M

MAASEAS.—The grandfather of Baruch (Bar 1:1) = Mahseiah of Jer 32:12, 51:59.

MAASEIAH.—1. A priest, of the sons of Jeshua, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:18

[1 Es 9:19 Mathelas]). 2. A priest, of the sons of Harim, who had committed the same offence (Ezr 10:21 [1 Es 9:21 Manes]). Foreign wives had been taken also by 3. and 4.—A priest, of the sons of Pashbur (Ezr 10:22 [1 Es 9:22 Massias]), and a layman, of the sons of Pahath-moab ( v. 30 [1 Es 9:31 Moossias]). 5. A wall-builder (Neh 3:23). 6. One of those who stood upon the right hand of Ezra at the reading of the Law (Neh 8:4); called in 1 Es 9:43 Baalsamus. 7. One of those who expounded the Law to the people (Neh 8:7); called in 1 Es 9:48 Maiannas. He is perhaps the same as the preceding. 8. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:26). 9. A Judahite (Neh 11:5); in 1 Ch 9:5 Asaiah. 10. A Benjamite (Neh 11:7). 11. 12. Two priests (Neh 12:41f.). 13. A priest in the time of Zedekiah (Jer 21:1, 29:25, 35:4, 37:3). 14. The father of the false prophet Zedekiah (Jer 29:21). 15. A Levitical singer (1 Ch 15:18, 20). 16. One of the captains who assisted Jehoiada in the overthrow of Athaliah (2 Ch 23:1). 17. An officer of Uzziah (2 Ch 26:11). 18. A son of Ahaz slain by Zichri the Ephraimite (2 Ch 28:7). 19. Governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (2 Ch 34:8). 20. In 1 Ch 6:40 Baaseiah appears to be a textual error for Maaseiah.

MAASMAS (1 Es 8:43) = Shemaiah. Ezr 8:16.

MAATH.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:26).

MAAZ.—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:27).

MAAZIAH.—A priestly family which constituted the 24th course (Neh 10:8, 1 Ch 24:18).

MACALON (1 Es 5:21).—The same as Michmash; cf. Ezr 2:27.

MACCABEES.—The name commonly given to the Jewish family otherwise known as Hasmonæans, who led the revolt against Syria under Antiochus IV., and furnished the dynasty of leaders and rulers in the State thus formed. The family is said to have derived its name from a more or less mythical ancestor Hasmonœus. The chief members of the house were:

1. Mattathias (B.C. 167–166), a citizen of Modin, and of priestly descent. When, in accordance with the policy of Antiochus IV., the royal officer attempted to establish heathen sacrifices in that town, Mattathias refused to conform, killed the officer and a Jew about to offer sacrifices, levelled the heathen altar to the ground, and fled with his five sons to the mountains.

There he was joined by a number of other patriots and by ‘the Pious’ (see HASIDÆANS). After a few months of vigorous fighting in behalf of the Torah, Mattathias died, leaving the conduct of the revolt to his five sons. Of these, Eleazar and John were killed in the succeeding struggle without having attained official standing. The other three were his successors (1 Mac 2).

2. Judas (B.C. 166–161), called Maccabee, or ‘the Hammerer,’ from which surname the entire family came to be known. Judas was essentially a warrior, whose plans involved not only the re-establishment of the Torah, but also, in all probability, the re-establishment of the Jewish State in at least a semi-independent position. He defeated successively the Syrian generals Apollonius and Seron. Antiochus IV. then sent Lysias, the Imperial chancellor, to put down the revolt, and he in turn sent a large body of troops against Judas, under three generals—Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. Judas called the fighting men of Galilee together at Mizpah, organized them, and at Emmaus surprised and utterly defeated the forces of Gorgias (B.C. 166–165). In the autumn of 165, Lysias himself came against Judas at the head of a great army, but was defeated at Bethzur. Thereupon, in December 165, Judas cleansed the Temple of the Syrian pollutions and inaugurated the re-established worship with a great feast. For a year and a half he waged war on his enemies on the east of the Jordan, while his brother Simon brought the Jews scattered throughout Galilee back to Judæa for safety. His vigorous campaign, however, seems to have alienated ‘the Pious,’ who had seen their ambition realized in the re-establishment of the Temple worship. Lysias returned with a great army, and at Beth-zacharias completely defeated Judas. He then laid siege to Jerusalem, where the citadel was still in Syrian hands. Jerusalem surrendered, but Lysias did not attempt again to disestablish the Jewish faith. He appointed Alcimus as high priest, who was received by ‘the Pious’ as legitimate, although he favoured the Greeks. Judas and his party, however, remained in revolt, and when Lysias returned to Syria, undertook war against Alcimus himself. Demetrius r., who had succeeded Antiochus IV., sent Nicanor to put an end to the rebellion. He was defeated by Judas at Capharsalama, and retreated to Jerusalem, where he threatened to burn the Temple if Judas were not delivered up. This once more brought ‘the Pious’ to the support of Judas, who decisively defeated the Syrians at Adasa, Nicanor himself being killed. Josephus states that at this time Alcimus died and Judas was made high priest. Although this is probably an error, Judas was now at the head of the State. He sent ambassadors to Rome asking for assistance, which was granted to the extent that the Senate sent word to Demetrius I. to desist from fighting the Jews, the allies of the Romans. This international policy of Judas displeased ‘the Pious,’ however, and they deserted him; and before the message of the Senate could reach Demetrius, Judas had been defeated by the Syrian general Bacchides, at Elasa, and killed (1 Mac 3–9:22).

3. Jonathan (B.C. 161–143) undertook the leadership of the revolt, only to suffer serious defeat east of the Jordan, where he had gone to avenge the killing of his brother John by the ‘sons of Jambri.’ For a time it looked as if Syria would again establish its complete control over the country. The high priest Alcimus died, and Bacchides, believing the subjection of Judæa complete, returned to Syria (B.C. 160). The land, however, was not at peace, and in the interests of order Bacchides gave Jonathan the right to maintain an armed force at Michmash. The fortunes of the Maccabæan house now rose steadily. As a sort of licensed revolutionist, Jonathan was sought as an ally by the two rivals for the Syrian throne, Alexander Balas and Demetrius I. Each made him extravagant offers, but Jonathan preferred Alexander Balas; and when the latter defeated his rival, Jonathan found himself a high priest, a prince of Syria, and military and civil governor of Judæa (B.C. 150). When Alexander Balas was conquered by Demetrius II., Jonathan laid siege to the citadel of Jerusalem, which was still in the hands of the Syrians. Demetrius did not find himself strong enough to punish the Jews, but apparently bought off the siege by adding to Judæa three sections of Samaria, and granting remission of tribute. Jonathan thereupon became a supporter of Demetrius II., and furnished him auxiliary troops at critical times. Thanks to the disturbance in the Syrian Empire, Jonathan conquered various cities in the Maritime Plain and to the south of Judæa, re-established treaties with Rome and Sparta, and strengthened the fortifications of Jerusalem, cutting off the Syrian garrison with a high wall. Joppa was garrisoned and various strategic points throughout Judæa fortified. This steady advance towards independence was checked, however, by the treacherous seizure of Jonathan by Trypho, the guardian and commanding general of the young Antiochus V., by whom he was subsequently (B.C. 142) executed (1 Mac 9:28–12).

4. Simon (B.C. 143–135), another son of Mattathias, succeeded Jonathan when the affairs of the State were in a critical position. A man of extraordinary ability, he was so successful in diplomacy as seldom to be compelled to carry on war. It was greatly to his advantage that the Syrian State was torn by the struggles between the aspirants to the throne. Simon’s first step was to make the recognition of the independence of Judæa a condition of an alliance with Demetrius II. The need of that monarch was too great to warrant his refusal of Simon’s hard terms, and the political independence of Judæa was achieved (B.C. 143–142). In May 142 Simon was able to seize the citadel, and in September 141, at a great assembly of priests and people, and princes of the people, and elders of the land, he was elected to be high priest and military commander and civil governor of the Jews, ‘for ever until there should arise a faithful prophet.’ That is to say, the high-priestly office became hereditary in Simon’s family. Following the policy of his house, Simon re-established the treaty with Rome, although he became involved in a strenuous struggle with Syria, in which the Syrian general was defeated by his son, John Hyrcanus. Like his brothers, however, Simon met a violent death, being killed by his son-in-law at a banquet (1 Mac 13–16:16).

5. John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135–105). Under this son of Simon, the Jewish State reached its greatest prosperity. Josephus describes him as high priest, king, and prophet, but strangely enough the records of his reign are scanty. At the opening of his reign, John’s position, like that of his father and uncle, was critical. Antiochus VII. (Sidetes), the last energetic king of Syria, for a short time threatened to reduce Judæa again to political dependence. He besieged Jerusalem and starved it into surrender. For some reason, however, probably because of the interference of the Romans he did not destroy the city, but, exacting severe terms, left it under the control of Hyrcanus. Antiochus was presently killed in a campaign against the Parthians, and was succeeded by the weak Demetrius II., who had been released from imprisonment by the same nation. John Hyrcanus from this time onwards paid small attention to Syrian power, and began a career of conquest of the territory on both sides of the Jordan and in Samaria. The affairs of Syria growing ever more desperate under the succession of feeble kings, John ceased payment of the tribute which had been exacted by Antiochus, and established a brilliant court, issuing coins as high priest and head of the Congregation of the Jews. He did not, however, take the title of ‘king.’ His long reign was marked by a break with the Pharisees, who, as successors of ‘the Pious,’ had been the traditional party of the government, and the establishment of friendship with the Sadducees, thereby fixing the high priesthood as one of the perquisites of that party. John died in peace, bequeathing to his family a well-rounded out territory and an independent government (Jos. Ant. XIII. viii–x.; BJ I. ii.).

6. Aristobulus I. (B.C. 105–104). According to the will of John Hyrcanus, the government was placed in his widow’s hands, while the high priesthood was given to the oldest of his five sons, Aristobulus. The latter, however, put his mother in prison, where she starved to death, established his brother Antigonus as joint-ruler, and threw his other three brothers into prison. In a short time, urged on by suspicion, he had his brother Antigonus killed, and he himself took the title of ‘king.’ Of his short reign we know little except that he was regarded as a friend of the Greeks, and conquered and circumcised the Ituræans, who probably lived in Galilee. At this time the final Judaizing of Galilee began (Jos. Ant. XIII. xi.; BJ I. iii.).

7. Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 104–78). After the death of Aristobulus, his widow Alexandra ( Salome ) released his three brothers from prison, and married the oldest of them, Alexander Jannæus (or Jonathan), making him king and high priest. Alexander carried on still more vigorously the monarchical policy of Aristobulus, and undertook the extension of Judæa by the conquest of the surrounding cities, including those of Upper Galilee. He was essentially a warrior, but in his early campaigns was defeated by the Egyptians. Judæa might then have become a province of Egypt had not the Jewish counsellors of

Cleopatra advised against the subjection of the land. The Egyptian army was withdrawn, and Alexander Jannæus was left in control of the country. His monarchical ambitions, however, aroused the hostility of the Pharisees, and Judæa was rent by civil war. For six years the war raged, and it is said that 50,000 Jews perished. The Pharisees asked aid from Demetrius III., and succeeded in defeating Alexander. Thereupon, however, feeling that they were in danger of falling again into subjection to Syria, many of the Jews went over to Alexander and assisted him in putting down the rebellion. The consequent success of Alexander was marked by a series of terrible punishments inflicted upon those who had rebelled against him. During the latter part of his reign he was engaged in struggles with the Greek cities of Palestine, in the siege of one of which he died, bequeathing his kingdom to his wife Alexandra, with the advice that she should make friends with the Pharisees (Jos Ant. XIII. xii–xv.; BJ I. iv.).

8. Alexandra (B.C. 78–69) was a woman of extraordinary ability, and her reign was one of great prosperity, according to the Pharisees, whose leaders were her chief advisers. She maintained the general foreign policy of her house, defending her kingdom against various foreign enemies, but particularly devoted herself, under the guidance of her brother Simon ben-Shetach, to the inner development of Judæa along lines of Pharisaic policy. The Sadducean leaders were to some extent persecuted, but seem to have been able to bring about their appointment to the charge of various frontier fortresses. The death of Alexandra alone prevented her being involved in a civil war (Jos. Ant. XIII. xvi.; BJ I. v.).

9. Aristohulus II. (B.C. 69–63). After the death of Alexandra civil war broke out. According to the queen’s provision, her eldest son, Hyrcanus II., who was already high priest, was to have been her successor. In fact, he did undertake to administer the State, but his younger and more energetic brother Aristobulus organized the rebellion, defeated Hyrcanus, and compelled him to surrender. By the agreement that followed, Hyrcanus was reduced to private life in the enjoyment of a large revenue. It was at this time that Antipater, the father of Herod I., appeared on the scene. He was an Idumæan of boundless ambition and much experience. He undertook to replace Hyrcanus on the throne. With the assistance of Aretas, king of Arabia, he organized an army and besieged Aristobulus in the Temple Mount. As the war was proceeding, Pompey sent Scaurus to Syria (B.C. 65). Scaurus proceeded towards Judæa to take advantage of the struggle between the two brothers. Before he reached Judæa, however, both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus referred their quarrel to him. Scaurus favoured Aristobulus, and ordered Aretas to return to Arabia. This decision, however, did not end the controversy between the brothers, and they appealed to Pompey himself, who meantime had arrived at Damascus. The two brothers pleaded their cause, as did also an embassy of the Jewish people, which asked that the monarchy be abolished, and the government by the high priest he re-established. Pompey deferred his decision, and ordered the two brothers to maintain peace. Aristobulus, however, undertook to continue the revolt, fleeing to Alexandrium, a fortress on the Samaritan hills, above the Jordan Valley. At the command of Pompey he surrendered the fortress, but fled to Jerusalem, where he prepared to stand a siege. Pompey followed him, and Aristobulus promised to surrender. When, however, Gabinius, the Roman general, went to take possession of the city, he found the gates closed against him. Thereupon Pompey proceeded to besiege the city. The various divisions of Jerusalem surrendered to him except the Temple Mount. This was captured after a long siege, and at terrible cost (B.C. 63). Pompey went into the Holy of Holies, but did not touch the Temple treasures. He did, however, make Judæa tributary to Rome and greatly reduced its territory. Aristobulus was taken prisoner, and Hyrcanus was re-established as high priest, but without the title of ‘king.’ Great numbers of Jews were taken by Pompey to Rome at this time, together with Aristobulus, and became the nucleus of the Jewish community in the capital. With this conquest of Pompey, the Maccabæan State really came to an end; and Judæa became tributary to Rome (Jos. Ant. XIV. i–iv, BJ I. vi. and vii.).

10. Hyrcanus II. was a weak man, but had for his adviser and major domo Antipater, an exceedingly able man. The State, as re-organized by Gabinius, was attached to Syria and Hyrcanus exercised the function of high priest (63–40). During this time Judæa was swept more completely into the current of Roman history, because of the assistance rendered by Antipater and Hyrcanus to Cæsar in his struggle with the party of Pompey in Egypt. In gratitude Cæsar gave many rights and privileges to the Jews throughout the Roman world. Hyrcanus was, however, not appointed king, but ‘ethnarch,’ and Antipater was made procurator. The walls of Jerusalem, which had been broken down by Pompey, were now rebuilt, and various cities taken away by Pompey were restored to the Judæan territory. Hyrcanus, completely under the control of Antipater, supported Cassius in the struggle which followed the death of Cæsar, but in the disturbances following the death of Brutus and Cassius espoused the cause of Antony.

At this critical juncture Antipater was killed, and his two sons, Phasael and Herod, were appointed by

Antony tetrarchs of the country of the Jews. Antigonus, however, the second son of Aristobulus, with the assistance of the Parthians, captured Phasael, compelled Herod to flee, and seized the State. Hyrcanus was carried away prisoner by the Parthians, and his ears were cut off, so that he could no longer act as high priest.

After Herod had been made king, Hyrcanus was brought back to Judæa, and became a centre of one of the various intrigues against Herod, who had married Hyrcanus’ grand-daughter Mariamme. As a result, Herod had him executed (B.C. 30), on the charge of conspiracy with the king of Arabia (Jos. Ant. XIV. v.–xiii.; BJ I. viii–xiii.).

11. Alexander, the elder son of Aristobulus II., who escaped from Pompey on the journey to Rome, collected an army and headed an insurrection in Judæa (B.C. 57). He was finally defeated, and later during the civil wars was beheaded by order of Pompey as a friend of Cæsar.

12. Antigonus, with his father Aristobulus, escaped from the Romans, and in B.C. 56 headed a revolt in Judæa. Aristobulus retreated to Machærus, but after two years’ siege was compelled to surrender, and went again as prisoner to Rome, where he was poisoned (B.C 49), just as he was setting out to the East to assist Cæsar. Antigonus in B.C. 47 attempted unsuccessfully to induce Cæsar to establish him as king of

Judæa in place of Hyrcanus and Antipater. After the death of Cæsar and during the second triumvirate, Antigonus attempted to gain the throne of Judæa with the assistance of the Parthians, and in 40–37 maintained himself with the title of ‘king and high priest.’ At the end of that period, however, Herod I., who had been appointed king by the Romans, conquered Antigonus with the assistance of Rome. Antigonus was beheaded (B.C. 37) by Antony at the request of Herod (Jos. Ant. XIV. xiv–xvi.; BJ I. xiv– xviii. 3).

13. Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus II., married her cousin Alexander, son of Aristobulus II. She was a woman of great ability, and as the mother of Mariamme, wife of Herod I., was an object of bitter hatred on the part of Herod’s sister Salome. She was executed by Herod in B.C. 28.

14. Aristobulus III., son of Alexander and Alexandra, became a member of the household of Herod after the latter’s marriage with Mariamme. Like all Hasmonæans, he was possessed of great personal beauty and was a favourite with the people. At the request of his sister he was made high priest by Herod (B.C. 35). On account of his popularity, Herod had him drowned while he was bathing at Jericho, in the same year, when he had reached the age of seventeen.

15. Mariamme, daughter of Alexander and Alexandra, was reputed to be one of the most beautiful women of the time. She became the wife of Herod, who loved her jealously. Driven to madness, however, by the scandalous reports of his sister Salome, Herod had her executed in B.C. 29.

Although the direct line of Hasmonæans was thus wiped out by Herod, the family was perpetuated in the sons of Herod himself by Mariamme—Alexander and Aristobulus. Both these sons, indeed, Herod caused to be executed because of alleged conspiracies against him, but the Maccabæan line still lived in the persons of Herod of Chalcis and Agrippa I. and II. (see HEROD).

SHAILER MATHEWS.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF.—See APOCRYPHA, §§ 1, 2.

MACEDONIA.—The Macedonians were a part of the Hellenic race who settled early in history in the region round the river Axius at the N. W. corner of the Ægæan. When they first came into Greek politics they had dominion from the mountains N. of Thessaly to the river Strymon, except where the Greek colonies of the peninsula of Chalcidice kept them back. Their race was probably much mixed with Illyrian and Thracian elements; they did not advance in culture with Southern Greece, but kept their primitive government under a king, and were regarded by the Greeks as aliens. Down to the time of Philip (B.C. 359) they played a minor part as allies of various Greek cities having interests in the N. Ægæan. Under Philip, through his organization of an army and his diplomatic skill, they became masters of Greece, and under his son Alexander conquered the East. The dynasties which they established in Syria and Egypt were Macedonian, but in the subsequent Hellenization of the East they took no larger part than other Greek races. In their original dominions they remained a hardy and vigorous race. After several wars with Rome, Macedonia was divided into four separate districts with republican government, but it received the regular organization of a province in B.C. 146.

Macedonia was the scene of St. Paul’s first work in Europe. See PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, BER_ŒA. The province at that time included Thessaly, and stretched across to the Adriatic; but

Philippi was a colony, not subject to the governor of the province, and Thessalonica was also a ‘free city,’ with the right of appointing its own magistrates. The Via Egnatia ran across the province from Dyrrhachium to Neapolis, and St. Paul’s journey was along this from Neapolis through Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, to Thessalonica. A further visit is recorded in Ac 20:3– 8, and the Pastoral Epistles imply another after his first imprisonment (1 Ti 1:3).

A. E. HILLARD.

MACHÆRUS.—A place E. of the Dead Sea, fortified by Alexander Jannæus, and greatly enlarged and strengthened by Herod the Great (Jos. BJ VII. vi. 1). According to Josephus, the daughter of Aretas retired to this place when she left the higamous Antipas. He describes it as ‘in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod,’ and then ‘subject to her father’ (Ant. XVIII.

v. 1). He goes on to say that here John was imprisoned and beheaded (Mt 14:10ff. etc.). If it was then subject to Aretas, this is at least curious. The fortress was one of the last taken by the Romans in the war of independence (BJ II. xviii. 6, 7. 6.). It is identified with the ruin of Mukāwer, on the height about half-way between Wādy Zerka Ma‘īn and Wādy el-Mōjib.

W. EWING.

MACHBANNAI.—A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:13).

MACHBENA.—Named in the genealogical list of Judah (1 Ch 2:49). Machbena is probably the same as Cabbon of Jos 15:40, which may perhaps be identified with el-Kubeibeh, situated about 3 miles south of Beit Jibrīn.

MACHI.—The father of Geuel, the Gadite spy (Nu 13:15).

MACHIR.—1. The eldest ‘son’ of Manasseh (Jos 17:1), the only son (Nu 26:29). Machir was also the ‘father of the Gilead.’ These names are ethnographic, and their use suggests that the Machirites were either coterminous with the tribe of Manasseh (wh. see) or were its most warlike part. Settled on the W. of Jordan, they invaded N. Gilead some time after the days of Deborah, and so became the ‘father of the Gilead.’ 2. Son of Ammiel of Lo-debar on the E. of Jordan. He clung to the house of Saul as long as possible, and afterwards victualled David’s men when that king was fleeing from Ahsalom (2 S 9:5, 17:27).

W. F. COBB.

MACHNADEBAI.—One of the sons of Bani, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:40).

MACHPELAH.—The name of a locality in which, according to the Priestly narrative of the Hexateuch, were situated a field and a cave purchased by Abraham from Ephron the Hittite, to serve as a burial-place for himself and his family (Gn 23:17–18). Here Sarah was buried by her husband; and subsequently Abraham himself, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob were laid to rest in the same spot (Gn 49:31). The appellation ‘Machpelah,’ which seems in strictness to designate the site comprehensively, is also applied to the actual field and the cave within it, which are respectively called ‘the field of Machpelah’ (Gn 23:19, 49:30, 50:18) and the ‘cave of

Machpelah’ (Gn 23:9, 25:9). The place is described as being ‘before Mamre’ (Gn 25:9), ‘before’ usually meaning ‘east of’ (see Gn 25:18, Jos 13:3, 1 K 11:7), just as ‘behind’ signifies ‘west of’ (Nu 3:23). Mamre, in Gn 23:19, is identified with Hebron, which is the modern el-Khalil ( ‘the Friend,’ i.e. Abraham, cf. Is 41:3, Ja 2:23), a town built on the sides of a narrow valley, the main portion of it lying on the face of the E. slope. The traditional site of the cave of Machpelah is on the E. hill, so that it would appear that ancient Hebron was built to the west of the modern city, on the W. hill, and that it has subsequently extended into the valley and climbed the opposite declivity.

Above the supposed site of the cave there is now a rectangular enclosure called the Haram, measuring 181 ft. by 93 ft. internally (the longer axis running from N.W. to S.E.), and surrounded by massive walls 40 ft. high, which are conjectured to date from the time of Herod the Great, though some authorities incline to assign them to a still earlier period. At the S.E. end of the quadrangle is a mosque, once a Christian church, 70 ft. by 93 ft., parts of which are attributed to the 12th century. Within the mosque are cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebekah; in a porch on the N.W. side are those of Abraham and Sarah; whilst at the opposite end of the enclosure are those of Jacob and Leah. The Haram has been but rarely entered by Christians in modern times. King Edward VII. was admitted to it, when Prince of Wales, in 1862; and the present Prince of Wales, with his brother, visited it in 1882. The cave, which is reputed to be the real resting-place of the patriarchs and their wives, is below the floor of the mosque, and is thought to be double, in accordance with a tradition which perhaps is derived from the LXX rendering of Machpelah as ‘the double cave.’ The entrances to it, of which there are said to be three, are in the flagged flooring of the building. It is doubtful whether any Christian has been allowed to enter it in modern times.

G. W. WADE.

MACRON.—Surname of Ptolemy (1 Mac 3:38, 2 Mac 4:45), who was governor of Cyprus (2 Mac 10:12f.) and subsequently of Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia (2 Mac 8:8).

MADAI (Gn 10:2 = 1 Ch 1:6).—See MEDES.

MADMANNAH.—A town in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 15:31), named with Hormah and

Ziklag. Its place is taken in Jos 19:5 etc., by Beth-marcaboth. No satisfactory identification has been suggested. Conder mentions Umm Demineh N. of Beersheba, but does not think it suitable. W. EWING.

MADMEN.—A place in Moab, which, if the MT be correct, has not been identified. The name occurs only in Jer 48 [Gr. 31:2], where there is a characteristic word-play: gam Madmēn tiddōmī, ‘also, O Madmen, thou shalt be brought to silence’ (LXX kai pausin pausetai). It is a very natural suggestion that the initial m of Madmen has arisen by dittography from the final m of the preceding word, and that for Madmen we should read Dimon (cf. Is 15:9), i.e. Dibon ( cf. Jer 48:18). Cf. art. MEDEBA.

MADMENAH.—A place apparently north of Jerusalem, named only in the ideal description of the Assyrian invasion, Is 10:31. The name has not been recovered.

MADON.—A royal city of the Canaanites in the north (Jos 11:1, 12:19). Khirbet Madin near Hattīn might suit. If, however, Madon he a scribal error for Maron, then Meirōn, at the foot of Jebel Jermuk, may be the place intended.

W. EWING.

MAELUS (1 Es 9:26) = Mijamin, Ezr 10:25.

MAGADAN.—See DALMANUTHA.

MAGBISH.—An unknown town, presumably in Benjamin, whose ‘children’ to the number of 156 are said to have returned from the Exile (Ezr 2:30); omitted in the parallel passage Neh 7:33, perhaps identical with Magpiash of Neh 10:20.

MAGDALA, MAGDALENE.—See MARY, No. 3.

MAGDIEL.—A ‘duke’ of Edom (Gn 36:43 = 1 Ch 1:54).

MAGI.—The plural of magus, which occurs in Ac 13:8 (tr. ‘sorcerer’—see RVm). Used as a plural word it denotes the ‘wise men’ of Mt 2 (see the RVm note at v. 1). The subject of this article is twofold—(1) the elucidation of that narrative, and of one or two other Biblical references to the Magi; (2) the brief delineation of the religion connected with the Magi, in its relation to the religious history of Israel. These two points need not be kept apart.

Herodotus tells us that the Magi formed one of six tribes or castes of the Medes. Since another of the six is expressly named as ‘Aryan,’ it seems to follow that the other five did not belong to the conquering race; and the Magi would accordingly be an aboriginal sacred caste, like the Brahmans in India. When Cambyses, the son of the great Cyrus, died, the Magi seem to have made an attempt to regain civil power, of which Cyrus and his Aryans had deprived them; and a Magian pretender Gaumâta held the throne of Persia for some months, until dispossessed aod slain by Darius in B.C. 522. There is reason to believe that the Magi, in the course of a generation or two, made a bid for spiritual power: they conformed to the religion of the conquerors, profoundly altering its character as they did so, and thus gained the opportunity of re-asserting their own sacred functions among their fellow-countrymen, who were predisposed to accept their re-introduction of the old beliefs under the forms of the new. We have but little evidence to guide us in re-constructing this primitive Median religion. The sacred caste itself appears to be mentioned in Jer 39:3, 13 (see RAB-MAG); and a ritual observance, preserved still in Parsi worship, figures in Ezk 8:17, from which we gather that sun-worship, accompanied with the holding of the barsom (‘bunch of fine tamarisk boughs,’ as the geographer Strabo defines it) to the face, was a characteristic of Magian ritual before it was grafted on to Persian religion.

There are three special characteristics of Magianism proper which never obtained any real hold upon the religion with which the Magi subsequently identified themselves. These are (1) astrology, (2) oneiromancy, or divination by dreams, aod (3) magic, which was traditionally associated with their name, but was expressly forbidden by the religion of the Persians. The first two of these features appear in the narrative of the Nativity. We have evidence that the Magi connected with the stars the fravashi or ‘double’ which Parsi psychology assigned to every good man—a part of his persooality dwelling in heaven, sharing his development, and united with his soul at death. A brilliant new star would thus be regarded by them as the heavenly counterpart of a great man newly born. That dreams guided the Magi at one point of their adventure is expressly stated (Mt 2:12); and it is fair to postulate similar direction in the initial interpretation of the star. There is, of course, nothing in this to convince those who have decided that the narrative of the Magi is legendary; nor is this the place to examine the difficulties that remain (see STAR OF THE MAGI). But it may at least be asserted that the story has curiously subtle points of contact with what we can re-construct of the history of Magian religion; and the invention of all this perhaps involves as many difficulties as can be recognized in the acceptance of the narrative as it stands. The doctrine of the fravashi, just now referred to, may be paralleled rather closely in the Bible; and it is at least possible that the knowledge of this dogma, as prevailing in Media, may have stimulated the growth of the corresponding idea among post-exilic Jews. When in Mt 18:10 Jesus declares that the angels of the little ones are in heaven nearest to the Throne, the easiest interpretation is that which recognizes these angels as a part of the personality, dwelling in heaven, but sharing the fortunes of the counterpart on earth. This gives a clear reason why the angels of the children should be perpetually in the Presence—they represent those who have not yet sinned. So again in Ac 12:18 Peter’s ‘angel’ is presumably his heavenly ‘double.’ The conception was apparently extended to include the heavenly representatives of communities, as the ‘princes’ of Israel, Greece, and Persia in Dn 10 and 12, and the ‘angels’ of the churches of Asia in Rev 2 and 3. If this doctrine really owed anything to the stimulus of Magianism, it is in line with other features of later Jewish angelology. It is only the naming and ranking of angels, and the symmetrical framing of corresponding powers of evil, that remind us of Parsi doctrine: the Jews always had both angels and demons, and all that is claimed is a possible encouragement from Parsi theology, which developed what was latent already. A more important debt of Judaism to Persian faith is alleged to be found in the doctrine of the Future Life. From the beginning Zoroastrianism (see below) had included immortality and the resurrection of the body as integral parts of its creed. It is therefore at least a remarkable coincidence that the Jews did not arrive at these doctrines till the period immediately following their contact with the Persians, who under Cyrus had been their deliverers from Babylonian tyranny. But though the coincidence has drawn some even to adopt the linguistically impossible notion that the very name of the Pharisees was due to their ‘Parsi’ leanings, a coincidence it remains for the most part. The two peoples came to the great idea by different roads. The Persians apparently developed it partly from the analogy of Nature, and partly from the instinctive craving for a theodicy. The Jews conceived the hope through the ever-increasing sense of communion with a present God, through which their most spiritual men realized the impossibility of death’s severing God from His people. But we may well assume that the growth of this confident belief was bastened by the knowledge that the doctrine was already held by another nation.

How well the religion of the Magi deserved the double honour thus assigned to it—that of stimulating the growth of the greatest of truths within Israel, and that of offering the first homage of the Gentile world to the infant Redeemer—may be seen best by giving in a few words a description of the faith in general.

Its pre-historic basis was a relatively pure Nature-worship, followed by the common ancestors of the Aryans in India and Persia, and still visible to us in the numerous elements which appear in both Veda and Avesta—the most sacred books of India and Iran respectively. To Iranian tribes holding this faith came in the 7th cent. B.C., or earlier, the prophet Zarathushtra, called by the Greeks Zoroaster. He endeavoured to supersede Nature-worship by the preaching of a highly abstract monotheism. The ‘Wise Lord,’ Ahura Mazda (later Ormazd), reigned alone without equal or second; but Zoroaster surrounded

Him with personified attributes, six in number, called Amesha Spenta (Amshaspands), ‘Immortal Holy

Ones,’ who were the archangels of the heavenly court. The problem of Evil he solved by positing a ‘Hurtful Spirit,’ Angra Mainyu (later Ahriman), with his retinue of inferior demons (see ASMONÆUS) , who is a power without beginning, like Ormazd, creator of all things evil, and perpetual enemy of God and of good men. In the end, however, he is to be destroyed with his followers, and Good is to triumph for ever. Truth and Industry, especially in agriculture, are the practical virtues by which the righteous advance the kingdom of Ahura Mazda. The eschatology is striking and lofty in its conception, and the doctrine of God singularly pure. Unhappily, with the prophet’s death the old polytheism returned, under the guise of angel-worship, and the Magi were ere long enslaving the religion to a dull and mechanical ritual. Many of these degenerate elements have, however, been largely subordinated in modern Parsism. The small community, mostly concentrated round Bombay, which today maintains this ancient faith, may assuredly challenge any non-Christian religion in the world to match either its creed or its works.

JAMES HOPE MOULTON.

MAGIC, DIVINATION, AND SORCERY.—Magic, divination, sorcery, and witchcraft are all connected with belief in superhuman powers, and are methods whereby men endeavour to obtain from these powers knowledge of the future, or assistance in the affairs of life. Belief in magic and divination is most prevalent in the lower stages of civilization and religion. The arts of the magician and the diviner were founded upon the same logical processes as have issued in the development of modern science; but the limits within which deduction would be valid were disregarded, and the data were frequently imperfect. Accidental coincidence was often confused with causal sequence. (See Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Divination’). Magic and divination were derived from attempts at reasoning which were very often erroneous; but from such crude beginnings science has slowly grown.

In their beginning these arts were associated with religion; and diviners and magicians were those thought to be most intimately connected with the Deity, and, owing to their superior knowledge of Him and His ways, best able to learn His secrets or secure His aid. Among the Arabs the priest was originally also the soothsayer; the Heb. kōhēn, ‘priest,’ is cognate with the Arab. kāhin, ‘soothsayer’; the primitive priest had charge of the shrine of the god, and both offered sacrifices and gave responses. In this manner classes of professional diviners and magicians arose, as in Egypt (Gn 41:8, Ex 7:11), in Babylon (Dn 2:2), in connexion with Baal (1 K 18:19), and even among the Israelites in the lower rank of professed prophets (Mic 3:5–11; see G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, Introd.). Such officials were set apart for their office by some rite specially connecting them with the god, as the eating of a particular food, or the wearing of a sacred dress (cf. 2 K 1:8, Zec 13:4). The animism, in which magical arts had their root, soon passed beyond the simple belief that Nature was peopled with spirits, and began to distinguish between good and evil spirits. When that distinction had been attained, the art of the magician and diviner also became subject to moral distinctions, according to the character of the spirit whose aid was sought and the purpose in view. This diversity in the moral characteristics of magic and divination is illustrated in the history of Israel; for divination is akin to some of the institutions sanctioned by God, such as the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:30, Lv 8:8), and it includes, at the other extreme, such necromancy as that of the witch of Endor. Among Semitic races and by the Egyptians, magic and divination were associated with the worship of various gods and the belief in the existence of a vast number of demons. With the gradual rise of religion in Israel under the teaching of God, early modes of prying into the future, and magical methods of seeking superhuman help, were slowly abandoned, and, as revelation became clearer, they were forbidden. The teaching of the inspired prophets of Jehovah was very different from that of the merely professional prophets and from the religion of the common people. Throughout preexilic times there was a struggle in Israel between the pure worship of Jehovah alone as inculcated by the great prophets, and the worship of ‘other gods,’ such as the local Canaanitish Baalim and idols in the homes of the people. In process of time magic and divination became closely linked with these illicit cults, and were consequently denounced by the great prophets;

but at the same time the desire of the human heart to learn the future and to secure Divine help (which lies at the root of magic and divination) was met by God, purified, elevated, and satisfied by the revelation of His will through the prophets. God’s revelation was suited to the stage of spiritual development to which the people had attained, hence His prophets sometimes employed methods similar to those of divination; consequently some forms of divination are allowed to pass without censure in many passages of the Bible, but these were gradually put aside as the people were educated to a more spiritual conception of religion. On the other hand, as men sought to prognosticate the future by illicit commerce with false gods and spirits, magic and divination became generally degraded and divorced from all that is right and good. This explains the increasing severity with whic magic and divination are regarded in Scripture; nevertheless we find it recorded, without any adverse comment, that Daniel was made head of the ‘wise men’ of Babylon—although these included magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and ‘Chaldæans’—(Dn 2:2 ,

48); and that the wise men (Mt 2:1) were magi. (See Grimm-Thayer’s Lex. p. 385.) In explanation it may be said that reliance upon divination is a moral evil in proportion to the religious light vouchsafed to the individuals concerned; and God accommodated the methods of His teaching to the condition of those to whom He revealed Himself.

General course of the history of magic and divination in Israel.—Several sources can be traced from which the Israelites derived their magical arts, and different periods are apparent at which these influences were felt.

(a) From patriarchat times up to Israel’s contact with Assyria, most of their occult arts were the outcome of the beliefs common to Semitic peoples. Although their sojourn in Egypt brought them into contact with a civilized nation which greatly practised divination and sorcery, we cannot trace any sign that they borrowed many magical arts from the Egyptians at that time. In this early period of Israelitish history we find divination by teraphim, the interpretation of dreams, and necromancy, besides the authorized means of inquiry of God. The very earliest legislation enacts that witchcraft shall be punished by death (Ex 22:18 [JE]); and we read that Saul put to death ‘those that had familiar spirits and the wizards’ (1 S 28:3).

(b) Under the influence of the Assyrian advance southward, the small States of Palestine were driven into closer relations with one another, owing to the necessity of united opposition to the common foe. This was prejudicial to religion, through its rendering Israel more tolerant towards the gods of their allies (e.g. the worship of the Phœnician Baal, fostered by Ahab), and by its favouring the introduction of methods of magic and divination in use among their neighbours (cf. Is 2:6, Jer 10:2). This evil tendency was encouraged by Manasseh (2 K 21:6), but in the reformation of Josiah, idolatry, witchcraft, and the use of teraphim were suppressed (2 K 23:24) in accordance with Dt 18:10–12 ( D ).

(c) The Captivity brought Israel into contact with a much more fully developed system of magic and divination than they had known before. In Babylon, not only were illicit magical practices widely indulged in, but the use of such arts was recognized by their being entrusted to a privileged class (Dn 2:2). The officials are here denominated ‘magicians’ (chartummīm, scribes who were acquainted with occult arts), ‘enchanters’ (’ashshāphīm, prob. a Bab. word meaning ‘those who used conjurations,’ but its derivation is uncertain), ‘sorcerers’ (mĕkashshĕphīm, in its root-meaning perhaps indicating those who mixed ingredients for magical purposes [ LXX pharmakoi], but this is not certain), and ‘Chaldæans’ (kasdīm, a name which, from being a national designation, had come to mean those who were skilled in the occult lore of Babylonia and could interpret dreams). Recent discoveries have revealed that the Babylonians believed in a vast number of demons who could be compelled by proper spells; also they practised astrology (Is 47:12, 13), augury from the inspection of victims (Ezk 21:21), the tying of magic knots, and the designation of fortunate and unfavourable days.

(d) Egyptian influences were strongly felt in the century before, and the one following, the Christian era. The Mishna shows the presence of a very strong tendency to occult sciences, and in the NT we find examples of Jews who practised them in Simon Magus (Ac 8:9) and Elymas (13:8). Among the Alexandrian Jews, and later by the Alexandrian Gnostics, magic was much used, and the name of Jehovah in various forms entited into their spells and the inscriptions upon their amulets. Books of incantations, reputed to have been the work of Solomon, were extant, and the Babylonian Talmud is full of superstition (Schürer, HJP II. iii. 152). Such books and charms were burnt at Ephesus when their owners became Christians (Ac 19:19). So celebrated was Ephesus for its magic, that ‘Ephesian letters’ was a common name for amulets made of leather, wood, or metal on which a magic spell was written (Farrar, St. Paul, ii. 26).

A. Distinguishing divination, in which prominence is given to the desire to know the future, from magic, which has for its object power to do something by supernatural aid, we have now to inquire into the modes of divination and magic which appear in the Scriptures.

Forms of divination mentioned in the Bible

(a) The casting of lots.—The casting of lots was founded on the belief that God would so direct the result as to indicate His will (Pr 16:33). It was employed: (1) In crises in national history and in individual lives. Most scholars consider that the phrase ‘enquire of God’ refers to the use of Urim and Thummim, which seems to have been of the nature of drawing lots. This occurs in the arrangements for the conquest of Canaan (Jg 1:1), in the campaign against the Benjamites (20:27), in David’s uncertainty after the death of Saul (2 S 2:1), and in war (5:19 , 23). The Phœnicians cast lots to discover the cause of the tempest (Jon 1:7).—(2) In criminal investigation. It was employed to discover the wrongdoer in the cases of Achan (Jos 7:14) and Jonathan (1 S 14:41, 42).—(3) In ritual. Lots were cast in reference to the scapegoat (Lv 16:8). Two goats were brought, and lots were cast; one goat was offered as a sin-offering, and the other was sent away into the wilderness.—(4) In dividing the land of Canaan (Nu 26:55, 33:54, 34:13 , Jos 21:4, 6, 8).—(5) In selecting men for special duties: the election of Saul (1 S 10:20), the choice of the men to attack Gibeah (Jg 20:9), the division of duties among the priests (1 Ch 24:5).

In most cases the method of casting the lot is not stated. Several ways were in use among the Israelites, some of which were directly sanctioned by God as a means of Divine guidance suited to the degree of religious knowledge attained by the people at the time. The following methods can be distinguished:—

(i.) By Urim and Thummim. Although not certain, it is believed by most scholars that the Urim and Thummim were two stones which were carried in a pouch under the breastplate of the priest, and which were drawn out as lots (see Hastings’ DB s.v. ‘Urim and Thummim’). In connexion with this the ephod is mentioned. In some passages this evidently means a priestly dress (e.g. 1 S 2:18, 22:18), but in other references it is considered by some to have been an image of gold representing Jehovah (Jg 8:25, 27 , 18:14 [see Harpers Amos and Hosea, p. 221]) or the gold sheathing of an image (Is 30:22), although in this passage some understand it as being a garment. The use of the ephod in connexion with the Urim and Thummim is not known. The employment of the Urim and Thummim for consulting God disappeared before the clearer guidance received through the inspired prophets. Apparently it had ceased by the time of Israel’s return from the Captivity (Ezr 2:63). Inquiry respecting the future was also made of heathen deities (2 K 1:2f.), and their responses were probably given by the drawing of lots.

(ii.) By belomancy and in other ways. The word qāsam (which is specially applied to the drawing of lots as with headless arrows) is used of divination generally and frequently translated ‘to divine.’ It is generally referred to unfavourably (except Pr 16:10). Arrows are once specified as the means by which the lot was cast (Ezk 21:21, 22). This practice is found among the Arabs, and was also used in Babylonia. Arrows with the alternatives written upon them were shaken in a quiver at a sanctuary, and the first to fall out was taken as conveying the decision of the god. Nebuchadnezzar is represented as deciding in this manner his line of march (Ezk 21:21), and, as the result of casting the lot, holding in his hand ‘the divination Jerusalem,’ i.e. the arrow with ‘Jerusalem’ written upon it (see Driver, Deut. p. 224).

Without any indication of the method of divination, operations denoted by the word qesem appear among the Moabites (Balaam, Nu 23:23, payment being made for the service, 22:7), among the

Philistines (1 S 6:2), and among the Babylonians (Is 44:25). It also appears as a method of the lower rank of prophets in Israel (Mic 3:8–11, Ezk 13:6, 9, 22:28). Prophets are named in connexion with diviners (qōsĕmīm, Jer 27:9, 29:8). The word is used in relation to necromancy and the consultation of teraphim (1 S 15:23, 28:8, 2 K 17:17, Zec 10:2). The practice is forbidden in Dt 18:10.

(iii.) By rhabdomancy. This is alluded to in Hos 4:12. Probably pieces of stick were used for drawing lots, as in the case of divination by arrows.

(b) Dreams and visions.—Numerous instances occur in which Divine intimations were communicated to men by dreams and visions. (1) In so far as these were spontaneous and unsought, they do not properly belong to the domain of divination. Such occur in Gn 20:8, 28:12 , 31:10, 24, 37:5, 1 K 3:5, Mt 1:20, 2:12, 27:19. Dreams are spoken of as a legitimate channel for

God’s communications to His prophets and others (Nu 12:6, 1 S 28:6, Job 33:15, Jl 2:28).—(2) But the belief in Divine warnings through dreams came very near to divination when Interpreters were sought to make clear their meaning, as in Egypt (Gn 40:5ff., 41:1 Pharaoh calls the chartummīm—a word used only in the sense of scribes possessed of occult knowledge), among the Midianites (Jg 7:13), and in Babylon (Dn 2:2).—(3) Dreams were sought by the prophets of a lower order in Israel, and it is known that among the Egyptians and other ancient nations special means, such as fasting or drugs, were used to induce them, from the belief that they were Divine communications. In Egypt it was a common practice for worshippers to sleep within the precincts of the temples in order to obtain intimations by dreams, and some devotees lived by the rewards received by them for recounting the dreams which had come to them in the temple. References to misleading divination by dreams occur in Dt 13:1–5 (prophets were to he judged by the character of their teaching and to be put to death if they favoured idolatry), Jer 23:25–28 , 27:9, 29:8, Zec 10:2.

Vision (chāzōn, with its cognate words) has a similarly wide application, extending from the God-given experiences of the higher prophets to the misleading predictions of false prophets. Instances of its highest signification occur in Is 1:1, 2:1, Am 1:1, Mic 1:1. The word is used respecting the deception practised by lower prophets, as in Nu 24:3, 16, where reference is apparently made to the seer receiving the intimation in a trance, but the interpretation is not quite certain (see Gray, Numbers, p. 361); other physical phenomena appear in connexion with prophesying (1 S 10:10, 19:18–24; see G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, i. p. 21). The word also appears in connexion with false prophets (Is 28:7, 30:10, La 2:14, Ezk 12:24, 13:6, 16, 28, 21:29 , 22:28, Zec 10:2).

(c) Observation of omens (augury).—nāchash, tr. ‘to divine’ or ‘to use enchantments,’ the agent being called ‘an enchanter’ (Dt 18:10), means ‘to learn by means of omens.’ Very probably the expression is derived from nāchāsh, ‘a serpent,’ with the underlying idea that the intimation was obtained by the worshipper through the assistance of the serpent-god; another, but less likely, derivation is from the ‘hissing’ or ‘whispering’ tones of the diviner. The word is very frequently used with a bad sense attaching to it.

Words were sometimes taken as omens of the future (1 K 20:33 RVm ‘took it as an omen,’ also 1 S 14:16). The movements of animals also constituted omens. It was considered by the Arabs that some animals, under the influence of a higher power, could see what was invisible to men, and consequently their action became an omen. It would be quite in accordance with this that Balaam’s ass should see what was hidden from her master (Nu 22:27); a similar belief in the significance of the movements of animals is shown in the lords of the Philistines watching the way the kine took with the ark of God (1 S 6:12).

The methods of divination by omens are often unexpressed, as Gn 30:27, Lv 19:26, 2 K 17:17, 21:8 , 2 Ch 33:6. The following practices in divination by omens appear:—(i.) By hydromancy (Gn 44:5). In

Egypt it was common to attempt to divine the future by the appearance of the liquid in a goblet or dish.— (ii.) By the observation of the clouds. The clouds were carefully studied by diviners among the

Chaldæans, and the word ōnēn seems to indicate this practice as existing among the Hebrews and Philistines (Is 2:5; see Cheyne, Isaiah, vol. i. p. 17). Driver, however, leaves the kind of divination undecided, and suggests a derivation from an Arabic root meaning ‘to murmur’ or ‘whisper,’ the reference being to the mutterings of the soothsayer (Deut. p. 224). Perhaps it meant the bringing of clouds by magic arts, as in Jer 14:22 (see Delitzsch on Is 2:6). It has also been suggested that the word is a denominative from ayin (‘eye’), and means ‘to glance with an evil eye.’ This form of augury was forbidden (Lv 19:26, Dt 18:10), and those practising it were denounced (Mic 5:12, Jer 27:9). Manasseh fostered it (2 K 21:8, 2 Ch 33:6).—(iii.) By astrology. The stare were very early believed to have an influence on the fortunes of men (Jg 5:20, Job 38:33). Professional astrologers were prominent among the Assyrians and Babylonians, among whom a standard astrological work was constructed as early as the 16th cent. B.C. (Cheyne, Isaiah, vol. i. p. 310). Babylonian astrology, with its announcement of coming events and notification of favourable and unpropitious days (such as are now extant on Babylonian clay tablets), is mentioned in Is 47:13; but astrology does not seem to have been practised by Israel in early times; Jeremiah speaks of it as ‘the way of the nations,’ and warns the people against it. In later times astrology was regarded by the Jews in a less unfavourable lignt: e.g. Dn 2:48, where Daniel is made chief of ten wise men who included astrologers (cf. Mt 2, where the wise men, who appear to have been astrologers, were met by God in their darkness, and led to the infant Saviour [Edersheim, LT i. 202]).— (iv.) By inspecting victims. Forecasting the future from the appearance of the livers of victims is mentioned in Ezk 21:21. This was common in Babylon (Diod. Sic. ii. 29) and also among the Romans (Cic. de Divin. ii. 12). It does not appear to have been in use among the Israelites; the sacrifices of Balaam (Nu 23:1, 14) were not for this purpose, but to propitiate the deity consulted.

Connected with the use of omens is the appointment of ‘signs’ by prophets to assist their consultors in believing what they predicted. Signs were given by God and His prophets as well as by false prophets; these were exhibitions of Divine power in smaller matters by which men might be enabled to trust God in things of greater moment (Jg 6:36); or they were Instances of truth in small predictions, to awaken confidence in greater promises or threatenings (Ex 4:8 , 10:2, Is 7:11); or they were simply the attachment of particular meaning to ordinary facts to remind men of God’s promises or threats (Gn 9:12, 17:11, Is 8:18, Ezk 12:11, Zec 3:8). In the time of Christ such signs were demanded by the Jews (Mt 12:38, 16:1, Lk 11:16, Jn 4:46, 1 Co

1:22). Cf. art. SION.

(d) Necromancy and familiar spirits.—Of these there were two kinds:—(1) A spirit (primarily a subterranean spirit, ’ōb) was conceived as dwelling in a human being (Lv 20:27) , most commonly in a woman. Those thus possessed were sometimes called ’ōbōth (Is 8:19), or the woman was denominated ba‘alath’ōb (1 S 28:7). Another explanation (H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 239) makes the ’ōb a sort of idol, on the ground that Manasseh ‘made’ an ’ōb (2 K 21:6) and that it is classed with teraphim (2 K 23:24). These necromancers professed to have the power of calling up the dead (1 S 28:11, Is 8:19). Of their method of procedure we know nothing. In the Interview with the witch of Endor, it appears that Saul was told by the witch what she saw, but the king himself entered into the conversation. Necromancers seem to have deceived their Inquirers by speaking in a thin weak voice to make it appear that it was the spirit speaking through them (Is 8:19, 29:4). The LXX generally represents them as ventriloquists, engastrimythoi (cf. goētes, 2 Ti 3:13). A similar belief that a spirit might dwell in a human being and give responses appears in Ac 16:16; this opinion was common in heathendom. The Jews had similar views respecting the indwelling of demons in cases of demoniacal possession.

(2) Other diviners represented themselves as having fellowship with a spirit from whom they could receive intimations. These spirits were called yidd^e‘ōnīm, the meaning being either that the spirits were wise and acquainted with the future, or that they were known to the wizards and had become ‘familiar spirits’ to them. The word occurs only in conjunction with ’ōb, as in Lv 19:31, 20:5, Dt 18:11.

(e) Divination by teraphim.—The teraphim were images in human form (cf. Michal’s stratagem, 1 S 19:13), and they were worshipped as gods (Gn 31:19, 30, Jg 18:24), but in later times they seem to have been degraded to magical uses.

Some suppose them to have been the remains of a primitive ancestor-worship, and connect the word with rephā’īm which means ‘ghosts’ (root rāphāh, ‘to sink down’; ‘to relax’). Some Jewish commentators (cf. Moore, Judges, p. 382) have suggested that they were originally the mummied heads of human beings, and that images of wood or metal were substituted for these in later times.

Teraphim were used for divination by Israelites and Aramæans (Gn 31:18), and

Nebuchadnezzar is represented as consulting them (Ezk 21:21). Josiah abolished teraphim as well as other methods of illicit divination (2 K 23:24), but they subsequently reappeared ( Zec 10:2). The use of the teraphim in divination is not stated, but it was probably somewhat similar to the consulting of familiar spirits, namely, the diviner gave the response which he represented himself to have received from the teraphim.

B. Magic, like divination, had both legitimate and illicit branches. The moral character of the attempt to obtain supernatural aid was determined by the purpose in view and the means used to attain it. Witchcraft, which sought to injure others by magical arts, has always been regarded as evil and worthy of punishment among all nations. Invocation of aid from false gods (who were still regarded as having real existence and power) and from evil spirits has been generally denounced. But there was also a magic, which has been denominated ‘white magic,’ having for its object the defeat of hostile witchcraft and the protection of individuals from evil influences.

1. Magic employed to counteract the work of evil spirits or the arts of malicious magicians.—This kind of magic was extensively practised among the Assyrians and Babylonians, and was the kind professed by the wise men who were under the patronage of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:2). It also appears in the ceremony of exorcism. In Babylonia illness was traced to possession by evil spirits, and exorcism was employed to expel them (see Sayce, Hibbert Lecture). Exorcism was practised by the later Jews (Ac 19:13, Mt 12:27).

The method of a Jewish exorcist, Eleazar, in the time of Vespasian is described by Josephus (Ant. VIII. ii. 5). He placed a ring containing a magical root in the nostril of the demoniac; the man fell down immediately, and the exorcist, using incantations, said to have been composed by Solomon, adjured the demon to return no more.

This kind of magic is also exemplified in the use of amulets and charms, intended to defend the wearer from evil influences. These derived their power from the spells which had been pronounced over them (thus lāchash, which began with the meaning of serpent-charming, came to mean the muttering of a spell, and from that it passed to the meaning of an amulet which had received its power through the spell pronounced over it), or from the words which were inscribed upon them, or the symbolic character of their form. They were used by all ancient peoples, and were opposed by the prophets only when they involved trust in other gods than Jehovah. Probably the earrings of Gn 35:4 and Hos 2:13 were amulets; so also were the moon-shaped ornaments of Jg 8:21, 26 and Is 3:18; their shape was that of the crescent moon which symbolized to the Arabs growing good fortune, and formed a protection against the evil eye ( see Delitzsch on Is 3:18). Perhaps the ‘whoredoms’ and ‘adulteries’ of Hos 2:2 were nose-jewels and necklaces which were heathen charms. Written words were often employed to keep away evil. The later Jew, understanding Dt 6:8, 9 In a literal sense, used phylacteries (Mt 23:5), to which the virtue of amulets was attributed, although their origin apparently was mistaken exegesis rather than magic. The use of such charms was very prevalent in the early centuries of the Christian era among the Alexandrian Jews and the Gnostics.

2. Magic in forms generally denounced by the great prophets

(a) Magic which was apparently dependent upon the occult virtues attributed to plants and other substances—The Hebrew term for this was kesheph. The root käshaph means ‘to cut,’ and has been explained as denoting the cutting which the worshipper inflicted upon himself (as 1 K 18:28), or (by W. Robertson Smith) as the cutting up of herbs shredded into the magic brew; the latter meaning is supported by the LXX tr. of kesheph by pharmaka, and also by Mic 5:12, where kĕshäphīm appear to he material things; such a decoction is perhaps referred to in Is 65:4, and some Jewish commentators consider the sesthing of a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19) to refer to a magical broth which was sprinkled over the fields to promote their fertility; this custom is found among other Eastern peoples. A wider signification is, however, possible, as in 2 K 9:22 , where keshäphīm has the meaning of corrupting influences (AV ‘witchcrafts’). Some derive kāshaph from an Assyr. root meaning ‘to bewitch’ (see Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Magic’).

Hebrew magic came to a considerable extent from Assyria and Babylonia, where the art was practised by a class of men specially set apart for it (Dn 2:2; cf. also Is 47:8, 12, Nah 3:4). Egyptian sorcerers are also noticed (Ex 7:11), but Egyptian influence in the art was most strongly felt by the Jews in post-exilic times. The belief in the virtue of mandrakes as love-philtres appears in Gn 30:14 and Ca 7:13 (dūdā’īm, from the root dūd, ‘to fondle’). Sorcerers are frequentlydenounced in the Bible (Ex 22:18, Dt 18:10, 2 K 9:22, 2 Ch 33:6, Jer 27:9, Gal 5:20 , Rev 9:21, 21:3).

(b) Magic by spells or the tying of knots.—The tying of knots in a rope, accompanied by the whispered repetition of a spell, was common in Babylonia (cf. Is 47:9, 12) and in Arabia. This practice may he behind the word chābar, Dt 18:11 (Driver, Deut. p. 225), or the word may refer to the spell only as a binding together of words. chābar is also used with the special meaning of serpent-charming (Ps 58:5). This art, as now found in India and Egypt, was also denominated by the word lāchash (Ps 58:5, Ec 10:11, Jer 8:17); from the muttering of the charm, the word gained the meaning of whispering (2 S 12:19, Ps 41:7), and it is used of a whispered prayer (Is 26:16 , or, as some understand it in this passage, ‘compulsion by magic’). Magical power was also held to be present in the reiteration of spells or prayers as in the case of the priests of Baal (1 K 18:26), and this repetition of the same words is rebuked by our Lord (Mt 6:7).

In close connexion with the power of spells is the belief in the efficacy of cursing and blessing when these were uttered by specially endowed persons (Nu 22:6, Jg 5:23); also there were magicians who professed to make days unlucky by cursing them (Job 3:8).

An authorized ceremony closely approaching the methods of magicians is found in the ritual for the trial by ordeal of a wife charged with unfaithfulness (Nu 5:12–31); the woman brought the prescribed offerings and the priest prepared a potion of water in which was put dust from the Tabernacle floor; the curse, which the woman acquiesced in as her due if guilty, was written and washed off with the water of the potion, the idea being that the curse was by this means put into the water, and the potion was afterwards drunk by the woman.

(c) Symbolic magic.—Magicians often made, in clay or other material, figures of those whom they desired to injure, and, to the accompaniment of fitting spells, inflicted upon these models the injuries they imprecated. They believed that in this way they sympathetically affected the persons represented. A trace of this symbolism is to be found in the placing of golden mice and emerods in the ark by the Philistines when they sent it back to Israel (1 S 6:5); by this means they believed that they would rid themselves of the troubles which the ark had brought to them. F. E. ROBINSON.

MAGISTRATE.—This word is used in the AV to represent either ‘judge’ or ‘ruler’— ‘authority’ in the most general sense. The latter is its meaning in Jg 18:7 (RV ‘none in the land, possessing authority’—implying independence of Zidon and Phœnicia). The former is its meaning in Ezr 7:25, where it stands for shōphetim (the same word as sufētes, by which the Romans designated the Carthaginian magistrates). In Lk 12:11, 58, Tit 3:1 it stands for derivatives of the general word archo, ‘to rule,’ but in the passages from Lk. with a special reference to judges. In Ac 16:20–38 the word is used to translate the Gr. stratēgoi. This is often used as the equivalent of the Lat. prœtores, and in the older Roman colonies the two supreme magistrates were often known by this name. But we have no evidence that the magistrates at Philippi were called prætors, and it probably represents the more usual duumviri.

A. E. HILLARD.

MAGNIFICAL.—Obsol. for ‘magnificent’; retained by EV in 1 Ch 22:5 from the Geneva version—‘the house … must be exceeding magnifical.’ The adv. occurs in Rhem. NT, Lk 16:19

‘He fared every day magnifically.’

MAGNIFICAT.—The hymn Magnificat (Lk 1:46–55) has been well described as ‘something more than a psalm, and something less than a complete Christian hymn’ (Liddon). It is the poem of one who felt nearer to the fulfilment of the promises than any writer of the OT. But no Evangelist of the NT could have failed to speak of Christ by His human name, writing after His Death and Resurrection.

In the TR the hymn is ascribed to the Virgin Mary, but there is a variant reading ‘Elisabeth’ which demands some explanation. ‘Mary’ is the reading of all the Greek MSS, of the great majority of Latin MSS, and of many Early Fathers as far back as Tertullian (2nd cent.). On the other hand, three Old Latin MSS (cod. Vercellensis, cod. Veronensis, cod. RhedigeranusVratislaviensis) have ‘Elisabeth.’ This reading was known to Origen (Hom. 5 on Lk 5), unless his translator Jerome interpolated the reference. Niceta of Remesiana (fl. c. 400) quoted it in his treatise ‘On the good of Psalmody.’ We can trace it back to the 3rd cent in the translation of Irenæsus. There is fairly general agreement among critics that the original text must have been simply ‘and she said,’ so that both ‘Mary’ and ‘Elisabeth’ should be regarded as glosses.

On the question which is the right gloss, opinions are divided. In favour of ‘Elisabeth’ it has been suggested that the exclamation vv. 42–45 does not cover all that is implied in v. 41, ‘and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.’ Such words when used of Zacharias in v. 67 are followed by the Benedictus. Are we to look on the Magnificat as a corresponding prophecy on the lips of Elisabeth? On the other hand, the glowing words of Elisabeth (vv. 42–45) need a reply. She who bad answered the angel so humbly and bravely (v. 38) would surely speak when thus addressed by a near relation. Indeed, v. 48, ‘all generations shall call me blessed,’ seems like a reply to Elisabeth’s ‘Blessed is she that believed’ in v. 45. In the OT the formula of reply is frequently without a proper name, and the first chapters of Lk. have ‘a special OT colouring.’

Another argument has been founded on the reading of v. 55: ‘Mary abode with her,’ where the Pesh. and the Sinai Palimpsest render ‘with Elisabeth.’ It is suggested that the tell-tale ‘with her’ of the Greek text proves that the hymn was ascribed to Elisabeth. But in the OT the personality of the singer is, as a rule, sunk in the song, and the name is mentioned at the end as if to pick up the thread (cf. Balaam, Nu 24:25; Moses, Dt 32:44, 34:1 [Bp. Wordsworth]). On the whole, the external evidence is in favour of the gloss ‘Mary.’ The question remains whether the hymn is more suitable on the lips of Elisabeth as expressing the feeling of a mother from whom the reproach of childlessness has been removed. Such an idea seems to express very inadequately the fulness of meaning packed into these few verses. The first words remind us of the song of Hannah as a happy mother (1 S 2:1), but the hymn is founded to a much greater extent on the Psalms, and the glowing anticipation of the Messianic time to come befits the Lord’s mother. It is characteristic that she should keep herself in the background. No personal fear of the reproach of shame, which might be, and indeed was, levelled against her, no personal pride in the destiny vouchsafed to her, mar our impression of a soul accustomed to commune with God, and therefore never lacking words of praise.

The hymn has four strophes. In strophe i. (vv. 46, 47) she praises God with all the powers of soul and spirit. In il. (vv. 48–49) she speaks of living in the memory of men, not as something deserved but because it is the will of the holy Lord. In iii. (vv. 51–53) she rises to a large view of the working out of God’s purposes in human history, in the humbling of proud dynasties, and the triumph of the meek. In iv. (vv. 54, 55) she comes back to the fulfilment of the promises in the Messianic time, beginning with the Incarnation, which is the crowning proof of God’s mercy and love.

A. E. BURN.

MAGOG.—The name of a people, enumerated in Gn 10:2 among the ‘sons’ of Japheth, between Gomer (the Cimmerians) and Madai (the Medes), and mentioned in Ezk 38:2 (cf. 39:6) as under the rule of Gog, prince of ‘Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal,’ who is to lead in the future a great expedition against the restored Israel, from ‘the uttermost parts of the north,’ and who has among his allies Gomer and Togarmah,—the nations whose names are italicized being also mentioned in Gn 10:2, 3 as closely connected with ‘Magog.’ From these notices it is evident that Magog must have been the name of a people living far N. of Palestine, not far from Meshech and

Tubal, whose home is shown by Assyrian notices to have been N.E. of Cilicia. Following Josephus, Magog has commonly been understood of the Scythians,—a wild and rough people, whose proper home (Hdt. iv. 17–20, 47–58) was on the N. of the Crimea, but who often organized predatory incursions into Asia and elsewhere: about B.C. 630 there was in particular a great irruption of Scythians into Asia (Hdt. i. 104–6), which seems to have supplied Ezekiel with the model for his imagined attack of nations from the N. upon the restored Israel (chs. 38, 39). Why, however, supposing this identification to be correct, the Scythians should be called

‘Magog’ is still unexplained. The name has not as yet been found in the Assyr. inscriptions. In Rev 20:8 ‘Gog and Magog’ are applied figuratively to denote the nations who are pictured as brought by Satan, at the end of the millennium, to attack Jerusalem, and as destroyed before it (see, further, GOG).

S. R. DRIVER.

MAGOR-MISSABIB.—A nickname given (Jer 20:8) by Jeremiah to Pashhur, chief officer in the Temple, who had caused Jeremiah to be beaten and put in the stocks as a false prophet. The name is an etymological play on the word Pashhur, and denotes ‘fear-roundabout’; but whether Pashhur (wh. see) was to be that to his surroundings, or vice versa, does not appear.

W. F. COBB.

MAGPIASH.—See MAOBISH.

MAGUS.—See BAR-JESUS, MAGI, MAGIC, and SIMON MAGUS.

MAHALALEEL.—See MAHALALEL.

MAHALALEL.—1. Son of Kenan and great-grandson of Seth (Gn 5:12, 13, 15, 16, 17 [P] = 1 Ch 1:2, Lk 3:37 Mahalaleel); = Mehujael in J’s list (Gn 4:18). 2. The son of Perez, who dwelt at Jerusalem after the Captivity (Neh 11:4).

MAHALATH.—1. See BASEMATH, No. 1.—2. Wife of Rehoboam, 2 Ch 11:18. 3. See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

MAHALATH LEANNOTH.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

MAHANAIM (‘two camps’ or ‘two hosts’ [if the Heb. word is really a dual, which is very doubtful]).—An important city E. of Jordan on the frontier of Gad and Manasseh (Jos 13:25, 30) ; it was a Levitical city within the territory of Gad (Jos 21:38, 40). It was clearly N. of the Jabbok, as Jacob travelling S. reached it first (Gn 32:2, 22). Here Abner made Ish-bosheth, son of Saul, king (2 S 2:8), and here David took refuge from his rebel son Absalom (2 S 17:24–27, 19:32). Solomon put Abinadab in authority in this city (1 K 4:14). There is apparently a reference to Mahanaim in Ca 6:13 (see RV and AVm). The site of Mahanaim is quite uncertain. A trace of the name appears to linger in Mahneh, the name of a mass of ruins in the Jebel Ajlūn N.W. of the village Ajlūn. Merrill suggests a ruin called Suleikhat in the Wady Ajlūn, near its entrance to the Jordan valley; others consider the site of Jerash, which is first mentioned, as Gerasa, in the time of Alexander Jannæus, as a likely spot for so prominent and, apparently, so attractive a city.

B. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MAHANEH-DAN (Jg 13:25, 18:12).—The locality of this spot is given in these two passages as ‘behind Kiriath-jearim,’ and as ‘between Zorah and Eshtaol.’ In the former passage we are told that ‘the Spirit of Jehovah began to move Samson in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol’; in the latter passage the derivation of the name is given as the place where the last encampment of the band of 600 Danite warriors took place, before they set out on their expedition to Laish. The exact position of the spot has not been identified, as the site of Eshtaol (wh. see) is not known with certainty.

T. A. MOXON.

MAHARAI.—One of David’s thirty heroes (2 S 23:28, 1 Ch 11:30); according to 1 Ch 27:13, of the family of Zerah, and captain of the Temple guard for the tenth monthly course.

MAHATH.—1. The eponym of a Kohathite family (1 Ch 6:35, 2 Ch 29:12); perhaps to be identified with Ahimoth of 1 Ch 6:25. 2. A Levite in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31:13).

MAHAVITE, THE.—The EV designations 1 Ch 11:43 of Eliel, one of David’s heroes. The MT should prob. be emended to read ‘the Mahanaimite.’

MAHAZIOTH.—The Hemanite chief of the 23rd course of singers (1 Ch 25:4, 30).

MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ (‘spoil speedeth, prey hasteth’), Is 8:1, 3.—A symbolical name given to one of Isaiah’s sons to signify the speedy destruction of the power of the allied kings Rezin and Pekah by the king of Assyria.

MAHLAH.—1. One of the daughters of Zelophehad (wh. see), Nu 26:32, 27:1, 36:11, Jos 17:3. 2. One of the sons of Hammolecheth, 1 Ch 7:18.

MAHLI.—In Ex 6:18, Nu 3:20, 1 Ch 24:25, 28, it is the name of a son of Merari, Levi’s youngest son. In 1 Ch 23:23, 24:30 a son of Mushi, Mahli’s brother, bears the same name. Ezr 8:18 speaks of ‘a man of discretion (see ISH-SECHEL), of the sons of Mahli … and Sherebiah,’ etc. 1 Es 8:47 [Mooli] drops ‘and,’ thus identifying this son of Mahli with Sherebiah. In Nu 3:33 , 26:58 Mahli’s descendants are called ‘the family of the Mahlites.’ According to 1 Ch 23:22 , these Mahlites were descended from the daughters of Eleazar, the elder son of the Mahli mentioned in Ex 6:19. Eleazar left no male offspring. Their cousins, the sons of Kish, therefore took them in marriage, and prevented the extinction of their father’s name.

MAHLON.—See CHILION.

MAHOL.—The father of Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Chalcol, and Darda (1 K 4:31), who are mentioned as famous for their wisdom, though surpassed in this respect by Solomon. Apparently, then, Mahol is a proper name, but it is also found in Ps 149:3, 150:4 (EV tr. ‘dance’) amongst instruments of music, so that the four wise men mentioned above may really be described as ‘sons of music,’ in which case their wisdom may have consisted chiefly in their skill in the composition of hymns.

T. A. MOXON.

MAHSEIAH.—Grandfather of Baruch and Seraiah (Jer 32:12, 51:52); called in Bar 1:1 Maaseas.

MAIANNAS (1 Es 9:48) = Maaseiah, Neh 8:7.

MAIL.—See ARMOUR, 2 (c).

MAINSAIL.—See SHIPS AND BOATS.

MAKAZ.—A town on the W. slopes of Judah (1 K 4:9). The LXX reading, Michmash, is impossible. The site has not been recovered.

W. EWING.

MAKE.—In Jg 18:3 ‘to make’ means ‘to do’—‘What makest thou in this place?’ In Jn 8:53

‘Whom makest thou thyself?’, and Jn 19:7 ‘He made himself the Son of God,’ ‘make’ means ‘pretend to be’; cf. Jos 8:15 ‘Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten.’ This is the meaning also in 2 S 13:5 ‘Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick.’ In Ezk 17:17 ‘Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company make for him in the war,’ ‘make for’ means ‘assist.’

MAKED.—A ‘strong and great’ city in Gilead (1 Mac 5:26, 36). The site is unknown.

MAKHELOTH (Nu 33:25, 26).—One of the twelve ‘stations’ of the children of Israel ( Nu 33:25f.); unknown.

MAKKEDAH.—A Canaanite royal city in the Shephēlah, where the five kings of the Canaanites, defeated by Joshua at Gibeon, and chased by Israel down the valley by way of Bethhoron and Azekah, took refuge in a cave (Jos 10:10, 16ff.), whence, later, by Joshua’s orders, they were brought forth and slain. The city was taken and the inhabitants put to the sword. Azekah has not been identified, but in Jos 15:41 it is named with Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah, which may be identified with the modern Katrah, Dajūn, and Na’aneh. In this district the name Makkedah has not been found, but Warren and Conder agree in suggesting el-Mughār, ‘the cave,’ as the most likely spot. The rock-quarrying and tombs mark an ancient site, and caves are found in no other place where Makkedah might be located. It lies on the N. of Wādy Surār, about 15 miles S. of Jaffa. The Onomasticon places it about 7 miles E. of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrīn), a position hardly to be reckoned within the Shephēlah.

W. EWING.

MAKTESH.—The name of a locality mentioned only in Zeph 1:11 as ‘the Phœnician quarter’ (?) of Jerusalem. The word denotes a mortar, and presumably was given to the place because it was basin-shaped. If so, a part of the Tyropœon valley has as good a claim as any other locality to be regarded as what is referred to. Certainly the Mt. of Olives is but a precarious conjecture.

W. F. COBB.

MALACHI

1. Author.—The Book of Malachi raises a question of authorship which cannot he answered with certainty. Who was the author? Was his name Malachi? A priori, it might he supposed that the author of the last book of prophecy in the OT Canon would be sufficiently well known to have his name attached to his work. If the name appeared with the book (especially if the name was Ezra, as the Targum asserts), it could scarcely have been lost or forgotten before the ‘Minor Prophets’ were collected, and the Canon of the Prophets was closed.

It is, however, doubtful whether Malachi is the personal name of the prophet. The word, as it appears in the superscription, means ‘my messenger,’ and in this sense it is used in 3:1. It is argued that the word ought to have the same signification in both places. But, while in 3:1 it can scarcely mean anything else than ‘my messenger,’ this meaning does not suit the superscription, which would run, ‘Oracle of the word of Jahweh through my messenger.’ The oblique case of Jahweh with the direct reference of the suffix in ‘my messenger,’ is more than awkward. The LXX renders the superscription ‘by the hand of his messenger.’ The change of text is very slight.

Whether there was MS authority for it cannot be determined.

The termination of the word Malachi may be adjectival. It would thus be equivalent to the Latin Angelicus, and would signify ‘one charged with a message or mission’ (a missionary). The term would thus be an official title, and the thought is not unsuitable to one whose message closed the Prophetical Canon of the OT, and whose mission in behalf of the Church was of so sacred a character. If this were the explanation, it is probable that greater definiteness would be attached to the words. It should be noted that, while the LXX render the word Malachi by ‘his messenger’ in the superscription, they prefix, as the title of the book, Malachias, as if the Hebrew should read Malachiyah, i.e. ‘messenger of Jahweh.’ Some such form must be adopted if the Malachi of the superscription is taken as a proper noun. The form would thus correspond to Zacharias, and many other proper nouns (so Vulg. both in the title and in the superscription). This is a possible grammatical explanation, and the name ‘messenger of Jahweh’ is suitable to the condition of Judah at the time. The Jews had little experience of prophets when the message of this book was delivered. It is significant that Haggai, the earliest prophet of the post-exilic period, is expressly designated ‘messenger of Jahweh’ (Hag 1:13). He had already received the official title of prophet (nābï’), (v. 1). But there were prophets and prophets. False prophets had done much to bring about the Exile. If there were to be prophets after the Exile, it was important that the new community should be in no doubt as to their character. This was secured in the case of the first of the post-exilic prophets by the express statement that he was the messenger of Jahweh, and that what he spoke was the message of Jahweh. In the case of the last of the prophets of the OT Canon, an assurance of a similar character would be furnished symbolically by the name Malachiyah (‘messenger of Jahweh’). This, pro tanto, favours the form of the word as it appears in the title of the LXX and the Vulgate.

But 3:1 remains. If Malachi is a proper noun—the name of the author—in 1:1, should the word not have the same significance in 3:1? The answer is, that there is no insuperable objection to the twofold explanation. The form admits of the twofold reference. The question is one of probability. At this point, however, reference should be made to the Targum, according to which Ezra was the author of the Book of Malachi; and this opinion continued to prevail among the

Jews. Jerome accepted it, and it was favourably regarded by Calvin and others. No doubt the Targum expressed the Jewish opinion of the time. But that does not settle the question. In the four or five centuries between the appearance of the Book of Malachi and the birth of Christ, the life of the OT Church centred in the Law of Moses. That law was given, mainly, by Ezra to the post-exilic Church. As years passed, and the traditions of the scribes began to gather about the Law, the figure of Ezra stood out as the prominent one in post-exilic times. Everything of importance connected with the Law was wont to be assigned to him. Take along with that the fact that Malachi occurs as a common noun in 3:1, and the additional fact that the prophecy closes with a solemn warning to remember the Law of Moses, and it may appear not improbable that Ezra should have been claimed as the author of this closing passage, and of the prophecy in which it is found.

In these circumstances the authority of the Targum is not of very great weight. But in one respect the Targum is of importance. If the name of Ezra was the only one associated with the Book of Malachi when the Targum was prepared, it is probable that the book originally appeared anonymously—at least, that it bore no name when the volume of the Minor Prophets was made up, and that the compiler either regarded the term Malachi in 3:1 as the name of the author, or attached it to the book in the superscription as an official title. It is scarcely necessary to observe that the name of the author is not required for the authentication of the message. The terms of the superscription are amply sufficient for the purpose of authentication. It is the ‘Oracle of the Word of Jahweh’ that the prophet delivers. This is equivalent to ‘The word of Jahweh came—or was—to … (so and so)’ in other books of prophecy, and implies the familiar ‘Thus saith Jahweh’ of prophetic address.

2. Date—Opinion is greatly divided regarding the date of the book. That it belonged to the

Persian period appears from the name (pechah) given to the governor (cf. Hag 1:1, 14 etc., Neh 5:14 etc.). Further, it is obvious that the statutory services of the Temple had been in operation for some time before the message of Malachi was delivered. Abuses had crept in which could not be associated with those who had returned from Babylon and rebuilt the Temple. The dedication of the Second Temple took place in B.C. 516, and the condition of religious life depicted in Malachi must have been a good many years later than that date. This is very generally admitted. Two dates are most worthy of consideration—the first shortly before Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, and the second during Nehemiah’s second visit to the holy city. Certain expressions occurring in the book are held to favour the former (cf. 2:2, 4, 5, 3:5, 10, 22 [EV 4:4]). These, breathing the spirit of Deut., are supposed to show that the author was under the influence of the Deuteronomic Code. If his activity was later than 445, the influence of P would have been expected to show itself. But the expression ‘the law of Moses’ (3:22 [EV 4:4]) finds a natural explanation in connexion with the whole Pentateuchal legislation read before the people in 445 (Neh 8ff.). The covenant with Levi (2:4, 5) seems to presuppose Nu 25:10–13 (P). And the reference to the tithes (3:10) appears to rest on Lv 27:30–33 and Nu 18:21–32 (both belonging to

P¹). Deuteronomic expressions of an ethical character are suitable to any earnest prophet after Amos, and are not determinative of date as are the passages which presuppose P,—on the assumption that P was first promulgated in B.C. 445. The language, upon the whole, favours a date later than the appearance of P. The contents of the book point in the same direction. Ezra’s reformation appears to have been limited to the banishing of the foreign wives, and the effort to effect a complete separation of the Chosen People from the idolatrous tribes round about. The author of Malachi brings three main charges against the Church of his day: (1) against the priests for the profanation of the services of the Temple; (2) against the community (priests included) for marrying heathen wives; (3) against the people generally for immorality, indifference, and infidelity. All this agrees very closely with the state of affairs with which Nehemiah had to deal on his second visit to Jerusalem (Neh 13:7ff.). And upon the whole (the conclusion can only be a matter of comparative probability), the period of that visit may be accepted for the prophetic activity of the author of Malachi. The date would be somewhere about B.C. 430.

3. Contents—The book may be divided into the following sections:

I. 1:1. The superscription.

II. 1:2–5. Jahweh’s love to Israel. This love proved by the history of His dealings with Israel from the days of their great ancestor Jacob, as contrasted with the history of Jacob’s brother Esau and of his descendants.

III. 1:6–2:9. Israel’s forgetfulness of Jahweh,—neglect and contempt of His offerings, through illegal proceedings on the part of the priests.

IV. 2:10–15. Denunciation of divorce and of foreign marriages.

V. 2:17–3:6. Day of Jahweh (i.e. His coming to judgment) against unbelievers, scoffers, etc., especially with the view of purifying the priests in order that acceptable offerings may be presented unto Him.

VI. 3:7–12. Drought and locusts sent on those who neglected to bring the tithes for the service of the Temple and the support of the priests.

VII. 3:13–24 [EV 3:13–4:6]. The punishment of the wicked, and the triumph of the righteous, on the day of Jahweh, with a concluding exhortation to obey the Law of Moses, and a promise of the coming of Elijah to lead the people to repentance.

4. Doctrine—Malachi, in its doctrinal contents, is in entire harmony with the Prophetic books that preceded it, and adds its testimony to the fact that, while Divine revelation is progressive, and the circumstances of the time add a special character and colour to the different Prophetic books, the fundamental doctrines are the same in all. The keynote of Malachi’s message is found in the opening words of 1:2. Israel’s position as the Chosen People is founded in the electing love of Jahweh. The divorcing of Jewish and the marrying of heathen wives is a crime against the love of Jahweh. Further, Jahweh—as in all the prophets from Amos downwards—is a God of righteousness. He rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. The day of Jahweh, on which the wicked are punished and the righteous rewarded, is the same as in Amos and his successors; and the closing words of the prophecy, dealing with this day of Jahweh, connect the OT with the NT, in which the day of the Lord occupies a position of equal importance with that assigned to it in the OT. The special circumstances of the time, which serve so far to determine the date, appear in the importance assigned to ritual, and the severity with which neglect or irregularity in this part of religious observance is treated.

5. Style—As might be expected, the style and diction of a book belonging to the last half of the 5th cent. are inferior to those of the pre-exilic prophets. The language is mostly plain, homely prose. There are, however, poetic passages, some of considerable merit (cf. 1:11, 3:1ff., 10 ff., 16ff., 19ff. [EV 4:1ff.]). The most striking feature of the style is the discussion of an important subject by means of question and answer,—a dialectic method which became common afterwards, and which about the same time was well known in Athens through the labours of

Socrates.

G. G. CAMERON.

MALACHY.—2 Es 1:40 (AV and RV) for Malachi.

MALCAM.—1. One of the heads of the fathers of Benjamin, and the son of Shaharaim and Hodesh (1 Ch 8:9). 2. In Zeph 1:6 Malcam is apparently the name of an idol, and might be rendered literally ‘their king,’ as in the margin of AV and RV. Quite possibly, however, there is an error in the pointing of the Hebrew word, and it should be rendered Milcom (wh. see), the ‘abomination’ of the children of Ammon, and identical with Molech (cf. Is 8:21, Jer 49:1–3, and 1 K 11:5). See also art. MOLECH.

T. A. MOXON.

MALCHIAH.—1. A priest, the father of Pashhur (Jer 21:1, 38:1), same as Malchijah of 1 Ch 9:12, Neh 11:12. 2. A member of the royal family, to whom belonged the pit-prison into which Jeremiah was let down (Jer 38:6).

MALCHIEL.—The eponym of an Asherite family (Gn 46:17, Nu 26:45, 1 Ch 7:31). The gentilic name Malchielites occurs in Nu 26:45.

MALCHIJAH.—1. A descendant of Gershom (1 Ch 6:40 [Heb. 25]). 2. A priest, the father of Pashhur (1 Ch 9:12, Neh 11:12), same as Malchiah of Jer 21:1, 38:1. 3. Head of the 5 th course of priests (1 Ch 24:9), perhaps the same as the preceding. 4. 5. Two of the sons of Parosh, who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:25 bis); called in 1 Es 9:25 Malchias and Asibias respectively. 6. One of the sons of Harim who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:31). In Neh 3:11 he is mentioned as taking part in the repairing of the wall. He is called in 1 Es 9:32 Malchias. 7. Malchijah the son of Rechab repaired the dung-gate (Neh 3:14). 8. One of the guild of the goldsmiths who helped to repair the wall (Neh 3:31). 9. One of those who stood at Ezra’s left hand at the reading of the Law (Neh 8:4). 10. One of those who sealed the covenant ( Neh 10:3), probably the same as No. 2. 11. A priest who took part in the ceremony of dedicating the wall (Neh 12:42).

MALCHIRAM.—Son of Jeconiah (1 Ch 3:18).

MALCHI-SHUA.—The third son of Saul (1 S 14:49); slain by the Philistines at Mt. Gilboa (1 S 31:2, 1 Ch 10:2).

MALCHUS.—The name of the high priest’s servant whose ear Peter cut off in the Garden of Gethsemane at the arrest of our Lord. St. John is the only Evangelist who mentions his name ( Jn 18:10), thereby substantiating the fact that he was intimately acquainted with the high priest and his household (Jn 18:16). The incident is related in the other three Gospels (Mt 26:61, Mk 14:47 , Lk 22:50). On a comparison of the four accounts, it seems that Malchus pressed forward eagerly to seize Jesus, whereupon Peter struck at him with his sword. The blow, missing its main object, almost severed the ear, but not quite, as Jesus touched it and healed it.

Luke, the physician, is the only Evangelist who mentions the hearing of the ear.

MORLEY STEVENSON.

MALICE

1. (i) OT.—All in Pr.-Bk. version: Ps 94:23, 119:150 and 10:17 (adj.) 59:5 (adj.) and 55:3

( adv. ).

(ii.) Apocr.—All in AV: Wis 12:10, 20, 16:14 (and RVm), * Sir 27:30 and 28:7, * 1 Mac 9:51 and 13:6, 2 Mac 4:50.

(iii) NT.—In RV: 1 Co 5:8, 14:20, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8, Tit 3:6, Ja 1:21 mg., 1 P 2:1 (AV and RVm); ‘maliciousness’ Ro 1:29, 1 P 2:16 (AV and RVm ‘malice’); ‘malicious’ * 3 Jn 10 AV.

2. Discussion is needless as to (i.), for the Heb. is clear. (See RV.) All the other instances, however, except those marked * represent a Gr. word (kakia) which has a much wider meaning than ‘malice’ as now used. It may be ‘wickedness,’ as Ac 8:22, Ja 1:21; or ‘evil’ = ‘trouble,’ Mt 6:34.

3. The point is important, because ‘malice’ has acquired its exclusive meaning ‘spitefulness’ only since the 17th century. It indicated evil of any sort (cf. Pr.-Bk. as cited above, and for some striking examples see art. in Hastings’ DB). This change accounts for RV renderings of Apocr., and would perhaps have justified further emendation of AV.

4. The modern usage is a return to the classical malitia. Its relation to kakia was discussed by Cicero, who coined vitiositas as the nearest rendering; for whereas ‘malice’ indicated a particular fault, ‘vitiosity’ stood for all (Tusc. Disp. iv. 34).

H. F. B. COMPSTON. MALLOTHI.—A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:4, 26).

MALLOWS (mallūach, connected with melach ‘salt’), Job 30:4, RV salt-wort.—Almost certainly the sea orache (Atriplex halimus), a perennial shrub with leaves somewhat like the olive, common in saltish marshes, especially near the Dead Sea, where it is associated with the retem (see JUNIPER). The sourtasting leaves can he eaten, but only in dire necessity.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MALLUCH.—1. A Merarite, ancestor of Ethan (1 Ch 6:44). 2. One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:29); called in 1 Es 9:30 Mamuchus. 3. One of the sons of Harim who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:32). 4. 5. Two of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:4, 27). No. 4 is probably identical with Malluch of Neh 12:2, called in 12:14 Malluchi.

MALLUCHI.—The eponym of a priestly family who returned with Zerub. (Neh 12:14) ; probably the same as Malluch of Neh 10:4, 12:2.

MALLUS.—A city of Cilicia which joined Tarsus in a rebellion against Antiochus

Epiphanes about B.C. 171 (2 Mac 4:30). Tradition said that it was founded at the time of the

Trojan War. Its coinage shows that it was an important town. Its site is doubtful, but as ancient statements make it near the river Pyramus, near the sea, and also on a hill, Professor Ramsay identifies it with Kara-Tash, on a coast line of hills E. of Magarsa, which served as its port. The W. branch of the Pyramus has become almost completely dried up.

A. E. HILLARD.

MALOBATHRON.—RVm of Ca 2:17 for EV Bether (wh. see). It is argued by Post, against this rendering, that the malobathron plant (Laurus malabathrum) did not grow wild on any of the mountains of Palestine. Others would render (by a slight textual emendation) ‘mountains of cypresses.’

MALTANNEUS (1 Es 9:33) = Mattenai, Ezr 10:33.

MAMDAI (1 Es 9:34) = Benaiah, Ezr 10:35.

MAMMON.—This is a Semitic word, but of doubtful derivation. It has been referred to Heb. aman, ‘a reliable (store),’ and to taman (t being elided), ‘hidden treasure.’ Augustine (Serm. on Mount) says it was the name for ‘riches’ among the Hebrews, and that the Phœenician agrees, for ‘gain’ in Phœnician is called mammon. Phœnician and Hebrew were near akin, and the ancients often included Aramaic in Hebrew. ‘Mammon’ is not found in OT Hebrew, but occurs in Rabbinical, in Syriac (Western Aramaic), and is used in the Aramaic Targums as the equivalent of Heb. terms for ‘gain’ or ‘wealth.’ Being a well-known Phœn. trade word, it is introduced without translation (unlike corban, etc.) into NT Greek, where the right spelling is mamōnas (Mt 6:24, Lk 16:9, 11, 13); with this agrees the Syriac form momūna. A Phœn. deity, Mamon, has been supposed. Though not improbable, the idea seems due to Milton (P.L. i. 679 ff.). ‘Serve God and mammon’ suggests personification, but compare the phraseology of Ph 3:19.

G. H. GWILLIAM.

MAMNITANEMUS (1 Es 9:34) corresponds to the two names Mattaniah, Mattenai in Ezr 10:37, of which it is a corruption.

MAMRE.—A name found several times in connexion with the history of Abraham. It occurs (a) in the expression ‘terebinths of Mamre’ in Gn 13:18, 18:1 (both J), and 14:13 (from an independent source) with the addition of ‘the Amorite’; (b) in the expression ‘which is before Mamre,’ in descriptions of the cave of Machpelah, or of the field in which it was (Gn 23:17, 19 ,

25:9, 49:30, 50:13), and in 35:27, where Mamre is mentioned as the place of Isaac’s death; (c) in

Gn 14:24 as the name of one of Abraham’s allies, in his expedition for the recovery of Lot. In (b) Mamre is an old name, either of Hebron or of a part of Hebron (cf. 23:19, 35:27); in Gn 14:13 it is the name of a local sheik or chief (cf. v. 24), the owner of the terebinths called after him; in Gn 13:18, 18:1 it is not clear whether it is the name of a person or of a place. The ‘terebinths of Mamre’ are the spot at which Abraham pitched his tent in Hebron. The site is uncertain, though, if the present mosque, on the N.E. edge of Hebron, is really built over the cave of Machpelah, and if ‘before’ has its usual topographical sense of ‘east of,’ it will have been to the W. of this, and at no great distance from it (for the terebinths are described as being ‘in’ Hebron, Gn 13:18). From Josephus’ time (BJ, IV. ix. 7) to the present day, terebinths or oaks called by the name of Abraham have been shown at different spots near Hebron; but none has any real claim to mark the authentic site of the ancient ‘Mamre.’ The oak mentioned by Josephus was 6 stadia from the city; but he does not indicate in which direction it lay. Sozomen (HE ii. 4), in speaking of the ‘Abraham’s Oak’ of Constantine’s day (2 miles N. of Hebron), states that it was regarded as sacred, and that an annual fair and feast was held beside it, at which sacrifices were offered, and libations and other offerings cast into a well close by. Cf. OAK.

S. R. DRIVER.

MAMUCHUS (1 Es 9:30) = Malluch, Ezr 10:29.

MAN.—The Bible is concerned with man only from the religious standpoint, with his relation to God. This article will deal only with the religious estimate of man, as other matters which might have been included will be found in other articles (CREATION, ESCHATOLOGY, FALL, SIN, PSYCHOLOGY). Man’s dignity, as made by special resolve and distinct act of God in God’s image and likeness (synonymous terms), with dominion over the other creatures, and for communion with God, as asserted in the double account of his Creation in Gn 1 and 2, and man’s degradation by his own choice of evil, as presented figuratively in the story of his Fall in Gn 3 , are the two aspects of man that are everywhere met with. The first is explicitly affirmed in Ps 8 , an echo of Gn 1; the second, without any explicit reference to the story in Gn 3, is taken for granted in the OT (see esp. Ps 51), and is still more emphasized in the NT, with distinct allusion to the Fall and its consequences (see esp. Ro 5:12–21 and 7:7–25). While the OT recognizes man’s relation to the world around him, his materiality and frailty as ‘flesh’ (wh. see), and describes him as ‘dust and ashes’ in comparison with God (Gn 2:7, 3:19, 18:27), yet as made in God’s image it endows him with reason, conscience, affection, free will. Adam is capable of recognizing the qualities of, and so of naming, the living creatures (2:19), cannot find a help meet among them (v. 20), is innocent (v. 25), and capable of moral obedience (v. 16, 17) and religious communion (3:9, 10). The Spirit of God is in man not only as life, but also as wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, skill and courage (see INSPIRATION). The Divine immanence in man as the Divine providence for man is affirmed (Pr 20:27).

In the NT man’s dignity is represented as Divine sonship. In St. Luke’s Gospel Adam is described as ‘son of God’ (3:38). St. Paul speaks of man as ‘the image and glory of God’ (1 Co 11:7), approves the poet’s words, ‘we also are his offspring,’ asserts the unity of the race, and God’s guidance in its history (Ac 17:26–28). In his argument in Romans regarding universal sinfulness, he assumes that even the Gentiles have the law of God written in their hearts, and thus can exercise moral judgment on themselves and others (2:15). Jesus’ testimony to the

Fatherhood of God, including the care and bounty in Providence as well as the grace in

Redemption, has as its counterpart His estimate of the absolute worth of the human soul (see Mt 10:30, 16:26, Lk 10:20, 15). While God’s care and bounty are unlimited, yet Jesus does seem to limit the title ‘child or son of God’ to those who have religious fellowship and seek moral kinship with God (see Mt 5:9, 45; cf. Jn 1:12). St. Paul’s doctrine of man’s adoption by faith in God’s grace does not contradict the teaching of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews sees the promise of man’s dominion in Ps 8 fulfilled only in Christ (2:8, 9). Man’s history, according to the Fourth Evangelist, is consummated in the Incarnation (Jn 1:14).

The Bible estimate of man’s value is shown in its anticipation of his destiny—not merely continued existence, but a future life of weal or woe according to the moral quality, the relation to God, of the present life (see ESCHATOLOGY). The Biblical analysis of the nature of man is discussed in detail in art. PSYCHOLOGY.

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

MAN OF SIN (or ‘lawlessness’).—Probably the equivalent in 2 Th 2:3–10 of Antichrist (wh. see). According to the Pauline view, the Parousia would be preceded by an apostasy of believers and the appearance of the ‘man of lawlessness,’ ‘who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God’ (v. 3f.). The appearance of this evil one and his oppression of the believers were prevented by some force or person. In course of time, however, this restraint was to be removed. The wicked one would exercise his power until the Christ should come to destroy him (vv. 6–8).

The precise references of this statement are beyond final discovery. It is, however, commonly believed that the reference is to some historical person, possibly the god-emperor of Rome. Such a reference is, however, very difficult if 2 Thess. was written by St. Paul, for at the time of its composition the Roman State had not become a persecutor. The ‘one who restrains’ is also difficult to identify if the ‘man of lawlessness’ be the Roman emperor. For that reason it may be best to refer the ‘man of lawlessness’ to the Jewish people or their expected Messiah, and ‘he that restraineth’ to the Roman power. This interpretation is supported by the fact that in his letters to the Thessalonians, St. Paul regards the Jews as persecutors, while throughout Acts the Roman State is presented as a protector of the Christians. This identification, however, does not satisfactorily explain the reference to ‘sitting in the temple.’ It is, therefore, probably better not to attempt a precise historical interpretation of either the ‘man of lawlessness’ or ‘him that restraineth,’ but to regard the former as a reference to the expected Antichrist, and the latter to some unidentified personal influence that led to the postponement of his appearance.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

MANAEN (= Menahem).—One of the Christian prophets and teachers at Antioch, and ‘foster-brother’ of Herod Antipas (Ac 13:1). Although individual non-official Christians prophesied (Ac 2:17f., 21:9, 1 Co 14:31), yet there was in NT a class of official prophets ( Eph 2:20, 3:5, Rev 18:20, perhaps 1 Th 2:15); and so in the Didache (c. A.D. 120?) the prophets formed an official class above the local ministry. Manaen was clearly an official at Antioch. The phrase ‘foster-brother of Herod’ is thought by Deissmann to be a mere title of honour, like ‘the king’s friend’ in 1 Ch 27:33, but more probably represents a literal fact. An older Manaen had been befriended by Herod the Great as having foretold his advancement; this one might be his grandson, brought up with Antipas. Another instance of the circle of Herod being reached by Christianity is Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Lk 8:3); and Antipas himself was touched by the Baptist’s preaching (Mk 6:20).

A. J. MACLEAN.

MANAHATH.—1. Mentioned only in 1 Ch 8:5 as the place to which certain Benjamite clans were carried captive. The town is probably identical with that implied in Manahathites (wh. see), with the Manochō of the Gr. text of Jos 15:59, and if the text in Jg. is correct, with the Menuhah of Jg 20:43 RVm. 2. Gn 36:23 (P), 1 Ch 1:40 ‘son of Shobal, son of Seir, the Horite,’ i.e. eponymous ancestor of a clan of Edom, or of the earlier population conquered and absorbed by Edom.

MANAHATHITES (RV Menuhoth in 1 Ch 2:52), 1 Ch 2:54.—The genealogy in these two passages is to be interpreted as meaning that the city Manahath, occupied by portions of two sections of the Edomite clan Caleb, came to be reckoned to Judah.

MANASSEAS (1 Es 9:31) = Manasseh, Ezr 10:30.

MANASSEH.—1. In MT and AV of Jg 18:30 Manasseh is a scribal change for dogmatic purposes, the original being Moses (see GERSHOM, 1). 2. A son of Pahath-moab (Ezr 10:30 [1 Es 9:31 Manasseas]). 3. Son of Hashum (Ezr 10:33). 4. 5. See next two articles.

MANASSEH.—The firstborn son of Joseph, and full brother of Ephraim (Gn 41:51f. [ E]), by Asenath, the daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On (v. 48 [J]).

The popular etymology makes the name a Pi’ēl ptcp. of the verb nāshāh, to forget.’ Josephus (Ant. II. vi. 1) adopts this without criticism, as do our Hebrew Lexicons. In the Assyrian inscriptions the name appears as Minsē, Menase. In Is 65:11 the god Meni (RV ‘Destiny’) is associated with Gad, the god of Fortune. Some scholars, consequently, equate Manasseh with Men-nasa = ‘the god Men seized.’ ‘Apparently Manasseh succeeded in establishing friendly relations with the Canaanites at an early date. His name points to such influences’ (Niebuhr, Gesch. d. Ebr. Zeit. p. 252; cf. Siegfried, ‘Gad-Meni u. Gad-Manasse’ in Ztschr. f. prot. Theol., 1875, p. 366 f.). Hogg, who in EBi, s.v., discusses the name at length, appears to favour the participial form, but (following Land) connects it with the Arahic nasā, ‘to inflict an injury.’ He thus brings it into relation with the story of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (Gn 32). ‘It would appear,’ so runs the conclusion, ‘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.’ But it is extremely unlikely that Jacob was originally regarded as a deity, as Luther (ZATW xxi. p. 68 ff.) also holds. The Babylonian form Ya‘qub-ilu found in the contract tablets of the period of Hammurabi (23rd cent. B.C.) and Jacdb-el (or -her) found on the scarab of an Egyptian king of the Hyksos period, is not to be translated ‘Ya‘kub is god.’ As forms like Yakbar-ilu, Yamlik-ilu, etc., render probable, ilu is subject. Nevertheless, there may have been some original connexion between Manasseh and Jacob. Jacob’s name, we are told, was afterwards changed to Israel, and Manasseh is said to have been the elder brother of Ephraim, the name which later became almost synonymous with Israel, and, finally, in Jg 1:27, 28 Manasseh and Israel appear to be used as equivalents. But where no better data are obtainable, we must confess ignorance as frankly as we reject the etymologizing tales of our sources.

In our oldest source bearing upon the early tribal settlement (Jg 5) the name of Manasseh does not appear, though that of Ephraim does. Machir there (v. 14) seems to take the place of Manasseh. In Gn 50:23 (E) he is the only son of Manasseh; so also Nu 26:29, 34 (P), but in Jos 17:1b (perh. J) he is the firstborn of Manasseh. In Nu 32:39, 41, 42 (v. 40 is not original) we have an excerpt from JE added to P’s story of Reuben’s and Gad’s settlement on the East Jordan, which tells us that the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, went to Gilead and took it. Jair, it is said, and Nobah, two other descendants of Manasseh, also look towns in Gilead, to which they gave their own names. But, according to Dt 3:13, Moses, after completely exterminating the inhabitants, gave North Gilead, all Bashan, and Argob ‘to the half tribe of Manasseh’; cf. Jos 13:29ff. etc. In P’s account of the settlement of Reuben and Gad (Nu 32) there was nothing said originally of this half-tribe being associated with them. The whole story is told before the Manassites are brought in in v. 33 (cf. Jos 13:21ff. and ch. 17). The story of their early settlement on the East side is discredited by many scholars, who hold that the East was later conquered from the West. As we have seen in Jg 5:14, where Machir takes the place of Manasseh, he appears to be in possession on the West; and Machir, the son of Manasseh, is said to have gone to Gilead and taken it (Nu 32:39), and if so, he must have operated from his original seat. In Jos 17:14–18 we read of the complaint of the ‘children of Joseph’ to Joshua that he had given them ( ‘him’ ) only one lot, despite the fact that he was a great people. Nothing is said about any previous allotment by Moses on the East. Further, in Nu 32:41 Bashan is conquered by Jair, who, according to Jg 10:3, was a judge of Israel. The argument is strong but not cogent.

As we have already seen, the tribe on the West was represented by Machir (Jg 5). J, the next oldest document, includes Ephraim and Manasseh in the phrase ‘sons of Joseph’ (Jos 16:1–4) , ‘house of Joseph’ (17:17 [‘Ephr. and Man.’ is a gloss] 18:5, Jg 1:22, 23, 25). One lot only is consequently assigned to them, the limits of which are roughly sketched in Jos 16:1–3, Jos 17 gives Gilead and Bashan to Machir (making no mention of Jair and Nobah), and v. 2 begins to tell of the assignments to the remainder of the Manassite clans, but fails to do so. But the ‘clan’ names, Abiezer, Shechem, and the names of the cities appended show that they were on the West. It is clear from what is said of the cities which were in Issachar and Asher (v. 11ff.) that they were only ideally in Manasseh’s territory, and that the latter was confined on the north to the hill-country. Like the rest of the tribes, they ‘were not able to drive out the Canaanites.’ When they made their complaint to Joshua (vv. 14–18) that they were too cramped in their abode to better themselves, he sententiously replied that being a great people as they boasted, they could clear out the mountain forests and develop in that way, and so ultimately get the upper hand of the Canaanites in the plains. It should be said that the names of the rest of the sons of Manasseh, Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher, Shemida, as well as the five daughters of Zelophehad, the great-grandson of Machir, are probably all place-names, as some of them certainly are, and not personal names.

Whether Joseph was a tribe has been doubted, because there is no mention of it in Jg 5, and the fact that the name Machir appears to be from the root māchar, ‘to sell,’ has raised the question whether the story of Joseph’s sale into Egypt did not arise in connexion with it.

For the clans see Jos 17:1b–2 (J), Nu 26:28–34 (P), 1 Ch 7:14–19, 2:21–23.

The tribe, owing to its situation, had much to endure during the Syrian wars (Am 1:3, 2 K 10:33), and, according to 1 Ch 5:25, the eastern half was deported (B.C. 743) by Tiglath-pileser

III. (see GAD). See also TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

MANASSEH, son of Hezekiah, reigned longer than any king of his line—fifty-five years, according to our sources (2 K 21:1). His reign was remarkable for the religious reaction against the reforms which had been made by Hezekiah. The record (vv. 2–9) is that he built again the altars which Hezekiah had destroyed, and erected altars for Baal, and made an ashērah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and that he worshipped the host of heaven and served them. In restoring the old altars he doubtless thought he was returning to the early religion of the nation, and the Baal whom he worshipped was probably identified in the minds of the people with the national God Jahweh. The ashērah was a well-known accompaniment of the altars of Jahweh down to the time of Hezekiah. In all this Manasseh’s measures may be called conservative, while his worship of the ‘host of heaven’ was no doubt a State necessity owing to the Assyrian rule. The sacrifice of his son and the practice of witchcraft and magic, of which he is accused, were also sanctioned by ancient Israelitish custom. The reaction was accompanied by active persecution of the prophetic party, which can hardly surprise us, toleration being an unknown virtue. On account of these sins, Manasseh is represented by later writers as the man who filled the cup of Judah’s iniquity to overflowing, and who thus made the final catastrophe of the nation inevitable.

H. P. SMITH.

MANASSES.—1. 1 Es 9:33 = Manasseh, No. 3 (Ezr 10:33). 2. Judith’s husband (Jth 8:2). 3. An unknown person mentioned in the dying words of Tobit (To 14:10). 4. For ‘Prayer of Manasses’ see APOCRYPHA, § 11.

MANDRAKE (dūdā’īm, Gn 30:14f., Ca 7:13; RVm ‘love apples,’ cf. root dōdīm, ‘love’).— Although other plants have been suggested, the mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), of the Solanaceœ or Potato order, is most probable. It is a common plant in all parts of S. Palestine. Its long and branched root is very deeply imbedded in the earth, and an old superstition survives today that he who digs it up will be childless—but at the same time the effort of pulling it up will cure a bad lumbago. When the last fibres give way and the root comes up a semi-human scream is supposed to be emitted (cf. also Jos. BJ VII. vi. 3). Occasionally the root resembles a human figure, but most of those exhibited have been ‘doctored’ to heighten the resemblance. The leaves are dark green, arranged in a rosette, and the flowers dark purple. The fruit, which ripens about May, about the time of the wheat harvest, is somewhat like a small tomato, and orange or reddish in colour: it is called by the natives baid el-jinn, ‘the eggs of the jinn.’ It has a heavy narcotic smell and sweetish taste. It is still used medicinally, but is known to be poisonous, especially the seeds. The mandrake was known to the ancients as an aphrodisiac (see p. 569^b).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MANEH.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, III.

MANES.—One of those who agreed to put away their ‘strange’ wives (1 Es 9:21 [Ezr 10:21 Maaseiah]).

MANGER (Lk 2:7, 12, 13, 13:13 RVm).—EV tr. of phatnē, the LXX equivalent of Heb. ’ēbūs, ‘a place where cattle are fattened’ (Job 39:9 etc.). It also represents ’urwāh (2 Ch 32:28) , and repheth (Hab 3:17), EV stall. In Job 39:9, Pr 14:4 ’ēbūs may mean the stall or shelter; in Is 1:3 it is probably the crib in which the food was placed. A like ambiguity attaches to ’urwāh or ’uryāh (2 Ch 32:28), lit. ‘collecting place’ or ‘collected herd.’ It probably came to mean a certain number of animals, as ‘a pair’ or ‘team’ (1 K 4:26, 2 Ch 9:25) [Gesenius]. The Heb. repheth (Hab 3:17) clearly means ‘stall’; marbēq is the place where the cattle are ‘tied up’ (1 S 28:24 ; ‘fatted calf’ = ‘calf of the stall,’ Jer 46:21, Am 6:4, Mal 4:2); phatnē may therefore denote either the ‘manger’ or the ‘stall.’

If katatuma (Lk 2:7) means ‘guest chamber’ (see art. HOSPITALITY, ad fin.), Joseph and Mary may have moved into the side of the house occupied by the cattle, from which the living-room is distinguished by a higher floor, with a little hollow in the edge, out of which the cattle eat. The present writer has seen a child laid in such a ‘manger.’ Or, in the crowded khān, only the animals’ quarters may have afforded shelter. We do not now know. Ancient tradition places Jesus’ birth in a cave near Bethlehem. Caves under the houses are extensively used in Palestine as stables. The midhwad, ‘manger,’ cut in the side, is an excellent ‘crib’ for a baby.

W. EWING.

MANI (1 Es 9:30) = Bani of Ezr 10:29 and 1 Es 5:12.

MANIUS.—According to 2 Mac 11:34, Titus Manius was one of two Roman legates who, being on their way to Antloch after the campaign of Lysias against Judæa in the year B.C. 163 , sent a letter to the Jews confirming the concessions of Lysias, and offering to undertake the charge of their interests at Antioch in concert with their own envoy. This action would be in accord with the policy the Romans were following towards the Syrian kingdom, and is probable enough. But we have no knowledge from any other source of the presence in the East of any legate called Titus Manius.

A. E. HILLARD.

MANNA.—The food of the Israelites during the wanderings (Ex 16:1, 38, Jos 5:12), but not the only food available. Documents of various dates speak of (a) cattle (Ex 17:3, 19:13, 34:3, Nu 7:3, 6f.), especially in connexion with sacrifice (Ex 24:5, 32:8, Lv 8:2, 25, 31, 9:4; 10:14, Nu 7:15ff.); (b) flour (Nu 7:13, 19, 25 etc., Lv 10:12, 24:5); (c) food in general (Dt 2:3, Jos 1:11).

1. The origin of the word is uncertain. In Ex 16:13 the exclamation might be rendered, ‘It is mān!’ (note RVm). If so, the Israelites were reminded (but only vaguely, see v. 15) of some known substance. The similar Arabic word means ‘gift.’ More probably the words are a question—‘What is it?’ Unaware of the proper term, they thus spoke of manna as ‘the-what-isit.’

2. The manna was flaky, small, and white (Ex 16:14, 31). It resembled the ‘seed’ ( better ‘fruit’) of the coriander plant (Ex 16:31, Nu 11:7), and suggested bdellium (Nu 11:7 [see § 3]). It could be ground, and was stewed or baked (Ex 16:23, Nu 11:8). The taste is compared to that of honey-wafers (Ex 16:31), or oil (Nu 11:8), it was gathered fresh every morning early (but see § 4), for, if exposed to the sun, it melted (Ex 16:21; cf. Wis 19:2); if kept overnight (see § 4), it went had (Ex 16:19f.). Each person was entitled to a measured ’omer of manna (Ex 16:19).

3. Many would identify manna with the juice of certain trees. The flowering ash (S. Europe) exudes a ‘manna’ (used in medicine); and a species of tamarisk found in the Sinai peninsula yields a substance containing sugar. The description of manna would not in every point support such an identification, but it is worth noting that manna is likened (see § 2) to bdellium, which is a resinous exudation. A more recent theory is that manna was an edible lichen like that found in Arabia, etc.

4. Manna would thus come under the category of ‘special providences,’ not ‘miracles.’ There can, however, be no doubt that the Biblical writers regarded it as miraculous. (a) There is enough for a host of ‘600,000 footmen.’ (b) The quantity gathered proves exactly suited to the consumer’s appetite (Ex 16:18). (c) The Sabbath supply (gathered the previous day) retains its freshness (Ex 16:23f.). (d) An ‘omer of it is kept as a sacred object near (Ex 16:33f.) but not within (1 K 8:9; ct. He 9:4, Rev 2:17) the ark. (e) Allusions to it suggest the supernatural ( Neh 9:20, Ps 78:24f., 105:40, 2 Es 1:19, Wis 16:20, 19:21).

5. All this must lend significance to NT mention. Christ as the living bread is typified by manna (Jn 6:31ff., 1 Co 10:3; cf. 4); and secret spiritual sustenance is the reward for ‘him that overcometh’ (Rev 2:17).

H. F. B. COMPSTON.

MANOAH.—The father of Samson, of the town of Zorah, and of the family of the Danites (Jg 13:1–23, 14:2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16:31). We learn but little of his character and occupation from the Bible narrative. He was a worshipper of Jehovah, and a man of reverent piety; he was hospitable, like his ancestor Abraham; he shared the dislike of his people for the alien surrounding tribes, and strongly deprecated an alliance between his son and the Philistines. The second narrative gives us the following information about him. His wife was barren, but she was warned by a Divine messenger that she was destined to bear a son who was to be a Nazirite and dedicated to Jehovah. The messenger appeared again when Manoah also was present, and repeated his prophecy (Jg 13:2–23). We hear of Manoah on four more occasions: we find him remonstrating with his son about the proposed Philistine marriage (14:2, 3); he accompanied his son on the preliminary visit to Timnah (vv. 5, 8), and again to the marriage itself (vv. 9, 10). He did not survive his son, who was buried by his side (16:31). Cf. art. SAMSON.

These scanty details are somewhat amplified by Josephus (Ant. V. viii. 2, 3), who was apparently following some ancient Jewish tradition.

T. A. MOXON.

MANSION.—The English word occurs in Scripture only in Jn 14:2, ‘In my Father’s house are many man-sioos’ (RVm ‘Or, abiding places’). Its retention is an archaism, for the modern connotation of a house of some dignity is quite lacking from the word as used by Tindale (1525) , apparently from the Vulg. mansiones, ‘abiding places.’ The Gr. word (monē), like the Latin, means (1) the act of abiding, (2) a place of abode. In the NT it occurs also in Jn 14:23, where ‘make our abode’ is Greek idiom for ‘abide.’ Hence the thought in Jn 14:2 is simply that there is ample room for the disciples in the Father’s house. In the LXX the Gr. word occurs only once, viz. 1 Mac 7:38, ‘give them no abiding place’ (RV ‘suffer them not to live any longer’).

S. W. GREEN.

MANSLAYER.—See KIN [NEXT OF] and REFUGE [CITIES OF].

MAN-STEALING.—See ‘Kidnapping’ in art. CRIMES, § 7.

MANTELET.—See FORTIFICATION, § 7.

MANTLE.—See DRESS, § 4 (c).

MANUSCRIPTS.—See TEXT and WRITING.

MAOCH.—The father of Achish king of Gath (1 S 27:2). He is probably to be identified with Maacah No. 3

MAON, MAONITES.—1. In Jg 10:12 the Maonites are mentioned together with the

Zidonians and Amalekites as having oppressed Israel. They dwelt in Mt. Seir, south of the Dead Sea. According to 1 Ch 4:41f., the Maonites (called Meunim in this passage) were, in the reign of Hezekiah, driven out of their pasture land by the Simeonites. The passage is interesting as showing how long the original Canaanites held their own in the land after the Israelite invasion. In 2 Ch 26:7 they are mentioned as having been overcome by Uzziah (cf. 2 Ch 20:1, where ‘Ammonites’ should probably be ‘Meunim’).

2. A different place of the name of Maon is mentioned in Jos 15:55; this was a small town in the hill-country of Judæa. It was in the ‘wilderness’ of Maon that Nabal dwelt (1 S 25:2), and in this district David sojourned on two occasions during the period of his outlaw life (23:24 ff.,

25:2 ff. ).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

MARA.—The name which Naomi claimed for herself: ‘Call me not Naomi (‘pleasant’), call me Mara (i.e. ‘bitter’): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me’ (Ru 1:20).

MARAH.—The first ‘station’ of the Israelites after crossing the sea (Ex 15:23, Nu 33:8, 9). If the passage was in the neighbourhood of Suez, Wādy Hawarah, about 15 to 16 hours’ camelride from ‘the Wells of Moses’ (nearly opposite Suez on the E. side of the Gulf of Suez) on the route to the convent of St. Katherine (the traditional Sinai), is a suitable identification.

MARALAH.—A place on the west border of Zebulun (Jos 19:11). The site is quite uncertain.

MARANATHA.—An Aram. expression which occurs in 1 Co 16:22 in juxtaposition with ‘anathema’ (‘If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maran atha’ [so RV]).

1. Meaning of the term.—The original meaning of the term has been disputed, but it is now generally agreed that it is a component of two distinct words (cf. RV above). Most moderns follow Bickell in holding that the two parts of which the expression is composed mean ‘Our Lord, come I’ (= Aram. māranā thā). This seems preferable to the older view, according to which the meaning would be ‘Our Lord has come I’ (= Aram. māran ’athā). The imperative sense is made probable by Rev 22:20 (’Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’), from which it may perhaps be inferred that some such formula as ‘O our Lord, or O Lord, come!’ was in use in early Christian circles. A very early instance of the use of the term occurs in the Didache at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (ch. 10).

The passage runs as follows:—

‘Let grace come, and this world pass away.

Hosanna to the God of David.

If any is holy, let him come: if any is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.’

Here the combination maranatha. Amen (= ‘O our Lord, come! Amen’) is strikingly parallel with the remarkable phrase in Rev 22:20 (‘Amen. Come, Lord’). It is noticeable also that in both passages the expression is used as a concluding formula. Whether any similar formula was in use among the Jews is disputed. An old Jewish acrostic hymn, still extant in all types of the Jewish liturgy, the initial letters of the lines of which may be read ‘Amen. Come’ (Heb. āmēn bō) at least suggests the possibility of such a usage.

2. Original significance of the expression.—It is clear from the passage in the Didache cited above that ‘Maranatha’ cannot be regarded as a formula of excommunication synonymous with ‘anathema’ (so Calvin, comparing ‘Abba, Father’). It was rather a watchword of the earliest

Christian community, embodying the thought in the form of a prayer that the ‘Parousia,’ or Second Advent of the Lord, might soon be consummated, in accordance with the ardent expectations current in the first generation.

3. Later usage.—In later usage, under the influence of false exegesis, the term acquired an imprecatory sense. It thus occurs in an early sepulchral inscription (4th or 5th cent.) from the island of Salamis. Its supposed correspondence with the Jewish shammatha (the 3rd or highest degree of excommunication) has, of course, nothing to substantiate it. Further details of this development will be found in Hastings’ DB, s.v. ‘M ranatha.’

G. H. BOX.

MARBLE.—See MINING AND METALS.

MARCHESHVAN.—See TIME.

MARCUS.—AV of Col 4:10, Philem 24, 1 P 5:13 = Mark (wh. see).

MARDOCHEUS.—1. The name of Mordecai, the uncle of Esther, appears in this form in Ad. Est 10:4, 11:2, 12, 12:1, 4–6, 16:13, 2. 1 Es 5:8 = Mordecai, Ezr 2:2, Neh 7:7.

MARESHAH.—1. The ‘father’ of Hebron (1 Ch 2:42). 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 4:21). These genealogical data are really concerned with—3. An important city in the Shephēlah of Judah ( Jos 15:44), fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:8; see also 2 Ch 14:9, 10, 20:37, Mic 1:15). Later on, under the name Marissa, Josephus describes (Ant. XII. viii. 6 etc.) its extremely chequered history. The site of Mareshah has now with certainty been identified as Tell Sandahanna. This tell was partially excavated by Bliss and Macalister, but the identity of the site was finally demonstrated by the finding, in 1902, of a tomb by Messrs. Peters and Tiersch, adorned with a number of interesting pictured animals, etc., and about 200 inscriptions recording the names of many Phœnician inhabitants of Marissa, about B.C. 200. The hill on which the ruins of Mareshah stand is riddled with the most extraordinary caves, once human dwellings. The old name Mareshah still lingers in Khurbet Merash, the name of some ruins about half a mile off. See also

MARISA.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MARIMOTH (2 Es 1:2) = Meraioth (Ezr 7:3); also called Memeroth, 1 Es 8:2.

MARISA.—The Gr. form of the name Mareshah. It occurs only in 2 Mac 12:35, but should be read also in 1 Mac 5:66, where all Greek MSS wrongly have ‘Samaria.’

MARK (JOHN).—There are three groups of NT passages where the name Mark occurs.

(1) John Mark was a Jew and son of Mary, who was a leading Christian woman at Jerusalem. At her house the faithful assembled for prayer, and thither Peter went on his release from imprisonment, having perhaps previously lodged there (Ac 12:12ff.). An improbable conjecture makes Mark the son of the ‘good-man of the house’ in Mk 14:14, and another, not so unlikely, identifies Mark himself with the ‘young man’ of Mk 14:51; but the Muratorian Fragment ( see next art. § 1) apparently denied that Mark had ever seen our Lord. Probably Mary was a widow. ‘Mark’ would be an added name such as the Jews often took, in Roman fashion; it was a Roman prœnomen, much used among Greek-speaking people, but not common among the Jews. John Mark was chosen as companion of Barnahas and Saul when they left Jerusalem for Antioch ( Ac 12:25—the reading of RVm is hardly possible), and taken by them on their first missionary journey (13:5), not as chosen expressly by the Holy Ghost (ct. v. 2), and not as an equal; ‘they had also John as their attendant (AV minister).’ It has been suggested that Mark was a Levite (see below), and that the designation here used means ‘a synagogue minister,’ as in Lk 4:20 (Chase). But this would make the words ‘they had’ intolerably harsh. Probably Mark’s work was to arrange the Apostles’ journeys, perhaps also to baptize—a work not usually performed by St. Paul himself (1 Co 1:14). Mark remained with the Apostles on their journey through Cyprus, but left them at Perga in Pamphylia (Ac 13:13) either from cowardice, or, more probably, because the journey to Pisidian Antioch and beyond, involving work among distant Gentiles, was a change of plan which he did not approve (Ramsay). He had not yet grasped the idea of a worldwide Christianity, as St. Paul had. His departure to Jerusalem led later to the estrangement of Paul and Barnabas; the latter wished to take Mark with them on the Second Journey (15:37ff.) , but Paul refused, and separated from Barnabas, who then took Mark to Cyprus.

(2) The Mark of the Pauline Epistles was cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10 RV), probably of the Jewish colony of Cyprus, and a Levite (Ac 4:36). It is therefore generally agreed that he was the same as John Mark. If so, he became reconciled to St. Paul, and was his ‘fellow-worker’ and a ‘comfort’ to him (Col 4:11, Philem 24), and useful to him ‘for ministering’ (2 Ti 4:11)—this was

Mark’s special office, not to be an original organizer but a useful assistant (Swete). We learn that Mark was contemplating a visit to Colossæ, and perhaps that the Colossians had hesitated to receive him (Col 4:10).

(3) The Petrine Mark.—St. Peter speaks of a Mark as his ‘son’ (1 P 5:13), and as being with him at ‘Babylon’ when he wrote the First Epistle. It is usually held that ‘Babylon’ means Rome, as there seems not to have been a Jewish colony in the real Babylon at the time, and as all ecclesiastical tradition connects St. Peter’s work with Rome. If this he so, we may safely identify all the three Marks as one person. [If not, the Petrine Mark is probably not the same as the Pauline.] The identification is made more likely by the fact that John Mark is connected with both Peter and Paul in Acts; and if 1 P 5:13 refers to Rome, there is no reason why this double connexion should not have continued as long as both Apostles lived. And if, as is not impossible, St. Peter survived St. Paul for some time, we can well understand that Mark devoted himself exclusively to the former after the death of the latter, and that in this way the ecclesiastical tradition (see next art.), which almost unanimously attaches him to Peter, grew up. By that tradition Mark’s activity is associated both with Rome and with Alexandria; and the Egyptian Church assigns its principal liturgy to his name. But the early Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, are silent as to Mark’s residence in Egypt. The Acts of Mark (5th cent.?) makes him a martyr.

A. J. MACLEAN.

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

1. External testimony.—It is possible that the first reference to Mk. is the preface to Lk. (1:1–4), which implies that the narratives spoken of were, in St. Luke’s opinion, incomplete and not in the best order. Mk. is certainly incomplete from the point of view of one who wished to begin ‘from the beginning.’ From internal evidence it is probable that St. Luke used Mk. (see §§ 3–5). Papias (quoted by Eusebius, HE iii. 39) gives the following account (c. A.D. 140 or earlier), as derived from ‘the Elder’ from whom he gleaned traditions:

‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ [cf. the Lukan preface]. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, ( attended ) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles [or words]. So then Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, nor to set down any false statement therein.’

Here Papias vindicates Mark from in accuracy and from errors of omission as far as his knowledge went, but finds fault with his chronological order, which was due to his being dependent only on Peter’s oral teaching, He was Peter’s ‘interpreter’—a phrase which may mean that he translated Peter’s words into a foreign tongue during the Apostle’s lifetime, as a dragoman, or that, being Peter’s disciple, he made the Apostle’s teaching widely known through his written Gospel.—Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150) says (Dial. 106) that Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter, and that this is written ‘in his Memoirs,’ and also that He changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to ‘Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder.’ But the last words occur only in Mk 3:17, where also we read of Simon’s new name. It is reasonable (in spite of Harnack and Sanday’s opinion that Justin is here quoting the apocryphal Gospel of pseudo-Peter, which, as far as we know, did not contain these words—it is only a fragment) to suppose that Justin by Peter’s ‘Memoirs’ means our Second Gospel; he elsewhere speaks of ‘Memoirs’—‘the Memoirs composed by [the Apostles] which are called Gospels’ (Apol. i. 66, cf. also Dial. 103, where he uses the same name for the narratives written by followers of the Apostles).—Tatian included Mk. in his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the four Gospels.—(Irenæus (Hær. iii. 1. 1 and 10. 6) speaks of Mark as ‘Peter’s interpreter and disciple’ (cf. Papias), and says that he handed on to us in writing the things preached by Peter after the departure of Peter and Paul (note the indication of date).—Tertullian calls Mark ‘Peter’s interpreter.’—The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170–200?) begins in the middle of a sentence which is generally believed to refer to Mk., and which may mean that the Evangelist was present at some of Peter’s discourses only, or perhaps that he heard some of our Lord’s discourses; but the latter interpretation is against the words that follow, which say of Luke: ‘Neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh.’ The writer probably therefore had said that Mark had never seen our Lord.—Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) says that while Peter was preaching the Gospel at Rome (ct. Irenæus above), Mark wrote down what he said at the request of the hearers, Peter neither forbidding it nor urging it.—Origen seems to bear this out, but in the Muratorian Fragment there is a similar story about John.—Of later writers only Augustine need be quoted. He calls Mark ‘Matthew’s follower and abbreviator.’ This saying, which is probably widely removed from the truth, has had great influence on ecclesiastical opinion, and to a great extent brought about the comparative neglect into which the Second Gospel fell for many centuries.—There are probable allusions to Mk. in Polycarp (c. A.D. 111) and pseudo-Clement of Rome (‘2 Clem, ad Cor.’) and Hermas, all early in the 2nd cent.; it was used by Heracleon, the Valentinians, and the authors of the Gospel of (pseudo-) Peter and the Clementine Homilies, and is found in all the old versions. We conclude that there is valid evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the middle of the 2nd century. By ecclesiastical writers Mark is connected almost uniformly with Peter, but (see above) there is a difference of tradition as to whether he wrote before or after Peter’s death. Some make him go from Rome to Alexandria and take his Gospel there; but it is remarkable that the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen do not mention this.

2. The Second Gospel and the ‘Petrine tradition.’—Internal evidence to a considerable extent confirms, however indirectly, the Patristic evidence (§ 1) that Mark wrote down the preaching of Peter. Mk. tells us the facts of which Peter was an eye-witness. The vividness of description (especially in Mk.) in the scenes common to the Synoptics where only Peter, John, and James were present, suggests that one of them was the authority on which the common source rests—such as the raising of Jairus’ daughter (5:37–43), the Transfiguration (9:2–13; the story in Mk. is told from the point of view of one of the three: cf. 9:14 ‘they saw’), and Gethsemane (14:33–42). The authority could hardly be James, who was martyred early ( Ac

12:2), or John, on whom another account depends (even if he were not the author of the Fourth Gospel, we might probably say this). Peter therefore remains, and he alone would be likely to remember the confused words which he spoke on awakening at the Transfiguration (9:5; cf. Lk 9:32f.). Other passages suggesting a Petrine source are: Mk 1:36, 11:21, 13:3 (these are found only in Mk.); and the accounts of Peter’s denials (14:54, 66–72). As Eusebius noticed, Mk. is silent on matters which reflect credit on Peter. These facts and the autoptic character of the Gospel (§ 4) lead us to the conclusion that we have in Mk. the ‘Petrine tradition’ in a far more exact form than in the other Synoptics.

3. Presentation of Christ’s Person and work.—The Second Gospel describes shortly the Baptist’s preaching and the baptism of our Lord, and then records at length the Galilæan ministry. It is noteworthy that in this account the proclamation of Jesus’ Messiahship in Galilee is very gradual (see art. GOSPELS, § 3). Even in the discourses to the Apostles there is great reserve. After the Transfiguration, the future glory and the Passion of our Lord are unfolded (8:31, 38, 9:12, 31 etc.), but it is only after the short account (ch. 10) of the journeys in Judæa and Peræa, and on the final approach to Jerusalem, that this reserve passes away. In describing our Lord’s Person, the Evangelist lays great emphasis on His Divinity, but still more on His true humanity, (a) For the former we note how in Mk. Jesus claims superhuman authority, especially to forgive sins (2:5ff., 28, 8:38, 12:8ff., 14:62); He is described as a Supernatural Person (1:11 , 24, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 15:39); He knows the thoughts of man (2:8, 8:17, 12:15), and what is to happen in the future (2:20, 8:31, 38, 9:31, 10:39, 13:2, 10, 14:27); His death has an atoning efficacy (10:45, 14:24). (b) For the latter we note not only (as with the other Evangelists) the references to Jesus’ human body—weariness and sleep (4:33), eating and drinking (14:3, 15:35) , etc.—but especially the description of His human soul and spirit (2:8, 14:34, 36), His human compassion (1:41) and love (10:21), and the more painful emotions which Mk. has in a preeminent degree, while in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. the phrases are almost uniformly altered or omitted. Instances are 1:43 RVm (the word denotes sternness, not necessarily anger but deep feeling), 3:5, 6:8, 10:14; note especially 14:33f. where St. Mark alone speaks of the surprise, added to the distraction from grief, of Jesus’ human soul in the Agony. St. Mark also refers to the sinless limitations of Jesus’ human nature. Questions are asked, apparently for information (5:30 , 8:5, 9:16). St. Mark relates the one perfectly certain instance of Jesus’ human ignorance, as to the Day of Judgment (13:32, so || Mt.). It is because so much stress is laid in Mk. on the true humanity of our Lord that Augustine assigns to the Second Evangelist the symbol of the man; by other Fathers the other Evangelic symbols are assigned to him. The Second Gospel represents an early stage of the Gospel narrative; it shows an almost childlike holdness in speaking of our Lord, without regard to possible misconceptions. An example of this is seen in passages where Mark tells us that Jesus ‘could not’ do a thing (1:45, 6:5, 7:24). The inability is doubtless relative and conditional. Jesus ‘could not’ do that which was inconsistent with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other Synoptists, feeling that the phrase might he misunderstood as taking from the Master’s glory, have altered or omitted it.

4. Autopic character.—Whereas Mk. was for centuries depreciated as telling us little that is not found in the other Gospels, we have now learned to see in it a priceless presentation of the story of our Lord’s life, inasmuch as no historical narrative in the Bible, except Jn., gives such clear signs of first-hand knowledge. Many of the instances lose much point in a translation, but even in English the fact is noticeable. An eye-witness is betrayed in such little details as the heavens ‘in the act of opening’ (1:10—the present participle is used), the incoherent remarks of the crowd at the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (1:27 RV—they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and in Lk.), the breaking up of the mud roof in 2:4 (see art. LUKE [GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 6), the single pillow, probably a wooden head-rest, in the boat (4:38 RV), the five thousand arranged on the green grass ‘like garden heds’ (6:40: this is the literal translation; the coloured dresses on the ‘green grass’—another autoptic touch—had to the eye-witness the appearance of flowers), the taking of the children by Jesus into His arms (9:36, 10:16), and His fervent blessing (10:16: this is the force of the Greek), the searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich young man, and the clouding over of the young man’s brow (10:21f. RV). All these details, and many others, are found in Mk. only; many of the signs of an eye-witness throughout the Gospel are removed by the alterations introduced in Mt. and Lk. For the vividness of the scenes at the Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and the Agony, see § 2. Notice also the evidence of exceptional knowledge of facts in 1:29 (Andrew and Peter living together, though the latter was married; Andrew omitted in || Mt. Lk.), and in the mention of some names not found elsewhere (2:14, 10:45, 15:21). We have then an eye-witness here; in this case we need not look for him in the writer, but the facts show that the latter was in the closest touch with one who had seen what is described.

5. Comparison with the other Synoptics.—The facts which follow appear to prove that Mk., either in the form in which we have it, or at least in a form very closely resembling our present Gospel, was before the other Synoptists when they wrote, (a) Scope.—Except about 30 verses, all the narrative of Mk. is found in either Mt. or Lk. or in both, and (especially as regards Lk.) in nearly the same order; though the other Synoptists interpolate matter from other sources. (b) Parallel passages.—If we compare these, we see that though Mk. is as a whole shorter than Mt. and Lk., yet in the parallels it is longer. St. Mark’s style is diffuse, and it was necessary for the other Synoptists, in order to make room for the matter which they were to introduce from other sources, to prune Mk. considerably, (c) Correction of Markan details in Mt. and Lk.—As we have seen, Mark describes our Lord’s painful emotions; these passages are softened down in Mt. and Lk. Sometimes a slip of the pen is corrected; e.g. Mk 1:2f. RV quotes as from Isaiah a passage which is a cento of Mal 3:1, Is 40:3, but the others silently avoid this by omitting the Malachi passage here, though they give it elsewhere (Mt 11:16, Lk 7:27); the words in Mk 2:26 RV, ‘when Abiathar was high priest,’ are omitted in Mt. and Lk., for Abiathar was not yet high priest at the time in question. The alteration of ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mk 13:14, so Mt 24:15) into ‘Jerusalem compassed with armies’ (Lk 21:20) is clearly an explanation of a writer later than Mk.; and so the change from ‘Son of God’ (Mk 15:39, so Mt 27:54) to ‘a righteous man’ (Lk 23:47). In some cases, by the turn of a phrase the accuracy of Mk. in minute points is lost by the other Synoptists. Thus cf. Mk. 4:36; our Lord was already in the boat (4:1); in || Mt. Lk. He is described by an oversight as embarking here. In Mk 10:1 Jesus comes ‘into the borders of Judæa and beyond Jordan’; the parallel Mt 19:1 omits ‘and,’ but doubtless Mk. is right here, and Jesus went both into Judæa and into Peræa. But the most striking corrections of Mk. in Mt. Lk. are found in the phraseology. The Markan style is rough and unpolished, reflecting the Greek commonly spoken by the Jews of the 1st cent.; many diminutives and colloquialisms are found, but are usually corrected in Mt. or in Lk. or in both. In Mk. there are many awkward and difficult phrases—sometimes smoothed over in a translation like ours, and usually corrected in Mt. or Lk. or both: e.g. 3:16, 4:11, 24 (see Lk. 8:18) 4:32 (the ‘yet’ of RV is ‘and’ in Gr.) 7:11 f. (grammatical but harsh) 9:41, 13:19, 14:56 (note RV in these cases). These facts are most significant, and appear to be conclusive as to the priority of Mk. For no writer having before him a smooth text would gratuitously introduce harsh or difficult phraseology, whereas the converse change is natural and common.

There are also some changes made for greater precision, especially in Lk.; thus in Mk. (e.g. 1:16) and

Mt. we read of the ‘Sea’ of Galilee, but St. Luke with his superior nautical knowledge calls it a ‘lake’; Herod Antipas in Mk 6:14 is called ‘king,’ but in Mt. Lk. more commonly ‘tetrarch’ (but ‘king’ is retained in Mt 14:9); in Mk 15:32 (so Mt.) we read that ‘they that were crucified with him reproached him,’ but St. Luke, who had independent knowledge of this incident (for only he relates the penitence of the robber), emphatically corrects this to ‘one of the malefactors’ (Lk 23:39).—In two or three cases it is possible that the priority lies the other way. Thus in Mk 6:3 ‘the carpenter’ = Mt 13:55 ‘the son of the carpenter’ = Lk 4:22 ‘the son of Joseph,’ the correction may be in Mt. Lk., the giving of the name ‘the carpenter’ to Jesus not being liked; or it may be in Mk., the phrase ‘son of Joseph’ being altered as capable of misconception by those who had not the Birth story before them. But as the phrases in Mt. and Lk. are not the same, the priority probably lies with Mk. Also the Second Evangelist alone relates the two cock-crowings (14:30, 68, 72), though the state of the text suggests that perhaps originally only one was mentioned in Mk., but in a different place from that of Mt. Lk. It is hard to see why a later writer should have omitted one cock-crowing and it is suggested that therefore our Mk. is later than Mt. Lk. in this respect. It is, however, equally hard to see why St. Mark, if he wrote after the others, should have added a cock-crowing. If in two or three such cases the priority be decided to lie with Mt. and Lk., the meaning would be that our Mk. had received some editorial additions (see § 9). But this does not seem to be very likely.

The general conclusion is that Mk. as we have it now, or at least a Gospel which differs from our Mk. only in unessential particulars, lay before the First and Third Evangelists when they wrote.

The matter peculiar to Mk. is small:—the parable of the seed growing silently (4:26ff.), the healing of the deaf stammerer (7:31ff.), of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22f.), the questions about the dulness of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (8:17f.), about the dispute of the disciples (9:33), the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (14:51f.), of the smiting of Jesus by the servants of the high priest (14:65), of Pilate’s wonder, and of his question put to the centurion (15:44).

6. Authorship, purpose, date, and place of writing.—There is no reason to dispute the

Patristic statements (§ 1) that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. Clement of

Alexandria states that he wrote in Rome; Chrysostom (two centuries later) that he wrote in Egypt. The former statement, both as being earlier and as agreeing with the negative testimony of the Alexandrian Fathers, is more probable, though some moderns have supposed a double publication, one in Rome and one in Alexandria. In either case it is probable that, as in the case of the Third Gospel, Gentiles are specially addressed, though St. Mark as a Jew writes (unlike St. Luke) from a Jewish point of view. There is a general absence of OT quotations except when our Lord’s words are cited (1:2f. is an exception; 15:28 must almost certainly he expunged, with RV, from the text). The Aramaic transliterations like Talilha cum(i) are interpreted, and Jewish customs and geography are explained [7:2ff., 12:42 (the ‘mite’ was a Jewish coin) 13:2, 15:42].

The absence of mention of the Jewish Law points in the same direction.

The date is probably before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (For the argument from the

Discourse on the End, see art. MATTHEW [GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 5, and note especially Mk 13:13 f., 24, 30, 33, which point to the fulfilment of the prophecy being, at the time of writing, only in prospect.) The reference to the shewbread (2:26, ‘it is not lawful’) suggests that the Temple still stood when Mark wrote. The characteristics already mentioned, the description of Jesus’ inner feelings, the style and details of the Gospel, give the same indications. If the early date of Acts be adopted (see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, § 9), Lk. and therefore Mk. must be earlier still. The external testimony, however, raises some difficulty when we consider the date of 1 Peter. For Papias by implication and Irenæus explicitly say that Mark wrote after Peter’s death, while Clement of Alexandria and Origen say that he wrote in Peter’s lifetime (see § 1). If the former statement be correct, and if 1 Peter be authentic, the Epistle must have preceded Mk.; but it is not easy to assign a very early date to it (e.g. 1 P 4:18 ‘suffer as a Christian’; though Dr. Bigg disputes this inference and thinks that 1 Peter was written before the Neronic persecution in A.D. 64). There is no need to dispute the authenticity of 1 Peter because of supposed references to late persecutions, for there is no good reason for saying that St. Peter died in the same year as St. Paul, and it is quite possible that he survived him for some considerable time, during which Mark acted as his ‘interpreter.’ If, then, we are led by internal evidence so strongly to prefer an early date for Mk., we must either choose an early date for 1 Peter, or else prefer the Alexandrian tradition that Mark wrote in Peter’s lifetime [Dr. Swete gives c. 69 for Mk., Dean Robinson c.

65].

7. Was Mk. written in Greek or Aramaic?—The Second Gospel is more strongly tinged with

Aramaisms than any other. It retains several Aramaic words transliterated into Greek:—Boanerges 3:17 ,

Talitha cum(i) 5:41, Corban 7:11, Ephphatha 7:34 (these Mk. only), Abba 14:36 (so Ro 8:15, Gal 4:6) , Rabbi 9:5, 11:21, 14:45, Hosanna 11:9 (these two also in Mt. and Jn.), Rabboni 10:51 (Jn. also), Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani 15:34 (or as || Mt. Eli); and several Aramaic proper names are noticeable: Bartimæus 10:48 (a patronymic), Cananæan 3:18, Iscariot 3:19, Beelzebub 3:22, Golgotha 15:22. Aramaisms are also found freely in the grammar of Mk. and in several phrases. From these facts it is argued ( Blass, Allen) that Aramaic was the original language. Dr. Blass also suggests that St. Luke in Ac 1–12 used an Aramaic source, while the rest of that book was his own independent work. In these twelve chapters, unlike the rest, Aramaisms abound, and the style is rough. The argument is that Mark, the son of a prominent lady is Jerusalem, wrote the Aramaic source of Ac 1–12, and that if so his former work ( our Second Gospel) would be in Aramaic also. This argument will probably be thought to be too unsubstantial for acceptance. There is no reason for saying that Mark wrote the supposed Aramaic source of Ac 1–12. and even if he did, he might, being confessedly bilingual, have written his Gospel equally well in Greek as in Aramaic. The Aramaic tinge is probably best explained by the fact that Mark thought in Aramaic. If our Greek were a translation, the Aramaic phrases like Talitha cum(i) might have been bodily incorporated by transliteration, or else translated; but they never would have been transliterated and then interpreted, as is actually the case. The Fathers, from Papias downwards, had clearly never heard of an Aramaic original. The most fatal objection to the theory, however, is the freshness of the style of the Gospel. Even the best translation loses freshness. The Greek of Mk. reads as if it were original; and we may safely say that this is really the language in which the Evangelist wrote.

8. The last twelve verses.—The MSS and versions have three different ways of ending the

Gospel. The vast majority have the ending of our ordinary Bibles, which is explicitly quoted by Irenæus as a genuine work of St. Mark, is probably quoted by Justin Martyr, possibly earlier still by ‘Barnabas’ and Hermas, but in the last three cases we are not certain that the writer knew it as part of the Gospel. The two oldest Greek MSS (the Vatican and the Sinaitic), the old Syriac version (Sinaitic), and the oldest MSS of the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, end at 16:8, as Eusebius tells us that the most accurate copies of his day did. An intermediate ending is found in some Greek MSS (the earliest of the 7th cent.), in addition to the ordinary ending; and in a MS of the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, standing alone. It is as follows:—‘And they immediately (or briefly) made known all things that had been commanded (them) to those about

Peter. And after this Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out by means of them from the East even to the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of the eternal salvation.’ This intermediate ending is certainly not genuine; it was written as a conclusion to the Gospel by some one who had the ordinary ending before him and objected to it as unauthentic, or who had a MS before him ending at 16:8 and thought this abrupt. It appears that the copy from which most of these MSS with the intermediate ending were made, ended at 16:8.

Now it is confessed that the style of the last twelve verses is not that of the Gospel. There are, then, two possible explanations. One is that Mark, writing at a comparatively late date, took the ‘Petrine tradition,’ a written work, as his basis, incorporated it almost intact into his own work, and added the verses 1:1–15, 16:9ff., and a few editorial touches such as 3:5, 6:6, 52, which are not found in the other Synoptics, and which resemble phrases in the last twelve verses (16:11, 13f.). This was Dr. Salmon’s solution. There are various objections to it; two seem fatal—(1) that ecclesiastical writers never represent Peter as writing a Gospel either by himself or by any scribe or interpreter except Mack, and yet this theory supposes that the ‘Petrine tradition’ was not first written down by Mark; and (2) that the last twelve verses seem not to have been written as an end to the Gospel at all, being apparently a fragment of some other work, probably a summary of the Gospel story. For the beginning of 16:9 is not continuous with 16:8; the subject of the verb ‘appeared’ had evidently been indicated in the sentence which had preceded; yet the necessary ‘Jesus’ cannot be understood from anything in v. 8. Further, Mary Magdalene is introduced in v. 9 as a new person, although she had just been mentioned by name in 15:40, 47, 16:1, and was one of the women spoken of throughout vv. 1–8.—On the other hand, it is inconceivable that 16:8 with its abrupt and inauspicious ‘they were afraid’ could be the conclusion of a Gospel.—that the book should deliberately end without any incident of the risen life of our Lord, and with a note of terror. The other possible explanation, therefore, is that some verses have been lost. Probably the last leaf of the original, or at least of the copy from which all the MSS existing in the 2nd cent were taken, has disappeared. This is conceivable, the last leaf of a MS being that which is most likely to drop; and the difficulty that the original MS of Mk. must have been copied before it got so old that the last leaf fell may perhaps be satisfactorily met by supposing that (as we know was the case later) the Second Gospel was not highly prized in its youth, as not giving us much additional information, and as being almost entirely contained in Mt. and Lk. On the other hand, the last twelve verses are extremely ancient. Most scholars look on them as belonging to the first few years of the 2nd cent., and Aristion has been suggested as the writer, on the strength of a late Armenian MS. But it is quite possible that they are part of an even earlier summary of the Gospel story; and, like the passage about the woman taken in adultery (Jn 7:53–8:11) , they are to be reverenced as a very ancient and authoritative record.

9. Have we the original Mark?—This has been denied from two different and incompatible points of view. (a) Papias speaks of Mk. being ‘not in order’ and of Matthew writing the ‘oracles’ or ‘logia’ (see § 1 above, and art. MATTHEW [GOSPEL ACC. TO]). It is objected that our Second Gospel is an orderly narrative, and cannot he that mentioned by Papias. Renan maintained that Mark wrote a disconnected series of anecdotes about Christ, and Matthew a collection of discourses, and that our present First and Second Gospels took their present form by a process of assimilation, the former assimilating the anecdotes and adding them to the discourses, the latter adopting the reverse process. This rests on the unproved assumption that Matthew’s original work consisted of Jesus’ sayings only, which is very improbable. But as a matter of fact there is no time for the process imagined by Renan to have taken place, and the result, moreover, would have been a large number of variant Gospels—a given passage appearing in some MSS in one Gospel, in others in another, as is the ease with the story of the woman taken in adultery. [For a more probable interpretation of Papias’ words, see § 1.]—(b) It is sometimes argued that our present Mk. is an ‘edited’ form of the original Mk., being very like it, but differing from it by the insertion of some editorial touches and additions. [For Salmon’s form of this theory, see above, § 8; but the theory is held by many (e.g. Schmiedel) who reject the last twelve verses as Markan.]

The only argument of real importance urged by those who hold this theory is that Mt. and Lk. occasionally agree together against Mk. To take one example only, Mk 1:8 has ‘with the Holy Ghost’ where || Mt 3:12 and Lk 3:16 have ‘with the Holy Ghost and fire.’ If Mt. and Lk. are later than Mk.,— unless the First Evangelist knew the Third Gospel or the Third Evangelist the First, both of which suppositions are confessedly improbable,—we cannot, it is said, explain their agreements against Mk. Therefore we must suppose, it is urged, that these phrases where they agree were in the original Mk., but have been altered in our Mk. This idea in itself is grossly improbable, for it means in some cases that a later editor (our Mark) altered a smooth construction into a hard or a difficult one not found in Mt. or Lk. (see § 5 (c)), which is hardly to be conceived. But this difficulty rests on the unproved assumption noticed just now, that the ‘non-Markan document’ contained discourses only. If, as is almost certain, it contained narrative also, and if this narrative (as it is only reasonable to suppose) sometimes overlapped the ‘Petrine tradition,’ the result is exactly what we should expect. Mt. and Lk. sometimes follow Mk. rather than the non-Markan source; sometimes one follows the one and the other the other; and sometimes both follow the non-Markan source. This fully accounts for their agreements against Mk.

It is indeed possible, as many think, that a very few phrases in our Mk. are later editorial additions; but even this hypothesis is unnecessary, and it seems on the whole most probable that our Mk. is the original Mk., and that it was used by the First and Third Evangelists.

A. J. MACLEAN.

MARKET, MARKETPLACE.—The former is found in OT in Ezk 27:13, 17 etc. as the rendering of a collective noun signifying ‘articles of exchange,’ hence RV throughout ‘merchandise,’ this last in v. 15 being AV rendering of another word for which RV gives ‘mart.’ In NT ‘market’ has disappeared from RV in favour of the uniform ‘marketplace’ ( Gr. agora). Here we must distinguish between the ‘markets’ of Jerusalem (Mt 11:16, Mk 7:4 etc.), which were simply streets of shops—the ‘bazaars’ of a modern Eastern city,—and the ‘market’ (AV) or ‘marketplace’ (RV) of a Greek city (Ac 16:19, 17:17). The latter was the centre of the public life of the city, and was a large open space adorned with colonnades and statues, and surrounded by temples and other public buildings.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MARKS

1. The mark of circumcision.—This is an instance (among many) of the taking-over of a preexisting rite, and adapting it to Jahweh-worship; whatever it may have meant in its origin— and opinions differ very widely on this point—it became among the Israelites the mark par excellence of a Jahweh-worshipper (cf. Gn. 17:14), the symbol of the covenant between Him and His people (see, further, CIRCUMCISION).

2. The mark of Cain (Gn 4:15).—In seeking to discover the character of this sign or mark, the first question that obviously suggests itself is, why should there be any protective efficacy in such a sign? On the assumption of its being a tribal mark (so Robertson Smith, Gunkel, and others), men would know that any Injury done to its bearer would be avenged by the other members of the tribe (see art. CAIN). But this answer is unsatisfactory, because, if it was a tribal mark, it would be common to all the members of the tribe, whereas this one is spoken of as being specifically for Cain’s benefit, and as having been given to protect him qua manslayer; a tribal mark would have been on him before the murder of Abel. But then again, any mark designed to protect him on account of his being a murderer, would, as proclaiming his guilt, rather have the opposite effect. Another point to hear in mind is that from the writer’s point of view (if the narrative is a unity) there really was nobody to hurt Cain except his parents. It is clear, therefore, that the contradictory elements in the narrative show that it has no basis in fact; it is more reasonable to regard it as one of the ‘ætiological’ stories with which the Book of Genesis abounds, i.e. it purports to give the cause of some custom the real reason for which had long been forgotten. One can, of course, only conjecture what custom it was of which this story gave the supposed origin; but, taking all its elements into consideration, it was very probably the answer to the inquiry: ‘Why do man-slayers within the tribe bear a special mark, even after the blood-wit has been furnished?’ The reason given was quite wrong, but it accounted satisfactorily for a custom of which the origin had been forgotten, and that was sufficient.

3. The mark of the prophet.—In 1 K 20:35–43 there is the account of how one of the prophets ‘disguised himself with a headband over his eyes’; the king does not recognize the man as a prophet until the latter takes away this covering from his face, whereupon the king

‘discovered him as one of the prophets.’ Clearly there must have been some distinguishing mark on the forehead of the man whereby he was recognized as belonging to the prophetic order. This conclusion is strengthened by several other considerations. (1) It is a fact that among other races the class of men corresponding to the prophetic order of the Israelites are distinguished by incisions made on their persons. (2) There is the analogy of circumcision; just as among the Israelites this was the distinguishing mark of the people of Jahweh, so those who, like the prophets, were more especially His close followers also had a special mark, a distinctive sign, which differentiated them from other men. (3) The custom of putting a mark upon cattle to denote ownership, and for the purpose of differentiating from other herds, was evidently well known in early Israel. When one remembers how rife anthropomorphisms were among the Israelites, it is perhaps not fanciful to see here an analogy: just as the owners of herds marked their own property, so Jahweh marked His own people; and as the prophets were differentiated from the ordinary people, so they would have their special mark. (4) There is the passage Zec 13:4–6. These considerations point distinctly to marks of some kind or other which, either on the forehead or on the hand—possibly on both—were distinctive characteristics of a prophet among the Israelites.

4. Cuttings for the dead.—The custom of making cuttings in the flesh and other marks upon the body for the dead (Lv 19:28; cf. 21:5, Dt 14:1) was practised by the Israelites, but forbidden on account of its being a heathen rite. This was not a sign of mourning, as is often, but erroneously, supposed; it was an act of homage done to the departed, with the object of inducing the spirit not to molest those left behind. In Dt 14:1 the prohibition runs, ‘Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness (the cognate Arabic root means ‘wound’) between your eyes for the dead.’ This was done in order the more easily to be seen by the spirit.

5. Marks connected with Jahweh-worship.—There can be little doubt that originally the signs on the hand and the memorial between the eyes (Ex 13:9, 16) were marks cut into hand and forehead; this custom was taken over by the Israelites from non-Jahweh-worshipping ancestors, and was regarded as effectual against demoniacal onslaughts; hence in later days the use and name of ‘phylacteries,’ which took the place of the actual cuttings in hand and forehead (Dt 6:8, 11:18 etc.). Reference to an early custom is perhaps (but cf. RV) contained in the words: ‘Lo, here is my mark, let the Almighty answer me’; the word used for ‘mark’ comes from a root meaning ‘to wound,’ and it is the same as that used in Ezk 9:4, 6; the reference is to those who are true to God.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

6. ‘Stigmata.’—The rendering of St. Paul’s strongly figurative words in Gal 6:17 adopted by RV reads thus: ‘From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear branded on my body the marks (stigmata) of Jesus.’ This rendering accords with the Interpretation of this difficult passage adopted by most recent scholars. The Apostle warns his Galatian converts against further attempts to ‘trouble’ him, for he is under the special protection of Jesus, whose ‘marks’ he bears in the scars and other evidence of the scourgings and other ills he has borne for His sake (see 2 Co 11:23ff.). St. Paul here emphasizes his consecration of himself to his Lord by using a figure, familiar to his readers, taken from the practice of branding a slave with the name or symbol of the deity to whose service he was devoted. Thus Herodotus (ii. 113) tells of a temple of Heracles, ‘in which if any man’s slave take refuge and have the sacred marks (stigmata as here) set upon him, giving himself over to the god, it is not lawful to lay bands upon him.’ A still more apposite illustration is afforded by the branding of certain Jews of Alexandria with an ivy leaf—the symbol of Dionysus—by Ptolemy Philopator (3 Mac 2:29).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MARMOTH (1 Es 8:62) = Meremoth, Ezr 8:33.

MAROTH.—An unknown town (Mic 1:12 only). There is a play upon the name, which means ‘bitternesses.’

MARRIAGE

1. Forms of Marriage.—There are two forms of marriage among primitive races: (1) where the husband becomes part of his wife’s tribe, (2) where the wife becomes part of her husband’s tribe.

(1) W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia) gives to this form the name sadika, from the sadac or ‘gift’ given to the wife, (a) The union may be confined to an occasional visit to the wife in her home (mota marriage). This is distinguished from mere prostitution, in that no disgrace is attached, and the children are recognized by the trine; cf. Samson’s marriage. (b) The husband may be definitely incorporated into his wife’s tribe (beena marriage). The wife meets her husband on equal terms; children belong to her trine, and descent is reckoned on the mother’s side. Women could inherit in Arabia under this system (op. cit. p. 94). Possible traces in OT are the marriages of Jacob (Laban claims wives and children as his own, Gn 31:31, 42), Moses ( Ex 2:21, 4:18), Samson (Jg 14, 15, 16:4; there is no hint that he meant to take his wife home; his kid seems to be the sadac or customary present). So the Shechemites must be circumcised ( Gn 34:15); Joseph’s sons born in Egypt are adopted by Jacob (48:5); Abimelech, the son of Gideon’s Shechemite concubine (Jg 8:31), is a Shechemite (9:1–5). The words of Gn 2:24 may have originally referred to this custom, though they are evidently not intended to do so by the narrator, since beena marriages were already out of date when they were written. Many of the instances quoted can be explained as due to special circumstances, but the admitted existence of such marriages in Arabia makes it probable that we should find traces of them among the Semites in general. They make it easier to understand the existence of the primitive custom of the ‘matriarchate,’ or reckoning of descent through females. In addition to the cases already quoted, we may add the closeness of maternal as compared with paternal relationships, evidenced in bars of marriage (see below, § 3), and the special responsibility of the maternal uncle or brother (Gn 24:29, 34:25, 2 S 13:22). It is evident that the influence of polygamy would be in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with each wife. (2) The normal type is where the wife becomes the property of her husband, who is her ‘Baal’ or possessor (Hos 2:16), she herself being ‘Beulah’ (Is 62:4). She and her children belong to his tribe, and he alone has right of divorce. (a) In unsettled times the wife will he acquired by war (Jg 5:30). She is not merely a temporary means of pleasure, or even a future mother, but a slave and an addition to a man’s wealth. Dt 21:10–14 regulates the procedure in cases of capture; in Jg 19–21 we have an instance of the custom. Traces may remain in later marriage procedure, e.g. in the band of the bridegroom’s friends escorting, i.e. ‘capturing,’ the bride, and in her feigned resistance, as among the Bedouin (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 81). (b) Capture gives place to purchase and ultimately to contract. The daughter is valuable to the clan as a possible mother of warriors, and cannot be parted with except for a consideration. Hence the ‘dowry’ (see below, § 5) paid to the bride’s parents.

2. Polygamy among the Hebrews was confined to a plurality of wives (polygyny). There is no certain trace in OT of a plurality of husbands (polyandry), though the Levirate marriage is sometimes supposed to be a survival. The chief causes of polygyny were—(a) the desire for a numerous offspring, or the barrenness of first wife (Abraham’s case is directly ascribed to this, and among many peoples it is permitted on this ground alone); (b) the position and importance offered by numerous alliances (e.g. Solomon); (c) the existence of slavery, which almost implies it. It can obviously be prevalent only where there is a disproportionate number of females, and, except in a state of war, is possible only to those wealthy enough to provide the necessary ‘dowry.’ A further limitation is implied in the fact that in more advanced stages, when the harem is established, the wife when secured is a source, not of wealth, but of expense.

Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4 is evidence of its prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 S 1:1f.) is significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoiada (2 Ch 24:3) as a priest. But it is always treated with suspicion; it is incompatible with the ideal of Gn 2:24, and its origin is ascribed to Lamech, the Cainite (4:19). In Dt 17:17 the king is warned not to multiply wives; later regulations fixed the number at eighteen for a king and four for an ordinary man. The quarrels and jealousies of such a narrative as Gn 29:31–30 are clearly intended to illustrate its evils, and it is in part the cause of the troubles of the reigns of David and Solomon. Legislation (see below, § 6) safeguarded the rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to the Rabbinic interpretation of Lv 21:13 the high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic happiness in the Bible is always connected with monogamy (2 K 4, Ps 128, Pr 31, Sir 25:1, 8 , 26:1, 13). The marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel (§ 10) implied monogamy as the ideal state. Polygamy is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point of view both of religion and of anthropology; ‘monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage; it was so also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge’ Westermarck, Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being, however, apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once (Jos. Ant. XVII. i. 3, cf. 2). Its possibility is implied by the technical continuance of the Levirate law, and is proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3:2, whether correct or not (§ 8). Justin (Dial. 134, 141) reproaches the Jews of his day with having ‘four or even five wives,’ and marrying ‘as they wish, or as many as they wish.’ The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.

3. Bars to Marriage

(1) Prohibited degrees.—Their range varies extraordinarily among different peoples, but on the whole it is wider among uncivilized than among civilized races (Westermarck, op. cit. p. 297), often embracing the whole tribe. The instinctive impulse was not against marriage with a near relative qua relative, but against marriage where there was early familiarity. ‘Whatever is the origin of bars to marriage, they are certainly early associated with the feeling that it is indecent for housemates to intermarry’ (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 170). The origin of the instinct is natural selection, consanguineous marriages being on the whole unfavourable to the species, in man as among animals. This, of course, was not consciously realized; the instinct took the form of a repulsion to union with those among whom one had lived; as these would usually be blood relations, that which we recognize as horror of incest was naturally developed (Westermarck, p. 352). We find in OT no trace of dislike to marriage within the tribe (i.e. endogamy), though, judging by Arab analogies, it may have originally existed; on the contrary, the Hebrews were strongly endogamous, marrying within the nation. The objection, however, to incestuous marriages was strong, though in early times there was laxity with regard to intermarriage with relatives on the father’s side, a natural result of the ‘matriarchate’ and of polygamy, where each wife with her family formed a separate group in her own tent. Abram married his half-sister ( Gn 20:12); 2 S 13:13, Ezk 22:11 imply the continuance of the practice. Nahor married his niece ( Gn 11:29), and Amram his paternal aunt (Ex 6:20). On marriage with a stepmother see below, § 6.

Jacob married two sisters (cf. Jg 15:2). Legislation is found in Lv 18:7–17, 20:11 (cf. Dt 27:20 , 22, 23); for details see the commentaries. We note the omission of prohibition of marriage with a niece, and with widow of maternal uncle. Lv 18:13 forbids marriage not with a deceased but with a living wife’s sister, i.e. a special form of polygamy. The ‘bastard’ of Dt 23:2 is probably the offspring of an incestuous marriage. An heiress was not allowed to marry outside her tribe ( Nu 36:6; cf. 27:4, To 6:12, 7:12). For restrictions on priests see Lv 21:7, 14. There were no caste restrictions, though difference in rank would naturally be an objection (1 S 18:18, 23). Outside the prohibited degrees consanguineous marriages were common (Gn 24:4, To 4:12); in Jg 14:3 the best marriage is ‘from thy brethren.’ Jubilees 4 maintains that all the patriarchs from Adam to Noah married near relatives. Cousin marriages among the Jews are said to occur now three times more often than among other civilized peoples (Westermarck, p. 481).

(2) Racial bars arose from religious and historical causes. Gn 24, 28, 34, Nu 12:1, Jg 14:3 illustrate the objection to foreign marriages; Esau’s Hittite wives are a grief to his parents ( Gn 26:34, 27:46); cf. Lv 24:10. The marriage of Joseph (Gn 41:45) is due to stress of circumstances, but David (2 S 3:3) and Solomon (1 K 3:1, 11:1) set a deliberate example which was readily Imitated (16:31). Among the common people there must have been other cases similar to

Naomi’s (Ru 1:4): Bathsheba (2 S 11:8), Hiram (1 K 7:14), Amasa (1 Ch 2:17), Jehozabad (2 Ch

24:26) are the children of mixed marriages. They are forbidden with the inhabitants of Canaan (Ex 34:16, Dt 7:3), but tolerated with Moabites and Egyptians (23:7). Their prevalence was a trouble to Ezra (9, 10) and to Nehemiah (10:30, 13:23). To 4:12, 6:16, 1 Mac 1:15 renew the protest against them. In the Diaspora they were permitted on condition of proselytism, but Jubilees 30 forbids them absolutely; they are ‘fornication.’ Jewish strictness in this respect was notorious (Tac. Hist. v. 5; cf. Ac 10:28). The case of Timothy’s parents (Ac 16:1–3) is an example of the greater laxity which prevailed in central Asia Minor. It is said that now the proportion of mixed to pure marriages among the Jews is about 1 to 500 (Westermarck, p. 375) , though it varies greatly in different countries. 1 Co 7:39 probably discourages marriage with a heathen (cf. v. 12ff., 9:5), but the general teaching of the Epp. would remove any religious bar to intermarriage between Christians of different race, though it does not touch the social or physiological advisability.

4. Levirate Marriage (Lat. lēvir, ‘a brother-in-law’).—In Dt 25:5–10 (no || in other codes of OT) it is enacted that if a man die leaving no son (‘child’ LXX, Josephus, Mt 22:24), his brother, if he lives on the same estate, is to take his widow, and the eldest child is to succeed to the name and inheritance of the deceased (cf. Gn 38:9). If the survivor refuses, a formal declaration is to be made before the elders of the city, and the widow is to express her contempt by loosing his sandal and spitting in his face. The law is a codification, possibly a restriction, of an existing custom. (a) It is presupposed for the patriarchal age in Gn 38, the object of this narrative being to insist on the duty of the survivor; (b) Heb. has a special word = ‘to perform the duty of a husband’s brother’; (c) the custom is found with variations in different parts of the world—India, Tibet, Madagascar, etc. In India it is confined to the case where there is no child, and lasts only till an heir is born; sometimes it is only permissive. In other cases it operates without restriction, and may be connected with the form of polyandry where the wife is the common property of all the brothers. But it does not necessarily imply polyandry, of which indeed there is no trace in OT. Among the Indians, Persians, and Afghans it is connected with ancestor worship, the object being to ensure that there shall be some one to perform the sacrificial rites; the supposed indications of this among the Hebrews are very doubtful. In OT it is more probably connected with the desire to preserve the family name (a man lived through his children), and to prevent a division or alienation of property. On the other hand, the story of Ru 4 seems to belong to the circle of ideas according to which the wife is inherited as part of a man’s property. Boaz marries Ruth as goel, not as levir, and the marriage is legally only a subordinate element in the redemption of the property. There is no stigma attached to the refusal of the nearer kinsman, and the son ranks as belonging to Boaz. The prohibited degrees in Lv 18 (P) make no exception in favour of the Levirate marriage, whether repealing or presupposing it is uncertain. In later times we have the Sadducees’ question in Mk 12:19||. It does not imply the continuance of the practice. It had fallen into disuse, and the Mishna invents many limitations to avoid the necessity of compliance. It was agreed that the woman must have no child (Dt. ‘son’), and the school both of Shammai and of the Sadducees apparently confined the law to the case of a betrothed, not a wedded, wife. If so, the difficulty was twofold, striking at the Levirate custom as well as at the belief in the Resurrection (Edershelm, LT ii. 400).

5. Marriage Customs

(1) The arranging of a marriage was normally in the hands of the parents (Gn 21:21, 24:3 , 28:1, 34:4, Jg 14:2, 2 Es 9:47); there are, in fact, few nations or periods where the children have a free choice. But (a) infant or child marriages were unknown; (b) the consent of the parties was, sometimes at least, sought (Gn 24:8); (c) the rule was not absolute; it might be broken wilfully (26:34), or under stress of circumstances (Ex 2:21); (d) natural feeling will always make itself felt in spite of the restrictions of custom; the sexes met freely, and romantic attachments were not unknown (Gn 29:10, 34:3, Jg 14:1, 1 S 18:20); in these cases the initiative was taken by the parties. One view of Canticles is that it is a drama celebrating the victory of a village maiden’s faithfulness to her shepherd lover, in face of the attractions of a royal rival. It was a disgrace if a daughter remained unmarried (Sir 42:9); this fact is the key to 1 Co 7:25ff. (2) The betrothal was of a more formal and binding nature than our ‘engagement’; among the Arabs it is the only legal ceremony connected with a marriage. Gn 24:58, 60 may preserve an ancient formula and blessing. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar) paid to the parents or representatives of the bride, the daughter being a valuable possession. Dt 22:29 (cf. Ex 22:18) orders its payment in a case of seduction, and 50 shekels is named as the average. In Gn 34:12 Hamor offers ‘never so much dowry’; cf. the presents of ch. 24. It might take the form of service (Gn 29, Jacob; 1 S 18:25, David). Dowry, in our sense of provision for the wife, arose in two ways. (a) The parents provided for her, perhaps originally giving her a portion of the purchase money (Gn 24:61 , 29:24). Caleb gives his daughter a field (Jos 15:19 = Jg 1:15); Solomon’s princess brings a dowry of a city (1 K 9:16); Raguel gives his daughter half his goods (To 8:21, 10:10). This dowry was retained by the wife if divorced, except in case of adultery. (b) The husband naturally signified his generosity and affection by gifts to his bride (Gn 24:53, 34:12 [where gift is distinct from ‘dowry’], Est 2:9). According to the Mishna, the later ceremony of betrothal consisted in payment of a piece of money, or a gift, or the conveyance of a writing, in presence of two witnesses. A third method (by cohabitation) was strongly discountenanced. After betrothal the parties were legally in the position of a married couple. Unfaithfulness was adultery (Dt 22:23 , Mt 1:19). The bridegroom was exempt from military service (Dt 20:7). Non-fulfilment of the marriage was a serious slight (1 S 18:19, Jg 14:19), but conceivable under certain circumstances (Gn 29:27).

(2) Wedding ceremonies.—Great uncertainty attaches to the proceedings in Biblical times. We have to construct our picture from passing notices, combined with what we know of Arabic and later Jewish customs. In some cases there seems to have been nothing beyond the betrothal (Gn 24:63–67); or the wedding festivities followed it at once; but in later times there was a distinct interval, not exceeding a year in case of a virgin. Tobit (7:14) mentions a ‘contract’ ( cf. Mal 2:14), which became a universal feature. The first ceremony was the wedding procession ( Ps

45:15, 1 Mac 9:37), which may be a relic of ‘marriage by capture,’ the bridegroom’s friends ( Mt

9:15, Jn 3:29; cf. ‘60 mighty men’ of Ca 3:7) going, often by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants; in Jg 14:11, 15, 20 Samson’s comrades are necessarily taken from the bride’s people. The rejoicings are evidenced by the proverbial ‘voice of the bridegroom,’ etc. (Jer 7:34 etc., Rev 18:23). Gn 24:53, Ps 45:13–15, Jer 2:32, Rev 19:8, 21:2 speak of the magnificence of the bridal attire; Is 61:10, of the garland of the bridegroom and jewels of the bride (cf. 49:18); the veil is mentioned in Gn 24:65, 29:23; the supposed allusions to the lustral bath of the Greeks ( Ru 3:3, Ezk 23:40, Eph 5:25) are very doubtful. The situation in Mt 25:1 is not clear. Are the ‘virgins’ friends of the bridegroom waiting for his return with his bride, or friends of the bride waiting with her for him? All that it is possible to say is that the general conception is that of the wedding procession by night in which lights and torches have always played a large part. Another feature was the scattering of flowers and nuts; all who met the procession were expected to join in it or to salute it.

The marriage supper followed, usually in the home of the bridegroom (2 Es 9:47); Gn 29:22 , Jg 14:10, To 8:19 are easily explained exceptions. Hospitality was a sacred duty; ‘he who does not invite me to his marriage will not have me to his funeral.’ To refuse the invitation was a grave insult (Mt 22). Nothing is known of the custom, apparently implied in this passage, of providing a wedding garment for guests. Jn 2 gives us a picture of the feast in a middle-class home, where the resources are strained to the uttermost. It is doubtful whether the ‘ruler of the feast’ (cf. Sir 32:1, 2) is ‘the best man’ (3:29, Jg 14:20), the office being unusual in the simple life of Galilee (Edersheim, LT i. 355). There is nowhere any hint of a religious ceremony, though marriage was regarded with great reverence as symbolizing the union of God with Israel (ib. 353). The feast was no doubt quasi-sacramental (cf. the Latin ‘confarreatio’), and the marriage was consummated by the entry into the ‘chamber’ (huppah). W. R. Smith (op. cit. p. 168) finds in this a relic of ‘beena’ marriage (see above, § 1), the huppah or canopy (Jl 2:16) being originally the wife’s tent (Gn 24:67, Jg 4:17); cf. the tent pitched for Absalom (2 S 16:22). In Arab., Syr., and Heb. the bridegroom is said to ‘go in’ to the bride. Ps 19:5 speaks of his exultant ‘coming forth’ on the following morning; ‘the chamber’ can hardly refer there to the ‘canopy’ under which in modern weddings the pair stand during the ceremony, though this has no doubt been evolved from the old tent.

The wedding festivities were not confined to the ‘supper’ of the first night, at any rate in OT times. As now in Syria, the feast lasted for 7 days (Gn 29:27, To 11:10, 8:19 [a fortnight]). The best picture is in Jg 14, with its eating and drinking and not very refined merriment. Canticles is generally supposed to contain songs sung during these festivities; those now sung in Syria show a remarkable similarity. 7:1–7 in particular would seem to be the chorus in praise of the bride’s beauty, such as is now chanted, while she herself in a sword dance displays the charms of her person by the flashing firelight. During the week the pair are ‘king and queen,’ enthroned on the threshing-board of the village. It is suggested that ‘Solomon’ (3:7) had become the nickname for this village king. Dt 24:5 exempts the bridegroom from military service for a year (cf. 20:7).

6. Position of the wife.—The practically universal form of marriage was the ‘Baal’ type, where the wife passed under the dominion of her ‘lord’ (Gn 3:16, Tenth Com.). Side by side with this was the ideal principle, according to which she was a ‘help meet for him’ (Gn 2:18), and the legal theory was always modified in practice by the affection of the husband or the strong personality of the wife; cf. the position of the patriarchs’ wives, of women in Jg. or in Pr. ( esp. 31); cf. 1 S 25:18, 2 K 4:8. But her value was largely that of a mother of children, and the position of a childless wife was unpleasant (Gn 16:4, 30:1–4, 1 S 1:6, 2 Es 9:43). Polygamy led to favouritism; the fellow-wife is a ‘rival’ (1 S 1:6)—a technical term. Dt 21:15ff. safeguards the right of the firstborn of a ‘hated’ wife; Ex 21:10 provides for the rendering of the duties of marriage to a first wife, even if a purchased coacubine; if they are withheld she is to go free ( cf. Dt 21:14 of a captive). The difference between a wife and a concubine depended on the wife’s higher position and birth, usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. She might claim the inheritance for her children (Gn 21:10); her slave could not be taken as concubine without her consent (16:2). As part of a man’s chattels his wives were in certain cases inherited by his heir, with the limitation that a man could not take his own mother. The custom lasted in Arabia till forbidden by the Koran (ch. 4). In OT there is the case of Reuben and Bilhah (Gn 35:22, 49:4) , perhaps implying the continuance of the custom in the tribe of Reuben, after it had been proscribed elsewhere (Driver, ad loc.). It is presupposed in 2 S 3:7, where Ishbosheth reproaches Abner for encroaching on his birthright, and in 16:22, where Absalom thus publishes his claim to the kingdom. In 1 K 2:22 Adonijah, in asking for Abishag, is claiming the eldest brother’s inheritance. Ezk 22:10 finds it still necessary to condemn the practice; cf. Dt 22:30, Lv 18:8, Ru 4 shows how the wife is regarded as part of the inheritance. A widow normally remained unmarried. If poor, her position was bad; cf. the injunctions in Dt., the prophets, and the Pastoral Epp. In royal houses her influence might be greater than that of the wife; e.g. the difference in the attitude of Bathsheba in 1 K 1:16 and in 2:19, and the power of the queen-mother (1 K 15:13 , 2 K 11). There was a strong prejudice in later times against her re-marrying (Lk 2:36; Jos. Ant. XVII. xiii. 4, XVIII. vi. 6). There is no instance of a corresponding dislike to the marriage of a widower, but the wife was regarded as a man’s property even after his death. St. Paul, however, permits re-marriage (1 Co 7:39), and even enjoins it for younger widows (1 Ti 5:14).

7. Adultery.—If a bride was found not to be a virgin, she was to be stoned (Dt 22:13–21). A man who violated an unmarried girl was compelled to marry her with payment of ‘dowry’ (v. 29 , cf. Ex 22:16). A priest’s daughter playing the harlot was to be burnt (Lv 21:9). Adultery holds a prominent place among social sins (Seventh and Tenth Com., Ezk 18:11). If committed with a married or betrothed woman, the penalty was stoning for both parties, a betrothed damsel being spared if forced (Dt 22:22–27, Lv 20:10, Ezk 16:40, 23:45). The earlier penalty was hurning, as in Egypt (Gn 38:24; Tamar is virtually betrothed). In Nu 5:11–31 the fact of adultery is to be established by ordeal, a custom found in many nations. It is to be noted that the test is not poison, but holy water; i.e. the chances are in favour of the accused. The general point of view is that adultery with a married woman is an offence against a neighbour’s property; the adultery of a wife is an offence against her husband, but she has no concern with his fidelity. It is not prohable that the extreme penalty was ever carried out (2 S 11, Hos 3). The frequent denunciations in the prophets and Pr. (2:18, 5:3, 6:25) show the prevalence of the crime; the usual penalty was divorce with loss of dowry (cf. Mt 5:31). In the ‘pericope’ of Jn 8, part of the test is whether Christ will set Himself against Moses by sanctioning the ahrogation of the Law; it is not implied that the punishment was ever actually inflicted; in fact, no instance of it is known. The answer ( v. 11) pardons the sinner, but by no means condones the sin: ‘damnavit, sed peccatum non hominem’ (Aug.); cf. the treatment of ‘the woman who was a sinner’ (Lk 7:47). The NT is uncompromising in its attitude towards this sin, including in its view all acts of unchastity as offences against God and the true self, as sanctified by His indwelling, no less than against one’s neighbour (Mt 5:27, Ac 15:29, 1 Co 5:11, 6:9, 13–20, Gal 5:19, 1 Th 4:3). The blessing on the ‘virgins’ of Rev 14:4 probably refers to chastity, not celibacy; cf. ‘the bed undefiled’ of He 13:4. The laxity of the age made it necessary to insist on purity as a primary Christian virtue ( see Swete, ad loc.).

8. Divorce is taken for granted in OT (Lv 21:7, 14, 22:13, Nu 30:9), it being the traditional right of the husband, as in Arabia, to ‘put away his wife’ (Gn 21:14). The story of Hosea probably embodies the older procedure, which is regulated by the law of Dt 24:1. There must be a bill of divorcement (Is 50:1, Jer 3:8), prepared on a definite charge, and therefore presumably before some public official, and formally given to the woman. (But cf. Mt 1:19, where possibility of private divorce is contemplated [or repudiation of betrothal?].) The time and expense thus involved would act as a check. Further, if the divorcee re-marries, she may not return to her former husband—a deterrent on hasty divorce, also on re-marriage—, if there is any prospect of reconciliation. The right of divorce is withheld in two cases (Dt 22:19, 29). There was great divergence of opinion as regards the ground ‘if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found in her the nakedness of a thing.’ The school of Hillel emphasized the first clause, and interpreted it of the most trivial things, practically ‘for any cause’ (Mt 19:3); that of Shammai laid stress rightly on the second clause, and confined it to unchastity. But the vague nature of the expression (cf. Dt 23:14), and the fact that 22:22 enacts death for unchastity, show that something wider must be meant, probably ‘immodest or indecent behaviour’ (Driver, ad loc.). In spite of the prohibition of Mal 2:13–16 and the stern attitude of many Rabbis, divorce continued to he frequent; Ezr 9:10 encouraged it. The Mishna allows it for violation of the Law or of Jewish customs, e.g. breaking a vow, appearing in public with dishevelled hair, or conversing indiscriminately with men. Practically the freedom was almost unlimited; the question was not what was lawful, but on what grounds a man ought to exercise the right the Law gave him. It was, of course, confined to the husband (1 S 25:44 is simply an outrage on the part of Saul). Women of rank such as Salome (Jos. Ant. XV. vii. 10) or Herodias (XVIII. v. 4) might arrogate it, but it is condemned as a breach of Jewish law. Christ contemplates its possibility in Mk 10:12 , perhaps having in view the Greek and Roman world, where it was legal. But the words caused a difficulty to the early versions, which substitute desertion for divorce, and may be a later insertion, added for the sake of completeness. In a later period the Talmud allowed a wife to claim a divorce in certain cases, e.g. if her husband had a loathsome disease.

In the NT divorce seems to be forbidden absolutely (Mk 10:11, Lk 16:8, 1 Co 7:10, 39). Our Lord teaches that the OT permission was a concession to a low moral standard, and was opposed to the ideal of marriage as an inseparable union of body and soul (Gn 2:23). But in Mt 5:32, 19:9 He seems to allow it for ‘fornication,’ an exception which finds no place in the parallels (cf. 1 Co

7:15, which allows re-marriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen), (a) Fornication cannot here be sin before marriage; the sense of the passage demands that the word shall be taken in its wider sense (cf. Hos 2:5, Am 7:17, 1 Co 5:1); it defines the ‘uncleanness’ of Dt 24:1 as illicit sexual intercourse. (b) Divorce cannot be limited to separation ‘from bed and hoard,’ as by R.C. commentators (1 Co 7 uses quite different words). To a Jew it always carried with it the right of re-marriage, and the words ‘causeth her to commit adultery’ (Mt 5:32) show that our Lord assumed that the divorcêe would marry again. Hence if He allowed divorce under certain conditions, He allowed re-marriage. (c) It follows that Mt 19:9, asit stands, gives to an injured husband the right of divorce, and therefore of re-marriage, even if it be supposed that the words ‘except for fornication’ qualify only the first clause, or if ‘shall marry another’ he omitted with B. A right given to an injured husband must on Christian principles he allowed to an injured wife. Further, re-marriage, if permitted to either party, is logically permitted both to innocent and to guilty, so far as the dissolution of the marriage bond is concerned, though it may well be forbidden to the latter as a matter of discipline and penalty. Mt 5:32 apparently allows the remarriage of the justifiably divorced, i.e. guilty wife, though the interpretation of this verse is more doubtful than that of 19:9. (d) The view implied by the exception is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to re-marriage. But re-marriage also closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible; cf. the teaching of Hosea and Jer 3; Hermas (Mand. iv. 1) allows no re-marriage, and lays great stress on the taking back of a repentant wife. (e) Hence much is to he said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Mt. is an editorial addition from the Judaic standpoint, or under the pressure of practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard. (For the authorities, see Hastings’ DB, Ext. Vol. p. 27^b, and add Wright’s Synopsis and Allen’s St. Mat.) It is true that though the textual variations in both passages of Mt. are numerous, there is no MS authority for the entire omission of the words. But there is no hint of the exception in Mk., Lk., or 1 Cor.; Mt 19:3 alters the question of Mk 10:2, adding the qualification ‘for every cause,’ which thus prepares the way for the qualified answer of v. 9. This answer really admits the validity of the law of Dt 24:1, with its stricter interpretation (see p. 586^b), whilst the language of v. 8 leads us to expect its abrogation. The introduction of the exception upsets the argument, which in Mk. is clear and logical. Again, is it not contrary to Christ’s method that He should legislate in detail? He rather lays down universal principles, the practical application of which He left to His Church (see below, § 11).

(f) The requirement in 1 Ti 3:2, 12, Tit 1:6, that the ‘bishop’ and ‘deacon’ shall he the ‘husband of one wife,’ is probably to be understood as a prohibition of divorce and other sins against the chastity of marriage (cf. He 13:4), made necessary by the low standard of the age. Of course, no greater laxity is allowed to the layman, any more than he is allowed to he ‘a brawler or striker’; but sins of this type are mentioned as peculiarly inconsistent with the ministry. Other views of the passage are that it forhids polygamy (a prohibition which could hardly be necessary in Christian circles) or a second marriage. But there was no feeling against the re-marriage of men (see above, § 6), and St. Paul himself saw in a second marriage nothing per se inconsistent with the Christian ideal (1 Ti 5:14), so that it is hard to see on what grounds the supposed prohibition could rest.

9. The Teaching of NT.—(1) Marriage and celibacy. The prevalent Jewish conception was that marriage was the proper and honourable estate for all men. ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (Talmud). The Essene, on the other band, avoided it as unclean and a degradation. Of this view there is no sign in NT (1 Ti 4:3). Christ does, however, emphasize the propriety of the unmarried state in certain circumstances (Mt 19:12 [? Rev 14:4]). The views of St. Paul undoubtedly changed. In 1 Th 4:4 he regards marriage merely as a safeguard against immorality. The subject is prominent in 1 Cor. In 7:1, 7, 8, 38 he prefers the unmarried state, allowing marriage for the same reason as in 1 Th. (1 Co 7:2, 2, 36). He gives three reasons for his attitude, the one purely temporary, the others valid under certain conditions. (a) It is connected with the view he afterwards abandoned, of the nearness of the Paronsia (v. 31); there would be no need to provide for the continuance of the race. (b) It was a time of ‘distress,’ i.e. hardship and persecution (v. 26). (c) Marriage brings distractions and cares (v. 32). The one-sidedness of this view may he corrected by his later teaching as to (2) the sanctity of the marriage state. The keynote is struck by our Lord’s action. The significance of the Cana miracle can hardly be exaggerated (Jn 2). It corresponds with His teaching that marriage is a Divine institution ( Mt 19:9). So Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, and the Pastoral Epp. assume the married state as normal in the

Christian Church. It is raised to the highest pinnacle as the type of ‘the union betwixt Christ and His Church.’ This conception emphasizes both the honourableness of the estate and the beinousness of all sins against it; husband and wife are one flesh (Eph 5; cf. He 13:4). (3) As regards relations between husband and wife, it cannot be said that St. Paul has entirely shaken himself free from the influences of his Jewish training (§ 6). The duty of the husband is love (Eph 5:28), of the wife obedience and fear, or reverence (v. 22, 33, Col 3:18), the husband being the head of the wife (v. 23, 1 Co 11:8, 7–11); she is saved ‘through her childbearing’ (1 Ti 2:11– 15). The view of 1 P 3:1–7 is similar. It adds the idea that each must help the other as ‘joint heirs of the grace of life,’ their common prayers being hindered by any misunderstanding. Whether the subordination of the wife can be maintained as ultimate may be questioned in view of such passages as Gal 3:28.

10. Spiritual applications of the Marriage Figure

In OT the god was regarded as baal, ‘husband’ or ‘owner,’ of his land, which was the ‘mother’ of its inhabitants. Hence ‘it lay very near to think of the god as the husband of the worshipping nationality, or mother land’ (W. R. Smith, Prophets, 171); the idea was probably not peculiar to Israel. Its most striking development is found in Hosea. Led, as it seems, by the experience of his own married life, he emphasizes the following points. (1) Israel’s idolatry is whoredom, adultery, the following of strange lovers (note the connexion of idolatry with literal

fornication). (2) J″ still loves her, as Hosea has loved his erring wife, and redeems her from slavery. (3) Hosea’s own unquenchable love is but a faint shadow of J″’s. A similar idea is found in Is 54:4; in spite of her unfaithfulness, Israel has not been irrevocably divorced (50:1). Cf. Jer 3, 3:1, 32, Ezk 16, Mal 2:11. The direct spiritual or mystical application of Ca. is now generally abandoned.

In NT, Christ is the bridegroom (Mk 2:19, Jn 3:29), the Church His bride. His love is emphasized, as in OT (Eph 5:25), and His bride too must be holy and without blemish (v. 27, 2 Co 11:2). In OT the stress is laid on the ingratitude and misery of sin as ‘adultery,’ in NT on the need of positive holiness and purity. Rev 19:7 develops the figure, the dazzling white of the bride’s array being contrasted with the harlot’s scarlet. In 21:2, 9 she is further identified with the New Jerusalem, two OT figures being combined, as in 2 Es 7:26. For the coming of her Bridegroom she is now waiting (Rev 22:17, cf. Mt 25:1), and the final joy is represented under the symbol of the marriage feast (22:2, Rev 19:9).

11. A general survey of the marriage laws and customs of the Jews shows that they cannot be regarded as a peculiar creation, apart from those of other nations. As already appears, they possess a remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic race; we may add the striking parallels found in the Code of Hammurabi, e.g. with regard to betrothal, dowry, and divorce. Anthropological researches have disclosed a wide general resemblance to the customs of more distant races. They have also emphasized the relative purity of OT sexual morality; in this, as in other respects, the Jews had their message for the world. But, of course, we shall not expect to find there the Christian standard. ‘In the beginning’ represents not the historical fact, but the ideal purpose. Gn 2 is an allegory of what marriage was intended to be, and of what it was understood to be in the best thought of the nation. This ideal was, however, seldom realized. Hence we cannot apply the letter of the Bible, or go to it for detailed rules. Where its rules are not obviously unsuited to modern conditions, or below the Christian level, a strange uncertainty obscures their exact interpretation, e.g. with regard to the prohibited degrees, divorce, or ‘the husband of one wife’; there is even no direct condemnation of polygamy. On the other hand, the principle as expanded in NT is clear. It is the duty of the Christian to keep it steadily before him as the ideal of his own life. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole must depend upon social conditions, and the general moral environment. C. W. EMMET.

MARSENA.—One of the seven princes who had the right of access to the royal presence (Est 1:14).

MARSHAL.—1. For AV ‘scribe’ RV of Jg 5:14 has ‘marshal.’ It was the duty of this officer to muster the men available for a campaign. In later times he kept a register of their names (2 K 25:10, Jer 52:25, 2 Ch 26:11, where the same Heb. word is used; see also 1 Mac 5:42). The staff (not ‘pen’) in his hand was an emblem of authority (Jg 5:14; cf. Nu 21:18). 2. The Heb. tiphsar is identified with the Assyr. dupsarru, ‘tahlet-writer,’ ‘scribe.’ In Jer 51:27 and Nah 3:17 it denotes a military officer of high rank (AV ‘captain,’ RV ‘marshal.’ [The alteration was not imperatively necessary]).

J. TAYLOR.

MARS’ HILL.—AV for Areopagus (wh. see).

MART.—See MARKET.

MARTHA is first mentioned (Lk 10:38–42) as living in ‘a certain village’ with her sister Mary, and as receiving our Lord as He passed on His way. We know from Jn 11:1 and 12:1 that they afterwards lived with Lazarus, their brother, in Bethany; the village, then, may be either Bethany or where they lived before moving there. The characters of the two sisters are strongly marked and rendered vivid by their contrast; we shall therefore deal with the characteristics of both in this article.

Martha is over-anxious, and distracted with household duties; while Mary, as a disciple, sits ‘at the feet’ (cf. Ac 22:8) of Jesus. Martha complained to our Lord of Mary’s inactivity, and showed some temper, perhaps jealousy, by speaking of the matter to Him rather than to her. Jesus commenced His reply with ‘Martha, Martha,’ repeating the name as He did on another occasion of loving correction (‘Simon, Simon,’ Lk 22:31), and blamed her for her outward agitation (‘troubled’) and inward anxiety. (‘careful,’ RV ‘anxious’), telling her that she lacked ‘the one thing needful.’ (For various reading see RVm.) He then praised Mary for having ‘chosen that good part’ which from its nature was everlasting, and so would ‘not be taken from her.’ He blamed Martha, not for her attentive service of love, but for allowing that service to irritate, agitate, and absorb her. Martha’s character here is loving, active, self-reliant, practical, hasty; Mary’s also loving, but thoughtful, humble, receptive, dependent, devoted. We find the same distinguishing marks in Jn 11, where the two sisters again appear in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus. When Jesus, after delaying for four days (v. 17) to come in response to their joint request (v. 3), arrived, Martha was the first to hear of His arrival, and at once went to meet Him. Mary, on the other hand, removed by her grief from the activities of life engaged in by her sister, was unaware of His coming. The moment, however, that she was sent for by Him (v. 28) she hurried to His presence, and fell down at His feet. The contrast of character seen in Lk 10 is here markedly present.

‘Martha holds a conversation, argues with Him, remonstrates with Him, and in the very crisis of their grief shows her practical common sense in deprecating the removal of the stone. It is Mary who goes forth silently to meet Him, silently and tearfully, so that the bystanders suppose her to be going to weep at her brother’s tomb; who, when she sees Jesus, falls down at His feet; who, uttering the same words of faith in His power as Martha (vv. 21, 32), does not qualify them with the same reservation; who infects all the bystanders with the intensity of her sorrow, and crushes the human spirit of our Lord Himself with sympathetic grief (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 37).

The sisters appear again, and finally, in Jn 12, at the Supper given to our Lord at Bethany (see art. MARY, No. 2); and again their contrast of disposition is seen. Martha, as presumably the elder sister, ‘served,’ while Mary poured the precious ointment on the Saviour’s head and feet. A comparison between this passage and Lk 10:38–42 shows, indeed, the same Martha, but now there is no record of her over-anxiety or distraction, or of any complaint of her sister’s absorption in devotion to the Saviour; for doubtless she had herself now chosen that good part which would not be taken from her.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

MARTYR.—See WITNESS.

MARY.—The Gr. form of Heb. Miriam.

1. Mary, mother of James and Joses, was one of the company of women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him, and who beheld from afar the crucifixion (Mt 27:56) ; she is spoken of as ‘the other Mary’ (27:61, 28:1), as ‘the mother of James the little and Joses’ (Mk 15:40), as ‘Mary the [mother] of Joses’ (Mk 15:47), and as ‘Mary the [mother] of James’ (Mk 16:1, Lk 24:10). That she is identical with ‘Mary the [wife] of Clopas’ (Jn 19:25) is almost, though not absolutely, certain; the uncertainty arising from the fact that as ‘many women’ ( Mt 27:55) were present, St. John may have mentioned a Mary who was distinct from the Mary mentioned as present by the Synoptists. It is very doubtful whether this ‘Mary of Clopas’ was sister to the Virgin Mary. The words of St. John, ‘There were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene,’ are ambiguous; for He may have intended to name four women as present—the Virgin’s sister being one, and Mary of Clopas another—or only three, the Virgin’s sister being described as ‘Mary of Clopas.’

Certain decision on the point seems impossible. Cf. BRETHREN OF THE LORD, ad fin.

2. Mary, the sister of Martha, is mentioned thrice in the Gospels—(1) as sitting at the feet of Jesus, while her sister served (Lk 10:38–42); (2) as falling at His feet on His arrival to raise Lazarus from the grave (Jn 11:28–32); (3) as anointing His feet during the feast at Bethany before the Passion (Mt 26:7–15, Mk 14:3–11, Jn 12:1–8). The first and second of these occasions are dealt with in art. MARTHA, where the character of Mary is also treated of. It remains, therefore, for us only to consider the last.

The accounts of this incident as given in the first two Gospels and by St. John have been thought to disagree both as to where and when the feast was held. As regards the place, the Fourth Gospel mentions Martha as serving, and it has therefore been assumed that the gathering was in her house—a fact held to be in contradiction to the statement of Mt. and Mk. that it took place in the house of Simon the leper. But even if St. John’s words do bear this meaning, there is not necessarily any disagreement, for her house might also be known as the house of Simon the leper. Her husband or her father may have been named Simon, and may have been a leper. In fact, we know far too little of the circumstances to be justified in charging the writers with inaccuracy. A careful study of St. John’s statement, however, seems to show that the gathering was not in Martha’s house; for the words ‘Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. So they made a supper there; and Martha served,’ imply that the people of Bethany as a whole honoured our Lord, who had shown His power notably by raising their fellowtownsman, with a public feast. At such a feast Lazarus would be one of those that would sit at meat with Him, and Martha assuredly would serve. The reason why they selected the house known as that of Simon the leper cannot be determined; but it may have been simply because it was the most suitable building.

As regards the date of the feast, John distinctly places our Lord’s arrival as ‘six days before the passover,’ and implies that the feast was then held immediately. Mt. and Mk., however, first record the words of our Lord, in which He foretells His betrayal as about to occur ‘after two days,’ and then add their account of the feast in Bethany. If the Fourth Gospel be taken as definitely fixing the date as six days before the Passover, then the Synoptists must have placed their account of the incident later than it really happened. Probably this is what they did; and their reason for so doing is evidently to connect our Lord’s rebuke of Judas (Mt 26:13, 14, Jn 12:4) with the traitor’s decision to betray Him. With this object in view they place the anointing by Mary immediately before the betrayal, introducing it with a vagueness of language which avoids any definite statement of time (Mt 20:6 ‘Now when Jesus was in Bethany’; Mk 14:3 ‘And while he was in Bethany’). There is really no contradiction in the records, but rather a change in the order of events, of deliberate purpose, by Mt. and Mk. for the purpose of elucidating the treachery of Judas.

Mary’s act of devotion in anointing the head (Mt 26:7) and feet (Jn 12:3) of our Lord, and in wiping His feet with her hair, is in perfect keeping with her character as seen in Lk 10 and Jn 11—as she sat at His feet as a disciple, and fell at His feet in grief, so now in humble adoration she anoints His feet with the precious ointment, and wipes them with the hair of her head. The act called forth the hypocritical indignation of Judas. But Jesus at once silenced him, accepting the anointing as for His burial, and predicting that wherever His Gospel should he preached, there should her deed of love he remembered.

This act of Mary bears a strong resemblance to that recorded in Lk 7:36ff., and so similar is the general picture presented by the two narratives that many have thought them different accounts of the same event. The agreement between the narratives is striking; in both are presented to us acts of love on the part of devoted women; in both the house is said to belong to a ‘Simon’; in both the depth of the devotion is shown by the feet being anointed, and being wiped with the innsened hair. On the other hand, however, many differences are to be noted. The hosts, though both named Simon, are distinct, the one being described as a Pharisee, the other as a leper; the scene is different, for in one case it is laid in Galilee, in the other in Judæa; the women are different, for one is Mary ‘whom Jesus loved,’ the other is an unnamed notorious sinner, such as we cannot suppose Mary ever to have been. The lessons drawn from the incidents by our Lord are different; in the one case He teaches love to God based on His forgiving mercy, in the other He foretells that the deed which Judas had described as ‘waste’ would for all time be an object of universal praise.

It must further be borne in mind that anointing was a usual courtesy; and that not unnaturally two deeply loving women would very probably at different times be impelled to show their devotion by humbly outpouring their precious gifts upon His sacred feet. Very possibly Mary never had heard of the poor sinful woman’s act, occurring as it did probably two years previously and many miles away in Galilee; but even if she had, why should she not act similarly when her heart impelled her to a like act of devotion?

3. Mary Magdalene, probably so called as belonging to Magdala (possibly el-Mejdel, 3 miles north-west of Tiberias), a place not mentioned in NT, as Magadan is the correct reading of Mt 15:39. She is first mentioned in Lk 8:2 as one of the women who, having been ‘healed of evil spirits and infirmities, … ministered unto them (i.e. Jesus and the Apostles) of their substance.’ Seven demons had been cast out of her (cf. Mk 16:9)—a fact showing her affliction to have been of more than ordinary malignity (cf. Mt 12:45, Mk 5:9).

An unfortunate tradition identifies her with the unnamed sinful woman who anointed our Lord ( Lk 7:37); and she has been thus regarded as the typical reformed ‘fallen woman.’ But St. Luke, though he placed them consecutively in his narrative, did not identify them; and as possession did not necessarily presuppose moral failing in the victim’s character, we need not do so.

With the other women she accompanied Jesus on His last journey to Jerusalem; with them she beheld the crucifixion, at first ‘from afar,’ but afterwards standing by the Cross itself ( Mt 27:55, Jn 19:25); she followed the body to the burial (Mk 15:47), and then returned to prepare spices, resting on the Sabbath. On the first day of the week, while it was yet dark, she visited the sepulchre (Jn 20:1ff.). Finding the grave empty, she assumed that the body had been removed, and that she was thus deprived of the opportunity of paying her last tribute of love. She ran at once to Peter and John and said, ‘They have taken away the Lord, and we know not where they have laid him.’ They all three returned to the tomb, she remaining after they had left. Weeping she looked into the sepulchre, and saw two angels guarding the spot where Jesus had lain. To their question, ‘Why weepest thou?’ she repeated the words she had said to Peter and John. Apparently feeling that someone was standing behind her, she turned, and saw Jesus, and mistook Him for the gardener. The utterance of her name from His lips awoke her to the truth. She cried, ‘Rabboni,’ (‘my Master’)—and would have clasped His feet. But Jesus forbade her, saying, ‘Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father.’ She must no longer know Him ‘after the flesh’ (2 Co 5:16), but possess Him in spiritual communion. This, the first appearance of our Lord after His resurrection (Mk 16:9), conferred a special honour on one whose life of loving ministry had proved the reality and depth of her devotion. She has been identified with Mary the sister of Lazarus, but without any grounds.

4. Mary the Virgin

(1) Scripture data

The NT gives but little information regarding her. In the Gospels she is directly mentioned only three times during Christ’s ministry (Jn 2, Mk 3:21, 31, Jn 19:25f.), and indirectly twice (Mk 6:3, Lk 11:27). Outside the Gospels she is mentioned only once (Ac 1:14).

The Apocryphal Gospels are full of legendary stories connected with her childhood and after-life. In them we are told that she was miraculously granted to her aged and childless parents, Joachim and Anna; that at the age of three she was dedicated to God at the Temple, where she remained until she was twelve; that during these years she increased in virtue, angels ministering unto her; that at twelve she was betrothed to Joseph, an aged widower, who was selected for her by a miraculous sign. The visit of Gabriel, the journey to Bethlehem, and the Saviour’s birth in a cave are mentioned. It is added that at the moment of the birth of Jesus all nature was stilled; the fowls of the air stopped in their flight, men with uplifted arms drew them not down, dispersing sheep stood still, and kids with their lips to the water refrained from drinking.

The legendary character of the apocryphal records renders them worthless as evidence of the events that centre round the birth of our Lord, and we are therefore confined to the opening chapters of the First and Third Gospels. It has been felt that more evidence than two Gospels can supply might reasonably be expected for such a transcendent miracle. But consideration will show that the evidence could not be essentially greater than it is. For from the nature of the case the circumstances would be known only to Mary and Joseph. Mary must have known; and Joseph must also have known, if he were to continue to act as protector of his espoused wife.

Now, the First Gospel narrates the events of the miraculous birth from the point of view of Joseph; while the narrative of the Third Gospel, with its intimate knowledge of the events which it so calmly, delicately, and yet clearly, sets forth, must, in the first instance, have been obtained from the Virgin herself. St. Luke has been proved to be a writer of great historical accuracy, and we may be certain that he admitted nothing within his record of which he had not thoroughly tested the truth: and it is difficult to believe that he would open his Gospel with a statement that he had accurately traced the course of the Gospel history from the first (1:3), and then immediately proceed to insert untrustworthy information. Indeed, the wide-spread belief of the early Church in the Virgin-birth can be reasonably accounted for only by the occurrence of the fact itself. The date of St. Luke’s Gospel is too early to allow of ideas of a Virgin-birth to pass into the Church from Gentile Christians; while to Jewish Christians the whole idea would be alien. To the Jew maternity, not virginity, was praiseworthy, and to him the thought of Jehovah becoming incarnate would be incredible; in fact, the Virgin-birth, so far from being an invention of Jewish Christians, must have been a severe stumbling-block to them in accepting their new faith.

The angel Gabriel, when sent to announce to Mary that she was to be the mother of our Lord, greeted her with the words, ‘Hail, thou that art highly favoured,’ or ‘thou that art endued with grace’ (Lk 1:28). (The Rhemish Version, following the Vulgate, renders ‘full of grace’; a translation correct enough if meaning ‘fully endowed with grace,’ but incorrect if meaning ‘fully bestowing grace’—a rendering the Gr. word cannot bear.) With absolute submission she received the announcement, merely replying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word’ (Lk 1:38). Soon she hastened to her ‘kins-woman’ (v. 36) Elisabeth, who greeted her with inspired utterance (vv. 42–45). The Virgin then in reply uttered her noble hymn of exultation. The Magnificat is largely based on the song of Hannah (1 S 2). Naturally at such a time of deep spiritual emotion she fell back on the OT Scriptures, which she had known since childhood. She remained with Elisabeth until the birth of the Baptist, and then returned to Nazareth. Having accompanied Joseph on his journey to be enrolled at Bethlehem, she was there delivered of her Son. When the forty days of purification were ended, they brought the Child to Jerusalem ‘to present him to the Lord,’ and to offer the necessary sacrifice. Being poor, they offered ‘a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons’ (Ex 12:8). Then was it that Simeon took the Child in his arms, and, blessing God, uttered his Nunc Dimittis, and foretold to Mary that a sword would yet pierce through her soul: a prophecy fulfilled during the period of her Son’s ministry, and specially by His death. From the Temple they returned to Bethlehem, whence they fled to Egypt from the cruelty of Herod, on whose death they returned, and settled in Nazareth.

We next find the Virgin in Jerusalem, whither she had gone with Jesus, now aged twelve. When she discovered Him in the Temple she remonstrated, saying, ‘Thy father and I have sought thee …’ His reply, ‘I must be in my Father’s house’ (Lk 2:48), shows that He had begun to feel, and expected His mother to realize, the gulf of Divine parentage that separated Him from all others. It taught her, perhaps for the first time, that her Son felt God to be in an especial sense His Father.

For the next eighteen years our Lord was subject to home-authority at Nazareth. During this time His mother lost the protection of Joseph; for, if he were alive, he certainly would have been mentioned in Jn 2:1, Mk 3:31, Jn 19:25. Doubtless Joseph’s place in the home was filled in a measure by our Lord; and these must have been years of wonderful peace to the Virgin.

When, however, Jesus once entered upon His ministry, a time of real difficulty to her began. She, with the secret of His birth ever present, must have anticipated for Him a career of Messianic success; whereas He, with the knowledge of His Divine Sonship, was compelled to sever Himself once and for all from her control. We are not, then, surprised to find that each of the three recorded incidents which bring our Lord and the Virgin together during the years of ministry centre round the question of His absolute independence of her authority. Thus His first miracle (Jn 2) gave Him an occasion for definitely teaching her that she must no longer impress her will upon Him. His reply, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ has assuredly no roughness in it (see Jn 19:26); yet the fact that He does not address her as ‘mother’ can have but one meaning. Again, when the pressure of His ministry leads to His neglect of food, His friends said, ‘He is beside himself (Mk 3:21). ‘His friends’ were His mother and brethren (v. 31); and when their message reached Him through the crowd He stretched forth His hand (Mt 12:49), and said, ‘Behold my mother and brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother’—words which amount to, ‘I, in working out the world’s redemption, can acknowledge only spiritual relationships.’ Similarly, as He hung on the Cross, and looked down upon His broken-hearted mother, He tenderly provided for her future, and entrusted her to the care of the Apostle of love. Still, even then He was unable to name her as His own mother, but gave her, in the person of St. John, the protection of a son. ‘Woman ( not ‘mother’), behold thy son.’ ‘Son, behold thy mother’ (Jn 19:26, 27). Exactly parallel to these is His answer to the exclamation of the unknown woman, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare thee’— ‘Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it’ (Lk 11:27f.).

It is, we think, impossible to exaggerate the bitter trial of these years to the Virgin Mary; but God’s grace kept her throughout submissive, patient, and trustful. And it is a happy thing that the last mention we have of her in the NT is when she is gathered with the infant Church after the Ascension praying in the upper room.

(2) Place of the Virgin in the Christian Church.—The position she ought to hold is clear from the NT, and has been well described as follows: ‘So far as St. Mary is portrayed to us in the Scripture she is, as we should have expected, the most tender, the most faithful, humble, patient, and loving woman, but a woman still.’ Certain sections of the Church, however, have not been satisfied with granting her this limited reverence, but have done her the questionable honour of claiming for her the worship of the Church. Epiphanius (A.D. 370) mentions heretics, called Collyridians, who worshipped the Virgin, and he strongly reproves them. But before long the error found too ready a welcome within the Church, and a considerable impulse was given to it at the time of the Nestorian Controversy (A.D. 431). In meeting the error of Nestorius the Church insisted that our Lord had, with His human and Divine natures, but one personality, and that Divine; and therefore it emphasized the fact that He who was born of the Virgin was very God. It thus became customary to give the Virgin the title Theotokos. This title seems to have been specially chosen to emphasize the fact that, by being the mother of our Lord, she brought the incarnate God into life, and, at the same time, to avoid calling her ‘mother of God.’ This latter title would convey ideas of authority and right of control on the part of the parent, and of duty and obedience on the part of the child—ideas which were rightly felt to have no place in the relationship between Christ and His mother; therefore it was avoided. It would have been easy for the Church then to call her ‘mother of God,’ but it did not. Notwithstanding this cautious treatment, undue reverence towards her rapidly increased, and ‘mother of God’ became largely applied to her, and her worship gained much ground.

With the worship of the Virgin there gradually arose a belief in her sinlessness. The early Fathers, while claiming for her the perfection of womanhood, state distinctly their belief that she shared in man’s fallen nature and that she had committed actual sin. But Augustine, though not denying her participation in original sin, suggested her freedom through grace from actual transgression. Ultimately her freedom from all taint of sin, whether original or actual, was officially declared an article of faith in the Roman Church by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception decreed by Pius IX. (1854). Similar to this erroneous development was the growth of the belief in the miraculous translation of her body after death. The fanciful legends found in the Apocryphal Gospels regarding her death were readily seized upon as if supplying the requisite evidence; and in due course it became the authoritative doctrine of both the Roman and Greek Churches. The Festival of her Assumption is held on the 15th of August.

(3) The perpetual Virginity of Mary is a matter incapable of proof with the evidence available. With the Church of Rome and the Greek Church it is an essential dogma; but with the other branches of Christendom it is left undefined. In forming a decision on the point many feel the great weight of the undeniable sentiment of the Church for centuries, while others see in this very sentiment an unwholesome view, which overestimated the sanctity of virginity, and depreciated the sanctity of matrimony. From the NT we receive no certain guidance; for the ‘till’ of Mt 1:25 is undecisive, as its use shows (e.g. Gn 28:15, Dt 34:6, 1 S 15:35, 2 S 6:23), while ‘the brethren’ of our Lord may mean either the children of Joseph and Mary, or the children of Joseph by a former marriage, or even the cousins of Jesus. The first of these views is specially associated with the name of Helvidius, the second with that of Epiphanius, the third with that of Jerome. See BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

5. Mary, the mother of John Mark (Ac 12:12).

6. Mary, saluted by St. Paul (Ro 16:6).

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

MASCHIL.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

MASH.—One of the sons of Aram, Gn 10:23. The parallel passage, 1 Ch 1:17, gives

Meshech (wh. see), as also does LXX in both passages. But this is wrong, as Meshech was Japhetic. Either Mons Massius is meant, or a region and people in the Syro-Arabian desert corresponding to the ‘desert of Mash’ of the Assyrian inscriptions.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MASHAL (1 Ch 6:74).—See MISHAL.

MASIAS.—One of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (1 Es 5:34); is absent from the parallel list in Ezra.

MASON.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 3.

MASREKAH.—Mentioned as the home of an Edomite king, Samlah (Gn 36:36 = 1 Ch

1:47). The locality has not been identified.

MASSA.—A son of Ishmael (Gn 25:14 = 1 Ch 1:39), representing a North Arabian tribe. Its exact location is unknown, but it seems to be mentioned in an inscription containing a report to king Ashurbanipal of Assyria (B.C. 668–626) of an attack made by the Massorites upon the people of Nebaioth (wh. see). The tribe of Massa would therefore seem to have lived not very far east of Palestine. This view is confirmed by the fact that Pr 31:1–10 is addressed to ‘Lemuel, king of Massa’ (see RVm), since Pr 30 and 31 belong to the border-land wisdom of Israel. It is probably not to be read in Pr 30:1, where the word ‘Massa’ (RVm) is presumably a gloss. Cf.

MESHA, p. 607^a.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MASSAH AND MERIBAH.—Ex 17:1–7 (JE) tells of a miraculous gift of water at a spot near Horeb, which was called Massah and Meribah (‘testing’ and ‘contention’) because the people tested Jahweh by doubting His providence and contended with Moses. It is implied that this occurred about a year after the Exodus. Nu 20:1–18, a later narrative (P), gives a similar account, but puts it thirty-seven years later, and with important variations. The scene is now laid at Kadesh, which receives the name Meribah from the contention of Israel with Jahweh. Moses and Aaron also sin against Him. There are references to the first passage in Dt 6:16, 9:22, Ps 95:8; and to the second in Dt 32:51, Ps 106:32; in Ps 81:7 the two are apparently confused. Dt 33:8 regards the events at Kadesh in a peculiar light: here Jahweh proves Levi at Massah and strives with (or for) him at Meribah. The tendency of recent criticism is to consider Ex 17 and Nu 20 as duplicate records of the same event, the locality of which must be fixed at Kadesh, where the spring ‘Ain Kadīs creates a fertile oasis. There the tribes were blended into a strong unity. Meribah, on this interpretation, originally signified ‘the place of judgment,’ because Moses delivered there his oracular sentences; cf. ‘waters of Meribah’ and ‘En-mishpat’ ( Gn 14:7).

Massah never stands alone, save at Dt 6:11, 9:22. As variants of ‘Meribah’ we find ‘waters of Meribah,’ ‘waters of Meribah-kadesh,’ and, at Ezk 47:18, ‘waters of Meriboth-kadesh,’ if the reading be correct. Ezk 47:19, 48:28 place Meribah on the southern border of the restored nation. It has been plausibly suggested that Meribōth-kadesh is the correct reading instead of ‘ten thousands of holy ones’ in Dt 33:2.

J. TAYLOR.

MASSIAS (1 Es 9:22) = Maaseiah Ezr 10:22.

MASSORAH, MASSORETES.—See TEXT OF OT.

MASTER.—The Greek word for teacher is tr. ‘master’ in 2 Mac 1:10, Ja 3:1, and in all its occurrences in the Gospels except Lk 2:46, where it is ‘doctor,’ and Jn 3:2 ‘teacher.’ See LORD and SLAVE.

MASTIC (tsorī, Gn 37:25 RVm, EV ‘balm’ (wh. see), schinos, Sus 54).—A diœcious shrub (the pistacia lentiscus L.), found in thickets on the Mediterranean seaboard. The gum obtained through cuttings in the bark is chewed as a dentifrice, and also for its pleasant taste and perfume. It is sometimes used as a flavouring by confectioners.

W. EWING.

MATHELAS (1 Es 9:11) = Maaseiah, Ezr 10:16.

MATRED.—The mother-in-law (?) of Hadar (Gn.) or Hadad (Ch.), one of the kings of Edom, Gn 36:39 = 1 Ch 1:50. In Gn. the LXX and Pesh. make Matred the son not the daughter of Me-zahab (wh. see).

MATRITES.—A family of the tribe of Benjamin to which Saul belonged (1 S 10:21).

MATTAN.—1. Priest of Baal (2 K 11:18, 2 Ch 23:17). 2. Father of Shephatiah, a contemporary of Jeremiah (Jer 38:1).

MATTANAH.—A ‘station’ of the Israelites (Nu 21:18, 13). No satisfactory identification has been made.

MATTANIAH.—1. The original name of king Zedekiah (2 K 24:17). 2. An Asaphite (1 Ch 9:18), leader of the Temple choir (Neh 11:17, 12:8), door-keeper (12:25, 35). 3. Mattaniah in 2 Ch 20:14 should probably be identified with the preceding. 4. 5. 6. 7. Four of those who had married foreign wives, Ezr 10:26 (called in 1 Es 9:27 Matthanias), v. 27 (called in l Es 9:28 Othonias), v. 30 (called in 1 Es 9:31 Matthanias), v. 37 (combined in 1 Es 9:31 with the following Mattenai into Mamnitanemus). 8. A Levite who had charge of the offerings ( Neh 13:18). 9. A Hemanite (1 Ch 25:4, 18). 10. An Asaphite (2 Ch 29:13).

MATTATHA.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:31).

MATTATHIAS.—1. A Jew, who had married a foreign wife (1 Es 9:33); called in Ezr 10:33 Mattattah. 2. One of the men who stood at the right hand of Ezra during the reading of the Law (1 Es 9:48); in Neh 8:4 Mattithiah. 3. The father of the five Maccabæan brothers (1 Mac 2:1, 14, 16f., 24, 27, 39, 45, 48, 14:29). See MACCABEES, § 1. 4. A captain in the army of Jonathan the Maccabæan (1 Mac 11:70). 5. A son of Simon the high priest, who was murdered, together with his father and brother Judas, at a banquet at Dok, by Ptolemy the son of Abubus (1 Mac 16:14–16). 6. One of three envoys sent by Nicanor to treat with Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 14:19). 7. 8. Two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3:25, 26).

MATTATTAH.—See MATTATHIAS, No. 1.

MATTENAI.—1. 2. Two of those who had married foreign wives, Ezr 10:33 (called in 1 Es 9:33 Maltanneus), v. 37 (combined in 1 Es 9:34 with the preceding Mattaniah into

Mamnitanemus). 3. Representative of the priestly house of Joiarib in the days of Joiakim ( Neh 12:19).

MATTHAN.—Grandfather of Joseph (Mt 1:15); perhaps to be identified with Matthat, who occupies the same place in Lk 3:24.

MATTHANIAS.—1. 1 Es 9:27 = Mattaniah, Ezr 10:26, 2. 1 Es 9:31 = Mattaniah, Ezr

10:30.

MATTHAT.—1. See MATTHAN. 2. Another ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24, 29).

MATTHEW (APOSTLE).—Two sets of parallel passages, both from the Petrine tradition, tell us of this chosen companion of our Lord. The first (Mt 9:9, Mk 2:14, Lk 5:27) narrates his call. He was named both ‘Matthew’ (Mt.) and ‘Levi’ (Mk. [where some Western MSS read ‘James’] and Lk.), and was the son of Alphæus (Mk.). He was a publican (Lk.), and was ‘sitting at the place of toll’ (Mt., Mk., Lk.) near Capernaum, which lay on the road from Damascus to the Mediterranean; here he collected dues for Herod the tetrarch. No doubt he was only an agent, not one of the wealthy farmers of the taxes. Nevertheless he must have been fairly rich, and had much to give up in following Jesus. The call is followed by a meal (Mt., Mk.), a great feast given to Jesus by Matthew himself (Lk.), which roused the anger of the ‘scribes of the Pharisees.’ The name ‘Matthew’ probably means ‘Gift of Jahweh’ (cf. ‘Theodore’), and is another form of ‘Matthias’; though some take it as meaning ‘strong.’ ‘manly.’ It was doubtless given to Levi as an additional name, perhaps (like ‘Peter’) by our Lord Himself.

The second set of passages gives the list of the Twelve (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:15, Ac 1:15). In all these the surname ‘Matthew’ is given, not ‘Levi,’ just as ‘Bartholomew’ and ‘Thomas’ are surnames; and in all four Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, and James the (son) of Alphæus are mentioned together, though not always in the same order. In two lists (Mt., Ac.) Matthew comes next to James (though they are not joined together as a pair); in the other two, next but one. If then we take the view that this James is neither the brother of our Lord, nor yet the same as James the Little (Mk 15:40), and if we negative the idea that ‘Alpæeus’ (Aram. Khalphai) and

‘Clopas’ are one name, there is perhaps something to be said for the opinion that Matthew and James were brothers. But they are not mentioned together elsewhere. Only in the Mt. list is the designation ‘the publican’ added. For Matthew’s connexion with the First Gospel, see the next article. We have no trustworthy information as to his later career.

A. J. MACLEAN.

MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.

1. The First Gospel in the Early Church.—Papias (c. A.D. 140 or earlier), as quoted by Eusebius (HE iii. 39), says: ‘Matthew, however, composed the logia in the Hebrew dialect, but each one interpreted them as he was able.’ This remark occurs in his work The Exposition of the Lord’s logia, and is practically all the external information that we have about the Matthæan

Gospel, except that Irenæus says: ‘Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the Church’ (Hær. iii. 1). Irenæus is probably quoting from Papias. In the 4th cent., Eusebius tells a story of Pantænus finding in the 2nd cent. the original Aramaic Mt. in India, but the story is very uncertain; Epiphanius says that the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew existed in his day, in the possession of an Ebionite sect (distinguished in modern times as Elkesaites), and describes it; and Jerome describes what he alleges to be the original of Mt. as in use among the Nazarenes, and says that he translated it into Greek. We have therefore first to interpret Papias, and then to deal with the later testimonies.

(a) What does Papias mean by the ‘logia’?—The word may be translated ‘oracles’ or ‘discourses,’ and it is much disputed which sense we should take here. The interpretation of many (Westcott, Lightfoot, etc., who choose the translation ‘oracles’) is that it is an early word for the Gospels. The ‘Lord’s logia’ which Papias expounded would be the story of our Lord’s life and teaching, and Papias would mean that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (cf. Ro 3:2 where ‘oracles’ may mean only God’s sayings, but more naturally may be taken to mean the whole of the OT). Certainly the word in the 1st cent. was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative. Others deny that at so early a date a NT writing as such could be called ‘the Lord’s oracles,’ and take logia to mean ‘discourses.’ But from this point critics have diverged. Many understand Papias to mean that Matthew wrote our Lord’s sayings only; but this does not appear from his words. The argument against the translation ‘oracles’ is deprived of force if we understand the reference to be, not necessarily to a written record, but to the Gospel story pure and simple, whether written or oral. Papias would then mean that Matthew wrote down the Gospel story in Hebrew. Even if we take the translation ‘discourses’ or ‘sayings,’ it is extremely unlikely that Papias meant that Matthew’s Gospel contained no narrative, though it is quite likely that discourse predominated in it. (For Renan’s theory, see art. MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]).

(b) What does Papias mean about the original language of Matthew?—All the testimony as to its being Aramaic [‘Hebrew’] probably reduces itself to this one sentence. One interpretation is that Matthew wrote down Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic, but did not expound them, and that Papias’ own book had this object. But most writers understand Papias to mean that individuals translated Matthew’s work into their own language for themselves. If so, this period must have been over in Papias’ time, for he uses the past tense ‘interpreted’; he must have had a Greek Matthew before him. And our Mt. is clearly an original composition, derived from Greek sources, such as Mk. and other documents, at any rate for the most part (see art. GOSPELS), and is not a translation from Aramaic. There is no reason for thinking that the Matthæan Gospel actually used by Papias was other than ours. We have then to ask, Did Papias make a mistake about the original language? We know that there was a ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ current early in the 2nd cent., known to Hegesippus, probably to the writer of the Clementine Homilies, perhaps to Ignatius. Jerome knew of it and gives us extracts from it; and Epiphanius knew of a derived or kindred Gospel, used by the sect of the Nazarenes and containing several episodes different from our canonical narrative, e.g. in connexion with our Lord’s baptism, and His appearance to James after the Resurrection (cf. 1 Co 15:7). In this Gospel the Holy Spirit is called the ‘Mother’ of Christ, the word ‘Spirit’ being feminine in Aramaic. Most critics (but Hilgenfeld and Harnack are exceptions) agree that this Gospel is later than our canonical four; Zahn gives good reasons for thinking that it is derived directly from our Mt.; and it is possible that Papias made the mistake fallen into later by Jerome, and, knowing that there was an Aramaic Gospel in existence purporting to be by Matthew (though he had apparently never seen it), thought that it was St.

Matthew’s in reality. Eusebius says that he was a man of not much understanding. He may, then, have erroneously thought that St. Matthew, writing in Palestine for Jewish Christians, must have written in Aramaic (Salmon). Another solution, however, is more commonly received. Papias is our only authority before Irenæus for attributing a Gospel to St. Matthew. Possibly then the Apostle Matthew may have written in Aramaic a document incorporated in, or largely drawn upon by, our First Gospel—e.g. the original of the Greek ‘non-Markan document’ (see art. GOSPELS); and this fact may account for his name being attached even early in the 2nd cent. to the First Gospel. Both these solutions seem to be quite possible; but it is not possible to suppose that our First Gospel was originally written in Aramaic.

Quotations from Mt. are found in the Epistle of ‘Barnabas’ (c. A.D. 100?), one with the formula ‘as it is written.’

2. Contents, sources, and characteristics of the Gospel. The Birth narrative (chs. 1, 2) rests on an unknown source (see LUKE [GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 3), and is independent of the other Synoptics. The Baptist’s preaching, Jesus’ baptism and temptation, the early ministry, and the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John (chs. 3, 4) follow the ‘Petrine tradition’ with additions from the non-Markan source (esp. in the Baptism and Temptation), from which also the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5–7) comes. The narrative of the Galilæan ministry (which extends from 4:12 to 16:20) is taken mainly from these two sources, but the order of neither is strictly adhered to. It includes the Charge to the Twelve (ch. 10), a large number of parables (ch. 13) , and many miracles, some peculiar to Mt. From 16:21 to the end of the book is the story of the Passion with the preparation for it, including the Transfiguration (17:1–8), the Discourse on the

End (ch. 24), the parables which specially speak of the Passion and of the End of the World (20:1ff., 21:33ff., 22:1ff., 25:1ff., 14ff.), and warnings against Pharisaism (esp. ch. 23). In the story of the Passion itself Mt. follows Mk. very closely, but has some additions.

We may now consider the manner in which the First Evangelist has treated his sources. We are at once struck with a great difference of order. Incidents are grouped together according to subject rather than to chronology. The Sermon on the Mount is a collection of sayings which were uttered at different times, as we see from Lk., where they occur in various contexts ( Lk 6:20–49, 11:2–4, 12:22ff., 58ff. etc.). It contains a passage (Mt 5:20) which would suggest ( if Mt. were a chronological work) that the breach with the Pharisees had already, at that early stage, taken place; whereas Mk. shows how gradual the breach was (see the various stages in Mk 2:18ff., 24, 3:22, 7:5). At first Jesus treats the Pharisees gently, and gives them explanations of difficulties; only when they are obstinate does He denounce them. This shows that Mt 5:20 is not in its chronological order. Then, again, many of the parables in Mt. are grouped together (see ch. 13), but they would not have been spokes all at one time. The Charge to the Twelve (ch. 10) includes much of the Charge to the Seventy and other sayings to the disciples in Lk 6, 12–14, 17. The Discourse on the End in Mt. is grouped (see § 5). The groups in Mt. are often closed with a formula taken from Dt 31:1 [LXX]; thus—7:28 (Sermon on the Mount), 11:1 (Charge to the Twelve), 13:58 (group of parables), 19:1, 26:1 (groups of warnings). In fact, the First Evangelist aims at a synoptic view of Christ’s teaching as a whole rather than at a chronological statement. In one or two particulars only, Mt. seems to borrow the grouping tendency from Mk., as in the case of the anointing at Bethany (Mt 26:6ff., Mk 14:3ff.), which is related in close connexion with Judas’ compact with the chief priests (the Evangelists seem to mean that the ‘waste’ of the ointment greatly influenced the traitor’s action), whereas Jn. (12:1) gives the more chronologically correct position of the incident, ‘six days before the passover.’

Another feature of Mt. is the frequency of quotations from the OT, and the mystical interpretations given. The interests of the First Evangelist lie largely in the fulfilment of prophecy (5:17). The principles of interpretation common among the Jews are applied; a text, for example, which in its literal sense applies to the Exodus, is taken to refer to the departure of the Child Jesus from Egypt (2:15, Hos 11:1) , and the Evangelist conceives of events as coming to pass that prophecy might be fulfilled (1:22f.; cf. 2:15 , 17f., 23, 4:14ff., 8:17, 12:17ff., 13:35, 21:4f., 27:9f.). It is thought that the second ass, which is found only in the Matthæan narrative of the Triumphal Entry (21:1ff., the ass and ‘a colt the foal of an ass’), is due to the influence of the words of the prophecy, Zec 9:9; for the narrative is taken closely from the Petrine tradition, but the second ass of Mt. is an addition to it. So the ‘wine mingled with gall’ (27:34) for the ‘wine mingled with myrrh’ (lit. ‘myrrhed wine’) of the Petrine tradition (Mk 15:23) seems to be due to Ps 69:21. The treatment of the non-Markan source is similar. In Lk 11:29f. Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah and to the repentance of the Ninevites, to whom, by his preaching, Jonah was a sign; but the First Evangelist sees (with justice) a type of our Lord’s Resurrection in the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale (Mt 12:39ff.; see, further, Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 96f.).—The matter peculiar to Mt. is large in amount. Besides the Birth narratives we have the healing of the two blind men (9:27ff.), and of the blind and dumb demoniacs (9:32f., 12:22f., thought by some to be one incident), the walking of St. Peter on the water (14:28ff.), the coin in the fish’s mouth (17:24), Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands (27:19, 24f.), and some other incidents, especially in the Passion; also many sayings, and part of the Sermon on the Mount.

3. Purpose of the Gospel.—That it was written for Jewish Christians appears from the frequency of OT quotations, from the mystical interpretations, and from the absence of explanations of Jewish customs. Yet the author was no Judaizer. He alone tells us of the visit of the Gentile Magi; with Lk, he relates the healing of the Gentile centurion’s servant (8:5f.); and the admission of the Gentiles to the Kingdom and the rejection of some of the Jews is announced in 8:11f. (cf. 21:43). The Gospel is to be preached, and baptism and discipleship are to be given, to all nations (28:19).

4. Author.—The question of authorship has partly been anticipated in § 1. The earliest MSS give the title simply as ‘According to Matthew,’ and similar titles to the other Gospels. The titles need not be, indeed almost certainly are not, those of the original authors, but they must have been applied at a very early date. What do they imply? It has been thought that they meant merely that the Gospels reflected the preaching of the persons named (so Bartlet in Hastings’ DB iii. 297). But in that case the Second Gospel would be entitled ‘According to Peter,’ a title very close to Justin Martyr’s ‘Memoirs of Peter,’ which probably refers to Mk. (see art. MARK

[GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 1). There can be little doubt that those who used the title in the second half of the 2nd cent. meant it to imply authorship. It is a question, however, whether at the first the phrase actually meant that the Gospel in its latest form was the work of the author named. For lack of external information as to the First Gospel, we are driven to internal evidence. But this would not lead us to think of the author or (if the phrase be preferred) the editor who brought the Gospel into its present form as an Apostle and eye-witness. Unlike Jn., which claims to be written by an eye-witness (Jn. 1:14, 19:35),—a claim fully borne out by internal evidence,—and unlike Mk., which abounds in autoptic characteristics,—though in that case we have reason to think that they come not from the writer, but from the writer’s teacher,—the First Gospel has none of the marks of an eye-witness. The autoptic characteristics of the Petrine tradition have in many cases been taken away by the alterations introduced by the First Evangelist (see art. MARK

[GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 4). The conclusion is that it was not the Apostle Matthew who gave us the Gospel in its present form. The name comes simply from ecclesiastical testimony of the 2 nd cent., and not from the sacred writings themselves. Yet the Matthæan tradition is strong. Even Papias, apparently, thought that the Greek Matthæan Gospel which he used was a translation of the Apostle’s work. And there is no rival claimant to the authorship. On the other hand, Matthew, as an Apostle, was a sufficiently prominent person for an anonymous work to be assigned to him, especially if he had written a work which was one of its sources. These considerations may lead us to prefer the second solution mentioned above, in § 1 (b)—that Matthew the Apostle composed the Aramaic original of the Greek ‘non-Markan document,’ the ‘Logia’ ( not consisting of sayings only, but of sayings and narrative combined), and that in this way his name became attached to the First Gospel. The real author must remain unknown. That the work of an Apostle should have entirely disappeared is not a very serious difficulty when we reflect on the number of St. Paul’s Epistles that have perished.

5. Date.—Irenæus (Hær. iii. 1. 1) explicitly states that Matthew wrote first, ‘while Peter and

Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome,’ but that Mark wrote ‘after their departure.’ In the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180–200?), a list of NT books, Mt. seems to have come before the rest, though, as it is incomplete at the beginning, this is not certain. This probably was also the general opinion of the succeeding ages, and finds an echo in Augustine’s dictum that Mk. is an abbreviation of Mt. But internal evidence strongly negatives the idea of the priority of Mt. (see MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]). Though it is possible to make some reservations as to editorial touches, Mk. is seen to have been in the hands of the Matthæan writer; and whatever date we fix for it must be the earliest limit for Mt. We can get a further indication from the Discourse on the End (Mt 24:1ff.). Both in Mt. and Mk. (whatever be thought of Lk.) the discourse is reported as if the fulfilment were only in prospect, and in a manner that would be unlikely if the siege of Titus had already taken place. This conclusion becomes still more likely when we compare the three Synoptics together. They all three begin with the destruction of the Temple (Mk 13:1, 2 and || Mt. Lk.). In Mk. and Lk. there follows a discourse which apparently speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mk 13:5–20), and then there comes in Mk. and partly in Lk. a passage which seems to refer to the end of the world (Mk 13:21–37). But the First Evangelist, as so often, weaves together the sayings of Jesus which in Mk. are distinct, and makes the two events apparently one. (Cf. Mt 24:3 with Mk 13:4, Lk 21:7). Thus the writer must have thought that both events would be synchronous, and therefore must have written his account of the prophecy before the Fall of Jerusalem. That this is so we may see by a contrast. The Fourth Evangelist gives a prophecy of our Lord which had been fulfilled when he wrote; but he refers to the fulfilment (Jn 21:18f., the death of St. Peter). It is, of course, possible that the Discourse was written down as we have it in Mt. before A.D. 70, and that a later writer incorporated it unchanged. But would not the later writer have betrayed some consciousness of the fulfilment of the prophecy? For these reasons a date before A.D. 70 is probable. But this conclusion is much disputed, and in any case we must acknowledge that the authorship and date of the First Gospel are among the most perplexing of all NT problems.

A. J. MACLEAN.

MATTHEW’S BIBLE.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, § 20.

MATTHIAS (‘gift of Jehovah’).—The disciple who was nominated against Joseph Barsabbas (see JOSEPH [in NT], No. 6) and chosen to fill the place of Judas. Of his antecedents the NT records nothing beyond the fact that he had been a disciple from the beginning of the Lord’s ministry; and of his subsequent career it tells nothing whatsoever.

Tradition is more lavish of information. Matthias, it is said, had been one of the Seventy (cf. Lk 10:1) , and he justified his election by evangelizing the savages of Ethiopia and writing two books—a Gospel

and a work entitled ‘Traditions’ (Paradoseis). From the latter Clement of Alexandria quotes two sayings: (1) ‘Wonder at the things before you’ (‘making this,’ he explains, ‘the first step to the knowledge beyond.’ Cf. Plato’s doctrine that wonder is the beginning of philosophy); (2) ‘If an elect man’s neighbour sin, the elect man has sinned.

It is thought by some that the election of Matthias was a blunder, due to the impetuosity of St. Peter; and there is reason for the opinion. (1) It was a hasty step. It was taken during the season when the disciples were waiting, according to the Lord’s command (Ac 1:4), for ‘the promise of the Father,’ the Baptism of the Spirit. (2) The method was objectionable. (a) The qualification required in the new Apostle was not a spiritual one: he must be a man who had been with Jesus all along. It was his lack of this qualification that made the Jewish Christians deny St. Paul’s Apostleship. (b) They prayed for guidance, and then, instead of trusting to Divine direction, they had recourse to the superstitious practice of casting lots—a practice nowhere else observed in the Apostolic Church. Had they waited until they were endued with power from on high, they would have acted otherwise. As a matter of fact the election of Matthias was set aside by God. The true successor to the vacant office was St. Paul.

DAVID SMITH.

MATTITHIAH.—1. One of the sons of Nebo who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:43) ; called in 1 Es 9:35 Mazitias. 2. A Korahite Levite (1 Ch 9:31). 3. A Levite of the guild of Jeduthun (1 Ch 15:18, 21, 25:3, 21). 4. An Asaphite Levite (1 Ch 16:5). 5. See Mattathias, No.

MATTOCK.—The mattock of Is 7:25 is rather the hoe with which land inaccessible to the plough was hoed—noun and verb being the same here, cf. 5:6 RV ‘hoed’ for AV ‘digged.’ For descriptions and illustrations of the triangular hoe and the mattock, or pick, of modern Palestine, see PEFSt, 1901, p. 110 f., and Hastings’ DB iii. 306. The passage 1 S 13:20f. is very corrupt, and in v. 20 at least’ mattock’ should probably be ‘goad.’ The same applies to 2 Ch 34:6, where AVm suggests ‘mauls,’ and RV has ‘ruins.’

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MAUL.—See ARMOUR AND ARMS, § 1 (f).

MAUZZIM.—The Heb. phrase ’ĕlōah mā’uzzīm (Dn 11:38) has been very variously understood. We need not discuss the different renderings that have been proposed, as there is now practical agreement to tr. with RV ‘god of fortresses,’ and ‘fortresses’ for mā’uzzim again in v. 38. It is not so easy to decide which god is intended. Antiochus Epiphanes is the king referred to. He had begun to build a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20). Holtzmann (Guthe’s Bibelwbrterbuch, s.v.), and others, therefore, conclude that he is the god meant. But Antiochus also sent ‘an old man from Athens’ to ‘pollute the temple in Jerusalem, and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius’ (2 Mac 6:2). Hence some have claimed consideration for the Olympian Jupiter. On the available data, no certain decision is possible.

W. EWING.

MAW.—This Old Eng. word for the stomach is used by AV in Dt 18:3, and by RV in Jer

51:34. Coverdale tr. 1 K 22:34, ‘A certayne man bended his bowe harde and shott the kynge of Israel betwene the mawe and the longes.’

MAZITIAS (1 Es 9:35) = Mattithiah, Ezr 10:43.

MAZZALOTH, MAZZAROTH.—See STARS.

MAZZEBAH.—See PILLAR.

MAZZOTH.—See LEAVEN, PASSOVER.

MEADOW.—This word disappears from RV in the only two places where it is found in AV (Gn 41:2, 18, Jg 20:33). In the former passages the Heb. reads āchū, an Egyptian word which probably means ‘reed grass’ (RV), and may possibly cover the natural pasture lands of old Egypt. It occurs again in Job 8:11 (EV ‘rush,’ RVm ‘papyrus’). In Jg 20:33, where RV simply transliterates ‘Maareh-geba,’ it is practically certain that we should read ma’arab, and translate ‘from the west of Gibeah’; see GIBEAH, No. 2. In RV ‘meadows’ stands for ‘ārōth (Is 19:7, AV ‘paper reeds’), where it is possible that ‘ārōth may be a misreading for āchōth.

W. EWING.

MEAL.—See FOOD, § 2.

MEAL-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, § 11.

MEALS.—In the art. FOOD attention was confined to the various articles of diet supplied by the vegetable and animal kingdoms. It now remains to study the methods by which these were prepared for the table, the times at which, and the manner in which, they were served.

1. Preparation of food.—The preparation of the food of the household was the task of the women thereof, from the days of Sarah (Gn 18:6) to those of Martha. Only the houses of royalty and the great nobles had apartments specially adapted for use as kitchens, with professional cooks, male (1 S 9:23) and female (8:13). At the chief sanctuaries, also, there must have been some provision for the cooking of the sacrificial meals (1 S 2:13ff.), although Ezekiel (46:24 RV) is the first to mention ‘boiling-houses’ in this connexion (cf. Ex 29:31, Lv 8:31).

The usual method of cooking and serving meat can have differed but little from that most commonly observed at the present day in Syria. The meat is cut into larger or smaller pieces (1 S 2:13, Ezk 24:3ff.; cf. Micah’s telling metaphor 3:8), and put into the cooking-pot with water. It is then left to stew, vegetables and rice being added. Such a stew—with perhaps crushed wheat in place of rice—was the ‘savoury meat’ which Rebekah prepared for her husband from ‘two kids of the goats’ (Gn 27:9). When meat was boiled in a larger quantity of water than was required for the more usual stew, the result was the broth of Jg 6:19f., from which we learn that the meat and the broth might be served separately. The cooking-pots were of earthenware and bronze ( Lv 6:28. For an account of cooking utensils generally, with references to illustrations, see HOUSE, §

9).

In addition to boiling, or, as in EV more frequently, seething (‘sod,’ ‘sodden,’ Gn 25:29, Ex 12:9 etc.; but Amer. RV has ‘boil’ throughout), roasting was much in vogue, and is, indeed, the oldest of all methods of preparing meat. Originally the meat was simply laid upon hot stones from which the embers had been removed, as in the parallel case of the ‘cake baken on the coals’ (1 K 19:8 RVm). The fish of which the disciples partook by the Sea of Galilee was cooked on the charcoal itself. A more refined mode of roasting was by means of a spit of Iron or wood. In NT times the Passover lamb had always to be roasted in an oven, suspended by a spit of pomegranate laid across the mouth.

Eggs (Job 6:5, Lk 11:12), we read in the Mishna, might be cooked by being boiled in the shell, or broken and fried, or mixed with oil and fried in a saucepan.

As regards the important group of the cereals, wheat and barley ears were roasted on an iron plate or in a pan, producing the ‘parched corn’ (Amer. RV ‘parched grain’) of OT. A porridge of coarse wheat or barley meal has also been referred to under FOOD, § 2. The seeds of the leguminous plants were mostly boiled (Gn 25:29; cf. 2 K 4:38). A ‘good savour’ (1 Es 1:12) was imparted to the stew by the addition of other vegetables of a more pungent character, such as onions. In short, it may be affirmed that the Hebrew housewives were in no way behind their modern kinsfolk of the desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ‘the Arab housewives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it and putting thereto only a little salt and samn [ clarified butter].’

The direction in which Hebrew, like most Eastern, cooking diverged most widely from that of our northern climate was in the more extensive use of olive oil, which served many of the purposes of butter and fat among ourselves. Not only was oil mixed with vegetables, but it was largely used in cooking fish and eggs (as we have just seen), and in the finer sorts of baking. The poor widow of Zarephath’s ‘little oil’ was not intended for her lamps, but to bake her ‘handful of meal’ withal (1 K 17:12). The flour was first mixed with oil, then shaped into cakes and afterwards baked in the oven (Lv 2:4); or a species of thin flat cake might first be baked in the usual way and then smeared with oil. The latter are the ‘wafers anointed with oil’ of Ex 29:2 etc. Honey and oil were also used together in the baking of sweet cakes (Ezk 16:13, 19). In this connexion it is interesting to note that while Ex 16:31 compares the taste of manna to that of ‘wafers made with honey,’ the parallel passage, Nu 11:8, compares it to ‘the taste of cakes baked with oil’ ( RVm ).

2. The two chief meals.—Among the Hebrews, as among their contemporaries in classical lands, it was usual to have but two meals, properly so called, in the day. Before beginning the work of the day the farmer in the country and the artizan in the city might ‘break their fast’ ( Jn 21:12, 15 RV) by eating a morsel of bread—the ‘morning morsel’ as it is called in the Talmud— with some simple relish, such as a few olives; but this was in no sense a meal. Indeed, to ‘eat [ a full meal] in the morning’ was a matter for grave reproach (Ec 10:16).

The first meal-time (Ru 2:14 RV), speaking generally, was at an hour when the climate demanded a rest from strenuous exertion, namely, about noon; the second and more important meal of the two was taken a little before or after sunset, when the labourers had ‘come in from the field’ (Lk 17:7). This was the ‘supper time’ of 14:17. The former, the ariston of the Greeks—in EV rendered dinner, Mt 22:4, also Lk 11:38 but RVm here breakfast—was in most cases a very simple meal. ‘A servant plowing or keeping sheep’ or harvesting would make his midday meal of bread soaked in light wine with a handful of parched corn (Ru 2:14), or of ‘pottage and bread broken into a bowl’ (Bel 33), or of bread and boiled fish (Jn 21:13). All the evidence, including that of Josephus, goes to show that the second or evening meal was the principal meal of the day.

3. Position at meals.—Within the period covered by OT the posture of the Hebrews at meals, in so far as the men were concerned, was changed from sitting to reclining. In the earliest period of all, the Hebrews took their meals sitting, or more probably, squatting on the ground (Gn 37:25 etc.), like the Bedouin and fellahin of the present day, among whom squatting ‘with both knees downwards, and with the legs gathered tailor-fashion, alone is the approved fashion when at table’ (PEFSt, 1905, 124). The food was served in a large wooden bowl placed upon a mat of leather or plaited grass, round which the company gathered. The first advance on this primitive practice was to present the food on a wooden or other tray, set upon a low stand raised but a few inches from the ground. The next step was the introduction of seats, which would naturally follow upon the change from nomadic to agricultural life after the conquest of Canaan. Saul and his mess-mates sat upon ‘seats’ (1 S 20:25), the precise form of which is not specified, as did

Solomon and the high officials of his court (1 K 10:5, where the queen of Sheba admires the ‘sitting,’ i.e. the seated company of his servants; cf. 13:20 etc.).||

With the growth of wealth and luxury under the monarchy, the Syrian custom of reclining at meals gradually gained ground. In Amos’ time it was still looked upon as an innovation peculiar to the wealthy nobles (Am 3:12, 6:4). Two centuries later, Ezekiel is familiar with ‘a stately bed’ or couch (as Est 1:5 RV) with ‘a table prepared before it’ (Ezk 23:41). In the post-exilic period the custom must have taken firm root, for by the end of the 3rd cent. B.C. it was probably universal save among the very poor (Jth 12:15, To 2:1). In NT, accordingly, whenever ‘sitting at meat’ is mentioned, we are to understand ‘reclining,’ as the margin of RV everywhere reminds us. At table, that is to say, the men—for women and children still sat—reclined on couches with wooden frames, upholstered with mattresses and provided with cushions, on which they leaned the left elbow (see Sir 41:19), using only the right hand to eat with (see § 5 below).

4. From the Mishna we learn that in NT times the tables were chiefly of wood, and furnished with three or four feet. They were lower and smaller than with us. The couches or divans were as a rule capable of accommodating several people. In the houses of the great each guest at a banquet might have a couch and table for himself. The Greek custom was to assign two, the Roman three, guests to each couch. As each guest reclined on his left elbow, the person next on his right on the same couch could be said to ‘recline in the bosom’ of his fellow-guest. Such were the relative positions of John and Jesus at the Last Supper (Jn 13:23 RV).

5. Procedure at meals, etc. In our Lord’s day, as we learn from the Gospels, great importance was attached by the Jewish authorities to the ‘washing of hands’ before meals. This consisted of pouring water (which had been kept from possible defilement in large closed jars, the ‘waterpots of stone’ of Jn 2:6) over the hands and allowing it to run to the wrist (cf. Mk 7:3 RVm and commentaries).

This washing over, the food was brought in by the women of the household (Mk 1:31, Lk

10:40); in wealthy families by male slaves, the ‘ministers’ of 1 K 10:5, ‘waiters’ of Jth 13:1 , ‘servants’ of Jn 2:5, 9. At this stage grace was said. The date of the introduction of this custom is unknown, for 1 S 9:13 is not a case in point. In NT the blessing before a meal has the repeated sanction of our Lord’s example (Mt 15:36, 26:25, etc.; cf. Ac 27:35 for Paul).

As to what may be termed, with the Mishna, ‘the vessels for the service’ of the table, these naturally varied with the social position of the household, and more or less with the progress of the centuries. In early times earthenware vessels would be used, for which, as civilization advanced, bronze would be substituted, and even in special cases, silver and gold (see HOUSE, § 9). Bread, we know, was usually served in shallow wicker baskets (Ex 29:23). The main part of the meal in the homes of the people will have been served in one or more large bowls or basins, of earthenware or bronze, according to circumstances. Such was the ‘dish’ into which our Lord dipped the ‘sop’ (Mt 26:23, Mk 14:20). A shallower dish is that rendered ‘charger’ in Mt 14:8 , 11, and ‘platter,’ Lk 11:39.

In the case of a typical dish of meat and vegetables, prepared as described above, those partaking of the meal helped themselves with the fingers of the right hand (Pr 19:24 = 26:15 RV, Mt 26:23),—knives and forks being, of course, unknown at table,—while the more liquid parts were secured, as at the present day, by using pieces of thin wafer-like bread as improvised spoons, or simply by dipping a morsel of bread, the sop of Jn 13:26, into the dish. It was customary, as this passage shows, for the head of the family to hand pieces of food to various members; these are the portions of 1 S 1:4.

6. In the event of a Jew of some position resolving to entertain his friends at dinner, it was usual to send the invitations by his servants (Mt 22:3), and later to send them again with a reminder on the appointed day (v. 4, Lk 14:17). Arrived at his host’s residence, the guest is received with a kiss (Lk 7:45), his feet are washed (v. 44), and his head is anointed with perfumed oil (v. 38; cf. Ps 23:5). He himself is dressed in white gala costume (Ec 9:8; see DRESS, § 7), for to come to such a feast in one’s everyday garments would be an insult to one’s host ( cf. Mt 22:11f.). After the ‘chief places’ (Mt 23:6 RV; AV ‘uppermost rooms’) on the various couches had been assigned to the principal guests, the hands duly washed, and the blessing said, the meal began. This would consist of several courses, beginning with light appetizing dishes, such as salted fish, pickled olives, etc. During the course of the dinner those whom the host wished to single out for special distinction would receive, as a mark of favour, some dainty portion, such as Samuel had reserved for Saul (1 S 9:23). These were the messes sent by Joseph to his brethren (Gn 43:34,—for a list of the parts of an animal in order of merit, so to say, used for this purpose at a fellahin banquet to-day, see PEFSt, 1905, 123).

At the close of the dinner the hands were again washed, the attendants bringing round the wherewithal, and tables with all sorts of fruit were brought in, over which a second blessing was said. Although wine was served in the first part of the banquet as well, it was at this second stage that the ‘fruit of the vine’ was chiefly enjoyed. The wine-cups were filled from the large mixing bowls (Jer 35:5) in which the wine had been diluted with water and perfumed with aromatic herbs. It was usual, also, to appoint a ‘ruler of the feast’ (Jn 2:8 RV; cf. Sir 32:1) to regulate the manner and the quantity of the drinking, and to enforce penalties in the case of any breach of etiquette. ‘Music and dancing’ (Lk 15:25) and other forms of entertainment, such as the guessing of riddles (Jg 14:12ff.), were features of this part of the banquet. For instruction in the ‘minor morals’ of the dinner-table, Jesus ben-Sira has provided the classical passages, Sir 31:12–18, 32:3–12, expanding the wise counsel of the canonical author of Pr 23:1 f.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MEARAH.—Mentioned amongst the districts of Palestine that had yet to be possessed ( Jos 13:4). The text is doubtful.

MEASURES.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

MEASURING LINE, MEASURING REED.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, §§ 1, 3.

MEAT.—This word is used in AV for food in general, as it is in Scotland still. Thus 2 Es 12:51 ‘I had my meat of the herbs’; cf. Hall, Works i. 806, ‘There was never any meat, except the forbidden fruit, so deare bought as this broth of Jacob.’

MEAT-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, § 11.

MEBUNNAI.—The name in 2 S 23:27 of one of David’s thirty heroes. It is a scribal error for Sibbecai, the form which has been preserved in the parallel lists, 1 Ch 11:29, 27:11, and also 2 S 21:18 = 1 Ch 20:4.

MECHERATHITE.—1 Ch 11:36, prob. for ‘Maachathite.’¹MECONAH.—See MEKONAH.

MEDABA (1 Mac 9:36) = Medeba (wh. see).

MEDAD.—See ELDAD.

MEDAN.—One of the sons of Abraham and Keturah (Gn 25:2 = 1 Ch 1:32). The existence of such a tribe, however, is very doubtful. In Gn 37:36 ‘Medanites’ is miswritten for Midianites

(see RVm), and there is every likelihood that in the former passage ‘Medan’ is a doublet of ‘Midian,’ the next word in the verse. Medan is unknown elsewhere in the Bible, nor is it represented by the name of any people in any extra-Biblical document. To connect it with the name of an Arabian god Madān, or with the similar name of a wady in N.W. Arabia, is very hazardous, both because the associations are remote, and because the word-form is common in Semitic, and is liable to occur in various relations.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MEDEBA (Nu 21:30, Jos 13:9, 16, 1 Ch 19:7, Is 15:2).—A town in the Mishor, or ‘plain’ E. of Jordan, an hour and a half S. of Heshbon on the Roman road from Heshbon to Kerak. It was taken from Moab by Sihon and then conquered by Israel (Nu 21:24–35) and assigned to Reuben (Jos 13:9–16 [v. 9 ‘all the tableland—Medeba to Dibon’; v. 16 ‘all the tableland to Medeba’]). The Syrians who came to assist Ammon (1 Ch 19:6–15) pitched at Medeba, which was apparently then Ammonite. Later, Moab regained Medeba, for Omri, according to the Moabite Stone, 1. 8, took Mehedeba, and Israel held it forty years, till Mesha recovered it and rebuilt the cities held by Omri and Ahab. Joram and Jehoshaphat made an unsuccessful attempt to retake these cities (2 K 3), but Jeroboam II. drove out the Moabites. Moab again held Medeba (Is 15:2 , and probably also Jer 48:2; but see MADMEN). In Maccabæan times it was the stronghold of a robber clan, Jambri, which killed John, eldest son of Mattathias. Jonathan a venged this (1 Mac 9:36–42; Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 2, 4). John Hyrcanus besieged Medeba (Jos. Ant. XIII. ix. 1).

Alexander Jannæus took it from the Arabians, and Hyrcanus II. promised to restore it to Aretas (ib. XIII. xv. 4, XIV. i. 4). During the Byzantine period Medeba was a flourishing Christian centre, the seat of a bishopric, and represented at the Council of Chalcedon. In 1880 a colony of Christians from Kerak settled there. Many ancient remains have come to light,—a large pool with solid walls, remains of gates, towers, four churches, some fine mosaics, especially a deeply interesting and important mosaic map of Christian Palestine and Egypt.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

MEDES, MEDIA.—A people and country called by the same word, Madai—in Hebrew and Assyrian. The Medes were the first of the Iranian immigrants to form a settled government on the borders of the old Semitic realm. As early as the 9th cent. B.C. they began to occupy the mountainous country south and south-east of the Caspian Sea, and by the middle of the 7th cent. their territory extended southward to the borders of Elam. Their chief city was Ecbatana, the Achmetha of Ezr 6:2 and the modern Hamadān. The Assyrians opposed them, and finally subdued them under Tiglath-pileser III. and Sargon, and the latter deported (B.C. 721) some of them as captives to Samaria (2 K 17:6, 18:11). In the later years of the Assyrian empire they regained their independence, and under their king, Cyaxares, who had formed an alliance with the rising Chaldæan power, they destroyed the city of Nineveh (B.C. 607), and therewith the Assyrian dominion itself. By agreement with the Chaldæans, who restricted themselves to the lowlands, they speedily occupied the northern highlands as far as Cappadocia. Meanwhile the southern immigration from eastern Iran had settled to the east of the Persian Gulf and founded the Persian community. The southern portion of Elam soon fell to them, but they became vassals of their Median kindred. Under Cyrus the Great, Astyages, king of the Medes, yielded his throne to the Persians (B.C. 550), who henceforth held the hegemony of the Iranian race.

Among the Semitic peoples, however, the name of the Medes continued long to be more familiar than that of the Persians, partly by reason of their greater antiquity, and partly because the Medes formed the principal portion of the Iranian population. Hence the word is more frequent than ‘Persia,’ except in the later books of the OT. Madai is mentioned in Gn 10:2 among the sons of Japheth, with no allusion to the Persians. So the Medes and not the Persians are mentioned in prophecy as the prospective destroyers of Babylon (Is 13:17, 21:2, Jer 25:25 , 51:11; cf. ELAM, p. 211^b). in Ac 2:9 the Medes are vaguely mentioned, where the reference is to Jews or proselytes living in Media and using the language of the country. Media was of great importance in the history of religion, since it was there, probably in the early years of the 7 th cent. B.C., that Zoroaster lived and taught.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MEDIATOR, MEDIATION.—The word ‘mediator’ (Gr. mesītēs) occurs in the NT, once of Moses as the mediator of the Law (Gal 3:19, 20), in the other instances of Christ as the ‘one mediator between God and man’ (1 Ti 2:5), and the mediator of a ‘better’ (He 8:5), or ‘new’ (9:15, 12:24, in latter passage ‘new’ in sense of ‘recent’) covenant. The verbal form occurs in He

6:17 [RV ‘interposed (Gr. mediated) with an oath’]. The LXX has the term once in Job 9:33 ( EV ‘daysman’). But the idea of mediation, that is, of God dealing with man, or man with God, not directly but through the interposition of another, has a leading place throughout Scripture. Different aspects of mediation, however, need to be distinguished. As regards the fundamental relation of man to God, Jesus, in the NT, is the one and sole Mediator.

1. The most general form of mediation is intercessory prayer. This is the privilege of all ( cf.

Ja 5:16). Well-known Scripture examples are the intercession of Abraham for Sodom (Gn 18:23– 33), of Moses for Israel (Ex 32:30–34), of Samuel for Israel (1 S 7:8–12). Jeremiah (15:1) singles out Moses and Samuel as the chief representatives of this form of prayer. Probably an element of intercession enters into all effective mediation. St. John (ch. 17) preserves the great intercessory prayer of Jesus after the Last Supper, and intercession is declared to be a chief exercise of Christ’s mediatorial function in heaven (Ro 8:34, He 7:25, 1 Jn 1:1). Intercessory prayer is a duty of the Christian (1 Ti 2:1, 2), but always and only in the name of Christ, who in the same context is declared to be the ‘one mediator’ (v. 5).

2. Mediation has a peculiar place in the formation of the great covenants. It is the singular fact in connexion with the covenant with Abraham of which St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews in different ways take notice, that it involved no mediator (Gn 12:1–3, 15, 17). It was a covenant of promise absolutely (Gal 3:15–18). This seems to be the force of St. Paul’s peculiar saying, ‘Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one’ (Gal 3:20; there were not, as in the covenant through Moses, two contracting parties; the covenant proceeded solely from God, and was unconditional). In He 6:13–18 this is carried further. God himself took the place of Mediator in this covenant, and, because He could swear by no higher than Himself, ‘interposed (mediated) with an oath’ in ratification of His promise (cf. Gn 22:15–18). It is different in the covenant with Israel at Sinai, where Moses is throughout (by God’s appointment and the people’s own desire, Ex 19:10–25, 20:18–21) the mediator between God and the people ( Gal 3:19, point of contrast between law and promise). Finally, mediation is the law in the ‘new’ and ‘better’ covenant, as the passages in Hebrews declare. The reason is that this perfect and eternal covenant, procuring forgiveness of sins, and removing all barriers to access to God, could be formed only on the basis of a reconciling sacrifice; and this Jesus alone, the Son of God, had the qualification to offer. It is noticeable, therefore, that all the passages that speak of Jesus as ‘Mediator’ do it in direct connexion with His sacrificial death; 1 Ti 2:5 ‘one mediator between

God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus’ connects with v. 6 ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’; He 9:15 declares: ‘For this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant’ (cf. Ro 3:25) ; 12:24, where to come ‘to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant’ is to come ‘to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel’; so also 8:6 (cf. the context, v. 3). It is this fact, that Jesus has made the perfect sacrifice for sin, coupled with His unique dignity, as Son of God, which constitutes Him the Mediator sui generis.

3. Here, accordingly, is brought to consummation the last great aspect of mediation in the OT—the mediation of a sacrificing priesthood. Prophets also might be called mediators, as commissioned revealers of the will of God to the people; but mediation is peculiarly connected with the functions of the priest. In earlier times the head of the family was the priest; an interesting example of patriarchal mediation is given in the Book of Job (1:5 for his sons; cf. 42:7–9 for his friends). Under the Law the people could approach God only through the Aaronic priesthood; but the mediatorial function was peculiarly vested in, and exemplified by, the high priest. To him it pertained, on the one hand, to represent the people before God (cf. the ephod and breastplate, with their precious stones graven with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, Ex 39:6–14), and to offer sacrifices for their sins (He 2:17, 8:3; he alone had the right of entry into the Holiest of all on the great annual Day of Atonement, He 9:7); and, on the other, to represent God to the people, in declaring His will by the Urim and Thummim, and blessing in His name (cf. Dt 10:8, 33:8, prerogatives of the high priest). This twofold aspect of the highpriestly function, as the Epistle to the Hebrews seeks to show, is in a perfect and abiding way realized in Christ, who is thus the one true Mediator, our ‘great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens’ (4:14). See ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION.

JAMES ORR.

MEDICINE.—Palestine was probably a comparatively healthy country in Bible times, as it is now. Its natural features in most localities would protect it from the usual endemic diseases of Oriental lands, and its want of harbours would to a great extent prevent the importation of epidemics (contrast the reputation of Egypt, as attested by Dt 7:15, 28:50, Am 4:10); moreover, the legislation of the Priestly Code, if it was ever observed, would have operated to prevent the spread of disease, and the existence of far-reaching destitution. These provisions, and the common occurrence of external and internal warfare, must also have tended to eliminate overcrowding as a cause of disease; but the ratio of population to area in ancient times is very difficult to estimate; the figures in 1 Ch 21:5 and 2 S 4:9 are clearly untrustworthy.

1. Jews believed in a definite connexion between health and virtue (cf. Is 58:8, Jer 8:15, 22).

Disease was popularly regarded as penal (Jn 9:2), and as sent by God either directly (Ex 4:11, Dt 32:39) or permissively by means of others (Job 2:7, Mk 9:17, 25). It might also be caused by human envy (Job 5:2), or by bodily excess (Sir 37:30, 31), but even so its vera causa was God’s direct authorization.

Under these circumstances healing was treated as a token of Divine forgiveness (Ex 15:26). And the connexion of priest with physician was correspondingly close. On the whole, the medical knowledge of the Bible peoples was very defective; nor are there any traces of medical education in Palestine. Jacob was embalmed by Egyptian physicians (Gn 50:2), but there must probably have been some Jewish practitioners at the time when Ex 21:19 was compiled. The word in Jer 8:22 means a ‘bandager.’ The writer of 2 Ch 16:12 seems to take the extreme view that it was a sin to consult physicians, but saner ideas are represented in Sir 38:2. Still, it may be doubted whether medical duties were not usually performed by priests (as in early Egypt), at any rate in the earlier OT times; certainly the priests had the supervision in the case of certain diseases, e.g. leprosy; and prophets also were applied to for medical advice (cf. 1 K 14:2, 17:18 , 2 K 4:22, 20:7). And even in Sir 38:14 the physician is regarded as having certain priestly duties, and the connexion between religion and medicine is seen in the counsel, given in that same chapter, that repentance and an offering shall precede the visit of the physician. In the NT we have St. Luke described as a physician (Col 4:14), and a somewhat depreciatory remark on physicians in Mt 5:26, which, however, is much toned down in Lk 8:43.

It is therefore probable that up till late times medicine was in the charge of the priests, whose knowledge must have been largely traditional and empirical. The sacrificial ritual would give them some knowledge of animal morphology, but human anatomy can scarcely have existed as a science at all, since up to about A.D. 100 the ceremonial objections to touching or dissecting the dead prevailed. Thus Bible references to facts of anatomy and physiology are very few in number. Blood was tabooed as food (Gn 9:4, Lv 17:11)—a highly important sanitary precaution, considering the facility with which blood carries microbes and parasites. A rudimentary embryology can be traced in Job 10:10, Ps 139:15, 16 (cf. Ec 11:5). But most of the physiological theories adverted to in the Bible are expressed in language of poetry and metaphor. On the whole, however, we may infer that the Jews (like other ancient peoples) regarded the heart as the seat of mental and moral activity (exceptions to this view are Dn 2:28, 4:5, 7:1), the reins or kidneys as the seats of impulse, affection, conscience (Jer 11:20, 12:2, Ps 7:9), the bowels as the organs of sympathy (Ps 40:8, Job 30:27). Proverbs about physicians seem to be alluded to in Mt 9:12, Lk 4:23, Sir 38:1. Except in the case of certain diseases, visitation of the sick is enjoined in the Talmud (though not in the OT), and enforced by Christ in Mt 25:36. 2. General terms for disease.—The words ‘sick,’ ‘sickness,’ ‘sicknesses,’ ‘disease,’ ‘diseased,’ ‘diseases,’ are of the most frequent occurrence, though they are not always used as the tr. of the same words in the original. Sometimes the term is qualified, e.g. ‘sickness unto death’ (Is 38:1), ‘sore sickness’ (1 K 17:17), ‘evil disease’ (Ps 41:8), ‘incurable disease’ (2 Ch 21:18). We also have ‘infirmity’ three times in the OT, in Lv 12:2 meaning periodic sickness, in Ps 77:10 as weakness from sickness, in Pr 18:14 as weakness generally. The term plague is sometimes used of a specific epidemic, at other times of sickness in general. There are also various figurative expressions for disease, and in some places it is described as inflicted by the angel of God, e.g. 2 S 24:16. In the NT, again, various Gr. words are translated by ‘sickness,’ ‘disease,’ ‘infirmity’; the allusion in 1 Co 11:30 may be to mental weakness, and in Ro 15:1 to weakness of conscience.

Some diseases, e.g. leprosy, were regarded as unclean, and those suffering from them were excluded from cities. But in general the sick were treated at home. As to the treatment we know very little. It is possible that in earlier times bleeding was not resorted to because of the taboo on blood, though in later times the Jews followed the universal practice. Pr 30:15 has been supposed to show a knowledge of the medicinal use of leeches; but this inference can by no means be drawn with any certainty from the context.

3. Specific diseases.—As a rule the Bible references to specific diseases are general and vague; and even where we find concrete mention of particular ailments, it is not always easy to decide what the exact nature of the maladies was. In some cases the symptoms are given, though sometimes very indefinitely.

In Dt 28:22 a group of terms is used for diseases which appear to resemble each other in the fact that they are sudden, severe, epidemic, and fatal. The first is called consumption. This may be phthisis, but more probable it means a kind of wasting fever, characterized by weakness and anæmia, often of long duration, and perhaps not unlike Mediterranean or Malta fever. The same word is used in Lv 26:16. The ‘consumption’ mentioned in Is 10:22, 28:22 AV does not appear to be a specific disease at all. This is followed in Deut. by fever; the same word in Lv 26:16 is rendered ‘burning ague’ by the AV, and the LXX translates it by the Greek word for ‘jaundice.’ Its symptoms are given in the passage of Lv.; it may be a sort of malarial fever which occurs in certain parts of Palestine, and is occasionally accompanied by jaundice. This may be the disease alluded to in Jn 4:26 and Lk 4:38, both instances at Capernaum. Then comes inflammation ( Dt 28:22 EV, LXX ague). This may be ague, or even typhoid, which is common in Palestine. Next we have ‘extreme burning’ (Dt 28:22 AV, RV ‘fiery heat,’ LXX ‘irritation’); either some unspecified kind of irritating disease, or erysipelas; but this latter disease is not of frequent occurrence in Palestine. The ‘sword’ (Dt 28:22 AV, RV ‘drought’) may be a form of disease, or more probably, like the next two words, may refer to a destruction of the earth’s fruits. The same word ‘sword’ in Zec 11:17 seems, from the symptoms described, to refer to a wasting paralysis. The descriptions given in Ps 39:11, Zec 14:12, Lv 26:39, Ezk 24:23, 33:10, Ps 38:5 are largely figurative; but the imagery may be taken from an attack of confluent smallpox, with its disfiguring and repulsive effects. It seems highly probable that smallpox was a disease of antiquity; perhaps the sixth plague of Egypt was of this character.

Allusions to pestilence or plague are exceedingly common in the OT. Thus at least four outbreaks took place among the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness, viz. Nu 11:33 (it has been suggested that the quails here mentioned may have come from a plaguestricken district) 14:37, 16:46, 25:9 (in this last case it may have been communicated by the Moabites). For other references to plague, cf. 2 S 24:15, 2 Ch 21:14, Ps 91:3, 6, Jer 21:9, 42:17 , perhaps 2 K 19:35. The bubonic plague was the periodic scourge of Bible lands. It has but a short period of incubation, spreads rapidly and generally, and is very fatal, death ensuing in a large proportion of cases, and nearly always within three days. No precautions against it are prescribed in the Levitical Code, because it was regarded as a special visitation of God. As the plague is not endemic in Palestine, the Jews probably incurred it by mixing with their neighbours. The emerods of 1 S 5:6 were tumours of a definite shape, and may therefore be the buboes of the plague. The tumours appeared somewhere in the lower part of the abdomen. Some have supposed them to be hæmorrhoids, by comparison with the phrase in Ps 78:66, but this is doubtful. The same word occurs in Dt 28:27.

Of diseases in the digestive organs the case in 2 Ch 21:19 is one of chronic dysentery in its worst form. That in Ac 28:8 (AV bloody flux) is also dysentery, which is very prevalent in Malta. The mention of hæmorrhage in this case shows that it was of the ulcerative or gangrenous type, which is very dangerous.

The results of intemperance are mentioned in Pr 23:29ff., Is 19:14.

The liver. The Hebrew physicians regarded many disorders as due to an alteration in the bile (cf. Job 16:15, Pr 7:23, La 2:11). The disorders alluded to in 1 Ti 5:23 were probably some kind of dyspepsia, apparently producing lack of energy (cf. 1 Ti 4:13–16); the symptoms are often temporarily relieved by the use of alcohol. In Ps 69:3 allusion is made to the dryness of throat produced by mental emotions of a lowering character; and in Is 16:11, Jer 4:10 to the flatulent distension of the colon due to the same cause.

Heart. There are few references to physical diseases affecting it. Pr 14:30 may be one. Cases of syncope seem to be recorded in Gn 45:26, 1 S 4:18, 28:20, Dn 8:27. The allusions to a ‘broken heart’ in Scripture are always metaphorical, but the theory that our Lord’s death was due to rupture of the heart deserves mention.

Paralysis or palsy. This is a disease of the central nervous system, which comes on rapidly as a rule, and disappears slowly, if at all. Such cases are mentioned in the NT, e.g. Mt 4:24, Lk 4:18, perhaps Ac 9:33. The case in Mt 8:6 may have been one of acute spinal meningitis, or some other form of especially painful paralysis. In the case of the withered hand of Mt 12:10 , Mk 3:1, Lk 6:8 a complete atrophy of the bones and muscles was probably the cause. The case in Ac 3:2 was possibly of the same nature. Such cases are probably intended also in Jn 5:3. The man in Jn 5:7 can hardly have been suffering from locomotor ataxia, as he could move himself, and his disease had lasted 38 years. Therefore this also was, in all likelihood, a case of withered limbs. The sudden attack mentioned in 1 K 13:4 was probably due to sudden hæmorrhage affecting some part of the brain, which may under certain circumstances be only temporary.

Apoplexy. A typical seizure is described in 1 S 25:37, due to hæmorrhage in the brain produced by excitement, supervening, in this particular instance, on a drinking bout (cf. also 1 Mac 9:55). The same sort of seizure may be referred to in 2 S 6:7, Ac 5:6–10.

Trance is mentioned in Gn 2:21, 15:12. But the cases in 1 S 26:12, Jg 4:21, Mt 8:24 were probably of sleep due to fatigue. Prophetic frenzy is alluded to in Nu 24:3, 4, 2 K 9:11 (cf. Is 8:18). Saul is an interesting psychical study: a man of weak judgment, violent passions, and great susceptibility, eventually succumbing to what seem to be recurring paroxysms of mania, rather than a chronic melancholia. A not uncommon type of monomania seems to be described in Dn 4 (the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar). In the NT various nervous affections are probably included among the instances of demoniac possession, e.g. Lk 11:14, Mt 12:22. In Lk 1:22, Ac 9:7 are apparently mentioned cases of temporary aphasia due to sudden emotion. (Cf. also Dn 10:15.)

Deafness and dumbness. Many of the NT cases of possession by dumb spirits were probably due to some kind of insanity or nervous disease, e.g. Mt 9:32, Mk 9:25. In Mk 7:32 stammering is joined to deafness. Is 28:11 and 32:4 (cf. 33:19) probably refer to unintelligible rather than defective speech. Moses’ slowness of speech and tongue (cf. Ex 4:10) was probably only lack of oratorical fluency. Patience with the deaf is recommended in Lv 19:14.

Epilepsy. The case in Mt 17:15, Mk 9:18, Lk 9:38 is of genuine epileptic fits; the usual symptoms are graphically described. Like many epileptics, the patient had been subject to the fits from childhood. The ‘pining away’ mentioned in the Markan account is characteristic of a form of the disease in which the fits recur frequently and cause progressive exhaustion. The word used in Mt. to describe the attack means literally ‘to be moon-struck’; the same word is found in Mt

4:24, and an allusion to moon-stroke occurs in Ps 121:6. It was a very general belief that epilepsy was in some way connected with the phases of the moon. Such a theory is put forward by Vicary, the physician of Henry VIII., at so late a date as 1577.

Sunstroke. This is mentioned in Ps 121:6, Is 49:10, and cases of apparently genuine siriasis are described in 2 K 4:10 and Jth 8:2. This seizure is very rapid and painful, accompanied by a great rise in temperature, passing speedily into coma, and resulting as a rule in death within a very short space of time. The cure effected in 2 K 4 was plainly miraculous. Heat syncope, rather than sunstroke, seems to have been the seizure in Jonah’s case (Jon 4:8). He fainted from the heat, and on recovery was conscious of a severe headache and a feeling of intense prostration.

Dropsy is common in Jerusalem. The cure of a case of dropsy is recorded in Lk 14:2.

Pulmonary disease as such finds no mention in Scripture. The phrase used in 1 K 17:17 , ‘there was no breath left in him,’ is merely the ordinary way of stating that he died.

Gout. This disease is very uncommon among the people of Palestine; and it is not, as a rule, fatal. The disease in his feet from which Asa suffered (1 K 15:23, 2 Ch 16:12) has usually been supposed to be gout, though one authority suggests that it was articular leprosy, and another that it was senile gangrene. The passages quoted give us no clue to the nature of the disease in question, nor do they state that it caused his death. Josephus describes Asa as dying happily in a good old age. The OT records remark only that he suffered from a disease in the feet, which began when he was advanced in years.

Under the heading surgical diseases may be classed the spirit of infirmity, affecting the woman mentioned in Lk 13:11, 13, who, though she could attend the synagogue meetings, was bowed together and unable to lift herself. This was probably a case of senile kyphosis, such as not infrequently occurs with aged women, and sometimes with men, who have spent their lives in agricultural or horticultural labour, which necessitates constant curvature of the body.

Crook-backedness (Lv 21:20) disqualified a man for the priesthood. This disease is one which can occur in youth, and is due to caries of the vertebræ. The collections of bones found in Egypt justify the inference that such curvatures must have been fairly common in Egypt.

Fracture of the skull. A case is recorded in Jg 9:53, where insensibility did not immediately supervene, showing the absence of compression of the brain. In Ac 20:9 fatal compression and probably a broken neck were caused by the accident. The fall in 2 K 1:2 was the cause of Ahaziah’s ultimate death.

Lameness. Mephibosheth’s lameness was due to an accident in infancy (2 S 4:4), which apparently produced some sort of bone disease, necessitating constant dressing, unless the phrase in 2 S 19:24 refers merely to washing. Lameness was a disqualification for the priesthood ( Lv 21:18); Christ healed many lame people in the Temple (Mt 21:14) as well as elsewhere. Jacob’s lameness (Gn 32:31) may also be mentioned.

Congenital malformations. Cf. 2 S 21:20, 1 Ch 20:6. The possession of superfluous parts was held to disqualify a man for the priesthood (Lv 21:18), as did also dwarfishness (Lv 21:20) , unless the reference there is to emaciation from disease. The word in Lv 21:18, which is translated ‘that hath a flat nose,’ may refer to the deformity of a hare-lip.

Skin diseases are of common occurrence in the East. The most important of them was leprosy (wh. see). But there are many minor diseases of the skin recognized in Bible enactments under various terms.

Baldness (Lv 13:40–43) was not looked upon as causing ceremonial uncleanness, nor apparently was it common; it seems to have been regarded not as a sign of old age, but as the result of a life spent in excessive labour with exposure to the sun (cf. Ezk 29:18), and so in Is 3:24 it is threatened as a mark of degradation and servitude.

Itch (Dt 28:27) is probably the parasitic disease due to a small mite which burrows under the skin, and, if neglected, sometimes spreads all over the body; this disease is very easily communicated, and is not uncommon in Syria at the present time. It was a disqualification for the priesthood (Lv 21:20).

Scab (Dt 28:27) or scurvy (Lv 21:20) is a kindred disease in which a crust forms on the skin; it is most common on the head, but sometimes spreads all over the body, and is most difficult to cure. ‘Scab’ in Lv 21:20 is the tr. of a different word, but is probably another form of the same disease (cf. Is 3:17).

Scall or scurf of the head and beard (Lv 13:30) is another parasitic disease of similar nature.

Freckled spot (Lv 13:39, RV tetter) may be psoriasis, a non-contagions eruption.

The botch of Egypt (Dt 28:27, 35). The same word is used in Job 2:7, Ex 9:9, 2 K 20:7, Is 38:21. It is probably a general term for a swelling of the skin. In Ex 9:10 blains, perhaps pustules containing fluid, are stated to have accompanied the boils. The disease in Dt 28:35 affected especially the knees and legs. Job’s disease appears to have been one of itching sores or spots all over the body, which disfigured his face (2:11), caused great pain and a feeling of burning (6:4) , made his breath fetid (19:17), and were infested with maggots (7:5). Various names for the exact nature of the disease have been suggested, such as elephantiasis, leprosy, smallpox, etc. Some authorities, however, suppose the symptoms to agree better with those or the ‘Biskra button’ or Oriental sore, sometimes called ‘Aleppo sore’ or ‘Baghdad sore,’ which begins with papular spots, which ulcerate, become crusted over, are slow in granulation, and often multiple. This complaint is probably due to a parasite. Lazarus’ sores (Lk 16:20) were probably old varicose ulcers of the leg.

Spot (Dt 32:5, Job 11:15, Ca 4:7) and blemish (Lv 21:17, Dn 1:4) seem to be general terms for skin disease. Wen (Lv 22:22) means a suppurating sore.

The bloody sweat of our Lord (Lk 22:44) is difficult to explain. Some regard the passage as meaning merely that His sweat dropped, as blood drops from a wound. Instances of bloody sweat have been quoted in comparison, but it seems that none is satisfactorily authenticated.

Poisonous serpents are mentioned in Nu 21:6 (where they are miraculously cured by the erection of a brass model of a serpent), Dt 32:33, Job 20:14, 15, Is 11:8, 14:29, 30:8, 59:5, Jer 8:17, Mt 3:7 (metaphorically, as also in Mt 12:34, 23:33, Lk 3:7), Mk 16:18, Lk 10:19, Ac 28:3. There are several poisonous serpents in the desert of the Exodus narrative, whose bites are often fatal; but it has been suggested that the fiery serpents of Nu 21:6 were really the parasitic worms called guinea-worms, which are not uncommon in the desert region. Scorpion bites are common and often fatal to children in Egypt, but not in Palestine.

Worms (Ac 12:23) is the description of the disease of which Herod died. One authority suggests that it was acute peritonitis set up by the perforation of the bowel by an intestinal worm. Josephus states that Herod suffered from a violent abdominal pain which in a few days proved fatal. Thus it cannot have been a case of phthiriasis. The death of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mac 9:5–9) is described as preceded by a violent pain of the bowels; then he was injured by a violent fall, and ‘worms rose up out of his body’—in all probability a case of compound fractures, in which blow-flies laid their eggs and maggots hatched, owing to neglect of the injuries.

The third plague of Egypt (Ex 8:16) is called one of lice, but the margin of the RV suggests ‘sand-flies’ or ‘fleas.’ It is possible that they were mosquitoes or sand fleas, the latter of which generate in the dust.

Discharges or issues of a certain nature caused ceremonial impurity; cf. Lv 15:2–25. Some of these were natural (Dt 23:10), others probably were the result of impure practices, but it is doubtful how much the ancients knew of the physical consequences of vice. Cf., however, Ps 107:17, 18, Pr 2:18, 5:11–22, 7:23, 26.

Blindness is exceedingly common among the natives of Palestine; the words describing this affliction are of frequent occurrence in the Bible, sometimes in the literal, sometimes in the metaphorical, sense. Apparently only two forms of blindness were recognized: (1) that which arose from the ophthalmia so prevalent in Oriental lands, a highly infectious disease, aggravated by sand, sun-glare, and dirt, which damages the organs, and often renders them quite useless; (2) that due to old age, as in the case of Eli (1 S 3:2), Ahijah (1 K 14:4), Isaac (Gn 27:1). Cf. also Dt 34:7. Blindness was believed to be a visitation from God (Ex 4:11), it disqualified a man for the priesthood (Lv 21:18); but compassion for the blind was prescribed (Lv 19:14), and offences against them were accursed (Dt 27:18). Leah probably suffered from a minor form of ophthalmia (Gn 29:17). In Lv 26:16 we see ophthalmia accompanying malarial fever. The blinding of Elymas in Ac 13:11 may have been hypnotic, as also possibly the blinding of the Syrian soldiers in 2 K 6:18.

The cases of blindness which were cured by our Lord are usually given without special characterization; the two of most interest are that of the man born blind (Jn 9:1), and that of the man whose recovery was gradual (Mk 8:22). In the latter case we do not know whether the man was blind from birth or not; if he was, the stage in which he saw ‘men as trees walking’ would be that in which he had not yet accustomed himself to interpret and understand visual appearances. Our Lord’s cures as described were all miraculous, in the sense that the influence of a unique personality must be postulated in order to explain the cure; but He used various methods to effect or symbolize the cure in various cases.

St. Paul’s blindness (Ac 9:8) was probably a temporary amaurosis, such as may be caused by looking at the sun. The ‘scales’ (Ac 9:18) need not necessarily have been material; the words suggest a mere simile. One of the theories as to his ‘thorn in the flesh’ is that it was a permanent ‘weakness of eye’ remaining after his experience (cf. Gal 4:15). But other explanations have been suggested. The blindness of Tobit and its cure may also be mentioned (To 2:10, 11:11); the remedy there adopted has a parallel in Pliny (HN xxxii. 24). Eye-salve is recommended in Rev 3:18, but the context is metaphorical.

Old age. Under this heading should be mentioned the famous passage in Ec 12, where the failure of powers consequent on growing years is described in language of poetic imagery.

Child-birth. The special cases of child-bearing which are mentioned in the Bible are mostly quoted to illustrate the ‘sorrow’ of conception, which was regarded as the penalty of Eve’s transgression (Gn 3:16). There are two cases of twins, that of Esau and Jacob (Gn 25:22), and that of Perez and Zerah (Gn 38:29ff.). The latter was ‘a case of spontaneous evolution with perineal laceration, probably fatal to the mother.’ Rachel’s case (Gn 35:18) was one of fatal dystocia, and the phrase in Gn 31:35 may hint at some long-standing delicacy. Phinehas’ wife (1 S 4:19) was taken in premature labour, caused by shock, and proving fatal. Sarah (Gn 21:2) ,

Manoah’s wife (Jg 13:24), Hannah (1 S 1:20), the Shunammite woman (2 K 4:17), and Elisabeth (Lk 1:67) are instances of uniparæ at a late period. Barrenness was regarded as a Divine judgment (Gn 20:18, 30:2), and the forked root of the mandrake was used as a charm against it (Gn 30:10); fertility was correspondingly regarded as a proof of Divine favour (1 S 2:5, Ps 113:9), and miscarriage is invoked as a token of God’s displeasure in Hos 9:14. The attendants at birth were women (Gn 35:17, Ex 1:15, midwives). The mother was placed in a kneeling posture, leaning on somebody’s knees (Gn 30:3), or on a labour-stool, if such be the meaning of the difficult passage in Ex 1:10. After child-birth the mother was unclean for 7 days in the case of a male, for 14 days in the case of a female, child. After this she continued in a state of modified uncleanness for 33 or 66 days, according as the child was boy or girl, during which period she was not allowed to enter the Temple. The reason for the different lengths of the two periods was that the lochia was supposed to last longer in the case of a female child. Nursing continued for 2 or 3 years (2 Mac 7:27), and in 1 K 11:20 a child is taken by a relative to wean.

The legislation for the menstrual period and for menorrhagia is given in Lv 15:19ff. A rigid purification was prescribed, including everything which the woman had touched, and everybody who touched her or any of those things (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN). Menorrhagia (EV issue of blood) was considered peculiarly impossible of treatment (Mt 9:20, Mk 5:26, Lk 8:43), and magical means were resorted to for its cure. In Ezk 16:4 Is a description of an infant with undivided umbilical cord, neither washed nor dressed. The skin of Infants was usually dressed with salt to make it firm. The metaphorical use of terms derived from child-labour is exceedingly common in the Bible.

Infantile diseases seem to have been very severe in Palestine in Bible times, as at the present day. We hear of sick children in 2 S 12:15, 1 K 17:17, and Christ healed many children. Among cases of unspecified diseases may be mentioned those of Abijah (1 K 14:1) , Benhadad (2 K 8:7), Elisha (2 K 13:14), Joash (2 Ch 24:25), Lazarus (Jn 11:1), Dorcas ( Ac 9:37), Epaphroditus (Ph 2:27), Trophimus (2 Ti 4:20).

4. Methods of treatment.—The Bible gives us very few references on this point. We hear of washing (2 K 5:10); diet perhaps (Lk 8:55); the application of saliva (Jn 9:6); unction (Ja 5:14) ; the binding of wounds and the application of soothing ointment (Is 1:5); the use of oil and wine for wounds (Lk 10:34); a plaster of figs for a boil (Is 38:21); animal heat by contact (1 K 1:2 , 17:21, 2 K 4:34).

Balm of Gilead or balm is mentioned in Gn 37:25, 43:11, Jer 8:22, 46:11, 51:8, Ezk 27:17. It appears to be regarded as a sedative application, and was probably an aromatic gum or spice

(see art. BALM).

Mandrakes (Mandragora officinalis) were used as a stimulant to conception (Gn 30:16), and the fruit as a medicine. Mint (Mentha silvestris), anise (Anethum graveolens), cummin (Cuminum sativum) were used as carminatives; salt for hardening the skin, nitre (Jer 2:22) to cleanse it. The caper-berry (Capparis spinosa) is mentioned in Ec 12:5; it was regarded as an aphrodisiac. The wine offered to Christ at His crucifixion was probably intended as a narcotic (Mt 27:34, 48, Mk 15:23, 36, Lk 23:3b, Jn 19:29). Most of the remedies were dietary in the Jewish as in the Egyptian pharmacopœia, e.g. meal, milk, vinegar, wine, water, almonds, figs, raisins, pomegranates, honey, etc.

We have a mention of amulets in Is 3:20 and perhaps Gn 35:4. The apothecary’s art is mentioned in Ex 30:25–35, 37:29, Ec 10:1, 2 Ch 16:14, Neh 3:8, Sir 38:8, 49:1. But in all these passages the reference is to makers of perfumes rather than compounders of medicines. It is probable that medicines were compounded by those who prescribed them.

Hygienic enactments dealing with food, sanitation, and infectious diseases are common in the Levitical Code. With regard to food, herbivorous ruminant animals were permitted to be eaten; all true fishes also were allowed; but birds which lived on animal food were forbidden, and all invertebrates except locusts. The fat and the blood of animals were prohibited as food, and regulations were given for the inspection of animals slaughtered for eating. The origin, however, of many of these regulations probably lies in primitive taboo laws (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN). Fruits could not be used for food until the tree had been planted for four years ( Lv 19:23–25). The provisions repeated in Ex 12:19, 13:7, Dt 16:3 for the periodic destruction of leaven, whatever their historical origin, must have been of service for the maintenance of pure bread-stuffs.

The agricultural sanitary laws are directed chiefly to prohibit the mixing of different species,

e.g. the sowing of different seeds in a field at the same time, the cross-grafting of fruit-trees, the cross-breeding or yoking together of dissimilar cattle. And periodic rest for man and beast was prescribed. No mixture of linen and woollen materials in garments was permitted (Lv 19:19, Dt 22:11), as such garments cannot be so easily or thoroughly cleansed as those of one material. There were also various regulations as to domestic sanitation; thus the covering with earth of excreta and of blood was ordered; possibly the fires of the Valley of Hinnom were intended to consume the offal of the city. Houses were to be built with parapets to prevent accident ( Dt 22:8). Isolation in suspected cases of Infectious disease was prescribed (Lv 13:4), and the washing of body and clothes (Nu 19:11) was obligatory on those who had touched unclean things.

Uncleanness was in many cases merely ceremonial in nature. But the regulations must often have served to diminish the chances of propagating real infection. Various grades of uncleanness are recognized in the Talmud, and different periods of lustration and isolation were ordained, in accordance with the different grade of uncleanness contracted.

5. Surgical instruments. A flint knife was used for circumcision (Jos 5:8), but in later times steel knives were employed. An awl for boring the ear is mentioned in Ex 21:8.

The most important surgical operation was the performance of circumcision. Its original idea may have been that of imposing a tribal mark on the infant (unless it was at first performed in early manhood and subsequently transferred to the time of infancy); but it came to be regarded as an operation of purification. The exclusion of eunuchs from the service of God (Dt 23:1) may have been due to the dread of importing heathen rites into Israel. But they were important officials in the time of the kingdom, as in Oriental courts generally (1 K 22:9, 2 K 8:6, 9:32 , 24:16, Jer 29:2, 34:19, 38:7, 41:16), and there were eunucbs at the court of the Herods, as elsewhere (cf. Ac 8:27). The passage in Is 56:4 implies that eunuchs were then under no special religious disability; cf. also our Lord’s reference in Mt 19:12.

Of course we must admit that in many cases the use of remedies, the sanitary laws, the prescriptions as to food, the regulations as to uncleanness, and so forth, did not necessarily originate in any theory as to their value for the preservation of public health. Primitive taboo customs, folk-lore, magic, superstition, are no doubt responsible for the existence of much that has been here placed under the heading of medicine. And it is quite likely, too, that up to a late period the popular Jewish view of the majority of these rules and customs was enlightened by no very clear conception of their hygienic value. The more educated minds of the nation may possibly in time have come to see that enactments which had originated in crude or mistaken notions of religion might yet be preserved, and valued as important precautions for the prevention of disease and its cure. But it may be doubted whether, even in late times, the vulgar opinion about them was at all scientific. At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that many of the laws, begotten, perhaps, of primitive superstition, did nevertheless serve a medical purpose, and so may without untruthfulness be included in a treatment of Bible medicine.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

MEEDDA (1 Es 5:32) = Mehida, Ezr 2:52, Neh 7:54.

MEEKNESS.—In the earlier literature of revelation meekness is simply an excellent virtue. Moses is described as ‘very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth’ ( Nu 12:3), and his character illustrates the Hebrew ideal of meekness in those days. There was no weakness or cowardice about him. He was ‘a still, strong man,’ patient and pitiful. Subsequently the word acquired a peculiar significance. In the days of Israel’s conflict the men of pride and violence came to the front, while the godly were thrust into the background, contemned and oppressed (cf. Ps 10:2, 8–10). Thus ‘rich’ and ‘wicked’ came to be synonymous (Is 53:9); and corresponding to these there was a group of terms: ‘meek,’ ‘humble’ (or ‘lowly’), ‘poor,’ ‘needy.’ In our Lord’s time these terms denoted the godly remnant in Israel, those who, despised by the rulers, lived devout lives in obscure corners, nourishing their faith on the Scriptures, and ‘waiting for the consolation of Israel’ (Lk 2:25, 38), the blessed Advent of the Messiah. And, just as the Psalmists and Prophets had sympathized with the Lord’s hidden ones and promised them deliverance (Ps 9:12, 18, 10:12–18, 37:11 [cf. Mt 5:5] 72:2, 4, Is 11:4), so Jesus was their champion. He called them ‘blessed’ (Mt 5:3–12), and He took His place by their side, Himself ‘meek and lowly’ (Mt 11:29), the homeless Son of Man, despised and rejected of men. He shared their humility that they might share His glory.

DAVID SMITH.

MEGIDDO (in Zec 12:11 Megiddon).—One of the most important of the fortress cities of ancient Canaan. It was captured by Thothmes III in the 23rd year of his reign, the spoils being magnificent; and it is mentioned several times in the Tell el-Amarna correspondence. Though nominally belonging to Manasseh (Jos 17:12, 18, Jg 1:27, 28), the Canaanites remained in possession. Near the ‘waters of Megiddo’ the Canaanites under Sisera were defeated by Barak and Deborah (Jg 5:18–21). Solomon restored its fortifications (1 K 9:15). Here king Ahaziah (2 K 9:27) died; and the good king Josiah, interfering in a quarrel between Pharaoh-necho and the king of Assyria, and opposing the former’s progress in the dangerous passage of Megiddo, was also slain (2 K 23:29, 30, 2 Ch 35:22), to the grief of all Israel (Zec 12:11). Finally, it was at Armageddon (RV Har-Magedon, ‘the mountains of Megiddo’) that the mysterious conflict of Rev 16:10 was to take place.

The site of Megiddo may now be considered as proved to be Tell el-Mutesellim (‘Hill of the

Governor’), a great mound about 4 miles N.W. of Tell Ta‘annak (Taanach; cf. Jos 12:21, 17:11 , Jg 5:19 etc.). The Importance of the site can be seen at a glance, for it guards the great pass from the Plain of Sharon to that of Esdraelon, which in all history, from Thothmes iii. to Napoleon 1 ., has been a route of armies. The hill has recently been excavated by the German Palestine Society, and fortifications going back before B.C. 2000 have been uncovered, as well as the most extensive remains of successive cities which have occupied this site for many centuries. Here was found the seal of Shama’, ‘the servant of Jerohoam’—probably Jeroboam ii. To the south of the tell is an abundant stream, and in Roman times a fortified post—the Legio of Eusebius, the modern el-Lejjun—was established there. The stream may have been the ‘waters of Megiddo’ of Jg 5:19 etc.; it is one of the most important of the tributaries of the Kishon.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MEGILLOTH.—See CANON OF OT, § 8.

MEHETABEL.—1. The grandfather of Shemaiah (Neh 6:10). 2. The wife of Hadar or Hadad, king of Edom (Gn 36:30, 1 Ch 1:50).

MEHIDA.—The eponym of a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:52 = Neh 7:54), called in 1 Es 5:32 Meedda.

MEHIR.—A Judahite (1 Ch 4:11).

MEHOLATHITE (1 S 18:19, 2 S 21:8).—Probably an inhabitant of Abel-meholah ( wh. see).

MEHUJAEL.—A Cainite (Gn 4:18) (J), corresponding to Mahalalel of P’s genealogy ( Gn

5:12 ff. ).

MEHUMAN.—One of the seven eunuchs in attendance upon king Ahasuerus (Est 1:10).

ME-JARKON (Jos 19:46).—The Heb. text seems to be in disorder. The LXX reading, ‘and from the sea, Jarkon and the boundary near Joppa,’ sufficiently attests the name Jarkon, a place in the territory of Dan; but the site is not yet recovered.

W. EWING.

MEKONAH (AV; RV needlessly changes to Meconah),—A town inhabited after the Captivity (Neh 11:28). The site has not been identified.

MELATIAH.—A Gibeonite (Neh 3:7).

MELCHI.—1. 2. Two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3:24, 28).

MELCHIAS.—1. 1 Es 9:26 = Malchijah, Ezr 10:25, 2, 1 Es 9:32 = Malchijah, Ezr 10:31, 3 , 1 Es 9:44 = Malchijah, Neh 8:4.

MELCHIEL.—The father of Charmis (Jth 6:15).

MELCHIZEDEK.—Described as king of Salem and priest of God Most High (‘El ‘Elyōn) , who met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and his allies, refreshed him and his servants with bread and wine, blessed him, and received from him a tenth of the spoil he had taken (Gn 14:18–20). Salem has been variously identified: (1) with the Shalem of Gn 33:18 (AV and RVm), a place a little to the E. of Mt. Gerizim and not far from Shechem; (2) with the

Salim of Jn 3:23 in the Jordan Valley S. of Scythopolis; and (3) with Jerusalem, which is called

Salem in Ps 76:2. The last identification is much the most probable; for though it is implied in Jos 15:8, 63, Jg 19:10 that Jerusalem was called Jebus so long as it was inhabited by the Jebusites (i.e. up to the time of David), the name Jerusalem really goes back to the 14th cent.

B.C., since it appears in the Tell el-Amarna tablets as Uru-salim. This view has the support of Josephus (Ant. I. x. 2), and further obtains some slight confirmation from the resemblance of the name of Melchizedek to that of Adonizedek, who was king of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Jos 10:3), the element zedek in each name being probably that of a Canaanite deity.

The historical character of the narrative in which Melchizedek is mentioned has been questioned on the ground of certain improbabilities which it contains; but though the events related have received no corroboration from other sources, the names of two of the kings who fought against Abraham, viz. Amraphel and Arioch, have with some plausibility been identified with those of Hammurabi and Eriaku, contemporary kings of Babylon and Larsa about B.C. 2200; so that, if the identification is correct, it confirms the setting of the story, though not its incidents. For the name and personality of Melchizedek no independent confirmatory evidence has yet been obtained.

In Ps 110:4, to the ideal king of Jewish hopes, the Messiah, there is promised an endless priesthood ‘after the order of Melchizedek.’ This ascription of priestly functions to a sovereign who was expected to be of the house of David and the tribe of Judah is evidently meant as an exceptional distinction, and implies that the writer lived at a time when priests in Israel were taken exclusively from the tribe of Levi, as was the case after the promulgation of the

Deuteronomic law (probably in the 7th cent.). At an earlier date persons belonging to other tribes than that of Levi were sometimes priests: David’s sons (2 S 8:18); and Ira the Jairite (20:26) , who belonged to Manasseh (Nu 32:41); but the author of Ps 110, in seeking a type for the combination in the same person of both the regal and priestly offices, had to go outside the limits of Israel, and found what he wanted in the priest-king of Salem, who was all the more adapted for the purpose by reason of the deference paid to him by so illustrious a personage as Abraham.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, identifying Jesus with the Messiah, and asserting His high priesthood, cites the words of Ps 110, and declares that He was named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek’ (He 5:10). He then proceeds to show the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Jewish priests, the descendants of Aaron, and seeks to illustrate it by the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham, as he gathers it from Gn 14. He explains Melchizedek’s name to mean ‘king of righteousness,’ and his title of ‘king of Salem’ to mean ‘king of peace’; and then, arguing from the silence of the record respecting his parentage, birth, and death, describes him as ‘without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God,’ and affirms him to have been greater than Abraham, since he blessed him (‘for without any dispute the less is blessed of the better’) and received from him (and through him from his unborn descendants the Levitical priests) a tithe of his spoils (He 7:1–16). In this passage much of the writer’s argument is fanciful, the narrative in Genesis being handled after a Rabbinic fashion, and the parallel drawn between our Lord and Melchizedek being largely based on the mere omission, in the OT record, of certain particulars about the latter, which, for the historian’s purpose, were obviously irrelevant. At the same time it may perhaps be said that, as contrasted with the Levitical priests who succeeded to their priestly offices by reason of their descent, an ancient priest-king is really typical of our Lord, inasmuch as it is likely that, in a primitive age, such a one would owe his position to his natural endowments and force of character. It was in virtue of His personality that our Lord made, and makes, His appeal to the world; and to the authoritativeness of His attitude in regard to the current teaching of the Jewish religious teachers of His day (Mt 5:21–48, Mk 7:1–28) a distant analogy is, in fact, afforded by the superior position which in Genesis seems to be ascribed to Melchizedek in respect of Abraham, the ancestor of the Jewish race. See also art.

PRIEST (IN NT).

G. W. WADE.

MELEA.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:31).

MELECH.—1. A grandson of Merib-baal (1 Ch 8:35, 9:41). 2. See MOLECH.

MELITA.—An island about sixty miles S. of Sicily, with an area of about ninety-five square miles. Its excellent position as a commercial station led to its early colonization by Phœnicians and Greeks. It became subject to Carthage, but was conquered by the Romans in B.C. 218, and became part of the province of Sicily. But the Carthaginian and Libyan element predominated, hence St. Luke’s use of the phrase ‘the barbarous people’ (Ac 28:2). There can be no doubt that this Melita was the scene of St. Paul’s shipwreck. The use of the name Adria (Ac 27:27) led to an attempt to identify it with Melita in the Adriatic, but the term ‘Adria’ was freely applied to the sea E. and S.E. of Sicily, and the wind ‘Euraquilo’ (Ac 27:14) would drive them from Crete to Malta if the captain, realizing that his chief danger was the Syrtis quicksands (27:17), took the natural precaution of bearing up into the wind as much as the weather permitted. The description is precise. On the 14th night of their drifting, by sounding they found they were getting into shallower water, and cast out anchors; but when day dawned they saw before them a bay with a shelving beach, on which they determined to run the vessel. Therefore they hastily cast off the anchors, unfastened the rudders, which had been lashed during their drifting, and with the aid of these and the foresail tried to steer the ship to the beach. But before they reached it they ran on a shoal ‘where two seas met,’ and reached the shore only by swimming or floating on spars. Every detail of the narrative is satisfied by assuming that they landed on the W. side of St. Paul’s Bay, eight miles from Valetta, five miles from the old capital Città-Vecchia. The tradition which gave this as the scene was already old when our earliest map of Malta (a Venetian one) was made about A.D. 1530. As it is scarcely likely that the spot was identified by special investigations in the Middle Ages, this is a remarkable instance of the permanence and correctness of some early traditions. Incidentally, it is also a proof of the remarkable impression made on the inhabitants by the three months St. Paul was compelled to spend in the island. St. Luke relates only two incidents. As they made a fire for the shipwrecked men, a snake, aroused from the wood by the heat, fastened on St. Paul’s hand, and, to the surprise of the onlookers, did him no harm. The word ‘venomous’ (28:4) is not properly in the text, and St. Luke does not state that it was a miraculous deliverance. But the natives thought it was, and therefore there probably were venomous snakes in Malta then. There are none now, but in an island with 2000 inhabitants to the square mile they would be likely to become extinct. The other incident was the curing of dysentery of the father of Publius (wh. see). Naturally there are local traditions of St. Paul’s residence, and the map referred to above has a church of St. Paul’s near the bay, but on its E. side. The first known bishop of Malta was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Malta has had a varied history since. Vandals, Normans, Turks all left their mark on it. In 1530 , Charles v. gave it to the Knights of St. John who defended it three times against the desperate attacks of the Turks. In 1798, Napoleon seized it, but the English took it from him in 1800, and it has remained English hands since. But the population remains very mixed,—the race and the native language retaining much of the Arabic element.

A. E. HILLARD.

MELONS (‘ǎbattīhīm, the same word as the Arab. battīkh, which includes the water-melon (Citrullus vulgaris) as well as other kinds).—Nu 11:6. Here the water-melon is specially referred to, as it was common in Egypt in ancient times. No fruit is more appreciated in the arid wilderness. Melons flourish in Palestine, especially on the sands S. of Jaffa, and are eaten all over the land, being carried to the towns all through the summer by long strings of camels.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MELZAR.—A proper name (AV), or official title (RV ‘steward’) in Dn 1:11, 16,—in both cases with the article. It is generally agreed that the word is a loan-word from the Assyr. massaru, ‘guardian,’ and stands for one who was teacher and warden of the royal wards. Cheyne, however, is led by the LXX to conclude for Belshazzar as the true reading, and to read in Dn 1:11: ‘And Daniel said to Belshazzar, prince of the eunuchs,’ etc.

W. F. COBB.

MEM.—The thirteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119 th Psalm to designate the 13th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

MEMEROTH (1 Es 8:2) = Meraioth, an ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7:3); called Marimoth. in 2 Es 1:2.

MEMMIUS, QUINTUS.—Named along with Manius (wh. see) as a Roman legate (2 Mac

11:34).

MEMPHIS.—The famous ancient capital of Egypt, a few miles south of Cairo, the present capital. According to tradition, Memphis was built by Menes, who first united the two kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt. Kings and dynasties might make their principal residences in the cities from which they sprang, but until Alexandria was founded as the capital of the Greek dynasty, no Egyptian city, except Thebes, under the New Kingdom equalled Memphis in size and importance. The palaces of most of the early kings (Dyns. 3–12) were at or near Memphis, their positions being now marked by the pyramids in which the same kings were buried. The pyramid-field extends on the edge of the desert about 20 miles, from Dahshur on the south to Abu Roash on the north, the Great Pyramids of Gizeh lying 12 miles north of the central ruins of

Memphis. The Egyptian name Menfi (in Hebrew Noph, Is 19:13, Jer 2:16, 44:1, 46:14, 19, Ezk

30:13, 16; once Moph, Hos 9:5), was apparently taken from that of the palace and pyramid of

Pepy 1. of the 6th Dynasty, which were built close to the city. At a later period, Tahrak (Tirhakah) ruled at Memphis; Necho, Hophra, and the other kings of the 26th Dynasty were buried at their ancestral city Sais, although their government was centred in Memphis. After the foundation of Alexandria the old capital fell to the second place, but it held a vast population till after the Arab conquest, when it rapidly declined. The growth of Fostat and Cairo was accompanied by the destruction of all the stone buildings in Memphis for the sake of the materials, but the necropolis still bears witness to its former magnificence. The bull Apis ( Egyp. Hapi) (whose name is read in LXX at Jer 46:15 ‘Why did Apis flee from thee?’) was worshipped at Memphis as sacred to Ptah (Hephaestus), the principal god of the city.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

MEMUCAN.—One of the seven princes of Persia who had access to the royal presence ( Est 1:14, 16, 21).

MENAHEM, one of the latest kings of Israel, was a usurper, like so many other monarchs in this period. He and Shallum planned to seize the throne about the same time (2 K 15:13f.) , Shallum having possession of Samaria, while Menahem commanded the ancient fortress and former capital, Tirzah. War raged for a brief time with unusual ferocity, resulting in the defeat of Shallum. Menahem seems not to have felt secure on the throne, and to have purchased the help of Assyria by paying a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser (called Pul in 2 K 15:19). Or we may suppose the Assyrians to have invaded the country because it was so weakened by civil war that it could no longer make effective resistance. The tribute was a thousand talents of silver, and it was raised by a direct tax on the holders of landed property. The assessment of sixty shekels each shows that there were sixty thousand proprietors in Israel at this time. From the Assyrian sources we learn that this tribute was paid in the year 738 B.C.

It is interesting to note that in the literature of Judaism Menahem (= ‘Comforter’) is a title of the Messiah.

H. P. SMITH.

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.—The words of the handwriting on the wall, which, according to Dn 5:5, 26, appeared mysteriously at Belshazzar’s feast, and was successfully deciphered by Daniel alone (vv. 26–28), in v. 25 the words of the inscription (‘the writing … inscribed,’ RV) are given as above, but in the explanation (vv. 26–28) are quoted in a divergent form, and no account is taken of the repetition of the first word. This discrepancy can best be accounted for by assuming that the words of the inscription as given in v. 25 already lay in their present form before the author, and are not the product of his free invention; while vv. 26–28 are the result of ‘an attempt to extract from the words, in spite of grammar, a meaning suitable to the occasion.’

What, then, is the real significance of the mysterious words? As has been shown by M. Clermont-Ganneau in the Journal Asiatique for 1886, they are really names of weights. Mene is the Aram. equivalent of the Heb. maneh (Ezk 45:12, Ezr 2:69) and = mina; tekel = shekel; and pharsin is a plural, and probably represents a word (perās lit. ‘division’) which means half-mina. Thus the four words read consecutively: ‘A mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas.’ The enigmatic character of the combination apparently consisted partly in the manner in which the words were supposed to have been written—perhaps in some unfamiliar form of Aramaic cursive or with some curious inversion in arrangement—and partly in determining their import even when read. The appositeness of a list of three weights in such a connexion is not obvious. In deducing a meaning fitted to the occasion Daniel’s skill as an interpreter of riddles is strikingly set forth. Each of the mysterious words is invested with a meaning suggested by etymological affinities. The term for ‘mina’ is connected with a root meaning ‘to number’; hence it signifies ‘God hath numbered thy kingdom and brought it to an end’: ‘shekel’ is connected with a root meaning ‘to weigh,’ and hence—‘thou hast been weighed in the balance and found wanting’: ‘half-mina’ (perās) suggests a double play; ‘thy kingdom is divided (peris) and given to the Persians (Aram. pāras = ‘Persian’). It should be noticed that a double interpretation is apparently given throughout, each of the words having perhaps been read in two ways, and the meanings combined (see art. ‘Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin’ in Hastings’ DB for details). Another possible rendering is, ‘He has counted, counted, weighed, and they assess’ (?a commercial formula). Possibly ‘an actual inscription found on the walls of the palace at Babylon, or, at any rate, found somewhere, was worked by the author of Daniel into this dramatic scene and arbitrarily explained’ (D. S. Margoliouth, ib.).

G. H. BOX.

MENELAUS.—Brother of Simon the Benjamite (2 Mac 3:4), or, according to Josephus (Ant. XII. v. 1), a younger brother of Jason and Onias. He purchased the office of high priest from Antiochus Epiphanes for the sum of 660 talents (c. B.C. 172), thereby causing the deposition of Jason, who had obtained the office by similar corrupt means. Being unable, through lack of funds, to pay the required sum, he was cited to appear before the king, but, finding the latter absent on warfare, he plundered the Temple of sacred vessels and thereby found means to silence his enemies. Having secured the death of Onias III., who threatened to divulge the sacrilege (2 Mac 4:27–34), he became so unpopular that Jason marched against him to recover the office he had lost (5:5–10). After this attempt of Jason, which ended in failure, Menelaus is lost to sight for some years, but finally suffered death at the hands of Antiochus Eupator (c. B.C. 163).

T. A. MOXON.

MENESTHEUS.—The father of Apollonius (2 Mac 4:21).

MENI.—A deity named with Gad in Is 65:11: ‘Ye that … prepare a table for Gad, and that fill up mingled wine for Meni.’ Gad is Fortune, and Meni Destiny. The name has been correlated with the Arab. Manat, and with a supposed Bab. god Manu. manah in Heb. means ‘to number,’ and so ‘to apportion.’ The name of this god of Destiny has been seen in Manasseh and in the name of one of the sons of Anak, Ahiman, in Nu 13:22. See GAD.

W. F. COBB. MENNA.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:31).

MENUHAH (Jg 20:43).—We should perhaps read Manahath (wh. see), or, better, ‘from Nohah.’ In 1 Ch 8:2 Nohah is a clan of Benjamin.

MENUHOTH.—See MANAHATHITES.

MEONENIM, OAK OF.—A place mentioned only in Jg 9:37 as being near Shechem. It is agreed that the rendering should be ‘oak of the diviners,’ but the derivation of the word mĕ‘ōnĕnīm is uncertain. There is a cognate Arabic word, however, which is used of the hum of insects and the whispering of leaves, and it is tempting, therefore, to connect me‘ōnĕnīm with such a phenomenon as the ‘sound of a marching in the tops of the balsams’ of 2 S 5:24, where the rustling of the leaves is the sign of the presence of Jahweh, as the rustling of the leaves of the oaks of Dodona proclaimed the will of Zeus.

W. F. COBB.

MEONOTHAI.—Son of Othniel (1 Ch 4:14).

MEPHAATH.—A city of Reuben (Jos 13:18); assigned to the Levites (21:37, 1 Ch 6:79); a Moabite city in Jer 48:21. In the 4th cent. A.D. it is said to have been the station of a Roman garrison.

MEPHIBOSHETH.—1. A son of Jonathan (2 S 4:4), called also in 1 Ch 8:34, 9:40 Merib

(b)aal, really the original form of the name ‘Baal contends’ or ‘Baal’s warrior.’

David, on succeeding to the throne, instead of destroying all the family of Saul, as was usual on such occasions, spared Mephibosheth out of regard for his father Jonathan (2 S 9:1). Mephibosheth was five years old when Saul fell on Mt. Gilboa, and in the flight of the royal household after the battle he was so seriously injured by a fall as to become lame in both his feet

(2 S 4:4). In that warlike age such a bodily weakness prevented him from becoming a rival of David, and no doubt inclined the latter to mercy. David was informed of his place of concealment in Lo-debar, on the east of the Jordan, by Ziba, who had been steward of Saul (2 S 9:1ff.). The king restored to Mephibosheth all the estates of Saul, Ziba became his steward, and Mephibosheth himself was maintained as a permanent guest at David’s table (2 S 9:13).

At the flight of David from Jerusalem after Absalom’s rebellion, Ziba met him on the Mount of Olives with provisions. He also stated that his master had remained in Jerusalem, in hope of obtaining the kingdom of Saul. Notwithstanding the doubtful nature of the story, David said, ‘Behold, thine is all that pertaineth to Mephibosheth’ (2 S 16:4). On David’s return, Mephibosheth came out to meet him, and declared that Ziba had accused him falsely, taking advantage of his lameness. David seems to have doubted the truthfulness of Mephibosheth or did not wish to alienate Ziba, who had also been faithful, and divided the land of Saul between the two. Mephibosheth expressed his willingness that Ziba should have all, ‘forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace unto his own house.’

From 2 S 9:12 we learn that Mephibosheth had a son Mica, who was regarded as the founder of a well-known family of warriors (1 Ch 8:35, 9:41).

2. One of the sons of Saul’s concubine Rizpah, slain by the Gibeonites (2 S 21:8).

W. F. BOYD.

MERAB.—The elder daughter of Saul, promised to the slayer of Goliath (1 S 17:25), and then to David personally as a reward for prowess against the Philistines (1 S 18:17), but given as wife to Adriel the Meholathite. In 2 S 21:8 Michal, whose sons are said to have been given over to satisfy the Gibeonites, is probably a scribal error for Merab.

W. F. BOYD.

MERAIAH.—The head of a priestly house (Neh. 12:12).

MERAIOTH.—1. Son of Ahitub and father of Zadok (1 Ch 9:11, Neh 11:11). 2. A Levite (1 Ch 6:6f., Ezr 7:3); called in 1 Es 8:2 Memeroth and in 2 Es 1:2 Marimoth. 3. A priestly house in the days of Joiakim (Neh 12:15 = Meremoth of v. 3).

MERARI, MERARITES.—1. The third son of Levi, to whom a division of the Levites traced their descent (Gn 46:11, Ex 6:16, Nu 3:17, 1 Ch 6:1, 16, 23:6. The title ‘Merarites’ is found only in Nu 26:57; elsewhere they are called ‘sons of Merari’ (Ex 6:19, Nu 3:20, 4:29, 33 , 42, 46, 7:8, 10:17, Jos 21:7, 34, 39, 1 Ch 6:19, 29, 44, 63, 77, 9:14, 15:6, 17, 23:21, 24:27, 26:19 ,

2 Ch 29:12, Ezr 8:19). They were subdivided into two groups, the Mahlites and the Mushites

(Nu 3:33, 26:58), each being traced to a ‘son’ of Merari (Ex 6:19, Nu 3:20, 1 Ch 6:19, 29, 17 , 23:21). From these families fragments of genealogies remain, some branches being traced through the daughters of Mahli (see 1 Ch 23:2).

Very little is related of the Merarites after the Exile. Certain Merarites are mentioned in 1 Ch 9:14, 16–18 = Neh 11:15, 17–19 as dwelling in Jerusalem immediately after the Return, and certain others as accompanying Ezra to the city in 454 B.C. (Ezr 8:18f.). But P and the Chronicler introduce the family into the earlier history. (1) During the desert wanderings the Merarites were on the north side of the Tent (Nu 3:35); their duty was to carry the less sacred parts of it, the ‘boards’ (or rather frames), pegs, cords, etc. (3:38f., 4:31f., 10:17), for which they were given four waggons and eight oxen (7:8); and they were superintended by Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron (4:33). (2) After the settlement in Palestine, twelve cities were assigned to them (Jos 21:7 , 34–40 = 1 Ch 6:63, 77–81). (3) In David’s reign the Chronicler relates that the Temple music was superintended partly by Ethan, or Jeduthun, a Merarite, and his family (1 Ch 6:44–47 , 16:41f., 25:1, 3, 6, 11, 16, 18, 21f.; and see 15:6, 17–19). David divided the Levites into courses ‘according to the sons of Levi’ (23:8; Merarites, vv. 21–23, 24, 26–30), and particular offices of certain Merarites are detailed in 26:10–13, 16–18. (4) They took part in the cleansing of the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Ch 29:12, 14). Cf. also art. KOHATH.

2. The father of Judith (Jth 8:1, 16:7).

A. H. M’NEILE.

MERATHAIM (Jer 50:21).—The term is an enigmatical one, and adapted so as to recall to a Heb. ear either ‘double rebellion’ or ‘double bitterness.’

MERCHANDISE, MERCHANT.—See MARKET, TRADE, AND COMMERCE.

MERCHANTMAN.—This Eng. word is now used only of a trading vessel. In AV it means ‘merchant, tradesman’; it occurs in Gn 37:28, 1 K 10:15, Mt 13:46. In each case the earliest editions of AV have two separate words.

MERCURY stands in the AV for the Gr. Hermes in Ac 14:12. Hermes, as the spokesman of the gods, was regarded by the Greeks as the god of eloquence. Hence, when Paul and Barnabas healed the cripple at Lystra, the former was hailed as Hermes, ‘because he was the chief speaker.’ The identification of Hermes with Mercury was due to another attribute. As the messenger of the gods, Hermes was the god who brought good fortune to men. Mercury was the Roman god of commerce (cf. merx, mercari), and success in commerce was attributed to him. Hence the mythology of the two was confused.

A. E. HILLARD.

MERCY, MERCIFUL

Mercy (French merci) is traced, through ecclesiastical Latin, to merces (reward); it seems to have got its meaning from the exclamation of the alms-receiver, ‘Merci!’ i.e. ‘Reward to you (in heaven)!’ ‘May God reward you!’—the expression passing from the acknowledgment made to the bounty given, and then to the spirit prompting it. Thus mercy is by derivation allied to merit, merchant, mercenary, amerce.

1. In the OT, noun and adjective render two quite different Hebrew terms. (1) meaning primarily bowels (see Gn 43:30, 1 K 3:26), then compassion or yearning, occurs as noun, adjective, or verb (‘have mercy,’ ‘show mercy’), with the tr. ‘mercy’ over 60 times (Gn 43:14 , Ex 34:6, Hab 3:2, are typical examples),—often ‘mercies’ or ‘tender mercies’ for the noun, imitating the Hebrew plural. In 5 instances the EV translates by ‘pity,’ ‘pitiful’ (see Ps 103:13 , La 4:10), in 17 by ‘compassion.’ In Gn 19:16 ‘merciful’ renders a synonym of the above, which appears elsewhere (2 S 12:8, Is 63:9 etc.) as ‘pity.’

(2) is a familiar OT word, occurring passim in the Psalms, denoting kindness or benignity, almost confined to the noun-form in this sense. It is rendered 43 times by kindness (often on the part of men), and 30 times by ‘lovingkindness’ (always of God, and mostly in Ps.), by mercy some 150 times in AV; other renderings—‘goodness,’ ‘favour,’ and ‘pity’—are occasional RV frequently, the American Revisers uniformly, substitute ‘lovingkindness’ (wh. see) for ‘mercy’ where God is the subject. This attribute of J″ lies nearer to the ‘grace’ (wh. see) than the ‘mercy’ of the NT, without implying necessarily, like the former, ill-desert in the object. It is associated frequently with ‘truth’ (wh. see) in J″—‘lovingkindness (mercy) and truth’ being the regnant qualities of His dealings with Israel—and with ‘covenant’ (Dt 7:9, 1 K 8:23, Neh 1:6, 9:32, Ps 89:28, Is 55:8, Dn 9:4), as well as with ‘goodness’ and ‘compassion’ (above); while it is contrasted with ‘anger,’ ‘judgment,’ and ‘sacrifice’ (Mic 7:18, Ps 101:1, Hos 6:6). The word describes what one may call the characteristic temper of J″, His gracious disposition towards His chosen regarded in their dependence and necessities, His readiness to help, bless, relieve, forgive them—J″’s ‘leal love’ (G. A. Smith).

(3) A third root, the noun of which is translated ‘grace’ (wh. see) and its adjective ‘gracious,’ appears in the verb 16 times as ‘be gracious’ or the like, and 16 times as ‘have’ or ‘show mercy’ in AV (Dt 7:2, Ps 4:1 etc.), thrice as ‘pity.’ This term seems to imply more of inclination, and (2) more of active disposition.

(4) The expression ‘be merciful’ in AV of Dt 21:8, 32:43 is corrected by RV to ‘forgive’ and

‘make expiation.’

2. Mercy in NT plays a part subordinate to that of love (wh. see). It represents a pair of Greek synonyms, both chiefly, but not exclusively, applied (in Scripture) to God. (a) As used in the LXX, the ordinary term (noun, adjective, and verb) in its noun-form reproduced commonly (2) of the Hebrew words above indicated; but in adjective and verb more often (3), less frequently (1).

It denotes compassion as a temper and motive of action rather than a sentiment—eleēmosynē (alms) is one of its derivatives; like ‘mercy,’ the Greek eleos regards its objects as weak or suffering, and is therefore narrower in range than the Hebrew (2) above defined. Out of the 27 examples of this noun in NT, 9 occur in OT allusions, 7 in salutations or benedictions; other examples are Mt 5:7, Lk 16:24, Ro 9:23, 2 Co 4:1, Ja 3:17. The verb is more frequent. (b) The second of the Greek synonyms—verb, noun, and adjective—is more pathetic, and corresponds to (1) of the OT terms; hence the Hebraizing combinations of Ph 2:1, Col 3:12, Ja 5:11 ( Hebraistic equivalents replace the regular Greek terms in Eph 4:32, 1 P 3:8). This tenderer significance

‘mercy’ hears in Lk 6:36, Ro 12:1, 2 Co 1:3, He 10:28, also in Mt 18:33 (RV, where AV reads ‘pity’). (c) ‘Of tender mercies’ in Ja 5:11 (AV; RV ‘merciful’) represents a Hebraistic compound nearly the same as that rendered ‘tender-hearted’ in Eph 4:32 and 1 P 3:8 (RV; AV ‘pitiful’).

Akin to these adjectives is the verb occurring 12 times in the Synoptic Gospels, which is rendered ‘moved with compassion’ (moved to mercy), describing the emotion stirred in the breast of Jesus—e.g. by the cry, ‘Have mercy on us,’ of Mt 20:31–34.

G. G. FINDLAY.

MERCY SEAT.—See TABERNACLE, § 7 b.

MERED.—A Judahite (1 Ch 4:17).

MEREMOTH.—1. The head of the 7th course of priests (Ezr 8:33, Neh 3:4, 21, 10:5) ; called in 1 Es 8:52 Marmoth. 2. See CARABASION. 3. See MERAIOTH, No. 3.

MERES.—One of the seven princes and counsellors of Ahasuerus (Est 1:14).

MERIBAH.—See MASSAH AND MERIBAH.

MERI(B)BAAL.—See MEPHIBOSHETH.

MERIBOTH-KADESH.—See MASSAH AND MERIBAH.

MERODACH.—The name of the city-god of Babylon, worshipped, after the establishment of Babylon as capital of the Babylonian Empire, as chief god of Babylonia. The Babylonian name was Marduk, older form Maruduk. He gradually absorbed the attributes of other gods once supreme through the influence of their city seats of worship, particularly Ellil the old Bēl, or lord supreme of Nippur. Hence he was in later times the Bēl of Babylonia. Merodach is a Hebraized form occurring only in Jer 50:2, but the Bēl of the Apocryphal Bēl and the Dragon (Is 46:1, Jer 51:44) is the same deity. Nebuchadnezzar was specially devoted to his worship, but the Assyrians reverenced him no less; and even Cyrus, on his conquest of Babylon, treated him with the deepest respect. The name occurs in many Babylonian proper names, and appears in the Bible in Merodach-baladan and Evil-merodach, and probably in Mordecai.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

MERODACH-BALADAN (Is 39:1; misspelt [in MT, but not in LXX] Berodach-b. in 2 K 20:12).—In Assyr. the name is written Marduk-bal-iddina, and means ‘Merodach has given a son.’ For his history see p. 66 f.

MEROM, THE WATERS OF.—The scene of Joshua’s victory over the northern kings; usually identified with Lake Huleh in the Upper Jordan Valley (Jos 11:5, 7). This identification is accepted by Robinson (BRP ii. 440), G. A. Smith (HGHL¹, 481), and others. It is questioned by Socin (Baedeker’s Palästina), Buhl (GAP), and Guthe (Bibelwörterbuch, s.v.), the last suggesting an impossible position near Meirōn, at the base of Jebel Jermuk. Joshua’s crowning victory would not be located by such ‘waters’ as are to be found there. The kings were encamped at Beroth, not far from Kadesh (Jos. Ant. V. i. 18), but probably they descended, as did Demetrius at a later date (Ant. XIII. v. 7), to battle in the plain, better suited than the rough uplands for the chariots on which they depended. There is nothing to wonder at in the disappearance of the ancient name, in a land where so many names have perished. It is almost certainly the lake Semechonitis of Ant. V. v. 1; the district to the N. was known as Ulatha (Ant. XV. x. 3; BJ I. xx. 4). This is the first appearance of the modern name—Ulatha = Hūleh—which covers both the lake and the district. The water is supplied by the fountains of the Jordan at Hasbeiyeh, Bāniās, and Tell el-Kādi, by the springs at ‘Ain el-Balāta and ‘Ain el-Mellāha on the western side of the valley; Mt. Hermon and the neighbouring slopes also drain into the basin. In shape Baheiret el-Hūleh is almost triangular. It lies 7 ft. above sea-level. The open water is about four miles in length by about three miles at the broadest part. It is from 10 to 16 ft. in depth. To the N. stretch great breadths of marsh land, with dense thickets of papyrus reeds, through which, in various channels, the streams find their way to the lake. Water fowl of all kinds abound, and the place is a sort of fisherman’s paradise. The Ghawārineh Arabs occupy the valley, till the soil, tend the buffaloes, hunt, and fish. The hair tent is seldom seen: their ‘houses’ are ‘built’ of the papyrus reed.

W. EWING.

MERONOTHITE.—A designation applied in the OT to two men. 1. Jehdeiah (1 Ch 27:30). 2. Jadon (Neh 3:7). From the context of Neh 3:7 Meronoth would appear to have been in the neighbourhood of Gibeon and Mizpah.

MEROZ.—A place which the angel of Jahweh bids men curse, together with its inhabitants, because they did not come to fight Jahweh’s battle against Sisera. It is mentioned only in Jg 5:23 , and probably owes its mention merely to the fact that it ‘lay in the line of Sisera’s flight’ ( Moore ).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

MERRAN.—Bar 3:23 only. Probably d was misread r in the Sem. original, and the name = Midian (cf. Gn 37:28, Hab 3:3, 7).

MESALOTH.—See ARBELA.

MESHA.—1. Son of Shaharaim, a Benjamite (1 Ch 8:2). 2. Firstborn of Caleb (1 Ch 2:42).

MESHA.—A king of Moab in the 9th cent. B.C. According to an inscription (on the ‘Moabite Stone’ discovered at Dibon in 1868) describing his deeds, he expelled the Israelitish inhabitants from northern Moab, or from a portion of the debatable land between the two monarchies east of the northern third of the Dead Sea. Under Omri, the builder of Samaria, the border of Israel had been extended southwards to near its ancient limits (Nu 21:24ff.); and Mesha reclaimed it by vindictive warfare, from Kiriathaim as far as Nebo. 2 K 3 also deals with the relation between northern Israel and Mesha, and it is difficult to reconcile the two accounts in every detail. The matter can best be dealt with here by giving the most probable order of the events: (1) the conquest by Omri [Inscription, lines 4, 5] about B.C. 880; (2) the expulsion of the Hebrews by Mesha in the time of Ahab [Inscr. 1. 8 ff.] about B.C. 855, Mesha’s ‘forty years’ being, as also often in Hebrew narrative, a round number; (3) the refusal of Mesha to again submit, which is all that the Hebrew of 2 K 1:1, 3:5 (EV ‘rebelled’) necessarily implies; (4) the unsuccessful expedition by Joram and his allies to reduce Mesha to submission, recorded in 2 K 3:6–27.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MESHA is mentioned as marking one of the boundaries of the territory ascribed to the descendants of Joktan in Gn 10:25. Its position has not yet been satisfactorily identified. The proposed identification with the late territory of Mesene at the head of the Persian Gulf is improbable. A better case can be made out for identifying it with Mash or Mashu, a general term in the Assyrian inscriptions for the Syro-Arabian desert; though the passage suggests that a single place, or tribe, rather than so vast a region, is referred to. If the vowel points be emended the word may be read as Massa, the name of a son of Ishmael in Gn 25:14 and 1 Ch 1:30. Traces of this latter tribe have been sought in place names in central Arabia, but no identification yet suggested can be regarded as certain.

L. W. KING.

MESHACH.—The name Mishael, by which one of Da niel’s three companions, of the children of Judah, was originally called, was changed by the prince of the eunuchs into Meshach (Dn 1:7 and ch. 3). Such changes of name were not uncommon; they marked the fact that a new state of life had now begun. The meaning of the name is quite uncertain.

MESHECH.—1. The name of a people of Asia Minor mentioned after Tubal as among the sons of Japbeth (Gn 10:2). These two peoples, possibly kindred, appear almost always in conjunction in OT; so even in Is 66:18, where read ‘Meshech’ instead of ‘that draw the bow’ ( the word for ‘bow’ being a supplementary gloss). In Ps 12:06 Meshech and Kedar appear as types of barbarous and warlike people, just as Meshech and Tubal are represented in Ezk 32:28, 38:2 , 39:1. In the Assyrian annals the Tabalī and Mushkī, who are undoubtedly the same as Tuhal and Meshech, are found again together (as fierce opponents of Assyria in the 12th cent. B.C.), the former lying to the north-east of Cilicia and the latter eastward between them and the Euphrates. The Tibareni and Moschi of the classical writers must stand for the same two peoples. Ezk 27:13 names them as trading in slaves and articles of bronze.

2. In 1 Ch 1:17 ‘Meshech’ is written by mistake for ‘Mash’ (cf. Gn 10:23)

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MESHELEMIAH.—The eponym of a family of Korahite doorkeepers (1 Ch 9:21, 26:1) = Shelemiah of 26:14, Shallum of 9:17, 19, 31, and Meshullam of Neh 12:25.

MESHEZABEL.—1. One of those who helped to repair the wall (Neh 3:4). 2. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:21). 3. The father of Pethahiah (Neh 11:24).

MESHILLEMITH.—A priest (1 Ch 9:12); called in Neh 11:13 Meshillemoth.

MESHILLEMOTH.—1. An Ephraimite (2 Ch 28:12)-2. A priest (Neh 11:13); called in 1 Ch 9:12 Meshillemith.

MESHOBAB.—A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:34).

MESHULLAM.—1. 2. 3. Three Benjamites (1 Ch 8:17, 9:7, 3). 4. A Gadite (1 Ch 5:13). 5. The grandfather of Shaphan (2 K 22:3). 6. The father of Hilkiah (1 Ch 9:11). 7. Another priest of the same family (1 Ch 9:12). 8. A Kohathite (2 Ch 34:12). 9. A son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:19). 10. One of the ‘chief men’ whose services were enlisted by Ezra to procure Levites (Ezr 8:16) ; called in 1 Es 8:44 Mosollamus. 11. A Levite who opposed Ezra’s proceedings in connexion with the foreign marriages (Ezr 10:15); called in 1 Es 9:14 Mosollamus. 12. One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:29); called in 1 Es 9:30 Olamus. 13. Son of Berechiah, one of those who helped to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:4, 30). His daughter was married to Tobiah (6:18). 14. Son of Besodeiah. He helped to repair the old gate (Neh 3:5). 15. One of the company that stood at Ezra’s left hand during the reading of the Law (Neh 8:4). 16, 17. A priest and a chief of the people who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:7, 20). 18. One of the princes of Judah who marched in procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 12:33). 19 ,

20, 21. Two heads of priestly houses and a porter in the time of the high priest Joiakim ( Neh 12:13, 16, 25 [see MESHELEMIAH]).

MESHULLEMETH.—Wife of king Manasseh and mother of Amon (2 K 21:19).

MESOPOTAMIA = Aram-naharaim (see ARAM).

MESS.—A mess is any dish of food sent to the table (Lat. missum, Fr. mes). The word occurs in Gn 43:24, 2 S 11:8, Sir 30:13, and RV introduces it at He 12:16.

MESSIAH.—The ‘one anointed’ (Gr. Christos), i.e. appointed and empowered by God through the impartation of His own spirit, to become the Saviour of His people. The conception of the Messiah is logically implicit in all the expectations of the Hebrew people that Jehovah would deliver Israel and turn it into a glorious empire to which all the heathen would be subjected. But it is not always explicit. The expectation of the coming Kingdom is more in evidence than the expectation of the coming King. But in the same proportion as the conception of the personal Messiah emerges from the general Messianic hope these elements appear within it: (1) the Deliverer; (2) the presence of God’s Spirit in His own personality as the source of His power; (3) His work as the salvation of God’s people, at first the Jewish nation, but ultimately all those who join themselves to Him.

1. The Messiah of the OT—

In any historical study of the OT it is necessary to distinguish sharply between the Messianic interpretation given to certain passages by later writers, notably Christian and Rabbinic, and the expectation which, so far as it is recoverable, the writers of the OT actually possessed. A disregard of this distinction has been common from the point of view of theological statement, but is fatal to a proper understanding of that progress in the religious apprehension of God and the clarifying of religious expectations which constitutes so large a factor in the Biblical revelation of God. It is always easier to discover tendencies as one looks back over a historical course of events than as one looks forward into the future which these events determine. The proper method in the study of the Messianic hope is not to mass the sentences of the OT to which a Messianic interpretation is given by later Biblical or extra-Biblical writers, but to study them in their context both literary and historical. In such a tracing of the historical development it is necessary to recognize critical results as far as they are reasonably fixed, and thus avoid reading back into the original hopes of the Hebrews those interpretations and implications which were given to the early history by various redactors. These latter, however, constitute data for the understanding of the Messianic ideal in the age of the editors.

Unfortunately, in the present state of criticism it is not possible to arrange the material of the OT in strictly chronological order. This is particularly true in the case of that reflecting the Messianic hope. The following classification of OT references is, therefore, not to he taken as a chronological exposition of a developing hope so much as a grouping of material of similar character.

1. The national tendencies of Messianic prophecy.—In the case of prophets like Elijah and Elisha the hope is hardly more distinct than a belief that the nation which worshipped Jehovah would he triumphant over its enemies. So far as the records of their teaching show, however, there was no expectation of any superhuman deliverer, or, in fact, any future contemplated other than one which presupposed a conquering Israel with an equally triumphant Jehovah. Eschatological conceptions were absent, and the new Kingdom was to be political in the truest sense. With the approach of the more tragic days of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, the threatened calamities served as a text for the foreboding of Amos. Hosea’s prophecies of prosperity which would come to the nation when it turned from idols and alliances with heathen nations to the forgiving Jehovah may, as current criticism insists, belong to a later period than that usually accorded them; but in them we find little or nothing of the noble universalism to be seen in the promised victory of the seed of the woman over the serpent (Gn 3:14, 15). It is rather a hope of national glory, such as appears in the promise made to Shem (9:27), to Abraham (12:8), to Jacob (27:27–29), and, in particular, to Judah (49:8–12). The basis of this great expectation is the faith in Jehovah as interpreted by the prophets, whether earlier or later. It was inconceivable to them that the true God should be other than ultimately triumphant; cf. the prophecy of Balaam (Nu 24:17–19), Song of Moses (Dt 32:6–10), the expectation of ‘the prophet’ (Dt 18:16–19). This nationalism is to be seen throughout the Messianic hope of the OT, although occasional exceptions are to be found, as in Gn 3:14, 15, and in some passages of Ezekiel.

2. The Messianic hope of the great prophets.—With Isaiah began a new development of the Messianic hope, primarily through the preaching of deliverance from the inevitable catastrophe of the Assyrian conquest. Out of the sorrows of the time, born largely, as Isaiah believed, from the sins of Jehovah’s people, was to arise deliverance. This seems to be the central teaching of the great passage, Is 7:10–17. Deliverance was to come before the expected child could choose between good and evil, but by the time he reached maturity the greater misery of Assyrian invasion should break forth. But in the name of the child, Immanuel, was the pledge that Jehovah would ever he with His people and would ultimately save them; not impossibly through the child himself, although nothing is said of Immanuel’s share in the accomplishment of the deliverance. Whether or not the reference in Is 9:6, 7 is to Immanuel, it is unquestionable that it is to the coming of a descendant of David, who should deliver Israel and reign with Jehovah’s assistance for ever triumphantly. In that glorious time, which was to he inaugurated by the Messianic King, would be prosperity hitherto unknown (Is 11:1–9). The ‘eternity’ of his reign is undoubtedly to he interpreted dynastically rather than personally, but the king himself clearly is a person, and Jehovah’s Spirit, which is to be within him, is just as plainly the source of his great success (cf. Is 33:14–24). In a similar spirit Micah localizes the new Kingdom established through Divine guidance in Zion (Mic 4:1–5), and declares that the King is to come from Bethlehem, that is to say, shall be Davidic (5:2–5).

Primarily national as these expectations are, the keynote is the deliverance wrought by Jehovah through a particular royal person, in whose days righteousness and peace are to he supreme in the world because of the Hebrew empire. This picture of the royal king became one controlling element in the later Messianic hope.

In this literature, whatever its date may be, there appears also the new note of universal peace to be wrought by Jehovah. In large measure this peace was conceived of as due to the completeness of Jehovah’s conquest of the nations in the interests of His people (cf. Is 9:1–5). But beyond this there can also be seen the hope that the very nature of the reign of the new King would conduce to an end of war. In such a passage as Is 11:1–10 there is struck the keynote of a nobler Messianic reign than that possible to the mere conqueror. The peace then promised was to come from a knowledge of Jehovah as well as from the glories of the Davidic ruler.

The reformation of Josiah finds an echo in the equally exultant expectation of Jeremiah—that Jehovah would surely place a descendant of David upon the throne, a ‘righteous branch,’ and one who would deliver Israel (Jer 33:14–16). The glory of the restored kingdom was to he enhanced by a New Covenant to replace the broken covenant of Sinai. This covenant would be spiritual, and the relations which it would establish between Israel and Jehovah would be profoundly religious. Israel would be a servant of Jehovah, who would, on His part, forgive His people’s sins (Jer 31:31–34, cf. 33:17–22). The restoration of Israel, which was thus to be accomplished by Jehovah, involved not only national honour, but also a new prosperity for the priesthood, and new immortality on the part of the individual and the nation. There is no reference, however, to a personal Messiah. Yet if such a passage as Dt 18:16–19 belongs to this period, it is evident that the hope included the expectation of some great person, who would he even more sublime than Moses himself.

3. The Messianic hope during the Exile.—The great catastrophe which fell upon both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms forced the prophets to re-examine the relations of national misfortune to the persistent hope of the glorious Kingdom of Jehovah. It would seem as if at the outset the exiles had expected that they would soon return to Palestine, but this hope was opposed most vigorously by Ezekiel, and the fall of Jerusalem confirmed his teaching. From the despair that followed, the people were rescued by the appearance of Cyrus, who became the instrument of Jehovah in bringing about the return of the remnant to their own land. It was from these dark years that there appeared a new type of Messianic hope, national and economic, it is true, but also profoundly religious. Jehovah would care for His people as the shepherd cared for his sheep, and the land to which they would return would be renewed (Ezk 34:11–31), while the nations would support Israel and fear Jehovah (Is 49:22, 23). Jehovah would make an everlasting covenant with His people (Is 55:1–6), but the new nation would not he composed of all those who had been swept into exile and their descendants. It would rather be a righteous community, purified by suffering. Thus the hope rises to that recognition of the individual which Ezekiel was the first to emphasize strongly.

At this point we have to decide whether the suffering Servant of Jehovah is to be interpreted collectively as the purified and vicarious remnant of Israel; or as some individual who would stand for ever as a representative of Jehovah, and, through his sufferings, purify and recall Israel to that spiritual life which would he the guarantee of a glorious future; or as the suffering nation itself. The interpretation placed upon these ‘Servant’ passages (Is 43:1–13, 49:5, 61:1–3, 52:13–

15, 53:1–12) in Rabbinic thought was ordinarily not personal, but national. It was a suffering

Israel who was not only to be gloriously redeemed, but was also to bring the knowledge of Jehovah and salvation to the world at large. And this is becoming the current interpretation today. Yet the personification is so complete as to yield itself readily to the personal application to Jesus made by the early Church and subsequent Christian expositors. A vicarious element, which was to prove of lasting influence, is now introduced into Messianic expectation. The deliverance was to be through the sufferings of the Deliverer. See, further, SERVANT OF THE LORD.

4. ‘Messianic’ Psalms.—While it is not possible to date Ps 2 with any precision, its picture of the coming King who shall reign over all the world because of the power of Jehovah, is fundamentally political. The same is true of Pss 45 and 72. In these Psalms there are expressions which could subsequently be used very properly to express the expectation of a completed Messianic hope, but it would be unwise to read back into them a conscious expectation of a definite superhuman person. The hope at the time of the writing of these Psalms was national and political.

5. The attempt at a Messianic nation.—With the return of the exiles from Babylon to Judah attempts were made to inaugurate an ideal commonwealth which should embody these anticipations. The one great pre-requisite of this new nation was to be the observance of the Law, which would insure the coming of the Spirit of Jehovah upon the new Israel (Jl 2:28, 29, Hag 1:13, Zec 2:1–5, etc., Is 60:1–22). The coronation of Zerubbabel seemed to Haggai and

Zechariah the fulfilment of the promise that the prince would come from the house of David

(Hag 2:23, Zec 3:8). But the new commonwealth was thoroughly inefficient, and the Messianic hope seems to have become dormant in the struggles of the weak State. The literary activity of the years between the re-building of the Temple and the Maccabæan outbreak was, however, if current critical views be correct, full of idealistic elements. These expressed themselves in a reworking of the older codes and prophecies of the Hebrews, under the influence of the faith in the coming triumph Jehovah would give His people. The personal Deliverer is not described, but the deliverance was assured. This genuinely Messianic hope was not killed even by other tendencies to replace prophecy by the philosophy of experience. Through all these years it is certain that the fundamental elements of the Messianic hope remained fixed; namely, the ineradicable belief that Jehovah would (a) make of the Jewish nation a world empire; (b) establish the house of David; (c) punish the enemies of His chosen people, whether Gentiles or Jews; and (d) that this glorious future would be established by the expression of the Divine power in the resurrection, not of the individual from Sheol, but of the nation from its miseries. These elements were subsequently to develop into the dominant characteristics of the later Messianic hope—the Kingdom of God, the Davidic King, the Day of Judgment, and the Resurrection of the Righteous.

II. The Messiah of the Jewish literature

1. The rise of apocalypse.—The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to crush out Judaism led to the appearance of a new type of religious literature—the apocalypse. The origin of this literature is a matter of dispute. The influence of the Babylonian myth cycles is certainly apparent, but the apocalypses, as they stand, have no precise analogy in other literature of the period. For our present purpose, however, the importance of the apocalypse lies in the fact that it contributed to the development of a new Messianic conception. In the very nature of the case the misery of Syrian persecution forced ‘the Pious’ not only to renewed faith in Jehovah, but also to a new sense of the need of prophecy. In the absence of the genuine prophet, the triumph of Israel and the inevitable destruction of Jehovah’s foes were foretold by symbol. The pseudonymous literature, which thus arose in the course of time, however, came to be taken not simply as figures of speech, but as possessing an ill-defined literal character (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE).

2. The Messiah of the later canonical books is not well defined. The apocalyptic sections of Daniel contain a pervasive Messianic element, and in the portrayal of this hope we find the first thoroughly elaborated apocalypse of Judaism. The international relations of Israel are traced, but the historical horizon is bounded by Antiochus Epiphanes. A most important element of the future as set forth by Daniel is to be seen in the triumph of the kingdom of the saints, whose symbol is a ‘son of man,’ over the oppressing kingdoms of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Syria, symbolized by the four beasts. There is, however, no sharply distinct personal Messiah in these visions, and the expectation is primarily that of a genuinely political State established by Jehovah in Palestine. The ‘day of Jehovah’ (see DAY OF THE LORD) is, however, now elaborately developed into a world-judgment, and the lines of future apocalyptic Messianism are clearly drawn. But it is now to some extent expanded by the belief that the righteous, both Hebrews and others, would be raised from the dead to join in the Kingdom (Dn 12:1ff.). In this union of the idea of the resurrection of the nation with that of the individual we find material which was ready to grow into the pictures of the later apocalypse.

3. In the Sibylline Oracles the figure of the Messiah again is not distinct, but there is a picture (III. 652, 794) of a glorious time when under a Divinely supported king (doubtless a member of the Hasmonæan house) war was to cease and God was to bless the righteous and punish the wicked. The nations would then come under the law of Jehovah, and Jerusalem would be the capital of the world-wide empire to be established miraculously. The other literature of the interBiblical period is not so hopeful, although ben-Sira foresees an everlasting Jewish empire under a Davidic dynasty (Sir 32:18, 19, 33:1f., 37:25, 47:11, 50:24).

4. In the different strata of the Eth. Enoch literature the hope of a personal Messiah is presented in somewhat different degrees of distinctness. In the older sections (1–36) of the original groundwork (chs. 1–36, 72–104), the hope, though apocalyptic, is national. Here, however, as in the later literature, attention is centred rather on the punishment of the wicked than on the development of the new Kingdom. Very note worthy is the fact that both the punishment of the wicked and the rewards of the righteous were to be eschatological. But eschatology, though involving the resurrection, is still somewhat naïve. The righteous are to live 500 years, beget 1000 children, and die in peace (ch. 10). Still, the punishment of the wicked is to be in Sheol, which has been divided into four sections with varying conditions (ch. 22; see SHEOL). It is obvious, however, that in this early Enoch literature the thought is poetic rather than precise, and in a way it marks the transition from the political religious hope of the prophets to the transcendental expectations of the later apocalypses.

In the dream visions (chs. 83–90) there is a more elaborate symbolical account of the sufferings of the Hebrew people under various oppressors. The new age, however, is about to be introduced by the Day of Judgment, when wicked persons—whether men, rulers, or angels—are to be cast into an abyss of fire. Then the New Jerusalem is to be established by God. The dead are to be raised, the Messiah is to appear, and all men are to he transformed into His likeness. These latter elements of the hope, however, are somewhat obscurely expressed. The Messiah seems to have no particular function either of judgment or of conquest. The new Kingdom is a direct gift of God.

In the later chapters of this early section (chs. 90–104) the thought becomes more eschatological. The resurrection comes at the end of the Messianic reign, which is to be one of struggle, in which the wicked are to be subdued. The Messiah is thus more distinct, and is at least once called by God ‘my Son.’

In the other group of Enoch visions (chs. 37–72) the transcendental has become to some extent literalized. The Messiah is now very prominent, being called ‘son of man,’ ‘elect,’ ‘righteous one.’ He is pre-existent, and co-judge with God over both the living and the dead. The punishment of the enemies of Israel is still as prominent as the establishment of the new Kingdom, and the latter is described in terms which make it evident that the Jews could not conceive of any Kingdom of God apart from Palestine. There men and angels are to dwell together and rule over a world freed from sin.

5. In the Book of Jubilees the Messianic hope is all but lacking. Angelology and demonology are well developed, but apparently the author of the visions conceived of the Messianic age as about to dawn, even if it had not already begun. Members of that age were to live 1000 years, and were to be free from the influence of Satan. The Judgment was to close this period, but there was to be no resurrection of the body. There is no reference to a Messiah, but rather to the conquest of the world by a nation that kept Jehovah’s law.

6. The best-drawn picture of the Messiah in the Pharisaic literature is that of the Psalms of Solomon. In the 17th and 18th of these the apocalyptic element is largely wanting, but there is nothing inconsistent with the view of apocalyptic Messianism. The Messiah, however, is given a position not accorded him elsewhere in pre-Christian Jewish literature. He is neither sufferer nor teacher, pre-existent nor miraculously born; he is a mighty king, vice-regent of God, strong through the Holy Spirit. He would conquer the world without weapons or armies, with the word of his mouth, i.e. miraculously. The capital would be at Jerusalem, which would be purged from all heathen, and his subjects would be righteous Jews, ‘sons of God.’

7. The literature of later Pharisaism became very strongly apocalyptic, but the figure of a personal Messiah is not always present. In the Assumption of Moses there is no personal Messiah mentioned, and God is said to be the sole punisher of the Gentiles. The sufferings of the faithful are treated as an incentive to faith in the Kingdom of God. The concrete king of the hostile kingdom should be overcome. The enemies of God were to be punished in Gehenna, and a glorious dispensation for united Israel was to dawn.

In Slavonic Enoch, likewise, there is no mention of the Messiah or of the resurrection, although the latter is doubtless involved in the doctrine of the millennium, which this book sets forth. It would appear that both in the Assumption of Moses and in Slavonic Enoch the central figure is God, the deliverer of His people and judge of His enemies, rather than the Messiah.

In the Apocalypse of Baruch and in Second Esdras, however, transcendentalism reaches its final form under the influence of the tragedy of the fall of Jerusalem. These two books are very probably the different forms of cycles of apocalyptic hopes that prevailed among the pious Jews. In one cycle a Messiah would slay those who had in any way injured the Jewish people, and make a Jerusalem already prepared in heaven his capital. In the other cycle there is no such glory in store for Israel, but there will be an end of corruptible things, and the establishment of a new world-age in which the dead shall be raised under the command of the Messiah. In Second Esdras the Christ is conceived of as pre-existent, raised from the sea in company with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah; and is addressed by God as ‘my Son.’ He destroys the enemies of Israel without war, with fire that proceeds from his mouth. The ten tribes of Israel return with their brethren to live in the New Jerusalem which had come down from heaven. Then the Messiah and all mankind die, remaining dead for an entire ‘week’; after that come a general resurrection and judgment, and the fixing of the destinies of eternity. God, however, rather than the Messiah, is to be judge.

In these later apocalypses the Christ plays a large rôle, but is manifestly to be subordinated to God.

III. The Messiah of popular expectation in NT times.—Over against this Messiah of

Pharisaic literature, so clearly increasingly superhuman in character, must be placed the

Messianic hope of the people at large. It is difficult to discover this in detail, for the reason that it found its way into literature only as a hope that had been rejected by the writers. Yet it is possible in some passages of Josephus to trace its rise and its tragic outcome. The Messianic spirit is undoubtedly to be seen in the succession of so-called ‘robbers’ that disturbed the reigns of Herod I. and his successors; as well as in the conspiracies under ‘the ten men’ (Ant. XV. viii. 3, 4) and the Rabbis Judas and Matthias (Ant. XVII. vi. 2, 4). With the death of Herod, however, the Messianic movement among the masses gathered headway, particularly after the erection of Judæa into a procuratorial province (A.D. 6). Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zaduc organized a fourth sect coordinate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and incited the people to revolt, because of the census then established. There is no evidence, however, that this new sect, which is clearly that of the Zealots, had any distinct hope of a superhuman Messiah. According to Josephus (Ant. XVIII. i. 1, 6), they said God was to be their only ruler and lord. To this new party Josephus attributes in large degree the fall of the Jewish State. Messianic movements are also to be seen in the attempted revolt of the prophet Theudas, in robbers like Eleazar, in the Sicarii (or Assassins), and in ‘the Egyptian,’ with whom St. Paul was momentarily identified by the chief captain (Ac 21:33). Besides these were bands of fanatics like those mysterious men mentioned by Josephus (BJ II. i. 2, 3). All these movements co-operated to bring about the destruction of the Jewish State, for the revolt of 66 must be regarded as distinctly Messianic—a fact perceived by Josephus in the important passage BJ VI. v. 4, where it is said: ‘What most stirred them up to war was the ambiguous oracle that was found also in their sacred writings [doubtless Daniel; cf. Ant. X. x. 4] that about that time one from their country should become ruler of the world.’

It is greatly to be regretted that this Messianic hope of the people has not left larger traces of itself. It is, however, not difficult to see in it the more political and concrete hopes which the Pharisees expressed in terms of the apocalypse. The Zealots, like the Pharisees, expected the new Kingdom to be established by God or His representative the Messiah, but, unlike the Pharisees, they were not content to await the Divine action. They preferred rather to precipitate deliverance by political revolt. The fact that the Messiah is not prominent in such hopes does not imply that such a person was unexpected. A leader would certainly be involved in any revolt, but such a leader would not necessarily be superhuman. Yet it would be unsafe to say that the Messiah whom the people expected, any more than he whom the Pharisees awaited, would be without Divine appointment and inspiration. He might not be, strictly speaking, supernatural, but he would certainly be given the Divine Spirit and power to bring deliverance which, without the aid of God, would be clearly impossible. The chief difference between the Messianic hope of the Pharisees and that of the Zealots and people was probably the lack in the latter of the

eschatological, transcendental element, such as the resurrection from the dead and the heavenly Jerusalem, which was so important in the hope of the Pharisees. How thoroughly social and political this folk-Messianism became is to be seen in the various abortive attempts to establish, during the revolt of 66, a peasant republic, as well as in the destruction of evidence of indebtedness and the massacre of the aristocrats. The Pharisaic expectation would never have led to violence, but rather involved the patient waiting of the faithful for the time set by Jehovah.

IV. The Messiah of the Samaritans.—It would be exceedingly helpful, particularly for an understanding of Jn 4:1–42, if we knew the Samaritan Messianic hope with some precision. Unfortunately, there is no literature dating from the time of Christ which sets this forth. So far, however, as it can be recovered from later sources, and particularly from the present high priest of the Samaritans, it would seem that the expectation did not include the Davidic King of Judaism, but centred rather about the prophecy of Dt 18:15 of the prophet God was to raise up like unto Moses. This prophet, according to the Samaritan belief, was to be ‘the Converter,’ who would bring moral and religious truth to light. At the same time, they believed that the Gentiles would be subjected to him, would believe in him and the holy Law, and in the sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim. There seems to have been no expectation of miraculous powers to be exercised by the prophet; but concerning this, as in fact about other particulars of the Samaritan hope, no statement can be made with absolute certainty.

V. The Messiah of Rabbinism.—Subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, Pharisaism developed rapidly into its final stage of Rabbinism. The two tendencies which are so marked in Pharisaism—one towards strict legalism, the other towards Messianicidealism—were then codified and systematically elaborated. The development of the Messianic expectation, however, was to some extent shaped by the need of combating the Messianic interpretations of

Christianity. Traces of this influence are undoubtedly to be found in the Targum on Is 53, and in 2 Esdras, but they are also to appear in literature that was clearly subjected to Christian redaction. The Messiah was generally regarded as a descendant of David. He was to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its emperor of the kingdom of evil, and set up his own Kingdom. He was regarded also as pre-existent, not merely ideally, but actually. For a merely ideal pre-existence is not to be argued from the well-known saying including the seven things created before the world was made. The name here undoubtedly implies personality, and in some of the later Jewish writings this pre-existent state is somewhat minutely described. He is to be hidden until he appears, but the obvious inconsistencies of view were never fully systematized.

Doubtless because of the Messianic arguments of Christians, based upon such passages as Is 53, the Rabbis were forced to the recognition of the idea of the suffering Messiah. In this recognition, however, no change was made in the conception of the Messiah the son of David, but the belief came to involve a second Messiah the son of Joseph. His office and person are not described in detail, but later Rabbinic teaching held that he would appear before the coming of the Messiah the son of David, would gather faithful Jews to him, defeat his people’s enemies, and establish a great empire with its capital and temple at Jerusalem. Thereafter some one of the various transcendental enemies of Israel, like Gog and Magog, would defeat and slay him. Then the Messiah son of David would come and resurrect the Messiah son of Joseph, and establish the great and more permanent Messianic Kingdom. This conception of the Messiah son of Joseph, however, has never played a very large role in Rabbinic Messianism, and must be regarded in the light of a concession to Christian opponents rather than as a really formative influence. The older hope of the Messiah son of David is that dominant among orthodox Jews, who still await his coming, which is to follow the appearance of Elijah (Mal 3:1, 4:6, 6).

VI. The Messiah of the NT.—As its very name indicates, Christianity centres about the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The definition of that word as applied to Jesus is one about which there is some difference of opinion. Conceivably it might be (a) that of Pharisaic Messianism; (b) something altogether new; or, more probably, (c) the old conception modified by certain new elements.

In discovering what the Messianic conceptions of the NT are, it is necessary to avoid a dogmatic attitude of mind, and to come to the discussion from the historical-exegetical point of view. In such a method the point of departure is the presupposition that current beliefs and definitions were used by Jesus and His disciples wherever such thoughts and definitions are not distinctly changed or abrogated. A disregard of this primary principle in historical method has too frequently been the cause of false perspective and anachronistic conclusions as regards NT thought.

1. Jesus’ conception of Messiahship.—That Jesus conceived of Himself as a Messiah seems to be beyond question, it the saying of Mk 14:61, 62 is regarded as historical. But such a conclusion does not rest wholly upon a single saying. His words concerning His conquest of Satan (Mk 3:23–28) are altogether consonant with the conception of Himself as Christ; and His assent to the confession of the Apostles at Cæsarea Philippi is a practical acceptance of the title (Mk 8:27–30, which has been made more explicit in Mt 16:13–16, Lk 9:18–20). His answer to the inquiry of John the Baptist as to whether He were the Coming One (Mt 11:2–10, Lk 7:18f.) can be interpreted only as affirmative. The question was genuinely Messianic, and the Scripture which He used (Is 35:5, 6) was given a Messianic interpretation by the Rabbis. To give it any other than a Messianic implication is to render the whole episode unintelligible. It is to be noticed further that this saying is not exposed to the difficulties which inhere in some of the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus, or in the repeated Messianic designations of the Fourth Gospel.

It is easy by a process of subjective criticism to remove such sayings from the field of discussion, but such procedure is arbitrary in view of the facts already adduced. It is true that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus does not at the beginning of the Galilæan ministry go about the country announcing that He is the Christ, but neither does He undertake this sort of propaganda according to the Johannine source. And it should not be overlooked that in any case His words in the synagogue of Nazareth (Lk 4:16–30, Mt 13:54–58, Mk 6:1–6), which can best be interpreted as an exposition of His conception of His

Messiahship, were uttered in the early part of His ministry. While some allowance may be made for the Johannine accounts of the early acceptance of Jesus as Christ, there is no reason why the ascription of the title to Him by the disciples might not have been made at the beginning of the ministry in the same futurist sense as is involved in the obvious Messianic definition implied in the questions of the sons of Zebedee in the Synoptic cycle (Mk 10:35–45). The fact that Jesus accepted such interpretations of His future makes it plain that He regarded Himself as Christ, at least in the sense that He was to dn Messianic work in the future.

This, however, brings us face to face with the question as to how far Jesus applied to Himself the eschatological Messianic hopes of His people, and how far He developed an original Messianic ideal. As yet no consensus of scholars has been reached on this very difficult point.

Certain things, however, seem to be established. (a) Jesus was not regarded generally as the

Christ, but rather as a prophet and miracle-worker. He certainly refused to commit Himself to the Messianic programme of the Zealots. He rejected the title ‘Son of David’ (Mk 12:35), and refused to be made a king, or to use physical force in bringing in the Kingdom of God (Jn 6:15 ; cf. Mt 4:8–10, Lk 4:5–8, Mk 14:47, 58). (b) Unless all reference by Jesus to the future in terms of eschatology is to be denied (a decision impossible for reasonable criticism), He certainly thought of Himself as returning in the near future to establish a Kingdom that was eschatological.

Although it is probable that the writers of the Gospels have imported eschatological references into the sayings of Jesus, it is impossible to remove them altogether. If, as is probable, Jesus conceived of the Kingdom as the gift of God, for whose coming men were to prepare, it is inevitable that His Messianic career would have been regarded as future as truly as the Kingdom itself (cf. Mt 6:10, Mk 9:1, Lk 12:32 , Mt 25, Mk 14:51, 62, Mk 13, 1 Th 4:15–17, Mt 19:28, Lk 22:30).

(c) But although the coming of the Kingdom, with the attendant Judgment, was still in the future, Jesus cannot be said to have conceived of His mission wholly in terms of eschatology. He had broken with Pharisaism too completely to warrant our attributing to Him a priori complete subjection to any Pharisaic conception. If there is anything that stands out in the expression of Jesus’ self-consciousness, it is that His experience of God was superior to that of a prophet.

While in the Synoptic Gospels He does not use explicitly the terms ‘Christ’ or ‘Son of God’ of Himself, His reticence in the use of terms is balanced by His conception of His own relation to the Kingdom of God. He was the ‘Son of Man,’ i.e., in accordance with Dn 7:18, He was the type of the coming Kingdom. If, as is undoubtedly the case, He maintained reserve in His preaching in making explicit claims concerning Messiahship, such reserve is easily explained as a preventive against those misapprehensions with which people would have been sure to regard His work. The spirit of the Lord was upon Him to enable Him to do certain deeds which it was expected the Christ would perform. He was gathering disciples who, as His followers, were to share in the coming Kingdom. In a word, because of the Divine Spirit embodied in His own selfconsciousness, He was already engaged in the work of saving God’s people. (d) The connecting link between the Messianic career of service and the Messianic career of glory was His death. No fair criticism can doubt that Jesus saw in these two supreme experiences elements of His work as Saviour. Only thus can we interpret His saying at the Last Supper and His repeated prophecies to

His followers (Mk 14:24, 8:31–9:1, 9:30–32, Mt 12:40, Lk 12:45, 46). Thus He fulfilled in

Himself the Messianic picture of the Suffering Servant of Is 53. (e) In conclusion, it appears that Jesus’ conception of Himself as Messiah was that He was the One in whom God Himself was revealing Himself as the Saviour of those who would accept Him as the Father. The teaching of Jesus from this point of view becomes something more than theoretical ethics and religion, and is seen to be an exposition of His own Messianic self-consciousness. Even in His humiliation and in His sufferings He was the Divinely empowered Saviour. If His faith in the ultimate triumph of that salvation took the form of the eschatology of His people, it does not thereby lose any of its significance. By His sufferings God’s righteous Servant did justify many, and by His death on the cross He did draw men to Him. With His resurrection began a new era in religious experience, which revealed the realities of those pictures of that transcendental ‘age to come’ in which current Messianism clothed the glories of the Divine deliverance.

In short, Jesus modified the conception of the Messiah fundamentally: (1) by recognizing in

His own experience vicarious suffering as a part of the Divine deliverance, but even more (2) by His insistence on the universal fatherliness of God, which transformed salvation from something ethnic and national into a salvation from sin and death of all those who accept Him as the Christ; i.e. who by faith reproduce in their lives that dynamic union with God, which was the source of the power which He Himself exhibited in His life and resurrection.

2. The conception of the Messiah among the Apostles.—In general the Apostles may be said to have believed Jesus to be the Messiah in the sense that (a) in His earthly period of humiliation He was anointed with God’s Spirit; (b) that He had not done the strictly Messianic work during His earthly career; (c) that He had been declared the Christ by His resurrection; and (d) that, though now in authority in heaven, He would return to deliver His people, establish a Kingdom, and hold the world-judgment which was to be preceded by the resurrection of believers, if not of all men.

(1) In the primitive Church of Jerusalem expectation centred about the eschatological concept of judgment and deliverance. As appears from the speech of St. Peter at Pentecost (Ac 2:14–42) , as well as from other addresses from the early chapters of Acts, the disciples believed that the new age was about to dawn. They were living in ‘the last days’ of the pre-Messianic age. The Christ had appeared, but had been killed, had ascended to heaven after His resurrection, thence He had sent the Holy Spirit to those who believed that He was the Christ, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jl 2:28–32 (which, however, had not been thus interpreted by the Pharisees). The Resurrection had not made Him the Christ, but had decisively shown that He was the One whom God had made Lord and Christ (Ac 2:36). In the primitive Church the Messianic deliverance was limited to the commonwealth of Israel. If the Gentiles were to share in the Messianic deliverance, they had need to be circumcised and join the Jewish community (Ac 15:1).

Just how far disciples like St. Peter and St. John were committed to this strictly Jewish type of Messianic expectation it is difficult to say. It would, however, be unfair to hold that they represented the so-called ‘party of the circumcision’ which combated St. Paul in his removal of all conditions of salvation beyond faith in Jesus as Christ. It should not be overlooked, moreover, that even in the primitive Jerusalem Church the death of Jesus was regarded as a part of the Messianic programme of deliverance, though there is no distinct theory of the Atonement formulated.

(2) St. Paul’s conception of the Messiah, (i.) This is in marked advance upon that of the primitive Church. He was at one with the Jerusalem community in holding that the Kingdom had not yet come, and that Jesus would soon return from heaven to establish it. He built into his Messianic conception, however, a number of important elements, some of which were derived from Judaism. These elements were (a) the vicarious nature of the death of Christ; (b) the preexistence of Jesus as Christ; (c) the doctrine of the second Adam, i.e. that Jesus in His resurrection was the type of the risen humanity, as Adam was the type of physical humanity; (d) the more or less complete identification of Jesus with the Spirit who came to the disciples, as distinct from having been sent by Jesus to the disciples.

(ii.) It is not difficult to see, therefore, why it was that St. Paul’s chief interest did not lie in the career of the historical Jesus as a teacher and miracle-worker, but rather in the Divine, risen

Christ who maintained spiritual relations with His followers. To have made the teaching of Jesus the centre of his thought would have been to replace the legalism of the Law by the legalism of a new authority. St. Paul was evidently acquainted with the teaching of Jesus, but his message was not that of a completed ethical philosophy, but a gospel of good news of a salvation possible to all mankind, through faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The Pauline gospel to the unconverted ( see Ac 13:16–41, 14:8–17, 17:1–3) started with the expectation of Messianic judgment, presented the crucified Jesus as declared the Christ by His resurrection, proved it by the use of OT prophecy, and closed with the exhortation to his hearers to become reconciled to God, who was ready to forgive and save them. In his thought salvation consisted in the possession, through the indwelling Holy Spirit of God, of the sort of life which the risen Jesus already possessed.

Morality was the expression in conduct of. this regenerate life.

(iii.) The Pauline Christ is Divine, and His work is twofold. First, it is to be that of the Messiah of Jewish eschatology. The Apostle utilizes many of the elements of the Messianism of the Pharisees, e.g. the two ages, the world-judgment, the trumpet to raise the dead, the sorrows of ‘the last days.’ But he also made a distinct addition to Messianic thought (a) by his emphasis upon the relation of the death of Jesus to the acquittal of the believer in the eschatological judgment, and (b) in his formulation of a doctrine of the resurrection by the use of the historical resurrection of Jesus. The argument in this latter case rests on two foundations—testimony and the implications of Christian experience. The Christian is to be saved from death, the wages of sin, after the manner of his risen Lord, who had borne death on his behalf. Thus the Pauline Christology is essentially soteriological. Its speculative elements are wholly contributory to the exposition of the certainty and the reasonableness of the coming deliverance. Clothed though it is in Jewish vocabularies and conceptions, the Pauline conception of Christ and His work has for its foci the historical Jesus and Christian experience. The concepts inherited from Judaism do not give rise to his belief in the resurrection, but his confidence in the historicity of that event gives rise to his Christology.—Secondly, conceiving thus of Jesus as the supreme King of those whom He had delivered, the Pauline conceptions of His relations with the Church followed naturally. God was not to condemn those who had voluntarily undertaken to prepare for the Kingdom when it should appear. They were ‘justified’ through their faith in Jesus as Christ. But could the King of that coming Kingdom be indifferent to those who were justified, had already received the Holy Spirit as a first instalment of the future blessing, and were daily awaiting His reappearance?

The Christ was the ‘Head’ of the Church in ‘the last days,’ just as truly as, in the ‘coming age,’ He would be King. His supremacy over the Church consisted not merely in that its original nucleus was composed of His disciples, but also in that He had instituted its simple rites, established the details of its organization by giving to its members varying gifts of the Spirit, oversees its affairs, and is present within it. In fact, so intimate is His relation with the Church, that Christians may be said to be in Him, and He is them.

From this union of the believer with his Lord (generally mediated in the Pauline thought by the presence of the Holy Spirit) comes the consummation of the salvation of the individual. Since He had triumphed over death, the believer in whom the Holy Spirit lived might also expect the gift of that spiritual body which was one element of the salvation wrought by Jesus in the case of the Individual.

(iv.) Yet St. Paul would not say that the Christ was to reign eternally. After He had completed His work of Messianic deliverance, had finally conquered sin and death, and had established His glorious age, He was to give up the Kingdom to the Father that God might be all and in all (1 Co 15:24). Thus, while the Pauline soteriological thought is Christo-centric, his theology is Theo-centric. Jesus is Christ in the sense that through Him God accomplishes the salvation of His people—with St. Paul no longer the Jewish nation, but individuals who, because of their relations with the Deliverer, have been wrought into a unity on earth and await an even nobler unity in heaveo.

(3) In post-Pauline Apostolic thought the Messianic concept is still central, but in its development we notice two tendencies. (a) There is the tendency, already present in primitive and Pauline Christianity, to find confirmation of the Messianic dignity of Jesus in the OT prophecies. With their recollections of the historical career of Jesus, the Apostles saw in the OT Messianic meanings which had eluded the Pharisees. They did not, it is true, disregard those passages which set forth the royal dignity of the Christ, but they were far more concerned in arguing for the Messianic significance of those passages which foretold the victory of God’s Anointed over death and the vicarious nature of His sufferings. Thus such passages as Ps 110 and Is 53 were seen to supplement each other in teaching the consonance of the Messianic dignity with suffering.

As Christian thought developed, this tendency to find Messianic references in the OT set practically no limits to itself. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the essential features of the entire Hebrew cult are viewed as foreshadowings of the career and the glories of the Christ. In the prophetic fulfilments noticed by the writer of the First Gospel, the prophecy of the birth of a son to ‘the virgin’ (Is 7:14) and the recall of Israel from Egypt (Hos 11:1) are also seen to be prophecies of the experience of Jesus (Mt 1:23, 2:15). The same was true of more incidental matters, such as His name and His description as the Nazarene (Mt 2:23), while the experience of Jonah was regarded as a type of His burial and resurrection (12:40). Particularly was it seen that

His vicarious character was foretold. In the Book of Revelation the Messianic future of Jesus and

His Kingdom was still further elaborated by the copious utilization of apocalyptic thought. In the Apostolic Fathers the use of the OT as the basis for Christological thought involved an arbitrary exegesis which extended far beyond the limits of proper methodology; and events in the life of Jesus were found predicted in sayings and events quite unused by the Apostles.

(b) The second tendency in post-Pauline Christological interpretation is to re-state the Messianic significance of Jesus in terms of current philosophy. The most pronounced illustration of this is to be seen in the Johannine literature. Here the Christ is identified with the Logos, and His entire career is viewed as an illustration of the great conflict between light and darkness, life and death, the powers of Satan and the powers of God. In the Epistle to the Hebrews a tendency is to be seen towards the metaphysical conception of Jesus as the Son of God—a tendency which was to find its outcome in the theological formulations of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

But in both these tendencies the fundamental conception of Messiahship is maintained. God is in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing, their trespasses to those who accept Him, and already engaged in the work of their salvation. The elemental conception of the Messiah thus passed over into Christian thought. It carried with it, it is true, the figures of that interpretation which was born of the development of the Hebrew and Jewish thought. But these figures are not the essential element of Christianity. That is rather the message which the prophets themselves had applied exclusively to Israel, viz. that God would save His people through some personality in whom His spirit was particularly resident to empower Him for the work of salvation. Thus in the history of Jesus and in Christian experience this Divine salvation is set forth, not as ab extra, but as the result of the in-working of God in human lives, to which He comes through the mediation of faith in Jesus, His supreme revelation. To formulate and vindicate the message of this salvation is to exhibit the content of the gospel.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

METE.—‘To mete’ Is ‘to measure,’ and a ‘mete-yard’ (Lev 19:35) is a merchant’s measuring-stick.

METHEG-AMMAH.—‘David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines’ (2 S 8:1 AV and RVm). RV tr. ‘the bridle of the mother-city,’ which has been interpreted to mean authority over the metropolis, or the suzerainty exercised by the Philistines,—it being assumed that Gath was the leading city. In all probability the text is corrupt beyond restoration. See, further, ExpT, Oct. 1899, p. 48, and Feb. 1906, p. 215.

W. F. COBB.

METHUSELAH.—A Sethite, the father of Lamech, Gn 5:21ff. (P), 1 Ch 1:3, Lk 3:37 = Methushael in J’s genealogy, 4:18. The name is interpreted by Holzinger as ‘man of the javelin’—a fitting name for a time when the earth was full of violence.

METHUSHAEL.—A Cainite, the father of Lamech, Gn 4:18 (J); Methuselah in P’s genealogy (5:21ff.). The interpretations of the name are various.

MEUNIM.—See MAANI, MAON, MINÆANS.

MEUZAL.—Ezk 27:19 AVm. See UZAL.

ME-ZAHAB (‘waters of gold’).—Father of Matred and grandfather of Mehetabel the wife of Hadar (Hadad), one of the kings of Edom (Gn 36:39). The name Mezahab is much more like that of a place than of a person. Holzinger suggests that it is the same name as appears in a corrupted form in Dt 1:1 as Dizahab (wh. see).

MEZOBAITE.—One of David’s heroes is called in 1 Ch 11:47 ‘Jaasiel the Mezobaite.’ The text is doubtful.

MIBHAR.—In 1 Ch 11:38 one of David’s heroes appears as ‘Mibhar the son of Hagri.’ The parallel passage 2 S 23:36 reads, ‘of Zobah, Bani the Gadite,’ which is probably the correct text.

MIBSAM.—1. A son of Ishmael (Gn 25:13 = 1 Ch 1:29). 2. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:25).

MIBZAR (‘fortification’).—A ‘duke’ of Edom (Gn 36:42 = 1 Ch 1:53).

MICA.—1. Son of Merib-baal (Mephibosheth), 2 S 9:12; called in 1 Ch 8:34f., 9:40 f.

Micah. See MICAH, No. 3. 2. Son of Zichri (1 Ch 9:15, Neh 11:17) = Micaiah of Neh 12:35. 3. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:11).

MICAH, MICAIAH (‘Who is like Jahweh?’).—This name, which occurs at least twelve times in the OT, and is a woman’s name as well as a man’s, is spelt in three different ways; the full name is Micajahu, a partially shortened form is Micaiah, while a still shorter form is Micah.

The more important of those who bore this name are the following:—1. Micah, a dweller in the hill-country of Ephraim; he stole from his mother eleven hundred pieces of silver, which, however, he returned on hearing the curse which his mother pronounced against the thief. With part of the returned silver his mother causes an image to be made, which Micah sets up in his house; he then consecrates one of his sons a priest. But a Levite, named Jonathan, comes to the house of Micah while journeying; Micah induces him to be his priest instead of the son whom he had first consecrated. During this time the Danites send out five men to search for a suitable locality wherein to settle down; these five men come to the house of Micah, and while staying there they recognize the Levite. On their return they report that they have found a place for their tribe to dwell in. The whole ‘family’ of the Danites then set out, and come to take possession of the district they intend to make their home. On their coming into the neighbourhood of Micah’s dwelling-place, the five men who had already been there come and persuade Micah’s Levite to join them, and to bring with him Micah’s ephod, teraphim, and graven image. Micah follows after them; but protests in vain, for he is warned that if he attempts to regain his priest and lost treasures by force he will lose his goods and his life; he therefore returns home without them ( Jg 17, 18). This very interesting narrative has undoubtedly a basis in fact: it records—though later editors have somewhat altered its original form—how the sanctuary in Dan first came to be established (see esp. Jg 18:29–31).

2. Micaiah, the son of Imlah; a prophet of Jahweh who is called by Ahab, at the request of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to prophesy concerning the result of a projected expedition against the Syrians. In reply to Abah’s inquiry Micaiah first prophesies smoothly; but Abah bids him speak nothing but the truth; thereupon he foretells the disaster that is to befall the allied armies of Israel and Judah if they go up to Ramoth-gilead to battle. The parable which the prophet then utters is a terrible indictment against the ‘lying prophets’ of Israel; the blow which one of them thereupon gives him is answered by a further prophecy, this time directed against the false prophet who gave the blow. Micaiah is then commanded to be imprisoned until the king returns in peace; but, undaunted, the prophet replies,’ If thou return at all in peace, Jahweh hath not spoken by me.’ The sequel showed Micaiah to have prophesied truly (1 K 22). 3. Micah, the son of Mephibosheth (1 Ch 8:34f., 9:40f. [2 S 9:12 Mica]). 4. Micaiah, one of the teachers sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the commandments of Jahweh in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17:7). 5. Micaiah, the son of Gemariah, and a contemporary of Jeremiah, who heard Baruch reading out the prophecies of Jeremiah, and then spoke of them to the princes who were assembled in the scribe’s chamber (Jer 36:9–13), perhaps identical with the Micaiah of 2 K 22:12 and the Micah of 2 Ch 34:20. 6. One of the priests who took part in the dedication of the wall (Neh 12:41). Other less important bearers of the name are mentioned in 1 Ch 5:5, 23:20 (cf. 24:24f.), 2 Ch 13:2 (see MAACAH, 4), Neh 10:11, 12:35 [1 Ch 9:15 Mica] 41, Jth 6:15. For the prophet Micah see the following article.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

MICAH.—The Morashtite, one of the four prophets of the 8th century B.C. whose writings have survived. Probably his prophecy does not extend beyond the first three chapters of the Book of Micah (see next art.).

According to the general interpretation of 1:5, Micah prophesied, at least in part, before the destruction of Samaria, which took place in B.C. 722; though some place his prophetic activity entirely in the years 705–701. In any case, he prophesied a generation or so later than Amos, later also than Hosea; but he was contemporary with Isaiah, and his activity coincides with the mid-career of Isaiah, or its close, according as we accept the one or the other of the two views just mentioned.

He was a native of Moresheth (1:1, Jer 26:18), a place which, if we identify it, as we probably should, with Moresheth-gath (Mic 1:14), lay in the Shephēlah of Judah, a fertile country with views over the Philistine country to the Mediterranean, and backed by the loftier hills which rise to the plateau on which Jerusalem is placed. The home of Micah thus lay a good day’s journey from the capital, which, if we may judge from the vividness of his descriptions, he must frequently have visited.

How Micah worked we are not told; that he spoke in public, and that perhaps both at home and in Jerusalem, is probable in the light of what is known of Amos and Isaiah; and, guided by the same analogy, we may suppose that he himself summarized his teaching in writing (Mic 1–3 in the main).

Of the call of Micah we have no details, but he understood his duty as prophet to consist in ‘declaring to Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin’ (3:8), and the doom which these involved. This transgression is centralized in the capitals—Samaria and Jerusalem (1:5 What is the sin (so LXX) of Judah? Is it not Jerusalem?’; cf. 3:10–12). The rising buildings and the growing magnificence of Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s day spoke to him of the grinding down of the poor by which the wealth needed for such works had been obtained. It is more especially the leading and ruling classes that Micah upbraids—the wealthy land-proprietors who squeeze out the smaller holders (2:1ff.; cf. Is 5:8), the judges and officials (3:1–4), the prophets (3:5ff.), and the priests; they have wholly misunderstood Jahweh; in the very pursuit of injustice and inhumanity they rely on His presence for safety! (3:11). With Micah as with Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea, Jahweh is thus essentially a righteous God, offended by man’s moral sins, pleased only with a moral life; the ethical is the essential element in His personality. Brief as is his prophecy, this is clear, and the deep impression made by his work is evident from the narrative in Jer 26. G. B. GRAY.

MICAH, BOOK OF.—The Book of Micah stands in EV sixth in order of the so-called Minor Prophets. In the LXX it stood third, preceded only by Hosea and Amos. EV in its arrangement follows the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Bible the Book of Micah is the sixth section of a collection of prophecies already known about B.C. 180 as ‘the Twelve Prophets’ ( Sir 49:10). This Book of ‘the Twelve Prophets’ cannot have been compiled earlier than the 5th cent. B.C., for it contains the Book of Malachi, and it probably was not compiled till towards the close of the 3rd century B.C. For the history of the Book of Micah prior to its inclusion in this compilation we must rely entirely on internal evidence, except for any conclusions which may be drawn from Jer 26:17ff., it appears certain that the section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets entitled Micah consists in part of prophecies of Micah the Morashtite (see preced. art.), a contemporary of Isaiah, and in part of prophecies of later date; but the determination of what are the later prophecies is not in every case equally easy or sure.

The book divides into three clearly marked sections—chs. 1–3, Prophecies of Judgment for sin (exception 2:12f.); chs. 4, 5, Prophecies of Promise (mainly, if not entirely); chs. 6, 7, more miscellaneous in character, but containing in ch. 7 confessions of national sin.

The first of these sections contains, and for the most part consists of, prophecies of Micah. The allusion to Samaria (which was destroyed in 722) as still standing, and the accordance of the other conditions presupposed with what is otherwise known of the latter half of the 8th cent. B.C., would suffice to prove this; but we also possess early external evidence that Micah was the author of a saying occurring in this section of the book. At the close of the following century (B.C. 608) the prophet Jeremiah was denounced by the priests and prophets as worthy of death, because he had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem; but certain elders cited against the priests and prophets the precedent of Micah the Morashtite, who had made a similar prediction in the days of Hezekiah, and yet, so far from being put to death, had led his people to repentance; in citing this case the speakers quote the words with which Mic 3 closes (see Jer 26, esp. vv. 17– 18). Of course, the citation of this single verse does not prove that even the first three chapters of the Book of Micah were then in circulation in their present form; but the narrative in Jeremiah shows that Micah, a century after he prophesied, ranked as a prophet of judgment, and Micah 1– 3 is preeminently prophecy of judgment. The two verses (2:12f.) which interrupt the general tenor of chs. 1–3 with a promise, represent Israel as scattered, and appear to presuppose the Exile; they are certainly not part of the preceding prophecy, and probably are an insertion in the book after the time of Jeremiah. It is held by some that the Book of Micah known to Jeremiah’s contemporaries also lacked the following portions of chs. 1–3;—1:1–5a, 7, 10–15, 2:5. Note, for example, that 1:7 stands most awkwardly before 1:3, which may give the reason for 1:6, but certainly not for 1:7. Yet the grounds given for deleting these passages in order to recover the earliest form of the Book of Micah are by no means in all cases equally conclusive. For the teaching of Micah, see preceding article.

Two not quite identical questions now naturally arise: Did the Book of Micah in the time of Jeremiah extend beyond ch. 3? Do chs. 4–7 contain any prophecies of Micah? The answers, so far as they can be given, must rest mainly on internal evidence. What suggestion the narrative of Jer 26 offers in this connexion may best be put in the form of a question. Could the elders have cited (Jer 26:18) the words of Mic 3:12 if those words were then, as now, immediately followed (Mic 4:1–4) by a glowing description of the future glory of Jerusalem? Would they not thereby have given the priests an opening to say that Micah’s life was spared because he repented of his blasphemy against their city and spoke of its glory?

Chs. 4, 5 appear to be a cento of brief prophecies, several of them being fragments as follows: 4:1–4, 5, 6–8, 9, 10, 11–13, 5:1, 2–6, 7–9, 10–14. The first of these (4:1–4) stands also in the Book of Isaiah (2:2–4). Neither in Isaiah nor in Micah is the passage connected either with what precedes or with what follows; owing to mistranslation, RV indeed suggests that 4:1–4 is the contrast to 3:12; but for ‘but’ in 4:1 must be substituted ‘and’ as in RV itself in Is 2:2. The verses contain a prophetic poem of 20 short lines (two of which were omitted in Isaiah); as the same Psalm (14 = 53) was included in two separate collections of Psalms, so this poem was not unreasonably thought worthy by two editors of prophetic literature to be included in their collections. It is impossible to examine here in detail the remaining sections of these chapters; some seem, if naturally interpreted, to presuppose the dispersion of Israel at the Exile; see e.g. 4:6–8, 5:7, where promises of a bright future are made to Israel, who has already been reduced to a remnant; some passages contain the expectation of a judgment on the nations in general (4:13 , 5:15), which is certainly more conspicuous in the later prophets than in those of the age of Micah; in 4:11–13 Zion seems to be regarded as inviolable—a point of view strikingly different from that with which Micah was popularly identified (Mic 3:12, Jer 26:18). In 5:10–14 there is little or nothing inconsistent with an eighth century origin; read by themselves, without v. 15 , they are not necessarily a prophecy of promise, but rather of judgment. Here (and perchance in 5:1), if anywhere in chs. 4, 5, we may look for Micah’s work; for though so early an origin of these verses is not certain, neither is it certain that they are a piece of late reproductive prophecy.

Turning next to chs. 6, 7, we remark first that since Ewald the allusion to sacrificing the firstborn, and certain other features, have been commonly considered to point to the period of Manasseh as that in which chs. 6, 7 were written—a date which would not quite necessarily exclude Micah’s authorship, for Manasseh began to reign about 695 B.C.

In 6:1–8 some points, such as the use of ‘burnt-offering’ (not ‘sin-offering’) and the nature of the allusion to Balaam, may be more easily explained if the passage be at least pre-exilic. The classical prophetic definition of religion with which this section closes (6:8), though it embraces and summarizes the fundamental teaching of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, does not pass beyond it— a fact which is thoroughly compatible with Ewald’s theory, though not, of course, in itself a proof of its correctness.

But it is more than doubtful whether chs. 6, 7 should be treated as a single prophecy; 6:9–16 and 7:1–6, though scarcely a continuation of 6:1–8, are not obviously separated from it at all widely in situation or time. On the other hand, as compared with 7:1–6, 7–20 show a marked difference. Wellhausen (cited by Driver, LOT⁵332 f.) has tersely summed this up.

‘7:1–6 consists of a bitter lamentation uttered by Zion over the corruption of her children: and the day of retribution, though ready, is yet future, 7:4.’ In 7:7–20 ‘Zion, indeed, is still the speaker; but here she has already been overpowered by her foe, the heathen world, which is persuaded that by its victory over Israel it has at the same time vanquished Jahweh (7:10). The city has fallen, its walls are destroyed, its inhabitants pine away in darkness, i.e. in the darkness of captivity (7:8, 11). Nevertheless, Zion is still confident, and though she may have to wait long, she does not question her final triumph over the foe (7:7, 8, 10a, 11). She endures patiently the punishment merited by her past sins, assured that when she has atoned for them, God will take up her cause and lead her to victory (7:9). What was present in 7:1–6, viz., moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish State, is in 7:7–20 past: what is there future, viz., the retribution of 7:4b, has here come to pass, and has been continuing for some time. Between 7:8 and 7:7 yawns a century.’

Briefly, then, the history of the Book of Micah seems to have been this: a summary of the teaching of the prophet Micah, not improbably prepared and written by himself, was well known in Jerusalem at the end of the seventh century—a century after the lifetime of the prophet. This small book was re-edited and provided with its present expanded title, and enlarged by the addition of a collection of prophetic pieces, some of pre-exilic, and several of post-exilic, origin. It is not necessary to suppose that this added matter was originally attributed to Micah, though subsequently it came to he regarded as his work in the same way as Isaiah 40–66 and Zec 9–14 came to he looked upon as writings of Isaiah and Zechariah respectively. The final stage in. the history of the book was its incorporation, probably towards the close of the 3rd cent. B.C., in the great prophetic work ‘The Book of the Twelve.’ It is impossible to determine through how many stages of editorial treatment the book passed, but some of these stages certainly fell within the post-exilic period.

The most convenient English commentaries are those by T. K. Cheyne in the Cambridge Bible, and R. F. Horton in the Century Bible. The discussion and new translation from an emended text in G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets, i. 355 ff., will be found most valuable and helpful.

G. B. GRAY.

MICAIAH.—See MICAH.

MICE.—See MOUSE, and MAGIC, 569^b.

MICHAEL (‘Who is like God?’).—1. Father of the Asherite spy (Nu 13:18). 2. 3. Two Gadites (1 Ch 5:13f.). 4. The eponym of a Levitical guild of singers (1 Ch 6:46). 5. Name of a family in Issachar (1 Ch 7:3, 27:18). 6. Eponym of a family of Benjamites (1 Ch 8:10). 7. A Manassite chief who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:20). 8. A son of king Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 21:2). 9. The father of Zebadiah (Ezr 8:8, 1 Es 8:34). 10. The archangel. See next article.

MICHAEL (‘the archangel’).—Although reference to angels and their visitations is common in the OT, especially during transition periods (e.g. the period of the Judges and that of the Captivity are specially noticeable for angelic appearances), the name Michael is not found until the later period, when the angelic office was divided into two parts, which were assigned to individual angels. In the Rabbinical traditions Michael figures considerably. He is connected with many incidents in the history of Moses, especially his burial (cf. Dt 34:6), when he disputed with Satan, who claimed the body by reason of the murder of the Egyptian (Ex 2:12). In the OT he is alluded to several times in the Book of Daniel (10:13, 21, 12:1) as ‘one of the chief princes,’ ‘the prince,’ and ‘the prince which standeth for the people,’ and he is opposed to the prince-angels of Persia and of Greece. He is here regarded as the guardian of the Israelites in their opposition to polytheism and foreign innovations.

In the NT Michael is found fighting in heaven (Rev 12:7) against the dragon, ‘him that is called the devil and Satan,’ and is typical of the warfare which is the special work of the Church on earth. In the passage in Jude (v. 9) a definite reference is made to the tradition already mentioned, ‘Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee’ ( cf. Zec 3:1 for a similar incident).

T. A. MOXON.

MICHAL.—Younger daughter of Saul, offered to David, as a snare, on condition that he would slay one hundred Philistines. The popularity of David led Saul to seek his life. He had David’s house surrounded, but Michal deceived the messengers, and contrived David’s escape by the window (1 S 19:11–17). Saul then gave Michal to Paltiel. When Abner negotiated with David to deliver Israel to him, the king stipulated for Michal’s return. This was accomplished, though the record does not make it clear whether directly from Ishbaal (Ishbosheth) at the Instance of David, or through Abner (2 S 3:14f.). Paltiel followed weeping, but was rudely dismissed by Abner. The closing scene between Michal and David is pathetic. David’s dance before the ark was unseemly in the eyes of Michal, and she rebuked him. His answer was equally curt. The statement that Michal died childless may mean that she was divorced (2 S 6:16f.). The estrangement was probably due to the numerous wives that now shared David’s prosperity and Michal’s authority.

J. H. STEVENSON.

MICHEAS (2 Es 1:39) = the prophet Micah.

MICHMAS.—See next article.

MICHMASH.—A place (not enumerated as a town) in the territory of Benjamin, and in the mountains of Bethel. It comes into prominence in connexion with the daring raid made by Jonathan and his armour-bearer upon the Philistines there encamped (1 S 13, 14). It was one of the smaller places to which the returning exiles belonged, contributing only 122 men to the enumeration of Ezra (Ezr 2:27) and Nehemiah (7:31) [in both these last two passages Michmas]. Nehemiah further alludes to it as a border city of Benjamin (11:31). Indications of its position may be obtained from the Jonathan story and also from Isaiah’s picture of the course of an Assyrian raid (Is 10:28). These indications permit an identification of the site with the modern village of Mukhmās, situated in a wild and desolate region near the head of the Wady Kelt. In 1 K 4:9 for Makaz the LXX erroneously reads Michmash. For a time it was the seat of the government of Jonathan Maccabæus (1 Mac 9:73).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

MICHMETHAH.—The word occurs only in Jos 16:6, 17:7, in each case with the article, therefore probably not a proper name. Of the meaning of the word we are entirely ignorant. It indicated a place or some natural feature on the boundary of Manasseh. An echo of the old name may perhaps be heard in el-Mukhneh, the plain which lies to the east of Nābins.

W. EWING.

MICHRI.—Eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Ch 9:8).

MICHTAM.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

MIDDIN.—A town in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15:61). The site has not been recovered.

MIDIAN, MTDIANITES.—A nomadic tribe or group of tribes, said by an early genealogy (Gn 25:2) to be descended from Abraham by Keturah, of which the Kenites (wh. see) were a part. They lived in ancient times in northern Arabia, but vanished at an early date from history.

According to E they were traders, who sold Joseph into Egypt (Gn 37:28, 36). They roamed about Sinai (Ex 3:1ff., Hab 3:7). Jethro (E) or Hobab (J), Moses’ father-in-law, was their priest. As Jethro is also said to be a Kenite (Jg 1:16), probably the Kenites were a part of the Midianites.

They were afterwards absorbed by the tribe of Judah (Jg 1:16, 1 S 15:6). The Prophetic source (J) also shows that in an early form of the narrative it was Midian, not Moab, that was said to have hired Balaam to curse Israel (cf. Nu 22:4, 7). If this is so, it was a different branch of Midianites from the Kenites. The same source informs us (Gn 36:35) that a king of Edom smote Midian in the field of Moab. The references point to an activity of Midian in this region of which we have no other trace.

The next we hear of the Midianites is in the period of the Judges, when they invaded the territory of central Palestine in hordes, and were put to rout by Gideon and his three hundred men (Jg 6–8). These Midianites seem to have lived to the east of Palestine, and to have gained access to the west Jordan lands through the valley of the Jabbok. This corresponds with the statement of Gn 25:6 (JE), that the sons of Abraham by Keturah, of whom Midian was one, lived to the eastward. At the time of Gideon the Midianites were led by two chiefs, whose names J preserves as Zebah and Zalmunna (Jg 8:18), while E calls them Oreb and Zeeb (Jg 7:25). Gideon so completely ruined the power of the Midianites that his victory was long remembered (cf. Is 9:4 , 10:26, Ps 83:9). From this blow the tribe never recovered, and disappears from history.

According to a late Priestly passage (Nu 31:2–18), Moses is said to have gained a great victory over the Midianites. Perhaps, as some scholars think, this is a later version of the victory of Gideon. Possibly it is another version of the victory of the king of Edom.

The genealogy given in Gn 25:1–4 calls Ephah a son of Midian. Is 60:6ff. mentions both Midian and Ephah in connexion with Kedar. Tiglath-pileser III. (KIB ii. 21) mentions a Khayapa in connexion with Taima, which Delitzsch (Parodies, 304) identifies with Ephah. This would correspond with the location given in the genealogy.

Ptolemy (Geog. vi. 7) mentions a place, Modiana, on the coast of Arabia, which is probably the same as Madyan on the Haj road to Mecca. Nöldeke (EBi iii. col. 3081) thinks that the name has survived from an old habitat of the Midianites.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

MIDRASH.—See COMMENTARY.

MIDWIFE.—See MEDICINE; p. 600^b.

MIGDAL-EDER.—See EDER, No. 1.

MIGDAL-EL.—A town of Naphtali’ (Jos 19:33) between Iron and Horem. The site is uncertain.

MIGDAL-GAD.—A town in the Shephēlah, in the territory of Judah (Jos 15:37), which cannot be identified with any certainty. Guthe suggests Khirbet el-Mejdeleh, about S miles S. of Belt Jibrīn, with remains of buildings, cisterns, and rock-hewn tombs; or Khirbet el-Mejdel, about 14 miles S. of Beit Jibrīn, with extensive ruins, etc. Warren (Hastings’ DB) suggests elMejdel, a thriving village 2¹/₂miles N.E. of Ashkelon. The name ‘Tower of Gad’ probably points to its having been a seat of idolatry, where the Canaanites worshipped Gad—‘Good Luck’ or ‘Fortune.’

W. EWING.

MIGDOL.—A Semitic word meaning ‘tower,’ borrowed by the Egyptians of the New

Kingdom, and common as a word and in place-names. 1. Ex 14:2, Nu 33:7, on the border of Egypt, near the spot where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea: probably a mere guardhouse on the road. 2. Ezk 29:10, 30:6, where ‘from Migdol to Syene’ is the true reading, instead of ‘from the tower of Seveneh.’ Here Migdol is the N.E. extremity of Egypt, as Seveneh is the S. It may be identical with Magdolo in a Roman Itinerary, perhaps at the now deserted site of Tell el-Her, 12 miles south of Pelusium. 3. In Jer 44:1, 46:14 Migdol is mentioned with Tahpanhes and Noph (Memphis) as a habitation of the Jews, and is probably the same as No. 2.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

MIGRON.—One of the places mentioned in Isaiah’s description of the march of the

Assyrians on Jerusalem. The direction of the march is from north to south: hence Migron ( Is

10:28) lay north of Michmash (wh. see), and north of the Wady es-Suwēnīt, which is the ‘pass’ of

Is 10:29. The name perhaps survives in Makrūn, a ruined site situated a mile or two N.W. of

Makhmās (Michmash). In 1 S 14:2 Saul, whose army was encamped south of the Wady esSuwēnīt, is said to have dwelt in ‘the uttermost part of Geba (so read) under the pomegranate tree which is in Migron.’ Probably ‘in Migron’ should rather be translated ‘in the threshing-floor’; if not, we must infer that there were two places not many miles apart, one north and the other south of the Wady es-Suwēnīt, bearing the same name. This southern Migron has not been identified. G. B. GRAY.

MIJAMIN.—1. One of those who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:25); called in 1 Es

9:25 Maelus. 2. Eponym of the 6th of the priestly courses (1 Ch 24:9). This family returned with Zerub. (Neh 12:5), and was represented at the sealing of the covenant (10:7) = Miniamin of Neh 12:17.

MIKLOTH.—1. A son of Jeiel (1 Ch 8:32 = 9:37f.). 2. An officer of David (1 Ch 27:4).

MIKNEIAH.—A gate-keeper of the ark (1 Ch 15:18).

MILALAI.—The eponym of a priestly family (Neh 12:36).

MILCAH.—1. Daughter of Haran and wife of Nahor (Gn 11:29). The names of her children are given in 22:20ff. Rebekah was her granddaughter (24:15, 24, 47). 2. Daughter of Zelophehad, Nu 26:33, 27:1, 36:11, Jos 17:3 (all P).

MILCOM.—The national deity of Ammon. Solomon established a sanctuary for him on the Mount of Olives, which seems to have continued till it was destroyed by Josiah (1 K 11:5, 33, 2 K 23:13). In 2 S 12:30, 1 Ch 20:2, Jer 49:3, and Zeph 1:5 Malcam (‘their king’) is probably an incorrect vocalization of Milcom. The name is from the common Semitic root malk, melek (‘king’ or ‘prince’), probably with an Inflectional termination. The traditional identification of Milcom with Molech is based only upon 1 K 11:7, a verse which is probably corrupt. See

MOLECH.

W. M. NESBIT.

MILDEW (yērāqōn, Dt 28:22, 1 K 8:37, 2 Ch 6:28, Am 4:9, Hag 2:17) is a disease of grain due to various fungi: it is produced by damp, and is in the above passages associated with shiddāphōn, ‘blasting,’ the opposite condition produced by excessive drought.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN. MILE.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

MILETUS.—The southernmost of the twelve colonies forming the Ionian confederacy of Asia Minor. It lay on the S. coast of the Latonian Gulf, which penetrated Caria S. of the peninsula of Mycale, and received the waters of the Mæander. The silt of this river filled up the gulf, and Miletus is now 5 miles from the sea, while the former island of Lade, which helped to make its harbour, is now a hill rising in the alluvial plain.

Two visits of St. Paul to Miletus are mentioned. The first (Ac 20:15) took place when he was returning to Jerusalem at the end of the Third Missionary Journey. He stayed long enough to send for the elders of Ephesus, and give them the farewell charge recorded in Ac 20. This probably needed two days. The second visit is mentioned in 2 Ti 4:20 ‘Trophimus I left at Miletus sick.’ This must have been between St. Paul’s first and second imprisonment at Rome. In neither case are we told of any attempt to found a church at Miletus. Miletus was already unimportant by comparison with Ephesus, which now received the trade of the Mæander valley, and shared with Smyrna the trade that came along the great road through the centre of Asia Minor. Ephesus was recognized by the Romans as the southern capital of the province of Asia. Formerly Miletus had led Ionia. Its trade was mainly in wool, and it had founded numerous colonies on the Black Sea and Propontis (Sinope, Trapezus, Abydos, Cyzicus), besides Naucratis in Egypt. It had led the Ionian revolt, the fate of which was determined by the battle of Lade and the capture of Miletus, B.C. 494. It had defended itself on behalf of the Persian power against Alexander in B.C. 334. Its ruins are now called Palalia. They seem to include few Christian remains, but Miletus was a bishopric, and from the 5th cent. an archbishopric.

A. E. HILLARD.

MILK.—Milk was at all times an important article of diet among the Hebrews, and by benSira is rightly assigned a prominent place among the principal things necessary for man’s life (Sir 39:26). It was supplied by the females of the ‘herd’ and of the ‘flock,’ the latter term including both sheep and goats (Dt 32:14, where render ‘sour milk [chem’āh] of the herd, and milk [chālāb] of the flock’), probably also by the milch camels (Gn 32:15). At the present day goats’ milk is preferred to every other.

In Bible times, as now, milk slightly soured or fermented was a favourite beverage. The modern Bedouin prepares this sour milk, or leben, as it is called, by pouring the fresh milk into a skin (cf. Jg 4:19 ‘she opened the milk-skin (EV ‘a bottle of milk’), and gave him drink’), to the sides of which clots of sour milk from a previous milking still adhere. The skin is shaken for a little, when the process of fermentation speedily commences, and the milk is served ‘with that now gathered sourness which they think the more refreshing’ (Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 263). Such was the refreshment with which Jael supplied Sisera. ‘He asked water, she gave him milk; she brought him sour milk (chem’āh) in a lordly dish’ (Jg 5:26, where EV has ‘butter,’ but one does not drink butter; cf. 4:19 cited above).

In several OT passages, however, this word, chem’āh, does evidently signify butter, as in Pr 30:33 ‘the churning (lit. as RVm ‘pressing’) of milk bringeth forth butter.’ So Ps 55:21 RV, ‘his mouth was smooth as butter,’ where ‘sour milk’ is clearly out of place. The former passage suggests the procedure of the Arab housewife whom Doughty describes (op. cit. ii. 67) as ‘rocking her blown-up milk-skin upon her knees till the butter came; they find it in a clot at the mouth of the skin.’ Butter cannot be kept sweet under the climatic conditions of Palestine, but must be boiled, producing the samn or clarified butter universally prized throughout the East.

Cheese is mentioned three times in our AV (1 S 17:18, 2 S 17:29, Job 10:10); in each case the original has a different word. The clearest case is the last cited; the text of 2 S 17:29, on the other hand, is admittedly in disorder, and we should perhaps read, by a slight change of consonants, ‘dried curds’; these, when rubbed down and mixed with water, yield a refreshing drink much esteemed at the present day. From the Mishna we learn that rennet and the acid juices of various trees and plants were used to curdle (Job 10:10 milk. After being drained of the whey—‘the water of milk’—the curds were salted, shaped into round discs, and dried in the sun. The Tyropœon valley in Jerusalem received its name, ‘the valley of the cheese-makers,’ from the industry there carried on.

There has been much discussion of late as to the origin of the popular expression ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ so frequently used in OT to describe Palestine as an ideal land abounding in the necessaries and delicacies of life. Many recent scholars demur to the traditional view that this is expressed by the words ‘milk and honey,’ on the principle of the part for the whole, and favour a more recondite origin in a forgotten Palestinian mythology. This explanation would bring the phrase in question into line with the equally familiar ‘nectar and ambrosia’ of Greek mythology.

Even more obscure is the significance of the thrice-repeated command: ‘Thou shalt not see the a kid in his mother’s milk’ (Ex 23:19, 34:26, Dt 14:21). Opinion is still divided as to whether we have here a piece of purely humanitarian—some would say sentimental—legislation, or the prohibition of a magical rite incompatible with the religion of J″. For the latest exposition of this view, see J. G. Frazer, ‘Folk-lore in the OT,’ in Anthropotogical Essays, etc. (1907), 151 ff.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MILL, MILLSTONE.—1. Three methods of preparing flour were in use in Palestine in

Bible times, associated with the mortar and pestle (see MORTAR AND PESTLE), the rubbingstone, and the quern or handmill. The most primitive apparatus was the rubbing-stone or cornrubber, which consisted really of two stones. The one on which the corn was ground was a substantial slab, often 2¹/₂feet long, and about a foot wide, slightly concave and curving upwards, like a saddle, at both ends (illust. in Macalister, Bible Sidelights, etc., fig. 28). The other, the “rubbing-stone proper, was a narrow stone from 12 to 18 inches long, pointed at both ends and also slightly curved, one side being plain and the other convex. In manipulating the rubber, the woman grasped it by both ends and ground the grains of wheat or barley with the convex side. Cf. Macalister’s description in PEFSt, 1903, p. 118, with Schumacher’s photograph reproduced by Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 2 (1907) 63, and the Egyptian statuette in Erman’s Ancient Egypt, 190. Vincent in his Canaan d’après l’exptoration récente (405, fig. 282) shows a cornrubber of flint from the palæolithic age!

2. The more familiar apparatus for the same purpose was the handmill or quern. As in so many instances (see, e.g., LAMP), the recent excavations enable us to trace two distinct stages in the evolution of the Palestinian handmill. The Gezer specimens described in detail in PEFSt, 1903, 119, belong to the earlier type, which is distinguished from the later form by the absence of a handle for rotating the upper stone. The quern-stones ‘are always small, rarely being as much as a foot across.’ The lower stone, the ‘nether millstone’ of Job 41:24, was always more massive than the ‘upper millstone’ (Dt 24:6), and was apparently fitted with ‘a narrow spindle’ sunk into the stone. The upper stone was pierced right through, and by this hole the mill was fed. According to Mr. Macalister, ‘the upper stone was grasped with both hands (the fingers clasping the edge, the thumbs being between the spindle and the stone), and worked through about onethird of a rotation, backward and forward.’ For varieties of this type, see PEFSt, 1903, p. 119 f.

In the later and more effective type of handmill, which was that in use in NT times, the stones were larger, although the lower stone was still considerably wider than the upper (Baba bathra, ii. 1). As in the querns of the present day, the latter was fitted with a wooden handle (yād in the Mishna) in the shape of an upright peg inserted near the outer edge. The mill was fed, as before, through a funnel-shaped cavity pierced through the upper stone, which was rotated by the handle through a complete circle. Sometimes, as appears from Mt 24:41, two women worked the mill, seated opposite each other, and each turning the upper stone through half a revolution, as may still be seen in the East.

By the first century of our era a larger and different form of mill had been introduced, apparently, to judge by the names of the various parts in the Mishna (see art. ‘Mill’ in EBi iii. 3093), under Græco-Roman influence. In the larger specimens of this type, the upper millstone, in the shape of two hollow cones, as described in detail, loc. cit., was turned by an ass, and is the ‘great millstone’ of Mt 18:6 RV (lit. as RVm ‘a millstone turned by an ass’).

3. The work of the mill belonged at all times to the special province of the women of the household (Mt 24:41). In large establishments, it fell to the slaves, male (Jg 16:21) and female (Ex 11:5), particularly the latter, hence the figure for the slavery of captivity in Is 47:2.

The finer varieties of meal, the ‘fine flour’ of OT, were got by repeated grinding, or by sifting with sieves, or by a combination of both processes.

How indispensable the handmill was considered for the daily life of the family may be seen from the provision of the Deuteronomic legislation forbidding the creditor to take in pledge the household mill (so rightly RV), or even the upper millstone, ‘for he taketh a man’s life to pledge’ (Dt 24:6).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MILLENNIUM.—A period of a thousand years, during which, according to Rev 20:2–7, the Dragon (i.e. the devil) is to be confined in the abyss, while the martyrs, having been raised from the dead, are to reign with Christ. The period begins with this first resurrection, and at its end, Satan, prior to his destruction, is to be released for a time to deceive the nations.

This reference in Revelation is unique in the NT. The Millennium was, however, present in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. In Slavonic Enoch (chs. 32 and 33), time is described as a week of seven days, each of one thousand years in length. These six days (i.e. 6000 years) are said to have elapsed from the time of the Creation to the Judgment. Then will come a ‘sabbath of rest’ of a thousand years, and then an eighth day which shall be timeless. A similar expectation is to be found in the Talmud (Sanh. 97 a), and it is not impossible that this conception can be traced back to Babylonia or Persia.

In the history of the Christian Church the doctrine of the Millennium has played a considerable rôle, but Chiliasm (wh. see) has been opposed by most of the great theologians from Augustine down. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ch. 15) we have a view very similar to that of the Slavonic Enoch, while Justin Martyr (Dial. 80) regards a chiliastic view of the future as an essential part of Christian faith, although he knows that it is not held by all the orthodox. At the present time, in addition to the Second Adventists, millennial views are held strongly by a number of earnest Christians commonly called pre-millenarians because of their belief that Christ will return before the period of a thousand years begins and establish an earthly reign. In accordance with this theory (see CHILIASM, PAROUSIA), the resurrection is to be limited not to martyrs but to all Christians. Such an interpretation obviously does violence to the connexion between the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Revelation, and gives undue prominence to an expectation which was held by neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor, in fact, by any writer of the NT except the author of Revelation. At the same time, there is little question that this pre-millennial view is germane to the literalistic Messianic hope which controlled the NT Church, and is not beyond a possible harmonization with 1 Co 15:23 The fundamental difficulty in erecting it into a doctrine of essential Christianity is that it presupposes conditions and expectations, carried over from Judaism, which the course of history has shown to be without foundation.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

MILLET (probably Panicum miliaceum or perhaps Andropogon sorghum) is mentioned in Ezk 4:9 (only) as an ingredient in bread. See FOOD, § 2.

MILLO.—A place near Shechem (the name of which would be better rendered Beth-millo, without translating the first element [‘house of Millo,’ AV and RV]), quite unknown, the inhabitants of which were associated in the coronation of Abimelech (Jg 9:6, 20). Joash was slain at a ‘Beth-millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla’ (2 K 12:20). Whether this be the same place, or whether (perhaps more likely) it was somewhere near Jerusalem, and (if so) where or what it may have been, are questions to which no answer can be given. On the ‘Millo’ of 2 S 5:8 , 1 K 11:27 etc., see JERUSALEM, II, § 2.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

MINÆANS.—The name of a S.W. Arabian people dwelling north of the Sabæans ( Sheba), who in the 9th and 8th cents. B.C. became a powerful nation with a dominion stretching north to the peninsula of Sinai. It is supposed by recent scholars that they are meant by the Me‘unim or (better) Me‘inim, who are named in 1 Ch 4:41 as dwelling in the Negeb, in 2 Ch 26:7 along with Arabians, and in 2 Ch 20:1 (by correction) along with the Ammonites. In all these passages the LXX understand Minæans.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MIND.—See PSYCHOLOGY.

MINIAMIN.—1. A Levite (2 Ch 31:15). 2. Neh 12:17 = Mijamin of 1 Ch 24:8, Neh 10:7 , 12:5. 3. A priest who took part in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls (Neh 12:41).

MINING AND METALS.—Though Palestine proper is deficient in mineral resources, yet these were present to some extent on its borders, and were not only abundantly found, but even largely developed, in other parts of the ancient East. The Scripture references to mining, accordingly, though not very numerous, are sufficiently definite. Such a passage as Dt 8:9 ( cf. 33:25), though inapplicable to Palestine proper, may hold good of the Lebanon district or (as has been suggested by some) of the Sinaitic region. The classical description of the miner’s life in Job 28 is evidently based on observation. It depicts the adventurous and toilsome character of the quest, the shafts sunk and the galleries tunnelled in the rock, the darkness, the waters that have to be drained away, the hidden treasures of precious stones and metals that reward the effort and the ingenuity of man.

The list of metals in Nu 31:22 includes all those that are mentioned in Scripture, viz. gold, silver, ‘brass,’ iron, tin, and lead. All these are again enumerated in Ezk 27:12, 13, 22 as articles of Tyrian commerce.

Brass.—This English word, as late as 1611, denoted copper or bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) rather than the modern brass (an alloy of copper and zinc). Hence, where ‘brass’ occurs in EV, copper or bronze is to be understood (see RVm on Gn 4:22, and art. BRASS).

Copper occurs once in AV (Ezr 8:27, RV ‘bright brass’). But see on ‘Brass’ above and ‘Steel’ below.

Gold is a metal the use of which can be traced back to the earliest times of civilization. As a medium of currency it was reckoned by weight, in shekels and talents, coinage being unknown among the Jews before the Exile. While it figured in the history of Israel from the beginning ( see the spoils of Egypt [Ex 12:35], Midian [Nu 31:52, Jg 8:26], and Jericho [Jos 7:21]), it became specially plentiful in Palestine in the time of Solomon (1 K 10:14, 21), the main sources of it being Ophir (1 K 9:28, 10:11), Tarshish (1 K 10:22), and Sheba (1 K 11:2, Ps 72:15). Another gold-producing country was Havilah (Gn 2:11). Of these localities Havilah and Sheba were Arabian. Ophir (wh. see) may have been the same, though its situation has also been sought in

India and S. Africa. For goldsmiths see Neh 3:18, 21, 32, Is 41:18, 41:7, 46:5, also (RV) Jer

10:9, 14, 51:17. The products of their art comprised beaten work (Ex 25:18, 37:17, 22, Nu 8:14 , 37:7, 1 K 10:16f., 2 Ch 9:15f.), plating (Ex 25:11, 24, 26:29, 32, 30:3), and wire or thread for embroidery (Ex 39:3).

Iron appears to have come into use later than copper or bronze. Its ores are found in the Lebanon district, in the region of Sinai, and sparsely in Egypt. The most famous ancient seat of its manufacture was among the Chalybes in the Highlands of Assyria. Mining for the ore is mentioned in Job 28:2; the ‘iron furnace’ in Dt 4:20, 1 K 8:51, Jer 11:4; and the forge in Is 44:12. In modern times iron is separated from its ores as cast iron, from which wrought iron and steel are subsequently prepared. But in ancient times the temperature necessary to melt iron was unavailable, and it must have been produced as wrought iron, which is still obtained by primitive smelting processes in various parts of the world. The uses of iron alluded to in Scripture are very varied, but call for no special comment. In Dt 3:11 and possibly in Am 1:3 ‘iron’ means black basalt.

Lead is mentioned in Jer 6:29, Ezk 22:18–22 in connexion with the smelting of silver ( see ‘Silver’ below). Its weight is referred to in Ex 15:10. The ‘ephah’ in Zec 5:7, 8 has a leaden covering. Rock-cut inscriptions were made more durable by having the chiselled letters filled up with lead (Job 19:24).

Silver, like gold, was a very early medium of exchange (Gn 23:15, 18). The Heb. and Gr. words for silver are often rendered ‘money’ in EV. There are frequent references in OT to the use of this metal for vessels and ornamental work. In NT there is special mention of the guild of silversmiths at Ephesus, and of the ‘shrines’ or models of the temple of Diana which were their most profitable article of trade (Ac 19:24). Among the sources of the metal, Arabia (2 Ch 9:14) and Tarshish (2 Ch 9:21, Jer 10:9, Ezk 27:12) are named. The commonest ore of silver is argentiferous galena, which contains a large quantity of lead, and in which other metals may also be present. In the course of smelting the lead combines with the other impurities to form a heavy ‘slag,’ which separates by its weight from the molten silver, leaving the latter pure. This process is referred to, usually in a figurative moral sense, in Ps 66:10 (cf. Is 48:10), Pr 17:3, 25:4, 27:21 , Zec 13:9, Mal 3:3, and especially in Jer 6:28–36 and Ezk 22:17–22. In the last two passages lead is the most prominent impurity, the others being ‘brass,’ iron, and tin. The mixture of these was the refuse or ‘dross’ of silver (see also Is 1:22, 25).

Steel (2 S 22:35, Job 20:24, Ps 18:34, Jer 15:12) is a mistaken translation in AV of the words elsewhere rendered ‘brass.’ RV has ‘brass’ in these passages, and copper or bronze is to be understood. Only in Nah 2:3 (RV) is ‘steel’ possibly a correct rendering. Steel is a form of iron containing more carbon than wrought iron. It is capable not only of being welded but also cast, and tempered to various degrees of hardness and elasticity.

Tin derived its importance from its use as a constituent of bronze (an alloy of copper and tin). It is mentioned as an article of Tyrian commerce in Ezk 27:12, and as an impurity in silver in Ezk 22:18 (cf. Is 1:25, RVm ‘alloy’). Its earliest sources are uncertain, but it appears to have come to the East from the West. It is known that the Phœnicians obtained it from the Scilly Isles and Cornwall.

Flint is a form of silica, and occurs abundantly, in the form of nodules, in many of the limestone rocks of Palestine. It is exceedingly hard, and its property of sparking when struck on steel or on another flint provided a very ancient and common means of obtaining fire (2 Mac 10:3). Flint has a sharp edge when broken or chipped, and was used for primitive weapons and instruments of many kinds—arrow-heads, knives, etc. For the latter see Ex 4:25 RV, Jos 5:2, 3 RV. In other Scripture references to flint its hardness is chiefly in view (Dt 32:13, Job 28:9 RV, Is 5:28, 50:7, Ezk 3:9).

Marble is limestone (carbonate of lime), hard and close-grained enough to be polished. The purest forms are white, but many coloured varieties are highly valued. Marble was among the materials prepared by David for the Temple (1 Ch 29:2). Josephus (Ant. VIII. iii. 2, 9) says that Solomon’s Temple was built of white stone from Lehanon, but the stones exposed in the Jews’ Wailing Place appear to be from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, probably from the quarries under Bezetha. Marble supplies a simile in Ca 5:15, and is mentioned among the merchandise of ‘Babylon’ in Rev 18:12.

JAMES PATRICK.

MINISH.—The mod. form is ‘diminish.’ ‘Minish’ occurs in AV in Ex 5:19, Ps 107:39, and RV introduces it at Is 19:5, Hos 8:10; but Amer. RV prefers ‘diminish’ everywhere.

MINISTER.—The word ‘minister’ comes from the Lat. minister = ‘servant,’ and generally it may be said that wherever it is found in the Bible, whether in OT or in NT, its original meaning is its primary one, service being the idea it is specially meant to convey.

1. In OT it is used (corresponding to the same Heb. word in each case) of Joshua as the personal attendant of Moses (Ex 24:13, Jos 1:1), of the servants in the court of Solomon (1 K 10:5), of angels and the elemental forces of nature as the messengers and agents of the Divine will (Ps 103:21, 104:4; cf. He 1:7, 14), but, above all, of the priests and Levites as the servants of Jehovah in Tabernacle and Temple (Ex 28:35, 1 K 8:11, Ezr 8:17, and constantly). The secular uses of the Heb. word, standing side by side with the sacred, show that it was not in itself a priestly term. Ministry was not necessarily a priestly thing, though priesthood was one form of ministry.

2. In NT several Gr. words are tr. ‘minister,’ three of which call for notice. (1) hypēretēs is found in Lk 1:2, 4:20, Ac 13:5, 26:15, 1 Co 4:1. In two of these cases RV has properly substituted ‘attendant’ for ‘minister’ to avoid misconception. The ‘minister’ (Lk 4:20) to whom Jesus handed the roll in the synagogue at Nazareth was the hazzan, corresponding to the English verger or Scotch beadle. John Mark (Ac 13:5) was the minister of Barnabas and Saul in the same sense as Joshua was of Moses,—he was their attendant and assistant. In the other cases hypēretēs is used of the minister of Christ or of the word in a sense that is hardly distinguishable from that of diakonos as under.

(2) leitourgos.—In classical Gr. this word with its cognates is applied to one who renders special services to the commonwealth, without any suggestion of a priestly ministry. But in the LXX it was regularly applied, especially in its verbal form, to the ritual ministry of priests and Levites in the sanctuary, and so by NT times had come to connote the idea of a priestly function. What we have to notice, however, is that no NT writer uses it so as to suggest the discharge of special priestly functions on the part of an official Christian ministry. Either the reference is to the old Jewish ritual (Lk 1:23, He 9:21, 10:11), or the word is employed in a sense that is purely figurative (Ro 15:16, Ph 2:17); or, again, is applied to a ministration of Christian charity (2 Co 9:12, Ph 2:25, 30) or of prayer (Ac 13:2; cf. v. 3), from which all ideas of priestly ritual are clearly absent.

(3) diakonos.—Even more significant than the uses to which leitourgos and its cognates are put in the NT is the fact that they are used so seldom, and that diakonos and diakonia are found instead when the ideas of minister and ministry are to be expressed. This corresponds with the other fact that the priesthood of a selected class has been superseded by a universal Christian priesthood, and that a ministry of lowliness and serviceableness (which diakonos specially implies) has taken the place of the old ministry of exclusive privilege and ritual performance, diakonia is the distinctive Christian word for ‘ministry,’ and diakonos for ‘minister.’ But these nouns and the related verb are used in the NT with a wide range of application. The personal services rendered to Jesus by Martha, Mary, and other women (Lk 10:40, Jn 12:2, Mt 27:55), and to St. Paul by Timothy, Erastus, and Onesimus (Ac 19:22, Philem 13), are described as forms of ministry. The man who serves and follows Christ is His minister (Jn 12:26; ‘my diakonos’ is the expression in the original); and the minister of Christ will not fail to minister also to the brethren (1 Co 12:5, 1 P 4:10). But while every true Christian is a minister of Christ and of the brethren, there is a ministry of particular service out of which there gradually emerges the idea of a special Christian ministry. We may find the roots of the idea in our Lord’s words to His disciples, ‘Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister, … even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’ ( Mt 20:26ff.). The minister at first was one who was distinguished from others by his larger services. He did not hold an office, but discharged a function. There were differences of function, indeed, and, above all, the distinction between those who were ministers of the word (Ac 6:4, 2 Co 3:6 , Eph 3:6, 7) and those who ministered by gracious deed (Ac 6:1ff.). But whatever might be the

‘diversities of ministrations’ (1 Co 12:5), the word diakonos covered them all. At a later stage, when differences of function have begun to harden into distinctions of office, the name diakonos is specially appropriated to the deacon (wh. see) as distinguished from the presbyter or bishop (Ph 1:1, 1 Ti 3:1–13). But diakonos still continues to be used in its wider sense, for Timothy, who was much more than a deacon, is exhorted to be ‘a good minister (diakonos) of Jesus Christ’ (1 Ti 4:6). See following article.

J. C. LAMBERT.

MINISTRY.—The foregoing art. has sufficiently dealt with the general idea of ministry, but something remains to be said more particularly of the foreshadowings and beginnings of an official Christian ministry as these are found in the NT. The earliest historical datum is the distinction drawn by the Twelve between the ‘diakonia of the word’ and the ‘diakonia of tables’ (Ac 6:2, 4)—a distinction that constantly reappears in the writings of St. Paul (e.g. Ro 12:6–8, 1 Co 1:17, 9:14, 12:28), though by and by the latter of these two ministries widens out so as to include many other matters besides the care of the poor. These two forms may be broadly distinguished as a general and prophetic ministry on the one hand, a local and practical on the other.

1. General and prophetic—Ac 6:1ff. shows that from the first the Twelve recognized that they were Divinely called to be ministers of the word, i.e. preachers of the gospel; and St. Paul repeatedly affirms the same thing regarding himself (1 Co 1:17, 9:16, 2 Co 3:6, 4:1, Col 1:23). But it was not the Apostles only who discharged this high spiritual function. Besides Apostles, a word which is used in a wider as well as a narrower sense (see Ac 14:14, Ro 16:7; cf. Didache, xi. 4 ff.), the Church had also prophets and evangelists and teachers, all of them, in somewhat different ways no doubt, fulfilling this same task of proclaiming the word (1 Co 12:28, 29, Eph 4:11; for prophets, see also Ac 11:27, 15:32, 21:10; for evangelists, Ac 21:8, 2 Ti 4:5; for teachers, Ac 13:1, 1 Ti 2:7, 2 Ti 1:11), and moving about from place to place in order to do so. That the prophetic ministry in its various forms was a ministry of function and not of stated office, is shown by the fact that the same person might be at once apostle, prophet, and teacher (cf. Ac 13:1, 14:14, 1 Ti 2:7, 2 Ti 1:11).

2. Local and practical.—Of this the Seven of Jerusalem furnish the earliest examples. Their special duties, when we first meet them, are restricted to the care of the poor, and in particular to the charge of the ‘daily ministration.’ But, as the local Churches grew in size and Church life became more complex, other needs arose. There was the need of government and discipline, of pastoral counsel and comfort, of stated instruction by regular teachers as well as of occasional visits from wandering apostles and prophets. In the ‘helps’ and ‘governments’ of 1 Co 12:28 we have a reference to some of these needs. And by and by we find that to meet the necessities of the situation the local ministry has blossomed out into two separate forms. (a) First there is the presbyter or elder, otherwise known as the bishop or overseer (for the substantial identity between the presbyter and the bishop, see art. BISHOP), whose duties are to feed the flock and help the weak (Ac 20:17, 28, 35, 1 P 5:2) to visit and pray for the sick (Ja 5:14), to rule and teach (1 Ti 3:2, 5). (b) Next there are the deacon, and his companion the deaconess (Ph 1:1, 1 Ti 3:8– 13), whose duties are not clearly defined, but the description of whose qualifications suggests that their work lay largely in visitation from house to house and ministration to the poor (1 Ti 5:8–11). The local ministry, it thus appears, came to discharge some of the functions that had originally belonged to the general ministry of Apostles and prophets. The latter, however, was still recognized to be the higher of the two. St. Paul summons the presbyter-bishops of the Church in Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, and addresses them in a tone of high spiritual authority (Ac 20:17–35). And even in the Didache, which belongs probably to about the end of the 1st cent., we find that when a wandering prophet visits a Church and is recognized as a true prophet, precedence is given him over the resident bishops and deacons (Did. x. 7, xiii. 3). See, further, APOSTLE, BISHOP, DEACON, EVANGELIST, LAYING ON OF HANDS, PROPHET IN NT.

J. C. LAMBERT.

MINNI.—A people named in Jer 51:27 along with the Armenians (‘Ararat’) and Scythians (‘Ashkenaz’) as coming assailants of Babylon. They are the Mannai of the Assyrian inscriptions, who dwelt between the lakes Van and Urmia.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

MINNITH marks the direction in which Jephthah pursued the defeated Ammonites from Aroer (Jg 11:33), i.e. ‘Aroer which is in front of Rabbah’ (Jos 13:25). The site has not been recovered. That indicated in the Onomasticon, 4 miles from Heshbon on the way to Philadelphia, seems too far to the south. The place appears to have been famous for the high quality of its wheat (Ezk 27:17, cf. 2 Ch 27:5). It must be added that in both passages there are strong reasons for suspecting the correctness of the text.

W. EWING.

MINT (Gr. hēdyosmon, Mt 23:23, Lk 11:42).—One of the trifles which were tithed; primarily, perhaps, peppermint (Mentha piperita), but including also allied plants, such as the horse mint, (M. sylvestris), which grows wild all over Palestine.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MIPHKAD.—A gate somewhere near the northern end of the East wall of Jerusalem, as may be deduced from the one reference to it (Neh 3:31 AV ‘the gate Miphkad,’ RV ‘the gate of Hammiphkad’) describing its restoration after the Exile. Many attempts have been made to identify it more exactly; but as the course of this part of Nehemiah’s wall has not been revealed by excavation, and consequently the positions of its gates are not known with certainty, such attempts are mere guesswork. See the note on the gates in art. JERUSALEM, II, § 4.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

MIRACLES

1. The narratives—a) In the Gospels Jesus is recorded to have cast out devils (Mt 8:28 ,

15:28, 17:18, Mk 1:25), restored paralytics (Mt 8:13, 9:6, Jn 5:8), revived the withered hand ( Mt 12:13), released from the spirit of infirmity (Lk 13:12), stanched an issue of blood (Mt 9:22) , cured dropsy (Lk 14:2), allayed fever with a touch (Mt 8:15), given speech to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind (Mt 9:33, 12:22, Mk 7:35, Mt 9:29, 20:34, Mk 8:25, Jn 9:7) , cleansed leprosy (Mt 8:3, Lk 17:18), and even raised from the dead (Mt 9:25, Lk 7:15, Jn 11:44). Besides these miracles of healing there are ascribed to Him other extraordinary acts, such as the

Stilling of the Storm (Mt 8:26), the Feeding of Five Thousand (Mt 14:19) and Four Thousand (15:35), the Walking on the Sea (14:28), the Change of Water into Wine (Jn 2:9). The blasting of the Fig Tree (Mt 21:19), and the finding of the Coin in the Fish’s Mouth (17:27), may possibly be figurative sayings misunderstood. The Two Draughts of Fishes (Lk 5:6 and Jn 21:6) may be variant traditions of one occurrence, and, like the recovery of the Nohleman’s Son of Capernaum (Jn 4:50), may be regarded as proof of superhuman wisdom, and not of supernatural power. These miracles are presented to us as the acts of a Person supernatural both in the moral character as sinless and perfect, and in the religious consciousness as alone knowing and revealing the Father. It was the universal conviction of the early Christian Church that after three days He rose from the dead (1 Co 15:4), and was universally present in supreme power ( Mt 28:18, 20).

Regarding the miracles of Jesus the following general considerations should be kept in view. (a) It is impossible to remove the records of miracles from the Gospels without tearing them to pieces, as these works of Jesus are so wrought into the very texture of His ministry. (b) The character of the miracles is absolutely harmonious with the power of Jesus; with only two apparent exceptions they are beneficent. The blasting of the fig tree (Mt 21:19), even if the record is taken literally, may be explained as a symbolic prophetic act, a solemn warning to His disciples of the doom of impenitent Israel. The finding of the coin in the fish’s mouth (Mt 17:27) would be an exception to the rule of Jesus never to use His supernatural power on His own behalf, and the narrative itself allows us to explain it as a misunderstanding of figurative language. (c) The miracles were not wrought for display, or to prove His claims. Jesus rejected such use as a temptation (Mt 4:6, 7), and always refused to work a sign to meet the demands of unbelief (Mt 16:4). He did not highly esteem the faith that was produced by His miracles ( Jn 4:48). The cure of the paralytic, which He wrought to confirm His claim to forgive sins, was necessary to assure the sufferer of the reality of His forgiveness (Mt 9:6). The miracles are not evidential accessories, but essential constituents of Jesus’ ministry of grace. (d) While faith in the petitioner for, or recipient of, the act of healing was a condition Jesus seemingly required in all cases, while He was prevented doing His mighty works, as at Nazareth, by unbelief (Mt 13:58) , while the exercise of His power was accompanied by prayer to God (Jn 11:41, 42), His healing acts were never tentative; there is in the records no trace of a failure. (e) In view of one of the explanations offered, attention must be called to the variety of the diseases cured; nervous disorders and their consequences did not limit the range of His activity.

(b) In the Acts the record of miracles is continued. The promise of Jesus to His Apostles ( Mt 10:8, cf. Mk 16:17, 18) is represented as abundantly fulfilled. In addition to the charisms of tongues and prophecy (wh. see), there were signs and wonders wrought by the Apostles and others (Ac 2:43, 5:12, 18, 6:8, 8:13). Miracles of which further details are given are the restoration of the lame man at the gate Beautiful (3:7), and of the cripple at Lystra (14:9), the cure of the palsied Æneas (9:34), the expulsion of the spirit of divination at Philippi (16:18), the healing of the father of Publius in Melita (28:8), the restoration to life of Dorcas (9:40) and Eutychus (20:10, the narrative does not distinctly affirm death). This supernatural power is exercised in judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (5:5, 10), and on Elymas (13:11)—acts the moral justification of which must be sought in the estimate formed of the danger threatening the Church and the gospel, but which do present an undoubted difficulty. One may hesitate about accepting the statement about the miracles wrought by Peter’s shadow (5:15) or Paul’s aprons (19:12). What are represented as miraculous deliverances from imprisonment are reported both of Peter (12:8) and of Paul (16:26). Paul’s escape from the viper (28:3) does not necessarily involve a miracle. These miracles, which, taken by themselves as reported in Acts, there might be some hesitation in believing, become more credible when viewed as the continuation of the supernatural power of Christ in His Church for the confirmation of the faith of those to whom the gospel was entrusted, and also those to whom its appeal was first addressed. In this matter the Epistles of Paul confirm the record of Acts (1 Co 12:10, 28, 2 Co 12:12). Paul claims this supernatural power for himself, and recognizes its presence in the Church.

(c) We cannot claim to have contemporary evidence of the miracles of the OT, as we have of those of the NT. The miracles are almost entirely connected either with the Exodus from Egypt, or with the ministry of Elijah and of Elisha. The majority of the miracles of the first group are not outside of the order of nature; what is extraordinary in them is their coincidence with the prophetic declaration, this constituting the events signs of the Divine revelation. While the miracles ascribed to Elijah and Elisha might be considered as their credentials, yet they cannot be regarded as essential to their prophetic ministry; and the variations with which they are recorded represent popular traditions which the compiler of the Books of Kings has incorporated without any substantial alteration. The record of the standing still of the sun in Gibeon is obviously a prosaic misinterpretation of a poetic phrase (Jos 10:12–14); behind the record of the bringing back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz (2 K 20:11) we may assume some unusual atmospheric phenomenon, refracting the rays of the sun; the speech of Balaam’s ass (Nu 22:27) may be regarded as an objectifying by the seer of his own scruples, doubts, and fears; the Book of Jonah is now interpreted not literally, but figuratively; the Book of Daniel is not now generally taken as history, but rather as the embellishment of history for the purposes of edification. The revelation of Jehovah to Israel is seen in the providential guidance and guardianship of His people by God, and in the authoritative interpretation of God’s works and ways by the prophets, and in it miracle, in the strict sense of the word, has a small place. While the moral and religious worth of the OT, as the literature of the Divine revelation completed in Christ, demands a respectful treatment of the narratives of miracles, we are bound to apply two tests: the sufficiency of the evidence, and the congruity of the miracle in character with the Divine revelation.

2. The evidence.—In dealing with the evidence for the miracles the starting-point should be the Resurrection. It is admitted that the belief that Jesus had risen prevailed in the Christian Church from the very beginning of its history; that without this belief the Church would never have come into existence. Harnack seeks to distinguish the Easter message about the empty grave and the appearances of Jesus from the Easter faith that Jesus lives: but he is not successful in showing how the former could have come to be, apart from the latter. No attempt to explain the conversion of Paul without admitting the objective manifestation of Christ as risen can be regarded as satisfactory. It may not be possible absolutely to harmonize in every detail the records of the appearances, but before these narratives were written it was the common belief of the Christian Church, as Paul testifies, ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Co 15:3, 4). If the Resurrection of Christ is proved, this fact, conjoined with His absolutely unique moral character and religious consciousness, in vests the Person of Jesus with a supernaturalness which forbids our limiting the actions possible to Him by the normal human tests. His miracles are not wonders, for it is no wonder that He should so act, but signs, proofs of what He is, and works, congrnous with His character as ‘ever doing good,’ and His purpose to reveal the grace of the Father. Harnack will not ‘reject peremptorily as illusion that lame walked, blind saw, and deaf heard,’ but he will not believe that ‘a stormy sea was stilled by a word.’ The miracles of healing are not all explicable, as he supposes, by what Matthew Arnold called moral therapeutics—the influence of a strong personality over those suffering from nerve disorders, as they embrace diseases of which the cure by any such means is quite incredible; and the evidence for the cosmic miracles, as the miracles showing power over nature apart from man have been called, is quite as good as for the healing miracles. If the Synoptic Gospels can be dated between A.D. 60 and 90, as is coming to be admitted by scholars generally, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is thoroughly satisfactory; the mythical theory of Strauss must assume a much longer interval. Harnack regards as ‘a demonstrated fact’ that ‘Luke, companion in travel and associate in evangelistic work of Paul,’ is the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts; nevertheless he does not consider Luke’s history as true; but Ramsay argues that the Lukan authorship carries with it substantial accuracy. In his various writings he has endeavoured to show how careful a historian Luke is, and if Luke’s excellence in this respect is established, then we can place greater reliance on the evidence for miracles in the early Church, as well as in the ministry of Jesus. Harnack lays great stress on the credulity of the age in which the Gospels were written; but this credulity was not universal. The educated classes were sceptical; and, to judge Luke from the preface to his Gospel, he appears as one who recognized the duty of careful inquiry, and of testing evidence. The miracles of the Gospels and the Acts are closely connected with the Person of Jesus, as the Word Incarnate and the risen Lord, and the credulity of the age does not come into consideration unless it can be shown that among either the Jews or the Gentiles there was a prejudice favourable to belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The character of the miracles, so harmonious with the Person, forbids our ascribing them to the wonder-loving, and therefore wonder-making, tendency of the times.

Some indications have already been given in regard to the evidence for the miracles of the OT. The frequent references to the deliverance from Egypt made in the subsequent literature attest the historical reality of that series of events; and it cannot be said to be improbable that signs should have accompanied such a Divine intervention in human history. Some of the miracles ascribed to Elisha are not of a character congruous with the function of prophecy; but it may be that we should very cautiously apply our sense of fitness as a test of truth to these ancient narratives. In the OT history, Prophecy (wh. see) was the supernatural feature of deepest significance and highest value.

3. Explanations.—Admitting that the evidence is satisfactory, and the miracles are real, what explanations can be offered of them? (a) One suggestion has already been considered; it is favoured by Harnack and Matthew Arnold: it is that one person may exercise over another so strong an influence as to cure nervous disorders. The inadequacy of this explanation has been shown; but even were it admissible, a reason would need to be given why Jesus used a means not known in His age, and thus anticipated modern developments of medical skill. It is certain that Jesus worked His miracles relying on the Divine powers in Himself; whether in any cases this obscure psychic force was an unknown condition of His miracles is a matter of secondary importance.

(b) A second suggestion, made by the late Duke of Argyll (Reign of Law, p. 16), is that God chooses and uses laws unknown to man, or laws which, even if he knew, he could not use. He thinks that this would meet the prejudice of scientific thought against effects without causes. This explanation recognizes that miracles are not explicable by the laws of nature as known to man, and that it is of God’s free choice that for certain ends He uses means otherwise unknown. As these laws are quite hypothetical, and as this use of them only occasionally is not at all probable, this explanation does not appear to make miracles any more credible.

(c) We may now attempt to define more closely what we mean by a miracle. It does seem, on the whole, desirable to restrict the term ‘miracle’ to an external event of which there is sensible evidence. Inward changes, such as in the prophetic inspiration, or the religious conversion of an individual, however manifest the Divine presence and action may be for the person having the experience, should not be described as miracles, unless with some qualification such as spiritual or moral. The negative feature of the external event which justifies our describing it as a miracle is that it is inexplicable by the natural forces and laws as known to us. The will of man is a force in nature with which we are familiar, and therefore the movements of the body under the control of the will are not to be described as miraculous. We say more than we are justified in saying if we describe a miracle as an interference with the laws and forces of nature, or a breach in the order of nature; for just as the physical forces and laws allow the exercise of human will in the movements of the body, so the power that produces the miracle may, nay must, be conceived as so closely related to nature that its exercise results in no disturbance or disorder in nature. The miracle need not interfere with the continuity of nature at all. The modem theory of Evolution is not less, but more, favourable to the belief in miracle. It is not a finished machine, but a growing organism, that the world appears. Life transcends, and yet combines and controls physical forces (Lodge’s Life and Matter, p. 198). Mind is not explicable by the brain, and yet the will directs the movements of the body. There is a creative action of God in the stages of the evolution, which attaches itself to the conserving activity. Applying the argument from analogy, we may regard the Person of Christ and the miracles that cluster round His Person as such a creative action of God. If we adequately estimate the significance of the Exodus in the history of mankind, the providential events connected with it will assume greater credibility. But there is a final consideration. The purpose of God in Christ is not only perfective—the completion of the world’s evolution; it is also redemptive—the correction of the evil sin had brought on the human race. It was fitting that the redemption of man from sin should be accompanied by outward remedial signs, the relief of his need and removal of his sufferings. God is without variation and shadow that is cast by turning in His purpose, but His action is conditioned, and must necessarily be conditioned, by the results of man’s use of the freedom which for His wise and holy ends He bestowed. He may in His action transcend His normal activity by a more direct manifestation of Himself than the natural processes of the world afford. The consistency of character of a human personality is not disproved by an exceptional act when a crisis arises; and so, to deal effectively with sin for man’s salvation, God may use miracles as means to His ends without any break in the continuity of His wisdom, righteousness, and grace.

4. Objections.—It seemed desirable to state the facts, the proofs for them, and the reasonableness of them, before taking up the objections that are made. These objections refer to two points,—the possibility of miracle at all, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the miracles of the Bible. Each of these may be very briefly dealt with. (a) For materialism, which recognizes only physical forces; and pantheism, which so identifies God and man that the order of nature is fixed by the necessity of the nature of God; and even for deism, which confines the direct Divine activity to the beginning, and excludes it from the course of the world, miracles are impossible. Agnosticism, which regards the ultimate reality as an inscrutable mystery, is under no logical compulsion to deny the possibility of miracles; Huxley, for instance, pronounces such denial unjustifiable. Two reasons against the possibility of miracles may be advanced from a theistic standpoint. In the interests of science it may be maintained that the uniformity of nature excludes miracle; but, as has just been shown, the theory of Evolution has so modified the conception of uniformity that this argument has lost its force. Life and mind, when first appearing in the process of evolution, were breaches in the uniformity. The uniformity of nature is consistent with fresh stages of development, inexplicable by their antecedents; and only when science has resolved life and mind into matter will the argument regain any validity. In the interests of philosophy, it may be argued that miracles interrupt the continuity of thought: the world as it is is so reasonable (idealism) or so good (optimism) that any change is unthinkable. But the affirmation ignores many of the problems the world as it is presents: sin, sorrow, death are real; would not the solution of these problems give both a more reasonable and a better world? and if miracles should be necessary to such a solution, they are thinkable. Again, is it not somewhat arrogant to make man’s estimate of what is reasonable and good the measure of God’s wisdom and grace?

(b) The more usual objection is the insufficiency of the evidence. Hume laid down this criterion: ‘No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. Or briefly, it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.’ But to this statement it may properly be objected, that it assumes what is to be proved; for, while it may be contrary to ordinary experience that miracles happen, what the defenders of miracles maintain is that there have been exceptional experiences of miracles. If miracles were common, they would cease to be so described; their uncommonness does not prove their incredibility. Although the test is one that has no warrant, yet it may be argued that Christ’s character and resurrection would stand it. It is less credible that the portrait of Jesus given in the Gospels was invented, than that Jesus lived as there depicted. It is less credible that the Apostolic faith in the risen Lord, and all it accomplished, should have its origin in illusion, than that He rose from the dead. The improbability of miracle is usually the tacit assumption when the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. If the relation of God to the world is conceived as a constant, immanent, progressive, perfective, redemptive activity, the probability of miracles will be so great that the evidence sufficient to prove an ordinary event will be regarded as satisfactory, provided always that this test is met, that the miracle is connected with the fulfilment of the Divine purpose, and is congruous in its character with the wisdom, righteousness, and grace of God.

5. Value.—A few words may in conclusion be added regarding the value of the miracles. The old apologetic view of miracles as the credentials of the doctrines of Christianity is altogether discredited. It is the truth of the doctrines that makes the fact of the miracles credible. It is Christ’s moral character and religious consciousness that help us to believe that He wrought wonderful works. The NT recognizes that a miracle proves only superhuman power (2 Th 2:9) ; only if its character is good, is it proved Divine. In the OT prophecy is declared false, not only when unfulfilled (Dt 18:22), but also when it leads to idolatry (13:3). The moral test, which can be applied to the miracles of the Gospels, shows the irrelevancy, not to say the flippancy, of Matthew Arnold’s sneer about the turning of a pen into a pen-wiper as the proof of a doctrine. The miracles of the Gospels are constituent elements of Christ’s moral perfection, His grace towards men. While the miracles are represented in the Gospels as not in themselves sufficient to generate faith (Jn 11:46, 12:37), yet it is affirmed that they arrested attention and strengthened faith (Mt 8:27, Lk 5:8, 7:18, Jn 2:11, 6:14). Christ Himself is reported as appealing to them as witness (Jn 5:36), but the appeal seems deprecatory, as elsewhere He rates low the faith that rests on seeing miracles (Jn 4:48, 14:11), while condemning the unbelief that resists even this evidence (Mt 11:20). At the beginning of the Christian Church the miracles had some value as evidence. Today the change Christ has wrought in human history is the most convincing proof of His claim; but we must not ignore the value the miracles had when they occurred, and their value to us still as works of Christ, showing as signs His grace.

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

MIRIAM.—1. The sister of Moses and Aaron, probably older than either. It was she who watched Moses in the ark of bulrushes (Ex 2:4ff.). She is called ‘the prophetess,’ and led the women in the song of victory at the Red Sea (Ex 15:20f.). In the course of the wilderness wanderings she combined with Aaron against Moses, and was punished by leprosy, which was healed in answer to the prayer of Moses (Nu 12:1–15). She died in Kadesh towards the end of the wilderness journey (Nu 20:1). Her story is referred to in Dt 24:8–9 in connexion with the ceremonial law of leprosy, and in Mic 6:4 she is spoken of along with Moses and Aaron as a leader of the people.

The name Miriam becomes in Greek Mariam and Mariamne, also Maria, our Mary and is probably of Egyptian derivation (mer Amon, ‘beloved of Amon’).

2. A man (or woman) of the family of Caleb (1 Ch 4:17).

W. F. BOYD.

MIRMAH.—Eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Ch 8:10).

MIRROR.—See GLASS.

MISAEL.—1. 1 Es 9:44 = Mishael, Neh 8:4, 2, Three 66 = Mishael, No. 3.

MISGAB.—Mentioned along with Nebo and Kiriathaim in the oracle against Moab ( Jer 48:1). Perhaps it is not intended as a proper name. The same Heb. term occurs in Is 25:12, where both AV and RV tr. ‘high fort’ (cf. 2 S 22:3, Ps 9:9 bis 18:2, 46:7, 11, 48:3, 59:9, 16, 17, 62:2, 6 , 94:22, 144:2, Is 33:16.

MISHAEL.—1. A Kohathite (Ex 6:22, Lv 10:4). 2. One of Ezra’s supporters (Neh 8:4) ; called in I Es 9:44 Misael. 3. See MESHACH.

MISHAL.—A town of Asher (Jos 19:26), given to the Gershonite Levites (21:30) = 1 Ch 6:74 Mashal. The site is unknown.

MISHAM.—Eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Ch 8:12)

MISHMA.—1. A son of Ishmael (Gn 25:14 = 1 Ch 1:30). 2. The eponym of a Simeonite family (1 Ch 4:25).

MISHMANNAH.—A Gadite chief (1 Ch 12:10).

MISHNA.—See TALMUD.

MISHRAITES.—A family of Kiriath-jearim (1 Ch 2:53).

MISPAR.—One of the exiles who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:2) = Neh 7:7 Mispereth, 1 Es 5:8 Aspharasus.

MISPERETH.—See preceding article.

MISREPHOTH-MAIM.—From the Waters of Merom the defeated Canaanites fled to Great Zidon, and unto Misrephoth-maim (Jos 11:8). It marks the S. boundary of the Zidonians, who had not been driven out by Joshua (13:6). The Ladder of Tyre formed a natural limit to the territory of the Zidonians. On the slope of Ras en-Naqūrah, the most southerly of the promontories forming the ‘Ladder,’ is found a site called Musheirifeh, which Thomson (LB) with great probability identifies with Misrephoth-maim.

W. EWING.

MITE.—See MONEY, § 7.

MITHKAH.—One of the 12 ‘stations’ (Nu 33:28, 29).

MITHNITE.—A gentilic name applied to one of David’s officers in 1 Ch 11:43. The text is doubtful.

MITHRADATES.—1. 1 Es 2:11 = Mithredath, Ezr 1:8, 2. (AV Mithridates) 1 Es 2:16 = Mithredath, Ezr 4:7.

MITHREDATH (Pers. = ‘given by Mithra, or the sun’).—1. The Persian treasurer, whom Cyrus commanded to deliver to Sheshbazzar the sacred vessels (Ezr 1:8 = 1 Es 2:11

Mithradates). 2. Apparently a Persian officer stationed in Samaria. Together with his colleagues he wrote to Artaxerxes (Longimanus) to hinder the re-building of the walls of Jerusalem (Ezr 4:7 = 1 Es 2:16 Mithradates).

MITRE.—With the exception of Zec 3:6 where it represents the Heb. tsānīph or turban ( for which see DRESS, § 5 a), and Ezk 21:26 RV (see below), ‘mitre’ in EV is used exclusively of the characteristic headdress of the Jewish high priest. The ‘mitre’ (Heb. mitsnepheth, from the same root, signifying to ‘wind round,’ as tsanīph) was an elaborate species of turban, composed of a long swathe of ‘fine linen’ (Ex 28:39), 16 cubits in length, according to the Talmud. Its precise form, however, is uncertain; the descriptions given by Josephus of the high-priestly mitre of his day, besides being obscure in themselves, agree neither with one another nor with the OT text.

On the now common assumption that the Priests’ Code originated in Babylonia, it is probable that the mitre was intended to have the conical form characteristic of the tiara of the Babylonian kings. For ornament it had ‘a plate of gold,’ on which were engraved two Hebrew words

signifying ‘holiness to J″’ (Ex 28:36, Lv 8:9: cf. Sir 45:12). The plate rested on the front of the mitre, and was kept in position by a blue-purple ribbon (Ex 28:37, 39:31), which probably served as a fillet and was tied behind, perhaps with the ends hanging down, as in the case of the jewelled diadem or fillet worn by the Assyrian kings. Hence the fillet could be described as ‘the holy crown’ (Lv 8:9), and by ben-Sira as ‘a diadem (EV ‘crown’) of gold upon the mitre’ ( Sir 45:12). The royal crown of Judah, according to Ezekiel (21:26), consisted of the same two parts

(see Heb. text in each case): ‘remove the mitre (RV), and take off the diadem (EV ‘crown’).’

This passage is our warrant for saying that the headdress prescribed for the high priest in the Priests’ Code, consisting of mitre and diadem, is intended to signify that the high priest shall unite in his person the highest office in both Church and State.

The headdress of the high priest is always distinguished from that of his subordinates, for which see BONNET.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MITYLENE was the chief town of Lesbos on its E. coast, subsequently giving its name to the whole island. It was one of the early Æolian colonies, and one of the earliest homes of Greek lyric poetry—the birthplace of Sappho and Alcæns. It attained great naval power, and founded colonies such as Sigeum and Assos. It took a prominent part in the Ionian revolt, but helped Xerxes against Greece. It joined the Athenian alliance, but revolted in B.C. 428 and was nearly annihilated. After opposing Rome in the Mithradatic War, it was made a free city. It has belonged to the Turks since A.D. 1462. Its mention in Ac 20:14 is merely incidental,—St. Paul’s ship spent a night there.

A. E. HILLARD.

MIXED MULTITUDE.—A description given (1) to certain persons who joined Israel in the Exodus from Egypt (Ex 12:38), and who fell a lusting at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nu 11:4); (2) to those who were separated from the Israelites after the return from the Captivity (Neh 13:3).

In Ex 12:38 those referred to are probably strangers of non-Israelitic or half-Israelitic origin. The Hebrew consonants (differently pointed) mean either ‘mixed’ or ‘Arabian,’ and some have suggested that we ought here to translate ‘Arabians.’ In Jer 25:20, 50:37, Ezk 30:5, the same Hebrew word is translated by the expression ‘mingled people,’ where it has been supposed by some to refer to foreign mercenaries. In Ezk 30:5 at least ‘Arabians’ gives a better meaning. The Hebrew word in Nu 11:4 is a different one, and is probably a contemptuous term signifying the mob, the rabble.

The context in Neh 13:3 leaves no doubt as to the meaning. The reference is to the strangers with whom the Israelites had intermarried and the children of such alliances.

W. F. BOYD.

MIZAR.—Ps 42:6b runs: ‘I remember thee from the land of Jordan and the Hermons, from the hill Mizar.’ It is a question whether Mizar is a proper name or an appellative—‘the little’ ( ? ). If the former, Mizar must be a peak of the Hermons, and is otherwise unknown. If the latter, the text must in some way be corrected. The simplest and most satisfactory expedient is to remove the initial m from mēhar in the phrase mēhar mizar, and render ‘O, thou little hill.’ The reference will then be to Zion. As the whole Psalm reads like the cry of an exile from Zion, expressive of his home-sickness, this rendering makes admirable sense. ‘O, my God, my soul is cast down within me; for I remember thee from the land of Jordan and of the Hermons, O, thou little hill ( of Zion).’ The initial m in mēhar might well have crept in from the final m of the preceding word, Hermonim.

W. F. COBB.

MIZPAH, MIZPEH.—These words (from tsāphāh, to ‘look out,’ esp. as a watchman) mean ‘outlook-point’; and they are the names of several places and towns in Palestine, all presumably situated on elevated spots, and all probably ancient sacred places. The sites of several are, however, uncertain. As both names are significant, they nearly always in the Heb. have the article.

1. Mizpah in Gn 31:49, where Jacob and Laban made their compact together, and where the name is explained, by a popular etymology, from the words used by Laban, ‘J″ watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another’ (and interpose, it is implied, if either attempts to take an advantage of the other). The name has not been preserved, and hence the site cannot be fixed, except conjecturally. Improbable sites have been suggested: to judge from the general line of Jacob’s route from Haran, the ‘Mizpah’ here referred to will have been some eminence on the N.E. of the Jebei Ajlun, some 40 miles S.E. of the Lake of Gennesaret ( cf.

Driver, Genesis, pp. 288, 301 f.).

2. The ‘land of Mizpah,’ at the foot of Hermon, in Jos 11:5, probably the same as the ‘cleft (or plain between mountains) of Mizpeh’ in v. 8. This ‘Mizpah,’ or ‘Mizpeh,’ has been identified with the Druse village Mutelle’ (the ‘climbed up to’), on a hill 200 ft. high, at the S. end of the broad and fertile plain called the Merj ‘Ayūn’ (the ‘meadow of ‘Ayūn’), overlooking the basin of the Huleh sea, a little N. of Abil, and 8 m. W.N.W. of Bāniās (Rob. iii. 372 f.). This, however, is thought by some to be not enough to the E. (notice ‘under Hermon’ v. 8, and ‘eastward’ v. 8) ; and Buhl (GAP 240) conjectures that it may have been the height on which are now the ruins of the Saracenic castle Kal‘at es-Subēbē, 2 m. above Bānias, on the N.E. In the former case the ‘land’ of M. would be the Merj ‘Ayūn itself, between the rivers Litani and Hasbāni; in the latter it would be the plain stretching down from Bāniās towards Lake Huleh.

3. Mizpeh in Jos 15:38, in the Shephēlah, or ‘lowland’ of Judah, mentioned in the same group of cities as Lachish (Tell el-Hesy, 34 miles S.W. of Jerusalem). According to Eusebius (Onom. 279), there was a Mizpeh in the district of Eleutheropolis (Beit-Jibrīn, 23 m. S.W. of Jerus.), on the N., and another on the road from Eleutheropolis to Jerusalem. The former of these descriptions would suit Tell es-Safiyeh, on a hill of white chalk 7¹/₂m. N.N.W. of Belt-Jibrīn, with a commanding view, which, however, is now identified by many with Gath; the latter is too indefinite to permit of any identification being made with confidence.

4. The Mizpah of Jg 10:17, 11:11, 34, Jephthah’s home,—apparently, to judge from the narrative, not very far from the Ammonite territory, and (11:33) the Aroer in front of Rabbathammon (Jos 13:25). The site can only be fixed conjecturally. Moore suggests the Jebel Osha’, 16 m. N.W. of Rabbath-ammon, the highest point of the mountains S. of the Jabbok (3597 ft.), commanding a view of almost the whole Jordan Valley, as well as of much of the country opposite, on the W. of Jordan (Conder, Helh and Moab, 186 f.). Whether the ‘Mizpeh of Gilead’ of Jg 11:29 is the same spot is uncertain; from the difference of name, it would rather seem that it is not. The Mizpah of Hos 5:1 is, however, very probably the same as Jephthah’s Mizpah. The Ramath-mizpeh (‘height of the outlook-point’) of Jos 13:25, on the N. border of Gad, has also been supposed to be the same as Jephthah’s Mizpah; but this is uncertain; a point further to the N. seems to be required.

5. The Mizpah, on the W. of Jordan, mentioned in Jg 20:1, 8, 21:1, 5, 8, 1 S 7:5ff., 10:17 as a meeting-place of Israelites on Important occasions; in 1 K 15:22 (= 2 Ch 16:8) as fortified by Asa; in 2 K 23:23, 25, Jer 40:5, 8, and several times besides in Jer 40, 41, as the residence of Gedaliah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar over Judah after the capture of Jerusalem in 586; and in Neh 3:7, 15, 19. The same place appears to be intended by the ‘Mizpeh’ of 1 Mac 3:45 (Gr. Massēpha, as often in LXX for ‘Mizpah,’ e.g. Jg 20:1, 8), ‘over against Jerusalem,’ a former ‘place of prayer’ (i.e. sanctuary) for Israel, at which the faithful Israelites assembled after Antiochus Epiphanes had desecrated the Temple and stopped all worship in it. This Mizpah was identified with much probability by Robinson (i. 460) with Nebi Samwil, a height 4¹/₂m. N.W. of Jerusalem, 2935 ft. above the sea, and some 500 ft. above the surrounding plain (notice ‘gone or came up’ in Jg 20:3, 21:5, 8), with a commanding view of the country round (ib. 457 f.). Nebi Samwil is 3 m. W.N.W. of Gibeah (cf. Jg 20:1, 3 with the sequel), 2 m. S. of Gibeon (cf. Neh 3:7), and a little N. of the present road from Joppa to Jerusalem. It is the actual point from which travellers ascending by the ancient route through the pass of Beth-horon caught their first glimpse of the interior of the hills of Palestine. ‘It is a very fair and delicious place, and it is called Mount Joy, because it gives joy to pilgrims’ hearts; for from that place men first see Jerusalem’ (Maundeville, cited in SP, p. 214). Its present name, Nebi Samwil (the ‘Prophet

Samuel’), is due to the Moslem tradition that it was Samuel’s burial-place (cf. 1 S 7:6, 15 where Mizpah is mentioned as one of Samuel’s residences); and the mosque there—once a Crusaders’ church—contains a cenotaph revered by the Moslems as his tomb.

6. Mizpeh of Moab (1 S 22:8,—‘Mizpeh’ is perhaps also to be read in v. 5 for ‘the hold’), the residence of the king of Moab when David consigned his parents to his care. It must have been situated on some eminence in Moab; but we have no further clue to its site.

S. R. DRIVER.

MIZRAIM.—The name of v (wh. see), and especially of Lower Egypt. Mizraim was son of Ham and father of Ludim, Anamim, Lebabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim (i.e. the inhabitants of Upper Egypt), Casluhim, and Caphtorim (Gn 10:6, 13, 14). Of. also art. PATHROS.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

MIZZAH.—A ‘duke’ of Edom (Gn 36:13, 17 = 1 Ch 1:37).

MNASON of Cyprus, mentioned in Ac 21:16 as one who entertained Paul and his companions on their journey from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. The Greek in this passage admits of two constructions, either ‘bringing with them one Mnason,’ or ‘bringing us to Mnason.’ The most probable explanation is that Mnason lived in some village between Cæsarea and Jerusalem, and that Paul broke his Journey there and stayed the night with him. The distance was between 60 and 70 miles, too great for a day’s journey.

He is called ‘an old (RV ‘early’) disciple,’ that is, one of the first disciples, probably one of those converted on the day of Pentecost.

MORLEY STEVENSON.

MOAB, MOABITES.—Moab occupied the lofty table-land to the east of the Dead Sea. It was bounded on the E. by the Arabian desert, on the S. by the land of Edom, on the W. by the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley. Its N. boundary fluctuated at different periods between the Arnon and an indistinct line some distance north of Heshbon. This table-land is elevated some 3000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and 4300 feet above the Dead Sea. It is traversed by three deep valleys, the middle one of which, the Arnon, is the deepest, and is often mentioned in the Bible. The northern portion consists of broad stretches of rolling country, the reddish soil of which is fertile, while in the southern portion more hills are found, and the deep wrinkles interfere more with agriculture. In the winter months the rainfall is adequate, and renders the country very desirable in comparison with the deserts on its border.

In the earliest times known to us this land was called Lotan (Egyp. Ruten), or Lot. The narrative of Gn. 19, which makes Lot (wh. see) the father of Moab, apparently means that the Moabites settled in this land of Lot. The meaning of Moab is undetermined. The etymology of Gn 19:37 (LXX) is not philological, and modern guesses are uncertain.

The narrative of Gn 19 shows that the Israelites recognized the Moabites as their kinsmen. That they really were such, their language, religion, and customs, so far as known to us, also testify. Probably, then, the Moabites came with the wave of Aramæan migration which brought the Israelites, secured a foothold in the land of Lotan while the Israelites were still nomads, and adopted the Canaanitish speech of the people among whom they settled. Sayce believes they were settled in this territory by c. B.C. 1300, for Rameses II., he thinks, alludes to the country Moab (cf. Patriarchal Palestine, p. 22), but this lacks confirmation.

At the time of the approach of the Hebrews to Palestine the Moabites were so strongly intrenched in their land that the invaders avoided all conflict with them (Dt 2:9, Jg 11:15, 2 Ch 20:16), although they conquered king Sihon, who had subdued all of Moab north of the Arnon (Nu 21:21–31, Dt 2:24–35). The Moabites viewed the coming of Israel with alarm, and desired to attack them, but did not dare (Nu 22–24, Dt 23:4, Jg 11:25).

According to the Priestly narratives, the Israelites secured at this time the territory north of the Arnon; but the narratives differ as to whether its cities were all assigned to Reuben (so Jos 13:16–21), or whether some of the most southerly (Dibon, Ataroth, and Aroer) were assigned to

Gad (Nu 32:34ff.). Perhaps the latter view represents the fact. The Gadites obtained some of the southern cities, and the Reubenites some of the northern. Probably the conquest was not very complete.

Early in the period of the Judges, the Moabites not only had regained control of all this territory, but had extended their power into western Palestine so as to oppress the Benjamites ( Jg

3:12–30). This led to the assassination of Eglon, king of Moab, by Ehud. In course of time the Moabites absorbed the tribe of Reuben, though the latter maintained their identity for a considerable period.

According to the Book of Ruth, friendly intercourse existed between Moab and Israel at this period. Saul fought with the Moabites’ (1 S 14:47), but with what result we do not know. Towards the end of his reign they aided David against him (1 S 22:3ff.). David subjugated Moab, and rendered the country tributary to Israel (2 S 8:1, 2, 12). This subjugation apparently continued during the reign of Solomon, for he had Moabitish women in his harem, and built a shrine for Chemosh, the god of Moab (1 K 11:1, 7).

After the reign of Solomon, Moab apparently gained its independence. Our next information comes from the so-called ‘Moabite Stone,’ an inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, found at the ancient Dibon, and now preserved in the Louvre. Mesha states that Omri, king of Israel, conquered Moab, and that Moab continued subject to Israel till the middle of the reign of Ahab, when Chemosh enabled him (Mesha) to win victories over Israel, which secured Moabitish independence, and which he describes in detail. A somewhat confused allusion to this is found in 2 K 3:1ff., Jehoram, Ahab’s successor, undertook, with the aid of Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom, to reduce Moab once more, and almost succeeded, The country was overrun, the capital besieged and reduced to great extremity, when the king of Moab sacrificed to Chemosh his firstborn son on the city wall in sight of both armies (2 K 3:27). The courage which this aroused in the Moabites, and the superstitious dread which it excited in the besieging army, secured a victory for the former. It appears from 2 K 13:20 that after this, Moabites frequently in vaded

Israel.

Amos (2:1–3) in the next century reproved Moab for barbarities to Edom, and Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria enumerates the king of Moab among his tribute-payers (KIB ii. 20). Sennacherib, about B.C. 700, received tribute from Chemosh-nadab, king of Moab (KIB ii. 91), and the country remained vassal to Assyria during the following reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (cf. KIB ii. 148, 238).

Moabites aided Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim at the very end of the same century (2 K 24:2). Is 15, 16, Zeph 2:8–11, Jer 48, and Ezk 25:8ff. contain prophecies against Moab, but do not add to our knowledge of the history. Jer 48 indicates that a great calamity was impending over them. In Neh 4:7 Arabians rather than Moabites are allies of the Ammonites (cf. also 1 Mac 9:32–42 and Jos. Ant. XIII. xiii. 5, XIV. i. 4). We know that the Nabatæans were in possession of this country a little later, and it is probable that by the time of Nehemiah they had for ever brought the Moabite power to an end. Some infer from Jeremiah’s prophecy that Moab rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar as Israel and Ammon did, and that he carried enough of them captive to weaken them and render them an easy prey to the Nabatæans. Possibly this is true, but we know nothing of It.

The language of the Moabites was, as the Moabite Stone shows, identical with that of Israel. That peculiar construction known as Waw Consecutive is found, outside of Biblical Hebrew, only in the Moabite Stone and one or two Phœnician inscriptions.

The religion of the Moabites was very similar to that of early Israel. The references to

Chemosh in Mesha’s inscription are very similar to references to Jahweh in Israelitish writings of the same period. The Divine name Ashtar-Chemosh indicates that the worship of the feminine divinity known to the Babylonians as Ishtar, and to the Phœnicians as Astart, was also mingled with the worship of Chemosh. Traces of the repellent nature of this worship appear in the OT (Nu 25:5, 31:16, Jos 22:7, Ps 106:28). No great ethical prophets, such as elevated the religion of Israel, rescued the religion of Moab from the level of its barbaric Semitic origin.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

MOADIAH.—See MAADIAH.

MOCHMUR.—A wady apparently S.E. of Dothan (Jth 7:18).

MODIN.—A village in the Shephēlah, never mentioned in the OT, but of great importance as the home of the Maccabees. Here Mattathias, by slaying a Jew who conformed to the paganizing commands of Antiochus, struck the first blow for Jewish religious freedom (1 Mac 2:1–28). He was buried at Modin (2:70), as were his illustrious sons Judas (9:19) and Jonathan (13:25). Simon here built an elaborate monument with seven pyramids, commemorative of his father, mother, and four brethren, with great pillars around, and bas-reliefs of military and naval triumphs. This splendid monument could be seen at sea. It stood for about 500 years, after which it seems to have disappeared; and with it was lost all recollection of the site of Modin. This has been recovered in recent years in the little village of el-Medyeh, near Lydd. There are numerous rock-tombs about, some of them traditionally known as Qabūr el-Yehūd, or ‘the Jews’ tombs,’ but nothing is to be seen in any way suggestive of the Maccabæan mausoleum.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

MOETH (1 Es 8:68) = Noadiah of Ezr 8:33.

MOLADAH.—A city reckoned to Judah in Jos 15:26, and to Simeon in Jos 19:2, 1 Ch 4:28. It is in no way related to Tell el-Milh, ‘hill of salt,’ with which Robinson and others have identified it. Probably it lay near Beersheba, but the site has not been recovered.

W. EWING.

MOLE.—1. tinshemeth, Lv 11:30 (AV ‘mole,’ RV ‘chameleon’; but same word is in Lv

11:18 and Dt 14:18 tr. AV ‘swan,’ RV ‘horned owl’). See CHAMELEON.

2. chaphōr-pērōth (?‘burrowing animals’), Is 2:20, may apply to rats, mice, jerboas, etc., as well as ‘moles.’ The true insectivorous mole does not occur in Palestine, but the rodent Spalax typhlus, the mole rat, is very common. It lives entirely underground, has most rudimentary eyes, and makes very long burrows. It is gregarious, and large areas are sometimes covered thick with its hillocks.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MOLECH, MOLOCH.—A deity worshipped by the Israelites, especially by the people of Judah, towards the close of the monarchy. Melech (‘king’) was evidently the title of this god; and the present form is due to the combination of the original consonants with the vowels of bōsheth (‘shame’). The passages in which reference to this divinity is probably found are Lv 18:21, 20:2–5, 1 K 11:7, 2 K 23:10, Is 30:33, 57:9, Jer 32:35. The chief feature of the worship seems to have been the sacrifice of children. Its special centre was just outside Jerusalem, at a place in the Valley of Hinnom called the Topheth (which see). The cult was introduced, according to 1 K 11:7, by Solomon. If the reference here is an error (see below), Ahaz may have1 been the innovator (2 K 16:3). At any rate, it flourished in the 7th cent. B.C., as we gather from prophetic denunciation and the legislation of Deuteronomy. Manasseh sacrificed his son (2 K 21:6). Josiah suppressed the worship and defiled Topheth. But under Jehoiakim this worship revived, and continued till the Captivity.

As to the identity of Melech, there is an interesting question. Very ancient tradition identifies him with Milcom (wh. see), the national god of Ammon. But the only basis for this view which the Heb. text of the OT furnishes is 1 K 11:7, and the Gr. VSS offer evidence that the original reading in this passage may have been ‘Milcom,’ as in v. 5 and v. 3. On the other hand, we are told that, while Melech was worshipped at Topheth, the sanctuary of Milcom was on the Mount of Olives (2 K 23:13). Moreover, this cult seems to have been regarded as Canaanitish in origin (Dt 12:28–31, 18:9–14). Again, we learn from many sources that the most atrocious child-sacrifice was a prominent feature in the public religion of the Phœnicians, both in their Palestinian homeland and in Carthage; and in this connexion we find constant reference to the pit of fire into which the victims were cast (see TOPHETH). Among other Semitic peoples also there are occasional instances of the offering of children, but not as a regular practice such as we are considering.

Melech is a title of many Semitic deities, and in the OT is frequently applied to Jahweh. We find that the object of this worship is also called Baal (‘master’) (Jer 19:5, 32:35). This is likewise a title of numerous Semitic divinities, and is sometimes used of Jahweh (see BAAL). When the name ‘Baal’ is used in the OT with specific reference to a particular god, it means Melkarth of Tyre (1 K 16:32, 2 K 3:2, 8:18 , 27, 10:18–27, 11:18). The prophets undoubtedly regarded the cult as foreign, and as an apostasy to heathenism. But does this necessarily prove that Melech was a false god? Jeremiah’s protest that Jahweh had not required these sacrifices (7:31, 19:5, 32:35) would seem to imply that the people did not regard this as the worship of another god. Indeed, Ezekiel goes further, and claims that Jahweh Himself gave them these ‘statutes that are not good,’ and sacrifices of the firstborn, because they had rejected purer worship (Ezk 20:25f., 31). On the whole, the evidence seems to indicate that this cultus was due to Phœnician influence, and was introduced because of popular misunderstanding of the laws relating to the giving of the firstborn to Jahweh. The origin of such a cult, together with a possible more or less complete identification with Melkarth, would explain the constant use of the titles ‘Melech’ and ‘Baal’ rather than the name ‘Jahweh.’

W. M. NESBIT.

MOLID.—The name of a Judahite family (1 Ch 2:29).

MOLOCH.—See MOLECH.

MOLTEN SEA.—See TEMPLE, § 6 (c) ‘Brazen Sea.’ MOMDIS (1 Es 9:34) = Maadai, Ezr 10:34.

MONEY

1. Antiquity of a metallic currency: weights and values.—That the precious metals, gold and silver, and to a less extent copper, were the ordinary media of exchange in Palestine from a time long prior to the appearance there of the Hebrews, is now amply attested by evidence from Egypt and Babylonia, and even from the soil of Palestine itself. The predominance of silver as the metal currency for everyday transactions is further shown by the constant use in Hebrew literature of the word for ‘silver’ (keseph) in the sense of ‘money.’

As there can be no question of the existence of coined money in Palestine until the Persian period, the first step in the study of the money of OT is to master the system of weights adopted for the weighing of the precious metals. Money might indeed be ‘told’ or counted, but the accuracy of the ‘tale’ had to be tested by means of the balance; or rather, as we see from such passages as 2 K 12:10, 11 (RV), money was told by being weighed. Now, all the weight-systems of Western Asia, and even of Europe, had their origin in Babylonia (for details see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES). There, as required by the sexagesimal system of reckoning, the ancient unit of weight, the manu (Heb. maneh as in Ezk 45:12—elsewhere in EV ‘pound’) or mina, which weighed 7580 grains on the light, and 15,160 on the heavy standard, was divided into 60 shekels, while 60 minas went to the higher denomination, the talent. It will thus be seen that the light Babylonian trade shekel weighed, neglecting fractions, 126 grains troy, and the heavy shekel 252. The former, it will be useful to remember, was but three grains heavier than a British gold sovereign.

As this weight-system spread westwards with the march of Babylonian civilization and commerce, it came into conflict with the decimal system of calculation, and a compromise was effected, which resulted in the mina being reduced to 50 shekels, while the talent remained at 60 minas, although reduced in weight to 3000 shekels. That the Hebrew talent by which the precious metals were weighed contained 3000, not 3600, shekels may be seen by a simple calculation from the data of Ex 38:25ff., Further, the heavy Babylonian shekel of 252 grains remained in use among the Hebrews for the weighing of gold until NT times. For this we have the express testimony of Josephus, who tells us (Ant. XIV. vii. 1) that the Hebrew gold mina was equal to 2¹/₂Roman pounds. On the basis of 5053 grains to the libra or pound, this gives a shekel of 252²/₃grains, the exact weight of the heavy Babylonian shekel of the common or trade standard.

For the weighing of silver, on the other hand, this shekel was discarded for practical reasons. Throughout the East in ancient times the ratio of gold to silver was 13¹/₃:1, which means that a shekel of gold could buy 13¹/₃times the same weight of silver.

The latest explanation of this invariable ratio, it may be added in passing, is that advocated by Winckler and his followers. On this, the so-called ‘astral mythology’ theory of the origin of Babylonian culture, gold, the yellow metal, was specially associated with the sun, while the paler silver was the special ‘moon-metal.’ Accordingly it was natural to fix the ratio between them as that which existed between the year and the month, viz. 360: 27 or 40: 3.

In ordinary commerce, however, this ratio between the two chief media of exchange was extremely inconvenient, and to obviate this inconvenience, the weight of the shekel for weighing silver was altered so that a gold shekel might be exchanged for a whole number of silver shekels. This alteration was effected in two ways. On the one band, along the Babylonian trade-routes into Asia Minor the light Babylonian shekel of 126 grains was raised to 168 grains, so that 10 such shekels of silver now represented a single gold shekel, since 126 × 13¹/₃= 168 × 10. On the other hand, the great commercial cities of Phœnicia introduced a silver shekel of 224 grains, 15 of which were equivalent to one heavy Babylonian gold shekel of 252 grains, since 252 × 13¹/₃= 224 × 15. This 224-grain shekel is accordingly known as the Phœnician standard. It was on this standard that the sacred dues of the Hebrews were calculated (see § 3); on it also the famous silver shekels and half-shekels were struck at a later period (§ 5).

With regard, now, to the intrinsic value of the above gold and silver shekels, all calculations must start from the mint price of gold, which in Great Britain is £3, 17s. 10¹/₂d. per ounce of 480 grains. This gives £2, 1s. as the value of the Hebrew gold shekel of 252 grs., and since the latter was the equivalent of 15 heavy Phœnician shekels, 2s. 9d. represents the value as bullion of the Hebrew silver shekel. Of course the purchasing power of both in Bible times, which is the real test of the value of money, was many times greater than their equivalents in sterling money at the present day.

The results as to weights and values above set forth may be presented in tabular form as follows:—

Denomination. Weight.		Intrinsic Value.
GOLD—		Intrinsic Value.
Shekel	252²/₃grs. troy. £2	1	0
Mina = 50 shekels	12,630 grs. 102 troy.	10	0
Talent = 3000 SILVER—	758,000 grs. 6150 troy. (circa 108 lbs. avoir.)	0	0
Shekel	224½ grs. troy. 0	2	9
Mina	11,225 grs. 6 troy. (circa 1 lb. 10 oz. avoir.)	16	8
Talent	673,500 grs. 410 troy. (circa 96 lbs. avoir.)	0	0

Since the effective weight of the extant shekels is somewhat under the theoretical weight above given, the intrinsic value of any number of shekels of silver may be found with sufficient accuracy by equating the shekel roughly with our half-crown (2s. 6d.).

Although we have literary and numismatic evidence for the gold and silver shekels of these tables only, it may now be regarded as certain that other standards were in use in Palestine in historic times for weighing the precious metals. The best attested is that which the present writer, in his article ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB lv. 904 f., termed the ‘Syrian 320-grain unit,’ a shekel which is the of a heavy Babylonian mina of 16,000 grains. That the light shekel of this standard, represented by the now familiar weights of 160 grains or thereby, inscribed netseph, was used for weighing silver or gold or both is evident from the small denominations which have been recovered, such as the quarter netseph of 40 grs., known as the Chaplin weight (see op. cit. and PEFSt, 1903, p. 197, 1904, p. 209 ff., and later years).

2. Money in the pre-exilic period.—Throughout the whole of this period, as has already been emphasized, in every transaction involving the payment of sums of considerable value, the money was reckoned by weight. Accordingly, when Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah he ‘weighed to Ephron the silver … four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant’ (Gn 23:15). In view of what has just been said regarding the variety of standards in use in Palestine in early times, it would be unwise, in the present state of our knowledge, to pronounce as to the value of the price paid in this transaction. On the Phœnician standard it would be approximately £55 sterling; on the netseph standard, which stands to the Phœnician in the ratio of 5:7, it would be under £40. Similarly, the price which David paid for the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 50 shekels of silver (2 S 24:24), will vary from £5 to £7 according to the standard adopted. On the other hand, where gold is concerned, as in the case of the 30 talents which Sennacherib ‘appointed unto Hezekiah’ (2 K 18:14), we may with some confidence assume the gold standard common to Palestine and Assyria. In this case Hezekiah’s tribute will represent the respectable sum of £184, 500.

A noteworthy feature of the entries of prices in the pre-exilic writings of the Hebrews is the disappearance of the mina, the sums being stated in terms of shekels and talents exclusively. Thus Abraham, as we have seen, paid 400 shekels, not 8 minas, to the children of Heth; the weight, and therefore the value, of Achan’s ‘wedge of gold’ (see next paragraph) is given as 50 shekels, not as 1 mina, and so throughout.

In this period the precious metals circulated in three forms. The shekel, its subdivisions ( cf. the quarter-shekel of 1 S 9:8) and smaller multiples, had the form of ingots of metal, without any stamp or other mark, so far as our evidence goes, as a guarantee of their purity and weight. Larger values were made up in the shape of bars, such as Schliemann discovered at Troy and Macalister found at Gezer (illust. Bible Sidelights, etc., fig. 36). The ‘wedge (lit. ‘tongue’) of gold’ which Achan appropriated from the loot of Jericho (Jos 7:21) was probably such a thin bar of gold. Further, Rebekah’s nose-ring of half a shekel of gold, and her bracelets of ten shekels (Gn 24:22), represent a third form which the metal currency of the early period might assume. The vases and other vessels of gold and silver which are so frequently mentioned in ancient tribute lists also, in all probability, represented definite weights and values.

To such an extent was the shekel the exclusive unit in all ordinary transactions, that the Hebrew writers frequently omit it in their statements of prices. This applies to gold as well as to silver, e.g. 2 K 5:5 ‘six thousand’ of gold, where AV and RV supply ‘pieces,’ but RVm has the correct ‘shekels’ (cf. silverling [wh. see] in Is 7:23).

3. Money in the Persian period: introduction of coins.—In this period the money of the small Jewish community was still, as before the Exile, chiefly ingots and bars of the precious metals, without official mark of any kind. The addition of such a mark by the issuing authority serves as a public guarantee of the purity of the metal and the weight of the ingot, and transforms the latter into a coin. Coined money is usually regarded as the invention of the Lydians early in the 7 th cent. B.C., but it is very improbable that any ‘coins’ reached Palestine before the fall of the Jewish State in B.C. 587. The first actual coins to reach Jerusalem were more probably those of

Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 522–485), who struck two coins, the daric in gold, and the siglos or siktos

(from sheket) in silver. The daric was a light shekel of 130 grains—7 grains heavier than our ‘sovereign’—worth twenty-one shillings sterling. The siglos was really a half-shekel of 86¹/₂grains, equal therefore to ¹/₂₀th of the daric, on the ten-shekel basis set forth in § 1, or a fraction more than a shilling.

In several passages of Chron., Ezr., and Neh. the RV has substituted ‘darics’ for AV ‘drams’ (1 Ch 29:7, Ezr 2:69, Neh 7:70ff. etc.). But there are valid reasons (see ‘Money’ in Hastings’ DB iii. 421) for retaining the older rendering in the sense, not of coins, but of weights. On the other hand, since Nehemiah was a Persian official, the ‘forty shekels of silver’ of Neh 5:15 may be Persian sigloi, although they may with equal probability be regarded as shekels of the usual Phœnician standard. There is, of course, no question of the Jewish community striking silver coins of their own, this jealously guarded right being then, as always, ‘the touchstone of sovereignty.’

In this period, however, the wealthy commercial cities on the Phœnician seaboard—Aradus, Sidon, Tyre, and others—acquired the right of issuing silver coins, which they naturally did on the native standard. The effective weight of these shekels or tetradrachms, as they are usually termed, averages about 220 grains, a few grains short of the normal 224. These coins have a special interest for the Bible student, from the fact that they are the numismatic representatives of ‘the shekel of the sanctuary,’ which is prescribed in the Priests’ Code as the monetary unit of the post-exilic community (see LV 27:25 ‘all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary’). In Ex 30:13 and elsewhere this shekel is said to consist of 20 gerahs, which the Greek translators identified with the small silver obol of the Gr. coinage, 20 of which yield a shekel of 224 grains. Moreover, it is repeatedly stated in the Talmud that ‘all payments according to the shekel of the sanctuary are to be made in Phœnician currency’ (Mishna, Bekhoroth, viii. 7). For the mode of payment of the half-shekel tax for the Temple services see § 7.

4. Money in the period from Alexander to the Maccabees.—Alexander’s conquest of Syria was naturally followed by the introduction of his coinage in gold, silver, and bronze. On his death, Ptolemy I. established himself in Egypt, to which be soon added Palestine. During the following century (B.C. 301–198) the Jews had at their command the coins of the Ptolemaic dynasty, struck at Alexandria on the Phœnician standard, as well as those of the flourishing cities on the Mediterranean. The tribute paid by the Jews to the third Ptolemy did not exceed the modest sum of 20 talents of silver, or circa £4360.

In B.C. 198 Antiochus III. wrested Palestine from the Ptolemys. Now the Seleucids had continued Alexander’s silver coinage on the Attic standard, the basis of which was the drachm of, originally, 67 grs., but the effective weight of the Syrian drachms and tetradrachms of this period is slightly below this standard, and may be valued at 11d. and 3s. 8d. respectively. The drachms (To 5:14, 2 Mac 4:19, 12:43) and talents (6000 drachms) of the Books of Maccabees are to be regarded as on this Syrian-Attic standard.

5. The first native coinage: the problem of the ‘shekel of Israel’.—In B.C. 139–138 Antiochus Sidetes granted to Simon Maccabæus the right to coin money (see 1 Mac 15:5f.). ‘The thorniest question of all Jewish numismatics,’ as it has been called, is the question whether and to what extent Simon availed himself of this privilege. A series of silver shekels and half-shekels on the Phœnician standard, bearing dates from ‘year 1’ to ‘year 5,’ has long been known to students. They show on the obverse and reverse respectively a cup or chalice and a spike of a lily with three flowers. The legends in old Hebrew letters on the shekels are: obv. ‘Shekel of Israel’; rev. ‘Jerusalem the holy’ (see illust. in plate accompanying art. ‘Money’ in Hastings’ DB iii. Nos. 14 , 15; Reinach, Jewish Coins, pl. ii.; and more fully in Madden’s Coins of the Jews—the standard work on Jewish numismatics, 67 ff.). Only two alternatives are possible regarding the date of these famous coins. Either they belong to the governorship of Simon Maccabæus who died B.C. 135, or to the period of the great revolt against Rome, A.D. 66–70. The latest presentation of the arguments for the earlier date will be found in M. Theodore Reinach’s book cited above. It is not a point in his favour, however, that he is compelled to assign the shekels of the year 5 to John Hyrcanus, Simon’s son and successor.

The present writer is of opinion that the arguments he has advanced elsewhere in favour of the later date (DB iii. 424 f., 429 f.) still hold good. In this case the earliest Jewish coins will be certain small bronze coins struck by the above-mentioned Hyrcanus (B.C. 135–104), with the legend in minute old Hebrew characters: ‘John, the high priest, and the commonwealth (or the executive) of the Jews.’ The title of ‘king’ first appears on bronze coins of Alexander Jannæus— ‘Jonathan the king’—who also first introduced a Greek, in addition to a Hebrew, legend. No silver coins, it may be added, were struck by any of Simon’s successors, or even by the more powerful and wealthier Herod. The bronzes of the latter present no new feature of interest.

6. Money in Palestine under the Romans.—From a numismatic point of view Judæa may be said to have formed a part of the Roman dominions from B.C. 53, from which date the Roman monetary unit, the silver denarius, with its subdivisions in copper, as quadrans, etc., was legal tender in Jerusalem. Since the denarius was almost equal in weight to the Syrian-Attic drachm ( § 4)—the silver unit throughout the Seleucid empire—the two coins were regarded as of equal value, and four denarii were in ordinary business the equivalent of a tetradrachm of Antioch.

The Roman gold coin, the aureus, representing 25 denarii, varied in weight in NT times from 126 to 120 grains. Since a British ‘sovereign’ weighs a little over 123 grains, the aureus may for approximate calculations be reckoned at £1. Similarly the denarius from Augustus to Nero weighed 60 grs.—our sixpenny piece weighs 43.6 grs.—and was equal to 16 copper asses. To reach the monetary value of the denarius in sterling money, which is on a gold standard, we have only to divide the value of the gold aureus by 25, which gives 9³/₈d., say nine pence halfpenny for convenience, or a French franc.

In addition to these two imperial coins, the system based on the Greek drachm was continued in the East, and both drachms and tetradrachms were issued from the imperial mint at Antioch. In our Lord’s day Tyre still continued to issue silver and bronze coins, the former mainly tetradrachms or shekels on the old Phœnician standard (220–224 grs.). As the nearest equivalent of the Heb. shekel these Tyrian coins were much in demand for the payment of the Temple tax of one half-shekel (see next §). Besides all these, the procurators issued small bronze coins, probably the quadrans (¹/₄of an as), from their mint at Cæsarea, not to mention the numerous cities, such as Samaria-Sebaste, which had similar rights.

7. The money of NT.—This article may fitly close with a few notes on each of the various denominations mentioned in NT. The currency was in three metals: ‘get you no gold nor silver nor brass (copper) in your purses’ (Mt 10:9 RV). Following this order we have (a) the gold aureus here referred to only indirectly. Its value was £1 (see § 6). (b) The silver coin most frequently mentioned is the Roman denarius (AV and RV ‘penny,’ Amer. RV, more correctly, ‘shilling’). In value equal to a franc or 9¹/₂d., it was the day’s wage of a Jewish labourer ( Mt 20:2). A typical denarius of our Lord’s day, with which the Roman dues were paid (22:19) , would have on its obverse the head of the Emperor Tiberius, and for ‘superscription’ the following legend in Latin: ‘Tiberius Cæsar, the son of the deified Augustus, (himself) Augustus’ (illust. No. 13 of plate in ‘Money,’ DB iii.). (c) The drachm on the Attic standard (§ 5) is named only Lk 15:8: ‘what woman having ten drachms (EV ‘pieces of silver’), if she lose one drachm,’ etc. In ordinary usage, as we have seen, it was the equivalent of the denarius, but for Government purposes it was tariffed at only ¾ of the denarius. The 50,000 ‘pieces of silver’ (lit. ‘silverlings’) of Ac 19:19 were denarius-drachms. (d) Once there is mention of a didrachm (Mt 17:24 AV ‘tribute money,’ RV ‘the half-shekel’), but this was a two-drachm piece on the Phœnician standard, and was now very rare. Accordingly it was usual for two persons to join forces in paying the Temple tax of a half-shekel by presenting a Phœnician tetra-drachm. This is (e) the ‘piece of money’ of v. 27, which RV has properly rendered by ‘shekel,’ with the word of the original, stater, in the margin. The thirty ‘pieces of silver’ for which Judas betrayed his Lord were also most probably Tyrian tetradrachms. Although these by Government tariff would be equal to only 90 denarii, their ordinary purchasing power was then equal to 120 denarii or francs, say £4, 16s. of our money.

Passing to the copper coins of the Gospels, we find three denominations in the original, the tepton, the kodrantes, and the assarion, rendered in Amer. RV by ‘mite,’ ‘farthing,’ and ‘penny’ respectively. Our EV, unfortunately, renders both the two last by ‘farthing,’ having used ‘penny’ for the denarius. There are great difficulties in the way of identifying these among the copper coins that have come down to us (for details see Hastings’ DB iii. 428 f., EBi iii. 3647). (f) The tepton, the widow’s mite (Mk 12:42, Lk 21:2), was the smallest coin in circulation, probably one of the minute Maccabæan bronzes. Its value was between ¹/₄and ¹/₃of an English farthing. (g) Two mites made a kodrantes (Lat. quadrans), the ‘uttermost farthing’ of Mt 5:26, which was either the actual Roman quadrans or its equivalent among the local bronze coins. As ¹/₃; of the denarius, it was worth a trifle more than half a farthing. (h) The assarion is the ‘farthing’ ( Amer. RV ‘penny’) associated with the price of sparrows (Mt 10:29, Lk 12:6), and was a copper coin on the Greek system, probably the dichatkus, of which in ordinary business 24 went to the denarius-drachm. Its value would thus be about ³/₈of a penny. The relative values of the three coins may be represented by ¹/₈, ¹/₈, and ¹/₃of a penny respectively.

There remain the two larger denominations, the talent and the pound or mina, neither of which was any longer, as in the earlier period, a specific weight of bullion, but a definite sum of money. (i) The talent now contained 6000 denarius-drachms, which made 240 aurei or £240 ( so Mt 18:24 RVm). It is not always realized, perhaps, how vast was the difference in the amounts owing in this parable (18:23ff.). The one servant owed 100 denarii, the other 10,000 talents or sixty million denarii. The one debt, occupying little more space than 100 sixpences, could be carried in the pocket; for the payment of the other, an army of nearly 8600 carriers, each with a sack 60 lbs. in weight, would be required. If these were placed in single file, a yard apart, the train would be almost five miles in length! (j) The pound, finally, of another parable ( Lk 19:13ff.) was a mina, the sixtieth part of a talent, in other words 100 denarius-drachms or £4 sterling.

For the later coinage of the Jews, which was confined to the two periods of revolt against the Roman power, in A.D. 66–70 and 132–135, in addition to what has been said above (§ 5) regarding the shekels and half-shekels here assumed to belong to the first revolt, see Madden and Reinach, opp. citt.; Schürer, GJV 3 i. 761 ff.; and Hastings’ DB iii. 429–431.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MONEY-CHANGERS.—How indispensable were the services of the ‘money-changers’

(Mt 21:12, Mk 11:15), ‘changers of money’ (Jn 2:14), ‘changers’ (v. 15), and ‘exchangers’ ( Mt 25:27 AV, RV ‘bankers’) in the first century of our era in Palestine may be seen from the summary of the varied currencies of the period in the preceding article (§§ 6. 7). The Jewish money-changer, like his modern counterpart the sarrāf (for whom see PEFSt, 1904, p. 49 ff., where the complexity of exchange in the Palestine of to-day is graphically set forth), changed the large denominations into the smaller, giving denarii, for example, for tetradrachms, and gave silver for gold, copper for silver. An important department of his business was the exchange of foreign money and even money of the country of a non-Phœnician standard for shekels and halfshekels on this standard, the latter alone being accepted in payment of the Temple dues ( cf. money, §§ 4. 6. 7). It was mainly for the convenience of the Jews of the Dispersion that the changers were allowed to set up their tables in the outer court of the Temple (Mt 21:12ff.). The wealthier members of the profession, the ‘exchangers’ (RV ‘bankers’) of Mt 25:27 (cf. Lk 19:23), received money on deposit for purposes of investment, on which interest was paid ( see

USURY).

The money-changers had constantly to be on their guard against false money. This gives point to the frequently quoted unwritten saying (agraphon) of our Lord to His disciples: ‘Be ye expert money-changers’—be skilful in distinguishing true doctrine from false.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MONTH.—See TIME.

MONUMENT.—Is 65:4, ‘which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments,’ that is, among the tombs. In the Rhemish Version ‘monument’ is the usual word for tomb or sepulchre, after Vulg. monumentum. The reference in Is. is to the custom of obtaining oracles by incubation, that is, spending the night in subterranean sacred places.

MOOLI (1 Es 8:47) = Mahli, Ezr 8:18.

MOON.—The moon is ‘the lesser light to rule the night’ of the cosmogony of Genesis (1:16). Its importance was in part due to the recurrence of its phases, which formed a measure for time. Each new moon, as it appeared, marked the commencement of a new period, and so in Hebrew the word for ‘moon’ and ‘month’ is the same. Sun and moon occur side by side in passages of Scripture, and to the moon as well as to the sun is ascribed a fertilizing power over and above the gift of light which comes from them to the earth. Just as we have in Dt 33:14 ‘the precious things of the fruits of the sun,’ so we have there ‘the precious things of the growth of the moons.’ As a consequence of this, the re-appearance of the new moon was eagerly looked for, and trumpets were blown and sacrifices offered on the day of the new moon. We gather also from Ps 81:3 (RV) that something of a similar kind took place at the full moon. The moon took its part with the sun in one of Joseph’s dreams when it ‘made obeisance’ to him (Gn 37:9); and it stood still, ‘in the valley of Aijalon,’ at the command of Joshua, at the battle of Gibeon ( Jos 10:12, 13; cf. Hab 3:11). Language which must have been derived from the appearance of the moon during eclipses is used by the prophets. The moon is to be darkened or turned into blood (Jl 2:10, 31) before ‘the day of the Lord’; and similar language is used by our Lord (e.g. Mk

13:24). We are told of the redeemed Zion that the light of the moon is to be as the light of the sun (Is 30:26), and that there is to be no need of the moon, because the glory of God is to be the light of His people (Is 60:19; cf. Rev 21:23). Cautions against the worship of the moon, and punishment by death for the convicted worshippers, are to be found in Dt 4:19, 17:3; whilst a superstitious salutation of the moon by kissing the hand, not quite unheard of even in our own day, is mentioned in Job 31:26, 27. Moon-worship by the burning of incense was offered in Jerusalem, and put down by Josiah (2 K 23:5).

Mount Sinai is supposed to have derived its name from the moon-god Sin, to whom worship was paid there.

For the worship of the ‘queen of heaven,’ see under STARS.

In the OT we meet more than once with crescent-shaped ornaments (Jg 8:21, Is 3:18) ; whether these are an indication of the worship of the moon is uncertain.

It has been always considered baneful in the bright clear atmosphere of the warmer regions of the earth to sleep exposed to the rays of the moon (Ps 121:6). The influence of the earth’s satellite has long been considered burtful. Our word ‘lunatic’ reproduces the idea of the Western world of our Lord’s time, that lunacy was due to the influence of the moon: the Greek word used in Mt 4:24, 17:15 shows this. In the RV the word is translated ‘epileptic.’ There are many still to be found who believe that the violence and recurrence of epileptic fits vary with the phases of the moon.

H. A. REDPATH.

MOOSSIAS (1 Es 9:31) = Maaseiah, Ezr 10:30.

MOPH.—See MEMPHIS.

MORALITY.—See ETHICS.

MORASHTITE.—A gentilic adjective used to designate the prophet Micah (Mic 1:1, Jer 26:18), probably derived from Moresheth-gath (wh. see). Cf. MICAH, p. 614^af.

MORDECAI.—1. A cousin (?) of queen Esther, who thwarted Haman’s plot against the

Jews. See ESTHER and ESTHER [BOOK OF]. 2. One of those who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:2 , Neh 7:7); called in 1 Es 5:8 Mardocheus.

MOREH, the Hiphil participle from yārāh, means ‘teacher’ or ‘one who gives direction’ (2 K 17:28, Is 30:20 etc.), and so is applied to a prophet (Is 9:15). Sitting in the shelter of a sacred tree, the priest or seer delivered his direction or’ oracles.’ 1. The terebinth (AV, wrongly, ‘plain’) of Moreh (Gn 12:6) may have been so named from the theophany vouchsafed to Abraham there. The same spot may be indicated by the terebinths of Moreh (Dt 11:30) , mentioned as indicating the position of Ebal and Gerizim. From their conjunction with Gilgal it has been suggested that the gilgal (‘stone circle’) and the terebinths were parts of the same sanctuary. There may be a reference to this place in Gn 35:4, in Jos 24:26, possibly also in Jg 9:6. Gilgal (Dt 11:30) may be Khirbet Juleijel, fully 1¹/₂mile E. of Jacob’s Well. But this would not fix with certainty the position of the sanctuary of the terebinth.

2. The hill of Moreh (Jg 7:1) seems to have lain to the N. of the position occupied by

Gideon, in the direction of the camp of the Midianites. Taking the narrative as it stands, the Midianites ‘pitched in the valley of Jezreel’ (6:33), while Gideon held the lower spurs of Gilboa towards Jezreel. ‘The spring of Harod’ is with some probability identified with ‘Ain Jalūd. The conspicuous hill on the other side of the vale, Jebel ed-Duhy, popularly now called Little Hermon, round the W. flanks of which, and northward in the plain, the Midianites would spread, may be almost certainly identified with the Hill of Moreh. The article with Moreh suggests the presence of a sanctuary on the hill. This may be represented by the modern shrine of Neby Duhy. Questions have been raised by the condition of the Heb. text, but no more probable identification has been suggested. Cf. MOREH.

W. EWING.

MORESHETH-GATH.—Mic 1:14 only. It was probably the birth-place of the prophet Micah (Mic 1:1, Jer 26:18), and must have been in the Shephēlah. The Onomasticon locates it east of, and near to, Eleutheropolis.

MORIAH

1. The name.—In Gn 22:2 Abraham was commanded to go ‘into the land of the Moriah,’ and to sacrifice Isaac upon ‘one of the mountains’ which God would tell him of. The derivation of the name is obscure. The Peshitta (Syriac) version reads ‘of the Amorites,’ which may possibly be the true reading. The narrator (E), however, in v. 14 appears to connect it with the verb ‘to see’ (which is etymologically impossible), and some of the early translators do the same in their rendering of the name in v. 2. The Targumists emphasized the worship of Abraham at the spot, perhaps connecting the name with the verb ‘to fear’—which is equally impossible.

2. The place.—The proverb recorded in v. 14 clearly implies that the writer thought that Isaac was offered on the Temple mount at Jerusalem. And hence the Chronicler (2 Ch 3:1) names the Temple hill ‘Mount Moriah.’ From a spiritual point of view, the analogy often drawn between the offering of Isaac and the death of Christ makes the identification very suggestive. But Gn 22:4 certainly contemplates a mountain at a much greater distance from the Philistine country, and much more conspicuous, than the Jerusalem hill. There is some similarity between the names Moriah and Moreh, the latter of which was at Shechem (Gn 12:6, Dt 11:30), close to the hills Gerizim and Ebal. And it may have been owing to this that the Samaritans claimed Gerizim as Abraham’s mountain (cf. Jn 4:20). Geographically, it would suit the description in Gn 22:4; but there is no real evidence for the identification. If the Syriac reading ‘Amorites’ be adopted, the locality of the mountain is entirely unknown, since the name is a general term employed by E to denote the Canaanite natives of Palestine.

A. H. M’NEILE.

MORNING.—See TIME.

MORTAR (AV ‘morter’).—See HOUSE, §§ 1, 4, and cf. BITUMEN.

MORTAR AND PESTLE.—The use, from the earliest times, of the mortar and pestle for crushing the grains of the cultivated cereals, for the preparation of spices, and probably, as at the present day, for pounding meat and vegetables (see the Comm. on Pr 27:22) is attested by the constant occurrence of these articles in the remains of places recently excavated in Palestine. The mortars found at Gezer, as elsewhere,’ are simply heavy stones, a foot or two across, in whose upper surface a hemispherical hollow is cut. The pestles are cylindrical with [convex] bases, which not infrequently display marks of rough treatment (PEFSt, 1903, 118; illus. in Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, 85; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine, Plates 72, 73). The manna is expressly said to have been beaten in mortars as well as ground in mills ( Nu 11:8). Their use is implied for pounding certain spices (Ex 30:36) and for the ‘bruised corn’ for the meal-offering of the first-fruits (Lv 2:14 RV). Copper mortars are also mentioned in later literature, and in Herod’s Temple the incense was pounded in mortars of gold. From the Mishna (Baba bathra, iv. 3) we learn that it was customary to have larger mortars fixed into the floor of the house.

In Babylon, when a house was built, the seller handed the pestle of the house-mortar to the purchaser, in token of the conveyance of the house to its new owner. Hence the frequent occurrence, in deeds of sale, of the words ‘the pestle has been banded over.’ Cf. art. SHOE.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MORTIFY.—‘To mortify’ is in AV metaphorically ‘to put to death.’ Early writers could use it literally also, as Erasmus, Commune Crede, 81, ‘Christ was mortified, and killed in dede, as touchynge to his fleshe; but was quickened in spirite.’

MOSERAH, MOSEROTH.—Moserah is named in Dt 10:6 as the place where Aaron died and was buried: Moseroth in Nu 33:30, 31 as a ‘station’ on the route to Mt. Hor. Its location is quite uncertain.

MOSES

1. Name—The Hebrew narrator regards Mōsheh as a participle from the vb. māshāh, ‘to draw’ Ex (2:10). Jos. and Philo derive it from the Copt, mo ‘water,’ and ushe ‘saved’; this is implied in their spelling Mouses, also found in LXX and NT. It is more plausible to connect the name with the Egyptian mes, mesu, ‘son.’ Perhaps it was originally coupled with the name of an Egyp. deity—cf. Ra-mesu, Thoth-mes, and others—which was omitted under the influence of Israelite monotheism.

2. History

(i.) The narrative of J.—Moses killed an Egyptian, and rebuked one of two Israelites who were striving together, and then he fled to Midian. There he helped seven daughters of the priest of Midian to water their flocks, dwelt with him, married his daughter Zipporah, and had one son by her, named Gershom (Ex 2:11–22). The king of Egypt died (2:23a), and at J″’s bidding Moses returned. On the way, J″ smote him because he had not been circumcised before marriage; but Zipporah saved him by circumcising the child, and thus circumcising Moses by proxy (4:19, 24–

26. These verses must be put back to this point). J″ appeared in the burning bush and spoke to Moses. Moses was to gather the elders, give them J″’s message, and demand permission from Pharaoh to sacrifice in the wilderness. Moses was given two signs to persuade the Israelites, and yet a third if the two were insufficient (3:2–4a, 6, 7, 8a, 16–18, 4:1–9). J″ was angry at his continued diffidence. Moses spoke to the elders and they believed; and then they made their demand to Pharaoh, which led to his increased severity (4:10–12, 29–31, 5:3, 6, 23, 6:1). Plagues were sent, the death of the fish in the river (7:14, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 24f.), frogs (8:1–4, 8–15 a), flies (20–32), murrain (9:1–7), hail (18, 17f., 23b, 24b, 25b–34), locusts (10:1a, 3–11, 13b, 14 b, 16a, c, 16–19). See PLAGUES OF EGYPT. Pharaoh bade Israel go with their families, but refused to allow them animals for sacrifice; so Moses announced the death of the firstborn (10:24–26, 28 f., 11:4–8). At a later time Israelite thought connected with the Exodus certain existing institutions. The ordinances relating to them were preserved by J, but their present position is due to redaction, and the result is a tangled combination in chs. 12, 13 of ordinance and narrative: the ritual of the Passover (12:21–23, 27b), the death of the firstborn and the hurried flight of the Israelites (29–34, 37–39), commands concerning the Feast of Unleavened Cakes (13:3a, 4, 6 f., 10), and the offering of firstlings (13:11–13). J″ went before the people in a pillar of cloud and fire (13:21f.), the water was crossed (14:5f., 7b, 10a, 11–14, 18b, 21b, 24, 26b, 27b, 28b, 30) , (and Moses sang praise (15:1). Moses made the water at Marah fresh (15:22–25a), and thence they moved to Elim (27). Fragments of J’s story of Massah are preserved (17:3, 2c, 7a, c), and parts of the account of the visit of Moses’ father-in-law, which it is difficult to separate from E (18:7–11). The narratives attached to the delivery of the laws of Sinai are in an extraordinarily confused state, but with a few exceptions the parts which are due to J can be recognized with some confidence. The theophany occurred (19:18), and Moses was bidden to ascend the mountain, where J″ gave him directions respecting precautions to be taken (19:20–22, 24, 11b– 13, 25) [v. 23 is a redactional addition of a remarkable character; due to 11b–13 having been misplaced]. Moses stayed forty days and nights on the mountain (34:28a); J″ descended, and Moses ‘invoked the name of J″’ (6). The laws given to him are fragmentarily preserved (10–26). J″ commanded him to write them down (27), and he obeyed (28b).

The reason for the insertion of the laws so late in the book was that the compiler of JE, finding laws in both J and E, and noticing the strong similarity between them, considered the J laws to be the renewal of the covenant broken by the people’s apostasy. Hence the editorial additions in 34:1 (from ‘like unto the first’) and in v. 4 (‘like unto the first’).

A solemn ceremony sealed the covenant (24:1f., 9–11). Something then occurred which roused the wrath of J″; it is doubtful if the original narrative has been preserved; but J has inserted a narrative which apparently explains the reason for the choice of Levites for Divine service (32:25–29). Moses interceded for the people (the vv. to he read in the following order,

33:1–4a, 17, 12f., 18–23, 34:6–9, 33:14–16). J″ having been propitiated, Israel left the mountain, and Moses asked Hobah to accompany them (Nu 10:29–36). Being weary of manna, they were given quails, which caused a plague (11:4–15, 18–24a, 31–35), Dathan and Ahiram rebelled (ascribed by different comm. to J and to E, 16:1b, 2a, 12–15, 26f., 27b–32a, 33f.). Fragments of the Meribah narrative at Kadesh appear to belong to J (20:3a, 5, 8b). Moses sent spies through the S. of Palestine as far as Hebron. Caleb alone encouraged the people, and he alone was allowed to enter Canaan (13:17b, 18b, 18, 23, 27a, 28, 30, 31, 14:1b, 8, 9, 11–24, 31). Moses promised that Hebron should be Caleb’s possession (Jos 14:8–14). The Canaanites were defeated at Hormah (perh. a later stratum of J, Nu 21:1–3). Israel marched by Edom to Moab, and conquered Heshbon and other cities (21:16–20, 24b, 25, 31, 32). The story of Balaam (parts of 22–24). Israel sinned with the Moabite women, and Moses hanged the chiefs (25:1b, 2, 3b, 4).

Moses viewed the land from the top of Pisgah, and was buried in Moab (parts of Dt 34:1–6).

(ii.) The narrative of E.—The mid wives rescued Israelite Infants (Ex 1:15–20a, 21). Moses’ birth; his discovery and adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:1–10). Moses was feeding Jethro’s sheep in Midian, when God called to him from a bush at Horeb, and told him to deliver Israel. He revealed His name ‘Ehyeh,’ and promised that Israel should triumphantly leave Egypt (3:1 , 4b, 6, 9–12, 13f., 21f.). Moses returned to Egypt, meeting Aaron on the way; they made their demand to Pharaoh, and were refused (4:17f., 20b, 27f., 5:1f., 4). Moses, by means of his Divinely given staff, brought plagues—the turning of the river to blood (7:16, 17b, 20b, 23), the hail (9:22, 23a, 24a, 25a, 36), the locusts (10:12, 13a, 14a, 16b, 20), the darkness (21–23, 27). Moses was bidden to advise the Israelites to obtain gold, etc., from the Egyptians (11:1–3) , which they did (12:35f.). They departed, taking with them Joseph’s mummy (13:17–19). They crossed the water (fragments are preserved from E’s account, 13:7a, c, 10b, 16a, 16a, 19a, 25 a), and Miriam sang praise (15:20, 21). On emerging into the desert, they were given manna; it is possible that E originally connected this event with the name massah, ‘proving’ (15:25b, 16:4 , 16) Then follows E’s Meribah narrative, combined with J’s Massah narrative (17:1b, 2a, 4–6 , 7b). Israel fought with Amalek under Joshua’s leadership, while Aaron and Hur held up Moses’ hands with the sacred staff (17:8–16). Jethro visited the Israelites with Moses’ wife and two sons; he arranged sacrifices, and a sacrificial feast, in which the elders of Israel took part (18:1 a, 6f., 12). Seeing Moses overburdened with the duty of giving decisions, he advised him to delegate smaller matters to inferior officers; and Moses followed his advice. Jethro departed to his own home (18:12–27). Preparations were made for the theophany (19:2b, 3a, 8a, 10, 11 a, 14f.), which then took place (16f., 19, 20:18–21). Laws preserved by E and later members of his school of thought are grouped together in chs, 20–23 (see EXODUS, LAW), in the narratives in which the laws are set, two strata, E and E2, are perceptible, the latter supplying the narrative portions connected with the Ten Words of 20:1–17, E relates the ceremony which sealed the covenant (24:3–8); the usual practice of Moses with regard to the ‘Tent of Tryst,’ where God used to meet with any one who wished to inquire of Him (33:7–11); and the people’s act of repentance for some sin which E has not preserved (33:6), E2 relates as follows: Moses told the people the Ten Words, and they promised obedience (19:7f.; this must follow 20:1–17), Moses ascended the mountain to receive the written Words, leaving the people in the charge of Aaron and Hur (24:13–15a, 31:18b), During his absence Aaron made the golden bull, and Moses, when he saw it, brake the tablets of stone and destroyed the imags; Aaron offered a feeble excuse, and J″ smote the people (32:1–6, 16a, 16–24, 35), Moses’ intercession has not been preserved in E, but it is supplied by a late hand in 32:30–34. We here resume the narrative of E. After the departure from Horeb a fire from J″ punished the people for murmuring (Nu 11:1–8). At the ‘Tent of Tryst’ J″ took of Moses’ spirit and put it upon 70 elders who prophesied, including

Eldad and Medad, who did not leave the camp; Joshua objected to the two being thus favoured, but was rebuked by Moses (18f., 24–30). Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses for having married a foreign woman and then for claiming to have received Divine revelations; Miriam became leprous, but was healed at Moses’ intercession (12). On Dathan and Abiram (16) see above, under J. Miriam died at Kadesh (20:1). Twelve spies were sent, who brought back a large cluster of grapes, but said that the natives were numerous and powerful (13:13a, c, 20, 23f., 26 b, 27b, 29, 33). The people determined to return to Egypt under another captain (14:1b, 8f.). [ Here occurs a lacuna, which is partially supplied by Dt 1:19–46, probably based on E.] Against Moses’ wish the people advanced towards Canaan, but were routed by the Amalekites and other natives (14:39–45). Edom refused passage through their territory (20:14–21). Aaron died at Moserah, and was succeeded by Eleazar (Dt 10:5). Serpents plagued the people for their murmuring, and Moses made the serpent of bronze (Nu 21:4b–9). Israel marched by Edom to Moab, and vanquished Sihon (21:11b–15, 21–24a, 27–30); the story of Balaam (part 22–24). Israel worshipped Baal-peor, and Moses bade the judges hang the offenders (25:1a, 8a, 5). J″ warned Moses that he was about to die, and Moses appointed Joshua to succeed him (Dt 31:14 f., 23). Moses died in Moab, and his tomb was unknown. He was the greatest prophet in Israel ( Dt 34:5, 8b, 10).

(iii.) The narrative of D is based upon the earlier sources, which it treats in a hortatory manner, dwelling upon the religious meaning of history, and its bearing upon life and morals, and Israel’s attitude to God. There are a few additional details, such as are suitable to a retrospect (e.g. 1:6–8, 16f., 20f., 29–31, 3:21f., 23–28), and there are certain points on which the tradition differs more or less widely from those of JE; see Driver, Deut. p. xxxv f. But D supplies nothing of importance to our knowledge of Moses’ life and character.

(iv.) The narrative of P.—Israel was made to serve the Egyptians ‘with rigour’ (Ex 1:7, 16 ,

14b). When the king died, J″ heard their sighing, and remembered His covenant (2:23–25). He revealed to Moses His name Jahweh, and bade him tell the Israelites that they were to be delivered (6:2–9). Moses being diffident, Aaron his brother was given to be his ‘prophet’ (6:10– 12, 7:1–7). [The genealogy of Moses and Aaron is given in a later stratum of P, 6:14–25.] Aaron turned his staff into a ‘reptile’ before Pharaoh (7:8–18). By Aaron’s instrumentality with Moses plagues were sent—all the water in Egypt turned into blood (7:19, 20a, 21b, 22); frogs (8:5–7 , 15b); gnats or mosquitoes (16–19); boils (9:8–12). [As in J, commands respecting religious institutions are inserted in connexion with the Exodus: Passover (12:1–18, 24, 28, 43–50) ,

Unleavened cakes (14–20), Dedication of firstborn (13:1f.).] The Israelites went to Etham (13:20) and thence to the Red Sea. The marvel of the crosslng is heightened, the waters standing up in a double wall (14:1–4, 8f., 15b, 13b–18, 21a, c, 22f., 26, 27a, 28a). in the wilderness of Sin the people murmured, and manna was sent; embedded in the narrative are fragments of P’s story of the quails (16, exc. vv. 4, 15). They moved to Rephidim (17:1a), and thence to Sinai (19:1 , 2a). After seven days J″ called Moses into the cloud (24:15b–18a) and gave him instructions with regard to the Tabernacle and its worship (25–31:17), and also gave him the Tablets of the Testimony (31:18a). [Other laws ascribed to Divine communication with Moses are collected in

Lev. and parts of Num.] When Moses descended, his face shone, so that he veiled it when he was not alone in J″’s presence (34:29–35). A census was taken of the fighting men preparatory to the march, and the writer takes occasion to enlarge upon the organization of the priestly and Levitical families (Nu 1–4). The cloud which descended upon the Tabernacle was the signal for marching and camping (9:15–23), and the journey began (10:11–28). With the story of Dathan and Abiram (see above) there are entwined two versions of a priestly story of rebellion—(1) Korah and 250 princes, all of them laymen, spoke against Moses and Aaron for claiming, in their capacity of Levites, a sanctity superior to that of the rest of the congregation. (2) Korah and the princes were Levites, and they attacked Aaron for exalting priests above Levites (parts of 16). The former version has its sequel in 17; Moses and Aaron were vindicated by the budding of the staff for the tribe of Levi. In the wilderness of Zin Moses struck the rock, with an angry exclamation to the murmuring people, and water flowed; Moses and Aaron were rebuked for lack of faith [the fragments of the story do not make it clear wherein this consisted], and they were forbidden to enter Canaan (parts of 20:1a, 2–13). Joshua, Caleb, and ten other spies were sent from the wilderness of Paran; the two former alone brought a good account of the land, and they alone were permitted to enter Canaan; the other ten died by a plague (parts of 13, 14; see above under J and E). Aaron died at Mt. Hor (20:22b–29). Israel marched by Edom to Moab (20:22, 21:4a, 10, 11a). Phinehas was promised ‘an everlasting priesthood’ for his zeal in punishing an Israelite who had brought a Midianite woman into the camp (25:6–16). All the last generation having died except Joshua and Caleb, a second census was taken by Moses and Eleazar (26). Moses appointed Joshua to succeed him (27). The Midianites were defeated and Balaam was slain (31). Moses died on Mt. Nebo, aged 120 (Dt 34:1a, 7–9).

3. Historicity.—In the OT, there are presented to us the varying fortunes of a Semitic people who found their way into Palestine, and were strong enough to settle in the country in defiance of the native population. Although the Invaders were greatly in the minority as regards numbers, they were knit together by an esprit de corps which made them formidable. And this was the outcome of a strong religious belief which was common to all the branches of the tribe—the belief that every member of the tribe was under the protection of the same God, Jahweh. And when it is asked from what source they gained this united belief, the analogy of other religions suggests that it probably resulted from the influence of some strong personality. The existence and character of the Hebrew race require such a person as Moses to account for them. But while the denial that Moses was a real person is scarcely within the bounds of sober criticism, it does not follow that all the details related of him are literally true to history. What Prof. Driver says of the patriarchs in Genesis is equally true of Moses in Ex., Nu.: ‘The basis of the narratives in Genesis is in fact popular oral tradition; and that being so, we may expect them to display the characteristics which popular oral tradition does in other cases. They may well include a substantial historical nucleus; but details may be due to the involuntary action of popular invention or imagination, operating during a long period of time; characteristic anecdotes, reflecting the feelings, and explaining the relations, of a later age may thus have become attached to the patriarchs; phraseology and expression will nearly always be ascribed rightly to the narrators who cast these traditions into their present literary shape’ (art. ‘Jacob’ in DB ii. 534^b).

Moses is portrayed under three chief aspects—as (i.) a Leader, (ii.) the Promoter of the religion of J″, (iii.) Lawgiver, and ‘Prophet’ or moral teacher.

(i.) Moses as Leader.—Some writers think that there is evidence which shows that the Israelites who went to Egypt at the time of the famine did not comprise the whole nation. Whether this be so or not, however, there is no sufficient reason for doubting the Hebrew tradition of an emigration to Egypt. Again, if Israelites obtained permission—as foreign tribes are known to have done—to occupy pasture land within the Egyptian frontier, there could be nothing surprising if some of them were pressed into compulsory building labour; for it was a common practice to employ foreigners and prisoners in this manner. But in order to rouse them, and knit them together, and persuade them to escape, a leader was necessary. If, therefore, it is an historical fact that they were in Egypt, and partially enslaved, it is more likely than not that the account of their deliverance by Moses also has an historical basis. It is impossible, in a short article, to discuss the evidence in detail. It is in the last degree unsafe to dogmatize on the extent to which the narratives of Moses’ life are historically accurate. In each particular the decision resolves itself into a balance of probabilities. But that Moses was not an individual, but stands for a tribe or group of tribes, and that the narratives which centre round him are entirely legendary, are to the present writer pure assumptions, unscientific and uncritical. The minuteness of personal details, the picturesqueness of the scenes described, the true touches of character, and the necessity of accounting for the emergence of Israel from a state of scattered nomads into that of an organized tribal community, are all on the side of those who maintain that in its broad outlines the account of Moses’ leadership is based upon fact.

(ii.) Moses as the Promoter of the religion of Jahweh.—Throughout the OT, with the exception of Ezk 40–48, the forms and ceremonies of J″ worship observed in every age are attributed to the teaching of Moses. It is to be noticed that the earliest writer (J) uses the name ‘Jahweh’ from his very first sentence (Gn 2:4b) and onwards, and assumes that J″ was known and worshipped by the ancestors of the race; and in Ex. he frequently employs the expression ‘J″ the God of the Hebrews’ (3:18, 5:3, 7:16, 9:1, 13, 10:3). But, in agreement with E and P, he

ascribes to Moses a new departure in J″ worship inaugurated at Sinai. E and P relate that the Name was a new revelation to Moses when he was exiled in Midian, and that he taught it to the Israelites in Egypt. And yet in 3:6 E represents J″ as saying to Moses, ‘I am the God of thy father’ [the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (unless this clause is a later insertion, as in 15f., 4:5)]. And in 6:3 P states categorically that God appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but He was not known to them by His name ‘Jahweh.’ All the sources, therefore, imply that Moses did not teach a totally new religion; but he put before the Israelites a new aspect of their religion; he defined more clearly the relation in which they were to stand to God: they were to think of Him in a peculiar sense as their God. When we go further and inquire whence Moses derived the name ‘Jahweh,’ we are landed in the region of conjectures. Two points, however, are clear: (1) that the God whose name was ‘Jahweh’ had, before Moses’ time, been conceived of as dwelling on the sacred mountain Horeb or Sinai (3:1–5, 12, 19:4); (2) that He was worshipped by a branch of the Midianites named Kenites (Jg 1:16, 4:11), of whom Jethro was a priest (Ex 3:1, 18:1). From these facts two conjectures have been made. Some have supposed that Moses learned the name ‘Jahweh’ from the Midianites; that He was therefore a foreign God as far as the Israelites were concerned; and that, after hearing His name for the first time from Moses in Egypt, they journeyed to the sacred mountain and were there admitted by Jethro into the Kenite worship by a sacrificial feast at which Jethro officiated. But it is hardly likely that the Israelites, enslaved in Egypt, could have been so rapidly roused and convinced by Moses’ proclamation of an entirely new and foreign deity. The action taken by Jethro in organizing the sacrifice might easily arise from the fact that he was in his own territory, and naturally acted as host towards the strangers. The other conjecture, which can claim a certain

plausibility, is that J″ was a God recognized by Moses’ own tribe of Levi. From Ex 4:24, 27 it is possible to suppose that Aaron was not in Egypt, but in the vicinity of Horeb, which he already knew as the ‘mountain of God.’ If Moses’ family, or the tribe of Levi, and perhaps (as some conjecture) the Rachel tribes, together with the Midianite branch of Semites, were already worshippers of J″, Moses’ work would consist in proclaiming as the God of the whole body of Israelites Him whose help and guidance a small portion of them had already experienced. If either of these conjectures is valid, it only puts back a stage the question as to the ultimate origin of the name ‘Jahweh.’ But whatever the origin may have been, it is difficult to deny to Moses the glory of having united the whole body of Israelites in the single cult which excluded all other deities.

(iii.) Moses as Prophet and Lawgiver.—If Moses taught the Israelites to worship J″, it may safely be assumed that he laid down some rules as to the method and ritual of His worship. But there is abundant justification for the belief that he also gave them injunctions which were not merely ritual. It is quite arbitrary to assume that the prophets of the 8th cent. and onwards, who preached an ethical standard of religion, preached something entirely new, though it is probable enough that their own ethical feeling was purer and deeper than any to which the nation had hitherto attained. The prophets always held up a lofty ideal as something which the nation had failed to reach, and proclaimed that for this failure the sinful people were answerable to a holy God. And since human nature is alike in all ages, there must have been at least isolated individuals, more high-souled than the masses around them, who strove to live up to the light they possessed. And as the national history of Israel postulates a leader, and their religion postulates a great personality who drew them, as a body, into the acceptance of it, so the ethical morality which appears in the laws of Exodus, and in a deeper and intenser form in the prophets, postulates a teacher who instilled into the nucleus of the nation the germs of social justice, purity, and honour. Moses would have been below the standard of an ordinary sheik if he had not given decisions on social matters, and Ex 18 pictures him as so doing, and 33:7–11 shows that it was usual for the people to go to him for oracular answers from God. It is in itself probable that the man who founded the nation and taught them their religion, would plant in them the seeds of social morality. But the question whether any of the codified laws, as we have them, were directly due to Moses is quite another matter. In the life of a nomad tribe the controlling factor is not a corpus of specific prescriptions, but the power of custom. An immoral act is condemned because ‘it is not wont so to be done’ (Gn 34:7, 2 S 13:12). The stereotyping of custom in written codes is the product of a comparatively late stage in national life. And a study of the history and development of the Hebrew laws leads unavoidably to the conclusion that while some few elements in them are very ancient, it is impossible to say of any particular detail that it is certainly derived from Moses himself; and it is further clear that many are certainly later than his time.

4. Moses in the NT.—(i.) All Jews and Christians in Apostolic times (including our Lord Himself) held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Besides such expressions as ‘The law of Moses’ (Lk 2:22), ‘Moses enjoined’ (Mt 8:4), ‘Moses commanded’ (Mt 19:7), ‘Moses wrote’ (Mk 12:19), ‘Moses said’ (Mk 7:10), and so on, his name could be used alone as synonymous with that which he wrote (Lk 16:20, 31, 24:27).

(ii.) But because Moses was the representative of the Old Dispensation, Jesus and the NT writers thought of him as something more. He was an historical personage of such unique prominence in Israel’s history, that his whole career appeared to them to afford parallels to spiritual factors in the New Covenant. The following form an interesting study, as illustrating points which cover a wide range of Christian truth: The ‘glory’ on Moses’ face (2 Co 3:7–18) , the brazen serpent (Jn 3:14), the Passover (Jn 19:36, He 11:28, 1 Co 5:7f.), the covenant sacrifice at Horeb (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25; see also He 9:18–20, 1 P 1:2 with Hort’s note), the terrors of the Sinai covenant (He 12:18–24), the crossing of the sea (1 Co 10:2), the manna (Jn 6:30–35, 41–58), the water from the rock (1 Co 10:3, 4), Moses as a prophet (Ac 3:22 , 7:37, Jn 1:21–23; and see Jn 6:14, 7:40 [Lk 7:39]), the magicians of Egypt (2 Ti 3:8), the plagues (Rev 8:5, 7, 8, 9:2–4, 15:6–8, 16:2–4, 10, 13, 18, 21), and ‘the song of Moses the servant of God’ (Rev 15:3).

A. H. M‘NEILE.

MOSOLLAMUS.—1. 1 Es 8:44 = Meshullam, Ezr 8:16, 2. 1 Es 9:14 = Meshullam, Ezr

10:15.

MOST HIGH (Elyōn) occurs as an epithet of El, ‘God’ (Gn 14:18f., 20, 22, Ps 78:35), or Jahweh (Ps 7:17); or it stands by itself as a title of God (Nu 24:16, Dt 32:8, Ps 21:8 etc.). We find it first in a somewhat mysterious chapter (Gn 14) which cannot be traced to any identified source; the date is also uncertain. In this chapter Melchizedek is described as ‘priest to the Most High God’ (El Elyon), and since in later times the Salem where he lived was generally identified with Jerusalem, the double function of priest and king ascribed to him caused him to be regarded by the Jews as a type of the ideal king, and by the Christians as the type of Christ. Hence the name of the God whom he worshipped (El Elyon), which may possibly, in the first instance, have had reference merely to the lofty situation of Jerusalem, became in later generations a mysterious and exalted title of Jahweh. At the same time there is the possibility that the title Elyon came originally from the Phœnicians: Philo of Byblus (quoted by Driver, Genesis, p. 165) mentions a deity of this name in the Phœnician theogony, and the corresponding Greek word is frequent in inscriptions of the Græco-Roman period, especially in the neighbourhood of the Bosporus. Whatever the origin of the title Elyon, it never occurs in strictly prose passages of the OT, though we find it in the Songs of Balaam (Nu 24:16), Moses (Dt 32:8), and David (2 S 22:14). The Aramaic equivalents are fairly frequent in Daniel.

The uses of the Greek rendering in the NT are instructive. In the story of the Annunciation it is ordained that the child whom Mary is to bear shall be called Son of the Most High (Lk 1:32) ; and a little later on (v. 76) John the Baptist is spoken of as prophet of the Most High. The contrast is completed in the Ep. to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek is brought forward as priest of the Most High (cf. 7:1 with v. 28). It is worth noting, too, that the title is twice found in the mouth of demoniacs (Mk 5:7 = Lk 8:28, Ac 16:17). The word, then, does not belong to the language of everyday life: it is reserved for poetry and elevated style, and it seems by its origin to have suggested something archaic and mysterious, whether it referred to the lofty dwellingplace or to the majestic nature and attributes of God.

H. C. O. LANCHESTER.

MOTE.—The word chosen by Wyclif and Tindale, and accepted by all the subsequent versions as the tr. of Gr. karphos in Mt 7:3, 4, 5, Lk 6:41, 42bis. The root of karphos is karphō ‘to dry up,’ and it signifies a bit of dried stick, straw, or wool, such as, in the illustration, might be flying about and enter the eye. In its minuteness it is contrasted by our Lord with dokos, the beam that supports (dechomai) the roof of a building.

MOTH (‘āsh. Job 4:18, 13:28, 27:18, Ps 39:12, Is 50:9, 51:8, Hos 5:12; Gr. sēs, Mt 6:19, 20 , Lk 12:33, Ja 5:2).—All the references are to the clothes-moth, which is ubiquitous and extremely plentiful in Palestine. It is almost impossible to guard against its destructiveness, except by constantly using clothes, shawls, carpets, etc. Such goods, when stored for long, are found to be reduced almost to powder on being removed (cf. Job 4:19 etc.). The fragile cases of these moths are referred to in Job 27:18, if the MT he correct.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MOTHER.—See FAMILY, 3.

MOUNT.—An earthwork in connexion with siegecraft (Jer 6:6 and oft.), also rendered ‘bank’ (2 S 20:15 RV). In 1 Mac 12:36 RV has the modern form ‘mound,’ which Amer. RV has substituted throughout. See, further, FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT, § 6 (c).

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN.—Although on the whole a mountainous country, Palestine has few striking or commanding peaks to show; consequently, though we find frequent mention of mountains in the Bible, there are comparatively few names of individual summits. ‘Mountain,’ as well as its cognate ‘mount,’ is used both of isolated elevations and of extensive districts of lofty ground—such as Sinai, Horeb, Carmel on the one hand, Mount Seir or the Mountain of Gilead on the other.

Mountains served various functions to the ancient inhabitants of the land. (1) They were dwelling-places, for which the numerous caves, natural and artificial, excavated in their soft limestone sides, well fitted them: thus Esau dwelt in Mount Seir (Gn 36:8). (2) They served the purpose of landmarks: thus Mount Hor was indicated (Nu 34:7) as a boundary of the Promised Land. (3) They were used as platforms, for addressing large crowds of people, as in the famous ceremony at Ebal and Gerizim (Jos 8:30ff.), in the address of Jotham to the Shechemites (Jg 9:7) , and that of Abijah to the Ephraimites (2 Ch 13:4). (4) They were burial-places (‘sepulchres that were in the mount,’ 2 K 23:16). (5) They served as refuges (Gn 14:10, Mt 24:16); (6) as military camps (1 S 17:3); (7) as sources of wood and plants (2 Ch 2:18, Neh 8:15, Hag 1:8); (8) as watch-towers and look-out stations (Ezk 40:2, Mt 4:8); (9) as pasturage (Ps 50:10, Lk 8:32) ; (10) as fortresses (Ps 125:2). Their obvious fitness for typifying strength and endurance gives rise to metaphors and comparisons to be found in almost every book of both Testaments.

But it is in their aspect as holy places that mountains are of the deepest interest to the student of the Scriptures or of Palestine. In modern Palestine almost every hill a little loftier or more striking than its fellows is crowned by a domed shrine, now regarded as the tomb of a Moslem saint, but no doubt the representative of a sacred precinct that goes back to the earliest Semitic inhabitants of the land. Sinai, Horeb, Carmel occur to the memory at once as mountains consecrated by a theophany. The worship at ‘high places’ was so deeply engrained in the Hebrews that no amount of legislation could eradicate it; the severe discipline of the Exile was needed for its destruction.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

MOUNT OF THE CONGREGATION.—See CONGREGATION.

MOURNING CUSTOMS.—The Oriental expression of grief has a twofold relationship. Towards God it is marked by silent and reverent submission symbolized by placing the hand on the mouth. ‘The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away’ (Job 1:21); ‘I was dumb … because thou didst it’ (Ps 39:9). But towards the relatives and neighbours the case is altogether different. It is now an event that has to be announced as quickly and publicly as possible, and a loss which love has to deplore with passionate abandonment and an accumulation of conventional ceremony. At the moment of death a loud shrill wail is raised by those present. Its meaning is understood only too well. As the piercing, tremulous shrieks are repeated, a few inquiries are made as to the locality and circumstances, and the rapidly increasing cry is accepted as an invitation and claim to proceed to the house of mourning. Immediately after death the body is washed and robed for the burial, which usually takes place within twenty-four hours. In addition to the successive outbursts of grief by members of the family, who have to be comforted and pleaded with and led away from the prostrate figure of the dead, the sustained ceremony of mourning is attended to by the neighbours. These, usually assisted by hired mourners, arrange themselves around the bier, or on opposite sides of the room, and keep up the lamentation without intermission. In this way they afford the preoccupation of a recognized routine, and give the relief of physical outlet to feelings that either are, or are considered to be, beyond control. At times one of the chief mourners leans over the body, wringing her hands or wiping away the fast falling tears, and asking why he has left them, and who will discharge the duties that belonged to him alone, pleading for love’s sake to hear only once more the music of the voice now silent, or begging forgiveness on account of selfishness and imperfect service in the days that will never return. Meanwhile the band of mourners redouble their wailing, with beating of the breast and frantic clutching at their hair and clothes. As such paroxysms cannot last, the skilled mourners, usually women, endeavour to moderate and sustain the feeling of desolation by a plaintively descending chant. Among the singers there are usually one or two who are specially skilful in leading off with metrical phrases and rhymes of sympathetic appeal, which the others take up and repeat in concert. The invariable subject is the good qualities of the departed, and the extent of the loss which the family has been called upon to bear. In addition to the above allusions, new springs of tenderness are opened by referring to other members of the same family recently departed, and the loved one whose death they are lamenting is asked to bear messages of greeting to them. As the intimation of the bereavement reaches more distant parts of the town, or is carried to the neighbouring villages, companies of sympathizing friends come to show their regard for the dead. They announce their arrival by loud weeping and exclamations of grief; and as they enter the house the lamentation of the mourners in the room breaks out afresh. To the Western visitor unacquainted with the temperament and traditions of Oriental people, the whole scene is deeply distressing, and he has to check the feeling of repugnance by reminding himself that they would be equally shocked by the apparent callousness and ordered formality of our procedure on similar occasions. With cruel yet merciful swiftness the hour arrives for interment. The lamentation that was passionate before now becomes tumultuously defiant. Relatives lose all self-control, and, refusing to let the bearers discharge their sad office, have to be forcibly removed. The procession is then formed, and on the way to the cemetery is increased by those who join it to show their respect towards the family, and also to share the merit which the Lord attaches to service performed for those who can no longer reward it. Among the Jews, during the prescribed days of separation following upon a death in the family, the mourners are daily visited by the Rabbi, who reads the portions of Scripture and the prayers appointed by the synagogue. Over the door of the cemetery is inscribed in Hebrew’ The House of Eternity’ or ‘The House of the Living.’ The explanation given in regard to the latter term is either that the life beyond the grave is the real life, or, according to others, that the grave is the place of habitation to which all the living must come.

The references to mourning in the Bible show that the custom of to-day in Palestine is the same as in ancient times with regard to the house of mourning, although special features of liturgical form now belong to the Synagogue, the Church, and the Mosque. There is the same announcement by wailing (Mic 1:8, Mk 5:38). Friends come to condole (Job 2:11–18), and there is the same language of commendation and affectionate regret (2 S 1:17–27, 3:33, 34). The exclamations of to-day were then used (1 K 13:30, Jer 22:18). Hired mourners are alluded to ( Jer 9:17, 18, Am 5:16); and such manifestations as the beating of the breast (Is 32:12), tearing of the garments (2 S 3:31), fasting (1 S 31:13, 2 S 3:35), the putting of ashes on the head, and the wearing of sackcloth (2 S 12:20). The form of lamentation for the individual is’ applied to afflicted Israel (Jer 9:1, La 1:16, 3:48, 49), to the historical extinction of Tyre (Ezk 27:28–36) , and to the worship of Tammuz (Ezk 8:14). Such a rich and widely recognized symbolism of sorrow might easily be pressed into the services of religious imposture by those who wish to appear bowed down by their own devout contemplations, or as bearing upon their hearts the sins of others. Hence Christ’s note of warning (Mt 6:16–18).

The Apostle Paul commends as a Christian duty the showing of sympathy towards those in affliction (Ro 12:15), but intimates that in Christ the familiar phrase of greeting to the afflicted, ‘Hope is cut off!’ has been made obsolete by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (1 Th 4:18). One of the features to which the New Jerusalem owes its title is the absence of mourning and tears (Rev 7:17).

G. M. MACKIE.

MOUSE (‘akbār).—Probably a generic term including field-mice, hamsters, dormice, and even jerboas. The male of the last named is called ‘akbār by the Arabs. All these small rodents are exceedingly plentiful in Palestine. The hamster (Cricetus phœus) and the jerboa, of which three varieties have been found in the land, are eaten by the Arabs (cf. Is 66:17). Metal mice as amulets have been found in the Palestine plain (cf. 1 S 6:4, 5). The mouse was forbidden food to the Israelites (Lv 11:28).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MOUTH.—Several Heb. words are so tr. 1. gārōn (Ps 149:6) lit. ‘throat.’ 2. chēk (Job 12:11 etc.) is the inward part of the mouth, the palate, or ‘roof of the mouth’ (Job 29:10 etc.). 3. ‘ādī, twice in AV (Ps 32:8 RV ‘trappings,’ 103:5 RVm ‘years’ or ‘prime’), signifies properly ‘ornament’. 4. peh, the most usual word for ‘mouth,’ meaning also ‘edge,’ e.g. of the sword ( Gn 34:26 etc.), or ‘border,’ e.g. of a garment (Ps 133:2). 5. pūm, Aram. = Heb. peh (Dn 7:5 etc.). 6. pānīm (Pr 15:14) lit. ‘face.’ 7. tĕra‘, Aram. lit. ‘door’ (Dn 3:26). In the NT the Gr. word stoma. Frequently in Scripture ‘mouth’ is used fig. for ‘speech,’ of which it is the organ.

W. EWING.

MOZA.—1. Son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:46). 2. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:36, 37, 9:42, 43).

MOZAH.—A town of Benjamin (Jos 18:28). A possible site is the ruin Beit Mizzeh, close to Kulonieh, west of Jerusalem.

MUFFLERS.—The word so rendered occurs only in Is 3:19, as an article of female attire. The cognate verb, in the sense of ‘veiled,’ is applied in the Mishna (Shabbath, vi. 6) to Jewesses from Arabia. A close veil of some sort, therefore, is evidently intended by Isaiah.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MULBERRY TREES (bĕkā’īm, 2 S 5:23f., 1 Ch 14:14f., Ps 84:6 mg.).—These trees have on philological grounds been supposed to be a variety of balsam, and on grounds of appropriateness to the story (2 S 5:23f.) to be poplars, whose leaves readily quiver with the slightest breath of air. Their identity is, however, quite uncertain. Mulberries they cannot be; for though plentiful to-day in Palestine, and still more so in the Lebanon, these trees were introduced to the land later than OT times. See, however, SYCAMINE.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MULE.—

(1) pered (m.) and pirdāh (f.)—in all passages except three.

(2) rekesh, RV ‘swift steeds’ (Est 8:10, 14). The tr. ‘swift’ is purely conjectural.

(3) yēmīm, Gn 36:24, where ‘mules’ is certainly a mistranslation; RV ‘hot springs.’

The breeding of mules was forbidden to the Israelites (Lv 19:19), but from David’s time (2 S 13:29, 18:9) onwards (1 K 1:33, 10:25, 18:5) they appear to have been increasingly used. The returning Israelites brought 245 mules with them (Ezr 2:66). Mules are preferred in Palestine today as pack animals (cf. 1 Ch 12:40, 2 K 5:17). they are hardier, subsist on less food, and travel better on rough roads. A well-trained mule is a favourite riding animal with the highest officials in the land.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MUNITION occurs in a few passages of AV in the sense of a fortified place, e.g. Is 29:7 , where RV has ‘stronghold.’ The word is retained in Nah 2:1, where, however, Amer. RV has the more intelligible ‘fortress.’ In 1 Mac 14:10 ‘all manner of munition’ is literally ‘with implements of defence’ (cf. RVm), as the same original is rendered in 10:11.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

MUPPIM.—A son of Benjamin (Gn 46:21); called in 1 Ch 7:12, 15, 26:16 Shuppim, in Nu 26:39 Shephupham, and in 1 Ch 8:5 Shephuphan.

MURDER.—See CRIMES, § 7; REFUGE [CITIES OF].

MURRAIN.—See PLAGUES OF EGYPT.

MUSHI.—A son of Merari (Ex 6:19, Nu 3:20, 1 Ch 6:19, 47, 23:21, 23, 24:26, 30). The patronymic Mushites occurs in Nu 3:33, 26:58. See MERARI, 1.

MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

1. Probable character of early Hebrew music.—Since the Dispersion, the music of the Jews has always borne the impress of the peoples among whom they have settled. Synagogue ritual thus affords us no clue to the music of early times, and we must accordingly fall back on Scripture and tradition. From these we gather that Hebrew music was of a loud and piercing nature, far removed from the sweetness which modern taste demands. There is no real evidence that the players ever advanced beyond unison in their combinations of notes, apparently reproducing the air on successively rising or falling octaves of the scale. We may suppose, however, that they would hardly fail to discover that certain combinations were pleasing to the ear, and would thus learn to strike them either simultaneously or successively (arpeggio). How far, however, they grasped the nature of a chord or of harmony must remain obscure, in spite of the attempts to solve this question, some of them altogether baseless guesses. For example, even the Hebrew accents, though of comparatively late origin, and always confined in Jewish use to acting as guides in the proper recitation of the text, have been pressed into the service, as though employed for the purpose of a kind of’ figured bass,’ and thus indicating an acquaintance with musical harmony. Unfortunately, even those who have maintained this theory differ considerably as to the details of its application.

2. Rendering of Hebrew music.—It seems clear at any rate that an antiphonal setting was in use for many of the Psalms (e.g. 13, 20, 38, 68, 89); but the chanting must not be taken as resembling what we now understand by that term. The account we have in 1 Ch 15:16ff. of the elaborate arrangements for conducting the musical services of the Temple, appears to indicate a somewhat complicated system, and to suggest that there entered a considerable element of flexibility into the composition. It is, for instance, quite possible that the long reciting note which with us may do duty on occasion for as many as twenty, thirty, or even more syllables, played no such monotonous part, but was broken up and varied to an extent suggested by the length of the verse as well as by the character of the sentiment to be conveyed.

3. Occasions on which music was used.—Hebrew religious melody had a popular origin, and was thus closely connected with the religious life of the na on. Apart from such references to song as those in Gn 31:27 and Job 21:12, we find in the headings of certain Psalms (e.g. 22 , ’Ayyeleth hash-Shahar, ‘the hind of the morning’) traces of what are in all probability in some, if not in all, cases secular songs. So Al Tashheth, ‘Destroy not,’ prefixed to Pss 57, 58, 59, 75, may well be the first words of a vintage song (cf. Is 65:9). A parallel may be found in directions prefixed to Gabirol’s hymns and those of other celebrated Jewish poets, when these compositions were adapted to music in the Spanish (Sephardic) ritual (see D. J. Sola, Ancient Melodies, etc., London, 1857, Pref. p. 13). Amos (6:5) speaks of music performed at feasts, and in 1 S 18:6 we read of its use in Saul’s time in connexion with processions. As in this last case, so in general it may be supposed that music and dancing were closely connected and had a parallel development. David’s careful elaboration of the Levitical music, vocal and instrumental, was employed, according to 2 Ch 5:12, with impressive effect at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. The reformations under both Hezekiah and Josiah included the restoring of the musical ritual belonging to David’s time (2 Ch 29:25ff., 35:15). Later, the descendants of Heman and other Levitical leaders of music were among the exiles of the Return from Babylon, and under them the services were reconstituted as of old (Neh 12:27, 45 ff. ).

4. Hebrew musical instruments.—Here our information is somewhat fuller, though involving a good deal of uncertainty in details. We may for clearness’ sake divide under three heads, viz. stringed, wind, and percussion instruments.

(1) Stringed instruments.—Chief among these are the kinnōr and the nēbel (RV ‘harp’ and ‘psaltery’), which were evidently favourites among the Jews. It is plain, in spite of doubts which have been expressed upon the point, that the two names were not used indifferently for the same instrument. The LXX in nearly all cases is careful to distinguish them (kithara or kinyra, and psaltērion, nablē, or nabla respectively). Both, however, were used in the main, and perhaps exclusively, to accompany songs, and those of a joyous nature. (They were unsuitable for times of mourning; see Ps 137:2, a passage which further shows that the instrument must have been, unlike a modern harp, easily portable.) They were doubtless the chief, if not the sole, instruments employed in the Temple services. In Solomon’s time they were made from almug (algum) trees, doubtfully identified with sandal wood. The strings, originally of twisted grass or fibres of plants, were afterwards formed of gut, and subsequently from silk or metal.

(a) The kinnōr (an onomatopoetic word, derived from the sound of the strings) is the only stringed instrument mentioned in the Hexateuch, where (Gn 4:21) its invention is attributed to Jubal, son of Lamech. The nebel is first mentioned in 1 S 10:5, as used by the prophets who went to meet Saul. The kinnōr (kithara or lyre [in 1 Mac 4:54 the AV renders ‘cithern,’ RV ‘harp’]) consisted of a sound-box at the base, with wooden side-arms and a crossbar connected by the strings with the box below. It was originally an Asiatic instrument, and the earliest known representation is pre-historic, in the form of a rude model found at Telloh in southern Babylonia.

There is also a very ancient one shown on a tomb in Egypt, dating from about the 30th cent. B.C. (12th dynasty). A tomb at Thebes in the same country (dating between the 12th and 18 th dynasties) exhibits a similar form, which was sometimes modified later in the direction of more artistic construction and sloping of the crossbar downwards, so as to vary the pitch of the strings. Jewish coins of Maccabæan date furnish us with a close resemblance to the Greek kithara. Josephus (Ant. VII. xii. 3) distinguishes the kinnōr as a ten-stringed instrument struck by a plectrum; the nabla, on the other hand, being, he says, played with the fingers. This need not necessarily conflict, as has been thought by some, with the statement (1 S 16:23) that David played the kinnōr ‘with his hand’; and Josephus’s evidence in such a matter should carry much weight.

(b) The nebel. It has been sought to identify this with various instruments; among them, the lute (so RV in Is 5:12 [AV viol]; ‘lute’ is also RV tr. of Gr. kinyra in 1 Mac 4:54), guitar, and dulcimer. In support of the last it is urged that the Arabic name for that instrument, santir, is a corruption of the Greek psaltērion, by which, as has been said, the LXX sometimes render nebel. Having regard, however, to the testimony of Josephus (see above) that the nebel had twelve strings, and was played by the hand without a plectrum, we are safe in taking it to be a kind of harp, an instrument of larger size than the kinnōr, and used (Am 6:5, Is 5:12, 14:11) at the feasts of the rich. We find, on the other hand, that it was not too large to be played by one who was walking (see 1 S 10:5, 2 S 6:5). The above argument from santir = psaltērion is weakened by the fact that the Greek word was used generically for stringed instruments played with one or hoth hands without a plectrum. We may note further that the nabla (see above for this as a LXX rendering of nebel), known to the Greeks as of Sidonian origin, was played according to Ovid (Ars Amat. iii. 327) with both hands.

Egyptian monuments show us portable harps, varying in form, bow-shaped, rectangular, or triangular, though all constructed on the same general principle, and having the sound-box above, not, as the kinnōr, below. Seven of these harps, of a triangular shape, and used by a Semitic people in Assyria, are to be seen on a bas-relief found at Kouyunjik. We may add that several early Church writers (Augustine on Ps 42: Jerome on Ps 149:3; Isidore, Etym. iii. 22. 2) support the above identification of nebel with, a harp.

(c) There is little that can be asserted with confidence as to the nature of other instruments of this class mentioned in the Bible. In Dn 3:5ff., besides the psantērīn (Gr. psaltērion) and kitharis (Gr. kithara) with which we have already dealt, we have the sabbĕkha (Ev sackbut). This is evidently the Greek sambykē, but the latter has been variously described as a large harp of many strings and rich tone, similar to the grand Egyptian harp, and as a very small one of high pitch.

After all, both descriptions may be true, if referring to different periods of its existence.

Nĕgīnōth has sometimes been taken as the name of an instrument, but is much more probably a general term for stringed music. So in Ps 68:25 (Heb. 26), we have a contrast between the singers (shārīm) and the players on strings (nōgĕnīm).

Gittīth, the heading of Pss 8, 81, 84, has also, but somewhat doubtfully, been referred to instruments named after Gath: so the early Jewish paraphrase (Targum), ‘the harp which David brought from Gath.’

(2) Wind instruments.—(a) The chālīl (EV pipe) seems to have been the instrument of this class in most common use. It was played in coming from and going to the high place (1 S 10:5, 1 K 1:40). It accompanied festal processions of pilgrims (Is 30:29). It was used in mourning ( Jer 48:36, cf. Mt 9:23), and in the ritual of twelve solemn annual occasions. According to Is 5:12 , the feasts of the drunkards were enlivened by it. It may have been a simple flute, i.e. a mere tube with holes, played by blowing either into one end or into a hole in the side. It is possible, on the other hand, that it may have been a reed instrument, either, as the modern oboe, with a double and vibrating tongue, or, as the clarinet, with a single tongue. Neighbouring nations were, we know, familiar with reed pipes, as they also were with double flutes, which, for anything we know to the contrary, the chālīl may have been. On the other hand, the keyed flute is of decidedly later origin, and in the times with which we are dealing the Fingers must have done all the work.

(b) The ‘ūgāb, rendered uniformly in the AV as ‘organ,’ an instrument which was not known even in rudimentary form in OT days, seems to have become an obsolete word even in LXX times, as shown by the variety of renderings which it has there received. The instrument known as ‘Pan’s pipes’ (Gr. syrinx, Lat. fistula) is perhaps the best conjecture that can be offered. (c) The mashrōkītha (EV fluts) may have been similar; while (d) the sumpōnya (cf. the Italian zampugna or sampogna for ‘bagpipes’) may well have corresponded to the modern bagpipes, as developed from the double flute. (e) The shōphār (1 Ch 15:28, 2 Ch 15:14, Ps 98:6, Hos 5:8, EV cornet; the ‘cornets’ of 2 S 6:5 [AV; RV castanets’] are probably best represented by RVm ‘sistra’; see (3) (c) below) was a curved horn of a cow or ram, used mainly, and till later OT times exclusively, for secdiar purposes, such as to give signals in war (e.g. Jg 3:27) or to announce important events (e.g. 1 K 1:34, 39). It is still employed by the Jews at solemn festivals. The hatsōtsĕrāh, on the other hand—the one instrument of which we have an undoubtedly authentic representation, viz. on the Arch of Titus at Rome in front of the table of shewbread—was a long, straight, metal trumpet, used mainly for religious purposes, especially in later times (2 K 12:13, 1 Ch 13:8).

(3) Percussion instruments.—(a) The tōph, ‘tabret’ or timbrel, was a small hand-drum, represented on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. In these instruments, unlike the modern drum, the parchment was probably rigidly fixed, and thus incapable of being tightened or loosened so as to regulate the pitch. (b) mĕtsiltaim and tseltsĕlīm were cymbals. Two shapes are found in Egypt and Assyria, the one consisting of two flat plates, played by being clashed together sideways, the other of two cones with handles at the peak, one cone being brought down on top of the other. (c) mĕna‘anīm (RV ‘castanets,’ marg. sistra, 2 S 6:5) were formed of two thin metal plates with holes, through which were passed rods with loose metallic rings at their ends. (d) shālïshīm in 1 S 18:6 (RVm ‘triangles, or three-stringed instruments’) has been thought, from the apparent connexion of the word with the third Heb. numeral, to be a triangle, but this is quite uncertain. It is more probable that it was a particular kind of sistrum.

A. W. STREANE.

MUSTARD (Gr. sinapi).—The seed of this plant is used proverbially for anything exceedingly small. In this sense it occurs in the Gospels (Mt 17:20 etc.), and in the Talmud (Buxtorf, Lex. s.v. ‘Chardal’). Jesus compares the Kingdom of heaven to the mustard seed ( Mt

13:31 etc.). The plant intended is the Sinapis nigra (Arab. khardal), which grows wild in Palestine, and is a familiar sight on the shores of Gennesaret. It is also found under cultivation, and in the gardens it reaches a great size, being often from 10 to 12 feet in height. An annual, growing from seed, it is naturally compared with other garden herbs, which, although it springs from the smallest seed, it quite outgrows. It bears a profusion of minute seeds, of which the birds are very fond, sitting (‘lodging’) on the branches as they eat. Although it is not properly’ a tree’ (Lk 13:19), it quite accords with Oriental use to describe as such a great plant like this.

W. EWING.

MUTH-LABBEN.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

MUTILATION.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 9.

MYNDUS was a city in Caria at the extremity of the peninsula on which Halicarnassus lay. It was strong enough to resist an assault of Alexander, but played no great part in history. It is mentioned separately in 1 Mac 15:23 as one of the places to which, in B.C. 139, the Romans sent messages on behalf of the Jews. Hence it is assumed that it was independent of the Carian confederacy; and its native population seems to have descended from the race of the Leleges, and to have always maintained its independence against the Carians.

A. E. HILLARD.

MYRA was a city of Lycia situated 2¹/₂miles from the coast, but the same name is often applied to its harbour of Andriaca. In Greek times Patara surpassed it, but in Roman times Myra became the chief seaport of Lycia, and was recognized by Theodoslus as the capital. It grew especially through the Alexandrian corn-trade with Italy. The Alexandrian ships did not coast round the Levant, but took advantage of the steady west winds to cross direct between Lycia and Egypt. These winds made it easier for a ship sailing from Egypt to make for Myra, but a ship sailing to Egypt would be sailing more before the wind by taking a line from Patara. Doubtless this was the usual custom. In Ac 27:6 we read that the centurion in charge of St. Paul found at

Myra ‘a ship of Alexandria sailing to Italy’; whereas in Ac 21:1 St. Paul took ship direct from Patara to Tyre (though the Bezan text makes this ship touch at Myra). Myra retained its importance into the Middle Ages. Its bishop in the time of Constantine was St. Nicolas, and he became the patron saint of sailors in the E. Mediterranean, doubtless taking the place of a Lycian god to whom the sailors paid their vows on landing at Myra. There are splendid ruins on the site of Myra.

A. E. HILLARD.

MYRRH.—1. mōr (Arab, murr), the dried gum of a species of balsam (Balsamodendron myrrha) growing in Arabia and India. It has a pleasant, though faint, smell (Ps 45:8, Pr 7:17, Ca 1:13, 3:5). It is still used in medicine (Mk 15:23). It was used in embalming (Jn 19:39). According to Schweinfurth, the myrrh of the OT was a liquid product of the Balsamodendron opobalsamum, known as balsam of Mecca. Ex 30:23 and Ca 5:5, 13, where the ‘myrrh’ appears to have been liquid, support this view. See also OINTMENT.

2. lōt, tr. ‘myrrh’ in Gn 37:25, 43:11, is a fragrant resin from the Cislus or ‘rock rose,’ a common Palestine shrub. In Arab, this is called lādhan (Lat. ladanum, so RVm). As a product of Palestine it was a likely substance to send to Egypt.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN

MYRTLE (hădas, Is 41:18, 55:13, Zee 1:8, 10, Neh 8:15; also as a name Hadassah = ‘Esther’ [Est 2:7]).—Myrtus communis is an evergreen shrub much prized in Palestine. It grows wild in the mountains, especially on Carmel and in Gilead, but is also widely cultivated. It sometimes reaches a height of ten feet, but is usually much less. Its dark green leaves, pretty white flowers, and dark berries, which are eaten, are all much admired. It is still regularly used by the Jews in the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

MYSIA was a district in the N.W. of Asia Minor, S. of the Propontis and Hellespont. It derived its name from the Mysi, a Thracian tribe who probably entered Asia with the Phrygians. At no period were its boundaries strictly denned. It formed part of the dominions of the Persians and of Alexander. From B.C. 280 it was part of the kingdom of Pergamus, and therefore fell to the Romans in B.C. 133, becoming part of the province of Asia. The only mention of it in the Bible is Ac 16:7, 3, where St. Paul passed through it on his second missionary journey. A tradition assigned the evangelization of part of Mysia to a certain Onesiphorus, who was martyred at Parium when Adrian was proconsul of Asia, A.D. 109–114. See Assos, TROAS, ADRAMYTTIUM, all of which places were reckoned to Mysia.

A. E. HILLARD.

MYSTERY

The Greek mystērion in Christian Latin became mysterium, and thus passed into modern languages. The kindred mystic and mystagogue, imported directly from the Greek, point to the primary significance of this word. In 8 NT passages the Latin Vulgate replaced mysterium by the alien rendering sacramentum (the soldier’s oath of allegiance), which has taken on, with modifications, the meaning of the original.

In common parlance, ‘mystery’ has become synonymous with ‘secret’ (a usage peculiar to the LXX in extant Greek: see Sir 22:22, 2 Mac 13:21 etc.), signifying a baffling, recondite secret. Divine doctrines or dealings of Providence are said to be ‘mysterious’ when we fail to reconcile them with accepted principles, though presuming the reconciliation abstractly possible. Primarily, however, the NT mystērion is not something dark and difficult in its nature, but something reserved and hidden of sat purpose,—as in Ro 16:25 ‘the mystery held in silence for eternal ages.’ It connotes that which ‘can only be known on being imparted by some one already in possession of it, not by mere reason and research which are common to all.’

In its familiar classical use the word amounted almost to a proper noun. ‘The Mysteries’ were a body of sacred observances connected with the worship of certain Hellenic deities ( chiefly those representing the primitive Nature-powers), which were practised in retreat, and which bound their Initiates into a religious confraternity. The higher of these Mysteries conveyed, under their symbolic dress, a connected esoteric doctrine—vague, it may have been, but impressive—bearing on the origin of life, on sin and atonement, and the bliss or woe of man’s future state, the basis of which was found in the course of the seasons, in the conflict of light and darkness, and the yearly parables of the seed-corn and the vine-Juice. The Eleusinian Mysteries, annually celebrated in Attica, attracted visitors from the whole civilized world, and appear to have exerted a salutary Influence on Pagan society. The distinctions of country, rank, or sex were no bar to participation; only slaves and criminals were excluded from the rites. These were the most famous of a host of Mysteries, many of them of a passionate and even frantic, some of a disgraceful, character, which were rife in the Græco-Roman world at the Christian era; they formed, says Renan, ‘the serious part of Pagan religion.’ The Greek Mysteries were already rivalied in popularity by the Egyptian cults of Isis and Serapis, and subsequently by the Persian Mithraism, which spread in the 3rd cent. to the bounds of the Empire. These associations supplied what was lacking in the civic and family worships of ancient heathendom,—viz.

emotion, edification, and moral fellowship.

The term ‘mystery,’ with its allied expressions in the NT, must be read in the light of these institutions, which preoccupied the ground and were known wherever the Greek language was current. Christianity found its closest points of contact with Paganism, and the competition most dangerous to it, in ‘the Mysteries’; its phraseology and customs—in the case of the Sacraments, possibly, its doctrinal conceptions as these took shape during the first five centuries—bear the marks of their influence. This influence betrays itself first in the Apocrypha, when the writer of Wisdom speaks in 2:22 of ‘mysteries of God’ bidden from the unworthy, and, like the Apostle Paul, promises to disclose’ the mysteries’ of Divine wisdom (6:22) to his readers; in 14:15, 23 , the Gentile ‘mysteries and initiatory rites’ are mentioned with abhorrence. The NT affords 27 or (including the dubious reading of 1 Co 2:1) 28 examples of the word,—3 of these in Mt 13:11 and the Synoptic parallels, 4 in Rev. (1:20, 10:7, 17:5, 7), the other 20 (or 21) in Paul; of the latter, 10 belong to Eph. and Col., 5 (or 6) to 1 Cor.

The NT usages are distinguished as they are wider or narrower in application: (1) in Rev 10:7, ‘the mystery of God’ covers the entire process of revelation; in 1 Ti 3:15 ‘the mystery of godliness,’ and in 1 Co 2:7 ‘the wisdom of God in a mystery,’ embrace the whole incarnate manifestation hidden up to this epoch in the womb of time (Ro 16:25f.), which is summed up by Col 2:2 as ‘the mystery of God, even Christ.’ ‘The mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Th 2:7) , culminating in the ‘paronsia’ of Antichrist, presents the counterpart of the Divine mystery in the realm of evil.

Or (2) ‘the mystery’ consists in some specific revelation, some previously veiled design of

God—as in the Eph.-Col. passages, where St. Paul thus describes God’s plan for saving the Gentile world. He points out (Ro 11:28) the shadow attending this great disclosure in ‘the mystery’ of the ‘hardening’ that has ‘in part befallen Israel.’ The institution of marriage viewed

as prophetic of the union between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32), and the bodily transformation of the saints at the Second Advent (1 Co 15:51f.), are Divine secrets now disclosed; they mark respectively the beginning and the end of revelation. These and such matters constitute ‘the mysteries’ of which the Apostle is ‘steward’ (1 Co 4:1), which enlightened Christians ‘know’ (1 Co 13:2) and dwell upon in hours of rapture (14:2). According to the Synoptics, our Lord speaks of His parables as containing, in a similar sense, ‘the mysteries of the kingdom’ (Mt 13:11 etc.).

(3) Rev 1:20 and 17:5, 7 afford examples of a narrower reference in the term: ‘the seven stars’ and ‘the harlot woman’ are mystical symbols, patent to those who are ‘in the Spirit,’ of great realities operative in the kingdoms of God and of Satan.

This analysis brings out certain essential differences between the Christian and non-Christian employment of the word in question. In the first place, the new ‘mysteries’ are no human performances, ritual or dramatic; they are Divine communications embodied in Christ and His redemption, which God’s stewards are commissioned to impart. In the second place, they seek publicity not concealment—‘mystery’ and ‘revelation’ become correlative terms. These are not secrets reserved for and guarded in silence by the few; ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ,’ long concealed from all, is now thrown open to all—‘hidden from the ages and generations,’ but today ‘preached to the nations.’ Most emphatic is St. Paul’s insistence on the frankness of the gospel revelation; most earnest his disclaimer of any esoteric doctrine, such as the vendors of foreign ‘mysteries’ commonly professed. Nothing but moral insensibility or the false pride of the world’s wisdom, he asserts, bars any man from receiving his gospel—it is ‘hid amongst the perishing, those whose thoughts the god of this world blinded’ (2 Co 4:3f.; cf. 1 Co 2:14, Lk 10:21). The communication of the gospel mystery is limited by the receptivity of the hearer, not the reserve of the speaker; addressed to all men, it is ‘worthy of all acceptation’ (1 Ti 1:15, 2:4 ; cf. Ro 1:14, Ac 26:22, Col 1:28). ‘The mystery of iniquity’ (2 Th 2:7) and that of Israel’s ‘hardening’ (Ro 11:25), however, still await solution; these will be disclosed before ‘the mystery of God is finished’ (Rev 10:7).

Several other NT words had been associated in Greek usage, more or less definitely, with the Mysteries: illumination (2 Co 4:4ff., Eph 1:18, He 6:4 etc.); seal (2 Co 1:22, Eph 1:18, Rev 7:3 etc.); perfect (scil. initiated: 1 Co 2:6, Ph 3:15 etc.); ‘I have learnt the secret’ (‘have been initiated,’ Ph 4:11); and the original (cognate) words for ‘behold’ and ‘eye-witnesses’ in 1 P 2:12, 3:2 and 2 P 1:16. The association is unmistakable, and the allusion highly probable, in the