Encyclopaedia Biblica/Lord's Day-Maaz

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


LORD'S DAY[edit]

(rj KvpianTj Tj^pa ; dies dominicd}.

We cannot say with certainty how far back the practice of marking the first day of the week by acts of worship is traceable. This at least is probable : that in the post-apostolic ordinance we have a continuation of apostolic custom ; 1 but the time when the Christian Sunday began to be observed in Palestine, where the observance of the Sabbath does not seem to have been at first superseded by it, remains utterly obscure. 2

1. NT references.[edit]

i Cor. 16:2 bids each person, Kara, niav <ra/3/3aToi; (EV 'on the first [day] of the week' ), lay by him in store as he may prosper (for the saints in Jerusalem), that no col lections be made when the writer comes (i Cor. 16:2). It is often possible and sometimes inevitable to infer from the practice of a later time that of an earlier. This has been done in the present case by Zahn, 3 who finds clear though faint traces of Sunday observance. It must not be overlooked, however, that the contribution of each one is to be laid up by him (irap eai/ry), i.e. , in his own home not in an assembly for worship.

This suggests an alternative explanation to that of Zahn. The church of Corinth consisted for the most part of poor, obscure people (i Cor. 1:26+) ; possibly for many of them the last or the first day of the week was pay-day, the first day therefore, was the day on which they could most easily lay aside something.* i Cor. 16 therefore does not supply us with any assured facts as to an observance of Sunday in the Pauline churches.

On the other hand, the we-sections in Acts contain a valuable indication. On his way to Jerusalem, Paul stayed at Troas seven days (Acts 20:6), the last of which is called ula. rCiv <ra.pj3a.Tuv (EV 'the first [day] of the week' ), the following day Monday of our reckoning being fixed for his departure (v. 7). On this last day there was a 'breaking of bread' and Paul prolonged his dis course with the congregation till midnight (v. 7). Even here, however, we must be careful not to infer too much. The passag3 furnishes no conclusive proof that the first day of the week was the regular day for celebrating the Lord s Supper, or that a universal Christian custom is here referred to. We may venture to conclude, however, with a fair measure of probability, that the first day of the week was at the time the day on which the Lord s Supper was observed in Troas.

If, on the other hand, the narrator had wished it to be under stood that the breaking of bread which he is mentioning was merely ad hoc, and in connection with the apostle s approaching departure, he would hardly have expressed himself as he does. It is much more likely that Paul fixed Monday for his departure in order that he might observe the Sunday communion once more with his beloved brethren of Troas. This passage being from the pen of an eye-witness, we are justified in regarding it as affording the first faint yet unmistakable trace of a setting apart of the first day of the week for purposes of public worship by Christians.

Whether Rev. 1:10 ought also to be cited in this connection depends on our exegesis of the passage, on which see below, 2.

1 Weizsacker, Ap. Zeitalt.W 549.

Cp Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, 179, who supposes that at least as early as the third decade of the second century the bunday was marked by public worship at Jerusalem.

Zahn, op. cit. 177.

4 Before finally accepting or rejecting this conjecture, it will nave to be considered whether weekly payments of wages were usual, and also which day of the week was reckoned as its first V" l u Cml life of Corintn - Plainly Paul is reckoning by the Jewish week from Sunday to Saturday ; but Gentile astrologers began the week with Saturday (Zahn, 182, 358).

2. Light from other sources.[edit]

The younger Pliny's well-known letter to Trajan (about 112 A.D.) does not state directly that the 'fixed day' among the Bithynian Christians for religious worship was Sunday, though this is certainly probable (cp Acts 20:7). Its indistinctness is compensated for by the fulness of the information in Justin Martyr's First Apology (chap. 67), written about 150 A.D. 1

The evidence given before Pliny was to the effect quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abne- garent ; quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque [coeundi] ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium (Plin. Epp. 1096 [97], ed. Keii, 30 7 /.).

Justin Martyr s words are as follows : And on the day called Sunday (rfj TOV i^Aiou AeyoficVr) i^ue pa) there is an assembly (o-ui/e Afuo-ts) in one place of all who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets^cp CANON, 69) are read as long as time permits (jixe xpts e-yxwpei) ; then, when the reader has ceased, the president (6 Trpoeorcos) gives his exhortation to the imitation of these good things (TrpoicAijcrii TTJS Ttav xaAwi TOU-ROI/ jou/ujjo-etus). Then we all stand up together and offer prayers (tu^ds Tre^Ti-o^ey) and, as we before said [chap. 66], when our prayer is ended (navcrafifvaiv riftStv TTJ? et>x*js), bread is brought (npoaijx ptTai.) and wine and water, and the president in like manner sends up (ai/an-e niTrei) prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability (O<TTJ Svvafjus aura!) and the congregation assents (6 Aobs e7rcu</>T)|iiei) saying the Amen. And the participation of the things over^ which thanks have been given is to each one (17 jieraA>)i^is UTTO rlav fv\a.pi<rTrj6fvrtav (ca<TT(f), yiVfTai), and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the hands of the deacons (xai rots ov 7rapou<rii> Sia T>V SKLKOVWV Tre ^iireTai). And they who are well-to-do and willing give each one as he wills, according to his discretion (KOLTO. Trpoaipecriv cVaarof TTJI/ cfauToG o /SouAerai fii Swa-i), and what is collected is deposited with the president, and he himself succours (tViicoupei) the orphans and widows and those who are in want (Aeuro/xeVois) through sick ness or other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourning (TOI? TrapeTrifijj/uois OIKTL eVots) ; and in a word he takes care of all who are in need. And we all have our common meeting (KOIVJJ jrarres TTJI avveb.fv<Tiv noiovfifda) on the Sunday because it is the First Day, on which God, having changed darkness and matter (TO OXOTOS xal rr)V t/AT)i/ rpe i^as) made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday (17; ?rpb TJJS (cpoj>i(eTJs) and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday (TJTIS tcn\v i^Ai ou rnj.fpa), having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught [them] those things which we have submitted to you also for your considera tion.

Besides this passage, we have those cited in 2, which are some of them older than Justin s date.

1 Cp Harnack, TLZ 22 [1897] 77.

3. "Sunday".[edit]

In the Graeco-Roman world of the Empire, the day which was reckoned the first in the Jewish week was called 'Sunday', just as the other days of the week were named after the other planets ; the nomenclature is of Babylonian origin (see WEEK). Sunday, too, is the name employed by two ancient Christian writers in works, it is true, addressed to non-Christians 1 viz. by Justin (ut supr.), twice, and by Tertullian (Apol. 16, Ad nat. 1 13). Its naturalisa tion was made easier by the consideration that the first day of the week was the day on which light was created ; and, moreover, the comparison of Christ to the sun was felt to be apposite. 2

4. 'First day'. 'Eighth day'.[edit]

In the early church the name 'First day' (of Jewish origin, as we have seen) and also - since the day followed the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week - 'Eighth day' is of frequent occurrence. The two names are often combined : 'The eighth day which is also the first'. 3

5. 'Lord's day'.[edit]

Most characteristic of all, however, is the name Lord's day (i) KvpiaKTj r)/j.tpa; also simply, i) KUpta.K-/i* or 17 T H Ki piaKri Kvpiov). Usually 5 Rev. 1:10 (""" A "-"" , , fy Trv(i ifj.a.Ti iv rrf) is cited as the earliest instance ; but the presence of the article before Kvpuucy and the connection in which the phrase occurs both favour the other interpretation (supported by a weighty minority of scholars), according to which the day of the Lord here stands for the day of Yahwe, the day of judgment in LXX 77 i]/j.^pa rou Kvpiou (as also in Paul, and elsewhere), called else where in Rev. 'the great day' (i] i]/j.^pa 17 fj.eyd\rj : 6:17, 16. 14 ).

The following early passages, however, are undisputed ; Diiiacke 14, Ka.ro. Kvpiaxriv 6e Kupiov <Tvva\8ei>Te<; K\d<ra.re aprov ; Ev. fet. 35, eir(<p<ao-Kev T) Kvptaicq, and ib. 50, opOpov Se T^S icupiaicrjs ; Ign. ad. Magnes., !> i, ^tjiceVi c-a/3j3aTioi>Te aAAa Kara. Kt ,nnKi)i fuivrei;, iv f) xa\ ^ uir) rjtaiav dpcretAev ; and the title of the writing of Melito of Sardis (n-epi icupiaiojs) mentioned by Eusebius (HE iv. it! 2). Here Lord s Day has become a technical name for Sunday. The word xvpiaxo^, however, is not a new coinage of the Christians (more particularly of Paul), as used formerly to be supposed. It comes from the official language of the imperial period ; frequent examples of its occurrence in the sense of imperial are to be found in Egyptian inscriptions and papyri, and in inscriptions of Asia Minor. 1

The question as to the reason why Christians called the first day of the week the Lord s day is not adequately answered by the remark of Holtzmann 7 that the expression is framed .after the analogy of deiTrvov KvpiaKov. The old Christian answer was that it was the Lord s Day as being the day of his resurrection ; cp Ign. ad Afagn. 9i, as above, Justin, Apol. 16;, as above, and Barnabas log : Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, on which also Jesus rose from the dead, and, having been manifested, ascended into the heavens. 8 This answer has much to be said for it. The Lord s day is the weekly recurring com memoration of the Lord s resurrection.

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, 357. To make a distinction as Zahn does in the use of the name Sunday before and after Constantine is to go too far. The Christian inscriptions show that the pagan names for the days of the week were already current among Christians before Constantine. Cp for example De Rossi, 1615 (twice), and V. Schultze, Die Katakomben, 246, 1882.

2 Cp Justin, above ; further citations in Zahn, 357^

8 Zahn, 356/1 Eighth day first in Barnabas, 158/7

  • Cp rj icpoviKq = t/its Saturni in Justin, above.

8 As, for example, by Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 8267, and Zahn, 178.

6 See Deissmann, Nette Bibelstudien, 1897, p. 44^

7 7/C42, 1893, p. 318.

8 Further evidence in Zahn, 359./C

9 Bull, dt corresp. hclttnique, 21, 1897, pp. 187, 193.

6. Origin of 'weekly' celebration.[edit]

How it was that Christians came to celebrate this day weekly, not only yearly, has still to be explained. Apart from the established habit of observing the weekly Sabbath festival, the ancient practice of honouring particular days by feasts of monthly recurrence may very probably have contributed to this result. In Egypt, under Ptolemy Euergetes, according to an inscription coming from the Egyptian Ptolemais, 9 the twenty-fifth day of each month was called the king's day (17 rou /3acuX^u>s rmtpa] because the twenty-fifth of Dios was the day on which he succeeded his father on the throne (iv y iraptXapfi rr]v f3a<ri\eiav irapa rov 7raTp6s : Decree of Canopus, 15). The Christians might have held the same language in speaking of the first day of the week with reference to Christ.

Of like nature is the custom, widely diffused throughput the kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, of celebrating the birthday of the sovereign, not year by year only, but also month by month ; the existence of the custom can be clearly made out from recent discoveries in epigraphy, and it is implied in the tradition often assailed, but manifestly quite trustworthy of 2 Macc. 6:7. Cp BIRTHDAY. 1

Like so many other features in the kingdoms of the Diadochi, these birthday customs seem to have had an abiding influence within the imperial period. 2 The word Augustan (Se/SaoTi?) as a name of a day in Asia Minor and Egypt is at least a reminiscence of the custom in question ; the name, which first became known through inscriptions, has been discussed by H. Usener, 3 and after him by J. H. Lightfoot 4 and Th. Mommsen. 5 According to these scholars, in Asia Minor and Egypt the first day of each month was called Ze/iacrr^. Light- foot regards this as at least probable in itself, but finds that some of the facts are still unexplained. Recently K. Buresch, 8 without reference to the scholars already mentioned, has revived an old conjecture of Waddington, that Ze/SacrrTj is a. day of the week, not a day of the month.

For this Buresch adduces two inscriptions from Ephesus and Kabala, and makes reference (in the opposite method to that of the present article) to the analogy of the Christian Kvpiaxrj. To his two inscriptions we may here add the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, 46, dating from 100 A.i>. (CTOUS) y AuroicpaTopos <cai<rapo Ne poua TpaiayoG Se/SaoroO rep/u.ai iicoi) Me^eip S 2e/3a<rrfj : on the day of Sebaste, 4th Mechir of the third year of the . . . emperor Trajan.

Without venturing on a confident judgment on a very difficult question, we might, on the evidence before us conjecture that 2e/3curT77 in some cases denotes a definite day of the month (the first ?), and in others, as for example in the inscriptions from Ephesus and Kabala as also in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, 7 a week-day viz. Thursday (dies Jovis).

If this conjecture is correct, then in the dies Jovis metamorphosed into a day of Augustus we should have an analogy to the change of the dies Solis into the Lord s day. As a name for a day of the month also 2e/3curT77 would have a value not to be overlooked as an analogy for Kvpiaxri. 9

At what date the name Lord s day arose we do not know. Even if we assume Rev. 1 10 to refer to the Sunday, it would be rash to conclude 9 that Kvpta.Krj was not used before the time of Domitian.

7. Literature.[edit]

A. Barry in Smith and Cheetham s Diet. Chr. Antiy., s.r. Lord s Day ; Zockler, REft) 14 428^, s.n. Sonntag ; J. B. de Rossi, Inscr. Christ. I rbis Rotnif, i. 1857-1861 (npoteyoneva); Th. Zahn, Skizzen a. </. Leben </. alien A trc/tf, 1898, pp. i6i^I 35 1 ff- Gtschichte tics Sattnffi^s vornehmlich in der alien A~i>c/te, a learned and luminous essay, in which, as in the other works cited, references are given to the older literature of the subject. G. A. D.

1 On this custom of a monthly celebration of the birthday see also now E. Schiirer, zu 2 Mace. 6 7 (monatliche Geburtstags- feier), Zeitsclnift fiir die neutest. H issenschaft u. die Kunde des Urchristentums, 2 (1901) 48^

2 The Pergamum inscription, 374 B(temp. Hadrian) expro^ly mentions a monthly birthday festival of Augustus.

3 Hull, dflf Inst. di Corrisp. Archeohgica, 1874, pp. 73^!

4 The Afiostolic Fathers, Part ii.(2), 1889, 1678^ esp. 7147: B Af>. Max Frankel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, 95,

2265 ; cp also Frankel himself, ib. 512.

6 A us Lydifn, 1898, 49.7:

7 The Editors think of the day of the Emperor s accession. Their reference however to the Berlin papyrus 252 is incon clusive ; see vol. 2 of the Berlin Papyri, 354.

8 So Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudicn, 45^. with concurrence of A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschri/t, xviii., 1898, 1542.

9 Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 9 2, p. 67.


1. Place in Gospels.[edit]

The Lord's Prayer is a significant example of the scantiness and incompleteness of Christian tradition. It is not to be found in the second gospel - i.e., in the oldest, as most scholars are agreed - (unless there is a trace of it in Mk. 11.25) nor in the fourth ; and the two gospels which contain it, refer it to different occasions, and give it in varying forms. In Mt. it stands (6:9-13) as part of the Sermon on the Mount ; according to Lk. (11:2-4) it was given by Jesus at the request of a disciple, as he was praying in a certain place. From the context in Lk. (10:38) it has been concluded that the locality was near or at Bethany or near Jerusalem, more precisely the garden of Gethsemane. l ( Not far from the traditional site of Gethsemane on the slope of the Mount of Olives stands to-day the church of the Pater-noster, showing in the quadrangle the Lord s Prayer engraved on marble tablets in thirty-two languages. ) Older har monists used to combine the two reports by the suggestion that the disciple, who, if he was one of the twelve, must have been acquainted with the prayer as taught on the former occasion, expected some fuller or more particular form of prayer ; or supposed that he was not of the Twelve, but one of the Seventy (rts TUV ^adriruv}. Before this, Origen had explained the fact that in Lk. a shorter form is given than on the Mount by the remark ei/cos ye 717)65 /J.ev TOV jUaffyrV , are 5?? w<pe\r)/j.ei>oi>, fipijKfvai. rbv Kvpiov TO ewLTo/j.wTepoi>, Trpds 5e TOVS TrXelovas, Seo/jLevovs TpavoTtpas didacrKctXias, TO ffa,<pf<TTfpov (De Orat. 30 1 ; ed. Koetschau, 393). Modern exegesis finds in this difference a proof of twofold tradition, and is on the whole inclined to see in the place to which Lk. refers the prayer, the better tradition, the Sermon on the Mount having received a later insertion. So, e.g. , Arthur Wright (Some NT Problems, 26 ; The Composi tion of the Four Gospels, 75), who insists that in Mt. it breaks the parallelism of the context ; and Geo. Hein- rici. 2 According to Baljon (Comm. on Mt., Utrecht, 1900), Mt. seized the opportunity to bring the Lord s Prayer which he found in the Logia into the Sermon on the Mount, because Jesus was speaking there of praying. But it is quite impossible to say anything definite on the source or sources from which Lk. and Mt. took the piece. Even the hapax legomenon tiriov- <rtoj, which is common to both texts, does not prove unity of source, or that Greek was the language of that source. It is just as possible that Mt. had the Lord s Prayer before him (written or oral) in Aramaic or Hebrew, and gave it himself in one of these Semitic dialects, and that only the Greek wording of the First Gospel was in fluenced by the language of the Third Gospel. 3

According to Lk. , the disciple asked 'Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples'. That the disciples of John were addicted not only to much fasting (Mt. 9:14, Mk. 2:18), but to much praying, 4 Lk. alone tells us (5:33). To add fresh petitions on particu lar subjects to received forms of prayer, is but natural in all times ; certain rabbis (R. Eliezer and R. Johanan) are specially mentioned as having done this. 5 In this way the Baptist may have added to the prayers then in use among the Jews some special prayer, and may have taught it his disciples. Such an apocryphal prayer is found in Syriac MSS, whether also in Greek and Latin the present writer does not know. 6

1 M. Margoliouth, The Lord s Prayer, pp. 7, 10, and, with better reasons, J. A. Robinson, On the locality in which the Lord s Prayer was given, in F. H. Chase, The Lord s Prayer in the early Church, 7 STS, 1891, pp. 123-5.

2 Die Bergprtdigt (Reformations-Programm), Leipsic, 1899, PP- 24, 34, 7. 7.2-

3 For this view cp especially Zahn, EM. 2312; for the opposite view, that en-iovo-io? was coined by Mt. or one of his fellow-workers, see A. Wright, The Gospel according toSt. Luke,

IQOO, p. 102.

  • The latter statement is apparently questioned by Jiilicher,

Gleichnisreden Jesn, 2 3.

3 Lightf., Hor. Hehr. on Mt. 6; art. Schemone Esre in Hamburger, RE 2 [1883], 1098.

6 The prayer 'which John taught his disciples' reads thus in the Syriac Bodleian MS, Pococke, 10 :

God make us (or me) worthy of thy kingdom and to rejoice in it ;
God show me the baptism of thy Son.

Zotenberg s catalogues of the Syriac MSS in Paris mention a prayer of John (whether identical with the preceding or not) in MS 13 [20] (after the canticle of Zacharias, Lk. 219-32) and ii. [3], among some prayers for the canonical hours (232 [5 6] in Syriac or Carshuni).

2. Wording.[edit]

Not only as to the occasion but also as to the text of the Lord's Prayer, there is a twofold tradition. That of Mt. became the form which passed into general use ; that of Lk. suffered alteration even in the MSS of this Gospel.

(a) In Mt. the modern critical editions offer hardly any variation. The form eXtf^rw of TR instead of e X^drw is retained by Alford and Weiss, by Weiss also the article TTJS before 7775 ; but d<f>iffj.fi> of the TR is generally given up for d<f>rjKa/uifi>. On the doxology, see the revisers marginal note, and the notes of WH, pp. 8-10. WH gave it a place among the Noteworthy Rejected Readings, Weiss at the foot of his page.

The critical apparatus may be supplemented by the following remarks :

(1) In the Apostolic Constitutions the Bodl. MS misc. graec. 204 (= Auct.T. 24 on its recovery see TLZ, 1899, co - 20 7) h as 3 18, Trapa.TTTiufia.Ta, Ka0u><;, omits a<f>ifij.ev, and closes : ore <rov fcrTiV 17 jSaenAet a TOV Trarpbs Kal TOV viov ical TOV ayt ov Tri-eii/naTO? vvv KCU aei KO.\ els TOVS acwya? TUIV aliaviav a./j.rjv. See on this form of the doxology the embolism of the extant Greek liturgies (Brightman, 60, 446, 460).

(2) For ejrl yrjs or en-i rrj? yrjs, cp E. Miller s Textual Com mentary on the Gospels, I., for Clement, Barnard (7 S 5 5) ; the new edition of Origen is divided : TTJS is found ii. 340 16, where the Lord s Prayer is quoted in full, 3(iO 18 3l<3 8 ; in other passages !t is omitted. The Curetonian Syriac has the plural for *thy will.

(3) The Sinai codices of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanunt (ed. Lewis-Gibson) witness to KCLI A0.; so does the Lewis- Palimpsest of syr v , which breaks off after this word. Cp the additional note of Burkitt in WH (impression of 1896), who refers to the Syriac Acts of Thomas (ed. W. Wright, 313), where the Lord s Prayer is given in full from syrvt without doxology. That the copyist of k (Codex Bobiensis) was so little acquainted with Christianity that he was able to write veni ad regnum tuum is justly pointed out by Burkitt (Cambridge Uni versity Reporter, sth March, 1900).

(4) In the Syriac MS Pococke, 10 (see above [ i n. 64]), on the margin is written **Ot^jQ and our sins, as to be in serted after our debts. This is also the reading in the Acts of Thomas, 313.

(5) Special mention has to be made of the Didache, which offers at the opening iv TW ovpai/uj (e\6(Tta), rt}v cx^etArji/ fifiiav, (a<f>i([j.ei>), OTI <rov eo-Tiv rj 6vraju.is (cat 17 Sofa ei? TOVS aiajpas. On the word o^eiAij, cp G. A. Deissmann, Neitc Bibelstudien, 48 (= Bible Studies, IQOI), and compare with this singular, the similar singular unsere Schuld for unsere Schulden in certain recensions of Luther s Catechism, and in Dutch, where Schulden are money-debts (Baljon, Comm. 94).

(b} In Lk. the text suffered much in MSS and editions by assimilation to that of Mt. In TR it differed from Mt. only by didov ijfuv TO K0.6 rj/uLfpav, TO.S d/u.a/3- ri as, /cat yap avTol d<t>ie/u.ev TTO.VT\ 6((>ei\oi>Ti ijfuv, and the omission of the doxology. The critical editions have shown that the invocation in Lk. is only iraTep, and that the third and seventh petitions are totally absent. In the rest, there is full agreement, though Weiss again writes eX#erw with TR. All prefer d<pio/j.fv to the a.(pie[j.ev of the TR.

There is one very interesting variant treated at length in the apparatus of WH : eASeViu TO ayiov Tri tv/aa crov e<j> TJ/UOS KCU KaOapKTaTia rifiaf. To supplement the remark of \VH (repeated in 1896) that no other record of this singular reading is extant (besides the explicit testimony of Greg. Nyss., Maximus Con fessor, and Tertullian), it should be noted that cod. evang. min. 604 ( = 700 in the list of Gregory -Egerton 2610, in the British Museum) has this very reading in the text of Lk. (see H. A. C. Hoskier, A full account and collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium, 604 [1890], who gives a photographic re production of the passage, and Chase, 24). Whether in the reading e$ 17^09 which is added in cod. D and various forms of the second petition, 1 a trace of this Marcionitic reading is extant, maybe doubted. Marcion wrote further -rov aprov <rov TOV eTriovo-ioi/, perhaps Ta? djuiapTi a; instead of TO. 6$eiA>jjoiaTa (on the second clause there is no testimony extant), and put JU.TJ a$6? rjfia.<; fi<revx9r\va.i, a dogmatic alteration, which (inde pendently, it would seem) appears also in Latin in Cyprian (De Or.c. 25), in Latin MSS of the Gospels (see Chase, p. 62 jf.), and in several settings of the Liturgy, as 'suffer us not to be led' or 'let us not be led into temptation'. 2

1 In German, zuunskomme dein Reich, or zukomme uns dein Reich. In the so-called Bishops Book, thy kingdom come unto us.

2 See Chase, who quotes (he so-called King s Book of 1593, and W. H. Frere, Edwardine Vernacular Services, in Journ. Th. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 242.

3. Numbering and arrangement.[edit]

In a passage like the Lord s Prayer, every minute detail such as numbering and arrangement and even orthography deserves careful attention.

Augustine (Enchirid. 116) remarks

Lucas in oratione doniinica petitiones non sepiem sed quinque complexus est.

The number seven became thenceforth traditional in the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran Church. But the same Augustine argued :

quod ille (Mt. ) in ultima posuit : libera nos a malo, iste (Lk. ) non posuit, ut intelligeremus ad illud superius quod de tentatione dictum est pertinere.

In accordance with this view, Origen and Chrysostom counted six petitions ; they are followed by the reformed churches. WH print the Lord's Prayer in Mt. in 2 x 3 stichi, in Lk. without strophic arrangement. Wordsworth- White make, in their Latin NT, of 'Pater-nomen titum' one stichus, of 'et ne inducas' and 'sed libera' two. Hetze- nauer s reprint of the Vulgate puts a full stop after every petition, therefore also: lentationem. Sed. In the Greek text Weiss places a colon only after 77;$, WH after yrjs, ffr)fj.(pov, and TJ/UWP, while Brightman (Litur gies ) omits all punctuations in the second half, and separates the first half by commas. AV, RV, and Prayerbook need hardly be quoted. The division and arrangement of WH prove the best.

4. Meaning.[edit]

No attempt can be made here to give an exhaustive explanation of this 'Breviarium totius evangelii' as Tertullian styled it, or 'Coelestis doctrinae compendium', as Cyprian called it. Oratio haec, said Tertullian, quantum substringitur verbis, tantum diffunditur sensibus. Some philological remarks, however, are necessary.

(1) The exordium. The abrupt irdrtp [pater], says A. Wright (Gospel of Luke [1900], 103), is softened down in St. Matthew by an editorial addition which in identical or equivalent terms occurs in Mt. 51645 etc. (19 times) ; only once in St. Mark (1125) ; not at all in St. Luke ; but see Lk. 11 13. In the West there is evidence that the abruptness was eased by prefixing the original Ara maic abba (not abbun, our father ). So Rom. 815 Gal. 46 (Mk. 1436). It is better to say that the Aramaic original Abba was preserved even in Greek surround ings, but explained by the addition of the translation 6 irarrip (as in Mk. 641, ra\i0a through rb Kopdffiov).

That not only the isolated Trdrep [pater] of Lk. , but also irartp riniav of Mt. can correspond to N2N is sufficiently shown by Dalman, ll orte Jesu, 157, though for a prayer the more solemn 3K (in Hebrew), Kmx (Aramaic), |J12N (Galilean), seems to Dalman more probable. For the isolated jrdrep or o n-aT/jp cp Mt. 11 26 Mk. 14 36 Lk. 22 42 with Mt. 203942 Lk. (15 12 1821) -233445 Jn. Il4i_1227y: 17 i 521 24 (with 1025) or Clem. i. ad Cor. 8 3 : tav c7ric7Tpa<f>7)Te rrpb? fie f oAjjs TTJJ (cri/jciim cal etmjre Hdrep, eTraxoucro^xai v/uoii , the Syriac trans lation has here p^jt (our father).

That the imperative forms ayiaaO-firw and yevi^d-qru may be used for the optative, CVKTIKW not strictly jrpooraKTiKuis, is shown by Origen (De Or. 24 5, ed. Koetschau, 2 3557". ) with reference to some remarks of Tatian on yei>t]0riTu in Gen. 1 3.

On the use of the passive aorist of this verb instead of the middle see Hlass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Grie- chisch, 20, i). (In Gen. 1 3 y<fi/7)0rJT<o of LXX gives place in Aquilaand Longinus (tic Sittlimi) to ytviirOia, in Symmachus to l<TTta, in the Oracula Sifryllina, i, 9, to yeit>d<rOta.) On the Semitic original presupposed by yfujfr^Tio, see below, 5 [4].

(2) ^TnoiVtoj. [epiousios] The remark of Origen, 1 that the word is not found elsewhere in Greek, is still true despite the recent increase of Greek literature through the newly discovered papyri ; on its meaning, therefore, tradition must be heard, and the question settled, if possible, by philological reasons.

(a) The oldest tradition seems to be that represented in syr vt (cur. , sin. and Acts of Thomas) by won 1 ? (or 10117) KJ CN, (our) constant, continual bread.

1 The passage is important, and deserves study (De Orat. 11 j = Koetschau, 2 $&&gt;/.).

This J<CK is, in the Pesh. of the OT, the regular rendering for Heb. Ten ; see especially Nu. 47, TCrn Cn? ( 'continual bread' EV), and it is a strange coincidence, that not only the Armenian version of 2 Macc, translated 1:8 (npo(9rJKa/j.ev TOUJ dprous) by the same word as in NT rbv aprov TI/JWI- rbv ejriouo-ioi l but also the mediaeval Jew, Shemtob ben Shaphrut, to whom is due the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew, published in the i6th century by Munster and Mercier, and re- published in 1879 by Ad. Herbst, 2 hit upon the corresponding Hebrew word TDDi translating QV,T l:S jn Ten UCnS DN- He even formed from TOH an adjective H Cn, which in biblical Hebrew is as unheard of as errtoucrio? in Greek from 7rioO<ra. T. R. Crowfoot, Observations on . , . Cureton Syriac Frag ments (1872, p. 10), and C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (1877, p. 141), seem to have had no knowledge of this medieval predecessor when they proposed TCfl as original for en-iouerioy.

(b} The same tradition seems represented in the West by the old Latin cotidianus and the Gothic hlaif un- sarana thana sinteinan (cp the same word in 2 Cor. 11 28 = Ko.6 ij/j^pav and the adv. , sinteino for Sid. iravrfa, irdvTOTf, del) and the Old German emissigaz (Vaterunser of Weissenburg).

(c) With the venientem of the Sahidic version is to be compared Cyril (Luc. 265), ol /jv tivai (pavi rbv ij^ovrd re KO.I do6rj<r6[j.evov Kara rbv aiuva rbv fj.t\\ovra, while he himself explained : Sri rrjs i<f>-qfj.^ pov rpo<pfjs Troiovvrai rrjv aUrrjcriv ojj dKrr)fj.oves SijXovori ttriouffiov rbv avrdpKT) diavoeiffOai xp~n- The Coptic has crastinum.

(d) The Peshitta has the bread of our need, and is followed by the later Syriac translation of Polycarp and Thomas of Heraclea, who formed the rare adjective JAlAJCUB our needy bread. The Palestinian, trans lating our 'bread of richness', took eiriovcriot in the sense of irtptovatos [periousios].

(e) Jerome tried the word supersubstantialis, sub- stantivus or superventurus ; Victorinus, consubstan- tialis. [Hence J. B. Jona in his Hebrew version of the Gospels (Romae, MDCLXVIII) even gives cvprrSy cnS.]

(f) It would be of the highest importance to be assured of the accuracy of Jerome s repeated statement that the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he identified at times with the Semitic original of Matthew, had mdhdr (ino). Two views are possible. The one is that this mahar is a translation from the Greek, resting on etymology ; if this be so, the explanation has no more value than any other. The other is that this mahar represents the Jewish-Christian form of prayer of 400 A.D. (or thereabouts), which was also known about 60-65 A - D - n Jerusalem, Kokaba, Beroea.

For the latter view strong reasons are given, especially by Th.Zahn, Geschichtedes Kanons, 2593 709 ; Einl. 1 312 ; for the former see R. H. Kennett in A. Wright s Gospel of S. Luke, 102. It is true, incC?) UCn? sounds a little strange in Hebrewi and so indeed does the Aramaic "inn 1 N3Dri7; but it is so in other languages also, and there are philological reasons which strengthen this tradition. 3

On this side of the question see Winer-Schmiedel, Gramnt. 16 n. 23, and the literature there mentioned. Origen s view that the word comes from iiri and ovtria, or from eni and tlvoi, is less likely than the other, that it is derived from en-ieVoi, more especially from 17 firiouo-a, sc. r)H*pa, the following day. If we compare James 2 15, TTJS e^rj/nepou Tpo<f>rj?, the way of the RV seems the best, to leave our daily bread in the text and to re mark that literally it means our bread for the coining day.

Comparing Prov. 30:8 ,?n cnV (AV 'food convenient for me', mg. 'of my allowance' ; RV 'food that is need ful for me', mg. Heb. 'the bread of my portion' ), Del., Salk. -Gi. , Resch translate ujsn en 1 ? ; Ronsch (like the Palestinian version), unViD cnS ; Taylor (like the old Syriac and Shemtob), jnnn KonV or ron DnV- Arnold Meyer (Muttersprache Jesu, 1896) thinks of Aramaic nop, sufficient. Chase s conclusion is that the original may simply have been Give us our (or the ) bread of the day. M. Schultze (Gramm. der aram. Mutter sprache Jesu, 1899, 113) gives lahma di sork-dna and 3is is given by the last reviser of the last version of the Hebrew NT quoted by M. Margoliouth, who finds this utterly inconceivable, proceeding from a sheer mania for alteration. That it refers to the needs of common life and must not be taken allegorically (as Marcion and many since his time have taken it) is now almost universally admitted.

1 This is the origin of the statement in H-P, on 2 Mace. 1 8, tres codices Sergii dprovs CITIOIKTIOV?, to which Deissmann (Nrue Bibelstudien, 41) and Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 99, p. 157) called attention.

2 On this edition see the present writer s review, Lit. Central- blatt, 1880, no. ii.

3 See also Jerome s Comm. on Mt. 6 (Vallarsi, 7 34), the Anec- dota MarcJsolana, ed. Morin, III. 2 (1896) 262, where the most definite statement occurs : In Hebraico evangelio secundum Matthzum ita habet : Panem nostrum crastinum da nobis hodie.

(3) irovrjpov ; malo. Whether this be masculine or neuter, cannot in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac be decided from the form alone. For the Greek NT see the ex haustive investigation of Chase. Shemtob translated jn *?3D (changed in the edition of S. Mimster). There is an early allusion to this meaning in the Didach^ (10s), fj,vri<r6ijTi, Kvpie,TTjs tKK\r)(ria.s crov, pwra<T0cu aur^y dird iravros wovajpov. The Ethiopic, too (see Bright- man, Liturgies, 234), has Deliver us and rescue us from all evil. The same combination of the two verbs by which in the Peshitta pv<rcu is rendered (Mt. ) JnQ and (Lk. ) J-3, is found in the Nestorian Liturgy (Brightman, 296), 'Save and deliver us from the evil one and his hosts'. Taylor (Sayings, 142 ff.} writes The original form of the petition can scarcely have been jnn jo u^sm I but may it not have been jnrr is D uS xni ? On the jn is or jnn \ see Taylor s note. It seems on the whole the most probable view to take it as masculine. The Arabic text published by Mrs. M. D. Gibson (Studio. Sinaitica, 7 14, has from the Satan and adds Kvpie after temptation ; cp on the latter addition, Brightman, Liturgies, 469, /. 54.

(4) For the doxology, cp not only i Ch. 29:11, but also Dan. 23:7, 1 Esd. 43840 and the Prayer of Manas- seh (end). The earliest quotations are in Polycarp, ad Philipp. 6 and 7.

5. Connection with Jewish prayers.[edit]

In former times Grotius (especially), and, later, Wetstein expressed the view that the Lord's Prayer was a combination of Jewish prayers 'ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata'. Others went further, and maintained that the Lord's Prayer consisted of the beginnings of prayers, singled out by Jesus as suitable for his followers. Still more extravagant statements, as that Jesus had gathered the Lord's Prayer out of the Zendavesta, need not detain us (see P1?W 4768). On the other hand, Dr. M. Margoliouth in 1876 endeavoured to show that the Jewish Liturgy never contained any thing so glorious, so august, and so comprehensive. His work, entitled 'The Lords Prayer no Adaptation of existing Jewish Prayers', is, however, rather rhetorical than historical and critical in character. The truth is that we may say of the Lord s Prayer applying what Theodore Zahn lately wrote (Forschungen, 6 [1900] 153) of the teaching of Jesus as a whole that Jesus uttered things which were said almost literally by Jewish teachers before and after him. On the other hand, duo si faciunt idem, non est idem ; and even if for the separate parts, words, thoughts of the Lord s Prayer parallels can be adduced from Jewish sources, as a whole this prayer remains unique. Moreover, it is difficult to be certain of the exact age of the parallels adduced. The Jewish Liturgy has had a complicated history, if we mention only the most famous pieces of it, 1 the Shema . the Shemoneh Esreh, the Kaddish, the Abinu Malkenu, and since Christian scholars are (apart from Dalman) behindhand in thorough and critical study of docu ments (cp PRAYER), it seems best to restrict ourselves to some of the most remarkable and indisputable Jewish parallels.

1 On the Shema and Shemoneh Esreh see Schiirer, GVI 11145 f, Dalman, Wortc Jesu, 29 (for literature, seep. 301)i Ham'kger (Real Encycl. 2 II ; ' Agendgebet', II ; ' Kaddisch, 6038: ',Morgengebet,'8ozfi:: 'Mussafgebet', 8153; 'Schema', 1087f.; Schemone-Esre,’ ~ogzf.; ' Abinu Malkenu', in Suppl. l] ^. 1 PP- *^D! S chec hter^ Some Rabbinic Parallels to the NT, \nJQK, Apr. 1900, p. 429.

For OT parallels see the Bible (RV) with marginal references Dittmar, I etus Testamentum in Novo (1899), and Hiihn, Die alttestamentlichen Citate und R eminiscenzen ii Neuen Tes- tamente [1900] (Part II. of Die Messianischen Weissagungen ).

