114 lines
267 KiB
HTML
114 lines
267 KiB
HTML
<!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[5601]='Low Country``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEPHELAH">SHEPHELAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5602]='Lowland`lo\'-land (shephelah; compare Arabic sufalat, "the lowest part"): The western part of Palestine, including the maritime plain and the foothills. There has been an attempt to restrict the term to the foothills, at least as far as the more ancient documents are concerned, but there can be little doubt that the maritime plain should be included. the Revised Version (British and American) has "lowland" throughout for shephelah, while the King James Version has "low country" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,10);">2Ch 26:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,18);">28:18</a>), "low plains" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,28);">1Ch 27:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,27);">2Ch 9:27</a>), "plain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,26);">Jer 17:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,19);">Ob 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,7);">Zec 7:7</a>), "vale" or "valley" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,7);">De 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,1);">Jos 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,40);">10:40</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COUNTRY">COUNTRY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEPHELAH">SHEPHELAH</a>`37';
|
||
isbe[5603]='Lozon`lo\'-zon (Lozon): Head of a family of Solomon\'s servants (1Esdras 5:33); called "Darkon" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,56);">Ezr 2:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,58);">Ne 7:58</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5604]='Lubim`lu\'-bim (lubhim): A people mentioned in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,3);">2Ch 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,8);">16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,43);">Da 11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,9);">Na 3:9</a>). In all these cases the word is translated in the King James Version "Libyans"; in the Revised Version (British and American) only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,43);">Da 11:43</a>. The people so named had their seat in North Africa, west of Egypt (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10);">Ac 2:10</a>, "the parts of Libya about Cyrene"). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIBYA">LIBYA</a>. On three different occasions the Libyans invaded Egypt, and at length, in the 10th century BC, succeeded in founding an Egyptian dynasty under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHISHAK">SHISHAK</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5605]='Lucas`lu\'-kas, loo\'-kas. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a> the King James Version, for "Luke" (Revised Version).``1';
|
||
isbe[5606]='Lucifer`lu\'-si-fer, loo\'-si-fer: The morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5607]='Lucius (1)`lu\'-shi-us, lu\'-shus (Loukios, Leukios): A Roman consul who is said (1Macc 15:16ff) to have written a letter to Ptolemy Euergetes securing to Simon the high priest and to the Jews the protection of Rome. As the praenomen only of the consul is given, there has been much discussion as to the person intended. The weight of probability has been assigned to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was one of the consuls in 139-138 BC, the fact of his praenomen being Cneius and not Lucius being explained by an error in transcription and the fragmentary character of the documents. The authority of the Romans not being as yet thoroughly established in Asia, they were naturally anxious to form alliances with the kings of Egypt and with the Jews to keep Syria in check. The imperfections that are generally admitted in the transcription of the Roman letter are not such as in any serious degree to invalidate the authority of the narrative in 1Maccabees.``79';
|
||
isbe[5608]='Lucius (2)`(Loukios): This name is mentioned twice:<P>(1) In the church at Antioch which sent out Barnabas and Saul as its missionaries were several prophets and teachers, among whom was Lucius of Cyrene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>). He was probably one of those "men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,20);">Ac 11:20</a>). It has been suggested that he is the same as Luke, but this is merely conjecture.<P>(2) "Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen" were among those who joined Paul in saluting the Christians in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,21);">Ro 16:21</a>). By "kinsmen" Paul means "Jews" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,3);">Ro 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,11,21);">16:11,21</a>). This Lucius may have been the same person as (1), but, as we have no more information about either, we cannot determine this.``78';
|
||
isbe[5609]='Lucre`lu\'-ker, loo\'-ker (betsa\'>; kerdos): Literally, "gain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,3);">1Sa 8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7);">Tit 1:7</a>), hence, in the New Testament always qualified by "filthy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,8);">1Ti 3:8</a>, "not greedy of filthy lucre" aischrokerdes; so <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7);">Tit 1:7</a>). The adverb is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,2);">1Pe 5:2</a> (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,11);">Tit 1:11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) changes the King James Version to "no lover of money" (aphilarguros).``1';
|
||
isbe[5610]='Lud; Ludim`lud, lu\'-dim, lood\'-im (ludh, ludhim, ludhiyum, "Ludites"; Loud, Loudieim; Targum Onk: ludha\'e):<P>1. Two Different Nationalities:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,13);">Ge 10:13</a> Ludim appears as the firstborn of Mizraim (Egypt), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">10:22</A> Lud is the fourth son of Shem. We have therefore to do with two different nationalities bearing the same name, and not always easy to distinguish. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,11,17);">1Ch 1:11,17</a> simply repeat the statements of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,13,22);">Ge 10:13,22</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,19);">Isa 66:19</a> Lud is mentioned with Tarshish and Pul (generally regarded as a mistake for Phut), Tubal, Javan, and the isles. Accepting this emendation, the passage agrees with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,9);">Jer 46:9</a>, where the Ludim are spoken of with Kush and Phut as the allies of Egypt; and also with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,10);">Eze 27:10</a>, where Lud is referred to with Persia and Put as soldiers of Tyre. Lud, again, is mentioned with Ethiopia (Gush), Put, all the mingled people, Cab, and the children of the land which is in league (or, margin "the land of the covenant"), which were all to fall by the sword (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,5);">Eze 30:5</a>).<P>2. The Semitic Lud:<P>Coming to the Semitic Lud, it is to be noted that the Assyrians called Lydia Lu(d)du, and that the mythical ancestor of the Lydians, according to Herodotus (i.7), was Lydos, and their first king, Agros, was descended from Ninos and Belos, i.e. Assyria and Babylonia. The apparently Assyrian colony in Cappadocia about 2000 BC, who used the Babylonian script, may be regarded as supporting this statement, and that there were other colonies of the same nationality in the neighborhood is implied by the fact that Assyro-Babylonian was one of the official languages of the Hittite state whose capital was Hattu or Boghaz-keui. On the other hand when Gyges sent an embassy to Assur-bani-apli of Assyria, Lu(d)du is described as a country whose name had never before been heard, and whose language was unknown. As, however, the earlier kings of Assyria certainly warred in that district, this statement has to be taken with caution. Perhaps the name had changed in the interval, owing to an immigration similar to that which brought the Hittites into Asia Minor, and caused change in the language at the same time.<P>3. Not Recognizable as Semitic Later:<P>Naturally Lydia was not recognizable as Semitic in classical times. The existence of Lud in the neighborhood of Egypt as well as in Asia Minor finds parallels in the Syrian Mucri of the Assyrian inscriptions by the side of the Mucur which stood for Egypt, and still more in the Cappadocian Cush (Kusu) of certain Assyrian letters relating to horses, by the side of the Cush (Kusu likewise) which stands for Ethiopia.<P>4. Egyptian Lud Not Recognizable:<P>Everything points, therefore, to the Semitic Lud and Ludim being Lydia, and the identification may be regarded as satisfactory. It is altogether otherwise with the Egyptian Lud and Ludim, however, about which little can be said at present. The reference to a city which seems to be Putu-yawan in an inscription mentioning the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar, and apparently referring to an expedition against Amasis, though it may stand for "Grecian Phut," has very little bearing upon the position of the Egyptian Lud, especially as the text in which it occurs is very mutilated. One thing is certain, however: the Hebrews regarded this Lud and Ludim as being Hamitic, and not Semitic.``136';
|
||
isbe[5611]='Luhith, Ascent of`lu\'-hith, loo\'-hith, ma\'-aleh ha-luchith): A place named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,5);">Isa 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,5);">Jer 48:5</a>. It is clearly identical with the way, or descent, of Horonaim. Eusebius, Onomasticon places Luhith between Areopolis and Zoar. Some way is intended by which fugitives from the Arabah could reach the uplands of the Moabite plateau. Guthe thinks it may be the road which leads from the district of the ancient Zoar on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea to the uplands through Wady Bene Hammad. Along this track ran also a Roman road. If Horonaim were the higher of the two places, this might account for the way being called the "descent" of Horonaim as going down from that place, and the "ascent" of Luhith as going up thence. Neither place can as yet be identified with certainty.``54';
|
||
isbe[5612]='Luke, the Evangelist`look, luk.<P>1. Name:<P>The name Luke (Loukas) is apparently an abbreviation for Loukanos. Old Latin manuscripts frequently have the words CATA LUCANUM as the title of the Third Gospel. (But the form Loukios, is also found in inscriptions synonymous with Loukas; compare Ramsay, The Expositor, December, 1912.)<P>It was a common fashion in the koine to abbreviate proper names, as it is today, for that matter (compare Amphias from Amphiatos, Antipas from Antipatros, Apollos from Apollonias, Demas from Demetrios, Zenas from Zenodoros, etc.; and see Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, section 287).<P>2. Mentioned Three Times by Name:<P>Paul alone names Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a>). He does not mention his own name in the Gospel or in the Acts. Compare the silence of the Fourth Gospel concerning the name of the apostle John. There was no particular occasion to mention Luke\'s name in the Gospel, except as the author, if he had so wished. The late legend that Luke was one of the Seventy sent out by Jesus (Epiphanius, Haer., ii.51, 11) is pure conjecture, as is the story that Luke was one of the Greeks who came to Philip for an introduction to Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,20);">Joh 12:20</a>f), or the companion of Cleopas in the walk to Emmaus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,13);">Lu 24:13</a>). The clear implication of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,2);">Lu 1:2</a> is that Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.<P>3. A Gentile:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a> Luke is distinguished by Paul from those "of the circumcision" (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus). Epaphras, Luke, Demas form the Gentile group. He was believed by the early Christian writers to have come directly from heathendom to Christianity. He may or may not have been a Jewish proselyte. His first appearance with Paul at Troas (compare the "we"-sections, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'10-12\');">Ac 16:10-12</a>) is in harmony with this idea. The classic introduction to the Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Lu 1:1-4</a>) shows that he was a man of culture (compare Apollos and Paul). He was a man of the schools, and his Greek has a literary flavor only approached in the New Testament by Paul\'s writings and by the Epistle to the Hebrews.<P>4. Home:<P>His home is very uncertain. The text of D (Codex Bezae) and several Latin authorities have a "we-"passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,27);">Ac 11:27</a>. If this reading, the so-called B text of Blass, is the original, then Luke was at Antioch and may have been present at the great event recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>f. But it is possible that the Western text is an interpolation. At any rate, it is not likely that Luke is the same person as Lucius of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 389f) thinks that Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, iv, 6) does not mean to say that Luke was a native of Antioch, but only that he had Antiochian family connections. Jerome calls him Lucas medicus Antiochensis. He certainly shows an interest in Antioch (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,\'19-27\');">Ac 11:19-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,26);">14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22,23,30,35);">15:22,23,30,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,22);">18:22</a>). Antioch, of course, played a great part in the early work of Paul. Other stories make Luke live in Alexandria and Achaia and narrate that he died in Achaia or Bithynia. But we know that he lived in Philippi for a considerable period. He first meets Paul at Troas just before the vision of the Man from Macedonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'10-12\');">Ac 16:10-12</a>), and a conversation with Paul about the work in Macedonia may well have been the human occasion of that vision and call. Luke remains in Philippi when Paul and Silas leave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,40);">Ac 16:40</a>, "They...departed"). He is here when Paul comes back on his 3rd tour bound for Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'3-5\');">Ac 20:3-5</a>). He shows also a natural pride in the claims of Philippi to the primacy in the province as against Amphipolis and Thessalonica (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,12);">Ac 16:12</a>, "the first of the district"). On the whole, then, we may consider Philippi as the home of Luke, though he was probably a man who had traveled a great deal, and may have been with Paul in Galatia before coming to Troas. He may have ministered to Paul in his sickness there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,14);">Ga 4:14</a>). His later years were spent chiefly with Paul away from Philippi (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'3-28\',31);">Ac 20:3-28,31</a>, on the way to Jerusalem, at Caesarea, the voyage to Rome and in Rome).<P>5. Physician:<P>Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a>) expressly calls him "the beloved physician." He was Paul\'s medical adviser, and doubtless prolonged his life and rescued him from many a serious illness. He was a medical missionary, and probably kept up his general practice of medicine in connection with his work in Rome (compare Zahn, Intro, III, 1). He probably practiced medicine in Malta (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,9);">Ac 28:9</a>f). He naturally shows his fondness for medical terms in his books (compare Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke; Harnack, New Testament Studies: Luke the Physician, 175-98). Harnack adds some examples to those given by Hobart, who has overdone the matter in reality.<P>See further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>.<P>6. Brother of Titus:<P>It is possible, even probable (see Souter\'s article in DCG), that in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,18);">2Co 8:18</a> "the brother" is equivalent to "the brother" of Titus just mentioned, that is, "his brother." If so, we should know that Paul came into contact with Luke at Philippi on his way to Corinth during his 2nd tour (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,18);">2Co 12:18</a>). It would thus be explained why in Acts the name of Titus does not occur, since he is the brother of Luke the author of the book.<P>7. Connection with Paul:<P>If the reading of Codex Bezae (D) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,27);">Ac 11:27</a>f is correct, Luke met Paul at Antioch before the 1st missionary tour. Otherwise it may not have been till Troas on the 2nd tour. But he is the more or less constant companion of Paul from Philippi on the return to Jerusalem on the 3rd tour till the 2 years in Rome at the close of the Acts. He was apparently not with Paul when <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,20);">Php 2:20</a> was written, though, as we have seen, he was with Paul in Rome when he wrote Colossians and Philemon. He was Paul\'s sole companion for a while during the 2nd Roman imprisonment (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a>). His devotion to Paul in this time of peril is beautiful.<P>8. Author of Both Gospel and Acts:<P>For the proof of the Lukan authorship of the Acts see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>. For the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel with his name, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUKE,+THE+GOSPEL+OF">LUKE, THE GOSPEL OF</a>. Our interest in him is largely due to this fact and to his relations with Paul. The Christian world owes him a great debt for his literary productions in the interest of the gospel.<P>9. Legends:<P>One legend regarding Luke is that he was a painter. Plummer (Commentary on Luke, xxif) thinks that the legend is older than is sometimes supposed and that it has a strong element of truth. It is true that he has drawn vivid scenes with his pen. The early artists were especially fond of painting scenes from the Gospel of Luke. The allegorical figure of the ox or calf in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,\'1-\');">Eze 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,\'1-\');">Re 4</a> has been applied to Luke\'s Gospel.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Bible dicts., comms., lives of Paul, instroductions. See also Harnack, "Lukas, der Arzt, der Verfasser" (1906); New Testament Studies: Luke the Physician (1907); Ramsay, Luke the Physician (1908); Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke (1882); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study in the Credibility of Luke (1898); Maclachlan, John, Evangelist and Historian (1912).``150';
|
||
isbe[5613]='Luke, the Gospel of`1. Text<P>2. Canonicity<P>3. Authorship<P>4. Sources<P>5. Credibility<P>6. Characteristics<P>7. Date<P>8. Analysis<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Text:<P>The five primary uncials (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae) are the chief witnesses for the text of Luke\'s Gospel. This group is reinforced by L, Codex Delta and the Freer (Detroit) MS; R, T, X and Xi are also valuable in fragments. The other uncials are of secondary value. The Latin, Egyptian and Syriac versions are also of great importance. There are 4 Latin versions (African, European, Italian, Vulgate), 3 Egyptian (Memphitic, Sahidic, Bohairic), 5 Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitto, Harclean, Palestinian or Jerusalem). Many of the cursive (minuscule) manuscripts are also of considerable worth, as are some of the quotations from the Fathers.<P>Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), has advanced theory of two recensions of this Gospel (a longer and a shorter), such as he holds to be true of Acts. In the case of Acts, theory has won some acceptance (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>), but that is not true of the Gospel to any extent. The Western text of the Gospel is the shorter text, while in Acts it is the longer text. In both instances Blass holds that the shorter text was issued after the longer and original text. His idea is that Luke himself revised and issued the shorter text. In itself this is, of course, possible, since the books are both addressed to an individual, Theophilus. The other edition may have been meant for others. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek explain the omission in the Western text of the Gospel as "Western non-interpolations," and often hold them to be the true text. As samples one may note <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,41);">Lu 10:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,19);">12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,36,40,42);">24:36,40,42</a>, where the Western text is the shorter text. This is not always true, however, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,2);">6:2</A>ff Codex Bezae (D) has the famous passage about the man working on the Sabbath, which the other documents do not give. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,22);">Lu 3:22</a>, D has the reading of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,7);">Ps 2:7</a> (" Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee") for the usual text. Zahn (Introduction, III, 38) accepts this as the true text. There is no doubt of the interest and value of the Western readings in Luke, but it cannot be said that Blass has carried his point here. The peculiar mutilation of the Gospel by Marcion has an interest of its own.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>Plummer (Commentary on Luke, lxxx) says: "In the second half of the 2nd century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative; and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized at a very much earlier date." On the other hand, Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) says: "This \'tradition,\' however, cannot be traced farther back than toward the end of the 2nd century (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Muratorian Fragment); there is no sound basis for the contention of Zahn (II, 175) that the existence of the tradition can also be found as early as in Marcion, because that writer, from his aversion to the Third Gospel (which nevertheless was the only one he admitted into his collection<6F>with alterations it is true) omitted the expression of honor applied to Luke in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a>." Here the two views are well stated. Schmiedel shows dogmatic bias and prejudice against Luke. Julicher, however, frankly admits (Intro, 330) that "the ancients were universally agreed that the writer was that Luke, disciple of Paul, who is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,11);">2Ti 4:11</a>, and called \'the physician\' in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a>; presumably a native of Antioch." This statement bears more directly on the question of authorship than of canonicity, but it is a good retort to the rather cavalier tone of Schmiedel, who is reluctant to admit the facts. The recognition of the Third Gospel in the Muratorian Canon (170 AD) is a fact of much significance. It was used in Tatian\'s Diatessaron (circa 170 AD) as one of the four recognized Gospels (compare Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, 3ff). The fact that Marcion (140 AD) mutilated this Gospel to suit his theology and thus used it is even more significant (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, Appendix). Other heretics like the Valentinians (compare Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 5-7) made use of it, and Heracleon (compare Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iv.9) wrote a commentary on it. Irenaeus (end of the 2nd century) makes frequent quotations from this Gospel. He argues that there could be only "four" Gospels because of the four points of the compass<73>an absurd argument, to be sure, but a powerful testimony to the general acceptance of this Gospel along with the other three. It is needless to appeal to the presence of the Third Gospel in the Curetonian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the African Latin<69>versions that date to the 2nd century, not to mention the probability of the early date of the Memphitic (Coptic) versions. Examples of the early use of this Gospel occur in various writings of the 2nd century, as in Justin Martyr (150 AD), the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (circa 140 AD), Celsus (circa AD 160), the Gospel of Peter (2nd century), the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (177 AD), probably also the Didache (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (190-202 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD). It is doubtful about Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp; and the Epistle of Barnabas seems to make no use of the Third Gospel. But Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp quote Acts. But surely the general use and acceptance of the Third Gospel in the early 2nd century is beyond reasonable doubt. It is not easy to decide when the actual use began, because we have so little data from the 1st century (compare Plummer, Commentary, lxxiii).<P>The fact that the author was not an apostle affected the order of the book in some lists. Most manuscripts and versions have the common order of today, but the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) is given by D, many Old Latin manuscripts, the Gothic VS, the Apostolical Constitutions. The object was probably to place the books by apostles together and first. The Old Latin has Luke second (John, Luke, Mark, Matthew), while the Curetonian Syriac has Luke last of the four. The cursives 90 and 399 also have Luke second.<P>3. Authorship:<P>The first writers who definitely name Luke as the author of the Third Gospel belong to the end of the 2nd century. They are the Canon of Muratori (possibly by Hippolytus), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. We have already seen that Julicher (Introduction, 330) admits that the ancients Universally agreed that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. In the early part of the 2nd century the writers did not, as a rule, give the names of the authors of the Gospels quoted by them. It is not fair, therefore, to use their silence on this point as proof either of their ignorance of the author or of denial of Luke\'s authorship. Julicher for instance, says (Introduction, 330): "There is no tradition worthy of the name concerning Luke, whom Papias did not mention, or at any rate did not know." But we owe to Eusebius all the fragments that we have preserved from the writings of Papias. Our ignorance of Papias can hardly be charged up to him. Plummer (Commentary, xii) says that nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the fact that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. On the other hand, Julicher (Introduction, 331) is not willing to let it go as easily as that. He demands appeal to Acts, and there (ibid., 447) he denies the Lukan authorship save as to the "we" sections. J. Weiss (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; das Lukas Evang., 1906, 378) admits that but for Acts no sufficient reason would exist for denying the authorship of the Third Gospel to Luke, the disciple of Paul. A Pauline point of view in this Gospel is admitted generally. Many modern critics take it for granted that the Lukan authorship of Acts is disproved, and hence, that of the Gospel likewise falls by the way. So argue Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Julicher, Pfleiderer, Schurer, Spitta, von Soden, J. Weiss, Weizsacker, Zeller. Men like Blass, Credner, Harnack, Hawkins, Hobart, Klostermann, Plummer, Ramsay, Renan, Vogel, Zahn, stand by the tradition of Lukan authorship, but Harnack is almost irritated (Luke the Physician, 1907,6), since "the indefensibility of the tradition is regarded as being so clearly established that nowadays it is thought scarcely worth while to reprove this indefensibility, or even to notice the arguments of conservative opponents." Harnack proceeds to make a plea for a hearing. Jacobus (Standard Bible Dictionary) admits that "Ac tells us nothing more of the author than does the Gospel." That is true so far as express mention is concerned, but not so far as natural implication goes. It is true that the place to begin the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel is Acts. For detailed discussion of the proof that Luke wrote Acts, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>. It is there shown that the line of argument which has convinced Harnack, the leader of the liberal criticism of Germany, ought to convince any openminded critic. It means a good deal when Harnack (Luke the Physician, 14) says: "I subscribe to the words of Zahn (Einleitung, II, 427): \'Hobart has proved for everyone who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine<6E>in short, a Greek physician.\' " It is here assumed that the line of argument pursued in the article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a> is conclusive. If so, little remains to be done in the way of special proof for the Gospel. The author of Acts specifically refers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,1);">Ac 1:1</a>) to a former treatise which was likewise addressed to Theophilus. This we find to be the case with the Gospel passing under the name of Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,4);">1:4</a>). The critics who admit the Lukan authorship of Acts and deny the Lukan authorship of the Gospel are hardly worth considering.<P>It is, therefore, largely a work of supererogation to give at length the proof from internal grounds that Luke wrote the Gospel, after being convinced about Acts. Still it may be worth while to sketch in outline the line of argument, even though it is very simple. Plummer (Comm., x-xvii) argues three propositions:"<P>(1) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts.<P>(2) The author of Acts was a companion of Paul.<P>(3) This companion was Luke."<P>Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909) has argued with great minuteness and skill theory that the same linguistic peculiarities occur in all portions of Acts, including the "we-"sections. He accepts the facts set forth by Hawkins (Horae Synopticae) and adds others. He agrees, therefore, that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Harnack is convinced by the exhaustive labors of Hobart (Medical Language of Luke) that this author was a physician, as we know Luke to have been (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,14);">Col 4:14</a>). He shows this to be true of the author of Acts by the use of "us" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,10);">Ac 28:10</a>, showing that the author of Acts received honors along with Paul, probably because he practiced medicine and treated many (compare Barnack, Luke the Physician, 15f). These medical terms occur in the Gospel of Luke also, and the same general linguistic style is found in both the Gospel and Acts. Hawkins has made a careful study of likenesses and variations in style in these two books (compare Horae Synopticae, 15-25, 174-89). The argument is as conclusive as such a line of proof can be expected to be. For further discussion see Ramsay, Luke the Physician,1908,1-68; Zahn, Introduction, III, 160ff. There are no phenomena in the Gospel hostile to this position save the Semitic character of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">Luke 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-\');">2</a> (barring the classical introduction <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">1:1-4</A>). Luke, though a Gentile, has in these chapters the most Semitic narrative in the New Testament. But the explanation is obvious. He is here using Semitic material (either oral or written), and has with true artistic skill preserved the tone of the original. To a certain extent the same thing is true of the opening chapters of Acts.<P>4. Sources:<P>The synoptic problem (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS,+THE+SYNOPTIC">GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC</a>) remains the most difficult one in the realm of New Testament criticism. But the Gospel of Luke yields on the whole more satisfactory results than is yet true of Matthew.<P>(1) Unity.<P>If the Lukan authorship of the book is accepted, there remains no serious doubt concerning the unity and integrity of the Gospel. The abridgment of Luke\'s Gospel used by Marcion does not discredit those portions of the Gospel omitted by him. They are omitted for doctrinal reasons (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, chapter viii). His readings are of interest from the viewpoint of textual criticism, as are the quotations of other early writers, but his edition does not seriously challenge the value of Luke\'s work.<P>(2) Luke\'s Method.<P>Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">1:1-4</a>). Here we catch a glimpse of the author\'s personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us," in our time. He does not himself claim to have been an eyewitness of "those matters." As we know already, Luke was a Gentile and apparently never saw Jesus in the flesh. He occupies thus a position outside of the great events which he is to record. He does not disguise his intense interest in the narrative, but he claims the historical spirit. He wishes to assure Theophilus of "the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." He claims to have investigated "the course of all things accurately from the first," just as the true historian would. He thus implies that some of the attempts made had been fragmentary at any rate, and to that extent inaccurate. He has also produced an "orderly" narrative by which Theophilus may gain a just conception of the historical progress of the events connected with the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters" does not deter Luke from his task. The rather he is stirred thereby ("It seemed good to me also") to give his interpretation of the life and work of Jesus as the result of his researches. He stands not farther away than one generation from the death of Jesus. He has the keen interest natural to a cultured follower of Jesus in the origin of what had become a great world-movement. He is able to get at the facts because he has had intercourse with eyewitnesses of Jesus and His work, "even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Luke had abundant opportunity during the two years at Caesarea with Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,\'1-\');">Ac 24-26</a>) to make careful and extended investigations. Many of the personal followers of Jesus were still living (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,6);">1Co 15:6</a>). It was a golden opportunity for Luke\'s purpose. He had also the written narratives which others ("many") had already drawn up. We are, then, to expect in Luke\'s Gospel a book closely akin to Acts in style and plan, with the historian\'s love of accuracy and order, with the author\'s own contribution in the assimilation and use of this oral and written material. One would not expect in such a writer slavish copying, but intelligent blending of the material into an artistic whole.<P>(3) The Aramaic Infancy Narrative.<P>The very first section in this Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'5-\');">Lu 1:5</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-52\');">2:52</a>) illustrates Luke\'s fidelity in the use of his material. Wellhausen drops these two chapters from his edition of Luke\'s Gospel as not worthy of consideration. That is conjectural criticism run mad and is not to be justified by the example of Marcion, who begins with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'1-\');">4</A>. Wright (Gospel according to Luke in Greek, 1900, viiif; under the word "Luke\'s Gospel," DCG) holds that this section was the last to be added to the Gospel though he holds that it comes from Luke. It may be said in passing that Wright is a stout advocate for the oral source for all of Luke\'s Gospel. He still holds out against the "two-document" or any document theory. However, he claims rightly that Luke\'s information for these two chapters was private. This material did not form part of the current oral Gospel. In Matthew the narrative of the birth of Jesus is given from the standpoint of Joseph, and Mary is kept in the background, according to Eastern feeling (Wright). But in Luke the story is told from Mary\'s point of view. Luke may, indeed, have seen Mary herself in the years 57-59 AD (or 58-60). He could easily have seen some of Mary\'s intimate friends who knew the real facts in the case. The facts were expressly said to have been kept in Mary\'s heart. She would tell only to sympathetic ears (compare Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 74f). It is not possible to discredit Luke\'s narrative of the Virgin Birth on a priori grounds (compare Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907; Sweet, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1906). The curious Semitic flavor of this narrative argues strongly for its genuineness, since Luke was a Greek. We do not know whether Luke knew Aramaic or not. That was possible, since he spent these 2 years in Palestine. We do not know whether this information came to him in written form (note especially the hymns of Mary and of Zacharias) or in oral tradition. But it is hardly possible to credit a Greek with the invention of these birth-narratives and poems which ring so true to the soil and the Hebrew life. Immediately after Luke\'s statement about historical research comes the narrative of the birth of Jesus. It is the first illustration of his work on his sources.<P>(4) Luke\'s Relation to Mark\'s Gospel.<P>Luke knew Mark in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10,14);">Col 4:10,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a>). He may have met him in Palestine also. Had he seen Mark\'s Gospel when he wrote his own? Was it one of the "many" narratives that came under Luke\'s eye? Wright (compare DCG) denies that Luke had our Mark. He admits that he may have had an Urmarkus or proto-Mark which he heard in oral form, but not the present (written) Gospel of Mark. He thinks that this can best be accounted for by the fact that out of 223 sections in Mark there are 54 not in Luke. But most modern critics have come to the conclusion that both Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as well as other sources. Matthew, if he used Mark, in the early chapters, followed a topical arrangement of his material, combining Mark with the other source or sources. But Luke has followed the order of Mark very closely in this part and indeed throughout. Luke has a special problem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">9:51-19:27</a>, but the broad general outline follows that of Mark. But it cannot be said that Luke made a slavish use of Mark, if he had this Gospel before him. He gives his own touch to each incident and selects what best suits his purpose. It is not possible for us to tell always that motive, but it is idle to suppose that Luke blindly recorded every incident found in every document or every story that came to his ears. He implies in his introduction that he has made a selection out of the great mass of material and has woven it into a coherent and progressive narrative. We may admit with Harnack (New Testament Studies: Sayings of Jesus, xiii) that the Markan problem "has been treated with scientific thoroughness" and that Luke had Mark as one of his sources. The parallel between Luke and Mark in the narrative portion is easily seen in any Harmony of the Gospels, like Broadus or Stevens and Burton.<P>(5) Q (Quelle) or the Logia.<P>It is a matter of more uncertainty when we come to the mass of material common to Matthew and Luke, but absent from Mark. This is usually found in the discourses of Jesus. The more generally accepted theory today is that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark and also this collection of Logia called Q for short (Ger. Quelle, "source"). But, while this theory may be adopted as a working hypothesis, it cannot be claimed that it is an established fact. Zahn (compare Introduction) stoutly stands up for the real authorship of the First Gospel of Matthew. Arthur Carr ("Further Notes on the Synoptic Problem," The Expositor, January, 1911, 543-553) argues strongly for the early date and Matthean authorship of the First Gospel. He says on the whole subject: "The synoptic problem which has of late engaged the speculation of some of our keenest and most laborious students is still unsolved." He even doubts the priority of Mark\'s Gospel. Wellhausen (Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 73-89) advocates the priority of Mark to Q. But Harnack balances the problem of "Q and Mark" (Sayings of Jesus, 193-233) and decides in favor of Q. In any case, it is to be noted that the result of critical research into the value of Q is to put it quite on a paragraph with Mark. Harnack is quite impressed with the originality and vivid reality of the matter in Q. The material present in Q cannot be gauged so accurately as that in Mark, since we have the Gospel of Mark in our hands. Where both Matthew and Luke give material not found in Mark, it is concluded that this is drawn from Q. But it cannot be shown that Matthew may not have used Q at some points and Luke at still others independently. Besides Q may have contained material not preserved either in Matthew or Luke. A careful and detailed comparison of the material common to both Matthew and Luke and absent from Mark may be found in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 10713; Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, 127-82; Wellhausen, Einleitung, 66; Robertson, "Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 14-19. But, if it is true that Luke made use of Q as of Mark, he was no mere copyist. No solution of the synoptic problem can ever be obtained on the idea that the Gospels are mere reproductions of previous documents. There was freedom in the use of all the material, both oral and written, and the writer gave his own interpretation to the result. It was often a restatement in the author\'s own language, not formal quotation. Wright (DCG) calls this editorial element "editorial notes"; that is, of course, often true when the author makes comments on the matters presented, but "ancient authors took immense pains to reduce the rude chronicles which they used, into literary form" (same place). The point of all this is that a great deal of criticism of the Gospels is attempting the impossible, for many of the variations cannot possibly be traced to any "source." Wright (same place) puts it tersely again: "And if in John\'s Gospel it is more and more recognized that the mind of the evangelist cast the utterances of our Lord into the peculiar form which they there hold, the same process of redaction may be observed in Luke, who comes nearest of the synoptists to the methods of John." As a matter of fact, this is as it should be expected. The frank recognition of this point of view marks progress in synoptic criticism.<P>(6) Other Sources.<P>There is a large block of material in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">Lu 9:51-18:14</a> which is given by him alone. There are various sayings like some reported by Matthew (or Mark) in other connections. Some of the incidents are similar to some given elsewhere by Matthew and Mark. There are various theories concerning this position of Luke. Some critics hold that Luke has here put a mass of material which he had left over, so to speak, and which he did not know where to locate, without any notion of order. Against this theory is the express statement of Luke that he wrote an orderly narrative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,3);">1:3</a>f). One is disposed to credit Luke\'s own interpretation unless the facts oppose it. It is common for traveling preachers, as was Jesus, to have similar experiences in different parts of the country and to repeat their favorite sayings. So teachers repeat many of their sayings each year to different classes. Indeed, it is just in this section of Luke that the best parts of his Gospel are found (the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, etc.). "The more we consider this collection, the more we are entranced with it. It is the very cream of the Gospel, and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to Luke" Wright DCG) Wright calls this "a Pauline collection, not because Paul is responsible for the material, but because the chapters breathe cosmopolitan spirit of Paul. That is true, but Jesus loved the whole world. This side of the teaching of Jesus may have appealed to Luke powerfully because of its reflection in Paul. Matthew\'s Gospel was more narrowly Jewish in its outlook, and Mark\'s had fewer of the sayings of Christ. But it is to be noted that this special material in Luke extends more or less all through the Gospel. Burton (Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 49) calls this special material in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">Lu 9:51-18:14</a> "the Perean document." We do not know, of course, anything of the actual source of this material. Whether Luke has here followed one or more documents, he has, as elsewhere, given his own stamp to the whole, while preserving in a marvelous way the spirit of Jesus. (For the possible parallel between this section of Luke and John see Robertson\'s "Notes" to Broadus, Harmony of the Gospels, 249-52.) For the earlier material in Luke not found elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,\'7-15\',17,18);">3:7-15,17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'2-13\');">4:2b-13 (Hebrew 14,15)</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'16-30\');">16-30</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,\'1-11\');">5:1-11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'21-49\');">6:21-49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'1-\');">7:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,\'1-3\');">8:3</A>) Burton suggests "the Galilean document" as the source. Wright, on the other hand, proposes "anonymous fragments" as the source of Luke\'s material not in the infancy narrative, nor in Mark, nor in Q, nor in the "Pauline" or Perean document. At any rate, it is certain that Luke\'s own words of explanation should warn us against drawing too narrow a line around the "sources" used by him. His "many" may well have included a dozen sources, or even more. But it may be said, in a word, that all that criticism has been able to learn on the subject has confirmed the statement of Luke himself concerning his method of research and his use of the material.<P>5. Credibility:<P>More fault has been found with Luke as a historian in Acts than in the Gospel. Harnack (Acts of the Apostles) is not disposed to give Luke full credit as a reliable historian. But Ramsay (Luke the Physician, 5) champions the reliability of Luke (compare also Paul the Traveler; The Church in the Roman Empire) against the skepticism of Harnack, which is growing less, since in the Theol. Literaturzeitung (July 7,1906,S. 4) he speaks well of Luke\'s ability to secure correct information. So in Luke the Physician (121-45) Harnack urges that the possible "instances of incredibility have been much exaggerated by critics." He adds about <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,36);">Ac 5:36</a>: "It is also possible that there is a mistake in Jos" (compare Chase, Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles; see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>.<P>But the Gospel is not free from attack. The chief matter in the Gospel of Luke which is challenged on historical grounds, apart from the birth-narratives, which some critics treat as legendary, is the census in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>ff. Critics, who in general have accepted Luke\'s veracity, have sometimes admitted that here he fell into error and confused the census under Quirinius in 6-7 AD when Quirinius came, after the banishment of Archelaus, to take a census and to collect taxes, much to the indignation of the Jews (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a>; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i). It was not known that Quirinius had been governor of Syria before this time, nor was there any other knowledge of a census under Augustus. The case against Luke seemed strong. But Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 227ff) shows that the inscription at Tibur, as agreed by Mommsen and like authorities, shows that Quirinius "twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus." He was consul in 12 BC, so that the first mission was after that date. Ramsay shows also from the papyri that the 14-year cycle was used for the Roman census (many census papers are known from 20 AD on). He argues that the first one was instituted by Augustus in 8 BC. Herod, as a vassal king, would naturally be allowed to conduct it in the Jewish fashion, not the Roman, and it was probably delayed several years in the provinces. Thus once more Luke is vindicated in a remarkable way (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, sec. I,1,(2)</a>).<P>The Acts of the Apostles has come out of the critical ordeal in a wonderful manner, so that Luke\'s credit as a historical writer is now very high among those qualified to know the facts. He has been tested and found correct on so many points that the presumption is in his favor where he cannot as yet be verified. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 265) finds Luke "more graphic than historical."<P>6. Characteristics:<P>He was the most versatile of the Gospel writers. He was a Greek, a Christian, a physician, a man of travel, a man of world-outlook, sympathetic, cultured, poetic, spiritual, artistic, high-minded. His Prologue is the most classic piece of Greek in the New Testament, but the rest of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">1</a> and all of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-\');">2</a> are the most Semitic in tone. The breadth of his literary equipment is thereby shown. He not only uses many medical terms common to technical circles, but he has the physician\'s interest in the sick and afflicted, as shown in the large number of miracles of healing narrated. His interest in the poor is not due to Ebionitic prejudice against the rich, but to human compassion for the distressed. His emphasis on the human side of the work of Jesus is not due to Ebionitic denial of the Divinity of Jesus, but to his keen appreciation of the richness of the human life of the Son of God. His rich and varied vocabulary reveals a man who read and mingled with the best life of his time. He wrote his books in the vernacular, but the elevated vernacular of an educated man touched with a distinct literary flavor. His poetic temperament is shown in the preservation of the beautiful hymns of the nativity and in the wonderful parables of Jesus in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,\'1-\');">15-18</A>. They are reported with rare grace and skill. Luke is fond of showing Christ\'s sympathy with women and children, and he has more to say about prayer than the authors of the other Gospels. His interest in individuals is shown by the dedication of both his books to Theophilus. His cosmopolitan sympathies are natural in view of his training and inheritance, but part of it is doubtless due to his association with the apostle Paul. He comes to the interpretation of Jesus from a world-standpoint and does not have to overcome the Pharisaic limitations incident to one reared in Palestine. It is a matter of rejoicing that we have this book, called by Renan the most beautiful book in the world, as a cultured Greek\'s interpretation of the origin of Christianity. He thus stands outside of the pale of Judaism and can see more clearly the world-relations and world-destiny of the new movement. With Luke, Jesus is distinctly the world\'s Saviour. The accent on sin is human sin, not specifically Jewish sin. John in his Gospel came in his old age to look back upon the events in Judea from a non-Jewish standpoint. But he rose to the essentially spiritual and eternal apprehension of Christ, rather than extended his vision, as Luke did, to the cosmopolitan mission and message of Jesus, though this did not escape John. The Gospel of Luke thus has points of affinity with Paul, John and the author of Hebrews in style and general standpoint. But while Luke\'s own style is manifest throughout, it is not obtrusive. He hides himself behind the wonderful portrait of Jesus which he has here drawn in undying colors.<P>7. Date:<P>The extreme position of Baur and Zeller may be dismissed at once. There is no reason for dating the Gospel of Luke in the 2nd century on the ground that he used Marcion\'s Gospel, since it is now admitted all round that Marcion made use of Luke. The supposed use of Josephus by Luke (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a> for discussion and refutation) leads a goodly number of radical scholars (Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Holtzmann, Julicher, Krenkel, Weizsacker, Wernle) to date the book at the end of the 1st century. This is still extreme, as Harnack had already shown in his Chronologie der altchristl. Litt., I,1897,246-50. Any use of Josephus by Luke is highly improbable (see Plummer on Luke, xxix). The Gospel was certainly written before Acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,1);">Ac 1:1</a>) and while Paul was alive, if <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,18);">1Ti 5:18</a> be taken as a quotation from <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,7);">Lu 10:7</a>, which is by no means certain, however. But it is true that the most natural way to interpret the sudden close of Acts, after 2 years in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,31);">Ac 28:31</a>), is the fact that Luke finished the book at that time (Maclean, 1 volume HDB). Moffatt (Historical New Testament, 273) calls this early date "reactionary" and "extravagant." But it is supported by Alford, Blass, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guericke, Hahn, Headlam, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Marshall, Nosgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Riehm, Schaff, Schanz, Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and Harnack himself is now ready to join this goodly company. He warns critics against too hasty a closing of the chronological question (Ac of the Apostles, 291), and admits that Acts was written "perhaps so early as the beginning of the 7th decade of the 1st century" (ibid., 297), "the Acts (and therefore also the Gospel)." In the Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911, 124) Harnack says: "It seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical order were written while Paul was still alive." There is an intermediate date about 80 AD, assigned by Adeney, Bartlett, Plummer, Sanday, Weiss, Wright, on the ground that the investigations mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Lu 1:1-4</a> describe the use of narratives which could have been written only after a long period of reflection. But that is not a valid objection. There is no sound critical reason why the Gospel of Mark, Q, the infancy narratives, and all the other sources alluded to by this preface could not have been in circulation in Palestine by 55 AD. Indeed, Allen writes in The Expository Times (July, 1910): "I see no reason why such an original (Mark\'s Gospel in Aramaic) should not have appeared before the year 50 AD." The other objection to the early date comes out of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,20);">Lu 21:20</a>, "Jerus compassed with armies" as compared with "the abomination of desolation" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,14);">Mr 13:14</a>. The change is so specific that it is held by some critics to be due to the fact that Luke is writing after the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is just as likely (Maclean) that Luke has here interpreted the Hebraism of Mark for his Gentile readers. Besides, as Plummer (p. xxxi) shows, Luke in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'5-36\');">21:5-36</a> does not record the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed, nor does he change Christ\'s "flee to the mountains" to "Pella in North Peraea," whither the Christians actually fled. Besides, the fact that Acts shows no acquaintance with Paul\'s Epistles is best explained on the assumption of the early date. The question is thus practically settled in favor of the early date. The place of the writing is not known. The early date naturally falls in with Caesarea (Blass, Michaelis, Thiersch), but there is little to guide one.<P>8. Analysis:<P>(1) Prologue, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Luke 1:1-4</a>.<P>(2) Infancy and childhood of John and Jesus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'5-\');">Luke 1:5</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-52\');">2:52</a>.<P>(3) Beginning of Christ\'s Ministry, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,\'1-\');">Luke 3:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'1-13\');">4:13</a>.<P>(4) Galilean Campaign, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'14-\');">Luke 4:14-9:6</a>.<P>(5) Retirement from Galilee, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'7-50\');">Luke 9:7-50</a>.<P>(6) Later Judean and Perean Ministry, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'51-\');">Luke 9:51-19:28</a>.<P>(7) Close of the Public Ministry in Jerusalem, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,\'29-\');">Luke 19:29-21:37</a>.<P>(8) The Dreadful End, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'1-\');">Luke 21-23</a>.<P>(9) Resurrection of Christ, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,\'1-\');">Luke 24</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See extended list of books at close of article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACTS+OF+THE+APOSTLES">ACTS OF THE APOSTLES</a>; the extensive list of Commentaries Plummer\'s Commentary on Luke can also be consulted. After Plummer the best commentaries on Luke\'s Gospel are Bruce, Expositor\'s Greek Test.; Weiss\' Meyer Krit.-exeget. Komm.; Godet; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentary Of the many Introduction to the New Testament, Zahn\'s is the ablest and most exhaustive (conservative) and Julicher\'s is the fairest of the radical school. The best of the briefer ones is Gregory\'s Canon and Text (1907). Special treatises deserving mention here are Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898); Ev. secundum Lukam (1897); Wellhausen. Das Ev. Lukae (1904); Sense, Origin of the Third Gospel (1901); Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers (1890); Harnack, Luke the Physician (1907), and Sayings of Jesus (1908); The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911); Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd edition, 1909); Hervey. Authenticity of Luke (1892); Hobart, Medical Language of Luke (1882); Litzinger, Die Entstehung des Lukasevangelium und der Apostelgeschichte (1883); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (1898) and Luke the Physician (1908); Resch, Das Kindheit-Evangelium nach Lukas und Matthaus; Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); Vogel, Zur Characteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1897); Weiss, Quellen des Lukasevangelium (1907); Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels and his Gospel according to Luke in Greek (1900).``150';
|
||
isbe[5614]='Lunatic(K)`lu\'-na-tik:<P>I. Epilepsy.<P>1. Incorrect Translation:<P>The English word "lunatic," which in popular speech signifies a sufferer from any mental derangement, whether periodic or chronic, other than congenital idiocy, appears in the King James Version as a translation of the Greek word seleniazomai, in the two passages where it occurs. In the Revised Version (British and American) the word has very properly been displaced by the strictly accurate term "epileptic." This change is justified not only by the extra-Biblical usage (see Liddell and Scott, under the word), but clearly enough by <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,15);">Mt 17:15</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">4:24</a>), where epilepsy is circumstantially described.<P>2. Original Meaning:<P>The original meaning of the term seleniazomai, "moon-struck," is connected with the popular belief, widespread and of strange persistency, that the moon, in certain of its phases, is injurious to human beings, especially in the case of diseases of a periodic or remittent character. There are no data by which to determine whether, in the New Testament times, this particular word represented a living and active belief or had passed into the state of usage in which the original metaphor disappears, and the word simply indicates the fact signified without reference to the idea embodied in the etymology. We still use the word "lunatic" to signify a person mentally diseased, although we have long since ceased to believe in the moon\'s influence in such cases.<P>II. Madness.<P>The Bible designates "madness," or alienation of mind, by various terms, all of which seem to be onomatopoetic. These various words seem to be derived from the strange and fierce or mournful cries uttered by the unfortunate victims of this dread malady. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,34);">De 28:34</a> the word "maddened" is meshugga\', participle of shagha\' (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,15);">1Sa 21:15</a>). With this corresponds the word mainomai, in the New Testament. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,13);">1Sa 21:13 (Hebrew 14)</a> the word is a form of the verb chalal, which is also a derivative from the sound indicated.<P>In certain cases, though by no means uniformly, madness is ascribed to demon-possession (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,26);">Lu 8:26</a>f). One is struck by the fact that mental derangement occupies a very small place in Scripture.``169';
|
||
isbe[5615]='Lurk; Lurking-Place`lurk, lurk\'-ing-plas: "To lurk" means "to lie in wait," usually with intent to do harm (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,12);">Ps 17:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,11,18);">Pr 1:11,18</a>).<P>Lurking-place, a place of hiding, usually for the purpose of murder. See <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,23);">1Sa 23:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,8);">Ps 10:8</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5616]='Lust`(5 Hebrew and 5 Greek words are so rendered, namely:<P>(1) nephesh,<P>(2) sheriruth,<P>(3) ta\'awah,<P>(4) chamadh,<P>(5) \'awah;<P>(1) epithumia,<P>(2) hedone,<P>(3) epipotheo,<P>(4) orexis,<P>(5) pathos):<hr /><P>The word both as verb and as substantive has a good and a bad meaning. It probably meant at first a strong desire, a craving, abnormal appetite, not only for physical but for spiritual satisfaction. It has come, however, to be confined in its use almost entirely to the bad sense. Some old translations are not accepted now, the word being used in connections which at present seem almost irreverent. Shades of meaning are learned from an examination of the Hebrew and Greek originals.<P>1. The Old Testament Use:<P>The substantive and verbs are:<P>(1) Nephesh, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,9);">Ex 15:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,18);">Ps 78:18</a> translated "desire"; "My desire shall be satisfied"; "by asking food according to their desire." A strong but not sensual sense.<P>(2) Sheriruth, meaning "obstinacy," evil imagination. Yahweh said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,12);">Ps 81:12</a>), "I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart," a willful self-satisfaction.<P>(3) Ta\'awah, "a delight" "a longing satisfaction," and so it came to mean "sinful pleasure." Translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,30);">Ps 78:30</a>, "that which they desired," intensely longed for, referring to Yahweh\'s provision of food in the wilderness. Also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,4);">Nu 11:4</a> concerning "flesh to eat" it is said the multitude "lusted exceedingly" i.e. "craved eagerly.<P>(4) Chamadh, the verb meaning "to delight in," "greatly belove," "covet," probably for evil purposes. The young man is warned against the evil woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,25);">Pr 6:25</a>): "Lust not after her beauty." Here the bad sense is evident, for in the same connection are used such expressions as "harlot," "adulteress," "evil woman."<P>(5) \'Awah, meaning "greatly to desire," long after, with undue emphasis, with evil spirit though not perhaps with impure thought. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,34);">Nu 11:34</a> reference is made to a place called qibhroth ha-ta\'wah, "the graves of lust, where "they buried the people that lusted." <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,14);">Ps 106:14</a> also refers to the Israelites who "lusted exceedingly." Translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,15,21);">De 12:15,21</a> "desire of thy soul"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,20);">12:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,26);">14:26</a>, "thy soul desireth." These Deuteronomy passages evidently mean lust only in the good sense.<P>2. The New Testament Use:<P>As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament we find both meanings of the word.<P>(1) Epithumia is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as "fleshly," "worldly," as opposed to "spiritual" "heavenly," "the will of man" as opposed to "the will of God," but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication; verb in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,28);">Mt 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,19);">Mr 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,24);">Ro 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,6);">1Co 10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,16,17,24);">Ga 5:16,17,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,12);">Tit 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,16);">1Joh 2:16</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,16,18;">Jude 1:16,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,14);">Re 18:14</a>.<P>(2) Hedone, delight in sensuality, hence, wicked pleasures; translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,1,3);">Jas 4:1,3</a> "pleasures": "Your pleasures that war in your members"; "Ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures" (the King James Version "lust").<P>(3) Epipotheo means to crave intensely the wrong possession; translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,5);">Jas 4:5</a> "long (the King James Version "lusteth") unto envying."<P>(4) Orexis, used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,27);">Ro 1:27</a>, from context evidently meaning "lust" in the worst sense; translated "lust."<P>(5) Pathos, meaning "passion" inordinate affection, with the idea in it of suffering; translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,5);">1Th 4:5</a> "passion of lust."``142';
|
||
isbe[5617]='Lute`lut (nebhel; thus the Revised Version (British and American); the King James Version viol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,12);">Isa 5:12</a>)): Nebhel is rendered elsewhere by psaltery" or "viol." The lute was originally an Arabic instrument. It resembled a guitar, though with a longer and more slender neck. The name is derived from Arabic al\'ood, with a of article elided; hence, Italian liuto; French luth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5618]='Luz`(Luz):the Hebrew word means "almond tree" or "almond wood" (OHL, under the word). It may also mean "bone," particularly a bone of the spine, and might be applied to a rocky height supposed to resemble a backbone (Lagarde, Uebersicht., 157f). Winckler explains it by Aramaic laudh, "asylum," which might be suitably applied to a sanctuary (Geschichte Israels). Cheyne (EB, under the word) would derive it by corruption from chalutsah, "strong (city)."<P>(1) This was the ancient name of Bethel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">Ge 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,23);">Jud 1:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,6);">Ge 35:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,3);">48:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,2);">Jos 16:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,13);">18:13</a>). It has been thought that <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,2);">Jos 16:2</a> contradicts this, and that the two places were distinct. Referring to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">Ge 28:19</a>, we find that the name Bethel was given to "the place," ha-maqom, i.e. "the sanctuary," probably "the place" (28:11, Hebrew) associated with the sacrifice of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">12:8</A>), which lay to the east of Bethel. The name of the city as distinguished from "the place" was Luz. As the fame of the sanctuary grew, we may suppose, its name overshadowed, and finally superseded, that of the neighboring town. The memory of the ancient nomenclature persisting among the people sufficiently explains the allusions in the passages cited.<P>(2) A Bethelite, the man who betrayed the city into the hands of the children of Joseph, went into the land of the Hittites, and there founded a city which he called Luz, after the ancient name of his native place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,26);">Jud 1:26</a>). No satisfactory identification has been suggested.``54';
|
||
isbe[5619]='Lycaonia`lik-a-o\'-ni-a, li-ka-o\'-ni-a (Lukaonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,6);">Ac 14:6</a>), Lukaonisti, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>, "in the speech of Lycaonia"); Lycaonia is meant, according to the South Galatian view, by the expression ten Galatiken choran, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">Ac 18:23</a>, and the incidents in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'1-4\');">Ac 16:1-4</a> belong to Lycaonia): Was a country in the central and southern part of Asia Minor whose boundaries and extent varied at different periods. In the time of Paul, it was bounded on the north by Galatia proper (but lay in the Roman province Galatia), on the east by Cappadocia, on the south by Cilicia Tracheia, and on the west by Pisidia and Phrygia. The boundary of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ICONIUM">ICONIUM</a>). Lycaonia consists of a level plain, waterless and treeless, rising at its southern fringe for some distance into the foothills of Taurus, and broken on its eastern side by the volcanic mass of Kara-Dagh and by many smaller hills. Strabo informs us that King Amyntas of Galatia fed many flocks of sheep on the Lycaonian plain. Much of the northern portion of Lycaonia has been proved by recent discovery to have belonged to the Roman emperors, who inherited the crown lands of Amyntas.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,6);">Ac 14:6</a> Lycaonia is summed up as consisting of the cities of Lystra and Derbe and the district (including many villages) lying around them. This description refers to a particular division of Lycaonia, which alone is mentioned in the Bible. In the time of Paul, Lycaonia consisted of two parts, a western and an eastern. The western part was a "region" or subdivision of the Roman province Galatia; the eastern was called Lycaonia Antiochiana, after Antiochus of Commagene under whom it had been placed in 37 AD. This non-Roman portion was traversed by Paul; but nothing is recorded of his journey through it (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DERBE">DERBE</a>). It included the important city of Laranda; and when Lycaonia is described as consisting of the cities of Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding district, the writer is clearly thinking only of the western portion of Lycaonia, which lay in, and formed a "region" of, the province Galatia. This is the tract of country which is meant in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">Ac 18:23</a>, where it is called the "region" of Galatia, and placed side by side with Phrygia, another region of Galatia. The province Galatia was divided into districts technically known as "regions," and Roman Lycaonia is called the "region of Galatia" in implied contrast with Antiochian Lycaonia, which lay outside the Roman province. Of the language of Lycaonia. (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LYSTRA">LYSTRA</a>) nothing survives except some personal and place names, which are discussed in Kretschmar\'s Einleitung in die Gesch. der griech. Sprache.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ramsay, Historical Commentary on Galatians (Introduction); Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition (inscriptions).``20';
|
||
isbe[5620]='Lycia`lish\'-i-a (Lukia): An ancient country forming the southeast portion of Asia Minor. The surface of Lycia is exceedingly rugged, and its lofty mountains rise almost directly from the sea. Over them several trade routes or passes lead from the coast to the interior. Down the mountain sides rush many small rivers, of which the Xanthus is the chief. The history of Lycia, like that of the neighboring countries, forms a part of the history of Asia Minor. Successively it was in the possession of the Persians, of Alexander the Great, of the Seleucid kings and of the Ptolemies. In 188 BC it fell into the hands of the Romans, who gave it to the island of Rhodes; 20 years later, because of its loyalty to Rome, it became free and independent (1Macc 15:23). In 53 AD, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, it became a Roman province, and in 74 AD it was united with Pamphylia to form a double province over which a Roman governor presided.<P>At different times during the history of Lycia, there were about 100 places which issued coins of their own. Pliny speaks of 70 cities which had existed there, but in his age there were but 36. Of these, Patara, Myra and Phaselis are of interest to Bible students. From the coast city of Patara, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,\'1-\');">Ac 21</a>f; Paul took ship for Phoenicia. It was a place celebrated not only as a trading-center, and a port of entry to the interior, but as the seat of the oracle of Apollo, and the birthplace of Nicholas. Myra, though over 2 miles from the coast, possessed a harbor, and was also a trading-center. Here, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,\'5-38\');">Ac 27:5-38</a>, Paul found a grain ship from Alexandria. For some time Myra was the capital of the Roman province; to Christendom it is especially known as the home of Nicholas, who was its bishop and the patron saint of the sailors along the coast. Phaselis, on the border of Pamphylia, was also the home of the bishop.<P>Lycia was a stopping-place, rather than the scene of the active work of Paul, and therefore it figures little in the earliest history of Christianity. For a long time the people strongly opposed the introduction of a strange religion, and in 312 AD they even petitioned the Roman emperor Maximin against it. A portion of the petition has been discovered at Arykander.``7';
|
||
isbe[5621]='Lydda`lid\'-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOD">LOD</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5622]='Lydia (1)`lid\'-i-a (Ludia): An important country in the western part of Asia Minor bounded on the north by Mysia, on the east by Phrygia, on the south by Caria, and on the west by the Aegean Sea. Its surface is rugged, but along the valleys between its mountain ranges ran some of the most important highways from the coast cities to the distant interior. Of its many rivers the chief are the Cayster, the Lower Hermus, the Cogamos, the Caicus and, during a part of its course, the Meander.<P>Lydia was an exceedingly ancient and powerful kingdom whose history is composed chiefly of that of its individual cities. In 546 BC it fell into the hands of the Persians, and in 334 BC it became a part of Alexander\'s empire. After the death of Alexander its possession was claimed by the kings both of Pergamos and of Seleucia, but in 190 BC it became the undisputed possession of the former (1Macc 8:8). With the death of Attalus III, 133 BC, it was transferred by the will of that king to Rome, and Lydia, which then became but a name, formed, along with Caria, Mysia and Phrygia, a part of the Roman province of Asia (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASIA">ASIA</a>). Chief among its cities were Smyrna and Ephesus, two of the most important in Asia Minor, and Smyrna is still the largest and wealthiest city of that part of Turkey. At Ephesus, the seat of the goddess Diana, Paul remained longer than elsewhere in Asia, and there his most important missionary work was done (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'1-\');">Ac 19</a>). Hence, Lydia figures prominently in the early history of the church; it became Christianized during the residence of the apostle at Ephesus, or soon afterward (see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUD">LUD</a>).``7';
|
||
isbe[5623]='Lydia (2)`lid\'-i-a (Ludia): The feminine of Lydian, a native of Lydia, a large country on the west of Asia Minor, and the name of Paul\'s first convert in Europe. This name was a popular one for women (compare Horace Odes i.8; iii.9; vi.20), but Ramsay thinks she "was familiarly known in the town by the ethnic that showed her origin" (H D B, under the word "Lydia"; compare Paul the Traveler, 214). It has always been and is still a common custom in the Orient to refer to one living in a foreign land by employing the adjective which designates the nationality. Renan thinks it means "the Lydian"; Thyatira is a city of Lydia. Lydia was (1) living in Philippi, (2) of the city of Thyatira, (3) a seller of the purple-dyed garments from her native town, (4) and "one that worshipped God." Her occupation shows her to have been a woman of some capital. The phrase which describes her religion (sebomene ton Theon) is the usual designation for a proselyte. She was in the habit of frequenting a place of prayer by a riverside, a situation convenient for the necessary ablutions required by the Jewish worship, and there Paul and his companions met her. After she had been listening to Paul (Greek imperfect), the Lord opened her heart to give heed to his teaching ("To open is the part of God, to pay attention that of the woman," Chrysostom). Her baptism and that of her household followed. To prove her sincerity she besought the missionaries to accept the hospitality of her home. Her house probably became the center for the church in Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,14,15,40);">Ac 16:14,15,40</a>). Lydia is not mentioned in Paul\'s letter to the Philippians, but, if Ramsay be correct, she may have been Euodias or Syntyche (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,2);">Php 4:2</a>).``78';
|
||
isbe[5624]='Lydian`lid\'-i-an.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LYDIA">LYDIA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5625]='Lye`li.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NITRE">NITRE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5626]='Lying`li\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIE">LIE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5627]='Lysanias`li-sa\'-ni-as (Lusanias): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a> as tetrarch of Abilene in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and thus fixing the date of the preaching of John the Baptist in the wilderness at about 26 or 28 AD. A Lysanias is mentioned by Josephus as having ruled over Chalcis and Abilene, and as having been slain by Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra. As this happened about 36 BC, Luke has been charged with inaccuracy. Inscriptions, however, corroborate the view that the Lysanias of Luke was probably a descendant of the Lysanias mentioned by Josephus (compare Schurer, H J the Priestly Code (P), div I, volume II, App. 1, p. 338).``88';
|
||
isbe[5628]='Lysias`lis\'-i-as (Lusias):<P>(1) "A noble man, and one of the blood royal" whom Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 166 BC) left with the government of Southern Syria and the guardianship of his son, while he went in person into Persia to collect the revenues which were. not coming in satisfactorily (1Macc 3:32; 2Macc 10:11). According to Josephus (Ant., XII, vii, 2), the instructions of Lysias were\' "to conquer Judea, enslave its inhabitants, utterly destroy Jerusalem and abolish the whole nation." Lysias, accordingly, armed against Judas Maccabeus a large force under Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, Nicanor and Gorgias. Of this force Judas defeated the two divisions under Nicanor and Gorgias near Emmaus (166 BC), and in the following year Lysias himself at Bethsura (1Macc 4), after which he proceeded to the purification of the temple. In the narration of these campaigns there are considerable differences between the writers of 1Maccabees and 2Maccabees which scholars have not found easy to explain. Antiochus died at Babylon on his Persian expedition (164 BC), and Lysias assumed the office of regent during the minority of his son, who was yet a child (1Macc 6:17). He collected another army at Antioch, and after the recapture of Bethsura was besieging Jerusalem when he learned of the approach of Philip to whom Antiochus, on his deathbed, had entrusted the guardianship of the prince (1Macc 6:15; 2Macc 13). He defeated Philip in 163 BC and was supported at Rome, but in the following year he fell with his ward Antiochus into the hands of Demetrius I (Soter), who put both of them to death (1Macc 7:1-23).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CLAUDIUS+LYSIAS">CLAUDIUS LYSIAS</a>`79';
|
||
isbe[5629]='Lysimachus`li-sim\'-a-kus (Lusimachos):<P>(1) The son of Ptolemy, of Jerusalem, is named (<span class="noTag">Additions to Esther 11:1</span>) as the interpreter (translator of the Rest of Esther into Greek).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESTHER,+THE+REST+OF">ESTHER, THE REST OF</a>.<P>(2) Brother of Menelaus, a Greek name said by Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) to have been assumed by Onias, the high priest in the hellenizing days of Antiochus Epiphanes, as the Jewish name Jesus was changed to Jason. When Menelaus was summoned to Antioch (2Macc 4:29) on a charge of malversation, he left Lysimachus as his deputy in the priesthood at Jerusalem. Lysimachus robbed the temple and caused an insurrection in which he met his death beside the treasury (2Macc 4:42). The name of Lysimachus does not appear in the narrative of these events given by Josephus``79';
|
||
isbe[5630]='Lystra`lis\'-tra: The forms Lustran, and Lustrois, occur. Such variation in the gender of Anatolian city-names is common (see Harnack, Apostelgeschichte, 86; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 128). Lystra was visited by Paul 4 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,6,21);">Ac 14:6,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">18:23</a> <20>the last according to the "South Galatian" theory), and is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,10);">2Ti 3:10</a>f as one of the places where Paul suffered persecution. Timothy resided in Lystra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">Ac 16:1</a>).<P>1. Character and Site:<P>Lystra owed its importance, and the attention which Paul paid to it, to the fact that it had been made a Roman colonia by Augustus (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTIOCH">ANTIOCH</a>), and was therefore, in the time of Paul, a center of education and enlightenment. Nothing is known of its earlier, and little of its later, history. The site of Lystra was placed by Leake (1820) at a hill near Khatyn Serai, 18 miles south-southwest from Iconium; this identification was proved correct by an inscription found by Sterrett in 1885. The boundary between Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,6);">Ac 14:6</a>) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ICONIUM">ICONIUM</a>).<P>The population of Lystra consisted of the local aristocracy of Roman soldiers who formed the garrison of the colonia, of Greeks and Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1,3);">Ac 16:1,3</a>), and of native Lycaonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>).<P>2. Worship of Paul and Barnabas:<P>After Paul had healed a life-long cripple at Lystra, the native population (the "multitude" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>) regarded him and Barnabas as pagan gods come down to them in likeness of men, and called Barnabas "Zeus" and Paul "Hermes." Commentators on this incident usually point out that the same pair of divinities appeared to Baucis and Philemon in Ovid\'s well-known story, which he locates in the neighboring Phrygia. The accuracy in detail of this part of the narrative in Acts has been strikingly confirmed by recent epigraphic discovery. Two inscriptions found in the neighborhood of Lystra in 1909 run as follows:<P>(1) "Kakkan and Maramoas and Iman Licinius priests of Zeus";<P>(2) "Toues Macrinus also called Abascantus and Batasis son of Bretasis having made in accordance with a vow at their own expense (a statue of) Hermes Most Great along with a sun-dial dedicated it to Zeus the sun-god."<P>Now it is evident from the narrative in Acts that the people who were prepared to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods were not Greeks or Romans, but native Lycaonians. This is conclusively brought out by the use of the phrase "in the speech of Lycaonia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>). The language in ordinary use among the educated classes in Central Anatolian cities under the Roman Empire was Greek; in some of those cities, and especially of course, in Roman colonies, Latin also was understood, and it was used at this period in official documents. But the Anatolian element in the population of those cities continued for a long time to use the native language (e.g. Phrygian was in use at Iconium till the 3rd century of our era; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ICONIUM">ICONIUM</a>). In the story in Acts a fast distinction is implied, and in fact existed, between the ideas and practices of the Greeks and the Roman colonists and those of the natives. This distinction would naturally maintain itself most vigorously in so conservative an institution as religious ritual and legend. We should therefore expect to find that the association between Zeus and Hermes indicated in Acts belonged to the religious system of the native population, rather than to that of the educated society of the colony. And this is precisely the character of the cult illustrated in our two inscriptions. It is essentially a native cult, under a thin Greek disguise. The names in those inscriptions can only have been the names of natives; the Zeus and Hermes of Acts and of our inscriptions were a graecized version of the Father-god and Son-god of the native Anatolian system. The college of priests which appears in inscription <span class="noTag">number 1</span> (supporting the Bezan variant "priests" for "priest" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,13);">Ac 14:13</a>) was a regular Anatolian institution. The miracle performed by Paul, and his companionship with Barnabas would naturally suggest to the natives who used the "speech of Lycaonia" a pair of gods commonly associated by them in a local cult. The two gods whose names rose to their lips are now known to have been associated by the dedication of a statue of one in a temple, of the other in the neighborhood of Lystra.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 407ff. On the new inscriptions, see Calder, The Expositor, 1910, 1ff, 148ff; id, Classical Review, 1910, 67ff. Inscriptions of Lystra are published in Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition, and in Jour. Hell. Stud., 1904 (Cronin).``20';
|
||
isbe[5631]='Maacah`ma\'-a-ka (ma\'akhah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Mocha; Codex Alexandrinus Maacha): A small Syrian kingdom adjoining that of Geshur on the western border of Bashan, the inhabitants of which are called Maachathites (the Revised Version (British and American) "Maacathites"), whose territory was taken by Jair (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,14);">De 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,5);">Jos 12:5</a>). The border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites and all Mt. Hermon were given to the half-tribe of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,11);">Jos 13:11</a>). The inhabitants of these kingdoms, however, were not driven out by Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,13);">Jos 13:13</a>), and at a later day the children of Ammon hired mercenaries from Maacah for their encounter with David. The armies met near Medeba when the "Syrians" from Maacah found themselves opposed to Joab. That famous captain completely routed them (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,6);">2Sa 10:6</a>ff the Septuagint has "Amalek"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',19,6);">1Ch 19:6</a> it is called Aram-maacah, Syria-maachah (the King James Version); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,23);">1Ch 2:23</a> "Aram" appears instead of "Maacah."<P>It evidently lay between Geshur on the south and Hermon on the north, being probably bounded by Jordan on the west, although no certain indication of boundaries is now possible. They would thus be hemmed in by Israel, which accounts for \'Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,13);">Jos 13:13</a>). It is possible that Abel-beth-maacah may have been a colony founded by men from Maacah.``54';
|
||
isbe[5632]='Maacah; Maachah`ma\'-a-ka (ma\'akhah):<P>(1) Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Mocha; Codex Alexandrinus Mocha, daughter of Nahor, borne to him by Reumah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,24);">Ge 22:24</a>).<P>(2) Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maacha; Codex Alexandrinus Maachath, the one wife of David who was of royal rank, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, who became the mother of Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,3);">2Sa 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,2);">1Ch 3:2</a>).<P>(3) Maacha, father of Achish, king of Gath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,39);">1Ki 2:39</a>). He is probably referred to as "Maoch" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,2);">1Sa 27:2</a>.<P>(4) The daughter of Absalom, the favorite wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,2);">1Ki 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,20);">2Ch 11:20</a>, etc.). Evidently "daughter" must here be understood as "granddaughter," according to a common oriental usage. Tamar was the only daughter of Absalom. If Tamar married Uriel of Gibeah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,2);">2Ch 13:2</a>), then Maacah was her daughter. In that case the name Micaiah in this passage would be either a copyist\'s error or a variant of Maacah. She must have been a woman of strong personality. Unfortunately, her influence was cast upon the side of idolatry. She maintained her position in the palace, however, till the reign of her grandson Asa. Possibly she acted as regent during his minority. Ultimately, she was degraded by him for an act of peculiar infamy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,13);">1Ki 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',15,16);">2Ch 15:16</a>).<P>(5) Concubine of Caleb, son of Hezron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,48);">1Ch 2:48</a>).<P>(6) Sister of Huppim and Shuppim the Benjamites, who became the wife of Machir the Manassite, the "father" of Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,12,15);">1Ch 7:12,15</a>f).<P>(7) Wife of Jeiel, the "father" of Gibeon, an ancestress of King Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,29);">1Ch 8:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,35);">9:35</a>).<P>(8) Father of Hanan, one of David\'s mighty men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,43);">1Ch 11:43</a>).<P>(9) Father of Shephatiah, ruler of the Simeonites under David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,16);">1Ch 27:16</a>).``54';
|
||
isbe[5633]='Maacathites`ma-ak\'-a-thits hama\'akhathi; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus ho Machatei; Codex Alexandrinus Machathi): Mentioned in Scripture are Ahasbai (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,34);">2Sa 23:34</a>), Jaazaniah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23);">2Ki 25:23</a>), Naham (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,19);">1Ch 4:19</a>) and Jezaniah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,8);">Jer 40:8</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAACAH">MAACAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5634]='Maadai`ma-a-da\'-i, ma\'-a-di (ma\'adhay): Son of Bani; one of those who married foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,34);">Ezr 10:34</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5635]='Maadiah`ma-a-di\'-a (ma\'adhyah, "whose ornament is Jah"): A priest who returned with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,5);">Ne 12:5</a>). The name also occurs in the form "Moadiah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,17);">Ne 12:17</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5636]='Maai`ma-a\'-i, ma\'i (ma\'ay): An Asaphite musician who took part in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,36);">Ne 12:36</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5637]='Maaleh-Acrabbim`ma\'-a-la-a-krab\'-im, ma-al\'-a-.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AKRABBIM">AKRABBIM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5638]='Maani`ma\'-a-ni (Maani):<P>(1) the King James Version "Meani" (1Esdras 5:31), corresponding to "Meunim" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,50);">Ezr 2:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,52);">Ne 7:52</a>.<P>(2) the Revised Version (British and American) "Baani," head of a family, many of whom had married foreign wives (1Esdras 9:34; called "Bani" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,34);">Ezr 10:34</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5639]='Maarath`ma\'-a-rath (ma\'arath): A city in the hill country of Judah, mentioned between Gedor and Beth-anoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,59);">Jos 15:59</a>). The small village of Beit Ummar upon the watershed, a little to the west of the carriage road to Hebron and about a mile from Khirbet Jedur (Gedor), is a probable site. There are many rock tombs to its east. The village mosque is dedicated to Nebi Matta, i.e. Matthew. See PEF, III, 305, Sh XXI.``1';
|
||
isbe[5640]='Maareh-Geba`ma\'-a-re-ge\'-ba, -ga\'-ba (ma\'areh gebha\'; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maraagabe; Codex Alexandrinus dusmon tes Gabaa): The place where the men of Israel lay in ambush, from which they broke forth upon the children of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,33);">Jud 20:33</a>). the King James Version renders "the meadows of Gibeah," the Revised Version margin "the meadow of Geba (or Gibeah)." The Septuagint\'s Codex Alexandrinus affords a clue to the correct reading. It to read place-name. The text must be emended to read mima\'arabh legebha\', "to the west of Geba." Peshitta suggests a reading mime-\'arath gebha\', "from the cave of Geba." This, however, there is nothing to warrant.``54';
|
||
isbe[5641]='Maasai`ma\'-a-si, ma-as\'-i (ma\'say; the King James Version, Maasiai): A priest, son of Abdid (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,12);">1Ch 9:12</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5642]='Maaseas`ma-a-se\'-as (Maasaios; the King James Version Maasias): Grandfather of Baruch (Baruch 1:1); called Mahseiah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,12);">Jer 32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,59);">51:59</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5643]='Maaseiah`ma-a-se\'-ya, ma-a-si\'a (ma\'aseyahu, "Yahweh\'s work"; Maassaia, and Massaias in the Septuagint): A name common in exilic and late monarchic times (Gray, H P N).<P>(1) A Levite musician named in connection with David\'s bringing up of the ark from the house of Obed-edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,18,20);">1Ch 15:18,20</a>).<P>(2) A Levite captain who aided Jehoiada at the coronation of Joash (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,1);">2Ch 23:1</a>).<P>(3) An officer of Uzziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,11);">2Ch 26:11</a>).<P>(4) Ahaz\' son, slain by the Ephraimite, Zichri (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,7);">2Ch 28:7</a>).<P>(5) A governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,8);">2Ch 34:8</a>).<P>(6) (7) (8) (9) The name of 4 men, 3 of them priests, who had married foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,18,21,22,30);">Ezr 10:18,21,22,30</a>).<P>(10) Father of Azariah, one of the builders of the wall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,23);">Ne 3:23</a>).<P>(11) One of those who stood at Ezra\'s right hand during the reading of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>).<P>(12) One of the expounders of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>).<P>(13) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,25);">Ne 10:25</a>).<P>(14) A Judahite inhabitant of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,5);">Ne 11:5</a>), who in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,5);">1Ch 9:5</a> is called Asaiah.<P>(15) A Benjamite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,7);">Ne 11:7</a>).<P>(16) (17) Name of two priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,41);">Ne 12:41</a>f).<P>(18) A priest in Zedekiah\'s reign, father of a certain Zephaniah who interviewed the prophet Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,1);">Jer 21:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,25);">29:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',37,3);">37:3</a>).<P>(19) Father of the false prophet Zedekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,21);">Jer 29:21</a>).<P>(20) A keeper of the threshold in the reign of Jehoiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,4);">Jer 35:4</a>).<P>(21) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAASEIAH">Baaseiah</a> (which see), a Kohathite name (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,40);">1Ch 6:40</a>), is probably a textual error for Maaseiah.<P>(22) the King James Version for Mahseiah, an ancestor of Baruch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,12);">Jer 32:12</a>).``95';
|
||
isbe[5644]='Maasiai`ma-as\'-i-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAASAI">MAASAI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5645]='Maasmas`ma-as\'-mas, ma\'-as-mas (Maasmas; Swete reads Maasman; the King James Version Masman, 1Esdras 8:43): Corresponds to "Shemaiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5646]='Maath`ma\'-ath (Maath): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy in the 12th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5647]='Maaz`ma\'-az (ma\'ats): A descendant of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,27);">1Ch 2:27</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5648]='Maaziah`ma-a-zi\'-a (ma\'azyahu):<P>(1) The priest to whom fell the lot for the 24th course (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,18);">1Ch 24:18</a>).<P>(2) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,8);">Ne 10:8</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5649]='Mabdai`mab\'-da-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAMDAI">MAMDAI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5650]='Mabnabedai`mab-nab\'-e-di.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACHNADEBAI">MACHNADEBAI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5651]='Macalon`mak\'-a-lon (hoi ek Makalon; 1Esdras 5:21): This corresponds to "the men of Michmas" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,27);">Ezr 2:27</a>. The mistake has probably arisen through reading Macalon in Greek uncials for "AL".``1';
|
||
isbe[5652]='Maccabaeus; Maccabees`mak-a-be\'-us (Makkabaios), mak\'-a-bez (hoi Makkabaioi):<P><b>I. PALESTINE UNDER KINGS OF SYRIA</b><P class="in15">1. Rivalry of Syria and Egypt<P class="in15">2. Palestine Seized by Antiochus the Great<P class="in15">3. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes<P><b>II. PALESTINE UNDER THE MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Mattathias<P class="in15">2. Judas<P class="in15">3. Jonathan<P class="in15">4. Simon<P class="in15">5. John Hyrcanus<P class="in15">6. John and Eleazar<P><b>LITERATURE</b></a><hr /><P>The name Maccabeus was first applied to Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias generally called in English the Maccabees, a celebrated family who defended Jewish rights and customs in the 2nd century BC (1Macc 2:1-3). The word has been variously derived (e.g. as the initial letters of Mi Khamokha, Ba-\'elim Yahweh! "Who is like unto thee among the mighty, O Yahweh ?"), but it is probably best associated with maqqabhah "hammer," and as applied to Judas may be compared with the malleus Scotorum and malleus haereticorum of the Middle Ages (see next article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES,+BOOKS+OF,+1-2">Maccabees, Books of, 1-2</a>]). To understand the work of the Maccabees, it is necessary to take note of the relation in which the Jews and Palestine stood at the time to the immediately neighboring nations.<P>I. Palestine under Kings of Syria.<P>1. Rivalry of Syria and Egypt:<P>On the division of Alexander\'s empire at his death in the year 323 BC, Palestine became a sort of buffer state between Egypt under the Ptolemies on the south, and Syria, under the house of Seleucus, the last survivor of Alexander\'s generals, on the north. The kings of Syria, as the Seleucid kings are generally called, though their dominion extended practically from the Mediterranean Sea to India, had not all the same name, like the Ptolemies of Egypt, though most of them were called either Seleucus or Antiochus. For a hundred years after the death of Alexander, the struggle went on as to which of the two powers was to govern Palestine, until in the year 223 came the northern prince under whom Palestine was destined to fall to the Seleucids for good.<P>2. Palestine Seized by Antiochus the Great:<P>This was Antiochus III, commonly known as Antiochus the Great. He waged two campaigns against Egypt for the possession of Palestine, finally gaining the upper hand in the year 198 BC by his victory at Panium, so called from its proximity to a sanctuary of the god Pan, a spot close to the sources of the Jordan and still called Banias. The Jews helped Antiochus to gain the victory and, according to Josephus, his rule was accepted by the Jews with good will. It is with him and his successors that the Jews have now to deal. Antiochus, it should be noticed, came in contact with the Romans after their conquest of Macedonia in 197, and was defeated by Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia in 190. He came under heavy tribute which he found it difficult to pay, and met his end in 187, while plundering a Greek temple in order to secure its contents. His son and successor Seleucus IV was murdered by his prime minister Heliodorus in 176-175 BC, who reaped no benefit from his crime.<P>3. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes:<P>The brother of the murdered king succeeded to the throne as Antiochus IV, generally known as Antiochus Epiphanes ("the Illustrious"), a typical eastern ruler of considerable practical ability, but whose early training while a hostage at Rome had made him an adept in dissimulation. Educated in the fashionable Hellenism of the day, he made it his aim during his reign (175-164 BC) to enforce it upon his empire a policy which brought him into conflict with the Jews. Even before his reign many Jews had yielded to the attraction of Greek thought and custom, and the accession of a ruler like Antiochus Epiphanes greatly increased the drift in that direction, as will be found described in the article dealing with the period between the Old and the New Testaments (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETWEEN+THE+TESTAMENTS">BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS</a>). Pious Jews meanwhile, men faithful to the Jewish tradition, Chasidim (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HASIDAEANS">HASIDAEANS</a>), as they were called, resisted this tendency, and in the end were driven to armed resistance against the severe oppression practiced by Antiochus in advancing his Hellenizing views.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>.<P>II. Palestine under the Maccabees.<P>1. Mattathias:<P>Mattathias, a priest of the first 24 courses and therefore of the noblest who dwelt at Modin, a city of Judah, was the first to strike a blow. With his own hand he slew a Jew at Modin who was willing to offer the idolatrous sacrifices ordered by the king, and also Apelles, the leader of the king\'s messengers (1Macc 2:15-28). He fled with his sons to the mountains (168 BC), where he organized a successful resistance; but being of advanced age and unfit for the fatigue of active service, he died in 166 BC and was buried "in the sepulchres of his fathers" at Modin (1Macc 2:70; Josephus, Ant, XII, vi, 3). He apparently named as his successor his 3rd son, Judas, though it was with real insight that on his deathbed he recommended the four brothers to take Simon as their counselor (1Macc 2:65).<P>2. Judas:<P>Judas, commonly called Judas Maccabeus<75>often called in 2Maccabees "Judas the Maccabee"<22>held strongly the opinions of his father and proved at least a very capable leader in guerrilla warfare. He defeated several of the generals of Antiochus<75>Apollonius at Beth-horon, part of the army of Lysias at Emmaus (166 BC), and Lysias himself at Bethsura the following year. He took possession of Jerusalem, except the "Tower," where he was subsequently besieged and hard pressed by Lysias and the young king Antiochus Eupator in 163 BC; but quarrels among the Syrian generals secured relief and liberty of religion to the Jews which, however, proved of short duration. The Hellenizing Jews, with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALCIMUS">ALCIMUS</a> (which see) at their head, secured the favor of the king, who sent Nicanor against Judas. The victory over Nicanor first at Capharsalama and later (161 BC) at Adasa near Beth-horon, in which engagement Nicanor was slain, was the greatest of Judas\' successes and practically secured the independence of the Jews. The attempt of Judas to negotiate an alliance with the Romans, who had now serious interests in these regions, caused much dissatisfaction among his followers; and their defection at Elasa (161 BC), during the invasion under Bacchides, which was undertaken before the answer of the Roman Senate arrived, was the cause of the defeat and death of Judas in battle. His body was buried "in the sepulchres of his fathers" at Modin. There is no proof that Judas held the office of high priest like his father Mattathias. (An interesting and not altogether favorable estimate of Judas and of the spiritual import of the revolt will be found in Jerusalem under the High Priests, 97-99, by E.R. Bevan, London, 1904.)<P>3. Jonathan:<P>Jonathan (called Apphus, "the wary"), the youngest of the sons of Mattathias, succeeded Judas, whose defeat and death had left the patriotic party in a deplorable condition from which it was rescued by the skill and ability of Jonathan, aided largely by the rivalries among the competitors for the Syrian throne. It was in reality from these rivalries that resulted the 65 years (129-64 BC) of the completely independent rule of the Hasmonean dynasty (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>) that elapsed between the Greek supremacy of the Syrian kings and the Roman supremacy established by Pompey. The first step toward the recovery of the patriots was the permission granted them by Demetrius I to return to Judea in 158 BC<42>the year in which Bacchides ended an unsuccessful campaign against Jonathan and in fact accepted the terms of the latter. After his departure, Jonathan "judged the people at Michmash" (1Macc 9:73). Jonathan was even authorized to reenter Jerusalem and to maintain a military force, only the "Tower" the Akra, as it was called in Greek, being held by a Syrian garrison.<P>See further under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LACEDAEMONIANS">LACEDAEMONIANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRYPHON">TRYPHON</a>.<P>4. Simon:<P>Simon, surnamed Thassi ("the zealous"?) was now the only surviving member of the original Maccabean family, and he readily took up the inheritance. Tryphon murdered the boy-king Antiochus Dionysus and seized the throne of Seleucus, although having no connection with the Seleucid family. Simon accordingly broke entirely with Tryphon after making successful overtures to Demetrius, who granted the fullest immunity from all the dues that had marked the Seleucid supremacy. Even the golden crown, which had to be paid on the investiture of a new high priest, was now remitted. On the 23rd of Ijjar (May),141,the patriots entered even the Akra "with praise and palm branches, and with harps, and with cymbals and with viols, and with hymns, and with songs" (1Macc 13:51). Simon was declared in a Jewish assembly to be high priest and chief of the people "for ever, until there should arise a prophet worthy of credence" (1Macc 14:41), a limitation that was felt to be necessary on account of the departure of the people from the Divine appointment of the high priests of the old line and one that practically perpetuated the high-priesthood in the family of Simon. Even a new era was started, of which the high-priesthood of Simon was to be year 1, and this was really the foundation of the Hasmonean dynasty (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>).<P>5. John Hyrcanus:<P>John Hyrcanus, one of the sons of Simon, escaped from the plot laid by Ptolemy, and succeeded his father, both as prince and high priest. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>. He was succeeded (104 BC) by his son Aristobulus I who took the final step of assuming the title of king.<P>6. John and Eleazar:<P>Two members of the first generation of the Maccabean family still remain to be mentioned:<P>(1) John, the eldest, surnamed Gaddis (the King James Version "Caddis"), probably meaning "my fortune," was murdered by a marauding tribe, the sons of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAMBRI">JAMBRI</a> (which see), near Medeba, on the east of the Jordan, when engaged upon the convoy of some property of the Maccabees to the friendly country of the Nabateans (1Macc 9:35-42).<P>(2) Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, met his death (161 BC) in the early stage of the Syrian war, shortly before the death of Judas. In the battle of Bethzacharias (163 BC), in which the Jews for the first time met elephants in war, he stabbed from below the elephants on which he supposed the young king was riding. He killed the elephant but he was himself crushed to death by its fall (1Macc 6:43-46). For the further history of the Hasmonean dynasty, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES,+BOOKS+OF">MACCABEES, BOOKS OF</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>There is a copious literature on the Maccabees, a family to which history shows few, if any, parallels of such united devotion to a sacred cause. The main authorities are of course the Maccabean Books of the Apocrypha; but special reference may be made to the chapters of Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, dealing with the subject, and to E.R. Bevan. Jerusalem under the High Priests,1904,or to the 2nd volume of House of Seleucus by the same author, 1902.``79';
|
||
isbe[5653]='Maccabees, Books of, 1-2`mak\'-a-bez,<p><b>I. 1 MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Canonicity<P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Historicity<P class="in15">5. Author\'s Standpoint and Aim<P class="in15">6. Date<P class="in15">7. Sources<P class="in15">8. Original Language<P class="in15">9. Text and Versions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><p><b>II. 2 MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Canonicity<P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Sources<P class="in15">5. Historicity<P class="in15">6. Teaching of the Book<P class="in15">7. Author<P class="in15">8. Date<P class="in15">9. Original Language<P class="in15">10. Text and Versions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><p><b>III. 3 MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Canonicity<P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Historicity<P class="in15">5. Aim and Teaching<P class="in15">6. Authorship and Date<P class="in15">7. Original Language<P class="in15">8. Text and Versions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><P><b>IV. 4 MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Canonicity<P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Teaching<P class="in15">5. Authorship and Date<P class="in15">6. Original Language<P class="in15">7. Text and Versions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><P><b>V. 5 MACCABEES</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Canonicity <P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Historicity<P class="in15">5. Original Language<P class="in15">6. Aim and Teaching<P class="in15">7. Authorship and Date<P class="in15">8. Text and Versions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. 1Maccabees.<P>1. Name:<P>The Hebrew title has perished with the original Hebrew text. Rabbinical writers call the Books of Maccabees ciphere ha-chashmonim, "The Book of the Hasmoneans" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>). Origen gives to Book I (the only one he seemed to know of) the name Sarbeth Sabanaiel, evidently a Hebrew or Aramaic name of very uncertain meaning, but which Dalman (Aramaic Grammar, section 6) explains as a corruption of Aramaic words= "The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans" (compare the rabbinical name given above). In the Greek manuscripts N, V (Codex Venetus), the 4 books go under the designation Makkabaion, [Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Gamma Delta, biblos, being understood. In the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) the 1st and 2nd books are alone found, and appear under the name Machabaeorum liber primus, secundus. The spelling Machabaeorum reproduces probably the pronunciation current in Jerome\'s day.<P>The name "Maccabee" belongs strictly only to Judas, who in 2Maccabees is usually called "the Maccabee" (ho Makkabaios). But the epithet came to be applied to the whole family and their descendants. The word means probably "extinguisher" (of persecution) (makhbi, from kabhah, "to be extinguished"; so Niese; Josephus, Ant, XII, vi, 1f; S.J. Curtis, The Name Maccabee). The more usual explanation, "hammerer" (maqqabhay), is untenable, as the noun from which it is derived (maqqebheth) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,21);">Jud 4:21</a>) denotes a smith\'s hammer.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>Since the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) includes only the first 2 books of Maccabees, these are the only books pronounced canonical by the Council of Trent and included in recognized Protestant versions of the Apocrypha (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>). That 1Maccabees was used largely in the early Christian church is proved by the numerous references made to it and quotations from it in the writings of Tertullian (died 220), Clement of Alexandria (died 220), Hippolytus (died 235), Origen (died 254), etc. The last named states that 1Maccabees is uncanonical, and it is excluded from the lists of canonical writings given by Athanasius (died 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386), and Gregory of Nazianzus (died 390). Indeed, none of the books of the Maccabees was recognized as canonical until the Council of Trent (1553) gave this rank to the first 2 books, and Protestants continue in their confessions to exclude the whole of the Apocrypha from the Bible proper, though Luther maintained that 1Maccabees was more worthy of a place in the Canon than many books now included in it.<P>3. Contents:<P>1Maccabees gives first of all a brief view of the reign of Alexander the Great and the partition of his kingdom among his successors. Having thus explained the origin of the Seleucid Dynasty, the author proceeds to give a history of the Jews from the accession of Antiochus IV, king of Syria (175 BC), to the death of Simon (135 BC). The events of these 40 years are simply but graphically related and almost entirely in the order of their occurrence. The contents of 1Maccabees and 2Macc 4-15 are in the main parallel, dealing with the same incidents; but the simple narrative character of 1Maccabees, in contrast to the didactic and highly religious as well as supernatural coloring of 2Maccabees, can easily be seen in these corresponding parts. The victories due to heroism in 1Maccabees are commonly ascribed to miraculous intervention on the part of God in 2Maccabees (see 1Macc 4:1f; compare 2Macc 8:23f). 2Maccabees is more given to exaggerations. The army of Judas at Bethsura consists of 10,000 according to 1Macc 4:29, but of 80,000 according to 2Macc 11:2. The following is a brief analysis of 1Maccabees:<P>(1) 1Maccabees 1:1-10: An account of the rise of the Seleucid Dynasty.<P>(2) 1Maccabees 1:11-16:24: History of the Jews from 175 to 135 BC.<P>(a) 1Maccabees 1:11-64: Introductory. Some Jews inclined to adopt Greek customs (religious, etc.); Antiochus\' aim to conquer Egypt and to suppress the Jewish religion as a source of Jewish disloyalty. Desecration of the Jewish temple: martyrdom of many faithful Jews.<P>(b) 1Maccabees 2:1-70: The revolt of Mattathias<P>(c) 1Maccabees 3:1-9:22: Leadership of Judas Maccabeus after his father\'s death. Brilliant victories over the Syrians. Purification of the temple. Death of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) and accession of Antiochus V (Eupator) (164 BC). Demetrius I became king of Syria, and Alcimus Jewish high priest (162 BC). Treaty between Jews and Romans. Defeat of Jews at Eleasa and death of Judas Maccabeus (161 BC).<P>(d) 1Maccabees 9:23-12:53: Leadership of Jonathan, 5th son of Mattathias, elected to succeed his brother Judas. He becomes high priest. Political independence of Judea secured.<P>(e) 1Maccabees 13:31-16:24: Peaceful and prosperous rule of Simon, brother of Jonathan; accession of his son John Hyrcanus (135 BC).<P>4. Historicity:<P>That the author of 1Maccabees aims at giving a correct narrative, and that on the whole his account is correct, is the opinion of practically all scholars. The simple, straight-forward way in which he writes inspires confidence, and there can be no doubt that we have here a first-class authority for the period covered (175-135 BC). It is the earliest Jewish history which dates events in reference to a definite era, this era being that of the Seleucids, 312 BC, the year of the founding of that dynasty. The aid received from God is frequently recognized in the book (<span class="noTag">2:51ff; 3:18; 4:10f; 9:46; 16:3</span>), yet it is mainly through personal valor that the Jews conquer, not, as in 2Maccabees (see III, 3 below), through miraculous Divine interpositions. Ordinary, secondary causes are almost the only ones taken into account, so that the record may be relied upon as on the whole trustworthy. Yet the writer shows the defects which belong to his age and environment, or what from the standpoint of literal history must be counted defects, though, as in the case of 2Maccabees (compare Chronicles), a writer may have other aims than to record bare objective facts. In 1:1-9 the author errs through ignorance of the real facts as regards Alexander\'s partition of his kingdom; and other misstatements of fact due to the same cause occur in 10:1ff (Alexander (Balas), son of Antiochus Epiphanes) and in 13:31ff (time of assassination of Antiochus VI by Tryphon). In 6:37 it is said there were 32 men upon each elephant, perhaps a misreading of the original "2 or 3," although the Indian elephant corps at the turn of this century carried more.<P>We know nothing of a Persian village Elymais (1Macc 6:1). The number of Jewish warriors that fought and the number slain are understated, while there are evident exaggerations of the number of soldiers who fought against them and of those of them who were left dead on the field (see 1Macc 4:15; 7:46; 11:45-51, etc.).<P>But in this book, prayers, speeches and official records abound as they do in Ezra, Nehemiah (see Century Bible, "Ezra," "Nehemiah," "Esther," 12ff), and many modern Protestant writers doubt or deny the authenticity of a part of those, though that is not necessarily to question their genuineness as part of the original narrative.<P>As regards the prayers (1Macc 3:50-54; 4:30-33) and speeches (1Macc 2:7-13; 2:50-68; 4:6-11, etc.), there is no valid reason for doubting that they give at least the substance of what was originally said or written, though ancient historians like Thucydides and Livy think it quite right to edit the speeches of their characters, abbreviating, expanding or altering. Besides, it is to be remembered that the art of stenography is a modern one; even Dr. Johnson, in default of verbatim reports, had to a large extent to make the speeches which he ostensibly reported.<P>There is, however, in the book a large number of official documents, and it is in regard to the authenticity of these that modern criticism has expressed greatest doubt. They are the following:<P class="in15">(1) Letter of the Jews in Gilead to Judas (1Macc 5:10-13).<P class="in15">(2) Treaty of alliance between the Romans and Jews; copy written on brass tablets sent to Judas (1Macc 8:22-32).<P class="in15">(3) Letter from King Alexander Balas to Jonathan (1Macc 10:18-20).<P class="in15">(4) Letter from King Demetrius I to Jonathan (1Macc 10:25-45).<P class="in15">(5) Letter from King Demetrius II to Jonathan (1Macc 11:30-37), together with letter to Lasthenes (1Macc 11:31-37).<P class="in15">(6) Letter from the young prince Antiochus to Jonathan, making the latter high priest (1Macc 11:57).<P class="in15">(7) Letter from Jonathan to the Spartans, asking for an alliance (1Macc 12:5-18).<P class="in15">(8) Earlier letter of the Spartan king Arius to the high priest Onias (1Macc 12:20-23).<P class="in15">(9) Letter from King Demetrius II to Simon (1Macc 13:36-40).<P class="in15">(10) Letter from the Spartans to Simon (1Macc 14:20-24).<P class="in15">(11) A decree of the Jews recognizing the services of Simon and his brothers (1Macc 14:27-45).<P class="in15">(12) Letters from Antiochus VII (Sidetes) to Simon (1Macc 15:2-9).<P class="in15">(13) Message from the Roman consul Lucius to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, asking protection for the Jews (1Macc 15:16-21). A copy was sent to Simon (1Macc 15:24).<P>Formerly the authenticity of these state documents was accepted without doubt, as they still are by Romanist commentators (Welte, Scholz, etc.). At most, they are but translations of translations, for the originals would be written in Greek and Latin, from which the author would translate into Hebrew. The Greek of our book is a translation from the Hebrew (see II, 8 below).<P>Rawlinson (Speaker\'s Apocrypha, II, 329) says these documents "have a general air of authenticity." Most modern scholars reject the letters purporting to emanate from the Romans (<span class="noTag">numbers</a> 2 and 13 above) and from the Spartans (<span class="noTag">numbers 8, 10</span> above), together with Jonathan\'s message to the latter (<span class="noTag">number 7</span>, above), on the ground that they contain some historical inaccuracies and imply others. How could one consul issue official mandates in the name of the Roman republic (see <span class="noTag">number 13</span>, above)? In <span class="noTag">number 8</span> above, it is the king of the Spartans who writes on behalf of his people to Onias the high priest; but it is the ephoroi or rulers who write for the Spartans to Simon. Why the difference? Moreover, in 1Macc 12:21 the Spartans and Jews are said to be kinsmen (literally, brothers), both alike being descendants of Abraham; so also 14:20. This is admittedly contrary to fact. For a careful examination of these official documents and their objective value, see Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen des Altes Testament, 27-30. Though, however, these documents and some others can be proved incorrect as they stand, they do seem to imply actual negotiations of the kind described; i.e. the Jews must have had communications with the Romans and Spartans, the Jews of Gilead must have sent a missive to Judas (<span class="noTag">number 1</span>), Alexander Balas did no doubt write to Jonathan, etc., though the author of 1Maccabees puts the matter in his own way, coloring it by his own patriotic and religious prejudices.<P>5. Author\'s Standpoint and Aim:<P>Though the name of the author is unknown, the book itself supplies conclusive evidence that he belonged to the Sadducee party, the party favored by the Hasmoneans. The aim of the writer is evidently historical and patriotic, yet his attitude toward religious questions is clearly indicated, both directly and indirectly.<P>(1) Nowhere in the book is the Divine Being mentioned under any name except Heaven (1Macc 3:18f; 50,60; 4:10,55; 12:15, etc.), a designation common in rabbinical Hebrew (Talmud, etc.). As early as 300 BC the sacred name "Yahweh" was discarded in favor of "Adonai" (Lord) for superstitious reasons. But in 1Maccabees no strictly Divine name meets us at all. This would seem to suggest the idea of a certain aloofness of God, such as characterized theology of the Sadducee party. Contrast with this the mystic closeness of God realized and expressed by the psalmists and prophets of the Old Testament.<P>(2) The author is a religious patriot, believing that his people have been Divinely chosen and that the cause of Israel is the cause of God.<P>(3) He is also a strict legalist, believing it the duty of every Jew to keep the Law and to preserve its institutions (1Macc 1:11,15,43,49,54,60,62f; 2:20ff, 27,42,48,50; 3:21, etc.), and deprecating attempts to compel Jews to desecrate the Sabbath and feast days (1Macc 1:45), to eat unclean food (1Macc 1:63) and to sacrifice to idols (1Macc 1:43). Yet the comparatively lax attitude toward the Sabbath implied in 1Macc 2:41ff, involving the principle of Christ\'s words, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,27);">Mr 2:27</a>), agrees with the Sadducee position against that of the Pharisees.<P>(4) The book teaches that the age of inspiration is past, and that the sacred books already written are the only source of comfort in sorrow and of encouragement under difficulties (1Macc 12:9).<P>(5) The legitimacy of the high-priesthood of Simon is not once questioned, though it is condemned by both the Deuteronomic law (D), which restricts the priesthood to the tribe of Levi, and by the priestly law (P), which requires in addition that a priest must be of the family of Aaron. This laxity agrees well with the general tenets of the Sadducees.<P>(6) The book contains no trace of the Messianic hope, though it was entertained at the time in other circles (the Pharisees; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESSIAH">MESSIAH, II, 2</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Prophecy;+Prophets,+1">PROPHECY</a>); 1Macc 2:57 is no exception, for it implies no more than a belief that there would be a restoration of the Davidic Dynasty. Perhaps it is implied that that expectation was realized in the Hasmoneans.<P>(7) There is no reference in the book to the doctrine of a resurrection from the dead or to that of the immortality of the soul, though we know that both these beliefs were commonly held by Jews of the time (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,3);">Da 12:3</a>; <span class="noTag">Enoch 19; 22:11-14; 9:1,5ff; 2Macc 7:9,11,14,29</a>). We know that the Pharisee party believed in a resurrection (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">Ac 23:6</a>). The Maccabean heroes fought their battles and faced death without fear, not because, like Moslems, they looked to the rewards of another life, but because they believed in the rightness of their cause and coveted the good name won by their fathers by acts of similar courage and devotion.<P>This outline of the doctrines taught or implied in the book makes it extremely likely that the author was a member of the Sadducee party.<P>6. Date:<P>1Maccabees must have been written before the Roman conquest under Pompey, since the writer speaks of the Romans as allies and even friends (8:1,12; 12:1; 14:40); i.e. the composition of the book must have been completed (unless we except chapters 14-16; see below) before 63 BC, when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and Judea became a Roman province. We thus get 63 BC as a terminus ad quem. Moreover, the historical narrative is brought down to the death of Simon (16:16), i.e. to 135 BC. We have thus an undoubted terminus a quo in 135 BC. The book belongs for certain to the period between 135 and 63 BC. But 1Macc 16:18-24 implies that John Hyrcanus (died 105 BC) had for some time acted as successor to Simon, and Reuss, Ewald, Fritzsche, Grimm, Schurer, Kautzsch, etc., are probably right in concluding from 16:23f that John was dead when the book was completed, for we have in this verse the usual formula recording the close of a royal career (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,41);">1Ki 11:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,34);">2Ki 10:34</a>, etc.), and the writer makes it sufficiently understood that all his acts were already "entered in the public annals of the kingdom" (Ewald, History of Israel, V, 463,note), so that repetition was unnecessary. But Bertheau, Keil, Wellhausen and Torrey draw the contrary conclusion, arguing that John had but begun his rule, so that at the time of writing there was practically nothing to record of the doings subsequent to 135, when John succeeded Simon (see EB, III, 2860 (Toy)). In 1Macc 13:30 we read that the monument erected in 143 BC by Simon in memory of his father and brothers was standing at the time when this book was written, words implying the lapse of say 30 years at least. This gives a terminus a quo of 113 BC. Moreover, the panegyric on Simon (died 135 BC) and his peaceful rule in 14:4-15 leaves the impression that he had been long in his grave. We cannot be far wrong in assigning a date for the book in the early part of the last century BC, say 80 BC.<P>Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I, 1882, 80ff), followed by Wellhausen (IJG, 1894, 222f), maintained that Josephus (died circa 95), who followed 1Maccabees up to the end of chapter 13, could not have seen chapters 14-16 (or from 14:16?), or he would not have given so meager an account of the high-priesthood of Simon (see Ant, XIII, vi, 7), which the author of 1Maccabees describes so fully in those chapters. But Josephus must have used these chapters or he could not have written of Simon even as fully as he does.<P>7. Sources:<P>If, as Torrey (EB, III, 2862) holds, we have in 1Maccabees "the account of one who had witnessed the whole Maccabean struggle from its beginning," the book having been completed soon after the middle of the 2nd century BC, it may then be assumed that the writer depended upon no other sources than his own. But even in this case one is compelled, contrary to Torrey (loc. cit.), to assume that written sources of his own were used, or the descriptions would not have been so full and the dating so exact. If, however, we follow the evidence and bring down the date of the book to about 80 BC (see I, 6), it must be supposed that the author had access to written sources. It may legitimately be inferred from 1Macc 9:22 and 16:23 and from the habit of earlier times (see Century Bible, "Ezra," etc., 11ff) that official records were kept in the archives of the temple, or elsewhere. These might have contained the state documents referred to in I,4,some or all, and reports of speeches and prayers, etc. It must be admitted that, unlike the compilers of the historical books of the Old Testament (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc.), the author of 1Maccabees does not definitely name his written sources. The writer might well be supposed to have kept a kind of diary of his own in which the events of his own early life were recorded. Oral tradition, much more retentive of songs, speeches and the like in ancient than in modern times, must have been a very important source.<P>8. Original Language:<P>We have the testimony of Origen (see I, 1) and Jerome (Prolog. Galeatus) that the book existed in Hebrew in their day. But it is doubtful whether the words of Origen imply a Hebrew or an Aramaic original, and though Jerome does speak of the book as Hebrew (hebraicus), it has to be remembered that in later times the Greek adjective denoting Hebrew (hebraisti) and perhaps the corresponding Latin one (hebraicus) often denoted Palestinian Aramaic (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,2);">Jud 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,13,17);">19:13,17</a>; and Kautzsch, Grammatik des bib. Aramaic, 19).<P>Hebraisms (or Aramaisms?) abound throughout the book. In the following examples Hebraisms are literally rendered in Greek, though in the latter language they are unidiomatic and often unintelligible: "two years of days" = two full years (1Macc 1:29, etc.); "month and month" = every month (1Macc 1:58); "a man (or each one) his neighbor" = each...the other (1Macc 2:40; 3:43); "sons of the fortress" = occupants of the fortress (1Macc 4:2); "against our face" = before us (1Macc 4:10); "men of power" = warriors (1Macc 5:32); "of them" = some of them (1Macc 6:2; compare 7:33, "of the priests" = some of the priests); "the right hand wing" = the southern wing (1Macc 9:1); "yesterday and the third day" = hitherto (1Macc 9:44). The above are strictly Hebraisms and not for the most part Aramaisms. The implied use of the "waw-consecutive" in 1Macc 3:1,41; 8:1; 9:1, and often, points also to a Hebrew, not to an Aramaic origin.. "Heaven" as a substitute for "God," so common in this book (see I, 5), is perhaps as much an Aramaism as a Hebraism (see Targum Jerusalem). Many of the proper names in the book are obviously but trans-literations from the Hebrew; thus, Phulistiein (1Macc 3:24); compare Sirach 46:18; 47:7; see the names in 1Macc 11:34; and Schurer, GJV4, I, 233.<P>9. Text and Versions:<P>The original Hebrew text of 1Maccabees (see I, 8) must have been lost at a very early time, since we have no evidence of its use by any early writer. J.D. Michaells held that Josephus used it, but this idea has been abandoned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Hebrew text of the first half of 1Macc, edited by A. Schweitzer and taken by him to be a part of the original text, is in reality a translation from the Latin made in the 11th century of our era (so Noldeke, etc.).<P>(1) Greek.<P>The Greek text from which the other versions are nearly all made is given in all editions of the Septuagint. It occurs in the uncials Codex Sinaiticus (Fritzsche, X), Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche, III), and Codex Venetus (8th or 9th century), not in Codex Vaticanus; and in a large number of cursives. Swete (Old Testament in Greek) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus. Though the Greek text has so many Hebraisms, it is an exceedingly good rendering, full of spirit and on the whole more idiomatic than the rest of the Septuagint.<P>(2) Latin.<P>There are two Latin recensions of the book: (a) that found in the Vulgate, which agrees almost entirely with the Old Latin version. It is in the main a literal rendering of the Greek (b) Sabatier (Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, II) published in 1743 a Latin version of 1Macc 1-13 found in but one manuscript (Sangermanensis). Though it is evidently made from the Greek it differs at many points from the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is probably older than the Old Latin and therefore than the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)<P>(3) Syriac.<P>There are also two varying texts in this language.<P>(a) The best known is that printed in the Paris Polyglot (Vol. IX), copied with some changes into the London Polyglot (Vol. IV; for readings see volume V). Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocrypha. Syriac., 1861) has edited this version, correcting and appending readings.<P>(b) A text differing in many respects from (a) is given by Ceriani in his Codex Ambros. of the Peshitta (1876-83), though this also is made from the Greek For a careful collection of both the above Syriac texts by G. Schmidt, see Z A T W,1897,1-47, 233-62.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See literature cited in the foregoing material. For texts and commentaries on the Apocrypha, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>. The following commentaries deserve special mention: Grimm, Kurz. exeg. Handbuch, etc., to which the commentaries by Keil (1 and 2Maccabees) and Bissel (Lange) owe very much; Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT; W. Fair-weather and J.S. Black, Cambridge Bible, "1Maccabees," and Oesterley in the Oxford Apocrypha edited by R. H. Charles (1913). Of the dict. articles those in E B (Torrey) and H D B (Fairweather) are excellent. See also E. Montet, Essai sur les origines des saduceens et des pharisiens, 1885; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen vor der mak. Erhebung,1875,69-76; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabderbucher, 1900. For a very full bibliography see Schurer, GJ V4, III, 198ff, and his article "Apocrypha" in RE3, and in Sch-Herz.<p>II. 2Maccabees.<P>1. Name:<P>See I, above. The earliest extant mention of the book as 2 Maccabees is in Euseb., Praep. Evang., VIII, 9. Jerome also (Prol. Galeatus) calls it by this name.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>In the early church 2 Maccabees was much less valued and therefore less read than 1Maccabees. Augustine was the only church Father to claim for it canonical rank and even he in a controversy with the Donatists who quoted 2 Maccabees, replied that this book had never been received into the Canon. Since they formed an integral part of the Vulgate, 1 and 2 Maccabees were both recognized by the Council of Trent as belonging to the Romanist Canon.<P>3. Contents:<P>(1) 2 Maccabees 1-9:18:<P>Two letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt, urging them to keep the Feast of Dedication and in a general way to observe the Law given them by God through Moses. Both letters appear designed to win for the Jerusalem temple the love and devotion which the Jews of Egypt were in danger of lavishing upon the Leontopolis temple in Egypt. These letters have no connection with the rest of the book or with each other, and both are undoubted forgeries. There can be no doubt that 2 Maccabees was first of all composed, and that subsequently either the author or a later hand prefixed these letters on account of their affinity in thought to the book as it first existed. See further on these letters II, 4 and 9.<P>(2) 2 Maccabees 2:19-32:<P>Introduction to what follows. The author or epitomizer claims that his history (chapter 3 to end of the book) is an epitome in one book of a larger work in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene. But see II,4,below.<P>(3) 2 Maccabees 3:1-15:39 (End of Book):<P>History of the rise and progress of the Maccabean wars from 176 BC, to the closing year of the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, to the defeat and death of Nicanor in 161 BC, a period of 15 years. The record in 2 Maccabees begins one year earlier than that of 1 Maccabees, but as the latter reaches down to 135 BC (and probably below 105 BC; see I, 5), 1 Maccabees covers a period of at least 40 years, while 2 Maccabees gives the history of but 15 years (176-161 BC). The history of this period is thus treated:<P>(a) 2Macc 3:1-4:6: Traitorous conduct of the Benjamite Simon in regard to the temple treasures and the high priest; futile attempt of Heliodorus, prime minister of Seleucus IV, to rob the temple (see I,3,(11) above);<P>(b) 2Macc 4:7-7:42 parallel 1Macc 1:10-64 with significant variations and additions. Accession of Antiocus Epiphanes (175 BC); the Hellenizing of some Jews; persecution of the faithful; martyrdom of Eleazar and the 7 brethren and their mother (this last not in 1Maccabees);<P>(c) 2Macc 8-15 (end) parallel 1Macc 3-7, with significant divergences in details.<P>Rise and development of the Maccabean revolt (see I,3,above). In the closing verses (2Macc 15:38ff) the writer begs that this composition may be received with consideration.<P>The record of events in 2 Maccabees ends with the brilliant victory of Judas over Nicanor, followed by the death of the latter; but it is strange that the history of the main hero of the book should be dropped in the middle. Perhaps this abrupt ending is due to the writer\'s aim to commend to the Jews of Egypt the two new festivals, both connected with the Jerusalem temple:<P>(a) Chanukkah (Festival of Dedication) (1:9,18; 2:16; 10:8);<P>(b) Nicanor Day (15:36), to commemorate the defeat and death of Nicanor.<P>To end the book with the account of the institution of the latter gives it greater prominence.<P>4. Sources:<P>In its present form 2 Maccabees is based ostensibly on two kinds of written sources.<P>(1) In 2Macc 2:19-32 the writer of 3:1 to the end, which constitutes the book proper, says that his own work is but an epitome, clearly, artistically and attractively set out, of a larger history by one Jason of Cyrene. Most commentators understand this statement literally, and endeavor to distinguish between the parts due to Jason and those due to the epitomizer. Some think they see endings of the 5 books reflected in the summaries at 3:40; 7:42; 10:9; 13:26; 15:37. But W.H. Kosters gives cogent reasons for concluding that the reference to Jason is but a literary device to secure for his own composition the respect accorded in ancient, as in a lesser degree in modern, times to tradition. The so-called "epitomizer<65>is in that case alone responsible for the history he gives. The present writer has no hesitation in accepting these conclusions. We read such nowhere a large else of a historian called "Jason," or of such a large history at his must have been if it extended to 5 books dealing with the events of 15 years, though such a man and so great a work could hardly have escaped notice. Hitzig (Gesch. des Volkes Israels, II, 415) held that Jason or his supposed epitomizer made use of 1Maccabees, altering, adding and subtracting to suit his purpose. But the different order of the events and the contradictions in statements of facts in the 2 books, as well as the omission from 2 Maccabees of important items found in 1Maccabees, make Hitzig\'s supposition quite untenable. A careful examination of 2 Maccabees has led Grimm, Schurer, Zockler, Wibrich, Cornill, Torrey and others to the conclusion that the author depended wholly upon oral tradition. This gives the best clue to the anachronisms, inconsistencies and loose phrasing which characterize the book. According to 1Macc 4:26-33, the first campaign of Lysias into Judea took place in 165 BC, the year before the death of Antiochus IV; but 2Macc 11 tells us that it occurred in 163 BC, i.e. subsequent to the death of Antiochus IV. Moreover, in the latter passage this 1st expedition of Lysias is connected with the grant of freedom to the Jews, which is really an incident of the 2nd expedition, and in 2Macc 13:1-24 is rightly mentioned in the account of the 2nd expedition. The writer of 2 Maccabees, relying upon memory, evidently mixes up the stories of two different expeditions. Similarly the invasions of neighboring tribes under Judas, which are represented in 1Macc 5:1-68 as taking place in quick succession, belong, according to 2Macc 8:30; 10:15-38; 12:2-45, to separate dates and different sets of circumstances. The statements in 2 Maccabees are obscure and confused, those in 1Macc 5 clear and straightforward. Though in 2Macc 10:37 we read of the death of Timotheus, yet in 12:2ff he appears as a leader in other campaigns. There again the writer\'s memory plays him false as he recalls various accounts of the same events. It was Mattathias who gathered together the Jews and organized them for resistance against Syria, if we follow 1Macc 2:1-70; but 2Macc 8:1-7 ascribes this role to his son Judas. The purification of the temple took place 3 years subsequent to its profanation, according to 1Macc 1:54; 4:52, but only 2 years, according to 2Macc 10:3.<P>(2) The two letters sent from Palestinian to Egyptian Jews (2Macc 1:1-2:18) form no integral part of the original 2 Maccabees. They are clearly forgeries, and abound in inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The second letter, much the longer, gives an account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which is irreconcilable with that in 9:1-28 and also with that in 1Macc 6:1-16. Nehemiah is said in 1:18 to have rebuilt the temple and altar, a work accomplished by Zerubbabel nearly a century earlier (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,3);">Ezr 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,15);">6:15</a>). Nehemiah\'s work was to repair the gates and walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,\'1-32\');">Ne 3:1-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,1);">6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,1);">7:1</a>; Sirach 49:13). The writer of this letter says (2Macc 2:3-5) that at the time of the exile, Jeremiah concealed in a cave on Mt. Pisgah the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense, a statement which no one accepts as correct or even plausible. That the author of the rest of the book is not the composer of the letters is proved by the difference of style and the contradictions in subject-matter. But that he himself prefixed them is made probable by the connecting particle in the Greek (de), though some (Bertholdt, Grimm, Paulus, Kosters) think rather plausibly that the letters were added by a later hand, the connection in the Greek being also introduced by him and not by the author of the rest of the book. It has been maintained that we have but one letter in 2Macc 1:1-2:18, and on the other hand that there are three. But the division into two is quite natural and is almost universally accepted.<P>5. Historicity: 2 Maccabees belongs to the class of literature called by the Germans Tendenz-Schriften, i.e. writings originating in the desire to teach some doctrine or to correct some supposed error. 1Maccabees gives us a history of the Maccabean wars as such, taking so little notice of the part played by God that the Divine Being is not so much as mentioned, except under the impersonal form Heaven (compare "Heaven helps those who help themselves"). Nor has 1Maccabees a word to say about a life beyond the grave. In short, 1Maccabees is written from the standpoint of the Sadducees, to which party the reigning dynasty (the Hasmonean) belonged. The writer of 2 Maccabees is evidently a Pharisee and his aim is not historical but doctrinal; i.e. the book is a historical romance with a purpose, that purpose being to make prominent the outstanding tenets of the Pharisees (see II, 6). Two extreme opinions have been defended as to the historical value of 2 Maccabees:<P>(1) That 2 Maccabees is a strictly historical work, is more trustworthy than 1Maccabees and is to be followed when the two books differ; so the bulk of Roman Catholics and also Niese and Schlatter. The supernaturalism of the book is to Romanists a recommendation.<P>(2) That 2 Maccabees has virtually no historical value, since it was written for other than historical ends; so Wibrich, Kosters and Kamphausen.<P>But the bulk of Protestant critics of recent times occupy a portion midway between these two opposite opinions, namely, that 1 Maccabees is much more accurate than 2 Maccabees and is to be preferred when the 2 books of Maccabees differ or contradict each other; so Grimm, Reuss, Schurer, Kamphausen. On the other hand, when 2 Maccabees contains historical matter absent from 1Maccabees it is to be accepted as correct unless opposed by intrinsic improbability or direct contrary evidence. In 2Macc 3-5 we have details concerning the Maccabean revolt not found in 1Maccabees, and in treatment of episodes or incidents with which 1Maccabees deals it is often fuller and more specific, as in 2Macc 10:14-23; 12:7-9 (compare 1Macc 5:1-5; 12:17-25); 2Macc 10:24-38 (compare 1Macc 5:29-44); 2Macc 12:32-45 (compare 1Macc 5:65,68,63f). On the other hand, the account of the celestial appearances in 2Macc 3:24ff; 11:8, etc., and the description in 6:18ff of the martyrdom of Eleazar the scribe and of the 7 brethren and their mother, carry on their face the marks of their legendary and unhistorical character. The edifying remarks scattered throughout the book, many of them pragmatic and reminding one of the Book of Daniel, confirm the impression otherwise suggested, that the author\'s aim was didactic and not historical. The book as it stands is a real authority for the ideas prevalent in the writer\'s circle at the time of its composition.<P>6. Teaching of the Book:<P>In general it may be said that the doctrines taught in 2 Maccabees are those of the Pharisees of the day. Several scholars consider 2 Maccabees the answer of Pharisaism to the Sadduceeism of 1 Maccabees (see Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Saducaer; compare Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, 219ff). But there is evidence enough (see II, 4) that the author of 2 Maccabees had not seen 1 Maccabees. Yet it is equally clear that 2 Maccabees does give prominence to the distinctive tenets of Pharisaism, and it was probably written on that account.<P>(1) The strictest observance of the law is enforced. The violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath countenanced under special circumstances in 1Macc (2:39-48) is absolutely forbidden in 2Macc (6:6,11; 8:26f; 12:38); compare the words of the Pharisees to Petronius when the latter proposed to have a statue of the emperor Caius erected in the temple: "We will die rather than transgress the law" (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, viii, 3).<P>(2) The Pharisaic party took but little interest in political affairs, and supported the Hasmoneans only because and in so far as they fought for the right to observe their religious rites. When, however, they compromised with Hellenism, the Pharisees turned against them and their allies the Sadducees. In this book we miss the unstinted praise accorded the Hasmonean leaders in 1Maccabees, and it is silent as to the genealogy of the Hasmoneans, the death of Judas Maccabeus and the family grave at Modin.<P>(3) The book reveals thus early the antagonism between the Pharisees and the priestly party, which is so evident in the Gospels. The high-priesthood had through political circumstances become the property of the Maccabees, though they were not of the Aaronic family, or even of the tribe of Levi. The priestly circle became the aristocratic, broad-church party, willing to come to terms with Greek thought and life. Hence, in 2 Maccabees, Jason and Menelaus are fit representatives of the priesthood. In the list of martyrs (chapters 6f) no priest appears, but on the other hand, Eleazar, one of the principal scribes<65>scribes and Pharisees were then as in New Testament times virtually one party<74>suffered for his loyalty to the national religion, "leaving his death for an example" (6:18-31).<P>(4) The temple occupies a high and honorable place in 2 Maccabees, as in the mind of the orthodox party (see 2:19; 3:2; 5:15; 9:16; 13:23; 14:31). Great stress is laid on the importance of the feasts (6:6; 10:8, etc.), of sacrifice (10:3), of circumcision (6:10), of the laws of diet (6:18; 11:31). The author seems in particular anxious to recommend to his readers (Egyptian Jews) the observance of the two new festivals instituted to commemorate the purification of the temple after its pollution by the Syrians and also the victory over Nicanor. According to this book the Chanukkah feast was established immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (10:6ff), not before this event (1Macc 4:56), probably to give it additional importance. The book closes with the defeat and death of Nicanor and the founding of the Nicanor Day festival, without mentioning the death of Judas, as though the writer\'s aim was to give prominence to the two new festivals.<P>(5) 2 Maccabees shows a Jewish particularism which agrees well with Pharisaism and Scribism, but is opposed to the broader sentiments of the ruling party: Israel is God\'s people (1:26); His portion (14:15); He often intervenes miraculously on behalf of Israel and the religion of Israel (3:24-30; 10:29f; 11:6-8); even the calamities of the nation are proofs of Divine love because designed for the nation\'s good (5:18); but the sufferings brought upon the heathen are penal and show the Divine displeasure (4:38; 5:9; 13:8; 15:32f). The writer is deadly opposed to the introduction of Greek customs and in particular to the establishment of a gymnasium in Jerusalem (4:7f; 11:24). The Book of Jubilees, also written by a zealous Pharisee, takes up the same hostile attitude toward foreign customs (see 3:31; 7:20, and the note by R. H. Charles (Book of Jubilees) on the former).<P>(6) This book gives prominence to the doctrine of a resurrection and of a future life about which 1Maccabees, a document of the Sadducee party, is silent, (compare I, 5 above; see 2Macc 7:9,11,14,36; 12:43-45; 14:46 (compare IV,4,below)). The Sadducees, to which the Hasmoneans belonged, denied a resurrection, limiting their conception of religion to the present life, in this agreeing with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures down to the time of the exile (536 BC). But the Pharisees and scribes, though professing to rest their beliefs on the "Law of Moses," departed from that law in this matter (see Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses). The resurrection is to be a bodily one (2Macc 7:11,22f; 14:46) and to a life that is unending (2Macc 7:9,36). The following related beliefs supported in this book and forming part of the creed of orthodox Pharisaism are adduced by Romanists on behalf of their own teaching: (a) the efficacy of prayers for the dead (2Macc 12:44); (b) the power exercised by the intercession of saints (2Macc 15:12-14); Philo (De execrat., 9) and Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 3) held the same doctrine; (c) the atoning character of the martyrdom of the righteous (2Macc 7:36,38; compare 4Macc 17:22; see IV,4,(3), below).<P>(7) The angelology of 2 Maccabees forms a prominent feature of the book (see 3:24-30; 10:29f; 11:6-8). The Sadducees accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, though they rejected tradition. They were therefore inconsistent in allowing no place for angelic beings in their creed, though consistent in rejecting the doctrine of a future life.<P>(8) The comparative silence of this book on the question of the Messianic hope is strikingly in contrast with the prominence of the subject in Psalter of Solomon (17:23ff, etc.; see Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon, liiff) and other contemporary writings emanating from the Pharisees. But why should the author of 2 Maccabees be expected to give equal prominence to all his opinions in one tract? Some such hope as that connected with the Messiah does, however, seem to be implied in 1:27; 2:18; 7:33; 14:15.<P>The present writer holds that one man is responsible for 2 Maccabees in its present form and that the only written source was the 2 letters with which the book opens (1:1-2:18) (see II,4,above).<P>7. Author:<P>Even if we have to assume an original in 5 books of which 2 Maccabees, as we have it, is but an epitome, it is not possible to distinguish between the sentiments of "Jason" and his epitomizer. The author<6F>assuming but one<6E>was evidently an Egyptian probably an Alexandrian Jew, who nevertheless retained his loyalty to the Jerusalem temple and its constitutions and desired to prevent the alienation of his fellow-countrymen in the same country from the home sanctuary and its feasts, especially the two new feasts, Chanukkah (Dedication) and Nicanor Day. The Jews of Egypt had a temple of their own, in opposition to the teaching of the Jewish law (D and P; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'2-18\');">De 12:2-18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-9\');">Le 17:1-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,30);">19:30</a>), and it was perhaps the growing influence of this temple that prompted the author to compose this book which sets so much honor upon the Jerusalem temple and its observances. The character of the Greek (see II, 9, below), the ignorance of Palestine and also the deep interest in Egypt which this book reveals<6C>these and other considerations point to the conclusion that the author lived and wrote in Egypt. There is no evidence that Judas Maccabeus (Leon Allatius), or the author of Sirach (Hasse) or Philo the Jew (Honorius d\'Autun) or Josephus wrote the book, though it has been ascribed by different scholars to each of the persons named.<P>8. Date:<P>The book must have been written sufficiently long after 161 BC, the year with which the record closes, to allow mythical tales of the martyrdoms in 2Macc 6f and the history of the supernatural appearances in 3:24-30, etc., to arise. If we allow 30 years, or the lifetime of a generation, we come down to say 130 BC as a terminus a quo. There is probably in 15:36 a reference to the Book of Esther (so Cornill, Kautzsch and Wellhausen, IJG4, 302f) which would bring the terminus a quo down to about 100 BC. That 2 Maccabees was written subsequently to 1 Maccabees (i.e. after 80 BC) is made certain by the fact that the Jews now pay tribute to Rome (2Macc 8:10,36). Since Philo, who died about 40 AD, refers to 2Macc 4:8-7:42 (Quod omnis probus liber, Works, edition Mangey, II, 459), the book must have been composed before 40 AD. This is confirmed by the certainty that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (70 AD), for the city still exists and the temple services are in full operation (3:6ff, etc.). <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,35);">Heb 11:35</a>f is no doubt an echo of 2Macc 6:18-7:42 and shows that the unknown author of Hebrews had 2 Maccabees before him. The teaching of the book represents the views of the Pharisees about the middle of the last century BC. A date about 40 BC would agree with all the evidence.<P>9. Original Language:<P>That the original language was Greek is made exceedingly likely by the easy flow of the style and the almost entire absence of Hebraisms (yet see 2Macc 8:15; 9:5; 14:24). No scholar of any standing has pleaded for a Hebrew original of the present book. Bertholdt, however, argued that the two letters (2Macc 1:1-2:18) were composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic) Ewald held that the 2nd letter (2Macc 1:11-2:18) is from the Hebrew, and Schlunkes that this applies to the 1st only. But the evidence given by these scholars is unconvincing, though the 1st letter is certainly more Hebraic in style than the 2nd letter, the contrary of what Ewald said.<P>10. Text and Versions:<P>As to the texts and versions, see I,9,above, where the statements apply here with but slight qualifications. But the book is lacking in Codex Sinaiticus as well as in Codex Alexandrinus. In addition to the Old Latin text and adopted for the Vulgate, we have another Latin text in Codex Ambrosianus, published in 1824 by Peyron; but this book is unrepresented in Sabatier\'s collection of Old Latin texts.<P>LITERATURE.<P>In addition to the literature mentioned under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a> and I above, and in the course of the present article, note the following items: Commentary of Moffatt (Oxford Apocrypha); C. Bertheau, De section lib. Macc., 1829 (largely quoted by Grimm); W.H. Kosters, "De Polemiek van het tweede boek de Mak," TT, XII, 491-558; Schlatter, "Jason von Cyrene," TLZ,1893,322; A. Buchler, Die Tobliden u. die Oniaden im II Mak, 1889; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen, etc.,1895,64; Kamphausen (Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT). The following discussing the two letters (1:1-2:18) deserve mention: Valckenaer, De Aristobulo, 38-44; Schlunkes, Epistolae quae secundo Macc libro I, etc.,1844,1-9; also Difficiliorum locorum epistolae, etc., 1847; Graetz, "Das Sendschreiben der Palaestinenser an die aegyptischen Gemeinden," etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums,1877, 1-16, 49-60; A. Buchler, "Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer," etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums; see last notice, 1897, 481-500, 529-54); Bruston, "Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine," ZATW, X, 110-17; W. H. Kosters, "Strekking der brieven in 2Macc," TT, 1898, 68-76; Torrey, "Die Briefe 2 Mak," ZATW, 1900, 225-42.``1';
|
||
isbe[5654]='Maccabees, Books of, 3-5`IIII. 3 Maccabees.<P>1. Name:<P>The name 3 Maccabees, though occurring in the oldest manuscripts and VSS, is quite unsuitable, because the book refers to events which antedate the Maccabean age by about half a century, and also to events in which the Maccabees took no part. But this book tells of sufferings and triumphs on the part of loyal Jews comparable to those of the Maccabean period. Perhaps the term Maccabees was generalized so as to denote all who suffered for their faith. Some hold that the book was written originally as a kind of introduction to the Books of Maccabees, which it precedes as Book I in Cotton\'s Five Books of Maccabees. But the contents of the book do not agree with this view. Perhaps the title is due to a mistake on the part of a copyist.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>The book has never been reckoned as canonical by the Western church, as is shown by the fact that it exists in no edition of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and was not included in the Canon by the Council of Trent. It is for the latter reason absent from the Protestant versions of the Apocrypha which contain but the Books of Maccabees (1 and 2). But 3 Maccabees has a place in two uncials of the Septuagint (A and V) and also in the ancient (Peshitta) Syriac version of the Scriptures, and it is given canonical rank in the Apostolical Constitutions (canon 85). The book must therefore have been held in high esteem in the early church.<P>3. Contents:<P>3 Maccabees is a historical novel in which there is much more romance than history, and more silly and superficial writing than either. It professes to narrate occurrences in the history of the Jews which took place at Jerusalem and at Alexandria in which the Jews were persecuted but in various ways delivered.<P>(1) 3 Maccabees 1:1-2:24:<P>After conquering at Raphia Antiochus III, the great king of Syria (224-187 BC), Ptolemy IV Philopator, king of Egypt (221-204 BC), resolved to visit Jerusalem and to enter the sanctum ("holy of holies," naos) of the temple to which by the Jewish law access was allowed only to the high priest, and even to him but once a year (Day of Atonement (1:11)). The Jews, priests and people, were in a paroxysm of grief and earnestly entreated him to desist, but he persisted in his plan. They then through Simon, the high priest, 219-199 BC, prayed that God might intervene and avert this desecration. The prayer is answered, the king being paralyzed before realizing his purpose.<P>(2) 3 Maccabees 2:25-30:<P>Returned to Alexandria, Ptolemy is exasperated at the failure of his long-cherished project and resolves to wreak his vengeance upon the Jews of Egypt. He issues a decree that all Jews in Alexandria who refused to bend the knee to Bacchus should be deprived of all their rights as citizens.<P>(3) 3 Maccabees 2:31-4:21:<P>A goodly number of Alexandrian Jews refuse to obey the royal mandate, whereupon Ptolemy issues an edict that all the Jews of Egypt, men, women and children, shall be brought in chains to Alexandria and confined in the race-course (hippodrome), with a view to their wholesale massacre. Prior to the massacre there is to be a complete register taken of the names of the assembled Jews. Before the list is complete the writing materials give way and the huge slaughter is averted.<P>(4) 3 Maccabees 4:22-6:21:<P>The king, still thirsting for the blood of this people, hits upon a different method of compassing their ruin. Five hundred elephants are intoxicated with wine and incense and let loose upon the Jews in the race-course. Here we have the principal plot of the book, and we reach the climax in the various providential expedients, childish in their character, of preventing the execution of the king\'s purpose. The lesson of it all seems to be that God will deliver those who put their trust in Him.<P>(5) 3 Maccabees 6:22-7:23:<P>At length the king undergoes a change of heart. He releases the Jews and restores them to all their lost rights and honors. In response to their request, he gives them permission to slay their brother-Jews who, in the hour of trial, had given up their faith. They put to death 300, "esteeming this destruction of the wicked a season of joy" (7:15).<P>3 Maccabees is made up of a number of incredible tales, the details of which are absurd and contradictory. The beginning of the book has evidently been lost, as appears from the opening words, "Now when Philopator" (ho de Philopator), and also from the references to an earlier part of the narrative now lost, e.g.: 1:1 ("from those who came back"); 1:2 ("the plot afore mentioned"); 2:25 ("the aforenamed boon companions"), etc.<P>4. Historicity:<P>The book contains very little that is true history, notwithstanding what Israel Abrahams (see "Literature" to this section), depending largely on Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies), says to the contrary. It is much more manifest than even in the case of 2 Maccabees that the writer\'s aim was to convey certain impressions and not to write history (see III, 5).<P>The improbabilities of the book are innumerable (see Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 616f), and it is evident that we have to do here with a combination of legends and fables worked up in feeble fashion with a view to making prominent certain ideas which the author wishes his readers to keep in mind. Yet behind the fiction of the book there are certain facts which prompted much of what the writer says.<P>(1) That Ptolemy IV bore the character of cruelty and capriciousness and effeminacy is borne out by Polybius (204-121 BC) in his History and by Plutarch in his Life of Cleomenes.<P>(2) The brief outline of the war between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III, the latter being conquered at Raphia (chapters 1f), agrees in a general way with what has been written by Polybius, Livy and Justin.<P>(3)in this book, by the command of Ptolemy, 500 intoxicated elephants are let loose upon the Jews brought bound to the race-course of Alexandria. Josephus (Apion, II, v) tells us that Ptolemy VII Physcon, king of Egypt, 145-117 BC, had the Jews of Alexandria, men, women and children, brought bound and naked to an enclosed space and that he had let loose on them a herd of elephants, which, however, turned instead upon his own men, killing a large number of them. The cause of the king\'s action was that the Jewish residents of Alexandria sided with his foes. In 3 Maccabees the cause of the action of Ptolemy IV was the failure of his project to enter the sanctum of the Jerusalem temple; this last perhaps a reflection of 2Macc 3:9ff, where it is related that Heliodorus was hindered from entering the temple by a ghostly apparition. Now these two incidents, in both of which Jews are attacked by intoxicated elephants, must rest upon a common tradition and have probably a nucleus of fact. Perhaps, as Israel Abrahams holds, the tradition arose from the action of the elephants of Ptolemy in the Battle of Raphia. Most writers think that the reference is to something that occurred in the reign of Ptolemy VII.<P>(4) The shutting-up of the Jews in the racecourse at Alexandria was not improbably suggested by a similar incident in which Herod the Great was the principal agent.<P>(5) In the opinion of Grimm (Comm., 216) we have in the two festivals (3Macc 6:36; 7:19) and in the existence of the synagogue at Ptolemais an implied reference to some great deliverance vouchsafed to the Jews.<P>5. Aim and Teaching:<P>3 Maccabees was probably written by an Alexandrian Jew at a time when the Jews in and around Alexandria were sorely persecuted on account of their religion. The purpose of the author seems to have been to comfort those suffering for the faith by giving examples showing how God stands by His people, helping in all their trials and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies. Note further the following points:<P>(1) The book, unlike 2 Maccabees, is silent as to a bodily resurrection and a future life, though this may be due to pure accident. Hades (Haides) in 3Macc 4:8; 5:42; 6:31, etc., appears to stand only for death, regarded as the end of all human life.<P>(2) Yet the belief in angelic beings is clearly implied (see 6:18ff).<P>(3) The author has much confidence in the power of prayer (see 2:10; 2:21-24; 5:6-10,13,50f; 6:1-15, etc.).<P>(4) The book lays stress upon the doctrine that God is on the side of His people (4:21, etc.), and even though they transgress His commandments He will forgive and save them (2:13; 4:13, etc.).<P>6. Authorship and Date:<P>From the character of the Greek, the interest shown in Alexandrian Judaism, and the acquaintance displayed with Egyptian affairs (see I. Abrahams, op. cit., 39ff), it may be inferred with confidence that the author was a Jew residing in Alexandria. The superior limit (terminus a quo) for the date is some time in the last century BC. Since the existence of the additions to Daniel is implied (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,6);">Da 6:6</a>), the inferior limit (terminus ad quem) is some time before 70 AD. If the temple had been destroyed, the continuance of the temple services could not have been implied (see 3Macc 1:8ff). As the book seems written to comfort and encourage Alexandrian Jews at a time when they were persecuted, Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss and others thought it was written during the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41 AD), when such a persecution took place. But if Ptolemy is intended to represent Caligula, it is strange, as Schurer (GJV4, III, 491) remarks, that the writer does not make Ptolemy claim Divine honors, a claim actually made by Caligula.<P>Though Josephus (died 95 AD) could not have known the book, since his version of the same incidents differs so much, yet it must have been written some 30 years before his death, i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 71 AD.<P>7. Original Language:<P>That 3 Maccabees was composed in Greek is the opinion of all scholars and is proved by the free, idiomatic and rather bombastic character of the language in the Septuagint.<P>8. Text and Versions:<P>(1) Greek.<P>This book occurs in the two unicals Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Venetus (not in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus), in most cursives and also in nearly all editions of the Septuagint.<P>(2) Syriac.<P>The Syriac version (Peshitta) reproduced in the Paris and London Polyglot and by Lagarde, Lib. Apocrypha. Vet. Test. It is not a good translation.<P>(3) Latin.<P>The earliest Latin translation is that made for the Complutensian Polyglot.<P>(4) English.<P>The earliest in English is that of Walter Lynne (1650).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the commentaries by Grimm (the best), Bissell (Lange), Kautzsch and Emmet (Oxford Apocrypha), and the articles in HDB (Fairweather, excellent), Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey, good), GJV4 (Schurer), III, 489-92; HJP, II, iii, 216-19, let the following be noted: A. Hausrath, A History of New Testament Times, 1895, II, 70ff; Wibrich, Juden u. Griechen; Abrahams, "The Third Book of the Mace," JQR, IX, 1897, 39-58; A. Buchler, Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden,1899,172-212. Both Abrahams and Buchler defend the historicity of some parts of 3 Maccabees; Wibrich, "Der historische Kern des III Makk," Hermes, Bd. 39, 1904, 244-58. For English translation see (1) Henry Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees (Cotton calls it First Book of Maccabees); (2) W.R. Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, and (3) Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English<P>IV. 4 Maccabees.<P>1. Name:<P>4 Maccabees is a philosophical treatise or discourse on the supremacy of pious reason (= religious principle) in the virtuous man. The oldest title of the book, 4 Maccabees (Makkabaion d, (4)), occurs in the earliest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.), in the list of the Codex Claromontanus (3rd century?), the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books (5th century?) and the Synopsis of Athanasius (9th century). It obtained this name from the fact that it illustrates and enforces its thesis by examples from the history of the Maccabees. Some early Christian writers, believing 4 Maccabees to be the work of Josephus (see IV, 5), gave it a corresponding title. Eusebius and Jerome, who ascribe the book to Josephus, speak of it under the name of: A Discourse concerning the Supreme Power of Reason.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>Though absent from the Vulgate, and therefore from the Romanist Canon and from Protestant versions of its Apocrypha, 4 Maccabees occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and editions (Fritzsche, Swete, not Tischendorf) of the Septuagint, showing it was highly esteemed and perhaps considered canonical by at least some early Christian Fathers.<P>3. Contents:<P>This book is a philosophical disquisition in the form of a sermon on the question "Whether pious reason is absolute master of the passions" (4Macc 1:1).<P>(1) 4 Maccabees 1:1-12:<P>First of all, the writer states his theme and the method in which he intends to treat it.<P>(2) 4 Maccabees 1:13-3:18:<P>He defines his terms and endeavors from general principles to show that pious reason does of right rule the passions.<P>(3) 4 Maccabees 3:19 to End of Book:<P>He tries to prove the same proposition from the lives of the Maccabean martyrs. These historical illustrations are based on 2Macc 6:18-7:42 (compare 3Macc 6).<P>Because the book is written as a discourse or sermon and is largely addressed to an apparent audience (4Macc 1:17; 2:14; 13:10; 18:4), Freudenthal and others think we have here an example of a Jewish sermon delivered as here written. But Jewish preachers based their discourses on Scripture texts and their sermons were more concise and arresting than this book.<P>4. Teaching:<P>The author\'s philosophical standpoint is that of Stoicism, namely, that in the virtuous man reason dominates passion. His doctrine of four cardinal virtues (phronesis, dikaiosune, andreia, sophrosune, "Providence," "Justice" "Fortitude," "Temperance" (4Macc 1:18)), is also derived from Stoicism. Though, however, he sets out as if he were a true Stoic, he proceeds to work out his discourses in orthodox Jewish fashion. His all-dominating reason is that which is guided by the Divinely revealed law, that law for the faithful observing of which the martyrs died. The four cardinal virtues are but forms of that true wisdom which is to be obtained only through the Mosaic law (4Macc 7:15-18). Moreover, the passions are not, as Stoicism taught, to be annihilated, but regulated (4Macc 1:61; 3:5), since God has planted them (4Macc 2:21).<P>The author\'s views approach those of Pharisaism.<P>(1) He extols the self-sacrificing devotion to the law exhibited by the Maccabean martyrs mentioned in 4Macc 3:9 to the end of the book.<P>(2) He believes in a resurrection from the dead. The souls of the righteous will enjoy hereafter ceaseless fellowship with God (9:8; 15:2; 18:5), but the wicked will endure the torment of fire forever and ever (10:11,15; 12:12; 13:14). Nothing, however, is said of the Pharisees\' doctrine of a bodily resurrection which 2 Maccabees, a Pharisaic document (see II,6,(6) above), clearly teaches.<P>(3) The martyrdom of the faithful atones for the sins of the people (4Macc 6:24; 17:19-21; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>).<P>5. Authorship and Date:<P>According to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 6), Jerome (De Viris Illust., xiii; C Peleg, ii.6), Suidas (Lex Iosepos) and other early writers, Josephus is the author of this book, and in Greek editions of his works it constitutes the last chapter with the heading: Phlab. Iosepou eis Makkabaions logos, e peri autokratoros logismou, "The Discourse of Flavius Josephus: or concerning the Supreme Power of Reason" (so Niese, Bekker, Dindorf, etc.). But this tradition is negated by the style and thought, which differ completely from those found in the genuine writings of that Jewish historian. Besides this, the author of the book makes large use of 2 Maccabees, of which Josephus was ignorant. Moreover, there are traditions equally ancient of a contrary kind.<P>The author must have been a Jew and he probably belonged to the Pharisee party (see IV, 7). He was also a Hellenist, for he reveals the influence of Greek thought more than any other apocryphal writer. He was also, it would appear, a resident of Alexandria, for the earliest notices of it occur in literature having an Alexandrian origin, and the author makes considerable use of 2 Maccabees, which emanated from Alexandria.<P>It is impossible definitely to fix the date of the book. But it was certainly written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and after the composition of 2 Maccabees, on which it largely depends. A date in the first half of the 1st century of our era would suit all the requirements of the case.<P>6. Original Language:<P>The book was certainly written in Greek, as all scholars agree. It employs many of the terms of Greek philosophy and it bears the general characteristics of the Greek spoken and written at Alexandria at the commencement of the Christian era.<P>7. Text and Versions:<P>(1) Greek.<P>This book occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and printed editions (Grabe, Breitinger, Apel, Fritzsche, Swete (Codex Alexandrinus with variants of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus) and Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English), also in various Josephus manuscripts and most editions of Josephus, including Naber, but not Niese.<P>(2) Latin.<P>No Old Latin version has come down to us.<P>(3) Syriac.<P>The Peshitta text is printed in Codex Ambros. (Ceriani) and by Bensley from a manuscript in The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac (agrees mostly with Codex Alexandrinus). Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca Sancta,1566,I, 39) speaks of having seen another 4 Maccabees. But this was probably "simply a reproduction of Josephus" (Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, iii, 14).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the literature mentioned under the other books of Maccabees, under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>, and in the course of the present article, note the following: The commentaries of Grimm (excellent; the only one on the complete book) and Deissmann (in Kautzsch, A pok des Altes Testament, brief but up to date and good); the valuable monograph by Freudenthal: Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift uber die Herrschafft der Vernunft (IV. Makkabaerbuch) Untersucht, 1869. See, besides the articles in HDB (Fairweather); Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey); Gfrorer, Philo, etc., II, 1831,173-200; Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung der jud.-alex. Religions Philosophie, II, 1834, 190-99; and the History of Ewald, IV, 632ff. There are English translations in Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees, Oxford, 1832; W.R. Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scripture; Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English.<P>V. 5 Maccabees.<P>1. Name:<P>The designation 5 Maccabees was first given to the book (now commonly so called) by Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees English, 1832), and it has been perpetuated by Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament, III, 465); Ginsburg (Kitto\'s Cycyclopedia of Biblical Literature); Bissell (Apocrypha of the Old Testament) and others. It has been called the Arabic 2 Maccabees (so in the Paris and London Polyglot), and the Arabic Maccabees. The 5 Maccabees in the Translatio Syra Peshitto, edited by Ceriani, is really nothing more than a Syriac version of the 6th book of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>This book has never been recognized as canonical by either Jews or Christians.<P>3. Contents:<P>The book is ostensibly a history of the Jews from the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder the temple (186 BC) to about 6 BC. It is really nothing more than a clumsy compilation from 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus (except 5Macc 12, which is the only original part, and this teems with errors of various kinds); a note at the end of 5Macc 16 says 1:1-16:26 is called The Second Book of Maccabees according to the Translation of the <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,1);">Hebrews</a>. 5Macc 19 closes with the events narrated at the end of 1Maccabees. The rest of the book (5Macc 20-59) follows Josephus (BJ, If) closely. Perhaps the original work ended with 5Macc 19. Ginsburg (op. cit., III., 17), Bissell (Apocrypha, 639) and Wellhausen (Der arab. Josippus) give useful tables showing the dependence of the various parts of 5 Maccabees on the sources used.<P>4. Historicity:<P>In so far as this book repeats the contents of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, it has the historical value of the sources used. But in itself the book has no historical worth. The author calls Roman and Egyptian soldiers "Macedonians," Mt. Gerizim, "Jezebel," Samaria "Sebaste," Shechem "Neapolis" or "Naploris." Herod and Pilate exchange names. Some of the mistakes may of course be traceable to the translation.<P>5. Original Language:<P>The original work was almost certainly composed in Hebrew, though we have no trace of a Hebrew text (so Ginsburg, op. cit., and Bissell). This conclusion is supported by the numerous Hebraisms which show themselves even in a double translation. The Pentateuch is called the "Torah," the Hebrew Scriptures are spoken of as "the twenty-four books," the temple is "the house of God" or "the holy house," Judea is "the land of the holy house" and Jerusalem is "the city of the holy house." These and like examples make it probable that the writer was a Jew and that the language he used was Hebrew. Zunz (Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage,1832,146ff), Graetz (Geschichte, V, 281) and Dr. S. Davidson (op. cit., 465) say the book was written in Arabic from Hebrew memoirs. According to Zunz (loc. cit.) and Graetz (loc. cit.) the Jewish history of Joseph ben Gorion (Josippon), the "pseudo-Josephus" (10th century), is but a Hebrew recension of 5 Maccabees (the Arabic 2 Maccabees). On the contrary, Wellhausen (op. cit.) and Schurer (GJV4, I, 159f) maintain that the shorter narrative in 5 Maccabees represents the extent of the original composition far more correctly than the Hebrew history of Josippon (which ranges from Adam to 70 AD), and than other recensions of the same history.<P>6. Aim and Teaching:<P>The book was compiled for the purpose of consoling the Jews in their sufferings and encouraging them to be stedfast in their devotion to the Mosaic law. The same end was contemplated in 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees and in a lesser degree in 1Maccabees, but the author or compiler of the present treatise wished to produce a work which would appeal in the first instance and chiefly to Hebrew (or Arabic?) readers. The author believes in a resurrection of the body, in a future life and a final judgment (5Macc 5:13,43f). The righteous will dwell in future glory, the wicked will be hereafter punished (5Macc 5:49,50f; 59:14).<P>7. Authorship and Date:<P>We have no means of ascertaining who the author was, but he must have been a Jew and he lived some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (see 5Macc 9:5; 21:30; 22:9; 53:8, though Ginsburg regards these passages as late additions and fixes the date of the original work at about 6 BC, when the history ends). The author makes large use of Josephus (died 95 AD), which also favors the lower date.<P>8. Text and Versions:<P>The Arabic text of the book and a Latin translation by Gabriel Sionita is printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. No other ancient text has come down to us. cotton (op. cit., xxx) errs in saying that there is a Syriac version of the book.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The most important literature has been mentioned in the course of the article. The English and earlier German editions of Schurer, GJ V, do not help. The only English translation is that by Cotton made directly from the Latin of Gabriel Sionita. Bissell says that a French version appears as an appendix in the Bible of de Sacy; not, however, in the Nouvelle Edition (1837) in the possession of the present writer.``33';
|
||
isbe[5655]='Macedonia`mas-e-do\'-ni-a (Makedonia, ethnic Makedon,):<P><b>I. THE MACEDONIAN PEOPLE AND LAND</b><P><b>II. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA</b><P class="in15">1. Philip and Alexander<P class="in15">2. Roman Intervention<P class="in15">3. Roman Conquest<P class="in15">4. Macedonia a Roman Province<P class="in15">5. Later History<P><b>III. PAUL AND MACEDONIA</b><P class="in15">1. Paul\'s First Visit<P class="in15">2. Paul\'s Second Visit<P class="in15">3. Paul\'s Third Visit<P class="in15">4. Paul\'s Later Visits<P><b>IV. THE MACEDONIAN CHURCH</b><P class="in15">1. Prominence of Women<P class="in15">2. Marked Characteristics<P class="in15">3. Its Members<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>A country lying to the north of Greece, afterward enlarged and formed into a Roman province; it is to the latter that the term always refers when used in the New Testament.<P>I. The Macedonian People and Land.<P>Ethnologists differ about the origin of the Macedonian race and the degree of its affinity to the Hellenes. But we find a well-marked tradition in ancient times that the race comprised a Hellenic element and a non-Hellenic, though Aryan, element, closely akin to the Phrygian and other Thracian stocks. The dominant race, the Macedonians in the narrower sense of the term, including the royal family, which was acknowledged to be Greek and traced its descent through the Temenids of Argos back to Heracles (Herodotus v.22), settled in the fertile plains about the lower Haliacmon (Karasu or Vistritza) and Axius (Vardar), to the north and northwest of the Thermaic Gulf. Their capital, which was originally at Edessa or Aegae (Vodhena), was afterward transferred to Pella by Philip II. The other and older element<6E>the Lyncestians, Orestians, Pelagonians and other tribes<65>were pushed back northward and westward into the highlands, where they struggled for generations to maintain their independence and weakened the Macedonian state by constant risings and by making common cause with the wild hordes of Illyrians and Thracians, with whom we find the Macedonian kings in frequent conflict. In order to maintain their position they entered into a good understanding from time to time with the states of Greece or acknowledged temporarily Persian suzerainty, and thus gradually extended the sphere of their power.<P>II. History of Macedonia.<P>Herodotus (viii.137-39) traces the royal line from Perdiccas I through Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus, Alcetas and Amyntas I to Alexander I, who was king at the time of the Persian invasions of Greece. He and his son and grandson, Perdiccas II and Archelaus, did much to consolidate Macedonian power, but the death of Archelaus (399 BC) was followed by 40 years of disunion and weakness.<P>1. Philip and Alexander:<P>With the accession of Philip II, son of Amyntas II, in 359 BC, Macedonia came under the rule of a man powerful alike in body and in mind, an able general and an astute diplomatist, one, moreover, who started out with a clear perception of the end at which he must aim, the creation of a great national army and a nation-state, and worked consistently and untiringly throughout his reign of 23 years to gain that object. He welded the Macedonian tribes into a single nation, won by force and fraud the important positions of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, Olynthus, Abdera and Maronea, and secured a plentiful supply of gold by founding Philippi on the site of Crenides. Gradually extending his rule over barbarians and Greeks alike, he finally, after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), secured his recognition by the Greeks themselves as captain-general of the Hellenic states and leader of a Greco-Macedonian crusade against Persia. On the eve of this projected eastern expedition, however, he was assassinated by order of his dishonored wife Olympias (336 BC), whose son, Alexander the Great, succeeded to the throne. After securing his hold on Thrace, Illyria and Greece, Alexander turned eastward and, in a series of brilliant campaigns, overthrew the Persian empire. The battle of the Granicus (334 BC) was followed by the submission or subjugation of most of Asia Minor. By the battle of Issus (333), in which Darius himself was defeated, Alexander\'s way was opened to Phoenicia and Egypt; Darius\' second defeat, at Arbela (331), sealed the fate of the Persian power. Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana were taken in turn, and Alexander then pressed eastward through Hyrcania, Aria, Arachosia, Bactria and Sogdiana to India, which he conquered as far as the Hyphasis (Sutlej): thence he returned through Gedrosia, Carmania and Persis to Babylon, to make preparations for the conquest of Arabia. A sketch of his career is given in 1Macc 1:1-7, where he is spoken of as "Alexander the Macedonian, the son of Philip, who came out of the land of Chittim" (1:1): his invasion of Persia is also referred to in 1Macc 6:2, where he is described as "the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Greeks," i.e. the first who united in a single empire all the Greek states, except those which lay to the west of the Adriatic. It is the conception of the Macedonian power as the deadly foe of Persia which is responsible for the description of Haman in <span class="noTag">Additions to Esther 16:10</span> as a Macedonian, "an alien in truth from the Persian blood," and for the attribution to him of a plot to transfer the Persian empire to the Macedonians (verse 14), and this same thought appears in the Septuagint\'s rendering of the Hebrew Agagite (\'aghaghi) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,24);">Es 9:24</a> as Macedonian (Makedon).<P>2. Roman Intervention:<P>Alexander died in June 323 BC, and his empire fell a prey to the rivalries of his chief generals (1Macc 1:9); after a period of struggle and chaos, three powerful kingdoms were formed, taking their names from Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. Even in Syria, however, Macedonian influences remained strong, and we find Macedonian troops in the service of the Seleucid monarchs (2Macc 8:20). In 215 King Philip V, son of Demetrius II and successor of Antigonus Doson (229-220 BC), formed an alliance with Hannibal, who had defeated the Roman forces at Lake Trasimene (217) and at Cannae (216), and set about trying to recover Illyria. After some years of desultory and indecisive warfare, peace was concluded in 205, Philip binding himself to abstain from attacking the Roman possessions on the east of the Adriatic. The Second Macedonian War, caused by a combined attack of Antiochus III of Syria and Philip of Macedon on Egypt, broke out in 200 and ended 3 years later in the crushing defeat of Philip\'s forces by T. Quinctius Flamininus at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly (compare 1Macc 8:5). By the treaty which followed this battle, Philip surrendered his conquests in Greece, Illyria, Thrace, Asia Minor and the Aegean, gave up his fleet, reduced his army to 5,000 men, and undertook to declare no war and conclude no alliance without Roman consent.<P>3. Roman Conquest:<P>In 179 Philip was succeeded by his son Perseus, who at once renewed the Roman alliance, but set to work to consolidate and extend his power. In 172 war again broke out, and after several Roman reverses the consul Lucius Aemilius Paulus decisively defeated the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC (compare 1Macc 8:5, where Perseus is called "king of Chittim "). The kingship was abolished and Perseus was banished to Italy. The Macedonians were declared free and autonomous; their land was divided into four regions, with their capitals at Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella and Pelagonia respectively, and each of them was governed by its own council; commercium and connubium were forbidden between them and the gold and silver mines were closed. A tribute was to be paid annually to the Roman treasury, amounting to half the land tax hitherto exacted by the Macedonian kings.<P>4. Macedonia a Roman Province:<P>But this compromise between freedom and subjection could not be of long duration, and after the revolt of Andriscus, the pseudo-Philip, was quelled (148 BC), Macedonia was constituted a Roman province and enlarged by the addition of parts of Illyria, Epirus, the Ionian islands and Thessaly. Each year a governor was dispatched from Rome with supreme military and judicial powers; the partition fell into abeyance and communication within the province was improved by the construction of the Via Egnatia from Dyrrhachium to Thessalonica, whence it was afterward continued eastward to the Nestus and the Hellespont. In 146 the Acheans, who had declared war on Rome, were crushed by Q. Caecilius Metellus and L. Mummius, Corinth was sacked and destroyed, the Achean league was dissolved, and Greece, under the name of Achea, was made a province and placed under the control of the governor of Macedonia. In 27 BC, when the administration of the provinces was divided between Augustus and the Senate, Macedonia and Achea fell to the share of the latter (Strabo, p. 840; Dio Cassius liii.12) and were governed separately by ex-praetors sent out annually with the title of proconsul. In 15 AD, however, senatorial mismanagement had brought the provinces to the verge of ruin, and they were transferred to Tiberius (Tacitus, Annals, i.76), who united them under the government of a legatus Augusti pro praetore until, in 44 AD, Claudius restored them to the Senate (Suetonius, Claudius 25; Dio Cassius lx .24). It is owing to this close historical and geographical connection that we find Macedonia and Achia frequently mentioned together in the New Testament, Macedonia being always placed first (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,21);">Ac 19:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,26);">Ro 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,2);">2Co 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,7,8);">1Th 1:7,8</a>).<P>5. Later History:<P>Diocletian (284-305 AD) detached from Macedonia Thessaly and the Illyrian coast lands and formed them into two provinces, the latter under the name of Epirus Nova. Toward the end of the 4th century what remained of Macedonia was broken up into two provinces, Macedonia prima and Macedonia secunda or salutaris, and when in 395 the Roman world was divided into the western and eastern empires, Macedonia was included in the latter. During the next few years it was overrun and plundered by the Goths under Alaric, and later, in the latter half of the 6th century, immense numbers of Slavonians settled there. In the 10th century a large part of it was under Bulgarian rule, and afterward colonies of various Asiatic tribes were settled there by the Byzantine emperors. In 1204 it became a Latin kingdom under Boniface, marquis of Monferrat, but 20 years later Theodore, the Greek despot of Epirus, founded a Greek empire of Thessalonica. During the 2nd half of the 14th century the greater part of it was part of the Servian dominions, but in 1430 Thessalonica fell before the Ottoman Turks, and from that time down to the year 1913 Macedonia has formed part of the Turkish empire. Its history thus accounts for the very mixed character of its population, which consists chiefly of Turks, Albanians, Greeks and Bulgarians, but has in it a considerable element of Jews, Gypsies, Vlachs, Servians and other races.<P>III. Paul and Macedonia.<P>In the narrative of Paul\'s journeys as given us in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'1-\');">Ac 13-28</a> and in the Pauline Epistles, Macedonia plays a prominent part. The apostle\'s relations with the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea will be found discussed under those several headings; here we will merely recount in outline his visits to the province.<P>1. Paul\'s First Visit:<P>On his 2nd missionary journey Paul came to Troas, and from there sailed with Silas, Timothy and Luke to Neapolis, the nearest Macedonian seaport, in obedience to the vision of a Macedonian (whom Ramsay identifies with Luke: see under the word "Philippi") urging him to cross to Macedonia and preach the gospel there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,9);">Ac 16:9</a>). From Neapolis he journeyed inland to Philippi, which is described as "a city of Macedonia, the first of the district" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,12);">Ac 16:12</a>). Thence Paul and his two companions (for Luke appears to have remained in Philippi for the next 5 years) traveled along the Ignatian road, passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, to Thessalonica, which, though a "free city," and therefore technically exempt from the jurisdiction of the Roman governor, was practically the provincial capital. Driven thence by the hostility of the Jews, the evangelists preached in Berea, where Silas and Timothy remained for a short time after a renewed outbreak of Jewish animosity had forced Paul to leave Macedonia for the neighboring province of Achaia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,14);">Ac 17:14</a>). Although he sent a message to his companions to join him with all speed at Athens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,15);">Ac 17:15</a>), yet so great was his anxiety for the welfare of the newly founded Macedonian churches that he sent Timothy back to Thessalonica almost immediately (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,1,2);">1Th 3:1,2</a>), and perhaps Silas to some other part of Macedonia, nor did they again join him until after he had settled for some time in Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,5);">Ac 18:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,6);">1Th 3:6</a>). The rapid extension of the Christian faith in Macedonia at this time may be judged from the phrases used by Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, the earliest of his extant letters, written during this visit to Corinth. He there speaks of the Thessalonian converts as being an example "to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,7);">1Th 1:7</a>), and he commends their love "toward all the brethren that are in all Macedonia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,10);">1Th 4:10</a>). Still more striking are the words, "From you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,8);">1Th 1:8</a>).<P>2. Paul\'s Second Visit:<P>On his 3rd missionary journey, the apostle paid two further visits to Macedonia. During the course of a long stay at Ephesus he laid plans for a 2nd journey through Macedonia and Achaia, and dispatched two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia to prepare for his visit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,21,22);">Ac 19:21,22</a>). Some time later, after the uproar at Ephesus raised by Demetrius and his fellow-silversmiths (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'23-41\');">Ac 19:23-41</a>), Paul himself set out for Macedonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,1);">Ac 20:1</a>). Of this visit Luke gives us a very summary account, telling us merely that Paul, "when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation,...came into Greece" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,2);">Ac 20:2</a>); but from 2 Corinthians, written from Macedonia (probably from Philippi) during the course of this visit, we learn more of the apostle\'s movements and feelings. While at Ephesus, Paul had changed his plans. His intention at first had been to travel across the Aegean Sea to Corinth, to pay a visit from there to Macedonia and to return to Corinth, so as to sail direct to Syria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,15,16);">2Co 1:15,16</a>). But by the time at which he wrote the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, probably near the end of his stay at Ephesus, he had made up his mind to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia, as we have seen that he actually did (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,5,6);">1Co 16:5,6</a>). From <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,13);">2Co 2:13</a> we learn that he traveled from Ephesus to Troas, where he expected to find Titus. Titus, however, did not yet arrive, and Paul, who "had no relief for (his) spirit," left Troas and sailed to Macedonia. Even here the same restlessness pursued him: "fightings without, fears within" oppressed him, till the presence of Titus brought some relief (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,5,6);">2Co 7:5,6</a>). The apostle was also cheered by "the grace of God which had been given in the churches of Macedonia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,1);">2Co 8:1</a>); in the midst of severe persecution, they bore their trials with abounding joy, and their deep poverty did not prevent them begging to be allowed to raise a contribution to send to the Christians in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,26);">Ro 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'2-4\');">2Co 8:2-4</a>). Liberality was, indeed, from the very outset one of the characteristic virtues of the Macedonian churches. The Philippians had sent money to Paul on two occasions during his first visit to Thessalonica (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,16);">Php 4:16</a>), and again when he had left Macedonia and was staying at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,9);">2Co 11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,15);">Php 4:15</a>). On the present occasion, however, the Corinthians seem to have taken the lead and to have prepared their bounty in the previous year, on account of which the apostle boasts of them to the Macedonian Christians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,2);">2Co 9:2</a>). He suggests that on his approaching visit to Achaia he may be accompanied by some of these Macedonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,4);">2Co 9:4</a>), but whether this was actually the case we are not told.<P>3. Paul\'s Third Visit:<P>The 3rd visit of Paul to Macedonia took place some 3 months later and was occasioned by a plot against his life laid by the Jews of Corinth, which led him to alter his plan of sailing from Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, to Syria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,16);">2Co 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,3);">Ac 20:3</a>). He returned to Macedonia accompanied as far as Asia by 3 Macedonian Christians<6E>Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus<75>and by 4 from Asia Minor. Probably Paul took the familiar route by the Via Egnatia, and reached Philippi immediately before the days of unleavened bread; his companions preceded him to Troas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,5);">Ac 20:5</a>), while he himself remained at Philippi until after the Passover (Thursday, April 7, 57 AD, according to Ramsay\'s chronology), when he sailed from Neapolis together with Luke, and joined his friends in Troas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">Ac 20:6</a>).<P>4. Paul\'s Later Visits:<P>Toward the close of his 1st imprisonment at Rome Paul planned a fresh visit to Macedonia as soon as he should be released (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,26);">Php 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,24);">2:24</a>), and even before that he intended to send Timothy to visit the Philippian church and doubtless those of Berea and Thessalonica also. Whether Timothy actually went on this mission we cannot say; that Paul himself went back to Macedonia once more we learn from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>, and we may infer a 5th visit from the reference to the apostle\'s stay at Troas, which in all probability belongs to a later occasion (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,13);">2Ti 4:13</a>).<P>IV. The Macedonian Church.<P>1. Prominence of Women:<P>Of the churches of Macedonia in general, little need be said here. A striking fact is the prominence in them of women, which is probably due to the higher social position held by women in this province than in Asia Minor (Lightfoot, Philippians4, 55ff). We find only two references to women in connection with Paul\'s previous missionary work; the women proselytes of high social standing take a share in driving him from Pisidian Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,50);">Ac 13:50</a>), and Timothy\'s mother is mentioned as a Jewess who believed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">Ac 16:1</a>). But in Macedonia all is changed. To women the gospel was first preached at Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,13);">Ac 16:13</a>); a woman was the first convert and the hostess of the evangelists (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,14,15);">Ac 16:14,15</a>); a slave girl was restored to soundness of mind by the apostle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,18);">Ac 16:18</a>), and long afterward Paul mentions two women as having "labored with (him) in the gospel" and as endangering the peace of the church by their rivalry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,2,3);">Php 4:2,3</a>). At Thessalonica a considerable number of women of the first rank appear among the earliest converts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,4);">Ac 17:4</a>), while at Berea also the church included from the outset numerous Greek women of high position (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,12);">Ac 17:12</a>).<P>2. Marked Characteristics:<P>The bond uniting Paul and the Macedonian Christians seems to have been a peculiarly close and affectionate one. Their liberality and open-heartedness, their joyousness and patience in trial and persecution, their activity in spreading the Christian faith, their love of the brethren<65>these are a few of the characteristics which Paul specially commends in them (1 and 2 Thessalonians; Philippians; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'1-8\');">2Co 8:1-8</a>), while they also seem to have been much freer than the churches of Asia Minor from Judaizing tendencies and from the allurements of "philosophy and vain deceit."<P>3. Its Members:<P>We know the names of a few of the early members of the Macedonian churches<65>Sopater (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>) or Sosipater (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,21);">Ro 16:21</a>: the identification is a probable, though not a certain, one) of Berea; Aristarchus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,29);">Ac 19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,2);">27:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,24);">Phm 1:24</a>), Jason (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,\'5-9\');">Ac 17:5-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,21);">Ro 16:21</a>) and Secundus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>) of Thessalonica; Clement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,3);">Php 4:3</a>), Epaphroditus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,25);">Php 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,18);">4:18</a>), Euodia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,2);">Php 4:2</a>; this, not Euodias (the King James Version), is the true form), Syntyche (same place), Lydia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,14,40);">Ac 16:14,40</a>; a native of Thyatira), and possibly Luke (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 201ff) of Philippi. Gaius is also mentioned as a Macedonian in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,29);">Ac 19:29</a>, but perhaps the reading of a few manuscripts Makedona is to be preferred to the Textus Receptus of the New Testament Makedonas in which case Aristarchus alone would be a Macedonian, and this Gaius would probably be identical with the Gaius of Derbe mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a> as a companion of Paul (Ramsay, op. cit., 280). The later history of the Macedonian churches, together with lists of all their known bishops, will be found in Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, II, 1ff; III, 1089ff 1045 f.<P>LITERATURE.<P>General: C. Nicolaides, Macedonien, Berlin, 1899; Berard, La Macedoine, Paris, 1897; "Odysseus," Turkey in Europe, London, 1900. Secular History: Hogarth, Philip and Alexander of Macedon, London,1897,and the histories of the Hellenistic period by Holm, Niese, Droysen and Kaerst. Ethnography and Language: O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Gottingen, 1906. Topography and Antiquities: Heuzey and Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macedoine, Paris, 1876; Cousinery, Voyage dans la Macedoine, Paris, 1831; Clarke, Travels 4, VII, VIII, London, 1818; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, London, 1835; Duchesne and Bayet, Memoire sur une mission en Macedoine et au Mont Athos, Paris, 1876; Hahn, Reise von Belgrad nach Saloniki, Vienna, 1861. Coins: Head, Historia Nummorum, 193f; British Museum Catalogue of Coins: Macedonia, etc., London, 1879. Inscriptions: CIG, numbers 1951-2010; CIL, III, 1 and III, Suppl.; Dimitsas, \'H ... Athens, 1896.``176';
|
||
isbe[5656]='Machaerus`ma-ke\'-rus (Machairous): Not mentioned in Scripture, canonical or apocryphal, but its importance in Jewish history justifies its inclusion here. Pliny (NH, v.16,72) speaks of it as, after Jerusalem, the strongest of Jewish fortresses. It was fortified by Alexander Janneus (BJ, VII, vi, 2). It was taken and destroyed by Gabinius (ibid., I, viii, 5; Ant, XIV, v, 4). Herod the Great restored it and, building a city here, made it one of his residences (BJ, VII, vi,1,2). It lay within the tetrarchy assigned to Antipas at the death of Herod. The wife of Antipas, daughter of Aretas, privately aware of his infidelity, asked to be sent hither (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Here Josephus has fallen into confusion if he meant by the phrase "a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod" that it was still in Herod\'s hands, since immediately he tells us that it was "subject to her father." It was natural enough, however, that a border fortress should be held now by one and now by the other. It may have passed to Aretas by some agreement of which we have no record; and Herod, unaware that his wife knew of his guilt, would have no suspicion of her design in wishing to visit her father. If this is true, then the Baptist could not have been imprisoned and beheaded at Macherus (ibid., 2). The feast given to the lords of Galilee would most probably be held at Tiberias; and there is nothing in the Gospel story to hint that the prisoner was some days\' journey distant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,14);">Mr 6:14</a>). The citadel was held by a Roman garrison until 66 AD, which then evacuated it to escape a siege (BJ, II, xviii, 6). Later by means of a stratagem it was recovered for the Romans by Bassus, circa 72 AD (BJ, VII, vi, 4).<P>The place is identified with the modern Mkaur, a position of great strength on a prominent height between Wady Zerqa Ma\'in and Wady el-Mojib, overlooking the Dead Sea. There are extensive ruins.``54';
|
||
isbe[5657]='Machbannai`mak\'-ba-ni, -ba-na\'-i (makhbannay; the King James Version Machbanai): A Gadite who attached himself to David in Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,13);">1Ch 12:13</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5658]='Machbena`mak-be\'-na (makhbenah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Machabena; Codex Alexandrinus Machamena; the King James Version, Machbenah): A name which occurs in the genealogical list of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,49);">1Ch 2:49</a>), apparently the name of a place, which may be the same as "Cabbon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,40);">Jos 15:40</a>), probably to be identified with el-Kubeibeh, about 3 miles south of Beit Jibrin.``1';
|
||
isbe[5659]='Machi`ma\'-ki (makhi; Peshitta and some manuscripts of Septuagint read "Machir"): A Gadite, father of Geuel, one of the 12 spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,15);">Nu 13:15</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5660]='Machir; Machirite`ma\'-kir (makhir; Macheir), ma\'-kir-it:<P>(1) The eldest son of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,23);">Ge 50:23</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,29);">Nu 26:29</a> it is recorded that Machir begat Gilead, but another narrative informs us that the children of Machir "went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were therein. And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Manasseh; and he dwelt therein" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,39,40);">Nu 32:39,40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,1,3);">Jos 17:1,3</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,21,25);">1Ch 2:21,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'14-17\');">7:14-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,15);">De 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,31);">Jos 13:31</a>). In the song of Deborah, Machir is used as equivalent to Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,14);">Jud 5:14</a>).<P>(2) Son of Ammiel, dwelling in Lo-debar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,4,5);">2Sa 9:4,5</a>), a wealthy landowner who protected Mephibosheth (Meribbaal), son of Jonathan, until assured of the friendly intentions of David (compare Ant, VII, ix, 8). Afterward, during the rebellion of Absalom, Machir with others came to David\'s assistance at Mahanaim, bringing supplies for the king and his men (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,27);">2Sa 17:27</a>).``95';
|
||
isbe[5661]='Machmas`mak\'-mas.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MICHMASH">MICHMASH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5662]='Machnadebai`mak-nad\'-e-bi, mak-na-de\'-bi (makhnaddebhay): Son of Bani, one of those who married foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,40);">Ezr 10:40</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5663]='Machpelah`mak-pe\'-la (ha-makhpelah, "the Machpelah"; to diploun, "the double"): The name of a piece of ground and of a cave purchased by Abraham as a place of sepulcher. The word is supposed to mean "double" and refers to the condition of the cave. It is translated "double cave" (to diploun spelaion) in the Septuagint in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,17);">Ge 23:17</a>. The name is applied to the ground in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,19);">Ge 23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,30);">49:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,13);">50:13</a>, and to the cave in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,9);">Ge 23:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,9);">25:9</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,17);">Ge 23:17</a> we have the phrase "the field of Ephron, which was in (the) Machpelah."<P>1. Scriptural Data:<P>The cave belonged to Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, from whom Abraham purchased it for 400 shekels of silver (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'8-16\');">Ge 23:8-16</a>). It is described as "before," i.e. "to the east of" Mamre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,17);">Ge 23:17</a>) which (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,19);">Ge 23:19</a>) is described as the same as Hebron (see, too, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,9);">Ge 25:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,30);">49:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,13);">50:13</a>). Here were buried Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. (Compare however the curious variant tradition in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,16);">Ac 7:16</a>, "Shechem" instead of "Hebron.")<P>2. Tradition Regarding the Site:<P>Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) speaks of the monuments (mnemeia) of Abraham and his posterity which "are shown to this very time in that small city (i.e. in Hebron); the fabric of which monuments are of the most excellent marble and wrought after the most excellent manner"; and in another place he writes of Isaac being buried by his sons with his wife in Hebron where they had a monument belonging to them from their forefathers (Ant., I, xxii, 1). The references of early Christian writers to the site of the tombs of the patriarchs only very doubtfully apply to the present buildings and may possibly refer to Ramet el-Khalil (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAMRE">MAMRE</a>). Thus the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 AD) mentions a square enclosure built of stones of great beauty in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried with their wives. Antonius Martyr (circa 600) and Arculf (698) also mention this monument. Mukaddasi speaks (circa 985) of the strong fortress around the tombs of the patriarchs built of great squared stones, the work of Jinns, i.e. of supernatural beings. From this onward the references are surely to the present site, and it is difficult to believe, if, as good authorities maintain, the great buttressed square wall enclosing the site is work at least as early as Herod, that the earlier references can be to any other site. It is certain that the existing buildings are very largely those which the Crusaders occupied; there are many full references to this place in medieval Moslem writers.<P>3. The Charam at Hebron:<P>The Charam at Hebron, which present-day tradition, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, recognizes as built over the cave of Machpelah, is one of the most jealousy guarded sanctuaries in the world. Only on rare occasions and through the exercise of much political pressure have a few honored Christians been allowed to visit the spot. The late King Edward VII in 1862 and the present King George V, in 1882, with certain distinguished scholars in their parties, made visits which have been chiefly important through the writings of their companions<6E>Stanley in 1862 and Wilson and Conder in 1882. One of the latest to be accorded the privilege was C.W. Fairbanks, late vice-president of the United States of America. What such visitors have been permitted to see has not been of any great antiquity nor has it thrown any certain fight on the question of the genuineness of the site.<P>The space containing the traditional tombs is a great quadrangle 197 ft. in length (northwest to southeast) and 111 ft. in breadth (northeast to southwest). It is enclosed by a massive wall of great blocks of limestone, very hard and akin to marble. The walls which are between 8 and 9 ft thick are of solid masonry throughout. At the height of 15 ft. from the ground, at indeed the level of the floor within, the wall is set back about 10 inches at intervals, so as to leave pilasters 3 ft. 9 inches wide, with space between each of 7 ft. all round. On the longer sides there are 16 and on the shorter sides 8 such pilasters, and there are also buttresses 9 ft. wide on each face at each angle. This pilastered wall runs up for 25 ft., giving the total average height from the ground of 40 ft. The whole character of the masonry is so similar to the wall of the Jerusalem Charam near the "wailing place" that Conder and Warren considered that it must belong to that period and be Herodian work.<P>The southern end of the great enclosure is occupied by a church<63>probably a building entirely of the crusading period<6F>with a nave and two aisles. The rest is a courtyard open to the air. The cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca are within the church; those of Abraham and Sarah occupy octagonal chapels in the double porch before the church doors; those of Jacob and Leah are placed in chambers near the north end of the Charam. The six monuments are placed at equal distances along the length of the enclosure, and it is probable that their positions there have no relation to the sarcophagi which are described as existing in the cave itself.<P>4. The Cave:<P>It is over this cave that the chief mystery hangs. It is not known whether it has been entered by any man at present alive, Moslem or otherwise. While the cave was in the hands of the Crusaders, pilgrims and others were allowed to visit this spot. Thus Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, writing in 1163 AD, says that "if a Jew comes, who gives an additional fee to the keeper of the cave, an iron door is opened, which dates from the times of our forefathers who rest in peace, and with a burning candle in his hand the visitor descends into a first cave which is empty, traverses a second in the same state and at last reaches a third which contains six sepulchres<65>those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, one opposite the other. ... A lamp burns in the cave and upon the sepulchre continually, both night and day." The account reminds us of the condition of many Christian tomb-shrines in Palestine today.<P>It would appear from the description of modern observers that all entrance to the cave is now closed; the only known approaches are never now opened and can only be reached by breaking up the flags of the flooring. Through one of the openings<67>which had a stone over it pierced by a circular hole 1 ft. in diameter<65>near the northern wall of the old church, Conder was able by lowering a lantern to see into a chamber some 15 ft. under the church. He estimated it to be some 12 ft. square; it had plastered walls, and in the wall toward the southeast there was a door which appeared like the entrance to a rock-cut tomb. On the outside of the Charam wall, close to the steps of the southern entrance gateway is a hole in the lowest course of masonry, which may possibly communicate with the western cave. Into this the Jews of Hebron are accustomed to thrust many written prayers and vows to the patriarchs.<P>The evidence, historical and archaeological seems to show that the cave occupies only the south end of the great quadrilateral enclosure under part only of the area covered by the church.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEBRON">HEBRON</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>PEF, III., 333-46; PEFS, 1882, 197; 1897, 53; 1912, 145-150; HDB, III., article "Machpelah," by Warren; Stanley, SP and Lectures on the Jewish Church; "Pal under the Moslems," PEF; Pilgrim Text Soc. publications.``117';
|
||
isbe[5664]='Maconah`ma-ko\'-na: the King James Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEKONAH">Mekonah</a>, (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5665]='Macron`ma\'-kron (Makron>): Ptolemy Macron who had been appointed by Ptolemy Philmetor VI governor of Cyprus and deserted to Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (2Macc 10:12ff). Under Antiochus he was governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (2Macc 8:8). In 1Macc 3:38 and 2Macc 4:45 he is called "Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes." At first he was a fierce and cruel enemy of the Jews and was one of those chosen by Lysias to destroy Israel and reduce Judas Maccabee (same place). Later he apparently relented toward the Jews (2Macc 10:12), fell into disfavor with Antiochus Eupator, before whom he was accused by the king\'s friends, and was so galled by being constantly called traitor that he ended his life with poison (2Macc 10:13).``5';
|
||
isbe[5666]='Mad; Madness`(halal, shagha\'; mania):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>These words, and derivatives from the same roots are used to express various conditions of mental derangement. Though usually translated "mad," or "madness" they are often used for temporary conditions to which one would scarcely apply them today except as common colloquial inaccuracies. The madness coupled with folly in Ecclesiastes is rather the excessive frivolity and dissipation on the part of the idle rich (so in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,17);">1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,\'2-12\');">2:2-12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,25);">7:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,3);">9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,13);">10:13</a>). The insensate fury of the wicked against the good is called by this name in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,8);">Ps 102:8</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'28-34\');">De 28:28-34</a> it is used to characterize the state of panic produced by the oppression of tyrannical conquerors, or (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,4);">Zec 12:4</a>) by the judgment of God on sinners. This condition of mind is metaphorically called a drunkenness with the wine of God\'s wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,16);">Jer 25:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,7);">51:7</a>). The same mental condition due to terror-striking idols is called "madness" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,38);">Jer 50:38</a>. The madman of <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,18);">Pr 26:18</a> is a malicious person who carries his frivolous jest to an unreasonable length, for he is responsible for the mischief he causes. The ecstatic condition of one under the inspiration of the Divine or of evil spirits, such as that described by Balaam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,3);">Nu 24:3</a>f), or that which Saul experienced (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,10);">1Sa 10:10</a>), is compared to madness; and conversely in the Near East at the present day the insane are supposed to be Divinely inspired and to be peculiarly under the Divine protection. This was the motive which led David, when at the court of Achish, to feign madness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'13-15\');">1Sa 21:13-15</a>). It is only within the last few years that any provision has been made in Palestine for the restraint even of dangerous lunatics, and there are many insane persons wandering at large there.<P>This association of madness with inspiration is expressed in the name "this mad fellow" given to the prophet who came to anoint Jehu, which did not necessarily convey a disrespectful meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,11);">2Ki 9:11</a>). The true prophetic spirit was, however, differentiated from the ravings of the false prophets by Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,25);">44:25</a>), these latter being called mad by Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',29,26);">29:26</a>) and Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,7);">9:7</a>).<P>The most interesting case of real insanity recorded in the Old Testament is that of Saul, who, from being a shy, self-conscious young man, became, on his exaltation to the kingship, puffed up with a megalomania, alternating with fits of black depression with homicidal impulses, finally dying by suicide. The cause of his madness is said to have been an evil spirit from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,10);">1Sa 18:10</a>), and when, under the influence of the ecstatic mood which alternated with his depression, he conducted himself like a lunatic (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,23);">1Sa 19:23</a>f), his mutterings are called "prophesyings." The use of music in his case as a remedy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,16);">1Sa 16:16</a>) may be compared with Elisha\'s use of the same means to produce the prophetic ecstasy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,15);">2Ki 3:15</a>).<P>The story of Nebuchadnezzar is another history of a sudden accession of insanity in one puffed up by self-conceit and excessive prosperity. His delusion that he had become as an ox is of the same nature as that of the daughters of Procyus recorded in the Song of Silenus by Virgil (Ecl. vi.48).<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>In the New Testament the word "lunatic" (seleniazomenoi) (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">Mt 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,15);">17:15</a>) is correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "epileptic." Undoubtedly many of the demoniacs were persons suffering from insanity. The words "mad" or "madness" occur 8 times, but usually in the sense of paroxysms of passion, excitement, and foolishness. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,11);">Ac 26:11</a> Paul says that before his conversion he was "exceedingly mad" (emmainomenos) against the Christians. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,23);">1Co 14:23</a>, those who "speak with tongues" in Christian assemblies are said to appear "mad" to the outsider. Rhoda was called "mad" when she announced that Peter was at the door (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,15);">Ac 12:15</a>). The madness with which the Jews were filled when our Lord healed the man with the withered hand is called anoia, which is literally senselessness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,11);">Lu 6:11</a>), and the madness of Balaam is called paraphronia, "being beside himself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,16);">2Pe 2:16</a>). Paul is accused by Festus of having become deranged by overstudy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,24);">Ac 26:24</a>). It is still the belief among the fellahin that lunatics are people inspired by spirits, good or evil, and it is probable that all persons showing mental derangement would naturally be described as "possessed," so that, without entering into the vexed question of demoniacal possession, any cases of insanity cured by our Lord or the apostles would naturally be classed in the same category.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUNATIC">LUNATIC</a>`107';
|
||
isbe[5667]='Madai`mad\'-a-i, ma\'-di (madhay).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEDES">MEDES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5668]='Madiabun`ma-di\'-a-bun (Madiaboun, the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EMADABUN">EMADABUN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5669]='Madian`ma\'-i-an (the King James Version Judith 2:26; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,29);">Ac 7:29</a> the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIDIAN">MIDIAN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5670]='Madmannah`mad-man\'-a (madhmannah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Macharim; Codex Alexandrinus Bedebena (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,31);">Jos 15:31</a>); Codex Vaticanus Marmena; Codex Alexandrinus Madmena (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,49);">1Ch 2:49</a>)): This town lay in the Negeb of Judah and is mentioned with Hormah and Ziklag. It is represented in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,5);">Jos 19:5</a>, etc., by Beth-marcaboth. Umm Deimneh, 12 miles north of Beersheba, has been proposed on etymological grounds (PEF, III,392,399, Sh XXIV).``1';
|
||
isbe[5671]='Madmen`mad\'-men (madhmen; kai pausin pausetai): An unidentified town in Moab against which Jeremiah prophesied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,2);">48:2</a>). The play upon the words here suggests a possible error in transcription: gam madhmen tiddomi, "Also, Madmen, thou shalt be silenced." The initial "M" of "Madmen" may have arisen by dittography from the last letter of gam. We should then vocalize it as "Dimon," which of course is "Dibon."``1';
|
||
isbe[5672]='Madmenah`mad-me\'-na (madhmenah; Madebena): A place mentioned only in Isaiah\'s description of the Assyrian advance upon Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,31);">Isa 10:31</a>). It is not identified.``1';
|
||
isbe[5673]='Madness`mad\'-nes.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAD,+MADNESS">MAD, MADNESS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5674]='Madon`ma\'-don (madhon; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Marrhon; Codex Alexandrinus Madon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,1);">Jos 11:1</a>); Codex Vaticanus Marmoth; Codex Alexandrinus Maron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,19);">Jos 12:19</a>)): A royal city of the Canaanites named along with Hazor of Galilee. El-Medineh, "the city," on the heights west of the Sea of Galilee, with which it might possibly be identified, probably dates only from Moslem times. It seems likely that the common confusion of the Hebrew letter daleth ("d") for the Hebrew letter resh ("r") has occurred, and that we should read "Maron." The place may be then identified with Meiron, a village with ancient ruins and rock tombs at the foot of Jebel Jermuk, a little to the northwest of Safed.``54';
|
||
isbe[5675]='Maelus`ma-e\'-lus (LXX: Codex Alexandrinus Maelos; Codex Vaticanus Milelos): One of those who at Esdras\' request put away his foreign wife (1Esdras 9:26 equals "Mijamin" in the parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,25);">Ezr 10:25</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5676]='Magadan`mag\'-a-dan, ma-ga\'-dan (Magadan; the reading of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Magdala (the King James Version), but Magdala is unsupported): This name appears only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,39);">Mt 15:39</a>. In the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,10);">Mr 8:10</a>, its place is taken by Dalmanutha. From these two passages it is reasonable to infer that "the borders of Magadan" and "the parts of Dalmanutha" were contiguous. We may perhaps gather from the narrative that they lay on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. After the feeding of the 4,000, Jesus and His disciples came to these parts. Thence they departed to "the other side" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,13);">Mr 8:13</a>), arriving at Bethsaida. This is generally believed to have been Bethsaida Julias, northeast of the sea, whence He set out on His visit to Caesarea Philippi. In this case we might look for Dalmanutha and Magadan somewhere south of the Plain of Gennesaret, at the foot of the western hills. Stanley (SP, 383) quotes Schwarz to the effect that a cave in the face of these precipitous slopes bears the name of Teliman or Talmanutha. If this is true, it points to a site for Dalmanutha near \'Ain el-Fuliyeh. Magadan might then be represented by el-Mejdel, a village at the southwest corner of the Plain of Gennesaret. It is commonly identified with Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene, but without any evidence. The name suggests that this was the site of an old Hebrew mighdal, "tower" or "fortress." The village with its ruins is now the property of the German Roman Catholics. The land in the plain has been purchased by a colony of Jews, and is once more being brought under cultivation.<P>The identification with Magdala is made more probable by the frequent interchange of "l" for "n", e.g. Nathan (Hebrew), Nethel (Aramaic).``54';
|
||
isbe[5677]='Magbish`mag\'-bish (maghbish; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Magebos; Codex Alexandrinus Maabeis): An unidentified town in Benjamin, 156 of the inhabitants of which are said to have returned from exile with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,30);">Ezr 2:30</a>). It does not appear in Nehemiah\'s list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,33);">Ne 7:33</a>). Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), however, has Magebos. The name is probably identical with Magpiash, "one who sealed the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,20);">Ne 10:20</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5678]='Magdala`mag\'-da-la.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGADAN">MAGADAN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5679]='Magdalene`mag\'-da-len, mag-da-le\'-ne.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARY">MARY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5680]='Magdiel`mag\'-di-el (maghdi\'el; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,43);">Ge 36:43</a>, Septuagint: Codex Alexandrinus Metoduel; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,54);">1Ch 1:54</a>; Codex Alexandrinus Mageduel; Codex Vaticanus Meduel): One of the "dukes" of Edom.``1';
|
||
isbe[5681]='Maged`ma\'-ged.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAKED">MAKED</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5682]='Magi, Star of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STAR+OF+THE+MAGI">STAR OF THE MAGI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5683]='Magi, the`ma\'-ji, (Magoi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1,7,16);">Mt 2:1,7,16</a>, "Wise-men," the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version, "Magi" the Revised Version margin)):<P>1. Originally a Median Tribe:<P>Were originally a Median tribe (Herodotus i.101); and in Darius\' Inscriptions Magush means only a member of that tribe. It was one of them, Bardiya, who pretended to be Smerdis and raised the rebellion against Cambyses. Rabh Magh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,3);">Jer 39:3</a> does not mean "Chief Magus," but is in Assyrian Rab mugi (apparently "commander"; compare tab mugi sa narkabti, "commander of chariots"), having no connection with "Magus" (unless perhaps Magians were employed as charioteers, Media being famous for its Nisean steeds). The investment of the Magi with priestly functions, possibly under Cyrus (Xen. Cyrop. viii), but probably much later, was perhaps due to the fact that Zoroaster (Zarathustra) belonged, it is said, to that tribe. They guarded the sacred fire, recited hymns at dawn and offered sacrifices of haoma-juice, etc. Herodotus i.132) says they also buried the dead (perhaps temporary burial is meant as in Vendidad, Farg. viii). They were granted extensive estates in Media for their maintenance, and the athravans and other priests mentioned in the Avesta may have been of their number, though only once does the word "Magus" occur in the book (in the compound Moghu-thbish, "Magus-hater," Yasna, lxv.7, Geldner\'s edition). The Magi even in Herodotus\' time had gained a reputation for "magic" articles (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,6,8);">Ac 13:6,8</a>). They also studied astrology and astronomy (rationes mundani motus et siderum (Amm. Marc., xxiii.6, 32)), partly learned from Babylon.<P>2. The Magi at Bethlehem:<P>These latter studies explain why a star was used to lead them to Christ at Bethlehem, when our Lord was less than two years old (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,16);">Mt 2:16</a>). No reliable tradition deals with the country whence these particular magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that "gold, frankincense and myrrh" abounded in Yemen. But the text says they came not from the south but from the east. Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvencus, Prudentius and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. Sargon\'s settlement of Israelites in Media (circa 730-728 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>)) accounts for the large Hebrew element of thought which Darmesteter recognizes in the Avesta (SBE, IV, Intro, chapter vi). Median astronomers would thus know Balaam\'s prophecy of the star out of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,17);">Nu 24:17</a>). That the Jews expected a star as a sign of the birth of the Messiah is clear from the tractate Zohar of the Gemara and also from the title "Son of the Star" (Bar Kokhebha) given to a pseudo-Messiah<P>(130-35 AD). Tacitus (Hist. v.13) and Suetonius (Vesp. iv) tell us how widespread in the East at the time of Christ\'s coming was the expectation that "at that time men starting from Judea would make themselves masters of things" (compare Virgil, Ecl. iv). All this would naturally prepare the Magi to follow the star when it appeared.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGIC">MAGIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISE+MEN">WISE MEN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOROASTRIANISM">ZOROASTRIANISM</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Herodotus; Xenophon; Amm. Marcellinus; Strabo; Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften; Geldner, Avesta; Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dict.; BDB; RE.``175';
|
||
isbe[5684]='Magic; Magician`maj\'-ik, ma-jish\'-an:<P><b>I. DEFINITION</b><P><b>II. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT</b><P class="in15">1. Magic as Impersonal<P class="in15">2. Margic as Personal<P><b>III. MAGIC AND RELIGION</b><P><b>IV. MAGIC IN THE BIBLE</b><P class="in15">1. Hostility to Magic<P class="in15">2. Potency of Magical Words<P class="in15">3. Influence of Charms<P><b>V. MAGICAL TERMS USED IN THE BIBLE</b><P class="in15">1. Divination<P class="in15">2. Sorcery<P class="in15">3. Enchantment<P class="in15">4. Amulets<P class="in15">5. Incantation<P class="in15">6. Repeated Utterances<P class="in15">7. Impostors<P class="in15">8. Witchcraft<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The word comes from a Greek adjective (magike) with which the noun techne, "art," is understood. The full phrase is "magical art" (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 17:10</span>). But the Greek word is derived from the magi or Zarathustran (Zoroastrian) priests. Magic is therefore historically the art practiced in Persia by the recognized priests of the country. It is impossible in the present article, owing to exigencies of space, to give a full account of this important subject and of the leading views of it which have been put forth. The main purpose of the following treatment will be to consider the subject from the Biblical standpoint.<P>I. Definition.<P>In its modern accepted sense magic may be described as the art of bringing about results beyond man\'s own power by superhuman agencies. In the wide sense of this definition divination is only a species of magic, i.e. magic used as a means of securing secret knowledge, especially a knowledge of the future. Divination and magic bear a similar relation to prophecy and miracle respectively, the first and third implying special knowledge, the second and fourth special power. But divination has to do generally with omens, and it is better for this and other reasons to notice the two subjects<74>magic and divination<6F>apart as is done in the present work.<P>II. Division of the Subject.<P>1. Magic as Impersonal:<P>There are two kinds of magic:<P>(1) impersonal;<P>(2) personal.<P>In the first, magic is a species of crude science, for the underlying hypothesis is that there are forces in the world which can be utilized on certain conditions, incantations, magical acts, drugs, etc. The magician in this case connects what on a very slender induction he considers to be causes and effects, mainly on the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc. He may not know much of the causal agency; it is enough for him to know that by performing some act or reciting some formula (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHARM">CHARM</a>) or carrying some object (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMULET">AMULET</a>) he can secure some desired end. Frazer (Golden Bough(2), I, 61) says: "Magic is a kind of savage logic, an elementary species of reasoning based on similarity, contiguity and contrast." But why does the savage draw conclusions from association of ideas? There must be an implied belief in the uniformly of Nature or in the controlling power of intelligent beings.<P>2. Magic as Personal:<P>In personal magic, living, intelligent, spiritual beings are made the real agents which men by incantations, etc., influence and even control. The magical acts may in an advanced stage include sacrifice, the incantations become prayer.<P>Impersonal magic is regarded by most anthropologists, including E.B. Tylor and J. Frazer, as more primitive than the second and as a lower form of it. This conclusion rests on an assumption that human culture is always progressive, that the movement is uniformly onward and upward. But this law does not always hold. The religion of Israel as taught in the 8th century BC stands on a higher level ethically and intellectually than that taught in the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Eccelesiastes centuries later. Among the ancient Indians, the Rig Veda occupies much loftier ground than the much later Atharva Veda.<P>III. Magic and Religion.<P>Personal magic in its higher forms shades off into religion, and very commonly the two exist together. It is the practice to speak of sacrifice and prayer as constituting elements of the ancient and modern religions of India. But it is doubtful whether either of these has the same connotation that it bears in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. J. Frazer (Golden Bough(2), I, 67ff) says that where the operation of spirits is assumed (and "these cases are exceptional"), magic is "tinged and alloyed with religion." Such an assumption is, he admits, often made and the present writer thinks it is generally made, for even the operation of the laws of association implies it. But Frazer concludes from various considerations that "though magic is...found to fuse and amalgamate with religion in many ages and in many lands, there are some grounds for thinking that this fusion is not primitive." It is of course personal magic to which religion stands in closest relations. As soon as man comes to see in the beings by whose power marvels are wrought, personalities capable of emotions like himself and susceptible to persuasion, his magical art becomes an intelligent effort to propitiate these superior beings and his incantations become hymns and prayers. In all religions, Jewish, Moslem, Christian or pagan, when the act or prayer as such is held to produce certain results or to secure certain desired boons, we have to do with a species of magic. The word "religion" is inapplicable, unless it includes the idea of personal faith in a God or gods whose favor depends on moral acts and on ritual acts only in so far as they have a voluntary and ethical character. If it be granted that magic, the lower, precedes religion, the higher, this does not necessarily negative the validity of the religious concept. Mature knowledge is preceded by elementary impressions and beliefs which are subjective without objective correspondences. But this higher knowledge is none the less valid for its antecedents. If it can be proved that the Christian or any other religion has become what it is by gradual ascent from animism, magic, etc., its validity is not by this destroyed or even impaired. Religion must be judged according to its own proper evidence. But see II, end.<P>IV. Magic in the Bible.<P>1. Hostility to Magic:<P>The general remarks made on the Bible and divination in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION, V</a>, have an equal application to the attitude of the Bible toward magic. This attitude is distinctly hostile, as it could not but be in documents professing to inculcate the teaching of the ethical and spiritual religion of Israel (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,10);">De 18:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,6);">2Ki 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,6);">2Ch 33:6</a>, etc.). Yet it is equally clear that the actual power of magic is acknowledged as clearly as its illegitimacy is pointed out. In P\'s account of the plagues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-\');">Ex 7-11</a>) it is assumed that the magicians of Egypt had real power to perform superhuman feats. They throw their rods and they become serpents; they turn the waters of the Nile into blood. It is only when they try to produce gnats that they fail, though Aaron had succeeded by Yahweh\'s power in doing this and thus showed that Yahweh\'s power was greatest. But that the magicians had power that was real and great is not so much as called in question.<P>2. Potency of Magical Words:<P>Among the ancient Semites (Arabs, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) there was a strong belief in the potency of the magical words of blessing and of curse. The mere utterance of such words was regarded as enough to secure their realization. That the narrator of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,\'1-\');">Nu 22-24</a> (Jahwist) ascribed to Balaam magical power is clear from the narrative, else why should Yahweh be represented as transferring Balaam\'s service to the cause of Israel? We have other Biblical references to the power of the spoken word of blessing in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,32);">Ex 12:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,2);">Jud 17:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,3);">2Sa 21:3</a>, and of curse in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,29);">Ge 27:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,23);">Jud 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,8);">Job 3:8</a> (compare the so-called Imprecatory Psalms, and see Century Bible, "Psalms," volume II, 216). On the prevalence of the belief among the Arabs, see the important work of Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie, Theil I, 23ff.<P>3. Influence of Charms:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,14);">Ge 30:14</a> (Jahwist) we have an example of the belief in the power of plants (here mandrakes) to stir up and strengthen sexual love, and we read in Arabic literature of the very same superstition in connection with what is called Yabruch, almost certainly the same plant. Indeed one of the commonest forms in which magic appears is as a love-charm, and as this kind of magic was often exercised by women, magic and adultery are frequently named together in the Old Testament (see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,22);">2Ki 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,4);">Na 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,5);">Mal 3:5</a>; and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,18);">Ex 22:18 (Hebrew 17)</a>, where the sorceress (the King James Version "witch") is to be condemned to death). We have an instance of what is called sympathetic magic (for a description of which see Jevons, Introduction to History of Religion, 28ff, and Frazer, Golden Bough(2), I, 49ff) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,37);">Ge 30:37</a>ff. Jacob placed before the sheep and goats that came to drink water peeled rods, so that the pregnant ones might bring forth young that were spotted and striped. The teraphim mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,19);">Ge 31:19</a>ff and put away with wizards during the drastic reforms of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,24);">2Ki 23:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,2);">Zec 10:2</a>) were household objects supposed capable of warding off evil of every kind. The Babylonians and Assyrians had a similar custom. We read of an Assyrian magician that he had statues of the gods Lugalgira and Alamu put on each side of the main entrance to his house, and in consequence he felt perfectly impregnable against evil spirits (see Tallquist, Assyrian. Beach, 22).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,2);">Isa 3:2</a> the qocem ("magician" or "diviner") is named along with the knight warrior, the judge, prophet and elder, among the stays and supports of the nation; no disapproval is expressed or implied with regard to any of them. Yet it is not to be denied that in its essential features pure Yahwism, which enforced personal faith in a pure spiritual being, was radically opposed to all magical beliefs and practices. The fact that the Hebrews stood apart as believers in an ethical and spiritual religion from the Semitic and other peoples by which they were surrounded suggests that they were Divinely guided, for in other respects<74>art, philosophy, etc.<2E>this same Hebrew nation held a lower place than many contemporary nations.<P>V. Magical Terms Used in the Bible.<P>Many terms employed in the Old Testament in reference to divination have also a magical import. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION, VII</a>. For a fuller discussion of Biblical terms connected with both subjects, reference may be made to T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, 44 iff, 78ff; see also articles "Divination" and "Magic" in EB, by the present writer.<P>1. Divination:<P>Here a few brief statements are all that can be attempted. Qecem, usually rendered "divination" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,23);">Nu 23:23</a>), has primarily a magical reference (Fleischer), though both Wellhausen (Reste des arabischen Heidenthums 2, 133, note 5) and W. Robertson Smith (Jour. Phil., XIII, 278) hold that its first use was in connection with divination. The Arabic verb ("to exorcise") and noun ("an oath") have magical meanings. But it must be admitted that the secondary meaning ("divination") has almost driven out the other. See under I, where it is held that at bottom magic and divination are one.<P>2. Sorcery:<P>The verb kashaph, the Revised Version (British and American) "to practice sorcery," comes, as Fleischer held, from a root denoting "to have a dark appearance," to look gloomy, to be distressed, then as a suppliant to seek relief by magical means. The corresponding nouns kashshaph and mekashsheph are rendered "sorcerer" in English Versions of the Bible.<P>3. Enchantment:<P>Lachash, English Versions of the Bible "enchantment," etc. (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,3);">Isa 3:3</a>, nebhon lachash, the Revised Version (British and American) "the skillful enchanter"), is connected etymologically with nachash, "a serpent,"\' the "n" and "l" often interchanging in Semitic Lachash is, therefore, as might have been expected from this etymology, used specifically of serpent charming (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,11);">Ec 10:11</a>; compare melachesh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,5);">Ps 58:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>, English Versions of the Bible "charmer").<P>4. Amulets:<P>Chebher occurs in the plural only (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,9,12);">Isa 47:9,12</a>, English Versions of the Bible, "enchantments"). It comes from a root meaning "to bind," and it denotes probably amulets of some kind carried on the person to ward off evil. It seems therefore to be the Biblical equivalent of the Talmudic qemia\', literally, equals "something bound" from qama\', "to bind."<P>5. Incantation:<P>Shichar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,11);">Isa 47:11</a>) seems to have an etymological connection with the principal Arabic word for "magic" (sichrun), and is explained by the great majority of recent commentators following J.H. Michaelis (Hitzig, Ewald, Dillmann, Whitehouse in Century Bible, etc.) as meaning "to charm away" (by incantations). So also Targum, Rashi, J H and Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmudim, and Midrashic Literature, Michaelis, Eichhorn, etc.<P>6. Repeated Utterances:<P>The verb battologeo in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,7);">Mt 6:7</a> (equals "say not the same thing over and over again") refers to the superstition that the repeated utterance of a word will secure one\'s wish. In India today it is thought that if an ascetic says in one month the name of Radha, Krishna, or Ro 100,000 times, he cannot fail to obtain what he wants (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,26);">1Ki 18:26</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>.<P>7. Impostors:<P>The term goetes, the Revised Version (British and American) "impostors," the King James Version "seducers," is used of a class of magicians who uttered certain magical formulas in a deep, low voice (compare the verb goao, which = "to sigh," "to utter low moaning tones"). Herodotus (ii.33) says that there were persons of the kind in Egypt, and they are mentioned also by Euripides and Plato.<P>8. Witchcraft:<P>Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,20);">Ga 5:20</a> classes with uncleanness, idolatry, etc., what he calls pharmakeia, the King James Version "witchcraft" the Revised Version (British and American) "sorcery." The word has reference first of all to drugs used in exercising the magical art. Note the name Simon Magus, which = Simon the magician (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,9);">Ac 8:9</a>f), and Bar-Jesus, whom Luke calls a magician (magos, English Versions of the Bible, "sorcerer") and to whom he gives also the proper name Elymas, which is really the Arabic \'alim = "learned," and so one skillful in the magical art.<P>See also under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMULET">AMULET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHARM">CHARM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEMONOLOGY">DEMONOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WITCHCRAFT">WITCHCRAFT</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>A Very full bibliography of the subject will be found in T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, xi through xvi. See also the literature under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a> and in addition to the literature cited in the course of the foregoing article, note the following: A. Lehmann, Aberglaube und Zauberei2, 1908; A.C. Haddon, Magic and Fetishism, 1906; Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, 1898; Smith, "Witchcraft in the Old Testament," Biblical Soc.,1902,23-35; W.R. Halliday, Greek Divination; A Study of Its Methods and Principles, London, Macmillan (important) and the valuable article on "Magic" by Northwest Thomas in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and also the relevant articles in the Bible dictionaries.``33';
|
||
isbe[5685]='Magistrate`maj\'-is-trat (shephat, corresponding to shaphat, "to judge," "to pronounce sentence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,7);">Jud 18:7</a>)): Among the ancients, the terms corresponding to our "magistrate" had a much wider signification. "Magistrates and judges" (shophetim we-dhayyanim) should be translated "judges and rulers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,25);">Ezr 7:25</a>). ceghanim "rulers" or "nobles," were Babylonian magistrates or prefects of provinces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,23,28,57);">Jer 51:23,28,57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,6);">Eze 23:6</a>). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jewish magistrates bore the same title (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,2);">Ezr 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,16);">Ne 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,14);">4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,11);">13:11</a>). The Greek archon, "magistrate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,58);">Lu 12:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,1);">Tit 3:1</a> the King James Version), signifies the chief in power (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,6,8);">1Co 2:6,8</a>) and "ruler" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,26);">Ac 4:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,3);">Ro 13:3</a>).<P>The Messiah is designated as the "prince (archon) of the kings of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,5);">Re 1:5</a> the King James Version), and by the same term Moses is designated the judge and leader of the Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,27,35);">Ac 7:27,35</a>). The wide application of this term is manifest from the fact that it is used of magistrates of any kind, e.g. the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,5);">Ac 23:5</a>); civil judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,58);">Lu 12:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,19);">Ac 16:19</a>); ruler of the synagogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,41);">Lu 8:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,18,23);">Mt 9:18,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,22);">Mr 5:22</a>); persons of standing and authority among the Pharisees and other sects that appear in the Sanhedrin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,1);">Lu 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,1);">Joh 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,17);">Ac 3:17</a>). The term also designates Satan, the prince or chief of the fallen angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,34);">Mt 9:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,2);">Eph 2:2</a>).<P>In the New Testament we also find strategos, employed to designate the Roman praetors or magistrates of Philippi, a Roman colony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,20,22,35,36,38);">Ac 16:20,22,35,36,38</a>). A collective term for those clothed with power (Eng. "the powers"), exousiai, is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,11);">Lu 12:11</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,2,3);">Ro 13:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,1);">Tit 3:1</a>. The "higher powers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,1);">Ro 13:1</a>) are all those who are placed in positions of civil authority from the emperor down.<P>In early Hebrew history, the magisterial office was limited to the hereditary chiefs, but Moses made the judicial office elective. In his time the "heads of families" were 59 in number, and these, together with the 12 princes of the tribes, composed the Sanhedrin or Council of 71. Some of the scribes were entrusted with the business of keeping the genealogies and in this capacity were also regarded as magistrates.``77';
|
||
isbe[5686]='Magnifical`mag-nif\'-i-kal (gadhal, in Hiphil "to make great"): Old form retained from Genevan version in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,5);">1Ch 22:5</a>; in the American Standard Revised Version "magnificent."``1';
|
||
isbe[5687]='Magnificat`mag-nif\'-i-kat: The name given to the hymn of Mary in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'46-55\');">Lu 1:46-55</a>, commencing "My soul doth magnify the Lord." Three old Latin manuscripts substitute the name "Elisabeth" for "Mary" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,46);">1:46</a>, but against this is the authority of all Greek manuscripts and other Latin versions. The hymn, modeled in part on that of Hannah in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,1);">1Sa 2:1</a>ff, is peculiarly suitable to the circumstances of Mary, and plainly could not have been composed after the actual appearance and resurrection of Christ. Its early date is thus manifest.``1';
|
||
isbe[5688]='Magnify`mag\'-ni-fi (Hiphil of gadhal; megaluno, "to make great," "extol," "celebrate in praise"): Used especially of exaltation of the name, mercy, and other attributes of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,19);">Ge 19:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,26);">2Sa 7:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,27);">Ps 35:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,16);">40:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',70,4);">70:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,46);">Lu 1:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,46);">Ac 10:46</a>); of God\'s "word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',138,2);">Ps 138:2</a>); or of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,17);">Ac 19:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,20);">Php 1:20</a>). Men also can be "magnified" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,14);">Jos 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,25);">1Ch 29:25</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,13);">Ro 11:13</a>, "magnify mine office," the word (Greek, doxazo) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "glorify."``1';
|
||
isbe[5689]='Magog`ma\'-gog (maghogh; Magog): Named among the sons of Japheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,5);">1Ch 1:5</a>). Ezekiel uses the word as equivalent to "land of Gog" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,2);">Eze 38:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,6);">39:6</a>). Josephus identifies the Magogites with the Scythians (Ant., I, vi, 1). From a resemblance between the names Gog and Gyges (Gugu), king of Lydia, some have suggested that Magog is Lydia; others, however, urge that Magog is probably only a variant of Gog (Sayce in HDB). In the Apocalypse of John, Gog and Magog represent all the heathen opponents of Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,8);">Re 20:8</a>), and in this sense these names frequently recur in Jewish apocalyptic literature.``95';
|
||
isbe[5690]='Magor-Missabib`ma\'-gor-mis\'-a-bib (maghor miccabhibh, "terror on every side"): A name given by Jeremiah to Pashhur ben Immer, the governor of the temple, who had caused the prophet to be beaten and set in the stocks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,3);">Jer 20:3</a>). The same expression is used (not as a proper name) in several other passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,13);">Ps 31:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,25);">Jer 6:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,10);">20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,5);">46:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,29);">49:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,22);">La 2:22</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5691]='Magpiash`mag\'-pi-ash.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGBISH">MAGBISH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5692]='Magus, Simon`ma\'-gus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMON+MAGUS">SIMON MAGUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGI">MAGI</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGIC">MAGIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5693]='Mahalah`ma-ha\'-la, ma\'-ha-la (machlah; the Revised Version (British and American) has the correct form <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAHLAH">MAHLAH</a>): A descendant of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,18);">1Ch 7:18</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5694]='Mahalalel`ma-ha\'-la-lel (mahalal\'el; the King James Version Mahalaleel, ma-ha\'la-le-el, ma-hal\'a-lel):<P>(1) Son of Cainan, the grandson of Seth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,12);">Ge 5:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,2);">1Ch 1:2</a>).<P>(2) The ancestor of Athaiah, one of the children of Judah who dwelt in Jerusalem after the return from exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,4);">Ne 11:4</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5695]='Mahalath`ma\'-ha-lath (machalath):<P>(1) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,9);">Ge 28:9</a> the name of a wife of Esau, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth, called in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,3);">36:3</A>, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BASEMATH">BASEMATH</a> (which see). The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, throughout <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">Genesis 36</a> retains "Mahalath." On the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a> Basemath is said to be "the daughter of Elon the Hittite," probably a confusion with Adah, as given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,2);">36:2</A>, or corruption may exist in the lists otherwise.<P>(2) One of the 18 wives of Rehoboam, a grand-daughter of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,18);">2Ch 11:18</a>).<P>(3) The word is found in the titles of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',53,\'1-\');">Ps 53</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "set to Mahalath") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,\'1-\');">Ps 88</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "set to Mahalath Leannoth," margin "for singing"). Probably some song or tune is meant, though the word is taken by many to denote a musical instrument. Hengstenberg and others interpret it as indicating the subject of the Psalms.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>`132';
|
||
isbe[5696]='Mahali`ma\'-ha-li.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAHLI">MAHLI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5697]='Mahanaim`ma-ha-na\'-im (machanayim; the Greek is different in every case where the name occurs, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus also giving variant forms; the dual form may be taken as having arisen from an old locative ending, as, e.g. yerushala(y)im from an original yerushalem. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,21);">Ge 32:21</a> machaneh is evidently a parallel form and should be rendered as a proper name, Mahaneh, i.e. Mahanaim): The city must have been one of great strength. It lay east of the Jordan, and is first mentioned in the history of Jacob. Here he halted after parting from Laban, before the passage of the Jabbok (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,2);">Ge 31:2</a>), "and the angels of God met him." Possibly it was the site of an ancient sanctuary. It is next noticed in defining the boundaries of tribal territory east of the Jordan. It lay on the border of Gad and Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,26,30);">Jos 13:26,30</a>). It belonged to the lot of Gad, and was assigned along with Ramoth in Gilead to the Merarite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,38);">Jos 21:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,80);">1Ch 6:80</a><3E>the former of these passages affords no justification to Cheyne in saying (EB, under the word) that it is mentioned as a "city of refuge"). The strength of the place doubtless attracted Abner, who fixed here the capital of Ishbosheth\'s kingdom. Saul\'s chivalrous rescue of Jabesh-gilead was remembered to the credit of his house in these dark days, and the loyalty of Mahanaim could be reckoned on (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,8);">2Sa 2:8</a>, etc.). To this same fortress David fled when endangered by the rebellion of Absalom; and in the "forest" hard by, that prince met his fate (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,24);">2Sa 17:24</a>, etc.). It was made the center of one of Solomon\'s administrative districts, and here Abinadab the son of Iddo was stationed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,14);">1Ki 4:14</a>). There seems to be a reference to Mahanaim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,13);">So 6:13</a> the Revised Version (British and American). If this is so, here alone it appears with the article. By emending the text Cheyne would read: "What do you see in the Shulammite? A narcissus of the valleys."<P>It is quite clear from the narrative that Jacob, going to meet his brother, who was advancing from the south, crossed the Jabbok after leaving Mahanaim. It is therefore vain to search for the site of this city south of the Jabbok, and Conder\'s suggested identification with some place near el-Buqei\'a, east of es-Salt], must be given up.<P>On the north of the Jabbok several positions have been thought of. Merrill (East of the Jordan, 433ff) argues in favor of Khirbet Saleikhat, a ruined site in the mouth of Wady Saleikhat, on the northern bank, 3 miles east of Jordan, and 4 miles north of Wady \'Ajlun. From its height, 300 ft. above the plain, it commands a wide view to the west and south. One running "by the way of the Plain" could be seen a great way off (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,23);">2Sa 18:23</a>). This would place the battle in the hills to the south near the Jordan valley. Ahimaaz then preferred to make a detour, thus securing a level road, while the Cushite took the rough track across the heights. Others, among them Buhl (GAP, 257), would place Mahanaim at Michneh, a partly overgrown ruin 9 miles east of Jordan, and 4 miles north of \'Ajlun on the north bank of Wady Machneh. This is the only trace of the ancient name yet found in the district. It may be assumed that Mahanaim is to be sought in this neighborhood. Cheyne would locate it at \'Ajlun, near which rises the great fortress Kal\'ater-Rabad. He supposes that the "wood of Mahanaim" extended as far as Michneh, and that "the name of Mihneh is really an abbreviation of the ancient phrase." Others would identify Mahanaim with Jerash, where, however, there are no remains older than Greek-Roman times.<P>Objections to either \'Ajlun or Michneh are:<P>(1) The reference to this Jordan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,10);">Ge 32:10</a>, which seems to show that the city was near the river. It may indeed be said that the great hollow of the Jordan valley seems close at hand for many miles on either side, but this, perhaps, hardly meets the objection.<P>(2) The word kikkar, used for "Plain" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,23);">2Sa 18:23</a>, seems always elsewhere to apply to the "circle" of the Jordan. Buhl, who identifies Mahanaim with Michneh, yet cites this verse (G A the Priestly Code (P), 112) as a case in which kikkar applies to the plain of the Jordan. He thus prescribes for Ahimaaz a very long race. Cheyne sees the difficulty. The battle was obviously in the vicinity of Mahanaim, and the nearest way from the "wood" was by the kikkar, "or, since no satisfactory explanation of this reading has been offered by the nachal, that is to say, the eager Ahimaaz ran along in the wady in which, at some little distance, Mahanaim lay" (EB, under the word). The site for the present remains in doubt.ter-Rabad. He supposes that the "wood of Mahanaim" extended as far as Michneh, and that "the name of Mihneh is really an abbreviation of the ancient phrase." Others would identify Mahanaim with Jerash, where, however, there are no remains older than Greek-Roman times.``54';
|
||
isbe[5698]='Mahaneh-Dan`ma\'-ha-ne-dan (machaneh-dhan; parembole Dan): This place is mentioned twice: in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,25);">Jud 13:25</a> (the King James Version "the camp of Dan"), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,12);">Jud 18:12</a>. In Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol, the spirit of the Lord began to move Samson. Here the 600 marauders of Dan, coming from Zorah and Eshtaol, encamped behind Kiriath-jearim. It has been thought that these two statements contradict each other; or at least that they cannot both apply to the same place. But if we accept the identification of Zorah with Surah, and of Eshtaol with Eshu\', which there seems no reason to question; and if, further, we identify Kiriath-jearim with Khirbet Erma, which is at least possible, the two passages may be quite reconciled. Behind Kiriath-jearim, that is west of Khirbet Erma, runs the Vale of Sorek, on the north bank of which, about 2 miles apart, stand Zorah and Eshtaol; the former 3 1/2 miles, the latter 2 1/2 miles fron khirbet Erma. No name resembling Mahanehdan has yet been recovered; but the place may have lain within the area thus indicated, so meeting the conditions of both passages, whether it was a permanent settlement, or derived its name only from the incident mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,12);">Jud 18:12</a>.``54';
|
||
isbe[5699]='Maharai`ma-har\'-a-i, ma\'-ha-ri (maharay, "impetuous"): One of David\'s "braves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,28);">2Sa 23:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,30);">1Ch 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,13);">27:13</a>). He was one of the 12 monthly captains of David\'s administration, and took the 10th month in rotation. He was of the family of Zerah, and dwelt in Netophah in Judah.``1';
|
||
isbe[5700]='Mahath`ma\'-hath (machath, "snatching"; Meth):<P>(1) One of the Kohathites having charge of the "service of song" in David\'s time, son of Amasai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,35);">1Ch 6:35</a>). Possibly the same as Ahimoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,25);">1Ch 6:25</a>). He seems also to be the same as the person named in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12);">2Ch 29:12</a> during Hezekiah\'s time, though it is probable there is some confusion in the narrative. He is there represented as taking part in the new covenant of Hezekiah and the cleansing of the Lord\'s house.<P>(2) One of the overseers of the temple under Conaniah and Shimei (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,13);">2Ch 31:13</a>); three passages of Scripture give the name, but it is difficult to individuate these because the genealogy identifies the two first named (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,35);">1Ch 6:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12);">2Ch 29:12</a>), while the chronology seems to divide them<65>one in David\'s day, the other in Hezekiah\'s. It is not, however, impossible to identify the man of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12);">2Ch 29:12</a> with him of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,13);">2Ch 31:13</a>. Possibly the genealogy has been mistakenly repeated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12);">2Ch 29:12</a>.``186';
|
||
</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>
|
||
|