Encyclopaedia Biblica/Thaddaeus-Timna

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



1. Name.[edit]

In Mk. 3:13 GAAA&IOC [thaddaios] appears tenth in the list of apostles. At/3/3aiof [lebbaios] is here a western variant (D a b ff1 i q). In Mt. 10:3 eaS^alos [thaddaios] is the right reading (XB), but \eppalos [lebbaios] is found in western texts (D 122 Aug.), and the conflate Afj3/3 6 en-ncArjOtU aS8 [lebbaios o epikletheis thaddaios] in the late Syrian text. 0a5Saio? [thaddaios] has been derived from the Heb. -)2> = Syr. theda = mumma, and AeftScuos from 3^ [LB] = cor. But Dalman (Worte Jesu, 40) connects a6aios [thaddaios] with evSds [theudas] and Aej3/3<uo [lebbaios] with the Nabataean joS [LB'Y] WH {Notes, 11) suppose A/3/3cuos [lebbaios] to be due to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk. 2:14) within the number of the Twelve. But we should have expected Aevefc [leueis]. A/3cuos [lebbaios] = Aeueis [leueis] is unparalleled. It seems clear that Ae/30atoj [lebbaios] is a Western gloss of a copyist who connected &a&&alos [thaddaios] with theda = mumma, and wished to substitute a not dissimilar name which should be more appropriate to an apostle, and less undignified. If Aej3/3cuos [lebbaios] can be thus explained as an early emendation the difficult @o2ato$ [thaddaios] remains. Dalman's a6fialos [thaddaios] = QeuSoj [theudas] is improbable. It is more likely that QaMatos [thaddaios], by corruption in Greek or Aramaic, represents an original m(l)n* [YH(V)DH] or N-]d),T- [YH(V)D']. For the 8 [theta] cp SovSovia [thoudouia] [B] = ,Tm,"l, [HVDVH], Neh. 7:43 (see HODAVIAH), flvrjA [theul] [B*vid.x] = SNlN ['V'L], Ezra 10:34 (see UEL); eou [thoue] [B] = Ki,1J ['HV'] (Ahava), Ezra 8:21; 8t\Ka6 [thelkath] [A] = npSrK [HLQTh] (Helkath), Josh. 21:31 ; Oaa-tipei. [thaseirei] [B], dacrovp [thasour] [A] = "YlirN ['ShVRY], 2 S. 2:9 (see ASHURITES); eaero/3ai>[thasoban] [AD], -fA [-m] [L] = j3sN ['TsBN] (Ezbon), Gen. 46:16. 1 or the doubled S [delta] and the ending -alos [-aios] cp T ['D'] = Ia5cuo [iaddaios], De Vogue, Syr. Cent. 63.

2. Identification.[edit]

In Lk. 6:16, Acts 1:13 loiSas Ia/cu/3ov [ioudas iakubou] = Judas, son of James, 1 takes the place of Thaddaeus. See JUDAS, 7. It may, therefore, be reasonably conjectured that Judas was the name of the apostle, that Thaddaeus is a corruption of Judas, and that Lebbaeus is a gloss upon Thaddaeus. Of James, the father of Judas, nothing is known. Syr. Cur. has here Judas Thomas, and Syr. Sin. Thomas (see THOMAS). The evidence of the Gospels being so confused we not unnaturally find great uncertainty in the post-biblical tradition. In Origen (Praef. ad Rom.) Thaddaeus = Lebbaeus = Judas Jacobi. In the Chron. Pasch. Thaddaeus = Lebbaeus= Barsabas, whilst Judas Jacobi = Simon the Canaanite. In the Abgar legend preserved by Eusebius (HE 113) Thaddaeus is distinguished from Judas Jacobi = Thomas. In the Acta Thomae Judas Thomas is the Lord's brother. According to the Syrian Ischodab (9th cent.) quoted by Zahn (Einl. 2263) the Diatessaron identified James son of Alphaeus with Lebbaeus (note that D in Mk. 2:14 has Id/cwSoi [iakoobon] for AEuEiv [leuein]).

The earliest form of legend connected with Thaddaeus is that which represents him as preaching at Edessa. A very exhaustive bibliography of the literature and sources of this tradition may be found in von Dobschutz, Christusbilder, 158*-249*. In the account given by Eusebius (HE 1:13) from Syriac sources, Thaddaeus the Apostle, one of the Seventy, was sent by the Apostle Judas Thomas to Abgar, king of Edessa, in accordance with a promise made by Christ before his death. In the later Syriac legend (Doctrina Addai, 4th cent.? ed. Phillips) Addai is substituted for Thaddieus. In the Gk. Ilpaftis a&Sa.Cov [praxeis thaddaiou] (Lips. Acta. Apost. Apocr. 1:273-278) Lebbaeus is identified with Thaddaeus, one of the Twelve. For this and the later legends which represent Thaddanis as preaching in Armenia, in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Persia, see Lips. Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. 'Thaddaeus'.

W. C. A.


or (RV) TAHASH (t- : nR TOXOC. [ADL]), a name in the Nahorite genealogy (Gen. 22:24-25).

He is identified by Winckler (Mittheil. d. Vorderas. Ges., 1896, p. 207) with Tihis, mentioned in the so-called Travels of an Egyptian (Pap. Anast. 1:22:3 ; see RP 2:111) and elsewhere, as in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes (to the N.). Cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 258. But see also TEBAH.

T. K. C.

1 So Syr. Sin. Mt. 10:3, Lk. 6:16; Pesh. Lk. 6:16, Acts 1:13.


(npn, 66MA [BA]), Ezra 2:53 AV, RV TEMAH (q.v.).


(GAMdvp [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1:3 . See TAMAR.


(6AMN&0A [AKV]), 1 Macc. 9:50. See TIMNAH (3).


(iTVin), 2 Ch. 29:31 etc. See SACRIFICE, 29b.


(eARAlTi. WH]), Lk. 3:34 AV, RV TERAH.


(e*pp& [BN c - a AL]), Esth. 12:1. See TERESH.


(tf Enn), 1 K. 10:22 AV, RV TARSHISH (q.v.).


(6ACc[e]i [XV]), 1 Macc. 2:3. See SIMON (1), and MACCABEES, i, 5.


Although theatres and amphitheatres were erected by the Herods in Jerusalem and other towns of Syria (Jos. Ant. 15:8:1, 15:9:6, 16:5:1, 19:7:5, 8:2; BJ 1:21:8, 2:7:2) in which magnificent spectacles were exhibited, principally in honour of the Roman emperors, there is no reference to them in the Gospels or Acts. Even in narrating the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:21-22), whose fatal seizure, according to the Jewish historian, took place in the theatre at Caesarea (Ant, 19:8:2), the word does not occur. The word theatre is absent alike from the canonical and from the apocryphal books of the OT, and in NT is found only in Acts 19:29-31 where the theatre of Ephesus is spoken of. It was probably the usual place of meeting for the assembly ; and the ruins can still be seen (see EPHESUS, 3).

1 Cor. contains two probable references to theatrical representations, neither of which is very apparent in EV. The word translated 'spectacle' (1 Cor. 4:9) is Otarpov [theatron], and the whole passage seems to refer to 'the band of gladiators brought out at last for death, the vast range of an amphitheatre under the open sky well representing the magnificent vision of all created beings, from men up to angels, gazing on the dreadful death-struggle; and then the contrast of the selfish Corinthians sitting by unmoved at the awful spectacle' (Stanley, Corinthians, 73). Cp Heb. 10:33 'being made a gazing-stock' (OfaTpi^ofj-efot [theatrizomenou]). In 1 Cor. 7:31, 'the fashion of this world passeth away' (wa.pa.jfi. TO crx^/uo, TOU KOCT/J.OV [paragei to schema tou kosmou]), many have seen an allusion to the drama, drawn either from the shifting of the scenes, or the passing across the stage of the gorgeous processions then so common.

Ancient history records the name of at least one Jewish dramatist - Ezekiel, who lived in Alexandria in the second century B.C. and wrote a 'tragedy' or dramatic poem, entitled The Exodus (Efa-yoyyrj [exagooge]), of which considerable fragments are preserved in Clem. Alex. (Strom. 123), Eusebius (Praep. Ev. 9:28-29) and Eustathius (ad Hexaem. 25). On the question of a Semitic drama cp CANTICLES, 7, POETICAL LITERATURE, 4 (5).




(] 3fl). where Abimelech was killed whilst besieging the citadel (Judg. 9:50 :6HBHC [BL], GAlB&lC [A]; 2 S. 11:21 and v. 22 in LXX, 6&/v\ekC[e]i [thamas[e]i] [BA], -/weccei [thamessei] [L]), was situated, according to Eusebius and Jerome (OS, 26244, 157:15), 13 R. mi. from Neapolis on the road to Scythopolis. Starting from this, Robinson plausibly identifies Thebez with the mod. Tubas, a large village on the W. slope of a fruitful valley, 10 mi. due NE. from Nablus. So Buhl, Pal. 204 and the PEF Survey.

But is this correct? Tubas suggests rather f31B. Apart from this, the form of the name is peculiar. We expect some famous fortress to be referred to. From the point of view of SHECHEM, 2, one may naturally think of Zephath( = Zarephath) ; 713%; might easily be written n3S, out of which by transposition would come t3n- This seems to give greater vividness to the narrative.

T. K. C.


(QeKooe [AXV]), 1 Macc. 9:33 AV, RV TEKOAH.


pb X^P)), 2 K. 19:12 AV, RV TELASSAR (q.v. ).


(GeAepCAC [B]), 1 Esd. 5:36. See TEL-HARSHA.


(0MMAN [BAQr]), Bar. 3:22-23 AV, RV TEMAN.


(GCOKANOY [A], GOK. [B]), 1 Esd. 9:14 AV= Ezra 10:15, TIKVAH (q.v. ).


(GeoAOTOC [AV]), one of Nicanor's ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B.C. (2 Macc. 14:19).


1. Immediate.[edit]

The invisibility of God formed no part of early Hebrew belief. Although it was commonly thought that to see God (or indeed to hear his voice Dt. 4:33, 5:23+, [5:20+]) was dangerous and even fatal (Ex. 33:20, Judg. 13:22, cp Gen. 16:13 {1}, Ex. 3:6, 19:21, Judg. 6:22-23, 1 K. 19:12-13, Is. 6:5), many narratives, including those just cited, record cases in which men saw God, or at least perceived through the senses that he was present, and yet lived. The most striking of these is in Ex. 24;10 (JE) where it is quite simply related that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, having gone up Mt. Sinai, saw the God of Israel. The narrator is well aware of the exceptional character of the occasion, for in the next verse he expressly records that God 'laid not his hands' upon them; but he gives no hint that what was seen was anything less than the fullness of the glory and person of the deity or that it was seen in any other way than by ordinary vision. Cp Nu. 12:6-8 (E).

In most cases, however, it is implied that the deity, although he makes his presence known by a physical appearance, does not manifest himself in his fullness to the ordinary human eye. We may conveniently classify the OT theophanies into those in which the appearance is of the human form and those in which it is some other physical phenomenon.

I. Theophanies in human form.[edit]

2. In human form.[edit]

(a) Ex. 24:10 records, as we have seen, a complete exception to the law that the sight of God was fatal. The nearest parallel to this occurs in Ex. 33:17+ (J), which relates that Moses saw the back of Yahwe as he passed away, but that even he could not with safety see the face of Yahwe. In other narratives, however, it is just the face of God which is seen - Ex. 33:11 (E), Gen. 32:30 [32:31] (probably E) ; in Nu. 12:6-8 it is said that Moses, unlike others (cp Dt. 4:12, 4:15), in his customary and immediate intercourse with Yahwe sees his form or temunah (something less distinct than his appearance cp Job 4:16). But these are only typical cases in connection with the present subject, in which looseness and inconsistency of expression correspond to looseness and variety of thought. We are dealing with popular ideas and expressions, not with theological and systematic thought. What is common to the present type of theophany is that the sight of God is partial.

3. In vision.[edit]

(b) In another type the peculiarity consists in the fact that God is seen in human form indeed, but only by means of dream or vision (cp Nu. 24:3-4). So we should probably interpret the experience of Isaiah (Is. 6) and certainly those of Ezekiel (Ezek. 1 etc.) and Daniel (Dan. 7:29). Cp Gen. 28;13-16 (J).

4. 'Angel of Yahwe'.[edit]

(c) But the commonest type of a theophany in human form 2 was by means of the 'angel of Yahwe' or 'of God' (^X n -\K^o). Cp ANGEL, 2, NAME, 6. The narratives clearly identify the 'Angel of Yahwe' with Yahwe, though often in the same narrative a certain differentiation is also implied. Thus in Gen. 16 the angel of Yahwe who appears to Hagar is called 'Yahwe who spake unto her' (v. 13), and Hagar expresses surprise that she still lives after seeing God (cp further v. 10 with e.g., 12:2). On the other hand in v. 12 the angel speaks of Yahwe in the third person.

For further illustrations from other narratives of this identification, see Gen. 22:11-12, Ex.3 (angel of Yahwe, v. 2 =Yahwe, vv. 4a, 5, 7), Nu. 22:32-35 (cp especially v. 35 with 24:13), Judg. 2:1-5, 6:11-24 (angel of Yahwe, vv. 11+, 20+, = Yahwe, vv. 14, 16, 23), 13:23; for indications of differentiations see Gen. 24:7, 24:40, - yet cp vv. 27, 48, Nu. 22:31, Judg. 18:8-9, 2 S. 24:15-17 {3} See also DESTROYER.

In brief, the 'angel of Yahwe' is an occasional manifestation of Yahwe in human form, possessing no distinct and permanent personality but speaking and spoken of, at times as Yahwe himself (cp the way in which the word of Yahwe passes over insensibly into the prophetic comment), at times as distinct from him. The danger which attached to the sight of God attached also to the sight of the angel. The two early literary strata of the Hexateuch differ in their detailed accounts of the angel. In J he eats, drinks, and converses with men, and in every respect comports himself as a human being the narratives of Judg. 6, 13 are also in many respects similar; in E there is a tendency to keep even the angel from close contact with men - thus he appears in and speaks from heaven (e.g. , Gen. 22:11).

At a later date, theophanies in (human) form were denied (Dt. 4:15) or, as regularly in P, the theophany is referred to in the barest possible terms without any indication of its character - e.g., 'And God [or 'Yahwe'] appeared . . . and spoke (said)' (Gen. 17:1, 35:9; cp Ex. 6:3) ; and thus (after the Exile) the angel of Yahwe was no longer regarded as a theophany but became one of the numerous distinct angelic personalities which thenceforward formed prominent objects of belief (see ANGEL, 3-4).

1 Read 'Have I even seen God and am I (still) alive?' So Ball in SBOT in accordance with a large consensus of critical opinion. See BEER-LAHAI-ROI, 1.

2 In Ex.32 the 'angel of Yahwe' exceptionally manifests himself in 'a flame of fire', presumably not in human form.

3 The Yahwistic narrative in Gen. 18-19 presents special peculiarities. Yahwe appears to Abraham (18:) as three men (v. 2) who speak or are addressed sometimes in the singular (vv. 3, 10), sometimes in the plural (vv. 4+). Subsequently (v. 16-33) one of the three, who is identified with Yahwe, remains behind with Abraham, the other two, who are described in 19:1 as the 'two angels', proceed to Sodom ; but these in turn are addressed and speak in the singular (vv. 19-21), and speak and act as Yahwe himself (vv. 21+).

II. Theophanies in which the manifestation is not in human form.[edit]

5. Fire.[edit]

(a) Fire, in one form or another, frequently indicated the divine presence. The most notable illustrations of this are the 'Burning Bush' (Ex. 3) and the 'Pillar of Fire' (Ex. 13:21). In Ex. 14:19b (J) the 'pillar of cloud' = 'the angel of God', v. 19a (E). For further details see the articles BUSH and PILLAR OF FIRE. But there are a number of other passages where fire or a fiery appearance clearly has the same significance e.g., Gen. 15:17, Ex. 19:18, 24:17, Dt. 4:12, 4:15.

We ought also to compare the part played by fire in the destruction of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10), of Korah and his company (Nu. 16:35), of the people at Tab'erah (Nu. 11:1-3), in Elijah's conflict with the priests of Baal (1 K. 18, cp 2 K. 1:10+), in the theophany at Horeb (in 1 K. 19:11-12, where fire is not itself the theophany but an accompaniment of it), in the assumption of Elijah (2 K. 2:11), and generally in the later literary theophanies (see below, 9), and in similes (e.g., Is. 10:17; 'Yahwe is a devouring fire', Dt. 4:24, 9:3). Cp also the Arabic stories of fiery appearances of the jinn; Goldziher, Abh. zur Arab. Philologie, 205+.

Even in the NT we find, in addition to citations from or references to the OT (e.g. , Acts 7:30, Heb. 12:18, 12:29), two or three instances of theophanic fire ; the fire clearly indicates, or is the accompaniment of, the divine presence in Acts 2:3, 2 Thess. 1:8 (of the second coming of Christ) 2 Pet. 3:10-12, Rev. 10:1 (of an angel) ; perhaps also Mt. 3:1 = Lk. 3:16 should be compared. Generally, however, in NT (as already in Enoch ; e.g., 10:13, 21:7-10, 9:83) fire is the instrument of the divine punishment and does not necessarily or explicitly affirm the divine presence. The transition from the older to the later conception was facilitated by such passages as Am. 5:6, Is. 33:14 (cp 66:24), Mal. 3:2, and is actually seen in certain NT passages - 2 Thess. 18:2, Pet. 3:10-12, 1 Cor. 3:13-15.

6. Glory of Yahwe.[edit]

(b} The 'glory of Yahwe' (" 1133), which from Isaiah (63) onwards (e.g., Nu. 14:21-22, Dt. 5:21 [5:24], Ezek. 39:21, Ps. 8:1, l9:2 [19:1], 96:3) expresses the manifestation of the divine character in nature and history, is used by Ezekiel to express also the fiery appearance which, in his visions, indicates the presence of Yahwe - 1:28, 10:4, 43:2 etc. In P the phrase is invariably used of a fiery theophany - in the first instance of the theophany on Sinai (Ex. 24:15, 24:17) and, subsequently, of that in the tabernacle - Ex. 29:43, 40:34-35, 16:7, 16:10 (in v. 10 restore w7ipzn, tabernacle, for the redactorial T3i~nK Lev. 9:6, 9:23, Nu. 14:10, 16:19; cp further, 1 K. 8:10-11, which is dependent on P (Corn. Einl, 108). In its last usage the phrase corresponds closely to the Shechinah of post-biblical Hebrew. The fact that the 'glory of Yahwe', where it indicates a fiery appearance, is so frequently associated with cloud and the similar combination of fire and cloud in the stories of the Pillar of Fire and Cloud (q.v. ) may be, in part at least, explained as modified survivals of an old view, which also maintained itself in greater purity in poetical passages (e.g. , Pss. 18:29), that Yahwe manifested himself in the thunder storm.

7. 'Name' or 'Face' of Yahwe.[edit]

(c) Closely related to the term just discussed, and in some cases almost synonymous with it, are the 'Name of Yahwe' and the 'Face of Yahwe'; the former stands in parallelism with the 'glory of Yahwe' in Is. 59:19, Ps. 102:15. The most strictly theophanic passage in which either occurs is Is. 30:27, and even that is clearly figurative. Cp NAME, 6. Generally speaking, both terms are used of God as made known to men, but rather by some decisive event, or otherwise indirectly, than by a physical phenomenon. In Phoenician, on the other hand, 'the face' or 'name of Baal' is a goddess - ^JH JBTUTb ^73 DC mrwy (cp Baethg. Beitr. 56 J, 267+, also NAME, 6 ; and see Fr. Giesebrecht's monograph, Die Alttestamentliche Schattung des Gottesnamens u. ihre religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage [1901]).

8. General estimate.[edit]

Two remarks are suggested by the preceding survey.

  • (1) The belief that fire, especially the lightning of the storm, was the physical indication of Yahwe's presence may lie at the base of the belief in the danger of beholding Yahwe's face ; at the same time, it must be remembered that analogous beliefs occur in other religions.
  • (2) A large proportion of the stories are connected with the Exodus and the subsequent Wanderings. The idea of the 'Angel' or 'Messenger of Yahwe' may well have sprung out of an attempt to reconcile the belief that Yahwe abode in Sinai, and yet that he accompanied Israel to Canaan (cp Ex. 23:20-23). A similar conflict would still have called for reconciliation when Yahwe was regarded as seated in heaven.

9. Later.[edit]

In addition to the narratives of theophanies where the theophany is regarded as sober historical fact, we have numerous purely literary theophanies - i.e., descriptions, clearly intended by the writers to be metaphorical and imaginative. Some of these are conceived in the boldest anthropomorphic manner (cp, e.g., the descriptions of Yahwe as a warrior - Is. 63:1-6, 59:15b); in others, figures drawn from the storm or other natural phenomena play a large part (cp, e.g., Ps. 18, Hab. 3).

In the NT we have angelophanies (see ANGEL, 7), but (except as indicated above, 2a, ad fin.) no occasional theophanies such as the OT records. Instead, we have the life of Jesus which, most clearly by the author of the fourth gospel, but also by other NT writers, is regarded as a prolonged manifestation of God in the flesh (cp especially Jn. 1:1-3, 1:14, and e.g., Rom. 1:1-7, Col. 1:15+, 2:9, Heb. 1:1-3). In the same way the belief in the Parousia is tantamount to the expectation of a coming theophany.


Ch. J. Trip, Die Theophanien in den Geschichtsbuchern des AT (Leyden, 1858); this is primarily a history and discussion of the view that the 'Angel of Yahwe' = 'the son of God'. Kosters, 'De Mal'ach Jahwe' in Th.T, 1875, pp. 369-415. See, further, under ANGEL.

G. B. G.


(9eod>iAoc [Ti. WH]), the 'most excellent' person to whom the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts are dedicated (Lk. 1:3, Acts 1:1). See GOSPELS, 37.


(GepA [BA]), 1 Esd. 8:61 (cp v. 41) = Ezra 8:31, AHAVA.


(eepMeAe9[BA]), 1 Esd. 5:36 = Ezra 2:59, TEL-MELAH.


  • Place and time (1).
  • Character of epistles (6).
  • Thessalonian Christians (7).
  • 1 Thess. (2-3).
    • Its authorship (8).
  • 2 Thess. (4-5).
    • Its authorship (9-15).
  • Bibliography (16).