( i ) Exordium : irdrtp [pater], or -irdrtp T|nv 6 v ovpavois [pater hemon ho en oupanois]. It is the Jewish custom to add D < OB : 3(tt ), K CB 3-i, (who) is in heaven to 3^ where it is used of God ; but in prayer, even among Jews the isolated \yy& is not unusual. The fundamental passage for the designation of God as Father is Ex. 4 22. (Cp FATHER. )

For Shemoneh Esreh, cp 4 and 6 in both recensions (the Palestinian detected by Schechter among the MSS from the Gemzah of Cairo and published in/(pA 10 [1898], pp. 654-9 I re printed at the end of Dalman s Die li- orte Jesu, I., 299, and, in the Babylonian, Dalman, 301 ff.), ^PXD njn 3N |n and ^ 3X W7 n?p, and in the Babylonian form *irnin i ? ir;iN W3 B>n, where the Palestinian has 5j J7N 133 BTI. On the H|J?D 3K (the prayer for New Year and Day of Atonement) see HairT- burger, I.e. Suppl. II. i ; on O Crm 3K, Father of mercies (2 Cor. 1 3 ; BerakhOth 8) and D Crm 3N 3K (in the prayer before the Shema), Hamburger, I. 8. In the Kaddish Dip N T ?E>:n NH3K, for which the Kaddish de Rabbanan has JOD D p N ^"?^] K^OB 1, before the word of heaven and earth, and another recension, Nl iff tr\O, the Lord of heaven and earth, Dalman, 305. In Aramaic, N^CCton f3K occurs as introduction to the recital of Ex. 15 ; see ZDMG 54 n6.

(2) d-yiao-0TJTw [hagiastheto], comp. in Shemoneh Esreh, 3, grnp ya& tniji NRN, in the Babyl. recension with transposition trng TjCBn Bnijj nnw and the sequel si^.v n v^a D r npi rrta for qnySap ai^N p*ti ; further Bab. 18, }DE>-riN tyy

The divine name occurs further in Bab. i dot} JJ;D ?> f r his name s sake ) 13 -ps?3 DTIBl3n, that trust in thy name ; in thy name we trust. The Kaddish begins : TCB EHprn Vnan* "??{?? N 7^ magnified and hallowed be his great name in the world ; afterwards, eight more such verbs are placed together referring to the name of holiness, blessed be he (or it) : -pan* 713 jcE ipi .TOP Nb :m 7?nn i nSyn i oniim iNDn i n^nc" Nirt, blessed, praised, and beautified, and extolled, and elevated, and glorified, and lifted up, be the name of holiness, blessed be he. Any benediction which is without mention of hasseut (i.e., nirp) is no benediction at all ; b. BerakhOth, 40^.

(3) ^XOdrw [elthato]. Any benediction (cp the preceding) which is without Malkuth is no benediction at all : b. Berakhoth, 40b.

Shemoneh n [Bab. adds mnc] ?H3^ NRK U ^V Tl l^OI and T" I J v - : T - T ; be king over us (quickly) thou alone (opposed to [12] ni3?D P~IT, the kingdom of pride ) ; cp no. 14, n B D "111 fl 3 JTO^D IplS, i? (variant NnN 3 BD1 31 W I^D 3>-

Kaddish, n ni37D "HD , may his kingdom reign ; but read with Dalman T?D , may he make it reign ; the Kaddfsh de- Rabbanan adds (in one recension, n ip 3), in his glory," and connects it with the kingdom of his Messiah.

(4) -ytvTiOyJTw [genetheto]. Whether in Hebrew nbjr or ,T be the better translation, can be doubted. Shemtob, Del. , Salk. -Gi. , and Resch adopted ne jr ; M. Mar goliouth preferred vr, the reading of the previous Hebrew version which comes to us from Dr. M. S. Alexander (the first Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem), Dr. S. M Caul, and Stanislaus Hoga ; the Syrian versions have win, with the exception of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, which, in accordance with its usual diction, has 12JW-

In Jewish prayers there seems to be no exact parallel ; but cp BerakhOth, 29/ , where Rabbi Eliezer answers the request for a short prayer by saying y\ Sj/CD D CtJ^ TjlXT HB^ Do thy will in heaven above (Taylor, Sayings, 139, Hamburger, 1098 n. 6), and Berfikhoth, 166, Dl^ST D ETltJ 13 nSl^ 7JS?D )ls"1 ri i May it be thy will, O Lord, our God, to make peace in the family above and in the family below. In Shemoneh Esreh, i3i "JliT l?iy cy. with those who do thy will and 16, nsn, be pleased O Lord our God ; in the Babyl. re cension 16 u jnrn -py rKntr n-ny ran pmV .mm pm3 *?3pn.

In the Kaddlsh p3my3 T^ynni pDrllSx *?2pnn. 'may your prayer be accepted and may your petition be done'.

(5) TOV dprov [ton apton]. No exact parallel in Jewish prayers. There is a petition for blessing of the year in Shcmoneh Esreh 9, in Habinenii and elsewhere, and the saying of R. Eliezer haggadol (circa 40-120 A.D.), Whosoever has a bit of bread in his basket and says, What shall I eat to morrow ? must be reckoned among those of little faith (Sota, 48b).

On the different translations of tn-ioiio-tos, see above, 4 (2).

(6) Kal d<}>s [kal aphes]. Shtmoneh 6, *S wnan 3 iriiK uS n^p ya j s [izyni] nna, in the Babyl. recens. 16 ir^y crni [oin] ; also in Habinenii. TO. 6<j>(t\r)/j.a.Ta (expression from business- life) is more irnizin (Del. , Marg. ; also Shem- tob, who renders 6</>ei\^rau i]^C>v, irnum ^JD?) than = ijnas N (Salkinson-Ginsburg, Kesch).

(7) ls iripao-u.<5v [eis peirasmon]. Shemtob, Del., J VBJ T 1 ? ; Salk.- Gi. , Resch, HDD n;S ; the reviser, rightly challenged by M. Margoliouth (p. 95), noaS ; Munster, p 333 for Shemtob s j n-S

The expression jro: rS . . . i:N % ;n StO occurs in the Jewish morning prayer (cp Herakhoth, 6c>^, Margoliouth, 98, Taylor, 142 f.) ; but this prayer seems to betray a later origin than the Lord s Prayer: "r 1 ? N 1 ? m ln *?N1 TJsSp pm .VI U3 eSe-n *?KI p - i3 n S N T) p-c: r 1 ? wVi mzy -rS Si nan jnn is*-

(8) dirb TOV irovripov [apo ton ponerou]. In the prayer which Rabbi used to say after the usual prayer according to Berak- hoth, i6f>, he mentions, among the evils from which he desires to be delivered, after yi lira J?T yjEd yn DIN jn J3ffO yn -ana, also rvnsyan joe-si, and from Satan the Destroyer 1 (Taylor, i42/).

(9) All the expressions of the Doxology occur in Jewish prayers rt, ijr, ja^ir. ty. "O133.

6. Literature.[edit]

Among early commentaries, see those of Origen (vol. ii., ed. by Koetschau) and Cyprian ; among modern treatise* that of Kamphausen (1866), F. H. Chase s The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (Texts and Studies, 3 (iSgil), where too the litera ture is duly noted, C. W. Stubbs, The Social Teaching of the Lord s Prayer (1900).

A portion of the Lord's Prayer, from a clay tablet of about the fourth century, A.D. found at Megara and now in the National Museum at Athens, has been published lately by R. Knopf (JMittheil. des Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts: Atheniscke Abtheilung, xxv. 4(19001313-324). The tablet is broken, but endsairb roO novripov. Then follows nvpLf and the monogram of Christ _|j Eb " N "




(TOIT1 i6. 23, -unpitied ; oyK HAeHMeNH [BAQ], cp npnj K7, Is. 54 n), and LO-AMMI pJ31? X?, not my people ; oy AAOC MOY [BAQ]), symbolical names given to Hosea's daughter and son, to signify that Yahwe would cease to have mercy upon the house" of Israel, and that they were no more his people, nor he their God ( Hos. 1 6-9 ; see Rom. 925 i Pet. 2io). Cp HOSKA, 6, JEZKKEL, i, col. 2459.

The antithesis comes at the close of the prophecy in chap. 22i^ [23^1(10 which probably 1 io-2 i [2 1-3] is to be appended), In that day ... I will pity /Ticm) Lo-ruhamah, and to Lo- ammi I will say "Thou art my people" (223(251) . . . Say ye unto your brethren Ammi (my people) and to your sisters Ruhamah (pitied) 2 i [3]. Zech. 189 is not the only parallel. If Ariel in Is. 29 i 2 7 should rather be Jerahmeel (cp 2 S. 568, where the true text, the present writer thinks, spoke of Jebusites and Jerahmeelites as the inhabitants of old Jerusalem), we get a close parallel to Hosea ; for v, y/>fi should in this case run, and it shall become Lo-jerahmeel i.e., on whom God hath no pity. See Crit. Hit. T. K. C.


(V^fil), Josh. 186. See DIVINATION, 2 (iv.). EPHOD, UKIM AND THUMMIM.


(1217, ACOT).

1. Double tradition.[edit]

A righteous man, who by the divine favour escaped from the catastrophe which befel the wicked city of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29) ; he is also said to have been brother's son to tradition. Abraham, whom he accompanied from his fatherland (124/), but from whom he parted at length owing to disputes between their shepherds, and to have been allowed by his generous uncle to choose the Jordan valley for himself and his flocks (13:5-12) ; a later tradition says that Abraham made a successful expedi tion to rescue Lot who had been taken captive by Chedorlaomer and the allied kings (14:12, 14:16). It should be noticed here that the story in 12:10-20 is probably one of the later insertions in J ; hence the otherwise surprising circumstance that no mention is made in it of Lot. The words 'and Lot with him' are an editorial correction (cp Oxf. Hex. ). The Moabites and Ammonites are called by two writers the b'ne Lot (EV -children of Lot ), Dt. 2:9, 2:19, Ps. 83:9 [8] ; a legendary account of their origin is given in Gen. 19:30-38 (cp AMMON, MOAB).

In the latter story the progenitor of Ammon and Moab appears as dwelling in the cave ; or, more precisely, two parallel state ments are made in in>. jpa and 30^, he dwelt in the mountain ("1 113) and he dwelt in the cave (rnyBS). Hence the question arises whether 'in the cave' may not be a gloss on 'in the moun tain' (so Di.), or rather perhaps on "in3, in a cave, in being altered into in to suit a change in the context.

It would be somewhat hard to deny that the story in Gen. 19:30-38 was interwoven with the story of the de struction of Sodom by a later hand. It was not one of the really popular Hebrew legends, and contrasts as strongly with the previous honourable mention of Lot as the story of Noah's drunkenness (Gen. 9:21+) con trasts with that of the reward of his righteousness.

2. Identification.[edit]

The primary Lot (Gen. 19:30-38) was presumably re presented as a Horite ; he is identical with Lotan, who was the eldest of the sons of Seir the Horite (Gen 36:20)> and was himself the father of a son called Hori (v. 22). The secondary Lot (the kinsman of Abraham) may, or rather must, once have had another name, and very possibly (cp the probable supersession of ENOCH [g.v.~\ in the Hebrew Deluge-story by Noah) an error of a very early scribe lies at the foundation of the change. In Gen. 11:27 (P) the father of Lot is said to have been Haran (pin)- Now HARAN [q.v.] can only be explained as a variation of Haran (pn), or rather Hauran (pin). See JACOB, 3. The narrative of J in its original form possibly spoke of Hauran as accompanying Abraham from their common fatherland ; pin would easily be miswritten mn, Hori, and mn be considered a synonym for Lotan, or Lot, the Horite. It would then become natural to attach the story of the origin of Moab and Ammon to the person of the righteous survivor of Sodom and kinsman of Abraham. But the real ancestor, according to legend, of Moab and Ammon was, not Hauran the Hebrew, but Lot the Horite. (Of course, the story in Gen. 19:30-38 is neither of Moabitish and Ammonitish nor of primitive Hebrew origin ; it is an artificial product, except in the one point of the tracing of the Moabites and Ammonites to Lot the Horite, which is due to misunderstanding. )

3. Origin of name.[edit]

The secondary Lot is but a double of Abraham. Doubtless he shows differences from Abraham, which mar the portrait ; but these are due to the unfavourable circumstances in which the biographer places Lot, and only prove that the narrator could not triumph over such great obstacles. Lot has therefore made but a slight mark on Hebrew literature (Dt. 29:19 and Ps. 83:9 [8] are both late). A reference is made in Lk. 172932 both to Lot and to his wife, which remains morally effective even if the pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26) is an accretion on the original story (see SODOM). His function is to confirm the belief that the ancestors of the Hebrews were not wild, self-seeking warriors, but men of piety and righteousness (cp 2 Pet. 2:7-8). Of the character of the primary Lot, who alone has a right to the name, we have no trustworthy information. His name, how- erer, is significant ; it comes from to take a stranger into the family (Ar. Idta in viii. ).

Winckler supports this by a quotation from Ibn Hisum (6^/.) relative to a man who was belated on a certain occasion, pro vided with a wife by his friend, and adopted into the friend s family (ilta.ta.-hu) , in this way he became his friend s brother. Applying this key to the Lot of Gen. 19:30-38, and the Lotan of Gen. 36 20 29, we may suppose that a pre-Edomitish tribe was admitted into union with the Edomites. The name of Lotan s sister is TIMNA [y.v.], and in 8612 Timna is the name of the concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau or Edom. The cases appear to be analogous. On Gen. 14 12 cp SODOM AND GOMOKRAH, and on 13ioyC PARADISE, 6, end.

Cp Wi. AOt 1 287 f-\ Stucken, Astralmythen, 81-125; Stade, Gesch. 1 119 ; Ewald, Gesch. 1 448 ; Hplzinger and Gunkel on Genesis. For Jewish legends see the Midrash Ber. Rabba ; for Mohammedan, Koran, 15:58-75, etc. -p. K. C.


($ ; AOGT&N [BADEL]), one of the sons of Seir, i.e.. a Horite clan, Gen. 86202229 ; i Ch. 1 38 f. See EDOM, 3, col. 1183 ; LOT.


(AcoeACoyBoc [BA], etc.), i Esd. &44f=Neh. 84, HASHBAIJANA.




(D^NV), mentioned in Job 40:21-22, RV, as a favourite covert of the BEHEMOTH or HIPPO POTAMUS (AV shady trees ; cp Ges. Thes. ; TTANTO- A&TT& AeNAp<\ and AeNApA MefAAA [BNA]). RV s rendering is doubtless correct. The cognate Arabic dal 1 is the dom-tr&s, a thorny shrub, sometimes attaining considerable height, a wild species of the sidr (Rhamnus spina Christi [Linn.], cp Lane, s.v. ddl, sidr]. This prickly lotus (according to Volck, the L. silvestris] is the L. Z.izyphus, a native of N. Africa and S. Europe, and is to be kept distinct from the water-lilies, L. Nymphcea (of Egypt) and L. Nelumbo (of India and China), which repeatedly occur as a motif in Egyptian and oriental mythology and art. 2 See Wetz. ap. Del. ad loc.

N. M.


("TR), Gen. 30:14 RVs-, EV MANDRAKES [q.v.] Cp ISSACHAR, 2.


(AI-ATTAI), Jude v. 12 RV ; AV feasts of charity. See EUCHARIST, 3.


pDn, hesed), a characteristic term of OT religion, applicable both to Yahwe and to man.

1. Rendering.[edit]

This rendering of hesed may be inadequate, but is certainly preferable to 'mercy' (or 'mercies', which alternates with it in EV). 'Mercy' is an inheritance from the Wycliffite Bible ; Vg. gives misericordia, and Aeos, eXerifj.ocrvi rj, t\fri/j.uv (but also nine times diKaioavvrj, and once Su-cuos). It might have been better to limit the use of mercy to the phrase 'have mercy' ( :|n). Ps. 4 i [2] 62(3] 9i3[i4], etc. Other renderings of hesed in EV are 'favour' (Esth. 2 17 Job 10 12), 'goodness' (Hos. 64). The root meaning may be mildness (so Ges.( 13 )), but, in actual use, hesed is not mere mildness or gentleness. A few classical passages from the OT will prove this statement.

1 On the Syr. equiv. JJJj^, /3aros, cp Low, Pfanz. 275 f.

2 Found also upon a Jewish intaglio, e.g., Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Phoenicia, 2246, fig. 175.

3 We follow H. P. Smith.

2. References.[edit]

1. 1 S. 10:6, For ye showed brotherly kindness to the children of Israel.

2. 1 S. 20:8, Mayest thou show loving-kindness to thy servant, because into a bond sanctioned by Yahwe thou hast brought thy servant.

3. 1 S. 20:14, And should I be yet alive, mayest thou show me the loving-kindness of Yahwe (cp 2 S. 9:3). But should I die, mayest thou not withdraw thy compassion from my house for ever. 3

4. 2 S. 15:20, Return and take thy brethren with thee, and may Yahwe show thee loving-kindness and faithfulness.

5. 1 K. 20:31, The kings of the house of Israel are kindly kings."

6. Hos. 4:1, Hear the word of Yahwe, ye sons of Israel, for Yahwe has a quarrel with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no trustworthiness, no brotherly kindness, no know ledge of God in the land. 1

7. Hos. 6:46, What shall I do to thee, O Ephraim? what shall I do to thee, O Israel?! Your loyal affection was like morning clouds, and like the night-mist which early disappears. . . . For loyal affection do I desire, not sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

8. Hos. 11:1-4, When Israel was young I began to love him ; from (the time that he was in) Egypt, I called him my son. As soon as I called them, they went from me ; they sacri fice to the Baals, they cause smoke to rise to the images. It was I that guided Ephraim, I took him on mine arms ; but they they discerned not that I had redeemed them. The loving-kindness of God I extended to them; I gave much love.'2

9. Mic. 6:8 'God has told thee what is good ; and what does Yahwk requjre of thee except to do justly, to love brotherly kindness, and to celebrate the works of Yahwe? 3

10. Jer. 2:2, I remember in thy behalf the loyal affection of thy youth, the love of thy bridal state.

11. Dt. 7:12, Because ye obey these judgments . . . Yahwe thy God will carry out for thee the covenant and the loving- kindness which he swore to thy fathers.

12. Is. 54:10, My lovingkindness shall not depart from thee, nor shall my covenant of peace remove.

13. Ps. 25:10, All the paths of Yahwe are lovingkindness (so RV) and faithfulness to those that observe his covenant and his statutes.

14. Job 10:12, Favour 1 and lovingkindness thou hast practised towards me, and thy care has watched over my breath.

3. Applications.[edit]

In all these passages it is not mere mildness that is meant, but active kindness, and not necessarily that form of active kindness which Portia calls 'mercy', but, when men solely are concerned, any form of helpfulness. It is in fact the <t>i\a5e\<pia [philadelphia] of the NT, which means a helpfulness born of sympathy. 5 Sympathy in the ancient world was narrow in its range. It existed, properly speaking, only among those who were natural or reputed kinsmen. Israelitish prophets and legislators sought to widen it ; but the task was hard. Certainly it was a bold act on the part of the servants of Benhadad (see 5) to appeal to the htsed of an Israelitish king. The earlier Israelitish kings, however, were, by comparison with other kings, distinguished by their Msed ; it is a gratifying proof of the reality of the higher religion in Israel. Ahab responds to the appeal, and recognises Benhadad as a brother. Perhaps, however, he would not have re sponded thus to the appeal of a Hittite ; the Ara maeans and the Israelites had, after all, some degree of kinship. In this case the merciful of EV is not misleading ; but even EV does not say that the Kenites showed mercy to the children of Israel ; it was a sense of kinship that animated them, and their ser vices were not such as could be called deeds of mercy. In (2) and (3) Jonathan appeals to the real though adoptive brotherhood which united him to David. In (4), if historical, David shows his generosity of feeling ; Ittai, whom he addresses, is a foreigner and an exile ; but he has fought by David s side and eaten his bread ; he is a brother, and receives an Israelite s blessing. (6) and (9) should be grouped. Hosea complains that the social feeling (httsed] which once distinguished Israel has disappeared ; a nameless prophet of a later day makes the cultivation of this feeling one of the three duties of an Israelite, (/( and (8) must also be taken together. From the latter we see what the loving- kindness of God is ; it is neither more nor less than paternal affection. Hosea has nothing to say of a formal covenant between Yahwe and his people ; the only blrith he knows of is the natural one between a father and his son. In return Yahwe looks for filial affection : loyal himself, he expects loyalty from Israel. Jeremiah (see 10) has a similar conception ; it is, how ever, out of the marriage relation, religiously, accord ing to him, that hhed grows ; he calls the forgiving husband of Israel ron, loyally affectionate (EV merciful ), Jer. 3 12.

