Encyclopaedia Biblica/Manius-Mash

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status



(MANIOC [AV]), 2 Macc. 11:34 RV, AV MANLIUS.


RV MANIUS, TITUS (TITOC MANIOC [AV], so Syr. and Vg. ; MANAlOC \al-~\)> the name of one of the ambassadors who is said to have written a letter to the Jews, confirming whatever concession Lysias had granted them (2 Macc. 11:34). Four letters were written to the Jews, of which the last is from ' Quintus Memmius and Titus Manlius, ambassadors (irpfafiuTai) of the Romans'. There is not much doubt that the letter is a fabrication, as history is entirely ignorant of these names. Polybius (xxxi. 96), in deed, mentions C. Sulpitius and Afanius Sergius, who were sent to Antiochus IV. Epiphanes about 163 B.C., and also (xxxi. 12:9) Cn. Octavius, Spurius Lucretius, and L. Aurelius, who were sent into Syria in 162 B.C., in consequence of the contention for the guardianship of the young king Antiochus V. Eupator ; but he entirely ignores Q. Memmius or T. Manlius. We may, there fore, conclude that legates of these names were never in Syria. The true name of T. Manlius may be T. Manius (cp RV), and, as there is not sufficient time for an embassy to have been sent to Syria between the two recorded by Polybius, the writer may have been thinking of the former.

The letter is dated in the 1481!! year of the Seleucidan era ( = 165 B.C.), and in that year there was a consul of the name of T. Manlius Torquatus, who appears to have been sent on an embassy to Egypt about 164 B.C., to mediate between the two Ptolemies, Philometor and Euergetes (Livy, 43 n ; Polyb. Ret. 32 i 2).

The employment of this Seleucidan era as a date, the absence of the name of the city, and especially the fact that the first in tercourse of the Jews and Romans did not take place till two years later, when Judas heard of the fame of the Romans (i Macc. 8:1, seq.), all prove that the document is far from authentic.

The three other letters do not merit serious attention (2 Macc. 11:16-33 > C P Wernsdorff, Defid. Libr. Afaccak., sec. 6(5 ; Grimm, Exeg. Handbuch, ad he., also MACCABEES, SECOND, jj 3).

1 87 in Bel 27 reads jri (7<rr(? iivis Tpieucotra.


(JO; MANNA I 1 Ex. 16:15, 16:31 [<S BAF MAN in this cap. except A in 350], 16:33, 16:35 [composite, P and JE, see below, 3], Nu. 11:6-9 [JE], Dt. 33:16 [D], Josh. 5:12 [P], Neh. 9:20 Ps. 78:24; also Jn. 6:31, 6:49, Heb. 9:4, Rev. 2:17, and, in some MSS, Jn. 6:58 t).

1. Meaning of word.[edit]

The origin of the name is still doubtful, though Ebers's derivation from an Egyptian word of the same meaning (mennu) is probable (Durch Gosen, 226 /. ). A play on the name is suggested in Ex. 16:15 ; there can be little doubt that in that verse JD= no, 'what', though the use of an Aramaic pronominal form is peculiar. 2 The explanation of Ges. and others that it is there = Ar. matin 'gift', is most unlikely (see Di. ad loc. ) ; the Arabic use of the name mann is almost certainly due to Hebrew.

2. Identifications.[edit]

According to P manna was first given to the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the 2nd month of the Exodus, from which point it continued to form their nourishment during the wilderness journey.

(i. ) The indication of place and time and the description given of the substance itself have led to its identification as the exudation of a tree which is still common, and probably was formerly more abundant, in the E. of the Sinai peninsula viz. , a species of Tamarix gallica, L. , called by Ehrenberg mannifera. Ebers (pp. cit. 223^!), who visited the peninsula in 1871, journeying from N. to S. along the eastern side accord ing to the recorded route of the Israelites, came upon these trees first in the W. Gharandel, and found them most plentiful in the W. Feiran and fairly plentiful in the W. esh-Sheikh (see SINAI). This agrees with the older accounts by Seetzen and Burckhardt. The former, visiting the district on 10th June 1809, found quantities of manna, partly adhering to the soft twigs of the tamarisks, and partly fallen beneath the trees. At six in the morning it was of the consistency of wax ; but the sun s rays soon melted it, and later in the day it dis appeared, being absorbed into the earth. A fresh supply appears each night during its season (June and July). Burckhardt describes its taste as sweet like honey, pleasant and aromatic, and its hue as dirty yellow ; others say that as it falls by night it is pure white. (See the accounts of these and other travellers collected in Ritter, Erdk. 14:665+). In 1823 Ehrenberg discovered that the flow of manna from the twigs of the tamarisk was due to their being punctured by a scale insect which is now called Gossyparia mannifera, Hardn. Doubt has been thrown on this view by later travellers, who found manna at a season when the trees no longer bore traces of the insect ; but there can be little doubt that Ehren- berg s explanation of the origin of this exudation is true. The quantity now produced in the peninsula is small - according to Burckhardt only between 500 and 600 pounds annually ; but it may once have been much greater when the woods were thicker and more extensive.

(ii. ) Another kind of manna said to be found in the desert of Sinai is that yielded by the Camel's Thorn Alhagi camelorum, Fisch. a small spiny plant of the order Leguminoste. The manna used as a drug is derived from quite a different tree viz., the manna ash, Fraxinus Ornus, L. On this and other sorts of manna, see Fliick. and Hanb. < 2 > 409^, and cp ZDMG 28275 /:, 86254 on Turkish and Kurdish mannas.

1 LXX uses the same form repeatedly in the prophets to render nmc.

2 Field (on Ex. 16 15) cites (from (B F ) a Gk. version fiav avro (cp Zenner, ZKT, 1899, p. i6s_/), is that manna? [Parthey (Vocali. Copt.-lat. 106) gives a Coptic word va.fi = arbor similis tamarisco (Schulte, ZKT, 1899, 570). Wi. AOF lyiif., quoting a Palm, inscr. published by Clermont-Ganneau. F.t. d Arch. Or. 1 129 explains jo (here II cnV) to mean ambrosia, food of the -ods (cp below, 4).]

(iii. ) More recently has been put forward another view of the nature of the biblical manna which identifies it with lichen - viz., Lecanora esculenta, Eversm., and allied species. A good account is to be found in Kerner von Marflaun s Nat. Hist, of Plants, Eng. ed. 2 8 10+. It is met with in Arabia and many other parts of W. Asia, as well as in the Sahara and deserts of Algeria. It first forms thick wrinkled and warted crusts on stones, preferably on small fragments of limestone ; the outer colour of the crust is a grayish yellow, whilst on breaking it appears as white as a crushed grain of corn. As they get older the crusts separate from their substratum, and become rolled back ; ultimately the loosened piece forms an elliptical or spherical warted body. Owing to their extreme lightness these pieces are rolled about by the wind, and are carried hither and thither in the air, which in dry countries is the means of their distribution. Where, on the other hand, there are heavy rains the pieces are washed along by the water and deposited in great heaps, from which a single man can in a day collect 4-6 kilograms (about 12,000 to 20,000 pieces, varying in size from a pea to a hazel nut). In the steppe region and in the high lands of south-west Asia, the manna lichen is used as a substitute for corn in years of famine being ground in the same way and baked into a species of bread. The so-called manna rains occur generally between January and March - i.e., during the wet season.

The tamarisk manna consists chiefly of sugar (Fluck. and Hanb.* 2 ) 415) and it is difficult to see how this could by itself form the sustenance of human beings for any lengthened period. The manna-lichen, on the other hand, is said to be dry and insipid (Teesdale in Science Gossip, 0233), and so would not answer altogether to the description in Ex. 16:31 [P] ; but the comparison of its taste to that of honey is wanting in JE (Nu. 11:6-9). It is conceivable, however, that both these substances may have been known and occasionally used as food by the Israelites.

3. Criticism of the narratives.[edit]

The passages relating to the gift of the manna are Ex. 16 and Nu. 11:6-9. The latter belongs to a chapter which is certainly pre-exilic, and of which vv. 4-15 are, with some confidence, to be ascribed largely to J. Ex. 16, 'one of the most perplexing battle-grounds of criticism', consists of a few old fragments (4:15a, 4:16a, 4:19-21, 4:35), the rest being P and RP. *

The fact that the manna was given to assuage the hunger of the people, whereas the presence of food in the form of cattle is expressly mentioned in Ex. 17:3, 19:13, 24:5, 32:6, 34:3 might help us to ascertain the source of these fragments were it not that critics are not unanimous respecting them. 2

The wilderness of Sin was the scene of the first appearance of the manna, according to P ( 2 above). Where the older narrative placed it does not at first sight appear ; at all events it comes immediately before the smiting of the rock at Massah and Meribah. In the article MASSAH AND MERIBAH (q.v. ) the view has been taken that these names were originally distinct, and since we find that in Nu. 11:6-9 the account of the manna is wedged in between the events at Taberah (11:1-3), and Kibroth-hattaavah (11:31-35), 3 and that in Dt. 9:22 Massah is placed between these two names, it seems probable that in the older narrative in Ex. 16, the giving of the manna was located in Massah ; cp the punning allusion to the name in Ex. 16:4 ( 'that I may prove them', H03K). 4 It is noteworthy that another tradition in Ex. 17:7b (gloss), Dt. 6:16, associates the name not with the proving of Israel by Yahwe, but with the tempting of Yahwe by Israel (see Bacon, I.e. , also MASSAH AND MERIBAH).

1 So, following Bacon, Triple Trad, of the Exod. 80-87, Addis, Doc. Hex. 1 246, n. i. Otherwise Dr., and the Oxf. Hex.; cp also EXODUS, 2, and the tables to Holz. EM.

2 Dr. (cpalso Kue., Co.)ascribes all toE. But 34 3 is ascribed to JE by Kue., and to J by Co., and the Oxf. Hex. Di., We., Bacon, on the other hand, find both J and E varyingly in these passages.

3 The election of the elders (vv. 16-17) belongs to a later phase of E (see ELPAD AND MEDAD) and may be safely passed over.

4 Cp also Ps. 78 18 ; they tempted (IBr}) God by asking for food.

4. Mystical interpretations.[edit]

Manna is called heavenly corn, and bread of the mighty (|31 D SB>i and D T3N En 1 ?. Ps. 78:24-25), heavenly bread (p ?, Ps. 105:40), cp 4 Esd. 1:19 (panis angelorum), Wisd. 16:20 (ayyt Auit Tp<x/}), l9:21b (i/x- ftpotria. Tpo</j), and i Cor. 10:3 (nrevpa- niebv /Jpaifia), phrases which bring us into touch with Jewish beliefs (cp Kammidbdr r. 1C, and see above, i, n. 2). With Wisd. 16:20b, 'bread . . . agreeing to every taste', agrees the Rabbinical legend that the manna adapted itself to every one's taste ; to him who preferred figs its taste was like a fig, etc. (cp Kisenmenger, Entdeckt. J udentli. 1 485). See also Sib. 7 149 (cp Rev. > 17), A foe. Bar. 2 98, Taylor, Sayings of the Fathers ft, 178/1 N. M. , I/. ; S. A. C. , 3/.


(n l3!D, 74; rest 1 or from H3O, to present a gift, MANCoe [BAL] ; Jos. M&NCOXHC). the father of Samson, of Zorah (q.v. ), of the clan (see DAN) of the Danites (Judg. 13 2 iff. 1631). See JUDGKS [BOOK], ii, THEOPHANY. Manoah is obviously the legendary eponym of the MANAHATHITES of Judah (or Dan) ; hence his burying-place can be also that of Samson (Judg. 1631). The story in which Manoah plays a part should be compared with the parallel narrative in Judg. 611-24 (GIDEON), which is usually assigned to the same author. The story is that first Manoah s wife, and then Manoah himself as well, were visited by a messen ger of Yahwe, who was sent to announce the birth of a son, and to give directions respecting his bringing up. It was this son (Samson) who should deliver Israel from the Philistines.

On the misleading editorial alteration in Judg. \\^a(,b see Moore's Commentary. Cp SAMSON.


(MANOXCO [BAL]), Josh. 15:59 LXX See MANAHATH, 3.


(nVin, Nu. 86612 ; &NApO(}>ONOC, i Ti. lg). See GOEL.


(Tpb), Nah. 2:5, RV. See SIEGE.


In addition to what has been said generally in the article DRESS on the clothing of the Israelites a few supplementary remarks are necessary here on the mantle in particular. Under this heading are included not only the words so rendered (sometimes incorrectly) by the EV, but also and more especially, those Hebrew terms which appear to denote any outer garment, cloak, or wrapper. It will be prudent for the present to keep the archaeological evidence the sculptures of Assyria and Egypt, and Muhammadan usage quite distinct from the very insufficient evidence afforded by the OT alone.

1. Archaeology.[edit]

One of the difficulties associated with a discussion of the kinds of outer-garment worn by the Israelites is the question whether it was worn over the loin-cloth or skirt (see GIRDLE) alone, or over the tunic alone, or over both. The Roman toga was apparently worn at first over the loin-cloth or subligaculum only, and the same, probably, was frequently the case with the Israelite J mantle. On the other hand, the first caliph Abu Bekr, distinguished for his simplicity of dress, is once described as wearing the Shamla (cp shimlah, 2 [i], below) and aba'a - the latter a striped and ornamented mantle with short sleeves ; and his successor Omar, equally simple in his tastes, wore a woollen jubba (a garment reaching to the knees, sewn down the front with the exception of the extreme top and bottom) and the aba'a. Here we have to do with tunic and mantle. No mention is made of a primary garment corresponding with loin- or waist- cloth. Finally, Muhammad himself wore kamis (tunic)? sirbal (trousers), and above both a jubba bordered with silk. Among Arabian 3 outer garments of a finer sort are the habara, specifically a striped and spotted garment, and the burd, often simply an oblong dark piece of thick woollen cloth, or plain with dark stripes close together (called musayyah). The poorest and meanest of garbs is the kisa, the mark of a poor man, an oblong cloth, sometimes cut and sewn.

1 The priests, however, according to Jos. Ant. iii. 7:1-4 wear breeches (n DJSc), tunic (713713), an outer girdle, and a turban. To these the high-priest adds the mantle.

2 Etymologically the same as our word chemise.

3 See generally Dozy, Diet, detaillf d.noms d.vetements chez les Arabes (Amsterdam, 1845), H. Almkvist in the 8th Orient. Congr. (Stockholm and Christiania, i. 1303^, 315 ff. [Leyden, 1891]), and L. Bauer, ZDPl 2*32-38 (1901).

On the Egyptian outer garment see EGYPT, 39. Its use was established by the eighteenth dynasty, though priests still retained the primitive tunic or skirt. The upper garment was a short shirt sometimes with a left sleeve and a slit for the right arm. Gala dresses were of course common, and it is worth noticing that men s garments were usually more ornamented than the women's, whose earliest clothing consisted of a simple foldless garment reaching from below the breasts to the ancles.

In the regions of Assyria and Babylonia, on the other hand, so far as can be judged from the sculptures, the ordinary dress is a tunic from neck to knee, with short sleeves down to above the elbow. Very frequently the outer garment reaches only from the waist, and is elabor ately ornamented. 1 A girdle encircles the waist, and not uncommonly the skirt is so draped as to fall below the ancle of the right foot, whilst the whole of the left from just above the knee-cap downwards is bare.

The upper part of the body is often bare, save only for various kinds of ornamented bands, etc. Occasion ally, however, the garment seems to be thrown over the left shoulder (leaving the right arm bare). Most striking is the mantle sculptured upon the royal statue in the Louvre (see Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ass. 2, pi. 6).

Turning finally to representations of the inhabitants of Palestine and their nearer neighbours, we note the over-garment with cape worn by the princes of Lebanon (see above, col. 1225, fig. 5). The Asiatics depicted above, col. 1221 /. , fig. 3, wear the garment wound round their bodies. Jehu's tribute-bearers 2 show a mantle with ornamented borders, and short sleeves, and Jehu himself 3 is clad more simply in a long garment, fringed round the bottom. The artist represents the people of Lachish quite differently. They wear a long shirt or mantle, which seems to have a slit for the right arm. 4 The people of Tyre and Sidon in Shalmaneser's inscription are dressed only with a skirt, whilst Asur- bani-pal's Arabians fight in a waist-cloth. Noteworthy is the rich clothing of the N. Arabian 'Amu women depicted on a Beni-Hasan tomb. 5 It reaches from neck to ancle, and the right arm is left bare. The men on the other hand have simply a skirt, apparently of skin.

1 For a specimen see Perrot and Chipiez, Art. in Ass. - 153, fig. 75.

- ( p tin. in Moore, SBOT Judges, 58.

3 Cp Ball, Light from the East, 166.

4 Cp Ball, 192, where, however, this slit does not appear. Cp Ball, 74, WMM As. u. Eur. 296.

6 In Ezra 9 3 5, beged and me'il (see no. 6) are named together. Since the me'il was certainly a mantle (see no. 6), beged may perhaps be used of the inner garment.

2. Terms.[edit]

Leaving to the article TUNIC what may have to be remarked upon the under-garment of the Israelites, we proceed now to a discussion of the Hebrew terms which fall to be considered

i. nSpb (shimlah ; less frequently nQ7C , shalmah; $5, lfj.an.iT jxos, ifianof [ = Rom. pallium]), the garment of both sexes (of women in Ex. 822 Dt. 2 2 17 Ru. 3 3 Cant. 4n), though, as Dt. 225 implies, there was a difference between them ; probably the woman s was longer and perhaps characterised by some colour ing. It was something more than a mere tunic. Ruth (83) puts one on before going out-of-doors, and a man could dispense with it, at all events, in the day-time (Ex. 2226/1 Dt. 2413). Its folds (hek, lit. bosom, Ex. 4 f>f. Prov. 6 27) were adapted for bearing loads or for wrapping round an object (Judg. 8:25, Ex. 12:34, 1 S. 21:10, Prov. 304 ; cp beged 2 K. 4:39),* and we may assume, therefore, that it was primarily nothing more than a rectangular piece of cloth. The shimlah, accordingly, would correspond with the Roman toga, or better still, the pallium. On the other hand, the term is sometimes used apparently of clothing in general (cp Jobil 3 1 Cant. 4n) e.g., of a prophet (i K. ll:29-30); on his usual garb see below 5), and of a warrior (Is. 9s [4]), who, we may be sure, would hardly go into battle clad in a long flowing garb. Another, probably similar, outer garment was the

2. rPD3, kesuth (cp Ar. kisa, i above), used generally (see DRESS, g i [4]), but also specifically Ex. 22:26, and Dt. 22:12, where the appending of FRINGES [q.v.} is commanded.

3. nnspp, mitpakath, Ruth 3:15 (AViif- sheet, or apron, jrepi^uj/jia ; Is. 3:22 ; but cp ), a large wrapper, which could be gathered up for bearing loads. It is possible that this word is to be read in Ezek. 13 18:21, instead of rtinSDD (EV wrongly kerchiefs ), on which see DRESS, col. 1141.

4. | 1D, sadin (cp Ass. sudinnu), probably a rectangular piece of fine linen cloth; cp Judg. 14:12-13, where AV sheets (me. shirts, RV garments ). The sadln was an article of domestic manufacture (Prov. 31:24), worn also by women (15.823). In Mish. Heb. it is used of a curtain, wrapper, or shroud. Levy, Chald. H B, s.v., cites Men. 41 a where the sadin is styled a summer garment, the N^lc 1 on the other hand, being used in winter. It has, probably, no connection with <riv&u>i>l which in i Mace. 1064 is used of Jonathan s regal garment (<5 A , but <ESN v nop<j>vpav, cp Syr.), and in NT of a garment worn next the skin(Mk. 14 51^), or of a shroud (Mt. 27:59, C P Herod. 286).

5. rP;)K, addoreth (lit. glory ? or cp Ass. adru 'purple', Muss-Arnolt, 22/ ), denotes a garment of the richest as well as of the simplest description. On the one hand, it was the dis tinctive garb of the prophet (i K. 19 13:19, 2 K. 28:13-14, /urjAionj) ; it was of hair (cp -\yty K Zech. 13 4 and -)y& Sin K"X 2 K. 1 s). 2 On the other hand, the addereth was worn by lungs (Jon. 36, EV robe <rroA>}), and one was found and coveted by Achan in the spoil of Jericho (Jos. 7 21). If the reading in Josh. 7 21 is correct, the best mantles came from Babylonia. Possibly we should read IVC" for "IJW (see, however, SHINAR).

6. TJ7O, me'il (deriv. uncert., see BDB), an outer garment worn by men of high degree (i S. 184 24s 12 [4 n] Job 1 20), also by Samuel (i S. 15 27 28 14 cp 2 19), and Ezra (Ezra 9 3 5). It had flowing ends(i S. 15 27, etc., kiinaph, see FRINGES). In 28. 13 18, where the w z/would seem to have been worn byfemales, thetextis corrupt (read oVlVO, see the Comm.), and in i Ch. 15:27 ("ryD p2) where David is said to have worn it before the ark, the II 2 S. 6 14 (]y ^33) warns us against accepting the MT too readily.

The me'il (of me'il of the Ephod) is a recognised term for the high-priest's extra garment worn upon special occasions. The descriptions (Ex. 28:31+, 39:22+, Jos. Ant. iii. 7 4, /5 7, cp Ecclus. 45:7-9 [Heb.]) make it a long seamless garment of blue (n7DB, uaKii/0o [Jos.]), with an open bordered neck. At the foot were bells and pomegranates arranged alternately. See further EPHOD, 3.

7. The precise meaning of nii ?na, mahalasoth (pl. only), of high priest (Zech. 3:4) and of females (Is. 3:22) is uncertain. E V understands some change of garments, removed or taken off(cp Vh ilas, Dt. 25:9, Is. 20:2) in ordinary life. According to Orelli they were state dresses which the wearer " takes off" and places on some honoured guest. With this agrees the specific meaning of hnlisah (2 S. 2:21, Judg. 14:19), and the analogy of the Ar. hit a. 3 (v pulloff).

Another term usually taken to mean some change of garments is:

8. nS n, hahphah* (Judg. 14:19 ; with DlSoB Gen. 45:22, with D--U3 Judg. 14:12-13, 2 K. 55:22-23) ; cp 9. Such changes were necessary for purification (Gen. 35:2), after a period of mourning (2 S. 12:20), or more especially as honorific gifts. In ancient Arabian custom the gift should consist of the donor s own personal clothing, though naturally in course of time supplies were kept for the purpose. Such gifts are still con sidered an honour a scarlet cloak, in particular, being held particularly flattering. 5

9. TJ TlS, pethigil (Is. 3:24, EV 'stomacher', XITWI/ juecroTrdp- <frupos), usually interpreted mantle," is obscure. This foreign- looking word resembles the Tg. N3n2, 'over-garment', with which, indeed, Lc\y(C/iald. IVB) actually connects it ; Che. (Crii. Bib.) would read, JliS Sn (n and 3 confounded).

10. niSEjra, ma'ataphoth, Is. 3:22 (EV mantles ), cp Ar. ^/and mftaf, a long-sleeved robe.

1 So in Syr. we should probably distinguish the rare native word sedlnd from the foreign seddona.

_ 2 Later an ascetic s garb. The founder of the Jacobite church in Asia, Jacob bar Theophilus, was surnamed Burde ana because his dress consisted of a bardathd or coarse horse-cloth (Wright, Syriac Lit. 85).

3 A connection with ty^n oins as though primarily a loin cloth seems out of the question.

4 v/to pass away or change (of garments, Gen. 35 2 Ps. 10227 [26]). Note, however, Ass. hal&pu be clothed, halluptu covering, trappings (cp IRON," 2).

5 Doughty, Ar. Des. 141 348 2 20 35 55 310 351. According to Doughty (2 19) an outfit consists of a tunic, a coarse worsted cloth, and a kerchief for the head.

11. Til, redid, Cant. 57 15.823, EV veil is appropriate, though primarily it is, probably, a wide loose mantle. Tg. on Gen. 2465 uses NT"!! to render :

12. *] J?s, sa'iph, Gen. 24:65. It is also used as a woman s article of clothing (EV veil ), but etymologically it means properly some square garment.

13. T"]?n, takrik, Esth. 8:15 AV garment, RV preferably robe, in MH a shroud.

14. 73"lp, sarbal, probably correctly rendered 'mantle' by AVmg. in Dan. 3:21 (AV coats, RV hosen ); see BREECHES. In MH it denotes some garment reaching from the neck down- words. 1

15. ^>|n3, karbela, Dan. 3:21, for which RV has mantles, is more likely hats (AV) or turbans (AV">g.), the supposed denom. i Ch. 15 27 ftaiao, as though 'wrapped in a mantle' ) being insecure ( || 2 S. 6 14 13130) I see/. / //. 2<5 3 io, and cp TURBAN.

Some of the common classical mantles are referred to in the Apoc. and NT :

16. oToATJ, Mk. 16 5 (common also in MH in the form N^ciTN ; cp Tg. for j-nB Sn Gen. 45 22). Both o-ToArj and Lat. stola primarily had a general meaning ; on the specific use of stola to designate the garb of the Roman matron, see Diet. Class. Ant., s.v.

17. lfj.a.Tiov (=Rom. pallium), Mt. 920, etc., distinguished from the X TUJV (tunic) in Mt. 5 40 Lk. 629 Acts 9 39.

18. 7ro67Jpr)9, Rev. 1 13, EV garment, one reaching down to the feet.

19. Trepi/SoAaioi/, Heb. 1 12 (AV vesture, RV mantle ), a wrapper or cover.

20. xAo|u.v, Mt. 272831, a military mantle (Rom. paluda- inentum), fastened by a buckle on the right shoulder so as to hang in a curve across the body. Cp 2 Mace. 12 35 AV coat, RV cloke.

21. <eAoi/>j, 2 Tim. 4 13 (Ti.WH ; prop. </>aii/dArjs = pcenula), worn on journeys. It was a long sleeveless mantle of durable cloth. Sometimes, but wrongly, taken to be a receptacle (esp. of books, cp Syr.). j. A . s . A . C-


CqtoO), i S. 27 2. See MAACAH, 4.


(fllflp ; AAACGN [AL], MAAN [B] ; but in Josh. 15:55 MAOOp [B], in i S. 23:24-25, 25:1-2, H epHMOC H GTTHKOOC [L]), a town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 15 55), interesting from its twofold connection with the story of David (i S. 23 24 / 25 1/. [if in v. i we read Maon for Paran with <5 B ; but see PARAN]). As Robinson has shown, it is the modern Tell Mam, which is about 10 m. SSE. from Hebron, and 2 m. S. from the ruins of el-Kurmul. Eastward of the ridge on which it stands is an extensive steppe, called in i S. 2824 and perhaps (but see PARAN) 25 1 [<"], the wil derness of Maon. The greater part of this district is waste pasture -land, rough rocks with that dry vegetation on which goats and even sheep seem to thrive though a little corn and maize is grown in the valleys (Conder, PEFQ, 1875, cp p. 46). It slopes towards the Dead Sea. Cp the MAON of Chronicles.

Genealogically, Maon (/j.euv [B]) is represented as a descendant of Hebron through Rekem (i.e. , Jerahmeel?) and Shammai, and as the father or founder of Beth- zur (i Ch. 245).

In Gen. 10 13 (if for D DJV Anamim, we should read D JJ D, Meonim) the clan of Maon is represented as a son of G lXO ( Misrim, not Misraim). See MIZRAIM. Observe that, according to this view, Maon and Carmel (see LUD, LUDIM, i) are grouped, as in Josh. 15:55. T . K . c .


(J WD; MAAlAM [BAL], X ANAAN [Symm.]; CHANAAN [Vg.]; Ammon, Pesh. ), EV [rather boldly] Maonites, a people mentioned in Judg. 10 12 in conjunction with the Zidonians and Amalekites as early oppressors of Israel. Tradition is silent else where as to Maonite oppressors, and some critics (in cluding Be., Gr., Kau., Buhl, and [SBOT, but no Comm.] Moore) would therefore adopt @ BAL s reading Midian. To this course, however, there are objections.

(i) It would be strange that the familiar Midian should be corrupted into the unfamiliar Maon. (2) The Zidonians and Amalek are only less troublesome than Maon in this context ; the text needs to be more thoroughly criticised. The list of names in zn>. n f. is probably partly made up of corrupt doublets. The Zidonians, Amalekites, and Maonites of v. 12 correspond to the Misrim, the Amorites, and the bene Ammon of v. n. The true text appears to the present writer to be, Did not the Misrites and the Jerahmeelites oppress you, and when ye cried unto me, I saved you, etc. iiyc s a conjectural emendation of, or a scribe s error for poy Ammon) ; [lDy> as m some other passages, is a corruption of pSop (Amalek), and p"?Dy is an early popular distortion of SNCnT (Jerahmeel). "CN is also miswritten for S^anT (Jerahmeelite); Q jiTJf >s an error (cp JITS in i K. 17 9, Joel 84 for "BlfO, Missur = Misrim for Q lxc). Cp MIZRAIM.

The result, if it be accepted, is highly important, and must be taken in connection with Judg. 10:6, where, for Aram, Zidon, Moab, Ammon, Philistines errors due to an age which had forgotten early history we should certainly read Jerahmeel, Missur (twice), Amalek ( = Jerahmeel), and Zarephathites. Cp JERAHMEEL, ZAREPHATH. It is an anticipation of the sin of Jeroboam, which consisted in falling back on Misrite religion. Cp MOSES, 1 1 (a). For a different view, proposed by Hommel, see MEUNIM. T. K. C.

1 See/. Phil. 26 307.


(&OD, bitter ), Ruth 1:20. See NAOMI.


(rTTD ; in Ex. 15 ^a b MeppA [BAFL] ; in v. ztf TTlKpiA [BAFL]; in Nu. 33:8-9. TTIKRIAI [BAFL] ; MARA], the name of a well of brackish water, mentioned in connection with the wilderness of Shur or (see SHUR) Beer-sheba. Cp EXODUS i. , MASSAH AND MKRIBAH, WANDERINGS.

There is no need to trouble about identifications. Later writers fancied a locality for the well of Marah ; but really Marah belongs to the realm of the imagination. We are familiar with a localisation (in the Negeb?) of the land that flows with milk and honey (see HONEY). VVi. (Gesc/t. 2 93, n. 3) has recently illustrated this by the mythic lake (pseudo-Callisthenes, 2^2), with waters as sweet as honey, beside which Alexander the Great encamped, and corresponding to which is mentioned a river with waters too bitter to drink (il>. 817). After some had died, weeping and wailing arose beyond measure (cp Ex. 15 24). See also the Syriac Hist, of Alexander (Budge), pp. q6f. Cp also the irucpbv iiSiop (the Hellespont), introduced by Herodotus into the story of Xerxes (Herod. "35 ; Miicke, Vom Euphrat zum Tiber, 90 94), and see SALT SEA. T. K. C.


(HlTlO ; /v\ApA\A [L]), a place on the SW. border of Zebulun, and apparently E. of Jokneam, Josh. 19nt (MApAfeAAA [B], MApiAA [A]).

The reality of the name is, however, very doubtful. The Pasek (vertical line) before HE 1 ? warns us to suspect the text.

nVjDQl ver y possibly comes from n?yi ng where nD is of course a mere dittogram. If so, Maralah passes out of existence.

T. K. C.


in RV Maran Atha (MAP AN A6A, Ti. [D C L, etc. ], WH ; as one word [M, etc.] ; MApAN- NA0A [FG**], .MARANATHA [vet. Lat. ; Vg. ]; MAR.-t- THANA\T\; /.v ADVKNTU DOMINI [g ; cp ^Eth. vers.]), an Aramaic expression used in 1 Cor. 16:22 t.

Although it has been proposed to regard the expres sion as a single word, 1 there can be little doubt that it represents two, and the only question is where to make the division, and how to explain the component parts. Most scholars, however (e.g. , Dalman, Gram. 120, n. 2 ; Nold. GGA, 1884, p. 1023; Kau. in Siegfr. ZWTh., 1885, 128; N. Schmidt, JBL, 1894, 55^, etc.) have accepted the explanation propounded in 1884 by Bickell (ZKTh., 1884, p. 403, n. 3), that it means our Lord, come, and the restoration, proposed in the same year by Hatevy (A 3 /?/ 9 9 ), Wellhausen (Nold. I.e.). and Duval (KEJ, 1884, p. 143), of ND KJTO. mdrand thd, as the original form, 2 though Schmidt argues strongly for KDN p.-. mdran etha. Rev. 22:20 makes it likely that some such formula (verb in the imperative) was in use in early times, and the Aramaic expression itself is found in the Didache (10:6), where the invitation to approach the Lord's table runs thus : ef T<S tiyibs eanv, fpx^ffOu ft rts OVK tern, /Meracoeirw /AapavaOd. duty.

On the suggested possibility of a similar formula having been in use among Jews, see/<2A , Oct. 1896, p. i8yC, and for a dis cussion of the whole question, cp N. Schmidt, JBL, 1894, pp. 50- 60. See, further, under BAN, 3, EXCOMMUNICATION, 2. J. H. Thayer, in Hastings D B 8241-243, deals at some length with the history of interpretation. H. W. H.

1 For example, by Bullinger.

2 For the philological evidence see Dalman (o/>. cit. 74, if.). The form adopted in RV is that rendered by the Church Fathers (Chrys. , Theod., etc.), 6 Kupios rjfiiav ?i\6ev, etc. (cp gloss on Codex Coisiin, 6 K. irapayiyovev) our Lord is come (cp Arab. vers. Maran atha i.e., the Lord is already come " ), and it is ap parently a feeling that this does not fit well into the context that has led to the substitution, so often found in later commentators (but also already, e.g., in Euseb. OSP) 195 65), and reproduced on RV n*;., of a present-future for the past tense. For an account of other (not very plausible) hypotheses, and a careful exegetical discussion of the passage in i Cor., see Klo. s essay in his I roblemt im Aposteltexte (1883), pp. 220-246. His own theory, that Maran atha means our Lord is the sign and was a formula used in connection with the fraternal kiss (v. 20), is very in genious, but does not carry conviction. See also Schmidt, I.e.


In three passages in the OT the EV suggests that in their architecture the Hebrews were acquainted with the use of marble of different colours (i Ch. 29:2, Cant. 5:15, Esth. 16). The mention of marble in these late books need not surprise us ; but the references being so few, and the passages in which they occur bearing traces of corruption, the question is in volved in great obscurity.

In i Ch. 29:2, where the allusion is supposed to be to stones of white marble (AV ; RV marble stones ; MT iy y"31l*), the word translated white marble is probably misplaced.!

Again, in Cant. 5:15, the author, influenced by his character istic fondness for trees (see CANTICLES, 15), probably compares the legs of the bridegroom to pillars of acacia 2 rather than to pillars of white marble (V& Hisy).

Finally, in Esth. 1:6, if with EV we are to follow MT, three other species of marble (besides the supposed white marble, B B ) are mentioned. The versions, however, point to a different text. Following these we should perhaps read

mi-ana nsrrty )D3i ant men nee* nisjn
rnnbS nDjro vy

'and pillars of acacia, couches of gold and silver upon a pavement of alabaster and mother-of-pearl-like stone, and screens of fine linen in the form of shields (or round about )'. 3

According to this view of the text, only two species of stone were used for the pavement (see PAVEMENT, i) on which the couches of silver and gold rested in the improvised banquet-room of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1:6). Of these stone?, one, dar (Tj), would seem to have possessed the brilliance of mother-of-pearl since the same word (fhirr, diirrat) in Arabic and Persian means pearl, or even mother-of-pearl itself. For in spite of the fact that pearls were used by the ancients in decorating the walls of apartments in royal palaces, we have no warrant for as suming their use in the case of pavements. We must, therefore, with Kautzsch (HS), Wildeboer (A //C), and the Variorum Bible suppose the word to mean in this passage 'mother-of-pearl-like stone'. 4 The other stone, bahat (ana). was probably, as Ges.- Buhl (comparing Ar. bahuf) and Kautzsch (.HS) suggest, 'alabaster'.

Even now the two words (TIVTjn:i) are perhaps to be taken closely together, and are really only meant to suggest one species of stone, the Alabastrites of Pliny (HN 8678) a kind of alabaster with the gloss of mother-of-pearl. 8 It was found, ac cording to Pliny, in the neighbourhood of Damascus.

M. A. C.

1 For V V (Syr. stsa) Ges.-Buhl, cp Assyr. SaSSu ; but, ac cording to Del., the Assyrian word is of doubtful meaning. TCpIl > s probably out of place and should be read after VJV (for V"^), "33X1 being corrupt for JPNI. Translate: and weavers [or woven work ] of fine linen and chequered work in abundance (cp Ex. 2832 2 K. 287). See, however, PRECIOUS STONES.

2 Read .IBS "112J?, the word "IS:? being a more likely parallel to O llK. See also below on Esth. 1 6.


3 The words n.Tp ia . . . iriECI (cp Ezek. 27 7) dropped out of the text or were illegible, and &O and TI were transposed. n&y T13V is suggested by the Syriac. The additional phrase appears in as KO.\ (rrpianval Siat/xu/eis ironci Aus 5nji-6i<7^.eVai Kti/cAo) poSa ireira<Tfj.fva. where icuicAai should be read with what precedes, po&a irfiratrneva being a gloss on r1Cp13. An addition of the kind proposed above is also presupposed by Vulg., Syr., and Tare. (ed. Lagarde).

  • So <B (wuwbmi \tfov) ; Syr. omits ; Targ. (ed. _ Lag.) has

Kin. pearl. Siegfried (//A") has mother of pearl.

5 J. D. Michaelis suggested that TJ alone was used to denote this stone. B N* renders ana by [AiSoo-TpuJTOv] cr^apaySiTOU Aiflov (Aifl. vtiapaySCrov fL* 3 ], Aid. <rfj.a.pay&ov [AL a ]) ; Vulg. has smaragdinus ; Targ. (ed. Lag.) pJ^BOTlp, crystal, but Syriac apparently omits. BDB proposes porphyry (so RVg-), com paring Eg. behiti, behet, be/tat.


in the compound name BETH-MARCABOTH [^. 7. .], a place in the territory of Simeon (Josh. 19s i Ch. 431). Most probably a corrupt ex pansion of Rehoboth (niah-), suggested by the following name HAZAR-SUSAH (or -SUSIM).

No one has attempted to identify Reth-marcaboth, and with good reason. The confusion between ^m an d 331 was easy; cp Rahab and Rechab(see RAHAH). So C. Niebuhr (Gesck. 1 356).

T. K. C.


(p T trrn, Tailn, i. 3 4 ). See MONTH, 5.


(MARKOC [Ti.WH]}, Col. 4io Philem. 24 i Pet. 5 13, RV MARK.




(ntriO ; AAARHCA [A]; but Josh. 15:44 ntraoo, BARCHA [L] ; BAGHCAR [B]), the MARHCA f Eusebius (0S< 2 279 27), a city in the shephelah of Judah. The Chronicler mentions it in i Ch. 242^* (/j.a.pftffa [B], papta-a [A]), 42i (/xaptera [L], but /MUX [B]), as having Calebite and Jerahmeelits connections ; for Mareshah is a son of Caleb, on the one hand, and, on the other, of Jerahmeel, son of Shelah (mi Si naS ax is an expansion of fragments of VNanv). The Chronicler also gives Mareshah a genea logical superiority to Ziph, and even to Hebron (neigh bouring places). Coming down to the historical period, he states (2 Ch. 118, yuap(e)ura [BAL]) that Mare shah was fortified by Rehoboam, and that Asa won his victory over Zerah, the Cushite, in a valley denned (probably) as north of Mareshah (2 Ch. 14 9/1 , /jiapiffrjX, fjLapfiffa [B], /j.api<ra [L] ; see ZEPHATHAH, ZERAH). It was the home of one of the Chronicler s prophets, Eliezer b. Dodavah (2 Ch. 2037, fj,apti<ra [B], fj.api<ra [A], napiffa [L]) ; also of the prophet Micah, if Moresheth and Mareshah mean the same town (this, however, depends on a critical emendation of the MT of Mic. Ii4/, on which see MORASTHITE, but also MORESHETH-GATH).

Mareshah is the Mapi<ro-a of Josephus (Ant. xii. 8e), and was Idumtean in the Maccabaean period (Jos. Ant. xiii. 9 i). It was plundered by Judas the Maccabee(Jos. Ant. xii. 8 6 ; i Mace. 566, where read Marissa for Samaria ; cp RVniK-, also 2 Mace. 1235, napiira. [VA], EV MARISA). John Hyrcanus captured it (Ant. xiii. i) i ; cp 10 2) ; Pompey restored it to the Idumsans (Axiv. 44; BJ\."Jj); Gabinius refortified it(Ant. xiv. 63) ; and finally the Parthians destroyed it (it. 13 9). Eusebius (pnom. 27927) describes it as in his time desert. Its place in history is now taken by ELEUTHEROPOLIS [q.v.]. T. K. C.


a name in the genealogy of Ezra (4 Esd. 1:2). See MERAIOTH, i.


occurs as a rendering of two Hebrew terms :

1. rs, mallnk, Ezek. 27 9 Jon. 1 5.

2. In pi. C Etf , sdtlni, Ezek. 27 8 ; in RV and in v. 26 rowers. See SHIP.


(MARICA [AV]), 2 Macc. 12:35- See MARESHAH.


(JOS), Ezek. 47:11. See CONDUITS, i (2).


(MARKOC [Ti.WH]) is the surname of that John whose mother Mary (see MARY, 27) according to Acts 12:12 had a house in Jerusalem.

1. Name.[edit]

He is again referred to by both names in Acts 12:25, 15:37, but only by that of John in 18513, while in Acts 15:39, Col. 4:10 ,Philem. 2:4, 2 Tim. 4:11, 1 Pet. 5:13 he appears only as Mark (AV, thrice, MARCUS). The name of Mark, it is clear, had been assumed only for use in non-Jewish circles (cp BARNABAS, i, end ; NAMES, 86). That this name, selected to be borne in the Greek fashion as a sole name, should have been a Roman prsenomen need not surprise us ; the name Titus also is so employed in the NT in the Grecian region, whilst the praenomen GAIUS [q. v. ] is met with in three or perhaps even four cases. That of Marcus is met with in a similar way also in inscriptions (cp Swete, Expos. 1897 b, p. 81) ; it ought to be accented, not as in all editions of the NT, Mdp/coj, but Map/cos. 1

1 Mareshah ought to be read also in i Ch. 2 42(1, where MT has Mesha; the context, as well as BA, requires this. How ever, this correction is not enough. Either v. 426 is incomplete, or, the sons of Mareshah, should be omitted. The second view is preferable. _ Mareshah is a correction of Mesha, and the sons of is an insertion made after the marginal correction 1 Mareshah had intruded into the text. Thus neither (S nor MT is quite correct.

2. Relation to Paul.[edit]

In the captivity epistles of Paul, Mark figures as the apostle's 'fellow-worker' (ffvvepyos, Philem. 24, Col. 4:11); he is commended to the good-will of the Colossians ( Co1 - 4:10 : Mark . . . touching whom ye received commandments ; if he come unto you receive him ) and in 2 Tim. 4:11, Timothy is bidden take Mark and bring him with thee ; for he is useful to me for ministering ( e#xp7;<rros ei j diaKoviav). This last statement is noticeable because we read (Acts 15:38 ; less precisely in 13:13) that on the apostle s first journey Mark had withdrawn from him at Pamphylia, for which reason he was not taken as a companion on the second journey (15:37-39). It is, however, quite possible that in the course of the years intervening between the journeys, this breach may have been healed and Mark have re instated himself in Paul s confidence. Moreover, the story of the separation between Paul and Barnabas on Mark's account is not free from suspicion (see COUNCIL, 3, end). Possibly, there-fore, the cause of the separation between Paul and Mark on the first journey may not have been so serious as to cause lasting aliena tion. In any case the fact mentioned in Col. 4:10, that Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, would supply a sufficient explanation why Barnabas should have been willing to take Mark on the second journey, and ulti mately did take him with him to Cyprus, in spite of his premature withdrawal on the first occasion (Acts 15:39).

The epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, which profess to have been both written at the same period, agree in what they say as to Mark s being with Paul ; in 2 Tim., on the other hand, Mark is represented as at a distance from him. Even, however, if we assume the genuineness of these epistles, or, at least, in Col., that of the personal notices in 4:7-15 and in 2 Tim. that of 4:9-18 we cannot here discuss, any more than in the case of Luke (see LUKE, i), the question as to the captivity to which they respectively belong.

1 The length of the a is vouched for by the spelling Maarcus found both in Latin and in Greek inscriptions. See Ditten- berger, Hermes, 1872, p. 136, n. i ; Viereck, Sermo graecus scnatus Komani, 57 (Gottingen, 1888); Eckinger, Orthogr. latein. Wdrter in griech. 1 nschriften , 8-11 (Zurich, 1892); Schweizer, Gramtn. tier f>ergamen. Inschriften, 42 f. (1898) ; Blass, Gramm. ties neutest. Griech., 4, 2, end.

2 [And the presbyter was wont to say this : Mark, who had been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled to remembrance (or, repeated by word of mouth : see below, 3 end) not, indeed, in order the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied him, but afterwards, as I was saying, he ac companied Peter, etc.]

3 Most recently by Zahn, Gesch. tfes Knnans, 1 878-882, Einl., 51, n. 12-15 = ? 206-210 215-220. As against the first-cited of these passages, see Link, St. Kr. 1896, pp. 405-436.

3. Papias on Mark.[edit]

That Mark was the constant companion of Peter seems to be vouched for by 'the old church teacher' (6 irpeo-/3i)re/3os) whose words are quoted by Papias (up. Eus. HE iii 39:15 ) : Kai To0ro irpecrfiurepos \eye Map/cos fj.v fp/uvjcei T^s Tl^rpov yev6/j.fvos Sera fj,vi)/j.6vevfffv d/cpi/3aJs Hypa^fv, ov fjievToi rdei, rd virb rov XpLtrrov r) Xexd^ra i) Tpax- Qtvra.. oi Tf yap iJKOVffe TOV Kvpiov ovre irapyKoXovOriaei avrQ, vffrepov dt, (is tfyriv, Il^rpoj, K.r.X. 2 (cp GOSPELS, 65 b}. Perhaps the authority thus referred to by Papias may have been the presbyter John (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4), but possibly also he may have been some other person ; for we do not possess the preceding context.

True, the words just quoted have sometimes been quite differently explained 3 as meaning that by writing his gospel Mark became epfiT)i>evnjs of Peter, that is, the publisher of his oral communications regarding the life of Jesus. This view of the passage presents two great advantages for conservative theology, (i) It gives free scope for the supposition that Mark was for the greater part of his time the companion of Paul or Barnabas, a supposition which might otherwise seem difficult to reconcile with the belief that he was for very long the companion of Peter ; (2) it obviates the necessity of inferring that Peter, owing to his ignorance of Greek, could not possibly have written in Greek at least 1 the two epistles attributed to him. Assuredly, however, this explanation is not the correct one. It is very forced to say Mark having become the publisher of the oral communications of Peter, wrote etc. The participial clause, in fact, in such a case becomes wholly superfluous. The reverse order would be the only right one : By his writing Mark became publisher of the oral communications of Peter. More over, such an interpretation would not enable us to dispense with the supposition that Mark had spent a long time in the company of Peter ; for not only are we expressly told in the sequel that Mark did accompany Peter, but it lies in the nature of the case that Mark can have become the ep/urji euTrjs of Peter only by committing to wriling discourses which he had repeatedly heard. The 'as I was saying' (cus e</>rji ) would be decisive if only we could be sure that the expression is still part of the quotation from the presbyter ; in that case its reference could be sought only within the limits of the citation, since otherwise Papias would have omitted the two words. In fact, they could only be taken as referring to what he has stated at the beginning of the fragment before us (ep/n. Ile rpou yev.), and that in turn would have the same meaning as the words by which the reference is made back to it : 7ropi)icoAou07)cr Ilerpo) (so Link). It is, however, better to suppose, with Zahn, that the words of the presbyter close with TTpa\SevTa, and that those which follow belong to Papias, although he does not expressly indicate this. The sup position has indeed the disadvantage that according to it we cannot tell what it is that Papias is referring to by his 'as I was saying' (u>s </)) ; but as it is only a fragment that we have before us, this is intelligible enough. What ought to turn the scale in favour of this view is that only thus is justice done to the imperfect (eAeye) the presbyter was wont to say. According to Papias own statement (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4), the communications of the presbyter to him were exclusively by word of mouth, not in writing ; the 'as I was saying' (o>s i<j>riv) would then be inappropriate if attributed to the presbyter.

The translation ought to run : 'Mark, who had been the inter preter of Peter, wrote, etc'. That yefo/xei os can mean 'who had been' just as easily as 'who had become' - a rendering less suitable to the context - is shown by Link (420-425). Whether ffivrjfjLovevire means 'he recalled to remembrance' or 'he repeated by word of mouth' (see GOSPELS, col. 1811, n. i) is not of de cisive importance for the main question here.

4. Mark's relation to Peter.[edit]

As for the credibility of the statements of the presbyter, the most important of them all - that our second gospel rests upon oral communications of the apostle Peter - does not stand, and the second, that it was" written by Mark, remains doubtful (GOSPELS, 148). But this does not necessarily involve our giving up the third, that Mark was an interpreter of Peter. It may have originated independently of the other two, and if the informant of Papias was a personal disciple of Jesus, or, at all events, a man of great age, he could very well have been adequately informed upon such a fact as this. Thus, i Pet. 5:13 seems to gain in probability when it says that at the time when the letter was being written, Mark was with Peter, and describes him as being Peter s son.

If this last expression is to be taken literally, the reference cannot be to the person named in Acts 12, for the house where Mark lived, and to which Peter betook himself on his deliverance from prison, would then have been described as Peter's, not as Mary's. It is, however, quite possible to take the word 'son' in a spiritual sense, in accordance with i Cor. 4 15 17 Philem. 10 Phil. 2:22, i Tim. 1:2 18, 2 Tim. 1:2, 2:1, Tit. 1:4. On this view, one very willingly supposes that Mark as a youth, most likely in his mother s house, may have had opportunities of listening to Peter, and even may have been converted and baptised by him. 2 It is no serious objection to this last interpretation of the word 'son' (vios) that, in the other passages cited, it is 'child' (Tftcvov) that is always used ; yet the first that Mark was a hearer of Peter suffices, Swete (Expos. 1897^, p. 86 f.) adding that Mark honoured Peter as a second father.

It has to be borne in mind, however, that the genuine ness of i Pet. cannot be maintained, and that most probably it was not written before 112 A. D. (see CHRISTIAN, 8 ; for a less definite date, PETER [EPISTLES], 7). Thus, the statement that Mark was with Peter when jhe epistle was being written must be given up. Moreover, even if the doctrinal contents of the epistle should not be held to be due to the desire to effect a compromise between Paulinism and primitive Christianity, the Tubingen school may still possibly be right in holding that two well-known companions of Paul - Silvanus and Mark - are transferred to the society of Peter with the object of bringing into promin ence that accord between Peter and Paul, of which Acts also i: full (see ACTS, 4). The designation of Mark as the son of Peter has little independent value, even if there is no disposition to question it.

1 Lightfoot's view (Anastatic Fathers, 1 2, revised ed. p. 494), that Mark translated the discourses of Peter into Latin is utterly improbable. According to Gal. 2:9, Peter directed his missionary activities to Jews, and doubtless continued to do so to the end of his life (COUNCIL, $ 9); but the Jews even in Rome itself spoke Greek : Latin was necessary only in dealing with the lower classes in Italy. Moreover, even if Peter addressed himself at all to the Latin-speaking Gentiles, or visited Italy at all (see PETEK), he did not do so exclusively; and Mark was his follower (irapriKO\ovOr)crti ) that is to say, accompanied him on journeys to various places. Furthermore, the Second Gospel, even if not by Mark, is nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact of its being intended for Latin-speaking readers (GOSPELS, 108, middle), written in the Greek language.

2 This last is expressly said in the Prsefatio vel argumentum Marci, from the first half of the third century, given in Words worth and White s KTLat. 1171; cp LUKE, 5.

5. More than one person?[edit]

There is a difficulty in the statement of the presbyter that Mark ever was a companion of Peter, even if we leave the epistle out of account. It is a difficulty that can be met, indeed, as long as it is regarded as chronological only. As As we do not know for how long a time Mark was the travelling companion of Barnabas alone, there remains between his first and second association with Paul an interval of sever.il years, in the course of which he might very well have been a companion of Peter, and there is no necessity even to assume with Swete (li.vpos. 1897 b, pp. 87-89) that he was not so till after the death of Paul. Still less are we compelled to interpret the presbyter or the quotation of Eusebius (HE vi. 146) from the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alex andria to the effect that Mark had followed Peter jrbppwOev (=from of old) in the sense that he had accompanied Peter on all his journeys. In fact, we learn from the same authority (Clem. Strom, vii. 17:106, end) that Peter had yet another interpreter, Glaukias by name.

The question of the identity of the companion of Paul with the companion of Peter becomes more serious, however, when we take into account the well- known differences of temperament, of opinion, and even of practice, which separated the two apostles (Gal. 2:11-21 ; COUNCIL, 3). Did Mark, when in the society of Paul regard himself as free from the law of Moses, and when in that of Peter as bound by it? In the one case did he teach that it had ceased to be valid, in the other that it had not ? By way of softening this last difficulty it can indeed be urged that in Paul s society Mark took only a subordinate place, both according to Acts 13:5 (vTrrjpeTtj^), and according to 2 Tim. 4:11 ( s SiaKoviav), and that thus he perhaps was not called upon to teach at all. Nevertheless, the identity of the companion of Paul with the companion of Peter remains surrounded with such difficulty, that one is readily inclined to suppose them to have been distinct persons, if unwilling to doubt the statement of the presbyter altogether.

For other reasons, most of them quite inadequate, scholars in the last centuries have sometimes assumed two. three, or four, persons of the name of Mark (see Lightfoot on Col. 4 ic.) ; indeed, at a much earlier date we even find in the list of apostles of the pseudo-Dorotheus (5th cent.), designated as A by Lipsius 1 (123, 202), as many as three distinct Marks -

  • the evangelist to whom, on account of his having been personally unacquainted with Jesus, it gives a place along with Paul and Luke between the twelve and the seventy disciples ;
  • next, the cousin of Barnabas, who, later, became bishop of Apollonias ;
  • and lastly, John Mark, who subsequently became bishop of Byblos.

The two last-named are both enumerated among the seventy (Lipsius, ii. 2 328).

1 F^r nil that follows, cp Lipsius, Af-akr. Af.-gesch., especially ii. 2 321-353 ; also Zahn, Einl. 51, and Swete, Exfos. 1897^, pp. 268-277.

6. Mark as author.[edit]

Further statements regarding Mark, which apply to him only in so far as he can be regarded as author of the Second Gospel , in view of the uncertainty of his author ship ( 4), need only be mentioned here, and do not call for discussion. He has been identified with the unnamed young man of Mk. 14:51-52, or with the unnamed water-bearer of 14:13. This agrees with that interpretation of the opening words of the Muratorian fragment, which takes the words quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit as warrant ing the inference that Mark, though not in any strict sense a follower of Jesus, was present at certain incidents in his life. On another interpretation, how ever, it has been held that the incidents at which Mark was present, in the view of the author of the fragment, were events after the resurrection. On this view, the words et ita posuit are taken as explaining why the account of the resurrection in Mk. 16:9-20 constitutes an appendix to the Gospel, Mark as distinguished from Luke (1. 3 : post ascensum Christi) having written his gospel before the ascension of Jesus. For other state ments in the fathers regarding the composition of the Second Gospel see GOSPELS, 147. Most difficult of all is a third interpretation of the Muratorian fragment - viz., that it was at the narratives (of Peter) that Mark was sometimes present, sometimes not.

Dionysius of Alexandria (ap. Euseb. HE vii. 25:15) being unable to attribute the Apocalypse to the apostle John, thinks of John Mark as a possible author, but rejects the supposition on the ground a very insufficient one, it is true that Mark travelled with Paul and Barnabas only so far as to Pamphylia, not as far as Ephesus. Hitzig (Joh. Marcus u. seine Schrif ten, 1843) would have Mark to be really the author of the Apoca lypse. Spitta (Offenb. desjoh., 1889, see especially pp. 502-504) would make him author, at least, of one of the sources, which he calls Urapocalypse (cp APOCALYPSE, 29)-

In the IlepioSoi BapcajSa [periodoi barnaba], written according to Lipsius (ii. 2, p. 297) shortly after 485 A.D., Mark conies forward as the author, speaking in the first person.

7. Later traditions.[edit]

In other lists of the seventy, apart from that mentioned in 5, the evangelist Mark is also enumerated (first in Adamantius ; cp LUKE, 4, n. i). Epiphanius (Haer. li. 6:428a) reconciles the personal discipleship implied in this with Mark's filial relation to Peter by explaining that Mark had been one of the seventy-two disciples of Jesus, who according to Jn. 6:66, fell away from him, but that he was afterwards reclaimed by Peter. The ancient prologue given in Wordsworth-White (see above, col. 2939, n. 2) speaks of Mark as sacerdotium in Israel agens, secundum carnem Levita (this is plainly an inference merely from his cosinship with Barnabas the Levite, Acts 4 36), and adds (p. i72_/C) that amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur ut sacerdotio reprobus fieret. Doubtless the designation KoAo- /3o8axTvAos given to Mark in the nearly contemporary Philoso- thumena. (7:30, begin.) has reference to this. According to the first preface in the Codex Toletanus (ap. Wordsworth-White, 171), the defect was a natural one. The view of Tregelles that the word means a deserter, and is applied with reference to Mark s premature return from Pamphylia, is rightly rejected by Swete (Expos. 1897 b, p. 276 f.).

The prologue first cited goes on to say that in spite of this mutilation, Mark became ishop of Alexandria. Eusebius, in reliance on older sources (Lipsius, ii. 2, pp. 323), gives the date of Mark s arrival there as 42 A.D. (Chron. ad ann. Abrah. 2057 [ed. Schone, 2 152] ; cp HE ii. 16 i). According to Epiphanius (I.e.), Mark was sent from Rome to Alexandria by Peter after he had written his gospel ; according to the Ilept oSoi Bapi da (24-26), he went to Alexandria from Cyprus after the death of Barnabas (Lipsius, ii. 2, pp. 2847^). Eusebius has it (Chron. ad. ann. Abrah. 2077 [ed. Schone, 2 154] ; HE 1 24) that Anianus, or Annianus, succeeded Mark in the see of Alexandria in 62 A.D. Jerome (Vir. ill. 8) places the death of Mark in the same year. He does not speak of any martyrdom. The earliest mention of a martyrdom is in the Acta.Ma.rci, which, according to Lipsius (ii. 2, pp. 344-346), were written in Alexandria towards the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. Mark is there spoken of as a native of the Pentapolis in North Africa, to which Cyrene belonged. The legend which names him as founder of the church at Aquileia first makes its appearance in the seventh century ; the similar legend which associates him with Venice is still later (Lipsius, ii. 2, pp. 346-353). p. w. S.

For the Gospel according to Mark, see GOSPELS.


(TUN?), Ezek. 27i 3 AV, RV merchandise ; (A.I-OP&) Mk. 74 etc.; and Market-Place (&rop&), Mt. 20s etc. See TRADE AND COMMERCE.


(tfpyj? , Lev. 19:28. See CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH, 6.


(M&pM<A>ei [B]), i Esd. 862 = Ezra 8:33, MEREMOTH.


(nitC; oAyNAC [BAQ], H TTAPATTIK- P&INOYCA [Symm.]), a place mentioned by Micah (1:12), and supposed by some to be near Jerusalem (so Hi., Now.), and by G. A. Smith to be in the maritime plain. Perhaps it is Jarmuth that is meant. The prophet s paronomasia has been misconceived ; it is not bitterness that the name of the place referred to suggests to him, nor can we infer from the following words that Jerusalem was close to Maroth.

Probably we should emend the text thus, Yea, sick unto death has Jarmuth s community become (D1DT tJT nioS nn*?n ; so Che. JQK, July, 1898). G. A. Smith (ad loc.) renders the text, The inhabitress of Maroth trembleth for good, for evil has come down from Jehovah to the walls of Jerusalem.


  • Preliminary steps (1-).
  • Festivities (3).
  • The home (4).
  • Polygamy, divorce (5-6).
  • Widows, levirate (7-8).
  • Literature (9).

1. Betrothal and mohar.[edit]

Legally considered, the marriage relation was formed by the act of betrothal - that is to say, by the payment, on the bridegroom's part, of the mohar to the parent or guardian of the bride ; with this she passed into the possession of her husband. To betroth a wife to oneself (Z-\R, eras), meant simply to acquire possession of her by payment of the purchase-money: the betrothed (nfcnfcDi me'orasa) is a girl for whom the purchase-money has been paid (see FAMILY, 4 ; and cp We. GGN, 1893, p. 435). The betrothal once effected, the husband can take his wife home and celebrate his nuptials when he will (Gen. 2449^, Judg. 14 7 f.). 1 The girl s consent is unnecessary and the need for it is nowhere suggested in the law. Ordinary human affection would, no doubt, lead the parents generally to allow their daughters some voice in the matter (Gen. 24s8) ; but the arrangements about the marriage, and especially about the mohar, belonged to the province of the father or guardian (Gen. 24:50+, 29:23, 34:12). The girl herself sometimes (but evidently not always) receives presents ([no, mattan] from the suitor.

In Eliezer's negotiation for Rebekah these gifts are given at the betrothal and before the actual union (Gen. 24:53) ; thus they have here the character of a gift made in confirmation of the betrothal contract (so also Gen. 34:12), not, like the sadak of the Arabs, that of a morgengabe.2 - In Samson's case such a morgengabe to the wife is also mentioned (Judg. 15:1), and there can be little doubt that such was originally the meaning of the gift made to the bride.

As to the amount of the mohar we unfortunately have but little information. Dt. 22:29, compared with Ex. 22:15-16 [16-17] , tells us that in the time of D the average was fifty silver shekels (about £4; see SHEKEL). The mohar did not, however, require to be paid in money. It could be paid in personal service (so in Jacob's case, Gen. 29:20, 27). Maidens were given in marriage to heroes for their prowess in war (Josh. 15:16, Judg. 1:12, 1 S. 17:25): David bought Michal for a hundred fore skins [unless this is due to corruption of the text ; see MOSES, 6 n.]. 3

The Homeric heroes paid in cattle ; hence the complimentary epithet, oxen-bringing as applied to maidens (wapQei Oi aA^>e<ri- fioiai, II. 18:593). The same may have been the practice with the nomad Israelites.

1 Samson's marriage, however, was exceptional in various respects. See SAMSON, KINSHIP, 8.

2 Or morning gift, referring to the German custom by which the bride receives a present from the bridegroom on the morning after the marriage.

3 In view of this last narrative it is surely ill-judged on the part of Keil (Archdol. 541) and others to treat the mohar as morgengabe presented to the bride.

The mohar in time gradually lost its original meaning of 'purchase money' as the custom arose of giving it, not to the father but to the wife herself. There was a similar development among the Arabs ; in the Koran it is assumed to be usual to give the mahr to the wife. Even in E (Gen. 31:15) it is mentioned as a reproach against Laban that he had spent entirely upon himself the price paid for his daughters.

The requirement that the bride should bring some thing to her husband at her marriage or should receive a dowry from her parents is not according to ancient Hebrew custom. The case of Pharaoh s daughter is evidence only for Egyptian practice. At the same time, the genealogical legend of Josh. 15:16+ (cp Judg. 1:12+) shows that parting gifts to the daughter on leaving her home were not unknown. Leah and Rachel receive their female slaves at their marriage (Gen. 29:24, 29:29 ; cp 16:1). This, however, is no 'dowry' brought by the wife to her husband ; such gifts remain the personal property of the wife. Conveyance of property through the wife cannot strictly be made, simply because daughters had no right of inheritance (see FAMILY, 5) ; and even at a comparatively late date heiresses were subject in their marriages to certain restrictions designed to prevent the alienation of land to outside clans (see LAW AND JUSTICE, 18). In post-exilic times a dowry somewhat in the modern sense seems to have been usual (Tob. 8:21, Ecclus. 20:22), and mention is also made of written marriage-contracts (Tob. 7:14).

2. Choice of bride.[edit]

(i) In early times. In ancient Israel the choosing of the bride was the business of the man's father or, rather, of the head of the family (cp Gen. 24:2+, 38 6, 28:1+, 21:21). This is intelligible enough when we recollect that the person chosen was to become a member of the clan. It was regarded as unbecoming (though not impossible) that a son should be so self-willed as to insist on marrying a wife whom his family were unwilling to receive (Gen. 26:34-35, 27:46; cp Judg. 14:2). Now and then it did indeed happen that love-matches were made (1 S. 18:20, Judg. 14:1+), and that the inclinations of the parties chiefly concerned were consulted. Esau marries as he does against the will of his parents (Gen. 26:34-35); Rebekah is asked by her brother for her consent to the marriage (Gen. 24:58). Opportunities for the formation of romantic attachments were not wanting, the social relations of the sexes being under no specially severe restrictions. In the patriarchal history we find in this respect the same customs as are still to be seen amongst the modern Bedouins : women and girls are kept in no severe isolation. Meetings occur easily and naturally where the flocks and herds are being pastured, or at the wells.