1. Place and time.[edit]

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written, not in Athens (cp 1 Thess. 3:1) as stated in the subscription to the epistles in the Textus Receptus, but in Corinth during Paul's first visit there recorded in Acts 18:1+. This appears from the following considerations :

1. The names of Silvanus and Timothy are joined with the name of Paul in the salutations of both epistles, and they were with Paul in Corinth during his first visit there, according to Acts 18:5, which is confirmed by 2 Cor. 1:19. A considerable period had elapsed since Paul left Thessalonica, for the fame of the Thessalonian Christians had already spread throughout Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:7-8), and Paul must have laboured at least for some months in Achaia, as may be gathered from the spread of Christianity in that province implied in the same passage. Timothy had been sent back to Thessalonica from Athens, and had had time to return and make his report to the apostle (1 Thess. 3:2, 3:6), and this return may fairly be identilied with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth, mentioned in Acts 18:5. See TIMOTHY, 3 ; cp SILAS.

ii. On the other hand, the epistles cannot have been written at a time subsequent to Paul's first visit to Corinth, for the first of them was evidently written immediately after the return of Timothy from Thessalonica, whither he had been sent by Paul from Athens (1 Thess. 3:6); the Thessalonian church was apparently still a young church (1 Thess. 1:9), and, finally, there is no sign that Paul and Silvanus and Timothy were together again after the first visit in Corinth ; cp SILAS.

The epistles were written probably in the year 48 or 49, {1} or, according to the generally accepted chronology of Paul's life, in 53 or 54. {2} They are commonly regarded as the earliest of Paul's epistles ; but there is good reason for thinking the Epistle to the Galatians still earlier. 3 The notable lack in 1 and 2 Thessalonians of the doctrinal element which is so prominent in most of Paul's epistles counts for nothing in the matter of date, for in any case they were written later than the Council of Jerusalem, sixteen years or more after Paul's conversion, and an interval of only some five years separates them from the Epistle to the Romans, and still less from Galatians and Corinthians. As a matter of fact, the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles and the absence of the great characteristic Pauline doctrines are to be explained, not by the date of the epistles, but by the particular circumstances which called them forth.

1 Thessalonians.[edit]

2. Occasion.[edit]

Those circumstances are indicated with sufficient clearness in the epistles themselves. Paul had been compelled to leave Thessalonica before he wished to do so, and under circumstances which made him fear for the permanence of his work there (1 Thess. 2:17, 3:1-2). He had apparently been driven away from the city by a persecution which continued to assail the disciples after his departure. Whether this persecution is to be directly connected with the attack of the Jews upon Paul recorded in Acts 17:5-6 is uncertain. At any rate, if the persecution was begun at the instance of the Jews, it was carried on afterwards by the Gentiles, and it was at their hands that the Christians of Thessalonica chiefly suffered (1 Thess. 2:14). {4} The persecution was so severe that Paul feared his Thessalonian converts might lose courage and renounce their faith, and he therefore greatly desired to return himself to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:17-18). For some reason, however, possibly because his friends had given bonds for his continued absence (Acts 17:9), he was unable to do so, and he therefore sent Timothy from Athens to encourage and strengthen his converts and to bring him news concerning them (1 Thess. 3:1-2). {5}

It is possible that Timothy also carried a letter from Paul to the Thessalonian church (see Rendel Harris in Expos. 8:174 [1898]); but we have no evidence of such a letter, and the information which Paul gives his readers in 1 Thess. 2:17, 3:5 rather argues against an earlier communication from him. But though we have no adequate ground for assuming that Paul sent to Thessalonica another epistle before our 1 Thessalonians, there is some reason for thinking that the Thessalonians sent a letter back to Paul by Timothy (see Harris, ibid. 167-168). Harris finds evidence of such a letter in 1 Thess. 1:2, 1:5, 2:1, 2:5, 2:9-10, 2:13, 3:3-6, and also in 1:9, where he suggests the alteration of 'they report' (anayyfAAoucriv [apaggellousin]) to 'you report' (anaggfAAfTf [apaggellete]), in order to bring it into line with 2:1; and he gives a tentative reconstruction of the letter on p. 172. 'Also we' (icai rjjueis [kai emeis]) in 2:13, 'also I' (ayu> [kagoo]) in 3:5, the conventional epistolary formula 'ye have good remembrance of us' (X eTe p-vdav ry/uuif ayadriv K.T.A. [echete mneian emoon agathen k.t.l.]) in 3:6, 'for you yourselves report concerning us' (avrol yap 7rpi 7)jixu>i an-ayye AAeT-e [autoi gar peri emoon apaggellete]) in 1:9 (to adopt the reading suggested by Harris) may fairly be regarded as pointing to a Thessalonian epistle ; but beyond these hints we can hardly go. It will not do at any rate to regard the words 'ye know' (olSare [oidate]) as evidence of such an epistle, Yor we cannot well suppose that the Thessalonians gave Paul an account of his sufferings in Philippi (2:2).

1 According to the chronology of Paul's life adopted by Kellner, Katholik, 1887, 1:146-147, O. Holtzmann, NTliche Ztgesch. (1894), Blass, Acta Apostolorum (1895), Harnack, Chronol. (1897), M Giffert, Hist. Christ, in Apost. Age (1897), and some others.


3 See M Giffert, l.c. 226-227; Zahn, Einl. 1:138-139; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 84 ; Bacon, Introd. to NT, 57.

4 Zimmer (Der erste Thessalonicherbrief, 34, 94-95) takes the opposite view, but without sufficient warrant.

5 Of this mission of Timothy to Thessalonica we hear nothing in Acts. In fact, there is no hint in Acts that Timothy was with Paul in Athens, as we know from 1 Thess. that he was.

The report which Timothy brought back from Thessalonica was upon the whole very cheering ; but he informed Paul of the existence of certain evils among the Thessalonians which demanded the apostle's attention. The common fleshly impurity of the heathen world, especially prevalent in a great commercial metropolis like Thessalonica, had not been entirely overcome by the Thessalonian Christians (1 Thess. 4:4-5); a spirit of enthusiasm was abroad among them which led them to neglect their ordinary employments and so bring disrepute upon the brotherhood (1 Thess. 4:11-12); and there was on the part of some a tendency, entirely natural where fanaticism had so free play, to disregard the counsel and authority of the leaders of the church (1 Thess. 5:12-13). On the other hand, in opposition to the common enthusiasm, there were some who 'despised prophesyings' and frowned upon all spiritual manifestations (1 Thess. 5:20). It looks also as if some of the disciples were casting aspersions upon the character and motives of Paul himself, possibly because he had left the city during a time of persecution. At any rate he felt obliged to defend himself in his epistle against various charges, such as co vetousness, avarice, selfishness, and personal ambition (i Thess. 2:1-12). Finally, the Thessalonians had apparently asked the apostle a question touching the fate of Christian brethren dying before the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-14). Evidently they had believed that Christ would come so soon that they should all be alive to greet him ; but as time passed some of their number died and Christ still tarried. The question naturally forced itself upon them, Were such brethren to be deprived of the privilege of seeing the Lord at his coming and sharing his glory? Either Timothy was asked to consult the apostle upon the matter, or the question was raised in the epistle to the Thessalonians referred to just above. It was due to all these circumstances that Paul wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians.

3. Contents.[edit]

The epistle has no central theme, nor is it a studied composition constructed upon a well-defined plan. It is a familiar letter in which expressions of affection and words of exhortation and warning follow one upon another with no attempt at logical arrangement.

  • After a salutation, in which the names of Silvanus and Timothy are joined with his own (1:1),
  • Paul expresses his gratitude, beginning with the conventional terms of contemporary correspondence (see Harris, ibid.), for the faith and steadfastness of the Thessalonians (1:2-8),
  • and reminds them of his own conduct while among them, of his devotion and self-sacrifice which some had evidently called in question (2:1-12),
  • gives utterance to his joy at the reception they had given his message, and at the steadfastness they had shown in the face of persecution (2:13-16),
  • tells them of his anxiety about them while in Athens and of his great desire to see them, which resulted, when he could not go himself, in his sending Timothy to visit them (3:1-5),
  • and which is now fully relieved by the good news brought by him (3:6-10).
  • The commendatory, apologetic, and explanatory portion of the letter is concluded with a beautiful prayer for the readers growth in grace (3:11-13).
  • The passage just referred to serves at the same time to introduce the second and hortatory section of the epistle (4-5). **After emphasising the importance
      • of purity (4:1-8),
      • of brotherly love (4:9-10),
      • and of quietness and diligence in daily business (4:11-12),
    • the apostle turns to the subject of eschatology and instructs the Thessalonians,
      • first, touching the brethren dying before the return of Christ (4:13-18), and
      • secondly, touching the uncertainty of the time of the Parousia, which makes it necessary to be constantly watchful and zealous (4:1-13). {1}
    • Then follow various exhortations having especial reference to the disciples association with each other as a Christian brotherhood (5:12-22),
  • and the epistle closes with
    • a petition for their perfect sanctification (5:23-24),
    • a request for their prayers (5:25),
    • a salutation, and a benediction (5:26-28).

4. 2 Thessalonians.[edit]

The epistle apparently accomplished its purpose, for we hear nothing more of aspersions upon Paul's character, and the Thessalonians seem to have needed no further instruction as to the resurrection of the dead. But Paul's words touching the Day of the Lord (5:2-3) evidently led them to believe that the Parousia was imminent, and some of them in their expectation of the immediate return of Christ were greatly excited and were neglecting their ordinary employments (2 Thess. 2:1-2). It is possible that it was this expectation which had led them to similar fanaticism before Paul wrote his first epistle (1 Thess. 4:11-12) ; but if so he cannot have been aware of it, or he would have dealt with the matter in that epistle.

How Paul learned of the existing situation we do not know. It is not impossible that he had received another letter from the Thessalonians in answer to his former one (see Bacon, l.c. p. 72) ; but we have no positive evidence of it. At any rate, however the news reached him, it led him to write a second epistle intended to put a stop to such unwarranted fanaticism. 2

5. Its contents.[edit]

  • After commending the patience and faithfulness of the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 1:1-4), as he had done in the first epistle,
  • and comforting them with a reference to the recompense which God will render both them and their enemies (1:5-12),
  • he proceeds at once to his main point. When he wrote before, he supposed that an exhortation to go about their daily business with quietness and diligence would suffice to put a stop to their fanatical conduct, and that they needed no special instruction touching the time and the season of the consummation (1 Thess. 5:1). He saw now, however, that it was because they believed that Christ might come at any moment that their minds were disquieted, and so he reminded them that certain events must occur before the consummation. The 'man of 'sin, the 'son of perdition', the 'lawless one' must be revealed as he had told them when he was with them (2 Thess. 2:5); but he cannot be until that which now restraineth (2 Thess. 2:6 rb KO.T^OV [to chatecho], v. 7 6 KaTfxuv [o chatechoon]) has been taken out of the way (2 Thess. 2:3-10). 3
  • This eschatological passage is followed by renewed commendations, and by exhortations to steadfastness and patience, sobriety and diligence (2:13-3:15),
  • and the epistle concludes with benedictions and with a salutation from Paul's own hand, which he asserts is the token in every letter (3:16-18).

It would seem that those disciples who were insisting that the Parousia was immediately at hand were appealing to a letter bearing Paul's name (2 Thess. 2:2) ; but as he was not conscious of having written anything to support their opinion, he concluded that they must be making use of a forged document, and so he was careful to call attention to his autograph signature which guaranteed the genuineness of all his letters. It is not likely that Paul's surmise was correct, for it can hardly be supposed that any one would venture to palm off a forged letter upon the Thessalonians so soon after the apostle s departure, and as a matter of fact the eschatological passage in the first epistle (5:1-11) was of such a character that it might easily serve to promote the belief in the immediate consummation, though he seems not to have realised it.

1 On this apocalypse see H. St. John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 102-103.

2 It was formerly maintained by some scholars (e.g., Ew. Sendschreiben des Paulus, 17-18, Laurent, NTliche Studien, 49-50) that 2 Thess. is earlier than 1 Thess.; but this is excluded by the literary relationship between the two epistles, which clearly points to the secondary character of the second, by the sharper tone of 2 Thess. in dealing with the disorderly (36-7), and by the relation of the apocalyptic passage in 2:2-3 to 1 Thess. 4:13-14.

3 Upon the interpretation of this passage see ANTICHRIST, 4-5.

6. Character of epistles.[edit]

The Epistles to the Thessalonians are almost wholly personal and ethical and throw very little light upon Paul's theological views, 1 except in the matter of eschatology to which there are a great many allusions. Thus, the Parousia of Christ is referred to in 1 Thess. 1:10, 2:19, 3:13, 4:15-16, 5:2-3, 5:23, 2 Thess. 1:7-8, 2:1-2; the judgment in 1 Thess. 1:10, 2 Thess. 1:6-7, 2:12; the resurrection of believers in 1 Thess. 4:14-15; their future glory and blessedness in 1 Thess. 4:17, 5:10, 2 Thess. 2:14; and the final kingdom in 1 Thess. 2:12, 2 Thess. 1:5. It is evident that the Thessalonian Christians were much interested in eschatological questions, and it would seem that Paul must have laid considerable stress, while in Thessalonica, at any rate upon the speedy return of Christ and the impending judgment (cp 1 Thess. 1:10, 5:2-3, 2 Thess. 2:5). Possibly he was led to do so by the great prevalence of vice and immorality in the city. However that may be, the Thessalonians expected the return of Christ very soon, before any of their number had passed away, and Paul had evidently given them some warrant for the expectation, for even when he wrote his first Epistle he looked for the Parousia during his own lifetime and theirs (cp 2:19, 4:15-16). It was doubtless because of this that Paul had not instructed them touching the resurrection of believers and so was obliged to do so at some length in 1 Thess. 4:13-14 (cp 1 Cor. 15 and see M'Giffert, l.c. p. 248).

7. The Thessalonian Christians.[edit]

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians throw considerable light upon Paul's work in Thessalonica and upon the character and condition of his converts there. The Christians addressed were most, if not all, of them Gentiles (1 Thess 1:9, 2:14 ) ; and, moreover, as appears from the former passage, they had been converted directly from heathenism to Christianity under Paul s preaching. But the account of Paul's work in Thessalonica contained in Acts (17:1-2) gives a very different picture of the Thessalonian converts. According to that passage, 'Some of them (i.e. , of the Jews) were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks (i.e., Jewish proselytes) a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few'. Of these Jews and Jewish proselytes there is no trace in either of Paul s epistles, and though of course it is quite possible that there were some of them among his converts, it is certain that they must have formed an altogether insignificant minority. It is clear then that the author of Acts, as is frequently the case, has recorded the least important part of Paul s activity in Thessalonica, and that it was not in the synagogue that he did his chief work (the only part of his work mentioned in Acts), but among the heathen population of the city. At the same time there is no reason for doubting that Paul actually did preach to Jews and proselytes in the synagogue of Thessalonica. 2 But after a brief period spent in that work he must have turned to the Gentiles, instead of leaving the city directly as implied in Acts 17:10, and must have spent at least some months in labour among them, as is clear from 1 Thess. 2:7-8 and Phil. 4:16, and also from the large and permanent results accomplished. The account in Acts is thus very meagre and misleading at this point and has to be not only supplemented but also corrected by 1 Thess. It is evident that that epistle was not in the hands of the author of Acts when he was writing his account of this part of Paul's work, nor was Acts in the hands of the author of 1 Thess.

The Thessaloninn epistles bear eloquent testimony to the success of Paul's missionary labours in Thessalonica. He succeeded in founding there a strong and vigorous church, and the faith and patience and brotherly love of his con verts were so marked that their fame speedily spread even beyond the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:7-8), and their generosity in ministering to the necessities of other churches, even though poor them selves, called forth the apostle s hearty commendation (1 Thess. 4:10; cp 2 Cor. 8:1-2, and Acts 20:4). To none of his churches was he bound by warmer ties of affection than to the churches of Thessalonica and Philippi, and none of his epistles, except that to the Philippians, is more thoroughly pervaded with joy and confidence and affection than 1 Thess.

1 See 1 Thess. 2:12, 3:8, 3:13, 4:7-8, 5:10, 5:18, 2 Thess. 1:11, 2:13, 2:16 for familiar Pauline ideas.

2 See M'Giffert, op. cit. 246.


8. Of 1 Thess.[edit]

It has been assumed throughout this article that both 1 and 2 Thess. are genuine epistles of Paul. So far as the former is concerned its authenticity, denied a couple of generations ago by many scholars, is to-day generally recognised except by those who deny the genuineness of all the Pauline epistles (see PAUL, 38). As a matter of fact, if one accepts any of Paul's epistles there is no good reason for denying the authenticity of 1 Thess. The argument against its genuineness, drawn from its lack of the doctrinal and polemical material found in the great epistles to the Galatians, the Corinthians, and the Romans, is now universally recognised as fallacious, for the situation in Thessalonica as indicated in the epistle itself fully accounts both for what it contains and for what it omits. Moreover, the style of the epistle, its revelation of the character of its author, its familiar and personal tone, the absence of any doctrinal or polemic interest which would account for pseudonymity, the discrepancies between the epistle and Acts, the use of the three names Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (the form 2/Xaj [silas] being found uniformly in Acts and 2i\ovav6s [silouanos] only in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Cor. 1:19, and 1 Pet. 5:12) all make for genuineness [cp SILAS] ; and the evidence brought by Rendel Harris in the article referred to above (section 2) that it is part of a correspondence with the Thessalonian church, strengthens the argument, and if that evidence be regarded as conclusive, of course places the genuineness of the epistle beyond all question. Finally, the implication in 4:17 that Christ was to return during the lifetime of the apostle is of itself enough to prove that it was not written after his death. 1

1 Schmiedel, while accepting the epistle as a whole, suggests that 2:15-16 is an interpolation. There is, however, no reason to doubt the genuineness of the passage, though it is quite possible that v. 16b is an interpolation; and the same may be said of v. 23b. The latter looks decidedly un-Pauline, and by its omission v. 24 is brought into immediate connection with v. 23a with which it seems to belong.

9. Of 2. Thess.[edit]

On the other hand, the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is by no means so clear, nor is it so widely recognised. The tendency to view it as a genuine epistle of Paul has apparently grown somewhat in recent years among scholars of the critical school (e.g., Julicher, Einl. 40-41 [1894]; Harnack, Chronol. 239 [1898]; Bacon, Introd. to NT, 75-76 [1900]; and compare the statement of Holtzmann [Einl. (3) 216] that 'at the present day the question is not whether the epistle is to be brought down into the post-apostolic age, but whether it does not on the contrary reach up into the lifetime of the apostle, and whether consequently it must not be genuine, and have been written soon after 1 Thess.'). Many, however, who accept 1 Thessalonians reject 2 Thessalonians altogether (as, e.g., Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Weizsacker), or regard it as largely interpolated (e.g. , P. Schmidt, Der erste Thessalonicherbrief,

10. Argument from eschatology.[edit]

The first objection urged against the genuineness of the epistle is the apocalyptic passage, 2 Thess. 2:2-12. This objection is based chiefly upon the assumption that the passage is inconsistent with 1 Thess. 5:2-3, and since its substance is said to have been imparted to the Thessalonians while Paul was still present with them (2 Thess. 2:5), the inconsistency cannot be explained as due to the further development of Paul's thought after the writing of 1 Thessalonians.

It is to be noticed, however, that though the author indicates in 2 Thess. 2 that certain events must occur, and, consequently, some interval elapse before the final consummation, there is no sign that he regards the interval as long, and that he does not expect to live until the Parousia. Nor is the fact that certain signs are to precede the consummation inconsistent with the exhortation in 1 Thess. 5:2 to be watchful, for the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night only for those who sleep, the implication being that those who are awake know the signs of its coming and will not be taken unaware. It is quite conceivable that Paul might have told the Thessalonians when he was with them why the Parousia was delayed, and might have spoken of the traditional figure of Antichrist (the TO.VTO. [tauta] of 2:5 refers to what precedes), without contradicting his belief or theirs that the consummation was to take place very soon. Only when he found that their expectation of its imminence was leading them into fanaticism would he naturally, in order to show that it could not come immediately, dwell more at length upon the intervening events, and indicate still more fully what those events were. Possibly the protection of the Roman pro-consul at Corinth (Acts 18:12) had led him to recognise more clearly than ever before the protecting power of Rome (to which r& Kar^xov [to katechon] and 6 Kar^x^" [o katechoon] ['the restrainer'] certainly refer), and so, for the first time, to bring this element of the traditional eschatology into prominence as in 2 Thess. 2:6-7.

The further objection brought against the genuineness of 2 Thess. 2:2-3, on the ground of its alleged dependence upon the Apocalypse, or of its acquaintance with the Nero redivivus legend, breaks down completely when the passage is interpreted as it should be in the light of current Jewish eschatology, and the figure of Antichrist is recognised as purely traditional (see ANTICHRIST, 4-5).

It must be recognised then that there is not sufficient ground in the eschatology of the second epistle for denying its Pauline authorship. If there is good reason for ascribing the remainder of the epistle to Paul, there need he no difficulty in assuming that he wrote the apocalyptic passage, 2:2-3. In fact, we may perhaps go farther and say that that passage, when taken in connection with the remainder of the epistle, can be better understood on the assumption of its authenticity than on that of its pseudonymity. It can hardly be supposed that any one would venture to produce such a pseudonymous epistle during Paul's own lifetime, or that it would find acceptance if he did. On the other hand, if Paul's first epistle gave rise to misunderstandings - as the second epistle, whether genuine or not, seems to show that it did - we should expect those misunderstandings to have arisen immediately, not after an interval of many years, when the expectation expressed in the epistle was already at least partially discredited by Paul s own death. And if the fanatical abuse of his words appeared during his lifetime, it would be strange if he took no notice of it. If it could be supposed that the epistle was written simply to save Paul s reputation and set him right with the Thessalonians after his death, by showing that he had not expected the consummation as soon as 1 Thessalonians seemed to imply, its post-Pauline date would be easy to understand, but there is no sign of such an interest. The sole purpose of the eschatological passage is clearly to put a stop to the fanaticism to which the belief in the speedy consummation was giving rise. Under these circumstances 2 Thessalonians, so far as the eschatological passage is concerned, seems easier to explain as a letter of Paul's, written within a few months of 1 Thessalonians, than as the work of a later time and of another hand.

It has been suggested by some scholars (e.g., Schmidt, op. cit. 127) that 2 Thess. 2:2-12 has been interpolated in a genuine epistle of Paul; but there is no ground for such a hypothesis. The point of the epistle is entirely gone if the apocalyptic passage be omitted, and the difficulties which beset the genuineness of the remainder of the epistle are even greater than those which beset the apocalyptic passage. As a matter of fact, the suggestion of Hausrath (NTliche Zeitgesch. (2) 3:198) that this passage is the only genuine part of the epistle is much more plausible.