1 So Wellhausen, Nowack. The text has Judah. See HOSEA (BOOK), 4 .

2 Readings adopted : tw. 1-3 J3 1?, Pesh., Theod. ; N"13, <5 ; "}SK, cp <0 ; Cn/SN, ; TjjniT. So Ruben, and partly Wi. (A T Unters. 18;), Wellhausen. nSm, Pesh., Gra. ; D HH?, Gra. Verse 4 D H^K ~IDn ; TP3"!!!, Che.

3 Readings adopted : D nSx ; Jprb.N nJN^D y DCJrtt (cp Ps. 73 28), Che.

4 Read jn (Beer).

8 Cp trvjuTraSeis, <t\aSeA$<n, i Pet. 3 8.

4. Later modifications.[edit]

In (11), however, a remarkable modification of hesed appears. That Yahwe from the first loved Israel D does not doubt ; but in order that his love may take effect, Israel must give punctual obedience to the prescribed laws. As D puts it, Yahwe will keep his covenant and his loving-kindness for Israel i.e., will show love to Israel upon a certain legal condition. Henceforth the same idea of the divine hesed as limited by the covenant dominates religious writers, and even human hesed ceases to be purely spontaneous : it is still active love ; but it is dictated, and its channels are prescribed, by a written code. 1

The adjective D TOn, hasidlm ( = ipn tyjN, Is. 57 1 Ecclus. 44 1 ; see ASSIDEANS), late in use, means not simply men of filial devotion to God and brotherly kindness towards their fellows, but men who perform the pious deeds (onon) required by the law, and it is nearly = righteous (cp Is. 57 1 (5. avSpes 5i/caioi) ; see CLEAN, PURE, etc. (for <S and Pesh., whose renderings are historically significant). Still, though this sense predominates, we find Ton used once (Ps. 43 1, but the text is doubtful) in the sense of gentle, without any reference to the law, or at most, with an underlying reference to the covenant with Noah, which the heathen were held responsible for neglecting 2 (ji 1 ? ijp Tpn, EV against an ungodly nation ). In the last passage on our list (14) we find Job, in a sad re trospect, referring to the elaborate provisions made for his creatures by the Creator as Msed, loyal affec tion. It is a sign of the strong universalistic tendency of the movement known as Hokmah or WISDOM (q.v. ).

This tendency never ceased. Mt. 645 implies that the divine love is universal. Whilst some Rabbis explained ton rlNEn D ClN^ (Prov. 1434)3 in the sense of Augustine's saying that the virtues of the heathen are only splendida vitia, the famous R. Johanan b. Zakkai gave the charitable interpreta tion, The beneficence of the heathen is (as) a sin-offering (for them) (Baba bathra, 10b).* R. Johanan flourished about 70 A.D.; under the forms of legalism he expresses the spirit of the gospel ; but the true spiritual kinsman of Jesus is Hosea.

T. K. C.




(AozooN [BA]), i Esd. 5 33 = Ezra 2 56, DARRON.


(D O-1 1 ?; D !& in Dan. [so Baer, Ginsb.] ; AlByec [BiXAQL] ; Nah 3 9 2 Ch. 12 3 168, and Dan. 11 43 (EV Lybians )f ; the singular 2-1? probably occurs in Ezek. 30s ; see CHUB). Everywhere, except Nah. 89 (where read probably LUDIM, with Wi. AOF 1 513), 4 Lubim probably represents Libyans (Egypt. Labu, Lebu) ; in Dan., I.e. , EV actually gives Libyans. On the three Libyan invasions of Egypt see Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 434, 461, 471 /. After the third invasion Egypt became slowly flooded by Lib yans. They supplied the Pharaohs with a highly paid militia, and at length a Libyan by descent (Sosenk) actually ascended the throne. See EGYPT, 63.

Stade, Cornill, and Ginsburg would read Lubim for Ludim in Jer. 469 (cp LUD, S 2). It should be noted, however, that the Assyrian inscriptions expressly refer to Lydian troops in the service of Egypt. Cp further, CHUB, LEHABIM.

1 Kraet/schmar, Die Rundesvorst dinner, 127 ; cp 145.

2 See Weber, Jiid. Thcol. 263.

3 EV sin is a reproach to any people, taking inn (with most critics) in the Aramaising sense of disgrace. So Symm. (oi/eiSo?). But , Pesh. suggest IDh, diminution, 1 which is very plausible (so Gra.).

  • See Edersheim, ffitt. cf the Jewish Nation, 149-154.


(AoyKAcLTi. WH]), Philem. v. 24, RV LUKE.


AV8- and RV DAY STAR (^H). the epithet applied to the king of Babylon who in his pride boasts that he will ascend to the heavens and make himself God s equal ; his fate is to be cast down to Shfiol to the uttermost recesses of the pit (Is. 14 12-15). By Jerome and other Fathers the passage was applied to Satan (cp Lk. 10 18).

VTH, Helel, according to the vowel-points (but cp Konig, Lehrgeb. 2<x 106) is an imperative ( howl ), so Pesh. Aq. Jer. ; but the above rendering, which follows <S (o <uj<7<6pot ; 1 cp 2 Pet. 1 19, </><o<7<|>dpO9), Targ. Vg. Rabb. is the only natural one ; it requires us to point Helal i.e., brilliant (so Hi. Ew. Kn. Di.; cp 1T.T).

The description of the doings and of the fate of Helal is so peculiar (note the expressions son of the dawn," stars of God, mount of assembly [see CON GREGATION, MOUNT OF], recesses of the north ), that Gunkel (Schopf. u. Chaos, 132^) recognises an allusion to a Hebrew nature-myth, analogous to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The overpowering of the temporary brilliance of the morning-star by the rays of the sun is compared to a struggle between Elyon and the giant Helal. References to a mythic tradition of warfare in heaven are abundant (see DRAGON, LEVIATHAN, STARS, ORION). But if so, why is there no Babylonian equivalent of Helal ? It seems better to read either S riD, thou famous one (o fell out after the preceding c), or, with a reference to a theory for which much evidence is accumulating through textual criticism, ^Nony, Jerahmeel, i.e., Jerahmeelite op pressor of Israel. See Isaiah, SBOT, Heb. , 199, PARADISE, 4, OBADIAH (BOOK), $/. and cp Crit. Bib.

According to Winckler (6/224), however, Helal is the Arabian Hilal, the new moon, and Tntfi dawn, in Is. 14 12 is a distortion of -\riv (cp inns , ORNAMENTS), moon. He refers to a S. Arabian deity Sahar (inb), of whom a certain priest describes himself as the liegeman. Whether Sahar is a deity of the moon or of the dawn is undecided. But are we justi fied in isolating Is. 14:12 from other passages in which "int? is, from the point of view of textual criticism, doubtful? The key which fits one lock will probably fit another of the same char acter. Read, not 'son of the morning', but 'child of the sun' (onn). T. K. c.


(AoyKioc [Ti.WH]).

i. Roman consul, contemporary with Simon the Maccabee, Antiochus VII. Sidetes, and Ptolemy II. Physcon, i Mace. 15 16 (AeyKlOC [ANV]). He is mentioned in connection with the embassy of NUMENIUS (q.v. ) to Rome. Prob ably Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was consul with M. Popilius Lasnas in 139 B.C. is meant. That Lucius, not Cneius, was the true surname of Piso has been shown by Ritschl. See Schtir. , Hist. i. 1 267 f. , and cp MACCABEES, FIRST, 9 (c).

2. A certain Lucius joins Paul, who is writing from Corinth, in saluting the Christians of Rome, to whom therefore he seems to have been known (Rom. 1621); cp ROMANS, 4, 10. Along with Jason and Sosipater Lucius is there alluded to by Paul as his kinsman ; evidently he was a Jew.

The Pseudo-Hippolytus makes him bishop of Laodicea in Syria, as also does the Pseudo-Dorotheus, giving his name, however, as Aouicaj. In the Apostolical Constitutions (7 46) he is said to have been ordained bishop of Cenchreae by Paul. He is possibly the same as

3. Lucius of Cyrene, one of the prophets and teachers of the church in Antioch (Actsl3i) who set apart Barnabas and Paul for the mission to the Gen tiles ; cp MINISTRY. He was doubtless one of those men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, upon the dispersion from Jerusalem consequent on the martyrdom of Stephen, had come to Antioch, and there spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.

1 Cp Ps. 1103 where for "ine>O we have trpb i<a<r<}>6pov , ante lucifervm, Vg.

LUD, LUDIM[edit]

H-l 1 ?). i. (AoyA [AEL]), Gen. 10:22, (Sam. 1?) = i Ch. 1:17 (B om. ). Lud was the fourth son of Shem, according to P. Most scholars since Bochart have followed Josephus (Ant. i. 64), who makes Lud the founder (/crt<re) of the Lydians. A sudden spring to Asia Minor, however, does not seem very probable ; or was P really entirely ignorant of the situation of Lydia? Histori cally, too, there are grave objections to making Lud the brother of Asshur. Lydia was never conquered by the Assyrians in spite of the boastful assertion of Asur-bani-pal (Smith, Assurb. 65 15) that Gugu, king of Lud (Lud-di), took the yoke of his kingdom. Did P really transfer the circumstances of the Persian age (for Cyrus did conquer and annex Lydia) to the Assyrian period (cp GEOGRAPHY, 21)?

It would really be less bold, when we remember the enormous amount of corruption among the OT proper names, to infer the need of textual emendation. It is probable that tfj-y (Elam) in Gen. 14 i (see SODOM) and also QIN (Aram) in Gen. 22:21 (see KEMUEL) have arisen out of ^KCrn (Jerahmeel), and perhaps still more probable that in Ps. 889 [8] -njf-N (Asshur) should be TIB 1 } (Geshur). May not these emendations be applicable in Gen. 10 22 ? In this case we shall do best to suppose that in the original text of P s list neither -p^ nor mx appeared, but ^NDm (ll S may have come from ^xi, and be, equally with CIN, a fragment of ^NOrn )- Verse 22 will then run, The sons of Shem : Geshur, and Arpachshad, and Jerahmeel, and ISJODIN (EV Arpachshad) will be best explained as BHJ3 3HJJ (Arfib-Kadesh = theN. Arabian Kadesh). But cp ARPACHSHAD.

The view of Lud here proposed accords with the explanation given elsewhere (NiMRon) of Gen. \Qiof. It will then be natural to emend the traditional text of vv. 13 f. as proposed under MIZRAIM, changing Ludim into Q Spna, Carmelim i.e., the people of Carmel (cp MAON).

2. Elsewhere, where the name appears, Lud is taken by some to refer to the Lydians (see PUT) ; but perhaps it rather means a N. African people.

The passages are Is. 66 19 (AouS [BAQ], Aoufl [#], AvSovy [Symm. in Qn K-}) Ezek. 27 10 30s ([but here AV LYDIA], Aufioi [BAQ]), see GEOGRAPHY, 22. Dn? 1 ?, LUDIM, the plur. form, is the name of a son of M izraim (EGYPT) in Gen. 10 1 3 (J) = i Ch. In [Kr.], cril 1 ? [Kt.] (Aovfiiei/a [AL], -iv [E], AwSte^ [A in i Ch. 1 ii, B om.]), and recurs in Jer. 46 9 (AuSoi [BKAQ], AV LYDIANS). The singular form (Lud) occurs in Ezek. 27 10 30 5 Is. (56 19.

In Jeremiah the Ludim appear with Egypt, Cush, and Put (Libya) ; so also in Ezek. 30s ; and in Isaiah with Tarshish, Put (by a probable text emendation ; Che., Di., Du. , etc., after @), Tubal, and Javan. We know nothing more. Hence the hypothesis of Stade (De Pop. Javan, $ff. =Akad. Reden [1899], 139 ff.} that we have in Gen. lOia (so also Del. Par. 310) and in Jer. 469 (so also Co. and Gies. ) a textual error for D ui 1 ?, LUBIM [q.v.~\, whilst Lud in Ezek. and Is. is the same as Lud in Gen. 1022, and is used loosely as a distant people, on account of the assonance with Phut (ms) has some plausibility (see also WMM, As. u. Eur. 115). See, however, above (i, end) and PUT, 2, and note Dillmann s adverse judgment on these alterations. It is at any rate difficult to explain Ezek. 30s in this way, and the motive, and also indeed the possibility, of the corruption of Lubim into Ludim in at least two of the passages are by no means clear.

T. K. C. (i) ; F. B. (2).


(JVnn nlfO ; in Jer. Kt. nin?n), a locality in Moab rnentioned between Zoarand Horonaim, Is. 15s (ANA.BACIC [THC] Aoyeie [BXAQr]) ; Jer. 48 5 (enAHC9H [as if from I^D to fill ] AAu>0 [BJt*W] A.Aee [*], A.AA609 [AQ]). Some have identified it with Sarfa, N. of the Wady Kerak, where there are ruins described by de Saulcy. This, however, is premature. The most probable read ing of the text, the present writer thinks, is Q^iy nSjro, the ascent of EGLAIM [?..], the same place as that referred to in Is. 158 ; it lay near the S. border of Moab.

What authority (if any) Eusebius had for his statement that the city Lueitha was situated between Areopolis and Soar (<9.S"( 2 ) 2 ?6, 43), we know not. Nor can we listen to the editors of the CIS (2ig6 ; cp/. As. mai-juin, 1891, p. 538 ; ZA Szsgjf. 6149^) when they point out the n rM.l] of Is. in a Nabatean inscription found in Moab.

The words of the inscr. are in rta H KnntfD 3T SaTTK- Lagrange and No., however, read, not irrn^a, but ijvna- Right method, moreover, requires us to begin by examining the text of Is. 16:5. Such an examination discloses to us a double reading, fTfVp nVjJ? (transposition has taken place) and rrniWl n jyD- riVyo i s f course preferable to rrtshvf, but ^jj; is more correct than mSn [Jer. n*?n] .I n, or rather jr, should no doubt be Q. Thus we get a^jy n^VD- See EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH. T. K. C.


  • is named only three times in NT.

1. In NT.[edit]

According to Philem. 24 he was a fellow-labourer with Paul ; according to Col. 4:14, a physician who was specially dear (6 aycnrriTos) to the apostle. 2 Both letters, which according to Philem. 1:11-12. Col. 4 3 7-9 18 were despatched simultaneously by Paul in his captivity, contain a salutation from Luke to the recipients. Luke, however, is in neither case named as a fellow- prisoner with Paul ; in the one case ( Philem. 23) it is EPAPHRAS, in the other (Col. 4:10) it is ARISTARCHUS who is so designated. In 2 Tim. 4:11 it is said that only Luke is with the apostle ; whether as a fellow-prisoner is not stated. In any case the situation is quite different from that disclosed in the other two epistles in so far as we are here in the present instance informed that all the apostle s other companions have forsaken him. According to 1:8, 1:16, 2:9, 2 Tim. also was written from a captivity. Even where the Epistle is not held to be genuine, it is often supposed that 4:9-18 along with 4:19-22a are a genuine note (or two notes) written by the apostle, and from captivity. From what captivity - whether or not the same as that referred to in Col. and Philem. - cannot be discussed here (cp PAUL, 30).

2. Jew or Gentile.[edit]

In Col. 4:10-14, a classification is made of the companions of Paul. Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus are grouped together as being of the circumcision (ot &vrfs IK trepi.Top.ris) ; then comes Epaphras with the words added, 'who is one of you' (6 ^ \jfj.Civ), in other words a Gentile Christian ; finally are named Luke and Demas. The inference is that these two also are Gentile Christians. This holds good also if Aristarchus proves to be a Gentile Christian. According to Acts 20:4 he belongs to Thessalonica, and according to a very probable con jecture (GALATIA, 22) he is selected to be representa tive of the essentially Gentile Christian community there in conveying to Jerusalem their contribution on behalf of the poor there.

To the words who are of the circumcision (ol oVret K TreptTo/^TJs) in Col. 4:11 is added the expression these only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God (OVTOI fj-ovoi ffvvfpyol et s TTJV f3a.(Tt\eia.i> TOV Oeou). If this be taken literally Epaphras Luke, and Demas were no fellow-workers of Paul -as in Col. 4:12-13. (Epaphras), Philem. 24 (Luke and Demas), they are said to have been. To obviate this contradiction it has been proposed to delete the mark of punctuation after circumcision, with the supposed result of making the persons named (with or without Aristarchus) to be the sole fellow- workers of Paul who were of Jewish birth, though besides these there were others of Gentile origin. To delete the mark of punctuation, however, whether period or comma, is impossible, unless these (oCroc) also be deleted, and this no one has ventured to do. If these is left, we have a manner of expression which must, to say the least, be described as exceedingly careless. If it be borne in mind that the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians is by no means free from doubt, the ex pression can even rouse a suspicion that vv. 10-14 were not written by a single author at one writing, but that either vv. 12-14 ar e an addition, or that v. n (with or without oi 8vres IK irepirop.^) is an interpolation. At the same time, even where the Epistle to the Colossians is not regarded as genuine as a whole, there is a disposi tion for the most part to regard the personal notices in 4:7-15 as a genuine fragment ; and finally it is not too difficult to suppose that v. 11 is to be supplemented thus : these alone that is to say among those of Jewish birth are fellow-workers. In any case this course is an easier one than that of bracketing of the circumcision these only (K ireptrofj.^ obrot /j.6voi} so as to make fellow-workers ((rvvepyoi) the immediate continuation of who are (ol 6vres).

Luke thus remains in any case a Gentile Christian unless we regard the whole passage as too insecure to allow of our founding anything upon it.

1 On the name see 6.

2 In Marcion s NT (Zahn, Einl. 1 647 2 528) the words o larpbf 6 ayaTnjTOf were wanting ; cp 3.

3. Authorship of Third Gospel and Acts.[edit]

The interest which Luke has for students of the NT turns almost entirely on the belief that he was the author of the Third Gospel and of Acts. This 'tradition' however, cannot be traced farther back than towards the end of the second century (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian fragment) ; J there is no sound basis for the contention of Zahn (2 175) that the existence of the tradition can also be found as early as in Marcion because that writer, from his aversion to the Third Gospel (which neverthe less was the only one he admitted into his collection with alterations it is true) omitted the expression of honour applied to Luke in Col. 4:14. In ACTS, i, 9, 15-16, and GOSPELS, 153, it has been shown that it is impossible to regard Luke with any certainty as the writer even of the we sections of Acts, not to speak of the whole book of Acts, or of the Third Gospel.

4. Inferences, the authorship being assumed.[edit]

The assumption, however, that as an evangelist Luke must have been an eye-witness of the events of the earthly life of Jesus, and as the author of Acts, a companion of Paul, led to certain inferences:

  • (a) From the fourth century onwards 2 he was held to have been one of the seventy (Lk. 10:1), although this is excluded not only by the fact of the gentile origin of the historical Luke but also by what the Third Evangelist says of himself (1:2).
  • (b) It can proceed only from a misunderstanding of the words ( TrapTjKO\ovdr)- KOTL irdcriv) of Lk. 1:3 (cp col. 1790), as if all (iraaiv) were masculine, when Irenaeus (iii. 11:1 [10:1] 14:2) with

express citation of this text mentions Luke as having been a disciple of several apostles, not only of Paul,

  • (c) In like manner, from the fourth century onwards (Lipsius, 360, 362, 367) Luke was identified with the unnamed disciple at Emmaus (Lk. 24:18) ; being assumed to be the author of the gospel, he was believed to have withheld his name out of modesty,
  • (d) The assumption that he was the author of Acts led to the further belief that he was the companion of Paul not only in his captivity, but also during his journeys, either during those portions only which are spoken of in the first person, or throughout the whole of them. In the nine teenth century this also led to his being identified with Silas = Silvanus, because it was thought easier to attribute the we portions to Silas (see ACTS, 9). So, for example, van Vloten, 7AVT, 1867, p. zz^f., 1871, pp. 431-434. The identification was thought permissible on the ground that lucus and silva are synonymous.
  • (e) On the assumption that Luke was author of the Acts Clement of Alexandria 3 held him to be also the translator of Paul s epistle to the Hebrews, written in Hebrew, the linguistic character of the Greek text being similar to that of Acts.
  • (f) A medical language was discovered in the Third Gospel and in Acts (so Hobart, 1882), and also in Hebrews (so Franz Delitzsch in his Commentary, 1857 [KT, 1868-70], condensed in the introduction to the and ed. of the commentary of Meyer - Lunemann).
  • (g) According to Zahn ( 58, 6) it is possible that even the legend which represents Luke as a painter and attributes to him various pictures of the mother of Jesus (the legend is first met with in Theodorus Lector, Hist. Eccl. 1 1, dating from the first half of the 6th cent. ) may rest upon misunderstanding of the word (<ca#-) Icrropfiv, which in the Byzantine period meant to paint and which is used in the passage of Theod. Lector just cited.
  • (h) Apart from the same presupposition which regarded Luke as an author, Origen (Horn. 1 in Lucam, 8933^ F, ed. de la Rue), or rather his unnamed predecessors, would not have identified Luke with the anonymous 'brother' of 2 Cor. 8:18 whose praise in the Gospel (i.e., in the oral preaching of the gospel) was spread through all the churches.
  • (i) Ramsay, we may presume, apart from this presupposition, would hardly have extended this last theory still farther, so as to hold that this Luke was the full brother of Titus who is mentioned immediately before, and that he was a native of Philippi (St. Paul, 203, 213, 219, 248^. , 286, 389^., etc.). There are, for instance, some small touches in Acts which Ramsay thinks he is able to explain by taking their author to be a native of Philippi.
  • (k) On the other hand, from the uncanonical text of Acts 11:28 where we is used, others have sought to make out that Antioch in Syria is indicated as the home of Luke. The form of the text, however, may, on the contrary, rest on a previously existing tradition regarding Antioch (ACTS, 17, m) ; it has no attestation earlier than the time of Augustine. 1

1 For all that follows, cp especially Lipsius, Apokryph. Aposte geschichtcn. ii. 2354-371, and Zahn, Einl., 58.

2 Earliest of all in Adamantius, Dial, tie recta fide ( = contra Marcionistas) in Orig. ed. de la Rue, 1 806 D.

3 In the Hypotyposes, according to Eus. ///?vi. 14 2 ; in the adumbrationes to i Pet. ad fin., 1007 ed. Potter.

6. Birthplace.[edit]

In substance the Antioch tradition is met with at a considerably earlier date.

Ramsay (see above, 4, i) lays stress (op. cit. 389) upon the fact that Eusebius (HE iii. 4:6), whom he regards as the earliest authority 'for it does not say that Luke was an Antiochian' ; he merely speaks of him as "being according to birth of those from Antioch " (TO \ikv yeVo? !av T<av O.TT Avrto^fi at). This curious and awkward expression is obviously chosen in order to avoid the statement that Luke was an Antiochian. Eusebius was aware, according to Ramsay, that Luke belonged to a family that had a connection with Antioch, namely, to a family that had emigrated from Philippi to Antioch. Even should this in terpretation be correct it would be deprived of all its value by the circumstance that Eusebius himself in the Quiesfiones Evangelicir ad Stephanuin (of which Mai, as early as 1847, published fragments from a Cate/ia of Nicetas in No^>a patrum Bibliotheca [4i]) writes : o 8e Aon/cat TO ftfv ye co? arrb TTJS /Soai- jieVrjs \vT(.o\fia<; TJI/ (p. 270 : Luke was by birth a native of the renowned Antioch ). Should it be held doubtful whether the words just quoted actually come from Eusebius inasmuch as certain statements in their vicinity are irreconcilable with the views of Eusebius known to us from other sources, Spitta (Der Brief dcs Julius Africaniis an Aristiiies, 1877, p. 70-73, in) has rendered it probable that they were written by Julius Africanus and thus as early as in the first half of the third century. Of equal antiquity is the Latin prologue to the Third Gospel (in Wordsworth, .A 7 /" fo//c, 1 269) which has been thoroughly dis cussed by Corssen (Mcnarchianische Protege zu i/en 4 Evan- gelien m Texteu. Untersuch. 15 i, 1896) ; its words are: Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis.

This does not, however, prove that Antioch was really the home of Luke. It is very questionable whether those of the third century were in possession of a correct tradition on the subject, and on the other hand it is very conceivable that a mere conjecture may have been adopted. Many critics think that there has been a confusion of Luke with Lucius who is mentioned in Acts 13:1 as present in Antioch. He belonged, however, to Cyrene.

1 Since the art. ACTS was printed. Harnack also has elabor ately controverted the genuineness of the reading in question (SB A W, 1899, pp. 316-327).

6. Name.[edit]

We need not, however, question the possibility of the name Lucas having given rise to confusion with this Lucius. The termination -as was employed as an abbreviation for a great variety of longer terminations (see NAMES, 86) and in Patrobas (Rom. 16:14) we have a name which in all probability arose out of Patrobius. Besides Lucius, such various names as Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, Lucianus, Lucanus, could all produce the abbreviation Lucas. In any case the name is of Latin origin.

Lucanus is given for Lucas as the name of the Evangelist in several MSS. of the Vetus Itala (e.g., Old Latin Biblical Texts, 285, etc.)- Cp An-oAAuii i.os in D for An-oAAcus (supr. col. 262, n.). In CJG, apart from Christian inscriptions, the name Aou/ca? occurs only twice in both cases in Egypt (84759, and Add. 4700 k). The identification of Luke with the Lucius mentioned by Paul in Rom. 1621 an identification that is mentioned even by Origen (4 686 DE, ed. de la Rue) cannot be maintained, Lucius having been a Jew.

In the form of the Prologue already mentioned, which is to be found in the Opera Hieronymi, ed. Vallarsi, xi. 3, 42, there is added immediately after the name of Luke the expression ipse consurgens. In the Liber interpre- tationis hebr. noininuin (Vallarsi, 3 113 116 ; see also OS 77 14 79 16) Jerome explains the name as meaning ipse consurgens aut [sive] ipse elevans. In a Greek codex of similar contents (see OS 174so) we read Aouicas aurbs avitniav , in a Vatican col lection printed in Wiener Studien, 1895, p. 157, we find iste consurgens. Professor Nestle in a private letter to the present writer explains that here as in New Greek and in the Romance languages the accusative (Lucam) is taken as the basis and ex plained as equivalent to Cp 1> Thus it will be only by a mis understanding that in the Sermo in natali S. Luca: attributed to Abbot Bertharius of Monte Cassino (856-884) the original language of the name is called JEolic. In fact in the Hotniliie jireestantissimorum eccles. cathol. tioctoruin ab Alcuino collcctce (Cologne, 1576, p. 953^, middle), cited by Lipsius (p. 366), the passage runs : Lucas siquidem Police ; in nostra autem lingua mterpretatur consurgens sive elevans.

7. Other later traditions.[edit]

The oldest of the traditions regarding Luke that do not depend on the assumption of his authorship of the Third Gospel and of Acts is met with in the Prologue already referred to : serviens deo sine crimine ; nam neque uxorem umquam habens neque filios annorum obiit in Bithynia plenus spiritu sancto. The years of his life are sometimes also given as 73, 78, 80, 83 or 84 (Lipsius, 359, 365, 367). The last-named figure coincides with the age of Anna (Lk. 2:37). As fields of his activity Achaia and Boeotia are sometimes mentioned instead of Bithynia ; also Alexandria or Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia or the region of the Danube. Down to the fifth century tradition was unanimous in attributing to him a natural death ; the place generally named being Thebes in Bceotia, but occasionally Thebes in Egypt, or Ephesus. It was only at a later date that the opinion arose that he had suffered martyrdom by crucifixion on an olive tree like Andrew, and, according to one account, even along with that apostle at Patras in Achaia. This plainly rests upon the fact that in 357 his relics were transported along with those of Andrew to Constantinople. According to other accounts he was beheaded, either in Rome, or in Alexandria.

For the Gospel according to Luke, see GOSPELS, 10-12, 21, 24-33, 37"43> 64, 66yl, 76, 80, 82, 98, 101, 107-111, 116, 120-127, 132-140, 142, 144-145, 147, 153, etc. P. W. S.

1 [Subjoined is what may he called the authorised ecclesiastical trtdition as contained in the Breviurium Romanum (18th Oct.). Lucas medicus Antiochensis, ut ejus scripta indicant, Graeci sermonis non ignarus, fuit sectator Apostoli Pauli, et omnis peregrinationis ejus comes. Scripsit Evangelium, de quo idem Paulus : Misimus, inquit, cum illo fratrem, cujus laus est in Evangelic per omnes ecclesias. Et ad Colossenses : Salutat vos Lucas, medicus carissimus. Et ad Timotheum ; Lucas est mecum solus. Aliud quoque edidit volumen egregium, quod titulo, Acta Apostolorum, praenotatur : cujus historia usque ad biennium Romas comxnorantis Pauli pervenit, id est, usque ad quartum Neronis annum. Ex quo intelligimus, in eadem urbe librum esse compositum.

Igitur periodos Pauli et Theclae, et totam baptizati Leonis fabulam, inter apocryphas scripturas computamus. Quale enim est, ut individuus comes Apostoli inter ceteras ejus res hoc solum ignoraverit ? Sed et Tertullianus vicinus eorum temporum refert Presbyterum quemdam in Asia amatorem Apostoli Pauli, convictum a Joanne, quod auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, et ob id loco excidisse. Quidam suspicantur, quotiescumque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit, Juxta Evangelium meum, de Lucae significare volumine.

Lucam autem non solum ab Apostolo Paulo didicisse Evan- gelium, qui cum Domino in carne non fuerat, sed a ceteris Apostolis : quod ipse quoque in principio sui voluminis declarat, dicen.; : Sicut tradiderunt nobis, qui a principio ipsi viderunt et ministri fuerunt sermonis. Igitur Evangelium, sicut audierat, scripsit : Acta vero Apostolorum, sicut viderat ipse, composuit. Vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens : sepultus est Constantinopoli : ad quam urbem vigesimo Constantim anno ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andreas Apostoli translatasunt de Achaia. ]


(ceAHNiAZO/weNOi [Ti. WH]). This term occurs only twice in the NT, viz., Mt. 4:24 and 17:15. The revisers deliberately rendered epileptic, on the ground that a Greek medical authority of the seventh century expressly states that eTriA^Trrt/cos was the scientific term, and that dai/j,ovi 6/j.evoi and a-e\ijvia- 6fj.evoi were popular terms for the same disease. See passage quoted from Leo in Ermerin's 'Anecdota medico' by G. Marshall in Guardian, March 9, 1892. It is a mistake to suppose that in Mt. 4 24 the a e\rjv iao /ievoi are distinguished from the 8aifjiovi^6fji.evoi ; it is plain from a comparison of passages that lunatics are mentioned as examples of the class of demoniacs, and paralytics of those tormented with pain. As the periodicity of the attacks of epilepsy was supposed to be determined by the changes of the moon (see Wetstein in loc. ), those thus afflicted were called ffe\i)ina. 6fj.ei>oi, lunatic or moonstruck. Cp MADNESS.


(hi), Is. 5 12, RV [AV viol ]; and KINYP& i Macc. 4 54 RV [AV harp ]). See Music, -j ff.


(N 1 ?, AOYZA [BADEL]).

I. Another name of BETHEL [>.z>.], Gen. 28I9 1 356 48 3 Josh. 162 (see below), 1813 Judg. 1:23. Of these passages the oldest come from P ; but the identification of Bethel and Luz must be much older than P ; it is implied, indeed, in Judg. 12:2-26 (v. 23^ is a late gloss). Whence did Luz derive its name? The lexicons say, from vh, an almond tree ; but Lagarde is probably right in rejecting this view. The almond scarcely grows at Bethel. The rugged hills on the side of which BETHEL stands may, thinks Lagarde (Uebers. 157 /. , n.**), have been likened to an os sacrum (n 1 ?). Winckler (G/ 26s), however, more plausibly explains it by Ar. 'laud' as an appellative = asylum, a suitable name for a sanctuary. Accord ing to him, the two oldest and most important temples of the land of Israel that at Bethel and that at Dan were both called Luz (see LAISH) in the sense of 'asylum'. 2 Still more probably may we take [njn 1 ? (cp (55) to be shortened and corrupted from nxj?n, strong (city). Whether the story has a historical basis, we know not. The Josephites may perhaps originally have been specified as the conquerors of Luz (?) in the land of the Hittites (?). See 2.

In Josh. 16:2 RV gives, and it went out from Bethel to Luz, which seems to distinguish Bethel from Luz. Dillmann, Bennett, and others omit Pltl? ( Luzah ) as a gloss. Gratz, however, thinks, comparing i S. 12/1, that, for ^KVI a at the end of v. i we should probably read J1KVP3, and for 7N~n 3D we should read |lNTT3p, rendering ... to Beth-aven, and it went out from Beth-aven to Luz. T. K. C.

2. A city said to have been founded in the land of the Hittites by a family which had had to migrate from Bethel or Luz, Judg. 1:26. Some suppose that Hittites in this phrase is used vaguely (like Canaan- ites ), or that we have here a redactional insertion re ferring to a NE. Syrian empire. See HITTITES ( 4). But should not Hittites be Rehobothites and Luz be Halusah (see REHOBOTH, SHECHEM, ZIKLAG)? There is a strong plausibility in the emendations else where which support this view. There was probably a southern Beth-el containing the sanctuary of Halusah, otherwise called Dan (where Jeroboam placed his golden calf). Another tradition (Judg. 18) assigned the conquest of Laish( = Luz = Halusah) to the Danites (cp MICAH, 2).

1 Gen. 28ig ovAa/u/ixavs [A], -aous [DE*L], -^oi/ous [E 0? ] ; nSlN precedes, cp Judg. 1829 BA.

T 2 W. M. Miiller (As. u. Eur. 165) finds the name Luz repro duced as Ru-da in the lists of Rameses II. and III. It may be so ; but Gaza appears to be the next place (cp RPW 6 27).

3 Isauria (Isaurica ; Strabo, lo-ai/pnoj) is the hill-country ex tending from Lystra to the town Isaura, in Strabo and Ptolemy, and was part of Cilicia Tracheia. Subsequently, the name Isauria was extended to include all the districts of Cilicia Tracheia (see Rams. Hist. Geogr. of A .1/450).


(AYKAONl&[Ti. WH]), twice mentioned in Acts 14. In v. 6 Lystra and Derbe are 'cities of Lycaonia' (7r6Xeis T?S A.VKaovias) ; in v. 11 the people speak in the speech of Lycaonia (AvKaoviffrl).

1. Position.[edit]

In its original extent, Lycaonia, the country of the Lycaones, was the vast, treeless region which like a broad band runs athwart the plateau constituting the interior of Asia Minor, from Galatia proper, the zone of undulating country on the northern edge of the plateau, to the offshoots of Mt. Taurus and the confines of Pisiclia and Isauria (Cilicia Tracheia). 3 The boundaries varied at different times. The fact that Iconium was the last city of Phrygia (Xen. Anab. i. 2 19) gives us a fixed point on the original boundary, which must have fallen between Iconium and Lystra ; consequently, the apostles, being driven out of Iconium, crossed the frontier from Phrygia into Lycaonia (Acts 14:6). Nevertheless, Iconium was generally reckoned a Lycaonian town, in defiance of history and local feeling. N. of Iconium, Laodiceia Combusta (Katakekaumene) was on the frontier, being reckoned to Lycaonia (Strabo, 663), so that the line must have run between that town and Tyriaeum. On the east Lake Tatta divided Lycaonia from Cappadocia ; and, farther south, the range called Karadja-Dagh and the lake Ak Geul were on the line. The frontier on the north and south is indeterminate. Lycaonia was thus largely co-extensive with the plain called Axylon ( Treeless, see above) by the Greeks, which is thus described by Hogarth (A Wandering Scholar in the Levant, 85) :

Cartographers write this tract a Desert, and therefore that term must include an undulating treeless plain which sends up corn breast-high for the scratching of a Homeric plough. Fresh water is found everywhere at less than twenty feet, and deep grass grows in the marshy hollows through which streams creep to the central lake. 1

Nor is it very level, being broken by the Boz-Dagh and other hills. The wells which supply the drinking water must be very ancient (Strabo, 568). The plain afforded excellent pasturage for sheep, and gave op portunity for making large fortunes by the trade in wool. It was on the Lycaonian downs that Amyntas grazed his 300 flocks (Strabo, I.e. ).

2. History.[edit]

Lycaonia had no history as a separate independent country. Until 190 B.C. it was included within the Syrian (Seleucid) Empire. At some time ween 189 and 133 B.C., probably about 160 B.C., the entire tract W. of Lake Tatta, southwards as far as Iconium and Lystra inclusive, was added as a tetrarchy to Galatia proper, making one of the twelve tetrarchies into which Galatia was divided (Plin. f/N5gs). This Lycaonian tetrarchy included fourteen cities, of which Iconium was the chief. The rest of Lycaonia from Derbe eastwards to Castabala on Mt. Amanus, was given, in 129 B.C., to the sons of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, in reward for their father s loyalty (Justin, 37 1, Strabo, 534^)- This was called the Eleventh Strategia of Cappadocia (rty (TriKTrjTov, sc. ffTpaTijyiav, Strabo, 537). Thus Lycaonia fell into two parts, the added tetrarchy, and the Eleventh Strategia. In 64 B.C. Pompeius re organised the country after the defeat of Mithradates.

The northern part of the tetrarchy was permanently attached to Galatia proper and it retained its name of Added Land (Trpoa eiArj/mjuf i i), Ptol. v. 4:10) ; the southern and most valuable part of the old tetrarchy was detached. 2 Similarly, it was only the eastern part of the old Eleventh Strategia that was allowed to continue to belong to Cappadocia ; the frontier was drawn W. of Cyhistra. The southern part of the tetrarchy, and the western part of the Strategia i.e., the entire south-western section of Lycaonia was attached as the Lycaonian Dicecesis to the Province of Cilicia. The district of Derbe and Laranda was administered by Antipater of Derbe under the supervision of the Roman governor of Cilicia, who also retained the right of way through eastern Lycaonia (i.e., the Cappadocian part of the Strategia: cp Cic. Ad Faw.lSjz; 15 1, cum excrcitum in Ciliciam ditcerem, in finibus Lycaonix et Cappadociie. Id. Ad Att. v. 21 9 ; Plin. fftfb 25).

In 40 B.C., when Antonius regulated Asia Minor, the south-western portion of Lycaonia was formed into a kingdom for Polemon, son of Zeno, a rhetorician of Laodiceia on the Lycus, along with Isauria (Appian, BC57S : cp Strabo, 569, 577). Iconium was his capital (Strabo, 568). In 36 B.C. the kingdom of Polemon was given to Amyntas, who ruled over Pisidic Phrygia and Pisidia proper : at the time Galatia proper (including, of course, the Added Land) was given to him. Antipater of Derbe had taken advantage of the Civil Wars to make himself completely independent ; consequently Amyntas, who was a loyal agent of Rome, was allowed to destroy him, and to annex his territory. Lycaonia was thus, with the exception of the eastern part of the old Strategia, wholly within the realm of Amyntas ; and when Amyntas was slain in 25 B.C. it became part and parcel of the vast Province of Galatia. 1 Subsequently, in 37 A. D. , eastern Lycaonia (i.e., the Cappadocian part of the old Eleventh Strategia), having been placed under Antiochus IV. , king of Commagene, became known as Lycaonia Antiochiana ( Apriox ciJ T?, sc. x^P a Ptol. v. 617 ; CIL 10 8660). In 41 A. D. this arrangement was confirmed by Claudius, who also detached from Galatia the extreme south-eastern corner of Lycaonia viz. , Laranda and its territory and transferred it to Antiochus.

The reason for this lay in the fact that Antiochus was king of Cilicia Tracheiotis, and Laranda was the centre from which radi ated the roads running through Tracheiotis to the coast (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of A 3/361). Coins with the legend AYKAONON were struck by Antiochus, probably at Laranda.

1 See Murray s Handb. to AM 161. Ramsay, on the other hand, describes it less favourably.

2 The line of demarcation passed, probably, just N. of Savatra or Soatra on the eastern highway.

3. In Paul's time.[edit]

This state of things lasted until 72 A.D. , when Vespasian considered the Roman isation of the Tracheiotis complete, and incorporated the kingdom of Antiochus in the provincial system (Suet. Vesp. 8). From this it is clear that at the time of Paul s visit (about 50 A.D.) Derbe was the frontier city of Galatia Provincia in this quarter, and therefore he went no farther eastwards (Acts 14:21). It is also clear that the bulk of the Lycaonians were, from the Roman point of view, Galatians, men of the Province Galatia (Gal. 3i i Cor. 16 i); for in Paul's time Lycaonia, always fated to be divided, fell into two parts Galatic Territory (FaXart/cTj X^P"- Acts 1823) or Lycaonia Galatica, 2 and Antiochian Territory or Lycaonia Antiochiana. The former, or the Roman part of Lycaonia, the only part in which Paul worked, is mentioned three times in Acts Acts 146 (where it is defined by the enumeration of its cities, as Paul entered from Phrygia Galatica), Actsl6i (defined again by the enumeration of the cities, as Paul entered from Lycaonia Antiochiana), and Acts 1823 (defined by reference to the Province, as Paul entered from the non-Roman part). 3

4. Culture, etc.[edit]

The Lycaonians were probably the aboriginal race conquered by the immigrant Phrygians about the tenth century B.C. For their religion and character see Ramsay's Hist Comm. on Galatians, 19+. The cities were probably mostly the foundations of Greek kings (especially of the Seleucids), which accounts, among other things, for the influence and numbers of the Jews therein (Acts 14:19). Lycaonia or South Galatia possessed, long before the advent of the Romans, some Hellenised cities on the great commercial route. Greek was the language of commerce, and these cities were/t> of Graeco- Roman influence. The villages and rustic districts were the last to be Hellenised ; but those of southern Lycaonia felt the movement a full century before those of Galatia proper.

The governing (Latin) race was confined to the garrison towns or colonies ; and to the towns in general the commercial element, Hellenic or Jewish, would also be confined in the main. In the country and the remoter towns the native element survived (see LYSTRA). Of the Lycaonian language nothing is known (for three inscriptions in this obscure dialect, cp Journ. of Hell. Studies, 11 157).

There was thus an essential contrast between the society and civilisation of Lycaonia, or South Galatia, and the northern part of the province (i.e. , Galatia proper). Greek civilisation did not establish itself in North Galatia until very late ; not earlier than 150 A.D. was it dominant even in the cities (Ramsay develops and proves this at great length in Hist. Comm. on Galatians, 1341; cp Momms. Prov. of K. Emp. i28/).

This phenomenon resulted from the fact that the Lycaonian plain was traversed by two main arteries of communication (i) the trade-route from the Euphrates to Ephesus, crossing Lycaonia from E. to W. by Laodiceia Combusta (Strabo, 663) ; (2) from the Cilician Gates and Laranda, through Derbe, Iconium, and Antioch, uniting with the first-named road at Metropolis in Phrygia. 1

Hence the diffusion of Christianity, being strictly conditioned by the geographical and historical relations of the various districts, started from Iconium as centre for the whole of Lycaonia, and the ecclesiastical system of Lycaonia was highly developed at an early period. In northern Galatia the centre was Ancyra, and the line along which the movement travelled was that leading from Bithynia through Juliopolis (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM 197 240) a route which came largely into use only when the centre of the Roman world was moved to the shores of the Bosphorus. See further, GALATIA.

1 Dio Cass. 53 26 : TOW AUVVTOV reAf UTJJO-OCTOS, r/ TaAarta pcra rijs Avxaociaf Ptojiaiof apxavra. f<r\(.

1 This title is not indeed actually found as yet, but is proved by the analogy of Pontus Galaticus as distinguished from Pontus Polemoniacus, and Phrygia Galatica ( = TT\V Qpvyiav icai roAaTKrijK \upa.v of Acts 16 6) as distinguished from Phrygia Asiana.

3 [See, however, GALATIA, 9-14.]


Ramsay in Hist. Geogr. of AM, pass. ; later, and with greater accuracy, in Hist. Comm. on Galatians, Joss. See for inscriptions, Sterrett in IVolfe Expedition to Asia Minor. These supersede, as regards history, the older travellers to whom reference should be made for description. Views in Davis, Asiatic Turkey (pass.). Coins, Brit. Mus. Cat. of Greek Coins Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria, 1900. W. J. W.


(AyKlA, Acts 27s). the SW. part of Asia Minor between Cariaand Pamphylia, where the Taurus range descends in masses to the sea, forming a rugged coast with several good harbours (Strabo, 664). The inhabitants, who called themselves Tramele (Te/>yU/Xcu), were apparently the descendants of a conquering tribe allied to the Greeks, which crossed the Hellespont from Europe and established itself among the original Semitic population.

[The Lycians, though not mentioned in Gen. 10, were well known as a maritime people, not only to the Greeks, but also to the Egyptians, who called them Ruku or Luk (WMM As. u. Ear. 354 362). They are also mentioned in one of the Amarna Letters (28 10-12) as plundering Alasiya (Cyprus? Crete ?).]

In course of time the conquerors were themselves absorbed into the body of the conquered race. Through out western Asia Minor from the very dawn of history development turns upon this conflict between European and Oriental elements (see Rams. Hist. Phryg. 1 j f. ). A relic of the latter was the Lycian custom of tracing descent through the mother (Herod. 1173; cp Sayce, Emp. of the East, 99); cp KINSHIP, 4. The Lycians were absorbed into the Persian empire after a brave defence. After their victory over Antiochus at Magnesia (1908. c.) the Romans handed over Lycia and the greater part of Caria to the Rhodians ; but twenty-three years later independence was restored to the Lycian cities (Pol. 30s). Then followed the golden period of Lycian history.

The country formed a league (TO \VKICLKOV (rvorij/ua) of twenty- three cities, 2 organised on a federal basis (Strabo, 664) ; this was only a development of an earlier THoivav riav AvKiW (cp C/G 4677). At any rate, the Lycian League has been justly called the_ fairest product of that Hellenism, that mastery of the bar barian mind by Greek political thought, which took such strong root in Asia Minor (Greenidge, Handok. of Grk. Const. Hist. 241, where see details). The cities were arranged in three classes, with three, two, or one vote at the annual assembly of the nation (TO KOIV OV crvve&piov), at which the head of the league (Lyciarch) was elected. In the same proportion the public burdens were assigned to the cities. To the first group belonged Patara and Myra, both mentioned in the NT, Acts 21 i (llarapa icai Mvpa [D]), 27 5 (cp Strabo, 665)1 There was no federal capital.

1 An alternative route ran from the Cilician Gates, through Cybistra, and north-westwards across the plain through Iconium, and then hit the trade route at Laodiceia Combusta (Rams. Hist. Comm. on Gal. 184).

_ z These twenty-three cities were not the sum total of Lycian cities, for more than a hundred places are known to have struck coins, and Pliny HN 5 28 says that Lycia formerly possessed seventy cities, though in his own time there were only thirty-six.

During this period, Lycia is heard of, in i Macc. 15:23, as one of the states to which the consul L. Cal- purnius Piso sent letters in favour of the Jewish settlers (139 B.C. ); PHASELIS (q.v.), a Lycian town, is men tioned separately in the list. For loyalty to the Romans, the freedom of the Lycians was confirmed, first by Sulla, and afterwards by Antonius. In 43 A.D. internal dissensions afforded the Emperor Claudius a pretext for taking the territory of the Federation into the Empire (Suet. Claud. 25, Lytiis ob exitiabiles inter se discordias libertalem ademit}. As a province, Lycia seems to have been combined at first with Pamphylia (Dio Cass. 6017). Two praetorian governors of this period are known Eprius Marcellus (Tac. Ann.\^^ in 54-56 A. D. ), and Licinius Mutianus (Lyci<z legatus, Plin. fJN\2g). As, however, under Galba, and per haps under Nero, Pamphylia was united with the Province Galatia (cp Tac. Hist.lg], it has been con jectured that freedom was restored to the Lycians by Nero or Galba ; at all events, information fails as regards Lycia during the reigns of Nero and his suc cessors.

In 74 A.D. Vespasian took Lycia once more within the provin cial system, and united it with Pamphylia to form the double province Lycia-Pamphylia, precisely like Pontus-Bithynia(Suet. Vesp. 8. See Momms. in CIL iii., Suppl. no. 6737). As an imperial province, it was governed by a praetorian Legatus Aiigusti proprtetore ; but in 135 A.D. Hadrian handed it over to the Senate in exchange for Bithynia (Dio Cass. 6S* 14). When absorbed by the Empire the old Federal union still persisted as the Koivov AuxtW for the imperial cultus, under the presidency of the Lyciarch.

Lycia has no importance in the early history of Christianity ; in this respect it is like PAMPHYLIA (q. v. ). Its name does not occur in i Pet. 1 1 (cp Hort, First Ep. of Peter, 163/1). For its later conection with Christianity see Mommsen in Arch, epigr. Mittheil. aus Oesir. , 1893, p. 93/1


The Austrians have done much for Lycia. See Benndorf u Niemann, Lycia, 2 vols. E. Kalinka, Zur historischen Topographic Lykiens in Kiepert's Festschrift, 1898, p. idif. w. J. W.

LYDDA / LOD[edit]

("f? ; AoA [BNA] ; but AyAA& in Neh. 11:35 [X<=-a inf. mg. L I BN*A om.] Macc, and NT; AyAAON [gen. plur.] in Ezra2s3 Neh.?37 iEsd.522 [L], AcoA in iCh. 812 [L, Bom]; AyAAooN AoA in Ezra2s3[A]), a town of the ShCphelah, in (?) the Ge ha-harashlm or Valley of the Craftsmen (?), corre sponding to the mod. Ludd, nf m. by rail SE. from Jaffa. Mariette, Brugsch, and others find it mentioned (as Lu-t-n) immediately before Ono in the Karnak list of Thotmes III. ; but W. M. Miiller (As. u. Eur. 140) will not admit this. Cp HADID and BENJAMIN, 8, b, 3 ; but see ONO, where the doubtfulness of this identifica tion is pointed out (see also Crit. Bib.}. Confusions of names are not unfrequent in lists. There is at any rate no doubt about Lydda.

In i Macc. 11:34 Lydda is named as one of the three governments (vo/j.oi) that were added to Judaea from Samaria, in the reign of Jonathan the high priest, by King Demetrius II., Ephrairn and Ramathaim being the other two. It is mentioned by Josephus and Pliny as giving its name to one of the ten or eleven toparchies (/cATjpoi xt at T07rapx a O mto which Judaea was in their time divided (Jos. BJ iii. 85 ; Plin. HN v. 1470). Shortly after the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. the inhabi tants of Lydda and certain other towns were sold into slavery by Cassius owing to the failure of these places to pay the heavy contributions he had demanded ; they were afterwards set free by Antony. Lydda is mentioned in Acts 9 yiff. in connection with a visit of the apostle Peter. It was burned by Cestius Gallus in Nero s reign, was taken by Vespasian in 68 A. D. , and, after the fall of Jerusalem, for some time shared with Jabneh the honour of being one of the chief seats of rabbinical learning.

In a Totius Orois Descriptio of the fourth century Lydda is mentioned with Sarepta, Caesarea, and Neapolisas a centre of the purple trade. Its classical name was Diospolis (when first given is not known) ; but it continued also to be known, especially in Christian circles, as Lydda, as appears from episcopal lists in which its name occurs. Pelagius was condemned here at a synod held in 415. After varying fortunes the city was destroyed by Saladin in 1191 ; but it was rebuilt, only, however, to be sacked by the Mongols in 1271. From this last blow it never recovered, and it is now an unimportant village, the only feature of interest which it possesses being the Church of St. George, partly dating from the twelfth century, which reminds us that Lydda was in Christian times the centre of a cultus closely con nected with the dragon-myths of Egypt and Babylon. It would even seem to have obtained a place in some forms of the anti christ legend, for a hadith, ascribed to jVIohammed by ancient commentators on the Koran, says that Tsa (Jesus) will slay ed- dajjiil ( the impostor = Antichrist) at Lydda, or even at the gate of the church of Lydda(C!ermont-Ganneau, Hants el Saint Ceorges, 1877, p. 10). Antichrist is, in fact, a descendant of the mythic dragon. See ANTICHRIST.


RV LUD ("I-1 1 ? ; Ezek. 30s) and LUDIM (DH-17 ; Jer. 46:9 ). See LUD, 2.


(AyAiA, i Macc. 88 Ezek. 30:5 AV, RV LUD [^.i .], cp id. 27 10), the central member of the triad of districts fringing on the W. the great interior plateau of Asia Minor.

1. Situation.[edit]

On the N. came Mysia, on the S. Caria, on the E. Phrygia. Lydia thus included the basins of the Hermus and its tributaries, and that of the Cayster, and extended southwards over the range of Messogis as far as the Maeander 1 (Strabo, 577). Eastwards, in the direction of Phrygia, the boundary was uncertain, even to the ancients, and it was disputed whether the Katakekau- mene, the inland volcanic region on the upper Hermus, was to be reckoned as Lydian or Mysian (Strabo, 628). This confusion was due partly to the presence of both Lydian states and Mysian states in the same district (Strabo, 579) ; partly also it was the result of disregard of ethnical facts by the Romans in their organisation of the provincial divisions, as Strabo himself says (629).

Whether the Lydians are referred to in the OT is considered elsewhere (see LUD, LUDIM, PUT) ; our chief object here is to illustrate the history of NT times. Lydia had long been a great trading state, owing to its natural wealth (cp Herod. 193649; Tac. Ann. 4 55), though its trade was inland, not maritime. It was in fact the policy of the Mermnadas (who, about 585 B.C., extended their rule over Phrygia to the confines of the Median empire) to make their state an industrial centre. Sardis, the capital, was a meeting-place of the caravan trade across Asia Minor by the old north, or royal road, and that which ran through Lycaonia.

The Lydians were the first to coin money, and were the earliest traders (Herod. 1 94). This statement of Herodotus has been explained by Radet by pointing out that the old Phoenician trade was conducted by barter, and that the Lydians first put this traffic on a new basis by stamping pieces of electrum of guaranteed weight and fineness with a symbol. The story of Pythius (Herod. 1 ^T f.~) shows that commerce on a great scale was thus rendered possible in Lydia. The coast had early been occupied by Hellenic colonies (Strabo, 647), and their subjugation gave Lydia also the /Egean trade : her history became inter woven with that of Greece, and Lydia became the link that binds together the geography and history of Asia and Europe (Sayce, Empires of the East, 423).

2. History.[edit]

The victory of the Romans at Magnesia, in the valley of the Hermus (190 B.C. ), resulted in the transference of Lydia from Antiochus of Syria to Eumenes II. of Pergamus (Pol. 21:45; Livy, 37:56). To this change reference is made in i Mace. 88. In 133 B.C., by the will of Attalus III., the Pergamene kingdom passed to the Romans, and Lydia henceforth formed part of the Roman province of Asia. After this date, the name Lydia possessed no political significance, though still valid in the domain of ethnology or geo graphy. For Romans, or for those who adopted the Roman and imperial point of view, Asia was the sole permissible term. Hence, in the NT the name Lydia does not occur, in spite of the fact that so much is said, for example, of Ephesus. Paul names only Asia and Galatia [cp GALATIA, 5, is/] : the writer of the Apocalypse sums up five Lydian cities, together with the Mysian Pergamus and the Phrygian Laodicea, as the seven churches which are in Asia (Rev. 14).

1 On the Maeander as the boundary between Lydia and Caria, see Rams. Cities and Bish. of Thrygia, 1 183, n.

3. Blass and Zahn on 'Lydia and Asia'.[edit]

Here must be noticed the view maintained by Blass (Act. Apost. 176) and Zahn (Einl. 1:132-133) as to the practice of Lk. in using non-provincial terms ( Lycaonia, Pisidia, Mysia, etc.), and giving to the term 'Asia' a more restricted application than it had in official usage [cp GALATIA, 15]. According to Zahn, Asia, as used by Lk. , means simply Lydia: Blass includes also Mysia and Caria, and excludes only Phrygia - this being, in fact, the extent of the Roman province of Asia from 133 to 84 B.C. The enumeration in Acts 2:9 seems to give colour to this view, and in this passage Ramsay (Church in R. EmpW 150) admits that Asia is pointedly used in the popular sense, ex cluding Phrygia (see ASIA ; but cp PHRYGIA for another explanation). No support for Zahn s view can be derived from Strabo (627, rd%a yap rj yiyovia Atrt a A^-yero), for he is quoting a mere theory. In fact, all attempts to prove a use of the term Asia in a narrower sense than the Roman province at its greatest extent fail : it was not until the end of the third cent. A. D. that Asia was restricted as Zahn suggests (cp Ramsay, Stud. Bibl. 4:30-31).

The Lydia (see LYDIA, ii. ) who befriended Paul at Philippi, came from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). Trade guilds, united in the worship of some deity, were char acteristic of Lydia (cp Rams., Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 2417), and the woman may have acted as agent for a guild of dyers. Possibly Lydia was not her true name, but a popular designation (cp Zahn, Einl. 1 375).

The fact that five of the seven churches of Asia lay in Lydia makes that country important in the history of Christianity. See the special articles EPHESUS, PHILA DELPHIA, SARDIS, SMYRNA, THYATIRA.

Literature. Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au Temps des Mermnades, 1893; Sayce, A ncient Empires o f the East, 4 2 3/ W. J. \V.


(AyAlA [Ti.WH]), a woman of Thyatira, dealer in purple stuffs (TTOp4>YPOTTtGAlc). and a worshipper of God (ceBoMeNH YON GeoN ; see PROSELYTE, 5) ; Paul s first convert, and his hostess, at Philippi (Acts 16 14/ 40). See LYDIA i. , 3.


occurs once in RV (Jer. 222), where it represents Heb. ~iri3, 'nether', AV NITRE, and twice in RV m *- (Is. 1:25 : I will purge as with lye thy dross ; Job 9:30 if. . . I cleanse my hands with lye ), where it repre sents Heb. ~I13 "Q, 1 bar. Cp SOAP.

The English word lye is now used for solutions of the hydroxides of potassium or sodium in water, which, when added to certain oils or fats, produce soap, but was formerly applied to a mixture of water and the ashes of wood and plants generally, the water dissolving the alkaline salts of the ash.

A. E. S.

1 [In Is. 1 25, 133, in the furnace, ought perhaps to be read for ^3; so Lowth and others. See FURNACE, 2.]


(AyCANloy, Ti.WH) is mentioned in the NT only in Lk. 3:1, where he appears as tetrarch of ABILENE [g.v.] at the beginning of the Baptist s ministry. Outside of the NT we know of only one man of this name who ruled over this region ; his rule commenced about 40 B. C. , and in 36 B. C. he was exe cuted by the triumvir Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra (Jos. Ant. xv. 4i, 92; BJ\. 22s, 440; Schiirer, GJVV\ 1296, ET 1402) thus a difference of more than sixty years. The question arises, accord ingly, whether perhaps Lk. may not intend a younger Lysanias with regard to whom we possess no direct information, and whether it is possible to suppose that what is said in Lk. may be applicable to him though inapplicable to the older Lysanias.

1. Extent of territory of Lysanias.[edit]

The Lysanias of whom we know from secular history succeeded his father Ptolemy, who was the son of a certain Mennoeus ; this Ptolemy, according to Strabo (xvi. 2:10, p. 753), was lord of the 'hill country of the Ituraeans' by which we are to understand probably the southern Antilibanus (see ISHMAEL, 4 [7]) along with Abila (west from Damascus) and also of the plain of Massyas or Marsyas, which stretched between the Lebanon and Antilibanus ranges from Laodicea in the N. to Chalcis (Ptolemy s capital) in the S. ; and indeed it is probable that his territory came farther S. still, to the region of Paneas N. of Lake Merom or Seniechonitis.

(a) The apologists are not alone in maintaining the impossibility of this kingdom being designated as the tetrarchy of Abilene. Schurer (596/1 , 602 ; ET 1.2326^) takes the same view, and assumes therefore a younger Lysanias, who in the Baptist's time was tetrarch of Abilene only. Schurer himself affirms that Pompey destroyed the fortified places in Lebanon (Strabo xvi. 2:18, p. 755) and undoubtedly also curtailed the terri tory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that in which he dealt with the Jewish territory. 1 That the kingdom of Ptolemy was thereby reduced to the limits of Abilene alone must not, however, be assumed, for Ptolemy purchased immunity for his incursions from Pompey by the payment of a thousand talents (Jos. Ant. xiv. 3:2:39).

In particular it is not probable that precisely Ptolemy s capital (Chalcis) was taken from him. Josephus, however (BJ ii. 128, 247), expressly distinguishes this Chalcis from the kingdom of Lysanias when he says that in 53 A.D. Chalcis was taken from Agrippa II., in compensation for which he received a greater kingdom which included the kingdom of Lysanias.

A notice in Josephus (Ant. xv. 10 i 3, 343-345, 360; BJ i. 204, 398-400) leads to the same result. Zenodorus had received, on payment of tribute, the former domain of Lysanias (efxejLuV&oTO TOV olxov TOV A.v<raviov) ; after Zenodorus death (20 B.C.) Augustus bestowed his territory upon Herod the Great Ulatha and Paneas to the N. of Lake Merom. These dis tricts, therefore, would seem to have previously belonged to the dominion of Lysanias (Schiirer, 1 599).

(b) If accordingly it is impossible to assign Abilene alone to the Lysanias vouched for by profane history we must put some other meaning upon the expression of Lk. unless we are to postulate a younger Lysanias. Krenkel (Josephus it. Lucas, 1894, p. 96 f. ) seeks to explain the expression from Josephus.

It is stated by Josephus (Ant. xv. 10 i, 343-345 ; BJ i. 20:4, 5:398-399) that Augustus gave to Herod, while Zenodorus was still alive, Trachon, Batansea, and Auranitis. After the death of Herod in 4 B.C. these three territories along with a portion of the domain of Zenodorus fell to Herod s son Philip (Ant. xvii. 114, 319 ; BJ ii. 6 3, 95). This tetrarchy of Philip was, after his death in 34 A.D., incorporated with the province of Syria ; but in 37 it was given to Agrippa I. along with the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Jos. Ant. xviii. 610, 237). In JBJ (ii. 11 5, 215) Josephus makes the same statement, only with the expression the so-called kingdom of Lysanias (f}a<ri\eia.i> -n}v Aixraci ov (taAou/ueVr)!/). After the death of Agrippa I. in 44 A.D. his territory passed under Roman control. But in 53 A.D., according to Josephus (/?/ii. 12s, 247), his son Agrippa II. obtained the former tetrarchy of Philip i.e., Batanaea, Tracho- nitis, and Gaulanitis with, in addition, the kingdom of Lysanias along with what had formerly been the domain of a certain Varus. In Ant. xx. 7 i, 138, Josephus states it thus : he received the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanaea, and also Trachonitis with Abila. At this point Josephus adds that this last had formerly been the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Aucran ow S auT)) eye-yocet rerpap^ia). That this holds good of Abila only, not also of Trachonitis, follows from xix. 5 i, 275 ( A/Si Aay rrfv Avaaviov).

Upon these data Krenkel bases the conjecture that Josephus does not mean to speak of Abila as the only possession of Lysanias, that he calls it the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias simply and solely because it was the only part of the former dominions of Lysanias, which, instead of being assigned to another lord such as Herod the Great, Philip, or Agrippa I. and receiving a name from the new master, had since the death of Lysanias continued to be directly under Roman rule. This interpretation fits best the Abila of Lysanias ( AfiiXav Trjv Avcraviov) ; in the other passages it is not the most obvious one. It would be more natural to interpret in another sense - that Abila alone had con stituted the territory of Lysanias - in that case, then, of a younger Lysanias. But Josephus never gives any indication of a younger Lysanias being known to him. His readers were bound to suppose him to mean the Lysanias who was executed in 36 B. c. When we look at the question from this point of view, accordingly, the simplest course would seem to be to conclude that Josephus intends this same Lysanias throughout, and that there was no younger Lysanias ; therefore, that Krenkel s interpretation is not to be set aside as inad missible.

(c) Coming now to Lk. , Krenkel supposes him to have borrowed his expression from Josephus, but on the erroneous impression that Lysanias had survived and ruled to a period shortly before the granting of his tetrarchy to Agrippa I. and thus to the Baptist s time. As to Lk.'s acquaintance with the writings of Josephus, see ACTS, 16, and THEUDAS. Even if Lk. was not acquainted with Josephus, however, it is still possible that he may be in error ; he may have found and misunderstood the expression tetrarchy of Lysanias, meaning the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, in some other source.

(d) In any case we need some explanation of Lk.'s mentioning Lysanias at all. Clearly his wish is to be as complete as possible at this important point of his narrative ; but Abilene was a very unimportant territory and Lysanias was not a Jewish ruler at all ; if Lysanias was to be mentioned other neighbouring princes deserved equally well to be so also. The most likely suggestion is that Lk. starts from the condition of matters which subsisted down to the year 100 A.D. , and thus approxi mately to the time when he was composing his book ; Agrippa II., the last of the Jewish princes, possessed in addition to other territories Abilene also, and Lk. thus found himself called upon to say who it was that held it in the Baptist s time. 1 Whether he is indeed correct in giving a tetrarch Lysanias for this period must remain an open question. That he was mistaken cannot possibly be shown or even assumed without difficulty ; but neither can it be disproved. In no case can it be held to be impossible, on the alleged ground that such a mistake on his part were inconceivable. Not to speak of the mistake regarding Philip in this very verse (cp ITUREA), the undeniable error in v. 2 that there were two high priests at the same time is so serious that, in comparison with it, that regarding Lysanias would seem quite natural, especially if Lk. was depending on the unprecise mode of expression he found in Josephus or some other authority.

2. Titles.[edit]

Dio Cassius calls the pre-Christian Lysanias king of the Ituraeans, as also does Porphyry (ap. Eus. Chron. ed. Schone, 1 170), if we assume that here Lysanias (Avcraviov) ought to be read for Lysimachus (Av<n/j.dxov). It is illegitimate to infer from this, however, that the coins with the legend Lysanias, tetrarch and chief priest ( Avffaviov rerpdpxov teal dpx fp^ws : Schiirer, 1 598, n. 23) relate not to him but to a younger Lysanias. The coins bearing the legend Ptolemy tetrarch and chie[f priest] (UroXf/Jtalov rerpdpxov dpx[ieptws]) are without hesitation attributed to his father. In that case, however, it is very probable that the son also bore the same title. True, Ptolemy is nowhere designated king as his son is. The ex pressions of Josephus are quite general that he was ruler 1 (dwaffrevuv. Ant. xiv. ?4, 125), or bore sway (etcpdret., BJ\.2, 185). But the titles tetrarch and king are not sharply distinguished. 'Tetrarch' at that time and for many a day had lost its original meaning of ruler of a fourth part of a kingdom and had come to be applied quite generally to any ruler over a territory not too great, dependent on Rome (Schurer, i. , 16, n. 12, 350-352; ET ii. 17, n. 12). The writers of that period, however, often substitute for it the title of king also, which strictly denotes a higher dignity. Even Josephus designates the territory of one and the same Lysanias partly as a tetrarchy (rerpapxia.) and partly as a kingdom (/SacriXeta, i^). In most quarters, therefore, no difficulty is found in identifying the pre-Christian Lysanias with the tetrarch of the inscription to be treated of in next section.

1 Holtzmann (most recently in HC ad loc.) adds the con jecture that Lk. took literally the title tetrarch which he mentions in 3 i as belonging to two sons of Herod the Great, and accordingly believed that out of the kingdom of Herod there must have been formed a fourth tetrarchy besides the two he had named, and Judaea viz., the tetrarchy of Lysanias. It is not necessary, however, to go so far as this ; see 2.

3. Inscriptions.[edit]

The following inscription upon a tomb at Ba'albek ( = Heliopolis) to the N. of Abila (C1G 4523) is of importance if the lacunae have been rightly filled up by Renan (Mission de Phenicie, 1864, p. 317-319, and more exhaustively in Mem. de I Acad. des Inscr. et Relies Lettres, vol. 26* [1870], pp. 70-79) : . . . daughter to Zenodorus [son of] Lys[anias t]etrarch and [to] Lys[anias . . . and t]he sons [and to Ly]san[ias . . . and th]e sons in me[mor]y [piously] erected (. . . Ovyarr^p 7jrji>o5wpi}> Avff[aviov r]eTpdpxov /cat Av<r[avl<f. . . . KO.! T]OIS ufo?? [icai] (\v)ffa.v[l<f. . . . ical TO?]J wots fj.v[r)fj.]rjs X-P LV [ei}cre/3(Ss] di>tOrjKfi>). Schurer and others deduce from this not only that the Zenodorus named above ( i a and b] was a son of the pre-Christian Lysanias, but also that younger members of his family also bore the name Lysanias. Krenkel considers this to have no point inasmuch as the inscription bestows the title of tetrarch only on the father of Zenodorus, but designates the other persons by their mere names without any addition. It remains a possibility, however, that one or more of them may have received the title of tetrarch only after the erection of this monument, which perhaps may have been set up soon after the death of Zenodorus (20 B.C. ). Moreover Krenkel has confined himself, as he ought not to have done, to Schiirer s reproduction of the inscription. Schtirer himself says that he is giving only the legible portions of it and takes no account of the lacunas assumed by Renan. Just as the first-named Lysanias is more precisely designated as tetrarch, so Renan desiderates some more definite title for the second and for the third. Krenkel is right, however, in so far as he contends that neither the second nor the third can have been designated tetrarch, otherwise the first Lysanias would have required some further addition for example the name of his father for distinction s sake. In point of fact Renan conjectures only so much as this that the second and the third Lysanias were distinguished by addition of the names of their fathers. The most important consideration, however, is that for both of them the name Lysanias itself rests upon pure conjecture. Renan himself says that in the second place, for example, the reading might quite as easily be Lysimachus or Lysias ; and, in the third place, Brocchi, the only person who had seen this fragment of the inscription which has since disappeared, did not read Lysan (ATSA.X) at all, but Dasan (AASAN).

(b) Another inscription (CIG 4521, cp Addenda in vol. iii. ) relates that a freedman of the tetrarch Lysanias has constructed a road and built a temple for the weal of the lords Augusti (virtp Trjs rdv Kvpiwv Sef^atrroif] ffWTrjpias). There was no plurality of Augusti ( = 2e/3a<rrot ) until the time of Tiberius, along side of whom his mother Livia, after the death of the Emperor Octavianus Augustus (14 A. D. ), bore the title of Augusta (Tac. Ann. 18; Schurer, 1603, n. 37). Now it is by no means impossible that a freedman of the Lysanias who died in 36 B.C. should, fifty years afterwards, or more have made a road and built a temple, particularly if, as often enough happened, he had been emancipated as a child along with his parents. Thus neither does this inscription supply any decisive evidence in favour of the existence of a younger tetrarch Lysanias.

4. Literature.[edit]

Wieseler, Ckronol. Synop. d. vier Evangtlien, 1843, PP- 74-183, and Beitr. z. Wiirdigung tier Evangelien, 1869, pp. 196-204; Kenan, in Mem. Acad. Inscr. 26 b, 1870, pp. 49-84, and especially Schurer, GJY\, Beilage i, 600-603 (ET i. 2 335^) for the assumption of a younger Lysanias. On the other side, see Strauss, Leben /esu, 1, 40, 1835, pp. 310-313 ; Keim, Gesch.Jesu von Nazara, \6i8f. (ET ii. 384^) and A us dem Urchristentkum, \ (1878) 9-12, and especially Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, pp. 95-98. P. W. S.


(Aye I AC [AKV]).

i. A general of Antiochus Epiphanes (see ANTIOCHUS, 2) and one of the seed royal. Antiochus, smarting under the recent defeat of his captains APOLLONIUS (2) and SERON (qq.v. ), placed Lysias in charge of the W. portion of his empire with orders to root out and destroy the strength of Israel and the remnant of Jerusalem. 1 He himself with half the army removed from Antioch to proceed with the invasion of Persia, entrusting his young son afterwards Antiochus V. Eupator to the care of Lysias ( i Mace. 832^). An army of 47,000 men under three leaders was sent against Judaea, but met with no success (i Macc. 4:1-2), see GORGIAS, NICANOR), and Lysias, vexed and discouraged, started out the following year with a force 65,000 strong (165-164 B.C.). He was badly defeated at Beth-zur by Judas (i Mace. 4 28^), and the tidings of this disaster completed the discomfiture of Antiochus, who, on his deathbed, entrusted the guardianship of his son to PHILIP, 5 1 (i Mace. 6s/:). Lysias, however, set up Antiochus Eupator as king, and set out upon a fresh invasion of Judaea (628^). Beth-zur was besieged, and at the neighbouring locality of Bethzacharias the Maccabaean party was defeated (see ELEAZAR). Leaving behind a portion of his army to continue the siege of Beth-zur, Lysias marched upon Jerusalem ; but hearing that Philip had returned to assert his newly gained authority, Lysias concluded a treaty with Jerusalem, which, however, he immediately violated (651^). He hastily marched to Antioch, which Philip had already occupied, and ultimately over came him (see PHILIP, s). 2 He was put to death at the commencement of the reign of DEMETRIUS I. [g.v.]. His history as recounted in 2 Mace. 10n^ ll-12i 13 1-142 differs in several essential particulars from the above ; see MACCABEES, SECOND, 2/, col. 2869 ff.

2. See Claudius Lysias.



1. Son of Ptolemy, who is said to have translated into Greek the book of Esther ; see apocryphal Esther Hi (<S 10n). On this and on the statement that the translation was made at Jerusalem (ruv [L^ rbv] Iv Iepovcra\rifji) see ESTHER, 9, col. 1405, Willrich, Judaic a, 2s f.

2. A high priest (about 171 B.C.), temporarily ap pointed by his brother MENELAUS [g.v.]. His many acts of sacrilege roused the indignation of the common people, who rose against him and killed him (2 Mace. 4 29 39^ ).

On the statement in V. 29 (rijs apxifptaavvris Sia.&o\ov) see Willrich, Judaica, 165 ; the Vg. seems to have supposed that Lysimachus was his brother s successor (see RVmn.), reading : Menelaus amotus est a sacerdotio succedente L. fratre suo.

In view of the fact that his brother Menelaus bears a Hellenised form of a Hebrew name, Mr. S. A. Cook conjectures that Lysi machus itself is a Hellenising of the Hebrew -pD ^N* ( C P ISMACHIAH, SEMACHIAH). See generally ONIAS.

1 Probably this was due to the ill-success of Lysias.

2 Another tradition in 2 Macc. 18:23 would seem to show that Philip had been appointed chancellor.

3 The same variation in gender and declension as is found in the case of MYRA [f.v.] ; but while the mod. name of Myra is proof of the existence of the local form Mvpav, there is no evidence, other than the passage in Acts, available in the case of Lystra. See on this point, Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 128. The name Lystra, as Ramsay remarks (Hist. Comni. on Galatians, 223), is probably Lycaonian, as the similar names Ilistra and Kilistra occur to the SE. and NW. of the town respectively (cp Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM 451).


(AYCTp6.N. Actsl46 21 16i ; eN Aycrpoic. Acts 14:8, 16:2, 2 Tim. 3:11). 3

1. Site.[edit]

The site of Lystra was guessed by Leake in 1820, and his conjecture was confirmed by Sterrett s discovery of a large pedestal, standing perhaps in its original position, having an inscription in honour of Augustus ( Wolfe Exped. 142 : Divum Aug[ustuni] Col\onia] Iul\ia~\ Felix Getnina Lustra consecravit d\ecreto\ d\ecurionum~\). This proves that the colony occupied the hill about one mile NW. of the modern village Khatyn-Serai (= The Lady s Mansion ), some eighteen miles SSW. of Iconium. A considerable stream, flowing eastwards out into the Lycaonian plain, runs between the ancient site and the modern village. Few remains of the old city are visible above ground ; but a small church stands near an Ayastna (i.e., Ayia.fffj.a) or spring reputed holy by the Christians of Iconium and the Turks of the neighbourhood. This tradition of sanctity probably goes back to pagan times. There is no trace of the temple of Zeus (Act 14:13) ; but its site is perhaps in dicated by the pedestal already mentioned (see JUPITER).

2. History.[edit]

When on the death of Amyntas in 25 B.C. his kingdom was formed into a province (Galatia), Lystra, Isaura, and Derbe were a11 included within it : for Lystra had belonged to the Lycaonian te- trarchy transferred to Amyntas in 36 B.C. (see LYCA- ONIA), and Derbe had been taken by him from Antipater with the connivance of the Romans (see DERBE). The importance of the town was ephemeral, and dated only from 6 B. c. , when Augustus made an effort to regulate and civilise the mountaineers on the southern frontier of Galatia. To this end there was created a system of military roads radiating from Antioch to the garrison cities or colonies. The military colonies founded in this region were Olbasa, Comama, Cremna, Parlais, Lystra, and Antioch (cp CIL 3, suppl. 6974) [see PISIDIA]. Lystra was the most easterly of these colonies, and the bulwark of southern Galatia ; for Derbe, which lay farther E. , did not become important until 41 A.D. , and was never a colony; nor was Iconium, the nearest important town to the N. , a colony (until the time of Hadrian). Lystra thus stood in proud isolation in this nook of Galatia as the repre sentative of Roman civilisation, and the Latin-speaking Coloni formed a military aristocracy amid the incolce or Lycaonian natives of the town. The nearest Roman city was Antioch, the military centre.

The sympathy between the two colonies is illustrated by the inscription discovered at Antioch on the base of a statue pre sented by Lystra (Sterrett, Wolfe Exped. 352 : T\\V Aa/xTrpoTarrji JLVTlo\tuv KO\<avCai> rj Aa/mrpoTaTij AvorpeW icoAuw a r^v a6A- u "r eTfifj.ricrfi>). The Latin feeling in Lystra is shown by the fact that the name of the city is written Lustra on coins and in inscriptions, under the influence of a false analogy between the Lycaonian word and the Latin word lustrum (cp CIL 06596, Col. Lustrensium, and 6786. Coins have COLONIA . JULIA . FELIX . GEMINA . LUSTRA). Nevertheless, it was only special circumstances that for a time impressed this foreign character upon the town.

3. NT references.[edit]

Lying as it did in a secluded glen ten miles S. of the great trade route, which naturally ran by way of Iconium and Derbe, Lystra retained more tenaciously than those towns the native stamp. When the hill-country was pacified, Lystra ceased to be of importance ; and its situation was not such as to make it a great town by reason of its trade. Hence it was neither Romanised nor Hellenised ; of all the places visited by Paul, Lystra was the only one the native character of which was sufficiently prominent to receive notice in Acts. The belief in the epiphany of the gods, and the use of the speech of Lycaonia (Acts 14 n) in a moment of excitement testify to the permanence of the native character in the bulk of the population.

Athough on the ground of their constitution as Roman colonies, Lystra and Antioch go together, from the point of view of the organisation of the Roman province, Lystra goes with Derbe, these two together being the cities of the Lycaonian region of the province of Galatia. Hence, Lystra is grouped with Derbe in Acts 146 (where rr)v irepixupov, the region that lieth round about 1 AV = the X ^po-, Regio, of Lycaonia Galatica. See LYCAONIA, 3, and GALATIA, 7). From the point of view of its commercial relations, the connection of Lystra was closest with Iconium, and next to that with Antioch, for the trade flowed west wards. Hence, in Acts 14 19, it is Jewish traders from Iconium and Antioch that come to Lystra ; and in Acts 162 Lystra and Iconium are grouped together as the district in which Timothy was well known (Rams. St. Paul the Traveller, 179). Lystra was the birthplace and home of Timothy, whose parentage illustrates the composite character of the population. 2 Tim. 3io/ clearly implies that Timothy was a spectator of the brutal assault made upon Paul by the Lystran rabble. Lystra was revisited by Paul on the way home on the comple tion of the first journey (Acts 14 21), and again on the second journey (Acts 16i) : the order of the names corre sponds to the geographical order, for on the second journey Paul travelled westwards by way of the Cilician Gates. A visit to Lystra, on the third journey, is implied in Acts 1823 (on the South Galatian theory only [cp GALATIA, 7 and 9-14, 24]).

In later Christian history Lystra is rarely mentioned. Artemas or Artemius, one of the Seventy, is said to have been its bishop. Kxcavation will doubtless reveal much on this interesting and promising site.

Literature. Chiefly Ramsay in his Church in thcR. Emp.p) Jf., and Hist. Comm. on Gal. 223, et pass.

W. J. W.


(so 2 S. 10:68) or Maachah (PDtfO; AAAXATCI [B], MAXAGi [AF], MAXA66I [L] ; other readings MAX6I, AXA66I, OMAXAGei [ = O MAX-, C P Ij ] NU>XA.0ei, MOXATCI, AAAXAXAAXCI [B] ; MOXATI [N], MAXATI, MAXATAI, MAXAflGei, MAXA0A, MU)6ATei, MAAXA6 [A] ; MAAXA0I [Q] ! MAKA6I, MAKAp6l, MAXA6ITOY [ -]) If the name is, as the present writer holds, probably a popular corruption of Jerahmeel (see MAACAH ii. ), we need not wonder to find it both in the N. and in the S. of Palestine. The final editors of our narratives certainly took Maacah to be an Aramaean country. It is mentioned in connection with Rehob, Zobah, and Ish-tob (Tob?) as furnishing Aramrean mercenaries to the Ammonites, 28. 1068 (naaxa [AL], aua\r)K 1 [B]) ; in the parallel, i Ch. 196, it is even called ARAM-MAACAH [RV], SYRIA-MAACAH [AV] ( HDVVD on, (Tupias pooxa. [_BK], (r. yuaxct [A], <r. /xaaxa [L]). In 2 S. 20:15 (AV) we read of a city called Abel of Beth-maacah (see ABEL-BETH-MAACAH), which is commonly supposed to have derived its name from the northern Maacah. It should be noted, however, that Abel-beth-maacah (so RV) is called (v. 19) a mother in Israel whereas Maacah only became Israelitish after the defeat of Hadad-ezer; 2 the reading Abel-beth- maacah must be corrupt (see SHEBA, b. Bicri). The gentilic noun Maachathites (AV), Maacathites (RV), rnj?o, occurs with Geshurites in Josh. 13 130 [JE] (in b, ro_yp, whence RV Maacath) and in Dt. 814 (AV Geshuri and Maachathi, 6 tactp [AF]) ; here a northern people and land is evidently meant. In 28. 2834, however, the Maacathite as clearly indicates a southern district (see ELIPHELET, 2).

A corrupt form of Maacath is j-|n (RV HAMATH). Wi. 3 thinks that there were two Hamaths, one in Syiia, the other on the S. of Mt. Hermon ; the second nan however is surely a corruption of rt2J?o (Maacah). We know as a fact that there was a southern <ieshur(if that be the right vocalisation); it is hardly less certain that there was a southern Maacah, and the true text of that much-disputed passage, 2 S. 8 ib, most prob ably stated that David (not Solomon) took the Maacathite (district) out of the hand of the Sarephathites (see METHEG- AMMAH). The popular corruption nan " may underlie the strange place-name rtBOn (HUMTAH), and the odd personal names ^>uicn and the more corrupt alternative form (HAL 2 Ch. 3ti 2) So llN ; n^VCi i.e., the southern Maacah, may also occur in Ps. 006 [B], emended text (see PSALMS [BooK], 28 [iv.]) and elsewhere.

T. K. C.


RV, so also in 28.83 AV, which has elsewhere MAACHAH (!"Dyp, MAAXA [BAL]). Like MICAH and MICAIAH (qq.v.}, the name seems to the present writer to be a popular corruption of Jerahme'el or Jerahme'elith ( a Jerahmeelite ). Talmai, the father of Maacah 2, was also probably designated a Jerah- meelite (b. Ammihur?). See TALMAI 2, and MAACAH 2.

1. A son (or daughter ?) of Nahor (i.e. , Hauran) by Reumah (Gen. 2224, /u.o>x<* [ADL]). The name (see above) corresponds to Kemuel-abi-aram (another disguise of Jerahme el), in the list of Nahor s sons by Milcah. See KEMUEL, NAHOR.

2. Daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, and mother of Absalom (28. 83, /uaaxafl [A], i Ch. 82, /JLUXO. [BA]). See GKSHUR 2, TALMAI.

3. Mother of Abijah (1 K.15:1, 2 Ch. ll:20-22), also called MICAIAH (2 Ch. 13:2; AV MICHAIAH). In 1 K. 15 her father's name is given as Abisalom, in 2 Ch. 11 as Absalom, but in 2 Ch. 13 as Uriel of Gibeah (<5" A , however, for Gibeah has yafiauv, Vg. Gabaa, Pesh. nimfthd, Ramah ). It has been thought that the name Uriel may have been derived from i K. 15:10 (where it may originally have stood, see ASA, i), the motive of the change being a desire to provide some other parentage for Abijah's mother (cp TAMAR 3).

1 This may perhaps record an early and correct explanation. But cp ARAM, $ 5, n. i.

2 Cp Wi. G/224I. 3 Ibid. 2IO/

A more satisfactory theory can be offered. The reading in 1 K. 15:2 is more nearly correct ; QS[y>3N may be a corruption of SKS"IN> a "d D0t h ^NO IN and ^K"~Ut corruptions of ^KCriT- Maacah, as we have seen, is probably a corruption of n SxcnT, and the original statement was that Abijah's mother was named Maacah [a Jerahmeelite], of Gibeah. The Gibeah meant is that of Josh. 15:57.

4. Mother of Asa (1 K. 15:10, ava. [BL]; 2Ch. 15 16). See ASA, i. Most probably i K. 15 10 should run thus : His mother's name was Maacah [a Jerahmeelite], on the analogy of 1 K. 15:2 (see 3). She was deposed from her position as queen-mother on account of some religious symbol (nxSflD. RV an abominable image ) which she had made for ASHERAH [^.f.], i K.. 15i3-

In Pesh. of i K. 1.1 10 Maacah s father s name is given as Ebed- salom, a mistaken emendation of Abishalom (cp 3).

5. Father of ACHISH [q.v.] (i K. 2 39, a^ujcra [B]), called also MAOCH (ipyD, i S. 27 2, a.nna\ [B], p.iua/3 [A], axifiaav [L]) ; so Targ. in both passages. The reading of <S L and Tg. is im portant. See TALMAI (ad fin.).

6. A concubine of Caleb (i Ch. 2 48, /u.wxi [BA]), personifying the Jerahmeelites.

7. Wife (or mother, Pesh.) of Machir (also = Jerahme el?), the Manassite (i Ch. ~ T.-,f., /ocofo^o [B], noo\a. [A]) ; cp MAACAH i ; SAUL i.

8. Wife of Jehiel, father of Gibeon (i Ch. 829, fj.o\x a fB], ftiAxa [Ba?b?], (La%a [L] ; 935 jio<ova [BNA]). B s reading confirms the derivation from Jerahme el.

9. Father of HANAN [2] (t Ch. 11 43, ,xo<ux a [BN], na X a [A]).

10. Father of Shephatiah, a Simeonite (i Ch. 27 16, /oia^a [B], /u.aa^a [Al, ^a\aTt [L]). Note that the next name is that of a son of Kemuel, another distortion of Jerahme el.

For another instance of the distortion of Jerahme el into Maacah see SAUL, i (on 2 S. 20 14, Abel-beth-maacah). Cp also MEHOLATHITE ; Maacah and Meholah are both probable corruptions of Jerahme el. T. K. C.


(*"ll?p, abbrev. from some ethnic, but see MAADIAH and cp (5), b. Bani, in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i. , 5 end); Ezra 10 34 (MoAeA[e]iA [BN], MOoAeiA [A], MoyoyAi t 1 -]) = iEsd. 9 3 4 MOMUIS (/woMAeioc [B]- -Aeic [A], MOoyAeiA [L]).


(HHyp, see 33, but also cp MAADAI), a priest in Zerubbabel s band (see EZRA ii. , 6 l>) ; Neh. 12s(BKAom., MAA^IAC [N c - am e- SU P-], MAAAiAC [L]). Cp MAAZIAH, MOADIAH.


(*yD), a priestly musician in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see EZRA ii. , 6), Neh. 12 3 6t (BXA om., MAAI [X c - a m e- i"f-], MA |A. [L]).


(D^-lpi; H^D), Josh. 15 3 t. AV, RV Ascent of AKRABBIM (q.v. ).


i. (MANCI [B], MAANI [A], AAOONGIM [L]), i Esd. 631 RV = Ezra2 5 oMEUN!M (g).

2. RV BAAM (ftaav[e]i. [BA], Parai [L]), i Esd. 9 3 4 = Ezra 10:34, BANI 2.


(rntfO ; MAfApcoe [B], MARcoe [A], MAApO)6 [L]), a city in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:59), mentioned next to Gedor, which is 6i m. N. from Hebron. Near the ruins of Jedur (Gedor) is the village of Bet Ummar, which may be a distant echo of Ma arath(?). Not far away are handsome rock tombs and a number of small caverns (Baed.l 2 135).




AV Maasiai (b r), i Ch. 9:12, = Neh. 11:13, AMASHAI (q. v.).


(Bar. 1:1 RV). See MAASEIAH i.


RV Mahseiah (iTpnp, 28 ; [Ginsb. ; but see Baer s note on Jer. 32 12]), an ancestor of Baruch, Jer. 32i2 (/v\AAC&lOY [ B Q]. MNAC. [B b ], MACC. [A], MACGOY []): 51 59 (MAACAIOY [B e - m Q] 1 -cc. [A], AAAX&IOY [&**]) 1 Bar. 1 x tne name appears as MAASIAS, RV MAASEAS.


(JTb yp, [and -in %!? in Jer. 35:4 and nos. 4-9], for the corruption iTti JQ see no. 22 ; ace. to Che. from some ethnic (see 12), but pointed as if= work of God cp JAASIEL and see NAMES, 31 ; MAACAIA[C], MAACIA[C] [BNQ], MAACIA[C] [L], AAA- ceoy []>

1. Father of Zephaniah the priest, temp. Zedekiah, Jer. 21 i Oouu ao-cratou [B], ^a. [Bab], ^aw. [A], ^aaa: [Q]), cp 29 [3(5] 25 (nvaaaiov [B^Sb], ^ao-cr. [A]), 37 [44] 3 (jju/avaiov [Bab], ^a. [A]). He is possibly the same as

2. b. Shallum, a door-keeper, Jer. 35 [42] 4 (/ixaatreov [x c - a ],

/imr.iniM [A]).

3. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, Jer. 29 21 (om. BNA, na.a-o-i.ov [Theod. in Q m K-]).

4. b. Adaiah, a captain of Judah, who allied himself with Jehoiada, 2 Ch. 23 i (/icunai/ [A]).

5. An official (iBiss n, see SCRIBE) under UZZIAH, 2Ch. 26 n (afi.aiTa.iov [B], juaa<r<riou [L]).

6. A 'king's son', if this is right (i^c.T ; see HAMMELECH), slain by the Ephraimite Zichri when Pekah invaded Judah, 2 Ch. 28:7 (maoiv [A]). [According to Che. 'Azrikam' which follows, comes from 'Jerahmeel', originally a gloss on 'hammelech'. Thus Maaseiah was the 'ruler of the house'.

7. Governor of Jerusalem, temp. Josiah, sent with Shaphan to superintend the restoration of the temple, 2 Ch. 34:8 (fiaaa-a [B]).

8. and 9. Two Levites of the second rank, temp. David, i Ch. 15:18 (jixaao-traia [B], a;aa<ria [Avid.]), 15:20 (jua<ro-aias [B], fiacraia? []).

10. A priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., ? 5 end), Ezra 10 li (nee<r<rr)A [B], /u.aacrr)a [,y], -rjia [A])=i Esd. 9 19, MATTHEI.AS, HV MATHELAS (/uaojAas [B], fiaBy. [A]).

11. One of the b ne HARIM, a priest in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end). Ezra 10 21 (fiatrarj\ [BN l, nao-eias [A])=i Esd. 9 21 (EANES, RV MANES, /xai/r)s [BA]), where of the sons of Harim is omitted except in <ESL.

12. One of the b ne PASHHUR, a priest in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA!., 5 end), Ezral022=i Esd. 922, MASS! AS (a<7<reias [B], jiiao-crias [A], ^aao-tria? [L]). 1

13. One of the b'ne PAHATH-MOAB, in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end), Ezra 10:30 (jua<r)a [B], /ixaa<r. [A], fia.<n) [{<!)= i Esd. 931 MOOSIAS, RV MOOSSIAS (/nooo-o-eia? [B], fj.ooa-a-i.ay [A]; no trace is found in L save triSia, or perhaps fiaSetas?)

14. Father of AZARIAH (4); Neh.323 (jua5a<n)A [BN],juaa<r(riou [L]).

15. In list of Ezra s supporters (see EZRA ii., 13 [/C] ; cp i., 5 8 ; ii., 16 [ 5 ] ; ii., 15 (i]c) Neh. 84 Omao-tr.ua [B], -tr.as [L]) = i Esd. 943 BALASAMUS, RV BAALSAMUS (i.e., |3aAao-ajx = BlLSHAN ; jSaaAo-a^ios [BA], jU.aa.rias [L]).

16. Expounder of law (see EZRA ii., 13 [_/".] ; cp i., 8; ii., $ 16 [5], 15 [i]c), Neh. 87 (om. BNA)=i Esd. 9 48, MAIANEAS, RV MAIANNAS (jmiayi-as [BA], maaxnas [L]).

17. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 10 25 [26] OmaAo-ia f A]).

18. b. Baruch descended from SHILONI [y.v.], in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., s[^], 15 [i]a), Neh. 11 5 (joiaatreia [B], ^aA<ria [A], ^eo-eia [*], a^etreca [^c.a], fiaatas [L]); he represents the Shelanite branch of Judah, just as Athaiah represents the Perezite (see PEREZ), cp i Ch. 9 5 where the name ASAIAH (n b V) is probably nothing more than another form of Maaseiah.

19. b. Ithiel in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., 5 [/>], 15 [i] a) ; Neh. 11 7 (joiayarjA [B], /aararjA [])

20. and 21. Two priests in procession at the dedication of the wall (see EZRA ii., i^), Neh. 12:41-42 (om. BN*A).

22. A Gershonite Levite, i Ch.t54o [28], whose name has been corrupted into BAASEIAH.

1 [The name occurs between Elioenai (=Elishama= Ishmael) and Ishmael. Perhaps the same man is meant, and his name was Ishmael; Nethaneel = Ethani, follows (so Che.).]


i Ch. 9:12, RV MAASAI.


RV Maaseas (Bar. 1:1); in Jer. 32:12, MAASEIAH i.


[BA]), i Esd. 8 43 RV= Ezra 8:16, SHEMAIAH, 17.


(MA.A0 [Ti. WH]), a name in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 326). See GENEALOGIES ii. , 3.


()*rp, cp AHIMAAZ ; MAAC [BAL]), one of the sons of Ram b. Jerahmeel b. Hezron ; i Ch. 227f.