International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Male — Masaloth
Male
Male - mal ((1) zakhar, zakhar, zakhur (the root means "to stand out," "to be prominent," here a physiological differentiation of the sex, as neqebhah, "female," which see); (2) 'ish literally, "man"; (3) by circumlocution, only in the books of Samuel and Kings, mashtin beqir; ouron pros toichon, which the Revised Version (British and American) euphemistically renders "man-child" (1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10)): Gesenius has rightly pointed out that this phrase designates young boys, who do not as yet wear clothes, of whom the above description is accurate, while it does not apply in the case of adults, even in the modern Orient. We know this from the statement of Herodotus ii.35, relating to Egypt, and from Judges 3:24; 1 Samuel 24:3. The Greek translates these words with arsen, arrhen, while 1 Maccabees 5:28, 51 has the adjective arsenikos.
The above words (the phrase mashtin beqir excepted) are used promiscuously of animals and men, e.g. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male ('ish) and his female, of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male (zakhar) and female" (Genesis 7:2-3). A careful distinction was made in the use of male and female animals in the rules concerning sacrifice; in some offerings none but males were allowed, in others females were permitted along with the males (Leviticus 3:6). The same distinction was made in the valuation of the different sexes (Genesis 32:14-15; Leviticus 27:5). Certain priestly portions were permitted to the Levites or the male descendants of Aaron for food, while women were not permitted to partake of the same (Numbers 18:10-11).
As a rule Jewish parents (as is now common in the Orient) preferred male children to daughters. This is seen from the desire for male progeny (1 Samuel 1:8-18) and from the ransom paid for firstborn sons to Yahweh (Exodus 13:12; Luke 2:23). It was reserved to the New Testament to proclaim the equality of the sexes, as it does of races and conditions of men: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
See WOMAN.
Among the prominent sins of oriental peoples, "the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel" was one of the most heinous character, that of sodomy, against which God's people are repeatedly warned. The Greek expression for the devotee of this vice is a compound noun, arsenokoites, literally, "he who lies with man," the abuser of himself with mankind, the sodomite (1 Corinthians 6:9), while the Hebrew qadhesh, literally means the (male) devotee of lascivious and licentious idolatry (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14).
H. L. E. Luering
Malefactor
Malefactor - mal-e-fak'-ter (kakopoios, "a bad doer," i.e. "evildoer," "criminal"; kakourgos, "a wrongdoer"): The former occurs in John 18:30 the King James Version, the latter, which is the stronger term, in Luke 23:32, 39. The former describes the subject as doing or making evil, the latter as creating or originating the bad, and hence, designates the more energetic, aggressive, initiating type of criminality.
Maleleel
Maleleel - ma-le'-le-el, mal'-e-lel (Maleleel, the King James Version): Greek form of "Mahalalel" (Luke 3:37); the Revised Version (British and American) "Mahalaleel."
Malice, Malignity
Malice, Malignity - mal'-is, ma-lig'-ni-ti (kakia, poneros, kakoetheia): "Malice," now used in the sense of deliberate ill-will, by its derivation means badness, or wickedness generally, and was so used in Older English. In the Apocrypha it is the translation of kakia, "evil," "badness" (Wisdom of Solomon 12:10, 20; 16:14; 2 Maccabees 4:50, the Revised Version (British and American) "wickedness"); in Ecclesiasticus 27:30; 28:7, we have "malice" in the more restricted sense as the translation of menis, "confirmed anger." In the New Testament "malice" and "maliciousness" are the translation of kakia (Romans 11:2Ro 9:1-33a; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 14:20; Colossians 3:8); malicious is the translation of poneros, "evil" (3 John 1:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "wicked"); it also occurs in Additions to Esther 13:4, 7, verse 4, "malignant"; Wisdom of Solomon 1:4, the Revised Version (British and American) that deviseth evil"; 2 Maccabees 5:23; malignity occurs in Romans 11:29b as the translation of kakoetheia, "evil disposition"; "maliciously," Susanna verses 43,62; 2 Maccabees 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "having ill will."
W. L. Walker
Mallos
Mallos - mal'-os,
See MALLUS.
Mallothi
Mallothi - mal'-o-thi, ma-lo'-thi (mallothi, "my discourse"): Son of Heman, a Kohathite singer (1 Chronicles 6:33; 25:4). The song service in the house of the Lord was apportioned by David and the captains of the host to the 3 families of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (1 Chronicles 25:1). Their place in the "courses" was, however, settled by "lot" (1 Chronicles 25:8-9). Mallothi was one of Heman's 17 children--14 sons and 3 daughters (1 Chronicles 25:5)--and was chief of the 19th course of twelve singers into which the temple choir was divided (1 Chronicles 25:26).
Henry Wallace
Mallows
Mallows - mal'-oz.
