [derekh], “way” ( Genesis 19:31, “after the manner of all the earth (way); 1 Samuel 21:5 the King James Version “(the bread) is in a manner common”; “manner” here might be taken as equivalent to “way” or “measure,” but the passage is a difficult one and the text uncertain; the Revised Version (British and American) omits “manner,” and in the text makes the reference to be to the journey, not to the bread, but in the margin it has “common (bread)”; Isaiah 10:24,26, after the manner of Egypt” (after the way or fate of Egypt); so also Am 4:10; 8:14, the manner of Beer-sheba liveth” the Revised Version (British and American) “the way,” margin “manner, the reference here being to the religious way, or manner of worship); of [mishpaT], “judgment,” “ordinance,” hence, also “manner” or “custom” ( Genesis 40:13; Exodus 21:9; 2 Kings 1:7, “what manner of man” (sort or kind); 2 Kings 17:26 the King James Version; Chronicles 24:19; Ezek 11:12, “after the manners (the Revised Version (British and American) “ordinances”) of the nations”); [torah], “instruction,” “law,” is also translated “manner” ( 2 Samuel 7:19, “(is) this the manner (margin “law”) of man, O Lord God?” the Revised Version (British and American) “and this (too) after the manner of men, O Lord Yahweh,” margin “and is this the law of man, O Lord Yahweh?”). Other words are: [’orach], “path,” “custom” ( Genesis 18:11); [dobher], “leading,” “pasture” (compare “sheep-walk,” “sheep-fold”); Isaiah 5:17, “Then shall the lambs feed after their manner,” the Revised Version (British and American) “as in their pasture” (in Micah 2:12, the same word is translated the King James Version “fold,” the Revised Version (British and American) “pasture”); [demuth], “likeness” (Ezek 23:15); [dath], “law,” “sentence” (Est 2:12); [chuqqah], “statute,” “custom” ( Leviticus 20:23) in the King James Version. In Numbers 5:13 “with the manner” is supplied to “taken” (in adultery). “Manner” here is an old law-French phrase, “a thief taken with the mainour” — that is, with the thing stolen upon him in manu (in his hand) (Blackstone, Comm., IV, xxiii), the Revised Version (British and American) “in the act” (compare John 8:4 “in the very act”); gam, “also” is translated ( 1 Samuel 19:24) “in like manner,” the Revised Version (British and American) “also.”

    2. AS USED IN THE APOCRYPHA:

    In Apocrypha,2 Macc 4:13 the King James Version, we have “increase of heathenish manners,” the Revised Version (British and American) “an extreme of Greek fashions”; 2 Macc 6:9, the “manners of the Gentiles,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the Greek rites”; in 2 Esdras 9:19, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), “manners” appears in the sense of “morals”; compare Corinthians 15:33, the Revised Version (British and American) “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.”

    3. AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament various words and phrases are rendered by “manner”; we have [ethos ], “custom,” “usage,” “manner” ( John 19:40; Acts 15:1, the Revised Version (British and American) “custom”); [kata to eiothos ] ( Luke 4:16, the Revised Version (British and American) “as his custom was”); [tropos ] a “turning,” “manner,” “way” ( Jude 1:7); [hon tropon ], “in which manner” ( Acts 1:11); [houtos ], “thus,” “so,” “accordingly,” is “after this manner,” “in like manner” ( Matthew 6:9; Mark 13:29 the King James Version); in Acts 15:23, “after this manner” stands in the King James Version for “by their hands,” the Revised Version (British and American) “thus”; [pos ] ( Acts 20:18), “after what manner”; [agoge ], “course of life” ( 2 Timothy 3:10, the Revised Version (British and American) “conduct”); biosis, “mode of life” ( Acts 26:4); in 1 Corinthians 15:33, we have manners in the moral sense, “Evil communications corrupt good manners,” the American Standard Revised Version “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.” Acts 13:18 is interesting because of diversities of rendering; the King James Version has “suffered he their manners in the wilderness,” margin “[etropophoresen ], perhaps for [etrophophoresen ], bore, or fed them as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child, Dt 1:31 (2 Macc 7:27) according to Septuagint, and so Chrysostom”; the English Revised Version text, same as the King James Version margin “Many ancient authorities read `bear he them as a nursing father in the wilderness.’ See Dt 1:31”; the American Standard Revised Version (text) “as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness,” margin “Many ancient authorities read `Suffered he their manners in the wilderness.’ See Dt 9:7.” The Greek words differ only by a single letter, and authorities are pretty equally divided.

    Among other changes the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently “ordinance” for “manner” ( Leviticus 5:10, etc.) and “custom” ( Ruth 4:7; John 19:40; Hebrews 10:25, etc.); “manner of” is introduced ( 1 Samuel 4:8, etc.); “manner of” and “manner” omitted ( Genesis 25:23; Exodus 35:29, etc.); “what manner of house” for “where is the house” ( Isaiah 66:1); “manner of life” for “conversation” ( Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22); “after the manner of men” for “as a man” ( Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 9:8); “how to inquire concerning these things” ( Acts 25:20) for “of such manner of questions”; “in an unworthy manner,” the American Standard Revised Version, for “unworthily” ( 1 Corinthians 11:27); “who” for “what manner of man” ( Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25, “who then is this?”); in Luke 9:55, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” is omitted, with the margin “Some ancient authorities add and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” W, L. Walker MANOAH <ma-no’-a > ( j”wOnm; [manoach], “rest”): A man of Zorah and of the family of the Danites. Manoah was the father of Samson, and his life-story is but imperfectly told in the history of the conception, birth and early life of his son. No children had been born to Manoah and his wife, and the latter was considered barren ( Judges 13:2). Finally it was revealed to her by an angel of the Lord that she would conceive and bear a child. She was cautioned against strong drink and “unclean” food, for her child was to be born and reared a Nazirite to the end that he might save Israel out of the hands of the Philistines ( Judges 13:3-5). That Manoah was a devout man seems certain in view of the fact that, upon hearing of the angel’s visit, he offered a prayer for the angel’s return, in order that he and his wife might be instructed as to the proper care of the child to be born ( Judges 13:8). The request was granted and the angel repeated the visit and the instructions ( Judges 13:9-13). Manoah with true hospitality would have the guest remain and partake of food. The angel refused, but commanded a sacrifice unto Yahweh. When Manoah had prepared the sacrifice and lit it on the altar, the angel ascended in the flame from the altar and appeared no more ( Judges 13:15-21). The child was born according to the promise and was named Samson. Manoah and his wife appear twice in the narrative of Samson’s early life — once as they protestingly accompanied him to sue for the hand of a Philistine woman of Timnah in marriage, and again when they went with him to Timnab for the wedding.

    Josephus richly embellishes this Scriptural narrative concerning Manoah, but offers no further light upon the occupation or character of Manoah. At the death of Samson, his brothers went down to Gaza and brought back the body and buried it by the side of Manoah in the family tomb near Zorah ( Judges 16:31). In Samson Agonistes Milton gains dramatic effect by having Manoah survive Samson and in deep sorrow assist at his burial. C. E. Schenk MANSERVANT <man’sur-vant > ( db,[, [`ebhedh]): A male slave; usually coupled with maidservant or female slave ( Genesis 12:16; Exodus 20:10; Samuel 8:16; Job 31:13; Luke 12:45). See SERVANT; SLAVE.

    MANSION <man’-shun > ([monh> , mone ], “abode”): In John 14:2, the word is used in the plural: “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” the Revised Version margin “abiding places.” The ideas conveyed are those of abundance of room, and permanence of habitation, in the heavenly world.

    MANSLAYER <man’-sla-er > ( j”Xer’m] [meratstseach], from jx”r: [ratsach] ( Numbers 35:6,12); [ajndrofo>nov , androphonos ] ( 1 Timothy 1:9)):

    A term employed with reference to both premeditated and accidental or justifiable killing. In the latter case, an asylum was granted ( Numbers 35:6,12) until the death of the high priest, after which the slayer was allowed to “return into the land of his possession” ( Numbers 35:28).

    The cases in which the manslayer was to be held clearly immune from the punishment imposed on willful killing were: (1) death by a blow in a sudden quarrel ( Numbers 35:22); (2) death by anything thrown at random ( Numbers 35:22,23); (3) death by the blade of an axe flying from the handle (Dt 19:5).

    Among the cases in which one would be held responsible for the death of another, is to be counted the neglectful act of building a house without a parapet (Dt 22:8).

    Manslaughter, as a modern legal term, is employed to distinguish unpremeditated killing from coldblooded murder, but formerly (2 Esdras 1:26) it was used in a more general sense. See MURDER.

    Frank E. Hirsch MANSTEALING <man’-stel-ing > . See CRIME, under “Kidnapping”; PUNISHMENT.

    MANTELET <man’-tel-et > , <man’-t’-l-et > , <mant’-let > ( Nahum 2:5). See SIEGE, 4, (d).

    MANTLE <man’-t’-l > : Used 5 times of Elijah’s mantle ( tr2 Kings 2:8,13,14), which was probably of hair. Found in plural once ( Isaiah 3:22), where it ([ma`ataphoth]) is an upper wide tunic with sleeves ([kethoneth]). See DRESS; KERCHIEF.

    MANUSCRIPTS <man’-u-skripts > : In the broadest sense manuscripts include all handwritten records as distinguished from printed records. In a narrower sense they are handwritten codices, rolls and folded documents, as distinguished from printed books on the one hand and inscriptions, or engraved documents, on the other. More loosely, but commonly, the term is used as synonym of the codex.

    The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and New Testament, respectively, form the primary sources for establishing the text or true original words of the respective authors. The subordinate sources, versions and quotations have also their text problem, and manuscripts of the versions and of the church Fathers, and other ancient writers who refer to Biblical matters, play the same part in establishing the true words of the version or the writer that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts play in establishing the original of Scripture. For discussion of the textual aspects, see the articles on TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT , on VERSIONS , and especially the SEPTUAGINT . For the material, writing instruments, form of manuscripts, etc., see BOOK ; and especially the literature under WRITING . E. C. Richardson MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT See LANGUAGES AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    MAOCH <ma’-ok > ( °]wO[m; [ma`okh], “oppressed,” “bruised”): The same as Maacah ( 1 Kings 2:39). The father of that Achish, king of Gath, with whom David and his 600 sojourned under fear of Saul’s treachery ( Samuel 27:2).

    MAON; MAONITES <ma’-on > , <ma’-on-its > , <ma-o’-nits > ( ˆwO[m; [ma`on]; Septuagint:

    Codex Vaticanus [ Maw>r , Maor ], [ Maa~n , Maan ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Maw>n , Maon ]): (1) A town in the mountain of Judah named along with Carmel and Ziph (Josh 15:55). It appears again as the home of Nabal, the great flockmaster ( 1 Samuel 25:2). In the genealogical list of 1 Chronicles 2, Maon stands as the “son” of Shammai and the “father” of Beth-zur (2:44,45). This evidently means that Shammai was the founder of Maon. About a mile South of el-Karmil, the ancient Carmel, lies Tell Ma`in. This may be confidently identified with Maon, the radicals of the names being the same.

    It suits the requirements of the narratives in other respects, being near to Carmel, while the surrounding wilderness is still used as the wide pasture land for multitudinous flocks. In this district, the wilderness of Maon, David was hiding when his whereabouts was betrayed to Saul by the men of Ziph ( 1 Samuel 23:24 f), and only a timely raid by the Philistines delivered him out of that monarch’s hands ( 1 Samuel 23:27 ff). (2) ([ Madia>m , Madiam ]): Maon is named along with the Zidonians and Amalek as having at some time, not mentioned, oppressed Israel ( Judges 10:12). The Septuagint “Midian” has been accepted by some scholars as restoring the original text, since, otherwise, the Midianites remain unmentioned. But the Maonites are evidently identical with the Meunim of 1 Chronicles 4:41 (Revised Version), the pastoral people destroyed by Hezekiah. In 2 Chronicles 20:1 the King James Version, instead of “other beside the Ammonites” we must read “some of the Meunim,” as associated with the Ammonites in the battle with Jehoshaphat. Against them also Uzziah was helped of God ( Chronicles 26:7). They are included among the inhabitants of Matthew.

    Seir ( 2 Chronicles 20:10,23), so that an Edomite tribe is intended. It is natural to connect them with [Ma`an], a place on the great pilgrimage road, and now a station on the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, to the Southeast of Petra. It undoubtedly represents an ancient stronghold.

    The Maonites appear in the lists of those who returned from exile ( Ezra 2:50, the King James Version “Mehunim,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Meunim”; Nehemiah 7:52, “Meunim”). These may possibly be the descendants of prisoners taken in the wars of Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, to whom menial tasks may have been appointed in the temple services. W. Ewing MAR <mar > : “To mar” means “to destroy,” “to disfigure,” “to damage.” Job 30:13, “They mar my path” (the Revised Version margin “they break up”); Nahum 2:2, “and destroyed their vine” (the King James Version “and marred their vine”); compare Leviticus 19:27; 2 Kings 3:19; Isaiah 52:14; Jeremiah 13:9.

    MARA <ma’-ra > , <mar’-a > ( hr:m; [marah], “bitter”): The term which Naomi applies to herself on her return from Moab to her native country ( Ruth 1:20). Changed beyond recognition, she creates astonishment among her former acquaintances, who ask, “Is this Naomi?” She replies, “Call me not Naomi” (i.e. “pleasant” or “sweet”), but “call me Mara” (i.e. “bitter”). In the light of her bitter experience, and her present pitiable plight, the old name has become peculiarly inappropriate.

    MARAH <ma’-ra > , <mar’-a > ( hr:m; [marah], “bitter”): The first camp of the Israelites after the passage of the Red Sea ( Exodus 15:23; Numbers 33:8 f). The name is derived from the bitterness of the brackish water.

    Moses cast a tree into the waters which were thus made sweet ( Exodus 15:23). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

    MARALAH <mar’-a-la > ( hl,[\r”m” [mar`alah]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Maragelda> , Maragelda ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Marila> , Marila ]): A place on the western border of Zebulun (Josh 19:11). Peshitta renders Ramath ta`le’, “height of the fox.” It is not identified.

    MARANATHA <mar-a-nath’-a > , <mar-an-a’-tha > (from Aramaic words, ht;a; an:r:m; [marana’ ‘athah], “Our Lord cometh, or will come”; according to some, “has come”; to others, “Come!” an invitation for his speedy reappearance (compare Revelation 22:20); [maranaqa> , maranatha ], or [mara , maran atha ]): Used in connection with [ajna>qema , anathema ], “accursed” ( 1 Corinthians 16:22), but has no necessary connection therewith. It was used by early Christians to add solemn emphasis to previous statement, injunction or adjuration, and seems to have become a sort of watchword; possibly forming part of an early liturgy.

    MARBLE <mar’-b’-l > ( vyIv” [shayish], vve [shesh], vyIv” yneb]a” [’abhne shayish], “stones of marble” ( 1 Chronicles 29:2); trred, and white, and yellow, and black marble,” or, according to the margin, “a pavement of porphyry, and white marble, and alabaster, and stone of blue color” (Est 1:6); vve ydeWM[“ [`ammudhe shesh], “pillars of marble” (Est 1:6; Song of Solomon 5:15); compare vve [shesh], the King James Version margin “silk” or the Revised Version (British and American) “fine linen” ( Genesis 41:42; Exodus 25:4, etc.); µyNiv”wOv [shoshannim], “lilies” ( Song of Solomon 2:16, etc.), apparently from a root signifying “white”; [ma>rmarov , marmaros ], “marble” ( Revelation 18:12)): Marble is properly crystalline limestone, usually pure white or veined with black, the former being in demand for statuary, while the latter is used in architecture, especially for floors and pillars. True marble is not found in Palestine, but is obtained from Greece or Italy. Much of the stone described as marble is non-crystalline limestone capable of being smoothed and polished. White or yellow stone of this character is abundant in Palestine. Non-crystalline rocks of other colors are also sometimes called marble. In the passage from Esther cited above (compare margin), it is a question whether the reference is to marble and other stones or to marble of different colors. In 1 Chronicles 29:2, “marble stones” are mentioned among the materials brought together by David for the building of the temple. In Est 1:6, pillars and a pavement of marble are features of the palace of Ahasuerus. In Song of Solomon 5:15, the various parts of the body of the “beloved” are likened to gold, beryl, ivory, sapphire, and marble. In Revelation 18:12, marble occurs in the list of the merchandise of Babylon. All these references imply a costly stone, and therefore probably one imported from other countries, and make it likely that true crystalline marble is meant. Alfred Ely Day MARCH; MARCHES <march > , <march’-iz > . See ARMY; WAR.

    MARCHESHVAN <mar-chesh’-van > . See TIME.

    MARCION, GOSPEL OF <mar’-shun > . See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

    MARCUS <mar’-kus > . See MARK, JOHN.

    MARDOCHEUS <mar-do-ke’-us > ([ Mardocai~ov , Mardochaios]): (1) One of the Jewish leaders who accompanied Zerubbabel on the return from Babylon to Judah (1 Esdras 5:8, where it stands for “Mordecai” of Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7). (2) Another form of Mordecai, the uncle of Esther (Additions to Esther 10:4; 11:2,12; 12:1,4 ff; 16:13).

    MARE <mar > (1) hs;Ws [cucah], “steed,” the King James Version “company of horses”; Septuagint [hJ i[ppov , he hippos ], “mare” ( Song of Solomon 1:9); (2) µykiM;r’h; yneB] [bene ha-rammakhim ], “bred of the stud,” the King James Version and the Revised Version margin “young dromedaries” (Est 8:10); compare Arabic [ramakat ], “mare”): The word “mare” does not occur in English Versions of the Bible, but in Song of Solomon 1:9 we find [cucah], the feminine of [cuc], “horse,” and in Est 8:10, [bene ha-rammakhim] is by some translated “sons of mares.” See CAMEL; HORSE.

    MARESHAH <ma-re’-sha > ( hv;rem; [mareshah]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ Baqhsa>r , Bathesar ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Marhsa> , Maresa ]): A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Keilah and Achzib (Josh 15:44). It occupied such a position that Rehoboam thought well to fortify it for the protection of Jerusalem ( 2 Chronicles 11:8). In the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah, Asa overwhelmed Zerah the Ethiopian and his army, pursuing them as far as Gezer ( 2 Chronicles 14:9 ff). From Mareshah came Eliezer the prophet who denounced disaster upon the commercial copartnery of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah ( 2 Chronicles 20:37). The place is mentioned in Micah ( 2 Chronicles 1:15). Mareshah was plundered and burned by Judas Maccabeus (Ant., XII, viii, 6; 1 Macc 5:66 the Revised Version margin). Hither Gorgias escaped, having been rescued from the hands of Dositheus by a Thracian horseman (2 Macc 12:35). It was taken by John Hyrcanus, who allowed the inhabitants to remain on condition that they adopt circumcision and submit to the Jewish law. This they did; and later John avenged an injustice done to Mareshah by the Samaritans. It is then described as “a colony of Jews” (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; x, 2). The city was treated with favor by Pompey (XIV, iv, 4). When the Parthians invaded Judea in support of Antigonus they demolished Mareshah (xiii, 9).

    According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Mareshah was 2 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). Until recently it was thought that Khirbet Mir`ash, where the old name lingers, not far Southwest of Beit Jibrin, represented the ancient city. The work of Dr. Bliss, however (“Excavations in Palestine,” PEF), shows that it must be located at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile South of Beit Jibrin. A series of remarkable tombs was discovered here. From 1 Chronicles 2:42 we may perhaps gather that Hebron was colonized by the men of Mareshah. W. Ewing MARIMOTH <mar’-i-moth > , <mar’-i-moth > : An ancestor of Esdras (Ezra) (2 Esdras 1:2), identical with Meraioth ( Ezra 7:3). In 1 Esdras 8:2, it appears also as “Memeroth” (the King James Version “Meremoth”).

    MARINER <mar’-i-ner > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (3); III, 2.

    MARISA <mar’-i-sa > ([ Marisa> , Marisa ]): The Greek form of MARESHAH (which see) in 2 Macc 12:35.

    MARISH <mar’-ish > ( ab,g< [gebhe’]; [e[lov , helos ]): An old form of “marsh,” found in the King James Version, the English Revised Version Ezek 47:11 (the American Standard Revised Version “marsh”). Some (not all) editions of the King James Version Apocrypha have retained this same spelling in Macc 9:42,45 (the Revised Version (British and American) “marsh”).

    MARK <mark > : In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the “mark” put upon Cain ( Genesis 4:15 the King James Version); the [stigmata ] of Christ in Paul’s body ( Galatians 6:17); the “mark of the beast” ( Revelation 16:2).

    As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. “to be attentive,” “understand “: ˆyBi [bin] ( Job 18:2 the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “consider”; tyvi [shith], “Mark ye well her bulwarks” ( Psalm 48:13), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; rm”v; [shamar], i.e. observe, keep in view; so Psalm 37:37, “Mark the perfect man”; compare Job 22:15 the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in 1 Samuel 1:12, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannah’s lips in prayer, is said to have “marked her mouth.” Jesus “marked” how invited guests chose out ([ejpe>cw , epecho ], i.e. “observed”) the chief seats ( Luke 14:7); so [skopwe>w , skopeo ] ( Romans 16:17; Philippians 3:17), “Mark them,” i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: Isaiah 44:13, “He marketh it out with a pencil” (“red ochre,” the King James Version “line”), and “with the compasses,” where the verb is ra”T; [ta’ar], “to delineate,” “mark out”; Jeremiah 2:22, “Thine iniquity is marked ( µt”K; [katham], “cut (i.e. engraved)) before me,” signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered “written,” as in indelible hieroglyphics.

    As a noun the term “mark” may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, “a target” an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign. (1) twO [’oth], “a sign”: Genesis 4:15 the King James Version, “The Lord set a mark upon Cain” (the American Standard Revised Version “appointed a sign”). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cain’s body. He considers it rather “a certain sign which protected him from vengeance,” the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared. (2) ar:F;m” [mattara’], “an aim,” hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David ( 1 Samuel 20:20); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure ( Job 16:12); so Jeremiah, “He hath set me as a mark for the arrow” ( Lamentations 3:12); closely akin to this is [G:p]mi [miphga`], an object of attack ( Job 7:20), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, `Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?’; “set me as a mark for thee.” See TARGET. (3) wT; [taw], “mark” (Ezek 9:4,6). In Ezekiel’s vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahweh’s command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites ( Exodus 12:22,23), for their protection. As the servants of God ( Revelation 7:2,3) — the elect — were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. [Taw] also appears ( Job 31:35) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) “signature,” margin “mark”).

    The equivalent Hebrew letter taw t (“t”) in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the “mark” set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiel’s vision. (4) [q”[\q” [qa`aqa`], “a stigma” cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden ( Leviticus 19:28) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.

    The specific prohibition “not to print any marks upon” themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as God’s creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit. See also CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH. (5) [skopo>v , skopos ], something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a “goal.” The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. “I press on toward the goal (the King James Version “mark”) unto the prize” ( Philippians 3:14). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.

    In The Wisdom of Solomon 5:21 “they fly to the mark” is from [eu]stocoi , eustochoi ], “with true aim” (so the Revised Version (British and American)). (6) [sti>gma , stigma ], “a mark pricked or branded upon the body.” Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare Corinthians 11:23-27). These he termed the [stigmata ] of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master ( Galatians 6:17).

    This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christ’s crucifixion were reproduced in Paul’s hands and feet and side. It is also “alien to the lofty self-consciousness” of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Paul’s thought to the scar of circumcision. (7) [ca>ragma , charagma ], “a stamp” or “imprinted mark.” “The mark of the beast” (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand ( Revelation 13:16; compare Ezek 9:4,6). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment ( Revelation 14:9-11); to noisome disease ( Revelation 16:2); to the lake of fire ( Revelation 19:20). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years ( Revelation 20:4). The “beast” symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians. (8) [mw>lwy , molops ], “bruise,” Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) “bruise”); 28:17. Dwight M. Pratt MARK, JOHN <mark > , <John > ([ jIwa>nnhv , Ioannes ]) represents his Jewish, Mark ([ Ma>rkov , Markos ]) his Roman name. Why the latter was assumed we do not know.

    1. NAME AND FAMILY:

    Perhaps the aorist participle in Acts 12:25 may be intended to intimate that it dated from the time when, in company with Barnabas and Saul, he turned to service in the great Gentilecity of Antioch. Possibly it was the badge of Roman citizenship, as in the case of Paul. The standing of the family would be quite consistent with such a supposition.

    His mother’s name was Mary ( Acts 12:12). The home is spoken of as hers. The father was probably dead. The description of the house (with its large room and porch) and the mention of the Greek slave, suggest a family of wealth. They were probably among the many zealous Jews who, having become rich in the great world outside, retired to Jerusalem, the center of their nation and faith. Mark was “cousin” to Barnabas of Cyprus ( Colossians 4:10) who also seems to have been a man of means ( Acts 4:36). Possibly Cyprus was also Mark’s former home.

    2. HIS HISTORY AS KNOWN FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    When first mentioned, Mark and his mother are already Christians (44 AD). He had been converted through Peter’s personal influence ( Peter 5:13) and had already won a large place in the esteem of the brethren, as is shown by his being chosen to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, a little later. The home was a resort for Christians, so that Mark had every opportunity to become acquainted with other leaders such as James and John, and James the brother of the Lord. It was perhaps from the latter James that he learned the incident of Mark 3:21 which Peter would be less likely to mention.

    His kinship with Barnabas, knowledge of Christian history and teaching, and proved efficiency account for his being taken along on the first missionary journey as “minister” ([uJphre>thv , huperetes ]) to Barnabas and Saul ( Acts 13:5). Just what that term implies is not clear. Chase (HDB) conjectures the meaning to be that he had been [huperetes ], “attendant” or [chazzan ] in the synagogue (compare Luke 4:20), and was known as such an official. Wright (English translation, February, 1910) suggests that he was to render in newly founded churches a teaching service similar to that of the synagogue [chazzan ]. Hackett thought that the kai of this verse implies that he was to be doing the same kind of work as Barnabas and Saul and so to be their “helper” in preaching and teaching. The more common view has been (Meyer, Swete, et al.) that he was to perform “personal service not evangelistic,” “official service but not of the menial kind” — to be a sort of business agent. The view that he was to be a teacher, a catechist for converts, seems to fit best all the facts.

    Why did he turn back from the work ( Acts 13:13)? Not because of homesickness, or anxiety for his mother’s safety, or home duties, or the desire to rejoin Peter, or fear of the perils incident to the journey, but rather because he objected to the offer of salvation to the Gentiles on condition of faith alone. There are hints that Mark’s family, like Paul’s, were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and it is not without significance that in both verses ( Acts 13:5,13) he is given only his Hebrew name. The terms of Paul’s remonstrance are very strong ( Acts 15:38), and we know that nothing stirred Paul’s feelings more deeply than this very question. The explanation of it all may be found in what happened at Paphos when the Roman Sergius Paulus became a believer. At that time Paul (the change of name is here noted by Luke) stepped to the front, and henceforth, with the exception of 15:12,25, where naturally enough the old order is maintained, Luke speaks of Paul and Barnabas, not Barnabas and Saul. We must remember that, at that time, Paul stood almost alone in his conviction.

    Barnabas, even later than that, had misgivings ( Galatians 2:13).

    Perhaps, too, Mark was less able than Barnabas himself to see the latter take second place.

    We hear nothing further of Mark until the beginning of the second missionary journey 2 years later, when Paul’s unwillingness to take him with them led to the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and to the mission of Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus ( Acts 15:39). He is here called Mark, and in that quiet way Luke may indicate his own conviction that Mark’s mind had changed on the great question, as indeed his willingness to accompany Paul might suggest. He had learned from the discussions in the council at Jerusalem and from subsequent events at Antioch.

    About 11 years elapse before we hear of him again ( Colossians 4:10 f; Philem 1:24). He is at Rome with Paul. The breach is healed. He is now one of the faithful few among Jewish Christians who stand by Paul. He is Paul’s honored “fellowworker” and a great “comfort” to him.

    The Colossian passage may imply a contemplated visit by Mark to Asia Minor. It may be that it was carried out, that he met Peter and went with him to Babylon. In 1 Peter 5:13 the apostle sends Mark’s greeting along with that of the church in Babylon. Thence Mark returns to Asia Minor, and in 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul asks Timothy, who is at Ephesiansesus, to come to him, pick up Mark by the way, and bring him along. In that connection Paul pays Mark his final tribute; he is “useful for ministering” ([eu]crhstov eijv diakoni>an , euchrestos eis diakonian ]), so useful that his ministry is a joy to the veteran’s heart.

    3. HIS HISTORY AS KNOWN FROM OTHER SOURCES:

    The most important and reliable tradition is that he was the close attendant and interpreter of Peter, and has given us in the Gospel that bears his name account of Peter’s teaching. For that comradeship the New Testament facts furnish a basis, and the gaps in the New Testament history leave plenty of room. An examination of the tradition will be found in MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO (which see).

    Other traditions add but little that is reliable. It is said that Mark had been a priest, and that after becoming a Christian he amputated a finger to disqualify himself for that service. Hence, the nickname [koloboda>ktulov , kolobodaktulos ], which, however, is sometimes otherwise explained. He is represented as having remained in Cyprus until after the death of Barnabas (who was living in 57 AD according to Corinthians 9:5 f) and then to have gone to Alexandria, founded the church there, become its first bishop and there died (or was marthyred) in the 8th year of Nero (62-63). They add that in 815 AD Venetian soldiers stole his remains from Alexandria and placed them under the church of Mark at Venice.

    LITERATURE.

    Chase, HDB, III, 245 ff; Rae, DCG, II, 119 f; Harnack, Encyclopedia Brit; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 427-56; Lindsay, Salmond, Morison and Swete in their Comms. J. H. Farmer MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

    1. OUR SECOND GOSPEL.

    The order of the Gospels in our New Testament is probably due to the early conviction that this was the order in which the Gospels were written.

    It was not, however, the invariable order. The question of order only arose when the roll was superseded by the codex, our present book-form. That change was going on in the 3rd century. Origen found codices with the order John-Matthew-Mark-Luke — due probably to the desire to give the apostles the leading place. That and the one common today may be considered the two main groupings — the one in the order of dignity, the other in that of time. The former is Egyptian and Latin; the latter has the authority of most Greek manuscripts, Catalogues and Fathers, and is supported by the old Syriac.

    Within these, however, there are variations. The former is varied thus:

    John-Matthew-Luke-Mark, and Matthew-John-Mark-Luke, and Matthew- John-Luke-Mark; the latter to Matthew-Mark-John-Luke. Mark is never first; when it follows Luke, the time consideration has given place to that of length.

    2. CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 1. Scope: The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included.

    These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in Acts 10:37-43. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in Acts 10) practically make up the Gospel. 2. Material Peculiar to Mark: Matter peculiar to Mark is found in 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); 3:21 (his kindred’s fear); 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); 8:22-26 (the blind man); 13:33-37 (the householder and the exhortation to watch); 14:51 (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark’s account is very much fuller; e.g. 6:14-29 (death of John the Baptist); Mark 7:1-23 (on eating with unwashen hands); 9:14-29 (the demoniac boy); 12:28-34 (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists.

    Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11). 3. Quotations: In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isaiah part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in John 3:28. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequency. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John.

    Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21, Acts 107. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in Mark 7:7 where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, “in vain do they worship me” — a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but “teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, 9:48; 10:19; 12:32.

    4. A Book of Mighty Works: Judged by the space occupied, Mark is a Gospel of deeds. Jesus is a worker. His life is one of strenuous activity. He hastens from one task to another with energy and decision. The word [eujqu>v , euthus ], i.e. “straightway,” is used 42 times as against Matthew’s 7 and Luke’s 1. In of these, as compared with 2 in Matthew and none in Luke, the word is used of the personal activity of Jesus. It is not strange therefore that the uneventful early years should be passed over (compare John 2:11). Nor is it strange that miracles should be more numerous than parables.

    According to Westcott’s classification (Introduction to Study of the Gospel, 480-86), Mark has 19 miracles and only 4 parables, whereas the corresponding figures for Matthew are 21 to 15 and for Luke 20 to 19. Of the miracles 2 are peculiar to Mark, of the parables only 1. The evangelist clearly records the deeds rather than the words of Jesus. These facts furnish another point of contact with Peter’s speeches in Acts — the beneficent character of the deeds in Acts 10:38, and their evidential significance in Acts 2:22 (compare Mark 1:27; 2:10, etc.).

    The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (1:21- 28), the paralytic (2:1-12), the withered hand (3:1-5), the storm stilled (4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-17), Jairus’ daughter (5:22 ff), the woman with the issue (5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (8:1-10), walking on the water (6:48 ff); the Syrophoenician’s daughter (7:24-30), the deaf mute (7:31-37), the blind man (8:22-26), the demoniac boy (9:14 ff), blind Bartimeus (10:46-52), the fig tree withered (11:20 ff), the resurrection (16:1 ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott’s Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea. 5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher: Though what has been said is true, yet Mark is by no means silent about Jesus as a teacher. John the Baptist is a preacher ( Mark 1:4,7), and Jesus also is introduced as a preacher, taking up and enlarging the message of John. Very frequent mention is made of him as teaching (e.g. Mark 1:21; 2:13; 6:6, etc.); indeed the words [didach> , didache ], and [dida>skw , didasko ], occur more frequently in Mark than in any other Gospel. Striking references are made to His originality, methods, popularity and peerlessness as a teacher ( Mark 1:22; 4:1 f,33; 11:27 through 12:37; especially 12:34). A miracle is definitely declared to be for the purpose of instruction ( Mark 2:10), and the implication is frequent that His miracles were not only the dictates of His compassion, but also purposed self-revelations ( Mark 5:19 f; 11:21-23). Not only is He Himself a teacher, but He is concerned to prepare others to be teachers ( Mark 3:13 f; 4:10 f). Mark is just as explicit as Matthew in calling attention to the fact that at a certain stage He began teaching the multitude in parables, and expounding the parables to His disciples ( Mark 4:2-11 f). He mentions, however, only four of them — the Sower ( Mark 4:1-20), the Seed Growing Secretly ( Mark 4:26-29), the Mustard Seed ( Mark 4:30-32) and the Husband-men ( Mark 12:1-12). The number of somewhat lengthy discourses and the total amount of teaching is considerably greater than is sometimes recognized. Mark 4 and approach most nearly to the length of the discourses in Matthew and correspond to Matthew 13 and 24 respectively. But in Mark 7:1-23; 9:33-50; 10:5-31,39-45 and 12:1-44 we have quite extensive sayings. If Jesus is a worker, He is even more a teacher. His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works. The teachings grew naturally out of the occasion and the circumstances. He did and taught. Because He did what He did He could teach with effectiveness. Both works and words reveal Himself.

    6. A Book of Graphic Details: There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (7:33; 9:36; 10:16) and His looks of inquiry (5:32), in prayer (6:41; 7:34), of approval (3:34), love (10:21), warning (to Judas especially 10:23), anger (3:5), and in judgment (11:11). Jesus hungers (11:12), seeks rest in seclusion (6:31) and sleeps on the boat cushion (4:38); He pities the multitude (6:34), wonders at men’s unbelief (6:6), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (6:34; 8:12), grieves at their hardening (3:5), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (8:33; 10:14). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (1:31; 2:11 f; 3:5), sometimes as gradual or difficult (1:26; 7:32-35; 9:26-28), and once as flatly impossible “because of their unbelief” (6:6). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (1:32), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (3:10), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (1:22) and power (2:12). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (4:41), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (10:32). Many other picturesque details are given, as in 1:13 (He was with the wild beasts); 2:4 (digging through the roof); 4:38 (lying asleep on the cushion); 5:4 (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); 6:39 (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (1:29; 3:6; 13:3; 15:21), numbers (5:13; 6:7), time (1:35; 2:1; 11:19; 16:2), and place (2:13; 3:8; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68 and 15:39). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark’s Gospel,26 ff.)

    3. THE TEXT.

    Of the 53 select readings noted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (Into), only a few are of special interest or importance. The following are to be accepted: [ejn tw~| jHsai>a| tw~| profh>th| , en to Esaia to prophete ] ( Mark 1:2) [aJmarth>matov , hamartematos ] ( Mark 3:29); [plh>rhv , pleres ] (indeclinable, 4:28); [oJ te>ktwn , o tekton ] ( Mark 6:3; Jesus is here called “the carpenter”); [aujtou~ , autou ] ( Mark 6:22, Herod’s daughter probably had two names, Salome and Herodias); [pugmh~| , pugme ] ( Mark 7:23, “with the fist,” i.e. “thoroughly,” not [pukna> , pukna ] “oft”). Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek are to be followed in rejecting [pisteu~sai , pisteusai ] (leaving the graphic [ To< Eij du>nh| , To Ei dune ] ( Mark 9:23)); [kai< nhstei>a| , kai nesteia ] ( Mark 9:29); [pa~sa….aJlisqh>setai , pasa...halisthesetai ] ( Mark 9:49); [tou~v….crh>masi , tous...chremasi ] ( Mark 10:24); but not in rejecting [uiJou~ qeou~ , huiou Theou ] ( Mark 1:1). They are probably wrong in retaining [ou]v….wjno>masan , hous...onomasan ] ( Mark 3:14; it was probably added from Luke 6:31); and in rejecting [kai< klinw~n , kai klinon ] and accepting [rJanti>swntai , hrantisontai ] instead of [bapti>swntai , baptisontai ] ( Mark 7:4; ignorance of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews led to these scribal changes; compare Luke 11:38, where [ejbapti>sqh , ebaptisthe ] is not disputed). So one may doubt [hjpo>rei , eporei ] ( Mark 6:20), and suspect it of being an Alexandrian correction for [ejpoi>ei , epoiei ] which was more difficult and yet is finely appropriate.

    The most important textual problem is that of Mark 16:9-20. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter’s words, that for some reason those then failed him and that 16:9-20 are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think 16:8 is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that 16:9-20, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John’s authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephesiansraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.

    It is just possible that the Gospel did end at verse 8. The very abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived in the atmosphere of the Resurrection and would form an even appropriate closing for the Gospel of the Servant (see below). A Servant comes, fulfills his task, and departs — we do not ask about his lineage, nor follow his subsequent history.

    4. LANGUAGE. 1. General Character: Mark employs the common coloquial Greek of the day, understood everywhere throughout the Greek-Roman world. It was emphatically the language of the Character people, “known and read of all men.” His vocabulary is equally removed from the technicalities of the schools and from the slang of the streets. It is the clean, vigorous, direct speech of the sturdy middle class. 2. Vocabulary: Of his 1,330 words, 60 are proper names. Of the rest 79 are peculiar to Mark, so far as the New Testament is concerned; 203 are found elsewhere only in the Synoptics, 15 only in John’s Gospel,23 only in Paul (including Hebrews), 2 in the Catholic Epistles (1 in James, 1 in 2 Peter), 5 in the Apocalypse (Revelation) (see Swete, Commentary on Mark). Rather more than a fourth of the 79 are non-classical as compared with one-seventh for Luke and a little more than one-seventh for Mr. Hawkins also gives a list of 33 unusual words or expressions. The most interesting of the single words are [scizome>nouv , schizomanous ], [h]fien , ephien ], [kwmopo>leiv , komopoleis ], [ejkefali>wsan , ekephaliosan ], [proau>lion , proaulion ], and [o[ti , hoti ], in the sense of “why” ( Mark 2:16; 9:11,28); of the expressions, the distributives in Mark 6:7,39 f and 14:19, the Hebraistic [eij doqh>setai , ei dothesetai ], and [o[tan , hotan ] with the indicative. Of ordinary constructions the following are found with marked frequency: [kai> , kai ] (reducing his use of [de> , de ] to half of Matthew’s or Luke’s), historic present (accounting for the very frequent use of [le>gei , legei ] instead of [ei+pen , eipen ] the periphrastic imperfect, the article with infinitives or sentences, participles, and prepositions.

    There are indications that the writer in earlier life was accustomed to think in Aramaic. Occasionally that fact shows itself in the retention of Aramaic words which are proportionately rather more numerous than in Matthew and twice as numerous as in Luke or John. The most interesting of these are [taleiqa> kou>m , taleitha koum ], [ejffaqa> , ephphatha ], and [ Boanhrge>v , Boanerges ], each uttered at a time of intense feeling.

    Latinisms in Mark are about half as numerous as Aramaisms. They number 11, the same as in Matthew, as compared with 6 in Luke and 7 in John.

    The greater proportion in Mark is the only really noteworthy fact in these figures. It suggests more of a Roman outlook and fits in with the common tradition as to its origin and authorship.

    For certain words he has great fondness: [eujqu>v , euthus ] 42 times; [ajka>qartov , akathartos ] 11 times; [ble>pw , blepo ], and its compounds very frequently; so [ejperwta~n , eperotan ], [uJpa>gein , hupagein ], [ejxousi>a , exousia ], [eujagge>lion , euaggelion ], [proskalei~sqai , proskaleisthai ], [ejpitima~n , epitiman ] compounds of [poreu>esqai , poreuesthai ], [sunzhtei~n , sunzetein ], and such graphic words as [ejkqambei~sqai , ekthambeisthai ], [ejmbrima~sqai , embrimasthai ], [ejnagkali>zesqai , enagkalizesthai ], and [fimou~sqai , phimousthai ]. The following he uses in an unusual sense: [ejnei~cen , eneichen ], [pugmh~| , pugme ], [ajpe>cei , apechei ], [ejpibalw>n , epibalon ].

    The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the [anacolutha ] and other broken constructions, e.g. Mark 4:31 f; 5:23; 6:8 f; 11:32. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in 7:3-5; some to the introduction of a quotation as in 7:11 f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II, 6 above). 3. Style: The style is very simple. The common connective is [kai> , kai ]. The stately periods of the classics are wholly absent. The narrative is commonly terse and concise. At times, however, a multitude of details are crowded in, resulting in unusual fullness of expression. This gives rise to numerous duplicate expressions as in Mark 1:32; 2:25; 5:19 and the like, which become a marked feature of the style. The descriptions are wonderfully vivid. This is helped out by the remarkably frequent use of the historic present, of which there are 151 examples, as contrasted with 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke, apart from its use in parables. Mark never uses it in parables, whereas Matthew has 15 cases, and Luke has 5. John has 162, a slightly smaller proportion than Mark on the whole, but rather larger in narrative parts. But Mark’s swift passing from one tense to another adds a variety and vividness to the narrative not found in John. 4. Original Language: That the original language was Greek is the whole impression made by patristic references. Translations of the Gospel are always from, not into, Greek. It was the common language of the Roman world, especially for letters. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek. Half a century later Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth in Greek. The Greek Mark bears the stamp of originality and of the individuality of the author.

    Some have thought it was written in Latin. The only real support for that view is the subscription in a few manuscripts (e.g. 160, 161, [ejgra>fh JRwmai`sti> ejn JRw>mh| , egraphe Rhomaisti en Rhome ]) and in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac. It is a mistaken deduction from the belief that it was written in Rome or due to the supposition that “interpreter of Peter” meant that Mark translated Peter’s discourses into Latin Blass contended for an Aramaic original, believing that Luke, in the first part of Acts, followed an Aramaic source, and that that source was by the author of the Second Gospel which also, therefore, was written in Aramaic. He felt, moreover, that the text of Mark suggests several forms of the Gospel which are best explained as translations of a common original. Decisive against the view is the translation of the few Aramaic words which are retained.

    5. AUTHORSHIP. 1. External Evidence: The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the manuscripts. The most important patristic statements are the following:

    Papias — Asia Minor, circa 125 AD — (quoted by Eus., HE, III, 39): “And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter ([eJrmhneuthv , hermeneutes ]) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account ([su>ntaxin , suntaxin ]) of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them.”

    Justin Martyr — Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD — (In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): “And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his `Memoirs’ with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee `Boanerges,’ which means `Sons of Thunder,’ “ etc.

    Irenaeus — Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD — (Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): “After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out (“exierunt,” in Rufinus’ translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure ([e]xodon , exodon ]. “exitum” in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter ([eJrmhneu>thv , hermeneutes ]) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter.”

    Clement of Alexandria — circa 200 AD — (Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): “The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it.”

    Also (Eus., HE, II, 15): “So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter’s attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mark. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches.”

    Tertullian — North Africa, circa 207 AD — (Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, “not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was.”

    Origen — Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD — (“Comm. on Matthew” quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): “The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter ([wJv Pe>trov uJfhgh>sato aujtw~| , hos Petros huphegesato auto ]), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son.”

    Eusebius — Caesarea, circa 325 AD — (Dem. Evang., III, 5): “Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant ([gnw>rimov kai< foithth>v , gnorimes kai phoitetes ]) made memoirs of (or recorded, [ajpomnhmoneu~sai , apomnemoeusai ]) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus.” “Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter.”

    Epiphanius — Cyprus, circa 350 AD — (Haer., 41): “But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower ([ajko>louqov , akolouthos ]) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians.”

    Jerome — East and West, circa 350 AD — (De vir. illustr., viii): “Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating.

    When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches.”

    Also xi: “Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing.”

    Preface Commentary on Matthew: “The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching.”

    To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment — circa 170 AD — “which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: `quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit’ “ (see below).

    These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.

    That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin’s reference to the surname “Boanerges” supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (3:17).

    A second point is equally clear — that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter’s. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes “Marcus, my son” ( 1 Peter 5:13 the King James Version) in this connection. “Disciple” is self-explanatory. “Follower” is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. “Interpreter” is less clear.

    One view equates it with “translator,” because Mark translated either Peter’s Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter’s Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view — that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon) — is that it means “interpreter” simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).

    There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.

    The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: “(ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit,” and understands it to mean that “at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down.”

    Chase (HDB) and others regard “quibus tamen” as a literal translation of the Greek [oi=v de< , hois de ], and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, “was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them.” Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: “Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne,” compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark’s association with Peter.

    The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest manuscripts, namely, [kata< Ma>rkon , kata Markon ].

    This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been [kata< Pe>tron , kata Petron ]. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle [kata< Maqqai~on , kata Matthaion ]. 2. Internal Evidence: The internal evidence offers much to confirm the tradition and practically nothing to the contrary. That Peter is back of it is congruous with such facts as the following: (1) The many vivid details referred to above (III, 6) must have come from an eyewitness. The frequent use of [le>gei , legei ], in Mark and Matthew where Luke uses [ei+pen , eipen ], works in the same direction. (2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark’s turning of Peter’s original, e.g. Mark 1:29, where Peter may have said, “We went home, James and John accompanying us.” So in Mark 1:36 (contrasted with Luke’s impersonal description, Luke 4:42 f); Mark 3:16; 13:3. (3) Two passages ( Mark 9:6 and 11:21) describe Peter’s own thought; others mention incidents which Peter would be most likely to mention: e.g. Mark 14:37 and 14:66-72 (especially imperfect [hjrnei~to , erneito ]); 16:7; 7:12-23 in view of Acts 10:15). (4) In Mark 3:7 the order of names suits Peter’s Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem — Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness. (5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus.

    Compare Mark 5:37 with Matthew 9:23, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke’s corresponding passage ( Luke 8:51) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of Mark 9:14 is clearly from one of the three, Luke’s may be, but Matthew’s is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and Luke 9:51 through 18:14 lends weight to this consideration. (6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter’s address to Cornelius ( Acts 10:37-41). (7) The book suits Peter’s character — impressionable rather than reflective, and emotional rather than logical. To such men arguments are of minor importance. It is deeds that count (Burton, Short Intro).

    It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter’s career narrated in Matthew 14:28-33 (walking on the water), 17:24-27 (tribute money), and 16:16-19 (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew’s list of the Twelve that he himself is called “the publican.” So “Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke” (Bacon).

    As to Mark’s authorship, the internal evidence appears slight. Like the others, he does not obtrude himself. Yet for that very reason what hints there are become the more impressive.

    There may be something in Zahn’s point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author’s own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in Mark 14:51 seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents.

    But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated.

    In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in Acts 12. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word “ready” — a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife’s exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare Mark 14:17 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Matthew 26:20 reads: “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples”; Luke 22:14: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him”; while Mark has: “And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve.” The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms “the twelve disciples,” “the apostles” and “the twelve” suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.)

    Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.

    6. SOURCES AND INTEGRITY.

    We have seen that, according to the testimony of the Fathers, Peter’s preaching and teaching are at least the main source, and that many features of the Gospel support that view. We have seen, also, subtle but weighty reasons for believing that Mark added a little himself. Need we seek further sources, or does inquiry resolve itself into an analysis of Peter’s teaching?

    B. Weiss believes that Mark used a document now lost containing mainly sayings of Jesus, called Logia (L) in the earlier discussions, but now commonly known as Q (Quelle). In that opinion he has recently been joined by Sanday and Streeter. Harnack, Sir John Hawkins and Wellhausen have sought to reconstruct Q on the basis of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and Luke. Allen extracts it from Matthew alone, thinking that Mark also may have drawn a few sayings from it. Some assign a distinct source for Mark 13. Streeter considers it a document written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, incorporating a few utterances by Jesus and itself incorporated bodily by Mark. Other sources, oral or written, are postulated by Bacon for smaller portions and grouped under X. He calls the final redactor R — not Mark but a Paulinist of a radical type.

    In forming a judgment much depends upon one’s conception of the teaching method of Jesus and the apostles. Teaching and preaching are not synonymous terms. Matthew sums up the early ministry in Galilee under “teaching, preaching and healing,” and gives us the substance of that teaching as it impressed itself upon him. Mark reports less of it, but speaks of it more frequently than either Matthew or Luke. Jesus evidently gave teaching a very large place, and a large proportion of the time thus spent was devoted to the special instruction of the inner circle of disciples. The range of that instruction was not wide. It was intensive rather than extensive. He held Himself to the vital topic of the kingdom of God. He must have gone over it again and again. He would not hesitate to repeat instructions which even chosen men found it so difficult to understand.

    Teaching by repetition was common then as it is now in the East. The word “catechize” ([kathce>w , katecheo ]) implies that, and that word is used by Paul of Jewish ( Romans 2:18) and by Luke of Christian teaching ( Luke 1:4). See CATECHIST.

    The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power ( Mark 1:27). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.

    Thus before His death the general character of that kingdom, its principles and prospects, were taught. That furnished the warp for the future Gospels. The essence, the substance and general form were the same for all the Twelve; but each from the standpoint of his own individually saw particular aspects and was impressed with special details. No one of them was large enough to grasp it all, for no one was so great as the Master.

    And it would be strange indeed, though perhaps not so strange as among us, if none of them wrote down any of it. Ramsay, Salmon and Palmer are quit justified in feeling that it may have been put in writing before the death of Jesus. It may well be that Matthew wrote it as it lay in his mind, giving us substantially Harnack’s Q. John and James may have done the same and furnished Luke his main special source. But whether it was written down then or not, the main fact to be noted is that it was lodged in their minds, and that the substance was, and the details through mutual conference increasingly became, their common possession. They did not understand it all — His rising from the dead, for example. But the words were lodged in memory, and subsequent events made their meaning clear.

    Then follow the great events of His death and resurrection, and for forty days in frequent appearances He taught them the things concerning the kingdom of God and expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, especially the necessity of His death and resurrection. These furnished the woof of the future Gospels. But even yet they are not equipped for their task. So He promises them His Spirit, a main part of whose work will be to bring to their remembrance all He had said, to lead them into all the truth, and show them things to come. When He has come they will be ready to witness in power.

    The apostles’ conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ’s ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church ( Acts 8:2). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the “certainty” or undoubted truth of it ( Luke 1:4). Thus Jesus’ post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.

    Of that company Peter was the recognized leader, and did more than any other to determine the mold into which at least the post-resurrection teachings were cast. Luke tells us of many attempts to record them. He himself in his brief reports of Peter’s addresses sketches their broad outlines. Mark, at the request of Roman Christians and with Peter’s approval, undertook to give an adequate account. Two special facts influenced the result — one, the character of the people for whom he wrote; the other, the existence (as we may assume) of Matthew’s Q. It would be natural for him to supplement rather than duplicate that apostolic summary. Moreover, since Q presented mainly the ethical or law side of Christianity the supplement would naturally present the gospel side of it — and so become its complement — while at the same time this presentation and the needs of the people for whom he specially writes make it necessary to add something from the body of catechetical material, oral or written, not included in Q, as his frequent [kai< e]legen , kai elegen ], seems to imply (Buckley, 152 ff). So Mk’s is “the beginning of the Gospel.” He introduces Jesus in the act of symbolically devoting Himself to that death for our sins and rising again, which constitutes the gospel and then entering upon His ministry by calling upon the people to “repent and believe in the gospel.”

    The book is written from the standpoint of the resurrection, and gives the story of the passion and of the ministry in a perspective thus determined.

    About the same time it may be, Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, combines this gospel side of the teaching with his own Q side of it, adding from the common stock or abridging as his purpose might suggest or space might demand. Later Luke does a similar service for Greek Christians (compare Harnack, The Twofold Gospel in the New Testament).

    The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see under III above. Some have suggested that Mark 1:1-13 is akin to 16:9-20, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects 1:1- 13 is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying Mark 13 as a true report of what Jesus said.

    Wendling’s theory of three strata assignable to three different writers — historian, poet, and theologian — is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke’s omission of Mark 6:45 through 8:26. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.

    7. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.

    Ancient testimony is sharply divided. The Paschal Chronicle puts it in AD, and many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive (Harnack, Chronologie, 70, 124) 10 or 12 years after the Ascension. These Swete sets aside as due to the mistaken tradition that Peter began work in Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius (42 AD). Similarly he would set aside the opinion of Chrysostom (which has some manuscripts subscriptions to support it) that it was written in Alexandria, as an error growing out of the statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 16) that Mark went to Egypt and preached there the Gospel he composed. This he does in deference to the strong body of evidence that it was written in Rome about the time of Peter’s death. Still there remains a discrepancy between Irenaeus, as commonly understood, and the other Fathers. For, so understood, Irenaeus places it after the death of Peter, whereas Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria clearly place it within Peter’s lifetime. But it does not seem necessary so to understand Irenaeus.

    It may be that it was composed while Peter was living, but only published after his death. Christopherson (1570 AD) had suggested that and supported it by the conjectural emendation of [e]kdosin , ekdosin ], “surrendering,” “imprisonment” for [e]xodon , exodon ], in Irenaeus. Grabe, Mill and others thought Irenaeus referred, not to Peter’s death, but to his departure from Rome on further missionary tours. But if we take exodon in that sense, it is better to understand by it departure from Palestine or Syria, rather than from Rome. Irenaeus’ statement that the apostles were now fully furnished for the work of evangelization (Adv. Haer., iii.1) certainly seems to imply that they were now ready to leave Palestine; and his next statement is that Matthew and Mark wrote their respective Gospels. And Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24) states explicitly that Matthew committed his Gospel to writing “when he was about” to leave Palestine “to go to other peoples.” The same may very possibly be true of Mark. If the fact be that Romans in Caesarea or Antioch made the request of Mark, we can easily understand how, by the time of Irenaeus, the whole incident might be transferred to Rome.

    If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of Galatians 2:11 ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be “fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization.” But may it not be that Paul’s strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are Mark 2:26 and 13. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark’s explanatory addition. Mark 13 has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.

    Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James ( Mark 5:37) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers — though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author’s instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.

    The relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is important if the very widespread conviction of the priority of Mark be true. For the most likely date for Acts is 62 AD, as suggested by the mention of Paul’s two years’ residence in Rome, and Luke’s Gospel is earlier than the Acts. It may well have been written at Caesarea about 60 AD; that again throws Mark back into the fifties.

    The great objection to so early a date is the amount of detail given of the destruction of Jerusalem. Abbott and others have marshalled numerous other objections, but they have very little weight — most of them indeed are puerile. The real crux is that to accept an earlier date than 70 AD is to admit predictive prophecy. Yet to deny that, especially for a believer in Christ, is an unwarranted pre-judgment, and even so far to reduce it as to deny its presence in this passage is to charge Luke — a confessedly careful historian — with ascribing to Jesus statements which He never made.

    The eagerness to date Matthew not earlier than 70 is due to the same feeling. But the problem here is complicated by the word “immediately” (24:29). Some regard that as proof positive that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Others (e.g. Allen and Plummer) feel that it absolutely forbids a date much later than 70 AD, and consider AD as a limit. But is it not possible that by by [eujqe>wv , eutheos ] (not [paracrh~ma , parachrema ]), Christ, speaking as a prophet, may have meant no more than that the next great event comparable with the epochal overthrow of Judaism would be His own return and that the Divine purpose marches straight on from the one to the other? The New Testament nowhere says that the second advent would take place within that generation. See below under “Eschatology.” There is therefore no sufficient reason in the Olivet discourse for dating Luke or Matthew later than 60 AD, and if Mark is earlier, it goes back into the fifties.

    8. HISTORICITY.

    Older rationalists, like Paulus, not denying Mark’s authorship, regarded the miraculous elements as misconceptions of actual events. Strauss, regarding these as mythical, was compelled to postulate a 2nd-century date. When, however, the date was pushed back to the neighborhood of 70 AD, the historicity was felt to be largely established. But recently theory of “pragmatic values” has been developed; Bacon thus states it: “The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of Biblical narrative .... is the recognition of motive. The motive .... is never strictly historical but always etiological and frequently apologetic. .... The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary church” (Modern Commentary, Beginnings of Gospel Story,9). Bacon works out the method with the result that Mark is charged again and again with historical and other blunders. This view, like Baur’s tendency-theory, has elements of truth. One is that the vocabulary of a later day may be a sort of necessary translation of the original expression. But translation is neither invention nor perversion. The other is that each author has his purpose, but that simply determines his selection and arrangement of material; it neither creates nor misrepresents it if the author be honest and well informed. The word “selection” is advisedly chosen. The evangelists did not lack material.

    Each of the Twelve had personal knowledge beyond the content of Q or of Mark. These represent the central orb — the one the ethical, the other the evangelic side of it — but there were rays of exceeding brightness radiating from it in all directions. Luke’s introduction and John’s explicit declaration attest that fact. And neither John nor Luke throws the slightest suspicion on the reliability of the material they did not use. There is no sufficient reason for charging them with misstating the facts to make a point. Bacon seems to trust any other ancient writers or even his own imagination rather than the evangelists. The test becomes altogether too subjective. Yet since Christianity is a historical revelation, perversion of history may become perversion of most vital religious teaching. In the last analysis, the critic undertakes to decide just what Jesus could or could not have done or said.

    The utter uncertainty of the result is seen by a comparison of Schmiedel and Bacon. The former is sure that the cry “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” is one of the very few genuine sayings of Jesus; Bacon is equally sure that Jesus could not have uttered it. Bacon also charges Mark with “immoral crudity” because in 10:45 he reports Jesus as saying that He came “to give his life a ransom for ([ajnti> , anti ]) many.” Thus, on two most vital matters he charges the evangelists with error because they run counter to his own religious opinions.

    Plummer’s remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): “To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism.” And A.T. Robertson (“Matthew” in Bible for Home and School,26): “The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels.” The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin — a standing miracle. If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.

    9. PURPOSE AND PLAN. 1. The Gospel for Romans: Mark’s purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them.

    In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen (a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark 3:17 (Boanerges), 5:41 (Talitha cumi), 7:11 (Corban), 10:46 (Bartimaeus), 14:36 (Abba), 15:22 (Golgotha); (b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in 14:12 and 15:42; (c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark’s own narrative; (d) the Gentile sections, especially in Mark 6 through 8.

    That it was for Romans is seen in (a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in Mark 12:42; (b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (2:10), patience and heroic endurance (10:17 ff); (c) 10:12 which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman.

    Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (15:21; compare Romans 16:13) and the resemblance between 7:1-23 and Romans 14. The Roman centurion’s remark (15:39) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark’s purpose as John 20:31 to John’s.

    But one cannot escape the feeling that we have in this Gospel the antitype of the Servant of Yahweh. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, 365) tells us that there are two great figures around which Isaiah’s thoughts gather — the King and the Servant. The former rises “to the unsurpassable height of `God with us,’ `mighty God,’ teaching that in Him God shall be wholly present with His people.” The Servant is the other. The former is depicted in Matthew, who also identifies Him with the Servant (12:18 f); the latter by Mark who identifies Him with the Messianic King (11:10; 14:62). Davidson summarizes the description of the Servant: “ (1) He is God’s chosen; (2) He has a mission to establish judgment on the earth. .... The word is His instrument and the Lord is in the Word, or rather He Himself is the impersonation of it; (3) His endowment is the Spirit and an invincible faith; (4) There is in Him a marvelous combination of greatness and lowliness; (5) There are inevitable sufferings — bearing the penalty of others’ sins; (6) He thus redeems Israel and brings light to the Gentiles. (7) Israel’s repentance and restoration precede that broader blessing.”

    It is not strange that this Servant-conception — this remarkable blend of strength and submission, achieving victory through apparent defeat — should appeal to Peter.

    He was himself an ardent, whole-souled man who knew both defeat and victory. Moreover, he himself had hired servants ( Mark 1:20), and now for years had been a servant of Christ (compare Acts 4:29). That it did appeal to him and became familiar to the early Christians can be seen from Acts 3:13 and 4:30. In his First Epistle he has 17 references to Isaiah, of which belong to the second part. Temperamentally Mark seems to have been like Peter. And his experience in a wealthy home where servants were kept ( Acts 12:13), and as himself huperetes of apostles in Christian service, fitted him both to appreciate and record the character and doings of the perfect servant — the Servant of Yahweh. For Roman Christians that heroic figure would have a peculiar fascination. 2. Plan of the Gospel: The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception.

    Christ’s kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in Acts 10.

    That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:

    Title: Mark 1:1 1. The Baptist preparing the way: Mark 1:2-8; compare Isaiah 40:3 f. 2. Devotement of Jesus to death for us and endowment by the Spirit: Mark 1:9-3; compare Isaiah 42:1 ff. 3. His greatness — the Galilean Ministry: Mark 1:14 through 8:30; compare Isaiah 43 through 52:12. (1) In the synagogue: period of popular favor leading to break with Pharisaic Judaism: Mark 1:14 through 3:6. (2) Outside the synagogue: parabolic teaching of the multitude, choice and training of the Twelve and their Great Confession: Mark 3:7 ff through 8:30. 4. His lowliness — mainly beyond Galilee: Mark 8:31 through 15; compare Isaiah 52:13 through 53:9. (1) In the north — announcement of death: Mark 8:31 through 9:29. (2) On the way to Jerusalem and the cross — through Galilee ( Mark 9:30-50), Peraea ( Mark 10:1-45), Judea ( Mark 10:46-52). (3) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem ( Mark 11:1-11). (4) In Jerusalem and vicinity — opposed by the leaders ( Mark 11:12 through 12:44); foretelling their doom (Mark 13); preparing for death ( Mark 14:1-42); betrayed, condemned, crucified and buried in a rich man’s tomb ( Mark 14:43 through 15). 5. His victory — the resurrection: Mark 16; compare Isaiah 53:10-12.

    What follows in Isaiah is taken up in Acts, for the first part of which Peter or Mark may have been Luke’s main source.Generally speaking the plan is chronological, but it is plain that the material is sometimes grouped according to subject-matter.

    This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word “straightway”; the predominance of deeds; the Son’s not knowing the day ( Mark 13:32); and the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 (see III).X. Leading Doctrines. 1. Person of Christ: The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples’ confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father’s declaration of Him as His Beloved Son ( Mark 1:11; 9:7). That the sonship is unique is indicated in Mark 12:6 and 13:32. At the same time He is the Son of Man — true man (4:38; 8:5; 14:34); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (10:40; 14:36), and Head of humanity (2:10,28), their rightful Messiah or King (1:1; 14:62) — yet Servant of all (10:44 f); David’s Son and David’s Lord (12:37). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (2:5,8; 8:17) and future (8:31; 10:39; 14:27; 13), superiority to all men, whether friends (1:7; 9:3 ff) or foes (12:34), and to superhuman beings, whether good (13:32) or evil (1:13,12; 3:27). 2. The Trinity: The Father speaks in Mark 1:11; 9:7; is spoken of in 13:32; and spoken to in 14:36. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in 11:25; 12:6 and 13:32. The Spirit is mentioned in 1:8,10,12; 3:29 and 13:11. The last passage especially implies His personality. 3. Salvation: As to salvation, the Son is God’s final messenger ( Mark 12:6); He gives His life a ransom instead of many ( Mark 10:45); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant ( Mark 14:24); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God ( Mark 15:34). From the outset He knew what was before Him — only so can His baptism be explained ( Mark 1:5,11; compare 2:20); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward ( Mark 10:32; 14:33-36); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life ( Mark 10:45). The human condition is repentance and faith ( Mark 1:15; 2:5; 5:34,36; 6:5; 9:23; 16:16), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith ( Mark 1:23-26; 5:1-20; 6:35-43). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless ( Mark 11:25); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ’s true kindred ( Mark 3:35). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew ( Mark 7:24-30). 4. Eschatology: The eschatology of this Gospel is found chiefly in Mark 8:34 through 9:1 and 13. In Mark 9:1 we have a prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem which is here given as a type and proof of His final coming for judgment and reward which He has had in mind in the preceding verses.

    Mark 13 is a development of this — the destruction of Jerusalem being meant in 13:5-23 and 28-31, the final coming in 13:24-27 and 32. The distinction is clearly marked by the pronouns ([tau~ta , tauta], and [ejkei>nhv , ekeines], in 13:30 and 32 (compare Matthew 24:34,36). In each passage ( Mark 9:1; 13:30) the fall of Jerusalem is definitely fixed as toward the close of that generation; the time of the latter is known only to the Father ( Mark 13:32). Between Christ’s earthly life and the Second Coming He is seated at the right hand of God ( Mark 12:36; 16:19). The resurrection which He predicted for Himself ( Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) and which actually took place (Mark 16), He affirms for others also ( Mark 12:24-27).LITERATURE.

    The works marked with the asterisk are specially commended; for very full list see Moffat’s Introduction.Commentaries:

    Fritzsche, 1830; Olshausen, translated 1863; J.A. Alexander, 1863; Lange, translated 1866; Meyer, 1866, American edition, 1884; Cook, Speaker’s Commentary, 1878; Plumptre, Ellicott’s, 1879; Riddle, Schaff’s, 1879; W.N. Clarke, Amer. Comm., 1881; Lindsay, 1883; Broadus, 1881 and 1905; Morison, 1889; H.G. Holtzmann(3), 1901; Maclean, Cambridge Bible, 1893; Gould, International Critical Commentary, 1896; Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament, 1897; B. Weiss, Meyer, 1901; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901; Salmond, Century Bible; Wellhausen2, 1909; Swete, 1908; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909; Wohlenberg, Zahn’s Series, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1910. For the earlier see Swete.Introduction:

    Eichhorn, 1827; Credner, 1836; Schleiermacher, 1845; De Wette, 1860; Bleek, 1866, translated 1883; Reuss, 1874, translated 1884; B. Weiss. 2nd edition, translated 1886; 3rd edition, 1897; H.J. Holtzmann, 1892; Th.

    Zahn, 1897, translated 1909; Godet, 1899; Julicher(6), 1906; von Soden, 1905, translated 1906; Wendling, Ur-Marcus, 1905; A. Muller, Geschichtskerne in den Evang., 1905; Wrede, Origin of New Testament Scriptures, 1907, translated 1909; Horne, 1875; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, 7th edition, 1888, and The Canon, 6th edition, 1889; Salmon, 1897; Adeney, 1899; Bacon, 1900; Burton, 1904; Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901; Introduction to the Literature of New Testament, 1911; Peake, 1909; Gregory, Einleitung., 1909; Charteris, Canonicity, 1881; The New Testament Scriptures, 1882, and popular Intros by Plumptre, 1883; Lumby, 1883; Kerr, 1892; McClymont, 1893; Dods, 1894; Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, 1889; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, 1874; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, I, 1903; II, 1909.Mark and the Synoptic Problem:

    Rushbrooke, Synopticon, 1880; Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd edition, 1906; Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890; Some New Testament Problems, 1898; H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang., 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuch. uber die evang. Gesch., 2nd edition, 1901; Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 1899; Loisy, Les ev. syn., 1908; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evang., 1905; Blass, Origin and Char. of Our Gospels, English translation, xviii; Norton, Internal Evid. of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1847; F.H. Woods, Stud. Bibl., II, 594; Palmer, Gospel Problems and Their Solution, 1899; J.A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, 1902; Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels; Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 1904; Stanton, as above, and in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), II, 234 ff; Turner, “Chronology of New Testament,” Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), I, 403 ff; J.J.

    Scott, The Making of the Gospels, 1905; Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 1906; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I, 1893; II, 2nd edition, 1904; Beitrage zur Einleitung in das New Testament, 4 volumes, translated in “Crown Theol. Lib.,” Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909; Denney, Jesus and the Gospel; Cambridge Biblical Essays, edition by Swete, 1909; Oxford Studies in the Syn.

    Problem, edition by Sanday, 1911; Salmond, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), III, 248 ff; Maclean, Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, II, 120 f; Petrie, Growth of Gospels Shown by Structural Criticism, 1910; Buckley, Introduction to Synoptic Problem, 1912.The Language:

    Dalman, Words of Jesus, translated 1909; Deissmann, Bible Studies, translated 1901; Light from the Ancient East, translated 1910; Allen, The Expositor, I, English translation, 1902; Marshall, The Expositor, 1891-94; Wellhausen, Einleitung.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889; Swete and Hawkins.Text:

    Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek; Salmon, Introduction, chapter ix; Gregory, Text and Canon; Morison and Swete, in Commentary; Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.Special:

    Schweizer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research; Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospels, 1911; Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom, 1911; Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890; Davidson, Old Testament Theology. J. H. Farmer MARKET; MARKETPLACE; MART <mar’-ket > , <mar’-ketplas > , <mart > ( br:[\m” [ma`arabh], rj”s; [cachar]; [ajgora> , agora]): (1) [Ma`arabh], from a root meaning “trading” and hence, goods exchanged, and so “merchandise” in the Revised Version (British and American), “market” in the King James Version, occurs only in Ezek 27:13,17,19,25, and is translated correctly “merchandise” in both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version. (2) Cachar means a “trading emporium,” hence, mart, and merchandise.

    It occurs only in Isaiah 23:3 (see MERCHANDISE ). (3) Agora, from root meaning “to collect,” means a “town meetingplace,” “resort of the people,” so a place where the public generally met to exchange views and wares. No doubt, the central place soon filling up, the people thronged the adjoining streets, and so in time each street thus used came to be called, agora, “marketplace”; translated “marketplace(s)” in 1 Esdras 2:18; Tobit 2:3; Matthew 11:16; 20:3; 23:7; Mark 6:56; 7:4; 12:38; Luke 7:32; 11:43; 20:46; Acts 16:19; 17:17; “Market of Appius” in Acts 28:15 means, probably, “street” (see APPII FORUM).

    The marketplace in New Testament times was the public open space, either simple or ornate, in town, city or country, where ( Mark 6:56) the people congregated, not only for exchange of merchandise, but for one or more of the following purposes: (1) a place where the children came together to sing, dance and play, a “back-to-date” municipal recreation center ( Matthew 11:16,17; Luke 7:32); (2) a place for loafers, a sort of ancient, irresponsible labor bureau where the out-of-work idler waited the coming of an employer with whom he might bargain for his services, usually by the day ( Matthew 20:1-16); (3) a place where the proud pretender could parade in long robes and get public recognition, “salutations in the market-places,” e.g. the scribes and Pharisees against whom Jesus emphatically warns His disciples ( Matthew 23:3-7; Mark 12:38; Luke 11:43; 20:46); (4) a place where the sick were brought for treatment, the poor man’s sanatorium, a municipal hospital; Jesus “who went about doing good” often found His opportunity there ( Mark 6:56); (5) a place of preliminary hearing in trials, where the accused might be brought before rulers who were present at the time, e.g. Paul and Silas at Philippi ( Acts 16:19); (6) a place for religious and probably political or philosophical discussion (gossip also), a forum, a free-speech throne; no doubt often used by the early apostles not only as a place of proclaiming some truth of the new religion but also a place of advertisement for a coming synagogue service, e.g. Paul in Athens ( Acts 17:17).

    The Wisdom of Solomon 15:12 (the King James Version) has “They counted ... our time here a market for gain,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a gainful fair,” margin “a keeping of festival,” Greek [panhgurismo>v , panegurismos], “an assembly of all.” Such assemblies offered particular opportunities for business dealings. William Edward Raffety MARKET, SHEEP See SHEEP MARKET.

    MARMOTH <mar’-moth > , <mar’-moth > (Codex Vaticanus, [ Marmwqi>, Marmothi]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Marmaqi >, Marmathi]): “The priest the son of Urias” to whom were committed the silver and gold for the temple by the returning exiles (1 Esdras 8:62) = “Meremoth” in parallel Ezra 8:33.

    MAROTH <ma’-roth > , <ma’-roth > ( twOrm; [maroth]; ([katoikou~sa , katoikousa]) ([ojdu>nav , odunas]): An unknown town probably in the Philistine plain, named by Micah (1:12).

    MARRIAGE <mar’-ij > It would be interesting to study marriage biologically and sociologically, to get the far and near historical and social background of it as an institution, especially as it existed among the ancient Jews, and as it figures in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For, like all social institutions, marriage, and the family which is the outcome of marriage, must be judged, not by its status at any particular time, but in the light of its history. Such a study of it would raise a host of related historic questions, e.g. What was its origin? What part has it played in the evolution and civilization of the race? What social functions has it performed? And then, as a sequel, Can the services it has rendered to civilization and progress be performed or secured in any other way? This, indeed, would call for us to go back even farther — to try to discover the psychology of the institution and its history, the beliefs from which it has sprung and by which it has survived so long. This were a task well worth while and amply justified by much of the thinking of our time; for, as one of the three social institutions that support the much challenged form and fabric of modern civilization, marriage, private property and the state, its continued existence, in present form at least, is a matter of serious discussion and its abolition, along with the other two, is confidently prophesied. “Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it” (Bebel, Socialism and Sex, 199, Reeves, London; The Cooperative Commonwealth in Its Outline, Gronlund, 224). But such a task is entirely outside of and beyond the purpose of this article.

    Neither the Bible in general, nor Jesus in particular, treats of the family from the point of view of the historian or the sociologist, but solely from that of the teacher of religion and morals. In short, their point of view is theological, rather than sociological. Moses and the prophets, no less than Jesus and His apostles, accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to certain practical, ethical questions, and they dealt with it accordingly. There is nothing in the record of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles to indicate that they gave to marriage any new social content, custom or sanction. They simply accepted it as it existed in the conventionalized civilization of the Jews of their day and used it and the customs connected with it for ethical or illustrative purposes. One exception is to be made to this general statement, namely, that Jesus granted that because of the exigencies of the social development Moses had modified it to the extent of permitting and regulating divorce, clearly indicating, however, at the same time, that He regarded such modification as out of harmony with the institution as at first given to mankind.

    According to the original Divine purpose it was monogamous, and any form of polygamy, and apparently of divorce, was excluded by the Divine idea and purpose. The treatment of the subject here, therefore, will be limited as follows: Marriage among the Ancient Hebrews and Other Semites; Betrothal as the First Formal Part of the Transaction; Wedding Ceremonies Connected with Marriage, especially as Reflected in the New Testament; and Jesus’ Sanction and Use of the Institution, Teaching concerning Divorce, etc.

    1. MARRIAGE AMONG THE HEBREWS:

    With the Hebrews married life was the normal life. Any exception called for apology and explanation. “Any Jew who has not a wife is no man” (Talmud). It was regarded as awaiting everyone on reaching maturity; and sexual maturity comes much earlier indeed in the East than with us in the West — in what we call childhood. The ancient Hebrews, in common with all Orientals, regarded the family as the social unit. In this their view of it coincides with that, of modern sociologists. Of the three great events in the family life, birth, marriage and death, marriage was regarded as the most important. It was a step that led to the gravest tribal and family consequences. In case of a daughter, if she should prove unsatisfactory to her husband, she would likely be returned to the ancestral home, discarded and discredited, and there would be almost inevitably a feeling of injustice engendered on one side, and a sense of mutual irritation between the families ( Judges 14:20; 1 Samuel 18:19). If she failed to pass muster with her mother-in-law she would just as certainly have to go, and the results would be much the same (compare customs in China). It was a matter affecting the whole circle of relatives, and possibly tribal amity as well. It was natural and deemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of the wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians of the couple involved. Though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought ( Genesis 24:8) and romantic attachments were not unknown ( Genesis 29:20; 34:3; Judges 14:1; 1 Samuel 18:20), the gift or woman in the case was not currently thought of as having a personal existence at her own disposal. She was simply a passive unit in the family under the protection and supreme control of father or brothers. In marriage, she was practically the chattel, the purchased possession and personal property of her husband, who was her ba`al or master (Hos 2:16), she herself being be`ulah ( Isaiah 62:4). The control, however, was not always absolute ( Genesis 26:34; Exodus 2:21).

    The bargaining instinct, so dominant among Orientals then as now, played a large part in the transaction. In idea the family was a little kingdom of which the father was the king, or absolute ruler. There are many indications, not only that the family was the unit from which national coherence was derived, but that this unit was perpetuated through the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus society became patriarchal, and this is the key of the ancient history of the family and the nation. Through the expansion of the family group was evolved in turn the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority of the father became in turn that of the chief, the ruler, and the king. The Oriental cannot conceive, indeed, of any band, or clan, or company without a “father,” even though there be no kith or kinship involved in the matter. The “father” in their thought, too, was God’s representative, and as such he was simply carrying out God’s purpose, for instance, in selecting a bride for his son, or giving the bride to be married to the son of another. This is as true of the far East as of the near East today. Accordingly, as a rule, the young people simply acquiesced, without question or complaint, in what was thus done for them, accepting it as though God had done it directly. Accordingly, too, the family and tribal loyalty overshadowed love-making and patriotism, in the larger sense. Out of this idea of the solidarity and selectness of the tribe and family springs the overmastering desire of the Oriental for progeny, and for the conservation of the family or the tribe at any cost. Hence, the feuds, bloody and bitter, that persist between this family or tribe and another that has in any way violated this sacred law.

    Traces of what is known as beena marriage are found in the Old Testament, e.g. that of Jacob, where Laban claims Jacob’s wives and children as his own ( Genesis 31:31,43), and that of Moses ( Exodus 2:21; 4:18). This is that form of marriage in which the husband is incorporated into the wife’s tribe, the children belonging to her tribe and descent being reckoned on her side (compare W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 94). In Samson’s case we seem to have an instance of what is known among Arabs as tsadqat marriage (from tsadaq, “gift”), the kid here being the customary tsadaq (Judges 14; 15:1; 16:4).

    There is no hint that he meant to take his wife home. It is differentiated from prostitution in that no disgrace is attached to it and the children are recognized as legitimate by the tribe. Such marriages make it easier to understand the existence of the matriarchate, or the custom of reckoning the descent of children and property through the mothers. The influence of polygamy would work in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with the several wives. There is, however, no clear evidence in the Old Testament of polyandry (a plurality of husbands), though the Levirate marriage is regarded by some as a survival of it. In other words, polygamy among the Hebrews seems to have been confined to polygyny (a plurality of wives). It is easy to trace its chief causes: (1) desire for a numerous offspring (“May his tribe increase!”); (2) barrenness of first wife (as in Abraham’s case); (3) advantages offered by marital alliances (e.g. Solomon); (4) the custom of making wives of captives taken in war (compare Psalm 45:3,9); (5) slavery, which as it existed in the Orient almost implied it.

    2. BETROTHAL THE FIRST FORMAL PART:

    Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the “engagement” is with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. Genesis 24:58,60 seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry ([mohar]), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (Genesis 29; 1 Samuel 18:25). It is customary in Syria today, when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all the financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage as contracted for. Then God’s blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal effected, all danger from any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day.

    Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on till the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price — say a year or two, or, as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years.

    The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was “adultery” (Dt 22:23; Matthew 1:19).

    Polygamy is likely to become prevalent only where conditions are abnormal, as where there is a disproportionate number of females, as in tribal life in a state of war. In settled conditions it is possible only to those able to provide “dowry” and support for each and all of the wives.

    The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar ( 1 Chronicles 7:4); among the middle class ( <090101> Samuel 1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal ( Genesis 2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite ( Genesis 4:19). Kings are warned against it (Dt 17:17; compare Genesis 29:31; 30). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Kings 4; Psalm 128; Proverbs 31; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1,13). Marriage is applied figuratively, too, to the union between God and Israel, implying monogamy as the ideal state. Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society.

    Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant, XVII, i, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial., 134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having “four or even five wives,” and for “marrying as many as they wish” (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. Side by side with this practice all along has been the ideal principle ( Genesis 2:18) rebuking and modifying it. The legal theory that made the man “lord” of the wife ( Genesis 3:16; Tenth Commandment) was likewise modified in practice by the affection of the husband and the personality of the wife.

    The difference between a concubine and a wife was largely due to the wife’s birth and higher position and the fact that she was usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. A slave could not be made a concubine without the wife’s consent ( Genesis 16:2).

    3. WEDDING CEREMONIES:

    There is a disappointing uncertainty as to the exact ceremonies or proceedings connected with marriage in Bible times. We have to paint our picture from passing allusions or descriptions, and from what we know of Jewish and Arabic customs. In cases it would seem that there was nothing beyond betrothal, or the festivities following it (see Genesis 24:3 ff).

    Later, in the case of a virgin, an interval of not exceeding a year came to be observed.

    The first ceremony, the wedding procession, apparently a relic of marriage by capture (compare Judges 5:30; Psalm 45:15), was the first part of the proceedings. The bridegroom’s “friends” ( John 3:29) went, usually by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants to the home of the groom ( Matthew 9:15; John 3:29). The joyousness of it all is witnessed by the proverbial “voice of the bridegroom” and the cry, “Behold the bridegroom cometh!” ( Jeremiah 7:34; Revelation 18:23). The procession was preferably by night, chiefly, we may infer, that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.

    The marriage supper then followed, generally in the home of the groom.

    Today in Syria, as Dr. Mackie, of Beirut, says, when both parties live in the same town, the reception may take place in either home; but the older tradition points to the house of the groom’s parents as the proper place. It is the bringing home of an already accredited bride to her covenanted husband. She is escorted by a company of attendants of her own sex and by male relatives and friends conveying on mules or by porters articles of furniture and decoration for the new home. As the marriage usually takes place in the evening, the house is given up for the day to the women who are busy robing the bride and making ready for the coming hospitality. The bridegroom is absent at the house of a relative or friend, where men congregate in the evening for the purpose of escorting him home. When he indicates that it is time to go, all rise up, and candles and torches are supplied to those who are to form the procession, and they move off. It is a very picturesque sight to see such a procession moving along the unlighted way in the stillness of the starry night, while, if it be in town or city, on each side of the narrow street, from the flat housetop or balcony, crowds look down, and the women take up the peculiar cry of wedding joy that tells those farther along that the pageant has started. This cry is taken up all along the route, and gives warning to those who are waiting with the bride that it is time to arise and light up the approach, and welcome the bridegroom with honor. As at the house where the bridegroom receives his friends before starting some come late, and speeches of congratulation have to be made, and poems have to be recited or sung in praise of the groom, and to the honor of his family, it is often near midnight when the procession begins. Meanwhile, as the night wears on, and the duties of robing the bride and adorning the house are all done, a period of relaxing and drowsy waiting sets in, as when, in the New Testament parable, both the wise and the foolish virgins were overcome with sleep. In their case the distant cry on the street brought the warning to prepare for the reception, and then came the discovery of the exhausted oil.

    Of the bridegroom’s retinue only a limited number would enter, their chief duty being that of escort. They might call next day to offer congratulations.

    An Arabic wedding rhyme says: “To the bridegroom’s door went the torch-lit array, And then like goats they scattered away.” With their dispersion, according to custom, the doors would be closed, leaving within the relatives and invited guests; and so, when the belated virgins of the parable hastened back, they too found themselves inexorably shut out by the etiquette of the occasion. The opportunity of service was past, and they were no longer needed.

    At the home all things would be “made ready,” if possible on a liberal scale.

    John 2 gives a picture of a wedding feast where the resources were strained to the breaking point. Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it: “He who does not invite me to his marriage Will not have me to his funeral.” To decline the invitation to a marriage was a gross insult (Matthew 22).

    It was unusual in Galilee to have a “ruler of the feast” as in Judea (John 2).

    There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us — there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible. The marriage was consummated by entrance into the “chamber,” i.e. the nuptial chamber (Hebrew [chedher]), in which stood the bridal bed with a canopy ([chuppah]), being originally the wife’s tent ( Genesis 24:67; Judges 4:17). In all lands of the dispersion the name is still applied to the embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand or sit during the festivities. In Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew the bridegroom is said to “go in” to the bride.

    A general survey of ancient marriage laws and customs shows that those of the Hebrews are not a peculiar creation apart from those of other peoples.

    A remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic races especially, may be noted, and striking parallels are found in the Code of Hammurabi, with regard, e.g., to betrothal, dowry, adultery and divorce.

    But modern researches have emphasized the relative purity of Old Testament sexual morality. In this, as in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world. Yet we should not expect to find among them the Christian standard. Under the new dispensation the keynote is struck by our Lord’s action. The significance of His attending the marriage feast at Cana and performing His first miracle there can hardly be exaggerated. The act corresponds, too, with His teaching on the subject. He, no less than Paul, emphasizes both the honorableness of the estate and the heinousness of all sins against it.

    4. JESUS’ SANCTION OF THE INSTITUTION:

    The most characteristic use of marriage and the family by our Lord is that in which He describes the kingdom of God as a social order in which the relationship of men to God is like that of sons to a father, and their relation to each other like that between brothers. This social ideal, which presents itself vividly and continuously to His mind, is summed up in this phrase, “Kingdom of God,” which occurs more than a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. The passages in which it occurs form the interior climax of His message to men. It is no new and noble Judaism, taking the form of a political restoration, that He proclaims, and no “far-off Divine event” to be realized only in some glorious apocalyptic consummation; but a kingdom of God “within you,” the chief element of it communion with God, the loving relation of “children” to a “Father,” a present possession.

    Future in a sense it may be, as a result to be fully realized, and yet present; invisible, and yet becoming more and more visible as a new social order, a conscious brotherhood with one common, heavenly Father, proclaimed in every stage of His teaching in spite of opposition and varying fortunes with unwavering certainty of its completion — this is the “kingdom” that Jesus has made the inalienable possession of the Christian consciousness. His entire theology may be described as a transfiguration of the family (see Peabody, Jesus Christ, and the Social Question, 149 ff; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 200; Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 62; B. Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, I, 72, English translation, 1882).

    Beyond this Jesus frequently used figures drawn from marriage to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the kingdom, as Paul did concerning Christ and the church. There is no suggestion of reflection upon the Old Testament teaching about marriage in His teaching except at one point, the modification of it so as to allow polygamy and divorce.

    Everywhere He accepts and deals with it as sacred and of Divine origin ( Matthew 19:9, etc.), but He treats it as transient, that is of the “flesh” and for this life only.

    5. HIS TEACHING CONCERNING DIVORCE:

    A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? Upon the answer to that question in every age depend momentous issues, social and civic, as well as religious. The facts bearing on the question are confessedly enshrined in the New Testament, and so the inquiry may be limited to its records. Accepting with the best scholarship the documents of the New Testament as emanating from the disciples of Jesus in the second half of the 1st century AD, the question is, what did these writers understand Jesus to teach on this subject? If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistles of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see Mark 10:2 ff; Luke 16:18; Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 7:10). The Old Testament permission was a concession, He teaches, to a low moral state and standard, and opposed to the ideal of marriage given in Genesis (2:23). “The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them” (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181 f).

    Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel ( Matthew 5:32; 19:9) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mark and Luke. Here he seems to allow divorce for “fornication” ([eij mh< ejpi< pornei>a| , ei me epi porneia ], save for fornication”), an exception which finds no place in the parallels (compare 1 Corinthians 7:15, which allows remarriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen). The sense here demands that “fornication” be taken in its wider sense (Hos 2:5; Am 7:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1). Divorce to a Jew carried with it the right of remarriage, and the words `causeth her to commit adultery’ ( Matthew 5:32) show that Jesus assumed that the divorced woman would marry again. Hence, if He allowed divorce, He also allowed remarriage. A critical examination of the whole passage in Matthew has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of having been rewritten from Mark or from a source common to both Matthew and Mark, and combined with a semi-Jewish tradition, in short, that it is due to literary revision and compilation. The writer or compiler attempted to combine the original sayings of Jesus and His own interpretation. Believing that our Lord had not come to set aside the authority of Moses, but only certain Pharisaic exegesis, and supported, as doubtless he was, by a Jewish-Christian tradition of Palestine, he simply interpreted Mark’s narrative by inserting what he regarded as the integral part of an eternal enactment of Yahweh. In doing this he was unconsciously inconsistent, not only with Mark and Luke, but also with the context of the First Gospel itself, owing to his sincere but mistaken belief that the Law of Moses must not be broken. The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible (compare Hosea; Jeremiah 3; Hermas, Mand iv.1). Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), extra vol, 27b, and The Teaching of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A.

    Oxon., University of the South, 1912).

    The general principle expanded in the New Testament and the ideal held up before the Christians is high and clear. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole all are agreed must depend upon social conditions and the general moral development and environment. See further DIVORCE.

    LITERATURE.

    Material from Mishna in Selden, Uxor Hebrews, London, 1546; Hamberger, Real. Encyclopedia f. Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie; McLennan, Primitive Marriage; Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895; Tristram, Eastern Customs, London, 1894; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, III, concerning the family. George B. Eager MARROW <mar’-o > ( j”mo [moach], bl,je [chelebh], yWQvi [shiqquy], hj;m; [machah], “to make fat,” “to grease”; [muelo>v , muelos ]): Marrow is the nourisher and strengthener of the bones; it is said to moisten the bones: “The marrow ([moach]) of his bones is moistened” ( Job 21:24). The fear of Yahweh “will be health to thy navel, and marrow ([shiqquy], margin “refreshing, Hebrew moistening”) to thy bones” ( Proverbs 3:8). Thus, the expression is used figuratively of the things which alone can satisfy the soul: “My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow ([chelebh], “fat”) and fatness” ( Psalm 63:5); “In this mountain will Yahweh of hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow ( µyIj;mum] [memuchayim], particle, plural, Pual of [machah]), of wines on the lees well refined” ( Isaiah 25:6). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the writer speaks of the word of God, which is “living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow” ( Hebrews 4:12). H. L. E. Luering MARSENA <mar-se’-na > , <mar’-se-na > ( an:s]r”m” [marcena’]; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (Est 1:14)): One of “the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom.”

    MARSH <marsh > (1) ab,G< [gebhe’], the American Standard Revised Version “marsh,” the King James Version and the English Revised Version “marish” (Ezek 47:11); the King James Version “pit,” the Revised Version (British and American) “cistern” ( Isaiah 30:14); compare Arabic jaba’, “reservoir,” “watering-through”; (2) ˜Bo [bots], “mire”; hX;Bi [bitstsah], “mire,” “fen”; compare Arabic badda, to “trickle,” badad, “a little water”; (3) fyfi [TiT], “mire” “clay”; (4) rm,jo [chomer], “mire,” “clay,” “mortar”; (5) hm;d:a\h; hbe[\m” [ma`abheh ha-’adhamah] ( 1 Kings 7:46), and hm;d:a\h; ybi[\ [`abhi ha-’adhamah] ( 2 Chronicles 4:17), “clay ground”):

    In the vision of Ezekiel the saltness of the Dead Sea is “healed” by the stream issuing from under the threshold of the temple, “But the miry places ([bitstsah]) thereof, and the marshes ([gebhe’]) thereof, shall not be healed” (Ezek 47:11). [Gebhe’] occurs elsewhere only in Isaiah 30:14, where the King James Version has “pit” and the Revised Version (British and American) “cistern.” [Bots], “mire,” is found only in Jeremiah 38:22. [Bitstsah] is found also in Job 8:11, “Can the rush grow up without mire ([bitstsah])?

    Can the flag grow without water?” and in Job 40:21 (of the [behemoth]), “He lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen ([bitstsah]).” In 1 Macc 9:42,45 [e[lov , helos ], but in 9:42 Codex Vaticanus reads [o]rov , oros ], “mount.”

    Marshes are found near the mouths of some of the rivers, as the Kishon, about the [Chuleh] (? waters of Merom), at various places in the course of the Jordan and about the Dead Sea, especially at its south end. For the most part Palestine is rocky and dry. Alfred Ely Day MARS’ HILL <marz hil > . See AREOPAGUS.

    MARSHAL <mar’-shal > : Not found in the King James Version, but in the Revised Version (British and American) the word represents two Hebrew words: (1) rpeso [copher] ( Judges 5:14), translated “they that handle the marshal’s staff.” A difficulty arises because the usual meaning of [copher] is “scribe” or “writer” (so the King James Version). The revisers follow Septuagint and Greek authority which favor “marshal” as against “scribe.” The office of marshal was to help the general to maintain discipline (compare 1 Macc 5:42). (2) rs”pifi [Tiphcar] ( Jeremiah 51:27), a loan-word whose meaning is clear. Lenormant thinks it akin to a Babylonian-Assyrian word meaning “tablet-writer” (compare Delitzsch). Accordingly, the Revised Version margin renders Nahum 3:17 “thy scribes,” though the Syriac has “thy warriors,” as does the Targum in Jeremiah. We must await further light on both words. George B. Eager MART <mart > . See MARKET.

    MARTHA <mar’-tha > ([ Ma>rqa , Martha ], “mistress,” being a transliteration of the feminine form of rm” [mar], “Lord”): Martha belonged to Bethany, and was the sister of Lazarus and Mary ( John 11:1 f). From the fact that the house into which Jesus was received belonged to Martha, and that she generally took the lead in action, it is inferred that she was the eider sister.

    Martha was one of those who gave hospitality to Jesus during His public ministry. Thus, in the course of those wanderings which began when “he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerus” ( Luke 9:51), he “entered into a certain village” — its name is not stated — and “a certain woman named Martha received him into her house” ( Luke 10:38). Martha, whose sense of responsibility as hostess weighed heavily upon her, was “cumbered about much serving,” and her indignation was aroused at the lack of assistance given to her by her sister. Her words, “Lord, dost thou not care?” implied a certain reproach to Jesus also, in that she felt He showed a want of sympathy with her efforts and was the cause of Mary’s remissness.

    But Jesus, in tones of gentle reproof, reminded her that for Him not the preparation of an elaborate meal but the hearing of His Word in the spirit of Mary was the “one thing needful” ( Luke 10:39-42).

    Martha is first mentioned by John — the only other Gospel writer who refers to Martha — in his account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany ( John 11:1-44). The narrative indicates, however, that Jesus was already on terms of the closest friendship with her and her household (compare 11:3,5). In the incident which John here records, Martha again displayed her more practical nature by going out to meet Jesus, while Mary sat in the house (11:20). But she was not behind her sister in her love for her brother (11:19), in her faith in Jesus (11:21 f) and in her belief in the final resurrection (11:24). The power of Him, whom she termed the “Teacher,” to restore Lazarus to life even upon earth was beyond her understanding. To the words of Jesus concerning this she gave, however, a verbal assent, and went and informed Mary, “The Teacher is here, and calleth thee” (11:27 f). Yet she remained inwardly unconvinced, and remonstrated when Jesus ordered the stone before the grave to be removed (11:39). Jesus then recalled His previous words to her remembrance (11:40), and vindicated them by restoring her brother to life (11:41-44).

    After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus then made His departure, but after a short stay in Ephesiansraim (11:54) He returned to Bethany ( John 12:1). While He supped there, Martha once more served, and Lazarus was also present ( John 12:2). It was on this occasion that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus ( John 12:3-8). According to Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper, and it has hence been concluded by some that Martha was the wife or widow of Simon. The anointing described in Luke 7:36-50 happened in the house of Simon a Pharisee. But in none of the synoptist accounts is Martha mentioned. For the relationship of these anointings with each other, see MARY, IV. As, according to John, the abode of the sisters was in Bethany, a further difficulty of a topographical nature is raised by those who hold that Luke implies, from the Galilean setting of Luke 10:38-41, that the sisters lived in Galilee. But the information supplied by Luke, upon which this inference is based, is of the vaguest (compare Luke 10:38), and the great division of Luke’s Gospel ( Luke 9:51 through 18:31) has within it no organic cohesion of parts. In it is mentioned that on two separate occasions Jesus passed through Samaria ( Luke 9:52; 17:11). It is therefore more logical to suppose that the events described in Luke 10:38-41, falling within the intervening period, took place in Bethany during an excursion of Jesus to Judea, and formed one of the several visits upon which the friendship recorded in John 11:3,5 was built. According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the 2nd century (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 38, 39), Martha was present with the other two Marys at the empty grave of Jesus (compare Matthew 28:1,11), and went and informed the disciples. C. M. Kerr MARTYR <mar’-ter > ([martu>v , martus ], Aeolic [martu>r , martur ]): One who gives heed, and so, a “witness,” so translated in numerous passages, both as of one bearing testimony, and also as of one who is a spectator of anything (see WITNESS). In the King James Version rendered “martyr” in Acts 22:20, “thy martyr Stephen”; and Revelation 2:13, “Antipas my faithful martyr”; also 17:6, “the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,” where alone the American Standard Revised Version retains “martyrs.” These 3 passages are the beginning of the use of the word “martyr” for such witnesses as were faithful even unto death, its uniform modern use.

    MARVEL; MARVELOUS <mar’-vel > , <mar’-vel-us > ( Hm”T; [tamah], al;P; [pala’]; [qauma>zw , thaumazo ], [qaumasto>v , thaumastos ]): “To marvel” is the translation of [tamah], “to wonder” ( Genesis 43:33; Psalm 48:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “were amazed”; Eccl 5:8); of thaumazo, “to admire,” “wonder” ( Matthew 8:10,27; Mark 5:20; John 3:7; Acts 2:7; Revelation 17:7 the King James Version, etc.); “marvel” (substantive) occurs in the plural as translation of [pala’], “to distinguish,” figuratively, “to make wonderful” ( Exodus 34:10, “I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought” (the Revised Version margin “created”)); and of [thaumastos ] ([thauma ]) ( 2 Corinthians 11:14). “Marvelous” is the translation of [pala’], “marvelous works” ( Chronicles 16:12,24; Psalm 9:1); “marvelous things” ( Job 5:9; 10:16; Psalm 31:21; 118:23; Isaiah 29:14; Daniel 11:36; Zechariah 8:6, bis); “marvellously,” [pala’] ( Job 37:5; Habakkuk 1:5 twice ([tamah]), “regard and wonder marvelously,” literally, “marvel marvelously”); [thaumastos ], “admirable,” “wonderful,” is translated “marvelous” ( Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 15:1,3, etc.).

    In Apocrypha we have “marvel” (Ecclesiasticus 11:13; 47:17; 2 Macc 1:22; 7:12); “marvelleth” (Ecclesiasticus 40:7; 43:18); “marvellous” (The Wisdom of Solomon 10:17; 19:8, etc., mostly [thaumazo ] and compounds).

    The Revised Version (British and American) has “wonder” for “marvel” ( Revelation 17:7)’ “the marvel” for a “marvellous thing” ( John 9:30); “marvelled” for “wondered” ( Luke 8:25; 11:14); “marvelled at” for “admired” ( 2 Thessalonians 1:10); “marveling” for “wondered” ( Luke 9:43); “marvellous” for “wondrous” ( 1 Chronicles 16:9; <19A502> Psalm 105:2); “marvellous things” for “and wonders” ( Job 9:10); “wonderful” for “marvellous” ( <19D914> Psalm 139:14); for “marvelled” ( Matthew 9:8), “were afraid,” and ( Mark 12:17) “marvelled greatly” (different texts). W. L. Walker MARY <ma’-ri > , <mar’-i > ([ Mari>a , Maria ], [ Maria>m , Mariam ], Greek form of Hebrew µy:r”mi [miryam]):

    1. DEFINITION AND QUESTIONS OF IDENTIFICATION.

    A Hebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4; 1 Chronicles 4:17) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I. The Name Mary in the New Testament: (1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see MIRIAM). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification: (a) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (b) Mary Magdalene; (c) Mary, the mother of James; (d) Mary, the mother of Joses; (e) Mary, the wife of Clopas; (f) Mary of Bethany; (g) Mary, the mother of Mark; (h) Mary of Rome; (i) the “other” Mary. (2) A comparison of Matthew 27:56; 28:1 with Mark 15:47 seems clearly to identify the “other” Mary with Mary the mother of Joses. (3) Mark 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare Mark 15:47) (see Allen’s note on Matthew 27:56). (4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latter’s sister and Mary of Magdala ( John 19:25). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned ( Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated “son of Alpheus” ( Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus. Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus ([ ?Alfai~ov , Alphaios ]) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic yP”l]j” [chalpay], together with the unlikelihood that anyone important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus (see ALPHAEUS). Along with this reasonable conclusion has grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the “Lord’s brother.” The available evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19). (5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note (New Testament, II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome ( Romans 16:6) with the “other” Mary of Matthew. We need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have no details given is of little more than academic interest.

    We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany; Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.

    2. MARY, THE VIRGIN.

    The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her leading characteristics in clear light.

    Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has well-nigh removed Mary from history (see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION). On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims, which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.

    Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, Matthew and 2; Luke 1 and 2; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, John 2:1-11; the episode of Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:21,31 ff; the incident at the cross, John 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, Acts 1:14. 1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives: (1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both Infancy documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of special interest to Luke (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 76 f), and there are not wanting indications that Luke’s story came from Mary herself. But, while Matthew’s account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the pathetic story of the Lord’s mother is evident.

    Luke tells the story of Mary’s inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (1:26 f), her maidenly fears (1:29,35), her loyal submission (1:38), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy (1:39-55). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.

    Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (1:18); her bitter humiliation (1:19), her ultimate vindication (1:20 f). Here the two narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the central fact — the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other — which is evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble, natural qualities of the subject of them. (2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Mary’s character with her quietness of spirit; her meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred silence. The canticle ( Luke 1:46-55), which at least expresses Luke’s conception of her nature, indicates that she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels. 2. Mary at Cana: The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee ( John 2:1-11). The relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items: (1) in a crisis of need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected; (2) she is entirely undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be; (3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her authoritative directions to the servants; (4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power.

    Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine.

    It is enough that her spontaneous appeal to her Son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He “manifested his glory.” The incident confirms the Infancy narrative in which Mary’s quiet and forceful personality is exhibited. 3. Mary and the Career of Jesus: In Matthew 12:46 (parallel Mark 3:31-35), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Mark’s account. He interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in Mark 3:21) by the account of the accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub. This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned enthusiasm of the multitude. which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time, was not due to captious and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life — but it is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the incident is very different from this. 4. Mary at the Cross: To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene at the cross recorded by John (19:25 ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals the true spirit of the Master’s home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself. 5. Mary in the Christian Community: The final passage which we need to consider ( Acts 1:14) is especially important because in it we discover Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of the whole body of disciples on the way to faith.

    The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.

    The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was a deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled. 6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition: (1) Legend.

    The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account. (2) Dogma.

    There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Mary’s later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, II, 220, quoted by Mayor, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 288, note): “Mary’s corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact.” If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. Aside from the quasi-historical dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts. (a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness:

    This is discussed under IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (which see) and need not detain us here. (b) Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

    It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion.

    Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, “brethren of the Lord” is explained as “foster-brethren,” “cousins” or whatnot; if Jesus is shown to be not only “first-born” but “only-born” Son ( Luke 2:7); if the expression of Matthew 1:25 is interpreted as meaning “up to and beyond” (Pusey, et al.; compare Roman Catholic Dict., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity — perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the “brethren-of-the-Lord” question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Joseph’s.

    No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such.

    It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life. (c) Doctrine of Mary’s Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor:

    With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines. (i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of Revelation 12:1-6 with Mary. Careful exegesis of the passage (especially 12:6), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Mary’s status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Mary’s motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, Expositors’ Bible, “Revelation,” 196 f).

    Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy. (ii) Christ’s perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple ( Luke 2:51) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above, II, 2, 3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Mary’s position is one of dependence, not of authority. (iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him. (iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see Acts 1:14). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers.

    To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined,22 f). (3) Conclusion.

    Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.

    3. MARY MAGDALENE ([ Mari>a Magdalhnh> , Maria Magdalene ] = of “Magdala”). — A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun “Magdala,” from which the adjective “Magdalene” is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in Matthew 15:39, is, of course, “Magadan”). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, “Luke,” 215): “‘Magdala is only the Greek form of mighdol or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine’ (Tristram, Bible Places, 260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near the center of the western shore of the lake.” 1. Mary not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7: As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character.

    The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street, undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel.

    It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas (see DEMON, DEMONOLOGY), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposi-tion popularly associated with “having a devil.” The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.

    According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Luke 7:37; John 8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Luke 11:26), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mark 5:9) suggested the use of the number 7.

    Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.

    The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at 7:50.

    The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummer’s analysis, op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary’s introduction into the circle of Christ’s followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord’s feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together. 2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck: Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of “seeing things.” Renan is the chief offender in this particular, but others have followed his example. (1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that, henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical tremors and involuntary hallucinations. (2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb ( Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). But she was also the last at the cross — she and her companions ( Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:40). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean ministry as one of a group consisting of “many” ( Luke 8:3), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herod’s steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Mary’s character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers, marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lord’s healing power.

    Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord. It is impossible that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Master’s need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.

    4. MARY OF BETHANY.

    Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany ([ Bhqani>a , Bethania ]), and a member of the family consisting of a muchbeloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.

    The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (11:2) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of John 12:1,8, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (7:36-50) records an anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of Luke 7 is described as a sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hypothesis.

    On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280a): “Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered such a high encomium upon Mary’s act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?” We shall be compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than one. 1. Attack upon Luke’s Narrative: In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence.

    Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the narrative shows no signs of confusion. “The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection” (International Critical Commentary, “Luke,” 209). 2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone: The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Luke’s narrative taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in Luke 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a “certain [tiv, tis] woman named Martha,” and “she had a sister called Mary,” etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare John 11:1). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of Luke 7 (compare Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8). 3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison: Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads: (1) notes of time and place; (2) circumstances and scenery of the incident; (3) description of the person who did the anointing; (4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what; (5) the lesson drawn from the woman’s action which constitutes our Lord’s defense of it; (6) incidental features of the narrative.

    Under (1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany. Under (2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon “the leper,” while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served.

    Under (3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say “a woman,” while John designates Mary. (4) According to Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged wastefulness of the action. (5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. John’s expression in particular is most interesting and peculiar (see John 12:7). (6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place is by Matthew and Mark designated “the leper.” This must mean either that he had previously been cured or that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, “Mark,” 257). The presence of a healed leper on this occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing power.

    It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of Luke 7.

    An analysis of the incident of Luke 7 with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists. (1) The time and place indications, such as they are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of any such identification. (2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon “the leper” and Simon “the Pharisee” can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simon’s temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been proscribed by the authorities. Simon’s attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, but the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood. (3) The description of the same woman as sinner in the sense of Luke in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in Luke’s description is seriously at variance with the other narratives. (4) Luke is again at variance with the others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Luke’s account there is no complaint of the woman’s action suggested.

    There is no hint that anybody thought or pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simon’s, and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of our Lord’s Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it apart from all other similar episodes. (5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental relationship to the Lord’s death, near at hand.

    This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven penitent.

    In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the grave, and, may we not say (in view of John 12:7), grief and foreboding? That Mary’s feeling was expressed in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Mary’s act, though later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her quite as natural and deserved. 4. Character of Mary: With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the career and estimate the character of Mary. (1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In Luke 10:38-42 we are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening.

    This, of course, might mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is not difficult to identify. She was just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. Mary’s quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against the foil of Martha’s excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it, Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct. (2) In John 11:20, we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters; especially, as when Mary does come at Martha’s call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (11:21,32), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lord’s composure that He is unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (11:34). (3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she serves. She always serves when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of Luke 10:38-42 is sketched again in lifelikeness. It is the same Martha engaged in the same task.

    But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an unprecedented role, strange to an oriental woman and especially to one so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to expect from these deep, intense, silent natures.

    The Mary who sat at Jesus’ feet in listening silence while Martha bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a selfforgetful public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.

    Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her ( John 11:5). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, with a latent capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord.

    5. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES.

    Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see Matthew 27:55,56,61; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; compare Luke 23:49-56).

    In Matthew 27:55,56 (parallel Mark 15:40), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III, above); Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedee’s children. By reference to Luke 8:2,3, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Mary’s sons accompanied their mother on this ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle.

    It is interesting to note that two mothers with their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas’ wife ( Luke 8:3) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women.

    The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross ( Mark 15:40); a spectator at the burial ( Mark 15:47); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this woman’s biography extant, but perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore.

    A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.

    6. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JOHN MARK.

    This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament ( Acts 12:12), but in a connection to arouse intense interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see Paul the Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house. This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly upon his escape from prison argues that Mary’s house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship. The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers assembled points in the same direction. That “many” were gathered in the house at the same time indicates that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a household of more than ordinary size. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Mary’s house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled devotion to Christian service, making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became. Louis Matthews Sweet MARY, THE PASSING OF See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

    MASALOTH <mas’-a-loth > . See MESALOTH.

    MASCHIL <mas’-kil > . See PSALMS.

    MASH ( vm” [mash]): Named in Genesis 10:23 as one of the sons of Aramaic In the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 1:17 the name is given as “Meshech” ([meshekh]), and the Septuagint ([Mosoch ]) supports this form in both passages. “Meshech,” however, is a Japhetic name ( Genesis 10:2), and “Mash” would seem to be the original reading. It is probably to be identified with the Mons Masius of classical writers (Strabo, etc.), on the northern boundary of Mesopotamia.

    MASHAL <ma’-shal > ( lv;m; [mashal], 1 Chronicles 6:74). See MISHAL.

    MASIAS <ma-si’-as > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Masi>av , Masias ]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Meisai>av , Meisaias ]): The head of one of the families of Solomon’s servants (1 Esdras 5:34); it has no equivalent in the parallel Ezra 2:55 ff; the Revised Version margin “Missaias.”

    MASMAN <mas’-man > . See MAASMAS.

    MASON <ma’-s’n > : The translation of 4 Hebrew words: (1) ˆb,a, vr’j; [charash ‘ebhen], “graver of stone” ( 2 Samuel 5:11); (2) (3) rd’G; [gadhar] ( 2 Kings 12:12), ryqi vr’j; [charash qur] ( 1 Chronicles 14:1), “maker of a wall (or hedge)”; (4) bx”j; [chatsabh], “a hewer or digger (of stones)” ( Chronicles 22:2; Ezra 3:7). Lebanon still supplies the greater number of skilled masons to Palestine and Syria (see 2 Samuel 5:11), those of Shweir being in special repute. See CRAFTS, II, 8; also ARCHITECTURE; BUILDING; GEBAL; HOUSE.

    MASPHA <mas’-fa > (1 Macc 3:46, the Revised Version (British and American) “Mizpeh”). See MIZPEH, 4.

    MASREKAH <mas’-re-ka > , <mas-re’-ka > ( hq;rEc]m” [masreqah]; [ Mase>kka , Masekka ]): A place mentioned in the list of ancient rulers of Edom ( Genesis 36:31), “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Masrekah was the royal city of Samlah, son of Hadad ( Genesis 36:36; 1 Chronicles 1:47). The name may mean “place of choice vines,” but there is nothing to show in what locality it must be sought.

    MASSA <mas’-a > ( aC;m” [massa’], “burden”): Descendant of Abraham through Ishmael ( Genesis 25:14; 1 Chronicles 1:30). His people may be the Masani of Ptolemy, having Eastern Arabia near Babylon as their habitat.

    The marginal reading of the heading to Proverbs 31 mentions Lemuel as king of Massa. If that reading is accepted, it would seem that a tribe and probably a place were named from Ishmael’s descendant. The reading is doubtful, however, for where the phrase recurs in Proverbs 30 (Revised Version (British and American)) it appears to be a gloss.

    MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS <mas’-a-ker > . See INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF.

    MASSAH AND MERIBAH <mas’-a > , <mer’-i-ba > ( hb;yrIm]W hS;m” [maccah umeribhah], “proving and strife”; [peirasmorhsiv , peirasmos kai loidoresis ]): These names occur together as applied to one place only in Exodus 17:7; they stand, however, in parallelism in Dt 33:8; Psalm 95:8. In all other cases they are kept distinct, as belonging to two separate narratives. The conjunction here may be due to conflation of the sources.

    Of course, it is not impossible that, for the reason stated, the double name was given, although elsewhere (Dt 6:16; 9:22) the place is referred to as Massah.

    1. FIRST INSTANCE:

    This scene is laid in Exodus 17:1 at REPHIDIM (which see) and in 17:6 at HOREB (which see). It is near the beginning of the desert wanderings.

    In dearth of water the people murmur and complain. Moses, appealing to God, is told what to do. He takes with him the elders of Israel, and smites with his rod the rock on which the Lord stands in Horeb, whereupon water gushes forth, and the people drink. Here Moses alone is God’s agent.

    There is no hint of blame attaching to him. He called the place Massah and Meribah, because of the of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord (17:7). In some way not indicated, here and at Meribah, God put the Levites to proof (Dt 33:8).

    2. SECOND INSTANCE:

    The second narrative describes what took place at Kadesh (i.e. “Kadeshbarnea”) when the desert wanderings were nearly over ( Numbers 20:1-13). The flow of water from the famous spring for some reason had ceased. In their distress the people became impatient and petulant. At the door of the tent of meeting Moses and Aaron received the Lord’s instructions. In his speech of remonstrance to the people Moses seemed to glorify himself and his brother; and instead of speaking to the rock as God had commanded, he struck it twice with his rod. The flow of water was at once restored; but Moses and Aaron were heavily punished because they did not sanctify God in the eyes of the children of Israel. The “Waters of Meribah” was the name given to this scene of strife. The incident is referred to in Numbers 20:24, and Dt 32:51 ([merobhath qadhesh], the King James Version “Meribah-Kadesh,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Meribah of Kadesh”). In Psalm 81:7 God appears as having tested Israel here. The sin of Israel and the ensuing calamity to Moses are alluded to in <19A632> Psalm 106:32.

    The place appears in Ezek 47:19; 48:28, as on the southern border of the land of Israel, in the former as “Meriboth-kadesh,” in the latter as “Meribath-kadesh” (Meriboth = plural Meribath = “construct singular”) where the position indicated is that of `Ain Qadis, “Kadesh-barnea.”

    In Dt 33:2, by a slight emendation of the text we might read [meribhoth qadhesh] for [meribhebhoth qodhesh]. This gives a preferable sense. W. Ewing MASSIAS <ma-si’-as > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Massi>av , Massias ]; Codex Vaticanus, [ [?]Assei>av , Asseias ]): One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:22) = “Maaseiah” of Ezra 10:22.

    MAST See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (3); 3.

    MASTER <mas’-ter > ( ˆwOda; [’adhon], l[“B” [ba`al], yBir’ [rabbi]; [despo>thv , despotes ], [dida>skalov , didaskalos ], [ku>riov , kurios ], [rJabbi> , rhabbi ]): “Master,” when the translation of [’adhon], “ruler,” “lord” (Sir), often translated “lord,” denotes generally the owner or master of a servant or slave ( Genesis 24:9, etc.; 39:2, etc.; Exodus 21:4, etc.; Dt 23:15 bis; 2 Samuel 9:9,10 twice; Proverbs 30:10); elsewhere it is rather “lord” or “ruler” (often king, e.g. 1 Samuel 24:6,8; 26:16); in the plural [’adhonim], it is, as the rule, used only of God (but see Genesis 19:2,18; Dt 10:17; <19D603> Psalm 136:3, “Lord of lords”; Isaiah 26:13, “other lords”; 19:4 (Hebrew “lords”); 24:2). [Ba`al], “lord,” “owner,” is translated “master”: “the master of the house” ( Exodus 22:8; Judges 19:22,23); “the ass his master’s crib” ( Isaiah 1:3). We have it also translated “masters of assemblies” (Eccl 12:11). See ASSEMBLIES, MASTERS OF. Compare Ecclesiasticus 32:1, “master (of a feast),” the Revised Version (British and American) “ruler”; John 2:9, “ruler of the feast”; [rabh] ( Daniel 1:3; Jon 1:6, “shipmaster”); [rabh], Aramaic, “great,” “mighty,” “elder” ( Daniel 4:9; 5:11,” master of the magicians”); also [sar], “head” or “chief” ( Exodus 1:11, “taskmasters”; 1 Chronicles 15:27, “master of the song,” the Revised Version margin “the carrying of the ark, Hebrew the lifting up”); [`ur], “to call,” “to awake,” is also rendered “master” in the King James Version, “The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar,” margin “him that waketh and him that answereth,” the Revised Version (British and American) as the King James Version margin ( Malachi 2:12).

    The verb “to master” does not occur in the Old Testament, but we have in Apocrypha (The Wisdom of Solomon 12:18) “mastering thy power” ([despozon ischuos ]), the Revised Version (British and American) “being sovereign over (thy) strengh.”

    In the New Testament despotes answers to [’adhon] as “master” ( <540601> Timothy 6:1,2; 2 Timothy 2:21), rendered also “Lord” ( Luke 2:29,etc.); [kurios ], is “Master,” “Lord,” “Sir,” used very frequently of God or of Christ ( Matthew 1:20,22,24), translated “Master” ( Matthew 6:24; 15:27; the King James Version Mark 13:35; Romans 14:4, etc.); [kathegetes ], a “leader,” is translated “Master” ( Matthew 23:8 (the King James Version),10); [didaskalos ], a title very often applied to our Lord in the Gospels, is “Teacher,” translated “Master” in the King James Version Matthew 8:19; 9:11; Mark 4:38; Luke 3:12, etc.; the Revised Version (British and American) “Teacher”; also John 3:2,10; James 3:1, “be not many masters,” the Revised Version (British and American) “teachers”; [rhabbi ], [rhabbei ] (“Rabbi”) (a transliterated Hebrew term signifying “my Teacher”) is also in several instances applied to Jesus, the King James Version “Master” ( Matthew 26:25,49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; John 9:2 (the Revised Version (British and American) leaves untranslated) Mark 10:51, “Rabboni,” the King James Version “Lord”; John 20:16 (“Rabbouni”), the Revised Version (British and American) “Rabboni,” which see).

    For “master” the Revised Version (British and American) has “lord” ( Samuel 26:16; 29:4,10; Am 4:1; Mark 13:35; Romans 14:4); “master” for “lord” ( Genesis 39:16; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 6:10); for “good man of the house” ( Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39), “master of the house”; in Ephesians 6:5, the Revised Version margin gives “Gr lords” (in 6:9, “their Master and yours” is also Greek [kurios]); instead of “the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” ( Jude 1:4), the Revised Version (British and American) reads “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,” margin “the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ”; for “overcame them” ( Acts 19:16), “mastered both of them.” W. L. Walker MASTERY <mas’-ter-i > , hr:WbG” [gebhurah], flev] [shelet], Aramaic; [ajgwni>zomai , agonizomai ], [ajqle>w , athleo ): “Mastery” occurs twice in the Old Testament and twice in the King James Version of the New Testament: in Exodus 32:18 ([gebhurah], “might”), “the voice of them that shout for mastery”; in Daniel 6:24 ([shelet], “to have power”), “The lions had the mastery of them”; in 1 Corinthians 9:25, [agonizomai ], “to contend for a prize,” to be a combatant in the public games, is translated “striveth for the mastery,” the Revised Version (British and American) “striventh in the games”; and in 2 Timothy 2:5, [athelo ], with the same meaning, is translated “strive for masteries,” the Revised Version (British and American) “contend in the games.” From the Greek we have the words “athlete,” etc.. W. L. Walker MASTIC, MASTICK <mas’-tik > ([sci~nov , schinos ]): A tree mentioned only in Susanna verse 54 (compare Genesis 37:25 margin). It is the Pistacia lentiscus (Arabic, Mistaki), a shrub which attains a height of 10 to 12 ft., growing in thickets on the slopes round the Mediterranean. The gum which exudes through incisions made in the bark is greatly prized as a masticatory. The smell and flavor are suggestive of the terebinth. It is chewed in order to preserve the teeth and gums. But often men chew it without any special purpose, just because they like it. The mastick produced in Chios is most highly esteemed. It is employed in making perfumes and sweetmeats; in preparing bread a little is sometimes added to the dough just before it is put into the oven. W. Ewing MATHANIAS <math-a-ni’-as > : the King James Version in 1 Esdras 9:31. See MATTHANIAS.

    MATHELAS <ma-the’-las > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Maqh>lav , Mathelas ]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Maeh>lav , Maeelas ]; the King James Version Matthelas): One of the priests who had married “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:19) = “Maaseiah” of Ezra 10:18.

    MATHUSALA <ma-thu’-sa-la > ([ Maqousala> , Mathousala ]): Greek form of “Methuselah,” the Revised Version (British and American) ( Luke 3:37 the King James Version).

    MATRED <ma’-tred > ( dref]m” [maTredh], “expulsion”): The mother of Mehetabel, wife of Hadar, one of the kings of Edom ( Genesis 36:39; 1 Chronicles 1:50, “Hadad”). The Septuagint and Peshitta designate Matred as male, i.e. as son of Mezahab instead of daughter.

    MATRI <ma’-tri > ( yrIf]m” [maTri], “rainy”): A family of the tribe of Benjamin to which King Saul belonged ( 1 Samuel 10:21 the King James Version).

    MATRITES <ma’-trits > ( yrIf]M”h” [ha-maTri]): The Revised Version (British and American) translation of [maTri] with the definite article, “the Matrites” ( 1 Samuel 10:21).

    MATTAN <mat’-an > ( ˆF;m” [mattan], “a gift”): (1) A priest in the house of Baal, slain by Jehoiada before Baal’s altar ( Kings 11:18; 2 Chronicles 23:17). (2) The father of Shephatiah a contemporary and persecutor of Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 38:1), one of those who put Jeremiah into Malechiah’s dungeon (38:6).

    MATTANAH <mat’-a-na > ( hn:T;m” [mattanah]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Manqanaei>n , Manthanaein ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Manqanei>n , Manthanein ]): A station of the Israelites which seems to have lain between Beer and Nahaliel ( Numbers 21:18 f). The name means “gift,” and might not inappropriately be applied to a well in the wilderness (Budde translates “Out of the desert a gift”; see The Expository Times, VI, 482). Some would therefore identify it with Beer. This is improbable. There is now no clue to the place, but it must have lain Southwest of the Dead Sea.

    MATTANIAH <mat-a-ni’-a > ( Why:n]T”m” [mattanyaha], “gift of Yah”): (1) King Zedekiah’s original name, but changed by Nebuchadnezzar when he made him king over Judah instead of his nephew Jehoiachin ( 2 Kings 24:17). (2) A descendant of Asaph ( 1 Chronicles 9:15), leader of the temple choir ( Nehemiah 11:17; 12:8). Mentioned among the “porters,” keepers of “the storehouses of the gates” ( Nehemiah 12:25), and again in Nehemiah 12:35 as among the “priests’ sons with trumpets.” (3) May be the same as (2) , though in 2 Chronicles 20:14 he is mentioned as an ancestor of that Jahaziel whose inspired words in the midst of the congregation encouraged Jehoshaphat to withstand the invasion of Moab, Ammon and Seir (20:14 ff). (4-7) Four others who had foreign wives, (a) the Matthanias of 1 Esdras 9:27 ( Ezra 10:26); (b) the Othonias of 1 Esdras 9:28 ( Ezra 10:27); (c) the Matthanias of 1 Esdras 9:31 ( Ezra 10:30); (d) the fourth of these in 1 Esdras 9:34 the King James Version has had his name blended into that of Mattenai, and the two appear as the composite name Mamnitanemus ( Ezra 10:37). He is a son of Bani. (8) A Levite, father of Zaccur, ancestor of Hanan the under-treasurer of the Levitical offerings under Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 13:13). (9) One of the sons of Heman the singer, whose office it was to blow the horns in the temple-service as David had appointed it ( 1 Chronicles 25:4,5). He was head of the 9th division of the 12 Levites ( 1 Chronicles 25:16), who were proficient in the Songs of Yahweh ( 1 Chronicles 25:7). (10) One of the sons of Asaph who helped Hezekiah in the fulfilling of his vow to cleanse the house of the Lord ( 2 Chronicles 29:13). Henry Wallace MATTATHA <mat’-a-tha > ([ Mattaqa> , Mattatha ]): Son of Nathan the son of David in the genealogy of Jesus ( Luke 3:31).

    MATTATHAH <mat’-a-tha > : the Revised Version (British and American). See MATTATTAH.

    MATTATHIAS <mat-a-thi’-as > ([ Mattaqi>av , Mattathias ]). The persons of this name in the Apocrypha are: (1) Mattathias the father of the Maccabees. See ASMONEANS; MACCABEES. (2) One of the 7 who stood on Ezra’s right hand as he read the law (1 Esdras 9:43) = “Mattithiah” of Nehemiah 8:4. (3) The son — probably the youngest (compare 1 Macc 16:2) — of Simon the Maccabean, treacherously murdered along with his father and his brother Judas by his brother-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus in the stronghold of Dok near Jericho in the 177th Seleucid — 136-135 BC (1 Macc 16:14). (4) Son of Absalom, one of the two “captains of the forces” who in the campaign against Demetrius in the plain of Hazor gallantly supported Judas, enabling the latter to turn an impending defeat into a great victory (1 Macc 11:70). (5) One of the three envoys sent by Nicanor to treat with Judas in 161 BC (2 Macc 14:19). No names of envoys are given in the account of 1 Macc 7:27 ff. (6) One of the sons of Asom who put away his “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:33) = the King James Version “Matthias” = “Mattattah” of Ezra 10:33.

    In addition to these two of this name are mentioned in the New Testament: (7) Luke 3:25, “son of Amos.” (8) Luke 3:26, “son of Semein.” S. Angus MATTATTAH <mat’-a-ta > ( hT;T”m” [mattattah]): the Revised Version (British and American) for “Mattathah” in the King James Version ( Ezra 10:33).

    The same as “Mattathias” of 1 Esdras 9:33, the King James Version “Matthias” (which see).

    MATTENAI <mat-e-na’-i > , <mat’-e-ni > ( yn”T]m” [mattenay], “liberal”): (1) (2) Two who married foreign wives, one a son of Hashum ( Ezra 10:33; in 1 Esdras 9:33 “Altanneus”); the other a son of Bani ( Ezra 10:37). (3) A priest in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua ( Nehemiah 12:19), representing the house of Joiarib.

    MATTER <mat’-er > : This word being a very general term may express various ideas. the Revised Version (British and American) therefore frequently changes the reading of the King James Version in order to state more definitely the meaning of the context (compare Exodus 24:14; 1 Samuel 16:18; 1 Kings 8:59; 2 Samuel 11:19; Est 3:4; Psalm 35:20; 64:5; Proverbs 16:20; 18:13). rb;D: [dabhar], and the Greek [lo>gov , logos ], both meaning “word,” are very frequently translated by “matter.” [u]lh , hule ], “wood,” is rendered “matter” in James 3:5 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “how much wood is kindled”; compare Sirach 28:10). Job 32:18 translates literally, “words”; also Daniel 4:17, “sentence.” [diafe>rw , diaphero ], “to carry in different places,” “to differ,” is rendered “to make matter” ( Galatians 2:6). The meaning is “it makes a difference,” “it matters,” “it is of importance.” A. L. Breslich MATTHAN <mat’-than > (Textus Receptus [ Matqa>n , Matthan ], Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek [ Maqqa>n , Maththan ]): An ancestor of Jesus, grandfather of Joseph the husband of Mary ( Matthew 1:15). See MATTHAT.

    MATTHANIAS <mat-tha-ni’-as > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Matqani>av , Matthanias ], Codex Vaticanus, [ Mata>n , Matan ]): (1) One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:27) = “Mattaniah” of Ezra 10:26. (2) the King James Version “Mathanias” (1 Esdras 9:31) = “Mattaniah” of Ezra 10:30. Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete, reads [beskaspasmu>v , Beskaspasmus ].

    MATTHAT <mat’-that > ([ Matqa>t , Matthat ], [ Maqqa>t , Maththat ]): The name of two ancestors of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy ( Luke 3:24,29), one being the grandfather of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

    MATTHEW <math’-u > : Matthew the apostle and evangelist is mentioned in the catalogues of the apostles in Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13, though his place is not constant in this list, varying between the 7th and the 8th places and thus exchanging positions with Thomas. The name occurring in the two forms [ Matqai~ov , Matthaios ], and [ Maqqai~ov , Maththaios ], is a Greek reproduction of the Aramaic Mattathyah, i.e. “gift of Yahweh,” and equivalent to Theodore. Before his call to the apostolic office, according to Matthew 9:9, his name was Levi. The identity of Matthew and Levi is practically beyond all doubt, as is evident from the predicate in Matthew 10:3; and from a comparison of Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27 with Matthew 9:9. Mark calls him “the son of Alpheus” ( Mark 2:14), although this cannot have been the Alpheus who was the father of James the Less; for if this James and Matthew had been brothers this fact would doubtless have been mentioned, as is the case with Peter and Andrew, and also with the sons of Zebedee.

    Whether Jesus, as He did in the case of several others of His disciples, gave him the additional name of Matthew is a matter of which we are not informed. As he was a customs officer ([oJ telw>nhv , ho telones ], Matthew 10:3) in Capernaum, in the territory of Herod Antipas, Matthew was not exactly a Roman official, but was in the service of the tetrarch of Galilee, or possibly a subordinate officer, belonging to the class called portitores, serving under the publicani, or superior officials who farmed the Roman taxes. As such he must have had some education, and doubtless in addition to the native Aramaic must have been acquainted with the Greek His ready acceptance of the call of Jesus shows that he must have belonged to that group of publicans and sinners, who in Galilee and elsewhere looked longingly to Jesus ( Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34; 15:1). Just at what period of Christ’s ministry he was called does not appear with certainty, but evidently not at once, as on the day when he was called ( Matthew 9:11,14,18; Mark 5:37), Peter, James and John are already trustworthy disciples of Jesus. Unlike the first six among the apostles, Matthew did not enter the group from among the pupils of John the Baptist. These are practically all the data furnished by the New Testament on the person of Matthew, and what is found in post-Biblical and extra-Biblical sources is chiefly the product of imagination and in part based on mistaking the name of Matthew for Matthias (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, chapter liv, note 3). Tradition states that he preached for 15 years in Palestine and that after this he went to foreign nations, the Ethiopians, Macedonians, Syrians, Persians, Parthians and Medea being mentioned. He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. The stories of the Roman Catholic church that he died the death of a martyr on September 21 and of the Greek church that this occurred on November 10 are without any historical basis.

    Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv.9) gives the explicit denial of Heracleon that Matthew suffered martyrdom. G. H. Schodde MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF ([eujagge>lion kata< Maqqai~on , euaggelion kata Maththaion ] (or [ Matqai~on , Matthaion ])):

    1. NAME OF GOSPEL — UNITY AND INTEGRITY:

    The “Gospel according to Matthew,” i.e. the Gospel according to the account of Matthew, stands, according to traditional, but not entirely universal, arrangement, first among the canonical Gospels. The Gospel, as will be seen below, was unanimously ascribed by the testimony of the ancient church to the apostle Matthew, though the title does not of itself necessarily imply immediate authorship. The unity and integrity of the Gospel were never in ancient times called in question. Matthew 1; 2, particularly — the story of the virgin birth and childhood of Jesus — are proved by the consentient testimony of manuscripts, VSS, and patristic references, to have been an integral part of the Gospel from the beginning (see VIRGIN BIRTH). The omission of this section from the heretical Gospel of the Ebionites, which appears to have had some relation to our Gospel, is without significance.

    The theory of successive redactions of Matthew, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?

    2. CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP: (1) Canonicity.

    The apostolic origin and canonical rank of the Gospel of Matthew were accepted without a doubt by the early church. Origen, in the beginning of the 3rd century could speak of it as the first of “the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven” (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25). The use of the Gospel can be traced in the apostolic Fathers; most distinctly in Barnabas, who quotes Matthew 22:14 with the formula, “It is written” (5) . Though not mentioned by name, it was a chief source from which Justin took his data for the life and words of Jesus (compare Westcott, Canon, 91 ff), and apostolic origin is implied in its forming part of “the Memoirs of the Apostles,” “which are called Gospels,” read weekly in the assemblies of the Christians (Ap. i.66, etc.). Its identity with our Matthew is confirmed by the undoubted presence of that Gospel in the Diatessaron of Tatian, Justin’s disciple. The testimony of Papias is considered below. The unhesitating acceptance of the Gospel is further decisively shown by the testimonies and use made of it in the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and by its inclusion in the Muratorian Canon, the Itala, Peshitta, etc. See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; GOSPELS. (2) Authorship.

    The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: “Matthew composed the Logia ([lo>gia , logia ], “words,” “oracles”) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able.” Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression [ta< lp>gia , ta logia ], as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, “of the things said or done by Christ” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.

    3. RELATION OF GREEK AND ARAMAIC GOSPELS:

    One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil’s Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).

    The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report ([le>getai , legetai ]) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Matthew 12:13, etc.; see GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article “Matthaeus der Apostel”). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.

    The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke’s use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the “Logia” of Papias was confined to discourses. See further on “sources” below.

    4. CONTENTS, CHARACTER AND PURPOSE: (1) Contents and Character.

    As respects contents, the Gospel of Matthew can be divided into 3 chief parts: (1) preliminary, including the birth and early youth of the Lord (Matthew 1; 2); (2) the activity of Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 3 through 18); (3) the activity of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem, followed by His passion, death, and resurrection (Matthew 19 through 28).

    In character, the Gospel, like those of the other evangelists, is only a chrestomathy, a selection from the great mass of oral tradition concerning the doings and sayings of Christ current in apostolic and early Christian circles, chosen for the special purpose which the evangelist had in view.

    Accordingly, there is a great deal of material in Matthew in common with Mark and Luke, although not a little of this material, too, is individualistic in character, and of a nature to vex and perplex the harmonist, as e.g.

    Matthew’s accounts of the temptation, of the demoniacs at Gadara, of the blind man at Jericho (4:1-11; 8:28-34; 20:20-34); yet there is much also in this Gospel that is peculiar to it. Such are the following pericopes:

    Matthew 1; 2; 9:27-36; 10:15,37-40; 11:28-30; 12:11,12,15-21,33-38; 13:24-30,36-52; 14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27; 18:15-35; 19:10-12; 20:1- 16; 21:10 f,14-16,28-32; 22:1-14; 23:8-22; 24:42 through 25:46; 27:3- 10,62-66; 28:11 ff. The principle of arrangement of the material is not chronological, but rather that of similarity of material. The addresses and parables of Jesus are reported consecutively, although they may have been spoken at different times, and material scattered in the other evangelists — especially in Luke — is found combined in Matthew. Instances are seen in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 through 7), the “mission address” (Matthew 10), the seven parables of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13), the discourses and parables (Matthew 18), the woes against the Pharisees (Matthew 23), and the grand eschatological discourses (Matthew 24; 25) (compare with parallel in the other gospels, on the relation to which, see below). (2) Purpose.

    The special purpose which the writer had in view in his Gospel is nowhere expressly stated, as is done, e.g., by the writer of the Fourth Gospel in John 20:30,31, concerning his book, but it can readily be gleaned from the general contents of the book, as also from specific passages. The traditional view that Matthew wrote primarily to prove that in Jesus of Nazareth is to be found the fulfillment and realization of the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament prophets and seers is beyond a doubt correct. The mere fact that there are about 40 proof passages in Matthew from the Old Testament, in connection even with the minor details of Christ’s career, such as His return from Egypt (2:15), is ample evidence of this fact, although the proof manner and proof value of some of these passages are exegetical cruces, as indeed is the whole way in which the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament. See QUOTATIONS, NEW TESTAMENT.

    The question as to whether the Gospel was written for Jewish Christians, or for Jews not yet converted, is less important, as this book, as was the case probably with the Epistle of James, was written at that transition period when the Jewish and the Christian communions were not yet fully separated, and still worshipped together.

    Particular indications as to this purpose of the Gospel are met with at the beginning and throughout the whole work; e.g. it is obvious in Matthew 1:1, where the proof is furnished that Jesus was the son of Abraham, in whom all families of the earth were to be blessed ( Genesis 12:3), and of David, who was to establish the kingdom of God forever (2 Samuel 7).

    The genealogy of Luke, on the other hand (3:23 ff), with its cosmopolitan character and purpose, aiming to show that Jesus was the Redeemer of the whole world, leads back this line to Adam, the common ancestor of all mankind. Further, as the genealogy of Matthew is evidently that of Joseph the foster and legal father of Jesus, and not that of Mary, as is the case in Luke, the purpose to meet the demands of the Jewish reader is transparent.

    The full account in Matthew of the Sermon on the Mount, which does not, as is sometimes said, contain a “new program of the kingdom of God” — indeed does not contain the fundamental principles of the Gospel at all — but is the deeper and truly Biblical interpretation of the Law over against the superficial interpretation of the current Pharisaism, which led the advocates of the latter in all honesty to declare, “What lack I yet?” given with the design of driving the auditors to the gospel of grace and faith proclaimed by Christ (compare Galatians 3:24) — all this is only intelligible when we remember that the book was written for Jewish readers. Again the [ge>graptai , gegraptai ] — i.e. the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture, a matter which for the Jew was everything, but for the Gentile was of little concern — appears in Matthew on all hands. We have it e.g. in connection with the birth of Jesus from a virgin, His protection from Herod, His coming to Nazareth ( Matthew 1:22 f; 2:5,6,15,17 f,23), the activity of John the Baptist ( Matthew 3:3; compare 11:10), the selection of Galilee as the scene of Jesus’ operations ( Matthew 4:14 ff), the work of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets ( Matthew 5:17), His quiet, undemonstrative methods ( Matthew 12:17 ff), His teaching by parables ( Matthew 13:35), His entrance into Jerusalem ( Matthew 21:4 f,16), His being arrested ( Matthew 26:54), the betrayal of Judas ( Matthew 27:9), the distribution of His garments ( Matthew 27:35). Throughout, as Professor Kubel says, the Gospel of Matthew shows a “diametrical contrast between Christ and Pharisaism.” Over against the false Messianic ideas and ideals of contemporary teachings among the Jews, Matthew selects those facts from the teachings and deeds of Christ which show the true Messiah and the correct principles of the kingdom of God. In this respect the Gospel can be regarded as both apologetic and polemical in its aim, in harmony with which also is its vivid portraiture to the growing hostility of the Jews to Christ and to His teachings which, in the latter part of Matthew, appears as intense as it does in John. Nowhere else do we find such pronounced denunciations of the Pharisees and their system from the lips of Jesus (compare Matthew 9:11 ff; 12:1 ff; 15:1 ff; 16:1 ff; and on particular points 5:20 ff; 9:13; 23:23; see also 8:12; 9:34; 12:24; 21:43).

    It is from this point of view, as representing the antithesis to the narrow Pharisaic views, that we are to understand the writer’s emphasis on the universality of the kingdom of Jesus Christ (compare Matthew 3:1-12; 8:10-12; 21:33-44; 28:18-20) — passages in which some have thought they discerned a contradiction to the prevailing Jewish strain of the Gospel.

    5. PROBLEMS OF LITERARY RELATION:

    The special importance of the Gospel of Matthew for the synoptic problem can be fully discussed only in the article on this subject (see GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC), and in connection with Mark and Luke. The synoptic problem deals primarily with the literary relations existing between the first 3 Gospels. The contents of these are in many cases so similar, even in verbal details, that they must have some sources in common, or some dependence or interdependence must exist between them; on the other hand, each of the 3 Gospels shows so many differences and dissimilarities from the other two, that in their composition some independent source or sources — oral or written — must have been employed. In general it may be said that the problem itself is of little more than literary importance, having by no means the historical significance for the development of the religion of the New Testament which the Pentateuchal problem has for that of the Old Testament. Nor has the synoptic problem any historical background that promises a solution as the Pentateuchal problem has in the history of Israel. Nothing save an analysis of the contents of these Gospels, and a comparison of the contents of the three, offers the scholar any material for the study of the problem, and as subjective taste and impressions are prime factors in dealing with materials of this sort, it is more than improbable, in the absence of any objective evidence, that the synoptic problem in general, or the question of the sources of Matthew in particular, will ever be solved to the satisfaction of the majority of scholars.

    The hypothesis which at present has widest acceptance is the “two-source” theory, according to which Mark, in its existing or some earlier form, and the problematical original Matthew (Q), constitute the basis of our canonical Gospel.

    In proof of this, it is pointed out that nearly the whole of the narrativematter of Mark is taken up into Matthew, as also into Luke, while the large sections, chiefly discourses, common to Matthew and Luke are held, as already said, to point to a source of that character which both used. The difficulties arise when the comparison is pursued into details, and explanation is sought of the variations in phraseology, order, sometimes in conception, in the respective gospels.

    Despite the prestige which this theory has attained, the true solution is probably a simpler one. Matthew no doubt secured the bulk of his data from his own experience and from oral tradition, and as the former existed in fixed forms, due to catechetical instruction, in the early church, it is possible to explain the similarities of Matthew with the other two synoptics on this ground alone, without resorting to any literary dependence, either of Matthew on the other two, or of these, or either of them, on Matthew.

    The whole problem is purely speculative and subjective and under present conditions justifies a cui bono? as far as the vast literature which it has called into existence is concerned.

    6. DATE OF GOSPEL:

    According to early and practically universal tradition Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill.1), and Eusebius states that this was done when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that “the gospels containing the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark, and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (compare 2415). The most likely date for the Greek Gospel is in the 7th Christian decade. Zahn claims that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine in 62 AD, while the Greek Matthew dates from 85 AD, but this latter date is not probable.

    LITERATURE.

    Introduction to the Commentary on Matthew (Meyer, Alford, Allen (ICC), Broadus (Philadelphia, 1887), Morison, Plummer, Schaeffer in Lutheran Commentary (New York, 1895), etc.); works on Introduction to the New Testament (Salmon, Weiss, Zahn, etc.); articles in Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia may be consulted. See also F.C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei and Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien; Sir J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, V, “Papias of Hierapolis” (this last specially on the sense of Logia). See also the works cited in MARK, GOSPEL OF.

    G. H. Schodde MATTHIAS <ma-thi’-as > ([ Matqi>av , Matthias ], or [ Maqqi>av , Maththias]; hy:t]Timothy” [Mattithyah], “given of Yah”): Matthias was the one upon whom the lot fell when he, along with Joseph Barsabbas, was put forward to fill up the place in the apostleship left vacant by Judas Iscariot ( Acts 1:15-26). This election was held at Jerusalem, and the meeting was presided over by Peter. The conditions demanded of the candidates were that they should “have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us,” and that the one chosen should “become a witness with us of his resurrection” ( Acts 1:21,22). The mode of procedure was by lot, and with prayer was the election made (compare Acts 1:24).

    Hilgenfeld identifies Matthias with Nathanael (compare NATHANAEL).

    He was traditionally the author of the “Gospel of Matthias,” a heretical work referred to by Origen (Hom. on Luke, i), by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25, 6) and by Hieronymus (Proem in Matth.). No trace of it is left. The Gnostic Basilides (circa 133 AD) and his son Isidor claimed to ground their doctrine in the “Gospel of Basilides” on the teaching Matthias received directly from the Saviour (Hippol., vii.20) (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 167). Various parts of the apocryphal “Contendings of the Apostles” deal with the imprisonment and blinding of Matthias by the Ethiopian cannibals, and his rescue by Andrew (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 163, 164, 267-88; see also ANDREW). According to the Martyrdom of Matthias (Budge, II, 289-94) he was sent to Damascus, and died at Phalaeon, a city of Judea.

    Other sources mention Jerusalem as the place of Matthias’ ministry and burial. C. M. Kerr MATTITHIAH <mat-i-thi’-a > ( hy:t]Tm” [mattithyah], or Why:t]Timothy” [mattithyahu], “gift of Yah”): (1) The Mattithiah of Nehemiah 8:4 (1st spelling) was one of those who stood at Ezra’s right hand while he read the law (compare 1 Esdras 9:43).

    He may be the individual set over “things that were baked in pans” ( Chronicles 9:31). (2) One of those appointed by David to minister before the ark, and to “celebrate and to thank and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel” ( Chronicles 16:4,5). (3) One of those who had foreign wives ( Ezra 10:43). In 1 Esdras 9:35, “Mazitias.” (4) One of the Levites who ministered before the ark with harps Chronicles 15:18,21; 25:3,11, 2nd spelling). Henry Wallace MATTOCK <mat’-ok > : The translation of 3 Hebrew words: (1) hv;rej\m” [machereshah], probably “a pick-axe” ( 1 Samuel 13:20,21; compare 13:21 margin); (2) br2 Chronicles 34:6 the King James Version, “with their mattocks,” the King James Version margin “mauls,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in their ruins,” the Revised Version margin “with their axes”); (3) rDe[]m” [ma`-der], “a hoe,” “rake,” “chopping instrument” ( Isaiah 7:25). Vines were usually grown on terraces on the hills of Palestine, and then the mattock was in constant use. The usual mattock is a pick with one end broad, the other pointed.

    MAUL <mol > ( ˜ypime [mephits], literally, “a breaker,” “a club,” “mace,” “mattock”): A smashing weapon like the oriental war-club or the clubs always carried by the shepherds of Lebanon ( Proverbs 25:18; compare Jeremiah 51:20 margin).

    MAUZZIM <moz’-em > , <mots’-em > ( µyZ[um; [ma`uzzim], “places of strength,” “fortress”): Many conjectures as to the meaning of this word and its context ( Daniel 11:38; compare 11:19,39) have been made. The Septuagint (uncertainly), Theodotion, and the Geneva Version render it as a proper name. Theodoret adopted Theodotion’s reading and explained it as “Antichrist”! Grotius thought it a corruption of “[ ?Azizov , Azizos ], the Phoenician war-god, while Calvin saw in it the “god of wealth”! Perhaps the buzz of conjectures about the phrase is owing to the fact that in the first passage cited the word is preceded by [’Eloah], meaning God. The context of the passage seems clearly to make the words refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and on this account some have thought that the god Mars — whose figure appears on a coin of Antiochus — is here referred to. All this is, however, little better than guesswork, and the Revised Version (British and American) translation, by setting the mind upon the general idea that the monarch referred to would trust in mere force, gives us, at any rate, the general sense, though it does not exclude the possibility of a reference to a particular deity. In Daniel 11:19 and 39, the word “Mauzzim” is simply translated “fortresses,” and the idea conveyed is that the mental obsession of fortresses is equivalent to deifying them. A conjecture of Layard’s (Nineveh, II, 456, note), is, at any rate, worth referring to. Henry Wallace MAW <mo > ( hb;qe [qebhah] (compare hb;qo [qobhah], Numbers 25:8), creKi [keres]; Septuagint [e]nustron , enustron ]): The first word means the maw or stomach of ruminants. It is derived from a root designating “hollowed out.” It is mentioned alongside of the shoulder and the two cheeks of ox and sheep, which are the priest’s share of any sacrifice brought by Israelites (Dt 18:3). Septuagint, where enustron corresponds to Attic [h]nustron , enustron ], denotes the fourth stomach or abomasum, which was considered as a delicacy, and was almost a national dish of the Athenians, just as tripe is of the Londoners. The parallel form qobhah is used for the body of a woman, which is being transfixed by a spear thrust in Numbers 25:8. The last word [keres] is found in a metaphorical sense: “(Nebuchadrezzar) hath, like a monster, swallowed me up, he hath filled his maw with my delicacies” ( Jeremiah 51:34). H. L. E. Luering MAZITIAS <maz-i-ti’-as > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Maziti>av , Mazitias]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Zeiti>av , Zeitias ]): One of those who had taken “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:35), identical with Mattithiah ( Ezra 10:43).

    MAZZALOTH <maz’-a-loth > (The Planets). See ASTROLOGY, 9.

    MAZZAROTH <maz’-a-roth > : The 12 constellations of the Zodiac. See ASTRONOMY, II, 12.

    MAZZEBAH <maz-e’-ba > , <mats-e’-ba > . See PILLAR.

    MEADOW <med’-o > : (1) twOr[; [`aroth], “the meadows (the King James Version “paper reeds”) by the Nile” ( Isaiah 19:7); [b”G:Ahre[\m” [ma`arehgabha`], the King James Version “meadows of Gibeah,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Maareh-geba,” the Revised Version margin “the meadow of Geba, or Gibeah” ( Judges 20:33); from hr:[; [`arah], “to be naked”; compare Arabic ariya, “to be naked,” [`ara’a’], “a bare tract of land.” `[Aroth] and [ma`areh] signify tracts bare of trees. (2) Wha; [’achu], in Pharaoh’s dream of the kine, the King James Version “meadow,” the Revised Version (British and American) “reed grass” ( Genesis 41:2,18). [’Achu] is found also in Job 8:11, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “flag,” the Revised Version margin “reed-grass.” According to Gesenius, [achu] is an Egyptian word denoting the vegetation of marshy ground. (3) µymir:K] lbea; [’abhel keramim], “Abel-cheramim,” the Revised Version margin “The meadow of vineyards,” the King James Version “the plain (the King James Version margin, “Abel”) of the vineyards” ( Judges 11:33); “Abel-beth-maacah” ( 1 Kings 15:20; 2 Kings 15:29; compare 2 Samuel 20:14,15,18); “Abel-shittim” ( Numbers 33:49; compare 25:1; Josh 2:1; 3:1; Judges 7:22; Joel 3:18; Micah 6:5); “Abel-meholah” ( Judges 7:22; Kings 4:12; 19:16); “Abel-maim” ( 2 Chronicles 16:4); “Abelmizraim” ( Genesis 50:11); “stone,” the King James Version “Abel,” the Revised Version margin “Abel,” that is “a meadow” ( 1 Samuel 6:18); compare Arabic ‘abal, “green grass,” and ‘abalat, “unhealthy marshy ground,” from wabal, “to rain.” Alfred Ely Day MEAH <me’-a > ( ha;me [me’ah], “hundred”). See HAMMEAH.

    MEAL <mel > ( lk,ao [’okhel]): Denotes the portion of food eaten at any one time.

    It is found as a compound in Ruth 2:14, “meal-time,” literally, “the time of eating.” See FOOD.

    MEAL OFFERING See SACRIFICE.

    MEALS, MEAL-TIME <melz > : Bread materials, bread-making and baking in the Orient are dealt with under BREAD (which see). For food-stuffs in use among the Hebrews in Bible times more specifically see FOOD. This article aims to be complementary, dealing especially with the methods of preparing and serving food and times of meals among the ancient Hebrews.

    The Book of Judges gives a fair picture of the early formative period of the Hebrew people and their ways of living. It is a picture of semi-savagery — of the life and customs of free desert tribes. In 1 Samuel we note a distinct step forward, but the domestic and cultural life is still low and crude.

    When they are settled in Palestine and come in contact with the most cultured people of the day, the case is different. Most that raised these Semitic invaders above the dull, crude existence of fellahin, in point of civilization, was due to the people for whom the land was named (Macalister, Hist of Civilization in Pal). From that time on various foreign influences played their several parts in modification of Hebrew life and customs. A sharp contrast illustrative of the primitive beginnings and the growth of luxury in Israel in the preparation and use of foods may be seen by a comparison of 2 Samuel 17:28 f with 1 Kings 4:22 f.

    1. METHODS OF PREPARING FOOD. 1. Cereals: The most primitive way of using the cereals was to pluck the fresh ears ( Leviticus 23:14; 2 Kings 4:42), remove the husk by rubbing (compare Dt 23:25 and Matthew 12:1), and eat the grain raw. A practice common to all periods, observed by fellahin today, was to parch or roast the ears and eat them not ground. Later it became customary to grind the grain into flour, at first by the rudimentary method of pestle and mortar ( Numbers 11:8; compare Proverbs 27:22), later by the hand-mill ( Exodus 11:5; Job 31:10; compare Matthew 24:41), still later in mills worked by the ass or other animal ( Matthew 18:6, literally, “a millstone turned by an ass”). The flour was then made into bread, with or without leaven. See LEAVEN.

    Another simple way of preparing the grain was to soak it in water, or boil it slightly, and then, after drying and crushing it, to serve it as the dish called “groats” is served among western peoples.

    The kneading of the dough preparatory to baking was done doubtless, as it is now in the East, by pressing it between the hands or by passing it from hand to hand; except that in Egypt, as the monuments show, it was put in “baskets” and trodden with the feet, as grapes in the wine press. (This is done in Paris bakeries to this day.) See BREAD; FOOD. 2. Vegetables: Lentils, several kinds of beans, and a profusion of vegetables, wild and cultivated, were prepared and eaten in various ways. The lentils were sometimes roasted, as they are today, and eaten like “parched corn.” They were sometimes stewed like beans, and flavored with onions and other ingredients, no doubt, as we find done in Syria today (compare Genesis 25:29,34), and sometimes ground and made into bread (Ezek 4:9; compare Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, IX, 4). The wandering Israelites in the wilderness looked back wistfully on the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic of Egypt ( Numbers 11:5), and later we find all of these used for food in Palestine How many other things were prepared and used for food by them may be gathered from the Mishna, our richest source of knowledge on the subject. 3. Meat: The flesh of animals — permission to eat which it would seem was first given to Noah after the deluge ( Genesis 1:29 f; 9:3 f) — was likewise prepared and used in various ways: (a) Roasting was much in vogue, indeed was probably the oldest of all methods of preparing such food. At first raw meat was laid upon hot stones from which the embers had been removed, as in the case of the “cake baken on the hot stones” ( 1 Kings 19:6 the Revised Version margin; compare Hos 7:8, “a cake not turned”), and sometimes underneath with a covering of ashes. The fish that the disciples found prepared for them by the Sea of Galilee ( John 21:9) was, in exception to this rule, cooked on the live coals themselves. A more advanced mode of roasting was by means of a spit of green wood or iron (for baking in ovens, see FOOD). (b) Boiling was also common (see Genesis 25:29; Exodus 12:9, etc., the American Standard Revised Version; English Versions of the Bible more frequently “seething,” “sod,” “sodden”), as it is in the more primitive parts of Syria today. The pots in which the boiling was done were of earthenware or bronze ( Leviticus 6:28). When the meat was boiled in more water than was required for the ordinary “stew” the result was the broth ( Judges 6:19 f), and the meat and the broth might then be served separately. The usual way, however, was to cut the meat into pieces, larger or smaller as the case might demand ( Samuel 2:13; Ezek 24:3 ff; compare Micah’s metaphor, Micah 3:3), and put these pieces into the cooking-pot with water sufficient only for a stew. Vegetables and rice were generally added, though crushed wheat sometimes took the place of the rice, as in the case of the “savory meat” which Rebekah prepared for her husband from the “two kids of the goats” ( Genesis 27:9). The seeds of certain leguminous plants were also often prepared by boiling ( Genesis 25:29; Kings 4:38). (c) The Hebrew housewives, we may be sure, were in such matters in no way behind their modern kinswomen of the desert, of whom Doughty tells: “The Arab housewives make savory messes of any grain, seething it and putting thereto only a little salt and samn (clarified butter).” 4. Oil: Olive oil was extensively and variously used by the ancient Hebrews, as by most eastern peoples then, as it is now. (a) Oriental cooking diverges here more than at any other point from that of the northern and western peoples, oil serving many of the purposes of butter and lard among ourselves. (b) Oil was used in cooking vegetables as we use bacon and other animal fats, and in cooking fish and eggs, as sJso in the finer sorts of baking. See BREAD; FOOD; OIL. (c) They even mixed oil with the flour, shaped it into cakes and then baked it ( Leviticus 2:4). The “little oil” of the poor widow of Zerephath was clearly not intended for the lamps, but to bake her pitiful “handful of meal” ( 1 Kings 17:12). (d) Again the cake of unmixed flour might be baked till almost done, then smeared with oil, sprinkled with anise seed, and brought by further baking to a glossy brown. A species of thin flat cakes of this kind are “the wafers anointed with oil” of Exodus 29:2, etc. (e) Oil and honey constituted, as now in the East, a mixture used as we use butter and honey, and are found also mixed in the making of sweet cakes (Ezek 16:13,19). The taste of the manna is said in Exodus 16:31 to be like that of “wafers made with honey,” and in Numbers 11:8 to be like “the taste of cakes baked with oil” (Revised Version margin).

    2. MEALS, MEAL-TIME, ETC. (1) It was customary among the ancient Hebrews, as among their contemporaries in the East in classical lands, to have but two meals a day.

    The “morning morsel” or “early snack,” as it is called in the Talmud, taken with some relish like olives, oil or melted butter, might be used by peasants, fishermen, or even artisans, to “break their fast” (see the one reference to it in the New Testament in John 21:12,15), but this was not a true meal. It was rather [a]riston prwi`no>n , ariston proinon ] (Robinson, BRP, II, 18), though some think it the [a]riston , ariston ], of the New Testament (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 205, note 3; compare Plummer, International Critical Commentary, on Luke 11:37). To “eat a meal,” i.e. a full meal, in the morning was a matter for grave reproach (Eccl 10:16), as early drinking was unusual and a sign of degradation (of Acts 2:15). (2) The first meal (of “meal-time,” literally, “the time of eating,” Ruth 2:14; Genesis 43:16), according to general usage, was taken at or about noon when the climate and immemorial custom demanded a rest from labor. Peter’s intended meal at Joppa, interrupted by the messengers of Cornelius, was at “the sixth hour,” i.e. 12 M. It corresponded somewhat to our modern “luncheon,” but the hour varied according to rank and occupation (Shabbath 10a). The Bedawi take it about 9 or 10 o’clock (Burckhardt, Notes, I, 69). It is described somewhat fully by Lane in Modern Egyptians. To abstain from this meal was accounted “fasting” ( Judges 20:26; 1 Samuel 14:24). Drummond (Tropical Africa) says his Negro bearers began the day’s work without food. (3) The second and main meal (New Testament, [dei~pnon , deipnon ]) was taken about the set of sun, or a little before or after, when the day’s work was over and the laborers had “come in from the field” ( Luke 17:7; 24:29 f). This is the “supper time,” the “great supper” of Luke 14:16, the important meal of the day, when the whole family were together for the evening (Burckhardt, Notes, I, 69). It was the time of the feeding of the multitudes by Jesus ( Mark 6:35; Matthew 14:15; Luke 9:12), of the eating of the Passover, and of the partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

    According to Jewish law, and for special reasons, the chief meal was at midday — “at the sixth hour,” according to Josephus (Vita, 54; compare Genesis 43:16-25; 2 Samuel 24:15 Septuagint). It was Yahweh’s promise to Israel that they should have “bread” in the morning and “flesh” in the evening ( Exodus 16:12), incidental evidence of one way in which the evening meal differed from that at noon. At this family meal ordinarily there was but one common dish for all, into which all “dipped the sop” (see Matthew 26:23; Mark 14:20), so that when the food, cooked in this common stew, was set before the household, the member of the household who had prepared it had no further work to do, a fact which helps to explain Jesus’ words to Martha, `One dish alone is needful’ ( Luke 10:42; Hastings Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, under the word “Meals”). (4) Sabbath banqueting became quite customary among the Jews (see examples cited by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrews et Talmud on Luke 14:1; compare Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 52, 437; Farrar, Life of Christ, II, 119, note). Indeed it was carried to such an excess that it became proverbial for luxury. But the principle which lay at the root of the custom was the honor of the Sabbath (Lightfoot, op. cit., III, 149), which may explain Jesus countenance and use of the custom (compare Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:7-14), and the fact that on the last Sabbath He spent on earth before His passion He was the chief guest at such a festive meal ( John 12:2). It is certain that He made use of such occasions to teach lessons of charity and religion, in one case even when His host was inclined to indulge in discourteous criticism ( Luke 7:39; 11:38,45 f; compare John 12:7 f). He seems to have withheld His formal disapproval of what might be wrong in tendency in such feasts because of the latent possibilities for good He saw in them, and so often used them wisely and well. It was on one of these occasions that a fellowguest in his enthusiasm broke out in the exclamation, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” ( Luke 14:15), referring evidently to the popular Jewish idea that the Messianic kingdom was to be ushered in with a banquet, and that feasting was to be a chief part of its glories (compare Isaiah 25:6; Luke 13:29). See BANQUET.

    3. CUSTOMS AT MEALS.

    In the earliest times the Hebrews took their meals sitting, or more probably squatting, on the ground like the Bedouin and fellahin of today (see Genesis 37:25, etc.), with the legs gathered tailor-fashion (Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1905, 124). The use of seats naturally followed upon the change from nomadic to agricultural life, after the conquest of Canaan. Saul and his mess-mates sat upon “seats” ( Samuel 20:25), as did Solomon and his court ( 1 Kings 10:5; compare 13:20, etc.). With the growth of wealth and luxury under the monarchy, the custom of reclining at meals gradually became the fashion. In Amos’ day it was regarded as an aristocratic innovation (Am 3:12; 6:4), but two centuries later Ezekiel speaks of “a stately bed” or “couch” (compare Est 1:6 the Revised Version (British and American)) with “a table prepared before it” (Ezek 23:41), as if it was no novelty. By the end of the 3rd century BC it was apparently universal, except among the very poor (Judith 12:15; Tobit 2:1). Accordingly, “sitting at meat” in the New Testament (English Versions of the Bible) is everywhere replaced by “reclining” (Revised Version margin), though women and children still sat.

    They leaned on the left elbow (Sirach 41:19), eating with the right hand (see LORD’S SUPPER). The various words used in the Gospels to denote the bodily attitude at meals, as well as the circumstances described, all imply that the Syrian custom of reclining on a couch, followed by Greeks and Romans, was in vogue (Edersheim, II, 207). Luke uses one word for it which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament ([katakliqh~nai , kataklithenai ], 7:36; 14:8; 24:30; and [katakli>nein , kataklinein ], 9:14,15), which Hobart says is the medical term for laying patients or causing them to lie in bed (Medical Language of Luke, 69). For costumes and customs at more elaborate feasts see BANQUET; DRESS. For details in the “minor morals” of the dinner table, see the classical passages (Sirach 31:12-18; 32:3-12), in which Jesus ben-Sira has expanded the counsel given in Proverbs 23:1 f; compare Kennedy in The 1-Volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, under the word “Meals.”

    LITERATURE.

    Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; O. Holtzmann, Eine Untersuchung zum Leben Jesu, English translation, 206; B. Weiss, The Life of Christ, II, 125, note 2; Plummer, International Critical Commentary, “Luke,” 159 f; Farrar, Life of Christ; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, the 1-volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; Encyclopedia Biblica; Jewish Encyclopedia, etc. George B. Eager MEAN <men > : The noun “meaning” ( Daniel 8:15 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “I sought to understand”; and 1 Corinthians 14:11) is synonymous with “signification” but in 1 Macc 15:4 the King James Version it expresses “purpose” (the Revised Version (British and American) “I am minded to land”). The noun “mean” in Hebrew always occurs in the plural, and is generally used in the sense of “agency,” “instrument” (compare 1 Kings 10:29, etc.). the Revised Version (British and American) very frequently changes, King James Version: The Wisdom of Solomon 8:13, “because of her”; Thessalonians 2:3, “in any wise”; Luke 8:36, “how”; Proverbs 6:26, “on account of”; Revelation 13:14, “by reason of” (compare also Thessalonians 3:16; John 9:21). Hebrews 9:15 (the King James Version “that by means of death”) translates literally, “that a death having taken place,” from [gi>nomai , ginomai ], “to become,” “to happen.” Acts 18:21 the King James Version, “I must by all means keep this feast,” is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) in harmony with several cursives, the Vulgate, and some other versions The adjective “mean” is used in the sense of “common,” “humble” ([’adham], “man”; compare Isaiah 2:9; 5:15; 31:8 omits “mean”). It is also used in the sense of “obscure” ( Proverbs 22:29, [chashokh], “obscure”; [a]shmov , asemos ], literally, “without a mark,” “unknown,” Acts 21:39). “Mean” is found in expressions like “in the meanwhile” (the King James Version 1 Kings 18:45, the Revised Version (British and American) “little while”; John 4:31; Romans 2:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “one with another”); “in the meantime” (1 Macc 11:41 the King James Version; Luke 12:1); and “in the mean season” the King James Version (1 Macc 11:14; 15:15). The adverb “meanly” is found (2 Macc 15:38) in the sense of “moderately.”

    The verb “mean” expresses purpose ( Isaiah 3:15; 10:7; Genesis 50:20, etc.). In some cases the Revised Version (British and American) renders literal translation: Acts 27:2, “was about to sail” (the King James Version “meaning to sail”); compare Acts 21:13; Corinthians 8:13. In other instances the idea of “to mean” is “to signify,” “to denote” ( 1 Samuel 4:6; Genesis 21:29; Matthew 9:13, etc.). Luke 15:26 translates literally, “what these things might be.” In Exodus 12:26 the sense of “mean ye” is “to have in mind.” A. L. Breslich MEANI <me-a’-ni > : the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) “Maani” (1 Esdras 5:31).

    MEARAH <me-a’-ra > ( hr:[;m] [me`arah]; omitted in the Septuagint): A town or district mentioned only in Josh 13:4, as belonging to the Zidonians. The name as it stands means “cave.” If that is correct it may be represented by the modern village Mogheiriyeh, “little cave,” not far from Sidon. Perhaps, however, we should find in the word the name of a Sidonian city, with the preposition ˆmi [min], that has suffered change in transcription. Septuagint reads “from Gaza”; but Gaza is obviously too far to the South.

    MEASURE; MEASURES <mezh’-ur > , Several different words in the Hebrew and Greek are rendered by “measure” in English Versions of the Bible. In Job 11:9 and Jeremiah 13:25 it stands for dm” [madh], hD:mi [middah], and it is the usual rendering of the verb dd’m; [madhadh], “to measure,” i.e. “stretch out,” “extend,” “spread.” It is often used to render the words representing particular measures, such as ephah (Dt 25:14,15; Proverbs 20:10; Micah 6:10); or kor ( 1 Kings 4:22; 5:11 (5:2 and 5:25 Hebrew text); 2 Chronicles 2:10 (Hebrew text 2:9) 27:5; Ezra 7:22); or seah ( Genesis 18:6; 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Kings 18:32; <120701> Kings 7:1,16,18); or [ba>tov , batos ], “bath” ( Luke 16:6). For these terms see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. It also renders hDmi [middah], “measure of length” ( Exodus 26:2); hr:Wcm] [mesurah], a liquid measure ( Leviticus 19:35; 1 Chronicles 23:29; Ezek 4:11,16); fP;v]mi [mishpaT], “judgment” ( Jeremiah 30:11; 46:28); ha;s]as” [ca’ce’ah], a word of uncertain meaning, perhaps derived from seah ( Isaiah 27:8); vyliv; [shalish], “threefold, large measure” ( Psalm 80:5 (Hebrew text 80:6); Isaiah 40:12); ˆk,To [tokhen], and tnIsaiah 5:14 it stands for qjo [choq], “limit.”

    In the New Testament, besides being the usual rendering of the verb [[metre>w , metreo], and of the noun [me>tron , metron ], it is used for [coi~nix , choinix ], a dry measure containing about a quart ( Revelation 6:6). H. Porter MEASURING LINE ( wq” [qaw], hwline, rope or cord, in Isaiah 28:10,13, but the line was used for measurement, as is evident from such passages as 1 Kings 7:23; Job 38:5; Jeremiah 31:39. Whether the line for measuring had a definite length or not we have no means of knowing. In Isaiah 44:13 it refers to the line used by the carpenter in marking the timber on which he is working, and in Zechariah 1:16 it refers to the builder’s line.

    Figuratively: It signifies destruction, or a portion of something marked off by line for destruction, as in 2 Kings 21:13; or for judgment, as in Isaiah 28:17. H. Porter MEASURING REED ( hD:Mih” hneq] [qeneh hamiddah]; [ka>lamov , kalamos ]): Used in Ezek 40:5 ff; 42:16; 45:1; Revelation 11:1; 21:15,16. The length of the reed is given as 6 cubits, each cubit being a cubit and a palm, i.e. the large cubit of 7 palms, or about 10 ft. See CUBIT. Originally it was an actual reed used for measurements of considerable length, but came at last to be used for a measure of definite length, as indicated by the reference in Ezkiel (compare “pole” in English measures).

    MEAT <met > ([brw~ma , broma ], [brw~siv , brosis ]): In the King James Version used for food in general, e.g. “I had my meat of herbs” (2 Esdras 12:51); “his disciples were gone away into the city to buy meat,” the Revised Version (British and American) “food” ( John 4:8). The English word signified whatever is eaten, whether of flesh or other food.

    MEAT OFFERING See SACRIFICE.

    MEBUNNAI <me-bun’-i > , <me-bun’-a-i > ( yN’bum] [mebhunnay], “well-built”): One of David’s “braves” ( 2 Samuel 23:27). In 2 Samuel 21:18 he is named “Sibbechai” (the Revised Version (British and American) “Sibbecai”), and is there mentioned as the slayer of a Philistine giant. The Revised Version (British and American) spelling occurs in 1 Chronicles 11:29, the King James Version “Sibbechai” in 1 Chronicles 20:4 (compare 2 Samuel 21:18); and in 1 Chronicles 27:11 the Revised Version (British and American) spelling recurs, where this person is mentioned as captain of the 8th course of the 12 monthly courses that served the king in rota. Scribal error, and the similarity in Hebrew spelling of the two forms accounts for the difference in spelling. the Revised Version (British and American) consistently tries to keep this right. Henry Wallace MECHERATHITE <me-ke’-rath-it > ( ytir:kem] [mekherathi], “dweller in Mecharah”): Possibly this is a misreading of “Maachathite” (the King James Version). It is the description of Hepher, one of David’s valiant men ( 1 Chronicles 11:36).

    In the Wallel list of 2 Samuel 23, especially 23:34, the “Maachathite” is mentioned without name in the place in the list given to Hepher in Chronicles 11:36. The variations do not destroy the conviction that the list is virtually the same.

    MECONAH <me-ko’-na > ( hn:kom] [mekhonah]; [ Macna> , Machna ]): A town apparently in the neighborhood of Ziklag, named only in Nehemiah 11:28, as reoccupied by the men of Judah after the Captivity. It is not identified.

    MEDABA <med’-a-ba > : The Greek form of “Medeba” in 1 Macc 9:36.

    MEDAD <me’-dad > ( dd:yme [medhadh], “affectionate”): One of the 70 elders on whom the spirit of the Lord came in the days of Moses enabling them to prophesy. Medad and one other, Eldad, began to prophesy in the camp, away from the other elders who had assembled at the door of the tabernacle to hear God’s message. Joshua suggested that Eldad and Medad be stopped, but Moses interceded on their behalf, saying, “Would that all Yahweh’s people were prophets!” ( Numbers 11:26-29). The subjectmatter of their prophecy has been variously supplied by tradition. Compare the Palestine Targums at the place, the apocalyptic Book of Eldad and Modad, and Ba`al ha-Turim (ad loc.). Ella Davis Isaacs MEDAN <me’-Daniel > ( ˆd:m] [medhan], “strife”): One of the sons of Abraham by Keturah ( Genesis 25:2; 1 Chronicles 1:32). The tribe and its place remain unidentified, and the conjecture that the name may be connected with the Midianites is unlikely from the fact that in the list of the sons of Abraham and Keturah Midian is mentioned alongside of Medan.

    MEDEBA <med’-e-ba > ( ab;d”yme [medhebha’]; [ Maidaba> , Maidaba ], [ Mhdaba> , Medaba ]): The name may mean “gently flowing water,” but the sense is doubtful. This city is first mentioned along with Heshbon and Dibon in an account of Israel’s conquests ( Numbers 21:30). It lay in the Mishor, the high pastoral land of Moab. The district in which the city stood is called the Mishor or plain of Medeba in the description of the territory assigned to Reuben (Josh 13:9), or the plain by Medeba (Josh 13:16). Here the Ammonites and their Syrian allies put the battle in array against Joab, and were signally defeated ( 1 Chronicles 19:7). This must have left the place definitely in the possession of Israel. But it must have changed hands several times. It was taken by Omri, evidently from Moab; and Mesha claims to have recovered possession of it (M S, ll. 7,8,29,30).

    It would naturally fall to Israel under Jeroboam II; but in Isaiah 15:2 it is referred to as a city of Moab. It also figures in later Jewish history.

    John, son of Mattathias, was captured and put to death by the Jambri, a robber tribe from Medeba. This outrage was amply avenged by Jonathan and Simon, who ambushed a marriage party of the Jambri as they were bringing a noble bride from Gabbatha, slew them all and took their ornaments (1 Macc 9:36 ff; Ant, XII, i, 2, 4). Medeba was captured by Hyrcanus “not without the greatest distress of his army” (Ant., XIII, ix, 1).

    It was taken by Janneus from the Nabateans. Hyrcanus promised to restore it with other cities so taken to Aretas in return for help to secure him on the Judean throne (ibid., xv, 4; XIV, i, 4). Ptolemy speaks of it as a town in Arabia Petrea, between Bostra and Petra. Eusebius and Jerome knew it under its ancient name (Onomasticon, under the word). It became the seat of a bishropric, and is mentioned in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), and in other ecclesiastical lists.

    The ancient city is represented by the modern Madeba, a ruined site with an Arab village, crowning a low hill, some 6 miles South of Heshbon, with which it was connected by a Roman road. The ruins, which are considerable, date mainly from Christian times. The surrounding walls can be traced in practically their whole circuit. There is a large tank, now dry, measuring 108 yds. X 103 yds., and about 12 ft. in depth. In 1880 it was colonized by some Christian families from Kerak, among whom the Latins carry on mission work. In December, 1896, a most interesting mosaic was found. It proved to be a map of part of Palestine and Lower Egypt of the time of Justinian. Unfortunately it is much damaged. An account of it will be found in Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1897, 213 ff, 239; 1898, 85, 177 ff, 251. W. Ewing MEDES <medz > ( ydim; [madhi]; Assyrian Amada, Mada; Achaem. Persian Mada; [ Mh~doi , Medoi ] ( Genesis 10:2; 2 Kings 17:6; 18:11; Chronicles 1:5; Ezra 6:2; Est 1:3,14,18,19; 10:2; Isaiah 13:17; 21:2; Jeremiah 25:25; 51:11,28; Daniel 5:28; 6:1,9,13,16; 8:20; 9:1; 11:1)): Mentioned as Japhethites in Genesis 10:2, i.e. Aryans, and accordingly they first called themselves [ ]Arioi , Arioi ] (Herod. vii.62), in Avestic Airya = Skt. Arya, “noble.” They were closely allied in descent, language and religion with the Persians, and in secular history preceded their appearance by some centuries. Like most Aryan nations they were at first divided into small village communities each governed by its own chiefs (called in Assyrian chazanati by Assur-bani-pal: compare Herod. i.96).

    Shalmaneser II mentions them (Nimrod Obelisk, i.121) about 840 BC.

    They then inhabited the modern A’zarbaijan (Media Atropatene).

    Rammanu-nirari III of Assyria (Rawlinson, Western Asiatic Inscriptions, I, 35) declares that he (810-781 BC) had conquered “the land of the Medes and the land of Parsua” (Persis), as well as other countries. This probably meant only a plundering expedition, as far as Media was concerned. So also Assur-nirari II (Western Asiastic Inscriptions, II, 52) in 749-748 BC overran Namri in Southwest Media. Tiglath-pileser IV (in Babylonian called Pulu, the “Pul” of 2 Kings 15:19) and Sargon also overran parts of Media. Sargon in 716 BC conquered Kisheshin, Kharkhar and other parts of the country. Some of the Israelites were by him transplanted to “the cities of the Medes” ( 2 Kings 17:6; 18:11; the Septuagint reading [ ?Orh> , Ore ], cannot be rendered “mountains” of the Medes here) after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC. It was perhaps owing to the need of being able to resist Assyria that about 720 BC the Medes (in part at least) united into a kingdom under Deiokes, according to Herodotus (i.98). Sargon mentions him by the name Dayaukku, and says that he himself captured this prince (715 BC) and conquered his territory two years later. After his release, probably, Deiokes fortified Ecbatana (formerly Ellippi) and made it his capital. It has been held by some that Herodotus confounds the Medes here with the Manda (or Umman-Manda, “hosts of the Manda”) of the inscriptions; but these were probably Aryan tribes, possibly of Scythian origin, and the names Mada and Manda may be, after all, identical. Esarhaddon in his 2nd year (679-678 BC) and Assurbani-pal warred with certain Median tribes, whose power was now growing formidable. They (or the Manda) had conquered Persis and formed a great confederacy.

    Under Kyaxares (Uvakh-shatara — Deiokes’ grandson, according to Herodotus), they besieged Nineveh, but Assur-bani-pal, with the assistance of the Ashguza (? the Ashkenaz of Genesis 10:3), another Aryan tribe, repelled them. The end of the Assyrian empire came, however, in 606 BC, when the Manda under their king Iriba-tukte, Mamiti-arsu “lord of the city of the Medes,” Kastarit of the Armenian district of Kar-kassi, the Kimmerians (Gimirra = Gomer) under Teushpa (Teispes, Chaishpish), the Minni (Manna; compare Jeremiah 51:27), and the Babylonians under Nabu-pal-ucsur, stormed and destroyed Nineveh, as Nabu-nahid informs us. The last king of Assyria, Sin-sar-iskun (Sarakos), perished with his people.

    Herodotus says that Deiokes was succeeded by Phraortes (Fravartish) his son, Phraortes by his son Kyaxares; and the latter in turn left his kingdom to his son Astyages whose daughter Mandane married Cambyses, father of the great Cyrus. Yet there was no Median empire (such as he describes) then, or at least it did not embrace all the Aryan tribes of Western Asia, as we see from the inscriptions that in 606 BC, and even later, many of them were under kings and princes of their own (compare Jeremiah 25:25; 51:11). Herodotus tells us they were divided into six tribes, of whom the Magi were one (Herod. i.101). Kyaxares warred for 5 years (590-585 BC) with the Lydians, the struggle being ended in May, 585, by the total eclipse of the sun foretold by Thales (Herodotus i.74).

    The alliance between the Medes and the Babylonians ended with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. His successor Nabu-nahid (555 BC) says that in that year the Medes under Astyages (Ishtuwegu) entered Mesopotamia and besieged Haran. Soon after, however, that dynasty was overthrown; for Cyrus the Persian, whom Nabu-nahid the first time he mentions him styles Astyages’ “youthful slave” (ardusu cachru), but who was even then king of Anshan (Anzan), attacked and in 549 BC captured Astyages, plundered Ecbatana, and became king of the Medes. Though of Persian descent, Cyrus did not, apparently, begin to reign in Persia till 546 BC. Henceforth there was no Median empire distinguished from the Persian (nor is any such mentioned in Daniel, in spite of modern fancies). As the Medes were further advanced in civilization and preceded the Persians in sovereignty, the Greek historians generally called the whole nation “the Medes” long after Cyrus’ time. Only much later are the Persians spoken of as the predominant partners. Hence, it is a sign of early date that Daniel (8:20) speaks of “Media and Persia,” whereas later the Book of Esther reverses the order (“Persia and Media,” Est 1:3,14,18,19; 10:2), as in the inscriptions of Darius at Behistun. Under Darius I, Phraortes (Fravartish) rebelled, claiming the throne of Media as a descendant of Kyaxares. His cause was so powerfully supported among the Medes that the rebellion was not suppressed till after a fierce struggle. He was finally taken prisoner at Raga (Rai, near Tehran), brutally mutilated, and finally impaled st Ecbatana. After that Median history merges into that of Persia. The history of the Jews in Media is referred to in Daniel and Esther. Maccabees tells something of Media under the Syrian (6:56) and Parthian dominion (14:1-3; compare Josephus, Ant, XX, iii). Medes are last mentioned in Acts 2:9. They are remarkable as the first leaders of the Aryan race in its struggle with the Semites for freedom and supremacy. W. St. Clair Tisdall MEDIA <me’-di-a > ( yd’m; [madhay]; Achaem. Persian Mada; [ Mhdi>a , Media ]):

    Lay to the West and Southwest of the Caspian, and extended thence to the Zagrus Mountains on the West On the North in later times it was bounded by the rivers Araxes and Cyrus, which separated it from Armenia. Its eastern boundaries were formed by Hyrcania and the Great Salt Desert (now called the Kavir), and it was bounded on the South by Susiana. In earlier times its limits were somewhat indefinite. It included Atropatene, (Armenian Atrpatakan, the name, “Fire-guarding,” showing devotion to the worship of Fire) to the North, and Media Magna to the South, the former being the present A’zarbaijan. Near the Caspian the country is low, damp and unhealthy, but inland most of it is high and mountainous, Matthew.

    Demavand in the Alburz range reaching 18,600 ft. Atropatene was famed for the fertility of its valleys and table-lands, except toward the North.

    Media Magna is high; it has fruitful tracts along the course of the streams, but suffers much from want of water, though this was doubtless more abundant in antiquity. It contained the Nisaean Plain, famous for its breed of horses. The chief cities of ancient Media were Ecbatana, Gazaea, and Ragae. The Orontes range near Ecbatana is the present Alvand. Lake Spauta is now known as Urmi (Urumiah). W. St. Clair Tisdall MEDIAN <me’-di-an > . See DARIUS; MEDES; MEDIA.

    MEDIATION; MEDIATOR <me-di-a’-shun > , <me’-di-a-ter > :

    I INTRODUCTORY. 1. The Terms: (1) Mediation: “Mediation” in its broadest sense may be defined as the act of intervening between parties at variance for the purpose of reconciling them, or between parties not necessarily hostile for the purpose of leading them into an agreement or covenant. Theologically, it has reference to the method by which God and man are reconciled through the instrumentality of some intervening process, act or person, and especially through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The term itself does not occur in Biblical literature. (2) Mediator:

    The term “mediator” (= middleman, agent of mediation) is nowhere found in Old Testament or Apocrypha (English Versions of the Bible), but the corresponding Greek word [mesi>thv , mesites], occurs once in Septuagint ( Job 9:33 the King James Version, “Neither is there any daysman betwixt us,” where “daysman” stands for Hebrew [mokhiach], “arbitrator,” the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin “umpire” ( see DAYSMAN); Septuagint has [oJ mesi>thv hJmw~n , ho mesites hemon], “our mediator,” as a paraphrase for Hebrew [benenu], “betwixt us”). Even in the New Testament, [mesites], “mediator,” occurs only 6 times, namely, Galatians 3:19,20 (of Moses), and 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 (of Christ). 2. The Principle of Mediation: Though the actual terms are thus very rare, the principle of mediation is one of great significance in Biblical theology, as well as in the Jewish- Alexandrian philosophy. It corresponds to a profound human instinct or need which finds expression in some form or other in most religions. It is an attempt to solve the problem raised by (1) the idea of the infinite distance which separates God from man and the universe, and (2) the deeply felt want of bringing them into a harmonious relation.

    The conception of mediation will differ, therefore, according to whether the distance to be surmounted is understood ethically or metaphysically. If it be thought of in an ethical or religious sense, that is, if the emphasis be laid on the fact of human sin as standing in the way of man’s fellowship with God, then mediation will be the mode by which peaceful relations are established between sinful man and the absolutely righteous God. But if the antithesis of God and the world be conceived of metaphysically, i.e. be based on the ultimate nature of God and of the world conceived as essentially opposed to each other, then mediation will be the mode by which the transcendent God, without Himself coming into direct contact with the world, is able to produce effects in it through an intermediate agent (or agents). The latter conception (largely the result of an exaggerated Platonic dualism) exerted an important influence on later Jewish thought, and even on Christian theology, and will come briefly under our consideration. But in the main we shall be concerned with the former view, as more in harmony with the development of Biblical theology which culminates in the New Testament doctrine of atonement.

    Mediation between God and man as presented in the Scriptures has 3 main aspects, represented respectively by the functions of the prophet, the priest, and theocratic king. Here and there in the Old Testament these tend to meet, as in Melchizedek the priest-king, and in the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah, who unites the priestly function of sacrifice with the prophetic function of revealing the Divine will. But on the whole, these aspects of mediation in the Old Testament run along lines which have no meeting-point in one person adequate to all the demands. In the New Testament they intersect in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who realizes in Himself the full meaning of the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ideals.

    2. MEDIATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Negative Teaching in the Old Testament: We do not find in the Old Testament a fixed and final doctrine of mediation universally accepted as an axiom of religious thought, but only a gradual movement toward such a doctrine, under the growing sense of God’s exaltation and of man’s frailty and sinfulness. Such a passage as Samuel 2:25 seems definitely to contradict the idea of mediation. Still more striking are the words of Job above referred to, “There is no umpire betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both,” i.e. to enforce his decision ( Job 9:33), where the Septuagint paraphrases, “Would that there were a mediator and a reprover and a hearer between us both.” The note of despair which characterizes this passage shows that Job has no hope that such an arbitrator between him and God is forthcoming. Yet the words give pathetic utterance to the deep inarticulate cry of humanity for a mediator. In this connection we should note the protests of prophets and psalmists against an unethical view of mediation by animal sacrifices ( Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 40:6-8, etc.), and their frequent direct appeals to God for mercy without reference to any mediation ( Psalm 25:7; 32:5; 103:8 ff, etc.). 2. The Positive Teaching: Early Period: (1) Mediatory Sacrifice.

    In the patriarchal age, before the official priest had been differentiated from the rest of the community, the function of offering sacrifice was discharged by the head of the family or clan on behalf of his people, as by Noah ( Genesis 8:20), Abraham ( Genesis 12:7,8; 15:9-11), Isaac ( Genesis 26:24 f), Jacob ( Genesis 31:54; 33:20). So Job, conceived by the writer as living in patriarchal antiquity, is said to have offered sacrifices vicariously for his sons ( Job 1:5). Melchizedek, the priestking of Salem ( Genesis 14:18-20), is a figure of considerable theological interest, inasmuch as he was taken by the author of Psalm as the forerunner of the ideal theocratic king who was also priest, and by the author of He as prototype of Christ’s priesthood. (2) Intercessory Prayer.

    Intercession is in all stages of thought an essential element in mediation.

    We have striking examples of it in Genesis 18:22-33; Job 42:8-10. (3) The Mosaic Covenant.

    In Moses we have for the first time a recognized national representative who acted both as God’s spokesman to the people, and the people’s spokesman before God. He alone was allowed to “come near unto Yahweh,” and to him Yahweh spake “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” ( Exodus 33:11). He went up to God and “reported the words of the people” to Him, as to a sovereign who cannot be approached save by his duly accredited minister ( Exodus 19:8). We have a striking example of his intercessory mediation in the episode of the golden calf, when he pleaded effectively with God to turn from His wrath ( Exodus 32:12-14), and even offered to “make atonement for” ([kipper], literally, “cover”) their sin by confessing their sin before God, and being willing to be blotted out of God’s book, so that the people might be spared ( Exodus 32:30-32). Here we have already the germs of the idea of vicarious suffering for sin. (4) Intercessory Mediation.

    Samuel is by Jeremiah classed with Moses as the chief representative of intercessory mediation ( Jeremiah 15:1). He is reported as mediating by prayer between Israel and God, and succeeding in warding off the punishment of their sin ( 1 Samuel 7:5-12). On such occasions, prayer was wont to be accompanied by confessions of sins and by an offering to Yahweh. 3. Prophetic Mediation: Samuel represents the transition from the ancient seer or soothsayer to the prophetic order. The prophet was regarded as the organ of Divine revelation, to consult whom was equivalent to “inquiring of God” ( Samuel 9:9) — a commissioner sent by God ( Isaiah 6:8 f) to proclaim His will by word and action. In that capacity he was Yahweh’s representative among men, and so could speak in a tone of authority.

    Prophetic revelation is essential to the Old Testament religion (compare Hebrews 1:1), which by it stands distinguished from a mere philosophy or natural religion. God is not merely a passive object of human discovery, but one who actively and graciously reveals Himself to His chosen people through the medium of the authorized exponents of His mind and will.

    Thus in the main the prophet stands for the principle of mediation in its man-ward aspect. But the God-ward aspect is not absent, for we find the prophet mediating with God on behalf of men, making intercession for them ( Jeremiah 14:19-22; Am 7:2 f,5 f). 4. Priestly Mediation: Mediation is in a peculiar sense the function of the priest. In the main he stands for the principle in its God-ward aspect. Yet in the early period it was the man-ward aspect that was most apparent; i.e. the priest was at first regarded as the medium through which Yahweh delivered His oracles to men, the human mouthpiece of supernatural revelation, giving advice in difficult emergencies by casting the sacred lot. Before the time of the first literary prophets, the association of the priests with the ephod and the lot had receded into the background (though the high priest theoretically retained the gift of interpreting the Divine will through the Urim and Thummim, Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8); but the power they lost with the oracle they gained at the altar. First they acquired a preferential status at the local sanctuaries; then, in the Deuteronomic legislation, where sacrifice is limited to the Jerusalem sanctuary, it is assumed that only Levite priests can officiate. Finally, in the Levitical system as set forth in the Priestly Code (which regulated Jewish worship in the post-exilic times), the Aaronic priests, now clearly distinguished from the Levites, have the sole privilege of immediate access to God in His sanctuary ( Numbers 4:19,20; 16:3-5). God’s transcendence and holiness are now so emphasized that between Him and the sin-stained people there is almost an infinite chasm. Hence, the people can only enjoy its ideal right of drawing nigh unto God and offering sacrifice to Him through the mediation of the official priesthood. The mediatorship of priests derived its authority, not from their moral purity or personal worth, but from the ceremonial purity which attached to their office. All priests are not on the same level. A process of graduated sanctity narrows down their number as the approach is made to the Most Holy Place, which symbolizes the presence chamber of Yahweh. (1) Out of the sacred nation as a whole, the priestly tribe of Levi is elected and invested with a special sanctity to perform all the subordinate acts of service within the tabernacle ( Numbers 8:19; 18:6). (2) Within this sacred tribe, the members of the house of Aaron are set apart and invested with a still higher sanctity; they alone officiate at the altar in the Holy Place and expiate the guilt of the people by sacrifice and prayer, thus representing the people before God. Yet even they are only admitted to the proximate nearness of the Holy Place. (3) The gradation of the hierarchy is completed by the recognition of a single, supreme head of the priesthood — the high priest. He alone can enter the Holy of Holies, and that alone once a year, on the Day of Atonement, when he makes propitiation not only for himself and the priesthood, but for the entire congregation. The ritual of the Day of Atonement is the highest exercise of priestly mediatorship. On that day, the whole community has access to Yahweh through their representative, the high priest, and through him offer atonement for their sins. Moreover, the role of the high priest as mediator is symbolized by his wearing the breastplate bearing the names of the children of Israel, whenever he goes into the Holy Place ( Exodus 28:29).

    Something must be said of the sacrificial system, through which alone the priest exercised his mediatorial functions. For his mediatorship did not depend on his direct personal influence with God, exercised, for instance, through intercessory prayer (intercession is not mentioned by the Priestly Code (P) as a duty of the priest, though referred to by the prophets, Joel 2:17; Malachi 1:9). It depended rather on an elaborate system of sacrifice, of which the priest was but an official agent. It was he who derived his authority from the system, rather than the system from him. The most characteristic features in the ritual of P are the sin offering ([chatta’th], Leviticus 4; 5; 6:24-30) and the guilt offering ([’asham], Leviticus 5 through 7; 14; 19), which seem peculiar to P. These are meant to restore the normal relation of the people or of individuals to God, a relation which sin has disturbed. Hence, these sacrifices, when duly administered by the priest, are distinctly mediatorial or reconciliatory in character, i.e. they make atonement for or “cover” ([kipper]) the sin of the guilty community or individuals. This seems the case also, though in a far less degree, even with the burnt, peace, and meal offerings, which, though “not offered expressly, like the sin and guilt offerings, for the forgiveness of sin, nevertheless were regarded .... as `covering,’ or neutralizing, the offerer’s unworthiness to appear before God, and so, though in a much less degree than the sin or guilt offering, as effecting propitiation” (Driver in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 132). We must beware, however, of reading the full New Testament doctrine of sin and propitiation into the sacrificial law. Two important points of difference may be noted: (1) The law does not provide atonement for all sins, but only for sins of ignorance or inadvertence, committed within the covenant. Deliberate sins fall outside the scope of priestly mediation. (2) While sin includes moral impurity, it must be admitted that the chief emphasis falls on ceremonial uncleanness, because it is only violation of physical sanctity that can be fully rectified by ritual ordinance. The law was essentially a civil code, and was not adequate to deal with inward sins. Thus the sacrificial system in itself is but a faint adumbration of the New Testament doctrine of Christ’s high-priestly work, which has reference to sin in its widest and deepest meaning. Yet, in spite of these limitations, the priestly ritual was, as far as it went, an organized embodiment of the sin-consciousness, and so prepared the way for the coming of a perfect Mediator. 5. The Theocratic King: the Messiah: On another plane than that of the priest is the mediation of theocratic king.

    Yahweh was ideally the sole king of Israel. But He governed the people mediately through His vicegerent theocratic king, the agent of His will. The king was regarded as “Yahweh’s anointed” ( 1 Samuel 16:6, etc.), and his person as inviolable. He was the “visible representative of the invisible Divine King” (Riehm). The ideal of theocratic king was most nearly represented by David, the man after Yahweh’s own heart (compare Samuel 13:14). This fact led to Yahweh’s covenant-promise that David’s house should constitute a permanent dynasty, and his throne be established forever ( 2 Samuel 7:5-17; compare Psalm 89:19-37). The indestructibility of the Davidic dynasty was the basal conviction on which the hope of a Messiah was built. It led to attention being further concentrated on one preeminent King in David’s line, who should be the Divinely accredited representative of Yahweh, and reign in His name. As a Divinely endowed human hero, the Messiah will possess attributes which will qualify Him to mediate between God and His people in national life and affairs, and so inaugurate the ideal age of peace and righteousness. He is portrayed especially as the Royal Saviour of Israel, through whom the salvation of the people is mediated and justice administered (e.g. Isaiah 11:1-10; 61:1-3; Psalm 72:4,13; Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16). 6. The Suffering Servant: In the wonderful figure of exilic prophecy, the Suffering Servant of Yahweh, the principle of mediation is exemplified both in its man-ward and God-ward aspects. In its man-ward aspect, his mission is the prophetic one of being God’s anointed messenger to men, His witness before the world ( Isaiah 42:6,19; 43:10; 49:2; 50:4,5; 61:1-3). But the profound originality of the conception of the Servant lies chiefly in the God-ward significance of his suffering (Isaiah 53). The Servant suffered vicariously as an atonement for the sins of the people. His death is even said to be a “guilt-offering” ([’asham], Isaiah 53:10), and he is represented as making “intercession for the transgressors” ( Isaiah 53:12). Here is the profoundest expression in the Old Testament of the principle of mediatorship.

    The substitution of voluntary, deliberate, human sacrifice for that of unwilling beasts elevates the sacrificial idea to a new ethical plane, and brings it into far more vital and organic relation to human life. The basis of the mediatorship of the Servant seems to be the principle of the solidarity or organic unity of the people, involving the ideal unity of the Servant and the people he represents. In the earlier servant-passages the Servant is identical with the whole nation ( Isaiah 41:8; 44:1 f, and often), and the unity is therefore actual, not ideal merely. In other passages, however, they are clearly to be distinguished, for while the people as a whole is unfaithful to its mission, the Servant remains faithful and suffers for it. Whether in Isaiah 53 the Servant is the pious remnant of the people or is conceived of as an individual we need not here consider. In either case, the tie between the Servant and the whole nation is never completely broken; the idea of their mystical union is still the groundwork of the prophet’s thought. In virtue of this ideal relation, the Servant is the representative of the nation before God, not in a mere official sense (as in the case of the priest), but on the ground of personal merit, as the true Israel, the embodiment of the national ideal. On that ground God can accept his suffering in lieu of the deserved penalty of the whole people. We have here a wonderful adumbration of the New Testament doctrine of atonement through the One Mediator, the Son of Man, the representative of the race.See SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 7. Superhuman Agents of Mediation: In later Judaism, the growing sense of God’s transcendence favored the tendency to introduce supernatural intermediaries between God and the world. (1) Angelic Mediation.

    Not until post-exilic times did angels come to have theological significance.

    Previously, when God was anthropomorphically conceived as appearing periodically on earth in visible form, the need of angelic mediation was not felt. The “angel” in early narrative (e.g. Genesis 16:7-11) did not possess abiding personality distinct from God, but was God Himself temporarily manifested in human form. But the more God came to be conceived as “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,” the greater was the need for mediation between God and the world, and even between God and His servant the prophet. In post-exilic writers there is an increasing disposition to fill up the gap between God and the prophet with superhuman beings. Thus Zechariah receives all Divine instruction through angels; and similarly Daniel receives explanations of his dreams. We do not in the Old Testament hear of angels interceding with God (God-ward mediation), but only as intermediaries of revelation and of the Divine will (man-ward mediation). Modern Jewish scholars deny that Judaistic angelology implied that God was transcendent in the sense of being remote and out of contact with the world. So, e.g., Montefiore (Hibbert Lectures, 423-31), but even he admits a “natural disinclination to bring the Godhead downward to human conditions,” and that “for supernatural conversations angels formed a convenient substitute for God” (p. 430). The doctrine of angels had no influence on the New Testament doctrine of mediation, which moves on the plane of the ethical, rather than on the basis of the merely physical transcendenee of God. (2) Divine Wisdom.

    Of more importance as a preparation for theology of the New Testament is the doctrine of Wisdom, in which the Jews found “a middle term between the religion of Israel and the philosophy of Greece.” In Proverbs 8:22-31 Wisdom is depicted as an individual energy, God’s elect Son, His companion and master-workman ( Proverbs 8:30) in creation, but whose chief delight is with the children of men. Though the personification is here purely ideal and poetical, and the ethical interest predominates over the metaphysical, yet we have in such a passage a clear proof of contact with Greek thought (especially Platonism and Stoicism), and of the felt need of a mediator between God and the visible world. This mode of thought, linked to the Hebrew conception of the Divine Word as the efficient expression of God’s thought and the medium of His activity ( Isaiah 55:11; Psalm 33:6; 107:20), has left its mark on Philo’s Logos-doctrine and on the New Testament Christology. See WISDOM.

    3. IN SEMI-AND NON-CANONICAL JEWISH LITERATURE.

    In the Apocrypha, the idea of mediation is for the most part absent. We have one or two references to angelic intercession (Tobit 12:12,15), a function not attributed to angels in the Old Testament, but prominent in later apocalyptic literature (e.g. Enoch 9:10; 15:2; 40:6). The tradition of the agency of angels in the promulgation of the law is first found in the Septuagint of Dt 33:2 (not in the Hebrew original), but was greatly amplified in rabbinical literature (Josephus, Ant, XV, v, 3). In The Wisdom of Solomon a bold advance is made toward the conception of Wisdom as a personal mediator of creation (especially 7:22-27). In later Judaism, the idea of the Word is further developed. The Targums constantly refer the Divine activity to the memera’ or “Word” of God, where the Old Testament refers it to God directly, and speaks of it as Israel’s Intercessor before God and as Redeemer. This usage seems to arise out of a reluctance to bring God into immediate contact with the world; hence, God’s self-manifestation is represented as mediated through a quasi-personal agent. The tendency finds its full development, however, not among the Jerusalem Jews, but among the Jews of Alexandria, especially in Philo’s Logos-doctrine. Deeply influenced by the Platonic dualism, Philo thought of God as pure Spirit, incapable of contact with matter, so that without mediation God could not act on the world. To fill up the great gap he conceived of intermediary beings which represented at once the Ideas of Plato, the active Powers of the Stoics, and the angels of the Old Testament. The highest of these was the Divine Logos, the mediator between the inaccessible, transcendent Being and the material universe. On the one hand, in relation to the world, the, Logos is the Mediator of creation and of revelation; on the other, in his God-ward activity, he is the representative of the world before God, its High Priest, Intercessor, and Paraclete. Yet Philo’s Logos was probably nothing more than a high philosophical abstraction vividly imaged in the mind. In spite of Philo’s influence on early Christian theology, and even perhaps on some New Testament writers, his doctrine of mediation moves on quite different lines from the central New Testament doctrine, which is concerned above all with the reconciliation of God and man on account of sin, and not with the metaphysical reconciliation of the absolute and the finite world. The Mediator of Philo is an abstraction of speculative thought; the Mediator of the New Testament is a concrete historical person known to experience. See PHILO JUDAEUS.

    4. MEDIATION AND MEDIATOR IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    The relatively independent lines of development which the conception of mediation has hitherto taken now meet and coalesce in Jesus Christ. 1. The Synoptic Gospels: The traditional division of Christ’s mediatorial work into that of prophet, priest and king (very common since Calvin, but now often discarded) offers a convenient method of treating the subject, though we must avoid making the division absolute, as if Christ’s work fell apart into three separate and independent functions. The unity of the work of salvation is preserved by the fact that “no one of the offices fills up a moment of time alone, but the others are always cooperative,” although “Christ’s mediatorial work puts now this, now that side in the foreground.” “The triple division is of special value, because it sets in a vivid light the continuity between the Old Testament theocracy and Christianity” (Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, English translation, III, 385 ff). These three aspects of Christ’s mediatorship can be distinguished in the Synoptics, although the formal distinction is the work of later analysis. (1) Christ as Prophet.

    It was in the character of Prophet that He mainly impressed the common mind, which was moved to inquire “Whence hath this man this wisdom?” and by His reply, “A prophet is not without honor,” etc., He virtually accepts that title ( Matthew 13:54,57). As Prophet, Christ is the mediator of revelation; through Him alone can men come to know God as Father ( Matthew 11:27) and “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” ( Matthew 13:11). In all His teaching we feel that He speaks within the center of truth, and hence can teach with authority and not as the scribes ( Matthew 7:29), who approach the truth from without. His teaching is part of His redemptive work, and not something extraneous to it, for the sin from which He redeems includes ignorance and error. (2) Christ as King.

    The official name “Christ” (= Messiah, the anointed King) refers primarily to His kingship. The Messianic hope had taught men to look forward to the rule of God on earth instituted and administered through His representative. Christ was the fulfillment of that hope. Though He held an attitude of reserve in the matter, there can be no doubt that He conceived of Himself as the Messiah ( Mark 8:27-30; 14:16 f; compare His entry into Jerusalem as a triumphant king, 11:1 ff; the inscription on the cross, 15:26). But it is also clear that He fundamentally modified the Messianic idea, (a) by suffusing it with the thought of vicarious suffering, and (b) by giving it an ethical and spiritual rather than a national and official significance. The note of His kingship was that of authority ( Mark 1:27; 2:10; Matthew 7:29; 28:18) exercised in the realm of truth and conscience. His kingship includes the future as well as the present; He is the arbiter of human destiny ( Matthew 25:31 ff). (3) Christ as Priest (Redeemer).

    The synoptists do not hint at the priestly analogy. Our Lord often spoke of forgiveness without mentioning Himself as the one through whom it was mediated, as if it flowed directly from the gracious heart of the Father (compare the parables of Luke 15). But there are other passages which emphasize the close connection of His person with men’s redemption.

    Men’s attitude to Him decides absolutely their relation to God ( Matthew 10:32,40). Rest of soul is mediated to the heavy laden through Him ( Matthew 11:28-30). He claims authority on earth to forgive sins ( Mark 2:10). We have no evidence that He spoke definitely of His death until after Peter’s confession at Caesarea ( Mark 8:31, “began to teach,” etc.), though we seem to have vague allusions earlier (e.g. the allegory of the bridegroom, Mark 2:19,20). This may be partly due to conscious reserve, in accordance with the true pedagogical method by which He adapted His teaching to the progressive receptivity of His followers. But inasmuch as we must think of Him as subject to the ordinary laws of human psychology, the idea of His death must have been to Him a growth, matured partly by outward events, and partly by the development of His inner consciousness as the Suffering Messiah. In His later ministry, He frequently taught that He must suffer and die ( Mark 9:12,31; 10:32 f; 12:8; 14:8 and parallel passages; compare Mark 10:38; Luke 12:49 f). There are two important passages which expressly connect His death with His mediatorial work. The first is Mark 10:45 (parallel Matthew 20:28), “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

    The context shows that it was while the thought of His approaching death filled His mind that our Lord uttered these words (compare Mark 10:33,38 f). As to the exact meaning of ransom ([lutron]) there are two circles of ideas with which it may be associated. (a) It may mean a sacrificial offering, representing Hebrew [kopher] (literally, “covering,” “propitiatory gift”) which it translates several times in Septuagint (e.g. Exodus 30:12). Thus, Ritschl defines it as “an offering which, because of its specific worth to God, is a protection or coveting against sin” (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, II, 68-88). (b) It may mean ransom price, the purchase-money paid for the emancipation of a slave. In Septuagint, lutron in most cases stands for some form of the roots ga’al, “to deliver,” [padhah], “to redeem” (e.g. Leviticus 25:51; Numbers 3:51). Hence, Wendt explains the “ransom” as the price by which Jesus redeemed His disciples from their bondage to suffering and death (Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 ff). This analogy certainly suits the context better than that drawn from the Levitical ritual, for it brings out the contrast between the liberating work of Christ and the enslaving work of those who “lord it over” men.

    We must not press the analogy in detail or seek here an answer to the question, who was the recipient of the ransom price (e.g. whether the Devil, as many Fathers, notably Origen and Gregory of Nyssa; God, as Anselm and later theologians; the “eternal law of righteousness,” as Dale). The purpose of the passage is primarily practical, not speculative. It is certainly pressing the figurative language of Jesus too far to insist that the ransom price is the exact quantitative equivalent of the lives liberated, or of the penalty they had deserved regarded as a debt. This is too prosaic and literalistic an interpretation of a passage which has its setting in the ethical rather than in the commercial realm, and which breathes a spirit closely akin to that of Isaiah 53, where suffering and service axe, as here, combined.

    The other passage in which Christ definitely connects His mediatorship with His death is that which reports His words at the Last Supper ( Mark 14:22-24; Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19 f; compare 1 Corinthians 11:24 f). The reported words are not identical in the several narratives. But even in their simplest form (in Mark), there is evidently a threefold allusion, to the paschal lamb, to the sacrifice offered by Moses at the ratification of the covenant at Sinai ( Exodus 24:8), and to Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant ( Exodus 31:31-34). There can be little doubt that the paschal feast, though it does not conform in detail to any of the Levitical sacrifices, was regarded as a sacrifice, as is indicated by the blood ceremonial ( Exodus 12:21-27). The blood of the covenant, too, is sacrificial; and, as we have seen, it is probable that all blood sacrifices, and not those of the sin and guilt offerings only, were associated with propitiatory power. Wendt denies that there is here any reference to sin and its forgiveness (Teachings of Jesus, II, 241 f). It must be admitted that the words in Matthew “unto remission of sins,” which have no counterpart in the other reports, are probably an explanatory expansion of the words actually uttered. But they are a true interpretation of their meaning, as is attested by the fact that the new covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy was one of forgiveness and justification ( Jeremiah 31:34), and that Christ speaks of His blood as shed for others. And as the Passover signified deliverance from bondage to an earthly power (Egypt), so the Supper stands for forgiveness and deliverance from a spiritual power (sin). Clearly Christ here represents Himself as the Mediator of the new covenant, through whom men are to find acceptance with God, though the exact modus operandi of His sacrifice is not indicated.

    The Synoptics give special prominence to those historical events which are most intimately associated with Christ’s mediatorship — not only the agony in the garden and the crucifixion, but also the resurrection and ascension (which make possible His intercessory mediation in heaven). 2. Primitive Apostolic Teachings: (1) The Early Speeches in Acts.

    The early speeches in Acts reveal a primitive stage of theological reflection.

    Yet they are essentially Christocentric. (a) It is the Messianic Kingship of Christ that is chiefly emphasized.

    The main thesis is that Jesus is the Messiah (the “anointed one”; compare Acts 4:27; 10:38), and that His Messiahship was realized in the crucifixion and attested by the resurrection. An important feature is the use of the title “Servant” for Christ ( Acts 3:13,16; 4:27,30; compare 8:30-35), in evident reference to the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah. In the phrase, “thy holy Servant .... whom thou didst anoint,” coming immediately after the Messianic quotation, “against the Lord, and against his Anointed” ( Acts 4:26 f), we have a concise instance of that coalescing of the idea of the Messiah with that of the Suffering Servant which gave the Messianic idea an entirely new meaning. As Messiah, Jesus was the sole Mediator of salvation ( Acts 4:12). (b) Another Old Testament type which finds its fulfillment in Jesus is that of the “prophet like unto” Moses ( Acts 3:22; 7:37; compare Dt 18:15,18). (c) But the priestly functions of Christ are not explicitly touched on.

    The questions are not faced, What is the God-ward significance of His death? How is it effective for man’s salvation? It is rather the manward significance that is made explicit, i.e. Jesus as Messiah mediates salvation to men from His place of exaltation at the right hand of God.

    Yet the germs of a God-ward mediation are found in the identification of the Messiah with the Suffering Servant. (2) Epistles of James and Jude.

    In these epistles the doctrine of Christ’s mediation does not occupy a prominent place. To James, Christianity is the culmination of Judaism.

    Christ’s mediatorial functions are set forth more by way of presupposition than by explicit statement, and the whole weight is laid on the kingly and prophetic offices. The Messiahship of Jesus is assumed to such an extent that the title “Christ” has become part of the proper name, and His Lordship is also implied (1:1; 2:1). Nothing definite is said of His function in salvation; it is God Himself who regenerates, but the medium of regeneration is “the word of truth,” “the implanted word” (1:18,21), which must refer to the word which Jesus had preached. This implies that Jesus as prophetic teacher is the Mediator of salvation. Nothing is said of the death on the cross or its saving significance. The Epistle of Jude assumes the Lordship of Christ, through whom God’s Saviourhood works, and whose mercy results in eternal life (1:4,21,25). (3) 1 Peter.

    In 1 Peter we have the early apostolic teaching touched with Paulinism.

    The fact that salvation is mediated through the sufferings and death of Christ is now explicitly stated. Christ has suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous (3:18). The suffering has significance both God-ward and man-ward. Relatively to God it is a sacrificial offering which opens up a way of access to Him; He suffered “that he might bring us to God” (3:18), and that through His representative priesthood the ideal “holy priesthood” of all God’s people might be realized, for it is “through Jesus Christ” that men’s “spiritual sacrifices” become “acceptable to God” (2:5). So the elect are sprinkled with the blood of Christ, i.e. brought into communion with God by His sacrifice (1:2). Relatively to man, it is a means of ransoming or liberating man from the bondage compare sin. “Knowing that ye were redeemed ([ejlutrw>qhte , elutrothete ], literally, “ransomed,” from [lutron ], “ransom,” an echo of Mark 10:45) .... with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” ( 1 Peter 1:18,19). The sacrificial language is simple and undeveloped, and it is not clear whether the figure of “lamb” implies a reference to the paschal lamb or to Isaiah 53:7, or to both. The effect on man is, however, clear.

    Christ “bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed” ( Peter 2:24; see the whole passage, 2:21-24, reminiscent of the figure of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, chapter 53). 3. Epistles of Paul: Christ’s mediatorship stands at the very center of Paul’s gospel; this in spite of the fact that only once does he apply the term “mediator” to Christ ( 1 Timothy 2:5), and that in the only other passage where he uses the word, he applies it to Moses, in a sense which might seem to be inconsistent with the idea of Christ’s mediatorship, namely, where he discusses the relation of law to promise. The law was “ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not .... of one; but God is one” ( Galatians 3:19,20).

    This passage has had to undergo about 300 different interpretations. The view that the “mediator” here is Christ (Origen, Augustine and most of the Fathers, Calvin, etc.) is clearly untenable. Modern exegetes agree that the reference is to Moses (compare Leviticus 26:46, where the Septuagint has “by the hand of Moses”; Philo calls Moses “mediator and reconciler,” De Vit. Moys, iii.19), who, according to a rabbinical tradition, received the Law through the intermediation of angles (compare Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2). Nor is it likely that Paul meant the reader to realize the glory of the law and the solemnity of its ordination (Meyer). The point is rather the inferiority of the law to the evangelical promise to Abraham.

    Mediation implies at least two parties between whom it is carried on. The law was given by a double mediatorship, that of the angels and that of Moses, and was thus two removes from its Divine source. But in relation to the promise God stood alone, i.e. acted freely, unconditionally, independently, and for Himself alone. The promise is no agreement between two, buy the free gift of the one God (so Schleiermacher, Lightfoot, etc.). This is by no means a denial of the Divine origin of the law (Ritschl), for the mediation of angels and of Moses was Divinely authorized; but it does seem to make the method of mediation inferior to that of the direct communication of God’s gracious will to man. Paul is not, however, treating of the principle of mediation in the abstract, but only that form of it which implies a contract between two parties. Christ is not Mediator in the same sense as Moses, for the free and unconditioned character of the forgiving grace which Christ mediates is by no means diminished by the fact of His mediation.

    What, then, is Paul’s positive teaching on Christ’s Mediatorship? (1) The Need of a Mediator:

    The need of a Mediator arises out of the fact of sin. Sin interrupts the harmonious relation between God and man. It results in a state of mutual alienation. On the one hand, man is in a state of enmity to God ( Romans 5:10; 8:7; Colossians 1:21). On the other hand, God is moved to righteous wrath in relation to the sinner ( Romans 1:18; 5:9; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6). Hence, the need of a mutual change of attitude, a removal of God’s displeasure against the sinner as well as of the sinner’s hostility to God. God could not restore man to favor by a mere fiat, without some public exhibition of Divine righteousness, and vindication of His character as not indifferent to sin (compare Romans 3:25,26). Such exhibition demanded a Mediator. (2) The Qualifications:

    The qualification of Christ to be the Mediator depends on His intimate relation to both parties at variance. (a) Christ’s Relation to Man:

    Firstly, He is Himself a man, i.e. not merely “man” generically, but an individual man. The “one mediator between God and men” is “himself man, Christ Jesus” ( 1 Timothy 2:5), “born of a woman” ( Galatians 4:4), “in the likeness of sinful flesh” ( Romans 8:3, where the word “likeness” does not make “flesh” unreal, but qualifies “sinful”), i.e. bore to the eye the aspect of an ordinary man; secondly, He bore a particular relation to a section of humanity, the Jews ( Romans 1:3; 9:5); thirdly, He bore a universal relation to mankind in general. He was more than an individual among many, like a link in a chain. He was the Second Adam, the archetypal, universal, representative Man, whose actions therefore had significance beyond Himself and were ideally the actions of humanity, just as Adam’s act had, on a lower plane, a significance for the whole race ( Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45). (b) His Relation to God:

    Paul very frequently speaks of Christ as the “Son of God,” and that in a unique sense. Moreover, He was the “image of God” ( 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15), and subsisted originally “in the form of God” ( Philippians 2:6). He is set alongside with God over against idols ( Corinthians 8:5,6), and is coordinated with God in the benediction ( Corinthians 13:14). Clearly Paul sets Him in the Divine sphere over against all that is not God. Yet he assigns Him a certain subordination, and even asserts that His mediatorial kingship will come to an end, that God may be all in all ( 1 Corinthians 15:24,28). But this cessation of His function as Mediator of salvation, when its end shall have been attained, cannot affect His Divine dignity, “since the mediatorial sovereignty which is now ceasing was not its cause, but its consequence” (B. Weiss, II, 396). (3) The Means, the Death of Christ:

    The means of effecting the reconciliation was mainly the death on the cross. Paul emphasizes the mediating value of the death both on its objective (God-ward) side and on its subjective (man-ward) side. First, it is the objective ground of forgiveness and favor with God. On the basis of what Christ has done, God ceases to reckon to men their sins ( Corinthians 5:19). Paul’s view of the death may be seen by considering some of his most characteristic expressions. (a) It is an act of reconciliation. This involves a change of attitude, not only in man, but in God, a relinquishing of the Divine wrath without which there can be no restoration of peaceful relations (though this is disputed by many, e.g. Ritschl, Lightfoot, Westcott, Beyschlag), but not a change of nature or of intention, for the Divine wrath is but a mode of the eternal love, and moreover it is the Father Himself who provides the means of reconciliation and undertakes to accomplish it ( 2 Corinthians 5:19; compare Colossians 1:20,21; Ephesians 2:16). (b) It is an act of propitiation ( Romans 3:25, [iJlasth>rion , hilasterion ], from [iJla>skesqai , hilaskesthai ], “to render favorable” or “propitious”). Here there is a clear though tacit reference to a change of attitude on God’s part. He who was not formerly propitious to man was appeased through the death of Christ. Yet the propitiatory means are provided by God Himself, who takes the initiative in the matter (“whom God set forth,” etc.). (c) It is a ransom. The Mediator “gave himself a ransom for all” ( Timothy 2:6). The idea of payment of a ransom price is clearly implied in the word “redemption” ( Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14, [ajpolu>trwsiv , apolutrosis ], from lutron, “ransom”). It is not alone the fact of liberation (Westcott, Ritschl), but also the cost of liberation that is referred to. Hence, Christians are said to be “redeemed,” “bought with a price” ( Galatians 3:13; 4:5; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; compare Peter 1:18 f). Yet the metaphor cannot be pressed to yield an answer to the question to whom the ransom was paid. All that can safely be said is that it expresses the tremendous cost of our salvation, namely, the self-surrendered life (“the blood”) of Christ. (d) Strong substitutionary language is sometimes used, notably in Galatians 3:13 (“having become a curse for us”) and in Corinthians 5:21 (“Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf”). But the sinless substitute is not regarded as actually punished (that would be a moral contradiction). His death was not penal substitution, but a substitute for penalty. It had the value to God of the punishment of sinners, in virtue of His oneness with the race. It was the recognition from within humanity of the sinfulness of sin, and expressed the Divine righteousness as fully as penalty would have done. The secret seems to be Christ’s sympathetic love by which He identified Himself with man’s sin and doom of death. (e) Sacrificial language is used, as in 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2, and in the references to Christ’s “blood.” Not often, however, does Paul explicitly speak of the death in terms of the Levitical ritual, which would be less congenial to his mind than the prophetic conception of the Suffering Servant. Yet he does seem to regard the death of Christ as the culmination of all that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had imperfectly realized. Secondly, the subjective aspect of Christ’s work is emphasized quite as much as the objective.

    The death of Christ, being inwardly assimilated by faith, becomes to the believer the principle of ethical transformation, so that he may become worthy of the Divine favor which he now enjoys. As a result of his subjective identity with Christ through faith, the objective state of privilege is changed into actual liberation from sin ( Galatians 2:20; 6:14; Romans 6:6,7; Colossians 3:3). (4) The Resurrection and Exaltation:

    The resurrection and exaltation of Christ are essential to His mediatorial work ( 1 Corinthians 15:17). It is not alone that the resurrection “proves that the death of Christ was not the death of a sinner, but the vicarious death of the sinless Mediator of salvation” (B. Weiss, I, 436), but that salvation cannot be realized except through communion with the living, glorified Christ, without which the subjective identity of the believer with Christ by which redemption is personally appropriated would not be possible ( Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:4,5; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 3:1). The exaltation also makes possible His continuous heavenly intercession on our behalf ( Romans 8:34), which is the climax of His mediatorial activities. (5) The Cosmic Aspect of Christ’s Mediatorship:

    In his later epistles (especially Colossians and Ephesiansesians), Paul lays stress on Christ’s mediatorial activity in creation and providence, though the germs of his later teaching are found in the earlier epistles ( Corinthians 8:6). He is resisting a kind of nascent Gnostic dualism, according to which God could communicate with the world only through a hierarchy of intermediate powers. Against this he proclaims Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and the universe, having, on the one hand, a unique relation to God (“the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15; in whom the fullness of God dwells, 1:19; 2:9), and, on the other hand, a unique relation to the world, as its creative agent, its immanent principle of unity, and its ultimate goal ( Colossians 1:15-17).

    Here the apostle shows affinity with the Logos-doctrine of Philo, though the differences are marked and fundamental. Corresponding to this wider view of Christ’s person, there is a wide view of the reconciliation wrought through Him. It even extends to the world beyond man, and restores the broken harmony of the universe ( Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 1:10). 4. Epistle to the Hebrews: The main thesis of Hebrews is the absoluteness and finality of the gospel and its superiority over Judaism. The finality of Christianity depends on the fact that it has a perfect Mediator, who is the substance of which the various Jewish forms of mediation were types and shadows. He illustrates this by a series of contrasts between Christ and the mediators of the old system (by the application of principles and exegetical methods which reveal the influence of the school of Philo). In each contrast, Christ’s superiority is based on His Sonship. (1) Christ is superior to the prophets as Mediator of revelation. The Old Testament revelation was fragmentary and multiform, while now God speaks, not through many agents, but through One, and that one a Son. As Son He is the perfectly adequate expression of the Father. The author takes us at once to the high transcendental sphere of Christ’s relations to God and the universe, in virtue of which He is God’s Mediator in creation, providence, revelation and redemption ( Hebrews 1:1-3). (2) He is superior to the angels, through whose mediation the law was given ( Hebrews 1:4-14). (3) He is superior to Moses, the human agent in the giving of the law ( Hebrews 3:1-6). (4) He is greater than Aaron the high priest, the people’s representative before God. This leads to the central doctrine of the epistle, the highpriesthood of Jesus. The following are the salient points in the elaborate treatment of this subject: (1) Christ’s Qualification for the High-Priesthood Is Twofold: (a) His participation in all human experience (except sin), which guarantees His power of sympathy. Every high priest, as men’s representative before God, must be “taken from among men” ( Hebrews 5:1). Hence, the author lays great stress on the human nature and experiences of Christ (compare Hebrews 2:10,17,18; 4:15; 5:7,8). (b) His Divine appointment. Every priest must have a call from God. So Christ has been appointed priest, not indeed in the Aaronic line, but after the order of Melchizedek ( Hebrews 5:1-10). (2) The Nature of His Priesthood, Its Superiority to the Levitical Priesthood.

    The priests of the Old Testament themselves needed atonement, for they were not sinless; Christ is holy, guileless, undefiled, and need not make atonement for His own sins. They were priests only for a time, and were many in number, for they were mortal; but He abideth forever, and His priesthood is eternal. They were dependent on the law of physical descent; He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, whose priesthood did not depend on genealogy or pedigree, and who combined the functions of king with those of priest. In a word, their order was transient, temporary, shadowy; His belonged to the world of unchanging reality (Hebrews 7). (3) The Realization of His High-Priesthood.

    A high priest implies a sacrifice; hence, Christ must “have somewhat to offer” ( Hebrews 8:3). In the Levitical system, the priest and the sacrifice are distinct from each other. But Christ offered not an external gift, but Himself. Much stress is laid on Christ’s voluntary obedience ( Hebrews 5:8; 10:7), progressively attained through suffering, and culminating in the absolute surrender of His life (“blood”) in death. His sacrifice harmonizes with the principle that “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission” ( Hebrews 9:22), although the principle is lifted from the physical to the spiritual realm. In working this out, the author makes use of analogies drawn from three parts of the Levitical ritual. (a) Christ’s death was a sin offering. He has offered one final sacrifice for sins ( Hebrews 10:12,18). As priest, he has “made propitiation for the sins of the people” ( Hebrews 2:17); as victim He was “once (for all) offered to bear the sins of many” ( Hebrews 9:28). (b) The Sinaitic covenant ( Exodus 24:8) is made use of. Christ is “the mediator of a new (better) covenant” ( Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), i.e. the agent interposing between God and man in the establishment of a new relationship analogous to Moses in the old covenant. Even the first covenant was dedicated with blood, and so the blood of the Son of God was “the blood of the covenant” ( Hebrews 10:29; compare Mark 14:24). On the double meaning of the word [diatheke ] (“covenant,” “testament”), the author bases a twofold argument for the necessity of Christ’s death ( Hebrews 9:15 ff). (c) The ritual of the Day of Atonement furnishes another analogy. As the high priest once a year entered the most holy place of the earthly people, so Christ has entered once for all the true spiritual sanctuary in heaven, and there He presents Himself to God as the Mediator able to make intercession for us with the Father ( Hebrews 9:12,24-26; compare 7:25). He is a ministering priest in the true tabernacle, the immediate presence of God ( Hebrews 8:2). Thus the ascension and session make possible the culmination of the mediatorial work of Christ in the eternal sacrifice and intercession within the veil. (4) The Man-ward Efficacy of His Mediatorship.

    The effect of Christ’s death on man is described by the words “cleanse,” “sanctify,” “perfect” ( Hebrews 9:14; 10:10,14,29; 13:12), words which have a ritualistic quite as much as an ethical sense, meaning the removal of the sense of guilt, dedication to God, and the securing of the privilege of full fellowship with Him. The ultimate blessing that comes to man through the work of Christ is the privilege of free, unrestricted access to God by the removal of the obstacle of guilt ( Hebrews 4:16; 10:19 ff). 5. The Johannine Writings: (1) The Fourth Gospel.

    Aspects of our Lord’s teaching unassimilated by the other disciples, and therefore but meagerly touched on in the Synoptics, find prominence in the Gospel of John, but colored by his own meditations. Great emphasis is laid on the idea of salvation by revelation mediated through Jesus Christ. The historical revelation of God in the person and teaching of Jesus is the main subject of the Gospel. But in the Prologue we have the eternal background of the historical manifestation in the doctrine of the Logos, who, as Son in eternal fellowship with the Father, His mediator in creation, and the immanent principle of revelation in the world, is fitted to become God’s Revealer in history (1:11-18). His work on earth is to dispense light and life, knowledge of God and salvation. Through Him God gives to the world eternal life (3:16). He is the Water of Life (4:14; 7:37), the Bread of Life (6:48 ff), the Light of the World (8:12); it is by inward appropriation of Him that salvation is mediated to men (6:52 ff). He is the perfect revealer of God, hence, the only means of access to the Father (14:6,9). It is on salvation by illumination and communion, rather than on salvation by reconciliation and atonement that chief stress is laid. Sacrificial or propitiatory language is not used of Christ’s death. Yet emphasis is laid on the voluntary and vicarious character of His death. He lays down His life of Himself (10:18); “The good shepherd layeth down his life for (= on behalf of) the sheep” (10:11; compare 15:13). Christ’s death was the supreme example of the law that self-sacrifice is necessary to the highest and most fruitful life (12:23 ff). In John 17 we have a unique instance of our Lord’s intercessory prayer. (2) The Epistles.

    In 1 John we find more explicit statements with regard to the connection between the death of Christ and sin. “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1:7); “He was manifested to take away sins” (3:5); “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,” i.e. a pleader who will mediate with God on our behalf, the ground of His intercessory efficacy being that He is the “propitiation for our sins” (2:2; 4:10, a term which links the Johannine doctrine to that of Paul, though 1 John represents Christ Himself, and not merely His death on the cross, as the propitiation).

    This latter term shows that an objective value is attached to the atonement, as in some way neutralizing or making amends for sin in the eyes of God, yet in such a way as not to contradict the principles of righteousness (compare “Jesus Christ the righteous,” 2:1). (3) The Apocalypse.

    The Apocalypse presents both aspects of Christ’s mediation. On the one hand, He is associated with God in the government of the world and in judgment ( Revelation 3:21; 7:10; 6:16), holds the keys of death and Hades ( Revelation 1:18), is the Lord of lords and King of kings ( Revelation 17:14; 19:16), and is the Mediator of creation ( Revelation 3:14). On the other hand, by His sacrificial act He represents men before God. The most characteristic expression of this is the title “the Lamb” (29 t). By His blood the guilty are cleansed and made saints, purchased unto God ( Revelation 5:9; 7:14). The lamb is the symbol of the sacrificial love which is the heart of God’s sovereignty ( Revelation 5:6). It is not clear whether the allusion in this title is to the paschal lamb or to the Suffering Servant pictured as a lamb led to the slaughter ( Isaiah 53:7), or to both. In any case it contains the idea of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, which is declared to be an essential part of God’s eternal counsel ( Revelation 13:8 margin, “the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world”).

    5. CONCLUSION.

    Our inquiry will have shown how central and prominent is the idea of mediation throughout the Scriptures. We might even say it supplies the key to the unity of the Bible. In the Old Testament the principle is given “in divers portions and in divers manners,” but in the New Testament it converges in the doctrine of the person and work of the One final Mediator, the Son of God. Amid all the rich diversity of the various parts of the New Testament, there is one fundamental conception common to all, that of Christ as at once the interpreter of God to men and the door of access for men to God. Especially is Christ’s self-sacrifice presented as the effective cause of our salvation, as a means of removing the guilt and sin which stand as a barrier in the way of God’s purpose concerning man and of man’s fellowship with God. There is a tendency in some influential writers of today to speak disparagingly of the doctrine of the one Mediator, on the ground that it injures the direct relationship of man with God (e.g. R. Eucken, Truth of Religion, 583 ff). Here we can reply only that the doctrine properly defined is attested in universal Christian experience, and that, so far from standing in the way of our personal approach to God, it is a simple historical fact that apart from the work of Jesus we would not enjoy that free access to Him which is now our privilege.

    LITERATURE.

    Besides the commentaries, such works on Old Testament Theology as those of Oehler, Schultz, A.B. Davidson, and on New Testament Theology by B. Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, W.B. Stevens, Weinel; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; A.B. Bruce, Paul’s Conception of Christianity and The Epistle to the Hebrews; J. Denney, The Death of Christ; Du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to Paul, High-Priesthood and Sacrifice. For the idea of mediation in Jewish religion, Oesterley, The Jewish Doctrine of Mediation; Toy, Judaism and Christianity. Much material on the Biblical doctrine may be found in such works as Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine; Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 3 volumes (Volumes I and III, English translation); Dale, The Atonement; McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; F.D. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; Moberly, Atonement and Personality; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement; G.B. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation; articles in HDB, DCG, and in this Encyclopedia on “Mediation”; “Mediator”; “Atonement”; “Messiah”; “Propitiation”; “Prophets”; “Priests”; “Ransom”; “Reconciliation”; “Sacrifice”; Salvation,” etc. D. Miall Edwards MEDICINE <med’-i-sin > , <med’-i-s’-n > ( hh;Ge [gehah], hp;WrT] [teruphah], ha;pur” [rephu’ah]): These words are used in the sense of a remedy or remedies for disease. In Proverbs 17:22 the King James Version, a merry heart is said to do good “like a medicine.” There is an alternative reading in the King James Version margin, “to a medicine,” the Revised Version (British and American) “is a good medicine”; the Revised Version margin gives another rendering, “causeth good healing,” which is the form that occurs in the Septuagint and which was adopted by Kimchi and others.

    Some of the Targums, substituting a waw for the first h in [gehah], read here “doeth good to the body,” thus making this clause antithetic to the latter half of the verse. In any case the meaning is that a cheerful disposition is a powerful remedial agent.

    In the figurative account of the evil case of Judah and Israel because of their backsliding ( Jeremiah 30:13), the prophet says they have had no [rephu’ah], or “healing medicines.” Later on ( Jeremiah 46:11), when pronouncing the futility of the contest of Neco against Nebuchadrezzar, Jeremiah compares Egypt to an incurably sick woman going up to Gilead to take balm as a medicine, without any benefit. In Ezekiel’s vision of the trees of life, the leaves are said (the King James Version) to be for medicine, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “healing,” thereby assimilating the language to that in Revelation 22:2, “leaves of the tree .... for the healing of the nations” (compare Ezek 47:12).

    Very few specific remedies are mentioned in the Bible. “Balm of Gilead” is said to be an anodyne ( Jeremiah 8:22; compare 51:8). The love-fruits, “mandrakes” ( Genesis 30:14) and “caperberry” (Eccl 12:5 margin), myrrh, anise, rue, cummin, the “oil and wine” of the Good Samaritan, soap and sodic carbonate (“natron,” called by mistake “nitre”) as cleansers, and Hezekiah’s “fig poultice” nearly exhaust the catalogue. In the Apocrypha we have the heart, liver and gall of Tobit’s fish (Tobit 6:7). In the Egyptian pharmacopoeia are the names of many plants which cannot be identified, but most of the remedies used by them were dietetic, such as honey, milk, meal, oil, vinegar, wine. The Babylonian medicines, as far as they can be identified, are similar. In the Mishna we have references to wormwood, poppy, hemlock, aconite and other drugs. The apothecary mentioned in the King James Version ( Exodus 30:25, etc.) was a maker of perfumes, not of medicines. Among the fellahin many common plants are used as folkremedies, but they put most confidence in amulets or charms, which are worn by most Palestinian peasants to ward off or to heal diseases. Alexander Macalister MEDITATION <med-i-ta’-shun > ( tWgh; [haghuth], hj;yc [sichah]): “Meditation” is the translation of [haghuth], from [haghah], “to murmur,” “to have a deep tone,” hence, “to meditate” ( Psalm 49:3); of [haghigh], “sighing,” “moaning” ( Psalm 5:1; see 5:2); of [higgayon], “the murmur” or dull sound of the harp, hence, meditation ( Psalm 19:14, “Let .... the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight”); of [siach], “speech,” “meditation” ( <19A434> Psalm 104:34, “Let my meditation be sweet unto him”); of [sichah], a “bowing down,” “musing” ( <19B997> Psalm 119:97,99; 2 Esdras 10:5). “To meditate” is the translation of [haghah] (Josh 1:8; Psalm 1:2; 63:6; Isaiah 33:18 the King James Version); of [suach] ( Genesis 24:63); of [siach] ( <19B915> Psalm 119:15,23, etc.; 143:5, the King James Version “muse”; 1 Chronicles 16:9; <19A502> Psalm 105:2 margin). In Apocrypha we have “to meditate” (Ecclesiasticus 14:20, “Blessed is the man that shall mediate in wisdom,” the Revised Version margin “most authorities read come to an end” ([teleutesei ]); Ecclesiasticus 39:1, “meditateth in the law of the Most High” ([dianoeomai ])). The lack of meditation is a great want in our modern religious life. In the New Testament, we have “to meditate” ([promeleta>w , promeletao ], “to take care beforehand”), Luke 21:14, and “meditate” ([meleta>w , meletao ], “to take care”), 1 Timothy 4:15 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “be diligent”); compare Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:2. W. L. Walker MEDITERRANEAN SEA <med-i-te-ra’-ne-an > ([hJ qa>lassa , he thalassa ]): To the Hebrews the Mediterranean was the sea, as was natural from their situation.

    Hence, they speak of it simply as “the sea” ( µY:h” [ha-yam]), e.g. Genesis 49:13; Numbers 13:29; 34:5; Judges 5:17; or, again, it is “the great sea” ( lwodG:h” µY:h” [ha-yam ha-gadhol], e.g. Numbers 34:6,7; Josh 9:1; 15:12,47; Ezek 47:10,15,19,20; 48:28); or, because it lay to the West of Palestine, as “the great sea toward the going down or the sun” (Josh 1:4; 23:4), and, since the west was regarded as the “back,” in contrast to the east as the “front,” as “hinder (or “western” the Revised Version (British and American), “uttermost” or “utmost” the King James Version) sea” ( ˆwOrj\a”h” µY:h” [ha-yam ha-’acharon]), Dt 11:24; 34:2; Zechariah 14:8; Joel 2:20, in the last two passages contrasted with “the former (King James Version, “eastern” the Revised Version (British and American)) sea” ynImod”Q”h” µY:h” [ha-yam haqadhmoni]), i.e. the Dead Sea. See FORMER. That portion of the Mediterranean directly West of Palestine is once ( Exodus 23:31) referred to as “the sea of the Philis” µyTiv]liP] µy: [yam pelishtim]). the King James Version has “sea of Joppa” ( Ezra 3:7) where the Revised Version (British and American) correctly renders “to the sea, unto Joppa” (compare 2 Chronicles 2:16). Similarly, the King James Version “the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia” ( Acts 27:5) is better rendered “the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia” (Revised Version).

    In the New Testament, references to the Mediterranean are common, especially in the accounts of Paul’s voyages, for which see PAUL. Jesus once ( Mark 7:24 ff) came to or near the sea.

    The Mediterranean basin was the scene of most ancient civilizations which have greatly influenced that of the western world, except those whose home was in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates; and even these continually thrust themselves into it, so far as they could. As its name implies, it is an inland area, united to the Atlantic only by the narrow Straits of Gibraltar. In comparatively recent geological time it was also joined to the Red Sea, the alluvial deposits of the Nile, which have extended the line of the Delta, having with the aid of drifting desert sands subsequently closed the passage and joined the continents of Asia and Africa. The total length of the Mediterranean is about 2,300 miles, its greatest breadth about 1,080 miles, and its area about 1,000,000 square miles. It falls naturally into the western and eastern (Levant) halves, dividing at the line running from Tunis to Sicily, where it is comparatively shallow; the western end is generally the deeper, reaching depths of nearly 6,000 ft. On the North it is intersected by the Italian and Balkan peninsulas, forming the Gulf of Lyons, the Adriatic and the Aegean. In ancient times these and other divisions of the Mediterranean bore specific names given by the Greeks and Romans, but from the nature of the case their limits were ill defined. The temperature of the Mediterranean is in summer warmer, in winter about the same as that of the Atlantic. Its water has a slightly greater specific gravity, probably because of a larger proportionate evaporation. William Arthur Heidel MEEDA <me-e’-da > . See MEEDDA.

    MEEDDA <me-ed’-a > ([ Meedda> , Meedda ], but Swete, [ Dedda> , Dedda ], following Codex Vaticanus; the King James Version Meeda): The head of one of the families of Nethinim (temple slaves) who went up with Zerubbabel from the captivity (1 Esdras 5:32); identical with “Mehida” of Ezra 2:52 and Nehemiah 7:54.

    MEEKNESS <mek’-nes > ( hw:n:[\ [`anawah]; [prao>thv , praotes ], [prau>`thv , prautes ]): “Meekness” in the Old Testament ([`anawah], [`anwah]) is from [`anaw], “suffering,” “oppressed,” “afflicted,” denoting the spirit produced under such experiences. The word is sometimes translated “poor” ( Job 24:4, the Revised Version margin “meek”; Am 8:4); “humble” ( Psalm 9:12,18, the Revised Version margin “meek”); “lowly” ( Proverbs 3:34; 16:19, the Revised Version (British and American) “poor,” margin “meek”). It is generally associated with some form of oppression. The “meek” were the special objects of the Divine regard, and to them special blessings are promised ( Psalm 22:26, “The meek shall eat and be satisfied”; 25:9, “The meek will he guide in justice; and the meek will he teach his way”; 37:11, “The meek shall inherit the land”; 147:6, “Yahweh upholdeth the meek”; 149:4, “He will beautify the meek with salvation,” the Revised Version margin “victory”; compare Isaiah 11:4; 29:19; 61:1, “Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek,” the Revised Version margin “poor”; Zeph 2:3; Psalm 45:4, “because of (the Revised Version margin “in behalf of”) truth and meekness and righteousness”). Of Moses it is said he “was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth,” notwithstanding the Divine revelations given him, and in the face of opposition ( Numbers 12:3; compare 2 Corinthians 12:1-6). Meekness is ascribed even to Yahweh Himself ( 2 Samuel 22:36, “Thy gentleness ([`anawah]) hath made me great”; compare Psalm 18:36 ([`anwah]), the Revised Version margin “condescension”); men are exhorted to seek it (Zeph 2:3, “Seek righteousness, seek meekness”; compare Proverbs 15:1; 16:14; 25:15; Eccl 10:4).

    In the Apocrypha also “meekness” holds a high place (Ecclesiasticus 1:27, “The fear of the Lord is wisdom and instruction: faith and meekness are his delight,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in faith and meekness is his good pleasure”; Ecclesiasticus 3:19, “Mysteries are revealed unto the meek” (the Revised Version (British and American) omits); compare 10:14). “Meekness” in the New Testament (praotes , prautes ) is not merely a natural virtue, but a Christian “grace”; it is one of the “fruits of the Spirit” ( Galatians 5:23). The conception of meekness, as it had been defined by Aristotle, was raised by Christianity to a much higher level, and associated with the commonly despised quality of humility (see under the word). It was the spirit of the Saviour Himself ( Matthew 11:29): “I am meek ([praos ]) and lowly in heart” (compare 2 Corinthians 10:1, “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ”); it presupposes humility, flows from it, and finds expression in moderation (see under the word). (See Trench, Syn. of New Testament, 145; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, New Testament Lexicon, under the word) Christians are exhorted to cherish it and show it in their relations to one another ( Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; 1 Timothy 6:11; Tit 3:2, “showing all meekness toward all men”); it ought to characterize Christian teachers or those in authority in “instructing (the Revised Version (British and American) “correcting,” margin “instructing”) them that oppose themselves” ( 2 Timothy 2:25); the saving, “implanted” (the Revised Version margin “inborn”) word is to be received “with meekness” ( James 1:21); a man is to “show by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom” ( James 3:13), and to give a reason for the hope that is in him, “with meekness and fear” ( 1 Peter 3:15).

    The interchangeableness of “meek” with “poor,” etc., in the Old Testament ought to be specially noted. our Lord’s opening of His ministry at Nazareth ( Luke 4:18, “He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor”), and His message to John ( Matthew 11:5, “The poor have good tidings preached to them”) are in harmony therewith. W. L. Walker MEET <met > , adjective ( rv;y: [yashar]; [a]xiov , axios ]): Various words are employed to express meetness, the sense of what is proper, worthy, or fit.

    We have [yashar], “straight,” “upright,” “right” ( 2 Kings 10:3, “meetest”; Jeremiah 26:14, the Revised Version (British and American) “right”); [yashar] ( Jeremiah 27:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “right”); [yosher] ( Proverbs 11:24, the Revised Version margin “what is justly due”); [’arikh], Aramaic “meet” ( Ezra 4:14); [bene], “sons of” (Dt 3:18, the King James Version “meet for the war,” margin “Hebrew sons of power,” the Revised Version (British and American) “men of valor”); [kun], “to be right” etc. ( Exodus 8:26); [`asah] “to be made,” “used” (Ezek 15:5 twice, the Revised Version margin “made into”), [tsaleach], “to be good or fit for” (Ezek 15:4, the Revised Version (British and American) “profitable”); [ra’ah], “seen,” “looked out,” “chosen” (Est 2:9); [axios ], “worthy” ( Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20, the Revised Version (British and American) “worthy”; Corinthians 16:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:3); [dikaios ], “just,” “right” ( Philippians 1:7 the Revised Version (British and American) “right”; 2 Peter 1:13 the Revised Version (British and American) “right”); [euthetos ], “we set” ( Hebrews 6:7); [euchrestos ], “very useful,” “profitable” ( 2 Timothy 2:21, “meet for the master’s use”); [hikanos ], “sufficient” ( 1 Corinthians 15:9); [hikanoo ], “to make sufficient” ( Colossians 1:12); [kalos ], “beautiful,” “honest” ( Matthew 15:26; Mark 7:27); [dei ] “it behooveth” ( Luke 15:32; Romans 1:27, the Revised Version (British and American) “due”). For “meet” (supplied) ( Judges 5:30), the Revised Version (British and American) has “on”; for “Surely it is meet to be said unto God” ( Job 34:31), “For hath any said unto God?” In 2 Macc 9:12, we have [dikaios ], the Revised Version (British and American) “right.” W. L. Walker MEGIDDO; MEGIDDON <me-gid’-o > , <me-gid’-on > ([meghiddo], [meghiddon]; [ Magiddw> , Magiddo ], [ Mageddw>n , Mageddon ], [ Magdw> , Magdo ]): A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (Josh 12:21). It lay within the territory of Issachar, but was one of the cities assigned to Manasseh (Josh 17:11; 1 Chronicles 7:29). Manasseh, however, was not able to expel the Canaanites, who therefore continued to dwell in that land. Later, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, the Canaanites were put to taskwork (Josh 17:12 f; Judges 1:27 f). The host of Sisera was drawn to the river Kishon, and here, “by the waters of Megiddo,” the famous battle was fought ( Judges 5:19). By the time of Solomon, Israel’s supremacy was unquestioned. Megiddo was included in one of his administrative districts ( 1 Kings 4:12), and it was one of the cities which he fortified ( 1 Kings 9:15). Ahaziah, mortally wounded at the ascent of Gur, fled to Megiddo to die ( 2 Kings 9:27). At Megiddo, Josiah, king of Judah, attempted to arrest Pharaoh-necoh and his army on their march to the Euphrates against the king of Assyria. Here the Egyptian monarch “slew him .... when he had seen him,” and from Megiddo went the sorrowful procession to Jerusalem with Josiah’s corpse ( 2 Kings 23:29 f; 2 Chronicles 35:20 ff). The sad tale is told again in 1 Esdras 1:25 ff. “The mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” became a poetical expression for the deepest and most despairing grief ( Zechariah 12:11). See also ARMAGEDDON.

    The constant association of Megiddo with Taanach (Tell Ta`anek) points to a position on the south edge of the plain of Esdraelon. In confirmation of this, we read (RP, 1st series, II, 35-47) that Thothmes III captured Megiddo, after having defeated the Palestinian allies who opposed him. He left his camp at Aruna (possibly `Ar`arah), and, following a defile (possibly Wady `Arah), he approached Megiddo from the South We should thus look for the city where the pass opens on the plain; and here, at Khan el- Lejjan, we find extensive ruins on both sides of a stream which turns several mills before falling into the Kishon. We may identify the site with Megiddo, and the stream with “the waters of Megiddo.” Pharaoh-necoh would naturally take the same line of march, and his advance could be nowhere more hopefully opposed than at el-Lejjun. Tell el-Mutasellim, a graceful mound hard by, on the edge of the plain, may have formed the acropolis of Megiddo.

    The name Mujadda` attaches to a site 3 miles South of Beisan in the Jordan valley. Here Conder would place Megiddo. But while there is a resemblance in the name, the site really suits none of the Biblical data. The phrase “Taanach by the waters of Megiddo” alone confines us to a very limited area. No position has yet been suggested which meets all the conditions as well as el-Lejjun.

    The Khan here shows that the road through the pass from Esdraelon to the plain of Sharon and the coast was still much frequented in the Middle Ages. W. Ewing MEHETABEL; MEHETABEEL <me-het’-a-bel > , <me-het’-a-bel > ( laeb]f”yhem] [mehetah’el], “whom God makes happy”): (1) Daughter of Matred, wife of Hadad or Hadar, the 8th and apparently last of the kings of Edom ( Genesis 36:39; 1 Chronicles 1:50). (2) Grandfather of that Shemaiah who played a treacherous part against Nehemiah at the suggestion of Tobiah and Sanballat, by trying to persuade Nehemiah to commit sacrilege ( Nehemiah 6:10-13).

    MEHIDA <me-hi’-da > ( ad:yjim] [mechidha’], “renowned”; “Meeda” (1 Esdras 5:32)): Ancestor and patronymic of a family of Nethinim who came back from Babylon with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:52; Nehemiah 7:54).

    MEHIR <me’-her > ( ryjim] [mechir], “price,” “hire”): A descendant of Judah, son of Chelub, nephew of Shuah ( 1 Chronicles 4:11). Perug, a Chaldee name of equivalent meaning, is given for this person in the Targum of Rabbi Joseph.

    MEHOLATHITE <me-ho’-la-thit > ( ytil;wOjm] [mecholathi]): The Gentiledesignation of Adriel, the son of Barzillai, who married Merab, the daughter of King Saul ( 1 Samuel 18:19; 2 Samuel 21:8), the name Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8 being doubtless a copyist’s error. See ABEL-MEHOLAH.

    MEHUJAEL <me-hu’-ja-el > ( laey:Wjm] [mechuya’el], laeY:jim] [mechiya’el], “smitten of God”): A descendant of Cain through Enoch and Irad ( Genesis 4:18). The list in Genesis 5:12 ff is a working-over of the same material of genealogy by another hand at a different date of spelling (compare spelling of Chaucer and that of today). In that ease, Mehalalel would be the correspondent name to Mehujael (see Expository Times, X, 353).

    MEHUMAN <me-hu’-man > ( ˆm;Whm] [me`human] (Est 1:10)): A eunuch of Ahasuerus, the first of the seven chamberlains.

    MEHUNIM <me-hu’-nim > ( µynIW[m] [me`unim]). See MEUNIM.

    ME-JARKON <me-jar’-kon > ( ˆwOqr”Y’h” [me ha-yarqon]; [qa>lassa °Iera>kwn , thalassa Hierakon ]): The Hebrew may mean “yellow water.” The phrase is literally, “the waters of Jarkon.” Septuagint reads “and from the river, Jarkon and the boundary near Joppa.” From this possibly we should infer a place called Jarkon in the lot of Daniel; but no name resembling this has been found. The text (Josh 19:46) is corrupt.

    MEKONAH <me-ko’-na > ( hn:kom] [mekhonah]). See MECONAH.

    MELATIAH <mel-a-ti’-a > ( hy:f]l”m] [melatyah], “Yah’s deliverance”): A Gibeonite who assisted in building the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 3:7).

    MELCHI <mel’-Kings > (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, [ Melcei> , Melchei ]; Textus Receptus of the New Testament, [ Melci> , Melchi ]): The name of two ancestors of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy, one being in the 4th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary, the other being in the 3rd generation before Zerubbabel ( Luke 3:24,28).

    MELCHIAH <mel-ki’-a > ( hY:kil]m” [malkhiyah], “Yah’s king”): A priest and father of Pashur ( Jeremiah 21:1 the King James Version); elsewhere and in the Revised Version (British and American) called MALCHIAH and MALCHIJAH (which see).

    MELCHIAS <mel-Kings-as > (Codex Vaticanus, [ Melcei>av , Melcheias ], Codex Vaticanus (b), Codex Alexandrinus, [ -i>av , -ias ]): Name of three men who had taken “strange wives”: (1) 1 Esdras 9:26 = “Malchijah” ( Ezra 10:25). (2) 1 Esdras 9:32 = “Malchijah” ( Ezra 10:31). (3) One of those who stood at Ezra’s left hand when the law was read (1 Esdras 9:44) = “Malchijah” ( Nehemiah 8:4), possibly identical with (1) or (2).

    MELCHIEL <mel’-Kings-el > ([ Melcih>l , Melchiel ], Codex Vaticanus, [ Melceih>l , Melcheiel ]): The father of Charmis, one of the governors of Bethulia (Judith 6:15). Other readings are [ Sellh>m , Sellem ] and [ Mocish>l , Mochisel ].

    MELCHISHUA <mel-Kings-shoo’-a > ( [WvyKil]m” [malkishua`], “king’s help”). See MALCHISHUA.

    MELCHIZEDEK; MELCHISEDEC <mel-kiz’e-dek > , and (the King James Version in the book of Hebrews) ( qd,x,AyKil]m” [malki-tsedheq], “Tsedheq, or Tsidhiq is my king” ( Genesis 14:18 ff; <19B004> Psalm 110:4); [ Melcise>dek , Melchisedek ] ( Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17)): The name is explained in Hebrews 7:2 as “king of righteousness,” with “-i” as the old genitive ending; but the correct explanation is no doubt the one given above; compare Adoni-zedek in Josh 10:1, where Septuagint with Judges 1:5-7 has Adonibezek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (= Jerusalem) and “a priest unto [’El `Elyon]” ( Genesis 14:18). He brought bread and wine to Abraham after the latter’s victory over the kings, and also bestowed upon him the blessing of [’El `Elyon]. Abraham gave him “a tenth of all,” i.e. of the booty probably, unless it be of all his possessions. Genesis 14:22 identifies Yahweh with [’El `Elyon], the title of the Deity as worshipped at Jerusalem; and so Hebrews 7:1 ff, following Septuagint of Genesis 14:18 ff, calls Melchizedek. “priest of God Most High,” i.e.

    Yahweh.

    Skinner (Genesis, 271, where Josephus, Ant, XVI, vi, 2, and Am M 6:1 are cited) points out that the Maccabees were called “high priests of God most high.” Hence, some hold that the story of Melchizedek is an invention of Judaism, but Gunkel (Genesis 3, 285 ff) maintains that he is a traditional, if not a historical, character. <19B004> Psalm 110:4 makes the klng-priest who is addressed there a virtual successor of Melchizedek, and the kings of Jerusalem might well, as Gunkel suggests, have been considered successors of Melchizedek in the same way that Charlemagne was regarded as the successor of the Caesars, and the latter as successors of the Pharaohs in Egypt. This leads naturally to an early date being ascribed to Psalm 110.

    The thought of a priest after the order of Melchizedek is taken up by the author of Hebrews. He wanted to prove the claim of Christ to be called priest. It was impossible, even had he so wished, to consider Jesus as an Aaronic priest, for He was descended from the tribe of Judah and not from that of Levi (7:14). The words of <19B004> Psalm 110:4 are taken to refer to Him ( Hebrews 5:5 f), and in Hebrews 7:5 ff the order of Melchizedek is held to be higher than that of Aaron, for the superiority of Melchizedek was acknowledged by Abraham (a) when he paid tithes to Melchizedek and (b) when he was blessed by Melchizedek, for “the less is blessed of the better.”

    It might be added that Jesus can be considered a priest after the order of Melchizedek in virtue of His descent from David, if the latter be regarded as successor to Melchizedek But the author of He does not explicitly say this. Further, Aaron is only a “type” brought forward in He to show the more excellent glory of the work of Jesus, whereas Melchizedek is “made like unto the Son of God” (7:3), and Jesus is said to be “after the likeness of Melchizedek” (7:15). Hebrews 7:1 ff presents difficulties. Where did the author get the material for this description of Melchizedek? (1) Melchizedek is said to be “without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy”; and (2) he is described as “having neither beginning of days nor end of life”; he “abideth a priest continually.”

    The answer is perhaps to be had among the Tell el-Amarna Letters, among which are at least 6, probably 8, letters from a king of Urusalim to Amenophis IV, king of Egypt, whose “slave” the former calls himself.

    Urusalim is to be identified with Jerusalem, and the letters belong to circa 1400 BC. The name of this king is given as Abd-Khiba (or Abd-chiba), though Hommel, quoted by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 14, note 7, reads Chiba. Zimmer, in ZA, 1891, 246, says that it can be read Abditaba, and so Sayce (HDB, III, 335b) calls him [`ebhedh tobh]. The king tells his Egyptian overlord, “Neither my father nor my mother set me in this place: the mighty arm of the king (or, according to Sayce, “the arm of the mighty king”) established me in my father’s house” (Letter 102 in Berlin collection, ll. 9-13; also number 103, ll. 25-28; number 104, ll. 13-15; see, further, H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna; Knudtzon, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, IV, 101 ff, 279 ff, cited by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 8, note 1).

    It thus becomes clear that possibly tradition identified Melchizedek with Abd-Khiba. At any rate the idea that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy” can easily be explained if the words of Abd-Khiba concerning himself can have been also attributed to Melchizedek. The words meant originally that he acknowledged that he did not come to the throne because he had a claim on it through descent; he owed it to appointment. But Jewish interpretation explained them as implying that he had no father or mother. <19B004> Psalm 110:4 had spoken of the king there as being “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” and this seems to have been taken to involve the perpetuity of Melchizedek also as priest. Melchizedek was then thought of as “having neither beginning of days” = “without father, without mother, without genealogy,” and again as not having “end of life” = “abideth a priest continually.”

    Hence, he is “made like unto the son of God,” having neither beginning of days nor end of life. We get another New Testament example of Jewish interpretation in Galatians 4:21 ff. We have no actual proof that Melchizedek is identical with Abd-Khiba; possibly the reference to the former as being “without father,” etc., is not to be explained as above. But why should Melchizedek, and he alone, of all the Old Testament characters be thought of in this way?

    Westcott, Hebrews, 199, has a suggestive thought about Melchizedek: “The lessons of his appearance lie in the appearance itself. Abraham marks a new departure. .... But before the fresh order is established we have a vision of the old in its superior majesty; and this, on the eve of disappearance, gives its blessing to the new.”

    On the references to Melchizedek in Philo see Westcott, op. cit., 201; F.

    Rendall, Hebrews, App., 58 ff; and especially (with the passages and other authorities cited there) G. Milligan, Theology of Epistle to the Hebrews, 203 ff.

    The conclusions we come to are: (1) There was a tradition in Jerusalem of Melchizedek, a king in pre- Israelitish times, who was also priest to [’El `Elyon]. This is the origin of Genesis 14:18 ff, where [’El `Elyon] is identified with Yahweh. (2) Psalm 110 makes use of this tradition and the Psalmist’s king is regarded as Melchizedek’s successor. (3) The Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of (a) Psalm 110, which is taken to be a prophecy of Christ, (b) of Genesis 14:18 ff, and (c) of oral tradition which was not found in the Old Testament. It is this unwritten tradition that is possibly explained by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. See, further, articles by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel in Expository Times, VII, VIII. See also JERUSALEM.

    David Francis Roberts MELEA <me’-le-a > , <mel’-e-a > ([ Melea~ , Melea ]): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy ( Luke 3:31).

    MELECH <me’-lek > ( °]l,m, [melekh], “king”): Great-grandson of Jonathan, son of Saul, grandson of Mephibosheth or Meribbaal ( 1 Chronicles 8:35; 9:41).

    MELICU <mel’-i-ku > ( Wkylim] [melikhu], also ykiWlm] [melukhi], “regnant”):

    Same as MALLUCHI (which see).

    MELITA <mel’-i-ta > ([ Meli>th , Melite ], Acts 28:1): Is now generally identified with Malta. The former error in attributing the reference to the island of Meleda on the East coast of the Adriatic Sea was due to the ancient practice of employing the term Adria to include the Ionian and Sicilian seas.

    Malta is the largest of a group of islands including Gozo and the islets Comino, Cominotto and Filfla, lying about 56 miles from the southern extremity of Sicily, 174 from the mainland of Italy, and 187 from the African coast. Malta itself is 17 1/2 miles long and 9 1/4 broad, and contains an area of 95 square miles. Its modern capital, Valetta, is situated in 35 degrees 54’ North latitude and 14 degrees 31’ East longitude.

    The central position of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea gave it great importance as a naval station. It was probably at first a Phoenician colony, and later passed under the influence, if not domination, of the Sicilian Greeks. But the Romans captured it from the Carthaginians in 218 BC (Livy xxi.51) and attached it definitely to the province of Sicily. Under Roman rule the inhabitants were famous for their industry, especially in the production of textile fabrics, probably of native cotton. The celebrated vestis melitensis was a fine and soft material for dresses and for the covering of couches (Cicero Verr. ii.72,176; ii.74,183; iv.46,103; Diodorus v.12,22). At the time when Paul visited the island it would seem that the administration was entrusted to a deputy of the proprietor of Sicily, who is referred to as protos Melitaion ( Acts 28:7; CIG, 5754), or Melitensium primus omnium (CIL, x, 7495) (see PUBLIUS). A bay 2 1/2 miles Northwest of Valetta, the mouth of which is held by tradition to be the place where the vessel that bore Paul ran ashore, tallies admirably with the description of the locality in Acts. The Admiralty charts indicate places near the west side of the entrance to the bay, where the depth is first 20 ft. and then 15 ft., while the rush of the breakers in front of the little island of Salmoneta and behind it suit the reference to a place “where two seas met” ( Acts 27:41). The inlet is called the Bay of Paul. The topographical question has been exhaustively treated by Ramsay in Paul the Traveler. George H. Allen MELODY <mel’-o-di > : hr:m]zI [zimrah], a musical piece or song to be accompanied by an instrument ( Isaiah 51:3); an instrument of praise (Am 5:23); ˆn’n: [naghan], “to play on a stringed instrument,” “Make sweet melody, sing many songs” ( Isaiah 23:16); [ya>llw , psallo ] to celebrate the praises of God with music ( Ephesians 5:19). See MUSIC.

    MELONS <mel’-unz > ( µyjiFib”a\ [`abhattichim]; compare Arabic battikh, the “water melon”; [pe>ponev , pepones ]): In Numbers 11:5, the melon is referred to as common in Egypt, and there can be no doubt that the variety indicated is the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris) which is indigenous in tropical Africa. It has been cultivated in Egypt since the earliest times.

    MELZAR <mel’-zar > ( rx”l]M,h” [ha-meltsar]; Septuagint [ °Abiesdri> , Abiesdri ], Theod. [ °Amelsa>d , Hamelsad ]): Possibly a transliteration of the Babylonian Ameluucur, the officer to whom was entrusted the bringing-up of Daniel and his three companions ( Daniel 1:11 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “the steward,” margin “Hebrew: Hammelzar”). It has been suggested that the name is not the name of a person, but denotes the office of guardian, like the Babylonian maccaru. In this case the “l” would come by dissimulation from the first of the two “s” sounds, which on its side has come from an assimilated “n”, the root being [nacaru], “to protect” “to guard.” R. Dick Wilson MEM <mam > , <mem > m , µ , “m” : The 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, transliterated in this Encyclopedia as “m”. It came also to be used for the number 40. See ALPHABET, for name, etc.

    MEMBER <mem’-ber > (1) rxuy: [yatsur]; [me>lov , melos ]; (2) hk;p]v; [shaphekhah], “membrum virile” (Dt 23:1)):

    The first Hebrew word is derived from a root meaning “to knead,” “to mold in clay,” “to create.” It therefore denotes any feature or part of the body. “So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great things” ( James 3:5). “The members” is equivalent with “the body” (which see; compare <19D916> Psalm 139:16 the King James Version). The members are not self-governing, but execute the orders of the mind, obeying either the lower nature in the commission of sin or iniquity, unrighteousness and uncleanness ( Romans 6:13,19), or following the higher nature, the Divine impulses in the fulfilling of the law of Christ (6:19).

    By nature, the “law in my members” ( Romans 7:23) is opposed to the better nature ( James 4:1) until by “regeneration” (which see) this condition is changed, when the Spirit of Christ becomes the governing power, using our members, i.e. all our abilities, in the execution of His plans. This is not done while we remain passive, but only when we have actively presented or yielded our members to His service ( Romans 6:19). Therefore our bodies must not be desecrated by baser uses ( Corinthians 6:15,19,20). The Lord Jesus illustrates the severe discipline which is needed to subdue the members of even the regenerate to perfect submission under the higher law of the Spirit by the simile of the right eye, which is to be plucked out, and the right hand, which is to be cut off ( Matthew 5:29,30), and Paul speaks of putting to death (the King James Version “mortifying”) the “members which are upon the earth” ( Colossians 3:5).

    It is the difference in character and gifts of individual Christians which leads Paul to speak of the variety of members, which, though of manifold functions, are equally important to the completeness of the body. It is thus in the manifold variety of the body of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:16), and Christians being members of Christ, who is the head ( Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23), are members one of another ( Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:25).

    In Dt 23:1 the Israelite Law against emasculation is referred to, and a religious disability is stated for the eunuch. Heathen Semites and other neighbors of Israel often castrated for religious purposes in the temple service of various divinities and for functions in princely palaces and harems. Heathen monarchs almost invariably had large numbers of these unfortunates, who frequently attained to positions of high power and responsibility. Herodotus states their frequent occurrence among the Persians (Hist. vi.32), and in the light of 2 Kings 20:18 and Daniel 1:3 it appears as not impossible that Daniel and his friends belonged to this class. In later years their existence is certain in Israel ( 1 Samuel 8:15 the Revised Version margin; Jeremiah 38:7; Matthew 19:12). See also CONCISION; EUNUCH.

    H. L. E. Luering MEMEROTH <mem’-e-roth > (Codex Alexandrinus, [ Marerw>q , Mareroth ]; Codex Vaticanus here omits Memeroth and two other names; the King James Version Meremoth): A name in the genealogy of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2) = “Meraioth” in Ezra 7:3, also “Marimoth” in 2 Esdras 1:2.

    MEMMIUS, QUINTUS <mem’-i-us > , <kwin’-tus > ([ Ko>intov Me>mmiov , Kointos Memmios ]): One of the 2 Roman legates who bore a letter to the Jews after their victory over Lysias 163 BC (2 Macc 11:34). No Quintus Memmius is otherwise known to history, and no Memmius among the list of legates sent to Asia.

    Polybius (xxxi.18) mentions a Quintus and a Canuleius as sent to Egypt, 162 BC, and again (xxxiii.15) the same Quintus as sent as an ambassador to Rhodes, 153 BC. A Titus Memmius had been an envoy of the senate to Achaia and Macedonia before the date of this letter (Livy xliii.5). None of these is likely to be the one referred to in 2 Macc 11:34, and it is possible that no such person was sent with the letter, which is spurious. See MANIUS.

    S. Angus MEMORIAL; MEMORY <me-mo’-ri-al > , <mem’-o-ri > ( hr:K;z”a” [’azkarah], rk,ze [zekher], rk,z< [zekher], ˆwOrK;zI [zikkaron]; [mnhmo>sunon , mnemosunon ]): “Memorial” as the translation of [’azkdrah] is a sacrificial term, that which brings the offerer into remembrance before God, or brings God into favorable remembrance with the offerer; it is used of the burning of a portion of the meal offering, the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version “meat-offering”); better, cereal offering, on the altar ( Leviticus 2:2, the Revised Version (British and American) “as the memorial”; Leviticus 2:9,16; 5:12, the Revised Version (British and American) “as”; Leviticus 24:7; Numbers 5:26, the Revised Version (British and American) “as”); as the translation of [zekher] ([zekher]), [zikkaron], it is a memorial in the sense of a remembrance ([zekher], [zekher], Exodus 3:15; the memorial (name) of Yahweh); hence, we have in the Revised Version (British and American) “memorial name” for “remembrance” ( Psalm 30:4 the American Standard Revised Version; Psalm 97:12, the English Revised Version “holy name,” marin “Hebrew memorial”; <19A212> Psalm 102:12; 135:13; Isaiah 26:8; Hos 12:5, the English Revised Version “memorial”); for “memorial” (Est 9:28; Psalm 9:6, the American Standard Revised Version “remembrance”); [zikkaron], “a remembrance” ( Exodus 12:14; 13:9; Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 5:15 (of the meal offering); Josh 4:7; Nehemiah 2:20; Zechariah 6:14); the Passover feast was to be in this sense “a memorial .... for ever” ( Exodus 12:14; 13:9); so also the [shema`] (Dt 6:4 f) ; “memorial” occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 4:1 ([mneme ]), the Revised Version (British and American) “memory”; The Wisdom of Solomon 4:19; Ecclesiasticus 45:1 ([mnemosunon ]); Ecclesiasticus 49:1; 1 Macc 3:7; 12:53, the Revised Version (British and American) “memorial.” “Memorial” occurs in the New Testament as the translation of [mnemosunon ], “a token of remembrance” ( Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9; Acts 10:4, “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God,” which suggests the sense in which “memorial” was used in the sacrificial ritual, and also the “better sacrifices” of the new dispensation).

    Memory is the translation of [zekher] ([zekher]) ( <19A915> Psalm 109:15; 145:7; Proverbs 10:7; Eccl 9:5; Isaiah 26:14, the Revised Version (British and American) “remembrance”); it occurs also in 1 Macc 13:29; 2 Macc 7:20. [Katecho], “to have or hold fast,” is rendered in 1 Corinthians 15:2 the King James Version “keep in memory,” margin “hold fast,” the American Standard Revised Version “hold fast,” the English Revised Version “hold it fast,” i.e. the word preached to them. W. L. Walker MEMPHIS <mem’-fis > :

    1. NAME:

    The ancient capital of Egypt, 12 miles South of the modern Cairo. This Greek and Roman form of the name was derived from the Coptic form Menfi (now Arabic Menf), the abbreviation of the Egyptian name Mennofer, “the good haven.” This name was applied to the pyramid of Pepy I, in the cemetery above the city; some have thought the city name to have been derived from the pyramid, but this is unlikely, as the city must have had a regular name before that. It may perhaps mean “the excellence of Mena,” its founder. It appears still more shortened in Hos (9:6) as Moph ([moph ]), and in Isaiah (19:13), Jeremiah (2:16), and Ezek (30:13) as Noph ([noph ]).

    2. POLITICAL POSITION:

    The classical statements show that the city in Roman times was about miles long and 4 miles wide, and the indications of the site agree with this.

    It was the sole capital of Position Egypt from the Ist to the XVIIth Dynasty; it shared supremacy with Thebes during the XVIIIth to XXVth Dynasties, and with Sais to the XXXth Dynasty. Alexandria then gradually obscured it, but the governor of Egypt signed the final capitulation to the Arabs in the old capital. While other cities assumed a political equality, yet commercially Memphis probably remained supreme until the Ptolemies.

    3. THE FOUNDERS AND THE CITY:

    The oldest center of settlement was probably the shrine of the sacred bull, Apis or Hapy, which was in the South of the city. This worship was doubtless prehistoric, so that when the first king of all Egypt, Mena, founded his capital, there was already a nucleus. His great work was taking in land to the North, and founding the temple of the dynastic god Ptah, which was extended until its enclosure included as much as the great temple of Amon at Thebes, about 3 furlongs long and 2 furlongs wide. To the North of this was the sacred lake; beyond that, the palace and camp.

    Gradually the fashionable quarters moved northward in Egypt, in search of fresher air; the rulers had moved 10 miles North to Babylon by Roman times, then to Fostat, then Cairo, and lastly now to Abbasiyeh and Kubkeh, altogether a shift of 18 miles in 8,000 years.

    4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS:

    After the shrine of Apis the next oldest center is that of Ptah, founded by Mena. This was recently cleared in yearly sections by the British School, finding principally sculptures of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties. The account of the north gate given by Herodotus, that it was built by Amenemhat III, has been verified by finding his name on the lintel. An immense sphinx of alabaster 26 ft. long has also been found. To the East of this was the temple of the foreign quarter, the temple of King Proteus in Greek accounts, where foreign pottery and terra cotta heads have been found. Other temples that are known to have existed in Memphis are those of Hathor, Neit, Amen, Imhotep, Isis, Osiris-Sokar, Khnumu, Bastel, Tahuti, Anubis and Sebek.

    A large building of King Siamen (XXIst Dynasty) has been found South of the Ptah temple. To the North of the great temple lay the fortress, and in it the palace mound of the XXVIth Dynasty covered two acres. It has been completely cleared, but the lower part is still to be examined. The north end of it was at least 90 ft. high, of brickwork, filled up to half the height by a flooring raised on cellular brickwork. The great court was about ft. square, and its roof was supported by 16 columns 45 ft. high.

    The principal sights of Memphis now are the great colossus of Rameses II, the lesser colossus of the same, and the immense alabaster sphinx. The cemetery of the city is the most important in Egypt; it lies 2 miles to the West on the desert, and is known as Saqqareh, from So-kar, the god of the dead. See SAQQAREH.

    W. M. Flinders Petrie MEMUCAN <me-mu’-kan > ( ˆk;Wmm] [memukhan]; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (Est 1:14,16,21)): One of “the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom.” Ahasuerus consults these men, as those “that knew law and judgment,” as to the proper treatment of the rebellious Vashti. Memucan is the spokesman of the reply. He recommends Vashti’s deposition so that “all the wives will give to their husbands honor, both to great and small.” This advice is adopted and incorporated into a royal decree — with what success is not said.

    MENAHEM <men’-a-hem > ( µjen’m] [menachem], “one who comforts”; [ Manah>m , Manaem ]; 2 Kings 15:14-22):

    1. ACCESSION AND REIGN:

    Son of Gadi and 16th king of Israel. He reigned 10 years. Menahem was probably the officer in charge of the royal troops in Tirzah, one of the king’s residences, at the time of the murder of Zechariah by Shallum.

    Hearing of the deed, he brought up his troops and avenged the death of his master by putting Shallum to death in Samaria. He then seized the vacant throne. His first full year may have been 758 BC (others, as seen below, put later).

    2. EARLY ACTS:

    The country at this time, as depicted by Hosea and Amos, was in a deplorable condition of anarchy and lawlessness. Menahem, with a strong hand, enforced his occupation of the throne. One town only seems to have refused to acknowledge him. This was Tiphsah, a place 6 miles Southwest of Shechem, now the ruined village of Khurbet Tafsah. As Menahem is said to have attacked this enclosed city from Tirzah, lying to its North, it is probable that he took it on the way to Samaria, before proceeding to do battle with Shallum. If this was so, it is some explanation of the cruelty with which he treated its inhabitants ( 2 Kings 15:16). One such instance of severity was enough. The whole kingdom was at his feet. He proved to be a strong and determined ruler, and during the 9 or 10 years of his governorship had no further internecine trouble to contend with.

    3. MENAHEM AND ASSYRIA:

    But there was another source of disquiet. Assyria, under Pul, had resumed her advance to the West and threatened the kingdoms of Palestine.

    Menahem resolved on a policy of diplomacy, and, rather than risk a war with the conqueror of the East, agreed to the payment of a heavy tribute of 1,000 talents of silver. To raise this sum he had to assess his wealthier subjects to the extent of 50 shekels each. As there are 3,000 shekels in a talent of silver, it is obvious that some 60,000 persons, “mighty men of wealth,” must have been laid under contribution in this levy — an indication at once of the enormity of the tribute, and of the prosperity of the country at the time. However short-sighted the policy, its immediate purpose was attained, which was that the hand of the Assyrian king “might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand” ( 2 Kings 15:19).

    4. A CONFLICT OF DATES:

    A difficulty attaches to the dates of this period. The Pul of 2 Kings 15:19 and 1 Chronicles 5:26 is now identified with Tiglath-pileser III, who took this title on ascending the throne of Assyria in 745 BC. In an inscription of Tiglath-pileser, Menahem appears as Minehimmu Samarina (Menahem the Samarian), together with Racunnu (Rezin) of Damascus and Hirumu (Hiram) of Tyre. The date given to this inscription is 738 BC, whereas the last year we can give to Menahem is 749, or 10 years earlier.

    5. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:

    The chronological difficulty which thus arises may be met in one of two ways. Either the inscription, like that on the black obelisk of Kurkh (see JEHU), was written some years after the events to which it refers and contains records of operations in which Tiglath-pileser took part before he became king; or Pekah — who was on the throne of Israel in 738 (?) — is spoken of under the dynastic name Menahem, though he was not of his family. The former of these hypotheses is that which the present writer is inclined to adopt. (By others the dates of Menahem are lowered in conformity with the inscription.) See CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    6. CHARACTER:

    Menahem attempted no reformation in the national religion, but, like all his predecessors, adhered to the worship of the golden calves. On this account, like them, he incurs the heavy censure of the historian. W. Shaw Caldecott MENAN <me’-nan > . See MENNA.

    MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN <me’-ne > , <me’-ne > , <te’-kel > , <u-far’-sin > , <men’-a > , <men’a > , <tek’- el > , <oo-far’-sin > ( ˆysir”p”W lqeT] aneT] anem] [mene’ mene’ teqel upharcin]; Theodotion, [ Manh> , Mane ], [qeke>l , thekel ], [fare>v , phares ]):

    These are the words that, according to Daniel’s reading, were inscribed on the walls of Belshazzar’s palace and that caused the great commotion on the occasion of his last feast ( Daniel 5:25). As the only authority that we have for the reading is that of Daniel, it seems but fair that the interpretation of the terms be left to the person who gave us the text.

    According to his interpretation, there is a double sense to be found in the three different words of the inscription ( Daniel 5:26-28). [Mene’], which, however it is pointed, must be taken from the verb [menah] (Hebrew [manah]; Babylonian manu), is said to have indicated that God had numbered (the days of) Belshazzar’s kingdom and finished it (or delivered it up). Both of these meanings can be shown to be proper to the [menah]. [Teqel], on the contrary, is interpreted as coming from two roots: the first, [teqal], “to weigh,” and the second, [qal], “to be light or wanting” (Hebrew [qalal]; Babylonian qalalu). [Perec] (or [parcin]) also is interpreted as coming from two roots: first, perac, “to divide” (Hebrew [paras] or [parash]; Babylonian parasu), and the second as denoting the proper name [Parac], “Persia.” Thus interpreted, the whole story hangs together, makes good sense, and is fully justified by the context and by the language employed. If the original text was in Babylonian, the signs were ambiguous; if they were in Aramaic, the consonants alone were written, and hence, the reading would be doubtful.

    In either case, the inscription was apparent but not readable, except by Daniel with the aid of God, through whom also the seer was enabled to give the proper interpretation. That Daniel’s interpretation was accepted by Belshazzar and the rest shows that the interpretation of the signs was reasonable and convincing when once it had been made. We see, therefore, no good reason for departing from the interpretation that the Book of Daniel gives as the true one.

    As to the interpretation of the inscription, it makes no difference whether the signs represented a mina, a shekel, and two perases, as has been recently suggested by M. Clermont-Ganneau. In this case the meaning was not so apparent, but the puns, the play upon the sounds, were even better.

    We doubt, however, if it can be shown that [teqel] means [sheqel]. On the old Aramaic documents of Egypt and Assyria, it is with one exception spelled [sheqel]. In the Targum of Onkelos, [sheqel] is always rendered by [cela`]; in the Peshitta and Arabic VSS, by [mathqal]; in the Samaritan Targum, by [mathqal] (except only perhaps in Genesis 23:16, where we have [ethqel]). In the Targum of Onkelos, wherever [tiqla’] occurs, it translates the Hebrew [beqa`] ( Genesis 24:22 and Exodus 38:26 only). Mene’, to be sure, may have meant the mina, and perec, the halfmina.

    The parash is mentioned in the inscription of Panammu and in an Aramaic inscription on an Assyrian weight. Besides this, it is found in the New Hebrew of the Mishna It is not found, however, in the Targum of Onkelos, nor in Syriac, nor in the Old Testament Hebrew; nor in the sense of half-shekel in the Aramaic papyri. While, then, it may be admitted that Daniel may have read, “A mina, a mina, a shekel, and two half-minas,” it is altogether unlikely, and there is certainly no proof that he did. Yet, if he did, his punning interpretations were justified by the usage of ancient oracles and interpreters of signs, and also by the event. R. Dick Wilson MENELAUS <men-e-la’-us > ([ Mene>laov , Menelaos ]): According to the less likely account of Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1; XV, iii, 1; XX, x, 3), Menelaus was a brother of Jason and Onias III, and his name was really Onias. But it is very unlikely that there should be two brothers of the same name. The account of 2 Maccabees is more credible — that Menelaus was the brother of the notorious Simon who suggested to the Syrians the plundering of the temple; he was thus of the tribe of Benjamin (2 Macc 4:23; compare with 3:4) and not properly eligible to the high-priesthood. He was entrusted by Jason (171 BC), who had supplanted Onias, with contributions to the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, and by outbidding Jason in presents he secured the office of high priest for himself (2 Macc 4:23 f), 171 BC.

    Menelaus returned with “the passion of a cruel tyrant” to Jerusalem, and Jason fled. But as Menelaus failed to pay the promised amount, both he and Sostratus, the governor, were summoned to appear before the king.

    Lysimachus, the brother of Menelaus, was left at Jerusalem in the meantime as deputy high priest. The king was called from his capital to suppress an insurrection of Tarsus and Mallus. Menelaus took advantage of his absence to win over Andronicus, the king’s deputy, by rich presents stolen from the temple. For this sacrilege Onias III sharply reproved him and fled to a sanctuary, Daphne, near Antioch. Andronicus was then further persuaded by Menelaus to entice Onias from his retreat and murder him (2 Macc 4:34 f) — an act against which both Jews and Greeks protested to the king on his return, and secured deserved punishment for Andronicus. Meanwhile, the oppression of Lysimachus, abetted by Menelaus, caused a bloody insurrection in Jerusalem, in connection with which a Jewish deputation brought an accusation against Menelaus on the occasion of Antiochus’ visit to Tyre. Menelaus bribed Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, to win over the king to acquit himself and secure the execution of “those hapless men, who, if they had pleaded even before Scythians, would have been discharged uncondemned” (2 Macc 4:39 ff).

    Menelaus returned in triumph to his office. But Jason, taking advantage of Epiphanes’ absence in Egypt and a false rumor of his death, made a bloody but unsuccessful attempt upon the city, in order to secure his office again; his rival took refuge in the citadel. The king returned in fury, caused a three days’ slaughter of the citizens, rifled the temple with Menelaus as guide, and left him as one of his agents to keep the Jews in subjection (2 Macc 5:1 ff). He appears next and for the last time in the reign of Eupator in 162 BC. Lysias, the king’s chancellor, accused him to the king as the cause of all the troubles in Judea (2 Macc 13:3-8). Eupator caused him to be brought to Berea and there — before, according to 2 Maccabees, loc. cit., or after, according to Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 7, the invasion of Judea by Eupator and Lysias — to be put to death by being flung from the top of a high tower into the ashes of which it was full — a fitting end for such a wretch. S. Angus MENESTHEUS <me-nes’-thus > , <me-nes’-the-us > ([ Menesqeu>v , Menestheus ] Codex Alexandrinus, [ Menesqese>wv , Menestheseos ]): The father of Apollonius, a general of Epiphanes (2 Macc 4:21 and in 2 Macc 4:4 the Revised Version (British and American), following a conjecture of Hort [ Menesqe>wv , Menestheos ] for [mai>nesqai e[wv , mainesthai heos ] the latter is retained in Swete and Fritzache]). “Son of Menestheus” is added to distinguish this Apollonius from “Apollonius, Son of Thrasaeus” (2 Macc 3:5) and “Apollonius, Son of Gennaeus” (2 Macc 12:2). See APOLLONIUS.

    MENI <me’-ni > : Destiny, a god of Good Luck, possibly the Pleiades ( Isaiah 65:11 margin). See ASTROLOGY, 10; GAD.

    MENNA <men’-a > ([ Menna> , Menna ] Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Tregelles, Tischendorf; [ Mai`na>n , Mainan ] Textus Receptus of the New Testament; the King James Version Menan): An ancestor of Jesus, a great-grandson of David ( Luke 3:31).

    MENUHAH <men-u’-ha > , <men-u’-ka > ( hj;Wnm] [menuchah], “place of rest”; the King James Version Menuchah): Rendered in Judges 20:43 the King James Version “with ease,” the Revised Version (British and American) “at their resting-place.” Both, however, have a marginal suggestion which would make the word a place-name, which would then more naturally read “from Nuhah over against Gibeah,” thus describing the ground over which the slaughter of the Benjamites occurred. In 1 Chronicles 8:2 the word “Nohah” occurs as that of a Benjamite elan. The place intended is perhaps MANAHATH (which see).

    MENUHOTH <men-u’-hoth > ( twOjnum] [menuchoth], “dwellings”; the King James Version yTijnUm] [manachti] Manahethites): The first form is the Revised Version (British and American) transliterated in the name; the second form is the King James Version retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in the passages where the word occurs ( 1 Chronicles 2:52; compare 2:54). The people here spoken of by the King James Version as “half of the Manahethites” are mentioned as descendants of Salma ( Chronicles 2:54), while those mentioned as Menuhoth are mentioned as descendants of Judah through Shobal, father of Kiriath-jearim. Both words are from the same root. the King James Version keeps the same designation for both passages, while the Revised Version (British and American) has marked the difference in spelling by changing the first passage and following the King James Version in the second. Both sections of the family belong to the Caleb clan, and it would seem that they became the dominant people in the otherwise unknown town of Manahath, so that it came to be regarded as belonging to Judah. It may be connected with the Menuchah (the Revised Version (British and American) “Menuhah”) suggested as a place-name in Judges 20:43 margin. In the Septuagint, between Joshua 15:59 and 60, the names of 11 cities are inserted, among them being a Manocho whose Hebrew equivalent gives the word. It is difficult to identify, and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) cuts the knot by translating “dimidium requietionum”! See MANAHATH.

    Henry Wallace MEONENIM, OAK OF <me-on’-e-nim > , <me-o’-ne-nim > : ( µynIn”wO[m] ˆwOlae [’elon me`onenim]; Codex Vaticanus, [ °Hlwnmawnemei>n , Elonmaonemein ], Codex Alexandrinus, [druontwn , druos apobleponton ]; the King James Version Plain of): This was a sacred tree which apparently could be seen from the gate of Shechem ( Judges 9:37). No doubt it took its name from the soothsayers who sat under it, practicing augury, etc. Several times mention is made of sacred trees in the vicinity of Shechem ( Genesis 35:4; Josh 24:26; Judges 9:6, etc.). Where this tree stood is not known. See AUGURS’ OAK.

    MEONOTHAI <me-on’-o-thi > , <me-o’-no-thi > , <me-o-no’-thi > ( yt”nOwO[m] [me`onothai], “my dwellings”): A son of Othniel, nephew of Caleb ( Chronicles 4:14). Possibly, as the King James Version margin suggests, and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Complutensian Septuagint say, 1 Chronicles 4:13,14 should read “the sons of Othniel, Hathath and Meonothai; and Meonothai begat Ophrah,” etc. The latter may be founder of the town of that name.

    MEPHAATH <mef’-a-ath > , <me-fa’-ath > ( t[“p”me [mepha`ath] and t[“p”yme [meypha`ath], t[“p”wOm [mopha`ath]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Maifa>aq , Maiphaath ], [ Mhfa>aq , Mephaath ]): A city of the Amorites in the territory allotted to Reuben, named with Kedemoth and Kiriathaim (Josh 13:18), and given to the Merarite Levites (Josh 21:37; 1 Chronicles 6:79). It appears again as a Moabite town in Jeremiah 48:21. It was known to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom) as occupied by a Roman garrison, but the site has been lost.

    MEPHIBOSHETH <me-fib’-o-sheth > ( tv,bypim] [mephibhosheth], “idol-breaker,” also MERIB-BAAL (which see); [ Memfibo>sqe , Memphibosthe ]): (1) Son of Saul by his concubine RIZPAH (which see), daughter of Aiah ( 2 Samuel 21:8). See also ARMONI. (2) Grandson of Saul, son of Jonathan, and nephew of Mephibosheth (1) ( 2 Samuel 4:4). He was 5 years old when his father and grandfather were slain. He was living in charge of a nurse, possibly because his mother was dead. Tidings of the disaster at Jezreel and the onsweep of the Philistines terrified the nurse. She fled with her charge in such haste that a fall lamed the little prince in both feet for life. His life is a series of disasters, disappointments, and anxieties. It is a weary, broken, dispirited soul that speaks in all his utterances. The nurse carried him to Lo-debar among the mountains of Gilead, where he was brought up by Machir, son of Ammiel ( 2 Samuel 9:4). There he evidently married, for he had a son Mica when he returned later at David’s request. When David had settled his own affairs and subdued his enemies, he turned his inquiries to Saul’s household to see whether there were any survivors to whom he might show kindness for Jonathan’s sake ( 2 Samuel 9:1). The search caused the appearance of Ziba, a servant of Saul’s house ( 2 Samuel 9:2), who had meanwhile grown prosperous by some rapid process which can only be guessed at ( 2 Samuel 9:9,10). From him David learned about Mephibosheth, who was sent for. His humble bearing was consistent with his chronically broken spirit. David put Ziba’s property (which had belonged to Saul) at Mephibosheth’s disposal and made Ziba steward thereof. Mephibosheth was also to be a daily guest at David’s table ( Samuel 9:11-13). Seventeen years pass, during which Mephibosheth seems to have lived in Jerusalem. Then came Absalom’s rebellion. David determined to flee, so distraught was he by the act of his son. At the moment of flight, in great depression and need, he was opportunely met by Ziba with food, refreshment and even means for travel. Naturally, the king inquired for Ziba’s master. The treacherous reply was made ( 2 Samuel 16:1-4) that Mephibosheth had remained behind for his own ends, hoping the people would give him, Saul’s grandson, the kingdom. David believed this and restored to Ziba the property lost. Not till many days after did the lame prince get his chance to give David his own version of the story. He met David on his return from quelling Absalom’s rebellion. He had not dressed his feet, trimmed his beard nor washed his clothes since the hour of David’s departure ( 2 Samuel 19:24). At David’s anxious request Mephibosheth told his story: his servant had deceived him; he wanted to go with David, had even asked for his beast to be saddled; but Ziba had left him, and had slandered him to the king. But he would not plead his cause any more; David is “as an angel of God”; whatever he decides will be well! ( 2 Samuel 19:26,27). Thus characteristically continued the speech of this lame, broken, humble man, son of a proud family ( 2 Samuel 19:28).

    David wearily settled the matter by dividing the property between the prince and his servant, the prince expressing utmost content that Ziba should take all so long as David remained friendly ( 2 Samuel 19:29,30).

    That David accepted Mephibosheth’s explanation and was drawn out in heart toward the character of the broken man is shown by the fact that when some expiation from Saul’s household was considered necessary to turn away the famine sent by an offended deity, Mephibosheth is spared when other members of Saul’s household were sacrificed ( 2 Samuel 21:7). The character of Mephibosheth well illustrates the effect of continued disaster, suspicion and treachery upon a sensitive mind. Henry Wallace MERAB <me’-rab > ( br”me [merabh] “increase”; [ Mero>b , Merob ]): The elder daughter of Saul ( 1 Samuel 14:49), promised, though not by name, to the man who should slay the Philistine Goliath ( 1 Samuel 17:25).

    David did this and was afterward taken by Saul to court ( 1 Samuel 18:2), where he was detained in great honor. Merab was not, however, given to him as quickly as the incident would lead one to expect, and the sequel showed some unwillingness on the part of some persons in the contract to complete the promise. The adulation of the crowd who met David on his return from Philistine warfare and gave him a more favorable ascription than to Saul ( 1 Samuel 18:6-16) awoke the angry jealousy of Saul. He “eyed David from that day and forward” ( 1 Samuel 18:9).

    Twice David had to “avoid” the “evil spirit” in Saul ( 1 Samuel 18:11).

    Saul also feared David ( 1 Samuel 18:12), and this led him to incite the youth to more dangerous deeds of valor against the Philistines by a renewed promise of Merab. He will have David’s life, but rather by the hand of the Philistines than his own ( 1 Samuel 18:17). Merab was to be the bait. But now another element complicated matters — Michal’s love for David ( 1 Samuel 18:20), which may have been the retarding factor from the first. At any rate Merab is finally given to Adriel the Meholathite ( 1 Samuel 18:19). The passage in 2 Samuel 21:8 doubtless contains an error — Michal’s name occurring for that of her sister Merab — though the Septuagint, Josephus, and a consistent Hebrew text all perpetuate it, as well as the concise meaning of the Hebrew word [Yaladh], which is a physiological word for bearing children, and cannot be translated “brought up.” A Targum explanation reads: “The 5 sons of Merab (which Michal, Saul’s daughter brought up) which she bare,” etc. Another suggestion reads the word “sister” after Michal in the possessive case, leaving the text otherwise as it stands. It is possible that Merab died comparatively young, and that her children were left in the care of their aunt, especially when it is said she herself had none ( 2 Samuel 6:23). The simplest explanation is to assume a scribal error, with the suggestion referred to as a possible explanation of it. The lonely Michal ( 2 Samuel 6:20-23) became so identified with her (deceased) sister’s children that they became, in a sense, hers. Henry Wallace MERAIAH <me-ra’-ya > , <me-ri’-a > ( hy:r:m] [merayah], “contumacious”): A priest in the time of Joiakim son of Jeshua, and head of the priestly house of Seraiah to which Ezra belonged ( Nehemiah 12:12; compare Ezra 7:1).

    MERAIOTH <me-ra’-yoth > , <me-ri’-oth > ( twOyr:m] [merayoth]): The name varies much in the Greek. (1) A Levite, a descendant of Aaron ( 1 Chronicles 6:6 f; Ezra 7:3), called “Memeroth” in 1 Esdras 8:2; and “Marimoth” in 2 Esdras 1:2. (2) The son of Ahitub and father of Zadok ( 1 Chronicles 9:11). (3) A priestly house of which, in the days of Joiakim, Helkai was head ( Nehemiah 12:15). In Nehemiah 12:3 the name is given as “Meremoth.”

    MERAN <me’-ran > . See MERRAN.

    MERARI <me-ra’-ri > ( yrIr:m] [merari], “bitter”; [ Mararei> , Mararei ]): (1) The 3rd son of Levi, his brothers, Gershon and Kohath, being always mentioned together with him ( Genesis 46:11; Exodus 6:16 ff). He was among those 70 who went down to Egypt with Jacob ( Genesis 46:8,11; compare 46:26 and Exodus 1:5). (2) The family of Merari, descendants of above, and always — with one exception, for which see MERARITES — spoken of as “sons of Merari” in numerous references, such as 1 Chronicles 6:1,16,19,29, which only repeat without additional information the references to be found in the body of this article. We early find them divided into two families, the Mahli and Mushi ( Exodus 6:19; Numbers 3:17,20,33). At the exodus they numbered, under their chief Zuriel, 6,200, and they were assigned the north side of the tabernacle as a tenting-place ( Numbers 3:34,35), thus sharing in the honor of those who immediately surrounded the tabernacle — the south side being given to the Kohathites, the west to the Gershonites, and the east — toward the sun-rising — being reserved for Moses, Aaron and his sons ( Numbers 3:23,29,35,38). To the Merarites was entrusted the care of the boards, bars, pillars, sockets, vessels, pins and cords of the tabernacle ( Numbers 3:36,37; 4:29-33).

    They and the Gershonites were “under the hand” of Ithamar, son of Aaron, the sons of Gershon having charge of the softer material of the tabernacles — curtains, covers, hangings, etc. ( Numbers 3:25,26). When reckoned by the number fit for service, i.e. between 30 and 50 years, the sons of Merari were 3,200 strong ( Numbers 4:42-45). Because of the weight of the material in their charge they were allowed 4 wagons and 8 oxen for carriage ( Numbers 7:8). In marching, when the tabernacle was taken down, the standard of Judah went first ( Numbers 10:14); then followed the Merarites bearing the tabernacle ( Numbers 10:17), and after them came the standard of Reuben ( Numbers 10:18). After the settlement in Canaan they had 12 cities assigned them out of Gad, Reuben and Zebulun (Josh 21:7,34-40; 1 Chronicles 6:63,77-81), just as the other two branches of Levi’s family had their 12 cities respectively assigned out of the other tribes (Josh 21). The names of these Merarite cities are given (loc. cit.), and among them is Ramoth-gilead, one of the cities of refuge (Josh 21:38). It is evident from 1 Chronicles 6:44-47; 16:41; 25:1,3,6,9,11,15,19,21 f; compare 15:6,17-19 that they had charge under Ethan or Jeduthun of the temple music in the service. In David’s time Asaiah was their chief ( 1 Chronicles 15:6). Himself and 220 of the family helped David to bring up the Ark. David divided the Levites into courses among the Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites ( 1 Chronicles 23:6; compare 23:21-23; 24:26-30). The functions of certain Merarites are described in 1 Chronicles 26:10-19. They also took part in cleansing the temple in Hezekiah’s time ( 2 Chronicles 29:12) as well as in the days of Josiah ( 2 Chronicles 34:12), helping to repair the house of the Lord. Among the helpers of Ezra, too, we find some of them numbered ( Ezra 8:18,19). The family seems to have played a very important part in keeping steady and true such faithfulness as remained in Israel. (3) The father of Judith (Judith 8:1; 16:7). Henry Wallace MERARITES <me-ra’-rits > ( yrIr:m] [merari], “bitter”): The descendants of MERARI (which see), son of Levi. The only place where this form of the word occurs is Numbers 26:57. Elsewhere they are always referred to as “sons of Merari.”

    MERATHAIM <mer-a-tha’-im > ( µyIt”r:m] [merathayim] “double rebellion”): A name used for Babylon in Jeremiah 50:21. According to Delitzsch it may be equivalent to the Babylonian Marratun, i.e. land by the nar Marratu, “the bitter river” (Persian Gulf) = Southern Babylonia (OHL, under the word).

    MERCHANDISE <mur’-chan-diz > (1) rm”[; [`amar] (2) rj”s” [cachar], (3) rj”s; [cachar], (4) hr:jos] [cechorach], (5) hL;kur” [rekhullah], (6) br:[\m” [ma`arabh], (7) tl,Kor”m” [markoleth]; (8) [ejmpori>a , emporia] (9) [ejmpori>on , emporion ], (10) [go>mov , gomos ]): There seem to be 4 distinct meanings of the word according to the Revised Version (British and American), namely: (1) The products, i.e. goods or things sold or exchanged, and so merchandise in the present-day usage: (a) [cachar] is translated thus in Proverbs 31:18; Isaiah 23:18; (b) [cachar] is translated thus in Isaiah 45:14; these two are from a root meaning “to travel around as a peddler”; (c) [rekhullah], translated thus in Ezek 26:12, from a root meaning “to travel for trading purposes”; (d) [ma`arabh], translated thus in Ezek 27:9,27,33,34, from a root meaning “to intermix, to barter”; (e) [markoleth], translated thus in Ezek 27:24 (the above 5 Hebrew words are all used to designate the goods or wares which were bartered); (f) [`amar], occurring in Dt 21:14; 24:7, translated in the King James Version “make merchandise of,” but in the Revised Version (British and American) “deal with as a slave,” or the Revised Version margin “deal with as a chattel”; (g) [emporia ], translated “merchandise” in Matthew 22:5; (h) [emporion ], likewise in John 2:16 (the same Greek word is used in 2 Peter 2:3 for the American Standard Revised Version “make merchandise of you”); (i) [gomos ], “merchandise,” margin “cargo.” (2) The process of trade itself, i.e. the business: [rekhullah] has in it the root meaning of “itinerant trading”, and so in Ezek 28:16 the correct translation is not “merchandise,” as in the King James Version, but “traffic,” “abundance of thy traffic,” i.e. doing a thriving business: “trade was good.” (3) The place of trading, i.e. emporium, mart, etc.: [cechorah] in Ezek 27:15 is translated “mart.” In John 2:16 reference is made to the “house of merchandise.” (4) The profits of trading: In Proverbs 3:14, [cachar] is translated “gaining.” Referring to wisdom, “For the gaining of it is better than the gaining of silver, and the profit thereof than fine gold”; the King James Version “merchandise.” William Edward Raffety MERCHANT; MERCHANTMAN <mur’-chant > , <mur’-chant-man > . See COMMERCE; MERCHANDISE; TRADE.

    MERCURY; MERCURIUS <mur’-ku-ri > , <mer-ku’ri-us > : The translation of [ °Ermh~v , Hermes ], in Acts 14:12: “They called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker.” Hermes was the god of eloquence (and also of theft), the attendant, messenger and spokesman of the gods. The more commanding presence of Barnabas (compare 2 Corinthians 10:10) probably caused him to be identified with Zeus (the Roman Jupiter), while his gift of eloquence suggested the identification of Paul with Hermes (the Roman Mercury). The temple of Jupiter was before Lystra, and to him the Lycaonians paid their chief worship. Compare the legend of Baucis and Philemon (Ovid, Metam. viii.611 f). See HERMES; JUPITER; GREECE, RELIGION IN.

    M. O. Evans MERCY; MERCIFUL <mur’-si > , <mur’-si-fool > ( ds,j, [checedh], µj”r: [racham], ˆn”j; [chanan]; [e]leov , eleos ], [ejlee>w , eleeo ], [oijktirmo>v , oiktirmos ]): “Mercy” is a distinctive Bible word characterizing God as revealed to men.

    In the Old Testament it is most often the translation of [checedh], “kindness,” “loving-kindness” (see LOVINGKINDNESS), but [rachamim], literally, “bowels” (the sympathetic region), and [chanan], “to be inclined to,” “to be gracious,” are also frequently translated “mercy”; [eleos ], “kindness,” “beneficence,” and [eleeo ], “to show kindness,” are the chief words rendering “mercy” in the New Testament; [oiktirmos ], “pity,” “compassion,” occurs a few times, also [oiktirmon ], “pitiful,” [eleemon ], “kind,” “compassionate,” twice; [hileos ], “forgiving,” and [anileos ], “not forgiving,” “without mercy,” once each ( Hebrews 8:12; James 2:13). (1) Mercy is (a) an essential quality of God ( Exodus 34:6,7; Dt 4:31; Psalm 62:12, etc.); it is His delight ( Micah 7:18,20; Psalm 52:8); He is “the Father of mercies” ( 2 Corinthians 1:3), “rich in mercy” ( Ephesians 2:4), “full of pity, and merciful” ( James 5:11); (b) it is associated with forgiveness ( Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; 1 Timothy 1:13,16); (c) with His forbearance ( <19E508> Psalm 145:8, “Yahweh is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great lovingkindness”; compare Roman 2:4; 11:32); (d) with His covenant ( 1 Kings 8:23; Nehemiah 1:5), with His justice ( <19A101> Psalm 101:1), with His faithfulness ( Psalm 89:24), with His truth ( <19A804> Psalm 108:4); mercy and truth are united in Proverbs 3:3; 14:22, etc. (in Psalm 85:10 we have “Mercy and truth are met together”); (e) it goes forth to all ( <19E509> Psalm 145:9, “Yahweh is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works”; compare 145:16, “Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing,” the Revised Version margin “satisfiest every living thing with favor”); (f) it shows itself in pitying help ( Exodus 3:7; Ezra 9:9 f), supremely in Christ and His salvation ( Luke 1:50,54,58; Ephesians 2:4); (g) it is abundant, practically infinite ( Psalm 86:5,15; 119:64); (h) it is everlasting ( 1 Chronicles 16:34,41; Ezra 3:11; <19A005> Psalm 100:5; 136 repeatedly). (2) “Mercy” is used of man as well as of God, and is required on man’s part toward man and beast (Dt 25:4; Psalm 37:21; 109:16; Proverbs 12:10; Daniel 4:27; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:7, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy”; 25:31-46; Luke 6:36, “Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful”; Luke 10:30 f, the Good Samaritan; Luke 14:12-16; James 3:17). (3) In the New Testament “mercy” ([eleos ], usually the Septuagint translation of [checedh]) is associated with “grace” ([charis ]) in the apostolical greetings and elsewhere. Trench points out that the difference between them is that the freeness of God’s love is the central point of charis, while [eleos ] has in view misery and its relief; charis is His free grace and gift displayed in the forgiveness of sins — extended to men as they are guilty; His [eleos ] (is extended to them) as they are miserable. The lower creation may be the object of His mercy ([eleos ]), but man alone of His grace ([charis ]); he alone needs it and is capable of receiving it (Synonyms of the New Testament, 163 f). (4) From all the foregoing it will be seen that mercy in God is not merely His pardon of offenders, but His attitude to man, and to the world generally, from which His pardoning mercy proceeds. The frequency with which mercy is enjoined on men is specially deserving of notice, with the exclusion of the unmerciful from sonship to the all-merciful Father and from the benefits of His mercifulness. Shakespeare’s question, “How canst thou hope for mercy rendering none?” is fully warranted by our Lord’s teaching and by Scripture in general; compare especially the parable of the Unmerciful Servant ( Matthew 18:21-35). (5) As the rule, the American Standard Revised Version has “lovingkindness” for “mercy” when [checedh] is used of God, and “kindness” when it is used of men in relation to each other. “Compassion” (translation of [racham]) is also in several instances substituted for “mercy” ( Isaiah 9:17; 14:1; 27:11; Jeremiah 13:14; 30:18), also “goodness” (translation of [checedh] referring to man) (Hos 4:1; 6:6). W. L. Walker MERCY-SEAT, THE <mur’-si-set > ( trrion , hilasterion ], Hebrews 9:5): The name for the lid or covering of the ark of the covenant ( Exodus 25:17, etc.). The Old Testament term means “covering,” then, like the New Testament word, “propitiatory” (compare [kipper], “to cover guilt,” “to make atonement”). The ark contained the two tables of stone which witnessed against the sin of the people. The blood of sacrifice, sprinkled on the mercy-seat on the great day of atonement, intercepted, as it were, this condemning testimony, and effected reconciliation between God and His people. See ATONEMENT; ATONEMENT, DAY OF; PROPITIATION; ARK OF COVENANT . In Romans 3:25, Jesus is said to be set forth as “a propitiation (literally, “propitiatory”), through faith, in his blood,” thus fulfilling the idea of the mercy-seat (compare Hebrews 9:5,7,11,12, etc.). W. Shaw Caldecott MERED <me’-red > ( dr1 Chronicles 4:17,18): A descendant of Judah through Caleb, and mentioned as a “son of Ezrah” ( 1 Chronicles 4:17).

    Revised Version, rightly following the orthography of the Hebrew which has here the Hebrew letter he (h) instead of ‘aleph (‘) , as in the name of the well-known Ezra, saves us from confusing this Ezrah with the other by giving him the correct terminal letter. Moreover, even if the question of spelling were waived, the absence of the mention of children in any known passages of the life of the scribe Ezra should settle the question, since this passage ( 1 Chronicles 4:17) is associated with progeny.

    A difficulty meets us in 1 Chronicles 4:18, where Mered is mentioned as taking to wife “Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh.” That Pharaoh is not the proper name of some individual but the official title of Egypt’s sovereign seems evident from the fact that the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) text agree in translating the other wife of Mered as “the Jewess,” rather than as a proper name Jehudijah, as if to distinguish the “Jewess” from the Egyptian. Probably “Hodiah” also is a corruption of Jehudijah in 1 Chronicles 4:19, and should be translated again “the Jewess.” Targums and traditions have so changed and transposed and “interpreted” this passage that a sufficiently confused text has become worse confounded, and the only solid fact that emerges is that once a comparatively obscure Judahite (though the founder of several towns — Gedor, Soco, Eshtemoa, etc., 4:18) married an Egyptian princess, whether as a captive or a freewoman we do not know. See BITHIAH.

    Henry Wallace MEREMOTH <mer’-e-moth > , <me-re’-moth > ( twOmrem] [meremoth], “heights”; [ Mereimw>q , Mereimoth ]): (1) Son of Uriah ( Ezra 8:33), who was head of the 7th course of priests appointed by David ( 1 Chronicles 24:10, Hakkoz = Koz; compare Nehemiah 3:4,21). The family of Koz were among those unable to prove their pedigree on the return from Babylon, and were therefore deposed as polluted ( Ezra 2:61,62). Meremoth’s division of the family must, however, have been scatheless, for he is employed in the temple after the return as weigher of the gold and the vessels ( Ezra 8:33), a function reserved for priests alone ( Ezra 8:24-28). He takes a double part in the reconstruction under Nehemiah, first as a builder of the wall of the city ( Nehemiah 3:4), then as a restorer of that part of the temple abutting on the house of Eliashib the priest ( Nehemiah 3:21); “Marmoth” in Esdras 8:62. (2) A member of the house of Bani, and, like so many of that house, among those who married and put away foreign wives ( Ezra 10:36). He seems to be named Carabasion (!) in the corresponding list of 1 Esdras 9:34. (3) The name occurs in Nehemiah 10:5 among those who “seal the covenant” with Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 10:1). It may there be the name of an individual (in which case there were 4 of the name), or it may be a family name. Certainly a “Meremoth” came back under Zerubbabel years before ( Nehemiah 12:3), and the signatory in question may be either a descendant of the same name or a family representative. The name recurs later in the same list ( Nehemiah 12:15) as “Meraioth” through a scribal error confusing the two Hebrew letters yodh (y) and cholem (o) for mem (m). A comparison of Nehemiah 12:1-3 and 12:12-15 shows clearly that it is the same person. Note that in 12:15 “Helkai” is the name of the contemporary leader. (4) For Meremoth (1 Esdras 8:2 the King James Version). See MEMEROTH.

    Henry Wallace MERIBAH <mer’-i-ba > , <me-re’-ba > . See MASSAH AND MERIBAH.

    MERIB-BAAL <mer-ib-ba’-al > ( l[“B”AbyrIm] [meribhba`al]; also l[“b”AyrIm] [meri-bha`al], “Baal contends”): The spelling varies in a single verse; Chronicles 9:40 contains the name twice: first, in the first form above; second, in the second form. The name is given also in 1 Chronicles 8:34. It is the other name of MEPHIBOSHETH (2) (which see).

    In Jeremiah 11:13 and Hos 9:10 the terms “Baal” and “Bosheth” seem to stand in apposition, the latter form being a slightly contemptuous alternative rendered “shame.” This is akin to other like changes, such as Esh-baal for Ish-bosheth, Jerub-besheth for Jerub-baal, etc. The change in the first part of the name could occur through a clerical confusion of the Hebrew aspirate pe (p) and resh (r) in Hebrew. Henry Wallace MERIBATH-KADESH; MERIBOTH-KADESH <mer’-i-bath-ka’-desh > , <mer’-i-both-k > (Ezek 48:28; 47:19): The southern limit of Ezekiel’s ideal land of Israel. See MERIBAH.

    MERODACH <me-ro’-dak > , <mer’-o-dak > ( °]d:rom] [merodhakh]): The supreme deity of the Babylonians ( Jeremiah 50:2); the Nimrod of Genesis 10:8-12; and among the constellations, Orion. See ASTRONOMY, II, 11; BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF; NIMROD.

    MERODACH-BALADAN <me-ro’-dak-bal’-a-Daniel > , <mer’-o-dak-b > . ( ˆd:a\l]B” °]d’arom] [mero’dhakh bal’adhan]; [ Marwdan , Marodach Baladan ]):

    The son of Baladan, is mentioned in Isaiah 39:1, as a king of Babylon who sent an embassy to Hezekiah, king of Judah, apparently shortly after the latter’s illness, in order to congratulate him on his recovery of health, and to make with him an offensive and defensive alliance. This Merodachbaladan was a king of the Chaldeans of the house of Yakin, and was the most dangerous and inveterate foe of Sargon and his son Sennacherib, kings of Assyria, with whom he long and bitterly contested the possession of Babylon and the surrounding provinces. Merodach-Baladan seems to have seized Babylon immediately after the death of Shalmaneser in BC; and it was not till the 12th year of his reign that Sargon succeeded in ousting him. From that time down to the 8th campaign of Sennacherib, Sargon and his son pursued with relentless animosity Merodach-Baladan and his family until at last his son Nabushumishkun was captured and the whole family of Merodach-Baladan was apparently destroyed. According to the monuments, therefore, it was from a worldly point of view good politics for Hezekiah and his western allies to come to an understanding with Merodach-Baladan and the Arameans, Elamites, and others, who were confederated with him. From a strategical point of view, the weakness of the allied powers consisted in the fact that the Arabian desert lay between the eastern and western members of the confederacy, so that the Assyrian kings were able to attack their enemies when they pleased and to defeat them in detail. R. Dick Wilson MEROM, WATERS OF <me’-rom > ( µwOrmeAyme [me-merom]; [u[dwr Marrw>n , hudor Marron ] or [u[dwr Merrw>n , hudor Merron ]): The place which was the scene of Joshua’s victory over Jabin and his confederates (Josh 11:7), commonly identified with Lake Huleh in the upper part of the Jordan valley, but with doubtful propriety. Josephus says (Ant., V, i, 18) that the camp of the allies was at Beroth in upper Galilee, and that Beroth was not far from Kadesh, which is upon the summit of the Galilean hills. According to the Scriptural account, the pursuit was to Sidon and Hazor on the West of the mountains (see HAZOR), while the names of the confederates are those of places in lower Galilee and the maritime plain. It seems improbable that a force of chariots should be brought over to be hemmed in by the rugged mountains which border the narrow plain of Huleh on both sides, plains that are made still narrower by the swamps surrounding the lake (see JORDAN VALLEY) in Joshua’s time, when they were much larger than they are now after having been filled with the accumulation of sediment brought down by mountain streams for 3,000 years. Conder, with much reason, supposes the “waters of Merom” to be the perennial stream Wady el- Melek, near Shimrom-Merom (Semunieh), 5 miles West of Nazareth. Were Lake Huleh referred to, the proper phrase would be Sea ([yam]) of Merom, rather than waters ([mayim]). George Frederick Wright MERONOTHITE <me-ron’-thit > , <me-ro’-no-thit > ( ytinOrome [meronothi], root meaning “fertility”): The designation of two persons in the Old Testament: (1) Jehdeiah, who was in charge of the royal asses under David ( Chronicles 27:30). (2) Jadon who was among the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 3:7). No place of the name Meronoth can be identified. That Jadon worked on the wall near Gibeonites and Mizpahites affords no clear clue to the place, unless it be shown that there was some geographical rota in the wall repairers.

    MEROZ <me’-roz > ( zwOrme [meroz]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Mhrw>z , Meroz ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Mazw>r , Mazor ]): This name occurs only once in Scripture.

    The angel of the Lord is represented as invoking curses upon Meroz because the inhabitants “came not to the help of Yahweh” on the day of Deborah and Barak’s victory ( Judges 5:23). It is a strange fate, shared with Chorazin, to be preserved from oblivion only by the record of a curse.

    The bitterness in the treatment of Meroz, not found in the references to any of the other delinquents, must be due to the special gravity of her offense.

    Reuben, Gilead and Daniel were far away. This, however, is not true of Asher, who was also absent. Perhaps Meroz was near the field of battle and, at some stage of the conflict, within sight and hearing of the strife. If, when Zebulun “jeopardized their lives unto the death, and Naphtali, upon the high places of the field,” they turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to the dire straits of their brethren, this might explain the fierce reproaches of Deborah.

    Meroz may possibly be identified with el-Murussus, a mud-built village about 5 miles Northwest of Beisan, on the slopes to the North of the Vale of Jezreel. If the Kedesh where Heber’s tent was pitched be identical with Qadish to the West of the Sea of Galilee, Sisera’s flight, avoiding the Israelites in the neighborhood of Matthew. Tabor, may have carried him past el-Murussus. If the inhabitants had it in their power to arrest him, but suffered him to escape (Moore, “Jgs,” ICC, 163), such treachery to the na tion’s cause might well rouse the indignation of the heroic prophetess. W. Ewing MERRAN <mer’-an > ([ Merra>n , Merran ]; the King James Version Meran): Many identifications have been suggested on the assumption that the text as it stands is correct. Some of these are the Sidonian Meareh (Grotius), Marane, a city of which Pliny speaks as being near the Red Sea (Keil), and the desert of Mahrah in Arabia (Fritzsche). It is very probable, however, that the name represents an error in transcription from the original Semitic text, confusing the Hebrew letter daleth (“d”) with the Hebrew letter resh (“r”), so that we should read Meddan, or Medan, i.e. Midian. The phrase will then run, “the merchants of Midian and Teman” (Baruch 3:23). The merchants of Midian are referred to in Genesis 37:28. W. Ewing MERUTH <me’-ruth > . See EMMERUTH.

    MESALOTH <mes’-a-loth > ([ Messalw>q , Messaloth ], [ Maisalw>q , Maisaloth ]): A place mentioned in the account of the march of Bacchides and Alcimus into Judah, as “in Arbela” (1 Macc 9:2). If Arbela be identical with Irbil or Irbid on the southern lip of Wady el-Chamam, West of the Sea of Galilee, this fixes the locality; but no name resembling Mesaloth has been found.

    MESECH <me’-sek > . See MESHECH.

    MESHA <me’-sha > : (1) ( [v;yme [mesha`]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Marisa> , Marisa ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [, Marisas]): Caleb’s firstborn son, the father of Ziph, probably the ancestor of the Ziphites ( 1 Chronicles 2:42). (2) ( av;yme [mesha’]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Misa> , Misa ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Mwsa> , Mosa ]): A Benjamite, son of Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh, born in the land of Moab ( 1 Chronicles 8:9). (3) ( [v”yme [mesha`]; [ Mwsa> , Mosa ]): A king of Moab. All the Biblical information regarding this monarch is contained in 2 Kings 3. Here we gather that Mesha was contemporary with Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram. He was tributary to Israel, his annual contribution consisting of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams. after the death of Ahab he asserted his independence.

    Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the king of Edom joined forces with Jehoram in an attempt to quell the rebellion at the instance of Elisha, who accompanied the host, water was miraculously provided when the army of the allies was ready to perish of thirst. Mesha came out against them and fell upon the camp. His attack was repulsed with heavy slaughter, and the defeated king was chased by the victors until he took refuge in the great fortress of Kir-hareseth. A vigorous siege was begun. Seeing that his case was desperate, Mesha attempted, with 700 men, to break through the lines.

    Failing in this, he offered his firstborn as a burnt offering upon the wall.

    Then “there came great wrath upon Israel” (by which, probably, panic is meant), and the besiegers retired, leaving their conquest incomplete.

    In his inscription — see MOABITE STONE — Mesha gives an account of his rebellion, naming the places captured and fortified by him. It is not surprising that he says nothing of his defeat by Jehoram and his allies.

    There is, however, one serious discrepancy. The time Moab was under the supremacy of Israel, during the reign of Omri and half the reign of Ahab, he puts at 40 years. According to Biblical chronology, Omri and Ahab together reigned only 34 years. If, with Mesha, we deduct half the reign of Ahab, the period is reduced to 23 years. It is impossible to add to the length of either reign. So great a difference cannot be explained by the use of round numbers. Why Mesha should wish to increase the time of his people’s subjection is not clear, unless, indeed, he thought in this way to magnify the glory of their deliverer.

    In Mesha the sentiment of patriotism was wedded to some measure of military capacity. Judging by his inscription, he was also a deeply religious man according to his lights. Substitute “Yahweh” for “Chemosh,” and his phraseology might be that of a pious Hebrew king. The sacrifice of his son is at once the mark of the heathen and an index of the strength of his devotion. (4) ( av;me [mesha’]; [ Massh~ , Masse ]): This appears to mark the western boundary of the land occupied by the descendants of Joktan ( Genesis 10:30). No certain identification is possible, but several more or less probable have been suggested: e.g. (a) The Greek Mesene, on the Persian Gulf, not far from the mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates; (b) the Syro-Arabian desert, called Mashu in the Assyrian inscriptions; the name here, however, could hardly cover such a vast tract as this; more probably it denoted a place; (c) Dillmann would alter the vowels and identify it with Massa’, a branch of the Ishmaelite stock ( Genesis 25:14; 1 Chronicles 1:30). This, however, furnishes no clue to the locality, the territory of that tribe being also unidentified. W. Ewing MESHACH <me’-shak > ( °]v”me [meshakh]): Possibly the Sumerian form of the Babylonian Cil-Asharidu, “the shadow of the prince,” just as Shadrach probably means “the servant of Sin,” and Abednego the “servant of Ishtar.”

    Meshach was one of the three Hebrew companions of Daniel, whose history is given in the first chapters of the Book of Daniel. See, further, under SHADRACH.

    MESHECH; MESECH <me’-shek > , <me’-sek > ( °]v,m, [meshekh], “long,” “tall”; [ Mo>soc , Mosoch ]): Son of Japheth ( Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5; 1:17 is a scribal error for “Mash”; compare Genesis 10:22,23). His descendants and their dwelling-place (probably somewhere in the neighborhood of armenia (Herodotus iii.94)) seem to be regarded in Scripture as synonyms for the barbaric and remote ( <19C005> Psalm 120:5; compare Isaiah 66:19, where Meshech should be read instead of “that draw the bow”). It is thought that the “Tibareni and Moschi” of the classical writers refer to the same people. Doubtless they appear in the annals of Assyria as enemies of that country under the names Tabali and Mushki — the latter the descendants of Meshech and the former those of Tubal to whom the term “Tibareni” may refer in the clause above. This juxtaposition of names is in harmony with practically every appearance of the word in Scripture. It is seldom named without some one of the others — Tubal, Javan, Gog and Magog. It is this which forms a good justification for making the suggested change in Isaiah 66:19, where Meshech would be in the usual company of Tubal and Javan. Ezekiel mentions them several times, first, as engaged in contributing to the trade of Tyre (Tiras of Genesis 10:2?), in “vessels of brass” and — very significantly — slaves; again there is the association of Javan and Tubal with them (Ezek 27:13); second, they are included in his weird picture of the under-world: “them that go down into the pit” (Ezek 32:18,26). They are mentioned again with Gog and Magog twice as those against whom the prophet is to “set his face” (Ezek 38:2,3; 39:1). Henry Wallace MESHELEMIAH <me-shel-e-mi’-a > ( hy:m]l,v,m] [meshelemyah], “Yah repays”): Father of Zechariah, one of the porters of the tabernacle ( 1 Chronicles 9:21; 26:1,2,9). In the latter passage Meshelemiah, with a final “-u”, is credited with “sons and brethren, valiant men, 18.” He is the “Shelemiah” of Chronicles 26:14, the “Shallum” of 1 Chronicles 9:17,19,31, and the “Meshullam” of Nehemiah 12:25.

    MESHEZABEL <me-shez’-a-bel > ( laeb]zeyvem] [meshezebhe’el], “God a deliverer”; the King James Version Meshezabeel, me-shez’-a-bel): (1) A priest, ancestor of Meshullam, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 3:4). (2) One of the chiefs of the people giving name to the family which sealed the covenant with Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 10:21). (3) A descendant of Judah through Zerah, and father of Pethahiah ( Nehemiah 11:24).

    MESHILLEMITH <me-shil’-e-mith > ( tymiLevim] [meshillemith], “retribution”): A priest, son of Immer, ancestor, according to 1 Chronicles 9:12, of Adaiah and Pashhur, and according to Nehemiah 11:13, of Amashai. In the latter passage this name is spelled MESHILLEMOTH (which see).

    MESHILLEMOTH <me-shil’-e-moth > , <me-shil’-e-moth > ( twOmLevim] [meshillemoth], “recompense”): (1) An Ephesiansraimite ancestor of Berechiah, chief of the tribe, in the reign of Pekah ( 2 Chronicles 28:12). (2) The “Meshillemith” of Nehemiah 11:13.

    MESHOBAB <me-sho’-bab > ( bb;wOvm] [meshobhabh]): A Simeonite ( 1 Chronicles 4:34). This name heads the list of those who, for the sake of wider pasturelands, occupied a Hamitic settlement in the neighborhood of Gerar (MOUNT GEDOR (which see)), and a Maonite settlement in Edomite territory ( 1 Chronicles 4:39-41). The latter event is dated in the days of Hezekiah (see Curtis, Chronicles, in the place cited.).

    MESHULIAM <me-shul’-am > ( µL;vum] [meshullam], “resigned” or “devoted”; compare Arabic Muslim; [ Mesolla>m , Mesollam ]): An Old Testament name very common in post-exilic times. (1) The grandfather of Shaphan ( 2 Kings 22:3). (2) A son of Zerubbabel ( 1 Chronicles 3:19). (3) A Gadite ( 1 Chronicles 5:13). (4) (5) (6) Three Benjamites ( 1 Chronicles 8:17; 9:7,8). (7) The father of Hilkiah ( 1 Chronicles 9:11; Nehemiah 11:11). (8) A priest, son of Meshillemith ( 1 Chronicles 9:12); the parallel list ( Nehemiah 11:13) omits the name. (9) A Kohathite appointed by Josiah as one of the overseers to direct the repairs of the temple ( 2 Chronicles 34:12). (10) One of the chief men sent by Ezra to procure Levites to go up with him to Jerusalem ( Ezra 8:16; compare 1 Esdras 8:44). (11) A Levite opposed to Ezra’s regulations anent marriage with foreigners ( Ezra 10:15; 1 Esdras 9:14). (12) One of those who had married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:29; compare 1 Esdras 9:30). (13) One of the repairers of the wall ( Nehemiah 3:4,30). His daughter was married to Jehohanan, the son of Tobiah the Ammonite ( Nehemiah 6:18). (14) One of the repairers of the Old Gate ( Nehemiah 3:6). (15) A supporter of Ezra at the reading of the Law ( Nehemiah 8:4). (16) One of those who subscribed the Covenant ( Nehemiah 10:20). (17) A priest who subscribed the Covenant ( Nehemiah 10:7). (18) (19) Two priests at the time of the high priest Joiakim ( Nehemiah 12:13,16). (20) A porter at the time of the high priest Joiakim ( Nehemiah 12:25). (21) A processionist at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 12:33). John A. Less MESHULLEMETH <me-shul’-e-meth > ( tm,L,vum] [meshullemeth]): The wife of King Manasseh and mother of Amon ( 2 Kings 21:19). She is further designated “daughter of Haruz of Jotbah.” This is the earliest instance of the birthplace being added to the designation of the queen mother. The name is properly the feminine of the frequently occurring MESHULLAM (which see).

    MESOBAITE <me-so’-ba-it > . See MEZOBAITE.

    MESOPOTAMIA <mes-o-ta’-mi-a > . See SYRIA.

    MESS <mes > ( taec]m” [mas’eth]): Any dish of food sent (Latin missum; French messe) to the table. It occurs in the Old Testament in Genesis 43:34 (twice); 2 Samuel 11:8 English Versions of the Bible, and in the New Testament in Hebrews 12:16, translating [brw~siv , brosis ].

    MESSENGER <mes’-en-Jeremiah > : The regular Hebrew word for “messenger” is °]a;l]m” [mal’akh], the Greek [a]ggelov, aggelos]. This may be a human messenger or a messenger of God, an angel. The context must decide the right translation. In Hag 1:13 the prophet is called God’s messenger; Job 33:23 changes the King James Version to “angel” (margin “messenger”); and Malachi 3:1 margin, suggests “angel” instead of “messenger.” Malachi 2:7 and Malachi 3:1 (twice) have caused a great deal of comment. See MALACHI. The Greek [ajpo>stolov, apostolos], “apostle,” is rendered “messenger” in 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25; 1 Samuel 4:17 translations literally, from Hebrew rc”B; [basar], “to tell good news,” “he that brought the tidings.” Genesis 50:16 reads “message” instead of “messenger.” A. L. Breslich MESSIAH <me-si’-a > ( h”yvm; [mashiach]; Aramaic ajyvim] [meshicha’]; Septuagint [Cristo>v, Christos], “anointed”; New Testament “Christ”): 1. Meaning and Use of the Term: “Messias” ( John 1:41; 4:25 the King James Version) is a transcription of [ Messi>av , Messias ], the Greek representation of the Aramaic. “Messiah” is thus a modification of the Greek form of the word, according to the Hebrew.

    The term is used in the Old Testament of kings and priests, who were consecrated to office by the ceremony of anointing. It is applied to the priest only as an adjective — “the anointed priest” ( Leviticus 4:3,5,16; 6:22 (Hebrew 15)). Its substantive use is restricted to the king; he only is called “the Lord’s anointed,” e.g. Saul ( 1 Samuel 24:6,10 (Hebrew 7,11), etc.); David ( 2 Samuel 19:21 (Hebrew 22); 2 Samuel 23:1, “the anointed of the God of Jacob”); Zedekiah ( Lamentations 4:20).

    Similarly in the Psalms the king is designated “mine,” “thine,” “his anointed.” Thus also even Cyrus ( Isaiah 45:1), as being chosen and commissioned by Yahweh to carry out His purpose with Israel. Some think the singular “mine anointed” in Habakkuk 3:13 denotes the whole people; but the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and the reference may be to the king. The plural of the substantive is used of the patriarchs, who are called “mine anointed ones” ( <19A515> Psalm 105:15; 1 Chronicles 16:22), as being Yahweh’s chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were inviolable.

    It is to be noted that “Messiah” as a special title is never applied in the Old Testament to the unique king of the future, unless perhaps in Daniel 9:25 f ([mashiach naghidh], “Messiah-Prince”), a difficult passage, the interpretation of which is very uncertain. It was the later Jews of the postprophetic period who, guided by a true instinct, first used the term in a technical sense. 2. The Messianic Hope: The Messiah is the instrument by whom God’s kingdom is to be established in Israel and in the world. The hope of a personal deliverer is thus inseparable from the wider hope that runs through the Old Testament. The Jews were a nation who lived in the future. In this respect they stand alone among the peoples of antiquity. No nation ever cherished such strong expectations of a good time coming, or clung more tenaciously amid defeat and disaster to the certainty of final triumph over all enemies and of entrance upon a state of perfect peace and happiness. The basis of this larger hope is Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God” ( Exodus 6:7). On the ground of this promise the prophets, while declaring God’s wrath against His people on account of their sin, looked beyond the Divine chastisements to the final era of perfect salvation and blessedness, which would be ushered in when the nation had returned to Yahweh.

    The term “Messianic” is used in a double sense to describe the larger hope of a glorious future for the nation, as well as the narrower one of a personal Messiah who is to be the prominent figure in the perfected kingdom. It may be remarked that many writers, both prophetic and apocalyptic, who picture the final consummation, make no allusion whatever to a coming deliverer.

    This article will treat of the personal Messianic hope as it is found in the Old Testament, in the pre-Christian age, and in the New Testament.

    1. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. The Messianic King: The chief element in the conception of the Messiah in the Old Testament is that of the king. Through him as head of the nation Yahweh could most readily work out His saving purposes. But the kingdom of Israel was a theocracy. In earlier times Moses, Joshua, and the judges, who were raised up by Yahweh to guide His people at different crises in their history, did not claim to exercise authority apart from their Divine commission. Nor was the relation of Yahweh to the nation as its real ruler in any way modified by the institution of the monarchy. It was by His Spirit that the king was qualified for the righteous government of the people, and by His power that he would become victorious over all enemies. The passage on which the idea of the Messianic king who would rule in righteousness and attain universal dominion was founded is Nathan’s oracle to David in Samuel 7:11 ff. In contrast to Saul, from whom the kingdom had passed away, David would never want a descendant to sit on the throne of Israel.

    How strong an impression this promise of the perpetuity of his royal house had made on David is seen in his last words (2 Samuel 23); and to this “everlasting covenant, and sure,” the spiritual minds in Israel reverted in all after ages. (1) Isaiah.

    Isaiah is the first of the prophets to refer to an extraordinary king of the future. Amos (9:11) foretold the time when the shattered fortunes of Judah would be restored, while Hosea (3:5) looked forward to the reunion of the two kingdoms under David’s line. But it is not till we reach the Assyrian age, when the personality of the king is brought into prominence against the great world-power, that we meet with any mention of a unique personal ruler who would bring special glory to David’s house.

    The kings of Syria and Israel having entered into a league to dethrone Ahaz and supplant him by an obscure adventurer, Isaiah 7:10-17 announces to the king of Judah that while, by the help of Assyria, he would survive the attack of the confederate kings, Yahweh would, for his disobedience, bring devastation upon his own land through the instrumentality of his ally. But the prophet’s lofty vision, though limited as in the case of other seers to the horizon of his own time, reaches beyond Judah’s distress to Judah’s deliverance. To the spiritual mind of Isaiah the revelation is made of a true king, Immanuel, “God-with-us,” who would arise out of the house of David, now so unworthily represented by the profligate Ahaz. While the passage is one of the hardest to interpret in all the Old Testament, perhaps too much has been made by some scholars of the difficulty connected with the word `almah, “virgin.” It is the mysterious personality of the child to which prominence is given in the prophecy. The significance of the name and the pledge of victory it implies, the reference to Immanuel as ruler of the land in 8:8 (if the present rendering be correct), as well as the parallelism of the line of thought in the prophecy with that of Isaiah 9, would seem to point to the identity of Immanuel with the Prince of the four names, “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace” (9:6 the Revised Version margin). These Divine titles do not necessarily imply that in the mind of the prophet the Messianic king is God in the metaphysical sense — the essence of the Divine nature is not a dogmatic conception in the Old Testament — but only that Yahweh is present in Him in perfect wisdom and power, so that He exercises over His people forever a fatherly and peaceful rule. In confirmation of this interpretation reference may be made to the last of the great trilogy of Isaianic prophecies concerning the Messiah of the house of David (11:2), where the attributes with which He is endowed by the Spirit are those which qualify for the perfect discharge of royal functions in the kingdom of God. See IMMANUEL.

    A similar description of the Messianic king is given by Isaiah’s younger contemporary Micah (5:2 ff), who emphasizes the humble origin of the extraordinary ruler of the future, who shall spring from the Davidic house, while his reference to her who is to bear him confirms the interpretation which regards the virgin in Isaiah as the mother of the Messiah. (2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

    After the time of Isaiah and Micah the throne of David lost much of its power and influence, and the figure of the ideal king is never again portrayed with the same definiteness and color. Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk make no reference to him at all. By the great prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, however, the hope of a Davidic ruler is kept before the people. While there are passages in both of these writers which refer to a succession of pious rulers, this fact should not dominate our interpretation of other utterances of theirs which seem to point to a particular individual.

    By Jeremiah the Messiah is called the “righteous Branch” who is to be raised unto David and be called “Yahweh (is) our righteousness,” that is, Yahweh as the one making righteous dwells in him ( Jeremiah 23:5 f; compare 30:9). In Ezekiel he is alluded to as the coming one “whose right it is” (21:27), and as Yahweh’s “servant David” who shall be “prince” or “king” forever over a reunited people (34:23 f; 37:24). It is difficult to resist the impression which the language of Ezekiel makes that it is the ideal Messianic ruler who is here predicted, notwithstanding the fact that afterward, in the prophet’s vision of the ideal theocracy, not only does the prince play a subordinate part, but provision is made in the constitution for a possible abuse of his authority. (3) Later Prophets.

    After Ezekiel’s time, during the remaining years of the exile, the hope of a preeminent king of David’s house naturally disappears. But it is resuscitated at the restoration when Zerubbabel, a prince of the house of David and the civil head of the restored community, is made by Yahweh of hosts His signet-ring, inseparable from Himself and the symbol of His authority (Hag 2:23). In the new theocracy, however the figure of the Messianic ruler falls into the background before that of the high priest, who is regarded as the sign of the coming Branch ( Zechariah 3:8). Still we have the unique prophecy of the author Of Zechariah 9:9, who pictures the Messiah as coming not on a splendid charger like a warrior king, but upon the foal of an ass, righteous and victorious, yet lowly and peaceful, strong by the power of God to help and save. There is no mention of the Messianic king in Joel or Malachi; but references in the later, as in the earlier, Psalms to events in the lives of the kings or the history of the kingdom prove that the promise made to David was not forgotten, and point to one who would fulfill it in all its grandeur. 2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations: The Messianic king is the central figure in the consummation of the kingdom. It is a royal son of David, not a prophet like unto Moses, or a priest of Aaron’s line, whose personal features are portrayed in the picture of the future. The promise in Dt 18:15-20, as the context shows, refers to a succession of true prophets as opposed to the diviners of heathen nations.

    Though Moses passed away there would always be a prophet raised up by Yahweh to reveal His will to the people, so that they would never need to have recourse to heathen soothsayers. Yet while the prophet is not an ideal figure, being already fully inspired by the Spirit, prophetic functions are to this extent associated with the kingship, that the Messiah is qualified by the Spirit for the discharge of the duties of His royal office and makes known the will of God by His righteous decisions ( Isaiah 11:2-5).

    It is more difficult to define the relationship of the priesthood to the kingship in the final era. They are brought into connection by Jeremiah (30:9,21) who represents the new “David” as possessing the priestly right of immediate access to Yahweh, while the Levitical priesthood, equally with the Davidic kingship, is assured of perpetuity on the ground of the covenant ( Jeremiah 33:18 ff). But after the restoration, when prominence is given to the high priest in the reconstitution of the kingdom, Joshua becomes the type of the coming “Branch” of the Davidic house ( Zechariah 3:8), and, according to the usual interpretation, receives the crown — a symbol of the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah ( Zechariah 6:11 ff). Many scholars, however, holding that the words “and the counsel of peace shall be between them both” can only refer to two persons, would substitute “Zerubbabel” for “Joshua” in Zechariah 6:11, and read in 6:13, “there shall be a priest upon his right hand” (compare the Revised Version (British and American), Septuagint (Septuagint). The prophet’s meaning would then be that the Messianic high priest would sit beside the Messianic king in the perfected kingdom, both working together as Zerubbabel and Joshua were then doing. There is no doubt, however, that the Messiah is both king and priest in Psalm 110. 3. Servant of Yahweh: The bitter experiences of the nation during the exile originated a new conception, Messianic in the deepest sense, the Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 40 — 66; chiefly 41:8; 42:1-7,19 f; 43:8,10; 44:1 f,21; 49:3-6; 50:4-9; 52:13 — 53). As to whom the prophet refers in his splendid delineation of this mysterious being, scholars are hopelessly divided. The personification theory — that the Servant represents the ideal Israel, Israel as God meant it to be, as fulfilling its true vocation in the salvation of the world — is held by those who plead for a consistent use of the phrase throughout the prophecy. They regard it as inconceivable that the same title should be applied by the same prophet to two distinct subjects. Others admit that the chief difficulty in the way of this theory is to conceive it, but they maintain that it best explains the use of the title in the chief passages where it occurs. The other theory is that there is an expansion and contraction of the idea in the mind of the prophet. In some passages the title is used to denote the whole nation; in others it is limited to the pious kernel; and at last the conception culminates in an individual, the ideal yet real Israelite of the future, who shall fulfill the mission in which the nation failed.

    What really divides expositors is the interpretation of Isaiah 52:13 — 53. The question is not whether this passage was fulfilled in Jesus Christ — on this all Christian expositors are agreed — but whether the “Servant” is in the mind of the prophet merely the personification of the godly portion of the nation, or a person yet to come.

    May not the unity argument be pressed too hard? If the Messiah came to be conceived of as a specific king while the original promise spoke of a dynasty, is it so inconceivable that the title “Servant of Yahweh” should be used in an individual as well as in a collective sense? It is worthy of note, too, that not only in some parts of this prophecy, but all through it, the individuality of the sufferer is made prominent; the collective idea entirely disappears. The contrast is not between a faithful portion and the general body of the people, but between the “Servant” and every single member of the nation. Moreover, whatever objections may be urged against the individual interpretation, this view best explains the doctrine of substitution that runs through the whole passage. Israel was Yahweh’s elect people, His messenger of salvation to the Gentiles, and its faithful remnant suffered for the sins of the mass; even “Immanuel” shared in the sorrows of His people. But here the “Servant” makes atonement for the sins of individual Israelites; by his death they are justified and by his stripes they are healed.

    To this great spiritual conception only the prophet of the exile attains.

    It may be added that in the Suffering Servant, who offers the sacrifice of himself as an expiation for the sins of the people, prophetic activity and kingly honor are associated with the priestly function. After he has been raised from the dead he becomes the great spiritual teacher of the world — by his knowledge of God and salvation which he communicates to others he makes many righteous ( Isaiah 53:11; compare 42:1 ff; 49:2; 50:4); and as a reward for his sufferings he attains to a position of the highest royal splendor ( Isaiah 52:15b; 53:12a; compare 49:7). See SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic: In the Book of Daniel, written to encourage the Jewish people to steadfastness during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Messianic hope of the prophets assumes a new form. Here the apocalyptic idea of the Messiah appears for the first time in Jewish literature. The coming ruler is represented, not as a descendant of the house of David, but as a person in human form and of super-human character, through whom God is to establish His sovereignty upon the earth. In the prophet’s vision ( Daniel 7:13 f) one “like unto a son of man,” [kebhar ‘enash] (not, as in the King James Version, “like the son of man”), comes with the clouds of heaven, and is brought before the ancient of days, and receives an imperishable kingdom, that all peoples should serve him.

    Scholars are by no means agreed in their interpretation of the prophecy. In support of the view that the “one like unto a son of man” is a symbol for the ideal Israel, appeal is made to the interpretation given of the vision in Daniel 7:18,22,27, according to which dominion is given to “the saints of the Most High.” Further, as the four heathen kingdoms are represented by the brute creation, it would be natural for the higher power, which is to take their place, to be symbolized by the human form.

    But strong reasons may be urged, on the other hand, for the personal Messianic interpretation of the passage. A distinction seems to be made between “one like unto a son of man” and the saints of the Most High in Daniel 7:21, the saints being there represented as the object of persecution from the little horn. The scene of the judgment is earth, where the saints already are, and to which the ancient of days and the “one like unto a son of man” descend (7:22,13). And it is in accordance with the interpretation given of the vision in 7:17, where reference is made to the four kings of the bestial kingdoms, that the kingdom of the saints, which is to be established in their place, should also be represented by a royal head.

    It may be noted that a new idea is suggested by this passage, the preexistence of the Messiah before His manifestation.

    2. THE MESSIAH IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AGE. 1. Post-prophetic Age: After prophetic inspiration ceased, there was little in the teaching of the scribes, or in the reconstitution of the kingdom under the rule of the high priests, to quicken the ancient hope of the nation. It would appear from the Apocrypha that while the elements of the general expectation were still cherished, the specific hope of a preeminent king of David’s line had grown very dim in the consciousness of the people. In Ecclesiasticus (47:11) mention is made of a “covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel which the Lord gave unto David”; yet even this allusion to the everlasting duration of the Davidic dynasty is more of the nature of a historical statement than the expression of a confident hope. 2. Maccabean Times: In the earlier stages of the Maccabean uprising, when the struggle was for religious freedom, the people looked for help to God alone, and would probably have been content to acknowledge the political supremacy of Syria after liberty had been granted them in 162 BC to worship God according to their own law and ceremonial. But the successful effort of the Maccabean leaders in achieving political independence, while it satisfied the aspirations of the people generally “until there should arise a faithful prophet” (1 Macc 14:41; compare 2:57), brought religious and national ideals into conflict. The “Pious” ([chacidhim]), under the new name of Pharisees, now became more than ever devoted to the Law, and repudiated the claim of a Maccabean to be high priest and his subsequent assumption of the royal title, while the Maccabees with their political ambitions took the side of the aristocracy and alienated the people. The national spirit, however, had been stirred into fresh life. Nor did the hope thus quickened lose any of its vitality when, amid the strife of factions and the quarrels of the ruling family, Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BC. The fall of the Hasmonean house, even more than its ascendancy, led the nation to set its hope more firmly on God and to look for a deliverer from the house of David. 3. Apocalyptic Literature: The national sentiment evoked by the Maccabees finds expression in the Apocalyptic literature of the century and a half before Christ.

    In the oldest parts of the Sibylline Oracles (3:652-56) there occurs a brief prediction of a king whom God shall send from the sun, who shall “cause the whole earth to cease from wicked war, killing some and exacting faithful oaths from others. And this he will do, not according to his own counsel, but in obedience to the beneficent decrees of God.” And in a later part of the same book (3:49) there is an allusion to “a pure king who will wield the scepter over the whole earth forever.” It may be the Messiah also who is represented in the earlier part of the Book of Enoch (90:37 f) as a glorified man under the symbol of a white bull with great horns, which is feared and worshipped by all the other animals (the rest of the religious community) and into whose likeness they are transformed.

    But it is in the Psalms of Solomon, which were composed in the Pompeian period and reveal their Pharisaic origin by representing the Hasmoneans as a race of usurpers, that we have depicted in clear outline and glowing colors the portrait of the Davidic king (Psalm Sol 17:18). The author looks for a personal Messiah who, as son of David and king of Israel, will purge Jerusalem of sinners, and gather together a holy people who will all be the “sons of their God.” He shall not conquer with earthly weapons, for the Lord Himself is his King; he shall smite the earth with the breath of his mouth; and the heathen of their own accord shall come to see his glory, bringing the wearied children of Israel as gifts. His throne shall be established in wisdom and justice, while he himself shall be pure from sin and made strong in the Holy Spirit.

    It is evident that in these descriptions of the coming one we have something more than a mere revival of the ancient hope of a preeminent king of David’s house. The repeated disasters that overtook the Jews led to the transference of the national hope to a future world, and consequently to the transformation of the Messiah from a mere earthly king into a being with supernatural attributes. That this supernatural apocalyptic hope, which was at least coming to be cherished, exercised an influence on the national hope is seen in the Psalter of Solomon, where emphasis is laid on the striking individuality of this Davidic king, the moral grandeur of his person, and the Divine character of his rule.

    We meet with the apocalyptic conception of the Messiah in the Similitudes of Enoch (chapters 37 — 71) and the later apocalypses. Reference may be made at this point to the Similitudes on account of their unique expression of Messianic doctrine, although their pre-Christian date, which Charles puts not later than 64 BC, is much disputed. The Messiah who is called “the Anointed,” “the Elect one” “the Righteous one” is represented, though in some sense man, as belonging to the heavenly world. His preexistence is affirmed. He is the supernatural Son of Man, who will come forth from His concealment to sit as Judge of all on the throne of His glory, and dwell on a transformed earth with the righteous forever. See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE (JEWISH); ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    3. THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    To the prevalence of the Messianic hope among the Jews in the time of Christ the Gospel records bear ample testimony. We see from the question of the Baptist that “the coming one” was expected ( Matthew 11:3 and parallel), while the people wondered whether John himself were the Christ ( Luke 3:15). 1. The Jewish Conception: (1) The Messiah as King.

    In the popular conception the Messiah was chiefly the royal son of David who would bring victory and prosperity to the Jewish nation and set up His throne in Jerusalem. In this capacity the multitude hailed Jesus on His entry into the capital ( Matthew 21:9 and parallel); to the Pharisees also the Messiah was the son of David ( Matthew 22:42). It would seem that apocalyptic elements mingled with the national expectation, for it was supposed that the Messiah would come forth suddenly from concealment and attest Himself by miracles ( John 7:27,31).

    But there were spiritual minds who interpreted the nation’s hope, not in any conventional sense, but according to their own devout aspirations.

    Looking for “the consolation of Israel,” “the redemption of Jerusalem,” they seized upon the spiritual features of the Messianic king and recognized in Jesus the promised Saviour who would deliver the nation from its sin ( Luke 2:25,30,38; compare 1:68-79). (2) His Prophetic Character.

    From the statements in the Gospels regarding the expectation of a prophet it is difficult to determine whether the prophetic function was regarded as belonging to the Messiah. We learn not only that one of the old prophets was expected to reappear ( Matthew 14:2; 16:14 and parallel), but also that a preeminent prophet was looked for, distinct from the Messiah ( John 1:21,25; 7:40 f). But the two conceptions of prophet and king seem to be identified in John 6:14 f, where we are told that the multitude, after recognizing in Jesus the expected prophet, wished to take Him by force and make Him a king. It would appear that while the masses were looking forward to a temporal king, the expectations of some were molded by the image and promise of Moses. And to the woman of Samaria, as to her people, the Messiah was simply a prophet, who would bring the full light of Divine knowledge into the world ( John 4:25). On the other hand, from Philip’s description of Jesus we would naturally infer that he saw in Him whom he had found the union of a prophet like unto Moses and the Messianic king of the prophetical books ( John 1:45). (3) The Title “Son of God.”

    It cannot be doubted that the “Son of God” was used as a Messianic title by the Jews in the time of our Lord. The high priest in presence of the Sanhedrin recognized it as such ( Matthew 26:63). It was applied also in its official sense to Jesus by His disciples: John the Baptist ( John 1:34), Nathaniel ( John 1:49), Mary ( John 11:27), Peter ( Matthew 16:16, though not in parallel). This Messianic use was based on Psalm 2:7; compare 2 Samuel 7:14. The title as given to Jesus by Peter in his confession, “the Son of the living God,” is suggestive of something higher than a mere official dignity, although its full significance in the unique sense in which Jesus claimed it could scarcely have been apprehended by the disciples till after His resurrection. 2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship: (1) His Claim.

    The claim of Jesus to be the Messiah is written on the face of the evangelic history. But while He accepted the title, He stripped it of its political and national significance and filled it with an ethical and universal content. The Jewish expectation of a great king who would restore the throne of David and free the nation from a foreign yoke was interpreted by Jesus as of one who would deliver God’s people from spiritual foes and found a universal kingdom of love and peace. (2) His Delay in Making It.

    To prepare the Jewish mind for His transformation of the national hope Jesus delayed putting forth His claim before the multitude till His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which, be it noted, He made in such a way as to justify His interpretation of the Messiah of the prophets, while He delayed emphasizing it to His disciples till the memorable scene at Caesarea Philippi when He drew forth Peter’s confession. (3) “The Son of Man.”

    But he sought chiefly to secure the acceptance of Himself in all His lowliness as the true Messianic king by His later use of His self-designation as the “Son of Man.” While “Son of Man” in Aramaic, bar nasha’, may mean simply “man,” an examination of the chief passages in which the title occurs shows that Jesus applied it to Himself in a unique sense. That He had the passage in Daniel in His mind is evident from the phrases He employs in describing His future coming ( Mark 8:38; 13:26 and parallel; 14:62 and parallel). By this apocalyptic use of the title He put forward much more clearly His claim to be the Messiah of national expectation who would come in heavenly glory. But He used the title also to announce the tragic destiny that awaited Him ( Mark 8:31). This He could do without any contradiction, as He regarded His death as the beginning of His Messianic reign. And those passages in which He refers to the Son of Man giving His life a ransom “for many” ( Matthew 20:28 and parallel) and going “as it is written of him” ( Matthew 26:24 and parallel), as well as Luke 22:37, indicate that He interpreted Isaiah 53 of Himself in His Messianic character. By His death He would complete His Messianic work and inaugurate the kingdom of God. Thus, by the help of the title “Son of Man” Jesus sought, toward the close of His ministry, to explain the seeming contradiction between His earthly life and the glory of His Messianic kingship.

    It may be added that our Lord’s use of the phrase implies what the Gospels suggest ( John 12:34), that the “Son of Man,” notwithstanding the references in Daniel and the Similitudes of Enoch (if the pre-Christian date be accepted), was not regarded by the Jews generally as a Messianic title.

    For He could not then have applied it, as He does, to Himself before Peter’s confession, while maintaining His reserve in regard to His claims to be the Messiah. Many scholars, however, hold that the “Son of Man” was already a Messianic title before our Lord employed it in His conversation with the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and regard the earlier passages in which it occurs as inserted out of chronological order, or the presence of the title in them either as a late insertion, or as due to the ambiguity of the Aramaic. See SON OF MAN. 3. The Christian Transformation: The thought of a suffering Messiah who would atone for sin was alien to the Jewish mind. This is evident from the conduct, not only of the opponents, but of the followers of Jesus ( Matthew 16:22; 17:23). While His disciples believed Him to be the Messiah, they could not understand His allusions to His sufferings, and regarded His death as the extinction of all their hopes ( Luke 18:34; 24:21). But after His resurrection and ascension they were led, by the impression His personality and teaching had made upon them, to see how entirely they had misconceived His Messiahship and the nature and extent of His Messianic kingdom ( Luke 24:31; Acts 2:36,38 f). They were confirmed, too, in their spiritual conceptions when they searched into the ancient prophecies in the light of the cross. In the mysterious form of the Suffering Servant they beheld the Messianic king on His way to His heavenly throne, conquering by the power of His atoning sacrifice and bestowing all spiritual blessings ( Acts 3:13,18-21,26; 4:27,30; 8:35; 10:36-43). 4. New Elements Added: (1) Future manifestation.

    New features were now added to the Messiah in accordance with Jesus’ own teaching. He had ascended to His Father and become the heavenly king. But all things were not yet put under Him. It was therefore seen that the full manifestation of His Messiahship was reserved for the future, that He would return in glory to fulfill His Messianic office and complete His Messianic reign. (2) Divine Personality.

    Higher views of His personality were now entertained. He is declared to be the Son of God, not in any official, but in a unique sense, as coequal with the Father ( John 1:1; Romans 1:4,7; 1 Corinthians 1:3, etc.). His pre-existence is affirmed ( John 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:9); and when He comes again in his Messianic glory, He will exercise the Divine function of Universal Judge ( Acts 10:42; 17:30 f, etc.). (3) Heavenly Priesthood.

    The Christian conception of the Messianic king who had entered into His glory through suffering and death carried with it the doctrine of the Messianic priesthood. But it took some time for early Christian thought to advance from the new discovery of the combination of humiliation and glory in the Messiah to concentrate upon His heavenly life. While the preaching of the first Christians was directed to show from the Scriptures that “Jesus is the Christ” and necessarily involved the ascription to Him of many functions characteristic of the true priest, it was reserved for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to set forth this aspect of His work with separate distinctness and to apply to Him the title of our “great high priest” ( Hebrews 4:14). As the high priest on the Day of Atonement not only sprinkled the blood upon the altar, but offered the sacrifice, so it was now seen that by passing into the heavens and presenting to God the offering He had made of Himself on earth, Jesus had fulfilled the highpriestly office. 5. Fulfillment in Jesus: Thus the ideal of the Hebrew prophets and poets is amply fulfilled in the person, teaching and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Apologists may often err in supporting the argument from prophecy by an extravagant symbolism and a false exegesis; but they are right in the contention that the essential elements in the Old Testament conception — the Messianic king who stands in a unique relation to Yahweh as His “Son,” and who will exercise universal dominion; the supreme prophet who will never be superseded; the priest forever — are gathered up and transformed by Jesus in a way the ancient seers never dreamed of. As the last and greatest prophet, the suffering Son of Man, and the sinless Saviour of the world, He meets humanity’s deepest longings for Divine knowledge, human sympathy, and spiritual deliverance; and as the unique Son of God, who came to reveal the Father, He rules over the hearts of men by the might of eternal love. No wonder that the New Testament writers, like Jesus Himself, saw references to the Messiah in Old Testament passages which would not be conceded by a historical interpretation. While recognizing the place of the old covenant in the history of salvation, they sought to discover in the light of the fulfillment in Jesus the meaning of the Old Testament which the Spirit of God intended to convey, the Divine, saving thoughts which constitute its essence. And to us, as to the early Christians, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” ( Revelation 19:10). To Him, hidden in the bosom of the ages, all the scattered rays of prophecy pointed; and from Him, in His revealed and risen splendor, shine forth upon the world the light and power of God’s love and truth. And through the history and experience of His people He is bringing to larger realization the glory and passion of Israel’s Messianic hope.

    LITERATURE.

    Drummond, The Jewish Messiah; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah; Riehm, Messianic Prophecy; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies; von Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy; Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Schurer, HJP, div II, volume II, section 29, “The Messianic Hope”; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, chapter ii, “The Jewish Doctrine of Messiah”; Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, book II, chapter v, “What Messiah Did the Jews Expect?”; E. F. Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah; Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels; articles in DB, HDB, EB, DCG. For further list see Riehm and Schurer. See also APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. James Crichton METAL <met’-al > ( lm”v]j” [chashmal]; [h]lektron , elektron ]; the King James Version amber; Ezek 8:2, the Revised Version margin “amber”):

    The substance here intended is a matter of great uncertainty. In Egypt bronze was, called [chesmen], which may be connected with the Hebrew [chashmal]; the Greek [elektron ] too has generally been accepted as an alloy of gold or silver or other metals, but this is far from certain. Professor Ridgeway (EB, I, cols. 134-36) has conclusively shown, however, that amber was well known in early times and that there is nothing archaeologically improbable in the reading of the King James Version.

    Amber is a substance analogous to the vegetable resins, and is in all probability derived from extinct coniferous trees. The best or yellow variety was obtained by the ancients from the coasts of the Baltic where it is still found more plentifully than elsewhere. A red amber has been found in South Europe and in Phoenicia. From earliest times amber has been prized as an ornament; Homer apparently refers to it twice. Amber bracelets and necklaces are highly prized by the Orientals — especially Jewesses — today, and they are credited with medicinal properties. See ELECTRUM; STONES, PRECIOUS.

    E. W. G. Masterman METALLURGY <met’-al-ur-ji > : There are numerous Biblical references which describe or allude to the various metallurgical operations. In Job 28:1 occurs qq”z: [zaqaq], translated “refine,” literally, “strain.” This undoubtedly refers to the process of separating the gold from the earthy material as pictured in the Egyptian sculptures (Thebes and Beni Hassan) and described by Diodorus. The ore was first crushed to the size of lentils and then ground to powder in a handmill made of granite slabs. This powder was spread upon a slightly inclined stone table and water was poured over it to wash away the earthy materials. The comparatively heavy gold particles were then gathered from the table, dried, and melted in a closed crucible with lead, salt and bran, and kept in a molten condition for 5 days, at the end of which time the gold came out pure.

    The alloying of gold and silver with copper, lead or tin, and then removing the base metals by cupellation is used figuratively in Ezek 22:18,22 to denote the coming judgment of Yahweh. Again in Isaiah 1:25 it indicates chastening. The fact that the prophets used this figure shows that the people were familiar with the common metallurgical operations. See REFINER.

    James A. Patch METALS <met’-alz > (Latin metallum, “metal,” “mine”; Greek [me>tallon , metallon ], “mine”): The metals known by the ancients were copper, gold, iron, lead, silver and tin. Of these copper, gold and silver were probably first used, because, occurring in a metallic state, they could be separated easily from earthy materials by mechanical processes. Evidence is abundant of the use of these three metals by the people of remotest antiquity. Lead and tin were later separated from their ores. Tin was probably used in making bronze before it was known as a separate metal, because the native oxide, cassiterite, was smelted together with the copper ore to get bronze.

    Because of the difficulties in getting it separated from its compounds, iron was the last in the list to be employed. In regard to the sources of these metals in Bible times we have few Biblical references to guide us. Some writers point to Dt 8:9, “a land whose stones are iron,” etc., as referring to Palestine. Palestine can be disregarded, however, as a sourc e of metals, for it possesses no mineral deposits of any importance. If it was expected that Israel would possess Lebanon also, then the description would be more true. There is some iron ore which was in ancient times worked, although present-day engineers have declared it not to be extensive enough to pay for working. There is a little copper ore (chalcopyrite, malachite, azurite).

    In the Anti-Lebanon and Northern Syria, especially in the country East of Aleppo now opened up by the Bagdad Railroad and its branches, there are abundant deposits of copper. This must have been the land of Nuhasse referred to in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. If Zechariah 6:1 is really a reference to copper, which is doubtful, then the last-mentioned source was probably the one referred to. No doubt Cyprus (Alasia in Tell el-Amarna Letters (?)) furnished the ancients with much copper, as did also the Sinaitic peninsula.

    Tarshish is mentioned (Ezek 27:12) as a source of silver, iron, tin, and lead. This name may belong to Southern Spain. If so it corresponds to the general belief that the Phoenicians brought a considerable proportion of the metals used in Palestine from that country. Havilah ( Genesis 2:11), Ophir ( 1 Kings 10:11), Sheba ( Psalm 72:15) are mentioned as sources of gold. These names probably refer to districts of Arabia. Whether Arabia produced all the gold or simply passed it on from more remote sources is a question. See GOLD.

    From the monuments in Egypt we learn that that country was a producer of gold and silver. In fact, the ancient mines and the ruins of the miners’ huts are still to be seen in the desert regions of upper Egypt. In the Sinaitic peninsula are deposits of copper, lead, gold, and silver. The most remarkable of the ancient Egyptian mines are situated here (J. Sarabit el Khadim, U. Sidreh, W. Magharah). The early Egyptian kings (Sneferu, Amenemhat II, and others) not only mined the metals, but cut on the walls of the mines inscriptions describing their methods of mining. Here, as in upper Egypt, are remains of the buildings where miners lived or carried out their metallurgical operations. It is hardly to be conceived that the large deposits of lead (galena) in Asia Minor were unworked by the ancients. No nearer deports of tin than those in Southeastern Europe have yet been found. (For further information on metals see separate articles.) James A. Patch METAL WORKING See CRAFTS, 10; MINING.

    METE <met > ( dd’m; [madhadh]): “To measure,” either with a utensil of dry measure, as in Exodus 16:18, or to measure with a line or measure of length, as in Psalm 60:6; 108:7; Isaiah 40:12. In Isaiah 18:2,7 it is the rendering of [qaw qaw], literally, “line-line” i.e. measuring line, referring to the Ethiopians as a nation that measured off other peoples for destruction and trod them down, as in the Revised Version (British and American). It is regarded by some as signifying strength, being cognate with the Arabic kawi, “strong.” For mete of Matthew 7:2 and parallel passages in Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38, see MEASURE. H. Porter METERUS <me-te’-rus > . See BAITERUS.

    METEYARD <met’-yard > ( hD:mi [middah], “a measure,” Leviticus 19:35): Has this meaning in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), but in the American Standard Revised Version, “measures of length.”

    METHEG-AMMAH <me-theg-am’-a > , <meth-eg-am’-a > ( hM;a”h; gt,m, [mathegh ha- ’ammah], “bridle of the metropolis”; Septuagint [thnhn , ten aphorismenen ]): It is probable that the place-name Metheg-Ammah in <100801> Samuel 8:1 the King James Version should be rendered as in the Revised Version (British and American), “the bridle of the mother city,” i.e. Gath, since we find in the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 18:1 h;yt,nOb]W tG’ [gath ubhenotheha], “Gath and her daughters,” i.e. daughter towns. The Septuagint has an entirely different reading: “and David took the tribute out of the hand of the Philistines,” showing that they had a different text from what we now have in the Hebrew. The text is evidently corrupt. If a place is intended its site is unknown, but it must have been in the Philistine plain and in the vicinity of Gath. H. Porter METHUSAEL <me-thu’-sa-el > . See METHUSHAEL.

    METHUSELAH <me-thu’-se-la > , <me-thu’-se-la > ( jl”v,Wtm] [methushelach], “man of the javelin”): A descendant of Seth, the son of Enoch, and father of Lamech ( Genesis 5:21 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37).

    Methuselah is said to have lived 969 years; he is therefore the oldest of the patriarchs and the oldest man. It is doubtful whether these long years do not include the duration of a family or clan.

    METHUSHAEL <me-thu’-sha-el > ( laev;Wtm] [methusha’el]): A descendant of Cain, and father of Lamech in the Cainite genealogy ( Genesis 4:18). The meaning of the name is doubtful. Dillmann suggested “suppliant or man of God.”

    MEUNIM <me-u’-nim > (the King James Version Mehunim). See MAON.

    MEUZAL <me-u’-zal > ( lz:Wam] [me’uzal], or lz:Wame [me’uzal]): A word which occurs only in the King James Version margin of Ezek 27:19. The rendering in the King James Version text is “going to and fro,” in the Revised Version (British and American) text “with yarn,” but in Revised Version, margin, in agreement with BDB and most modern authorities, Meuzal is regarded as a proper noun with a prefixed preposition, and is rendered “from Uzal.” See UZAL.

    ME-ZAHAB <mez’-a-hab > , <me-za’-hab > ( bh;z: yme [me zahabh], “waters of gold”; Codex Vaticanus [ Maizow>b , Maizoob ], Codex Alexandrinus, [ Mezoo>b , Mezoob ]): Grandfather of Mehetabel, the wife of Hadar, the lastmentioned “duke” of Edom descended from Esau ( Genesis 36:39). The Jewish commentators made much play with this name. Abarbanel, e.g., says he was “rich and great, so that on this account he was called Mezahab, for the gold was in his house as water.” The name, however, may denote a place, in which case it may be identical with Dizahab.

    MEZARIM <mez’-a-rim > (NORTH). See ASTRONOMY, II, 13, (1).

    MEZOBAITE <me-zo’-ba-it > ( hy:b;xoM]h” [ha-metsbhayah]): The designation of Jaasiel, one of David’s heroes ( 1 Chronicles 11:47).

    MIAMIN <mi’-a-min > . See MIJAMIN; MINIAMIN.

    MIBHAR <mib’-har > ( rj;b]m” [mibhchar], “choice”(?)): According to Chronicles 11:38, the name of one of David’s heroes. No such name, however, occurs in the parallel passage ( 2 Samuel 23:36). A comparison of the two records makes it probable that [mibhchar] is a corruption of [mitstsbhah] = “from Zobah,” which completes the designation of the former name, Nathan of Zobah. The concluding words of the verse, Ben-Hagri = “the son of Hagri,” will then appear as a misreading of Bani ha-gadhi = “Bani, the Gadite,” thus bringing the two records into accord.

    MIBSAM <mib’-sam > ( µc;b]mi [mibhsam], “perfume”(?)): (1) A son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:13; 1 Chronicles 1:29). (2) A Simeonite ( 1 Chronicles 4:25).

    MIBZAR <mib’-zar > ( rx;b]mi [mibhtsar], “a fortress”): An Edomite chief, the King James Version “duke” ( Genesis 36:42; 1 Chronicles 1:53).

    According to Eusebius, Mibzar is connected with Mibsara, a considerable village subject to Petra and still existing in his time. Compare Holzinger and Skinner in respective commentaries on Genesis.

    MICA <mi’-ka > ( ak;ymi [mikha’]): A variant of the name Micah, and probably like it a contracted form of MICAIAH (which see). In the King James Version it is sometimes spelled “Micha.” (1) A son of Merib-baal or Mephibosheth ( 2 Samuel 9:12, the King James Version “Micha”). In 1 Chronicles 8:34, he is called “Micah.” (2) The son of Zichri ( 1 Chronicles 9:15). In Nehemiah 11:17 (the King James Version “Micha”), he is designated “the son of Zabdi,” and in Nehemiah 12:35, his name appears as “Micaiah (the King James Version “Michaiah”), the son of Zaccur.” (3) One of the signatories of the Covenant ( Nehemiah 10:11, the King James Version “Micha”). John A. Less MICAH (1) <mi’-ka > ( hk;ymi [mikhah], contracted from Why:k;ymi [mikhayahu], “who is like Yah?”; Codex Vaticanus, [ Meicai>av , Meichaias ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Mica> , Micha ]; sometimes in the King James Version spelled Michah): (1) The chief character of an episode given as an appendix to the Book of Judges (Judges 17; 18). Micah, a dweller in Matthew. Ephesiansraim, was the founder and owner of a small private sanctuary with accessories for worship (17:1-5), for which he hired as priest a Judean Levite (17:7-13).

    Five men sent in quest of new territory by the Danites, who had failed to secure a settlement upon their own tribal allotment, visited Micah’s shrine, and obtained from his priest an oracle favoring their quest ( Judges 18:1-6). They then went on until they reached the town of Laish in the extreme North, and deeming it suitable for the purpose, they returned to report to their fellow-tribesmen. These at once dispatched thither 600 armed men, accompanied by their families ( Judges 18:7-12). Passing Micah’s abode, they appropriated his idols and his priest, and when their owner pursued, he was insulted and threatened ( Judges 18:13-26). They took Laish, destroyed it with its inhabitants and rebuilt it under the name of Daniel. There they established the stolen images, and appointed Micah’s Levite, Jonathan, a grandson of Moses (the King James Version “Manasseh”), priest of the new sanctuary, which was long famous in Israel ( Judges 18:27-31).

    The purpose of the narrative is evidently to set forth the origin of the Danite shrine and priesthood. A few peculiarities in the story have led some critics — e.g., Moore, “Judges,” in ICC and “Judges” in SBOT; Budde, Richter — to regard it as composite. Wellhausen, however, considers that the peculiarities are editorial and have been introduced for the purpose of smoothing or explaining the ancient record. Most authorities are agreed that the story is nearly contemporary with the events which it narrates, and that it is of the highest value for the study of the history of Israelite worship. See also JUDGES; DANIEL; PRIESTHOOD. (2) A Reubenite, whose descendant Beerah was carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser ( 1 Chronicles 5:5). (3) A son of Merib-baal ( 1 Chronicles 8:34 f; 9:40 f). See MICA, (1). (4) A Kohathite Levite ( 1 Chronicles 23:20; 24:24 f). (5) The father of Abdon, one of Josiah’s messengers to the prophetess Huldah ( 2 Chronicles 34:20). In the parallel passage ( 2 Kings 22:12), the reading is “Achbor the son of Micaiah,” the King James Version “Michaiah.” (6) A Simeonite mentioned in the Book of Judith (Judith 6:15). (7) The prophet, called, in Jeremiah 26:18 (Hebrew), “Micaiah the Morashtite.” See special article. (8) The son of Imlah. See MICAIAH, (7).

    John A. Less MICAH (2) ( hk;ymi [mikhah]; [ Meicai>av , Meichaias ]; an abbreviation for Micaiah ( Jeremiah 26:18), and this again of the longer form of the word in Chronicles 17:7; compare 1 Kings 22:8):

    1. NAME AND PERSON:

    The name signifies “who is like Yah?”; compare Michael, equal to “who is like El?” (i.e. God). As this name occurs not infrequently, he is called the “Morashtite,” i.e. born in Moresheth. He calls his native city, in Micah 1:14, Moresheth-gath, because it was situated near the Philistine city of Gath. According to Jerome and Eusebius, this place was situated not far eastward from Eleutheropolis. The prophet is not to be confounded with Micah ben Imla, in 1 Kings 22:8, an older prophet of the Northern Kingdom.

    2. TIME OF MICAH:

    According to Jeremiah 26:18, Micah lived and prophesied in the reign of Hezekiah; according to Micah 1:1, he labored also under Jotham and Ahaz. This superscription has, it must be said, great similarity to Isaiah 1:1 and is probably of a later date. Yet the contents of his first discourse confirm the fact that he prophesied, not only before the destruction of Samaria, but also before the reformation of Hezekiah (compare Micah 1:5). Accordingly, Micah 1 is probably a discourse spoken already under Ahaz, and Micah 2 through 5 under Hezekiah. No mention is any longer made of Samaria in chapters 2 to 5. This city has already been destroyed; at any rate, is being besieged. Accordingly, these discourses were pronounced after the year 722 BC, but earlier than 701 BC, as the reformation of Hezekiah had not yet been entirely completed. It is impossible to date exactly these discourses, for this reason, that all the separate sentences and addresses were afterward united into one welledited collection, probably by Micah himself. The attacks that have been made by different critics on the authenticity of Micah 4 and 5 have but a poor foundation. It is a more difficult task to explain the dismal picture of the conditions of affairs as described in Micah 6 and 7 as originating in the reign of Hezekiah. For this reason, scholars have thought of ascribing them to the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz. But better reasons speak for placing them in the degenerate reign of Manasseh. There is no reason for claiming that Micah no longer prophesied in the times of this king. It is true that a number of critics declare that Micah did not write these chapters, especially the so-called psalm in 7:7-20, which, it is claimed, clearly presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem (7:11)! But it is a fact that Micah did really and distinctly predict this destruction and the exile that followed this event in 3:12; and accordingly he could in this concluding hymn very easily have looked even beyond this period.

    Micah is, then, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, and, like the latter, he prophesied in Judah, perhaps also in Jerusalem. To the writings of this great prophet his book bears a close resemblance both in form and in contents, although he did not, as was the case with Isaiah, come into personal contact with the kings and make his influence felt in political affairs.

    3. RELATION TO ISAIAH:

    The statement in Micah 4:1 ff is found almost literally in Isaiah 2:2 ff. Opinions differ as to who is to be credited with the original, Isaiah or Micah. In the latter, the passage seems to suit better into the connection, while in Isaiah 2 it begins the discourse abruptly, as though the prophet had taken it from some other source. However, Micah 4:4 f is certainly a sentence added by Micah, who, accordingly, was not the first to formulate the prophecy itself. It is possible that both prophets took it from some older prophet. But it is also conceivable that Isaiah is the author. In this case, he placed this sentence at the head of his briefer utterances when he composed his larger group of addresses in Micah 2 — 4, for the purpose of expressing the high purposes which God has in mind in His judgments.

    4. CONTENTS OF THE PROPHECIES:

    Micah combats in his discourses, as does Isaiah, the heathenish abuses which had found their way into the cult, not only in Samaria, but also in Judah and Jerusalem, and which the reformation of Hezekiah could counteract only in part and not at all permanently (compare Micah 1:5-7; 5:11-13; 6:7,16). Further, he rebukes them for the social injustice, of which particularly the powerful and the great in the land were guilty ( Micah 2:1 ff; 3:2 f.10 f); and the dishonesty and unfaithfulness in business and in conduct in general (compare Micah 6:10 ff; 7:2 ff). At all times Micah, in doing this, was compelled to defend himself against false prophets, who slighted these charges as of little importance, and threatened and antagonized the prophet in his announcements of impending evil (compare 2:5 ff,11 ff). In pronounced opposition to these babblers and their predictions of good things, Micah announces the judgment through the enemies that are approaching, and he even goes beyond Isaiah in the open declaration that Jerusalem and the temple are to be destroyed ( Micah 3:12; 4:10; 5:1). The first-mentioned passage is also confirmed by the event reported in Jeremiah 26:17 ff. The passage Micah 4:10, where in a surprising way Babylon is mentioned as the place of the exile, is for this reason regarded as unauthentic by the critics, but not justly. Micah predicts also the deliverance from Babylon and the reestablishment of Israel in Jerusalem, and declares that this is to take place through a King who shall come forth from the deepest humiliation of the house of David and shall be born in Bethlehem, and who, like David, originally a simple shepherd boy, shall later become the shepherd of the people, and shall make his people happy in peace and prosperity. Against this King the last great onslaught of the Gentiles will avail nothing (4:11-13; 5:4 ff). As a matter of course, he will purify the country of all heathen abuses (5:9 ff).

    In the description of this ruler, Micah again agrees with Isaiah, but without taking the details from that prophet.

    5. FORM OF THE PROPHECIES:

    The form of the prophecies of Micah, notwithstanding their close connection with those of his great contemporary, has nevertheless its unique features. There is a pronounced formal similarity between Micah 1:10 ff and Isaiah 10:28 ff. Still more than is the case in Isaiah, Micah makes use of the names of certain places. Witty references, which we can understand only in part, are not lacking in this connection; e.g. Lachish, the “city of horses,” is made the object of a play on words. (Recently in the ruins of this city a large wall has been unearthed.) The style of Micah is vigorous and vivid. He loved antitheses. It is a peculiarity of his style that he indulges in dramatic interruptions and answers; e.g. 2:5,12; 3:1; 6:6-8; 7:14 f. He also loves historical references; as e.g. 1:13,15; 5:5; 6:4 f,6,16; 7:20. He makes frequent use of the image of the shepherd, 2:12; 3:2 f; 4:6; 5:3 ff; 7:14. The fact that these peculiarities appear in all parts of his little book is an argument in favor of its being from one author. He is superior to Isaiah in his tendency to idyllic details, and especially in a deeper personal sympathy, which generally finds expression in an elegiac strain. His lyrical style readily takes the form of a prayer or of a psalm (compare Micah 7).

    LITERATURE.

    C. P. Caspari; Ueber Micha den Morasthiten, 1851; T.K. Cheyne, Micah with Notes and Introduction, 1882; V. Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber Textoeatalt und Echtheit des Buches Micha, 1887. See the commentaries on the 12 minor prophets by Hitzig, Ewald, C. F. Keil, P. Kleinert, W.

    Nowack, C. v. Orelli, K. Marti; Paul Haupt, The Book of Micah, 1910; Pusey, The Minor Prophets, 1860. C. von Orelli MICAIAH <mi-ka’-ya > , <mi-ki’-a > ( Why:k;ymi [mikhayahu], “who is like Yah?”; [ Meicai>av , Meichaias ]): A frequently occurring Old Testament name occasionally contracted to MICA or MICAH (which see). In the King James Version it is usually spelled “Michaiah.” (1) The mother of Abijah ( 2 Chronicles 13:2, the King James Version “Michaiah”). The parallel passage ( 1 Kings 15:2; compare Chronicles 11:20) indicates that Michaiah here is a corruption of MAACAH (which see) (so the Septuagint). (2) The father of Achbor ( 2 Kings 22:12, the King James Version “Michaiah”). See MICAH, (5). (3) A prince of Judah sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah ( 2 Chronicles 17:7, the King James Version “Michaiah”). (4) The son of Zaccur, a priestly processionist at the derivation of the wall ( Nehemiah 12:35, the King James Version, “Michaiah”). (5) A priestly processionist at the dedication of the wall ( Nehemiah 12:41; wanting in the Septuagint (Septuagint)). (6) The canonical prophet. See MICAH, (7), and special article. (7) The son of Imlah, the chief character of an important episode near the end of the reign of Ahab ( 1 Kings 22:4-28 parallel 2 Chronicles 18:3-27). In the Hebrew, his name appears once in the contracted form “Micah” ( 2 Chronicles 18:14). Ahab had suggested to his victor, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, that they should undertake a joint campaign against Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat politely acquiesced, but asked that the mind of Yahweh should first be ascertained. Ahab forthwith summoned the official prophets to the number of 400, into the royal presence. Obsequious to their master, they, both by oracular utterance and by the symbolic action of their leader, Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, gave the king a favorable answer. Their ready chorus of assent seems to have made Jehoshaphat suspicious, for he pleaded that further guidance be sought. Micaiah, for whom Ahab, then, with evident reluctance, sent, at first simply repeated the favorable response of the 400; but adjured by the king to speak the whole truth, he dropped his ironical tone, and in sad earnest described a vision of disaster. Ahab endeavored to lessen the effect of this oracle by pettishly complaining that Micaiah was always to him a prophet of evil. The latter thereupon related an impressive vision of the heavenly court, whence he had seen a lying spirit dispatched by Yahweh to the prophets in order to bring about Ahab’s delusion and downfall. In answer to a rude challenge from Zedekiah, who acted as spokesman for the 400, Micaiah confidently appealed to the issue for proof of the truth of his prediction, and was promptly commuted to prison by the king.

    The narrative is exceedingly vivid and of the utmost interest to students of Issraelite prophecy. Several of its details have given rise to discussion, and the questions: How far were the prophet’s visions objective? How far did he admit the inspiration of his opponents? Is the Divine action described consistent with the holy character of Yahweh? have occasioned difficulty to many. But their difficulty arises largely either because of their Christian viewpoint, or because of their hard and mechanical theory of prophetic inspiration. Micaiah’s position was a delicate one. Foreboding or foreseeing disaster, he did his best to avert it. This he could do only by weaning the king from the influence of the 400 time-serving prophets. He sought to gain his end; first, by an ironical acquiescence in their favorable answer; then, by a short oracle forecasting disaster especially to Ahab; and, these means having failed, by discrediting in the most solemn manner the courtly prophets opposed to him. Thus regarded, his vision contains no admission of their equal inspiration; rather is it an emphatic declaration that these men were uttering falsehood in Yahweh’s name, thereby endangering their country’s safety and their king’s life. Their obsequious time-service made them fit forerunners of the false prophets denounced by Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 23:9-40) and by Ezekiel (Ezek 13:1-15). The frank anthropomorphism of the vision need be no stumbling-block if allowed to drop into its proper place as the literary device of a prophet intensely conscious of his own inspiration and as whole-heartedly patriotic as those opposed to him.

    The record ends very abruptly, giving no account of Micaiah’s vindication when at length the course of events brought about the fulfillment of his prediction. The closing words, “Hear, ye peoples, all of you” ( 1 Kings 22:28 parallel 2 Chronicles 18:27), a quotation of Micah 1:2, are an evident interpolation by some late scribe who confused the son of Imlah with the contemporary of Isaiah.

    For fuller treatment see EB, HDB, and commentaries on Kings and Chronicles. John A. Lees MICE <mis > . See MOUSE.

    MICHA; MICHAH <mi’-ka > , <mi’-ka > . See MICA; MICAH.

    MICHAEL <mi’-ka-el > , <mi’-kel > ( laek;ym; [mikha’el], “who is like God?” [ Micah>l , Michael ]): (1) The father of Sethur the Asherite spy ( Numbers 13:13). (2) (3) Two Gadites ( 1 Chronicles 5:13,14). (4) A name in the genealogy of Asaph ( 1 Chronicles 6:40 (Hebrew 25)). (5) A son of Izrahiah of Issachar ( 1 Chronicles 7:3). (6) A Benjamite ( 1 Chronicles 8:16). (7) A Manassite who ceded to David at Ziklag ( 1 Chronicles 12:20). (8) The father of Omri of Issachar ( 1 Chronicles 27:18). (9) A son of King Jehoshaphat ( 2 Chronicles 21:2). (10) The father of Zebediah, an exile who returned with Ezra ( Ezra 8:8 parallel 1 Esdras 8:34). (11) “The archangel” ( Jude 1:9).

    Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel.

    He is “one of the chief princes” ( Daniel 10:13), the “prince” of Israel ( Daniel 10:21), “the great prince” ( Daniel 12:1); perhaps also “the prince of the host” ( Daniel 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the “four presences that stand before God” — Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Revelation 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is “the merciful and long-suffering” (En 40:9; 68:2,3), “the mediator and intercessor” (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi 5; Daniel 6). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses’ body ( Jude 1:9).

    This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles’ edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against “the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan” ( Revelation 12:7 ff).

    According to Charles, the supplanting of the “child” by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.

    The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Revelation 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn’s BD). John A. Lees MICHAH <mi’-ka > . See MICAH.

    MICHAIAH <mi-ka’-ya > , <mi-ki’-a > . See MICAIAH.

    MICHAL <mi’-kal > ( laek;ymi [mikhal], contracted from laek;ymi [mikha’el], “Michael” (which see); [ Melco>l , Melchol ]): Saul’s younger daughter ( 1 Samuel 14:49), who, falling in love with David after his victory over Goliath ( 1 Samuel 18:20), was at last, on the payment of double the dowry asked, married to him ( 1 Samuel 18:27). Her love was soon put to the test. When Saul in his jealousy sent for David, she was quick to discern her husband’s danger, connived at his escape, and not only outwitted and delayed the messengers, but afterward also soothed her father’s jealous wrath ( 1 Samuel 19:11-17). When David was outlawed and exiled, she was married to Palti or Paltiel, the son of Laish of Gallim ( 1 Samuel 25:44), but was, despite Palti’s sorrowful protest, forcibly restored to David on his return as king ( 2 Samuel 3:14-16). The next scene in which she figures indicates that her love had cooled and had even turned to disdain, for after David’s enthusiastic joy and ecstatic dancing before the newly restored Ark of the Covenant, she received him with bitter and scornful mockery ( 2 Samuel 6:20), and the record closes with the fact that she remained all her life childless ( 2 Samuel 6:23; compare 2 Samuel 21:8 where Michal is an obvious mistake for Merab). Michal was evidently a woman of unusual strength of mind and decision of character. She manifested her love in an age when it was almost an unheard-of thing for a woman to take the initiative in such a matter. For the sake of the man whom she loved too she braved her father’s wrath and risked her own life. Even her later mockery of David affords proof of her courage, and almost suggests the inference that she had resented being treated as a chattel and thrown from one husband to another. The modern reader can scarce withhold from her, if not admiration, at least a slight tribute of sympathy. John A. Lees MICHEAS; MICHAEAS <mi-ke’-as > : In 2 Esdras 1:39 = the prophet Micah.

    MICHMAS <mik’-mas > ( sm;k]mi [mikhmac]; Codex Vaticanus [ Macma>v , Machmas ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Camma>v , Chammas ]): The form of the name “Michmash” found in Ezra 2:27; Nehemiah 7:31. In 1 Esdras 5:21 it appears as MACALON (which see).

    MICHMASH <mik’-mash > ( vm;k]mi [mikhmash]; [ Macma>v , Machmas ]): A town in the territory of Benjamin, apparently not of sufficient importance to secure mention in the list of cities given in Josh 18:21 ff. It first appears as occupied by Saul with 2,000 men, when Jonathan, advancing from Gibeah, smote the Philistine garrison in Geba ( 1 Samuel 13:2). To avenge this injury, the Philistines came up in force and pitched in Michmash ( Samuel 13:5). Saul and Jonathan with 600 men held Geba, which had been taken from the Philistine garrison ( 1 Samuel 13:16). It will assist in making clear the narrative if, at this point, the natural features of the place are described.

    Michmash is represented by the modern Mukhmas, about 7 miles North of Jerusalem. From the main road which runs close to the watershed, a valley sloping eastward sinks swiftly into the great gorge of Wady es-Suweinit.

    The village of Mukhmas stands to the North of the gorge, about 4 miles East of the carriage road. The ancient path from Ai southward passes to the West of the village, goes down into the valley by a steep and difficult track, and crosses the gorge by the pass, a narrow defile, with lofty, precipitous crags on either side — the only place where a crossing is practicable. To the South of the gorge is Geba, which had been occupied by the Philistines, doubtless to command the pass. Their camp was probably pitched in a position East of Mukhmas, where the ground slopes gradually northward from the edge of the gorge. The place is described by Josephus as “upon a precipice with three peaks, ending in a small, but sharp and long extremity, while there was a rock that surrounded them like bulwarks to prevent the attack of the enemy” (Ant., VI, vi, 2). Conder confirms this description, speaking of it as “a high hill bounded by the precipices of Wady es-Suweinit on the South, rising in three flat but narrow mounds, and communicating with the hill of Mukhmas, which is much lower, by a long and narrow ridge.” The Philistines purposed to guard the pass against approach from the South. On the other hand they were not eager to risk an encounter with the badly armed Israelites in a position where superior numbers would be of little advantage. It was while the armies lay thus facing each other across the gorge that Jonathan and his armor-bearer performed their intrepid feat ( 1 Samuel 14:1 ff). See BOZEZ; SENEH.

    It will be noted that the Philistines brought their chariots to Michmash ( 1 Samuel 13:5). In his ideal picture of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem, Isaiah makes the invader lay up his baggage at Michmash so that he might go lightly through the pass ( 1 Samuel 10:28). A company of the men of Michmash (see MICHMAS) returned with Zerubbabel from exile ( Ezra 2:27; Nehemiah 7:31). Michmash produced excellent barley. According to the Mishna, “to bring barley to Michmash” was equivalent to our English “to carry coal to Newcastle.” Michmash was the seat of government under Jonathan Maccabeus (1 Macc 9:73).

    The modern village is stone-built. There are rock-cut tombs to the North.

    Cisterns supply the water. There are foundations of old buildings, large stones, and a vaulted cistern. W. Ewing MICHMETHAH <mik’-me-tha > ( ht;m]k]Mih” [ha-mikhmethah]; Codex Vaticanus [ °Ikasmw>n , Hikasmon ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Macqw>q , Machthoth ]): A place named in defining the territory of Ephesiansraim and Manasseh (Josh 16:6; 17:7). It is said to lie “before,” i.e. to the East of Shechem. In the name itself, the meaning of which is obscure, there is nothing to guide us.

    The presence of the article, however (“the Michmethah”), suggests that it may not be a proper name, but an appellative, applying to some feature of the landscape. Condor suggests the plain of Makhneh, which lies to the East of Nablus (Shechem), in which there may possibly be an echo of the ancient name.

    MICHRI <mik’-ri > ( yrIk]mi [mikhri]): A Benjamite dweller in Jerusalem ( Chronicles 9:8).

    MICHTAM <mik’-tam > . See PSALMS.

    MIDDAY <mid’-da > ( µwOYh” tyxij\m” [machatsith ha-yom], µyIr’h’x; [tsohorayim]; [hJme>ra me>sh , hemera mese ]): The Hebrew [machatsith hayom] ( Nehemiah 8:3) and the Greek [hemeras meses ] ( Acts 26:13) are strictly the middle of the day, but the Hebrew [tshorayim] is a dual form from [tsohar], meaning “light,” hence, light or brightness, i.e. the brightest part of the day ( 1 Kings 18:29). See NOON.

    MIDDIN <mid’-in > ( ˆyDImi [middin]; in GB, [ Aijnw>n , Ainon ], “springs”): One of the six cities in the wilderness of Judah (Josh 15:61). There are not many possible sites. The Hebrew name may possibly survive in Khirbet Mird, a very conspicuous site with many ancient cisterns overlooking the plateau el Bukea`, above which it towers to a height of 1,000 ft.; it is the Mons Mardes of early Christian pilgrims; the existing remains are Byzantine. It is a site of great natural strength and was clearly once a place of some importance. The Greek reading [Ainon ], “place of springs,” suggests the neighborhood of the extensive oasis of `Ain Feshkhah at the northwest corner of the Dead Sea where there are at Kh. Kumram remains of buildings and a rock-cut aqueduct. See PEF, III, 210, 212, Sh XVIII. E. W. G. Masterman MIDDLE WALL See PARTITION.

    MIDIAN; MIDIANITES <mid’-i-an > , <mid’-i-an-its > ( ˆy:d”mi [midhyan], µynIy:d”mi [midhyanim]; [ Madia>m , Madiam ], [ Madihnai~oi , Madienaioi ]):

    1. THE SEED OF ABRAHAM TO THE TIME OF THE JUDGES:

    Midian was a son of Abraham by his concubine Keturah. To him were born 5 sons, Ephesiansah, Ephesianser, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah ( Genesis 25:2,4; 1 Chronicles 1:32 f). Bearing gifts from Abraham, he and his brothers, each with his own household, moved off from Isaac into “the east country” ( Genesis 25:6). The first recorded incident in the history of the tribe is a defeat suffered “in the field of Moab” at the hands of Hadad, king of Edom. Of this nothing beyond the fact is known ( Genesis 36:35; 1 Chronicles 1:46). The Midianites next appear as merchantmen traveling from Gilead to Egypt, with “spicery and balm and myrrh,” with no prejudice against a turn of slave-dealing ( Genesis 37:25 ff). Moses, on fleeing from Egypt, found refuge in the land of Midian, and became son-in-law of Jethro, the priest of Midian ( Exodus 2:15,21). In Midian Moses received his commission to Israel in Egypt ( Exodus 4:19). A Midianite, familiar with the desert, acted as guide (“instead of eyes”) to the children of Israel in their wilderness wanderings ( Numbers 10:29 ff). The friendly relations between Israel and Midian, which seem to have prevailed at first, had been ruptured, and we find the elders of Midian acting with those of Moab in calling Balaam to curse Israel ( Numbers 22:4-7). Because of the grievous sin into which they had seduced Israel on the shrewd advice of Balaam, a war of vengeance was made against the Midianites in which five of their chiefs perished; the males were ruthlessly slain, and Balaam also was put to death ( Numbers 25:15,17; 31:2 ff).

    We next hear of Midian as oppressing Israel for 7 years. Along with the Amalekites and the children of the East they swarmed across the Jordan, and their multitudinous beasts swept up the produce of the earth.

    Overwhelming disaster befell this horde at the onset of Gideon’s chosen men. In the battle and pursuit “there fell a hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword”; their kings, Zebah and Zalmunna, and their princes, Oreb and Zeeb, sharing the common fate (Judges 6 — 8). Echoes of this glorious victory — “the day of Midian” — are heard in later literature ( Psalm 83:9; Isaiah 9:4; 10:26; Habakkuk 3:7).

    2. THE KENITE BRANCH:

    The Kenites appear to have been a branch of the Midianites. Jethro could hardly have attained the dignity of the priesthood in Midian had he been of alien blood ( Judges 1:16). See KENITES. Again, the tribesmen are named indifferently Ishmaelites and Midianites ( Genesis 37:25,28,36; Judges 8:22,24). They must therefore have stood in close relations with the descendants of Hagar’s son.

    3. MODERN ARABS:

    The representations of Midian in Scripture are consistent with what we know of the immemorial ways of Arabian tribes, now engaged in pastoral pursuits, again as carriers of merchandise, and yet again as freebooters.

    Such tribes often roam through wide circles. They appear not to have practiced circumcision ( Exodus 4:25), which is now practically universal among the Arabs. The men wore golden ornaments, as do the modern nomads ( Judges 8:24 ff).

    4. HISTORICAL REFERENCES:

    The name of “Midian” is not found in Egyptian or Assyrian documents.

    Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies? 304) suggests that Ephesiansah ( Genesis 25:4) may be identical with Chayapa of the cuneiform inscriptions. If this is correct the references point to the existence of this Midianite tribe in the North of el-Chijaz in the times of Tiglath-pileser and Sargon (745-705 BC). Isaiah speaks of Midian and Ephesiansah apparently as separate tribes, whose dromedaries bear gold and frankincense to Zion (60:6); but he gives no hint of the districts they occupied. The tribe of Ghifar, found in the neighborhood of Medina in Mohammed’s day, Knobel would identify with Ephesianser, another of Midian’s sons.

    5. TERRITORY:

    No boundaries can now be assigned to “the land of Midian.” It included territory on the West as well as on the East of the Gulf of `Aqaba ( Exodus 4:19). It lay between Edom and Paran ( 1 Kings 11:18). In the time of the Judges their district seems to have extended northward to the East of Gilead (8:10).

    A trace of the ancient name is found in that of Madyah, a place mentioned by the Arabic geographers, with a plentiful supply of water, now called Maghair Sho`aib. It lies East of the Gulf of `Aqaba, some miles from the coast, almost opposite the point of the Sinaitic peninsula. The name Sho`aib, given by Mohammed to Jethro, may here be due to ancient Midianite tradition. W. Ewing MIDIANITISH, WOMAN <mid’-i-an-it-ish > , ( tynIy:d”Mih” [ha-midhyanith], “the Midianitess”):

    The designation given to the daughter of Zur, Cozbi, whom Zimri the son of Salu brought into the camp of Israel ( Numbers 25:6-18). Both were of noble parentage ( Numbers 25:14,15). The majority of the people strongly resented this act of profanation ( Numbers 25:6). A pestilence was raging in the camp, and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, in an outburst of zeal pursued the two delinquents and slew them by a spear-thrust through their bodies ( Numbers 25:8). He obtained as a reward the immediate staying of the plague and the promise of perpetual priesthood to his family ( Numbers 25:8,13). John A. Lees MIDNIGHT <mid’-nit > ( hl;y”l” twOxj\ [chatsoth laylah], “middle of the night” ( Exodus 11:4; Job 34:20; <19B962> Psalm 119:62), hl;y”L”h” yxij\ [chatsi ha-laylah], “the half of the night” ( Exodus 12:29; Judges 16:3; Ruth 3:8), hl;y”L”h” °]wOT [tokh ha-laylah], “the division of the night” and hence, the middle point ( 1 Kings 3:20); [me>shv nukto>v , meses nuktos ] ( Matthew 25:6), or [me>son th~v nukto>v , meson tes nuktos ], “the middle of the night” ( Acts 27:27), [mesonu>ktiov , mesonuktios ], “midnight”; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, [mesonuktion ] ( Acts 16:25, etc.)): In the period before the exile midnight does not seem to have been very accurately determined. The division of the night was into three watches, the middle one of which included midnight. In New Testament times the four-watch division was used where midnight must have been more or less accurately determined. See TIME; WATCH.

    H. Porter MIDRASH <mid’-rash > ( vr:d”m; [midhrash]): The Hebrew word corresponding to the King James Version “story” and the Revised Version (British and American) “commentary” in 2 Chronicles 13:22; 24:

    27. A midrash is properly a story developed for purposes of edification. See COMMENTARY.

    MIDWIFE <mid’-wif > ( tdGenesis 35:17; 38:28; Exodus 1:15-22. Such attendants were probably then ( 1 Samuel 4:20), as they usually are now, the older female relatives and friends of the mother. The duties which they had to perform are enumerated in Ezek 16:4: division of the cord, washing the infant in water, salting with salt and swathing in swaddling clothes. During the Egyptian bondage there were two midwives who attended the Hebrew women; from their names, they were probably Hebrews, certainly they were not Egyptians. From this passage it appears that they used a certain double-round form of birthstool called [’obhnayim], concerning which there are several rabbinical comments. It probably was like the kuru elwiladeh, or “birth-seat,” still used by the Egyptian fellahin. I have not found any record of its use among the Palestinian fellahin. There is a curious passage in the Talmud (Cotah b) in which it is said that the two midwives had different duties, Shiphrah being the one who dressed the infant, Puah, the one who whispered to it.

    One Jewish commentator on this supposes that Puah used artificial respiration by blowing into the child’s mouth. The midwives must have had considerable skill, as a case like that of Tamar required some amount of operative manipulation.

    The English word means originally the woman who is “with the mother” (compare “the women that stood by,” in 1 Samuel 4:20), but very early became applied to those who gave skilled assistance, as in Raynold’s Birth of Mankind, 1565. Alexander Macalister MIGDAL-EDER <mig-dal-e-der > . See EDER.

    MIGDAL-EL <mig’-dal-el > ( laeAlD’g]mi [mighdal-’el]; Codex Vaticanus [ Megalaarei>m , Megalaareim ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Magdalihwra>m , Magdalieoraim ]): The name, which means “tower of God,” occurs between Iron and Horem in the list of the fenced cities of Naphtali (Josh 19:38). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 9 miles from Dora (Tanturah), on the way to Ptolemais, which points to Athlit. But this is far from the territory of Naphtali. It is probably to be identified with either Khirbet Mejdel, 3 miles North of Qedes, or Mejdel Islim, 5 miles farther to the Northwest.

    MIGDAL-GAD <mig’-dal-gad > ( dG”AlD’g”mi [mighdalgadh], “tower of Gad”): One of a group of 16 cities of Judah situated in the “lowland” (Josh 15:37). Of these, only Lachish, Eglon, Beth-dagon and Naamah have been identified with any certainty. This would indicate a site in the Philistine plain, and the modern flourishing town of Mejdel, 2 1/2 miles Northeast of Ashkelon, appears to be a possible identification. It is the most important town in the district which is named after it Nahiet el-Mejdel. It must, however, be admitted that it is difficult to see how Judah could have held a site so close to the great Philistine strongholds. It is very probable that Mejdel (“tower”) is the tower mentioned in Josephus, BJ, III, ii, 3, as close to Ashkelon, and it or Migdalgad (or both if they are the same sites) may be identical with the Magtal of the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Petrie, Hist. Egypt, II, 329). For Mejdel see Palestine Exploration Fund, II, 410, Sh XVI. E. W. G. Masterman MIGDOL <mig’-dol > , <mig’-dol > ( lwODg”mi [mighdol]; [ Magdw>lon , Magdolon ]):

    This name (“the tower”) is applied to two places on the east frontier of Egypt.

    1. EXODUS 14:2; NUMBERS 33:7:

    In Exodus 14:2; Numbers 33:7, the Hebrew camp, on the march from Etham after they had “turned” (apparently to the South), is defined as `facing Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon.’

    It is thus to be sought (see EXODUS) West of the Bitter Lakes, and may have been a watchtower on the spur of Jebel ‘Ataqah. Israel was supposed to be “entangled in the land,” and shut in in the “wilderness,” between this range and the Bitter Lakes, then forming the head of the Red Sea. The exact site is unknown. In about 385 AD, Silvia, traveling from Clysma (Suez), was shown the sites above mentioned on her way to Heroopolis, but none of these names now survive. 2. <244401> JEREMIAH 44:1; 46:14:

    In Jeremiah 44:1; 46:14, a Migdol is noticed with Memphis, and with Tahpanhes Septuagint “Taphnas”), this latter being supposed to be the Daphnai of Greek writers, now Tell Defeneh, West of Qantarah. The same place is probably intended in Ezek 29:10; 30:6 (compare 30:15-18), the borders of Egypt being defined as reaching “from Migdol to Syene” (see the Revised Version margin), as understood by the Septuagint translators.

    The Antonine Itinerary places Migdol 12 miles South of Pelusium, and the site appears to have been at or near Tell es Samut, the Egyptian name, according to Brugsch (Hist, II, 351), being Samut. This Migdol was thus apparently a “watchtower” on the main road along the coast from Palestine, which is called ( Exodus 13:17) “the way of the land of the Philistines,” entering Egypt near Daphnai.

    These Sites Not Identical.

    We are specially told that this was not the route taken at the exodus, and this Migdol cannot therefore be the same as (1) , though Brugsch, in consequence of a theory as to the exodus which has not been accepted by other scholars, has confused the two sites, as apparently does the Antonine Itinerary when placing Pithom on the same route leading to Zoan. Brugsch (Geography, III, 19) supposes the Egyptian town name Pa-Ma’kal (with the determinative for “wall” added) to stand for Migdol, but the prefix “Pa- ” (“city”) seems to show that this word is purely native, and not Semitic, to say nothing of philological objections. This town may, however, have lain in the required direction, according to a scribe’s report of the time of Seti II (or about 1230 BC).

    As much confusion has been created by quoting this report as illustrative of the exodus, the actual words according to Brugsch’s translation may be given (History, II, 132): “I set out from the hall of the royal palace on the 9th day of Epiphi, in the evening, after the two servants. I arrived at the fortress Thuku (T-k-u) on the 10th of Epiphi. I was informed that the men had resolved to take their way toward the South. On the 12th I reached Khetam. There I was informed that grooms who had come from the neighborhood (of the “sedge city”) reported that the fugitives had already passed the rampart (Anbu or “wall”), to the North of the Ma’ktal of King Seti Minepthah.” As to the position of this “wall,” see SHUR. C. R. Conder MICRON <mig’-ron > ( ˆwOrg”mi [mighron]; [ Magw>n , Magon ]): (1) A place in the uttermost part of Geba — which read here instead of Gibeah — marked by a pomegranate tree, where Saul and his 600 men encamped over against the Philistines, who were in Michmash ( Samuel 14:2). Josephus describes the distress of Saul and his company as they sat on a high hill ([bounos hupselos ]) viewing the widespread desolation wrought by the enemy. There is, however, nothing to guide us as to the exact spot. Many suppose that the text is corrupt; but no emendation suggested yields any satisfactory result. The place was certainly South of Michmash. (2) (Codex Vaticanus [ Magedw> , Magedo ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Mageddw> , Mageddo ]): The Migron of Isaiah 10:28 is mentioned between Aiath (Ai) and Michmash. If the places are there named in consecutive order, this Migron must be sought to the North of Michmash.

    It may with some confidence be located at Makrun, a ruined site to the North of the road leading from Michmash to Ai.

    There is nothing extraordinary in two places having the same name pretty close to each other. The two Beth-horons, although distinguished as upper and lower, are a case in point. So also are the two Bethsaidas. There is therefore no need to try to identify the two with one another, as some (e.g.

    Robertson Smith in Journal of Philology, XIII, 62 ff) have attempted to do with no success. W. Ewing MIJAMIN <mij’-a-min > ( ˆymiY:mi [miyamin]; the King James Version Miamin): (1) One of those who had married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:25). He is also called Maelus (1 Esdras 9:26). (2) The one to whom fell the lot for the 6th priestly course ( Chronicles 24:9). His family returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua ( Nehemiah 12:5). (3) A signatory of the Covenant ( Nehemiah 10:7).

    MIKLOTH <mik’-loth > , <mik’-loth > ( twOlq]mi [miqloth]): (1) A Benjamite, son of Jeiel ( 1 Chronicles 8:32; 9:37,38). A comparison of the two passages shows that the name Mikloth has been dropped at the end of 1 Chronicles 8:31. (2) An officer designated “the ruler,” appointed in the priestly course for the 2nd month ( 1 Chronicles 27:4).

    MIKNEIAH <mik-ne’-ya > , <mik-ni’-a > ( Why:neq]mi [miqneydhu]): A Levite doorkeeper ( 1 Chronicles 15:18).

    MILALAI <mil-a-la’-i > , <mil’-a-li > ( yl”l\mi [milalay]): A Levite musician ( Nehemiah 12:36).

    MILCAH <mil’-ka > ( hK;l]mi [milkah]; [ Melca> , Melcha ]): (1) Daughter of Haran, wife of Nahor, and grandmother of Rebekah ( Genesis 11:29; 22:20-23; 24:15,24,47). (2) Daughter of Zelophehad ( Numbers 26:33; 27:1; 36:11; Josh 17:3).

    Many recent authorities are of opinion that Milcah is an abbreviation of Bethmilcah, and is a geographical rather than a personal name.

    MILCOM <mil’-kom > , <mil’-kom > . See MOLECH.

    MILDEW <mil’-du > ( ˆwOqr:ye [yeraqon]; Septuagint usually [i]kterov , ikteros ], literally, “jaundice”): In the 5 passages where it occurs it is associated with [shiddaphon], “blasting” (Dt 28:22; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Am 4:9; Hag 2:17). In Jeremiah 30:6, the same word is translated “paleness,” the yellow color of one with abdominal disease. The rootmeaning is “greenish yellow”; compare the Arabic yarqan, meaning both “jaundice” and “blight.” Mildrew or “rust” in grain is due to a special fungus, Puccinia graminis, whose life is divided between the barberry and cereals. Many other varieties of fungi which flourish upon other plants are also designated “mildew.” See BLASTING.

    E. W. G. Masterman MILE <mil > ([mi>lion , milion ], Latin mille passus, milia passuum): A thousand paces, equal to 1,618 English yards. ( Matthew 5:41). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

    MILETUS <mi-le’-tus > ([ Mi>lhtov , Miletos ]): A famous early Ionian Greek city on the coast of Caria, near the mouth of the Meander River, which, according to Acts 20:15 — 21:1, and 2 Timothy 4:20 (the King James Version “Miletum”), Paul twice visited. In the earliest times it was a prominent trading post, and it is said that 75 colonies were founded by its merchants.

    Among them were Abydos, Cyzicus and Sinope. In 494 BC, the city was taken by the Persians; it was recovered by Alexander the Great, but after his time it rapidly declined, yet it continued to exist until long after the Christian era. In the history of early Christianity it plays but a little part.

    The Meander brings down a considerable amount of sediment which it has deposited at its mouth, naturally altering the coast line. The gulf into which the river flows has thus been nearly filled with the deposit. In the ancient gulf stood a little island called Lade; the island now appears as a mound in the marshy malarial plain, and Palatia, the modern village which stands on the site of Miletus, is 6 miles from the coast. Without taking into account the great changes in the coast line it would be difficult to understand Acts 20:15-21, for in the days of Paul, Ephesiansesus could be reached from Miletus by land only by making a long detour about the head of the gulf. To go directly from one of these cities to the other, one would have been obliged to cross the gulf by boat and then continue by land. This is what Paul’s messenger probably did. The direct journey may now be made by land. Miletus has been so ruined that its plan can no longer be made out.

    Practically the only remaining object of unusual interest is theater, the largest in Asia Minor, which was not built in a hollow of the hillside, as most ancient theaters were, but in the open field. E. J. Banks MILK <milk > ( bl;j; [chalabh]; [ga>la , gala ]; Latin lac (2 Esdras 2:19; 8:10)):

    The fluid secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals for the nourishment of their young. The word is used in the Bible of that of human beings ( Isaiah 28:9) as well as of that of the lower animals ( Exodus 23:19). As a food it ranked next in importance to bread (Ecclesiasticus 39:26). Palestine is frequently described as a land “flowing with milk and honey” ( Exodus 3:8,17; Numbers 13:27; Dt 6:3; Josh 5:6; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezek 20:6,15). Milk was among the first things set before the weary traveler ( Genesis 18:8). In fact, it was considered a luxury ( Judges 5:25; Song of Solomon 5:1). The people used the milk of kine and also that of sheep (Dt 32:14), and especially that of goats ( Proverbs 27:27). It was received in pails ([’atinim], Job 21:24), and kept in leather bottles ([no’dh], Judges 4:19), where it turned sour quickly in the warm climate of Palestine before being poured out thickly like a melting substance ([nathakh]; compare Job 10:10). Cheese of various kinds was made from it ([gebhinah] and [charitse he-chalabh], literally, “cuts of milk”); or the curds ([chem’ah]) were eaten with bread, and possibly also made into butter by churning ( Proverbs 30:33). See FOOD, II. It is possible that milk was used for seething other substances; at least the Israelites were strictly forbidden to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk ( Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21), and by a very general interpretation of these passages Jews have come to abstain from the use of mixtures of meat and milk of all kinds.

    Figuratively the word is used (1) of abundance ( Genesis 49:12); (2) of a loved one’s charms ( Song of Solomon 4:11); (3) of blessings ( Isaiah 55:1; Joel 3:18); (4) of the (spiritual) food of immature people ( 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12,13); (5) of purity ( 1 Peter 2:2). Nathan Isaacs MILL; MILLSTONE <mil > , <mil’-ston > ( hj,re [recheh]; [mu>lov , mulos ], [mulw>n , mulon ]):

    The two most primitive methods of grinding grain were (1) by pounding it in a mortar, and (2) by rubbing it between two stones.

    In Numbers 11:8 both methods are mentioned as used for rendering the manna more fit for cooking. Numerous examples of both mill and mortar have been found in ancient excavations. Bliss and Macalister in their excavations at Gezer and other places have found specimens of what is called the saddle-quern or mill, which consists of two stones. The “nether” stone, always made of hard lava or basalt from the district of the Hauran, was a large heavy slab varying in length from 1 1/2 ft. to 2 3/4 ft., and in width from 10 inches to 1 1/3 ft. Its upper surface was hollowed out slightly, which made it look a little like a saddle and may have suggested the name of “riding millstone” applied by the Hebrews to the upper stone which rested on it ( Judges 9:53). The “upper stone” or “rider” was much smaller, 4 inches to 8 in. long and 2 3/4 inches to 6 inches wide, and of varying shapes. This could be seized with the two hands and rubbed back and forth over the nether stone much the same as clothes are scrubbed on a wash-board. Such a stone could be used as a weapon ( Judges 9:53; 2 Samuel 11:21), or given as a pledge (Dt 24:6).

    Macalister goes so far as to say that “the rotary handquern in the form used in modern Palestine and in remote European regions, such as the Hebrides, is quite unknown throughout the whole history, even down to the time of Christ” (Excavations at Gezer). The same writer, however, describes some mills belonging to the 3rd and 4th Sere periods which are much like the present rotary quern, except smaller (4 inches to 6 inches in diameter), and with no provision for a turning handle. Schumacher describes these as paint grinders. The only perforated upper millstones found in the excavations at Gezer belong to the early Arabic period.

    If the above assertions are substantiated then we must alter somewhat the familiar picture of the two women at the mill ( Matthew 24:41), commonly illustrated by photographs of the mills still used in modern Palestine These latter consist of two stone discs each 18 inches to inches in diameter, usually made of Hauran basalt. The upper one is perforated in the center to allow it to rotate on a wooden peg fixed in the nether stone, and near the circumference of the upper stone is fixed a wooden handle for turning it. The grain to be ground is fed into the central hole on the upper stone and gradually works down between the stones. As the grain is reduced to flour, it flies out from between the stones on to a cloth or skin placed underneath the mill. To make the flour fine it is reground and sifted. Larger stones 4 ft. to 5 ft. in diameter, working on the principle of the handmill, are still used for grinding sesame seed. These are turned by asses or mules. Another form of mill, which is possibly referred to in Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Revelation 18:21,22, consisted of a conical nether stone on which “rode” a second stone like a hollowedout capstan. The upper stone was probably turned with handspikes in much the same way as an old-fashioned ship’s capstan was turned. The material to be ground was fed into the upper cone which formed the hopper and from which it was delivered to the grinding surfaces between the “rider” and the nether stone. This form of mill must have been known in late Biblical times, because many examples of the upper stone dating from the Greek-Roman period have been found. One may be seen in the museum of the Syrian Protestant College at Beirut. Another large one lies among the ruins at Petra, etc. In Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42, the mill is described as a [mu>lov ojniko>v , mulos onikos ], literally, a mill turned by an ass, hence, a great millstone. It is not at all unlikely that the writers have confused the meaning of [o]nov , onos ] ( rmoj; [chamor]), a term commonly applied to the upper millstone of a handmill, thinking it referred instead to the animal which turned the mill. This explanation would make Christ’s words of condemnation more applicable. The upper millstone of a handmill would be more than sufficient to sink the condemned, and the punishment would be more easily carried out. A few years from now handmills will have disappeared from the Syrian households, for the more modern gristmills turned by water or other motor power are rapidly replacing them. See CRAFTS, II, 8.

    Figuratively: (1) Of firmness and undaunted courage ( Job 41:24). “The heart of hot-blooded animals is liable to sudden contractions and expansions, producing rapid alternations of sensations; not so the heart of the great saurians” (Canon Cook, at the place). (2) To “grind the face of the poor” ( Isaiah 3:15) is cruelly to oppress and afflict them. (3) The ceasing of the sound of the millstone was a sign of desolation ( Jeremiah 25:10; Revelation 18:22). James A. Patch MILLENNIUM, POSTMILLENNIAL VIEW See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    MILLENNIUM, PREMILLENNIAL VIEW <mi-len’-i-um > DIVERGENT VIEWS — SCOPE OF ARTICLE:

    The great majority of evangelical Christians believe that the kingdom of God shall have universal sway over the earth, and that righteousness and peace and the knowledge of the Lord shall everywhere prevail. This happy time is commonly called the Millennium, or the thousand years’ reign.

    Divergent views are entertained as to how it is to be brought about. Many honest and faithful men hold that it will be introduced by the agencies now at work, mainly by the preaching of the gospel of Christ and the extension of the church over the world. An increasing number of men equally honest teach that the Millennium will be established by the visible advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. The aim of this brief article is to set forth some of the Scriptural grounds on which this latter view rests. No reference will be made to objections, to counter-objections and interpretations; the single point, namely, that the Millennium succeeds the second coming of Jesus Christ, that it does not precede it, will be rigidly adhered to. Those who hold this view believe that neither Christ nor His apostles taught, on fair principles of interpretation, that the Millennium must come before His advent.

    1. THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

    The Lord Jesus said nothing about world-wide conversion in His instructions to His disciples touching their mission ( Matthew 28:19,20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:8). The Millennium Not before the Advent: They were to be His witnesses and carry His message to the race, but He does not promise the race will receive their testimony, or that men will generally accept His salvation. On the contrary, He explicitly forewarns them that they shall be hated of all men, that sufferings and persecutions shall be their lot, but if they are faithful to the end their reward will be glorious. But world-wide evangelism does not mean world-wide conversion. The universal offer of salvation does not pledge its universal acceptance. In His instructions and predictions the Lord does not let fall a hint that their world-wide mission will result in world-wide conversion, or that thereby the longed-for Millennium will be ushered in. But there is a time to come when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters the sea, when teaching shall no longer be needed, for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest. Our dispensation, accordingly, cannot be the last, for the effects stated in that are not contemplated in the instructions and the results of this. To the direct revelation of Christ on the subject we now turn. In two parables He explicitly announces the general character and the consummation of the gospel age, and these we are briefly to examine. (1) Parable of the Wheat and Tares ( Matthew 13:24-30,36-43).

    Happily we are not left to discover the meaning and scope of this parable.

    We enjoy the immense advantage of having our Lord’s own interpretation of it. Out of His Divine explanation certain most important facts emerge: (a) The parable covers the whole period between the first and second advents of the Saviour. The Sower is Christ Himself. He began the good work; He opened the new era. (b) The field is the world. Christ’s work is no longer confined to a single nation or people as once; it contemplates the entire race. (c) His people, the redeemed, begotten by His word and Spirit, are the good seed. Through them the gospel of His grace is to be propagated throughout the whole world. (d) The devil is also a sower. He is the foul counterfeiter of God ‘s work. He sowed the tares, the sons of the evil one. (e) The tares are not wicked men in general, but a particular class of wicked brought into close and contaminating association with the children of God. “Within the territory of the visible church the tares are deposited” (Dr. David Brown). It is the corruption of Christendom that is meant, a gigantic fact to which we cannot shut our eyes. (f) The mischief, once done, cannot be corrected. “Let both grow together until the harvest.” Christendom once corrupted remains so to the end. (g) The harvest is the consummation of the age. This is the culmination of our age; it terminates with the advent and judgment of the Son of God. He will send forth His angels who will “gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire ..... Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

    Here, then, we have the beginning, progress and consummation of our age.

    Christ Himself introduced it, and it was distinguished for its purity and its excellence. But the glorious system of truth was soon marred by the cunning craftiness of Satan. No after-vigilance or earnestness on the part of the servants could repair the fatal damage. They were forbidden to attempt the removal of the tares, for by so doing they would endanger the good grain, so intermixed had the two become! The expulsion of the tares is left for angels’ hands in the day of the harvest. This is our Lord’s picture of our age: a Zizanian field wherein good and bad, children of God and children of the evil one, live side by side down to the harvest which is the end. In spite of all efforts to correct and reform, the corruption of Christendom remains, nay, grows apace. To expel the vast crop of false doctrine, false professors, false teachers, is now as it has been for centuries an impossibility. Christ’s solemn words hold down to the final consummation, “Let both grow together until the harvest.” In such conditions a millennium of universal righteousness and knowledge of the Lord seems impossible until the separation takes place at the harvest. (2) Parable of the Pounds ( Luke 19:11-27).

    Jesus was on His last journey to Jerusalem, and near the city. The multitude was eager, expectant. They supposed the Kingdom of God was immediately to appear. The parable was spoken to correct this mistake and to reveal certain vital features of it. “A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” There is little difficulty in grasping the main teaching of this suggestive narrative. The nobleman is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; the far country is heaven; the kingdom He goes to receive is the Messianic kingdom, for the victorious establishment of which all God’s people long and pray. The servants are those who sustain responsible relation to the Lord because of the trust committed to them. The rebellious citizens are those who refuse subjection to His will and defy His authority. His return is His second coming. The parable spans the whole period between His ascension and His advent. It measures across our entire age. It tells of Christ’s going away, it describes the conduct of His servants and of the citizens during His absence; it foretells His return and the reckoning that is to follow. Mark the words, “And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom.” It is in heaven He receives the investiture of the kingdom ( Revelation 5:6). It is on earth that He administers it. The phrase, “having received the kingdom,” cannot by any dexterity of exegesis be made to denote the end of time or the end of the Millennium, or of His receiving it at the end of the world; it is then He delivers it up to God, even the Father (1 Corinthians 24-28).

    The order and sequence of events as traced by the Lord disclose the same fact made prominent in the parable of the Wheat and Tares, namely, that during the whole period between His ascension and His return there is no place for a Millennium of world-wide righteousness and prosperity. But Scripture warrants the belief that such blessedness is surely to fill the earth, and if so, it must be realized after Christ’s second coming.

    2. TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. 1. Expectation of the Advent: There is no unmistakable evidence that the apostles expected a thousand years of prosperity and peace during Christ’s absence in heaven. In Acts 1:11 we read that the heavenly visitants said to the apostles, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven?” This attitude of the men of Galilee became the permanent attitude of the primitive church. It was that of the uplifted gaze. Paul’s exultant words respecting the Thessalonians might well be applied to all believers of that ancient time, that they “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven” ( 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10). It is the prominent theme of the New Testament epistles. In the New Testament it is mentioned 318 t. One verse in every thirty, we are told, is occupied with it. It is found shining with a glad hope in the first letters Paul wrote, those to the Thessalonians. It is found in the last he wrote, the second to Timothy, gleaming with the bright anticipation of the crown he was to receive at the Redeemer’s appearing. James quickens the flagging courage, and reanimates the drooping spirits of believers with this trumpet peal: “Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8). Peter exhorts to all holy conversation and godliness by the like motive: “Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” ( Peter 3:12 margin). Amid the deepening gloom and the gathering storms of the last days, Jude 1:14 cheers us with the words of Enoch, the seventh from Adam, `Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon .... the ungodly.’ John closes the Canon with the majestic words, “Behold, he cometh with the clouds,” “Behold, I come quickly.” These men, speaking by the Spirit of the living God, know there can be no reign of universal righteousness, no deliverance of groaning creation, no redemption of the body, no binding of Satan, and no Millennium while the tares grow side by side with the wheat; while the ungodly world flings its defiant shout after the retiring nobleman, “We will not have this man to reign over us”; and while Satan, that strong, fierce spirit, loose in this age, deceives, leads captive, devours and ruins as he lists. Therefore the passionate longing and the assurance of nearing deliverance at the coming of Christ fill so large a place in the faith and the life of the primitive disciples. 2. Possibility of Survival — Its Implications: In 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Paul speaks of himself and others who may survive till the Lord’s coming: “Then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” (compare 1 Corinthians 15:51,52).

    This implies fairly that the apostle did not know that long ages would elapse between his own day and Christ’s advent. There was to his mind the possibility of His coming in his lifetime; in fact, he seems to have an expectation that he would not pass through the gates of death at all, that he would live to see the Lord in His glorious return, for the day and the hour of the advent is absolutely concealed even from inspired men. The inference is perfectly legitimate that Paul and his fellow-disciples did not anticipate that a thousand years should intervene between them and the coming. 3. Prophecy of the “Man of Sin”: Furthermore, the Thessalonians had fallen into a serious mistake (2 Thessalonians 9:1-12). By a false spirit, or by a forged epistle as from Paul, they were led to believe that “the day of the Lord is now present” (English Revised Version), 2 Thessalonians 9:2. The apostle sets them right about this solemn matter. He assures them that some things must precede that day, namely, “the falling away,” or apostasy, and the appearing of a powerful adversary, whom he calls “the Man of Sin,” and describes as “the Son of Perdition.” Neither the one nor the other of these two, the apostasy and the Man of Sin, was then present. But the road was fast getting ready for them. There was the “mystery of lawlessness” already at work at the time, and although a certain restraint held it in check, nevertheless when the check was removed it would at once precipitate the apostasy, and it would issue in the advent of the Man of Sin, and he should be brought to nought by the personal coming of Jesus Christ. This appears to be the import of the passage.

    Here was the appropriate place to settle forever for these saints and for all others the question of a long period to intervene before the Saviour’s advent. How easy and natural it would have been for Paul to write, “Brethren, there is to be first a time of universal blessedness for the world, the Millennium, and after that there will be an apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Sin whom Christ will destroy by the brightness of His coming.” But Paul intimated nothing of the sort. Instead, he distinctly says that the mystery of lawlessness is already working, that it will issue in “the falling away,” and then shall appear the great adversary, the Lawless One, who shall meet his doom by the advent of Christ. The mystery of lawlessness, however, is held in restraint, we are told. May it not be possible that the check shall be taken off, then the Millennium succeed, and after that the apostasy and the Son of Perdition? No, for its removal is immediately followed by the coming of the great foe, the Antichrist. For this foe has both an apocalypse and a parousia like Christ Himself. Hence, the lifting of the restraint is sudden, by no means a prolonged process. 4. No Room for Millennium: The apostle speaks of the commencement, progress, and close of a certain period. It had commenced when he wrote. Its close is at the coming of Christ. What intervenes? The continuance of the evil secretly at work in the body of professing Christians, and its progress from the incipient state to the maturity of daring wickedness which will be exhibited in the Man of Sin. This condition of things fills up the whole period, if we accept Paul’s teaching as that of inspired truth. There appears to be no place for a Millennium within the limits which the apostle here sets. The only escape from this conclusion, as it seems to us, is, to deny that the coming of Christ is His actual, personal second coming. But the two words, [epiphaneia ] and [parousia ], which elsewhere are used separately to denote His advent, are here employed to give “graphic vividness” and certainty to the event, and hence, they peremptorily forbid a figurative interpretation. The conclusion seems unavoidable that there can be no Millennium on this side of the advent of Christ. 5. Harmony of Christ and Apostles: Our Lord’s Olivet prophecy (Matthew 24; 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) accords fully with the teaching of the apostles on the subject. In that discourse He foretells wars, commotions among the nations, Jerusalem’s capture and the destruction of the temple, Israel’s exile, Christians persecuted while bearing their testimony throughout the world, cosmic convulsions, unparalleled tribulation and sufferings which terminate only with His advent. From the day this great prophecy was spoken down to the hour of His actual coming He offers no hope of a Millennium. He opens no place for a thousand years of blessedness for the earth.

    These are some of the grounds on which Biblical students known as Premillennialists rest their belief touching the coming of the Lord and the Millennial reign.

    LITERATURE.

    Premillenarian: H. Bonar, The Coming of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus; Wood, The Last Things; Guinness, The Approaching End of the Age; Seiss, The Last Times; Gordon, Ecce Venit; Premillennial Essays; Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom; West, The Thousand Years in Both Testaments; Trotter, Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects; Brookes, Maranatha; Andrews, Christianity and Antichristianity; Kellogg, Predition and Fulfillment. William G. Moorehead MILLET <mil’-et > , <mil’-it > ([dohan ]; [ke>gcrov , kegchros ]): One of the ingredients of the prophet’s bread (Ezek 4:9). The Arabic equivalent is dukhn, the common millet, Panicum miliaceum, an annual grass 3 or 4 ft. high with a much-branched nodding panicle. Its seeds arc as small as mustard seeds and are used largely for feeding small birds, but are sometimes ground to flour and mixed with other cereals for making bread.

    The Italian millet, setaria Italica, known as Bengal grass, is also called in Arabic dukhn, and has a similar seed. A somewhat similar grain, much more widely cultivated as a summer crop, is the Indian millet — also called “Egyptian maize” — the Sorghum annuum. This is known as dhurah in Arabic, and the seed as dhurah beida, “white dourra.” It is a very important crop, as it, like the common millet, grows and matures without any rain. It is an important breadstuff among the poor.

    Both the common millet and the dourra were cultivated in Egypt in very ancient times; the Hebrew [dochan] was certainly the first, but may include all three varieties. E. W. G. Masterman MILLO <mil’-o > . ( awOLmi [millo] generally interpreted to mean a “filling,” e.g. a solid tower or an earth embankment; in Judges 9:6,20; 2 Kings 12:20, we get awILmi tyBe [beth millo’], translated in English Versions of the Bible “House of Millo,” which Winckler thinks may have been the original Jebusite temple-shrine of Jerusalem (see BETH-MILLO); Septuagint reads [bhqmaalw>n , Bethmaalon ], also [Maalon ] and [oikos Maallon ]):

    1. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES It is generally supposed that “The Millo” was some kind of fortress or other defense, but many speculations have been made regarding its position. In 2 Samuel 5:9, we read that David built round about from the Millo and inward, or (in the Septuagint, Septuagint) “he fortified it, the city, round about from the Millo and his house” (compare 1 Chronicles 11:8). In connection with Solomon’s strengthening of the fortifications, there are several references to Millo. In 1 Kings 9:15, Solomon raised a levy “to build the house of Yahweh, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem,” etc.; in 9:24, “Pharaoh’s daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo”; in 1 Kings 11:27, Solomon “built Millo, and repaired the breach of the city of David his father.” At a later time Hezekiah “took courage, and built up all the wall that was broken down, and raised it up to the towers, and the other wall without, and strengthened Millo in the city of David” ( 2 Chronicles 32:5; 2 Kings 12:20); Joash was slain by his servants “at the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla,” but possibly this may have been in Shechem (compare Judges 9:6).

    2. IDENTICAL WITH THE AKRA SITE:

    The mention of the site in the days of David and the reference to it in connection with the city of David ( 1 Kings 11:27) point to some part of the southeastern hill South of the temple. It is suggestive that Millo is in Septuagint always translated by “Akra.” It seems to the present writer very probable that it was a fortress crowning the hill on which at a later time stood the Syrian Akra, which hill, if we are to believe Josephus (BJ, V, iv, 1, etc.), was cut down because its commanding situation dominated the temple. This hill cannot have been the site of Zion afterward known as “David’s Burg” (City of David), because the tombs of the Judean kings were within its walls, and that alone would have made the complete leveling of the site impossible, but whereas the Jebusite fortress was probably not far from Gihon, this fortified summit may have been, as Watson suggests for the Akra, as far north as where the present Al Aqsa mosque is situated. In David’s time it may have been an isolated and detached fort guarding the north approach, but if it was originally a Jebusite high place (Winckler) partly of sun-dried brick like similar constructions in Babylonia, the account of its being leveled would be much more credible. The importance of this site in the days of Solomon is fully explicable if this was the citadel guarding the newly built temple and royal palaces.

    Dr. G.A. Smith is inclined to think that Millo may have been a fortress “off the south end of Ophel, to retain and protect the old pool,” and Vincent suggests that the site of Millo is that now occupied by the great causeway connecting the Western and Eastern hills along which runs the Tariq bab es silsileh. E. W. G. Masterman MILLSTONE <mil’-ston > . See MILL.

    MINA <mi’-na > . See MANEH.

    MINCING <min’-sing > ( pp”f; [Taphaph]): “Taking short steps,” “walking trippingly.” Only in Isaiah 3:16, “walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling (a jingling of the metal anklets) with their feet.” Compare OHL.

    MIND <mind > ([nou~v , nous ], [dia>noia , dianoia ], [su>nesiv , sunesis ]):

    1. NO PRECISION IN THE TERMS USED:

    We look in vain in the Old Testament and New Testament for anything like scientific precision in the employment of terms which are meant to indicate mental operations.

    In the Old Testament [lebh] is made to stand for the various manifestations of our intellectual and emotional nature. We are often misled by the different renderings in the different versions, both early and late.

    Sometimes [nephesh] or “soul” is rendered by “mind” (Dt 18:6 the King James Version, “desire of his soul” or “mind”); sometimes [ruah] or “spirit” ( Genesis 26:35, “grief of mind,” [ruah]). Here Luther renders the term Herzeleid (“grief of heart”), and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) animum. Sometimes [lebh] is used, as in Isaiah 46:8, “bring it to mind” (literally, “heart”), or in Psalm 31:12, “I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind” (literally, “heart”), as in Septuagint, [kardia ], and in Vulgate, a corde, Luther, im Herzen, new Dutch translated, uit de gedachtenis (i.e. “memory”).

    In the Apocrypha this precision is equally lacking. Thus we read in The Wisdom of Solomon 9:15, “For the corruptible body ([soma]) presseth down the soul ([psuche]) and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind ([nous ]) that museth upon many things.” But these distinctions are alien to the letter and spirit of revelation, a product of the Greek and not of the Hebrew mind.

    In the New Testament the words [nous ] and [dianoia ] are used, but not with any precision of meaning.

    Here too several terms are rendered by the same word. Thus the Hebrew [ruach] is rendered by nous in 1 Corinthians 2:16 (“mind of the Lord,” with reference to Isaiah 40:13, where “[ruach YHWH] (spirit of Yahweh)” occurs). [Nous ] evidently means here the organ of spiritual perception — a word borrowed from the Septuagint, where it is sometimes made to stand for [lebh] ( Job 7:17; Isaiah 41:22); sometimes for [ruah] ( Isaiah 40:13). In Luke 24:45 — the solitary text, where nous occurs in the Gospels — it is rendered “understanding” in the King James Version, “mind” in the Revised Version (British and American).

    2. ETHICAL SENSE:

    For a true solution we must turn to the Epistles of Paul, where the word frequently occurs in an ethical sense — sometimes in connection with (sinful) flesh as in Colossians 2:18, “puffed up by his fleshly mind,” sometimes in direct contrast to it, as in Romans 7:25, `with my mind I serve the law of God; with the flesh the law of sin.’ In Tit 1:15 it is brought into parallelism with conscience (“Their mind and their conscience are defiled”). Phrases like “a reprobate mind,” “corrupted in mind” occur elsewhere ( Romans 1:28; 1 Timothy 6:5). From this state of “reprobation” and “corruption” man must be saved. Hence, the necessity of complete transformation and renewal of the inner man ( Romans 12:2), “transformed by the renewing of your mind ([nous ]).”

    3. DIANOIA AND NOUS:

    Another word, with possibly a deeper meaning, is sometimes employed, namely, [dianoia], which literally means “meditation,” “reflection.” It is found as synonymous with [nous] in a good sense, as e.g. in 1 John 5:20 (He “hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true”).

    Evidently the sense here is the same as in Romans 12:2, a renovated mind capable of knowing Christ. It may also bear a bad sense, as in Ephesians 4:18, where the Gentiles are represented as having “a darkened understanding,” or in parallelism with [sarx]: “the desires of the flesh and of the mind” ( Ephesians 2:3), and with [nous]: `walking in vanity of mind ([nous]) and a darkened understanding ([dianoia])’ in Ephesians 4:18. At times also “heart” and “mind” are joined to indicate human depravity ( Luke 1:51: “He hath scattered the proud in the imagination ([dianoia]) of their heart”). It is interesting also to know that the Great Commandment is rendered in Matthew 22:37 — “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul ([psuche]), and with all thy understanding ([dianoia]) (English Versions of the Bible, “mind”)” — though Mark has two renderings in one of which [dianoia] occurs, and in the other sunesis ( Mark 12:30,33), though possibly without any psychological refinement of meaning, for the term [sunesis] occurs elsewhere in conjunction with [pneumatikos] (“spiritual understanding,” Colossians 1:9). It also stands alone in the sense of an “understanding enlightened from above” ( 2 Timothy 2:7 King James Version: “The Lord give thee understanding ([sunesis]) in all things”). The history of these terms is interesting, but not of great theological significance.4. The Great Commandment:

    It seems to us that Godet’s interpretation of the Great Commandment in Luke 10:27 is somewhat far-fetched. He considers the heart as “the central focus from which all rays of the moral life go forth, and that in their three principal directions: the powers of feeling, or the affections, [nephesh] (`soul’) in the sense of feeling; the active powers, the impulsive aspirations, the might (`with all thy might’), the will; and in the intellectual powers, analytical or contemplative, [dianoia] (`with all thy mind’). The difference between the heart, which resembles the trunk and the three branches, feeling, will, understanding, is emphatically marked in the Alexandrian variation, by the substitution of the preposition [en] (`in’) for [ek] (`with,’ `from’) in the three last members. Moral life proceeds from the heart and manifests itself without, in the three forms of activity. The impulse God-ward proceeds from the heart, and is realized in the life through the will, which consecrates itself actively to the accomplishment of His will; and through the mind, which pursues the track of His thought in all His works” (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, II, 38, 39). J. I. Marais MINE; MINING <min > , <min’-ing > : In Job 28:1-11 we have the only Biblical reference to mines. The writer very likely derived his information either from personal observation or from a description by an eyewitness, of the mining operations of Sinai (see METALS). No traces of ancient mines have yet been found in Palestine and Syria. What metals were taken out came from the superficial strata. The mines of Upper Egypt have already been mentioned. Burton and other travelers in Northern Arabia and the Red Sea country have found there evidences of ancient mining operations.

    The usual Egyptian method of mining was to follow the vein from the surface as far as it was practicable with tools corresponding to our pick and hoe, hammer and chisel. The shafts frequently extended into the ground a distance of 180 to 200 ft. The rock when too hard to be dug out was first cracked by having fires built on it. The metal-bearing stone was carried in baskets to the surface, where the crushing and separating took place. The mining operations were performed by an army of slaves who were kept at their work day and night, driven with the lash until they died, when their places were taken by others. See METALS; CRAFTS, II, .James A. Patch MINERALS <min’-er-alz > .See METALS; STONES, PRECIOUS.

    MINGLED PEOPLE; (MIXED MULTITUDE) <min’-g’-ld pe’-pl > : (1) “Mixed multitude” occurs in Numbers 11:4 as a translation of psup]s”a\ [asaphcuph], “collection,” “rabble.” The same phrase in Exodus 12:38; Nehemiah 13:3 is the rendition of br<[e [erebh]. “Mingled people” is used also to translate [`erebh], and is found in Jeremiah 15:20,24; 50:37; Ezek 30:5, and in 1 Kings 10:15 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version “Arabia”; compare the American Revised Version margin). In the last case both revised versions have followed the pointing of the Massoretic Text, and this pointing alone distinguishes “mingled people” ([`erebh]) from “Arabia” ([`arabh]); in the unvocalized text both words are equally br[ [`-r-b].

    Now “the traffic of the merchants, and of all the kings of the mingled people, and of the governors of the country” is very awkward, and the correction into “Arabia,” as in the Massoretic Text (and English Versions of the Bible) of the parallel 2 Chronicles 9:14, is indicated. Probably the same change should be made in Ezek 30:5, reading “Ethiopia, and Put, and Lud, and Arabia, and Cub.” A similar textual confusion seems to be responsible for either “and all the kings of Arabia” or “and all the kings of the mingled people” in Jeremiah 25:24. On all these verses see the commentaries. (2) In Jeremiah 25:20; 50:37, “mingled people” is a term of contempt for the hybrid blood of certain of Israel’s enemies. Something of this same contempt may be contained in Exodus 12:38, where a multitude of non- Israelite camp-followers are mentioned as accompanying the children of Israel in the exodus, and in Numbers 11:4 it is this motley body that seduced Israel to sin. But who they were, why they wished or were permitted to join in the exodus, and what eventually became of them or of their descendants is a very perplexing puzzle. In Nehemiah 13:3, the “mixed multitude” consists of the inhabitants of Palestine whom the Jews found there after the return from the exile (see SAMARIA). In accord with the command of Dt 23:3-5, the Jews withdrew from all religious intercourse whatever had been established with these.

    NOTE. — The Hebrew noun for “mingled people” may or may not be connected with the verb translated “mingle” in Ezra 9:2; <19A635> Psalm 106:35; Daniel 2:43. On this see the lexicons. Burton Scott Easton MINIAMIN <min’-ya-min > , <mi-ni’-a-min > ( ˆymiy:n”mi [minydmin]): (1) A Levite who assisted Kore, the son of Imnah, in the distribution of the freewill offerings ( 2 Chronicles 31:15). (2) A priestly family of the time of the high priest Joiakim ( Nehemiah 12:17), probably = MIJAMIN (2) . (3) A priestly participant in the ceremony of the dedication of the wall ( Nehemiah 12:41).

    MINISH <min’-ash > (the King James Version and the English Revised Version Exodus 15:19; <19A739> Psalm 107:39; the English Revised Version Isaiah 19:6; Hos 8:10): The verb “mannish,” “make small,” is now obsolete, being replaced by its derivative “diminish” (compare the American Standard Revised Version in all verses above).

    MINISTRY <min’-is-tri >

    1. THE WORD “MINISTRY.”

    The common New Testament term for the ministry is [diakoni>a , diakonia], and along with it we find [dia>konov , diakonos], “minister,” [oJ diakonw~n , ho diakonon]), “he who ministers,” and [diakonei~n , diakonein], “to minister.” All these words have a very extensive application within the New Testament and are by no means restricted to denote service within the Christian church; even when so restricted the words are used in a great variety of meanings: e.g. (1) discipleship in general ( John 12:26); (2) service rendered to the church because of the “gifts” bestowed ( Romans 12:7; 1 Corinthians 12:5), and hence, all kinds of service ( Acts 6:2; Matthew 20:26); (3) specifically the “ministry of the Word” ( Ephesians 4:12), and most frequently the “apostleship” ( Acts 1:17; 20:24; 21:19; Romans 11:13, etc.); (4) such services as feeding the poor ( Acts 6:1; 11:29; 12:25), or organizing and providing the great collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem ( Romans 15:25; 2 Corinthians 8:4,19, etc.); (5) such services as those rendered by Stephanas ( 1 Corinthians 16:15), by Archippus ( Colossians 4:17), by Tychicus ( Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7), etc.Use of the Word in This Article:

    In this article the word has to do with the guidance and government of a united community, fellowship, or brotherhood of men and women whose inward bond of union was the sense of fellowship with Jesus their Risen Lord. In all ages of Christianity the call to become the follower of Jesus, while it is the deepest of all personal things and comes to each one singly, never comes solitarily. The devout soul must share his experiences with those like-minded, and the fellowship thus formed must be able to take outward shape, which cannot fail to render necessary some sort of rule and guidance. The very thought of the church with articulate expression of a common faith, administration of the sacraments, meetings and their right conduct, aid given to the spiritual and bodily needs of their fellowmembers, implies a ministry or executive of some kind. To endeavor to explain what was the character of the ministry of the Christian church in the earliest centuries of its existence and how it came into being is the aim of this article.II. Two Kinds of Ministry.

    The earliest fact we have about the organization of the Christian church is given in Acts 6, where we are told that “seven” men were appointed to what is called a “ministry of tables” ([diakonein trapezais]), which is distinguished from the “ministry of the word” ([diakonia tou logou]). This distinction between two different kinds of “ministry” which appears at the very beginning is seen to exist all through the apostolic church and beyond it into the sub-apostolic. It can be traced in the Epistles of Paul and in other parts of the New Testament. It is seen in the Didache, in the Pastor of Hermas, in the Epistles of Barnabas, in the Apology of Justin Martyr, in the writings of Irenaeus and elsewhere. (For a full list of authorities, compare Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, II, ii, 111 ff.) The one ministry differs from the other in function, and the distinction depends on a conception to be afterward examined — that of “gifts.” The common name, in apostolic and sub-apostolic literature, for the members of the one kind of ministry is “those who speak the Word of God” ([lalountes ton logon tou Theou]). Modern writers have called it the charismatic, but perhaps the better term is the prophetic ministry; while to the other class belong all the names which are given to denote office-bearers in the local churches. The two existed side by side. The great practical distinction between them was that the members of the former were in no sense officebearers in any one Christian community; they were not elected or appointed to any office; they were not set apart for duties by any ecclesiastical ceremony. The “Word” came to them and they were compelled by inward impulsion to speak the message given them to deliver.

    Some were wanderers; others confined themselves to their own community. They were responsible to no ecclesiastical authority.

    Churches were encouraged to test them and their message; for the “gift” of discerning whether a so-called prophet spoke a truly Divine message was always presupposed to be within the local church. But once accepted they took a higher place than the office-bearers, they presided at the Lord’s Supper, and their judgment in cases of discipline could overbear ordinary ecclesiastical rules. The contest of Cyprian with the “confessors” at Carthage was the last stage of the long struggle which arose in the 2nd century between the two ministries. Out of the other kind of ministry came, by ordinary development, all the various kinds of ecclesiastical organization which now exist. Its members were office-bearers in the strictest sense of the word; they were selected to do ecclesiastical work in a given community, they were set apart for it in a special way, and they were responsible to the church for its due performance.

    But it is important to remember that while the two kinds of ministries are thoroughly distinct from each other, the same individuals might belong to both kinds. The “prophetic gift” might fall on anyone, private member or office-bearer alike. Office-holding did not prevent the “gift.” Polycarp, office-bearer at Smyrna, was a prophet; so was Ignatius of Antioch, and many others. The “gift” of speaking the Word of God was a personal and not an official source of enlightenment. 1. The Prophetic Ministry: In the prophetic ministry we find a threefold division — apostles, prophets and teachers. Some would add a fourth, evangelists, i.e. men like the apostles in all respects save in having seen the. Lord in the flesh. The distinction may hold good for the apostolic period, though that appears to be very doubtful; it disappears utterly in the sub-apostolic; evangelist and apostle seem to be one class. This triple division may be traced through early Christian literature from 1 Corinthians down to the Clementine Homilies, which can scarcely be earlier than 200 AD. It is hardly possible to define each class in any mechanical fashion; speaking generally, the first were the missionary pioneers whose message was chiefly to the unconverted, while to the second and third classes belonged exhortation and instruction within the Christian communities. (1) Apostles.

    In the New Testament and in the other literature of the early church the word “apostle” is used in a narrower and in a wider sense, and it is the more extensive use of the word which denotes the first division of the prophetic ministry. The Lord selected the Twelve, “whom also he named apostles” ( Mark 3:14, the Revised Version margin), to be trained by personal fellowship with Him and by apprentice mission work among the villages of Galilee for that proclamation of His gospel which was to be their future life-work. Two things strictly personal and excluding every thought of successors separated the “Eleven” from all other men: long personal fellowship with Jesus in the inner circle of His followers, and their selection by Himself while still in the flesh. They were the “Apostles” in the narrow sense of the word. But the name was given to many others.

    Matthias, who had enjoyed personal intercourse with Jesus both before and after the resurrection, was called by the disciple company, confirmed by decision of the lot, to the same `service and sending forth’ ([diakonia kai apostole]) ( Acts 1:25). Paul was called by the Lord Himself, but in vision and inward experience, and took rank with those before mentioned ( Romans 1:1 ff; Galatians 2:7-9). Others, called apostles, are mentioned by name in the New Testament. Barnabas is not only an apostle but is recognized to have rank equal to the “Eleven” ( Acts 14:14; Galatians 2:7-9). The correct rendering of the text ( Romans 16:7) declares that Andronicus and Junias were apostles who had known Christ before Paul became a believer. Chrysostom, who thinks that Junias or Junia was a woman, does not believe that her sex hindered her from being an apostle. Silas or Silvanus and Timothy, on the most natural interpretation of the passage, are called apostles by Paul in <520101> Thessalonians 1:1,6. The title can hardly be denied to Apollos ( Corinthians 4:6,9). Paul praises men, whom he calls “the apostles of the churches,” and declares them to be “the glory of Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 8:23 margin). One of them, Epaphroditus, is mentioned by name — “your apostle,” says Paul writing to the Christians of Philippi ( Philippians 2:25 margin); and there must have been many others. “Apostles” are distinguished from the “Twelve” by Paul in the rapid summary he gives of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection ( 1 Corinthians 15:5,7).

    Besides those true apostles the New Testament mentions others who are called “false apostles” ( 2 Corinthians 11:13), and the church of Ephesiansesus is praised for using its “gift” of discrimination to reject men who “call themselves apostles, and they are not” ( Revelation 2:2). This wider use of the word has descended to the present day; “apostles” or “holy apostles” is still the name for missionaries and missioners in some parts of the Greek church. The double use of the word to denote the “Twelve” or the “Eleven” is seen in the sub-apostolic age in the Didache, which recognizes the narrower use of the word in its title (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), and in the text portrays the itinerant missionaries to whom the name in its widest use belonged.

    Those “apostles,” to whatever class they belonged, had one distinguishing characteristic: they had chosen as their life-work to be the missionary pioneers of the gospel of the Kingdom of Christ. They were all engaged in aggressive work, and were distinguished from others not so much by what they were as by what they did. They were wanderers with no fixed place of residence. The requirements of their work might make them abide for long periods in some center (as did Paul at Corinth and at Ephesiansesus, or some of the “Eleven” at Jerusalem), but they had no permanent home life.

    As the earlier decades passed, their numbers increased rather than diminished. They are brought vividly before us in such writings as the Didache. They were to be highly honored, but as severely tested. They were not expected to remain longer than three days within a Christian community, nor to fare softly when there (Didache ii.4-6). The vindication of their call was what they were able to accomplish, and to this Paul, the greatest of them, appeals over and over again. (2) Prophets.

    Prophets had been the religious guides of Israel of old, and the spirit of prophecy had never entirely died out. John the Baptist ( Matthew 11:9), Simeon ( Luke 2:25,26), and Anna ( Luke 2:36) had the gift in the days of Christ. It was natural for the Samaritan woman to believe that the stranger who spoke to her by the well was a prophet ( John 4:19). The reappearance of prophecy in its old strength was looked on as a sign of the nearness of the coming of the Messiah. Jesus Himself had promised to send prophets among His followers ( Matthew 10:41; 23:34; Luke 11:49). The promise was fulfilled. Christian prophets appeared within the church from its beginning. Nor were they confined to communities of Jewish Christians; prophecy appeared spontaneously wherever Christianity spread. We are told of prophets in the churches of Jerusalem and Caesarea where the membership was almost purely Jewish; at Antioch where Jews and Gentiles united to make one congregation; and everywhere throughout the Gentile churches — in Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica and in the Galatian churches ( Acts 11:27; 15:32; 21:9,10; Romans 12:6,7; Corinthians 14:32,36,37; 1 Thessalonians 5:20; Galatians 3:3-5).

    Prophets are mentioned by name — Agabus ( Acts 11:28; 21:10), Symeon and others at Antioch ( Acts 13:1), Judas and Silas in Jerusalem ( Acts 15:32). Nor was the “gift” confined to men; women prophesied — the four daughters of Philip among others ( Acts 21:9). From the earliest times down to the close of the 2nd century and later, an uninterrupted stream of prophets and prophetesses appeared in the Christian churches. The statements of New Testament writers, and especially of Paul, imply that prophets abounded in the earliest churches.

    Paul, for example, expected the prophetic gift to appear in every Christian community. He recognized that they had a regular place in the meeting for public worship (1 Corinthians 14); he desired that every member in the Corinthian church should possess the “gift” and cultivate it ( <461401> Corinthians 14:1,5,39); he exhorted the brethren at Thessalonica to `cherish prophesyings’ ( 1 Thessalonians 5:20), and those in Rome to make full use of prophecy ( Romans 12:6). If he criticized somewhat severely the conduct of the “prophets” in the Corinthian church, it was to teach them how to make full use of their “gift” for the right edifying of the brethren.

    Prophecy was founded on revelation; the prophets were men especially “gifted” with spiritual intuition and magnetic speech. Sometimes their “gift” took the form of ecstasy, but by no means always; Paul implies that prophets have a real command of and can control their utterances.

    Sometimes their message came to them in visions, such as we find in the Apocalypse and in Hermas; but this was not a necessary means. The prophets spoke as they were moved, and the Spirit worked on them in various ways.

    The influence of those prophets seems to have increased rather than diminished during the earlier decades of the 2nd century. While the duty of the apostle was to the unbelievers, Jewish or heathen, the sphere of the activity of the prophet was within the Christian congregation. It was his business to edify the brethren. Prophets had a recognized place in the meeting for the public worship of the congregation; if one happened to be present at the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper, he presided to the exclusion of the office-bearers, and his prayers were expected to be extempore (Didache x.7); he had special powers when matters of discipline were discussed, as is plain from a great variety of evidence from Hermas down to Tertullian. From Paul’s statements it seems that the largest number of the prophets he speaks of were members of the communities within which they used their “gift” of prophecy; but many of the more eminent prophets traveled from community to community edifying each.

    When such wandering prophets, with their wives and families, dwelt for a time in any Christian society, preaching and exhorting, it was deemed to be the duty of that society to support them, and regulations were made for such support. According to the Didache (chapter xiii): “Every true prophet who shall settle among you is worthy of his support ..... Every first-fruit then of the products of the winepress and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets ..... In like manner also when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take the first of it and give it to the prophets; and of money and clothing and every possession take the first as may seem right to thee, and give according to the commandment.” Only, the receivers were to be true prophets. Each congregation had to exercise the “gift” of discrimination and sift the true from the false; for “false” prophets confronted the true in early Christianity as well as in the old Judaism. (3) Teachers.

    While the third class of the prophetic ministry, the teachers, is found joined to the other two both in the New Testament and in sub-apostolic literature, and while Paul assigns a definite place for their services in the meeting for edification ( 1 Corinthians 14:26), we hear less about them and their work. They seem, however, to have lingered much longer in active service in the early church than did the apostles and the prophets. 2. The Local Ministry: As has been said, the first notice we have of organization within a local church is in Acts 6, where at the suggestion of the apostles seven men were selected to administer the charity of the congregation.

    The conception that “the Seven” were a special order of office-bearers, deacons, is a comparatively late suggestion. These men are nowhere called deacons; the official designation is “The Seven.” It may be that the appointment of those men was only a temporary expedient, but it is more probable that “the Seven” of Acts 6 are the elders of Acts 11; for we find those “elders” performing the duties which “the Seven” were appointed to fulfil. If so, we have in Acts 6 the narrative of the beginnings of local organization as a whole. When we turn to the expansion of Christian communities outside Jerusalem, we have no such distinct picture of beginnings; but as all the churches in Palestine evidently regarded the society in Jerusalem as the mother church, it is likely that their organization was the same. Acts tells us that Paul and Barnabas left behind them at Derbe, Lystra and Iconium societies of brethren with “elders” at their head.

    The word used suggests an election by popular vote and was probably the same as had been used in the selection of the “Seven” men.

    When we examine the records of the distinctively Pauline churches, there is not much direct evidence for the origins of the ministry there, but a great deal about the existence of some kind of rule and rulers. For one thing, we can see that these churches had and were encouraged to have feelings of independence and of self-government; a great deal is said about the possession of “gifts” which imply the presence and power of the Spirit of Jesus within the community itself. We find names applied to men who, if not actually office-bearers, are at least leaders and perform the functions of office-bearers — [proistamenoi ], [poimenes ], [episkopoi ], [diakonoi ] — and where special designations are lacking a distinction is always drawn between those who obey and those who are to be obeyed. In all cases those leaders or ministers are mentioned in the plural.

    It may be said generally that about the close of the 1st century every Christian community was ruled by a body of men who are sometimes called presbyters (elders), sometimes but more rarely bishops (overseers), and whom modern church historians are inclined to call presbyter-bishops.

    Associated with them, but whether members of the same court or forming a court of their own it is impossible to say, were a number of assistant rulers called deacons. See BISHOP; CHURCH GOVERNMENT; DEACON; ELDER . The court of elders had no president or permanent chairman. There was a two-fold not a threefold ministry. During the 3rd century, rising into notice by way of geographical distribution rather than in definite chronological order, this twofold congregational ministry became threefold in the sense that one man was placed at the head of each community with the title of pastor or bishop (the titles are interchangeable as late as the 4th century at least). In the early centuries those local churches, thus organized, while they never lacked the sense that they all belonged to one body, were independent self-governing communities preserving relations to each other, not by any political organization embracing them all, but by fraternal fellowship through visits of deputies, interchange of letters, and in some indefinite way giving and receiving assistance in the selection and setting apart of pastors.

    Origin.

    The question arises, How did this organization come into being? We may dismiss, to begin with, the idea once generally accepted among the Reformed churches, that the Christian society simply took over and made use of the synagogue system of organization (Vitringa, De synagoga vetere). The points common to both reveal a superficial resemblance, but no more. The distinctive differences are great. When we add to them the decisive statement of Epiphanius (Haeresis, xxx. 18), that the Jewish Christians (Judaizing) organized their communities with archons and an archisynagogos like the Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion and unlike the Christian churches, all the evidence makes it impossible to believe that the earliest Christian organization was simply taken over from the Jewish. On the other hand, there is little evidence that the apostles (the Twelve and Paul) received a special commission from our Lord, to appoint and ordain the office-bearers of the earliest Christian communities, so exclusive that there could be no legitimate organization without this apostolic authority and background. We find, on the contrary, the church in Rome exercising all the disciplinary functions of a congregation without this apostolic ecclesiastical rule supposed to be essential. Even in the mother-church in Jerusalem, the congregational meeting exercised rule over the apostles themselves, for we find apostles summoned before it and examined on their conduct ( Acts 11:1-4). The whole question demands the recognition of several facts: (1) Evidence abounds to show that the local churches during the apostolic and sub-apostolic age were self-governing communities and that the real background of the ministry was not apostolic authority but the congregational meeting. Its representative character and its authority are seen in the apostolic and sub-apostolic literature from Paul to Cyprian. (2) The uniquely Christian correlation of the three conceptions of leadership, service and “gifts”; leadership depended on service, and service was possible by the possession and recognition of special “gifts” which were the evidence of the presence and power of the Spirit of Jesus within the community. These “gifts” gave the church a Divine authority to exercise rule and oversight apart from any special apostolic direction. (3) The general evidence existing to show that there was a gradual growth of the principle of association from looser to more compact forms of organization (Gayford, article “Church” in HDB; also Harnack, The Expositor, 1887, January to June, 322-24), must not be forgotten; only one must remember that in young communities the growth is rapid. (4) We must also bear in mind that the first Christians were well acquainted with various kinds of social organization which entered into their daily life and which could not fail to suggest how they might organize their new societies.

    Examples occur readily: (a) Every Jewish village community was ruled by its “seven wise men,” and it is probable that the appointment of the “Seven” in the primitive Jewish church was suggested by familiarity with this example of social polity. (b) It was and is an almost universal oriental usage that the “next of kin” to the founder was recognized, after the founder’s death, to be the head of the new religious community founded, and this usage accounts for the selection of James, the eldest male surviving relative of our Lord, to be the recognized and honored head of the church in Jerusalem. James has been called the first bishop; but when we read in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 11, 1,2; 32,4; IV, 22, 4; III, 20, 1- 8) how his successors were chosen, the term seems inappropriate. A succession in the male line of the kindred of Jesus, where the selection to office is mainly in the hands of a family council, and where two (James and Zoker) can rule together, has small analogy to episcopal rule. (c) The relation of “patron” to “client,” which in one form or other had spread throughout the civilized world, is suggested by a series of kindred words used to denote rulers in local churches. We find [proi`sta>menoi , proistamenoi ], [prosta>tiv , prostatis ], [prosta>thv , prostates ], [proestw>v , proestos ], in various writers, and the last was used as late as the middle of the 2nd century to denote ministry in the Roman church ( Romans 12:8; 16:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hermas, Pastor. Vis. 2, 4; Justin, Apol, i.65). (d) The Romans empire was honeycombed with “gilds,” some recognized by law, most of them without legal recognition and liable to suppression. These confraternities were of very varied character — trades unions, burial clubs, etc., but a large proportion were for the purpose of practicing special religious rites. The Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion seemed to have been enrolled among those confraternities, and certainly appeared to their heathen neighbors to be one kind of such private associations for the practice of a religion which had been legalized. Many scholars have insisted that the Gentile Christian churches simply copied the organization of such confraternities (Renan, Les Apotres; Heinrici, Zeitschrift f. wissensch.

    Theol., 1876-77); Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches). There must have been some external resemblances. Pliny believed that the Christian churches of Bithynia were illicit confraternities (Ep. 96; compare Lucian, Peregrinus Proteus). They had, in common with the churches, a democratic constitution; they shared a “common meal” at stated times; they made a monthly collection; they were ruled by a committee of office-bearers; and they exercised a certain amount of discipline over their members. Multitudes of Christians must have been members of such confraternites, and many continued to be so after accepting Christianity (Cyprian, Ep., lxvii. 6).

    But while the Christian churches may have learned much about the general principles of associated life from all those varied forms of social organization, it cannot be said that they copied any one of them. The primitive Christian societies organized themselves independently in virtue of the new moral and social life implanted within them; and though they may have come to it by various paths, they all in the end arrived at one common form — a society ruled by a body of office-bearers who possessed the “gifts” of government and of subordinate service embodied in the offices of presbyter and deacon.

    3. THREEFOLD CONGREGATIONAL MINISTRY.

    During the 2nd century the ministry was subject to a change. The ruling body of office-bearers in every congregation received a permanent president, who was called the pastor or bishop, the latter term being the commoner. The change came gradually. It provoked no strong opposition. By the beginning of the 3rd century it was everywhere accepted.

    When we seek to trace the causes why the college of elders received a president, who became the center of all the ecclesiastical life in the local church and the one potent office-bearer, we are reduced to conjecture.

    This only can be said with confidence, that the change began in the East and gradually spread to the West, and that there are hints of a gradual evolution (Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 180, 183-85). Scholars have brought forward many reasons for the change; the need for an undivided leadership in times of danger from external persecution or from the introduction of Gnostic speculations which disturbed the faith of the members; the convenience of being represented to other local churches by one man who could charge himself with the administration of the external affairs of the congregation; the need of one man to preside at the solemn and crowning act of worship, the administration of the Lord’s Supper; the sense of congregational unity implied in the possession of one leader — each or all are probable ways in which the churches were influenced in making this change in their ministry.

    This threefold congregational ministry is best seen in the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. They portray a Christian community having at its head a bishop, a presbyterium or session of elders, and a body of deacons. These form the ministry or office-bearers of the congregation to whom obedience is due. Nothing is to be done without the consent of the bishop, neither love-feast, nor sacrament, nor anything congregational. The ruling body is a court where the bishop sits as chairman surrounded by his council or session of elders; and the one is helpless without the other, for if the bishop be the lyre, the elders are the chords, and both are needed to produce melody. Ignatius compares the bishop to Jesus, and the elders to the apostles who surrounded Him. There is no trace of sacerdotalism, apostolic succession, one-man government, diocesan rule in those letters of Ignatius; and what they portray is unlike any form of diocesan episcopacy. 1. Insistence on Organization: It is interesting to remark how all throughout the 3rd century and later every body of Christians, even if consisting of fewer than twelve families, is instructed to organize itself into a church under a ministry of officebearers, consisting of a bishop or pastor, at least two elders and at least three deacons. Should the bishop be illiterate — for character more than erudition determined his choice — the congregation was told to elect a reader, and provision was made for a ministry of women. It was possible to obey such instructions, because the ministry of the early church received no stipends. The ministry were office-bearers, to whom ecclesiastical obedience was due in virtue of their call and election and their being set apart by prayer, and perhaps by laying on of hands, for sacred office; but they were at the same time merchants, artisans, or engaged in other secular callings, and supported themselves. Buildings, set apart for public worship, did not exist until the very close of the 2nd century, and then only in a few populous centers in towns which had felt persecution but slightly. The only property which a church possessed, besides its copies of the Scriptures, its congregational records and perhaps a place of burial, were the offerings which were presented by members of the congregation, mostly in kind, after the Eucharist; and these offerings were distributed to the poor of the congregation. If office-bearers received a share, it was only on account of their poverty and because they were on the roll of widows, orphans and helpless poor.

    This threefold congregational ministry has been called by some scholars “monarchical episcopacy,” a title as high-sounding as it is misleading. The kingdom over which those so-called monarchs presided might and often did consist of less than twelve families, and their rule was fenced in with many restrictions. We can collect from the Epistles of Ignatius what were the powers and what the limitations (Epistle to Polycarp) of the bishop. He administered the finances of the church; he was president of the court of Elders; he had the right to call and presumably to preside over the court of discipline; and he had the regulation of the sacraments in his hands. On the other hand, it is very doubtful whether he, or even he in conjunction with the elders, could excommunicate; that appears to have remained in the hands of the congregational meeting. The bishop might convoke the congregational meeting for the purpose, but it belonged to the meeting and not to the bishop to appoint delegates and messengers to other churches; and the meeting had the power to order the bishop to go on such a mission. (1) Aid Given in Selecting a Bishop.

    From what has been said it is plain that the selection of a bishop became one of the most important acts a congregation was called upon to perform.

    Accordingly, provision was made for its assistance. It is declared in the Apostolic Canons that if a congregation contains fewer than twelve men competent to vote at the election of a bishop, neighboring, “wellestablished” churches are to be written to in order that three men may be sent to assist the congregation in selecting their pastor (Sources of the Apostolic Canons, 7, 8). This is evidently the origin of what afterward became the custom and later a law, that the consecration of a bishop required the presence of three neighboring bishops — a rule which has given occasion to the saying that “all Christendom becomes Presbyterian on a consecration day.” This custom and rule, which in its beginnings was simply practical assistance given to a weak by stronger congregations, came to bear the meaning that the bishop thus consecrated was an officebearer in the church universal as well as the pastor of a particular congregation. It is also more than probable that this practice of seeking assistance in an emergency is the germ out of which grew the Synod — the earliest recorded synods being congregational meetings assisted in times of difficulty by advice of experienced persons from other churches. (2) Bishops and Presbyters.

    When a small group of villagers had been won to Christianity through the efforts of the Christian congregation in a neighboring town, they commonly were disinclined to separate from it, and came from their villages into town to join in the public worship. “On the day called Sunday,” says Justin Martyr, “all who live in the city and in the country gather together into one place” (Ap., i.67). The earliest collections of canons show that the bishop was able in time of absence or sickness to delegate his duties to elders or even to deacons; and this enabled him, when occasion for it arose, to be, through his office-bearers, the pastor of several congregations. We can see the same process at work more clearly in large towns where the number of Christians had become very large. The bishop was always held to be the head of the Christian community, however large, in one place. He was the pastor; he baptized; he presided at the Holy Supper; he admitted catechumens to the full communion of the brotherhood. By the middle of the 3rd century the work in most large towns was more than one man could do. No record exists of the number of members belonging to the Roman church at this time, but some idea of its size may be obtained from the fact that it had more than 1,500 persons on its poor-roll; and before the close of the century the Roman Christians worshipped in over 40 separate places of meeting. It is obvious that one man could not perform the whole pastoral duties for such a multitude, and that most of the pastoral work must have been delegated to the elders or presbyters. The unity of the pastorate was for long strictly preserved by the custom that the bishop consecrated the communion elements in one church, and these were carried round to the other congregations. The bishop was thus the pastor in every congregation; the elders and deacons belonged to the whole Christian community; they served all the congregations and were not attached to one distinctively. In Alexandria, on the other hand, something like a parochial system gathered round the bishop, for individual presbyters were set over the separate congregations within the city. But always and without exception the original pastoral status of the bishop was preserved by the fact that one portion of the pastoral duties was invariably left in his hands — the rite of confirmation whereby catechumens were admitted to full communion. 2. Multiplication of Orders: Growth of a Hierarchy: The middle of the 3rd century witnessed two changes in the ministry of the church. One was a multiplication of orders and the other the growth of a hierarchy; and while many causes went to produce these changes it can hardly be doubted that they were at least partly due to the imitation of pagan religious organization. Although we find the distinction between those who are to be obeyed and those who are to obey clearly laid down in the Epistles of Paul, we do not find a common term in general use to denote the former class until the beginning of the 3rd century. In the west the word was ordo, and in the east clerus, from which come our “orders” and “clergy.” Ordo was the designation for the municipality in towns or for the committee which presided over a confraternity; and clerus denoted rank or class. The introduction of ministerial stipends and the implication that a paid ministry was expected to give its whole time to the service of the church made the distinction between clergy and laity more emphatic. When we investigate the matter, it is evident that the fact that the clergy are paid complicates the question; for the earliest lists are evidently those who are entitled to share in the funds of the church, and widows and orphans figure as members of the ordo or clerus. Setting this disturbing element aside we find that the earliest division of the ministry in the 3rd century is into bishops, presbyters and deacons (all congregational); but bishops and presbyters are sometimes said to form the special ordo ecclesiasticus. The earliest addition to those three orders is the reader, and there follows soon the sub-deacon. Then come such persons as exorcists, acolyths, singers, door-keepers and even grave-diggers; and to such the name “minor orders” is given. All are included within the clergy, all receive a proportionate share of the revenues of the congregational funds. The presence of bishops, presbyters and deacons needs no explanation. Readers, as we have seen, were needed at first to assist illiterate bishops or pastors; their retention and the insertion of exorcists have been plausibly accounted for by the idea that they represented the absorption of the old prophetic ministry. But in instituting the other minor orders the Christian church evidently copied the pagan temple usages where persons who performed corresponding services were included among the temple ministry and had due share of the temple revenues. In the institution of a graded hierarchy including metropolitans and patriarchs, the churches probably followed the example of the great pagan organization called forth by the imperial cult of the Divi and Divae (Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry, 335 ff). As Mommsen remarks, “The conquering Christian church took its hierarchic weapons from the arsenal of the enemy.”

    4. SYNODS:

    Synods to begin with were essentially democratic assemblies. They were, in their primitive form, congregational meetings assisted in times of emergency by delegates (not necessarily bishops) from “well-established churches,” and they grew to be the instrument by which churches grouped round one center became united into one compact organization. The times were not democratic, and gradually the presence of the laity and even of presbyters and deacons and their combined assent to the decisions of the assembly became more and more a matter of form and gradually ceased altogether. The synods consisted exclusively of bishops and became councils for registering their decisions; and this implied that each local church was fully and completely represented by its pastor or bishop, who had become very much of an autocrat, responsible, not to his congregation nor even to a synod, but to God alone. Before the end of the 3rd century and onward, synods or councils had become a regular part of the organization of the whole church, and the membership was confined to the bishops of the several churches included within the group. It was natural that such assemblies should meet in the provincial capitals, for the roads converged to the cities which were the seats of the Roman provincial administration. A synod required a chairman, and various usages obtained about the natural chairman. At first the oldest bishop present was placed in the chair, and this continued long to be the practice in several parts of the empire. Gradually it became the habit to put into the chair the bishop of the town in which the council met, and this grew to a prescriptive right. It was then that the bishops of the towns which were the meeting-places of synods came to be called metropolitans. The title was for long one of courtesy only and did not carry with it any ecclesiastical rank and authority. But by the middle of the 4th century the metropolitans had acquired the right to summon the synods and even to exercise some authority over the bishops of the bounds, especially in the matter of election and consecration. When Christianity was thoroughly established as the religion of the empire, the more important bishops secured for themselves the civil precedence and privileges which had belonged to the higher priests of the abandoned Imperial Cult, and the higher ranks of the Christian ministry came into the possession of a lordship strangely at variance with their earlier position of service.

    LITERATURE.

    C. Vitringa, De synagoge vetere libra tres, Leucopetrae (Weissenfels), 1726; Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, 1708-32; Bannermann, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church; Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (dissertation on the ministry); Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Church, and articles on “Orders” in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities; Harnack, The Expositor for January to June, 1887, and Entstehung u. Entwicklung der Kirchenverfassung .... in d. zwei ersten Jahrhunderten (1910) (English translation, The Constitution and Law of the Church); Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries; Schmiedel, article “Ministry” in EB; Gayford, article “Church” in HDB. T. M. Lindsay MINNI <min’-i > ( yNImi [minni]): A kingdom mentioned in Jeremiah 51:27, along with Ararat and Ashkenaz, as assailants of Babylon. It is identified with the Minnai of the Assyrian inscriptions, in close relation with, or part of, Armenia.

    MINNITH <min’-ith > ( tyNImi [minnith]; Codex Vaticanus [a]criv ?Arnw>n , achris Arnon]; Codex Alexandrinus [eijv Semwei>q , eis Semoeith]): After Jephthah defeated the Ammonites, he is said to have smitten them from Aroer “until thou come to Minnith” ( Judges 11:33). Eusebius, Onomasticon mentions a place called Maanith, 4 Roman miles from Heshbon, on the road to Philadelphia (`Amman), and locates Abelcheramim, which is mentioned with Minnith, 7 miles from Philadelphia, without indicating the direction. Some travelers have spoken of a Menjah, 7 miles East of Heshbon, but of this place Tristram (Land of Moab, 140) could find no trace. The same place appears to be mentioned in Ezek 27:17 as supplying wheat, which figures in the trade between Judah and Tyre. There are really no reliable data on which to suggest an identification, while there are grave reasons to suspect the integrity of the text. W. Ewing MINSTREL <min’-strel > . See MUSIC.

    MINT <mint > ([hJdu>osmon , heduosmon]): Mentioned ( Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42) as one of the small things which were tithed. The cultivated variety (Mentha piperita), “peppermint,” was doubtless primarily intended, but the wild Mentha silvestris or horsemint, which flourishes all over the mountains of Palestine, is probably included.

    MIPHKAD; GATE OF <mif’-kad > , ( dq;p]Mih” r[“v” [sha`ar ha-miphqadh]; the Revised Version (British and American) “Hammiphkad” ( Nehemiah 3:31)): A gate in, or near, the north end of the east wall of Jerusalem, rebuilt under Nehemiah. Its exact position is uncertain. See JERUSALEM.

    MIRACLE <mar’-a-k’-l > :

    1. NATURE OF MIRACLE. 1. General Idea: “Miracle” is the general term for the wonderful phenomena which accompanied the Jewish and Christian revelation, especially at critical moments, and which are alleged to have been continued, under certain conditions, in the history of the Christian church. The miracle proper is a work of God ( Exodus 7:3 ff; Dt 4:34,35, etc.; John 3:2; 9:32,33; 10:38; Acts 10:38, etc.); but as supernatural acts miracles are recognized as possible to evil agencies ( Matthew 24:24; Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:14; 16:14, etc.). 2. Biblical Terms Employed: The Biblical idea of miracle as an extraordinary work of God, generally though not invariably (“providential” miracles — see below, II, 6), transcending the ordinary powers of Nature, wrought in connection with the ends of revelation, is illustrated by the terms used to describe miracles in the Old Testament and New Testament. One class of terms brings out the unusual, exceptional, and striking character of the works, as al,P, [pele’], twOal;nI [niphla’oth] ( Exodus 3:20; 15:11, etc.), [te>rav , teras ], literally, “a portent” (in plural Matthew 24:24; Acts 2:22,43, etc.); another lays stress on the power displayed in them, as hr:WbG\ [gebhurah], [du>namiv , dunamis ] (in plural “mighty works,” the Revised Version margin “powers,” Matthew 11:20,21,23; 13:54; 14:2; Corinthians 12:12, etc.); a third gives prominence to their teleological significance — their character as “signs,” as twOa [’oth] (plural the Revised Version (British and American) “signs,” Numbers 14:22; Dt 11:3, etc.), [shmei~on , semeion ] (plural the Revised Version (British and American) “signs,” John 2:11,23, and frequently; Acts 4:16,22; 6:8; Revelation 13:14, etc.). Another Old Testament word for “wonder” or “miracle” is tpewOm [mopheth] ( Exodus 7:9; Dt 29:3). See, further, below, III, 4.

    2. MIRACLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. Miracles in Gospel History: The subject of miracles has given rise to much abstract discussion; but it is best approached by considering the actual facts involved, and it is best to begin with the facts nearest to us: those which are recorded in the New Testament. Our Lord’s ministry was attended from first to last by events entirely beyond the ordinary course of Nature. He was born of a Virgin, and His birth was announced by angels, both to His mother, and to the man to whom she was betrothed (Matthew and Luke). He suffered death on the cross as an ordinary man, but on the third day after His crucifixion He rose from the tomb in which He was buried, and lived with His disciples for 40 days ( Acts 1:3), eating and drinking with them, but with a body superior to ordinary physical conditions. At length He ascended to the heavens, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. But besides these two great miracles of His birth and His resurrection, Jesus was continually performing miracles during His ministry. His own words furnish the best description of the facts. In reply to the question of John the Baptist, His predecessor, He said, “Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them” ( Matthew 11:4,5). Specimens of these miracles are given in detail in the Gospel narratives; but it is a mistake to consider the matter, as is too often done, as though these particular miracles were the only ones in question. Even if they could be explained away, as has often been attempted, there would remain reiterated statements of the evangelists, such as Matthew’s that He “went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people” ( Matthew 4:23), or Luke’s “And a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; and they that were troubled with unclean spirits were healed. And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power came forth from him, and healed them all” ( Luke 6:17-19). 2. Special Testimony of Luke: It must be borne in mind that if there is any assured result of modern criticism, it is that these accounts proceed from contemporaries and eyewitnesses, and with respect to the third evangelist there is one unique consideration of great import. The researches of Dr. Hobart have proved to the satisfaction of a scholar like Harnack, that Luke was a trained physician. His testimony to the miracles is therefore the nearest thing possible to the evidence which has often been desired — that of a man of science. When Luke, e.g., tells us of the healing of a fever (4:38,39), he uses the technical term for a violent fever recognized in his time (compare Meyer, in the place cited); his testimony is therefore that of One who knew what fevers and the healing of them meant. This consideration is especially valuable in reference to the miracles recorded of Paul in the latter part of Acts. it should always be borne in mind that they are recorded by a physician, who was an eyewitness of them. 3. Trustworthiness of Evidence in Gospels and Acts: It seems to follow from these considerations that the working of miracles by our Lord, and by Paul in innumerable cases, cannot be questioned without attributing to the evangelists a wholesale untrustworthiness, due either to willful, or to superstitious misrepresentation, and this is a supposition which will certainly never commend itself to a fair and competent judgment. It would involve, in fact, such a sweeping condemnation of the evangelists, that it could never be entertained at all except under one presupposition, namely, that such miraculous occurrences, as being incompatible with the established laws of Nature, could not possibly have happened, and that consequently any allegations of them must of necessity be attributed to illusion or fraud.

    3. MIRACLE AND LAWS OF NATURE. 1. Pre-judgment of Negative Criticism: This, in fact, is the prejudgment or prejudice which has prompted, either avowedly or tacitly, the great mass of negative criticism on this subject, and if it could be substantiated, we should be confronted, in the Gospels, with a problem of portentous difficulty. On this question of the abstract possibility of miracles, it seems sufficient to quote the following passage from the Gifford Lectures for 1891 of the late eminent man of science, Professor Sir George Stokes. 2. Sir George Stokes Quoted: On page 23 Professor Stokes says: “We know very well that a man may in general act uniformly according to a certain rule, and yet for a special reason may on a particular occasion act quite differently. We cannot refuse to admit the possibility of something analogous taking place as regards the action of the Supreme Being. If we think of the laws of Nature as selfexistent and uncaused, then we cannot admit any deviation from them. But if we think of them as designed by a Supreme Will, then we must allow the possibility of their being on some particular occasion suspended. Nor is it even necessary, in order that some result out of the ordinary course of Nature should be brought about, that they should even be suspended; it may be that some different law is brought into action, whereby the result in question is brought about, without any suspension whatever of the laws by which the ordinary course of Nature is regulated. .... It may be that the event which we call a miracle was brought about, not by any suspension of the laws in ordinary operation, but by the superaddition of something not ordinarily in operation, or, if in operation, of such a nature that its operation is not perceived.” 3. Effects on Nature of New Agencies: Only one consideration need be added to this decisive scientific statement, namely, that if there be agencies and forces in existence outside the ordinary world of Nature, and if they can under certain circumstances interpose in it, they must necessarily produce effects inconsistent with the processes of that world when left to itself. Life under the surface of the water has a certain course of its own when undisturbed; but if a man standing on the bank of a river throws a stone into it, effects are produced which must be as unexpected and as unaccountable as a miracle to the creatures who live in the stream. The nearness of two worlds which are absolutely distinct from one another receives, indeed, a striking illustration from the juxtaposition of the world above the water and the world below its surface. There is no barrier between them; they are actually in contact; yet the life in them is perfectly distinct. The spiritual world may be as close to us as the air is to the water, and the angels, or other ministers of God’s will, may as easily, at His word, interpose in it as a man can throw a stone into the water. When a stone is thus thrown, there is no suspension or modification of any law; it is simply that, as Sir George Stokes supposes in the case of a miracle, a new agency has interposed. 4. Agreement with Biblical Idea and Terms: This, indeed, is the main fact of which miracles are irresistible evidence.

    They show that some power outside Nature, some supernatural power, has intervened. They are exactly described by the three words in the New Testament already mentioned. They are [terata ], “prodigies” or “wonders”; they are also [dunameis ], virtutes, “powers,” or “manifestation of powers”; and finally they are [semeia ], “signs.” The three conceptions are combined, and the source of such manifestations stated with them, in a pregnant verse of Hebrews: “God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will” (2:4). 5. J. S. Mill on Miracle: The words of J. S. Mill on the question of the possibility of miracles may also be quoted. Dealing with the objection of Hume in his Essay on Miracles, Mill observes: “In order that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation, the allegation must be, not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect, for that would be no uncommon occurrence; but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause. Now in the case of an alleged miracle, the assertion is the exact opposite of this. It is that the effect was defeated, not in the absence, but in consequence, of a counteracting cause, namely, a direct interposition of an act of the will of some being who has power over Nature; and in particular of a Being, whose will being assumed to have endowed all the causes with the powers by which they produce their effects, may well be supposed able to counteract them. A miracle (as was justly remarked by Brown) is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect; it is a new effect, supposed to be produced by the introduction of a new cause. Of the adequacy of that cause, if present; there can be no doubt; and the only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle is the improbability that any such cause existed” (System of Logic, II, 161-62). 6. Miracle as Connected with Command: There is, however, one other important characteristic of miracles — of those at least with which we are concerned — namely, that they occur at the command, or at the prayer, of the person to whom they are attributed.

    This is really their most significant feature, and the one upon which their whole evidential value depends. One critic has compared the fall of the fortifications of Jellalabad, on a critical occasion, with the fall of the walls of Jericho, as though the one was no more a miracle than the other. But the fall of the walls of Jericho, though it may well have been produced by some natural force such as an earthquake, bears the character of a miracle because it was predicted, and was thus commanded by God to occur in pursuance of the acts prescribed to Joshua. Similarly the whole significance of our Lord’s miracles is that they occur at His word and in obedience to Him. “What manner of man is this,” exclaimed the disciples, “that even the winds and the sea obey him?” ( Matthew 8:27).

    4. EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF MIRACLE. 1. Miracles as Proofs of Revelation: This leads us to the true view of the value of miracles as proofs of a revelation. This is one of the points which has been discussed in far too abstract a manner. Arguments have been, and still are, constructed to show that there can be no real revelation without miracles, that miracles are the proper proof of a revelation, and so on. It is always a perilous method of argument, perhaps a presumptuous one, to attempt to determine whether God could produce a given result in any other way than the one which He has actually adopted. The only safe, and the sufficient, method of proceeding is to consider whether as a matter of fact, and in what way, the miracles which are actually recorded do guarantee the particular revelation in question. 2. Miracles of Christ in This Relation: Consider our Lord’s miracles in this light. Assuming, on the grounds already indicated, that they actually occurred, they prove beyond doubt that He had supreme command over Nature; that not only the winds and the sea, but the human soul and body obeyed him, and in the striking words of the English service for the Visitation of the Sick, that He was “Lord of life and death, and of all things thereto pertaining, as youth, strength, health, age, weakness and sickness.” This is the grand fact which the miracles establish. They are not like external evidence, performed in attestation of a doctrine. They are direct and eloquent evidence of the cardinal truth of our faith, that our Lord possessed powers which belong to God Himself. But they are not less direct evidence of the special office He claimed toward the human race — that of a Saviour. He did not merely work wonders in order that men might believe His assertions about Himself, but His wonderful works, His powers — virtues — were direct evidence of their truth. He proved that He was a Saviour by doing the works of a Saviour, by healing men and women from their diseases of both body and soul. It is well known that salvation in the true sense, namely, saving men out of evils and corruptions into which they have fallen, is an idea which was actually introduced into the world by the gospel. There was no word for it in the Roman language. The ancients know of a servator, but not of a salvator. The essential message of the miracles is that they exhibit our Lord in this character — that of one who has alike the will and the power to save. Such is our Lord’s own application of them in His answer, already quoted, to the disciples of John the Baptist ( Matthew 11:4,5). 3. Miracles Part of Revelation: It is therefore an extraordinary mistake to suppose that the evidence for our faith would not be damaged if the miracles were set aside. We should lose the positive evidence we now possess of our Lord’s saving power. In this view, the miracles are not the mere proofs of a revelation; they are themselves the revelation. They reveal a Saviour from all human ills, and there has been no other revelation in the world of such a power. The miracles recorded of the apostles have a like effect. They are wrought, like Peter’s of the impotent man, as evidence of the living power of the Saviour (Acts 3; 4). “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. .... And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” ( Acts 4:10,12). In a word, the miracles of the New Testament, whether wrought by our Lord or by His apostles, reveal a new source of power, in the person of our Lord, for the salvation of men. Whatever interference they involve with the usual order of Nature is due, not to any modification of that order, but to the intervention of a new force in it. The nature of that force is revealed by them, and can only be ascertained by observation of them. A man is known by his words and by his deeds, and to these two sources of revelation, respecting His person and character, our Lord expressly appealed. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” ( John 10:37,38).

    It is therefore a mistake to try to put the evidence of the miracles into a logically demonstrative argument. Paley stated the case too much in this almost anathematized form. “It is idle,” he said, “to say that a future state had been discovered already.

    It had been discovered as the Copernican system was; it was one guess among many. He alone discovers who proves; and no man can prove this point but the teacher who testifies by miracles that his doctrine comes from God” (Moral and Polit. Philosophy, book V, chapter ix, close).

    Coleridge, in the Aids to Reflection, criticizes the above and puts the argument in a more just and more human form. “Most fervently do I contend, that the miracles worked by Christ, both as miracles and as fulfillments of prophecy, both as signs and as wonders, made plain discovery, and gave unquestionable proof, of His Divine character and authority; that they were to the whole Jewish nation true and appropriate evidences, that He was indeed come who had promised and declared to their forefathers, Behold your God will come with vengeance, even God, with a recompense! He will come and save you. I receive them as proofs, therefore, of the truth of every word which He taught who was Himself the Word: and as sure evidences of the final victory over death and of the life to come, in that they were manifestations of Him who said: I am the resurrection and the life!” (note prefatory to Aphorism CXXIII).

    This seems the fittest manner in which to contemplate the evidence afforded by miracles.

    5. MIRACLES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Analogy with New Testament Miracles: If the miracles ascribed to our Lord and His apostles are established on the grounds now stated, and are of the value just explained, there can be little difficulty in principle in accepting as credible and applying the miracles of the Old Testament. They also are obviously wrought as manifestations of a Divine Being, and as evidences of His character and will. 2. The Mosaic Miracles: This, e.g., was the great purpose of the miracles wrought for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt. The critical theories which treat the narrative of those events as “unhistorical” are, I am convinced, unsound. If they could be established, they would deprive us of some of the most precious evidences we possess of the character of God. But, in any case, the purpose to which the alleged miracles are ascribed is of the same character as in the case of the New Testament miracles. “For ask now,” says Moses, “of the days that are past .... whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that Yahweh your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Yahweh he is God; there is none else besides him” (Dt 4:32-35). The God of the Jews was, and is, the God manifested in those miraculous acts of deliverance.

    Accordingly, the Ten Commandments are introduced with the declaration: “I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” and on this follows: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” ( Exodus 20:2,3). Without these miracles, the God of the Jews would be an abstraction. As manifested in them, He is the living God, with a known character, “a just God and a Saviour” ( Isaiah 45:21), who can be loved with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. 3. Subsequent Miracles: The subsequent miracles of Jewish history, like those wrought by Elijah, serve the same great end, and reveal more and more both of the will and the power of God. They are not mere portents, wrought as an external testimony to a doctrine. They are the acts of a living Being wrought through His ministers, or with their cooperation, and He is revealed by them. If the miracles of the New Testament were possible, those of the Old Testament were possible, and as those of the New Testament reveal the nature and will of Christ, by word and deed, so those of the Old Testament reveal the existence, the nature, and the will of God. Nature, indeed, reveals God, but the miracles reveal new and momentous acts of God; and the whole religious life of the Jews, as the Psalms show, is indissolubly bound up with them. The evidence for them is, in fact, the historic consciousness of a great and tenacious nation. 4. Prophecy as Miracle: It should be added that the Jewish Scriptures embody one of the greatest of miracles — that of prophecy. It is obvious that the destiny of the Jewish people is predicted from the commencement, in the narrative of the life of Abraham and onward. There can, moreover, be no question that the office of the Christ had been so distinctly foreshadowed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament that the people, as a whole, expected a Messiah before He appeared. our Lord did not, like Buddha or Mohammed, create a new office; He came to fill an office which had been described by the prophets, and of which they had predicted the functions and powers. We are told of the Saviour, “And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” ( Luke 24:27). That, again, is a revelation of God’s nature, for it reveals Him as “knowing the end from the beginning,” and as the Ruler of human life and history.

    6. ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES. 1. Probability of Such Miracles: Some notice, finally, must be taken of the question of what are called ecclesiastical miracles. There seems no sufficient reason for assuming that miracles ceased with the apostles, and there is much evidence that in the early church miraculous cures, both of body and soul, were sometimes vouchsafed. There were occasions and circumstances when the manifestation of such miraculous power was as appropriate as testimony of the living power of Christ, as in the scenes in the Acts. But they were not recorded under inspired guidance, like the miracles of the Apostolic Age, and they have in many cases been overlaid by legend. 2. Pascal Quoted: The observation in Pascal’s Thoughts eminently applies to this class of miracles: “It has appeared to me that the real cause (that there are so many false miracles, false revelations, etc.) is that there are true ones, for it would not be possible that there should be so many false miracles unless there were true, nor so many false religions unless there were one that is true. For if all this had never been, it is impossible that so many others should have believed it. .... Thus instead of concluding that there are no true miracles since there are so many false, we must on the contrary say that there are true miracles since there are so many false, and that false miracles exist only for the reason that there are true; so also that there are false religions only because there is one that is true” (On Miracles).

    7. MIRACLE IN WORKS OF GRACE.

    It has lately been argued with much earnestness and force in Germany, particularly by J. Wendland, in his Miracles and Christianity, that belief in miracles is indispensable to our apprehension of a real living God, and to our trust in His saving work in our own souls. The work of grace and salvation, indeed, is all so far miraculous that it requires the influence upon our nature of a living power above that nature. It is not strictly correct to call it miraculous, as these operations of God’s Spirit are now an established part of His kingdom of grace. But they none the less involve the exercise of a like supernatural power to that exhibited in our Lord’s miracles of healing and casting out of demons; and in proportion to the depths of man’s Christian life will he be compelled to believe in the gracious operation on his soul of this Divine interposition.

    On the whole, it is perhaps increasingly realized that miracles, so far from being an excrescence on Christian faith, are indissolubly bound up with it, and that there is a complete unity in the manifestation of the Divine nature, which is recorded in the Scriptures.

    LITERATURE.

    Trench, Notes on the Miracles; Mozley, Bampton Lectures (Mozley’s argument is perhaps somewhat marred by its too positive and controversial tone, but, if the notes be read as well as the Lectures, the reader will obtain a comprehensive view of the main controversies on the subject); A.B.

    Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels. For modern German views see J. Wendland, Miracles and Christianity; Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Paley’s Evidences and Butler’s Analogy may profitably be consulted. On continuance of miracles, see Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, chapter xiv, and Christlieb, as above, Lecture V. H. Wace MIRACLES, GIFT OF See SPIRITUAL GIFTS; MIRACLE.

    MIRAGE <me-razh’ > ( br:v; [sharabh], “heat-mirage”; Arabic sarab, from verb which means “to go forth,” “to flow”; hence, “flowing of water”): “The glowing sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water” ( Isaiah 35:7); the King James Version has “parched ground” and the Revised Version margin “mirage.” The same Hebrew word is also used in Isaiah 49:10, “Neither shall the heat (margin “mirage”) nor sun smite them.” These are the only uses of the word in the Scriptures, although mirages are very common in the drier parts of the country. However, the context in both cases seems to justify the translation usually given, rather than “mirage.” Alfred H. Joy MIRE <mir > .See CHALKSTONE; CLAY; MARSH.

    MIRIAM <mir’-i-am > ( µy:r”mi [miryam]; Septuagint and the New Testament [ Maria>m , Mariam]; English Versions of the Bible of the New Testament “Mary”): (1) Daughter of Amram and Jochebed, and sister of Aaron and Moses. It is probable that it was she who watched the ark of bulrushes in which the child Moses was laid ( Exodus 2:4). She associated herself with her brothers in the exodus, is called “the prophetess,” and led the choir of maidens who sang the triumph-song after the crossing of the Red Sea ( Exodus 15:20 f). Along with Aaron, she opposed Moses at Hazeroth ( Numbers 12:1-5). She was smitten with leprosy in punishment, but on Aaron’s intercession was pardoned and healed ( Numbers 12:10-15).

    She died and was buried at Kadesh ( Numbers 20:1). In the Deuteronomic Law respecting leprosy, Miriam is mentioned as a warning to the Israelites (Dt 24:8 f). In Micah 6:4, she is referred to along with Moses and Aaron as a leader of God’s people. (2) Son (or daughter) of Jether ( 1 Chronicles 4:17). The latter half of the verse is in its present situation unintelligible; it should probably follow verse 18 (see Curtis, Chronicles, in the place cited.). John A. Lees MIRMAH <mur’-ma > ( hm;r”m [mirmah], “deceit”): A Benjamite ( 1 Chronicles 8:10).

    MIRROR <mir’er > See LOOKING-GLASS.

    MISAEL <mis’-a-el > , <mi’-sa-el > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Misah>l , Misael]; Codex Vaticanus [ Meisah>l , Meisael]): (1) One of those who stood on Ezra’s left hand as he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44 = “Mishael,” Nehemiah 8:4). (2) In The Song of Solomon of the Three Children verse 66 (Septuagint Daniel 3:88), for “Mishael,” one of Daniel’s companions in captivity.

    MISAIAS <mi-sa’-yas > , <mi-si’-as > : the Revised Version margin = “Masias.”

    MISCHIEF <mis’-chif > : The word, in the sense of “hurt” or “evil” befalling, plotted against, or done to, anyone, represents a variety of Hebrew terms (e.g. [’acon], the King James Version Genesis 42:4; 44:29; Exodus 21:22; [ra`], 1 Samuel 23:9; 2 Samuel 16:8; 1 Kings 11:25, etc.; [`amal], Psalm 7:14,16; 10:7,14; Proverbs 24:2, etc.). Sometimes the Revised Version (British and American) changes the word, as to “evil” ( Exodus 32:12,22); in Acts 13:10, to “villany” ([rJadiourgi>a , rhadiourgia]).

    In the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha the word is used for [kaka> , kaka], “evils,” Additions to Esther 13:5 (compare Sirach 19:28); [kakia], “evil,” 1 Macc 7:23; and Latin malum, “evil,” 2 Esdras 15:56. “Mischievous” is used, Additions to Esther 14:19, for [ponhreu>omai , ponereuomai], “to be evil.” The use in the King James Version Apocrypha is considerably more extended (Sirach 11:33; 19:27; 27:27, etc.). James Orr MISGAB <mis’-gab > ( bG:c]Mih” [ha-misgabh]; Codex Vaticanus [ ?Ama>q , Amath]; Codex Alexandrinus [to< kratai>wma , to krataioma]): Named with Nebo and Kiriathaim in the denunciation of doom against Moab ( Jeremiah 48:1). No trace of any name resembling this has been found. Possibly we should take it, not as a place-name, but as an appellation of some strong fortress, perhaps of Kir-moab itself. The term is elsewhere translated “high fortress” ( Isaiah 25:12, etc.).

    MISHAEL <mish’-a-el > , <mi’-sha-el > ( laev;ymi [misha’el], perhaps = “who is equal to God?”): (1) A Kohathite, 4th in descent from Levi ( Exodus 6:22). He and his brother Elzaphan carried out Moses’ order to remove from the sanctuary and the camp the corpses of Nadab and Abihu ( Leviticus 10:4 f). (2) A supporter of Ezra at the reading of the Law ( Nehemiah 8:4). (3) The Hebrew name of one of Daniel’s 3 companions ( Daniel 1:6,7,11,19; 2:17). His Babylonian name was MESHACH (which see).

    MISHAL <mi’-shal > ( la;v]mi [mish’al]): A town in the territory of Asher (Josh 19:26, the King James Version “Misheal,” [ Maasa> , Maasa]), assigned to the Gershonite Levites (Josh 21:30; Codex Vaticanus [bassella>n , Bassellan]; Codex Alexandrinus [masaa>l , Masaal] = “Mashal” of Chronicles 6:74). Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. “Masan”) places it near Carmel by the sea. It is not identified.

    MISHAM <mi’-sham > ( µ[;v]mi [mish`am]): A Benjamite, son of Elpaal ( Chronicles 8:12).

    MISHEAL <mish’-e-al > .See MISHAL.

    MISHMA <mish’ma > ( [m;v]mi [mishma`]): (1) A son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:14; 1 Chronicles 1:30). (2) A Simeonite ( 1 Chronicles 4:25).

    MISHMANNAH <mish-man’-a > ( hN:m”v]mi [mishmannah]): A Gadite warrior who joined David at Ziklag ( 1 Chronicles 12:10).

    MISHNA <mish’-na > . See TALMUD.

    MISHNEH <mish’-ne > ( hn:v]Mih” [ha-mishneh]; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22, the King James Version “college,” the Revised Version (British and American) “second quarter,” margin “Hebrew Mishneh”; Zeph 1:10, the King James Version “the second,” the Revised Version (British and American) “second quarter,” margin “Hebrew: Mishneh”): A part of Jerusalem, apparently not far from the FISH GATE (which see) and the MAKTESH (which see). The translation “college” is due to Targum of Jonathan on 2 Kings 22:14. The Revised Version (British and American) interpretation of Mishneh is connected with the belief that Hezekiah, when he built “the other wall without” (1 Chronicles 32:5), made the second wall on the North. There seems little evidence of this (see JERUSALEM, VI, 11), and the “second” may refer to the district of the city on the west hill or perhaps to the hill itself. See COLLEGE.

    E. W. G. Masterman MISHOR <mi’-shor > . See PLAIN, and also note in HDB, III, 309.

    MISHRAITES <mish’-ra-its > ( y[ir:v]Mih” [ha-mishra`i]): One of the families of Kiriathjearim ( 1 Chronicles 2:53).

    MISPAR <mis’-par > ( rP;s]mi [micpar]): An exile who returned with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:2). the King James Version spells the name “Mizpar.” In the parallel verse of Nehemiah it appears as “Mispereth” ( Nehemiah 7:7).

    MISPERETH <mis’-pe-reth > ( trSee MISPAR.

    MISREPHOTH-MAIM <miz-re-foth-ma’-im > ( µyIm” twOpr”c]mi [misrephoth mayim]; Septuagint [ Maserw>n , Maseron ], [ Maserem , Masereth Memphomaim ]): A place to which Joshua chased the various tribes, which were confederated under Jabin, after their defeat at the waters of Merom (Josh 11:8). It follows the mention of great Sidon, as though it was a place in the same region but farther from the point of departure. In Josh 13:6, it is also mentioned in connection with the Sidonians, as though it was included in their territory, so it must have been in the coast district, or Phoenicia, which was in that period dominated by Sidon. The Canaanites who were among the tribes forming the hosts of Jabin would naturally seek refuge among their brethren in Sidon and its territory. They fled across the hill country which lies between the waters of Merom and the coast, but as Sidon is situated considerably to the North of Merom, some would seek the coast by a more southerly route, and we may look for Misrephothmaim there. Dr. Thomson (LB, II, 266-67, edition 1882) locates it at Ras el-Musheirifeh, some 13 miles South of Tyre, where there was a stronghold, and where the fugitives might find refuge (see LADDER OF TYRE). Though the name hardly suggests Misrephoth-maim, the identification may be accepted until some better one is found. H. Porter MIST ( dae [’edh]; [ajclu>v , achlus ], [oJmi>clh , homichie ]): Mist is caused by particles of water vapor filling the air until it is only partially transparent.

    Mist and haze produce much the same effect, the one being due to moisture in the atmosphere and the other to dust particles. Mist or fog is not common on the plains of Palestine and Syria at sea-level, but is of almost daily occurrence in the mountain valleys, coming up at night and disappearing with the morning sun (The Wisdom of Solomon 2:4). It is nothing else than a cloud touching the land. In the account of creation, “there went up a mist from the earth,” giving a description of the warm humid atmosphere of the carboniferous ages which agrees remarkably with the teaching of modern science ( Genesis 2:6). The word is used figuratively in Acts 13:11 to describe the shutting out of light. Those who bring confusion and uncertainty are compared to “mists driven by a storm” ( 2 Peter 2:17). See VAPOR.

    Alfred H. Joy MISTRESS <mis’-tres > ( hl;[\B” [ba`alah], tr1 Kings 17:17; Nahum 3:4); in Samuel 28:7, “a woman that hath a familiar spirit” is literally, “the mistress of a familiar spirit”; of [gebhereth] ( Genesis 16:4,8,9; 2 Kings 5:3; <19C302> Psalm 123:2; Proverbs 30:23; Isaiah 24:2); in Isaiah 47:5,7, we have the King James Version and the English Revised Version “lady,” the American Standard Revised Version “mistress.”

    MITE <mit > ([lepto>n , lepton ]): The smallest copper or bronze coin current among the Jews. They were first struck by the Maccabean princes with Hebrew legends, and afterward by the Herods and the Roman procurators with Greek legends. The “widow’s mite” mentioned in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2 was probably of the first kind, since those with Greek legends were regarded as unlawful in the temple service. According to Mark, the [lepton ] was only half a [kodrantes ] (Latin quadrans), which would indicate a value of about one-fourth of a cent or half an English farthing. See MONEY.

    H. Porter MITHKAH <mith’-ka > ( hq;t]mi [mithqah] “sweetness”; the King James Version Mithcah): Name given owing to sweetness of pasture or water. A desert camp of the Israelites between Terah and Hashmonah ( Numbers 33:28 f). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

    MITHNITE <mith’-nit > ( ynit]Mih” [ha-mithni]): Designation of Jehoshaphat, one of David’s officers ( 1 Chronicles 11:43).

    MITHRADATES <mith-ra-da’-tez > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Miqrada>thv , Mithradates ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Miqrida>thv , Mithridates ]; the King James Version Mithridates): (1) The treasurer of Cyrus to whom the king committed the vessels which had been taken from the temple and who delivered them to the governor, Sanabassar (1 Esdras 2:11 = “Mithredath” of Ezra 1:8). (2) Apparently another person of the same name — one of the commissioners stationed in Samaria who wrote a letter to Artaxerxes persuading him to put a stop to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (1 Esdras 2:16 = “Mithredath” of Ezra 4:7). S. Angus MITHREDATH <mith’-re-dath > ( td:r”t]mi [mithredhath]; Persian = “gift of Mithra” or “consecrated to Mithra”): (1) The Persian treasurer through whom Cyrus restored the sacred vessels to the returning Jewish exiles ( Ezra 1:8). (2) A Persian, perhaps an official, who was associated with Bishlam and Tabeel in corresponding with Artaxerxes concerning the restoration of Jerusalem ( Ezra 4:7). In 1 Esdras 2:11,16, the name is written MITHRADATES (which see).

    MITRE <mi’-ter > In the King James Version this word renders two Hebrew words, both of which, however, come from the same stem, namely, pn’x; [tsanaph], “to coil” or “to wrap round.” In Exodus 28, a mitre (the Revised Version margin “turban”) is enumerated among Aaron’s articles of dress, which were to be made by tailors of recognized skill. On the forefront of the mitre was a “plate of pure gold” with the words “Holy to Yahweh” (i.e. consecrated to Yahweh) inscribed upon it. This gold plate was fastened to the mitre by a blue ribbon. The material of the mitre was fine linen or silk.

    The word for the headtire (the King James Version “bonnet”) of the ordinary priest was a different word. Ezekiel uses the word in connection with Zedekiah (21:26); the prophet associated regal and priestly functions with the throne. It is possible, however, that the two sentences — “remove the mitre,” and “take off the crown” — refer to the degradation of the priesthood and of the throne which the downfall of Jerusalem will involve.

    The Septuagint varies between [kidaris ] and [mitra ], the former word being used in Sirach 45:12. T. Lawns MITYLENE <mit-i-le’-ne > , <mit-i-lye’-nye > ([ Mitulh>nh , Mitulene ], or [ Mutilh>nh , Mutilene] as usually on coins):

    1. IMPORTANCE AND HISTORY:

    In antiquity the most important city of the Asiatic Aeolians and of the island of Lesbos. It had 2 harbors and strong fortresses. The city was noted for its high culture and for its zeal for art and science from the earliest times. The island, under the leadership of Mitylene, revolted in BC from the Athenian confederacy. The city was besieged by the Athenians and finally taken. The inhabitants of Mitylene were treated with great severity; the walls were dismantled, and the city was deprived of its power on the sea. In the time of Alexander the Great, Mitylene suffered most through the Persians, and later by the occupation of the Macedonians, but afterward regained its power and prosperity, and still later was favored by the Roman emperors, being made a free city by Pompey.

    In the Middle Ages, the name Mitylene was applied to the whole island.

    The present capital, often called simply Castro, has a large castle built on the site of the ancient acropolis (in 1373). The city was conquered by the Turks in 1462. It contains 14 mosques, 7 churches, and has a population of about 15,000.

    2. PAUL’S VISIT:

    On his third missionary journey, Paul traveled to the Hellespont from Philippi, thence through the Troad by land to Assos on the southern side — where extensive excavations were carried on in 1881 by an American archaeological expedition — thence by ship to Mitylene ( Acts 20:14), where he spent the night. Leaving Lesbos, he sailed southward to a point opposite the island of Chios ( Acts 20:15). There is no record that a Christian church had been established in Mitylene at this time.

    LITERATURE.

    Tozer, Islands of the Aegean, 121, 134 f, 136; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 291 ff. J. E. Harry MIXED, MULTITUDE <mikst > , <mul’-ti-tud > . See MINGLED PEOPLE.

    MIZAR, THE HILL <mi’-zar > , ( r[;x]mi rh” [har mits`ar]; [o]rov mikro>v , oros mikros ]):

    The name of a mountain found only in Psalm 42:6; “I remember thee from the land of Jordan, and the Hermons, from the hill Mizar.” The term may be taken as an appellative meaning “littleness” and the phrase [mehar mits`ar] would then mean “from the little mountain,” i.e. the little mountain of Zion. Some scholars think that the “m” in [mehar] may have arisen from dittography, and that we should read, “from the land of Jordan, and the Hermons, O thou little mountain (of Zion).” G.A. Smith discusses the question in a note (HGHL, 477). He suggests that certain names found in the district (za`ura, wady za`arah, and Khirbet Mazara) may be a reminiscence of the name of a hill in the district called [Mits`ar]; and surly none other would have been put by the Psalmist in apposition to the Hermons. Cheyne says: “To me this appendage to Hermonim seems a poetic loss. Unless the little mountain has a symbolic meaning I could wish it away.” I cannot see this: the symbolic meanings suggested for Hermonim and [Mits`ar] are all forced, and even if we got a natural one, it would be out of place after the literal land of Jordan. To employ all as proper names is suitable to a lyric. No identification is at present possible. W. Ewing MIZPAH; MIZPEH <miz’-pa > , <miz’-pe > : This name is pointed both ways in the Hebrew, and is found usually with the article. The meaning seems to be “outlook” or “watchtower.” It is natural, therefore, to look for the places so named in high positions commanding wide prospects. (1) ( hP;x]Mih” [ha-mitspah] ( Genesis 31:49; Judges 11:11,34), hP;x]mi [mitspah] (Hos 5:1), d[;l]gi hPex]mi [mitspeh ghil`adh ] ( Judges 11:29); [ Masshfa> , Massepha ], [thn , ten skopian ], and other forms): It seems probable that the same place is intended in all these passages, and that it is identical with Ramath-mizpeh of Josh 13:26.

    It is the place where Jacob and Laban parted in Matthew. Gilead; consequently it lay to the North of Mahanaim. Here was the home of Jephthah, to which he returned after the defeat of the Aremonites, only to realize how his rash vow had brought desolation to his house. It was taken by Judas Maccabeus, who destroyed the inhabitants and burned the city (1 Macc 5:35). Jerash, and Kal`at er-Rabad; but these seem all to lie South of any possible site for Mahanaim. A ruined site was discovered by Dr.

    Schumacher (M und NPDV, 1897, 86), with the name [Macfa], which is just the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew [Mitspah]. It lies some distance to the Northwest of Jerash and claims consideration in any attempt to fix the site of Mizpah. (2) ( hP;x]Mih” ˜rn , Masseuman ], [ Masshfa>q , Massephath ], and other forms): The “land of Mizpah” and the “valley of Mizpah” may be taken as applying to the same district. It lay on the southwest slopes of Hermon Northeast of the Waters of Merom. The site must be looked for on one of the heights in the region indicated, from which a wide view is obtained. MuTallah, a Druze village standing on a hill to the North of `Abil and East of Nahr el-Chasbany, was suggested by Robinson. The present writer agrees with Buhl (GAP, 240) that the ancient castle above Banias, Kal`at ec-Cubeibeh, occupies a more likely position. (3) ( hP,x]mi [mitspeh]; [ Masfa> , Maspha ]): A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Dilan, Joktheel and Lachish (Tell el-Hesy). Eusebius, Onomasticon mentions a Macfa in the neighborhood of Eleutheropolis, to the North. The identification proposed by Van de Velde and Guerin would suit this description. They would locate Mizeph at Tell ec-Cafiyeh, about 1/2 miles Northwest of Beit Jibrin, “a conspicuous hill with a glittering white cliff rising like an isolated block above the adjacent country” (PEFS, 1903, 276). Many identify this site with Gath, but the name and character of the place point rather to identification with Mizpeh, the Blanche Guarde or Alba Specula of the Middle Ages. (4) ( hP;x]Mih” [ha-mitspah]; [ Masshma> , Massema ], [ Masfa> , Maspha ]): A town in the territory of Benjamin (Josh 18:26). Hither came the men of Israel to deal with the Benjamites after the outrage on the Levite’s concubine ( Judges 20:1,3; 21:1,5,8). At Mizpah, Samuel gathered his countrymen. While there crying to God in their distress, they were attacked by the Philistines, whom they defeated with great slaughter ( 1 Samuel 7:5, etc.). Here also Saul, the son of Kish, was chosen king, after which Samuel told the people the “manner of the kingdom” (10:17, etc.). Mizpah was fortified by Asa, king of Judah, with materials which Baasha, king of Israel, had used to fortify Ramah ( 1 Kings 15:22; Chronicles 16:6). When Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and made Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, governor of the remnant of the people left in the land of Judah, the governor’s residence was fixed at Mizpah ( Kings 25:23). Here he was joined by Jeremiah, whom Nebuzaradan, captain of the Babylonian guard, had set free. At Mizpah, Ishmael, son of Nathaiah, treacherously slew Gedaliah and many who were with him. Two days later he murdered a company of pilgrims, throwing their dead bodies into the great cistern which Asa had made when strengthening the place against possible attack by Baasha of Samaria. He then made prisoners of the people, including the king’s daughters, and attempted to convey them away to the Ammonites, an attempt that was frustrated by Johanan, son of Kareah (Jeremiah 40; 41). Mizpah was the scene of memorable assembly in a day of sore anxiety for Judah, when Judas Maccabeus called the warriors of Judah together for counsel and prayer (1 Macc 3:46). From this passage we also learn that the place was an ancient sanctuary — “for in Mizpah there was a place of prayer aforetime for Israel.”

    It has been proposed to identify Mizpah with Tell Nasbeh, a site on the watershed South of Bireh. The Abbe Raboisson established the fact that Jerusalem can be seen from this point. In this respect it agrees with Maundeville’s description. “It is a very fair and delicious place, and it is called Matthew. Joy because it gives joy to pilgrims’ hearts, for from that place men first see Jerusalem.” But Jeremiah 41:10 may be taken as decisive against this identification. Ishmael departed to go east. From Tell Nasbeh this would never have brought him to the great waters that are in Gibeon (PEFS, 1898, 169, 251; 1903, 267). A more probable identification is with Neby Samwil, a village on high ground 4 1/2 miles Northwest of Jerusalem, the traditional burying-place of Samuel. It is 2,935 ft. above sea-level, and 500 ft. higher than the surrounding land. Here the pilgrims coming up by way of Beth-heron from Jaffa, the ancient route, first saw the Holy City. The mosque of the village was formerly a church, dating from Crusading times; and here the tomb of Samuel is shown. If this is the ancient Mizpah, a very slight detour to the North would bring Ishmael to the great waters that are in Gibeon, el-Jib (Gibeon) being only a mile and a quarter distant. (5) ( ba;wOm hPex]mi [mitspeh mo’abh] “Mizpeh of Moab”; [ Mashfa> , Masepha ]): A town in Moab to which David took his parents for safety during Saul’s pursuit of him ( 1 Samuel 22:3). It is possibly to be identified with Kir-moab, the modern Kerak, whither David would naturally go to interview the king. But there is no certainty. Possibly we should read “Mizpah” instead of “the hold” in 1 Samuel 22:5. (6) In 2 Chronicles 20:24, probably we should read “Mizpah” instead of “watch-tower”: [ha-mitspeh la-midhbar] would then point to a Mizpeh of the Wilderness to be sought in the district of Tekoa (20:20). W. Ewing MIZPAR <miz’-par > . See MISPAR.

    MIZRAIM <miz’-ra-im > ( µyIr’x]mi [mitsrayim]): (1) A son of Ham, and ancestor of various peoples, Ludim, Anamim, etc. ( Genesis 10:6,13; 1 Chronicles 1:8,11). See TABLE OF NATIONS. (2) The name of Egypt. See EGYPT.

    The land of Ham. — µj; [cham], was another name for the land of Egypt.

    It occurs only in <19A523> Psalm 105:23,17; 106:22; Psalm 78:51 probably refers to the land of Ham, though it may refer to the children of Ham. The origin and significance of this name are involved in much obscurity. Two improbable etymologies and one probable etymology for Ham as a name of Egypt have been proposed, and the improbable ones very much urged: (1) Ham is often thought to be a Hebrew appropriation of the Egyptian name “Kemt,” a name for the “black land” as distinguished from “desherr,” the red land of the desert which surrounded it. This etymology is very attractive, but phonetically very improbable to say the least. (2) Ham has sometimes been connected directly with µj; [cham], the second son of Noah whose descendants under the name Mitsraim occupied a part of Northeastern Africa. But as there is no trace of this name among the Egyptians and no use of it in the historical books of the Old Testament, this can hardly be said to be a probable derivation of the word. (3) There is a third proposed etymology for Ham which connects it ultimately but indirectly with Ham, the second son of Noah. Some of the earliest sculptures yet found in Egypt represent the god Min (Menu; compare Koptos by Professor Petrie). This god seems also to have been called Khem, a very exact Egyptian equivalent for µj; [cham], Ham, the second son of Noah and the ancestor of the Hamitic people of Egypt. That Ham the son of Noah should be deified in the Egyptian pantheon is not surprising. The sensuality of this god Min or Khem also accords well with the reputation for licentiousness borne by Ham the son of Noah. These facts suggest very strongly a trace in Egyptian mythology of the actual history of the movements of Hamitic people. (4) While the preceding division (3) probably states the real explanation of the early name of Egypt, it still remains to be noted that the use of the name Ham by the Psalmist may be entirely poetic. Until it be found that the name Ham was applied to Egypt by other writers of that period it will ever be in some measure unlikely that the Psalmist was acquainted with the mythological use of the name Ham in Egypt, and so, in equal measure, probable that he meant nothing more than to speak of the land of the descendants of Ham the son of Noah. See also HAM, LAND OF.

    M. G. Kyle MIZZAH <miz’-a > ( hZ:mi [mizzah], “strong,” “firm”): Grandson of Esau, one of the “dukes” of Edom ( Genesis 36:13,17; 1 Chronicles 1:37).

    MNASON <na’-son > , <m’-na’-son > ([ Mna>swn , Mnason ]): All that we know of Mnason is found in Acts 21:16. (1) He accompanied Paul and his party from Caesarea on Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem; (2) he was a Cyprian; (3) “an early disciple,” an early convert to Christianity, and (4) the one with whom Paul’s company was to lodge.

    The “Western” text of this passage is very interesting. Blass, following Codex Bezae (D), the Syriac, reads, for “bringing,” etc., “And they brought us to those with whom one should lodge, and when we had come into a certain village we stayed with Mnason a Cyprian, an early disciple, and having departed thence we came to Jerusalem and the brethren,” etc.

    Meyer-Wendt, Page and Rendell render the accepted text, “bringing us to the house of Mnason,” etc. However, giving the imperfect transitive of anebainomen, “we were going up” to Jerusalem (21:15), we might understand that the company lodged with Mnason on the 1st night of their journey to Jerusalem, and not at the city itself. “ Acts 21:15, they set about the journey; 21:16, they lodged with Mnason on the introduction of the Cesarean disciples; 21:17, they came to Jerus” (Expositor’s Greek Testament, in the place cited.). S. F. Hunter MOAB; MOABITES <mo’-ab > , <mo’-ab-its > (Moab, ba;wOm [mo’abh], Moabite Stone, bam [M-’-B]; Greek (Septuagint) [ Mwa>b , Moab ], [hJ Mwabei~tiv , he Moabeitis ], [ Mwabi~tiv , Moabitis ]; Moabite, ybia;wOm , ybia;m [mo’abhi]; Moabites, ba;wOm yneB] [bene mo’abh]):

    1. THE LAND:

    Moab was the district East of the Dead Sea, extending from a point some distance North of it to its southern end. The eastern boundary was indefinite, being the border of the desert which is irregular. The length of the territory was about 50 miles and the average width about 30. It is a high tableland, averaging some 3,000 ft. above the level of the Mediterranean and 4,300 ft. above that of the Dead Sea. The aspect of the land, as one looks at it from the western side of the Dead Sea, is that of a range of mountains with a very precipitous frontage, but the elevation of this ridge above the interior is very slight. Deep chasms lead down from the tableland to the Dead Sea shore, the principal one being the gorge of the river Arnon, which is about 1,700 ft. deep and 2 or more miles in width at the level of the tableland, but very narrow at the bottom and with exceedingly precipitous banks. About 13 miles back from the mouth of the river the gorge divides, and farther back it subdivides, so that several valleys are formed of diminishing depth as they approach the desert border.

    These are referred to in Numbers 21:14 as the “valleys of the Arnon.”

    The “valley of Zered” ( Numbers 21:12), which was on the southern border, drops down to the southern end of the Dead Sea, and although not so long or deep as the Arnon, is of the same nature in its lower reaches, very difficult to cross, dividing into two branches, but at a point much nearer the sea. The stream is not so large as the Arnon, but is quite copious, even in summer. These gorges have such precipitous sides that it would be very difficult for an army to cross them, except in their upper courses near the desert where they become shallow. The Israelites passed them in that region, probably along the present Hajj road and the line of the Mecca Railway. The tableland is fertile but lacks water. The fountains and streams in the valleys and on the slopes toward the Dead Sea are abundant, but the uplands are almost destitute of flowing water. The inhabitants supply themselves by means of cisterns, many of which are ancient, but many of those used in ancient times are ruined. The population must have been far greater formerly than now. The rainfall is usually sufficient to mature the crops, although the rain falls in winter only. The fertility of the country in ancient times is indicated by the numerous towns and villages known to have existed there, mentioned in Scripture and on the Moabite Stone, the latter giving some not found elsewhere. The principal of these were: Ar ( Numbers 21:15); Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Nebo ( Numbers 32:3); Beth-peor (Dt 3:29); Beth-diblaim, Bozrah, Kerioth ( Jeremiah 48:22-24); Kir ( Isaiah 15:1); Medeba, Elealeh, Zoar ( Isaiah 15:2,4,5); Kirheres ( Isaiah 16:11); Sibmah (Josh 13:19); in all, some 45 place-names in Moab are known, most of the towns being in ruins. Kir of Moab is represented in the modern Kerak, the most important of all and the government center of the district. Madeba now represents the ancient Medeba, and has become noted for the discovery of a medieval map of Palestine, in mosaic, of considerable archaeological value. Rabbathmoab and Heshbon (modern Rabba and Hesban) are miserable villages, and the country is subject to the raids of the Bedouin tribes of the neighboring desert, which discourages agriculture. But the land is still good pasture ground for cattle and sheep, as in ancient times ( Numbers 32:3,4).

    2. THE PEOPLE:

    The Moabites were of Semitic stock and of kin to the Hebrews, as is indicated by their descent from Lot, the nephew of Abraham ( Genesis 19:30-37), and by their language which is practically the same as the Hebrew. This is clear from the inscription on the Moabite Stone, a monument of Mesha, king of Moab, erected about 850 BC, and discovered among the ruins of Dibon in 1868. It contains 34 lines of about 9 words each, written in the old Phoenician and Hebrew characters, corresponding to the Siloam inscription and those found in Phoenicia, showing that it is a dialect of the Semitic tongue prevailing in Palestine. The original inhabitants of Moab were the Emim (Dt 2:10), “a people great .... and tall, as the Anakim.” When these were deposed by the Moabites we do not know. The latter are not mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters and do not appear on the Egyptian monuments before the 14th century BC, when they seem to be referred to under the name of Ruten, or Luten or Lotan, i.e. Lot (Paton, Syria and Pal); Muab appears in a list of names on a monument of Rameses III of the XXth Dynasty. The country lay outside the line of march of the Egyptian armies, and this accounts for the silence of its monuments in regard to them.

    3. RELIGION:

    The chief deity of Moab was Chemosh ([kemosh]), frequently mentioned in the Old Testament and on the Moabite Stone, where King Mesha speaks of building a high place in his honor because he was saved by him from his enemies. He represents the oppression of Moab by Omri as the result of the anger of Chemosh, and Mesha made war against Israel by command of Chemosh. He was the national god of Moab, as Molech was of Ammon, and it is pretty certain that he was propitiated by human sacrifices ( <120301> Kings 3:27). But he was not the only god of Moab, as is clear from the account in Numbers 25, where it is also clear that their idolatrous worship was corrupt. They had their Baalim like the nations around, as may be inferred from the place-names compounded with Baal, such as Bamothbaal, Beth-baal-meon and Baal-peor.

    4. HISTORY:

    We know scarcely anything of the history of the Moabites after the account of their origin in Genesis 19 until the time of the exodus. It would seem, however, that they had suffered from the invasions of the Amorites, who, under their king Sihon, had subdued the northern part of Moab as far as the Arnon ( Numbers 21:21-31). This conquest was no doubt a result of the movement of the Amorites southward, when they were pressed by the great wave of Hittite invasion that overran Northern Syria at the end of the 15th and the early part of the 14th centuries BC. The Amorites were forced to seek homes in Palestine, and it would seem that a portion of them crossed the Jordan and occupied Northern Moab, and here the Israelites found them as they approached the Promised Land. They did not at first disturb the Moabites in the South, but passed around on the eastern border (Dt 2:8,9) and came into conflict with the Amorites in the North ( Numbers 21:21-26), defeating them and occupying the territory ( Numbers 21:31-32). But when Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab, saw what a powerful people was settling on his border, he made alliance with the Midianites against them and called in the aid of Balaam, but as he could not induce the latter to curse them he refrained from attacking the Israelites (Numbers 22; 24). The latter, however, suffered disaster from the people of Moab through their intercourse with them (Numbers 25).

    Some time before the establishment of the kingdom in Israel the Midianites overran Moab, as would appear from the passage in Genesis 36:35, but the conquest was not permanent, for Moab recovered its lost territory and became strong enough to encroach upon Israel across the Jordan. Eglon of Moab oppressed Israel with the aid of Ammon and Amalek ( Judges 3:13-14), but Eglon was assassinated by Ehud, and the Moabite yoke was cast off after 18 years. Saul smote Moab, but did not subdue it ( Samuel 14:47), for we find David putting his father and mother under the protection of the king of Moab when persecuted by Saul ( 1 Samuel 22:3,4). But this friendship between David and Moab did not continue.

    When David became king he made war upon Moab and completely subjugated it ( 2 Samuel 8:2). On the division of the kingdom between Rehoboam and Jeroboam the latter probably obtained possession of Moab ( 1 Kings 12:20), but it revolted and Omri had to reconquer it (M S), and it was tributary to Ahab ( 2 Kings 1:1). It revolted again in the reign of Ahaziah ( 2 Kings 1:1; 3:5), and Moab and Ammon made war on Jehoshaphat and Matthew. Seir and destroyed the latter, but they afterward fell out among themselves and destroyed each other (2 Chronicles 20). Jehoshaphat and Jehoram together made an expedition into Moab and defeated the Moabites with great slaughter (2 Kings 3).

    But Mesha, king of Moab, was not subdued ( 2 Kings 3:27), and afterward completely freed his land from the dominion of Israel (M S).

    This was probably at the time when Israel and Judah were at war with Hazael of Damascus ( 2 Kings 8:28,29). Bands of Moabites ventured to raid the land of Israel when weakened by the conflict with Hazael ( Kings 13:20), but Moab was probably subdued again by Jeroboam II ( Kings 14:25), which may be the disaster to Moab recounted in Isaiah 15.

    After Mesha we find a king of the name of Salamanu and another called Chemosh-nadab, the latter being subject to Sargon of Assyria. He revolted against Sennacherib, in alliance with other kings of Syria and Palestine and Egypt, but was subdued by him, and another king, Mutsuri, was subject to Esarhaddon. These items come to us from the Assyrian monuments.

    When Babylon took the place of Assyria in the suzerainty, Moab joined other tribes in urging Judah to revolt but seems to have come to terms with Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem was taken, as we hear nothing of any expedition of that king against her. On the war described in Judith, in which Moab (1:12, etc.) plays a part. See JUDITH.

    At a later date Moab was overrun by the Nabathean Arabs who ruled in Petra and extended their authority on the east side of Jordan even as far as Damascus (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xv, 1,2). The Moabites lost their identity as a nation and were afterward confounded with the Arabs, as we see in the statement of Josephus (XIII, xiii, 5), where he says that Alexander (Janneus) overcame the Arabians, such as the Moabites and the Gileadites.

    Alexander built the famous stronghold of Macherus in Moab, on a hill overlooking the Dead Sea, which afterward became the scene of the imprisonment and tragical death of John the Baptist (Josephus, BJ, VII, vi, 2; Ant, XVIII, v, 2; Mark 6:21-28). It was afterward destroyed by the Romans. Kir became a fortress of the Crusaders under the name of Krak (Kerak), which held out against the Moslems until the time of Saladin, who captured it in 1188 AD.

    LITERATURE.

    Commentaries on the passages in the Old Testament relating to Moab, and histories of Israel; Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine; Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, especially Assyria and Babylonia; Conder, Heth and Moab; G. A. Smith, HGHL; the Moabite Stone; Josephus. H. Porter MOABITE STONE A monument erected at Dibon (Dhiban) by Mesha, king of Moab ( <120301> Kings 3:4,5), to commemorate his successful revolt from Israel and his conquest of Israelite territory. It was discovered, August 19, 1868, by a German missionary, V. Klein, who unfortunately took neither copy nor squeeze of it. It was 3 ft. 10 inches high and 2 ft. broad, with a semicircular top. The Berlin Museum entered into negotiations for the purchase of it, but while these were proceeding slowly, M. Clermont-Ganneau, then dragoman of the French consulate at Jerusalem, sent agents to take squeezes and tempt the Arabs to sell it for a large sum of money. This led to interference on the part of the Turkish officials, with the result that in 1869 the Arabs lighted a fire under the Stone, and by pouring cold water on it broke it into pieces which they carried away as charms. M. Clermont- Ganneau, however, succeeded in recovering a large proportion of these, and with the help of the squeezes was able to rewrite the greater part of the inscription. The last and most definitive edition of the text was published by Professors Smend and Socin in 1886 from a comparison of the fragments of the original (now in the Louvre) with the squeezes (in Paris and Bale) and photographs.

    The following is (with some unimportant corrections) Dr. Neubauer’s translation of the inscription, based upon Smend and Socin’s text: (1) I (am) Mesha, son of Chemosh-melech, king of Moab, the Dibonite. (2) My father reigned over Moab 30 years and I reigned (3) after my father. I have made this monument (or high place) for Chemosh at Qorchah, a monument of salvation, (4) for he saved me from all invaders (or kings), and let me see my desire upon all my enemies. Omri (5) was king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his (6) land. His son (Ahab) followed him and he also said: I will oppress Moab. In my days (Chemosh) said: (7) I will see (my desire) on him and his house, and Israel surely shall perish for ever. Omri took the land of (8) Medeba ( Numbers 21:30), and (Israel) dwelt in it during his days and half the days of his son, altogether 40 years. But Chemosh (gave) it back (9) in my days. I built Baal-Meon (Josh 13:17) and made therein the ditches (or wells); I built (10) Kirjathaim ( Numbers 32:37). The men of Gad dwelt in the land of Ataroth ( Numbers 32:3) from of old, and the king of Israel built there (11) (the city of) Ataroth; but I made war against the city and took it.

    And I slew all the (people of) (12) the city, for the pleasure of Chemosh and of Moab, and I brought back from them the Arel ( lara [’-r-’-l] of Dodah ( hdwd [d-w-d-h]) and bore (13) him before Chemosh in Qerioth ( Jeremiah 48:24). And I placed therein the men of Sharon and the men (14) of Mehereth. And Chemosh said unto me: Go, seize Nebo of Israel and (15) I went in the night and fought against it from the break of dawn till noon; and I took (16) it, slew all of them, 7,000 men and (boys?), women and (girls?), (17) and female slaves, for to Ashtar-Chemosh I devoted them. And I took from thence the Arels ( ylara [’-r-’-l-y]) (18) of Yahweh and bore them before Chemosh. Now the king of Israel had built (19) Jahaz ( Isaiah 15:4), and he dwelt in it while he waged war against me, but Chemosh drove him out from before me. And (20) I took from Moab 200 men, all chiefs, and transported them to Jahaz which I took (21) to add to Dibon. I built Qorchah, the Wall of the Forests and the Wall (22) of the Ophel, and I built its gates and I built its towers. And (23) I built the House of Moloch, and I made sluices for the waterditches in the midst (24) of the city. And there was no cistern within the city of Qorchah, and I said to all the people: Make for (25) yourselves every man a cistern in his house. And I dug the canals (or conduits) for Qorchah by means of the prisoners (26) from Israel. I built Aroer (Dt 2:36), and I made the road in Arnon. And (27) I built Beth-Bamoth ( Numbers 26:19) for it was destroyed. I built Bezer (Dt 4:43), for in ruins (28) (it was. And all the chiefs?) of Dibon were 50, for all Dibon is loyal, and I (29) placed 100 (chiefs?) in the cities which I added to the land; I built (30) (Beth)-Mede(b)a ( Numbers 21:30) and Beth-diblathaim ( Jeremiah 48:22), and Beth-Baal-Meon ( Jeremiah 48:23), and transported the shepherds (?) (31) .... (with) the flock(s) of the land. Now in Choronaim ( Isaiah 15:5) there dwelt (the children?) .... (32) .... (and) Chemosh said unto me: Go down, make war upon Choronaim. So I went down (and made war (33) upon the city, and took it, and) Chemosh dwelt in it during my days. And I went up (?) from thence; I made .... (34) ... And I .... “ The Biblical character of the language of the inscription will be noticed as well as the use of “forty” to signify an indefinite period of time. As in Israel, no goddess seems to have been worshipped in Moab, since the goddess Ashtoreth is deprived of the feminine suffix, and is identified with the male Chemosh (Ashtar-Chemosh). Dodah appears to have been a female divinity worshipped by the side of Yahweh; the root of the name is the same as that of David and the Carthaginian Dido. The Arels were “the champions” of the deity (Assyrian qurart), translated “lion-like men” in the King James Version ( 2 Samuel 23:20; compare Isaiah 33:7). There was an Ophel in the Moabite capital as well as at Jerusalem.

    The alphabet of the inscription is an early form of the Phoenician, and resembles that of the earliest Greek inscriptions. The words are divided from one another by dots, and the curved forms of some of the letters (b, k, l, margin, n) presuppose writing with ink upon papyrus, parchment or potsherds.

    The revolt of Mesha took place after Ahab’s death ( 2 Kings 3:5). At the battle of Qarqar in 854 BC, when the Syrian kings were defeated by Shalmaneser II, no mention is made of Moab, as it was included in Israel. It would seem from the inscription, however, that Medeba had already been restored to Mesha, perhaps in return for the regular payment of his tribute of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams with their wool ( 2 Kings 3:4).

    LITERATURE.

    Clermont-Ganneau, La stele de Mesa, 1870; Ginsburg, Moabite Stone, 1871; R. Sinend and A. Socin, Die Inschrift des Konigs Mesa von Moab, 1886; A. Neubauer in Records of the Past, 2nd series, II, 1889; Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 1898, 4-83, 415. A. H. Sayce MOABITESS <mo’-ab-it-es > , <mo-ab-i’-tes > ( hY:bia\wOm [mo’abhiyah]): A woman, or in plural women, of Moab. The term is applied to Ruth (1:22; 2:2,6,21; 4:5,10); to some of Solomon’s wives ( 1 Kings 11:1); and to Shimrith, whose son shared in the murder of King Joash ( 2 Chronicles 24:26). See MOAB.

    MOADIAH <mo-a-di’-a > . See MAADIAH.

    MOCHMUR, THE BROOK <mok’-mur > , [oJ cei>marjrJov Mocmou>r , ho cheimarrhos Mochmour ]): The torrent bed in a valley on which stood Chusi, not far from Ekrebel (Judith 7:18). The latter may be identified with `Aqrabeh, East of Nablus. Wady Makhfuriyeh runs to the South of `Aqrabeh, and probably represents the ancient Mochmur.

    MOCK; MOCKER; MOCKING <mok > , <mok’er > , <mok’-ing > ( lt”h; [hathal], g[“l; [la`agh], [ejmpai>zw , empaizo ]): To mock is the translation of [hathal], “to play upon,” “mock,” “deride” ( Judges 16:10,13,15; 1 Kings 18:27, “Elijah mocked them”; Job 13:9 twice, the Revised Version (British and American) “deceiveth,” “deceive,” margin “mocketh,” “mock”); of [la`agh], “to stammer” or “babble in mimicry,” “to mock” or “scorn” ( Chronicles 30:10; Nehemiah 4:1; Job 11:3; 21:3; Proverbs 1:26; 17:5; 30:17; Jeremiah 20:7). Other words are [tsachaq], “to laugh,” etc. ( Genesis 19:14; 21:9;, 39:14,17); [qalac], “to call out,” or “cry after,” “to scoff” or “mock at” ( 2 Kings 2:23; Ezek 22:5); [sachaq], “to laugh,” “mock” ( Job 39:22; Lamentations 1:7); [luts], “to scorn” ( Proverbs 14:9); [sechoq], “laughter,” “derision” ( Job 12:4); [empaizo ], “to treat as a child,” “mock” ( Matthew 2:16; 20:19; 27:29,31,41; Luke 14:29, etc.); [diachleuazo ], “to mock,” “laugh,” etc. ( Acts 2:13; 17:32); [mukterizo ], “to sneer at,” “mock,” literally, “to turn up the nose” ( Galatians 6:7, “God is not mocked,” “will not let himself be mocked”); [ejpigela>w , epigelao ], “laugh” ( Job 2:8; 1 Macc 7:34; compare 2 Macc 7:39; 8:17).

    Mocker, [hathulim], “deceivers,” “mockers” ( Job 17:2); [luts] ( Proverbs 20:1; Isaiah 28:22 the King James Version); [la`egh], “stammering,” “mocking” ( Psalm 35:16; compare Isaiah 28:11); [sachaq] ( Jeremiah 15:17); [empaiktes ], “a mocker,” “scoffer,” literally, “sporting as children” ( Jude 1:18; compare 2 Peter 3:3).

    Mocking is the translation of [qallacah] “mocking,” “derision” (Ezek 22:4); of [empaigmos ] the Septuagint for [qallacah]) ( Hebrews 11:36; The Wisdom of Solomon 12:25; Ecclesiasticus 27:28, “mockery”; 2 Macc 7:7, “mocking-stock,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the mocking”; 2 Macc 7:10, “made a mocking-stock” ([empaizo ])); of [ Mw~kov , mokos ] (Ecclesiasticus 33:6).

    For “mocked of” ( Job 12:4) the Revised Version (British and American) has “a laughing-stock to”; for “mockers” ( Isaiah 28:22), the English Revised Version “scorner,” the American Standard Revised Version “scoffer”; for “the mockers” ( Jeremiah 15:17), “them that made merry”; for “scorneth” ( Proverbs 19:28), “mocketh at”; for “As one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him?” ( Job 13:9), “As one deceiveth a man will ye deceive him?” (margin, “mocketh,” “mock”); “mock” for “laugh” ( Job 9:23); for “There shall come in the last days scoffers” ( 2 Peter 3:3), “In the last days (margin, “Greek in the last of the days”) mockers shall come with mockery” ([empaigmone empaiktai ]). W. L. Walker MODAD, BOOK OF ELDAD AND See ELDAD AND MODAD, BOOK OF.

    MODERATELY <mod’-er-at-li > ( hq;d:x]li [litsedhaqah]): “Moderately” is the King James Version translation of [litsedhaqah], “righteousness” ( Joel 2:23, “for he hath given you the former rain moderately,” margin “according to righteousness,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in just measure,” margin “in (or for) righteousness”). In Philippians 4:5 the King James Version, [toe pieikes ] is translated moderation: “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand,” the Revised Version (British and American) “forbearance,” margin “or gentleness”; compare 2 Corinthians 10:1. The proper meaning of this word has been the subject of considerable discussion; [epieikeia ] is translated “clemency” ( Acts 24:4), “gentleness” (of Christ) ( 2 Corinthians 10:1); [epieikes ] is “gentle” ( 1 Timothy 3:3; Tit 3:2; James 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18).

    Trench says (Synonyms of the New Testament, 151): “It expresses exactly that moderation which recognizes the impossibility cleaving to formal law, of anticipating and providing for all cases that will emerge and present themselves to it for decision; which, with this, recognizes the danger that ever waits upon the assertion of legal rights, lest they should be pushed into moral wrongs, lest the `summum jus’ should in practice prove the `summa injuria,’ which therefore, pushes not its own rights to the uttermost, but going back in part or in the whole from these, rectifies and redresses the injustices of justice. It is thus more truly just than strict justice would have been; no Latin word exactly and adequately renders it; clementia sets forth one side of it, aequitas another, and perhaps modestia (by which the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translations it in 2 Corinthians 10:1) a third; but the word is wanting which should set forth all these excellences reconciled in a single and higher one.” Its archetype and pattern, he points out, is found in God, who does not stand upon or assert strict rights in His relations to men.

    Lightfoot has “forbearance”: “Let your gentle and forbearing spirit be recognized by all men. The judgment is drawing nigh.” Hastings prefers “considerateness” or “sweet reasonableness” (HDB, III, 413); “ `Gentleness’ and `forbearance’ are too passive. The `considerateness’ of the Bible, whether applied to God or man, is an active virtue. It is the Spirit of the Messiah Himself, who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax, and it is the spirit of every follower who realizes that `the Lord is at hand.’ “ The want of this “considerateness” too often mars our religious life and spoils its influence. W. L. Walker MODERATION <mod-er-a’-shun > ([to< ejpieike>v , to epieikes ]): The word occurs once in the King James Version, Philippians 4:5.

    MODIN <mo’-din > ([ Mwde>ein , Modeein ], [ Mwdei>n , Modein ], [ Mwdeei>m , Modeeim ], and other forms; in the Talmud it is called µy[idIwOm [modhi`im], and ty[iydIwOm [modhi`ith] (Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, 99)): This place owes its interest to the part it played in the history of the Maccabees. It was the ancestral home of their family (1 Macc 2:17,70). Hither Mattathias, a priest of the sons of Joarib, retired when he had seen with a burning heart “the blasphemies that were committed in Judah and in Jerus” under the orders of Antiochus Epiphanes. But the king’s officer followed him, and by offers of the king’s friendship and great rewards sought to seduce the people into idolatry. This only fed the indignation of Mattathias, and when a Jew went forward to sacrifice, Mattathias slew him on the altar together with the king’s officer. From such a step there could be no going back. Thus began the patriotic enterprise which, led by the old priest’s heroic sons, was destined to make illustrious the closing days of the nation’s life (1 Macc 2:1 ff; Ant, VI, i, 2; BJ, I, i, 3). Mattathias, his wife and sons were all buried in Modin (1 Macc 2:70; 9:19; 13:25-30; Ant, XII, xi, 2; XIII, vi, 6). Near Modin Judas pitched his camp, whence issuing by night with the watchword “Victory is God’s,” he and a chosen band of warriors overwhelmed the army of Antiochus Eupator (2 Macc 13:14). In Modin Judas and John, the sons of Simon, slept before the battle in which they defeated Cendebaeus (1 Macc 16:4).

    Of the impressive monument erected by Simon over the tombs of his parents and brethren Stanley (History of the Jewish Church, III, 318) gives the following account: “It was a square structure surrounded by colonnades of monolith pillars, of which the front and back were of white polished stone. Seven pyramids were erected by Simon on the summit, for the father and mother and four brothers who now lay there, with the seventh for himself when his time should come. On the faces of the monuments were bas-reliefs, representing the accouterments of sword and spear and shield `for an eternal memorial’ of their many battles. There were also sculptures of ships — no doubt to record their interest in that long seaboard of the Philistine coast, which they were the first to use for their country’s good. A monument at once so Jewish in idea and so Gentilein execution was worthy of the combination of patriotic fervor and high philosophic enlargement of soul which raised the Maccabean heroes so high above their age.” Guerin (La Samarie, II, 401; Galilee, I, 47) thought he had discovered the remains of this monument at Khirbet el-Gharbawi near Medyeh, in 1870. In this, however, he was mistaken, the remains being of Christian origin.

    Various identifications have been proposed. Coba, about 6 miles West of Jerusalem, was for a time generally accepted. Robinson (BR, III, 151 f) suggested LaTrun. There is now a consensus of opinion in favor of el- Medyeh, a village to the East of Wady Mulaki, 13 miles West of Bethel. It occupies a strong position in the hills 6 miles East of Lydda, thus meeting the condition of Eusebius, Onomasticon, which places it near Lydda. The identification was suggested by Dr. Sandreczki of Jerusalem in 1869. From el-Medyeh itself the sea is not visible; but to the South rises a rocky height, er-Ras, which commands a wide view, including the plain and the sea. The latter is 16 miles distant. If the monument of Simon stood on er-Ras, which from the rock cuttings seems not improbable, it would be seen very clearly by overlooking from the sea, especially toward sunset (1 Macc 13:29). About 1/4 mile West of el-Medyeh are tombs known as Qubur el- Yehud, one bearing the name of Sheikh el-Gharbawi, whose name attaches to the ruins. This is the tomb referred to above. W. Ewing MOETH <mo’-eth > ([ Mwe>q , Moeth ]): Called “son of Sabannus,” one of the Levites to whom, with the priest Mermoth, the silver and gold brought by Ezra from Babylon were committed (1 Esdras 8:63) = “Noadiah” of Ezra 8:33, but there styled “son of Binnui.”

    MOLADAH <mol’-a-da > , <mo-la’-da > ( hd:l;wOm [moladhah]; [ Mwlada> , Molada ]):

    A place in the far south (Negebh) of Judah, toward Edom (Josh 15:26), reckoned to Simeon (Josh 19:2; 1 Chronicles 4:28). It was repopulated after the captivity ( Nehemiah 11:26). It is mentioned always in close proximity to Beersheba. Moladah is probably identical with Malatha, a city in Idumea to which Agrippa at one time withdrew himself (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 2). The site of this latter city has by Robinson and others been considered to be the ruins and wells of Tell el-Milch, some 13 miles to the East of Beersheba and some 7 miles Southwest of Arad. The chief difficulty is the statement of Eusebius and Jerome that Malatha was “by Jattir,” i.e. `Attir; if this is correct the Tell el-Milch is impossible, as it is miles from `Attir, and we have no light at all on the site. See SALT, CITY OF. For Tell el-Milch see PEF, III, 415-16, Sh XXV. E. W. G. Masterman MOLE <mol > (1) tm,v,n”Ti [tinshemeth], the King James Version “mole,” the Revised Version (British and American) “chameleon”; Septuagint [ajspa>lax , aspalax ] = [spa>lax , spalax ], “mole,” Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) talpa, “mole” ( Leviticus 11:30); (2) dl,jo [choledh], English Versions of the Bible “weasel”; Septuagint [galh~ , gale ], “weasel” or “pole-cat”; compare Arabic khuld, “mole-rat” ( Leviticus 11:29); (3) twOrPer”p”j\ [chaphar-peroth], English Versions of the Bible “moles”; from rp”j; [chaphar], “to dig”; compare Arabic chafar, “to dig,” and hr:Pe [perah], “mole” or “rat,” for hr:aeP] [pe’erah], from the root ra”P; [pa’ar], “to dig”; compare Arabic fa’rat, or farat, “rat,” “mouse,” from the root fa’ar, “to dig”; Septuagint [toi~v matai>oiv , tois mataiois ], “vain, idle, or profane persons” ( Isaiah 2:20)): (1) [Tinshemeth] is the last of 8 unclean “creeping things” in Leviticus 11:29,30. The word occurs also in Leviticus 11:18 and Dt 14:16, translated the King James Version “swan,” the Revised Version (British and American) “horned owl,” Septuagint [porfuri>wn , porphurion ], “coot” or “heron.” See CHAMELEON. (2) [Choledh] is the first in the same list. The word occurs nowhere else, and is translated “weasel” in English Versions of the Bible, but comparison with the Arabic khuld has led to the suggestion that “molerat” would be a better translation. See WEASEL. (3) In Isaiah 2:20, “In that day men shall cast away their idols .... to the moles and to the bats,” [chaphar-peroth], variously written as one word or two, is translated “moles” in English Versions of the Bible, but has given rise to much conjecture.

    The European “mole,” Talpa europea, is extensively distributed in the temperate parts of Europe and Asia, but is absent from Syria and Palestine, its place being taken by the mole-rat, Spalax typhlus. The true mole belongs to the Insectivora, and feeds on earth-worms and insect larvae, but in making its tunnels and nests, it incidentally injures gardens and lawns.

    The mole-rat belongs to the Rodentia, and has teeth of the same general type as those of a rat or squirrel, large, chisel-shaped incisors behind which is a large vacant space, no canines, and praemolars and molars with grinding surfaces. It is larger than the mole, but of the same color, and, like the mole, is blind. It makes tunnels much like those of the mole. It is herbivorous and has been observed to seize growing plants and draw them down into its hole. In one of its burrows a central chamber has been found filled with entire plants of the [chummuc] or chick-pea, and two side chambers containing pods plucked from the plants in the central chamber.

    While the mole digs with its powerful and peculiarly shaped front feet, the mole-rat digs with its nose, its feet being normal in shape. See LIZARD.

    Alfred Ely Day MOLECH; MOLOCH <mo’-lek > , <mo’-lok > ( °]l,Moh” [ha-molekh], always with the article, except in 1 Kings 11:7; Septuagint [oJ Molo>c , ho Moloch ], sometimes also [ Molco>m , Molchom ], [ Melco>l , Melchol ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Moloch):

    1. THE NAME:

    The name of a heathen divinity whose worship figures largely in the later history of the kingdom of Judah. As the national god of the Ammonites, he is known as “Milcom” ( 1 Kings 11:5,7), or “Malcam” (“Malcan” is an alternative reading in 2 Samuel 12:30,31; compare Jeremiah 49:1,3; Zeph 1:5, where the Revised Version margin reads “their king”).

    The use of [basileu>v , basileus ], and [a]rcwn , archon ], as a translation of the name by the Septuagint suggests that it may have been originally the Hebrew word for “king,” [melekh]. Molech is obtained from [melekh] by the substitution of the vowel points of Hebrew [bosheth], signifying “shame.” From the obscure and difficult passage, Am 5:26, the Revised Version (British and American) has removed “your Moloch” and given “your king,” but Septuagint had here translated “Moloch,” and from the Septuagint it found its way into the Acts (7:43), the only occurrence of the name in the New Testament.

    2. THE WORSHIP IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY:

    In the Levitical ordinances delivered to the Israelites by Moses there are stern prohibitions of Molech-worship ( Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5). Parallel to these prohibitions, although the name of the god is not mentioned, are those of the Deuteronomic Code where the abominations of the Canaanites are forbidden, and the burning of their sons and daughters in the fire (to Molech) is condemned as the climax of their wickedness (Dt 12:31; 18:10- 13). The references to Malcam, and to David’s causing the inhabitants of Rabbath Ammon to pass through the brick kiln ( 2 Samuel 12:30,31), are not sufficiently clear to found upon, because of the uncertainty of the readings. Solomon, under the influence of his idolatrous wives, built high places for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom, the abomination of the children of Ammon. See CHEMOSH. Because of this apostasy it was intimated by the prophet Ahijah, that the kingdom was to be rent out of the hand of Solomon, and ten tribes given to Jeroboam ( Kings 11:31-33). These high places survived to the time of Josiah, who, among his other works of religious reformation, destroyed and defiled them, filling their places with the bones of men ( 2 Kings 23:12-14).

    Molech-worship had evidently received a great impulse from Ahaz, who, like Ahab of Israel, was a supporter of foreign religions ( 2 Kings 16:12 ff). He also “made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel” ( 2 Kings 16:3). His grandson Manasseh, so far from following in the footsteps of his father Hezekiah, who had made great reforms in the worship, reared altars for Baal, and besides other abominations which he practiced, made his son to pass through the fire ( 2 Kings 21:6). The chief site of this worship, of which Ahaz and Manasseh were the promoters, was Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom, or, as it is also called, the Valley of the Children, or of the Son of Hinnom, lying to the Southwest of Jerusalem (see GEHENNA). Of Josiah’s reformation it is said that “he defiled Topheth .... that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech” ( 2 Kings 23:10).

    3. THE WORSHIP IN THE PROPHETS:

    Even Josiah’s thorough reformation failed to extirpate the Molechworship, and it revived and continued till the destruction of Jerusalem, as we learn from the prophets of the time. From the beginning, the prophets maintained against it a loud and persistent protest. The testimony of Amos (1:15; 5:26) is ambiguous, but most of the ancient versions for [malkam], “their king,” in the former passage, read milkom, the national god of Ammon (see Davidson, in the place cited.). Isaiah was acquainted with Topheth and its abominations ( Isaiah 30:33; 57:5). Over against his beautiful and lofty description of spiritual religion, Micah sets the exaggerated zeal of those who ask in the spirit of the Molech-worshipper: “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” ( Micah 6:6 ff). That Molech-worship had increased in the interval may account for the frequency and the clearness of the references to it in tile later Prophets. In Jeremiah we find the passing of sons and daughters through the fire to Molech associated with the building of “the high places of Baal, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom” (32:35; compare 7:31 ff; 19:5 ff). In his oracle against the children of Ammon, the same prophet, denouncing evil against their land, predicts (almost in the very words of Amos above) that Malcam shall go into captivity, his priests and his princes together ( Jeremiah 49:1,3).

    Ezekiel, speaking to the exiles in Babylon, refers to the practice of causing children to pass through the fire to heathen divinities as long established, and proclaims the wrath of God against it (Ezek 16:20 f; 20:26,31; 23:37).

    That this prophet regarded the practice as among the “statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live” (Ezek 20:25) given by God to His people, by way of deception and judicial punishment, as some hold, is highly improbable and inconsistent with the whole prophetic attitude toward it. Zephaniah, who prophesied to the men who saw the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, denounces God’s judgments upon the worshippers of false gods (Zeph 1:5 f). He does not directly charge his countrymen with having forsaken Yahweh for Malcam, but blames them, because worshipping Him they also swear to Malcam, like those Assyrian colonists in Samaria who feared Yahweh and served their own gods, or like those of whom Ezekiel elsewhere speaks who, the same day on which they had slain their children to their idols, entered the sanctuary of Yahweh to profane it (Ezek 23:39). The captivity in Babylon put an end to Molech-worship, since it weaned the people from all their idolatries. We do not hear of it in the post-exilic Prophets, and, in the great historical psalm of Israel’s rebelliousness and God’s deliverances (Psalm 106), it is only referred to in retrospect ( <19A637> Psalm 106:37,38).

    4. THE NATURE OF THE WORSHIP:

    When we come to consider the nature of this worship it is remarkable how few details are given regarding it in Scripture. The place where it was practiced from the days of Ahaz and Manasseh was the Valley of Hinnom where Topheth stood, a huge altar-pyre for the burning of the sacrificial victims. There is no evidence connecting the worship with the temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel’s vision of sun-worshippers in the temple is purely ideal (Ezek 8). A priesthood is spoken of as attached to the services ( Jeremiah 49:3; compare Zeph 1:4,5). The victims offered to the divinity were not burnt alive, but were killed as sacrifices, and then presented as burnt offerings. “To pass through the fire” has been taken to mean a lustration or purification of the child by fire, not involving death.

    But the prophets clearly speak of slaughter and sacrifice, and of high places built to burn the children in the fire as burnt offerings ( Jeremiah 19:5; Ezek 16:20,21).

    The popular conception, molded for English readers largely by Milton’s “Moloch, horrid king” as described in Paradise Lost, Book I, is derived from the accounts given in late Latin and Greek writers, especially the account which Diodorus Siculus gives in his History of the Carthaginian Kronos or Moloch. The image of Moloch was a human figure with a bull’s head and outstretched arms, ready to receive the children destined for sacrifice. The image of metal was heated red hot by a fire kindled within, and the children laid on its arms rolled off into the fiery pit below. In order to drown the cries of the victims, flutes were played, and drums were beaten; and mothers stood by without tears or sobs, to give the impression of the voluntary character of the offering (see Rawlinson’s Phoenicia, f, for fuller details).

    On the question of the origin of this worship there is great variety of views.

    Of a non-Sem origin there is no evidence; and there is no trace of human sacrifices in the old Babylonian religion. That it prevailed widely among Semitic peoples is clear.

    5. ORIGIN AND EXTENT OF THE WORSHIP:

    While Milcom or Malcam is peculiarly the national god of the Ammonites, as is Chemosh of the Moabites, the name Molech or Melech was recognized among the Phoenicians, the Philistines, the Arameans, and other Semitic peoples, as a name for the divinity they worshipped from a very early time. That it was common among the Canaanites when the Israelites entered the land is evident from the fact that it was among the abominations from which they were to keep themselves free. That it was identical at first with the worship of Yahweh, or that the prophets and the best men of the nation ever regarded it as the national worship of Israel, is a modern theory which does not appear to the present writer to have been substantiated. It has been inferred from Abraham’s readiness to offer up Isaac at the command of God, from the story of Jephthah and his daughter, and even from the sacrifice of Hiel the Bethelite ( 1 Kings 16:34), that human sacrifice to Yahweh was an original custom in Israel, and that therefore the God of Israel was no other than Moloch, or at all events a deity of similar character. But these incidents are surely too slender a foundation to support such a theory. “The fundamental idea of the heathen rite was the same as that which lay at the foundation of Hebrew ordinance: the best to God; but by presenting to us this story of the offering of Isaac, and by presenting it in this precise form, the writer simply teaches the truth, taught by all the prophets, that to obey is better than sacrifice — in other words that the God worshipped in Abraham’s time was a God who did not delight in destroying life, but in saving and sanctifying it” (Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 254). While there is no ground for identifying Yahweh with Moloch, there are good grounds for seeing a community of origin between Moloch and Baal. The name, the worship, and the general characteristics are so similar that it is natural to assign them a common place of origin in Phoenicia. The fact that Moloch-worship reached the climax of its abominable cruelty in the Phoenician colonies of which Carthage was the center shows that it had found among that people a soil suited to its peculiar genius.

    LITERATURE.

    Wolf Baudissin, “Moloch” in PRE3; G. F. Moore, “Moloch” in EB; Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 241-65; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 352 ff; Buchanan Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, 138 ff. T. Nicol.

    MOLI <mo’-li > . See MOOLI.

    MOLID <mo’-lid > ( dyliwOm [molidh]): A Judahite ( 1 Chronicles 2:29).

    MOLLIFY <mol’-i-fi > (from °]k”r: [rakhakh], “to be soft”): “To make soft,” used in modern English only figuratively, as “His anger was mollified.” English Versions of the Bible, however, uses the word literally in its two occurrences: Isaiah 1:6, “wounds, and bruises .... neither bound up, neither mollified with oil”; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:12, “mollifying plaister.” Neither occurrence of the word is changed by the Revised Version (British and American).

    MOLOCH <mo’-lok > : A deity of the Ammonites, like the planet Saturn, a representative of the sun-god in the particular aspect of a god of time. See ASTROLOGY, 8; MOLECH.

    MOLTEN, IMAGE <mol’-t’-n > . See IMAGES.

    MOLTEN SEA See LAVER.

    MOMDIS <mom’-dis > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Momdei>v , Momdeis ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Momdei~ov , Momdeios ]): One of those who had taken “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:34) = “Maadai” in Ezra 10:34.

    MOMENT <mo’-ment > ( [g”r< [regha`], “a wink”; [a]tomov , atomos ], “an atom,” [stigmh> , stigme ], “a point,” [parautiparautika ], immediately,” “forthwith”): “Moment” is not used in Scripture for a division of time, but for an instant of time, as the wink or twinkling of the eye ( Exodus 33:5; Numbers 16:21,45; Lamentations 4:6; 1 Corinthians 15:52), or for a short period of time ( Job 20:5; Psalm 30:5; Isaiah 26:20; 2 Corinthians 4:17). The division of the hour into sixty minutes was certainly known in Babylonia, and the Jews were made acquainted with it, at least during the captivity, but they do not seem to have adopted it very extensively. H. Porter MONEY <mun’-i > : Various terms are used for money in the Bible, but the most common are the Hebrew Psalm,K, [keceph], and Greek [ajrgu>rion , argurion ], both meaning silver. We find also hf;yciq] [qesiTah], rendered by Septuagint “lambs,” probably referring to money in a particular form; [calko>v , chalkos ], is used for money in Matthew 10:9; Mark 6:8; 12:41. It was the name of a small coin of Agrippa II (Madden, Coins of the Jews); [crh~ma , chrema ], “price,” is rendered money in Acts 4:37; 8:18,20; 24:26; [ke>rma , kerma ], “piece,” i.e. piece of money ( John 2:15); [di>dracmon , didrachmon ], “tribute money” ( Matthew 17:24 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “halfshekel”); [kh~nsov , kensos ], “census,” “tribute money” ( Matthew 22:19).

    1. MATERIAL AND FORM:

    Gold and silver were the common medium of exchange in Syria and Palestine in the earliest times of which we have any historical record. The period of mere barter had passed before Abraham. The close connection of the country with the two great civilized centers of antiquity, Egypt and Babylonia, had led to the introduction of a currency for the purposes of trade. We have abundant evidence of the use of these metals in the Biblical records, and we know from the monuments that they were used as money before the time of Abraham. The patriarch came back from his visit to Egypt “rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” ( Genesis 13:2). There was no system of coinage, but they had these metals cast in a convenient form for use in exchange, such as bars or rings, the latter being a common form and often represented or mentioned on the monuments of Egypt. In Babylonia the more common form seems to have been the former, such as the bar, or wedge, that Achan found in the sack of Jericho (Josh 7:21).

    This might indicate that the pieces were too large for ordinary use, but we have indications of the use of small portions also ( 2 Kings 12:9; Job 42:11). But the pieces were not so accurately divided as to pass for money without weighing, as we see in the case of the transaction between Abraham and the children of Heth for the purchase of the field of Machpelah (Genesis 23). This transaction indicates also the common use of silver as currency, for it was “current money with the merchant,” and earlier than this we have mention of the use of silver by Abraham as money: “He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money” ( Genesis 17:13).

    Jewels of silver and gold were probably made to conform to the shekel weight, so that they might be used for money in case of necessity. Thus Abraham’s servant gave to Rebecca a gold ring of half a shekel weight and bracelets of ten shekels weight ( Genesis 24:22). The bundles of money carried by the sons of Jacob to Egpyt for the purchase of grain ( Genesis 42:35) were probably silver rings tied together in bundles. The Hebrew for “talent,” [kikkar], signifies something round or circular, suggesting a ring of this weight to be used as money. The ordinary term for money was [keceph], “silver,” and this word preceded by a numeral always refers to money, either with or without “shekel,” which we are probably to supply where it is not expressed after the numeral, at least wherever value is involved, as the shekel ([sheqel]) was the standard of value as well as of weight (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES). Thus the value of the field of Ephesiansron was in shekels, as was also the estimation of offerings for sacred purposes ( Leviticus 5:15; 27, passim). Solomon purchased chariots at 600 (shekels) each and horses at 150 ( 1 Kings 10:29). Large sums were expressed in talents, which were a multiple of the shekel. Thus Menahem gave Pul 1,000 talents of silver ( 2 Kings 15:19), which was made up by the exaction of 50 shekels from each rich man. Hezekiah paid the war indemnity to Sennacherib with 300 talents of silver and 30 of gold ( 2 Kings 18:14). The Assyrian account gives 800 talents of silver, and the discrepancy may not be an error in the Hebrew text, as some would explain it, but probably a different kind of talent (see Madden, Coins of the Jews,4). Solomon’s revenue is stated in talents ( 1 Kings 10:14), and the amount (666 of gold) indicates that money was abundant, for this was in addition to what he obtained from the vassal states and by trade. His partnership with the Phoenicians in commerce brought him large amounts of the precious metals, so that silver was said to have been as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones ( 1 Kings 10:27).

    Besides the forms of rings and bars, in which the precious metals were cast for commercial use, some other forms were perhaps current. Thus the term [qesiTah] has been referred to as used for money, and the Septuagint translation has “lambs.” It is used in Genesis 33:19; Josh 24:32; Job 42:11, and the Septuagint rendering is supposed to indicate a piece in the form of a lamb or stamped with a lamb, used at first as a weight, later the same weight of the precious metals being used for money. We are familiar with lion weights and weights in the form of bulls and geese from the monuments, and it would not be strange to find them in the form of sheep. [QesiTah] is cognate with the Arabic qasaT, which means “to divide exactly” or “justly,” and the noun qist means “a portion” or “a measure.”

    Another word joined with silver in monetary use is hr:wOga\ [’aghorah], the term being translated “a piece of silver” in 1 Samuel 2:36. [’Aghorah] is cognate with the Arabic ujrat, “a wage,” and it would seem that the piece of silver in this passage might refer to the same usage.

    Another word used in a similar way is [rats], from [ratsats], “to break in pieces,” hence, [rats] is “a piece” or “fragment of silver” used as money.

    These terms were in use before the introduction of coined money and continued after coins became common.

    2. COINED MONEY:

    After the exile we begin to find references to coined money. It was invented in Lydia or perhaps in Aegina. Herodotus assigns the invention to the Lydians (i.94). The earliest Lydian coins were struck by Gyges in the 7th century BC. These coins were of electrum and elliptical in form, smooth on the reverse but deeply stamped with incuse impressions on the obverse. They were called staters, but were of two standards; one for commercial use with the Babylonians, weighing about 164,4 grains, and the other of 224 grains (see Madden, op. cit.). Later, gold was coined, and, by the time of Croesus, gold and silver. The Persians adopted the Lydian type, and coined both gold and silver darics, the name being derived from Darius Hystaspis (521-485 BC) who is reputed to have introduced the system into his empire. But the staters of Lydia were current there under Cyrus (Madden, op. cit.), and it was perhaps with these that the Jews first became acquainted in Babylon. Ezra states (2:69) that “they (the Jews) gave after their ability into the treasury of the work threescore and one thousand darics (the Revised Version (British and American)) of gold, and five thousand pounds of silver.” The term here rendered “daric” is [darkemonim], and this word is used in three passages in Nehemiah (7:70- 72), and [’adharkonim] occurs in 1 Chronicles 29:7 and Ezra 8:27.

    Both are of the same origin as the Greek [drachma ], probably, though some derive both from Darius (a Phoenician inscription from the Piraeus tells us that darkemon corresponds to [drachma ]). At all events they refer to the gold coins which we know as darics. The weight of the daric was 130 grains, though double darics were struck.

    Besides the gold daric there was a silver coin circulating in Persia that must have been known to the Jews. This was the [si>glov , siglos ], supposed to be referred to in Nehemiah 5:15, where it is translated “shekel.” These were the so-called silver darics, 20 of which were equivalent to the gold daric. Besides these Persian coins the Jews must have used others derived from their intercourse with the Phoenician cities, which were allowed to strike coins under the suzerainty of the Persians. These coins were of both silver and bronze, the suzerain not permitting them to coin gold. We have abundant examples of these coins and trade must have made them familiar to the Jews.

    The issues of Aradus, Sidon and Tyre were especially noteworthy, and were of various types and sizes suited to the commercial transactions of the Phoenicians. The Tyrian traders were established in Jerusalem as early as the time of Nehemiah (13:16), and their coins date back to about that period. Among the finest specimens we have of early coinage are the tetradrachms of Tyre and the double shekels or staters of Sidon. The latter represent the Persian king, on the obverse, as he rides in his chariot, driven by his charioteer and followed by an attendant. On the reverse is a Phoenician galley. The weight of these coins is from 380 to 430 grains, and they are assigned to the 4th and 5th centuries BC. From Tyre we have a tetradrachm which corresponds to the shekel of the Phoenician standard of about 220 grains, which represents, on the obverse, the god Melkarth, the Tyrian Hercules, tiding on a seahorse, and, beneath, a dolphin. The reverse bears an owl with the Egyptian crook and a flail, symbols of Osiris. The early coins of Aradus bear, on the obverse, the head of Baal or Dagon, and on the reverse a galley. The inscription has “M.A.” in Phoenician letters, followed by a date. The inscription signifies “Melek Aradus,” i.e. “king of Aradus.”

    When Alexander overthrew the Persian empire in 331 BC, a new coinage, on the Attic standard, was introduced, and the silver drachms and tetradrachms struck by him circulated in large numbers, as is attested by the large number of examples still in existence. After his death, these coins, the tetradrachms especially, continued to be struck in the provinces, with his name and type, in his honor. We have examples of these struck at Aradus, Tyre, Sidon, Damascus and Acre, bearing the mint marks of these towns. They bear on the obverse the head of Alexander as Hercules, and, on the reverse, Zeus seated on his throne holding an eagle in the extended right hand and a scepter in the left. The legend is [ BASILWS ALEXANDROU, BASILEOS ALEXANDROU ], or [ ALEXANDROU, ALEXANDROU ], only, with various symbols of the towns or districts where they were struck, together with mint marks.

    The successors of Alexander established kingdoms with a coinage of their own, such as the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria, and these coins, as well as those of Alexander, circulated among the Jews. The Ptolemies of Egypt controlled Palestine for about a century after Alexander, and struck coins, not only in Egypt, but in some of the Phoenician towns, especially at Acre, which was, from that time, known as Ptolemais. Their coins were based upon the Phoenician standard. But the Seleucid kings of Syria had the most influence in Phoenicia and Palestine, and their monetary issues are very various and widely distributed, bearing the names and types of the kings, and the symbols and mint marks of the different towns where they were struck, and are on the Alexandrine or Attic standard in contrast to those of the Ptolemies. They are both silver and bronze, gold being struck in the capital, Antioch, usually. The coins of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, are especially interesting on account of his connection with Jewish affairs. It was he who made the futile attempt to hellenize the Jews, which led to the revolt that resulted, under his successors, in the independence of the country of Syrian control, and the institution of a native coinage in the time of the Maccabees.

    The struggle caused by the persecution of Antiochus commenced in BC and continued more than 20 years. Judas, the son of Mattathias, defeated Antiochus, who died in 164, but the war was continued by his successors until dynastic dissensions among them led to treaties with the Jews to gain their support. At last Simon, who espoused the cause of Demetrius II, obtained from him, as a reward, the right to rule Judea under the title of high priest, with practical independence, 142-143 BC. Later Antiochus VII, his successor, confirmed Simon in his position and added some privileges, and among them the right to coin money (138-139 BC).

    Both silver and bronze coins exist ascribed to Simon, but some numismatists have recently doubted this, and have assigned them to another Simon in the time of the first revolt of the Jews under the Romans.

    The coins in question are the shekels and half-shekels with the legends, in Hebrew, [sheqel yisra’el] and [yerushalem qedhoshah] (“Jerusalem the holy”), bearing dates ranging from the 1st to the 5th year, as well as bronze pieces of the 4th.

    The reason for denying the ascription of these coins to Simon the Maccabee is the difficulty in finding room for the years indicated in his reign which closed in 135 BC. He received the commission to coin in 139- 138, which would allow only 4 years for his coinage, whereas we have coins of the 5th year. Moreover, no shekels and half-shekels of any of the Maccabees later than Simon have come to light, which is, at least, singular since we should have supposed that all would have coined them as long as they remained independent, especially since they coined in bronze, examples of the latter being quite abundant. The fact also that they bore the title of king, while Simon was high priest only, would seem to have furnished an additional reason for claiming the prerogative of coinage in silver as well as bronze. But this argument is negative only, and such coins may have existed but have not come to light, and there are reasons which seem to the present writer sufficient to assign them to Simon the Maccabee. In the first place, the chronological difficulty is removed if we consider that Simon was practically independent for three or four years before he obtained the explicit commission to coin money. We learn from Josephus (Ant., XIII, vi, 7) and from 1 Macc (13:41,42) that in the 170th year of the Seleucid era, that is, 143-142 BC, the Jews began to use the era of Simon in their contracts and public records. Now it would not have been strange if Simon, seeing the anarchy that prevailed in the kingdom of Syria, should have assumed some prerogatives of an independent ruler before they were distinctly granted to him, and among them that of coining money. If he had commenced in the latter part of 139 BC, he would have been able to strike coins of the 5th year before he died, and this would satisfy the conditions (see Madden’s Jewish Coinage). There is a difficulty quite as great in attributing these coins to Simon of the first revolt under the Romans. That broke out in 66 AD, and was suppressed by the taking of Jerusalem in 70. This would allow a date of the 5th year, but it is hardly supposable that in the terrible distress and anarchy that prevailed in the city during that last year any silver coins would have been struck. There is another fact bearing upon this question which is worthy of notice. The coins of the first revolt bear personal appellations, such as “Eleazar the priest,” and “Simon,” while those assigned to Simon the Maccabee bear no personal designation whatever. This is significant, for it is not likely that Eleazar and Simon would have commenced coining silver shekels and halfshekels with their names inscribed upon them in the 1st year of their reign and then have omitted them on later issues. Another point which has some force is this: We find mention, in the New Testament, of money-changers in connection with the temple, whose business it was to change the current coin, which was Roman or Greek, and bore heathen types and legends, for Jewish coins, which the strict Pharisaic rules then in force required from worshippers paying money into the temple treasury. It is inferred that they could furnish the shekels and half-shekels required for the yearly dues from every adult male (compare Matthew 17:24-27). Now the only shekels and half-shekels bearing Jewish emblems and legends, at that time, must have been those issued by the Maccabean princes, that is, such as we have under discussion. In view of these facts the Maccabean origin of these pieces seems probable.

    The shekels under discussion have on one side a cup, or chalice (supposed to represent the pot of manna), with the legend in Hebrew around the margin, larcy lqv [sheqel yisra’el], with a letter above the cup indicating the year of the reign. The reverse bears the sprig of a plant (conjectured to be Aaron’s rod) having three buds or fruits, and on the margin the legend, hvdqh µylvwry [yerushalem ha-qedhoshah], “Jerusalem the holy.” The half-shekel has the same type, but the reverse bears the inscription, lqv yxj [chatsi sheqel] (half-shekel). The letters indicating the year have the letter called v “shin” ([Shenath], “year”) prefixed, except for the first. This also omits the Hebrew letter w “waw” (w) from [qedhoshah] and the second letter, y “yodh” (y) from [yerushalem]. The term “holy” for Jerusalem is found in Isaiah 48:2 and other passages of the Old Testament, and is still preserved in the Arabic qudus by which the city is known today in Syria.

    Copper, or bronze, half-and quarter-shekels are also attributed to Simon, bearing date of the 4th year. The obverse of the half-shekel has two bundles of thick-leaved branches with a citron between, and on the reverse a palm tree with two baskets filled with fruit. The legend on the obverse is yxj [bra tnv [shenath ‘arba` chatsi], “the fourth year a half,” and on the reverse, ˆwyx tlagl [li-ghe’ullath tsiyon], “the redemption of Zion.” The quarter-shekel has a similar type, except that the obverse lacks the baskets and the reverse has the citron only. The legend has [ybr [rebhia`], “quarter,” instead of “half.” Another type is a cup with a margin of jewels on the obverse and a single bunch of branches with two citrons on the reverse.

    The palm is a very common type on the coins of Judea and a very appropriate one, since it is grown there. Jericho was called the city of palms. The branches of trees in bundles illustrate the custom of carrying branches at the Feast of Tabernacles and the erection of booths made of branches for use during this feast (see Leviticus 23:40). The baskets of fruit may refer to the offerings of first-fruits (Dt 26:2). One of the above series of coins published by Madden bears the countermark of an elephant, which was a symbol adopted by the Seleucid kings, and this is an evidence of its early date. But whatever doubts there may be as to the coins of Simon, there can be none as to those of his successor, John Hyrcanus, who reigned 135-106 BC, since they bear his name. They are all of bronze and bear the following inscription with a great number of variations, rbjw ldgh ˆhkh ˆnjwhy µydwhyh [Yehochanan hacohen hagadel wachabar heyhudim], “Johanan the high priest and senate of the Jews.” The reverse has a two-branched cornucopia with a poppy head rising from the center. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word rbj [hebher] in the above. It is commonly rendered “senate,” taking it in the sense it seems to bear in Hos 6:9, “a company” or “band,” here the company of elders representing the people. Judas Aristobulus (106-105 BC) issued similar coins with Hebrew legends, but with the accession of Alexander Janneus (105-78 BC) we find bilingual inscriptions on the coins, Hebrew and Greek. The obverse bears the words °]lMh ˆtnwhy [yehonathan ha-melekh], “Jehonathan the king,” and the reverse, [ BASILEWS ALEXANDROU, BASILEOS ALEXANDROU ], “King Alexander.” Most of his coins, however, bear Hebrew inscriptions only. All are of copper or bronze, like those of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, and are of the denomination known to us in the New Testament as “mites” weighing from 25 to 35 grains.

    When the Romans took possession of Palestine in 63 BC, the independent rule of the Hasmoneans came to an end, but Pompey confirmed John Hyrcanus as governor of Judea under the title of high priest. Dissensions between him and other members of his family called for interference several times on the part of the Romans. Hyrcanus was again confirmed by Julius Caesar in 47 and continued in authority until 40. It is uncertain what coins he issued, but whatever they were, they bore the type found on those of Alexander Janneus. In 40 BC, the Parthians temporarily overthrew the Roman authority in Syria and Palestine, and set Antigonus on the throne of the latter, and he reigned until 37. The coins he issued bore bilingual inscriptions like the bilinguals of Alexander. He calls himself Antigonus in Greek, and Mattathias in Hebrew, the type being a wreath on the obverse and a double cornucopia on the reverse, though some have it single. They are much heavier coins than the preceding issues. The legends are: obverse, [ BASILEWS ANTIGONOU, BASILEOS ANTIGONOU ], “of King Antigonus”; reverse ( µydw ) hyh ldg ˆhkh hyttm [mattithyah hakohen gadhol ha-yeh(udhim)], “Mattathias the high priest of the Jews.”

    The Hasmonean dynasty ended with Antigonus and that of the Herods followed. Herod the Great was the first to attain the title of king, and his coins are numerous and bear only Greek legends and are all of bronze. The earliest have the type of a helmet with cheek pieces on the obverse and the legend: [ BASILEWS HRWDOU, BASILEOS HRODOU ], and in the field to the left gamma (year 3), and on the right, a monogram. The reverse has a Macedonian shield with rays. The coin here illustrated is another type: a rude tripod on the obverse, and a cross within a wreath on the reverse, the legend being the same as given above.

    Herod Archelaus, who reigned from 4 BC to 6 AD, issued coins with the title of ethnarch, the only coins of Palestine to bear this title. They are all of small size and some of them have the type of a galley, indicating his sovereignty over some of the coast cities, such as Caesarea and Joppa.

    The coins of Herod Antipas (4 BC-40 AD) bear the title of tetrarch, many of them being struck at Tiberias, which he founded on the Sea of Galilee and named after the emperor Tiberius. The following is an example: obverse [ HR. TETR(H-RWDOU TETRACOU) , HER. TETR . (HERODOU TETRACHOU )], with the type of a palm branch; reverse, [ TIBERIAS, TIBERIAS ], within a wreath. Others have a palm tree entire with the date lambda-gamma ( LG) and lambda-delta ( LD): 33 and 34 of his reign, 29-30 AD. There are coins of Herod Philip,4 BC-34 AD, though somewhat rare, but those of Agrippa, 37-44 AD, are numerous, considering the shortness of his reign. The most common type is a small coin (“mite”) with an umbrella having a tassel-like border, on the obverse, and three ears of wheat on one stalk on the reverse. The legend reads: Basileos Agrippa, and the date is LS (year 6). Larger coins of Agrippa bear the head of the emperor (Caligula or Claudius) with the title of Sebastos (Augustus) in Greek.

    Agrippa II was the last of the Herodian line to strike coins (48-100 AD).

    They were issued under Nero, whose head they sometimes bear with his name as well as that of Agrippa. They are all of the denomination of the mite (lepton).

    In 6 AD, Judea was made a Romans province and was governed by procurators, and their coins are numerous, being issued during the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero. They are all small and bear on the obverse the legends: [ KAISAROS, KAISAROS ] (Caesar), or [ IOULIA, IOULIA ] (Julia), or the emperor’s name joined with Caesar. The coins of the Jews struck during the first and second revolts, 66-70 AD, and 132- 135 AD, have already been alluded to with the difficulty of distinguishing them, and some have been described. They all have the types common to the purely Jewish issues; the date palm, the vine, bunches of fruit, the laurel or olive wreath, the cup or chalice, the lyre and a temple with columns.

    Types of animals or men they regarded as forbidden by their law. Most of them are bronze, but some are silver shekels and half-shekels, dated in the lat, 2nd and 3rd years, if we assign those of higher date to Simon the Maccabee. Those of the 1st year bear the name of Eleazar the priest, on the obverse, and on the reverse the date “first year of the redemption of Israel,” larcy tlagl tja tnv [shenath ‘achath li-ghe’ullath yisra’el]. Others bear the name of Simon and some that of “Simon Nesi’ Israel” (“Simon Prince of Israel”). The coins of the 2nd and 3rd years are rare. They have the type of the cup and vine leaf, or temple and lulabh.

    Those supposed to belong to the second revolt bear the name of Simon without Nesi’ Israel, and are therefore assigned to Simon Bar-Cochba. The example here given has the type of the temple on the obverse with what is thought to be a representation of the “beautiful gate,” between the columns, and a star above. The name Simon is on the margin, the first two letters on the right of the temple and the others on the left. The legend of the reverse is: twrjl µlvwry [lecheruth yerushalem] (“the deliverance of Jerusalem”).

    Some of the coins struck by the Romans to commemorate their victory over the Jews were struck in Palestine and some at Rome, and all bear the head of the Roman emperor on the obverse, but the reverse often exhibits Judea as a weeping captive woman, seated at the foot of a palm tree or of a Roman standard bearing a trophy. The legend is sometimes Judea capta and sometimes Judea devicta. The example given has the inscription in Greek: [ IOUDIAS EALWKUIAS, IOUDIAS EALOKUIAS ], Judea capta.

    There are coins of Agrippa II (the “king Agrippa” of Acts 25: 26, struck in the reign of Vespasian, with his name and title on the obverse and with a deity on the reverse, holding ears of wheat in the right hand and a cornucopia in the left. The inscription reads: [ ETOU KSBA, ETOU KSBA ] [ AGRI PPA, AGRI PPA ] (year 26, King Agrippa) in two lines.

    After the revolt of Bar-Cochba and the final subjugation of the Jews by Hadrian, Jerusalem was made a Roman colony and the name was changed to Aelia Capitolina. A series of coins was struck, having this title, which continued until the reign of Valerianus, 253-260 AD. These coins were all of copper or bronze, but silver pieces were in circulation, struck at Rome or at some of the more favored towns in Syria, such as Antioch. These were denarii and tetradrachms, the former being about one-fourth the weight of the latter which were known as staters ( Matthew 17:27). The piece referred to was the amount of tribute for two persons, and as the amount paid by one was the half-shekel ( Matthew 17:24), this piece must have been the equivalent of the shekel or tetradrachm. H. Porter MONEY-CHANGERS <chan’-jers > ([kollubisth>v , kollubistes ], from [ko>llubov , kollubos ], “a small coin,” so “a money-changer,” or “banker” ( Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; “changers” in John 2:15; compare 2:14, where [kermatisth>v , kermatistes ], “a dealer in small bits,” or “change,” is also rendered “changers”); compare [trapezi>thv , trapezites ], “one who sits at a table,” “a money-changer,” “a banker” or “broker”; one who both exchanges money for a small fee and pays interest on deposits ( Matthew 25:27, the King James Version “exchangers,” the American Standard Revised Version “bankers”)): The profession of money-changer in Palestine was made necessary by the law requiring every male Israelite who had reached the age of 20 years to pay into the treasury of the sanctuary a half-shekel at every numbering of the people, an offering to Yahweh, not even the poor being exempt. It seems to have become an annual tax, and was to be paid in the regular Jewish half-shekel ( Exodus 30:11-15). Since the Jews, coming up to the feasts, would need to exchange the various coins in common circulation for this Jewish piece, there were money-changers who exacted a premium for the exchange. This fee was a [kollubos ] (about 31 cents in U.S. money, i.e. in 1915), hence, the name kollubistes. The Jews of Christ’s day came from many parts of the world, and the business of exchanging foreign coins for various purposes became a lucrative one, the exchangers exacting whatever fee they might. Because of their greed and impiety, Jesus drove them from the courts of the temple. Edward Bagby Pollard MONEY, CURRENT <kur’-ent > ( rbe[o [`obher], “passing,” Genesis 28:16; 2 Kings 12:4 (Hebrew 5)): The text and translation in 2 Kings 12:4 are uncertain and difficult. See the Revised Version margin. The reference is probably not to a money standard, but to a poll tax which was levied in addition to the free-will offering. Genesis 23:16 implies the existence of a standard shekel and also probably the use of the precious metals in stamped bars or ingots of an approximately fixed weight or value, a primitive coinage. Code of Hammurabi presupposes these pieces, and records in cuneiform writing discovered in Cappadocia indicate that shekel pieces with a seal stamp were in use in Asia Minor in the time of Hammurabi (Sayce, Contemporary Review, August, 1907, XCII, 259 ff). The existence of these pieces did not do away with the custom of weighing money, a practice which obtained in Israel down to the time of the exile ( Jeremiah 32:10). Walter R. Betteridge MONEY, LOVE OF ([filarguri>a , philarguria ], 1 Timothy 6:10, literally, “love of silver”; compare corresponding “lovers of money” ( Luke 16:14; 2 Timothy 8:2), equivalent to “avarice”): The vice that seeks to retain and hoard all that is acquired (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, xxiv); described as “a root of all kinds of evil.” See also COVETOUSNESS.

    MONEY, SIN See SIN MONEY; SIN OFFERING.

    MONSTER <mon’-ster > . See DRAGON; SEA MONSTER.

    MONTH <munth > ( vdn , men ]): Chodhesh is strictly the “new moon,” the appearance of which marked the beginning of the month, commonly indicated by [ro’sh ha-chodhesh]. Yerach is derived from [yareach], “moon,” which comes from the verb that means “to wander,” “to make a circuit.” Thus the month was lunar, the period of the moon’s circuit. The Greek men also meant “moon,” from the Sanskrit ma, “to measure,” the Latin mensis and our “moon” being derived from the same root. See CALENDAR; TIME; ASTRONOMY.

    Chodhesh, or rather ro’sh ha-chodhesh, was observed as a festival ( Samuel 20:5,18,24; Isaiah 1:14). H. Porter MONTHLY; PROGNOSTICATORS <munth’-li > , <prog-nos’-ti-ka-terz > . See ASTROLOGY, I, 6.

    MONUMENT <mon’-u-ment > ( Isaiah 65:4 the King James Version). See VAULT.

    MOOLI <mo’-o-li > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Mooli> , Mooli ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Moolei> , Moolei ]; the King James Version Moli): Son of Merari and grandson of Levi (1 Esdras 8:47) = “Mahli” in Ezra 8:18 (see Exodus 6:16,19).

    MOON <moon > ( j”rey: [yareach]; meaning obscure — probably “wanderer”; by some given as “paleness”; [selh>nh , selene ]): The moon was very early worshipped by the nations of the Far East as a divinity or the representative of one or more deities. These deities were both masculine and feminine. In Assyria and Babylonia the most common name for the moon-god was Sin or Sen. In Babylonia he was also called Aku and Nannara. In Egypt the moon was representative of several deities, all masculine. The chief of these was Thoth the god of knowledge, so called because the moon was the measurer of time. Babylonia has, also, Aa, the goddess of the moon, as the consort of the sun, while her equivalent was known in Phoenicia as Ashtaroth-karnaim. This personification and worship of the moon among the nations who were neighbors to Palestine was but part of an elaborate Nature-worship found among these people. Nor was this worship always separated from Palestine by geographical lines. It crept into the thought and customs of the Hebrews and in a sense affected their religious conceptions and ceremonies. They fell into the habit of making direct homage to sun, moon and stars, as is evidenced by Job 31:26,27; Jeremiah 44:17, and even Isaiah 8:18 (see CRESCENTS). Moses seems to have forewarned his people against the danger of this form of worship (Dt 4:19).

    The actual worship of the moon and the idolatry consequent thereon seems to have touched the Hebrews, though this is disputed by some. It would seem difficult to explain 2 Kings 21:3 upon any other supposition, and in 2 Kings 23:4,5 we have a clear statement that Josiah put down the worship of the moon among the people and silenced the priests of this form of worship.

    Certain forms of the adoration of the moon, or superstitious fear of baneful influences as coming from the moon, still abound in some sections of the world. In fact in nearly all sections modified forms of old superstitions still hold sway and yield but slowly to scientific knowledge.

    The eclipses of the moon were naturally given a religious significance inasmuch as the Hebrew knowledge of them did not rise much above awe and wonder ( Isaiah 18:10; Joel 2:31; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24). Other passages causing interference with the constancy of the moon to foreshadow great events can be found in Jeremiah 13:16; Ezek 32:7,8; Revelation 8:12. An interesting passage and most difficult of interpretation is Revelation 12:1. It is frequently interpreted as a revelation in symbolism of the glory of the church clothed with the light and radiating the truth of God. See also ASTRONOMY; ASTROLOGY.

    C. E. Schenk MOON, NEW See ASTROLOGY, I, 6; ASTRONOMY, I, 3, (1); FASTS AND FEASTS.

    MOOSSIAS <mo-os’-i-as > (Codex Vaticanus [ Moossei>av , Moosseias ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Moo>v Si>av , Moos Sias ]; the King James Version, Moosias, mo-o-si’as): One of those who had taken a “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:31) = “Maaseiah” in Ezra 10:30.

    MOPH <mof > . See MEMPHIS.

    MORALITY <mo-ral’-i-ti > . See ETHICS.

    MORASHTITE <mo-rash’-tit > ( yTiv]r’wMh” [hamorashti]; the King James Version, Morasthite, mo-ras’-thit): Gentilic designation of the prophet Micah ( Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 1:1). See also MORESHETH-GATH.

    MORDECAI <mor’-de-Kings > , <mor-de-ka’-i > ( yk”D”r”m; [mordekhay]; [ Mardocai~ov , Mardochaios]): An Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, whose fate it has been to occupy a distinguished place in the annals of his people. His great-grandfather, Kish, had been carried to Babylon along with Jeconiah, king of Judah (Est 2:5-6). For nearly 60 years before the scenes narrated in Esther, in which Mordecai was greatly concerned, took place, the way to Palestine had been open to the Israelites; but neither his father, Jair, nor afterward himself chose to return to the ancient heritage.

    This seems to have been the case also with the rest of his house, as it was with the vast majority of the Israelite people; for his uncle died in Persia leaving his motherless daughter, Hadassah, to the care of Mordecai.

    Employed in the royal palace at Susa, he attracted, through the timely discovery of a plot to assassinate the king, the favorable notice of Xerxes, and in a short time became the grand vizier of the Persian empire. He has been believed by many to have been the author of the Book of Esther; and in the earliest known notice of the Feast of Purim, outside of the book just mentioned, that festival is closely associated with his name. It is called “the day of Mordecai” (2 Macc 15:36). The apocryphal additions to Esther expatiate upon his greatness, and are eloquent of the deep impression which his personality and power had made upon the Jewish people. Lord Arthur Hervey has suggested the identification of Mordecai with Matacas, or Natacas, the powerful favorite and minister of Xerxes who is spoken of by Ctesias, the Greek historian. Few have done more to earn a nation’s lasting gratitude than Mordecai, to whom, under God, the Jewish people owe their preservation. John Urquhart MOREH, HILL OF <mo’-re > ( hr , Gabaathamora]; Codex Alexandrinus, [tou~ bwmou~ tou~ jAbw>r , tou bomou tou Abor]): The Hebrew [moreh] is derived from the verb [yarah], “to teach,” “to direct,” and indicates one who directs, or gives oracular answers. We might therefore read “hill of the teacher,” the height being associated with such a person who had his seat here. The hill is named only in describing the position of the Midianites before Gideon’s attack ( Judges 7:1). If the identification of the Well of Harod with `Ain Jalud is correct, Gideon must have occupied the slopes to the East of Jezreel. The Midianite camp was in the valley of Jezreel ( Judges 6:33). The Hebrew text in Judges 7:1, which has probably suffered some corruption, seems to mean that the Midianites lay North of the position held by Gideon, their lines running from the hill of Moreh in the plain. The hill can hardly have been other than Jebel ed- Duchy, often called Little Hermon, which rises boldly from the northern edge of the vale of Jezreel, with Shunem (Solam) lying at its western foot.

    Moore (“Judges,” ICC, 200) would lay the scene in the neighborhood of Shechem, but there is no good reason to doubt the accuracy of the tradition which places it at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon. W. Ewing MOREH, OAK OF ( hrn , ten drun ten hupselen]; the King James Version Plain of Moreh):

    It seems probable that the place here intended may be the same as that mentioned in Dt 11:30 ([’elone moreh], “terebinths of Moreh,” the King James Version “plains,” the Revised Version (British and American) “oaks,” the Revised Version margin “terebinths”). Both are defined as near to Shechem. The position cannot be identified today. The tree or trees were evidently a place of resort for those who wished to consult a moreh. See MOREH, HILL OF. To this day in Palestine trees are often regarded with a certain religious awe as the habitation of spirits. Isolated terebinths receive much veneration. The present writer has often seen such trees with multitudinous rags of all colors attached to them by the peasantry as evidence of their homage.See MEONENIM. W. Ewing MORESHETH-GATH <mo’-resh-eth-gath > , <mo-resh’-eth-gath > ( tG’ tv,rgath], “inheritance or possession of Gath”; Septuagint [klhronomi>av Ge>q , kleronomias Geth]): A place mentioned only in Micah 1:14. It must have been in the vicinity of Gath as the meaning of the name would indicate, and was the home of the prophet Micah ( Micah 1:1; Jeremiah 26:18). It was probably in the vicinity of Mareshah ( Micah 1:15). Jerome, in his preface to his work on Micah, places it a little to the East of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin), and it would be natural to find it there if the latter place was Gath as some think. Robinson (BR, II, 68) found ruins of a village between one and two miles East of Beit Jibrin. It must have been among the foot-hills of Judah between the hill country and the Philistine plain on the route from Jerusalem to Lachish, Gaza and Egypt.

    Mareshah was certainly in that region, and the prophecy of Micah mentions towns and villages in the Shephelah and the Philistine country as though they were familiar to him (see HGHL and G. A. Smith, “Micah,” in his Minor Prophets). H. Porter MORIAH, LAND OF <mo-ri’-a > ( hY:rIMoh” ˜rn , eis ten genitive ten hupselen]): Abraham was directed by God to take his son Isaac, to go into the land of Moriah, and there to offer him for a burnt offering ( Genesis 22:2) upon a mountain which God would show him. This land is mentioned only here, and there is little to guide us in trying to identify it. A late writer ( 2 Chronicles 3:1) applies the name of Moriah to the mount on which Solomon’s Temple was built, possibly associating it with the sacrifice of Isaac. A similar association with this mountain may have been in the mind of the writer of Genesis 22 (see 22:14), who, of course, wrote long after the events described (Driver).

    But in 22:2 no special mountain is indicated.

    Abraham journeyed from the land of the Philistines, and on the 3rd day he saw the place afar off ( Genesis 22:4). This naturally suggests some prominent mountain farther North than Jerusalem. The description could hardly apply to Jerusalem in any case, as it could not be seen “afar off” by one approaching either from the South or the West. The Samaritans lay the scene of sacrifice on MATTHEW. GERIZIM (which see).

    Instead of “Moriah” in this passage Peshitta reads “Amorites.” This suggests a possible emendation of the text, which, if it be accepted, furnishes a more definite ides of the land within which that memorable scene was enacted. Both Jerusalem and Gerizim, however, lay within the boundaries of the land of the Amorites. No doubt the enmity existing between the Jews and the Samaritans led them each to glorify their own holy places to the detriment of those of their rivals. Little stress can therefore be laid upon their identifications. With our present knowledge we must be content to leave the question open. W. Ewing MORNING <mor’-ning > : There are several Hebrew and Greek words which are rendered “morning,” the most common in Hebrew being rq,Bo [boqer], which occurs 180 times. It properly means “the breaking forth of the light,” “the dawn,” as in Genesis 19:27; Judges 19:8,25,27. Another word with the same meaning is rj”v” [shachar] ( Genesis 19:15; Nehemiah 4:21; Isaiah 58:8). rj”v]mi [mishchar] (“womb of the morning,” <19B003> Psalm 110:3) is a poetical term derived from. the same root. See HIND OF THE MORNING. HG’nO [noghah], ah;g”n’ [naghha’] ( Daniel 6:19 (Hebrew 20)), mean “brightness.” µKev]h” [hashkem], comes from µyKv]h [hishkim], “to load an animal” (for a journey), and as the nomads are accustomed to do this early in the morning it came to mean early morning ( 1 Samuel 17:16).See BETIMES.

    In the New Testament [o]rqrov, orthros], is properly “dawn,” and is used for early morning ( John 8:2; Acts 5:21), and [prwi`>a , proia] signifies the same ( Matthew 27:1). [prwi`> , proi], “early,” is an adverb and means early in the morning ( Mark 1:35). Morning as an adjective is [ojrqrino>v , orthrinos] ( Revelation 22:16), or [prwi`no>v , proinos] (1 Esdras 1:11; 5:50; Revelation 2:28; 22:16). H. Porter MORNING WATCH [‘ash-moreth ha-boker] ( Exodus 14:24; 1 Samuel 11:11); in Judith 12:5 for rq,Boh trnight.See WATCH.

    MORNING, WINGS OF See ASTRONOMY, I, 4.

    MORROW, TOMORROW <mor’-o > , <too-mor’-o > : Two words are used in the Old Testament in this meaning: rq,Bo [boqer], which properly means “dawn,” or “morning,” and rj;m; [machar], properly the same, but used for the next morning and hence, “tomorrow,” like the German morgen. The derivative tr:j’m; [mochorath], is “the following day,” “all the next day,” especially after [yom] (“day”), but usually coupled with a noun following, as in Leviticus 23:11, [mochorath ha-shabbath] “day after the Sabbath.” It is also used adverbially for “on the morrow,” as in Genesis 19:34.

    In the Greek of the New Testament we find [au]rion , aurion] ( Matthew 6:34, etc.), commonly used, but [eJxh~v , hexes], also occurs ( Acts 25:17 the King James Version, where the Revised Version (British and American) renders more exactly “the next day”); [ejpau>rion , epaurion], is “on the morrow” ( Acts 10:9,23,24). H. Porter MORROW AFTER THE SABBATH ( tr:j’m; [mochorath], or µt;r:j’m; [mochoratham], “the morrow,” or “tomorrow,” “the day following”; tB;V”h” tr’j’m; [mochorath hashabbath], “the day after the Sabbath,” i.e. the first day of the week): The first day of the week was designated for the formal offering of the firstfruits in the form of wave-sheaves ( Leviticus 23:11), and of the waveloaves 50 days later ( Leviticus 23:16,17). This recognition of an after- Sabbath during festive periods has its counterpart in the later ecclesiastical practice of celebrating not only Easter Sunday, but also Easter Monday, etc., and undoubtedly was a factor in establishing the custom which transferred the sanctity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week after the resurrection of our Lord. Frank E. Hirsch MORSEL <mor’-sel > ([brw~siv , brosis]): Found only in Hebrews 12:16 the King James Version, “For one morsel of meat (the Revised Version (British and American) “mess of meat”) sold his birthright,” literally, “for one eating,” i.e. one meal. The Great Bible (Cranmer’s) has “for one mease of meat.”

    MORTAL; MORTALITY <mor’-tal > , <mor-tal’-i-ti > ([qnhto>v , thnetos] [to< qnhto>n , to thneton]):

    The meaning is “subject to death” ( Romans 6:12; 8:11; Corinthians 15:53,54; in 2 Corinthians 5:4 the Revised Version (British and American) has “what is mortal”). In Job 4:17, the Hebrew word is [’enosh], “mortal man.” See IMMORTAL.

    MORTAR <mor’-ter > ( hk;dom] [medhokhah] ( Numbers 11:8), vTek]m” [makhtesh] ( Proverbs 27:22)): A hollowed stone or vessel in which grain or other substance was pounded or beaten with a pestle. The Israelites used a mortar in which to beat the manna in the wilderness ( Numbers 11:8), and Proverbs 27:22 declares, “Though thou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle .... yet will not his foolishness depart from him,” i.e. it is inherent and ineradicable. Some have supposed an allusion to an oriental mode of punishment by pounding the criminal to death in a mortar, but this is unlikely. In illustration of Proverbs 27:22 such proverbs are quoted as “Though you beat that loose woman in a mortar, she will not leave her ways.” See also BRAY. For “mortar” (the King James Version “morter”).

    See BITUMEN.

    James Orr MORTGAGE <mor’-gaj > ( br’[; [arabh]): To give or be security as a part of bartering, give pledges, become surety. In time of great need for food, “Some also there were that said, We are mortgaging (the King James Version “have mortgaged”) our fields,” etc. ( Nehemiah 5:3).See SURETY.

    MORTIFY <mor’-ti-fi > ( Romans 8:13 the King James Version and the English Revised Version, [qanato>w , thanatoo], the English Revised Version margin “make to die,” and Colossians 3:5, [nekro>w , nekroo], the English Revised Version margin “make dead”): This sense of mortify is obsolete in modern English, and the American Standard Revised Version in both places substitutes “put to death,” with great advantage. The context in both passages goes to the heart of Paul’s doctrine of the union of the believer with Christ. This union has given the soul a new life, flowing (through the Spirit) from Christ in the heavenly world, so that the remnants of the old corrupt life-principle are now dangerous excrescences. Hence, they are to be destroyed, just as a surgeon removes the remnants of a diseased condition after the reestablishment of healthy circulation. The interpreter must guard against weakening Paul’s language into some such phrase as “subdue all that is inconsistent with the highest ideals,” for Paul views the union with Christ as an intensely real, quasi-physical relation. Burton Scott Easton MOSERAH <mo-se’-ra > , <mo’-se-ra > ( hr:sewm [mocerah], “bond”): Perhaps Moser with the “he” of locale (direction), “to Moser” (Dt 10:6). See MOSEROTH.

    MOSEROTH <mo-se’-roth > , <mo’-se-roth > , <-roth > ( trosemo [moceroth], “bonds”): A desert camp of the Israelites between Hashmonah and Bene-jaakan ( Numbers 33:30,31). It is probably the same as Moserah (Dt 10:6), though in that passage the name follows Bene-jaakan. There Aaron died and was buried.See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

    MOSES <mo’-zez > , <mo’-ziz > ( hv,mo [mosheh]; Egyptian mes, “drawn out,” “born”; Septuagint [ Mwush~ [v ], Mouse(s)]). The great Hebrew national hero, leader, author, law-giver and prophet.

    The traditional view of the Jewish church and of the Christian church, that Moses was a person and that the narrative with which his life-story is interwoven is real history, is in the main sustained by commentators and critics of all classes.

    It is needless to mention the old writers among whom these questions were hardly under discussion. Among the advocates of the current radical criticism may be mentioned Stade and Renan, who minimize the historicity of the Bible narrative at this point. Renan thinks the narrative “may be very probable.” Ewald, Wellhausen, Robertson Smith, and Driver, while finding many flaws in the story, make much generally of the historicity of the narrative.

    The critical analysis of the Pentateuch divides this life-story of Moses into three main parts, J, E, and the Priestly Code (P), with a fourth, D, made up mainly from the others. Also some small portions here and there are given to R, especially the account of Aaron’s part in the plagues of Egypt, where his presence in a J-document is very troublesome for the analytical theory.

    It is unnecessary to encumber this biography with constant cross-references to the strange story of Moses pieced together out of the rearranged fragments into which the critical analysis of the Pentateuch breaks up the narrative. It is recognized that there are difficulties in the story of Moses.

    In what ancient life-story are there not difficulties? If we can conceive of the ancients being obliged to ponder over a modern life-story, we can easily believe that they would have still more difficulty with it. But it seems to very many that the critical analysis creates more difficulties in the narrative than it relieves. It is a little thing to explain by such analysis some apparent discrepancy between two laws or two events or two similar incidents which we do not clearly understand. It is a far greater thing so to confuse, by rearranging, a beautiful, well-articulated biography that it becomes disconnected — indeed, in parts, scarcely makes sense.

    The biographical narrative of the Hebrew national hero, Moses, is a continuous thread of history in the Pentateuch. That story in all its simplicity and symmetry, but with acknowledgment of its difficulties as they arise, is here to be followed.

    1. LIFE. 1. Son of Levi: The recorded story of Moses’ life falls naturally into five rather unequal parts: “And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi” ( Exodus 2:1). The son of Levi born of that union became the greatest man among mere men in the whole history of the world. How far he was removed in genealogy from Levi it is impossible to know. The genealogical lists ( Genesis 46:11; Exodus 6:16-20; Numbers 3:14-28; 26:57-59; 1 Chronicles 6:1-3) show only generations from Levi to Moses, while the account given of the numbers of Israel at the exodus ( Exodus 12:37; 38:26; Numbers 1:46; 11:21) imperatively demand at least 10 or 12 generations. The males alone of the sons of Kohath “from a month old and upward” numbered at Sinai 8,600 ( Numbers 3:27,28). It is evident that the extract from the genealogy here, as in many other places ( 1 Chronicles 23:15 f; 26:24; Ezra 7:1-5; 8:1,2; compare 1 Chronicles 6:3-14; Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38) is not complete, but follows the common method of giving important heads of families. The statement concerning Jochebed: “And she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister” ( Numbers 26:59) really creates no difficulty, as it is likewise said of Zilpah, after the mention of her grandsons, “And these she bare unto Jacob” ( Genesis 46:17,18; compare 46:24,25).

    The names of the immediate father and mother of Moses are not certainly known. The mother “saw him that he was a goodly child” ( Exodus 2:2).

    So they defied the commandment of the king ( Exodus 1:22), and for months hid him instead of throwing him into the river. 2. Foundling Prince: The time soon came when it was impossible longer to hide the child (Josephus, Ant, II, ix, 3-6). The mother resolved upon a plan which was at once a pathetic imitation of obedience to the commandment of the king, an adroit appeal to womanly sympathy, and, if it succeeded, a subtle scheme to bring the cruelty of the king home to his own attention. Her faith succeeded. She took an ark of bulrushes ( Exodus 2:3,4; compare ARK OF BULRUSHES), daubed it with bitumen mixed with the sticky slime of the river, placed in this floating vessel the child of her love and faith, and put it into the river at a place among the sedge in the shallow water where the royal ladies from the palace would be likely to come down to bathe. A sister, probably Miriam, stood afar off to watch ( Exodus 2:3,4). The daughter of Pharaoh came down with her great ladies to the river ( Exodus 2:5-10). The princess saw the ark among the sedge and sent a maid to fetch it. The expectation of the mother was not disappointed. The womanly sympathy of the princess was touched. She resolved to save this child by adopting him. Through the intervention of the watching sister, he was given to his own mother to be nursed ( Exodus 2:7-9). “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son” ( Exodus 2:10). Thus, he would receive her family name.

    Royal family names in Egypt then were usually compounded of some expression of reverence or faith or submission and the name of a god, e.g. “loved of,” “chosen of,” “born of,” Thoth, Ptah, Ra or Amon. At this period of Egyptian history, “born of” (Egyptian mes, “drawn out”) was joined sometimes to Ah, the name of the moon-god, making Ahmes, or Thoth, the scribe-god, so Thothmes, but usually with Ra, the sun-god, giving Rames, usually anglicized Rameses or Ramoses.

    It was the time of the Ramesside dynasty, and the king on the throne was Rameses II. Thus the foundling adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter would have the family name Mes or Moses. That it would be joined in the Egyptian to the name of the sungod Ra is practically certain. His name at court would be Ramoses. But to the oriental mind a name must mean something. The usual meaning of this royal name was that the child was “born of” a princess through the intervention of the god Ra. But this child was not “born of” the princess, so falling back upon the primary meaning of the word, “drawn out,” she said, “because I drew him out of the water” ( Exodus 2:10). Thus, Moses received his name. Pharaoh’s daughter may have been the eldest daughter of Rameses II, but more probably was the daughter and eldest child of Seti Merenptah I, and sister of the king on the throne. She would be lineal heir to the crown but debarred by her sex.

    Instead, she bore the title “Pharaoh’s Daughter,” and, according to Egyptian custom, retained the right to the crown for her first-born son. A not improbable tradition (Josephus, Ant, II, ix, 7) relates that she had no natural son, and Moses thus became heir to the throne, not with the right to supplant the reigning Pharaoh, but to supersede any of his sons.

    Very little is known of Moses’ youth and early manhood at the court of Pharaoh. He would certainly be educated as a prince, whose right it probably was to be initiated into the mysteries. Thus he was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” ( Acts 7:22), included in which, according to many Egyptologists, was the doctrine of one Supreme God.

    Many curious things, whose value is doubtful, are told of Moses by Josephus and other ancient writers (Josephus, Ant, II, ix, 3; xi; CAp, I, 31; compare DB; for Mohammedan legends, see Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus, Appendix; for rabbinical legends, see Jewish Encyclopedia). Some of these traditions are not incredible but lack authentication. Others are absurd. Egyptologists have searched with very indifferent success for some notice of the great Hebrew at the Egyptian court. 3. Friend of the People: But the faith of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks ( Hebrews 11:23-28) was at work. Moses “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” ( Exodus 2:11-14; Acts 7:24). Whether he did so in word, by definite renunciation, or by his espousal of the cause of the slave against the oppressive policy of Pharaoh is of little importance. In either case he became practically a traitor, and greatly imperiled his throne rights and probably his civil rights as well. During some intervention to ameliorate the condition of the state slaves, an altercation arose and he slew an Egyptian ( Exodus 2:11,12). Thus, his constructive treason became an overt act.

    Discovering through the ungrateful reproaches of his own kinsmen ( Acts 7:25) that his act was known, he quickly made decision, “choosing rather to share ill treatment with the people of God,” casting in his lot with slaves of the empire, rather than “to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season,” amid the riotous living of the young princes at the Egyptian court; “accounting the reproach of Christ” his humiliation, being accounted a nobody (“Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”) as “greater riches than the treasures of Egypt” ( Hebrews 11:25,26; Acts 7:25-28). He thought to be a nobody and do right better than to be a tyrant and rule Egypt. 4. Refuge in Midian: Moses fled, “not fearing the wrath of the king” ( Hebrews 11:27), not cringing before it or submitting to it, but defying it and braving all that it could bring upon him, degradation from his high position, deprivation of the privileges and comforts of the Egyptian court. He went out a poor wanderer ( Exodus 2:15). We are told nothing of the escape and the journey, how he eluded the vigilance of the court guards and of the frontier-line of sentinels. The friend of slaves is strangely safe while within their territory. At last he reached the Sinaitic province of the empire and hid himself away among its mountain fastnesses ( Exodus 2:15). The romance of the well and the shepherdesses and the grateful father and the future wife is all quite in accord with the simplicity of desert life ( Exodus 2:16-22). The “Egyptian” saw the rude, selfish herdsmen of the desert imposing upon the helpless shepherd girls, and, partly by the authority of a manly man, partly, doubtless, by the authority of his Egyptian appearance in an age when “Egypt” was a word with which to frighten men in all that part of the world, he compelled them to give way.

    The “Egyptian” was called, thanked, given a home and eventually a wife.

    There in Midian, while the anguish of Israel continued under the taskmaster’s lash, and the weakening of Israel’s strength by the destruction of the male children went on, with what more or less rigor we know not, Moses was left by Providence to mellow and mature, that the haughty, impetuous prince, “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” might be transformed into the wise, well-poised, masterful leader, statesman, lawgiver, poet and prophet. God usually prepares His great ones in the countryside or about some of the quiet places of earth, farthest away from the busy haunts of men and nearest to the “secret place of the Most High.”

    David keeping his father’s flocks, Elijah on the mountain slopes of Gilead, the Baptist in the wilderness of Judea, Jesus in the shop of a Galilean carpenter; so Moses a shepherd in the Bedouin country, in the “waste, howling wilderness.” 5. Leader of Israel: (1) The Commission.

    One day Moses led the flocks to “the back of the wilderness” ( Exodus 3:1-12; see BURNING BUSH Moses received his commission, the most appalling commission ever given to a mere man ( Exodus 3:10) — a commission to a solitary man, and he a refugee — to go back home and deliver his kinsmen from a dreadful slavery at the hand of the most powerful nation on earth. Let not those who halt and stumble over the little difficulties of most ordinary lives think hardly of the faltering of Moses’ faith before such a task ( Exodus 3:11-13; 4:1,10-13). “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” ( Exodus 3:14), was the encouragement God gave him. He gave him also Aaron for a spokesman ( Exodus 4:14-16), the return to the Mount of God as a sign ( Exodus 3:12), and the rod of power for working wonders ( Exodus 4:17).

    One of the curious necessities into which the critical analysis drives its advocates is the opinion concerning Aaron that “he scarcely seems to have been a brother and almost equal partner of Moses, perhaps not even a priest” (Bennett, HDB, III, 441). Interesting and curious speculations have been instituted concerning the way in which Israel and especially Pharaoh were to understand the message, “I AM hath sent me unto you” ( Exodus 3:13,14; compare 6:3). They were evidently expected to understand this message. Were they to so do by translating or by transliterating it into Egyptian? Some day Egyptologists may be able to answer positively, but not yet.

    With the signs for identification ( Exodus 4:1-10), Moses was ready for his mission. He went down from the “holy ground” to obey the high summons and fulfill the great commission ( Exodus 4:18-23). After the perplexing controversy with his wife, a controversy of stormy ending ( Exodus 4:24-26), he seems to have left his family to his father-in-law’s care while he went to respond to the call of God ( Exodus 18:6). He met Aaron, his brother, at the Mount of God ( Exodus 4:27,28), and together they returned to Egypt to collect the elders of Israel ( Exodus 4:29-31), who were easily won over to the scheme of emancipation. Was ever a slave people not ready to listen to plans for freedom? (2) The Conflict with Pharaoh.

    The next move was the bold request to the king to allow the people to go into the wilderness to hold a feast unto Yahweh ( Exodus 5:1). How did Moses gain admittance past the jealous guards of an Egyptian court to the presence of the Pharaoh himself? And why was not the former traitorous refugee at once arrested? Egyptology affords a not too distinct answer. Rameses II was dead ( Exodus 4:19); Merenptah II was on the throne with an insecure tenure, for the times were troubled. Did some remember the “son of Pharaoh’s daughter” who, had he remained loyal, would have been the Pharaoh? Probably so. Thus he would gain admittance, and thus, too, in the precarious condition of the throne, it might well not be safe to molest him. The original form of the request made to the king, with some slight modification, was continued throughout ( Exodus 8:27; 10:9), though God promised that the Egyptians should thrust them out altogether when the end should come, and it was so ( Exodus 11:1; 12:31,33,39). Yet Pharaoh remembered the form of their request and bestirred himself when it was reported that they had indeed gone “from serving” them ( Exodus 14:5). The request for temporary departure upon which the contest was made put Pharaoh’s call to duty in the easiest form and thus, also, his obstinacy appears as the greater heinousness. Then came the challenge of Pharaoh in his contemptuous demand, “Who is Yahweh?” ( Exodus 5:2), and Moses’ prompt acceptance of the challenge, in the beginning of the long series of plagues (see PLAGUES ) ( Exodus 8:1 ff; 12:29-36; 14:31; compare Lamb, Miracle of Science). Pharaoh, having made the issue, was justly required to afford full presentation of it. So Pharaoh’s heart was “hardened” ( Exodus 4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12,35; 10:1; 14:8; see PLAGUES ) until the vindication of Yahweh as God of all the earth was complete. This proving of Yahweh was so conducted that the gods of Egypt were shown to be of no avail against Him, but that He is God of all the earth, and until the faith of the people of Israel was confirmed ( Exodus 14:31). (3) Institution of the Passover.

    It was now time for the next step in revelation (Exodus 12; 13:1-16). At the burning bush God had declared His purpose to be a saviour, not a destroyer. In this contest in Egypt, His absolute sovereignty was being established; and now the method of deliverance by Him, that He might not be a destroyer, was to be revealed. Moses called together the elders ( Exodus 12:21-28) and instituted the Passover feast. As God always in revelation chooses the known and the familiar — the tree, the bow, circumcision, baptism, and the Supper — by which to convey the unknown, so the Passover was a combination of the household feast with the widespread idea of safety through blood-sacrifice, which, however it may have come into the world, was not new at that time. Some think there is evidence of an old Semitic festival at that season which was utilized for the institution of the Passover.

    The lamb was chosen and its use was kept up ( Exodus 12:3-6). On the appointed night it was killed and “roasted with fire” and eaten with bitter herbs ( Exodus 12:8), while they all stood ready girded, with their shoes on their feet and their staff in hand ( Exodus 12:11). They ate in safety and in hope, because the blood of the lamb was on the door ( Exodus 12:23). That night the firstborn of Egypt were slain. Among the Egyptians “there was not a house where there was not one dead” ( Exodus 12:30), from the house of the maid-servant, who sat with her handmill before her, to the palace of the king that “sat on the throne,” and even among the cattle in the pasture. If the plague was employed as the agency of the angel of Yahweh, as some think, its peculiarity is that it takes the strongest and the best and culminates in one great stunning blow and then immediately subsides (see PLAGUES). Who can tell the horror of that night when the Israelites were thrust out of the terror-stricken land ( Exodus 12:39)?

    As they went out, they “asked,” after the fashion of departing servants in the East, and God gave them favor in the sight of the over-awed Egyptians that they lavished gifts upon them in extravagance. Thus “they despoiled the Egyptians” ( Exodus 12:36). “Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people” ( Exodus 11:3; 12:35,36). (4) The Exodus. “At the end of 430 years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt” ( Exodus 12:41).

    The great oppressor was Rameses II, and the culmination and the revolution came, most probably, in connection with the building of Pithom and Raamses, as these are the works of Israel mentioned in the Bible narrative ( Exodus 1:11). Rameses said that he built Pithom at the “mouth of the east” (Budge, History of Exodus, V, 123). All efforts to overthrow that statement have failed and for the present, at least, it must stand. Israel built Pithom, Rameses built Pithom; there is a synchronism that cannot in the present knowledge of Egyptian history even be doubted, much less separated. The troubled times which came to Egypt with the beginning of the reign of Merenptah II afforded the psychological moment for the return of the “son of Pharaoh’s daughter” and his access to the royal court. The presence and power of Yahweh vindicated His claim to be the Lord of all the earth, and Merenptah let the children of Israel go.

    A little later when Israel turned back from the border of Khar (Palestine) into the wilderness and disappeared, and Merenptah’s affairs were somewhat settled in the empire, he set up the usual boastful tablet claiming as his own many of the victories of his royal ancestors, added a few which he himself could truly boast, and inserted, near the end, an exultation over Israel’s discomfiture, accounting himself as having finally won the victory: “Tehennu is devastation, Kheta peace, the Canaan the prisoner of all ills; “Asgalon led out, taken with Gezer, Yenoamam made naught; “The People of Israel is ruined, his posterity is not; Khar is become as the widows of Egypt.”

    The synchronisms of this period are well established and must stand until, if it should ever be, other facts of Egyptian history shall be obtained to change them. Yet it is impossible to determine with certainty the precise event from which the descent into Egypt should be reckoned, or to fix the date BC of Moses, Rameses and Merenptah, and the building of Pithom, and so, likewise, the date of the exodus and of all the patriarchal movements. The ancients were more concerned about the order of events, their perspective and their synchronisms than about any epochal date. For the present we must be content with these chronological uncertainties.

    Astronomical science may sometimes fix the epochal dates for these events; otherwise there is little likelihood that they will ever be known.

    They went out from Succoth (Egyptian “Thuku,” Budge, History of Egypt, V, 122, 129), carrying the bones of Joseph with them as he had commanded ( Exodus 13:19; Genesis 50:25). The northeast route was the direct way to the promised land, but it was guarded. Pithom itself was built at “the mouth of the East,” as a part of the great frontier defenses (Budge, op. cit., V, 123). The “wall” on this frontier was well guarded (Exodus 14), and attempts might be made to stop them. So they went not “by the way of the land of the Philistines .... lest peradventure the people repent when they see war” ( Exodus 13:17). The Lord Himself took the leadership and went ahead of the host of Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night ( Exodus 13:21). He led them by “the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea” ( Exodus 13:18). They pitched before Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon between Migdol and the sea ( Exodus 14:2). Not one of these places has been positively identified.

    But the Journeys before and after the crossing, the time, and the configuration of the land and the coast-line of the sea, together with all the necessities imposed by the narrative, are best met by a crossing near the modern town of Suez (Naville, Route of the Exodus; Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus), where Ras `Ataka comes down to the sea, upon whose heights a migdhol or “watch-tower,” as the southern outpost of the eastern line of Egyptian defenses, would most probably be erected.

    Word was carried from the frontier to Pharaoh, probably at Tanis, that the Israelites had “fled” ( Exodus 14:5), had taken the impassioned thrusting out by the frenzied people of Egypt in good faith and had gone never to return. Pharaoh took immediate steps to arrest and bring back the fugitives.

    The troops at hand ( Exodus 14:6) and the chariot corps, including “chosen chariots,” were sent at once in pursuit, Pharaoh going out in person at least to start the expedition ( Exodus 14:6,7). The Israelites seemed to be “entangled in the land,” and, since “the wilderness (had) shut them in” ( Exodus 4:3), must easily fall a prey to the Egyptian army. The Israelites, terror-stricken, cried to Moses. God answered and commanded the pillar of cloud to turn back from its place before the host of Israel and stand between them and the approaching Egyptians, so that while the Egyptians were in the darkness Israel had the light ( Exodus 14:19,20).

    The mountain came down on their right, the sea on the left to meet the foot of the mountain in front of them; the Egyptians were hastening on after them and the pillar of cloud and fire was their rearward. Moses with the rod of God stood at the head of the fleeing host. Then God wrought.

    Moses stretched out the rod of God over the sea and “Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night” ( Exodus 14:16-21).

    A pathway was before them and the sea on the right hand, and on the left was a “wall unto them,” and they passed through ( Exodus 14:21,22).

    Such heaping up of the waters by the wind is well known and sometimes amounts to 7 or 8 ft. in Lake Erie (Wright, Scientific Confirmations of the Old Testament, 106). No clearer statement could possibly be made of the means used and of the miraculous timing of God’s providence with the obedience of the people to His command to Moses. The host of Israel passed over on the hard, sandy bottom of the sea. The Egyptians coming up in the dark and finding it impossible to tell exactly where the coastline had been on this beach, and where the point of safety would lie when the wind should abate and the tide come in again, impetuously rushed on after the fleeing slaves. In the morning, Yahweh looked forth and troubled the Egyptians “and took off their chariot wheels, and they drove them heavily” ( Exodus 14:24,25). The wind had abated, the tide was returning and the infiltration that goes before the tide made the beach like a quicksand. The Egyptians found that they had gone too far and tried to escape ( Exodus 14:27), but it was too late. The rushing tide caught them ( Exodus 14:28). When the day had come, “horse and rider” were but the subject of a minstrel’s song of triumph ( Exodus 15:1-19; <19A609> Psalm 106:9-12) which Miriam led with her timbrel ( Exodus 15:20). The Bible does not say, and there is no reason to believe, that Pharaoh led the Egyptian hosts in person further than at the setting off and for the giving of general direction to the campaign ( Exodus 15:4). Pharaoh and his host were overthrown in the Red Sea ( <19D615> Psalm 136:15). So Napoleon and his host were overthrown at Waterloo, but Napoleon lived to die at Helena. And Merenptah lived to erect his boastful inscription concerning the failure of Israel, when turned back from Kadesh-barnea, and their disappearance in the wilderness of Paran. His mummy, identified by the lamented Professor Groff, lies among the royal mummies in the Cairo Museum. Thus at the Red Sea was wrought the final victory of Yahweh over Pharaoh; and the people believed ( Exodus 14:31). (5) Special Providences.

    Now proceeded that long course of special providences, miraculous timing of events, and multiplying of natural agencies which began with the crossing of the Red Sea and ended only when they “did eat of the fruit of the land” (Josh 5:12). God promised freedom from the diseases of the Egyptians ( Exodus 15:26) at the bitter waters of Marah, on the condition of obedience. Moses was directed to a tree, the wood of which should counteract the alkaline character of the water ( Exodus 15:23-25). A little later they were at Elim (Wady Gharandel, in present-day geography), where were “twelve springs of water and three score and ten palm trees” ( Exodus 15:27). The enumeration of the trees signifies nothing but their scarcity, and is understood by everyone who has traveled in that desert and counted, again and again, every little clump of trees that has appeared. The course of least resistance here is to turn a little to the right and come out again at the Red Sea in order to pass around the point of the plateau into the wilderness of Sin. This is the course travel takes now, and it took the same course then ( Exodus 16:1). Here Israel murmured ( Exodus 16:2), and every traveler who crosses this blistering, dusty, wearisome, hungry wilderness joins in the murmuring, and wishes, at least a little, that he had stayed in the land of Egypt ( Exodus 16:3). Provisions brought from Egypt were about exhausted and the land supplied but little. Judging from the complaints of the people about the barrenness of the land, it was not much different then from what it is now ( Numbers 20:1-6). Now special providential provision began. “At even .... the quails came up, and covered the camp,” and in the morning, after the dew, the manna was found ( Exodus 16:4-36). See MANNA; QUAILS.

    At Rephidim was the first of the instances when Moses was called upon to help the people to some water. He smote the rock with the rod of God, and there came forth an abundant supply of water ( Exodus 17:1-6). There is plenty of water in the wady near this point now. The Amalekites, considering the events immediately following, had probably shut the Israelites off from the springs, so God opened some hidden source in the mountain side. “Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel” ( Exodus 17:8). Whether the hand which Moses lifted up during the battle was his own hand or a symbolical hand ( Exodus 17:9-12), thought to have been carried in battle then, as sometimes even yet by the Bedouin, is of no importance. It was in either case a hand stretched up to God in prayer and allegiance, and the battle with Amalek, then as now, fluctuates according as the hand is lifted up or lowered ( Exodus 17:8-16).

    Here Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, met him and brought his wife and children to him ( Exodus 18:5,6; compare Numbers 10:29). A sacrificial feast was held with the distinguished guest ( Exodus 18:7-12).

    In the wise counsel of this great desert-priest we see one of the many natural sources of supply for Moses’ legal lore and statesmanship. A suggestion of Jethro gave rise to one of the wisest and most far-reaching elements in the civil institutions of Israel, the elaborate system of civil courts ( Exodus 18:13-26). (6) Receiving the Law.

    At Sinai Moses reached the pinnacle of his career, though perhaps not the pinnacle of his faith. (For a discussion of the location of Sinai, see SINAI; EXODUS.) It is useless to speculate about the nature of the flames in theophany by fire at Sinai. Some say there was a thunderstorm (HDB); others think a volcanic eruption. The time, the stages of the journey, the description of the way, the topography of this place, especially its admirable adaptability to be the cathedral of Yahweh upon earth, and, above all, the collocation of all the events of the narrative along this route to this spot and to no other — all these exercise an overwhelming influence upon one (compare Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus). If they do not conclusively prove, they convincingly persuade, that here the greatest event between Creation and Calvary took place Here the people assembled. “And Mount Sinai, the whole of it, smoked,” and above appeared the glory of God. Bounds were set about the mountain to keep the people back ( Exodus 19:12,13). God was upon the mountain: “Under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness” ( Exodus 19:16-19; 24:10,16,17), “and God spake all these words” ( Exodus 20:1-17). Back over the summit of the plain between these two mountain ridges in front, the people fled in terror to the place “afar off” ( Exodus 20:18), and somewhere about the foot of this mountain a little later the tabernacle of grace was set up ( Exodus 40:17). At this place the affairs of Moses mounted up to such a pinnacle of greatness in the religious history of the world as none other among men has attained unto. He gave formal announcement of the perfect law of God as a rule of life, and the redeeming mercy of God as the hope through repentance for a world of sinners that “fall short.” Other men have sought God and taught men to seek God, some by the works of the Law and some by the way of propitiation, but where else in the history of the world has any one man caught sight of both great truths and given them out?

    Moses gathered the people together to make the covenant ( Exodus 24:1-8), and the nobles of Israel ate a covenant meal there before God ( Exodus 24:11). God called Moses again to the mountain with the elders of Israel ( Exodus 24:12). There Moses was with God, fasting days ( Exodus 34:28). Joshua probably accompanied Moses into the mount ( Exodus 24:13). There God gave directions concerning the plan of the tabernacle: “See .... that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” ( Hebrews 8:5-12, summing up Exodus 25:40; 26:30; 27:8). This was the statement of the architect to the builder. We can only learn what the pattern was by studying the tabernacle (see TABERNACLE ). It was an Egyptian plan (compare Bible Student, January, 1902). While Moses was engaged in his study of the things of the tabernacle on the mount, the people grew restless and appealed to Aaron ( Exodus 32:1). In weakness Aaron yielded to them and made them a golden calf and they said, “These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” ( Exodus 32:2-6; compare CALF, GOLDEN ). This was probably, like the later calf-worship at Bethel and Daniel, ancient Semitic bull-worship and a violation of the second commandment Exodus 20:5; compare Bible Student, August, 1902). The judgment of God was swift and terrible (32:7-35), and Levi was made the Divine agent (32:25-29). Here first the “tent of meeting” comes into prominence as the official headquarters of the leader of Israel (33:7-11). Henceforth independent and distinct from the tabernacle, though on account of the similarity of names liable to be confused with that building, it holds its place and purpose all through the wanderings to the plain of Moab by Jordan (Dt 31:14). Moses is given a vision of God to strengthen his own faith ( Exodus 33:12-23; 34:1-35). On his return from communion with God, he had such glory within that it shone out through his face to the terror of the multitude, an adumbration of that other and more glorious transfiguration at which Moses should also appear, and that reflection of it which is sometimes seen in the life of many godly persons ( Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36).

    Rationalistic attempts to account for the phenomena at Sinai have been frequent, but usually along certain lines. The favorite hypothesis is that of volcanic action. God has often used natural agencies in His revelation and in His miracles, and there is no necessary obstacle to His doing so here.

    But there are two seemingly insuperable difficulties in the way of this naturalistic explanation: one, that since geologic time this has not been a volcanic region; the other, that volcanic eruptions are not conducive to literary inspiration. It is almost impossible to get a sane account from the beholders of an eruption, much less has it a tendency to result in the greatest literature, the most perfect code of laws and the profoundest statesmanship in the world. The human mind can easily believe that God could so speak from Sinai and direct the preparation of such works of wisdom as the Book of the Covenant. Not many will be able to think that Moses could do so during a volcanic eruption at Sinai. For it must be kept in mind that the historical character of the narrative at this point, and the Mosaic authorship of the Book of the Covenant, are generally admitted by those who put forward this naturalistic explanation. (7) Uncertainties of History.

    From this time on to the end of Moses’ life, the materials are scant, there are long stretches of silence, and a biographer may well hesitate. The tabernacle was set up at the foot of the “mountain of the law” ( Exodus 40:17-19), and the world from that day to this has been able to find a mercy-seat at the foot of the mountain of the law. Nadab and Abihu presumptuously offered strange fire and were smitten ( Leviticus 10:1-7). The people were numbered ( Numbers 1:1 ff). The Passover was kept ( Numbers 9:1-5). (8) Journey to Canaan Resumed.

    The journey to Canaan began again ( Numbers 10:11-13). From this time until near the close of the life of Moses the events associated with his name belong for the most part to the story of the wanderings in the wilderness and other subjects, rather than to a biography of Moses. (compare WANDERINGS; AARON; MIRIAM; JOSHUA; CALEB; BRAZEN SERPENT , etc.). The subjects and references are as follows:

    The March ( Numbers 2:10-18; 9:15-23) The Complaining ( Numbers 11:1-3) The Lusting ( Numbers 11:4-6,18-35) The Prophets ( Numbers 11:16) Leprosy of Miriam ( Numbers 12:1-16) (9) The Border of the Land:

    Kadesh-barnea ( Numbers 13:3-26) The Spies (Dt 1:22; Numbers 13:2,21; 23:27,28-33; 14:1-38) The Plagues ( Numbers 14:36,37,40-45) (10) The Wanderings:

    Korah, Dathan and Abiram ( Numbers 16:1-35) The Plague ( Numbers 16:41-50; 17) Death of Miriam ( Numbers 20:1) Sin of Moses and Aaron ( Numbers 20:2-13; <19A632> Psalm 106:32) Unfriendliness of Edom ( Numbers 20:14-21) Death of Aaron ( Numbers 20:22-29) Arad ( Numbers 21:1-3) Compassing of Edom ( Numbers 21:4) Murmuring ( Numbers 21:5-7) Brazen Serpent ( Numbers 21:8,9; John 3:14) (11) Edom:

    The Jordan ( Numbers 21:10-20) Sihon ( Numbers 21:21-32) Og ( Numbers 21:33-35) Balak and Balaam ( Numbers 22:4; 24:25) Pollution of the People ( Numbers 25:6-15) Numbering of the People (Numbers 26) Joshua Chosen ( Numbers 27:15-23) Midianites Punished (Numbers 31) (12) Tribes East of Jordan (Numbers 32) (13) Moses’ Final Acts.

    Moses was now ready for the final instruction of the people. They were assembled and a great farewell address was given (Dt 1 through 30:20).

    Joshua was formally inducted into office (Dt 31:1-8), and to the priests was delivered a written copy of this last announcement of the Law now adapted to the progress made during 40 years (Dt 31:9-13; compare 31:24- 29). Moses then called Joshua into the tabernacle for a final charge (Dt 31:14-23), gave to the assembled elders of the people “the words of this song” (Dt 31:30; 32:1-43) and blessed the people (Dt 33). And then Moses, who “by faith” had triumphed in Egypt, had been the great revelator at Sinai, had turned back to walk with the people of little faith for 40 years, reached the greatest triumph of his faith, when, from the top of Nebo, the towering pinnacle of Pisgah, he lifted up his eyes to the goodly land of promise and gave way to Joshua to lead the people in (Dt 34). And there Moses died and was buried, “but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day” (Dt 34:5,6), “and Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died” (Dt 34:7).

    This biography of Moses is the binding-thread of the Pentateuch from the beginning of Exodus to the end of Deuteronomy, without disastrous breaks or disturbing repetitions. There are, indeed, silences, but they occur where nothing great or important in the narrative is to be expected. And there are, in the eyes of some, repetitions, so-called doublets, but they do not seem to be any more real than may be expected in any biography that is only incidental to the main purpose of the writer. No man can break apart this narrative of the books without putting into confusion this life-story; the one cannot be treated as independent of the other; any more than the narrative of the English Commonwealth and the story of Cromwell, or the story of the American Revolution and the career of Washington.

    Later references to Moses as leader, lawgiver and prophet run all through the Bible; only the most important will be mentioned: Josh 8:30-35; 24:5; 1 Samuel 12:6-8; 1 Chronicles 23:14-17; Psalm 77:20; 99:6; 105; 106; Isaiah 63:11,12; Jeremiah 15:1; Daniel 9:11-13; Hos 12:13; Micah 6:4; Malachi 4:4.

    The place held by Moses in the New Testament is as unique as in the Old Testament, though far less prominent. Indeed, he holds the same place, though presented in a different light. In the Old Testament he is the type of the Prophet to be raised up “like unto” him. It is the time of types, and Moses, the type, is most conspicuous. In the New Testament the Prophet “like unto Moses” has come. He now stands out the greatest One in human history, while Moses, the type, fades away in the shadow. It is thus he appears in Christ’s remarkable reference to him: “He wrote of me” ( John 5:46). The principal thing which Moses wrote specifically of Christ is this passage: “Yahweh thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me” (Dt 18:15,18 f).

    Again in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is the formal passing over from the types of the Old Testament to the fulfillment in the New Testament, Jesus is made to stand out as the Moses of the new dispensation (Hebrews 3; 12:24-29). Other most important New Testament references to Moses are Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30; John 1:17,45; 3:14; Romans 5:14; Jude 1:9; Revelation 15:3.

    2. WORK AND CHARACTER.

    So little is known of the private life of Moses that his personal character can scarcely be separated from the part which he bore in public affairs. It is the work he wrought for Israel and for mankind which fixes his place among the great ones of earth. The life which we have just sketched as the life of the leader of Israel is also the life of the author, the lawgiver, and the prophet. 1. The Author: It is not within the province of this article to discuss in full the great critical controversies concerning the authorship of Moses which have been summed up against him thus: “It is doubtful whether we can regard Moses as an author in the literary sense” (HDB, III, 446; see PENTATEUCH; DEUTERONOMY). It will only be in place here to present a brief statement of the evidence in the case for Moses. There is no longer any question concerning the literary character of the age in which Moses lived.

    That Moses might have written is indisputable. But did he write, and how much? What evidence bears at these points? (1) “Moses Wrote.”

    The idea of writing or of writings is found 60 times in the Pentateuch It is definitely recorded in writing purporting to be by Moses. 7 times that Moses wrote or was commanded to write ( Exodus 17:14; 34:27; 39:30; Numbers 17:2,3; Dt 10:4; 31:24) and frequently of others in his times (Dt 6:9; 27:3; 31:19; Josh 8:32). Joshua at the great convocation at Shechem for the taking of the covenant wrote “these words in the book of the law of God” (Josh 24:26). Thus is declared the existence of such a book but 25 years after the death of Moses (compare Bible Student, 1901, 269-74). It is thus clearly asserted by the Scriptures as a fact that Moses in the wilderness a little after the exodus was “writing” “books.” (2) Moses’ Library.

    There are many library marks in the Pentateuch, even in those portions which by nearly all, even the most radical, critics are allowed to be probably the writings of Moses. The Pentateuch as a whole has such library marks all over it.

    On the one hand this is entirely consistent with the known literary character of the age in which Moses lived. One who was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” might have had in his possession Egyptian records. And the author of this article is of that class to whom Professor Clay refers, who believe “that Hebraic (or Amoraic) literature, as well as Aramaic, has a great antiquity prior to the 1st millennium BC” (Clay, Amurru, 32).

    On the other hand, the use of a library to the extent indicated by the abiding marks upon the Pentateuch does not in the least militate against the claim of Moses for authorship of the same. The real library marks, aside from the passages which are assigned by the critics to go with them, are far less numerous and narrower in scope than in Gibbon or in Kurtz. The use of a library no more necessarily endangers authorship in the one case than in the other. (3) The Moses-Tradition.

    A tradition from the beginning universally held, and for a long time and without inherent absurdity, has very great weight. Such has been the Moses-tradition of authorship. Since Moses is believed to have been such a person living in such an age and under such circumstances as might suitably provide the situation and the occasion for such historical records, so that common sense does not question whether he could have written “a” Pentateuch, but only whether he did write “the” Pentateuch which we have, it is easier to believe the tradition concerning his authorship than to believe that such a tradition arose with nothing so known concerning his ability and circumstances. But such a tradition did arise concerning Moses.

    It existed in the days of Josiah. Without it, by no possibility could the people have been persuaded to receive with authority a book purporting to be by him. The question of the truthfulness of the claim of actually finding the Book of the Law altogether aside, there must have been such a national hero as Moses known to the people and believed in by them, as well as a confident belief in an age of literature reaching back to his days, else the Book of the Law would not have been received by the people as from Moses. Archaeology does not supply actual literary material from Israel much earlier than the time of Josiah, but the material shows a method of writing and a literary advancement of the people which reaches far back for its origin, and which goes far to justify the tradition in Josiah’s day.

    Moreover, to the present time, there is no archaeological evidence to cast doubt upon that tradition. (4) The Pentateuch in the Northern Kingdom.

    The evidence of the Pentateuch in the Northern Kingdom before the fall of Samaria is very strong — this entirely aside from any evidence from the Samuel Pentateuch. Although some few insist upon an early date for that book, it is better to omit it altogether from this argument, as the time of its composition is not absolutely known and is probably not very far from the close of the Babylonian exile of Judah. But the prophets supply indubitable evidence of the Pentateuch in the Northern Kingdom (Hos 1:10; 4:6; 8:1,13; 9:11; 12:9; Am 5:21,22; 8:5; compare Green, Higher Criticism and the Pentateuch, 56-58). (5) Evidence for the Mosaic Age.

    Beyond the limit to which historical evidence reaches concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, internal evidence for the Mosaic age as the time of its composition carries us back to the very days of Moses.

    Egyptian words in the Pentateuch attest its composition in the Mosaic age, not because they are Egyptian words, for it is quite supposable that later authors might have known Egyptian words, but because they are Egyptian words of such marked peculiarities in meaning and history and of such absolutely accurate use in the Pentateuch, that their employment by later authors in such a way is incredible. The list of such words is a long one.

    Only a few can be mentioned here. For a complete list the authorities cited must be consulted. There is raoy” [ye’or], for the streams of Egypt; Wja; [achu], for the marshy pasture lands along the Nile; vve [shesh], for the “fine white linen” of the priests; “the land of Rameses” for a local district in lower Egypt; j”ne[]P” tn’p]x; [tsaphenath pa`neach], Joseph’s Egyptian name, and tn’s]a; [acenath], the name of Joseph’s Egyptian wife, and many other Egyptian words (see Lieblein, in PSBA, May, 1898, 202-10; also The Bible Student, 1901, 36-40). (6) The Obscurity of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Pentateuch.

    This obscurity has been urged against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Because of the popular belief concerning the doctrine of the resurrection among the Egyptians, this objection to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch becomes the most forcible of all the objections urged by critics. If the Pentateuch was written by Moses when Israel had just come out of Egypt, why did he leave the doctrine of the resurrection in such obscurity? The answer is very simple. The so-called Egyptian doctrine of the resurrection was not a doctrine of resurrection at all, but a doctrine of resuscitation. The essential idea of resurrection, as it runs through Scripture from the first glimpse of it until the declaration of Paul: “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” ( 1 Corinthians 15:35-45), is almost absolutely beyond the Egyptian vision of the future life. With the Egyptians the risen body was to live the same old life on “oxen, geese, bread, beer, wine and all good things” (compare for abundant illustration Maspero’s Guide to Cairo Museum). The omission of the doctrine of the resurrection from the Pentateuch at the later date assigned by criticism is very hard to account for. In view of some passages from the Psalms and the Prophets, it appears inexplicable ( Job 19:25-27; Psalm 16:10; 49:15; Isaiah 26:19; Ezek 37; Daniel 12:2). The gross materialism of the Egyptian doctrine of the rising from the dead makes the obscurity of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Pentateuch in Moses’ day perfectly natural. Any direct mention of the subject at that time among a people just come out of Egypt would have carried at once into Israel’s religion the materialism of the Egyptian conception of the future life. The only way by which the people could be weaned away from these Egyptian ideas was by beginning, as the Pentateuch does, with more spiritual ideas of God, of the other world and of worship. The obscurity of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Pentateuch, so far from being against the Mosaic authorship, is very cogent reason for believing the Pentateuch to have come from that age, as the only known time when such an omission is reasonably explicable. Lord, in his lectures, though not an Egyptologist, caught sight of this truth which later work of Egyptologists has made clear (Moses,45). Warburton had a less clear vision of it (see Divine Legation). (7) The Unity of the Pentateuch.

    Unity in the Pentateuch, abstractly considered, cannot be indicative of particular time for its composition. Manifestly, unity can be given a book at any time. There is indisputably a certain appearance of unity in narrative in the Pentateuch, and when this unity is examined somewhat carefully, it is found to have such peculiarity as does point to the Mosaic age for authorship. The making of books which have running through them such a narrative as is contained in the Pentateuch which, especially from the end of Genesis, is entangled and interwoven with dates and routes and topographical notes, the history of experiences, all so accurately given that in large part to this day the route and the places intended can be identified, all this, no matter when the books were written, certainly calls for special conditions of authorship. A narrative which so provides for all the exigencies of desert life and so anticipates the life to which Israel looked forward, exhibits a realism which calls for very special familiarity with all the circumstances. And when the narrative adds to all this the life of a man without breaks or repetitions adverse to the purpose of a biography, and running through from beginning to end, and not a haphazard, unsymmetrical man such as might result from the piecing together of fragments, but a colossal and symmetrical man, the foremost man of the world until a greater than Moses should appear, it demands to be written near the time and place of the events narrated. That a work of fiction, struck off at one time by one hand, might meet all these requirements at a later date, no one can doubt, but a scrap-book, even though made up of facts, cannot do so. In fact, the scraps culled. out by the analysis of the Pentateuch do not make a connected life-story at all, but three fragmentary and disconnected stories, and turn a biography, which is the binding-thread of the books, into what is little better than nonsense.

    The unity of the Law, which also can be well sustained, is to the same effect as the unity of the narrative in certifying the narrative near to the time and place of the events narrated. The discussion of the unity of the Law, which involves nearly the whole critical controversy of the day, would be too much of a digression for an article on Moses (see LAW; LEVITICUS; DEUTERONOMY ; also Green, Higher Criticism and the Pent; Orr, POT; Wiener, Biblical Sac., 1909 — 10).

    Neither criticism nor archaeology has yet produced the kind or degree of evidence which rationalism demands for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. No trace has yet been found either of the broken tablets at Matthew. Sinai or of the autograph copy of the Law of the Lord “by the hand of Moses” brought out of the house of the Lord in the days of Josiah.

    Nor are these things likely to be found, nor anything else that will certify authorship like a transcription of the records in the copyright office. Such evidence is not reasonably demanded. The foregoing indications point very strongly to the production of the Pentateuch in the Mosaic age by someone as familiar with the circumstances and as near the heart of the nation as Moses was. That here and there a few slight additions may have been made and that, perhaps, a few explanations made by scribes may have slipped into the text from the margin are not unlikely ( Numbers 12:3; Dt 34), but this does not affect the general claim of authorship.

    Psalm 90 is also attributed to Moses, though attempts have been made to discredit his authorship here also (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms).

    There are those who perhaps still hold to the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Job. But that view was never more than a speculation. 2. The Lawgiver: The character of Moses as lawgiver is scarcely separable from that of Moses as author, but calls for some separate consideration. (1) The extent of the Mosaic element in the Pentateuch legislation has been so variously estimated that for any adequate idea of the discussion the reader must consult not only other articles (LAW; BOOK OF THE COVENANT; PENTATEUCH) but special works on this subject. In accord with the reasons presented above for the authorship of the Pentateuch in Mosaic times, the great statesman seems most naturally the author of the laws so interwoven with his life and leadership. Moses first gave laws concerning the Passover (Exodus 13). At Sinai, after the startling revelation from the summit of the mountain, it is most reasonable that Moses should gather the people together to covenant with God, and should record that event in the short code of laws known as the Book of the Covenant ( Exodus 24:7). This code contains the Moral Law ( Exodus 20:1-17) as fundamental, the constitution of theocracy and of all ethical living. This is followed by a brief code suitable to their present condition and immediate prospects ( Exodus 20:24-26; 21 through 23).

    Considering the expectations of both leader and people that they would immediately proceed to the promised land and take possession, it is quite in order that there should be laws concerning vineyards and olive orchards ( Exodus 23:11), and harvests ( Exodus 23:10-16) and the first-fruits ( Exodus 23:19). Upon the completion of the tabernacle, a priest-code became a necessity. Accordingly, such a code follows with great minutiae of directions. This part of the Law is composed almost entirely of “laws of procedure” intended primarily for the priests, that they might know their own duties and give oral instruction to the people, and probably was never meant for the whole people except in the most general way. When Israel was turned back into the wilderness, these two codes were quite sufficient for the simple life of the wanderings. But Israel developed. The rabble became a nation. Forty years of life under law, under the operation of the Book of the Covenant in the moralities of life, the Priestly Code in their religious exercises, and the brief statutes of Leviticus for the simple life of the desert, prepared the people for a more elaborate code as they entered the promised land with its more complex life. Accordingly, in Deuteronomy that code was recorded and left for the guidance of the people. That these various codes contain some things not now understood is not at all surprising. It would be surprising if they did not. Would not Orientals of today find some things in Western laws quite incomprehensible without explanation?

    That some few items of law may have been added at a later time, as some items of history were added to the narrative, is not at all unreasonable, and does in no way invalidate the claim of Moses as the lawgiver, any more than later French legislation has invalidated the Corsican’s claim to the Napoleonic Code.

    The essential value of the Mosaic legislation is beyond comparison. Some of the laws of Moses, relating as they did to passing problems, have themselves passed away; some of them were definitely abrogated by Christ and others explicitly fulfilled; but much of his legislation, moral, industrial, social and political, is the warp and woof of the best in the great codes of the world to this day. The morality of the Decalogue is unapproached among collections of moral precepts. Its divinity, like the divinity of the teachings of Jesus, lies not only in what it includes, but also in what it omits. The precepts of Ptah-hotep, of Confucius, of Epictetus include many things found in the Decalogue; the Decalogue omits many things found among the maxims of these moralists. Thus, in what it excludes, as in what it includes, the perfection of the Decalogue lies. (2) It should be emphasized that the laws of Moses were codes, not a collection of court decisions known to lawyers as common law, but codes given abstractly, not in view of any particular concrete case, and arranged in systematic order (Wiener, Biblical Sac., 1909-10). This is entirely in harmony with the archaeological indications of the Mosaic and preceding ages. The Code of Hammurabi, given at least 5 centuries before, is one of the most orderly, methodical and logical codes ever constructed (Lyon, JAOS, XXV, 254). 3. The Prophet: The career and the works and the character of Moses culminate in the prophetic office. It was as prophet that Moses was essentially leader. It was as prophet that he held the place of highest eminence in the world until a greater than Moses came. (1) The statesman-prophet framed a civil government which illustrated the kingdom of God upon earth. The theocracy did not simulate any government of earth, monarchy, republic or socialistic state. It combined the best elements in all of these and set up the most effective checks which have ever been devised against the evils of each. (2) The lawgiver-prophet inculcated maxims and laws which set the feet of the people in the way of life, so that, while failing as a law of life in a sinful world, these precepts ever remain as a rule of conduct. (3) The priest-prophet prepared and gave to Israel a ritual of worship which most completely typified the redemptive mercy of God and which is so wonderfully unfolded in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it has been more wonderfully fulfilled in the life and atoning death of Christ. (4) In all the multiform activities of the prophetic career he was a type of Christ, the type of Christ whose work was a “tutor unto Christ.”

    Moses’ revelation of God ever transcends the speculations of theologians about God as a sunrise transcends a treatise on the solar spectrum. While the speculations are cold and lifeless, the revelation is vital and glorious. As an analysis of Raphael’s painting of the transfiguration belittles its impression upon the beholder, while a sight of the picture exalts that scene in the mind and heart, so the attempts of theologians to analyze God and bring Him within the grasp of the human mind belittle the conception of God, dwarf it to the capacity of the human intellect, while such a vision of Him as Moses gives exalts and glorifies Him beyond expression. Thus, while theologians of every school from Athanasius to Ritschl come and go, Moses goes on forever; while they stand cold on library shelves, he lives warm in the hearts of men.

    Such was the Hebrew leader, lawgiver, prophet, poet; among mere men, “the foremost man of all this world.”

    LITERATURE.

    Commentaries on the Pentateuch; for rabbinical traditions, compare Lauterbach in Jewish Encyclopedia; for pseudepigraphical books ascribed to Moses, see Charles, Assumption of Moses; for Mohammedan legends, compare DB; Ebers, Egypten und die Bucher Mosis; for critical partition of books of Moses, compare the Polychrome Bible and Bennett in HDB; for comprehensive discussion of the critical problems, compare POT. M. G. Kyle MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF <a-sump’-shun > . See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

    MOSES, SONG OF The name given to the song of triumph sung by Moses and the Israelites after the crossing of the Red Sea and the destruction of the hosts of Pharaoh ( Exodus 15:1-18). The sublimity of this noble ode is universally admitted. In magnificent strains it celebrates the deliverance just experienced, extolling the attributes of Yahweh revealed in the triumph ( Exodus 15:1-12), then anticipates the astonishing effects which would flow from this deliverance in the immediate future and later ( Exodus 15:13-18). There seems no reason to doubt that at least the basis of the song — possibly the whole — is genuinely Mosaic. In the allusions to the guidance of the people to God’s holy habitation, and to the terror of the surrounding peoples and of the Canaanites ( Exodus 15:13-18), it is thought that traces are manifest of a later revision and expansion. This, however, is by no means a necessary conclusion.

    Driver, who in LOT, 8th edition, 30, goes with the critics on this point, wrote more guardedly in the 1st edition (p. 27): “Probably, however, the greater part of the song is Mosaic, and the modification or expansion is limited to the closing verses; for the general style is antique. and the triumphant tone which pervades it is just such as might naturally have been inspired by the event which it celebrates.”

    The song of Moses is made the model in the Apocalypse of “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,” which those standing by the sea of glass, who have “come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name,” sing to God’s praise, “Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty,” etc. ( Revelation 15:2-4). The church having experienced a deliverance similar to that experienced by Israel at the Red Sea, but infinitely greater, the old song is recast, and its terms are readapted to express both victories, the lower and the higher, at once. James Orr MOSOLLAMON <mo-sol’-a-mon > . See MOSOLLAMUS.

    MOSOLLAMUS <mo-sol’-a-mus > : (1) the King James Version “Mosollam” ([ Moso>llamov , Mosollamos ]), one of the three “assessors” appointed to the two commissioners in the inquiry made about “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:14) = “Meshullam” in Ezra 10:15. (2) the King James Version “Mosollamon,” one of those sent by Ezra to the captain Loddeus to obtain men who could execute the priest’s office (1 Esdras 8:44 (Septuagint 43)) = “Meshullam” in Ezra 8:16 (Codex Vaticanus reads also [ Mesolabw>n , Mesolabon ], in 1 Esdras 8:44).

    MOST HIGH, MOST HOLY See GOD, NAMES OF.

    MOTE <mot > ([ka>rfov , karphos ]): A minute piece of anything dry or light, as straw, chaff, a splinter of wood, that might enter the eye. Used by Jesus in Matthew 7:3 ff; Luke 6:41 f in contrast with “beam,” to rebuke officiousness in correcting small faults of others, while cherishing greater ones of our own.

    MOTH <moth > ( v[; [`ash]; compare Arabic `uththat, “moth”; colloquial, `itt; ss; [cac], “worm” ( Isaiah 51:8); compare Arabic sus, “worm,” especially an insect larva in flesh, wood or grain; [sh>v , ses ], “moth” ( Matthew 6:19,20; Luke 12:33); [shto>brwtov , setobrotos ], “moth-eaten” ( James 5:2)):

    The moths constitute the larger division of the order Lepidoptera. Two of the points by which they are distinguished from butterflies are that they are generally nocturnal and that their antennae are not club-shaped. Further, the larva in many cases spins a cocoon for the protection of the pupa or chrysalis, which is never the case with butterflies. The Biblical references are to the clothes-moth, i.e. various species of the genus Tinea, tiny insects which lay their eggs in woolen clothes, upon which the larvae later feed. As the larva feeds it makes a cocoon of its silk together with fibers of the cloth on which it is feeding, so that the color of the cocoon depends upon the color of the fabric. The adult is only indirectly harmful, as it is only in the larval stage that the insect injures clothing. Therefore in Isaiah 51:8, “For the moth ([`ash]) shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm ([cac]) shall eat them like wool,” both words must refer to the larva, the distich demanding such a word as [cac] to balance [`ash] in the first half.

    The word “moth” occurs 7 times in the Old Testament, in Job, Psalms, Isaiah and Hosea, always in figurative expressions, typifying either that which is destructive ( Job 13:28; Psalm 39:11; Isaiah 50:9; 51:8; Hos 5:12) or that which is frail ( Job 4:19; 27:18). See INSECTS.

    Alfred Ely Day MOTHER <muth’-er > ( µae [’em], “mother,” “dam,” “ancestress”; [mh>thr , meter ]):

    1. HER POSITION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    In vain do we look in the Scriptures for traces of the low position which woman occupies in many eastern lands. A false impression has been created by her present position in the East, especially under Mohammedan rule. Her place as depicted in the Scriptures is a totally different one.

    Women there move on the same social plane with men. They often occupy leading public positions ( Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14). The love of offspring was deeply imbedded in the heart of Hebrew women, and thus motherhood was highly respected. Among the patriarchs women, and especially mothers, occupy a prominent place. In Rebekah’s marriage, her mother seems to have had equal voice with her father and Laban, her brother ( Genesis 24:28,50,53,55). Jacob “obeyed his father and his mother” ( Genesis 28:7), and his mother evidently was his chief counselor. The Law places the child under obligation of honoring father and mother alike ( Exodus 20:12). The child that strikes father or mother or curses either of them is punished by death ( Exodus 21:15,17). The same fate overtakes the habitually disobedient (Dt 21:18- 21).

    In one place in the Law, the mother is even placed before the father as the object of filial reverence ( Leviticus 19:3). The Psalmist depicts deepest grief as that of one who mourneth for his mother ( Psalm 35:14). In the entire Book of Proverbs the duty of reverence, love and obedience of sons to their mothers is unceasingly inculcated. The greatest comfort imaginable is that wherewith a mother comforts her son ( Isaiah 66:13).

    2. POSITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    And what is true of the Old Testament is equally true of the New Testament. The same high type of womanhood, the same reverence for one’s mother is in evidence in both books. The birth of Christ lifted motherhood to the highest possible plane and idealized it for all time. The last thing Jesus did on the Cross was to bestow His mother on John “the beloved” as his special inheritance. What woman is today, what she is in particular in her motherhood, she owes wholly to the position in which the Scriptures have placed her. Sometimes the stepmother is spoken of as the real mother ( Genesis 37:10). Sometimes the grandmother or other female relative is thus spoken of ( Genesis 3:20; 1 Kings 15:10).

    Tropically the nation is spoken of as a mother and the people are her children ( Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 50:12; Hos 2:4; 4:5). Large cities also are “mothers” ( 2 Samuel 20:19; compare Galatians 4:26; Esdras 10:7), and Job even depicts the earth as such ( Job 1:21). Henry E. Dosker MOTHER-IN-LAW See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

    MOTION <mo’-shun > : In 2 Esdras 6:14, the King James Version “motion” represents the Latin commotio, “commotion,” “disturbance” (the Revised Version (British and American) has revised entirely here). In Romans 7:5, “the motions of sins, which were by the law,” “motion” is used in the sense of “impulse,” and “impulses” would probably give the best translation. But the Greek noun ([paqh>mata , pathemata ]) is hard to translate exactly, and the Revised Version (British and American) has preferred “passions,” as in Galatians 5:24. Sanday (ICC) paraphrases “the impressions of sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their legal prohibition.” See PASSION. “Motion” is found also in The Wisdom of Solomon 5:11 (the King James Version and the Revised Version margin) and The Wisdom of Solomon 7:24 (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in a modern sense. Burton Scott Easton MOUND <mound > . See SIEGE, 4, (c).

    MOUNT; MOUNTAIN <mount > , <moun’-tin > . See HILL, MOUNT, MOUNTAIN.

    MOUNT EPHRAIM See EPHRAIM, MOUNT.

    MOUNT OF CONGREGATION, THE See CONGREGATION, MOUNT OF.

    MOUNT OF CORRUPTION See OLIVES, MOUNT OF.

    MOUNT OF OLIVES See OLIVES, MOUNT OF; JERUSALEM.

    MOUNT OF THE AMALEKITES (“Hill-country of the Amalekites” ( Judges 12:15)): The Amalekites are usually connected with the valley ( Numbers 14:25; Judges 7:12), but appear from this passage to have had a settlement in the hill country of Ephesiansraim. See AMALEKITES.

    MOUNT OF THE AMORITES (“Hill-country of the Amorites” (Dt 1:7,20,24; compare Numbers 13:29; Josh 10:6, etc.)): The region intended is that afterward known as the hill country of Judah and Ephesiansraim, but sometimes “Amorites” is used as a general designation for all the inhabitants of Canaan ( Genesis 15:16; Josh 24:8,18, etc.). See AMORITES.

    MOUNT OF THE VALLEY Zereth-shahar is said to be situated in or on the “mount of the valley” ( qm,[eh; rh”B] [behar ha`emeq] (Josh 13:19)). Cheyne (EB, under the word) says “i.e. on one of the mountains East of the Jordan valley (compare Josephus 13 27), and not impossibly on that described at length in BJ, VII, vi, 1-3.” To the Northwest of this mountain is Wady ec-Cara, wherein there may be a reminiscence of Zereth-shahar. There is no certainty.

    MOURNING <morn’-ing > . See BURIAL; GRIEF.

    MOUSE; MICE <mous > , <mis > ( rB;k][“ [`akhbar]; Septuagint [mu~v , mus ], “mouse”; compare Arabic `akbar, “jerboa” not ‘akbar, “greater”; compare also proper noun, rwOBk][“ [`akhbor], “Achbor” ( Genesis 36:38 f; Chronicles 1:49; also 2 Kings 22:12,14; Jeremiah 26:22; 36:12)):

    The word occurs in the list of unclean “creeping things” ( Leviticus 11:29), in the account of the golden mice and tumors (the King James Version and the American Revised Version margin “emerods”) sent by the Philistines ( 1 Samuel 6:4-18), and in the phrase, “eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse” ( Isaiah 66:17). The cosmopolitan housemouse, Mus musculus, is doubtless the species referred to. The jerboa or jumping mouse, Arabic yarbu, is eaten by the Arabs of the Syrian desert, Northeast of Damascus. Possibly allied to [`akhbar] is the Arabic `akbar (generally in plural, [`akabir]), used for the male of the jerboa. Alfred Ely Day MOUTH <mowth > ( hP, [peh], °]je [chekh], ˆwOrG: [garon] ( <19E906> Psalm 149:6); Aramaic µPu [pum], [r’T] [tera] ( Daniel 3:26); [sto>ma , stoma ], times, once [lo>gov , logos ], i.e. “word of mouth,” “speech” ( Acts 15:27); once we find the verb [ejpistomi>zw , epistomizo ], “to silence,” “to stop the mouth” (Tit 1:11)):

    1. LITERAL SENSE:

    In addition to frequent references to man and animals, “Their food was yet in their mouths” ( Psalm 78:30); “And Yahweh opened the mouth of the ass” ( Numbers 22:28); “Save me from the lion’s mouth” ( Psalm 22:21), etc., the term is often used in connection with inanimate things: mouth of a sack ( Genesis 42:27); of the earth ( Genesis 4:11; Numbers 26:10); of a well ( Numbers 29:2,3,8,10); of a cave (Josh 10:18,22,27); of Sheol ( <19E107> Psalm 141:7); of the abyss ( Jeremiah 48:28); of furnace (Aramaic [tera`], Daniel 3:26); of idols ( <19B505> Psalm 115:5; 135:16,17).

    2. FIGURATIVE SENSE: (1) The “mouth” denotes language, speech, declaration (compare “lips,” “tongue,” which see): “By the mouth of” is “by means of,” “on the declaration of” ( Luke 1:70; Acts 1:16); “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses” ( Numbers 35:30; compare Dt 17:6; Matthew 18:16; Hebrews 10:28); “I will give you mouth and wisdom” ( Luke 21:15); “fool’s mouth” ( Proverbs 18:7). (2) “Mouth” also denotes “spokesman”: “He shall be to thee a mouth” ( Exodus 4:16).

    Numerous are the idiomatic phrases which have, in part, been introduced into English by means of the language of the Bible. “To put into the mouth,” if said of God, denotes Divine inspiration (Dt 18:18; Micah 3:5). “To have words put into the mouth” means to have instructions given (Dt 31:19; 2 Samuel 14:3; Jeremiah 1:9; Exodus 4:11-16). “The fruit of the mouth” ( Proverbs 18:20) is synonymical with wisdom, the mature utterance of the wise. “To put one’s mouth into the dust” is equivalent with humbling one’s self ( Lamentations 3:29; compare “to lay one’s horn in the dust,” Job 16:15). Silent submission is expressed by “laying the hand upon the mouth” ( Judges 18:19; Job 29:9; 40:4; Micah 7:16); compare “to refrain the lips”; see LIP. “To open the mouth wide” against a person is to accuse him wildly and often wrongfully ( Psalm 35:21; Isaiah 57:4), otherwise “to open one’s mouth wide,” “to have an enlarged mouth” means to have great confidence and joy in speaking or accepting good things ( 1 Samuel 2:1; Ezek 33:22; Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 6:19). “To gape upon one with the mouth” means to threaten a person ( Job 16:10). Divine rebuke is expressed by the “rod of God’s mouth” ( Isaiah 11:4), and the Messiah declares “He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword” ( Isaiah 49:2; compare Revelation 2:16; 19:15,21). Great anguish, such as dying with thirst, is expressed by “the tongue cleaving to the roof of the mouth” (Hebrew [chekh], Job 29:10; <19D706> Psalm 137:6; compare 22:15). H. L. E. Luering MOWING; MOWN GRASS <mo’-ing > , ( zGe [gez], “a shearing,” “cut grass”): In Psalm 72:6 the good king’s rule is said to be “like rain upon the mown grass,” to start the new growth (compare 2 Samuel 23:4; Hos 6:3). “The king’s mowings” (Am 7:1) were the portion of the spring herbage taken as tribute by the kings of Israel to feed their horses (compare 1 Samuel 8:15 ff; 18:5). “After the king’s mowings” would denote the time when everybody else might turn to reap their greenstuffs (BTP, II, 109). The term “mower” ( rx”q; [qatsar], “to dock off,” “shorten”) in <19C907> Psalm 129:7 the King James Version is rendered “reaper” in the Revised Version (British and American), and in James 5:4 the Revised Version (British and American) has “mow” for [ajma>w , amao ] (the King James Version “reap”). See HARVEST; REAPING.

    M. O. Evans MOZA <mo’-za > ([motsah ]): (1) Son of Caleb and Ephesiansah ( 1 Chronicles 2:46). (2) A descendant of Saul ( 1 Chronicles 8:36,37; 9:42,43).

    MOZAH <mo’-za > ( hx;wOm [ha-motsah]; Codex Vaticanus [ ?Amwkh> , Amoke ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ ?Amwsa> , Amosa ]): A town in the territory of Benjamin named after Mizpeh and Chephirah (Josh 18:26). It may be represented by the modern Beit Mizzeh, the heavy “ts” of the Hebrew letter (tsade) passing into the light “z” of the Arabic, a not unusual change.

    The name means “place of hard stone.” The village lies to the North of Quloniyeh (possibly Emmaus), about 4 miles Northwest of Jerusalem.

    MUFFLER <muf’-ler > ( hl;[;r” [re`alah]): The name given to an article of woman’s dress in Isaiah 3:19. It describes a veil more elaborate and costly than the ordinary. A cognate word in the sense of “veiled” is applied in the Mishna (Shabbath, vi.6) to Jewesses from Arabia. See DRESS.

    MULBERRY; TREES <mul’-ber-i > , ( µyaik;B] [bekha’im]; Septuagint [a]pioi , apioi ], “pear trees” ( 2 Samuel 5:23 f; 1 Chronicles 14:14 f, margin “balsamtrees”; Psalm 84:6, the King James Version “Baca,” margin “mulberry trees,” the Revised Version (British and American) “weeping,” margin “balsam-trees”): According to Arabic writers the Baca tree is similar to the balSamuel (Balsamodendron opobalsamum), and grows near Mecca; no such tree is, however, known in Palestine. The name may, in Hebrew, have been applied to some species of ACACIA (which see). The idea of “weeping” implied in the root, both in Hebrew and Arabic, may be explained by the exudation of gum. “The sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees” has been explained to refer to the quivering of the leaves of poplars, but there is not much to support this view (see POPLAR). The translation “mulberry trees” is, however, even more improbable, as this tree, though very plentiful today, had not been introduced into Palestine in Old Testament times.

    Mulberry ([mo>ron , moron ], (1 Macc 6:34)): The Syrians at Bathzacharias “to the end they might provoke the elephants to fight, they, shewed them the blood of grapes and mulberries.” This reference must be to the deep red juice of the black mulberry (Morus nigra), the [tut shami ] of Palestine, a variety cultivated all over the land’ for its luscious, juicy fruit. See SYCOMORE.

    E. W. G. Masterman MULCTED <mulk’-ted > ( vn”[; [`anash], “to be punished,” “fined”): “The simple pass on, and are mulcted” ( Proverbs 22:3 the Revised Version margin, the Revised Version (British and American) “suffer for it,” the King James Version “are punished”).

    MULE <mul > ( dr1 Kings 10:25; 18:5; Ezra 2:66; Isaiah 66:20; Zechariah 14:15), the feminine hD:r”Pi [pirdah] ( 1 Kings 1:33,38,44), vk,r< [rekhesh], “swift steeds,” the King James Version “mules” (Est 8:10,14), µynir:T]v]j”a\ [’achashteranim], “used in the king’s service,” the King James Version “camels,” the Revised Version margin “mules” (Est 8:10,14), [yemim], “hot springs,” the King James Version “mules” ( Genesis 36:24); [hJmi>onov , hemionos ], “half-ass,” “mule” (1 Esdras 5:43; Judith 15:11)): Mules are mentioned as riding animals for princes ( 2 Samuel 13:29; 18:9; 1 Kings 1:33,38,44); in the tribute brought to Solomon ( 2 Chronicles 9:24); as beasts of burden ( 2 Kings 5:17; 1 Chronicles 12:40); horses and mules are obtained from the “house of Togarmah” in the distant north (Ezek 27:14). The injunction of Psalm 32:9, “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding,” need not be understood as singling out the horse and mule as more in need of guidance than the rest of the brute creation, but rather as offering familiar examples to contrast with man who should use his intelligence.

    At the present day mules are used as pack animals and for drawing freight wagons, rarely for riding. One does not often see in Palestine mules as large and fine as are common in Europe and America. This may be because most of the mares and many of the donkeys are small. Alfred Ely Day MULTITUDE; MIXED <mul’-ti-tud > , <mikst > . See MINGLED PEOPLE.

    MUNITION <mu-nish’-un > . See SIEGE, 4, (b).

    MUPPIM <mup’-im > ( µyPimu [muppim]): A son of Benjamin ( Genesis 46:21), elsewhere called “Shuppim” ( 1 Chronicles 7:12,15; 26:16), “Shephupham” ( Numbers 26:39), and “Shephuphan”. ( 1 Chronicles 8:5); compare separate articles on these names.

    MURDER

    1. TERMS: <mur’-der > ( gr’h; [haragh], “to smite,” “destroy,” “kill,” “slay” ( Psalm 10:8; Hos 9:13 AV]), jx”r: [ratsach], “to dash to pieces,” “kill,” especially with premeditation ( Numbers 35:16 and frequently; Job 24:14; Psalm 94:6; Jeremiah 7:9; Hos 6:9); [foneu>v , phoneus ], “criminal homicide,” from [foneu>w , phoneuo ], “to kill,” “slay”; [fo>nov , phonos ], from [fe>nw , pheno ], has the same meaning; [ajnqrwpokto>nov , anthropoktonos ], “manslayer,” “murderer,” is used to designate Satan ( John 8:44) and him that hates his brother ( 1 John 3:15); a matricide is designated as [mhtralw>av , metraloas ] ( 1 Timothy 1:9); compare [ajdelfokto>nov , adelphokionos ], “fratricidal” (The Wisdom of Solomon 10:3). The plural of [fo>nov , phonos ], “murders,” occurs in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:21 the King James Version; Revelation 9:21; compare 2 Macc 4:3,18; 12:6):

    2. THE HEBREW LAW:

    The Hebrew law recognized the distinction between willful murder and accidental or justifiable homicide ( Numbers 25:16); but in legal language no verbal distinction is made. Murder was always subject to capital punishment ( Leviticus 24:17; compare Genesis 9:6). Even if the criminal sought the protection of the sanctuary, he was to be arrested before the altar, and to be punished ( Exodus 21:12,14; Leviticus 24:17,21; Numbers 35:16,18,21,31). The Mishna says that a mortal blow intended for another than the victim is punishable with death; but such a provision is not found in the Law. No special mention is made of (a) child murder; (b) parricide; or (c) taking life by poison; but the intention of the law is clear with reference to all these eases ( Exodus 21:15,17; 1 Timothy 1:9; Matthew 15:4).

    No punishment is mentioned for attempted suicide (compare 1 Samuel 31:4 f; 1 Kings 16:18; Matthew 27:5); yet Josephus says (BJ, III, viii, 5) that suicide was held criminal by the Jews (see also Exodus 21:23). An animal known to be vicious must be confined, and if it caused the death of anyone, the animal was destroyed and the owner held guilty of murder ( Exodus 21:29,31). The executioner, according to the terms of the Law, was the “revenger of blood”; but the guilt must be previously determined by the Levitical tribunal. Strong protection was given by the requirement that at least two witnesses must concur in any capital question ( Numbers 35:19-30; Dt 17:6-12; 19:12,17). Under the monarchy the duty of executing justice on a murderer seems to have been assumed to some extent by the sovereign, who also had power to grant pardon ( Samuel 13:39; 14:7,11; 1 Kings 2:34). See MANSLAYER.

    Frank E. Hirsch MURDERERS <mur’-der-erz > ( Acts 21:38 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “assassins”): Represents a word only once mentioned in the New Testament, the Greek word [sika>riov , sikarios ], Latin sicarius from sica, “a small sword,” or “dagger.” The word describes the hired assassin, of whom there were bands in the pay of agitators in Rome in the last days of the Republic, who employed them to remove surreptitiously their political opponents. In the later days of the Jewish commonwealth, Judea became infested with the same type of ruffian, and it is natural that the Roman commandant at Jerusalem should describe them by the name so well known in the imperial city. See ASSASSINS.

    T. Nicol.

    MURMUR; MURMURINGS <mur’-mur > , <mur’-mur-ingz > : The Hebrew word ( ˆWl [lun]) denotes the semi-articulated mutterings of disaffected persons. It is used in connection with the complaints of the Israelites in the desert against Yahweh on the one hand, and against Moses and Aaron on the other hand ( Exodus 16:7,8; Numbers 14:27,36; 16:11; 17:5). In three places (Dt 1:27; <19A625> Psalm 106:25; Isaiah 29:24), “murmur” translates a Hebrew word ( ˆg’r: [raghan]) which suggests the malicious whispering of slander.

    In the New Testament “murmur” renders two different words, namely, [goffu>zw , gogguzo ], and [ejmbrima>omai , embrimaomai ]. The latter word suggests indignation and fault-finding ( Mark 14:4 the King James Version). The former word (or a compound of it) is generally used in connection with the complainings of the Pharisees and scribes ( Matthew 20:11; Luke 5:30; 15:2; 19:7). T. Lewis MURRAIN <mur’-in > , <mur’-en > , <mur’-an] ( rb,D< [debher]): This name is given to a fatal cattle-disease, which was the fifth of the plagues of Egypt ( Exodus 9:3), and which affected not only the flocks and herds, but also the camels, horses and asses. The record of its onset immediately after the plague of flies makes it probable that it was an epizootic, whose germs were carried by these insects as those of rinderpest or splenic fever may be.

    Cattle plagues have in recent years been very destructive in Egypt; many writers have given descriptions of the great devastation wrought by the outbreak in 1842. In this case Wittmann noted that contact with the putrid carcasses caused severe boils, a condition also recorded in Exodus as following the murrain. The very extensive spread of rinderpest within the last few years in many districts of Egypt has not yet been completely stamped out, even in spite of the use of antitoxic serum and the most rigid isolation. The word “murrain” is probably a variant of the Old French morine. It is used as an imprecation by Shakespeare and other Elizabethan writers, and is still applied by herdsmen to several forms of epidemic cattle sickness. Among early writers it was used as well for fatal plagues affecting men; thus, Lydgate (1494) speaks of the people “slain by that moreyne.” Alexander Macalister MUSE; MUSING <muz > , <muz’-ing > : The word occurs twice in the Old Testament, in the sense of “meditate” ( Psalm 39:3, [chaghigh]; <19E305> Psalm 143:5, [siach]); in the New Testament once ( Luke 3:15, [dialogizomai], where the Revised Version (British and American) reads “reasoned”).

    MUSHI <mu’-shi > ( yviWm [mushi]): Son of Merari ( Exodus 6:19; Numbers 3:20; 1 Chronicles 6:19 (Hebrew 4); 23:21; 24:26). There is found also the patronymic “Mushites” ( Numbers 3:33; 26:58).

    MUSIC <mu’-zik > :

    1. IMPORTANCE.

    That the Hebrews were in ancient times, as they are at the present day, devoted to the study and practice of music is obvious to every reader of the Old Testament. The references to it are numerous, and are frequently of such a nature as to emphasize its importance. They occur not only in the Psalter, where we might expect them, but in the Historical Books and the Prophets, in narratives and in declamations of the loftiest meaning and most intense seriousness. And the conclusion drawn from a cursory glance is confirmed by a closer study. 1. The Sole Art Cultivated: The place held by music in the Old Testament is unique. Besides poetry, it is the only art that Art seems to have been cultivated to any extent in ancient Israel. Painting is entirely, sculpture almost entirely, ignored. This may have been due to the prohibition contained in the Second Commandment, but the fidelity with which that was obeyed is remarkable.

    2. A Wide Vocabulary of Musical Terms: From the traces of it extant in the Old Testament, we can infer that the vocabulary of musical terms was far from scanty. This is all the more significant when we consider the condensed and pregnant nature of Hebrew. “Song of Solomon” in our English Versions of the Bible represents at least half a dozen words in the original. 3. Place in Social and Personal Life: The events, occasions, and occupations with which music was associated were extremely varied. It accompanied leave-taking with honored guests ( Genesis 31:27); celebrated a signal triumph over the nation’s enemies ( Exodus 15:20); and welcomed conquerors returning from victory ( Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6). It was employed to exorcise an evil spirit ( 1 Samuel 18:10), and to soothe temper, or excite the inspiration, of a prophet ( 2 Kings 3:15). The words “Destroy not” in the titles of four of the Psalms (compare Isaiah 65:8) most probably are the beginning of a vintage-song, and the markedly rhythmical character of Hebrew music would indicate that it accompanied and lightened many kinds of work requiring combined and uniform exertion. Processions, as e.g. marriages (1 Macc 9:39) and funerals ( 2 Chronicles 35:25), were regulated in a similar way. The Psalms headed “Songs of Degrees” were probably the sacred marches sung by the pious as they journeyed to and from the holy festivals at Jerusalem. 4. Universal Language of Emotional: It follows from this that the range of emotion expressed by Hebrew music was anything but limited. In addition to the passages just quoted, we may mention the jeering songs leveled at Job ( Job 30:9). But the music that could be used to interpret or accompany the Psalms with any degree of fitness must have been capable of expressing a great variety of moods and feelings. Not only the broadly marked antitheses of joy and sorrow, hope and fear, faith and doubt, but every shade and quality of sentiment are found there. It is hardly possible to suppose that the people who originated all that wealth of emotional utterance should have been without a corresponding ability to invent diversified melodies, or should have been content with the bald and colorless recitative usually attributed to them.

    This internal evidence is confirmed by other testimony. The Babylonian tyrants demanded one of the famous songs of Zion from their Jewish captives ( <19D703> Psalm 137:3), and among the presents sent by Hezekiah to Sennacherib there were included male and female musicians. In later times Latin writers attest the influence of the East in matters musical. We need only refer to Juvenal iii.62 ff. 5. Use in Divine Service: By far the most important evidence of the value attached to music by the Hebrews is afforded by the place given to it in Divine service. It is true that nothing is said of it in the Pentateuch in connection with the consecration of the tabernacle, or the institution of the various sacrifices or festivals. But this omission proves nothing. It is not perhaps atoned for by the tradition (The Wisdom of Solomon 18:9) that at the first paschal celebration “the fathers already led the sacred songs of praise,” but the rest of the history makes ample amends. In later days, at all events, music formed an essential part of the national worship of Yahweh, and elaborate arrangements were made for its correct and impressive performance. These are detailed in Chronicles. There we are told that the whole body of the temple chorus and orchestra numbered 4,000; that they were trained and conducted, in divisions, by the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun; and that in each group experts and novices were combined, so that the former preserved the correct tradition, and the latter were trained and fitted to take their place.

    This is, no doubt, a description of the arrangements that were carried out in the Second Temple, but it sheds a reflex, if somewhat uncertain, light on those adopted in the First. 6. Part at Religious Reformations: We are told by the same authority that every reformation of religion brought with it a reconstruction of the temple chorus and orchestra, and a resumption of their duties. Thus when Hezekiah purged the state and church of the heathenism patronized by Ahaz, “he set the Levites in the house of Yahweh with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps” ( Chronicles 29:25). The same thing took place under Josiah (2 Chronicles 34). After the restoration — at the dedication of the Temple ( Ezra 3:10) and of the walls of Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 12:17) — music played a great part. In Nehemiah’s time the descendants of the ancient choral guilds drew together, and their maintenance was secured to them out of the public funds in return for their services.

    2. THEORY OF MUSIC. 1. Dearth of Technical Information: It is disappointing after all this to have to confess that of the nature of Hebrew music we have no real knowledge. If any system of notation ever existed, it has been entirely lost. Attempts have been made to derive one from the accents, and a German organist once wrote a book on the subject.

    One tune in our hymnals has been borrowed from that source, but it is an accident, if not worse, and the ingenuity of the German organist was quite misdirected. We know nothing of the scales, or tonal system of the Hebrew, of their intervals or of their method of tuning their instruments.

    Two terms are supposed by some to refer to pitch, namely, “upon,” or “set to [`Alamoth],” (Psalm 46), and “upon,” or “set to the [Sheminith]” (Pss 6; 12; compare also 1 Chronicles 15:19-21). The former has been taken to mean “in the manner of maidens,” i.e. soprano; the latter “on the lower octave,” i.e. tenor or bass. This is plausible, but it is far from convincing.

    It is hardly probable that the Hebrews had anticipated our modern division of the scale; and the word [sheminith] or “eighth” may refer to the number of the mode, while [`alamoth] is also translated “with Elamite instruments” (Wellhausen). Of one feature of Hebrew music we may be tolerably sure: it was rendered in unison. It was destitute of harmony or counterpoint.

    For its effect it would depend on contrast in quality of tone, on the participation of a larger or smaller number of singers, on antiphonal singing, so clearly indicated in many of the Psalms, and on the coloring imparted by the orchestra. That the latter occasionally played short passages alone has been inferred from the term [celah], a word that occurs 71 times in the Psalms. It is rendered in the Septuagint by [diapsalmos ], which either means louder playing, forte, or, more probably, an instrumental interlude. 2. Not Necessarily Unimpressive: Our knowledge is, therefore, very meager and largely negative. We need not, however, suppose that Hebrew music was necessarily monotonous and unimpressive, or, to those who heard it, harsh and barbarous. Music, more than any other of the arts, is justified of her own children, and a generation that has slowly learned to enjoy Wagner and Strauss should not rashly condemn the music of the East. No doubt the strains that emanated from the orchestra and chorus of the temple stimulated the religious fervor, and satisfied the aesthetic principles of the Hebrews of old, precisely as the rendering of Bach and Handel excites and soothes the Christian of today.

    3. MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

    The musical instruments employed by the Hebrews included representatives of the three groups: string, wind, and percussion. The strings comprised the rwNKi [kinnor], or lb,ne [nebhel] or lb,n< [nebhel]; the winds: the rp;wOv [shophar], or ˆr1. Strings: (1) When Used.

    The chief of these instruments were the [kinnor] and [nebhel] (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “the harp” and “the psaltery” or “viol”). They were used to accompany vocal music. In 1 Samuel 10:5, Saul meets a band of prophets singing inspired strains to the music of the [nebhel], “drum,” “flute,” and [kinnor]. In the description of the removal of the ark, we are told that songs were sung with [kinnoroth], [nebhalim], etc. ( 2 Samuel 6:5). Again, in various passages ( 1 Chronicles 15:16; 2 Chronicles 7:6, etc.) we meet with the expression [keleshir], i.e. instruments of, or suitable for accompanying, song. It is evident that only the flute and strings could render melodies.

    The music performed on these instruments seems to have been mainly of a joyful nature. It entered into all public and domestic festivities. In Psalm 81:2, the [kinnor] is called “pleasant,” and Isaiah 24:8 speaks of the “joy” of the [kinnor]. Very striking is the invocation <19A802> Psalm 108:2: the poet in a moment of exhilarations calls upon the two [kele shir] to echo and share his enthusiasm for Yahweh. Only once ( Isaiah 16:11) is the [kinnor] associated with mourning, and Cheyne infers from this passage “the [kinnor] was used at mourning ceremonies.” But the inference is doubtful; the prophet is merely drawing a comparison between the trembling of the strings of the lyre and the agitation in his own bosom.

    Again, the Babylonian captives hang their [kinnoroth] on the willows in their dejection ( <19D702> Psalm 137:2), and the prophets ( Isaiah 24:8; Ezek 26:13) threaten that as a punishment for sin the sound of the [kinnor] will cease. (2) Materials.

    We have no exact information as to the materials of which these instruments were made. In 2 Samuel 6:5 the King James Version, mention is made of “instruments made of fir wood” (the English Revised Version “cypress”), but the text is probably corrupt, and the reading in 1 Chronicles 13:8 is preferable. According to 1 Kings 10:11 f, Hiram’s fleet brought from Ophir quantities of [’almugh] ( 2 Chronicles 2:8; 9:10, [’algum]) wood, from which, among other things, the [kinnor] and [nebhel] were made. Probably this was red sandal-wood. Josephus (Ant., VIII, iii) includes among articles made by Solomon for the temple [nebhalim] and [kinnoroth] of electrum. Whether we understand this to have been the mixed metal so named or amber, the frame of the instrument could not have been constructed of it. It may have been used for ornamentation.

    We have no trace of metal strings being used by the ancients. The strings of the Hebrew ([minnim]) may have consisted of gut. We read of sheep-gut being employed for the purpose in the Odyssey, xxi. 407. Vegetable fiber was also spun into strings. We need only add that bowed instruments were quite unknown; the strings were plucked with the fingers, or struck with a plectrum. (a) The Kinnor:

    The Old Testament gives us no clue to the form or nature of the [kinnor], except that it was portable, comparatively light, and could be played while it was carried in processions or dances. The earliest authority to which we can refer on the subject is the Septuagint. While in some of the books [kinnor] is rendered by [kinnura], or [kinura] — evidently a transliteration — in others it is translated by [kithara]. We cannot discuss here the question of the trustworthiness of the Septuagint as an authority for Hebrew antiquities, but considering the conservatism of the East, especially in matters of ritual, it seems at least hasty to say offhand, as Wellhausen does, that by the date of its production the whole tradition of ancient music had been lost. The translation, at all events, supplies us with an instrument of which the Hebrews could hardly have been ignorant. The [kithara ], which in its general outlines resembled the lyre, consisted of a rectilinearshaped sound box from which rose two arms, connected above by a crossbar; the strings ran down from the latter to the sound-box, to which, or to a bridge on which, they were attached.

    The most ancient copy of a [kithara ] in Egypt was found in a grave of the XIIth Dynasty. It is carried by one of a company of immigrant captive Semites, who holds it close to his breast, striking the strings with a plectrum held in his right hand, and plucking them with the fingers of the left. The instrument is very primitive; it resembles a schoolboy’s slate with the upper three-fourths of the slate broken out of the frame; but it nevertheless possesses the distinctive characteristics of the [kithara ]. In a grave at Thebes of a somewhat later date, three players are depicted, one of whom plays a [kithara ], also primitive in form, but with slenderer arms.

    Gradually, as time advanced, the simple board-like frame assumed a shape more like that afterward elaborated by the Greeks. Numerous examples have been found in Asia Minor, but further developed, especially as regards the sound-box. It may be noted that, in the Assyrian monuments, the [kithara ] is played along with the harp, as the [kinnor ] was with the [nebhel ].

    The evidence furnished by Jewish coins must not be overlooked. Those stamped with representations of lyre-shaped instruments have been assigned to 142-135 BC, or to 66-70 AD. On one side we have a [kithara ]-like instrument of 3 or more strings, with a sound-box resembling a kettle. It is true that these coins are of a late date, and the form of the instruments shown on them has obviously been modified by Greek taste, but so conservative a people as the Jews would hardly be likely to adopt an essentially foreign object for their coinage.

    One objection raised by Wellhausen to the identification of the [kithara] with the [kinnor] may be noted. Josephus undoubtedly says (Ant., VII, xii) that the [kinnura] was played with a plectrum, and in 1 Samuel 16:23 David plays the [kinnor] “with his hand.” But even if this excludes the use of the plectrum in the particular case, it need not be held to disprove the identity of [kinnor] and [kinnura]. Both methods may have been in use. In paintings discovered at Herculaneum there are several instances of the lyre being played with the hand; and there is no reason for supposing that the Hebrews were restricted to one method of showing their skill, when we know that Greeks and Latins were not.

    Since the ancient VSS, then, render [kinnor] by [kithara ], and the [kithara ], though subsequently developed and beautified by the Greeks, was originally a Semitic instrument, it is exceedingly probable, as Riehm says, “that we have to regard the ancient Hebrew [kinnor], which is designated a [kithara], as a still simpler form of the latter instrument. The stringed instruments on the Jewish coins are later, beautified forms of the [kinnor], intermediate stage Egyptian modifications represent the intermediate stage.” (b) The Nebhel:

    The [nebhel] has been identified with many instruments. The literal meaning of the word, “wine-skin,” has suggested that it was the bagpipe!

    Others have thought that it was the lute, and this is supported by reference to the Egyptian nfr, which denotes a lute-like instrument frequently depicted on the monuments. The derivation of “nbl” from “nfr” is, however, now abandoned; and no long-necked instrument has been found depicted in the possession of a Semite. The [kissar] was favored by Pfeiffer. Its resonance-box is made of wood, and, the upper side, being covered tightly by a skin, closely resembles a drum. From this rise two arms, connected toward the top by a crossbar; and to the latter the strings are attached. The [kissar] has, however, only 5 strings, as opposed to ascribed by Josephus to the [nebhel], and the soundbox, instead of being above, as stated by the Fathers, is situated below the strings.

    The supposition that the [nebhel] was a dulcimer is not without some justification. The dulcimer was well known in the East. An extremely interesting and important bas-relief in the palace at Kouyunjik represents a company of 28 musicians, of whom 11 are instrumentalists and 15 singers.

    The procession is headed by 5 men, 3 carrying harps, one a double flute, and one a dulcimer. Two of the harpists and the dulcimer-player appear to be dancing or skipping. Then follow 6 women; 4 have harps, one a double flute, and one a small drum which is fixed upright at the belt, and is played with the fingers of both hands. Besides the players, we see 15 singers, being children, who clap their hands to mark the rhythm. One of the women is holding her throat, perhaps to produce the shrill vibrate affected by Persian and Arabian women at the present day. The dulcimer in this picture has been regarded by several Orientalists as the [nebhel]. Wettstein, e.g., says “This instrument can fairly be so designated, if the statement of so many witnesses is correct, that nablium and psalterium are one and the same thing. For the latter corresponds to the Arabic santir, which is derived from the Hebrew [pecanterin], a transliteration of the Greek [psalterion ].”

    And the [santir ] is a kind of dulcimer.

    This is not conclusive. The word [psalterion ] was not always restricted to a particular instrument, but sometimes embraced a whole class of stringed instruments. Ovid also regarded the nabla as a harp, not a dulcimer, when he said (Ars Am. iii.329): “Learn to sweep the pleasant nabla with both hands.” And, lastly, Josephus tells us (Ant., VII, xii) that the nebhel was played without a plectrum. The translation of nebhel by psalterion does not, therefore, shut us up to the conclusion that it was a dulcimer; on the contrary, it rather leads to the belief that it was a harp.

    Harps of various sizes are very numerous on the Egyptian monuments.

    There is the large and elaborate kind with a well-developed sound-box, that served also as a pediment, at its base. This could not be the nebhel, which, as we have seen, was early portable. Then we have a variety of smear instruments that, while light and easily carried, would scarcely have been sonorous enough for the work assigned to the [nebhel] in the temple services. Berries, the more we learn of the relations of Egypt and Israel, the more dearly do we perceive how little the latter was influenced by the former. But the evidence of the Fathers, which need not be disregarded in a matter of this kind, is decisive against Egyptian harps of every shape and size. These have without exception the sound-box at the base, and Augustine (on Psalm 42) says expressly that the psalterium had its sound- box above. This is confirmed by statements of Jerome, Isidore, and others, who contrast two classes of instruments according to the position above or below of the sound-box, Jerome, further, likens the [nebhel] to the captial Greek letter delta.

    All the evidence points to the nebhel having been the Assyrian harp, of which we have numerous examples in the ruins. We have already referred at length to the bas-relief at Kouyunjik in which it is played by 3 men and women. It is portable, triangular, or, roughly, delta-shaped; it has a soundbox above that slants upward away from the player, and a horizontal bar to which the strings are attached about three-fourths of their length down.

    The number of the strings on the Assyrian harp ranges from 16 upward, but there may quite well have been fewer in some cases. (c) Nebhel `asor:

    In Psalm 33:2; 144:9, “the psaltery of ten strings” is given as the rendering of [nebhel ‘asor]; while in Psalm 91:3 [’asor] is translated “instrument of ten strings.” No doubt, as we have just said above, there were harps of less and greater compass — the mention of the number of strings in two or three instances does not necessarily imply different kinds of harps. (d) Gittith:

    The word [gittith] is found in the titles of Psalm 8; 81; 84. It is a feminine adjective derived from Gath, but its meaning is quite uncertain. It has been explained to denote (i) some Gittite instrument; the Targum, on Psalm 8, gives “on the [kithara] which was brought from Gath”; or (ii) a melody or march popular in Gath. The Septuagint renders “concerning the vintage,” and may have regarded these psalms as having been sung to a popular melody. See above. (e) The Shalishim: [Shalishim] occurs in 1 Samuel 18:6, where it is rendered “instruments of music,” the Revised Version margin “triangles, or three stringed instruments.” The word seems from the context to represent a musical instrument of some sort, but which is very uncertain. Etymology points to a term involving the number three. The small triangular harp, or trigon, has been suggested, but it would hardly have made its presence felt among a number of drums or tambourines. If the [shalishim] was a harp, it might very well be the [nebhel], which was also triangular. There is no evidence that the triangle was used by Semitic people, or we might have taken it to be the instrument referred to. If it was a percussion instrument, it might possibly be a three-ringed or three-stringed [sistrum]. (f) The Cabbekha’:

    Among the instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5,7,10 occurs the [cabbekha’] translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “sackbut,” i.e. a trombone, why, it is impossible to say. The Septuagint renders the word by [sambuke ], and this is an instrument frequently mentioned by Greek and Latin writers. Though it is nowhere described, it was no doubt a harp, probably of high pitch. It was a favorite of dissolute women, and we frequently see in their hands in mural pictures a small triangular harp, possibly of a higher range than the trigon. (g) Neghinoth:

    The word [neghinoth] occurs in the title of 6 psalms, and in the singular in two others; it is also found elsewhere in the Old Testament. Derived from [naghan], “to touch,” especially to play on a stringed instrument (compare Psalm 68:25, where the players, [noghenim], are contrasted with the singers, [harim]), it evidently means stringed instruments in general. 2. Winds: (1) The `Ughabh.

    The first mention of a wind instrument occurs in Genesis 4:21, where we are told that Jubal was the “father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.” The Hebrew word here translated “pipe” is [`ughabh]. It occurs in other places: Job 21:12; 30:31; <19F004> Psalm 150:4. In the Hebrew version of Daniel 3:5 it is given as the rendering of [sumponyah], i.e. “bagpipe.” Jerome translations by organon. The [`ughabh] was probably a primitive shepherd’s pipe or panpipe, though some take it as a general term for instruments of the flute kind, a meaning that suits all the passages cited. (2) The Chalil.

    The [chalil] is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:5, where it is played by members of the band of prophets. It was used ( 1 Kings 1:40) at Solomon’s accession to the throne; its strains added to the exhilaration of convivial parties ( Isaiah 5:12), accompanied worshippers on their joyous march the sanctuary ( Isaiah 30:29), or, in turn, echoed the feelings of mourners ( Jeremiah 48:36). In 1 Macc 3:45, one of the features of the desolation of the temple consisted in the cessation of the sound of the pipe. From this we see that Ewald’s assertion that the flute took no part in the music of the temple is incorrect, at least for the Second the Temple.

    As we should expect from the simplicity of its construction, and the commonness of its material, the flute or pipe was the most ancient and most widely popular of all musical instruments.

    Reeds, cane, bone, afterward ivory, were the materials; it was the easiest thing in the world to drill out the center, to pierce a few holes in the rind or bark, and, for the mouthpiece, to compress the tube at one end. The simple rustic pattern was soon improved upon. Of course, nothing like the modern flute with its complicated mechanism was ever achieved, but, especially on the Egyptian monuments, a variety of patterns is found. There we see the obliquely held flute, evidently played, like the Arabic nay, by blowing through a very slight paring of the lips against the edge of the orifice of the tube. Besides this, there are double flutes, which, though apparently an advance on the single flute, are very ancient. These double flutes are either of equal or unequal length, and are connected near the mouth by a piece of leather, or enter the frame of the mouthpiece.

    Though the flutes of the East and West resembled each other more closely than the strings, it is to the Assyrian monuments that we must turn for the prototypes of the [chalil]. The Greeks, as their myths show, regarded Asia Minor as the birthplace of the flute, and no doubt the Hebrews brought it with them from their Assyrian home. In the Kouyunjik bas-relief we see players performing on the double flute. It is apparently furnished with a beaked mouthpiece; like that of the clarinet or flageolet. We cannot determine whether the Israelites used the flute with a mouthpiece, or one like the nay; and it is futile to guess. It is enough to say that they had opportunities of becoming acquainted with both kinds, and may have adopted both. (3) Nechiloth. [Nechiloth] occurs only in the title of Psalm 5. The context suggests that it is a musical term, and we explain [neginoth] as a general term for strings, this word may comprehend the wood-winds. the Revised Version margin renders “wind instruments.” (4) Neqebh.

    In Ezek 28:13 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American), [neqabhim] is rendered pipes. This translation is supported by Fetis: the double flute; Ambros: large flutes; and by Jahn: the nay or Arab flute. It is now, however abandoned, and Jerome’s explanation that [neqebh] means the “setting” of precious stones is generally adopted. (5) The Mashroqitha’. [Mashroqitha’], found in Daniel 3:5, etc., is also referred to the woodwinds.

    The word is derived from [sharaq], “to hiss” (compare Isaiah 5:26, where God hisses to summon the Gentiles). The Septuagint translates [surigx] or panpipes, and this is most probably the meaning. (6) The Cumponyah. [Cumponyah] (in Chaldaic [sumponia]) is another name for a musical instrument found in Daniel 3:5, etc. It is generally supposed to have been the bagpipe, an instrument that at one time was exceedingly popular, even among highly civilized peoples. Nero is said to have been desirous of renown as a piper. (7) The Shophar Qeren.

    The [shophar] was a trumpet, curved at the end like a horn ([qeren]), and no doubt originally was a horn. The two words [shophar] and [qeren] are used synonymously in Josh 6:4,5, where we read [shophar ha-yobhelim] and [qeren ha-yobhel]. With regard to the meaning of [hayobhel], there is some difference of opinion. The Revised Version (British and American) renders in text “ram’s horn,” in the margin “jubilee.” The former depends on a statement in the Talmud that [yobhel] is Arabic for “ram’s horn,” but no trace of such a word has been found in Arabic. A suggestion of Pfeiffer’s that [yobhel] does not designate the instrument, but the manner of blowing, is advocated by J. Weiss. It gives a good sense in the passages in which [yobhel] occurs in connection with [shophar] or [qeren]. Thus in Josh 6:5, we would translate, “when the priests blow triumph on the horn.”

    The [shophar] was used in early times chiefly, perhaps exclusively, for warlike purposes. It gave the signal “to arms” ( Judges 6:34; Samuel 13:3; 2 Samuel 20:1); warned of the approach of the enemy (Am 3:6; Ezek 33:6; Jeremiah 4:5; 6:1); was heard throughout a battle (Am 2:2, etc.); and sounded the recall ( 2 Samuel 2:28). Afterward it played an important part in connection with religion. It was blown at the proclamation of the Law ( Exodus 19:13, etc.); and at the opening of the Year of Jubilee ( Leviticus 25:9); heralded the approach of the Ark ( 2 Samuel 6:15); hailed a new king ( 2 Samuel 15:10); and is prophetically associated with the Divine judgment and restoration of the chosen people from captivity ( Isaiah 18:3, and often). (8) The Chatsotseroth.

    We are told ( Numbers 10:2 ff) that Moses was commanded to make two silver trumpets which should serve to summon the people to the door of the tabernacle; give the signal for breaking up the camp; or call to arms.

    These instruments were the [hatsotseroth], which differed from the [shophar] in that they were straight, not curved, were always made of metal, and were only blown by the priests. They are shown on the Arch of Titus and on Jewish coins, and are described by Josephus (Ant., III, xii, 6).

    The latter says: “In length it was not quite a yard. It was composed of a narrow tube somewhat thicker than a flute, widened slightly at the mouth to catch the breath, and ended in the form of a bell, like the common trumpets.” 3. Percussion Instruments: (1) The Toph.

    The principal percussion instrument, the [toph], is represented in English Versions of the Bible by “tabret” and “timbre,” two words of different origin. “Tabret” is derived from Arabic tanbur, the name of a sort of mandolin. “Timbre” comes from Latin-Greek [tympanum ], through the French timbre, a small tambourine. The Arabs of today possess an instrument called the duf, a name that corresponds to the Hebrew [toph].

    The duf is a circle of thin wood 11 inches in diameter and 2 inches in depth. Over this is tightly stretched a piece of skim, and in the wood are 5 openings in which thin metal disks are hung loosely; these jingle when the duf is struck by the hand. The [toph] probably resembled the duf.

    Other drums are shown on the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. In the Kouyunjik bas-relief the second last performer beats with his hands a small, barrel-like drum fixed at his waist. In the Old Testament the drum is used on festive occasions; it is not mentioned in connection with Divine service.

    It was generally played by women, and marked the time at dances or processions ( Exodus 15:20; Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6; Jeremiah 31:4; <19F004> Psalm 150:4). At banquets ( Isaiah 24:8; 30:32; Job 21:12) and at marriages (1 Macc 9:39) it accompanied the [kinnor] and [nebhel]. In solemn processions it was also occasionally played by men. (2) Metsiltayim, Tseltselim.

    In 1 Chronicles 15:19 we read that “Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed, with cymbals of brass to sound aloud.” These cymbals are the [metsiltayim] (in two places [tseltselim]). They were very popular in Egypt. A pair made of copper and silver has been found in a grave in Thebes. They are about 5 inches in diameter and have handles fixed in the center. In the Kouyunjik bas-relief we see cymbals of another pattern.

    These are conical, and provided with handles.

    Cylindrical staves slightly bent at one end were also used in Egyptian processions. Villoteau, quoted by J. Weiss, describes a bas-relief in which three musicians are seen, of whom one plays the harp, a second the double flute, while a third appears to be marking time by striking two short rods together; this was a method of conducting practiced regularly by other ancient nations. (3) Mena`an`im.

    Lastly in 2 Samuel 6:5 we meet with a word that occurs nowhere else, and whose meaning is quite uncertain. the King James Version translates “cornets,” the Revised Version (British and American) “castanets,” and in the margin “sistra.” The [mena`an`im] may have been the [sistrum], an instrument formed of two thin, longish plates, bent together at the top so as to form an oval frame, and supplied with a handle at the lower end. One or more bars were fixed across this frame, and rings or disks loosely strung on these made a jingling noise when the instrument was shaken. This interpretation is supported by the derivation of the word, the Vulgate, and the rabbins.

    LITERATURE.

    Pfeiffer, Uber die Musik der alten Hebraer; Saalschutz, Form der Hebrews.

    Poesie, etc.; Leyrer in RE; Riehm, Handwort. des bibl. Alterthums; Histories of Music by Fetis, Ambros, Rowbotham, Naumann, and Chappell; Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt; Wettstein in Del. Commentary on Isaiah; Lane, Modern Egyptians; Stainer, The Music of the Bible; Edersheim, The Temple, etc.; Wellhausen, “The Pss” in Polychrome Bible; Benzinger, HA; Nowack, HA; J. Weiss, Die mus. Instr. des AT; C. Engel, Music of the Most Ancient Nations; Vigoureux, Lea instruments de musique de la Bible; Driver, Joel and Amos; Cornill, Music in the Old Testament; and the various Bible Dictionaries. James Millar MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS <mu’-zi-kal in’-stroo-ments > ( twODviw” hD:vi [shiddah we-shiddoth]): “I gat me .... musical instruments, and that of all sorts” (Eccl 2:8). Thus the King James Version and the American Standard Revised Version; the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin “concubines very many.” The word occurs only here; the meaning is not certain, but it has nothing to do with music.

    MUSICIAN; CHIEF <mu-zish’-an > . See ASAPH; MUSIC; PSALMS.

    MUSTARD <mus’-tard > ([si>napi , sinapi ] ( Matthew 13:31; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:19; Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6)): The minuteness of the seed is referred to in all these passages, while in the first three the large size of the herb growing from it is mentioned. In Matthew 13:32 it is described as “greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree” (compare Luke 13:19); in Mark 4:32 it “becometh greater than all the herbs, and putteth out great branches.” Several varieties of mustard (Arabic, khardal) have notably small seed, and under favorable conditions grow in a few months into very tall herbs — 10 to 12 ft. The rapid growth of an annual herb to such a height must always be a striking fact. Sinapis nigra, the black mustard, which is cultivated, Sinapis alba, or white mustard, and Sinapis arvensis, or the charlock (all of Natural Order Cruciferae), would, any one of them, suit the requirements of the parable; birds readily alight upon their branches to eat the seed ( Matthew 13:32, etc.), not, be it noted, to build their nests, which is nowhere implied.

    Among the rabbis a “grain of mustard” was a common expression for anything very minute, which explains our Lord’s phrase, “faith as a grain of mustard seed” ( Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6).

    The suggestion that the New Testament references may allude to a tall shrub Salvadora persica, which grows on the southern shores of the Dead Sea, rests solely upon the fact that this plant is sometimes called khardal by the Arabs, but it has no serious claim to be the [sinapi ] of the Bible. E. W. G. Masterman MUTH-LABBEN <muth-lab’-en > ( ˆBel” tWm [muth labben], “death of Ben,” or “of the son”; Psalm 9, title). See PSALMS.

    MUTILATION <mu-ti-la’-shun > . See PUNISHMENTS.

    MUTTER <mut’-er > ( hg:h; [haghah] ( Isaiah 8:19; 59:3)): An onomatopoetic word, used of the growling of a lion ( Isaiah 31:4), of the “mourning” of a dove ( Isaiah 38:14), or of the human voice, whether speaking inarticulately ( Isaiah 16:7) or articulately ( Psalm 37:30, “The mouth of the righteous talketh of wisdom” compare Job 27:4; Proverbs 8:7, etc.). Hence, it is only the context that can give to [haghah] the meaning “mutter.” No such meaning can be gathered from the context of Isaiah 59:3, and, in fact, the open shamelessness of the sinners seems to be in point. So the verse should be rendered, “Your lips have spoken lies, your tongue uttereth wickedness.” In Isaiah 8:19 [haghah] describes the tone of voice used by the necromancers in uttering their formulas, “that chirp and that mutter.” That this tone was subdued and indistinct is quite probable. See PEEP.

    Burton Scott Easton MUZZLE <muz’l > ( µs”j; [chacam]; [fimo>w , phimoo ]) : According to the Deuteronomic injunction (Dt 25:4), the ox was not to be muzzled while treading the grain, i.e. threshing. The muzzle was a guard placed on the mouth of the oxen to prevent them from biting or eating. The threshing ox would have ample opportunity of feeding (compare Hos 10:11). The Deuteronomic injunction is quite in accordance with the humane spirit which inspires it all through. Paul quotes this law in two places ( Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18) to illustrate his view that the “laborer is worthy of his hire.” T. Lewis MYNDUS <min’-dus > ([ Mu>ndov , Mundos ]): A city of Asia Minor, situated at the extreme western end of a peninsula jutting into the sea (see CARIA). It seems that the city was independent at an early date and that many Jews lived there, for according to 1 Macc 15:23, it was one of the several places to which the Roman senate, in the year 139 BC, sent a letter in their behalf.

    The place was important only because of the silver mines in its vicinity.

    The mines were worked from a very early period, even to the Middle Ages, and have therefore given to the place the modern Turkish name, Gumushlu, meaning a silver mine. E. J. Banks MYRA <mi’-ra > ([ Mu>ra , Mura ]): A city of the ancient country of Lycia about 1/2 miles from the coast. Here, according to Acts 27:6, Paul found a grain ship from Alexandria. The city stood upon a hill formed by the openings of two valleys. At an early period Myra was of less importance than was the neighboring city Patara, yet later it became a prominent port for ships from Egypt and Cyprus, and Theodosius II made it the capital of the province. It was also famed as the seat of worship of an Asiatic deity whose name is no longer known. Nicholas, a bishop and the patron saint of sailors, is said to have been buried in a church on the road between Myra and Andraki, the port. Here an Arab fleet was destroyed in 807. In Haroun al-Rashid, the renowned kalif of Bagdad, took the city, and here Saewulf landed on his return from Jerusalem. Dembre is the modern name of the ruins of Myra, which are among the most imposing in that part of Asia Minor. The elaborate details of the decoration of theater are unusually well preserved, and the rock-hewn tombs about the city bear many basreliefs and inscriptions of interest. On the road to Andraki the monastery of Nicholas may still be seen. E. J. Banks MYRRH <mur > : (1) ( rmo [mor] or rwOm [mowr]; Arabic murr]): This substance is mentioned as valuable for its perfume ( Psalm 45:8; Proverbs 7:17; Song of Solomon 3:6; 4:14), and as one of the constituents of the holy incense ( Exodus 30:23; see also Song of Solomon 4:6; 5:1,5,13). [Mor] is generally identified with the “myrrh” of commerce, the dried gum of a species of balSamuel (Balsamodendron myrrha). This is a stunted tree growing in Arabia, having a light-gray bark; the gum resin exudes in small tear-like drops which dry to a rich brown or reddish-yellow, brittle substance, with a faint though agreeable smell and a warm, bitter taste. It is still used as medicine ( Mark 15:23). On account, however, of the references to “flowing myrrh” ( Exodus 30:23) and “liquid myrrh” ( Song of Solomon 5:5,13), Schweinfurth maintains that [mor] was not a dried gum but the liquid balSamuel of Balsamodendron opobalsamum. See BALSAM.

    Whichever view is correct, it is probable that the [smu>rna , smurna ], of the New Testament was the same. In Matthew 2:11 it is brought by the “Wise men” of the East as an offering to the infant Saviour; in Mark 15:23 it is offered mingled with wine as an anesthetic to the suffering Redeemer, and in John 19:39 a “mixture of myrrh and aloes” is brought by Nicodemus to embalm the sacred body. (2) ( flo [loT], [stakth> , stakte ]; translated “myrrh” in Genesis 37:25, margin “ladanum”; 43:11): The fragrant resin obtained from some species of cistus and called in Arabic ladham, in Latin ladanum. The cistus or “rock rose” is exceedingly common all over the mountains of Palestine (see BOTANY), the usual varieties being the C. villosus with pink petals, and the C. salviaefolius with white petals. No commerce is done now in Palestine in this substance as of old ( Genesis 37:25; 43:11), but it is still gathered from various species of cistus, especially C. creticus in the Greek Isles, where it is collected by threshing the plants by a kind of flail from which the sticky mass is scraped off with a knife and rolled into small black balls. In Cyprus at the present time the gum is collected from the beards of the goats that browse on these shrubs, as was done in the days of Herodotus iii.112). E. W. G. Masterman MYRTLE <mur’-t’-l > ( sd”h\ [hadhac]; [mursi>nh , mursine ] ( Isaiah 41:19; 55:13; Nehemiah 8:15; Zechariah 1:8,10 f); also as a name in Hadassah in Est 2:7, the Jewish form of ESTHER (which see)): The myrtle, Myrtus communis (Natural Order Myrtaceae), is a very common indigenous shrub all over Palestine. On the bare hillsides it is a low bush, but under favorable conditions of moisture it attains a considerable height (compare Zechariah 1:8,10). It has dark green, scented leaves, delicate starry white flowers and dark-colored berries, which are eaten. In ancient times it was sacred to Astarte. It is mentioned as one of the choice plants of the land ( Isaiah 41:19). “Instead of the thorn shall come up the firtree; and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle-tree” ( Isaiah 55:13), is one of the prophetic pictures of God’s promised blessings. It was one of the trees used in the Feast of Tabernacles ( Nehemiah 8:15): “the branches of thick trees” (which see) are interpreted in the Talmud ([Cuk]. 3 4; [Yer Cuk]. 3, 53rd) as myrtle boughs; also (id) the “thick trees” of Nehemiah 8:15 as “wild myrtle.” Myrtle twigs, particularly those of the broadleaved variety, together with a palm branch and twigs of willow, are still used in the ritual of the Feast of Tabernacles. For many references to myrtle in Jewish writings see Jewish Encyclopedia, IX, 137. E. W. G. Masterman MYSIA <mish’-i-a > ([ Musi>a , Musia ]): A country in the northwestern part of Asia Minor, which formed an important part of the Roman province of Asia.

    Though its boundaries were always vague, it may be said to have extended on the North to the Sea of Marmora on the East to Bithynia and Phrygia, on the South to Lydia, and on the West to Hellespont. According to some authors it included the Troad. Its history is chiefly that of important cities, of which Assos, Troas, and Adramyttium on the border of Lydia, are mentioned in the New Testament. When Mysia became a part of the Roman province of Asia in 190 BC, its old name fell into disuse, and it was then generally known as the Hellespontus. According to Acts 16:7,8, Paul passed through the country, but without stopping to preach, until he reached Troas on the coast, yet tradition says that he founded churches at Poketos and Cyzicus. Onesiphorus, who was martyred some time between 109 and 114 AD, during the proconsulate of Adrian, is supposed to have evangelized this part of Asia. See The Expository Times, IX, 495 f. E. J. Banks MYSTERY <mis’-ter-i > ([musth>rion , musterion ]; from [mu>sthv , mustes ], “one initiated into mysteries”; [mueo ] “to initiate,” [muo ], “to close” the lips or the eyes; stem [mu -], a sound produced with closed lips; compare Latin mutus, “dumb”): Its usual modern meaning (= something in itself obscure or incomprehensible, difficult or impossible to understand) does not convey the exact sense of the Greek [musterion ], which means a secret imparted only to the initiated, what is unknown until it is revealed, whether it be easy or hard to understand. The idea of incomprehensibility if implied at all, is purely accidental. The history of the word in ancient paganism is important, and must be considered before we examine its Biblical usage.

    1. IN ANCIENT PAGAN RELIGIONS:

    In the extant classics, the singular is found once only (Menander, “Do not tell thy secret ([musterion ]) to thy friend”). But it is frequently found in the plural [ta musteria ], “the Mysteries,” the technical term for the secret rites and celebrations in ancient religions only known to, and practiced by, those who had been initiated. These are among the most interesting, significant, and yet baffling religious phenomena in the Greek-Roman world, especially from the 6th century BC onward. In proportion as the public cults of the civic and national deities fell into disrepute, their place came more and more to be filled by secret cults open only to those who voluntarily underwent elaborate preliminary preparations. There was scarcely one of the ancient deities in connection with whose worship there was not some subsidiary cult of this kind. The most famous were the Mysteries celebrated in Eleusis, under the patronage and control of the Athenian state, and associated with the worship of Demeter and her daughter Persephone. But there were many others of a more private character than the Eleusinian, e.g. the Orphic Mysteries, associated with the name of Dionysus. Besides the Greek Mysteries, mention should be made of the Egyptian cults of Isis and Serapis, and of Persian Mithraism, which in the 3rd century AD was widely diffused over the whole empire.

    It is difficult in a brief paragraph to characterize the Mysteries, so elaborate and varied were they, and so completely foreign to the modern mind. The following are some of their main features: (1) Their appeal was to the emotions rather than to the intellect.

    Lobeck in his famous Aglaophamus destroyed the once prevalent view that the Mysteries enshrined some profound religious truth or esoteric doctrine. They were rather an attempt to find a more emotional and ecstatic expression to religious aspiration than the public ceremonies provided. Aristotle (as quoted by Synesius) declared that the initiated did not receive definite instruction, but were put in a certain frame of mind ([ouj maqei~n ti dei~n ajlla< paqei~n , ou mathein ti dein alla pathein ]). This does not mean that there was no teaching, but that the teaching was vague, suggestive and symbolic, rather than didactic or dogmatic. (2) The chief purpose of the rites seems to have been to secure for the rotaries mystic union with some deity and a guaranty of a blissful immortality. The initiated was made to partake mystically in the passing of the deity through death to life, and this union with his saviour-god ([qeor , theos soter ]) became the pledge of his own passage through death to a happy life beyond. This was not taught as an esoteric doctrine; it was well known to outsiders that the Mysteries taught the greater blessedness of the initiated in the under-world; but in the actual ceremony the truth was vividly presented and emotionally realized. (3) The celebrations were marked by profuse symbolism of word and action. They were preceded by rites of purification through which all the mystae had to pass. The celebrations themselves were in the main a kind of religious drama, consisting of scenic representations illustrating the story of some deity or deities, on the basis of the old mythologies regarded as allegories of Nature’s productive forces and of human immortality; combined with the recital of certain mystic formulae by the hierophant (the priest). The culminating point was the [ejpoptei>a , epopteia ], or full vision, when the hierophant revealed certain holy objects to the assembly. (4) The cults were marked by a strict exclusiveness and secrecy. None but the initiated could be present at the services, and the knowledge of what was said and done was scrupulously kept from outsiders. What they had seen and heard was so sacred that it was sacrilege to divulge it to the uninitiated. (5) Yet the Mysteries were not secret societies, but were open to all who chose to be initiated (except barbarians and criminals). They thus stood in marked contrast to the old civic and national cults, which were confined to states or cities. They substituted the principle of initiation for the more exclusive principle of birthright or nationality; and so foreshadowed the disintegration of old barriers, and prepared the way for the universal religion. Thus the mystery-religions strangely combined a strict exclusiveness with a kind of incipient catholicity. This brief account will show that the Mysteries were not devoid of noble elements. They formed “the serious part of pagan religion” (Renan).

    But it must also be remembered that they lent themselves to grave extravagances and abuses. Especially did they suffer from the fact that they were withheld from the light of healthy publicity.

    2. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHA:

    The religion of the Old Testament has no Mysteries of the above type. The ritual of Israel was one in which the whole people partook, through their representatives the priests. There was no system of ceremonial initiation by which the few had privileges denied to the many. God has His secrets, but such things as He revealed belonged to all (Dt 29:29); so far from silence being enjoined concerning them, they were openly proclaimed (Dt 6:7; Neb 8:1 ff). True piety alone initiated men into confidential intercourse with Yahweh ( Psalm 25:14; Proverbs 3:32). The term “mystery” never occurs in the English Old Testament. The Greek word [, musterion] occurs in the Septuagint of the Old Testament. Only in Daniel, where it is found several times as the translation of az:r: [raza’], “a secret,” in reference to the king’s dream, the meaning of which was revealed to Daniel (2:18,19,27-30,47).

    In the Apocrypha, [musterion ] is still used in the sense of “a secret” (a meaning practically confined to the Septuagint in extant Greek); of the secrets of private life, especially between friends (Sirach 22:22; 27:16,17,21), and of the secret plans of a king or a state (Tobit 12:7,11; Judith 2:2; 2 Macc 13:21). The term is also used of the hidden purpose or counsel of God or of Divine wisdom. The wicked “knew not the mysteries of God,” i.e. the secret counsels that govern God’s dealings with the godly (The Wisdom of Solomon 2:22); wisdom “is initiated [[mu>stiv , mustis ]] into the knowledge of God “ (The Wisdom of Solomon 8:4), but (unlike the pagan mystagogues) the writer declares he “will not hide mysteries,” but will “bring the knowledge of her (wisdom) into clear light” (The Wisdom of Solomon 6:22). Hatch maintains that the analogy here is that of an oriental king’s secrets, known only to himself and his trusted friends (Essays in Biblical Greek,58); but it is more likely that the writer here betrays the influence of the phraseology of the Greek Mysteries (without acquiescing in their teaching). In another passage, at any rate, he shows acquaintance with the secret rites of the Gentiles, namely, in The Wisdom of Solomon 14:15,23, where the “solemn rites” and “secret mysteries” of idolaters are referred to with abhorrence. The term “mystery” is not used in reference to the special ritual of Israel.

    3. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament the word occurs 27 or (if we include the doubtful reading in 1 Corinthians 2:1) 28 times; chiefly in Paul (20 or 21 times), but also in one passage reported by each of the synoptists, and 4 times in Revelation. It bears its ancient sense of a revealed secret, not its modern sense of that which cannot be fathomed or comprehended. (1) In a few passages, it has reference to a symbol, allegory or parable, which conceals its meaning from those who look only at the literal sense, but is the medium of revelation to those who have the key to its interpretation (compare the rabbinic use of az:r: [raza]’, and dwOs [codh], “the hidden or mystic sense”). This meaning appears in Revelation 1:20; 17:5,7; probably also in Ephesians 5:32, where marriage is called “a mystery,” i.e. a symbol to be allegorically interpreted of Christ and His church. It also seems implied in the only passage in which the word is attributed to our Lord, “Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables” ( Mark 4:11; compare parallel Matthew 13:11; Luke 8:10). Here parables are spoken of as a veiled or symbolic form of utterance which concealed the truth from those without the kingdom, but revealed it to those who had the key to its inner meaning (compare Matthew 13:35; John 16:29 margin). (2) By far the most common meaning in the New Testament is that which is so characteristic of Paul, namely, a Divine truth once hidden, but now revealed in the gospels. Romans 16:25 f might almost be taken as a definition of it, “According to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested” (compare Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 3:3 ff). (a) It should be noted how closely “mystery” is associated with “revelation” ([ajpoka>luyiv , apokalupsis ]), as well as with words of similar import, e.g. “to make known” ( Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,5,10; 6:19), “to manifest” ( Colossians 4:3,4; Romans 16:26; Timothy 3:16). “Mystery” and “revelation” are in fact correlative and almost synonymous terms. The mysteries of Christianity are its revealed doctrines, in contrast to the wisdom of worldly philosophy (see especially 1 Corinthians 2:1-16; compare Matthew 11:25 f); the point of contrast being, not that the latter is comprehensible while the former are obscure, but that the latter is the product of intellectual research, while the former are the result of Divine revelation and are spiritually discerned. (b) From this it follows that Christianity has no secret doctrines, for what was once hidden has now been revealed. But here arises a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, there are passages which seem to imply a doctrine of reserve. The mystery revealed to some would seem to be still concealed from others. The doctrines of Christ and of His Kingdom are hidden from the worldly wise and the prudent ( Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 2:6 ff), and from all who are outside the kingdom ( Matthew 13:11 ff and parallel), and there are truths withheld even from Christians while in an elementary stage of development ( 1 Corinthians 3:1 ff; Hebrews 5:11-14). On the other hand, there are many passages in which the truths of revelation are said to be freely and unreservedly communicated to all (e.g. Matthew 10:27; 28:19; Acts 20:20,27; 2 Corinthians 3:12 f; Ephesians 3:9, “all men”; 6:19 f; Colossians 1:28; 1 Timothy 2:4). The explanation is that the communication is limited, not by any secrecy in the gospel message itself or any reserve on the part of the speaker, but by the receptive capacity of the hearer. In the case of the carnally-minded, moral obtuseness or worldliness makes them blind to the light which shines on them ( 2 Corinthians 4:2-4). In the case of the “babe in Christ,” the apparent reserve is due merely to the pedagogical principle of adapting the teaching to the progressive receptivity of the disciple ( John 16:12 f). There is no esoteric doctrine or intentional reserve in the New Testament. The strong language in Matthew 13:11-15 is due to the Hebrew mode of speech by which an actual result is stated as if it were purposive. (c) What, then, is the content of the Christian “mystery”? In a wide sense it is the whole gospel, God’s world-embracing purpose of redemption through Christ (e.g. Romans 16:25; Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:9). In a special sense it is applied to some specific doctrine or aspect of the gospel, such as the doctrine of the Cross ( 1 Corinthians 2:1,7), of the Incarnation ( 1 Timothy 3:16), of the indwelling of Christ as the pledge of immortality ( Colossians 1:27), of the temporary unbelief of the Jews to be followed by their final restoration ( Romans 11:25), of the transformation of the saints who will live to see the Second Advent ( 1 Corinthians 15:51), and of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the gospel salvation ( Ephesians 3:3-6). These are the Divine secrets now at last disclosed. In direct antithesis to the Divine mystery is the “mystery of lawlessness” ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7) culminating in the coming of the Antichrist. Here, too, the word means a revealed secret, only in this case the revelation belongs to the future ( Thessalonians 2:8), though the evil forces which are to bring about its consummation are already silently operative. (Besides the references in this paragraph, the word occurs in 1 Corinthians 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; Revelation 10:7. It is interesting to note that the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sometimes renders [musterion ] by Latin sacramentum, namely, in Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20. This rendering in Ephesians 5:32 led to the ecclesiastical doctrine that marriage is a “sacrament.”)

    4. THE PAGAN MYSTERIES AND THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    The question is now frequently discussed, how far the New Testament (and especially Paul) betrays the influence of the heathen mystery-cults. Hatch maintains that the Pauline usage of the word [musterion ] is dependent on the Septuagint, especially on the Apocrypha (op. cit.), and in this he is followed by Anrich, who declares that the attempt to trace an allusion to the Mysteries in the New Testament is wholly unsuccessful; but Lightfoot admits a verbal dependence on the pagan Mysteries (Commentary on Colossians 1:26).

    At present there is a strong tendency to attribute to Paul far more dependence than one of phraseology only, and to find in the Mysteries the key to the non-Jewish side of Paulinism. A. Loisy finds affinity to the mystery-religions in Paul’s conception of Jesus as a Saviour-God, holding a place analogous to the deities Mithra, Osiris, and Attis; in the place Paul assigns to baptism as the rite of initiation; and in his transformation of the Lord’s Supper into a symbol of mystic participation in the flesh and blood of a celestial being and a guaranty of a share in the blissful immortality of the risen Saviour. “In its worship as in its belief, Christianity is a religion of mystery” (article in Hibbert Journal, October, 1911). Percy Gardner traces similar analogies to the Mysteries in Paul, though he finds in these analogies, not conscious plagiarism, but “the parallel working of similar forces” (Religious Experience of Paul, chapters iv, v). Kirsopp Lake writes, “Christianity has not borrowed from the mystery-religions, because it was always, at least in Europe, mystery-religion itself” (The Earlier Epistles of Paul, 215). On the other hand, Schweitzer wholly denies the hypothesis of the direct or indirect influence of the Mysteries on Paul’s thought (Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung).

    The whole question is sub judice among scholars, and until more evidence be forthcoming from inscriptions, etc., we shall perhaps vainly expect unanimous verdict. It can hardly be doubted that at least the language of Paul, and perhaps to some extent his thought, is colored by the phraseology current among the cults. Paul had a remarkably sympathetic and receptive mind, by no means closed to influences from the Greek- Roman environment of his day.

    Witness his use of illustrations drawn from the athletic festivals, the Greek theater ( 1 Corinthians 4:9) and the Roman camp. He must have been constantly exposed to the contagion of the mystic societies. Tarsus was a seat of the Mithra religion; and the chief centers of Paul’s activities, e.g.

    Corinth, Antioch and Ephesiansesus, were headquarters of mystic religion.

    We are not surprised that he should have borrowed from the vocabulary of the Mysteries, not only the word [musterion ], but [memu>hmai , memuemai ], “I learned the secret,” literally, “I have been initiated” ( Philippians 4:12); [sfragi>zesqai , sphragizesthai ], “to be sealed” ( Ephesians 1:13, etc.); [te>leiov , teleios ], “perfect,” term applied in the Mysteries to the fully instructed as opposed to novices ( 1 Corinthians 2:6,7; Colossians 1:28, etc.) (note, outside of Paul, [ejpo>ptai , epoptai ], “eye-witnesses,” 2 Peter 1:16).

    Further, the secret of Paul’s gospel among the Gentiles lay, humanly speaking, in the fact that it contained elements that appealed to what was best and most vital in contemporary thought; and doubtless the Mysteries, by transcending all lines of mere citizenship, prepared the way for the universal religion. On the other hand, we must beware of a too facile acceptance of this hypothesis in its extreme form. Christianity can be adequately explained only by reference, not to what it had in common with other religions, but to what was distinctive and original in it. Paul was after all a Jew (though a broad one), who always retained traces of his Pharisaic training, and who viewed idolatry with abhorrence; and the chief formative factor of his thinking was his own profound religious experience. It is inconceivable that such a man should so assimilate Gentile modes of thought as to be completely colored by them. The characteristics which his teaching has in common with the pagan religions are simply a witness to the common religious wants of mankind, and not to his indebtedness to them. What turned these religions into Mysteries was the secrecy of their rites; but in the New Testament there are no secret rites. The gospel “mystery” (as we have seen) is not a secret deliberately withheld from the multitude and revealed only to a privileged religious aristocracy, but something which was once a secret and is so no longer. The perfect openness of Christ and His apostles sets them in a world apart from the mystic schools. It is true that later the Mysteries exercised a great influence on ecclesiastical doctrine and practice, especially on baptism and the Eucharist (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, chapter x). But in the New Testament, acts of worship are not as yet regarded as mystic rites. The most we can say is that some New Testament writers (especially Paul) make use of expressions and analogies derived from the mystery-religions; but, so far as our present evidence goes, we cannot agree that the pagan cults exercised a central or formative influence on them.

    LITERATURE.

    There is a large and growing literature on this subject. Its modern scientific study began with C.A. Lobeck’s Aglaophamus (1829). The following recent works may be specially mentioned: Gustav Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen (1894); G. Wobbermin, Religiongeschichtliche Studien zur Frage, etc. (1896); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889) and Hibbert Lectures, 1888 (published 1890); F.B. Jevons, An Introduction to the History of Religion (1896); S. Cheethara, The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian (1897); R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910); P. Gardner, The Religious Experience of Paul (1911); K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul (1911); articles on “Mystery” in Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), edition 9 (W.M. Ramsay), and edition 11 (L.R. Farnell), Encyclopedia Biblica (A. Julicher), Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes) (A. Stewart); 1-volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; (G.G. Findlay); Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (R.W. Bacon); articles on [musth>rion , musterion ] in Cremer and Grimm-Thayer New Testament Lexicons; the commentaries, including J.B. Lightfoot on Colossians, J. Armitage Robinson on Ephesiansesians, H.

    Lietzmann on 1 Corinthians; 9 articles in The Expositor on “St. Paul and the Mystery Religions” by Professor H.A.A. Kennedy (April, 1912, to February, 1913). D. Miall Edwards MYTHOLOGY <mi-thol’-o-ji > . See FABLE; BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF; GREECE, RELIGION OF.

    N NAAM ( µ["n' [ ••• na`am]): A son of Caleb ( 1 Chronicles 4:15) NAAMAH (1) . ( hm;[\n' [ ••• na`amah], "pleasant"; [ Noema> ]): (1) Daughter of Lamech and Zillah, and sister of Tubal-cain ( Genesis 4:22; compare Josephus, Ant, I, ii, 2). (2) An Ammonitish woman whom Solomon married, and who became the mother of Rehoboam ( 1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chronicles 12:13).

    According to an addition in the Septuagint following 1 Kings 12:24, "her name was Naaman, the daughter of Ana (Hanun) son of Nahash, king of the sons of Ammon" (see Benzinger, Konige, in the place cited.).

    NAAMAH (2) (1) One of a group of 16 lowland ([Shephelah]) cities forming part of Judah's inheritance (Josh 15:41). (2) The home of Zophar, one of Job's friends ( Job 2:11, etc.). See NAAMATHITE.

    NAAMAN ( ˆm;[\n' [na`aman], "pleasantness"; Septuagint: Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus [ Naima>n ]; so Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek in the New Testament; Textus Receptus of the New Testament, [Neeman]) : (1) A successful Syrian general, high in the confidence and esteem of the king of Syria, and honored by his fellow-countrymen as their deliverer ( 2 Kings 5:1-27). Afflicted with leprosy, he heard from a Hebrew slavemaid in his household of the wonder-working powers of an Israelite prophet. Sent by his master with a letter couched in somewhat peremptory terms to the king of Israel, he came to Samaria for healing. The king of Israel was filled with suspicion and alarm by the demands of the letter, and rent his clothes; but Elisha the prophet intervened, and sent word to Naaman that he must bathe himself seven times in the Jordan. He at first haughtily resented the humiliation and declined the cure; but on the remonstrance of his attendants he yielded and obtained cleansing. At once he returned to Samaria, testified his gratitude by the offer of large gifts to the prophet, confessed his faith in Elisha's God, and sought leave to take home with him enough of the soil of Canaan for the erection of an altar to Yahweh.

    The narrative is throughout consistent and natural, admirably and accurately depicting the condition of the two kingdoms at the time. The character of Naaman is at once attractive and manly. His impulsive patriotic preference for the streams of his own land does not lessen the reader's esteem for him, and the favorable impression is deepened by his hearty gratitude and kindness.

    The Israelite king is most probably Jehoram, son of Ahab, and the Syrian monarch Ben-hadad II. Josephus (Ant., VIII, xv, 5) identifies Naaman with the man who drew his bow at a venture, and gave Ahab his death wound ( 1 Kings 22:34). There is one reference to Naaman in the New Testament. In Luke 4:27, Jesus, rebuking Jewish exclusiveness, mentions "Naaman the Syrian." (2) A son of Benjamin ( Genesis 46:21,6). Fuller and more precise is the description of Numbers 26:38,40, where he is said to be a son of Bela and grandson of Benjamin (see also 1 Chronicles 8:3 f). John A. Lees NAAMATHITE , ( ytim;[\n' [ ••• na`amdthi], "a dweller in Naaman"; [oJ M(e)inai>wn basileu>v ]): The description of Zophar, one of Job's friends ( Job 2:11; 11:1; 20:1, etc.). Naamah is too common a place-name to permit of the identification of Zophar's home; the Septuagint renders it as "king of the Minaeans."

    NAAMITE ( ymi[\N'h" [ ••• ha-na`ami], "the Naamite"): A family which traced its descent from Naaman ( Numbers 26:40). See NAAMAN, (2).

    NAARAH (1) ( hr:[\n" [ ••• na`arah], "a girl"): One of the two wives of Ashhur, father of Tekoa ( 1 Chronicles 4:5).

    NAARAH (1) <na’-a-ra > ([ hr;[\n” , na`arah ], “a girl”): One of the two wives of Ashhur, father of Tekoa ( 1 Chronicles 4:5).

    NAARAH (2) <na`arah > ; Codex Vaticanus [aiJ kw~mai aujtw~n, hai komai auton ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Naaraqa>, Naaratha ]; the King James Version Naarath): A town in the territory of Ephesiansraim ( Joshua 16:7). It appears as “Naaran” in 1 Chronicles 7:28 (Codex Vaticanus [ Naarna>n, Naarnan ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Naara>n, Naaran ]).

    Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. “Noorath”) places it 5 Roman miles from Jericho. The name has not been recovered, and no identification is certain.

    The position would agree with that of el-`Aujeh, about 5 miles Northeast of Jericho.

    NAARAI <na’-a-ri > ([ yr”[\n” , na`aray ]): Son of Ezbai, one of David’s heroes ( 1 Chronicles 11:37). In the parallel passage ( 2 Samuel 23:35), he is called “Paarai the Arbite.” The true forms of the name and description are uncertain (see Budde, Richter u. Samuel, and Curtis, Chronicles).

    NAARAN; NARATH <na’-a-ran > , <na’-a-rath > ([ ˆr;[\n” , na`aran ], [ tr;[\n” , na`arath ]). see NAARATH.

    NAASHON; NAASON; NAASSON <na’-a-shon > , <na-ash’-on > , <na’-a-son > , <na-as’-on > ([ Naassw>n, Naasson ]): the King James Version Greek form of “Nahshon” (thus, the Revised Version (British and American)) ( Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32).

    NAATHUS <na’-a-thus > ([ Na>aqov, Naathos ]): One of the sons of Addi who put away his foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:31). It apparently corresponds to “Adna” of Ezra 10:30, of which it is a transposition. Codex Vaticanus reads [la>qov, Lathos ], probably confusing a capital Alpha and a capital Lambda.

    NABAL <na’-bal > ([ lbin; , nabhal ], “foolish” or “wicked”; [ Naba>l, Nabal ]): A wealthy man of Maon in the highlands of Judah, not far from Hebron, owner of many sheep and goats which he pastured around Carmel in the same district. He was a churlish and wicked man ( 1 Samuel 25:2 ff).

    When David was a fugitive from Saul, he and his followers sought refuge in the wilderness of Paran, near the possessions of Nabal, and protected the latter’s flocks and herds from the marauding Bedouin. David felt that some compensation was due him for such services ( 1 Samuel 25:15 and 25), so, at the time of sheep-shearing — an occasion of great festivities among sheep masters — he sent 10 of his young men to Nabal to solicit gifts of food for himself and his small band of warriors. Nabal not only refused any assistance or presents, but sent back insulting words to David, whereupon the latter, becoming very angry, determined upon the extermination of Nabal and his household and dispatched 400 men to execute his purpose.

    Abigail, Nabal’s wife, a woman of wonderful sagacity and prudence as well as of great beauty, having learned of her husband’s conduct and of David’s intentions, hurriedly proceeded, with a large supply of provisions, dainties and wine, to meet David and to apologize for her husband’s unkind words and niggardliness, and thus succeeded in thwarting the bloody and revengeful plans of Israel’s future king. Upon her return home she found her husband in the midst of a great celebration (“like the feast of a king”), drunken with wine, too intoxicated to realize his narrow escape from the sword of David. On the following morning, when sober, having heard the report of his wife, he was so overcome with fear that he never recovered from the shock, but died 10 days later ( 1 Samuel 25:36-38). When David heard about his death, he sent for Abigail, who soon afterward became one of his wives. W. W. Davies NABARIAS <nab-a-ri’-as > ([ Nabari>av, Nabarias ] B, [ Nabarei>av, Nabareias ]):

    One of those who stood upon Ezra’s left hand as he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44). Esdras (loc. cit.) gives only 6 names, whereas Nehemiah 8:4 gives 7. It is probable that the last (Meshullam) of Nehemiah’s list is simply dropped and that Nabarias = Hashbaddanah; or it may possibly be a corruption of Zechariah in Nehemiah’s list.

    NABATAEANS; NABATHAEANS <nab-a-te’-anz > , <nab-a-the’-anz > ([ Nabatai~oi, Nabataioi ]; in 1 Macc 5:25 Codex Sinaiticus reads [ajnaba>taiv oiJ, anabatais hoi ], V, [ jAnabattai>oiv, Anabattaiois ]; the King James Version Nabathites, more correctly “Nabataeans”):

    1. LOCALITY AND EARLY HISTORY:

    A Semitic (Arabian rather than Syrian) tribe whose home in early Hellenistic times was Southeast of Palestine, where they had either supplanted or mingled with the Edomites (compare Malachi 1:1-5). In Josephus’ day they were so numerous that the territory between the Red Sea and the Euphrates was called Nabatene (Ant., I, xii, 4). They extended themselves along the East of the Jordan with Petra as their capital (Strabo xvi.779; Josephus, Ant, XIV, i, 4; XVII, iii, 2; BJ, I, vi, 2, etc.). Their earlier history is shrouded in obscurity. Jerome, Quaeat in Genesis 25:13, following the hint of Josephus (Ant., I, xii, 4), asserts they were identical with the Ishmaelite tribe of Nebaioth, which is possible, though Nebaioth is spelled with t and Nabateans is spelled with f . They were apparently the first allies of the Assyrians in their invasions of Edom (compare Malachi 1:1 ff). They were later subdued by Sennacherib (Sayce, New Light from the Ancient Monuments, II, 430), but before long regained their independence and resisted Ashurbanipal (Rawlinson, note, at the place). According to Alexander Polyhistor (Fr. 18), they were included in the nomadic tribes reduced by David. Their history is more detailed from 312 BC (Diod. Sic. xix), when Antigonus I (Cyclops) sent his general Athenaeus with a force against them in Petra. After an initial advantage, the army of Athenaeus was almost annihilated. Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, was sent against them a few years later, with little success, though he arranged a friendship with them. The first prince mentioned is Aretas I, to whom the high priest Jason fled in 169 BC. They were friendly to the early Maccabees in the anti-Hellenistic struggle, to Judas in 164 BC (1 Macc 5:25) and to Jonathan in 160 BC (1 Macc 9:35).

    2. A STRONG KINGDOM:

    Toward the end of the 2nd century BC on the fall of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Dynasties, the Nabateans under King Erotimus founded a strong kingdom extending East of the Jordan (in 110 BC). Conscious now of their own strength, they resented the ambition of the Hasmonean Dynasty — their former allies — and opposed Alexander Janneus (96 BC) at the siege of Gaza (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 3). A few years later (90 BC) Alexander retaliated by attacking Obedas I, king of the Nabateans, but suffered a severe defeat East of the Jordan (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5; BJ, I, iv, 4).

    Antiochus XII of Coele-Syria next led an expedition against the Nabateans, but was defeated and slain in the battle of Kana (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xv, 1-2; BJ, I, iv, 7-8). Consequently, Aretas III seized Coele-Syria and Damascus and gained another victory over Alexander Janneus at Adida (in 85 BC).

    3. CONFLICTS:

    The Nabateans, led by Aretas (III ?), espoused the cause of Hyrcanus against Aristobulus, besieged the latter in Jerusalem and provoked the interference of the Romans, by whom under Scaurus they were defeated (Josephus, Ant, XIV, i, 4 f; BJ, I, vi, 2 f). After the capture of Jerusalem, Pompey attacked Aretas, but was satisfied with a payment (Josephus, ibid.), and Damascus was added to Syria, though later it appears to have again passed into the hands of Aretas ( 2 Corinthians 11:32). In 55 BC Gabinius led another force against the Nabateans (Josephus, ibid.). In BC Malchus I assisted Caesar, but in 40 BC refused to assist Herod against the Parthians, thus provoking both the Idumean Dynasty and the Romans.

    Antony made a present of part of Malchus’ territory to Cleopatra, and the Nabatean kingdom was further humiliated by disastrous defeat in the war against Herod (31 BC).

    4. END OF THE NATION:

    Under Aretas IV (9 BC-40 AD) the kingdom was recognized by Augustus.

    This king sided with the Romans against the Jews, and further gained a great victory over Herod Antipas, who had divorced his daughter to marry Herodias. Under King Abias an expedition against Adiabene came to grief.

    Malchus II (48-71 AD) assisted the Romans in the conquest of Jerusalem (Josephus, BJ, III, iv, 2). Rabel (71-106 AD) was the last king of the Nabateans as a nation. In 106 AD their nationality was broken up by the unwise policy of Trajan, and Arabia, of which Petra was the capital, was made a Roman province by Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria. Otherwise they might have at least contributed to protecting the West against the East. Diodorus (loc. cit.) represents the Nabateans as a wild nomadic folk, with no agriculture, but with flocks and herds and engaged in considerable trading. Later, however, they seem to have imbibed considerable Aramean culture, and Aramaic became at least the language of their commerce and diplomacy. They were also known as pirates on the Red Sea; they secured the harbor of Elah and the Gulf of `Akaba. They traded between Egypt and Mesopotamia and carried on a lucrative commerce in myrrh, frankincense and costly wares (KGF, 4th edition (1901), I, 726-44, with full bibliography). S. Angus NABATHITES <nab’-a-thits > : the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) “Nabathaeans.”

    NABOTH <na’-both > , <na’-both > ([ twObn; , nabhoth ], from [ bWn , nubh ], “a sprout”; [ Nabouqai>, Nabouthai ]): The owner of a vineyard contiguous to the palace of King Ahab. The king desired, by purchase or exchange, to add the vineyard to his own grounds. Naboth, however, refused to part on any terms with his paternal inheritance. This refusal made Ahab “heavy and displeased” ( 1 Kings 21:4). Jezebel, the king’s wife, then took the matter in hand, and by false accusation on an irrelevant charge procured the death of Naboth by stoning ( 1 Kings 21:7-14). As Ahab was on his way to take possession of the vineyard he met Elijah the prophet, who denounced his vile act and pronounced judgment on king and royal house.

    A temporary respite was given to Ahab because of a repentant mood ( Kings 21:27-29); but later the blow fell, first upon himself in a conflict with Syria ( 1 Kings 22:34-40); then upon his house through a conspiracy of Jehu, in which Jehoram, Ahab’s son, and Jezebel, his wife, were slain ( Kings 9:25-26,30 ff). In both cases the circumstances recalled the foul treatment of Naboth. Henry Wallace NABUCHODONOSOR <nab-u-ko-don’-o-sor > ([ Naboucodonoso>r, Nabouchodonosor ]):

    Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) form of “Nebuchadnezzar” (“Nebuchadrezzar”) found in the King James Version of the Apocrypha in 1 Esdras 1:40,41,45,48; 2:10; 5:7; 6:26; Additions to Esther 11:4; Baruch 1:9,11,12. It is the form used in the King James Version of the Apocrypha throughout. In the Revised Version (British and American) of Judith and Tobit 14:15, the form “Nebuchadnezzar” is given.

    NACON; THE THRESHING FLOOR OF <na’-kon > , ([ ˆwOkn; , nakhon ]; the King James Version Nachon): The place where Uzzah was smitten for putting forth his hand to steady the ark, hence, called afterward “Perezuzzah” ( 2 Samuel 6:8); in the parallel passage ( 1 Chronicles 13:9) we have [ ˆdoyKi , kidhon ], and in Josephus (Ant., VII, iv, 2) [ Ceidw>n, Cheidon ]. In 1 Samuel 23:23 the word nakhon occurs, and is translated “of a certainty,” margin “with the certainty” or “to a set place”; also in 1 Samuel 26:4 it is translated “of a certainty,” margin “to a set place.” It is uncertain whether in 1 Samuel 6:6 it is a place-name at all; and no successful attempt has been made to identify either Nacon or Chidon; possibly they are both personal names. E. W. G. Masterman NACHOR <na’-kor > ([ Nacw~r, Nachor ]) the King James Version; Greek form of “Nahor” (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). Grandfather of Abraham ( Luke 3:34).

    NADAB <na’-dab > ([ bd;n; , nadhabh ], “noble”; [ Nada>b, Nadab ]): (1) Aaron’s first-born son ( Exodus 6:23; Numbers 3:2; 26:60; 1 Chronicles 6:3 (Hebrew 5:29); 24:1). He was permitted with Moses, Aaron, the 70 elders, and his brother Abihu to ascend Matthew.

    Sinai and behold the God of Israel ( Exodus 24:1,9). He was associated with his father and brothers in the priestly office ( Exodus 28:1). Along with Abihu he was guilty of offering “strange fire,” and both “died before Yahweh” ( Leviticus 10:1,2; Numbers 3:4; 26:61). The nature of their offense is far from clear. The word rendered “strange” seems in this connection to mean no more than “unauthorized by the Law” (see [ rWz , zur ], in BDB, and compare Exodus 30:9).

    The proximity of the prohibition of wine to officiating priests ( Leviticus 10:8,9) has given rise to the erroneous suggestion of the Midrash that the offense of the brothers was drunkenness. (2) A descendant of Jerahmeel ( 1 Chronicles 2:28,30). (3) A Gibeonite ( 1 Chronicles 8:30). (4) Son of Jeroboam I and after him for two years king of Israel ( Kings 14:20; 15:25). While Nadab was investing Gibbethon, a Philistine stronghold, Baasha, who probably was an officer in the army, as throne-robbers usually were, conspired against him, slew him and seized the throne ( 1 Kings 15:27-31). With the assassination of Nadab the dynasty of Jeroboam was extirpated, as foretold by the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 14). This event is typical of the entire history of the Northern Kingdom, characterized by revolutions and counterrevolutions. John A. Lees NADABATH <na’-da-bath > ([ Nadaba>q, Nadabath ]; the King James Version Nadabatha, <na-dab’-a-tha > ): A city East of the Jordan from which the wedding party of Jambri were coming when Jonathan and Simon attacked them and slew very many, designing to avenge the murder of their brother John (1 Macc 9:37 ff). Nebo and Nabathaea have been suggested as identical with Nadabath. Clermont-Ganneau would read rhabatha, and identify it with Rabbath-ammon. There is no certainty.

    NAGGAI <nag’-i > , <nag’-a-i > ([ Naggai>, Naggai ]; the King James Version Nagge):

    In Luke 3:25, the Greek form of the Hebrew nameNOGAH (which see).

    NAHALAL <na’-hal-al > ([ ll;j\n” , nachalal ]; Codex Vaticanus, [ Baiqma>n, Baithman ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Naalw>l, Naalol ], and other forms): A city in the territory of Zebulun assigned with its suburbs to the Merarite Levites, out of which the Canaanite inhabitants were not driven ( Joshua 19:15, the King James Version (incorrectly) “Nahallal”; Joshua 21:35; Judges 1:30, “Nahalol”). In the Talmud Jerusalem (Meg., i.1) it is identified with Mahlul. This name might correspond either with `Ain Mahil , or with Ma`lul . The former lies about 3 1/2 miles Northeast of Nazareth on a hill near the eastern boundary of Zebulun. The latter is situated about 3 1/2 miles West of Nazareth, near the southern border of Zebulun. The change of “n” to “m” is not unusual. W. Ewing NAHALIEL <na-ha’-li-el > , <na-hal’-i-el > ([ laeylij\n” , nachali’el ], “torrent valley of God”; Codex Vaticanus [ Manah>l, Manael ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Naalih>l, Naaliel ]): A place where Israel encamped on the way from Arnon to Jericho, named with Mattanah and Bamoth ( Numbers 21:19).

    Eusebius, Onomasticon places it near to the Arnon. It is natural to seek for this “torrent valley” in one of the tributaries of the Arnon. It may be Wady Waleh, which drains a wide area to the Northeast of the Arnon; or perhaps Wady Zerqa Ma`in farther to the North.

    NAHALLAL; NAHALOL <na-hal’-al > , <na’-ha-lol > . see NAHALAL.

    NAHAM <na’-ham > ([ µj”n” , nacham ], “comfort”): A Judahite chieftain, father of Keilah the Garmite ( 1 Chronicles 4:19); the passage is obscure.

    NAHAMANI <na-ha-ma’-ni > , <na-ham’-a-ni > ([ ynim;j\n” , nachamani ] “compassionate”): One of the twelve heads who returned with Zerubbabel ( Nehemiah 7:7). The name is wanting in the parallel list ( Ezra 2:2).

    In 1 Esdras 5:8 he is called “Eneneus” (the Revised Version margin “Enenis”).

    NAHARAI; NAHARI <na’-ha-ri > , ([ yr”j\n” , nacharay ]), <na’-ha-ri > ([ yr”j]n” , nachray ]):

    One of David’s heroes, Joab’s armor-bearer ( 2 Samuel 23:37, the King James Version “Nahari”; 1 Chronicles 11:39).

    NAHASH <na’-hash > ([ vj;n; , nachash ], “serpent”; [ Naa>v, Naas ]): (1) The father of Abigail and Zeruiah, the sisters of David ( 2 Samuel 17:25; compare 1 Chronicles 2:16). The text in 2 S, where this reference is made, is hopelessly corrupt; for that reason there are various explanations. The rabbis maintain that Nahash is another name for Jesse, David’s father. Others think that Nahash was the name of Jesse’s wife; but it is not probable that Nahash could have been the name of a woman.

    Others explain the passage by making Nahash the first husband of Jesse’s wife, so that Abigail and Zeruiah were half-sisters to King David. (2) A king of Ammon, who, at the very beginning of Saul’s reign, attacked Jabesh-gilead so successfully, that the inhabitants sued for peace at almost any cost, for they were willing to pay tribute and serve the Ammonites ( 1 Samuel 11:1 ff). The harsh king, not satisfied with tribute and slavery, demanded in addition that the right eye of every man should be put out, as “a reproach upon Israel.” They were given seven days to comply with these cruel terms. Before the expiration of this time, Saul, the newly anointed king, appeared on the scene with an army which utterly routed the Ammonites ( 1 Samuel 11:1 ff), and, according to Josephus, killed King Nahash (Ant., VI, v, 3).

    If the Nahash of 2 Samuel 10:2 be the same as the king mentioned in Samuel 11, this statement of Josephus cannot be true, for he lived till the early part of David’s reign,40 or more years later. It is, of course, possible that Nahash, the father of Hanun, was a son or grandson of the king defeated at Jabesh-gilead by Saul. There is but little agreement among commentators in regard to this matter. Some writers go so far as to claim that “all passages in which this name (Nahash) is found refer to the same individual.” (3) A resident of Rabbath-ammon, the capital of Ammon ( 2 Samuel 17:27). Perhaps the same as Nahash (2) , which see. His son Shobi, with other trans-Jordanic chieftains, welcomed David at Mahanaim with sympathy and substantial gifts when the old king was fleeing before his rebel son Absalom. Some believe that Shobi was a brother of Hanun, king of Ammon ( 2 Samuel 10:1). W. W. Davies NAHATH <na’-hath > ([ tj”n” , nachath ]): (1) A grandson of Esau ( Genesis 36:13; 1 Chronicles 1:37). (2) A descendant of Levi and ancestor of Samuel ( 1 Chronicles 6:26); also called “Toah” ( 1 Chronicles 6:34) and “Tohu” ( <090101> Samuel 1:1). (3) A Levite who, in the time of Hezekiah, assisted in the oversight of “the oblations and the tithes and the dedicated things” ( 2 Chronicles 31:13).

    NAHBI <na’-bi > ([ yBij]n” , nachbi ]): The representative of Naphtali among the spies ( Numbers 13:14).

    NAHOR <na’-hor ([rwOjn ;, nachor]; in the New Testament [ Nacw>r , Nachor]): (1) Son of Serug and grandfather of Abraham ( Genesis 11:22-25; 1 Chronicles 1:26). (2) Son of Terah and brother of Abraham ( Genesis 11:26,27,29; 22:20,23; 24:15,24,47; 29:5; Joshua 24:2).

    A city of Nahor is mentioned in Genesis 24:10; the God of Nahor in Genesis 31:53. In the King James Version Joshua 24:2; Luke 3:34, the name is spelled “Nachor.”

    NAHSHON <na’-shon > ([ ˆwOvj]n” , nachshon ]; Septuagint and New Testament, [ Naassw>n, Naasson ]): A descendant of Judah; brother-in-law of Aaron and ancestor of David and of Jesus Christ ( Exodus 6:23; Numbers 1:7; 1 Chronicles 2:10,11; Ruth 4:20; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32).

    NAHUM <na’-hum > ([ Naou>m, Naoum ]; the King James Version Naum): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy, the 9th before Joseph, the husband of Mary ( Luke 3:25).

    NAHUM; THE BOOK OF <na’-hum > :

    1. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. 1. The Name: The name Nahum ([ µWjn , nachum ]; Septuagint and New Testament [ Naou>m, Naoum ]; Josephus, [Naoumos ]) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament; in the New Testament it is found in Luke 3:25. It is not uncommon in the Mishna, and it has been discovered in Phoenician inscriptions. It means “consolation,” or “consoler,” and is therefore, in a sense, symbolical of the message of the book, which is intended to comfort the oppressed and afflicted people of Judah. 2. Life and Home of Nahum: Of the personal life of Nahum, practically nothing is known. In Nahum 1:1 he is called “the Elkoshite,” that is, an inhabitant of Elkosh.

    Unfortunately, the location of this place is not known.

    The Four Traditions One tradition, which cannot be traced beyond the 16th century AD, identifies the home of Nahum with a modern village Elkush, or Alkosh, not far from the left bank of the Tigris, two days’ journey North of the site of ancient Nineveh. A second tradition, which is at least as old as the days of Jerome, the latter part of the 4th century, locates Elkosh in Galilee, at a place identified by many with the modern El-Kauze, near Ramieh. Others identify the home of the prophet with Capernaum, the name of which means “Village of Nahum.” A fourth tradition, which is first found in a collection of traditions entitled “Lives of the Prophets,” says “Nahum was from Elkosh, beyond Bet Gabre, of the tribe of Simeon.” A place in the South is more in harmony with the interest the prophet takes in the Southern Kingdom, so that the last-mentioned tradition seems to have much in its favor, but absolute certainty is not attainable. 3. Date, as Related to Assyrian History: The Book of Nahum centers around the fall and destruction of Nineveh.

    Since the capture of the city is represented as still in the future, it seems evident that the prophecies were delivered some time before 607-606 BC, the year in which the city was destroyed. Thus the latest possible date of Nahum’s activity is fixed. The earliest possible date also is indicated by internal evidence. In 3:8 ff the prophet speaks of the capture and destruction of No-amon, the Egyptian Thebes, as an accomplished fact.

    The expedition of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, against Egypt, which resulted in the fall of Thebes, occurred about 663 BC. Hence, the activity of Nahum must be placed somewhere between 663 and 607.

    As to the exact period between the two dates there is disagreement among scholars. One thing is made quite clear by the prophecy itself, namely, that at the time the words were spoken or written, Nineveh was passing through some grave crisis. Now we know that during the second half of the 7th century BC Assyria was threatened three times: (1) The Revolt of Shamash-shumukin:

    The revolt of Shamash-shumukin of Babylon against his brother, the king of Assyria, 650-648 BC. (2) The Invasion of 625 BC:

    The invasion of Assyria and threatened attack upon Nineveh by some unknown foe, perhaps the Scythians, about 625 BC. (3) The Final Attack:

    The final attack, which resulted in the fall and destruction of Nineveh in 607-606 BC. (4) Probable Date:

    The first crisis does not offer a suitable occasion for Nahum’s prophecy, because at that time the city of Nineveh was not in any danger. Little is known concerning the second crisis, and it is not possible either to prove or to disprove that it gave rise to the book. On the other hand, the years immediately preceding the downfall of Nineveh offer a most suitable occasion. The struggle continued for about 2 years. The united forces of the Chaldeans and Scythians met determined resistance; at last a breach was made in the northeast corner of the wall, the city was taken, pillaged and burned. Judah had suffered much from the proud Assyrian, and it is not difficult to understand how, with the doom of the cruel oppressor imminent, a prophet-patriot might burst into shouts of exultation and triumph over the distress of the cruel foe. “If,” says A.B. Davidson, “the distress of Nineveh referred to were the final one, the descriptions of the prophecy would acquire a reality and naturalness which they otherwise want, and the general characteristics of Hebrew prophecy would be more truly conserved.” There seems to be good reason, therefore, for assigning Nahum’s activity to a date between 610 and 607 BC.

    2. THE BOOK. 1. Contents (Nahum 1 through 3): Nahum is the prophet of Nineveh’s doom. Nahum 1 (plus 2:2) contains the decree of Nineveh’s destruction. Yahweh is a God of vengeance and of mercy (1:2,3); though He may at times appear slack in punishing iniquity, He will surely punish the sinner. No one can stand before Him in the day of judgment (1:4-6). Yahweh, faithful to those who rely upon Him (1:7), will be terrible toward His enemies and toward the enemies of His people ( <34010- 8> 1:8). Judah need not fear: the present enemy is doomed (1:9-14), which will mean the exaltation of Judah (1:15; 2:2). The army appointed to execute the decree is approaching, ready for battle (2:1-4). All efforts to save the city are in vain; it falls (2:5,6), the queen and her attendants are captured (2:7), the inhabitants flee (2:8), the city is sacked and left a desolation (2:9-13). The destruction of the bloody city is imminent (3:1-3); the fate is well deserved and no one will bemoan her (3:4-7); natural strength and resources will avail nothing (3:8-11); the soldiers turn cowards and the city will be utterly cut off (3:12-18); the whole earth will rejoice over the downfall of the cruel oppressor (3:19). 2. Style: Opinions concerning the religious significance of the Book of Nahum may differ, but from the stand-point of language and style all students assign to Nahum an exalted place among the prophet-poets of the ancient Hebrews; for all are impressed with the intense force and picturesqueness of his language and style. “Each prophet,” says Kirkpatrick, “has his special gift for his particular work. Nahum bears the palm for poetic power. His short book is a Pindaric ode of triumph over the oppressor’s fall.” So also G.A.

    Smith: “His language is strong and brilliant; his rhythm rumbles and rolls, leaps and flashes, like the horsemen and chariots he describes.” 3. Integrity: Until recently no doubts were expressed concerning the integrity of the book, but within recent years scholars have, with growing unanimity, denied the originality of Nahum 1:2 through 2:2 ( Hebrews 2:3), with the exception of 2:1, which is considered the beginning of Nahum’s utterances. This change of opinion is closely bound up with the alleged discovery of distorted remnants of an old alphabetic poem in Nahum (HDB, article “Nahum”; The Expositor, 1898, 207 ff; ZATW, 1901, ff; Eiselen, Minor Prophets, 422 ff). Now, it is true that in 1:2-7 traces of alphabetic arrangement may be found, but even here the artistic arrangement is not carried through consistently; in the rest of the chapter the evidence is slight.

    The artificial character of acrostic poetry is generally supposed to point to a late date. Hence, those who believe that Nahum 1 was originally an alphabetic poem consider it an exilic or post-exilic production, which was at a still later date prefixed to the genuine prophecies of Nahum. In support of this view it is pointed out further that the prophecy in Nahum 1 is vague, while the utterances in Nahum 2 and 3 are definite and to the point. Some derive support for a late date also from the language and style of the poem.

    That difficulties exist in Nahum 1, that in some respects it differs from Nahum 2 and 3, even the students of the English text can see; and that the Hebrew text has suffered in transmission is very probable. On the other hand, the presence of an acrostic poem in Nahum 1 is not beyond doubt.

    The apparent vagueness is removed, if Nahum 1 is interpreted as a general introduction to the more specific denunciation in Nahum 2 and 3. And a detailed examination shows that in this, as in other cases, the linguistic and stylistic data are indecisive. In view of these facts it may safely be asserted that no convincing argument has been presented against the genuineness of 1:2 through 2:2. “Therefore,” says G.A. Smith, “while it is possible that a later poem has been prefixed to the genuine prophecies of Nahum, and the first chapter supplies many provocations to belief in such a theory, this has not been proved, and the able essays of proof have much against them. The question is open.”

    3. TEACHING. 1. The Character of Yahweh: The utterances of Nahum center around a single theme, the destruction of Nineveh. His purpose is to point out the hand of God in the impending fall of the city, and the significance of this catastrophe for the oppressed Hebrews. As a result they contain little direct religious teaching; and what there is of it is confined very largely to the opening verses of Nahum 1.

    These verses emphasize the twofold manifestation of the Divine holiness, the Divine vengeance and the Divine mercy (1:2,3). The manifestation of the one results in the destruction of the wicked (1:2), the other in the salvation of the oppressed (1:15; 2:2). Faith in Yahweh will secure the Divine favor and protection (1:7). 2. Nahum’s Glee over the Ruin of Nineveh: The fierceness of Nahum, and his glee at the thought of Nineveh’s ruin, may not be in accord with the injunction, “Love thine enemy”; but it should be borne in mind that it is not personal hatred that prompts the prophet; he is stirred by a righteous indignation over the outrages committed by Assyria. He considers the sin and overthrow of Nineveh, not merely in their bearing upon the fortunes of Judah, but in their relation to the moral government of the whole world; hence, his voice gives utterance to the outraged conscience of humanity. 3. Universality of Yahweh’s Rule: While Nahum’s message, in its direct teaching, appears to be less spiritual and ethical than that of his predecessors, it sets in a clear light Yahweh’s sway over the whole universe, and emphasizes the duty of nations as well as of individuals to own His sway and obey His will. This attitude alone will assure permanent peace and prosperity; on the other hand, disobedience to His purpose and disregard of His rule will surely bring calamity and distress. The emphasis of these ethical principles gives to the message of Nahum a unique significance for the present day and generation. “Assyria in his hands,” says Kennedy, “becomes an objectlesson to the empires of the modern world, teaching, as an eternal principle of the Divine government of the world, the absolute necessity, for a nation’s continued vitality, of that righteousness, personal, civic, and national, which alone exalteth a nation.” 4. The Messianic Outlook: In a broad sense, Nahum 1:15 is of Messianic import. The downfall of Nineveh and Assyria prepares the way for the permanent redemption and exaltation of Zion: “the wicked one shall no more pass through thee.”

    LITERATURE.

    Comms. on the Minor Prophets by Ewald, Pusey, Keil, Orelli; G.A. Smith (Expositor’s Bible); Driver (New Century); B.A. Davidson, commentary on “Nahum,” “Habakkuk,” “Zephaniah” (Cambridge Bible); A.F.

    Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets; Eiselen, Prophecy and the Prophets; F.W. Farrar, Minor Prophets (“Men of the Bible” series); Driver, Introduction to the Lit. of the Old Testament; HDB, article “Nahum”; EB, article “Nahum.” F. C. Eiselen NAIDUS <na’-i-dus > (Codex Alexandrinus [ Na>eidov, Naeidos ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Na>aidov, Naaidos ]): One of those who had taken “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:31), apparently = “Benaiah” of Ezra 10:30, of which it is probably a corruption or the latter part.

    NAIL <nal > : (1) As denoting the finger-nail, the Hebrew word is [ ˆrPoxi , tsipporen ] ( Deuteronomy 21:12), the captive woman “shall shave her head, and pare her nails.” The latter was probably intended to prevent her from marring her beauty by scratching her face, an act of selfmutilation oriental women are repeatedly reported to have committed in the agony of their grief. Aramaic [ rp”f] , Tephar ] ( Daniel 4:33, “his nails like birds’ claws”). (2) As pin or peg (for tents, or driven into the wall) the word is [ dtey; , yathedh ] (in Judges 4:21 the Revised Version (British and American), “tent-pin”); in Isaiah 22:23, “a nail in a sure place” is a peg firmly driven into the wall on which something is to be hung (22:24); compare Ecclesiastes 12:11, where the word is masmeroth , cognate with macmer below. (3) For nails of iron ( 1 Chronicles 22:3) and gold ( 2 Chronicles 3:9), and in Isaiah 41:7 and Jeremiah 10:4, the word is [ rmes]m , macmer ]. (4) In the New Testament the word is [h[lov, helos ], used of the nails in Christ’s hands ( John 20:25), and “to nail” in Colossians 2:14 (“nailing it to the cross”) is [proshlo>w, proseloo ].

    In a figurative sense the word is used of the hard point of a stylus or engraving tool: “The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point (literally, “claw,” “nail”) of a diamond: it is graven upon the tablet of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars” ( Jeremiah 17:1). James Orr NAIN <na’-in > ([ Nai>n, Nain ]): This town is mentioned in Scripture only in connection with the visit of Jesus and the miracle of raising the widow’s son from the dead ( Luke 7:11). The name persists to this day, and in the form of Nein clings to a small village on the northwestern slope of [Jebel ed-Duchy] (“Hill of Moreh”), the mountain which, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Little Hermon. The modern name of the mountain is derived from [Neby Duchy] whose wely crowns the height above the village. There are many ancient remains, proving that the place was once of considerable size. It was never enclosed by a wall, as some have thought from the mention of “the gate.” This was probably the opening between the houses by which the road entered the town. Tristram thought he had found traces of an ancient city wall, but this proved to be incorrect. The ancient town perhaps stood somewhat higher on the hill than the present village. In the rocks to the East are many tombs of antiquity. The site commands a beautiful and extensive view across the plain to Carmel, over the Nazareth hills, and away past Tabor to where the white peak of Hermon glistens in the sun. To the South are the heights of Gilboa and the uplands of Samaria.

    The village, once prosperous, has fallen on evil days. It is said that the villagers received such good prices for simsum that they cultivated it on a large scale. A sudden drop in the price brought them to ruin, from which, after many years, they have not yet fully recovered. W. Ewing NAIOTH <na’-yoth > , <ni’-oth > ([ twOyn; , nayoth ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Auja>q, Auath ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Nauiw>q, Nauioth ]): This is the name given to a place in Ramah to which David went with Samuel when he fled and escaped from Saul ( 1 Samuel 19:18, etc.). The term has often been taken as meaning “houses” or “habitations”; but this cannot be justified.

    There is no certainty as to exactly what the word signified. Clearly, however, it attached to a particular locality in Ramah; and whatever its etymological significance, it denoted a place where the prophets dwelt together. On approaching it in pursuit of David, Saul was overcome by the Spirit of God, and conducted himself like one “possessed,” giving rise to the proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” W. Ewing NAKED; NAKEDNESS <na’-ked > , <na’-ked-nes > : “Naked” in the Old Testament represents various derivatives of [ rW[ , `ur ] and [ hr;[; , `arah ] chiefly, [ µwOr[; , `arom ] (adj.) and [ hw;r][, , `erwah ] (noun); in the New Testament the adjective is [gumno>v, gumnos ], the noun [gumno>thv, gumnotes ], with verb [gumnhteu>w, gumneteuo ], in 1 Corinthians 4:11. In Exodus 32:25; 2 Chronicles 28:19, the King James Version adds [ [r”P; , para` ], “break loose,” “cast away restraint.” Both the Greek and Hebrew forms mean “without clothing,” but in both languages they, are used frequently in the sense of “lightly clad” or, simply, “without an outer garment.” So, probably, is the meaning in John 21:7 — Peter was wearing only the chiton (see DRESS ); and so perhaps in Mark 14:51,52 and Micah 1:8. In Isaiah 20:2-4, however, the meaning is literally (for the “three years” of Isaiah 20:3 see the commentaries). So in Genesis 2:25; 3:7, where the act of sin is immediately followed by the sense of shame (see Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, and Gunkel, at the place). A very common use of “naked” is also “without proper clothing” ( Job 22:6; 1 Corinthians 4:11, etc.), whence, of course, the expression “clothe naked.” “Nakedness,” in addition, is used as a euphemism in 1 Samuel 20:30. A slightly different euphemistic usage is that of Leviticus 18:19, which in Ezekiel 16:36,37 is played off against the literal sense (compare Ezekiel 22:10; 23:18,29). The point of Genesis 9:22,23 is a little hard to grasp, but apparently there is here again a euphemism — this time for a particularly horrible act (see the commentaries and compare Habakkuk 2:15). Possibly some of these euphemisms are due to the Massoretes (see OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS ). The Jews objected vigorously to exposure of the body (even athletes insisting on a loin-cloth (compare 2 Macc 4:12,13)), and compulsory nudity was the extreme of shame and humiliation ( Isaiah 20:2-4; Lamentations 1:8; Hosea 2:3; Nahum 3:5, etc.). The relation of this attitude to Israel’s high sexual morality needs no explanation. Buroton Scott Easton NAME <nam > ([ µve , shem ]; [o]noma, onoma ]; Latin nomen (2 Esdras 4:1); verbs [ojnoma>zw, onomazo ]; Latin nomino (2 Esdras 5:26): A “name” is that by which a person, place or thing is marked and known. In Scripture, names were generally descriptive of the person, of his position, of some circumstance affecting him, hope entertained concerning him, etc., so that “the name” often came to stand for the person. In Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4, onoma stands for “persons”; compare Numbers 26:53,55.

    1. OLD TESTAMENT WORD AND USE. 1. General: The word for “name” in the Old Testament is shem (also the name of one of the sons of Noah). The etymology is uncertain, although it may be from shamah (obs.), “to set a mark”; shum is the Aramaic form. For the name as descriptive of the person see NAMES. Besides designating persons, the name also stands for fame, renown, reputation, character gained or expressed, etc. ( Genesis 6:4; 2 Samuel 7:9,23, etc.); it might be an “evil name” ( Deuteronomy 22:14,19); the “name” is also equivalent to a “people” or “nation” (which might be “blotted out,” i.e. destroyed ( Deuteronomy 7:24, etc.)); to speak or write “in the name” signified authority ( Exodus 5:23; 1 Kings 21:8, etc.); to “call one’s name” over a place or people indicated possession or ownership ( 2 Samuel 12:28; Amos 9:12, etc.); to act “in the name” was to represent ( Deuteronomy 25:6); to be called or known “by name” indicated special individual notice ( Exodus 31:2; Isaiah 43:1; 45:3,4). Genesis 2:19,20 even displays a conception of identity between the name and the thing. “To name” is sometimes ‘amar , “to say” ( 1 Samuel 16:3); dabhar , “to speak” ( Genesis 23:16); naqabh , “to mark out” ( Numbers 1:17); qara’ , “to call” ( Genesis 48:16; Isaiah 61:6). 2. The Divine Name: Of special interest is the usage with respect to the name of God. (For the various Divine names and their significance see GOD, NAMES OF .) He revealed Himself to Israel through Moses by a new name (which was at the same time that of the God of their fathers) — JEHOVAH (which see) (Yahweh) — the nature of which should be shown by His manifestations on their behalf ( Exodus 3:13-16; 15:2,3). The “name of God was therefore not a mere word, but the whole of” the Divine manifestation, the character of God as revealed in His relations to His people and in His dealings with them ( Exodus 9:16; Joshua 7:9; 9:9, etc.). The “name of Yahweh” was proclaimed to Moses on Matthew. Sinai, “Yah, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth,” etc. ( Exodus 34:6); the name Yahweh (so revealed) was ( Exodus 3:15) His “memorial Name” (so, often, in the American Standard Revised Version; see MEMORIAL). His sole Deity was such an important element in His name that Deuteronomy 6:4 f was termed the “Shema” (from shema`, “hear,” the first word in 6:4), the first article of Israelite faith, taught to all the children, written on the phylacteries, and still recited as the first act in public and private worship “twice a day by every adult male Jew.” Where Yahweh is said to record His name, or to put His name in a place (or person), some special Divine manifestation is implied, making the place or person sacred to Him ( Exodus 20:24; 1 Kings 8:16). His “name” was in the angel of His Presence ( Exodus 23:21); what He does is “for his great name’s sake,” in fidelity to and vindication of His revealed character and covenant relationship ( 2 Chronicles 6:32; Psalm 25:11); the great things He should do would be “for a name” ( Isaiah 55:13); He would give His people a new name, “an everlasting name” ( Isaiah 56:5); to be “called by” the name of Yahweh is “to be his people” ( 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:7); it implies “protection,” etc. ( Isaiah 63:19; Jeremiah 14:8,9); to “call upon” the name of Yahweh was “to worship him” as God ( Genesis 21:33; 26:25, etc.); “to confess” His name, to “acknowledge him” ( 1 Kings 8:33,35); to love, trust, act in, etc., “the name,” was to love, trust, etc., Yahweh Himself ( Psalm 5:11; 7:17). Very frequently, especially in the Psalms and prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, “the name” of God stands for “God himself”; to “forget his name” was “to depart from him” ( Jeremiah 23:27); “to minister, prophesy, or speak” in His name signified Divine appointment, inspiration, authority ( Jeremiah 11:21; 14:14,15, etc.); we have “swearing by” or “in” the name of Yahweh ( Deuteronomy 6:13); to take His name “in vain” was to swear falsely ( Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12); we have “blessing” in His name ( Deuteronomy 10:8); “cursing” ( 2 Kings 2:24). In Leviticus 24:11, we have the case of one who “blasphemed the Name, and cursed,” the penalty for which was death by stoning (24:13-16). In later Jewish usage (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 14:21) the sacred name Yahweh was not pronounced in reading the Scriptures, ‘Adhonay (“my Lord”) being substituted for it (the vowels belonging to ‘Adhonay were written with the consonants of the Divine name), hence, the frequent term “the Lord” in the King James Version, for which the American Standard Revised Version substitutes “Yahweh.”

    2. NEW TESTAMENT WORD AND USE. 1. Character and Work of the Person: In the New Testament onoma has frequently also the significance of denoting the “character,” or “work” of the person, e.g. Matthew 1:21, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save,” etc. ( Luke 1:31; 2:21; 1:63, “His name is John”; compare the new names given to Simon, James and John; Saul’s new name of “Paul”). The “name” of God has the same relation to the character of God as in the Old Testament ( Matthew 6:9; “Father, glorify thy name,” John 12:28); it is manifested by Christ ( John 17:26; compare 17:3); the name of Jesus, as manifesting God, takes the place of the name of Yahweh in the Old Testament (compare James 2:7 with Jeremiah 14:9, and see below); to Him is given “the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow .... and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” Philippians 2:9,10 (compare Isaiah 45:23); “It is not the name Jesus, but the name of Jesus” (Lightfoot), i.e. the name (“Lord,”) received by Jesus; we have with reference to Jesus simply “the Name” ( Acts 5:41, “worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name”; James 5:14 (probable text, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek), “in the Name”; 3 John 1:7, “for the sake of the Name”); the “name of Christ” is equivalent to “Christ himself” ( Matthew 10:22; 19:29); it is the same thing as “his manifestation” ( John 20:31); therefore “to believe on his name” is to believe in Him as manifested in His life and work ( John 1:12; 2:23); “in the name of God” means sent by God, as representing Him, with Divine authority ( Matthew 21:9; 23:39); in like manner, we have “prophesying” or “preaching” in the name of Jesus ( Acts 4:18; 5:28). The “name of Jesus” represented His “authority” and “power,” e.g. working miracles in His name ( Matthew 7:22; Mark 9:39; Acts 4:7, `by what name (or “power”) have ye done this?’), and it is contrasted with casting out evil spirits by some other name or power ( Acts 16:18; 19:17). The gospel, of salvation was to be preached “in his name,” by His authority and as making it effectual ( Luke 24:47); sinners were justified “through his name” ( Acts 10:43; 1 Corinthians 6:11); sins were forgiven “for his name’s sake” ( 1 John 2:12); men “called upon the name” of Jesus, as they had done on that of Yahweh ( Acts 9:14,21 (compare 7:59); Romans 10:13,14). “To name the name” of Christ was to belong to Him ( 2 Timothy 2:19); the calling of His name on the Gentiles signified their acceptance as God’s people ( Acts 15:17 (quoted from Amos 9:12); compare Romans 1:5); to “hold fast his name” is to be true to Him as made known ( Revelation 2:13; 3:8); to be “gathered together in his name,” to “do all’’ things in his name,” is as “acknowledging him” ( Matthew 18:20; Colossians 3:17); “to baptize in” or “into the name” of Jesus Christ ( Acts 2:38; 22:16, “calling on his name,” contrasted with baptizing into one’s own name in 1 Corinthians 13, eis) is “to call over them his name” (in the rite), as claiming them for Christ and as their acknowledgment of Him or of faith in Him — becoming His disciples; similarly, to baptize “into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” represents “dedication to” God as He has been revealed in Christ. “In the name of” means “as representing” (or as being), e.g. “in the name of a prophet,” of “a righteous man,” or of “a disciple” ( Matthew 10:41,42); to receive a little child “in Christ’s name,” i.e. as belonging to Him, is to receive Himself ( Matthew 18:5; Mark 9:37; 9:41 to disciples, the Revised Version (British and American) “because ye are Christ’s,” margin “Greek: in name that ye are (Christ’s)”; Luke 9:48; compare Matthew 18:20; Mark 13:6, “Many shall come in my name”; Luke 21:8). 2. In Relation to Prayer: The significance of the name of Jesus in relation to prayer deserves special notice. To pray in the name of Jesus, to ask anything in His name, according to His promises, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” ( John 14:13; compare 14:14; 15:16; 16:23); “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask .... that your joy may be made full” ( John 16:24), is not merely to add to our prayers (as is so often unthinkingly done): “we ask all in the name of Jesus,” or “through Jesus Christ our Lord,” etc., but to pray or ask as His representatives on earth, in His mission and stead, in His spirit and with His aim; it implies union with Christ and abiding in Him, He in us and we in Him. The meaning of the phrase is, “as being one with me even as I am revealed to you.” Its two correlatives are “in me” ( John 6:56; 14:20; 15:4 ff; 16:33; compare 1 John 5:20), and the Pauline “in Christ” (Westcott, The Gospel according to John). W. L. Walker NAMES OF GOD See GOD, NAMES OF.

    NAMES, PROPER

    1. THE FORM OF HEBREW NAMES. 1. Various Types: The Hebrew proper name consists of a single word, a phrase, or a sentence. (1) Where the name is a single word, other than a verb, it may be (a) a common noun, concrete, as Barak, “lightning,” Tola, “crimson worm,” Elon, “oak,” Achsah, “anklet,” Deborah, “bee”; or abstract, as Uzzah, “strength,” Manoah, “rest,” Hannah, “grace”; or either abstract or concrete, as Zebul, “habitation”; (b) a participle, as Saul, “asked,” Zeruiah, “cleft”; (c) an adjective, as Ikkesh, “perverse,” Maharai, “impetuous,” Shimei, “famous”; or (d) a word that may be either an adjective or an abstract noun according to circumstances. Such are formations after the norm of qaTTul , as shammua` , which are generally adjectives; and formations by means of the ending -am or -on , as Adullam, Zalmon, Gideon, or, with the rejection of the final -n , Shilo(h) and Solomo(n). (2) The name may be a phrase, consisting of (a) two nouns, as Penuel, “face of God,” Samuel, “name of God,” Ishbosheth, “man of shame”; or (b) an adjective and a noun, as Jedidiah, “beloved of Yahweh” ; or (c) a preposition and one or more nouns, as Besodeiah, “in the intimacy of Yahweh” ( Nehemiah 3:6).

    When the name is a sentence, the predicate may be (a) a noun, the copula being implied, as Abijah, “Yah is a father,” Eliab, “God is a father,” Elimelech, “God is king”; or (b) an adjective, as Tobijah, “Yah is good” ( Zechariah 6:10); or (c) a participle, as Obed-edom, “Edom is serving”; or (d) a finite verb.

    This last type exhibits five or six varieties: the subject stands before a perfect, as Jonathan, “Yahweh hath given,” Jehoshaphat, “Yahweh hath judged,” Eleazar, “God hath helped,” Elkanah, “God hath formed”; or before an imperfect, as Eliahba, “God hideth Himself”; or the subject comes after a perfect, as Benaiah, “Yahweh hath built,” Shephatiah, “Yahweh hath judged,” Asahel, “God hath made; or after an imperfect, as Jezreel, “God doth sow.” Very often the subject is the pronoun included or implied in the verbal form, as Nathan, “he hath given,” Hillel, “he hath praised,” Jair, “he enlighteneth,” Jephthah, “he openeth.” Occasionally the predicate contains an object of the verb, as Shealtiel, “I have asked God” ( Ezra 3:2), or a prepositional phrase, as Hephzibah, “my delight is in her” ( 2 Kings 21:1). The sentence-name is usually a declaration, but it may be an exhortation or a prayer, as Jerub-baal, “let Baal strive,” and Hoshea, “save!” ( Numbers 13:16), or it may be a question, as Micaiah, “who is like Yahweh?” All of the foregoing illustrations have been taken from the Books of Judges and Samuel, unless otherwise noted. 2. Vocalization: The proper name is treated as one word, whether on analysis it consists of a single word, a phrase, or a sentence; and as such it is subject to the laws of accent and quantity which govern the Hebrew word. (1) A common noun used as a name undergoes the variations of pronunciation due to the custom of lengthening a short vowel in pause and to the laws which control the aspiration of certain labials, linguals, and palatals. Thus, the name Perez, “breach,” which appears also as Pharez in the King James Version of the Old Testament, occurs in the Hebrew text in the four forms perets , parets , pherets and pharets ( Ruth 4:18; Nehemiah 11:4,6). (2) In a name consisting of a phrase the normal advance of the accent as usual causes the loss of a pretonic vowel, as is indicated by the suspended letter in Jedidiah, “beloved of Yahweh”; requires a short vowel in a closed unaccented syllable, as in Mahalal’el, “praise of God”; allows contraction, as in Beth-el, “house of God”; and occasions the return of a segholate noun to its primitive form, as in Abdiel, “servant of God,” where the vowel i is an archaism which has lingered in compound names, but has generally disappeared elsewhere in speech. (3) Names which consist of a sentence are also accented as one word, and the pronunciation is modified accordingly. The synonyms Eliam and Ammiel, “God is a kinsman,” not only exhibit the common archaism in the retention of the vowel i, but the name Eliam also shows the characteristic lengthening of the vowel in the final accented syllable, so common in nouns. The four forms Eliphelet, Eliphalet, Elpelet and Elpalet, meaning “God is deliverance,” represent the variations of the Hebrew due to the causes already mentioned ( 1 Chronicles 3:8; 14:5,7; see the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). The requirements regarding the ellsion and the quantity and quality of vowels, on the shifting of the accent, are also regularly met by the various types of sentence-names in which the predicate is a verb Thus, the personal names ‘elishama` and ‘elnathan (subject followed by verb in the perfect); ‘elyaqim , ‘elyahba’ , and yehoyakhin (subject and imperfect); gedhalyah , yekholyahu , barakh’el , in which the first vowel is protected by the implied reduplication of the Piel species, benayah , `asah’el , and `asah-’el , `asi’el , chazah’el and chaza’-el and pedhah’el (perfect and subject); yigdalyahu , yibhneyah , ya`asi’el , yachdi’el , yehallel’el , yesimi’el (imperfect and subject); yerubba`al and yashobh`am (jussive and subject; u in sharpened, and o in closed, syllable; in Jashobeam the first long vowel is retained by a secondary accent, marked by metheg); nathan and yiphtach, i.e.

    Jephthah. Ibneiah shows the customary apocopation of the imperfect of Lamedh-he verbs; and the names Benaiah to Pedahel show the methods of combining the perfect of such verbs with a following element. The short vowel of the final closed syllable of the imperfect is elided, if the final consonant is permitted to begin the syllable of the next element of the name, as in Jezreel, Jekabzeel, Jerahmeel, Ezekiel, Jehizkiah (see the Hebrew form of these names); but it is not elided in Ishmael, although the consonant is attached to the following syllable; and elision is avoided, as in Jiphthah-el, by keeping the ultimate and penultimate syllables distinct. Jehucal, a Hophal imperfect, is peculiar in not lengthening the vowel in the accented final syllable, when the verb is used as a personal name. 3. Transposition of Parts: When the name was a sentence in Hebrew, its constituent parts could be transposed without changing the meaning. Thus the father of Bathsheba was called Ammiel, “a kinsman is God,” and Eliam, “God is a kinsman” ( 2 Samuel 11:3; 1 Chronicles 3:5); and similarly, in letters written from Palestine to the king of Egypt in the 14th century BC, Ilimilki is also called Milkili, the name in either form signifying “God is king.” Ahaziah, king of Judah, is called Jehoahaz (compare 2 Chronicles 21:17 with 22:1), a legitimate transposition of the verb and subject, and meaning in each case, “Yahweh hath laid hold.”

    Not only did transposition take place, but the substitution of a cognate root and even the use of a different part of the verb also occurred. Thus King Jehoiachin ( 2 Kings 24:6; Jeremiah 52:31) was known also as Jeconiah ( Jeremiah 24:1; 28:4) and Coniah ( Jeremiah 22:24,28; 37:1). The two names Jehoiachin and Jeconiah have exactly the same meaning, “Yahweh doth establish”; and Coniah is a synonym, “the establishing of Yahweh.” The Divine name which begins Jehoiachin is transferred to the end in Jeconiah and Coniah; and the Hiphil imperfect of the verb kun , which is seen in Jehoiachin, has been replaced by the Qal imperfect of the verb kanan in Jeconiah, and by the construct infinitive of the same species in Coniah. Parallel cases occur in Assyrian and Babylonian literature, among which the two forms of the king’s name, Zamama-shum-iddina and Zamama-nadin-shum, exhibit both the transposition of constituent parts and an interchange of preterite and participle. 4. Methods of Abbreviation: Twin forms like Abiner and Abner, Abishalom and Absalom, Elizaphan and Elzaphan, are not the full name and its abbreviation by syncopation, but are merely two variant, equally legitimate, modes of combining the constituent parts. The common methods of shortening were: (1) contraction by the rejection of a weak consonant or the apocopation of a final unaccented vowel, notably illustrated by the divine name yeho- at the beginning and -yahu at the end of proper names: hence, Jehoash became Joash ( 2 Kings 12:1,19), and Amaziahu became Amaziah ( 2 Kings 14:1 Hebrew text, and 8); (2) abbreviation of composite geographical names by the omission of the generic noun or its equivalent: Jerusalem, which to the Hebrews meant “foundation of peace,” was shortened to Salem, “peace” ( Psalm 76:2); Kiriath-baal, “city of Baal” ( Joshua 15:60), to Baal or Baalah ( Joshua 15:9,10; compare 2 Samuel 6:2); Beeshterah, “house or temple of Astarte,” to Ashtaroth; Beth-lebaoth, “house of lionesses,” to Lebaoth; Beth-azmaveth to Azmaveth; Beth-rehob to Rehob; Beth-bamoth to Bamoth (M S, l. 27, with Numbers 21:19); Beth-baal-meon to Baal-meon ( Numbers 32:38; Joshua 13:17); the same custom existed among the Moabites who spoke of this town indifferently as Beth-baal-meon and Baal-meon (M S, ll.9, 30); (3) abbreviation by the omission of the divine name: thus the name of the idolater Micaiah, which means, “who is like Yahweh?” ( Judges 17:1,4 (Hebrew)), was shortened to Micah, “who is like?” ( Judges 17:5,8); and similarly in the case of three other men, namely the prophet (Micaiah, Jeremiah 26:18 the English Revised Version, and Micah, Micah 1:1), the Levite musician ( Nehemiah 12:35 with 11:17,22), and the father of Abdon ( 2 Kings 22:12 with Chronicles 34:20).

    The king of Judah, Yauhazi, as he was known to the Assyrians, i.e.

    Jehoahaz, “Yahweh hath laid hold,” is called simply Ahaz, “he hath laid hold,” in the Hebrew records. The town of Jabneel, “God doth cause to be built,” was shortened to Jabneh, “he doth cause to be built” ( Joshua 15:11; 2 Chronicles 26:6; compare 1 Macc 4:15); Paltiel, “deliverance of God,” was curtailed to Palti, “deliverance” ( 1 Samuel 25:44; Samuel 3:15); Abijah, “Yahweh is father,” to Abi ( 2 Chronicles 29:1 with 2 Kings 18:2); and Bamoth-baal, “high places of Baal,” to Bamoth ( Joshua 13:17 with Numbers 21:19). Abdi, Othni, Uzzi, and not a few other similar names, probably represent curtailment of this sort. The omission of the Divine title has parallels in Assyrian and Babylonian literature: thus Nabu-nadin-ziri and Nabu-shum-ukin were called Nadinu and Shum-ukin respectively (Dynastic Tablet number 2, col. iv, 4, 5, with Babylonian Chron., col. i, 13, 16). (4) Abbreviation by the elision of the initial consonant, yet so that the remainder is a synonymous name of complete grammatical form. The name of King Hezekiah was written by the Hebrews both yechizchiyah , “Yahweh doth strengthen,” and chizchiyah , “Yahweh is strength.” The two forms interchange many times in 2 Chronicles 29 through 33.

    Similarly, Jeconiah was shortened to Coniah, as has already been noticed; the name of the town Jekabzeel, “God bringeth together,” to Kabzeel, “God’s bringing together” ( Nehemiah 11:25 with Joshua 15:21; 2 Samuel 23:20); Meshelemiah, “Yahweh is recompensing,” to Shelemiah, “Yahweh’s recompensing” ( <132601> Chronicles 26:1,2 with 26:14); Meshullam, “recompensed,” to Shallum, “recompensed” ( 1 Chronicles 9:11; Nehemiah 11:11 with Chronicles 6:12; Ezra 7:2).

    2. THE RANGE OF PROPER NAMES. 1. Personal Names: (1) Not Exclusively Descriptive.

    Simonis in his Onomasticum, published in 1741, and Gesenius in his Thesaurus, issued during the years from 1835 to 1853, endeavored to interpret the proper names as though they were ordinarily intended to characterize the person who bore them. Embarrassed by theory, Gesenius translated Malchiel by “rex Dei, h. e. a Deo constitutus”; and Simonis translated Malchi-shua by “regis auxilium, i.e. auxilium s. salus regi patri praestita”; Ammizabad was rendered by Gesenius “famulus largitoris, h.e.

    Jehovae,” and by Simonis “populum (i.e. copiosissimam liberorum turbam) donavit”; Gesenius translated Gedaliah “quem Jehova educavit vel roboravit,” Zerahiah “cui Jehova ortum dedit,” Jehozadak “quem Jehova justum fecit,” and Joel “cui Jehova est deus, i.e. cultor Jehovae”; but Simonis rendered Joel by “Jehoua (eat) Deus .... vel (cui) Jehoua Deus (eat).” Now Malchiel means “God is king,” Malchi-shua “the king, i.e.

    God, is salvation” (compare Joshua), Ammizabad “the Kinsman hath endowed,” Gedaliah “Yah is great,” Zerahiah “Yahweh hath risen in splendor,” Jehozadak “Yahweh is righteous,” and Joel, if a compound name, “Yah is God.” A moment’s reflection makes clear that these names do not describe the persons who bear them, but in every case speak of God. They emphasize the important facts that personal names might be, and often were, memorial and doctrinal, and that personal names were a part of the ordinary speech of the people, full of meaning and intelligible to all, subject to the phonetic laws of the Hebrews, and obedient to the rules of grammar. (2) Drawn from a Wide Field.

    Parents named their children, and contemporaries dubbed people, from physical and spiritual traits, whether a beauty or a blemish; thus Hophni, “pertaining to the fist,” Japhia, “gleaming,” Ikkesh, “perverse,” Ira, “watchful,” Gareb, “rough-skinned,” and Hiddai, “joyful.” Children were called by the names of natural objects, as Peninnah, “coral,” Rimmon, “pomegranate,” Tamar, “palm tree,” Nahash, “serpent,” Eglah, “heifer,” Aiah, “bird of prey,” and Laish, “lion”; or after kinsfolk or remoter members of the clan, as Absalom’s daughter Tamar bore the name of her father’s beautiful sister, and as the priest Phinehas took his strange name from the noted Phinehas, who belonged to the same father’s house in earlier days. Or the name given to the child furnished a memorial of events in the national history, like Ichabod, “the glory is not” ( 1 Samuel 4:21), and probably Obed-edom, “Edom is serving” (compare 1 Samuel 14:47; 21:7); or it told of circumstances attending the child’s birth, as Saul, “asked,” and Elishama, “God hath heard”; or it embodied an article of the parent’s creed, as Joab and Abijah, “Yah is a father,” Joel, “Yah is God”; or it expressed a hope concerning the child or bore witness to a prophecy, as Jedidiah, “beloved of Yahweh,” and Solomon, “peaceable” ( Samuel 12:25; 1 Chronicles 22:9). Sometimes the name of the tribe or race to which a man belonged became his popular designation, as Cushi, “Cushite.” All of these examples have been cited from the records of one period of Israel’s history, the times of Samuel and David. (3) Influences Leading to Choice.

    The people in general gathered names for their children freely from all parts of this wide field, but in certain circles influences were at work which tended to restrict the choice to a smaller area. These influences were religious: (a) In homes of piety conscious nearness to God on the part of the parents naturally prompted them to bestow religious names upon their children. The name may be without distinct religious mark in its form and meaning, as Ephesiansraim, “double fruitfulness,” Manasseh, “making to forget,” and yet have been given in acknowledgment of God’s grace and be a constant reminder of His goodness ( Genesis 41:51,52); or the name may be religious in form, as Shemaiah, “Yah hath heard,” and publicly testify to the parents’ gratitude to God. (b) The covenant relation, which Yahweh entered into with Israel, made the name Yahweh, and that aspect of God’s character which is denoted by this name, peculiarly precious to the people of God, and thenceforth the word Yahweh became a favorite element in the personal names of the Israelites, though not, of course, to the exclusion of the great name El, “God.” (c) Among the kings in the line of David, the consciousness of their formal adoption by Yahweh to be His vicegerents on the throne of Israel (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 2) found expression in the royal names.

    Yahweh, the God of Israel, was acknowledged in the personal name Abijah, borne by the son and successor of Rehoboam. But his was an isolated case, unless the name Asa is an abbreviated form. But with Jehoshaphat, Abijah’s grandson, early in the 9th century, the custom became established. Henceforth it was conventional for the king of Judah to have for his name a sentence with Yahweh as its subject. The only exceptions among the 16 successors of Asa on the throne were Manasseh and his son Amon, both of whom were notoriously apostate from Yahweh.

    The full name of Ahaz was Jehoahaz. Josiah’s son Shallum as king was known as Jehoahaz; and his brother Eliakim, when placed on the throne by Pharaoh-necoh, was given the name Jehoiakim. (d) Akin to the influence exerted by the relation of the kings to the God of Israel, and manifesting almost equal power contemporaneously with it, was the influence of official connection with the sanctuary, either as priests or as subordinate ministers, and it frequently led to the choice of an ecclesiastical name containing the word God or Yahweh. During the five centuries and a half, beginning near the close of Solomon’s reign and extending to the end of Nehemiah’s administration, 22 high priests held office, so far as their names have been preserved in the records. Of these pontiffs 17 bear names which are sentences with Yahweh as subject, and another is a sentence with El as subject. The materials for investigation along this line are not complete, as they are in the case of the kings, and ratios derived from them are apt to be erroneous; but evidently the priests of Yahweh’s temple at Jerusalem not only recognized the appropriateness for themselves and their families of names possessing a general religious character, but came to favor such as expressly mentioned God, especially those which mentioned God by His name of Yahweh. (4) Popularity of Names: Hard to Determine.

    Until abundant data come to light for all periods of the history, it is precarious to attempt to determine the relative popularity of the various kinds and types of names in any one generation, or to compare period with period with respect to the use or neglect of a particular class of names.

    For, first, in no period are the names which have been transmitted by the Hebrew records many as compared with the thousands in use at the time; and, secondly, the records deal with the historical event which was conspicuous at the moment, and rarely mention persons other than the actors in this event.

    At one time men and women from the middle class of society are asserting themselves in the national life, and the personal names current in the families of farmers, shopkeepers and soldiers obtain place in the annals; at another time, when the activities of the court are of paramount importance, it is mainly names that were current in official circles which are chronicled; at yet another period, when matters of the national worship engaged the attention of the state, ecclesiastics and laymen from pious families, whose names were quite likely to have a religious meaning, receive mention. Very few names outside of the particular circle concerned are preserved in the records. It is unwarranted, therefore, to draw inferences regarding the relative use of particular names, secular names, for instance, at different periods of the history of Israel, by comparing the number of these names found in a record of political uprisings in the army with the number of similar names in the narrative of an episode which occurred at a later date and in which only priests took part. It is comparing things that differ. It is comparing the number of certain names current in military circles with the number of the same names among ecclesiastics, in order to learn whether these names were more common among the people as a whole in the one period than in the other. 2. Geographical Names: The brine of its waters led the ancient Hebrews to call the Dead Sea the Salt Sea. Bethesda, “house of mercy,” received its name from the belief in the healing virtue of its waters; Lebanon, “white,” from the snows that cover its crest; Sidon on the Mediterranean Sea and Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, from their fisheries; Tyre, from the great rock in the sea on which it was built; the valley of Elah, from the terebinth tree; Luz, from the almond tree; Shittim, from the acacia groves on the eastern terrace of the Jordan valley; and Jericho, from the fragrance of its palms and balsams.

    The “crags of the wild goats” and En-gedi, “kid spring” ( 1 Samuel 24:1,2), were in a desolate, rocky region where the wild goats had their home; Aijalon signifies “place of harts,” and Etam denotes a “place of beasts and birds of prey.” The hopes of a people and pride in their town were expressed in names like Joppa, “beauty,” Tirzah, “pleasantness,” Janoah, “rest,” Shiloh, “tranquillity,” and Salem, “peace.” The resemblance of the Sea of Galilee in shape to a harp secured for it its ancient name of Chinnereth. Poetic imagination saw in majestic Matthew. Hermon likeness to a soldier’s breastplate, and forthwith the mountain was called Serion and Senir. The sanctuary of a deity might give name to a town, hence, Bethdagon, Beth-anath, and Ashtaroth. Sometimes the name of a place commemorated a victory, as rock Oreb, rock Zeeb, and Eben-ezer ( Judges 7:25; 1 Samuel 7:12); or enshrined a religious transaction or experience, Beth-el and Beracah ( Genesis 28:17-19; 2 Chronicles 20:26); or told of a migration, as when colonists gave the name of their native town to their new settlement ( Judges 1:23-26). Often the name of the founder or other famous inhabitant became attached to a town, and that for various reasons. It was often necessary to distinguish places of the same name from each other by this method; thus certain of the towns called Gibeah became Gibeath-saul and Gibeath-phinehas. The Jebusite stronghold captured by David was named by him the city of David, and was known by this name, as a quarter of Jerusalem, for many generations ( 2 Samuel 5:9; 2 Kings 16:20). The practice was common among the Semitic contemporaries of Israel, as is illustrated by Dur-sharruken, “Sargonsburg,” and Kar-shalmanasharidu, “Shalmaneser’s fortress.” A town might also be named after the tribe which inhabited it or after the ancestor of the tribe, as Daniel ( Judges 18:29), and possibly under not a few geographical designations a tribal name is hidden, even when the fact has escaped record and is not revealed by the form of the name. In an inquiry after the origin of a geographical designation the first consideration is due to the causes known to be ordinarily at work in giving rise to names of the same aspect as the one under scrutiny; and only when they fail to yield a suitable explanation are less obvious causes worthy of serious attention.

    3. CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES. 1. Derivation of Names Manifest: As a rule, Semitic words clearly reveal their origin and structure. The Semite might, indeed, err with respect to the particular meaning intended, where a word was current in several significations. Thus, the vale of bakha’ , mentioned in Psalm 84:7 (Eng. 6), is open to two interpretations: namely, “valley of Baca,” so called from the balSamuel trees in it, and “valley of weeping,” as the versions render the unusual form, regarding it as equivalent to a similar word meaning “weeping.” The plural bekha’im , “mulberry or balSamuel trees” ( 2 Samuel 5:23,14), was understood by Josephus to denote a grove known by the name Weepers (Ant., VII, iv, 1; compare Septuagint). In those rare cases where several derivations were possible, the Israelite may not always have known which thought was intended to be embodied in the name which he heard.

    But he discerned the alternative possibilities; and a parent, in bestowing a name ambiguous in its derivation, might be deliberately taking advantage of its power to be the vehicle for the suggestion and expression of two thoughts ( Genesis 30:23,24; Joseph being derivable from both yacaph and ‘acaph ). 2. The Narrator’s Only Concern: That the object of the Biblical writer was not to make known the derivation of the proper names is clear from cases like Esek, Rehoboth and Ishmael ( Genesis 16:11; 26:20,22): Isaac called the name of the well, Contention, because the herdsmen of Gerar “contended” with him; another well he called Broad Places (roomy places), because Yahweh had “made room” for him; and Hagar was directed to name the son that she was about to bear “God doth hear,” because Yahweh had “heard” her affliction. The narrator’s purpose was not to declare that the Hebrew word for contention, ‘eceq , is derived from the Hebrew verb for “contend,” ‘acaq , and that the name “God doth hear,” yishma`’el , signifies God doth hear, yishma` ‘el . These derivations and meanings were plain. The purpose was to state the circumstances which led to the choice of the name. There are instances also where no part of the name reappears in the words that state the reason for the use of the name. For example, the name Maher-shalalhash- baz is not explained by citing the words which compose it. One noun of the composite name appears, indeed, in the exposition of the meaning, but accidentally as it were, and without prominence or significance of position ( Isaiah 8:3,4). Samuel is a notable example of this method.

    Hannah called his name Samuel, saying, `Because of Yahweh, I asked him’ ( 1 Samuel 1:20). Simonis, Ewald and Nestle derive the name from shemua`’el , “heard of God.” This etymology would fully satisfy the reason given for the mother’s choice of the name; but the suggested derivation is far-fetched, for it is not customary for a Hebrew word to lose the strong guttural `ayin (`). The guttural was not lost, but was distinctly heard, in Ishmael, where there is the same concurrence of sounds as in shemua`’el .

    Qimchi, on the other hand, suggested that Samuel is a contraction of sha’ul me’el , “asked of God”; and Ewald asserts that this origin is theory of the narrator (Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, 275, note 3). This is incredible. Such a contraction is “alien to the genius of the Hebrew language’’ (Driver, Text of Samuel, 13), and the absence of the two Hebrew consonants ‘aleph (‘) and lamedh (l) before the letter “m” in the midst of the name Samuel would of itself prevent the Semite from imagining such an etymology. The derivation and meaning of Samuel were not obscure. The type was common, and was especially familiar by reason of the name Peniel, “face of God” ( Genesis 32:30 f). Samuel means “name of God” (Gesenius). As Jacob, upon his return from Paddan-aram, in fulfillment of his vow erected an altar at Beth-el as a memorial of God’s bestowal of the promised blessings and named the place thus consecrated “The God of Beth-el” ( Genesis 35:1,3,7), so Hannah having by vow dedicated to Yahweh the son for whose birth she was praying, now that her prayer has been answered and the son given, calls him “The name of God” in commemoration of the Giver. The Biblical narrator states the motive which led the mother to choose the name Samuel for her child. In this explanation no part of the name is used. Moreover, the slight assonance between shemu’el and she’iltiw in 1 Samuel 1:20 was unsought, for these words are separated in the Hebrew text, and the emphasis is placed on the gift’s being “from Yahweh.” The history of the discussion concerning this name shows how far astray criticism has been led by the false theory that the purpose of the narrator was to analyze the name and declare its derivation.

    Reuben affords evidence to the same effect. The name was known to the early Hebrews in this form exclusively. It is attested by their most ancient literature ( Genesis 29:32; 30:14; Judges 5:15,16), by the entire Old Testament, by the Greek translation (Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Lucian), by the Targums, and by the New Testament ( Revelation 7:5). Yet in the 1st century Josephus, adding a Greek termination, wrote Roubelos; and later the Syriac version gave the name as Rubil, and the Ethiopic version as Robel and Rubel. The late variation is reasonably explained as a softening of the pronunciation, which had come into vogue in certain circles. The liquids, or, to speak particularly regarding Reuben, the liquids n and l, sometimes interchanged, giving rise to two forms for a word in the same language or in kindred languages (Gesenius, Thesaurus, 727; Wright, Comp. Grammar, 67; Zimmern,. Vergleichende Grammatik, section 11a). Notwithstanding the evidence furnished by the literature, preference has been given to Reubel as the original form on the ground that “the only plausible explanation of the etymology” given in Genesis 29:32 “is that it is based on the form” Re’ubel = Re’u ba`al (Skinner, Genesis, 386). An exhibition of the etymology was needless, however, and was not the end which the writer had in view. His purpose was to state the occasion for bestowing this particular name upon the child; and in stating it he does full justice to the clear meaning of the good, simple Hebrew of the name Reuben. The name signifies either “vision of a son” or “Behold ye, a son!” In either case the emphatic word is “son.” As Hannah, taunted on account of her barrenness, besought God to look on her affliction and give her a man-child ( 1 Samuel 1:11), so Leah, using the same words, speaking of the same mercy already shown her, and with the same thought in mind, exclaimed: “Yahweh hath looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me,” and she called the name of her son “Look ye! It’s a son” (or, “vision of a son “). A male child was to her a proof of God’s regard for her misery, and a guaranty of the future love of her husband for her. Moreover, the name kept the thought constantly before the mind of her husband. Gesenius remarks that Reuben means “properly, `See ye, a son!’ but the sacred writer in Genesis 29:32 explains it as for ra’-ah (ra’uy ) be`onyi , `provided in my affliction’” (Lexicon, Thesaurus). This curious specimen of criticism may be regarded as the reductio ad absurdum of the hypothesis that the Hebrew writers intend to give the derivation of the proper names. The result of endeavoring to force the words of the explanation into an intentional etymology compels the assumption that the Hebrew writer misunderstood one of the simplest phrases of his own language and proposed a contraction impossible in itself and utterly foreign to the principles which underlie Hebrew speech. 3. Allusions Linked with Names: Allusions to proper names are made for the purpose of stating the reason for the bestowal of the name, of pointing out a coincidence between the name and the character or experience of its bearer, or of attaching a prophecy; and it is common to link the allusion with the name by employing the root that underlies the name, or a cognate root, or some other word that resembles the name in sound: (1) Statement of the reason for the choice of the name: In the case of Simeon, the root of the name is used ( Genesis 29:33). Words of this type (with the termination on) are formed from nouns and verbs, and have the force of adjectives, diminutives, or abstract nouns, and are sometimes used as concrete nouns (Stade, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Grammatik, section 296). The Israelite at once recognized the root and formation of the name Simeon, which was a favorite with the Hebrews, and he knew that it could express the abstract idea of hearing. In Genesis 29:33 the narrator is not seeking to impart etymological information; but it is clear that he discerned the derivation when he gave the reason for the choice of this particular name for Leah’s second son: “(Leah) said, Because Yahweh hath heard that I am hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.” The root of the name is used as a verb in the statement of the motive. It was convenient and natural to do so, since the verb shama` was the proper word to express the idea and was one of the most common words in the language. There would be no reason to suppose that identity with the root of the name was intentional, except that care is taken by the narrator in the case of the other sons of Jacob to maintain a similar correspondence. Accordingly, that form of paronomasia is employed where a word is used that is one with the name in derivation, but differs from the name in form and grammatically is a different part of speech.

    In the case of Cain a cognate root is used. The name is a segholate noun from the root qun , which means “to form,” and then specifically to form at the anvil. Cain may accordingly be an abstract noun and denote formation, or a concrete noun denoting a forged weapon, or the agent in the work, namely a smith. In stating the reason for giving this name to the child, it was not feasible to use the verb qun , because of the technical meaning which had become attached to it. To avoid misunderstanding the cognate verb qanah is employed, which has radically the same significance, but is without the technical implications ( Genesis 4:1). The result is that kind of paronomasia which exists between words of similar sound and cognate origin, but difference of meaning.

    In the case of Noah a root unrelated to the name in origin, but containing a similar sound, is used. The Biblical narrator does not state whether the name Noah is the transliteration of a foreign word or is its translation into Hebrew; he merely declares that as given it expressed the father’s hope that through this child men were to have relief from the ancient curse upon the ground. If the name is Hebrew, its root may be nuach , “rest.” At any rate it promptly suggested to the ear of the Hebrew the idea of rest. But the verb nuach , is used in Hebrew, as is the corresponding verb “rest” in English, to express the two ideas of relief and cessation. Lamech did not mean that his son would cause men to cease from work, but that he would secure for them restful relief from toil due to God’s curse on account of sin ( Genesis 5:29, with a reference to 3:17-19). The writer does not use the ambiguous word. To avoid ambiguity, yet with a view to preserving assonance with Noah, he employs the verb nacham , which has as one of its meanings the sense of comfort and relief. (2) The indication of a coincidence between the character or experience of a person and his name: Naomi, returning to her home bereaved and in poverty, saw the contrast between her present condition and her name; and she played upon her name by using a word of opposite meaning, saying: `Call me not Pleasant, call me Bitter; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me’ ( Ruth 1:20). In whatever sense Nabal’s name may have been bestowed upon him originally, at any rate his wife saw the correspondence between his name in its ordinary meaning and his conduct toward David, and she played upon it, saying: `Fool is his name, and folly is with him’ ( 1 Samuel 25:25). Likewise the agreement between Jacob’s character and a meaning that his name has in Hebrew was seen, and called forth the bitter word-play: `Is he not rightly named “He supplants”? for he hath supplanted me these two times’ ( Genesis 27:36). Isaac, so far as the formation is concerned, may be an abstract noun meaning “laughter,” or a concrete noun, “laughing one,” or a verb in the imperfect, “he laughs” or “one laughs” (compare Stade, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Grammatik, section 259a). Whichever specific meaning may have been in the mind of Abraham when he gave the name to his son, yet by reason of its ever speaking of laughter the name was a constant reminder to the parents of the laughter of unbelief with which they had listened to the promise of his birth ( Genesis 17:17; 18:12). But in due time the child of promise has been born. His name, as determined upon, is Isaac. This Sarah knows ( Genesis 17:19; 21:3). Accordingly, theme with which she greets his advent is laid in her mouth. She plays (puns) upon the name Isaac, using the root of the word in various forms, first as a noun and then as a verb, and giving to the verb a new subject and to the thought a new turn. Instead of the laughter of unbelief, with which the promise was received, `God,’ she says, `hath prepared for me laughter (of joy), everyone that heareth (of the event) will laugh (with joy) for me’ ( Genesis 21:6; compare <19C602> Psalm 126:2). (3) Attachment of a prophecy to a name: Paronomasia in all of its forms is used for this purpose. A meaning of the name, or a sound heard in it, or a contrast suggested by it may be played upon. In these several ways the prophet Micah plays upon successive names in one paragraph ( Micah 1:10-15). In answer to Abraham’s prayer in behalf of Ishmael, a promise is given concerning the lad, which is introduced by a play upon his name: `As for the boy (named) “God heareth,” I have heard thee’ ( Genesis 17:18,20). To Gad a prophecy is attached in Genesis 49:19. Two cognate roots are employed: gadhadh , which underlies the word rendered troop or marauding band, and gudh , which means “to press.” In the use not only of the root of the name Gad, but of a different root also that is similar in sound, it is evident that the purpose is simply to play upon the name.

    The brief oracle is uttered almost exclusively by means of variations in the vocalization of the two roots, producing one of the most successful wordplays in Hebrew literature.

    Judah is a noun corresponding to the Hophal imperfect, and means “thing being praised,” “object of praise.” In bestowing this name upon her child the mother signified that Yahweh was the object of her praise; for she said: “Now will I praise Yahweh” ( Genesis 29:35). In Genesis 49:8 a prophecy is spoken concerning Judah. The same etymology and meaning are recognized as before, but the application is different. The birth of Judah had made God an object of praise, the great deeds of the tribe of Judah were destined to make that tribe an object of praise. To quote the oracle: “Object of praise,” thee shall thy brothers praise.’ In this difference of reference and in the repetition of the significant word consists the play upon the name.

    Daniel is played upon in much the same way. The name may be a participle, used as a noun, and be rendered “judge”; but it probably belongs to that numerous class in which the names are verbs in the perfect, and signifies, “he hath judged.” His adoptive mother had called his name Daniel, because God had heard her complaint and decided the cause in her favor ( Genesis 30:6). In attaching the prophecy, the name is played upon by changing the subject, and, in order to refer to the future, by substituting the imperfect for the perfect of the verb.: `”He hath judged” shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel’ ( Genesis 49:16). See also GOD, NAMES OF; NAME.

    John D. Davis NANAEA <na-ne’-a > ([ Nanai>a, Nanaia ]; the King James Version Nanea): A female deity worshipped by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians and other Asiatic peoples, the Nana or Nanai of the Babylonians, known as “the lady of Babylon.” The name means “the undefiled,” and probably represented originally the productive powers of Nature (genetrix), and as such was the companion of the sun-god. She was identified with Ishtar in Assyria and Ashtoreth in Phoenicia, by the Greeks as Aphrodite (Clement of Alexandria Protr., 19), but sometimes as Artemis the huntress (Paus. iii.16,8; Plut. Artax. xxvii). Strabo (xv. 733) identifies her with Anaitis (=Anahita), the Asian Artemis. She was the Venus, but sometimes the Diana, of the Romans. There are many variants of the name: Anaea (Strabo xvi.738), Aneitis (Plut. Artax. xxvii), Tanais (Clement of Alexandria, loc. cit.), also Tanath, sometimes in Phoenician inscriptions, Tanata, Anta (Egyptian). In 2 Macc 1:13 ff, a fictitious account is given of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, in a temple of Nanaea in Persia, by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests. The public treasury was often placed in Nanaea’s temple; this, Epiphanes was anxious to secure under the pretext of marrying the goddess and receiving the money as dowry. The priests threw down great stones “like thunderbolts” from above, killed the king and his state and then cut off their heads. But 1 Macc 1 ff, which is more reliable, gives a different account of the death of Epiphanes after an attempt to rob a rich temple in Elymais. The account of 2 Macc 1:13 ff must be mere legend, as far as Epiphanes is concerned, but may have been suggested or colored by the story of the death of Antiochus the Great, who met his death while plundering a temple of Belus near Elymais (Strabo xvi.l.18; Diod. Sic. 573; Justin, xxxii.2). The temple of Nanaea referred to in 2 Macc 1:13 ff may be identified with that of Artemis (Polyb. xxxi.11; Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 1) or Aphrodite (Appian, Syriac. 66; Rawlinson, Speaker’s Comm.). S. Angus NAOMI <na’-o-mi > , <na-o’-mi > , <na-o’-mi > ([ ymi[Ün; , no`omi ], probably = “pleasantness”; Septuagint. Codex Vaticanus [ Nwemei>n, Noemein ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Noemmei>(n), Noemmei (n )): Wife of Elimelech and motherin- law of Ruth ( Ruth 1:2 through 4:17). She went with her husband to the land of Moab, and after his death returned to Bethlehem. When greeted on her return, she told the women of the town to call her, not no`omi (“pleasantness”), but marah (“bitterness”), “for,” she said, “the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” She advised Ruth in her dealings with Boaz, and afterward nursed their child.

    The name may mean “my joy,” “my bliss,” but is perhaps better explained according to the traditional interpretation as “the pleasant one.” David Francis Roberts NAPHATH-DOR <na’-fath-dor > ( Joshua 12:23 the Revised Version margin). See DOR.

    NAPHISH <na’-fish > ([ vypin; , naphish ]; [ Nafe>v, Naphes ], D, [ Nafe>q, Napheth ]): A son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:31). Naphish, along with other Hagrite clans, was overwhelmingly defeated by the Israelite tribes on the East of the Jordan ( 1 Chronicles 5:19, the King James Version “Nephish”). Their descendants are mentioned among the Nethinim by the name “Nephisim,” the King James Version and the Revised Version margin “Nephusim” ( Ezra 2:50); “Nephushesim,” the King James Version and the Revised Version margin “Nephishesim” ( Nehemiah 7:52); “Naphisi” (1 Esdras 5:31).

    NAPHISI <naf’-i-si > ([ Nafisi>, Naphisi ], Codex Vaticanus [ Nafeisei>, Napheisei ]): The name of one of the families which went up out of captivity with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31) = “Nephushesim” of Nehemiah 7:52; “Nephisim” of Ezra 2:50. See NAPHISH.

    NAPHOTH-DOR <na’-foth-dor > ( Joshua 11:2 the Revised Version margin). See DOR.

    NAPHTALI <naf’-ta-li > ([ yliT;p]n” , naphtali ]; [ Nefqalei>m, Nephthaleim ]):

    1. THE PATRIARCH. 1. Name: The 5th son of Jacob, and the 2nd born to him by Rachel’s handmaid, Bilhah. He was full brother of Daniel ( Genesis 30:7 ff).

    At his birth Rachel is said to have exclaimed, naphtule ‘Elohim niphtalti , “wrestlings of God” — i.e. “mighty wrestlings” — “have I wrestled.” 2. Circumstances of His Birth: Her sister’s fruitfulness was a sore trial to the barren Rachel. By her artifice she had obtained children, the offspring of her maid ranking as her own; and thus her reproach of childlessness was removed. The name Naphtali given to this son was a monument of her victory. She had won the favor and blessing of God as made manifest in the way yearned for by the oriental heart, the birth of sons. 3. Historical and Traditional Details: Personal details regarding the patriarch North are entirely wanting in Scripture; and the traditions have not much to say about him. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, he was a swift runner. It also tells us that he was one of the 5 brethren whom Joseph chose to represent the family of Jacob in the presence of Pharaoh. He is said to have been 132 years old at his death (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, viii, 1, 1). When Jacob and his family moved to Egypt, Naphtali had 4 sons ( Genesis 46:24). In Egypt, he died and was buried.

    2. TRIBE OF NAPHTAL1. 1. Its Relative Position: When the first census was taken in the wilderness, the tribe numbered 53,400 fighting men ( Numbers 1:43; 2:30). At the second census, the numbers had shrunk to 45,400 ( Numbers 26:48 ff); but see NUMBERS.

    The position of Naphtali in the desert was on the North of the tabernacle with the standard of the camp of Daniel, along with the tribe of Asher ( Numbers 2:25 ff). The standard, according to Jewish tradition, was a serpent, or basilisk, with the legend, “Return of Yahweh to the many thousands of Israel” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Numbers 2:25).

    When the host was on the march, this camp came in the rear ( Numbers 2:31). The prince of the tribe at Sinai was Ahira ben Enan ( Numbers 2:29). Among the spies the tribe was represented by Nahbi ben Vophsi ( Numbers 13:14). Prince Pedahel ben Ammihud was chosen from Naphtali to assist in the division of the land ( Numbers 34:28). Toward the end of David’s reign the ruler of the tribe was Jeremoth ben Azriel ( 1 Chronicles 27:19). Hiram the Tyrian artificer is described as “the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali” ( 1 Kings 7:14). But in Chronicles 2:14 he is called “the son of a woman of the daughters of Daniel.” Judges 5:15 does not definitely associate Barak with the tribe of Issachar; his residence was at Kedesh ( Judges 4:6); it is therefore possible that he belonged to the tribe of Naphtali. 2. Its Location in Palestine: In the allocation of the land, the lot of Naphtali was the last but one to be drawn ( Joshua 19:32-39). The boundaries are stated with great fullness.

    While it is yet impossible to trace them with certainty, the identification of sites in recent years, for which we are mainly indebted to the late Col.

    Conder, makes possible an approximation. The territory was bounded on the East by the Sea of Galilee and the upper reaches of the Jordan.

    Josephus makes it extend to Damascus (Ant., V, i, 22); but there is nothing to support this. The southern boundary probably ran from the point where Wady el-Bireh enters the Jordan, westward along the northern side of the valley to Matthew. Tabor. The western border may have gone up by way of Chattin (Ziddim) and Yaquq (Hukkok) to Kerr `Anan (Hannathon), bending there to the West, including the land of er-Rameh (Ramah) until it reached the territory of Asher. Running northward again until nearly opposite Tyre, it bent eastward, and once more northward to the LiTany (Leontes), taking in the larger part of what is called by the Arabs Belad Beshdrah and Belad es-Shukif. Nineteen cities in Naphtali are named in Joshua 19:32 ff. Among them was the famous city of refuge, KEDESHNAPHTALI (which see), on the heights to the West of the Waters of Merom, where extensive ruins are still to be seen (20:7). It, along with Hammoth-dor and Kartan, was assigned to the Gershonite Levites (21:23; 1 Chronicles 6:76).

    The land lying around the springs of the Jordan was included in the lot of Naphtali. It is clear that from this part, as well as from the cities named in Judges 1:33, Naphtali did not drive out the Canaanites. These the Danites found in possession at the time of their raid. There is no indication that Naphtali resented in any way this incursion of their kindred tribe into their territory (Judges 18). 3. Physical Features: The district thus indicated includes much excellent land, both pastoral and arable. There are the broad, rich terraces that rise away to the North and Northwest of the Sea of Galilee, with the fertile plain of Gennesaret on the seashore. The mountains immediately North of the sea are rocky and barren; but when this tract is passed, we enter the lofty and spacious lands of upper Galilee, which from time immemorial have been the joy of the peasant farmer. Great breadths there are which in season yield golden harvests. The richly diversified scenery, mountain, hill and valley, is marked by a finer growth of trees than is common in Palestine. The terebinth and pine, the olive, mulberry, apricot, fig, pomegranate, orange, lemon and vine are cultivated to good purpose. Water is comparatively plentiful, supplied by many copious springs. It was one of the districts from which Solomon drew provisions, the officer in charge being the king’s son-in-law, Ahimaaz ( 1 Kings 4:15). 4. Distinction of the Tribe: The free life of these spacious uplands, which yielded so liberally to the touch of the hand of industry, developed a robust manhood and a wholesome spirit of independence among its inhabitants. According to Josephus, who knew them well (BJ, III, iii, 2), the country never lacked multitudes of men of courage ready to give a good account of themselves on all occasions of war. Its history, as far as we know it, afforded ample opportunity for the development of warlike qualities. In the struggle with Sisera, Naphtali was found on the high places of the field ( Judges 5:18).

    To David’s forces at Hebron, Naphtali contributed a thousand captains “and with them with shield and spear thirty and seven thousand” ( Chronicles 12:34). Their position exposed them to the first brunt of attack by enemies from the North; and in the wars of the kings they bore an important part ( 1 Kings 15:20; 2 Kings 12:18; 13:22); and they were the first on the West of the Jordan to be carried away captive ( 2 Kings 15:29). See GALILEE. 5. Sites and Inhabitants: The largest town in Matthew. Naphtali today (in 1915) is Safed, on the heights due North of the Sea of Galilee, often spoken of as the “city set on a hill.” It is built in the form of a horseshoe, open to the North, round the Castle Hill, on which are the ruins of the old fortress of the Templars. This is a position of great strength, which could hardly fail to be occupied in ancient times, although, so far, it cannot be identified with any ancient city.

    It contains between 20,000 and 30,000 inhabitants. Over against it to the Northwest, beyond the deep gorge of Wady Leimun, rises Jebel Jermuk, the highest mountain in Palestine proper (circa 4,000 feet) which may be the scene of the TRANSFIGURATION (which see). The inhabitants of Safed were massacred by Sultan Bibars in 1266. The city suffered severely from earthquake in 1759; and it shared with Tibefias, also a city of Naphtali., the disaster wrought by the earthquake of 1837. It is one of the holy cities of the Jews. 6. Labors of Jesus in This District: In the land of Naphtali Jesus spent a great part of his public life, the land of Gennesaret, Bethsaida, Capernaum and Chorazin all lying within its boundaries (compare Matthew 4:15). W. Ewing NAPHTALI, MOUNT ([ yliT;p]n” rh” , har naphtali ]; [ejn tw~| o]rei tw~| Nefqalei>, en to orei to Nephthalei ]): This was the most northerly of the three divisions of the Western Range, which derived their names from those of the tribes holding chief sway over them — Matthew. Judah, Matthew. Ephesiansraim, and, Matthew. Naphtali ( Joshua 20:7 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) replaces Mount” by the hill country of”).

    NAPHTHAR <naf’-thar > (the King James Version): the Revised Version (British and American) “Nephthar.”

    NAPHTUHIM <naf-tu’-him > ([ µyjiTup]n” , naphtuchim ]; Septuagint [ Nefqalei>m, Nephthaleim ]): A son of Mizraim ( Genesis 10:13; 1 Chronicles 1:11); but, according to most modern authorities, a district or a dependency of Egypt. Among the many efforts at identification the following deserve notice: Naphtuhim = (1) Nephthys ([ Ne>fquv, Nephthus ]) in the Northeast of Egypt; (2) Na-ptah, i.e. the people of Ptah, the dwellers in the neighborhood of Memphis; (3) Nathu (according to Herodotus, [ Naqw~, Natho ]), which occurs in Assurbanipal’s Annals as the name of a part of Lower Egypt; (4) Erman (ZATW, X, 118), by the change of a letter, reads Petemhim, which signifies “The Northland”; (5) Spiegelberg sees in the word an old designation of the Delta, and would therefore render the name, “the people of the Delta” (compare Johns, HDB; Skinner and Holzinger on Genesis). John A. Lees NAPKIN <nap’-kin > ([souda>rion, soudarion ]; Latin sudarium ): In Luke 19:20, the cloth in which the “unprofitable servant” wrapped the money of his lord; compare John 11:44; 20:7; see DRESS 7; HANDKERCHIEF.

    NARCISSUS <nar-sis’-us > ([ Narki>ssov, Narkissos ]): In Romans 16:11 Paul sends greetings to “them of the household of Narcissus, that are in the Lord.” “The last words may suggest that, though only the Christians in this household have a greeting sent to them, there were other members of it with whom the church had relations” (Denney).

    Narcissus is a common name, especially among freedmen and slaves. But, as in the case of Aristobulus, some famous person of this name must be meant. Conybeare and Howson mention two, one the wellknown favorite of Claudius, the other a favorite of Nero. The latter, who was put to death by Galba (Dio Cass. lxiv.3), they think to be the Narcissus meant here (Paul, chapter xix). On the other hand, Bishop Lightfoot (Phil, 175) holds that “the powerful freedman Narcissus, whose wealth was proverbial (Juv.

    Sat. xiv.329), whose influence with Claudius was unbounded, and who bore a chief part in the intrigues of this reign, alone satisfies this condition.” Shortly after the accession of Nero, he had been put to death by Agrippina (Tac. Ann. xiii.1;. Dio Cass. lx.34) in 54 AD. As this occurred three or four years before the Epistle to the Romans was written, some think another Narcissus is meant. However, as was usual in such cases, his property would be confiscated, and his slaves, becoming the property of the emperor, would swell “Caesar’s household” as Narcissiani. S. F. Hunter NARD <nard > . See SPIKENARD.

    NASBAS <nas’-bas > ([ Nasba~v, Nasbas ], Codex Sinaiticus [ Naba>d, Nabad ], read by Fritzsche): A name otherwise unknown. It occurs only in Tobit 11:18, “And Achiacharus, and Nasbas his brother’s son,” came to Tobit’s wedding. Opinions are divided as to whether he was “brother’s son” of Tobit or Achiacharus. the King James Version margin gives the suggestion of Junius, “Achiacharus who is also called Nasbas,” thus identifying Nasbas with Achiacharus, which might gain support from Tobit 1:22 where Achiacharus is mentioned as “brother’s son” of Tobit. See ACHIACHARUS; AMAN . Codex Sinaiticus reads “Achiacharus and Nabad his brother’s sons,” which is corrected by another hand to “brother’s son” ([ejxa>delfov, exadelphos ]). The Itala gives “Nabal avunculus (“maternal uncle”) illius”; the, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) “Nabath consobrini (“cousins”) Tobiae”; Syriac “Laban his sister’s son.” This person is probably identical with the “Aman” of Tobit 14:10 (see variety of readings under AMAN) and the nephew in Harris’ Story of Achiqar and His Nephew . S. Angus NASI <na’-se > (Codex Vaticanus [ Nasei>, Nasei ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Nasi>q, Nasith ]; the King James Version, Nasith): The head of one of the families which went up with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:32) = “Neziah” of Ezra 2:54; Nehemiah 7:56.

    NASOR <na’-sor > . See HAZOR.

    NATHAN (1) <na’-than > ([ ˆt;n; , nathan ], “gift”; [ Naqa>n, Nathan ]): A court prophet in David’s reign and a supporter of Solomon at his accession. There are three main incidents in his career as depicted in the Old Testament.

    1. NATHAN AND DAVID’S TEMPLE-PLANS:

    The two parallel narratives, 2 Samuel 7:1-17 = 1 Chronicles 17:1-15, of which the former is the original, relate how David confided to Nathan his intention to build a house for Yahweh’s ark. Nathan at first blesses the project, but that same night is given a Divine message, and returns to tell the king that instead of David building a house for Yahweh, Yahweh will build a house for David: “I will set up thy seed after thee, .... and I will establish his kingdom. .... I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men” ( Samuel 7:12-14). 2 Samuel 7:13 says that “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” but this disturbs the one great thought of the passage,. which is that God will build a house for David, and which is also the thought in David’s prayer (7:18- 29).

    The word “seed” in 2 Samuel 7:12 is collective and so throughout the passage, so that the prophecy does not refer to any individual, but, like Deuteronomy 17:14-20; 18:15-22, belongs to the group of generic prophecies. Nor is it Messianic, for 2 Samuel 7:14 could not be reconciled with the sinlessness of Jesus. The message is rather a promise of the ever-merciful providence of God in dealing with David’s family. (See, however, C.A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 126 ff.) Budde, who says that the section belongs to the 7th century and is certainly pre-exilic in the leading thought of the passage, sees in the prophecy something of the idealism of Amos and Hosea, for the prophet teaches that Yahweh dwells, not in “a holy place made with hands” ( Hebrews 9:11,24), but rather in the life of the nation as represented by the direct succession of Davidic kings. This presents an extension of the teaching of Paul that the very body itself is a sanctuary unto God ( 1 Corinthians 6:19).

    2. NATHAN AND DAVID’S SIN: 2 Samuel 12:1-25 narrates Nathan’s rebuke of David for his adultery, and for causing the death of Uriah; and then comes an account of the death of Bathsheba’s child. In 12:1-15a, we have Nathan’s parable of the rich man and the poor man’s ewe lamb, and the application of it to David’s conduct. But several difficulties arise when we ask exactly what Nathan’s message to David was: 12:13 f represent the prophet as saying that God has forgiven David but that the child will die, while 12:10-12 speak of a heavy punishment that is to come upon David and his family, and 12:16 does not show any indication of a prophecy as to the child’s death.

    Commentators regard 12:1-15a as later in origin than 2 Samuel 11; 12 in the main, and hold 12:10-12 to be still later than the rest of 12:1-15a.

    Budde omits 12:9a,10ab,11,12, but regards even the rest of the story as interrupting the connection between 11:27b and 12:15b, and therefore of later date.

    3. NATHAN AND SOLOMON’S ACCESSION: 1 Kings 1 is a part of “one of the best pieces of Hebrew narrative in our possession” (H.P. Smith, Old Testament History, 153, note 2). It narrates the part that Nathan played in the events that led to Solomon’s accession.

    David was getting old and feeble, and the succession had not been settled.

    When Adonijah, who was probably the eldest son living, gave a banquet to some of his father’s state officials, Nathan, who was one of those that had not been invited, incited Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, to remind David of his promise to her that Solomon should succeed to the throne. This she did, and in the middle of her audience with David, Nathan appears with the news of Adonijah’s feast and proclamation as king. Solomon is then anointed king by David’s command, Nathan being one of his chief supporters. It has been suggested that it is only Nathan who interprets Adonijah’s feast as a claim to the throne, but this contradicts 1 Kings 1:5. Yet, whereas in the two sections treated above Nathan is the prophet of Yahweh , he is represented in 1 Kings as an intriguing court politician, planning very cleverly an opportune entrance into David’s presence at the very time that Bathsheba has an audience with the king. The parallel narrative of 1 Chronicles 28 makes no mention of Nathan, Solomon being there represented as Divinely elected to succeed David. 1 Kings 4:5 mentions a Nathan as father of Azariah and Zabud, two of the chief officers of Solomon. He is probably the prophet. 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29 refer to “the words” or rather “the acts of Nathan the prophet” as well as those of Samuel and Gad. “There can be no doubt that these are nothing more than references to the narratives in which Samuel, Nathan and Gad are mentioned in our Books of Samuel” (Curtis on 1 Chronicles 29:29). In 2 Chronicles 29:25, sanction is claimed for Levitical temple-music as being commanded by God through Nathan and Gad.

    Curtis (on 1 Chronicles 29:29) observes that Nathan is always called nabhi’ (“prophet”) in Samuel and Kings and not ro’eh or chozeh , “seer.” David Francis Roberts NATHAN (2) (1) A prophet (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 51, title). See preceding article. (2) A son of King David ( 2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5; 14:4). (3) Father of Igal, one of David’s heroes ( 2 Samuel 23:36). In Chronicles 11:38, we have “Joel the brother of Nathan”; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus has “son” in this verse, but it is impossible to say whether Igal or Joel is the correct name. (4) A Jerahmeelite ( 1 Chronicles 2:36), whose son is called Zabad, whom some suppose to be the same as Zabud ( 1 Kings 4:5). On this view this Nathan is the same as the prophet (see 1, above). (5) A companion of Ezra from Babylon ( Ezra 8:16 and 1 Esdras 8:44). (6) Nathanias (1 Esdras 9:34), one of those who had married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:39). (7) Name of a family ( Zechariah 12:12). David Francis Roberts NATHANAEL (1) <na-than’-a-el > ([ Naqanah>l, Nathanael ]): (1) One of the “captains over thousands” who furnished the Levites with much cattle for Josiah’s Passover (1 Esdras 1:9) = “Nethanel” of 2 Chronicles 35:9. (2) ([ Naqana>hlov, Nathanaelos ], Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus omit): One of the priests who had married a “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:22) = “Nethanel” of Ezra 10:22. (3) An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1). (4) One of the Twelve Apostles. See next article.

    NATHANAEL (2) ([ laen]t”n] , nethan’el ], “God has given”; [ Naqanah>l, Nathanael ]):

    Nathanael, who was probably a fisherman, belonged to Cana in Galilee ( John 21:2). According to the “Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles” (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles , II, 50), Nathanael was the same as Simon, the son of Cleopas, and was one of the Twelve. He was among those who met and conversed with Jesus during the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond Jordan (compare John 1:28). From the manner of the invitation extended to him by Philip ( John 1:45), it is evident that Nathanael was well versed in ancient Scripture, and that in him also the preaching of John had aroused a certain expectancy. His reply to Philip, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? ( John 1:46), was prompted, not by any ill repute of the place, but by its petty insignificance and familiarity in Nathanael’s eyes. To this question Philip made no direct answer, but replied, “Come and see.” It was the answer best fitted to the man and the occasion; it appealed to Nathanael’s fair-mindedness and sincerity of purpose. He responded nobly to the call, and on approaching Jesus was received with the words: “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” ( John 1:47). It was a tribute to that singleness of heart which enabled him to overcome his initial prejudice. The same candor and openness distinguished the after-interview of Nathanael with Jesus, as is evident by his question, “Whence knowest thou me?” ( John 1:48). The reply of Jesus was not what he expected. It concerned the time he had spent under the fig tree, kneeling, no doubt, in silent prayer and communion with God, and brought to mind all the sacred hopes and aspirations of that hour. It taught him that here was One who read on the instant the inmost secrets of his heart, and was Himself the ideal for whom he was seeking; and it drew from him the confession, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel” ( John 1:49).

    Although Nathanael is mentioned by name only once again in the New Testament, where he is one of the seven who witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias ( John 21:2), it is evident that the connection and companionship of Nathanael with Jesus must have been much closer than those two incidents would lead us to suppose.

    Accordingly, attempts have been made to identify him with other New Testament characters, the most commonly accepted being Bartholomew (compare BARTHOLOMEW). The principal arguments in support of this identification are: (1) Nathanael is never mentioned by the synoptists, and Bartholomew is never mentioned by John, who further implies that Nathanael was one of the twelve disciples (compare John 20:24-26; 21:2); (2) in the Synoptists, Philip is closely connected with Bartholomew (compare lists of the apostles), and in John with Nathaniel (compare John 1:45 ff); (3) the fact that most of the other apostles bear two names. Arguments are also adduced to identify him wit h Simon the Cananean (compare SIMON). Nathanael has also been identified with Matthew and Mattbias (based on the similarity of name-meanings), with John the son of Zebedee, with Stephen, and even with Paul. C. M. Kerr NATHANIAS <nath-a-ni’-as > ([ Naqani>av, Nathanias ]): One of those who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34) = “Nathan” of Ezra 10:39.

    NATHAN-MELECH <na’-than-mel’-ek > ([ Ël,m,Aˆt”n] , nethan-melekh ], “king’s gift”): A Judean official, to whose chamber King Josiah removed “the horses of the sun” ( 2 Kings 23:11). The Septuagint calls him “Nathan, the king’s eunuch” ([ Naqawv tou~ eujnou>cou, Nathan basileos tou eunouchou ]).

    NATIONS <na’-shunz > . See GENTILES; GOIIM; HEATHEN; TABLE OF NATIONS.

    NATIVITY, OF MARY, GOSPEL OF THE. <na-tiv’-i-ty > . See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

    NATURAL; NATURE <nat’-u-ral > , <na’-tur > ([ j”le , leach ]; [yuciko>v, psuchikos ], [fusiko>v, phusikos ], [fu>siv, phusis ]):

    1. AS USED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: “Natural” is the translation of leach , “freshness or vigor” ( Deuteronomy 34:7). Of Moses it is said, “His eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.” “Nature” in the sense of a system or constitution does not occur in the Old Testament. The world and men, each individual, were conceived as being the direct creation of a supra-mundane God, and conserved by His power and Spirit. The later conception of “nature” came in through Greek influences.

    In the Apocrypha, we find “nature” in the sense of innate character or constitution (The Wisdom of Solomon 7:20, “the natures (phuseis ) of living creatures”; The Wisdom of Solomon 13:1, “Surely vain are all men by nature” (phusei ), 3 Macc 3:29, “mortal nature” ([phusis ])).

    2. AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament “nature” (phusis ) is frequently found in the latter sense ( Romans 1:26, “against nature”; 2:14, “by nature”; 2:27; 11:24, also “contrary to nature”; 1 Corinthians 11:14, “Doth not even nature itself teach you?”; Galatians 2:15; 4:8; Ephesiansesians 2:3; in Peter 1:4, we have “that ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” the Revised Version margin “or, a”) ; phusis occurs also in James 3:7, “every kind of beasts,” the Revised Version margin “Greek: nature,” also “mankind” (3:7), the Revised Version margin “Greek: the human nature.” “Natural” ( Romans 11:21,24) is the translation of kata phusin , “according to nature.” Paul in 1 Corinthians speaks of “the natural man” (2:14, the American Revised Version margin “or unspiritual, Greek: physical”) and of a “natural body” ( 1 Corinthians 15:44 twice), the Greek word being psuchikos , “of the soul” (psuche ), the animal, natural, principle, as contrasted with what pertains to the higher principle of the spirit (pneuma ). In 1 Corinthians 15:46 the contrast is expressed, “Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural,” the American Revised Version margin “Greek: physical.” The “natural man” is the man in whom the spirit is unquickened, the “natural body” is that corresponding to the psychical or soul-nature, the “spiritual body” that corresponding to the Spirit as the dominant principle of the life. In Jude 1:10, we have phusikos , “naturally” “naturally, as brute beasts,” the Revised Version (British and American) “naturally, like the creatures without reason”; genesis , “origin,” “birth,” is translated “natural” ( James 1:23, “his natural face,” the Revised Version margin “Greek: the face of his birth”); and “nature” ( James 3:6, “the course of nature” the Revised Version (British and American) “the wheel of nature” margin “or birth”) (“wheel” probably means “circle of nature” (the whole creation; see COURSE)); gnesios, “genuine” (“true to right nature”) “legitimate,” “sincere,” is translated “naturally” ( Philippians 2:20, “who will naturally care for your state,” the Revised Version (British and American) “truly,” margin “Greek: genuinely”). W. L. Walker NATURAL FEATURES <fe’-turz > : As has been pointed out by various authors (compare HGHL), the principal physical features of Palestine run in North and South lines, or rather about from South-Southwest to North-Northeast.

    The lowland or Shephelah (the King James Version “vale, valley, plain, or low country”) includes the maritime plain and the western foothills.

    The hill country consists of the mountains of Judea, and its features are continued northward to the plain of Esdraelon and southward to the Sinaitic peninsula. It is rocky and has very little water. Except for the few fountains, the scanty population depends upon rain water collected during the winter months.

    The Arabah (Revised Version) includes the Jordan valley from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, as well as the depression running from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akabah. It is to the latter depression that the name Wady-ul-`Arabah] is now applied by the Arabs. It is bounded on the East by Mr. Seir or Edom, and on the West by the mountains of the Sinaitic peninsula. Its highest point, about halfway between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akabah, is a few hundred ft. higher than the level of the Mediterranean, but nearly 2,000 ft. above the level of the Dead Sea. From this point the valley slopes southward to the Gulf of Akabah, and northward to the Dead Sea. The lower Jordan valley slopes from about 600 ft. below ocean-level at the Sea of Galilee to about 1,300 ft. below oceanlevel at the Dead Sea.

    To the East are the highlands of Gilead and Moab rising abruptly from the valley, as does the hill country of Judea on the West. The country to the East of the Jordan-Dead Sea-Arabah depression, to the whole of which the name Ghaur (Ghor) is applied by the Arabs, is a great table-land sloping gradually to the East from the sharp edge which overlooks the Ghaur. It has no conspicuous peaks. What appear to be peaks when viewed from the Ghaur are irregularities of its western contour, which are invisible or appear as slight mounds to the observer who looks westward from any point some miles to the East Matthew. Nebo, for instance, when seen from Medeba is not readily distinguishable. This is because it really does not rise above the general level of the table-land. The small annual rainfall on the heights near the Ghaur diminishes eastward, and the desert begins within from 20 to 40 miles.

    Another term much used by Old Testament writers is South or Negeb, which embraces the southernmost portion of the promised land, and was never effectively occupied by the Israelites. Its uttermost boundary was the “river of Egypt” (al-`Arish ), and coincides roughly with the present boundary between the Ottoman territory on the East and the Anglo- Egyptian territory of Sinai on the West.

    The term slopes, ‘ashedhoth , the King James Version “springs,” occurs in Joshua 10:40, “So Joshua smote all the land, the hill country .... and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings”; and again in Joshua 12:7,8, “And Joshua gave it .... for a possession according to their divisions; in the hill-country, and in the lowland, and in the Arabah, and in the slopes, and in the wilderness, and in the South.” In the former passage, it seems to refer to the foothills which form the eastern or higher part of the lowland or Shephelah. In the latter passage, it might mean the same, or it might mean the descent from the Judean hills to the Ghaur. In Deuteronomy 3:17; 4:49; Joshua 12:3; 13:20, we have “the slopes of Pisgah” (‘ashdoth-ha-pisgah , “springs of Pisgah”), which denotes the descent from the heights of Moab to the Ghaur. The same word occurs in the sing in Numbers 21:15, referring to the descent to the Arnon. “Slopes,” therefore, does not seem to be a term applied to any particular region.

    The wilderness is usually the desert of the wandering, including the central part of the Sinaitic peninsula, but it is by no means always used in this sense,. e.g. Joshua 8:15,20,24, where it clearly refers to a region near Ai. “The wilderness” of Matthew 4:1 is thought to be the barren portion of Judea between Jerusalem and the Jordan. See CHAMPAIGN; COUNTRY; DESERT; EAST; HILL; LOWLAND; SOUTH.

    Alfred Ely Day NATURAL HISTORY <his’-to-ri > . See ANIMAL; BOTANY; BIRDS; FISHES; INSECTS; ZOOLOGY.

    NATURAL MAN, THE See MAN, THE NATURAL.

    NATURE See NATURAL, NATURE.

    NAUGHT; NAUGHTY; NAUGHTINESS <not > , <no’-ti > , <nes > : In the sense of bad, worthless, worthlessness, the words in the King James Version represent the Hebrew [ [r” , ra` ], changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to “bad” ( Kings 2:19; Proverbs 20:14; Jeremiah 24:2), [ [“ro , roa` ], retained in the Revised Version (British and American) “naughtiness” ( 1 Samuel 17:28), [ hW;h” , hawwah ], rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) in Proverbs 11:6 “iniquity,” and in 17:4 “mischievous.” In Proverbs 6:12, “naughty person,” literally, “man of Belial,” is in the Revised Version (British and American) “worthless person.” In the New Testament, “superfluity of naughtiness” in James 1:21 (for [kaki>a, kakia ]) becomes margin the Revised Version (British and American) overflowing of wickedness,” margin “malice,” and in The Wisdom of Solomon 12:10, the King James Version’s “naughty generation” ([ponhro>v, poneros ]) is made into “by birth .... evil.” James Orr NAUM <na’-um > : the King James Version form, NAHUM (which see), the name of an ancestor of Jesus ( Luke 3:25).

    NAVE (1) <nav > ( 1 Kings 7:33). See SEA, MOLTEN.

    NAVE (2) <na’-ve > ([ Nauh>, Naue ]): Greek form of the Hebrew proper name “Nun” (so the Revised Version (British and American)), found only in the King James Version of Sirach 46:1.

    NAVEL <na’-v’l > ([ rvo , shor ]. The Septuagint in Proverbs 3:8 suggests a different reading, namely, instead of [ 5;R,v; , shorrekha ], [ 5;r,ve , sherekha ] = [ 5;r,aev] , she’erkha ], “thy flesh”)): The King James Version translates the Hebrew sharir in the description of Behemoth ( Job 40:16) by “navel,” where modern translators have substituted “muscles”; similarly in the translation of shorer ( Song of Solomon 7:2) it has been replaced by “body.”, There remain two passages of the Revised Version (British and American) where “navel” is retained as the translation of shor. Thus we find the word used, pars pro toto, for the whole being: “It (the fear of Yahweh) will be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones” ( Proverbs 3:8). The uttermost neglect which a new-born babe can experience is expressed by Ezekiel: “In the day thou wast born thy navel (i.e. umbilical cord) was not cut neither wast thou washed in water to cleanse thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all” ( Ezekiel 16:4). H. L. E. Luering NAVY <na’-vi > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2).

    NAZARENE <naz-a-ren > ; <naz’-a-ren > [ Nazarhno>v, Nazarenos ]; Nazaraios in Matthew, John, Acts and Luke): A derivative of Nazareth, the birthplace of Christ. In the New Testament it has a double meaning: it may be friendly and it may be inimical.

    1. AN HONOURABLE TITLE:

    On the lips of Christ’s friends and followers, it is an honorable name. Thus Matthew sees in it a fulfillment of the old Isaiah prophecy ( Isaiah 11:1 (Hebrew)): “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene ( Matthew 2:23).

    According to an overwhelming array of testimony (see Meyer, Commentary, in loc.), the name Nazareth is derived from the same natsar , found in the text quoted from Isaiah. We have here undoubtedly to do with a permissible accommodation.

    It is not quite certain that Matthew did not intend, by the use of this word, to refer to the picture of the Messiah, as drawn in Isaiah 53, on account of the low estimate in which this place was held ( John 1:46). Nor is permissible, as has been done by Tertullian and Jerome, to substitute the word “Nazarite” for “Nazarene,” which in every view of the case is contrary to the patent facts of the life of the Saviour.

    Says Meyer, “In giving this prophetic title to the Messiah he entirely disregards the historical meaning of the same Septuagint reading in Isaiah 11:1, anthos ), keeps by the relationship of the name Nazareth to the word natsar, and recognizes by virtue of the same, in that prophetic Messianic name netser, the typical reference to this — that Jesus through His settlement in Nazareth was to become a ‘Nazoraios’, a `Nazarene.’” This name clung to Jesus throughout His entire life. It became His name among the masses: “Jesus of Nazareth passeth by” ( Mark 10:47; Luke 24:19). Perhaps Matthew, who wrote after the event, may have been influenced in his application of the Isaian prophecy by the very fact that Jesus was popularly thus known. Even in the realm of spirits He was known by this appellation. Evil spirits knew and feared Him, under this name ( Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), and the angels of the resurrection morning called Him thus ( Mark 16:6), while Jesus applied the title to Himself ( Acts 22:8). In the light of these facts we do not wonder that the disciples, in their later lives and work, persistently used it ( Acts 2:22; 3:6; 10:38).

    2. A TITLE OF SCORN:

    If His friends knew Him by this name, much more His enemies, and to them it was a title of scorn and derision. Their whole attitude was compressed in that one word of Nathanael, by which he voiced his doubt, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” ( John 1:46). In the name “Nazarene,” the Jews, who opposed and rejected Christ, poured out all the vials of their antagonism, and the word became a Jewish heritage of bitterness. It is hard to tell whether the appellation, on the lips of evil spirits, signifies dread or hatred ( Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34). With the gatekeepers of the house of the high priest the case is clear. There it signifies unadulterated scorn ( Matthew 26:71; Mark 14:67). Even in His death the bitter hatred of the priests caused this name to accompany Jesus, for it was at their dictation written above His cross by Pilate ( John 19:19). The entire Christian community was called by the leaders of the Jewish people at Jerusalem, “the sect of the Nazarenes” ( Acts 24:5). If, on the one hand, therefore, the name stands for devotion and love, it is equally certain that on the other side it represented the bitter and undying hatred of His enemies. Henry E. Dosker NAZARETH <naz’-a-reth > ([ Nazare>t, Nazaret ], [ Nazare>q, Nazareth ], and other forms):

    1. NOTICE CONFINED TO THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    A town in Galilee, the home of Joseph. and the Virgin Mary, and for about 30 years the scene of the Saviour’s life ( Matthew 2:23; Mark 1:9; Luke 2:39,51; 4:16, etc.). He was therefore called Jesus of Nazareth, although His birthplace was Bethlehem; and those who became His disciples were known as Nazarenes. This is the name, with slight modification, used to this day by Moslems for Christians, Nasara — the singular being Nasrany .

    The town is not named in the Old Testament, although the presence of a spring and the convenience of the site make it probable that the place was occupied in old times. Quaresimus learned that the ancient name was Medina Abiat , in which we may recognize the Arabic el-Medinat elbaidah , “the white town.” Built of the white stone supplied by the limestone rocks around, the description is quite accurate. There is a reference in Mishna (Menachoth viii.6) to the “white house of the hill” whence wine for the drink offering was brought. An elegy for the 9th of Abib speaks of a “course” of priests settled in Nazareth. This, however, is based upon an ancient midhrash now lost (Neubauer, Geogr. du Talmud , 82, 85, 190; Delitzsch, Ein Tag in Capernaum , 142). But all this leaves us still in a state of uncertainty.

    2. POSITION AND PHYSICAL FEATURES:

    The ancient town is represented by the modern en-Nacirah , which is built mainly on the western and northwestern slopes of a hollow among the lower hills of Galilee, just before they sink into the plain of Esdraelon. It lies about midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean at Haifa. The road to the plain and the coast goes over the southwestern lip of the hollow; that to Tiberias and Damascus over the heights to the Northeast. A rocky gorge breaks down southward, issuing on the plain between two craggy hills. That to the West is the traditional Hill of Precipitation ( Luke 4:29). This, however, is too far from the city as it must have been in the days of Christ. It is probable that the present town occupies pretty nearly the ancient site; and the scene of that attempt on Jesus’ life may have been the cliff, many feet in height, not far from the old synagogue, traces of which are still seen in the western part of the town.

    There is a good spring under the Greek Orthodox church at the foot of the hill on the North. The water is led in a conduit to the fountain, whither the women and their children go as in old times, to carry home in their jars supplies for domestic use. There is also a tiny spring in the face of the western hill. To the Northwest rises the height on which stands the sanctuary, now in ruins, of Neby Sa`in . From this point a most beautiful and extensive view is obtained, ranging on a clear day from the Mediterranean on the West to the Mountain of Bashan on the East; from Upper Galilee and Matthew. Hermon on the North to the uplands of Gilead and Samaria on the South The whole extent of Esdraelon is seen, that great battlefield, associated with so many heroic exploits in Israel’s history, from Carmel and Megiddo to Tabor and Matthew. Gilboa.

    3. PRESENT INHABITANTS:

    There are now some 7,000 inhabitants, mainly Christian, of whom the Greek Orthodox church claims about 3,000. Moslems number about 1,600.

    There are no Jews. It is the chief market town for the pastoral and agricultural district that lies around it.

    4. LABORS OF JESUS:

    In Nazareth, Jesus preached His first recorded sermon ( Luke 4:16 ff), when His plainness of speech aroused the homicidal fury of His hearers. “He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief” ( Matthew 13:58). Finding no rest or security in Nazareth, He made His home in Capernaum. The reproach implied in Nathanael’s question, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” ( John 1:46), has led to much speculation. By ingenious emendation of the text Cheyne would read, “Can the Holy One proceed from Nazareth?” (EB, under the word). Perhaps, however, we should see no more in this than the acquiescence of Nathanael’s humble spirit in the lowly estimate of his native province entertained by the leaders of his people in Judea.

    5. LATER HISTORY:

    Christians are said to have first settled here in the time of Constantine (Epiphanius), whose mother Helena built the Church of the Annunciation.

    In crusading times it was the seat of the bishop of Bethscan. It passed into Moslem hands after the disaster to the Crusaders at Hattin (1183). It was destroyed by Sultan Bibars in 1263. In 1620 the Franciscans rebuilt the Church of the Annunciation, and the town rose again from its ruins. Here in 1799 the French general Junot was assailed by the Turks. After his brilliant victory over the Turks at Tabor, Napoleon visited Nazareth. The place suffered some damage in the earthquake of 1837.

    Protestant Missions are now represented in Nazareth by agents of the Church Missionary Society, and of the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society. W. Ewing NAZIRITE <naz’-i-rit > ([ ryzin; , nazir ], connected with [ rd”n; , nadhar ], “to vow”; [nazei>r, nazeir ], [nazeirai~ov, nazeiraios ], as also various words indicating “holiness” or “devotion”; the King James Version, Nazarite):

    The root-meaning of the word in Hebrew as well as the various Greek translations indicates the Nazirite as “a consecrated one” or “a devotee.” In the circumstances of an ordinary vow, men consecrated some material possession, but the Nazirite consecrated himself or herself, and took a vow of separation and self-imposed discipline for the purpose of some special service, and the fact of the vow was indicated by special signs of abstinence. The chief Old Testament passages are Judges 13:5-7; 16:17; Numbers 6; Amos 2:11,12; compare Sirach 46:13 (Hebrew); 1 Macc 3:49-52.

    1. ANTIQUITY AND ORIGIN:

    The question has been raised as to whether the Nazirite vow was of native or foreign origin in Israel.The idea of special separation, however, seems in all ages to have appealed to men of a particular temperament, and we find something of the kind in many countries and always linked with special abstinence of some kind; and from all that is said in the Pentateuch we should infer that the custom was already ancient in Israel and that Mosaism regulated it, bringing it into line with the general system of religious observance and under the cognizance of the Aaronic priests. The critics assign the section dealing with this matter ( Numbers 6:1-21) to the Priestly Code (P), and give it a late date, but there cannot be the least doubt that the institution itself was early. It seems not unlikely that on the settlement in Canaan, when the Israelites, having failed to overcome the native population, began to mix freely with them, the local worship, full of tempting Dionysiac elements, brought forth this religious protest in favor of Israel’s ancient and simpler way of living, and as a protection against luxury in settling nomads. It is worthy of note that among the Semites vine-growing and wine-drinking have ever been considered foreign to their traditional nomadic mode of life. It was in this same protest that the Rechabites, who were at least akin to the Nazirites, went still farther in refusing even in Canaan to abandon the nomadic state. See RECHABITES.

    2. CONDITIONS OF THE VOW:

    The Pentateuch, then, makes provision for the Nazirite vow being taken by either men or women, though the Old Testament does not record a single instance of a female Nazirite. Further, it provides only for the taking of the vow for a limited time, that is, for the case of the “Nazirite of days.” No period of duration is mentioned in the Old Testament, but the Mishna, in dealing with the subject, prescribes a period of 30 days, while a double period of 60 or even a triple one of 100 days might be entered on. The conditions of Naziritism entailed: (1) the strictest abstinence from wine and from every product of the vine; (2) the keeping of the hair uncut and the beard untouched by a razor; (3) the prohibition to touch a dead body; and (4) prohibition of unclean food ( Judges 13:5-7; Numbers 6).

    3. INITIATION:

    The ceremonial of initiation is not recorded, the Pentateuch treating it as well known. The Talmud tells us that it was only necessary for one to express the wish that he might be a Nazirite. A formal vow was, however, taken; and from the form of renewal of the vow, when by any means it was accidentally broken, we may judge that the head was also shorn on initiation and the hair allowed to grow during the whole period of the vow.

    4. RESTORATION:

    The accidental violation of the vow just mentioned entailed upon the devotee the beginning of the whole matter anew and the serving of the whole period. This was entered on by the ceremonial of restoration, in the undergoing of which the Nazirite shaved his head, presented two turtledoves or two young pigeons for sin and burnt offerings, and re-consecrated himself before the priest, further presenting a lamb for a trespass offering ( Numbers 6:9-12).

    5. COMPLETION AND RELEASE:

    When the period of separation was complete, the ceremonial of release had to be gone through. It consisted of the presentation of burnt, sin and peace offerings with their accompaniments as detailed in Numbers 6:13-21, the shaving of the head and the burning of the hair of the head of separation, after which the Nazirite returned to ordinary life.

    6. SEMI-SACERDOTAL CHARACTER:

    The consecration of the Nazirite in some ways resembled that of the priests, and similar words are used of both in Leviticus 21:12 and Numbers 6:17, the priest’s vow being even designated nezer . It opened up the way for any Israelite to do special service on something like semisacerdotal lines. The priest, like the Nazirite, dared not come into contact with the dead ( Leviticus 21:1), dared not touch wine during the period of service ( Leviticus 10:9), and, further, long hair was an ancient priestly custom ( Ezekiel 44:20).

    7. NAZIRITES FOR LIFE:

    The only “Nazirites for life” that we know by name are Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist, but to these Jewish tradition adds Absalom in virtue of his long hair. We know of no one voluntarily taking the vow for life, all the cases recorded being those of parents dedicating their children. In rabbinical times, the father but not the mother might vow for the child, and an interesting case of this kind is mentioned in the dedication of Rabbi Chanena by his father in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel (Nazir, 29b).

    8. SAMSON’S CASE:

    Samson is distinctly named a Nazirite in Judges 13:7 and 16:17, but it has been objected that his case does not conform to the regulations in the Pentateuch. It is said that he must have partaken of wine when he made a feast for his friends, but that does not follow and would not be so understood, say, in a Moslem country today. It is further urged that in connection with his fighting he must have come into contact with many dead men, and that he took honey from the carcass of the lion. To us these objections seem hypercritical. Fighting was specially implied in his vow ( Judges 13:5), and the remains of the lion would be buy a dry skeleton and not even so defiling as the ass’s jawbone, to which the critics do not object.

    9. SAMUEL’S CASE:

    Samuel is nowhere in the Old Testament called a Nazirite, the name being first applied to him in Sirach 46:13 (Hebrew), but the restrictions of his dedication seem to imply that he was. Wellhausen denies that it is implied in 1 Samuel 1:11 that he was either a Nathin (“a gift, (one) `given’ unto Yahweh”; compare Numbers 3:9; 18:6) or a Nazirite. In the Hebrew text the mother’s vow mentions only the uncut hair, and first in Septuagint is there added that he should not drink wine or strong drink, but this is one of the cases where we should not regard silence as final evidence. Rather it is to be regarded that the visible sign only is mentioned, the whole contents of the vow being implied.

    10. TOKEN OF DIVINE FAVOR:

    It is very likely that Nazirites became numerous in Israel in periods of great religious or political excitement, and in Judges 5:2 we may paraphrase, `For the long-haired champions in Israel.’ That they should be raised up was considered a special token of God’s favor to Israel, and the tempting of them to break their vow by drinking wine was considered an aggravated sin ( Amos 2:11,12). At the time of the captivity they were looked upon as a vanished glory in Israel ( Lamentations 4:7 margin), but they reappeared in later history.

    11. DID NOT FORM COMMUNITIES:

    So far as we can discover, there is no indication that they formed guilds or settled communities like the “Sons of the Prophets.” In some sense the Essenes may have continued the tradition, and James, the Lord’s brother (Euseb., HE, II, xxiii, 3, following Hegesippus), and also Banns, tutor of Josephus (Vita, 2), who is probably the same as the Buni mentioned as a disciple of Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a, were devotees of a kind resembling Nazirites. Berenice’s vow was also manifestly that of the Nazirite (Josephus, B J, II, xv, 1).

    12. AMONG EARLY CHRISTIANS:

    The case of John the Baptist is quite certain, and it was probably the means of introducing the custom among the early Christians. It was clearly a Nazirite’s vow which Paul took, “having shorn his head in Cenchrea” ( Acts 18:18), and which he completed at Jerusalem with other Christians similarly placed ( Acts 21:23).

    As the expenses of release were heavy for poor men, such were at times aided in this matter by their richer brethren. Thus, Agrippa, on his return from Rome, assisted many Nazirites (Josephus, Ant., XIX, vi, 1), and Paul was also at charges with others ( Acts 21:23).

    We come across something of the same kind in many countries, and we find special abstinence always emphasized. Thus we meet with a class of “votaries” as early as the days of Hammurabi, and his code devotes quite a number of sections to them. Among other restrictions they were prohibited from even entering a wineshop (Sect, 110).

    13. PARALLELS AMONG OTHER PEOPLES:

    Then we are familiar with the Hierodouloi of the Greeks, and the Vestal Virgins of the Romans. The word [nezir] also appears in Syriac and was applied to the maidens devoted to the service of Belthis. In the East, too, there have always been individuals and societies of ascetics who were practically Nazirites, and the modern dervish in nearly every way resembles him, while it is worthy of record in this connection that the Moslem (an abstainer by creed) while under the vow of pilgrimage neither cuts his hair nor pares his nails till the completion of his vow in Mecca. W. M. Christie NEAH <ne’-a > ([ h[;Nehemiah” , ha-ne`ah ], “the neah”; [ jAnnoua>, Annoua ]): A town in the lot of Zebulun ( Joshua 19:13), mentioned along with Gathhepher and Rimmon. It is possibly identical with “Neiel” ( Joshua 19:27). No name resembling either of these has yet been recovered, although the district in which the place must be sought is pretty definitely indicated. It may probably have lain to the North of Rimmon (Rummaneh ), about 4 miles Northeast of Seffuriyeh .

    NEAPOLIS <ne-ap’-o-lis > ([ Nea>poliv, Neapolis ]; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Nea Polis): A town on the northern shore the Aegean, originally belonging to Thrace but later falling within the Roman province of Macedonia. It was the seaport of Philippi, and was the first point in Europe at which Paul and his companions landed; from Troas they had sailed direct to Samothrace, and on the next day reached Neapolis ( Acts 16:11). Paul probably passed through the town again on his second visit to Macedonia ( Acts 20:1), and he certainly must have embarked there on his last journey from Philippi to Troas, which occupied 5 days ( Acts 20:6). The position of Neapolis is a matter of dispute. Some writers have maintained that it lay on the site known as Eski (i.e. “Old”) Kavalla (Cousinery, Macedoine, II, 109 ff), and that upon its destruction in the 6th or 7th century AD the inhabitants migrated to the place, about 10 miles to the East, called Christopolis in medieval and Kavalla in modern times. But the general view, and that which is most consonant with the evidence, both literary and archaeological, places Neapolis at Kavalla, which lies on a rocky headland with a spacious harbor on its western side, in which the fleet of Brutus and Cassius was moored at the time of the battle of Philippi (42 BC; Appian Bell. Civ. iv.106). The town lay some 10 Roman miles from Philippi, with which it was connected by a road leading over the mountain ridge named Symbolum, which separates the plain of Philippi from the sea.

    The date of its foundation is uncertain, but it seems to have been a colony from the island of Thasos, which lay opposite to it (Dio Cassius xlvii.35). It appears (under the name Neopolis, which is also borne on its coins) as member both of the first and of the second Athenian confederacy, and was highly commended by the Athenians in an extant decree for its loyalty during the Thasian revolt of 411-408 BC (Inser. Graec., I, Suppl. 51). The chief cult of the city was that of “The Virgin,” usually identified with the Greek Artemis. (See Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, 180; Cousinery, Voyage dans la Macedoine, II, 69 ff, 109 ff; Heuzey and Daumet, Mission archeol. de Macedoine, 11 ff.) M. N. Tod NEAR, NIGH <ner > , <ni > (chiefly [ bwOrq; , qarobh ], “to draw near,” [ br”q; , qarabh ]; [ejggu>v, eggus ]): Used of proximity in place ( Genesis 19:20; 45:10; Exodus 13:17; Psalm 22:11; John 3:23, etc.), time ( Jeremiah 48:16; Ezekiel 7:7; 30:3; Mark 13:28), or kinship ( Leviticus 21:2; Ruth 3:12), but also employed of moral nearness. Yahweh is “nigh” to them that are of a broken heart ( Psalm 34:18). God draws nigh to His people, and they to Him ( James 4:8). The antithesis is God’s “farness” from the wicked.

    NEARIAH <ne-a-ri’-a > ([ hy;r][“n] , ne`aryah ]): (1) A descendant of David ( 1 Chronicles 3:22 f). (2) A descendant of Simeon ( 1 Chronicles 4:42).

    In both instances the Septuagint reads “Noadiah.”

    NEBAI <ne’-bi > , <ne-ba’-i > , <neb’-a-i > ([ yb”yne , nebhay ]). See NOBAI.

    NEBAIOTH <ne-ba’-yoth > , <ne-bi’-oth > ([ tyOb;n] , twOyb;n] , nabhayoth ]; Septuagint [ Nabaiw>q, Nabaioth ]): Firstborn of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:13; 28:9; 36:3; 1 Chronicles 1:29). Isaiah 60:7 mentions the tribe Nebaioth with Kedar, with an allusion to its pastoral nature: “the rams of Nebaioth” are to serve the ideal Zion as sacrificial victims. Again associated with Kedar, the name occurs frequently in Assyrian inscriptions. The tribe must have had a conspicuous place among the northern Arabs. Josephus, followed by Jerome, regarded Nebaioth as identical with the Nabateans, the great trading community and ally of Rome, whose capital and stronghold was Petra. This view is widely accepted, but the name “Nabatean” is spelled with a “T” (teth), and the interchange of “T” (teth) and “t” (taw), although not unparalleled, is unusual. If the name is Arabic, it is probably a feminine plural, and in that ease could have no connection with the Nabateans. A. S. Fulton NEBALLAT <ne-bal’-at > ([ fL;b”n] , nebhallaT ]; [ Naballa>t, Naballat ]): A town occupied by the Benjamites after the exile, named along with Lod and Ono ( Nehemiah 11:34). It is represented by the modern Belt Nebala, 4 miles Northeast of Lydda.

    NEBAT <ne’-bat > ([ fb;n] , nebhaT ]): Father of Jeroboam I ( 1 Kings 11:26, and frequently elsewhere). The name occurs only in the phrase “Jeroboam the son of Nebat,” and is evidently intended to distinguish Jeroboam I from the later son of Joash. See JEROBOAM.

    NEBO (1) <ne’-bo > ([ wObn] , nebho ]; Assyrian Nabu): The Babylonian god of literature and science. In the Babylonian mythology he is represented as the son and interpreter of Bel-merodach (compare Isaiah 46:1; Bel and Nebo there represent Babylon). His own special shrine was at Borsippo. His planet was Mercury. His name enters into Biblical names, as “Nebuchadnezzar,” and perhaps “Abed-nego” ( Daniel 1:7, for “Abed-nebo, servant of Nebo”). See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF.

    NEBO (2) ([ wObn] , nebho ]; [ Nabau~, Nabau ]): (1) This town is named in Numbers 32:3 between Sebam and Beon (which latter evidently represents Baal-meon of 32:38), after Heshbon and Elealeh, as among the cities assigned by Moses to Reuben. It was occupied by the Reubenite clan Bela ( 1 Chronicles 5:8). Here it is named between Aroer and Baalmeon. In their denunciations of wrath against Moab, Isaiah names it along with Medeba ( Isaiah 15:2) and Jeremiah with Kiriathaim ( Jeremiah 48:1), and again ( Jeremiah 48:22) between Dibon and Beth-diblathaim. Mesha (M S) says that by command of Chemosh he went by night against the city, captured it after an assault that lasted from dawn till noon, and put all the inhabitants to death. He dedicated the place to Ashtar-chemosh.

    Jerome (Commentary on Isaiah 15:2) tells us that at Nebo was the idol of Chemosh. The site which seems best to meet the requirements of the passages indicated is on the ridge of Jebel Neba to the Southwest of Hesban, where ruins of an ancient town bearing the name of en- Neba are found (Buhl, GAP, 266). (2) ([ wObn] , nebho ]; B, [ Nabou~, Nabou ] A, [ Nabw>, Nabo ], and other forms): Fifty-two descendants of the inhabitants of Nebo returned from exile with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:29; Nehemiah 7:33). The place was in Judah and is named after Bethel and Ai. There is nothing, however, to guide us as to its exact position. It may be represented by either Beit Nuba , 12 miles Northwest of Jerusalem, or Nuba, which lies about 4 miles South-Southeast of `Id el-Ma’ (Adullam). W. Ewing NEBO, MOUNT ([ wObn] rh” , har nebho ]; [ Nabau>, Nabau ]): A mountain in the land of Moab which Moses ascended at the command of God in order that he might see the Land of Promise which he was never to enter. There also he was to die. From the following passages (namely, Numbers 33:47; Deuteronomy 32:49; 34:1), we gather that it was not far from the plain of Moab in which Israel was encamped; that it was a height standing out to the West of the mountains of Abarim; that it lay to the East of Jericho; and that it was a spot from which a wide and comprehensive view of Palestine could be obtained. None of these conditions are met by Jebel `Attarus, which is too far to the East, and is fully 15 miles South of a line drawn eastward from Jericho. Jebel ‘Osha, again, in Matthew. Gilead, commands, indeed, an extensive view; but it lies too far to the North, being at least miles North of a line drawn eastward from Jericho. Both of these sites have had their advocates as claimants for the honor of representing the Biblical Nebo.

    The “head” or “top” of Pisgah is evidently identical with Matthew. Nebo ( Deuteronomy 34:1). After Moses’ death he was buried “in the valley in the land of Moab,” over against Beth-peor.

    The name Neba is found on a ridge which, some 5 miles Southwest of Hesban and opposite the northern end of the Dead Sea, runs out to the West from the plateau of Moab, “sinking gradually: at first a broad brown field of arable land, then a flat top crowned by a ruined cairn, then a narrower ridge ending in the summit called Siagbah, whence the slopes fall steeply on all sides. The name Nebo or Neba (the “knob” or “tumulus”) applies to the flat top with the cairn, and the name Tal`at es-Sufa to the ascent leading up to the ridge from the North. Thus we have three names which seem to connect the ridge with that whence Moses is related to have viewed the Promised Land, namely, first, Nebo, which is identically the same word as the modern Neba; secondly, Siaghah, which is radically identical with the Aramaic Se`ath , the word standing instead of Nebo in the Targum of Onkelos ( Numbers 32:3), where it is called the burial place of Moses; thirdly, Tal`at es-Sufa, which is radically identical with the Hebrew Zuph (tsuph ), whence Mizpah (mitspah ) and Zophim (tsophim . ....

    The name Pisgah is not now known, but the discovery of Zophim (compare Numbers 23:14) confirms the view now generally held, that it is but another title of the Nebo range.”

    Neither Matthew. Hermon nor Daniel (Tell el-Qady) is visible from this point; nor can Zoar be seen; and if the Mediterranean is the hinder sea, it also is invisible. But, as Driver says (“Dt,” ICC, 419), the terms in Deuteronomy 34:1,3 are hyperbolical, and must be taken as including points filled in by the imagination as well as those actually visible to the eye. Mr. Birch argues in favor of Tal`at el-Benat, whence he believes Daniel and Zoar to be visible, while he identifies “the hinder sea” with the Dead Sea (PEFS, 1898, 110 ff). W. Ewing NEBUCHADNEZZAR; NEBUCHADREZZAR <neb-u-kad-nez’-ar > , <-rez’-ar > : Nebuchadnezzar, the second king of Babylon of that name, is best known as the king who conquered Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, and carried the people of the Jews captive to Babylon. Of all the heathen monarchs mentioned by name in the Scriptures, Nebuchadnezzar is the most prominent and the most important. The prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and the last chapters of Kings and Chronicles centered about his life, and he stands preeminent, along with the Pharaohs of the oppression and the exodus, among the foes of the kingdom of God. The documents which have been discovered in Babylon and elsewhere within the last 75 years have added much to our knowledge of this monarch, and have in general confirmed the Biblical accounts concerning him.

    1. HIS NAME:

    His name is found in two forms in the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar. In the Septuagint he is called [ Naboucodonoso>r, Nabouchodonosor ], and in the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Nabuchodonosor . This latter form is found also in the King James Version Apocrypha throughout and in the Revised Version (British and American) 1 Esdras, Ad Esther and Baruch, but not Judith or Tobit. This change from “r” to “n” which is found in the two writings of the name in the Hebrew and the Aramaic of the Scriptures is a not uncommon one in the Semitic languages, as in Burnaburiyash and Burraburiyash, Ben-hadad and Bar-hadad (see Brockelmann’s Comparative Grammar, 136, 173, 220). It is possible, however, that the form Nebuchadnezzar is the Aramaic translation of the Babylonian Nebuchadrezzar. If we take the name to be compounded of Nabu-kudurri-usur in the sense “O Nebo, protect thy servant,” then Nabu-kedina-usur would be the best translation possible in Aramaic. Such translations of proper names are common in the old versions of the Scriptures and elsewhere. For example, in WAI, V, 44, we find 4 columns of proper names of persons giving the Sumerian originals and the Semitic translations of the same; compare Bar-hadad in Aramaic for Hebrew Ben-hadad . In early Aramaic the “S” had not yet become “T” (see Cooke, Text-Book of North-Sem Inscriptions, 188 f); so that for anyone who thought that kudurru meant “servant,” Nebuchadnezzar would be a perfect translation into Aramaic of Nebuchadrezzar.

    2. FAMILY:

    The father of Nebuchadnezzar was Nabopolassar, probably a Chaldean prince. His mother is not known by name. The classical historians mention two wives: Amytis, the daughter of Astyages, and Nitocris, the mother of Nabunaid. The monuments mention three sons: Evil-merodach who succeeded him, Marduk-shum-utsur, and Marduk-nadin-achi. A younger brother of Nebuchadnezzar, called Nabu-shum-lishir, is mentioned on a building-inscription tablet from the time of Nabopolassar.

    3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

    The sources of our information as to the life of Nebuchadnezzar are about 500 contract tablets dated according to the days, months and years of his reign of 43 years; about 30 building and honorific inscriptions; one historical inscription; and in the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Kings. Later sources are Chronicles, Ezra, and the fragments of Berosus, Menander, Megasthenes, Abydenus, and Alexander Polyhistor, largely as cited by Josephus and Eusebius.

    4. POLITICAL HISTORY:

    From these sources we learn that Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father on the throne of Babylon in 604 BC, and reigned till 561 BC. He probably commanded the armies of Babylon from

    609. BC. At any rate, he was at the head of the army which defeated Pharaoh-necoh at Carchemish on the Euphrates in 605 BC (see 2 Kings 23:31; 2 Chronicles 35:20 ff).

    After having driven Necoh out of Asia and settled the affairs of Syria and Palestine, he was suddenly recalled to Babylon by the death of his father.

    There he seems quietly to have ascended the throne. In the 4th year of Jehoiakim (or 3rd according to the Babylonian manner of reckoning ( Daniel 1:1)), he came up first against Jerusalem and carried away part of the vessels of the temple and a few captives of noble lineage. Again, in Jehoiakim’s 11th year, he captured Jerusalem, put Jehoiakim, its king, into chains, and probably killed him. His successor, Jehoiachin, after a three months’ reign, was besieged in Jerusalem, captured, deposed, and carried captive to Babylon, where he remained in captivity 37 years until he was set free by Evil-merodach. In the 9th year of Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar made a 4th expedition against Jerusalem which he besieged, captured, and destroyed (see Jeremiah 52). In addition to these wars with Judah, Nebuchadnezzar carried on a long siege of Tyre, lasting 13 years, from his 7th to his 20th year. He had at least three wars with Egypt. The first culminated in the defeat of Necoh at Carchemish; the second in the withdrawal of Hophra (Apries) from Palestine in the 1st year of the siege of Jerusalem under Zedekiah; and the third saw the armies of Nebuchadnezzar entering Egypt in triumph and defeating Amasis in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. In the numerous building and honorific inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar he makes no mention by name of his foes or of his battles; but he frequently speaks of foes that he had conquered and of many peoples whom he ruled. Of these peoples he mentions by name the Hittites and others (see Langdon, 148-51). In the Wady-Brissa inscription, he speaks of a special conquest of Lebanon from some foreign foe who had seized it; but the name of the enemy is not given.

    5. BUILDINGS, ETC.:

    The monuments justify the boast of Nebuchadnezzar “Is not this great Babylon that I have built?” ( Daniel 4:30). Among these buildings special emphasis is placed by Nebuchadnezzar upon his temples and shrines to the gods, particularly to Marduk, Nebo and Zarpinat, but also to Shamash, Sin, Gula, Ramman, Mah, and others. He constructed, also, a great new palace and rebuilt an old one of his father’s. Besides, he laid out and paved with bricks a great street for the procession of Marduk, and built a number of great walls with moats and moat-walls and gates. He dug several broad, deep canals, and made dams for flooding the country to the North and South of Babylon, so as to protect it against the attack of its enemies. He made, also, great bronze bulls and serpents, and adorned his temples and palaces with cedars and gold. Not merely in Babylon itself, but in many of the cities of Babylonia as well, his building operations were carried on, especially in the line of temples to the gods.

    6. RELIGION, ETC.:

    The inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar show that he was a very religious man, probably excelling all who had preceded him in the building of temples, in the institution of offerings, and the observance of all the ceremonies connected with the worship of the gods. His larger inscriptions usually contain two hymns and always close with a prayer. Mention is frequently made of the offerings of precious metals, stones and woods, of game, fish, wine, fruit, grain, and other objects acceptable to the gods. It is worthy of note that these offerings differ in character and apparently in purpose from those in use among the Jews. For example, no mention is made in any one of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions of the pouring out or sprinkling of blood, nor is any reference made to atonement, or to sin.

    7. MADNESS:

    No reference is made in any of these inscriptions to Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity. But aside from the fact that we could scarcely expect a man to publish his own calamity, especially madness, it should be noted that according to Langdon we have but three inscriptions of his written in the period from 580 to 561 BC. If his madness lasted for 7 years, it may have occurred between 580 and 567 BC, or it may have occurred between the Egyptian campaign of 567 BC and his death in 561 BC. But, as it is more likely that the “7 times” mentioned in Daniel may have been months, the illness may have been in any year after 580 BC, or even before that for all we know.

    8. MIRACLES, ETC.:

    No mention is made on the monuments (1) of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in Daniel 2, or (2) of the image of gold that he set up, or (3) of the fiery furnace from which the three children were delivered (Daniel 3).

    As to (1) , it may be said, however, that a belief in dreams was so universal among all the ancient peoples, that a single instance of this kind may not have been considered as worthy of special mention. The annals of Ashurbanipal and Nubu-naid and Xerxes give a number of instances of the importance attached to dreams and their interpretation. It is almost certain that Nebuchadnezzar also believed in them. That the dream recorded in Daniel is not mentioned on the monuments seems less remarkable than that no dream of his is recorded.

    As to (2) we know that Nebuchadnezzar made an image of his royal person (salam sharrutiya, Langdon, XIX, B, col. x, 6; compare the image of the royal person of Nabopolassar, id, p. 51), and it is certain that the images of the gods were made of wood (id, p. 155), that the images of Nebo and Marduk were conveyed in a bark in the New Year’s procession (id, pp. 157, 159, 163, 165) and that there were images of the gods in all the temples (id, passim); and that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped before these images. That Nebuchadnezzar should have made an image of gold and put it up in the Plain of Dura is entirely in harmony with what we know of his other “pious deeds.”

    As to (3) “the fiery furnace,” it is known that Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, says that his own brother, Shamash-shumukin, was burned in a similar furnace.

    The failure of Nebuchadnezzar to mention any of the particular persons or events recorded in Daniel does not disprove their historicity, any more than his failure to mention the battle of Carchemish, or the siege of Tyre and Jerusalem, disproves them. The fact is, we have no real historical inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, except one fragment of a few broken lines found in Egypt.

    LITERATURE.

    T.G. Pinches, The New Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia; Stephen Langdon, Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. See also, Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria; and McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, III. R. Dick Wilson NEBUSHAZBAN <neb-u-shaz’-ban > ([ ˆb;z]v”Ybn] , nebhushazebhan ] = Assyrian Nabusezibanni , “Nebo delivers me”; the King James Version Nebushasban): An important officer (the Rab-saris, chief captain or “chief eunuch”) of the Babylonian army, who with Nergal-sharezer and others was appointed to see to the safety of Jeremiah after the taking of Jerusalem ( Jeremiah 39:13).

    NEBUZARADAN <neb-u-zar-a’-Daniel > , <-zar’-a-Daniel > ([ ˆd;a\r]z”Wbn] , nebhuzar’adhan ] = Assyrian Nabu-zara-iddina , “Nebo has given seed”; [ Nebouzarda>n, Nebouzardan ]): Nebuchadnezzar’s general at the siege of Jerusalem ( 2 Kings 25:8,11,20; Jeremiah 52:12,15,26; 39:9,10,11,13). Under the title of “captain of the guard,” he commanded the army, and, after the fall of the city, carried out his master’s policy with regard to the safety of Jeremiah, the transport of the exiles, and the government of those who were left in the land.

    NECHO; NECHOH <ne’-ko > . See PHARAOH-NECOH.

    NECK <nek > ([ rW;x” , tsawwar ], [ raW;x” , tsawwa’r ], [ ˆroW;x” , tsawwaron ], [ hr;aW;x” , tsawwa’rah ], Aramaic [ rW”x” , tsawwar ] ( Daniel 5:7,16,29), [ ty,[o , `oreph ], [ tq,r,p]mi , miphreqeth ] ( 1 Samuel 4:18); [nw~tov, nostos ], “back” (Baruch 2:33); occasionally the words [ ˆroG; , garon ] ( Isaiah 3:16; Ezekiel 16:11), and [ twOrG]r]G” , gargeroth ], plural of gargarah , literally, “throat” ( Proverbs 1:9; 3:3,12; 6:21), are translated “neck”): The neck is compared with a tower for beauty ( Song of Solomon 4:4; 7:4) and is decorated with necklaces and chains ( Proverbs 1:9; 3:3,12; 6:21, Hebrew gargeroth ; Ezekiel 16:11, Hebrew garon , “throat”; Daniel 5:7,16,29, Hebrew tsawwar ). It is also the part of the body where the yoke, emblem of labor and hardship, dependence and subjection, is borne ( Deuteronomy 28:48; Jeremiah 27:8,11,12; 28:14; Acts 15:10). “To shake off the yoke,” “to break the yoke,” or “to take it off” is expressive of the regaining of independence and liberty, either by one’s own endeavors or through help from outside ( Genesis 27:40; Isaiah 10:27; Jeremiah 28:11; 30:8). Certain animals which were not allowed as food (like the firstborn which were not redeemed) were to be killed by having their necks (`oreph ) broken ( Exodus 13:13; 34:20); the turtle-doves and young pigeons, which were sacrificed as sin offerings or as burnt offerings, had their heads wrung or pinched off from their necks ( Leviticus 5:8). In 1 Samuel 4:18 the Hebrew word miphreqeth signifies a fracture of the upper part of the spinal column caused by a fall.

    It was a military custom of antiquity for the conqueror to place his foot upon the vanquished. This custom, frequently represented in sculpture on many an Egyptian temple wall, is referred to in Joshua 10:24; Baruch 4:25 and probably in Romans 16:20 and <19B001> Psalm 110:1. Paul praises the devotion of Aquila and Priscilla, “who for my life laid down their own necks” ( Romans 16:4). See FOOTSTOOL.

    To “fall on the neck” of a person is a very usual mode of salutation in the East ( Genesis 33:4; 45:14; 46:29; Tobit 11:9,13; Luke 15:20; Acts 20:37). In moments of great emotion such salutation is apt to end in weeping on each other’s neck.

    Readiness for work is expressed by “putting one’s neck to the work” ( Nehemiah 3:5). Severe punishment and calamity are said to “reach to the neck” ( Isaiah 8:8; 30:28).

    The Lord Jesus speaks of certain persons for whom it were better to have had a millstone put around the neck and to have been drowned in the sea.

    The meaning is that even the most disgraceful death is still preferable to a life of evil influence upon even the little ones of God’s household ( Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2).

    To “make the neck stiff,” to “harden the neck” indicates obstinacy often mingled with rebellion ( Exodus 32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9; 2 Chronicles 30:8; 36:13; Nehemiah 9:16,17,29; Psalm 75:5 (the Revised Version margin “insolently with a haughty neck”); Proverbs 29:1; Jeremiah 7:26). Compare [sklhrotra>chlov, sklerotracholes ], “stiffnecked” ( Acts 7:51). Similarly Isaiah (48:4) speaks of the neck of the obstinate sinner as resembling an iron sinew. H. L. E. Luering NECKLACE <nek’-las > ([ dybir; , rabhidh ], “chain”): A neck-chain ornament, worn either separately ( Ezekiel 16:11), or with pendants ( Isaiah 3:19), such as crescents ( Isaiah 3:18) or rings ( Genesis 38:25); sometimes made of gold ( Genesis 41:42; Daniel 5:29), or of strings of jewels ( Song of Solomon 1:10). Even beasts of burden were sometimes so adorned by royalty ( Judges 8:26). It was considered suggestive of pride ( Psalm 73:6) or of filial loyalty ( Proverbs 1:9). The word does not occur in the King James Version, but such adornments have always been popular in all the Bible lands.

    NECO <ne’-ko > ([ wOkn] , nekho ] ( 2 Chronicles 35:22; 36:4)). See PHARAOH-NECOH.

    NECODAN <ne-ko’-Daniel > . See NEKODA.

    NECROMANCY <nek’-ro-man-si > . See ASTROLOGY, 1; DIVINATION; WITCHCRAFT.

    NEDABIAH <ned-a-bi’-a > ([ hy;b]d”n] , nedhabhyah ]): A descendant of David ( Chronicles 3:18).

    NEEDLE <ne’-d’-l > ([rJafi>v, rhaphis ]): The word “needle” occurs only 3 times, namely, in the reference to Christ’s use of the proverb: “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” ( Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25).

    This saying ought to be accepted in the same sense as Matthew 23:24, “Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” Christ used them to illustrate absurdities. A rabbinical parallel is cited, “an elephant through a needle’s eye.” Some writers have attempted to show that rhaphis referred to a small gate of a walled oriental city. No evidence of such a use of the word exists in the terms applied today in Biblical lands to this opening. “Rich man” here has the connotation of a man bound up in his riches. If a man continues to trust in his earthly possessions to save him, it would be absurd for him to expect to share in the spiritual kingdom where dependence upon the King is a first requisite.

    The fact that needles are not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible should not be taken to indicate that this instrument was not used. Specimens of bone and metal needles of ancient origin show that they were common household objects. See CAMEL.

    James A. Patch NEEDLEWORK <ne’-d’-l-wurk > . See EMBROIDERY.

    NEEDY <ned’-i > ([ ˆwOyb]a, , ‘ebhyon ]). See POOR.

    NEESING <ne’-zing > ( Job 41:18, the King James Version, the English Revised Version “by his neesings a light doth shine,” the American Standard Revised Version “sneezings”): “Neese” in Elizabethan English (through two distinct derivations) could mean either “sneeze” or “snort,” and it is impossible to say which force was intended by the King James Version editors. The Hebrew is [ hv;yfi[\ , `aTishah ], a word found only here, but connected with a Semitic root meaning “sneeze,” or, perhaps, “snort.” Job 41:18 is part of the description of the “leviathan” or crocodile. This animal has a habit of inflating himself, and after this he discharges through his nostrils the moist, heated vapor, which sparkles in the sunlight. The act is neither a “sneeze” nor a “snort,” but the latter word is sufficiently descriptive. There is no allusion to legendary “fire-spouting” monsters.

    Compare Job 39:20; Jeremiah 8:16.

    In the older editions of the King James Version “neesed” is found in Kings 4:35: “and the child neesed seven times” (later editions and the Revised Version (British and American) “sneezed”). Burton Scott Easton NEGEB <neg’-eb > ([ bg,N,h” , ha-neghebh ], “the negeb” or simply, [ bg,n, , neghebh ], from a root meaning “to be dry,” and therefore in the first instance implying the “dry” or “parched regions,” hence, in the Septuagint it is usually translated [e]rhmov, eremos ], “desert,” also [na>geb, nageb ]):

    1. MEANING:

    As the Negeb lay to the South of Judah, the word came to be used in the sense of “the South,” and is so used in a few passages (e.g. Genesis 13:14) and in such is translated [li>y, lips ] ( see GEOGRAPHY). The English translation is unsuitable in several passages, and likely to lead to confusion. For example, in Genesis 13:1 Abram is represented as going “into the South” when journeying northward from Egypt toward Bethel; in Numbers 13:22 the spies coming from the “wilderness of Zin” toward Hebron are described as coming “by the South,” although they were going north. The difficulty in these and many other passages is at once obviated if it is recognized that the Negeb was a geographical term for a definite geographical region, just as Shephelah, literally, “lowland,” was the name of another district of Palestine. In the Revised Version (British and American) “Negeb” is given in margin, but it would make for clearness if it were restored to the text.

    2. DESCRIPTION:

    This “parched” land is generally considered as beginning South of edition Dahariyeb — the probable site of DEBI (which see) — and as stretching South in a series of rolling hills running in a general direction of East to West until the actual wilderness begins, a distance of perhaps 70 miles ( see NATURAL FEATURES). To the East it is bounded by the Dead Sea and the southern Ghor, and to the West there is no defined boundary before the Mediterranean. It is a land of sparse and scanty springs and small rainfall; in the character of its soil it is a transition from the fertility of Canaan to the wilderness of the desert; it is essentially a pastoral land, where grazing is plentiful in the early months and where camels and goats can sustain life, even through the long summer drought. Today, as through most periods of history, it is a land for the nomad rather than the settled inhabitant, although abundant ruins in many spots testify to better physical conditions at some periods ( see I, 5, below). The direction of the valleys East or West, the general dryness, and the character of the inhabitants have always made it a more or less isolated region without thoroughfare. The great routes pass along the coast to the West or up the Arabah to the East. It formed an additional barrier to the wilderness beyond it; against all who would lead an army from the South, this southern frontier of Judah was always secure. Israel could not reach the promised land by this route, through the land of the Amalekites ( Numbers 13:29; 14:43-45).

    3. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

    The Negeb was the scene of much of Abram’s wanderings ( Genesis 12:9; 13:1,3; 20:1); it was in this district that Hagar met with the angel ( Genesis 16:7,14); Isaac ( Genesis 24:62) and Jacob ( Genesis 37:1; 46:5) both dwelt there. Moses sent the spies through this district to the hill country ( Numbers 13:17,22); the Amalekites then dwelt there ( Numbers 13:29) and apparently, too, in some parts of it, the Avvim ( Joshua 13:3,4). The inheritance of the children of Simeon, as given in Joshua 19:1-9, was in the Negeb, but in Joshua 15:21-32 these cities are credited to Judah ( see SIMEON). Achish allotted to David, in response to his request, the city of ZIKLAG (q.v) in the Negeb ( 1 Samuel 27:5 f); the exploits of David were against various parts of this district described as the Negeb of Judah, the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites, and the Negeb of the Kenites, while in 1 Samuel 30:14 we have mention of the Negeb of the Cherethites and the Negeb of Caleb. To this we may add the Negeb of Arad ( Judges 1:16). It is impossible to define the districts of these various clans ( see separate articles under these names). The, Negeb, together with the “hill-country” and the “Shephelah,” was according to Jeremiah (17:26; 32:44; 33:13) to have renewed prosperity after the captivity of Judah was ended.

    4. LATER HISTORY:

    When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem the Edomites sided with the Babylonians (compare Lamentations 4:21 f; Ezekiel 35:3-15; Obadiah 1:10-16), and during the absence of the Jews they advanced north and occupied all the Negeb and Southern Judea as far as Hebron ( see JUDAEA). Here they annoyed the Jews in Maccabean times until Judas expelled them from Southern Judea (164 BC) and John Hyrcanus conquered their country and compelled them to become Jews (109 BC). It was to one of the cities here — Malatha — that Herod Agrippa withdrew himself (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 2).

    The palmy days of this district appear to have been during the Byzantine period: the existing ruins, so far as they can be dated at all, belong to this time. Beersheba was an important city with a bishop, and Elusa (mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century) was the seat of a bishop in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. After the rise of Mohammedanism the land appears to have lapsed into primitive conditions. Although lawlessness and want of any central control may account for much of the retrogression, yet it is probable that Professor Ellsworth Huntington (loc. cit.) is right in his contention that a change of climate has had much to do with the rise and fall of civilization and settled habitation in this district. The district has long been given over to the nomads, and it is only quite recently that the Turkish policy of planting an official with a small garrison at Beersheba and at `Aujeh has produced some slight change in the direction of a settled population and agricultural pursuits.

    5. ITS ANCIENT PROSPERITY:

    It is clear that in at least two historic periods the Negeb enjoyed a very considerable prosperity. What it may have been in the days of the Patriarchs it is difficult to judge; all we read of them suggests a purely nomadic life similar to the Bedouin of today but with better pasturage. In the division of the land among the tribes mention is made of many cities — the Hebrew mentions 29 ( Joshua 15:21-32; 19:1-9; 1 Chronicles 4:28-33) — and the wealth of cattle evidently was great (compare Samuel 15:9; 27:9; 30:16; 2 Chronicles 14:14 f). The condition of things must have been far different from that of recent times.

    The extensive ruins at Bir es Seba` (Beersheba) Khalasa (Elusa), Ruheibeh (REHOBOTH, which see), `Aujeh and other cities, together with the signs of orchards, vineyards and gardens scattered widely around these and other sites, show how comparatively well populated this area was in Byzantine times in particular. Professor Huntington (loc. cit.) concludes from these ruins that the population of the large towns of the Negeb alone at this period must have amounted to between 45,000 and 50,000. The whole district does not support 1,000 souls today.

    LITERATURE.

    Robinson, BR (1838); Wilton, The Negeb, or “South Country” of Scripture (1863); E.H. Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus, II (1871); Trumbull, Kadesh-Barnea (1884); G. A. Smith, HGHL, chapter xiii (1894); E. Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation, chapter vi, etc. E. W. G. Masterman NEGINAH; NEGINOTH <ne-ge’-na > (Psalm 61 the King James Version, title), <ne-ge’-noth > , <neg’-i-noth > (Psalm 4 the King James Version, title). See MUSIC; PSALMS.

    NEHELAMITE, THE <ne-hel’-a-mit > , ([ ymil;j,]N,h” , ha-necheldmi ]): The designation of Shemaiah, a false prophet who opposed Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 29:24,31,32). The word means “dweller of Nehelam,” but no such placename is found in the Old Testament. Its etymology, however, suggests a connection with the Hebrew chalam , “to dream,” and this has given rise to the rendering of the King James Version margin “dreamer.”

    NEHEMIAH <ne-he-mi’-a > , <ne-hem-i’-a > ([ hy;m]j,n] , nechemyah ], “comforted of Yah”):

    Nehemiah, the son of Hacaliah, is the Jewish patriot whose life is recorded in the Biblical work named after him. All that we know about him from contemporary sources is found in this book; and so the readers of this article are referred to the Book of Nehemiah for the best and fullest account of his words and deeds. See EZRA-NEHEMIAH.

    1. FAMILY:

    All that is known of his family is that he was the son of Hacaliah ( Nehemiah 1:1) and that one of his brothers was called Hanani ( Nehemiah 1:2; 7:2); the latter a man of sufficient character and importance to have been made a ruler of Jerusalem.

    From Nehemiah 10:1-8 some have inferred that he was a priest, since Nehemiah comes first in the list of names ending with the phrase, “these were the priests.” This view is supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions of 10:1, which read: “Nehemiah the elder, the son of Hananiah the chief of the priests”; and by the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of 2 Macc 1:21, where he is called “Nehemiah the priest,” and possibly by 2 Macc 1:18, where it is said that Nehemiah “offered sacrifices, after that he had builded the temple and the altar.”

    The argument based upon Nehemiah 10:1-8 will fall to the ground, if we change the pointing of the “Seraiah” of the 3rd verse and read “its princes,” referring back to the princes of 10:1. In this case, Nehemiah and Zedekiah would be the princes; then would come the priests and then the Levites.

    Some have thought that he was of the royal line of Judah, inasmuch as he refers to his “fathers’ sepulchres” at Jerusalem ( Nehemiah 2:3). This would be a good argument only if it could be shown that none but kings had sepulchers at Jerusalem.

    It has been argued again that he was of noble lineage because of his position as cupbearer to the king of Persia. To substantiate this argument, it would need to be shown that none but persons of noble birth could serve in this position; but this has not been shown, and cannot be shown.

    2. YOUTH:

    From the fact that Nehemiah was so grieved at the desolation of the city and sepulchers of his fathers and that he was so jealous for the laws of the God of Judah, we can justly infer that he was brought up by pious parents, who instructed him in the history and law of the Jewish people.

    3. KING’S CUPBEARER:

    Doubtless because of his probity and ability, he was apparently at an early age appointed by Artaxerxes, king of Persia, to the responsible position of cupbearer to the king. There is now no possible doubt that this King his king was Artaxerxes, the first of that name, commonly called Longimanus, who ruled over Persia from 464 to 424 BC. The mention of the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, in a letter written to the priests of Jerusalem in 407 BC, among whom Johanan is especially named, proves that Sanballat must have ruled in the time of Artaxerxes I rather than in that of Artaxerxes II.

    The office of cupbearer was “one of no trifling honor” (Herod. iii.34). It was one of his chief duties to taste the wine for the king to see that it was not poisoned, and he was even admitted to the king while the queen was present ( Nehemiah 2:6). It was on account of this position of close intimacy with the king that Nehemiah was able to obtain his commission as governor of Judea and the letters and edicts which enabled him to restore the walls of Jerusalem.

    4. GOVERNOR OF JUDEA:

    The occasion of this commission was as follows: Hanani, the brother of Nehemiah, and other men of Judah came to visit Nehemiah while he was in Susa in the 9th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes. They reported that the Jews in Jerusalem were in great affliction and that the wall thereof was broken down and its gates burned with fire. Thereupon he grieved and fasted and prayed to God that he might be granted favor by the king.

    Having appeared before the latter in the 1st month of the 21st year of Artaxerxes, 444 BC, he was granted permission to go to Jerusalem to build the city of his fathers’ sepulchers, and was given letters to the governors of Syria and Palestine and especially to Asaph, the keeper of the king’s forest, ordering him to supply timber for the wall, the fortress, and the temple. He was also appointed governor of the province of which Jerusalem was the capital.

    Armed with these credentials and powers he repaired to Jerusalem and immediately set about the restoration of the walls, a work in which he was hindered and harassed by Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, and others, some of them Jews dwelling in Jerusalem. Notwithstanding, he succeeded in his attempt and eventually also in providing gates for the various entrances to the city.

    Having accomplished these external renovations, he instituted a number of social reforms. He appointed the officers necessary for better government, caused the people to be instructed in the Law by public readings, and expositions; celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles; and observed a national fast, at which the sins of the people were confessed and a new covenant with Yahweh was solemnly confirmed. The people agreed to avoid marriages with the heathen, to keep the Sabbath, and to contribute to the support of the temple. To provide for the safety and prosperity of the city, one out of every ten of the people living outside Jerusalem was compelled to settle in the city. In all of these reforms he was assisted by Ezra, who had gone up to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes.

    5. DEATH:

    Once, or perhaps oftener, during his governorship Nehemiah returned to the king. Nothing is known as to when or where he died. It is certain, however, that he was no longer governor in 407 BC; for at that time according to the Aramaic letter written from Elephantine to the priests of Jerusalem, Bagohi was occupying the position of governor over Judea.

    One of the last acts of Nehemiah’s government was the chasing away of one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib, because he had become the son-in-law to Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. As this Joiada was the father of Johanan ( Nehemiah 12:22) who, according to the Aramaic papyrus, was high priest in 407 BC, and according to Josephus (Ant., XI, viii.1) was high priest while Bagohi (Bogoas) was general of Artaxerxes’ army, it is certain that Nehemiah was at this time no longer in power. From the 3rd of the Sachau papyri, it seems that Bagohi was already governor in 410 BC; and, that at the same time, Dalayah, the son of Sanballat, was governor in Samaria. More definite information on these points is not to be had at present.

    LITERATURE.

    The only early extra-Biblical data with regard to Nehemiah and the Judea of his times are to be found: (1) in the Egyptian papyri of Elephantine (“Aramaische Papyri und Ostraka aus einer judischen Militar-Kolonie zu Elephantine,” Altorientalische Sprachdenkmaler des 5. Jahrhunderts vor Chr., Bearbeitet von Eduard Sachau. Leipzig, 1911); (2) in Josephus, Ant, XI, vi, 6-8; vii, 1, 2; (3) in Ecclesiasticus 49:13, where it is said: “The renown of Nehemiah is glorious; of him who established our waste places and restored our ruins, and set up the gates and bars”; (4) and lastly in 2 Macc 1:18-36 and 2:13; in the latter of these passages it speaks of `the writings and commentaries of Nehemiah; and how he, founding a library, gathered together the acts of the kings and the prophets and of David and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts.’ R. Dick Wilson NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF See EZRA-NEHEMIAH.

    NEHEMIAS <ne-he-mi’-as > : Greek form of the Hebrew Nehemiah . (1) [ Neemi>av, Neemias ], one of the leaders of the return under Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:8) = “Nehemiah” of Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7. (2) [ Neemi>av, Neemias ], Codex Vaticanus [ Naimi>av, Naimias ], the prophet Nehemiah (1 Esdras 5:40 where the King James Version margin reads “Nehemias who also is Atharias”). Neither Nehemias nor Attharias is found in the parallel Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65, but [ at;v;rTih” , ha-tirshatha’ ] = Tirshatha , “the governor,” by whom Zerubbabel must be intended. Thus, the Hebrew word for “governor” has been converted into a proper name and by some blunder the name Nehemiah inserted, perhaps because he also was known by the title of “governor.” S. Angus NEHILOTH <ne-hil’-oth > , <ne’-hi-loth > (Psalm 5, title). See MUSIC.

    NEHUM <ne’-hum > ([ µWjn] , nechum ]): One of the twelve heads of the people who returned with Zerubbabel ( Nehemiah 7:7). In the parallel passage ( Ezra 2:2), the name appears as REHUM (which see), and in 1 Esdras 5:8 as “Roimus.”

    NEHUSHTA <ne-hush’-ta > ([ aT;v]jun] , nechushta’ ]): Mother of King Jehoiachin ( Kings 24:8). She was the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. After the fall of the city she was exiled with her son and his court ( 2 Kings 24:12; Jeremiah 29:2).

    NEHUSHTAN <ne-hush’-tan > ([ ˆT;v]jun] , nechushtan ]; compare [ tv,jon] , nechosheth ], “brass,” and [ vj;n; , nachash ], “serpent”):

    1. TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION:

    The word occurs but once, namely, in 2 Kings 18:4. In the account there given of the reforms carried out by Hezekiah, it is said that “he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan.”

    According to the Revised Version margin the word means “a piece of brass.” If this be correct, the sense of the passage is that Hezekiah not only breaks the brazen serpent in pieces but, suiting the word to the act, scornfully calls it “a (mere) piece of brass.” Hezekiah thus takes his place as a true reformer, and as a champion of the purification of the religion of Israel. This is the traditional interpretation of the passage, and fairly represents the Hebrew text as it now stands.

    2. DERIVATION: A PROPER NOUN:

    There are at least three considerations, however, which throw doubt upon this interpretation. In the first place, the word Nehushtan is not a common noun, and cannot mean simply “a piece of brass.” The point of the Biblical statement is entirely lost by such a construction. It is emphatically a proper noun, and is the special name given to this particular brazen serpent. As such it would be sacred to all worshippers of the brazen serpent, and familiar to all who frequented the Temple. In the second place, it is probable that Nehushtan is to be derived from nahash , “serpent,” rather than from nehosheth , “brass,” (1) because the Greek VSS, representing a form of the Hebrew text earlier than Massoretic Text, suggest this in their transliteration of Nehushtan (Codex Vaticanus Nesthalei ; Codex Alexandrinus Nesthan ); (2) because the Hebrew offers a natural derivation of Nehushtan from nahash , “serpent”; and (3) because the name of the image would more probably be based on its form than on the material out of which it was made. In the third place, the reading, “and it was called,” which appears in the Revised Version margin, is decidedly preferable to that in the text. It not only represents the best reading of the Hebrew, but is confirmed by the similar reading, “and they called it,” which appears in the Greek version referred to above. These readings agree in their indication that Nehushtan was the name by which the serpent-image was generally known during the years it was worshipped, rather than an expression used for the first time by Hezekiah on the occasion of its destruction.

    Whichever derivation be adopted, however, the word must be construed as a proper name. If it be derived from “brass,” then the translation must be, not “a piece of brass,” but “The (great) Brass,” giving the word a special sense by which it refers unequivocally to the well-known image made of brass. If it be derived from “serpent,” then the translation must be, “The (great) Serpent,” the word in this case referring in a special sense to the well-known image in serpent form. But the significance of the word probably lies far back of any etymological explanation of it that can now be given. It is not a term that can be adequately explained by reference to verbal roots, but is rather an epitome of the reverence of those who, however mistakenly, looked upon the brazen serpent as a proper object of worship.

    In view of the foregoing it may be concluded, (1) that Nehushtan was the (sacred) name by which the brazen serpent was known during the years “the children of Israel did burn incense to it”; (2) that the word is derived from nachash , “serpent”; and (3) that it was used in the sense of “The Serpent,” paragraph excellence. See IMAGES, 6, (2); SERPENT, FIERY.

    Lindsay B. Longacre NEIEL <ne`i’-el > ([ laey[in] , ne`i’el ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jInah>l, Inael ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jAnih>l, Aniel ]): A town on the boundary between Zebulun and Asher mentioned between Jiftah-el and Cabul ( Joshua 19:27). It may be the same as Neah ( Joshua 19:13), but the place is not identified.

    NEIGH <na > ([ lh”x; , tsahal ], “to cry aloud,” “neigh”): Figuratively used to indicate lustful desire ( Jeremiah 5:8; compare 13:29).

    NEIGHBOR <na’-ber > ([ [“re , rea` ], [ tymi[; , `amith ], “friend,” [ bwOrq; , qarobh ], [ ˆkev; , shakhen ]; [oJ plhsi>on, ho plesion ], “near” [gei>twn, geiton ], (compare Macc 6:8; 9:25), “inhabitant”; Latin proximus (2 Esdras 15:19), civis (2 Esdras 9:45; 10:2, the Revised Version margin “townman”)):

    1. AS DESCRIBED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    In the Old Testament, the relationship of neighborhood involves moral and social obligations which are frequently emphasized. These are in the main described in negative rather than positive terms; e.g. there are special injunctions not to bear false witness against a neighbor ( Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Proverbs 25:18), or in any way to deal falsely with him, defraud him, frame malicious devices or harbor evil thoughts against him ( Exodus 20:17; Leviticus 6:2; 19:13; Deuteronomy 23:24 f; Psalm 15:3; 101:5; Proverbs 24:28; Jeremiah 22:13; Zechariah 8:17), or to lead him into shameful conduct ( Habakkuk 2:15), or to wrong him by lying carnally with his wife ( Leviticus 18:20).

    But the supreme law that underlies these negative injunctions is stated positively. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” ( Leviticus 19:18).

    In this verse the term “neighbor”is defined by the expression, “the children of my people.” Here, and generally in the Old Testament, the term implies more than mere proximity; it means one related by the bond of nationality, a fellow-countryman, compatriot. Yahweh being regarded as a national God, there was no religious bond regulating the conduct of the Hebrews with other nations. Conduct which was prohibited between fellow-Jews was permitted toward a foreigner, e.g. the exaction of interest ( Deuteronomy 23:19,20).

    2. AS DESCRIBED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament, this limitation of moral obligation to fellowcountrymen is abolished. Christ gives a wider interpretation of the commandment in Leviticus 19:18, so as to include in it those outside the tie of nation or kindred. This is definitely done in the parable of the Good Samaritan ( Luke 10:25-37), where, in answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus shows that the relationship is a moral, not a physical one, based not on kinship but on the opportunity and capacity for mutual help. The word represents, not so much a rigid fact, but an ideal which one may or may not realize ( Luke 10:36, “Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved (literally, became, not was) neighbor,” etc.). This larger connotation follows naturally as a corollary to the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God. The commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self must not be interpreted as if it implied that we are to hate our enemy (an inference which the jews were apt to make); human love should be like the Divine, impartial, having all men for its object ( Matthew 5:43 ff). Love to one’s fellow-men in this broad sense to be placed side by side with love to God as the essence and sum of human duty ( Matthew 22:35-40 parallel Mark 12:28-31). Christ’s apostles follow His example in giving a central position to the injunction to love one’s neighbor as one’s self ( James 2:8, where is is called the “royal law” i.e. the supreme or governing law; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14). D. Miall Edwards NEKEB <ne’-keb > : This name occurs only in combination with “Adami” ([ bq,N,h” ymid;a\ , ‘adhami ha-neqebh ], “Adami of the pass”); Septuagint reads the names of two places: [kai< jArme< kai< Na>bwk, kai Arme kai Nabok ] (B); [kai< jArmai< kai< Na>keb, kai Armai kai Nakeb ] ( Joshua 19:33), so we should possibly read “Adami and Nekeb.” Neubauer says (Geog. du Talmud, 225) that later the name of Nekeb was Ciyadathah. It may therefore be represented by the modern Seiyadeh , not far from ed-Damieh to the East of Tabor, about 4 miles Southwest of Tiberias. The name of Nekeb, a town in Galilee, appears in the list of Thothmes III.

    NEKODA <ne-ko’-da > ([ ad;wqn] , neqodha’ ]): (1) Head of a family of Nethinim ( Ezra 2:48; Nehemiah 7:50; compare 1 Esdras 5:31). (2) Head of a family which failed to prove its Israelite descent ( Ezra 2:60; Nehemiah 7:62; compare 1 Esdras 5:31,37). In the parallel verses of 1 Esdras the names are given thus: NOEBA and NEKODAN (which see).

    NEKODAN <ne-ko’-Daniel > ([ Nekwda>n, Nekodan ]; the Revised Version margin “Nekoda”; the King James Version Necodan): (1) Head of a family which returned from exile, but “could not show their families nor their stock” (1 Esdras 5:37) = “Nekoda” of Ezra 2:60; Nehemiah 7:62. (2) See NOEBA.

    NEMUEL <nem’-u-el > , <ne-mu’-el > ([ laeWmn] , nemu’el ): (1) A Reubenite, brother of Dathan and Abiram ( Numbers 26:9). (2) A son of Simeon ( Numbers 26:12; 1 Chronicles 4:24). The name occurs also in the form “Jemuel” ( Genesis 46:10; Exodus 6:15). According to Gray (Studies in Hebrew Proper Names), either form is etymologically obscure; but Nemuel is probably correct, for it is easier to account for its corruption into Jemuel than vice versa. The patronymic Nemuelites occurs once ( Numbers 26:12).

    NEMUELITES <nem’-u-el-its > , <ne-mu’-el-its > ([ yliaeWmN]h” , ha-nemu’eli ]). See NEMUEL, (2).

    NEPHEA <ne-fe’-a > . See MUSIC.

    NEPHEG <ne’-feg > ([ gp,n, , nephegh ], “sprout,” “shoot”): (1) Son of Izhar, and brother of Korah of the famous trio, Korah, Dathan and Abiram ( Exodus 6:21). (2) A son of David ( 2 Samuel 5:15; 1 Chronicles 3:7; 14:6).

    NEPHEW <nef’-u > , <nev’-u > . See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

    NEPHI <ne’-fi > . See NEPHTHAI.

    NEPHILIM <nef’-i-lim > ([ µyliypin] , nephilim ]): This word, translated “giants” in the King James Version, but retained in the Revised Version (British and American), is found in two passages of the Old Testament — one in Genesis 6:4, relating to the antediluvians; the other in Numbers 13:33, relating to the sons of Anak in Canaan. In the former place the Nephilim are not necessarily to be identified with the children said to be borne “the daughters of men” to “the sons of God” ( Genesis 6:2,4); indeed, they seem to be distinguished from the latter as upon the earth before this unholy commingling took place ( see SONS OF GOD). But it is not easy to be certain as to the interpretation of this strange passage. In the second case they clearly represent men of gigantic stature, in comparison with whom the Israelites felt as if they were “grasshopers.” This agrees with Genesis 6:4, “the mighty men that were of old, the men of renow.”

    Septuagint, therefore, was warranted in translating by gigantes. James Orr NEPHIS <ne’-fis > . See NIPHIS.

    NEPHISH; NEPHISIM; NEPHISHESIM; NEPHUSIM <ne’-fish > , <ne-fi’-sim > , <ne-fish’-e-sim > , <ne-fusim > ([ µysiypin] , nephicim ], [ µysiWpn] , nephucim ]): The former is the Kethibh (Hebrew: “written”) form of the name adopted in the Revised Version (British and American); the latter the Qere (Hebrew “read”) form, adopted in the King James Version and the Revised Version margin ( Ezra 2:50). See NAPHISH; NEPHUSHESIM.

    NEPHTHAI <nef’-thi > , <nef’-tha-i > . See NEPHTHAR.

    NEPHTHALIM <nef’-tha-lim > ( Matthew 4:13): The Greek form of NAPHTALI (which see).

    NEPHTHAR; NEPHTHAI <nef’-thar > ([ Nefqa>r, Nephthar ]; Codex Alexandrinus and Swete, Nephthar , the King James Version and Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390- 405 A.D.) Naphthar), ([ Nefqai>, Nephthai ], al. [ Nefqaei>, Nephthaei ], Fritzsche, [ Nefa>, Nepha ], the King James Version and Vulgate, following Old Latin, Nephi; Swete, following Codex Alexandrinus, gives Nephthar twice): According to 2 Macc 1:19-36, at the time of the captivity the godly priests took of the altar fire of the temple and concealed it “privily in the hollow of a well that was without water,” unknown to all. “After many years” (upon Return), before offering the sacrifices, Nehemiah sent the descendants of the godly priests to fetch the hidden fire. They reported they could find no fire but only “thick water” [u[dwr pacu>, hudor pachu ]), which he commanded them to draw up and sprinkle upon the wood and the sacrifices. After an interval the sun shone forth from behind a cloud and the liquid ignited and consumed the sacrifices. Nehemiah then commanded them to pour ([katacei~n, katachein ], al. [kate>cein, katechein ], and [katascei~n, kataschein ]) the rest of the liquid upon great stones. Another flame sprang up which soon spent itself, “whereas the light from the altar shone still” (Revised Version margin, the exact meaning being doubtful).

    When the king of Persia investigated it, he enclosed the spot as sacred.

    Nehemiah and his friends called the thick liquid “Nephthar,” “which is by interpretation `cleansing’ “ ([kaqarismo>v, katharismos ]), “but most men call it Nephthai.”

    No satisfactory explanation is to hand of either name; one of which is probably a corruption of the other. And no word exists in the Hebrew like either of them with the meaning of “cleansing,” “purification.” The Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) applies the name to the spot (hunc locum), not the thing. The story probably originated in Persia, where naphtha was abundant. The ignition of the liquid by the hot rays of the sun and the appearance of the words render it highly probable that it was the inflammable rockoil naphtha , the combustible properties of which were quite familiar to the ancients (Pliny, NH, ii. 109; Plutarch, Alexander 35; Diosc., i.101; Strabo, Geogr. xvi.1, 15); the words then are probably corruptions of what the Greeks termed [na>fqa, naphtha ]. Ewald (History, V, 163) says: “This is but one of the many stories which sought in later times to enhance the very high sanctity of the Temple, with reference even to its origin.” S. Angus NEPHTOAH <nef-to’-a > , <nef’-to-a > ([ j”wOTp]n, , nephtoach ], occurs only in the expression [ n yme ˆy”[]m” , ma`yan me nephtoach ], “the fountain of the waters of Nephtoah”; Septuagint [phgh< u[datov Nafqw>, pege hudatos Naphtho ]): This spring was on the border line between Judah and Benjamin ( Joshua 15:9; 18:15). The place is usually identified with Lifta, a village about 2 miles Northwest of Jerusalem, on the east bank of the Wady beit Hanina]. It is a village very conspicuous to the traveler along the high road from Jaffa as he nears Jerusalem. There are ancient rock-cut tombs and a copious spring which empties itself into a large masonry reservoir. The situation of Lifta seems to agree well with the most probable line of boundary between the two tribes; the spring as it is today does not appear to be so abundant as to warrant such an expression as “spring of the waters,” but it was, like many such sources, probably considerably more abundant in Old Testament times.

    Conder would identify Lifta with the ancient ELEPH (which see) of Benjamin, and, on the ground that the Talmud (see Talmud Babylonian, Yom’ 31a) identifies Nephtoah with ETAM (which see), he would find the site of Nephtoah at `Ain `Atan, South of Bethlehem. The Talmud is not a sufficiently trustworthy guide when unsupported by other evidence, and the identification creates great difficulty with the boundary line. See Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 18, 43, Sh XVII. E. W. G. Mastermin NEPHUSHESIM; NEPHISHESIM <ne-fush’-e-sim > , <ne-fish’-e-sim > ([ µysiv]Wpn] , nephushecim ], [ µysiv]ypin] , nephishecim ]): The former is the Kethibh (Hebrew “written”) form of the name adopted in the Revised Version (British and American); the latter the Qere (Hebrew “read”) form adopted in the King James Version and the Revised Version margin ( Nehemiah 7:52). See NAPHISH; NEPHISIM.

    NER <ner > ([ rne , ner ], “lamp”): Father of Abner ( 1 Samuel 14:50 f; 26:5,14, etc.); grandfather of Saul ( 1 Chronicles 8:33). Other references, though adding no further information are 2 Samuel 2:8,12; 3:23,25; 28:37; 1 Kings 2:5,32, etc.

    NEREUS <ne’-rus > , <ne’-re-us > ([ Nhreu>v, Nereus ]): The name of a Roman Christian to whom with his sister Paul sent greetings ( Romans 16:15).

    Nereus and the others saluted with him ( Romans 16:15) formed small community or “house church.” The name of the sister is not given, but the name Nereis is found on an inscription of this date containing names of the emperor’s servants (Lightfoot, Phil, 176). Among the Acta Sanctorum connected with the early church in Rome are the “Acts of Nereus and Achilleus” which call them chamberlains of Domitilla, the niece of Vespasian, and relate their influence over her in persuading her to remain a virgin. S. F. Hunter NERGAL <nar’-Galatians > ([ lg”r]ne , nereghal ]): A Babylonian deity, identified with the planet Mars, and worshipped at Cutha (compare 2 Kings 17:30). See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF.

    NERGAL-SHAREZER <nur-Galatians-sha-re’-zar > ([ rx,a,r]v”Alg”r]ne , nereghal-shar’etser ], Hebrew form of Assyrian Nergal-sar-usur , “O Nergal, defend the prince”):

    A Babylonian officer, the “Rab-mag,” associated with Nebushazban in the care of Jeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem ( Jeremiah 39:3,13).

    According to Hommel (article “Babylon,” Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)) and Sayce (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, under the word), Nergal-sharezer is to be identified with Neriglissar who succeeded Evil-merodach on the throne of Babylon (compare Cheyne and Johns, Encyclopedia Biblica, under the word).

    NERI <ne’-ri > (( Nhrei>, Nerei (Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek), Textus Receptus of the New Testament, [ Nhri>, Neri ]; for Hebrew [ hY;rine , neriyah ]): The name of an ancestor of Jesus, the grandfather of Zerubbabel ( Luke 3:27). See NERIAH.

    NERIAH <ne-ri’-a > ([ hY;rine , neriyah ], “whose lamp is Yah”): The father of Seraiah and of Baruch, Jeremiah’s friend and secretary ( Jeremiah 32:12,16; 36:4,8,32; 43:3). In Baruch 1:1 the Greek form of the name, [ Nhr(e)i>av, Ner (e )ias ], is given, and this shortened, Neri, occurs in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

    NERIAS <ne-ri’-as > ([ Nhr(e)i>av, Ner (e )ias ]): The Greek form of Hebrew Neriah found only in Baruch 1:1 as the father of Baruch = “Neriah” of Jeremiah 32:12; 36:4 ff; 43:3. To Baruch’s brother, Seraiah, the same genealogy is ascribed in Jeremiah 51:59.

    NERO <ne’-ro > ([ Ne>rwn, Neron ]):

    The fifth Roman emperor, born at Antium December 15, 37 AD, began to reign October 13, 54, died June 9, 68.

    1. NAME, PARENTAGE AND EARLY TRAINING.

    His name was originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus but after his adoption into the Claudian gens by the emperor Claudius, he became Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus. His father was Enaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (“Brazen-beard”), a man sprung from an illustrious family and of vicious character. His mother was Agrippina the younger, the daughter of Germanicus and the elder Agrippina, sister of the emperor Caius (Caligula) and niece of the emperor Claudius. On the birth of the child, his father predicted, amid the congratulations of his friends, that any offspring of himself and Agrippina could only prove abominable and disastrous for the public (Suet. Nero vi: detestabile et malo publico). At the age of three the young Domitius lost his father and was robbed of his estates by the rapacity of Caius. In 39 his mother was banished for supposed complicity in a plot against Caius. Nero was thus deprived of his mother and at the same time left almost penniless. His aunt, Domitia Lepida, now undertook the care of the boy and placed him with two tutors, a dancer and a barber (Suetonius vi). On the accession of Claudius, Agrippina was recalled, and Nero was restored to his mother and his patrimony (41 AD).

    2. AGRIPPINA’S AMBITION FOR NERO.

    She cared little for her son’s moral education, but began immediately to train him for high position. She aimed at nothing less than securing the empire for Nero. With a view to this she must gain influence over her uncle, the emperor Clandius, who was very susceptible to female charms.

    At first the path was by no means easy, while the licentious empress, Messalina, was in power. But on the fall and death of Messalina (48 AD) — for which Agrippina may have intrigued — the way seemed opened.

    With the assistance of the emperor’s freedman, Pallas, Agrippina proved the successful candidate for Claudius’ affections. She how felt secure to carry out the plans for the elevation of her son: Her Nine Measures for Bringing Him to the Throne (1) She secured his betrothal to Octavia, the daughter of Claudius, having previously, by the villainy of Vitellius, broken off the engagement between Octavia and Lucius Silanus (ibid., xlviii). Later, Nero married this unfortunate lady. (2) Vitellius again obliged by securing a modification of Roman law so as to permit a marriage with a brother’s (not sister’s) daughter, and in 49 Agrippina became empress. (3) In the meantime she had caused Seneca to be recalled from banishment and had entrusted to him the education of Nero for imperial purposes. (4) The adoption of her son by Claudius (50 AD). (5) She next secured early honors and titles for Nero in order to mark him out as Clandins’ successor. (6) She caused Britannicus, Claudius’ son, to be kept in the background and treated as a mere child, removing by exile or death suspected supporters of Britannicus. (7) Agrippina was farsighted and anticipated a later secret of Roman imperialism — the influence of the armies in the nomination of emperors. For this cause she took an active interest in military affairs and gave her name to a new colony on the Rhine (modern Cologne).

    But she did not forget the importance of securing the praetorian guard and Burrus the prefect. (8) She persuaded Clandins to make a will in favor of her son. All was now ready. But Claudius did not like the idea of excluding his son Britannicus from power, and murmurs were heard among the senate and people. Delay might prove fatal to Agrippina’s plans, so (9) Claudius must die. The notorious Locusta administered poison in a dish of mushrooms, and Xenophon, Agrippina’s physician, thrust a poisoned feather down Claudius’ throat on the pretense of helping him to vomit. Burrus then took Nero forth and caused him to be proclaimed imperator by the praetorians.

    3. NERO’S REIGN. 1. Quinquennium Neronis: Nero’s reign falls into three periods, the first of which is the celebrated quinquennium, or first 5 years, characterized by good government at home and in the provinces and popularity with both senate and people.

    Agrippina, having seated her son on the throne, did not purpose to relinquish power herself; she intended to rule along with him. And at first Nero was very devoted to her and had given as watchword to the guard, “the best of mothers” (Tacitus, Annals xiii.2; Suetonius ix). This caused a sharp conflict with Seneca and Burrus, who could not tolerate Agrippina’s arrogance and unbounded influence over her son. In order to detach him from his mother they encouraged him in an amour with a Greek freedwoman, Acre (Tac. Ann. xiii.12). This first blow to Agrippina’s influence was soon followed by the dismissal from court of her chief protector Pallas. She now threatened to bring forth Britannicus and present him as the rightful heir to the throne. This cost Britannicus his life, for Nero, feeling insecure while a son of Claudius lived, compassed his death at a banquet. A hot wine cup was offered Britannicus, and to cool it to taste, cold water was added which had been adulterated with a virulent poison. The victim succumbed immediately. All eyes fastened on Nero in suspicion, but he boldly asserted that the death was due to a fit of epilepsy — a disease to which Britannicus had been subject from childhood. Such was the fate of Agrippina’s first protege. She next took up the cause of the despised and ill-treated Octavia, which so incensed her son that he deprived her of her guards and caused her to remove from the palace.

    Agrippina now disappears for the next few years to come into brief and tragic prominence later. Seneca and Burrus undertook the management of affairs, with results that justified the favorable impression which the first years of Nero’s reign made upon the Roman people. Many reforms were initiated, financial, social and legislative. These ministers treated Nero to counsels of moderation and justice, dictating a policy which left considerable activity to the senate. But perceiving the bent of his evil nature, they allowed him to indulge in low pleasures and excesses with the most profligate companions, thinking, perhaps, either that the young ruler would in this way prove less harmful to the public, or that, after sowing his wild oats, he would return to the serious business of government. But in both ways they were sorely disappointed, for Nero, having surrendered himself to the basest appetites, continued to go from excess to excess. He surrounded himself with the most dissolute companions, conspicuous among whom were Salvius Otho and Claudius Senecio. 2. Poppea Sabina (58 AD): The former had a wife as ambitious as she was unprincipled, and endowed, according to Tacitus, with every gift of nature except an “honorable mind.”

    Already divorced before marrying Otho, she was minded to employ Otho merely as a tool to enable her to become Nero’s consort. With the appearance of Poppea Sabina, for such was her name, opens the second period of Nero’s reign. She proved his evil star. Under her influence he shook off all restraints, turned a deaf ear to is best advisers and plunged deeper into immorality and crime. She allowed, if not persuaded, Nero to give her husband a commission in the distant province of Lusitania. Her jealousy could tolerate no possible rival. She plotted the death of Agrippina to which she easily persuaded Nero to consent. This foul crime was planned and carried out with the greatest cunning. Anicetus, admiral of the fleet, undertook to construct a vessel that would sink to order. Nero invited his mother to his villa at Baiae at the Quinquatrus celebration. After the banquet she was persuaded to return to Bauli by the vessel prepared.

    But the plan did not succeed, and Agrippina saved herself by swimming ashore. She pretended to treat the matter as an accident, sending a freedman to Nero to inform him of her escape. Anicetus, however, relieved Nero of the awkward position by pretending that Agrippina’s freedman had dropped a dagger which was considered proof enough of her guilt.

    Deserted by her friends and slaves except one freedman, she was quickly dispatched by her murderers. Nero gave out that she died by suicide (Suetonius xxxiv; Tacitus, Annals cxli-cxlviii). 3. Poppea and Tigellinus: Nero no longer made any secret of taking Poppea as his mistress, and, under her influence, bid defiance to the best Roman traditions and plunged deeper into dissipation. In 62 AD matters grew much worse by the death of the praetorian prefect, Burrus. Seneca lost in him a powerful ally, and Poppea gained in one of the new prefects, Sofonius Tigellinus, a powerful ally. She succeeded in causing Seneca to retire from the court. Next she determined to remove Octavia. A charge of adultery was first tried, but as the evidence proved too leaky, Nero simply divorced her because of barrenness. Then Anicetus was persuaded to confess adultery with her, and the innocent Octavia was banished to the island of Pandateria, where a little later she was executed at Poppea’s orders and her head brought to her rival (62 AD). Poppea was now empress, and the next year bore a daughter to Nero, but the child died when only three months old. Two years later Poppea herself died during pregnancy, of a cruel kick inflicted by Nero in a fit of rage (65 AD). He pronounced a eulogy over her and took a third wife, Statilia Messalina, of whom he had no issue.

    Nero, having by his extravagance exhausted the well-filled treasury of Claudius (as Caius did that of Tiberius), was driven to fill his coffers by confiscations of the estates of rich nobles against whom his creature Tigellinus could trump the slightest plausible charge. But even this did not prevent a financial crisis — the beginning of the bankruptcy of the later Rein empire. The provinces which at first enjoyed good government were now plundered; new and heavy taxes were imposed. Worst of all, the gold and silver coinage was depreciated, and the senate was deprived of the right of copper coinage. 4. Great Fire (July, 64): This difficulty was much increased by the great fire which was not only destructive to both private and state property, but also necessitated the providing thousands of homeless with shelter, and lowering the price of corn. On July 18, 64, this great conflagration broke out in Circus Maximus.

    A high wind caused it to spread rapidly over a large portion of the city, sweeping before it ill-built streets of wooden houses. At the end of six days it seemed to be exhausted for lack of material, when another conflagration started in a different quarter of the city. Various exaggerated accounts of the destruction are found in Roman historians: of the 14 city regions were said to have been totally destroyed and 4 partially. Nero was at Antium at the time. He hastened back to the city and apparently took every means of arresting the spread of the flames. He superintended in person the work of the fire brigades, often exposing himself to danger. After the fire he threw open his own gardens to the homeless. The catastrophe caused great consternation, and, for whatever reasons, suspicion seemed to fix upon Nerio. Rumor had it that on hearing the Greek verse, “When I am dead let the earth be wrapped in fire,” he interrupted, “Nay rather, while I live” (Suetonius xxxviii); that he had often deplored the ugliness of the city and wished an opportunity to rebuild it; that he purposely set it on fire in order to find room for his magnificent Domus Aurea (“Golden House”); that when the city was burning he gazed upon it from the tower of Maecenas delighted with what he termed “the beauty of the conflagration”; that he recited in actor’s costume the sack of Troy (Suetonius xxxviii; Tacitus, Annals xv.38 ff). In spite of all these reports Nero must be absolved of the guilt of incendiarism. 5. Persecution of Christians: Such public calamities were generally attributed to the wrath of the gods.

    In the present case everything was done to appease the offended deity.

    Yet, in spite of all, suspicion still clung to Nero “Wherefore in order to allay the rumor he put forward as guilty (subdidit reos), and afflicted with the most exquisite punishments those who were hated for their abominations (flagitia) and called `Christians’ by the populace. Christus, from whom the name was derived, was punished by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius. This noxious form of religion (exitiabilis superstitio), checked for a time, broke out again not only in Judea its original home, but also throughout the city (Rome) where all abominations meet and find devotees. Therefore first of all those who confessed (i.e. to being Christians) were arrested, and then as a result of their information a large number (multitude ingens) were implicated (reading coniuncti, not convicti), not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of the human race. They died by methods of mockery; some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and then torn by dogs, some were crucified, some were burned as torches to give light at night .... whence (after scenes of extreme cruelty) commiseration was stirred for them, although guilty and deserving the worst penalties, for men felt that their destruction was not on account of the public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one (Nero)” (Tacitus, Annals xv.44). Such is the earliest account of the first heathen persecution (as well as the first record of the crucifixion by a heathen writer). Tacitus here clearly implies that the Christians were innocent (subdidit reos), and that Nero employed them simply as scapegoats. Some regard the conclusion of the paragraph as a contradiction to this — “though guilty and deserving the severest punishment” (adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos). But Tacitus means by sontes that the Christians were “guilty” from the point of view of the populace, and that they merited extreme punishment also from his own standpoint for other causes, but not for arson. Fatebantur does not mean that they confessed to incendiarism, but to being Christians, and qui fatebantur means there were some who boldly confessed, while others tried to conceal or perhaps even denied their faith.

    But why were the Christians selected as scapegoats? Why not the Jews, who were both numerous and had already offended the Roman government and had been banished in great numbers? Or why not the many followers of the oriental religions, which had proved more than once obnoxious? (1) Poppea was favorable to Judaism and had certainly enough influence over Nero to protect the Jews; she was regarded by them as a proselyte and is termed by Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 11) [qeosebh>v, theosebes ], “god-fearing.” When the populace and Nero were seeking victims for revenge, the Jews may have been glad of the opportunity of putting forward the Christians and may have been encouraged in this by Poppea. Farrar (Early Days of Christianity, I, chapter iv) sees “in the proselytism of Poppea, guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate explanation of the first Christian persecution.” (2) Closely connected with this was doubtless the observation by the Roman government that Christianity was an independent faith from Judaism. This may first have been brought home to the authorities by the trial of Paul before Nero, as suggested by Ramsay (Expositor, July, 1893). Judaism was a recognized and tolerated religion, a religio licita, and Christianity when divorced from Judaism became a religio illicita and punishable by the state, for Christianity first rose “under the shadow of licensed Judaism” (sub umbraculo licitae Judeorum religionis: Tertullian, Apol., xxi). (3) As Christianity formed a society apart from Roman society, all kinds of crimes were attributed to its followers, Thyestean feasts, nightly orgies, hostility to temples and images. These flagitia seemed summed up in odium humani generis, “hatred for the human race.” (4) They were easily selected as being so numerous and making most progress in a line opposed to Roman spirit; compare ingens multitudo (Tacitus, Annals xv.44; Clemens Romans., Corinthians 1:6, [polu< plh~qov, polu plethos ]; compare also “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9; 19:1). (5) No doubt, too, early Christian enthusiasm was unequivocal in its expressions, especially in its belief of a final conflagration of the world and its serene faith amid the despair of others. 6. Conspiracy of Piso (65 AD): In the meantime Tigellinus’ tyranny and confiscations to meet Nero’s expenses caused deep discontent among the nobles, which culminated in the famous conspiracy at the head of which was C. Calpurnius Piso. The plot was prematurely betrayed by Milichus. An inquisition followed in which the most illustrious victims who perished were Seneca the philosopher, Lucan the poet, Lucan’s mother, and later Annaeus Mela, brother of Seneca and father of Lucan, T. Petronius Arbiter, “the glass of fashion.” Finally, “Nero having butchered so many illustrious men, at last desired to exterminate virtue itself by the death of Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus” (Tacitus, Annals xvi.21 f). 7. Visit to Greece (66 AD): Having cleared every suspected person out of the way, he abandoned the government in Rome to a freedman Helius, and started on a long visit to Greece (66-68 AD), where he took part in musical contests and games, himself winning prizes from the obsequious Greeks, in return for which Nero bestowed upon them “freedom.” Nero was so un-Roman that he was perfectly at home in Greece, where alone he said he was appreciated by cultured people. In the meantime the revolt of Vindex in Gaul commenced (68 AD), but it was soon quelled by Verginius Rufus on account of its national Gaulic character. Galba of Hither Spain next declared himself legatus of the senate and the Roman people. Nero was persuaded to return to Rome by Helius; he confiscated Galba’s property, but his weakness and hesitancy greatly helped the cause of the latter. 8. Death of Nero: Nymphidius Sabinus, one of the prefects, won over the guard for Galba, by persuading the irresolute emperor to withdraw from Rome and then told the praetorians that Nero had deserted them. Nero was a coward, both in life and in death. While he had the means of easily crushing Galba, he was revolving plans of despair in his Servilian gardens, whether he should surrender himself to the mercies of the Parthians or to those of Galba; whether Galba would allow him the province of Egypt; whether the public would forgive his past if he showed penitence enough. In his distraction a comforter asked him in the words of Virgil, “Is it then so wretched to die?”

    He could not summon the courage for suicide, nor could he find one to inflict the blow for him: “Have I then neither friend nor foe?” Phaon a freedman offered him the shelter of his villa a few miles from Rome. Here he prepared for suicide, but with great cowardice. He kept exclaiming, “What an artist I am to perish!” (Qualis artifex pereo, Suet. xlix). On learning that he was condemned to a cruel death by the senate, he put the weapon to his throat and was assisted in the fatal blow by Epaphroditus his secretary. A centurion entered pretending he had come to help: “Too late — this is fidelity,” were Nero’s last words. His remains were laid in the family vault of the Domitii by his two nurses Ecloge and Alexandria and his concubine Acte (Suetonius L). Thus perished on July 9, 68 AD the last of the line of Julius Caesar in his 31st year and in the 14th of his reign.

    4. DOWNFALL AND CHARACTER. 1. Seven Causes of Downfall: The causes of his downfall were briefly: (1) his lavish expenditure leading to burdensome taxation and financial insecurity; (2) tyranny and cruelty of his favorites; (3) the great fire which brought dissatisfaction to fasten suspicion on Nero and the consequent enlargement of his private abode at the expense of the city — especially the Golden House; (4) the unpopular measure of the extension of Roman franchise to Greece and favored foreigners; (5) the security engendered by the success with which the conspiracy of Piso was crushed; (6) the discovery of another “secret of empire,” that an emperor could be created elsewhere than at Rome, that the succession of emperors was not hereditary but rested with the great armies, and (7) the cowardice and weakness which Nero displayed in the revolt which led to his death.

    His reign is memorable for the activity of Seneca, the great fire, the persecution of Christians, the beginning of the bankruptcy of the later Roman empire, the Armenian disaster of Paetus (62 AD) retrieved by Corbulo and the humiliation of Parthia, the outbreak of the insurrection in Judea (66 AD), which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. 2. Character: Nero ranks with Gaius for folly and vice, while his cruelties recall the worst years of Tiberius. Very effeminate in his tastes, particular about the arrangement of his hair and proud of his voice, his greatest fault was inordinate vanity which courted applause for performances on non-Roman lines. He neglected his high office and degraded Roman gravitas by zeal for secondary pursuits. Nero, like his three predecessors, was very susceptible to female charms. He was licentious in the extreme, even to guilt of that nameless vice of antiquity — love of a male favorite. His cruelty, both directly and through his instruments, made the latter part of his reign as detestable as the quinquennium had been golden. He loved the extravagant and luxurious in every exaggerated form. He was a weakling and a coward in his life, and especially in his death. Of his personal appearance we are told his features were regular and good; the expression of his countenance, however, was somewhat repelling. His frame was ill proportioned — slender legs and big stomach. In later years his face was covered with pimples. 5. “NERO REDIVIVUS.”

    It seems as if there was something lovable even about this monster, which led a freedman to remain faithful to the last, and his two old nurses and cast-off concubine to care affectionately for his remains, and for a long time there were not wanting hands to strew his grave with spring and autumn flowers and to display his effigy (Suet. lvii). But, whether from the strange circumstances of his death, or the subsequent terrible confusion in the Roman world, or from whatever cause, there soon arose a belief that Nero had not really died, but was living somewhere in retirement or had fled among the Parthians, and that he was destined in a short time to return and bring great calamity upon his enemies or the world (quasi viventis et brevi magno inimicorum malo reversuri: Suetonius lvii). This belief was a force among the Parthians who were ready to take up arms at the report of a pseudo-Nero (Tacitus, History i.2). In the confusion of the year of the four emperors, Greece and Asia were disturbed by the report of the advent of Nero (Tac. Hist. ii.8), and the historian promises to mention the fortune and attempts of other pseudo-Neros. This belief was taken up by the Jews and amalgamated with their legend of Antichrist. In Ascension of Isaiah (1st century AD), the Antichrist is clearly identified with Nero: “Belial shall appear in the shape of a man, the king of wickedness, the matricide.” It occurs again and again in both the Jewish and Christian sections of the Sib Or (3:66 ff; 4:117 f,135 ff; 5:100 f,136 f,216 f). How far Nero was regarded by the Christians as the historical personage of Antichrist is a disputed point. That the common belief of the revival or advent of Nero should influence contemporary Christian thought in days of social and political turmoil is highly probable. Bousset (Commentary) regards the beast of Revelation 13 as Rome, and the smitten head whose “deathstroke was healed” as Nero, and some scholars take Revelation 17:10 f as referring to Nero. The “scarlet-colored beast” of 17:3 may be intended either for the Roman government in general or for Nero in particular. That the number 666 ( Revelation 13:18) represents in Hebrew letters the numerical equivalent of Neron Kesar is significant, for the Jewish Christians would be familiar with gemaTriya’ (the numerical equivalent of names). See NUMBER. Compare Farrar, Early Days, chapter xxviii,. section 5. In later times the idea of a twofold Antichrist seems to have arisen — one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles; compare especially Commodian, Carm. Apol. (926): “to us Nero became Antichrist, to the Jews the other” (nobis Nero factus Antichristus, ille Judaeis). There was an alternate theory that Nero had really been killed, but that he would rise again (Sib Or 5:216 f; Augustine, Deuteronomy Civ. Dei, xx.19: unde nonnulli ipsum resurrecturum et futurum Antichristum suspicantur).

    6. NERO AND CHRISTIANITY. 1. Nero and the New Testament: The name Nero does not occur in the New Testament, but he was the Caesar to whom Paul appealed ( Acts 25:11) and at whose tribunal Paul was tried after his first imprisonment. It is quite likely that Nero heard Paul’s case in person, for the emperor showed much interest in provincial cases. It was during the earlier “golden quinquennium” of Nero’s reign that Paul addressed his epistle to the Christians at Rome, and probably in the last year of Nero’s reign (68 AD) Paul suffered death near the city, though Harnack (Chronologie) places his death in the first Neronian persecution of 64. Although the New Testament gives no hint of a possible visit or sojourn of Peter in Rome, such a sojourn and subsequent martyrdom are highly probable and almost certain from the early persistent tradition, especially in Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Papias, and later in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Liber Pontificalis (catalogue of popes). His execution at Rome under Nero is practically certain. 2. Neronian Policy and Christianity: The first persecution to which Christianity was subjected came from the Jews: the first heathen persecution took place under Nero. Up to this time the Roman government had been on friendly terms with Christianity, as Christianity was either not prominent enough to cause any disturbance of society or was confounded by the Romans with Judaism (sub umbraculo licitae Judeorum religionis: Tertullian, Apol., xxi). Paul, writing to the Christians of the capital, urged them to “be in subjection to the higher powers” as “ordained of God” ( Romans 13:1 ff), and his high estimation of the Roman government as power for the good of society was probably enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome which permitted him to carry on the work of preaching and was terminated by an acquittal on the first trial (accepting the view of a first acquittal and subsequent activity before condemnation at a second trial). But soon, whether because of the trial of Paul, a Roman citizen, at Rome (about 63), or the growing hostility of the Jews, or the increasing numbers and alarming progress of the new religion, the distinction between Christianity and Judaism became apparent to the Roman authorities. If it had not yet been proscribed as a religio illicita (“‘unlicensed religion”), neither had it been admitted as a religio licita. Christianity was not in itself as yet a crime; its adherents were not liable to persecution “for the name.” According to one view the Neronian persecution was a spasmodic act and an isolated incident in imperial policy: the Christians were on this occasion put forward merely to remove suspicion from Nero. They were not persecuted either as Christians or as incendiaries, but on account of flagitia and odium humani generis, i.e.

    Thyestean feasts, Oedipodean incest and nightly orgies were attributed to them, and their withdrawal from society and exclusive manners caused the charge of “hatred for society.” The evidence of Tacitus (Ann. xv.44) would bear out this view of the Neronian persecution as accidental, isolated, to satisfy the revenge of the mob, confined to Rome and of brief duration.

    The other view is, however, preferable, as represented by Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, chapter xi) and E. G. Hardy (Studies in Roman History, chapter iv). Suetonius speaks of the persecution of Christians as a permanent police regulation in a list of other seemingly permanent measures (Nero xvi: afflicti suppliciis Christiani genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae), which is not inconsistent with the account of Tacitus — who gives the initial step and Suetonius the permanent result. The Christians by these trials, though not convicted of incendiarism, were brought into considerable prominence; their unsocial and exclusive manners, their withdrawal from the duties of state, their active proselytism, together with the charges of immorality, established them in Roman eyes as the enemies of society. Christianity thus became a crime and was banned by the police authorities. Suetonius gives a “brief statement of the permanent administrative principle into which Nero’s action ultimately resolved itself” (Ramsay, op. cit., 232). No formal law needed to be passed, the matter could be left with the prefect of the city. A trial must be held and the flagitia proved before an order for execution, according to Ramsay, but Hardy holds that henceforth the name itself — nomen ipsum — was proscribed. A precedent was now established of great importance in the policy of the imperial government toward Christianity (see, further, ROMAN EMPIRE; CHRISTIANITY). There ls no reason to suppose that the Neronian persecution of 64 AD extended beyond Rome to the provinces, though no doubt the attitude of the home government must have had considerable influence with provincial officers. Paul seems to have gone undisturbed, or at least with no unusual obstacles, in his evangelization after his acquittal. The authorities for a general Neronian persecution and formal Neronian laws against Christianity are late; compare Orosius (History vii.7, “(Nero) was the first to put to death Christians at Rome and gave orders that they should be subjected to the same persecution throughout all the provinces”).

    LITERATURE. (a) Ancient: Tacitus Annals xii-xvi; Suetonius Nero; Dio Cassius in Epit. of Xiphilinus 61 ff; Zonaras xi. (b) Modern: Hermann Schiller, Geschichte des rom. Kaiserreichs unter der Regierung des Neron (Berlin, 1872); Merivale, Hist of the Romans under the Empire; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire and The Expositor, 1893; E.G.

    Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government and Studies in Roman History; Mommsen, “Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht,” Histor.

    Zeitschr., 1890; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity; Baring-Gould, Tragedy of the Caesars: G.H.

    Lewes, “Was Nero a Monster?” in Cornhill Magazine, July, 1863; B.W.

    Henderson, Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero, with important bibliography of ancient and modern authorities (London, 1903); Lehmann, Claudius u. Nero. S. Angus NEST ([ ˆqe , qen ]; [neossia>, neossia ], nossia ; in the New Testament [kataskh>nwsiv, kataskenosis ]; Latin nidus ): A receptacle prepared by a bird for receiving its eggs and young. Nests differ with species. Eagles use a large heap of coarse sticks and twigs on the cleft of a mountain ( Job 39:27 ff; Jeremiah 49:16; Obadiah 1:4); hawks prefer trees; vultures, hollow trees or the earth; ravens, big trees; doves and pigeons, trees or rocky crevices ( Jeremiah 48:28); hoopoes, hollow trees; swallows, mud nests under a roof, on cliffs or deserted temples; owls, hollow trees, dark places in ruins or sand burrows (on the qippoz of Isaiah 34:15 see OWL); cranes, storks and herons, either trees ( <19A417> Psalm 104:17) or rushes beside water (storks often choose housetops, as well).

    Each nest so follows the building laws of its owner’s species that any expert ornithologist can tell from a nest which bird builded it. Early in incubation a bird deserts a nest readily because it hopes to build another in a place not so easily discoverable and where it can deposit more eggs.

    When the young have progressed until their quickening is perceptible through the thin shells pressed against the breast of the mother, she develops a boldness called by scientists the “brooding fever.” In this state the wildest of birds frequently will suffer your touch before deserting the nest. Especially is this the case if the young are just on the point of emerging. The first Biblical reference to the nest of a bird will be found in Balaam’s fourth prophecy in Numbers 24:21: “And he looked on the Kenite, and took up his parable and said, Strong is thy dwelling-place, and thy nest is set in the rock.” Here Balaam was thinking of the nest of an eagle, hawk or vulture, placed on solid rock among impregnable crags of mountain tops. The next reference is among the laws for personal conduct in Deuteronomy 22:6: “If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young.” Beyond question this is the earliest law on record for the protection of a brooding bird. It is probable that it was made permissible to take the young, as the law demanded their use, at least in the case of pigeons and doves, for sacrifice. In Job 29:18, Job cries, “Then I said, I shall die in my nest, And I shall multiply my days as the sand:” that is, he hoped in his days of prosperity to die in the home he had builded for his wife and children. In Psalm 84:3 David sings, “Yea, the sparrow hath found her a house, And the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, Even thine altars, O Yahweh of hosts, My King, and my God.” These lines are rich and ripe with meaning, for in those days all the world protected a temple nest, even to the infliction of the death penalty on anyone interfering with it. This was because the bird was supposed to be claiming the protection of the gods. Hebrew, Arab and Egyptian guarded all nests on places of worship. Pagan Rome executed the shoemaker who killed a raven that built on a temple, and Athens took the same revenge on the man who destroyed the nest of a swallow. Isaiah compared the destruction of Assyria to the robbing of a bird’s nest: “And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the peoples; and as one gathereth eggs that are forsaken, have I gathered all the earth: and there was none that moved the wing, or that opened the mouth, or chirped” ( Isaiah 10:14; compare 16:2). Matthew quotes Jesus as having said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” ( Matthew 8:20 = Luke 9:58). Gene Stratton-Porter NET See FISHING; FOWLER.

    NETAIM <na’-ta-im > , <ne’-ta-im > , <ne-ta’-im > [ µy[if;n] , neTa`im ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jAzaei>m, Azaeim ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jAtaei>m, Ataeim ]):

    In 1 Chronicles 4:23 the King James Version reads “those that dwell among plants and hedges,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah.” The latter may be taken as correct. Gederah was in the Judean Shephelah. Here also we should seek for Netaim; but no likely identification has yet been suggested.

    NETHANEL <ne-than’-el > , <neth’-a-nel > ([ laen]t”n] , nethan’el ], “God has given”; [ Naqanah>l, Nathanael ]; the King James Version Nethaneel, <ne-than’-eel > ): (1) A chief or prince of Issachar ( Numbers 1:8; 2:5; 7:18,23; 10:15). (2) The 4th son of Jesse ( 1 Chronicles 2:14). (3) One of the trumpet-blowers before the ark when it was brought up from the house of Obededom ( 1 Chronicles 15:24). (4) A Levite scribe, the father of Shemaiah ( 1 Chronicles 24:6). (5) The 5th son of Obed-edom ( 1 Chronicles 26:4). (6) One of the princes whom Jehoshaphat sent to teach in the cities of Judah ( 2 Chronicles 17:7). (7) A Levite who gave cattle for Josiah’s Passover ( 2 Chronicles 35:9). (8) One of the priests who had married foreign wives ( Ezra 10:22; compare 1 Esdras 9:22). (9) A priest registered under the high priest Joiakim ( Nehemiah 12:21). (10) A Levite musician who assisted at the dedication of the walls ( Nehemiah 12:36). John A. Lees NETHANIAH <neth-a-ni’-a > ([ Why;n]t”n] , nethanyahu ], “Yah has given”; [ Naqani>av, Nathanias ]): (1) An Asaphite musician ( 1 Chronicles 25:2,12). (2) A Levite who accompanied the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah ( 2 Chronicles 17:8). (3) The father of Jehudi ( Jeremiah 36:14). (4) The father of Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah ( Jeremiah 40:8,14,15; 41, 11 t; 2 Kings 25:23,25). Some manuscripts of Septuagint read here Maththanias .

    NETHINIM <neth’-i-nim > ([ µyniytin] , nethinim ], “given”; [ Naqeinei>m, Natheineim ]; the King James Version Nethinims):

    1. MEANING:

    A group of temple-servants ( 1 Chronicles 9:2 and 16 times in Ezra and Nehemiah). The word has always the article, and does not occur in the singular. The Septuagint translators usually transliterate, but in one passage ( 1 Chronicles 9:2) they render, “the given ones” (hoi dedomenoi ). The Syriac (Peshitta) also, in Ezra, Nehemiah, transliterates the word, but in 1 Chronicles 9:2 renders it by a word meaning “sojourners.” The meaning “given” is suggestive of a state of servitude, and Josephus seems to confirm the suggestion by calling the Nethinim “temple-slaves” (hierodouloi ) (Ant., XI, v, 1). It should, however, be noted that another form of this word is employed in the directions regarding the Levites: “Thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him on behalf of the children of Israel” ( Numbers 3:9; compare also 8:16,19).

    2. HISTORY:

    Of the history of the Nethinim in earlier times there are but few and uncertain traces. When Joshua discovered that he had been beguiled by the Gibeonites into a covenant to let them live, he reduced their tribe to servitude, and declared, “Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall never fail to be of you bondsmen, both hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” ( Joshua 9:23,27). It is no doubt tempting to see in the Gibeonites the earliest Nethinim, but another tradition traces their origin to a gift of David and the princes for the service of the Levites ( Ezra 8:20). Their names, too, indicate diversity of origin; for besides being mostly un-Hebrew in aspect, some of them are found elsewhere in the Old Testament as names of non-Israelitish tribes.

    The Meunim , for example ( Ezra 2:50 = Nehemiah 7:52), are in all likelihood descended from the Meonites or Maonites who are mentioned as harassing Israel ( Judges 10:12), as in conflict with the Simeonites ( Chronicles 4:41), and as finally overcome by Uzziah ( 2 Chronicles 26:7). The next name in the lists is that of the children of Nephisim. These may be traced to the Hagrite clan of Naphish ( Genesis 25:15; Chronicles 5:19). In both Ezra and Nehemiah, the list is immediately followed by that of the servants of Solomon, whose duties were similar to, it may be even humbler than, those of the Nethinim . These servants of Solomon appear to be descendants of the Canaanites whom Solomon employed in the building of his temple ( 1 Kings 5:15). All these indications are perhaps slight; but they point in the same direction, and warrant the assumption that the Nethinim were originally foreign slaves, mostly prisoners of war, who had from time to time been given to the temple by the kings and princes of the nation, and that to them were assigned the lower menial duties of the house of God.

    3. POST-EXILIC HISTORY:

    At the time of the return from the exile the Nethinim had come to be regarded as important. Their number was considerable: 392 accompanied Zerubbabel at the first Return in 538 BC ( Ezra 2:58 = Nehemiah 7:60). When Ezra, some 80 years later, organized the second Return, he secured a contingent of Nethinim numbering 220 ( Ezra 8:20). In Jerusalem they enjoyed the same privileges and immunities as the other religious orders, being included by Artaxerxes’ letter to Ezra among those who should be exempt from toll, custom and tribute ( Ezra 7:24). A part of the city in Ophel, opposite the Water-gate, was assigned them as an official residence ( Nehemiah 3:26,31), and the situation is certainly appropriate if their duties at all resembled those of the Gibeonites (see Ryle, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Cambridge Bible, Intro, 57). They were also organized into a kind of guild under their own leaders or presidents ( Nehemiah 11:21).

    The Nethinim are not again mentioned in Scripture. It is probable that they, with the singers and porters, became gradually incorporated in the general body of Levites; their name passed ere long into a tradition, and became at a later time a butt for the scorn and bitterness of the Talmudic writers against everything that they regarded as un-Jewish. John A. Lees NETOPHAH <ne-to’-fa > ([ hp;fon] , neTophah ]; Septuagint [ Netwfa>, Netopha ], [ Nefwta>, Nephota ], and other variants): The birthplace of two of David’s heroes, Maharai and Heleb ( 2 Samuel 23:28,29), also of Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, one of the captains who came to offer allegiance to Gedaliah ( 2 Kings 25:23; Jeremiah 40:8). “The villages of the Netophathites” are mentioned ( 1 Chronicles 9:16) as the dwellings of certain Levites and ( Nehemiah 12:28, the King James Version “Netophathi”) of certain “sons of the singers.”

    The first mention of the place itself is in Ezra 2:22; Nehemiah 7:26; 1 Esdras 5:18 (the Revised Version (British and American) “Netophas”), where we have parallel lists of the exiles returning from Babylon under Zerubbabel; the place is mentioned between Bethlehem and Anathoth and in literary association with other cities in the mountains of Judah, e.g.

    Gibeon, Kiriath-jearim, Chephereh and Beeroth. In this respect it is most plausible to identify it with NEPHTOAH (which see), although the disappearance of the terminal guttural in the latter creates a difficulty.

    Conder has suggested a site known as Khirbet UmmToba, Northeast of Bethlehem, an ancient site, but not apparently of great importance. Beit Nettif, an important village on a lofty site in the Shephelah near the “Vale of Elah,” also appears to have an echo of the name, and indeed may well be the Beth Netophah of the Mishna (Shebhu`oth, ix.5; Neubauer, Geogr., 128), but the position does not seem to agree at all with that of the Old Testament Netophah. For Khirbet Umm-Toba see Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 128; for Beit Nettif, Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 24; RBR, II, 17 f; both Sh XVII. E. W. G. Masterman NETOPHAS <ne-to’-fas > (Codex Vaticanus [ Nete>bav, Netebas ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Netwfae>, Netophae ]): A town named in 1 Esdras 5:18, identical with “Netophah” of Ezra 2:22; Nehemiah 7:26.

    NETOPHATHI; NETOPHATHITES <ne-tof’-a-thi > , <ne-tof’-a-thits > . See NETOPHAH.

    NETTLES <net’-’lz > : (1) [ lWrj; , charul ], ( Job 30:7; Proverbs 24:31; Zeph 2:9 margin, in all, “wild vetches”); the translation “nettles” is due to the supposed derivations of charul from an (obsolete) [ lrj , charal ], meaning “to be sharp” or “stinging,” but a translation “thorns” (as in Vulgate) would in that case do as well. Septuagint has [fru>gana a]gria, phrugana agria ], “wild brushwood,” in Job, and certainly the association with the “saltwort” and the retm, “broom,” in the passage would best be met by the supposition that it means the low thorny bushes plentiful in association with these plants. “Vetch” is suggested by the Aramaic, but is very uncertain. (2) [ vwOMqi , qimmosh ] ( Isaiah 34:13; Hosea 9:6), and plural [ µynivM]qi , qimmeshonim ] ( Proverbs 24:31), translated (English Versions of the Bible) “thorns,” because of the translation of charul as “nettles” in the same verse From Isaiah 34:13 qimmosh is apparently distinct from thorns, and the translation “nettle” is very probable, as such neglected or deserted places as described in the three references readily become overgrown with nettles in Palestine The common and characteristic Palestine nettle is the Urtica pilulifera, so called from the globular heads of its flowers. E. W. G. Masterman NETWORK <net’-wurk > ([ hk;b;c] , sebhakhah ]): the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Kings 25:17; 2 Chronicles 4:13 (also in the plural, 4:12,13), for “wreathen work” and “wreath” in the King James Version (of the adornment of the capitals of the pillars of Solomon’s temple; see JACHIN AND BOAZ). “Networks” in Isaiah 19:9 is in the Revised Version (British and American) correctly rendered “white cloth.” In the American Standard Revised Version “network” is substituted for “pictures” in the King James Version ( Proverbs 25:11), “baskets” in the English Revised Version margin “filigree work.”

    NEW; NEWNESS <Numbers > , <nu’-nes > ([ vd;;j; , chadhash ]; [kaino>v, kainos ], [ne>ov, neos ]):

    1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    The word commonly translated “new” in the Old Testament is chadhash , “bright,” “fresh,” “new” (special interest was shown in, and importance attached to, fresh and new things and events); Exodus 1:8; Deuteronomy 20:5; 22:8; 24:5; 1 Samuel 6:7; 2 Samuel 21:16; Psalm 33:3, “a new song”; Jeremiah 31:31, “new covenant”; Ezekiel 11:19, “a new spirit”; 18:31 “new heart”; 36:26, etc.; chodhesh is “the new moon,” “the new-moon day,” the first of the lunar month, a festival, then “month” ( Genesis 29:14, “a month of days”); it occurs frequently, often translated “month”; we have “new moon” ( 1 Samuel 20:5,18,24, etc.); tirosh is “new (sweet) wine” ( Nehemiah 10:39; in Joel 1:5; 3:18, it is `asis , the Revised Version (British and American) “sweet wine”); in Acts 2:13, “new wine” is gleukos .

    Other words in the Old Testament for “new” are chadhath , Aramaic ( Ezra 6:4); Tari , “fresh” ( Judges 15:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “a fresh jawbone of an ass”); beri’ah , a “creation” ( Numbers 16:30, “if Yahweh make a new thing,” the Revised Version margin “create a creation”); bakhar, “to be first-fruits” ( Ezekiel 47:12; so the Revised Version margin); qum , “setting,” is translated “newly” ( Judges 7:19); also miqqarobh , “recently” ( Deuteronomy 32:17, the Revised Version (British and American) “of late “); news is shermu`ah, “report,” “tidings”; Proverbs 25:25, “good news from a far country.”

    2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    In the New Testament “new” (mostly kainos , “new,” “fresh,” “newly made”) is an important word. We have the title of the “New Testament” itself, rightly given by the American Standard Revised Version as “New Covenant,” the designation of “the new dispensation” ushered in through Christ, the writings relating to which the volume contains. We have “new covenant” (kainos ) in Luke 22:20, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (the English Revised Version margin “testament”; in Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24, “new” is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American), but in Matthew the margin “many ancient authorities insert new,” and in Mark “some ancient authorities”); 1 Corinthians 11:25, the English Revised Version margin “or testament”; 2 Corinthians 3:6, the English Revised Version margin “or testament”; Hebrews 8:8, the English Revised Version margin “or testament”; in 8:13, “covenant” is supplied (compare Hebrews 12:24, neos ).

    Corresponding to this, we have ( 2 Corinthians 5:17, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), “The old things have passed away; behold, they are become new”: ibid., “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature,” the Revised Version margin “there is a new creation”; Galatians 6:15, margin “or creation,” “new man” (Ephesiansesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10 [neos ]); “new commandment” ( John 13:34); “new doctrine” ( Acts 17:19); “new thing” ( Acts 17:21); “newness of life” (kainotes ) ( Romans 6:4); “newness of the spirit” ( Romans 7:6; compare 2 Corinthians 5:17); “a new name,” ( Revelation 2:17; 3:12), “new heavens and a new earth” ( 2 Peter 3:13); “new Jerusalem” ( Revelation 3:12; 21:2); “new song” ( Revelation 5:9); compare “new friend” and “new wine” (Sirach 9:10b,c); artigennetos , “newborn” ( 1 Peter 2:2); prosphatos , “newly slain,” “new” ( Hebrews 10:20, the Revised Version (British and American) “a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh”; compare Sirach 9:10a; Judith 4:3); “new” is the translation of neos , “new,” “young” ( 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 3:10; “new man”; Hebrews 12:24, “new covenant”).

    The difference in meaning between kainos and neos , is, in the main, that kainos denotes new in respect of quality, “the new as set over against that which has seen service, the outworn, the effete, or marred through age”; neos , “new (in respect of time), that which has recently come into existence,” e.g. kainon mnemeion , the “new tomb” in which Jesus was laid, was not one recently made, but one in which no other dead had ever lain; the “new covenant,” the “new man,” etc., may be contemplated under both aspects of quality and of time (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 209 f).

    In Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21, agnaphos , “unsmoothed,” “unfinished,” is translated “new,” “new cloth,” the Revised Version (British and American) “undressed.” For “new bottles” ( Luke 5:38 and parallels), the Revised Version (British and American) has “fresh wineskins.” W. L. Walker NEW BIRTH See REGENERATION.

    NEW COMMANDMENT See BROTHERLY LOVE.

    NEW COVENANT See COVENANT, THE NEW.

    NEW EARTH See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; HEAVENS, NEW.

    NEW HEAVENS See HEAVENS, NEW.

    NEW JERUSALEM See JERUSALEM, NEW; REVELATION OF JOHN.

    NEW MAN See MAN, NEW.

    NEW MOON See MOON, NEW; FASTS AND FEASTS.

    NEW TESTAMENT See BIBLE; CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; CRITICISM.

    NEW TESTAMENT CANON See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE See LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    NEW TESTAMENT TEXT See TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    NEW YEAR See TIME; YEAR.

    NEZIAH <ne-zi’-a > ([ j”yxin] , netsiach ]): The head of a family of Nethinim ( Ezra 2:54; Nehemiah 7:56), called in 1 Esdras 5:32, “Nasi” (the King James Version and the Revised Version margin “Nasith”).

    NEZIB <ne’-zib > ([ byxin] , netsibh ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Nasei>b, Naseib ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Nesi>b, Nesib ]): A town in the Judean Shephelah, mentioned along with Keilah and Mareshah ( Joshua 15:43). Onomasticon, places it 7 miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin ), on the road to Hebron. It is represented today by Beit Nasib , a village with ancient remains some miles Southwest of Khirbet Kila (Keilah).

    NIBHAZ <nib’-haz > ([ zj”b]ni , nibhchaz ]): Given as the name of an idol of the Avvites, introduced by them into Samaria ( 2 Kings 17:31), but otherwise unknown. The text is supposed to be corrupt.

    NIBSHAN <nib’-shan > ([ ˆv;b]Nih” , ha-nibhshan ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Naflazw>n, Naphlazon ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Nebsa>n, Nebsan ]): A city in the Judean wilderness named between Secacah and the City of Salt ( Joshua 15:62).

    Eusebius, Onomasticon, knows the place but gives no clue to its identification. The site has not been recovered. Wellhausen suggests the emendation of nibhshan to kibhshan , “furnace” (Proleg. 2, 344).

    NICANOR (1) <ni-ka’-nor > , <ni’-ka-nor > ([ Nika>nwr, Nikanor ]): The son of Patroclus and one of the king’s “chief friends” (2 Macc 8:9), a Syrian general under Antiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius Soter. After the defeat of Seron by Judas, Epiphanes entrusted his chancellor Lysias with the reduction of Judea (1 Macc 3:34 ff). Nicanor was one of the three generals commissioned by Lysias — the others being Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, and Gorgias (1 Macc 3:38). The campaign began in 166 BC; the Syrians were defeated at Emmaus (1 Macc 3:57 ff), while Gorgias at a later stage gained a victory at Jamnia over a body of Jews who disobeyed Judas (1 Macc 5:58). The account given in 2 Macc differs considerably, both in omissions and in additions (2 Macc 8:9 ff). There Nicanor, not Gorgias, is the chief in command. The battle of Emmaus is not mentioned, but “the thrice-accursed Nicanor,” having in overweening pride invited a thousand slavedealers to accompany him to buy the Jewish captives, was humiliated, and his host was destroyed, he himself escaping “like a fugitive slave” to Antioch (2 Macc 8:34 f). After the death of Epiphanes, Eupator and Lysias (the last two at the hands of Demetrius (1 Macc 7:2)), Nicanor appears again under King Demetrius in the struggle between Alcimus and Judas.

    Alcimus, having been seated in the priesthood by Demetrius’ officer Bacchides, could not hold it against Judas and the patriots. He appealed again to Demetrius, who this time selected Nicanor, now governor of Cyprus (2 Macc 12:2) and known for his deadly hatred of the Jews, to settle the dispute and slay Judas (2 Macc 14:12 ff; 1 Macc 7:26 ff).

    Nicanor was appointed governor of Judea on this occasion. Again 1 and Maccabees differ. According to 1 Maccabees, Nicanor sought in vain to seize Judas by treachery. Then followed the battle of Capharsalama (“village of peace”), in which the Syrians were defeated, though Josephus (Ant., XII, x, 5) says Judas was defeated. Nicanor retired to Jerusalem, insulted the priests and threatened the destruction of the temple unless they delivered up Judas. He then retired to Beth-horon to find Judas posted opposite him at Adasa (1 Macc 7:39 ff) 3 1/2 miles distant. Here on the 13th of the 12th month Adar (March), 161 BC, the Syrians sustained a crushing defeat, Nicanor himself being the first to fall. The Jews cut off his head and proud right hand and hanged them up beside Jerusalem. For a little while Adasa gave the land of Judah rest. The people ordained to keep this “day of great gladness” year by year — the 13th of Adar, “the day before the day of Mordecai” (Feast of Purim). 2 Maccabees mentions that Simon, Judas’ brother, was worsted in a first engagement (14:17), omits the battle of Capharsalama, and represents Nicanor, struck with the manliness of the Jews, as entering into friendly relations with Judas, urging him to marry and lead a quiet life, forgetful of the king’s command until Alcimus accused him to Demetrius. The latter peremptorily ordered Nicanor to bring Judas in all haste as prisoner to Antioch (14:27). The scene of the final conflict (Adasa) is given only as “in the region of Samaria” (15:1). According to this account, it was Judas who ordered the mutilation of Nicanor and in a more gruesome fashion (15:30 ff). It is possible that the Nicanor, the Cypriarch or governor of Cyprus of 2 Macc 12:2, is a different person from Nicanor, the son of Patroclus — a view not accepted in the above account. S. Angus NICANOR (2) ([ Nika>nwr, Nikanor ): One of “the seven” chosen to superintend “the daily ministration” of the poor of the Christian community at Jerusalem ( Acts 6:5). The name is Greek.

    NICODEMUS <nik-o-de’-mus > ([ Niko>dhmov, Nikodemos ]): A Pharisee and a “ruler of the Jews,” mentioned only by John. He (1) interviewed Christ at Jerusalem and was taught by Him the doctrine of the New Birth ( John 3:1-15), (2) defended Him before the Sanhedrin ( John 7:50-52), and (3) assisted at His burial ( John 19:39-42).

    1. THE INTERVIEW:

    This meeting, which it has been surmised took place in the house of John ( John 3:1-15), was one of the results of our Lord’s ministry at Jerusalem during the first Passover (compare John 3:2 with John 2:23). Although Nicodemus had been thus won to believe in the divine nature of Christ’s mission, his faith was yet very incomplete in that he believed Him to be inspired only after the fashion of the Old Testament prophets. To this faint-hearted faith corresponded his timidity of action, which displayed itself in his coming “by night,” lest he should offend his colleagues in the Sanhedrin and the other hostile Jews ( John 3:2). In answer to the veiled question which the words of Nicodemus implied, and to convince him of the inadequacy of mere intellectual belief, Christ proclaimed to him the necessity for a spiritual regeneration: “Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ( John 3:3). This was interpreted by Nicodemus only in its materialistic sense, and therefore caused him bewilderment and confusion ( John 3:4). But Christ, as on another occasion when dealing with His questioners on a similar point of doctrine (compare John 6:52,53), answered his perplexity only by repeating His previous statement ( John 3:5). He then proceeded to give further explanation. The re-birth is not outward but inward, it is not of the body but of the soul ( John 3:6). Just as God is the real agent in the birth of the body, so also is He the Creator of the New Spirit; and just as no one knoweth whence cometh the wind, or “whither it goeth,” yet all can feel its effects who come under its influence, so is it with the rebirth. Only those who have experienced it as a change in themselves, wrought by the Divine Power, are qualified to judge either of its reality or of its effects ( John 3:7,8). But Nicodemus, since such experience had not yet been his, remained still unenlightened ( John 3:9). Christ therefore condemned such blindness in one who yet professed to be a teacher of spiritual things ( John 3:10), and emphasized the reality in His own life of those truths which He had been expounding ( John 3:11). With this, Christ returned to the problem underlying the first statement of Nicodemus. If Nicodemus cannot believe in “earthly things,” i.e. in the New Birth, which, though coming from above, is yet realized in this world, how can he hope to understand “heavenly things,” i.e. the deeper mysteries of God’s purpose in sending Christ into the world ( John 3:12), of Christ’s Divine sonship ( John 3:13), of His relationship to the atonement and the salvation of man ( John 3:14), and of how a living acceptance of and feeding upon Him is in itself Divine life ( John 3:15; compare John 6:25-65)?

    2. THE DEFENSE:

    The above interview, though apparently fruitless at the time, was not without its effect upon Nicodemus. At the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Sanhedrin was enraged at Christ’s proclamation of Himself as the “living water” ( John 7:37,38), Nicodemus was emboldened to stand up in His defense. Yet here also he showed his natural timidity. He made no personal testimony of his faith in Christ, but sought rather to defend Him on a point of Jewish law ( John 7:50-52; compare Exodus 23:1; Deuteronomy 1:16,17; 17:6; 19:15).

    3. THE BURIAL:

    By this open act of reverence Nicodemus at last made public profession of his being of the following of Christ. His wealth enabled him to provide the “mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds,” with which the body of Jesus was embalmed ( John 19:39 ff).

    The Gospel of Nicodemus and other apocryphal works narrate that Nicodemus gave evidence in favor of Christ at the trial before Pilate, that he was deprived of office and banished from Jerusalem by the hostile Jews, and that he was baptized by Peter and John. His remains were said to have been found in a common grave along with those of Gamaliel and Stephen.

    Nicodemus is a type of the “well-instructed and thoughtful Jew who looked for the consummation of national hope to follow in the line along which he had himself gone, as being a continuation and not a new beginning” (Westcott). The manner in which the Gospel narrative traces the overcoming of his natural timidity and reluctant faith is in itself a beautiful illustration of the working of the Spirit, of how belief in the Son of Man is in truth a new birth, and the entrance into eternal life. C. M. Kerr NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, III, 3, (b).

    NICOLAITANS <nik-o-la’-i-tanz > [ Nikolai`tai>, Nikolaitai ]):

    1. THE SECT:

    A sect or party of evil influence in early Christianity, especially in the churches of Asia. Their doctrine was similar to that of Balaam, “who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication” ( Revelation 2:14,15). Their practices were strongly condemned by John, who praised the church in Ephesiansesus for “hating their works” ( Revelation 2:6), and blamed the church in Pergamum for accepting in some measure their teaching ( Revelation 2:15). Except that reference is probably made to their influence in the church at Thyatira also, where their leader was “the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess” ( Revelation 2:20; compare 2:14), no further direct information regarding them is given in Scripture.

    2. REFERENCES:

    Reference to them is frequent in post-apostolic literature. According to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.26,3; iii.10,7), followed by Hippolytus (Philos., vii.36), they were founded by Nicolaus, the proselyte of Antioch, who was one of the seven chosen to serve at the tables ( Acts 6:5). Irenaeus, as also Clement of Alexandria (Strom., ii.20), Tertullian and others, unite in condemning their practices in terms similar to those of John; and reference is also made to their Gnostic tendencies. In explanation of the apparent incongruity of such an immoral sect being founded by one of “good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (compare Acts 6:3), Simcox argues that their lapse may have been due to reaction from original principles of a too rigid asceticism. A theory, started in comparatively modern times, and based in part on the similarity of meaning of the Greek “Nikolaus,” and the Hebrew “Balaam,” puts forward the view that the two sects referred to under these names were in reality identical. Yet if this were so, it would not have been necessary for John to designate them separately.

    3. NICOLAITAN CONTROVERSY:

    The problem underlying the Nicolaitan controversy, though so little direct mention is made of it in Scripture, was in reality most important, and concerned the whole relation of Christianity to paganism and its usages.

    The Nicolaitans disobeyed the command issued to the Gentilechurches, by the apostolic council held at Jerusalem in 49-50 AD, that they should refrain from the eating of “things sacrificed to idols” ( Acts 15:29). Such a restriction, though seemingly hard, in that it prevented the Christian communities from joining in public festivals, and so brought upon them suspicion and dislike, was yet necessary to prevent a return to a pagan laxity of morals. To this danger the Nicolaitans were themselves a glaring witness, and therefore John was justified in condemning them. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul gives warning against the same evil practices, basing his arguments on consideration for the weaker brethren (compare Corinthians 8).

    LITERATURE.

    Simcox, “Revelation” in the Cambridge Bible; H. Cowan in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), article “Nicolaitans”; H.B. Swete, The Apocalypse of John, lxx ff, 27, 28, 37. C. M. Kerr NICOLAUS; NICOLAS <nik-o-la’-us > (English Versions of the Bible), <nik’-o-las > ([ Niko>laov, Nikolaos ]): One of “the seven” chosen to have the oversight of “the daily ministration” to the poor of the church in Jerusalem ( Acts 6:5). He is called “a proselyte of Antioch”; the other 6 were therefore probably Jews by birth. This is the first recorded case of the admission of a proselyte into office in the Christian church. Some of the church Fathers (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Pseudo-Tertullian) state that he was the founder of the sect called NICOLAITANS (which see) ( Revelation 2:15). Other Fathers seem to suggest that this was a vain claim made by this sect in seeking apostolic authority for their opinions. It may be that the opinions of this sect were an antinomian exaggeration of the preaching of Nicolaus. S. F. Hunter NICOPOLIS <ni-kop’-o-lis > ([ Niko>poliv, Nikopolis ]): A city in Palestine, half-way between Jaffa and Jerusalem, now called Ammas, mentioned in 1 Macc 3:40,57 and 9:50. The earlier city (Emmaus) was burnt by Quintilius Varus, but was rebuilt in 223 AD as Nicopolis.

    The Nicopolis, however, to which Paul urges Titus to come ([pro>v me eijv Niko>polin, ejkei~ gakrika paraceima>sai, pros me eis Nikopolin, ekei gar kekrika paracheimasai ] ( Titus 3:12)) is probably the city of that name situated on the southwest promontory of Epirus. If this view is correct, the statement made by some writers that from Eastern Greece (Athens, Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth) Paul’s labors extended to Italy, that he never visited Western Greece, requires modification. It is true that we do not hear of his preaching at Patras, Zacynthus, Cephallenia, Corcyra (the modern Corfu), which, as a way-station to and from Sicily, always held preeminence among the Ionian islands; but there can be little doubt that, if his plan of going to Nicopolis was carried out, he desired to evangelize the province of Epirus (as well Acarnania) in Western Greece.

    Indeed, it was in this very city of Nicopolis, probably, that he was arrested and taken to Rome for trial — during one of the winters between 64-67 AD.

    Nicopolis was situated only a few miles North of the modern Prevesa, the chief city of Epirus today, the city which the Greeks bombarded in 1912 in the hope of wresting it from the Turks. The ancient city was founded by Augustus, whose camp happened to be pitched there the night before the famous fight with Antony (31 BC). The gulf, called Ambracia in ancient times, is now known as Arta. On the south side was Actium, where the battle was fought. Directly across, only half mile distant, on the northern promontory, was the encampment of Augustus. To commemorate the victory over his antagonist, the Roman emperor built a city on the exact spot where his army had encamped (“Victory City”). On the hill now called Michalitzi, on the site of his own tent, he built a temple to Neptune and instituted games in honor of Apollo, who was supposed to have helped him in the sea-fight. Nicopolis soon became the metropolis of Epirus, with an autonomous constitution, according to Greek custom. But in the time of the emperor Julian (362) the city had fallen into decay, at least in part. It was plundered by the Goths, restored by Justinian, and finally disappeared entirely in the Middle Ages, so far as the records of history show. One document has [ Niko>poliv hJ Numbers~n Pre>beza, Nikopolis he nun Prebeza ], “Nicopolis, which is now Prebeza.” In the time of Augustus, however, Nicopolis was a flourishing town. The emperor concentrated here the population of Aetolia and Acarnania, and made the city a leading member of the Amphictyonic Council. There are considerable ruins of the ancient city, including two theaters, a stadium, an aqueduct, etc.

    LITERATURE.

    Kuhn, Ueber die Entstehung der staate der Alten. J. E. Harry NIGER <ni’-Jeremiah > ([ Ni>ger, Niger ]). See SIMEON, (5).

    NIGH <ni > . See NEAR.

    NIGHT <nit > . See DAY AND NIGHT for the natural usage and the various terms.

    1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    Figurative uses: The word “night” ([ hl;y]l” , laylah ] or [ lyil” , layil ] is sometimes used figuratively in the Old Testament. Thus, Moses compares the brevity of time, the lapse of a thousand years, to “a watch in the night” ( Psalm 90:4). Adversity is depicted by it in such places as Job 35:10; compare Isaiah 8:20; Jeremiah 15:9. Disappointment and despair are apparently depicted by it in the “burden of Dumah” ( Isaiah 21:11,12); and spiritual blindness, coming upon the false prophets ( Micah 3:6); again sudden and overwhelming confusion ( Amos 5:8; Isaiah 59:10 the King James Version, [ tv,n, , nesheph ], “twilight” as in the Revised Version (British and American)).

    2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

    On the lips of Jesus ( John 9:4) it signifies the end of opportunity to labor; repeated in that touching little allegory spoken to His disciples when He was called to the grave of Lazarus ( John 11:9,10). Paul also uses the figure in reference to the Parousia ( Romans 13:12), where “night” seems to refer to the present aeon and “day” to the aeon to come. He also uses it in 1 Thessalonians 5:5,7 where the status of the redeemed is depicted by “day,” that of the unregenerate by “night,” again, as the context shows, in reference to the Parousia. In Revelation 21:25 and 22:5, the passing of the “night” indicates the realization of that to which the Parousia looked forward, the establishment of the kingdom of God forever. See also Delitzsch, Iris, 35. Henry E. Dosker NIGHT-HAWK <nit’-hok > ([ sm;j]T” , tachmac ], “tachmas”; [glau>x, glaux ], but sometimes strouthos , and seirenos ; Latin camprimulgus ): The Hebrew tachmac means “to tear and scratch the face,” so that it is very difficult to select the bird intended by its use. Any member of the eagle, vulture, owl or hawk families driven to desperation would “tear and scratch” with the claws and bite in self-defence. The bird is mentioned only in the lists of abominations (see Leviticus 11:16; Deuteronomy 14:15). There are three good reasons why the night-hawk or night-jar, more properly, was intended. The lists were sweeping and included almost every common bird unfit for food. Because of its peculiar characteristics it had been made the object of fable and superstition. It fed on wing at night and constantly uttered weird cries. Lastly, it was a fierce fighter when disturbed in brooding or raising its young. Its habit was to lie on its back and fight with beak and claw with such ferocity that it seemed very possible that it would “tear and scratch the face.” Some commentators insist that the bird intended was an owl, but for the above reasons the night-jar seems most probable; also several members of the owl family were clearly indicated in the list. See HAWK.

    Gene Stratton-Porter NIGHT-MONSTER <nit’-mon-ster > ([ tyliyli , lilith ]; Septuagint [ojnokentau~rov, onokentauros ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) lamia ):

    1. THE ACCEPTED TRANSLATION.

    The term “night-monster”’ is a hypothetical translation of the Hebrew term [ tyliyli , lilith ], used once only, in Isaiah 34:14. The word is translated in the King James Version “screech-owl,” margin “night monster,” the Revised Version (British and American) “night-monster,” margin “Lilith.”

    The term “night-monster” is also an interpretation, inasmuch as it implies that the Hebrew word is a Babylonian loan-word, and that the reference indicates a survival of primitive folklore. 1. Professor Rogers’ Statement: Concerning this weird superstition, and its strange, single appearance in the Book of Isaiah, Professor Rogers has this to say: “The lil , or ghost, was a night-demon of terrible and baleful influence upon men, and only to be cast out with many incantations. The lil was attended by a serving maid, the ardat lili (“maid of night”), which in the Semitic development was transferred into the feminine lilitu . It is most curious and interesting to observe that this ghost-demon lived on through the history of the Babylonian religion, and was carried out into the Hebrew religion, there to find one single mention in the words of one of the Hebrew prophets” (Religions of Assyria and Babylonia, 76, 77). 2. Exception to the Statement: Exception is to be taken to this statement, admitting the etymological assumption upon which it rests, that “lilith ” is a word in mythology, on the ground that the conception of a night-demon has no place in the religion of the Hebrews as exhibited in the Scriptures. It is certainly worthy of more than passing notice that a conception which is very prominent in the Babylonian mythology, and is worked out with great fullness of doctrinal and ritualistic detail, has, among the Hebrews, so far receded into the background as to receive but one mention in the Bible, and that a bald citation without detail in a highly poetic passage.

    The most that can possibly be said, with safety, is that if the passage in Isaiah is to be taken as a survival of folklore, it is analogous to those survivals of obsolete ideas still to be found in current speech, and in the literature of the modern world ( see LUNATIC). There is no evidence of active participation in this belief, or even of interest in it as such, on the part of the prophetical writer. On the contrary, the nature of the reference implies that the word was used simply to add a picturesque detail to a vivid, imaginative description. All positive evidence of Hebrew participation in this belief belongs to a later date ( see Buxtorf’s Lexicon, under the word “Talmud”).

    2. FOLKLORE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    Attention has been called elsewhere to the meagerness, in the matter of detail, of Old Testament demonology ( see DEMON, DEMONOLOGY; COMMUNION WITH DEMONS). A kindred fact of great importance should be briefly noticed here, namely, that the traces of mythology and popular folklore in the Bible are surprisingly faint and indistinct. We have the following set of items in which such traces have been discovered: “Rahab” ([ bj;r; , rachabh]), mentioned in Job 9:13; 26:12; Isaiah 51:9; “Tanin” ([ ˆyNiT” , tannin]), Isaiah 27:1; “Leviathan” ([ ˆt;y;w]li , liwyathan]), Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1; Ezekiel 29:3; Job 41 passim; the “serpent in the sea,” in Amos 9:3; “Seirim” ([ µyriy[ic] , se`irim]), 2 Chronicles 11:15; Leviticus 17:7; 2 Kings 23:8; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14; “Alukah” ([ hq;Wl[\ , `aluqah]), Proverbs 30:15; “Azazel ([ lzeaz;[\ , `aza’zel) Leviticus 16:8,10,26 “Lilith” (ut sup.), Isaiah 34:14,15.

    A review of these passages brings certain very interesting facts to light. 1. Paucity of References: The references are few in number. Rahab is mentioned 3 times; Tannin (in this connection), once; Leviathan, 5 times; the serpent in the sea, once; Seirim, 5 times (twice with references to idols); Alukah, once; Azazel, times in one chapter and in the same connection; Lilith, once. 2. References in Highly Poetical Passages: These references, with the single exception of Azazel to which we shall return a little later, are all in highly poetical passages. On general grounds of common-sense we should not ascribe conscious and deliberate mythology to writers or speakers of the Bible in passages marked by imaginative description and poetic imagery, any more than we should ascribe such beliefs to modern writers under like circumstances. Poetry is the realm of truth and not of matter of fact. In passages of this tenor, mythology may explain the word itself and justify its appropriateness, it does not explain the use of the term or disclose the personal view of the writer. 3. The References Allusive: All these references are in the highest degree allusive. They exhibit no exercise of the mythological fancy and have received no embroidery with details. This is most significant. So far as our specific references are concerned, we are dealing with petrified mythology, useful as literary embellishment, but no longer interesting in itself. 4. Possibility of Non-mythological Interpretation: Every one of these words is sufficiently obscure in origin and uncertain in meaning to admit the possibility of a non-mythological interpretation; indeed, in several of the parallels a non-mythological use is evident. Bible- Dict. writers are apt to say (e.g. concerning [lilith]) that there is no doubt concerning the mythological reference. The reader may discover for himself that the lexicographers are more cautious (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, in the place cited.). The use of “Rahab” in Job 26:12 is not mythological for the simple reason that it is figurative; the use of “Leviathan” in Isaiah 27:1 and Ezekiel 29:3 comes under the same category. In Job 40 and 41, if the identification of behemoth and leviathan with hippopotamus and crocodile be allowed to stand and the mythological significance of the two be admitted, we have the stage where mythology has become a fixed and universal symbolism which can be used to convey truth apart from the belief in it as reality see LEVIATHAN; “Job,” New Century Bible, p. 335; Meth. Rev., May, 1913, 429 ff). The sea serpent of Amos 9:3 is not necessarily the dragon or Tiamat, and the use of the term is merely suggestive. The term se`ir is in literal use for “he-goat” ( Numbers 15:24, et al.) and is doubtful throughout. Ewald translates it “he-goat” in Isaiah 34:14 and “Satyr” in 13:21. It means literally “shaggy monster” (Vulgate, pilosus). We do not hesitate on the basis of the evidence to erase “Alukah” ( Proverbs 30:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “horse-leech,” by some translated “vampire”) and “Azazel” ( Leviticus 16:8, etc.), interpreted as a “demon of the desert,” from the list of mythological words altogether. As ripe a scholar as Perowne (“Proverbs,” Cambridge Bible) combats the idea of vampire, and Kellogg (“Leviticus,” Expositor’s Bible, in the place cited.) has simply put to rout the mythological-demonic interpretation of Azazel. Even in the case of lilith the derivation is obscure, and the objections urged against the demonic idea by Alexander have not altogether lost their force (see Commentary on Isaiah, in the place cited.). There is a close balance of probabilities in one direction or the other. 5. The Term Lilith: One further fact with regard to lilith must be considered. The term occurs in a list of creatures, the greater part of which are matter-of-fact animals or birds. A comparative glance at a half-dozen translates of the passage Isaiah 34:11-14 will convince any reader that there are a great many obscure and difficult words to be found in the list. Following Delitzsch’s translation we have: “pelican,” “hedge-hog,” “horned-owl,” “raven,” “wilddog,” “ostrich,” “forest-demon” (se`ir), “night-monster.” This is a curious mixture of real and imaginary creatures. Alexander acutely observes that there is too much or too little mythology in the passage. One of two conclusions would seem to follow from a list so constructed: Either all these creatures are looked upon as more or less demonic (see Whitehouse, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), article “Demon,” with which compare West M. Alexander, Demonic Possession in the New Testament, 16), or, as seems to the present writer far more probable, none in the list is considered otherwise than as supposed literal inhabitants of the wilderness. The writer of Isaiah 34:14, who was not constructing a scientific treatise, but using his imagination, has constructed a list in which are combined real and imaginary creatures popularly supposed to inhabit unpeopled solitudes. There still remains a by no means untenable supposition that none of the terms necessarily are mythological in this particular passage. Louis Matthews Sweet NIGHT-WATCH <nit’-woch > [ hl;yL”B” hr;Wmv]a” , ‘ashmurah ba-laylah ], “watch in the night”): One of the three or four divisions of the night. See WATCH; TIME.

    NILE <nil > ([ Nei~lov, Neilos ], meaning not certainly known; perhaps refers to the color of the water, as black or blue. This name does not occur in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the English translation):

    A river of North Africa, the great river of Egypt. The name employed in the Old Testament to designate the Nile is in the Hebrew [ raoy] , ye’or ], Egyptian aur, earlier, atur, usually translated “river,” also occasionally “canals” ( Psalm 78:44; Ezekiel 29:3 ff). In a general way it means all the water of Egypt. The Nile is also the principal river included in the phrase [ vWkAyreh\n” , nahare kush ], “rivers of Ethiopia” ( Isaiah 18:1).

    Poetically the Nile is called [ µy; , yam ], “sea” ( Job 41:31; Nahum 3:8; probably Isaiah 18:2), but this is not a name of the river. [ rwOjyvi , shichor ], not always written fully, has also been interpreted in a mistaken way of the Nile see SHIHOR). Likewise [ µyir”x]mi rh”n” , nahar mitsrayim], “brook of Egypt,” a border stream in no way connected with the Nile, has sometimes been mistaken for that river. See RIVER OF EGYPT.

    1. THE NILE IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. 1. Description: The Nile is formed by the junction of the White Nile and the Blue Nile in latitude 15 degree 45’ North and longitude 32 degree 45’ East. The Blue Nile rises in the highlands of Abyssinia, latitude 12 degree 30’ North, long. 35 degree East, and flows Northwest 850 miles to its junction with the White North. The White Nile, the principal branch of the North, rises in Victoria Nyanza, a great lake in Central Africa, a few miles North of the equator, long. 33 degree East (more exactly the Nile may be said to rise at the headwaters of the Ragera River, a small stream on the other side of the lake,3 degree South of the equator), and flows North in a tortuous channel, 1,400 miles to its junction with the Blue Nile. From this junctionpoint the Niles flows North through Nubia and Egypt 1,900 miles and empties into the Mediterranean Sea, in latitude 32 degree North, through mouths, the Rosetta, East of Alexandria, and the Damietta, West of Port Said. There were formerly 7 mouths scattered along a coast-line of miles. 2. Geological Origin: The Nile originated in the Tertiary period and has continued from that time to this, though by the subsidence of the land 220 ft. along the Mediterranean shore in the Pluvial times, the river was very much shortened. Later in the Pluvial times the land rose again and is still rising slowly. 3. The Making of Egypt: Cultivable Egypt is altogether the product of the Nile, every particle of the soil having been brought down by the river from the heart of the continent and deposited along the banks and especially in the delta at the mouth of the river. The banks have risen higher and higher and extended farther and farther back by the deposit of the sediment, until the valley of arable land varies in width in most parts from 3 or 4 miles to 9 or 10 miles. The mouth of the river, after the last elevation of the land in Pluvial times, was at first not far from the latitude of Cairo. From this point northward the river has built up a delta of 140 miles on each side, over which it spreads itself and empties into the sea through its many mouths. 4. The Inundation: The, watering of Egypt by the inundation from the Nile is the most striking feature of the physical character of that land, and one of the most interesting and remarkable physical phenomena in the world. The inundation is produced by the combination of an indirect and a direct cause. The indirect cause is the rain and melting snow on the equatorial mountains in Central Africa, which maintains steadily a great volume of water in the White Nile. The direct cause is torrential rains in the highlands of Abyssinia which send down the Blue Nile a sudden great increase in the volume of water. The inundation has two periods each year. The first begins about July 15 and continues until near the end of September. After a slight recession, the river again rises early in October in the great inundation. High Nile is in October, 25 to 30 ft., low Nile in June, about 1/2 ft. The Nilometer for recording the height of the water of inundation dates from very early times. Old Nilometers are found still in situ at Edfu and Assuan. The watering and fertilizing of the land is the immediate effect of the inundation; its ultimate result is that making of Egypt which is still in progress. The settling of the sediment from the water upon the land has raised the surface of the valley about 1 ft. in 300 to 400 years, about 9 to 10 ft. near Cairo since the beginning of the early great temples. The deposit varies greatly at other places. As the deposit of sediment has been upon the bottom of the river, as well as upon the surface of the land, though more slowly, on account of the swiftness of the current, the river also has been lifted up, and thus the inundation has extended farther and farther to the East, and the West, as the level of the valley would permit, depositing the sediment and thus making the cultivable land wider, as well as the soil deeper, year by year. At Heliopolis, a little North of Cairo, this extension to the East has been 3 to 4 miles since the building of the great temple there.

    At Luxor, about 350 miles farther up the river, where the approach toward the mountains is much steeper, the extension of the good soil to the East and the West is inconsiderable. 5. The Infiltration: The ancient Egyptians were right in calling all the waters of Egypt the Nile, for wherever water is obtained by digging it is simply the Nile percolating through the porous soil. This percolation is called the infiltration of the Nile. It always extends as far on either side of the Nile as the level of the water in the river at the time will permit. This infiltration, next to the inundation, is the most important physical phenomenon in Egypt. By means of it much of the irrigation of the land during the dry season is carried on from wells. It has had its influence also in the political and religious changes of the country (compare below).

    2. THE NILE IN HISTORY. 1. The Location of Temples: Some of the early temples were located near the Nile, probably because of the deification of the river. The rising of the surface of the land, and at the same time of the bed of the river, from the inundation lifted both Egypt and its great river, but left the temples down at the old level. In time the infiltration of the river from its new higher level reached farther and farther and rose to a higher level until the floor of these old temples was under water even at the time of lowest Nile, and then gods and goddesses, priests and ceremonial all were driven out. At least two of the greatest temples and most sacred places, Heliopolis and Memphis, had to be abandoned.

    Probably this fact had as much to do with the downfall of Egypt’s religion, as its political disasters and the actual destruction of its temples by eastern invaders. Nature’s God had driven out the gods of Nature. 2. The Location of Cemeteries: Some prehistoric burials are found on the higher ground, as at Kefr `Amar.

    A thousand years of history would be quite sufficient to teach Egyptians that the Nile was still making Egypt. Thenceforth, cemeteries were located at the mountains on the eastern and the western boundaries of the valley.

    Here they continue to this day, for the most part still entirely above the waters of the inundation — and usually above the reach of the infiltration. 3. The Damming of the Nile: The widening of the cultivable land by means of long canals which carried the water from far up the river to levels higher than that of the inundation, farther down the river was practiced from very early times. The substitution of dams for long canals was reserved for modern engineering skill. Three great dams have been made: the first a little Nile of Cairo, the greatest at Assuan, and the last near Asyut. 4. Egyptian Famines: Famines in Egypt are always due to failure in the quantity of the waters of inundation. Great famines have not been frequent. The cause of the failure in the water of inundation is now believed to be not so much a lack of the water of inundation from the Blue Nile as the choking of the channel of the White Nile in the great marsh land of the Sudan by the sud, a kind of sedge, sometimes becoming such a tangled mass as to close the channel and impede the flow of the regular volume of water so that the freshet in the Blue Nile causes but little inundation at the usual time, and during the rest of the year the Nile is so low from the same cause that good irrigation by canals and wells is impossible. A channel through the sud is now kept open by the Egyptian government.

    3. THE NILE IN RELIGION.

    One of the gods of the Egyptian pantheon was Hapi, the Nile. In early times it divided the honors with Ra, the sun-god. No wonder it was so. 1. The Nile as a God: If the Egyptians set out to worship Nature-gods at all, surely then the sun and the Nile first. 2. The Nile in Osirian Myth: The origin of the Osirian myth is still much discussed. Very much evidence, perhaps conclusive evidence, can be adduced to prove that it rose originally from the Nile; that Osiris was first of all the Nile, then the water of the Nile, then the soil, the product of the waters of the Nile, and then Egypt, the Nile and all that it produced. 3. The Celestial Nile: Egypt was the Egyptian’s little world, and Egypt was the Nile. It was thus quite natural for the Egyptians in considering the celestial world to image it in likeness of their own world with a celestial Nile flowing through it. It is so represented in the mythology, but the conception of the heavens is vague. M. G. Kyle NIMRAH; BETH-NIMRAH <nim’-ra > ([ hr;m]ni , nimrah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Na>mbra, Nambra ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jAmbra>m, Ambram ]), or ([ hr;m]ni tyBe , beth nimrah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Namra>m, Namram ]; Codex Alexandria [ jAmbra>n, Ambran ] ( Numbers 32:36); Codex Vaticanus [ Baiqanabra>, Baithanabra ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Bhqamna>, Bethamna ] ( Joshua 13:27)): These two names evidently refer to the same place; but there is no reason to think, as some have done, from the similarity of the names, that it is identical with NIMRIM (which see). On the contrary, the indications of the passages cited point to a site East of the Jordan valley and Nimrah of the Dead Sea. About 11 miles Northeast of the mouth of the Jordan, where Wady Nimrin, coming down from the eastern up-lands, enters the plain, stands a hill called Tell Nimrin, with tombs and certain traces of ancient building. This may be certainly identified with Nimrah and Beth-nimrah; and it corresponds to Bethnambris of Eusebius, Onomasticon, which lay Roman miles Nimrah of Livias. W. Ewing NIMRIM <nim’-rim > ([ µyrim]niAyme , me nimrim ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Nebrei>n, Nebrein ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jEbri>m, Ebrim ] ( Jeremiah 48:34); [to< u[dwr th~v Nimrei>m, to hudor tes Nimreim ] ( Isaiah 15:6)): The meaning appears to be “pure” or “wholesome water.” The name occurs only in Isaiah 15:6 and Jeremiah 48:34 in oracles against Moab. In each case it is mentioned in association with Zoar and Horonaim. It is therefore probably to be sought to the Southeast of the Dead Sea.

    Eusebius, Onomasticon, places a town, Bennamareim, to the Nimrim of Zoar, and identifies it with the Old Testament “Nimrim,” as it seems, correctly. The name is still found in Wady Numeireh, opening on the sea at Burj Numeirah, Nimrim of Ghor es-Safiyeh. The waters of Nimrim may be sought either in Moiyet Numeirah or in the spring higher up, where lie the ruins of a town in a well-watered and fruitful district (Buhl, GAP, 272). W. Ewing NIMROD <nim’-rod > ([ drom]ni , nimrodh ]; [ Nebrw>d, Nebrod ]): A descendant of Ham, mentioned in “the generations of the sons of Noah” (Genesis 10; compare 1 Chronicles 1:10) as a son of Cush. He established his kingdom “in the land of Shinar,” including the cities “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh” ( Genesis 10:10), of which only Babel, or Babylon, and Erech, or Uruk, have been identified with certainty. “The land of Shinar” is the old name for Southern Babylonia, afterward called Chaldea (‘erets kasdim), and was probably more extensive in territory than the Sumer of the inscriptions in the ancient royal title, “King of Shumer and Accad,” since Accad is included here in Shinar. Nimrod, like other great kings of Mesopotamian lands, was a mighty hunter, possibly the mightiest and the prototype of them all, since to his name had attached itself the proverb: “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh” ( Genesis 10:9). In the primitive days of Mesopotamia, as also in Palestine, wild animals were so numerous that they became a menace to life and property ( Exodus 23:29; Leviticus 26:22); therefore the king as benefactor and protector of his people hunted these wild beasts. The early conquest of the cities of Babylonia, or their federation into one great kingdom, is here ascribed to Nimrod. Whether the founding and colonization of Assyria ( Genesis 10:11) are to be ascribed to Nimrod will be determined by the exegesis of the text. English Versions of the Bible reads: “Out of that land he (i.e. Nimrod) went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,” etc., this translation assigning the rise of Assyria to Nimrod, and apparently being sustained by Micah 5:5,6 (compare J. M. P. Smith, “Micah,” ICC, in the place cited.); but American Revised Version, margin renders: “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh,” which translation is more accurate exegetically and not in conflict with Micah 5:6, if in the latter “land of Nimrod” be understood, not as parallel with, but as supplemental to, Assyria, and therefore as Babylon (compare commentaries of Cheyne, Pusey, S. Clark, in the place cited.).

    Nimrod has not been identified with any mythical hero or historic king of the inscriptions. Some have sought identification with Gilgamesh, the flood hero of Babylonia (Skinner, Driver, Delitzsch); others with a later Kassite king (Haupt, Hilprecht), which is quite unlikely; but the most admissible correspondence is with Marduk, chief god of Babylon, probably its historic founder, just as Asshur, the god of Assyria, appears in verse 11 as the founder of the Assyrian empire (Wellhausen, Price, Sayce). Lack of identification, however, does not necessarily indicate mythical origin of the name. See ASTRONOMY, II, 11; BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF, IV, 7; MERODACH; ORION.

    Edward Mack NIMSHI <nim’-shi > ([ yvim]ni , nimshi ]): The grandfather of Jehu ( 2 Kings 9:2,14).

    Jehu’s usual designation is “son of Nimshi” ( 1 Kings 19:16).

    NINEVEH <nin’-e-ve > ([ hwen]yni , nineweh ]; [ Nineuh>, Nineue ], [ Nineui>`, Nineui ]; Greek and Roman writers, [ Ni>`nov, Ninos ]):

    1. BEGINNINGS, NAME, POSITION. 1. First Biblical Mention: The first Biblical mention of Nineveh is in Genesis 10:11, where it is stated that NIMROD (which see) or Asshur went out into Assyria, and builded Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah, with the addition, “the same is the great city.” Everything indicates that these statements are correct, for Nineveh was certainly at one time under Babylonian rule, and was at first not governed by Assyrian kings, but by issake or viceroys of Assur, the old capital. To all appearance Nineveh took its name from the Babylonian Nina near Lagas in South Babylonia, on the Euphrates, from which early foundation it was probably colonized. The native name appears as Ninua or Nina (Ninaa), written with the character for “water enclosure” with that for “fish” inside, implying a connection between Nina and the Semitic nun, “fish.” 2. Etymology of the Name: The Babylonian Nina was a place where fish were very abundant, and Ishtar or Nina, the goddess of the city, was associated with Nin-mah, Merodach’s spouse, as goddess of reproduction. Fish are also plentiful in the Tigris at Mosul, the modern town on the other side of the river, and this may have influenced the choice of the site by the Babylonian settlers, and the foundation there of the great temple of Ishtar or Nina. The date of this foundation is unknown, but it may have taken place about 3OOO BC. 3. Position on the Tigris: Nineveh lay on the eastern bank of the Tigris, at the point where the Khosr falls into that stream. The outline of the wall is rectangular on the West, but of an irregular shape on the East. The western fortifications run from Northwest to Southeast, following, roughly, the course of the river, which now flows about 1,500 yards from the walls, instead of close to them, as in ancient times.

    2. NINEVEH AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.

    According to the late G. Smith, the southwestern wall has a length of about 2 1/2 miles, and is joined at its western corner by the northwestern wall, which runs in a northeasterly direction for about 1 1/3 miles. 1. Its Walls: The northeastern wall, starting here, runs at first in a southeasterly direction, but turns southward, gradually approaching the southwestern wall, to which, at the end of about 3 1/4 miles, it is joined by a short wall, facing nearly South, rather more than half a mile long. 2. Principal Mounds and Gateways: The principal mounds are Kouyunjik, a little Northeast of the village of `Amusiyeh, and Nebi-Yunas, about 1,500 yards to the Southeast. Both of these lie just within the Southwest wall. Extensive remains of buildings occupy the fortified area. Numerous openings occur in the walls, many of them ancient, though some seem to have been made after the abandonment of the site. The principal gate on the Northwest was guarded by winged bulls (see Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd series, plural 3; Nineveh and Babylon, 120). Other gates gave access to the various commercial roads of the country, those on the East passing through the curved outworks and the double line of fortifications which protected the northeastern wall from attack on that side, where the Ninevites evidently considered that they had most to fear. 3. Extent and Population within the Walls: According to G. Smith, the circuit of the inner wall is about 8 miles, and Captain Jones, who made a trigonometrical survey in 1854, estimated that, allotting to each inhabitant 50 square yards, the city may have contained 174,000 inhabitants. If the statement in Jon 4:11, that the city contained 120,000 persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left, be intended to give the number of the city’s children only, then the population must have numbered about 600,000, and more than three cities of the same extent would have been needed to contain them. 4. Extent outside the Walls: It has therefore been supposed — and that with great probability — that there was a large extension of the city outside its walls. This is not only indicated by Jon 3:3, where it is described as “an exceeding great city of three days’ journey” to traverse, but also by the extant ruins, which stretch Southeast along the banks of the Tigris as far as Nimroud (Calah) while its northern extension may have been regarded as including Khorsabad. 5. Calah, Resen and Rehoboth-Ir: Concerning the positions of two of the cities mentioned with Nineveh, namely, Calah and Resen, there can be no doubt, notwithstanding that Resen has not yet been identified — Calah is the modern Nimroud, and Resen lay between that site and Nineveh.

    The name Rehoboth-Ir has not yet been found in the inscriptions, but Fried.

    Delitzsch has suggested that it may be the rebit Ninua of the inscriptions, Northeast of Nineveh. If this be the case, the Nineveh of Jonah contained within it all the places in Genesis 10:11,12, and Khorsabad besides. 6. Khorsabad: Taking the outlying ruins from North to South, we begin with Khorsabad (Dur-Sarru-kin or Dur-Sargina), 12 miles Northeast of Kouyunjik, the great palace mound of Nineveh proper. Khorsabad is a great enclosure about 2,000 yards square, with the remains of towers and gateways. The palace mound lies on its northwest face, and consists of an extensive platform with the remains of Sargon’s palace and its temple, with a ziqqurat or temple-tower similar to those at Babylon, Borsippa, Calah and elsewhere. This last still shows traces of the tints symbolical of the planets of which its stages were, seemingly, emblematic. The palace ruins show numerous halls, rooms and passages, many of which were faced with slabs of coarse alabaster, sculptured in relief with military operations, hunting-scenes, mythological figures, etc., while the principal entrances were flanked with the finest winged human-headed bulls which Assyrian art has so far revealed. The palace was built about 712 BC, and was probably destroyed by fire when Nineveh fell in 606 BC, sharing the same fate.

    Some of the slabs and winged bulls are in the Louvre and the British Museum, but most of the antiquarian spoils were lost in the Tigris by the sinking of the rafts upon which they were loaded after being discovered. 7. Sherif Khan and Selamieh: Another outlying suburb was probably Tarbicu, now represented by the ruins at Sherif Khan, about 3 miles North of Kouyunjik. In this lay a temple — “palace” Sennacherib calls it — dedicated to Nergal. In ancient times it must have been a place of some importance, as Esarhaddon seems to have built a palace there, as well as a “seat” for his eldest son, Assur-bani-apli.

    The site of Resen, “between Nineveh and Calah,” is thought to be the modern Selamieh, 12 miles South of Nineveh, and 3 miles North of Nimroud (Calah). It is in the form of an irregular enclosure on a high mound overlooking the Tigris, with a surface of about 400 acres. No remains of buildings, sculptures or inscriptions have, however, been found there. 8. Nimroud: After Nineveh. itself (Kouyunjik), the ruins known as Nimroud, 14 or miles Southeast, are the most important. They mark the site of the ancient Calah, and have already been described under that heading (see p. 539). As there stated, the stone-faced temple-tower seems to be referred to by Ovid, and is apparently also mentioned by Xenophon ( see RESEN). The general tendency of the accumulated references to these sites supports theory that they were regarded as belonging to Nineveh, if not by the Assyrians themselves (who knew well the various municipal districts), at least by the foreigners who had either visited the city or had heard or read descriptions of it.

    3. PALACES AT NINEVEH PROPER.

    The palaces at Nineveh were built upon extensive artificial platforms between 30 and 50 ft. high, either of sundried brick, as at Nimroud, or of earth and rubbish, as at Kouyunjik. It is thought that they were faced with masonry, and that access was gained to them by means of flights of deep steps, or sloping pathways. Naturally it is the plan of the basement floor alone that can at present be traced, any upper stories that may have existed having long since disappeared. The halls and rooms discovered were faced with slabs of alabaster or other stone, often sculptured with bas-reliefs depicting warlike expeditions, the chase, religious ceremonies and divine figures. The depth of the accumulations over these varies from a few inches to about 30 ft., and if the amount in some cases would seem to be excessive, it is thought that this may have been due either to the existence of upper chambers, or to the extra height of the room. The chambers, which are grouped around courtyards, are long and narrow, with small square rooms at the ends. The partition walls vary from 6 to 15 ft. in thickness, and are of sun-dried brick, against which the stone paneling was fixed. As in the case of the Babylonian temples and palaces, the rooms and halls open into each other, so that, to gain access to those farthest from the courtyard entrance, one or more halls or chambers had to be traversed. No traces of windows have been discovered, and little can therefore be said as to the method of lighting, but the windows were either high up, or light was admitted through openings in the roof. 1. The Palace of Sennacherib: The palace of Sennacherib lay in the southeast corner of the platform, and consisted of a courtyard surrounded on all four sides by numerous long halls, and rooms, of which the innermost were capable of being rendered private. It was in this palace that were found the reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish, with the representation of Sennacherib seated on his “standing” throne, while the captives and the spoil of the city passed before him. The grand entrance was flanked by winged bulls facing toward the spectator as he entered. They were in couples, back to back, on each side of the doorway, and between each pair the ancient Babylonian hero-giant, carrying in one hand the “boomerang,” and holding tightly with his left arm a struggling lion (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 137) was represented, just as at his father Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad. The upper part of these imposing figures had been destroyed, but they were so massive, that the distinguished explorer attributed their overthrow not to the act of man, but to some convulsion of Nature. 2. The Palace of Assur-bani-apli: In the north of the mound are the ruins of the palace of Assur-bani-apli or Assur-bani-pal, discovered by Hormuzd Rassam. His latest plan (Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, Cincinnati and New York, 1897, plate facing p. 36) does not give the whole of the structure, much of the building having been destroyed; but the general arrangement of the rooms was upon the traditional lines. The slabs with which they were paneled showed basreliefs illustrating the Assyrian campaigns against Babylonia, certain Arab tribes, and Elam. As far as they are preserved, the sculptures are wonderfully good, and the whole decorative scheme of the paneled walls, of which, probably, the greater part is forever lost, may be characterized, notwithstanding their defects of perspective and their mannerisms, as nothing less than magnificent. The lion-hunts of the great king, despite the curious treatment of the animals’ manes (due to the sculptors’ ignorance of the right way to represent hair) are admirable. It would be difficult to improve upon the expressions of fear, rage and suffering on the part of the animals there delineated. The small sculptures showing Assur-bani-apli hunting the goat and the wild ass are not less noteworthy, and are executed with great delicacy.

    4. SENNACHERIB’S DESCRIPTION OF NINEVEH. 1. The Walls: In all probability the best description of the city is that given by Sennacherib on the cylinder recording his expedition to Tarsus in Cilicia.

    From ancient times, he says, the circuit of the city had measured 9,300 cubits, and he makes the rather surprising statement that his predecessors had not built either the inner or the outer wall, which, if true, shows how confident they were of their security from attack. He claims to have enlarged the city by 12,515 (cubits). The great defensive wall which he built was called by the Sumerian name of Bad-imgallabi-lu-susu, which he translates as “the wall whose glory overthrows the enemy.” He made the brickwork 40 (cubits) thick, which would probably not greatly exceed the estimate of G. Smith, who reckoned it to have measured about 50 ft. The height of the wall he raised to 180 tipki, which, admitting the estimate of Diodorus, should amount to about 100 ft. 2. The Gates — Northwest: In this enclosing wall were 15 gates, which he enumerates in full. Three of these were situated in the short northwest wall — the gate of Hadad; the gate of Uru or Hadad of Tarbisu (Sherif Khan), and the gate of the moongod Nannar, Sennacherib’s own deity. The plans show five openings in the wall on this side, any of which may have been the gate used when going to Tarbicu, but that adorned with winged bulls probably furnished the shortest route. 3. The Gates — South and East: The gates looking toward the South and the East were the Assur-gate (leading to the old capital); Sennacherib’s Halzi-gate; the gate of Samas of Gagal, the gate of the god Enlil of Kar-Ninlil, and the “covered gate,” which seems to have had the reputation of letting forth the fever-demon.

    After this are mentioned the Sibaniba-gate, and the gate of Halah in Mesopotamia. This last must have been the extreme northeastern opening, now communicating with the road to Khorsabad, implying that Halah lay in that direction. 4. The Gates — West: The gates on the west or river-side of the city were “the gate of Ea, director of my watersprings”; the quay-gate, “bringer of the tribute of my peoples”; the gate of the land of Bari, within which the presents of the Sumilites entered (brought down by the Tigris from Babylonia, in all probability); the gate of the tribute-palace or armory; and the gate of the god Sar-ur — “altogether 5 gates in the direction of the West.” There are about 9 wide openings in the wall on this side, 2 being on each side of the Kouyunjik mound, and 2 on each side of that called Nebi-Yunus. As openings at these points would have endangered the city’s safety, these have probably to be eliminated, leaving 2 only North of Nebi-Yunus, 2 between that and Kouyunjik, and one North of Kouyunjik. Minor means of exit probably existed at all points where they were regarded as needful. 5. The Outer Wall: the Plantations: To the outer wall of the city Sennacherib gave a Sumerian name meaning, “the wall which terrifies the enemy.” At a depth of 54 gar, the underground water-level, its foundations were laid upon blocks of stone, the object of this great depth being to frustrate undermining. The wall was made “high like a mountain.” Above and below the city he laid out plantations, wherein all the sweet-smelling herbs of Heth (Palestine and Phoenicia) grew, fruitful beyond those of their homeland. Among them were to be found every kind of mountain-vine, and the plants of all the nations around. 6. The Water-Supply, etc.: In connection with this, in all probability, he arranged the water-supply, conducting a distant water-course to Nineveh by means of conduits. Being a successful venture, he seems to have watered therewith all the people’s orchards, and in winter 1,000 corn fields above and below the city. The force of the increased current in the river Khosr was retarded by the creation of a swamp, and among the reeds which grew there were placed wild fowl, wild swine, and deer(?). Here he repeated his exotic plantations, including trees for wood, cotton (apparently) and seemingly the olive. 7. How the Bas-Reliefs Illustrate the King’s Description: Sennacherib’s bas-reliefs show some of the phases of the work which his cylinder inscriptions describe. We see the winged bulls, which are of colossal dimensions, sometimes lying on their sledges (shaped like boats or Assyrian ships), and sometimes standing and supported by scaffolding. The sledges rest upon rollers, and are dragged by armies of captives urged to action by taskmasters with whips. Others force the sledges forward from behind by means of enormous levers whose upper ends are held in position by guy-ropes. Each side has to pull with equal force, for if the higher end of the great lever fell, the side which had pulled too hard suffered in killed and crushed, or at least in bruised, workmen of their number. In the background are the soldiers of the guard, and behind them extensive wooded hills. In other bas-reliefs it is apparently the pleasure grounds of the palace which are seen. In these the background is an avenue of trees, alternately tall and short, on the banks of a river, whereon are boats, and men riding astride inflated skins, which were much used in those days, as now. On another slab, the great king himself, in his hand-chariot drawn by eunuchs, superintends the work. 8. Nineveh the Later Capital: How long Nineveh had been the capital of Assyria is unknown. The original capital was Assur, about 50 miles to the South, and probably this continued to be regarded as the religious and official capital of the country.

    Assur-nacir-Apli seems to have had a greater liking for Calah (Nimroud), and Sargon for Khorsabad, where he had founded a splendid palace. These latter, however, probably never had the importance of Nineveh, and attained their position merely on account of the reigning king building a palace and residing there. The period of Nineveh’s supremacy seems to have been from the beginning of the reign of Sennacherib to the end of that of Assur-bani-apli, including, probably, the reigns of his successors likewise — a period of about 98 years (704-606 BC).

    5. LAST DAYS AND FALL OF NINEVEH.

    Nineveh, during the centuries of her existence, must have seen many stirring historical events; but the most noteworthy were probably Sennacherib’s triumphal entries, including that following the capture of Lachish, the murder of that great conqueror by his sons (the recent theory that he was killed at Babylon needs confirmation); and the ceremonial triumphs of Assur-bani-apli — the great and noble Osnappar ( Ezra 4:10). After the reign of Assur-bani-apli came his son Assur-etil-ilani, who was succeeded by Sin-sarra-iskun (Saracos), but the history of the country, and also of the city, is practically non-existent during these last two reigns.

    The Assyrian and Babylonian records are silent with regard to the fall of the city, but Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus and Syncellus all speak of it.

    The best account, however, is that of Diodorus Siculus, who refers to a legend that the city could not be taken until the river became its enemy.

    Arbaces, the Scythian, besieged it, but could not make any impression on it for 2 years. In the 3rd year, however, the river (according to Commander Jones, not the Tigris, but the Khosr), being swollen by rains, and very rapid in its current, carried away a portion of the wall, and by this opening the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in this the fulfillment of the oracle, gathered together his concubines and eunuchs, and, mounting a funeral pyre which he had caused to be constructed, perished in the flames. This catastrophe is supposed to be referred to in Nahum 1:8: “With an over-running flood he (the Lord) will make a full end of her place (i.e. of Nineveh),” and Nahum 2:6: “The gates of the rivers are opened, and the palace is dissolved.” The destruction of the city by fire is probably referred to in 3:13,15. The picture of the scenes in her streets — the noise of the whip, the rattling wheels, the prancing horses, the bounding chariots (3:2 ff), followed by a vivid description of the carnage of the battlefield — is exceedingly striking, and true to their records and their sculptures.

    LITERATURE.

    The standard books on the discovery and exploration of Nineveh are Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains (two volumes, 1849); Nineveh and Babylon (1853); Monuments of Nineveh, 1st and 2nd series (plates) (1849 and 1853); and Hormuzd Hassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod (Cincinnati and New York, 1897). T. G. Pinches NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF

    1. THE DISCOVERY.

    In the spring of 1850, the workmen of Sir A.H. Layard at Nineveh made an important discovery. In the ruins of the palace of Assur-bani-pal they found a passage which opened into two small chambers leading one into the other. The doorway was guarded on either side by figures of Ea, the god of culture and the inventor of letters, in his robe of fishskin. The walls of the chambers had once been paneled with bas-reliefs, one of which represented a city standing on the shore of a sea that was covered with galleys. Up to the height of a foot or more the floor was piled with clay tablets that had fallen from the shelves on which they had been arranged in order, and the larger number of them was consequently broken. Similar tablets, but in lesser number, were found in the adjoining chambers. After Layard’s departure, other tablets were discovered by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, and then the excavations ceased for many years. The discovery of the Babylonian version of the account of the Deluge, however, by Mr. George Smith in 1873 led the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph to send him to Nineveh in the hope that the missing portions of the story might be found.

    He had not been excavating there long before he came across a fragment of another version of the story, and then once more the excavations came to an end. Since then expeditions have been sent by the British Museum which have resulted in the recovery of further remains of the ancient library of Nineveh.

    2. THE LIBRARY.

    The tablets formed a library in the true sense of the word. Libraries had existed in the cities of Babylonia from a remote date, and the Assyrian kings, whose civilization was derived from Babylonia, imitated the example of Babylonia in this as in other respects. The only true booklover among them, however, was Assur-bani-pal. He was one of the most munificent royal patrons of learning the world has ever seen, and it was to him that the great library of Nineveh owed its existence. New editions were made of older works, and the public and private libraries of Babylonia were ransacked in search of literary treasures.

    3. WRITING-MATERIALS.

    Fortunately for us the ordinary writing-material of the Babylonians and Assyrians was clay. It was more easily procurable than papyrus or parchment, and was specially adapted for the reception of the cuneiform characters. Hence, while the greater part of the old Egyptian literature, which was upon papyrus, has perished that of Babylonia and Assyria has been preserved. In Babylonia the tablets after being inscribed were often merely dried in the sun; in the damper climate of Assyria they were baked in a kiln. As a large amount of text had frequently to be compressed into a small space, the writing is sometimes so minute as to need the assistance of a magnifying glass before it can be read. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the library-chambers of Nineveh Layard found a magnifying lens of crystal, which had been turned on the lathe.

    4. CONTENTS. 1. Philology: The subject-matter of the tablets included all the known branches of knowledge. Foremost among them are the philological works. The inventors of the cuneiform system of writing had spoken an agglutinative language, called Sumerian, similar to that of the Turks or Finns today; and a considerable part of the early literature had been written in this language, which to the later Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians was what Latin was to the European nations in the Middle Ages. The student was therefore provided with grammars and dictionaries of the two languages, as well as with reading-books and interlinear translates into Assyrian of the chief Sumerian texts. Besides this, long lists of the cuneiform characters were drawn up with their phonetic and ideographic values, together with lists of Assyrian synonyms, in which, for example,, all the equivalents are given of the word “to go.” The Assyrian lexicographers at times attempted etymologies which are as wide of the mark as similar etymologies given by English lexicographers of a past generation. Sabattu, “Sabbath,” for instance, is derived from the two Sumerian words sa “heart” and bat, “to end,” and so is explained to mean “day of rest for the heart.” It is obvious that all this implies an advanced literary culture. People do not begin to compile grammars and dictionaries or to speculate on the origin of words until books and libraries abound and education is widespread. 2. Astronomy and Astrology: Astronomy occupied a prominent place in Assyrian literature, but it was largely mingled with astrology. The Babylonians were the founders of scientific astronomy; they were the first to calculate the dates of lunar and solar eclipses, and to give names to the signs of the Zodiac. Among the contents of the library of Nineveh are reports from the Royal Observatory, relating to the observation of eclipses and the like. 3. Religious Texts: A knowledge of astronomy was needed for the regulation of the calendar, and the calendar was the special care of the priests, as the festivals of the gods and the payment of tithes were dependent upon it. Most of the religious texts went back to the Sumerian period and were accordingly provided with Assyrian translations. Some of them were hymns to the gods, others were the rituals used in different temples. There was, moreover, a collection of psalms, as well as numerous mythological texts. 4. Law: The legal literature was considerable. The earliest law books were in Sumerian, but the great code compiled by Hammurabi, the contemporary of Abraham, was in Semitic Babylonian ( see CHAMMURABI ). Like English law, Assyro-Babylonian law was case-made, and records of the cases decided from time to time by the judges are numerous. 5. Science: Among scientific works we may class the long lists of animals, birds, fishes, plants and stones, together with geographical treatises, and the pseudoscience of omens. Starting from the belief that where two events followed one another, the first was the cause of the second, an elaborate pseudoscience of augury had been built up, and an enormous literature arose on the interpretation of dreams, the observation of the liver of animals, etc.

    Unfortunately Assur-bani-pal had a special predilection for the subject, and the consequence is that his library was filled with works which the Assyriologist would gladly exchange for documents of a more valuable character. Among the scientific works we may also include those on medicine, as well as numerous mathematical tables. 6. Literature: Literature was largely represented, mainly in the form of poems on mythological, religious or historical subjects. Among these the most famous is the epic of the hero Gilgames in twelve books, the Babylonian account of the Deluge being introduced as an episode in the eleventh book.

    Another epic was the story of the great battle between the god Merodach and Tiamat, the dragon of chaos and evil, which includes the story of the creation. 7. History and Chronology: Historical records are very numerous, the Assyrians being distinguished among the nations of antiquity by their historical sense. In Assyria the royal palace took the place of the Bah or Egyptian temple; and where the Babylonian or the Egyptian would have left behind him a religious record, the Assyrian adorned his walls with accounts of campaigns and the victories of their royal builders. The dates which are attached to each portion of the narrative, and the care with which the names of petty princes and states are transcribed, give a high idea of the historical precision at which the Assyrians aimed. The Assyrian monuments are alone sufficient to show that the historical sense was by no means unknown to the ancient peoples of the East, and when we remember how closely related the Assyrians were to the Hebrews in both race and language, the fact becomes important to the Biblical student. Besides historical texts the library contained also chronological tables and long lists of kings and dynasties with the number of years they reigned. In Babylonia time was marked by officially naming each year after some event that had occurred in the course of it; the more historically-minded Assyrian named the year after a particular official, called limmu, who was appointed on each New Year’s Day. In Babylonia the chronological system went back to a very remote date. The Babylonians were a commercial people, and for commercial purposes it was necessary to have an exact register of the time. 8. Commerce: The library contained trading documents of various sorts, more especially contracts, deeds of sale of property and the like. Now and then we meet with the plan of a building. There were also fiscal documents relating to the taxes paid by the cities and provinces of the empire to the imperial treasury. 9. Letters: One department of the library consisted of letters, some of them private, others addressed to the king or to the high officials. Nearly a thousand of these have already been published by Professor Harper.

    The clay books, it need hardly be added, were all carefully numbered and catalogued, the Assyrian system of docketing and arranging the tablets being at once ingenious and simple. The librarians, consequently, had no difficulty in finding any tablet or series of tablets that might be asked for.

    We may gather from the inscription attached to the larger works copied from Babylonian originals as well as to other collections of tablets that the library was open to all “readers.” A. H. Sayce NINEVITES <nin’-e-vits > ([ Nineu(e)i~tai, Nineu (e )itai ]): Only in Luke 11:30. The parallel passage ( Matthew 12:41), with Luke 11:32, has the fuller form, “men of Nineveh,” which gives the meaning.

    NIPHIS <ni’-fis > ([ Neifei>v, Neipheis ], Codex Alexandrinus [ Finei>v, Phineis ]; the King James Version Nephis): Given in 1 Esdras 5:21 margin as = “Magbish” of Ezra 2:30, whose sons are the same in number (156) as those of Niphis, but it would seem rather to be the equivalent of Nebo in 2:29.

    NISAN <ni’-san > ([ ˆs;yni , nican ]): The first month of the Jewish year in which occurred the Passover and which corresponds to April. The month is the same as Abib, which occurs in the Pentateuch. Nisan occurs in Nehemiah 2:1 and Est 3:7. It denotes “the month of flowers.” See CALENDAR.

    NISROCH <nis’-rok > , <niz’-rok > ([ Ëros]ni , nicrokh ]): The Assyrian god in whose temple Sennacherib was worshipping when put to death by his sons ( Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38). The name is not found elsewhere. Some identify him with Asshur, the national deity. See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF.

    NITRE <ni’-ter > ([ rt,n, , nether ]; [ni>tron, nitron ]): Nitre as used in the King James Version does not correspond to the present use of that term. Nitre or niter is now applied to sodium or potassium nitrate. The writer has in his collection a specimen of sodium carbonate, called in Arabic naTrun, which was taken from the extensive deposits in Lower Egypt where it is found as a deposit underneath a layer of common salt. Similar deposits are found in Syria and Asia Minor. This is probably the “nitre” of the Bible. the American Standard Revised Version has rendered niter “lye” in Jeremiah 2:22, and “soda” in Proverbs 25:20. Soda or lye has been used as a cleansing agent from earliest times. It effervesces energetically, when treated with an acid; hence, the comparison in Proverbs 25:20 of the heavy-hearted man roiled by the sound of singing to the sizzling of soda on which vinegar has been poured. See VINEGAR.

    James A. Patch NO <no > . See NO-AMON.

    NOADIAH <no-a-di’-a > ([ hy;d][ “wOn , no`adhyah ], “tryst of Yah”; [ Noadei>, Noadei ]): (1) Son of Binnui, one of the Levites to whom Ezra entrusted the gold and silver and sacred vessels which he brought up from Babylon ( Ezra 8:33); also called MOETH (which see), son of Sabannus (1 Esdras 8:63). (2) A prophetess associated with Tobiah and Sanballat in opposition to Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 6:14).

    NOAH (1) <no’-a > ([ j”nO, noach ], “rest”; Septuagint [ Nw~e, Noe ]; Josephus, [ Nw~cov, Nochos ]): The 10th in descent from Adam in the line of Seth ( Genesis 5:28,29). Lamech here seems to derive the word from the [ µj”n; , nacham ], “to comfort,” but this is probably a mere play upon the name by Noah’s father. The times in which Noah was born were degenerate, and this finds pathetic expression in Lamech’s saying at the birth of Noah, “This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh because of the ground which Yahweh hath cursed.” Concerning theory that Noah is the name of a dynasty, like Pharaoh or Caesar, rather than of a single individual see ANTEDILUVIANS. In his 600th year the degenerate races of mankind were cut off by the Deluge. But 120 years previously ( Genesis 6:3) he had been warned of the catastrophe, and according to 1 Peter 3:20 had been preparing for the event by building the ark ( see ARK; DELUGE). In the cuneiform inscriptions Noah corresponds to “Hasisadra” (Xisuthrus).

    After the flood Noah celebrated his deliverance by building an altar and offering sacrifices to Yahweh ( Genesis 8:20), and was sent forth with God’s blessing to be “fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” ( Genesis 9:1), as Adam had been sent forth at the beginning ( Genesis 1:28). In token of the certainty of God’s covenant not to destroy the race again by flood, a rainbow spanned the sky whose reappearance was ever after to be a token of peace. But Noah was not above temptation. In the prosperity which followed, he became drunken from the fruit of the vineyard he had planted. His son Ham irreverently exposed the nakedness of his father, while Shem and Japheth covered it from view ( Genesis 9:22,23). The curse upon Canaan the son of Ham was literally fulfilled in subsequent history when Israel took possession of Palestine, when Tyre fell before the arms of Alexander, and Carthage surrendered to Rome. George Frederick Wright NOAH (2) ([ h[;nO, no`ah ], “movement”): One of the daughters of Zelophehad ( Numbers 26:33; 27:1; 36:11; Joshua 17:3 ff).

    NOAH, BOOK (APOCALYPSE) OF See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

    NO-AMON <no-a’-mon > ([ ˆwOma; an , no’ ‘amon ], Egyptian nut , “a city,” with the feminine ending t, and Amon, proper name of a god, City Amon, i.e. the “City,” par excellence , of the god Amon; translated in the King James Version “populous No,” following the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390- 405 A.D.) in a misunderstanding of the word ‘amon ; the Revised Version (British and American) “No-amon”): Occurs in this form only in Nahum 3:8, but [ aONmi ˆwOma; , ‘amon minno’ ], “Amon of No,” occurs in Jeremiah 46:25. Compare also Ezekiel 30:14-16, where [ anO, no’ ], is undoubtedly the same city.

    The description of No-amon in Nahum 3:8 seems to be that of a delta city, but [ µy; , yam ], “sea” in that passage is used poetically for the Nile, as in Job 41:31 and in Isaiah 18:2. With this difficulty removed, the Egyptian etymology of the name leaves no doubt as to the correct identification of the place. The “City Amon” in the days of Nahum, Jeremiah and Ezekiel was Thebes (compare the article “Thebes” in any general encyclopedia). M. G. Kyle NOB <nob > ([ bn , nobh ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Nomba>, Nomba ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Noba>, Noba ], and other forms): An ancient priestly town to which David came on his way South when he fled from Saul at Gibeah ( 1 Samuel 21:1). Here he found refuge and succor with Ahimelech.

    This was observed by Doeg the Edomite, who informed the king, and afterward became the instrument of Saul’s savage vengeance on the priests, and on all the inhabitants of the city (1 Samuel 22). The name occurs in Nehemiah 11:32 in a list of cities, immediately after Anathoth.

    In Isaiah’s ideal account of the Assyrians’ march against Jerusalem, Nob is clearly placed South of Anathoth. Here, says the prophet, the Assyrian shall shake his hand at the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem. It was a place, therefore, from which the Holy City and the temple were clearly visible.

    The district in which the site must be sought is thus very definitely indicated; but within this district no name at all resembling Nob has been discovered, and so no sure identification is yet possible. `Anata (Anathoth) is 2 1/2 miles Northeast of Jerusalem. Nob therefore lay between that and the city, at a point where the city could be seen, apparently on the great road from the Nob. Rather more than a mile North of Jerusalem rises the ridge Ras el-Mesharif (2,665 ft.), over which the road from the Nob passes; and here the traveler approaching from that direction obtains his first sight of the city. It is fittingly named “the look-out.” Col. Conder states the case for identifying this height with Matthew. Scopus where Titus established his camp at the siege of Jerusalem (PEFS, 1874, 111 ff).

    Immediately South of the ridge, to the East of the road, there is a small plateau, South of which there is a lower ridge, whence the slopes dip into Wady el-Joz. This plateau, on which Titus may have sat, is a very probable site for Nob. It quite suits the requirements of Isaiah’s narrative, and not less those of David’s flight. Gibeah lay not far to the North, and this lay in the most likely path to the South. W. Ewing NOBAH <no’-ba > ([ hb;n , nobhah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Nabw>q, Naboth ], [ Nabai>, Nabai ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Nabw>q, Naboth ], [ Nabe>q, Nabeth ]): (1) Nobah the Manassite, we are told, “went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after his own name” ( Numbers 32:42). There can be little doubt that the ancient Kenath is represented by the modern Kanawat , on the western slope of Jebel ed-Druze , the ancient name having survived that of Nobah. (2) A city which marked-the course of Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites ( Judges 8:11). It is possible that this may be identical with (1) . Cheyne argues in favor of this (Encyclopaedia Biblica, under the word “Gideon”). But its mention along with Jogbehah points to a more southerly location. This may have been the original home of the clan Nobah. Some would read, following the Syriac in Numbers 21:30, “Nobah which is on the desert,” instead of “Nophah which reacheth unto Medeba.” No site with a name resembling this has yet been recovered. If it is to be distinguished from Kenath, then probably it will have to be sought somewhere to the Northeast of Rabbath- Ammon (`Amman ). W. Ewing NOBAI <no’-bi > , <nob’-a-i > ([ yb”wOn , nobhay ], or [ yb”yne , nebhay ]): One of those who took part in sealing the covenant ( Nehemiah 10:19).

    NOBLE; NOBLES; NOBLEMAN <no’-b’-l > , <no’-b’-lz > , <no’-b’-l-man > ([ µyriwOj , chorim ], [ ry , ‘addir ]; [eujgenh>v, eugenes ], [kra>tistov, Kratistos ], [basiliko>v, basilikos ]): “Nobles” is the translation of the Hebrew chorim (occurring only in the plural), “free-born,” “noble” ( 1 Kings 21:8,11; Nehemiah 2:16; 6:17, etc.); of ‘addir , “begirded,” “mighty,” “illustrious” or “noble” ( Judges 5:13; 2 Chronicles 23:20, etc.); of nadhibh , “liberal,” “a noble” ( Numbers 21:18; Proverbs 8:16, etc.).

    Other words are gadhol , “great” (Jon 3:7); yaqqir , Aramaic “precious” ( Ezra 4:10); naghidh , “a leader” ( Job 29:10); partemim , “foremost ones” (Est 1:3; 6:9); atsilim , “those near,” “nobles” ( Exodus 24:11); bariah , “fugitive” ( Isaiah 43:14); kabhedh , “weighty,” “honored” ( <19E908> Psalm 149:8); eugenes , “wellborn” ( Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 1:26); kratistos , “strongest,” “most powerful” ( Acts 24:3; 26:25).

    The Apocrypha, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), still further enlarges the list. In the Revised Version (British and American) we have megistanes , “great ones” (1 Esdras 1:38; 8:26, with entimos, “in honor”; The Wisdom of Solomon 18:12).

    Otherwise the Revised Version’s uses of “noble,” and “nobleness” are for words containing the root genitive and referring to birth (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 8:3; 2 Macc 6:27,31; 12:42; 14:42 twice). The King James Version’s uses are wider (Judith 2:2, etc.).

    Nobleman is, in Luke 19:12, the translation of eugenes anthropos , “a man well born,” and in John 4:46,49 of basilikos , “kingly,” “belonging to a king,” a designation extended to the officers, courtiers, etc., of a king, the Revised Version margin “king’s officer”; he was probably an official, civil or military, of Herod Antipas, who was styled “king” (basileus ).

    For “nobles” ( Isaiah 43:14), the King James Version “have brought down all their nobles,” the Revised Version (British and American) has “I will bring down all of them as fugitives,” margin “or, as otherwise read, all their nobles even,” etc.; for “nobles” ( Jeremiah 30:21), “prince”; the English Revised Version has “worthies” for “nobles” ( Nahum 3:18); the Revised Version (British and American) has “the noble” for “princes” ( Proverbs 17:26): “nobles” for “princes” ( Job 34:18; Daniel 1:3), for “Nazarites” ( Lamentations 4:7, margin “Nazirites”); “her nobles” for “his fugitives,” margin “or, as other otherwise read, fugitives” ( Isaiah 15:5); the American Standard Revised Version has “noble” for “liberal” ( Isaiah 32:5); for “The nobles held their peace,” the King James Version margin “The voice of the nobles was hid” ( Job 29:10), the Revised Version (British and American) has “The voice of the nobles was hushed,” margin “Hebrew: hid”; for “most noble” ( Acts 24:3; 26:25), “most excellent.” W. L. Walker NOD <nod > ([ dwOn , nodh ]): The land of Eden, to which Cain migrated after the murder of his brother and his banishment by Yahweh ( Genesis 4:16).

    Conjecture is useless as to the region intended. The ideas of China, India, etc., which some have entertained, are groundless. The territory was evidently at some distance, but where is now undiscoverable.

    NODAB <no’-dab > ([ bd;wOn , nodhabh ]; [ Nadabai~oi, Nadabaioi ]): A Hagrite clan which, along with Jetur and Naphish, suffered complete defeat at the hands of the trans-Jordanic Israelites ( 1 Chronicles 5:19). It has been suggested that Nodab is a corruption of Kedemah or of Nebaioth, names which are associated with Jetur and Naphish in the lists of Ishmael’s sons ( Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:31), but it is difficult to see how even the most careless copyist could so blunder. There is a possible reminiscence of the name in Nudebe , a village in the Hauran.

    NOE <no’-e > ([ Nw~e, Noe ]): the King James Version of Matthew 24:37,38; Luke 3:36; 17:26,27; Tobit 4:12. Greek form of NOAH (which see) (thus the Revised Version (British and American)).

    NOEBA <no’-e-ba > ([ Noeba>, Noeba ]): Head of one of the families of templeservants (1 Esdras 5:31) = “Nekoda” of Ezra 2:48.

    NOGAH <no’-ga > ([ Hg”n , noghah ], “splendor”): A son of David born at Jerusalem ( 1 Chronicles 3:7; 14:6). In the parallel list ( 2 Samuel 5:14,15) this name is wanting. In its Greek form ([ Naggai>, Naggai ]) it occurs in the genealogy of Jesus ( Luke 3:25).

    NOHAH <no’-ha > ([ hj;wOn , nochah ], “rest”): The fourth son of Benjamin ( Chronicles 8:2). It is probable that in Judges 20:43, instead of “a resting-place” we should read “Nohah,” which may have been the settlement of the family.

    NOISE <noiz > ([ lwOq , qol ], [ ˆwmh; , hamon ], [ ˆwOav; , sha’on ]; [fwnh>, phone ]): “Noise” is most frequently the translation of qol , “voice,” “sound,” in the King James Version ( Exodus 20:18, “the noise of the trumpet,” the Revised Version (British and American) “voice”; Exodus 32:17 twice,18; Judges 5:11, “(they that are delivered) from the noise of the archers,” the Revised Version (British and American) “far from the noise,” etc., margin “because of the voice of”; 1 Samuel 4:6, etc.); hamon , “noise,” “sound” ( 1 Samuel 14:19); roghez , “anger,” “rage” ( Job 37:2); rea` , “outcry” ( Job 36:33); sha’on , “desolation,” “noise” ( Isaiah 24:8; 25:5); teshu’oth “cry,” “crying” ( Job 36:29); patsah , “to break forth” ( Psalm 98:4); shamea , “to hear,” etc. ( Joshua 6:10; 1 Chronicles 15:28); phone, “sound,” “voice,” is translated “noise” ( Revelation 6:1, “I heard as it were the noise of thunder,” the Revised Version (British and American) “saying as with a voice of thunder”); rhoizedon , “with a hissing or rushing sound” ( 2 Peter 3:10, “with a great noise”); ginetai phone ( Acts 2:6, the King James Version “when this was noised abroad,” margin “when this voice was made,” the Revised Version (British and American) “when this sound was heard”); akouo , “to hear”; dialaleo , “to talk or speak” throughout, are also translated “noised” ( Mark 2:1; Luke 1:65). So the Revised Version (British and American) (compare Judith 10:18, “noised among the tents”). Otherwise in the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha, throos , “confused noise” (The Wisdom of Solomon 1:10); boe , “outcry” (Judith 14:19); echos ,”sound” (The Wisdom of Solomon 17:18; compare Sirach 40:13); Latin vox, “voice” (2 Esdras 5:7).

    For “noise” ( Psalm 65:7 twice), the Revised Version (British and American) has “roaring”; for “make a noise like the noise of the seas” ( Isaiah 17:12), “the uproar (margin “multitude”) of many peoples, that roar like the roaring of the seas”; for “a voice of noise from the city” ( Isaiah 66:6), “a voice of tumult from the city”; for “noise” ( Jeremiah 10:22), “voice”; for “a noise” ( 1 Chronicles 15:28), “sounding aloud,” “voice” ( Ezekiel 43:2); for “every battle of the warrior is with confused noise” ( Isaiah 9:5), “all the armor of the armed man in the tumult,” margin “every boot of the booted warrior” ; for “make a noise,” “moan” ( Psalm 55:2), “roar” ( Isaiah 17:12); for “make a loud noise” ( Psalm 98:4), “break forth”; for “maketh a noise” ( Jeremiah 4:19), “is disquieted”; for “the noise of his tabernacle” ( Job 36:29), “the thunderings of his pavilion”; for “make any noise with your voice ( Joshua 6:10), “let your voice be heard”; “joyful noise,” for “shouting” ( Isaiah 16:10); for “The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea” ( Psalm 93:4), “Above the voices of many waters, the mighty breakers of the sea, Yahweh on high is mighty.” W. L. Walker NOISOME <noi’-sum > ([ hW;h” , hawwah ], [ [r” , ra` ]; [kako>v, kakos ]): “Noisome” from “annoy” (annoysome ) has in Bible English the meaning of “evil,” “hurtful,” not of “offensive” or “loathsome.” It is the translation of hawwah , “mischief,” “calamity” ( Psalm 91:3, “noisome pestilence,” the Revised Version (British and American) “deadly”); of ra` , a common word for “evil” ( Ezekiel 14:15,21), “noisome beasts” (the Revised Version (British and American) “evil”). It occurs also in Job 31:40 the King James Version margin as the translation of bo’shah , “noisome weeds,” the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “cockle,” as in the King James Version margin; of kakos , “evil,” “bad” ( Revelation 16:2), “a noisome and grievous sore.” “Noisome” also occurs in Apocrypha (2 Macc 9:9) as the translation of baruno, “to make heavy,” “oppress,” where it seems to have the meaning of “loathsome.” W. L. Walker NON <non > ([ ˆwOn , non ]): 1 Chronicles 7:27 the King James Version and the Revised Version margin. See NUN.

    NOOMA <no’-o-ma > ([ Nooma>, Nooma ], Codex Vaticanus [ jOoma>, Ooma ]; the King James Version Ethma): 1 Esdras 9:35 = “Nebo” of Ezra 10:43, of which it is a corruption.

    NOON; NOONDAY <noon > , <noon’-da > ([ µyir”hÜx; , tsohorayim ]; [meshmbri>a, mesembria ]): The word means light, splendor, brightness, and hence, the brightest part of the day ( Genesis 43:16,25; Acts 22:6). See also MIDDAY; DAY AND NIGHT; TIME.

    NOPH <nof > ([ tnO, noph ]; in Hosea 9:6 moph ): A name for the Egyptian city Memphis (so the Septuagint), hence, thus rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) ( Isaiah 19:13; Jeremiah 2:16; 44:1; Ezekiel 30:13,16). See MEMPHIS.

    NOPHAH <no’-fa > ([ jp;nO, nophach ]; the Septuagint does not transliterate): A city mentioned only in Numbers 21:30 ( see NOBAH ). Septuagint reads: kai hai gunaikes eti prosexekausan pur epi Moab, “and the women besides (yet) kindled a fire at (against) Moab.” The text has evidently suffered corruption.

    NORTH; NORTH COUNTRY <north > , ([ ˆwOpx; , tsaphon ], from [ ˆp”x; , tsaphan ], “to hide,” i.e. “the hidden,” “the dark” (Gesenius); [borjrJa~v, borrhas ], [bore>av, boreas ] (Judith 16:4); septentrio (2 Esdras 15:43)): In addition to the many places where “north” occurs merely as a point of the compass, there are several passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah, where it refers to a particular country, usually Assyria or Babylonia: Jeremiah 3:18, “They shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers”; Jeremiah 46:6, “In the north by the river Euphrates have they stumbled and fallen”; Ezekiel 26:7, “I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north”; Zeph 2:13, “He will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a desolation.”

    While the site of Nineveh was Northeast of Jerusalem, and that of Babylon almost due East, it was not unnatural for them to be referred to as “the north,” because the direct desert routes were impracticable, and the roads led first into Northern Syria and then eastward (compare however Genesis 29:1, “Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east”).

    In Ezekiel 38:6, we have, “Gomer, and all his hordes; the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the north.” It is uncertain what country is here referred to. Some have supposed Armenia (compare Genesis 10:3; 1 Chronicles 1:6; Ezekiel 27:14).

    The north border of the promised land, as outlined in Numbers 34:7-9 and Ezekiel 47:15-17, cannot be determined with certainty, because some of the towns named cannot be identified, but it was approximately the latitude of Matthew. Hermon, not including Lebanon or Damascus. For North ([mezarim]) see ASTRONOMY. Alfred Ely Day NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST These words occur in Acts 27:12, “if by any means they could reach Phoenix, and winter there; which is a haven of Crete, looking north-east and south-east.” the Revised Version margin has, “Greek, down the southwest wind and down the north-west wind,” which is a literal translation of the Greek: eis Phoinika .... limena tes Kretes bleponta (looking) kata liba (the southwest wind) kai kata choron (the northwest wind). Choros does not appear to occur except here, but the corresponding Latin caurus or corus is found in Caesar, Vergil, and other classical authors. the King James Version has “lieth toward the south west and north west.” [kata>, kata ], with a wind or stream, means, “down the wind or stream,” i.e. in the direction that it is blowing or flowing, and this interpretation would indicate a harbor open to the East. If [li>y, lips ], and [cw~rov, choros ], are used here as names of directions rather than of winds, we should expect a harbor open to the West. There is good reason for identifying Phoenix (the King James Version “Phenice”) with Loutro on the south shore of Crete (EB, under the word “Phenice”), whose harbor is open to the East. See PHOENIX.

    Alfred Ely Day NOSE; NOSTRILS <noz > , <nos’-trilz > ([ ta” , ‘aph ], “nose,” [ µyir”yjin] , nechirayim ], dual of [ ryjin] , nechir ], “nostrils”): The former expression (‘aph from ‘anph , like Arabic ‘anf ) is often translated “face” (which see under the word) in the English Versions of the Bible. It is frequently referred to as the organ of breathing, in other words, as the receptacle of the breath or spirit of God: “Yahweh .... breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” ( Genesis 2:7; compare 7:22); “My life is yet whole in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils” ( Job 27:3).

    Therefore a life which depends on so slight a thing as a breath is considered as utterly frail and of no great consequence: “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?” ( Isaiah 2:22; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 2:2).

    In poetical language such a breath of life is ascribed even to God, especially with regard to the mighty storm which is thought to proceed from His nostrils ( Exodus 15:8; 2 Samuel 22:9; Psalm 18:8,15).

    The phrase, “a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day” ( Isaiah 65:5), is equivalent to a perpetual annoyance and cause of irritation. A cruel custom of war, in which the vanquished had their noses and ears cut off by their remorseless conquerors, is alluded to in Ezekiel 23:25. As a wild animal is held in check by having his nose pierced and a hook or ring inserted in it ( Job 40:24; 41:2 (Hebrew 40:26)), so this expression is used to indicate the humbling and taming of an obstinate person ( Kings 19:28; Isaiah 37:29; compare Ezekiel 29:4; 38:4). But men, and especially women, had their noses pierced for the wearing of jewelry ( Genesis 24:47; Isaiah 3:21; Ezekiel 16:12). In one passage the meaning is not quite clear, namely, in the enumeration of blemishes which disable a “son of Aaron” from the execution of the priest’s office ( Leviticus 21:18), where English Versions of the Bible translates “flat (margin “slit”) nose.” The Hebrew word is [ µruj; , charum ], which is a hapax legomenon . It corresponds, however, to the Arabic charam, charman (kharam, kharman ), which means “to open,” “to pierce the nose,” especially the bridge of the nose. We may accept this meaning as the one intended in the passage.

    Another dark and much discussed passage must still be referred to: “And, lo, they put the branch to their nose” ( Ezekiel 8:17). The usual explanation (whereof the context gives some valuable hints) is that a rite connected with the worship of Baal (the sun) is here alluded to (see Smend and A.B. Davidson’s commentaries on the passage). A similar custom is known from Persian sun-worship, where a bunch (baretsma ) of dates, pomegranates or tamarisks was held to the nose by the worshipper, probably as an attempt to keep the Holy One (sun) from being contaminated by sinful breath (Spiegel, Eranische Altertamer, III, 571).

    Among modern Jews posies of myrtle and other fragrant herbs are held to the nose by the persons attending on the ceremony of circumcision, for the alleged reason of making the sight and smell of blood bearable. Another interpretation of the above passage would understand [ hr;wOmz] , zemorah ], in the sense of “male sexual member” (see Gesenius-Buhl, under the word; Levy, Nhb. Worterbuch, I, 544), and the whole passage as a reference to a sensuous Canaanite rite, such as is perhaps alluded to in Isaiah 57:8. In that case the [ µP;a” , ‘appam ], “their nose “of the Massoretic Text would have to be considered as tiqqun copherim (a correction of the scribes) for [ yPia” , ‘appi ], “my face.” Or read “They cause their stench (zemoratham ) to come up to my face” (Kraetzschmar, at the place). See BRANCH.

    H. L. E. Luering NOSE-JEWELS <noz-ju’-elz > , <-joo’-elz > ([ µz,n, , nezem ] (probably from [ µz”n; , nazam ], “muzzle”) a “nose-ring,” or “nose-jewel,” so rendered in Isaiah 3:21; “jewel in a swine’s snout,” Proverbs 11:22, the King James Version margin “ring”; “jewel on thy forehead,” Ezekiel 16:12, “ring upon thy nose”): In Genesis 24:22, the King James Version rendered incorrectly “earring”; compare Genesis 24:47. Indeed, the word had also a more generic meaning of “ring” or “jewelry,” whether worn in the nose or not.

    See Genesis 35:4; Exodus 32:2, where the ornament was worn in the ear. There are several cases without specification, uniformly rendered, without good reason, however, “earring” in the King James Version ( Exodus 35:22; Judges 8:24,25; Job 42:11 (“ring”); Proverbs 25:12; Hosea 2:13 (15) ).

    The nose-jewel was made of gold or of silver, usually, and worn by many women of the East. It was a ring of from an inch to about three inches (in extreme cases) in diameter, and was passed through the right nostril.

    Usually there were pendant from the metal ring jewels, beads or coral.

    Such ornaments are still worn in some parts of the East. See also AMULET; JEWEL.

    Edward Bagby Pollard NOTABLE <no’-ta-b’-l > ([ tWzj; , chazuth ]; [gnwsto>v, gnostos ]): “Notable” is the translation of chazuth , “conspicuous” (chazah , “to see”), e.g. Daniel 8:5, “a notable horn,” i.e. “conspicuous,” the King James Version margin “a horn of sight”; Daniel 8:8, “notable (horns)”; of gnostos , “known” “knowledge” ( Acts 4:16); of episemos , “noted,” “notable” ( Matthew 27:16; in Romans 16:7 “of note” of epiphanes , “very manifest,” “illustrious” (compare “Antiochus Epiphanes”); Acts 2:20, “that great and notable day,” quoted from Joel 2:31; Septuagint for yare’ , “to be feared,” the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “terrible” (compare Malachi 4:5); “notable” occurs also in Macc 3:26 (ekprepes ); 2 Macc 14:33, the Revised Version (British and American) “for all to see”; 2 Macc 6:28 (gennaios ), “a notable example,” the Revised Version (British and American) “noble”; notably, only in Macc 14:31 (gennaios ), “notably prevented,” the Revised Version (British and American) “bravely,” margin “nobly.” W. L. Walker NOTE <not > ([ qq”j; , chaqaq ], [ µv”r; , rasham ]; [shmeio>w, semeioo ], [ejpi>shmov, episemos ]): “Note” (verb) is the translation of chaqaq , “to grave,” “to inscribe,” etc. ( Isaiah 30:8, “note it in a book,” the Revised Version (British and American) “inscribe”); of rasham , “to note down,” etc. ( Daniel 10:21, the Revised Version (British and American) “inscribed”); of semeioo , “to put a sign on” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “note that man”). “Note” (noun) is the translation of episemos , “marked upon,” “distinguished” ( Romans 16:7, “who are of note among the apostles”). “Notes” (musical) occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 19:18, “notes of a psaltery” (phthoggos ). W. L. Walker NOTHING <nuth’-ing > ([ alo , lo’ ], [ hm;Wam] alo , lo’ me’umah ], etc.; [mhdei>v, medeis ], [oujdei>v, oudeis ]): “Nothing” is represented by various words and phrases, often with lo’ , which is properly a substantive with the meaning of “nothing.” Most frequently we have lo’ me’umah , “not anything” ( Genesis 40:15; Judges 14:6).

    Other forms are lo’ dhabhar , “not anything”; ( Genesis 19:8); lo’khol , “not any(thing)” ( Genesis 11:6; Proverbs 13:7); la’ (Aramaic), “no,” “nothing” ( Daniel 4:35, “as nothing”); ‘ephec , “end,” “cessation” ( Isaiah 34:12); bilti, “without,” “save,” “not” ( Isaiah 44:10; Amos 3:4); ‘ayin , “there is not” ( Isaiah 41:24); once, tohu , “emptiness” ( Job 6:18); bal mah , “not anything” ( Proverbs 9:13); chinnam , “free,” “gratis” ( 2 Samuel 24:24); ma`at , “to make small,” “bring to nothing” ( Jeremiah 10:24); raq , “only” ( Genesis 26:29); le’al , “for nothing” ( Job 24:25).

    In 2 Macc 7:12, we have “nothing,” adverbially (en oudeni ), “he nothing regarded the pains” (compare 1 Kings 15:21); 2 Macc 9:7 (oudamos ), the Revised Version (British and American) “in no wise”; The Wisdom of Solomon 2:11, “nothing worth” (achrestos ), the Revised Version (British and American) “of no service”; Baruch 6:17,26.

    For “nothing” the Revised Version (British and American) has “none” ( Exodus 23:26; Joel 2:3), “never” ( Nehemiah 5:8), “not wherewith” ( Proverbs 22:27), “vanity and nought” ( Isaiah 41:29); for “answered nothing” ( Mark 15:5), “no more answered anything”; “answered nothing” in Mark 15:3 is omitted; “anything” for “nothing” ( 1 Timothy 6:7), “not anything” ( Acts 20:20), “not” ( Corinthians 8:2), “no word” ( Luke 1:37), “not wherewith” ( Luke 7:42); for “to nothing” ( Job 6:18), “up into the waste”; for “it is nothing with” ( 2 Chronicles 14:11), “there is none besides,” margin “like”; for “lacked nothing” ( 1 Kings 4:27), “let nothing be lacking,” for “nothing doubting” ( Acts 11:12), “making no distinction”; for “hoping for nothing again” ( Luke 5:35), “never despairing”; for “are nothing” ( Acts 21:24), “no truth in”; for “nothing shall offend them” ( <19B9165> Psalm 119:165), “no occasion of stumbling”; for “bring to nothing” ( Corinthians 1:19), the English Revised Version “reject,” the American Standard Revised Version “bring to nought”; “nothing better” for “no good” ( Ecclesiastes 3:12), for “not” ( Matthew 13:34, different text), for “no man” ( Acts 9:8), “for nothing,” for “free” ( Exodus 21:11); “miss nothing” for “not sin” ( Job 5:24), margin “shalt not err”; “and shall have nothing” for “and not for himself” ( Daniel 9:26, margin “there shall be none belonging to him”). W. L. Walker NOUGHT <not > ([ µN;ji , chinnam ]; [katarge>w, katargeo ]) “Nought” is to be distinguished from “naught” implying “badness” ( see NAUGHT). “Nought” in the sense of “nothing,” etc., is the translation of chinnam, “gratis” ( Genesis 29:15), and of various other words occurring once only, e.g. ‘awen, “vanity” ( Amos 5:5); tohu, “vacancy,” “ruin” ( Isaiah 49:4); ‘epha`, “nothing” ( Isaiah 41:24); nabhel, “to fade” ( Job 14:18, margin “fadeth away”); pur, “to make void” ( Psalm 33:10); katargeo, “to make without effect” ( 1 Corinthians 1:28; 2:6); oudeis, “not even one” ( Acts 5:36); apelegmos, “refutation” ( Acts 19:27, the Revised Version (British and American) “come into disrepute”); dorean, “without payment” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “for nought”); eremoo, “to desolate” ( Revelation 18:17, the Revised Version (British and American) “made desolate”); kataluo, “to loose down” ( Acts 5:38, the Revised Version (British and American) “be overthrown”). In Apocrypha we have “set at nought” and “come to nought,” etc. (1 Esdras 1:56; 2 Esdras 2:33; 8:59).

    For “nought” the Revised Version (British and American) has “perish” ( Deuteronomy 28:63); for “come to nought” ( Job 8:22), “be no more”; “nought” for “not ought” ( Exodus 5:11), for “no might” ( Deuteronomy 28:32); for “brought to silence,” twice ( Isaiah 15:1), “brought to nought”; the American Standard Revised Version “bring to nought” ( 1 Corinthians 1:19) for “bring to nothing” (the English Revised Version “reject”); “nought but terror” ( Isaiah 28:19) for “a vexation only”; “brought to nought” ( Isaiah 16:4) for “is at an end”; “come to nought” for “taken none effect” ( Romans 9:6); “set at nought” for “despise” ( Romans 14:3). W. L. Walker NOURISH <nur’-ish > ([ lDeGi , giddel ], [ hY;ji , chiyyah ], [ lKel]Kings , kilkel ], [ hB;ri , ribbah ]; [tre>fw, trepho ], [ajnatre>fw, anatrepho ], [ejktre>fw, ektrepho ], [ejntre>fw, entrepho ]): While the word “nourish” was ordinarily an appropriate rendering in the time of the King James Version, the word has since become much less frequent, and some senses have largely passed out of ordinary use, so that the meaning would now in most cases be better expressed by some other word. Giddel means “to bring up,” “rear (children)” ( Isaiah 1:2, margin “made great”; Isaiah 23:4; Daniel 1:5); “cause (a tree) to grow” ( Isaiah 44:14). Chiyyah means “to preserve alive” (with some implication of care) ( 2 Samuel 12:3; Isaiah 7:21, the American Standard Revised Version “keep alive”). Kilkal means “to support,” “maintain” “provide for” (especially with food) ( Genesis 45:11; 47:12; 50:21). Ribbah means “to bring up,” “rear (whelps),” in a figurative use Ezekiel 19:2). Trepho means “to feed” (transitively) ( Acts 12:20, the Revised Version (British and American) “feed”; Revelation 12:14); “to fatten” ( James 5:5, the context indicating an unfavorable meaning). Anatrepho is “to bring up,” “rear,” like giddel ( Acts 7:20,21); ektrepho is “to take care of” (Ephesiansesians 5:29); entrepho means “to bring up in,” “train in” ( 1 Timothy 4:6). George Ricker Berry NOVICE <nov’-is > ([neo>futov, neophutos ], “newly planted”): In this sense it is found in Septuagint of Job 14:9 and Isaiah 5:7. In the New Testament it occurs once only ( 1 Timothy 3:6), where it means a person newly planted in the Christian faith, a neophyte, a new convert, one who has recently become a Christian. This term occurs in the list which Paul gives of the qualifications which a Christian bishop must possess. The apostle instructs Timothy, that if any man desires the office of a bishop, he must not be “novice,” must not be newly converted, or recently brought to the faith of Christ “lest he be lifted up with pride, and fall into the condemnation of the devil.”

    This means that a recent convert runs the very serious risk of being wise in his own eyes, of despising those who are still on the level from which, by his conversion, he has been lifted; and so he becomes puffed up with high ideas of his own importance. He has not yet had time to discover his limitations, he is newly planted, he does not fully understand his true position in the Christian community, he overestimates himself. For these reasons he is peculiarly liable to instability, and to the other weaknesses and sins connected with an inflated opinion of his own powers. His pride is a sure indication of a coming fall. A novice, therefore, must on no account be appointed to the office in question, for he would be sure to bring disgrace upon it. John Rutherfurd NUMBER <num’-ber > :

    1. NUMBER AND ARITHMETIC.

    The system of counting followed by the Hebrews and the Semites generally was the decimal system, which seems to have been suggested by the use of the ten fingers. Hebrew had separate words only for the first nine units and for ten and its multiples. Of the sexagesimal system, which seems to have been introduced into Babylonia by the Sumerians and which, through its development there, has influenced the measurement of time and space in the western civilized world even to the present day; there is no direct trace in the Bible, although, as will be shown later, there are some possible echoes. The highest number in the Bible described by a single word is 10,000 (ribbo or ribbo’, murias ). The Egyptians, on the other hand, had separate words for 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000. The highest numbers referred to in any way in the Bible are: “a thousand thousand” ( Chronicles 22:14; 2 Chronicles 14:9); “thousands of thousands” ( Daniel 7:10; Revelation 5:11); “thousands of ten thousands” ( Genesis 24:60); “ten thousand times ten thousand” ( Daniel 7:10; Revelation 5:11); and twice that figure ( Revelation 9:16). The excessively high numbers met with in some oriental systems (compare Lubbock, The Decimal System , 17 ff) have no parallels in Hebrew.

    Fractions were not unknown. We find 1/3 ( 2 Samuel 18:2, etc.); 1/2 ( Exodus 25:10,17, etc.); 1/4 ( 1 Samuel 9:8); 1/5 ( Genesis 47:24); 1/6 ( Ezekiel 46:14); 1/10 ( Exodus 16:36); 2/10 ( Leviticus 23:13); 3/10 ( Leviticus 14:10), and 1/100 ( Nehemiah 5:11). Three other fractions are less definitely expressed: 2/3 by “a double portion,” literally, “a double mouthful” by ( Deuteronomy 21:17; Kings 2:9; Zechariah 13:8); 4/5 by “four parts” ( Genesis 47:24), and 9/10 by “nine parts” ( Nehemiah 11:1). Only the simplest rules of arithmetic can be illustrated from the Old Testament. There are examples of addition ( Genesis 5:3-31; Numbers 1:20-46); subtraction ( Genesis 18:28 ff); multiplication ( Leviticus 25:8; Numbers 3:46 ff), and division ( Numbers 31:27 ff). In Leviticus 25:50 ff is what has been said to imply a kind of rule-of-three sum. The old Babylonians had tables of squares and cubes intended no doubt to facilitate the measurement of land (Sayce, Assyria, Its Princes, Priests, and People , 118; Bezold, Ninive und Babylon , 90, 92); and it can scarcely be doubted that the same need led to similar results among the Israelites, but at present there is no evidence. Old Hebrew arithmetic and mathematics as known to us are of the most elementary kind (Nowack, HA, I, 298).

    2. NOTATION OF NUMBERS. 1. By Words: No special signs for the expression of numbers in writing can be proved to have been in use among the Hebrews before the exile. The Siloam Inscription, which is probably the oldest specimen of Hebrew writing extant (with the exception of the ostraca of Samaria, and perhaps a seal or two and the obscure Gezer tablet), has the numbers written in full. The words used there for 3,200, 1,000 are written as words without any abbreviation. The earlier text of the Moabite Stone which practically illustrates Hebrew usage has the numbers 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, 7,000 written out in the same way. 2. By Signs: After the exile some of the Jews at any rate employed signs such as were current among the Egyptians, the Arameans, and the Phoenicians — an upright line for 1, two such lines for 2, three for 3, and so on, and special signs for 10, 20, 100. It had been conjectured that these or similar signs were known to the Jews, but actual proof was not forthcoming until the discovery of Jewish papyri at Assuan and Elephantine in 1904 and 1907. In these texts, ranging from 494 to circa 400 BC, the dates are stated, not in words, but in figures of the kind described. We have therefore clear evidence that numerical signs were used by members of a Jewish colony in Upper Egypt in the 5th century BC. Now, as the existence of this colony can be traced before 525 BC, it is probable that they used this method of notation also in the preceding century. Conjecture indeed may go as far as its beginning, for it is known that there were Jews in Pathros, that is Upper Egypt, in the last days of Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 44:1,15). Some of the first Jewish settlers in Elephantine may have known the prophet and some of them may have come from Jerusalem, bringing these signs with them. At present, however, that is pure hypothesis. 3. By Letters: In the notation of the chapters and verses of the Hebrew Bible and in the expression of dates in Hebrew books the consonants of the Hebrew alphabet are employed for figures, i.e. the first ten for 1-10, combinations of these for 11-19, the following eight for 20-90, and the remainder for 100, 200, 300, 400. The letters of the Greek alphabet were used in the same way. The antiquity of this kind of numerical notation cannot at present be ascertained. It is found on Jewish coins which have been dated in the reign of the Maccabean Simon (143-135 BC), but some scholars refer them to a much later period. All students of the Talmud are familiar with this way of numbering the pages, or rather the leaves, but its use there is no proof of early date. The numerical use of the Greek letters can be abundantly illustrated. It is met with in many Greek papyri, some of them from the 3rd century BC (Hibeh Papyri, numbers 40-43, etc.); on several coins of Herod the Great, and in some manuscripts of the New Testament, for instance, a papyrus fragment of Matthew (Oxyrhynchus Pap., 2) where 14 is three times represented by iota-delta (I-D) with a line above the letters, and some codices of Revelation 13:18 where 666 is given by the three letters “chi” “xi” “vau” (or digaroma). It is possible that two of these methods may have been employed side by side in some cases, as in the Punic Sacrificial Tablet of Marseilles, where (l. 6) 150 is expressed first in words, and then by figures.

    3. NUMBERS IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.

    Students of the historical books of the Old Testament have long been perplexed by the high numbers which are met with in many passages, for example, the number ascribed to the Israelites at the exodus ( Exodus 12:37; Numbers 11:21), and on two occasions during the sojourn in the wilderness (Numbers 1; 26) — more than 600,000 adult males, which means a total of two or three millions; the result of David’s census 1,300,000 men ( 2 Samuel 24:9) or 1,570,000 ( 1 Chronicles 21:5), and the slaughter of half a million in a battle between Judah and Israel ( 2 Chronicles 13:17). There are many other illustrations in the Books of Chronicles and elsewhere. That some of these high figures are incorrect is beyond reasonable doubt, and is not in the least surprising, for there is ample evidence that the numbers in ancient documents were exceptionally liable to corruption. One of the best known instances is the variation of 1,466 years between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint (text of Codex Vaticanus) as to the interval from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abram. Other striking cases are 1 Samuel 6:19, where 50,070 ought probably to be 70 (Josephus, Ant., VI, i, 4); 2 Samuel 15:7, where years ought to be 4 years; the confusion of 76 and 276 in the manuscripts of Acts 27:37, and of 616 and 666 in those of Revelation 13:18.

    Hebrew manuscripts furnish some instructive variations. One of them, number 109 of Kennicott, reads ( Numbers 1:23) 1,050 for 50,000; for 50,000 ( Numbers 2:6), and 100 for 100,000 ( Numbers 2:16). It is easy to see how mistakes may have originated in many cases. The Hebrew numerals for 30, etc., are the plurals of the units, so that the former, as written, differ from the latter only by the addition of the two Hebrew letters yodh (“y”) and mem (“m”) composing the syllable -im .

    Now as the mem was often omitted, 3 and 30, 4 and 40, etc., could readily be confused. If signs or letters of the alphabet were made use of, instead of abbreviated words, there would be quite as much room for misunderstanding and error on the part of copyists. The high numbers above referred to as found in Exodus and Numbers have been ingeniously accounted for by Professor Flinders Petrie (Researches in Sinai) in a wholly different way. By understanding ‘eleph not as “thousand,” but as “family” or “tent,” he reduces the number to 5,550 for the first census, and 5,730 for the second. This figure, however, seems too low, and the method of interpretation, though not impossible, is open to criticism. It is generally admitted that the number as usually read is too high, but the original number has not yet been certainly discovered. When, however, full allowance has been made for the intrusion of numerical errors into the Hebrew text, it is difficult to resist the belief that, in the Books of Chronicles, at any rate, there is a marked tendency to exaggeration in this respect. The huge armies again and again ascribed to the little kingdoms of Judah and Israel cannot be reconciled with some of the facts revealed by recent research; with the following, for instance: The army which met the Assyrians at Karkar in 854 BC and which represented 11 states and tribes inclusive of Israel and the kingdom of Damascus, cannot have numbered at the most more than about 75,000 or 80,000 men (HDB, 1909, 65b), and the Assyrian king who reports the battle reckons the whole levy of his country at only 102,000 (Der alte Orient, XI, i, 14, note). In view of these figures it is not conceivable that the armies of Israel or Judah could number a million, or even half a million. The contingent from the larger kingdom contributed on the occasion mentioned above consisted of only 10,000 men and 2,000 chariots (HDB, ib). The safest conclusion, therefore, seems to be that, while many of the questionable numbers in the present text of the Old Testament are due to copyists, there is a residuum which cannot be so accounted for.

    4. ROUND NUMBERS.

    The use of definite numerical expressions in an indefinite sense, that is, as round numbers, which is met with in many languages, seems to have been very prevalent in Western Asia from early times to the present day. Sir W.

    Ramsay (Thousand and One Churches,6) remarks that the modern Turks have 4 typical numbers which are often used in proper names with little or no reference to their exact numerical force — 3, 7, 40, 1,001. The Lycaonian district which gives the book its name is called Bin Bir Kilisse, “The Thousand and One Churches,” although the actual number in the valley is only 28. The modern Persians use 40 in just the same way. “Forty years” with them often means “many years” (Brugsch, cited by Konig, Stilistik, 55). This lax use of numbers, as we think, was probably very frequent among the Israelites and their neighbors. The inscription on the Moabite Stone supplies a very instructive example. The Israelite occupation of Medeba by Omri and his son for half the reign of the latter is there reckoned (II.7 f) at 40 years. As, according to 1 Kings 16:23,29, the period extended to only 23 years at the most, the number 40 must have been used very freely by Mesha’s scribe as a round number. It is probably often used in that way in the Bible where it is remarkably frequent, especially in reference to periods of days or years. The 40 days of the Flood ( Genesis 7:4,17), the arrangement of the life of Moses in three periods of 40 years each ( Acts 7:23; Exodus 7:7; Deuteronomy 34:7), the 40 years’ rule or reign of Eli ( 1 Samuel 4:18), of Saul ( Acts 13:21; compare Josephus, Ant, VI, xiv, 9), of David ( 1 Kings 2:11), of Solomon ( 1 Kings 11:42) and of Jehoash ( 2 Kings 12:1), the 40 or 80 years of rest ( Judges 3:11,30; 5:31; 8:28), the 40 years of Philistine oppression ( Judges 13:1), the 40 days’ challenge of Goliath ( 1 Samuel 17:16), the 40 days’ fast of Moses ( Exodus 34:28), Elijah ( 1 Kings 19:8), and Jesus ( Matthew 4:2 and parallel), the 40 days before the destruction of Nineveh (Jon 3:4), and the 40 days before the Ascension ( Acts 1:3), all suggest conventional use, or the influence of that use, for it can hardly be supposed that the number in each of these cases, and in others which might be mentioned, was exactly 40. How it came to be so used is not quite certain, but it may have originated, partly at any rate, in the idea that 40 years constituted a generation or the period at the end of which a man attains maturity, an idea common, it would seem, to the Greeks, the Israelites, and the Arabs. The period of 40 years in the wilderness in the course of which the old Israel died out and a new Israel took its place was a generation ( Numbers 32:13, etc.). The rabbis long afterward regarded 40 years as the age of understanding, the age when a man reaches his intellectual prime (Ab, v, addendum). In the Koran (Sura 46) a man is said to attain his strength when he attains to 40 years, and it was at that age, according to tradition, that Muhammad came forward as a prophet. In this way perhaps 40 came to be used as a round number for an indefinite period with a suggestion of completeness, and then was extended in course of time to things as well as Seasons.

    Other round numbers are: (1) some of the higher numbers; (2) several numerical phrases.

    Under (1) come the following numbers. One hundred, often of course to be understood literally, but evidently a round number in Genesis 26:12; Leviticus 26:8; 2 Samuel 24:3; Ecclesiastes 8:12; Matthew 19:29 and parallel. A thousand (thousands), very often a literal number, but in not a few cases indefinite, e.g. Exodus 20:6 parallel Deuteronomy 5:10; 7:9; 1 Samuel 18:7; Psalm 50:10; 90:4; 105:8; Isaiah 60:22, etc. Ten thousand (Hebrew ribbo , ribboth , rebhabhah ; Greek murias , murioi ) is also used as a round number as in Leviticus 26:8; Deuteronomy 32:30; Song of Solomon 5:10; Micah 6:7. The yet higher figures, thousands of thousands, etc., are, in almost all cases, distinctly hyperbolical round numbers, the most remarkable examples occurring in the apocalyptic books ( Daniel 7:10; Revelation 5:11; 9:16; Ethiopic Enoch 40:1). (2) The second group, numerical phrases, consists of a number of expressions in which numbers are used roundly, in some cases to express the idea of fewness. One or two, etc.: “a day or two” ( Exodus 21:21), “an heap, two heaps” ( Judges 15:16 the Revised Version margin), “one of a city, and two of a family” ( Jeremiah 3:14), “not once, nor twice,” that is “several times” ( 2 Kings 6:10). Two or three: “Two or three berries in the (topmost) bough” ( Isaiah 17:6; compare Hosea 6:2), “Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” etc. ( Matthew 18:20). Konig refers to Assyrian, Syrian, and Arabic parallels. Three or four: the most noteworthy example is the formula which occurs 8 times in Amos 1:3,6,9,11,13; 2:1,4,6, “for three transgressions .... yea for four.”

    That the numbers here are round numbers is evident from the fact that the sins enumerated are in most cases neither 3 nor 4. In Proverbs 30:15,18,21,29, on the other hand, where we have the same rhetorical device, climax ad majus, 4 is followed by four statements and is therefore to be taken literally. Again, Konig (same place) points to classical and Arabic parallels. Four or five: “Four or five in the outmost branches of a fruitful tree” ( Isaiah 17:6). Five or six: “Thou shouldest have smitten (Syria) five or six times” ( 2 Kings 13:19), an idiom met with also in Tell el-Amarna Letters (Konig, ib). Six and seven: “He will deliver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee” ( Job 5:19). Seven and eight: “Seven shepherds, and eight principal men” ( Micah 5:5), that is, “enough and more than enough” (Cheyne); “Give a portion to seven, yea, even unto eight” ( Ecclesiastes 11:2). In one remarkable phrase which occurs (with slight variations of form) 24 times in the Old Testament, two Hebrew words, meaning respectively “yesterday” and “third,” are mostly used so as together to express the idea of vague reference to the past. the Revised Version (British and American) renders in a variety of ways: “beforetime” ( Genesis 31:2, etc.), “aforetime” ( Joshua 4:18), “heretofore” ( Exodus 4:10, etc.), “in time (or “times”) past” ( Deuteronomy 19:4,6; 2 Samuel 3:17, etc.).

    5. SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS.

    Numerical symbolism, that is, the use of numbers not merely, if at all, with their literal numerical value, or as round numbers, but with symbolic significance, sacred or otherwise, was widespread in the ancient East, especially in Babylonia and regions more or less influenced by Babylonian culture which, to a certain extent, included Canaan. It must also be remembered that the ancestors of the Israelites are said to have been of Babylonian origin and may therefore have transmitted to their descendants the germs at least of numerical symbolism as developed in Babylonia in the age of Hammurabi. Be that as it may, the presence of this use of numbers in the Bible, and that on a large scale, cannot reasonably be doubted, although some writers have gone too far in their speculations on the subject. The numbers which are unmistakably used with more or less symbolic meaning are 7 and its multiples, and 3, 4, 10 and 12. 1. Seven and Its Multiples: By far the most prominent of these is the number 7, which is referred to in one way or another in nearly 600 passages in the Bible, as well as in many passages in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, and later Jewish literature. Of course the number has its usual numerical force in many of these places, but even there not seldom with a glance at its symbolic significance. For the determination of the latter we are not assigned to conjecture. There is clear evidence in the cuneiform texts, which are our earliest authorities, that the Babylonians regarded 7 as the number of totality, of completeness. The Sumerians, from whom the Semitic Babylonians seem to have borrowed the idea, equated 7 and “all.” The 7- storied towers of Babylonia represented the universe. Seven was the expression of the highest power, the greatest conceivable fullness of force, and therefore was early pressed into the service of religion. It is found in reference to ritual in the age of Gudea, that is perhaps about the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. “Seven gods” at the end of an enumeration meant “all the gods” (for these facts and the cuneiform evidence compare Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbath bei den Babyloniern und im Altes Testament, 4 ff).

    How 7 came to be used in this way can only be glanced at here. The view connecting it with the gods of the 7 planets, which used to be in great favor and still has its advocates, seems to lack ancient proof. Hehn (op. cit., ff) has shown that the number acquired its symbolic meaning long before the earliest time for which that reference can be demonstrated. As this sacred or symbolic use of 7 was not peculiar to the Babylonians and their teachers and neighbors, but was more or less known also in India and China, in classical lands, and among the Celts and the Germans, it probably originated in some fact of common observation, perhaps in the four lunar phases each of which comprises 7 days and a fraction. Conspicuous groups of stars may have helped to deepen the impression, and the fact that 7 is made up of two significant numbers, each, as will be shown, also suggestive of completeness — 3 and 4 — may have been early noticed and taken into account. The Biblical use of 7 may be conveniently considered under 4 heads: (1) ritual use; (2) historical use; (3) didactic or literary use; (4) apocalyptic use. (1) Ritual Use of Seven.

    The number 7 plays a conspicuous part in a multitude of passages giving rules for worship or purification, or recording ritual actions. The 7th day of the week was holy ( see SABBATH). There were 7 days of unleavened bread ( Exodus 34:18, etc.), and 7 days of the Feast of Tabernacles ( Leviticus 23:34). The 7th year was the sabbatical year ( Exodus 21:2, etc.). The Moabite Balak built Balaam on three occasions 7 altars and provided in each case 7 bullocks and 7 rams ( Numbers 23:1,14,29). The Mosaic law prescribed 7 he-lambs for several festal offerings ( Numbers 28:11,19,27, etc.). The 7-fold sprinkling of blood is enjoined in the ritual of the Day of Atonement ( Leviticus 16:14,19), and elsewhere. Seven-fold sprinkling is also repeatedly mentioned in the rules for the purification of the leper and the leprous house ( Leviticus 14:7,16,27,51). The leprous Naaman was ordered to bathe 7 times in the Jordan ( 2 Kings 5:10). In cases of real or suspected uncleanness through leprosy, or the presence of a corpse, or for other reasons, 7 days’ seclusion was necessary ( Leviticus 12:2, etc.). Circumcision took place after 7 days ( Leviticus 12:3). An animal must be 7 days old before it could be offered in sacrifice ( Exodus 22:30). Three periods of 7 days each are mentioned in the rules for the consecration of priests ( Exodus 29:30,35,37). An oath seems to have been in the first instance by 7 holy things ( Genesis 21:29 ff and the Hebrew word for “swear”). The number 7 also entered into the structure of sacred objects, for instance the candlestick or lamp-stand in the tabernacle and the second temple each of which had 7 lights ( Numbers 8:2; Zechariah 4:2). Many other instances of the ritual use of 7 in the Old Testament and many instructive parallels from Babylonian texts could be given. (2) Historical Use of Seven.

    The number 7 also figures prominently in a large number of passages which occur in historical narrative, in a way which reminds us of its symbolic significance. The following are some of the most remarkable: Jacob’s years’ service for Rachel ( Genesis 29:20; compare 29:27 f), and his bowing down 7 times to Esau ( Genesis 33:3); the 7 years of plenty, and the 7 years of famine ( Genesis 41:53 f); Samson’s 7 days’ marriage feast ( Judges 14:12 ff; compare Genesis 29:27), 7 locks of hair ( Judges 16:19), and the 7 withes with which he was bound ( Judges 16:7 f); the 7 daughters of Jethro ( Exodus 2:16), the 7 sons of Jesse ( 1 Samuel 16:10), the 7 sons of Saul ( 2 Samuel 21:6), and the sons of Job ( Job 1:2; compare 42:13); the 7 days’ march of the 7 priests blowing 7 trumpets round the walls of Jericho, and the 7-fold march on the 7th day ( Joshua 6:8 ff); the 7 ascents of Elijah’s servant to the top of Carmel ( 1 Kings 18:43 f); the 7 sneezes of the Shunammitish woman’s son ( 2 Kings 4:35); the heating of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace 7 times more than it was wont to be heated ( Daniel 8:19), and the king’s madness for 7 times or years ( Daniel 4:16,23,25,32); Anna’s 7 years of wedded life ( Luke 2:36); the 7 loaves of the 4,000 ( Matthew 15:34-36 parallel) and the 7 baskets full of fragments ( Matthew 15:37 parallel); the 7 brothers in the conundrum of the Sadducees ( Matthew 22:25 parallel); the 7 demons cast out of Mary Magdalene ( Mark 16:9 parallel Luke 8:2); the 7 ministers in the church at Jerusalem ( Acts 6:3 ff), and the 7 sons of Sceva ( Acts 19:14, but the Western text represents them as only 2). The number must no doubt be understood literally in many of these passages, but even then its symbolic meaning is probably hinted at by the historian. When a man was said to have had sons or daughters, or an action was reported as done or to be done 7 times, whether by design or accident, the number was noted, and its symbolic force remembered. It cannot indeed be regarded in all these cases as a sacred number, but its association with sacred matters which was kept alive among the Jews by the institution of the Sabbath, was seldom, if ever, entirely overlooked. (3) Didactic or Literary Use of Seven.

    The symbolic use of 7 naturally led to its employment by poets and teachers for the vivid expression of multitude or intensity. This use is sometimes evident, and sometimes latent. (a) Evident examples are the 7-fold curse predicted for the murderer of Cain ( Genesis 4:15); fleeing 7 ways ( Deuteronomy 28:7,25); deliverance from 7 troubles ( Job 5:19); praise of God 7 times a day ( <19B9164> Psalm 119:164); 7 abominations ( Proverbs 26:25; compare 6:16); silver purified 7 times, that is, thoroughly purified ( Psalm 12:6); 7-fold sin; 7-fold repentance, and 7-fold forgiveness ( Luke 17:4; compare Matthew 18:21); 7 evil spirits ( Matthew 12:45 parallel Luke 11:26). The last of these, as well as the previous reference to the 7 demons cast out of Mary Magdalene reminds us of the 7 spirits of Beliar (Testament to the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben chapters 2 and 3) and of the 7 evil spirits so often referred to in Babylonian exorcisms (compare Hehn, op. cit., 26 ff), but it is not safe to connect our Lord’s words with either. The Babylonian belief may indeed have influenced popular ideas to some extent, but there is no need to find a trace of it in the Gospels. The 7 demons of the latter are sufficiently accounted for by the common symbolic use of 7. For other passages which come under this head compare Deuteronomy 28:7,25; Ruth 4:15; 1 Samuel 2:5; Psalm 79:12. (b) Examples of latent use of the number 7, of what Zockler (RE3, “Sieben”) calls “latent heptads,” are not infrequent. The 7-fold use of the expression “the voice of Yahweh” in Psalm 29, which has caused it to be named “The Psalm of the Seven Thunders,” and the 7 epithets of the Divine Spirit in Isaiah 11:2, cannot be accidental. In both cases the number is intended to point at full-summed completeness. In the New Testament we have the 7 beatitudes of character ( Matthew 5:3-9); the 7 petitions of the Paternoster ( Matthew 6:9 f); the parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13; the 7 woes pronounced on the Pharisees ( Matthew 28:13,15,16,23,25,27,29), perhaps the sayings of Jesus, beginning with “I am” (ego eimi ) in the Fourth Gospel ( John 6:35; 8:12; 10:7,11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1), and the 7 disciples at the Lake after the Resurrection ( John 21:2). Several groups of 7 are found in the Epistles and in Revelation: 7 forms of suffering ( Romans 8:35); 7 gifts or charismata ( Romans 12:6-9); attributes of the wisdom that is from above ( James 3:17); 7 graces to be added to faith ( 2 Peter 1:5 ff); two doxologies each containing 7 words of praise ( Revelation 5:12; 7:12), and 7 classes of men ( Revelation 6:15). Other supposed instances of 7-fold grouping in the Fourth Gospel are pointed out by E.A. Abbott (Johannine Grammar, 2624 ff), but are of uncertain value. (4) Apocalyptic Use of Seven.

    As might be expected, 7 figures greatly in apocalyptic literature, although it is singularly absent from the apocalyptic portion of Daniel. Later works of this kind, however — the writings bearing the name of Enoch, the Testaments of Reuben and Levi,2 Esd, etc. — supply many illustrations.

    The doctrine of the 7 heavens which is developed in the Slavonic Enoch and elsewhere and may have been in the first instance of Babylonian origin is not directly alluded to in the Bible, but probably underlies the apostle’s reference to the third heaven ( 2 Corinthians 12:2). In the one apocalyptic writing in the New Testament, 7 is employed with amazing frequency. We read of 7 churches ( Revelation 1:4, etc.); 7 golden candlesticks ( Revelation 1:12, etc.); 7 stars ( Revelation 1:16); angels of the churches ( Revelation 1:20); 7 lamps of fire ( Revelation 4:5); 7 spirits of God ( Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5); a book with 7 seals ( Revelation 5:1); a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes ( Revelation 5:6); angels with 7 trumpets ( Revelation 8:2); 7 thunders ( Revelation 10:3); a dragon with 7 heads and 7 diadems ( Revelation 13:3); a beast with 7 heads ( Revelation 18:1); 7 angels having the 7 last plagues ( Revelation 15:1); and 7 golden bowls of the wrath of God ( Revelation 15:7) and a scarlet-colored beast with 7 heads ( Revelation 17:3) which are 7 mountains ( Revelation 17:9) and kings ( Revelation 17:10). The writer, whoever he was, must have had his imagination saturated with the numerical symbolism which had been cultivated in Western Asia for millenniums. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that 7 for him expressed fullness, completeness. As this inquiry will have shown, the significance of the number is practically the same throughout the Bible. Although a little of it may have been rubbed off in the course of ages, the main idea suggested by 7 was never quite lost sight of in Biblical times, and the number is still used in the life and song of the Holy Land and Arabia with at least an echo of its ancient meaning.

    The significance of 7 extends to its multiples. Fourteen , or twice 7, is possibly symbolic in some cases. The stress laid in the Old Testament on the 14th of the month as the day of the Passover ( Exodus 12:6 and other places), and the regulation that 14 lambs were to be offered on each of the 7 days of the Feast of Tabernacles ( Numbers 29:13,15) hint at design in the selection of the number, especially in view of the fact that and 7 occur repeatedly in cuneiform literature — in magical and liturgical texts, and in the formula so often used in the Amos Tab: “7 and 7 times at the feet of the king my lord .... I prostrate myself.” The arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in three groups of 14 each ( Matthew 1:17) is probably intentional, so far as the number in each group is concerned. It is doubtful whether the number has any symbolic force in Acts 27:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2; Galatians 2:1. Of course it must be remembered that both the Hebrew and Greek words for (‘arba’ah asar; dekatessares ) suggest that it is made up of 10 and 4, but constant use of 7 in the sense above defined will have influenced the application of its double, at least in some cases. Forty-nine , or 7 X 7, occurs in two regulations of the Law. The second of the three great festivals took place on the 50th day after one of the days of unleavened bread ( Leviticus 23:15 ff), that is, after an interval of 7 X days; and two years of Jubilee were separated by 7 X 7 years ( Leviticus 25:8 ff). The combination is met with also in one of the so-called Penitential Psalms of Babylonia: “Although my sins are 7 times 7, forgive me my sins.”

    Seven multiplied by ten, or 70, was a very strong expression of multitude which is met with in a large number of passages in the Old Testament. It occurs of persons: the 70 descendants of Jacob (Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 10:22); the 70 elders of Israel ( Exodus 24:1,9; Numbers 11:16,24 f); the 70 kings ill treated by Adoni-bezek ( Judges 1:7); the 70 sons of Gideon ( Judges 8:30; 9:2); the descendants of Abdon who rode on 70 asscolts ( Judges 12:14); the sons of Ahab ( 2 Kings 10:1,6 f); and the 70 idolatrous elders seen by Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 8:11). It is also used of periods: 70 days of Egyptian mourning for Jacob ( Genesis 50:3); 70 years of trial ( Isaiah 23:15,17; Jeremiah 25:11 f; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5); the 70 weeks of Daniel ( Daniel 9:24); and the 70 years of human life ( Psalm 90:10). Other noticeable uses of 70 are the 70 palm trees of Elim ( Exodus 15:27 parallel Numbers 33:9); the offering of bullocks in the time of Hezekiah ( 2 Chronicles 29:32), and the offering by the heads of the tribes of 12 silver bowls each of 70 shekels ( Numbers 7:13 ff). In the New Testament we have the 70 apostles ( Luke 10:1,17), but the number is uncertain with Codices Vaticanus and Bezae and some versions reading 72, which is the product, not of and 10, but of 6 and 12. Significant seventies are also met with outside of the Bible. The most noteworthy are the Jewish belief that there were nations outside Israel, with 70 languages, under the care of 70 angels, based perhaps on the list in Genesis 10; the Sanhedrin of about members; the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek by Septuagint (more exactly 72), and the 70 members of a family in one of the Aramaic texts of Sendschirli. This abundant use of 70 must have been largely due to the fact that it was regarded as an intensified 7. Seventy and seven , or 77, a combination found in the words of Lamech ( Genesis 4:24); the number of the princes and elders of Succoth ( Judges 8:14); and the number of lambs in a memorable sacrifice ( Ezra 8:35), would appeal in the same way to the oriental fancy. The product of seven and seventy (Greek hebdomekontakis hepta ) is met with once in the New Testament ( Matthew 18:22), and in the Septuagint of the above-quoted Genesis 4:24. Moulton, however (Grammar of Greek New Testament Prolegomena , 98), renders in both passages 70 plus 7; contra, Allen, “Matthew,” ICC, 199. The number is clearly a forceful equivalent of “always.” Seven thousand in 1 Kings 19:18 parallel Romans 11:4 may be a round number chosen on account of its embodiment of the number 7. In the Moabite Stone the number of Israelites slain at the capture of the city of Nebo by the Moabites is reckoned at 7,000. The half of seven seems sometimes to have been regarded as significant. In Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Luke 4:25 parallel 5:17; Revelation 11:2; 13:5 a period of distress is calculated at 3 1/2 years, that is, half the period of sacred completeness. 2. The Number Three: The number three seems early to have attracted attention as the number in which beginning, middle and end are most distinctly marked, and to have been therefore regarded as symbolic of a complete and ordered whole.

    Abundant illustration of its use in this way in Babylonian theology, ritual and magic is given from the cuneiform texts by Hehn (op. cit., 63 ff), and the hundreds of passages in the Bible in which the number occurs include many where this special significance either lies on the surface or not far beneath it. This is owing in some degree perhaps to Babylonian influence, but will have been largely due to independent observation of common phenomena — the arithmetical fact mentioned above and familiar trios, such as heaven, earth, and sea (or “the abyss”); morning, noon and night; right, middle, and left, etc. In other words, 3 readily suggested completeness, and was often used with a glance at that meaning in daily life and daily speech. Only a selection from the great mass of Biblical examples can be given here. (1) Three is often found of persons and things sacred or secular, e.g.

    Noah’s 3 sons ( Genesis 6:10); Job’s 3 daughters ( Job 1:2; 42:13) and 3 friends ( Job 2:11); Abraham’s 3 guests ( Genesis 18:2); and Sarah’s 3 measures of meal ( Genesis 18:6; compare Matthew 13:33 parallel); 3 in military tactics ( Judges 7:16,20; 9:43; 1 Samuel 11:11; 13:17; Job 1:17); 3 great feasts ( Exodus 23:14); the 3 daily prayers ( Psalm 55:17; Daniel 6:10,13); the 3 night watches ( Judges 7:19); God’s 3-fold call of Samuel ( 1 Samuel 3:8); the 3 keepers of the temple threshold ( Jeremiah 52:24); the 3 presidents appointed by Darius ( Daniel 6:2); the 3 temptations ( Matthew 4:3,5 f,8 f parallel); the 3 prayers in Gethsemane ( Matthew 26:39,42,44 parallel); Peter’s 3 denials ( Matthew 26:34,75 parallel); the Lord’s 3-fold question and 3-fold charge ( John 21:15 ff); and the 3-fold vision of the sheet ( Acts 10:16). (2) In a very large number of passages 3 is used of periods of time: days; 3 weeks; 3 months and 3 years. So in Genesis 40:12,13,18; Exodus 2:2; 10:22 f; 2 Samuel 24:13; Isaiah 20:3; Jon 1:17; Matthew 15:32; Luke 2:46; 13:7; Acts 9:9; 2 Corinthians 12:8. The frequent reference to the resurrection “on the 3rd day” or “after 3 days” ( Matthew 16:21; 27:63, etc.) may at the same time have glanced at the symbolic use of the number and at the belief common perhaps to the Jews and the Zoroastrians that a corpse was not recognizable after 3 days (for Jewish testimony compare John 11:39; Yebamoth xvi.3; Midrash, Genesis, chapter c; Semachoth viii; for Persian ideas compare The Expository Times, XVIII, 536). (3) The number 3 is also used in a literary way, sometimes appearing only in the structure. Note as examples the 3-fold benediction of Israel ( Numbers 6:24 ff); the Thrice Holy of the seraphim ( Isaiah 6:3); the 3-fold overturn ( Ezekiel 21:27 (Hebrew 32)); the 3-fold refrain of Psalms 42 — 43 regarded as one psalm ( Psalm 42:5,11; 43:5); the 3 names of God (the Mighty One, God, Yahweh, Joshua 22:22; compare Psalm 50:1); the 3 graces of 1 Corinthians 13; the witnesses ( 1 John 5:8); the frequent use of 3 and 3rd in Revelation; the description of God as “who is and who was and who is to come” ( Revelation 1:4); and `the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ ( Matthew 28:19). In some of these cases 3-fold repetition is a mode of expressing the superlative, and others remind us of the remarkable association of 3 with deity alluded to by Plato and Philo, and illustrated by the triads of Egypt and Babylonia and the Far East. It cannot, however, be proved, or even made probable, that there is any direct connection between any of these triads and the Christian Trinity. All that can be said is, that the same numerical symbolism may have been operative in both cases. 3. The Number Four: The 4 points of the compass and the 4 phases of the moon will have been early noticed, and the former at any rate will have suggested before Biblical times the use of 4 as a symbol of completeness of range, of comprehensive extent. As early as the middle of the 3rd millennium BC Bah rulers (followed long afterward by the Assyrians) assumed the title “king of the quarters” meaning that their rule reached in all directions, and an early conqueror claimed to have subdued the 4 quarters. There are not a few illustrations of the use of 4 in some such way in the Bible. The 4 winds (referred to also in the cuneiform texts and the Book of the Dead) are mentioned again and again ( Jeremiah 49:36; Ezekiel 37:9), and the quarters or corners ( Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 7:2; Revelation 20:8).

    We read also of the 4 heads of the river of Eden ( Genesis 2:10 ff), of horns,4 smiths, 4 chariots, and horses of 4 colors in the visions of Zechariah (1:8, Septuagint; 1:18 ff; 6:1 ff), the chariots being directly connected with the 4 winds; 4 punishments ( Jeremiah 15:3; Ezekiel 14:21, the latter with a remarkable Assyrian parallel), the 4 kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as interpreted ( Daniel 2:37 ff) and Daniel’s vision ( Daniel 7:3 ff); the 4 living creatures in Ezekiel (1:5 ff; compare 1:10), each with 4 faces and 4 wings, and the 4 modeled after them ( Revelation 4:6, etc.). In most of these cases 4 is clearly symbolical, as in a number of passages in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Whether the frequent use of it in the structure of the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and Ezekiel’s temple has anything to do with the symbolic meaning is not clear, but the latter can probably be traced in proverbial and prophetic speech ( Proverbs 30:15,18,21,24,29; Amos 1:3,6, etc.). The 4 transgressions of the latter represent full-summed iniquity, and the 4-fold grouping in the former suggested the wide sweep of the classification. Perhaps it is not fanciful to find the idea in the 4 sets of hearers of the gospel in the parable of the Sewer ( Matthew 13:19-23 parallel). The rabbis almost certainly had it in mind in their 4-fold grouping of characters in six successive paragraphs (Ab v.16-21) which, however, is of considerably later date. 4. The Number Ten: As the basis of the decimal system, which probably originated in counting with the fingers,10 has been a significant number in all historical ages. The 10 antediluvian patriarchs (Genesis 5; compare the 10 Babylonian kings of Berosus, and 10 in early Iranian and far-Eastern myths); the 10 righteous men who would have saved Sodom ( Genesis 18:32); the 10 plagues of Egypt; the 10 commandments ( Exodus 20:2-17 parallel Deuteronomy 5:6-21; the 10 commandments found by some in Exodus 34:14-26 are not clearly made out); the 10 servants of Gideon ( Judges 6:27); the 10 elders who accompanied Boaz ( Ruth 4:2); the 10 virgins of the parable ( Matthew 25:1); the 10 pieces of silver ( Luke 15:8); the 10 servants entrusted with 10 pounds ( Luke 19:13 ff), the most capable of whom was placed over 10 cities ( Luke 19:17); the 10 days’ tribulation predicted for the church of Smyrna ( Revelation 2:10); the use of “10 times” in the sense of “many times” ( Genesis 31:7; Nehemiah 4:12; Daniel 1:20, etc., an idiom met with repeatedly in Tell el-Amarna Letters); and the use of 10 in sacred measurements and in the widely diffused custom of tithe, and many other examples show plainly that 10 was a favorite symbolic number suggestive of a rounded total, large or small, according to circumstances. The number played a prominent part in later Jewish life and thought. Ten times was the Tetragrammaton ([YHWH]) uttered by the high priest on the Day of Atonement; 10 persons must be present at a nuptial benediction; 10 constituted a congregation in the synagogue; 10 was the usual number of a company at the paschal meal, and of a row of comforters of the bereaved. The world was created, said the rabbis, by ten words, and Abraham was visited with 10 temptations (Ab v.1 and 4; several other illustrations are found in the context). 5. The Number Twelve: The 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac probably suggested to the old Babylonians the use of 12 as a symbolic or semi-sacred number, but its frequent employment by the Israelites with special meaning cannot at present be proved to have originated in that way, although the idea was favored by both Josephus and Philo. So far as we know, Israelite predilection for 12 was entirely due to the traditional belief that the nation consisted of 12 tribes, a belief, it is true, entertained also by the Arabs or some of them, but with much less intensity and persistence. In Israel the belief was universal and ineradicable. Hence, the 12 pillars set up by Moses ( Exodus 24:4); the 12 jewels in the high priest’s breast-plate ( Exodus 28:21); the 12 cakes of showbread ( Leviticus 24:5); the rods ( Numbers 17:2); the 12 spies (Numbers 13); the 12 stones placed by Joshua in the bed of Jordan ( Joshua 4:9); the 12 officers of Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:7); the 12 stones of Elijah’s altar ( 1 Kings 18:31); the disciples or apostles (26 t), and several details of apocalyptic imagery ( Revelation 7:5 ff; 12:1; 21:12,14,16,21; 22:2; compare also Matthew 14:20 parallel 19:28 parallel 26:53; Acts 26:7). The number pointed in the first instance at unity and completeness which had been sanctioned by Divine election, and it retained this significance when applied to the spiritual Israel. Philo indeed calls it a perfect number. Its double in Revelation 4:4, etc., is probably also significant. 6. Other Significant Numbers: Five came readily into the mind as the half of 10. Hence, perhaps its use in the parable of the Virgins ( Matthew 25:2). It was often employed in literary division, e.g. in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the part of the Hagiographa known as the Meghilljth , the Ethiopic Enoch and Matthew (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; compare Sir J. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2) , 163 ff). It seems to have been occasionally suggestive of relative smallness, as in Leviticus 26:8, the 5 loaves ( Matthew 14:17 parallel), 1 Corinthians 14:19, and perhaps in Tell el-Amarna Letters. It has been remarked (Skinner, “Genesis,” ICC, 483) that the number occurs repeatedly in reference to matters Egyptian ( Genesis 41:34; 45:22; 47:2; Isaiah 19:18), but there seems to be no satisfactory explanation.

    Sixty: Although, as was before observed, there is no direct trace in the Bible of the numerical system based on 60, there are a few passages where there may be a distant echo. The 60 cities of Argob ( Deuteronomy 3:4; Joshua 13:30; 1 Kings 4:13); the 60 mighty men and the 60 queens of Song of Solomon 3:7; 6:8, the double use of 60 of Rehoboam’s harem and family ( 2 Chronicles 11:21), the 3 sacrifices of 60 victims each ( Numbers 7:88), and the length of Solomon’s temple,60 cubits ( 1 Kings 6:2 parallel 2 Chronicles 3:3), may perhaps have a remote connection with the Babylonian use. It must be remembered that the latter was current in Israel and the neighboring regions in the division of the talent into 60 minas. A few passages in the Pseudepigrapha may be similarly interpreted, and the Babylonian Talmud contains, as might be expected, many clear allusions. In the Bible, however, the special use of the number is relatively rare and indirect. One hundred and ten, the age attained by Joseph ( Genesis 50:22), is significant as the Egyptian ideal of longevity (Smith, DB2, 1804 f; Skinner, “Genesis,” ICC, 539 f). One hundred and fifty-three: The Greek poet Oppian (circa 171 AD) and others are said to have reckoned the number of fishes in the world at this figure (compare Jerome on Ezekiel 47), and some scholars find a reference to that belief in John 21:11 in which case the number would be symbolic of comprehensiveness. That is not quite impossible, but the suggestion cannot be safely pressed. Throughout this discussion of significant numbers it must be borne in mind that writers and teachers may often have been influenced by the desire to aid the memory of those they addressed, and may to that end have arranged thoughts and facts in groups of 3, or 4, or 7, or 10, and so on (Sir John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae2, 166 f). They will at the same time have remembered the symbolic force of these numbers, and in some cases, at least, will have used them as round numbers. There are many places in which the round and the symbolic uses of a number cannot be sharply distinguished.

    6. GEMATRIA. (gematriya’ ). A peculiar application of numbers which was in great favor with the later Jews and some of the early Christians and is not absolutely unknown to the Bible, is Gematria , that is the use of the letters of a word so as by means of their combined numerical value to express a name, or a witty association of ideas. The term is usually explained as an adaptation of the Greek word geometria , that is, “geometry,” but Dalman (Worterbuch , under the word) connects it in this application of it with grammateia .

    There is only one clear example in Scripture, the number of the beast which is the number of a man, six hundred sixty and six ( Revelation 13:18). If, as most scholars are inclined to believe, a name is intended, the numerical value of the letters composing which adds up to 666, and if it is assumed that the writer thought in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nero Caesar written with the consonants nun (n) = 50, resh (r) = 200, waw (w) = 6, nun (n) = 50, qoph (q) = 100, camekh (c) = 60, resh (r) = 200: total = 666, seems to be the best solution. Perhaps the idea suggested by Dr. Milligan that the 3- fold use of 6 which just falls short of 7, the number of sacred completeness, and is therefore a note of imperfection, may have been also in the writer’s mind. Some modern scholars find a second instance in Genesis 14:14 and 15:2. As the numerical value of the consonants which compose Eliezer in Hebrew add up to 318, it has been maintained that the number is not historical, but has been fancifully constructed by means of gematria out of the name. This strange idea is not new, for it is found in the Midrash on Genesis 43 in the name of a rabbi who lived circa 200 AD, but its antiquity is its greatest merit.

    LITERATURE.

    In addition to other books referred to in the course of the article: Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbath bei den Babyloniern und im Altes Testament; Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, etc., 51-57, and the same writer’s article “Number” in HDB; Sir J. Hawkins,. Horae Synopticae2, 163-67; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, 155-69; “Number” in HDB (1-vol); EB; Jewish Encyclopedia;Smith, DB; “Numbers” in DCG; “Zahlen” in the Dicts. of Wiener, Riehm2, Guthe; “Zahlen” and “Sieben” in RE3. William Taylor Smith NUMBER, GOLDEN See GOLDEN NUMBER.

    NUMBERING See DAVID; QUIRINIUS.

    NUMBERS, BOOK OF <num’-berz > :

    1. TITLE AND CONTENTS. 1. Title: Styled in the Hebrew Bible [ rB”d]miB] , bemidhbar ], “in the wilderness,” from the 5th word in Numbers 1:1, probably because of recording the fortunes of Israel in the Sinaitic desert. The 4th book of the Pentateuch (or of the Hexateuch, according to criticism) was designated [ ]Ariqmoi, Arithmoi ] in the Septuagint, and Numeri in the Vulgate, and from this last received its name “Numbers” in the King James Version, in all 3 evidently because of its reporting the 2 censuses which were taken, the one at Sinai at the beginning and the other on the plains of Moab at the close of the wanderings. 2. Contents: Of the contents the following arrangement will be sufficiently detailed: (1) Before leaving Sinai, Numbers 1:1 through 10:10 (a period of days, from the 1st to the 20th of the 2nd month after the exodus), describing: (a) The numbering and ordering of the people, Numbers 1 through 4. (b) The cleansing and blessing of the congregation, Numbers 5; 6. (c) The princes’ offerings and the dedication of the altar, Numbers 7; 8. (d) The observance of a second Passover, Numbers 9:1-14. (e) The cloud and the trumpets for the march, Numbers 9:15 through 10:10. (2) From Sinai to Kadesh, Numbers 10:11 through 14:45 (a period of 10 days, from the 20th to the 30th of the 2nd month), narrating: (a) The departure from Sinai, Numbers 10:11-35. (b) The events at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah, Numbers 11. (c) The rebellion of Miriam and Aaron, Numbers 12. (d) The mission of the spies, Numbers 13; 14. (3) The wanderings in the desert, Numbers 15 through 19 (a period of years, from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 40th year), recording: (a) Sundry laws and the punishment of a Sabbath breaker, Numbers 15. (b) The rebellion of Korah, Numbers 16. (c) The budding of Aaron’s rod, Numbers 17. (d) The duties and revenues of the priests and Levites, Numbers 18. (e) The water of separation for the unclean, Numbers 19. (4) From Kadesh to Moab, Numbers 20; 21 (a period of 10 months, from the beginning of the 40th year), reciting: (a) The story of Balaam, Numbers 22:2 through 24:25. (b) The zeal of Phinehas, Numbers 25. (c) The second census, Numbers 26:1-51. (d) Directions for dividing the land, Numbers 26:52 through 27:11. (e) Appointment of Moses’ successor, Numbers 27:12-23. (f) Concerning offerings and vows, Numbers 28 through 30. (g) War with Midian, Numbers 31. (h) Settlement of Reuben and Gad, Numbers 32. (i) List of camping stations, Numbers 33:1-49. (j) Canaan to be cleared of its inhabitants and divided, Numbers 33:50 through 34:29. (k) Cities of refuge to be appointed, Numbers 35. (l) The marriage of heiresses, Numbers 36.

    2. LITERARY STRUCTURE.

    According to modern criticism, the text of Numbers, like that of the other books of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch), instead of being regarded as substantially the work of one writer (whatever may have been his sources of information and whoever may have been its first or latest editor), should be distributed — not always in solid blocks of composition, but frequently in fragments, in sentences, clauses or words, so mysteriously put together that they cannot now with certainty be separated — among three writers, J, E and P with another D (at least in one part) — these writers, individuals and not schools (Gunkel), belonging, respectively: J to the 9th century BC (circa 830), E to the 8th century BC (circa 750), P to the 5th century BC (circa 444), and D to the 7th century BC (circa 621). 1. Alleged Grounds of Distribution: The grounds upon which this distribution is made are principally these: (1) the supposed preferential use of the Divine names, of Yahweh (Yahweh, “Lord”) by J, and of Elohim (“God”) by E and P — a theory, however, which hopelessly breaks down in its application, as Orr (POT, chapter vii), Eerdmans (St, 33 ff) and Wiener (EPC, I) have conclusively shown, and as will afterward appear; (2) distinctions in style of composition, which are not always obvious and which, even if they were, would not necessarily imply diversity of authorship unless every author’s writing must be uniform and monotonous, whatever his subject may be; and (3) perhaps chiefly a preconceived theory of religious development in Israel, according to which the people in pre-Mosaic times were animists, totemists and polytheists; in Mosaic times and after, henotheists or worshippers of one God, while recognizing the existence of other gods; and latterly, in exilic and post-exilic times, monotheists or worshippers of the one living and true God — which theory, in order to vindicate its plausibility, required the reconstruction of Israel’s religious documents in the way above described, but which is now rejected by archaeologists (Delitzsch and A. Jeremias) and by theologians (Orr, Baentsch (though accepting the analysis on other grounds) and Konig) as not supported by facts. 2. Objections to Same: Without denying that the text-analysis of criticism is on the first blush of it both plausible and attractive and has brought to light valuable information relative to Scripture, or without overlooking the fact that it has behind it the names of eminent scholars and is supported by not a few considerations of weight, one may fairly urge against it the following objections. (1) Hypothesis Unproved.

    At the best, theory is an unproved and largely imaginary hypothesis, or series of hypotheses — “hypothesis built on hypothesis” (Orr); and nothing more strikingly reveals this than (a) the frequency with which in the text-analysis conjecture (“perhaps” and “probably”) takes the place of reasoned proof (b) the arbitrary manner in which the supposed documents are constructed by the critics who, without reason given, and often in violation of their own rules and principles, lift out of J (for instance) every word or clause they consider should belong to E or the Priestly Code (P), and vice versa every word or clause out of E or P that might suggest that the passage should be assigned to J, at the same time explaining the presence of the inconvenient word or clause in a document to which it did not belong by the careless or deliberate action of a redactor; and (c) the failure even thus to construct the documents successfully, most critics admitting that J and E cannot with confidence be separated from each other — Kuenen himself saying that “the attempt to make out a Jehovistic and an Elohistic writer or school of writers by means of the Divine names has led criticism on a wrong way”; and some even denying that P ever existed as a separate document at all, Eerdmans (St, 33, 82), in particular, maintaining, as the result of elaborate exegesis, that P could not have been constructed in either exilic or post-exilic times “as an introduction to a legal work.” (2) Written Record Not Impossible.

    It is impossible to demonstrate that the story of Israel’s “wanderings” was not committed to writing by Moses, who certainly was not unacquainted with the art of writing, who had the ability, if any man had, to prepare such a writing, whose interest it was, as the leader of his people, to see that such writing, whether done by himself or by others under his supervision, was accurate, and who besides had been commanded by God to write the journeyings of Israel ( Numbers 33:2). To suppose that for 500 years no reliable record of the fortunes of Israel existed, when during these years writing was practiced in Egypt and Babylon; and that what was then fixed in written characters was only the tradition that had floated down for centuries from mouth to mouth, is simply to say that little or no dependence can be placed upon the narrative, that while there may be at the bottom of it some grains of fact, the main body of it is fiction. This conclusion will not be readily admitted. (3) No Book Ever Thus Constructed.

    No reliable evidence exists that any book either ancient or modern was ever constructed as, according to criticism, the Pentateuch, and in particular Numbers, was. Volumes have indeed been composed by two or more authors, acting in concert, but their contributions have never been intermixed as those of J, E, D and P are declared to have been; nor, when joint authorship has been acknowledged on the title-page, has it been possible for readers confidently to assign to each author his own contribution. And yet, modern criticism, dealing with documents more than 2,000 years old and in a language foreign to the critics — which documents, moreover, exist only in manuscripts not older than the 10th century AD (Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, 28), and the text of which has been fixed not infallibly either as to consonant or vowel — claims that it can tell exactly (or nearly so) what parts, whether paragraphs, sentences, clauses or words, were supplied by J, E, P and D respectively.

    Credat Judaeus Apella! (4) Inherent Difficulties of Analysis.

    The critical theory, besides making of the text of Numbers, as of the other books of the Pentateuch, such a patchwork as is unthinkable in any document with ordinary pretension to historical veracity, is burdened with inherent difficulties which make it hard to credit, as the following examples taken from Numbers, will show. (a) The Story of the Spies:

    Numbers 13 and 14 are thus distributed by Cornill, Driver, Strack and E B:

    JE, Numbers 13:17b-20,22-24,26b-31,32b,33; 14:3,4,8,9,11-25,39-45.

    P, Numbers 13:1-17a,21,25,26a (to Paran),32a; 14:1,2 (in the main),5- 7,10,26-38 (in the main).

    Kautzsch generally agrees; and Hartford-Battersby in HDB professes ability to divide between J and E. (i) According to this analysis, however, up to the middle of the 5th century BC, either JE began at Numbers 13:17b, in which case it wanted both the instruction to search the land and the names of the searchers, both of which were subsequently added from P (assuming it to have been a separate document, which is doubtful); or, if JE contained both the instruction and the names, these were supplanted by 13:1-17a from P. As the former of these alternatives is hardly likely, one naturally asks why the opening verses of JE were removed and those of P substituted? And if they were removed, what has become of them? Does not the occurrence of Yahweh in 13:1-17a, on the critical principles of some, suggest that this section is the missing paragraph of JE? (ii) If the JE passages furnish a nearly complete narrative (Driver), why should the late compiler or editor have deemed it necessary to insert two whole verses, 13:21 and 25, and two halves, 13:26a and 32a, if not because without these the original JE narrative would have been incomplete? Numbers 13:21 states in general terms that the spies searched the whole land, proceeding as far North as Hamath, after which 13:22 mentions that they entered the country from the South and went up to Hebron and Eshcol, without at all stating an incongruity (Gray) or implying (Driver) that they traveled no farther North — the reason for specifying the visit to Eshcol being the interesting fact that there the extraordinary cluster of grapes was obtained. Numbers 13:25,26a relate quite naturally that the spies returned to Kadesh after 40 days and reported what they had found to Moses and Aaron as well as to all the congregation. Without these verses the narrative would have stated neither how long the land had been searched nor whether Moses and Aaron had received any report from their messengers, although 13:26b implies that a report was given to some person or persons unnamed. That Moses and Aaron should not have been named in JE is exceedingly improbable. Numbers 13:32a is in no way inconsistent with 13:26b-31, which state that the land was flowing with milk and honey. What 13:32a adds is an expression of the exaggerated fears of the spies, whose language could not mean that the land was so barren that they would die of starvation, a statement which would have expressly contradicted 13:27 (JE) — in which case why should it have been inserted? — but that, notwithstanding its fruitfulness, the population was continually being wasted by internecine wars and the incursions of surrounding tribes. The starvation theory, moreover, is not supported by the texts ( Leviticus 26:38; Ezekiel 36:13) usually quoted in its behalf. (iii) To argue (Driver) for two documents because Joshua is not always mentioned along with Caleb is not strikingly convincing; while if Joshua is not included among the spies in JE, that is obviously because the passages containing his name have been assigned beforehand to P. But if Joshua’s name did not occur in JE, why would it have been inserted in the story by a post-exilic writer, when even in Deuteronomy 1:36 Joshua is not expressly named as one of the spies, though again the language in Deuteronomy 1:38 tacitly suggests that both Caleb and Joshua were among the searchers of the land, and that any partition of the text which conveys the impression that Joshua was not among the spies is wrong? (iv) If the text-analysis is as the critics arrange, how comes it that in JE the name Yahweh does not once occur, while all the verses containing it are allocated to P? (b) Rebellion of Korah:

    Numbers 16 and 17 are supposed to be the work of “two, if not three,” contributors (Driver, Kautzsch) — the whole story being assigned to P (enlarged by additions about which the text analysts are not unanimous), with the exception of 16:1b,2a,12-15,25,26,27b-34, which are given to JE, though variations here also are not unknown.

    It is admitted that the JE verses, if read continuously, make out a story of Dathan and Abiram as distinguished from Korah and his company; that the motives of Dathan and Abiram probably differed from those of Korah and his company, and that Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by an earthquake, while the 250 incense-offerers were destroyed by fire. To conclude from this, however, that three or even two narratives have been intermixed is traveling beyond the premises. (i) If JE contained more about the conspiracy of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, than has been preserved in the verses assigned to it, what has become of the excised verses, if they are not those ascribed to P; and, if they are not, what evidence exists that P’s verses are better than the lost verses of JE? And how comes it that in P the Divine name used throughout, with one exception, 16:22, is Yahweh, while in JE it occurs only 6 t? (ii) If JE contained only the parts assigned to it and nothing more happened than the Reubenite emeute, why should the Korahite rebellion have been added to it 4 centuries later, if that rebellion never happened? (iii) If the Korahite conspiracy did happen, why should it have been omitted in JE, and nothing whispered about it till after the exile? (iv) If the two conspiracies, ecclesiastical (among the princes) and civil (among the laymen), arose contemporaneously, and the conspirators made common cause with one another, in that there was nothing unusual or contrary to experience. (v) If Moses addressed himself now to Korah and again to Dathan and Abiram, why should not the same document say so? (vi) If Dathan and Abiram were engulfed by an earthquake, and the 250 princes were consumed by fire from the tabernacle, even that does not necessitate two documents, since both events might have occurred together. (vii) It is not certain that P (16:35-43) represents Korah as having been consumed by fire, while JE (16:31-33) declares he was swallowed up by the earth. At least P (26:10) distinctly states that Korah was swallowed up by the earth, and that only the 250 were consumed by fire.

    Wherefore, in the face of these considerations, it is not too much to say that the evidence for more documents than one in this story is not convincing. (c) Story of Balaam:

    Numbers 22 through 24 fare more leniently at the hands of analysis, being all left with JE, except 22:1, which is generously handed over to P.

    Uncertainty, however, exists as to how to partition chapter 22 between J and E. Whether all should be given to E because of the almost uniform use of Elohim rather than of Yahweh, with the exception of 22:22-35a, which are the property of J because of the use of Yahweh (Driver, Kautzsch); or whether some additional verses should not be assigned to J (Cornill, HDB), critics are not agreed. As to Numbers 23 and 24, authorities hesitate whether to give both to J or to E, or chapter 23 to E and chapter 24 to J, or both to a late redactor who had access to the two sources — surely an unsatisfactory demonstration in this case at least of the documentary hypothesis. Comment on the use of the Divine names in this story is reserved till later.

    Yet, while declining to accept this hypothesis as proved, it is not contended that the materials in Numbers are always arranged in chronological order, or that the style of composition is throughout the same, or that the book as it stands has never been revised or edited, but is in every jot and tittle the same as when first constructed. In Numbers 7, e.g., the narrative goes back to the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year, and in chapter 9 to the 1st month of the 2nd year, though chapter 1 begins with the 1st day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year. There are also legislative passages interspersed among the historical, and poetical among the prosaic, but diversity of authorship, as already suggested, cannot be inferred from either of these facts unless it is impossible for a writer to be sometimes disorderly in the arrangement of his materials; and for a lawgiver to be also a historian, and for a prose writer occasionally to burst into song. Assertions like these, however, cannot be entertained. Hence, any argument for plurality of documents rounded on them must be set aside. Nor is it a fair conclusion against the literary unity of the book that its contents are varied in substance and form and have been subjected, as is probable, to revision and even to interpolations, provided always these revisions and interpolations have not changed the meaning of the book. Whether, therefore, the Book of Numbers has or has not been compiled from preexisting documents, it cannot be justly maintained that the text-analysis suggested by the critics has been established, or that the literary unity of Numbers has been disproved.

    3. HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY.

    Were the narrative in this book written down immediately or soon after the events it records, no reason would exist for challenging its authenticity, unless it could be shown either from the narrative itself or from extraneous sources that the events chronicled were internally improbable, incredible or falsified. Even should it be proved that the text consists of two or more preexisting documents interwoven with one another, this would not necessarily invalidate its truthfulness, if these documents were practically contemporaneous with the incidents they report, and were not combined in such a way as to distort and misrepresent the occurrences they related. If, however, these pre-existing documents were prepared 500 (JE) or 1,000 (P) years after the incidents they narrate, and were merely a fixing in written characters of traditions previously handed down (JE), or of legislation newly invented and largely imaginary (P), it will not be easy to establish their historical validity. The credibility of this portion of the Pentateuch has been assailed on the alleged ground that it contains chronological inaccuracies, statistical errors and physical impossibilities. 1. Seeming Chronological Inaccuracies: (1) The Second Passover ( Numbers 9:1-5) The critical argument is that a contemporary historian would naturally have placed this paragraph before Numbers 1:1. The answer is that possibly he would have done so had his object been to observe strict chronological order, which it manifestly was not (see Numbers 7 and 9), and had he when commencing the book deemed it necessary to state that the Israelites had celebrated a second Passover on the legally appointed day, the 14th of the 1st month of the 2nd year. This, however, he possibly at first assumed would be understood, and only afterward, when giving the reason for the supplementary Passover, realized that in after years readers might erroneously conclude that this was all the Passover that had been kept in the 2nd year. So to obviate any such mistaken inference, he prefixed to his account of the Little Passover, as it is sometimes called, a statement to the effect that the statutory ordinance, the Great Passover, had been observed at the usual time, in the usual way, and that, too, in obedience to the express commandment of Yahweh. (2) The Thirty-seven Years’ Chasm.

    Whether Numbers 20:1 be considered the beginning of the 3rd or of the 40th year, in either case a period of 37 years is passed over — in the one case in almost unbroken silence; in the other with scarcely anything of moment recorded save Korah’s rebellion and the publication of a few laws concerning offerings to be made when the people reached the land of their habitation. To pronounce the whole book unhistorical because of this long interval of absolute or comparative silence (Bleek) is unreasonable. Most histories on this principle would be cast into the wastebasket. Besides, a historian might have as good reason for passing over as for recording the incidents of any particular period. And this might have been the case with the author of Numbers. From the moment sentence of death was passed upon the old generation at Kadesh, till the hour when the new generation started out for Canaan, he may have counted that Israel had practically ceased to be the people of Yahweh, or at least that their fortunes formed no part of the history of Yahweh’s kingdom; and it is noticeable that scarcely had the tribes reassembled at Kadesh in preparation for their onward march than Miriam and Aaron, probably the last of the doomed generation, died. Accordingly, from this point on, the narrative is occupied with the fortunes of the new generation. Whether correct or not, this solution of the 37 years’ silence (Kurtz) is preferable to that which suggests (Ewald) that the late compiler, having found it impossible to locate all the traditions he had collected into the closing years of the wanderings, placed the rest of them in the first 2 years, and left the interval a blank — a solution which has not even the merit of being clever and explains nothing. It does not explain why, if the narrator was not writing history, there should have been an interval at all. A romancer would not have missed so splendid an opportunity for exercising his art, would not have left a gap of 37 years unfilled, but like the writers of the apocryphal Gospels would have crowded it with manufactured tales.

    On the better theory, not only is the silence explained, but the items inserted are accounted for as well. Though the unbelieving generation had ceased to be the people of Yahweh, Aaron had not yet been sentenced to exclusion from the promised land, He was still one of the representatives of the kingdom of Yahweh, and Korah’s rebellion practically struck a blow at that kingdom. As such it was punished, and the story of its breaking out and suppression was recorded, as a matter that vitally concerned the stability of the kingdom. For a like reason, the legislative sections were included in the narrative. They were Yahweh’s acts and not the people’s.

    They were statutes and ordinances for the new generation in the new land. (3) Fortieth Year.

    The events recorded as having taken place between the 1st of the 5th month (the date of Aaron’s death) and the 1st of the 11th month (the date of Moses’ address) are so numerous and important as to render it impossible, it is said, to maintain the credibility of this portion of the narrative. But (a) it is not certain that all the events in this section were finished before Moses began his oration; neither (b) is it necessary to hold that they all occurred in succession; while (c) until the rapidity with which events followed one another is ascertained, it will not be possible to decide whether or not they could all have been begun and finished within the space of 6 months. 2. So-called Statistical Errors: (1) Number of the Fighting Men.

    This, which may be set down roughly at 600,000, has been challenged on two grounds: (a) that the number is too large, and (b) that the censuses at Sinai and in Moab are too nearly equal.

    The first of these objections will be considered in the following section when treating of the size of the congregation. The second will not appear formidable if it be remembered (a) that it is neither impossible nor unusual for the population of a country to remain stationary for a long series of years; (b) that there was a special fitness in Israel’s ease that the doomed generation should be replaced by one as nearly as possible equal to that which had perished; (c) that had the narrative been invented, it is more than likely that the numbers would have been made either exactly equal or more widely divergent; and (d) that so many variations occurring in the strength of the tribes as numbered at Sinai and again in Moab, while the totals so nearly correspond, constitutes a watermark of truthfulness which should not be overlooked. (2) SIZE OF THE CONGREGATION.

    Taking the fighting men at 600,000 and the whole community at 4 1/2 times that number, or about 2 1/2 millions, several difficulties emerge which have led to the suggestion (Eerdmans, Conder, Wiener) that the 600,000 should be reduced (to, say, 6,000), and the entire population to less than 30,000. The following alleged impossibilities are believed to justify this reduction: (a) that of 70 families increasing to 2 1/2 millions between the descent into, and the departure from, Egypt; (b) that of 2 1/2 millions being led out of Egypt in one day; (c) that of obtaining support for so large a multitude with their flocks in the Sinaitic desert; (d) that of finding room for them either before the Mount at Sinai, or in the limited territory of Palestine; and (e) that of the long time it took to conquer Palestine if the army was 600,000 strong. (a) Multiplication of People:

    As to the possibility of 70 souls multiplying in the course of 215 years or generations (to take the shorter interval rather than the longer of years) into 2 1/2 millions of persons giving 600,000 fighting men, that need not be regarded as incredible till the rate of increase in each family is exactly known. Allowing to each of Jacob’s grandsons who were married (say 51 out of 53), 4 male descendants (Colenso allows 4 1/2), these would in 7 generations — not in 4 (Colenso) — amount to 835,584, and with surviving fathers and grandfathers added might well reach 900,000, of whom 600,000 might be above 20 years of age. But in point of fact, without definite data about the number of generations, the rates of birth and of mortality in each generation, all calculations are at the best problematical. The most that can be done is to consider whether the narrative mentions any circumstances fitted to explain this large number of fighting men and the great size of the congregation, and then whether the customary objections to the Biblical statement can be satisfactorily set aside.

    As for corroborative circumstances, the Bible expressly states that during the years of the oppression the Hebrews were extraordinarily fruitful, and that this was the reason why Pharaoh became alarmed and issued his edict for the destruction of the male children. The fruitfulness of the Hebrews, however, has been challenged (Eerdmans, Verger schichte Israels, 78) on the ground that were the births so numerous as this presupposes, two midwives ( Exodus 1:15) would not have sufficed for the necessary offices. But if the two to whom Pharaoh spake were the superintendents of the midwives throughout Goshen, to whom the king would hardly address himself individually, or if they were the two officiating in Hellopolls, the statement in Exodus 1:15 will appear natural enough, and not opposed to the statement in Exodus 1:10 that Pharaoh was alarmed at the multiplication of the Hebrews in his land. And, indeed, if the Hebrews were only 30,000 strong, it is not easy to see why the whole might of Egypt could not have kept them in subjection. Then as to the congregation being 2 1/2 millions if the 2 fighting men were 600,000, that corresponds with the proportion which existed among the Helvetii, who had 92,000 men capable of bearing arms out of a population, including children, old men and women, of 368,000 souls (Caesar, BG, i, 20). This seems to answer the objection (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) that the unschooled Oriental is commonly addicted to exaggeration where numbers are concerned. (b) Exodus in One Day:

    The second difficulty would be serious were it necessary to suppose that the Israelites had never heard about their projected journey till the 14th of the 1st month. But the idea of going forth from Egypt must have been before them since the day Moses went to Pharaoh to demand their liberation; and at least 4 days before the 14th they had begun to prepare for departure. In circumstances such as these, with a people thirsting for liberty and only waiting the signal to move, aware also of the hour at which that signal would be given, namely, at midnight, it does not appear so formidable a task as is imagined to get them all assembled in one day at a fore-appointed rendezvous, more especially as they were not likely to delay or linger in their movements. But how could there have been 2 1/2 millions of fugitives, it is asked (Eerdmans, Wiener), if Pharaoh deemed chariots sufficient for pursuit? The answer is that Pharaoh did not reckon 600 chariots sufficient, but in addition to these, which were “chosen chariots,” he took all the chariots of Egypt, his horsemen and his army ( Exodus 14:7,9), which were surely adequate to overcome a weaponless crowd, however big it might be. And that it was big, a vast horde indeed, Pharaoh’s host implies. (c) Support in Wilderness:

    The supposed difficulty of obtaining support for 2 1/2 millions of people with the flocks and herds in the Sinaitic desert takes for granted that the desert was then as barren a region as it is now, which cannot be proved, and is as little likely to be correct as it would be to argue that Egypt, which was then the granary of the world, was no more fertile than it was 10 years ago, or that the regions in which Babylon and Assyria were situated were as desolate then as they are now. This supposition disregards the fact that Moses fed the flocks of Jethro for 40 years in that same region of Sinai; that when the Israelites passed through it, it was inhabited by several powerful tribes. It overlooks, too, the fact that the flocks and herds of Israel were not necessarily all cooped up in one spot, but were most likely spread abroad in districts where water and vegetation could be found. And it ignores the statement in the narrative that the Israelites were not supplied exclusively by the produce of the desert, but had manna from heaven from the 1st day of the 2nd month after leaving Egypt till they reached Canaan.

    Rationalistic expositors may relegate this statement to the limbo of fable, but unless the supernatural is to be eliminated altogether from the story, this statement must be accorded its full weight. So must the two miraculous supplies of water at Horeb (Exodus 17) and at Kadesh (Numbers 20) be treated. It is sometimes argued that these supplies were quite insufficient for 2 1/2 millions of people with their flocks and herds; and that therefore the congregation could not have been so large. But the narrative in Numbers states, and presumably it was the same in Exodus, that the smitten rock poured forth its water so copiously and so continuously that `the people drank abundantly with their flocks.’

    Wherefore no conclusion can be drawn from this against the reported size of the congregation. (d) Room at Matthew. Sinai:

    As to the impossibility of finding room for 2 1/2 millions of people either before the Mount at Sinai or within the land of Canaan (Conder), few will regard this as self-evident. If the site of their encampment was the Er- Rahab plain (Robinson, Stanley) — though the plain of Sebayeh, admittedly not so roomy, has been mentioned (Ritter, Kurtz, Knobel) — estimates differ as to the sufficiency of accommodation to be found there.

    Conder gives the dimensions of the plain as 4 square miles, which he deems insufficient, forgetting, perhaps, that “its extent is farther increased by lateral valleys receding from the plain itself” (Forty Days in the Desert,73; compare Keil on Exodus 19:1,2). Kalisch, though putting the size of the plain at a smaller figure, adds that “it thus furnished ample tenting ground for the hosts of Israel” — a conclusion accepted by Ebers, Riehm and others. In any case it seems driving literal interpretation to extreme lengths to hold that camping before the Mount necessarily meant that every member of the host required to be in full view of Sinai. As to not finding room in Canaan, it is doubtful if, after the conquest, the remnants of both peoples at any time numbered as many persons as dwelt in Palestine during the most flourishing years of the kingdom. It may well be that the whole population of Palestine today amounts to only about 600,000 souls; but Palestine today under Turkish rule is no proper gauge for judging of Palestine under David or even under Joshua. (e) Slow Conquest of Canaan:

    The long time it took to conquer Palestine (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) is no solid argument to prove the unreliable character of the statement about the size of the army, and therefore of the congregation.

    Every person knows that in actual warfare, victory does not always go with the big battalions; and in this instance the desert-trained warriors allowed themselves to be seduced by the idolatries and immoralities of the Canaanites and forgot to execute the commission with which they had been entrusted, namely, to drive out the Canaanites from the land which had been promised to their fathers. Had they been faithful to Yahweh, they would not have taken so long completely to possess the land ( Psalm 81:13,14). But if instead of having 600,000 stalwart soldiers they had only possessed 6,000, it is not difficult to see how they could not drive out the Canaanites. The difficulty is to perceive how they could have achieved as much as they did. (3) Number of the Firstborn.

    That the 22,273 firstborn males from 1 month old and upward ( Numbers 3:43) is out of all proportion to the 603,550 men of 20 years old and upward, being much too few, has frequently (Bleek, Bohlen, Colenso and others) been felt as a difficulty, since it practically involves the conclusion that for every firstborn there must have been 40 or 45 males in each family. Various solutions of this difficulty have been offered. The prevalence of polygamy has been suggested (Michaelis, Havernick). The exclusion of firstborn sons who were married, the inclusion only of the mother’s firstborn, and the great fruitfulness of Hebrew mothers have been called in to surmount the difficulty (Kurtz). But perhaps the best explanation is that only those were counted who were born after the Law was given on the night of the departure from Egypt ( Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:13; 8:17) (Keil, Delitzsch, Gerlach). It may be urged, of course, that this would require an exceptionally large number of births in the 13 months; but in the exceptionally joyous circumstances of the emancipation this might not have been impossible. In any case, it does not seem reasonable on account of this difficulty, which might vanish were all the facts known, to impeach the historical accuracy of the narrative, even in this particular. (NOTE. — In Scotland, with a population of nearly double that of the Israelites, namely, 4,877,648, the marriages in 1909 were 30,092, the lowest on record for 55 years. At this rate the births in Israel during the first 12 months after the exodus might have been 15,046, assuming each marriage to have had issue. As this marriage rate, however, is excessively low for Scotland in normal years, the number of marriages and therefore of births in Israel in the first year after the exodus may well have been twice, if not 3 times, 15,046, i.e. 30,092, or 45,138. Reckoning the half of these as males, namely, 15,046 or 22,569, it does not appear as if the number of the firstborn in the text were quite impossible, on the supposition made.) 3. Alleged Physical Impossibilities: (1) Duties of the Priests.

    These are supposed to have been so onerous that Aaron and his sons could not possibly have performed them. But (a) the Levitical laws, though published in the desert, were not necessarily intended to receive full and minute observance there, but only in Canaan. (b) In point of fact, as Moses afterward testified ( Deuteronomy 12:8), the Levitical laws were not scrupulously kept in the wilderness. (c) There is no reason to suppose that the Passover of the 2nd year was celebrated otherwise than it had been in Egypt before the exodus, the slaughtering of the lambs being performed by the heads of families.

    And (d) as the Levites were set apart to minister to the tabernacle ( Numbers 1:50), they would be able in many ways to assist the priests. (2) Assembling of the Congregation.

    The assembling of the congregation at the door of the tabernacle ( Numbers 10:3,4) has been adduced as another physical impossibility; and no doubt it was if every man, woman and child, or even only every man was expected to be there; but not if the congregation was ordinarily represented by its “renowned” or “called” men, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands of Israel ( Numbers 1:16). To suppose that anything else was meant is surely not required. When Moses called all Israel and spake unto them ( Deuteronomy 5:1; 29:2), no intelligent person understands that he personally addressed every individual, or spoke so as to be heard by every individual, though what he said was intended for all. An additional difficulty in the way of assembling the congregation, and by implication an argument against the size of the congregation, has been discovered in the two silver trumpets which, it is contended, were too few for summoning so vast a host as 2 1/2 millions of people. But it is not stated in the narrative either (a) that it was absolutely necessary that every individual in the camp should hear the sound of the trumpets any more than it was indispensable that Balaam’s curse should re-echo to the utmost bounds of Israel ( Numbers 23:13), or that a public proclamation by a modern state, though prefaced by means of an “Oyez,” should be heard by all within the state or even within its capital; or (b) if it was necessary that everyone should hear, that the trumpeters could not move about through the camp but must remain stationary at the tabernacle door; or (c) that in the clear air of the desert the sound of the trumpets would not travel farther than in the noisy and murky atmosphere of modern cities; or (d) that should occasion arise for more trumpets than two, Moses and his successors were forbidden to make them. (3) Marching of the Host.

    The marching of the host in four main divisions of about half a million each (Numbers 2; 10:14-20) has also been pronounced a stumbling-block (Colenso, Eerdmans, Doughty), inasmuch as the procession formed (i.e. if no division began to fall into line till its predecessor had completed its evolutions) would require the whole day for its completion, and would make a column of unprecedented length — of 22 miles (Colenzo), of miles (Doughty) — and would even on the most favorable hypothesis travel only a few miles, when the whole line would again need to reconstruct the camp. The simple statement of this shows its absurdity as an explanation of what actually took place on the march, and indirectly suggests that the narrative may be historical after all, as no romancer of a late age would have risked his reputation by laying down such directions for the march, if they were susceptible of no other explanation than the above. How precisely the march was conducted may be difficult or even impossible to describe in such a way as to obviate all objections. But some considerations may be advanced to show that the march through the desert was neither impossible nor incredible. (a) The deploying of the four main divisions into line may have gone on simultaneously, as they were widely apart from each other, on the East (Judah), on the South (Reuben), on the West (Ephesiansraim) and on the North (Daniel). (b) There is no ground for thinking that the march would be conducted, at least at first, with the precision of a modern army, or that each division would extend itself to the length of 22 miles. It is more than likely that they would follow their standards as best they could or with such order as could be arranged by their captains. (c) If the camps of Judah and Reuben started their preparations together, say at 6 o’clock in the morning (which might be possible), and occupied 4 hours in completing these, they might begin to advance at 10 o’clock and cover 10 miles in another 4 hours, thus bringing them on to 2 PM, after which 4 hours more would enable them to encamp themselves for the night, if that was necessary. The other two divisions falling into line, say at 2 o’clock, would arrive at 6 PM, and by 10 PM would be settled for the night. (d) It does not seem certain that every night upon the march they would arrange themselves into a regularly constructed camp; rather it is reasonable to conclude that this would be done only when they had reached a spot where a halt was to be made for some time. (e) In any case, in the absence of more details as to how the march was conducted, arithmetical calculations are of little value and are not entitled to discredit the truthfulness of the narrative. (4) Victory over Midian.

    This has been objected to on moral grounds which are not now referred to.

    It is the supposed impossibility of 12,000 Israelites slaying all the male Midianites, capturing all their women and children, including 32,000 virgins, seizing all their cattle and flocks, with all their goods, and burning all their cities and castles without the loss of a single man ( Numbers 31:49), which occasions perplexity. Yet Scripture relates several victories of a similar description, as e.g. that of Abraham over the kings of the East ( Genesis 14:15), in which, so far as the record goes, no loss was incurred by the patriarch’s army; that of Gideon’s 300 over the Midianites at a later date ( Judges 7:22); that of Samson single-handed over 1,000 Philistines ( Judges 15:15); and that of Jehoshaphat at the battle of Tekoa ( 2 Chronicles 20:24), which was won without a blow — all more or less miraculous, no doubt. But in profane history, Tacitus (Ann. xiii.39) relates an instance in which the Romans slaughtered all their foes without losing a single man; and Strabo (xvi.1128) mentions a battle in which 1,000 Arabs were slain by only 2 Romans; while the life of Saladin contains a like statement concerning the issue of a battle (Havernick, Intro, 330). Hence, Israel’s victory over Midian does not afford sufficient ground for challenging its historic credibility.

    4. AUTHORSHIP.

    Restricting attention to evidence from Numbers itself, it may be remarked in a general way that the question of authorship is practically settled by what has been advanced on its literary structure and historical credibility.

    For, if the materials of the book were substantially the work of one pen (whoever may have been their first collector or last redactor), and if these materials are upon the whole trustworthy, there will be little room to doubt that the original pen was in the hand of a contemporary and eyewitness of the incidents narrated, and that the contemporary and eyewitness was Moses, who need not, however, have set down everything with his own hand, all that is necessary to justify the ascription of the writing to him being that it should have been composed by his authority and under his supervision. In this sense it is believed that indications are not wanting in the book both against and for the Mosaic authorship; and these may now be considered. 1. Against the Mosaic Authorship: (1) Alternating Use of Divine Names.

    This usage, after forming so characteristic a feature in Genesis and largely disappearing in Exodus and Leviticus, reasserts itself in Numbers, and more particularly in the story of Balaam. If Numbers 23 and 24 can be explained only as late documents pieced together, because of the use of “God” in chapter 23 and of “Lord” in chapter 24, then Moses was not their author. But if the varying use of the divine names is susceptible of explanation on the assumption that the two chapters originally formed one document, then most distinctly the claim of Moses to authorship is not debarred. Now whether Balaam was a false or a true prophet, it is clear that he could hope to please Balak only by cursing Israel in the name of Yahweh, the God ‘Elohim of Israel; and so it is always Yahweh he consults or pretends to consult before replying to the messengers of Balak.

    Four times he did so (22:8,19; 23:3,15); and 3 times it was Elohim who met him (22:9,20; 23:14), while every time it was Yahweh who put the word in his mouth. Can any conclusion be fairer than that the historian regarded ‘Elohim and Yahweh as the same Divine Being, and represented this as it were by a double emphasis, which showed (a) that the Yahweh whom Balaam consulted was Elohim or the supreme God, and (b) that the God who met Balaam and supplied him with oracles was Israel’s Lord? Thus explained, the alternate use of the Divine names does not require the hypothesis of two single documents rolled into one; and indeed the argument from the use of the divine names is now generally abandoned. (2) Traces of Late Authorship.

    Traces of late authorship are believed to exist in several passages: (a) Numbers 15:32-36 seems to imply that the writer was no longer in the wilderness, which may well have been the case, if already he was in the land of Moab. (b) 20:5 suggests, it is said, that the people were then in Canaan. But the language rather conveys the impression that they were not yet come to Canaan; and in point of fact the people were at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. (c) In 21:14,15,17,18,27-30, certain archaic songs are cited as if the people were familiar with them, and the Arnon is mentioned as the border of Moab long before Israel reached the river. But that poets were among the people at the time of the exodus and probably long before, the song of Moses (Exodus 15) shows, and that a Book of the Wars of the Lord was begun to be composed soon after the defeat of Amalek is not an unreasonable hypothesis ( Exodus 17:14). As for the statement that “Arnon leaneth upon the borders of Moab,” that may have been superfluous as a matter of information to the contemporaries of Moses when they were about to cross the stream (Strack, Einl, 25), but it was quite in place in an old prophetic song, as showing that their present position had been long before anticipated and foretold. (d) 24:7, according to criticism, could not have been composed before the rise of the monarchy; and certainly it could not, if prediction of future events is impossible. But if reference to a coming king in Israel was put into Balaam’s mouth by the Spirit of God, as the narrator says, then it could easily have been made before the monarchy; and so could (e) 24:17,18 have been written before the reign of David, though the conquest of the Edomites only then began ( 2 Samuel 8:14; <111101> Kings 11:1; 1 Chronicles 18:12,13).

    Examples such as these show that many, if not most, of the like objections against the Mosaic authorship of this book are capable of at least possible solution; and that Kuenen’s caution should not be forgotten: “He who relies upon the impression made by the whole, without interrogation of the parts one by one, repudiates the first principles of all scientific research, and pays homage to superficiality” (Religion of Israel, I, 11). 2. For the Mosaic Authorship: (1) Certain Passages Have the Appearance of Having Been Written by Moses.

    These are: (a) those which bear evidence of having been intended for a people not settled in cities but dwelling in tents and camps, as e.g. Numbers through 4, describing the arrangements for the census and the formation of the camp; 6:24-26, the high-priestly benediction; 10:35,36, the orders for the marching and the halting of the host; 10:1- 9, the directions about the silver trumpets; Numbers 19, the legislation which obviously presupposes the wilderness as the place for its observance (19:3,7,9,14). If criticism allows that these and other passages have descended from the Mosaic age, why should it be necessary to seek another author for them than Moses? And if Moses could have composed these passages, a presumption at least is created that the whole book has proceeded from his pen. (b) The patriotic songs taken from the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21), which some critics (Cornill, Kautzsch and others) hold cannot be later than 750 BC, are by equally competent scholars (Bleek, Deuteronomy Wette, E. Meyer, Konig and others) recognized as parts of Israel’s inheritance from the Mosaic age, whenever they were incorporated in Numbers. (c) The list of camping stations (Numbers 33) is expressly assigned to him. Whether “by the commandment of the Lord” should be connected with the “journeys” (Konig) or the “writing” makes no difference as to the authorship of this chapter, at least in the sense that it is based on a Mosaic document (Strack). It is true that even if this chapter as it stands was prepared by Moses, that does not amount to conclusive evidence of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. Yet it creates a presumption in its favor (Drechsler, Keil, Zahn). For why should Moses have been specially enjoined to write so comparatively uninteresting and unprofitable a document as a list of names, many of which are now incapable of identification, if that was all? But if Moses was already writing up a journal or history of the wanderings, whether by his own hand or by means of amanuenses, and whether by express command or without it (not an unreasonable supposition), there was no particular need to record that this was so. If, however, Moses was not thinking of preserving an itinerary, and God for reasons of His own desired that he should do so, then there was need for a special commandment to be given; and need that it should be recorded to explain why Moses incorporated in his book a list of names that in most people’s judgment might have been omitted without imperiling the value of the book.

    Looked at in this way, the order to prepare this itinerary rather strengthens the idea of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. (2) Acquaintance on the Part of the Author with Egyptian Manners and Customs.

    This points in the direction of Moses. (a) The trial by jealousy ( Numbers 5:11-31) may be compared with the tale of Setnau, belonging probably to the 3rd century BC, but relating to the times of Rameses II, in which Ptahnefer-ka, having found the book which the god Thoth wrote with his own hand, copied it on a piece of papyrus, dissolved the copy in water and drank the solution, with the result that he knew all the book contained (RP, IV, 138). (b) The consecration of the Levites ( Numbers 8:7) resembled the ablutions of the Egyptian priests who shaved their heads and bodies every 3rd day, bathed twice during the day and twice during the night, and performed a grand ceremony of purification, preparatory to their seasons of fasting, which sometimes lasted from 7 to 40 days and even more (WAE, I, 181). (c) Uncleanness from contact with the dead ( Numbers 19:11) was not unknown to the Egyptians, who required their priests to avoid graves, funerals and funeral feasts (Porphyry, Deuteronomy Abst. ii.50, quoted in Speaker’s Comm.). (d) The fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic referred to in Numbers 11:5 were articles of diet in Egypt (Herodotus ii.93): (e) The antiquarian statement about Hebron (13:22) fits in well with a writer in Mosaic times. “A later writer could have had no authority for making the statement and no possible reason for inventing it” (Pulpit Commentary on Numbers). On a candid review of all the arguments pro and con, it is not too much to say that the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of the substantial Mosaicity of the Book of Numbers.

    LITERATURE.

    Comms. on Numbers by Bertheau (ET), Knobel, Keil (ET), Dillmann, Strack, Lange (English translation); in Speaker’s Comm., Pulpit Comm., ICC (Gray); Biblical Intros of Deuteronomy Wette, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Bleek, Konig, Strack, Cornill, Driver; in encs, etc., RE, HDB, EB, Sch-Herz; critical comms.: Reuss, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften AT; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel (English translation); Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels and Prolegomena (English translation); Klostermann, Der Pentateuch; Eerdmans, Alttest. Studien; Addis, Documents of Hexateuch; Olford Hexateuch; EPC. T. Whitelaw NUMENIUS <Numbers-me’-ni-us > ([ Noumh>niov, Noumenios ]): The son of Antiochus, and Antipater were the two ambassadors whom Jonathan sent to the Romans, “to the Spartans, and to other places,” after his victory in the plain of Hazor (Galilee) over the princes of Demetrius (1 Macc 12:1 ff) about 144 BC. Their mission was to confirm and renew the friendship and treaty which had existed from the days of Judas (1 Macc 8:17 ff). They were well received and successful, both at Rome (1 Macc 12:3 f) and at Sparta (1 Macc 12:19 ff; 14:22 f). After the death of Jonathan, the victories of Simon and the establishment of peace, Simon sent Numenius on a second embassy to Rome (1 Macc 14:24), again to confirm the treaty and present a golden shield weighing 1,000 minae — apparently just before the popular decree by which Simon was created high priest, leader and captain “for ever” (1 Macc 14:27 ff), September, 141 BC. The embassy returned in 139 BC, bearing letters from the senate to the kings of Egypt, Syria and “all the countries,” confirming the integrity of Jewish territory, and forbidding these kings to disturb the Jews, and requiring them also to surrender any deserters (1 Macc 14:15 ff). See also LUCIUS; Schurer, Gesch. des judischen Volkes (3rd and 4th editions), I, 236, 250 f. S. Angus NUN (1) <noon > ( n , ˆ ): The 14th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as n . It came also to be used for the number 50. See ALPHABET, for name, etc.

    NUN (2) <nun > ([ ˆWn , nun ] “fish,” derivative meaning “fecundity”): Father of Joshua (referred to thus 29 t) ( Exodus 33:11; Numbers 11:28, etc.; Chronicles 7:27, margin “Non”; Sirach 46:1, margin “Nave”).

    NURSE; NURSING <nurs > , <nurs’-ing > : “Nurse” in the King James Version represents two different Hebrew words: In 8 passages ( Genesis 24:59; 35:8; Exodus 2:7 twice,9; 2 Kings 11:2; 2 Chronicles 22:11; Isaiah 49:23) the word — noun or verb — renders some form of the verb [ qn”y; , yanaq ], “to suck.” The feminine causative part. of this verb is commonly used to denote nurse or foster-mother. According to Exodus 2:7 Moses’ mother — “a nurse of the Hebrew women” — became, at Pharaoh’s daughter’s request, the foster-mother of the foundling. Joash, the son of Ahaziah, was in charge of a nurse until he was 7 years old ( Kings 11:2; 2 Chronicles 22:11). But it is obvious that the term was used in a more general way, e.g. of a lady’s maid or tire-woman. Rebekah was accompanied by her nurse when she left home to be married ( Genesis 24:59; 35:8). In 5 passages ( Numbers 11:12; Ruth 4:16; 2 Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 49:23; 60:4 the King James Version) “nurse” represents the Hebrew word, [ ˆm”a; , ‘aman ], “to support,” “be faithful,” “nourish.” The participle of this verb denoted a person who had charge of young children — a guardian or governess. Naomi took charge of Ruth’s child “and became nurse unto it” ( Ruth 4:16). In Numbers 11:12 Moses asks whether he has to take charge of the Israelites “as a nursingfather carrieth the sucking child.” The same word is found in 2 Kings 10:15 (the King James Version “them that brought up,” i.e. “guardians of the sons of Ahab) and in Est 2:7 (the King James Version “and he brought up,” i.e. he (Mordecai) adopted, his niece). Deutero-Isaiah uses both terms together ( Isaiah 49:23) to describe the exalted position of Israel in the future when foreign kings and queens will offer their services and wait upon the chosen people.

    In the solitary passage in the New Testament where “nurse” occurs, it renders the Greek word [trofo>v, trophos ]. In this case the word does not mean a hired nurse, but a mother who nurses her own children ( Thessalonians 2:7). T. Lewis NURTURE <nur’-tur > : The word occurs in the King James Version in Ephesiansesians 6:4 as the translation of [paidei>a, paideia ], but the Revised Version (British and American) changes to “chastening,” and uses “nurture” (verb) for the King James Version “bring up” ([ejktre>fw, ektrepho ]) in the first part of the verse. Paideia has the idea of training and correction; in the Revised Version (British and American) 2 Esdras 8:12 for Latin erudio; and compare the King James Version The Wisdom of Solomon 3:11; Sirach 18:13 (paideuo ), etc.

    NUTS <nuts > : (1) ([ zwOga,] , ‘eghoz ]; [karu>a, karua ]; Arabic jauz, “the walnut” ( Song of Solomon 6:11)): This is certainly the walnut tree, Juglans regia, a native of Persia and the Himalayas which flourishes under favorable conditions in all parts of Palestine; particularly in the mountains. In such situations it attains the height of from 60 to 90 ft. A grove of such trees affords the most delightful shade. (2) ([ µynif]B;; , boTnim ]; [tere>binqoi, terebinthoi ] ( Genesis 43:11, margin “pistachio nuts”)): The Hebrew is perhaps allied to the Arabic buTm, the “terebinth,” which is closely allied to the Pistacia vera , Natural Order Anacardiaceae, which produces pistachio nuts. These nuts, known in Arabic as fistuq , are prime favorites with the people of Palestine. They are oblong, 3/4 inches long, with green, oily cotyledons. They are eaten raw and are also made into various sweets and confectionery. They are a product of Palestine, very likely to be sent as a present to Egypt ( Genesis 43:11). E. W. G. Masterman NYMPHAS <nim’-fas > ([ Numfa~v, Numphas ]; Lachmann, Tregelles (margin), Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek read [ Numbers>mfa, Numpha ], the name of a woman ( Colossians 4:15)):

    1. A CHRISTIAN IN LAODICEA:

    A Christian resident in Laodicea, to whom Paul sends salutations in the epistle which he wrote from Rome to the church in Colosse, the latter city being only a very few miles distant from Laodicea. Indeed, so near were they, that Paul directs that the Epistle to the Colossians be read also in Laodicea. Nymphas — or if Nympha be read, then it is a Christian lady who is meant — was a person of outstanding worth and importance in the church of Laodicea, for he had granted the use of his dwelling-house for the ordinary weekly meetings of the church. The apostle’s salutation is a 3- fold one — to the brethren that are in Laodicea, that is to the whole of the Christian community in that city, and to Nymphas, and to the church in his house.

    2. THE CHURCH IN HIS HOUSE:

    This fact, that the church met there, also shows that Nymphas was a person of some means, for a very small house could not have accommodated the Christian men and women who gathered together on the first day of every week for the purposes of Christian worship. The church in Laodicea — judging not only from the Epistle to the Ephesiansesians, which is really Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, and which indicates that the church in Laodicea had a numerous membership, but also from what is said of it in Revelation 3:17 the King James Version — must have been large and influential: “Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” The house of Nymphas, therefore, must have possessed a large room or saloon sufficiently commodious to allow the meeting of a numerous company. Nymphas would he a person both of Christian character and of generous feeling, and of some amount of wealth. Nothing more is known regarding him, as this is the only passage in which he is named. John Rutherfurd O OABDIUS <o-ab’-di-us > (Codex Alexandrinus [ jWabdi>ov, Oabdios ]; Codex Vaticanus [ -ei~ov, eios ], Fritzsche, [ jIwabdi>ov, Ioabdios ], omitted in the King James Version): One of the sons of Ela who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:27) = “Abdi” of Ezra 10:26.

    OAK <ok > : Several Hebrew words are so translated, but there has always been great doubt as to which words should be translated “oak” and which “terebinth.” This uncertainty appears in the Septuagint and all through English Versions of the Bible; in recent revisions “terebinth” has been increasingly added in the margin. All the Hebrew words are closely allied and may originally have had simply the meaning of “tree” but it is clear that, when the Old Testament was written, they indicated some special kind of tree.

    1. HEBREW WORDS AND REFERENCES:

    The words and references are as follows: (1) [ hl;ae , ‘elah ] (in the Septuagint usually [tere>binqov, terebinthos ]. in Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) terebinthus , or, more commonly, quercus) ( Genesis 35:4; Judges 6:11,19; Samuel 18:9,10,14; 1 Kings 13:14; 1 Chronicles 10:12; Isaiah 1:30; Ezekiel 6:13 — in all these margin “terebinth “). In Isaiah 6:13 (the King James Version “teil tree”) and Hosea 4:13 (the King James Version “elms”) the translation is “terebinths” because of the juxtaposition of ‘allon , translated “oaks.” “Vale of Elah” (margin “the Terebinth”) is found in 1 Samuel 17:2,19; 21:9. The expression in Isaiah 1:30, “whose leaf fadeth,” is more appropriate to the terebinth than the oak (see below). (2) [ hL;a” , ‘allah ] (terebinthos, quercus (Vulgate)), apparently a slight variant for ‘elah ; only in Joshua 24:26; Genesis 35:4 (‘elah ) and in Judges 9:6 (‘elon ). (3) [ µyliae , ‘elim ] or [ µyliyae , ‘eylim ], perhaps plural of ‘elah occurs in Isaiah 1:29 (margin “terebinths”); Isaiah 57:5, margin “with idols,” the King James Version “idols,” margin “oaks”; Isaiah 61:3, “trees”; Ezekiel 31:14 (text very doubtful), “height,” the King James Version margin “upon themselves”; [ lyae , ‘el ], in El-paran Septuagint terebinthos) ( Genesis 14:6), probably means the “tree” or “terebinth” of Paran. Celsius (Hierob. 1,34 ff) argues at length that the above words apply well to the TEREBINTH (which see) in all the passages in which they occur. (4) [ ˆwOlae , ‘elon ] (usually [dru~v, drus ], “oak”), in Genesis 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 18:1; Deuteronomy 11:30; Joshua 19:33; Judges 4:11; 9:6,37; 1 Samuel 10:3 (the King James Version “plain”); in all these references the margin has “terebinth” or “terebinths.” In Genesis 12:6; Deuteronomy 11:30 we have “oak” or “oaks” “of the teacher” (Moreh); “oak in Zaanannim” in Judges 4:11; Joshua 19:33; the “oak of Meonenim,” margin “the augurs’ oak (or, terebinth)” in Judges 9:37. (5) [ ˆwOLa” , ‘allon ] (commonly [dru~v, drus ], or [ba>lanov, balanos ]), in Genesis 35:8 (compare 35:4); Hosea 4:13; Isaiah 6:13, is contrasted with ‘elah , showing that ‘allon and ‘elah cannot be identical, so no marginal references occur; also in Isaiah 44:14; Amos 2:9, but in all other passages, the margin “terebinth” or “terebinths” occurs. “Oaks of Bashan” occurs in Isaiah 2:13; Ezekiel 27:6; Zechariah 11:2.

    If (1) (2) (3) refer especially to the terebinth, then (4) and (5) are probably correctly translated “oak.” If we may judge at all by present conditions, “oaks” of Bashan is far more correct than “terebinths” of Bashan.

    2. VARIETIES OF OAK:

    There are, according to Post (Flora of Palestine, 737-41), no less than species of oak (Natural Order Cupuliferae) in Syria, and he adds to these 12 sub-varieties. Many of these have no interest except to the botanist. The following species are widespread and distinctive: (1) The “Turkey oak,” Quercus cerris, known in Arabic as Ballut, as its name implies, abounds all over European Turkey and Greece and is common in Palestine. Under favorable conditions it attains to great size, reaching as much as 60 ft. in height. It is distinguished by its large sessile acorns with hemispherical cups covered with long, narrow, almost bristly, scales, giving them a mossy aspect. The wood is hard and of fine grain. Galls are common upon its branches. (2) Quercus lusitanica (or Ballota), also known in Arabic as Ballut, like the last is frequently found dwarfed to a bush, but, when protected, attains a height of 30 ft. or more. The leaves are denate or crenate and last late into the winter, but are shed before the new twigs are developed. The acorns are solitary or few in cluster, and the cupules are more or less smooth. Galls are common, and a variety of this species is often known as Q. infectoria, on account of its liability to infection with galls. (3) The Valonica oak (Q. aceglops), known in Arabic as Mellut, has large oblong or ovate deciduous leaves, with deep serrations terminating in a bristle-like point, and very large acorns, globular, thick cupules covered with long reflexed scales. The cupules, known commercially as valonica, furnish one of the richest of tanning materials. (4) The Evergreen oak is often classed under the general name “Ilex oak” or Holm (i.e. holly-like) oak. Several varieties are described as occurring in Palestine. Q. ilex usually has rather a shrublike growth, with abundant glossy, dark-green leaves, oval in shape and more or less prickly at the margins, though sometimes entire. The cupules of the acorns are woolly. It shows a marked predilection for the neighborhood of the sea. The Q. coccifera (with var. Q. pseudococcifera) is known in Arabic as Sindian. The leaves, like the last, usually are prickly. The acorns are solitary or twin, and the hemispherical cupules are more or less velvety. On the Q. coccifera are found the insects which make the well-known Kermes dye. These evergreen oaks are the common trees at sacred tombs, and the once magnificent, but now dying, “Abraham’s oak” at Hebron is one of this species.

    3. OAKS IN MODERN PALESTINE:

    Oaks occur in all parts of Palestine, in spite of the steady ruthless destruction which has been going on for centuries. All over Carmel, Tabor, around Banias and in the hills to the West of Nazareth, to mention wellknown localities, there are forests of oak; great tracts of country, especially in Galilee and East of the Jordan, are covered by a stunted brushwood which, were it not for the wood-cutter, would grow into noble trees.

    Solitary oaks of magnificent proportions occur in many parts of the land, especially upon hilltops; such trees are saved from destruction because of their “sacred” character. To bury beneath such a tree has ever been a favorite custom (compare Genesis 35:8; 1 Chronicles 10:12). Large trees like these, seen often from great distances, are frequently landmarks ( Joshua 19:33) or places of meeting (compare “Oak of Tabor,” Samuel 10:3). The custom of heathen worship beneath oaks or terebinths ( Hosea 4:13; Ezekiel 6:13, etc.) finds its modern counterpart in the cult of the Wely in Palestine. The oak is sometimes connected with some historical event, as e.g. Abraham’s oak of Mamre now shown at Hebron, and “the oak of weeping,” Allon bacuth, of Genesis 35:8. E. W. G. Masterman OAK OF TABOR ([ rwObT; ˆwOlae , ‘elon tabhor ]): Thus the Revised Version (British and American) in 1 Samuel 10:3 for the King James Version “plain of Tabor” (the Revised Version margin “terebinth”). Tabor was famous for its groves of oak, but what “oak” is meant here is not known. Ewald thinks that “Tabor” is a different pronunciation for “Deborah,” and connects with Genesis 35:8; but this is not likely. See OAK, 3.

    OAR <or > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (3).

    OATH <oth > ([ h[;Wbv] , shebhu`ah ], probably from shebha` , “seven,” the sacred number, which occurs frequently in the ritual of an oath; [o[rkov, horkos ]; and the stronger word [ hl;a; , ‘alah ], by which a curse is actually invoked upon the oath-breaker Septuagint [ajra>, ara ])): In Matthew 26:70-74 Peter first denies his Lord simply, then with an oath (shebhu`ah ), then invokes a curse (‘alah ), thus passing through every stage of asseveration.

    1. LAW REGARDING OATHS:

    The oath is the invoking of a curse upon one’s self if one has not spoken the truth ( Matthew 26:74), or if one fails to keep a promise ( Samuel 19:6; 20:17; 2 Samuel 15:21; 19:23). It played a very important part, not only in lawsuits ( Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 6:3,5) and state affairs (Ant., XV, x, 4), but also in the dealings of everyday life ( Genesis 24:37; 50:5; Judges 21:5; 1 Kings 18:10; Ezra 10:5).

    The Mosaic laws concerning oaths were not meant to limit the widespread custom of making oaths, so much as to impress upon the people the sacredness of an oath, forbidding on the one hand swearing falsely ( Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Zechariah 8:17, etc.), and on the other swearing by false gods, which latter was considered to be a very dark sin ( Jeremiah 12:16; Amos 8:14). In the Law only two kinds of false swearing are mentioned: false swearing of a witness, and false asseveration upon oath regarding a thing found or received ( Leviticus 5:1; 6:2 ff; compare Proverbs 29:24). Both required a sin offering ( Leviticus 5:1 ff). The Talmud gives additional rules, and lays down certain punishments for false swearing; in the case of a thing found it states what the false swearer must pay (Makkoth 2 3; Shebhu`oth 8 3). The Jewish interpretation of the 3rd commandment is that it is not concerned with oaths, but rather forbids the use of the name of Yahweh in ordinary cases (so Dalman).

    2. FORMS OF SWEARING:

    Swearing in the name of the Lord ( Genesis 14:22; Deuteronomy 6:13; Judges 21:7; Ruth 1:17, etc.) was a sign of loyalty to Him ( Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 48:11; Jeremiah 12:16). We know from Scripture (see above) that swearing by false gods was frequent, and we learn also from the newly discovered Elephantine papyrus that the people not only swore by Jahu (= Yahweh) or by the Lord of Heaven, but also among a certain class of other gods, e.g. by Herem-Bethel, and by Isum. In ordinary intercourse it was customary to swear by the life of the person addressed ( 1 Samuel 1:26; 20:3; 2 Kings 2:2); by the life of the king ( 1 Samuel 17:55; 25:26; 2 Samuel 11:11); by one’s own head ( Matthew 5:36); by the earth ( Matthew 5:35); by the heaven ( Matthew 5:34; 23:22); by the angels (BJ, II, xvi, 4); by the temple ( Matthew 23:16), and by different parts of it ( Matthew 23:16); by Jerusalem ( Matthew 5:35; compare Kethubhoth 2:9). The oath “by heaven” ( Matthew 5:34; 23:22) is counted by Jesus as the oath in which God’s name is invoked. Jesus does not mean that God and heaven are identical, but He desires to rebuke those who paltered with an oath by avoiding a direct mention of a name of God. He teaches that such an oath is a real oath and must be considered as sacredly binding.

    3. THE FORMULA:

    Not much is told us as to the ceremonies observed in taking an oath. In patriarchal times he who took the oath put his hand under the thigh of him to whom the oath was taken ( Genesis 24:2; 47:29). The most usual form was to hold up the hand to heaven ( Genesis 14:22; Exodus 6:8; Deuteronomy 32:40; Ezekiel 20:5). The wife suspected of unfaithfulness, when brought before the priest, had to answer “Amen, Amen” to his adjuration, and this was considered to be an oath on her part ( Numbers 5:22). The usual formula of an oath was either: “God is witness betwixt me and thee” ( Genesis 31:50), or more commonly: “As Yahweh (or God) liveth” ( Judges 8:19; Ruth 3:13; 2 Samuel 2:27; Jeremiah 38:16); or “Yahweh be a true and faithful witness amongst us” ( Jeremiah 42:5). Usually the penalty invoked by the oath was only suggested: “Yahweh (or God) do so to me” ( Ruth 1:17; Samuel 3:9,35; 1 Kings 2:23; 2 Kings 6:31); in some cases the punishment was expressly mentioned ( Jeremiah 29:22). Nowack suggests that in general the punishment was not expressly mentioned because of a superstitious fear that the person swearing, although speaking the truth, might draw upon himself some of the punishment by merely mentioning it.

    Philo expresses the desire (ii.194) that the practice of swearing should be discontinued, and the Essenes used no oaths (BJ, II, viii, 6; Ant., XV, x, 4).

    4. OATHS PERMISSIBLE:

    That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of our Lord ( Matthew 26:63 f), and of Paul ( 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20) and even of God Himself ( Hebrews 6:13-18).

    Consequently when Christ said, “Swear not at all” ( Matthew 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where that principle holds sway, oaths become unnecessary. Paul Levertoff OBADIAH <o-ba-di’-a > ([ hy;d]b”[o , `obhadhyah ], more fully [ Why;d]b”[o , `obhadhyahu ], “servant of Yahweh”): (1) The steward or prime minister of Ahab, who did his best to protect the prophets of Yahweh against Jezebel’s persecution. He met Elijah on his return from Zarephath, and bore to Ahab the news of Elijah’s reappearance ( 1 Kings 18:3-16). (2) The prophet (Obidiah 1:1). See OBADIAH, BOOK OF. (3) A descendant of David ( 1 Chronicles 3:21). (4) A chief of the tribe of Issachar ( 1 Chronicles 7:3). (5) A descendant of Saul ( 1 Chronicles 8:38; 9:44). (6) A Levite descended from Jeduthun ( 1 Chronicles 9:16), identical with Abda ( Nehemiah 11:17). (7) A chief of the Gadites ( 1 Chronicles 12:9). (8) A Zebulunite, father of the chief Ishmaiah ( 1 Chronicles 27:19). (9) One of the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah ( 2 Chronicles 17:7). (10) A Merarite employed by Josiah to oversee the workmen in repairing the temple ( 2 Chronicles 34:12). (11) The head of a family who went up with Ezra from Babylon ( Ezra 8:9). (12) One of the men who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 10:5). (13) A gate-keeper in the days of Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 12:25).

    The name “Obadiah” was common in Israel from the days of David to the close of the Old Testament. An ancient Hebrew seal bears the inscription “Obadiah the servant of the King.” John Richard Sampey OBADIAH, BOOK OF Obadiah is the shortest book in the Old Testament. The theme of the book is the destruction of Edom. Consequent upon the overthrow of Edom is the enlargement of the borders of Judah and the establishment of the kingship of Yahweh. Thus far all scholars are agreed; but on questions of authorship and date there is wide divergence of opinion.

    1. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK: (1) Yahweh summons the nations to the overthrow of proud Edom.

    The men of Esau will be brought down from their lofty strongholds; their hidden treasures will be rifled; their confederates will turn against them; nor will the wise and the mighty men in Edom be able to avert the crushing calamity (Obidiah 1:1-9). (2) The overthrow of Edom is due to the violence and cruelty shown toward his brother Jacob. The prophet describes the cruelty and shameless gloating over a brother’s calamity, in the form of earnest appeals to Edom not to do the selfish and heartless deeds of which he had been guilty when Jerusalem was sacked by foreign foes (Obidiah 1:10-14). (3) The day of the display of Yahweh’s retributive righteousness upon the nations is near. Edom shall be completely destroyed by the people whom he has tried to uproot, while Israel’s captives shall return to take possession of their own land and also to seize and rule the mount of Esau. Thus the kingship of Yahweh shall be established (Obidiah 1:15- 21).

    2. UNITY OF THE BOOK:

    The unity of Obadiah was first challenged by Eichhorn in 1824, 1:17-21 being regarded by him as an appendix attached to the original exilic prophecy in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC). Ewald thought that an exilic prophet, to whom he ascribed 1:11-14 and 19-21, had made use of an older prophecy by Obadiah in 1:1-10, and in 1:15-18 of material from another older prophet who was contemporary, like Obadiah, with Isaiah. As the years went on, the material assigned to the older oracle was limited by some to 1:1-9 and by others to 1:1-6. Wellhausen assigned to Obadiah 1:1-5,7,10,11,13,14,15b, while all else was regarded as a later appendix. Barton’s theory of the composition of Obadiah is thus summed up by Bewer: “Obidiah 1:1-6 are a pre-exilic oracle of Obadiah, which was quoted by Jeremiah, and readapted with additions (Obidiah 1:7-15) by another Obadiah in the early post-exilic days; 1:16-21 form an appendix, probably from Maccabean times” (ICC, 5). Bewer’s own view is closely akin to Barton’s. He thinks that Obadiah, writing in the 5th century BC, “quoted 1:1-4 almost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on the older oracle in 1:5-7, partly in the words of the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in 1:8,9 he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of literalness.” He ascribes to Obadiah 1:10-14 and 15b. The appendix consists of two sections, 1:15a,16-18 and 1:19-21, possibly by different authors, 1:18 being a quotation from some older prophecy. To the average Bible student all this minute analysis of a brief prophecy must seem hypercritical. He will prefer to read the book as a unity; and in doing so will get the essence of the message it has for the present day.

    3. DATE OF THE BOOK:

    Certain preliminary problems require solution before the question of date can be settled. (1) Relation of Obadiah and Jeremiah 49. (a) Did Obadiah quote from Jeremiah? Pusey thus sets forth the impossibility of such a solution: “Out of 16 verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah’s; of the eleven which remain, ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which recur in Jeremiah, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah’s characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah” (Minor Prophets, I, 347). (b) Did Jeremiah quote from Obadiah? It is almost incredible that the vigorous and well-articulated prophecy in Obadiah could have been made by piecing together detached quotations from Jeremiah; but Jeremiah may well have taken from Obadiah many expressions that fell in with his general purpose. There are difficulties in applying this view to one or two verses, but it has not been disproved by the arguments from meter advanced by Bewer and others. (c) Did both Obadiah and Jeremiah quote from an older oracle? This is the favorite solution among recent scholars, most of whom think that Obadiah preserves the vigor of the original, while Jeremiah quotes with more freedom; but Bewer in ICC, after a detailed comparison, thus sums up: “Our conclusion is that Obadiah quoted in Obidiah 1:1-9 an older oracle, the original of which is better preserved in Jeremiah 49.”

    The student will do well to get his own first-hand impression from a careful comparison of the two passages. With Obidiah 1:1-4 compare Jeremiah 49:14-16; with Obidiah 1:5,6 compare Jeremiah 49:9,10a; with Obidiah 1:8 compare Jeremiah 49:7; with Obidiah 1:9a compare Jeremiah 49:22b. On the whole, the view that Jeremiah, who often quotes from earlier prophets, draws directly from Obadiah, with free working over of the older prophets, seems still tenable. (2) Relation of Obadiah and Joel.

    There seems to be in Joel 2:32 (Hebrew 3:5) a direct allusion to Obidiah 1:17. If Joel prophesied during the minority of the boy king Joash (circa 830 BC), Obadiah would be, on this hypothesis, the earliest of the writing prophets. (3) What Capture of Jerusalem Is Described in Obadiah 1:10-14?

    The disaster seems to have been great enough to be called “destruction” (Obidiah 1:12). Hence, most scholars identify the calamity described by Obadiah with the capture and destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 587 BC. But it is remarkable, on this hypothesis, that no allusion is made either in Obadiah or Jeremiah 49:7-22 to the Chaldeans or to the destruction of the temple or to the wholesale transportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to Babylonia. We know, however, from Ezekiel 35:1-15 and <19D707> Psalm 137:7 that Edom rejoiced over the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 587 BC, and that they encouraged the destroyers to blot out the holy city. Certain it is that the events of 587 accord remarkably with the language of Obidiah 1:10-14.

    Pusey indeed argues from the use of the form of the direct prohibition in Obidiah 1:12-14 that Edom had not yet committed the sins against which the prophet warns him, and so Jerusalem was not yet destroyed, when Obadiah wrote. But almost all modern scholars interpret the language of Obidiah 1:12-14 as referring to what was already past; the prophet “speaks of what the Edomites had actually done as of what they ought not to do.”

    The scholars who regard Obadiah as the first of the writing prophets locate his ministry in Judah during the reign of Jehoram (circa 845 BC). Both Kings and 2 Chronicles tell of the war of rebellion in the days of Jehoram when Edom, after a fierce struggle, threw off the yoke of Judah ( Kings 8:20-22; 2 Chronicles 21:8-10). Shortly after the revolt of Edom, according to 2 Chronicles 21:16 f, the Philistines and Arabians broke into Judah, “and carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.” Evidently the capital city fell into the hands of the invaders. It was a calamity of no mean proportions.

    The advocates of a late date call attention to three points that weaken the case for an early date for Obadiah: (a) The silence of 2 Kings as to the invasion of the Philistines and Arabians. But what motive could the author of Chronicles have had for inventing the story? (b) The absence of any mention of the destruction of the city by the Philistines and Arabians. It must be acknowledged that the events of 587 BC accord more fully with the description in Obidiah 1:10-14, though the disaster in the days of Jehoram must have been terrible. (c) The silence as to Edom in 2 Chronicles 21:16 f. But so also are the historic books silent as to the part that Edom took in the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. It is true that exilic and post-exilic prophets and psalmists speak in bitter denunciation of the unbrotherly conduct of Edom ( Lamentations 4:21,22; Ezekiel 25:12-14; 35:1-15; <19D707> Psalm 137:7; Malachi 1:1-5; compare also Isaiah and 63:1-6); but it is also true that the earliest Hebrew literature bears witness to the keen rivalry between Esau and Jacob ( Genesis 25:22 f; 27:41; Numbers 20:14-21), and one of the earliest of the writing prophets denounces Edom for unnatural cruelty toward his brother ( Amos 1:11 f; compare Joel 3:19 (Hebrew 4:19)). (4) The Style of Obadiah.

    Most early critics praise the style. Some of the more recent critics argue for different authors on the basis of a marked difference in style within the compass of the twenty-one verses in the little roll. Thus Selbie writes in HDB: “There is a difference in style between the two halves of the book, the first being terse, animated, and full of striking figures, while the second is diffuse and marked by poverty of ideas and trite figures.” The criticism of the latter part of the book is somewhat exaggerated, though it may be freely granted that the first half is more original and vigorous. The Hebrew of the book is classic, with scarcely any admixture of Aramaic words or constructions. The author may well have lived in the golden age of the Hebrew language and literature. (5) Geographical and Historical Allusions.

    The references to the different sections and cities in the land of Israel and in the land of Edom are quite intelligible. As to Sepharad (Obidiah 1:20) there is considerable difference of opinion. Schrader and some others identify it with a Shaparda in Media, mentioned in the annals of Sargon (722-705 BC). Many think of Asia Minor, or a region in Asia Minor mentioned in Persian inscriptions, perhaps Bithynia or Galatia (Sayce).

    Some think that the mention of “the captives of this host of the children of Israel” and “the captives of Jerusalem” (Obidiah 1:20) proves that both the Assyrian captivity and the Babylonian exile were already past. This argument has considerable force; but it is well to remember that Amos, in the first half of the 8th century, describes wholesale deportations from the land of Israel by men engaged in the slave trade (Amos 1:6-10). The problem of the date of Obadiah has not been solved to the satisfaction of Biblical students. Our choice must be between a very early date (circa 845) and a date shortly after 587, with the scales almost evenly balanced.

    4. INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK:

    Obadiah is to be interpreted as prediction rather than history. In 1:11-14 there are elements of historic description, but 1:1-10 and 15-21 are predictive.

    LITERATURE.

    Comms.: Caspari, Der Prophet Obadjah ausgelegt, 1842; Pusey, The Minor Prophets, 1860; Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament (English translation), II, 277 ff, 1875; Keil (ET), 1880; T.T.

    Perowne (in Cambridge Bible), 1889; von Orelli (English translation), The Minor Prophets, 1893; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, 1898; G.A.

    Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, II, 163 ff, 1898; Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, 1903; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 1903; Eiselen, The Minor Prophets, 1907; Bewer, ICC, 1911. Miscellaneous: Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets,33 ff; Intros of Driver, Wildeboer, etc.; Selbie in HDB, III, 577-80; Barton in JE, IX, 369-70; Cheyne in EB, III, 3455-62; Peckham, An Introduction to the Study of Obadiah, 1910; Kent, Students’ Old Testament, III, 1910. John Richard Sampey OBAL <o’-bal > . See EBAL, 1.

    OBDIA <ob-di’-a > (Codex Alexandrinus [ jObdi>a, Obdia ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Jobbeia>, Hobbeia ]): One of the families of usurping priests (1 Esdras 5:38) = “Habaiah” of Ezra 2:61; “Hobaiah” of Nehemiah 7:63.

    OBED <o’-bed > ([ dbewO[ , dbe[o , `obhedh ], “worshipper”; in the New Testament [ jIwbh>d, Iobed ]): (1) Son of Boaz and Ruth and grandfather of David ( Ruth 4:17,21,22; 1 Chronicles 2:12; Matthew 1:5; Luke 3:32). (2) Son of Ephesianslal and descendant of Sheshan, the Jerahmeelite, through his daughter who was married to Jarha, an Egyptian servant of her father’s ( 1 Chronicles 2:37,38). (3) One of David’s mighty men ( 1 Chronicles 11:47). (4) A Korahite doorkeeper, son of Shemaiah, and grandson of Obededom ( 1 Chronicles 26:7). (5) Father of Azariah, one of the centurions who took part with Jehoiada in deposing Queen Athaliah and crowning Joash ( <142301> Chronicles 23:1; compare 2 Kings 11:1-16). David Francis Roberts OBED-EDOM <o’-bed-e’-dom > ([ µwOda,]Adbe[o , `obhedh ‘edhowm ] ( 2 Chronicles 25:24), [ µdoa,]Adbe[o , `obhedd ‘edhom ] ( 2 Samuel 6:10; 1 Chronicles 13:13,14; 15:25), but elsewhere without hyphen, “servant of (god) Edom”; so W. R. Smith, Religion of Semites (2) , 42, and H. P. Smith, Samuel, f, though others explain it as = “servant of man”): In 2 Samuel 6:10,11,12; 1 Chronicles 13:13,14 a Philistine of Gath and servant of David, who received the Ark of Yahweh into his house when David brought it into Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim. Because of the sudden death of Uzzah, David was unwilling to proceed with the Ark to his citadel, and it remained three months in the house of Obed-edom, “and Yahweh blessed Obed-edom, and all his house” ( 2 Samuel 6:11). According to Chronicles 13:14 the Ark had a special “house” of its own while there. He is probably the same as the Levite of 1 Chronicles 15:25. In Chronicles 15:16-21 Obed-edom is a “singer,” and in 1 Chronicles 15:24 a “doorkeeper,” while according to 1 Chronicles 26:4-8,15 he is a Korahite doorkeeper, to whose house fell the overseership of the storehouse (26:15), while 1 Chronicles 16:5,38 names him as a “minister before the ark,” a member of the house or perhaps guild of Jeduthun (see 2 Chronicles 25:24).

    Obed-edom is an illustration of the service rendered to Hebrew religion by foreigners, reminding one of the Simon of Cyrene who bore the cross of Jesus ( Matthew 27:32, etc.). The Chronicler naturally desired to think that only Levites could discharge such duties as Obed-edom performed, and hence, the references to him as a Levite. David Francis Roberts.

    OBEDIENCE; OBEY <o-be’-di-ens > , <o-ba > ([ [m”v; , shama` ]; [uJpakoh>, hupakoe ]):

    1. MEANING OF TERMS:

    In its simpler Old Testament meaning the word signifies “to hear,” “to listen.” It carries with it, however, the ethical significance of hearing with reverence and obedient assent. In the New Testament a different origin is suggestive of “hearing under” or of subordinating one’s self to the person or thing heard, hence, “to obey.” There is another New Testament usage, however, indicating persuasion from, [pei>qomai, peithomai ].

    The relation expressed is twofold: first, human, as between master and servant, and particularly between parents and children. “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that, will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place” ( Deuteronomy 21:18,19; compare Proverbs 15:20); or between sovereign and subjects, “The foreigners shall submit themselves unto me: as soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me” ( 2 Samuel 22:45; Chronicles 29:23).

    2. THE OLD TESTAMENT CONCEPTION:

    The highest significance of its usage, however, is that of the relation of man to God. Obedience is the supreme test of faith in God and reverence for Him. The Old Testament conception of obedience was vital. It was the one important relationship which must not be broken. While sometimes this relation may have been formal and cold, it nevertheless was the one strong tie which held the people close to God. The significant spiritual relation is expressed by Samuel when he asks the question, “Hath Yahweh as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” ( 1 Samuel 15:22). It was the condition without which no right relation might be sustained to Yahweh. This is most clearly stated in the relation between Abraham and Yahweh when he is assured “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice” ( Genesis 22:18).

    In prophetic utterances, future blessing and prosperity were conditioned upon obedience: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land” ( Isaiah 1:19). After surveying the glories of the Messianic kingdom, the prophet assures the people that “this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your God” ( Zechariah 6:15).

    On the other hand misfortune, calamity, distress and famine are due to their disobedience and distrust of Yahweh. See DISOBEDIENCE.

    This obedience or disobedience was usually related to the specific commands of Yahweh as contained in the law, yet they conceived of God as giving commands by other means. Note especially the rebuke of Samuel to Saul: “Because thou obeyedst not the voice of Yahweh, .... therefore hath Yahweh done this thing unto thee this day” ( 1 Samuel 28:18).

    3. THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPTION:

    In the New Testament a higher spiritual and moral relation is sustained than in the Old Testament. The importance of obedience is just as greatly emphasized. Christ Himself is its one great illustration of obedience. He “humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” ( Philippians 2:8). By obedience to Him we are through Him made partakers of His salvation ( Hebrews 5:9). This act is a supreme test of faith in Christ. Indeed, it is so vitally related that they are in some cases almost synonymous. “Obedience of faith” is a combination used by Paul to express this idea ( Romans 1:5). Peter designates believers in Christ as “children of obedience” ( 1 Peter 1:14). Thus it is seen that the test of fellowship with Yahweh in the Old Testament is obedience. The bond of union with Christ in the New Testament is obedience through faith, by which they become identified and the believer becomes a disciple. Walter G. Clippinger OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST The “obedience” ([uJpakoh>, hupakoe ]) of Christ is directly mentioned but 3 times in the New Testament, although many other passages describe or allude to it: “Through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous” ( Romans 5:19); “He humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” ( Philippians 2:8); “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered” ( Hebrews 5:8). In 2 Corinthians 10:5, the phrase signifies an attitude toward Christ: “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

    1. AS AN ELEMENT OF CONDUCT AND CHARACTER:

    His subjection to His parents ( Luke 2:51) was a necessary manifestation of His loving and sinless character, and of His disposition and power to do the right in any situation. His obedience to the moral law in every particular is asserted by the New Testament writers: “without sin” ( Hebrews 4:15); “who knew no sin” ( 2 Corinthians 5:21); “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” ( Hebrews 7:26), etc.; and is affirmed by Himself: “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” ( John 8:46); and implicitly conceded by His enemies, since no shadow of accusation against His character appears. Of His ready, loving, joyful, exact and eager obedience to the Father, mention will be made later, but it was His central and most outstanding characteristic, the filial at its highest reach, limitless, “unto death.” His usually submissive and law-abiding attitude toward the authorities and the great movements and religious requirements of His day was a part of His loyalty to God, and of the strategy of His campaign, the action of the one who would set an example and wield an influence, as at His baptism: “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” ( Matthew 3:15); the synagogue worship ( Luke 4:16, “as his custom was”); the incident of the tribute money: “Therefore the sons are free. But, lest we cause them to stumble,” etc. ( Matthew 17:24-27). Early, however, the necessities of His mission as Son of God and institutor of the new dispensation obliged Him frequently to display a judicial antagonism to current prescription and an authoritative superiority to the rulers; and even to important details of the Law, that would in most eyes mark Him as insurgent, and did culminate in the cross, but was the sublimest obedience to the Father, whose authority alone He, as full-grown man, and Son of man, could recognize.

    2. ITS CHRISTOLOGICAL BEARING:

    Two Scriptural statements raise an important question as to the inner experience of Jesus. Hebrews 5:8 states that “though he was a Son, yet learned (he) obedience by the things which he suffered” (emathen aph’ hon epathen ten hupakoen ); Philippians 2:6,8: Existing in the form of God .... he humbled himself, becoming obedient, even unto death.” As Son of God, His will was never out of accord with the Father’s will. How then was it necessary to, or could He, learn obedience, or become obedient?

    The same question in another form arises from another part of the passage in Hebrews 5:9: “And having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author (cause) of eternal salvation”; also Hebrews 2:10: “It became him (God) .... to make the author (captain) of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” How and why should the perfect be made perfect? Gethsemane, with which, indeed, Hebrews 5:8 is directly related, presents the same problem. It finds its solution in the conditions of the Redeemer’s work and life on earth in the light of His true humanity. Both in His eternal essence and in His human existence, obedience to His Father was His dominant principle, so declared through the prophet-psalmist before His birth: Hebrews 10:7 ( Psalm 40:7), “Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” It was His law of life: “I do always the things that are pleasing to him. I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things” ( John 8:29,28); “I can of myself do nothing. .... I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” ( John 5:30). It was the indispensable process of His activity as the “image of the invisible God,” the expression of the Deity in terms of the phenomenal and the human. He could be a perfect revelation only by the perfect correspondence in every detail, of will, word and work with the Father’s will ( John 5:19).

    Obedience was also His life nourishment and satisfaction ( John 4:34). It was the guiding principle which directed the details of His work: “I have power to lay it (life) down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father” ( John 10:18); “The Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” ( John 12:49; compare 14:31, etc.). But in the Incarnation this essential and filial obedience must find expression in human forms according to human demands and processes of development. As true man, obedient disposition on His part must meet the test of voluntary choice under all representative conditions, culminating in that which was supremely hard, and at the limit which should reveal its perfection of extent and strength. It must become hardened, as it were, and confirmed, through a definite obedient act, into obedient human character. The patriot must become the veteran. The Son, obedient on the throne, must exercise the practical virtue of obedience on earth. Gethsemane was the culmination of this process, when in full view of the awful, shameful, horrifying meaning of Calvary, the obedient disposition was crowned, and the obedient Divinehuman life reached its highest manifestation, in the great ratification: “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done.” But just as Jesus’ growth in knowledge was not from error to truth, but from partial knowledge to completer, so His “learning obedience” led Him not from disobedience or debate to submission, but from obedience at the present stage to an obedience at ever deeper and deeper cost. The process was necessary for His complete humanity, in which sense He was “made perfect,” complete, by suffering. It was also necessary for His perfection as example and sympathetic High Priest. He must fight the human battles under the human conditions. Having translated obedient aspiration and disposition into obedient action in the face of, and in suffering unto, death, even the death of the cross, He is able to lead the procession of obedient sons of God through every possible trial and surrender. Without this testing of His obedience He could have had the sympathy of clear and accurate knowledge, for He “knew what was in man,” but He would have lacked the sympathy of a kindred experience. Lacking this, He would have been for us, and perhaps also in Himself, but an imperfect “captain of our salvation,” certainly no “file leader” going before us in the very paths we have to tread, and tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. It may be worth noting that He “learned obedience” and was “made perfect” by suffering, not the results of His own sins, as we do largely, but altogether the results of the sins of others.

    3. IN ITS SOTERIOLOGICAL BEARINGS:

    In Romans 5:19, in the series of contrasts between sin and salvation (“Not as the trespass, so also is the free gift”), we are told: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.” Interpreters and theologians, especially the latter, differ as to whether “obedience” here refers to the specific and supreme act of obedience on the cross, or to the sum total of Christ’s incarnate obedience through His whole life; and they have made the distinction between His “passive obedience,” yielded on the cross, and His “active obedience” in carrying out without a flaw the Father’s will at all times. This distinction is hardly tenable, as the whole Scriptural representation, especially His own, is that He was never more intensely active than in His death: “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished” ( Luke 12:50); “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” ( John 10:17,18). “Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God” ( Hebrews 9:14), indicates the active obedience of one who was both priest and sacrifice. As to the question whether it was the total obedience of Christ, or His death on the cross, that constituted the atonement, and the kindred question whether it was not the spirit of obedience in the act of death, rather than the act itself, that furnished the value of His redemptive work, it might conceivably, though improbably, be said that “the one act of righteousness” through which “the free gift came” was His whole life considered as one act. But these ideas are out of line with the unmistakable trend of Scripture, which everywhere lays principal stress on the death of Christ itself; it is the center and soul of the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; it holds first place in the Gospels, not as obedience, but as redemptive suffering and death; it is unmistakably put forth in this light by Christ Himself in His few references to His death: “ransom,” “my blood,” etc. Paul’s teaching everywhere emphasizes the death, and in but two places the obedience; Peter indeed speaks of Christ as an ensample, but leaves as his characteristic thought that Christ “suffered for sins once .... put to death in the flesh” ( 1 Peter 3:18). In Hebrews the center and significance of Christ’s whole work is that He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (1 Peter 9:26); while John in many places emphasizes the death as atonement: “Unto him that .... loosed us from our sins by his blood” ( Revelation 1:5), and elsewhere.

    The Scripture teaching is that “God set (him) forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood” ( Romans 3:25). His lifelong obedience enters in chiefly as making and marking Him the “Lamb without blemish and without spot,” who alone could be the atoning sacrifice. If it enters further, it is as the preparation and anticipation of that death, His life so dominated and suffused with the consciousness of the coming sacrifice that it becomes really a part of the death. His obedience at the time of His death could not have been atonement, for it had always existed and had not atoned; but it was the obedience that turned the possibility of atonement into the fact of atonement. He obediently offered up, not His obedience, but Himself. He is set forth as propitiation, not in His obedience, but in His blood, His death, borne as the penalty of sin, in His own body on the tree.

    The distinction is not one of mere academic theological interest. It involves the whole question of the substitutionary and propitiatory in Christ’s redemptive work, which is central, vital and formative, shaping the entire conception of Christianity. The blessed and helpful part which our Lord’s complete and loving obedience plays in the working out of Christian character, by His example and inspiration, must not be underestimated, nor its meaning as indicating the quality of the life which is imparted to the soul which accepts for itself His mediatorial death. These bring the consummation and crown of salvation; they are not its channel, or instrument, or price. See also ATONEMENT.

    LITERATURE.

    DCG, article “Obedience of Christ”; Denney, Death of Christ, especially pp. 231-33; Champion, Living Atonement; Forsythe, Cruciality of the Cross, etc.; works on the Atonement; Commentaries, in the place cited. Philip Wendell Crannell OBEISANCE <o-ba’-sans > : It is used 9 times in the King James Version in the phrase “made (or did) obeisance” as a rendering of the reflexive form of ([ hj;v; , shachah ]), and denotes the bow or curtsey indicative of deference and respect. The same form of the verb is sometimes translated “to bow one’s self” when it expresses the deferential attitude of one person to another ( Genesis 33:6,7, etc.). Occasionally the vow of homage or fealty to a king on the part of a subject is suggested. In Joseph’s dream his brother’s sheaves made obeisance to his sheaf ( Genesis 43:28; compare also Samuel 15:5; 2 Chronicles 24:17). But in a large number of instances the verb denotes the prostrate posture of the worshipper in the presence of Deity, and is generally rendered, “to worship” in the King James Version.

    In all probability this was the original significance of the word ( Genesis 24:26, etc.). Obeisance (= obedience) originally signified the vow of obedience made by a vassal to his lord or a slave to his master, but in time denoted the act of bowing as a token of respect. T. Lewis OBELISK <ob’-e-lisk > , <ob’-el-isk > : A sacred stone or matstsebhah . For matstsebhah the Revised Version (British and American) has used “pillar” in the text, with “obelisk” in the margin in many instances ( Exodus 23:24; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 12:3; 1 Kings 14:23; Hosea 3:4; 10:1,2, etc.), but not consistently (e.g. Genesis 28:18). See PILLAR.

    OBETH <o’-beth > ([ jWbh>q, Obeth ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Oujbh>n, Ouben ]): One of those who went up with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:32) = “Ebed” of Ezra 8:6.

    OBIL <o’-bil > ([ lybiwOa , ‘obhil ], “camel driver”): An Ishmaelite who was “over the camels” in David’s palace ( 1 Chronicles 27:30).

    OBJECT <ob-jekt’ > : Now used only in the sense “to make opposition,” but formerly in a variety of meanings derived from the literal sense “to throw against.”

    So with the meaning “to charge with” in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:12, the King James Version “He objecteth to our infamy the transgressing of our education” (the Revised Version (British and American) “layeth to our charge sins against our discipline”), or “to make charges against” in Acts 24:19, the King James Version “who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me” (the Revised Version (British and American) “and to make accusation”).

    OBLATION <ob-la’-shun > : In Leviticus and Numbers, the King James Version occasionally uses “oblation,” but generally “offering,” as a rendering of [ ˆB;r]q; , qorban ] — a general term for all kinds of offering, but used only in Ezekiel, Leviticus and Numbers. the Revised Version (British and American) renders consistently “oblation.” In Ezekiel (also Isaiah 40:20), “oblation” renders [ hm;WrT] , terumah ], generally translated “heave offering.” In some cases (e.g. Isaiah 1:13; Daniel 9:21) “oblation” in the King James Version corresponds to [ hj;n]mi , minchah ], the ordinary word for “gift,” in the Priestly Code (P) “grain offering.” See SACRIFICE.

    OBOTH <o’-both > , <o’-both > ([ tboao , ‘obhoth ], “waterbags”): A desert camp of the Israelites, the 3rd after leaving Matthew. Hor and close to the borders of Moab ( Numbers 21:10,11; 33:43,14). See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

    OBSCURITY <ob-sku’-ri-ti > : In modern English generally denotes a state of very faint but still perceptible illumination, and only when preceded by some such adjective as “total” does it imply the absence of all light. In Biblical English, however, only the latter meaning is found. So in Isaiah 29:18 ([ lp,ao , ‘ophel ], “darkness”); 58:10; 59:9 ([ Ëv,j , choshekh ], “darkness”); Additions to Esther 11:8 ([gno>fov, gnophos ], “darkness”). Compare Proverbs 20:20, the King James Version “in obscure darkness,” the English Revised Version “in the blackest darkness,” the American Standard Revised Version “in blackness of darkness.”

    OBSERVE <ob-zurv’ > (representing various words, but chiefly [ rm”v; , shamar ], “to keep,” “to watch” etc.): Properly means “to take heed to,” as in Isaiah 42:20, “Thou seest many things, but thou observest not” and from this sense all the usages of the word in English Versions of the Bible can be understood. Most of them, indeed are quite good modern usage (as “observe a feast,” Exodus 12:17, etc.; “observe a law” Leviticus 19:37, etc.), but a few are archaic. So Genesis 37:11, the King James Version “His father observed the saying” (the Revised Version (British and American) “kept the saying in mind”); Hosea 13:7, “As a leopard .... will I observe them” (the Revised Version (British and American) “watch”); Jon 2:8, “observe lying vanities” (the Revised Version (British and American) “regard,” but “give heed to” would be clearer; compare <19A743> Psalm 107:43). Still farther from modern usage is Hosea 14:8, “I have heard him, and observed him” (the Revised Version (British and American) “will regard”; the meaning is “care for”); and Mark 6:20, “For Herod feared John .... and observed him” (the Revised Version (British and American) “kept him safe”). In the last case, the King James Version editors seem to have used “to observe” as meaning “to give reverence to.”

    Observation is found in Luke 17:20, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation” ([meta< parathrh>sewv, meta paratereseos ]). The meaning of the English is, “so that it can be observed,” but the exact force of the underlying Greek (“visibly”? “so that it can be computed in advance”?) is a matter of extraordinary dispute at the present time. See KINGDOM OF GOD.

    Burton Scott Easton OBSERVER OF TIMES <ob-zur’-ver > . See DIVINATION.

    OBSTINACY <ob’-sti-na-si > . See HARDENING.

    OCCASION <o-ka’-zhun > : The uses in English Versions of the Bible are all modern, but in Jeremiah 2:24 “occasion” is employed (both in Hebrew and English) as a euphemism for “time of conception of offspring.”

    OCCUPY <ok’-u-pi > : Is in the King James Version the translation of 7 different words: (1) [ ˆt”n; , nathan ]; (2) [ rj”s; , cachar ]; (3) [ br”[; , `arabh ]; (4) [ hc;[; , `asah ], either with or without the added word, [ hk;al;m] , mela’khah ]; (5) [ajnaplhrou~n, anapleroun ]; (6) [peripatei~n, peripatein ]; (7) [pragmateu>ein, pragmateuein ].

    In almost every case the meanings of “to occupy” as used in the King James Version in harmony with the common usage of the time have become obsolete. (1) In Ezekiel 27:16,19,22, nathan meant “to trade,” and the Revised Version (British and American) reads “traded.” (2) From cachar , “to go about,” was derived a designation of “merchants” (Revised Version) ( Ezekiel 27:21). (3) `Arabh ( Ezekiel 27:9) signifies “to exchange” (the English Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin, but the American Standard Revised Version “deal in”). (4) `asah ( Exodus 38:24) means simply “to use” (Revised Version), and the same word in Judges 16:11, with mela’khah (“work”) added, signifies that work had been done (Revised Version). (5) In 1 Corinthians 14:16, “occupy,” the King James Version rendering of anapleroun , would still be as intelligible to most as the Revised Version (British and American) “fill.” (6) “Occupy” in Hebrews 13:9, in the sense of “being taken up with a thing,” is the translation (both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) of peripatein , literally, “to walk.” Finally (7) pragmateuein ( Luke 19:13) is rendered in the King James Version “occupy” in its obsolete sense of “trade” (Revised Version). David Foster Estes OCCURRENT <o-kur’-ent > (King James Versions, the English Revised Version, Kings 5:4): An obsolete form of “occurrence” (so the American Standard Revised Version).

    OCHIELUS <o-Kings-e’-lus > ([ jOci>hlov, Ochielos ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jOzih~lov, Ozielos ]; the King James Version Ochiel): One of the “captains over thousands” who furnished the Levites with much cattle for Josiah’s Passover (1 Esdras 1:9) = “Jeiel” of 2 Chronicles 35:9.

    OCHRAN <ok’-ran > ([ ˆr;k][; , `okhran ], from `akhar , “trouble”; the King James Version Ocran): The father of Pagiel, the prince of the tribe of Asher ( Numbers 1:13; 2:27; 7:72,77; 10:26).

    OCHRE, RED <o’-ker > , ( Isaiah 44:13, “He marketh it out with a pencil,” margin “red ochre,” the King James Version “line”; [ dr,c, , seredh ], a word found only here, and of unknown etymology): Designates the implement used by the carpenter to mark the wood after measuring and before cutting. “Red ochre” supposes this to have been a crayon (as does “pencil”), but a scratch-awl is quite as likely. Ochre is clay colored by an iron compound.

    OCIDELUS <os-i-de’-lus > , <ok-i-de’-lus > (Codex Alexandrinus [ jWkei>dhlov, Okeidelos ]; Codex Vaticanus and Swete, [ jWkai>lhdov, Okailedos ], Fritzsche, [ jWko>dhlov, Okodelos ]; the King James Version and Fritzsehe Ocodelus): One of the priests who had married a “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:22); it stands in the place of “Jozabad” in Ezra 10:22 of which it is probably a corruption.

    OCINA <o-si’-na > , <os’-i-na > , <ok’-i-na > ([ jOkeina>, Okeina ]): A town on the Phoenician coast South of Tyre, mentioned only in Judith 2:28, in the account of the campaign of Holofernes in Syria. The site is unknown, but from the mention of Sidon and Tyre immediately preceding and Jemnaan, Azotus and Ascalon following, it must have been South of Tyre. One might conjecture that it was Sandalium (Iskanderuna) or Umm ul-’Awamid, but there is nothing in the name to suggest such an identification.

    OCRAN <ok’-ran > . See OCHRAN.

    ODED <o’-ded > ([ ddewO[ , `owdhedh ] (2 Chronicles 15), [ dde[ , `odhedh ] (elsewhere), “restorer”): (1) According to 2 Chronicles 15:1, he was the father of Azariah who prophesied in the reign of Asa of Judah (c 918-877), but 15:8 makes Oded himself the prophet. The two verses should agree, so we should probably read in 15:8, “the prophecy of Azariah, the son of Oded, the prophet,” or else “the prophecy of Azariah the prophet.” See AZARIAH. (2) A prophet of Samaria ( 2 Chronicles 28:9) who lived in the reigns of Pekah, king of the Northern Kingdom, and Ahaz, king of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 28, Oded protested against the enslavement of the captives which Pekah had brought from Judah and Jerusalem on his return from the Syro-Ephesiansraimitic attack on the Southern Kingdom (735 BC). In this protest he was joined by some of the chiefs of Ephesiansraim, and the captives were well treated. After those who were naked (i.e. those who had scanty clothing; compare the meaning of the word “naked” in Mark 14:51) had been supplied with clothing from the spoil, and the bruised anointed with oil, the prisoners were escorted to Jericho.

    The narrative of 2 Chronicles 28 as a whole does not agree with that of 2 Kings 15:37; 16:5 f, where the allied armies of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah besieged Jerusalem, but failed to capture it (compare Isaiah 7:1-17; 8:5-8a). As Curtis points out (Chronicles, 459, where he compares Exodus 21:2 ff; Leviticus 25:29-43; Deuteronomy 15:12-18), wholesale enslavement of their fellow-countrymen was not allowed to the Hebrews, and this fact the passage illustrates. It seems to be a fulfillment in spirit of Isaiah 61:1-2, a portion which our Lord read in the synagogue at Nazareth ( Luke 4:16-20). David Francis Roberts ODES OF SOLOMON <odz > . See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

    ODOLLAM <o-dol’-am > ([ jOdolla>m, Odollam ]): The Greek form of ADULLAM (which see), found only in 2 Macc 12:38.

    ODOMERA <od-o-me’-ra > ([ jOdomhra>, Odomera ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jOdoaarrh>v, Odoaarres ], Itala Odaren ; the King James Version Odonarkes, margin Odomarra): It is not certain whether Odomera was an independent Bedouin chief, perhaps an ally of the Syrians, or an officer of Bacchides.

    He was defeated by Jonathan in his campaign against Bacchides (1 Macc 9:66) in 156 BC.

    ODOR <o’-der > : In the Old Testament the rendering of [ µc,B, , besem ], “fragrance” ( 2 Chronicles 16:14; Est 2:12; in Jeremiah 34:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “burnings”), and of one or two other words; in the New Testament of [ojsmh>, osme ] ( John 12:3; Philippians 4:18; Ephesiansesians 5:2 the Revised Version (British and American)); in Revelation 5:8; 18:13, of [qumi>ama, thumiama ], where the Revised Version (British and American) (with the King James Version margin in former passage) has “incense.” See also SAVOR.

    OF <ov > : (1) In Anglo-Saxon, had the meaning “from,” “away from” (as the strengthened form “off” has still), and was not used for genitive or possessive relations, these being expressed by special case-forms. In the Norman period, however, “of” was taken to represent the French de (a use well developed by the time of Chaucer), and in the Elizabethan period both senses of “of” were in common use. But after about the later force of the word became predominant, and in the earlier sense (which is now practically obsolete) it was replaced by other prepositions. In consequence the King James Version (and in some cases the Revised Version (British and American)) contains many uses of “of” that are no longer familiar — most of them, to be sure, causing no difficulty, but there still being a few responsible for real obscurities. (2) Of the uses where “of” signifies “from,” the most common obscure passages are those where “of” follows a verb of hearing. In modern English “hear of” signifies “to gain information about,” as it does frequently in the King James Version ( Mark 7:25; Romans 10:14, etc.). But more commonly this use of “of” in the King James Version denotes the source from which the information is derived. So John 15:15, “all things that I have heard of my Father”; Acts 10:22, “to hear words of thee”; 28:22, “We desire to hear of thee”; compare 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2, etc. (similarly Matthew 11:29, “and learn of me”; compare John 6:45). All of these are ambiguous and in modern English give a wrong meaning, so that in most cases (but not Matthew 11:29 or Acts 28:22) the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “from.”

    A different example of the same use of “of” is 2 Corinthians 5:1, “a building of God” (the Revised Version (British and American) “from”).

    So Mark 9:21, “of a child,” means “from childhood” (“from a child,” the Revised Version (British and American), is dubious English). A still more obscure passage is Matthew 23:25, “full of extortion and excess.” “Full of” elsewhere in the King James Version (and even in the immediate context, Matthew 23:27,28) refers to the contents, but here the “of” represents the Greek [ejk, ek ], “out of,” and denotes the source — “The contents of your cup and platter have been purchased from the gains of extortion and excess.” the Revised Version (British and American) again substitutes “from,” with rather awkward results, but the Greek itself is unduly compressed. In Mark 11:8, one of the changes made after the King James Version was printed has relieved an obscurity, for where the edition of read “cut down branches of the trees,” the modern editions have “off” (the Revised Version (British and American) “from”). For clear examples of this use of “of,” without the obscurities, compare Judith 2:21, “they went forth of Nineveh”; 2 Macc 4:34, “forth of the sanctuary”; and, especially, Matthew 21:25, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” Here “from” and “of” represent exactly the same Greek preposition, and the change in English is arbitrary (the Revised Version (British and American) writes “from” in both cases). (3) In a weakened sense this use of “of” as “from” was employed rather loosely to connect an act with its source or motive. Such uses are generally clear enough, but the English today seems sometimes rather curious: Matthew 18:13, “rejoiceth more of that sheep” (the Revised Version (British and American) “over”); Psalm 99:8, “vengeance of their inventions” (so the King James Version); Corinthians 7:4, “hath not power of her own body” (the Revised Version (British and American) “over”), etc. (4) A very common use of “of” in the King James Version is to designate the agent — a use complicated by the fact that “by” is also employed for the same purpose and the two interchanged freely. So in Luke 9:7, “all that was done by him .... it was said of some ....,” the two words are used side by side for the same Greek preposition (the Revised Version (British and American) replaces “of” by “by,” but follows a different text in the first part of the verse). Again, most of the examples are clear enough, but there are some obscurities. So in Matthew 19:12, “which were made eunuchs of men,” the “of men” is at first sight possessive (the Revised Version (British and American) “by men”). Similarly, 2 Esdras 16:30, “There are left some clusters of them that diligently seek through the vineyard” (the Revised Version (British and American) “by them”). So 1 Corinthians 14:24, “He is convinced of all he is judged of all,” is quite misleading (the Revised Version (British and American) “by all” in both cases). Philippians 3:12, the King James Version “I am apprehended of Christ Jesus,” seems almost meaningless (the Revised Version (British and American) “by”). (5) In some cases the usage of the older English is not sufficient to explain “of” in the King James Version. So Matthew 18:23, “take account of his servants,” is a very poor rendition of “make a reckoning with his servants” (so the Revised Version (British and American)). In Acts 27:5, the “sea of Cilicia” may have been felt to be the “sea which is off Cilicia” (compare the Revised Version (British and American)), but there are no other instances of this use. In Corinthians 2:12, “A door was opened unto me of the Lord” should be “in the Lord” (so the Revised Version (British and American)). Samuel 21:4, “We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house,” is very loose, and the Revised Version (British and American) rewrites the verse entirely. In all these cases, the King James Version seems to have looked solely for smooth English, without caring much for exactness. In 1 Peter 1:11, however, “sufferings of Christ” probably yields a correct sense for a difficult phrase in the Greek (so the Revised Version (British and American), with “unto” in the margin), but a paraphrase is needed to give the precise meaning. And, finally, in Hebrews 11:18, the Greek itself is ambiguous and there is no way of deciding whether the preposition employed ([pro>v, pros ]) means “to” (so the Revised Version (British and American)) or “of” (so the King James Version, the Revised Version margin; compare Hebrews 1:7, where “of” is necessary). Burton Scott Easton OFFENCE; OFFEND <o-fens’ > , <o-fend’ > ([ lwOvkimi , mikhshol ], [ µv”a; , ‘asham ], [ af;j; , chaTa’ ]; [ska>ndalon, skandalon ], [skandali>zw, skandalizo ]): “Offend” is either transitive or intransitive As transitive it is primarily “to strike against,” hence, “to displease” “to make angry,” “to do harm to,” “to affront,” in Scripture, “to cause to sin”; intransitive it is “to sin,” “to cause anger,” in Scripture, “to be caused to sin.” “Offence” is either the cause of anger, displeasure, etc., or a sin. In Scripture we have the special significance of a stumbling-block, or cause of falling, sin, etc.

    1. OLD TESTAMENT USAGE:

    In the Old Testament it is frequently the translation of ‘asham , “to be guilty,” “to transgress”: Jeremiah 2:3, the Revised Version (British and American) “shall be held guilty”; 50:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “not guilty”; Ezekiel 25:12, “hath greatly offended”; Hosea 4:15, the Revised Version margin “become guilty”; 5:15, “till they acknowledge their offense,” the Revised Version margin “have borne their guilt”; 13:1, “He offended in Baal,” the Revised Version margin “became guilty”; Habakkuk 1:11, “He shall pass over, and offend, (imputing) this his power unto his god,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Then shall he sweep by (as) a wind, and shall pass over (margin “transgress”), and be guilty, (even) he whose might is his god.”

    In 2 Chronicles 28:13, we have ‘ashmath `al , literally, “the offense against,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a trespass (margin “or guilt”) against Yahweh”; we have also chaTa’ , “to miss the mark,” “to sin,” “to err” ( Genesis 20:9, the Revised Version (British and American) “sinned against thee”; 40:1, “offended their lord”; 2 Kings 18:14; Jeremiah 37:18, the Revised Version (British and American) “sinned against thee”); baghadh , “to deal treacherously” ( Psalm 73:15, “offend against the generation of thy children,” the Revised Version (British and American) “dealt treacherously with”); chabhal , “to act wickedly” ( Job 34:31); mikhshol , “a stumbling block” ( Leviticus 19:14; translated in Isaiah 8:14, “a rock of offense”; compare Ezekiel 14:3; 1 Samuel 25:31; <19B9165> Psalm 119:165, “nothing shall offend,” the Revised Version (British and American) “no occasion of stumbling”; compare Isaiah 57:14; Jeremiah 6:21, etc.); pasha` , “to be fractious,” “to transgress” ( Proverbs 18:19, “a brother offended,” the Revised Version margin “injured”). “Offence” is mikhshol (see above, 1 Samuel 25:31; Isaiah 8:14); cheT’ , “sin,” etc. ( Ecclesiastes 10:4, “Yielding pacifleth great offenses,” the American Standard Revised Version “Gentleness (the English Revised Version “yielding”) allayeth,” the American Revised Version margin “Calmness (the English Revised Version “gentleness”) leaveth great sins undone”). “Offender” is hatta’ ( 1 Kings 1:21, margin “Hebrew: sinners”; Isaiah 29:21, “that make a man an offender for a word,” the American Standard Revised Version “that make a man an offender in his cause,” margin “make men to offend by (their) words,” or, “for a word,” the English Revised Version “in a cause,” margin “make men to offend by (their) words”).

    2. NEW TESTAMENT USAGE:

    The New Testament usage of these words deserves special attention. The word most frequently translated “offend” in the King James Version is skandalizo (skandalon , “offence”), very frequent in the Gospels ( Matthew 5:29, “if thy right eye offend thee”; 5:30; 11:6; 18:6, “whoso shall offend one of these little ones”; 13:41, “all things that offend”; Luke 17:1, “It is impossible but that offenses will come,” etc.; Romans 14:21; 16:17, “Mark them which cause .... offenses”; Corinthians 8:13 twice, “if meat make my brother to offend,” etc.). Skandalon is primarily “a trap-stick,” “a bentstick on which the bait is fastened which the animal strikes against and so springs the trap,” hence, it came to denote a “snare,” or anything which one strikes against injuriously (it is Septuagint’s word for moqesh , a “noose” or “snare,” Joshua 23:13; 1 Samuel 18:21); “a stumbling-block” Septuagint for mikhshol (see above), Leviticus 19:14). For skandalizo , skandalon , translated in the King James Version, “offend,” “offence,” the Revised Version (British and American) gives “cause to stumble,” “stumbling-block,” etc.; thus, Matthew 5:29, “if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble,” i.e. “is an occasion for thy falling into sin”; Matthew 16:23, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto me,” an occasion of turning aside from the right path; in Matthew 26:31,33 twice, “offended” is retained, margin, 26:33 twice, “Greek: caused to stumble” (same word in 26:31); Mark 9:42, “whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble,” to fall away from the faith, or fall into sin; Luke 17:1, “It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come; but woe unto him, through whom they come”; in Romans 14:21; 16:17; in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul’s language has the same meaning, and we see how truly he had laid to heart the Saviour’s earnest admonitions — “weak brethren” with him answering to the master’s “little ones who believe”; Romans 14:21, “It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth,” i.e. “is led by your example to do that which he cannot do with a good conscience”; 14:20, “It is evil for that man who eateth with offense (dia proskommatos),” so as to place a stumbling-block before his brother, or, rather, `without the confidence that he is doing right’; compare 14:23, “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin”; so 1 Corinthians 8:13; Romans 16:17, “Mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine, (margin “teaching”) which ye learned” (Is not the “teaching” of Christ Himself implied here?). Everything that would embolden another to do that which would be wrong for him, or that would turn anyone away from the faith, must be carefully avoided, seeking to please, not ourselves, but to care for our brother, “for whom Christ died,” “giving no occasion of stumbling (proskope ) in anything” ( 2 Corinthians 6:3). Aproskopos , “not causing to stumble,” is translated “void of offense” ( Acts 24:16, “a conscience void of offense”; 1 Corinthians 10:32, the Revised Version (British and American) “occasion of stumbling”; Philippians 1:10, “void of offense”); hamartano , “to miss the mark,” “to sin,” “to err,” is translated “offended” ( Acts 25:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “sinned”); hamartia , “sin,” “error” ( Corinthians 11:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “Did I commit a sin?”); ptaio , “to stumble,” “fall” ( James 2:10; 3:2 twice, “offend,” the Revised Version (British and American) “stumble,” “stumbleth”); paraptoma , “a falling aside or away,” is translated “offence” ( Romans 4:25; 5:15 twice,16,17,18,20, in each case the Revised Version (British and American) “trespass”); adikeo , “to be unrighteous” ( Acts 25:11, the Revised Version (British and American) “wrongdoer,” the King James Version “offender”).

    In the Apocrypha we have “offence” (skandalon, Judith 12:2), the Revised Version (British and American) “I will not eat thereof, lest there be an occasion of stumbling”; “offend” (hamartano , Ecclesiasticus 7:7), the Revised Version (British and American) “sin”; “greatly offended” (prosochthizo , Ecclesiasticus 25:2); “offended” (skandalizo , Ecclesiasticus 32:15), the Revised Version (British and American) “stumble.” W. L Walker OFFER; OFFERING <of’-er > , <of’-er-ing > . See SACRIFICE.

    OFFICE <of’-is > : In the Old Testament the word is often used in periphrastic renderings, e.g. “minister .... in the priest’s office,” literally, act as priest ( Exodus 28:1, etc.); “do the office of a midwife,” literally, cause or help to give birth ( Exodus 1:16). But the word is also used as a rendering of different Hebrew words, e.g. [ ˆKe , ken ], “pedestal,” “place” ( Genesis 40:13, the King James Version “place”; Genesis 41:13); [ hd;bo[\ , `abhodhah ], “labor,” “work” ( 1 Chronicles 6:32); [ hD;quP] , pequddah ], “oversight,” “charge” ( <19A908> Psalm 109:8); [ dm;[\m” , ma`amadh ], literally, “standing,” e.g. waiting at table ( 1 Chronicles 23:28); [ rm;v]mi , mishmar ], “charge,” observance or service of the temple ( Nehemiah 13:14 the King James Version).

    Similarly in the New Testament the word is used in periphrastic renderings, e.g. priest’s office ( Luke 1:8,9); office of a deacon ([diakoni>a, diakonia ], 1 Timothy 3:10); office of a bishop ([ejpiskoph>, episkope ], 1 Timothy 3:1). the Revised Version (British and American) uses other renderings, e.g. “ministry” ( Romans 11:13); “serve as deacons” ( Timothy 3:10). In Acts 1:20, the Revised Version (British and American) has “office” (margin “overseership”) for the King James Version “bishoprick.” T. Lewis OFFICER <of’-i-ser > : In the King James Version the term is employed to render different words denoting various officials, domestic, civil and military, such as [ syris; , caric ], “eunuch,” “minister of state” ( Genesis 37:36); [ dyqiP; , paqidh ], “person in charge,” “overseer” ( Genesis 41:34); [ byxin] , necibh ], “stationed,” “garrison,” “prefect” ( 1 Kings 4:19); [ rfevo , shoTer ], “scribe” or “secretary” (perhaps arranger or organizer), then any official or overseer. In Est 9:3 for the King James Version “officers of the king” the Revised Version (British and American) has (more literal) “they that did the king’s business.”

    In the New Testament, “officer” generally corresponds to the Greek word [uJphre>thv, huperetes ], “servant,” or any person in the employ of another.

    In Matthew 5:25 the term evidently means “bailiff” or exactor of the fine imposed by the magistrate, and corresponds to [pra>ktwr, praktor ], used in Luke 12:58. T. Lewis OFFICES OF CHRIST See CHRIST, OFFICES OF.

    OFFSCOURING <of’-skour-ing > : This strong and expressive word occurs only once in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament. The weeping prophet uses it as he looks upon his erstwhile fair and holy city, despoiled, defiled, derided by the profane, the enemies of God and of His people ( Lamentations 3:45, [ yjis] , cechi ]). The favored people, whose city lies in heaps and is patrolled by the heathen, are hailed and held up as the scrapings, the offscouring, the offal of the earth. They are humbled to earth, crushed into the dust, carried away to be the slaves of licentious idolaters. The haughty, cruel, cutting boastfulness of the victors covered Israel with contumely.

    In 1 Corinthians 4:13 the greatest of the apostles reminds the prosperous and self-satisfied Corinthinns that they, the apostles, were “made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things.” In such contempt were they held by the unbelieving world and by false apostles.

    The strange, strong word ([peri>yhma, peripsema ]) should remind us what it cost in former times to be a true servant of Christ. G.H. Gerberding OFFSPRING <of’-spring > . See CHILDREN.

    OFTEN <of’-n > ([pukno>v, puknos ], “thick,” “close”): An archaic usage for “frequent”: “Thine often infirmities” ( 1 Timothy 5:23); compare “by often rumination” (Shakespeare, As You Like It, IV, i, 18); “The often round” (Ben Jonson, The Forest, III); “Of wrench’d or broken limb — an often chance” (Tennyson, Gareth and Lynette).

    OG ([ gwO[ , `ogh ]; [ ]Wg, Og ]): King of Bashan, whose territory, embracing cities, was conquered by Moses and the Israelites immediately after the conquest of Sihon, king of the Amorites ( Numbers 21:33-35; Deuteronomy 3:1-12). The defeat took place at Edrei, one of the chief of these cities ( Numbers 21:33; Joshua 12:4), and Og and his people were “utterly destroyed” ( Deuteronomy 3:6). Og is described as the last of the REPHAIM (which see), or giant-race of that district, and his giant stature is borne out by what is told in Deuteronomy 3:11 of the dimensions of his “bedstead of iron” (`eres barzel ), 9 cubits long and broad (13 1/2 ft. by 6 ft.), said to be still preserved at Rabbath of Ammon when the verse describing it was written. It is not, of course, necessary to conclude that Og’s own height, though immense, was as great as this.

    Some, however, prefer to suppose that what is intended is “a sarcophagus of black basalt,” which iron-like substance abounds in the Hauran. The conquered territory was subsequently bestowed on the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh ( Numbers 32:33; Deuteronomy 3:12,13). Other references to Og are Deuteronomy 1:4; 4:47; 31:4; Joshua 2:10; 9:10; 13:12,30). The memory of this great conquest lingered all through the national history ( <19D511> Psalm 135:11; 136:20). On the conquest, compare Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, I, 185-87. See ARGOB; BASHAN.

    James Orr OHAD <o’-had > ([ dh”ao , ‘ohadh ], meaning unknown): A son of Simeon, mentioned as third in order ( Genesis 46:10; Exodus 6:15). The name is not found in the list of Numbers 26:12-14.

    OHEL <o’-hel > ([ lh,ao , ‘ohel ], “tent”): A son of Zerubbabel ( 1 Chronicles 3:20).

    OHOLAH <o-ho’-la > ([ hl;hÜa; , ‘oholah ]; the King James Version Aholah): The exact meaning is a matter of dispute. As written, it seems to mean a tent-woman, or the woman living in a tent. With a mappik in the last consonant it could mean “her tent.” The term is used symbolically by Ezekiel to designate Samaria or the kingdom of Israel ( Ezekiel 23:4,5,36,44). See OHOLIBAH.

    OHOLIAB <o-ho’-li-ab > ([ ba;ylihÜa; , ‘oholi’abh ], “father’s tent”; the King James Version Aholiab): A Danite artificer, who assisted Bezalel in the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture ( Exodus 31:6; 35:34; 36:1 f; 38:23).

    OHOLIBAH <o-hol’-i-ba > , <o-ho’-li-ba > ([ hb;ylihÜa; , ‘oholibhah ], “tent in her,” or “my tent is in her”): An opprobrious and symbolical name given by Ezekiel to Jerusalem, representing the kingdom of Judah, because of her intrigues and base alliances with Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, just as the name OHOLAH (which see) was given to Samaria or the Northern Kingdom, because of her alliances with Egypt and Assyria. There is a play upon the words in the Hebrew which cannot be reproduced in English Both Oholah and Oholibah, or Samaria and Jerusalem, are the daughters of one mother, and wives of Yahweh, and both are guilty of religious and political alliance with heathen nations. Idolatry is constantly compared by the Hebrew prophets to marital unfaithfulness or adultery. W. W. Davies OHOLIBAMAH <o-hol-i-ba’-ma > , <o-hol-i-ba’-ma > ([ hm;b;ylihÜa; , ‘oholibhamah ], “tent of the high place”): (1) One of Esau’s wives, and a daughter of Anah the Hivite ( Genesis 36:2,5). It is strange that she is not named along with Esau’s other wives in either Genesis 28:9 or 26:30. Various explanations have been given, but none of them is satisfactory. There is probably some error in the text. (2) An Edomite chief ( Genesis 36:41; 1 Chronicles 1:52).

    OIL <oil > ([ ˆm,v, , shemen ]; [e]laion, elaion ]):

    1. TERMS:

    Another Hebrew word, zayith (zeth ), “olive,” occurs with shemen in several passages ( Exodus 27:20; 30:24; Leviticus 24:2). The corresponding Arabic zeit, a contraction of zeitun, which is the name for the olive tree as well as the fruit, is now applied to oils in general, to distinguish them from solid fats. Zeit usually means olive oil, unless some qualifying name indicates another oil. A corresponding use was made of shemen, and the oil referred to so many times in the Bible was olive oil (except Est 2:12). Compare this with the Greek [e]lai>on, elaion ], “oil,” a neuter noun from [ejlai>a, elaia ], “olive,” the origin of the English word “oil.” [ rh;x]yi , yitshar ], literally, “glistening,” which occurs less frequently, is used possibly because of the light-giving quality of olive oil, or it may have been used to indicate fresh oil, as the clean, newly pressed oil is bright. [ jv”m] , meshach ], a Chaldaic word, occurs twice: Ezra 6:9; 7:22. [e]laion, elaion ], is the New Testament term.

    2. PRODUCTION AND STORAGE:

    Olive oil has been obtained, from the earliest times, by pressing the fruit in such a way as to filter out the oil and other liquids from the residue. The Scriptural references correspond so nearly to the methods practiced in Syria up to the present time, and the presses uncovered by excavators at such sites as Gezer substantiate so well the similarity of these methods, that a description of the oil presses and modes of expression still being employed in Syria will be equally true of those in use in early Israelite times.

    The olives to yield the greatest amount of oil are allowed to ripen, although some oil is expressed from the green fruit. As the olive ripens it turns black. The fruit begins to fall from the trees in September, but the main crop is gathered after the first rains in November. The olives which have not fallen naturally or have not been blown off by the storms are beaten from the trees with long poles (compare Deuteronomy 24:20). The fruit is gathered from the ground into baskets and carried on the heads of the women, or on donkeys to the houses or oil presses. Those carried to the houses are preserved for eating. Those carried to the presses are piled in heaps until fermentation begins. This breaks down the oil cells and causes a more abundant flow of oil. The fruit thus softened may be trod out with the feet ( Micah 6:15) — which is now seldom practiced — or crushed in a handmill. Such a mill was uncovered at Gezer beside an oil press. Stone mortars with wooden pestles are also used. Any of these methods crushes the fruit, leaving only the stone unbroken, and yields a purer oil ( Exodus 27:20). The method now generally practiced of crushing the fruit and kernels with an edgerunner mill probably dates from Roman times. These mills are of crude construction. The stones are cut from native limestone and are turned by horses or mules. Remains of huge stones of this type are found near the old Roman presses in Matthew. Lebanon and other districts.

    The second step in the preparation of the oil is the expression. In districts where the olives are plentiful and there is no commercial demand for the oil, the householders crush the fruit in a mortar, mix the crushed mass with water, and after the solid portions have had time to settle, the pure sweet oil is skimmed from the surface of the water. This method gives a delicious oil, but is wasteful. This is no doubt the beaten oil referred to in connection with religious ceremonials ( Exodus 27:20). Usually the crushed fruit is spread in portions on mats of reeds or goats’ hair, the corners of which are folded over the mass, and the packets thus formed are piled one upon another between upright supports. These supports were formerly two stone columns or the two sections of a split stone cylinder hollowed out within to receive the mats. Large hollow tree trunks are still similarly used in Syria.

    A flat stone is next placed on top, and then a heavy log is placed on the pile in such a manner that one end can be fitted into a socket made in a wall or rock in close proximity to the pile. This socket becomes the fulcrum of a large lever of the second class. The lever is worked in the same manner as that used in the wine presses ( see WINE PRESS). These presses are now being almost wholly superseded by hydraulic presses. The juice which runs from the press, consisting of oil, extractive matter and water, is conducted to vats or run into jars and allowed to stand until the oil separates. The oil is then drawn off from the surface, or the watery fluid and sediment is drawn away through a hole near the bottom of the jar, leaving the oil in the container. (For the construction of the ancient oil presses, see The Excavations of Gezer, by Macalister.) The oil, after standing for some time to allow further sediment to settle, is stored either in huge earthenware jars holding 100 to 200 gallons, or in underground cisterns (compare Chronicles 27:28) holding a much larger quantity. Some of these cisterns in Beirut hold several tons of oil each ( 2 Chronicles 11:11; 32:28; Nehemiah 13:5,12; Proverbs 21:20). In the homes the oil is kept in small earthen jars of various shapes, usually having spouts by which the oil can be easily poured ( 1 Kings 17:12; 2 Kings 4:2). In 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Kings 1:39, horns of oil are mentioned.

    3. USES: (1) As a Commodity of Exchange.

    Olive oil when properly made and stored will keep sweet for years, hence, was a good form of merchandise to hold. Oil is still sometimes given in payment ( 1 Kings 5:11; Ezekiel 27:17; Hosea 12:1; Luke 16:6; Revelation 18:13). (2) As a Cosmetic.

    From earliest times oil was used as a cosmetic, especially for oiling the limbs and head. Oil used in this way was usually scented ( see OINTMENT).

    Oil is still used in this manner by the Arabs, principally to keep the skin and scalp soft when traveling in dry desert regions where there is no opportunity to bathe. Sesame oil has replaced olive oil to some extent for this purpose. Homer, Pliny and other early writers mention its use for external application. Pliny claimed it was used to protect the body against the cold. Many Biblical references indicate the use of oil as a cosmetic ( Exodus 25:6; Deuteronomy 28:40; Ruth 3:3; 2 Samuel 12:20; 14:2; Est 2:12; Psalm 23:5; 92:10; 104:15; 141:5; Ezekiel 16:9; Micah 6:15; Luke 7:46). (3) As a Medicine.

    From early Egyptian literature down to late Arabic medical works, oil is mentioned as a valuable remedy. Many queer prescriptions contain olive oil as one of their ingredients. The good Samaritan used oil mingled with wine to dress the wounds of the man who fell among robbers ( Mark 6:13; Luke 10:34.) (4) As a Food.

    Olive oil replaces butter to a large extent in the diet of the people of the Mediterranean countries. In Bible lands food is fried in it, it is added to stews, and is poured over boiled vegetables, such as beans, peas and lentils, and over salads, sour milk, cheese and other foods as a dressing. A cake is prepared from ordinary bread dough which is smeared with oil and sprinkled with herbs before baking ( Leviticus 2:4). At times of fasting oriental Christians use only vegetable oils, usually olive oil, for cooking.

    For Biblical references to the use of oil as food see Numbers 11:8; Deuteronomy 7:13; 14:23; 32:13; 1 Kings 17:12,14,16; 2 Kings 4:2,6,7; 1 Chronicles 12:40; 2 Chronicles 2:10,15; Ezra 3:7; Proverbs 21:17; Ezekiel 16:13,18; Hosea 2:5,8,22; Haggai 2:12; Revelation 6:6. (5) As an Illuminant.

    Olive oil until recent years was universally used for lighting purposes ( see LAMP). In Palestine are many homes where a most primitive form of lamp similar to those employed by the Israelites is still in use. The prejudice in favor of the exclusive use of olive oil for lighting holy places is disappearing. Formerly any other illuminant was forbidden (compare Exodus 25:6; 27:20; 35:8,14,28; 39:37; Matthew 25:3,4,8). (6) In Religious Rites. (a) Consecration:

    Consecration of officials or sacred things ( Genesis 28:18; 35:14; Exodus 29:7,21 ff; Leviticus 2:1 ff; Numbers 4:9 ff; 1 Samuel 10:1; 16:1,13; 2 Samuel 1:21; 1 Kings 1:39; 2 Kings 9:1,3,1; Psalm 89:20): This was adopted by the early Christians in their ceremonies ( James 5:14), and is still used in the consecration of crowned rulers and church dignitaries. (b) Offerings:

    Offerings, votive and otherwise: The custom of making offerings of oil to holy places still survives in oriental religions. One may see burning before the shrines along a Syrian roadside or in the churches, small lamps whose supply of oil is kept renewed by pious adherents. In Israelite times oil was used in the meal offering, in the consecration offerings, offerings of purification from leprosy, etc. ( Exodus 29:2; 40:9 ff; Leviticus 2:2 ff; Numbers 4:9 ff; Deuteronomy 18:4; 1 Chronicles 9:29; Chronicles 31:5; Nehemiah 10:37,39; 13:5,12; Ezekiel 16:18,19; 45; 46; Micah 6:7). (c) Burials:

    In connection with the burial of the dead: Egyptian papyri mention this use.

    In the Old Testament no direct mention is made of the custom. Jesus referred to it in connection with His own burial ( Matthew 26:12; Mark 14:3-8; Luke 23:56; John 12:3-8; 19:40).

    4. FIGURATIVE USES:

    Abundant oil was a figure of general prosperity ( Deuteronomy 32:13; 33:24; 2 Kings 18:32; Job 29:6; Joel 2:19,24). Languishing of the oil indicated general famine ( Joel 1:10; Haggai 1:11). Joy is described as the oil of joy ( Isaiah 61:3), or the oil of gladness ( Psalm 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). Ezekiel prophesies that the rivers shall run like oil, i.e. become viscous ( Ezekiel 32:14). Words of deceit are softer than oil ( Psalm 55:21; Proverbs 5:3). Cursing becomes a habit with the wicked as readily as oil soaks into bones ( <19A918> Psalm 109:18). Excessive use of oil indicates wastefulness ( Proverbs 21:17), while the saving of it is a characteristic of the wise ( Proverbs 21:20). Oil was carried into Egypt, i.e. a treaty was made with that country ( Hosea 12:1). James A. Patch OIL, ANOINTING ([ hj;v]Mih” ˆm,v, , shemen hamishchah ]): This holy oil, the composition of which is described in Exodus 30:22-33, was designed for use in the anointing of the tabernacle, its furniture and vessels, the altar and laver, and the priest, that being thus consecrated, they might be “most holy.” It was to be “a holy anointing oil” unto Yahweh throughout all generations (30:31). On its uses, compare Exodus 37:29; Leviticus 8:12; 10:7; 21:10. The care of this holy oil was subsequently entrusted to Eleazar ( Numbers 4:16); in later times it seems to have been prepared by the sons of the priests ( 1 Chronicles 9:30). There is a figurative allusion to the oil on Aaron’s head in <19D302> Psalm 133:2. See OIL; ANOINTING. James Orr OIL, BEATEN ( Exodus 27:20; Leviticus 24:2; Numbers 28:5). See OIL; GOLDEN CANDLESTICK.

    OIL, HOLY See OIL; ANOINTING.

    OIL, OLIVE See OIL; OLIVE TREE.

    OIL PRESS See OIL; WINE PRESS.

    OIL-MAKING See CHAFTS, II, 11.

    OIL TREE <oil tre > ([ ˆm,v, 6[e , ‘ets shemen ] ( Isaiah 41:19), margin “oleaster,” in Nehemiah 8:15, translated “wild olive,” the King James Version “pine”; [ ˆm,v, yxe[\ , ‘atse shemen ], in 1 Kings 6:23,31,32, translated “olive wood”): The name “oleaster” used to be applied to the wild olive, but now belongs to quite another plant, the silver-berry, Eleagnus hortensis (Natural Order Elaeagnaceae ), known in Arabic as Zeizafan . It is a pretty shrub with sweet-smelling white flowers and silver-grey-green leaves. It is difficult to see how all the three references can apply to this tree; it will suit the first two, but this small shrub would never supply wood for carpentry work such as that mentioned in 1 Kings, hence, the translation “olive wood.” On the other hand, in the reference in Nehemiah 8:15, olive branches are mentioned just before, so the translation “wild olive” (the difference being too slight) is improbable. Post suggests the translation of ‘ets shemen by PINE (which see), which if accepted would suit all the requirements. E. W. G. Masterman OINTMENT <oint’-ment > : The present use of the word “ointment” is to designate a thick unguent of buttery or tallow-like consistency. the King James Version in frequent instances translates shemen or meshach (see Exodus 30:25) “ointment” where a perfumed oil seemed to be indicated. the American Standard Revised Version has consequently substituted the word “oil” in most of the passages. Merqachah is rendered “ointment” once in the Old Testament ( Job 41:31 (Hebrew 41:23)). The well-known power of oils and fats to absorb odors was made use of by the ancient perfumers. The composition of the holy anointing oil used in the tabernacle worship is mentioned in Exodus 30:23-25. Olive oil formed the base. This was scented with “flowing myrrh .... sweet cinnamon .... sweet calamus .... and .... cassia.” The oil was probably mixed with the above ingredients added in a powdered form and heated until the oil had absorbed their odors and then allowed to stand until the insoluble matter settled, when the oil could be decanted. Olive oil, being a non-drying oil which does not thicken readily, yielded an ointment of oily consistency. This is indicated by <19D302> Psalm 133:2, where it says that the precious oil ran down on Aaron’s beard and on the collar of his outer garment. Anyone attempting to make the holy anointing oil would be cut off from his people ( Exodus 30:33). The scented oils or ointments were kept in jars or vials (not boxes) made of alabaster. These jars are frequently found as part of the equipment of ancient tombs.

    The word translated “ointment” in the New Testament is [mu>ron, muron ], “myrrh.” This would indicate that myrrh, an aromatic gum resin, was the substance commonly added to the oil to give it odor. In Luke 7:46 both kinds of oil are mentioned, and the verse might be paraphrased thus: My head with common oil thou didst not anoint; but she hath anointed my feet with costly scented oil.

    For the uses of scented oils or ointments see ANOINTING; OIL. James A. Patch OLAMUS <ol’-a-mus > ([ jWlamo>v, Olamos ]): One of the Israelites who had taken a “strange wife” (1 Esdras 9:30) = “Meshullam” of Ezra 10:29.

    OLD <old > . See AGE, OLD.

    OLD GATE See JERUSALEM.

    OLD MAN ([palaio>v, palaios ], “old,” “ancient”): A term thrice used by Paul ( Romans 6:6; Ephesiansesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9) to signify the unrenewed man, the natural man in the corruption of sin, i.e. sinful human nature before conversion and regeneration. It is theologically synonymous with “flesh” ( Romans 8:3-9), which stands, not for bodily organism, but, for the whole nature of man (body and soul) turned away from God and devoted to self and earthly things.

    The old man is “in the flesh”; the new man “in the Spirit.” In the former “the works of the flesh” ( Galatians 5:19-21) are manifest; in the latter “the fruit of the Spirit” ( Galatians 5:22,23). One is “corrupt according to the deceitful lusts”; the other “created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesiansesians 4:22-24 the King James Version). See also MAN, NATURAL; MAN, NEW.

    Dwight M. Pratt OLD PROPHET, THE ([ ˆqez; dj;a, aybin; , nabhi’ ‘echadh zaqen ], “an old prophet” ( 1 Kings 13:11), [ ˆqeZ;h” aybiN;h” , ha-nabhi’ ha-zaqen ], “the old prophet” ( Kings 13:29)):

    1. THE NARRATIVE:

    The narrative of 1 Kings 13:11-32, in which the old prophet is mentioned, is part of a larger account telling of a visit paid to Bethel by “a man of God” from Judah. The Judean prophet uttered a curse upon the altar erected there by Jeroboam I. When the king attempted to use force against him, the prophet was saved by divine intervention; the king then invited him to receive royal hospitality, but he refused because of a command of God to him not to eat or drink there. The Judean then departed (13:1-10). An old prophet who lived in Bethel heard of the stranger’s words, and went after him and offered him hospitality. This offer too was refused. But when the old prophet resorted to falsehood and pleaded a divine command on the subject, the Judean returned with him.

    While at table the old prophet is given a message to declare that death will follow the southerner’s disobedience to the first command. A lion kills him on his way home. The old prophet hears of the death and explains it as due to disobedience to God; he then buries the dead body in his own grave and expresses a wish that he also at death should be buried in the same sepulcher.

    2. CRITICAL:

    There are several difficulties in the text. In 1 Kings 13:11, the King James Version reads “his sons came” instead of “one of his sons came,” and translation 1 Kings 13:12b: “And his sons shewed the way the man of God went.” There is a gap in the Massoretic Text after the word “table” in 13:20; and 13:23 should be translated, “And it came to pass after he had eaten bread and drunk water, that he saddled for himself the ass, and departed again” (following Septuagint, B with W. B. Stevenson, HDB, III, 594a, note).

    Benzinger (“Die Bucher der Konige,” Kurz. Hand-Komm. zum Altes Testament, 91) holds that we have here an example of a midrash, i.e. according to LOT, 529, “an imaginative development of a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, especially a didactic or homiletic exposition or an edifying religious story.” 2 Chronicles 24:27 refers to a “midhrash of the book of the kings,” and 2 Chronicles 13:22 to a “midrash of the prophet Iddo.” In 2 Chronicles 9:29 we have a reference to “the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat.” Josephus names the Judean prophet Jadon (Ant., VIII, viii, 5), and so some would trace this narrative to the midrash of Iddo, which would be a late Jewish work. There is a trace of late Hebrew in 1 Kings 13:3, and evidence in several places of a later editing of the original narrative. Kittel and Benzinger think it possible that the section may be based on a historical incident. If the narrative is historical in the main, the mention of Josiah by name in 13:2 may be a later insertion; if not historical, the prophecy there is Exodus eventu, and the whole section a midrash on 2 Kings 23:15-20.

    3. CENTRAL TRUTHS: (1) Several questions are suggested by the narrative, but in putting as well as in answering these questions, it must be remembered that the old prophet himself, as has been pointed out, is not the chief character of the piece. Hence, it is a little pointless to ask what became of the old prophet, or whether he was not punished for his falsehood. The passage should be studied, like the parables of Jesus, with an eye on the great central truth, which is, here, that God punishes disobedience even in “a man of God.” It is not inconsistent with this to regard the old prophet as an example of “Satan fashioning himself into an angel of light” ( 2 Corinthians 11:14), or of the beast which “had two horns like unto a lamb” ( Revelation 13:11). (2) It must also be remembered that the false prophets of the Old Testament are called prophets in spite of their false prophecies. So here the old prophet in spite of his former lie is given a divine message to declare that death will follow the other’s disobedience. (3) One other question suggests itself, and demands an answer. Why did the old prophet make the request that at death he should be buried in the same grave as the Judean ( 1 Kings 13:31)? The answer is implied in 1 Kings 13:32, and is more fully given in 2 Kings 23:15-20, where King Josiah defiles the graves of the prophets at Bethel. On seeing a “monument” or grave-stone by one of the graves, he inquires what it is, and is told that it marks the grave of the prophet from Judah. Thereupon he orders that his bones be not disturbed. With these the bones of the old prophet escape. Perhaps no clearer instance of a certain kind of meanness exists in the Old Testament. The very man who has been the cause of another’s downfall and ruin is base enough to plan his own escape under cover of the virtues of his victim.

    And the parallels in modern life are many. David Francis Roberts OLD TESTAMENT See TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    OLD TESTAMENT CANON See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGES See LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    OLEASTER <o-le-as’-ter > ( Isaiah 41:19 the Revised Version margin). See OIL TREE.

    OLIVE See OLIVE TREE.

    OLIVE BERRIES <ber’-iz > . See OLIVE TREE.

    OLIVE, GRAFTED See OLIVE TREE.

    OLIVE TREE <ol’-iv tre > ([ tyiz” , zayith ], a word occurring also in Aramaic, Ethiopic and Arabic; in the last it means “olive oil,” and zaitun , “the olive tree”; [ejlai>a, elaia ]):

    1. THE OLIVE TREE:

    The olive tree has all through history been one of the most characteristic, most valued and most useful of trees in Palestine. It is only right that it is the first named “king” of the trees ( Judges 9:8,9). When the children of Israel came to the land they acquired olive trees which they planted not ( Deuteronomy 6:11; compare Joshua 24:13). The cultivation of the olive goes back to the earliest times in Canaan. The frequent references in the Bible, the evidences (see 4 below) from archaeology and the important place the product of this tree has held in the economy of the inhabitants of Syria make it highly probable that this land is the actual home of the cultivated olive. The wild olive is indigenous there. The most fruitful trees are the product of bare and rocky ground (compare Deuteronomy 32:13) situated preferably at no great distance from the sea. The terraced hills of Palestine, where the earth lies never many inches above the limestone rocks, the long rainless summer of unbroken sunshine, and the heavy “clews” of the autumn afford conditions which are extraordinarily favorable to at least the indigenous olive.

    The olive, Olea Europaea (Natural Order Oleaceae), is a slow-growing tree, requiring years of patient labor before reaching full fruitfulness. Its growth implies a certain degree of settlement and peace, for a hostile army can in a few days destroy the patient work of two generations. Possibly this may have something to do with its being the emblem of peace. Enemies of a village or of an individual often today carry out revenge by cutting away a ring of bark from the trunks of the olives, thus killing the trees in a few months. The beauty of this tree is referred to in Jeremiah 11:16; Hosea 14:6, and its fruitfulness in <19C803> Psalm 128:3. The characteristic olive-green of its foliage, frosted silver below and the twisted and gnarled trunks — often hollow in the center — are some of the most picturesque and constant signs of settled habitations. In some parts of the land large plantations occur: the famous olive grove near Beirut is 5 miles square; there are also fine, ancient trees in great numbers near Bethlehem.

    In starting an oliveyard the fellah not infrequently plants young wild olive trees which grow plentifully over many parts of the land, or he may grow from cuttings. When the young trees are 3 years old they are grafted from a choice stock and after another three or four years they may commence to bear fruit, but they take quite a decade more before reaching full fruition.

    Much attention is, however, required. The soil around the trees must be frequently plowed and broken up; water must be conducted to the roots from the earliest rain, and the soil must be freely enriched with a kind of marl known in Arabic as chuwwarah. If neglected, the older trees soon send up a great many shoots from the roots all around the parent stem (perhaps the idea in <19C803> Psalm 128:3); these must be pruned away, although, should the parent stem decay, some of these may be capable of taking its place. Being, however, from the root, below the original point of grafting, they are of the wild olive type — with smaller, stiffer leaves and prickly stem — and need grafting before they are of use. The olive tree furnishes a wood valuable for many forms of carpentry, and in modern Palestine is extensively burnt as fuel.

    2. THE FRUIT:

    The olive is in flower about May; it produces clusters of small white flowers, springing from the axils of the leaves, which fall as showers to the ground ( Job 15:33). The first olives mature as early as September in some places, but, in the mountain districts, the olive harvest is not till November or even December. Much of the earliest fruit falls to the ground and is left by the owner ungathered until the harvest. The trees are beaten with long sticks ( Deuteronomy 24:20), the young folks often climbing into the branches to reach the highest fruit, while the women and older girls gather up the fruit from the ground. The immature fruit left after such an ingathering is described graphically in Isaiah 17:6: “There shall be left therein gleanings, as the shaking (margin “beating”) of an olive-tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost branches of a fruitful tree.” Such gleanings belonged to the poor ( Deuteronomy 24:20), as is the case today. Modern villages in Palestine allow the poor of even neighboring villages to glean the olives. The yield of an olive tree is very uncertain; a year of great fruitfulness may be followed by a very scanty crop or by a succession of such.

    The olive is an important article of diet in Palestine. Some are gathered green and pickled in brine, after slight bruising, and others, the “black” olives, are gathered quite ripe and are either packed in salt or in brine. In both cases the salt modifies the bitter taste. They are eaten with bread.

    More important commercially is the oil. This is sometimes extracted in a primitive way by crushing a few berries by hand in the hollow of a stone (compare Exodus 27:20), from which a shallow channel runs for the oil.

    It is an old custom to tread them by foot ( Micah 6:15).

    3. OLIVE OIL:

    Oil is obtained on a larger scale in one of the many varieties of oil mills.

    The berries are carried in baskets, by donkeys, to the mill, and they are crushed by heavy weights. A better class of oil can be obtained by collecting the first oil to come off separately, but not much attention is given to this in Palestine, and usually the berries are crushed, stones and all, by a circular millstone revolving upright round a central pivot. A plenteous harvest of oil was looked upon as one of God’s blessings ( Joel 2:24; 3:13). That the “labor of the olive” should fail was one of the trials to faith in Yahweh ( Habakkuk 3:17). Olive oil is extensively used as food, morsels of bread being dipped into it in eating; also medicinally ( Luke 10:34; James 5:14). In ancient times it was greatly used for anointing the person ( Psalm 23:5; Matthew 6:17). In Rome’s days of luxury it was a common maxim that a long and pleasant life depended upon two fiuids — “wine within and oil without.” In modern times this use of oil for the person is replaced by the employment of soap, which in Palestine is made from olive oil. In all ages this oil has been used for illumination ( Matthew 25:3).

    4. GREATER PLENTY OF OLIVE TREES IN ANCIENT TIMES:

    Comparatively plentiful as olive trees are today in Palestine, there is abundant evidence that the cultivation was once much more extensive. “The countless rock-cut oil-presses and wine-presses, both within and without the walls of the city (of Gezer), show that the cultivation of the olive and vine was of much greater importance than it is anywhere in Palestine today. .... Excessive taxation has made olive culture unprofitable” (“Gezer Mem,” PEF, II, 23). A further evidence of this is seen today in many now deserted sites which are covered with wild olive trees, descendants of large plantations of the cultivated tree which have quite disappeared.

    5. WILD OLIVES:

    Many of these spring from the old roots; others are from the fallen drupes.

    Isolated trees scattered over many parts of the land, especially in Galilee, are sown by the birds. As a rule the wild olive is but a shrub, with small leaves, a stem more or less prickly, and a small, hard drupe with but little or no oil. That a wild olive branch should be grafted into a fruitful tree would be a proceeding useless and contrary to Nature ( Romans 11:17,24). On the mention of “branches of wild olive” in Nehemiah 8:15, see OIL TREE. E. W. G. Masterman OLIVE, WILD Figuratively used in Romans 11:17,24 for the Gentiles, grafted into “the good olive tree” of Israel. See OLIVES TREE.

    OLIVE YARD <ol’-iv yard > . See OLIVE TREE.

    OLIVES, MOUNT OF <ol’-ivz > , ([ µytiyZeh”Arh” , har ha-zethim ] ( Zechariah 14:4), [ µytiyZeh”Ahle[\m” , ma`aleh ha-zethim ], “the ascent of the mount of Olives” ( 2 Samuel 15:30, the King James Version “the ascent of (mount) Olivet”); [to< o]rov tw~n ejlaiw~n, to oros ton elaion ], “the Mount of Olives” ( Matthew 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:37; 22:39; John 8:1), [to< o]rov to< kalou>menon ejlaiw~n, to oros to kaloumenon elaion ], “the mount that is called Olivet” ( Luke 19:29; 21:37; in both references in the King James Version “the mount called (the mount) of Olives”), [tou~ ejlaiw~nov, tou elaionos ] ( Acts 1:12, English Versions of the Bible “Olivet” literally, “olive garden”)):

    Olivet comes to us through the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Oliverum, “an oliveyard.”

    1. NAMES:

    Josephus frequently uses the expression “Mount of Olives” (e.g. Ant, VII, ix, 2; XX, viii, 6; BJ, V, ii, 3; xii, 2), but later Jewish writings give the name [ hj;v]Mih”Arh” , har ha-mishchah ], “Mount of Oil”; this occurs in some manuscripts in 2 Kings 23:13, and the common reading [ tyjiv]M”h”Arh” , har ha-mashchith ], “Mount of Corruption,” margin “destruction,” may possibly be a deliberate alteration (see below). In later ages the Mount was termed “the mountain of lights,” because here there used to be kindled at one time the first beacon light to announce throughout Jewry the appearance of the new moon.

    To the natives of Palestine today it is usually known as Jebel et Tar (“mountain of the elevation,” or “tower”), or, less commonly, as Jebel Tur ez zait (“mountain of the elevation of oil”). The name Jebel ez-zaitun (“Mount of Olives”) is also well known. Early Arabic writers use the term Tur Zait, “Mount of Oil.”

    2. SITUATION AND EXTENT:

    The mountain ridge which lies East of Jerusalem leaves the central range near the valley of Sha`phat and runs for about 2 miles due South. After culminating in the mountain mass on which lies the “Church of the Ascension,” it may be considered as giving off two branches: one lower one, which runs South-Southwest, forming the southern side of the Kidron valley, terminating at the Wady en Nar, and another, higher one, which slopes eastward and terminates a little beyond el-`Azareyeh (modern Bethany). The main ridge is considerably higher than the site of ancient Jerusalem, and still retains a thick cap of the soft chalky limestone, mixed with flint, known variously as Nari and Ka`kuli, which has been entirely denuded over the Jerusalem site ( see JERUSALEM, II, 1). The flints were the cause of a large settlement of paleolithic man which occurred in prehistoric times on the northern end of the ridge, while the soft chalky stone breaks down to form a soil valuable for the cultivation of olives and other trees and shrubs. The one drawback to arboriculture upon this ridge is the strong northwest wind which permanently bends most trees toward the Southeast, but affects the sturdy, slow-growing olive less than the quicker-growing pine. The eastern slopes are more sheltered. In respect of wind the Mount of Olives is far more exposed than the site of old Jerusalem.

    The lofty ridge of Olivet is visible from far, a fact now emphasized by the high Russian tower which can be seen for many scores of miles on the East of the Jordan. The range presents, from such a point of view particularly, a succession of summits. Taking as the northern limit the dip which is crossed by the ancient Anathoth (`anata) road, the most northerly summit is that now crowned by the house and garden of Sir John Gray Hill, 2,690 ft. above sea-level. This is sometimes incorrectly pointed out as Scopus, which lay farther to the Northwest. A second sharp dip in the ridge separates this northern summit from the next, a broad plateau now occupied by the great Kaiserin Augusta Victoria Stiftung and grounds. The road makes a sharp descent into a valley which is traversed from West to East by an important and ancient road from Jerusalem, which runs eastward along the Wady er Rawabeh. South of this dip lies the main mass of the mountain, that known characteristically as the Olivet of ecclesiastical tradition. This mass consists of two principal summits and two subsidiary spurs. The northern of the two main summits is that known as Karem es Sayyad, “the vineyard of the hunter,” and also as “Galilee,” or, more correctly, as Viri Galilaei (see below, 7). It reaches a height of 2,723 ft. above the Mediterranean and is separated from the southern summit by a narrow neck traversed today by the carriage road. The southern summit, of practically the same elevation, is the traditional “Mount of the Ascension,” and for several years has been distinguished by a lofty, though somewhat inartistic, tower erected by the Russians. The two subsidiary spurs referred to above are: (1) a somewhat isolated ridge running Southeast, upon which lies the squalid village of el `Azareyeh — Bethany; (2) a small spur running South, covered with grass, which is known as “the Prophets,” on account of a remarkable 4th-century Christian tomb found there, which is known as “the tomb of the Prophets” — a spot much venerated by modern Jews.

    A further extension of the ridge as Batn el Hawa, “the belly of the wind,” or traditionally as “the Mount of Offence” (compare 1 Kings 11:7; Kings 23:13), is usually included in the Mount of Olives, but its lower altitude — it is on a level with the temple-platform — and its position South of the city mark it off as practically a distinct hill. Upon its lower slopes are clustered the houses of Silwan (Siloam).

    The notices of the Mount of Olives in the Old Testament are, considering its nearness to Jerusalem, remarkably scanty.

    3. OLD TESTAMENT ASSOCIATIONS: (1) David’s Escape from Absalom: David fleeing before his rebellious son Absalom ( 2 Samuel 15:16) crossed the Kidron and “went up by the ascent of the mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered, and went barefoot: and all the people that were with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went ( 2 Samuel 15:30). .... And it came to pass, that, when David was come to the top of the ascent where he was wont to worship God, (m), behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head ( 2 Samuel 15:32). And when David was a little past the top of the ascent, behold, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of asses saddled, and upon them two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred clusters of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine” ( 2 Samuel 16:1).

    It is highly probable that David’s route to the wilderness was neither by the much-trodden Anathoth road nor over the summit of the mountain, but by the path running Northeast from the city, which runs between the Viri Galilaei hill and that supporting the German Sanatorium and descends into the wilderness by Wady er Rawabi. See BAHURIM. (2) The Vision of Ezekiel: Ezekiel in a vision (11:23) saw the glory of Yahweh go up from the midst of the city and stand “upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city” (compare 43:2). In connection with this the Rabbi Janna records the tradition that the shekhinah stood 3 1/2 years upon Olivet, and preached, saying, “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near” — a strange story to come from a Jewish source, suggesting some overt reference to Christ. (3) The Vision of Zechariah: In Zechariah 14:4 the prophet sees Yahweh in that day stand upon the Mount of Olives, “and the Mount of Olives shall be cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

    In addition to these direct references, Jewish tradition associates with this mount — this “mount of Corruption” — the rite of the red heifer (Numbers 19); and many authorities consider that this is also the mount referred to in Nehemiah 8:15, whence the people are directed to fetch olive branches, branches of wild olive, myrtle branches, palm branches and branches of thick trees to make their booths.

    4. HIGH PLACES:

    It is hardly possible that a spot with such a wide outlook — especially the marvelous view over the Jordan valley and Dead Sea to the lands of Ammon and Moab — should have been neglected in the days when Semitic religion crowned such spots with their sanctuaries. There is Old Testament evidence that there was a “high place” here. In the account of David’s flight mention is made of the spot on the summit “where he was wont to worship God” ( 2 Samuel 15:32 margin). This is certainly a reference to a sanctuary, and there are strong reasons for believing that this place may have been NOB (which see) (see 1 Samuel 21:1; 22:9,11,19; Nehemiah 11:32; but especially Isaiah 10:32). This last reference seems to imply a site more commanding in its outlook over the ancient city than Ras el Musharif proposed by Driver, one at least as far South as the Anathoth road, or even that from Wady er Rawabi. But besides this we have the definite statement ( 1 Kings 11:7): “Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, in the mount that is before (i.e. East of) Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon,” and the further account that the “high places that were before (East of) Jerusalem, which were on the right hand (South) of the mount of corruption (margin “destruction”) which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king (Josiah) defile” ( 2 Kings 23:13). That these high places were somewhere upon what is generally recognized as the Mount of Olives, seems clear, and the most probable site is the main mass where are today the Christian sanctuaries, though Graetz and Dean Stanley favor the summit known as Viri Galilaei. It is the recognition of this which has kept alive the Jewish name “Mount of Corruption” for this mount to this day. The term Mons offensionis, given to the southeastern extension, South of the city, is merely an ecclesiastical tradidition going back to Quaresmius in the 17th century, which is repeated by Burckhardt (1823 AD).

    5. OLIVET AND JESUS:

    More important to us are the New Testament associations of this sacred spot. In those days the mountain must have been far different from its condition today. Titus in his siege of Jerusalem destroyed all the timber here as elsewhere in the environs, but before this the hillsides must have been clothed with verdure — oliveyards, fig orchards and palm groves, with myrtle and other shrubs. Here in the fresh breezes and among the thick foliage, Jesus, the country-bred Galilean, must gladly have taken Himself from the noise and closeness of the over-crowded city. It is to the Passion Week, with the exception of John 8:1, that all the incidents belong which are expressly mentioned as occurring on the Mount of Olives; while there would be a special reason at this time in the densely packed city, it is probable that on other occasions also our Lord preferred to stay outside the walls. Bethany would indeed appear to have been His home in Judea, as Capernaum was in Galilee. Here we read of Him as staying with Mary and Martha ( Luke 10:38-42); again He comes to Bethany from the wilderness road from Jericho for the raising of Lazarus (John 11), and later He is at a feast, six days before the Passover ( John 12:1), at the house of Simon ( Matthew 26:6-12; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-9). The Mount of Olives is expressly mentioned in many of the events of the Passion Week. He approached Jerusalem, “unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives” ( Mark 11:1; Matthew 21:1; Luke 19:29); over a shoulder of this mount — very probably by the route of the present Jericho carriage road — He made His triumphal entry to the city (Matthew 21; Mark 11; Luke 19), and on this road, when probably the full sight of the city first burst into view, He wept over Jerusalem ( Luke 19:41). During all that week “every day he was teaching in the temple; and every night he went out, and lodged in the mount that is called Olivet” ( Luke 21:37) — the special part of the mount being Bethany ( Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11). It was on the road from Bethany that He gave the sign of the withering of the fruitless fig tree ( Matthew 21:17-19; Mark 11:12-14,20-24), and “as he sat on the mount of Olives” ( Matthew 24:3 f; Mark 13:3 f) Jesus gave His memorable sermon with the doomed city lying below Him.

    On the lower slopes of Olivet, in the GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE (which see), Jesus endured His agony, the betrayal and arrest, while upon one of its higher points — not, as tradition has it, on the inhabited highest summit, but on the secluded eastern slopes “over against Bethany” ( Luke 24:50-52) — He took leave of His disciples (compare Acts 1:12).

    6. VIEW OF THE CITY FROM OLIVET:

    The view of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives must ever be one of the most striking impressions which any visitor to Jerusalem carries away with him. It has been described countless times. It is today a view but of ruin and departed glory compared with that over which Jesus wept. A modern writer with historic imagination has thus graphically sketched the salient features of that sight: “We are standing on the road from Bethany as it breaks round the Mount of Olives and on looking northwest this is what we see. .... There spreads a vast stone stage, almost rectangular, some 400 yards. North and South by 300 East and West, held up above Ophel and the Kidron valley by a high and massive wall, from 50 to 150 ft. and more in height, according to the levels of the rock from which it rises. Deep cloisters surround this platform on the inside of the walls. .... Every gate has its watch and other guards patrol the courts. The crowds, which pour through the south gates upon the platform for the most part keep to the right; the exceptions, turning westward, are excommunicated or in mourning. But the crowd are not all Israelites. Numbers of Gentiles mingle with them; there are costumes and colors from all lands. In the cloisters sit teachers with groups of disciples about them. On the open pavement stand the booths of hucksters and money-changers; and from the North sheep and bullocks are being driven toward the Inner Sanctuary. This lies not in the center of the great platform, but in the northwest corner. It is a separately fortified, oblong enclosure; its high walls with their 9 gates rising from a narrow terrace at a slight elevation above the platform and the terrace encompassed by a fence within which none but Israelites may pass. .... Upon its higher western end rises a house `like a lion broad in front and narrow behind.’ .... From the open porch of this house stone steps descend to a great block of an altar perpetually smoking with sacrifices. .... Off the Northwest of the Outer Sanctuary a castle (the Antonia) dominates the whole with its 4 lofty towers. Beyond .... the Upper City rises in curved tiers like a theater, while all the lower slopes to the South are a crowded mass of houses, girded by the eastern wall of the city. Against that crowded background the sanctuary with its high house gleams white and fresh. But the front of the house, glittering with gold plates, is obscured by a column of smoke rising from the altar; and the Priests’ Court about the latter is colored by the slaughterers and sacrifices — a splash of red, as our imagination takes it, in the center of the prevailing white. At intervals there are bursts of music; the singing of psalms, the clash of cymbals and a great blare of trumpets, at which the people in their court in the Inner Sanctuary fall down and worship” (extracts from G.A. Smith’s Jerusalem, II, 518-20).

    7. CHURCHES AND ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITIONS:

    To the Bible student the New Testament is the best guide to Olivet; tradition and “sites” only bewilder him. Once the main hilltop was a mass of churches. There was the “Church of the Ascension” to mark the spot whereby tradition (contrary to the direct statement of Luke) states that the Ascension occurred; now the site is marked by a small octagonal chapel, built in 1834, which is in the hands of the Moslems. There a “footprint of Christ” is shown in the rock. A large basilica of Helena was built over the place where it was said that Christ taught His disciples. In 1869 the Princess de Latour d’Auvergne, learning that there was a Moslem tradition that this site was at a spot called el Battaniyeh south of the summit, here erected a beautiful church known as the Church of the Pater Noster and around the courtyard she had the Lord’s Prayer inscribed in 32 languages.

    When the church was in course of erection certain fragments of old walls and mosaics were found, but, in 1911, as a result of a careful excavation of the site, the foundations of a more extensive mass of old buildings, with some beautiful mosaic in the baptistry, were revealed in the neighborhood; there is little doubt but that these foundations belonged to the actual Basilica of Helena. It is proposed to rebuild the church.

    Mention has been made of the name Viri Galilaei or Galilee as given to the northern summit of the main mass of Olivet. The name “Mount Galilee” appears to have been first given to this hill early in the 4th century and in 1573 AD Rawolf explains the name by the statement that here was in ancient times a khan where the Galileans lodged who came up to Jerusalem. In 1620 Quaresmius applies the names “Galilee” and Viri Galilaei to this site and thinks the latter name may be due to its having been the spot where the two angels appeared and addressed the disciples as “Ye men of Galilee” ( Acts 1:11). Attempts have been made, without much success, to maintain that this “Galilee” was the spot which our Lord intended ( Matthew 28:10,16) to indicate to His disciples as the place of meeting.

    The Russian enclosure includes a chapel, a lofty tower — from which a magnificent view is obtainable — a hospice and a pleasant pine grove.

    Between the Russian buildings to the North and the Church of the Ascension lies the squalid village of et tur, inhabited by a peculiarly turbulent and rapacious crowd of Moslems, who prey upon the passing pilgrims and do much to spoil the sentiment of a visit to this sacred spot. It is possible it may be the original site of BETHPHAGE (which see).

    LITERATURE.

    PEF, Memoirs, “Jerusalem” volume; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem; Robinson, BRP, I, 1838; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine; Baedeker’s Palestine and Syria (by Socin and Bensinger); Tobler, Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg, 1852; Porter, Murray’s Palestine and Syria; R. Hofmann, Galilaea auf dem Oelberg, Leipzig, 1896; Schick, “The Mount of Olives,” PEFS, 1889, 174- 84; Warren, article “Mount of Olives,” in HDB; Gauthier, in EB, under the word; Vincent (Pere), “The Tombs of the Prophets,” Revue Biblique, 1901. E. W. G. Masterman OLIVET <ol’-i-vet > . See OLIVES, MOUNT OF.

    OLYMPAS <o-lim’-pas > ([ jOumpaOlumpas ]): The name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings ( Romans 16:15). Olympas is an abbreviated form of Olympiadorus. The joining in one salutation of the Christians mentioned in 16:15 suggests that they formed by themselves a small community in the earliest Roman church.

    OLYMPIUS <o-lim’-pi-us > ([ jOlu>mpiov, Olumpios ]): An epithet of JUPITER or ZEUS (which see) from Matthew. Olympus in Thessaly, where the gods held court presided over by Zeus. Antiochus Epiphanes, “who on God’s altars dansed,” insulted the Jewish religion by dedicating the temple of Jerusalem to Jupiter Olympius, 168 BC (2 Macc 6:2; 1 Macc 1:54 ff).

    OMAERUS <om-a-e’-rus > : the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) “Ismaerus” (1 Esdras 9:34).

    OMAR <o’-mar > ([ rm;wa , omar ], connected perhaps with ‘amar , “speak”; Septuagint [ jWma>n, Oman ] or [ jWma>r, Omar ]): Grandson of Esau and son of Eliphaz in Genesis 36:11; 1 Chronicles 1:36; given the title “duke” or “chief” in Genesis 36:15.

    OMEGA <o’-me-ga > <o-me’-ga > <o-meg’-a > . See ALPHA AND OMEGA.

    OMENS <o’-menz > . See AUGARY; DIVINATION.

    OMER <o’-mer > ([ rm,[o , `omer ]): A dry measure, the tenth of an ephah, equal to about 7 1/2 pints. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

    OMNIPOTENCE <om-nip’-o-tens > :

    1. TERMS AND USAGE:

    The noun “omnipotence” is not found in the English Bible, nor any noun exactly corresponding to it in the original Hebrew or Greek The adjective “omnipotent” occurs in Revelation 19:6 the King James Version; the Greek for this, [pantokra>twr, pantokrator ], occurs also in 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:15; 21:22 (in all of which the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render “almighty”). It is also found frequently in the Septuagint, especially in the rendering of the divine names Yahweh tsebha’oth and ‘El Shadday . In pantokrator , the element of “authority,” “sovereignty,” side by side with that of “power,” makes itself more distinctly felt than it does to the modern ear in “omnipotent,” although it is meant to be included in the latter also. Compare further [oJ du>natov, ho dunatos ], in Luke 1:49.

    2. INHERENT IN OLD TESTAMENT NAMES OF GOD:

    The formal conception of omnipotence as worked out in theology does not occur in the Old Testament. The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways. The notion of “strength” is inherent in the Old Testament conception of God from the beginning, being already represented in one of the two divine names inherited by Israel from ancient Semitic religion, the name ‘El . According to one etymology it is also inherent in the other, the name ‘Elohim , and in this case the plural form, by bringing out the fullness of power in God, would mark an approach to the idea of omnipotence. See GOD, NAMES OF.

    In the patriarchal religion the conception of “might” occupies a prominent place, as is indicated by the name characteristic of this period, ‘El Shadday ; compare Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:24,25; Exodus 6:3. This name, however, designates the divine power as standing in the service of His covenant-relation to the patriarchs, as transcending Nature and overpowering it in the interests of redemption.

    Another divine name which signalizes this attribute is Yahweh tsebha’oth , Yahweh of Hosts. This name, characteristic of the prophetic period, describes God as the King surrounded and followed by the angelic hosts, and since the might of an oriental king is measured by the splendor of his retinue, as of great, incomparable power, the King Omnipotent ( Psalm 24:10; Isaiah 2:12; 6:3,5; 8:13; Jeremiah 46:18; Malachi 1:14).

    Still another name expressive of the same idea is ‘Abhir , “Strong One,” compounded with Jacob or Israel ( Genesis 49:24; <19D202> Psalm 132:2,5; Isaiah 1:24; 49:26; 60:16). Further, ‘El Gibbor , “God-Hero” ( Isaiah 9:6 (of the Messiah); compare for the adjective gibbor , Jeremiah 20:11); and the figurative designation of God as Tsur , “Rock,” occurring especially in the address to God in the Psalter ( Isaiah 30:29, the King James Version “Mighty One”). The specific energy with which the divine nature operates finds expression also in the name ‘El Chay , “Living God,” which God bears over against the impotent idols ( 1 Samuel 17:26,36; 2 Kings 19:4,16; Psalm 18:46; Jeremiah 23:36; Daniel 6:20,26 f). An anthropomorphic description of the power of God is in the figures of “hand,” His “arm,” His “finger.” See GOD.

    3. OTHER MODES OF EXPRESSION:

    Some of the attributes of Yahweh have an intimate connection with His omnipotence. Under this head especially God’s nature as Spirit and His holiness come under consideration. The representation of God as Spirit in the Old Testament does not primarily refer to the incorporealness of the divine nature, but to its inherent energy. The physical element underlying the conception of Spirit is that of air in motion, and in this at first not the invisibility but the force forms the point of comparison. The opposite of “Spirit” in this sense is “flesh,” which expresses the weakness and impotence of the creature over against God ( Isaiah 2:22; 31:3).

    The holiness of God in its earliest and widest sense (not restricted to the ethical sphere) describes the majestic, specifically divine character of His being, that which evokes in man religious awe. It is not a single attribute coordinated with others, but a peculiar aspect under which all the attributes can be viewed, that which renders them distinct from anything analogous in the creature ( 1 Samuel 2:2; Hosea 11:9). In this way holiness becomes closely associated with the power of God, indeed sometimes becomes synonymous with divine power = omnipotence ( Exodus 15:11; Numbers 20:12), and especially in Ezk, where God’s “holy name” is often equivalent to His renown for power, hence, interchangeable with His “great name” ( Ezekiel 36:20-24). The objective Spirit as a distinct hypostasis and the executive of the Godhead on its one side also represents the divine power ( Isaiah 32:15; Matthew 12:28; Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 10:38; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:4).

    4. UNLIMITED EXTENT OF THE DIVINE POWER:

    In all these forms of expression a great and specifically divine power is predicated of God. Statements in which the absolutely unlimited extent of this power is explicitly affirmed are rare. The reason, however, lies not in any actual restriction placed on this power, but in the concrete practical form of religious thinking which prevents abstract formulation of the principle. The point to be noticed is that no statement is anywhere made exempting aught from the reach of divine power. Nearest to a general formula come such statements as nothing is “too hard for Yahweh” ( Genesis 18:14; Jeremiah 32:17); or “I know that thou canst do everything?” or “God .... hath done whatever he pleased” ( <19B503> Psalm 115:3; 135:6), or, negatively, no one “can hinder” God, in carrying out His purpose ( Isaiah 43:13), or God’s hand is not “waxed short” ( Numbers 11:23); in the New Testament: “With God all things are possible” ( Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27); “Nothing is impossible with God” (the Revised Version (British and American) “No word from God shall be void of power,” Luke 1:37). Indirectly the omnipotence of God is implied in the effect ascribed to faith ( Matthew 17:20: “Nothing shall be impossible unto you”; Mark 9:23: “All things are possible to him that believeth”), because faith puts the divine power at the disposal of the believer. On its subjective side the principle of inexhaustible power finds expression in Isaiah 40:28: God is not subject to weariness. Because God is conscious of the unlimited extent of His resources nothing is marvelous in His eyes ( Zechariah 8:6).

    5. FORMS OF MANIFESTATION:

    It is chiefly through its forms of manifestation that the distinctive quality of the divine power which renders it omnipotent becomes apparent. The divine power operates not merely in single concrete acts, but is comprehensively related to the world as such. Both in Nature and history, in creation and in redemption, it produces and controls and directs everything that comes to pass. Nothing in the realm of actual or conceivable things is withdrawn from it ( Amos 9:2,3; Daniel 4:35); even to the minutest and most recondite sequences of cause and effect it extends and masters all details of reality ( Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7). There is no accident ( 1 Samuel 6:9; compare with 6:12; Proverbs 16:33). It need not operate through second causes; it itself underlies all second causes and makes them what they are.

    It is creative power producing its effect through a mere word ( Genesis 1:3 ff; Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm 33:9; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 1:3; 11:30). Among the prophets, especially Isaiah emphasizes this manner of the working of the divine power in its immediateness and suddenness ( Isaiah 9:8; 17:13; 18:4-6; 29:5). All the processes of nature are ascribed to the causation of Yahweh ( Job 5:9 ff; 9:5 ff; chapters 38 and 39; Isaiah 40:12 ff; Amos 4:13; 5:8,9; 9:5,6); especially God’s control of the sea is named as illustrative of this ( Psalm 65:7; 104:9; Isaiah 50:2; Jeremiah 5:22; 31:35). The Old Testament seldom says “it rains” ( Amos 4:7), but usually God causes it to rain ( Leviticus 26:4; Deuteronomy 11:17; 1 Samuel 12:17; Job 36:27; Psalms 29 and 65; Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17).

    The same is true of the processes of history. God sovereignly disposes, not merely of Israel, but of all other nations, even of the most powerful, e.g. the Assyrians, as His instruments for the accomplishment of His purpose (Amos 1 through 2:3; 9:7; Isaiah 10:5,15; 28:2; 45:1; Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). The prophets ascribe to Yahweh not merely relatively greater power than to the gods of the nations, but His power extends into the sphere of the nations, and the heathen gods are ignored in the estimate put upon His might ( Isaiah 31:3).

    Even more than the sphere of Nature and history, that of redemption reveals the divine omnipotence, from the point of view of the supernatural and miraculous. Thus Exodus 15 celebrates the power of Yahweh in the wonders of the exodus. It is God’s exclusive prerogative to do wonders ( Job 5:9; 9:10; Psalm 72:18); He alone can make “a new thing” ( Numbers 16:30; Isaiah 43:19; Jeremiah 31:22). In the New Testament the great embodiment of this redemptive omnipotence is the resurrection of believers ( Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24) and specifically the resurrection of Christ ( Romans 4:17,21,24; Ephesiansesians 1:19 ff); but it is evidenced in the whole process of redemption ( Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Romans 8:31; Ephesiansesians 3:7,20; 1 Peter 1:5; Revelation 11:17).

    6. SIGNIFICANCE FOR BIBLICAL RELIGION:

    The significance of the idea may be traced along two distinct lines. On the one hand the divine omnipotence appears as a support of faith. On the other hand it is productlye of that specifically religious state of consciousness which Scripture calls “the fear of Yahweh.” Omnipotence in God is that to which human faith addresses itself. In it lies the ground for assurance that He is able to save, as in His love that He is willing to save ( Psalm 65:5,6; 72:18; 118:14-16; Ephesiansesians 3:20).

    As to the other aspect of its significance, the divine omnipotence in itself, and not merely for soteriological reasons, evokes a specific religious response. This is true, not only of the Old Testament, where the element of the fear of God stands comparatively in the foreground, but remains true also of the New Testament. Even in our Lord’s teaching the prominence given to the fatherhood and love of God does not preclude that the transcendent majesty of the divine nature, including omnipotence, is kept in full view and made a potent factor in the cultivation of the religious mind ( Matthew 6:9). The beauty of Jesus’ teaching on the nature of God consists in this, that He keeps the exaltation of God above every creature and His loving condescension toward the creature in perfect equilibrium and makes them mutually fructified by each other. Religion is more than the inclusion of God in the general altruistic movement of the human mind; it is a devotion at every point colored by the consciousness of that divine uniqueness in which God’s omnipotence occupies a foremost place.

    LITERATURE.

    Oehler, Theologie des A T (3) , 131, 139 ff; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie, 250 ff; Dillmann, Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, 244; Davidson, Old Testament Theology, 163 ff; Konig, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, 127, 135 ff, 391, 475. Geerhardus Vos OMNIPRESENCE <om-ni-prez’-ens > :

    1. NON-OCCURRENCE OF THE TERM IN SCRIPTURE:

    Neither the noun “omnipresence” nor adjective “omnipresent” occurs in Scripture, but the idea that God is everywhere present is throughout presupposed and sometimes explicitly formulated. God’s omnipresence is closely related to His omnipotence and omniscience: that He is everywhere enables Him to act everywhere and to know all things, and, conversely, through omnipotent action and omniscient knowledge He has access to all places and all secrets (compare Psalm 139). Thus conceived, the attribute is but the correlate of the monotheistic conception of God as the Infinite Creator, Preserver and Governor of the universe, immanent in His works as well as transcendent above them.

    2. PHILOSOPHICAL AND POPULAR IDEAS OF OMNIPRESENCE:

    The philosophical idea of omnipresence is that of exemption from the limitations of space, subjectively as well as objectively; subjectively, in so far as space, which is a necessary form of all created consciousness in the sphere of sense-perception, is not thus constitutionally inherent in the mind of God; objectively, in so far as the actuality of space-relations in the created world imposes no limit upon the presence and operation of God.

    This metaphysical conception of transcendence above all space is, of course, foreign to the Bible, which in regard to this, as in regard to the other transcendent attributes, clothes the truth of revelation in popular language, and speaks of exemption from the limitations of space in terms and figures derived from space itself. Thus, the very term “omnipresence” in its two component parts “everywhere” and “present” contains a double inadequacy of expression, both the notion of “everywhere” and that of “presence” being spacial concepts. Another point, in regard to which the popular nature of the Scriptural teaching on this subject must be kept in mind, concerns the mode of the divine omnipresence. In treating the concept philosophically, it is of importance to distinguish between its application to the essence, to the activity, and to the knowledge of God.

    The Bible does not draw these distinctions in the abstract. Although sometimes it speaks of God’s omnipresence with reference to the pervasive immanence of His being, it frequently contents itself with affirming the universal extent of God’s power and knowledge ( Deuteronomy 4:39; 10:14; <19D906> Psalm 139:6-16; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23,24; Amos 9:2).

    3. THEORIES DENYING OMNIPRESENCE OF BEING:

    This observation has given rise to theories of a mere omnipresence of power or omnipresence by an act of will, as distinct from an omnipresence of being. But it is plain that in this antithetical form such a distinction is foreign to the intent of the Biblical statements in question. The writers in these passages content themselves with describing the practical effects of the attribute without reflecting upon the difference between this and its ontological aspect; the latter is neither affirmed nor denied. That no denial of the omnipresence of being is intended may be seen from Jeremiah 23:24, where in the former half of the verse the omnipresence of 23:23 is expressed in terms of omniscience, while in the latter half the idea finds ontological expression. Similarly, in Psalm 139, compare verse 2 with verses 7 ff, and verses 13 ff. As here, so in other passages the presence of God with His being in all space is explicitly affirmed ( 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; Isaiah 66:1; Acts 17:28).

    4. DENIAL OF THE PRESENCE OF THE IDEA IN THE EARLIER PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

    Omnipresence being the correlate of monotheism, the presence of the idea in the earlier parts of the Old Testament is denied by all those who assign the development of monotheism in the Old Testament religion to the prophetic period from the 8th century onward. It is undoubtedly true that the earliest narratives speak very anthropomorphically of God’s relation to space; they describe Him as coming and going in language such as might be used of a human person. But it does not follow from this that the writers who do so conceive of God’s being as circumscribed by space. Where such forms of statement occur, not the presence of God in general, but His visible presence in theophany is referred to. If from the local element entering into the description God’s subjection to the limitations of space were inferred, then one might with equal warrant, on the basis of the physical, sensual elements entering into the representation, impute to the writers the view that the divine nature is corporeal.

    5. THE SPECIAL REDEMPTIVE AND REVELATORY PRESENCE OF GOD:

    The theophanic form of appearance does not disclose what God is ontologically in Himself, but merely how He condescends to appear and work for the redemption of His people. It establishes a redemptive and revelatory presence in definite localities, which does not, in the mind of the writer, detract from the divine omnipresence. Hence, it is not confined to one place; the altars built in recognition of it are in patriarchal history erected in several places and coexist as each and all offering access to the special divine presence. It is significant that already during the patriarchal period these theophanies and the altars connected with them are confined to the Holy Land. This shows that the idea embodied in them has nothing to do with a crude conception of the Deity as locally circumscribed, but marks the beginning of that gradual restoration of the gracious presence of God to fallen humanity, the completion of which forms the goal of redemption. Thus, God is said to dwell in the ark, in the tabernacle, on Matthew. Zion ( Numbers 10:35; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 3:4; 99:1); in the temple (1 Kings 8; Psalm 20:2; 26:8; 46:5; 48:2; Isaiah 8:18; Joel 3:16,21; Amos 1:2); in the Holy Land ( 1 Samuel 26:19; Hosea 9:3); in Christ ( John 1:14; 2:19; Colossians 2:9); in the church ( John 14:23; Romans 8:9,11; Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; Ephesiansesians 2:21,22; 3:11; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:21; 1 Peter 2:5); in the eschatological assembly of His people ( Revelation 21:3). In the light of the same principle must be interpreted the presence of God in heaven. This also is not to be understood as an ontological presence, but as a presence of specific theocratic manifestation ( 1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 2:4; 11:4; 33:13 ff; 104:3; Isaiah 6:1 ff; 63:15; 66:1; Habakkuk 2:20; Matthew 5:34; 6:9; Acts 7:48; 17:28; Ephesiansesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3). How little this is meant to exclude the presence of God elsewhere may be seen from the fact that the two representations, that of God’s self-manifestation in heaven and in the earthly sanctuary, occur side by side ( 1 Kings 8:26-53; Psalm 20:2-6; Amos 9:6). It has been alleged that the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven marks a comparatively late attainment in the religion of Israel, of which in the pre-prophetic period no trace can as yet be discovered (so Stade, Bibl. Theol. des Altes Testament, I, 103, 104).

    There are, however, a number of passages in the Pentateuch bearing witness to the early existence of this belief ( Genesis 11:1-9; 19:24; 21:17; 22:11; 28:12). Yahweh comes, according to the belief of the earliest period, with the clouds ( Exodus 14:19,20; 19:9,18; 24:15; Numbers 11:25; 12:5). That even in the opinion of the people Yahweh’s local presence in an earthly sanctuary need not have excluded Him from heaven follows also from the unhesitating belief in His simultaneous presence in a plurality of sanctuaries. If it was not a question of locally circumscribed presence as between sanctuary and sanctuary, it need not have been as between earth and heaven (compare Gunkel, Genesis, 157).

    6. RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE:

    Both from a generally religious and from a specifically soteriological point of view the omnipresence of God is of great practical importance for the religious life. In the former respect it contains the guaranty that the actual nearness of God and a real communion with Him may be enjoyed everywhere, even apart from the places hallowed for such purpose by a specific gracious self-manifestation ( <19D905> Psalm 139:5-10). In the other respect the divine omnipresence assures the believer that God is at hand to save in every place where from any danger or foe His people need salvation ( Isaiah 43:2).

    LITERATURE.

    Oehler, Theologie des A T (3) , 174 ff; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie, 262 ff; Dillmann, Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, 246 ff; Davidson, Old Testament Theology, 180 ff; Konig, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, 197 ff. Geerhardus Vos OMNISCIENCE <om-nish’-ens > : The term does not occur in Scripture, either in its nominal or in its adjectival form.

    1. WORDS AND USAGE:

    In the Old Testament it is expressed in connection with such words as [ t[“D” , da’ath ], [ hn;yBi , binah ], [ hn;WbT] , tebhunah ], [ hm;k]j; , chokhmah ]; also “seeing” and “hearing,” “the eye” and “the ear” occur as figures for the knowledge of God, as “arm,” “hand,” “finger” serve to express His power. In the New Testament are found [ginw>skein, ginoskein ], [gnw~siv, gnosis ], [eijde>nai, eidenai ], [sofi>a, sophia ], in the same connections.

    2. TACIT ASSUMPTION AND EXPLICIT AFFIRMATION:

    Scripture everywhere teaches the absolute universality of the divine knowledge. In the historical books, although there is no abstract formula, and occasional anthropomorphic references to God’staking knowledge of things occur ( Genesis 11:5; 18:21; Deuteronomy 8:3), none the less the principle is everywhere presupposed in what is related about God’s cognizance of the doings of man, about the hearing of prayer, the disclosing of the future ( 1 Samuel 16:7; 23:9-12; 1 Kings 8:39; Chronicles 16:9). Explicit affirmation of the principle is made in the Psalter, the Prophets, the [chokhmah] literature and in the New Testament.

    This is due to the increased internalizing of religion, by which its hidden side, to which the divine omniscience corresponds, receives greater emphasis ( Job 26:6; 28:24; 34:22; <19D912> Psalm 139:12; 147:4; Proverbs 15:3,11; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23).

    3. EXTENDS TO ALL SPHERES:

    This absolute universality is affirmed with reference to the various categories that comprise within themselves all that is possible or actual. It extends to God’s own being, as well as to what exists outside of Him in the created world. God has perfect possession in consciousness of His own being. The unconscious finds no place in Him ( Acts 15:18; 1 John 1:5). Next to Himself God knows the world in its totality. This knowledge extends to small as well as to great affairs ( Matthew 6:8,32; 10:30); to the hidden heart and mind of man as well as to that which is open and manifest ( Job 11:11; 34:21,23; Psalm 14:2; 17:2 ff; 33:13-18; 102:19 f; 139:1-4; Proverbs 5:21; 15:3; Isaiah 29:15; Jeremiah 17:10; Amos 4:13; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23). It extends to all the divisions of time, the past, present and future alike ( Job 14:17; Psalm 56:8; Isaiah 41:22-24; 44:6-8; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:12; Malachi 3:16). It embraces that which is contingent from the human viewpoint as well as that which is certain ( 1 Samuel 23:9-12; Matthew 11:22,23).

    4. MODE OF THE DIVINE KNOWLEDGE:

    Scripture brings God’s knowledge into connection with His omnipresence.

    Psalm 139 is the clearest expression of this. Omniscience is the omnipresence of cognition ( Jeremiah 23:23 ff). It is also closely related to God’s eternity, for the latter makes Him in His knowledge independent of the limitations of time ( Isaiah 43:8-12). God’s creative relation to all that exists is represented as underlying His omniscience ( Psalm 33:15; 97:9; 139:13; Isaiah 29:15). His all-comprehensive purpose forms the basis of His knowledge of all events and developments ( Isaiah 41:22-27; Amos 3:7).

    This, however, does not mean that God’s knowledge of things is identical with His creation of them, as has been suggested by Augustine and others.

    The act of creation, while necessarily connected with the knowledge of that which is to be actual, is not identical with such knowledge or with the purpose on which such knowledge rests, for in God, as well as in man, the intellect and the will are distinct faculties. In the last analysis, God’s knowledge of the world has its source in His self-knowledge. The world is a revelation of God. All that is actual or possible in it therefore is a reflection in created form of what exists uncreated in God, and thus the knowledge of the one becomes a reproduction of the knowledge of the other ( Acts 17:27; Romans 1:20). The divine knowledge of the world also partakes of the quality of the divine self-knowledge in this respect, that it is never dormant. God does not depend for embracing the multitude and complexity of the existing world on such mental processes as abstraction and generalization.

    The Bible nowhere represents Him as attaining to knowledge by reasoning, but everywhere as simply knowing. From what has been said about the immanent sources of the divine knowledge, it follows that the latter is not a posteriori derived from its objects, as all human knowledge based on experience is, but is exercised without receptivity or dependence. In knowing, as well as in all other activities of His nature, God is sovereign and self-sufficient. In cognizing the reality of all things He needs not wait upon the things, but draws His knowledge directly from the basis of reality as it lies in Himself. While the two are thus closely connected it is nevertheless of importance to distinguish between God’s knowledge of Himself and God’s knowledge of the world, and also between His knowledge of the actual and His knowledge of the possible. These distinctions mark off theistic conception of omniscience from the pantheistic idea regarding it. God is not bound up in His life with the world in such a sense as to have no scope of activity beyond it.

    5. GOD’S OMNISCIENCE AND HUMAN FREEWILL:

    Since Scripture includes in the objects of the divine knowledge also the issue of the exercise of freewill on the part of man, the problem arises, how the contingent character of such decisions and the certainty of the divine knowledge can coexist. It is true that the knowledge of God and the purposing will of God are distinct, and that not the former but the latter determines the certainty of the outcome. Consequently the divine omniscience in such cases adds or detracts nothing in regard to the certainty of the event. God’s omniscience does not produce but presupposes the certainty by which the problem is raised. At the same time, precisely because omniscience presupposes certainty, it appears to exclude every conception of contingency in the free acts of man, such as would render the latter in their very essence undetermined. The knowledge of the issue must have a fixed point of certainty to terminate upon, if it is to be knowledge at all. Those who make the essence of freedom absolute indeterminateness must, therefore, exempt this class of events from the scope of the divine omniscience. But this is contrary to all the testimony of Scripture, which distinctly makes God’s absolute knowledge extend to such acts ( Acts 2:23). It has been attempted to construe a peculiar form of the divine knowledge, which would relate to this class of acts specifically, the so-called scientia media, to be distinguished from the scientia necessaria, which has for its object God Himself, and the scientia libera which terminates upon the certainties of the world outside of God, as determined by His freewill. This scientia media would then be based on God’s foresight of the outcome of the free choice of man. It would involve a knowledge of receptivity, a contribution to the sum total of what God knows derived from observation on His part of the world-process. That is to say, it would be knowledge a posteriori in essence, although not in point of time. It is, however, difficult to see how such a knowledge can be possible in God, when the outcome is psychologically undetermined and undeterminable. The knowledge could originate no sooner than the determination originates through the free decision of man. It would, therefore, necessarily become an a posteriori knowledge in time as well as in essence. The appeal to God’s eternity as bringing Him equally near to the future as to the present and enabling Him to see the future decisions of man’s free will as though they were present cannot remove this difficulty, for when once the observation and knowledge of God are made dependent on any temporal issue, the divine eternity itself is thereby virtually denied.

    Nothing remains but to recognize that God’s eternal knowledge of the outcome of the freewill choices of man implies that there enters into these choices, notwithstanding their free character, an element of predetermination, to which the knowledge of God can attach itself.

    6. RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE:

    The divine omniscience is most important for the religious life. The very essence of religion as communion with God depends on His allcomprehensive cognizance of the life of man at every moment. Hence, it is characteristic of the irreligious to deny the omniscience of God ( Psalm 10:11,12; 94:7-9; Isaiah 29:15; Jeremiah 23:23; Ezekiel 8:12; 9:9). Especially along three lines this fundamental religious importance reveals itself: (a) it lends support and comfort when the pious suffer from the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of men; (b) it acts as a deterrent to those tempted by sin, especially secret sin, and becomes a judging principle to all hypocrisy and false security; (c) it furnishes the source from which man’s desire for self-knowledge can obtain satisfaction ( Psalm 19:12; 51:6; 139:23,24).

    LITERATURE.

    Oehler, Theologie des A T (3) , 876; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie, 263; Dillmann, Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, 249; Davidson, Old Testament Theology, 180 if. Geerhardus Vos OMRI <om’-ri > ([ yrim][; , `omri ]; Septuagint [ jAmbri>, Ambri ]; Assyrian “Chumri” and “Chumria”): (1) The 6th king of Northern Israel, and founder of the IIIrd Dynasty which reigned for nearly 50 years. Omri reigned 12 years, circa 887- 876 BC. The historical sources of his reign are contained in 1 Kings 16:15-28; 20:34, the Moabite Stone, Assyrian inscriptions, and in the published accounts of recent excavations in Samaria. In spite of the brief passage given to Omri in the Old Testament, he was one of the most important of the military kings of Northern Israel.

    1. HIS ACCESSION:

    Omri is first mentioned as an officer in the army of Elah, which was engaged in the siege of the Philistine town of Gibbethon. While Omri was thus engaged, Zimri, another officer of Elah’s army, conspired against the king, whom he assassinated in a drunken debauch, exterminating at the same time the remnant of the house of Baasha. The conspiracy evidently lacked the support of the people, for the report that Zimri had usurped the throne no sooner reached the army at Gibbethon, than the people proclaimed Omri, the more powerful military leader, king over Israel. Omri lost not a moment, but leaving Gibbethon in the hands of the Philistines, he marched to Tirzah, which he besieged and captured, while Zimri perished in the flames of the palace to which he had set fire with his own hands ( 1 Kings 16:18). Omri, however, had still another opponent in Tibni the son of Ginath, who laid claim to the throne and who was supported in his claims by his brother Joram ( 1 Kings 16:22 Septuagint) and by a large number of the people. Civil war-followed this rivalry for the throne, which seems to have lasted for a period of four years (compare 1 Kings 16:15, with 16:23 and 29) before Omri gained full control.

    Omri’s military ability is seen from his choice of Samaria as the royal residence and capital of the Northern Kingdom. This step may have been suggested to Omri by his own easy conquest of Tirzah, the former capital.

    Accordingly, he purchased the hill Shomeron of Shemer for two talents of silver, about $4,352.00 in American money. The conical hill, which rose from the surrounding plain to the height of 400 ft., and on the top of which there was room for a large city, was capable of easy defense.

    2. THE FOUNDING OF SAMARIA:

    The superior strategic importance of Samaria is evidenced by the sieges it endured repeatedly by the Syrians and Assyrians. It was finally taken by Sargon in 722, after the siege had lasted for 3 years. That the Northern Kingdom endured as long as it did was due largely to the strength of its capital. With the fall of Samaria, the nation fell.

    Recent excavations in Samaria under the direction of Harvard University throw new light upon the ancient capital of Israel. The first results were the uncovering of massive foundation walls of a large building, including a stairway 80 ft. wide. This building, which is Roman in architecture, is supposed to have been a temple, the work of Herod. Under this Roman building was recovered a part of a massive Hebrew structure, believed to be the palace of Omri and Ahab. During the year 1910 the explorations revealed a building covering 1 1/2 acres of ground. Four periods of construction were recognized, which, on archaeological grounds, were tentatively assigned to the reigns of Omri, Ahab, Jehu, and Jeroboam II. See SAMAIA and articles by David G. Lyon in Harvard Theological Review, IV, 1911; JBL, V, xxx, Part I, 1911; PEFS, 1911, 79-83.

    3. HIS FOREIGN POLICY:

    Concerning Omri’s foreign policy the Old Testament is silent beyond a single hint contained in 1 Kings 20:34. Here we learn that he had to bow before the stronger power of Syria. It is probable that Ben-hadad I besieged Samaria shortly after it was built, for he forced Omri to make “streets” in the city for the Syrians. It is probable, too, that at this time Ramoth-gilead was lost to the Syrians. Evidently Omri, was weakened in his foreign policy at the beginning of his reign by the civil conflict engendered by his accession. However, he showed strength of character in his dealings with foreign powers. At least he regained control over the northern part of Moab, as we learn from the Moabite Stone. Lines 4-8 tell us that “Omri was king of Israel and afflicted Moab many days because Chemosh was angry with his land. .... Omri obtained possession of the land of Medeba and dwelt therein during his days and half the days of his son, forty years. “ Omri was the first king of Israel to pay tribute to the Assyrians under their king Asurnacirpal III, in 876 BC. From the days of Shalmaneser II (860 BC) down to the time of Sargon (722 BC), Northern Israel was known to the Assyrians as “the land of the house of Omri.” On Shalmaneser’s black obelisk, Jehu, who overthrew the dynasty of Omri, is called Ja’uaabal Chumri, “Jehu son of Omri.”

    Omri entered into an alliance with the Phoenicians by the marriage of his son Ahab to Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians. This may have been done as protection against the powers from the East, and as such would have seemed to be a wise political move, but it was one fraught with evil for Israel.

    4. HIS RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE AND DEATH:

    Although Omri laid the foundation of a strong kingdom, he failed to impart to it the vitalizing and rejuvenating force of a healthy spiritual religion. The testimony of 1 Kings 16:25,26, that he “dealt wickedly above all that were before him,” coupled with the reference to “the statutes of Omri” in Micah 6:16, indicates that he may have had a share in substituting foreign religions for the worship of Yahweh, and therefore the unfavorable light in which he is regarded is justified. Upon his death, Omri was succeeded upon the throne by his son Ahab, to whom was left the task of shaking off the Syrian yoke, and who went beyond his father in making the Phoenician influence along with Baalism of prime importance in Israel, thus leading the nation into the paths that hastened its downfall. (2) A Benjamite, son of Becher ( 1 Chronicles 7:8). (3) A Judahite, descendant of Perez, who lived at Jerusalem ( Chronicles 9:4). (4) A prince of Issachar in the time of David ( 1 Chronicles 27:18). S. K. Mosiman ON (1) <on > ([ ˆwa , ‘on ]; Egyptian An, Ant, Annu , probably pronounced An only, as this is often all that is written, a “stone” or “stone pillars”): Later called Hellopolis. The name On occurs only in Genesis 41:45,50; 46:20. It occurs in one other place in the Septuagint ( Exodus 1:11), where On is mentioned with Pithom and Raamses as strong cities which the Israelites built. Hebrew slaves may have worked upon fortifications here, but certainly did not build the city. On is possibly referred to as [ sr,h,h” ry[i , `ir ha-herec ], in Isaiah 19:18 ( see IR-HA-HERES). On may also be mentioned by Jeremiah (43:13) under the name Beth-shemesh. Ezekiel speaks of an Aven ([ ˆw,a; , ‘awen]) ( Ezekiel 30:17), where it is mentioned with Pibeseth (Bubastis). Aven in this passage is almost certainly the same as On in Genesis 41:45; 46:20, as the letters of both words are the same in the Hebrew. Only the placing of the vowel-points makes any difference. If there is a mistake, it is a mistake of the Massoretes, not of the Hebrew writer.

    1. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:

    There were two Ons in Egypt: one in Upper Egypt, An-res (Hermonthis); the other in Lower Egypt, An-Meheet (Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr., 254, 255, numbers 1217, a, b, 1218, 8708, 1225). The latter is the On referred to in the Bible. It lay about 20 miles North of the site of old Memphis, about miles Northeast of the location of modern Cairo. It has left until this time about 4 square miles of ruins within the old walls. Little or nothing remains outside the walls.

    On was built at the edge of the desert, which has now retreated some 3 or 4 miles eastward, the result of the rising of the bed of the Nile by sediment from the inundation, and the broadening of the area of infiltration which now carries the water of the Nile that much to the East. The land around On has risen about 10 ft., and the waters of infiltration at the time of lowest Nile are now about 1 1/2 ft. above the floor-level of the temple.

    2. HISTORY:

    The history of On is very obscure, yet its very great importance is in no doubt. No clear description of the ancient city or sanctuary has come down to us, but there are so many incidental references, and so much is implied in ancient records, that it stands out as of the very first importance, both as capital and sanctuary. The city comes from the Ist Dynasty, when it was the seat of government, and indeed must have been founded by the Ist Dynasty or have come down to it from pre-historic time. From the IIIrd to the VIth Dynasty the seat of government was shifted from On to Memphis, and in the XIIth Dynasty to Diospolis. Throughout these changes On retained its religious importance. It had been the great sanctuary in the time of the Pyramid Texts, the oldest religious texts of Egypt, and judging from the evident great development of the temple of On at the time of the writing of the texts, the city must have antedated them by considerable time (Budge, History of Egypt, II, 83, 84, 108; Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Egypt, chapters i, ii). The myth of Osiris makes even the charge against Set for the murder of Osiris to have been preferred at Heliopolis (Breasted, op. cit., 34). This certainly implies a very great age for the sanctuary at On. It contained a temple of the sun under the name Ra, the sun, and also Atum, the setting sun, or the sun of the Underworld.

    There was also a Phoenix Hall and asacred object called a ben, probably a stone, and the origin of the name An, a “stone” or “pillar” (compare Breasted, op. cit., 76, 11, and 71). Though the XIIth Dynasty removed the capital to Diospolis, Usertsen I (Senwesret) of that Dynasty erected a great obelisk at On in front of the entrance to the temple. The situation of this obelisk in the templearea indicates that the great temple was already more than a half-mile in length as early as the XIIth Dynasty. The mate of this obelisk on the opposite side of the entrance seems not to have been erected until the XVIIIth Dynasty. Its foundations were discovered in 1912 by Petrie. Some scraps of the granite of the obelisk bear inscriptions of Thothmes III. A great Hyksos wall, also discovered by Petrie in 1912, exactly similar to that of the fortified camp at Tel el Yehudiyeh, 4 miles North, makes it quite certain that these usurpers between the Old Empire and the New fortified On as the capital once more. The manifest subserviency of the priests of On in the story of Joseph makes it most probable that the old capital at On had already been subjugated in Joseph’s time, and that within this old fortification still existing Joseph ruled as prime minister of Egypt. Merenptah in his 5th year began to fortify On.

    Sheshonk III called himself “divine prince of Annu,” and seems to have made On one of the greatest sanctuaries of his long reign. On still figured in Egyptian history in the rebellion against Ashurbanipal. The city has been deserted since the Persian invasion of 525 BC. Tradition makes the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary with the child Jesus, while in Egypt, to have been near Heliopolis.

    The exploration of On was attempted by Schiaparelli, but was not carried out, and his work has not been published. In 1912 Petrie began a systematic work of excavation which, it is expected, will continue until the whole city has been examined. The only great discovery of the first season was the Hyksos wall of fortification. Its full import can only be determined by the continuance of the exploration. M. G. Kyle ON (2) ([ ˆwOa , ‘on ]; [ Au]n, Aun ]): A Reubenite, son of Peleth, who took part with Dathan and Abiram in their revolt against Moses ( Numbers 16:1).

    ONAM <o’-na > ([ µn;wOa , ‘onam ], “vigorous”; compare ONAN): (1) “Son” of Shobal “son” of Seir the Horite ( Genesis 36:23; Chronicles 1:40). (2) “Son” of Jerahmeel by Atarah; perhaps the name is connected with Onan son of Judah ( 1 Chronicles 2:26,28).

    ONAN <o’-nan > ([ ˆn;wOa , ‘onan ], “vigorous”; compare ONAM: A “son” of Judah ( Genesis 38:4,8-10; 46:12; Numbers 26:19; 1 Chronicles 2:3); “The story of the untimely death of Er and Onan implies that two of the ancient clans of Judah early disappeared” (Curtis, Chron, 84). See Skinner, Genesis, 452, where it is pointed out that in Genesis 38:11 Judah plainly attributes the death of his sons in some way to Tamar herself. The name is allied to Onam.

    ONE <wun > . See NUMBER.

    ONESIMUS <o-nes’-i-mus > ([ jOnh>simov, Onesimos ], literally, “profitable,” “helpful” ( Colossians 4:9; Philem 1:10)):

    1. WITH PAUL IN ROME:

    Onesimus was a slave (Philem 1:16) belonging to Philemon who was a wealthy citizen of Colosse, and a prominent member of the church there.

    Onesimus was still a heathen when he defrauded his master and ran off from Colosse. He found his way to Rome, where evil men tended to flock as to a common center, as Tacitus tells us they did at that period. In Rome he came into contact with Paul, who was then in his own hired house, in military custody.

    What brought him into contact with Paul we do not know. It may have been hunger; it may have been the pangs of conscience. He could not forget that his master’s house in Colosse was the place where the Christians met in their weekly assemblies for the worship of Christ. Neither could he forget how Philemon had many a time spoken of Paul, to whom he owed his conversion. Now that Onesimus was in Rome — what a strange coincidence — Paul also was in Rome.

    The result of their meeting was that Onesimus was converted to Christ, through the instrumentality of the apostle (“my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds,” Philem 1:10). His services had been very acceptable to Paul, who would gladly have kept Onesimus with him; but as he could not do this without the knowledge and consent of Philemon, he sent Onesimus back to Colosse, to his master there.

    2. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO COLOSSE AND TO PHILEMON:

    At the same time Paul wrote to the church in Colosse on other matters, and he entrusted the Epistle to the Colossians to the joint care of Tychicus and Onesimus. The apostle recommends Onesimus to the brethren in Colosse, as a “faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you,” and he goes on to say that Tychicus and Onesimus will make known to them all things that have happened to Paul in Rome. Such a commendation would greatly facilitate’ Onesimus’s return to Colosse.

    But Paul does more. He furnishes Onesimus with a letter written by himself to Philemon. Returning to a city where it was well known that he had been neither a Christian nor even an honest man, he needed someone to vouch for the reality of the change which had taken place in his life. And Paul does this for him both in the Epistle to the Colossians and in that to Philemon.

    With what exquisite delicacy is Onesimus introduced! `Receive him,’ says the apostle, `for he is my own very heart’ (Philem 1:12). “The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if they knew him all, as a worthless runaway slave, is thus commended to them, as no more a slave but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless but trustworthy; no more an object of contempt but of love” (Lightfoot’s Commentary on Col, 235). (1) Onesimus Profitable.

    The apostle accordingly begs Philemon to give Onesimus the same reception as he would rejoice to give to himself. The past history of Onesimus had been such as to belie the meaning of his name. He had not been “profitable” — far from it. But already his consistent conduct in Rome and his willing service to Paul there have changed all that; he has been profitable to Paul, and he will be profitable to Philemon too. (2) Paul Guarantees.

    Onesimus had evidently stolen his master’s goods before leaving Colosse, but in regard to that the apostle writes that if he has defrauded Philemon in anything, he becomes his surety. Philemon can regard Paul’s handwriting as a bond guaranteeing payment: “Put that to mine account,” are his words, “I will repay it.” Had Philemon not been a Christian, and had Paul not written this most beautiful letter, Onesimus might well have been afraid to return. In the Roman empire slaves were constantly crucified for smaller offenses than those of which he had been guilty. A thief and a runaway had nothing but torture or death to expect. (3) The Change Which Christ Makes.

    But now under the sway of Christ all is changed. The master who has been defrauded now owns allegiance to Jesus. The letter, which is delivered to him by his slave, is written by a bound “prisoner of Jesus Christ.” The slave too is now a brother in Christ, beloved by Paul: surely he will be beloved by Philemon also. Then Paul intimates that he hopes soon to be set free, and then he will come and visit them in Colosse. Will Philemon receive him into his house as his guest? (4) The Result.

    It cannot be imagined that this appeal in behalf of Onesimus was in vain.

    Philemon would do more than Paul asked; and on the apostle’s visit to Colosse he would find the warmest welcome, both from Philemon and from Onesimus. John Rutherfurd ONESIPHORUS <o-ne-sif’-o-rus > ([ jOnhsi>forov, Onesiphoros ], literally, “profit bringer” ( 2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19)):

    1. THE FRIEND OF PAUL:

    Onesiphorus was a friend of the apostle Paul, who mentions him twice when writing to Timothy. In the former of the two passages where his name occurs, his conduct is contrasted with that of Phygellus and Hermogenes and others — all of whom, like Onesiphorus himself, were of the province of Asia — from whom Paul might well have expected to receive sympathy and help. These persons had “turned away” from him.

    Onesiphorus acted in a different way, for “he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me.”

    Onesiphorus was one of the Christians of the church in Ephesiansesus; and the second passage, where his name is found, merely sends a message of greeting from Paul, which Timothy in Ephesiansesus is requested to deliver to “the household of Onesiphorus.” (the King James Version).

    2. VISITS PAUL IN ROME:

    Onesiphorus then had come from Ephesiansesus to Rome. It was to Paul that the church at Ephesiansesus owed its origin, and it was to him therefore that Onesiphorus and the Christians there were indebted for all that they knew of Christ. Onesiphorus gratefully remembered these facts, and having arrived in Rome, and learned that Paul was in prison, he “very diligently” sought for the apostle. But to do this, though it was only his duty, involved much personal danger at that particular time. For the persecution, inaugurated by Nero against the Christians, had raged bitterly; its fury was not yet abated, and this made the profession of the Christian name a matter which involved very great risk of persecution and of death.

    Paul was not the man to think lightly of what his Ephesiansesian friend had done. He remembered too, “in how many things he ministered at Ephesiansesus.” And, writing to Timothy, he reminded him that Onesiphorus’s kindly ministrations at Ephesiansesus were already well known to him, from his residence in Ephesiansesus, and from his position, as minister of the church there.

    It should be observed that the ministration of Onesiphorus at Ephesiansesus was not, as the King James Version gives it, “to me,” that is, to Paul himself. “To me” is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American). What Onesiphorus had done there was a wide Christian ministry of kindly action; it embraced “many things,” which were too well known — for such is the force of the word — to Timothy to require repetition.

    The visits which Onesiphorus paid to Paul in his Roman prison were intensely “refreshing.” And it was not once or twice that he thus visited the chained prisoner, but he did so ofttimes.

    3. HIS HOUSEHOLD:

    Though Onesiphorus had come to Rome, his household had remained in Ephesiansesus; and a last salutation is sent to them by Paul. He could not write again, as he was now ready to be offered, and his execution could not long be delayed. But as he writes, he entertains the kindest feelings toward Onesiphorus and his household, and he prays that the Lord will give mercy to the household of Onesiphorus.

    He also uses these words in regard to Onesiphorus himself: “The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day.” It is not clear whether Onesiphorus was living, or whether he had died, before Paul wrote this epistle. Different opinions have been held on the subject.

    The way in which Paul refers twice to “the household (the Revised Version (British and American) “house”) of Onesiphorus,” makes it possible that Onesiphorus himself had died. If this is so — but certainty is impossible — the apostle’s words in regard to him would be a pious wish, which has nothing in common with the abuses which have gathered round the subject of prayers for the dead, a practice which has no foundation in Scripture. John Rutherfurd ONIARES <o-ni’-a-rez > , <o-ni-a’-rez > : 1 Macc 12:19 the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ANIUS (which see).

    ONIAS <o-ni’-as > ([ jOni>av, Onias ]): There were 3 high priests of the name of Onias, and a 4th Onias who did not become a high priest but was known as the builder of the temple of Leontopolis (Josephus, Ant, XIII, iii, 1-3).

    Only two persons of the name are mentioned in the Apocrypha — Onias I and Onias III. (1) Onias I, according to Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 7), the son of Jaddua and father of Simon the Just (ibid., XII, ii, 5; Sirach 50), and, according to 1 Macc 12:7,20, a contemporary of Areus (Arius), king of Sparta, who reigned 309-265 BC (Diod. xx.29). This Onias was the recipient of a friendly letter from Areus of Sparta (1 Macc 12:7; see manuscripts readings here, and 12:20). Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10) represents this letter as written to Onias III, which is an error, for only two Areuses are known, and Areus II reigned about 255 BC and died a child of years (Paus. iii.6,6). The letter — if genuine — exists in two copies (Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 10, and 1 Macc 12:20 ff) (see Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 4th edition, I, 182 and 237). (2) Onias III, son of Simon II (Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 10), whom he succeeded, and a contemporary of Seleucus IV and Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 3:1; 4:7) and father of Onias IV. He was known for his godliness and zeal for the law, yet was on such friendly terms with the Seleucids that Seleucus IV Philopator defrayed the cost of the “services of the sacrifices.” He quarreled with Simon the Benjamite, guardian of the temple, about the market buildings (Greek aedileship).

    Being unable to get the better of Onias and thirsting for revenge, Simon went to Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and informed him of the “untold sums of money,” lodged in the treasury of the temple. The governor told the king, and Seleucus dispatched his chancellor, Heliodorus, to remove the money. Onias remonstrated in vain, pleading for the “deposits of widows and orphans.” Heliodorus persisted in the object of his mission. The high priest and the people were in the greatest distress. But when Heliodorus had already entered the temple, “the Sovereign of spirits, and of all authority caused a great apparition,” a horse with a terrible rider accompanied by two strong and beautiful young men who scourged and wounded Heliodorus. At the intercession of Onias, his life was spared. Heliodorus advised the king to send on the same errand any enemy or conspirator whom he wished punished. Simon then slandered Onias, and the jealousy having caused bloodshed between their followers, Onias decided to repair in person to the king to intercede for his country. Apparently before a decision was given, Seleucus was assassinated and Epiphanes succeeded (175 BC). Jason, the brother of Onias, having offered the new king larger revenue, secured the priesthood, which he held until he himself was similarly supplanted by Menelaus, Simon’s brother (2 Macc 4:23; Josephus, Ant, XII, v, 1, says Jason’s brother). Menelaus, having stolen golden vessels belonging to the temple to meet his promises made to the king, was sharply reproved by Onias. Menelaus took revenge by persuading Andronicus, the king’s deputy, to entice Onias by false promises of friendship from his sanctuary at Daphne and treacherously slay him — an act which caused indignation among both the Jews and the Greeks (2 Macc 4:34 ff). Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) says that “on the death of Onias the high priest, Antiochus gave the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus (Jason),” but the account of Macc given above is the more probable. Some see in Daniel 9:26; 11:22 reference to Onias III (Schurer, 4th edition, I, 194 ff; III, 144). S. Angus ONIONS <un’-yunz > ([ µylix;B] , betsalim ]; [kro>mmoun, krommuon ]): One of the delicacies of Egypt for which the children of Israel pined in the wilderness ( Numbers 11:5). The onion, alllium cepa (Natural Order Liliaceae), is known in Arabic as bucal and is cultivated all over Syria and Egypt; it appears to be as much a favorite in the Orient today as ever.

    ONLY BEGOTTEN <on’-li > <be-got-’-’n > ([monogenh>v, monogenes ]): Although the English words are found only 6 times in the New Testament, the Greek word appears 9 times, and often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: “the only son of his mother” ( Luke 7:12); “an only daughter” ( Luke 8:42); “mine only child” ( Luke 9:38); “Isaac .... his only begotten” ( Hebrews 11:17). In all other places in the New Testament it refers to Jesus Christ as “the only begotten Son of God” ( John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). In these passages, too, it might be translated as “the only son of God”; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on His sonship, though both ideas are certainly present. He is the son of God in a sense in which no others are. “Monogenes describes the absolutely unique relation of the Son to the Father in His divine nature; prototokos describes the relation of the Risen Christ in His glorified humanity to man” (Westcott on Hebrews 1:6). Christ’s uniqueness as it appears in the above passages consists of two things: (a) He reveals the Father: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” ( John 1:18). Men therefore behold His glory, “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (1:14). (b) He is the mediator of salvation: “God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him” ( 1 John 4:9; John 3:16); “He that believeth not (on him) hath been judged already” ( John 3:18). Other elements in His uniqueness may be gathered from other passages, as His sinlessness, His authority to forgive sins, His unbroken communion with the Father, and His unique knowledge of Him. To say that it is a uniqueness of nature or essence carries thought no farther, for these terms still need definition, and they can be defined only in terms of His moral consciousness, of His revelation of God, and especially of His intimate union as Son with the Father. See also BEGOTTEN; PERSON OF CHRIST; SON OF GOD.

    The reading “God only begotten” in John 1:18 the Revised Version margin, though it has strong textual support, is improbable, and can well be explained as due to orthodox zeal, in opposition to adoptionism. See Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon; Westcott, at the place T. Rees ONO <o’-no > ([ wOnwOa , ‘ono ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jWna>n, Onan ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jWnw>, Ono ], and other forms): A town mentioned along with Lod as fortified by certain Benjamites ( 1 Chronicles 8:12). The Mishna (Arakhin ix.6) says that Joshua fortified it, but there is no such early notice of it in Scripture. It was occupied by Benjamites after the return from exile ( Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35). In one of the villages in the plain of Ono, Sanballat and his friends vainly tried to inveigle Nehemiah into a conference (6:2). It is represented by the modern Kefr `Ana, which lies to the Northwest of Lydda. In 1 Esdras 5:22, the name appears as “Onus.” W. Ewing ONUS <o’-nus > . See ONO.

    ONYCHA <on’i-ka > ([ tl,jev] , shecheleth ]; compare Arabic suchalat, “filings,” “husks”): “Onycha” is a transliteration of the Septuagint [o]nuca, onucha ], accusative of [o]nux, onux ], which means “nail,” “claw,” “hoof,” and also “onyx,” a precious stone. The form “onycha” was perhaps chosen to avoid confusion with “onyx,” the stone. The Hebrew shecheleth occurs only in Exodus 30:34 as an ingredient of the sacred incense. It is supposed to denote the horny operculum found in certain species of marine gasteropod molluscs. The operculum is a disk attached to the upper side of the hinder part of the “foot” of the mollusc. When the animal draws itself into its shell, the hinder part of the foot comes last, and the operculum closes the mouth of the shell. The operculum, which may be horny or stony, is absent in some species. The horny opercula when burned emit a peculiar odor, and are still used in combination with other perfumes by the Arab women of Upper Egypt and Nubia. (See Sir S. Baker, The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia, cited by EB, under the word “Onycha.”) Alfred Ely Day ONYX <on’-iks > <o’-niks > . See STONES, PRECIOUS.

    OPEN <o’-p’-n > : In the Old Testament represents chiefly [ jt”P; , pathach ], but also other words, as [ hl;G; , galah ], “to uncover”; of the opening of the eyes in vision, etc. (thus Balaam, Numbers 22:31; 24:4; compare Job 33:16; 36:10; <19B918> Psalm 119:18; Jeremiah 32:11,14). In the New Testament the usual word is [ajnoi>gw, anoigo ] (of opening of mouth, eyes, heavens, doors, etc.). A peculiar word, [trachli>zomai, trachelizomai ] (literally, to have the neck bent back, to be laid bare), is used for “laid open” before God in Hebrews 4:13.

    OPEN PLACE (1) The “open place” of Genesis 38:14 the King James Version, in which Tamar sat, has come from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew, the translators having taken bephethach `enayim to mean “in an opening publicly,” instead of “in an opening (i.e. a gate) of Enaim” (compare Proverbs 1:21 in the Hebrew). The Revised Version (British and American) has corrected; see ENAIM. (2) In 1 Kings 22:10 parallel 2 Chronicles 18:9 the Revised Version (British and American) relates that Ahab and Jehoshaphat sat “each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place (margin “Hebrew: a threshing-floor,” the King James Version “a void place”) at the entrance of the gate of Samaria.” The Hebrew here is awkward, and neither the Septuagint nor the Syriac seems to have read the present text in 1 Kings 22:10, the former having “in arms, at the gate of Samaria,” and the latter “in many-colored garments.” Consequently various attempts have been made to emend the text, of which the simplest is the omission of [beghoren], “in an open place.” If, however, the text is right — as is not impossible — the open place is a threshing-floor close to the gate. See the commentaries. Burton Scott Easton OPERATION <op-er-a’-shun > ([ hc,[\m” , ma`ashe ], “work”; [ejne>rgeia, energeia ], [ejne>rghma, energema ], “energy”): Twice used in the Old Testament of God’s creative work ( Psalm 28:4,5; Isaiah 5:12). The Holy Spirit’s inworking and power are manifest in the bestowal of spiritual gifts on individuals and on the church ( 1 Corinthians 12:6 the King James Version), and in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, through which energy or operation of God those dead in sins are, through faith, raised to newness of life ( Colossians 2:12 the King James Version).

    OPHEL <o’-fel > ([ lp,[oh; , ha-`ophel ] ( 2 Chronicles 27:3; 33:14; Nehemiah 3:26 f; 11:21; and without article, Isaiah 32:14 and Micah 4:8; also 2 Kings 5:24)):

    1. MEANING OF NAME:

    There has been considerable divergence of opinion with regard to the meaning of this name. Thus, in all the references given above with the article, the Revised Version (British and American) has simply “Ophel,” but the King James Version adds in margin “the tower”; in Isaiah 32:14, “the hill” with margin “Ophel,” but the King James Version “the forts,” margin “clifts”; Micah 4:8, “the hill,” margin “Hebrew: Ophel,” but the King James Version “the stronghold”; 2 Kings 5:24, “the hill,” margin “Hebrew: Ophel,” but the King James Version “the tower,” margin “secret place.” It is true that the other occurrences of the word in 1 Samuel 5:9,12; 6:5 f, where it is translated “tumors,” and Habakkuk 2:4, where a verbal form is translated “puffed up,” seem to imply that one meaning assigned to the root may be that of “swelling.” Recently Dr. Burney (PEF, January, 1911) has produced strong arguments in favor of Ophel, when used as the name of a locality, meaning “fortress.”

    2. THREE OPHELS:

    Three places are known to have received this name: (1) A certain place on the east hill of Jerusalem, South of the temple; to this all the passages quoted above — except one — refer. (2) The “Ophel,” translated “hill,” situated apparently in Samaria (compare 2 Kings 5:3), where Gehazi took his ill-gotten presents from the hands of the servants of Naaman the Syrian. The translation “tower” would suit the sense at least as well. It was some point probably in the wall of Samaria, perhaps the citadel itself. (3) The third reference is not Biblical, but on the Moabite Stone, an inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, contemporary with Omri. He says: “I built Q-R-CHRONICLES-H (? Karhah), the wall of ye`arim , and the wall of `Ophel and I built its gates and I built its towers.”

    In comparing the references to (1) and (3), it is evident that if Ophel means a “hill,” it certainly was a fortified hill, and it seems highly probable that it meant some “artificial swelling in a fortification, e.g. a bulging or rounded keep or enceinte” (Burney, loc. cit.). Isaiah 32:14 reads, “The palace shall be forsaken; the populous city shall be deserted; the hill (Ophel) and the watch-tower shall be for dens for ever.” Here we have palace, city and watch-tower, all the handiwork of the builder. Does it not seem probable that the Ophel belongs to the same category?

    3. THE OPHEL OF JERUSALEM:

    The situation of the Ophel of Jerusalem is very definitely described. It was clearly, from the references ( Nehemiah 3:26,27; 2 Chronicles 27:3; 33:14), on the east hill South of the temple. Josephus states (Josephus, Jewish Wars, V, iv, 2) that the eastern wall of the city ran from Siloam “and reaches as far as a certain place which they called Ophlas when it was joined to the eastern cloister of the temple.” In BJ, V, vi, 1, it states that “John held the temple and the parts thereto adjoining, for a great way, as also `Ophla,’ and the Valley called the `Valley of the Cedron.’ “ It is noticeable that this is not identical with the “Acra” and “Lower City” which was held by Simon. There is not the slightest ground for applying the name Ophel, as has been so commonly done, to the whole southeastern hill. In the days of Josephus, it was a part of the hill immediately South of the temple walls, but the Old Testament references suit a locality nearer the middle of the southeastern hill. In the article ZION (which see) it is pointed out that that name does not occur (except in reference to the Jebusite city) in the works of the Chronicler, but that “the Ophel,” which occurs almost alone in these works, is apparently used for it. Micah 4:8 margin seems to confirm this view: “O tower of the flock, the Ophel of the daughter of Zion.” Here the “tower of the flock” may well refer to the shepherd David’s stronghold, and the second name appears to be a synonym for the same place.

    Ophel then was probably the fortified site which in earlier days had been known as “Zion” or “the City of David.” King Jotham “built much” “on the wall of Ophel” ( 2 Chronicles 27:3). King Manasseh “built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entrance at the fish gate; and he compassed Ophel about with it, and raised it up to a very great height” ( 2 Chronicles 33:14). It was clearly a fortified place of great importance, and its situation must have been so near that of the ancient “Zion” that scarcely any other theory is possible except that it occupied the site of that ancient fortress. E. W. G. Masterman OPHIR <o’-fer > , <o’-fir > ([ rypiwOa , ‘owphiyr ] ( Genesis 10:29), [ rpiwOa , ‘owphir ] ( 1 Kings 10:11), [ rypiao , ‘ophir ]):

    1. SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES:

    The 11th in order of the sons of Joktan ( Genesis 10:29 = Chronicles 1:23). There is a clear reference also to a tribe Ophir ( Genesis 10:30). Ophir is the name of a land or city somewhere to the South or Southeast of Palestine for which Solomon’s ships along with Phoenician vessels set out from Ezion-geber at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, returning with great stores of gold, precious stones and “almug”- wood ( 1 Kings 9:28; 10:11; 2 Chronicles 9:10; 1 Kings 22:48; 2 Chronicles 8:18). We get a fuller list of the wares and also the time taken by the voyage if we assume that the same vessels are referred to in 1 Kings 10:22, “Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” The other products may not have been native to the land of Ophir, but it is certain that the gold at least was produced there. This gold was proverbial for its purity, as is witnessed by many references in the Old Testament ( Psalm 45:9; Job 28:16; Isaiah 13:12; 1 Chronicles 29:4), and, in Job 22:24, Ophir is used for fine gold itself. In addition to these notices of Ophir, it is urged that the name. occurs also in two passages under the form “Uphaz” ( Jeremiah 10:9; Daniel 10:5).

    2. GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION:

    At all times the geographical position of Ophir has been a subject of dispute, the claims of three different regions being principally advanced, namely (1) India and the Far East, (2) Africa, (3) Arabia. (1) India and the Far East.

    All the wares mentioned are more or less appropriate to India, even including the fuller list of 1 Kings 10:22. “Almug”-wood is conjectured to be the Indian sandal-wood. Another argument is based on the resemblance between the Septuagint form of the word (Sophera ) and the Coptic name for India (Sophir ). A closer identification is sought with Abhira, a people dwelling at the mouths of the Indus. Supara, an ancient city on the west coast of India near the modern Goa, is also suggested.

    Again, according to Wildman, the name denotes a vague extension eastward, perhaps as far as China. (2) Africa.

    This country is the greatest gold-producing region of the three. Sofala, a seaport near Mozambique on the east coast of Africa, has been advanced as the site of Ophir, both on linguistic grounds and from the nature of its products, for there all the articles of 1 Kings 10:22 could be procured.

    But Gesenius shows that Sofala is merely the Arabic form of the Hebrew shephelah . Interest in this region as the land of Ophir was renewed, however, by Mauch’s discovery at Zimbabye of great ruins and signs of old Phoenician civilization and worked-out gold mines. According to Bruce (I, 440), a voyage from Sofala to Ezion-geber would have occupied quite three years owing to the monsoons. (3) Arabia.

    The claim of Southeastern Arabia as the land of Ophir has on the whole more to support it than that of India or of Africa. The Ophir of Genesis 10:29 beyond doubt belonged to this region, and the search for Ophir in more distant lands can be made only on the precarious assumption that the Ophir of Kings is not the same as the Ophir of Genesis. Of the various products mentioned, the only one which from the Old Testament notices can be regarded as clearly native to Ophir is the gold, and according to Pliny and Strabo the region of Southeastern Arabia bordering on the Persian Gulf was a famous gold-producing country. The other wares were not necessarily produced in Ophir, but were probably brought there from more distant lands, and thence conveyed by Solomon’s merchantmen to Ezion-geber. If the duration of the voyage (3 years) be used as evidence, it favors this location of Ophir as much as that on the east coast of Africa. It seems therefore the least assailable view that Ophir was a district on the Persian Gulf in Southeastern Arabia and served in old time as an emporium of trade between the East and West. A. S. Fulton OPHNI <of’-ni > ([ ynip][;h; , ha-`ophni ]; [ jAfnh>, Aphne ]): A place in the territory of Benjamin ( Joshua 18:24). The modern Jifneh, in a fine vale West of the road to Nablus and 2 1/2 miles Northwest of Bethel, might suit as to position; but the change in the initial letter from `ain to jim is not easy. This is the Gophna of the rabbis (compare Josephus, Jewish Wars, III, iii, 5).

    OPHRAH <of’-ra > ([ hr;p][; , `ophrah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jAfra>, Aphra ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jIefraqa>, Iephratha ], etc.): (1) A town in the territory allotted to Benjamin named between Parah and Chephar-ammoni ( Joshua 18:23). It is mentioned again in Samuel 13:17. The Philistines who were encamped at Michmash sent out marauding bands, one of which went westward, another eastward, down “the valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness”; the third “turned unto the way that leadeth to Ophrah, unto the land of Shual.” This must have been northward, as Saul commanded the passage to the South. Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 5 Roman miles East of Bethel.

    A site which comes near to fulfilling these conditions is eT-Taiyebeh, which stands on a conical hill some 5 miles Northeast of Beitin. This is possibly identical with “Ephesiansron” ( 2 Chronicles 13:19), and “Ephesiansraim” (John. 11:54). (2) A city in the tribal lot of Manasseh West of Jordan. It is mentioned only in connection with Gideon, whose native place it was, and with his son Abimelech ( Judges 6:11, etc.). It was, indeed, family property, belonging to Joash the Abiezrite, the father of Gideon. It was apparently not far from the plain of Esdraelon ( Judges 6:33 f), so that Gideon and his kinsmen smarted under the near presence of the oppressing Midianites. Manasseh, of course, as bordering on the southern edge of the plain, was in close touch with the invaders. At Ophrah, Gideon reared his altar to Yahweh, and made thorough cleansing of the instruments of idolatry. After his great victory, he set up here the golden ephod made from the spoils of the enemy, which proved a snare to himself and to his house ( Judges 8:27). Here he was finally laid to rest. It was at Ophrah that Abimelech, aspiring to the kingdom, put to death upon one stone three score and ten of his brethren, as possible rivals, Jotham alone escaping alive ( Judges 9:5). Apparently the mother of Abimelech belonged to Shechem; this established a relationship with that town, his connection with which does not therefore mean that Ophrah was near it.

    No quite satisfactory identification has yet been suggested. Conder (PEFS, 1876, 1971) quotes the Samaritan Chronicle as identifying Ferata, which is 6 miles West of Nablus, with an ancient Ophra, “and the one that suggests itself as most probably identical is Ophrah of the Abiezerite.” But this seems too far to the South. (3) A man of the tribe of Judah, son of Meonothai ( 1 Chronicles 4:14). W. Ewing OPINION <o-pin’-yun > ([ [“De , dea` ], [ µyPi[is] , ce`ippim ]): “Opinion” occurs only times, thrice in Job (32:6,10,17) as the translation of dea` , “knowledge,” “opinion” (in the address of Elihu), and once of ce`ippim , from ca`aph , “to divide or branch out,” hence, division or party, unsettled opinion (in the memorable appeal of Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” 1 Kings 18:21, the American Standard Revised Version “How long go ye limping between the two sides?”). In Ecclesiasticus 3:24, we have, “For many are deceived by their own vain opinion” (hupolepsis , “a taking up,” “a hasty judgment”), the Revised Version (British and American) The conceit of many hath led them astray. W. L. Walker OPOBALSAMUM <op-o-bal’-sa-mum > : the Revised Version margin in Exodus 30:34. See STACTE.

    OPPRESSION <o-presh’-un > : Used in the King James Version to translate a variety of Hebrew words, all of which, however, agree in the general sense of wrong done by violence to others. There are a few cases where the reference is to the oppression of Israel by foreigners, as by their Egyptian masters ( Exodus 3:9; Deuteronomy 26:7), or by Syria ( 2 Kings 13:4), or by an unmentioned nation ( Isaiah 30:20 King James Version, margin).

    In all these cases the Hebrew original is [ 6j”l” , lachats ]. But in the vast number of cases the reference is to social oppression of one kind or another within Israel’s own body. It is frequently theme of psalmist and prophet and wise man. The poor and weak must have suffered greatly at the hands of the stronger and more fortunate. The word lachats , various forms of the root [ qv”[; , `ashaq ], and other words are used by the writers as they express their sorrow and indignation over the wrongs of their afflicted brethren. In his own sorrow, Job remembers the suffering of the oppressed ( Job 35:9; 36:15); it is a frequent subject of song in the Psalms ( Psalm 12:5; 42:9; 43:2; 44:24; 55:3; 119:134); the preacher observes and reflects upon its prevalence ( Ecclesiastes 4:1; 5:8; 7:7 the King James Version); the prophets Amos (3:9), Isaiah (5:7; 59:13), Jeremiah (6:6; 22:17) and Ezekiel (22:7,29) thundered against it. It was exercised toward strangers and also toward the Israelites themselves, and was never wholly overcome. In James 2:6, “oppress” is the rendering of [katadunasteu>w, katadunasteuo ], “to exercise harsh control over one,” “to use one’s power against one.” William Joseph Mcglothlin OR <or > : The word is used once for either ( 1 Samuel 26:10), and is still in poetic use in this sense; as in, “Without or wave or wind” (Coleridge); “Or the bakke or some bone he breketh in his dzouthe” (Piers Plowman (B), VII, 93; compare Merchant of Venice, III, ii, 65). It is also used with “ever” for before ( Psalm 90:2; Ecclesiasticus 18:19), which the American Standard Revised Version substitutes in Ecclesiastes 12:6 (compare 12:1,2); Song of Solomon 6:12; Daniel 6:24.

    ORACLE <or’-a-k’-l > : (1) A divine utterance delivered to man, usually in answer to a request for guidance. So in 2 Samuel 16:23 for [ rb”D; , dabhar ] (“word,” as in the Revised Version margin). The use in this passage seems to indicate that at an early period oracular utterances were sought from Yahweh by the Israelites, but the practice certainly fell into disuse at the rise of prophecy, and there are no illustrations of the means employed ( 1 Samuel 14:18,19,36-42, etc., belong rather to DIVINATION (which see)). In. the Revised Version margin of such passages as Isaiah 13:1, “oracle” is used in the titles of certain special prophecies as a substitute for BURDEN (which see) ([ aC;m” , massa’ ]), with considerable advantage (especially in Lamentations 2:14). (2) In heathen temples “oracle” was used for the chamber in which the utterances were delivered (naturally a most sacred part of the structure). This usage, coupled with a mistake in Hebrew philology (connecting [ rybiD] , debhir ], “hinder part,” with [ rBeDi , dibber ], “speak”), caused English Versions of the Bible to give the title “oracle” to the Most Holy Place of the Temple, in 1 Kings 6:5, etc., following the example of Aquila, Symmachus and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) But the title is very unfortunate, as the Most Holy Place had nothing to do with the delivery of oracles, and the Revised Version (British and American) should have corrected (compare Psalm 28:2 margin). (3) In the New Testament English Versions of the Bible employs “oracle” as the translation of [lo>gion, logion ], “saying,” in four places.

    In all, divine utterances are meant, specialized in Acts 7:38 as the Mosaic Law (“living oracles” = “commandments enforced by the living God”), in Romans 3:2 as the Old Testament in general, and in Hebrews 5:12 as the revelations of Christianity ( Hebrews 6:2,3).

    In 1 Peter 4:11 the meaning is debated, but probably the command is addressed to those favored by a supernatural “gift of speech.” Such men must keep their own personality in the background, adding nothing of their own to the inspired message as it comes to them. Burton Scott Easton ORACLES, SIBYLLINE <sib’-i-lin > , <-lin > . See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, V.

    ORATOR; ORTION <or’-a-ter > , <o-ra’-shun > : The word “orator” occurs twice: (1) As the King James Version rendering of [ vj”l” , lachash ]; only Isaiah 3:3, “the eloquent orator,” the King James Version margin “skilful of speech,” where the Revised Version (British and American) rightly substitutes “the skillful enchanter.” The word lachash is probably a mimetic word meaning “a hiss,” “a whisper” and is used in the sense of “incantation” “charm.” Hence, nebhon lachash means “skillful in incantation,” “expert in magic.” See DIVINATION; ENCHANTMENT. (2) As the rendering of [rJh>twr, rhetor ], the title applied to Tertullus, who appeared as the advocate of the Jewish accusers of Paul before Felix ( Acts 24:1). The proceedings, as was generally the case in the provincial Roman courts, would probably be conducted in Latin, and under Roman modes of procedure, in which the parties would not be well versed; hence, the need of a professional advocate. Rhetor is here the equivalent of the older Greek sunegoros , “the prosecuting counsel,” as opposed to the sundikos , “the defendant’s advocate.”

    Oration occurs only in Acts 12:21: “Herod .... made an oration unto them” ([ejdhmgo>rei prov, edemegorei pros autous ]). The verb demegoreo , “to speak in an assembly” (from demos , “people,” agoreuo , “to harangue”), is often found in classical Greek, generally in a bad sense (Latin concionari); here only in the New Testament. D. Miall Edwards ORCHARD <or’-cherd > : (1) [ sDer]P” , pardec ], from Old Persian, “a walled-in enclosure”; [para>deisov, paradeisos ], a word in classical Greek applied to the garden of Babylon (Diodorus Siculus xi.10) and to a game park (Xenophon, Anab. i.2, 7). See Nehemiah 2:8, “forest,” margin “park”; Song of Solomon 4:13, “orchard,” margin “paradise” (of pomegranates); Ecclesiastes 2:5, “parks,” the King James Version “orchards”; see PARADISE. (2) [ kh~pov, kepos], “garden” or “orchard”: “a white thorn in an orchard” (Baruch 6:71).

    ORDAIN; ORDINATION <or-dan’ > , <or-di-na-shun > (Latin ordinare, “to set in order” “to arrange”; in post-Augustan Latin “to appoint to office”; from ordo, Genesis. ordinis, “order,” “arrangement”): In the King James Version the verb “to ordain” renders as many as 35 different words (11 Hebrew words in the Old Testament, 21 Greek words in Apocrypha and the New Testament, and 3 Latin words in Apocrypha). This is due to the fact that the English word has many shades of meaning (especially as used in the time the King James Version was made), of which the following are the chief: (1) To set in order, arrange, prepare: “All things that we ordained festival, Turn from their office to black funeral.” — Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, IV, v, 84.

    This meaning is now obsolete. It is found in the King James Version of <19D217> Psalm 132:17; Isaiah 30:33; Hebrews 9:6 (in each of which cases the Revised Version (British and American) or margin substitutes “prepare”); 1 Chronicles 17:9 (the Revised Version (British and American) “appoint”); Psalm 7:13 (the Revised Version (British and American) “maketh”); Habakkuk 1:12 (also the Revised Version (British and American)). (2) To establish, institute, bring into being: “When first this order (i.e. the Garter) was ordained, my Lord” (Shakespeare). So in 1 Kings 12:32, “Jeroboam ordained a feast in the 8th month” (12:33); Numbers 28:6; Psalm 8:2,3; Isaiah 26:12; 2 Esdras 6:49 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “preserve”); Sirach 7:15; Galatians 3:19. (3) To decree, give orders, prescribe: “And doth the power that man adores Ordain their doom ?” — Byron.

    So Est 9:27, “The Jews ordained .... that they would keep these two days according to the writing thereof”; 1 Esdras 6:34; 2 Esdras 7:17; 8:14 the King James Version; Tobit 1:6; 8:7 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “command”); Additions to Esther 14:9; Macc 4:59; 7:49; Acts 16:4; Romans 7:10 the King James Version; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 7:17; 9:14; Ephesiansesians 2:10 the King James Version. (4) To set apart for an office or duty, appoint, destine: “Being ordained his special governor” (Shakespeare). Frequent in EV. When the King James Version has “ordain” in this sense, the Revised Version (British and American) generally substitutes “appoint”; e.g. “He (Jesus) appointed (the King James Version “ordained”) twelve, that they might be with him” ( Mark 3:14). So 2 Chronicles 11:15; Jeremiah 1:5; Daniel 2:24; 1 Esdras 8:49; 1 Macc 3:55; 10:20; John 15:16; Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 2:7; Titus 1:5; Hebrews 5:1; 8:3. The Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “formedst” in The Wisdom of Solomon 9:2, “recorded” in Sirach 48:10, “become” in Acts 1:22, “written of” (margin “set forth”) in Jude 1:4, but retains “ordain” in the sense of “appoint,” “set apart,” in 2 Kings 23:5; 1 Chronicles 9:22; 1 Esdras 8:23; Additions to Esther 13:6; Acts 10:42; 13:48; 17:31; Romans 13:1. (5) To appoint ceremonially to the ministerial or priestly office, to confer holy orders on. This later technical or ecclesiastical sense is never found in English Versions of the Bible.

    The nearest approach is (4) above, but the idea of formal or ceremonial setting-apart to office (prominent in its modern usage) is never implied in the word.

    Ordination: The act of arranging in regular order, especially the act of investing with ministerial or sacerdotal rank (ordo), the setting-apart for an office in the Christian ministry. The word does not occur in English Version of the Bible. The New Testament throws but little light on the origin of the later ecclesiastical rite of ordination. The 12 disciples were not set apart by any formal act on the part of Jesus. In Mark 3:14; John 15:16, the King James Version rendering “ordain” is, in view of its modern usage, misleading; nothing more is implied than an appointment or election.

    In John 20:21-23, we have indeed a symbolic act of consecration (“He breathed on them”), but “the act is described as one and not repeated. The gift was once for all, not to individuals but to the abiding body” (Westcott, at the place). In the Apostolic age there is no trace of the doctrine of an outward rite conferring inward grace, though we have instances of the formal appointment or recognition of those who had already given proof of their spiritual qualification. (1) The Seven were chosen by the brethren as men already “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” and were then “appointed” by the Twelve, who prayed and laid their hands upon them ( Acts 6:1-6). (2) The call of Barnabas and Saul came direct from God ( Acts 13:2, “the work whereunto I have called them”; 13:4, they were “sent forth by the Holy Spirit”). Yet certain prophets and teachers were instructed by the Holy Spirit to “separate” them (i.e. publicly) for their work, which they did by fasting and praying and laying on of hands ( Acts 13:3). But it was utterly foreign to Paul’s point of view to regard the church’s act as constituting him an apostle (compare Galatians 1:1). (3) Barnabas and Paul are said to have “ordained,” the Revised Version (British and American) “appointed” ([ceirotonh>santev, cheirotonesantes ], “elect,” “appoint,” without indicating the particular mode of appointment), elders or presbyters in every city with prayers and fasting ( Acts 14:23). So Titus was instructed by Paul to “appoint elders in every city” in Crete ( Titus 1:5). (4) The gift of Timothy for evangelistic work seems to have been formally recognized in two ways: (a) by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ( 1 Timothy 4:14), (b) by the laying on of the hands of Paul himself ( 2 Timothy 1:6).

    The words “Lay hands hastily on no man” ( 1 Timothy 5:22) do not refer to an act of ordination, but probably to the restoration of the penitent.

    The reference in Hebrews 6:2 is not exclusively to ordination, but to all occasions of laying on of hands ( see HANDS, IMPOSITION OF). From the few instances mentioned above (the only ones found in the New Testament), we infer that it was regarded as advisable that persons holding high office in the church should be publicly recognized in some way, as by laying on of hands, fasting, and public prayer. But no great emphasis was laid on this rite, hence, “it can hardly be likely that any essential principle was held to be involved in it” (Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 216). It was regarded as an outward act of approval, a symbolic offering of intercessory prayer, and an emblem of the solidarity of the Christian community, rather than an indispensable channel of grace for the work of the ministry. (For the later ecclesiastical doctrine and rite see Edwin Hatch’s valuable article on “Ordination” in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquity) D. Miall Edwards ORDER <or’-der > ([ Ër”[; , `arakh ], “to arrange”; [ta>ssein, tassein ] (> diatassein , taxis , tagma )): “Order” in Biblical phrases may indicate (1) arrangement in rows, (2) sequence in time, (3) classification and organization, (4) likeness or manner, (5) regulation, direction or command, or (6) the declaring of a will. In many passages it is difficult if not impossible to determine from the English text alone in which of these senses the word is used.

    1. ARRANGEMENT IN ROWS:

    The fundamental idea suggested by the Hebrew, Greek and English words is that of arrangement in rows. Thus “order” is used in the Bible of arranging wood for an altar ( Leviticus 1:7; 1 Kings 18:33; compare Hebrew Genesis 22:9; Isaiah 30:33); of laying out flax-stalks for drying ( Joshua 2:6); of preparing offerings ( Leviticus 1:8,12; compare 6:5; Judges 6:26); of arranging lamps ( Exodus 27:21; 39:37; Leviticus 24:3,4; compare <19D217> Psalm 132:17); of placing the shewbread on the table ( Exodus 40:4,23; Leviticus 6:12; 24:8; Chronicles 13:11); of drawing up the battle array ( 1 Chronicles 12:38 (Hebrew 39, `adhar )); and of arranging weapons in order for battle ( Jeremiah 46:3, the American Standard Revised Version “prepare”). As a verb “to order” in the older versions usually has the obsolete sense “to arrange” and not the more usual English meanings, “to demand” or “to direct.” Thus: “In the tent of meeting shall Aaron order it” ( Leviticus 24:4, the American Standard Revised Version “keep in order”); “Order ye the buckler and shield” ( Jeremiah 46:3; compare <19B9133> Psalm 119:133; Job 23:4, the American Standard Revised Version “set in order”; Judith 2:16; The Wisdom of Solomon 8:1; 15:1; Ecclesiasticus 2:6). The Hebrew pa`am (literally, “hoof-beat,” “occurrence,” “repetition”) in the plural conveys the idea of an architectural plan ( Ezekiel 41:6). Another word, shalabh , literally, “to join,” in connection with the tabernacle, has in some versions been translated as including the idea of orderly arrangement ( Exodus 26:17). The word “order” standing by itself may mean orderly or proper arrangement (1 Esdras 1:10; The Wisdom of Solomon 7:29; Macc 6:40; Colossians 2:5). Akin to the idea of arranging things in a row is that of arranging words ( Job 33:5; 37:19; Psalm 5:3), of recounting things in order ( Isaiah 44:7; Luke 1:1 the King James Version (diatassein ); Luke 1:3; Acts 11:4 (kathexes )), of setting forth a legal case ( Job 23:4; 13:18; compare Psalm 50:21). From the idea of arranging in order for the purpose of comparison the Hebrew `arakh acquires the meaning “to compare” ( Isaiah 40:18; Psalm 89:7). This is clearly the meaning of ‘en `arokh ‘elekha ( Psalm 40:5 (Hebrew 6)), where “They cannot be set in order unto thee” must be interpreted to mean “There is nothing that can be compared unto thee.”

    2. SEQUENCE IN TIME:

    As the fundamental meaning of `arakh is arrangement in space, that of cadhar is order or sequence in time. In later Hebrew cedher was used in the sense of “program.” In Job 10:22 lo’ cedharim , absence of regularity, in the description of the uncertain period that follows death probably means “confusion in time.” (The Septuagint ([fe>ggov, pheggos ]) suggests, in the place of cedharim , a word for “light,” possibly tsohorayim .) In the New Testament we find “order” used of time in connection with the resurrection of the dead ( 1 Corinthians 15:23 (tagma )) and of a succession of places visited ( Acts 18:23 (kathexes )).

    The phrase “in order unto” ( <19B938> Psalm 119:38) expresses causal sequence and hence, purpose.

    3. CLASSIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION:

    The idea of classification is present in the Hebrew taqan , translated “set in order,” with reference to a collection of proverbs ( Ecclesiastes 12:9).

    The same stem is used with reference to the arranging of singers before the altar (Hebrew Ecclesiasticus 47:9), The classification of priests according to their service is spoken of as “ordering” ( 1 Chronicles 24:3,19, Hebrew paqadh ). Next to the high priests ranked priests of the second order (mishneh, 2 Kings 23:4; compare 25:18 parallel Jeremiah 52:24). The related concept of organization is present where the Hebrew kun (literally, “to establish”.) is translated “order” ( Isaiah 9:7 the King James Version, “to establish” the American Standard Revised Version; <19B9133> Psalm 119:133; 2 Chronicles 29:35; compare 1 Macc 16:14). A similar use of the term “order” is found in the New Testament in connection with the organization of the affairs of the church ( <461601> Corinthians 16:1 (diatassein ); Titus 1:5 (epidiorthoo ); 1 Corinthians 11:34).

    4. LIKENESS OR MANNER: “Order,” in the sense of likeness or manner, is used in the phrase “after the order of Melchisedek” to translate the Hebrew `al dibherath , or rather the archaic form `al dibherathi ( <19B004> Psalm 110:4), which in other passages is translated “because of” (compare Ecclesiastes 3:18; 7:14; 8:2). This well-known phrase is rendered in Septuagint kata ten taxin , a translation adopted in Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,17, where the passage from Psalm is made the basis of an extended argument, in the course of which “order” is taken in the sense of “likeness” ( Hebrews 7:16).

    5. REGULATION, DIRECTION, COMMAND:

    In the sense of regulation, we find “order” as a translation of mishpaT (which is literally, “the ruling of a shopheT ,” whether as a judicial decree or legislative act) in connection with the conduct of priests ( 1 Chronicles 6:32 (Hebrew 17); 2 Chronicles 30:16; compare Luke 1:8; 1 Esdras 1:6), and with reference to the Nazirite regulations in the story of Samson ( Judges 13:12, the Revised Version (British and American) “manner”), church services ( 1 Corinthians 14:40) and, in the older English VSS, with reference to other ritual matters ( 1 Chronicles 15:13; 23:31; Chronicles 8:14, the American Standard Revised Version “ordinance”).

    The phrase `al yadh , literally, “according to the hand of,” translated in Ezra 3:10; 1 Chronicles 25:2b,3,6 twice in various ways, means “under the direction of,” or “under the order of,” as translated in the last instance. The modern sense of “command” is suggested here and in several other instances (1 Esdras 8:10; 1 Macc 9:55). He “that ordereth his conversation aright” (Samuel derekh , Psalm 50:23) is probably one who chooses the right path and directs his steps along it. “Who shall order the battle?” ( 1 Kings 20:14) is corrected in the American Standard Revised Version: “Who shall begin the battle?” (compare 2 Chronicles 13:3, Hebrew ‘acar , literally, “to bind,” hence, “to join” or “begin”; compare proelium committere).

    6. DECLARING OF LAST WILL:

    The phrase “to set one’s house in order” ( Isaiah 38:1 parallel <122001> Kings 20:1; 2 Samuel 17:23), used of Hezekiah and Ahithophel, in contemplation of death, means to give final instructions to one’s household or to make one’s will. The Hebrew tsawah used in this phrase is the stem found in the later Hebrew tsawwa’ah , “a verbal will” (Babha’ Bathra’ 147a, 151b; BDB). Great moral weight was attached in Biblical times to the charges laid upon a household by a deceased father or remoter ancestor, not only as to the disposition of property but also as to personal conduct. (Compare the case of the Rechabites, where the same Hebrew expression is used, tsiwwah `alenu , Jeremiah 35:6.) Nathan Isaacs ORDINANCE <or’-di-nans > :

    1. OLD TESTAMENT USE:

    This word generally represents [ hQ;ju , chuqqah ], something prescribed, enactment, usually with reference to matters of ritual. In the King James Version the same word is frequently translated by “statute” or “statutes,” which is also the rendering of a similar Hebrew word, namely, [ qjo , choq ]. the Revised Version (British and American) generally retains “ordinance,” but sometimes substitutes “statute” (e.g. Exodus 18:20; Psalm 99:7). In one instance the Revised Version (British and American) renders “set portion” ( Ezekiel 45:14). The word generally has a religious or ceremonial significance. It is used for instance in connection with the Passover ( Exodus 12:43; Numbers 9:14). According to Exodus 12:14, the Passover was “an ordinance for ever,” i.e. a permanent institution. In the plural the word is often employed, along with such terms as commandments, laws, etc., with reference to the different prescriptions of the Deuteronomic and Priestly codes ( Deuteronomy 6:1,2; Leviticus 18:4).

    In 11 passages ( Exodus 15:25; Joshua 24:25; 1 Samuel 30:25; 2 Kings 17:34,37; 2 Chronicles 33:8; 35:13; <19B991> Psalm 119:91; Isaiah 58:2 twice; Ezekiel 11:20) “ordinance” is the rendering of [ fP;v]mi , mishpaT ], judgment, decision or sentence by a judge or ruler. In the Book of the Covenant ( Exodus 20:22 through 23:33) the term “judgments” denotes civil, as contrasted with ritual, enactments. In Kings 17:34 the King James Version employs “manners” and “ordinances” as renderings of this word. In 3 passages ( Leviticus 18:30; 22:9; Malachi 3:14) “ordinance” is the translation of [ tr,m,v]mi , mishmereth ], “charge,” which the Revised Version (British and American) restores. In one instance ( Nehemiah 10:32) ordinance renders [ hw;x]mi , mitswah ], “commandment,” while in Ezra 3:10 the King James Version the phrase “after the ordinance of David” represents a Hebrew phrase which literally means “upon the hands of David,” i.e. under the guidance or direction of David.

    2. NEW TESTAMENT USE:

    In the New Testament, “ordinance” renders different Greek words, namely, (1) [dikai>wma, dikaioma ], in Luke 1:6 and Hebrews 9:1,10.

    The word means literally, “anything declared right”; but in these passages ceremonial and religious regulation; (2) [do>gma, dogma ], in Ephesiansesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14. In the New Testament this word always means a decree or edict ( Acts 17:7); (3) [para>dosiv, paradosis ], in 1 Corinthians 11:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “traditions”; (4) [kti>siv, ktisis ], “setting up,” “institution” in 1 Peter 2:13. The term is used exclusively of the action of God. Peter implies that institutions, apparently human, such as the family and the state, are of divine origin. The same doctrine is found in Romans 13:1. T. Lewis ORDINANCES OF HEAVEN See ASTRONOMY, I, 1.

    ORDINATION <or-di-na’-shun > . See ORDAIN, ORDINATION.

    OREB; ZEEB <o’-reb > , <ze’-eb > , <zeb > ([ brewI[ bre[o , `orebh ], “raven,” especially “crow”), and ([ baez] , ze’ebh ], “wolf”) ( Judges 7:25; 8:3; Psalm 83:11, and Isaiah 10:26 (Oreb only)): Two Midianite chieftains captured and beheaded by the Ephesiansraimites, who brought their heads to Gideon.

    1. MEANING OF NAMES:

    As to the meaning of the two names, both words are found in Arabic.

    Robertson Smith, Kinship, etc. (190 ff, 218 ff), says that the use of the names of animals as names of persons is a relic of totemism. But Noldeke (ZDMG, XL, 160 ff) and others hold that such a use shows a desire that those so named should be as disagreeable to their enemies as the plant or animal which the name denoted. Some again (e.g. Stade, Geschichte, ff) maintain that the two names here are borrowed from localities and not vice versa, as Judges 7:25 implies. If so, we must take the names to be originally two places, apparently in Ephesiansraim, for the words “beyond Jordan” in 7:25 contradict 8:4, where it is said that Gideon came to the Jordan and passed over. Moore (Jgs, 214) suggests that the two localities were near the junction with the Jordan of the stream that comes from Wady Far`ah. The construction of the Hebrew allows of a translation “the rock (called) Oreb,” and “the winepress (called) Zeeb.”

    2. THE BATTLE OF OREB:

    The account of a battle here is corroborated by Isaiah 10:26, a verse which mentions the “rock of Oreb,” and suggests that the great defeat of the Midianites took place there (compare Isaiah 9:4). The passage in Isaiah 10:24-26 is prose, however, and is said to be late editing (see G.H. Box, Isaiah, 65). In Psalm 83:11 (Hebrew 12) there is a prayer that God would make the “nobles” among the Psalmist’s enemies as Oreb and Zeeb. David Francis Roberts OREB In 2 Esdras 2:33 the King James Version for MATTHEW. HOREB (which see; so the Revised Version (British and American)).

    OREN <o’-ren > ([ ˆr,ao , ‘oren ]; [ jAra>m, Aram ], Alex. Aran): A son of Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron ( 1 Chronicles 2:25).

    ORGAN <or’-gan > . See MUSIC.

    ORION <o-ri’-on > : A brilliant constellation dedicated to Nimrod or Merodach. See ASTRONOMY, II, 11.

    ORNAMENT <or’-na-ment > ([ ydi[\ , `adhi ], “adornment”): In common with all the Orientals, the Hebrews were very fond of wearing ornaments, and their tendency to extravagance of this kind often met with stern prophetic rebuke ( Isaiah 3:16-24; Ezekiel 13:18-20). On this subject, little is said in the New Testament apart from Jesus’ ( Luke 7:25; 12:23) and James’ ( James 2:2) invectives against meretricious estimates of moral character. Yet the employment of attractive attire receives sanction in the divine example of Ezekiel 16:10-14.

    Ornaments in general would include finely embroidered or decorated fabrics, such as the priest’s dress or the high-priestly attire, and the richly wrought veil, girdle and turban used by the wealthier class. But the term may be limited here to the various rings, bracelets and chains made of precious metals and more or less jeweled (compare Jeremiah 2:32).

    These latter, described in detail under their own titles, may be summarized here as finger-rings, particularly prized as seal-rings ( Genesis 38:18,25; Jeremiah 22:24); arm-rings or bracelets ( Genesis 24:22; Samuel 1:10); earrings ( Genesis 35:4; Exodus 32:2); noserings ( Genesis 24:47; Ezekiel 16:12); anklets or ankle-chains ( Isaiah 3:16,18); head-bands or fillets or cauls (referred to in Isaiah 3:18 only), and necklaces or neck-chains ( Genesis 41:42; Ezekiel 16:11).

    Figurative: The universal devotion to ornament among the Orientals is the occasion for frequent Biblical allusions to the beauty and splendor of fine jewelry and attire. But everywhere, in divine injunctions, the emphasis of value is placed upon the beauty of holiness as an inward grace rather than on the attractions of outward ornament ( Job 40:10; <19B003> Psalm 110:3; Joel 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:9,10; 1 Peter 3:4). In grievous sorrow, all ornament was to be laid aside in token of mourning ( Exodus 33:4-6). Leonard W. Doolan ORNAN <or’-nan > ( 1 Chronicles 21:15). See ARAUNAH.

    ORPAH <or’-pa > ([ hP;r][; , `orpah ]; for meaning see below): A Moabitess, wife of Mahlon, son of Elimelech and Naomi. Unlike her sister Ruth she returned to her own people after escorting Naomi on her way to Judah ( Ruth 1:4 ff). Her name is supposed to be derived from the Hebrew word for “neck” ([ tr,[o , `oreph ]), and so to mean “stiff-necked” because of her turningback from following her mother-in-law; others take it to mean “gazelle.”

    ORPHAN <or’-fan > : This word occurs once only in the Old Testament ( Lamentations 5:3, where it stands for [ µwOty; , yathom ], elsewhere rendered “fatherless,” and in the Septuagint always [ojrfano>v, orphanos ]); in the Apocrypha it occurs 3 times (2 Esdras 2:20; Tobit 1:8; 2 Macc 8:28). There is no clear case where it means the loss of both parents. The Scriptures devote considerable attention to the widow and orphan, and the idea is that the child is fatherless. It is not found in the King James Version of the New Testament; but the Greek word orphanos occurs twice, John 14:18 (the King James Version “comfortless,” the Revised Version (British and American) “desolate,” margin “orphans”) and James 1:27 (“fatherless”). See FATHERLESS.

    D. Miall Edwards ORTHOSIA <or-tho-si’-a > ([ jOrqwsi>av, Orthosias ]; the King James Version Orthosias): The city to which Tryphon fled when he escaped from Dora, where he was besieged by Antiochus Sidetes (1 Macc 15:37). According to Pliny (NH, v.17) it lay South of the river Eleutherus, and North of the city of Tripolis. The Peutinger Tables place it 12 Roman miles North of Tripolis and 30 miles South of Antaradus on the Phoenician coast. Porter would place it on the southern bank of Nahr el-Barid .

    OSAIAS <o-za’-yas > , <o-sa’-yas > ([ jWsai>av, Osaias ]; Codex Vaticanus omits):

    In 1 Esdras 8:48 a corruption of Jeshaiah (compare Ezra 8:19).

    OSEA <o-ze’-a > , <o-se’-a > : In 2 Esdras 13:40 = HOSHEA, king of Israel (which see).

    OSEAS <o-ze’-as > , <o-se’-as > : “Osee” in 2 Esdras 1:39; the prophet Hosea.

    OSEE <o’-ze > , <o’-se > ([ JWshe>, Hosee ]): the King James Version in Romans 9:25; the prophet Hosea (thus the Revised Version (British and American)).

    OSHEA <o-she’-a > , <o’-she-a > (the Revised Version (British and American) “Hoshea” ( Numbers 13:8,16)): The original name of Joshua, the son of Nun, changed by Moses ( Numbers 13:16) from Hoshea (hoshea` , “help”) to Joshua (yehoshua` , “help of Yahweh”). See JOSHUA.

    OSNAPPAR <os-nap’-ar > ( Ezra 4:10). See ASHURBANIPAL.

    OSPRAY <os’-pra > ([ hY;niz][; , `ozniyah ]; [aJlia>etov, haliaetos ]; Latin Pandion haliaetus ): A large hawk preferring a diet of fish. The word is found in the list of abominations only. See Leviticus 11:13; Deuteronomy 14:12.

    The osprey was quite similar in appearance to some of the smaller eagles, and by some it is thought that the short-toed eagle is intended. But the eagle and the gier-eagle had been specified, and on account of the osprey plunging into water for food and having feet bare to the lower leg-joint and plumage of brighter and more distinctive marking, it seems very probable that it was recognized as a distinctive species, and so named separately.

    Moreover, the osprey was not numerous as were other hawks and eagles.

    It was a bird that lived almost wholly on fish, and these were not plentiful in the waters of Palestine. This would tend to make it a marked bird, so no doubt the translation is correct as it stands, as any hawk that lived on fish would have been barred as an article of diet (see Tristram, Natural History of the Bible, 182; also Studers, Birds of North America, p. 16). Gene Stratton-Porter OSSIFRAGE <os’-i-fraj > ([ sr,p, , perec ]; [gu>y, gups ]; Latin Ossifraga ): The great bearded vulture known as the lammer-geier ( Leviticus 11:13; Deuteronomy 14:12 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “gier-eagle”). The Hebrew name perec means “to break.” Let oasis, “bone,” and frangere, “to break,” indicate the most noticeable habit of the bird. It is the largest of the vulture family, being 1/2 ft. in length and 10 in sweep. It has a white head, black beard on the chin, and the part of the eye commonly called the “white” in most animals, which is visible in but few birds, in this family is pronounced and of a deep angry red, thus giving the bird a formidable appearance. The back is grayish black, the feathers finely penciled, the shaft being white, the median line tawny. The under parts are tawny white and the feet and talons powerful. It differs from the vulture in that it is not a consistent carrion feeder, but prefers to take prey of the size captured by some of the largest eagles. It took its name from the fact that after smaller vultures and eagles had stripped a carcass to the last shred of muscle, the lammergeier then carried the skeleton aloft and dropped it repeatedly until the marrow from the broken bones could be eaten. It is also very fond of tortoise, the meat of which it secures in the same manner. As this bird frequents Southern Europe, it is thought to be the one that mistook the bald head of Aeschylus, the poet, for a stone and let fall on it the tortoise that caused his death. This bird also attacks living prey of the size of lambs, kids and hares.

    It is not numerous and does not flock, but pairs live in deep gorges and rocky crevices. It builds an enormous nest, deposits one pinkish or yellowish egg, and the young is black. It requires two years to develop the red eyes, finely penciled plumage and white head of the adult bird. It was included among the abominations because of its diet of carrion. Gene Stratton-Porter OSTRACA <os’-tra-ka > : The word ostracon (“potsherd,” Hebrew cheres ) occurs in Job 2:8 (Septuagint), [kai< e]laben o]strakon, kai elaben ostrakon ], “and he took him a potsherd.” Earthen vessels were in universal use in antiquity (they are twice mentioned in the New Testament: [skeu>h ojstra>kina, skeue ostrakina ] ( 2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Timothy 2:20)), and the broken fragments of them, which could be picked up almost anywhere, were made to serve various purposes. Upon the smoothest of these pieces of unglazed pottery the poorest might write in ink his memoranda, receipts, letters or texts.

    1. HEBREW OSTRACA:

    A fortunate discovery at Samaria (1910), made among the ruins of Ahab’s palace, has brought to light 75 Hebrew ostraca inscribed with ink, in the Phoenician character, with accounts and memoranda relating to private matters and dating probably from the time of Ahab. Their historical contribution, aside from the mention of many names of persons and places, is slender, but for ancient Hebrew writing and to a less extent for Hebrew words and forms they are of value, while the fact that in them we possess documents actually penned in Israel in the 9th century BC gives them extraordinary interest. The nature of ostraca tends to their preservation under conditions which would quickly destroy parchment, skin or papyrus, and this discovery in Palestine encourages the hope of further and more significant finds.

    2. GREEK OSTRACA:

    Greek ostraca in large quantities have been found in Egypt, preserving documents of many kinds, chiefly tax receipts. The texts of some 2,000 of these have been published, principally by Wilcken (Griechische Ostraka , volumes, 1899), and serve to illustrate in unexpected ways the everyday Greek speech of the common people of Egypt through the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine periods. Like the papyri, they help to throw light on New Testament syntax and lexicography, as well as on ancient life in general.

    3. NEW TESTAMENT OSTRACA:

    It is said that Cleanthes the Stoic, being too poor to buy papyrus, used to write on ostraca, but no remains of classical literature have been found on the ostraca thus far discovered. In some instances, however, Christian literary texts are preserved upon ostraca. Some years ago Bouriant bought in Upper Egypt 20 ostraca, probably of the 7th century, inscribed with the Greek text of parts of the Gospels. The ostraca are of different sizes, and preserve among others one long continuous passage ( Luke 22:40-71), which runs over 10 of the pieces. The ostraca contain from 2 to 9 verses each, and cover Matthew 27:31,32; Mark 5:40,41 (9:3); 9:17,18,22; 15:21; Luke 12:13-16; 22:40-71; John 1:1-9; 1:14-17; 18:19-25; 19:15-17. The texts are in 3 different hands, and attest the interest of the poor in the gospel in the century of the Arab conquest. Another late ostracon has a rough drawing labeled “St. Peter the evangelist,” perhaps in allusion to the Gospel of Peter.

    4. COPTIC OSTRACA:

    Coptic ostraca, too, are numerous, especially from the Byzantine period, and of even more interest for Christian history than the Greek. A Sa`idic ostracon preserves the pericope on the woman taken in adultery ( John 7:53 through 8:11), which is otherwise unattested in the Sa`idic New Testament. A Christian hymn to Mary, akin to the canticles of Luke, and some Christian letters have been found. The work of W.E. Crum on the Coptic ostraca is of especial importance. See, further, Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910; Lyon, Harvard Theol. Review, January, 1911. Edgar J. Goodspeed OSTRICH <os’-trich > ([ hn;[\y” , ya`anah ]; [strouqo>v, strouthos ]; Latin Struthio camelus): The largest bird now living. The Hebrew words ya`anah , which means “greediness,” and bath ha-ya`anah , “daughter of greediness,” are made to refer to the indiscriminate diet of the ostrich, to which bird they apply; and again to the owl, with no applicability. The owl at times has a struggle to swallow whole prey it has taken, but the mere fact that it is a night hunter forever shuts it from the class of greedy and promiscuous feeders. The bodies of owls are proverbially lean like eagles. Neither did the owl frequent several places where older versions of Jeremiah and Isaiah place it; so the translations are now correctly rendered “ostrich.” These birds came into the Bible because of their desert life, the companions they lived among there, and because of their night cries that were guttural, terrifying groans, like the roaring of lions. The birds were brought into many pictures of desolation, because people dreaded their fearful voices.

    They horned on the trackless deserts that were dreaded by travelers, and when they came feeding on the fringe of the wilderness, they fell into company with vulture, eagle, lion, jackal and adder, and joined their voices with the night hawks and owls. For these reasons no birds were more suitable for drawing strong comparisons from.

    1. PHYSICAL PECULIARITIES:

    They attained a height ranging from 6 to 8 ft., and weighed from 200 to 300 lbs. The head was small with large eyes having powerful vision, and protected by lashes. The neck was long, covered with down, and the windpipe showed, while large bites could be seen to slide down the gullet.

    The legs were bare, long, and the muscles like steel from the long distances covered in desert travel. The foot was much like the cloven hoof of a beast.

    The inner toe was 7 inches long, with a clawlike hoof, the outer, smaller with no claw. With its length and strength of leg and the weight of foot it could strike a blow that saved it from attack by beasts smaller than a leopard. The wings were small, the muscles soft and flabby. They would not bear the weight of the bird, but the habit of lifting and beating them proved that this assisted in attaining speed in running (compare Xen. Anab. i.5,2, 3). The body was covered with soft flexible feathers, the wings and tail growing long plumes, for which the bird has been pursued since the beginning of time. These exquisite feathers were first used to decorate the headdress and shields of desert chieftains, then as decorations for royalty, and later for hat and hair ornaments. The badge of the Prince of Wales is three white ostrich plumes. The females are smaller, the colors gray and white, the males a glossy black, the wing and tail plumes white. The ostrich has three physical peculiarities that stagger scientists. It has eyelashes, developed no doubt to protect the eyes from the dust and sand of desert life. On the wings are two plumeless shafts like large porcupine quills.

    These may be used in resisting attack. It also has a bladder like a mammal, that collects uric acid, the rarest organ ever developed in a feathered creature.

    2. EGGS AND CARE OF YOUNG:

    These birds homed on the deserts of Arabia and at the lower end of the great Salt Sea. Here the ostrich left her eggs on the earth and warmed them in the sand. That they were not hard baked was due to the fact that they were covered for protection during the day and brooded through the cooler nights. The eggs average 3 lbs. weight. They have been used for food in the haunts of the ostrich since the records of history began, and their stout shells for drinking-vessels. It is the custom of natives on finding a nest to take a long stick and draw out an egg. If incubation has advanced enough to spoil the eggs for use, the nest is carefully covered and left; if fresh, they are eaten, one egg being sufficient for a small family. No doubt these were the eggs to which Job referred as being tasteless without salt ( Job 6:6).

    The number of eggs in the nest was due to the fact that the birds were polygamous, one male leading from 2 to 7 females, all of which deposited their eggs in a common nest. When several females wanted to use the nest at the same time, the first one to reach it deposited her egg in it, and the others on the sand close beside. This accounts for the careless habits of the ostrich as to her young. In this communal nest, containing from 2 to dozen eggs, it is impossible for the mother bird to know which of the young is hers. So all of them united in laying the eggs and allowing the father to look after the nest and the young. The bird first appears among the abominations in Leviticus 11:16 the Revised Version (British and American) the King James Version “owl”; Deuteronomy 14:16, the Revised Version (British and American) “little owl,” the King James Version “owl.” This must have referred to the toughness of grown specimens, since there was nothing offensive in the bird’s diet to taint its flesh and the young tender ones were delicious meat. In his agony, Job felt so much an outcast that he cried: “I am a brother to jackals, And a companion to ostriches” ( Job 30:29).

    Again he records that the Almighty discoursed to him about the ostrich in the following manner: “The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; But are they the pinions and plumage of love?” etc. ( Job 39:13-18).

    3. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

    The ostrich history previously given explains all this passage save the last two verses, the first of which is a reference to the fact that the Arabs thought that the ostrich was a stupid bird, because, when it had traveled to the point of exhaustion, it hid its head and thought its body safe, and because some of its eggs were found outside the nest. The second was due to a well-known fact that, given a straight course, the ostrich could outrun a horse. The birds could attain and keep up a speed of 60 miles an hour for the greater part of half a day and even longer, hence, it was possible to capture them only by a system of relay riders (Xenophon, op. cit.) When Isaiah predicted the fall of Babylon, he used these words: “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell there, and wild goats shall dance there” ( Isaiah 13:21). Because this was to be the destruction of a great city, located on the Euphrates River and built by the fertility and prosperity of the country surrounding it, and the ruins those of homes, the bird indicated by every natural condition would be the owl. The wild goats clambering over the ruins would be natural companions and the sneaking wolves — but not the big bird of daytime travel, desert habitation, accustomed to constant pursuit for its plumage. Exactly the same argument applies to the next reference by the same writer ( Isaiah 34:13). “And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest” ( Isaiah 34:14). “The beasts of the field shall honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen” ( Isaiah 43:20). Here we find the ostrich in its natural location, surrounded by creatures that were its daily companions. The next reference also places the bird at home and in customary company: “Therefore the wild beasts of the desert with the wolves shall dwelI there, and the ostriches (the King James Version “owls”) shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited forever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation” ( Jeremiah 50:39). “Even the jackals draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones:

    The daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness” ( Lamentations 4:3).

    This reference is made to the supposed cruelty of the ostrich in not raising its young. Gene Stratton-Porter OTHNI <oth’-ni > ([ ynit][; , `othni ], meaning unknown): A son of Shemaiah, a Korahite Levite ( 1 Chronicles 26:7).

    OTHNIEL <oth’-ni-el > ([ laeynit][; , `othni’el ]): A hero in Israel, son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. He conquered Kiriath-sepher, later known as Debir, in the territory of Judah in the days of Joshua, and was given the daughter of Caleb, Achsah, to wife as a reward ( Joshua 15:17, parallel found in Judges 1:13). He later smote Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, whom the children of Israel had served 8 years, and thus not only saved the Israelites, but by reviving national sentiment among them (compare Ant, V, iv, 3), and reestablishing government, became the first of those hero-rulers known as “judges.” The effects of his victory lasted an entire generation (40 years, Judges 3:9-11). He had a son named Hathath ( Chronicles 4:13) and probably another named Meonothai (compare recensio Luciana of Septuagint, at the place). In the days of David we find a family bearing the name of Othniel, from which came Heldai the Metophathite, captain of the twelfth month ( 1 Chronicles 27:15). Nathan Isaacs OTHONIAS <oth-o-ni’-as > ([ jOqoni>av, Othonias ]): One of those who had taken “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:28) = “Mattaniah” of Ezra 10:27.

    OUCHES <ouch’-ez > , <-iz > ([ twOxB]v]mi , mishbetsoth ] ( Exodus 28:11,13,14,25; 39:6,13,16,18) the American Standard Revised Version “settings,” but in Exodus 39:13, “inclosings”): The secondary meaning of this now archaic word is the gold or silver setting of a precious stone. In Exodus, where it occurs 8 times, it is clear that the gold settings of the engraved stones forming the breast-plate of the high priest are intended; the onyx stones forming the fibula or brooch for holding together the two sides of the breast-plate being said to be “enclosed in ouches (settings) of gold” ( Exodus 39:6). Not only were these two onyx or beryl stones so set, but the 12 stones forming the front of the breast-plate were “inclosed in gold in their settings” ( Exodus 28:20). The same word occurs in Psalm 45:13, where the king’s daughter is said to have her clothing “inwrought with gold,” i.e. embroidered with gold thread or wire. Exodus 39:3 tells us how this wire was produced. From this fact it may be inferred that the settings of the breast-plate were not solid pieces of gold, but were formed of woven wire wreathed round the stones, in a sort of filigree. See also STONES, PRECIOUS.

    W. Shaw Caldecott OUTCAST <out’-kast > : Represents some form of [ hj;D; , dachah ], or [ jd”n; , nadhach ], both meaning “thrust out.” In Jeremiah 30:17 “outcast” means “thrust out of society,” “degraded person”; elsewhere it means “exile” ( <19E702> Psalm 147:2; Isaiah 16:3 f; Jeremiah 49:36).

    OUTER <out’-er > : This adjective is used 12 times by Ezekiel of the outside court of the temple. In Matthew we find it 3 times (8:12; 22:13; 25:30) in “outer darkness” ([to< sko>tov to< ejxw>teron, to skotos to exoteron ]), which typifies the utter darkness of the doom of the lost.

    OUTGOING <out’-go-ing > : In Psalm 65:8, “Thou makest the outgoings of the morning and evening to rejoice,” the Hebrew is [ ax;wOm , motsa’ ]. The word (from yatsa’ , “to go forth”) refers to the “going forth” of the sun, and so means “east” (as in Psalm 75:6). The connection of motsa’ with “evening” is therefore zeugmatic, but the meaning is clear and there are extra-Biblical parallels (compare “the two Orients”). In Joshua 17:18, the King James Version uses “outgoings” for the Hebrew [ twOax;wOT, totsa’oth ] (also from yatsa’ ), where the meaning is “extremity” (the Revised Version (British and American) “goings out,” as in Numbers 34:5, etc.). “Outwent” occurs in the margin of Mark 6:33. Burton Scott Easton OUTLANDISH <out-land’-ish > ( Nehemiah 13:26, the King James Version “Him did outlandish women cause to sin”): “Outlandish” in modern English is colloquial only and with the sense “utterly extraordinary,” but the King James Version uses it in the literal meaning “out of the land,” “foreign,” the English Revised Version “strange women,” the American Standard Revised Version “foreign women,” Hebrew [ yrik]n; , nokhri ], “foreign.”

    OUTRAGE; OUTRAGEOUS <out’-raj > , <out-ra’-jus > : The noun (from the French outre plus age, “that which goes beyond”) only in the heading to Psalm 10 the King James Version; the adjective in Proverbs 27:4, the King James Version and the English Revised Version, for [ tf,v, , sheTeph ], “flood.” “Anger is overwhelming” (American Standard Revised Version), is much better.

    OUTROADS <out’-rodz > ([ejxodeu>w, exodeuo ], “to go forth,” “to make a military expedition”; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in 1 Macc 15:41, “horsemen .... that they might make outroads upon the ways of Judah”; 1 Esdras 4:23, the Revised Version (British and American) “goeth forth to make outroads”): “Outroads” is obsolete, but its opposite, “inroads,” is still good English.

    OUTWARD, MAN <out’-werd > , ([e]xw, exo ], “outside,” “without,” “out of doors”): The body, subject to decay and death, in distinction from the inner man, the imperishable spiritual life which “is renewed day by day” ( 2 Corinthians 4:16); also the body as the object of worldly thought and pride in external dress and adornment ( 1 Peter 3:3). See MAN, NATURAL; MAN, NEW.

    OVEN <uv’-’-n > . See BREAD; FURNACE.

    OVERCHARGE <o-ver-charj’ > : Luke 21:34, “lest haply your hearts be overcharged with drunkenness” ([baru>nw, baruno ], “burden,” here with the force “be occupied with”); 2 Corinthians 2:5, the King James Version “that I may not overcharge you” ([ejpibare>w, epibareo ], “overload”), the Revised Version (British and American) “that I press not too heavily.” See CHARGES.

    OVERPASS <o-ver-pas’ > : A special translation of the very common verb [ rb”[; , `abhar ], “to pass over,” found in English Versions of the Bible of Psalm 57:1 and Isaiah 26:20 in the sense “to pass by,” and in Jeremiah 5:28 with the meaning “to overflow.”

    OVERPLUS <o’-ver-plus > : Leviticus 25:27, for [ td”[; , `adhaph ], “excess.”

    OVERSEER <o-ver-se’-er > , or <-ser’ > : One who overlooks, inspects; in the Old Testament from [ jx”n; , natsach ] ( 2 Chronicles 2:18; in Chronicles 34:13 the Revised Version (British and American) changes to “set forward”), and [ dq”P; , paqadh ] ( Genesis 39:4,5; 2 Chronicles 34:12,17; the Revised Version (British and American) has this word for the King James Version “officers” in Genesis 41:34, and for “rulers” in 1 Chronicles 26:32); in the New Testament once for [ejpi>skopov, episkopos ], in Acts 20:28, where the Revised Version (British and American) has “bishops” (margin “overseers”; compare 1 Peter 5:2). See BISHOP.

    OWL <oul > ([ hn;[\Y”h” tB” , bath ha-ya`anah ]; Latin Ulula ): The name of every nocturnal bird of prey of the Natural Order Striges . These birds range from the great horned owl of 2 feet in length, through many subdivisions to the little screech-owl of 5 inches. All are characterized by very large heads, many have ear tufts, all have large eyes surrounded by a disk of tiny, stiff, radiating feathers. The remainder of the plumage has no aftershaft. So these birds make the softest flight of any creature traveling on wing. A volume could be written on the eye of the owl, perhaps its most wonderful feature being in the power of the bird to enlarge the iris if it wishes more distinct vision. There is material for another on the prominent and peculiar auditory parts. With almost all owls the feet are so arranged that two toes can be turned forward and two back, thus reinforcing the grip of the bird by an extra toe and giving it unusual strength of foot. All are night-hunters, taking prey to be found at that time, of size according to the strength. The owl was very numerous in the caves, ruined temples and cities, and even in the fertile valleys of Palestine. It is given place in the Bible because it was considered unfit for food and because people dreaded the cries of every branch of the numerous family. It appeared often, as most birds, in the early versions of the Bible; later translators seem to feel that it was used in several places where the ostrich really was intended ( see OSTRICH). It would appear to a natural historian that the right bird could be selected by the location, where the text is confusing. The ostrich had a voice that was even more terrifying, when raised in the night, than that of the owl. But it was a bird of the desert, of wide range and traveled only by day. This would confine its habitat to the desert and the greenery where it joined fertile land, but would not bring it in very close touch with civilization. The owl is a bird of ruins, that lay mostly in the heart of rich farming lands, where prosperous cities had been built and then destroyed by enemies. Near these locations the ostrich would be pursued for its plumage, and its nesting conditions did not prevail. The location was strictly the owl’s chosen haunt, and it had the voice to fit all the requirements of the text. In the lists of abominations, the original Hebrew yanshuph, derived from a root meaning twilight, is translated “great owl” ( see Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:16). It is probable that this was a bird about 2 ft. in length, called the eagle-owl. In the same lists the word koc ([ nuktiko>rax, nuktikorax]) refers to ruins, and the bird indicated is specified as the “little owl,” that is, smaller than the great owl — about the size of our barn owl. This bird is referred to as the “mother of ruins,” and the translations that place it in deserted temples and cities are beyond all doubt correct. Qippoz ([ ejci~nov, echinos]) occurs once ( Isaiah 34:15), and is translated “great owl” in former versions; lately (in the American Standard Revised Version) it is changed to “dart-snake” (the English Revised Version “arrowsnake”). In this same description lilith ([ ojnoke>ntaurov, onokentauros]), “a specter of night,” was formerly screech-owl, now it reads “night monster,” which is more confusing and less suggestive. The owls in the lists of abominations ( Leviticus 11:17,18; Deuteronomy 14:16) are the little owl, the great owl and the horned owl. The only other owl of all those that produced such impressions of desolation in the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, and Micah is referred to in <19A206> Psalm 102:6: “I am like a pelican of the wilderness; I am become as an owl of the waste places.” Here it would appear that the bird habitual to the wilderness and the waste places, that certainly would be desert, would be the ostrich — while in any quotation referring to ruins, the owl would be the bird indicated by natural conditions. Gene Stratton-Porter OWL, GREAT ([ tWvn]y” , yanshuph ]; Septuagint [ I]biv, ibis ], or [eibiv, eibis ]): A member of the Palestine species of the family Strigidae. The great owl mentioned in the Bible was no doubt their largest specimen of the family, a bird fully 2 ft. in length, full feathered, with unusually large head and long ear tufts. It was a formidable and noble-appearing bird, with resounding voice. It was abundant among the ruins of temples, the tombs of Carmel, the caves of Gennesaret, and among the ruined cities of Southern Judah. It is included in the abomination lists of Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:16. See OWL.

    Gene Stratton-Porter OWL, LITTLE ([ swOK, koc ]; [nuktiko>rax, nuktikorax ]; Latin Athene meridionalis): A night bird of prey distinguished by a round head, and extremely large eyes.

    The little owl is left in the Revised Version (British and American) only in the lists of abominations (see Leviticus 11:17; Deuteronomy 14:16). See OWL.

    OWL, SCREECH See NIGHT MONSTER.

    OWNER <on’-er > . See SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 2.

    OX (1) See ANTELOPE; CATTLE; WILD OX.

    OX (2) <oks > ([ ]Wx, Ox ]): One of the ancestors of Judith (Judith 8:1). The name is not Hebrew. Perhaps the Itala Ozi and the Syriac Uz point to the Hebrew Uzzi .

    OX-GOAD <oks’-god > . See GOAD.

    OZEM <o’-zem > ([ µx,ao , ‘otsem ], meaning unknown): (1) The 6th son of David ( 1 Chronicles 2:15). Septuagint ([ ]Asom, Asom ]) and Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) suggest that the name should be pointed [ µxoa; , ‘atsom ]. (2) A “son” of Jerahmeel ( 1 Chronicles 2:25).

    OZIAS <o-zi’-as > : (1) ([ jOzei>av, Ozeias ], [ jOzi>av, Ozias ], Codex Vaticanus a b): The son of Micah, a Simeonite, one of the 3 rulers of Bethulia in the days of Judith (Judith 6:15,16; 7:23; 8:9 ff; 10:6). (2) ([ jOzei>av, Ozeias ], Codex Vaticanus and Swete; the King James Version has Ezias (1 Esdras 8:2), following Codex Alexandrinus [ jEzi>av, Ezias ]): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2; 2 Esdras 1:2) = “Uzzi” of Ezra 7:4; 1 Chronicles 6:51. (3) Head of a family of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:31) = “Uzza” of Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51. (4) Greek form of UZZIAH (which see) in Matthew 1:8,9 the King James Version. A king of Judah. S. Angus OZIEL <o’-zi-el > ([ jOzeih>l, Ozeiel ]): An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1); another form of the Old Testament name “Uzziel.”

    OZNI <oz’-ni > ([ yniz]a; , ‘ozni ], “my hearing,” or “my ear”): A “son” of Gad ( Numbers 26:16) = “Ezbon” of Genesis 46:16 (compare Chronicles 7:7).

    OZNITES <oz’-nits > (with the article [ yniz]a;h; , ha’ozni ] (collective), “the Oznites”):

    Of the clan of Ozni ( Numbers 26:16). See ONZI.

    OZORA <o-zo’-ra > . See EZORA.

    GOTO NEXT CHAPTER - ANONYMOUS AUTHORS INDEX & SEARCH

    God Rules.NET
    Search 80+ volumes of books at one time. Nave's Topical Bible Search Engine. Easton's Bible Dictionary Search Engine. Systematic Theology Search Engine.