11. From language and contents.[edit]

A second objection to the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is drawn from its language and style. It is true that the epistle contains an uncommonly large number of words and phrases which occur nowhere else in Paul (the Pastoral epistles not being reckoned as Pauline).

Such are: 'groweth exceedingly' (vnrepavf avto* [hyperauxanoo*]), 1:3; {1} 'glory' (ey/cauxao^ai* [egkauchaomai*]), v. 4 ; 'token' (e Seiyju.a* [endeigra*]), 'judgment' (icpiVis [krisis]), 'count worthy' (jcarafiota [kataxiooo]), v. 5 ; 'flaming fire' (irvp ijiAoyds [pyr phlogos]), v. 8 ; 'punishment' (8iKT3 [dike]), 'suffer' (riVw* [tinoo*]), 'everlasting destruction' (aioii ios, oAeSpos* [aioonios, alethros*]), 'from the presence' (OTTO TrpotrwTTOv [apo prosoopou]), v. 9; 'glorify' (ei 6of d<a* [endoxazoo*]), vv. 10, 12; 'good pleasure of goodness' (fvSoKia ayaOiaavf^* [eudokia agathoosynes*]), v. 11; 'gathering together unto' (eTricnii ayajyTJ [episynagooge]), 2:1; 'shake' (aaAevoj [saleuoo]), 'be troubled' (SpooCuai [throoumai]), v. 2 ; 'falling away' (a7ro<TTa(7ia [apostasia]), v. 3 ; 'object of worship' (<re/3ao>ia [sebasma]), v. 4; 'deceit of unrighteousness' (aTrdrr aSiKi af* [apate adikias*]), 'because' (avO <at> [anth oon]), 'love of truth' (ayoTn; aArjSe ias* [agape aletheias*]), v. 10; 'a working of error' (eVepyeia TrAanjs* [energeia planes*]), v. 11; 'belief of truth' (TUOTCS aArjOei a?* [pistis aletheias*]), v. 13; 'chose' (aipfo/nai [aireomai]), v. 13 (occurs once in Phil. 1:22 and Heb. 11:25 in another connection ; the common word in Paul, to express the idea, being e/cAe yiu [eklegoo]); 'good hope' (eAn-is ayafhj* [elpis agathe*]), v. 16 (cp Heb. 7:19, 1 Pet. 13); 'unreasonable' (aron-os [atopos]), 3:2; 'busybodies' (7repiepyao- faat* [periergazoran*]), v. 11; 'well-doing' (xciAoTroieaj* [kalopoioo*]), v. 13; 'note' ((7J)jueioGcr0e* [semeiousthe*]), v. 14 ; and the particle 'nor' (]irjre [mete]) in 2:2.

Considerably more than half of these, however, are found in the apocalyptic passages in chaps. 1 and 2, and their presence is sufficiently accounted for by the nature of the subject-matter, and it is now generally recognised that very little weight can be laid in any case upon the mere occurrence of hapax legomena.

More striking is the fact that the epistle contains very few words which are found in Paul's epistles but not elsewhere in the NT, except such as it has in common with 1 Thessalonians.

The particle 'if so he' (etn-ep [eiper]), 2 Thess. 1:6, and the word 'working' (cve pycia [energeia]), 2:9, 2:11, are found half a dozen times in Paul, the former in Romans, i and 2 Corinthians, the latter in Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians, and 'goodness' (ayafluxruit [agathoosyne]) in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, once each. The phrase 'as that' (u>? <m [oos oti]), 2 Thess. 2:2, occurs only in 2 Cor. 11:21; 'exalteth himself' (vTrepaipo^at [hyperairomai]), 2 Thess. 2:4, only in 2 Cor. 12:7; 'withdraw' (crreAAo^at [stellomai]), 2 Thess. 3:6, only in 2 Cor. 8:20; 'keep company with' (<rvvav<i^.iyvvfj.ai [synanamignumai]), 2 Thess. 3:14, only in 1 Cor. 5:9, 5:11; 'deceive' (efaTraraw [exapataoo]), 2 Thess. 2:3, which is found in Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, occurs also in the post-Pauline 1 Timothy.

On the whole, the argument from style, so far as it goes, seems to point away from Paul rather than toward him as author; but it must be recognised that no definite conclusion can be drawn from it.

Nor can any conclusion be drawn from the ethical and theological content of the epistle. There are but few characteristically Pauline ideas - e.g., 1:11: 'that our God may count you worthy of [your] calling' (iva i /xas dicier?? rr/s K\T7<reu>s 6 $eos r)fj.i!>v [ina hymas axioose tes kleseoos o theos emoon]; cp Eph. 4:1); 2:16, 'God who loved us' (6 0e6s ... 6 ct /aTTTjcras Tj[j.as [o theos .... o agapesas emas]; cp Rom. 8:3 Eph. 2:4) ; 2:13, 'God chose you from the beginning unto salvation' (ei Xaro V/JLO.S 6 Ofos air apx?!? s ffurrpiav [eilato hymas o theos ap arches eis sooterian]; cp Eph. 1:4, where the idea is the same but not the language), and no argument can be drawn from any of these. On the other hand, there is nothing in the teaching of the epistle which can be pronounced in any way un-Pauline, except possibly the conception of divine recompense and vengeance in 1:6-12. One might almost be tempted, if accepting the epistle as a whole, to regard these verses as an interpolation and to connect the 'to which end' (eis 6 [eis o]) of v. 11 directly with 'that ye may be counted worthy' (ei j rb Kara^iu6 f,vai Vfj.ds [eis to kataxioothenai hymas]) of v. 5.

1 The words and phrases marked with an asterisk are found nowhere else in the NT.

12. From resemblance to 1 Thess.[edit]

Much more serious than the objections to the genuineness of the epistle already mentioned is the objection drawn from its close resemblance to 1 Thessalonians, amounting at times to an almost slavish dependence. A detailed comparison of the two shows that the only new matter in the second is found in 1:5-12, 2:2-12, 2:15, 3:1-5, 3:10, 3:I3-14, 3:17.

Even within these passages there is more or less dependence upon 1 Thessalonians. Thus 2 Thess. 1:7 suggests 1 Thess. 1:10, 2:19, 4:16; and 2 Thess. 1:10a suggests 1 Thess. 3:13. 2 Thess. 2:15, taken with the verses immediately preceding, seems to show the influence of 1 Thess. 5:6-10. 2 Thess. 3:1 and 1 Thess. 5:25 both have the words, 'brethren, pray for us' (jrpoo-eu xeaUe, a&(\ij>oi, Trepi y^uiv [proseuchesthe adelphoi peri emoon]), which occur nowhere else in Paul, and 2 Thess. 3:1 and 1 Thess. 1:8, 4:15, have the phrase 'word of the Lord' (Aoyos Kvpiov [logos kyriou]), which is also wanting in Paul's other epistles, though 'word of Christ' (A6yo XpierroG [logos christou]) is found in Col. 3:16. 2 Thess. 3:3-5 contains reminiscences of 1 Thess. 5:22-24, 1:3, 3:11, and 2 Thess. 3:15 of 1 Thess. 5:12, 5:14.

The remainder of the epistle, about a third of the whole, is simply a more or less close reproduction of the first epistle.

Thus, in addition to the salutation at the beginning and the benediction at the close, which are identical, except for the addition of 'from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (aTrb 6eoC Trarpb? ica! Kvpiov IrjaoO XpicrroO [apo theou patros kai kyriou iesou christou]) in 2 Thess. 1:2, and of 'all' (irdvTtav [pantoon]) in 3:18, we find that 2 Thess. 1:1-4 is a condensed summary of 1 Thess. 1. 2 Thess. 2:1 has the clause 'now we beseech you, brethren' (tpajTui/uei 6e v^ia?, a6eA<oi [erootoomen de hymas adelphoi]), which occurs in 1 Thess. 5:12 (cp 4:1) but nowhere else in Paul; also the clause 'touching the Parousia', etc. (virep TTJS Trapoucria? K.T.A. [hyper tes parousias k.t.l.]), which is nearly identical with 1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, and the remainder of the verse suggests 1 Thess. 4:17. 2 Thess. 2:13-14 contains reminiscences of 1 Thess. 1:2, 2:13 (though 'we are bound' [6</>etAojuei> [opheilomen]] is added as in 1:3) of 1 Thess. 1:4 ('brethren, beloved of the Lord' [aoe\<j>ol liyaTTTj/neVoc VTTO Kvpiov [adelphoi egapemenoi hypo kyrio]] for 'brethren, beloved of God' [afiA<oi ^yaTrTj^xeVoi VTTO 0eov [adelphoi egapemenoi hypo theou]]); of 1 Thess. 4:7 (though the combination of 'of spirit' [Tri-ei^a-ros [pneumatos]] with 'sanctification' [ayiaafiia [hagiasmoo]], and the phrase 'belief of truth' [TricTTei aATjSei os [pistei aletheias]] are new); and of 1 Thess. 5:9. 2 Thess. 2:16-17 may be compared with 1 Thess. 3:2, 3:12-13 (notice the connection of the two words, 'comfort' [n-apaicaAe crat [parakalesai]] and 'stablish' [o-T7)pi <Jio [sterizoo]). 2 Thess. 3:6-12 is entirely, with the exception of the latter part of v. 10, which is new, a reproduction of 1 Thess. 2:6-7, 4:11-12; v. 8 being verbally identical with a part of 1 Thess. 2:9 ('wrought in labour and travail night and day that we might not burden any of you' [(v non-ia Kal /j.6\dia IOI/CTOS xai ^tc paf fpya6nfi>oi Trpb? TO >irj eTrtjSaprjo-at rira ii/uan/ [en kopoo kai mochthoo nyktos kai emeras ergazomenoi pros to me epibaresai tina hymen]]); and vv. 10a with the first clause of 1 Thess. 3:4 ('for even when we were with you' [KO.I yap ore r^ey Trpbs v^as [kai gar ote emen pros hymas]], the particle 'when' [ore [ote] being found nowhere else in either epistle, and 'for even' [KO.I yap [kai gar]] only here in 2 Thessalonians). The passage also contains striking reminiscences of 1 Thess. 1:6-7, 4:1-2, 4:11, 5:14. 2 Thess. 3:16, 'now the Lord of peace himself' (avrbi 6e 6 Kuptov 7179 eiptjcrjs [autos de o kyrios tes eirenes]) may be compared with 1 Thess. 5:23, 'and the God of peace himself' (aurbs 6e 6 #ebs TTJS eipijn)? [autos de theos tes eirenes]). The following words and phrases, which are common to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but occur nowhere else in Paul, may also be referred to: 'work of faith' (epyoi/ TriVreu)? [ergon pisteoos]), 2 Thess. 1:11, 1 Thess. 1:3; 'obtaining' (jrepi7rou)c7ts [peripoiesis]), 2 Thess. 2:14, 1 Thess. 5;9 (the word is found once in Ephesians in a different sense); 'stablish' (crrrypujco [sterizoo]) with 'heart' (xapSi as [kardias]), 2 Thess. 2:17, 1 Thess. 3:13; 'direct' (KarevOvita [kateuthunoo]), 2 Thess. 3:5, 1 Thess. 3:11; 'patience of Christ' (UTTO/IOIT) TOW Xpiorov [hypomone]), 2 Thess. 3:5 (in 1 Thess. 1:3, 'patience of the hope of our Lord Jesus Christ' [vironovrj njs eA7ri 6os TOU Kvpiov rtuMV Ir)<TOu XpioTov [hypomone tes elpidos tou kyriou emoon iesou christou]]); 'disorderly' [adv.] (draitTcos [ataktoos]), 2 Thess. 3:6, 3:11; 'behave disorderly' (dro/cre co [atokteoo]), 3:7; 'disorderly' [adj.] (oVaicTOs [ataktos]), 1 Thess. 5:14.

13. By Paul?[edit]

In the light of these many and close resemblances between the two epistles it is clear that the genuineness of the second requires the assumption that Paul had much of the thought and language of the first epistle in his mind when he wrote the second. If it could be supposed that ths two were written at a single sitting, or within a few hours or days of each other, as is possible in the case of Ephesians and Colossians, the resemblances might be explained; but an interval of at least some months separates 2 Thessalonians from i Thessalonians. The verbal resemblances are altogether too many and too close to be accounted for on the ground that the general situation in Thessalonica and Corinth remained much the same, and suggested consequently a similar line of thought. The genuineness of the second epistle can be maintained, in fact, only by assuming that Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians in his possession, and that he read it over again shortly before writing 2 Thessalonians, and saturated himself with its thought and language. It seems a little unlikely that Paul should have had a copy of his earlier epistle at hand, 1 but it is not impossible ; and if he had, it was not perhaps unnatural that, when the report reached him that Thessalonians were appealing to a letter of his in support of their views touching the Parousia, he should read over the earlier epistle to see if it gave any justification for such an appeal.

This would also serve to explain particularly the relation between 2 Thess. 3:6-7 and 1 Thess. 2:6-7. In both passages Paul refers in almost identical terms to the fact that he had supported himself with his own hands while in Thessalonica ; but in the first episile he cites the fact as a defence against the charges of his enemies, in the second as an example to the disorderly.

14. Not by Paul?[edit]

The effort of Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urchristenthums, 1:122-123; cp TIMOTHY, 6) to explain the resemblances and divergencies between the two epistles by the ingenious suggestion that the second was written not by Paul but by Timothy at Paul's request and in the name of the three fellow-workers, while it might relieve the difficulties somewhat, is rendered impossible by the use of the first person singular in 2:5 which cannot, occurring as it does without qualification, refer to Timothy, as Spitta assumes, but must refer to Paul. That the Thessalonians should have known from the handwriting that Timothy was the author of the epistle instead of Paul there is no ground for supposing, for it was Paul's custom to dictate his epistles to an amanuensis, and 3:17 must suggest to the readers of 2 Thessalonians that it was written in the same way.

Those who deny the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians explain the striking resemblances between the two epistles by the assumption that the author of the second purposely conformed it to 1 Thessalonians in order to gain Pauline authority for its eschatological teaching, and so to displace the earlier epistle, which was giving rise to so much trouble in the Thessalonian church. Such a procedure is not without parallels, nor can it be regarded as in itself more improbable than the unique self-repetition involved in Pauline authorship. Indeed, while the reproduction of the earlier epistle is at times subtle and of such a character as to suggest that the author wrote with a free hand, it seems quite as easy to suppose that someone familiar with Paul's style produced 2 Thessalonians in conscious imitation of 1 Thessalonians as to suppose that Paul unconsciously repeated himself so slavishly. And if this conscious effort be assumed, the reference to Paul's own signature in 3:17 (cp 1 Cor. 16:21, Col. 4:18, Gal. 6:11) need constitute no insurmountable obstacle.

1 The common notion that copies'of Paul s epistles must have been from the beginning carefully preserved, either by Paul himself or by his companions, rests upon a conception of their dogmatic importance which was not shared in Paul's own time, as is sufficiently indicated by the fact that so few of his epistles - so far as we know, only those which we still have - were handed down to the next generation, and that even the author of Acts apparently made no use of them in the composition of his work (see McGiffert, l.c., 436).

15. Conclusion.[edit]

At the same time, in view of the considerations urged above in connection with the apocalyptic passage, the present writer is inclined to think that the evidence points rather in the direction of the Pauline authorship of the epistle, but it must be recognised that its genuineness is beset with serious difficulties, and that it is at best very doubtful.

16. Literature.[edit]

Upon the epistles to the Thessalonians see the various introductions to the NT, the histories of the apostolic age, and lives of Paul, and the special commentaries : by Schott (1834); Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans (1856, (3) 1894); Eadie (1877); P. Schmidt, Der erste Thessahnicherbrief neu erklart nebst einem Exkurs uber den zweiten gleichnamigen Brief (1885); Zimmer, Theologischer Kommentar zu den Thessalonicherbriefen (1891). Of the general commentaries on the NT special mention may be made of Lijnemann (Meyer's Handbuch (4)), Bornemann (Meyer, (5) and (6)), and Schmiedel in Holtzmann's Hand-Commentar zum NT, Bd. 2 (1889). On the integrity of the epistles, see especially Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe (1894), p. 13-14, and on the text Zimmer, Der Text der Thessalonicherbriefe (1893).

In defence of the genuineness of both epistles, see the NT introductions of Weiss, Julicher, and Zahn, also Bornemann in Meyer. In defence of the first epistle, see also von Soden in St.Kr., 1885, p. 263-264, and Weizsacker, Ap, Zeitalter, 241-242; in defence of the second, Klopper in Theologische Studien -uiid Skizzen aus Ostpreussen, 8 (1889).

Against the genuineness of both epistles, see especially Baur, Der Apostel Paulus (1845, (3) 1867); and against the genuineness of the second Weizsacker, l.c., 249-250; Schmiedel, l.c., 8-9; Bahnsen, JPT, 1880, 401-402.

For further literature see Holtzmann, Einl. (3) 210-220, and Findlay in Expos., 1900, 2:251-252

A. C. McG.


(GeccAAoNiKH, {1} WH, Acts 17:1, 17:11, 17:13, Phil. 4:16, 2 Tim. 4:10 ; ethnic Oc<r<ra\OPtKtfs, Acts 27:2, 20:4, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1 [translated in the three latter passages by the curious syncopated form 'Thessalonians', EV]). A large and important city (now Salonica} at the head of the Gulf of Salonica, which in ancient times was called the Thermaic Gulf, from the city itself.

1. History.[edit]

Thessalonica, we are told, was originally named Therma or Therme, 2 from the hot springs found on the coast in its neighbour hood. But Therme seems to have been a small place in the vicinity, from which, as well as from twenty-five other towns on the gulf, the inhabitants were compelled to migrate in order to create the new city (Strabo, 330, frg. 21 ; Plin. HN 4:17).

The creation of Thessalonica was due, according to the most probable account (that of Strabo, l.c.), to Cassander, who called it after his wife Thessalonica, step-sister of Alexander the Great (about 315 B.C.). The history of the town begins therefore with the Macedonian, and its importance increases as we approach the Roman, period. It was the great Macedonian naval station (Livy, 44:10) ; and when Macedonia was conquered by the Romans and was divided by them into four districts, Thessalonica was made the capital of the second region, Macedonia Secunda (168 B.C. ; see MACEDONIA). When the whole of Macedonia was reduced to a single province (146 B.C.) Thessalonica became virtually its capital.

Even before the close of the Republican period the natural advantages of Thessalonica had raised it to importance, for it lay upon the great route which connected Rome with the East (cp Cic. De Prov. Cons. 2 : 'Thessalonicenses, positi in gremio imperii nostri'), about midway between Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic, and the river Hebrus in Thrace. It was the residence of the proconsul ; Cicero during his exile found here a refuge, in the quaestor's house (Pro Planc. 41). During the first Civil War the town was the headquarters of the Pompeian party (Dio Cass. 41:18); but in the second war it took the side of Octavius and Antonius (Plut. Brut. 46; Appian, BC 4:118), and by way of reward was made a 'free city' (Plin. HN 4:17). 4 As a free city it was ruled by its own assembly (cp the use of the word ST^OS [demos] in Acts 17:5, in accordance with the actual constitutional fact) and by its own magistrates, 5 who here bore the special title of politarchs (TroXiTcipxcu [politarche], Acts 17:6).

The title politarch does not occur elsewhere in Greek literature, but its use here is quite accurate, as appears from an inscription (CIG, 1967) which was engraved on a Roman arch of the Vardar gate (perhaps a monument of the victory of Philippi) recording its erection when certain persons, whose names are given, were politarchs of the city (iroXiTapxoi i Tuv [politarchoutntoon]). 1 It is doubtful whether the number of politarchs was five or six (see a paper on the politarchs by Dr. Burton, reprinted from the Am. Jour. Theol. [1897], 598, where other inscriptions are cited from Macedonia, and more particularly from Thessalonica, in which the title TroXtrctpxai [politarchai], or the verb iro\iTapxovvT(s [politarchountes], occurs).

The tosvn flourished greatly. Strabo (330, frg. 21) calls it the fiTjTpon-oAis [metropolis] of the Macedonia of his time, and notes its populousness (323, n vvv fidAiora TCUV dAAioc euai fipei [e nyn malista toon alloon euandrei]). Lucian, in the second century A.D., speaks in similar terms (Asin. Aur. 46, iroAews rial iv UaKtSwiq 7179 jueyurris 0e<r<raAoj t ic )j [poleoos toon en Makedonia tes megistes Thessalonikes]).

1 eTToAcwVr) [thettalonike] in Pol. 23:4 ; eo-o-aXoiiiceia [thessalonikeia] in Str. 330, frg. 20 etc.

2 0e pju.i) [therme], Herod. 7:121, et saep.; Thuc. 1:61, 2:29. e pjaa [therma], Aeschin. De Fael. Leg; 29 (Bekker).

3 After 158 B.C., when the right of silver coinage was granted by the Senate, Thessalonica issued silver tetradrachms with the inscription MAKEAONON AEYTEPAI. See Head, Hist. Numm. 213. Its bronze coins before and during the empire are plentiful, bearing the name of the town, or the ethnic in the genitive, often with titles fj.rjTpowo\i.<; [metropolis] or KoAoWa [koloonia]. The latter title dates from the time of Valerian (see Momms.-Marq. 1:320).

4 To this may allude the word eAeufcpta [eleutheria] with female head on some of its coins.

5 Cp Livy, 45:29, where Aemilius Paulus at Amphipolis declares 'omnium primum liberos esse iubere Macedonas, habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, annuos creantes magistratus'.

2. NT references.[edit]

The spread of the Jews after Alexander's death would doubtless affect the city, well placed as it was for controlling the trade of Macedonia. That the Jewish community in Paul's time was fairly large is evident from the fact that it possessed a synagogue here (Acts 17:1; contrast Philippi, and compare with Beroaa, which also, being a commercial town, possesses a synagogue, Acts 17:10). The number of the Jews settled in the town had also produced an appreciable effect upon the Hellenic section of the population, and prepared the way for Paul s work of evangelisation by the creation of a large class of proselytes (cp Acts 17:4, 'of the devout Greeks a great multitude', EV ; ir\rjOos iro\v [plethos poly]). A testimony to the number and influence of the Jews, both in Thessalonica and in all this region of Macedonia, is to be found in the apparent ease with which they excited hostility against Paul. The exact ground of complaint alleged against Paul at Thessalonica should be closely compared with the charge used against him at Philippi, for the difference runs closely parallel with the actual difference of political status between the two towns.

The charge at Thessalonica is virtually one of political innovation or revolution (v. 7, 'contrary to the decrees of Caesar . . . another king') - a thing to which the Empire was very sensitive, and one fraught with grave possibilities of undesirable changes for the people of Thessalonica if the imperial authorities were minded to take it seriously. In Philippi, on the other hand, a Roman colony, where there could be no question of loyalty, the charge touches religious innovations (see on this point, Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 229-230). The riot itself, though not so represented in the narrative in Acts, would appear to have surpassed that at Philippi in malignity and violence (cp 1 Thess. 2:14-15). The attitude of the magistrates, so far as can be inferred from the short account, would seem to have differed entirely from that of the magistrates at Philippi, and to have been not in harmony with the feelings of the dregs of the populace stirred up by the Jews. With the attitude of the politarchs and upper classes of Thessalonica we may well compare that of the Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19:31). Nevertheless the politarchs were obliged in the interests of their own safety to fetter Paul's work effectually by taking sureties of Jason and other prominent Christians of Thessalonica against the repetition of the teaching. Paul was therefore cut off from the city by a barrier more effective than the threat of merely personal danger (1 Thess. 2:18, 'Satan hindered us'. Cp Rams. op. cit. 230).

As regards the time spent in the city by Paul, nothing certain can be inferred. Probably, however, it would be an error to confine his work to the limited space mentioned in Acts 17:2 ('three sabbath days'). Not only is a longer sojourn indicated by the expression used in 1 Thess. 1:8 ('For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia'), but such is perhaps proved by the statement in Phil. 4:16 ('For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity'). Further, the church in Thessalonica would seem to have been composed very largely of Gentile converts (whether proselytes or pagans at the time of Paul's teaching is, of course, not to be decided). At any rate the Jewish Scriptures are not employed in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and in 1 Thess. 1:9 the members are spoken of as having 'turned to God from idols'. Hence we should infer that much time was spent in Gentile circles, apart from the work among the Jews which is most prominent in Acts. It does not appear that the inference as to the length of Paul s stay in Thessalonica derives any further support from a consideration of such passages as 1 Thess. 2:9, 2 Thess. 3:8-9, in which stress is laid upon Paul's self-supporting industry.

Though the name of Thessalonica does not recur in Acts, Paul almost certainly saw the town again, both going and returning, on his third missionary journey (Acts 20:1-2). On his return two members of the church of Thessalonica accompanied him into Asia (v. 4) [see ARISTARCHUS, SECUNDUS). Possibly he was also there after his first imprisonment (cp Phil. 1:26, 2:24); the visit to Macedonia recorded in 1 Tim. 1:3 might very well embrace an excursion to Thessalonica.

Of members of the church at Thessalonica we can specify Jason (Acts 17:5; possibly identical with the Jason of Rom. 16:21), Demas (probably; 2 Tim. 4:10), Gaius (Acts 19:29), Secundus (Acts 20:4), and above all Aristarchus (Acts 19:29, 20:4, 27:2 ; he is alluded to also in Col. 4:10 and Philem. 24).

Christianity, having been once established in Thessalonica, spread rapidly (1 Thess. 1:8), and in later times the city was the bulwark of religion in this region of Europe, so much so that it was designated 'The Orthodox City'. Its name is prominent in the Byzantine historians. It was a safeguard of the Empire during the Gothic inroads, and later during the Sclavonic wars, of which it bore the brunt from the middle of the sixth century A.D. onwards. During the Middle Ages the city was thrice captured, by the Saracens, the Normans, and the Turks. It is now a nourishing place, the second in European Turkey after Constantinople. It is specially rich in remains of Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture, surpassing in this respect any other city in Greece (Leake).

1 The arch was demolished about 1867, but the inscription is now preserved in the Brit. Mus. (Murray, Hdbk. to Greece, 826). It is remarked as a curious coincidence (Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 1 395) that three of the names on the inscription are identical with those of three of Paul's friends in this region (Sopater, Gaius, and Secundus ; cp Acts 19:29, 20:4). Possibly a later date should be assigned to the arch than is given above (so Leake and Tafel), but that will hardly invalidate the weight of the inscription as a testimony to the accuracy of Acts in this passage.

3. Literature.[edit]

The most elaborate Work is that by Tafel, the first part of which was published in 1835 and afterwards prefixed as Prolegomena to his De Thessalonica einsque aegro, Dissertatio geographica (Berlin 1839). This is especially full in relation to the topography and the Gothic and Sclavonic wars. For the history Finlay's History of Greece (ed. Tozer) may also be consulted. Descriptions of the town and remains are given by all travellers from Clark (1810) to Leake (1835), and onwards. A good succinct account will be found in Murray's Handbook to Greece.

W. J. W.


(GeccAAlA. Acts 17:5 D). Thessaly is mentioned only in an addition to Acts l7:15 in D, which runs, 'and those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens ; [and he passed by Thessalia, for he was prevented from preaching the word unto them]'. It is not clear whether at this time Thessaly was included in the province of Achaa, or fell to Macedonia. If the latter was the case, we should naturally expect to find Paul going from Beroea to Larissa, the chief town in Thessaly, for his call was to Macedonia (Acts 16:10); and in that case his neglect to visit Thessaly must have been due to divine injunction (as in Acts 16:7). If Thessaly fell at that time to Achaea, there was no necessity specifically to mention its omission, unless we assume that already Paul felt that he was called to a wider field than Macedonia. It is indeed a strange omission in Acts that nowhere is it indicated when and how this conviction forced itself upon his mind ; already in Athens (Acts 17:17) the special call to Macedonia is forgotten in the absorbing self-imposed task of disputing with the Jews and proselytes of that city. Apparently there is no feeling of restriction to a particular province.

As regards the actual attribution of Thessaly, Ptolemy assigns it to Macedonia, Strabo to Achaea (p. 840). The separation may have been the work of Vespasian.

W. J. W.



  • 1. Acts and Jos. on Theudas.
  • 2. Not two persons.
  • 3. No error in Jos.
  • 4. Did Lk. know Jos.?
  • 5. Text and purpose of Acts 5:36-37
  • 6. Separation of sources.
  • 7. Inexact use of Jos. by Lk.
  • 8. Literature.

1. Acts and Jos. on Theudas.[edit]

Theudas (eeyA&C [theudas] {1} Ti. WH) is mentioned only in Acts 5:36, where Gamaliel, in his speech in the synedrium in support of his plea for letting the apostles alone, names him as the leader of a movement which, notwithstanding its threatening appearance at first, very soon came to nothing. The peculiar interest which attaches to this passage lies in the fact that a quite similar story is found also in Josephus (Ant. 20:5:1, 97-98).

(a) As the point to be investigated is whether Lk. has here drawn upon Josephus, it will be convenient to print both passages in close juxtaposition.

Josephus. -

"tafiou Se rrjs loufiat as eViTpon-euoi TOs yo>)s T S %> <9eu5a; ofo/uan Trei tfet TOV TrAeicTTOj o^Aoi a.va.\aftot>ra ras KTrjtrei? 7re<rda.i Trpb? TOV lopSdvriv TrOTa^bv aurai. irpo<j)iJTr]s yap eAeyei* ftpeu, xal TrpotTTay/naTi TOV TTOTa.fji.bv ar\io~a<; oiooov e 07) Trapefeip aijTOis fK^Smv, xai raura Ae yuji/ n-oAAous i7?raTT)cre> . ou fj.r)i> eiatrev aiiroi/s rrjs a.<f>poo~vvr)S ovacrOai. I>a<5os, aAA tfivtfvfm lAiji tnWwc err aiirovs , JJTts a7rpo<r5oKr)TOs 7ri7re<ToO<Ta TroAAou? fj.ev O.VTMV ai/etAec, iroAAous Se fuii/ras e Aa^ei/ avrdi re TOC eu8di> fojypjjo-ai Tes aTrore ^ii ouo i. Ti)v Kf>a.\riv (cat K0/ui bv<ni eis Iepo<ro- Aviua.
'While Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain charlatan, Theudas by name, persuaded a very great number of people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan ; for he told them that he was a prophet, and said he would at the word of command divide the river and give them an easy passage through it ; and by these words he deluded many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to gain aught by their folly, but sent a regiment of cavalry against them, which, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many alive. Taking Theudas also alive, they cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem'.

Acts. -

rrpb yap TOVTIOV Ttav Vj/xepaii/ aj/e crn) evSas, Ae yioi/ flvaL Viva. eavTov, u> TrpotTcxAi^r/ a> 5pu>i api#jtibs a>s TeTpa/cocruoi . os avripfOr} KOLI TraWes dam erreidovTO avrw Sie\v9r)<ra.v Kai eyeVovro eis ouSeV.
For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought.

(b) In so far as the differences betwen the two accounts affect their substance, they are so unimportant as in no way to hinder us from believing that the same fact is intended in both.

Lk. naturally is shorter, for his object is not to tell the history of Theudas, but simply to cite an instance appropriate to the purpose of Gamaliel's speech. He therefore mentions only the beginning, and the ultimate issue of the movement. Therefore, there is no contradiction with Josephus when Lk. says of the followers of Theudas simply that they were dispersed and came to nought. If Theudas gives himself out 'to be somebody', the meaning can well be what Josephus says - that he called himself a prophet. 2 Lk.'s expression recalls Acts 8:9, where almost the same claim is atributed to Simon Magus - an identical claim if 'great' (fxe yai/ [megan]) there be a gloss (see SIMON MAGUS, 1, n.).

The greatest discrepancy is that whilst Lk. is able to give the number of followers of Theudas as about 400 men, Josephus has TOV TrXetaTov 6%Xof [ton pleison ochlon]. It does not follow from this expression that he intends a substantially larger number.

Krenkel (below, 8), 170-171, has collected abundant instances to show that Josephus, in places where we are able to control his statements, often gives much too high figures. On the other hand, we are not precluded from supposing that to Lk.'s 400 men, women and children ought to be added.

That the number must have been a relatively moderate one is evident from Josephus s own statement that an tAr; [ile] ( = ala) of cavalry (some 500 men) was all that was required for the suppression of the rising.

(c) Much more serious is the next difficulty. Lk. goes on to say that after Theudas, Judas of Galilee raised another revolt in the days of the taxing. As he particularises the taxing by means of the definite article (4v TCUS i]/J.epais rrjs ctTroypcK^s [en tais emerais tes apographes]) and in his own Gospel (2:1-2) mentions that under Quirinius (in 6 or 7 A.D.) and that alone, he cannot intend any other here ; and it was at the time of this taxing that in point of fact Judas of Galilee did make his revolutionary attempt (see JUDAS OF GALILEE). Thus, Lk. carries the insurrection of Theudas back to a somewhat early date. According to Josephus, however, the insurrection of Theudas was when Cuspius Fadus was procurator, that is, some time between 44 and about 46 A. D. (Tiberius Alexander, the successor of Fadus, held office till 48 A.D.). If Lk. is thinking of the same Theudas, he has thus not merely assigned him to a wrong date but, what is more, has put into Gamaliel's mouth a reference to an occurrence which at the alleged time of speaking had not yet happened.

1 On the name see next section, n. i.

2 If Theudas promised his followers to lead them through Jordan, like another Joshua, this will be not the sole purpose he had in view, but probably only a first trial by means of which he hoped to confirm faith in his miraculous power with a view to being afterwards in a position to take up some bolder enterprise.

2. Not two Theudases.[edit]

To avoid the ascription of so serious an error to Lk., it has often been assumed that he has in his mind another Theudas than the one mentioned by Josephus. Indeed, the attempt has been made to prove this from Josephus himself.

(a) Sonntag (below, 8) thought he had discovered Lk.'s Theudas in the Simon who, originally a slave of Herod the Great, shortly after the death of that monarch (4 B.C.), gathered round him a band of robbers in Peraea, got himself chosen to be their king, burned and plundered royal citadels in Jericho and elsewhere, but finally was defeated in battle by Gratus, an officer of Herod's, pursued and beheaded (BJ 2:42, 57-5, Ant. 17:10:6, 273-276). That this Simon, however, also bore the name of Theudas is a mere conjecture.

(b) Zuschlag (below, section 8) identifies Lk.'s Theudas with Theudion, brother of Doris, the first wife of Herod the Great and mother of his eldest son, Antipater.

After the execution of Herod's third son, Aristobulus (7 B.C.), Theudion married Berenice his widow (BJ 1:28:1, 553). He subsequently engaged in a plot against the life of Herod the Great which had been set on foot by the Antipater just mentioned. Antipater caused poison to be fetched from Egypt through the agency of Antiphilus, one of his friends; Antiphilus passed it on to Theudion and Theudion to Pheroras the brother of Herod. Pheroras handed it over to the charge of his wife. Not till after the death of Pheroras (5 B.C.) did the matter come to the knowledge of Herod; the result was that Antipater was put to death (BJ 1:30:5-6, 592-598 ; Ant. 17:4:2, 69-77). It is plain that between this Theudion and the Theudas of Lk. there is not the faintest resemblance, and it is therefote quite useless to inquire whether Theudion could also be called Theudas. In point of fact, Theudas can quite well be an abbreviation of Theudion ; but with few exceptions a person was known exclusively either by the full or by the abbreviated form of his name, not by both indifferently (Winer, Grain. (8), 16:9).

(c) Wieseler (below, 8) discerns the Theudas of Lk. in Matthias the son of Margaloth or Mergaloth or Margalos, a teacher of the law, who, together with his colleague Judas the son of Sariphaeus or Sephoraeus, in the last days of Herod the Great, persuaded a number of their pupils to cut down the golden eagle which Herod, in contravention of the law against graven images (Ex. 20:4-5, Dt.4:15-18, 4:23, 5:8-9, 27:15), had caused to be placed over the great gate of the temple. Herod roused himself from his deathbed and caused Matthias and Judas and their most prominent accomplices to be burnt to death, and the rest of the forty who had been taken to be executed (BJ 1:33:2-4, 648-655, Ant. 17:6:2-4, 149-167).

This story also has but few points of agreement with what we read in Acts. That Matthias gave himself out to be any great person of any kind is neither asserted nor probable ; he simply appealed to the OT command. Nor can it be said that he won over a band of followers; for those who joined in his undertaking were from the outset his pupils, and the entire action was an affair of a few hours, since the temple captain intervened at once with armed force. At the same time all those taking part, who were not captured, were dispersed, and it was only afterwards that Matthias and Judas were seized. Further, Judas was as deeply involved as Matthias ; in fact, in BJ and in the first two mentions of him in Ant. he is named before Matthias, and only afterwards (167) does Josephus name Matthias alone because directly before he has spoken of another Matthias ; so also 17;9:1, 206 : yiarOCav leal TOUS <rvv O.VTU [mathian kai tous syn autoo]. The only reason Wieseler has for passing Judas over is that the name Matthias has the same meaning as Theudas. 1 But that Matthias bore this second name also by no means follows.

(d) Other critics, with rather more prudence, attempt no identifications, but nevertheless declare that some Theudas other than the Theudas of Josephus must have come forward before Judas of Galilee. Thus, in the last instance, again Ramsay (below, 8). The scholar who with Ramsay starts from the axiom that Lk. is a historian of the same rank as Thucydides (see GALATIA, 12, end) will not readily give up this way of dealing with the difficulty. Those on the other hand who take cognisance of the great untrustworthiness of Lk. in specifically historical questions (cp ACTS, 2, 4, 13-14; GOSPELS, 132 ; LYSANIAS) will regard the assertion as rash. Ramsay is certainly right in saying (p. 259) of Josephus that 'he does not allude, or profess to allude, to every little disturbance on the banks of the Jordan'. But it is just as certain that Gamaliel must be supposed to be alluding not to a little but to a great disturbance, if his speech is to be in keeping with the gravity of the occasion. An occurrence which could reasonably be placed side by side with the affair of Judas of Galilee would certainly not have been passed over by Josephus.

Therefore also it is quite irrelevant to urge that the name Theudas was a common one, that the later Theudas was perhaps the son or grandson of the earlier (so lilass), or that Theudas was not his original name but only one which he had afterwards assumed (so Ramsay). As for the frequency with which the name occurs, the evidence - particularly that from the inscriptions - will be found in Schurer (GJV (2) 1:473, ET 1:2:168-169). That the name was frequent among the Jews, however, is not affirmed. John Lightfoot (on Acts 5:36) mentions two men named omn [ThyDVS] in rabbinic literature, with regard to whom he himself adds that neither of them can be the person intended in Acts.

1 6vSas [theudas] is one of the names formed with the well-known abbreviation-ending (cp NAMES, 86, end; LUKE, 6; APOLLOS, 1, n. 1; SILAS, 7a). Probably it comes from eoSwpos [theodooros], eoSoros [theodootos], or some such form, and thus the meaning does coincide with that of Matthias ('gift of God'); but various other forms such as eoSe KTJ)? [theodektes], eoSjj^os [theodemos] and the like could also have produced it. ev- [theu-] for eo- [theo-] rests upon a contraction met with mostly in the Ionic dialect (Gust. Meyer, Griech. Gram. (2) 119; Schweizer, Gram, der pergamen. Inschriften, 1898, 8:2b; Meisterhans, Grant, der att. Inschriften, (3) 19:1). If the accent lies on the first element of the composite name as in the first instances given above (of which evSoros [theudotos] is established in Attic inscriptions of about 200 B.C. and eiifoupos [theudooros] - both with ev [eu] - from the period of the empire, whilst Comoros [theodotos] is already found in Plato and toScopos [theodooros] in Thucydides), it is proper to accentuate the word as ev6a? [theudas] (see SILAS, n. 2) ; if such a form as fvSocrios [theudosios] - a name met with also in Attic inscriptions of about 160 B.C. - is at the basis of the contraction euias [theudas] will be the correct accentuation.

3. No error in Josephus.[edit]

Lastly, some critics have asked : If one or other of the two authors must have been mistaken, why not Josephus 'cui et in historia et in chronologia titubari et vagari non insuetum'? (so John Lightfoot). Joh. Dav. Michaelis (Einl. i. d. Schriften d. Neuen Bundes,(4) 1 [1788] p.62-63) formulates this position with greater precision thus: Lk. dates Theudas correctly ; Josephus correctly remembers (from his childhood) that a revolt occurred under Cuspius Fadus, but is mistaken in thinking that Theudas was the name of the leader on that occasion. Blass is conscious that such a charge against Josephus would be inadmissible, but reaches the same result by the extremely bold assumption (which, however, he introduces only with a fortasse) that, in describing the rising under Cuspius Fadus, Josephus wrote either another name than that of Theudas or no name at all, and that his copyists, carelessly identifying this narrative with that of Acts 5:36, introduced the name of Theudas into his text. This identification would have been occasioned by the circumstance that with both authors the mention of Judas of Galilee immediately follows.

4. Did Lk. know Josephus?[edit]

Indeed our problem becomes still more complicated than at first sight it appeared to be, by reason of the fact that Josephus, immediately after the words about Theudas quoted above (section 1), mentions Tiberius Alexander's succession to Cuspius Fadus in the procuratorship and the famine in Judaea during his term (Acts 11:28), and then proceeds as follows:-

(Ant. 20:5:2, 102 [Naber]) Trpos TOUTOIS 6e xai oi TraiSes lovSa TOV TaAiAaiou anipe 0r)<T<xi [Niese, a.irr\\fa]aav\ TOV TOV Aaci> ajrb iafj.aiiai> anxxTTija-ai TO? Kvpiviov rrjs louiai at TI/HT;TVOVTOS, <i>s iv roil Tfpb TOVTtav e&rjkiavancv, laxai/So? Kai ii/j.ajr, oi>s ai-aaraupwo-ai Trpotrerafev 6 AA fai>pos
'Besides all this, the sons of Judas the Galilaean were now put to death, [that Judas] who drew away the people from the Romans when Quirinius made a census of Judaea as has been shown in a former part of this work. Their names were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified'.

With this must be carefully compared what is said in Acts 5:37 :

juera TOVTOV o.viati\ lov&as 6 raAiAatos iv rais -tifj.epa.is TTJ? aTToypac^rjs, Kal a7re cnr)<re> Aabi oirurcu aurou (caKelpos aTriiiAero xai 7rai>T oaroi fireiOovTo aiirai 6ie(T<cop7ri<r#i)<7ai:
'After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away [some of the] people after him : he also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad'.

(a) If Lk. cannot be cleared of the charge of having made a mistake about Theudas it will be exceedingly natural to look for the cause of his mistake in this passage of Josephus, on the assumption that Lk. took the latter part of the passage just quoted from Josephus as referring not to the sons of Judas but to Judas himself. If so, it could indeed appear as if Theudas ought to be placed before Judas as long as Lk. confined his attention to the dating of Judas which he found in his own gospel (2:1-2) and left that of Theudas out of consideration (see further, 7 b}.

The remarkable collocation, by which the two are mentioned in the same order, has (since Keim) determined most critics who are not shocked at the suggestion of an acquaintance with Josephus on the part of Lk. to see here a proof of such an acquaintance - a view which it is rather difficult to avoid. Indeed, so strong is the proof that it and it alone has led Wendt, who in the seventh edition of Meyer's commentary on Acts had still denied the use of Josephus by Lk., to affirm it in the eighth edition (1899, pp. 35-38); and Blass, who does not admit it, nevertheless says: 'non facile adducimur ut casui tribuamus Theodae Judaeque apud utrumque scriptorem junctam commemorationem', and has no better way of escape than that mentioned in section 3, end.

(b) As for the phraseology: the expression 'to draw away the people' (\o.bv d-rroffT^aai [laon apostesai]) in particular is one that two authors writing independently would not easily happen upon. Then there is also the mention of the census. In 'obeyed' (eweidovro [epeithonto]) Lk. uses, both in the case of Judas and in that of Theudas, the same verb which Josephus uses in speaking of Theudas ('persuades', 7rei 0ei [peithei]). It is specially important to mark that of all the five passages of Josephus in which Judas is mentioned (see JUDAS) only that which we are at present considering exhibits these agreements with Lk. Theudas's description of himself is introduced in both cases by \6yeiv [legein], and the participle \eywv [legoon] which Lk. employs Josephus has in his second passage. The statement that after his capture Theudas had his head cut off was plainly too detailed for Lk. ; but he uses with reference to him the verb avaipelv [anairein] ('was slain') which Josephus applies to the death of the followers of Theudas (dvetKev [aneilen], 'he slew'), and to the sons of Judas in precisely the same aorist passive (dv-riptOr/aav [anerethesan], 'were slain') as we find in Lk. Any one of these coincidences can appear indecisive, but taken together they turn the scale.

5. Text and object of Acts 5:36-37.[edit]

The last of the coincidences enumerated above is, it is true, denied by Blass.

(a) Eusebius (HE 2:11:1) quotes the words of Gamaliel regarding Theudas in indirect narration as follows:-

&s &pa Kara rbv Sr/XovfJievov xpu v v a.v<ni) gaj i \t uv eavrbv dva.1 nva, to Kare\v07], Kal Trdvres 6<roi tireiffOyffav cti/nj) dif\i 0i)ffai [oos oora kata ton deloumenon chronon aneste theudas, legoon eauton einai tina, os katelythe, kai pantes osoi epeisthesan autoo dielythesan]
'that at the time specified Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, who was destroyed, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed'.

Although this quotation is far from being verbally exact (notice 4ireiff6ioav [epeisthesan] and the order of the words eavrbv tlvai nva [eauton einai tina]), Blass, nevertheless, believes that we have a survival of the original text of Lk. in Ka.Tt\v0r [katelythe], and that we shall be warranted in supposing the dvyptdr [anerethe] of the best authorities to have been first introduced into Lk. by copyists of the Bible, from the text of Josephus (dvtlXfv [aneilen]; cp dvypfd-rjaav [anerethesan] in his section relating to the sons of Judas), and vice versa that the name of Theudas was introduced into the text of Josephus also by copyists (above, 3). Assuredly a bold hypothesis.

(b) Blass considers that some support for this hypothesis can be found in the reading of D*

fis difXvdr) avrbs Si avrov KO.I Travres bffoi eireidovro avrif KO.I lylvovro fis ovdev. [os dielythe autos di autou kai pantes osoi epeithonto autoo kai egenonto eis ouden]

Not only, however, does this vary greatly from the rendering of Eusebius; it also appears to be the older of the two. This has been recognised by Blass in so far as he takes up into what he maintains to be the first form in which Acts was written the words aiirbs Si O.VTOV [autos di autou] ( = eaurou [eautou]) and omits the Sif\vdr)<ra.v [dielythesan]. It is all the more remarkable to find that he refrains from proceeding to the natural consequence - that of taking the KareAt/fhj [katelyth] of Eusebius as a modification of the Sie\.v0r [dielythe] in D which was preferred after the Sif\vdt]a-av [dielythesan] had been introduced from the ordinary text into the text of D. KaTaAuety [katalyein] will have been selected in the process because it occurs in vv. 38-39. The converse, that D or his predecessor changed the /caTeAuflrj [katelythe] (of the original text put forward by Blass) which yet was not followed by any SieAvOijo-ai [dielythesan], into fiieAu flij [dielythe], might be hard to explain.

(c) On the other hand it is nevertheless quite intelligible why Blass should have found difficulty in accepting the text of D entirely, including the dieXvOtj [dielythe], as the original. For D's text admits very readily of being regarded as modification not indeed of the primitive text assumed by Blass, yet certainly of the generally received text of the best authorities. The dvypeO-r) KO.I . . . difXi drjcrav [anerethe kai ... dielythesan] has here been compressed into one verb Stf\v6rj [dielythe].

If this Si.e\vdrja-av [dielythesan] had not lain before the scribe, the single verb Sie\vOri [dielythe] would never have been chosen. It can be applied to a group of men who have been dispersed or to a thing which has been destroyed, but to apply it to one man is not natural. Only KaTdAu eii/ [katalyein] is so used (v. 39); but /careAuOr) [katelythe] in view of what has been said above cannot be accepted as the original reading. By the compression of the two verbs above referred to, however, the construction also has suffered. The subject to fiieAv Or [dielythe] is in D not merely (is but also the plural as well, Traces iicroi firdOovro avrtZ [pantes osoi epeithonto autoo], and this same second subject receives further a verb in the plural : KCU eyeVoi/TO et ovSiv [kai egenonto eis ouden]. The Latin translator of D has seen that this is inadmissible, and has therefore taken occasion to delete the KO.L [kai] before eycVoi/ro [egenonto]: 'qui interfectus est, et omnes quotquot obtemperabant ei facti sunt nihil'; and Hilgenfeld (Acta apost. graece et lat., 1899) has found necessary the following punctuation - so completely inconsistent with the genius of the Greek language - of the words of D which he too regards as those of the true original : os 8teAu9r) avrds, 61 avrovi xal Tray-res ocrot eTreiOovTO avTiZ, /cat eyivoVTO eis ouSeV [os dielythe autos, di autou kai pantes osoi epeithonto autoo, kai egenonto eis ouden]. The reason for the compression of the two verbs into one (SieAv ffy [dielythe]) was perhaps that the eye of the copyist before it reached avypeQi [anerethe] had already run ahead to SteAiiOrjcrai/ [dielythesan]. Yet the addition of the words aurbs fit aiirou [autos di autou] seems to indicate that the alteration, even if in the first instance it was due to an accident of the sort indicated, was nevertheless carried out with full consciousness.

(d) Blass also urges reasons derived from the context for preferring KareXtiOr) [katelythe] to dvrjpedt [anerethe]. Gamaliel's design is to persuade his hearers to leave the apostles alone (vv. 38-39) ; but if the revolt of Theudas had been quelled by his being put to death, such an instance would tend to show on the contrary that the right policy was to punish the apostles with death. We are willing to believe that it was this argument, whether by itself or taken in connection with the oversight conjectured above under (c), which led to the reading dieXvOrj avrbs di auTou [dielythe autos di autou] in D. But the argument is not conclusive.

Wendt (in Meyer's Comm.) has already pointed out that it is not the apostles who are intended to be put in the parallel position to that of Theudas, but Jesus himself as the head of the new movement ; Jesus, however, has already suffered the penalty of death, and Gamaliel therefore might all the more assume that his followers were no longer seriously to be feared. At the same time it is by no means indisputable that Lk. was here thinking of Jesus. Had it been so, to have referred expressly to the fact of his death would have been very natural. In point of fact not only is this reference not made, but in speaking of the case of Theudas it is not so much as hinted that his death was the cause of the dispersion of his followers ; rather are the two facts brought into juxtaposition merely.

Thus the point of the comparison between the move ment originated by Theudas and that in which the apostles were engaged will rather be simply that both at first had an apparently threatening character but soon lose it, without reference to the manner in which the change is effected, If this view is correct, it must be conceded that the example of Theudas from Josephus is not in all its particulars quite apposite, and the attempt of Blass to discover or conjecture another Theudas who was not 'slain' (dvyptOr [anerethe]) but only 'broken' (Ka.Te\i>0-rj [katelythe]) must appear to be called for.

(e) But let us now for a little leave aside all this argumentation and simply ask : What of Judas of Galilee? What avails it to eliminate the death of Theudas by operations on the text if nevertheless that of Judas remains ? True, Josephus knows nothing of it ; but this does not come into account, for Lk. makes Gamaliel say, 'he also perished' : KaKeivos dTrwXero [kakeinos apooleto]. Against this Blass can only adduce the Perpignan codex cited in ACTS, col. 50, n. 2. This in fact has for aTTciXero [apooleto] in the case of Judas, just as for dvypedr [anerethe] in that of Theudas, 'dissolutus est'; but must we believe that the original has been preserved in a solitary Latin translation ? Is it not very easily conceivable that the second 'dissolutus est' is due to repetition by a careless copyist ? And who was it who introduced the diruXfro [apooleto] in the case of Judas? The dvypeOTj [anerethe] for Theudas, Blass will have it, is taken from Josephus ; but the diruXero [apooleto] for Judas could not at all have been taken from Josephus by way of correction of a KareXvOir [katelythe] originally written by Lk. (according to Blass), for Josephus says nothing at all about the end of Judas.

6. Separation of sources.[edit]

It thus appears that text-criticism is of no avail in the endeavour to show that Lk. has fallen into no error or to disprove his acquaintance with Josephus. Our next question therefore must be as to whether analysis of the sources can contribute nothing to a solution of the problems of our passage. Most of the source-critics named in ACTS, 11, have no difficulty in attributing the mistake as to Theudas along with the entire speech of Gamaliel to the author of their 'secondary' source, to whom also they trace everything else that is inappropriate or incredible in Acts. The situation is changed somewhat if, as Clemen holds, the two verses about Theudas and Judas of Galilee were introduced into Gamaliel s speech by the final redactor only. Clemen shares the view of Blass as to the inappropriateness of both these instances to the purpose of the speech, and therefore assumes that its purpose had not been recognised with sufficient clearness by that redactor. Lastly, B. Weiss, with whom Feine and Hilgenfeld concur, regards only the instance of Theudas (from dvearri [aneste] in v. 36 to avfcrrri [aneste] in v. 37) as being due to the final redactor. The motive of the interpolation was, he thinks, because the movement led by Theudas, as being of a more religious character, supplied a better parallel to that led by the apostles than the purely political agitation of Judas of Galilee. Even if this is not very convincing, there is nevertheless this advantage gained by means of Weiss's hypothesis that the literatim repetition of dv^arri [aneste] which would seem clumsy if we suppose a single writer, as well as that of irdvrfs Scroi iireiOovro ai rtfJ [pantes osoi epeithonto autoo], become less inexplicable. All critics who accept separation of sources at all are agreed in admitting the existence of the error in the existing text of Acts ; ast;o acquaintance with Josephus on the part of the author of v. 36 they differ in opinion, and this is easily possible, since separation of sources naturally cannot shed any light upon this question.

7. Inexact use of Jos. by Lk.[edit]

(a) Thuswemust resume thequestionat the point where we left it in section 4a. Lk.'s acquaintance with Josephus was in no case an exact one; in fact it is sometimes denied even from a standpoint for which the chronological difficulty does not exist. Thus Schurer (below 8} without holding the priority of Lk. in point of time, says: 'either Lk. took no knowledge of Josephus at all, or if he did he afterwards forgot all that he had read'. The first supposition, as the simpler, seems preferable. With reference to the case before us, he therefore supposes that any knowledge Lk. had regarding Theudas was by hearsay only. In that case, however, the remarkable degree of coincidence with Josephus must be set down to mere chance - at which explanation even Blass stumbles (above, 4a).

(b) It is difficult to see why the following explanation might not serve. Lk. had made notes from Josephus in which occurred the exact words now common to both authors. According to the order of Josephus, Theudas stood in the first place, Judas in the second. Perhaps in his reading Lk. had overlooked the circumstance that Josephus strictly speaking was dealing with the sons of ludas, and thus erroneously took what was said of the fate of these as referring to the father ; perhaps, however, on the other hand he read quite correctly, but at the same time made his note only to some such effect as this, that 'Judas of Galilee stirred the people to revolt in the days of the taxing'; because the instance of the father seemed to him better suited for his purpose than that of the sons. If now he had never before heard anything of a trustworthy kind about Theudas, it will certainly be excusable in him if he did not retain in his memory the date of Theudas (which of course he did not require for his actual purpose and therefore did not note), and (especially if the composition of his work did not follow immediately on the making of his notes) took the order of his notes to be also in chronological order, and therefore represented Theudas as appearing before Judas whose date was well known to him. If he assigns to Judas himself the fate which according to Josephus overtook his sons, this admits of being explained, on the first of the assumptions suggested above, from careless reading of the passage; on the second it explains itself. Even Krenkel concedes that Lk., even without literary authority for it, could believe that Judas must have come to the same end as nearly all the insurrectionary leaders of that period (see JUDAS, 10).

An instructive example of careless reading which no one can dispute is to be met with in Eusebius (HE 2:11), who reproduces verbatim Josephus s account of Theudas, including the mention of Fadus, and nevertheless says that it relates to the same event as Gamaliel refers to in his speech. The mention of Fadus had thus failed to suggest to him the question as to the date to which the event ought to be assigned, and as to whether it could possibly be reconciled with the assumed date of Gamaliel s speech.

(c) The attempt here made to account for the remarkable degree of coincidence between Josephus and Lk. would have to be abandoned only in the event of its being possible to show that Lk. could not have used Josephus. Not to speak, however, of the great number of cases in which his employment of that author is raised to a very high degree of probability indeed, if not to absolute certainty, the non- employment in the strict sense is incapable of being proved. It is not difficult, indeed, to prove that Lk. did not make use of Josephus in the manner in which a modern scholar does; but all the cases in which he diverges from him admit of being arranged under two classes; either he knows some other account besides that of Josephus and prefers it 1 (whether, in our judgment, rightly or no is not the question), or he fails to use statements of Josephus as to the accuracy of which he would have had no doubts, simply because he has forgotten them, unless indeed, perchance, he had never read them (for it is possible that his use of Josephus may have been sporadic only).

(d) Let us suppose, however, the case that a modern scholar has read the whole of Josephus - or most of him. Will he at the end of his reading be in a position to say with confidence, for example, what were the territories included in the tetrarchy of Philip, and particularly whether Ituraea (Lk. 3:1) was one of them (there are, in all, five passages in Josephus, not all of them in full agreement, to DC taken account of here; cp HEROD, 11; LYSANIAS, 1b), or to recapitulate the facts about Lysanias? He will have to refer to his author again. But not only was such an expedient more laborious and time-consuming in those days in the case of a large work not then, as now, divided into chapters and paragraphs or provided with an index ; we do not, above all, in the least know whether Lk. deemed this necessary, or whether he did not rather acquiesce all too willingly in the suggestion that he knew the matter well enough already without verifying it. We do not by any means deny that Lk. often gives way to fancies which a careful reading of Josephus on his part would certainly have dispelled ; as for example the notion that two men could be high priest at one and the same time (Lk. 3:2) or that the census under Quirinius which Josephus plainly assigns to 6-7 A.D. could have coin cided in date with the birth of Jesus. The question, however, is whether Lk. read Josephus with so much attention as to be able to correct these errors which had already passed into his flesh and blood. If, for example, as has been with probability supposed (see CHRONOLOGY, 59-60; QUIRINIUS), he had already confounded the census under Quirinius with some other, it could not of course make any great impression on him if he found it in Josephus mentioned in another connection than that in which he had already in his own mind placed it.

(e) If we are to form any correct judgment as to Lk.'s procedure with reference to sources which in our modern view ought to have been absolutely authoritative for him, it will be our duty to observe the manner in which he uses the Pauline epistles. He leaves so much of their contents unnoticed and contradicts them to so large an extent (cp ACTS, 4, 7, 14 ; COUNCIL ; RESURRECTION, 16-18, 21, 23, 27d, etc. ; SIMON PETER, 3; SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 9-10) that even some critical theologians have supposed he was entirely unacquainted with them. Yet this, if he wrote about 100-130 A. D. , is almost more impossible than it would be on the assumption of his having been a companion of Paul. We could imagine that not every companion of Paul became acquainted with the contents of his epistles before they were dispatched. Yet this is a matter of indifference here ; for a companion of Paul became acquainted, from his own observation or from the oral accounts of eye-witnesses, with facts of which but a small number is known to us from the epistles, yet in sufficient number to show us how far it was from Lk.'s intention to pay serious heed even to these authentic sources in constructing his picture of the apostolic age.

(f) To return once more to Theudas, it is clear that in this case also Lk.'s divergences (above, section 1b) from the account in Josephus are not decisive against his use of Josephus. It is very easily possible that Lk. , as Schurer thinks, knew something about Theudas by hearsay, and indeed that the reported number of his followers reached him in this manner. With this it is not at all irreconcilable that his collocation of Theudas with Judas of Galilee and the chronological error may be due to his use of Josephus. The case is not such as makes it possible to say that every other explanation is excluded ; but the explanation here offered has in point of fact a probability that presses, and no counterproof can be brought forward. As against it may be urged, if one chooses, the contradiction apparently involved in the fact that Lk. is found accurately reproducing certain words of Josephus while yet altering so profoundly the general contents of his statements. This last fact seems to counteract the evidential value of the verbal coincidences. We believe, however, that this difficulty has been obviated by the suggestion that the words in question come from Lk.'s notes of Josephus (see above, b}.

1 For example, on the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts 12:20-23); see HEROD, 12, end.

8. Literature.[edit]

That Josephus had been used by Lk. was first affirmed by Holtzmann (ZWT, 1873, pp. 85-03, and especially 89-90, l877, pp. 535-549). See also Hausrath, NTliche Zt.-gesch.(2) 4, 1877, pp. 230-241; Keim, BL 5, 1875, pp. 510-513, and Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1, 1878, pp. 1-27, especially 18-21 ; Clemen, Chronol. d. paulin. Briefe, 1893, pp. 66-69, and St. Kr. l895. pp. 355-337 ; and Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, 1804, pp. 162-174 (very thorough). Lk.'s use of Josephus was denied by Sonntag, St. Kr. 1837, pp. 622-652 ; Wieseler, Chronolog. Synppse, 1843, pp. 103-10;, and Beitr. zur Wurdigung der Evangelien, 1800, pp. 101-104; Zuschlag, Theudas, 1849; Schurer, ZWT 1070, pp. 574-582; Belser, Tub. theol. Quartalschrift, 1896, pp. 61-71; Blass, St. Kr. 1896, p. 459-460, and Acta apostolorum . . . secundum formam Romanam, Leipsic, 1896, p. 16-17 (cp Acta. apostolorum edit. philologica, Gottingen, 1895, ad loc.); Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, 252-260; Feine, Theol. Lit.-Blatt, 1900, 60-61; Cross, Exp.T, 1899-1900, pp. 538-540.

P. W. S.


(rm3DR), Josh. 19:43 See TIMNAH.


(0icBH [BX], 6iBH [A]), the native place of Tobit (Tob. 1:2).

It was situated 'at the right hand' - i.e., southward - of KvSiios [kydioos] [BX] or KvSi<av [kydioon] [A] (Kadesh) in Galilee, and above a<r[<r]r)p [as[s]er] (Hazor?). X[aleph] adds that it was oiricru Svoyuui ^A.i ou, ef apicrre- puji </>oy<op [episoo dysmoon eliou ex aristeroon phogoor].

So far on the hypothesis that we have the Book of Tobit in an approximately original form. There is, however, strong reason to believe that the stories of Daniel (in part), Esther, Judith, and Tobit, have been systematically altered as regards their historical and geographical names (see Crit. Bib). Thus the addition in X represents "iiysn ?MDiPD 3njfi2rj "lrlN> but this is a corruption of 7XJ?OC 3^J7 7RDTD*, and the names Naasson, Rapkain, Sephet in It. Vg. come respectively,

  • (a) from J13,
  • (b) from D NSn (see REPHAIM), and
  • (c) from riSIS.

S Vi and ~iybl are liable to confusion : the original reading was probably not 'Galilee' but 'Gilead' - i.e. the southern Gilead in the Negeb. 'Naphtah' is a southern district so called, and 'Asher' represents the southern Asshur or Ashhur. See, however, TOBIT, and on another reference to a Thisbe or Tishbeh, see TISHBITE.

T. K. C.


occur in AV as the rendering of the following words : -

1. -rrn, dardar (rpi/3o\ot [triboloi], Gen. 3:18, Hos. 10:8-9), a word also found in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but apparently quite distinct from another word dardar which, in Persian and Arabic, denotes the 'elm tree' (see Low, 98+). Being coupled in both places with pp, kos ('thorns or thorn-bushes', see THORN), dardar has been reasonably identified both in ancient and modern times with the rpi/3o\os [tribolos] of the Greeks - i.e., either a thistle or more probably a spinous plant of the knapweed kind, such as Centaurea Calcitrapa, L. (Ascherson ap. Low, 427) or the more formidable C. verutum (Tristram, NHB 426). Petermann (Reisen im Orient, 174) reported that the name dardar was still used in Syria for plants of the thistle kind.

2. For "1BN, atad, pauvos [ramnos], EV 'bramble', AVmg. offers in Judg. 9:14 the alternative rendering 'thistle'. See BRAMBLE, 1.

3. nin, hoah, is rendered 'thistle' in 2 K. 14:9, 2 Ch. 25:18, Job 31:40, and 'bramble' (AV only) in Is. 34:13, elsewhere and in RVmg. exc. Is. THORN (q.v.).

4. Tpi (3oAot [triboloi] occurs twice in NT (Mt. 7:16, Heb. 6:8-9) ; the meaning is probably the same as that of OT im [dardar].

Thistledown appears once in AVmg (Is. 17:13), producing as the result, 'like thistledown before the whirlwind'. But if a definite plant is required, one might think rather with W. M. Thomson {1} of the globe-like branches of the wild artichoke (probably Cynara syriaca). When ripe and dry in autumn these 'vegetable globes' are carried far and wide by the wind. AV, curiously, gives in the text of Is. (l.c.) 'a rolling thing', and in the similar passage, Ps. 83:13 [83:14], 'a wheel' (see WHEEL); RV in both passages renders 'the whirling dust'. The analogy of Syr. gella, Arab. jill, would, however, rather recommend 'stubble' as the true meaning of *?3^3, galgal, in these two passages.

1 The Land and the Book, 563 = S. Palestine and Jerusalem, 112-113.


(OOKANOY [B], 6coK. [A]), 1 Esd. 9:14 RV = Ezra 10:15, TIKVAH (q.v.).


For the order in which the name occurs in the lists in Mt. 10, Mk. 3, Lk. 6, Acts 1, see APOSTLE, 1.

1. The name.[edit]

In the Fourth Gospel the name occurs seven times, thrice with the addition 'who is called Didymus', 6 \eyt>fj,evos At Si /ttos [o legomenos didymos] (11:16, 20:24, 21:2, 14:5, 20:26+). From Jn. this addition found its way into the Greek and Latin text of Lk. in cod. D. Formerly the name was read also in Jn. 20:29 by the TR without any Greek attestation and in the Vulgate of this passage, though none of the MSS collated by Wordsworth-White have it there.