See SALT-WORT.
Malluch
Malluch - mal'-uk (mallukh, "counsellor"):
(1) A Levite of the sons of Merari, ancestor of Ethan the singer (1 Chronicles 6:44; compare 1 Chronicles 6:29).
(2) Son of Bani, among those who had foreign wives (Ezra 10:29). He is a descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 9:4) and is the Mamuchus of 1 Esdras 9:30.
(3) A descendant of Harim, who married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:32).
(4) (5) Two who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:4, 27).
(6) Possibly the same as (4). One of the priests who returned with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:2). Doubtless the Melicu of verse 14's margin.
Henry Wallace
Malluchi
Malluchi - mal'-u-ki (mallukhi, "my counselor"): A family of priests that came over with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 10:4; 12:14). May be the patronymic MALLUCH, (4) (which see).
Mallus
Mallus - mal'-us (Mallos; the King James Version, Mallos): A city in Cilicia, the inhabitants of which along with those of Tarsus, revolted from Antiochus Epiphanes in protest against his action in giving them to his concubine, Antiochis (2 Maccabees 4:30). The ancient name was Marlos. The river Pyramos divides about 10 miles from the sea, one branch flowing to the West, the other to the East of the low range of hills along the coast on which stands Kara-Tash. Mallus stood on a height (Strabo, 675) to the East of the western arm, a short distance from the shore. The site is a little West of Kara-Tash, where inscriptions of Antiocheia and Mallus have been found. Tarsus lay about 35 miles to the Northwest. The two cities were rivals in trade. The position of Mallus with her harbor on the shore gave her really no advantage over Tarsus, with her river navigable to the city walls. The fine wagon road over the mountain by way of the Cilician Gates opened for her easy access to the interior, compared with that furnished for Mallus by the old caravan track to the North by way of Adana. This sufficiently explains the greater prosperity of the former city.
W. Ewing
Malobathron
Malobathron - mal-o-bath'-ron: the Revised Version margin suggests that this translation may be right instead of Bether in the phrase hare bether (Song of Solomon 2:17). But this spice never grew wild in Palestine, and so could hardly have given its name to a mountain, or mountain range. The name Bether ought therefore to be retained, notwithstanding Wellhausen (Prol. 2, 415). The spice is the leaf of the Cassia lignea tree.
Maltanneus
Maltanneus - mal-ta-ne'-us (Maltannaios, Codex Vaticanus and Swete; Altannaios, Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche--the "M" being perhaps dropped because of the final "M" in the preceding word; the King James Version Altaneus): One of the sons of Asom who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:33) = "Mattenai" in Ezra 10:33.
Mamaias
Mamaias - ma-ma'-yas.
See SAMAIAS, (3).
Mamdai
Mamdai - mam'-da-i, mam'-di (LXX: Codex Vaticanus Mamdai; Codex Alexandrinus Mandai): One of those who consented to put away their "strange wives" at Esdras' order (1 Esdras 9:34) = the King James Version "Mabdai" = "Benaiah" in Ezra 10:35.
Mammon
Mammon - mam'-un (Mamonas): A common Aramaic word (mamon) for riches, used in Matthew 6:24 and in Luke 16:9, 11, 13. In these passages mammon merely means wealth, and is called "unrighteous," because the abuse of riches is more frequent than their right use. In Luke 16:13 there is doubtless personification, but there is no proof that there was in New Testament times a Syrian deity called Mammon. The application of the term in Matthew is apparent and requires no comment. In Lk, however, since the statement, "Make to yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness," follows as a comment on the parable of the Unjust Steward, there is danger of the inference that Jesus approved the dishonest conduct of the steward and advised His disciples to imitate his example. On the contrary, the statement is added more as a corrective against this inference than as an application. `Do not infer,' He says, that honesty in the use of money is a matter of indifference. He that is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much. So if you are not wise in the use of earthly treasure how can you hope to be entrusted with heavenly treasure?' The commendation is in the matter of foresight, not in the method. The steward tried to serve two masters, his lord and his lord's creditors, but the thing could not be done, as the sequel shows. Neither can men serve both God and riches exalted as an object of slavish servitude. Wealth, Jesus teaches, does not really belong to men, but as stewards they may use wealth prudently unto their eternal advantage. Instead of serving God and mammon alike we may serve God by the use of wealth, and thus lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven. Again, the parable is not to be interpreted as teaching that the wrong of dishonest gain may be atoned for by charity. Jesus is not dealing with the question of reparation. The object is to point out how one may best use wealth, tainted or otherwise, with a view to the future.
Russell Benjamin Miller
Mamnitanemus
Mamnitanemus - mam-ni-ta-ne'-mus (Mamnitanaimos; Codex Vaticanus Mamtitanaimos; the King James Version, Mamnitanaimus): 1 Esdras 9:34, where it represents the two names Mattaniah and Mattenai in the parallel Ezra 10:37, which probably represent only one person. It must be a corruption of these names. The Aldine gives a still more corrupt form, Mamnimatanaimos.
Mamre
Mamre - mam'-re (mamre'; Septuagint Mambre):
(1) In Genesis 14:24 Mamre is mentioned as the name of one of Abraham's allies, who in Genesis 14:13 is described as the Amorite, brother of Eschcol and Aner.
1. Biblical Data: The name of the grove of trees is evidently considered as derived from this sheikh or chieftain. The "oaks" ("terebinths") of Mamre where Abram pitched his tent (Genesis 14:13; 18:1) are described (Genesis 13:18) as "in Hebron." Later on MACHPELAH (which see) is described as "before," i.e. "to the East of Mamre" (Genesis 23:17; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13), and Mamre is identified with Hebron itself (Genesis 23:19).
2. Traditional Sites: While Mamre has always been looked for in the vicinity of Hebron, the traditions have varied greatly, determined apparently by the presence of a suitable tree. The one site which has a claim on grounds other than tradition is that called Khirbet and `Ain Nimreh (literally, the "ruin" and "spring" of "the leopard"), about 1/2 mile North-Northwest of modern Hebron. The word Nimreh may be a survival of the ancient Mamre, the name, as often happens, being assimilated by a familiar word. The site is a possible one, but, beyond this, the name has not much to commend it.
Tradition has centered round three different sites at various periods: (1) The modern tradition points to a magnificent oak (Quercus ilex, Arabic Sindian), 1 1/2 miles West-Northwest of the modern city, as the terebinth of Abraham; its trunk has a girth of 32 ft. It is now in a dying condition, but when Robinson visited it (BR, II, 72, 81) it was in fine condition; he mentions a Mohammedan tradition that this was "Abraham's oak." Since then the site had been bought by the Russians, a hospice and church have been erected, and the tradition, though of no antiquity, has become crystallized. (2) The second tradition, which flourished from the 16th century down to the commencement of the 19th century, pointed to the hill of Deir el Arba`in (see HEBRON) as that of Mamre, relying especially, no doubt, in its inception on the identity of Mamre and Hebron (Genesis 23:19). A magnificent terebinth which stood there was pointed out as that of Abraham. The site agrees well with the statement that the cave of Machpelah was "before," i.e. to the East of Mamre (Genesis 23:17, etc.). (3) The third and much older tradition, mentioned in several Christian writers, refers to a great terebinth which once stood in an enclosure some 2 miles North of Hebron, near the road to Jerusalem. It is practically certain that the site of this enclosure is the strange Ramet el-Khalil. This is an enclosure some 214 ft. long and 162 ft. wide. The enclosing walls are made of extremely fine and massive masonry and are 6 ft. thick; the stones are very well laid and the jointing is very fine, but the building was evidently never completed. In one corner is a well--Bir el-Khalil--lined with beautiful ashlar masonry, cut to the curve of the circumference.
It is probable that this enclosure surrounded a magnificent terebinth; if so, it was at this spot that before the days of Constantine a great annual fair was held, attended by Jews, Christians and heathen who united a pay honor to the sacred tree, while the well was on the same occasion illuminated, and offerings were made to it. Similar customs survive today at several shrines in Palestine. Constantine suppressed these "superstitions," and built a church in the neighborhood, probably the so-called "Abraham's house," Beit Ibrahim of today. The tree which stood here is apparently that mentioned by Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) as having continued "since the creation of the world." At this enclosure, too, Jewish women and children were sold at auction after the suppression of the revolt of Bar Cochba. Whatever the origin of the veneration paid to this terebinth--now long centuries dead and gone--early Christian tradition associated it with Abraham and located Mamre here. This tradition is mentioned by Jerome (4th century), by Eucherius (6th century), by Areulphus (700 AD) and by Benjamin of Tudela (1163 AD). Among the modern Jews it is looked upon as the site of "Abraham's oak." It is probable that the view that Abraham was connected with this tree is one attached to it much later than its original sanctity; it was originally one of the many "holy trees" of the land venerated by primitive Semitic religions feeling, and the nearness of Hebron caused the Bible story to be attached to it. Judging from the Bible data, it appears to be too far from Hebron and Machpelah to suit the conditions; the site of Mamre must have been nearer to Deir el Arba`in, but it has probably been entirely lost since very early times.
For a very good discussion about Mamre see Mambre by Le R. P. Abel des Freres Precheurs in the Conferences de Saint Etienne, 1909-10 (Paris).
(2) An Amorite chief, owner of the "oaks" mentioned above (Genesis 14:13-14).
E. W. G. Masterman
Mamuchus
Mamuchus - ma-mu'-kus (Mamouchos): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:30); identical with "Malluch" in Ezra 10:29.
Man
Man - See ANTHROPOLOGY.
Man of Sin
Man of Sin - (ho anthropos tes hamartias; many ancient authorities read, "man of lawlessness," anomias):
1. The Pauline Description: The name occurs in Paul's remarkable announcement in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 of the manifestation of a colossal anti-Christian power prior to the advent, which some of the Thessalonians had been misled into thinking of as immediately impending (2 Thessalonians 2:2). That "day of the Lord," the apostle declares, will not come till, as he had previously taught them (2 Thessalonians 2:5), there has first been a great apostasy and the revelation of "the man of sin" (or "of lawlessness"; compare 2 Thessalonians 2:8), named also "the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This "lawless one" (2 Thessalonians 2:8) would exalt himself above all that is called God, or is an object of worship; he would sit in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). For the time another power restrained his manifestation; when that was removed, he would be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Then "the mystery of lawlessness," which was already working, would attain its full development (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8). The coming of this "man of sin," in the power of Satan, would be with lying wonders and all deceit of unrighteousness, whereby many would be deceived to their destruction (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). But only for a season (2 Thessalonians 2:6). Jesus would slay (or consume) him with the breath of His mouth (compare Isaiah 11:4), and bring him to nought by the manifestation of His coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
2. The Varying Interpretations: Innumerable are theories and speculations to which this Pauline passage has given rise a very full account of these may be seen in the essay on "The Man of Sin" appended to Dr. J. Eadie's posthumous Commentary on Thessalonians, and in Lunemann's Commentary, 222 ff, English translation). (1) There is the view, favored by "moderns," that the passage contains no genuine prediction (Paul "could not know" the future), but represents a speculation of the apostle's own, based on Daniel 8:23 ff; Daniel 11:36 ff, and on current ideas of Antichrist (see ANTICHRIST; BELIAL; compare Bousset, Der Antichrist, 93 ff, etc.). This view will not satisfy those who believe in the reality of Paul's apostleship and inspiration. (2) Some connect the description with Caligula, Nero, or other of the Roman emperors. Caligula, indeed, ordered supplication to be made to himself as the supreme god and wished to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Suet. Calig. xxii.33; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, viii). But this was long before Paul's visit to Thessalonica, and the acts of such a madman could not furnish the basis of a prediction so elaborate and important as the present (compare Lunemann and Bousset). (3) The favorite Protestant interpretation refers the prediction to the papacy, in whom, it is contended, many of the blasphemous features of Paul's representation are unmistakably realized. The "temple of God" is here understood to be the church; the restraining power the Roman empire; "the man of sin" not an individual, but the personification of an institution or system. It is cult, however, to resist the impression that the apostle regards "the mystery of lawlessness" as culminating in an individual--a personal Antichrist--and in any case the representation outstrips everything that can be conceived of as even nominally Christian. (4) There remains the view held by most of the Fathers, and in recent times widely adopted, that "the man of sin" of this passage is an individual in whom, previous to the advent, sin will embody itself in its most lawless and God-denying form. The attempts to identify this individual with historical characters may be set aside; but the idea is not thereby invalidated. The difficulty is that the apostle evidently conceives of the manifestation of the "man of sin" as taking place, certainly not immediately, but at no very remote period--not 2,000 years later--and as connected directly with the final advent of Christ, and the judgment on the wicked (compare 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9), without apparently any reference to a "millennial" period, either before or after.
It seems safest, in view of the difficulties of the passage, to confine one's self to the general idea it embodies, leaving details to be interpreted by the actual fulfillment.
3. The Essential Idea: There is much support in Scripture--not least in Christ's own teaching (compare Matthew 13:30, 37-43; Matthew 24:11-14; Luke 18:8)--for the belief that before the final triumph of Christ's kingdom there will be a period of great tribulation, of decay of faith, of apostasy, of culmination of both good and evil ("Let both grow together until the harvest," Matthew 13:30), with the seeming triumph for the time of the evil over the good. There will be a crisis-time--sharp, severe, and terminated by a decisive interposition of the Son of Man ("the manifestation of his coming," the Revised Version margin "Gr presence"), in what precise form may be left undetermined. Civil law and government--the existing bulwark against anarchy (in Paul's time represented by the Roman power)--will be swept away by the rising tide of evil, and lawlessness will prevail. It may be that impiety will concentrate itself, as the passage says, in some individual head; or this may belong to the form of the apostle's apprehension in a case where "times and seasons" were not yet fully revealed: an apprehension to be enlarged by subsequent revelations (see REVELATION OF JOHN), or left to be corrected by the actual course of God's providence. The kernel of the prediction is not, any more than in the Old Testament prophecies, dependent on its literal realization in every detail. