exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/5800.html

114 lines
295 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[5801]='Marble`mar\'-b\'-l (shayish, shesh, \'abhne shayish, "stones of marble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,2);">1Ch 29:2</a>); ritspath bahat wa-shesh we-dhar we-cochareth, "a pavement of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble," or, according to the margin, "a pavement of porphyry, and white marble, and alabaster, and stone of blue color" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>); \'ammudhe shesh, "pillars of marble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,15);">So 5:15</a>); compare shesh, the King James Version margin "silk" or the Revised Version (British and American) "fine linen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">Ge 41:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,4);">Ex 25:4</a>, etc.); shoshannim, "lilies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,16);">So 2:16</a>, etc.), apparently from a root signifying "white"; marmaros, "marble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12);">Re 18:12</a>)): Marble is properly crystalline limestone, usually pure white or veined with black, the former being in demand for statuary, while the latter is used in architecture, especially for floors and pillars. True marble is not found in Palestine, but is obtained from Greece or Italy. Much of the stone described as marble is non-crystalline limestone capable of being smoothed and polished. White or yellow stone of this character is abundant in Palestine. Non-crystalline rocks of other colors are also sometimes called marble. In the passage from Esther cited above (compare margin), it is a question whether the reference is to marble and other stones or to marble of different colors. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,2);">1Ch 29:2</a>, "marble stones" are mentioned among the materials brought together by David for the building of the temple. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>, pillars and a pavement of marble are features of the palace of Ahasuerus. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,15);">So 5:15</a>, the various parts of the body of the "beloved" are likened to gold, beryl, ivory, sapphire, and marble. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12);">Re 18:12</a>, marble occurs in the list of the merchandise of Babylon. All these references imply a costly stone, and therefore probably one imported from other countries, and make it likely that true crystalline marble is meant.``37';
isbe[5802]='March; Marches`march, march\'-iz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY">ARMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAR">WAR</a>`1';
isbe[5803]='Marcheshvan`mar-chesh\'-van.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIME">TIME</a>`1';
isbe[5804]='Marcion, Gospel of`mar\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[5805]='Marcus`mar\'-kus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARK,+JOHN">MARK, JOHN</a>`1';
isbe[5806]='Mardocheus`mar-do-ke\'-us (Mardochaios):<P>(1) One of the Jewish leaders who accompanied Zerubbabel on the return from Babylon to Judah (1Esdras 5:8, where it stands for "Mordecai" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>).<P>(2) Another form of Mordecai, the uncle of Esther (<span class="noTag">Additions to Esther 10:4; 11:2,12; 12:1,4ff; 16:13</span>).``1';
isbe[5807]='Mare`mar<P>(1) cucah, "steed," the King James Version "company of horses"; Septuagint he hippos, "mare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,9);">So 1:9</a>);<P>(2) bene ha-rammakhim, "bred of the stud," the King James Version and the Revised Version margin "young dromedaries" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,10);">Es 8:10</a>); compare Arabic ramakat, "mare"): The word "mare" does not occur in English Versions of the Bible, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,9);">So 1:9</a> we find cucah, the feminine of cuc, "horse," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,10);">Es 8:10</a>, bene ha-rammakhim is by some translated "sons of mares."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAMEL">CAMEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORSE">HORSE</a>`1';
isbe[5808]='Mareshah`ma-re\'-sha (mareshah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Bathesar; Codex Alexandrinus Maresa): A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Keilah and Achzib (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,44);">Jos 15:44</a>). It occupied such a position that Rehoboam thought well to fortify it for the protection of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,8);">2Ch 11:8</a>). In the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah, Asa overwhelmed Zerah the Ethiopian and his army, pursuing them as far as Gezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,9);">2Ch 14:9</a>). From Mareshah came Eliezer the prophet who denounced disaster upon the commercial copartnery of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,37);">2Ch 20:37</a>). The place is mentioned in Mic (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,15);">2Ch 1:15</a>). Mareshah was plundered and burned by Judas Maccabeus (Ant., XII, viii, 6; 1Macc 5:66 the Revised Version margin). Hither Gorgias escaped, having been rescued from the hands of Dositheus by a Thracian horseman (2Macc 12:35). It was taken by John Hyrcanus, who allowed the inhabitants to remain on condition that they adopt circumcision and submit to the Jewish law. This they did; and later John avenged an injustice done to Mareshah by the Samaritans. It is then described as "a colony of Jews" (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; x, 2). The city was treated with favor by Pompey (XIV, iv, 4). When the Parthians invaded Judea in support of Antigonus they demolished Mareshah (xiii, 9).<P>According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Mareshah was 2 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). Until recently it was thought that Khirbet Mir\'ash, where the old name lingers, not far southwest of Beit Jibrin, represented the ancient city. The work of Dr. Bliss, however ("Excavations in Palestine," PEF), shows that it must be located at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile south of Beit Jibrin. A series of remarkable tombs was discovered here. From <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,42);">1Ch 2:42</a> we may perhaps gather that Hebron was colonized by the men of Mareshah.``54';
isbe[5809]='Marimoth`mar\'-i-moth, mar\'-i-moth: An ancestor of Esdras (Ezra) (2Esdras 1:2), identical with Meraioth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,3);">Ezr 7:3</a>). In 1Esdras 8:2, it appears also as "Memeroth" (the King James Version "Meremoth").``1';
isbe[5810]='Mariner`mar\'-i-ner.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`1';
isbe[5811]='Marisa`mar\'-i-sa (Marisa): The Greek form of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARESHAH">MARESHAH</a> (which see) in 2Macc 12:35.``1';
isbe[5812]='Marish`mar\'-ish (gebhe\'; helos): An old form of "marsh," found in the King James Version, the English Revised Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,11);">Eze 47:11</a> (the American Standard Revised Version "marsh"). Some (not all) editions of the King James Version Apocrypha have retained this same spelling in 1Macc 9:42,45 (the Revised Version (British and American) "marsh").``1';
isbe[5813]='Mark`mark: In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by 5 Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the "mark" put upon Cain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,15);">Ge 4:15</a> the King James Version); the stigmata of Christ in Paul\'s body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,17);">Ga 6:17</a>); the "mark of the beast" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,2);">Re 16:2</a>).<P>As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. "to be attentive," "understand ": bin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,2);">Job 18:2</a> the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "consider"; shith, "Mark ye well her bulwarks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,13);">Ps 48:13</a>), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; shamar, i.e. observe, keep in view; so <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,37);">Ps 37:37</a>, "Mark the perfect man"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,15);">Job 22:15</a> the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,12);">1Sa 1:12</a>, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannah\'s lips in prayer, is said to have "marked her mouth." Jesus "marked" how invited guests chose out (epecho, i.e. "observed") the chief seats (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,7);">Lu 14:7</a>); so skopeo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,17);">Ro 16:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,17);">Php 3:17</a>), "Mark them," i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,13);">Isa 44:13</a>, "He marketh it out with a pencil" ("red ochre," the King James Version "line"), and "with the compasses," where the verb is ta\'ar, "to delineate," "mark out"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,22);">Jer 2:22</a>, "Thine iniquity is marked (katham, "cut (i.e. engraved)) before me," signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered "written," as in indelible hieroglyphics.<P>As a noun the term "mark" may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, "a target" an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign.<P>(1) \'oth, "a sign": <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,15);">Ge 4:15</a> the King James Version, "The Lord set a mark upon Cain" (the American Standard Revised Version "appointed a sign"). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cain\'s body. He considers it rather "a certain sign which protected him from vengeance," the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared.<P>(2) mattara\', "an aim," hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,20);">1Sa 20:20</a>); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,12);">Job 16:12</a>); so Jeremiah, "He hath set me as a mark for the arrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,12);">La 3:12</a>); closely akin to this is miphga\', an object of attack (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,20);">Job 7:20</a>), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, \'Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?\'; "set me as a mark for thee."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TARGET">TARGET</a>.<P>(3) taw, "mark" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,4,6);">Eze 9:4,6</a>). In Ezekiel\'s vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahweh\'s command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,22,23);">Ex 12:22,23</a>), for their protection. As the servants of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,2,3);">Re 7:2,3</a>)<29>the elect<63>were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writer\'s inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. Taw also appears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,35);">Job 31:35</a>) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) "signature," margin "mark").<P>The equivalent Hebrew letter taw ("t") in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the "mark" set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiel\'s vision.<P>(4) qa\'aqa\', "a stigma" cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,28);">Le 19:28</a>) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.<P>The specific prohibition "not to print any marks upon" themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as God\'s creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUTTINGS+IN+THE+FLESH">CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH</A>.<P>(5) skopos, something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a "goal." The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. "I press on toward the goal (the King James Version "mark") unto the prize" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,14);">Php 3:14</a>). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.<P>In The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 5:21</span> "they fly to the mark" is from eustochoi, "with true aim" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).<P>(6) stigma, "a mark pricked or branded upon the body." Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,\'23-27\');">2Co 11:23-27</a>). These he termed the stigmata of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,17);">Ga 6:17</a>).<P>This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christ\'s crucifixion were reproduced in Paul\'s hands and feet and side. It is also "alien to the lofty self-consciousness" of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Paul\'s thought to the scar of circumcision.<P>(7) charagma, "a stamp" or "imprinted mark." "The mark of the beast" (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,16);">Re 13:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,4,6);">Eze 9:4,6</a>). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'9-11\');">Re 14:9-11</a>); to noisome disease (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,2);">Re 16:2</a>); to the lake of fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,20);">Re 19:20</a>). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4);">Re 20:4</a>). The "beast" symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians.<P>(8) molops, "bruise," Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) "bruise"); 28:17.``139';
isbe[5814]='Mark, John`mark, John (Ioannes) represents his Jewish, Mark (Markos) his Roman name. Why the latter was assumed we do not know.<P>1. Name and Family: Perhaps the aorist participle in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">Ac 12:25</a> may be intended to intimate that it dated from the time when, in company with Barnabas and Saul, he turned to service in the great Gentile city of Antioch. Possibly it was the badge of Roman citizenship, as in the case of Paul. The standing of the family would be quite consistent with such a supposition.<P>His mother\'s name was Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,12);">Ac 12:12</a>). The home is spoken of as hers. The father was probably dead. The description of the house (with its large room and porch) and the mention of the Greek slave, suggest a family of wealth. They were probably among the many zealous Jews who, having become rich in the great world outside, retired to Jerusalem, the center of their nation and faith. Mark was "cousin" to Barnabas of Cyprus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>) who also seems to have been a man of means (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a>). Possibly Cyprus was also Mark\'s former home.<P>2. His History as Known from the New Testament:<P>When first mentioned, Mark and his mother are already Christians (44 AD). He had been converted through Peter\'s personal influence (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a>) and had already won a large place in the esteem of the brethren, as is shown by his being chosen to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, a little later. The home was a resort for Christians, so that Mark had every opportunity to become acquainted with other leaders such as James and John, and James the brother of the Lord. It was perhaps from the latter James that he learned the incident of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,21);">Mr 3:21</a> which Peter would be less likely to mention.<P>His kinship with Barnabas, knowledge of Christian history and teaching, and proved efficiency account for his being taken along on the first missionary journey as "minister" (huperetes) to Barnabas and Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5);">Ac 13:5</a>). Just what that term implies is not clear. Chase (HDB) conjectures the meaning to be that he had been huperetes, "attendant" or chazzan in the synagogue (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,20);">Lu 4:20</a>), and was known as such an official. Wright (English translation, February, 1910) suggests that he was to render in newly founded churches a teaching service similar to that of the synagogue chazzan. Hackett thought that the kai of this verse implies that he was to be doing the same kind of work as Barnabas and Saul and so to be their "helper" in preaching and teaching. The more common view has been (Meyer, Swete, et al.) that he was to perform "personal service not evangelistic," "official service but not of the menial kind"<22>to be a sort of business agent. The view that he was to be a teacher, a catechist for converts, seems to fit best all the facts.<P>Why did he turn back from the work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,13);">Ac 13:13</a>)? Not because of homesickness, or anxiety for his mother\'s safety, or home duties, or the desire to rejoin Peter, or fear of the perils incident to the journey, but rather because he objected to the offer of salvation to the Gentiles on condition of faith alone. There are hints that Mark\'s family, like Paul\'s, were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and it is not without significance that in both verses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5,13);">Ac 13:5,13</a>) he is given only his Hebrew name. The terms of Paul\'s remonstrance are very strong (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,38);">Ac 15:38</a>), and we know that nothing stirred Paul\'s feelings more deeply than this very question. The explanation of it all may be found in what happened at Paphos when the Roman Sergius Paulus became a believer. At that time Paul (the change of name is here noted by Luke) stepped to the front, and henceforth, with the exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,12,25);">15:12,25</a>, where naturally enough the old order is maintained, Luke speaks of Paul and Barnabas, not Barnabas and Saul. We must remember that, at that time, Paul stood almost alone in his conviction. Barnabas, even later than that, had misgivings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,13);">Ga 2:13</a>). Perhaps, too, Mark was less able than Barnabas himself to see the latter take second place.<P>We hear nothing further of Mark until the beginning of the second missionary journey 2 years later, when Paul\'s unwillingness to take him with them led to the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and to the mission of Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,39);">Ac 15:39</a>). He is here called Mark, and in that quiet way Luke may indicate his own conviction that Mark\'s mind had changed on the great question, as indeed his willingness to accompany Paul might suggest. He had learned from the discussions in the council at Jerusalem and from subsequent events at Antioch.<P>About 11 years elapse before we hear of him again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a>). He is at Rome with Paul. The breach is healed. He is now one of the faithful few among Jewish Christians who stand by Paul. He is Paul\'s honored "fellowworker" and a great "comfort" to him.<P>The Colossian passage may imply a contemplated visit by Mark to Asia Minor. It may be that it was carried out, that he met Peter and went with him to Babylon. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a> the apostle sends Mark\'s greeting along with that of the church in Babylon. Thence Mark returns to Asia Minor, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a> Paul asks Timothy, who is at Ephesus, to come to him, pick up Mark by the way, and bring him along. In that connection Paul pays Mark his final tribute; he is "useful for ministering" (euchrestos eis diakonian), so useful that his ministry is a joy to the veteran\'s heart.<P>3. His History as Known from Other Sources:<P>The most important and reliable tradition is that he was the close attendant and interpreter of Peter, and has given us in the Gospel that bears his name account of Peter\'s teaching. For that comradeship the New Testament facts furnish a basis, and the gaps in the New Testament history leave plenty of room. An examination of the tradition will be found in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARK,+THE+GOSPEL+ACCORDING+TO">MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</A> (which see).<P>Other traditions add but little that is reliable. It is said that Mark had been a priest, and that after becoming a Christian he amputated a finger to disqualify himself for that service. Hence, the nickname kolobo-daktulos, which, however, is sometimes otherwise explained. He is represented as having remained in Cyprus until after the death of Barnabas (who was living in 57 AD according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,5);">1Co 9:5</a>f) and then to have gone to Alexandria, founded the church there, become its first bishop and there died (or was marthyred) in the 8th year of Nero (62-63). They add that in 815 AD Venetian soldiers stole his remains from Alexandria and placed them under the church of Mark at Venice.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Chase, HDB, III, 245ff; Rae, DCG, II, 119f; Harnack, Encyclopedia Brit; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 427-56; Lindsay, Salmond, Morison and Swete in their Comms.``56';
isbe[5815]='Mark, the Gospel According To, 1`<b>I. OUR SECOND GOSPEL</b><P><b>II. CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS</b><P class="in15">1. Scope<P class="in15">2. Material Peculiar to Mark<P class="in15">3. Quotations<P class="in15">4. A Book of Mighty Works<P class="in15">5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher<P class="in15">6. A Book of Graphic Details<P><b>III. THE TEXT</b><P><b>IV. LANGUAGE</b><P class="in15">1. General Character<P class="in15">2. Vocabulary<P class="in15">3. Style<P class="in15">4. Original Language<P><b>V. AUTHORSHIP</b><P class="in15">1. External Evidence<P class="in15">2. Internal Evidence<P><b>VI. SOURCES AND INTEGRITY</b><P><b>VII. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION</b><P><b>VIII. HISTORICITY</b><P><b>IX. PURPOSE AND PLAN</b><P class="in15">1. The Gospel for Romans<P class="in15">2. Plan of the Gospel<P><b>X. LEADING DOCTRINES</b><P class="in15">1. Person of Christ<P class="in15">2. The Trinity<P class="in15">3. Salvation<P class="in15">4. Eschatology<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Our Second Gospel.<P>The order of the Gospels in our New Testament is probably due to the early conviction that this was the order in which the Gospels were written. It was not, however, the invariable order. The question of order only arose when the roll was superseded by the codex, our present book-form. That change was going on in the 3rd century. Origen found codices with the order John-Matthew-Mark-Luke<6B>due probably to the desire to give the apostles the leading place. That and the one common today may be considered the two main groupings<67>the one in the order of dignity, the other in that of time. The former is Egyptian and Latin; the latter has the authority of most Greek manuscripts, Catalogues and Fathers, and is supported by the old Syriac.<P>Within these, however, there are variations. The former is varied thus: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark, and Matthew-John-Mark-Luke, and Matthew-John-Luke-Mark; the latter to Matthew-Mark-John-Luke. Mark is never first; when it follows Luke, the time consideration has given place to that of length.<P>II. Contents and General Characteristics.<P>1. Scope:<P>The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included. These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'37-43\');">Ac 10:37-43</a>. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'1-\');">Ac 10</a>) practically make up the Gospel.<P>2. Material Peculiar to Mark:<P>Matter peculiar to Mark is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'26-29\');">4:26-29</A> (the seed growing secretly); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,21);">3:21</A> (his kindred\'s fear); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'32-37\');">7:32-37</a> (the deaf and dumb man); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'22-26\');">8:22-26</A> (the blind man); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'26-29\');">13:33-37</a> (the householder and the exhortation to watch); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,51);">14:51</A> (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark\'s account is very much fuller; e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'14-29\');">6:14-29</a> (death of John the Baptist); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'1-23\');">Mr 7:1-23</a> (on eating with unwashen hands); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'14-29\');">9:14-29</A> (the demoniac boy); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'28-34\');">12:28-34</A> (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists. Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11).<P>3. Quotations:<P>In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isaiah part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,28);">Joh 3:28</a>. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequently. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John. Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give <span class="noTag">Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21, Acts 107</span>. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,7);">Mr 7:7</a> where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, "in vain do they worship me"<22>a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but "teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,48);">9:48</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,19);">10:19</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,32);">12:32</a>.<P>4. A Book of Mighty Works:<P>Judged by the space occupied, Mark is a Gospel of deeds. Jesus is a worker. His life is one of strenuous activity. He hastens from one task to another with energy and decision. The word euthus, i.e. "straightway," is used 42 times as against Matthew\'s 7 and Luke\'s 1. In 14 of these, as compared with 2 in Matthew and none in Luke, the word is used of the personal activity of Jesus. It is not strange therefore that the uneventful early years should be passed over (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,11);">Joh 2:11</a>). Nor is it strange that miracles should be more numerous than parables. According to Westcott\'s classification (Introduction to Study of the Gospel, 480-86), Mark has 19 miracles and only 4 parables, whereas the corresponding figures for Matthew are 21 to 15 and for <span class="noTag">Luke 20</span> to 19. Of the miracles 2 are peculiar to Mark, of the parables only 1. The evangelist clearly records the deeds rather than the words of Jesus. These facts furnish another point of contact with Peter\'s speeches in Acts<74>the beneficent character of the deeds in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,38);">Ac 10:38</a>, and their evidential significance in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,22);">Ac 2:22</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,27);">Mr 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10);">2:10</a>, etc.).<P>The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'21-28\');">1:21-28</a>), the paralytic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,\'1-12\');">2:1-12</a>), the withered hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,\'1-5\');">3:1-5</A>), the storm stilled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'35-41\');">4:35-41</a>), the Gerasene demoniac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,\'1-17\');">5:1-17</A>), Jairus\' daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,22);">5:22</A>ff), the woman with the issue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,\'25-34\');">5:25-34</a>), feeding the 5,000 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'35-44\');">6:35-44</A>), feeding the 4,000 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'1-10\');">8:1-10</a>), walking on the water (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,48);">6:48</A>ff); the Syrophoenician\'s daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'24-30\');">7:24-30</A>), the deaf mute (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'31-37\');">7:31-37</a>), the blind man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'22-26\');">8:22-26</A>), the demoniac boy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,14);">9:14</A>ff), blind Bartimeus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'46-52\');">10:46-52</a>), the fig tree withered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,20);">11:20</a>ff), the resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,1);">16:1</A>ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott\'s Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea.<P>5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher:<P>Though what has been said is true, yet Mark is by no means silent about Jesus as a teacher. John the Baptist is a preacher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,4,7);">Mr 1:4,7</a>), and Jesus also is introduced as a preacher, taking up and enlarging the message of John. Very frequent mention is made of him as teaching (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,21);">Mr 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,13);">2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,6);">6:6</a>, etc.); indeed the words didache, and didasko, occur more frequently in Mark than in any other Gospel. Striking references are made to His originality, methods, popularity and peerlessness as a teacher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,22);">Mr 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,1,33);">4:1f; 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,\'27-\');">11:27</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'1-37\');">12:37</a>; especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,34);">12:34</a>). A miracle is definitely declared to be for the purpose of instruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10);">Mr 2:10</a>), and the implication is frequent that His miracles were not only the dictates of His compassion, but also purposed self-revelations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,19);">Mr 5:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,21,22,23);">11:21-23</a>). Not only is He Himself a teacher, but He is concerned to prepare others to be teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,13);">Mr 3:13</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,10);">4:10</a>f). Mark is just as explicit as Matthew in calling attention to the fact that at a certain stage He began teaching the multitude in parables, and expounding the parables to His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'2-11\');">Mr 4:2-11</a>f). He mentions, however, only four of them<65>the Sower (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'1-20\');">Mr 4:1-20</a>), the Seed Growing Secretly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'26-29\');">Mr 4:26-29</a>), the Mustard Seed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'30-32\');">Mr 4:30-32</a>) and the Husband-men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'1-12\');">Mr 12:1-12</a>). The number of somewhat lengthy discourses and the total amount of teaching is considerably greater than is sometimes recognized. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,\'1-\');">Mark 4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">13</a> approach most nearly to the length of the discourses in Matthew and correspond to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,\'1-\');">Mt 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'1-\');">24</a> respectively. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'1-23\');">Mr 7:1-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'33-50\');">9:33-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'5-31\',\'39-45\');">10:5-31,39-45</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'1-44\');">12:1-44</a> we have quite extensive sayings. If Jesus is a worker, He is even more a teacher. His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works. The teachings grew naturally out of the occasion and the circumstances. He did and taught. Because He did what He did He could teach with effectiveness. Both works and words reveal Himself.<P>6. A Book of Graphic Details:<P>There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,33);">7:33</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,36);">9:36</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,16);">10:16</a>) and His looks of inquiry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,32);">5:32</a>), in prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,41);">6:41</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,34);">7:34</a>), of approval (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,34);">3:34</a>), love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21);">10:21</A>), warning (to Judas especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,23);">10:23</A>), anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,5);">3:5</a>), and in judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,11);">11:11</a>). Jesus hungers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,12);">11:12</a>), seeks rest in seclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,31);">6:31</a>) and sleeps on the boat cushion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,38);">4:38</a>); He pities the multitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,34);">6:34</a>), wonders at men\'s unbelief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,6);">6:6</A>), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,34);">6:34</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,12);">8:12</a>), grieves at their hardening (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,5);">3:5</a>), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,33);">8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,14);">10:14</A>). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,31);">1:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,11);">2:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,5);">3:5</A>), sometimes as gradual or difficult (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,26);">1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'32-35\');">7:32-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'26-28\');">9:26-28</a>), and once as flatly impossible "because of their unbelief" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,6);">6:6</A>). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,32);">1:32</a>), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,10);">3:10</A>), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,22);">1:22</A>) and power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,12);">2:12</a>). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,41);">4:41</A>), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,32);">10:32</a>). Many other picturesque details are given, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,13);">1:13</A> (He was with the wild beasts); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,4);">2:4</A> (digging through the roof); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,38);">4:38</A> (lying asleep on the cushion); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,4);">5:4</A> (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,39);">6:39</a> (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,29);">1:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,6);">3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,3);">13:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">15:21</A>), numbers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,13);">5:13</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,7);">6:7</A>), time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,35);">1:35</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,1);">2:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,19);">11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,2);">16:2</a>), and place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,13);">2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,8);">3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,3);">7:31</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,41);">12:41</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,3);">13:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,68);">14:68</A> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,39);">15:39</a>). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark\'s Gospel, 26ff.)<P>III. The Text.<P>Of the 53 select readings noted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (Into), only a few are of special interest or importance. The following are to be accepted: en to Esaia to prophete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,2);">Mr 1:2</a>) hamartematos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,29);">Mr 3:29</a>); pleres (indeclinable, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,28);">4:28</a>); to tekton (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a>; Jesus is here called "the carpenter"); autou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,22);">Mr 6:22</a>, Herod\'s daughter probably had two names, Salome and Herodias); pugme (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,23);">Mr 7:23</a>, "with the fist," i.e. "thoroughly," not pukna "oft"). Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek are to be followed in rejecting pisteusai (leaving the graphic To Ei dune (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,23);">Mr 9:23</a>)]; kai nesteia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,29);">Mr 9:29</a>); pasa...halisthesetai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,49);">Mr 9:49</a>); tous...chremasi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,24);">Mr 10:24</a>); but not in rejecting huiou Theou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">Mr 1:1</a>). They are probably wrong in retaining hous...onomasan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,14);">Mr 3:14</a>; it was probably added from <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,31);">Lu 6:31</a>); and in rejecting kai klinon and accepting pantisontai instead of baptisontai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,4);">Mr 7:4</a>; ignorance of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews led to these scribal changes; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,38);">Lu 11:38</a>, where ebaptisthe is not disputed). So one may doubt eporei (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,20);">Mr 6:20</a>), and suspect it of being an Alexandrian correction for epoiei which was more difficult and yet is finely appropriate.<P>The most important textual problem is that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'9-20\');">Mr 16:9-20</a>. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter\'s words, that for some reason those then failed him and that <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'9-20\');">16:9-20</A> are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,8);">16:8</a> is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'9-20\');">16:9-20</a>, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John\'s authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.<P>It is just possible that the Gospel did end at verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,8);">8</A>. The very abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived in the atmosphere of the Resurrection and would form an even appropriate closing for the Gospel of the Servant (see below). A Servant comes, fulfills his task, and departs<74>we do not ask about his lineage, nor follow his subsequent history.<P>IV. Language.<P>1. General Character:<P>Mark employs the common coloquial Greek of the day, understood everywhere throughout the Greek-Roman world. It was emphatically the language of the Character people, "known and read of all men." His vocabulary is equally removed from the technicalities of the schools and from the slang of the streets. It is the clean, vigorous, direct speech of the sturdy middle class.<P>2. Vocabulary:<P>Of his 1,330 words, 60 are proper names. Of the rest 79 are peculiar to Mark, so far as the New Testament is concerned; 203 are found elsewhere only in the Synoptics, 15 only in John\'s Gospel, 23 only in Paul (including Hebrews), 2 in the Catholic Epistles (1 in James, 1 in 2 Peter), 5 in the Apocalypse (Revelation) (see Swete, Commentary on Mark). Rather more than a fourth of the 79 are non-classical as compared with one-seventh for Luke and a little more than one-seventh for Mr. Hawkins also gives a list of 33 unusual words or expressions. The most interesting of the single words are schizomanous, ephien, komopoleis, ekephaliosan, proaulion, and hoti, in the sense of "why" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,16);">Mr 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,11,28);">9:11,28</a>); of the expressions, the distributives in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,7,39);">Mr 6:7,39</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,19);">14:19</a>, the Hebraistic ei dothesetai, and hotan with the indicative. Of ordinary constructions the following are found with marked frequency: kai (reducing his use of de to half of Matthew\'s or Luke\'s), historic present (accounting for the very frequent use of legei instead of eipen the periphrastic imperfect, the article with infinitives or sentences, participles, and prepositions.<P>There are indications that the writer in earlier life was accustomed to think in Aramaic. Occasionally that fact shows itself in the retention of Aramaic words which are proportionately rather more numerous than in Matthew and twice as numerous as in Luke or John. The most interesting of these are taleitha koum, ephphatha, and Boanerges, each uttered at a time of intense feeling.<P>Latinisms in Mark are about half as numerous as Aramaisms. They <span class="noTag">number 11</span>, the same as in Matthew, as compared with 6 in Luke and 7 in John. The greater proportion in Mark is the only really noteworthy fact in these figures. It suggests more of a Roman outlook and fits in with the common tradition as to its origin and authorship.<P>For certain words he has great fondness: euthus 42 times; akathartos 11 times; blepo, and its compounds very frequently; so eperotan, hupagein, exousia, euaggelion, proskaleisthai, epitiman compounds of poreuesthai, sunzetein, and such graphic words as ekthambeisthai, embrimasthai, enagkalizesthai, and phimousthai. The following he uses in an unusual sense: eneichen, pugme, apechei, epibalon.<P>The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the anacolutha and other broken constructions, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,31);">Mr 4:31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,23);">5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,8);">6:8</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,32);">11:32</a>. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,3,4,5);">7:3-5</a>; some to the introduction of a quotation as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,11);">7:11</a>f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II, 6 above).<P>3. Style:<P>The style is very simple. The common connective is kai. The stately periods of the classics are wholly absent. The narrative is commonly terse and concise. At times, however, a multitude of details are crowded in, resulting in unusual fullness of expression. This gives rise to numerous duplicate expressions as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,32);">Mr 1:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,25);">2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,19);">5:19</a> and the like, which become a marked feature of the style. The descriptions are wonderfully vivid. This is helped out by the remarkably frequent use of the historic present, of which there are 151 examples, as contrasted with 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke, apart from its use in parables. Mark never uses it in parables, whereas Matthew has 15 cases, and Luke has 5. John has 162, a slightly smaller proportion than Mark on the whole, but rather larger in narrative parts. But Mark\'s swift passing from one tense to another adds a variety and vividness to the narrative not found in John.<P>4. Original Language:<P>That the original language was Greek is the whole impression made by patristic references. Translations of the Gospel are always from, not into, Greek. It was the common language of the Roman world, especially for letters. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek. Half a century later Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth in Greek. The Greek Mark bears the stamp of originality and of the individuality of the author.<P>Some have thought it was written in Latin. The only real support for that view is the subscription in a few manuscripts (e.g. 160,161,egraphe Rhomaisti en Rhome) and in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac. It is a mistaken deduction from the belief that it was written in Rome or due to the supposition that "interpreter of Peter" meant that Mark translated Peter\'s discourses into Latin<P>Blass contended for an Aramaic original, believing that Luke, in the first part of Acts, followed an Aramaic source, and that that source was by the author of the Second Gospel which also, therefore, was written in Aramaic. He felt, moreover, that the text of Mark suggests several forms of the Gospel which are best explained as translations of a common original. Decisive against the view is the translation of the few Aramaic words which are retained.<P>V. Authorship.<P>1. External Evidence:<P>The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the manuscripts. The most important patristic statements are the following:<P>Papias<61>Asia Minor, circa 125 AD<41>(quoted by Eus., HE, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord\'s discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."<P>Justin Martyr<79>Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD<41>(In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his \'Memoirs\' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee \'Boanerges,\' which means \'Sons of Thunder,\' " etc.<P>Irenaeus<75>Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD<41>(Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus\' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."<P>Clement of Alexandria<69>circa 200 AD<41>(Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."<P>Also (Eus., HE, II, 15): "So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter\'s attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mk. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches."<P>Tertullian<61>North Africa, circa 207 AD<41>(Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."<P>Origen<65>Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD<41>("Comm. on Mt" quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."<P>Eusebius<75>Caesarea, circa 325 AD<41>(Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."<P>Epiphanius<75>Cyprus, circa 350 AD<41>(Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."<P>Jerome<6D>East and West, circa 350 AD<41>(De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."<P>Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."<P>Preface Commentary on Matthew: "The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching."<P>To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment<6E>circa 170 AD<41>"which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: \'quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit\'" (see below).<P>These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.<P>That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin\'s reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,17);">3:17</A>).<P>A second point is equally clear<61>that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter\'s. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a> the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter\'s Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter\'s Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view<65>that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)<29>is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).<P>There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.<P>The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: "(ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit," and understands it to mean that "at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down." Chase (HDB) and others regard "quibus tamen" as a literal translation of the Greek hois de, and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, "was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them." Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: "Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne," compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark\'s association with Peter.<P>The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest manuscripts, namely, kata Markon. This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been kata Petron. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle kata Matthaion.<P>2. Internal Evidence:<P>The internal evidence offers much to confirm the tradition and practically nothing to the contrary. That Peter is back of it is congruous with such facts as the following:<P>(1) The many vivid details referred to above (III, 6) must have come from an eyewitness. The frequent use of legei, in Mark and Matthew where Luke uses eipen, works in the same direction.<P>(2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark\'s turning of Peter\'s original, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,29);">Mr 1:29</a>, where Peter may have said, "We went home, James and John accompanying us." So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,36);">Mr 1:36</a> (contrasted with Luke\'s impersonal description, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,42);">Lu 4:42</a>f); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,16);">Mr 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,3);">13:3</a>.<P>(3) Two passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,6);">Mr 9:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,21);">11:21</a>) describe Peter\'s own thought; others mention incidents which Peter would be most likely to mention: e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,37);">Mr 14:37</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'66-72\');">14:66-72</A> (especially imperfect erneito); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,7);">16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'12-23\');">7:12-23</A> in view of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,15);">Ac 10:15</a>).<P>(4) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,7);">Mr 3:7</a> the order of names suits Peter\'s Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem<65>Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness.<P>(5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,37);">Mr 5:37</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,23);">Mt 9:23</a>, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke\'s corresponding passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,51);">Lu 8:51</a>) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,14);">Mr 9:14</a> is clearly from one of the three, Luke\'s may be, but Matthew\'s is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">Lu 9:51-18:14</a> lends weight to this consideration.<P>(6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter\'s address to Cornelius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'37-41\');">Ac 10:37-41</a>).<P>(7) The book suits Peter\'s character<65>impressionable rather than reflective, and emotional rather than logical. To such men arguments are of minor importance. It is deeds that count (Burton, Short Intro).<P>It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter\'s career narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,\'28-33\');">Mt 14:28-33</a> (walking on the water), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',17,\'24-27\');">17:24-27</A> (tribute money), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'16-19\');">16:16-19</a> (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew\'s list of the Twelve that he himself is called "the publican." So "Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke" (Bacon).<P>As to Mark\'s authorship, the internal evidence appears slight. Like the others, he does not obtrude himself. Yet for that very reason what hints there are become the more impressive.<P>There may be something in Zahn\'s point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author\'s own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,51);">Mr 14:51</a> seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents. But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated. In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'1-\');">Ac 12</a>. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word "ready"<22>a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife\'s exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,17);">Mr 14:17</a> with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,20);">Mt 26:20</a> reads: "Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,14);">Lu 22:14</a>: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him"; while Mark has: "And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve." The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms "the twelve disciples," "the apostles" and "the twelve" suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.) Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.``1';
isbe[5816]='Mark, the Gospel According To, 2`VI. Sources and Integrity.<P>We have seen that, according to the testimony of the Fathers, Peter\'s preaching and teaching are at least the main source, and that many features of the Gospel support that view. We have seen, also, subtle but weighty reasons for believing that Mark added a little himself. Need we seek further sources, or does inquiry resolve itself into an analysis of Peter\'s teaching?<P>B. Weiss believes that Mark used a document now lost containing mainly sayings of Jesus, called Logia (L) in the earlier discussions, but now commonly known as Q (Quelle). In that opinion he has recently been joined by Sanday and Streeter. Harnack, Sir John Hawkins and Wellhausen have sought to reconstruct Q on the basis of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and Luke. Allen extracts it from Matthew alone, thinking that Mark also may have drawn a few sayings from it. Some assign a distinct source for <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mark 13</a>. Streeter considers it a document written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, incorporating a few utterances by Jesus and itself incorporated bodily by Mark. Other sources, oral or written, are postulated by Bacon for smaller portions and grouped under X. He calls the final redactor R<>not Mark but a Paulinist of a radical type.<P>In forming a judgment much depends upon one\'s conception of the teaching method of Jesus and the apostles. Teaching and preaching are not synonymous terms. Matthew sums up the early ministry in Galilee under "teaching, preaching and healing," and gives us the substance of that teaching as it impressed itself upon him. Mark reports less of it, but speaks of it more frequently than either Matthew or Luke. Jesus evidently gave teaching a very large place, and a large proportion of the time thus spent was devoted to the special instruction of the inner circle of disciples. The range of that instruction was not wide. It was intensive rather than extensive. He held Himself to the vital topic of the kingdom of God. He must have gone over it again and again. He would not hesitate to repeat instructions which even chosen men found it so difficult to understand. Teaching by repetition was common then as it is now in the East. The word "catechize" (katecheo) implies that, and that word is used by Paul of Jewish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,18);">Ro 2:18</a>) and by Luke of Christian teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,4);">Lu 1:4</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CATECHIST">CATECHIST</a>.<P>The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,27);">Mr 1:27</a>). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.<P>Thus before His death the general character of that kingdom, its principles and prospects, were taught. That furnished the warp for the future Gospels. The essence, the substance and general form were the same for all the Twelve; but each from the standpoint of his own individually saw particular aspects and was impressed with special details. No one of them was large enough to grasp it all, for no one was so great as the Master. And it would be strange indeed, though perhaps not so strange as among us, if none of them wrote down any of it. Ramsay, Salmon and Palmer are quit justified in feeling that it may have been put in writing before the death of Jesus. It may well be that Matthew wrote it as it lay in his mind, giving us substantially Harnack\'s Q. John and James may have done the same and furnished Luke his main special source. But whether it was written down then or not, the main fact to be noted is that it was lodged in their minds, and that the substance was, and the details through mutual conference increasingly became, their common possession. They did not understand it all<6C>His rising from the dead, for example. But the words were lodged in memory, and subsequent events made their meaning clear.<P>Then follow the great events of His death and resurrection, and for forty days in frequent appearances He taught them the things concerning the kingdom of God and expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, especially the necessity of His death and resurrection. These furnished the woof of the future Gospels. But even yet they are not equipped for their task. So He promises them His Spirit, a main part of whose work will be to bring to their remembrance all He had said, to lead them into all the truth, and show them things to come. When He has come they will be ready to witness in power.<P>The apostles\' conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ\'s ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,2);">Ac 8:2</a>). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the "certainty" or undoubted truth of it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,4);">Lu 1:4</a>). Thus Jesus\' post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.<P>Of that company Peter was the recognized leader, and did more than any other to determine the mold into which at least the post-resurrection teachings were cast. Luke tells us of many attempts to record them. He himself in his brief reports of Peter\'s addresses sketches their broad outlines. Mark, at the request of Roman Christians and with Peter\'s approval, undertook to give an adequate account. Two special facts influenced the result<6C>one, the character of the people for whom he wrote; the other, the existence (as we may assume) of Matthew\'s Q. It would be natural for him to supplement rather than duplicate that apostolic summary. Moreover, since Q presented mainly the ethical or law side of Christianity the supplement would naturally present the gospel side of it<69>and so become its complement<6E>while at the same time this presentation and the needs of the people for whom he specially writes make it necessary to add something from the body of catechetical material, oral or written, not included in Q, as his frequent kai elegen, seems to imply (Buckley, 152ff). So Mk\'s is "the beginning of the Gospel." He introduces Jesus in the act of symbolically devoting Himself to that death for our sins and rising again, which constitutes the gospel and then entering upon His ministry by calling upon the people to "repent and believe in the gospel." The book is written from the standpoint of the resurrection, and gives the story of the passion and of the ministry in a perspective thus determined. About the same time it may be, Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, combines this gospel side of the teaching with his own Q side of it, adding from the common stock or abridging as his purpose might suggest or space might demand. Later Luke does a similar service for Greek Christians (compare Harnack, The Twofold Gospel in the New Testament).<P>The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see under III above. Some have suggested that <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'1-13\');">Mr 1:1-13</a> is akin to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'9-20\');">16:9-20</A>, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'1-13\');">1:1-13</A> is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mark 13</a> as a true report of what Jesus said. Wendling\'s theory of three strata assignable to three different writers<72>historian, poet, and theologian<61>is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke\'s omission of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'45-\');">Mr 6:45-8:26</a>. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.<P>VII. Date and Place of Composition.<P>Ancient testimony is sharply divided. The Paschal Chronicle puts it in 40 AD, and many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive (Harnack, Chronologie,70,124) 10 or 12 years after the Ascension. These Swete sets aside as due to the mistaken tradition that Peter began work in Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius (42 AD). Similarly he would set aside the opinion of Chrysostom (which has some manuscripts subscriptions to support it) that it was written in Alexandria, as an error growing out of the statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 16) that Mark went to Egypt and preached there the Gospel he composed. This he does in deference to the strong body of evidence that it was written in Rome about the time of Peter\'s death. Still there remains a discrepancy between Irenaeus, as commonly understood, and the other Fathers. For, so understood, Irenaeus places it after the death of Peter, whereas Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria clearly place it within Peter\'s lifetime. But it does not seem necessary so to understand Irenaeus. It may be that it was composed while Peter was living, but only published after his death. Christopherson (1570 AD) had suggested that and supported it by the conjectural emendation of ekdosin, "surrendering," "imprisonment" for exodon, in Irenaeus. Grabe, Mill and others thought Irenaeus referred, not to Peter\'s death, but to his departure from Rome on further missionary tours. But if we take exodon in that sense, it is better to understand by it departure from Palestine or Syria, rather than from Rome. Irenaeus\' statement that the apostles were now fully furnished for the work of evangelization (Adv. Haer., iii.1) certainly seems to imply that they were now ready to leave Palestine; and his next statement is that Matthew and Mark wrote their respective Gospels. And Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24) states explicitly that Matthew committed his Gospel to writing "when he was about" to leave Palestine "to go to other peoples." The same may very possibly be true of Mark. If the fact be that Romans in Caesarea or Antioch made the request of Mark, we can easily understand how, by the time of Irenaeus, the whole incident might be transferred to Rome.<P>If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,11);">Ga 2:11</a>ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be "fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization." But may it not be that Paul\'s strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,26);">Mr 2:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">13</A>. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark\'s explanatory addition. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mark 13</a> has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.<P>Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,37);">Mr 5:37</a>) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers<72>though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author\'s instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.<P>The relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is important if the very widespread conviction of the priority of Mark be true. For the most likely date for Acts <span class="noTag">is</a> 62 AD, as suggested by the mention of Paul\'s two years\' residence in Rome, and Luke\'s Gospel is earlier than the Acts. It may well have been written at Caesarea about 60 AD; that again throws Mark back into the fifties.<P>The great objection to so early a date is the amount of detail given of the destruction of Jerusalem. Abbott and others have marshalled numerous other objections, but they have very little weight<68>most of them indeed are puerile. The real crux is that to accept an earlier date than 70 AD is to admit predictive prophecy. Yet to deny that, especially for a believer in Christ, is an unwarranted pre-judgment, and even so far to reduce it as to deny its presence in this passage is to charge Luke<6B>a confessedly careful historian<61>with ascribing to Jesus statements which He never made.<P>The eagerness to date Matthew not earlier than 70 is due to the same feeling. But the problem here is complicated by the word "immediately" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,26);">2:26</A>). Some regard that as proof positive that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Others (e.g. Allen and Plummer) feel that it absolutely forbids a date much later than 70 AD, and consider 75 AD as a limit. But is it not possible that by by eutheos (not parachrema), Christ, speaking as a prophet, may have meant no more than that the next great event comparable with the epochal overthrow of Judaism would be His own return and that the Divine purpose marches straight on from the one to the other? The New Testament nowhere says that the second advent would take place within that generation. See below under "Eschatology." There is therefore no sufficient reason in the Olivet discourse for dating Luke or Matthew later than 60 AD, and if Mark is earlier, it goes back into the fifties.<P>VIII. Historicity.<P>Older rationalists, like Paulus, not denying Mark\'s authorship, regarded the miraculous elements as misconceptions of actual events. Strauss, regarding these as mythical, was compelled to postulate a 2nd-century date. When, however, the date was pushed back to the neighborhood of 70 AD, the historicity was felt to be largely established. But recently theory of "pragmatic values" has been developed; Bacon thus states it: "The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of Biblical narrative...is the recognition of motive. The motive...is never strictly historical but always etiological and frequently apologetic....The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary church" (Modern Commentary, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 9). Bacon works out the method with the result that Mark is charged again and again with historical and other blunders. This view, like Baur\'s tendency-theory, has elements of truth. One is that the vocabulary of a later day may be a sort of necessary translation of the original expression. But translation is neither invention nor perversion. The other is that each author has his purpose, but that simply determines his selection and arrangement of material; it neither creates nor misrepresents it if the author be honest and well informed. The word "selection" is advisedly chosen. The evangelists did not lack material. Each of the Twelve had personal knowledge beyond the content of Q or of Mark. These represent the central orb<72>the one the ethical, the other the evangelic side of it<69>but there were rays of exceeding brightness radiating from it in all directions. Luke\'s introduction and John\'s explicit declaration attest that fact. And neither John nor Luke throws the slightest suspicion on the reliability of the material they did not use. There is no sufficient reason for charging them with misstating the facts to make a point. Bacon seems to trust any other ancient writers or even his own imagination rather than the evangelists. The test becomes altogether too subjective. Yet since Christianity is a historical revelation, perversion of history may become perversion of most vital religious teaching. In the last analysis, the critic undertakes to decide just what Jesus could or could not have done or said. The utter uncertainty of the result is seen by a comparison of Schmiedel and Bacon. The former is sure that the cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" is one of the very few genuine sayings of Jesus; Bacon is equally sure that Jesus could not have uttered it. Bacon also charges Mark with "immoral crudity" because in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">10:45</a> he reports Jesus as saying that He came "to give his life a ransom for (anti) many." Thus, on two most vital matters he charges the evangelists with error because they run counter to his own religious opinions.<P>Plummer\'s remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): "To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism." And A.T. Robertson ("Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 26): "The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels." The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin<69>a standing miracle. If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.<P>IX. Purpose and Plan.<P>1. The Gospel for Romans:<P>Mark\'s purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them. In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen<p class="in15">(a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,17);">Mr 3:17</a> (Boanerges), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,41);">5:41</A> (Talitha cumi), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,11);">7:11</A> (Corban), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,46);">10:46</A> (Bartimaeus), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,36);">14:36</A> (Abba), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,22);">15:22</A> (Golgotha);<p class="in15">(b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,12);">14:12</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,42);">15:42</A>;<p class="in15">(c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark\'s own narrative;<p class="in15">(d) the Gentile sections, especially in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'1-\');">Mark 6-8</a>.<P>That it was for Romans is seen in<p class="in15">(a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,42);">Mr 12:42</a>;<p class="in15">(b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10);">2:10</A>), patience and heroic endurance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,17);">10:17</A>ff);<p class="in15">(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,12);">10:12</A> which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman.<P>Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">15:21</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,13);">Ro 16:13</a>) and the resemblance between <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'1-23\');">7:1-23</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,1);">Ro 14</a>. The Roman centurion\'s remark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,39);">15:39</a>) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark\'s purpose as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a> to John\'s.<P>But one cannot escape the feeling that we have in this Gospel the antitype of the Servant of Yahweh. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, 365) tells us that there are two great figures around which Isaiah\'s thoughts gather<65>the King and the Servant. The former rises "to the unsurpassable height of \'God with us,\' \'mighty God,\' teaching that in Him God shall be wholly present with His people." The Servant is the other. The former is depicted in Matthew, who also identifies Him with the Servant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,18);">12:18</A>f); the latter by Mark who identifies Him with the Messianic King (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,10);">11:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">14:62</A>). Davidson summarizes the description of the Servant: "<P>(1) He is God\'s chosen;<P>(2) He has a mission to establish judgment on the earth....The word is His instrument and the Lord is in the Word, or rather He Himself is the impersonation of it;<P>(3) His endowment is the Spirit and an invincible faith;<P>(4) There is in Him a marvelous combination of greatness and lowliness;<P>(5) There are inevitable sufferings<67>bearing the penalty of others\' sins;<P>(6) He thus redeems Israel and brings light to the Gentiles.<P>(7) Israel\'s repentance and restoration precede that broader blessing."<P>It is not strange that this Servant-conception<6F>this remarkable blend of strength and submission, achieving victory through apparent defeat<61>should appeal to Peter. He was himself an ardent, whole-souled man who knew both defeat and victory. Moreover, he himself had hired servants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,20);">Mr 1:20</a>), and now for years had been a servant of Christ (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,29);">Ac 4:29</a>). That it did appeal to him and became familiar to the early Christians can be seen from <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,13);">Ac 3:13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,30);">4:30</a>. In his First Epistle he has 17 references to Isaiah, 9 of which belong to the second part. Temperamentally Mark seems to have been like Peter. And his experience in a wealthy home where servants were kept (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,13);">Ac 12:13</a>), and as himself huperetes of apostles in Christian service, fitted him both to appreciate and record the character and doings of the perfect servant<6E>the Servant of Yahweh. For Roman Christians that heroic figure would have a peculiar fascination.<P>2. Plan of the Gospel:<P>The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception. Christ\'s kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'1-\');">Ac 10</a>. That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:<P>Title: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">Mark 1:1</a><P>1. The Baptist preparing the way: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'2-8\');">Mr 1:2-8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,3);">Isa 40:3</a> f.<P>2. Devotement of Jesus to death for us and endowment by the Spirit: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'9-13\');">Mr 1:9-13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,1);">Isa 42:1</a>ff.<P>3. His greatness<73>the Galilean Ministry: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'14-\');">Mr 1:14-8:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,\'1-\');">Isa 43-52:12</a>.<P class="in15">(1) In the synagogue: period of popular favor leading to break with Pharisaic Judaism: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'14-\');">Mr 1:14-3:6</a>.<P class="in15">(2) Outside the synagogue: parabolic teaching of the multitude, choice and training of the Twelve and their Great Confession: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,\'7-\');">Mr 3:7ff through 8:30</a>.<P>4. His lowliness<73>mainly beyond Galilee: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\);">Mr 8:31-15</span>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-\');">Isa 52:13</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,\'1-9\');">53:9</a>.<P class="in15">(1) In the north<74>announcement of death: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31-9:29</a>.<P class="in15">(2) On the way to Jerusalem and the cross<73>through Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'30-50\');">Mr 9:30-50</a>), Peraea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'1-45\');">Mr 10:1-45</a>), Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'46-52\');">Mr 10:46-52</a>).<P class="in15">(3) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,\'1-11\');">Mr 11:1-11</a>).<P class="in15">(4) In Jerusalem and vicinity<74>opposed by the leaders (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,\12-\');">Mr 11:12</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\1-44\');">12:44</a>); foretelling their doom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mr 13</a>); preparing for death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'1-42\');">Mr 14:1-42</a>); betrayed, condemned, crucified and buried in a rich man\'s tomb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\43-\');">Mr 14:43</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,\1-\');">15</a>).<P>5. His victory<72>the resurrection: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'1-\');">Mark 16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'10-12\');">Isa 53:10-12</a>. What follows in Isaiah is taken up in Acts, for the first part of which Peter or Mark may have been Luke\'s main source.<P>Generally speaking the plan is chronological, but it is plain that the material is sometimes grouped according to subject-matter.<P>This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word "straightway"; the predominance of deeds; the Son\'s not knowing the day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>); and the abrupt ending at <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,8);">Mr 16:8</a> (see III).<P>X. Leading Doctrines.<P>1. Person of Christ:<P>The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples\' confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father\'s declaration of Him as His Beloved Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,11);">Mr 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,7);">9:7</a>). That the sonship is unique is indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,6);">Mr 12:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">13:32</A>. At the same time He is the Son of Man<61>true man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,38);">4:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,5);">8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,34);">14:34</a>); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,40);">10:40</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,36);">14:36</a>), and Head of humanity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10,28);">2:10,28</a>), their rightful Messiah or King (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">14:62</A>)<29>yet Servant of all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,44);">10:44</a>f); David\'s Son and David\'s Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,37);">12:37</A>). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5,8);">2:5,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,17);">8:17</a>) and future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,39);">10:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,27);">14:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">13</a>), superiority to all men, whether friends (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,7);">1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,3);">9:3</a>ff) or foes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,34);">12:34</a>), and to superhuman beings, whether good (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">13:32</a>) or evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,13,32);">1:13,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,27);">3:27</a>).<P>2. The Trinity:<P>The Father speaks in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,11);">Mr 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,7);">9:7</a>; is spoken of in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">13:32</a>; and spoken to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,36);">14:36</a>. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,5);">11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,6);">12:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32;">13:32</a>. The Spirit is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,8,10,12);">1:8,10,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,29);">3:29</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,11);">13:11</A>. The last passage especially implies His personality.<P>3. Salvation:<P>As to salvation, the Son is God\'s final messenger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,6);">Mr 12:6</a>); He gives His life a ransom instead of many (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a>); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,24);">Mr 14:24</a>); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,34);">Mr 15:34</a>). From the outset He knew what was before Him<69>only so can His baptism be explained (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,5,11);">Mr 1:5,11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,20);">2:20</a>); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,32);">Mr 10:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'33-36\');">14:33-36</a>); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a>). The human condition is repentance and faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5);">2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,34,36);">5:34,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,5);">6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,23);">9:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,16);">16:16</a>), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,\'23-26\');">Mr 1:23-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,\'1-20\');">5:1-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'35-43\');">6:35-43</a>). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,25);">Mr 11:25</a>); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ\'s true kindred (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,35);">Mr 3:35</a>). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'24-30\');">Mr 7:24-30</a>).<P>4. Eschatology:<P>The eschatology of this Gospel is found chiefly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'34-\');">Mr 8:34</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,1);">9:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,13);">13</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,1);">Mr 9:1</a> we have a prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem which is here given as a type and proof of His final coming for judgment and reward which He has had in mind in the preceding verses. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'1-\');">Mark 13</a> is a development of this<69>the destruction of Jerusalem being meant in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'5-13\');">13:5-23</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'28-31\');">28-31</a>, the final coming in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'24-27\',32);">13:24-27</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">32</a>. The distinction is clearly marked by the pronouns (tauta, and ekeines, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">13:30</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">32</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,34,36);">Mt 24:34,36</a>). In each passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'1-\');">Mr 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">13:30</a>) the fall of Jerusalem is definitely fixed as toward the close of that generation; the time of the latter is known only to the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>). Between Christ\'s earthly life and the Second Coming He is seated at the right hand of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,36);">Mr 12:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,19);">16:19</a>). The resurrection which He predicted for Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,31);">9:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,34);">10:34</a>) and which actually took place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'1-\');">Mark 16</a>), He affirms for others also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'24-27\');">Mr 12:24-27</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>The works marked with the asterisk are specially commended; for very full list see Moffat\'s Introduction.<P>Commentaries:<P>Fritzsche, 1830; Olshausen, translated 1863; J.A. Alexander, 1863; Lange, translated 1866; Meyer,1866,American edition, 1884; Cook, Speaker\'s Commentary, 1878; Plumptre, Ellicott\'s, 1879; Riddle, Schaff\'s, 1879; W.N. Clarke, Amer. Comm., 1881; Lindsay, 1883; Broadus, 1881 and 1905; Morison, 1889; H.G. Holtzmann(3), 1901; Maclean, Cambridge Bible, 1893; Gould, International Critical Commentary, 1896; Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament, 1897; B. Weiss, Meyer, 1901; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901; Salmond, Century Bible; Wellhausen2, 1909; Swete, 1908; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909; Wohlenberg, Zahn\'s Series, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1910. For the earlier see Swete.<P>Introduction:<P>Eichhorn, 1827; Credner, 1836; Schleiermacher, 1845; De Wette, 1860; Bleek,1866,translated 1883; Reuss,1874,translated 1884; B. Weiss. 2nd edition, translated 1886; 3rd edition, 1897; H.J. Holtzmann, 1892; Th. Zahn,1897,translated 1909; Godet, 1899; Julicher(6), 1906; von Soden,1905,translated 1906; Wendling, Ur-Marcus, 1905; A. Muller, Geschichtskerne in den Evang., 1905; Wrede, Origin of New Testament Scriptures,1907,translated 1909; Horne, 1875; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, 7th edition,1888,and The Canon, 6th edition, 1889; Salmon, 1897; Adeney, 1899; Bacon, 1900; Burton, 1904; Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901; Introduction to the Literature of New Testament, 1911; Peake, 1909; Gregory, Einleitung., 1909; Charteris, Canonicity, 1881; The New Testament Scriptures,1882,and popular Intros by Plumptre, 1883; Lumby, 1883; Kerr, 1892; McClymont, 1893; Dods, 1894; Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, 1889; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, 1874; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, I, 1903; II, 1909.<P>Mark and the Synoptic Problem:<P>Rushbrooke, Synopticon, 1880; Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd edition, 1906; Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890; Some New Testament Problems, 1898; H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang., 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuch. uber die evang. Gesch., 2nd edition, 1901; Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 1899; Loisy, Les ev. syn., 1908; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evang., 1905; Blass, Origin and Char. of Our Gospels, English translation, xviii; Norton, Internal Evid. of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1847; F.H. Woods, Stud. Bibl., II, 594; Palmer, Gospel Problems and Their Solution, 1899; J.A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, 1902; Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels; Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 1904; Stanton, as above, and in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), II, 234ff; Turner, "Chronology of New Testament," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), I, 403ff; J.J. Scott, The Making of the Gospels, 1905; Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 1906; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I, 1893; II, 2nd edition, 1904; Beitrage zur Einleitung in das New Testament, 4 volumes, translated in "Crown Theol. Lib.," Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909; Denney, Jesus and the Gospel; Cambridge Biblical Essays, edition by Swete, 1909; Oxford Studies in the Syn. Problem, edition by Sanday, 1911; Salmond, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), III, 248ff; Maclean, Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, II, 120f; Petrie, Growth of Gospels Shown by Structural Criticism, 1910; Buckley, Introduction to Synoptic Problem, 1912.<P>The Language:<P>Dalman, Words of Jesus, translated 1909; Deissmann, Bible Studies, translated 1901; Light from the Ancient East, translated 1910; Allen, The Expositor, I, English translation, 1902; Marshall, The Expositor, 1891-94; Wellhausen, Einleitung.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889; Swete and Hawkins.<P>Text:<P>Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek; Salmon, Introduction, chapter ix; Gregory, Text and Canon; Morison and Swete, in Commentary; Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.<P>Special:<P>Schweizer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research; Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospels, 1911; Hogg, Christ\'s Message of the Kingdom, 1911; Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890; Davidson, Old Testament Theology.``56';
isbe[5817]='Market, Sheep``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEEP+MARKET">SHEEP MARKET</a>`1';
isbe[5818]='Market; Marketplace; Mart`mar\'-ket, mar\'-ketplas, mart (ma\'arabh, cachar; agora):<P>(1) Ma\'arabh, from a root meaning "trading" and hence, goods exchanged, and so "merchandise" in the Revised Version (British and American), "market" in the King James Version, occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,13,17,19,25);">Eze 27:13,17,19,25</a>, and is translated correctly "merchandise" in both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version.<P>(2) Cachar means a "trading emporium," hence, mart, and merchandise. It occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,3);">Isa 23:3</a> (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERCHANDISE">MERCHANDISE</a>).<P>(3) Agora, from root meaning "to collect," means a "town meeting-place," "resort of the people," so a place where the public generally met to exchange views and wares. No doubt, the central place soon filling up, the people thronged the adjoining streets, and so in time each street thus used came to be called agora, "marketplace"; translated "marketplace(s)" in 1Esdras 2:18; Tobit 2:3; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,16);">Mt 11:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,3);">20:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,7);">23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,56);">Mr 6:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,4);">7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,38);">12:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,32);">Lu 7:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,43);">11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,46);">20:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,19);">Ac 16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,17);">17:17</a>; "Market of Appius" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,15);">Ac 28:15</a> means, probably, "street" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APPII+FORUM">APPII FORUM</a>).<P>The marketplace in New Testament times was the public open space, either simple or ornate, in town, city or country, where (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,56);">Mr 6:56</a>) the people congregated, not only for exchange of merchandise, but for one or more of the following purposes:<P>(1) a place where the children came together to sing, dance and play, a "back-to-date" municipal recreation center (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,16,17);">Mt 11:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,32);">Lu 7:32</a>);<P>(2) a place for loafers, a sort of ancient, irresponsible labor bureau where the out-of-work idler waited the coming of an employer with whom he might bargain for his services, usually by the day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-16\');">Mt 20:1-16</a>);<P>(3) a place where the proud pretender could parade in long robes and get public recognition, "salutations in the market-places," e.g. the scribes and Pharisees against whom Jesus emphatically warns His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,\'3-7\');">Mt 23:3-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,38);">Mr 12:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,43);">Lu 11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,46);">20:46</a>);<P>(4) a place where the sick were brought for treatment, the poor man\'s sanatorium, a municipal hospital; Jesus "who went about doing good" often found His opportunity there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,56);">Mr 6:56</a>);<P>(5) a place of preliminary hearing in trials, where the accused might be brought before rulers who were present at the time, e.g. Paul and Silas at Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,19);">Ac 16:19</a>);<P>(6) a place for religious and probably political or philosophical discussion (gossip also), a forum, a free-speech throne; no doubt often used by the early apostles not only as a place of proclaiming some truth of the new religion but also a place of advertisement for a coming synagogue service, e.g. Paul in Athens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,17);">Ac 17:17</a>).<P>The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 15:12</span> (the King James Version) has "They counted ... our time here a market for gain," the Revised Version (British and American) "a gainful fair," margin "a keeping of festival," Greek panegurismos, "an assembly of all." Such assemblies offered particular opportunities for business dealings.``142';
isbe[5819]='Marmoth`mar\'-moth, mar\'-moth (Codex Vaticanus, Marmothi; Codex Alexandrinus, Marmathi): "The priest the son of Urias" to whom were committed the silver and gold for the temple by the returning exiles (1Esdras 8:62) = "Meremoth" in parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>.``1';
isbe[5820]='Maroth`ma\'-roth, ma\'-roth (maroth; (katoikousa) (odunas): An unknown town probably in the Philistine plain, named by Micah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,12);">1:12</A>).``1';
isbe[5821]='Marriage`mar\'-ij:<P>Introduction<P>Scope and Viewpoint of the Present Article<P>1. Marriage among the Hebrews<P>2. Betrothal the First Formal Part<P>3. Wedding Ceremonies<P>4. Jesus\' Sanction of the Institution<P>5. His Teaching concerning Divorce<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>It would be interesting to study marriage biologically and sociologically, to get the far and near historical and social background of it as an institution, especially as it existed among the ancient Jews, and as it figures in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For, like all social institutions, marriage, and the family which is the outcome of marriage, must be judged, not by its status at any particular time, but in the light of its history. Such a study of it would raise a host of related historic questions, e.g. What was its origin? What part has it played in the evolution and civilization of the race? What social functions has it performed? And then, as a sequel, Can the services it has rendered to civilization and progress be performed or secured in any other way? This, indeed, would call for us to go back even farther<65>to try to discover the psychology of the institution and its history, the beliefs from which it has sprung and by which it has survived so long. This were a task well worth while and amply justified by much of the thinking of our time; for, as one of the three social institutions that support the much challenged form and fabric of modern civilization, marriage, private property and the state, its continued existence, in present form at least, is a matter of serious discussion and its abolition, along with the other two, is confidently prophesied. "Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it" (Bebel, Socialism and Sex,199,Reeves, London; The Cooperative Commonwealth in Its Outline, Gronlund, 224). But such a task is entirely outside of and beyond the purpose of this article.<P>Neither the Bible in general, nor Jesus in particular, treats of the family from the point of view of the historian or the sociologist, but solely from that of the teacher of religion and morals. In short, their point of view is theological, rather than sociological. Moses and the prophets, no less than Jesus and His apostles, accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to certain practical, ethical questions, and they dealt with it accordingly. There is nothing in the record of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles to indicate that they gave to marriage any new social content, custom or sanction. They simply accepted it as it existed in the conventionalized civilization of the Jews of their day and used it and the customs connected with it for ethical or illustrative purposes. One exception is to be made to this general statement, namely, that Jesus granted that because of the exigencies of the social development Moses had modified it to the extent of permitting and regulating divorce, clearly indicating, however, at the same time, that He regarded such modification as out of harmony with the institution as at first given to mankind. According to the original Divine purpose it was monogamous, and any form of polygamy, and apparently of divorce, was excluded by the Divine idea and purpose. The treatment of the subject here, therefore, will be limited as follows: Marriage among the Ancient Hebrews and Other Semites; Betrothal as the First Formal Part of the Transaction; Wedding Ceremonies Connected with Marriage, especially as Reflected in the New Testament; and Jesus\' Sanction and Use of the Institution, Teaching concerning Divorce, etc.<P>1. Marriage among the Hebrews:<P>With the Hebrews married life was the normal life. Any exception called for apology and explanation. "Any Jew who has not a wife is no man" (Talmud). It was regarded as awaiting everyone on reaching maturity; and sexual maturity comes much earlier indeed in the East than with us in the West<73>in what we call childhood. The ancient Hebrews, in common with all Orientals, regarded the family as the social unit. In this their view of it coincides with that, of modern sociologists. Of the three great events in the family life, birth, marriage and death, marriage was regarded as the most important. It was a step that led to the gravest tribal and family consequences. In case of a daughter, if she should prove unsatisfactory to her husband, she would likely be returned to the ancestral home, discarded and discredited, and there would be almost inevitably a feeling of injustice engendered on one side, and a sense of mutual irritation between the families (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,20);">Jud 14:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,19);">1Sa 18:19</a>). If she failed to pass muster with her mother-in-law she would just as certainly have to go, and the results would be much the same (compare customs in China). It was a matter affecting the whole circle of relatives, and possibly tribal amity as well. It was natural and deemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of the wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians of the couple involved. Though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,8);">Ge 24:8</a>) and romantic attachments were not unknown (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,20);">Ge 29:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,3);">34:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,1);">Jud 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,20);">1Sa 18:20</a>), the gift or woman in the case was not currently thought of as having a personal existence at her own disposal. She was simply a passive unit in the family under the protection and supreme control of father or brothers. In marriage, she was practically the chattel, the purchased possession and personal property of her husband, who was her ba\'al or master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,16);">Ho 2:16</a>), she herself being be\'ulah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,4);">Isa 62:4</a>). The control, however, was not always absolute (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">Ge 26:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,21);">Ex 2:21</a>).<P>The bargaining instinct, so dominant among Orientals then as now, played a large part in the transaction. In idea the family was a little kingdom of which the father was the king, or absolute ruler. There are many indications, not only that the family was the unit from which national coherence was derived, but that this unit was perpetuated through the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus society became patriarchal, and this is the key of the ancient history of the family and the nation. Through the expansion of the family group was evolved in turn the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority of the father became in turn that of the chief, the ruler, and the king. The Oriental cannot conceive, indeed, of any band, or clan, or company without a "father," even though there be no kith or kinship involved in the matter. The "father" in their thought, too, was God\'s representative, and as such he was simply carrying out God\'s purpose, for instance, in selecting a bride for his son, or giving the bride to be married to the son of another. This is as true of the Far East as of the Near East today. Accordingly, as a rule, the young people simply acquiesced, without question or complaint, in what was thus done for them, accepting it as though God had done it directly. Accordingly, too, the family and tribal loyalty overshadowed love-making and patriotism, in the larger sense. Out of this idea of the solidarity and selectness of the tribe and family springs the overmastering desire of the Oriental for progeny, and for the conservation of the family or the tribe at any cost. Hence, the feuds, bloody and bitter, that persist between this family or tribe and another that has in any way violated this sacred law.<P>Traces of what is known as beena marriage are found in the Old Testament, e.g. that of Jacob, where Laban claims Jacob\'s wives and children as his own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,31,43);">Ge 31:31,43</a>), and that of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,21);">Ex 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,18);">4:18</a>). This is that form of marriage in which the husband is incorporated into the wife\'s tribe, the children belonging to her tribe and descent being reckoned on her side (compare W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 94). In Samson\'s case we seem to have an instance of what is known among Arabs as tsadqat marriage (from tsadaq, "gift"), the kid here being the customary tsadaq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,\'1-\');">Jud 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,\'1-\');">15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,4);">16:4</a>). There is no hint that he meant to take his wife home. It is differentiated from prostitution in that no disgrace is attached to it and the children are recognized as legitimate by the tribe. Such marriages make it easier to understand the existence of the matriarchate, or the custom of reckoning the descent of children and property through the mothers. The influence of polygamy would work in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with the several wives. There is, however, no clear evidence in the Old Testament of polyandry (a plurality of husbands), though the Levirate marriage is regarded by some as a survival of it. In other words, polygamy among the Hebrews seems to have been confined to polygyny (a plurality of wives). It is easy to trace its chief causes: (1) desire for a numerous offspring ("May his tribe increase!"); (2) barrenness of first wife (as in Abraham\'s case); (3) advantages offered by marital alliances (e.g. Solomon); (4) the custom of making wives of captives taken in war (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,3,9);">Ps 45:3,9</a>); (5) slavery, which as it existed in the Orient almost implied it.<P>2. Betrothal the First Formal Part:<P>Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the "engagement" is with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,58,60);">Ge 24:58,60</a> seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">Ge 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,25);">1Sa 18:25</a>). It is customary in Syria today, when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all the financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage as contracted for. Then God\'s blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal effected, all danger from any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day. Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on till the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price<63>say a year or two, or, as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was "adultery" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,23);">De 22:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,19);">Mt 1:19</a>).<P>Polygamy is likely to become prevalent only where conditions are abnormal, as where there is a disproportionate number of females, as in tribal life in a state of war. In settled conditions it is possible only to those able to provide "dowry" and support for each and all of the wives.<P>The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,4);">1Ch 7:4</a>); among the middle class (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,19);">Ge 4:19</a>). Kings are warned against it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,17);">De 17:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,31);">Ge 29:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-\');">30</a>). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,\'1-\');">2Ki 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',128,\'1-\');">Ps 128</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,\'1-\');">Pr 31</a>; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1,13). Marriage is applied figuratively, too, to the union between God and Israel, implying monogamy as the ideal state. Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society. Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant, XVII, i, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial.,134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having "four or even five wives," and for "marrying as many as they wish" (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. Side by side with this practice all along has been the ideal principle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,18);">Ge 2:18</a>) rebuking and modifying it. The legal theory that made the man "lord" of the wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>; Tenth Commandment) was likewise modified in practice by the affection of the husband and the personality of the wife.<P>The difference between a concubine and a wife was largely due to the wife\'s birth and higher position and the fact that she was usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. A slave could not be made a concubine without the wife\'s consent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,2);">Ge 16:2</a>).<P>3. Wedding Ceremonies:<P>There is a disappointing uncertainty as to the exact ceremonies or proceedings connected with marriage in Bible times. We have to paint our picture from passing allusions or descriptions, and from what we know of Jewish and Arabic customs. In cases it would seem that there was nothing beyond betrothal, or the festivities following it (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,3);">Ge 24:3</a>ff). Later, in the case of a virgin, an interval of not exceeding a year came to be observed.<P>The first ceremony, the wedding procession, apparently a relic of marriage by capture (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,30);">Jud 5:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,15);">Ps 45:15</a>), was the first part of the proceedings. The bridegroom\'s "friends" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,29);">Joh 3:29</a>) went, usually by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants to the home of the groom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,15);">Mt 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,29);">Joh 3:29</a>). The joyousness of it all is witnessed by the proverbial "voice of the bridegroom" and the cry, "Behold the bridegroom cometh!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,34);">Jer 7:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,23);">Re 18:23</a>). The procession was preferably by night, chiefly, we may infer, that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.<P>The marriage supper then followed, generally in the home of the groom. Today in Syria, as Dr. Mackie, of Beirut, says, when both parties live in the same town, the reception may take place in either home; but the older tradition points to the house of the groom\'s parents as the proper place. It is the bringing home of an already accredited bride to her covenanted husband. She is escorted by a company of attendants of her own sex and by male relatives and friends conveying on mules or by porters articles of furniture and decoration for the new home. As the marriage usually takes place in the evening, the house is given up for the day to the women who are busy robing the bride and making ready for the coming hospitality. The bridegroom is absent at the house of a relative or friend, where men congregate in the evening for the purpose of escorting him home. When he indicates that it is time to go, all rise up, and candles and torches are supplied to those who are to form the procession, and they move off. It is a very picturesque sight to see such a procession moving along the unlighted way in the stillness of the starry night, while, if it be in town or city, on each side of the narrow street, from the flat housetop or balcony, crowds look down, and the women take up the peculiar cry of wedding joy that tells those farther along that the pageant has started. This cry is taken up all along the route, and gives warning to those who are waiting with the bride that it is time to arise and light up the approach, and welcome the bridegroom with honor. As at the house where the bridegroom receives his friends before starting some come late, and speeches of congratulation have to be made, and poems have to be recited or sung in praise of the groom, and to the honor of his family, it is often near midnight when the procession begins. Meanwhile, as the night wears on, and the duties of robing the bride and adorning the house are all done, a period of relaxing and drowsy waiting sets in, as when, in the New Testament parable, both the wise and the foolish virgins were overcome with sleep. In their case the distant cry on the street brought the warning to prepare for the reception, and then came the discovery of the exhausted oil.<P>Of the bridegroom\'s retinue only a limited number would enter, their chief duty being that of escort. They might call next day to offer congratulations. An Arabic wedding rhyme says:<P class="in15">"To the bridegroom\'s door went the torch-lit array,<br>And then like goats they scattered away."<P>With their dispersion, according to custom, the doors would be closed, leaving within the relatives and invited guests; and so, when the belated virgins of the parable hastened back, they too found themselves inexorably shut out by the etiquette of the occasion. The opportunity of service was past, and they were no longer needed.<P>At the home all things would be "made ready," if possible on a liberal scale. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'1-\');">Joh 2</a> gives a picture of a wedding feast where the resources were strained to the breaking point. Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it:<P class="in15">"He who does not invite me to his marriage<br>Will not have me to his funeral."<P>To decline the invitation to a marriage was a gross insult (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'1-\');">Mt 22</a>).<P>It was unusual in Galilee to have a "ruler of the feast" as in Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'1-\');">Joh 2</a>). There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us<75>there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible. The marriage was consummated by entrance into the "chamber," i.e. the nuptial chamber (Hebrew chedher), in which stood the bridal bed with a canopy (chuppah), being originally the wife\'s tent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,67);">Ge 24:67</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,17);">Jud 4:17</a>). In all lands of the dispersion the name is still applied to the embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand or sit during the festivities. In Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew the bridegroom is said to "go in" to the bride.<P>A general survey of ancient marriage laws and customs shows that those of the Hebrews are not a peculiar creation apart from those of other peoples. A remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic races especially, may be noted, and striking parallels are found in the Code of Hammurabi, with regard, e.g., to betrothal, dowry, adultery and divorce. But modern researches have emphasized the relative purity of Old Testament sexual morality. In this, as in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world. Yet we should not expect to find among them the Christian standard. Under the new dispensation the keynote is struck by our Lord\'s action. The significance of His attending the marriage feast at Cana and performing His first miracle there can hardly be exaggerated. The act corresponds, too, with His teaching on the subject. He, no less than Paul, emphasizes both the honorableness of the estate and the heinousness of all sins against it.<P>4. Jesus\' Sanction of the Institution:<P>The most characteristic use of marriage and the family by our Lord is that in which He describes the kingdom of God as a social order in which the relationship of men to God is like that of sons to a father, and their relation to each other like that between brothers. This social ideal, which presents itself vividly and continuously to His mind, is summed up in this phrase, "Kingdom of God," which occurs more than a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. The passages in which it occurs form the interior climax of His message to men. It is no new and noble Judaism, taking the form of a political restoration, that He proclaims, and no "far-off Divine event" to be realized only in some glorious apocalyptic consummation; but a kingdom of God "within you," the chief element of it communion with God, the loving relation of "children" to a "Father," a present possession. Future in a sense it may be, as a result to be fully realized, and yet present; invisible, and yet becoming more and more visible as a new social order, a conscious brotherhood with one common, heavenly Father, proclaimed in every stage of His teaching in spite of opposition and varying fortunes with unwavering certainty of its completion<6F>this is the "kingdom" that Jesus has made the inalienable possession of the Christian consciousness. His entire theology may be described as a transfiguration of the family (see Peabody, Jesus Christ, and the Social Question, 149ff; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 200; Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 62; B. Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, I,72,English translation, 1882).<P>Beyond this Jesus frequently used figures drawn from marriage to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the kingdom, as Paul did concerning Christ and the church. There is no suggestion of reflection upon the Old Testament teaching about marriage in His teaching except at one point, the modification of it so as to allow polygamy and divorce. Everywhere He accepts and deals with it as sacred and of Divine origin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,9);">Mt 19:9</a>, etc.), but He treats it as transient, that is of the "flesh" and for this life only.<P>5. His Teaching concerning Divorce:<P>A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? Upon the answer to that question in every age depend momentous issues, social and civic, as well as religious. The facts bearing on the question are confessedly enshrined in the New Testament, and so the inquiry may be limited to its records. Accepting with the best scholarship the documents of the New Testament as emanating from the disciples of Jesus in the second half of the 1st century AD, the question is, what did these writers understand Jesus to teach on this subject? If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistles of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,2);">Mr 10:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,18);">Lu 16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,12);">Ga 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,10);">1Co 7:10</a>). The Old Testament permission was a concession, He teaches, to a low moral state and standard, and opposed to the ideal of marriage given in Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,23);">2:23</a>).<P>"The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them" (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181f).<P>Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,9);">19:9</a>) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mark and Luke. Here he seems to allow divorce for "fornication" (ei me epi porneia, save for fornication"), an exception which finds no place in the parallels (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,15);">1Co 7:15</a>, which allows remarriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen). The sense here demands that "fornication" be taken in its wider sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,5);">Ho 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,17);">Am 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1);">1Co 5:1</a>). Divorce to a Jew carried with it the right of remarriage, and the words \'causeth her to commit adultery\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>) show that Jesus assumed that the divorced woman would marry again. Hence, if He allowed divorce, He also allowed remarriage. A critical examination of the whole passage in Matthew has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of having been rewritten from Mark or from a source common to both Matthew and Mark, and combined with a semi-Jewish tradition, in short, that it is due to literary revision and compilation. The writer or compiler attempted to combine the original sayings of Jesus and His own interpretation. Believing that our Lord had not come to set aside the authority of Moses, but only certain Pharisaic exegesis, and supported, as doubtless he was, by a Jewish-Christian tradition of Palestine, he simply interpreted Mark\'s narrative by inserting what he regarded as the integral part of an eternal enactment of Yahweh. In doing this he was unconsciously inconsistent, not only with Mark and Luke, but also with the context of the First Gospel itself, owing to his sincere but mistaken belief that the Law of Moses must not be broken. The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible (compare Hosea; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,\'1-\');">Jer 3</a>; Hermas, Mand iv.1). Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), extra vol, 27b, and The Teaching of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A. Oxon., University of the South, 1912).<P>The general principle expanded in the New Testament and the ideal held up before the Christians is high and clear. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole all are agreed must depend upon social conditions and the general moral development and environment.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Material from Mishna in Selden, Uxor Heb, London, 1546; Hamberger, Real. Encyclopedia f. Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie; McLennan, Primitive Marriage; Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895; Tristram, Eastern Customs, London, 1894; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, III, concerning the family.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVORCE">DIVORCE</a>`47';
isbe[5822]='Marrow`mar\'-o (moach, chelebh, shiqquy, machah, "to make fat," "to grease"; muelos): Marrow is the nourisher and strengthener of the bones; it is said to moisten the bones: "The marrow (moach) of his bones is moistened" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',21,24);">Job 21:24</a>). The fear of Yahweh "will be health to thy navel, and marrow (shiqquy, margin "refreshing, Hebrew moistening") to thy bones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,8);">Pr 3:8</a>). Thus, the expression is used figuratively of the things which alone can satisfy the soul: "My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow (chelebh, "fat") and fatness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,5);">Ps 63:5</a>); "In this mountain will Yahweh of hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow (memuchayim, particle, plural, Pual of machah), of wines on the lees well refined" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,6);">Isa 25:6</a>). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the writer speaks of the word of God, which is "living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,12);">Heb 4:12</a>).``106';
isbe[5823]='Mars\' Hill`marz hil.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AREOPAGUS">AREOPAGUS</a>`1';
isbe[5824]='Marsena`mar-se\'-na, mar\'-se-na (marcena\'; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,14);">Es 1:14</a>)): One of "the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king\'s face, and sat first in the kingdom."``1';
isbe[5825]='Marsh`marsh<p>(1) gebhe\', the American Standard Revised Version "marsh," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "marish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,11);">Eze 47:11</a>); the King James Version "pit," the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,14);">Isa 30:14</a>); compare Arabic jaba\', "reservoir," "watering-through";<p>(2) bots, "mire"; bitstsah, "mire," "fen"; compare Arabic badda, to "trickle," badad, "a little water"; <p>(3) tit, "mire" "clay";<p>(4) chomer, "mire," "clay," "mortar";<p>(5) ma\'abheh ha-\'adhamah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,46);">1Ki 7:46</a>), and \'abhi ha-\'adhamah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,17);">2Ch 4:17</a>), "clay ground"):<p>In the vision of Ezekiel the saltness of the Dead Sea is "healed" by the stream issuing from under the threshold of the temple, "But the miry places (bitstsah) thereof, and the marshes (gebhe\') thereof, shall not be healed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,11);">Eze 47:11</a>). Gebhe\' occurs elsewhere only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,14);">Isa 30:14</a>, where the King James Version has "pit" and the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern." Bots, "mire," is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,22);">Jer 38:22</a>. Bitstsah is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,11);">Job 8:11</a>,<P class="in15">"Can the rush grow up without mire (bitstsah)?<br>Can the flag grow without water?"<P>and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,21);">Job 40:21</a> (of the behemoth),<P class="in15">"He lieth under the lotus-trees,<br>In the covert of the reed, and the fen (bitstsah)."<P>In 1Macc 9:42,45 helos, but in 9:42 Codex Vaticanus reads oros, "mount." Marshes are found near the mouths of some of the rivers, as the Kishon, about the Chuleh (? waters of Merom), at various places in the course of the Jordan and about the Dead Sea, especially at its south end. For the most part Palestine is rocky and dry.``37';
isbe[5826]='Marshal`mar\'-shal: Not found in the King James Version, but in the Revised Version (British and American) the word represents two Hebrew words:<p class="in15">(1) copher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,14);">Jud 5:14</a>), translated "they that handle the marshal\'s staff." A difficulty arises because the usual meaning of copher is "scribe" or "writer" (so the King James Version). The revisers follow Septuagint and Greek authority which favor "marshal" as against "scribe." The office of marshal was to help the general to maintain discipline (compare 1Macc 5:42).<p class="in15">(2) Tiphcar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,27);">Jer 51:27</a>), a loan-word whose meaning is clear. Lenormant thinks it akin to a Babylonian-Assyrian word meaning "tablet-writer" (compare Delitzsch). Accordingly, the Revised Version margin renders <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,17);">Na 3:17</a> "thy scribes," though the Syriac has "thy warriors," as does the Targum in Jeremiah. We must await further light on both words.``47';
isbe[5827]='Mart`mart.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARKET">MARKET</a>`1';
isbe[5828]='Martha`mar\'-tha (Martha, "mistress," being a transliteration of the feminine form of mar, "Lord"): Martha belonged to Bethany, and was the sister of Lazarus and Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,1);">Joh 11:1</a>f). From the fact that the house into which Jesus was received belonged to Martha, and that she generally took the lead in action, it is inferred that she was the eider sister. Martha was one of those who gave hospitality to Jesus during His public ministry. Thus, in the course of those wanderings which began when "he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,51);">Lu 9:51</a>), he "entered into a certain village"<22>its name is not stated<65>and "a certain woman named Martha received him into her house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,38);">Lu 10:38</a>). Martha, whose sense of responsibility as hostess weighed heavily upon her, was "cumbered about much serving," and her indignation was aroused at the lack of assistance given to her by her sister. Her words, "Lord, dost thou not care?" implied a certain reproach to Jesus also, in that she felt He showed a want of sympathy with her efforts and was the cause of Mary\'s remissness. But Jesus, in tones of gentle reproof, reminded her that for Him not the preparation of an elaborate meal but the hearing of His Word in the spirit of Mary was the "one thing needful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'39-42\');">Lu 10:39-42</a>).<P>Martha is first mentioned by John<68>the only other Gospel writer who refers to Martha<68>in his account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,\'1-44\');">Joh 11:1-44</a>). The narrative indicates, however, that Jesus was already on terms of the closest friendship with her and her household (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3,5);">11:3,5</a>). In the incident which John here records, Martha again displayed her more practical nature by going out to meet Jesus, while Mary sat in the house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,20);">11:20</A>). But she was not behind her sister in her love for her brother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,19);">11:19</A>), in her faith in Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,21);">11:21</A>f) and in her belief in the final resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3,5);">11:24</a>). The power of Him, whom she termed the "Teacher," to restore Lazarus to life even upon earth was beyond her understanding. To the words of Jesus concerning this she gave, however, a verbal assent, and went and informed Mary, "The Teacher is here, and calleth thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,27);">11:27</a>f). Yet she remained inwardly unconvinced, and remonstrated when Jesus ordered the stone before the grave to be removed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,39);">11:39</A>). Jesus then recalled His previous words to her remembrance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,40);">11:40</a>), and vindicated them by restoring her brother to life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,\'41-44\');">11:41-44</a>). After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus then made His departure, but after a short stay in Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,54);">11:54</A>) He returned to Bethany (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,1);">Joh 12:1</a>). While He supped there, Martha once more served, and Lazarus was also present (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,2);">Joh 12:2</a>). It was on this occasion that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'3-8\');">Joh 12:3-8</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'6-13\');">Mt 26:6-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'3-9\');">Mr 14:3-9</a>, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper, and it has hence been concluded by some that Martha was the wife or widow of Simon. The anointing described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'36-50\');">Lu 7:36-50</a> happened in the house of Simon a Pharisee. But in none of the synoptist accounts is Martha mentioned. For the relationship of these anointings with each other, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARY">MARY, IV</a>. As, according to John, the abode of the sisters was in Bethany, a further difficulty of a topographical nature is raised by those who hold that Luke implies, from the Galilean setting of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'38-41\');">Lu 10:38-41</a>, that the sisters lived in Galilee. But the information supplied by Luke, upon which this inference is based, is of the vaguest (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,38);">Lu 10:38</a>), and the great division of Luke\'s Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">Lu 9:51-18:31</a>) has within it no organic cohesion of parts. In it is mentioned that on two separate occasions Jesus passed through Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,52);">Lu 9:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,11);">17:11</a>). It is therefore more logical to suppose that the events described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'38-41\');">Lu 10:38-41</a>, falling within the intervening period, took place in Bethany during an excursion of Jesus to Judea, and formed one of the several visits upon which the friendship recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3,5);">Joh 11:3,5</a> was built. According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the 2nd century (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 38, 39), Martha was present with the other two Marys at the empty grave of Jesus (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,1,11);">Mt 28:1,11</a>), and went and informed the disciples.``88';
isbe[5829]='Martyr`mar\'-ter (martus, Aeolic martur): One who gives heed, and so, a "witness," so translated in numerous passages, both as of one bearing testimony, and also as of one who is a spectator of anything (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WITNESS">WITNESS</a>). In the King James Version rendered "martyr" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,20);">Ac 22:20</a>, "thy martyr Stephen"; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,13);">Re 2:13</a>, "Antipas my faithful martyr"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,6);">17:6</A>, "the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," where alone the American Standard Revised Version retains "martyrs." These 3 passages are the beginning of the use of the word "martyr" for such witnesses as were faithful even unto death, its uniform modern use.``1';
isbe[5830]='Marvel; Marvelous`mar\'-vel, mar\'-vel-us (tamah, pala\'; thaumazo, thaumastos): "To marvel" is the translation of tamah, "to wonder" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,33);">Ge 43:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,5);">Ps 48:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "were amazed"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,8);">Ec 5:8</a>); of thaumazo, "to admire," "wonder" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,10,27);">Mt 8:10,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,20);">Mr 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,7);">Joh 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,7);">Ac 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,7);">Re 17:7</a> the King James Version, etc.); "marvel" (substantive) occurs in the plural as translation of pala\', "to distinguish," figuratively, "to make wonderful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,10);">Ex 34:10</a>, "I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought" (the Revised Version margin "created")); and of thaumastos (thauma) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,14);">2Co 11:14</a>).<P>"Marvelous" is the translation of pala\', "marvelous works" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,12,24);">1Ch 16:12,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,1);">Ps 9:1</a>); "marvelous things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,9);">Job 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,16);">10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,21);">Ps 31:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,23);">118:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,14);">Isa 29:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,36);">Da 11:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,6);">Zec 8:6</a>, bis); "marvellously," pala\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,5);">Job 37:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,5);">Hab 1:5</a> twice (tamah), "regard and wonder marvelously," literally, "marvel marvelously"); thaumastos, "admirable," "wonderful," is translated "marvelous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,42);">Mt 21:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,1,3);">Re 15:1,3</a>, etc.).<P>In Apocrypha we have "marvel" (Ecclesiasticus 11:13; 47:17; 2Macc 1:22; 7:12); "marvelleth" (Ecclesiasticus 40:7; 43:18); "marvellous" (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 10:17; 19:8</span>, etc., mostly thaumazo and compounds).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "wonder" for "marvel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,7);">Re 17:7</a>)\' "the marvel" for a "marvellous thing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,30);">Joh 9:30</a>); "marvelled" for "wondered" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,25);">Lu 8:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,14);">11:14</a>); "marvelled at" for "admired" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,10);">2Th 1:10</a>); "marveling" for "wondered" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,43);">Lu 9:43</a>); "marvellous" for "wondrous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,9);">1Ch 16:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,2);">Ps 105:2</a>); "marvellous things" for "and wonders" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,10);">Job 9:10</a>); "wonderful" for "marvellous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,14);">Ps 139:14</a>); for "marvelled" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,8);">Mt 9:8</a>), "were afraid," and (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,17);">Mr 12:17</a>) "marvelled greatly" (different texts).``185';
isbe[5831]='Mary`ma\'-ri, mar\'-i (Maria, Mariam, Greek form of Hebrew miryam):<P><b>I. DEFINITION AND QUESTIONS OF IDENTIFICATION</b><P class="in15">The Name Mary in the New Testament<P><b>II. MARY, THE VIRGIN</b><P class="in15">1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives<P class="in15">2. Mary at Cana<P class="in15">3. Mary and the Career of Jesus<P class="in15">4. Mary at the Cross<P class="in15">5. Mary in the Christian Community<P class="in15">6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition<P class="in30">(1) Legend<P class="in30">(2) Dogma<P class="in45">(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness<P class="in45">(b) Dogma of Mary\'s Perpetual Virginity<P class="in45">(c) Doctrine of Mary\'s Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor<P class="in30">(3) Conclusion<P><b>III. MARY MAGDALENE</b><P class="in15">1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Luke 7</a><P class="in15">2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck<P><b>IV. MARY OF BETHANY</b><P class="in15">1. Attack upon Luke\'s Narrative<P class="in15">2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone<P class="in15">3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison<P class="in15">4. Character of Mary<P><b>V. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES</b><P><b>VI. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JOHN MARK</b><hr /><P>I. Definition and Questions of Identification.<P>A Hebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,20);">Ex 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,1);">Nu 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,4);">Mic 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I.<P>The Name Mary in the New Testament:<P>(1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIRIAM">MIRIAM</a>). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification:<P class="in15">(a) Mary, the mother of Jesus;<P class="in15">(b) Mary Magdalene;<P class="in15">(c) Mary, the mother of James;<P class="in15">(d) Mary, the mother of Joses;<P class="in15">(e) Mary, the wife of Clopas;<P class="in15">(f) Mary of Bethany;<P class="in15">(g) Mary, the mother of Mark;<P class="in15">(h) Mary of Rome;<P class="in15">(i) the "other" Mary.<P>(2) A comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,56);">Mt 27:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,1);">28:1</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,47);">Mr 15:47</a> seems clearly to identify the "other" Mary with Mary the mother of Joses.<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a> identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,47);">Mr 15:47</a>) (see Allen\'s note on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,56);">Mt 27:56</a>).<P>(4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latter\'s sister and Mary of Magdala (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,25);">Joh 19:25</a>). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,56);">Mt 27:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,18);">Mr 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,15);">Lu 6:15</a>). Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus. Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus (Alphaios) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic chalpay, together with the unlikelihood that anyone important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHAEUS">ALPHAEUS</a>). Along with this reasonable conclusion has grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the "Lord\'s brother." The available evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,19);">Ga 1:19</a>).<P>(5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note (New Testament, II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,6);">Ro 16:6</a>) with the "other" Mary of Matthew. We need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have no details given is of little more than academic interest.<P>We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany; Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.<P>II. Mary, the Virgin.<P>The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her leading characteristics in clear light. Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has well-nigh removed Mary from history (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMACULATE+CONCEPTION">IMMACULATE CONCEPTION</a>). On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims, which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.<P>Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-\');">Mt 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">Lu 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'1-11\');">Joh 2:1-11</a>; the episode of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,46);">Mt 12:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,21,31);">Mr 3:21,31</a>ff; the incident at the cross, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,25);">Joh 19:25</a>ff; the scene in the upper chamber, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,14);">Ac 1:14</a>.<P>1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives:<P>(1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both Infancy documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of special interest to Luke (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 76f), and there are not wanting indications that Luke\'s story came from Mary herself. But, while Matthew\'s account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the pathetic story of the Lord\'s mother is evident.<P>Luke tells the story of Mary\'s inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,26);">1:26f</a>), her maidenly fears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,29,35);">1:29,35</A>), her loyal submission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,38);">1:38</A>), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'39-55\');">1:39-55</A>). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.<P>Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,18);">1:18</a>); her bitter humiliation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,19);">1:19</a>), her ultimate vindication (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,20);">1:20</A>f). Here the two narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the central fact<63>the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other<65>which is evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble, natural qualities of the subject of them.<P>(2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Mary\'s character with her quietness of spirit; her meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred silence. The canticle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'46-55\');">Lu 1:46-55</a>), which at least expresses Luke\'s conception of her nature, indicates that she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels.<P>2. Mary at Cana:<P>The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'1-11\');">Joh 2:1-11</a>). The relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items:<P class="in15">(1) in a crisis of need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected;<P class="in15">(2) she is entirely undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be;<P class="in15">(3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her authoritative directions to the servants;<P class="in15">(4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power.<P>Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine. It is enough that her spontaneous appeal to her Son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He "manifested his glory." The incident confirms the Infancy narrative in which Mary\'s quiet and forceful personality is exhibited.<P>3. Mary and the Career of Jesus:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,46);">Mt 12:46</a> (parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,\'31-35\');">Mr 3:31-35</a>), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Mark\'s account. He interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,21);">Mr 3:21</a>) by the account of the accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub. This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned enthusiasm of the multitude. which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time, was not due to captious and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life<66>but it is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the incident is very different from this.<P>4. Mary at the Cross:<P>To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene at the cross recorded by John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,25);">19:25</a>ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals the true spirit of the Master\'s home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself.<P>5. Mary in the Christian Community:<P>The final passage which we need to consider (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,14);">Ac 1:14</a>) is especially important because in it we discover Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of the whole body of disciples on the way to faith. The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.<P>The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was a deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled.<P>6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition:<P>(1) Legend.<P>The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account.<P>(2) Dogma.<P>There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Mary\'s later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, II, 220, quoted by Mayor, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 288, note): "Mary\'s corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. Aside from the quasi-historical dogma of Mary\'s bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts.<P>(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness:<P>This is discussed under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMACULATE+CONCEPTION">IMMACULATE CONCEPTION</a> (which see) and need not detain us here.<P>(b) Dogma of Mary\'s Perpetual Virginity:<P>It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion.<P>Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, "brethren of the Lord" is explained as "foster-brethren," "cousins" or what-not; if Jesus is shown to be not only "first-born" but "only-born" Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,7);">Lu 2:7</a>); if the expression of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,25);">Mt 1:25</a> is interpreted as meaning "up to and beyond" (Pusey, et al.; compare Roman Catholic Dict., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity<74>perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the "brethren-of-the-Lord" question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Joseph\'s. No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such.<P>It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.<P>(c) Doctrine of Mary\'s Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor: With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines.<P>(i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1-6\');">Re 12:1-6</a> with Mary. Careful exegesis of the passage (especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,6);">12:6</a>), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Mary\'s status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Mary\'s motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, Expositors\' Bible, "Revelation," 196f).<P>Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy.<P>(ii) Christ\'s perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,51);">Lu 2:51</a>) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above, II,2,3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Mary\'s position is one of dependence, not of authority.<P>(iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him.<P>(iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,14);">Ac 1:14</a>). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers.<P>To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined, 22f).<P>(3) Conclusion.<P>Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.<P>III. Mary Magdalene<P>(Maria Magdalene = of "Magdala").<2E>A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun "Magdala," from which the adjective "Magdalene" is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,39);">Mt 15:39</a>, is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 215): "\'Magdala is only the Greek form of mighdol or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine\' (Tristram, Bible Places, 260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near the center of the western shore of the lake."<P>1. Mary not the Sinful Woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Luke 7</a>:<P>As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street, undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEMON,+DEMONOLOGY">DEMON, DEMONOLOGY</a>), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposition popularly associated with "having a devil." The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.<P>According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,37);">Lu 7:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,3);">Joh 8:3</a>). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,26);">Lu 11:26</a>), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,9);">Mr 5:9</a>) suggested the use of the <span class="noTag">number</span> 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.<P>The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Luke 7</a> is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,50);">7:50</A>.<P>The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummer\'s analysis, op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary\'s introduction into the circle of Christ\'s followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Luke 7</a>, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord\'s feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.<P>2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck:<P>Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of "seeing things." Renan is the chief offender in this particular, but others have followed his example.<P>(1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that, henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical tremors and involuntary hallucinations.<P>(2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,1);">Mt 28:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,1);">Mr 16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,10);">Lu 24:10</a>). But she was also the last at the cross<73>she and her companions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,61);">Mt 27:61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean ministry as one of a group consisting of "many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,3);">Lu 8:3</a>), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herod\'s steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Mary\'s character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers, marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lord\'s healing power. Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord. It is impossible that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Master\'s need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.<P>IV. Mary of Bethany.<P>Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany (Bethania), and a member of the family consisting of a much-beloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.<P>The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,2);">11:2</a>) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,1,8);">Joh 12:1,8</a>, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'36-50\');">7:36-50</a>) records an anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Lu 7</a> is described as a sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hypothesis.<P>On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280a): "Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered such a high encomium upon Mary\'s act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?" We shall be compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than one.<P>1. Attack upon Luke\'s Narrative:<P>In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence. Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the narrative shows no signs of confusion. "The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection" (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 209).<P>2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone:<P>The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Luke\'s narrative taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'38-42\');">Lu 10:38-42</a> in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a "certain tis woman named Martha," and "she had a sister called Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,1);">Joh 11:1</a>). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Luke 7</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'6-13\');">Mt 26:6-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'3-9\');">Mr 14:3-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'36-50\');">Lu 7:36-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'1-8\');">Joh 12:1-8</a>).<P>3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison:<P>Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads:<P class="in15">(1) notes of time and place;<P class="in15">(2) circumstances and scenery of the incident;<P class="in15">(3) description of the person who did the anointing;<P class="in15">(4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what;<P class="in15">(5) the lesson drawn from the woman\'s action which constitutes our Lord\'s defense of it;<P class="in15">(6) incidental features of the narrative.<P>Under<P>(1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany. Under<P>(2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon "the leper," while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served. Under<P>(3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say "a woman," while John designates Mary.<P>(4) According to Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged wastefulness of the action.<P>(5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. John\'s expression in particular is most interesting and peculiar (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,7);">Joh 12:7</a>).<P>(6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place is by Matthew and Mark designated "the leper." This must mean either that he had previously been cured or that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, "Mark," 257). The presence of a healed leper on this occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing power.<P>It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Lu 7</a>.<P>An analysis of the incident of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Lu 7</a> with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists.<P>(1) The time and place indications, such as they are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of any such identification.<P>(2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon "the leper" and Simon "the Pharisee" can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simon\'s temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been proscribed by the authorities. Simon\'s attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christ\'s ministry, but the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood.<P>(3) The description of the same woman as sinner in the sense of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">Lu 7</a> in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in Luke\'s description is seriously at variance with the other narratives.<P>(4) Luke is again at variance with the others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Luke\'s account there is no complaint of the woman\'s action suggested. There is no hint that anybody thought or pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simon\'s, and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of our Lord\'s Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it apart from all other similar episodes.<P>(5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental relationship to the Lord\'s death, near at hand.<P>This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven penitent. In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the grave, and, may we not say (in view of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,7);">Joh 12:7</a>), grief and foreboding? That Mary\'s feeling was expressed in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Mary\'s act, though later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her quite as natural and deserved.<P>4. Character of Mary:<P>With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the career and estimate the character of Mary.<P>(1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'38-42\');">Lu 10:38-42</a> we are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening. This, of course, might mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is not difficult to identify. She was just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. Mary\'s quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against the foil of Martha\'s excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it, Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct.<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,20);">Joh 11:20</a>, we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters; especially, as when Mary does come at Martha\'s call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,21,32);">11:21,32</a>), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lord\'s composure that He is unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,340);">11:34</a>).<P>(3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she serves. She always serves when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'38-42\');">Lu 10:38-42</a> is sketched again in lifelikeness. It is the same Martha engaged in the same task. But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an unprecedented role, strange to an oriental woman and especially to one so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to expect from these deep, intense, silent natures. The Mary who sat at Jesus\' feet in listening silence while Martha bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a self-forgetful public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.<P>Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,5);">Joh 11:5</a>). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, with a latent capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord.<P>V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses.<P>Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,55,56,61);">Mt 27:55,56,61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,1);">16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,10);">Lu 24:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,\'49-56\');">Lu 23:49-56</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,55,56);">Mt 27:55,56</a> (parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III, above); Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedee\'s children. By reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,2,3);">Lu 8:2,3</a>, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Mary\'s sons accompanied their mother on this ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle. It is interesting to note that two mothers with their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas\' wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,3);">Lu 8:3</a>) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women.<P>The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>); a spectator at the burial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,47);">Mr 15:47</a>); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this woman\'s biography extant, but perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore. A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.<P>VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark.<P>This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,12);">Ac 12:12</a>), but in a connection to arouse intense interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see Paul the Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house. This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly upon his escape from prison argues that Mary\'s house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship. The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers assembled points in the same direction. That "many" were gathered in the house at the same time indicates that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a household of more than ordinary size. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Mary\'s house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled devotion to Christian service, making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became.``169';
isbe[5832]='Mary, the Passing of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[5833]='Masaloth`mas\'-a-loth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESALOTH">MESALOTH</a>`1';
isbe[5834]='Maschil`mas\'-kil.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>`1';
isbe[5835]='Mash`(mash): Named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,23);">Ge 10:23</a> as one of the sons of Aramaic In the parallel passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,17);">1Ch 1:17</a> the name is given as "Meshech" (meshekh), and the Septuagint (Mosoch) supports this form in both passages. "Meshech," however, is a Japhetic name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>), and "Mash" would seem to be the original reading. It is probably to be identified with the Mons Masius of classical writers (Strabo, etc.), on the northern boundary of Mesopotamia.``1';
isbe[5836]='Mashal`ma\'-shal (mashal, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,74);">1Ch 6:74</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MISHAL">MISHAL</a>`1';
isbe[5837]='Masias`ma-si\'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Masias; Codex Vaticanus, Meisaias): The head of one of the families of Solomon\'s servants (1Esdras 5:34); it has no equivalent in the parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,55);">Ezr 2:55</a>ff; the Revised Version margin "Missaias."``1';
isbe[5838]='Masman`mas\'-man.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAASMAS">MAASMAS</a>`1';
isbe[5839]='Mason`ma\'-s\'n: The translation of 4 Hebrew words:<P>(1) charash \'ebhen, "graver of stone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,11);">2Sa 5:11</a>);<P>(2) (3) gadhar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,12);">2Ki 12:12</a>), charash qur (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,1);">1Ch 14:1</a>), "maker of a wall (or hedge)";<P>(4) chatsabh, "a hewer or digger (of stones)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,2);">1Ch 22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,7);">Ezr 3:7</a>).<P>Lebanon still supplies the greater number of skilled masons to Palestine and Syria (see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,11);">2Sa 5:11</a>), those of Shweir being in special repute.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARCHITECTURE">ARCHITECTURE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BUILDING">BUILDING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GEBAL">GEBAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[5840]='Maspha`mas\'-fa (1Macc 3:46, the Revised Version (British and American) "Mizpeh").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIZPEH">MIZPEH</a>`1';
isbe[5841]='Masrekah`mas\'-re-ka, mas-re\'-ka (masreqah; Masekka): A place mentioned in the list of ancient rulers of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">Ge 36:31</a>), "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Masrekah was the royal city of Samlah, son of Hadad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,36);">Ge 36:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,47);">1Ch 1:47</a>). The name may mean "place of choice vines," but there is nothing to show in what locality it must be sought.``1';
isbe[5842]='Massa`mas\'-a (massa\', "burden"): Descendant of Abraham through Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,14);">Ge 25:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,30);">1Ch 1:30</a>). His people may be the Masani of Ptolemy, having Eastern Arabia near Babylon as their habitat. The marginal reading of the heading to <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,\'1-\');">Pr 31</a> mentions Lemuel as king of Massa. If that reading is accepted, it would seem that a tribe and probably a place were named from Ishmael\'s descendant. The reading is doubtful, however, for where the phrase recurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,\'1-\');">Pr 30</a> (Revised Version (British and American)) it appears to be a gloss.``1';
isbe[5843]='Massacre of the Innocents`mas\'-a-ker.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INNOCENTS,+MASSACRE+OF+THE">INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF THE</a>`1';
isbe[5844]='Massah And Meribah`mas\'-a, mer\'-i-ba (maccah umeribhah, "proving and strife"; peirasmos kai loidoresis): These names occur together as applied to one place only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,7);">Ex 17:7</a>; they stand, however, in parallelism in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">De 33:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',95,8);">Ps 95:8</a>. In all other cases they are kept distinct, as belonging to two separate narratives. The conjunction here may be due to conflation of the sources. Of course, it is not impossible that, for the reason stated, the double name was given, although elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,16);">De 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,22);">9:22</a>) the place is referred to as Massah.<P>1. First Instance:<P>This scene is laid in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">Ex 17:1</a> at <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REPHIDIM">REPHIDIM</a> (which see) and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">17:6</a> at <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOREB">HOREB</a> (which see). It is near the beginning of the desert wanderings. In dearth of water the people murmur and complain. Moses, appealing to God, is told what to do. He takes with him the elders of Israel, and smites with his rod the rock on which the Lord stands in Horeb, whereupon water gushes forth, and the people drink. Here Moses alone is God\'s agent. There is no hint of blame attaching to him. He called the place Massah and Meribah, because of the of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,7);">17:7</A>). In some way not indicated, here and at Meribah, God put the Levites to proof (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">De 33:8</a>).<P>2. Second Instance:<P>The second narrative describes what took place at Kadesh (i.e. "Kadesh-barnea") when the desert wanderings were nearly over (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'1-13\');">Nu 20:1-13</a>). The flow of water from the famous spring for some reason had ceased. In their distress the people became impatient and petulant. At the door of the tent of meeting Moses and Aaron received the Lord\'s instructions. In his speech of remonstrance to the people Moses seemed to glorify himself and his brother; and instead of speaking to the rock as God had commanded, he struck it twice with his rod. The flow of water was at once restored; but Moses and Aaron were heavily punished because they did not sanctify God in the eyes of the children of Israel. The "Waters of Meribah" was the name given to this scene of strife. The incident is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,24);">Nu 20:24</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,51);">De 32:51</a> (merobhath qadhesh, the King James Version "Meribah-Kadesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "Meribah of Kadesh"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,7);">Ps 81:7</a> God appears as having tested Israel here. The sin of Israel and the ensuing calamity to Moses are alluded to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,32);">Ps 106:32</a>.<P>The place appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>, as on the southern border of the land of Israel, in the former as "Meriboth-kadesh," in the latter as "Meribath-kadesh" (Meriboth = plural Meribath = "construct singular") where the position indicated is that of \'Ain Qadis, "Kadesh-barnea."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a>, by a slight emendation of the text we might read meribhoth qadhesh for meribhebhoth qodhesh. This gives a preferable sense.``54';
isbe[5845]='Massias`ma-si\'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Massias; Codex Vaticanus, Asseias): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:22) = "Maaseiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,22);">Ezr 10:22</a>.``1';
isbe[5846]='Mast``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`1';
isbe[5847]='Master`mas\'-ter (\'adhon, ba\'al, rabbi; despotes, didaskalos, kurios, rhabbi): "Master," when the translation of \'adhon, "ruler," "lord" (Sir), often translated "lord," denotes generally the owner or master of a servant or slave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,9);">Ge 24:9</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,2);">39:2</A>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,4);">Ex 21:4</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,15);">De 23:15</a> bis; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,9,10);">2Sa 9:9,10</a> twice; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,10);">Pr 30:10</a>); elsewhere it is rather "lord" or "ruler" (often king, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,6,8);">1Sa 24:6,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,16);">26:16</a>); in the plural \'adhonim, it is, as the rule, used only of God (but see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,2,18);">Ge 19:2,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,17);">De 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,3);">Ps 136:3</a>, "Lord of lords"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,13);">Isa 26:13</a>, "other lords"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,4);">19:4</A> (Hebrew "lords"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,2);">24:2</A>). Ba\'al, "lord," "owner," is translated "master": "the master of the house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,8);">Ex 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,22,23);">Jud 19:22,23</a>); "the ass his master\'s crib" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,3);">Isa 1:3</a>). We have it also translated "masters of assemblies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,11);">Ec 12:11</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASSEMBLIES,+MASTERS+OF">ASSEMBLIES, MASTERS OF</a>. Compare Ecclesiasticus 32:1, "master (of a feast)," the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,9);">Joh 2:9</a>, "ruler of the feast"; [rabh] (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,3);">Da 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,6);">Jon 1:6</a>, "shipmaster"); rabh, Aramaic, "great," "mighty," "elder" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,9);">Da 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,11);">5:11</a>," master of the magicians"); also [sar], "head" or "chief" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>, "taskmasters"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,27);">1Ch 15:27</a>, "master of the song," the Revised Version margin "the carrying of the ark, Hebrew the lifting up"); \'ur, "to call," "to awake," is also rendered "master" in the King James Version, "The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar," margin "him that waketh and him that answereth," the Revised Version (British and American) as the King James Version margin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,12);">Mal 2:12</a>).<P>The verb "to master" does not occur in the Old Testament, but we have in Apocrypha (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 12:18</span>) "mastering thy power" (despozon ischuos), the Revised Version (British and American) "being sovereign over (thy) strengh."<P>In the New Testament despotes answers to \'adhon as "master" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,1,2);">1Ti 6:1,2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,21);">2Ti 2:21</a>), rendered also "Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,29);">Lu 2:29</a>, etc.); kurios, is "Master," "Lord," "Sir," used very frequently of God or of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,20,22,24);">Mt 1:20,22,24</a>), translated "Master" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,24);">Mt 6:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,27);">15:27</a>; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,35);">Mr 13:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,4);">Ro 14:4</a>, etc.); kathegetes, a "leader," is translated "Master" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,8);">Mt 23:8</a> (the King James Version), <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,10);">10</A>); didaskalos, a title very often applied to our Lord in the Gospels, is "Teacher," translated "Master" in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,19);">Mt 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,11);">9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,38);">Mr 4:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,12);">Lu 3:12</a>, etc.; the Revised Version (British and American) "Teacher"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,2,10);">Joh 3:2,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,1);">Jas 3:1</a>, "be not many masters," the Revised Version (British and American) "teachers"; rhabbi, rhabbei ("Rabbi") (a transliterated Hebrew term signifying "my Teacher") is also in several instances applied to Jesus, the King James Version "Master" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,25,49);">Mt 26:25,49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,5);">Mr 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,21);">11:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,2);">Joh 9:2</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) leaves untranslated) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,51);">Mr 10:51</a>, "Rabboni," the King James Version "Lord"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,16);">Joh 20:16</a> ("Rabbouni"), the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RABBONI">Rabboni</a>," which see).<P>For "master" the Revised Version (British and American) has "lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,16);">1Sa 26:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,4,10);">29:4,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,1);">Am 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,35);">Mr 13:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,4);">Ro 14:4</a>); "master" for "lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,16);">Ge 39:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a>); for "good man of the house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,43);">Mt 24:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,39);">Lu 12:39</a>), "master of the house"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,5);">Eph 6:5</a>, the Revised Version margin gives "Gr lords" in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,9);">6:9</a>, "their Master and yours" is also Greek kurios); instead of "the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) reads "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," margin "the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ"; for "overcame them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,16);">Ac 19:16</a>), "mastered both of them."``185';
isbe[5848]='Mastery`mas\'-ter-i, gebhurah, shelet, Aramaic; agonizomai, athleo): "Mastery" occurs twice in the Old Testament and twice in the King James Version of the New Testament: in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,18);">Ex 32:18</a> (gebhurah, "might"), "the voice of them that shout for mastery"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,24);">Da 6:24</a> (shelet, "to have power"), "The lions had the mastery of them"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,25);">1Co 9:25</a>, agonizomai, "to contend for a prize," to be a combatant in the public games, is translated "striveth for the mastery," the Revised Version (British and American) "striventh in the games"; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,5);">2Ti 2:5</a>, athelo, with the same meaning, is translated "strive for masteries," the Revised Version (British and American) "contend in the games." From the Greek we have the words "athlete," etc..``185';
isbe[5849]='Mastic, Mastick`mas\'-tik (schinos): A tree mentioned only in Susanna verse 54 (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">Ge 37:25</a> margin). It is the Pistacia lentiscus (Arabic, Mistaki), a shrub which attains a height of 10 to 12 ft., growing in thickets on the slopes round the Mediterranean. The gum which exudes through incisions made in the bark is greatly prized as a masticatory. The smell and flavor are suggestive of the terebinth. It is chewed in order to preserve the teeth and gums. But often men chew it without any special purpose, just because they like it. The mastick produced in Chios is most highly esteemed. It is employed in making perfumes and sweetmeats; in preparing bread a little is sometimes added to the dough just before it is put into the oven.``54';
isbe[5850]='Mathanias`math-a-ni\'-as: the King James Version in 1Esdras 9:31.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MATTHANIAS">MATTHANIAS</a>`1';
isbe[5851]='Mathelas`ma-the\'-las (Codex Alexandrinus, Mathelas; Codex Vaticanus, Maeelas; the King James Version Matthelas): One of the priests who had married "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:19) = "Maaseiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,18);">Ezr 10:18</a>.``1';
isbe[5852]='Mathusala`ma-thu\'-sa-la (Mathousala): Greek form of "Methuselah," the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,37);">Lu 3:37</a> the King James Version).``1';
isbe[5853]='Matred`ma\'-tred (matredh, "expulsion"): The mother of Mehetabel, wife of Hadar, one of the kings of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,50);">1Ch 1:50</a>, "Hadad"). The Septuagint and Peshitta designate Matred as male, i.e. as son of Mezahab instead of daughter.``1';
isbe[5854]='Matri`ma\'-tri (matri, "rainy"): A family of the tribe of Benjamin to which King Saul belonged (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,21);">1Sa 10:21</a> the King James Version).``1';
isbe[5855]='Matrites`ma\'-trits (ha-matri): The Revised Version (British and American) translation of matri with the definite article, "the Matrites" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,2);">1Sa 10:2</a>)``1';
isbe[5856]='Mattan`mat\'-an (mattan, "a gift"):<P>(1) A priest in the house of Baal, slain by Jehoiada before Baal\'s altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,18);">2Ki 11:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,17);">2Ch 23:17</a>).<P>(2) The father of Shephatiah a contemporary and persecutor of Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,1);">Jer 38:1</a>), one of those who put Jeremiah into Malechiah\'s dungeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,6);">38:6</a>).``1';
isbe[5857]='Mattanah`mat\'-a-na (mattanah; Codex Vaticanus, Manthanaein; Codex Alexandrinus, Manthanein): A station of the Israelites which seems to have lain between Beer and Nahaliel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,18);">Nu 21:18</a>f). The name means "gift," and might not inappropriately be applied to a well in the wilderness (Budde translates "Out of the desert a gift"; see The Expository Times, VI, 482). Some would therefore identify it with Beer. This is improbable. There is now no clue to the place, but it must have lain southwest of the Dead Sea.``1';
isbe[5858]='Mattaniah`mat-a-ni\'-a (mattanyaha, "gift of Yah"):<P>(1) King Zedekiah\'s original name, but changed by Nebuchadnezzar when he made him king over Judah instead of his nephew Jehoiachin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,17);">2Ki 24:17</a>).<P>(2) A descendant of Asaph (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,15);">1Ch 9:15</a>), leader of the temple choir (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,17);">Ne 11:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,8);">12:8</a>). Mentioned among the "porters," keepers of "the storehouses of the gates" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">Ne 12:25</a>), and again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,35);">Ne 12:35</a> as among the "priests\' sons with trumpets."<P>(3) May be the same as (2), though in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,14);">2Ch 20:14</a> he is mentioned as an ancestor of that Jahaziel whose inspired words in the midst of the congregation encouraged Jehoshaphat to withstand the invasion of Moab, Ammon and Seir (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,14);">20:14</A>ff).<P>(4-7) Four others who had foreign wives,<P>(a) the Matthanias of 1Esdras 9:27 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,26);">Ezr 10:26</a>);<P>(b) the Othonias of 1Esdras 9:28 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,27);">Ezr 10:27</a>);<P>(c) the Matthanias of 1Esdras 9:31 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">Ezr 10:30</a>);<P>(d) the fourth of these in 1Esdras 9:34 the King James Version has had his name blended into that of Mattenai, and the two appear as the composite name Mamnitanemus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,37);">Ezr 10:37</a>). He is a son of Bani.<P>(8) A Levite, father of Zaccur, ancestor of Hanan the under-treasurer of the Levitical offerings under Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,13);">Ne 13:13</a>).<P>(9) One of the sons of Heman the singer, whose office it was to blow the horns in the temple-service as David had appointed it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,4,5);">1Ch 25:4,5</a>). He was head of the 9th division of the 12 Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,16);">1Ch 25:16</a>), who were proficient in the Songs of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,7);">1Ch 25:7</a>).<P>(10) One of the sons of Asaph who helped Hezekiah in the fulfilling of his vow to cleanse the house of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,13);">2Ch 29:13</a>).``186';
isbe[5859]='Mattatha`mat\'-a-tha (Mattatha): Son of Nathan the son of David in the genealogy of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,31);">Lu 3:31</a>).``1';
isbe[5860]='Mattathah`mat\'-a-tha: the Revised Version (British and American).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MATTATTAH">MATTATTAH</a>`1';
isbe[5861]='Mattathias`mat-a-thi\'-as (Mattathias). The persons of this name in the Apocrypha are:<P>(1) Mattathias the father of the Maccabees.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES">MACCABEES</a>.<P>(2) One of the 7 who stood on Ezra\'s right hand as he read the law (1Esdras 9:43) = "Mattithiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.<P>(3) The son<6F>probably the youngest (compare 1Macc 16:2)<29>of Simon the Maccabean, treacherously murdered along with his father and his brother Judas by his brother-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus in the stronghold of Dok near Jericho in the 177th Seleucid<69>136-135 BC (1Macc 16:14).<P>(4) Son of Absalom, one of the two "captains of the forces" who in the campaign against Demetrius in the plain of Hazor gallantly supported Judas, enabling the latter to turn an impending defeat into a great victory (1Macc 11:70).<P>(5) One of the three envoys sent by Nicanor to treat with Judas in 161 BC (2Macc 14:19). No names of envoys are given in the account of 1Macc 7:27ff.<P>(6) One of the sons of Asom who put away his "strange wife" (1Esdras 9:33) = the King James Version "Matthias" = "Mattattah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,33);">Ezr 10:33</a>.<P>In addition to these two of this name are mentioned in the New Testament:<P>(7) <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,25);">Lu 3:25</a>, "son of Amos."<P>(8) <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>, "son of Semein."``5';
isbe[5862]='Mattattah`mat\'-a-ta (mattattah): the Revised Version (British and American) for "Mattathah" in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,33);">Ezr 10:33</a>). The same as "Mattathias" of 1Esdras 9:33, the King James Version "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MATTHIAS">Matthias</a>" (which see).``1';
isbe[5863]='Mattenai`mat-e-na\'-i, mat\'-e-ni (mattenay, "liberal"):<P>(1) (2) Two who married foreign wives, one a son of Hashum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,33);">Ezr 10:33</a>; in 1Es 9:33 "Altanneus"); the other a son of Bani (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,37);">Ezr 10:37</a>).<P>(3) A priest in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,19);">Ne 12:19</a>), representing the house of Joiarib.``1';
isbe[5864]='Matter`mat\'-er: This word being a very general term may express various ideas. the Revised Version (British and American) therefore frequently changes the reading of the King James Version in order to state more definitely the meaning of the context (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,14);">Ex 24:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,18);">1Sa 16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,59);">1Ki 8:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,19);">2Sa 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,4);">Es 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,20);">Ps 35:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',64,5);">64:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,20);">Pr 16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,13);">18:13</a>). dabhar, and the Greek logos, both meaning "word," are very frequently translated by "matter." hule, "wood," is rendered "matter" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,5);">Jas 3:5</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "how much wood is kindled"; compare Sirach 28:10). <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,18);">Job 32:18</a> translates literally, "words"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,17);">Da 4:17</a>, "sentence." diaphero, "to carry in different places," "to differ," is rendered "to make matter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,6);">Ga 2:6</a>). The meaning is "it makes a difference," "it matters," "it is of importance."``16';
isbe[5865]='Matthan`mat\'-than (Textus Receptus Matthan, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Maththan): An ancestor of Jesus, grandfather of Joseph the husband of Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,15);">Mt 1:15</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MATTHAT">MATTHAT</a>`1';
isbe[5866]='Matthanias`mat-tha-ni\'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Matthanias, Codex Vaticanus, Matan):<P>(1) One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:27) equals "Mattaniah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,26);">Ezr 10:26</a>.<P>(2) the King James Version "Mathanias" (1Esdras 9:31) equals "Mattaniah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">Ezr 10:30</a>. Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete, reads Beskaspasmus.``1';
isbe[5867]='Matthat`mat\'-that (Matthat, Maththat): The name of two ancestors of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,24,29);">Lu 3:24,29</a>), one being the grandfather of Joseph, the husband of Mary.``1';
isbe[5868]='Matthew`math\'-u: Matthew the apostle and evangelist is mentioned in the 4 catalogues of the apostles in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,18);">Mr 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,15);">Lu 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>, though his place is not constant in this list, varying between the 7th and the 8th places and thus exchanging positions with Thomas. The name occurring in the two forms Matthaios, and Maththaios, is a Greek reproduction of the Aramaic Mattathyah, i.e. "gift of Yahweh," and equivalent to Theodore. Before his call to the apostolic office, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,9);">Mt 9:9</a>, his name was Levi. The identity of Matthew and Levi is practically beyond all doubt, as is evident from the predicate in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>; and from a comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,14);">Mr 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,27);">Lu 5:27</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,9);">Mt 9:9</a>. Mark calls him "the son of Alpheus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,14);">Mr 2:14</a>), although this cannot have been the Alpheus who was the father of James the Less; for if this James and Matthew had been brothers this fact would doubtless have been mentioned, as is the case with Peter and Andrew, and also with the sons of Zebedee. Whether Jesus, as He did in the case of several others of His disciples, gave him the additional name of Matthew is a matter of which we are not informed. As he was a customs officer (ho telones, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>) in Capernaum, in the territory of Herod Antipas, Matthew was not exactly a Roman official, but was in the service of the tetrarch of Galilee, or possibly a subordinate officer, belonging to the class called portitores, serving under the publicani, or superior officials who farmed the Roman taxes. As such he must have had some education, and doubtless in addition to the native Aramaic must have been acquainted with the Greek His ready acceptance of the call of Jesus shows that he must have belonged to that group of publicans and sinners, who in Galilee and elsewhere looked longingly to Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,34);">Lu 7:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,1);">15:1</a>). Just at what period of Christ\'s ministry he was called does not appear with certainty, but evidently not at once, as on the day when he was called (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,11,14,18);">Mt 9:11,14,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,37);">Mr 5:37</a>), Peter, James and John are already trustworthy disciples of Jesus. Unlike the first six among the apostles, Matthew did not enter the group from among the pupils of John the Baptist. These are practically all the data furnished by the New Testament on the person of Matthew, and what is found in post-Biblical and extra-Biblical sources is chiefly the product of imagination and in part based on mistaking the name of Matthew for Matthias (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, chapter liv, note 3). Tradition states that he preached for 15 years in Palestine and that after this he went to foreign nations, the Ethiopians, Macedonians, Syrians, Persians, Parthians and Medea being mentioned. He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. The stories of the Roman Catholic church that he died the death of a martyr on September 21 and of the Greek church that this occurred on November 10 are without any historical basis. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv.9) gives the explicit denial of Heracleon that Matthew suffered martyrdom.``159';
isbe[5869]='Matthew, the Gospel of`(euaggelion kata Maththaion (or Matthaion)):<P>1. Name of Gospel<65>Unity and Integrity<P>2. Canonicity and Authorship<P>3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels<P>4. Contents, Character, and Purpose<P>5. Problems of Literary Relation<P>6. Date of Gospel<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Name of Gospel<65>Unity and Integrity:<P>The "Gospel according to Matthew," i.e. the Gospel according to the account of Matthew, stands, according to traditional, but not entirely universal, arrangement, first among the canonical Gospels. The Gospel, as will be seen below, was unanimously ascribed by the testimony of the ancient church to the apostle Matthew, though the title does not of itself necessarily imply immediate authorship. The unity and integrity of the Gospel were never in ancient times called in question. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-\');">Matthew 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>, particularly<6C>the story of the virgin birth and childhood of Jesus<75>are proved by the consentient testimony of manuscripts, VSS, and patristic references, to have been an integral part of the Gospel from the beginning (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VIRGIN+BIRTH">VIRGIN BIRTH</a>). The omission of this section from the heretical Gospel of the Ebionites, which appears to have had some relation to our Gospel, is without significance.<P>The theory of successive redactions of Matthew, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?<P>2. Canonicity and Authorship:<P>(1) Canonicity.<P>The apostolic origin and canonical rank of the Gospel of Matthew were accepted without a doubt by the early church. Origen, in the beginning of the 3rd century could speak of it as the first of "the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven" (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25). The use of the Gospel can be traced in the apostolic Fathers; most distinctly in Barnabas, who quotes <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,14);">Mt 22:14</a> with the formula, "It is written" (5). Though not mentioned by name, it was a chief source from which Justin took his data for the life and words of Jesus (compare Westcott, Canon, 91ff), and apostolic origin is implied in its forming part of "the Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are called Gospels," read weekly in the assemblies of the Christians (Ap. i. 66, etc.). Its identity with our Matthew is confirmed by the undoubted presence of that Gospel in the Diatessaron of Tatian, Justin\'s disciple. The testimony of Papias is considered below. The unhesitating acceptance of the Gospel is further decisively shown by the testimonies and use made of it in the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and by its inclusion in the Muratorian Canon, the Itala, Peshitta, etc.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>.<P>(2) Authorship.<P>The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.<P>3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:<P>One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'18-21\');">12:18-21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,14,15);">13:14,15</A>, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil\'s Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).<P>The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of south Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,13);">Mt 12:13</a>, etc.; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPEL+ACCORDING+TO+THE+HEBREWS">GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS</a>). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.<P>The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke\'s use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlviff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses. See further on "sources" below.<P>4. Contents, Character and Purpose:<P>(1) Contents and Character.<P>As respects contents, the Gospel of Matthew can be divided into 3 chief parts:<P>(1) preliminary, including the birth and early youth of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-\');">Matthew 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>);<P>(2) the activity of Jesus in Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,\'1-\');">Matthew 3-18</a>);<P>(3) the activity of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem, followed by His passion, death, and resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,\'1-\');">Matthew 19-28</a>).<P>In character, the Gospel, like those of the other evangelists, is only a chrestomathy, a selection from the great mass of oral tradition concerning the doings and sayings of Christ current in apostolic and early Christian circles, chosen for the special purpose which the evangelist had in view. Accordingly, there is a great deal of material in Matthew in common with Mark and Luke, although not a little of this material, too, is individualistic in character, and of a nature to vex and perplex the harmonist, as e.g. Matthew\'s accounts of the temptation, of the demoniacs at Gadara, of the blind man at Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,\'1-11\');">4:1-11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,\'28-34\');">8:28-34</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'20-34\');">20:20-34</a>); yet there is much also in this Gospel that is peculiar to it. Such are the following pericopes: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-\');">Matthew 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,\'27-36\');">9:27-36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,15);">10:15</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'37-40\');">37-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,\'28-30\');">11:28-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,11,12,\'15-21\',\'33-38\');">12:11,12,15-21,33-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,\'24-30\');">13:24-30</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,\'36-52\');">36-52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,\'28-31\');">14:28-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,\'17-19\');">16:17-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,\'24-27\');">17:24-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,\'15-35\');">18:15-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,\'10-12\');">19:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-16\');">20:1-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,10,14,15,16,\'28-32\');">21:10f; 14-16,28-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'1-14\');">22:1-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,\'8-22\');">23:8-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'42-\');">24:42</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'1-46\');">25:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,\'3-10\',\'62-66\');">27:3-10,62-66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,11);">28:11</a>ff. The principle of arrangement of the material is not chronological, but rather that of similarity of material. The addresses and parables of Jesus are reported consecutively, although they may have been spoken at different times, and material scattered in the other evangelists<74>especially in Luke<6B>is found combined in Matthew. Instances are seen in the Sermon on the Mount (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Matthew 5-7</a>), the "mission address" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'1-\');">Matthew 10</a>), the seven parables of the Kingdom of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,\'1-\');">Matthew 13</a>), the discourses and parables (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,\'1-\');">Matthew 18</a>), the woes against the Pharisees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,\'1-\');">Matthew 23</a>), and the grand eschatological discourses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'1-\');">Matthew 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>) (compare with parallel in the other gospels, on the relation to which, see below).<P>(2) Purpose.<P>The special purpose which the writer had in view in his Gospel is nowhere expressly stated, as is done, e.g., by the writer of the Fourth Gospel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,30,31);">Joh 20:30,31</a>, concerning his book, but it can readily be gleaned from the general contents of the book, as also from specific passages. The traditional view that Matthew wrote primarily to prove that in Jesus of Nazareth is to be found the fulfillment and realization of the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament prophets and seers is beyond a doubt correct. The mere fact that there are about 40 proof passages in Matthew from the Old Testament, in connection even with the minor details of Christ\'s career, such as His return from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,15);">2:15</A>), is ample evidence of this fact, although the proof manner and proof value of some of these passages are exegetical cruces, as indeed is the whole way in which the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUOTATIONS+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>.<P>The question as to whether the Gospel was written for Jewish Christians, or for Jews not yet converted, is less important, as this book, as was the case probably with the Epistle of James, was written at that transition period when the Jewish and the Christian communions were not yet fully separated, and still worshipped together.<P>Particular indications as to this purpose of the Gospel are met with at the beginning and throughout the whole work; e.g. it is obvious in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,1);">Mt 1:1</a>, where the proof is furnished that Jesus was the son of Abraham, in whom all families of the earth were to be blessed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>), and of David, who was to establish the kingdom of God forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'1-\');">2Sa 7</a>). The genealogy of Luke, on the other hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,23);">3:23</A>ff), with its cosmopolitan character and purpose, aiming to show that Jesus was the Redeemer of the whole world, leads back this line to Adam, the common ancestor of all mankind. Further, as the genealogy of Matthew is evidently that of Joseph the foster and legal father of Jesus, and not that of Mary, as is the case in Luke, the purpose to meet the demands of the Jewish reader is transparent. The full account in Matthew of the Sermon on the Mount, which does not, as is sometimes said, contain a "new program of the kingdom of God"<22>indeed does not contain the fundamental principles of the Gospel at all<6C>but is the deeper and truly Biblical interpretation of the Law over against the superficial interpretation of the current Pharisaism, which led the advocates of the latter in all honesty to declare, "What lack I yet?" given with the design of driving the auditors to the gospel of grace and faith proclaimed by Christ (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24);">Ga 3:24</a>)<29>all this is only intelligible when we remember that the book was written for Jewish readers. Again the gegraptai<61>i.e. the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture, a matter which for the Jew was everything, but for the Gentile was of little concern<72>appears in Matthew on all hands. We have it e.g. in connection with the birth of Jesus from a virgin, His protection from Herod, His coming to Nazareth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,22);">Mt 1:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,5,6,15,17,23);">2:5,6,15,17f; 23</a>), the activity of John the Baptist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,3);">Mt 3:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,10);">Mt 11:10</a>), the selection of Galilee as the scene of Jesus\' operations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,14);">Mt 4:14</a>), the work of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>), His quiet, undemonstrative methods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,17);">Mt 12:17</a>), His teaching by parables (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,35);">Mt 13:35</a>), His entrance into Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,4,16);">Mt 21:4f; 16</a>), His being arrested (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,54);">Mt 26:54</a>), the betrayal of Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,9);">Mt 27:9</a>), the distribution of His garments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,35);">Mt 27:35</a>). Throughout, as Professor Kubel says, the Gospel of Matthew shows a "diametrical contrast between Christ and Pharisaism." Over against the false Messianic ideas and ideals of contemporary teachings among the Jews, Matthew selects those facts from the teachings and deeds of Christ which show the true Messiah and the correct principles of the kingdom of God. In this respect the Gospel can be regarded as both apologetic and polemical in its aim, in harmony with which also is its vivid portraiture to the growing hostility of the Jews to Christ and to His teachings which, in the latter part of Matthew, appears as intense as it does in John. Nowhere else do we find such pronounced denunciations of the Pharisees and their system from the lips of Jesus (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,11);">Mt 9:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,1);">12:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,1);">15:1ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,1);">16:1ff</a>; and on particular points <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,20);">5:20</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,13);">9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">23:23</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,12);">8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,34);">9:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,24);">12:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,43);">21:43</a>). It is from this point of view, as representing the antithesis to the narrow Pharisaic views, that we are to understand the writer\'s emphasis on the universality of the kingdom of Jesus Christ (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,\'1-12\');">Mt 3:1-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,\'10-12\');">8:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,\'33-44\');">21:33-44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,\'18-20\');">28:18-20</a>)<29>passages in which some have thought they discerned a contradiction to the prevailing Jewish strain of the Gospel.<P>5. Problems of Literary Relation:<P>The special importance of the Gospel of Matthew for the synoptic problem can be fully discussed only in the article on this subject (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS,+THE+SYNOPTIC">GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC</a>), and in connection with Mark and Luke. The synoptic problem deals primarily with the literary relations existing between the first 3 Gospels. The contents of these are in many cases so similar, even in verbal details, that they must have some sources in common, or some dependence or interdependence must exist between them; on the other hand, each of the 3 Gospels shows so many differences and dissimilarities from the other two, that in their composition some independent source or sources<65>oral or written<65>must have been employed. In general it may be said that the problem itself is of little more than literary importance, having by no means the historical significance for the development of the religion of the New Testament which the Pentateuchal problem has for that of the Old Testament. Nor has the synoptic problem any historical background that promises a solution as the Pentateuchal problem has in the history of Israel. Nothing save an analysis of the contents of these Gospels, and a comparison of the contents of the three, offers the scholar any material for the study of the problem, and as subjective taste and impressions are prime factors in dealing with materials of this sort, it is more than improbable, in the absence of any objective evidence, that the synoptic problem in general, or the question of the sources of Matthew in particular, will ever be solved to the satisfaction of the majority of scholars. The hypothesis which at present has widest acceptance is the "two-source" theory, according to which Mark, in its existing or some earlier form, and the problematical original Matthew (Q), constitute the basis of our canonical Gospel.<P>In proof of this, it is pointed out that nearly the whole of the narrative-matter of Mark is taken up into Matthew, as also into Luke, while the large sections, chiefly discourses, common to Matthew and Luke are held, as already said, to point to a source of that character which both used. The difficulties arise when the comparison is pursued into details, and explanation is sought of the variations in phraseology, order, sometimes in conception, in the respective gospels.<P>Despite the prestige which this theory has attained, the true solution is probably a simpler one. Matthew no doubt secured the bulk of his data from his own experience and from oral tradition, and as the former existed in fixed forms, due to catechetical instruction, in the early church, it is possible to explain the similarities of Matthew with the other two synoptics on this ground alone, without resorting to any literary dependence, either of Matthew on the other two, or of these, or either of them, on Matthew. The whole problem is purely speculative and subjective and under present conditions justifies a cui bono? as far as the vast literature which it has called into existence is concerned.<P>6. Date of Gospel:<P>According to early and practically universal tradition Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill.1), and Eusebius states that this was done when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that "the gospels containing the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark, and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (compare 2415). The most likely date for the Greek Gospel is in the 7th Christian decade. Zahn claims that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine in 62 AD, while the Greek Matthew dates from 85 AD, but this latter date is not probable.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Introduction to the Commentary on Matthew (Meyer, Alford, Allen (ICC), Broadus (Philadelphia, 1887), Morison, Plummer, Schaeffer in Lutheran Commentary (New York, 1895), etc.); works on Introduction to the New Testament (Salmon, Weiss, Zahn, etc.); articles in Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia may be consulted. See also F.C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei and Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien; Sir J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, V, "Papias of Hierapolis" (this last specially on the sense of Logia).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARK,+THE+GOSPEL+ACCORDING+TO">MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</a>`159';
isbe[5870]='Matthias`ma-thi\'-as (Matthias, or Maththias; Mattithyah, "given of Yah"): Matthias was the one upon whom the lot fell when he, along with Joseph Barsabbas, was put forward to fill up the place in the apostleship left vacant by Judas Iscariot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'15-26\');">Ac 1:15-26</a>). This election was held at Jerusalem, and the meeting was presided over by Peter. The conditions demanded of the candidates were that they should "have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us," and that the one chosen should "become a witness with us of his resurrection" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,21,22);">Ac 1:21,22</a>). The mode of procedure was by lot, and with prayer was the election made (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,24);">Ac 1:24</a>).<P>Hilgenfeld identifies Matthias with Nathanael (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NATHANAEL">NATHANAEL</a>). He was traditionally the author of the "Gospel of Matthias," a heretical work referred to by Origen (Hom. on Luke, i), by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25, 6) and by Hieronymus (Proem in Matth.). No trace of it is left. The Gnostic Basilides (circa 133 AD) and his son Isidor claimed to ground their doctrine in the "Gospel of Basilides" on the teaching Matthias received directly from the Saviour (Hippol., vii.20) (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 167). Various parts of the apocryphal "Contendings of the Apostles" deal with the imprisonment and blinding of Matthias by the Ethiopian cannibals, and his rescue by Andrew (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II,163,164, 267-88; see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANDREW">ANDREW</a>). According to the Martyrdom of Matthias (Budge, II, 289-94) he was sent to Damascus, and died at Phalaeon, a city of Judea. Other sources mention Jerusalem as the place of Matthias\' ministry and burial.``88';
isbe[5871]='Mattithiah`mat-i-thi\'-a (mattithyah, or mattithyahu, "gift of Yah"):<P>(1) The Mattithiah of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a> (1st spelling) was one of those who stood at Ezra\'s right hand while he read the law (compare 1Esdras 9:43). He may be the individual set over "things that were baked in pans" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,31);">1Ch 9:31</a>).<P>(2) One of those appointed by David to minister before the ark, and to "celebrate and to thank and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,4,5);">1Ch 16:4,5</a>).<P>(3) One of those who had foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,43);">Ezr 10:43</a>). In 1Esdras 9:35, "Mazitias."<P>(4) One of the Levites who ministered before the ark with harps <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,18,21);">1Ch 15:18,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,3,11);">25:3,11</a>, 2nd spelling).``186';
isbe[5872]='Mattock`mat\'-ok: The translation of 3 Hebrew words:<P>(1) machereshah, probably "a pick-axe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,20,21);">1Sa 13:20,21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,21);">1Sa 13:21</a> margin);<P>(2) cherebh, "sword," "ax," "tool" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,6);">2Ch 34:6</a> the King James Version, "with their mattocks," the King James Version margin "mauls," the Revised Version (British and American) "in their ruins," the Revised Version margin "with their axes");<P>(3) ma\'-der, "a hoe," "rake," "chopping instrument" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,25);">Isa 7:25</a>). Vines were usually grown on terraces on the hills of Palestine, and then the mattock was in constant use. The usual mattock is a pick with one end broad, the other pointed.``1';
isbe[5873]='Maul`mol (mephits, literally, "a breaker," "a club," "mace," "mattock"): A smashing weapon like the oriental war-club or the clubs always carried by the shepherds of Lebanon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,18);">Pr 25:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,20);">Jer 51:20</a> margin).``1';
isbe[5874]='Mauzzim`moz\'-em, mots\'-em (ma\'uzzim, "places of strength," "fortress"): Many conjectures as to the meaning of this word and its context (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,38);">Da 11:38</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,19,39);">Da 11:19,39</a>) have been made. The Septuagint (uncertainly), Theodotion, and the Geneva Version render it as a proper name. Theodoret adopted Theodotion\'s reading and explained it as "Antichrist"! Grotius thought it a corruption of "Azizos, the Phoenician war-god, while Calvin saw in it the "god of wealth"! Perhaps the buzz of conjectures about the phrase is owing to the fact that in the first passage cited the word is preceded by \'Eloah, meaning God. The context of the passage seems clearly to make the words refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and on this account some have thought that the god Mars<72>whose figure appears on a coin of Antiochus<75>is here referred to. All this is, however, little better than guesswork, and the Revised Version (British and American) translation, by setting the mind upon the general idea that the monarch referred to would trust in mere force, gives us, at any rate, the general sense, though it does not exclude the possibility of a reference to a particular deity. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,19);">Da 11:19</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,39);">39</a>, the word "Mauzzim" is simply translated "fortresses," and the idea conveyed is that the mental obsession of fortresses is equivalent to deifying them. A conjecture of Layard\'s (Nineveh, II,456,note), is, at any rate, worth referring to.``186';
isbe[5875]='Maw`mo (qebhah (compare qobhah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,8);">Nu 25:8</a>), keres; Septuagint enustron): The first word means the maw or stomach of ruminants. It is derived from a root designating "hollowed out." It is mentioned alongside of the shoulder and the two cheeks of ox and sheep, which are the priest\'s share of any sacrifice brought by Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,3);">De 18:3</a>). Septuagint, where enustron corresponds to Attic enustron, denotes the fourth stomach or abomasum, which was considered as a delicacy, and was almost a national dish of the Athenians, just as tripe is of the Londoners. The parallel form qobhah is used for the body of a woman, which is being transfixed by a spear thrust in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,8);">Nu 25:8</a>. The last word keres is found in a metaphorical sense: "(Nebuchadrezzar) hath, like a monster, swallowed me up, he hath filled his maw with my delicacies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,34);">Jer 51:34</a>).``106';
isbe[5876]='Mazitias`maz-i-ti\'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Mazitias; Codex Vaticanus, Zeitias): One of those who had taken "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:35), identical with Mattithiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,43);">Ezr 10:43</a>).``1';
isbe[5877]='Mazzaloth`maz\'-a-loth (The Planets).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>`1';
isbe[5878]='Mazzaroth`maz\'-a-roth: The 12 constellations of the Zodiac.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[5879]='Mazzebah`maz-e\'-ba, mats-e\'-ba.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PILLAR">PILLAR</a>`1';
isbe[5880]='Me-Jarkon`me-jar\'-kon (me ha-yarqon; thalassa Hierakon): The Hebrew may mean "yellow water." The phrase is literally, "the waters of Jarkon." Septuagint reads "and from the river, Jarkon and the boundary near Joppa." From this possibly we should infer a place called Jarkon in the lot of Dan; but no name resembling this has been found. The text (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,46);">Jos 19:46</a>) is corrupt.``1';
isbe[5881]='Me-Zahab`mez\'-a-hab, me-za\'-hab (me zahabh, "waters of gold"; Codex Vaticanus Maizoob, Codex Alexandrinus, Mezoob): Grandfather of Mehetabel, the wife of Hadar, the last-mentioned "duke" of Edom descended from Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a>). The Jewish commentators made much play with this name. Abarbanel, e.g., says he was "rich and great, so that on this account he was called Mezahab, for the gold was in his house as water." The name, however, may denote a place, in which case it may be identical with Dizahab.``1';
isbe[5882]='Meadow`med\'-o:<P>(1) \'aroth, "the meadows (the King James Version "paper reeds") by the Nile" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,7);">Isa 19:7</a>); ma\'areh-gabha\', the King James Version "meadows of Gibeah," the Revised Version (British and American) "Maareh-geba," the Revised Version margin "the meadow of Geba, or Gibeah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,33);">Jud 20:33</a>); from \'arah, "to be naked"; compare Arabic ariya, "to be naked," \'ara\'a\', "a bare tract of land." \'Aroth and ma\'areh signify tracts bare of trees.<P>(2) \'achu, in Pharaoh\'s dream of the kine, the King James Version "meadow," the Revised Version (British and American) "reed grass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,2,18);">Ge 41:2,18</a>). \'Achu is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,11);">Job 8:11</a>, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "flag," the Revised Version margin "reed-grass." According to Gesenius, achu is an Egyptian word denoting the vegetation of marshy ground.<P>(3) \'abhel keramim, "Abel-cheramim," the Revised Version margin "The meadow of vineyards," the King James Version "the plain (the King James Version margin, "Abel") of the vineyards" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,33);">Jud 11:33</a>); "Abel-beth-maacah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,20);">1Ki 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,29);">2Ki 15:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,14,15,18);">2Sa 20:14,15,18</a>); "Abel-shittim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,49);">Nu 33:49</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,1);">Nu 25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,1);">Jos 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,1);">3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,22);">Jud 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,18);">Joe 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,5);">Mic 6:5</a>); "Abel-meholah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,22);">Jud 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,16);">19:16</a>); "Abel-maim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,4);">2Ch 16:4</a>); "Abel-mizraim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,11);">Ge 50:11</a>); "stone," the King James Version "Abel," the Revised Version margin "Abel," that is "a meadow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,18);">1Sa 6:18</a>); compare Arabic \'abal, "green grass," and \'abalat, "unhealthy marshy ground," from wabal, "to rain."``37';
isbe[5883]='Meah`me\'-a (me\'ah, "hundred").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAMMEAH">HAMMEAH</a>`1';
isbe[5884]='Meal`mel (\'okhel): Denotes the portion of food eaten at any one time. It is found as a compound in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,14);">Ru 2:14</a>, "meal-time," literally, "the time of eating."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>`1';
isbe[5885]='Meal offering``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[5886]='Meals, Meal-Time`melz: Bread materials, bread-making and baking in the Orient are dealt with under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a> (which see). For food-stuffs in use among the Hebrews in Bible times more specifically see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>. This article aims to be complementary, dealing especially with the methods of preparing and serving food and times of meals among the ancient Hebrews.<P>The Book of Judges gives a fair picture of the early formative period of the Hebrew people and their ways of living. It is a picture of semi-savagery<72>of the life and customs of free desert tribes. In 1 Samuel we note a distinct step forward, but the domestic and cultural life is still low and crude. When they are settled in Palestine and come in contact with the most cultured people of the day, the case is different. Most that raised these Semitic invaders above the dull, crude existence of fellahin, in point of civilization, was due to the people for whom the land was named (Macalister, Hist of Civilization in Pal). From that time on various foreign influences played their several parts in modification of Hebrew life and customs. A sharp contrast illustrative of the primitive beginnings and the growth of luxury in Israel in the preparation and use of foods may be seen by a comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,28);">2Sa 17:28</a>f with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,22);">1Ki 4:22</a> f.<P>I. Methods of Preparing Food.<P>1. Cereals:<P>The most primitive way of using the cereals was to pluck the fresh ears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,14);">Le 23:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,42);">2Ki 4:42</a>), remove the husk by rubbing (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,25);">De 23:25</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,1);">Mt 12:1</a>), and eat the grain raw. A practice common to all periods, observed by fellahin today, was to parch or roast the ears and eat them not ground. Later it became customary to grind the grain into flour, at first by the rudimentary method of pestle and mortar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,8);">Nu 11:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,22);">Pr 27:22</a>), later by the hand-mill (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,5);">Ex 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,10);">Job 31:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,41);">Mt 24:41</a>), still later in mills worked by the ass or other animal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,6);">Mt 18:6</a>, literally, "a millstone turned by an ass"). The flour was then made into bread, with or without leaven.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEAVEN">LEAVEN</a>.<P>Another simple way of preparing the grain was to soak it in water, or boil it slightly, and then, after drying and crushing it, to serve it as the dish called "groats" is served among western peoples.<P>The kneading of the dough preparatory to baking was done doubtless, as it is now in the East, by pressing it between the hands or by passing it from hand to hand; except that in Egypt, as the monuments show, it was put in "baskets" and trodden with the feet, as grapes in the wine press. (This is done in Paris bakeries to this day.)<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>.<P>2. Vegetables:<P>Lentils, several kinds of beans, and a profusion of vegetables, wild and cultivated, were prepared and eaten in various ways. The lentils were sometimes roasted, as they are today, and eaten like "parched corn." They were sometimes stewed like beans, and flavored with onions and other ingredients, no doubt, as we find done in Syria today (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29,34);">Ge 25:29,34</a>), and sometimes ground and made into bread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,9);">Eze 4:9</a>; compare Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, IX, 4). The wandering Israelites in the wilderness looked back wistfully on the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a>), and later we find all of these used for food in Palestine How many other things were prepared and used for food by them may be gathered from the Mishna, our richest source of knowledge on the subject.<P>3. Meat:<P>The flesh of animals<6C>permission to eat which it would seem was first given to Noah after the deluge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,29);">Ge 1:29</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,3);">9:3</a>f)<29>was likewise prepared and used in various ways:<P>(a) Roasting was much in vogue, indeed was probably the oldest of all methods of preparing such food. At first raw meat was laid upon hot stones from which the embers had been removed, as in the case of the "cake baken on the hot stones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,6);">1Ki 19:6</a> the Revised Version margin; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,8);">Ho 7:8</a>, "a cake not turned"), and sometimes underneath with a covering of ashes. The fish that the disciples found prepared for them by the Sea of Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,9);">Joh 21:9</a>) was, in exception to this rule, cooked on the live coals themselves. A more advanced mode of roasting was by means of a spit of green wood or iron (for baking in ovens, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>).<P>(b) Boiling was also common (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29);">Ge 25:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,9);">Ex 12:9</a>, etc., the American Standard Revised Version; English Versions of the Bible more frequently "seething," "sod," "sodden"), as it is in the more primitive parts of Syria today. The pots in which the boiling was done were of earthenware or bronze (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,28);">Le 6:28</a>). When the meat was boiled in more water than was required for the ordinary "stew" the result was the broth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,19);">Jud 6:19</a>f), and the meat and the broth might then be served separately. The usual way, however, was to cut the meat into pieces, larger or smaller as the case might demand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,13);">1Sa 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,3);">Eze 24:3</a>; compare Micah\'s metaphor, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,3);">Mic 3:3</a>), and put these pieces into the cooking-pot with water sufficient only for a stew. Vegetables and rice were generally added, though crushed wheat sometimes took the place of the rice, as in the case of the "savory meat" which Rebekah prepared for her husband from the "two kids of the goats" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,9);">Ge 27:9</a>). The seeds of certain leguminous plants were also often prepared by boiling (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29);">Ge 25:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,38);">2Ki 4:38</a>).<P>(c) The Hebrew housewives, we may be sure, were in such matters in no way behind their modern kinswomen of the desert, of whom Doughty tells: "The Arab housewives make savory messes of any grain, seething it and putting thereto only a little salt and samn (clarified butter)."<P>4. Oil:<P>Olive oil was extensively and variously used by the ancient Hebrews, as by most eastern peoples then, as it is now.<P>(a) Oriental cooking diverges here more than at any other point from that of the northern and western peoples, oil serving many of the purposes of butter and lard among ourselves.<P>(b) Oil was used in cooking vegetables as we use bacon and other animal fats, and in cooking fish and eggs, as sJso in the finer sorts of baking. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OIL">OIL</a>.<P>(c) They even mixed oil with the flour, shaped it into cakes and then baked it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,4);">Le 2:4</a>). The "little oil" of the poor widow of Zerephath was clearly not intended for the lamps, but to bake her pitiful "handful of meal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,12);">1Ki 17:12</a>).<P>(d) Again the cake of unmixed flour might be baked till almost done, then smeared with oil, sprinkled with anise seed, and brought by further baking to a glossy brown. A species of thin flat cakes of this kind are "the wafers anointed with oil" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,2);">Ex 29:2</a>, etc.<P>(e) Oil and honey constituted, as now in the East, a mixture used as we use butter and honey, and are found also mixed in the making of sweet cakes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,13,19);">Eze 16:13,19</a>). The taste of the manna is said in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,31);">Ex 16:31</a> to be like that of "wafers made with honey," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,8);">Nu 11:8</a> to be like "the taste of cakes baked with oil" (Revised Version margin).<P>II. Meals, Meal-Time, etc.<P>(1) It was customary among the ancient Hebrews, as among their contemporaries in the East in classical lands, to have but two meals a day. The "morning morsel" or "early snack," as it is called in the Talmud, taken with some relish like olives, oil or melted butter, might be used by peasants, fishermen, or even artisans, to "break their fast" (see the one reference to it in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,12,15);">Joh 21:12,15</a>), but this was not a true meal. It was rather ariston proinon (Robinson, BRP, II, 18), though some think it the ariston, of the New Testament (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 205, note 3; compare Plummer, International Critical Commentary, on <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,37);">Lu 11:37</a>). To "eat a meal," i.e. a full meal, in the morning was a matter for grave reproach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,16);">Ec 10:16</a>), as early drinking was unusual and a sign of degradation (of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,15);">Ac 2:15</a>).<P>(2) The first meal (of "meal-time," literally, "the time of eating," <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,14);">Ru 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,16);">Ge 43:16</a>), according to general usage, was taken at or about noon when the climate and immemorial custom demanded a rest from labor. Peter\'s intended meal at Joppa, interrupted by the messengers of Cornelius, was at "the sixth hour," i.e. 12 M. It corresponded somewhat to our modern "luncheon," but the hour varied according to rank and occupation (Shabbath 10a). The Bedawi take it about 9 or 10 o\'clock (Burckhardt, Notes, I, 69). It is described somewhat fully by Lane in Modern Egyptians. To abstain from this meal was accounted "fasting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,26);">Jud 20:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,24);">1Sa 14:24</a>). Drummond (Tropical Africa) says his Negro bearers began the day\'s work without food.<P>(3) The second and main meal (New Testament, deipnon) was taken about the set of sun, or a little before or after, when the day\'s work was over and the laborers had "come in from the field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,7);">Lu 17:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,29);">24:29</a>f). This is the "supper time," the "great supper" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,16);">Lu 14:16</a>, the important meal of the day, when the whole family were together for the evening (Burckhardt, Notes, I, 69). It was the time of the feeding of the multitudes by Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,35);">Mr 6:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,15);">Mt 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,12);">Lu 9:12</a>), of the eating of the Passover, and of the partaking of the Lord\'s Supper. According to Jewish law, and for special reasons, the chief meal was at midday<61>"at the sixth hour," according to Josephus (Vita, 54; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'16-25\');">Ge 43:16-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,15);">2Sa 24:15</a> Septuagint). It was Yahweh\'s promise to Israel that they should have "bread" in the morning and "flesh" in the evening (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,12);">Ex 16:12</a>), incidental evidence of one way in which the evening meal differed from that at noon. At this family meal ordinarily there was but one common dish for all, into which all "dipped the sop" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,23);">Mt 26:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,20);">Mr 14:20</a>), so that when the food, cooked in this common stew, was set before the household, the member of the household who had prepared it had no further work to do, a fact which helps to explain Jesus\' words to Martha, \'One dish alone is needful\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,42);">Lu 10:42</a>; Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, under the word "Meals").<P>(4) Sabbath banqueting became quite customary among the Jews (see examples cited by Lightfoot, Hor. Heb et Talmud on <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,1);">Lu 14:1</a>; compare Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II,52,437; Farrar, Life of Christ, II,119,note). Indeed it was carried to such an excess that it became proverbial for luxury. But the principle which lay at the root of the custom was the honor of the Sabbath (Lightfoot, op. cit., III, 149), which may explain Jesus countenance and use of the custom (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,36);">Lu 7:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,37);">11:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,\'7-14\');">14:7-14</a>), and the fact that on the last Sabbath He spent on earth before His passion He was the chief guest at such a festive meal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,2);">Joh 12:2</a>). It is certain that He made use of such occasions to teach lessons of charity and religion, in one case even when His host was inclined to indulge in discourteous criticism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,39);">Lu 7:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,38,45);">11:38,45</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,7);">Joh 12:7</a>f). He seems to have withheld His formal disapproval of what might be wrong in tendency in such feasts because of the latent possibilities for good He saw in them, and so often used them wisely and well. It was on one of these occasions that a fellow-guest in his enthusiasm broke out in the exclamation, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,15);">Lu 14:15</a>), referring evidently to the popular Jewish idea that the Messianic kingdom was to be ushered in with a banquet, and that feasting was to be a chief part of its glories (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,6);">Isa 25:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,29);">Lu 13:29</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BANQUET">BANQUET</a>.<P>III. Customs at Meals.<P>In the earliest times the Hebrews took their meals sitting, or more probably squatting, on the ground like the Bedouin and fellahin of today (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">Ge 37:25</a>, etc.), with the legs gathered tailor-fashion (Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1905, 124). The use of seats naturally followed upon the change from nomadic to agricultural life, after the conquest of Canaan. Saul and his mess-mates sat upon "seats" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,25);">1Sa 20:25</a>), as did Solomon and his court (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,5);">1Ki 10:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,20);">1Ki 13:20</a>, etc.). With the growth of wealth and luxury under the monarchy, the custom of reclining at meals gradually became the fashion. In Amos\' day it was regarded as an aristocratic innovation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,12);">Am 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,4);">6:4</a>), but two centuries later Ezekiel speaks of "a stately bed" or "couch" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a> the Revised Version (British and American)) with "a table prepared before it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,41);">Eze 23:41</a>), as if it was no novelty. By the end of the 3rd century BC it was apparently universal, except among the very poor (Judith 12:15; Tobit 2:1). Accordingly, "sitting at meat" in the New Testament (English Versions of the Bible) is everywhere replaced by "reclining" (Revised Version margin), though women and children still sat. They leaned on the left elbow (Sirach 41:19), eating with the right hand (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD\'S+SUPPER">LORD\'S SUPPER</a>). The various words used in the Gospels to denote the bodily attitude at meals, as well as the circumstances described, all imply that the Syrian custom of reclining on a couch, followed by Greeks and Romans, was in vogue (Edersheim, II, 207). Luke uses one word for it which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (kataklithenai, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,36);">7:36</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,8);">14:8</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,30);">24:30</A>; and kataklinein, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,14,15);">9:14,15</A>), which Hobart says is the medical term for laying patients or causing them to lie in bed (Medical Language of Luke, 69). For costumes and customs at more elaborate feasts see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BANQUET">BANQUET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>. For details in the "minor morals" of the dinner table, see the classical passages (Sirach 31:12-18; 32:3-12), in which Jesus ben-Sira has expanded the counsel given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,1);">Pr 23:1</a>f; compare Kennedy in The 1-Volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, under the word "Meals."<P>LITERATURE.<P>Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; O. Holtzmann, Eine Untersuchung zum Leben Jesu, English translation, 206; B. Weiss, The Life of Christ, II,125,note 2; Plummer, International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 159f; Farrar, Life of Christ; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, the 1-volume Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; Encyclopedia Biblica; Jewish Encyclopedia, etc.``47';
isbe[5887]='Mean`men: The noun "meaning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,15);">Da 8:15</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "I sought to understand"; and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,11);">1Co 14:11</a>) is synonymous with "signification" but in 1Macc 15:4 the King James Version it expresses "purpose" (the Revised Version (British and American) "I am minded to land"). The noun "mean" in Hebrew always occurs in the plural, and is generally used in the sense of "agency," "instrument" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,29);">1Ki 10:29</a>, etc.). the Revised Version (British and American) very frequently changes, King James Version: The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 8:13</span>, "because of her"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>, "in any wise"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,36);">Lu 8:36</a>, "how"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,26);">Pr 6:26</a>, "on account of"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,14);">Re 13:14</a>, "by reason of" (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,16);">2Th 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,21);">Joh 9:21</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">Heb 9:15</a> (the King James Version "that by means of death") translates literally, "that a death having taken place," from ginomai, "to become," "to happen." <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,21);">Ac 18:21</a> the King James Version, "I must by all means keep this feast," is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) in harmony with several cursives, the Vulgate, and some other versions<P>The adjective "mean" is used in the sense of "common," "humble" (\'adham, "man"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,9);">Isa 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,15);">5:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,8);">31:8</a> omits "mean"). It is also used in the sense of "obscure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,29);">Pr 22:29</a>, chashokh, "obscure"; asemos, literally, "without a mark," "unknown," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,39);">Ac 21:39</a>). "Mean" is found in expressions like "in the meanwhile" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,45);">1Ki 18:45</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "little while"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,31);">Joh 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,15);">Ro 2:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "one with another"); "in the meantime" (1Macc 11:41 the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,1);">Lu 12:1</a>); and "in the mean season" the King James Version (1Macc 11:14; 15:15). The adverb "meanly" is found (2Macc 15:38) in the sense of "moderately."<P>The verb "mean" expresses purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,15);">Isa 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,7);">10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,20);">Ge 50:20</a>, etc.). In some cases the Revised Version (British and American) renders literal translation: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,2);">Ac 27:2</a>, "was about to sail" (the King James Version "meaning to sail"); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,13);">Ac 21:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,13);">2Co 8:13</a>. In other instances the idea of "to mean" is "to signify," "to denote" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,6);">1Sa 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,29);">Ge 21:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,13);">Mt 9:13</a>, etc.). <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,26);">Lu 15:26</a> translates literally, "what these things might be." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,26);">Ex 12:26</a> the sense of "mean ye" is "to have in mind."``16';
isbe[5888]='Meani`me-a\'-ni: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Maani" (1Esdras 5:31).``1';
isbe[5889]='Mearah`me-a\'-ra (me\'arah; omitted in the Septuagint): A town or district mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,4);">Jos 13:4</a>, as belonging to the Zidonians. The name as it stands means "cave." If that is correct it may be represented by the modern village Mogheiriyeh, "little cave," not far from Sidon. Perhaps, however, we should find in the word the name of a Sidonian city, with the preposition min, that has suffered change in transcription. Septuagint reads "from Gaza"; but Gaza is obviously too far to the south.``1';
isbe[5890]='Measure; Measures`mezh\'-ur, Several different words in the Hebrew and Greek are rendered by "measure" in English Versions of the Bible. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,9);">Job 11:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,25);">Jer 13:25</a> it stands for madh, middah, and it is the usual rendering of the verb madhadh, "to measure," i.e. "stretch out," "extend," "spread." It is often used to render the words representing particular measures, such as [\'ephah] (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,14,15);">De 25:14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,10);">Pr 20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,10);">Mic 6:10</a>); or kor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,22);">1Ki 4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,11);">5:11</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,2);">1Ki 5:2</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,5);">5:25</a> Hebrew text); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,10);">2Ch 2:10 (Hebrew text 2:9)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,5);">27:5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,22);">Ezr 7:22</a>); or seah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,6);">Ge 18:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,18);">1Sa 25:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,32);">1Ki 18:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,1,16,18);">2Ki 7:1,16,18</a>); or batos, "bath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,6);">Lu 16:6</a>). For these terms see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>. It also renders middah, "measure of length" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,2);">Ex 26:2</a>); mesurah, a liquid measure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,35);">Le 19:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,29);">1Ch 23:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,11,16);">Eze 4:11,16</a>); mishpat, "judgment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,11);">Jer 30:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,28);">46:28</a>); ca\'ce\'ah, a word of uncertain meaning, perhaps derived from seah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,8);">Isa 27:8</a>); shalish, "threefold, large measure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,5);">Ps 80:5</a> (Hebrew text <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,6);">Ps 80:6</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,12);">Isa 40:12</a>); tokhen, and mathkoneth, "weight" and that which is weighed, taken as measure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,11);">Eze 45:11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,14);">Isa 5:14</a> it stands for choq, "limit." In the New Testament, besides being the usual rendering of the verb metreo, and of the noun metron, it is used for choinix, a dry measure containing about a quart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,6);">Re 6:6</a>).``138';
isbe[5891]='Measuring Line`(qaw, qeweh): The usual meaning is simply line, rope or cord, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,10,13);">Isa 28:10,13</a>, but the line was used for measurement, as is evident from such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,23);">1Ki 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,5);">Job 38:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,39);">Jer 31:39</a>. Whether the line for measuring had a definite length or not we have no means of knowing. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,13);">Isa 44:13</a> it refers to the line used by the carpenter in marking the timber on which he is working, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,16);">Zec 1:16</a> it refers to the builder\'s line.<P>Figuratively: It signifies destruction, or a portion of something marked off by line for destruction, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,13);">2Ki 21:13</a>; or for judgment, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,17);">Isa 28:17</a>.``138';
isbe[5892]='Measuring Reed`(qeneh hamiddah; kalamos): Used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">Eze 40:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,16);">42:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,1);">45:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,1);">Re 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,15,16);">21:15,16</a>. The length of the reed is given as 6 cubits, each cubit being a cubit and a palm, i.e. the large cubit of 7 palms, or about 10 ft. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUBIT">CUBIT</a>. Originally it was an actual reed used for measurements of considerable length, but came at last to be used for a measure of definite length, as indicated by the reference in Ezkiel (compare "pole" in English measures).``1';
isbe[5893]='Meat`met (broma, brosis): In the King James Version used for food in general, e.g. "I had my meat of herbs" (2Esdras 12:51); "his disciples were gone away into the city to buy meat," the Revised Version (British and American) "food" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,8);">Joh 4:8</a>). The English word signified whatever is eaten, whether of flesh or other food.``1';
isbe[5894]='Meat offering``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[5895]='Mebunnai`me-bun\'-i, me-bun\'-a-i (mebhunnay, "well-built"): One of David\'s "braves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,27);">2Sa 23:27</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,18);">2Sa 21:18</a> he is named "Sibbechai" (the Revised Version (British and American) "Sibbecai"), and is there mentioned as the slayer of a Philistine giant. The Revised Version (British and American) spelling occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,29);">1Ch 11:29</a>, the King James Version "Sibbechai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,18);">2Sa 21:18</a>); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,11);">1Ch 27:11</a> the Revised Version (British and American) spelling recurs, where this person is mentioned as captain of the 8th course of the 12 monthly courses that served the king in rota. Scribal error, and the similarity in Hebrew spelling of the two forms accounts for the difference in spelling. the Revised Version (British and American) consistently tries to keep this right.``186';
isbe[5896]='Mecherathite`me-ke\'-rath-it (mekherathi, "dweller in Mecharah"): Possibly this is a misreading of "Maachathite" (the King James Version). It is the description of Hepher, one of David\'s valiant men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,36);">1Ch 11:36</a>).<P>In the Wallel list of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,1);">2Sa 23</a>, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,34);">23:34</A>, the "Maachathite" is mentioned without name in the place in the list given to Hepher in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,36);">1Ch 11:36</a>. The variations do not destroy the conviction that the list is virtually the same.``1';
isbe[5897]='Meconah`me-ko\'-na (mekhonah; Machna): A town apparently in the neighborhood of Ziklag, named only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,28);">Ne 11:28</a>, as reoccupied by the men of Judah after the Captivity. It is not identified.``1';
isbe[5898]='Medaba`med\'-a-ba: The Greek form of "Medeba" in 1Macc 9:36.``1';
isbe[5899]='Medad`me\'-dad (medhadh, "affectionate"): One of the 70 elders on whom the spirit of the Lord came in the days of Moses enabling them to prophesy. Medad and one other, Eldad, began to prophesy in the camp, away from the other elders who had assembled at the door of the tabernacle to hear God\'s message. Joshua suggested that Eldad and Medad be stopped, but Moses interceded on their behalf, saying, "Would that all Yahweh\'s people were prophets!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'26-29\');">Nu 11:26-29</a>). The subject-matter of their prophecy has been variously supplied by tradition. Compare the Palestine Targums at the place, the apocalyptic Book of Eldad and Modad, and Ba\'al ha-Turim (ad loc.).``80';
isbe[5900]='Medan`me\'-dan (medhan, "strife"): One of the sons of Abraham by Keturah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,2);">Ge 25:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,32);">1Ch 1:32</a>). The tribe and its place remain unidentified, and the conjecture that the name may be connected with the Midianites is unlikely from the fact that in the list of the sons of Abraham and Keturah Midian is mentioned alongside of Medan.``1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink