Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

MA


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 (Dt 3:14; Josh 12:5). The border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites and all Mt. Hermon were given to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh 13:11). The inhabitants of these kingdoms, however, were not driven out by Israel (Josh 13:13), and at a later day the children of Ammon hired mercenaries from Maacah for their encounter with David. The armies met near Medeba when the "Syrians" from Maacah found themselves opposed to Joab. That famous captain completely routed them (2 Sam 10:6 ff the Septuagint has "Amalek"). In 1 Ch 19:6 it is called Aram-maacah, Syria-maachah (the King James Version); and in 1 Ch 2:23 "Aram" appears instead of "Maacah."

It evidently lay between Geshur on the South and Hermon on the North, being probably bounded by Jordan on the West, although no certain indication of boundaries is now possible. They would thus be hemmed in by Israel, which accounts for `Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel" (Josh 13:13).It is possible that Abel-beth-maacah may have been a colony founded by men from Maacah.

W. Ewing


MAACAH; MAACHAH

ma'-a-ka (ma`akhah):

(1) Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Mocha; Codex Alexandrinus Mocha, daughter of Nahor, borne to him by Reumah (Gen 22:24).

(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 (2 Sam 3:3; 1 Ch 3:2).

(3) Maacha, father of Achish, king of Gath (1 Ki 2:39). He is probably referred to as "Maoch" in 1 Sam 27:2.

(4) The daughter of Absalom, the favorite wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah (1 Ki 15:2; 2 Ch 11:20, etc.). Evidently "daughter" must here be understood as "granddaughter," according to a common oriental usage. Tamar was the only daughter of Absalom. If Tamar married Uriel of Gibeah (2 Ch 13:2), then Maacah was her daughter. In that case the name Micaiah in this passage would be either a copyist's error or a variant of Maacah. She must have been a woman of strong personality. Unfortunately, her influence was cast upon the side of idolatry. She maintained her position in the palace, however, till the reign of her grandson Asa. Possibly she acted as regent during his minority. Ultimately, she was degraded by him for an act of peculiar infamy (1 Ki 15:13; 2 Ch 15:16).

(5) Concubine of Caleb, son of Hezron (1 Ch 2:48).

(6) Sister of Huppim and Shuppim the Benjamites, who became the wife of Machir the Manassite, the "father" of Gilead (1 Ch 7:12,15 f).

(7) Wife of Jeiel, the "father" of Gibeon, an ancestress of King Saul (1 Ch 8:29; 9:35).

(8) Father of Hanan, one of David's mighty men (1 Ch 11:43).

(9) Father of Shephatiah, ruler of the Simeonites under David (1 Ch 27:16).

W. Ewing


MAACATHITES

ma-ak'-a-thits (~hama`akhathi]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus ho Machatei; Codex Alexandrinus Machathi): Mentioned in Scripture are Ahasbai M (2 Sam 23:34), Jaazaniah (2 Ki 25:23), Naham (1 Ch 4:19) and Jezaniah (Jer 40:8). See preceding article.


MAADAI

ma-a-da'-i, ma'-a-di (ma`adhay): Son of Bani; one of those who married foreign wives (Ezr 10:34).


MAADIAH

ma-a-di'-a (ma`adhyah, "whose ornament is Jah"): A priest who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:5). The name also occurs in the form "Moadiah" (Neh 12:17).


MAAI

ma-a'-i, ma'i (ma`ay): An Asaphite musician who took part in the ceremony of the dedication of the walls (Neh 12:36).


MAALEH-ACRABBIM

ma'-a-la-a-krab'-im, ma-al'-a-.

See AKRABBIM .


MAANI

ma'-a-ni (Maani):

(1) the King James Version "Meani" (1 Esdras 5:31), corresponding to "Meunim" in Ezr 2:50; Neh 7:52.

(2) the Revised Version (British and American) "Baani," head of a family, many of whom had married foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34; called "Bani" in Ezr 10:34).


MAARATH

ma'-a-rath (ma`arath): A city in the hill country of Judah, mentioned between Gedor and Beth-anoth (Josh 15:59). The small village of Beit Ummar upon the watershed, a little to the West of the carriage road to Hebron and about a mile from Khirbet Jedur (Gedor), is a probable site. There are many rock tombs to its East. The village mosque is dedicated to Nebi Matta, i.e. Matthew. See P E F ,III , 305, ShXXI .


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 (Jdg 20:33). the King James Version renders "the meadows of Gibeah," the Revised Version margin "the meadow of Geba (or Gibeah)." The Septuagint's Codex Alexandrinus affords a clue to the correct reading. It to read place-name. The text must be emended to read mima`arabh legebha`, "to the West of Geba." Peshitta suggests a reading mime-`arath gebha`, "from the cave of Geba." This, however, there is nothing to warrant.

W. Ewing


MAASAI

ma'-a-si, ma-as'-i (ma`say; the King James Version, Maasiai): A priest, son of Abdid (1 Ch 9:12).


MAASEAS

ma-a-se'-as (Maasaios; the King James Version Maasias): Grandfather of Baruch (Baruch 1:1); called Mahseiah in Jer 32:12; 51:59.


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).

(1) A Levite musician named in connection with David's bringing up of the ark from the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch 15:18,20).

(2) A Levite captain who aided Jehoiada at the coronation of Joash (2 Ch 23:1).

(3) An officer of Uzziah (2 Ch 26:11).

(4) Ahaz' son, slain by the Ephraimite, Zichri (2 Ch 28:7).

(5) A governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (2 Ch 34:8).

(6) (7) (8) (9) The name of 4 men, 3 of them priests, who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:18,21,22,30).

(10) Father of Azariah, one of the builders of the wall (Neh 3:23).

(11) One of those who stood at Ezra's right hand during the reading of the Law (Neh 8:4).

(12) One of the expounders of the Law (Neh 8:7).

(13) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:25).

(14) A Judahite inhabitant of Jerusalem (Neh 11:5), who in 1 Ch 9:5 is called Asaiah.

(15) A Benjamite (Neh 11:7).

(16) (17) Name of two priests (Neh 12:41 f).

(18) A priest in Zedekiah's reign, father of a certain Zephaniah who interviewed the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 21:1; 29:25; 37:3).

(19) Father of the false prophet Zedekiah (Jer 29:21).

(20) A keeper of the threshold in the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 35:4).

(21) Baaseiah (which see), a Kohathite name (1 Ch 6:40), is probably a textual error for Maaseiah.

(22) the King James Version for Mahseiah, an ancestor of Baruch (Jer 32:12).

John A. Lees


MAASIAI

ma-as'-i-i.

See MAASAI .


MAASMAS

ma-as'-mas, ma'-as-mas (Maasmas; Swete reads Maasman; the King James Version Masman, 1 Esdras 8:43): Corresponds to "Shemaiah" in Ezr 8:16.


MAATH

ma'-ath (Maath): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy in the 12th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary (Lk 3:26).


MAAZ

ma'-az (ma`ats): A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 2:27).


MAAZIAH

ma-a-zi'-a (ma`azyahu):

(1) The priest to whom fell the lot for the 24th course (1 Ch 24:18).

(2) One of those who took part in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:8).


MABDAI

mab'-da-i.

See MAMDAI .


MABNABEDAI

mab-nab'-e-di.

See MACHNADEBAI .


MACALON

mak'-a-lon (hoi ek Makalon; 1 Esdras 5:21): This corresponds to "the men of Michmas" in Ezr 2:27. The mistake has probably arisen through reading Macalon in Greek uncials for "AL".


MACCABAEUS; MACCABEES

mak-a-be'-us (Makkabaios), mak'-a-bez (hoi Makkabaioi):

I. PALESTINE UNDER KINGS OF SYRIA

1. Rivalry of Syria and Egypt

2. Palestine Seized by Antiochus the Great

3. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes

II. PALESTINE UNDER THE MACCABEES

1. Mattathias

2. Judas

3. Jonathan

4. Simon

5. John Hyrcanus

6. John and Eleazar

LITERATURE

The name Maccabeus was first applied to Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias generally called in English the Maccabees, a celebrated family who defended Jewish rights and customs in the 2nd century BC (1 Macc 2:1-3). The word has been variously derived (e.g. as the initial letters of Mi Khamokha, Ba-'elim Yahweh! "Who is like unto thee among the mighty, O Yahweh ?"), but it is probably best associated with maqqabhah "hammer," and as applied to Judas may be compared with the malleus Scotorum and malleus haereticorum of the Middle Ages (see next article). To understand the work of the Maccabees, it is necessary to take note of the relation in which the Jews and Palestine stood at the time to the immediately neighboring nations.

I. Palestine under Kings of Syria.

1. Rivalry of Syria and Egypt:

On the division of Alexander's empire at his death in the year 323 BC, Palestine became a sort of buffer state between Egypt under the Ptolemies on the South, and Syria, under the house of Seleucus, the last survivor of Alexander's generals, on the North. The kings of Syria, as the Seleucid kings are generally called, though their dominion extended practically from the Mediterranean Sea to India, had not all the same name, like the Ptolemies of Egypt, though most of them were called either Seleucus or Antiochus. For a hundred years after the death of Alexander, the struggle went on as to which of the two powers was to govern Palestine, until in the year 223 came the northern prince under whom Palestine was destined to fall to the Seleucids for good.

2. Palestine Seized by Antiochus the Great:

This was Antiochus III, commonly known as Antiochus the Great. He waged two campaigns against Egypt for the possession of Palestine, finally gaining the upper hand in the year 198 BC by his victory at Panium, so called from its proximity to a sanctuary of the god Pan, a spot close to the sources of the Jordan and still called Banias. The Jews helped Antiochus to gain the victory and, according to Josephus, his rule was accepted by the Jews with good will. It is with him and his successors that the Jews have now to deal. Antiochus, it should be noticed, came in contact with the Romans after their conquest of Macedonia in 197, and was defeated by Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia in 190. He came under heavy tribute which he found it difficult to pay, and met his end in 187, while plundering a Greek temple in order to secure its contents. His son and successor Seleucus IV was murdered by his prime minister Heliodorus in 176-175 BC, who reaped no benefit from his crime.

3. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes:

The brother of the murdered king succeeded to the throne as Antiochus IV, generally known as Antiochus Epiphanes ("the Illustrious"), a typical eastern ruler of considerable practical ability, but whose early training while a hostage at Rome had made him an adept in dissimulation. Educated in the fashionable Hellenism of the day, he made it his aim during his reign (175-164 BC) to enforce it upon his empire a policy which brought him into conflict with the Jews. Even before his reign many Jews had yielded to the attraction of Greek thought and custom, and the accession of a ruler like Antiochus Epiphanes greatly increased the drift in that direction, as will be found described in the article dealing with the period between the Old and the New Testaments (see BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS ). Pious Jews meanwhile, men faithful to the Jewish tradition, Chasidim (see HASIDAEANS ), as they were called, resisted this tendency, and in the end were driven to armed resistance against the severe oppression practiced by Antiochus in advancing his Hellenizing views.

See ASMONEANS .

II. Palestine under the Maccabees.

1. Mattathias:

Mattathias, a priest of the first 24 courses and therefore of the noblest who dwelt at Modin, a city of Judah, was the first to strike a blow. With his own hand he slew a Jew at Modin who was willing to offer the idolatrous sacrifices ordered by the king, and also Apelles, the leader of the king's messengers (1 Macc 2:15-28). He fled with his sons to the mountains (168 BC), where he organized a successful resistance; but being of advanced age and unfit for the fatigue of active service, he died in 166 BC and was buried "in the sepulchres of his fathers" at Modin (1 Macc 2:70; Josephus, Ant, XII, vi, 3). He apparently named as his successor his 3rd son, Judas, though it was with real insight that on his deathbed he recommended the four brothers to take Simon as their counselor (1 Macc 2:65).

2. Judas:

Judas, commonly called Judas Maccabeus--often called in 2 Maccabees "Judas the Maccabee"--held strongly the opinions of his father and proved at least a very capable leader in guerrilla warfare. He defeated several of the generals of Antiochus--Apollonius at Beth-horon, part of the army of Lysias at Emmaus (166 BC), and Lysias himself at Bethsura the following year. He took possession of Jerusalem, except the "Tower," where he was subsequently besieged and hard pressed by Lysias and the young king Antiochus Eupator in 163 BC; but quarrels among the Syrian generals secured relief and liberty of religion to the Jews which, however, proved of short duration. The Hellenizing Jews, with ALCIMUS (which see) at their head, secured the favor of the king, who sent Nicanor against Judas. The victory over Nicanor first at Capharsalama and later (161 BC) at Adasa near Beth-horon, in which engagement Nicanor was slain, was the greatest of Judas' successes and practically secured the independence of the Jews. The attempt of Judas to negotiate an alliance with the Romans, who had now serious interests in these regions, caused much dissatisfaction among his followers; and their defection at Elasa (161 BC), during the invasion under Bacchides, which was undertaken before the answer of the Roman Senate arrived, was the cause of the defeat and death of Judas in battle. His body was buried "in the sepulchres of his fathers" at Modin. There is no proof that Judas held the office of high priest like his father Mattathias. (An interesting and not altogether favorable estimate of Judas and of the spiritual import of the revolt will be found in Jerusalem under the High Priests, 97-99, by E.R. Bevan, London, 1904.)

3. Jonathan:

Jonathan (called Apphus, "the wary"), the youngest of the sons of Mattathias, succeeded Judas, whose defeat and death had left the patriotic party in a deplorable condition from which it was rescued by the skill and ability of Jonathan, aided largely by the rivalries among the competitors for the Syrian throne. It was in reality from these rivalries that resulted the 65 years (129-64 BC) of the completely independent rule of the Hasmonean dynasty (see ASMONEANS ) that elapsed between the Greek supremacy of the Syrian kings and the Roman supremacy established by Pompey. The first step toward the recovery of the patriots was the permission granted them by Demetrius I to return to Judea in 158 BC--the year in which Bacchides ended an unsuccessful campaign against Jonathan and in fact accepted the terms of the latter. After his departure, Jonathan "judged the people at Michmash" (1 Macc 9:73). Jonathan was even authorized to reenter Jerusalem and to maintain a military force, only the "Tower" the Akra, as it was called in Greek, being held by a Syrian garrison.

See further underASMONEANS ;LACEDAEMONIANS ;TRYPHON .

4. Simon:

Simon, surnamed Thassi ("the zealous"?) was now the only surviving member of the original Maccabean family, and he readily took up the inheritance. Tryphon murdered the boy-king Antiochus Dionysus and seized the throne of Seleucus, although having no connection with the Seleucid family. Simon accordingly broke entirely with Tryphon after making successful overtures to Demetrius, who granted the fullest immunity from all the dues that had marked the Seleucid supremacy. Even the golden crown, which had to be paid on the investiture of a new high priest, was now remitted. On the 23rd of Ijjar (May), 141, the patriots entered even the Akra "with praise and palm branches, and with harps, and with cymbals and with viols, and with hymns, and with songs" (1 Macc 13:51). Simon was declared in a Jewish assembly to be high priest and chief of the people "for ever, until there should arise a prophet worthy of credence" (1 Macc 14:41), a limitation that was felt to be necessary on account of the departure of the people from the Divine appointment of the high priests of the old line and one that practically perpetuated the 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 ASMONEANS ).

5. John Hyrcanus:

John Hyrcanus, one of the sons of Simon, escaped from the plot laid by Ptolemy, and succeeded his father, both as prince and high priest. See ASMONEANS . He was succeeded (104 BC) by his son Aristobulus I who took the final step of assuming the title of king.

6. John and Eleazar:

Two members of the first generation of the Maccabean family still remain to be mentioned: (1) John, the eldest, surnamed Gaddis (the King James Version "Caddis"), probably meaning "my fortune," was murdered by a marauding tribe, the sons of JAMBRI (which see), near Medeba, on the East of the Jordan, when engaged upon the convoy of some property of the Maccabees to the friendly country of the Nabateans (1 Macc 9:35-42). (2) Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, met his death (161 BC) in the early stage of the Syrian war, shortly before the death of Judas. In the battle of Bethzacharias (163 BC), in which the Jews for the first time met elephants in war, he stabbed from below the elephants on which he supposed the young king was riding. He killed the elephant but he was himself crushed to death by its fall (1 Macc 6:43-46). For the further history of the Hasmonean dynasty, see ASMONEANS ;MACCABEES ,BOOKS OF .

LITERATURE.

There is a copious literature on the Maccabees, a family to which history shows few, if any, parallels of such united devotion to a sacred cause. The main authorities are of course the Maccabean Books of the Apocrypha; but special reference may be made to the chapters of Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, dealing with the subject, and to E.R. Bevan. Jerusalem under the High Priests, 1904, or to the 2nd volume of House of Seleucus by the same author, 1902.

J. Hutchison


MACCABEES, BOOKS OF, 1-2

mak'-a-bez,

I. 1 MACCABEES

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Historicity

5. Author's Standpoint and Aim

6. Date

7. Sources

8. Original Language

9. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

II. 2 MACCABEES

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Sources

5. Historicity

6. Teaching of the Book

7. Author

8. Date

9. Original Language

10. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

III. 3 MACCABEES

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Historicity

5. Aim and Teaching

6. Authorship and Date

7. Original Language

8. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

IV. 4 MACCABEES

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Teaching

5. Authorship and Date

6. Original Language

7. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

V. 5 MACCABEES

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Historicity

5. Original Language

6. Aim and Teaching

7. Authorship and Date

8. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

I. 1 Maccabees.

1. Name:

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 ASMONEANS ). 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.

The name "Maccabee" belongs strictly only to Judas, who in 2 Maccabees 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, 1 f; S.J. Curtis, The Name Maccabee). The more usual explanation, "hammerer" (maqqabhay), is untenable, as the noun from which it is derived (maqqebheth) (Jdg 4:21) denotes a smith's hammer.

2. Canonicity:

Since the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) includes only the first 2 books of Maccabees, these are the only books pronounced canonical by the Council of Trent and included in recognized Protestant versions of the Apocrypha (see APOCRYPHA ). That 1 Maccabees was used largely in the early Christian church is proved by the numerous references made to it and quotations from it in the writings of Tertullian (died 220), Clement of Alexandria (died 220), Hippolytus (died 235), Origen (died 254), etc. The last named states that 1 Maccabees is uncanonical, and it is excluded from the lists of canonical writings given by Athanasius (died 373), Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386), and Gregory of Nazianzus (died 390). Indeed, none of the books of the Maccabees was recognized as canonical until the Council of Trent (1553) gave this rank to the first 2 books, and Protestants continue in their confessions to exclude the whole of the Apocrypha from the Bible proper, though Luther maintained that 1 Maccabees was more worthy of a place in the Canon than many books now included in it.

3. Contents:

1 Maccabees gives first of all a brief view of the reign of Alexander the Great and the partition of his kingdom among his successors. Having thus explained the origin of the Seleucid Dynasty, the author proceeds to give a history of the Jews from the accession of Antiochus IV, king of Syria (175 BC), to the death of Simon (135 BC). The events of these 40 years are simply but graphically related and almost entirely in the order of their occurrence. The contents of 1 Maccabees and 2 Macc 4-15 are in the main parallel, dealing with the same incidents; but the simple narrative character of 1 Maccabees, in contrast to the didactic and highly religious as well as supernatural coloring of 2 Maccabees, can easily be seen in these corresponding parts. The victories due to heroism in 1 Maccabees are commonly ascribed to miraculous intervention on the part of God in 2 Maccabees (see 1 Macc 4:1 f; compare 2 Macc 8:23 f). 2 Maccabees is more given to exaggerations. The army of Judas at Bethsura consists of 10,000 according to 1 Macc 4:29, but of 80,000 according to 2 Macc 11:2. The following is a brief analysis of 1 Maccabees:

(1) 1 Maccabees 1:1-10:

An account of the rise of the Seleucid Dynasty.

(2) 1 Maccabees 1:11-16:24:

History of the Jews from 175 to 135 BC.

(a) 1 Maccabees 1:11-64: Introductory. Some Jews inclined to adopt Greek customs (religious, etc.); Antiochus' aim to conquer Egypt and to suppress the Jewish religion as a source of Jewish disloyalty. Desecration of the Jewish temple: martyrdom of many faithful Jews.

(b) 1 Maccabees 2:1-70: The revolt of Mattathias

(c) 1 Maccabees 3:1-9:22: Leadership of Judas Maccabeus after his father's death. Brilliant victories over the Syrians. Purification of the temple. Death of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) and accession of Antiochus V (Eupator) (164 BC). Demetrius I became king of Syria, and Alcimus Jewish high priest (162 BC). Treaty between Jews and Romans. Defeat of Jews at Eleasa and death of Judas Maccabeus (161 BC).

(d) 1 Maccabees 9:23-12:53: Leadership of Jonathan, 5th son of Mattathias, elected to succeed his brother Judas. He becomes high priest. Political independence of Judea secured.

(e) 1 Maccabees 13:31-16:24: Peaceful and prosperous rule of Simon, brother of Jonathan; accession of his son John Hyrcanus (135 BC).

4. Historicity:

That the author of 1 Maccabees aims at giving a correct narrative, and that on the whole his account is correct, is the opinion of practically all scholars. The simple, straight-forward way in which he writes inspires confidence, and there can be no doubt that we have here a first-class authority for the period covered (175-135 BC). It is the earliest Jewish history which dates events in reference to a definite era, this era being that of the Seleucids, 312 BC, the year of the founding of that dynasty. The aid received from God is frequently recognized in the book (2:51 ff; 3:18; 4:10 f; 9:46; 16:3), yet it is mainly through personal valor that the Jews conquer, not, as in 2 Maccabees (see III , 3 below), through miraculous Divine interpositions. Ordinary, secondary causes are almost the only ones taken into account, so that the record may be relied upon as on the whole trustworthy. Yet the writer shows the defects which belong to his age and environment, or what from the standpoint of literal history must be counted defects, though, as in the case of 2 Maccabees (compare Chronicles), a writer may have other aims than to record bare objective facts. In 1:1-9 the author errs through ignorance of the real facts as regards Alexander's partition of his kingdom; and other misstatements of fact due to the same cause occur in 10:1 ff (Alexander (Balas), son of Antiochus Epiphanes) and in 13:31 ff (time of assassination of Antiochus VI by Tryphon). In 6:37 it is said there were 32 men upon each elephant, perhaps a misreading of the original "2 or 3," although the Indian elephant corps at the turn of this century carried more.

We know nothing of a Persian village Elymais (1 Macc 6:1). The number of Jewish warriors that fought and the number slain are understated, while there are evident exaggerations of the number of soldiers who fought against them and of those of them who were left dead on the field (see 1 Macc 4:15; 7:46; 11:45-51, etc.).

But in this book, prayers, speeches and official records abound as they do in Ezra, Nehemiah (see Century Bible, "Ezra," "Nehemiah," "Esther," 12 ff), and many modern Protestant writers doubt or deny the authenticity of a part of those, though that is not necessarily to question their genuineness as part of the original narrative.

As regards the prayers (1 Macc 3:50-54; 4:30-33) and speeches (1 Macc 2:7-13; 2:50-68; 4:6-11, etc.), there is no valid reason for doubting that they give at least the substance of what was originally said or written, though ancient historians like Thucydides and Livy think it quite right to edit the speeches of their characters, abbreviating, expanding or altering. Besides, it is to be remembered that the art of stenography is a modern one; even Dr. Johnson, in default of verbatim reports, had to a large extent to make the speeches which he ostensibly reported.

There is, however, in the book a large number of official documents, and it is in regard to the authenticity of these that modern criticism has expressed greatest doubt. They are the following:

(1) Letter of the Jews in Gilead to Judas (1 Macc 5:10-13).

(2) Treaty of alliance between the Romans and Jews; copy written on brass tablets sent to Judas (1 Macc 8:22-32).

(3) Letter from King Alexander Balas to Jonathan (1 Macc 10:18-20).

(4) Letter from King Demetrius I to Jonathan (1 Macc 10:25-45).

(5) Letter from King Demetrius II to Jonathan (1 Macc 11:30-37), together with letter to Lasthenes (1 Macc 11:31-37).

(6) Letter from the young prince Antiochus to Jonathan, making the latter high priest (1 Macc 11:57).

(7) Letter from Jonathan to the Spartans, asking for an alliance (1 Macc 12:5-18).

(8) Earlier letter of the Spartan king Arius to the high priest Onias (1 Macc 12:20-23).

(9) Letter from King Demetrius II to Simon (1 Macc 13:36-40).

(10) Letter from the Spartans to Simon (1 Macc 14:20-24).

(11) A decree of the Jews recognizing the services of Simon and his brothers (1 Macc 14:27-45).

(12) Letters from Antiochus VII (Sidetes) to Simon (1 Macc 15:2-9).

(13) Message from the Roman consul Lucius to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, asking protection for the Jews (1 Macc 15:16-21). A copy was sent to Simon (1 Macc 15:24).

Formerly the authenticity of these state documents was accepted without doubt, as they still are by Romanist commentators (Welte, Scholz, etc.). At most, they are but translations of translations, for the originals would be written in Greek and Latin, from which the author would translate into Hebrew. The Greek of our book is a translation from the Hebrew (see II , 8 below).

Rawlinson (Speaker's Apocrypha, II, 329) says these documents "have a general air of authenticity." Most modern scholars reject the letters purporting to emanate from the Romans (numbers 2 and 13 above) and from the Spartans (numbers 8, 10 above), together with Jonathan's message to the latter (number 7, above), on the ground that they contain some historical inaccuracies and imply others. How could one consul issue official mandates in the name of the Roman republic (see number 13, above)? In number 8 above, it is the king of the Spartans who writes on behalf of his people to Onias the high priest; but it is the ephoroi or rulers who write for the Spartans to Simon. Why the difference? Moreover, in 1 Macc 12:21 the Spartans and Jews are said to be kinsmen (literally, brothers), both alike being descendants of Abraham; so also 14:20. This is admittedly contrary to fact. For a careful examination of these official documents and their objective value, see Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen des Altes Testament, 27-30. Though, however, these documents and some others can be proved incorrect as they stand, they do seem to imply actual negotiations of the kind described; i.e. the Jews must have had communications with the Romans and Spartans, the Jews of Gilead must have sent a missive to Judas (number 1), Alexander Balas did no doubt write to Jonathan, etc., though the author of 1 Maccabees puts the matter in his own way, coloring it by his own patriotic and religious prejudices.

5. Author's Standpoint and Aim:

Though the name of the author is unknown, the book itself supplies conclusive evidence that he belonged to the Sadducee party, the party favored by the Hasmoneans. The aim of the writer is evidently historical and patriotic, yet his attitude toward religious questions is clearly indicated, both directly and indirectly.

(1) Nowhere in the book is the Divine Being mentioned under any name except Heaven (1 Macc 3:18 f,50,60; 4:10,55; 12:15, etc.), a designation common in rabbinical Hebrew (Talmud, etc.). As early as 300 BC the sacred name "Yahweh" was discarded in favor of "Adonai" (Lord) for superstitious reasons. But in 1 Maccabees no strictly Divine name meets us at all. This would seem to suggest the idea of a certain aloofness of God, such as characterized theology of the Sadducee party. Contrast with this the mystic closeness of God realized and expressed by the psalmists and prophets of the Old Testament.

(2) The author is a religious patriot, believing that his people have been Divinely chosen and that the cause of Israel is the cause of God.

(3) He is also a strict legalist, believing it the duty of every Jew to keep the Law and to preserve its institutions (1 Macc 1:11,15,43,49,54,60,62 f; 2:20 ff,27,42,48,50; 3:21, etc.), and deprecating attempts to compel Jews to desecrate the Sabbath and feast days (1 Macc 1:45), to eat unclean food (1 Macc 1:63) and to sacrifice to idols (1 Macc 1:43). Yet the comparatively lax attitude toward the Sabbath implied in 1 Macc 2:41 ff, involving the principle of Christ's words, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27), agrees with the Sadducee position against that of the Pharisees.

(4) The book teaches that the age of inspiration is past, and that the sacred books already written are the only source of comfort in sorrow and of encouragement under difficulties (1 Macc 12:9).

(5) The legitimacy of the high-priesthood of Simon is not once questioned, though it is condemned by both the Deuteronomic law (D), which restricts the priesthood to the tribe of Levi, and by the priestly law (P), which requires in addition that a priest must be of the family of Aaron. This laxity agrees well with the general tenets of the Sadducees.

(6) The book contains no trace of the Messianic hope, though it was entertained at the time in other circles (the Pharisees; see MESSIAH ,II , 2;PROPHECY ); 1 Macc 2:57 is no exception, for it implies no more than a belief that there would be a restoration of the Davidic Dynasty. Perhaps it is implied that that expectation was realized in the Hasmoneans.

(7) There is no reference in the book to the doctrine of a resurrection from the dead or to that of the immortality of the soul, though we know that both these beliefs were commonly held by Jews of the time (see Dan 12:3; Enoch 19; 22:11-14; 9:1,5 ff; 2 Macc 7:9,11,14,29). We know that the Pharisee party believed in a resurrection (see Acts 23:6). The Maccabean heroes fought their battles and faced death without fear, not because, like Moslems, they looked to the rewards of another life, but because they believed in the rightness of their cause and coveted the good name won by their fathers by acts of similar courage and devotion.

This outline of the doctrines taught or implied in the book makes it extremely likely that the author was a member of the Sadducee party.

6. Date:

1 Maccabees must have been written before the Roman conquest under Pompey, since the writer speaks of the Romans as allies and even friends (8:1,12; 12:1; 14:40); i.e. the composition of the book must have been completed (unless we except chapters 14-16; see below) before 63BC , when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and Judea became a Roman province. We thus get 63 BC as a terminus ad quem. Moreover, the historical narrative is brought down to the death of Simon (16:16), i.e. to 135 BC. We have thus an undoubted terminus a quo in 135 BC. The book belongs for certain to the period between 135 and 63 BC. But 1 Macc 16:18-24 implies that John Hyrcanus (died 105 BC) had for some time acted as successor to Simon, and Reuss, Ewald, Fritzsche, Grimm, Schurer, Kautzsch, etc., are probably right in concluding from 16:23 f that John was dead when the book was completed, for we have in this verse the usual formula recording the close of a royal career (see 1 Ki 11:41; 2 Ki 10:34, etc.), and the writer makes it sufficiently understood that all his acts were already "entered in the public annals of the kingdom" (Ewald, History of Israel, V, 463, note), so that repetition was unnecessary. But Bertheau, Keil, Wellhausen and Torrey draw the contrary conclusion, arguing that John had but begun his rule, so that at the time of writing there was practically nothing to record of the doings subsequent to 135, when John succeeded Simon (see EB ,III , 2860 (Toy)). In 1 Macc 13:30 we read that the monument erected in 143 BC by Simon in memory of his father and brothers was standing at the time when this book was written, words implying the lapse of say 30 years at least. This gives a terminus a quo of 113 BC. Moreover, the panegyric on Simon (died 135 BC) and his peaceful rule in 14:4-15 leaves the impression that he had been long in his grave. We cannot be far wrong in assigning a date for the book in the early part of the last century BC, say 80 BC.

Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, I, 1882, 80 ff), followed by Wellhausen (IJG, 1894, 222 f), maintained that Josephus (died circa 95), who followed 1 Maccabees up to the end of chapter 13, could not have seen chapters 14 through 16 (or from 14:16?), or he would not have given so meager an account of the high-priesthood of Simon (see Ant,XIII , vi, 7), which the author of 1 Maccabees describes so fully in those chapters. But Josephus must have used these chapters or he could not have written of Simon even as fully as he does.

7. Sources:

If, as Torrey (EB, III, 2862) holds, we have in 1 Maccabees "the account of one who had witnessed the whole Maccabean struggle from its beginning," the book having been completed soon after the middle of the 2nd century BC, it may then be assumed that the writer depended upon no other sources than his own. But even in this case one is compelled, contrary to Torrey (loc. cit.), to assume that written sources of his own were used, or the descriptions would not have been so full and the dating so exact. If, however, we follow the evidence and bring down the date of the book to about 80 BC (see I, 6), it must be supposed that the author had access to written sources. It may legitimately be inferred from 1 Macc 9:22 and 16:23 and from the habit of earlier times (see Century Bible, "Ezra," etc., 11 ff) that official records were kept in the archives of the temple, or elsewhere. These might have contained the state documents referred to in I, 4, some or all, and reports of speeches and prayers, etc. It must be admitted that, unlike the compilers of the historical books of the Old Testament (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc.), the author of 1 Maccabees does not definitely name his written sources. The writer might well be supposed to have kept a kind of diary of his own in which the events of his own early life were recorded. Oral tradition, much more retentive of songs, speeches and the like in ancient than in modern times, must have been a very important source.

8. Original Language:

We have the testimony of Origen (see I, 1) and Jerome (Prolog. Galeatus) that the book existed in Hebrew in their day. But it is doubtful whether the words of Origen imply a Hebrew or an Aramaic original, and though Jerome does speak of the book as Hebrew (hebraicus), it has to be remembered that in later times the Greek adjective denoting Hebrew (hebraisti) and perhaps the corresponding Latin one (hebraicus) often denoted Palestinian Aramaic (see Jdg 5:2; 19:13,17; and Kautzsch, Grammatik des bib. Aramaic, 19).

Hebraisms (or Aramaisms?) abound throughout the book. In the following examples Hebraisms are literally rendered in Greek, though in the latter language they are unidiomatic and often unintelligible: "two years of days" = two full years (1 Macc 1:29, etc.); "month and month" = every month (1 Macc 1:58); "a man (or each one) his neighbor" = each .... the other (1 Macc 2:40; 3:43); "sons of the fortress" = occupants of the fortress (1 Macc 4:2); "against our face" = before us (1 Macc 4:10); "men of power" = warriors (1 Macc 5:32); "of them" = some of them (1 Macc 6:2; compare 7:33, "of the priests" = some of the priests); "the right hand wing" = the southern wing (1 Macc 9:1); "yesterday and the third day" = hitherto (1 Macc 9:44). The above are strictly Hebraisms and not for the most part Aramaisms. The implied use of the "waw-consecutive" in 1 Macc 3:1,41; 8:1; 9:1, and often, points also to a Hebrew, not to an Aramaic origin.. "Heaven" as a substitute for "God," so common in this book (see I, 5), is perhaps as much an Aramaism as a Hebraism (see Targum Jerusalem Nu 25:19). Many of the proper names in the book are obviously but trans-literations from the Hebrew; thus, Phulistiein (1 Macc 3:24); compare Sirach 46:18; 47:7; see the names in 1 Macc 11:34; and Schurer,GJV 4, I, 233.

9. Text and Versions:

The original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees (see I, 8) must have been lost at a very early time, since we have no evidence of its use by any early writer. J.D. Michaells held that Josephus used it, but this idea has been abandoned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Hebrew text of the first half of 1 Macc, edited by A. Schweitzer and taken by him to be a part of the original text, is in reality a translation from the Latin made in the 11th century of our era (so Noldeke, etc.).

(1) Greek.

The Greek text from which the other versions are nearly all made is given in all editions of the Septuagint. It occurs in the uncials Codex Sinaiticus (Fritzsche, X) , Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche, III), and Codex Venetus (8th or 9th century), not in Codex Vaticanus; and in a large number of cursives. Swete (Old Testament in Greek) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus. Though the Greek text has so many Hebraisms, it is an exceedingly good rendering, full of spirit and on the whole more idiomatic than the rest of the Septuagint.

(2) Latin.

There are two Latin recensions of the book: (a) that found in the Vulgate, which agrees almost entirely with the Old Latin version. It is in the main a literal rendering of the Greek (b) Sabatier (Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, II) published in 1743 a Latin version of 1 Macc 1 through 13 found in but one manuscript (Sangermanensis). Though it is evidently made from the Greek it differs at many points from the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is probably older than the Old Latin and therefore than the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)

(3) Syriac.

There are also two varying texts in this language. (a) The best known is that printed in the Paris Polyglot (Vol. IX), copied with some changes into the London Polyglot (Vol. IV; for readings see volume V). Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocrypha. Syriac., 1861) has edited this version, correcting and appending readings. (b) A text differing in many respects from (a) is given by Ceriani in his Codex Ambros. of the Peshitta (1876-83), though this also is made from the Greek For a careful collection of both the above Syriac texts by G. Schmidt, see Z A T W , 1897, 1-47, 233-62.

LITERATURE.

See literature cited in the foregoing material. For texts and commentaries on the Apocrypha, see APOCRYPHA . The following commentaries deserve special mention: Grimm, Kurz. exeg. Handbuch, etc., to which the commentaries by Keil (1 and 2 Maccabees) and Bissel (Lange) owe very much; Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT; W. Fair-weather and J.S. Black, Cambridge Bible, "1 Maccabees," and Oesterley in the Oxford Apocrypha edited by R. H. Charles (1913). Of the dict. articles those in E B (Torrey) and H D B (Fairweather) are excellent. See also E. Montet, Essai sur les origines des saduceens et des pharisiens, 1885; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen vor der mak. Erhebung, 1875, 69-76; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabderbucher, 1900. For a very full bibliography see Schurer,GJ V 4,III , 198 ff, and his article "Apocrypha" inR E 3, and in Sch-Herz.

II. 2 Maccabees.

1. Name:

See I, above. The earliest extant mention of the book as 2 Maccabees is in Euseb., Praep. Evang., VIII, 9. Jerome also (Prol. Galeatus) calls it by this name.

2. Canonicity:

In the early church 2 Maccabees was much less valued and therefore less read than 1 Maccabees. Augustine was the only church Father to claim for it canonical rank and even he in a controversy with the Donatists who quoted 2 Maccabees, replied that this book had never been received into the Canon. Since they formed an integral part of the Vulgate, 1 and 2 Maccabees were both recognized by the Council of Trent as belonging to the Romanist Canon.

3. Contents:

(1) 2 Maccabees 1 through 9:18:

Two letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt, urging them to keep the Feast of Dedication and in a general way to observe the Law given them by God through Moses. Both letters appear designed to win for the Jerusalem temple the love and devotion which the Jews of Egypt were in danger of lavishing upon the Leontopolis temple in Egypt. These letters have no connection with the rest of the book or with each other, and both are undoubted forgeries. There can be no doubt that 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 lettersII , 4 and 9.

(2) 2 Maccabees 2:19-32:

Introduction to what follows. The author or epitomizer claims that his history (chapter 3 to end of the book) is an epitome in one book of a larger work in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene. But see II , 4, below.

(3) 2 Maccabees 3:1 through 15:39 (End of Book):

History of the rise and progress of the Maccabean wars from 176 BC, to the closing year of the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, to the defeat and death of Nicanor in 161 BC, a period of 15 years. The record in 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 (176-161BC ). The history of this period is thus treated: (a) 2 Macc 3:1 through 4:6: Traitorous conduct of the Benjamite Simon in regard to the temple treasures and the high priest; futile attempt of Heliodorus, prime minister of Seleucus IV, to rob the temple (see I, 3, (11) above); (b) 2 Macc 4:7 through 7:42 parallel 1 Macc 1:10-64 with significant variations and additions. Accession of Antiocus Epiphanes (175 BC); the Hellenizing of some Jews; persecution of the faithful; martyrdom of Eleazar and the 7 brethren and their mother (this last not in 1 Maccabees); (c) 2 Macc 8 through 15 (end) parallel 1 Macc 3 through 7, with significant divergences in details. Rise and development of the Maccabean revolt (see I, 3, above). In the closing verses (2 Macc 15:38 ff) the writer begs that this composition may be received with consideration.

The record of events in 2 Maccabees ends with the brilliant victory of Judas over Nicanor, followed by the death of the latter; but it is strange that the history of the main hero of the book should be dropped in the middle. Perhaps this abrupt ending is due to the writer's aim to commend to the Jews of Egypt the two new festivals, both connected with the Jerusalem temple: (a) Chanukkah (Festival of Dedication) (1:9,18; 2:16; 10:8); (b) Nicanor Day (15:36), to commemorate the defeat and death of Nicanor. To end the book with the account of the institution of the latter gives it greater prominence.

4. Sources:

In its present form 2 Maccabees is based ostensibly on two kinds of written sources.

(1) In 2 Macc 2:19-32 the writer of 3:1 to the end, which constitutes the book proper, says that his own work is but an epitome, clearly, artistically and attractively set out, of a larger history by one Jason of Cyrene. Most commentators understand this statement literally, and endeavor to distinguish between the parts due to Jason and those due to the epitomizer. Some think they see endings of the 5 books reflected in the summaries at 3:40; 7:42; 10:9; 13:26; 15:37. But W.H. Kosters gives cogent reasons for concluding that the reference to Jason is but a literary device to secure for his own composition the respect accorded in ancient, as in a lesser degree in modern, times to tradition. The so-called "epitomizer'' is in that case alone responsible for the history he gives. The present writer has no hesitation in accepting these conclusions. We read such nowhere a large else of a historian called "Jason," or of such a large history at his must have been if it extended to 5 books dealing with the events of 15 years, though such a man and so great a work could hardly have escaped notice. Hitzig (Gesch. des Volkes Israels, II, 415) held that Jason or his supposed epitomizer made use of 1 Maccabees, altering, adding and subtracting to suit his purpose. But the different order of the events and the contradictions in statements of facts in the 2 books, as well as the omission from 2 Maccabees of important items found in 1 Maccabees, make Hitzig's supposition quite untenable. A careful examination of 2 Maccabees has led Grimm, Schurer, Zockler, Wibrich, Cornill, Torrey and others to the conclusion that the author depended wholly upon oral tradition. This gives the best clue to the anachronisms, inconsistencies and loose phrasing which characterize the book. According to 1 Macc 4:26-33, the first campaign of Lysias into Judea took place in 165 BC, the year before the death of Antiochus IV; but 2 Macc 11 tells us that it occurred in 163 BC, i.e. subsequent to the death of Antiochus IV. Moreover, in the latter passage this 1st expedition of Lysias is connected with the grant of freedom to the Jews, which is really an incident of the 2nd expedition, and in 2 Macc 13:1-24 is rightly mentioned in the account of the 2nd expedition. The writer of 2 Maccabees, relying upon memory, evidently mixes up the stories of two different expeditions. Similarly the invasions of neighboring tribes under Judas, which are represented in 1 Macc 5:1-68 as taking place in quick succession, belong, according to 2 Macc 8:30; 10:15-38; 12:2-45, to separate dates and different sets of circumstances. The statements in 2 Maccabees are obscure and confused, those in 1 Macc 5 clear and straightforward. Though in 2 Macc 10:37 we read of the death of Timotheus, yet in 12:2 ff he appears as a leader in other campaigns. There again the writer's memory plays him false as he recalls various accounts of the same events. It was Mattathias who gathered together the Jews and organized them for resistance against Syria, if we follow 1 Macc 2:1-70; but 2 Macc 8:1-7 ascribes this role to his son Judas. The purification of the temple took place 3 years subsequent to its profanation, according to 1 Macc 1:54; 4:52, but only 2 years, according to 2 Macc 10:3.

(2) The two letters sent from Palestinian to Egyptian Jews (2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18) form no integral part of the original 2 Maccabees. They are clearly forgeries, and abound in inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The second letter, much the longer, gives an account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which is irreconcilable with that in 9:1-28 and also with that in 1 Macc 6:1-16. Nehemiah is said in 1:18 to have rebuilt the temple and altar, a work accomplished by Zerubbabel nearly a century earlier (Ezr 3:3; 6:15). Nehemiah's work was to repair the gates and walls (Neh 3:1-32; 6:1; 7:1; Sirach 49:13). The writer of this letter says (2 Macc 2:3-5) that at the time of the exile, Jeremiah concealed in a cave on 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 2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18, and on the other hand that there are three. But the division into two is quite natural and is almost universally accepted.

5. Historicity:

2 Maccabees belongs to the class of literature called by the Germans Tendenz-Schriften, i.e. writings originating in the desire to teach some doctrine or to correct some supposed error. 1 Maccabees gives us a history of the Maccabean wars as such, taking so little notice of the part played by God that the Divine Being is not so much as mentioned, except under the impersonal form Heaven (compare "Heaven helps those who help themselves"). Nor has 1 Maccabees a word to say about a life beyond the grave. In short, 1 Maccabees is written from the standpoint of the Sadducees, to which party the reigning dynasty (the Hasmonean) belonged. The writer of 2 Maccabees is evidently a Pharisee and his aim is not historical but doctrinal; i.e. the book is a historical romance with a purpose, that purpose being to make prominent the outstanding tenets of the Pharisees (see II , 6). Two extreme opinions have been defended as to the historical value of 2 Maccabees: (1) That 2 Maccabees is a strictly historical work, is more trustworthy than 1 Maccabees and is to be followed when the two books differ; so the bulk of Roman Catholics and also Niese and Schlatter. The supernaturalism of the book is to Romanists a recommendation. (2) That 2 Maccabees has virtually no historical value, since it was written for other than historical ends; so Wibrich, Kosters and Kamphausen. But the bulk of Protestant critics of recent times occupy a portion midway between these two opposite opinions, namely, that 1 Maccabees is much more accurate than 2 Maccabees and is to be preferred when the 2 books of Maccabees differ or contradict each other; so Grimm, Reuss, Schurer, Kamphausen. On the other hand, when 2 Maccabees contains historical matter absent from 1 Maccabees it is to be accepted as correct unless opposed by intrinsic improbability or direct contrary evidence. In 2 Macc 3 through 5 we have details concerning the Maccabean revolt not found in 1 Maccabees, and in treatment of episodes or incidents with which 1 Maccabees deals it is often fuller and more specific, as in 2 Macc 10:14-23; 12:7-9 (compare 1 Macc 5:1-5; 12:17-25); 2 Macc 10:24-38 (compare 1 Macc 5:29-44); 2 Macc 12:32-45 (compare 1 Macc 5:65,68,63 f). On the other hand, the account of the celestial appearances in 2 Macc 3:24 ff; 11:8, etc., and the description in 6:18 ff of the martyrdom of Eleazar the scribe and of the 7 brethren and their mother, carry on their face the marks of their legendary and unhistorical character. The edifying remarks scattered throughout the book, many of them pragmatic and reminding one of the Book of Daniel, confirm the impression otherwise suggested, that the author's aim was didactic and not historical. The book as it stands is a real authority for the ideas prevalent in the writer's circle at the time of its composition.

6. Teaching of the Book:

In general it may be said that the doctrines taught in 2 Maccabees are those of the Pharisees of the day. Several scholars consider 2 Maccabees the answer of Pharisaism to the Sadduceeism of 1 Maccabees (see Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Saducaer; compare Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, 219 ff). But there is evidence enough (see II , 4) that the author of 2 Maccabees had not seen 1 Maccabees. Yet it is equally clear that 2 Maccabees does give prominence to the distinctive tenets of Pharisaism, and it was probably written on that account.

(1) The strictest observance of the law is enforced. The violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath countenanced under special circumstances in 1 Macc (2:39-48) is absolutely forbidden in 2 Macc (6:6,11; 8:26 f; 12:38); compare the words of the Pharisees to Petronius when the latter proposed to have a statue of the emperor Caius erected in the temple: "We will die rather than transgress the law" (Josephus, Ant,XVIII , viii, 3).

(2) The Pharisaic party took but little interest in political affairs, and supported the Hasmoneans only because and in so far as they fought for the right to observe their religious rites. When, however, they compromised with Hellenism, the Pharisees turned against them and their allies the Sadducees. In this book we miss the unstinted praise accorded the Hasmonean leaders in 1 Maccabees, and it is silent as to the genealogy of the Hasmoneans, the death of Judas Maccabeus and the family grave at Modin.

(3) The book reveals thus early the antagonism between the Pharisees and the priestly party, which is so evident in the Gospels. The high-priesthood had through political circumstances become the property of the Maccabees, though they were not of the Aaronic family, or even of the tribe of Levi. The priestly circle became the aristocratic, broad-church party, willing to come to terms with Greek thought and life. Hence, in 2 Maccabees, Jason and Menelaus are fit representatives of the priesthood. In the list of martyrs (chapters 6 f) no priest appears, but on the other hand, Eleazar, one of the principal scribes--scribes and Pharisees were then as in New Testament times virtually one party--suffered for his loyalty to the national religion, "leaving his death for an example" (6:18-31).

(4) The temple occupies a high and honorable place in 2 Maccabees, as in the mind of the orthodox party (see 2:19; 3:2; 5:15; 9:16; 13:23; 14:31). Great stress is laid on the importance of the feasts (6:6; 10:8, etc.), of sacrifice (10:3), of circumcision (6:10), of the laws of diet (6:18; 11:31). The author seems in particular anxious to recommend to his readers (Egyptian Jews) the observance of the two new festivals instituted to commemorate the purification of the temple after its pollution by the Syrians and also the victory over Nicanor. According to this book the Chanukkah feast was established immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (10:6 ff), not before this event (1 Macc 4:56), probably to give it additional importance. The book closes with the defeat and death of Nicanor and the founding of the Nicanor Day festival, without mentioning the death of Judas, as though the writer's aim was to give prominence to the two new festivals.

(5) 2 Maccabees shows a Jewish particularism which agrees well with Pharisaism and Scribism, but is opposed to the broader sentiments of the ruling party: Israel is God's people (1:26); His portion (14:15); He often intervenes miraculously on behalf of Israel and the religion of Israel (3:24-30; 10:29 f; 11:6-8); even the calamities of the nation are proofs of Divine love because designed for the nation's good (5:18); but the sufferings brought upon the heathen are penal and show the Divine displeasure (4:38; 5:9; 13:8; 15:32 f). The writer is deadly opposed to the introduction of Greek customs and in particular to the establishment of a gymnasium in Jerusalem (4:7 f; 11:24). The Book of Jubilees, also written by a zealous Pharisee, takes up the same hostile attitude toward foreign customs (see 3:31; 7:20, and the note by R. H. Charles (Book of Jubilees) on the former).

(6) This book gives prominence to the doctrine of a resurrection and of a future life about which 1 Maccabees, a document of the Sadducee party, is silent, (compare I, 5 above; see 2 Macc 7:9,11,14,36; 12:43-45; 14:46 (compareIV , 4, below)). The Sadducees, to which the Hasmoneans belonged, denied a resurrection, limiting their conception of religion to the present life, in this agreeing with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures down to the time of the exile (536 BC). But the Pharisees and scribes, though professing to rest their beliefs on the "Law of Moses," departed from that law in this matter (see Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses). The resurrection is to be a bodily one (2 Macc 7:11,22 f; 14:46) and to a life that is unending (2 Macc 7:9,36). The following related beliefs supported in this book and forming part of the creed of orthodox Pharisaism are adduced by Romanists on behalf of their own teaching: (a) the efficacy of prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:44); (b) the power exercised by the intercession of saints (2 Macc 15:12-14); Philo (De execrat., 9) and Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 3) held the same doctrine; (c) the atoning character of the martyrdom of the righteous (2 Macc 7:36,38; compare 4 Macc 17:22; seeIV , 4, (3), below).

(7) The angelology of 2 Maccabees forms a prominent feature of the book (see 3:24-30; 10:29 f; 11:6-8). The Sadducees accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, though they rejected tradition. They were therefore inconsistent in allowing no place for angelic beings in their creed, though consistent in rejecting the doctrine of a future life.

(8) The comparative silence of this book on the question of the Messianic hope is strikingly in contrast with the prominence of the subject in Psalter of Solomon (17:23 ff, etc.; see Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon, lii ff) and other contemporary writings emanating from the Pharisees. But why should the author of 2 Maccabees be expected to give equal prominence to all his opinions in one tract? Some such hope as that connected with the Messiah does, however, seem to be implied in 1:27; 2:18; 7:33; 14:15.

The present writer holds that one man is responsible for 2 Maccabees in its present form and that the only written source was the 2 letters with which the book opens (1:1 through 2:18) (see II , 4, above).

7. Author:

Even if we have to assume an original in 5 books of which 2 Maccabees, as we have it, is but an epitome, it is not possible to distinguish between the sentiments of "Jason" and his epitomizer. The author--assuming but one--was evidently an Egyptian probably an Alexandrian Jew, who nevertheless retained his loyalty to the Jerusalem temple and its constitutions and desired to prevent the alienation of his fellow-countrymen in the same country from the home sanctuary and its feasts, especially the two new feasts, Chanukkah (Dedication) and Nicanor Day. The Jews of Egypt had a temple of their own, in opposition to the teaching of the Jewish law (D and P; compare Dt 12:2-18 and Lev 17:1-9; 19:30), and it was perhaps the growing influence of this temple that prompted the author to compose this book which sets so much honor upon the Jerusalem temple and its observances. The character of the Greek (see II , 9, below), the ignorance of Palestine and also the deep interest in Egypt which this book reveals--these and other considerations point to the conclusion that the author lived and wrote in Egypt. There is no evidence that Judas Maccabeus (Leon Allatius), or the author of Sirach (Hasse) or Philo the Jew (Honorius d'Autun) or Josephus wrote the book, though it has been ascribed by different scholars to each of the persons named.

8. Date:

The book must have been written sufficiently long after 161 BC, the year with which the record closes, to allow mythical tales of the martyrdoms in 2 Macc 6 f and the history of the supernatural appearances in 3:24-30, etc., to arise. If we allow 30 years, or the lifetime of a generation, we come down to say 130 BC as a terminus a quo. There is probably in 15:36 a reference to the Book of Est (so Cornill, Kautzsch and Wellhausen, IJG4, 302 f) which would bring the terminus a quo down to about 100 BC. That 2 Maccabees was written subsequently to 1 Maccabees (i.e. after 80 BC) is made certain by the fact that the Jews now pay tribute to Rome (2 Macc 8:10,36). Since Philo, who died about 40 AD, refers to 2 Macc 4:8 through 7:42 (Quod omnis probus liber, Works, edition Mangey, II, 459), the book must have been composed before 40 AD. This is confirmed by the certainty that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (70 AD), for the city still exists and the temple services are in full operation (3:6 ff, etc.). Heb 11:35 f is no doubt an echo of 2 Macc 6:18 through 7:42 and shows that the unknown author of Hebrews had 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.

9. Original Language:

That the original language was Greek is made exceedingly likely by the easy flow of the style and the almost entire absence of Hebraisms (yet see 2 Macc 8:15; 9:5; 14:24). No scholar of any standing has pleaded for a Hebrew original of the present book. Bertholdt, however, argued that the two letters (2 Macc 1:1 through 2:18) were composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic) Ewald held that the 2nd letter (2 Macc 1:11 through 2:18) is from the Hebrew, and Schlunkes that this applies to the 1st only. But the evidence given by these scholars is unconvincing, though the 1st letter is certainly more Hebraic in style than the 2nd letter, the contrary of what Ewald said.

10. Text and Versions:

As to the texts and versions, see I, 9, above, where the statements apply here with but slight qualifications. But the book is lacking in Codex Sinaiticus as well as in Codex Alexandrinus. In addition to the Old Latin text and adopted for the Vulgate, we have another Latin text in Codex Ambrosianus, published in 1824 by Peyron; but this book is unrepresented in Sabatier's collection of Old Latin texts.

LITERATURE.

In addition to the literature mentioned under APOCRYPHA and I above, and in the course of the present article, note the following items: Commentary of Moffatt (Oxford Apocrypha); C. Bertheau, De section lib. Macc., 1829 (largely quoted by Grimm); W.H. Kosters, "De Polemiek van het tweede boek de Mak," TT, XII, 491-558; Schlatter, "Jason von Cyrene," TLZ, 1893, 322; A. Buchler, Die Tobliden u. die Oniaden im II Mak, 1889; Wibrich, Juden und Griechen, etc., 1895, 64; Kamphausen (Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des AT). The following discussing the two letters (1:1-2:18) deserve mention: Valckenaer, De Aristobulo, 38-44; Schlunkes, Epistolae quae secundo Macc libro I, etc., 1844, 1-9; also Difficiliorum locorum epistolae, etc., 1847; Graetz, "Das Sendschreiben der Palaestinenser an die aegyptischen Gemeinden," etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums, 1877, 1-16, 49-60; A. Buchler, "Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer," etc., Monatss. fur Gesch. u. Wissen. des Judenthums; see last notice, 1897, 481-500, 529-54); Bruston, "Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine,"ZATW , X, 110-17; W. H. Kosters, "Strekking der brieven in 2 Macc," TT, 1898, 68-76; Torrey, "Die Briefe 2 Mak," ZATW, 1900, 225-42.


MACCABEES, BOOKS OF, 3-5

III. 3 Maccabees.

1. Name:

The name 3 Maccabees, though occurring in the oldest manuscripts and VSS, is quite unsuitable, because the book refers to events which antedate the Maccabean age by about half a century, and also to events in which the Maccabees took no part. But this book tells of sufferings and triumphs on the part of loyal Jews comparable to those of the Maccabean period. Perhaps the term Maccabees was generalized so as to denote all who suffered for their faith. Some hold that the book was written originally as a kind of introduction to the Books of Maccabees, which it precedes as Book I in Cotton's Five Books of Maccabees. But the contents of the book do not agree with this view. Perhaps the title is due to a mistake on the part of a copyist.

2. Canonicity:

The book has never been reckoned as canonical by the Western church, as is shown by the fact that it exists in no edition of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and was not included in the Canon by the Council of Trent. It is for the latter reason absent from the Protestant versions of the Apocrypha which contain but the Books of Maccabees (1 and 2). But 3 Maccabees has a place in two uncials of the Septuagint (A and V) and also in the ancient (Peshitta) Syriac version of the Scriptures, and it is given canonical rank in the Apostolical Constitutions (canon 85). The book must therefore have been held in high esteem in the early church.

3. Contents:

3 Maccabees is a historical novel in which there is much more romance than history, and more silly and superficial writing than either. It professes to narrate occurrences in the history of the Jews which took place at Jerusalem and at Alexandria in which the Jews were persecuted but in various ways delivered.

(1) 3 Maccabees 1:1 through 2:24:

After conquering at Raphia Antiochus III, the great king of Syria (224-187 BC), Ptolemy IV Philopator, king of Egypt (221-204 BC), resolved to visit Jerusalem and to enter the sanctum ("holy of holies," naos) of the temple to which by the Jewish law access was allowed only to the high priest, and even to him but once a year (Day of Atonement (1:11)). The Jews, priests and people, were in a paroxysm of grief and earnestly entreated him to desist, but he persisted in his plan. They then through Simon, the high priest, 219-199 BC, prayed that God might intervene and avert this desecration. The prayer is answered, the king being paralyzed before realizing his purpose.

(2) 3 Maccabees 2:25-30:

Returned to Alexandria, Ptolemy is exasperated at the failure of his 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.

(3) 3 Maccabees 2:31 through 4:21:

A goodly number of Alexandrian Jews refuse to obey the royal mandate, whereupon Ptolemy issues an edict that all the Jews of Egypt, men, women and children, shall be brought in chains to Alexandria and confined in the race-course (hippodrome), with a view to their wholesale massacre. Prior to the massacre there is to be a complete register taken of the names of the assembled Jews. Before the list is complete the writing materials give way and the huge slaughter is averted.

(4) 3 Maccabees 4:22 through 6:21:

The king, still thirsting for the blood of this people, hits upon a different method of compassing their ruin. Five hundred elephants are intoxicated with wine and incense and let loose upon the Jews in the race-course. Here we have the principal plot of the book, and we reach the climax in the various providential expedients, childish in their character, of preventing the execution of the king's purpose. The lesson of it all seems to be that God will deliver those who put their trust in Him.

(5) 3 Maccabees 6:22 through 7:23:

At length the king undergoes a change of heart. He releases the Jews and restores them to all their lost rights and honors. In response to their request, he gives them permission to slay their brother-Jews who, in the hour of trial, had given up their faith. They put to death 300, "esteeming this destruction of the wicked a season of joy" (7:15).

3 Maccabees is made up of a number of incredible tales, the details of which are absurd and contradictory. The beginning of the book has evidently been lost, as appears from the opening words, "Now when Philopator" (ho de Philopator), and also from the references to an earlier part of the narrative now lost, e.g.: 1:1 ("from those who came back"); 1:2 ("the plot afore mentioned"); 2:25 ("the aforenamed boon companions"), etc.

4. Historicity:

The book contains very little that is true history, notwithstanding what Israel Abrahams (see "Literature" to this section), depending largely on Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies), says to the contrary. It is much more manifest than even in the case of 2 Maccabees that the writer's aim was to convey certain impressions and not to write history (see III , 5).

The improbabilities of the book are innumerable (see Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 616 f), and it is evident that we have to do here with a combination of legends and fables worked up in feeble fashion with a view to making prominent certain ideas which the author wishes his readers to keep in mind. Yet behind the fiction of the book there are certain facts which prompted much of what the writer says.

(1) That Ptolemy IV bore the character of cruelty and capriciousness and effeminacy is borne out by Polybius (204-121 BC) in his History and by Plutarch in his Life of Cleomenes.

(2) The brief outline of the war between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III, the latter being conquered at Raphia (chapters 1 f), agrees in a general way with what has been written by Polybius, Livy and Justin.

(3)In this book, by the command of Ptolemy, 500 intoxicated elephants are let loose upon the Jews brought bound to the race-course of Alexandria. Josephus (Apion, II, v) tells us that Ptolemy VII Physcon, king of Egypt, 145-117 BC, had the Jews of Alexandria, men, women and children, brought bound and naked to an enclosed space and that he had let loose on them a herd of elephants, which, however, turned instead upon his own men, killing a large number of them. The cause of the king's action was that the Jewish residents of Alexandria sided with his foes. In 3 Maccabees the cause of the action of Ptolemy IV was the failure of his project to enter the sanctum of the Jerusalem temple; this last perhaps a reflection of 2 Macc 3:9 ff, where it is related that Heliodorus was hindered from entering the temple by a ghostly apparition. Now these two incidents, in both of which Jews are attacked by intoxicated elephants, must rest upon a common tradition and have probably a nucleus of fact. Perhaps, as Israel Abrahams holds, the tradition arose from the action of the elephants of Ptolemy in the Battle of Raphia. Most writers think that the reference is to something that occurred in the reign of Ptolemy VII.

(4) The shutting-up of the Jews in the racecourse at Alexandria was not improbably suggested by a similar incident in which Herod the Great was the principal agent.

(5) In the opinion of Grimm (Comm., 216) we have in the two festivals (3 Macc 6:36; 7:19) and in the existence of the synagogue at Ptolemais an implied reference to some great deliverance vouchsafed to the Jews.

5. Aim and Teaching:

3 Maccabees was probably written by an Alexandrian Jew at a time when the Jews in and around Alexandria were sorely persecuted on account of their religion. The purpose of the author seems to have been to comfort those suffering for the faith by giving examples showing how God stands by His people, helping in all their trials and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies. Note further the following points: (1) The book, unlike 2 Maccabees, is silent as to a bodily resurrection and a future life, though this may be due to pure accident. Hades (Haides) in 3 Macc 4:8; 5:42; 6:31, etc., appears to stand only for death, regarded as the end of all human life. (2) Yet the belief in angelic beings is clearly implied (see 6:18 ff). (3) The author has much confidence in the power of prayer (see 2:10; 2:21-24; 5:6-10,13,50 f; 6:1-15, etc.). (4) The book lays stress upon the doctrine that God is on the side of His people (4:21, etc.), and even though they transgress His commandments He will forgive and save them (2:13; 4:13, etc.).

6. Authorship and Date:

From the character of the Greek, the interest shown in Alexandrian Judaism, and the acquaintance displayed with Egyptian affairs (see I. Abrahams, op. cit., 39 ff), it may be inferred with confidence that the author was a Jew residing in Alexandria. The superior limit (terminus a quo) for the date is some time in the last century BC. Since the existence of the additions to Dan is implied (see Dan 6:6), the inferior limit (terminus ad quem) is some time before 70 AD. If the temple had been destroyed, the continuance of the temple services could not have been implied (see 3 Macc 1:8 ff). As the book seems written to comfort and encourage Alexandrian Jews at a time when they were persecuted, Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss and others thought it was written during the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41 AD), when such a persecution took place. But if Ptolemy is intended to represent Caligula, it is strange, as Schurer (GJV4, III, 491) remarks, that the writer does not make Ptolemy claim Divine honors, a claim actually made by Caligula.

Though Josephus (died 95 AD) could not have known the book, since his version of the same incidents differs so much, yet it must have been written some 30 years before his death, i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 71 AD.

7. Original Language:

That 3 Maccabees was composed in Greek is the opinion of all scholars and is proved by the free, idiomatic and rather bombastic character of the language in the Septuagint.

8. Text and Versions:

(1) Greek.

This book occurs in the two unicals Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Venetus (not in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus), in most cursives and also in nearly all editions of the Septuagint.

(2) Syriac.

The Syriac version (Peshitta) reproduced in the Paris and London Polyglot and by Lagarde, Lib. Apocrypha. Vet. Test. It is not a good translation.

(3) Latin.

The earliest Latin translation is that made for the Complutensian Polyglot.

(4) English.

The earliest in English is that of Walter Lynne (1650).

LITERATURE.

Besides the commentaries by Grimm (the best), Bissell (Lange), Kautzsch and Emmet (Oxford Apocrypha), and the articles in HDB (Fairweather, excellent), Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey, good), GJV4 (Schurer), III, 489-92; HJP, II, iii, 216-19, let the following be noted: A. Hausrath, A History of New Testament Times, 1895, II, 70 ff; Wibrich, Juden u. Griechen; Abrahams, "The Third Book of the Mace," JQR, IX, 1897, 39-58; A. Buchler, Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden, 1899, 172-212. Both Abrahams and Buchler defend the historicity of some parts of 3 Maccabees; Wibrich, "Der historische Kern des III Makk," Hermes, Bd. 39, 1904, 244-58. For English translation see (1) Henry Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees (Cotton calls it First Book of Maccabees); (2) W.R. Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, and (3) Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English

IV. 4 Maccabees.

1. Name:

4 Maccabees is a philosophical treatise or discourse on the supremacy of pious reason ( = religious principle) in the virtuous man. The oldest title of the book, 4 Maccabees (Makkabaion d, (4)), occurs in the earliest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.), in the list of the Codex Claromontanus (3rd century?), the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books (5th century?) and the Synopsis of Athanasius (9th century). It obtained this name from the fact that it illustrates and enforces its thesis by examples from the history of the Maccabees. Some early Christian writers, believing 4 Maccabees to be the work of Josephus (see IV , 5), gave it a corresponding title. Eusebius and Jerome, who ascribe the book to Josephus, speak of it under the name of: A Discourse concerning the Supreme Power of Reason.

2. Canonicity:

Though absent from the Vulgate, and therefore from the Romanist Canon and from Protestant versions of its Apocrypha, 4 Maccabees occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and editions (Fritzsche, Swete, not Tischendorf) of the Septuagint, showing it was highly esteemed and perhaps considered canonical by at least some early Christian Fathers.

3. Contents:

This book is a philosophical disquisition in the form of a sermon on the question "Whether pious reason is absolute master of the passions" (4 Macc 1:1).

(1) 4 Maccabees 1:1-12:

First of all, the writer states his theme and the method in which he intends to treat it.

(2) 4 Maccabees 1:13 through 3:18:

He defines his terms and endeavors from general principles to show that pious reason does of right rule the passions.

(3) 4 Maccabees 3:19 to End of Book:

He tries to prove the same proposition from the lives of the Maccabean martyrs. These historical illustrations are based on 2 Macc 6:18 through 7:42 (compare 3 Macc 6).

Because the book is written as a discourse or sermon and is largely addressed to an apparent audience (4 Macc 1:17; 2:14; 13:10; 18:4), Freudenthal and others think we have here an example of a Jewish sermon delivered as here written. But Jewish preachers based their discourses on Scripture texts and their sermons were more concise and arresting than this book.

4. Teaching:

The author's philosophical standpoint is that of Stoicism, namely, that in the virtuous man reason dominates passion. His doctrine of four cardinal virtues (phronesis, dikaiosune, andreia, sophrosune, "Providence," "Justice" "Fortitude," "Temperance" (4 Macc 1:18)), is also derived from Stoicism. Though, however, he sets out as if he were a true Stoic, he proceeds to work out his discourses in orthodox Jewish fashion. His all-dominating reason is that which is guided by the Divinely revealed law, that law for the faithful observing of which the martyrs died. The four cardinal virtues are but forms of that true wisdom which is to be obtained only through the Mosaic law (4 Macc 7:15-18). Moreover, the passions are not, as Stoicism taught, to be annihilated, but regulated (4 Macc 1:61; 3:5), since God has planted them (4 Macc 2:21).

The author's views approach those of Pharisaism. (1) He extols the self-sacrificing devotion to the law exhibited by the Maccabean martyrs mentioned in 4 Macc 3:9 to the end of the book. (2) He believes in a resurrection from the dead. The souls of the righteous will enjoy hereafter ceaseless fellowship with God (9:8; 15:2; 18:5), but the wicked will endure the torment of fire forever and ever (10:11,15; 12:12; 13:14). Nothing, however, is said of the Pharisees' doctrine of a bodily resurrection which 2 Maccabees, a Pharisaic document (see II , 6, (6) above), clearly teaches. (3) The martyrdom of the faithful atones for the sins of the people (4 Macc 6:24; 17:19-21; compare Rom 3:25).

5. Authorship and Date:

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.

The author must have been a Jew and he probably belonged to the Pharisee party (see IV , 7). He was also a Hellenist, for he reveals the influence of Greek thought more than any other apocryphal writer. He was also, it would appear, a resident of Alexandria, for the earliest notices of it occur in literature having an Alexandrian origin, and the author makes considerable use of 2 Maccabees, which emanated from Alexandria.

It is impossible definitely to fix the date of the book. But it was certainly written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and after the composition of 2 Maccabees, on which it largely depends. A date in the first half of the 1st century of our era would suit all the requirements of the case.

6. Original Language:

The book was certainly written in Greek, as all scholars agree. It employs many of the terms of Greek philosophy and it bears the general characteristics of the Greek spoken and written at Alexandria at the commencement of the Christian era.

7. Text and Versions:

(1) Greek.

This book occurs in the principal manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, etc.) and printed editions (Grabe, Breitinger, Apel, Fritzsche, Swete (Codex Alexandrinus with variants of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Venetus) and Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English), also in various Josephus manuscripts and most editions of Josephus, including Naber, but not Niese.

(2) Latin.

No Old Latin version has come down to us.

(3) Syriac.

The Peshitta text is printed in Codex Ambros. (Ceriani) and by Bensley from a manuscript in The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac (agrees mostly with Codex Alexandrinus). Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca Sancta, 1566, I, 39) speaks of having seen another 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).

LITERATURE.

Besides the literature mentioned under the other books of Maccabees, under APOCRYPHA, and in the course of the present article, note the following: The commentaries of Grimm (excellent; the only one on the complete book) and Deissmann (in Kautzsch, A pok des Altes Testament, brief but up to date and good); the valuable monograph by Freudenthal: Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift uber die Herrschafft der Vernunft (IV. Makkabaerbuch) Untersucht, 1869. See, besides the articles in HDB (Fairweather); Encyclopedia Biblica (Torrey); Gfrorer, Philo, etc., II, 1831, 173-200; Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung der jud.-alex. Religions Philosophie, II, 1834, 190-99; and the History of Ewald, IV, 632 ff. There are English translations in Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees, Oxford, 1832; W.R. Churton, The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scripture; Baxter, The Apocrypha, Greek and English.

V. 5 Maccabees.

1. Name:

The designation 5 Maccabees was first given to the book (now commonly so called) by Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees English, 1832), and it has been perpetuated by Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introduction to the Old Testament, III, 465); Ginsburg (Kitto's Cycyclopedia of Biblical Literature); Bissell (Apocrypha of the Old Testament) and others. It has been called the Arabic 2 Maccabees (so in the Paris and London Polyglot), and the Arabic Maccabees. The 5 Maccabees in the Translatio Syra Peshitto, edited by Ceriani, is really nothing more than a Syriac version of the 6th book of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews.

2. Canonicity:

This book has never been recognized as canonical by either Jews or Christians.

3. Contents:

The book is ostensibly a history of the Jews from the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder the temple (186 BC) to about 6 BC. It is really nothing more than a clumsy compilation from 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus (except 5 Macc 12, which is the only original part, and this teems with errors of various kinds); a note at the end of 5 Macc 16 says 1:1 through 16:26 is called The Second Book of Maccabees according to the Translation of the Hebrews. 5 Macc 19 closes with the events narrated at the end of 1 Maccabees. The rest of the book (5 Macc 20 through 59) follows Josephus (BJ, I f) closely. Perhaps the original work ended with 5 Macc 19. Ginsburg (op. cit., III., 17), Bissell (Apocrypha, 639) and Wellhausen (Der arab. Josippus) give useful tables showing the dependence of the various parts of 5 Maccabees on the sources used.

4. Historicity:

In so far as this book repeats the contents of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, it has the historical value of the sources used. But in itself the book has no historical worth. The author calls Roman and Egyptian soldiers "Macedonians," 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.

5. Original Language:

The original work was almost certainly composed in Hebrew, though we have no trace of a Hebrew text (so Ginsburg, op. cit., and Bissell). This conclusion is supported by the numerous Hebraisms which show themselves even in a double translation. The Pentateuch is called the "Torah," the Hebrew Scriptures are spoken of as "the twenty-four books," the temple is "the house of God" or "the holy house," Judea is "the land of the holy house" and Jerusalem is "the city of the holy house." These and like examples make it probable that the writer was a Jew and that the language he used was Hebrew. Zunz (Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage, 1832, 146 ff), Graetz (Geschichte, V, 281) and Dr. S. Davidson (op. cit., 465) say the book was written in Arabic from Hebrew memoirs. According to Zunz (loc. cit.) and Graetz (loc. cit.) the Jewish history of Joseph ben Gorion (Josippon), the "pseudo-Josephus" (10th century), is but a Hebrew recension of 5 Maccabees (the Arabic 2 Maccabees). On the contrary, Wellhausen (op. cit.) and Schurer (GJV4, I, 159 f) maintain that the shorter narrative in 5 Maccabees represents the extent of the original composition far more correctly than the Hebrew history of Josippon (which ranges from Adam to 70 AD), and than other recensions of the same history.

6. Aim and Teaching:

The book was compiled for the purpose of consoling the Jews in their sufferings and encouraging them to be stedfast in their devotion to the Mosaic law. The same end was contemplated in 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees and in a lesser degree in 1 Maccabees, but the author or compiler of the present treatise wished to produce a work which would appeal in the first instance and chiefly to Hebrew (or Arabic?) readers. The author believes in a resurrection of the body, in a future life and a final judgment (5 Macc 5:13,43 f). The righteous will dwell in future glory, the wicked will be hereafter punished (5 Macc 5:49,50 f; 59:14).

7. Authorship and Date:

We have no means of ascertaining who the author was, but he must have been a Jew and he lived some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (see 5 Macc 9:5; 21:30; 22:9; 53:8, though Ginsburg regards these passages as late additions and fixes the date of the original work at about 6BC , when the history ends). The author makes large use of Josephus (died 95 AD), which also favors the lower date.

8. Text and Versions:

The Arabic text of the book and a Latin translation by Gabriel Sionita is printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. No other ancient text has come down to us. cotton (op. cit., xxx) errs in saying that there is a Syriac version of the book.

LITERATURE.

The most important literature has been mentioned in the course of the article. The English and earlier German editions of Schurer, GJ V, do not help. The only English translation is that by Cotton made directly from the Latin of Gabriel Sionita. Bissell says that a French version appears as an appendix in the Bible of de Sacy; not, however, in the Nouvelle Edition (1837) in the possession of the present writer.

T. Witton Davies


MACEDONIA

mas-e-do'-ni-a (Makedonia, ethnic Makedon,):

I. THE MACEDONIAN PEOPLE AND LAND

II. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA

1. Philip and Alexander

2. Roman Intervention

3. Roman Conquest

4. Macedonia a Roman Province

5. Later History

III. PAUL AND MACEDONIA

1. Paul's First Visit

2. Paul's Second Visit

3. Paul's Third Visit

4. Paul's Later Visits

IV. THE MACEDONIAN CHURCH

1. Prominence of Women

2. Marked Characteristics

3. Its Members

LITERATURE

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.

I. The Macedonian People and Land.

Ethnologists differ about the origin of the Macedonian race and the degree of its affinity to the Hellenes. But we find a well-marked tradition in ancient times that the race comprised a Hellenic element and a non-Hellenic, though Aryan, element, closely akin to the Phrygian and other Thracian stocks. The dominant race, the Macedonians in the narrower sense of the term, including the royal family, which was acknowledged to be Greek and traced its descent through the Temenids of Argos back to Heracles (Herodotus v.22), settled in the fertile plains about the lower Haliacmon (Karasu or Vistritza) and Axius (Vardar), to the North and Northwest of the Thermaic Gulf. Their capital, which was originally at Edessa or Aegae (Vodhena), was afterward transferred to Pella by Philip II. The other and older element--the Lyncestians, Orestians, Pelagonians and other tribes--were pushed back northward and westward into the highlands, where they struggled for generations to maintain their independence and weakened the Macedonian state by constant risings and by making common cause with the wild hordes of Illyrians and Thracians, with whom we find the Macedonian kings in frequent conflict. In order to maintain their position they entered into a good understanding from time to time with the states of Greece or acknowledged temporarily Persian suzerainty, and thus gradually extended the sphere of their power.

II. History of Macedonia.

Herodotus (viii.137-39) traces the royal line from Perdiccas I through Argaeus, Philip I, Aeropus, Alcetas and Amyntas I to Alexander I, who was king at the time of the Persian invasions of Greece. He and his son and grandson, Perdiccas II and Archelaus, did much to consolidate Macedonian power, but the death of Archelaus (399 BC) was followed by 40 years of disunion and weakness.

1. Philip and Alexander:

With the accession of Philip II, son of Amyntas II, in 359 BC, Macedonia came under the rule of a man powerful alike in body and in mind, an able general and an astute diplomatist, one, moreover, who started out with a clear perception of the end at which he must aim, the creation of a great national army and a nation-state, and worked consistently and untiringly throughout his reign of 23 years to gain that object. He welded the Macedonian tribes into a single nation, won by force and fraud the important positions of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, Olynthus, Abdera and Maronea, and secured a plentiful supply of gold by founding Philippi on the site of Crenides. Gradually extending his rule over barbarians and Greeks alike, he finally, after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), secured his recognition by the Greeks themselves as captain-general of the Hellenic states and leader of a Greco-Macedonian crusade against Persia. On the eve of this projected eastern expedition, however, he was assassinated by order of his dishonored wife Olympias (336 BC), whose son, Alexander the Great, succeeded to the throne. After securing his hold on Thrace, Illyria and Greece, Alexander turned eastward and, in a series of brilliant campaigns, overthrew the Persian empire. The battle of the Granicus (334 BC) was followed by the submission or subjugation of most of Asia Minor. By the battle of Issus (333), in which Darius himself was defeated, Alexander's way was opened to Phoenicia and Egypt; Darius' second defeat, at Arbela (331), sealed the fate of the Persian power. Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana were taken in turn, and Alexander then pressed eastward through Hyrcania, Aria, Arachosia, Bactria and Sogdiana to India, which he conquered as far as the Hyphasis (Sutlej): thence he returned through Gedrosia, Carmania and Persis to Babylon, to make preparations for the conquest of Arabia. A sketch of his career is given in 1 Macc 1:1-7, where he is spoken of as "Alexander the Macedonian, the son of Philip, who came out of the land of Chittim" (1:1): his invasion of Persia is also referred to in 1 Macc 6:2, where he is described as "the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Greeks," i.e. the first who united in a single empire all the Greek states, except those which lay to the West of the Adriatic. It is the conception of the Macedonian power as the deadly foe of Persia which is responsible for the description of Haman in Additions to Esther 16:10 as a Macedonian, "an alien in truth from the Persian blood," and for the attribution to him of a plot to transfer the Persian empire to the Macedonians (verse 14), and this same thought appears in the Septuagint's rendering of the Hebrew Agagite (`aghaghi) in Est 9:24 as Macedonian (Makedon).

2. Roman Intervention:

Alexander died in June 323 BC, and his empire fell a prey to the rivalries of his chief generals (1 Macc 1:9); after a period of struggle and chaos, three powerful kingdoms were formed, taking their names from Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. Even in Syria, however, Macedonian influences remained strong, and we find Macedonian troops in the service of the Seleucid monarchs (2 Macc 8:20). In 215 King Philip V, son of Demetrius II and successor of Antigonus Doson (229-220 BC), formed an alliance with Hannibal, who had defeated the Roman forces at Lake Trasimene (217) and at Cannae (216), and set about trying to recover Illyria. After some years of desultory and indecisive warfare, peace was concluded in 205, Philip binding himself to abstain from attacking the Roman possessions on the East of the Adriatic. The Second Macedonian War, caused by a combined attack of Antiochus III of Syria and Philip of Macedon on Egypt, broke out in 200 and ended 3 years later in the crushing defeat of Philip's forces by T. Quinctius Flamininus at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly (compare 1 Macc 8:5). By the treaty which followed this battle, Philip surrendered his conquests in Greece, Illyria, Thrace, Asia Minor and the Aegean, gave up his fleet, reduced his army to 5,000 men, and undertook to declare no war and conclude no alliance without Roman consent.

3. Roman Conquest:

In 179 Philip was succeeded by his son Perseus, who at once renewed the Roman alliance, but set to work to consolidate and extend his power. In 172 war again broke out, and after several Roman reverses the consul Lucius Aemilius Paulus decisively defeated the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC (compare 1 Macc 8:5, where Perseus is called "king of Chittim "). The kingship was abolished and Perseus was banished to Italy. The Macedonians were declared free and autonomous; their land was divided into four regions, with their capitals at Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella and Pelagonia respectively, and each of them was governed by its own council; commercium and connubium were forbidden between them and the gold and silver mines were closed. A tribute was to be paid annually to the Roman treasury, amounting to half the land tax hitherto exacted by the Macedonian kings.

4. Macedonia a Roman Province:

But this compromise between freedom and subjection could not be of long duration, and after the revolt of Andriscus, the pseudo-Philip, was quelled (148 BC), Macedonia was constituted a Roman province and enlarged by the addition of parts of Illyria, Epirus, the Ionian islands and Thessaly. Each year a governor was dispatched from Rome with supreme military and judicial powers; the partition fell into abeyance and communication within the province was improved by the construction of the Via Egnatia from Dyrrhachium to Thessalonica, whence it was afterward continued eastward to the Nestus and the Hellespont. In 146 the Acheans, who had declared war on Rome, were crushed by Q. Caecilius Metellus and L. Mummius, Corinth was sacked and destroyed, the Achean league was dissolved, and Greece, under the name of Achea, was made a province and placed under the control of the governor of Macedonia. In 27 BC, when the administration of the provinces was divided between Augustus and the Senate, Macedonia and Achea fell to the share of the latter (Strabo, p. 840; Dio Cassius liii.12) and were governed separately by 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 (Acts 19:21; Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 9:2; 1 Thess 1:7,8).

5. Later History:

Diocletian (284-305 AD) detached from Macedonia Thessaly and the Illyrian coast lands and formed them into two provinces, the latter under the name of Epirus Nova. Toward the end of the 4th century what remained of Macedonia was broken up into two provinces, Macedonia prima and Macedonia secunda or salutaris, and when in 395 the Roman world was divided into the western and eastern empires, Macedonia was included in the latter. During the next few years it was overrun and plundered by the Goths under Alaric, and later, in the latter half of the 6th century, immense numbers of Slavonians settled there. In the 10th century a large part of it was under Bulgarian rule, and afterward colonies of various Asiatic tribes were settled there by the Byzantine emperors. In 1204 it became a Latin kingdom under Boniface, marquis of Monferrat, but 20 years later Theodore, the Greek despot of Epirus, founded a Greek empire of Thessalonica. During the 2nd half of the 14th century the greater part of it was part of the Servian dominions, but in 1430 Thessalonica fell before the Ottoman Turks, and from that time down to the year 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.

III. Paul and Macedonia.

In the narrative of Paul's journeys as given us in Acts 13 through 28 and in the Pauline Epistles, Macedonia plays a prominent part. The apostle's relations with the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea will be found discussed under those several headings; here we will merely recount in outline his visits to the province.

1. Paul's First Visit:

On his 2nd missionary journey Paul came to Troas, and from there sailed with Silas, Timothy and Luke to Neapolis, the nearest Macedonian seaport, in obedience to the vision of a Macedonian (whom Ramsay identifies with Luke: see under the word "Philippi") urging him to cross to Macedonia and preach the gospel there (Acts 16:9). From Neapolis he journeyed inland to Philippi, which is described as "a city of Macedonia, the first of the district" (Acts 16:12). Thence Paul and his two companions (for Luke appears to have remained in Philippi for the next 5 years) traveled along the Ignatian road, passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, to Thessalonica, which, though a "free city," and therefore technically exempt from the jurisdiction of the Roman governor, was practically the provincial capital. Driven thence by the hostility of the Jews, the evangelists preached in Berea, where Silas and Timothy remained for a short time after a renewed outbreak of Jewish animosity had forced Paul to leave Macedonia for the neighboring province of Achaia (Acts 17:14). Although he sent a message to his companions to join him with all speed at Athens (Acts 17:15), yet so great was his anxiety for the welfare of the newly founded Macedonian churches that he sent Timothy back to Thessalonica almost immediately (1 Thess 3:1,2), and perhaps Silas to some other part of Macedonia, nor did they again join him until after he had settled for some time in Corinth (Acts 18:5; 1 Thess 3:6). The rapid extension of the Christian faith in Macedonia at this time may be judged from the phrases used by Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, the earliest of his extant letters, written during this visit to Corinth. He there speaks of the Thessalonian converts as being an example "to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia" (1 Thess 1:7), and he commends their love "toward all the brethren that are in all Macedonia" (1 Thess 4:10). Still more striking are the words, "From you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth" (1 Thess 1:8).

2. Paul's Second Visit:

On his 3rd missionary journey, the apostle paid two further visits to Macedonia. During the course of a long stay at 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 (Acts 19:21,22). Some time later, after the uproar at Ephesus raised by Demetrius and his fellow-silversmiths (Acts 19:23-41), Paul himself set out for Macedonia (Acts 20:1). Of this visit Luke gives us a very summary account, telling us merely that Paul, "when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, .... came into Greece" (Acts 20:2); but from 2 Cor, 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 (2 Cor 1:15,16). But by the time at which he wrote the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, probably near the end of his stay at Ephesus, he had made up his mind to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia, as we have seen that he actually did (1 Cor 16:5,6). From 2 Cor 2:13 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 (2 Cor 7:5,6). The apostle was also cheered by "the grace of God which had been given in the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor 8:1); in the midst of severe persecution, they bore their trials with abounding joy, and their deep poverty did not prevent them begging to be allowed to raise a contribution to send to the Christians in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:2-4). Liberality was, indeed, from the very outset one of the characteristic virtues of the Macedonian churches. The Philippians had sent money to Paul on two occasions during his first visit to Thessalonica (Phil 4:16), and again when he had left Macedonia and was staying at Corinth (2 Cor 11:9; Phil 4:15). On the present occasion, however, the Corinthians seem to have taken the lead and to have prepared their bounty in the previous year, on account of which the apostle boasts of them to the Macedonian Christians (2 Cor 9:2). He suggests that on his approaching visit to Achaia he may be accompanied by some of these Macedonians (2 Cor 9:4), but whether this was actually the case we are not told.

3. Paul's Third Visit:

The 3rd visit of Paul to Macedonia took place some 3 months later and was occasioned by a plot against his life laid by the Jews of Corinth, which led him to alter his plan of sailing from Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, to Syria (2 Cor 1:16; Acts 20:3). He returned to Macedonia accompanied as far as Asia by 3 Macedonian Christians--Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus--and by 4 from Asia Minor. Probably Paul took the familiar route by the Via Egnatia, and reached Philippi immediately before the days of unleavened bread; his companions preceded him to Troas (Acts 20:5), while he himself remained at Philippi until after the Passover (Thursday, April 7, 57 AD, according to Ramsay's chronology), when he sailed from Neapolis together with Luke, and joined his friends in Troas (Acts 20:6).

4. Paul's Later Visits:

Toward the close of his 1st imprisonment at Rome Paul planned a fresh visit to Macedonia as soon as he should be released (Phil 1:26; 2:24), and even before that he intended to send Timothy to visit the Philippian church and doubtless those of Berea and Thessalonica also. Whether Timothy actually went on this mission we cannot say; that Paul himself went back to Macedonia once more we learn from 1 Tim 1:3, and we may infer a 5th visit from the reference to the apostle's stay at Troas, which in all probability belongs to a later occasion (2 Tim 4:13).

IV. The Macedonian Church.

1. Prominence of Women:

Of the churches of Macedonia in general, little need be said here. A striking fact is the prominence in them of women, which is probably due to the higher social position held by women in this province than in Asia Minor (Lightfoot, Philippians4, 55 ff). We find only two references to women in connection with Paul's previous missionary work; the women proselytes of high social standing take a share in driving him from Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:50), and Timothy's mother is mentioned as a Jewess who believed (Acts 16:1). But in Macedonia all is changed. To women the gospel was first preached at Philippi (Acts 16:13); a woman was the first convert and the hostess of the evangelists (Acts 16:14,15); a slave girl was restored to soundness of mind by the apostle (Acts 16:18), and long afterward Paul mentions two women as having "labored with (him) in the gospel" and as endangering the peace of the church by their rivalry (Phil 4:2,3). At Thessalonica a considerable number of women of the first rank appear among the earliest converts (Acts 17:4), while at Berea also the church included from the outset numerous Greek women of high position (Acts 17:12).

2. Marked Characteristics:

The bond uniting Paul and the Macedonian Christians seems to have been a peculiarly close and affectionate one. Their liberality and open-heartedness, their joyousness and patience in trial and persecution, their activity in spreading the Christian faith, their love of the brethren--these are a few of the characteristics which Paul specially commends in them (1 and 2 Thessalonians; Philippians; 2 Cor 8:1-8), while they also seem to have been much freer than the churches of Asia Minor from Judaizing tendencies and from the allurements of "philosophy and vain deceit."

3. Its Members:

We know the names of a few of the early members of the Macedonian churches--Sopater (Acts 20:4) or Sosipater (Rom 16:21: the identification is a probable, though not a certain, one) of Berea; Aristarchus (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Philem 1:24), Jason (Acts 17:5-9; Rom 16:21?) and Secundus (Acts 20:4) of Thessalonica; Clement (Phil 4:3), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25; 4:18), Euodia (Phil 4:2; this, not Euodias (the King James Version), is the true form), Syntyche (same place) , Lydia (Acts 16:14,40; a native of Thyatira), and possibly Luke (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 201 ff) of Philippi. Gaius is also mentioned as a Macedonian in Acts 19:29, but perhaps the reading of a few manuscripts 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 Acts 20:4 as a companion of Paul (Ramsay, op. cit., 280). The later history of the Macedonian churches, together with lists of all their known bishops, will be found in Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, II, 1 ff; III, 1089 ff 1045 f.

LITERATURE.

General: C. Nicolaides, Macedonien, Berlin, 1899; Berard, La Macedoine, Paris, 1897; "Odysseus," Turkey in Europe, London, 1900. Secular History: Hogarth, Philip and Alexander of Macedon, London, 1897, and the histories of the Hellenistic period by Holm, Niese, Droysen and Kaerst. Ethnography and Language: O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Gottingen, 1906. Topography and Antiquities: Heuzey and Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macedoine, Paris, 1876; Cousinery, Voyage dans la Macedoine, Paris, 1831; Clarke, Travels 4, VII, VIII, London, 1818; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, III, London, 1835; Duchesne and Bayet, Memoire sur une mission en Macedoine et au Mont Athos, Paris, 1876; Hahn, Reise von Belgrad nach Saloniki, Vienna, 1861. Coins: Head, Historia Nummorum, 193 f; British Museum Catalogue of Coins: Macedonia, etc., London, 1879. Inscriptions: CIG, numbers 1951-2010; CIL, III, 1 and III, Suppl.; Dimitsas,`H ... Athens, 1896.

M. N. Tod


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 (Mk 6:14 ff). The citadel was held by a Roman garrison until 66 AD, which then evacuated it to escape a siege (BJ, II, xviii, 6). Later by means of a stratagem it was recovered for the Romans by Bassus, circa 72 AD (BJ, VII, vi, 4).

The place is identified with the modern Mkaur, a position of great strength on a prominent height between Wady Zerqa Ma`in and Wady el-Mojib, overlooking the Dead Sea. There are extensive ruins.

W. Ewing


MACHBANNAI

mak'-ba-ni, -ba-na'-i (makhbannay; the King James Version Machbanai): A Gadite who attached himself to David in Ziklag (1 Ch 12:13).


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 (1 Ch 2:49), apparently the name of a place, which may be the same as "Cabbon" (Josh 15:40), probably to be identified with el-Kubeibeh, about 3 miles South of Beit Jibrin.


MACHI

ma'-ki (makhi; Peshitta and some manuscripts of Septuagint read "Machir"): A Gadite, father of Geuel, one of the 12 spies (Nu 13:15).


MACHIR; MACHIRITE

ma'-kir (makhir; Macheir), ma'-kir-it:

(1) The eldest son of Manasseh (Gen 50:23). In Nu 26:29 it is recorded that Machir begat Gilead, but another narrative informs us that the children of Machir "went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were therein. And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Manasseh; and he dwelt therein" (Nu 32:39,40; Josh 17:1,3; compare also 1 Ch 2:21,25; 7:14-17; Dt 3:15; Josh 13:31). In the song of Deborah, Machir is used as equivalent to Manasseh (Jdg 5:14).

(2) Son of Ammiel, dwelling in Lo-debar (2 Sam 9:4,5), a wealthy landowner who protected Mephibosheth (Meribbaal), son of Jonathan, until assured of the friendly intentions of David (compare Ant,VII , ix, 8). Afterward, during the rebellion of Absalom, Machir with others came to David's assistance at Mahanaim, bringing supplies for the king and his men (2 Sam 17:27 ff).

John A. Lees


MACHMAS

mak'-mas.

See MICHMASH .


MACHNADEBAI

mak-nad'-e-bi, mak-na-de'-bi (makhnaddebhay): Son of Bani, one of those who married foreign wives (Ezr 10:40).


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 Gen 23:17. The name is applied to the ground in Gen 23:19; 49:30; 50:13, and to the cave in Gen 23:9; 25:9. In Gen 23:17 we have the phrase "the field of Ephron, which was in (the) Machpelah."

1. Scriptural Data:

The cave belonged to Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, from whom Abraham purchased it for 400 shekels of silver (Gen 23:8-16). It is described as "before," i.e. "to the East of" Mamre (Gen 23:17) which (Gen 23:19) is described as the same as Hebron (see, too, Gen 25:9; 49:30; 50:13). Here were buried Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. (Compare however the curious variant tradition in Acts 7:16, "Shechem" instead of "Hebron.")

2. Tradition Regarding the Site:

Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) speaks of the monuments (mnemeia) of Abraham and his posterity which "are shown to this very time in that small city (i.e. in Hebron); the fabric of which monuments are of the most excellent marble and wrought after the most excellent manner"; and in another place he writes of Isaac being buried by his sons with his wife in Hebron where they had a monument belonging to them from their forefathers (Ant., I, xxii, 1). The references of early Christian writers to the site of the tombs of the patriarchs only very doubtfully apply to the present buildings and may possibly refer to Ramet el-Khalil (see MAMRE ). Thus the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 AD) mentions a square enclosure built of stones of great beauty in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried with their wives. Antonius Martyr (circa 600) and Arculf (698) also mention this monument. Mukaddasi speaks (circa 985) of the strong fortress around the tombs of the patriarchs built of great squared stones, the work of Jinns, i.e. of supernatural beings. From this onward the references are surely to the present site, and it is difficult to believe, if, as good authorities maintain, the great buttressed square wall enclosing the site is work at least as early as Herod, that the earlier references can be to any other site. It is certain that the existing buildings are very largely those which the Crusaders occupied; there are many full references to this place in medieval Moslem writers.

3. The Charam at Hebron:

The Charam at Hebron, which present-day tradition, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, recognizes as built over the cave of Machpelah, is one of the most jealousy guarded sanctuaries in the world. Only on rare occasions and through the exercise of much political pressure have a few honored Christians been allowed to visit the spot. The late King Edward VII in 1862 and the present King George V, in 1882, with certain distinguished scholars in their parties, made visits which have been chiefly important through the writings of their companions--Stanley in 1862 and Wilson and Conder in 1882. One of the latest to be accorded the privilege was C.W. Fairbanks, late vice-president of the United States of America. What such visitors have been permitted to see has not been of any great antiquity nor has it thrown any certain fight on the question of the genuineness of the site.

The space containing the traditional tombs is a great quadrangle 197 ft. in length (Northwest to Southeast) and 111 ft. in breadth (Northeast to Southwest). It is enclosed by a massive wall of great blocks of limestone, very hard and akin to marble. The walls which are between 8 and 9 ft thick are of solid masonry throughout. At the height of 15 ft. from the ground, at indeed the level of the floor within, the wall is set back about 10 inches at intervals, so as to leave pilasters 3 ft. 9 inches wide, with space between each of 7 ft. all round. On the longer sides there are 16 and on the shorter sides 8 such pilasters, and there are also buttresses 9 ft. wide on each face at each angle. This pilastered wall runs up for 25 ft., giving the total average height from the ground of 40 ft. The whole character of the masonry is so similar to the wall of the Jerusalem Charam near the "wailing place" that Conder and Warren considered that it must belong to that period and be Herodian work.

The southern end of the great enclosure is occupied by a church--probably a building entirely of the crusading period--with a nave and two aisles. The rest is a courtyard open to the air. The cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca are within the church; those of Abraham and Sarah occupy octagonal chapels in the double porch before the church doors; those of Jacob and Leah are placed in chambers near the north end of the Charam. The six monuments are placed at equal distances along the length of the enclosure, and it is probable that their positions there have no relation to the sarcophagi which are described as existing in the cave itself.

4. The Cave:

It is over this cave that the chief mystery hangs. It is not known whether it has been entered by any man at present alive, Moslem or otherwise. While the cave was in the hands of the Crusaders, pilgrims and others were allowed to visit this spot. Thus Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, writing in 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--those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, one opposite the other. ... A lamp burns in the cave and upon the sepulchre continually, both night and day." The account reminds us of the condition of many Christian tomb-shrines in Palestine today.

It would appear from the description of modern observers that all entrance to the cave is now closed; the only known approaches are never now opened and can only be reached by breaking up the flags of the flooring. Through one of the openings--which had a stone over it pierced by a circular hole 1 ft. in diameter--near the northern wall of the old church, Conder was able by lowering a lantern to see into a chamber some 15 ft. under the church. He estimated it to be some 12 ft. square; it had plastered walls, and in the wall toward the Southeast there was a door which appeared like the entrance to a rock-cut tomb. On the outside of the Charam wall, close to the steps of the southern entrance gateway is a hole in the lowest course of masonry, which may possibly communicate with the western cave. Into this the Jews of Hebron are accustomed to thrust many written prayers and vows to the patriarchs.

The evidence, historical and archaeological seems to show that the cave occupies only the south end of the great quadrilateral enclosure under part only of the area covered by the church.

See HEBRON .

LITERATURE.

PEF, III., 333-46; PEFS, 1882, 197; 1897, 53; 1912, 145-150; HDB, III., article "Machpelah," by Warren; Stanley, SP and Lectures on the Jewish Church; "Pal under the Moslems," PEF; Pilgrim Text Soc. publications.

E. W. G. Masterman


MACONAH

ma-ko'-na: the King James Version Mekonah (which see).


MACRON

ma'-kron (Makron>): Ptolemy Macron who had been appointed by Ptolemy Philmetor VI governor of Cyprus and deserted to Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (2 Macc 10:12 ff). Under Antiochus he was governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (2 Macc 8:8). In 1 Macc 3:38 and 2 Macc 4:45 he is called "Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes." At first he was a fierce and cruel enemy of the Jews and was one of those chosen by Lysias to destroy Israel and reduce Judas Maccabee (same place). Later he apparently relented toward the Jews (2 Macc 10:12), fell into disfavor with Antiochus Eupator, before whom he was accused by the king's friends, and was so galled by being constantly called traitor that he ended his life with poison (2 Macc 10:13).le 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.

S. Angus


MAD; MADNESS

halal, shagha`; mania):

1. In the Old Testament:

These words, and derivatives from the same roots are used to express various conditions of mental derangement. Though usually translated "mad," or "madness" they are often used for temporary conditions to which one would scarcely apply them today except as common colloquial inaccuracies. The madness coupled with folly in Ecclesiastes is rather the excessive frivolity and dissipation on the part of the idle rich (so in 1:17; 2:2-12; 7:25; 9:3; 10:13). The insensate fury of the wicked against the good is called by this name in Ps 102:8. In Dt 28:28-34 it is used to characterize the state of panic produced by the oppression of tyrannical conquerors, or (as in Zec 12:4) by the judgment of God on sinners. This condition of mind is metaphorically called a drunkenness with the wine of God's wrath (Jer 25:16; 51:7). The same mental condition due to terror-striking idols is called "madness" in Jer 50:38. The madman of Prov 26:18 is a malicious person who carries his frivolous jest to an unreasonable length, for he is responsible for the mischief he causes. The ecstatic condition of one under the inspiration of the Divine or of evil spirits, such as that described by Balaam (Nu 24:3 f), or that which Saul experienced (1 Sam 10:10), is compared to madness; and conversely in the Near East at the present day the insane are supposed to be Divinely inspired and to be peculiarly under the Divine protection. This was the motive which led David, when at the court of Achish, to feign madness (1 Sam 21:13-15). It is only within the last few years that any provision has been made in Palestine for the restraint even of dangerous lunatics, and there are many insane persons wandering at large there.

This association of madness with inspiration is expressed in the name "this mad fellow" given to the prophet who came to anoint Jehu, which did not necessarily convey a disrespectful meaning (2 Ki 9:11). The true prophetic spirit was, however, differentiated from the ravings of the false prophets by Isaiah (44:25), these latter being called mad by Jeremiah (29:26) and Hosea (9:7).

The most interesting case of real insanity recorded in the Old Testament is that of Saul, who, from being a shy, self-conscious young man, became, on his exaltation to the kingship, puffed up with a megalomania, alternating with fits of black depression with homicidal impulses, finally dying by suicide. The cause of his madness is said to have been an evil spirit from God (1 Sam 18:10), and when, under the influence of the ecstatic mood which alternated with his depression, he conducted himself like a lunatic (1 Sam 19:23 f), his mutterings are called "prophesyings." The use of music in his case as a remedy (1 Sam 16:16) may be compared with Elisha's use of the same means to produce the prophetic ecstasy (2 Ki 3:15).

The story of Nebuchadnezzar is another history of a sudden accession of insanity in one puffed up by self-conceit and excessive prosperity. His delusion that he had become as an ox is of the same nature as that of the daughters of Procyus recorded in the Song of Silenus by Virgil (Ecl. vi.48).

2. In the New Testament:

In the New Testament the word "lunatic" (seleniazomenoi) (the King James Version Mt 4:24; 17:15) is correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "epileptic." Undoubtedly many of the demoniacs were persons suffering from insanity. The words "mad" or "madness" occur 8 times, but usually in the sense of paroxysms of passion, excitement, and foolishness. Thus in Acts 26:11 Paul says that before his conversion he was "exceedingly mad" (emmainomenos) against the Christians. In 1 Cor 14:23, those who "speak with tongues" in Christian assemblies are said to appear "mad" to the outsider. Rhoda was called "mad" when she announced that Peter was at the door (Acts 12:15). The madness with which the Jews were filled when our Lord healed the man with the withered hand is called anoia, which is literally senselessness (Lk 6:11), and the madness of Balaam is called paraphronia, "being beside himself" (2 Pet 2:16). Paul is accused by Festus of having become deranged by overstudy (Acts 26:24). It is still the belief among the fellahin that lunatics are people inspired by spirits, good or evil, and it is probable that all persons showing mental derangement would naturally be described as "possessed," so that, without entering into the vexed question of demoniacal possession, any cases of insanity cured by our Lord or the apostles would naturally be classed in the same category.

See also LUNATIC .

Alexander Macalister


MADAI

mad'-a-i, ma'-di (madhay).

See MEDES .


MADIABUN

ma-di'-a-bun (Madiaboun, the King James Version).

See EMADABUN .


MADIAN

ma'-i-an (the King James Version Judith 2:26; Acts 7:29 the King James Version).

See MIDIAN .


MADMANNAH

mad-man'-a (madhmannah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Macharim; Codex Alexandrinus Bedebena (Josh 15:31); Codex Vaticanus Marmena; Codex Alexandrinus Madmena (1 Ch 2:49)): This town lay in the Negeb of Judah and is mentioned with Hormah and Ziklag. It is represented in Josh 19:5, etc., by Beth-marcaboth. Umm Deimneh, 12 miles North of Beersheba, has been proposed on etymological grounds (PEF, III, 392, 399, Sh XXIV).


MADMEN

mad'-men (madhmen; kai pausin pausetai): An unidentified town in Moab against which Jeremiah prophesied (48:2). The play upon the words here suggests a possible error in transcription: gam madhmen tiddomi, "Also, Madmen, thou shalt be silenced." The initial "M" of "Madmen" may have arisen by dittography from the last letter of gam. We should then vocalize it as "Dimon," which of course is "Dibon."


MADMENAH

mad-me'-na (madhmenah; Madebena): A place mentioned only in Isaiah's description of the Assyrian advance upon Jerusalem (Isa 10:31). It is not identified.


MADNESS

mad'-nes.

See MAD ,MADNESS .


MADON

ma'-don (madhon; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Marrhon; Codex Alexandrinus Madon (Josh 11:1); Codex Vaticanus Marmoth; Codex Alexandrinus Maron (Josh 12:19)): A royal city of the Canaanites named along with Hazor of Galilee. El-Medineh, "the city," on the heights West of the Sea of Galilee, with which it might possibly be identified, probably dates only from Moslem times. It seems likely that the common confusion of the Hebrew letter daleth ("d") 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.

W. Ewing


MAELUS

ma-e'-lus (LXX: Codex Alexandrinus Maelos; Codex Vaticanus Milelos): One of those who at Esdras' request put away his foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:26 = "Mijamin" in the parallel Ezr 10:25).


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 Mt 15:39. In the parallel passage, Mk 8:10, its place is taken by Dalmanutha. From these two passages it is reasonable to infer that "the borders of Magadan" and "the parts of Dalmanutha" were contiguous. We may perhaps gather from the narrative that they lay on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. After the feeding of the 4,000, Jesus and His disciples came to these parts. Thence they departed to "the other side" (Mk 8:13), arriving at Bethsaida. This is generally believed to have been Bethsaida Julias, Northeast of the sea, whence He set out on His visit to Caesarea Philippi. In this case we might look for Dalmanutha and Magadan somewhere South of the Plain of Gennesaret, at the foot of the western hills. Stanley (SP, 383) quotes Schwarz to the effect that a cave in the face of these precipitous slopes bears the name of Teliman or Talmanutha. If this is true, it points to a site for Dalmanutha near `Ain el-Fuliyeh. Magadan might then be represented by el-Mejdel, a village at the Southwest corner of the Plain of Gennesaret. It is commonly identified with Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene, but without any evidence. The name suggests that this was the site of an old Hebrew mighdal, "tower" or "fortress." The village with its ruins is now the property of the German Roman Catholics. The land in the plain has been purchased by a colony of Jews, and is once more being brought under cultivation.

The identification with Magdala is made more probable by the frequent interchange of "l" for "n", e.g. Nathan (Hebrew), Nethel (Aramaic).

W. Ewing


MAGBISH

mag'-bish (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 (Ezr 2:30). It does not appear in Nehemiah's list (Neh 7:33). Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), however, has Magebos. The name is probably identical with Magpiash, "one who sealed the covenant" (Neh 10:20).


MAGDALA

mag'-da-la.

See MAGADAN .


MAGDALENE

mag'-da-len, mag-da-le'-ne.

See MARY ,III .


MAGDIEL

mag'-di-el (maghdi'el; Gen 36:43, Septuagint: Codex Alexandrinus Metoduel; 1 Ch 1:54; Codex Alexandrinus Mageduel; Codex Vaticanus Meduel): One of the "dukes" of Edom.


MAGED

ma'-ged.

See MAKED .


MAGI, STAR OF

See STAR OF THE MAGI .


MAGI, THE

ma'-ji, (Magoi (Mt 2:1,7,16, "Wise-men," the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version, "Magi" the Revised Version margin)):

1. Originally a Median Tribe:

Were originally a Median tribe (Herodotus i.101); and in Darius' Inscriptions Magush means only a member of that tribe. It was one of them, Bardiya, who pretended to be Smerdis and raised the rebellion against Cambyses. Rabh Magh in Jer 39:3 does not mean "Chief Magus," but is in Assyrian Rab mugi (apparently "commander"; compare tab mugi sa narkabti, "commander of chariots"), having no connection with "Magus" (unless perhaps Magians were employed as charioteers, Media being famous for its Nisean steeds). The investment of the Magi with priestly functions, possibly under Cyrus (Xen. Cyrop. viii), but probably much later, was perhaps due to the fact that Zoroaster (Zarathustra) belonged, it is said, to that tribe. They guarded the sacred fire, recited hymns at dawn and offered sacrifices of haoma-juice, etc. Herodotus i.132) says they also buried the dead (perhaps temporary burial is meant as in Vendidad, Farg. viii). They were granted extensive estates in Media for their maintenance, and the athravans and other priests mentioned in the Avesta may have been of their number, though only once does the word "Magus" occur in the book (in the compound Moghu-thbish, "Magus-hater," Yasna, lxv.7, Geldner's edition). The Magi even in Herodotus' time had gained a reputation for "magic" articles (compare Acts 13:6,8). They also studied astrology and astronomy (rationes mundani motus et siderum (Amm. Marc., xxiii.6, 32)), partly learned from Babylon.

2. The Magi at Bethlehem:

These latter studies explain why a star was used to lead them to Christ at Bethlehem, when our Lord was less than two years old (Mt 2:16). No reliable tradition deals with the country whence these particular magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that "gold, frankincense and myrrh" abounded in Yemen. But the text says they came not from the South but from the East. Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvencus, Prudentius and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. Sargon's settlement of Israelites in Media (circa 730-728 BC (2 Ki 17:6)) accounts for the large Hebrew element of thought which Darmesteter recognizes in the Avesta (SBE, IV, Intro, chapter vi). Median astronomers would thus know Balaam's prophecy of the star out of Jacob (Nu 24:17). That the Jews expected a star as a sign of the birth of the Messiah is clear from the tractate Zohar of the Gemara and also from the title "Son of the Star" (Bar Kokhebha) given to a pseudo-Messiah

(130-35 AD). Tacitus (Hist. v.13) and Suetonius (Vesp. iv) tell us how widespread in the East at the time of Christ's coming was the expectation that "at that time men starting from Judea would make themselves masters of things" (compare Virgil, Ecl. iv). All this would naturally prepare the Magi to follow the star when it appeared.

See also ASTROLOGY ;ASTRONOMY ;DIVINATION ;MAGIC ;WISE MEN ;ZOROASTRIANISM .

LITERATURE.

Herodotus; Xenophon; Amm. Marcellinus; Strabo; Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften; Geldner, Avesta; Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dict.; BDB; RE.

W. St. Clair Tisdall


MAGIC; MAGICIAN

maj'-ik, ma-jish'-an:

I. DEFINITION

II. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT

1. Magic as Impersonal

2. Margic as Personal

III. MAGIC AND RELIGION

IV. MAGIC IN THE BIBLE

1. Hostility to Magic

2. Potency of Magical Words

3. Influence of Charms

V. MAGICAL TERMS USED IN THE BIBLE

1. Divination

2. Sorcery

3. Enchantment

4. Amulets

5. Incantation

6. Repeated Utterances

7. Impostors

8. Witchcraft

LITERATURE

The word comes from a Greek adjective (magike) with which the noun techne, "art," is understood. The full phrase is "magical art" (The Wisdom of Solomon 17:10). But the Greek word is derived from the magi or Zarathustran (Zoroastrian) priests. Magic is therefore historically the art practiced in Persia by the recognized priests of the country. It is impossible in the present article, owing to exigencies of space, to give a full account of this important subject and of the leading views of it which have been put forth. The main purpose of the following treatment will be to consider the subject from the Biblical standpoint.

I. Definition.

In its modern accepted sense magic may be described as the art of bringing about results beyond man's own power by superhuman agencies. In the wide sense of this definition divination is only a species of magic, i.e. magic used as a means of securing secret knowledge, especially a knowledge of the future. Divination and magic bear a similar relation to prophecy and miracle respectively, the first and third implying special knowledge, the second and fourth special power. But divination has to do generally with omens, and it is better for this and other reasons to notice the two subjects--magic and divination--apart as is done in the present work.

II. Division of the Subject.

1. Magic as Impersonal:

There are two kinds of magic: (1) impersonal; (2) personal. In the first, magic is a species of crude science, for the underlying hypothesis is that there are forces in the world which can be utilized on certain conditions, incantations, magical acts, drugs, etc. The magician in this case connects what on a very slender induction he considers to be causes and effects, mainly on the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc. He may not know much of the causal agency; it is enough for him to know that by performing some act or reciting some formula (see CHARM ) or carrying some object (seeAMULET ) he can secure some desired end. Frazer (Golden Bough(2), I, 61) says: "Magic is a kind of savage logic, an elementary species of reasoning based on similarity, contiguity and contrast." But why does the savage draw conclusions from association of ideas? There must be an implied belief in the uniformly of Nature or in the controlling power of intelligent beings.

2. Magic as Personal:

In personal magic, living, intelligent, spiritual beings are made the real agents which men by incantations, etc., influence and even control. The magical acts may in an advanced stage include sacrifice, the incantations become prayer.

Impersonal magic is regarded by most anthropologists, including E.B. Tylor and J. Frazer, as more primitive than the second and as a lower form of it. This conclusion rests on an assumption that human culture is always progressive, that the movement is uniformly onward and upward. But this law does not always hold. The religion of Israel as taught in the 8th century BC stands on a higher level ethically and intellectually than that taught in the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Eccelesiastes centuries later. Among the ancient Indians, the Rig Veda occupies much loftier ground than the much later Atharva Veda.

III. Magic and Religion.

Personal magic in its higher forms shades off into religion, and very commonly the two exist together. It is the practice to speak of sacrifice and prayer as constituting elements of the ancient and modern religions of India. But it is doubtful whether either of these has the same connotation that it bears in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. J. Frazer (Golden Bough(2), I, 67 ff) says that where the operation of spirits is assumed (and "these cases are exceptional"), magic is "tinged and alloyed with religion." Such an assumption is, he admits, often made and the present writer thinks it is generally made, for even the operation of the laws of association implies it. But Frazer concludes from various considerations that "though magic is .... found to fuse and amalgamate with religion in many ages and in many lands, there are some grounds for thinking that this fusion is not primitive." It is of course personal magic to which religion stands in closest relations. As soon as man comes to see in the beings by whose power marvels are wrought, personalities capable of emotions like himself and susceptible to persuasion, his magical art becomes an intelligent effort to propitiate these superior beings and his incantations become hymns and prayers. In all religions, Jewish, Moslem, Christian or pagan, when the act or prayer as such is held to produce certain results or to secure certain desired boons, we have to do with a species of magic. The word "religion" is inapplicable, unless it includes the idea of personal faith in a God or gods whose favor depends on moral acts and on ritual acts only in so far as they have a voluntary and ethical character. If it be granted that magic, the lower, precedes religion, the higher, this does not necessarily negative the validity of the religious concept. Mature knowledge is preceded by elementary impressions and beliefs which are subjective without objective correspondences. But this higher knowledge is none the less valid for its antecedents. If it can be proved that the Christian or any other religion has become what it is by gradual ascent from animism, magic, etc., its validity is not by this destroyed or even impaired. Religion must be judged according to its own proper evidence. But see II , end.

IV. Magic in the Bible.

1. Hostility to Magic:

The general remarks made on the Bible and divination in DIVINATION, V, have an equal application to the attitude of the Bible toward magic. This attitude is distinctly hostile, as it could not but be in documents professing to inculcate the teaching of the ethical and spiritual religion of Israel (see Dt 18:10 f; 2 Ki 21:6; 2 Ch 33:6, etc.). Yet it is equally clear that the actual power of magic is acknowledged as clearly as its illegitimacy is pointed out. In P's account of the plagues (Ex 7 through 11) it is assumed that the magicians of Egypt had real power to perform superhuman feats. They throw their rods and they become serpents; they turn the waters of the Nile into blood. It is only when they try to produce gnats that they fail, though Aaron had succeeded by Yahweh's power in doing this and thus showed that Yahweh's power was greatest. But that the magicians had power that was real and great is not so much as called in question.

2. Potency of Magical Words:

Among the ancient Semites (Arabs, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) there was a strong belief in the potency of the magical words of blessing and of curse. The mere utterance of such words was regarded as enough to secure their realization. That the narrator of Nu 22 through 24 (Jahwist) ascribed to Balaam magical power is clear from the narrative, else why should Yahweh be represented as transferring Balaam's service to the cause of Israel? We have other Biblical references to the power of the spoken word of blessing in Gen 12:3; Ex 12:32; Jdg 17:2; 2 Sam 21:3, and of curse in Gen 27:29; Jdg 5:23; Job 3:8 (compare the so-called Imprecatory Psalms, and see Century Bible, "Psalms," volumeII , 216). On the prevalence of the belief among the Arabs, see the important work of Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie, Theil I, 23 ff.

3. Influence of Charms:

In Gen 30:14 (Jahwist) we have an example of the belief in the power of plants (here mandrakes) to stir up and strengthen sexual love, and we read in Arabic literature of the very same superstition in connection with what is called Yabruch, almost certainly the same plant. Indeed one of the commonest forms in which magic appears is as a love-charm, and as this kind of magic was often exercised by women, magic and adultery are frequently named together in the Old Testament (see 2 Ki 9:22; Nah 3:4; Mal 3:5; and compare Ex 22:18 (17), where the sorceress (the King James Version "witch") is to be condemned to death). We have an instance of what is called sympathetic magic (for a description of which see Jevons, Introduction to History of Religion, 28 ff, and Frazer, Golden Bough(2), I, 49 ff) in Gen 30:37 ff. Jacob placed before the sheep and goats that came to drink water peeled rods, so that the pregnant ones might bring forth young that were spotted and striped. The teraphim mentioned in Gen 31:19 ff and put away with wizards during the drastic reforms of Josiah (2 Ki 23:24; compare Zec 10:2) were household objects supposed capable of warding off evil of every kind. The Babylonians and Assyrians had a similar custom. We read of an Assyrian magician that he had statues of the gods Lugalgira and Alamu put on each side of the main entrance to his house, and in consequence he felt perfectly impregnable against evil spirits (see Tallquist, Assyrian. Beach, 22).

In Isa 3:2 the qocem ("magician" or "diviner") is named along with the knight warrior, the judge, prophet and elder, among the stays and supports of the nation; no disapproval is expressed or implied with regard to any of them. Yet it is not to be denied that in its essential features pure Yahwism, which enforced personal faith in a pure spiritual being, was radically opposed to all magical beliefs and practices. The fact that the Hebrews stood apart as believers in an ethical and spiritual religion from the Semitic and other peoples by which they were surrounded suggests that they were Divinely guided, for in other respects--art, philosophy, etc.--this same Hebrew nation held a lower place than many contemporary nations.

V. Magical Terms Used in the Bible.

Many terms employed in the Old Testament in reference to divination have also a magical import. See DIVINATION ,VII . For a fuller discussion of Biblical terms connected with both subjects, reference may be made to T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, 44 iff, 78 ff; see also articles "Divination" and "Magic" inEB , by the present writer.

1. Divination:

Here a few brief statements are all that can be attempted. Qecem, usually rendered "divination" (see Nu 23:23), has primarily a magical reference (Fleischer), though both Wellhausen (Reste des arabischen Heidenthums 2, 133, note 5) and W. Robertson Smith (Jour. Phil., XIII, 278) hold that its first use was in connection with divination. The Arabic verb ("to exorcise") and noun ("an oath") have magical meanings. But it must be admitted that the secondary meaning ("divination") has almost driven out the other. See under I, where it is held that at bottom magic and divination are one.

2. Sorcery:

The verb kashaph, the Revised Version (British and American) "to practice sorcery," comes, as Fleischer held, from a root denoting "to have a dark appearance," to look gloomy, to be distressed, then as a suppliant to seek relief by magical means. The corresponding nouns kashshaph and mekashsheph are rendered "sorcerer" in English Versions of the Bible.

3. Enchantment:

Lachash, English Versions of the Bible "enchantment," etc. (see Isa 3:3, nebhon lachash, the Revised Version (British and American) "the skillful enchanter"), is connected etymologically with nachash, "a serpent,"' the "n" and "l" often interchanging in Semitic Lachash is, therefore, as might have been expected from this etymology, used specifically of serpent charming (see Jer 8:17; Eccl 10:11; compare melachesh in Ps 58:5 (6), English Versions of the Bible "charmer").

4. Amulets:

Chebher occurs in the plural only (Isa 47:9,12, English Versions of the Bible, "enchantments"). It comes from a root meaning "to bind," and it denotes probably amulets of some kind carried on the person to ward off evil. It seems therefore to be the Biblical equivalent of the Talmudic qemia`, literally, = "something bound" from qama`, "to bind."

5. Incantation:

Shichar (Isa 47:11) seems to have an etymological connection with the principal Arabic word for "magic" (sichrun), and is explained by the great majority of recent commentators following J.H. Michaelis (Hitzig, Ewald, Dillmann, Whitehouse in Century Bible, etc.) as meaning "to charm away" (by incantations). So also Targum, Rashi, J H and Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmudim, and Midrashic Literature, Michaelis, Eichhorn, etc.

6. Repeated Utterances:

The verb battologeo in Mt 6:7 (= "say not the same thing over and over again") refers to the superstition that the repeated utterance of a word will secure one's wish. In India today it is thought that if an ascetic says in one month the name of Radha, Krishna, or Rom 100,000 times, he cannot fail to obtain what he wants (see 1 Ki 18:26).

See REPETITIONS .

7. Impostors:

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.

8. Witchcraft:

Paul in Gal 5:20 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 article Note the name Simon Magus, which = Simon the magician (Acts 8:9 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 article.

See also underAMULET ;CHARM ;DEMONOLOGY ;WITCHCRAFT .

LITERATURE.

A Very full bibliography of the subject will be found in T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, xi through xvi. See also the literature underDIVINATION and in addition to the literature cited in the course of the foregoing article, note the following: A. Lehmann, Aberglaube und Zauberei2, 1908; A.C. Haddon, Magic and Fetishism, 1906; Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, 1898; Smith, "Witchcraft in the Old Testament," Biblical Soc., 1902, 23-35; W.R. Halliday, Greek Divination; A Study of Its Methods and Principles, London, Macmillan (important) and the valuable article on "Magic" by Northwest Thomas in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and also the relevant articles in the Bible dictionaries.

T. Witton Davies


MAGISTRATE

maj'-is-trat (shephaT, corresponding to shaphaT, "to judge," "to pronounce sentence" (Jdg 18:7)): 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" (Ezr 7:25). ceghanim "rulers" or "nobles," were Babylonian magistrates or prefects of provinces (Jer 51:23,28,57; Ezek 23:6). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jewish magistrates bore the same title (Ezr 9:2; Neh 2:16; 4:14; 13:11). The Greek archon, "magistrate" (Lk 12:58; Tit 3:1 the King James Version), signifies the chief in power (1 Cor 2:6,8) and "ruler" (Acts 4:26; Rom 13:3).

The Messiah is designated as the "prince (archon) of the kings of the earth" (Rev 1:5 the King James Version), and by the same term Moses is designated the judge and leader of the Hebrews (Acts 7:27,35). The wide application of this term is manifest from the fact that it is used of magistrates of any kind, e.g. the high priest (Acts 23:5); civil judges (Lk 12:58; Acts 16:19); ruler of the synagogue (Lk 8:41; Mt 9:18,23; Mk 5:22); persons of standing and authority among the Pharisees and other sects that appear in the Sanhedrin (Lk 14:1; Jn 3:1; Acts 3:17). The term also designates Satan, the prince or chief of the fallen angels (Mt 9:34; Eph 2:2).

In the New Testament we also find strategos, employed to designate the Roman praetors or magistrates of Philippi, a Roman colony (Acts 16:20,22,35,36,38). A collective term for those clothed with power (Eng. "the powers"), exousiai, is found in Lk 12:11 the King James Version; Rom 13:2,3; Tit 3:1. The "higher powers" (Rom 13:1) are all those who are placed in positions of civil authority from the emperor down.

In early Hebrew history, the magisterial office was limited to the hereditary chiefs, but Moses made the judicial office elective. In his time the "heads of families" were 59 in number, and these, together with the 12 princes of the tribes, composed the Sanhedrin or Council of 71. Some of the scribes were entrusted with the business of keeping the genealogies and in this capacity were also regarded as magistrates.

Frank E. Hirsch


MAGNIFICAL

mag-nif'-i-kal (gadhal, in Hiphil "to make great"): Old form retained from Genevan version in 1 Ch 22:5; in the American Standard Revised Version "magnificent."


MAGNIFICAT

mag-nif'-i-kat: The name given to the hymn of Mary in Lk 1:46-55, commencing "My soul doth magnify the Lord." Three old Latin manuscripts substitute the name "Elisabeth" for "Mary" in 1:46, but against this is the authority of all Greek manuscripts and other Latin versions. The hymn, modeled in part on that of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1 ff, is peculiarly suitable to the circumstances of Mary, and plainly could not have been composed after the actual appearance and resurrection of Christ. Its early date is thus manifest.


MAGNIFY

mag'-ni-fi (Hiphil of gadhal; megaluno, "to make great," "extol," "celebrate in praise"): Used especially of exaltation of the name, mercy, and other attributes of God (Gen 19:19; 2 Sam 7:26; Ps 35:27; 40:16; 70:4; Lk 1:46; Acts 10:46); of God's "word" (Ps 138:2); or of Christ (Acts 19:17; Phil 1:20). Men also can be "magnified" (Josh 4:14; 1 Ch 29:25, etc.). In Rom 11:13, "magnify mine office," the word (Greek, doxazo) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "glorify."


MAGOG

ma'-gog (maghogh; Magog): Named among the sons of Japheth (Gen 10:2; 1 Ch 1:5). Ezekiel uses the word as equivalent to "land of Gog" (Ezek 38:2; 39:6). Josephus identifies the Magogites with the Scythians (Ant., I, vi, 1). From a resemblance between the names Gog and Gyges (Gugu), king of Lydia, some have suggested that Magog is Lydia; others, however, urge that Magog is probably only a variant of Gog (Sayce in HDB). In the Apocalypse of John, Gog and Magog represent all the heathen opponents of Messiah (Rev 20:8), and in this sense these names frequently recur in Jewish apocalyptic literature.

John A. Lees


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 (Jer 20:3). The same expression is used (not as a proper name) in several other passages (Ps 31:13; Jer 6:25; 20:10; 46:5; 49:29; Lam 2:22).


MAGPIASH

mag'-pi-ash.

See MAGBISH .


MAGUS, SIMON

ma'-gus.

See SIMON MAGUS ;MAGI ;MAGIC .


MAHALAH

ma-ha'-la, ma'-ha-la (machlah; the Revised Version (British and American) has the correct form MAHLAH): A descendant of Manasseh (1 Ch 7:18).


MAHALALEL

ma-ha'-la-lel (mahalal'el; the King James Version Mahalaleel, ma-ha'la-le-el, ma-hal'a-lel):

(1) Son of Cainan, the grandson of Seth (Gen 5:12 ff; 1 Ch 1:2).

(2) The ancestor of Athaiah, one of the children of Judah who dwelt in Jerusalem after the return from exile (Neh 11:4).


MAHALATH

ma'-ha-lath (machalath):

(1) In Gen 28:9 the name of a wife of Esau, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth, called in 36:3, BASEMATH (which see). The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, throughout Genesis 36 retains "Mahalath." On the other hand, in 26:34 Basemath is said to be "the daughter of Elon the Hittite," probably a confusion with Adah, as given in 36:2, or corruption may exist in the lists otherwise.

(2) One of the 18 wives of Rehoboam, a grand-daughter of David (2 Ch 11:18).

(3) The word is found in the titles of Ps 53 (the Revised Version (British and American) "set to Mahalath") and Ps 88 (the Revised Version (British and American) "set to Mahalath Leannoth," margin "for singing"). Probably some song or tune is meant, though the word is taken by many to denote a musical instrument. Hengstenberg and others interpret it as indicating the subject of the Psalms.

See PSALMS .

James Orr


MAHALI

ma'-ha-li.

See MAHLI .


MAHANAIM

ma-ha-na'-im (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 Gen 32:21 machaneh is evidently a parallel form and should be rendered as a proper name, Mahaneh, i.e. Mahanaim): The city must have been one of great strength. It lay East of the Jordan, and is first mentioned in the history of Jacob. Here he halted after parting from Laban, before the passage of the Jabbok (Gen 31:2), "and the angels of God met him." Possibly it was the site of an ancient sanctuary. It is next noticed in defining the boundaries of tribal territory East of the Jordan. It lay on the border of Gad and Manasseh (Josh 13:26,30). It belonged to the lot of Gad, and was assigned along with Ramoth in Gilead to the Merarite Levites (Josh 21:38; 1 Ch 6:80--the former of these passages affords no justification to Cheyne in saying (EB, under the word) that it is mentioned as a "city of refuge"). The strength of the place doubtless attracted Abner, who fixed here the capital of Ishbosheth's kingdom. Saul's chivalrous rescue of Jabesh-gilead was remembered to the credit of his house in these dark days, and the loyalty of Mahanaim could be reckoned on (2 Sam 2:8, etc.). To this same fortress David fled when endangered by the rebellion of Absalom; and in the "forest" hard by, that prince met his fate (2 Sam 17:24, etc.). It was made the center of one of Solomon's administrative districts, and here Abinadab the son of Iddo was stationed (1 Ki 4:14). There seems to be a reference to Mahanaim in Song 6:13 the Revised Version (British and American). If this is so, here alone it appears with the article. By emending the text Cheyne would read: "What do you see in the Shulammite?A narcissus of the valleys."

It is quite clear from the narrative that Jacob, going to meet his brother, who was advancing from the South, crossed the Jabbok after leaving Mahanaim. It is therefore vain to search for the site of this city South of the Jabbok, and Conder's suggested identification with some place near el-Buqei`a, East of es-Salt], must be given up.

On the North of the Jabbok several positions have been thought of. Merrill (East of the Jordan, 433 ff) argues in favor of Khirbet Saleikhat, a ruined site in the mouth of Wady Saleikhat, on the northern bank, 3 miles East of Jordan, and 4 miles North of Wady `Ajlun. From its height, 300 ft. above the plain, it commands a wide view to the West and South. One running "by the way of the Plain" could be seen a great way off (2 Sam 18:23). This would place the battle in the hills to the South near the Jordan valley. Ahimaaz then preferred to make a detour, thus securing a level road, while the Cushite took the rough track across the heights. Others, among them Buhl (GAP, 257), would place Mahanaim at Michneh, a partly overgrown ruin 9 miles East of Jordan, and 4 miles North of `Ajlun on the north bank of Wady Machneh. This is the only trace of the ancient name yet found in the district. It may be assumed that Mahanaim is to be sought in this neighborhood. Cheyne would locate it at `Ajlun, near which rises the great fortress Kal`ater-Rabad. He supposes that the "wood of Mahanaim" extended as far as Michneh, and that "the name of Mihneh is really an abbreviation of the ancient phrase." Others would identify Mahanaim with Jerash, where, however, there are no remains older than Greek-Roman times.

Objections to either `Ajlun or Michneh are: (1) The reference to this Jordan" in Gen 32:10, which seems to show that the city was near the river. It may indeed be said that the great hollow of the Jordan valley seems close at hand for many miles on either side, but this, perhaps, hardly meets the objection. (2) The word kikkar, used for "Plain" in 2 Sam 18:23, seems always elsewhere to apply to the "circle" of the Jordan. Buhl, who identifies Mahanaim with Michneh, yet cites this verse (G A the Priestly Code (P), 112) as a case in which kikkar applies to the plain of the Jordan. He thus prescribes for Ahimaaz a very long race. Cheyne sees the difficulty. The battle was obviously in the vicinity of Mahanaim, and the nearest way from the "wood" was by the 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.

W. Ewing


MAHANEH-DAN

ma'-ha-ne-dan (machaneh-dhan; parembole Dan): This place is mentioned twice: in Jdg 13:25 (the King James Version "the camp of Dan"), and Jdg 18:12. 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 Jdg 18:12.

W. Ewing


MAHARAI

ma-har'-a-i, ma'-ha-ri (maharay, "impetuous"): One of David's "braves" (2 Sam 23:28; 1 Ch 11:30; 27:13). He was one of the 12 monthly captains of David's administration, and took the 10th month in rotation. He was of the family of Zerah, and dwelt in Netophah in Judah.


MAHATH

ma'-hath (machath, "snatching"; Meth):

(1) One of the Kohathites having charge of the "service of song" in David's time, son of Amasai (1 Ch 6:35). Possibly the same as Ahimoth (1 Ch 6:25). He seems also to be the same as the person named in 2 Ch 29:12 during Hezekiah's time, though it is probable there is some confusion in the narrative. He is there represented as taking part in the new covenant of Hezekiah and the cleansing of the Lord's house.

(2) One of the overseers of the temple under Conaniah and Shimei (2 Ch 31:13); three passages of Scripture give the name, but it is difficult to individuate these because the genealogy identifies the two first named (1 Ch 6:35; 2 Ch 29:12), while the chronology seems to divide them--one in David's day, the other in Hezekiah's. It is not, however, impossible to identify the man of 2 Ch 29:12 with him of 2 Ch 31:13. Possibly the genealogy has been mistakenly repeated in 2 Ch 29:12.

Henry Wallace


MAHAVITE

ma'-ha-vit (machawim, "villagers"): The description given to Eliel, one of David's warrior guard (1 Ch 11:46), perhaps to distinguish him from the Eliel in the next verse. Massoretic Text is very obscure here.


MAHAZIOTH

ma-ha'-iz-oth, ma-ha'-zi-oth (machazi'oth "visions"): One of the 14 sons of Heman the Kohathite in the temple choir. "He was leader of the 23rd course of musicians whose function was to blow the horns" (1 Ch 25:4,30).


MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ

ma'-her-shal'-al-hash'-baz (maher shalal chash baz, "the spoil speedeth; the prey hasteth"): Asymbolic name given to Isaiah's son to signify the sharp destruction of Rezin and Pekah by the Assyrian power (Isa 8:1,3). Compare the Greek idea of Nemesis.


MAHLAH

ma'-la (machlah "sickness" or "song," etymology doubtful):

(1) Eldest of Zelophehad's 5 daughters (Nu 26:33; 27:1). As Zelophehad, grandson of Manasseh, had no sons, the daughters successfully claimed their father's inheritance. The law was altered in their favor on condition that they married into their father's tribe. They agreed and married their cousins (Nu 36:11). The whole chapter should be read and compared with Josh 17:3 ff, because the decision became a precedent.

(2) Another (the King James Version "Mahalah"), same Hebrew name as above, daughter of Hammoleketh, grand-daughter of Manasseh (1 Ch 7:18).

Henry Wallace


MAHLI

ma'-li (machli, "a sick or weak one"'):

(1) A son of Merari (Ex 6:19, the King James Version Mahali; Nu 3:20), grandson of Levi and founder of the Levitical family of MAHLITES (which see).

(2) A son of Mushi, Mahli's brother, bears the same name (1 Ch 6:47; 23:23; 24:30). Compare Ezr 8:18 and 1 Esdras 8:47.


MAHLITES

ma'-lits (machli): Descendants of Mahli, son of Merari (Nu 3:33; 26:58). These Mahlites appear to have followed the example of the daughters of Zelophehad, mutatis mutandis. (See MAHLAH ; had the name become the description of a practice?) They married the daughters of their uncle Eleazar (1 Ch 23:21,22).


MAHLON

ma'-lon (machlon, "invalid"): Ruth's first husband (Ruth 12,5; 4:9,10). In the latter passage is further evidence of the unwillingness to allow a family connection or inheritance to drop (see MAHLAH ;MAHLI ). Note that David's descent and that of his "Greater Son" come through Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4:22).


MAHOL

ma'-hol (machol, "dance"; compare bene-machol, "sons of dance"): The father of the 4 sages reputed next in wisdom to Solomon (1 Ki 4:31). Their names were Ethan, Heman, Chalcol, Darda.


MAHSEIAH

ma-se'-ya, ma-si'-a (machceyah, "Yah a refuge"): Grandfather of Baruch (Jer 32:12) and of Seraiah (Jer 51:59). The name (not to be confused with MAASEIAH (which see) as the King James Version has done even in the above passages) is spelt "Maaseas" (which see) in Baruch 1:1.


MAIANNAS

mi-an'-as (Maiannas; the King James Version Maianeas): One of the Levites who taught the law for Esdras (1 Esdras 9:48) = MAASEIAH (which see) in Neh 8:7.


MAID; MAIDEN

mad, mad'-'n: Used in the King James Version in the sense of a girl or young female; of an unmarried woman or virgin, and of a female servant or handmaid. Thus, it translates several Hebrew words: (1) The more generic word is na`arah, "girl," feminine form of the common na`ar, "boy" (1 Sam 9:11; 2 Ki 5:2,4; Est 2:4,7 ff; Job 41:5; Am 2:7) In several places masculine form na`ar, with feminine form of verb rendered "damsel" (Gen 24:14,16,28,55; 34:3,12; Dt 22:15); compare he pais (Lk 8:51,54); see also paidiske, diminutive (Sirach 41:22; Mk 14:66,69; Lk 12:45; korasion, Septuagint for na`arah, "maid," in Mt 9:24 f with Job 6:12 f; Susanna verses 15,19). (2) The Hebrew `almah, also rendered "maid," refers to a woman of marriageable age (Ex 2:8; Prov 30:19), whether married or not, whether a virgin or not. The same word is translated "virgin" in several places (Gen 24:43 the King James Version; Song 13; 6:8; Isa 7:14). (3) The word bethulah, a common Hebrew word for "virgin," a chaste woman Septuagint parthenos), is frequently rendered "maid" and "maiden" (Ex 22:16; Jdg 19:24; 2 Ch 36:17; Ps 78:63; 148:12; Jer 51:22; Lam 5:11; Ezek 9:6; 44:22; Zec 9:17; compare Dt 22:14,17, having "the marks (tokens) of virginity"); bethulim, rendered "maid." See VIRGIN . (4) Two Hebrew words covering the idea of service, handmaid, handmaiden, and in numerous passages so rendered: (a) 'amah, translated "maid" (Gen 30:3; Ex 2:5; 21:20,26; Lev 25:6; Ezr 2:65; Job 19:15; Nah 2:7); (b) shiphchah, "a family servant," "a handmaid," so rendered in numerous passages ("maid," "maiden," Gen 16:2 ff; 29:24,29; 30:7,9,10,12,18; Isa 24:2; Ps 123:2; Eccl 2:7). In the King James Version they are variously translated "maid," "handmaid," etc. (5) The rather rare word habra, "favorite slave," is rendered "maid" in Judith 10:2,5; 13:9; 16:23; Additions to Esther 15:2,7. (6) doule, "female slave," in the King James Version Judith 12:49 (the Revised Version (British and American) "servant").

Maidservant means simply a female slave in the different positions which such a woman naturally occupies. They were the property of their masters; sometimes held the position of concubines (Gen 31:33); daughters might be sold by their fathers into this condition (Ex 21:7). It is regrettable that no uniform translation was adopted in the King James Version. And in the Revised Version (British and American) compare Tobit 3:7; Judith 10:10; Sirach 41:22.

"Maidservants" replaces "maidens" of the King James Version in Lk 12:45. Compare Job 31:13.

Edward Bagby Pollard


MAIL

mal.

See ARMOR .


MAIMED

mam'-d (charuts; kullos, anaperos): The condition of being mutilated or rendered imperfect as the result of accident, in contrast to congenital malformation. An animal thus affected was declared to be unfit to be offered in sacrifice as a peace offering (Lev 22:22); although under certain conditions a congenitally deformed animal might be accepted as a free-will offering, apparently the offering of a maimed animal was always prohibited (Lev 22:23,24). The use of such animals in sacrifice was one of the charges brought against the Jews of his time by Malachi (1:8-14). The word is also used to denote those who were so mutilated. Among those made whole by our Lord in Galilee were the maimed as well as the halt (Mt 15:30).

Figuratively the casting off of any evil habit or distracting condition which interferes with the spiritual life is called "maiming" (Mt 18:8; Mk 9:43); with this may be taken the lesson in Mt 19:12. In these passages "maimed" (kullos) is used of injuries of the upper limb, and cholos of those affecting the feet, rendering one halt. Hippocrates, however, uses kullos for a deformation of the legs in which the knees are bent so far outward as to render the patient lame; while he applies the term cholos as a generic name for any distortion, and in one place uses it to describe a mutilation of the head (Prorrhetica, 83). The maimed and the halt are among the outcasts who are to be brought into the gospel feast according to the parable (Lk 14:13-21).

Alexander Macalister

MAINSAlL

man'-sal.

See SHIPS AND BOATS .


MAKAZ

ma'-kaz (maqats): One of the cities of the 2nd of the 12 districts or prefectures which supplied victuals for Solomon (1 Ki 4:9). It is associated with Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan, all three probably identical with cities mentioned (Josh 19:41,42) as on the border of Dan. Cheyne (EB, II, col. 2906) suggests that Makaz may bc identical with MEJARGON (which see) in the latter list.


MAKE, MAKER

mak, mak'-er (`asah, nathan, sum; poieo, tithemi, kathistemi):

1. As Used in the Old Testament:

"Make" is a frequently used word, meaning "to create," "construct," "cause," "constitute," etc., and represents different Hebrew words. It is very often in the King James Version (1) the translation of `asah, "to do," "make," etc., usually' in the sense of constructing, effecting. In Gen 1:7,16,25,31, etc., it is used of the creation; of the creation of man in the likeness of God (5:1); of the ark (6:14); of a feast (21:8); of the tabernacle and all the things belonging to it (Ex 25:8, etc.); of idols (Isa 2:8; Jer 2:28, etc.); (2) of nathan (literally, "to give"), chiefly in the sense of constituting, appointing, causing; of a covenant (Gen 9:12; 17:2); of Abraham as the father of many nations, etc. (Gen 17:5,6); of Ishmael as a great nation (Gen 17:20); of Moses as a god to Pharaoh (Ex 7:1); of judges and officers (Dt 16:18); of laws (Lev 26:46, etc.); it has the meaning of "to cause" (Ex 18:16; 23:27; Nu 5:21; 1 Sam 9:22; Ps 106:46); (3) sum, "to set," "put," "lay," has a similar significance: of Abraham's seed (Gen 13:16; 32:12); Joseph lord of all Egypt (Gen 45:9; compare Ex 2:14; Dt 1:13; 10:22); (4) shith, with same meaning, occurs (2 Sam 22:12, "He made darkness pavilions round about him"; 1 Ki 11:34; Ps 18:11; 21:6). Other words are `abhadh (Aramaic); "to make," "do," (Jer 10:11; Dan 3:1); `amadh, "to set up" (2 Ch 11:22; 25:5; Neh 10:32); `atsabh, "to labor," etc. (Job 10:8, the King James Version margin "took pains about me"); banah, "to build up" (Gen 2:22; 1 Ki 22:39); bara', "to prepare," "create" (Nu 16:30; Ps 89:47); yatsagh, "to set up" (Job 17:6; Jer 51:34); yatsar, "to form," "constitute" (Ps 74:17; 104:26); pa`al, "to work," "make" (Ex 15:17; Ps 7:15); words with special meanings are: paqadh, "to give a charge" (1 Ki 11:28; 2 Ki 25:23); karath, "to cut," or "prepare", "to make a convent or league" (Gen 15:18; Ex 24:8; Josh 9:16); qashar, "to bind together," "to make a conspiracy" (2 Ki 12:20; 14:19); parats, "to break forth," "to make a breach" (2 Sam 6:8; 1 Ch 13:11; 15:13); labhen, "to make brick" (Gen 11:3); labhabh (denominative of lebhibhah), "to make cakes" (2 Sam 13:6,8); malakh, "to make a king" (1 Sam 8:22; 12:1); among obsolete and archaic words and phrases may be mentioned, "What makest thou in this place?" (Jdg 18:3), the Revised Version (British and American) "doest"; "made" for "pretend" (2 Sam 13:5,6), the Revised Version (British and American) "feign," "feigned"; "made as if" (Josh 8:15; 9:4), so the Revised Version (British and American); "make for him" (Ezek 17:17), the Revised Version (British and American) "help him"; "make mention" (Jer 4:16); "make mention of" (Gen 40:14; Ps 87:4); "make account" (Ps 144:3); "make an end" (Jdg 3:18; 15:17); "make an end" is also "to bring to nought," "to destroy" (Isa 38:12); "make riddance" (Lev 23:22), the Revised Version (British and American) "wholly reap." In 1 Macc 16:22, we have "to make him away" as translation of apolesai auton, the Revised Version (British and American) "destroy."

Maker is the translation of `asah (Job 4:17; Ps 95:6), of yatsar (Isa 45:9,11; Hab 2:18 twice), of charash, "graver" (Isa 45:16), of pa`al (Job 36:3; Isa 1:31, or po`al).

2. As Used in the New Testament:

In the New Testament the chief word for "make" is poieo, "to do," "make," etc. (Mt 3:3; Jn 2:16; 5:15); of kathistemi, "to set down," "to appoint" (Mt 24:45,47; Rom 5:19); of tithemi, "to set," "lay" (Mt 22:44; Mk 12:36); of diatithemi, "to set or lay throughout" (Acts 3:25; Heb 8:10; 10:16); of didomi, "to give" (2 Thess 3:9; Rev 3:9); of eimi, "to be" (Mk 12:42); of epiteleo "to complete" (Heb 8:5; Gal 3:3, "make perfect," the Revised Version margin "make an end"); of Kataskeuazo, "to prepare thoroughly" (Heb 9:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "prepared"); of ktizo, "to make" "found" (Eph 2:15); of plerophoreo, "to bear "on fully" (2 Tim 4:5, "make full proof of thy ministry," the Revised Version (British and American) "fulfil"); doxazo "to make honorable or glorious" (2 Cor 3:10); of peritrepo (eis manian), "to turn round to raving" (Acts 26:24, "doth make thee mad," the Revised Version (British and American) "is turning thee mad," margin "Greek: turneth thee to madness"); of emporeuomai, "to traffic," "cheat" (2 Pet 2:3 "make merchandise of you"); of eirenopoieo, "to make peace" (Col 1:20); of sumballo, "to throw together" (Lk 14:31; "to make war," the Revised Version (British and American) "goeth to encounter"); "made" is frequently the translation of ginomai, "to become," "begin to be" (Mt 4:3; 9:16; Mk 2:21,27; Jn 1:3 (thrice),10, "The world was made through him," 1:14, "The word was made flesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "became flesh"; 2:9, water "made wine," the Revised Version (British and American) "now become wine," margin "that it had become"; 8:33, "made free"' Rom 1:3, Revised Vesion "born" Gal 3:13, the Revised Version (British and American) "having become a curse for us"; 4:4, the Revised Version (British and American) "born of a woman," etc.; Phil 2:7, "was made in the likeness of men," the Revised Version margin "Greek: becoming in"; 1 Pet 2:7, etc.).

In addition to the changes in the Revised Version (British and American) already noted may be mentioned, for "maketh collops" (Job 15:27) "gathered fat"; for "set us in the way of his steps" (Ps 85:13), "make his footsteps a way to walk in"; for "did more grievously afflict her" (Isa 9:1), "hath made it glorious"; for "shall make him of quick understanding" (Isa 11:3), 'his delight shall be in"; for "make sluices and ponds for fish" (Isa 19:10), "they that work for hire," margin "or make dams "; for "ye that make mention of the Lord" (Isa 62:6), "ye that are Yahweh's remembrancers"; for "he shall confirm the covenant" (Dan 9:27), "he shall make a firm covenant"; for "maketh my way perfect" (2 Sam 22:33), "guideth the perfect in his way" (see margin); for "the desire of a man is his kindness" (Prov 19:22), "that which maketh a man to be desired"; for, "maketh intercession" (Rom 11:2), "pleadeth"; for hath made us accepted" (Eph 1:6), "freely bestowed on us," margin "wherewith he endued us";. for "made himself of no reputation" (Phil 2:7), "emptied himself"; for "spoil you" (Col 2:8), "maketh spoil of you"; for "is the enemy of God" (Jas 4:4), "maketh himself"; for "worketh abomination or (maketh) a lie" (Rev 21:27), "maketh (m" doeth") an abomination and a lie"; we have "become" for "made" (Mt 4:3; Lk 3:5; 4:3), "became" (Rom 10:20; 1 Cor 15:45, bis); "becoming in" for "being made" (Phil 2:7 margin).

W. L. Walker


MAKEBATES

mik'-bats: This is the plural of the word makebate, which means "one who stirs up strife." It occurs only in the King James Version margin of 2 Tim 3:3 and Tit 2:3 as an alternative translation of diaboloi, which the King James Version renders "false accusers," and the Revised Version (British and American) "slanderers."


MAKED

ma'-ked (Maked, Makeb) : A strong city East of the Jordan, not yet identified. It is named along with Bosor, Alema and Casphor (1 Macc 5:26). In 1 Macc 5:36, the King James Version reads "Maged."


MAKER

ma'-ker.

See MAKE .


MAKHELOTH

mak-he'-loth, mak-he'-loth (maqheloth, "assemblies"): A desert camp of the Israelites between Haradah and Tahath (Nu 33:25,26).

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL .


MAKKEDAH

ma-ke'-da (maqqedhah; Makeda): A Canaanite royal city which Joshua captured, utterly destroying the inhabitants, and doing to the king as he had done unto the king of Jericho (Josh 10:28; 12:16). It lay in the Shephelah of Judah (Josh 15:41). It was brought into prominence by the flight thither of the 5 kings of the Amorites who, having united their forces for the destruction of Gibeon, were themselves defeated and pursued by Joshua (chapter 10). Seeing their danger, the men of Gibeon sent to the camp at Gilgal beseeching Joshua to save and help them. That energetic commander marched all night with his full strength, fell upon the allies at Gibeon, slew them with a great slaughter, chased the fugitives down the valley by way of Beth-horon, and smote them unto Azekah and unto Makkedah. It was during this memorable pursuit that in response to Joshua's appeal:

"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon;

And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon,"

the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down a whole day, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies.

The 5 kings sought refuge in the cave at Makkedah, where, by Joshua's orders, they were blocked in with great stones, until the slaughter of the fugitives should be completed. Then the royal prisoners were brought out, and, after the chiefs of Israel had set their feet upon their necks, Joshua slew them and hanged them on five trees until sunset. This is an illustration of the old practice of impaling enemies after death. The bodies were then cast into the cave where they had sought to hide, and great stones were rolled against the entrance.

The flight of the allies was past Beth-boron and Azekah to Makkedah. Azekah is not identified, but it is named with Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah (Josh 15:41). These are probably represented by Qatrah, Dajan and Na`aneh, so that in this district Makkedah may be sought. The officers of the Palestine Exploration Fund agree in suggesting el-Mughdr, "the cave," on the northern bank of Wady es-Surar, about 4 miles from the sand dunes on the shore. There are traces of old quarrying and many rock-cut tombs with loculi. "The village stands on a sort of promontory stretching into the valley .... divided into three plateaus; on the lower of these to the South is the modern village, el-Mughar, built in front of the caves which are cut out of the sandstone" (Warren). In no other place in the neighborhood are caves found. The narrative, however, speaks not of caves, but of "the cave," as of one which was notable. On the other hand the events narrated may have lent distinction to some particular cave among the many. "The cave" would therefore be that associated with the fate of the 5 kings. No certainty is possible.

W. Ewing


MAKTESH, THE

mak'-tesh, (ha-makhtesh, "the mortar"; compare Jdg 15:19, "the mortar," English Versions of the Bible "hollow place that is in Lehi"): A quarter of Jerusalem so named, it is supposed, on account of the configuration of the ground and associated (Zeph 1:10,11) with the "fish gate" and MISHNEH (which see) or "second quarter." Most authorities think it was in the northern part of the city, and many consider that the name was derived from the hollowed-out form of that part of the Tyropeon just N. of the walls, where foreign merchants congregated; others have suggested a hollow farther West, now occupied by the muristan and the three long bazaars.

E. W. G. Masterman


MALACHI

mal'-a-ki:

1. Name of the Prophet

2. The Prophet's Times

3. Contents

4. Style

5. Message

LITERATURE

1. Name of the Prophet:

The last book of the Old Testament. Nothing is known of the person of Malachi. Because his name does not occur elsewhere, some scholars indeed doubt whether "Malachi" is intended to be the personal name of the prophet. But none of the other prophetic books of the Old Testament is anonymous. The form mal'akhi, signifies "my messenger"; it occurs again in 3:1; compare 2:7. But this form of itself would hardly be appropriate as a proper name without some additional syllable such as Yah, whence mal'akhiah, i.e. "messenger of Yahweh." Haggai, in fact, is expressly designated "messenger of Yahweh" (Hag 1:13). Besides, the superscriptions prefixed to the book, in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, warrant the supposition that Malachi's full name ended with the syllable -yah. At the same time the Septuagint translates the last clause of Mal 1:1, "by the hand of his messenger," and the Targum reads, "by the hand of my angel, whose name is called Ezra the scribe." Jerome likewise testifies that the Jews of his day ascribed this last book of prophecy to Ezra (V. Praef. in duodecim Prophetas). But if Ezra's name was originally associated with the book, it would hardly have been dropped by the collectors of the prophetic Canon who, lived only a century or two subsequent to Ezra's time. Certain traditions ascribe the book to Zerubbabel and Nehemiah; others, still, to Malachi, whom they designate as a Levite and a member of the "Great Synagogue." Certain modern scholars, however, on the basis of the similarity of the title (1:1) to Zec 9:1; 12:1, declare it to be anonymous; but this is a rash conclusion without any substantial proof other than supposition. The best explanation is that of Professor G.G. Cameron, who suggests that the termination of the word "Malachi" is adjectival, and equivalent to the Latin angelicus, signifying "one charged with a message or mission" (a missionary). The term would thus be an official title; and the thought would not be unsuitable to one whose message closed the prophetical Canon of the Old Testament, and whose mission in behalf of the church was so sacred in character (1-vol HDB).

2. The Prophet's Times:

Opinions vary as to the prophet's exact date, but nearly all scholars are agreed that Malachi prophesied during the Persian period, and after the reconstruction and dedication of the second temple in 516 BC (compare Mal 1:10; 3:1,10). The prophet speaks of the people's governor" (Hebrew pechah, Mal 1:8), as do Haggai and Nehemiah (Hag 1:1; Neh 5:14; 12:26). The social conditions portrayed are unquestionably those also of the period of the Restoration. More specifically, Malachi probably lived and labored during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Serious abuses had crept into Jewish life; the priests had become lax and degenerate, defective and inferior sacrifices were allowed to be offered upon the temple altar, the people were neglecting their tithes, divorce was common and God's covenant was forgotten and ignored; just such abuses as we know from the Book of Neh were common in his day (compare Neh 3:5; 5:1-13). Yet, it is doubtful whether Malachi preached during Nehemiah's active governorship; for in Mal 1:8 it is implied that gifts might be offered to the "governor," whereas Nehemiah tells us that he declined all such (Neh 5:15,18). On the other hand, the abuses which Malachi attacked correspond so exactly with those which Nehemiah found on his 2nd visit to Jerusalem in 432 BC (Neh 13:7 ff) that it seems reasonably certain that he prophesied shortly before that date, i.e. between 445 and 432 BC. As Dr. J.M.P. Smith says, The Book of Mal fits the situation amid which Nehemiah worked as snugly as a bone fits its socket" (ICC, 7). That the prophet should exhort the people to remember the law of Moses, which was publicly read by Ezra in the year 444 BC, is in perfect agreement with this conclusion, despite the fact that Stade, Cornill and Kautzsch argue for a date prior to the time of Ezra. On the other hand, Nagelsbach, Kohler, Orelli, Reuss and Volck rightly place the book in the period between the two visits of Nehemiah (445-432 BC).

3. Contents:

The book, in the main, is composed of two extended polemics against the priests (Mal 1:6 through 2:9) and the people (Mal 2:10 through 4:3), opening with a clear, sharp statement of the prophet's chief thesis that Yahweh still loves Israel (Mal 1:2-5), and closing with an exhortation to remember the Law of Moses (Mal 4:4-6). After the title or superscription (Mal 1:1) the prophecy falls naturally into seven divisions:

(1) Malachi 1:2-5, in which Malachi shows that Yahweh still loves Israel because their lot stands in such marked contrast to Edom's. They were temporarily disciplined; Edom was forever punished.

(2) Malachi 1:6 through 2:9, a denunciation of the priests, the Levites, who have become neglectful of their sacerdotal office, indifferent to the Law, and unmindful of their covenant relationship to Yahweh.

(3) Malachi 2:10-16, against idolatry and divorce. Some interpret this section metaphorically of Judah as having abandoned the religion of his youth (2:11). But idolatry and divorce were closely related. The people are obviously rebuked for literally putting away their own Jewish wives in order to contract marriage with foreigners (2:15). Such marriages, the prophet declares, are not only a form of idolatry (2:11), but a violation of Yahweh's intention to preserve to Himself a "godly seed" (2:15).

(4) Malachi 2:17 through 3:6, an announcement of coming judgment. Men are beginning to doubt whether there is longer a God of justice (2:17). Malachi replies that the Lord whom the people seek will suddenly come, both to purify the sons of Levi and to purge the land of sinners in general. The nation, however, will not be utterly consumed (3:6).

(5) Malachi 3:7-12, in which the prophet pauses to give another concrete example of the people's sins: they have failed to pay their tithes and other dues. Accordingly, drought, locusts, and famine have ensued. Let these be paid and the nation will again prosper, and their land will become "a delightsome land."

(6) Malachi 3:13 through 4:3, a second section addressed to the doubters of the prophet's age. In 2:17, they had said, "Where is the God of justice?" They now murmur: "It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept his charge?" The wicked and the good alike prosper (3:14,15). But, the prophet replies, Yahweh knows them that are His, and a book of remembrance is being kept; for a day of judgment is coming when the good and the evil will be distinguished; those who work iniquity will be exterminated, while those who do righteously will triumph.

(7) Malachi 4:4-6, a concluding exhortation to obey the Mosaic Law; with a promise that Elijah the prophet will first come to avert, if possible, the threatened judgment by reconciling the hearts of the nation to one another, i.e. to reconcile the ideals of the old to those of the young, and vice versa.

4. Style:

Malachi was content to write prose. His Hebrew is clear and forceful and direct; sometimes almost rhythmical. His figures are as numerous as should be expected in the brief remnants of his sermons which have come down to us, and in every case they are chaste and beautiful (1:6; 3:2,3,17; 4:1-3). His statements are bold and correspondingly effective. The most original feature in his style is the lecture-like method which characterizes his book throughout; more particularly that of question and answer. His style is that of the scribes. It is known as the didactic-dialectic method, consisting first of an assertion or charge, then a fancied objection raised by his hearers, and finally the prophet's refutation of their objection. Eight distinct examples of this peculiarity are to be found in his book, each one containing the same clause in Hebrew, "Yet ye say" (1:2,6,7; 2:14,17; 3:7,8,13). This debating style is especially characteristic of Malachi. Ewald called it "the dialogistic" method. Malachi shows the influence of the schools (compare his use of "also" and "again" in 1:13; 2:13, which is equivalent to our "firstly," "secondly," etc.).

5. Message:

Malachi's message has a permanent value for us as well as an immediate value for his own time. He was an intense patriot, and accordingly his message was clean-cut and severe. His primary aim was to encourage a disheartened people who were still looking for Haggai's and Zechariah's optimistic predictions to be fulfilled. Among the lessons of abiding value are the following: (1) That ritual is an important element in religion, but not as an end in itself. Tithes and offerings are necessary, but only as the expression of sincere moral and deeply spiritual life (Mal 1:11). (2) That a cheap religion avails nothing, and that sacrifices given grudgingly are displeasing to God. Better a temple closed than filled with such worshippers (Mal 1:8-10). (3) That divorce and intermarriage with heathen idolaters thwarts the purpose of God in securing to Himself a peculiar people, whose family life is sacred because it is the nursery of a "godly seed" (Mal 2:15). (4) That there is eternal discipline in the Law. Malachi places the greatest emphasis upon the necessity of keeping the Mosaic Law. The priests, he says, are the custodians and expounders of the Law. At their mouth the people should seek knowledge. "To undervalue the Law is easy; to appraise it is a much harder task" (Welch). With Malachi, no less than with Christ Himself, not one jot or tittle should ever pass away or become obsolete.

LITERATURE.

Driver, "Minor Prophets," II, NewCentury Bible (1906); G. A. Smith, "The Book of the Twelve Prophets," Expositor's Bible (1898); Dods, Post-Exilian Prophets: "Hag," "Zec," "Mal"; "Handbooks for Bible Classes"; J. M. P. Smith, ICC (1912). Among the numerous other commentaries on Mal may be mentioned: Eiselen (1907), Marti (1903), Nowack (1903), Orelli (1908), Wellhausen (1898), Van Hoonacker (1908) and Isopeocul (1908). The various Introductions to the Old Testament should also be consulted, notably those by Driver (1910), Strack (1906), Wildeboer (1903), Gautier (1906), Cornill (1907), Konig (1893); and the articles entitled "Malachi" in the various Dicts. and Bible Encs: e.g. in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902), by C. 0. Torrey; in HDB (1901), by A. O. Welch; in 1-vol HDB (1909), by G. G. Cameron; and RE (1905), by Volck.

George L. Robinson


MALACHY

mal'-a-ki: Another form of the name of the prophet "Malachi" (which see), found in the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version of 2 Esdras 1:40.


MALCAM

mal'-kam (malkam, "their king"; the King James Version Maleham):

(1) A chief of the Benjamites, son of Shaharaim (1 Ch 8:9).

(2) The name of an idol as well as the possessive pronominal form of melekh, "king" (2 Sam 12:30 the Revised Version margin; Jer 49:1,3 Septuagint Melchol); Zeph 1:5). In Am 1:15 it appears to be best translated "their king," as in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). Only a careful examination of the context can determine whether the word is the proper name of the idol (Moloch) or the 3rd personal possessive pronoun for king. The idol is also spelt "Milcom" and "Molech."


MALCHI-SHUA

mal-ki-shoo'-a (malkishua`, "my king saves"): One of the sons of Saul (1 Sam 14:49; 31:2, the King James Version "Melchishua"; 1 Ch 8:33; 9:39). He was slain by the Philistines with his brothers at the battle of Gilboa (1 Ch 10:2; 1 Sam 31:2).


MALCHIAH

mal-ki'-a.

See MALCHIJAH .


MALCHIEL

mal'-ki-el (malki'el, "God is king"): Grandson of Asher (Gen 46:17; Nu 26:45; 1 Ch 7:31).


MALCHIELITES

mal'-ki-el-its (malki'eli): Descendants of Malchiel (Nu 26:45).


MALCHIJAH

mal-ki'-ja (malkiyah, "Yah is king"; Melcheias, with variants):

(1) A Levite, descendant of Gershom, of those whom David set over the "service of sting" in the worship (1 Ch 6:40).

(2) The head of the 5th course of priests (1 Ch 24:9).

(3) One of the laymen who had taken "strange wives" during the exile (Ezr 10:25); the "Melchias" of 1 Esdras 9:26.

(4) Another of the same name (Ezr 10:25; two in same verse). Called "Asibias" in 1 Esdras 9:26.

(5) Another under the same offense, son of Harim (Ezr 10:31). "Melchias" in 1 Esdras 9:32.

(6) One of the "repairers" who helped with the "tower of the furnaces" (Neh 3:11).

(7) Son of Rechab ruler of Beth-haccerem, repairer of the dung gate (Neh 3:14).

(8) A goldsmith who helped in building the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:31).

(9) One of those at Ezra's left hand when he read the law (though possibly one of the above (Neh 8:4)). In 1 Esdras 9:44 "Melchias."

(10) One of the covenant signatories (Neh 10:3).

(11) The father of Pashhur (Neh 11:12; Jer 21:1; 38:1).

(12) A priest, a singer at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 12:42).

(13) (malkiyahu as above with u ending): Son of Ham-melech (or, as 1 Ki 22:26; 2 Ch 28:7 translate it, "king's son"). Jeremiah was cast into his dungeon or pit (Jer 38:6).

The King James Version spells "Malchiah" or "Malchijah" indifferently with "Melchiah" in Jer 21:1; the English Revised Version has "Malchiah" in Jer 21:1; 38:1,6, elsewhere "Malchijah"; the American Standard Revised Version has "Malchijah" throughout.

Henry Wallace


MALCHIRAM

mal-ki'-ram (malkiram, "uplifted king"): Son of Jeconiah, descendant of David (1 Ch 3:18).


MALCHUS

mal'-kus (Malchos, from melekh, i.e. "counselor" or "king"): The name of the servant of the high priest Caiaphas whose right ear was smitten off by Simon Peter at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (compare Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50; Jn 18:10). It is noteworthy that Luke "the physician" alone gives an account of the healing of the wound (Lk 22:51). As Jesus "touched his ear, and healed him," the ear was not entirely severed from the head. The words of Jesus, "Suffer ye thus far," may have been addressed either to the disciples, i.e. "Suffer ye that I thus far show kindness to my captors," or to those about to bind him, i.e. asking a short respite to heal Malchus. They were not addressed directly to Peter, as the Greek form is plural, whereas in Mt 26:52; Jn 18:11, where, immediately after the smiting of Malchus, Jesus does address Peter, the singular form is used; nor do the words of Jesus there refer to the healing but to the action of his disciple. A kinsman of Malchus, also a servant of the high priest, was one of those who put the questions which made Peter deny Jesus (Jn 18:26).

C. M. Kerr


MALE

mal ((1) zakhar, zakhar, zakhur (the root means "to stand out," "to be prominent," here a physiological differentiation of the sex, as neqebhah, "female," which see); (2) 'ish literally, "man"; (3) by circumlocution, only in the books of Samuel and Kings, mashtin beqir; ouron pros toichon, which the Revised Version (British and American) euphemistically renders "man-child" (1 Sam 25:22,34; 1 Ki 14:10)): Gesenius has rightly pointed out that this phrase designates young boys, who do not as yet wear clothes, of whom the above description is accurate, while it does not apply in the case of adults, even in the modern Orient. We know this from the statement of Herodotus ii.35, relating to Egypt, and from Jdg 3:24; 1 Sam 24:3. The Greek translates these words with arsen, arrhen, while 1 Macc 5:28,51 has the adjective arsenikos.

The above words (the phrase mashtin beqir excepted) are used promiscuously of animals and men, e.g. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male ('ish) and his female, of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male (zakhar) and female" (Gen 7:2,3). A careful distinction was made in the use of male and female animals in the rules concerning sacrifice; in some offerings none but males were allowed, in others females were permitted along with the males (Lev 3:6). The same distinction was made in the valuation of the different sexes (Gen 32:14,15; Lev 27:5). Certain priestly portions were permitted to the Levites or the male descendants of Aaron for food, while women were not permitted to partake of the same (Nu 18:10,11).

As a rule Jewish parents (as is now common in the Orient) preferred male children to daughters. This is seen from the desire for male progeny (1 Sam 1:8-18) and from the ransom paid for firstborn sons to Yahweh (Ex 13:12; Lk 2:23). It was reserved to the New Testament to proclaim the equality of the sexes, as it does of races and conditions of men: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

See WOMAN .

Among the prominent sins of oriental peoples, "the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel" was one of the most heinous character, that of sodomy, against which God's people are repeatedly warned. The Greek expression for the devotee of this vice is a compound noun, arsenokoites, literally, "he who lies with man," the abuser of himself with mankind, the sodomite (1 Cor 6:9), while the Hebrew qadhesh, literally means the (male) devotee of lascivious and licentious idolatry (Dt 23:17; 1 Ki 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Ki 23:7; Job 36:14).

H. L. E. Luering


MALEFACTOR

mal-e-fak'-ter (kakopoios, "a bad doer," i.e. "evildoer," "criminal"; kakourgos, "a wrongdoer"): The former occurs in Jn 18:30 the King James Version, the latter, which is the stronger term, in Lk 23:32,39. The former describes the subject as doing or making evil, the latter as creating or originating the bad, and hence, designates the more energetic, aggressive, initiating type of criminality.


MALELEEL

ma-le'-le-el, mal'-e-lel (Maleleel, the King James Version): Greek form of "Mahalalel" (Lk 3:37); the Revised Version (British and American) "Mahalaleel."


MALICE, MALIGNITY

mal'-is, ma-lig'-ni-ti (kakia, poneros, kakoetheia): "Malice," now used in the sense of deliberate ill-will, by its derivation means badness, or wickedness generally, and was so used in Older English. In the Apocrypha it is the translation of kakia, "evil," "badness" (The Wisdom of Solomon 12:10,20; 16:14; 2 Macc 4:50, the Revised Version (British and American) "wickedness"); in Ecclesiasticus 27:30; 28:7, we have "malice" in the more restricted sense as the translation of menis, "confirmed anger." In the New Testament "malice" and "maliciousness" are the translation of kakia (Rom 1:29a; 1 Cor 5:8; 14:20; Col 3:8); malicious is the translation of poneros, "evil" (3 Jn 1:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "wicked"); it also occurs in Additions to Esther 13:4,7, verse 4, "malignant"; The Wisdom of Solomon 1:4, the Revised Version (British and American) that deviseth evil"; 2 Macc 5:23; malignity occurs in Rom 1:29b as the translation of kakoetheia, "evil disposition"; "maliciously," Susanna verses 43,62; 2 Macc 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "having ill will."

W. L. Walker


MALLOS

mal'-os,

See MALLUS .


MALLOTHI

mal'-o-thi, ma-lo'-thi (mallothi, "my discourse"): Son of Heman, a Kohathite singer (1 Ch 6:33; 25:4). The song service in the house of the Lord was apportioned by David and the captains of the host to the 3 families of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (1 Ch 25:1). Their place in the "courses" was, however, settled by "lot" (1 Ch 25:8,9). Mallothi was one of Heman's 17 children--14 sons and 3 daughters (1 Ch 25:5)--and was chief of the 19th course of twelve singers into which the temple choir was divided (1 Ch 25:26).

Henry Wallace


MALLOWS

mal'-oz.

See SALT-WORT .


MALLUCH

mal'-uk (mallukh, "counsellor"):

(1) A Levite of the sons of Merari, ancestor of Ethan the singer (1 Ch 6:44; compare 6:29).

(2) Son of Bani, among those who had foreign wives (Ezr 10:29). He is a descendant of Judah (1 Ch 9:4) and is the Mamuchus of 1 Esdras 9:30.

(3) A descendant of Harim, who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:32).

(4) (5) Two who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10:4,27).

(6) Possibly the same as (4). One of the priests who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:2). Doubtless the Melicu of verse 14's margin.

Henry Wallace


MALLUCHI

mal'-u-ki (mallukhi, "my counselor"): A family of priests that came over with Zerubbabel (Neh 10:4; 12:14). May be the patronymic MALLUCH, (4) (which see).


MALLUS

mal'-us (Mallos; the King James Version, Mallos): A city in Cilicia, the inhabitants of which along with those of Tarsus, revolted from Antiochus Epiphanes in protest against his action in giving them to his concubine, Antiochis (2 Macc 4:30). The ancient name was Marlos. The river Pyramos divides about 10 miles from the sea, one branch flowing to the West, the other to the East of the low range of hills along the coast on which stands Kara-Tash. Mallus stood on a height (Strabo, 675) to the East of the western arm, a short distance from the shore. The site is a little West of Kara-Tash, where inscriptions of Antiocheia and Mallus have been found. Tarsus lay about 35 miles to the Northwest. The two cities were rivals in trade. The position of Mallus with her harbor on the shore gave her really no advantage over Tarsus, with her river navigable to the city walls. The fine wagon road over the mountain by way of the Cilician Gates opened for her easy access to the interior, compared with that furnished for Mallus by the old caravan track to the North by way of Adana. This sufficiently explains the greater prosperity of the former city.

W. Ewing


MALOBATHRON

mal-o-bath'-ron: the Revised Version margin suggests that this translation may be right instead of Bether in the phrase hare bether (Song 2:17). But this spice never grew wild in Palestine, and so could hardly have given its name to a mountain, or mountain range. The name Bether ought therefore to be retained, notwithstanding Wellhausen (Prol. 2, 415). The spice is the leaf of the Cassia lignea tree.


MALTANNEUS

mal-ta-ne'-us (Maltannaios, Codex Vaticanus and Swete; Altannaios, Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche--the "M" being perhaps dropped because of the final "M" in the preceding word; the King James Version Altaneus): One of the sons of Asom who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:33) = "Mattenai" in Ezr 10:33.


MAMAIAS

ma-ma'-yas.

See SAMAIAS , (3).


MAMDAI

mam'-da-i, mam'-di (LXX: Codex Vaticanus Mamdai; Codex Alexandrinus Mandai): One of those who consented to put away their "strange wives" at Esdras' order (1 Esdras 9:34) = the King James Version "Mabdai" = "Benaiah" in Ezr 10:35.


MAMMON

mam'-un (Mamonas): A common Aramaic word (mamon) for riches, used in Mt 6:24 and in Lk 16:9,11,13. In these passages mammon merely means wealth, and is called "unrighteous," because the abuse of riches is more frequent than their right use. In Lk 16:13 there is doubtless personification, but there is no proof that there was in New Testament times a Syrian deity called Mammon. The application of the term in Matthew is apparent and requires no comment. In Lk, however, since the statement, "Make to yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness," follows as a comment on the parable of the Unjust Steward, there is danger of the inference that Jesus approved the dishonest conduct of the steward and advised His disciples to imitate his example. On the contrary, the statement is added more as a corrective against this inference than as an application. `Do not infer,' He says, that honesty in the use of money is a matter of indifference. He that is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much. So if you are not wise in the use of earthly treasure how can you hope to be entrusted with heavenly treasure?' The commendation is in the matter of foresight, not in the method. The steward tried to serve two masters, his lord and his lord's creditors, but the thing could not be done, as the sequel shows. Neither can men serve both God and riches exalted as an object of slavish servitude. Wealth, Jesus teaches, does not really belong to men, but as stewards they may use wealth prudently unto their eternal advantage. Instead of serving God and mammon alike we may serve God by the use of wealth, and thus lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven. Again, the parable is not to be interpreted as teaching that the wrong of dishonest gain may be atoned for by charity. Jesus is not dealing with the question of reparation. The object is to point out how one may best use wealth, tainted or otherwise, with a view to the future.

Russell Benjamin Miller


MAMNITANEMUS

mam-ni-ta-ne'-mus (Mamnitanaimos; Codex Vaticanus Mamtitanaimos; the King James Version, Mamnitanaimus): 1 Esdras 9:34, where it represents the two names Mattaniah and Mattenai in the parallel Ezr 10:37, which probably represent only one person. It must be a corruption of these names. The Aldine gives a still more corrupt form, Mamnimatanaimos.


MAMRE

mam'-re (mamre'; Septuagint Mambre):

(1) In Gen 14:24 Mamre is mentioned as the name of one of Abraham's allies, who in 14:13 is described as the Amorite, brother of Eschcol and Aner.

1. Biblical Data:

The name of the grove of trees is evidently considered as derived from this sheikh or chieftain. The "oaks" ("terebinths") of Mamre where Abram pitched his tent (Gen 14:13; 18:1) are described (Gen 13:18) as "in Hebron." Later on MACHPELAH (which see) is described as "before," i.e. "to the East of Mamre" (Gen 23:17; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13), and Mamre is identified with Hebron itself (Gen 23:19).

2. Traditional Sites:

While Mamre has always been looked for in the vicinity of Hebron, the traditions have varied greatly, determined apparently by the presence of a suitable tree. The one site which has a claim on grounds other than tradition is that called Khirbet and `Ain Nimreh (literally, the "ruin" and "spring" of "the leopard"), about 1/2 mile North-Northwest of modern Hebron. The word Nimreh may be a survival of the ancient Mamre, the name, as often happens, being assimilated by a familiar word. The site is a possible one, but, beyond this, the name has not much to commend it.

Tradition has centered round three different sites at various periods: (1) The modern tradition points to a magnificent oak (Quercus ilex, Arabic Sindian), 1 1/2 miles West-Northwest of the modern city, as the terebinth of Abraham; its trunk has a girth of 32 ft. It is now in a dying condition, but when Robinson visited it (BR, II, 72, 81) it was in fine condition; he mentions a Mohammedan tradition that this was "Abraham's oak." Since then the site had been bought by the Russians, a hospice and church have been erected, and the tradition, though of no antiquity, has become crystallized. (2) The second tradition, which flourished from the 16th century down to the commencement of the 19th century, pointed to the hill of Deir el Arba`in (see HEBRON ) as that of Mamre, relying especially, no doubt, in its inception on the identity of Mamre and Hebron (Gen 23:19). A magnificent terebinth which stood there was pointed out as that of Abraham. The site agrees well with the statement that the cave of Machpelah was "before," i.e. to the East of Mamre (Gen 23:17, etc.). (3) The third and much older tradition, mentioned in several Christian writers, refers to a great terebinth which once stood in an enclosure some 2 miles North of Hebron, near the road to Jerusalem. It is practically certain that the site of this enclosure is the strange Ramet el-Khalil. This is an enclosure some 214 ft. long and 162 ft. wide. The enclosing walls are made of extremely fine and massive masonry and are 6 ft. thick; the stones are very well laid and the jointing is very fine, but the building was evidently never completed. In one corner is a well--Bir el-Khalil--lined with beautiful ashlar masonry, cut to the curve of the circumference.

It is probable that this enclosure surrounded a magnificent terebinth; if so, it was at this spot that before the days of Constantine a great annual fair was held, attended by Jews, Christians and heathen who united a pay honor to the sacred tree, while the well was on the same occasion illuminated, and offerings were made to it. Similar customs survive today at several shrines in Palestine. Constantine suppressed these "superstitions," and built a church in the neighborhood, probably the so-called "Abraham's house," Beit Ibrahim of today. The tree which stood here is apparently that mentioned by Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) as having continued "since the creation of the world." At this enclosure, too, Jewish women and children were sold at auction after the suppression of the revolt of Bar Cochba. Whatever the origin of the veneration paid to this terebinth--now long centuries dead and gone--early Christian tradition associated it with Abraham and located Mamre here. This tradition is mentioned by Jerome (4th century), by Eucherius (6th century), by Areulphus (700 AD) and by Benjamin of Tudela (1163 AD). Among the modern Jews it is looked upon as the site of "Abraham's oak." It is probable that the view that Abraham was connected with this tree is one attached to it much later than its original sanctity; it was originally one of the many "holy trees" of the land venerated by primitive Semitic religions feeling, and the nearness of Hebron caused the Bible story to be attached to it. Judging from the Bible data, it appears to be too far from Hebron and Machpelah to suit the conditions; the site of Mamre must have been nearer to Deir el Arba`in, but it has probably been entirely lost since very early times.

For a very good discussion about Mamre see Mambre by Le R. P. Abel des Freres Precheurs in the Conferences de Saint Etienne, 1909-10 (Paris).

(2) An Amorite chief, owner of the "oaks" mentioned above (Gen 14:13,14).

E. W. G. Masterman


MAMUCHUS

ma-mu'-kus (Mamouchos): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:30); identical with "Malluch" in Ezr 10:29.


MAN

See ANTHROPOLOGY .


MAN OF SIN

(ho anthropos tes hamartias; many ancient authorities read, "man of lawlessness," anomias):

1. The Pauline Description:

The name occurs in Paul's remarkable announcement in 2 Thess 2:3-10 of the manifestation of a colossal anti-Christian power prior to the advent, which some of the Thessalonians had been misled into thinking of as immediately impending (2:2). That "day of the Lord," the apostle declares, will not come till, as he had previously taught them (2:5), there has first been a great apostasy and the revelation of "the man of sin" (or "of lawlessness"; compare 2:8), named also "the son of perdition" (2:3). This "lawless one" (2:8) would exalt himself above all that is called God, or is an object of worship; he would sit in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God (2:4). For the time another power restrained his manifestation; when that was removed, he would be revealed (2:6,7). Then "the mystery of lawlessness," which was already working, would attain its full development (2:7,8). The coming of this "man of sin," in the power of Satan, would be with lying wonders and all deceit of unrighteousness, whereby many would be deceived to their destruction (2:9,10). But only for a season (2:6). Jesus would slay (or consume) him with the breath of His mouth (compare Isa 11:4), and bring him to nought by the manifestation of His coming (2 Thess 2:8).

2. The Varying Interpretations:

Innumerable are theories and speculations to which this Pauline passage has given rise a very full account of these may be seen in the essay on "The Man of Sin" appended to Dr. J. Eadie's posthumous Commentary on Thessalonians, and in Lunemann's Commentary, 222 ff, English translation). (1) There is the view, favored by "moderns," that the passage contains no genuine prediction (Paul "could not know" the future), but represents a speculation of the apostle's own, based on Dan 8:23 ff; 11:36 ff, and on current ideas of Antichrist (see ANTICHRIST ;BELIAL ; compare Bousset, Der Antichrist, 93 ff, etc.). This view will not satisfy those who believe in the reality of Paul's apostleship and inspiration. (2) Some connect the description with Caligula, Nero, or other of the Roman emperors. Caligula, indeed, ordered supplication to be made to himself as the supreme god and wished to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Suet. Calig. xxii.33; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, viii). But this was long before Paul's visit to Thessalonica, and the acts of such a madman could not furnish the basis of a prediction so elaborate and important as the present (compare Lunemann and Bousset). (3) The favorite Protestant interpretation refers the prediction to the papacy, in whom, it is contended, many of the blasphemous features of Paul's representation are unmistakably realized. The "temple of God" is here understood to be the church; the restraining power the Roman empire; "the man of sin" not an individual, but the personification of an institution or system. It is cult, however, to resist the impression that the apostle regards "the mystery of lawlessness" as culminating in an individual--a personal Antichrist--and in any case the representation outstrips everything that can be conceived of as even nominally Christian. (4) There remains the view held by most of the Fathers, and in recent times widely adopted, that "the man of sin" of this passage is an individual in whom, previous to the advent, sin will embody itself in its most lawless and God-denying form. The attempts to identify this individual with historical characters may be set aside; but the idea is not thereby invalidated. The difficulty is that the apostle evidently conceives of the manifestation of the "man of sin" as taking place, certainly not immediately, but at no very remote period--not 2,000 years later--and as connected directly with the final advent of Christ, and the judgment on the wicked (compare 2 Thess 1:7-9), without apparently any reference to a "millennial" period, either before or after.

It seems safest, in view of the difficulties of the passage, to confine one's self to the general idea it embodies, leaving details to be interpreted by the actual fulfillment.

3. The Essential Idea:

There is much support in Scripture--not least in Christ's own teaching (compare Mt 13:30,37-43; 24:11-14; Lk 18:8)--for the belief that before the final triumph of Christ's kingdom there will be a period of great tribulation, of decay of faith, of apostasy, of culmination of both good and evil ("Let both grow together until the harvest," Mt 13:30), with the seeming triumph for the time of the evil over the good. There will be a crisis-time--sharp, severe, and terminated by a decisive interposition of the Son of Man ("the manifestation of his coming," the Revised Version margin "Gr presence"), in what precise form may be left undetermined. Civil law and government--the existing bulwark against anarchy (in Paul's time represented by the Roman power)--will be swept away by the rising tide of evil, and lawlessness will prevail. It may be that impiety will concentrate itself, as the passage says, in some individual head; or this may belong to the form of the apostle's apprehension in a case where "times and seasons" were not yet fully revealed: an apprehension to be enlarged by subsequent revelations (see REVELATION OF JOHN ), or left to be corrected by the actual course of God's providence. The kernel of the prediction is not, any more than in the Old Testament prophecies, dependent on its literal realization in every detail. Neither does the final manifestation of evil exclude partial and anticipatory realizations, embodying many of the features of the prophecy.

See THESSALONIANS ,THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ,III .

James Orr


MAN OF WAR

See WAR .


MAN, NATURAL

nat'-u-ral, nach'-u-ral (psuchikos anthropos): Man as he is by nature, contrasted with man as he becomes by grace. This phrase is exclusively Pauline.

I. Biblical Meaning.

The classical passage in which it occurs is 1 Cor 2:14 King James Version: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." In his anthropology Paul uses four groups of descriptive adjectives in contrasted pairs: (1) the old man and the new man (Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9; Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:10); (2) the outward man and the inward man (2 Cor 4:16; Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16); (3) the carnal man and the spiritual man (Rom 8:1-14; 1 Cor 3:1,3,4); (4) the natural man and the spiritual man (2 Cor 2:14; 3:3,4; Eph 2:3; 1 Cor 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; 15:46; Gal 6:1). A study of these passages will show that the adjectives "old," "outward," "carnal," and "natural" describe man, from different points of view, prior to his conversion; while the adjectives "new," "inward" and "spiritual" describe him, from different points of view, after his conversion. To elucidate the meaning, the expositor must respect these antitheses and let the contrasted words throw light and meaning upon each other.

1. The Old Man:

The "old man" is the "natural man" considered chronologically--prior to that operation of the Holy Spirit by which he is renovated into the "new man."

The old house is the house as it was before it was remodeled; an old garment is the garment as it was before it was re-fashioned; and the "old man" is man as he was before he was regenerated and sanctified by the grace of the Spirit. "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin" (Rom 6:6 the King James Version). Here the "old man" is called the "body of sin," as the physical organism is called the body of the soul or spirit, and is to be "crucified" and "destroyed," in order that man may no longer be the "servant of sin." "Put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt. .... Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4:22,24 the King James Version). Here the "old man" is said to be "corrupt," and we are called upon to "put it off." The figure is that of putting off old clothes which are unclean, and putting on those garments which have come from the wash clean and snowy white. We have the same idea, in different language and with a slightly different imagery, in Col 8:9,10.

When Paul calls the "natural man" the "old man," and describes it as the "body of sin" which is "corrupt" in its nature and "deeds," and tells us that it must be "crucified" and "destroyed" and "put off" in order that we may "not serve sin," but may have "righteousness" and "true holiness" and "knowledge" and the "image" of God, we get some conception of the moral meaning which he is endeavoring to convey by these contrasts (Gal 5:19-24). He has reference to that sinful nature in man which is as old as the individual, as old as the race of which he is a member, which must be graciously renovated according to that gospel which he preached to Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, Romans and all the world.

See OLD MAN ;MAN , I, 3.

2. The Outward Man:

The apostle also establishes a contrast between "the inward man" and "the outward man." "Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor 4:16). Now what sort of man is the "outward man" as contrasted with the "inward man"? In Greek, the exo-anthropos is set over against the eso-anthropos.

See OUTWARD MAN .

"The contrast here drawn between the `outward' and the `inward man,' though illustrated by the contrast in Rom 7:22 between the `law in the members' and `the inner man,' and in Eph 4:22; Col 3:9 between `the old man' and `the new man' is not precisely the same. Those contrasts relate to the difference between the sensual and the moral nature, `the flesh' and `the spirit'; this to the difference between the material and the spiritual nature" (Stanley, in the place cited.).

"The outward man" is the body, and "the inward man" is the soul, or immaterial principle in the human make-up. As the body is wasted by the afflictions of life, the soul is renewed; what is death to the body is life to the soul; as afflictions depotentiate man's physical organism, they impotentiate man's spiritual principle. That is, the afflictions of life, culminating in death itself, have diametrically opposite effects upon the body and upon the soul. They kill the one; they quicken the other.

"The inward man" is the whole human nature as renewed and indwelt and dominated by the Spirit of God as interpenetrated by the spirit of grace. As the one is broken down by the adverse dispensations of life, the other is upbuilt by the sanctifying discipline of the Spirit.

3. The Carnal Man:

There is another Pauline antithesis which it is necessary for us to interpret in order to understand what he means by the "natural man." It is the distinction which he draws between the "carnal mind" and the "spiritual mind." The critical reference is Rom 8:1-14. In this place the "carnal mind" is identified with the "law of death," and the "spiritual mind" is identified with the "law of the Spirit." These two "laws" are two principles and codes: the one makes man to be at "enmity against God" and leads to "death"; the other makes him the friend of God, and conducts to "life and peace." The word "carnal" connotes all that is fallen and sinful and unregenerate in man's nature. In its gross sense the "carnal" signifies that which is contrary to nature, or nature expressing itself in low and bestial forms of sin.

4. The Natural Man:

The "natural man" is the "old man," the "outward man," the "carnal man"--man as he is by nature, as he is firstborn, contra-distinguished to man as he is changed by the Spirit, as he is second-born or regenerated. There. is an "old" life, an "outward" life, a "carnal" life, a "natural" life, as contrasted with the "new" life, the "inward" life, the "spiritual" life, the "gracious" life. The "natural man" is a bold and vivid personification of that depraved nature which we inherit from Adam fallen, the source and seat of all actual and personal transgressions.

II. Theological Meaning.

We know what we mean by the nature of the lion, by the nature of the lamb. We are using perfectly comprehensible language when we speak of the lion as naturally fierce, and of the lamb when we say he is naturally gentle. We have reference to the dominant dispositions of these animals, that resultant of their qualities which defines their character and spontaneity. So we are perfectly plain when we say that man is naturally sinful. We are but saying that sinfulness is to man what fierceness is to the lion, what gentleness is to the lamb. The "natural man" is a figure of speech for that sinful human nature, common to us all. It is equivalent to the theological phrases: the "sinful inclination," the "evil disposition," the "apostate will," "original sin," "native depravity." It manifests itself in the understanding as blindness, in the heart as hardness, in the will as obstinacy.

See MAN .

Robert Alexander Webb


MAN, OLD

See MAN ;OLD MAN .


MAN, OUTWARD

See MAN ,NATURAL ;OUTWARD MAN .


MAN, SON OF

See SON OF MAN .


MAN-CHILD

man'-child (American Standard Revised Version; "man child," the English Revised Version; not in the King James Version; mashtin beqir): The expression is used with the meaning of "male," but is found only in the description of the extermination of a whole family, where it is employed to express every male descendant of any age. It occurs in 1 Sam 25:22,34; 1 Ki 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Ki 9:8.


MAN; NEW

(neos anthropos or kainos anthropos): Generally described, the "new man" is man as he becomes under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, contrasted with man as he is by nature. The phrase has (1) its Biblical, and (2) its theological, meanings.

I. Biblical Meaning.

There are four Biblical contrasts which must be considered as opposites: (1) the "old man" (palaios anthropos) and the "new man" (neos anthropos or kainos anthropos); (2) the "outward man" (exoanthropos) and the "inward man" (esoanthropos); (3) the "carnal man" (sarkikos anthropos) and the "spiritual man" (pneumatikos anthropos); (4) the "natural man" (psuchikos anthropos) and the "spiritual man" (pneunatikos anthropos). These are not four different sorts of men, but four different sorts of man. Take up these antitheses in their reverse order, so as to arrive at some clear and impressive conception of what the Biblical writer means by the "new man."

1. The Spiritual Man:

The "spiritual man" is a designation given in opposition to the "carnal man" and to the "natural man" (Rom 8:1-14; 1 Cor 2:15; 3:1,3,4; 2:14; 3:11; 14:37; 15:46; Gal 6:1; Eph 2:3). All three of these terms are personifications of human nature. The "carnal man" is human nature viewed as ruled and dominated by sensual appetites and fleshly desires--as energized by those impulses which have close association with the bodily affections. The "natural man" is human nature ruled and dominated by unsanctified reason--those higher powers of the soul not yet influenced by Divine grace. The "spiritual man" is this same human nature after it has been seized upon and interpenetrated and determined by the Holy Spirit. The word "spiritual" is sometimes used in a poetic and idealistic sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of beauty; sometimes in a metaphysical sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of the soul; but in its prevalent Biblical and evangelical sense it is an adjective with the Holy Spirit as its noun-form. The spiritual life is that life of which the Holy Spirit is the author and preserver; and the "spiritual man" is that nature or character in man which the Holy Spirit originates, preserves, determines, disciplines, sanctifies and glorifies.

2. The Inward Man:

The "inward man" is a designation of human nature viewed as internally and centrally regenerated, as contrasted with the "outward man" (2 Cor 4:16; Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16). See MAN ,OUTWARD . This phrase indicates the whole human nature conceived as affected from within--in the secret, inside, and true springs of activity--by the Holy Spirit of God. Such a change--regeneration--is not superficial, but a change in the inner central self; not a mere external reformation, but an internal transformation. Grace operates not from the circumference toward the center, but from the center toward the circumference, of life. The product is a man renovated in his "inward parts," changed in the dynamic center of his heart.

3. The New Man:

The "new man" is an appellation yielded by the contrasted idea of the "old man" (Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9; Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:10). The "old" is "corrupt" and expresses itself in evil "deeds"; the "new" possesses the "image of God" and is marked by "knowledge," "righteousness," and "holiness." There are two Greek words for "new"--neos and kainos. The former means new in the sense of young, as the new-born child is a young thing; the latter means "new" in the sense of renovated, as when the house which has been rebuilt is called a new house. The converted man is "new" (neo-anthropos) in the sense that he is a "babe in Christ," and "new" (kaino-anthropos) in the sense that his moral nature is renovated and built over again.

In the New Testament there are 5 different verbs used to express the action put forth in making the "old man" a "new man." (1) In Eph 2:10 and 4:24, he is said to be "created" (ktizo), and in 2 Cor 5:17 the product is called a "new creature" (kaine kisis), a renovated creature. Out of the "old man" the Holy Spirit has created the "new man." (2) In 1 Pet 1:3,13 and elsewhere, he is said to be "begotten again" (anagennao), and the product is a "babe in Christ" (1 Cor 3:1). The "old man" thus becomes the "new man" by a spiritual begetting: his paternity is assigned to the Holy Ghost. (3) In Eph 2:5 and elsewhere, he is said to be `quickened' (zoopoieo), and the product is represented as a creature which has been made "alive from the dead" (Rom 6:13). The "old man," being `dead in trespasses and sins' (Eph 2:1), is brought forth from his sin-grave by a spiritual resurrection. (4) In Eph 4:23 he is represented as being made "young" (ananeoo), and the product is a child of the Spirit at the commencement of his religious experience. The "old man," dating his history back to the fall in Eden, has become, through the Spirit, a young man in Christ Jesus. (5) In 2 Cor 4:16 and in Rom 12:2, he is said to be `renovated' (anakainoo). The "old man" is renovated into the "new man." Sinful human nature is taken by the Spirit and morally recast.

II. Theological Meaning.

The "new man" is the converted, regenerated man. The phrase has its significance for the great theological doctrine of regeneration as it expands into the broad work of sanctification. Is the sinner dead? Regeneration is a new life. Is holiness non-existent in him? Regeneration is a new creation. Is he born in sin? Regeneration is a new birth. Is he determined by his fallen, depraved nature? Regeneration is a spiritual determination. Is he the subject of carnal appetites? Regeneration is a holy appetency. Is he thought of as the old sinful man? Regeneration is a new man. Is the sinful mind blind? Regeneration is a new understanding. Is the heart stony? Regeneration is a heart of flesh. Is the conscience seared? Regeneration is a good conscience. Is the will impotent? Regeneration is a new impotentiation. The regenerated man is a man with a new governing disposition--a "new man," an "inward man," a "spiritual man."

(1) The "New Man"--the Regenerate Man--Is Not a Theological Transubstantiation:

A being whose substance has been supernaturally converted into some other sort of substance.

(2) He Is Not a Scientific Transmutation:

A species of one kind which has been naturally evolved into a species of another kind.

(3) He Is Not a Metaphysical Reconstruction:

Being with a new mental equipment.

(4) He Is an Evangelical Convert:

An "old man" with a new regnant moral disposition, an "outward man" with a new inward fons et origo of moral life; a "natural man" with a new renovated spiritual heart.

See MAN ,NATURAL ;REGENERATION .

Robert Alexander Webb


MANAEN

man'-a-en (Manaen, Greek form of Hebrew name "Menahem," meaning "consoler"): Manaen is mentioned, with Barnabas, Saul and others, in Acts 13:1, as one of the "prophets and teachers" in the recently rounded Gentile church at Antioch, at the time when Barnabas and Saul were "separated" by Divine call for their missionary service. He is further described as "the foster-brother (suntrophos) of Herod the tetrarch" (i.e. Herod Antipas (see HEROD )). He was probably brought up and educated with this Herod and his brother Archelaus. An earlier glimpse of Christian influence in Herod's court is afforded by Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuzas, among the holy women who ministered to Jesus (Lk 8:3). Manaen may have been related to the older Manaen, the Essene, who, Josephus tells us, foretold the greatness of Herod the Great, and was afterward treated by Herod as his friend (Ant., XV, x, 5). His position in the church at Antioch was evidently an influential one, whether he himself ranked among the "prophets," or perhaps only among the "teachers."

James Orr


MANAHATH

man'-a-hath (manachath; Machanathi):

(1) A place to which certain Benjamites, victims, apparently, of intra-tribal jealousy, were carried captive (1 Ch 8:6). Of this town the Manahathites were probably natives. It is possibly denoted by Manocho which Septuagint adds to the list of towns in Judah (Josh 15:59). This place is named along with Bether (Bittir). The name seems to be preserved in that of Malicha, a large village not far from Bittir, Southwest of Jerusalem. The change of "l" to "n", and vice versa, is not uncommon. The same place may be intended by Menuhah (Jdg 20:43 the Revised Version margin), where the King James Version reads "with ease," and the Revised Version (British and American) "at their resting-place."

(2) One of the sons of Shobal, the son of Seir the Horite (Gen 36:23; 1 Ch 1:40), the "name-father" of one of the ancient tribes in Mt. Seir, afterward subdued and incorporated in Edom.

W. Ewing


MANAHATHITES

man'-a-hath-its (menuchoth (1 Ch 2:52), manachti (1 Ch 2:54); Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Monaio; Codex Alexandrinus Ammanith (1 Ch 2:52); Codex Vaticanus Malathei; Codex Alexandrinus Manath, (1 Ch 2:54); the King James Version, Manahethites): These men were the inhabitants of Manahath. They were descendants of Caleb, one-half being the progeny of Shobal, and the other of Salma. In 1 Ch 2:52 the Revised Version (British and American) transliterates "Menuhoth," but Manahathites is preferable.


MANAHETHITES

man-a-he'-thits, ma-na'-heth-its.

See MANAHATHITES .


MANASSEAS

man-a-se'-as (Manasseas): One of those who had married "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:31); "Manasseh" of Ezr 10:30.


MANASSEH (1)

ma-nas'-e (menashsheh, "causing to forget"; compare Gen 41:51; Man(n)asse):

(1) The firstborn of Joseph by Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On. See next article.

(2) The tribe named from Manasseh, half of which, with Gad and Reuben, occupied the East of Jordan (Nu 27:1, etc.). See next article.

(3) The "Manasseh" of Jdg 18:30,31 the King James Version is really an intentional mistake for the name Moses. A small nun ("n"), a Hebrew letter, has been inserted over and between the first and second Hebrew letters in the word Moses, thus maNesheh for mosheh. The reason for this is that the individual in question is mentioned as priest of a brazen image at Dan. His proper name was Moses. It was felt to be a disgrace that such a one bearing that honored name should keep it intact. The insertion of the nun hides the disgrace and, moreover, gives to the person a name already too familiar with idolatrous practices; for King Manasseh's 55 years of sovereignty were thus disgraced.

(4) King of Judah. See separate article.

(5) Son of PAHATH-MOAB (which see), who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:30). Manaseas in 1 Esdras 9:31.

(6) The Manasses of 1 Esdras 9:33. A layman of the family of Hashum, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra's order (Ezr 10:33).

In the Revised Version (British and American) of Mt 1:10 and Rev 7:6 the spelling "Manasseh" is given for the King James Version "Manasses." The latter is the spelling of the husband of Judith (Judith 8:2,7; 10:3; 16:22,23,24); of a person named in the last words of Tobit and otherwise unknown (Tobit 14:10), and also the name given to a remarkable prayer probably referred to in 2 Ch 33:18, which Manasseh (4) is said to have uttered at the end of his long, unsatisfactory life. See MANASSES ,THE PRAYER OF . In Jdg 12:4, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Manasseh" for the King James Version "Manassites."

Henry Wallace


MANASSEH (2)

1. Son of Joseph:

Following the Biblical account of Manasseh (patriarch, tribe, and territory) we find that he was the eider of Joseph's two sons by Asenath, the daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On (Gen 41:51). The birth of a son marked the climax of Joseph's happiness after the long bitterness of his experience. In the joy of the moment, the dark years past could be forgotten; therefore he called the name of the firstborn Manasseh ("causing to forget"), for, said he, God hath made me to forget all my toil. When Jacob was near his end, Joseph brought his two sons to his father who blessed them. Himself the younger son who had received the blessing of the firstborn, Jacob preferred Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, to Manasseh his elder brother, thus indicating the relative positions of their descendants (Gen 48). Before Joseph died he saw the children of Machir the son of Manasseh (Gen 50:23). Machir was born to Manasseh by his concubine, an Aramitess (1 Ch 7:14). Whether he married Maacah before leaving for Egypt is not said. She was the sister of Huppim and Shuppim. Of Manasseh's personal life no details are recorded in Scripture. Acccording to Jewish tradition he became steward of his father's house, and acted as interpreter between Joseph and his brethren.

2. The Tribes in the Wilderness and Portion in Palestine:

At the beginning of the desert march the number of Manasseh's men of war is given at 32,200 (Nu 1:34 f). At the 2nd census they had increased to 52,700 (Nu 26:34). Their position in the wilderness was with the tribe of Benjamin, by the standard of the tribe of Ephraim, on the West of the tabernacle. According to Targum Pseudojon, the standard was the figure of a boy, with the inscription "The cloud of Yahweh rested on them until they went forth out of the camp." At Sinai the prince of the tribe was Gamaliel, son of Pedahzur (Nu 2:20). The tribe was represented among the spies by Gaddi, son of Susi (Nu 13:11, where the name "tribe of Joseph" seems to be used as an alternative). At the census in the plains of Moab, Manasseh is named before Ephraim, and appears as much the stronger tribe (Nu 26:28 ff). The main military exploits in the conquest of Eastern Palestine were performed by Manassites. Machir, son of Manasseh, conquered the Amorites and Gilead (Nu 32:39). Jair, son of Manasseh, took all the region of Argob, containing three score cities; these he called by his own name, "Havvoth-jair" (Nu 32:41; Dt 3:4,14). Nobah captured Kenath and the villages thereof (Nu 32:42; Josh 17:1,5). Land for half the tribe was thus provided, their territory stretching from the northern boundary of Gad to an undetermined frontier in the North, marching with Geshur and Maacah on the West, and with the desert on the East. The warriors of this half-tribe passed over with those of Reuben and Gad before the host of Israel, and took their share in the conquest of Western Palestine (Josh 22). They helped to raise the great altar in the Jordan valley, which so nearly led to disastrous consequences (Josh 22:10 ff). Golan, the city of refuge, lay within their territory.

The possession of Ephraim and Manasseh West of the Jordan appears to have been undivided at first (Josh 17:16 ff). The portion which ultimately fell to Manasseh marched with Ephraim on the South, with Asher and Issachar on the North, running out to the sea on the West, and falling into the Jordan valley on the East (Josh 17:7 ff). The long dwindling slopes to westward and the fiat reaches of the plain included much excellent soil. Within the territory of Issachar and Asher, Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, with their villages, were assigned to Manasseh. Perhaps the men of the West lacked the energy and enterprise of their eastern brethren. They failed, in any case, to expel the Canaanites from these cities, and for long this grim chain of fortresses seemed to mock the strength of Israel (Josh 17:11 ff)

Ten cities West of the Jordan, in the portion of Manasseh, were given to the Levites, and 13 in the eastern portion (Josh 21:5,6).

Manasseh took part in the glorious conflict with the host of Sisera (Jdg 5:14). Two famous judges, Gideon and Jephthah, belonged to this tribe. The men of the half-tribe East of Jordan were noted for skill and valor as warriors (1 Ch 5:18,23 f). Some men of Manasseh had joined David before the battle of Gilboa (1 Ch 12:19).

3. Its Place in Later History:

Others, all mighty men of valor, and captains in the host, fell to him on the way to Ziklag, and helped him against the band of rovers (1 Ch 12:20 ff). From the half-tribe West of the Jordan 18,000 men, expressed by name, came to David at Hebron to make him king (1 Ch 12:31); while those who came from the East numbered, along with the men of Reuben and Gad, 120,000 (1 Ch 12:37). David organized the eastern tribes under 2,700 overseers for every matter pertaining to God and for the affairs of the king (1 Ch 26:32). The rulers of Manasseh were, in the West, Joel, son of Pedaiah, and in the East, Iddo, son of Zechariah (1 Ch 27:20,21). Divers of Manasseh humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem at the invitation of Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover (2 Ch 30:11). Although not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, they ate the Passover. Pardon was successfully sought for them by the king, because they set their hearts to seek God (2 Ch 30:18 ff).

Of the eastern half-tribe it is said that they went a-whoring after the gods of the land, and in consequence they were overwhelmed and expatriated by Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria (1 Ch 5:25 f). Reference to the idolatries of the western half-tribe are also found in 2 Ch 31:1; 34:6.

There is a portion for Manasseh in Ezekiel's ideal picture (Ezek 48:4), and the tribe appears in the list in Rev (7:6).

The genealogies in Josh 17:1 ff; Nu 26:28-34; 1 Ch 2:21-23; 7:14-19 have fallen into confusion. As they stand, they are mutually contradictory, and it is impossible to harmonize them.

The theories of certain modern scholars who reject the Biblical account are themselves beset with difficulties: e.g. the name is derived from the Arabic, nasa, "to injure a tendon of the leg." Manasseh, the Piel part., would thus be the name of a supernatural being, of whom the infliction of such an injury was characteristic. It is not clear which of the wrestlers at the Jabbok suffered the injury. As Jacob is said to have prevailed with gods and men, the suggestion is that it was his antagonist who was lamed. "It would appear therefore that in the original story the epithet Manasseh was a fitting title of Jacob himself, which might be borne by his worshippers, as in the case of Gad" (EB, under the word, par. 4).

It is assumed that the mention of Machir in Jdg 5:14 definitely locates the Manassites at that time on the West of the Jordan. The raids by members of the tribe on Eastern Palestine must therefore have taken place long after the days of Moses. The reasoning is precarious. After the mention of Reuben (5:15,16), Gilead (5:17) may refer to Gad. It would be strange if this warlike tribe were passed over (Guthe). Machir, then probably the strongest clan, stands for the whole tribe, and may be supposed to indicate particularly the noted fighters of the eastern half.

In dealing with the genealogies, "the difficult name" Zelophehad must be got rid of. Among the suggestions made is one by Dr. Cheyne, which first supposes the existence of a name Salhad, and then makes Zelophehad a corruption of this.

The genealogies certainly present difficulties, but otherwise the narrative is intelligible and self-consistent without resort to such questionable expedients as those referred to above.

W. Ewing


MANASSEH (3)

A king of Judah, son and successor of Hezekiah; reigned 55 years (2 Ki 21:1; 2 Ch 33:1), from circa 685 onward. His was one of the few royal names not compounded with the name of Yahweh (his son Amon's was the only other if, as an Assyrian inscription gives it, the full name of Ahaz was Jehoahaz or Ahaziah); but it was no heathen name like Amon, but identical with that of the elder son of Joseph. Born within Hezekiah's added 15 years, years of trembling faith and tender hope (compare Isa 38:15 f), his name may perhaps memorialize the father's sacred feelings; the name of his mother Hephzibah too was used long afterward as the symbol of the happy union of the land with its loyal sons (Isa 62:4). All this, however, was long forgotten in the memory of Manasseh's apostate career.

I. Sources of His Life.

The history (2 Ki 1 through 18) refers for "the rest of his acts" to "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah," but the body of the account, instead of reading like state annals, is almost entirely a censure of his idolatrous reign in the spirit of the prophets and of the Deuteronomic strain of literature. The parallel history (2 Ch 33:1-20) puts "the rest of his acts" "among the acts of the kings of Israel," and mentions his prayer (a prayer ascribed to him is in the Apocrypha) and "the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of Yahweh." This history of Chronicles mentions his captive journey to Babylon and his repentance (2 Ch 33:10-13), also his building operations in Jerusalem and his resumption of Yahweh-worship (2 Ch 33:14-17), which the earlier source lacks. From these sources, which it is not the business of this article either to verify or question, the estimate of his reign is to be deduced.

II. Character of His Reign.

1. Political Situation:

During his reign, Assyria, principally under Esar-haddon and Assur-banipal, was at the height of its arrogance and power; and his long reign was the peaceful and uneventful life of a willing vassal, contented to count as tributary king in an illustrious world-empire, hospitable to all its religious and cultural ideas, and ready to take his part in its military and other enterprises. The two mentions of his name in Assyrian inscriptions (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 182) both represent him in this tributary light. His journey to Babylon mentioned in 2 Ch 33:11 need not have been the penalty of rebellion; more likely it was such an enforced act of allegiance as was perhaps imposed on all provincial rulers who had incurred or would avert suspicion of disloyalty. Nor was his fortification of Jerusalem after his return less necessary against domestic than foreign aggression; the more so, indeed, as in so long and undisturbed a reign his capital, which was now practically synonymous with his realm (Esar-haddon calls him "king of the city of Judah"), became increasingly an important center of wealth and commercial prosperity. Of the specific events of his reign, however, other than religious, less is known than of almost any other.

2. Reactionary Idolatry:

That the wholesale idolatry by which his reign is mainly distinguished was of a reactionary and indeed conservative nature may be understood alike from what it sought to maintain and from what it had to react against. On the one side was the tremendous wave of ritual and mechanical heathen cults which, proceeding from the world-centers of culture and civilization (compare Isa 2:6-8), was drawing all the tributary lands, Judah with the rest, into its almost irresistible sweep. Manasseh, it would seem, met this not in the temper of an amateur, as had his grandfather Ahaz, but in the temper of a fanatic. Everything old and new that came to his purview was of momentous religious value--except only the simple and austere demands of prophetic insight. He restored the debasing cults of the aboriginal Nature-worship which his father had suppressed, thus making Judah revert to the sterile Baal-cults of Ahab; but his blind credence in the black arts so prevalent in all the surrounding nations, imported the elaborate worship of the heavenly bodies from Babylon, invading even the temple-courts with its numerous rites and altars; even went to the horrid extreme of human sacrifice, making an institution of what Ahaz had tried as a desperate expedient. All this, which to the matured prophetic sense was headlong wickedness, was the mark of a desperately earnest soul, seeking blindly in this wholesale way to propitiate the mysterious Divine powers, his nation's God among them, who seemed so to have the world's affairs in their inscrutable control. On the other side, there confronted him the prophetic voice of a religion which decried all insincere ritual (`wickedness and worship,' Isa 1:13), made straight demands on heart and conscience, and had already vindicated itself in the faith which had wrought the deliverance of 701. It was the fight of the decadent formal against the uprising spiritual; and, as in all such struggles, it would grasp at any expedient save the one plain duty of yielding the heart to repentance and trust.

3. Persecution:

Meanwhile, the saving intelligence and integrity of Israel, though still the secret of the lowly, was making itself felt in the spiritual movement that Isaiah had labored to promote; through the permeating influence of literature and education the "remnant" was becoming a power to be reckoned with. It is in the nature of things that such an innovating movement must encounter persecution; the significant thing is that already there was so much to persecute. Persecution is as truly the offspring of fear as of fanaticism. Manasseh's persecution of the prophets and their adherents (tradition has it that the aged Isaiah was one of his victims) was from their point of view an enormity of wickedness. To us the analysis is not quite so simple; it looks also like the antipathy of an inveterate formal order to a vital movement that it cannot understand. The vested interests of almost universal heathenism must needs die hard, and "much innocent blood" was its desperate price before it would yield the upper hand. To say this of Manasseh's murderous zeal is not to justify it; it is merely to concede its sadly mistaken sincerity. It may well have seemed to him that a nation's piety was at stake, as if a world's religious culture were in peril.

4. Return to Better Mind:

The Chronicler, less austere in tone than the earlier historian, preserves for us the story that, like Saul of Tarsus after him, Manasseh got his eyes open to the truer meaning of things; that after his humiliation and repentance in Babylon he "knew that Yahweh he was God" (2 Ch 33:10-13). He had the opportunity to see a despotic idolatry, its evils with its splendors, in its own home; a first-fruit of the thing that the Hebrew exiles were afterward to realize. On his return, accordingly, he removed the altars that had encroached upon the sacred precincts of the temple, and restored the ritual of the Yahweh-service, without, however, removing the high places. It would seem to have been merely the concession of Yahweh's right to a specific cult of His own, with perhaps a mitigation of the more offensive extremes of exotic worship, while the toleration of the various fashionable forms remained much as before. But this in itself was something, was much; it gave Yahweh His chance, so to say, among rivals; and the growing spiritual fiber of the heart of Israel could be trusted to do the rest. It helps us also the better to understand the situation when, only two years after Manasseh's death, Josiah came to the throne, and to understand why he and his people were so ready to accept the religious sanity of the Deuteronomic law. He did not succeed, after all, in committing his nation to the wholesale sway of heathenism. Manasseh's reactionary reign was indeed not without its good fruits; the crisis of religious syncretism and externalism was met and passed.

John Franklin Genung


MANASSES

ma-nas'-ez (Manasses; Codex Vaticanus Manasse):

(1) One who had married a "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:33) = "Manasseh" of Ezr 10:33.

(2) The wealthy husband of Judith; died of sunstroke when employed at the barley harvest (Judith 8:2 f,7; 10:3; 16:22 ff).

(3) A person mentioned in Tobit 14:10, who "gave alms, and escaped the snare of death." It must be admitted that Manasses here is an awkward reading and apparently interrupts the sense, which would run more smoothly if Manasses were omitted or Achiacharus read. There is great variety of text in this verse. Codex Sinaiticus (followed by Fritzsche, Libri apoc. vet. Test Greek, 1871) reads en to poiesai me eleemosunen exelthen, where Manasses is omitted and Achiacharus is understood as the subject. Itala and Syriac go a step further and read Achiacharus as subject. But Codex Vaticanus (followed by Swete, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) reads Manasses, which must be the correct reading on the principle of being the most difficult. Explanations have been offered (1) that Manasses is simply the Hebrew name for Achiacharus, it not being uncommon for a Jew to have a Greek and a Hebrew name; (2) that on reading Amon, Manasses was inserted for Achiacharus according to 2 Ch 33:22 ff; (3) that Manasses here is an incorrect reading for Nasbas (Tobit 11:18), identified by Grotius with Achiacharus: "It seems impossible at present to arrive at a satisfactory explanation" (Fuller, Speaker's Commentary). There is as great uncertainty as to the person who conspired against Manasses: Aman, in Codex Alexandrinus, followed by the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), who is by some identified with the Haman of Esther and Achiacharus with Mordecai; Adam, in Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete; Itala Nadab; Syriac Ahab (Acab).

(4) A king of Judah (Mt 1:10 the King James Version, Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) "Manasseh"), whose prayer forms one of the apocryphal books.

See MANASSES ,THE PRAYER OF .

(5) The elder son of Joseph (Rev 7:6, the King James Version Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) "Manasseh").

S. Angus


MANASSES, THE PRAYER OF

|| 1. Name

2. Canonicity and Position

3. Contents

4. Original Language

5. Authenticity

6. Author and Motive

7. Date

8. Text and Versions

(1) Greek

(2) Latin

LITERATURE

The Prayer of Manasses purports to be, and may in reality be, the prayer of that king mentioned in 2 Ch 33:13,18 f.

1. Name:

In Cod. A it is called simply "A Prayer of Manasses," in the London Polyglot "A Prayer of Manasses, King of the Jews." Its title in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is "A Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah, when He Was Held Captive in Babylon." In Baxter's Apocrypha, Greek and English this Prayer appears at the end with the heading "A Prayer of Manasses, son of Ezekias" (= Hezekiah).

2. Canonicity and Position:

The Greek church is the only one which has consistently reckoned this Prayer as a part of its Bible. Up to the time of the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), it formed a part of the Vulgate, but by that council it was relegated with 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras to the appendix (which included uncanonical scriptures), "lest they should become wholly lost, since they are occasionally, cited by the Fathers and are found in printed copies. Yet it is wholly absent from the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Sixtus V, though it is in the Appendix of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Clement VIII. Its position varies in manuscripts, versions and printed editions of the Septuagint. It is most frequently found among the odes or canticles following the Psalter, as in Codices Alexandrinus, T (the Zurich Psalter) and in Ludolf's Ethiopic Psalter. In Swete's Septuagint the Psalter of Solomon followed by the odes (Odai), of which The Prayer of Manasseh is the 8th, appear as an Appendix after 4 Maccabees in volume III. It was placed after 2 Chronicles in the original Vulgate, but in the Romanist Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) it stands first, followed by 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras in the apocryphal Appendix. It is found in all manuscripts of the Armenian Bible, where, as in Swete's Septuagint, it is one of many odes. Though not included in Coverdale's Bible or the Geneva VS, it was retained (at the close of the Apocrypha) in Luther's translation, in Mathew's Bible and in the Bishops' Bible, whence it passed into our English Versions of the Bible.

3. Contents:

According to 2 Ch 33 (compare 2 Ki 21) Manasseh was exiled by the Assyrians to Babylon as a punishment for his sins. There he became penitent and earnestly prayed to God for pardon and deliverance. God answered his prayer and restored him to Jerusalem and to the throne. Though the prayer is mentioned in 2 Ch 33:13,18 f, it is not given, but this lack has been supplied in the The Prayer of Manasseh of the Apocrypha. After an opening invocation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Judah and their righteous seed, the Creator of all things, most high, yet compassionate, who has ordained repentance, not for perfect ones like the patriarchs who did not need it, but for the like of the person praying, there follows a confession of sin couched for the most part in general terms, a prayer for pardon and a vow to praise God forever if this prayer is answered.

4. Original Language:

The bulk of scholars (Fritzsche, Reuss, Schurer, Ryssel, etc.) agree that this Prayer was composed in Greek. The Greek recension is written in a free, flowing and somewhat rhetorical style, and it reads like an original work, not like a translation. Though there are some Hebraisms, they are not more numerous or striking than usually meet us in Hellenistic Greek. It is of some importance also that, although Jewish tradition adds largely to the legends about Manasseh, it has never supplied a Hebrew version of the Prayer (see VERSIONS ;TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ). On the other hand, Ewald (Hist. Isr, I, 186; IV, 217, note 5, German edition, IV, 217 f), Furst (Gesch. der bibl. Lit., II, 399), Budde (ZAW, 1892, 39 ff), Ball (Speaker's Apocrypha) and others argue for a Hebrew original, perhaps existing in the source named of 2 Ch 33:18 f (see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des Altes Testament, 167).

5. Authenticity:

Have we here the authentic prayer of Manasseh offered under the circumstances described in 2 Ch 33? Ewald and the other scholars named (see foregoing section), who think the Prayer was composed in Hebrew, say that we have probably here a Greek rendering of the Hebrew original which the Chronicler saw in his source. Ball, on the other hand, though not greatly opposed to this view, is more convinced that the Hebrew original is to be sought in a haggadic narrative concerning Manasseh. Even if we accept the view of Ewald or of Ball, we still desiderate evidence that this Hebrew original is the very prayer offered by the king in Babylon. But the arguments for a Greek original are fairly conclusive. Many Old Testament scholars regard the narrative of the captivity, prayer and penitence of Manasseh as a fiction of the Chronicler's imagination, to whom it seemed highly improper that this wicked king should escape the punishment (exile) which he richly deserved. So De Wette (Einleitung), Graf (Stud. u. Krit., 1859, 467-94, and Gesch. Bucher des Altes Testament, 174) and Noldeke (Schenkel's Bibelwerk, "Manasse"). Nothing corresponding to it occurs in the more literal narrative of 2 Ki 21, an argument which, however, has but little weight. Recent discoveries of cuneiform inscriptions have taken off the edge of the most important objections to the historicity of this part of Chronicles. See Ball (op. cit., 361 ff) and Bissell (Lange's Apocrypha, 468). The likeliest supposition is that the author of the Prayer was an Alexandrian Jew who, with 2 Ch 33 before him, desired to compose such a prayer as Manasseh was likely to offer under the supposed circumstances. This prayer, written in excellent Alexandrian Greek, is, as Fritzsche points out, an addition to 2 Ch 33, corresponding to the prayers of Mordecai and Esther added to the canonical Est (Additions to Esther 13:8 through 14:19), and also to the prayer of Azarias (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:2-22) and the Song of the Three Young Men (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:29-68) appended to the canonical Book of Daniel.

6. The Author and His Motive:

That the author was an Alexandrian Jew is made probable by the (Greek) language he employs and by the sentiments he expresses. It is strange to find Swete (Expository Times, II, 38 f) defending the Christian authorship of this Prayer. What purpose could the writer seek to realize in the composition and publication of the penitential psalm? In the absence of definite knowledge, one may with Reuss (Das Altes Testament, VI, 436 f) suppose that the Jewish nation was at the time given up to great unfaithfulness to God and to gross moral corruption. The lesson of the Prayer is that God will accept the penitent, whatever his sins, and remove from the nation its load of sufferings, if only it turns to God.

7. Date:

Ewald and Furst (op. cit.) hold that the prayer is at least as old as the Book of Chronicles (300 BC), since it is distinctly mentioned, they say, in 2 Ch 33:13,18 f. But the original form was, as seen (compare 4 above), Greek, not Hebrew. Moreover, the teaching of the Prayer is post-Biblical. The patriarchs are idealized to the extent that they are thought perfect and therefore not needing forgiveness (33:8); their merits avail for the sinful and undeserving (33:1) (see Weber, Jud. Theologie, 292). The expressions "God of the Just" (33:8), "God of those who repent" (33:13), belong to comparatively late Judaism. A period about the beginning of the Christian era or (Fritzsche) slightly earlier would suit the character (language and teaching) of the Prayer. The similarity between the doctrines implied in The Prayer of Manasseh and those taught in apocryphal writings of the time confirms this conclusion. There is no need with Bertholdt to bring down the writing to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Fabricius (Liber Tobit, etc., 208) dates the Prayer in the 4th or 5th century AD, because, in his opinion, its author is the same as that of the Apostolical Constitutions which has that date. But the source of this part of the Apostolical Constitutions is the Didaskalia (3rd century), and moreover both these treatises are of Christian origin, the Prayer being the work of an Alexandrian Jew.

8. Text and Versions:

(1) Greek:

The Greek text occurs in Codices Alexandrinus, T (Psalterium Turicence 262, Parsons). Swete (OLD TESTAMENT in Greek, III, 802-4) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of T. It is omitted from the bulk of ancient manuscripts and editions of the Septuagint, as also from several modern editions (Tischendorf, etc.). Nestle (Septuaginta Studien, 1899, 3) holds that the Greek text of Codices Alexandrinus, T, etc., has been taken from the Apostolical Constitutions or from the Didaskalia. The common view is that it was extracted by the latter from the Septuagint.

(2) Latin:

The Latin text in Sabatier (Bib. Sac. Latin, III, 1038) is not by Jerome, nor is it in the manner of the Old Latin; its date is later.

LITERATURE.

The outstanding literature has been cited in the foregoing article. Reference may be made to Howorth ("Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible," PSBA, XXXI, 89 ff: he argues that the narrative concerning Manasseh, including the Prayer in the Apostolical Constitutions, represents a portion of the true Septuagint of 2 Ch 33).

T. Witton Davies


MANASSITES

ma-nas'-its (menashshi; ho Manasse): Members of the tribe of Manasseh (Dt 4:43; Jdg 12:4 the King James Version; 2 Ki 10:33).


MANDRAKES

man'-draks (dudha'im; mandragoras (Gen 30:14 f; Song 7:13); the marginal reading "love apples" is due to the supposed connection of dudha'im with dodhim, "love"): Mandrakes are the fruit of the Mandragora officinarum, a member of the Solanaceae or potato order, closely allied to the Atropa belladonna. It is a common plant all over Palestine, flourishing particularly in the spring and ripening about the time of the wheat harvest (Gen 30:14). The plant has a rosette of handsome dark leaves, dark purple flowers and orange, tomato-like fruit. The root is long and branched; to pull it up is still considered unlucky (compare Josephus,BJ ,VII , vi, 3). The fruit is called in Arabic baid el-jinn, the "eggs of the jinn"; they have a narcotic smell and sweetish taste, but are too poisonous to be used as food. They are still used in folklore medicine in Palestine. The plant was well known as an aphrodisiac by the ancients (Song 7:13).

E. W. G. Masterman


MANEH; MINA

man'-e, or mi'-na (maneh; mna, "pound" (English Versions of the Bible)): A weight containing 50 shekels, according to Hebrew usage, but which varied according to the standard adopted. Estimated on the Phoenician, or commercial, standard, it was equal to 11,200 grains, or about 2 lbs. troy, or about 1,6 lbs. avoirdupois. This is probably the weight intended in 1 Ki 10:17; Ezr 2:69 and Neh 7:71 f (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ). When used in a monetary sense, the maneh of silver was worth about 6 pounds 17 shillings, or $34 (in 1915); the gold maneh was equal to about 102 pounds 10 shillings, or $510 (in 1915).

H. Porter


MANES

ma'-nez (Manes): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:21). It represents the two names Maaseiah and Elijah of the parallel Ezr 10:21. The real equivalent is probably Maaseiah, Elijah being dropped. the Revised Version margin and the King James Version margin give Harim of Ezr 10:21 as identical--apparently incorrectly, for the words "and of the sons of Harim" (Ezr 10:21) are simply omitted. the King James Version blunders strangely here in reading Eanes after a misprint Eanes (for Manes) in the Aldine edition.


MANGER

man'-jer (phatne): Properly the place in a stall or stable where the food of cattle is placed (in the Old Testament "crib" (Job 39:9; Prov 14:4; Isa 1:3)); thus also, apparently, in the narrative of the nativity in Lk 2:7,12,16. In Septuagint, the Greek word, representing different Hebrew words, has also the extended meaning of "stall" (2 Ch 32:28; Hab 3:17); thus also in Lk 13:15, where the Revised Version margin has "manger." Old tradition says that Jesus was born in a cave in the neighborhood of Bethlehem; even so, a place for food for cattle may have been cut in the side of the rock.

James Orr


MANI

ma'-ni (Mani): Head of a family (1 Esdras 9:30) = "Bani" in Ezr 10:29, the form which appears in 1 Esdras 5:12.


MANIFEST; MANIFESTATION

man'-i-fest, man-i-fes-ta'-shun (phaneroo, phaneros): "To manifest" is generally the translation of phaneroo, "to make apparent" (Mk 4:22; Jn 17:6; Rom 3:21; 1 Tim 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "manifested"; 1 Jn 1:2 twice, etc.); also of phaneros, "manifest" (Acts 4:16; Rom 1:19; 1 Cor 3:13; 1 Jn 3:10, etc.); "to make manifest" (phaneroo) (Jn 1:31; Rom 16:26); of emphanizo, "to make fully manifest" (Jn 14:21 f); of emphanes, "fully manifest" (Rom 10:20); of delos, "evident," translated "manifest" (1 Cor 15:27, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of ekdelos, "very evident" (2 Tim 3:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of prodelos, "evident beforehand" (1 Tim 5:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of aphanes, is "not manifest" (Heb 4:13, "There is no creature that is not manifest in his sight"); "manifest," occurs once in the Old Testament as the translation of barar, "to clear," "to purify" (Eccl 3:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "prove"); of phaneros (2 Macc 3:28, the Revised Version (British and American) "manifestly").

Manifestation is the translation of apokalupsis, "uncovering" (Rom 8:19, "the manifestation of the sons of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "revealing"); of phanerosis, "manifestation" (1 Cor 12:7; 2 Cor 4:2).

The Revised Version (British and American) has "manifest" for "shew" (Jn 7:4); "was manifested" for "appeared" (Mk 16:12,14); "was manifested to the," for "shewed himself to his" (Jn 21:14); "be made manifest" for "appear" (2 Cor 5:10; 7:12; Rev 3:18); "became manifest" for "was made known" (Acts 7:13); "gave him to be made manifest" for "shewed him openly" (Acts 10:40); "He who was manifested" for "God was manifest" (1 Tim 3:16) (margin "The word "God," in place of "He who," rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which"); "is not yet made manifest" for "doth not yet appear" (1 Jn 3:2); "by the manifestation" for "with the brightness" (2 Thess 2:8) "be manifested" for "appear" (Col 3:4 twice; 1 Pet 5:4); "if he shall be manifested" for "when he shall appear" (1 Jn 2:28; 3:2), etc.

W. L. Walker


MANIFESTLY

man'-i-fest-li (mar'eh, "(in) personal presence"): Has the meaning of "by direct vision," as in 1 Cor 13:12, "face to face," stating positively (Nu 12:8) what the next clause states negatively, namely, "not in dark speeches." "Apparently" of the King James Version is ambiguous.


MANIFOLD

man'-i-fold (rabh; poikilos): "Manifold," which occurs only a few times, is in the Old Testament the translation of rabh, "many," "abundant" (Neh 9:19,27; Am 5:12, where it is equivalent to "many"), and of rabhabh, "to multiply," "to increase" (Ps 104:24, "O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works"); poikilos, properly, "many colored," "spotted," "variegated," is translated "manifold": 1 Pet 1:6 margin, "manifold temptations"; 4:10, "manifold grace," suggests variety, diverseness; polupoikilos has this meaning more intensely (Eph 3:10, "the manifold wisdom of God"). With this may be compared a fine passage in The Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, where it is said that in Wisdom there is "an understanding spirit, holy, one only (the Revised Version (British and American) "alone in kind," margin "Greek: sole-born"), manifold (polumeres)." In like manner, pollaplasion, "manifold more" (Lk 18:30), indicates the varied elements of the reward of him who is faithful to Christ. In Ecclesiasticus 51:3, we have "manifold afflictions" (pleion).

W. L. Walker


MANIUS; TITUS

ma'-ni-us, ti'-tus (Tito Manios, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Venetus, and the Syriac; Manlios, Swete following Codex Alexandrinus; Manilius, Itala and Vulgate, the King James Version, Manlius): Titus Manius and Quintus Memmius were the legates of the Romans who carried a letter unto the Jewish people consenting to the favorable terms which Lysias, the captain of Antiochus, granted to the Jews after his defeat, 163 BC (2 Macc 11:34). That the letter is spurious appears from the facts (1) that it is dated in the 148th year of the Seleucidian era adopted by the Jews and not, after the Rom fashion, according to consulates; (2) that it is also dated the same day as that of Eupator--the 15th of the month Xanthicus; (3) that the Jews had as yet no dealings with the Romans; Judas first heard of the fame of the Romans a year or two years later (1 Macc 8:1 ff), after the death of Nicanor (1 Macc 7:47); (4) that no such names are found among the Roman legati mentioned by Polybius as sent to the East. If Manius is not altogether a fabrication, it is difficult to decide exactly who he is. The reading fluctuates between "Manius" and "Manlius." About the same time a T. Manlius Torquatus was sent by the Romans on an embassy to Egypt to settle a quarrel between Philometor and Euergetes II Physc. on (Polyb. xxxi. 18; Livy xliii.11), but not to Syria, and his colleague was Cn. Merula. Perhaps Manius Sergius is intended, who with C. Sulpicius was sent to investigate the state of Greece and to see what Antiochus Epiphanes and Eumanes were doing (165BC ) (Polyb. xxxi.9). But no such name as Titus Manius or Manlius is otherwise found as legate to Asia with a colleague Quintus Memmius.

See also MEMMIUS .

S. Angus


MANKIND

man-kind': In Lev 18:22; 20:13, the term is applied to men, as distinguished from women; in Job 12:10, to the human race; in Jas 3:7, to the human nature.


MANLIUS, TITUS

man'-li-us.

See MANIUS ,TITUS .


MANNA

man'-a (man; manna): The Hebrew man is probably derived, as Ebers suggests, from the Egyptian mennu, "food." In Ex 16:15, we have a suggested source of the name, "They said one to another, What is it?" i.e. manhu, which also means, "It is manna" (see margin).

1. Old Testament References:

This substance is described as occurring in flakes or small round grains, literally, "hoax frost"; it fell with the dew (Nu 11:9) and appeared when the dew left the ground (Ex 16:14); "It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey" (Ex 16:31). In Nu 11:8, its taste is described "as the taste of fresh oil," margin "cakes baked with oil." "And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came .... unto the borders of the land of Canaan" (Ex 16:35). It ceased the day after they ate the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain, in the plains of Jericho (Josh 5:10-12). Although an important article of diet, it was by no means the sole one as seems implied in Nu 21:15; there are plenty of references (e.g. Ex 17:3; 24:5; 34:3; Lev 8:2,26,31; 9:4; 10:12; 24:5; Nu 7:13,19 f, etc.) which show that they had other food besides. The food was gathered every morning, "every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted" (Ex 16:21); a portion of the previous day's gathering bred worms and stank if kept (Ex 16:20); on the 6th day a double amount was gathered, the Sabbath portion being miraculously preserved (Ex 16:22-27). A pot--a golden one (Heb 9:4)--with an omer of manna was "laid up before Yahweh" in the tabernacle (Ex 16:33). Manna is referred to in Neh 9:20. It is described poetically as "food from heaven" and "bread of the mighty" (Ps 78:24 f); as "bread of heaven" (Ps 105:40); and as "angels' bread" (2 Esdras 1:19; The Wisdom of Solomon 16:20).

2. New Testament References:

In Jn 6:31-63, our Lord frequently refers to "the manna" or "bread from heaven" as typical of Himself. Paul (1 Cor 10:3) refers to it as "spiritual food," and in Rev 2:17 we read, "To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna."

Manna, as might be expected, figures largely in rabbinical literature. It was, it is said, adapted to the taste of each individual who could by wishing taste in the manna anything he desired (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 16:21). Manna is reserved as the future food of the righteous (compare Rev 2:17), for which purpose it is ground in a mill situated in the third heaven (Chag 12b; Tan. Beshallach 22).

3. Natural Explanations:

No substance is known which in any degree satisfies all the requirements of the Scriptural references, but several travelers in the wilderness have reported phenomena which suggest some of the features of the miraculous manna.

(1) In the Peninsula of Sinai, on the route of the children of Israel, a species of tamarisk, named in consequence by Ebers Tammaris mannifera, is found to exude a sweet, honey-like substance where its bark is pierced by an insect, Gossyparia mannifera. It collects upon the twigs and falls to the ground. The Arabs who gather it to sell to pilgrims call it mann-es-sama, "heavenly manna"; it is white at first but turns yellow; in the early morning it is of the consistency of wax but when the sun is hot it disappears. This substance occurs only after mid-summer and for a month or two at most.

(2) A second proposal is to identify manna with a lichen--Lecanora esculenta and allied species--which grows in the Arabian and other deserts upon the limestone. The older masses become detached and are rolled about by the wind. When swept together by sudden rain storms in the rainy season they may collect in large heaps. This lichen has been used by the Arabs in time of need for making bread. It is a quite reasonable form of nourishment in the desert, especially when eaten with the sugary manna from the trees.

E. W. G. Masterman


MANNER; MANNERS

man'-er, man'-erz (dabhar, derekh, mishpaT; ethos, houtos):

1. As Used in the Old Testament:

"Manner" (probably from manus, "the hand," mode of handling things, or acting) is in the Bible in general equivalent (1) to way, custom, habit, etc., (2) to kind or sort. There are some special senses, however, and archaic usages. It is frequently the translation of dabhar, "speaking," "word," "thing" (Gen 18:25, "That be far from thee to do after this manner" (i.e. in this way); Gen 32:19, "On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau" (in this way); Gen 39:19, "After this manner (in this way) did thy servant to me"; Ex 22:9, "every manner of trespass" (every kind, sort, or way); Dt 15:2; 1 Sam 17:27,30 bis); also of derekh, "way" (Gen 19:31, "after the manner of all the earth (way); 1 Sam 21:5 the King James Version "(the bread) is in a manner common"; "manner" here might be taken as equivalent to "way" or "measure," but the passage is a difficult one and the text uncertain; the Revised Version (British and American) omits "manner," and in the text makes the reference to be to the journey, not to the bread, but in the margin it has "common (bread)"; Isa 10:24,26, after the manner of Egypt" (after the way or fate of Egypt); so also Am 4:10; 8:14, the manner of Beer-sheba liveth" the Revised Version (British and American) "the way," margin "manner, the reference here being to the religious way, or manner of worship); of mishpaT, "judgment," "ordinance," hence, also "manner" or "custom" (Gen 40:13; Ex 21:9; 2 Ki 1:7, "what manner of man" (sort or kind); 2 Ki 17:26 the King James Version; 1 Ch 24:19; Ezek 11:12, "after the manners (the Revised Version (British and American) "ordinances") of the nations"); torah, "instruction," "law," is also translated "manner" (2 Sam 7:19, "(is) this the manner (margin "law") of man, O Lord God?" the Revised Version (British and American) "and this (too) after the manner of men, O Lord Yahweh," margin "and is this the law of man, O Lord Yahweh?"). Other words are: 'orach, "path," "custom" (Gen 18:11); dobher, "leading," "pasture" (compare "sheep-walk," "sheep-fold"); Isa 5:17, "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner," the Revised Version (British and American) "as in their pasture" (in Mic 2:12, the same word is translated the King James Version "fold," the Revised Version (British and American) "pasture"); demuth, "likeness" (Ezek 23:15); dath, "law," "sentence" (Est 2:12); chuqqah, "statute," "custom" (Lev 20:23) in the King James Version. In Nu 5:13 "with the manner" is supplied to "taken" (in adultery). "Manner" here is an old law-French phrase, "a thief taken with the mainour"--that is, with the thing stolen upon him in manu (in his hand) (Blackstone, Comm., IV, xxiii), the Revised Version (British and American) "in the act" (compare Jn 8:4 "in the very act"); gam, "also" is translated (1 Sam 19:24) "in like manner," the Revised Version (British and American) "also."

2. As Used in the Apocrypha:

In Apocrypha, 2 Macc 4:13 the King James Version, we have "increase of heathenish manners," the Revised Version (British and American) "an extreme of Greek fashions"; 2 Macc 6:9, the "manners of the Gentiles," the Revised Version (British and American) "the Greek rites"; in 2 Esdras 9:19, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), "manners" appears in the sense of "morals"; compare 1 Cor 15:33, the Revised Version (British and American) "Evil companionships corrupt good morals."

3. As Used in the New Testament:

In the New Testament various words and phrases are rendered by "manner"; we have ethos, "custom," "usage," "manner" (Jn 19:40; Acts 15:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "custom"); kata to eiothos (Lk 4:16, the Revised Version (British and American) "as his custom was"); tropos a "turning," "manner," "way" (Jude 1:7); hon tropon, "in which manner" (Acts 1:11); houtos, "thus," "so," "accordingly," is "after this manner," "in like manner" (Mt 6:9; Mk 13:29 the King James Version); in Acts 15:23, "after this manner" stands in the King James Version for "by their hands," the Revised Version (British and American) "thus"; pos (Acts 20:18), "after what manner"; agoge, "course of life" (2 Tim 3:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "conduct"); biosis, "mode of life" (Acts 26:4); in 1 Cor 15:33, we have manners in the moral sense, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," the American Standard Revised Version "Evil companionships corrupt good morals." Acts 13:18 is interesting because of diversities of rendering; the King James Version has "suffered he their manners in the wilderness," margin "etropophoresen, perhaps for etrophophoresen, bore, or fed them as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child, Dt 1:31 (2 Macc 7:27) according to Septuagint, and so Chrysostom"; the English Revised Version text, same as the King James Version margin "Many ancient authorities read `bear he them as a nursing father in the wilderness.' See Dt 1:31"; the American Standard Revised Version (text) "as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness," margin "Many ancient authorities read `Suffered he their manners in the wilderness.' See Dt 9:7." The Greek words differ only by a single letter, and authorities are pretty equally divided.

Among other changes the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently "ordinance" for "manner" (Lev 5:10, etc.) and "custom" (Ruth 4:7; Jn 19:40; Heb 10:25, etc.); "manner of" is introduced (1 Sam 4:8, etc.); "manner of" and "manner" omitted (Gen 25:23; Ex 35:29, etc.); "what manner of house" for "where is the house" (Isa 66:1); "manner of life" for "conversation" (Gal 1:13; Eph 4:22); "after the manner of men" for "as a man" (Rom 3:5; 1 Cor 9:8); "how to inquire concerning these things" (Acts 25:20) for "of such manner of questions"; "in an unworthy manner," the American Standard Revised Version, for "unworthily" (1 Cor 11:27); "who" for "what manner of man" (Mk 4:41; Lk 8:25, "who then is this?"); in Lk 9:55, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" is omitted, with the margin "Some ancient authorities add and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."

W, L. Walker


MANOAH

ma-no'-a (manoach, "rest"): A man of Zorah and of the family of the Danites. Manoah was the father of Samson, and his life-story is but imperfectly told in the history of the conception, birth and early life of his son. No children had been born to Manoah and his wife, and the latter was considered barren (Jdg 13:2). Finally it was revealed to her by an angel of the Lord that she would conceive and bear a child. She was cautioned against strong drink and "unclean" food, for her child was to be born and reared a Nazirite to the end that he might save Israel out of the hands of the Philistines (Jdg 13:3-5). That Manoah was a devout man seems certain in view of the fact that, upon hearing of the angel's visit, he offered a prayer for the angel's return, in order that he and his wife might be instructed as to the proper care of the child to be born (Jdg 13:8). The request was granted and the angel repeated the visit and the instructions (Jdg 13:9-13). Manoah with true hospitality would have the guest remain and partake of food. The angel refused, but commanded a sacrifice unto Yahweh. When Manoah had prepared the sacrifice and lit it on the altar, the angel ascended in the flame from the altar and appeared no more (Jdg 13:15-21). The child was born according to the promise and was named Samson. Manoah and his wife appear twice in the narrative of Samson's early life--once as they protestingly accompanied him to sue for the hand of a Philistine woman of Timnah in marriage, and again when they went with him to Timnab for the wedding.

Josephus richly embellishes this Scriptural narrative concerning Manoah, but offers no further light upon the occupation or character of Manoah. At the death of Samson, his brothers went down to Gaza and brought back the body and buried it by the side of Manoah in the family tomb near Zorah (Jdg 16:31). In Samson Agonistes Milton gains dramatic effect by having Manoah survive Samson and in deep sorrow assist at his burial.

C. E. Schenk


MANSERVANT

man'sur-vant (`ebhedh): A male slave; usually coupled with maidservant or female slave (Gen 12:16; Ex 20:10; 1 Sam 8:16; Job 31:13; Lk 12:45).

See SERVANT ;SLAVE .


MANSION

man'-shun (mone, "abode"): In Jn 14:2, the word is used in the plural: "In my Father's house are many mansions," the Revised Version margin "abiding places." The ideas conveyed are those of abundance of room, and permanence of habitation, in the heavenly world.


MANSLAYER

man'-sla-er (meratstseach, from ratsach (Nu 35:6,12); androphonos (1 Tim 1:9)): A term employed with reference to both premeditated and accidental or justifiable killing. In the latter case, an asylum was granted (Nu 35:6,12) until the death of the high priest, after which the slayer was allowed to "return into the land of his possession" (Nu 35:28). The cases in which the manslayer was to be held clearly immune from the punishment imposed on willful killing were: (1) death by a blow in a sudden quarrel (Nu 35:22); (2) death by anything thrown at random (Nu 35:22,23); (3) death by the blade of an axe flying from the handle (Dt 19:5). Among the cases in which one would be held responsible for the death of another, is to be counted the neglectful act of building a house without a parapet (Dt 22:8).

Manslaughter, as a modern legal term, is employed to distinguish unpremeditated killing from coldblooded murder, but formerly (2 Esdras 1:26) it was used in a more general sense.

See MURDER .

Frank E. Hirsch


MANSTEALING

man'-stel-ing.

See CRIME , under "Kidnapping";PUNISHMENT .


MANTELET

man'-tel-et, man'-t'-l-et, mant'-let (Nah 2:5).

See SIEGE , 4, (d).


MANTLE

man'-t'-l: Used 5 times of Elijah's mantle ('addereth, 1 Ki 19:18,19; 2 Ki 2:8,13,14), which was probably of hair. Found in plural once (Isa 3:22), where it (ma`ataphoth) is an upper wide tunic with sleeves (kethoneth).

See DRESS ;KERCHIEF .


MANUSCRIPTS

man'-u-skripts: In the broadest sense manuscripts include all handwritten records as distinguished from printed records. In a narrower sense they are handwritten codices, rolls and folded documents, as distinguished from printed books on the one hand and inscriptions, or engraved documents, on the other. More loosely, but commonly, the term is used as synonym of the codex.

The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and New Testament, respectively, form the primary sources for establishing the text or true original words of the respective authors. The subordinate sources, versions and quotations have also their text problem, and manuscripts of the versions and of the church Fathers, and other ancient writers who refer to Biblical matters, play the same part in establishing the true words of the version or the writer that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts play in establishing the original of Scripture. For discussion of the textual aspects, see the articles onTEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ,TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT , onVERSIONS , and especially theSEPTUAGINT . For the material, writing instruments, form of manuscripts, etc., see BOOK ; and especially the literature underWRITING .

E. C. Richardson


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT .


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

See LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT .


MAOCH

ma'-ok (ma`okh, "oppressed," "bruised"): The same as Maacah (1 Ki 2:39). The father of that Achish, king of Gath, with whom David and his 600 sojourned under fear of Saul's treachery (1 Sam 27:2).


MAON; MAONITES

ma'-on, ma'-on-its, ma-o'-nits (ma`on; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maor, Maan; Codex Alexandrinus Maon):

(1) A town in the mountain of Judah named along with Carmel and Ziph (Josh 15:55). It appears again as the home of Nabal, the great flockmaster (1 Sam 25:2). In the genealogical list of 1 Ch 2, Maon stands as the "son" of Shammai and the "father" of Beth-zur (2:44,45). This evidently means that Shammai was the founder of Maon. About a mile South of el-Karmil, the ancient Carmel, lies Tell Ma`in. This may be confidently identified with Maon, the radicals of the names being the same. It suits the requirements of the narratives in other respects, being near to Carmel, while the surrounding wilderness is still used as the wide pasture land for multitudinous flocks. In this district, the wilderness of Maon, David was hiding when his whereabouts was betrayed to Saul by the men of Ziph (1 Sam 23:24 f), and only a timely raid by the Philistines delivered him out of that monarch's hands (1 Sam 23:27 ff).

(2) (Madiam): Maon is named along with the Zidonians and Amalek as having at some time, not mentioned, oppressed Israel (Jdg 10:12). The Septuagint "Midian" has been accepted by some scholars as restoring the original text, since, otherwise, the Midianites remain unmentioned. But the Maonites are evidently identical with the Meunim of 1 Ch 4:41 (Revised Version), the pastoral people destroyed by Hezekiah. In 2 Ch 20:1 the King James Version, instead of "other beside the Ammonites" we must read "some of the Meunim," as associated with the Ammonites in the battle with Jehoshaphat. Against them also Uzziah was helped of God (2 Ch 26:7). They are included among the inhabitants of Mt. Seir (2 Ch 20:10,23), so that an Edomite tribe is intended. It is natural to connect them with Ma`an, a place on the great pilgrimage road, and now a station on the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, to the Southeast of Petra. It undoubtedly represents an ancient stronghold.

The Maonites appear in the lists of those who returned from exile (Ezr 2:50, the King James Version "Mehunim," the Revised Version (British and American) "Meunim"; Neh 7:52, "Meunim"). These may possibly be the descendants of prisoners taken in the wars of Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, to whom menial tasks may have been appointed in the temple services.

W. Ewing


MAR

mar: "To mar" means "to destroy," "to disfigure," "to damage." Job 30:13, "They mar my path" (the Revised Version margin "they break up"); Nah 2:2, "and destroyed their vine" (the King James Version "and marred their vine"); compare Lev 19:27; 2 Ki 3:19; Isa 52:14; Jer 13:9.


MARA

ma'-ra, mar'-a (marah, "bitter"): The term which Naomi applies to herself on her return from Moab to her native country (Ruth 1:20). Changed beyond recognition, she creates astonishment among her former acquaintances, who ask, "Is this Naomi?" She replies, "Call me not Naomi" (i.e. "pleasant" or "sweet"), but "call me Mara" (i.e. "bitter"). In the light of her bitter experience, and her present pitiable plight, the old name has become peculiarly inappropriate.


MARAH

ma'-ra, mar'-a (marah, "bitter"): The first camp of the Israelites after the passage of the Red Sea (Ex 15:23; Nu 33:8 f). The name is derived from the bitterness of the brackish water. Moses cast a tree into the waters which were thus made sweet (Ex 15:23).

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL .


MARALAH

mar'-a-la (mar`alah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maragelda; Codex Alexandrinus Marila): A place on the western border of Zebulun (Josh 19:11). Peshitta renders Ramath ta`le', "height of the fox." It is not identified.


MARANATHA

mar-a-nath'-a, mar-an-a'-tha (from Aramaic words, marana' 'athah, "Our Lord cometh, or will come"; according to some, "has come"; to others, "Come!" an invitation for his speedy reappearance (compare Rev 22:20); maranatha, or maran atha): Used in connection with anathema, "accursed" (1 Cor 16:22), but has no necessary connection therewith. It was used by early Christians to add solemn emphasis to previous statement, injunction or adjuration, and seems to have become a sort of watchword; possibly forming part of an early liturgy.


MARBLE

mar'-b'-l (shayish, shesh, 'abhne shayish, "stones of marble" (1 Ch 29:2); ritspath bahat wa-shesh we-dhar we-cochareth, "a pavement of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble," or, according to the margin, "a pavement of porphyry, and white marble, and alabaster, and stone of blue color" (Est 1:6); `ammudhe shesh, "pillars of marble" (Est 1:6; Song 5:15); compare shesh, the King James Version margin "silk" or the Revised Version (British and American) "fine linen" (Gen 41:42; Ex 25:4, etc.); shoshannim, "lilies" (Song 2:16, etc.), apparently from a root signifying "white"; marmaros, "marble" (Rev 18:12)): Marble is properly crystalline limestone, usually pure white or veined with black, the former being in demand for statuary, while the latter is used in architecture, especially for floors and pillars. True marble is not found in Palestine, but is obtained from Greece or Italy. Much of the stone described as marble is non-crystalline limestone capable of being smoothed and polished. White or yellow stone of this character is abundant in Palestine. Non-crystalline rocks of other colors are also sometimes called marble. In the passage from Esther cited above (compare margin), it is a question whether the reference is to marble and other stones or to marble of different colors. In 1 Ch 29:2, "marble stones" are mentioned among the materials brought together by David for the building of the temple. In Est 1:6, pillars and a pavement of marble are features of the palace of Ahasuerus. In Song 5:15, the various parts of the body of the "beloved" are likened to gold, beryl, ivory, sapphire, and marble. In Rev 18:12, marble occurs in the list of the merchandise of Babylon. All these references imply a costly stone, and therefore probably one imported from other countries, and make it likely that true crystalline marble is meant.

Alfred Ely Day


MARCH; MARCHES

march, march'-iz.

See ARMY ;WAR .


MARCHESHVAN

mar-chesh'-van.

See TIME .


MARCION, GOSPEL OF

mar'-shun.

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .


MARCUS

mar'-kus.

See MARK ,JOHN .


MARDOCHEUS

mar-do-ke'-us (Mardochaios):

(1) One of the Jewish leaders who accompanied Zerubbabel on the return from Babylon to Judah (1 Esdras 5:8, where it stands for "Mordecai" of Ezr 2:2 and Neh 7:7).

(2) Another form of Mordecai, the uncle of Esther (Additions to Esther 10:4; 11:2,12; 12:1,4 ff; 16:13).


MARE

mar ((1) cucah, "steed," the King James Version "company of horses"; Septuagint he hippos, "mare" (Song 1:9); (2) bene ha-rammakhim, "bred of the stud," the King James Version and the Revised Version margin "young dromedaries" (Est 8:10); compare Arabic ramakat, "mare"): The word "mare" does not occur in English Versions of the Bible, but in Song 1:9 we find cucah, the feminine of cuc, "horse," and in Est 8:10, bene ha-rammakhim is by some translated "sons of mares."

See CAMEL ;HORSE .


MARESHAH

ma-re'-sha (mareshah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Bathesar; Codex Alexandrinus Maresa): A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Keilah and Achzib (Josh 15:44). It occupied such a position that Rehoboam thought well to fortify it for the protection of Jerusalem (2 Ch 11:8). In the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah, Asa overwhelmed Zerah the Ethiopian and his army, pursuing them as far as Gezer (2 Ch 14:9 ff). From Mareshah came Eliezer the prophet who denounced disaster upon the commercial copartnery of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (2 Ch 20:37). The place is mentioned in Mic (2 Ch 1:15). Mareshah was plundered and burned by Judas Maccabeus (Ant., XII, viii, 6; 1 Macc 5:66 the Revised Version margin). Hither Gorgias escaped, having been rescued from the hands of Dositheus by a Thracian horseman (2 Macc 12:35). It was taken by John Hyrcanus, who allowed the inhabitants to remain on condition that they adopt circumcision and submit to the Jewish law. This they did; and later John avenged an injustice done to Mareshah by the Samaritans. It is then described as "a colony of Jews" (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; x, 2). The city was treated with favor by Pompey (XIV, iv, 4). When the Parthians invaded Judea in support of Antigonus they demolished Mareshah (xiii, 9).

According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Mareshah was 2 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). Until recently it was thought that Khirbet Mir`ash, where the old name lingers, not far Southwest of Beit Jibrin, represented the ancient city. The work of Dr. Bliss, however ("Excavations in Palestine," PEF), shows that it must be located at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile South of Beit Jibrin. A series of remarkable tombs was discovered here. From 1 Ch 2:42 we may perhaps gather that Hebron was colonized by the men of Mareshah.

W. Ewing


MARIMOTH

mar'-i-moth, mar'-i-moth: An ancestor of Esdras (Ezra) (2 Esdras 1:2), identical with Meraioth (Ezr 7:3). In 1 Esdras 8:2, it appears also as "Memeroth" (the King James Version "Meremoth").


MARINER

mar'-i-ner.

See SHIPS AND BOATS ,II , 2, (3);III , 2.


MARISA

mar'-i-sa (Marisa): The Greek form of MARESHAH (which see) in 2 Macc 12:35.


MARISH

mar'-ish (gebhe'; helos): An old form of "marsh," found in the King James Version, the English Revised Version Ezek 47:11 (the American Standard Revised Version "marsh"). Some (not all) editions of the King James Version Apocrypha have retained this same spelling in 1 Macc 9:42,45 (the Revised Version (British and American) "marsh").


MARK

mark: In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by 5 Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the "mark" put upon Cain (Gen 4:15 the King James Version); the stigmata of Christ in Paul's body (Gal 6:17); the "mark of the beast" (Rev 16:2).

As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. "to be attentive," "understand ": bin (Job 18:2 the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "consider"; shith, "Mark ye well her bulwarks" (Ps 48:13), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; shamar, i.e. observe, keep in view; so Ps 37:37, "Mark the perfect man"; compare Job 22:15 the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in 1 Sam 1:12, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannah's lips in prayer, is said to have "marked her mouth." Jesus "marked" how invited guests chose out (epecho, i.e. "observed") the chief seats (Lk 14:7); so skopeo (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17), "Mark them," i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: Isa 44:13, "He marketh it out with a pencil" ("red ochre," the King James Version "line"), and "with the compasses," where the verb is ta'ar, "to delineate," "mark out"; Jer 2:22, "Thine iniquity is marked (katham, "cut (i.e. engraved)) before me," signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered "written," as in indelible hieroglyphics.

As a noun the term "mark" may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, "a target" an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign.

(1) 'oth, "a sign": Gen 4:15 the King James Version, "The Lord set a mark upon Cain" (the American Standard Revised Version "appointed a sign"). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cain's body. He considers it rather "a certain sign which protected him from vengeance," the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared.

(2) mattara', "an aim," hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David (1 Sam 20:20); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure (Job 16:12); so Jeremiah, "He hath set me as a mark for the arrow" (Lam 3:12); closely akin to this is miphga`, an object of attack (Job 7:20), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, `Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?'; "set me as a mark for thee."

See TARGET .

(3) taw, "mark" (Ezek 9:4,6). In Ezekiel's vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahweh's command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites (Ex 12:22,23), for their protection. As the servants of God (Rev 7:2,3)--the elect--were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. Taw also appears (Job 31:35) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) "signature," margin "mark").

The equivalent Hebrew letter taw ("t") in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the "mark" set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiel's vision.

(4) qa`aqa`, "a stigma" cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden (Lev 19:28) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.

The specific prohibition "not to print any marks upon" themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as God's creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

See also CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH .

(5) skopos, something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a "goal." The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. "I press on toward the goal (the King James Version "mark") unto the prize" (Phil 3:14). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.

In The Wisdom of Solomon 5:21 "they fly to the mark" is from eustochoi, "with true aim" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).

(6) stigma, "a mark pricked or branded upon the body." Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare 2 Cor 11:23-27). These he termed the stigmata of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master (Gal 6:17).

This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christ's crucifixion were reproduced in Paul's hands and feet and side. It is also "alien to the lofty self-consciousness" of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Paul's thought to the scar of circumcision.

(7) charagma, "a stamp" or "imprinted mark." "The mark of the beast" (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand (Rev 13:16; compare Ezek 9:4,6). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment (Rev 14:9-11); to noisome disease (Rev 16:2); to the lake of fire (Rev 19:20). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Rev 20:4). The "beast" symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians.

(8) molops, "bruise," Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) "bruise"); 28:17.

Dwight M. Pratt


MARK, JOHN

mark, John (Ioannes) represents his Jewish, Mark (Markos) his Roman name. Why the latter was assumed we do not know.

1. Name and Family:

Perhaps the aorist participle in Acts 12:25 may be intended to intimate that it dated from the time when, in company with Barnabas and Saul, he turned to service in the great Gentilecity of Antioch. Possibly it was the badge of Roman citizenship, as in the case of Paul. The standing of the family would be quite consistent with such a supposition.

His mother's name was Mary (Acts 12:12). The home is spoken of as hers. The father was probably dead. The description of the house (with its large room and porch) and the mention of the Greek slave, suggest a family of wealth. They were probably among the many zealous Jews who, having become rich in the great world outside, retired to Jerusalem, the center of their nation and faith. Mark was "cousin" to Barnabas of Cyprus (Col 4:10) who also seems to have been a man of means (Acts 4:36). Possibly Cyprus was also Mark's former home.

2. His History as Known from the New Testament:

When first mentioned, Mark and his mother are already Christians (44 AD). He had been converted through Peter's personal influence (1 Pet 5:13) and had already won a large place in the esteem of the brethren, as is shown by his being chosen to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, a little later. The home was a resort for Christians, so that Mark had every opportunity to become acquainted with other leaders such as James and John, and James the brother of the Lord. It was perhaps from the latter James that he learned the incident of Mk 3:21 which Peter would be less likely to mention.

His kinship with Barnabas, knowledge of Christian history and teaching, and proved efficiency account for his being taken along on the first missionary journey as "minister" (huperetes) to Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:5). Just what that term implies is not clear. Chase (HDB) conjectures the meaning to be that he had been huperetes, "attendant" or chazzan in the synagogue (compare Lk 4:20), and was known as such an official. Wright (English translation, February, 1910) suggests that he was to render in newly founded churches a teaching service similar to that of the synagogue chazzan. Hackett thought that the kai of this verse implies that he was to be doing the same kind of work as Barnabas and Saul and so to be their "helper" in preaching and teaching. The more common view has been (Meyer, Swete, et al.) that he was to perform "personal service not evangelistic," "official service but not of the menial kind"--to be a sort of business agent. The view that he was to be a teacher, a catechist for converts, seems to fit best all the facts.

Why did he turn back from the work (Acts 13:13)? Not because of homesickness, or anxiety for his mother's safety, or home duties, or the desire to rejoin Peter, or fear of the perils incident to the journey, but rather because he objected to the offer of salvation to the Gentiles on condition of faith alone. There are hints that Mark's family, like Paul's, were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and it is not without significance that in both verses (Acts 13:5,13) he is given only his Hebrew name. The terms of Paul's remonstrance are very strong (Acts 15:38), and we know that nothing stirred Paul's feelings more deeply than this very question. The explanation of it all may be found in what happened at Paphos when the Roman Sergius Paulus became a believer. At that time Paul (the change of name is here noted by Luke) stepped to the front, and henceforth, with the exception of 15:12,25, where naturally enough the old order is maintained, Luke speaks of Paul and Barnabas, not Barnabas and Saul. We must remember that, at that time, Paul stood almost alone in his conviction. Barnabas, even later than that, had misgivings (Gal 2:13). Perhaps, too, Mark was less able than Barnabas himself to see the latter take second place.

We hear nothing further of Mark until the beginning of the second missionary journey 2 years later, when Paul's unwillingness to take him with them led to the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and to the mission of Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:39). He is here called Mark, and in that quiet way Luke may indicate his own conviction that Mark's mind had changed on the great question, as indeed his willingness to accompany Paul might suggest. He had learned from the discussions in the council at Jerusalem and from subsequent events at Antioch.

About 11 years elapse before we hear of him again (Col 4:10 f; Philem 1:24). He is at Rome with Paul. The breach is healed. He is now one of the faithful few among Jewish Christians who stand by Paul. He is Paul's honored "fellowworker" and a great "comfort" to him.

The Colossian passage may imply a contemplated visit by Mark to Asia Minor. It may be that it was carried out, that he met Peter and went with him to Babylon. In 1 Pet 5:13 the apostle sends Mark's greeting along with that of the church in Babylon. Thence Mark returns to Asia Minor, and in 2 Tim 4:11 Paul asks Timothy, who is at Ephesus, to come to him, pick up Mark by the way, and bring him along. In that connection Paul pays Mark his final tribute; he is "useful for ministering" (euchrestos eis diakonian), so useful that his ministry is a joy to the veteran's heart.

3. His History as Known from Other Sources:

The most important and reliable tradition is that he was the close attendant and interpreter of Peter, and has given us in the Gospel that bears his name account of Peter's teaching. For that comradeship the New Testament facts furnish a basis, and the gaps in the New Testament history leave plenty of room. An examination of the tradition will be found in MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO (which see).

Other traditions add but little that is reliable. It is said that Mark had been a priest, and that after becoming a Christian he amputated a finger to disqualify himself for that service. Hence, the nickname kolobo-daktulos, which, however, is sometimes otherwise explained. He is represented as having remained in Cyprus until after the death of Barnabas (who was living in 57 AD according to 1 Cor 9:5 f) and then to have gone to Alexandria, founded the church there, become its first bishop and there died (or was marthyred) in the 8th year of Nero (62-63). They add that in 815 AD Venetian soldiers stole his remains from Alexandria and placed them under the church of Mark at Venice.

LITERATURE.

Chase, HDB, III, 245 ff; Rae, DCG, II, 119 f; Harnack, Encyclopedia Brit; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 427-56; Lindsay, Salmond, Morison and Swete in their Comms.

J. H. Farmer


MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, 1

|| I. OUR SECOND GOSPEL

II. CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. Scope

2. Material Peculiar to Mark

3. Quotations

4. A Book of Mighty Works

5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher

6. A Book of Graphic Details

III. THE TEXT

IV. LANGUAGE

1. General Character

2. Vocabulary

3. Style

4. Original Language

V. AUTHORSHIP

1. External Evidence

2. Internal Evidence

VI. SOURCES AND INTEGRITY

VII. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

VIII. HISTORICITY

IX. PURPOSE AND PLAN

1. The Gospel for Romans

2. Plan of the Gospel

X. LEADING DOCTRINES

1. Person of Christ

2. The Trinity

3. Salvation

4. Eschatology

LITERATURE

I. Our Second Gospel.

The order of the Gospels in our New Testament is probably due to the early conviction that this was the order in which the Gospels were written. It was not, however, the invariable order. The question of order only arose when the roll was superseded by the codex, our present book-form. That change was going on in the 3rd century. Origen found codices with the order John-Matthew-Mark-Luke--due probably to the desire to give the apostles the leading place. That and the one common today may be considered the two main groupings--the one in the order of dignity, the other in that of time. The former is Egyptian and Latin; the latter has the authority of most Greek manuscripts, Catalogues and Fathers, and is supported by the old Syriac.

Within these, however, there are variations. The former is varied thus: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark, and Matthew-John-Mark-Luke, and Matthew-John-Luke-Mark; the latter to Matthew-Mark-John-Luke. Mark is never first; when it follows Luke, the time consideration has given place to that of length.

II. Contents and General Characteristics.

1. Scope:

The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included. These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in Acts 10:37-43. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in Acts 10) practically make up the Gospel.

2. Material Peculiar to Mark:

Matter peculiar to Mark is found in 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); 3:21 (his kindred's fear); 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); 8:22-26 (the blind man); 13:33-37 (the householder and the exhortation to watch); 14:51 (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark's account is very much fuller; e.g. 6:14-29 (death of John the Baptist); Mk 7:1-23 (on eating with unwashen hands); 9:14-29 (the demoniac boy); 12:28-34 (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists. Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11).

3. Quotations:

In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isa part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in Jn 3:28. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequency. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John. Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21, Acts 107. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in Mk 7:7 where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, "in vain do they worship me"--a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but "teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, 9:48; 10:19; 12:32.

4. A Book of Mighty Works:

Judged by the space occupied, Mark is a Gospel of deeds. Jesus is a worker. His life is one of strenuous activity. He hastens from one task to another with energy and decision. The word euthus, i.e. "straightway," is used 42 times as against Matthew's 7 and Luke's 1. In 14 of these, as compared with 2 in Matthew and none in Luke, the word is used of the personal activity of Jesus. It is not strange therefore that the uneventful early years should be passed over (compare Jn 2:11). Nor is it strange that miracles should be more numerous than parables. According to Westcott's classification (Introduction to Study of the Gospel, 480-86), Mark has 19 miracles and only 4 parables, whereas the corresponding figures for Matthew are 21 to 15 and for Luke 20 to 19. Of the miracles 2 are peculiar to Mark, of the parables only 1. The evangelist clearly records the deeds rather than the words of Jesus. These facts furnish another point of contact with Peter's speeches in Acts--the beneficent character of the deeds in Acts 10:38, and their evidential significance in Acts 2:22 (compare Mk 1:27; 2:10, etc.).

The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (1:21-28), the paralytic (2:1-12), the withered hand (3:1-5), the storm stilled (4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-17), Jairus' daughter (5:22 ff), the woman with the issue (5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (8:1-10), walking on the water (6:48 ff); the Syrophoenician's daughter (7:24-30), the deaf mute (7:31-37), the blind man (8:22-26), the demoniac boy (9:14 ff), blind Bartimeus (10:46-52), the fig tree withered (11:20 ff), the resurrection (16:1 ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott's Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea.

5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher:

Though what has been said is true, yet Mark is by no means silent about Jesus as a teacher. John the Baptist is a preacher (Mk 1:4,7), and Jesus also is introduced as a preacher, taking up and enlarging the message of John. Very frequent mention is made of him as teaching (e.g. Mk 1:21; 2:13; 6:6, etc.); indeed the words didache, and didasko, occur more frequently in Mark than in any other Gospel. Striking references are made to His originality, methods, popularity and peerlessness as a teacher (Mk 1:22; 4:1 f,33; 11:27 through 12:37; especially 12:34). A miracle is definitely declared to be for the purpose of instruction (Mk 2:10), and the implication is frequent that His miracles were not only the dictates of His compassion, but also purposed self-revelations (Mk 5:19 f; 11:21-23). Not only is He Himself a teacher, but He is concerned to prepare others to be teachers (Mk 3:13 f; 4:10 f). Mark is just as explicit as Matthew in calling attention to the fact that at a certain stage He began teaching the multitude in parables, and expounding the parables to His disciples (Mk 4:2-11 f). He mentions, however, only four of them--the Sower (Mk 4:1-20), the Seed Growing Secretly (Mk 4:26-29), the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-32) and the Husband-men (Mk 12:1-12). The number of somewhat lengthy discourses and the total amount of teaching is considerably greater than is sometimes recognized. Mark 4 and 13 approach most nearly to the length of the discourses in Matthew and correspond to Mt 13 and 24 respectively. But in Mk 7:1-23; 9:33-50; 10:5-31,39-45 and 12:1-44 we have quite extensive sayings. If Jesus is a worker, He is even more a teacher. His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works. The teachings grew naturally out of the occasion and the circumstances. He did and taught. Because He did what He did He could teach with effectiveness. Both works and words reveal Himself.

6. A Book of Graphic Details:

There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (7:33; 9:36; 10:16) and His looks of inquiry (5:32), in prayer (6:41; 7:34), of approval (3:34), love (10:21), warning (to Judas especially 10:23), anger (3:5), and in judgment (11:11). Jesus hungers (11:12), seeks rest in seclusion (6:31) and sleeps on the boat cushion (4:38); He pities the multitude (6:34), wonders at men's unbelief (6:6), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (6:34; 8:12), grieves at their hardening (3:5), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (8:33; 10:14). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (1:31; 2:11 f; 3:5), sometimes as gradual or difficult (1:26; 7:32-35; 9:26-28), and once as flatly impossible "because of their unbelief" (6:6). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (1:32), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (3:10), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (1:22) and power (2:12). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (4:41), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (10:32). Many other picturesque details are given, as in 1:13 (He was with the wild beasts); 2:4 (digging through the roof); 4:38 (lying asleep on the cushion); 5:4 (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); 6:39 (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (1:29; 3:6; 13:3; 15:21), numbers (5:13; 6:7), time (1:35; 2:1; 11:19; 16:2), and place (2:13; 3:8; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68 and 15:39). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark's Gospel, 26 ff.)

III. The Text.

Of the 53 select readings noted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (Into), only a few are of special interest or importance. The following are to be accepted: en to Esaia to prophete (Mk 1:2) hamartematos (Mk 3:29); pleres (indeclinable, 4:28); to tekton (Mk 6:3; Jesus is here called "the carpenter"); autou (Mk 6:22, Herod's daughter probably had two names, Salome and Herodias); pugme (Mk 7:23, "with the fist," i.e. "thoroughly," not pukna "oft"). Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek are to be followed in rejecting pisteusai (leaving the graphic To Ei dune (Mk 9:23)); kai nesteia (Mk 9:29); pasa...halisthesetai (Mk 9:49); tous...chremasi (Mk 10:24); but not in rejecting huiou Theou (Mk 1:1). They are probably wrong in retaining hous...onomasan (Mk 3:14; it was probably added from Lk 6:31); and in rejecting kai klinon and accepting hrantisontai instead of baptisontai (Mk 7:4; ignorance of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews led to these scribal changes; compare Lk 11:38, where ebaptisthe is not disputed). So one may doubt eporei (Mk 6:20), and suspect it of being an Alexandrian correction for epoiei which was more difficult and yet is finely appropriate.

The most important textual problem is that of Mk 16:9-20. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter's words, that for some reason those then failed him and that 16:9-20 are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think 16:8 is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that 16:9-20, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John's authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.

It is just possible that the Gospel did end at verse 8. The very abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived in the atmosphere of the Resurrection and would form an even appropriate closing for the Gospel of the Servant (see below). A Servant comes, fulfills his task, and departs--we do not ask about his lineage, nor follow his subsequent history.

IV. Language.

1. General Character:

Mark employs the common coloquial Greek of the day, understood everywhere throughout the Greek-Roman world. It was emphatically the language of the Character people, "known and read of all men." His vocabulary is equally removed from the technicalities of the schools and from the slang of the streets. It is the clean, vigorous, direct speech of the sturdy middle class.

2. Vocabulary:

Of his 1,330 words, 60 are proper names. Of the rest 79 are peculiar to Mark, so far as the New Testament is concerned; 203 are found elsewhere only in the Synoptics, 15 only in John's Gospel, 23 only in Paul (including Hebrews), 2 in the Catholic Epistles (1 in James, 1 in 2 Peter), 5 in the Apocalypse (Revelation) (see Swete, Commentary on Mark). Rather more than a fourth of the 79 are non-classical as compared with one-seventh for Luke and a little more than one-seventh for Mr. Hawkins also gives a list of 33 unusual words or expressions. The most interesting of the single words are schizomanous, ephien, komopoleis, ekephaliosan, proaulion, and hoti, in the sense of "why" (Mk 2:16; 9:11,28); of the expressions, the distributives in Mk 6:7,39 f and 14:19, the Hebraistic ei dothesetai, and hotan with the indicative. Of ordinary constructions the following are found with marked frequency: kai (reducing his use of de to half of Matthew's or Luke's), historic present (accounting for the very frequent use of legei instead of eipen the periphrastic imperfect, the article with infinitives or sentences, participles, and prepositions.

There are indications that the writer in earlier life was accustomed to think in Aramaic. Occasionally that fact shows itself in the retention of Aramaic words which are proportionately rather more numerous than in Matthew and twice as numerous as in Luke or John. The most interesting of these are taleitha koum, ephphatha, and Boanerges, each uttered at a time of intense feeling.

Latinisms in Mark are about half as numerous as Aramaisms. They number 11, the same as in Matthew, as compared with 6 in Luke and 7 in John. The greater proportion in Mark is the only really noteworthy fact in these figures. It suggests more of a Roman outlook and fits in with the common tradition as to its origin and authorship.

For certain words he has great fondness: euthus 42 times; akathartos 11 times; blepo, and its compounds very frequently; so eperotan, hupagein, exousia, euaggelion, proskaleisthai, epitiman compounds of poreuesthai, sunzetein, and such graphic words as ekthambeisthai, embrimasthai, enagkalizesthai, and phimousthai. The following he uses in an unusual sense: eneichen, pugme, apechei, epibalon.

The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the anacolutha and other broken constructions, e.g. Mk 4:31 f; 5:23; 6:8 f; 11:32. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in 7:3-5; some to the introduction of a quotation as in 7:11 f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II, 6 above).

3. Style:

The style is very simple. The common connective is kai. The stately periods of the classics are wholly absent. The narrative is commonly terse and concise. At times, however, a multitude of details are crowded in, resulting in unusual fullness of expression. This gives rise to numerous duplicate expressions as in Mk 1:32; 2:25; 5:19 and the like, which become a marked feature of the style. The descriptions are wonderfully vivid. This is helped out by the remarkably frequent use of the historic present, of which there are 151 examples, as contrasted with 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke, apart from its use in parables. Mark never uses it in parables, whereas Matthew has 15 cases, and Luke has 5. John has 162, a slightly smaller proportion than Mark on the whole, but rather larger in narrative parts. But Mark's swift passing from one tense to another adds a variety and vividness to the narrative not found in John.

4. Original Language:

That the original language was Greek is the whole impression made by patristic references. Translations of the Gospel are always from, not into, Greek. It was the common language of the Roman world, especially for letters. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek. Half a century later Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth in Greek. The Greek Mark bears the stamp of originality and of the individuality of the author.

Some have thought it was written in Latin. The only real support for that view is the subscription in a few manuscripts (e.g. 160, 161, egraphe Rhomaisti en Rhome) and in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac. It is a mistaken deduction from the belief that it was written in Rome or due to the supposition that "interpreter of Peter" meant that Mark translated Peter's discourses into Latin

Blass contended for an Aramaic original, believing that Luke, in the first part of Acts, followed an Aramaic source, and that that source was by the author of the Second Gospel which also, therefore, was written in Aramaic. He felt, moreover, that the text of Mark suggests several forms of the Gospel which are best explained as translations of a common original. Decisive against the view is the translation of the few Aramaic words which are retained.

V. Authorship.

1. External Evidence:

The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the manuscripts. The most important patristic statements are the following:

Papias--Asia Minor, circa 125 AD--(quoted by Eus., HE, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."

Justin Martyr--Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD--(In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his `Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee `Boanerges,' which means `Sons of Thunder,' " etc.

Irenaeus--Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD--(Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."

Clement of Alexandria--circa 200 AD--(Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."

Also (Eus., HE, II, 15): "So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mk. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches."

Tertullian--North Africa, circa 207 AD--(Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."

Origen--Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD--("Comm. on Mt" quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."

Eusebius--Caesarea, circa 325 AD--(Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."

Epiphanius--Cyprus, circa 350 AD--(Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."

Jerome--East and West, circa 350 AD--(De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."

Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."

Preface Commentary on Matthew: "The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching."

To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment--circa 170 AD--"which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: `quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit' " (see below).

These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.

That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (3:17).

A second point is equally clear--that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (1 Pet 5:13 the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view--that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)--is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).

There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.

The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: "(ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit," and understands it to mean that "at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down." Chase (HDB) and others regard "quibus tamen" as a literal translation of the Greek hois de, and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, "was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them." Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: "Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne," compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark's association with Peter.

The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest manuscripts, namely, kata Markon. This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been kata Petron. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle kata Matthaion.

2. Internal Evidence:

The internal evidence offers much to confirm the tradition and practically nothing to the contrary. That Peter is back of it is congruous with such facts as the following:

(1) The many vivid details referred to above (III, 6) must have come from an eyewitness. The frequent use of legei, in Mark and Matthew where Luke uses eipen, works in the same direction.

(2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark's turning of Peter's original, e.g. Mk 1:29, where Peter may have said, "We went home, James and John accompanying us." So in Mk 1:36 (contrasted with Luke's impersonal description, Lk 4:42 f); Mk 3:16; 13:3.

(3) Two passages (Mk 9:6 and 11:21) describe Peter's own thought; others mention incidents which Peter would be most likely to mention: e.g. Mk 14:37 and 14:66-72 (especially imperfect erneito); 16:7; 7:12-23 in view of Acts 10:15).

(4) In Mk 3:7 the order of names suits Peter's Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem--Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness.

(5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus. Compare Mk 5:37 with Mt 9:23, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke's corresponding passage (Lk 8:51) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of Mk 9:14 is clearly from one of the three, Luke's may be, but Matthew's is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and Lk 9:51 through 18:14 lends weight to this consideration.

(6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter's address to Cornelius (Acts 10:37-41).

(7) The book suits Peter's character--impressionable rather than reflective, and emotional rather than logical. To such men arguments are of minor importance. It is deeds that count (Burton, Short Intro).

It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter's career narrated in Mt 14:28-33 (walking on the water), 17:24-27 (tribute money), and 16:16-19 (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew's list of the Twelve that he himself is called "the publican." So "Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke" (Bacon).

As to Mark's authorship, the internal evidence appears slight. Like the others, he does not obtrude himself. Yet for that very reason what hints there are become the more impressive.

There may be something in Zahn's point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author's own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in Mk 14:51 seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents. But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated. In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in Acts 12. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word "ready"--a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife's exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare Mk 14:17 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Mt 26:20 reads: "Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples"; Lk 22:14: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him"; while Mark has: "And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve." The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms "the twelve disciples," "the apostles" and "the twelve" suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.) Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.


MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, 2

VI. Sources and Integrity.

We have seen that, according to the testimony of the Fathers, Peter's preaching and teaching are at least the main source, and that many features of the Gospel support that view. We have seen, also, subtle but weighty reasons for believing that Mark added a little himself. Need we seek further sources, or does inquiry resolve itself into an analysis of Peter's teaching?

B. Weiss believes that Mark used a document now lost containing mainly sayings of Jesus, called Logia (L) in the earlier discussions, but now commonly known as Q (Quelle). In that opinion he has recently been joined by Sanday and Streeter. Harnack, Sir John Hawkins and Wellhausen have sought to reconstruct Q on the basis of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and Luke. Allen extracts it from Matthew alone, thinking that Mark also may have drawn a few sayings from it. Some assign a distinct source for Mark 13. Streeter considers it a document written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, incorporating a few utterances by Jesus and itself incorporated bodily by Mark. Other sources, oral or written, are postulated by Bacon for smaller portions and grouped under X. He calls the final redactor R--not Mark but a Paulinist of a radical type.

In forming a judgment much depends upon one's conception of the teaching method of Jesus and the apostles. Teaching and preaching are not synonymous terms. Matthew sums up the early ministry in Galilee under "teaching, preaching and healing," and gives us the substance of that teaching as it impressed itself upon him. Mark reports less of it, but speaks of it more frequently than either Matthew or Luke. Jesus evidently gave teaching a very large place, and a large proportion of the time thus spent was devoted to the special instruction of the inner circle of disciples. The range of that instruction was not wide. It was intensive rather than extensive. He held Himself to the vital topic of the kingdom of God. He must have gone over it again and again. He would not hesitate to repeat instructions which even chosen men found it so difficult to understand. Teaching by repetition was common then as it is now in the East. The word "catechize" (katecheo) implies that, and that word is used by Paul of Jewish (Rom 2:18) and by Luke of Christian teaching (Lk 1:4).

See CATECHIST .

The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power (Mk 1:27). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.

Thus before His death the general character of that kingdom, its principles and prospects, were taught. That furnished the warp for the future Gospels. The essence, the substance and general form were the same for all the Twelve; but each from the standpoint of his own individually saw particular aspects and was impressed with special details. No one of them was large enough to grasp it all, for no one was so great as the Master. And it would be strange indeed, though perhaps not so strange as among us, if none of them wrote down any of it. Ramsay, Salmon and Palmer are quit justified in feeling that it may have been put in writing before the death of Jesus. It may well be that Matthew wrote it as it lay in his mind, giving us substantially Harnack's Q. John and James may have done the same and furnished Luke his main special source. But whether it was written down then or not, the main fact to be noted is that it was lodged in their minds, and that the substance was, and the details through mutual conference increasingly became, their common possession. They did not understand it all--His rising from the dead, for example. But the words were lodged in memory, and subsequent events made their meaning clear.

Then follow the great events of His death and resurrection, and for forty days in frequent appearances He taught them the things concerning the kingdom of God and expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, especially the necessity of His death and resurrection. These furnished the woof of the future Gospels. But even yet they are not equipped for their task. So He promises them His Spirit, a main part of whose work will be to bring to their remembrance all He had said, to lead them into all the truth, and show them things to come. When He has come they will be ready to witness in power.

The apostles' conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ's ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church (Acts 8:2). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the "certainty" or undoubted truth of it (Lk 1:4). Thus Jesus' post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.

Of that company Peter was the recognized leader, and did more than any other to determine the mold into which at least the post-resurrection teachings were cast. Luke tells us of many attempts to record them. He himself in his brief reports of Peter's addresses sketches their broad outlines. Mark, at the request of Roman Christians and with Peter's approval, undertook to give an adequate account. Two special facts influenced the result--one, the character of the people for whom he wrote; the other, the existence (as we may assume) of Matthew's Q. It would be natural for him to supplement rather than duplicate that apostolic summary. Moreover, since Q presented mainly the ethical or law side of Christianity the supplement would naturally present the gospel side of it--and so become its complement--while at the same time this presentation and the needs of the people for whom he specially writes make it necessary to add something from the body of catechetical material, oral or written, not included in Q, as his frequent kai elegen, seems to imply (Buckley, 152 ff). So Mk's is "the beginning of the Gospel." He introduces Jesus in the act of symbolically devoting Himself to that death for our sins and rising again, which constitutes the gospel and then entering upon His ministry by calling upon the people to "repent and believe in the gospel." The book is written from the standpoint of the resurrection, and gives the story of the passion and of the ministry in a perspective thus determined. About the same time it may be, Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, combines this gospel side of the teaching with his own Q side of it, adding from the common stock or abridging as his purpose might suggest or space might demand. Later Luke does a similar service for Greek Christians (compare Harnack, The Twofold Gospel in the New Testament).

The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see underIII above. Some have suggested that Mk 1:1-13 is akin to 16:9-20, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects 1:1-13 is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying Mark 13 as a true report of what Jesus said. Wendling's theory of three strata assignable to three different writers--historian, poet, and theologian--is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke's omission of Mk 6:45 through 8:26. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.

VII. Date and Place of Composition.

Ancient testimony is sharply divided. The Paschal Chronicle puts it in 40 AD, and many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive (Harnack, Chronologie, 70, 124) 10 or 12 years after the Ascension. These Swete sets aside as due to the mistaken tradition that Peter began work in Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius (42 AD). Similarly he would set aside the opinion of Chrysostom (which has some manuscripts subscriptions to support it) that it was written in Alexandria, as an error growing out of the statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 16) that Mark went to Egypt and preached there the Gospel he composed. This he does in deference to the strong body of evidence that it was written in Rome about the time of Peter's death. Still there remains a discrepancy between Irenaeus, as commonly understood, and the other Fathers. For, so understood, Irenaeus places it after the death of Peter, whereas Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria clearly place it within Peter's lifetime. But it does not seem necessary so to understand Irenaeus. It may be that it was composed while Peter was living, but only published after his death. Christopherson (1570 AD) had suggested that and supported it by the conjectural emendation of ekdosin, "surrendering," "imprisonment" for exodon, in Irenaeus. Grabe, Mill and others thought Irenaeus referred, not to Peter's death, but to his departure from Rome on further missionary tours. But if we take exodon in that sense, it is better to understand by it departure from Palestine or Syria, rather than from Rome. Irenaeus' statement that the apostles were now fully furnished for the work of evangelization (Adv. Haer., iii.1) certainly seems to imply that they were now ready to leave Palestine; and his next statement is that Matthew and Mark wrote their respective Gospels. And Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24) states explicitly that Matthew committed his Gospel to writing "when he was about" to leave Palestine "to go to other peoples." The same may very possibly be true of Mark. If the fact be that Romans in Caesarea or Antioch made the request of Mark, we can easily understand how, by the time of Irenaeus, the whole incident might be transferred to Rome.

If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of Gal 2:11 ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be "fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization." But may it not be that Paul's strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on

hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are Mk 2:26 and 13. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark's explanatory addition. Mark 13 has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.

Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James (Mk 5:37) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers--though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author's instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.

The relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is important if the very widespread conviction of the priority of Mark be true. For the most likely date for Acts is 62 AD, as suggested by the mention of Paul's two years' residence in Rome, and Luke's Gospel is earlier than the Acts. It may well have been written at Caesarea about 60 AD; that again throws Mark back into the fifties.

The great objection to so early a date is the amount of detail given of the destruction of Jerusalem. Abbott and others have marshalled numerous other objections, but they have very little weight--most of them indeed are puerile. The real crux is that to accept an earlier date than 70 AD is to admit predictive prophecy. Yet to deny that, especially for a believer in Christ, is an unwarranted pre-judgment, and even so far to reduce it as to deny its presence in this passage is to charge Luke--a confessedly careful historian--with ascribing to Jesus statements which He never made.

The eagerness to date Matthew not earlier than 70 is due to the same feeling. But the problem here is complicated by the word "immediately" (24:29). Some regard that as proof positive that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Others (e.g. Allen and Plummer) feel that it absolutely forbids a date much later than 70 AD, and consider 75 AD as a limit. But is it not possible that by by eutheos (not parachrema), Christ, speaking as a prophet, may have meant no more than that the next great event comparable with the epochal overthrow of Judaism would be His own return and that the Divine purpose marches straight on from the one to the other? The New Testament nowhere says that the second advent would take place within that generation. See below under "Eschatology." There is therefore no sufficient reason in the Olivet discourse for dating Luke or Matthew later than 60 AD, and if Mark is earlier, it goes back into the fifties.

VIII. Historicity.

Older rationalists, like Paulus, not denying Mark's authorship, regarded the miraculous elements as misconceptions of actual events. Strauss, regarding these as mythical, was compelled to postulate a 2nd-century date. When, however, the date was pushed back to the neighborhood of 70 AD, the historicity was felt to be largely established. But recently theory of "pragmatic values" has been developed; Bacon thus states it: "The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of Biblical narrative .... is the recognition of motive. The motive .... is never strictly historical but always etiological and frequently apologetic. .... The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary church" (Modern Commentary, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 9). Bacon works out the method with the result that Mark is charged again and again with historical and other blunders. This view, like Baur's tendency-theory, has elements of truth. One is that the vocabulary of a later day may be a sort of necessary translation of the original expression. But translation is neither invention nor perversion. The other is that each author has his purpose, but that simply determines his selection and arrangement of material; it neither creates nor misrepresents it if the author be honest and well informed. The word "selection" is advisedly chosen. The evangelists did not lack material. Each of the Twelve had personal knowledge beyond the content of Q or of Mark. These represent the central orb--the one the ethical, the other the evangelic side of it--but there were rays of exceeding brightness radiating from it in all directions. Luke's introduction and John's explicit declaration attest that fact. And neither John nor Luke throws the slightest suspicion on the reliability of the material they did not use. There is no sufficient reason for charging them with misstating the facts to make a point. Bacon seems to trust any other ancient writers or even his own imagination rather than the evangelists. The test becomes altogether too subjective. Yet since Christianity is a historical revelation, perversion of history may become perversion of most vital religious teaching. In the last analysis, the critic undertakes to decide just what Jesus could or could not have done or said. The utter uncertainty of the result is seen by a comparison of Schmiedel and Bacon. The former is sure that the cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" is one of the very few genuine sayings of Jesus; Bacon is equally sure that Jesus could not have uttered it. Bacon also charges Mark with "immoral crudity" because in 10:45 he reports Jesus as saying that He came "to give his life a ransom for (anti) many." Thus, on two most vital matters he charges the evangelists with error because they run counter to his own religious opinions.

Plummer's remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): "To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism." And A.T. Robertson ("Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 26): "The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels." The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin--a standing miracle. If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.

IX. Purpose and Plan.

1. The Gospel for Romans:

Mark's purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them. In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen (a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mk 3:17 (Boanerges), 5:41 (Talitha cumi), 7:11 (Corban), 10:46 (Bartimaeus), 14:36 (Abba), 15:22 (Golgotha); (b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in 14:12 and 15:42; (c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark's own narrative; (d) the Gentile sections, especially in Mark 6 through 8.

That it was for Romans is seen in (a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in Mk 12:42; (b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (2:10), patience and heroic endurance (10:17 ff); (c) 10:12 which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman. Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (15:21; compare Rom 16:13) and the resemblance between 7:1-23 and Rom 14. The Roman centurion's remark (15:39) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark's purpose as Jn 20:31 to John's.

But one cannot escape the feeling that we have in this Gospel the antitype of the Servant of Yahweh. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, 365) tells us that there are two great figures around which Isaiah's thoughts gather--the King and the Servant. The former rises "to the unsurpassable height of `God with us,' `mighty God,' teaching that in Him God shall be wholly present with His people." The Servant is the other. The former is depicted in Mt, who also identifies Him with the Servant (12:18 f); the latter by Mk who identifies Him with the Messianic King (11:10; 14:62). Davidson summarizes the description of the Servant: "(1) He is God's chosen; (2) He has a mission to establish judgment on the earth. .... The word is His instrument and the Lord is in the Word, or rather He Himself is the impersonation of it; (3) His endowment is the Spirit and an invincible faith; (4) There is in Him a marvelous combination of greatness and lowliness; (5) There are inevitable sufferings--bearing the penalty of others' sins; (6) He thus redeems Israel and brings light to the Gentiles. (7) Israel's repentance and restoration precede that broader blessing." It is not strange that this Servant-conception--this remarkable blend of strength and submission, achieving victory through apparent defeat--should appeal to Peter. He was himself an ardent, whole-souled man who knew both defeat and victory. Moreover, he himself had hired servants (Mk 1:20), and now for years had been a servant of Christ (compare Acts 4:29). That it did appeal to him and became familiar to the early Christians can be seen from Acts 3:13 and 4:30. In his First Epistle he has 17 references to Isaiah, 9 of which belong to the second part. Temperamentally Mark seems to have been like Peter. And his experience in a wealthy home where servants were kept (Acts 12:13), and as himself huperetes of apostles in Christian service, fitted him both to appreciate and record the character and doings of the perfect servant--the Servant of Yahweh. For Roman Christians that heroic figure would have a peculiar fascination.

2. Plan of the Gospel:

The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception. Christ's kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of Isa 53. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in Acts 10. That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:

Title: Mark 1:1

1. The Baptist preparing the way: Mk 1:2-8; compare Isa 40:3 f.

2. Devotement of Jesus to death for us and endowment by the Spirit: Mk 1:9-3; compare Isa 42:1 ff.

3. His greatness--the Galilean Ministry: Mk 1:14 through 8:30; compare Isa 43 through 52:12.

(1) In the synagogue: period of popular favor leading to break with Pharisaic Judaism: Mk 1:14 through 3:6.

(2) Outside the synagogue: parabolic teaching of the multitude, choice and training of the Twelve and their Great Confession: Mk 3:7 ff through 8:30.

4. His lowliness--mainly beyond Galilee: Mk 8:31 through 15; compare Isa 52:13 through 53:9.

(1) In the north--announcement of death: Mk 8:31 through 9:29.

(2) On the way to Jerusalem and the cross--through Galilee (Mk 9:30-50), Peraea (Mk 10:1-45), Judea (Mk 10:46-52).

(3) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mk 11:1-11).

(4) In Jerusalem and vicinity--opposed by the leaders (Mk 11:12 through 12:44); foretelling their doom (Mk 13); preparing for death (Mk 14:1-42); betrayed, condemned, crucified and buried in a rich man's tomb (Mk 14:43 through 15).

5. His victory--the resurrection: Mark 16; compare Isa 53:10-12. What follows in Isaiah is taken up in Acts, for the first part of which Peter or Mark may have been Luke's main source.

Generally speaking the plan is chronological, but it is plain that the material is sometimes grouped according to subject-matter.

This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word "straightway"; the predominance of deeds; the Son's not knowing the day (Mk 13:32); and the abrupt ending at Mk 16:8 (see III ).

X. Leading Doctrines.

1. Person of Christ:

The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples' confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father's declaration of Him as His Beloved Son (Mk 1:11; 9:7). That the sonship is unique is indicated in Mk 12:6 and 13:32. At the same time He is the Son of Man--true man (4:38; 8:5; 14:34); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (10:40; 14:36), and Head of humanity (2:10,28), their rightful Messiah or King (1:1; 14:62)--yet Servant of all (10:44 f); David's Son and David's Lord (12:37). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (2:5,8; 8:17) and future (8:31; 10:39; 14:27; 13), superiority to all men, whether friends (1:7; 9:3 ff) or foes (12:34), and to superhuman beings, whether good (13:32) or evil (1:13,12; 3:27).

2. The Trinity:

The Father speaks in Mk 1:11; 9:7; is spoken of in 13:32; and spoken to in 14:36. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in 11:25; 12:6 and 13:32. The Spirit is mentioned in 1:8,10,12; 3:29 and 13:11. The last passage especially implies His personality.

3. Salvation:

As to salvation, the Son is God's final messenger (Mk 12:6); He gives His life a ransom instead of many (Mk 10:45); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant (Mk 14:24); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God (Mk 15:34). From the outset He knew what was before Him--only so can His baptism be explained (Mk 1:5,11; compare 2:20); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward (Mk 10:32; 14:33-36); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life (Mk 10:45). The human condition is repentance and faith (Mk 1:15; 2:5; 5:34,36; 6:5; 9:23; 16:16), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith (Mk 1:23-26; 5:1-20; 6:35-43). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless (Mk 11:25); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ's true kindred (Mk 3:35). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew (Mk 7:24-30).

4. Eschatology:

The eschatology of this Gospel is found chiefly in Mk 8:34 through 9:1 and 13. In Mk 9:1 we have a prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem which is here given as a type and proof of His final coming for judgment and reward which He has had in mind in the preceding verses. Mark 13 is a development of this--the destruction of Jerusalem being meant in 13:5-23 and 28-31, the final coming in 13:24-27 and 32. The distinction is clearly marked by the pronouns (tauta, and ekeines, in 13:30 and 32 (compare Mt 24:34,36). In each passage (Mk 9:1; 13:30) the fall of Jerusalem is definitely fixed as toward the close of that generation; the time of the latter is known only to the Father (Mk 13:32). Between Christ's earthly life and the Second Coming He is seated at the right hand of God (Mk 12:36; 16:19). The resurrection which He predicted for Himself (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) and which actually took place (Mark 16), He affirms for others also (Mk 12:24-27).

LITERATURE.

The works marked with the asterisk are specially commended; for very full list see Moffat's Introduction.

Commentaries:

Fritzsche, 1830; Olshausen, translated 1863; J.A. Alexander, 1863; Lange, translated 1866; Meyer, 1866, American edition, 1884; Cook, Speaker's Commentary, 1878; Plumptre, Ellicott's, 1879; Riddle, Schaff's, 1879; W.N. Clarke, Amer. Comm., 1881; Lindsay, 1883; Broadus, 1881 and 1905; Morison, 1889; H.G. Holtzmann(3), 1901; Maclean, Cambridge Bible, 1893; Gould, International Critical Commentary, 1896; Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament, 1897; B. Weiss, Meyer, 1901; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901; Salmond, Century Bible; Wellhausen2, 1909; Swete, 1908; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909; Wohlenberg, Zahn's Series, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1910. For the earlier see Swete.

Introduction:

Eichhorn, 1827; Credner, 1836; Schleiermacher, 1845; De Wette, 1860; Bleek, 1866, translated 1883; Reuss, 1874, translated 1884; B. Weiss. 2nd edition, translated 1886; 3rd edition, 1897; H.J. Holtzmann, 1892; Th. Zahn, 1897, translated 1909; Godet, 1899; Julicher(6), 1906; von Soden, 1905, translated 1906; Wendling, Ur-Marcus, 1905; A. Muller, Geschichtskerne in den Evang., 1905; Wrede, Origin of New Testament Scriptures, 1907, translated 1909; Horne, 1875; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, 7th edition, 1888, and The Canon, 6th edition, 1889; Salmon, 1897; Adeney, 1899; Bacon, 1900; Burton, 1904; Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901; Introduction to the Literature of New Testament, 1911; Peake, 1909; Gregory, Einleitung., 1909; Charteris, Canonicity, 1881; The New Testament Scriptures, 1882, and popular Intros by Plumptre, 1883; Lumby, 1883; Kerr, 1892; McClymont, 1893; Dods, 1894; Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, 1889; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, 1874; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, I, 1903; II, 1909.

Mark and the Synoptic Problem:

Rushbrooke, Synopticon, 1880; Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd edition, 1906; Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890; Some New Testament Problems, 1898; H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang., 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuch. uber die evang. Gesch., 2nd edition, 1901; Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 1899; Loisy, Les ev. syn., 1908; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evang., 1905; Blass, Origin and Char. of Our Gospels, English translation, xviii; Norton, Internal Evid. of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1847; F.H. Woods, Stud. Bibl., II, 594; Palmer, Gospel Problems and Their Solution, 1899; J.A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, 1902; Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels; Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 1904; Stanton, as above, and in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), II, 234 ff; Turner, "Chronology of New Testament," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), I, 403 ff; J.J. Scott, The Making of the Gospels, 1905; Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 1906; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I, 1893; II, 2nd edition, 1904; Beitrage zur Einleitung in das New Testament, 4 volumes, translated in "Crown Theol. Lib.," Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909; Denney, Jesus and the Gospel; Cambridge Biblical Essays, edition by Swete, 1909; Oxford Studies in the Syn. Problem, edition by Sanday, 1911; Salmond, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), III, 248 ff; Maclean, Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, II, 120 f; Petrie, Growth of Gospels Shown by Structural Criticism, 1910; Buckley, Introduction to Synoptic Problem, 1912.

The Language:

Dalman, Words of Jesus, translated 1909; Deissmann, Bible Studies, translated 1901; Light from the Ancient East, translated 1910; Allen, The Expositor, I, English translation, 1902; Marshall, The Expositor, 1891-94; Wellhausen, Einleitung.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889; Swete and Hawkins.

Text:

Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek; Salmon, Introduction, chapter ix; Gregory, Text and Canon; Morison and Swete, in Commentary; Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.

Special:

Schweizer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research; Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospels, 1911; Hogg, Christ's Message of the Kingdom, 1911; Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890; Davidson, Old Testament Theology.

J. H. Farmer


MARKET, SHEEP

See SHEEP MARKET .


MARKET; MARKETPLACE; MART

mar'-ket, mar'-ketplas, mart (ma`arabh, cachar; agora): (1) Ma`arabh, from a root meaning "trading" and hence, goods exchanged, and so "merchandise" in the Revised Version (British and American), "market" in the King James Version, occurs only in Ezek 27:13,17,19,25, and is translated correctly "merchandise" in both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version. (2) Cachar means a "trading emporium," hence, mart, and merchandise. It occurs only in Isa 23:3 (see MERCHANDISE ). (3) Agora, from root meaning "to collect," means a "town meeting-place," "resort of the people," so a place where the public generally met to exchange views and wares. No doubt, the central place soon filling up, the people thronged the adjoining streets, and so in time each street thus used came to be called agora, "marketplace"; translated "marketplace(s)" in 1 Esdras 2:18; Tobit 2:3; Mt 11:16; 20:3; 23:7; Mk 6:56; 7:4; 12:38; Lk 7:32; 11:43; 20:46; Acts 16:19; 17:17; "Market of Appius" in Acts 28:15 means, probably, "street" (see APPII FORUM ).

The marketplace in New Testament times was the public open space, either simple or ornate, in town, city or country, where (Mk 6:56) the people congregated, not only for exchange of merchandise, but for one or more of the following purposes: (1) a place where the children came together to sing, dance and play, a "back-to-date" municipal recreation center (Mt 11:16,17; Lk 7:32); (2) a place for loafers, a sort of ancient, irresponsible labor bureau where the out-of-work idler waited the coming of an employer with whom he might bargain for his services, usually by the day (Mt 20:1-16); (3) a place where the proud pretender could parade in long robes and get public recognition, "salutations in the market-places," e.g. the scribes and Pharisees against whom Jesus emphatically warns His disciples (Mt 23:3-7; Mk 12:38; Lk 11:43; 20:46); (4) a place where the sick were brought for treatment, the poor man's sanatorium, a municipal hospital; Jesus "who went about doing good" often found His opportunity there (Mk 6:56); (5) a place of preliminary hearing in trials, where the accused might be brought before rulers who were present at the time, e.g. Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:19); (6) a place for religious and probably political or philosophical discussion (gossip also), a forum, a free-speech throne; no doubt often used by the early apostles not only as a place of proclaiming some truth of the new religion but also a place of advertisement for a coming synagogue service, e.g. Paul in Athens (Acts 17:17).

The Wisdom of Solomon 15:12 (the King James Version) has "They counted ... our time here a market for gain," the Revised Version (British and American) "a gainful fair," margin "a keeping of festival," Greek panegurismos, "an assembly of all." Such assemblies offered particular opportunities for business dealings.

William Edward Raffety


MARMOTH

mar'-moth, mar'-moth (Codex Vaticanus, Marmothi; Codex Alexandrinus, Marmathi): "The priest the son of Urias" to whom were committed the silver and gold for the temple by the returning exiles (1 Esdras 8:62) = "Meremoth" in parallel Ezr 8:33.


MAROTH

ma'-roth, ma'-roth (maroth; (katoikousa) (odunas): An unknown town probably in the Philistine plain, named by Micah (1:12).


MARRIAGE

mar'-ij:

Introduction

Scope and Viewpoint of the Present Article

1. Marriage among the Hebrews

2. Betrothal the First Formal Part

3. Wedding Ceremonies

4. Jesus' Sanction of the Institution

5. His Teaching concerning Divorce

LITERATURE

It would be interesting to study marriage biologically and sociologically, to get the far and near historical and social background of it as an institution, especially as it existed among the ancient Jews, and as it figures in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For, like all social institutions, marriage, and the family which is the outcome of marriage, must be judged, not by its status at any particular time, but in the light of its history. Such a study of it would raise a host of related historic questions, e.g. What was its origin? What part has it played in the evolution and civilization of the race? What social functions has it performed? And then, as a sequel, Can the services it has rendered to civilization and progress be performed or secured in any other way? This, indeed, would call for us to go back even farther--to try to discover the psychology of the institution and its history, the beliefs from which it has sprung and by which it has survived so long. This were a task well worth while and amply justified by much of the thinking of our time; for, as one of the three social institutions that support the much challenged form and fabric of modern civilization, marriage, private property and the state, its continued existence, in present form at least, is a matter of serious discussion and its abolition, along with the other two, is confidently prophesied. "Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it" (Bebel, Socialism and Sex, 199, Reeves, London; The Cooperative Commonwealth in Its Outline, Gronlund, 224). But such a task is entirely outside of and beyond the purpose of this article.

Neither the Bible in general, nor Jesus in particular, treats of the family from the point of view of the historian or the sociologist, but solely from that of the teacher of religion and morals. In short, their point of view is theological, rather than sociological. Moses and the prophets, no less than Jesus and His apostles, accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to certain practical, ethical questions, and they dealt with it accordingly. There is nothing in the record of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles to indicate that they gave to marriage any new social content, custom or sanction. They simply accepted it as it existed in the conventionalized civilization of the Jews of their day and used it and the customs connected with it for ethical or illustrative purposes. One exception is to be made to this general statement, namely, that Jesus granted that because of the exigencies of the social development Moses had modified it to the extent of permitting and regulating divorce, clearly indicating, however, at the same time, that He regarded such modification as out of harmony with the institution as at first given to mankind. According to the original Divine purpose it was monogamous, and any form of polygamy, and apparently of divorce, was excluded by the Divine idea and purpose. The treatment of the subject here, therefore, will be limited as follows: Marriage among the Ancient Hebrews and Other Semites; Betrothal as the First Formal Part of the Transaction; Wedding Ceremonies Connected with Marriage, especially as Reflected in the New Testament; and Jesus' Sanction and Use of the Institution, Teaching concerning Divorce, etc.

1. Marriage among the Hebrews:

With the Hebrews married life was the normal life. Any exception called for apology and explanation. "Any Jew who has not a wife is no man" (Talmud). It was regarded as awaiting everyone on reaching maturity; and sexual maturity comes much earlier indeed in the East than with us in the West--in what we call childhood. The ancient Hebrews, in common with all Orientals, regarded the family as the social unit. In this their view of it coincides with that, of modern sociologists. Of the three great events in the family life, birth, marriage and death, marriage was regarded as the most important. It was a step that led to the gravest tribal and family consequences. In case of a daughter, if she should prove unsatisfactory to her husband, she would likely be returned to the ancestral home, discarded and discredited, and there would be almost inevitably a feeling of injustice engendered on one side, and a sense of mutual irritation between the families (Jdg 14:20; 1 Sam 18:19). If she failed to pass muster with her mother-in-law she would just as certainly have to go, and the results would be much the same (compare customs in China). It was a matter affecting the whole circle of relatives, and possibly tribal amity as well. It was natural and deemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of the wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians of the couple involved. Though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Gen 24:8) and romantic attachments were not unknown (Gen 29:20; 34:3; Jdg 14:1; 1 Sam 18:20), the gift or woman in the case was not currently thought of as having a personal existence at her own disposal. She was simply a passive unit in the family under the protection and supreme control of father or brothers. In marriage, she was practically the chattel, the purchased possession and personal property of her husband, who was her ba`al or master (Hos 2:16), she herself being be`ulah (Isa 62:4). The control, however, was not always absolute (Gen 26:34; Ex 2:21).

The bargaining instinct, so dominant among Orientals then as now, played a large part in the transaction. In idea the family was a little kingdom of which the father was the king, or absolute ruler. There are many indications, not only that the family was the unit from which national coherence was derived, but that this unit was perpetuated through the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus society became patriarchal, and this is the key of the ancient history of the family and the nation. Through the expansion of the family group was evolved in turn the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority of the father became in turn that of the chief, the ruler, and the king. The Oriental cannot conceive, indeed, of any band, or clan, or company without a "father," even though there be no kith or kinship involved in the matter. The "father" in their thought, too, was God's representative, and as such he was simply carrying out God's purpose, for instance, in selecting a bride for his son, or giving the bride to be married to the son of another. This is as true of the far East as of the near East today. Accordingly, as a rule, the young people simply acquiesced, without question or complaint, in what was thus done for them, accepting it as though God had done it directly. Accordingly, too, the family and tribal loyalty overshadowed love-making and patriotism, in the larger sense. Out of this idea of the solidarity and selectness of the tribe and family springs the overmastering desire of the Oriental for progeny, and for the conservation of the family or the tribe at any cost. Hence, the feuds, bloody and bitter, that persist between this family or tribe and another that has in any way violated this sacred law.

Traces of what is known as beena marriage are found in the Old Testament, e.g. that of Jacob, where Laban claims Jacob's wives and children as his own (Gen 31:31,43), and that of Moses (Ex 2:21; 4:18). This is that form of marriage in which the husband is incorporated into the wife's tribe, the children belonging to her tribe and descent being reckoned on her side (compare W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 94). In Samson's case we seem to have an instance of what is known among Arabs as tsadqat marriage (from tsadaq, "gift"), the kid here being the customary tsadaq (Jdg 14; 15:1; 16:4). There is no hint that he meant to take his wife home. It is differentiated from prostitution in that no disgrace is attached to it and the children are recognized as legitimate by the tribe. Such marriages make it easier to understand the existence of the matriarchate, or the custom of reckoning the descent of children and property through the mothers. The influence of polygamy would work in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with the several wives. There is, however, no clear evidence in the Old Testament of polyandry (a plurality of husbands), though the Levirate marriage is regarded by some as a survival of it. In other words, polygamy among the Hebrews seems to have been confined to polygyny (a plurality of wives). It is easy to trace its chief causes: (1) desire for a numerous offspring ("May his tribe increase!"); (2) barrenness of first wife (as in Abraham's case); (3) advantages offered by marital alliances (e.g. Solomon); (4) the custom of making wives of captives taken in war (compare Ps 45:3,9); (5) slavery, which as it existed in the Orient almost implied it.

2. Betrothal the First Formal Part:

Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the "engagement" is with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. Gen 24:58,60 seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (Gen 29; 1 Sam 18:25). It is customary in Syria today, when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all the financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage as contracted for. Then God's blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal effected, all danger from any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day. Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on till the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price--say a year or two, or, as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was "adultery" (Dt 22:23; Mt 1:19).

Polygamy is likely to become prevalent only where conditions are abnormal, as where there is a disproportionate number of females, as in tribal life in a state of war. In settled conditions it is possible only to those able to provide "dowry" and support for each and all of the wives.

The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (1 Ch 7:4); among the middle class (1 Sam 1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (Gen 2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (Gen 4:19). Kings are warned against it (Dt 17:17; compare Gen 29:31; 30). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Ki 4; Ps 128; Prov 31; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1,13). Marriage is applied figuratively, too, to the union between God and Israel, implying monogamy as the ideal state. Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society. Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant, XVII, i, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial., 134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having "four or even five wives," and for "marrying as many as they wish" (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. Side by side with this practice all along has been the ideal principle (Gen 2:18) rebuking and modifying it. The legal theory that made the man "lord" of the wife (Gen 3:16; Tenth Commandment) was likewise modified in practice by the affection of the husband and the personality of the wife.

The difference between a concubine and a wife was largely due to the wife's birth and higher position and the fact that she was usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. A slave could not be made a concubine without the wife's consent (Gen 16:2).

3. Wedding Ceremonies:

There is a disappointing uncertainty as to the exact ceremonies or proceedings connected with marriage in Bible times. We have to paint our picture from passing allusions or descriptions, and from what we know of Jewish and Arabic customs. In cases it would seem that there was nothing beyond betrothal, or the festivities following it (see Gen 24:3 ff). Later, in the case of a virgin, an interval of not exceeding a year came to be observed.

The first ceremony, the wedding procession, apparently a relic of marriage by capture (compare Jdg 5:30; Ps 45:15), was the first part of the proceedings. The bridegroom's "friends" (Jn 3:29) went, usually by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants to the home of the groom (Mt 9:15; Jn 3:29). The joyousness of it all is witnessed by the proverbial "voice of the bridegroom" and the cry, "Behold the bridegroom cometh!" (Jer 7:34; Rev 18:23). The procession was preferably by night, chiefly, we may infer, that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.

The marriage supper then followed, generally in the home of the groom. Today in Syria, as Dr. Mackie, of Beirut, says, when both parties live in the same town, the reception may take place in either home; but the older tradition points to the house of the groom's parents as the proper place. It is the bringing home of an already accredited bride to her covenanted husband. She is escorted by a company of attendants of her own sex and by male relatives and friends conveying on mules or by porters articles of furniture and decoration for the new home. As the marriage usually takes place in the evening, the house is given up for the day to the women who are busy robing the bride and making ready for the coming hospitality. The bridegroom is absent at the house of a relative or friend, where men congregate in the evening for the purpose of escorting him home. When he indicates that it is time to go, all rise up, and candles and torches are supplied to those who are to form the procession, and they move off. It is a very picturesque sight to see such a procession moving along the unlighted way in the stillness of the starry night, while, if it be in town or city, on each side of the narrow street, from the flat housetop or balcony, crowds look down, and the women take up the peculiar cry of wedding joy that tells those farther along that the pageant has started. This cry is taken up all along the route, and gives warning to those who are waiting with the bride that it is time to arise and light up the approach, and welcome the bridegroom with honor. As at the house where the bridegroom receives his friends before starting some come late, and speeches of congratulation have to be made, and poems have to be recited or sung in praise of the groom, and to the honor of his family, it is often near midnight when the procession begins. Meanwhile, as the night wears on, and the duties of robing the bride and adorning the house are all done, a period of relaxing and drowsy waiting sets in, as when, in the New Testament parable, both the wise and the foolish virgins were overcome with sleep. In their case the distant cry on the street brought the warning to prepare for the reception, and then came the discovery of the exhausted oil.

Of the bridegroom's retinue only a limited number would enter, their chief duty being that of escort. They might call next day to offer congratulations. An Arabic wedding rhyme says:

"To the bridegroom's door went the torch-lit array,

And then like goats they scattered away."

With their dispersion, according to custom, the doors would be closed, leaving within the relatives and invited guests; and so, when the belated virgins of the parable hastened back, they too found themselves inexorably shut out by the etiquette of the occasion. The opportunity of service was past, and they were no longer needed.

At the home all things would be "made ready," if possible on a liberal scale. Jn 2 gives a picture of a wedding feast where the resources were strained to the breaking point. Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it:

"He who does not invite me to his marriage

Will not have me to his funeral."

To decline the invitation to a marriage was a gross insult (Mt 22).

It was unusual in Galilee to have a "ruler of the feast" as in Judea (Jn 2). There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us--there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible. The marriage was consummated by entrance into the "chamber," i.e. the nuptial chamber (Hebrew chedher), in which stood the bridal bed with a canopy (chuppah), being originally the wife's tent (Gen 24:67; Jdg 4:17). In all lands of the dispersion the name is still applied to the embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand or sit during the festivities. In Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew the bridegroom is said to "go in" to the bride.

A general survey of ancient marriage laws and customs shows that those of the Hebrews are not a peculiar creation apart from those of other peoples. A remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic races especially, may be noted, and striking parallels are found in the Code of Hammurabi, with regard, e.g., to betrothal, dowry, adultery and divorce. But modern researches have emphasized the relative purity of Old Testament sexual morality. In this, as in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world. Yet we should not expect to find among them the Christian standard. Under the new dispensation the keynote is struck by our Lord's action. The significance of His attending the marriage feast at Cana and performing His first miracle there can hardly be exaggerated. The act corresponds, too, with His teaching on the subject. He, no less than Paul, emphasizes both the honorableness of the estate and the heinousness of all sins against it.

4. Jesus' Sanction of the Institution:

The most characteristic use of marriage and the family by our Lord is that in which He describes the kingdom of God as a social order in which the relationship of men to God is like that of sons to a father, and their relation to each other like that between brothers. This social ideal, which presents itself vividly and continuously to His mind, is summed up in this phrase, "Kingdom of God," which occurs more than a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. The passages in which it occurs form the interior climax of His message to men. It is no new and noble Judaism, taking the form of a political restoration, that He proclaims, and no "far-off Divine event" to be realized only in some glorious apocalyptic consummation; but a kingdom of God "within you," the chief element of it communion with God, the loving relation of "children" to a "Father," a present possession. Future in a sense it may be, as a result to be fully realized, and yet present; invisible, and yet becoming more and more visible as a new social order, a conscious brotherhood with one common, heavenly Father, proclaimed in every stage of His teaching in spite of opposition and varying fortunes with unwavering certainty of its completion--this is the "kingdom" that Jesus has made the inalienable possession of the Christian consciousness. His entire theology may be described as a transfiguration of the family (see Peabody, Jesus Christ, and the Social Question, 149 ff; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 200; Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 62; B. Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, I, 72, English translation, 1882).

Beyond this Jesus frequently used figures drawn from marriage to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the kingdom, as Paul did concerning Christ and the church. There is no suggestion of reflection upon the Old Testament teaching about marriage in His teaching except at one point, the modification of it so as to allow polygamy and divorce. Everywhere He accepts and deals with it as sacred and of Divine origin (Mt 19:9, etc.), but He treats it as transient, that is of the "flesh" and for this life only.

5. His Teaching concerning Divorce:

A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? Upon the answer to that question in every age depend momentous issues, social and civic, as well as religious. The facts bearing on the question are confessedly enshrined in the New Testament, and so the inquiry may be limited to its records. Accepting with the best scholarship the documents of the New Testament as emanating from the disciples of Jesus in the second half of the 1st century AD, the question is, what did these writers understand Jesus to teach on this subject? If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistles of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see Mk 10:2 ff; Lk 16:18; Gal 1:12; 1 Cor 7:10). The Old Testament permission was a concession, He teaches, to a low moral state and standard, and opposed to the ideal of marriage given in Gen (2:23).

"The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them" (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181 f).

Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel (Mt 5:32; 19:9) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mk and Luke. Here he seems to allow divorce for "fornication" (ei me epi porneia, save for fornication"), an exception which finds no place in the parallels (compare 1 Cor 7:15, which allows remarriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen). The sense here demands that "fornication" be taken in its wider sense (Hos 2:5; Am 7:17; 1 Cor 5:1). Divorce to a Jew carried with it the right of remarriage, and the words `causeth her to commit adultery' (Mt 5:32) show that Jesus assumed that the divorced woman would marry again. Hence, if He allowed divorce, He also allowed remarriage. A critical examination of the whole passage in Mt has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of having been rewritten from Mark or from a source common to both Matthew and Mark, and combined with a semi-Jewish tradition, in short, that it is due to literary revision and compilation. The writer or compiler attempted to combine the original sayings of Jesus and His own interpretation. Believing that our Lord had not come to set aside the authority of Moses, but only certain Pharisaic exegesis, and supported, as doubtless he was, by a Jewish-Christian tradition of Palestine, he simply interpreted Mark's narrative by inserting what he regarded as the integral part of an eternal enactment of Yahweh. In doing this he was unconsciously inconsistent, not only with Mark and Luke, but also with the context of the First Gospel itself, owing to his sincere but mistaken belief that the Law of Moses must not be broken. The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible (compare Hosea; Jer 3; Hermas, Mand iv.1). Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), extra vol, 27b, and The Teaching of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A. Oxon., University of the South, 1912).

The general principle expanded in the New Testament and the ideal held up before the Christians is high and clear. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole all are agreed must depend upon social conditions and the general moral development and environment.

See furtherDIVORCE .

LITERATURE.

Material from Mishna in Selden, Uxor Heb, London, 1546; Hamberger, Real. Encyclopedia f. Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie; McLennan, Primitive Marriage; Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895; Tristram, Eastern Customs, London, 1894; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, III, concerning the family.

George B. Eager


MARROW

mar'-o (moach, chelebh, shiqquy, machah, "to make fat," "to grease"; muelos): Marrow is the nourisher and strengthener of the bones; it is said to moisten the bones: "The marrow (moach) of his bones is moistened" (Job 21:24). The fear of Yahweh "will be health to thy navel, and marrow (shiqquy, margin "refreshing, Hebrew moistening") to thy bones" (Prov 3:8). Thus, the expression is used figuratively of the things which alone can satisfy the soul: "My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow (chelebh, "fat") and fatness" (Ps 63:5); "In this mountain will Yahweh of hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow (memuchayim, particle, plural, Pual of machah), of wines on the lees well refined" (Isa 25:6). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the writer speaks of the word of God, which is "living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow" (Heb 4:12).

H. L. E. Luering


MARS' HILL

marz hil.

See AREOPAGUS .


MARSENA

mar-se'-na, mar'-se-na (marcena'; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (Est 1:14)): One of "the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom."


MARSH

marsh ((1) gebhe', the American Standard Revised Version "marsh," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "marish" (Ezek 47:11); the King James Version "pit," the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern" (Isa 30:14); compare Arabic jaba', "reservoir," "watering-through"; (2) bots, "mire"; bitstsah, "mire," "fen"; compare Arabic badda, to "trickle," badad, "a little water"; (3) TiT, "mire" "clay"; (4) chomer, "mire," "clay," "mortar"; (5) ma`abheh ha-'adhamah (1 Ki 7:46), and `abhi ha-'adhamah (2 Ch 4:17), "clay ground"): In the vision of Ezekiel the saltness of the Dead Sea is "healed" by the stream issuing from under the threshold of the temple, "But the miry places (bitstsah) thereof, and the marshes (gebhe') thereof, shall not be healed" (Ezek 47:11). Gebhe' occurs elsewhere only in Isa 30:14, where the King James Version has "pit" and the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern." Bots, "mire," is found only in Jer 38:22. Bitstsah is found also in Job 8:11,

"Can the rush grow up without mire (bitstsah)?

Can the flag grow without water?"

and in Job 40:21 (of the behemoth),

"He lieth under the lotus-trees,

In the covert of the reed, and the fen (bitstsah)."

In 1 Macc 9:42,45 helos, but in 9:42 Codex Vaticanus reads oros, "mount."

Marshes are found near the mouths of some of the rivers, as the Kishon, about the Chuleh (? waters of Merom), at various places in the course of the Jordan and about the Dead Sea, especially at its south end. For the most part Palestine is rocky and dry.

Alfred Ely Day


MARSHAL

mar'-shal: Not found in the King James Version, but in the Revised Version (British and American) the word represents two Hebrew words: (1) copher (Jdg 5:14), translated "they that handle the marshal's staff." A difficulty arises because the usual meaning of copher is "scribe" or "writer" (so the King James Version). The revisers follow Septuagint and Greek authority which favor "marshal" as against "scribe." The office of marshal was to help the general to maintain discipline (compare 1 Macc 5:42). (2) Tiphcar (Jer 51:27), a loan-word whose meaning is clear. Lenormant thinks it akin to a Babylonian-Assyrian word meaning "tablet-writer" (compare Delitzsch). Accordingly, the Revised Version margin renders Nah 3:17 "thy scribes," though the Syriac has "thy warriors," as does the Targum in Jeremiah. We must await further light on both words.

George B. Eager


MART

mart.

See MARKET .


MARTHA

mar'-tha (Martha, "mistress," being a transliteration of the feminine form of mar, "Lord"): Martha belonged to Bethany, and was the sister of Lazarus and Mary (Jn 11:1 f). From the fact that the house into which Jesus was received belonged to Martha, and that she generally took the lead in action, it is inferred that she was the eider sister. Martha was one of those who gave hospitality to Jesus during His public ministry. Thus, in the course of those wanderings which began when "he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerus" (Lk 9:51), he "entered into a certain village"--its name is not stated--and "a certain woman named Martha received him into her house" (Lk 10:38). Martha, whose sense of responsibility as hostess weighed heavily upon her, was "cumbered about much serving," and her indignation was aroused at the lack of assistance given to her by her sister. Her words, "Lord, dost thou not care?" implied a certain reproach to Jesus also, in that she felt He showed a want of sympathy with her efforts and was the cause of Mary's remissness. But Jesus, in tones of gentle reproof, reminded her that for Him not the preparation of an elaborate meal but the hearing of His Word in the spirit of Mary was the "one thing needful" (Lk 10:39-42).

Martha is first mentioned by John--the only other Gospel writer who refers to Martha--in his account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (Jn 11:1-44). The narrative indicates, however, that Jesus was already on terms of the closest friendship with her and her household (compare 11:3,5). In the incident which John here records, Martha again displayed her more practical nature by going out to meet Jesus, while Mary sat in the house (11:20). But she was not behind her sister in her love for her brother (11:19), in her faith in Jesus (11:21 f) and in her belief in the final resurrection (11:24). The power of Him, whom she termed the "Teacher," to restore Lazarus to life even upon earth was beyond her understanding. To the words of Jesus concerning this she gave, however, a verbal assent, and went and informed Mary, "The Teacher is here, and calleth thee" (11:27 f). Yet she remained inwardly unconvinced, and remonstrated when Jesus ordered the stone before the grave to be removed (11:39). Jesus then recalled His previous words to her remembrance (11:40), and vindicated them by restoring her brother to life (11:41-44). After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus then made His departure, but after a short stay in Ephraim (11:54) He returned to Bethany (Jn 12:1). While He supped there, Martha once more served, and Lazarus was also present (Jn 12:2). It was on this occasion that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (Jn 12:3-8). According to Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper, and it has hence been concluded by some that Martha was the wife or widow of Simon. The anointing described in Lk 7:36-50 happened in the house of Simon a Pharisee. But in none of the synoptist accounts is Martha mentioned. For the relationship of these anointings with each other, see MARY ,IV . As, according to John, the abode of the sisters was in Bethany, a further difficulty of a topographical nature is raised by those who hold that Luke implies, from the Galilean setting of Lk 10:38-41, that the sisters lived in Galilee. But the information supplied by Luke, upon which this inference is based, is of the vaguest (compare Lk 10:38), and the great division of Luke's Gospel (Lk 9:51 through 18:31) has within it no organic cohesion of parts. In it is mentioned that on two separate occasions Jesus passed through Samaria (Lk 9:52; 17:11). It is therefore more logical to suppose that the events described in Lk 10:38-41, falling within the intervening period, took place in Bethany during an excursion of Jesus to Judea, and formed one of the several visits upon which the friendship recorded in Jn 11:3,5 was built. According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the 2nd century (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 38, 39), Martha was present with the other two Marys at the empty grave of Jesus (compare Mt 28:1,11), and went and informed the disciples.

C. M. Kerr


MARTYR

mar'-ter (martus, Aeolic martur): One who gives heed, and so, a "witness," so translated in numerous passages, both as of one bearing testimony, and also as of one who is a spectator of anything (see WITNESS ). In the King James Version rendered "martyr" in Acts 22:20, "thy martyr Stephen"; and Rev 2:13, "Antipas my faithful martyr"; also 17:6, "the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," where alone the American Standard Revised Version retains "martyrs." These 3 passages are the beginning of the use of the word "martyr" for such witnesses as were faithful even unto death, its uniform modern use.


MARVEL; MARVELOUS

mar'-vel, mar'-vel-us (tamah, pala'; thaumazo, thaumastos): "To marvel" is the translation of tamah, "to wonder" (Gen 43:33; Ps 48:5, the Revised Version (British and American) "were amazed"; Eccl 5:8); of thaumazo, "to admire," "wonder" (Mt 8:10,27; Mk 5:20; Jn 3:7; Acts 2:7; Rev 17:7 the King James Version, etc.); "marvel" (substantive) occurs in the plural as translation of pala', "to distinguish," figuratively, "to make wonderful" (Ex 34:10, "I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought" (the Revised Version margin "created")); and of thaumastos (thauma) (2 Cor 11:14).

"Marvelous" is the translation of pala', "marvelous works" (1 Ch 16:12,24; Ps 9:1); "marvelous things" (Job 5:9; 10:16; Ps 31:21; 118:23; Isa 29:14; Dan 11:36; Zec 8:6, bis); "marvellously," pala' (Job 37:5; Hab 1:5 twice (tamah), "regard and wonder marvelously," literally, "marvel marvelously"); thaumastos, "admirable," "wonderful," is translated "marvelous" (Mt 21:42; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 15:1,3, etc.).

In Apocrypha we have "marvel" (Ecclesiasticus 11:13; 47:17; 2 Macc 1:22; 7:12); "marvelleth" (Ecclesiasticus 40:7; 43:18); "marvellous" (The Wisdom of Solomon 10:17; 19:8, etc., mostly thaumazo and compounds).

The Revised Version (British and American) has "wonder" for "marvel" (Rev 17:7)' "the marvel" for a "marvellous thing" (Jn 9:30); "marvelled" for "wondered" (Lk 8:25; 11:14); "marvelled at" for "admired" (2 Thess 1:10); "marveling" for "wondered" (Lk 9:43); "marvellous" for "wondrous" (1 Ch 16:9; Ps 105:2); "marvellous things" for "and wonders" (Job 9:10); "wonderful" for "marvellous" (Ps 139:14); for "marvelled" (Mt 9:8), "were afraid," and (Mk 12:17) "marvelled greatly" (different texts).

W. L. Walker


MARY

ma'-ri, mar'-i (Maria, Mariam, Greek form of Hebrew miryam):

I. DEFINITION AND QUESTIONS OF IDENTIFICATION

The Name Mary in the New Testament

II. MARY, THE VIRGIN

1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives

2. Mary at Cana

3. Mary and the Career of Jesus

4. Mary at the Cross

5. Mary in the Christian Community

6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition

(1) Legend

(2) Dogma

(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness

(b) Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

(c) Doctrine of Mary's Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor

(3) Conclusion

III. MARY MAGDALENE

1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7

2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck

IV. MARY OF BETHANY

1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative

2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone

3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison

4. Character of Mary

V. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES

VI. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JOHN MARK

I. Definition and Questions of Identification.

A Hebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see Ex 15:20; Nu 12:1; Mic 6:4; 1 Ch 4:17) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I.

The Name Mary in the New Testament:

(1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see MIRIAM ). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification: (a) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (b) Mary Magdalene; (c) Mary, the mother of James; (d) Mary, the mother of Joses; (e) Mary, the wife of Clopas; (f) Mary of Bethany; (g) Mary, the mother of Mark; (h) Mary of Rome; (i) the "other" Mary.

(2) A comparison of Mt 27:56; 28:1 with Mk 15:47 seems clearly to identify the "other" Mary with Mary the mother of Joses.

(3) Mk 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare Mk 15:47) (see Allen's note on Mt 27:56).

(4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latter's sister and Mary of Magdala (Jn 19:25). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15). Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus. Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus (Alphaios) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic chalpay, together with the unlikelihood that anyone important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus (see ALPHAEUS ). Along with this reasonable conclusion has grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the "Lord's brother." The available evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19).

(5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note (New Testament, II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (Rom 16:6) with the "other" Mary of Matthew. We need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have no details given is of little more than academic interest.

We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany; Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.

II. Mary, the Virgin.

The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her leading characteristics in clear light. Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has well-nigh removed Mary from history (see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ). On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims, which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.

Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, Mt 1 and 2; Lk 1 and 2; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, Jn 2:1-11; the episode of Mt 12:46; Mk 3:21,31 ff; the incident at the cross, Jn 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, Acts 1:14.

1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives:

(1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both Infancy documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of special interest to Luke (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 76 f), and there are not wanting indications that Luke's story came from Mary herself. But, while Matthew's account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the pathetic story of the Lord's mother is evident.

Luke tells the story of Mary's inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (1:26 f), her maidenly fears (1:29,35), her loyal submission (1:38), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy (1:39-55). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.

Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (1:18); her bitter humiliation (1:19), her ultimate vindication (1:20 f). Here the two narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the central fact--the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other--which is evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble, natural qualities of the subject of them.

(2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Mary's character with her quietness of spirit; her meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred silence. The canticle (Lk 1:46-55), which at least expresses Luke's conception of her nature, indicates that she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels.

2. Mary at Cana:

The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11). The relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items: (1) in a crisis of need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected; (2) she is entirely undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be; (3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her authoritative directions to the servants; (4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power. Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine. It is enough that her spontaneous appeal to her Son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He "manifested his glory." The incident confirms the Infancy narrative in which Mary's quiet and forceful personality is exhibited.

3. Mary and the Career of Jesus:

In Mt 12:46 (parallel Mk 3:31-35), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Mark's account. He interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in Mk 3:21) by the account of the accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub. This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned enthusiasm of the multitude. which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time, was not due to captious and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life--but it is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the incident is very different from this.

4. Mary at the Cross:

To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene at the cross recorded by John (19:25 ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals the true spirit of the Master's home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself.

5. Mary in the Christian Community:

The final passage which we need to consider (Acts 1:14) is especially important because in it we discover Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of the whole body of disciples on the way to faith. The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.

The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was a deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled.

6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition:

(1) Legend.

The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account.

(2) Dogma.

There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Mary's later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, II, 220, quoted by Mayor, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 288, note): "Mary's corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. Aside from the quasi-historical dogma of Mary's bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts.

(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness:

This is discussed under IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (which see) and need not detain us here.

(b) Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion.

Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, "brethren of the Lord" is explained as "foster-brethren," "cousins" or what-not; if Jesus is shown to be not only "first-born" but "only-born" Son (Lk 2:7); if the expression of Mt 1:25 is interpreted as meaning "up to and beyond" (Pusey, et al.; compare Roman Catholic Dict., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity--perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the "brethren-of-the-Lord" question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Joseph's. No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such.

It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.

(c) Doctrine of Mary's Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor:

With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines.

(i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of Rev 12:1-6 with Mary. Careful exegesis of the passage (especially 12:6), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Mary's status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Mary's motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, Expositors' Bible, "Revelation," 196 f).

Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy.

(ii) Christ's perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple (Lk 2:51) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above,II , 2, 3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Mary's position is one of dependence, not of authority.

(iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him.

(iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see Acts 1:14). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers.

To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined, 22 f).

(3) Conclusion.

Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.

III. Mary Magdalene

(Maria Magdalene = of "Magdala").--A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun "Magdala," from which the adjective "Magdalene" is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in Mt 15:39, is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 215): "'Magdala is only the Greek form of mighdol or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine' (Tristram, Bible Places, 260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near the center of the western shore of the lake."

1. Mary not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7:

As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street, undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas (see DEMON ,DEMONOLOGY ), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposi-tion popularly associated with "having a devil." The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.

According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Lk 7:37; Jn 8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Lk 11:26), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mk 5:9) suggested the use of the number 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.

The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of Luke 7 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at 7:50.

The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummer's analysis, op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary's introduction into the circle of Christ's followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.

2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck:

Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of "seeing things." Renan is the chief offender in this particular, but others have followed his example.

(1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that, henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical tremors and involuntary hallucinations.

(2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:10). But she was also the last at the cross--she and her companions (Mt 27:61; Mk 15:40). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean ministry as one of a group consisting of "many" (Lk 8:3), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herod's steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Mary's character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers, marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lord's healing power. Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord. It is impossible that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Master's need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.

IV. Mary of Bethany.

Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany (Bethania), and a member of the family consisting of a much-beloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.

The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (11:2) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of Jn 12:1,8, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (7:36-50) records an anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of Lk 7 is described as a sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hypothesis.

On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280a): "Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered such a high encomium upon Mary's act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?" We shall be compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than one.

1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative:

In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence. Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the narrative shows no signs of confusion. "The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection" (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 209).

2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone:

The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Luke's narrative taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in Lk 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a "certain tis woman named Martha," and "she had a sister called Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare Jn 11:1). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of Luke 7 (compare Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:36-50; Jn 12:1-8).

3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison:

Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads: (1) notes of time and place; (2) circumstances and scenery of the incident; (3) description of the person who did the anointing; (4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what; (5) the lesson drawn from the woman's action which constitutes our Lord's defense of it; (6) incidental features of the narrative.

Under (1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany. Under (2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon "the leper," while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served. Under (3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say "a woman," while John designates Mary. (4) According to Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged wastefulness of the action. (5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. John's expression in particular is most interesting and peculiar (see Jn 12:7). (6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place is by Matthew and Mark designated "the leper." This must mean either that he had previously been cured or that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, "Mark," 257). The presence of a healed leper on this occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing power.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of Lk 7.

An analysis of the incident of Lk 7 with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists. (1) The time and place indications, such as they are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of any such identification. (2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon "the leper" and Simon "the Pharisee" can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simon's temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been proscribed by the authorities. Simon's attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christ's ministry, but the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood. (3) The description of the same woman as sinner in the sense of Lk 7 in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in Luke's description is seriously at variance with the other narratives. (4) Luke is again at variance with the others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Luke's account there is no complaint of the woman's action suggested. There is no hint that anybody thought or pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simon's, and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of our Lord's Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it apart from all other similar episodes.

(5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental relationship to the Lord's death, near at hand.

This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven penitent. In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the grave, and, may we not say (in view of Jn 12:7), grief and foreboding? That Mary's feeling was expressed in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Mary's act, though later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her quite as natural and deserved.

4. Character of Mary:

With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the career and estimate the character of Mary. (1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In Lk 10:38-42 we are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening. This, of course, might mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is not difficult to identify. She was just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. Mary's quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against the foil of Martha's excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it, Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct. (2) In Jn 11:20, we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters; especially, as when Mary does come at Martha's call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (11:21,32), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lord's composure that He is unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (11:34). (3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she serves. She always serves when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of Lk 10:38-42 is sketched again in lifelikeness. It is the same Martha engaged in the same task. But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an unprecedented role, strange to an oriental woman and especially to one so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to expect from these deep, intense, silent natures. The Mary who sat at Jesus' feet in listening silence while Martha bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a self-forgetful public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.

Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (Jn 11:5). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, with a latent capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord.

V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses.

Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see Mt 27:55,56,61; Mk 15:40; 16:1; Lk 24:10; compare Lk 23:49-56).

In Mt 27:55,56 (parallel Mk 15:40), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III , above); Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedee's children. By reference to Lk 8:2,3, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Mary's sons accompanied their mother on this ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle. It is interesting to note that two mothers with their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas' wife (Lk 8:3) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women.

The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (Mk 15:40); a spectator at the burial (Mk 15:47); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this woman's biography extant, but perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore. A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.

VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark.

This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (Acts 12:12), but in a connection to arouse intense interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see Paul the Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house. This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly upon his escape from prison argues that Mary's house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship. The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers assembled points in the same direction. That "many" were gathered in the house at the same time indicates that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a household of more than ordinary size. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Mary's house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled devotion to Christian service, making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became.

Louis Matthews Sweet


MARY, THE PASSING OF

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .


MASALOTH

mas'-a-loth.

See MESALOTH .


MASCHIL

mas'-kil.

See PSALMS .


MASH

(mash): Named in Gen 10:23 as one of the sons of Aramaic In the parallel passage in 1 Ch 1:17 the name is given as "Meshech" (meshekh), and the Septuagint (Mosoch) supports this form in both passages. "Meshech," however, is a Japhetic name (Gen 10:2), and "Mash" would seem to be the original reading. It is probably to be identified with the Mons Masius of classical writers (Strabo, etc.), on the northern boundary of Mesopotamia.


MASHAL

ma'-shal (mashal, 1 Ch 6:74).

See MISHAL .


MASIAS

ma-si'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Masias; Codex Vaticanus, Meisaias): The head of one of the families of Solomon's servants (1 Esdras 5:34); it has no equivalent in the parallel Ezr 2:55 ff; the Revised Version margin "Missaias."


MASMAN

mas'-man.

See MAASMAS .


MASON

ma'-s'n: The translation of 4 Hebrew words: (1) charash 'ebhen, "graver of stone" (2 Sam 5:11); (2) (3) gadhar (2 Ki 12:12), charash qur (1 Ch 14:1), "maker of a wall (or hedge)"; (4) chatsabh, "a hewer or digger (of stones)" (1 Ch 22:2; Ezr 3:7). Lebanon still supplies the greater number of skilled masons to Palestine and Syria (see 2 Sam 5:11), those of Shweir being in special repute.

See CRAFTS ,II , 8; alsoARCHITECTURE ;BUILDING ;GEBAL ;HOUSE .


MASPHA

mas'-fa (1 Macc 3:46, the Revised Version (British and American) "Mizpeh").

See MIZPEH , 4.


MASREKAH

mas'-re-ka, mas-re'-ka (masreqah; Masekka): A place mentioned in the list of ancient rulers of Edom (Gen 36:31), "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Masrekah was the royal city of Samlah, son of Hadad (Gen 36:36; 1 Ch 1:47). The name may mean "place of choice vines," but there is nothing to show in what locality it must be sought.


MASSA

mas'-a (massa', "burden"): Descendant of Abraham through Ishmael (Gen 25:14; 1 Ch 1:30). His people may be the Masani of Ptolemy, having Eastern Arabia near Babylon as their habitat. The marginal reading of the heading to Prov 31 mentions Lemuel as king of Massa. If that reading is accepted, it would seem that a tribe and probably a place were named from Ishmael's descendant. The reading is doubtful, however, for where the phrase recurs in Prov 30 (Revised Version (British and American)) it appears to be a gloss.


MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS

mas'-a-ker.

See INNOCENTS ,MASSACRE OF THE .


MASSAH AND MERIBAH

mas'-a, mer'-i-ba (maccah umeribhah, "proving and strife"; peirasmos kai loidoresis): These names occur together as applied to one place only in Ex 17:7; they stand, however, in parallelism in Dt 33:8; Ps 95:8. In all other cases they are kept distinct, as belonging to two separate narratives. The conjunction here may be due to conflation of the sources. Of course, it is not impossible that, for the reason stated, the double name was given, although elsewhere (Dt 6:16; 9:22) the place is referred to as Massah.

1. First Instance:

This scene is laid in Ex 17:1 at REPHIDIM (which see) and in 17:6 at HOREB (which see). It is near the beginning of the desert wanderings. In dearth of water the people murmur and complain. Moses, appealing to God, is told what to do. He takes with him the elders of Israel, and smites with his rod the rock on which the Lord stands in Horeb, whereupon water gushes forth, and the people drink. Here Moses alone is God's agent. There is no hint of blame attaching to him. He called the place Massah and Meribah, because of the of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord (17:7). In some way not indicated, here and at Meribah, God put the Levites to proof (Dt 33:8).

2. Second Instance:

The second narrative describes what took place at Kadesh (i.e. "Kadesh-barnea") when the desert wanderings were nearly over (Nu 20:1-13). The flow of water from the famous spring for some reason had ceased. In their distress the people became impatient and petulant. At the door of the tent of meeting Moses and Aaron received the Lord's instructions. In his speech of remonstrance to the people Moses seemed to glorify himself and his brother; and instead of speaking to the rock as God had commanded, he struck it twice with his rod. The flow of water was at once restored; but Moses and Aaron were heavily punished because they did not sanctify God in the eyes of the children of Israel. The "Waters of Meribah" was the name given to this scene of strife. The incident is referred to in Nu 20:24, and Dt 32:51 (merobhath qadhesh, the King James Version "Meribah-Kadesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "Meribah of Kadesh"). In Ps 81:7 God appears as having tested Israel here. The sin of Israel and the ensuing calamity to Moses are alluded to in Ps 106:32.

The place appears in Ezek 47:19; 48:28, as on the southern border of the land of Israel, in the former as "Meriboth-kadesh," in the latter as "Meribath-kadesh" (Meriboth = plural Meribath = "construct singular") where the position indicated is that of `Ain Qadis, "Kadesh-barnea."

In Dt 33:2, by a slight emendation of the text we might read meribhoth qadhesh for meribhebhoth qodhesh. This gives a preferable sense.

W. Ewing


MASSIAS

ma-si'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Massias; Codex Vaticanus, Asseias): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:22) = "Maaseiah" of Ezr 10:22.


MAST

See SHIPS AND BOATS ,II , 2, (3); 3.


MASTER

mas'-ter ('adhon, ba`al, rabbi; despotes, didaskalos, kurios, rhabbi): "Master," when the translation of 'adhon, "ruler," "lord" (Sir), often translated "lord," denotes generally the owner or master of a servant or slave (Gen 24:9, etc.; 39:2, etc.; Ex 21:4, etc.; Dt 23:15 bis; 2 Sam 9:9,10 twice; Prov 30:10); elsewhere it is rather "lord" or "ruler" (often king, e.g. 1 Sam 24:6,8; 26:16); in the plural 'adhonim, it is, as the rule, used only of God (but see Gen 19:2,18; Dt 10:17; Ps 136:3, "Lord of lords"; Isa 26:13, "other lords"; 19:4 (Hebrew "lords"); 24:2). Ba`al, "lord," "owner," is translated "master": "the master of the house" (Ex 22:8; Jdg 19:22,23); "the ass his master's crib" (Isa 1:3). We have it also translated "masters of assemblies" (Eccl 12:11). See ASSEMBLIES ,MASTERS OF . Compare Ecclesiasticus 32:1, "master (of a feast)," the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler"; Jn 2:9, "ruler of the feast"; [rabh] (Dan 1:3; Jon 1:6, "shipmaster"); rabh, Aramaic, "great," "mighty," "elder" (Dan 4:9; 5:11," master of the magicians"); also [sar], "head" or "chief" (Ex 1:11, "taskmasters"; 1 Ch 15:27, "master of the song," the Revised Version margin "the carrying of the ark, Hebrew the lifting up"); `ur, "to call," "to awake," is also rendered "master" in the King James Version, "The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar," margin "him that waketh and him that answereth," the Revised Version (British and American) as the King James Version margin (Mal 2:12).

The verb "to master" does not occur in the Old Testament, but we have in Apocrypha (The Wisdom of Solomon 12:18) "mastering thy power" (despozon ischuos), the Revised Version (British and American) "being sovereign over (thy) strengh."

In the New Testament despotes answers to 'adhon as "master" (1 Tim 6:1,2; 2 Tim 2:21), rendered also "Lord" (Lk 2:29,etc.); kurios, is "Master," "Lord," "Sir," used very frequently of God or of Christ (Mt 1:20,22,24), translated "Master" (Mt 6:24; 15:27; the King James Version Mk 13:35; Rom 14:4, etc.); kathegetes, a "leader," is translated "Master" (Mt 23:8 (the King James Version),10); didaskalos, a title very often applied to our Lord in the Gospels, is "Teacher," translated "Master" in the King James Version Mt 8:19; 9:11; Mk 4:38; Lk 3:12, etc.; the Revised Version (British and American) "Teacher"; also Jn 3:2,10; Jas 3:1, "be not many masters," the Revised Version (British and American) "teachers"; rhabbi, rhabbei ("Rabbi") (a transliterated Hebrew term signifying "my Teacher") is also in several instances applied to Jesus, the King James Version "Master" (Mt 26:25,49; Mk 9:5; 11:21; Jn 9:2 (the Revised Version (British and American) leaves untranslated) Mk 10:51, "Rabboni," the King James Version "Lord"; Jn 20:16 ("Rabbouni"), the Revised Version (British and American) "Rabboni," which see).

For "master" the Revised Version (British and American) has "lord" (1 Sam 26:16; 29:4,10; Am 4:1; Mk 13:35; Rom 14:4); "master" for "lord" (Gen 39:16; 2 Pet 2:1; Rev 6:10); for "good man of the house" (Mt 24:43; Lk 12:39), "master of the house"; in Eph 6:5, the Revised Version margin gives "Gr lords" (in 6:9, "their Master and yours" is also Greek kurios); instead of "the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4), the Revised Version (British and American) reads "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," margin "the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ"; for "overcame them" (Acts 19:16), "mastered both of them."

W. L. Walker


MASTERY

mas'-ter-i, gebhurah, shelet, Aramaic; agonizomai, athleo): "Mastery" occurs twice in the Old Testament and twice in the King James Version of the New Testament: in Ex 32:18 (gebhurah, "might"), "the voice of them that shout for mastery"; in Dan 6:24 ([~shelet, "to have power"), "The lions had the mastery of them"; in 1 Cor 9:25, agonizomai, "to contend for a prize," to be a combatant in the public games, is translated "striveth for the mastery," the Revised Version (British and American) "striventh in the games"; and in 2 Tim 2:5, athelo, with the same meaning, is translated "strive for masteries," the Revised Version (British and American) "contend in the games." From the Greek we have the words "athlete," etc..

W. L. Walker


MASTIC, MASTICK

mas'-tik (schinos): A tree mentioned only in Susanna verse 54 (compare Gen 37:25 margin). It is the Pistacia lentiscus (Arabic, Mistaki), a shrub which attains a height of 10 to 12 ft., growing in thickets on the slopes round the Mediterranean. The gum which exudes through incisions made in the bark is greatly prized as a masticatory. The smell and flavor are suggestive of the terebinth. It is chewed in order to preserve the teeth and gums. But often men chew it without any special purpose, just because they like it. The mastick produced in Chios is most highly esteemed. It is employed in making perfumes and sweetmeats; in preparing bread a little is sometimes added to the dough just before it is put into the oven.

W. Ewing


MATHANIAS

math-a-ni'-as: the King James Version in 1 Esdras 9:31.

See MATTHANIAS .


MATHELAS

ma-the'-las (Codex Alexandrinus, Mathelas; Codex Vaticanus, Maeelas; the King James Version Matthelas): One of the priests who had married "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:19) = "Maaseiah" of Ezr 10:18.


MATHUSALA

ma-thu'-sa-la (Mathousala): Greek form of "Methuselah," the Revised Version (British and American) (Lk 3:37 the King James Version).


MATRED

ma'-tred (maTredh, "expulsion"): The mother of Mehetabel, wife of Hadar, one of the kings of Edom (Gen 36:39; 1 Ch 1:50, "Hadad"). The Septuagint and Peshitta designate Matred as male, i.e. as son of Mezahab instead of daughter.


MATRI

ma'-tri (maTri, "rainy"): A family of the tribe of Benjamin to which King Saul belonged (1 Sam 10:21 the King James Version).


MATRITES

ma'-trits (ha-maTri): The Revised Version (British and American) translation of maTri with the definite article, "the Matrites" (1 Sam 10:21).


MATTAN

mat'-an (mattan, "a gift"):

(1) A priest in the house of Baal, slain by Jehoiada before Baal's altar (2 Ki 11:18; 2 Ch 23:17).

(2) The father of Shephatiah a contemporary and persecutor of Jeremiah (Jer 38:1), one of those who put Jeremiah into Malechiah's dungeon (38:6).


MATTANAH

mat'-a-na (mattanah; Codex Vaticanus, Manthanaein; Codex Alexandrinus, Manthanein): A station of the Israelites which seems to have lain between Beer and Nahaliel (Nu 21:18 f). The name means "gift," and might not inappropriately be applied to a well in the wilderness (Budde translates "Out of the desert a gift"; see The Expository Times,VI , 482). Some would therefore identify it with Beer. This is improbable. There is now no clue to the place, but it must have lain Southwest of the Dead Sea.


MATTANIAH

mat-a-ni'-a (mattanyaha, "gift of Yah"):

(1) King Zedekiah's original name, but changed by Nebuchadnezzar when he made him king over Judah instead of his nephew Jehoiachin (2 Ki 24:17).

(2) A descendant of Asaph (1 Ch 9:15), leader of the temple choir (Neh 11:17; 12:8). Mentioned among the "porters," keepers of "the storehouses of the gates" (Neh 12:25), and again in Neh 12:35 as among the "priests' sons with trumpets."

(3) May be the same as (2), though in 2 Ch 20:14 he is mentioned as an ancestor of that Jahaziel whose inspired words in the midst of the congregation encouraged Jehoshaphat to withstand the invasion of Moab, Ammon and Seir (20:14 ff).

(4-7) Four others who had foreign wives, (a) the Matthanias of 1 Esdras 9:27 (Ezr 10:26); (b) the Othonias of 1 Esdras 9:28 (Ezr 10:27); (c) the Matthanias of 1 Esdras 9:31 (Ezr 10:30); (d) the fourth of these in 1 Esdras 9:34 the King James Version has had his name blended into that of Mattenai, and the two appear as the composite name Mamnitanemus (Ezr 10:37). He is a son of Bani.

(8) A Levite, father of Zaccur, ancestor of Hanan the under-treasurer of the Levitical offerings under Nehemiah (Neh 13:13).

(9) One of the sons of Heman the singer, whose office it was to blow the horns in the temple-service as David had appointed it (1 Ch 25:4,5). He was head of the 9th division of the 12 Levites (1 Ch 25:16), who were proficient in the Songs of Yahweh (1 Ch 25:7).

(10) One of the sons of Asaph who helped Hezekiah in the fulfilling of his vow to cleanse the house of the Lord (2 Ch 29:13).

Henry Wallace


MATTATHA

mat'-a-tha (Mattatha): Son of Nathan the son of David in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:31).


MATTATHAH

mat'-a-tha: the Revised Version (British and American).

See MATTATTAH .


MATTATHIAS

mat-a-thi'-as (Mattathias). The persons of this name in the Apocrypha are:

(1) Mattathias the father of the Maccabees.

See ASMONEANS ;MACCABEES .

(2) One of the 7 who stood on Ezra's right hand as he read the law (1 Esdras 9:43) = "Mattithiah" of Neh 8:4.

(3) The son--probably the youngest (compare 1 Macc 16:2)--of Simon the Maccabean, treacherously murdered along with his father and his brother Judas by his brother-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus in the stronghold of Dok near Jericho in the 177th Seleucid--136-135BC (1 Macc 16:14).

(4) Son of Absalom, one of the two "captains of the forces" who in the campaign against Demetrius in the plain of Hazor gallantly supported Judas, enabling the latter to turn an impending defeat into a great victory (1 Macc 11:70).

(5) One of the three envoys sent by Nicanor to treat with Judas in 161 BC (2 Macc 14:19). No names of envoys are given in the account of 1 Macc 7:27 ff.

(6) One of the sons of Asom who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:33) = the King James Version "Matthias" = "Mattattah" of Ezr 10:33.

In addition to these two of this name are mentioned in the New Testament:

(7) Lk 3:25, "son of Amos."

(8) Lk 3:26, "son of Semein."

S. Angus


MATTATTAH

mat'-a-ta (mattattah): the Revised Version (British and American) for "Mattathah" in the King James Version (Ezr 10:33). The same as "Mattathias" of 1 Esdras 9:33, the King James Version "Matthias" (which see).


MATTENAI

mat-e-na'-i, mat'-e-ni (mattenay, "liberal"):

(1) (2) Two who married foreign wives, one a son of Hashum (Ezr 10:33; in 1 Esdras 9:33 "Altanneus"); the other a son of Bani (Ezr 10:37).

(3) A priest in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua (Neh 12:19), representing the house of Joiarib.


MATTER

mat'-er: This word being a very general term may express various ideas. the Revised Version (British and American) therefore frequently changes the reading of the King James Version in order to state more definitely the meaning of the context (compare Ex 24:14; 1 Sam 16:18; 1 Ki 8:59; 2 Sam 11:19; Est 3:4; Ps 35:20; 64:5; Prov 16:20; 18:13). dabhar, and the Greek logos, both meaning "word," are very frequently translated by "matter." hule, "wood," is rendered "matter" in Jas 3:5 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "how much wood is kindled"; compare Sirach 28:10). Job 32:18 translates literally, "words"; also Dan 4:17, "sentence." diaphero, "to carry in different places," "to differ," is rendered "to make matter" (Gal 2:6). The meaning is "it makes a difference," "it matters," "it is of importance."

A. L. Breslich


MATTHAN

mat'-than (Textus Receptus Matthan, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Maththan): An ancestor of Jesus, grandfather of Joseph the husband of Mary (Mt 1:15).

See MATTHAT .


MATTHANIAS

mat-tha-ni'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Matthanias, Codex Vaticanus, Matan):

(1) One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:27) = "Mattaniah" of Ezr 10:26.

(2) the King James Version "Mathanias" (1 Esdras 9:31) = "Mattaniah" of Ezr 10:30. Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete, reads Beskaspasmus.


MATTHAT

mat'-that (Matthat, Maththat): The name of two ancestors of Jesus in Luke's genealogy (Lk 3:24,29), one being the grandfather of Joseph, the husband of Mary.


MATTHEW

math'-u: Matthew the apostle and evangelist is mentioned in the 4 catalogues of the apostles in Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13, though his place is not constant in this list, varying between the 7th and the 8th places and thus exchanging positions with Thomas. The name occurring in the two forms Matthaios, and Maththaios, is a Greek reproduction of the Aramaic Mattathyah, i.e. "gift of Yahweh," and equivalent to Theodore. Before his call to the apostolic office, according to Mt 9:9, his name was Levi. The identity of Matthew and Levi is practically beyond all doubt, as is evident from the predicate in Mt 10:3; and from a comparison of Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27 with Mt 9:9. Mark calls him "the son of Alpheus" (Mk 2:14), although this cannot have been the Alpheus who was the father of James the Less; for if this James and Matthew had been brothers this fact would doubtless have been mentioned, as is the case with Peter and Andrew, and also with the sons of Zebedee. Whether Jesus, as He did in the case of several others of His disciples, gave him the additional name of Matthew is a matter of which we are not informed. As he was a customs officer (ho telones, Mt 10:3) in Capernaum, in the territory of Herod Antipas, Matthew was not exactly a Roman official, but was in the service of the tetrarch of Galilee, or possibly a subordinate officer, belonging to the class called portitores, serving under the publicani, or superior officials who farmed the Roman taxes. As such he must have had some education, and doubtless in addition to the native Aramaic must have been acquainted with the Greek His ready acceptance of the call of Jesus shows that he must have belonged to that group of publicans and sinners, who in Galilee and elsewhere looked longingly to Jesus (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34; 15:1). Just at what period of Christ's ministry he was called does not appear with certainty, but evidently not at once, as on the day when he was called (Mt 9:11,14,18; Mk 5:37), Peter, James and John are already trustworthy disciples of Jesus. Unlike the first six among the apostles, Matthew did not enter the group from among the pupils of John the Baptist. These are practically all the data furnished by the New Testament on the person of Matthew, and what is found in post-Biblical and extra-Biblical sources is chiefly the product of imagination and in part based on mistaking the name of Matthew for Matthias (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, chapter liv, note 3). Tradition states that he preached for 15 years in Palestine and that after this he went to foreign nations, the Ethiopians, Macedonians, Syrians, Persians, Parthians and Medea being mentioned. He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. The stories of the Roman Catholic church that he died the death of a martyr on September 21 and of the Greek church that this occurred on November 10 are without any historical basis. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv.9) gives the explicit denial of Heracleon that Matthew suffered martyrdom.

G. H. Schodde


MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF

(euaggelion kata Maththaion (or Matthaion)):

1. Name of Gospel--Unity and Integrity

2. Canonicity and Authorship

3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels

4. Contents, Character, and Purpose

5. Problems of Literary Relation

6. Date of Gospel

LITERATURE

1. Name of Gospel--Unity and Integrity:

The "Gospel according to Matthew," i.e. the Gospel according to the account of Matthew, stands, according to traditional, but not entirely universal, arrangement, first among the canonical Gospels. The Gospel, as will be seen below, was unanimously ascribed by the testimony of the ancient church to the apostle Matthew, though the title does not of itself necessarily imply immediate authorship. The unity and integrity of the Gospel were never in ancient times called in question. Matthew 1; 2, particularly--the story of the virgin birth and childhood of Jesus--are proved by the consentient testimony of manuscripts, VSS, and patristic references, to have been an integral part of the Gospel from the beginning (see VIRGIN BIRTH ). The omission of this section from the heretical Gospel of the Ebionites, which appears to have had some relation to our Gospel, is without significance.

The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation, and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?

2. Canonicity and Authorship:

(1) Canonicity.

The apostolic origin and canonical rank of the Gospel of Matthew were accepted without a doubt by the early church. Origen, in the beginning of the 3rd century could speak of it as the first of "the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven" (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25). The use of the Gospel can be traced in the apostolic Fathers; most distinctly in Barnabas, who quotes Mt 22:14 with the formula, "It is written" (5). Though not mentioned by name, it was a chief source from which Justin took his data for the life and words of Jesus (compare Westcott, Canon, 91 ff), and apostolic origin is implied in its forming part of "the Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are called Gospels," read weekly in the assemblies of the Christians (Ap. i.66, etc.). Its identity with our Matthew is confirmed by the undoubted presence of that Gospel in the Diatessaron of Tatian, Justin's disciple. The testimony of Papias is considered below. The unhesitating acceptance of the Gospel is further decisively shown by the testimonies and use made of it in the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and by its inclusion in the Muratorian Canon, the Itala, Peshitta, etc.

See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ;GOSPELS .

(2) Authorship.

The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.

3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:

One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).

The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Mt 12:13, etc.; see GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS ). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche,XII , article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.

The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses. See further on "sources" below.

4. Contents, Character and Purpose:

(1) Contents and Character.

As respects contents, the Gospel of Mt can be divided into 3 chief parts: (1) preliminary, including the birth and early youth of the Lord (Matthew 1; 2); (2) the activity of Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 3 through 18); (3) the activity of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem, followed by His passion, death, and resurrection (Matthew 19 through 28). In character, the Gospel, like those of the other evangelists, is only a chrestomathy, a selection from the great mass of oral tradition concerning the doings and sayings of Christ current in apostolic and early Christian circles, chosen for the special purpose which the evangelist had in view. Accordingly, there is a great deal of material in Matthew in common with Mark and Lk, although not a little of this material, too, is individualistic in character, and of a nature to vex and perplex the harmonist, as e.g. Matthew's accounts of the temptation, of the demoniacs at Gadara, of the blind man at Jericho (4:1-11; 8:28-34; 20:20-34); yet there is much also in this Gospel that is peculiar to it. Such are the following pericopes: Matthew 1; 2; 9:27-36; 10:15,37-40; 11:28-30; 12:11,12,15-21,33-38; 13:24-30,36-52; 14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27; 18:15-35; 19:10-12; 20:1-16; 21:10 f,14-16,28-32; 22:1-14; 23:8-22; 24:42 through 25:46; 27:3-10,62-66; 28:11 ff. The principle of arrangement of the material is not chronological, but rather that of similarity of material. The addresses and parables of Jesus are reported consecutively, although they may have been spoken at different times, and material scattered in the other evangelists--especially in Luke--is found combined in Matthew. Instances are seen in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 through 7), the "mission address" (Matthew 10), the seven parables of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13), the discourses and parables (Matthew 18), the woes against the Pharisees (Matthew 23), and the grand eschatological discourses (Matthew 24; 25) (compare with parallel in the other gospels, on the relation to which, see below).

(2) Purpose.

The special purpose which the writer had in view in his Gospel is nowhere expressly stated, as is done, e.g., by the writer of the Fourth Gospel in Jn 20:30,31, concerning his book, but it can readily be gleaned from the general contents of the book, as also from specific passages. The traditional view that Matthew wrote primarily to prove that in Jesus of Nazareth is to be found the fulfillment and realization of the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament prophets and seers is beyond a doubt correct. The mere fact that there are about 40 proof passages in Matthew from the Old Testament, in connection even with the minor details of Christ's career, such as His return from Egypt (2:15), is ample evidence of this fact, although the proof manner and proof value of some of these passages are exegetical cruces, as indeed is the whole way in which the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament.

See QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT .

The question as to whether the Gospel was written for Jewish Christians, or for Jews not yet converted, is less important, as this book, as was the case probably with the Epistle of James, was written at that transition period when the Jewish and the Christian communions were not yet fully separated, and still worshipped together.

Particular indications as to this purpose of the Gospel are met with at the beginning and throughout the whole work; e.g. it is obvious in Mt 1:1, where the proof is furnished that Jesus was the son of Abraham, in whom all families of the earth were to be blessed (Gen 12:3), and of David, who was to establish the kingdom of God forever (2 Sam 7). The genealogy of Luke, on the other hand (3:23 ff), with its cosmopolitan character and purpose, aiming to show that Jesus was the Redeemer of the whole world, leads back this line to Adam, the common ancestor of all mankind. Further, as the genealogy of Matthew is evidently that of Joseph the foster and legal father of Jesus, and not that of Mary, as is the case in Luke, the purpose to meet the demands of the Jewish reader is transparent. The full account in Matthew of the Sermon on the Mount, which does not, as is sometimes said, contain a "new program of the kingdom of God"--indeed does not contain the fundamental principles of the Gospel at all--but is the deeper and truly Biblical interpretation of the Law over against the superficial interpretation of the current Pharisaism, which led the advocates of the latter in all honesty to declare, "What lack I yet?" given with the design of driving the auditors to the gospel of grace and faith proclaimed by Christ (compare Gal 3:24)--all this is only intelligible when we remember that the book was written for Jewish readers. Again the gegraptai--i.e. the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture, a matter which for the Jew was everything, but for the Gentile was of little concern--appears in Matthew on all hands. We have it e.g. in connection with the birth of Jesus from a virgin, His protection from Herod, His coming to Nazareth (Mt 1:22 f; 2:5,6,15,17 f,23), the activity of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3; compare 11:10), the selection of Galilee as the scene of Jesus' operations (Mt 4:14 ff), the work of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets (Mt 5:17), His quiet, undemonstrative methods (Mt 12:17 ff), His teaching by parables (Mt 13:35), His entrance into Jerusalem (Mt 21:4 f,16), His being arrested (Mt 26:54), the betrayal of Judas (Mt 27:9), the distribution of His garments (Mt 27:35). Throughout, as Professor Kubel says, the Gospel of Mt shows a "diametrical contrast between Christ and Pharisaism." Over against the false Messianic ideas and ideals of contemporary teachings among the Jews, Mt selects those facts from the teachings and deeds of Christ which show the true Messiah and the correct principles of the kingdom of God. In this respect the Gospel can be regarded as both apologetic and polemical in its aim, in harmony with which also is its vivid portraiture to the growing hostility of the Jews to Christ and to His teachings which, in the latter part of Matthew, appears as intense as it does in John. Nowhere else do we find such pronounced denunciations of the Pharisees and their system from the lips of Jesus (compare Mt 9:11 ff; 12:1 ff; 15:1 ff; 16:1 ff; and on particular points 5:20 ff; 9:13; 23:23; see also 8:12; 9:34; 12:24; 21:43). It is from this point of view, as representing the antithesis to the narrow Pharisaic views, that we are to understand the writer's emphasis on the universality of the kingdom of Jesus Christ (compare Mt 3:1-12; 8:10-12; 21:33-44; 28:18-20)--passages in which some have thought they discerned a contradiction to the prevailing Jewish strain of the Gospel.

5. Problems of Literary Relation:

The special importance of the Gospel of Matthew for the synoptic problem can be fully discussed only in the article on this subject (see GOSPELS ,THE SYNOPTIC ), and in connection with Mark and Luke. The synoptic problem deals primarily with the literary relations existing between the first 3 Gospels. The contents of these are in many cases so similar, even in verbal details, that they must have some sources in common, or some dependence or interdependence must exist between them; on the other hand, each of the 3 Gospels shows so many differences and dissimilarities from the other two, that in their composition some independent source or sources--oral or written--must have been employed. In general it may be said that the problem itself is of little more than literary importance, having by no means the historical significance for the development of the religion of the New Testament which the Pentateuchal problem has for that of the Old Testament. Nor has the synoptic problem any historical background that promises a solution as the Pentateuchal problem has in the history of Israel. Nothing save an analysis of the contents of these Gospels, and a comparison of the contents of the three, offers the scholar any material for the study of the problem, and as subjective taste and impressions are prime factors in dealing with materials of this sort, it is more than improbable, in the absence of any objective evidence, that the synoptic problem in general, or the question of the sources of Matthew in particular, will ever be solved to the satisfaction of the majority of scholars. The hypothesis which at present has widest acceptance is the "two-source" theory, according to which Mark, in its existing or some earlier form, and the problematical original Matthew (Q), constitute the basis of our canonical Gospel.

In proof of this, it is pointed out that nearly the whole of the narrative-matter of Mark is taken up into Matthew, as also into Luke, while the large sections, chiefly discourses, common to Matthew and Luke are held, as already said, to point to a source of that character which both used. The difficulties arise when the comparison is pursued into details, and explanation is sought of the variations in phraseology, order, sometimes in conception, in the respective gospels.

Despite the prestige which this theory has attained, the true solution is probably a simpler one. Matthew no doubt secured the bulk of his data from his own experience and from oral tradition, and as the former existed in fixed forms, due to catechetical instruction, in the early church, it is possible to explain the similarities of Matthew with the other two synoptics on this ground alone, without resorting to any literary dependence, either of Matthew on the other two, or of these, or either of them, on Matthew. The whole problem is purely speculative and subjective and under present conditions justifies a cui bono? as far as the vast literature which it has called into existence is concerned.

6. Date of Gospel:

According to early and practically universal tradition Mt wrote his Gospel before the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill.1), and Eusebius states that this was done when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that "the gospels containing the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark, and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (compare 2415). The most likely date for the Greek Gospel is in the 7th Christian decade. Zahn claims that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine in 62 AD, while the Greek Matthew dates from 85 AD, but this latter date is not probable.

LITERATURE.

Introduction to the Commentary on Matthew (Meyer, Alford, Allen (ICC), Broadus (Philadelphia, 1887), Morison, Plummer, Schaeffer in Lutheran Commentary (New York, 1895), etc.); works on Introduction to the New Testament (Salmon, Weiss, Zahn, etc.); articles in Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia may be consulted. See also F.C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei and Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien; Sir J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, V, "Papias of Hierapolis" (this last specially on the sense of Logia).

See also the works cited inMARK ,THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO .

G. H. Schodde


MATTHIAS

ma-thi'-as (Matthias, or Maththias; Mattithyah, "given of Yah"): Matthias was the one upon whom the lot fell when he, along with Joseph Barsabbas, was put forward to fill up the place in the apostleship left vacant by Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26). This election was held at Jerusalem, and the meeting was presided over by Peter. The conditions demanded of the candidates were that they should "have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us," and that the one chosen should "become a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21,22). The mode of procedure was by lot, and with prayer was the election made (compare Acts 1:24).

Hilgenfeld identifies Matthias with Nathanael (compare NATHANAEL ). He was traditionally the author of the "Gospel of Matthias," a heretical work referred to by Origen (Hom. on Lk, i), by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25, 6) and by Hieronymus (Proem in Matth.). No trace of it is left. The Gnostic Basilides (circa 133 AD) and his son Isidor claimed to ground their doctrine in the "Gospel of Basilides" on the teaching Matthias received directly from the Saviour (Hippol., vii.20) (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 167). Various parts of the apocryphal "Contendings of the Apostles" deal with the imprisonment and blinding of Matthias by the Ethiopian cannibals, and his rescue by Andrew (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles,II , 163, 164, 267-88; see alsoANDREW ). According to the Martyrdom of Matthias (Budge, II, 289-94) he was sent to Damascus, and died at Phalaeon, a city of Judea. Other sources mention Jerusalem as the place of Matthias' ministry and burial.

C. M. Kerr


MATTITHIAH

mat-i-thi'-a (mattithyah, or mattithyahu, "gift of Yah"):

(1) The Mattithiah of Neh 8:4 (1st spelling) was one of those who stood at Ezra's right hand while he read the law (compare 1 Esdras 9:43). He may be the individual set over "things that were baked in pans" (1 Ch 9:31).

(2) One of those appointed by David to minister before the ark, and to "celebrate and to thank and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel" (1 Ch 16:4,5).

(3) One of those who had foreign wives (Ezr 10:43). In 1 Esdras 9:35, "Mazitias."

(4) One of the Levites who ministered before the ark with harps 1 Ch 15:18,21; 25:3,11, 2nd spelling).

Henry Wallace


MATTOCK

mat'-ok: The translation of 3 Hebrew words: (1) machereshah, probably "a pick-axe" (1 Sam 13:20,21; compare 13:21 margin); (2) cherebh, "sword," "ax," "tool" (2 Ch 34:6 the King James Version, "with their mattocks," the King James Version margin "mauls," the Revised Version (British and American) "in their ruins," the Revised Version margin "with their axes"); (3) ma`-der, "a hoe," "rake," "chopping instrument" (Isa 7:25). Vines were usually grown on terraces on the hills of Palestine, and then the mattock was in constant use. The usual mattock is a pick with one end broad, the other pointed.


MAUL

mol (mephits, literally, "a breaker," "a club," "mace," "mattock"): A smashing weapon like the oriental war-club or the clubs always carried by the shepherds of Lebanon (Prov 25:18; compare Jer 51:20 margin).


MAUZZIM

moz'-em, mots'-em (ma`uzzim, "places of strength," "fortress"): Many conjectures as to the meaning of this word and its context (Dan 11:38; compare 11:19,39) have been made. The Septuagint (uncertainly), Theodotion, and the Geneva Version render it as a proper name. Theodoret adopted Theodotion's reading and explained it as "Antichrist"! Grotius thought it a corruption of "Azizos, the Phoenician war-god, while Calvin saw in it the "god of wealth"! Perhaps the buzz of conjectures about the phrase is owing to the fact that in the first passage cited the word is preceded by 'Eloah, meaning God. The context of the passage seems clearly to make the words refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and on this account some have thought that the god Mars--whose figure appears on a coin of Antiochus--is here referred to. All this is, however, little better than guesswork, and the Revised Version (British and American) translation, by setting the mind upon the general idea that the monarch referred to would trust in mere force, gives us, at any rate, the general sense, though it does not exclude the possibility of a reference to a particular deity. In Dan 11:19 and 39, the word "Mauzzim" is simply translated "fortresses," and the idea conveyed is that the mental obsession of fortresses is equivalent to deifying them. A conjecture of Layard's (Nineveh, II, 456, note), is, at any rate, worth referring to.

Henry Wallace


MAW

mo (qebhah (compare qobhah, Nu 25:8), keres; Septuagint enustron): The first word means the maw or stomach of ruminants. It is derived from a root designating "hollowed out." It is mentioned alongside of the shoulder and the two cheeks of ox and sheep, which are the priest's share of any sacrifice brought by Israelites (Dt 18:3). Septuagint, where enustron corresponds to Attic enustron, denotes the fourth stomach or abomasum, which was considered as a delicacy, and was almost a national dish of the Athenians, just as tripe is of the Londoners. The parallel form qobhah is used for the body of a woman, which is being transfixed by a spear thrust in Nu 25:8. The last word keres is found in a metaphorical sense: "(Nebuchadrezzar) hath, like a monster, swallowed me up, he hath filled his maw with my delicacies" (Jer 51:34).

H. L. E. Luering


MAZITIAS

maz-i-ti'-as (Codex Alexandrinus, Mazitias; Codex Vaticanus, Zeitias): One of those who had taken "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:35), identical with Mattithiah (Ezr 10:43).


MAZZALOTH

maz'-a-loth (The Planets).

See ASTROLOGY , 9.


MAZZAROTH

maz'-a-roth: The 12 constellations of the Zodiac.

See ASTRONOMY , sec. II, 12.


MAZZEBAH

maz-e'-ba, mats-e'-ba.

See PILLAR .



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:15:34 2000)

Help PreviousNext