The feeling of a certain degree of independence and of an equality of right with men to pursue their daily tasks gives the girls confidence and freedom ; they do not shun conversation with a stranger, willingly accept useful help, and are ready to render reciprocal service (Gen. 24:15+, 29:10, Ex. 2:16, 1 S. 9:11). Jacob's acquaintance with Rachel began at the well (Gen. 29:1+). No doubt there are risks of rudeness or even of outrage (Ex. 2:16+, Gen. 34:1+) ; but, on the whole, good manners and good morals are an effective safeguard (cp also Ex. 22:16 [15] Dt. 22:23+, 22:28+).

In these pictures the manners of the narrator's time are reflected ; but passages like Judg. 14:1+, 1 S. 9:11 18:20+ show to what an extent nomadic customs continued to hold their ground among the settled Israelites.

It was in accordance with ancient custom for the man to look for his wife in the circle of his own family and clan. Such endogamy is not original in baal-marriages, which at an earlier time were marriages by capture (see KINSHIP, 11); but it is easily explicable from the position of the woman, who became the property of her husband. To give away one s daughters into another tribe was equivalent to sending them beyond the protecting influence of their own family ; and a wife married within her own clan might naturally be expected to enjoy a better position than as an alien abroad. The principle is clearly stated by Laban (Gen. 29:19) : It is better that I give her to thee than that I should give her to a strange man. Marriages outside the tribe occurred indeed, but were discouraged (Gen. 26:34-35, 27:46 Judg. 14:3). As the coherence of the tribe depended on the sense of kinship (see KINSHIP), it was also really best that marriage relationships should not be entered into with other tribes, at the risk of embarrassing one s feeling of relationship with one's own tribe. The marriage of Moses cannot be quoted against this ; he was a fugitive and compelled to seek the shelter of another tribe. If, too, the genealogy-legend allows Judah and others to make marriages with Canaanites, this is in full agreement with what we know to have been the state of matters after the settlement, but proves nothing as regards ancient exogamy. The many instances of marriages of kinsfolk in the patriarchal history show that on this point the older views were different from those which afterwards became prevalent. Abraham married his half-sister on the father s side (not on the mother's ; see KINSHIP, 5-6), and even in David s time such a marriage in the king s family would, it seems, have been regarded as unusual, indeed, yet not as wrong or reprehensible (2 S. 13:13). Moses himself was the fruit of a marriage between nephew and (paternal) aunt (Nu. 26:59, P). On marriage with a father s wife (other than one's own mother) see below (7). A cousin on the father s side was considered a particularly eligible bridegroom a view that survives to the present day among the Bedouins and partly also among the Syrian peasantry. Compare the cases of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24:4), Jacob and Leah-Rachel (Gen. 29:19).

(2) Later. At the time when the patriarchal history came to be written, matters had indeed altered in one respect ; the settlement, and the changes it had wrought in the tribal relationship, had altered the ancient custom in regard to marriages also, and alliances with Canaan ites and other aliens soon came to be regarded as quite natural (Judg. 3:6).

In the post-exilic genealogy of David we find the name of Ruth the Moabitess; and David himself married a daughter of the king of the Geshurites (2 S. 3:3). Solomon is said to have married not only the daughter of Pharaoh but also Moabite and Ammonite princesses (1 K. 11:1) ; Ahab was the husband of the Phoenician Jezebel (1 K. 16:31); the two murderers of Joash were sons of an Ammonitess and of a Moabitess respectively (2 Ch. 24;26 ; see JOASH).

There are instances also of Israelite women marrying foreigners - in the recorded cases doubtless under some stipulation that the husbands should make Israel their adopted country. Thus Uriah was a Hittite (2 S. 11:3)1 Jether, the husband of David's sister Abigail, an Ishmaelite (1 Ch. 2:17 against 2 S. 17:25 ; see JETHER). We know of one instance doubtless there were many unrecorded in which an Israelite woman married abroad ; Huram-abi, the Tyrian artificer, was the son of a Hebrew mother (i K. 7:14 ; see HIRAM).

Here again with D there comes in a change, which allows marriage indeed with foreign women taken in war (Dt. 21:10+), but forbids, on the other hand, any marriage-alliance with Canaanites (7:1+) or with other heathen peoples (234+ [3+]; Ex. 34:15 has probably been deuteronomistically redacted). The motives are religious ; such women might seduce their husbands to idolatry. It is conceivable that in actual fact this objection to connubium with Canaanites may have arisen out of a change of feeling under the monarchy friendly tolerance having been gradually superseded by fierce antipathy. Whether this be so or not, the pro hibition in D cannot be dissociated from a certain. particularistic narrowness. We are no longer in posses sion of the reason for the exemption of Edomites and Egyptians from the general condemnation (Dt.23:7-8 [8-9], J). That the enforcement of the precepts of D met with much opposition, and in the first instance was a failure, is shown by the narrative in Ezra 9-10. (see EZRA).

D also seeks to introduce reforms with regard to the marriage of related persons. It expressly prohibits marriage with a father s wife (22:30 [23:1], 27:20), with a sister or half-sister (27:22), or with a mother-in-law (27:23). Here again the force of custom proved too strong for the law ; in Ezekiel s day marriage with a stepmother, with a daughter-in-law, or with a sister, seems to have been frequent (Ezek. 22:10-11).

P places among the prohibited degrees (Lev. 18:6-18; cp 20:11+) marriage with

  • (1) mother, or father's wife generally;
  • (2) sister and half-sister;
  • (3) granddaughter;
  • (4) maternal and paternal aunt ;
  • (5) uncle's wife on the father's side ;
  • (6) mother-in-law;
  • (7) daughter-in-law;
  • (8) brother's wife;
  • (9) two sisters at the same time

The prohibition of marriage with a daughter has no doubt fallen out by a copyist's carelessness. Marriage is permitted between uncle and niece, between nephew and widow of uncle on the mother s side, and between cousins. On the whole these ordi nances come very near the prescriptions of pre- Islamic Arab custom which were made statutory by Mohammed.

Here again the motives of the legislation are not quite apparent. From what has been said above on the custom of old Israel it is evident that the prohibitions cannot rest on the view that what they prohibit is destructive of the essence of blood-relationship ; just as little can they rest on a perception of the injurious effects of marriage between near relations. Not to refer to other prohibitions with which they appear to be classed, it is enough to quote the words of Am. 2:7, a man and his father go unto the same maid, to profane the name of Yahwe, which doubtless imply the formation of some unholy bond between father and son. With regard to levirate marriages (see below, 8) no reason is apparent why they should have been abolished on moral grounds : here again it is highly probable that some religious idea was at work.

3. Marriage festivities.[edit]

As to the marriage-festivities our information is but small. The central and characteristic feature was the solemn bringing of the bride to her husband's house, in which act the significance of marriage as an admission of the bride into the clan of her husband found expression. In wedding attire (Is. 61:10 ; see DRESS), and accompanied by his friends (Judg. 14:11-12 ; cp Jn. 3:29 and parall. ), the bridegroom marched on the festal day to the house of the bride. Thence she was led, in bridal garments, but veiled (Jer. 2:32, Is. 49:18, etc. ), accompanied by her companions as the bridegroom was by his (Ps. 45:14 [15]), to his parent s house (Jer. 7:34, 16:9, 25:10, Cant. 36+. ). It was no doubt at eventide and by the light of torches that such processions were held (Mt. 25:1+). Occasionally but this was rare the bride was led to meet the bridegroom (1 Macc. 9:37-38). The custom now is for the guests in the procession to sing songs in praise of the bride and bridegroom, and this may well have descended from antiquity ; indeed, the Song of Solomon may perhaps be formed out of a collection of such marriage lays (see, further, CANTICLES, DANC ING), and in Ps. 45 we have a song composed for and sung at the marriage of a king. In the bridegroom s house was then held the great nuptial feast, which with the rich and great might last for seven, or even fourteen, days (Gen. 29:27, Judg. 14:22, 17, Tob. 8:20). The same custom of fetching the bride existed also among the ancient Arabs, though as a rule without the pomp that was customary with the Israelites a survival perhaps from the days of marriage by capture (Robertson Smith, Kins. 81). The consummation of the marriage was in the home of the bridegroom ; among Hebrews and Arabs this was regarded as the more civilised arrangement ; otherwise the bride was regarded as a mere captive about whom little ceremony was observed (We. GGA, 1893, p. 442).!

4. The home.[edit]

As a valuable chattel (to say the least) of her husband (see FAMILY, 4) the wife was carefully looked after. Of the strict isolation observed throughout Islam we find, it is true, no trace in the ancient time. The women had indeed in the innermost part of the house their own apartments to which access was not permitted to men (Judg. 15:1, 16:9), or, in the case of wealthy people or people of rank, they had a separate house to themselves (2 S. 13:7, 1 K. 7:8, 2 K. 24:15, Esth. 2:3, 2:14). This, however, does not hinder them from taking part in the ordinary duties of the household ; they spin, sew, weave, make gar ments, fetch water, bake bread, and tend the flocks and herds (Gen. 29:9, Ex. 2:16, 1 S. 2:19, 8:13, 2 S. 13:8, Prov. 31:10+). They are not shut off from the outside world of men, and they even take part in feasts (Ex. 21:22. Dt. 25:11, Ruth 2:5+, 1 S. 9:11, 2 S. 20:16, Mt. 9:20, 12:46, 26:7, Lk. 10:38, Jn. 2:1+, 4:7). Women and girls shared in public rejoicings with song and dance (Ex. 15:20-21, Judg. 16:27, 1 S. 18:6+, Judg. 21:19+). Whilst, however, fidelity on the husband's part was in no way enforced, law and custom were very strict as regarded the wife (cp Dt. 22:21). Adultery on her part was by very ancient usage punishable by stoning (Dt. 22:22-23; cp Ezek. 16:40, Jn. 8 5 7), unless, indeed, the injured husband (as he was entitled to do) took the vindication of his honour into his own hand. A like punishment befell the wife who at her marriage was found not to have been a virgin (Dt. 22:21) a custom which is to be interpreted in the same sense as the punishment for transgression on the part of a betrothed maiden (see FAMILY, 4). How fierce was the jealousy with which men regarded their wives is shown by the laws which sought to protect women against false accusations, and by the very in adequacy of these laws. One of them punishes false accusations brought against a wife with a money fine and withdrawal of the right of divorce (Dt. 22:13+); another, no less naively conceived, lets the man go free even after false accusation he can compel his wife to submit to the ordeal of jealousy (see JEALOUSY), but, whatever the result, the man shall be free from blame (Nu. 5:11-30). Mistrust and jealousy, not about love but about a property-right, are conspicuous characteristics of the Arabs (We., I.c. , 448). This is to a considerable degree true of the Hebrews also. Yet, in spite of all this strictness, the prophets have to raise a continual protest against the prevalence of adultery (Jer. 7:9, 23:10, Hos. 4:2, Mal. 3:5, and often).

1 The naive method, employed even at the present day throughout the whole of the East, for satisfying curiosity as to certain physical details, dates from a very remote antiquity (Dt. 22:13+).

5. Polygamy.[edit]

The man who owns his wife as a chattel can on the same principle own - as many as he pleases as many, that is to say, as he can afford to buy and keep. The luxury of a great harem was of course attainable only by the wealthy. These, so far as we can judge, made ample use of their privilege : witness the notices about Gideon's seventy sons (Judg. 8:30, 9:2), David's wives (2 S. 5:13 etc.), Solomon's harem (1 K. 11:1+}, and the like. The law of the kingdom forbidding the possession of many wives has manifestly a side-reference to the actual king (Dt. 17:17). The Talmudists formulate the rule that no Jew may have more than four wives ; kings may have at the most eighteen. The ordinary Israelite at all times, like the modern Syrian peasant, would doubtless have to be content with one secondary wife in addition to the principal wife, or at most with two wives. The last-named arrangement seems to receive the sanction of widely-diffused custom (1 S. 1:2, Dt. 21:15, 2 Ch. 24:3; cp the case of Jacob). When the first wife proved childless, polygamy, to this extent at least, was regarded as a necessity. The examples of Sarah, of Leah, and of Rachel, show how little the amour propre of the child less wife was wounded by any such arrangement.

To turn to the other side of the picture : polygamy carried with it its own hardships and inconveniences. The lot of the childless wife, when she had to live under the same roof with the mother of sons, was hard (1 S. 1:1+). Even the concubine was sometimes known to exalt herself over the wife (Gen. 16:4+; cp Gen. 30), and the situation was not always so simple as in the case of Sarah and Hagar, where the mistress could send her rival away ; more usually she had no alter native but to submit. Very eloquent are the words that the language provides for the two wives nanx, ahubah, the loved one, and nttijiy, senuah, the hated one. The later legislation found it necessary to inter vene on behalf of the superseded wife (Dt. 21:15-17). The prohibition of the old practice of marrying two sisters at the same time (see above, 2) is doubtless intended to obviate the subversion of sisterly relations through jealousy. Such also is the drift of the whole development towards the monogamy which, if never legally insisted on, was yet so extensively practised in the end. Gen. 2:18+. unmistakably discloses the view that monogamy, properly speaking, is the normal arrangement. When the prophets represent the relation of Yahwe to his people under the figure of a marriage, it is of course a monogamous marriage that is thought of ; for Yahwe had entered into no similar relation with any other nation besides Israel. Finally, the praise of the virtuous woman in Proverbs and the many incidental references to woman and to marriage, both here and in Ecclesiasticus (Ps. 128 Prov. 12:4, 18:22, 19:14, 31:10+, Ecclus. 25:1, 25:8, 26:1-2, 26:14 etc.), show that the practical wisdom of the later age had settled that monogamy was the only ideal kind of marriage.

6. Divorce.[edit]

The woman being a man's property, his right to divorce her follows as a matter of course. As in doing so he must return the mohar, no injustice is done either to her or to her family. The divorcee returns to her family and can, if circum stances favour, be married a second time from there. No moral stigma of any kind arises from the mere fact of her being divorced. Yet, we can well suppose that from the first the family of the woman would be disposed to look with disfavour upon such treatment, and the account which the husband was bound to take of the views and feelings of the wife s blood-relations (see above, 2) laid from the very beginning a con siderable restraint upon absolute freedom of divorce. The deuteronomic law has unmistakably the intention of limiting in some degree the liberty too frequently exercised, without at the same time curtailing in any respect the rights of the husband.

The expression "Q 7 ! JTny, erwath dabar (AV 'uncleanness," RV 'unseemly thing' ) can hardly be taken, with the stricter school of Shammai, in the ethical sense and interpreted as mean ing unchastity (though this is certainly favoured by such a detail as the going forth with uncovered head) ; had the law intended such a very considerable curtailment of the general right of the man to dismiss a wife with whom he was dissatisfied, this ought to have been stated in much more definite terms.

Some restriction, however, was at the same time laid upon divorce by the mere fact that a writing ( 'bill of divorcement' ) was now required by law (Dt. 24:1+). Further, it is enacted in D that the divorced wife, if, after divorce, she has married again and been separated from the second husband in turn by divorce or by his death, cannot again be taken back in marriage by her first husband. The old practice as to this was quite different (Hos. 33 ; cp 2 S. 3:14), and was similar to the old Arab custom ; the Koran in fact lays it down as a condition that the wife can be taken back only if in the interval she has been the wife of another man. The manifest purpose of D and of the Koran alike is to put some kind of check upon rash and inconsiderate divorce. Lastly, D withdrew, as a penalty, the husband's right of divorce in two cases those, namely, in which he had falsely accused his wife of not having been a virgin when he married her (Dt. 22:19), or in which he had been compelled to marry a virgin whom he had wronged (Dt. 22:28). This last innovation in the law is also directly contrary to the ancient practice, which did not even demand marriage as a compensation for the injury done. Here also we see the advance we have already noted, point by point, towards the securing of a higher position for the wife. Mal. 2 (see MALACHI, 2, 4) con demns divorce in the strongest terms. The wife is the mother of seed of God : if there are children the end of marriage has been fulfilled. It is to Yahwe a hateful thing that a man should put away the wife of his youth and the mother of his children simply because she has grown old and has ceased to be personally attractive. 1

The right of divorce belongs of course only to the husband. The wife has no means of freeing herself from her husband, apart from the means employed also by the Arabs namely to make herself so objectionable to her husband as to force him to send her away. We do not know whether a thing of common occurrence among the Arabs ever happened also among the Hebrews that a man sent his wife away at her own request or at the request of her relations on repayment of the mohar. Salome the daughter of Herod might take the freedom of sending a bill of divorce to her husband Costabaros ; but this was condemned as a foreign indecency (Jos. Ant. xv. 7:10).

7. Widows.[edit]

Traces of evidence are not wanting that with the older Hebrews, as with the Arabs before Mohammed, a man's widow could be inherited exactly like his other property. The grasping Reuben - so ran the legend - sought to seize this inheritance even in his father s lifetime (Gen. 35:22); the rebellious Absalom comes forward publicly as heir and successor to his father by taking possession of his harem (2 S. 16:20+) an act which does not in itself at all shock the moral sense of the people. Abner by appro priating Saul s concubine Rizpah infringed the rights of Ishbosheth (2 S. 3:7+): and when Adonijah asks the hand of Abishag he is asking a portion of the inheritance of Solomon, who at once infers his ulterior designs (1 K. 222 ; cp v. 15). As already said, in spite of the deuteronomic prohibition such marriages of son with step-mother were not unusual down to Ezekiel s time (Ezek. 22:10). The genealogical register of Chronicles mentions a further case : Caleb marries Ephrath, the wife of his father (1 Ch. 22:4 LXX; We., De Gent. 14; see CALEB, EPHRATH, 3). On the kindred subject of levirate marriage, see below, 8.

This inheritance of widows, however, was by no means a general custom in historical times. As a rule the lot of the widow is even harder than that of the divorcee. It was always open to her, indeed, to go back to her family ; but it is not to be supposed that she could always count on a welcome there. D interests itself to the utmost on her behalf. Judgment must be executed for her justly, with fairness and promptitude (Dt. 10 18, 24:17, 27:19 ; cp the corresponding exhortations of the prophets, Is. 1:17, 10:2, Jer. 7:6, 22:3, etc. ). Widows are to be bidden as guests to the sacrificial meals and feasts (Dt. 14:29, 16:11, 16:14, 26:12-13); the gleanings of the fields and vineyards and oliveyards are to be left for them (24:19-21 ; cp Ruth 2:2). Of their remarriage the law says nothing, except in the case of levirate marriage. Later usage seems, however, to have conceded to the widow certain claims over the property of her deceased husband ; the rabbins laid down very exact rules as to this (cp Selden, De success, ad legem hebr. in bona defunct.; Saalschiitz, Mos. Recht, 831+, 860-861). On widows garments see MOURNING CUSTOMS.

1 This teaching, it must indeed be sorrowfully admitted, proved ineffective. We need only recall the practice in the time of Christ, which was entirely in accord with the school of Hillel in the interpretation of Dt. 24 ijf. (see above), according to which divorce was left open to any man on any ground he chose, although specially (of course) on the ground of misconduct (cp also Ecclus. 7 26 25 26 42 9).

8. Levirate marriage.[edit]

As a relic of the ancient right to inherit the widow - a right which belonged to the son or rather to the agnates - the custom of levirate marriage (which is not exclusively Israelitish) survived down even to post-exilic times. D, which elevates the custom into a law, enacts that when a man dies without sons (not without children, as the Jews afterwards read it, Mt. 22:24) his brother must marry the widow. The first son of this marriage shall be reckoned the son of the deceased brother, so that his name be not blotted out of Israel (Dt. 25:5+). In this form the law essentially changes the old custom. The story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38, esp. v. 26) shows that in certain circumstances - namely, when there was no brother - it became the duty of the father of the dead man to come forward and marry his daughter-in-law. What seems plain from this narrative - that it relates to a duty involved in the right of agnates to inherit - is confirmed by the book of Ruth. The whole course of the story here rests upon the postulate that the agnate who claims the inheritance must take over the widow together with the land of the deceased ; and in point of fact the story deals with somewhat remote kinsmen. This certainly is in accordance with the older use. The story, however, goes on to represent the whole as a right of inheritance which the man can relinquish if he choose. Over against this would be the corresponding right of the woman to refuse the marriage and to go back to her own relations instead (as Orpah does). Ancient custom, however, so far as exhibited in Gen. 38, would seem not to sanction withdrawal on any pretext whatever. Which of the two representations is the correct one we have no means of determining : they will harmonise in the end, if we are allowed to suppose that only the remoter agnates had the right of refusal. The origin of this compulsory character, which certainly did not attach to the original right of inheritance, will appear later.

According to D, the purpose of the whole custom is that the man s name be not blotted out of Israel. This is certainly, in the sense which the law attaches to it, at the best but a secondary and subordinate considera tion. For what D has in view is the preservation of the family property. When the first son of a levirate marriage is reckoned son of the deceased brother he becomes thereby his heir, he inherits the land, not of his actual father but, of the deceased. The effect of this is not only that the family property is prevented from passing into the hands of outsiders, but also, in particular, that it is preserved as such, and the family belonging to it does not die out. An interest of this kind to secure the continuance of the property not only within the clan but also as an independent family property can, of course, have come into being only in connection with questions of landed property, in other words, after the settlement. The same effort led on another side to this, that anyone who found himself compelled to sell his land always retained a right of redemption and preemption which right also passed over to the agnates entitled to inherit (Jer. 328+). In the story of Ruth this is also what we find ; the near kinsman, the go'el (see GOEL), must first buy back the alienated land in virtue of his right of inheritance and redemption (Ruth 4:3+).

With P also this preservation of landed property within the family is the one consideration present in its revision of the older law (see below, 2). It is noticeable that in Ruth a somewhat different matter is placed in the foreground as the object primarily aimed at. Naomi s purpose is not to secure posterity for her son, but to gain a husband for her step-daughter ; not the continuance of the name of Mahlon, but the well-being of Ruth is her real desire (1:11+, 3:1). The first son of the marriage actually is in the end regarded, not as the son of Ruth's first husband, but as the son of his real father Boaz. Here too we doubtless have a cor rect reminiscence. In the old law about the right of heirs to widows of deceased men it was by no means contemplated that the heir should in all cases himself marry the widow ; it was open to him to marry her to another man. To the right of inheritance, however, was always attached the corresponding duty of caring for the women so inherited. At the same time, the practice in old Israel will doubtless have been similar to that of Arabia : when the widow was not desirable, or was looked upon only as a burden, she was simply neglected. So with Tamar, and so with Ruth (We., I.c. 456, and compare what has been said already as to the lot of widows). Judah nevertheless notwithstanding all his neglect holds fast by his rights ; if Tamar has gone astray with a man of another clan, she has been guilty of adultery (Gen. 38:21+).

The reckoning of the son of such a marriage to the deceased husband is nevertheless an ancient custom, not an innovation of D. In D, however, it has under gone a not-unimportant alteration ; in Gen. 38:9 all the children (not only the first son) are to be reckoned to the dead man. Modern scholars explain this for the most part from ancestor-worship. The dead child less man has his right to have this ordinance observed (Gen. 38:8-9), and it is for contempt of it that God slays Onan. What the dead man is defrauded of by its non-observance is the reverence and worship of his posterity (cp 2 S. 18:18). Stade (GI 1:394) points out that marriages of this kind are customary precisely among those peoples who have ancestor-worship also Indians, Persians, Afghans, and so forth. It was when the religious consideration was added that the right of inheriting (which resulted from the very nature of baal- marriage) became also a duty. It is not necessary therefore to resort, with Robertson Smith, to an old form of polyandry for an explanation (see KINSHIP, 10).

D, for whom the old religious meaning of the matter has become obscured, is able on that account to relax the stringency of the demand and give release from it under certain conditions. The refusal to comply with it brings, however, open shame to the unwilling brother- in-law. The practice here referred to, which is of very great antiquity and not quite rightly understood by D, again clearly exhibits the ancient connection with the right of inheriting. The contemned sister-in-law is to go up to the place of justice before the competent court (the elders of the city) and, loosing her brother-in-law s shoe from off his foot, is to spit in his face, saying So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother s house, and ever after his family is to be called the barefoot family. This loosing of the shoe was, according to Ruth 47, customary at every transaction in landed property. The seller gave his shoe to the buyer in token of renunciation of his right in the object sold (see SHOES, 4). So, in the story, when the near kinsman divests himself of his title to the inheritance he plucks off his shoe. In D this no-longer- understood custom, which probably had survived only in connection with the matter of levirate marriage, is construed into an insult, ever to be remembered, not only against the renouncing kinsman but also against his whole family.

In process of time this class of marriages underwent still further restrictions, when daughters became capable of inheriting in default of sons. Henceforward they could be thought of only in cases where there were no children at all ; for to marry the widow when the inheritance had fallen to the daughters was not in con sonance with the meaning of the institution. The object of keeping the property within the clan was secured by prohibiting heiresses from marrying outsiders. Such becomes the law in P (Nu. 27:4), and marriage with a brother-in-law is forbidden as incestuous (Lev. 18:16, 20:21 ; see above, 2). Whatever the successes of P as a whole, however, it does not seem to have permanently triumphed at all points. In this respect in particular ancient custom seems to have been stronger than written law (cp Mt. 22:24).

9. Literature.[edit]

See, in addition to works cited under FAMILY, Frohmiiller, Devidua. Hebr., 1714 ; Benary, De Hebr. leviratn, 1835 ; Reds- lob, Die Leviratsche bei den ffter&em, 1836. On the customs of the Syrian fellahin of the present day see Klein, /.DTVltef. 68i_/C, and Baldensperger Woman in the East, PEFQ St. 1899, pp. 132^; IQOO, pp. \iijf.\ 1901, pp. 90 jr. i6-jjf.\ on historical points, Kalisch, The Matrimonial Laws of the Hebrews, Leviticus, 2 354 ff. I. rj.


(&p[e]iOY [ Ti - Acts 17:22 AV, RV AREOPAGUS (q.v.)


(S3pnO, perhaps see ADMATHA), one of the seven princes at the court of Ahasuerus (Estherli4). His name (with which cp MEKKS) has been connected with Old Persian Marduniya i.e., Mardonius (the name of the commander at Marathon). Compare also the Mardi and Mardontes (Herod. 1 125 7 80). Marquart (Fund. 69), however, suggests n-1333 and compares the name Mavurapos (Dio Cass. 6722). Some scepticism, however, is justified (see ESTHER, 3 ; PURIM, 6).


For i. 1022, tiphsar, Jer. 51 27 Nah. 3 17 RV, and

2. 133 sopher, Judg. 5 14 RV ( marshal s staff ),

see SCRIBE ; and for

3. O naa a l, 2 K. 25 8 AVig-, see EXECUTIONER (i)


(MApGA [Ti. WH], 57 ; Aram. NHIO, lady, mistress ), sister of Mary, and friend of Jesus (Lk. 10:38+; Jn. 11:1+, 12:2 ).

1. Name.[edit]

'Martha' is pretty common in the Talmud (Zunz, Ges. Schriften 2:14, Jastrow s Diet. 834 b, and cp Orig. c. Cels. 5:62, Epiph. Hier. 19:2). In the Aramaic inscriptions in Part II of the CIS we find the proper names NHO and JW3 (Cook, Aram. Gloss. 78) ; the former of these would probably be Latinised as Marius, the latter as Martha. By a curious coincidence Martha was the name of the Syrian prophetess who accompanied Marius in his decisive campaign in Provence against the Cimbri and Teutones (Pint. Afar. 414). See Hall (Bullock), Romans on the Riviera (121), who adds that both Marius and Martha are still amongst the most popular Christian names in Provence. The legends respecting St. Martha, with all their picturesqueness, cannot claim a share of our space. Cp LEPROSY, 5, end, MARY, 21.

2. Traditions[edit]

(a) In Lk. 10:38+, we are told that, as they journeyed, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a certain village (of course not Bethany, cp Lk. 19:29) where it was convenient to halt. Here there dwelt a woman who received Jesus into her house, and whose sister, named Mary, instead of helping Martha in preparing the meal, sat at the Lord s feet and heard his word. WH (so, too, B. Weiss) give the following as the best supported reading of the answer of Jesus to Martha's complaint : 'Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things but there is need of few things, or of one (6\iywv 5^ icmv xP et a f) evJr MopiajOt yap), for Mary has chosen the good part, one which will not be taken away from her'. The TR, however, to which Tregelles and Tischendorf adhere, gives the central words in a different form, 'there is need of one thing' (efos 5e ean xpeia) - i.e., of only one thing. The latter reading seems to have been framed out of regard to Christian supernaturalism, which took offence at the suggestion of a few things (plural) being really needful. The reading, 'of few things, or of one', which Plummer (St. Luke, 292) by no means makes probable, seems to stand midway be tween the original reading and the more definite reading which afterwards became prevalent, and the original text probably read, 'there is need of few things'. The idea that 'few dishes' are meant, though supported by many Greek and some modern interpreters, is unsatis factory. The 'few things' must surely be those of which Jesus speaks in the Sermon on the Mount, and of which he says that they are not to cause us any anxiety. Jesus was presumably, according to the intention of the evangelist, speaking of the kingdom of God. The passage is a gentle reminder that man s earthly wants are few, and that, having a Father in heaven, men need not be anxious about these wants, and the good part chosen by Mary is a share in the kingdom of God. It is also probable that the answer assigned to Jesus is a combination of two sayings, one relative to the many and the few things, and the other relative to the truly good possession (cp Ps. 166). These sayings were both Moating in tradition, when the story received its present form, and to understand Lk. 10:41-42 we must analyse it into its two component parts.

A Dutch critic, reviving a very old interpretation, supposes that, though very possibly historical, the in cident was recorded in Lk. to emphasise the contrast between the Pauline doctrine of faith and a Judaising doctrine of works (Scholten, Het Paulinisch Evangelie, 334). But this presupposes the reading v6s.

(b) In Jn. 11:1, 5 :19, etc., we hear again of 'Martha and Mary' (v. 19) or of 'Mary and her sister Martha '(v. i) ; but their house is in the 'village of Bethany'.

There is a certain similarity between the descriptions of Martha in Lk. and Jn. respectively. In both Martha appears as a devoted friend of Jesus, though there is nothing in Lk. to suggest that Martha regarded Jesus as more than a great teacher of the things concerning the 'kingdom', whereas in Jn. she professes her belief in Jesus as 'the Christ, the son of God'. In both, too, Martha is the more forward of the sisters. Martha was distracted with much ministration. 'Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him'. 'Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to him, Lord, . . . he hath been dead four days'. And though nothing is said of hospitality in Jn. 11, the omission is repaired in Jn. 12:2, where we are told that they made him a supper, and Martha ministered.

The great difference in the place of residence assigned to Martha and Mary by the respective narrators need not here be discussed. The question is complicated for those at least who hold that there was but one anointing of Jesus in the primitive evangelical tradition by the fact that Lk. and Jn., who differ so widely as to the place of residence of the two sisters, differ in exactly the same way as to the scene of the anointing of Jesus (cp Lk. 7:36-38, Jn. 12:1-3), which is placed by Lk. in Galilee and by Jn. at BETHANY (q.v.), not to refer here to other differences in the narratives. See MARY (25); GOSPELS, 44, 59; LAZARUS. T. K. C.


(MAPTYC). Rev. 176 EV; Acts 22:20, Rev. 2:13 AV, RV WITNESS (q.v.).


  • NAME (1-2).
  • I. MOTHER OF JESUS ( 3-22).
    • (a) Birth of Jesus (3-18).
      • Jesus on his birth (3).
      • Mk. and Lk. (4-6).
      • Genealogies (7).
      • Paul (8).
      • Heb. (9).
      • Fourth Gospel (10).
      • Mt. (11).
      • Composition of Mt. 1-2, Lk. 1-2 (12).
      • Mt. 1:15b (13-15).
      • Theory of virgin birth (16-17).
      • Other points in birth-history (18).
    • (b) Other questions (19-21).
      • Life of Mary (19).
      • Character (20).
      • Later traditions ( 21)
    • Literature ( 22).
  • OTHER MARIES (23-26)
    • 2. Mother of James and Joses (23).
    • 3. Mary of Clopas (24).
    • 4. Sister of Martha (25).
    • 5. Mary Magdalene (26).
    • 6. Mother of Mark (27).
    • 7. Mary of Rom. 16:6 (28).

1. Etymology.[edit]

M6.pl6.AA, in the LXX the name of the sister of Moses (see MIRIAM), reappears in the NT as a woman's name. One Graecised form is Mapia (see 2), another is Mapia/u.(/u)n, used by Josephus. All forms agree in having a in the first syllable. According to the Massorah to the Targum of Onkelos (ed. Berliner, 1875) on Ex. 15:20, Mariam was also the Targumic pronunciation. Thus we have one of the many cases in which MT has preserved a later pronunciation (Miriam). Hebrew analogies point to the change from a to i, not conversely from i to a.

It was accordingly quite proper that, from the earliest Christian times, when the etymology of the name was being discussed, the form Mariam was assumed. A variety of interpretations are already met with in the Onomastica Sacra. As might be expected, they are almost all of them impossible, resting as they do on utter ignorance of Hebrew. We shall here briefly record only a few of the more important, referring for further details to the excellent monograph of Bardenhewer (see below, 22).

The name is taken as a compound of adjective and substantive when rendered 'bitter sea' (Q 13) ; as a substantive with related genitive in the renderings 'drop of the sea' (D^."lp ; after Is. 40:15 where ~O = stilla), or 'star of the sea', which in the form stella marts appears in all printed editions and almost all MSS of Jerome, and for which support has recently been sought in D 11ND, cp Gen. 1:14-15 (although Jerome probably wrote stilla maris), or 'myrrh of the sea' (D^ "13), or 'teacher of the sea' or 'jaculatrix maris', 1 or 'early rain of the sea' (the last three renderings assume a derivation from D rniD in the first two cases appropriate, obviously, only to a man), or 'lady of the sea' (from Aram. "ID, the fem, of which is in fact Martha) or 'lady of the day' or 'lady of the sieve' (D^ in New Hebrew meaning cribrum) or 'seal of the master' 1 (which would seem to demand a Persian etymology). The name was taken as a single word when some Rabbins interpreted it as meaning bitterness (v/"nc) or when others took it to mean 'lady' or 'mistress' (N "ID, status emphaticus of Aram. "ID, masc.). Whilst in these two instances there are called into requisition roots which have also been em ployed to explain the word when its composite nature is assumed, the other interpretations of it as a single word have recourse to derivations not hitherto met with. The hiphil of ,tNT is suggested by the rendering 'the enlightener' or (with suffix) 'their en- lightener' ; 1 the hophal by the enlightened. en is assumed in the rendering 'exalted', possibly also in the rendering 'gift' (if nnnn occasioned the suggestion).

There are but two alternative roots that can be seriously considered : rno, 'to be rebellious', and nn3, 'to be fat' (whence xnp, fading ; Job 39:18, the only place where the verb occurs, must be left out of account owing to the uncertainty of the sense). The N of tna might, before the a of -am, pass into , which, in the case of mD, is already the third consonant. The termination -am indicates substantives of an abstract meaning as well as adjectives, and is especially common in the case of proper names. Mariam, then, might mean either 'the rebellious' or 'the corpulent'. Even apart from any theological interest that might seem to be involved, we may safely say that we can hardly conceive any possible motive for giving a name of the former mean ing to a girl unless there were difficulties in her birth. The case would be different if the name had been bestowed on the sister of Moses expressly because it is recorded that she was rebellious on one occasion (Nu. 12:1-15) ; that, however, is by no means the only circumstance, nor yet the most prominent one, which we learn regarding her. The derivation from KID, on theother hand, accords excellently with the whole analogy of Semitic names ; it is associated with the Semitic idea of feminine beauty. Bardenhewer compares also the masculine name Mamre (N-IDD).

1 At this point may be registered the somewhat bold attempt of Rosch(.SY A>., 1888, pp. 265-299, especially 280-282) to explain such interpretations as enlightener, myrrh of the sea (accord ing to him, due to confusion with myrtle of the sea ), star of the sea, bitter sea, lady, as due to combination of Mary with the goddess Astarte.

2. Mariam or Maria in NT?[edit]

Both forms, Mapta/u and Mapia, interchange frequently and with little seeming regularity in the NT texts.

For the mother of Jesus, wherever the genitive is required (Mt. 1 16 18 i n Mk. 63 Lk. 1 41) Mapias is invariably used. In the dative there is always an apposition with the article which makes the case clear ; the name accordingly, both in Lk. 2 5 and in Acts 1 14, is given as Mapia/u. (Lachmann. however, has Mapt cf in the latter passage). For the accusative in Mt. 1 20 WH give in their text Mapiaf ; for the nominative in Lk. 2 19 all the editors enumerated in Weymouth, Resultant Greek Tesfai/tent except TR and WH on the margin have Mapia, in 1:38 Lachmann alone has it. In all other instances the nom. (Mt. 13 55 Lk. 1 27 34 39 46 56), ace. (Lk. 2 1634), and voc. (Lk. 1 30) is Mapiaji. Again, Mapta is used for the mother of Mark, who is mentioned only in the genitive (Acts 12 12), and for the mother of James (the Less) and of Joses, who in all passages (Mt. 27 5661 28 i Mk. 164047 16 i Lk. 24 10) occurs in the nominative. For Mary of Clopas Ti. in In. 1925 (nominative) has Mapiaju, almost all the other editors have Mapta; so also in the case of the Mary greeted by Paul in Rom. 166 (ace.).

Mary Magdalene is generally Mapia ; but variants are wanting only in five of the fourteen passages where she is named (Mk. 15 47 16 i Lk. 82 24 10 in nom. : Mk. 169 in dat.). She is Mapia/j. in the vocative in Jn. 20 16 ; elsewhere always in the nom. ; in fact, in Jn. 20 18 (as also in 20 16) only TR and Lachmann have Mapia, and on the other hand in 192$ 20 i it only Ti. has Maptaju, in Mk. 15 40 only WH have Maptaju, in Mt. 27 56 only WH have (on the mg.) Moping, in 27 61 WH Ti., etc., have Mapta,*, in 28 1 WH (mg.) Ti., etc., Mapia/u. Finally, the name of the sister of Martha is met with in the gen. Maptas without variant only in Jn. 11 i ; elsewhere she is usually Mapia/n in ace. (in 11 19 28 31 45 where in each case only TR has Maptay), whilst in the nom. only WH in Lk. 1042, only WH (text) in Jn. 11 20, only WH and Treg. in Jn. 11 2, 123 have Mapta/u, and in this form WH and Ti. agree against Treg. and Lachm. only in Lk. 10 39, and with Treg. against Lachm. in Jn. 11 32.

Of course all the women named, with the possible exception of the Mary named in Rom. 16:6, were really known as Mariam in the Aramaic surroundings in which they lived. Any distinction between Mariam and Maria can at the earliest have been introduced by the evangelists ; but hardly with the irregularity which our present texts display. Plainly we must reckon with the fact that one copyist preferred the one form, another the other, and that in the collation of any two codices the readings of the one were introduced into the other, yet without any fixed system being followed by copyists or collators.

It is open to us to conjecture that one evangelist may have uniformly preferred the form Mariam for all persons of the name, and another, similarly, that of Maria. Vet the conjecture cannot be said to be confirmed even after we have assumed a large number of later alterations by copyists. We might in like manner conjecture that the evangelists reserved perhaps the ancient form Mariam for the mother of Jesus, and bestowed the more modern form Maria upon all the others. But this, too, it would be difficult to carry out. What we can discern most clearly is rather this, that our best codices, in those places where two persons of the name are mentioned, for the most part call Mary Magdalene Mariam, and the mother of James and Joses almost invariably Maria, although the two women have already been sufficiently distinguished by the additions to their names (Mt. 27:56-61, 28:1 and parallels). All that can be said to be made out with clearness is the rule, valid also for other indeclinable proper names, which makes the genitive declinable.

I. The mother of Jesus.[edit]

3. Jesus on his own birth.[edit]

In the case of Mary the mother of Jesus our chief interest concentrates itself on the doctrine of the virgin birth. Let us first listen to Jesus himself. Accord ing to the first three gospels, to which we turn in seeking to ascertain his place in history, we find that he never makes any appeal to the manner of his birth. This, however, must not be pressed ; for it can be urged that the silence arises from a delicate reserve which would be easy to understand. On the other hand, however, we find expressions used by him which seem directly to exclude the idea of a virgin birth. In Mt. 12:28 he declares that he casts out devils by the spirit of God. This rests upon the conception that the spirit of God fills his being, that it has been bestowed upon him, but not upon the conception that it is by the divine spirit that he has been begotten. Surely, too, the hard saying (Mk. 3:33 = Mt. 12:48), Who is my mother, and my brethren? would have been an impossibility if Jesus had possessed the consciousness that his mother had been deemed by God worthy of a position so exalted and so singular as we are now speak ing of; and it will hardly be suggested that his mother could have concealed from him until now the happy secret. In Lk. 8:20-21 the hard saying is no longer pre served ; all the more certainly on this account must it be regarded as genuine, for no evangelist would have invented it (GOSPELS, 131).

4. Mk. on virgin birth.[edit]

The saying of Jesus just referred to ( Mk. 3:33 = Mt. 12:48) stands directly connected with a circumstance preserved only in Mk. (3:20-21), whilst in Mt. it is much disguised, and in Lk. altogether omitted. The 'kinsmen' (ol iro.fl OVTOV) of Jesus went out to lay hold of him; for they said, 'he is beside himself' (GOSPELS, 139 and 116 b, end). Who these kinsmen exactly were we learn from Mk. 3:31-2 = Mt. 12:46-47 = Lk. 8:19-20 ; they were his mother and his brethren. For the passage is the continuation of Mk. 3:21 ; they set out from Nazareth and reach Jesus immediately after he has had a controversy with the scribes (Mk. 3:22-30). Even should we choose to regard it as possible that Mary had kept a life-long silence with her son regarding the secret of his birth, and by this assumption to deprive Mk. 3:33 ( who is my mother, etc.? ) of the force assigned to it in the preceding para graph, 3:21 ( he is beside himself) would still be de cisive ; had Mary known of the supernatural origin of Jesus, as set forth in Lk. 1:35, could anything have in duced her to say that he was beside himself? The family secret, of which apologists speak, did not exist. The saying of Jesus in Mk. 64, 'a prophet is not without honour save in his own country and among his own kin and in his own house', is also germane to the present subject. The words 'and among his own kin' (Kal (v rotj ffvyyevtvffiv avrov) have very significantly been omitted by Mt. (13:57) and Lk. (4:24). We may also refer to the narrative of the baptism of Jesus. It involves the view, which we have already (3) seen to be that of Jesus himself in Mt. 12:28, that he first received the holy spirit when he was baptized. It is a view that could never have arisen if that of the virgin birth had been in existence from the first (NATIVITY, 15).

5. Lk. 2 on virgin birth.[edit]

We are able, however, to advance a step further. Whole sections of the first two chapters of Lk. bear witness against the virgin birth. (a) Were it presupposed it would be indeed a very singular thing that, according to Lk. 2:33, the parents of Jesus should have marvelled at the words of Simeon (and according to 2:18-19 at those of the shepherds), and have been unable (2:50) to under stand his words as a boy of twelve. Still more im portant is it to notice that in 2:27, 2:41, 2:43 his 'parents' (yovfis), and in 2:33, 2:48 his father and his mother are mentioned.

It is very noteworthy that six old Latin codices in 2:41 have 'Joseph et Maria' for 'his parents' (ol yoveis avrov) ; most uncials in 2:33 substitute 'Joseph' ([b] iw<rrj<f>) for 'his father' (6 irarrip avrov) ; Syr. Cur. has we instead of thy father and I (6 irarrip <rov Kayu>] in 2:48 ; and four old Latin codices omit the subject altogether.

(b) In 2:22 we read, further, that the days of their puri fication were fulfilled. This is based upon an archaeo- logical error ; it was only the mother who was made unclean by a birth ; in the case of a male birth, accord ing to Lev. 12:1-4, the uncleanness lasted forty days. This error, however, serves to show that the writer regarded Joseph as the actual father of Jesus ; otherwise he could not have thought of him at all as unclean. 1 Thus there is no occasion to lay stress upon the further consideration that there could have been no thought of any uncleanness on the mother s part if the birth had been brought about by supernatural means.

(c ) Still clearer on this point than either of the preceding con siderations is the indubitably original reading of 2:5, 'with Mary his wife' - which is vouched for, not merely by old Latin codices, as well as by Syr. sin. , but even more by the manifest impossibility of its ever having arisen by later correction (see NATIVITY, 16, middle). The whole of Lk. 2, accordingly, not only knows nothing of the virgin birth, but rests upon the opposite presupposition.

1 The expedient of taking the reference as being to the purifi cation of mother and child does not hold. As no plural immedi ately precedes, their (avrtav) must be referred back to the sub ject of the verb (avriyayov), where unquestionably the father and mother are intended. Moreover, according to Lev. 12, no un cleanness attaches to the child any more than to the father. D, with his (aiiToO) for their (avrtav), makes the purification refer to the child, but in doing so comes into conflict with the sense of Lev. 12.

6. Lk. 1 and virgin birth.[edit]

Further, it has to be pointed out that even in Lk. 1, only two verses - vv. 34-35 - contain the idea of the virgin birth clearly and effectively ; and these disturb the connection so manifestly that we are compelled to regard them as a later insertion.

(a) In the first place, Mary's question, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man' ? is on any assumption inappropriate. Know (yivuff- Kfiv) being here in the present tense, it cannot mean the act of concubitus for which the word is so often em ployed (mostly of the male - Gen. 41, Mt. 125 etc. - but sometimes of the female - Gen. 198 etc., and in Nu. 31:17-18, with full explanation of the euphemism). We are equally precluded, however, from taking it in the quite general sense which it has, for example, in Acts 19:15 ( 'Jesus I know . . . but who are ye' ?), a sense which would be quite meaningless in the present con text. The true interpretation is the intermediate one ; I have no such acquaintance with any man as might lead to the fulfilment of this prophecy. But the exact opposite of this is involved in the actual situation ; Mary is betrothed to Joseph ( Lk. 1:27) and must necessarily have looked to the fulfilment of such a prophecy through her marriage with him - unless indeed her doubt had been not about the birth of a son, but about the high dignity that son was to attain in after life. This latter doubt, however, is precisely what she does not express.

(b) Another point which has to be noticed is that Mary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way of nature. Had she interpreted them otherwise, then her objection 'I know not a man' would be meaningless. And the interpretation of the angel's words now suggested is not, as one might be tempted to think, unsuitable inasmuch as the angel is supposed in 1:35 to express only with greater clearness what he has already said in 1:30-33. On the contrary, vv. 30-33 admit without any difficulty of being understood as referring to the birth of the Messiah from a human marriage. In particular, 'son of the highest' (vibt v\f/i(TTov, v. 32) need not mean a son of God in the physical sense, but only a son of God in the ordinary OT sense of one who places himself wholly at the service of the divine will, and is supplied and supported by God with special powers. This is also true of the Messiah. Also the endless duration of the dominion of the Messiah as an individual person, as distinguished from the reign of an endless dynasty, announced in v. 33, even if nowhere certainly set forth in any of the messianic prophecies when historically interpreted, at any rate lay very close at hand in such passages as Is. 9:5 [6], Ezek. 37:25 Sibyll. 849/1 (under Cleopatra, r;ei S ayvbs &va TrcttrT;? 7775 ffK-fjirrpa Kparriffiiiv eh cu wva? Travras). What, however, must never be lost sight of is that the notion of a supernatural birth never at any time attached to the idea of the Jewish Messiah. As late as in the Dialogue of Justin (circa 155 A.D. ) we still find Trypho the Jew saying (49 begin. ), We all expect the Christ to be a man of men (Travrfs 7)fj.eis TOV Xpiffrbv avdpuirov e avdpdiwdjv irpocrdoKV/j.fv yevrffffffOa.!.}. The alternatives before us, therefore, are either to suppose that the author of the chapter as a whole has put a wholly inappropriate utter ance into Mary's mouth, or to assume that in vv. 30-33 an unsupernatural birth - a possible interpretation - is actually intended, and that in v. 34-35 a supernatural birth has been substituted for it by another hand, and accordingly that 'son of God' (vlbs Oeov) (v. 35) is to be taken in a physical sense, otherwise than the 'son of the highest' (vibs v-^iarov) in v. 32. It is well worth noticing that Bernh. Weiss, on account of this difference, takes the words of 1:35c (Sib ical . . . Oeov) to be an addition made by the redactor to his source. The same consideration must, however, be extended to 1:34-35. , in which case the virgin birth disappears from the source altogether. x

(c) The words in 1:32 to the effect that David is the father of the son to be born of Mary (TOV Opovov Aavld rov Trarpbs avTou) could, on the presupposition of a virgin birth, have been written only if Mary s own descent were held to be from David. But as, according to 1:36, she is a kinswoman (ffvyyevls) of Elizabeth, who in turn, according to 1:5, is a Levite, the words in 1:32 constitute an independent proof that the fatherhood of Joseph is presupposed. We are not in a position to say to what tribe it was that Mary really belonged ; but that the author of Lk. 1 held her to be a Levite is certain. The conjecture has been hazarded, it is true, that she was Levite on the mother s side, but on the father s side a descendant of David. This, however, ought to have been expressly stated. Far from this being the case, the idea that Mary was a descendant of David is expressly excluded by what we read in 1:27 (the angel Gabriel was sent . . . to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David ) ; for otherwise the continuation would not have run, 'and the virgin's name was Mary', but simply, 'and her name was Mary' (/cat rt> 6vofj.a avTrjs Mapta). In 2:4, moreover, we are expressly informed of Joseph only that he was descended from David, though his descent was a matter of no moment on the assumption of the virgin birth. In this case, however, it is only Syr. sin. that substitutes the words because they were both of the house of David." See further, NATIVITY, 5, 9, end.

(d) Another circumstance that speaks for our regard ing vv. 34-35 as an interpolation is the fact that Mary s speech expresses doubt of the truth of the angel s message, and yet she is not so much as blamed, whilst Zacharias is actually punished for a like doubt (1:20). Moreover, the case of Elizabeth to which the angel points in v. 36 is no evidence of the possibility of a supernatural conception ; it has evidential value only if what has happened to Elizabeth is more wonderful than what is being promised to Mary - namely that she, in the way of. nature, is to become the mother of the Messiah. Note, further, that apart from 1:34 4irel ( since ) is not met with either in the third gospel or in Acts.

7. Genealogies and origin.[edit]

The two genealogies of Jesus in Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 8:23-38 (see GENEALOGIES ii. ) differ so greatly that recourse has often been had to the supposition that they relate, one to Joseph, the other to Mary. Not only, however, is this in flat contradiction to the express statements which refer both of them to Joseph ; the reference of either to Mary is further from the outset excluded as soon as it is observed that according to Lk. 1:36 Mary is a kinswoman of the Aaronite Elizabeth (s. 6c). Even if, however, it were true that one of the two gene alogies related to Mary, the other would still be that of Joseph, and thus by the mere fact of its existence would furnish the proof which in reality both of them afford, that when they were drawn up there was no thought of the virgin birth of Jesus. Therefore within a gospel which teaches this doctrine the insertion of 'as was supposed' (ws tvo/ilfero) (Lk. 3:23) was quite in dispensable. But had such an insertion been con templated from the outset, it would not have been worth while to construct the genealogy at all. 1 On Mt. 1:i6, see s. 13-15.

1 The same result is arrived at, in a somewhat different way, when Kattenbusch (see below, 22), and with him Weinel (Ztschr. f. NTliche IVissensch., 1901, pp. 37-39), takes only the last words of 1:34 (ejrei avSpa ov yivia<TK<a) as editorial insertions, and assigns to the descent of the holy spirit upon Mary no other operation than that of making her child to be from the womb filled with the Holy Spirit as in 1:15. In 1:35 'son of God' (vios Otov), would then have the same OT meaning as 'son of the highest" (utbs VI/U CTTOU) in 1:32, and Mary's question have the same mean ing as we already (under a) have seen to be appropriate to the situation. Such an interpretation, however, of the words shall come upon (en-eAeutrerai) and shall overshadow (en-KTKianrei) is difficult to carry through, especially as no similar expression is found in 1:13-17 with reference to Elizabeth.

8. Paul and virgin birth.[edit]

One testimony, that of Paul, is unquestionably older than that of our canonical gospels.

(a) At the very outset, his statement in Rom. 1:3 that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, is irreconcilable with the virgin birth. Otherwise reference must certainly have been made to the share which the Holy Ghost (who is also mentioned) had in his generation. Now, 14, the antithesis to according to the flesh (/caret ffdpKa) not being strictly adhered to, proceeds to define what Jesus has become in virtue of his resurrection. In this reference, however, the Holy Spirit does not figure as the author of the being of Jesus at his birth but as the higher and, strictly speaking, the abiding element of his being - in short, as what in an ordinary mortal constitutes the soul.

(b) In Rom. 8:3 God sends forth his son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (tv 6/jLouafj.a.Ti crap/cos a/j.aprlas). Since the apostle in Rom. 5:12 traces the sinfulness of mankind to its descent from Adam, such a statement would certainly be impossible, the virgin birth being held.

(c) The most important passage, however, is found in Gal. 4:4. Not indeed because the expression runs 'made of a woman' (yfv6ft.fvov eK yvvaiKos] and not 'made of a virgin' (yevd/Jiffov e/c irapffevov) , for after all a virgin (irapOtvos) is also a woman (ywr)) and it could reasonably be urged that Paul was under no compelling necessity to lay emphasis on the idea of irapdtvos. The force of the passage for the present discussion lies in what follows : 'born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law'. Here what is shown is that in order to become their redeemer it behoved Jesus to be completely like those he came to redeem. Thus also the phrase 'born of a woman' denotes a birth differing in no essential particular from ordinary human births.

(d) It will perhaps be urged that, inasmuch as Paul attributes pre-existence to Jesus, the virgin birth has less interest for him, but that his silence in the matter does not prove that he was unacquainted with it. As against this it has to be pointed out that the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus is one that has not been handed down to. him ; on the contrary he is the first to formulate it unless indeed one were to regard the utterances of the Johan- nine Christ regarding his pre-existence as historical. Now the pre-existence of Jesus, so far as Paul is concerned, is clearly an inference from his present exalted condition ; the apostle therefore regards the pre-existent one also as a heavenly man, not as a divine being (cp the present writer's excursus on 1 Cor. 15:49 in HC). If, however, the doctrine of the virgin birth had been handed down to him, he would hardly have framed a doctrine of the pre-existent state so hard to reconcile with such a tradition received from the original apostles.

9. Ep. to Heb. and virgin birth.[edit]

The Epistle to the Hebrews in 7:14 gives prominence to the fact that 'our Lord sprang out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests'. In this the sole object is to make out the inferiority of the OT priesthood as compared with the high-priesthood of Jesus. We have nothing to lead us to suppose that the author wishes any conclusion to be drawn with respect to the birth of Jesus ; but for all who find themselves compelled to believe that Lk. rightly attributes a Levitical descent to Mary Heb. 7:14 testifies unquestionably and with emphasis against the doctrine of the virgin birth.

1 Should it prove to be the fact that Syr. sin. and D take the us evofjLi(TO as a correct supposition, and not, like the canonical texts, as a false one (Gosi-F.t.s, 22 /3), this would only be evidence of a reaction against the alteration of the original view caused by the insertion of the u>? ei o/ou ftTO ; the cos fvofLi^cro could never have been the insertion of any one who still held to the original view of the genealogy that Jesus was really the son of Joseph.

10. Fourth Gospel and virgin birth.[edit]

The Fourth Evangelist regards Jesus as being the externally existing Logos, and one could believe the doctrine of the virgin birth to have been of less importance in his eyes as predicating something far less exalted concerning Jesus.

(a) At the same time, Jesus in this gospel says a great deal not only about his previous existence with God but also about his entrance into this earthly life in virtue of his mission by his Father. In this connection it would assuredly have been of great importance to have been able to say, in support of his exalted dignity, that he had been born in an altogether exceptional way. Instead of this, what do we find ? That in Jn. 1:45 Philip, in 6:42 the Jews, call him the son of Joseph, that in 1:45, 7:41-42, 7:52 Nazareth is spoken of as his birthplace, whilst yet Bethlehem is said to be of necessity the birthplace of the Messiah ; and Jesus says nothing to the contrary. It is acknowledged that in the Fourth Gospel the objections of the Jews against Jesus continually proceed upon misunderstandings (see JOHN, 25 c). But here the misunderstanding plainly lies not in any error as to the actual birthplace of Jesus or as to the manner of his birth, but only in the opinion that these facts exclude the Messiahship of Jesus.

(b) No direct polemic, however, against the virgin birth of Jesus can be discovered in Jn. 1:13.

True, it would in fact have been in full accord with the subtle manner of the Evangelist if he had taken occasion to declare of all the elect that they are born 'not of blood nor of the will of man but of God' precisely in order to hint that he did not find it applicable to Jesus alone, in whose case it had naturally and of necessity to be taken literally. As, however, he makes the declaration with regard to all the elect, who nevertheless are born as men, his purpose cannot have been to exclude a human birth ; rather must we take him to mean that they are born 'not so much of ... the will of man as, rather, of God' (Winer, 55 86) ; that is to say, it is not their human birth that matters so much as their provenience from God, in other words their election. Hut on this interpretation the saying loses all polemical force against the supposition of the virgin birth of Jesus.

(c) Nevertheless it is not impossible that the Fourth Gospel contains a tacit rejection of the doctrine in question. It would be quite in accordance with the spirit of its author if the doctrine appeared to him too slight and too external for the Logos - if only we may suppose that he knew it. In favour of the supposition is (i. ) the fact that the doctrine is already in full currency in Justin s time ( 152 A. D. ) although he gives some details differently from the canonical form (see e.g. , below, 21 a, n. ) ; and, further (ii. ), the point registered under GOSPKLS, 151, end, even though it does not treat directly of the passage on the virgin birth. On the other hand the view put forth in NATIVITY, 12, is also very attractive, that Jn. 7:41-42 reveals the hidden path by which Bethlehem had found its way into the gospel tradition as the birth place of Jesus. We shall do best perhaps if we combine both views by the supposition that an older, perhaps oral, form of this manner of reasoning gave occasion to the relative portions of Mt. and Lk. and laid the foundation for Jn. 7:41-42.

11. Mt. and virgin birth.[edit]

What has been said in s. 3-4 renders it antecedently probable that from Mt. as well as from Lk. the theory of the virgin birth of Jesus was originally absent. The expression in Mt. l3:55 'Is not this the carpenter's son' ? points in the same direction. Unless the phrase is to be understood in the first of the senses suggested under JOSEPH (ii. , 9) as being exactly equivalent to the parallel in Mk. 6:3 'Is not this the carpenter'? and we may perhaps point to the continuation in Mt., 'Is not this his mother called Mary' ? as favouring the view that his father is really intended then the passage [which is here assumed to represent in the main rightly what was originally told of the questionings of those in Jesus own country ] directly contradicts the theory of the virgin birth. 1 Nay, more, even chap. 2 itself admits of a complete under standing without the presupposition of the virgin birth. The fact that Bethlehem is not mentioned at all till 2:1 is reached thus becomes significant. 1:18-25 thus appears not only to be later than chap. 2, but also to have been somewhat heedlessly introduced, otherwise Bethlehem would have been mentioned at an earlier point.

On Mt. 1:18-25 all that nr-ed here be said is that in it the theory is set forth from first to last with full delibera tion. The only somewhat indeterminate expression in it is the word wife (yvvatKa) in vv. 20, 24, since it is still in question whether Joseph is to take (ira.pa\a./3(iv) Mary or not. For this expression does not refer to concubitus (see, rather, 125) but to the completion of the marriage. Yet after all the word wife (yvvri) instead of be trothed ((/j.vrjffTfv/^i -r) ; cp 1:18) is not more unprecise than avrtp (1:19) for bridegroom ; both alike rest upon the fact that betrothal already constitutes an obligation binding in law, even before the marriage has been con cluded in due form (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, 1 (10) :149-150).

1 [In JOSEPH ii., 9, an attempt is made to go behind the Aramaic phrase for Jesus the carpenter. The supposition that Jesus was a carpenter might have arisen out of a misapprehension of Jesus the Nazarene which really meant, neither Jesus the Nazarene nor, as some supposed, Jesus the carpenter, but Jesus the Galilean (cp NAZARETH, 3).]

12. Composition of Mt. 1-2, Lk. 1-2.[edit]

We are now in a position to sum up and complete the results arrived at regarding the composition of Mt. 1-2, Lk. 1-2.

(a) The narrative of Mt. 1:18-25 is not by the same hand as 1:1-17 (s. 7), and in fact is later than the genealogy, which could never have been drawn up after Joseph had ceased to be regarded as the real father of Jesus. Moreover, 2:1+ would seem to have been written without being preceded by 1:18-25 (s. 11). In chap. 2, further, according to the statement given in GOSPELS, 151 (end), the story of the Magi does not seem to have been originally present. Further, the words 'in those days' (4v TCUS rintpa.it tKfii>ais) in 3:1 have absolutely no relation to anything contained in chaps. 1, 2, the contents of which relate to a period thirty years earlier. Hillmann (JPT, 1891, 259 f. ) conjectures that originally immediately before these words there stood some note as to date similar to what we now have in Lk. 3:1-2, which was afterwards removed when Mt. 1, 2 were prefixed. That the author of Lk. should have made use of Mt. - according to GOSPELS, 127, a very probable hypothesis - becomes all the easier to believe if at that time the first two chapters of our Mt. were still wanting, and entirely so ; otherwise Lk. who so often coincides verbally with Mt. would not have diverged from him in 1-2 so completely as he does.

(b) The statement of the virgin birth in Lk. , as well as that in Mt. , was introduced last of all - by the in sertion of 1:34-35 (or only 1:34b) and of 'as was supposed' (wj (vofj-i^ero) into 3:23 (s. 6-7). Whether the in sertion is due to borrowing, or to an oral source, need not be discussed. In Lk. 2 the contents of Lk. 1 are not presupposed, except in 2:21b : 'which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb'. This backward reference to 1 31 can easily have been inserted when the two chapters were being joined together. On this hypothesis we can imagine more readily - what in itself is in accordance with the nature of things that the glorification of the Baptist by means of a narrative of his birth took place at a later date than the similar glorification of Jesus. This would hold good also if with Volter (see below, 22) we were to assume the kernel of the 'Benedictus' i.e., 1:68, 1:71-75, 1:76-77, 1:79b to be drawn from an Apocalypse of Zacharias in which Zacharias sang the praises of his son John as forerunner of the day of Yah we (not of the Messiah). As in the case of Mt. with regard to chap. 2, so also in that of Lk. with regard to chap. 1 particularly, the question has to be asked (though it cannot be ex haustively discussed here) whether certain portions may not have been later additions.

An indication pointing in this direction may perhaps be seen in the fact that the marriage of Mary with Joseph, and the date of the conception of her first-born son are nowhere men tioned. Both ought to come between 1:38 and 1:39. With this supposition agrees also 2:21. In 1:27 which requires no textual (han.ee 1 Mary is still betrothed, in 2:5 she is wife ( $c; NATIVITY, 16, middle).

Finally, as in the case of Mt. so also in that of Lk. we must conjecture that the gospel once was without the first two chapters (1:5-2:52). Lk.'s proem (1:1-4) speaks in favour of this presumption (see NATIVITY, 13) as also do the facts that the Baptist is in 3:2 introduced like a person who has never yet been mentioned, and that Jesus at Nazareth (4:16-30) appeals in his own vindication simply to his possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit ; so also the further fact that the Baptist (7:18-19) allows the question to be raised whether Jesus be the Messiah or not, without knowing anything of the complete informa tion which, according to 1:41-45, his mother possessed. See, especially, Thomas (below, 22), 364-400.

1 Harnack (Ztschr. NTliche M issensch. 1901, p. 56) would delete virgin (irapOevov) (and also TTJS irapOivov ?) by the side of betrothed (efi.vr\crTe\>ijL.evi\v), in the mistaken presupposition that enu>T)oTeuue i/i7 ought to be read in 2:5 and here consequently also in 1:27 means wife.

13. New reading in Mt. 1:15b.[edit]

As in the Third Gospel it is in 3:23 (s. 7), so in the First Gospel it is in 1:16 that the theory of the virgin birth had, well or ill, to be brought into harmony with the presupposition of the genealogies.

(a) When the text of Syr. sin., 'Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the virgin, begat Jesus who is called the Christ', was first made known, great surprise at such a departure from the canonical text was expressed.

Some thought that we had suddenly come into possession of a text which completely changed the entire situation. In this they were mistaken. No doubt, Syr. sin. contains the words Joseph . . . begat Jesus, but not without a parenthesis. Similarly, it reads in 1:21 : 'she shall bear to thee a son' and in 1:25 and 'she bore to him a son', this too in place of the longer phrase and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, so that the birth of the son connects itself directly with the words and took unto him his wife. Syr. sin., however, contains at the same time the canonical text of 1:18-20. Taken as a whole, accordingly, this recently discovered translation brings in no new era ; of an older text it contains only traces, and these are overlaid by the canonical text.

The error would, however, be equally great if with others we were to imagine that all we had to do in order to save the ecclesi astical dogma was to dispose of these innovations in Syr. sin. either by holding them for heretical falsifications or by taking the 'begat' (eyeVfrjcrei/) in 1:16b in a different sense from that in which it is taken in 1:2-16a. Apart from the consideration that all such methods are illegitimate, Syr. sin. is not the only document with which we have to deal. Long ago it was known that there was a mass of variants ; only, no attention was paid to them. This is hardly to be wondered at when it is remem bered that even Ti. in his editio critica major disposes of them all in two lines, partly with a mere similiter. Long ago critical theology had insisted that the original text was this: 'and Joseph begat Jesus' ( Itu<rri<f> 6e yeVi/7)crei> T OV \T]<TOVV). 1

(b} This original text was first actually discovered in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila edited by Conybeare in Anecd. Oxon. Class, ser. 8, 1898, p. 76 (fol. 93 r of the Codex) ; cp pp. xix-xxii : Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ, and Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ. ( laKufi eytvvrjcrfv rbv \u<TJ)<p, Tbv &v8pa Maptas, ^|^s yfvvi?i0r) Ir)O ovs 6 \ey6(j.fvos Xpicrros, Kdi I(>}ffr]<f> yfvv-r)<jfv rbv lijaouv Tbv \eyb/j.evov XpicrT6v).

This is expressly cited by Aquila the Jew as being the text of Mt.'s gospel, and as Timothy the Christian immediately after wards declares that it does not escape his vigilance when the Jew seeks to conceal anything, we are bound to assume with Conybeare that the text as given above actually stood in the author s gospel according to Mt. Conybeare goes farther and maintains this to have been the basis from which all existing readings started. The canonical text arose by omission of the second half, the other variants by omission of the first half and alteration of the second (see below, 14). In the opinion of the present writer an altogether different construction ought to be put upon the facts. How can we suppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the first ? Why say twice over that Jesus had been begotten ? Why twice over call him 'who is called Christ' (6 Aeyo^tei/os Xpiords)? Why say 'and' (icai) before 'Joseph', when what follows is something not ad ditional but explicative ? True, the Jew adds an explanation of this double statement of the same fact : <f>ri<r\v eyeVnjo-ei/ CK TTJS Mapias - i.e., by the word 'begat' the evangelist means 'of Mary'. By this, however, is explained not the addition of the second half to the first, but rather the insertion of the words 'of whom was born, etc'. (f ^s eyei>i>>;0Tj Iijcrous 6 Aeydjnei>os Xpiords), as Conybeare also (p. xxi) has quite clearly perceived : in order to make it clear that it was out of Mary and not out of any previous wife that Joseph begat Jesus. But was the idea of a previous wife really so very likely to suggest itself (cp s. 21c) ! And if it required to be set aside was such an elaboration necessary?

In a word, in the view of the present writer, the Mt. used by the author of the dialogue contained not one text of Mt. 1:16b but two, of which one may have been supplemented out of a second copy. And, in fact, it is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which in this manner have found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line.

1 Whether or not there were added the words who is called Christ (TOV \eyoiitvov Xpicrrdv) or some such addition is com paratively unimportant, and we therefore leave this difference out of account both here and in what follows.

14. Genealogy of text of Mt. 1:16b.[edit]

Let us now attempt to arrange the existing forms of the text in the order in which they may be supposed to have arisen out of one another in logical sequence, irrespective of the question as to whether they belonged to a form of Mt. or to a source of Mt.

  • a. And Joseph begat Jesus ( Iwffrjip 8e (yevvijaev TOV Irjffovv). Dial., ut supr., 76, fol. 93 r. On the continuation (TOV \eyo/j.fvov \picrTov), see col. 2961, n. i.
  • b. Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary (cp below, f), who of her begat Jesus. Vat. MS of Diatess. 2
  • c. And Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the virgin, begat Jesus. Syr. sin. This form would be still more ancient without the addition 'the virgin', yet this is wanting only under d, a, and f
  • d. (Jacob autem genuit Joseph)
    • a. cui desponsata [without erat] Maria genuit Jesum. Old Lat. tj.
    • b. $ /j.vrjcrTfvOf icra. irapdtvos Mapta/i eytv- vrjcrfv Irjffovv. Five MSS of the Ferrar group, 346, 788, with 543, 826, 3 828, 3 (Gregory) = 556, 624, 3 626 3 respectively (Scrivener), and Old Lat. a, g l , k.
    • c. to whom was espoused the virgin Mary, who (fem.) begat Jesus. Syr. cur.
    • d. cui desponsata [without erat] virgo Maria, Alaria autem genuit Jesum. Old Lat. c.
    • e. cui desponsata erat virgo Maria, virgo autem Maria genuit Jesum. Old Lat. b. In d a ft by the participial construction with fj.vrjffTfv0fio-a, in d y by the relative pronoun, in d S e by the repetition of her name, Mary is made the subject of tytv- vrjfffv or genuit. As these verbs may indeed be used in speaking of a woman, but strictly speaking are applicable to a man, two corrections arose.
  • e. (Jacob autem genuit Joseph) cui desponsata virgo Maria peperit (Christum) Jesum. Old Lat. d. f.
    • a. ( Ia/cw/3 5f TOV Iuo~ri<f>) ( fj.vrjo TevOfio a Mapla, ^f T^S fyevvrj6rj I?7<ToOs. Dial. , ut supr. , 76, fol. 93 v . (Modified from d a, hence (j.vi)(TTev6fl<Ta for e/J.vi)ffTfvd-r)).
    • b. ( Ia.KU/3 Se eyivvrifffv TOV IwcrT)<f>) TOV fjLvr)(rTfvffd/j.fvov Mapia/i ^ ijs ^yvvf)6ij 6 XptoTos ( 6 vibs TOV 6fov). Dial., ut supr., 88, fol. 113 r.
    • c. ( IaKaj/3 5 ^yevvrjaev Tbv loxrrjfi) Tbv &v8pa Map/aj, ti- fy eyevv^ffrj Iijffovs. Dial. , ut supr. , 76, fol. 93 r, and canonical Mt.

Conybeare holds f a and b to be 'a mere bit of botching due to a reviser of the dialogue' in the period previous to the definitive fixation of the text, in order to avoid the 'husband' (avdpa), which he found offensive. We must explain the word in the same way as the 'husband' (avf]p} of 1:19 in s. 11.

1 Cp GOSPELS, 22 a ; van Manen, T/t.T, 1895, pp. 258-263.

2 According to Hogg (cited in col. 1779, n - 4)> tms s tne on y

Eossible translation of the Arabic text (as who is masculine), ut since Syriac, from which language this Arabic version was made, does not distinguish gender in the relative pronoun, the meaning may also be : of whom (fern.) was born Jesus (unvocal- ised WLD = begat or was born ). This would be the canonical form. Even in this case, however, it would be remarkable that the Arabic translator [or scribe?! should not have shrunk from writ ing a word which diverged from the accepted meaning so markedly.

3 See Lake,/. Theol. Stud. 1 (iSgg/) 119 ; Cod. 788 according to a private communication. Codd. 13 and 69 are deficient here.

15. Ebionite alteration of Mt. 1:16b.[edit]

Epiphanius (Haer. 30:14) tells us that Cerinthus and Carpocrates endeavoured to prove from the genealogy in Mt.'s gospel that Christ was of the seed of Joseph and Mary ( ff-rtpn - Iu><T770 /ecu Maptoj elvai rbv XpiffT&v). According to Eusebius (HE: 617) the Ebionite Symmachus in his writings seems to rest upon Mt.'s gospel his heresy that Christ came of Joseph and Mary (TOP Xpicrrbv f Iu<rr)<f> KO.I Map/a? yeyovevai). Eusebius uses the expression 'seems' (SoKel) manifestly because he had not himself seen the writings in question ; he mentions Origen as stating that he had received them for a certain Juliana. All these indications serve to confirm the conclusion we have reached, that Mt. 1:16b originally described Joseph as the actual father of Jesus. At the same time it is open to anyone to attempt to draw from these very indications an argument against the originality of this reading. Those who maintain the view in question are Ebionites. What if it was they who first introduced the reading into the text of Mt. by falsification? It is possible to think in this manner as long as we refrain from considering seriously who the Ebionites were. The Church fathers describe them as a sect, and with the word sect we traditionally associate the idea of that which is erroneous and objectionable. Just as we have already long ago learned, however, to recognise as regards the Montanists that they merely adhered to the original arrange ments of the Christian Church, and in particular to that in virtue of which every member had the right to speak who could claim to be moved by the Spirit, and that they were unable to acquiesce in the innovation which reserved this right exclusively to certain Church officials, so also we shall have to recognise with regard to the Ebionites that they merely represent the continuation of one of the earliest tendencies of Christianity. Before the end of the second century no one ever heard of the Ebionites as a sect, for the simple reason that they still represented a party or tendency within the Church itself. Even Justin (Dial. 48, end) says : There are of our number some who admit that he is Christ but declare that he was a man born of men (cirri nvft OLTTO TOU ^jLtere pou yeVous o^toAoyoui Tes auToy Xpia-roy ii>ai, HvdptaTrov Sf ef av9pu>irtav yfvofj.fvov an-o^aivd^iei oi). What occasion, we may ask, moreover, could have led in the second century to the rise of new opinions such as theirs, if the Church had never taught anything else than the Godhead of Jesus, and that, too, in the most thorough-going manner ?

As soon as we have satisfied -ourselves, however, how gradually and step by step the Church arrived at the doctrine of the Godhead of Jesus, and in particular how neither Jesus, nor his mother, nor Mark, nor the author of Mt. 3-28 or of Lk. 3-24, nor yet the authors of Lk. 2 or of :15-33, :36-80 or of Mt. 1:1-17 or of chap. 2 were acquainted with the virgin birth, it were indeed too absurd an anachronism to attribute to falsification by a sect the fact that in Mt. 1:16 Joseph figures as the father of Jesus ; or shall we say that the Ebionites with their falsifications are responsible also for the parents (yoveis) of Lk. 2:27, 2:41, 2:43 or for 2:33, 2:48 and for Mk. 3:21, 3:33, Mt. 12:48, etc., as we now find them in our canonical text?

1 Not even in Job 33:4. Cp the exhaustive survey of Briggs \nJBL, 1900, pp. 132-145.

16. Origin of virgin birth theory.[edit]

Rather must it be our task to explain how it was that the old view preserved by the Ebionites came to be given up and the doctrine of the virgin birth put in its place. See, as to this, NATIVITY, 12, 14-15, 17, 20. Paul being unacquainted with the doctrine, scholars long reckoned it to be Jewish- Christian. That, however, was a mistake.

However freely the OT may speak of sons of God in the figurative sense (cp SON, FATHER), the loftiness of the OT con ception of (iod precludes the supposition of physical sonship. In point of fact, in the NT it is not God who is represented as the father of Jesus, but the Holy Ghost. This representation, however, is merely an expedient, for we have no analogous instance in which the Holy Spirit is said to beget a man in a supernatural way.l And, in fact, the proposed expedient is not Jewish Christian, for in Hebrew the Spirit is generally feminine, on which account he appears in the Gospel of the Hebrews as the mother of Jesus (GOSPELS, 155). Nor would Is. 7:14 have been sufficient to account for the origin of such a doctrine unless the doctrine had commended itself on its own merits. The passage was adduced only as an afterthought, in con firmation. Moreover, it is fitted to serve the purpose at all only in the LXX, and the rendering virgin (rrapSeVo?) must be rejected all the more because pregnancy before marriage is punishable with death according to Dt. 22:20-21, 22:23-24, a law which certainly is not later than Isaiah's time (cp, further, IMMANUEL). Thus the origin of the idea of a virgin birth is to be sought in Gentile-Christian circles. For numerous analogies see Usener, Rel.-gesch. Unters. 1(1889)70-75 ; Seydel, Eiiang. von Jesu, 1882, pp. 110-133; J. M. Robertson, Christi anity and Mythology, 1900, pp. 317-319, and passim (the last- named author rejects the historicity of Jesus altogether).

Whilst, however, it was to be expected that the Church s worship would naturally lead onwards on an ascending line from the general idea that as Messiah Jesus must have been the son of David to the gene alogies, and from the general idea that he was in an ethical sense the son of God, and belief in his having been filled with the Holy Spirit at his baptism to the idea of the supernatural birth, next to that of his pre- existence, and lastly to his identification with the Logos, we have seen that pre-existence (from Paul onwards) and possibly identity with the Logos ( 10) were attri buted to him earlier than a supernatural birth. Both together are first met with in Justin (see below, s. 17 a) and Ignatius (ad Magn. 61 82; ad Eph. 7 2 ; ad Smyr. 1:1, etc.); the NT writers have, all of them, still the correct consciousness that the two theories are incompatible. He who has already lived the life of a divine being in heaven does not need to be ushered into the world in any such manner. To state the point more precisely : the theory of the virgin birth and the theory of the pre-existence must be regarded as attempts on parallel lines ; the virgin birth, however, does not raise Jesus so high in the sphere of the divine as the pre-existence does. As, nevertheless, the theory of the virgin birth came into being at a later date, it must have arisen within circles to which the idea of the pre-existence was unknown, or to which (for it could not always remain unknown) it was not acceptable, that is to say in circles which were not affected with Paulinism. Here once more, as formerly in the case of the Council of Jerusalem (COUNCIL, 12), we arrive at a point where we can clearly perceive the number of tendencies in early Christianity to have been greater than the Tubingen school once believed. Amongst Gentile influences, those of Buddhism must also be taken into account as possible (GOSPELS, 124 d).

17. Value of theory of the virgin birth.[edit]

The Church assigns the highest value to the doctrine of the virgin birth, (a) Why it did so may be best seen, perhaps, in Justin. He declares, for example (Apol. 1:54 or Dial. 70), that the myths regarding the multitude of sons of gods and especially the myth regarding the virgin's son Perseus, had been invented by the demons in order to rob the manifestation of Jesus the true Son of God of its importance. In Apol. l:21 he insists that with their doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, of his passion, and of his ascension, the Christians were affirming nothing new as compared with what was alleged of so-called sons of Zeus, just as in Apol. 1:22 he says that if the Christians called Jesus the Logos, here, too, was another point which they had in common with the Gentiles who also called Hermes the word of Zeus. Such arguments may have impressed many people who heard them at that time ; but they also show to what a level Jesus can be (not raised but) lowered by the doctrine of his virgin birth.

(b) A value for the doctrine was sought in quite another direction when it was connected with the sin- lessness of Jesus. In a general way it is possible that, even at an early date, satisfaction may have been found in some such contemplation as that adduced from Philo elsewhere (GOSPELS, 21, ii. 1 ). In this connection there was present also the notion, found also in Rev. 14:4. that sexual intercourse is in itself sinful. But it was not until the doctrine of original sin had been fully developed that the theory of the virgin birth became important with regard to Jesus. It was not enough, however, that a human father should have no part in his generation ; for sin could also be transmitted through his mother. The only logical consequence of this line of thought is that which appears in the dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX. on 8th Dec. 1854 to the effect that Mary herself was conceived immaculately by her mother not, of course, in the sense that she had no human father, but in the sense that original sin did not pass over to her, or rather, to be more precise, in the sense that the Holy Ghost at the moment after conception forthwith cleansed the resultant embryo from its original sin. Neverthe less, in the Roman doctrine, the body of Mary did bear the stain of original sin, however short the period. Cp Hase, Polemik, ii. 3 B, < 4 , 331-341.

1 Reference may perhaps also be made to the passage in the Neuentdeckte Fragment* , ed. Wendland, p. 68, quoted (Acad. June 29, 1895, p. 547) by Conybeare, who finds it very signi ficant.

18. Other points in the birth-history.[edit]

The other points in the narrative of the birth of Jesus, in so far as they relate to Mary, must now be briefly considered.

(a) If we may venture upon any affirmation at all as to the place of the birth- 1 it must be that it was at Nazareth (NAT1VITY, 11-12; GALILEE i., 5), which, according to Lk. 2:39, was for the parents of Jesus 'their own city' (w6\is cauTwi ). In Lk.'s narrative they are brought to Bethlehem only by means of the narrative about the census of Quirinius (2:1-5), which in every point is untenable (see QUIRINIUS; CHRONOLOGY, 59-60 ; NATIVITY, 10 ; GOSPELS, 22).

(b) As to the day, see NATIVITY, 10, end.

(c) If Bethlehem was not the birthplace, essential motives in the stories of the wise men and the flight into Egypt (Mt. 2:1-15, 2:19-23) fall away. Even apart from their connection with Bethlehem, however, their his toricity is open to the gravest doubts (NATIVITY, i8/; GOSPELS, 22, and 151, end). The pas sage (Hos. 11:i) cited in Mt. 2:15 has reference to the exodus of Israel (LXX rightly, TO. rexva avrov, not rbv \ilov fj.ov] from Egypt under the leadership of Moses.

(d) The presentation of the new-born son in the temple (Lk. 2:22-24) is nowhere enjoined in OT (GOSPELS, 124 d). This affects what we read regarding Simeon and Anna (Lk. 2:25-38).

(e) So much having already been shown to be untenable it will perhaps be the more readily conceded that the story of the shepherds (Lk. 2:8-20), though one of great poetic beauty, cannot be regarded as historical.

(f) Mary's journey to Elizabeth, her salutation by the latter, and the leaping of the unborn babe in his mother's womb (1:39-45, 1:56) belong to the same category, and are, moreover, irreconcilable with Mk. 3:20-21 (see 4).

(g) The Magnificat (Lk. 1:46-55) has absolutely no relation to the situation of Mary ; but even as regards Elizabeth, to whom in accordance with the noteworthy rejected reading of WH it has recently been again assigned by Volter, Harnack (see below, 22), and Conrady (see 21, begin.), it can at best be said to be somewhat more appropriate so far as 1:48 is con cerned, though on the other hand 1:51-55 are quite as unsuitable to her case as to that of Mary. Hillmann (whose contribution to our present question is of primary importance throughout) has rightly perceived here also (JPT, 1891, pp. 197-206) that the song fits best the case of a Jewish mother whose son has returned from successful war for his country. Yet Hilgenfeld's sug gestion (Z.WT, 1901, pp. 205-215) also deserves to be considered, that 'Judith' (6:19, 8:32, 9:3, 15:6, etc.) is the model (of Hannah's song [1 S. 2:1-10], the Magnificat in reality has but few echoes), and that the warlike deeds in the poem ought thus to be attributed to the singer herself in so far as she personifies the Jewish people.

1 [For a consideration of the question of the birthplace of Jesus from another point of view, see NAZARETH. ED.]

19. Other incidents in life of Mary.[edit]

In close association with the birth-narrative we have

(a) that of the finding of the boy Jesus in the temple. Although containing nothing inherently impossible, the story very readily suggests the conjecture that it too may owe its origin to pious legend. The astonishment manifested at the appearance of Jesus in the synagogue of his native town (Mk. 6:2-3 =Mt. 13:54-57 = Lk. 4:22) would be very remarkable if the incident of his twelfth year had been known.

(b) It is thoroughly credible on the other hand that Mary, after the birth of her first-born son (Lk. 2:7), became the mother of other sons and daughters (CLOPAS, 3-5).

(c) The only other absolutely authentic scene in Mary's life is that recorded in Mk. 3:20-21, 3:31-35, with regard to which see above (3-4)

(d) If, as we see from this, she failed to recognise Jesus as the Messiah when in the heyday of his activity, it still remains a possibility that she did so soon after his death, as we are expressly informed (i Cor. 157) her son James did. Much less confidence is to be placed in the statement of Acts 1:14 that before the first feast of Pentecost Mary was already present in Jerusalem. Acts is entirely dominated by the idea that the primitive Church consolidated itself in Jerusalem immediately after the death of Jesus. This hangs together with the representation of Lk. that the apostles remained in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and there beheld their risen Lord. In reality, however, the first appear ances were in Galilee (GOSPELS, 138a). This being so, there is little likelihood that the disciples and ad herents of Jesus would forthwith have left house and home and betaken themselves to the capital where the danger of persecution was so great.

(e) What is related in Jn. 19:25-27 about Mary at the cross being committed to the care of John the son of Zebedee is utterly irreconcilable with the synoptic parallels set forth under CLOPAS (2), as also with the fact that Mk. (15:34) and Mt. (27:46) know only one saying of Jesus spoken from the cross. In Rev. 12:1-2, 12:5-6, in accordance with OT ways of thinking, the Church figures as mother of the Messiah. The narrative in Jn. is thus an expression, as beautiful as it is transparent, of the thought that the departing Messiah committed to the beloved disciple the care of his Church. It is of course true that no similar allegorical meaning can be given to the presence of the other women at the foot of the cross (CLOPAS, 2, end). If it is deemed necessary on this account to set aside the possibility of allegory in the case of the mother of Jesus, we shall have to assume that the intention of the author was to exhibit in a beautiful light the concern of Jesus for his earthly mother. Such concern, however, was unnecessary ; for Mary had other surviving sons (Acts 1:14) - among them James, the future head of the Church in Jerusalem,

(f) The miracle of the wine at Cana is shown at once to be unhistorical by the express state ment that Jesus definitely refused to work 'signs' (ffTj/j.f1a) such as this is expressly called in Jn. 2:11 (GOSPELS, 140a). On the symbolical meaning of the narrative, and the part taken in it by the mother of Jesus, see GOSPELS, 54a ; JOHN, 35e.

(g) Along with this narrative must also be given up the notice in Jn. 2:12 that Jesus removed along with his mother, his brethren, and his disciples, from Cana to Capernaum.

(h) There remains, lastly, the indirect mention of the mother of Jesus by the woman whose words are given in Lk. 11:27. The answer of Jesus in 11:28 is a counterpart to that which he gave when his mother held him to be beside himself (Mk. 8341: and parallels).

20. Character of Mary.[edit]

If any attempt is to be made to sum up in a few words the character of Mary, it is obvious in the first place that we must set aside from the outset any traits, however beautiful, which are discovered only in passages ascertained to be legendary. Even within NT times legend was busily occupied in glorifying the mother of Jesus. By way of compensation, however, we are, on the other hand, absolved from any obligation to decide on the question whether the words of Jesus in Jn. 2:4, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee' ? in any way go beyond the limits of filial piety. We are on firm ground only as regards what we read in Mk. 3:20-21, 3:31-35, from which passage we learn at least this : that, at a time when many had already come to recognise the greatness of her son s mission, Mary, at all events, had still failed to understand it ; and we hardly need his own blunt word 'Who is my mother' ? in order to feel how deeply this must have grieved him. Indeed, it is impossible, however much we may desire it, to think otherwise than that, if he had the feeling of homeless- ness, the responsibility for this must in a great measure lie with her.

This once said, it by no means follows that none of Jesus utterances had any attraction at all for his mother. It still remains conceivable that what repelled her and suggested to her the suspicion of mental disorder was not so much the substance of his teaching as his appearance in public, his role of teacher, his air of authority and the risk of persecution involved in this, or else the un settled life, the association with questionable people, the carelessness with regard to daily bread. It is never theless possible, however, that Mary resolutely closed her mind also against all that was new in his teaching. Yet, even on this last assumption, we are not precluded from supposing that, although confined within the ancient forms, her piety was nevertheless deep and genuine, and exercised an effective influence upon her child. In pro portion as this simple woman, sprung from the people, above all in Galilee, may be supposed to have been untouched by any of the evil aspects of the Pharisaism of the day, it becomes the easier to believe that her religion, with all its intense conservatism, may have been genuine and pare. From some source or other we must believe Jesus to have derived alike that holy severity and that triumphant joyousness of a deep faith in God which, in the end, made him great ; and however large the share of this which we must attribute to his own spiritual personality we still find it necessary to seek for it some source within his immediate surroundings.

1 The coincidences with Justin pointed out by Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, \ 485 499 502 504 539 ; rp 2 774-780) are easily accounted for, some of them by the existence of oral tradition, others by the priority of Justin. The cave mentioned by Justin, in agreement with the Protevangelium, but incon sistently with Lk. 1 7 16, is even (in Dial. 78), inconsistently with what is said in the Protevangelium (below, 21 a), selected only after it has been found that no other lodging is obtainable in Bethlehem. Still less weight ought to be given to Zahn s assertion that on account of its priority to the Thomtc cvangelium the Protevangelium must be assigned to the beginning of the second century. See Harnack, 593-595.

21. Later traditions.[edit]

Of the extra-canonical accounts of Mary

(a) the most important would be the Protevangelium Jacobi (APOCRYPHA, 27, I : NATIVITY, 6) if Conrady (Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgescluchte, 1900; cp St.Ar., 1889, 728-784) were right in his assertion that it was written in Hebrew in Hadrian's time and that it constitutes the sole source of Mt. 1-2, and Lk. 1-2. This, however, is a view which cannot be maintained. According to Harnack (ACL ii. [ = Chronologic] 1:598-603) it dates from the end of the second, or even from the beginning of the third, century. 1

In the Protevangelium it is related how Anna, the wife of Joachim, after long barrenness received the promise of a child. From her third to her twelfth year her child (Mary) is reared in the temple, and then she is handed over to the protection of an aged widower and father of several sons, Joseph, after a white dove has flown out of his staff and thereby indicated him out of many others as the proper guardian. During an absence of Joseph from home an angel announces to her in the words of Lk. 1:35 the birth of Jesus. On his return Joseph finds her pregnant, and is minded to put her away secretly from his house, but is enlightened by an angel in the words of Mt. 1:20. Brought before the high-priestly council, both purge themselves of the charge of immoral intercourse by drinking, unharmed, of the water of jealousy (Nu. 5:11-31). On account of the census decreed by Augustus they set out for Bethlehem. On the way Mary brings forth Jesus in a cave which is lighted by a miraculous light. A woman who arrives, Salome by name, satisfies herself by tactual examination that Mary is still a virgin. The hand of Salome is burned, but is healed when it touches the child. And so forth. That Mary brought forth Jesus utero clause is stated also in the latest interpolation in the Ascensio Isaiie (11:9), which Harnack (573- 579) assigns to a period before the middle of the third century (Charles, however, Asc. Isa. xxii., xlv., thinks that the whole of the very important passage 11:2-22 is derived from the archetype G, which he regards as 'belonging to the close of the first century' ).

(b) Other writings relating to Mary are the Evang. Pseudo- Matthcei(=de ortu beatte Marie et infantia salvatoris), and the Evangelium de nativitate Maria, both in the main further decorations of what is contained in Protev. Jac. The gnostics possessed a yevva. Mapi ac, Great Questions of Mary, and Little Questions of Mary, on which see Epiphan. Her. 26 8 12. Re garding an Evang. Maria ( = apocryphum Johannis) found in a Coptic translation, Carl Schmidt (SBA II , 1896, 839-847) reports that it is the same gnostic writing as was used but in a very unsatisfactory manner by Irenaeus (1:27-29 [ = 1:29-31]). The latest stratum of the Ignatian literature (5th cent.) contains a Latin letter of Ignatius to Mary in a few lines as also an equally brief answer by Mary. The most important writing still remain ing to be mentioned is liodwov TOV 8eo\6yov Aoyos ei? -njv <c<HjU7)<ru TTJS dfOToxov and two different Latin adaptations of it under the title Transitus Maria-. The apostles, in the second year after the death of Jesus, are miraculously brought, some of them on clouds, from the distant lands where they are carrying on their missions, to the deathbed of Mary. She is buried in Gethsemane. Three days later her body is no longer to be found, only a sweet odour. In some recensions her assumption, here hinted at, is directly stated. Moreover, she receives from Christ immediately before her death the assurance whosoever invokes thy name shall not be put to shame. ! Other traditions (in Lipsius, Apokr. Ap. Gesch. 1 1 3) specify the eleventh, fifteenth, twenty-second, or twenty-fourth year instead of the second after Jesus death. According to Ephesian tradition (Lipsius, 448) Mary followed the apostle John to Kphesus. According to the Acts of Prochorus (first half of 5th cent.), on the other hand, when the other apostles dispersed on their various missions John remained at Jerusalem with Mary until her death (Lipsius, 366 f. 406 /.).

(c) In the church fathers the most important stages are as follows. None of Justin s predecessors makes mention of Mary at all, and even by Justin (see above, 17 ) she is mentioned, not on account of herself, but simply in connection with the birth of Jesus. So also with Ignatius (see above, 16) and Irenaeus, with special reference to the Docetae. At the same time, how ever, Irenaeus (iii. 32:1 [ = 22:4], end) ascribes to her obedience, a redeeming power from the effects of the disobedience of Eve ; so also Tertullian (de came Christi, 17) : quod ilia credendo (i.e., by believing the word of the serpent) 'deliquit, haec credendo delevit. Irenaeus means the same thing when he says (v. 19 i) : 'si ea (Eva) inobediret deo, sed et hasc suasa est obedire deo, ut virginis Evae virgo Maria fieret advocata' ; the last word, therefore, is not intended to designate her as intercessor. For the rest, the whole of this antithesis between Eve and Mary, which is found also in Justin (Dial. 100), is certainly intended to be taken rhetorically rather than in all dogmatic seriousness. Tertullian (fie carne Christi, 20) declares against the birth utero clauso, stating his physiological reasons with vigour. On the other hand, Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. 16:93 end, p. 889 end; Potter) attaches value to the fact that, as we are informed by some, Mary was found still a virgin after she had been delivered. Origen^ declares the brethren of Jesus to have been sons of Joseph by a former marriage. Whilst Chrysostom allows the human features of Mary to come into view, Augustine declares her to have been free from actual sin and employs the false read ing of Vg. in Gen. 3:15 'ipsa [for ipse] conteret caput tuum' to prove her the devil's conqueror. With the introduction of the designation fleoroKos [christokos] for Mary, as against Nestorius who wished to designate her as Xpio-roroKOs only, may be said to begin an endless Mariology which need not be pursued further here. See Benrath (below, 22).

(d) According to the Talmud 3 and according to Celsus 4 Jesus was the child of the adulterous intercourse of Mary with a soldier Stada or Pandera (Ilai/flrjp, IlavOypa.?). Such was the answer of the opponents of Christianity to the Church doctrine which denied the fatherhood of Joseph. Further, according to the Talmud, Mary was a braider of women's hair {>ntgadd f la n shayya), which was not held a very reputable calling. Cp 26, and MAGDALA.

1 On the various recensions cp Bonnet, ZWT, 1880, pp. 222- 247; the texts in Tischendorfs Apocalypses apocryplue, 1866; and Wright, Contributions to the apocryphal literature of the NT, 1865. Other texts : Tischendorf, Evangelia apocryphal, 1876; Conybeare, A m. Journ. ofTheol., 1897, pp. 424-442.

2 Comm. in Matt/t. 10 17, on Mt. 13 55, ed. de la Rue, 3 *te/., and still more definitely in his seventh Horn, in Lc., de la Rue, 8940*1, C, which, however, we possess only in the redaction of Jerome.

3 Best account in Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud, 1891 = Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, no. 10, pp. 9-39, with appendix : cp also Zahn, Forschungen, (1900) 266-269.

4 Orig. c. Cels. 1 32 f. 69, ed. de la Rue, 1 349-352 and 384.

22. Literature.[edit]

For literature see NATIVITY, 21.; NAZARETH. Also Thomas, Our Records on the Nativity, 1900 ; Volter, Die Appkalypse des Zacharias im Kvang. des Lc. in TkT, 1896, pp. 244-269 ; Kattenbusch, JJas apos- tolische Symbol, 12(1900) 562-625 ; Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth nebst Bemerkungen zu Lr. if. in SB A IV, 1900, pp. 538-556, and Zu Lc. 1 nf. in Ztscfir. f. NTliche H issensch., 1901, pp. 53-57 ; Hilgenfeld, Geburts- u. Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu, Lk. 1 5-^52 in ZlVJ k, 1901, pp. 177-235, also 313-317 466-468; Zahn, Forschungen, 6225-364 ( Briider u. Vettern Jfesu, ) ; Barrows, Mythical and legendary elements in the NT in New tt orld, 1899, pp. 272-299, especially pp. 290-293 ; Bardenhewer, Der Kame Maria = Bibl. Studien, ed. Bardenhewer and others, 1(1895) i ; Benrath, Zur Gesch. d. Marienverehrung in St. Kr., 1886, pp. 7-94, 197-267.

23. Mother of James.[edit]

2. Mary, the mother of James (the Less) and of Joses appears among the women at the cross in Mt. 27:56, Mk. 16:40 and, under the shorter designation, 'Mary of Joses', in Mk. 15:47, or, 'the other Mary' (with Mary Magdalene) Mt. 27:61, as observing the burial place of Jesus ; as 'Mary of James' in Mk. 16:1, Lk. 24;10 or 'the other Mary', in Mt. 28:1, she beholds the empty grave. In Syr. Sin. she is always called 'daughter of James' (Mk. 15:40: James the Less); in Mt. and Mk. besides, 'Mother of Joseph'. As to the historical character of the events of the resurrection day see GOSPELS, 138 e, f. As has been shown under CLOPAS, this Mary's sons were neither brethren of Jesus nor apostles, and she herself is known only as mother of her sons, unless, indeed, she be identical with

24. Mary of Clopas.[edit]

3. Mary of Glopas. This Mary who appears in Jn. 19:25 at the foot of the cross is not to be identified with the sister of the mother of Jesus mentioned immediately before in that passage, nor with the mother of the sons of Zebedee, mentioned in the like situation in Mt. 27:56, who, according to Mk. 15:40, is Salome (CLOPAS, 2). All the more certainly, therefore, does she appear to be identical with the only remaining one of the women at the cross - Mary the mother of James (the Less) and Joses (see above, 23). This identification, however, can be carried out only if we may regard Clopas as a person otherwise unknown. In that case, Jn. would be recording the name - not given by the synoptists - of the father or grandfather of James (the Less) and Joses (according as we take Mary to be the wife or, what accords better with linguistic use, as the daughter of Clopas). It is much more likely, however, that Clopas is the brother of Joseph and thus the uncle of Jesus (cp CLOPAS, 3-4); in which case Mary also, whether she was the wife or the daughter of Clopas, was a near relation of Jesus. As the synoptists, however, do not speak of the mother of James and Joses as being a kins woman of Jesus, it must be doubted whether Jn. was correct if he sought to identify the two ( Mary of Clopas and the mother of James and Joses). Perhaps he was following another tradition here also, as well as when he named the mother of Jesus and her sister (CLOPAS, 2-5) as witnesses of the crucifixion. If so, Mary of Clopas is known to us only from Jn. 19:25.

25. Sister of Martha.[edit]

4. Mary, sister of Martha, appears in Lk. 10:38-42 as the eager listener at the feet of Jesus, in Jn. 11 as the sister of Lazarus. As the raising of Lazarus cannot be regarded as history (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20 a, 35b, 37a, cp LAZARUS) what is stated regarding Mary in that narrative must also be set aside. The statement that Bethany was her home is also contrary to the repre sentation of Lk. , who assumes (9:52, 13:22, 17:11) that this is to be sought in Samaria. As, however, Lk.'s account of the Samaritan journey is untrustworthy throughout (GOSPELS, 133 a), one might be inclined in this point to give the preference to Jn. In this evangelist, how ever, the naming of Bethany rests upon the fact that he identified (12:1-8) Mary with the woman who, according to Mk. 14:3-9, Mt. 26:6-13, anoints Jesus in Bethany. He does not name the house of Simon the leper ; but he clearly shows that he has in mind the same scene as Mk. and Mt. when he designates Lazarus, not as the master of the house, but only as one of the guests. Nevertheless, it might still be conceivable that Jn. had correctly supplemented Mk. and Mt. , were we not pre cluded from this supposition by the fact that he combines their narrative also with that of the sinful woman of Lk. 7:36-50, in so far as he represents her as anointing not Jesus head but feet and wiping them with the hair of her head. 1 Furthermore, Jn. says very infelicitously that Mary wiped the ointment from Jesus feet, whereas the only fitting version is that of Lk. 7:38, which says that she anointed the feet of Jesus after having wiped from them her tears. Even if it be assumed, therefore, that the same event underlies the narrative of Lk. as underlies those of Mk. and Mt. and the point does not require to be dis cussed here ; see GOSPELS, 10 the two forms of the narrative, as they now run, differ fundamentally as to time, place, purpose, and details of the anointing. If, then, we are compelled to recognise that the narrative of Jn. is composed of portions that cannot be united, it be comes impossible for us to be certain on the one point that the woman who anointed was Mary, and thus that her home was Bethany. Possibly, even before the evangelist s time, some one may have formed the con jecture that the unnamed woman in Bethany, who wrought so significant a work upon Jesus, and received from him such high commendation, may have been no other than this most prominent of his female disciples ; but this does not establish the fact (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEUEE, 35 ag}. Legend has it that in consequence of the persecution mentioned in Acts 8:1 Mary (with Martha and Lazarus) removed to Provence, where she lies buried at St. Baume. See MARTHA.

26. Mary Magdalene.[edit]

5. Mary Magdalene appears at the cross and at the grave of Jesus in all the passages where we find the mother of James and ]oses (see above, 23 ) also in the parallel Jn. 19:25 and 20:1, where however, she goes to the grave alone. There Jesus appears to her (20:11-18). This narrative goes a step farther than the already unhis- torical account of the synoptics (GOSPELS, 138 ef). In the later appendix to Mk. (16:9) there is a reminis cence of the Johannine account, and, at the same time, of Lk. 8:2. According to this last thoroughly credible passage Mary Magdalene belonged to the number of those women who accompanied Jesus and ministered to him. As for the seven devils which had been exorcised from her see GOSPELS ( 144 end). Her designation 'Magdalene' implies Magdala as her place of origin. See MAGDALA.

As Magdala in Mt. 15:39 (for Magadan) and still more in Mk. 8:10 (for Dalmanutha) is read only by inferior MSS, and as no such place is named anywhere else in the NT, Lagarde (GGN, 1889, pp. 371-375) hazarded the conjecture that the second name was derived not from a place but from a misunderstanding of the Aramaic magdelanya = 'braider of hair' (from the participle magdela = a 'braider' [fem.]). In the Talmud (see above, 21 d) the designation is applied to the mother of Jesus. This might be due to a confusion of persons. Lagarde's hypothesis must, however, be set aside, being neither probable nor necessary. Even if no Magdala is found in the NT there are many places in Palestine which derive their name from a tower (migdal).

The identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinner of Lk. 7:36-50 cannot be called felicitous. Its sole foundation lies in the circumstance that the name of Mary Magdalene occurs soon after the mention of the nameless woman. The penitent Magdalene has a large place in art, but in history none whatever. Even less happy, however, is the identification of Mary Magdalene with the sister of Martha. It is simply due to the identification of both with the sinner in Lk. It is in this way that, for example, Kaulen weaves the whole romance of her life. She had been the handmaid of sin in Galilee, had repented and received forgiveness from Jesus, and thenceforward had ministered to him ; in Bethany, whither she had betaken herself from Galilee, she anointed him a second time, and she was the first to see him after his resurrection.

1 Assuredly Jn. thinks of Mary much too highly to intend that she should personally be identified with the sinner. Strictly, it is true, he appears to do this in 11:2 which reads, Mary was the woman who anointed, etc. Such a woman had up to this point nowhere been mentioned in any of the gospel histories apart from Lk. 7:36-50. There need, how ever, be no difficulty in believing in the case of an author who says in 3:22, and denies in 4:2, that Jesus baptized that in 11:2 Jn. intends to refer to an event which was chronologically later and which he himself does not describe till chap. 12 is reached. Jn. means, accordingly, not the woman who had anointed the Lord on an occasion previous to the time with which I am now deal ing, but the woman who is known to have once upon a time anointed him. It would not have been in keeping with the tone of his gospel to have said (as would have been correct) concerning whom I shall presently have to describe how she anointed the Lord. It should be added that Naber, Mnemo syne, 1881, p. 287, maintains Jn. 11:2a. (J}K to aur>J5) to be a gloss.

27. Mother of Mark.[edit]

6. Mary, mother of Mark, according to the only passage (Acts 12:12) in which she is named, possessed a house in Jerusalem which served as a meeting-place for the early Christians. From this it would seem that she had a distinguished place in the church there. Evidently her husband was no longer alive, otherwise he would have been named as master of the house. Since the fourth century the scene of the Last Supper, of the meeting on the evening of Christ s Ascension, and of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost has been laid in the house of Mary (Mk. 14:14, Acts 11322; cp Zahn, Einl., 51:7).

28. Mary of Rom. 16:6.[edit]

7. A woman named Mary is greeted by Paul in Rom. 16:6. According to the readings 'on you' (et s i^fij) f (KABC*) or 'among you' (4v v/uv) (DG) she laboured much in the interests of her companions ; the reading 'on us' (fit i^was) of C 2 L Chrys. suggests that she laboured equally in the interests of Paul. To judge by her name she was by birth a Jewess. We are not precluded from this inference by the mere fact that after her name we do not find an addition similar to that which we find in 16:7, 16:11, 16:21 ( 'my kinsmen' ), by which, on account of the largeness of their number, we ought in all probability to understand Jews merely, not actual blood relations of the apostle. In the case of Aquila and Prisca also (16:3, cp Acts 18:2) this addition is wanting, because Paul had something more special to say regarding them. According to a very probable conjecture Rom. 16:3-16 is a frag ment of an epistle addressed to Ephesus. If Mary is to be looked for in Ephesus the reading 'on us' (els r)/j.ds) will mean that she had interested herself in the welfare of Paul during his three years sojourn in that city (Acts 1:9, 8:10, 20:31). P. w. S.


(MAiCAAcoO [KV]), i Macc. 9:2 AV ; RV MESALOTH. See AKBEIJV.


p 3B>D; cyNececoc or eic cyNeciN [BNART] ; Aq. en-io T^jnoi oj, en-icrTTJfii)?, e7rt(rn)/xocrvn)? ; Symm., Theod. <rvve<ri<; ; Tg. N3a N^3C [<-"P 2 Ch. 30 22]) is a term found in the headings of Pss. 3:2 42 44 (om. A but insert in 43) 45 (om. A) 52 (i^aAjuos [R]) 53-55 7478 88 (with "TV and lists) 89 142 (nVsn follows); also 477[8] (EV with understanding," (ruverais [BNART] ; Aq. Sext. eTrio-nHioxws ; Jer. erudite).

To render the term 'didactic poem' (Ges. ) is incon sistent with the subject-matter of most of the psalms to which it is prefixed ; 32 and 78 alone would be suitably thus described. As a rule the participle Maskil is an attribute of persons ; it is applied in 2 Ch. 3022 to the Levitical musicians. Hence Gratz considers Maskil to be an epithet even in the psalm-headings ; taking it with lam-m nasseah, nsJD 1 ?, he renders To a skilled precentor ; his version of Ps. 47?# [86] is sing praise, ye that are skilled in song (D ^ DB-D). This is at any rate more plausible than the rendering of RV "K- and of Wellhausen in SHOT, sing ye praises in a skilful song [psalm]. Cheyne (PsalmsW), however, reads for S ac D in Ps. 47? [8] usW?, 1 'Sing ye praises to our king' (similar errors abound in the Hebrew Psalter), and regards joeo (Maskil) in the headings referred to as an alternative to rmo 1 ?, and as, equally with this, a cor ruption of J3BJO, 'deposited'. See MUSICIAN [THE CHIEF].

It is worth noticing that in the titles of Ps. 44 45 54 55 88 V DE D > is separated from riSJD 1 ? by some intervening words, that in Pss. 54 55 -mS S DC D > s one of two rival headings, that in Ps. 88 JOTI J V 3C s one of three rival headings, and that in Ps. 32 LXXs heading irvvecr(ia<; r<a Aauetj (-jnV ^> 3C O) s more correct than MT's ysiffO TnS T. K. C.

1 Wetzer and Welte, Kirchcnlex. 1 , 8735-739.


(tip ; MOCOX [A EL] ; MES), an Aramaic people, mentioned together with U/, Hul, and Gether, in Gen. 10:23, and also (as Ki. thinks) in i Ch. 1 17. See GEOGRAPHY, 20, where Dillmann s view is adopted. Perhaps, however, Gether should be Geshur i.e., GESHUR (2). Hul is a fragment of Jerahmeel. Uz is explained elsewhere (see Uz). The Meshech of i Ch. is probably more correct than Mash, and like Shechem in Ps. tiOs, probably comes from Cusham (see CUSH, 2, CUSHAN, SHECHEM). T. K. C.