The spelling of the name is without exception 0w/xas [thoomas], in Latin Thomas (only two MSS of Wordsworth-White have frequently Tomas) ; in Syriac Thoma (j^so ~( H) according to Bar-Hebraeus, but the Nestorian vocalisation is The'oma (jOo(LX preserving the consonantal character of X['] as in Hebrew; the Syro-Palestinian writes the Graecised t^jcaOGlJ* (cod. A, Jn. 11:16 (XoJoOCii.), and for AiSujuos [didymos] J^^^ao^!. ( cod. C, 20:24 )^aO/i0). The Syriac appellative for twin is thama. (Nestorian the'ama), and scarcely differs in pronunciation from the proper name, for which reason the explanation 6 A.eyo/j.ei os Ai 6. [o legomenos didymos] was omitted in all three passages in Syr. Sin. Syr. Cur. is defective in all passages of the Gospels where Thomas occurs. But in both these Syriac texts the name Thomas occurs in a passage where it is not found in the original Greek, namely Jn. 14:22; instead of lovSas ov\ 6 loxaptuJTr/s [ioudas ouch o iskariootes], Syr. Sin. gives Thoma, Syr. Cur. Juda-Thoma ; Blass gives now IoiiSas[, oi/x 6 an-b KapuuJTOv] [ioudas [ouch o apo karyootou]]. The Greek AuSu/uos [didymos] has been preserved as Didymus in the Latin versions, but rendered no creszentz or dubitos in the MSS of Lyon and Carpentras of the Provencal version and ein zweifeler in the pre-Lutheran German Bible, as if it were = 6c i//uxs [dipsychos] (see (3) 8:66). The OS translates the name afivcrcros, aKaTaArjn-TOS /3a0vrr)s [abyssos, akataleptos bathytes] = Hebrew tehom (cinri, in Pal.-Syr. tuma), and SCSvfios [didymos]. The meaning 'twin' is certain, but the original form of the Semitic word is much disputed (see, on the one hand, Olshausen, 181b, Lagarde, Uebersicht, 144; Barth, 182b , n. 1; Ges.-Buhl, Lex.; on the other hand, Siegfried-Stade, Lex.; Konig, 269 ; Dalman, Gramm. 112, n. 4). The question is whether the Hebrew word be te'om (rather than to'em) or to'am (in Arabic tau'am). Still more doubtful is the relation to the corresponding Ethiopic word. The spelling teyom in the Targums is merely due to the pronunciation of X['] between two vowels. No example of the use of the noun as a proper name older than the NT is known to the present writer. There is no Thomas for instance in Josephus, but cp Phoen. in CIS 1 no. 46, where also a/no? A/36oucnpov [thamos abdousirou], though the name became very frequent in all parts of Christendom ; for modern Syriac instances, see Maclean's Dictionary.

2. The person.[edit]

From the reading 'Thomas' or 'Judas-Thomas' for 'Judas not Iscariot' in Jn. 14:22, it is apparent that Thomas was identified at a very early date with 'Judas of James' in the lists of Lk. 6 and Acts 1. This is strange enough, since the name Thomas also occurs in these lists. Yet so it is, and this identification has been maintained by Resch (Texte u. Unt. 10:3:824+), who explains 'Judas of James' as brother (not son) of James, and finds the other twin in James the son of Alphaeus, taking Lebbaeus-Thaddaeus to be different from 'Judas of James' (see JUDAS, 7). This 'Judas of James' has been identified further with Judas (or Jude) the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus, and thus Thomas has been made brother of Jesus himself. On the latter identification see especially Th. Zahn, Forschungen, 6:346+, who thinks that it is an invention of the author of the Acts of Thomas. A Syriac origin for these Acts has been maintained by Noldeke and supported lately upon valid grounds by Burkitt (Journ. Theol. Stud. 1:280+, 2:94-95). The name Judas-Thomas occurs also in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai (see Lagarde, Reliquiae Syriace, p. 42 ll. 16-17; Greece, p. 94 l. 35 ; Cureton, Documents, 33 ; ed. Phillips, 5; Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccl. 3:2), and it was doubtless from a Syriac source that Eusebius got his loi Sas 6 Kal Qu/Jias [ioudas o kai thoomas] (HE 1:13, where the Syriac text of Eusebius has only Judas Thomas). Ephrem Syrus, too, called him Judas-Thomas (6:16 F of his works, where the Roman edition printed 'Thomas', see Burkitt, Texts and Studies, 7:2:4). Others make Simon Zelotes a brother of Judas or James (see the Armenian Commentary of Ephrem on Acts in Rendel Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text of Acts, 37), and from this combination the other fact may be explained, that for Lebbceus also Judas Zelotes is found in Latin MSS in Mt. 10:3, in Munter's Sahidic version, Jn. 14:22 (see Lipsius, 3:163), in the Latin Chronicle of the year 334 (ed. Mommsen, 670, ed. Frick, 100, who wrongly presupposes a lacuna between Judas and Zelotes). For the question whether under the 'things which Judas Thomas wrote from India' (Lagarde, Reliquice Syr. 416; Cureton, Documents, 32) the epistle of Jude is to be understood, see Lipsius, 3:194 ; Zahn, Forschungen, 5:116, 5:122, 6:347, n. 4. The 'Gospel of the Twelve Apostles' (ed. by J. Rendel Harris, 190) makes him a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the 'Book of the Bee' (ed. Budge, 1886) of the tribe of Judah.

The legends that gathered round this apostle are of the most fanciful kind and too intricate to be treated at length here; cp the Greek edition of Bonnet, the Syriac of Wright, and its supplement by F. C. Burkitt in Studia Sinaitica 9:25-44, and the treatment of these Acts in Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten.

In the Clementine Homilies Thomas has a twin brother Eliezer (or, Eleazar, see Lipsius, Erganzungsheft, 24), in another list a twin sister Lysias (app. ad Chron. pasch. 2:142, ed. Bonn). In the Apostolic Constitutions, 6:14 (173, ed. Lagarde) the name Thomas is omitted in the list of the Apostles by the MSS wx, supplied between Bartholomew and Matthew by oyzt.

In the 'Apostolic Church order' or Third book of Clement's Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, as published by T. P. Arendzen (in J. Theol. Stud. 3:60) the order is

  • (7) James,
  • (8) Nathanael,
  • (9) Thomas,
  • (10) Kephas,
  • (11) Bartholomew, and
  • (12) Judas son of James (the Sahidic version has brother of James, see Arendzen, 74).

In the corresponding text (to be published by Mrs. M. D. Gibson in Horae Semiticae, 1:20) we get

  • (7) James,
  • (8) Judas son of James, with
  • (9) Nathanael,
  • (10) Thomas,
  • (11) Bartholomew,
  • (12) Matthias.

A MS in the possession of R. Harris agrees with the text of Arendzen (Gibson, appendix).

In the History of Mary (Budge, ET, 105) Thomas is said to have preached to 'the Indians, and the Chinese, and the Cushites, and (the people of) all the islands near and far ...' His day in the Western church is the 21st Dec., in the Greek the 6th Oct., in the Syriac the 3rd July (see Nilles, Kalen-darium). On the 22nd Oct. 394 his coffin was deposited in the great church of Edessa ; but this was, perhaps, only a removal, as other sources tell of his grave at Edessa at a much earlier time. On the church of the Thomas-Christians of Malabar, which refers its origin to the apostle himself, see Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen (1877); on the character of the apostle see the Commentaries on the Gospel of John and exegetical and homiletical books. That the legends make him a carpenter and builder may have arisen from his association with Jesus.

E. N.


(60M6I [A]), 1 Esd. 5:32 RV, AV Thomoi. See TEMAH.


occur in AV as the rendering of many different words. It is in nearly all cases impossible to arrive at a determination of the particular species intended, and indeed most of the words may be presumed to be of somewhat general application.

1. "I2.X 1 , atad (see BRAMBLE), is probably some species of Rhammus. MT in Ps. 58:9 [58:10] where IQN occurs is probably corrupt. [In Cheyne's restoration the 'pots' and 'thorns' disappear in a sentence which may remind us of Job 27;20-21. Duhm here is more conservative. Olshausen's note, however, still deserves consideration.]

2. p~m, hedek, is rendered 'brier' in Mic. 7:4 (but cp LXX, and 'thorns' in Prov. 15:19-20. See BRIER, 6.

3. rjin, hoah (2 K. 14:9, 2 Ch. 25:18, Job 31:40, Prov. 26:9, Cant. 2:2, Is. 34:13 (cp LXX), Hos. 9:6), rendered in AV thrice 'thorn', thrice 'thistle', and once 'bramble', is a word which elsewhere denotes a 'hook' (Job 40:26 [41:2], 2 Ch. 33:11) {1}; the D7mn, havahim, of 1 S. 13:6-7 is probably a corruption (Dr. , ad loc. ). LXX has in three places &KO.vOa.i a[akanthai] ('thorns') and once Kvldrj [knide] ('nettle') ; in 2 K. aKav [akan] (accus. a/<a.va[v~\ [akana[n]] but O.KXO-V [akchan] [L]) ; in 2 Ch. 25:18 the word is merely transliterated. 6 xfc - T0 " a X ol X [chozei ton achouch] [B], 6 oxof, rbv ax- [o ochoz ton achouch] [A], 6 OLKX^V [o akchan] [L]. It is usually taken to be a tall and strong thistle, such as Notobasis syriaca ( FFP 336), whose 'powerful spines' (NHB 424) would explain the connection with the meaning 'hook'; but some other thorny plant may be intended. Arab. and Pers. hawh ('peach' or 'plum') is probably quite a different word, and does not justify the rendering 'sloe' adopted by Celsius, 1:478+ See Low, 147+

4. psy?, na'asus (o-irijAaioc [spelaion] Is. 7:19, trroi|3>j [stoibe] {2} Is. 55:13-14), is probably a general name for a prickly plant or bush, and connected with the verb vyj (na'as), to 'pierce' or 'prick', which appears in post-biblical Hebrew (see Barth, Nominalb. 213).

5. C TD, sirim (Eccles. 7:6, Is. 34:13, Hos. 2:8 [2:6], Nah. 1:10-11), denotes 'thorns', 'thorny branches', or 'thorny bushes'. LXX has in Eccles. aKavOaL [akanthai], in Is. aicdi>0ii>a.v\a. [akanthinaxyla] (?), and in Hos. oxoAoirct [skolopes]; in Nah. its text differs from MT, which is corrupt (see Wellh. ad loc.). As the etymology is unknown, no nearer speculation is possible. 1 The form JllTD, siroth, in one place denotes 'hooks' (Am. 4:2).

6. jl ro, sillon (Ezek. 26:24, oxoAoi^ [skolops]), and C jirO, sallonim, 7rapoi<7TpTJ<roii(n [paroistresousi] ? (Ezek. 2:6). See BRIER.

7. D W, tsinnim (Job 5:5, Prov. 22:5-6) and (8) D J JX, tseninim (Nu. 33:55, Josh. 23:13-14), are also general words for 'thorns'. The former is rendered rpi ^oAoi [triboloi] by LXX (in Prov. 22:5); the latter jSoAt Sct [bolides]]. The Hebrew words are possibly connected with rUi JS, tsintseneth, Aram. K3S, Ar. sinn, which all mean 'basket'. In Job 5:5 the reading of MT is not supported by LXX and seems suspicious (see Hoffmann, ad loc.).

9 j ip, kots (a<cac0<x [akantha], Gen. 3:18, Ex. 22:5 [22:6], Judg. 6:7, 6:16, 2 S. 236, Ps. 116:12, Is. 32:13, 33:12, Jer. 4:3, 12:13, Ezek. 28:24, Hos. 10:5-6), is the commonest OT word for 'thorn' or 'thorns', but is also (so far as we know) quite general (Low, 198).

10. s8ap, kimmosh (Prov. 24:31, Is. 34:13, Hos. 9:6-7). See NETTLE.

11. n E>, shayith (Is. 5:6, 7:23+, 9:17 [9:18], 10:17, 27:4-5), a word which only occurs in Is., is, in all the seven places where it appears, combined with TCE , shamir, and is probably of similar meaning (see BRIER, 2). Dietrich (Abhandl. zur semit. Wortforsch. 73) proposes a derivation from .INty, sha'ah, 'to be waste', but this is unlikely.

12. pa/u.i os [ramnos] occurs Bar. 6:71 [6:70]. Cp BRAMBLE.

13. oTtoAoi^ [skolops], 2 Cor. 12:7. See above (5), (6). In Ecclus. 43:19 Heb. is TED- For the meaning of the expression see PAUL, 32, EYE, DISEASES OF, 4.

N. M. - W. T. T.-D.

1 On the reading in 2 Ch. see MANASSEH.

2 This word appears in Dioscorides (4:12) as the name of a common plant. According to Pliny (21:15, 54) it had a prickly stalk. Frass. (Syn. Pl. Fl. Class. 78) identifies 0roi/3>j [stoibe] with Poterium spinosum, a low herb occurring in Syria, the branches of which terminate in intricate branching spines.


A 'Thracian' horseman (rwv TLvbs Opg.Kuv [toon hippeoon tinos thrakoon]) is incidentally mentioned in 2 Macc. 12:35 as one of the bodyguard of Gorgias, the governor of Idumaea under Antiochus Epiphanes. The opportune arrival of the Thracian saved Gorgias from capture by one Dositheus.

Thrace at this period was the general name for the entire region included between the Strymon and the Danube, embracing a variety of tribes (cp Herod. 5:3). With the death of Lysimachus in 281 B.C., all chance of Thrace becoming an independent kingdom ceased. The country became a recruiting ground for all who needed troops and could pay for them. Thracian troops were chiefly light-armed infantry and irregular horse (Xen. Anab. 1:2:9; Memor. 3:9:2). Frequent references are made to them as an element in Macedonian, Roman, and other armies ; probably the name came to be applied to indicate a certain type of equipment and mode of fighting rather than actual nationality.

[For 00cucu>i [thrakoon] of LXX{A}, however, LXX{V*} reads ap<ro [tharsos], and LXX{Va} 0ap<rou? [tharsous]; and it is, to say the least, quite as likely that the Syrian cavalry was drawn from Cilicia as from Thrace (cp ARMY, 7). As to the possible identification of Tiras (Gen. 10:2) with Thrace, see TIRAS.]

W. J. W.

1 atcavOa [akantha] in both Greek and Latin writers was undoubtedly Acanthus spinosus. The nearly allied A. syriacus is abundant in Syria.


or (RV) THRASAEUS (GpACAloy [A], OApCioy [V* vid -], 6APC60Y t va ]- thrasius [Syr.]), father of APOLLONIUS, 2 Macc. 3:5. The name may possibly be another form of Tarsus.


(^30, etc. ), Josh. 2i8 etc. See CORD.


See DANIEL (BOOK), 22.


(KW), 1 S. 18:6 EVmg See Music, 3[ 4 ].


(TRICON TABepNCON [Ti. WH]; Acts 28:15-16, AV 'The three taverns', RV 'The Three Taverns'. ).

Here Paul was met on the final stage of his journey to Rome by a company of the Roman Christians. It was a station on the Via Appia ; evidently, from the order of the names, lying between Rome and Appii Forum. From Cicero (Ep. ad Att. 2:12, 'emerseram commode ex Antiati in Appiam ad Tris Tabernas'), we learn that it stood just where a cross road from Antium on the coast fell into the Appian Way from the W. Tres Tabernae stood therefore very near the northern end of the Pomptine marshes, in the midst of which Appii Forum actually lay (cp Horace, Sat. 1:5:3-4). The Ant. Itin. gives 17 R. mi. between Aricia and Tres Tabernae, and 10 R. mi. from Tres Tabernae to Appii Forum ; Aricia stood 16 mi. S. of Rome. These distances locate Tres Tabernae at about 3 miles from the modern Cisterna on the Appian road.

W. J. W.


(into), 2 S. 24:22. See AGRICULTURE, 8.


1. Hebrew terms.[edit]

This is the rightful rendering of

  • (1) pjp, saph (some scholars compare Ass. sup(p)u), the more usual term (see DOOR);
  • (2) JPES. miphtan, is probably the special term for the threshold of the sanctuary proper (Thenius), 1 S. 5:4-5 (Dagon's temple), Zeph. 1:9, Ezek. 9:3, 10:4, 10:18, 46:2, 47:1 (cp DAGON, 3).

The rendering 'threshold' in AV of 1 Ch. 26:15, 26:17 needs correction (see ASUPPIM). We also find the plural D SD, sippim, 'thresholds'. So in Is. 64, 'And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the sound of their voices' (read c san JIN, and cp Job 38:6). We are probably to suppose the front of the temple divided by one or more pillars into several entrances. So, too, in Am. 9:1, 'Strike the capitals (of the pillars) that the thresholds may tremble'. The temple at Bethel is spoken of. These 'thresholds' had special keepers (EV 'porters'), 1 Ch. 9:22, 2 Ch. 23:4. Elsewhere the phrase is 'keeper (or keepers) of the threshold' (but rp may be used collectively); so, e.g., Jer. 354, 2 K. 224 234 etc., for which in Esth. 221 LXX gives dpx <rw M a7 <f>ii\a.Kes [archisoomatophylakes], taking the Hebrew phrase as synonymous with 'Keeper of the king's head' (1 S. 28:2, LXX C? apxi-crufJ-a-TO-(/>t \ai; [archisoomatophylax]). In Ps. 84:11 (if the text is correct), a psalmist values even this Levitical office highly (jsinsri, but LXX irapapnrTiadai [pararipteisthai]). Gates and thresholds being sacred, it was of course a privilege to guard them. But though it is usual to quote this passage, it is doubtful whether this is critically justified.

2. Sacredness of the threshold stone.[edit]

Sacrifices for the family were originally at the entrance of the home. According to Hommel, the Ass. sup(p)u, 'prayer', is a denominative form sippu, 'threshold'. In modern Egypt a threshold sacrifice may be offered to welcome the incoming master of the house, {1} and, in ancient times, Herodotus reports that every Egyptian sacrificed a hog to Osiris before the door of his house (2:48). Trumbull makes it probable that, in the narrative of the institution of the Passover, the words 'and he shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the bason' (Ex. 12:22) misrepresent the true meaning. n03 might in fact mean either 'in the bason' or 'at the threshold', and Trumbull prefers the latter rendering (LXX irapa rr\v Bvpav [para ten thyran], Vg. in limine.). To set foot on the threshold in a careless manner was probably unlucky ; Trumbull reports that even now in Syria 'it is unlucky to tread on a threshold', and that in Upper Syria the bride is sometimes carried across the threshold of the bridegroom's house by the friends of the bridegroom. In Egypt it is the bridegroom who does this, and in ancient Greece and Rome, also in ancient India, similar customs are well known to have existed. Obscure passages in 1 K. 18:21 and Zeph. 1:9 can now be understood; also probably the name of the Pesah (EV 'Passover'). HDB, pasah, means 'to leap, to dance'. The Pesah was perhaps so called because the Israelites 'leaped' over the threshold after the special sacrificial rite referred to had been performed at the threshold in recognition of its freshly attested sanctity, or performed a ritual dance near it.

In 1 K. 18:21, 'How long halt ye between two opinions' (AV), is admittedly most improbable. The revisers, however, not being allowed to correct the text without ancient authority, could find nothing that was plainly better. But Klostermann has provided the easy and natural correction D SEil (for MT C SJi En). It only remains to interpret the reference to the sippim aright. The true explanation seems to be, 'How long will ye leap over both thresholds?' - i.e., enter with the same scrupulous awe the sanctuaries of the two rival deities, Yahwe and Baal. And in Zeph. 1:9 (reading v. 9b as in LXX) we may paraphrase, 'And on that day I will punish those who, though they leap with scrupulous awe over the sacred threshold, yet bring with them into Yahwe's house hands stained with cruelty and injustice' (Che. JQR 40:568-59 [1898]; cp Jastrow, JBL 17:108+ [1898]). See further, Crit. Bib. Trumbull has already explained 1 S. 5:1-5 by the light of the same archaeological facts. The explanation in 1 S. 5:5 is of course an uncritical guess akin to that in Gen. 3232.

T. K. C.

1 So on the arrival of the new Khedive at his palace in 1882 (H. Clay Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant (1896), 7, quoting Folk-Lore Journal, 192).


It will be convenient under this heading to deal with seats in general, the Hebrew word for throne being applied to all articles of furniture of that description.

1. Terms.[edit]

The terms are :

1. kisse (NB3, but HE3 1 K. 10:19, Job 26:9-10), is apparently derived from the Ass. kussu 'seat, throne', the Aram, equivalent korse (Np~l3 Dan. 5:20, etc., cp Syr. kurseya), from which is borrowed Ar. kursi 'chair', being probably an earlier form. 1 Purely colourless are the two terms-

2. moshab (3y2*10, 1 S. 20:18, etc., EV 'seat', lit. 'place of sitting' from yahsab), or shebeth (f3C ) Am. 6:3, EV ib. LXX KadfSpa [kathedra], and

3. tekunah (rMOFI, Job 23:3 'seat', lit. 'fixed place'), used of the dwelling-place of the Almighty.

4. fifiiJ.a [bema], Acts 12:21 (RVmg. 'judgment-seat'). Properly a raised platform (Lat. tribunal, cp suggestum) upon which, as Jos. BJ 2:1:1 shows, the 6povo<; [thronos] (Lat. sella) was erected. In Neh. 8:4 /Sjj^a [bema] stands for migdal, 'tower' - i.e., an elevated stand or pulpit.

5. KaBeSpa [kathedra], Ecclus. 7:4 (Heb. moshab), cp Mt. 21:12, Mk. 11:5 (seat of the dove-sellers).

6. rrpiaroKaOfSpia [prootokathedria], the first or chief seat in a synagogue (Mt. 23:6, Mk. 12:39 , etc.). Cp SYNAGOGUE, 9-10

7. Bpovos [thronos] (in LXX for 1 above), Rev. 4:4, 11:16, etc., a state chair having a footstool. Plu. in Col. 1:16 as the name of a class of angels; cp Test. Levi, 3, where they appear as in the seventh heaven. See ANGEL, 1.

2. References.[edit]

Such pieces of furniture as chairs, seats, or stools are unknown to the ordinary tent-dweller, and doubtless the Hebrews first came to use them after they occupied Canaan (see MEALS, 3b). It is true that in the representation of Sennacherib's camp before Lachish a kind of seat or bench is to be seen in some of the tents, but this departure from the ordinary custom is doubtless due to the superior culture of the Assyrians (see TENT, fig. 1). As in Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, seats were no doubt to be found in every house in Canaan, and together with a bed, table, and lamp formed part of the equipment of a well-appointed room (2 K. 4:10; EV 'stool'). 2 The word used in this passage (kisse} elsewhere refers to the seat or throne of Eli the priest (1 S. 1:9, 4:13, 4:18), of the governor 'beyond the River' (Neh. 3:7, see Ryle, Camb. Bible, ad loc.), and of the throne of Solomon (1 K. 10:18+, 2 Ch. 9:17+).

The reference to Satan's throne at Pergamos (Rev. 2:13, see PERGAMOS, 2), if the great altar of Zeus is meant, is associated with the interesting question of throne-worship. That there is a very close connection between the throne of the deity and his altar appears certain, and it is not improbable that they were originally identical. On the whole subject see Reichel, Vorhellen. Gotterculte, 3+ (Vienna, 1897), with Budde's remarks, Exp. T 9:396+$; and Clermont-Ganneau, Rec. d'Arch. Orient. 4:247+.

1 According to another view the r in the Aram, forms has been inserted to compensate for the loss of the doubled s (for a statement of the views see Bevan, Daniel, 104-105). It is to be noticed that the form with r occurs in the old Aramaic inscription of Bar-rekub (Zenjirll, B5, temp. Tiglath-pileser III.). The same form appears to recur in Phoenician inscriptions from Cyprus of the beginning of the fourth century B.C. (C/Sl, nos. 22, 44, 88), where Q D13(n) f^c, 'interpreter of the two thrones', is perhaps the dp^Tji evnjs [ermeneutes] (cp Or. inscr.) between the rulers of Cyprus and Persia (see CIS 1:65).

2 But note perhaps that the hostess is said to have been a 'great' woman.

3. Description.[edit]

There are three main varieties of seats to be noticed :

  • (a) the seat with neither back nor arms,
  • (b) the seat with straight back, and
  • (c the straight-backed seat with arms.

The three practically correspond to the classical sella, cathedra, and thronus respectively. The first of these is frequently represented upon Assyrian and Babylonian seals, 1 and bears a general close resemblance to the primitive altars and table upon the Assyrian slabs. 2 In a large number of cases it is shaped like a square stool, often with several cross-bars, though instances are by no means wanting where the legs cross transversely, not unlike the construction of the modern camp-stool.

These shapes are found in the ancient classical world and were probably borrowed from the East. The Greek term for them, Gfypos [diphros], is used by LXX to render kisse in 1 S. 1:9, 4:13, 4:18, 2 K. 4:10, and in accordance with Gr. usage occurs in 1 S. 28:23 to render mittah. On the use of beds, couches, and divans, cp BED, 3.

Representations of the second and third variety are likewise found in Assyria where they are often accompanied with a footstool ; cp the analogy of the Gr. Opbvos [thronos] and its Opyvvs [threnus].

The OT references to the footstool (hadom, CT1, LXX viroiT6$t.ov [hypopodion], always metaphorical) would show that the Hebrews were well acquainted with seats of this nature. On kebesh (t?53), 2 Ch. 9:18, see below, n. 6.

The two last-mentioned varieties lent themselves to decoration and elaboration to a greater extent than the sella. They were frequently of the finest workmanship and adorned with gold and plaques of carved ivory (see IVORY, 5). 3 An overspread or baldachino was often added, and a reference to this is perhaps rightly seen in the shaphrir (Kr. , but Ktb. -n-,s;y) of Jer. 43:10. 4 A common form of ornament was the representation of animals or men, to support the arms or seat.

If Benzinger is correct in his suggestion that Solomon's throne (situated in the Porch of the Throne, 1 K. 7:7) was the work of Hiram, it is natural to suppose that it was based upon the familiar Egyptian or Assyrian models. The throne was decorated with ivory and gold, and was approached by six steps (cp Is. 6:1 'a throne high and lifted up'), at each end of which was the figure of a lion. 5 The back appears to have been adorned with heads of bulls. The second Targ. on Esther adds many fanciful details which are devoid of value.

On the text of 1 K. 10:18+, 2 Ch. 9:17+, see the Comm. of Ki. and Benz. In 1 K. 10:19 the reading 'rounded top '(head rest) appears obvious, but we should probably read S^j; t?&n, 'the heads of bulls' (LXX irporo^al ^oaxtav [protomai moschoon]). In 2 Ch. 9:18 the words have been seriously misunderstood.

The meaning of yadoth, EV 'stays' (lit. 'hands', LXX xeipes [cheires], manus [K.], aynS>vt* [agkoones], brachiola [Ch.]) is not clear. Jos. Ant. 8:5:2 offers enjAaroi [enelaton], which means

  • (a) the slats of the frame work of a bed,
  • (b) the rungs of a ladder, and
  • (c) axle-pins (cp 1 K. 7:32).

Following (a) we might think of the slats forming the seat of the throne, but the idiomatic 'on either side' (.110 "IJ r ), and LXX's dy/cwi/es [agkoones] in Ch. points rather to the arms. Such arms are represented, e.g. , upon the throne of Ashur-bani-pal (Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Chald. 1:108, fig. 28), and of Sennacherib before Lachish (ib. 2:105, fig. 47, cp Ball, Light from the East, 193). What is meant by the 'two lions standing by (near) the stays' is also obscure ; the words are omitted by LXX{A} in 1 K. 10:19, perhaps rightly.

S. A. C.

1 See Menant, La Glyptique Orientale, 1, and cp S. I. Curtiss, Prim. Sem. Rel. 267-276 (1902).

2 Cp the table in TENT, fig. 1.

3 For details see Perrot and Chipiez, Art. in Chald. 2:313-321.

4 See Hoffmann, ZATW, 1882, p. 68, and on verss. see Field, ad loc.

5 1 K. 10:20 c"ixt ['RYYM] elsewhere nviK ['RYVVN]. In a Phoenician inscription from Citium in Cyprus (CfS\, no. 10) mention is made of the offering of an altar and two CTIN ['RVM] - i.e., perhaps (on the analogy of our passage) 'lions' (DTIN ['RVM]).

6 i?33, 'footstool' (LXX{L} virowoSiov [hypopodion], scabellum) is for BO3, a variant of 73V in 1 K. (emended text). See, primarily, Geiger, Urschr. 343.


( if^l), Is. 38:12 RVmg. See WEAVING.


(DV2J-1), Ex. 28:30. See URIM AND THUMMIM.


(Din, Ps. 77:19 [77:18], 81:8 [81:7], 104:7, Job 26:14, Is. 29:6; /3poir>j [bronte]; also, much more frequently, ^ip, Ps. 29:3, Is. 30:30, cp Jer. 10:13, plur. ni5ip Ex. 923, or QT^K n Vp 9:28; in NT <t><*vy Ppoi -rfp [phoone brontes], Rev. 6:1, 14:2, 19:6 (/Spoirwr [brontoon]), <f>aWt icac Ppovrai [phooai kai brontai], Rev. 4:5, 8:5, 11:19, etc.

This most sublime of natural phenomena is represented by a poetical echo of primitive myth as the voice of God, Ps. 104:7, Job 37:4-5, 40:9, Ps. 18:13 [18:14], and especially Ps. 29. In Ps. 2:4a (cp v. 5a) as his laugh; (see Del. and Che. Ps. (2)). When, however, in Ezek. 10:5 the sound of the wings of the cherubim is likened tautologically to 'the voice of El Shaddai (EV God Almighty) when he speaketh', we naturally ask whether this is not some error in the text, and the result is interesting, for it opens up a vista of possible rectifications of early mistakes (see SHADDAI). And if we lose the traditional reference in Ezek. 10:5 (and 1:24), we have still enough to show that thunder to the ancient Israelites had a special sanctity as the expression of the divine omnipotence (Ps. 29:3), and of the terrible divine vengeance (1 S. 2:10, Ps. 18:13 [18:14], Is. 30:30). Thunder in summer-time was peculiarly awful (1 S. 12:17), though perhaps the case mentioned is but a poetical way of stating that with God nothing is impossible; Tristram (NHP 33) says, 'it is unknown in summer'. The wise men of later times, such as the poet of Job, were well aware that thunderstorms did not occur capriciously, but were subject to laws appointed by the Creator (Job 28:26 38:25, cp Ecclus. 43:17).

'Right-aiming thunderbolts' (Wisd. 5:21) has been changed in RV into 'shafts of lightning (/3oA.t 6es a.<npa.ir<av [bolides astrapoon]) with true aim'. In Ps. 78:48 'hot thunderbolts' remains, though D BCH more probably means here 'burning sicknesses' in accordance with the requirements of parallelism. Another peculiar phrase, 'in the secret place of thunder' (Din "U1D3, fi/an-oitpvcJxoKaToiyiSos [en apokryphoo kataigidos]), still remains in the RV of Ps. 81:7 [81:8]. Duhm explains, 'in the cloud which hides the thunder and at the same time veils God from sight' (Job 22:13-14). This is no doubt a worthy explanation ; but the Hebrew phrase does not appear to suit the parallelism. On the so-called Bath-kol, see VOICE, and on the title given to James and John, and rendered 'sons of thunder', see BOANERGES.


(eY<vretp& [Ti.WH], 1 Rev. 1:11; iv Qvarelpoa [Ti.WH], Rev. 218 and 224; 7r6Xews Qi ct- relpwv, Acts 16:14).

1 Neut. plur., TO. vareipa [ta thyateira]; but the v.l. in Rev. 1:11, fi s vareipai [eis thyateiran], is 'well attested' (WH 2 App. 163). Cp the case of LYSTRA (q.v.). The form Thyateira gradually gives place to Thyatira. The place is now called Ak-hissar, 'a large town of mud houses' (Murray, Hdbk. to AM 84).

1. Position and history.[edit]

Thyatira was a town in northern Lydia, so close to the indefinite borderland between Mysia and Lydia that some preferred to reckon it to Mysia (Strab, 625 *>" M"< ^ x dr^ TO* * <paffiv [en mysoon eschaten tines phasin]). It lay east of the Lycus, a tributary of the Phrygius, which river itself falls into the Hermus from the north. Thyatira thus was placed almost exactly midway between the Caicus (N.) and the Hermus (S. ), on the great rood which crossed this region going to the SE. , into the valley of the Maeander. Its geographical position is the key to its historical importance. The watershed in which it lay was, in fact, of the utmost importance strategically, as it was the line of demarcation between the territory of competing sovereigns. For in 301 B.C. Lysimachus, king of Thrace, and Seleucus I. (Xicator), king of Syria, had partitioned Asia Minor, which they had taken from Antigonus, in such wise that Lysimachus had the western portion, as far as central Phrygia, whilst the remainder fell to Seleucus (see SELEUCIDAE, 2). When, subsequently (from 283 B.C.), hostilities broke out between the two monarchs, the district in question would be of great military importance ; and, still later, when in 277 B.C. the Gauls (Galatia) invaded Asia Minor and founded their robber state in north-eastern Phrygia (cp GALATIA, 1 ), its importance was enhanced. Consequently, we find established here a group of so-called 'Macedonian colonies'; and Strabo describes Thyatira as such a colony (625, KdToiKia Ma/ceSjj WJ [katoikia makedonoon]). 1

The word Macedonian in this connection undoubtedly implies, firstly, Macedonian blood and descent, and secondly the nucleus of the standing armies kept on foot by the Seleucidae, Ptolemies, and other kings. This nucleus of trusted troops was in reality the remnant of the soldiers of Alexander the Great, or their children, their numbers being continually recruited by drafts of volunteers from Macedonia itself. 2

In course of time many men who were not of Macedonian blood would doubtless find their way into these select corps of guards. It is in this sense that the term 'Macedonians' is used in 2 Macc. 8:20 (see MACEDONIA, i ; THRACE). It is abundantly clear from the extant inscriptions from the region in which Thyatira stood that the bulk of the colonists were 'Macedonians' both in the sense of being men of the standing army and also as being of Macedonian blood. 3

The date of the foundation of Thyatira as a military colony is uncertain ; probably it was subsequent to 277 B.C. The name is a compound; -teira = 'village' or 'town', and the whole name signifies 'the town of Thya' (for Thya, cp the town-names Thyessus, Thyassus [see Ramsay, Hist. Geog. 114, 148, 437]). We are told that previously the place was called Pelopeia, or Semiramis, or Euhippa (Plin. HN 5:31) - names which scarcely sound historical. According to a piece of false etymologising based upon mere similarity of sound, it was said that the name Thyatira was derived from Thygatira (Qvyd.Tft.pa [thyateira]), because Seleucus heard here of the birth of his daughter (Gvydrrip [thgater]). (See Steph. Thes. s. v.; and cp Rams. op. cit. 127, note.)


2. Military.[edit]

The town became of importance owing to its favourable position in two respects.

(a) It was here, for example, that Antiochus the Great assembled his troops for the campaign which ended so disastrously for him at Magnesia (see SELEUCIDAE, 7) a few miles to the S. In consequence it submitted to the Romans as a matter of course, and was included within the territory made over by them to their ally the king of Pergamus. Then followed a long period during which Thyatira does not appear in history ; not until the time of the empire, in fact, does it seem to have realised to the full the natural advantages of its position as above described. Naturally it was only in a peaceful direction that such could, under the empire, make themselves felt, as it was not until the later Byzantine period that strategic advantages came again in question. A glance at the network of Roman roads in western Asia Minor is sufficient to reveal the importance of Thyatira at this time. Starting from Pergamus, an important road ran through Germe and Nakrasa 48 R. mi. to Thyatira, thence 36 R. mi. to Sardis, and so through Philadelphia and Hierapolis to Laodicea on the Lycus (Rams. Hist. Geog. 167). When we take into account the fact that an important road runs northwards along the coast from Ephesus through Smyrna to Pergamus, we see that the order of names of the seven churches is capable of easy and rational explanation, quite apart from any question of political or ecclesiastical precedence. The order is in fact simply that of the occurrence of the towns as one follows the main road from Ephesus in a great loop through Pergamus, and so down to Laodicea (Rev. 1:11).

3. Commercial.[edit]

(b) Thyatira owed its importance to its connection with the wool trade, or rather the manufacture of woollen goods, and more especially to that of dyed fabrics. This was always a staple industry in Lydia. 4 The 'certain woman named Lydia' (so EV in Acts 16:14; perhaps 'called the Lydian' would be more correct) was a 'seller of purple', 'of the city of Thyatira' - that is to say, probably an agent of some great house of dyers and manufacturers in Thyatira (Rams. St. Paul, 214).

The dyers and other handicraftsmen in Thyatira were united in guilds (called epya [erga] in inscr. from Thyatira, epycurtai [ergasiai] elsewhere, as, e.g., at Hierapolis), as was the case at other Asiatic towns (e.g., Smyrna, Ephesus, and Philadelphia). The Thyatiran guild of 'dyers' (/Sonets [batheis]) is known to us from inscriptions, as well as the guilds of 'cloakmakers' (i/iareuo/iei/oi. [imateuomenoi]), 'potters' (fcepajitets [kerameis]), 'brass-workers' (xaA/ceis [chalkeis]), and numerous others (see Clerc, De rebus Thyat. 92, quoted by Rams. Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 1:105 n. 2. Cp Bull. Corr. Hell. 10:407, and 1900, p. 592-593).

1 This is confirmed by inscriptions ; see Bull, de Corr. hell., 1886, p. 308 ; 1887, p. 466; CIG 3496.

2 Cp Diod. Sic. 18:12, e<nrdvif KOL r) MaxeSofta orpaTieoTaii TroAiTiKuJi 6ia TO TrArjfJos raic aTretrraA^iei/wi ei? TY^V "Acriai/ ?rl ia5o^r)i TT)9o-TpaTias [espanize kai e makedonia stratiootoon politikoon dia to plethos toon apestalmenoon eis ten asian epi diadochen ten stratias] - speaking of the time of Antigonus Gonatas.

3 See on this Schuchhardt, 'Die Maked. Kolonien zwischen Hermos und Kaikos' in Mitth. Arch. Inst. zu Athen, 1888, p. 1-2.

4 Cp Hom. Il. 4:141, <os & ore Tis T e\e<f>avTa. yvrr; t^otViKi ftiiji/T] | Mfloi/is ije Kaeipa [oos d' ote tis t' elephanta gyne phoiniki miene | meonis ne kaeira]. Cp Claudian, De Rapt. Pros. 1:270, 'non sic decus ardet eburnum | Lydia Sidonio quod femina tinxetit ostro'.

4. Rev. 2:18-19.[edit]

In the epistle to the Thyatiran church (Rev. 2:18-19) there does not seem to be any reference to this prominent side of the life of the town such as lies on the surface of the epistle to the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:14-15). Nevertheless, in Rev. 2:20 the reference to 'that woman Jezebel' 1 points to something distinctive and characteristic of the place. From the context it is clear that under this figure is concealed some form of teaching or practice, or some intellectual movement, which presented itself as a rival or perversion of Christian teaching.

The following interpretation has been suggested. Outside the city there stood the ~Za[j-fiadf1ov [sambatheion] or sanctuary of Sambatha (SajM.j8iJ07j [sambethe]), a Chaldean or Persian Sybil or prophetess. 2 Apparently this was some form of eastern superstition, of great popularity, if the reference in Rev. 2:20 is to this shrine. 'Jezebel', if (Schurer and others) a definite person, must be the Sibyl of some shrine connected with an eclectic (pagan-Hebrew-Christian) system. It appears more probable, however, that we should interpret the denunciation more broadly, with reference to the prevailing tone of Thyatiran Christianity rather than to a superstition idolatrous in origin and general content, which could hardly have infected the majority of the church. In other words, the expression in the message obtains full significance only if we understand the church of Thyatira to have developed some heretical or impure form of belief or practice, such as might naturally be typified by a notorious figure drawn from OT history (cp 2 K. 9:22). We here touch upon the relation of the Jewish settlers and colonists in Phrygia and neighbouring districts to the mixed population amid which they dwelt. The evidence of the Talmud is clear, that these immigrant Jews were divided from their brethren and failed to maintain their peculiar religious position (see Neub. Geogr. du Talm. 315 ; and Rams. Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 2:6:74-75). The population of Asia Minor was undoubtedly attracted to the religious system of the Jews; but the other aspect of this fact was that the Jews became merged with them (see Rams. St. Paul the Traveller, 142-143; Comm. on Gal. 189/1, where the position of the Jews in S. Galatia is treated at length). Such syncretism must have had its dangers for the Christian churches, based as the} were in general upon proselytes and containing a more or less large admixture of Jewish elements. It is to some form of gross degeneration of Jewish practice and belief that reference is made in the epistle to the Thyatiran church (see art. by Schurer, 'Prophetin Isabel in Thyatira' in Abhand. Weizacker gewidmet, 39-40). In Cyprus (Acts 13:6) and Ephesus (Acts 19:13) also we find that certain Jews had abandoned themselves to the practice of magical arts forbidden by the Mosaic law.

For a parallel to the church factions produced by a question about pagan institutions, cp the case of Corinth (1 Cor. 10:15-16, cp Ramsay, Expos. 1900-1901; Zahn, Einl. 2:608-609 [also NICOLAITANS]). W. J. W.

1 _Tt]V yurauca_ Ieaj3eA [ten gynaika iezabel] [WH]; -n\v yvvouica aov [ten gynaika sou] is a reading which led to the interpretation that the denunciation was directed against the bishop's wife. Cp JEZEBEL, ad fin.

2 Cp CIG 3509, eiri TOTTOU KaQapov, ovros trpo TIJS TrdAecof jrpbj rep S.a.fj.fia.Otita i> T<5 XaAcWou Trepi/SdAcp [epi topou katharou, ontos pro tes poleoos pros too sambatheioo en too chaldaiou periboloo].


(lyAoN GyiON [xylon] [Ti.WH], Rev. 18:12-13) is mentioned among the precious wares sold in the market of the apocalyptic Babylon. The wood intended is no doubt that of the tree called 6via [thyia] or dta [thya] by the Greeks, and citrus by the Latins (cp Hehn, Kulturpflanzen, 386). The former name would seem to refer to the fragrance of the wood ; and citrus is probably a corruption of K^dpos [kedros] and so points to a tree of aromatic, antiseptic wood.

The Ovia. [thyia] (or citrus) far excellence was a N. African tree (Theophr. 53, 7, Plin. 13:15, 29), probably to be identified with Thuia articulata, Vahl., which, according to Sprenger (Erlauterungen zum Theophrast. 205), is a tree resembling the cypress and growing to a height of 24 ft. In accordance with Pliny's statement (l.c.), it is found in the region of Mt. Atlas. In the days of Roman luxury the citrus was much used in the making of costly furniture; the phrase 'all thyine wood' (Rev., l.c.) probably alludes to the great variety of objects constructed from it.


(riBepiAc). on a narrow strip of plain under a hill, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, was founded by Herod Antipas, apparently not before 26 A.D., and so was quite a new place at the time of the public life of Jesus in Galilee. Its founder named it in honour of his friend and patron the emperor Tiberius. Though it became the capital of Galilee, it was at first a purely Greek city, which accounts for its not appearing among the scenes of the Galilean ministry. It joined in the war of liberty, but yielded without resistance to Vespasian, and was restored by him to its master Agrippa, on whose death in 100 it fell directly under Roman rule. The place came to be a great seat of Jews and Jewish learning ; it was the residence of R. Judah, the editor of the Mishnah ; and, though the schools of Palestine were ultimately overshadowed by those of Babylonia, the school of Tiberias was still famous in the time of Jerome. On Jn. 6:1, 6:23, 21:1 see GALILEE, SEA OF, 1, 4-5

Half an hour to the S. of the modern Tabariyeh (a town of some 4000 inhabitants) are the famous hot baths (now el-Hammeh) which are mentioned by Pliny (HN 5:15 [5:71]; Tiberiade aquis calidis salubri) and by Josephus (TO?S tv Tifiepiddi 6fpfj.ols vdaew [tois en tiberiadi thermois hydasin], BJ 2:216). In Ant. 18:2:3, BJ 4:13 he alludes to the depfj.6. [therma] as not far from Tiberias and as being called A/j./j.a6ovs [hammathous], 'which being interpreted is 6ep/j.d [therma]'. It seems to be the Haminath of Josh. 19:35. See HAMMATH. This Hammath is mentioned in Egyptian records (see PALESTINE, 15, no. 16). The Talmud of Babylon identifies Tiberias sometimes with the biblical Hamath, sometimes with Raccath (see also Talm. Jerus. ), sometimes with Chinnereth. See Neubauer, Geogr. 208; Schurer, GJV (2) 2:126+; ET 2:1:143+


( H GAAACCA THC [Ti. "VYHj), Jn. 21:1. See GALILEE, SEA OF.


(riBeplOC [Ti. WH]) is mentioned only in Lk. 3:1, where the commencement of the ministry of John the Baptist is assigned to the fifteenth year 'of the reign of Tiberius Caesar' (rfjs Tiye/jLovias Tipepiov Kcucrapos).

Tiberius Claudius Nero succeeded Augustus as Emperor of Rome in 14 A.D., and reigned until 37 A. D. He was son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia, so that he was only the stepson of Augustus. The two chief authorities for his life are Suetonius, who revels in court scandal, and Tacitus, whose political views marred his historical accuracy. Hence little justice has been done to Tiberius. The Annals of Tacitus have been in fact maintained to be 'almost wholly satire' (Merivale, Hist, of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 64), and it cannot be denied that the satiric tendency, 'to take extreme acts as typical of the man, and extreme men as typical of the age', is a conspicuous feature of the book. Consequently, his portraiture of Tiberius, the most elaborate analysis of character in his writings, is most often attacked as untrustworthy. we have in fact, in accepting the picture in Tacitus as historical, this problem before us - to explain how Tiberius, who up to the age of fifty-five (when he became emperor) had shown himself a commander with more than ordinary talent, an orator of no mean calibre, and an administrator of acknowledged sagacity, degenerated from the moment of assuming the purple until he became that monster of cruelty and vice and impotence which perhaps for all time he is in the imagination of mankind. This is not the place in which to attempt to review either the private life or the public acts of Tiberius. Thus much is certain, that his life cannot be disposed of in a 'cascade of epigrams' (Beesly, Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius, 115), such as compose the summary in which Tacitus gives his most deliberate judgment on Tiberius (Ann. 651).

Furneaux, Annals of Tacitus, vol. 1, Introd. chaps. 4 and 8 gives a careful review of the evidence, with an unfavourable verdict. Beesly's Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius is a vigorous defence. Champagny, Les Cesars, an unmeasured invective. See also Boissier, L'Opposition sous les Cesars. For the chronological questions in connection with the NT, see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? and the articles CHRONOLOGY, LYSANIAS, QUIRINIUS, etc.

W. J. W.


(nrqp; MeTABHXAC [metabechas] [BX], MATeBee [metabeth] [A], TABAA6 [L] ; Pesh. tebah], a city of Hadadezer, 1 Ch. 18:8. See TEBAH.


(*3?Jjl, 79; see below on meaning ; cp Ass. Tabni, Tabne'a, Phoen. 03371, Tabnith; 6&/v\N[e]l [thamn[e]i] [BA], 6&BeNNei [thabenei] [I-] ; Thebni), b. GINATH, a competitor with Omri for the throne of Israel after the death of Zimri (1 K. 16:21-22). See ISRAEL, 29, OMRI, 1

Like so many other successful adventurers, including his rival Omri ( = Imri = Jerahmeeli), Tibni seems to have been of Jerahmeelite origin. His name is a gentilic in form, and probably should be read -p]'a (Nebatite) or %v'3: (Nebaiothite). Cp 1 Ch. 5:15, where (in the original form of the text ; see SHAPHAM) Guni is a clan-name in the southern Gilead (temp. Jeroboam II).


(V! 1 ?; e^pr-AA [thargal] [EL], e<\A|-. [thalgal] [D? and A in 5:9], 6<\A|-A [thalga] [A]; Pesh. tar'il], 'king of Goiim', an ally of Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:19). Nothing has yet been made out either as to a king called Tid'al (or Tar'al) or as to the 'Goiim' or 'nations' over which, according to MT and LXX, he ruled. The identification of Tid'al with a supposed ancient name in a very late cuneiform tablet is in the highest degree precarious (see King, Letters of Hammurabi, 1 p. 53; and cp Haupt, note on Gen. 14:1 in Ball's Genesis, Heb. text, SBOT). Sir H. Rawlinson thought that 'Goiim' was a corruption of Gutium, the situation of which district (see KOA) accords well with the mention of 'Goiim' after Elam. It is certain (see inscription quoted by Rogers, Outlines of Bab. Hist. 10) that Gutium was early subject to Babylonian influence. If 'Goiim' comes from Gutium, Tar'al (if we may follow LXX{EL}) may conceivably be a Babylonian name. The only word which approaches it, however, seems to be targul, 'rudder' (Deluge-story, 97), which is sometimes a title of the god 'Ninib' (see Jensen, Kosmol. 422). But seductive as Rawlinson s theory is, it is too hazardous (see Hal. Rev. sttn. 1894, p. 279) to make g correspond to y [ayin] in -cyS (lagamari) and to 3 [g] in c"u (=gutium?).

So far we have assumed that MT and LXX correctly represent the original text. But in the general failure of critical theories based on this assumption, it becomes reasonable to suppose that Tidal and the other names in Gen. 14:1 are deeply corrupt, that *?jnn (EV Tidal) is a corrupt fragment of SxCnT (Jerahmeel) and that c"U (Goiim) as often has the same origin. See SODOM, 1.

T. K. C.


(DN ?S n?JR [ThGLTh PL'SR] 2 K. 15:29, 16:10, Ip^B rtan, 2 K. 16:7) or Tilgath-pilneser (H^H iDx^a [TLGTh PLN'SR], 1 Ch. 5:6, 2 Ch. 28:20, ID: 1 ?? na>>n. 1 Ch. 5;26).

LXX's readings are: in 2 K. 15:29, aAyaft/jeAAacrap [algathphellasar] [BA]; 16:7, &a\ya.0<t> [thalgathphellasar] [B], om. A; 16:10, eaA^yaA^ [phalgalphellasar] [B] ; a-yAa^aAAaaap [aglathphallasar] [A] ; <?e-yAa</>aAa<Tap [theglaphalasar] [L] throughout; in 1 Ch. 5:6, SnAya/Saraa-ap [thalgabanasar] [B]; 8ay\a9 <aAi<a<rap [thaglath phalnasar] [A]; 5:26, 6ayva(f>a.pa.<Ta.p [thagnathamasar] [B] ; Oay\a.8 . <aA- vatrap [thaglath phalnasar] [A]; 2 Ch. 28:20, Oa\ya(f>e\\aSap [thalgathelladar] [B]; Oay\a8 <t>a\va. \ (rap . [thaglath phalna sar] [A] ; 6ey\a6<j>a\a.<ra.p [theglathphalasar] [L] throughout.

1. Name.[edit]

In the Zenjirli-Inscriptions n3SenSjn and no^En^n. Assyr. Tukulti-apil-esarra, 'My help is the son of Esharra'. Esharra, 'the house of the multitude', was the name of the temple of Ninip, who was therefore called 'the son of Esharra'. The strange form in Chronicles is, according to Kittel (Chron. Heb. SBOT 68), 'merely an accidental corruption of a familiar name at the hands of the Chronicler or of his Midrashic source'.

2. Possible origin.[edit]

The biblical Tiglath-pileser was the third of the Assyrian kings of that name, and came to the throne in 745 B.C.. Nothing is known of his origin and parentage, but as he is called in the Babylon Canon Pulu (PUL, 2 K. 15:19, etc. ), it is thought that he was not of royal race, but was probably a general under Ashur-nirari, his predecessor, and that he called himself Tiglath-pileser on coming to the throne on account of the renown attaching to this royal name.

3. Sources of history and accession.[edit]

The chief sources of the history of his reign are the inscribed slabs found in the remains of his palace at Calah, and two tablets which appear to have been copied from records on stone similar, in some respects, to the slabs. With regard to the latter, several of them are only known from squeezes now in the British Museum, where also the clay tablets referring to his reign are preserved. The chronology of his reign has been placed beyond a doubt by the Eponym Canon with historical references (KB 1:212-213), from which it appears that he mounted the throne on the 13th of the month Iyyar (April-May) of the year 745 B.C., as successor to Ashur-nirari (II. ) , in the last year of whose reign there was a rising in Calah; not improbably Tiglath-pileser seized this opportunity to assume the supreme power. Whether the fact that the Eponym for the next year was the governor of Calah supports this supposition or not, is a matter of opinion.

History of his reign.[edit]

4. The Aramaean tribes.[edit]

The first campaign of this king, which took place in the year of his accession, is stated to have been 'into the midst of the rivers' - i.e., 'to Babylonia'. His object was, not so much to conquer the country as to break the excessive and dangerous power of the Aramaean tribes. In this he was fully successful, and the Babylonians themselves, who suffered from the tribes in question, thankfully acknowledged his suzerainty. Owing to this success, he seems to have assumed, from the first, the title of 'king of Sumer and Akkad'.

5. Namri.[edit]

he next year (744 B.C.) Tiglath-pileser turned his attention to the mountainous district on the E. of Assyria, inhabited by wild tribes who had always been troublesome to the Assyrian kings. This district, which was called Namri (cp ZIMRI ii. ), he wasted with fire and sword, annexing a portion of it to Assyria.

6. Arpad, Kullani, etc.[edit]

In 743 B.C. affairs in the W. claimed his attention. The state of which ARPAD (q.v.) was the capital, supported, to all appearance, by the king of Urartu (ARARAT), seems to have thrown off the Assyrian yoke; it had to be reduced again to submission. This probably gave an opportunity to Sar-durri, king of Urartu, to march towards Assyria. It was therefore necessary to put off the subjection of Arpad, and proceed against the northern foe, who was completely defeated. In 742 operations against Arpad were resumed, and in 741 (to judge from the Eponym-list) the city was taken, though the Assyrian army remained in the same district in 740 B.C. One result was the annexation of Unki (identified by Tomkins 1 with 'Amk), a district which had already felt the Assyrian might.

In 739 B.C. Tiglath-pileser carried on war in Ulluba, on the N. , taking several cities and founding another, which he called Ashur-ikisha ('Ashur has presented'). It was apparently during this period that the Assyrian subject-states in Syria and northern Phoenicia rebelled. The operations into which the Assyrians were thus led resulted in the capture of Kullani - i.e. (according to P. Rost), the CALNO (q.v.) of Is.10:9 {2} (738 B.C.).

1 'Geography of Northern Syria' in BOR 3:6. For the extent of Unki see Rost, Tiglath-pileser, 1 p. 21, n. i.

2 With regard to the identification there given, it may be noted that Kullani would seem from WAI 2:53:6a to be one of the towns along the Taurus, implying an extension of operations in that direction.

7. Azariah.[edit]

The question now arises whether Azriau or Izriau (Rost) - i.e., Azariah of Judah - came into touch with Tiglath-pileser on this occasion. It must be confessed that the frequent mention of his name in the exceedingly mutilated portion of the annals which seem to refer to this period gives Tiele justification for replying in the affirmative (BAG 230-231; on the whole question, however, see UZZIAH). All the princes of middle and northern Syria now submitted and paid tribute, including Rasunnu (see REZIN) of Damascus, Menihimme(Menahem) of Samaria, Hirummu (Hiram) of Tyre, and others, including Zabibi queen of Arabia (see OREB and ZEEB). There is no statement, so far as the texts are preserved, that the Assyrian king penetrated as far S. as Samaria, but the fact that he received tribute from that country (cp 2 K. 15:19+) is a sufficient indication that he at least threatened it, and had to be bought off (see MENAHEM). The policy of deportation was on this occasion resorted to extensively.

8. Media and Urartu.[edit]

The following year (737 B.C.) the state of affairs on the E. called the Assyrian king to Media (mat Madda) and the district where he set up images of himself, and peace again reigned - at least, as far as the Assyrians were concerned. This left Tiglath-pileser free to march, in 736 B.C., to the foot of the Nal mountains, on the N. of Assyria, where he took a large number of cities, thus preparing the way for the conquest of the land of Urartu, which, in the following year (735), he proceeded to carry out. He penetrated as far as Sardurri's capital, Turushpa, and though, on account of its naturally advantageous position on the lake Van, he was unable to take the city, he nevertheless broke the power of the kingdom of Urartu for many years to come.

9. Philistia.[edit]

For the year 734 B.C. the Eponym-list has this entry: 'to the land Pilishta' - i.e., to Philistia. Schrader in 1878 (KGF 126), in consequence of WAI 1:35, n. 1, 11:+, considered this to involve a campaign against Judah, Samaria, Phoenicia, etc. Rost, however, thinks differently, contending that the mere reception of tribute from the countries mentioned in WAI, loc. cit., would sufficiently account for the references to the southern districts. As, however, the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, where they speak of relations with Judah, have no date (the text being defective at the important points), he follows the indications of the Eponym-list, which makes Philistia (i.e., the small states on the shores of the Mediterranean ) the chief object of the campaign. In proceeding thither, Tiglath-pileser, like the Assyrian kings in general, would take the coast-road from N. to S. The name of the city which was first threatened is broken away, but Rost conjectures it to have been Ashdod or Ekron. Its prince bought his reinstatement only by means of heavy tribute. It was Hanunu of Gaza, however, who was to all appearance more especially aimed at by Tiglath-pileser, and, feeling this, he lost no time in seeking refuge in Egypt. 1 Gaza then fell an easy prey to the Assyrians ; its treasure and its gods were carried away, the worship of Asur was introduced, and the royal throne and image set up in the palace of Hanunu.

1 For another view see Wi. Musri, 50:34-35, and cp ISAIAH, BOOK OF, 12, n. i ; MIZRAIM, 2b.

10. Ahaz.[edit]

The entry for 733 and 732 B.C. is 'to the land of Dimaska' - i.e., Aram-Damascus. No doubt it was part of the king's plan to subjugate the states of the W. , but he was also induced to make this campaign by the appeal of Ahaz of Judah for help against REZIN and PEKAH. The appeal was supported by the sending of gifts in acknowledgment of vassalage. It would seem that the allied kings despaired of resisting the advance of the Assyrians, and retreated to their own territories. They thus played into the hands of Tiglath-pileser, who may perhaps refer to this in his annals (ll. 227-228) as follows :

'In my former expeditions, I had counted (as spoil) all the cities (of Pekah) and had carried off his . . . and he forsook Samaria alone . . . their king ...'

Rost completes the last phrase '(they overthrew Pekah), their king', which is not impossible, and is supported by his revised text of WAI 3:10, no. 2, 50:28.

11. Rezin.[edit]

Previously to this, however, as it would seem, the king paid a visit to the Phoenician states to assure himself of their fidelity, and on this occasion he may have annexed wide tracts of Israel, including 'all the land of Naphtali' (2 K. 15:29). No reference to this, however, occurs in his inscriptions (though, perhaps, as Hommel suggests, the -li of l. 7 of WAI 3, pl. 10, no. 2 may be the end of that word, for the preceding line refers to Bit-Humria or Israel). Rezin of Damascus boldly resisted the invader, but on this occasion fortune deserted the Aramaeans ; Rezin took to flight, and fortified himself in Damascus. A siege of the city followed, during which the surrounding country was completely devastated. A successful expedition was also made against Samsi, queen of N. Arabia, which led to the submission of other tribes of that region, as far as Sa'ba (Yemen). Damascus itself fell at the end of 732 B.C.; it is not again mentioned as an independent state. The fate of Rezin is related in 2 K. 16:9. See DAMASCUS, 10-11; REZIN.

12. Israel and the neighbouring states.[edit]

The relations of Hoshea, who seized the crown of Israel, to Tiglath-pileser are treated elsewhere (see HOSHEA). A third rebel against Assyria now claims our Attention, namely Mitinti of Ashkelon, who had been joined by neighbouring Metenna of Tyre According to Rost, the Assyrian statement is 1 that Mitinti went mad on realising that he might soon have to share the fate of Rezin. His son Rukipti now mounted the throne on account, as it would seem, of his father s mental state, and hastened to reconcile himself with the Assyrian conqueror by means of tribute and gifts. Tiglath-pileser now sent his rab-sake (see RAB-SHAKEH) against Metenna of Tyre, who, finding no other course feasible, decided to submit and pay tribute. The rab-sake was also successful in bringing about the submission of Uassurmi, chief of Tabal, who, however, was deposed, and a man named Hulli set in his place.

13. Operations in Babylon.[edit]

To all appearance, affairs in the W. had reached a satisfactory settlement for the Assyrians. Leaving that district in 732 B.C., Tiglath-pileser found trouble awaiting him in the following year in Babylon, owing to the restlessness of the Chaldaeans and Aramreans. Nabonassar had been succeeded by his son Nabu-nadin-zeri, who was killed after a reign of two years. His murderer, Nabu-shum-ukin, made himself king, but was deposed after rather more than two months rule by the Chaldaean prince Ukin-zer (Chinziros) of Bit-Amukkani. At this period, the Babylonians proper had but little love for the dominion of the rough Chaldaeans, and probably encouraged an Assyrian intervention in order to get release from a thoroughly distasteful rule. Tiglath-pileser therefore entered Babylonia, and besieged Ukin-zer in his capital Sapia, but without result. He wasted the territory of the other tribes, however, and carried Zakiru, prince of Bit-sa'alli, into captivity. According to the Eponym Canon, the Assyrian king did not engage in any campaign in 730, but remained at home 'in the land'. Apparently his army continued the siege of Sapia, which fell in the following year. The result was, that Ukin-zer lost his throne, and the other Chaldaean chiefs submitted, including MERODACH-BALADAN (q.v.), prince of the land of Tamtim ('the sea-coast'). Tiglath-pileser could now celebrate one of his greatest triumphs. He proceeded to Babylonia as the saviour of his people, and was universally acknowledged as king : in the Babylonian Chronicle, and on at least one contract-tablet, he is called Tukulti-apil-esharra. (This has a bearing on the question whether PUL [q.v.] was his official name at Babylon, or not.)

1 The preceding passage is very defective.

14. Last years and death.[edit]

The next year (728 B.C.) found the king again in Babylonia, performing the ceremony of 'taking the hand of Bel', which would thus seem to have been a yearly duty for one who claimed to be ruler of the land. The Eponym Canon mentions the name of a city, which may be Dir; it may be surmised that a rebellion had taken place there. It is probably to this city that the entry in the same document with regard to the expedition of 727 B.C. refers; after which it is stated that Shalmaneser set himself on the throne. The death of Tiglath-pileser, as we learn from the Babylonian Chronicle, took place in the month Tebet, thus closing a reign, than which none was more glorious for Assyria or more fateful for Israel.

15. Buildings.[edit]

Turning now to other signs of progress, we note that the material prosperity of Assyria was well maintained, and one can see from the extant sculptures of the period that Assyrian art, too, had not declined. When at home, the king seems to have generally resided in Calah, but also in Nineveh. Being more of a warrior than a builder, he apparently contented himself with rebuilding and changing the great central palace at CALAH, which had been founded by his predecessor Shalmaneser II., copying the Hittite style, and adorning it with the objects sent as tribute by Hittite and Chaldaean princes. 1 Unfortunately, this building was for the most part demolished by Esarhaddon, so that the sculptures and inscriptions were partly destroyed, partly mutilated. This, added to the ravages of time, has deprived us of much valuable material, rendering the records of Tiglath-pileser very fragmentary. Happily the order of his campaigns is well preserved by the Eponym Canon with historical references, though the meagreness of the entries leaves one or two points still uncertain.

[ As in the case of the articles SARGON and SENNACHERIB, it is necessary to warn the reader that the basis of the ordinary representation of the history of Israel needs to be tested afresh by textual criticism, and that one result of this is that the influence of the N. Arabian neighbours of Palestine is seen to have been at least as strongly felt as that of Assyria. In PROPHET, 35, it is shown that the captivity foretold by Amos was most probably a N. Arabian one, and the region which was to bear the brunt of the invasion was that part of the Negeb which was in Israelitish occupation. Similarly in 2 K. 15:29 it is not the Assyrian king commonly called Tiglath-pileser, but Jerahmeel king of Ashhur in N. Arabia who carries away captive the people of certain places and districts, which places and districts are not in N. Israel, but in the Israelitish Negeb. The critical proof of this is both [neither] interesting and [nor] suggestive. It entirely clears up the mystery of the three names, Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Tilgath-pilneser. See Crit. Bib.

-T.K.C. ]

16. Bibliography.[edit]

Rost, Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III. (1893); G. Smith, Assyria (Ancient History from the Monuments), 74+;Rogers, Hist, of Bab. and Ass. 2:104-138 ; Murdter-Delitzsch, Gesch. von Bab. u. Ass. 177-178 (1891); Hommel, GBA 648+ (1885); Schrader, Zur Kritik d. inschr. Tiglat-Pilesers II. (Kgl. Pr. Akad. der Wiss. 1881); COT 1:213+, 242+; KB vol. 2.

T. G. P.

1 According to Frd. Delitzsch, however, the palace built by Tiglath-pileser III. was on the W. side of the great terrace of Calah, beside that of Shalmaneser I.


(H.n), Gen. 2:14 RVmg, Dan. 10:4 RVmg; EV HIDDEKEL (q.v.)


(nipn 'hope', 74 ; eeKoye [AL] - i.e. TEKOA).

1. Father of SHALLUM (2), 2 K. 22:14 (Qeidcovav [thekkouau] [B], -Kitoue [-kkoue] [A]). Cp TIKVATH.

2. Father of JAHAZIAH, Ezra 10:15 (eAiceta [elkeia] [BX]); in 1 Esd. 9:14 he is called THEOCANUS, RV THOCANUS (eoxavov [K] 0<o. [A]).


RV TOKHATH (Jinpin, Kt. ; nnipFI, kre), father of SHALLUM (2), 2 Ch. 34:22 (<ca0ouo.A [kathoual] [B], daicova.9 [thakouath] [A], 0a><- [thekooe] [L]). See TIKVAH.


(1) For rm 1 ?, lebenah, nAiNOoc [plinthos] (Ezek. 4:1-2), see BRICK.

(2) For /ce pa^os [keramos] (Lk. 5:19), see HOUSE, 4.


HOST S fl^FI), 1 Ch. 5:6, 5:26, 2 Ch. 28:20. See TIGLATH-PILESER.


O l^R Kt. pill! INCON [inoon] [B], 6iAcoN [thiloon] [A] GooAeiM [thooleim] [L]), son of SHIMON a Judahite (1 Ch. 4:20-21).


(TIMAIOC [Ti. WH]), Mk. 10:46 RV, AV Timeus. See BARTIMAEUS.


(51R toph), Ex. 15:20, etc. Cp TABRET, and see Music, 3(1).




(JJWO), Dt. 18:10, etc. See DIVINATION, 3 (2).


(Wlpn, 1HDPI, 54; GAMNA [BADEL]) in Gen. 36:12 ranks as the concubine of Eliphaz b. Esau and mother of Amalek; but in 1 Ch. 1:36 Timna and Amalek are among the sons of Eliphaz (so LXX{L}; but LXX{B}, Kal T/;s 6a.iJ.va a^a\tjK [kai tes thamna amalek]; LXX{A} 6a/u.va de i] iraXXa/fi? eXt<af treKtv avTr) TOV afj.a\-rjK [thamna de e pallake eliphaz eteken aute ton amale]). Timna appears, however, as the sister of Lotan b. Seir (see LOT) in Gen. 36:22, 1 Ch. 1:39 (ai\a0 Kal va^va [ailath kai namna] [B], d5eX<^7? 5 Xurcu 6a.iJ.va [adelphe de lootan thamna] [A], Kal d.X.d. [kai a.ch.d.] [L]) ; and as an Edomite phylarch or rather clan in Gen. 36:40, 1 Ch. 1:51 (8ai(M>> [thaiman] [B], Oapava [thamana] [A]; in Gen. EV, against rule, gives TIMNAH).

These inconsistencies are not surprising (see GENEALOGIES, 1). Perhaps, however, Gunkel is right in supposing that Gen. 30:12 (Timna a concubine) is a later insertion in P. Cp AMALEK, 4.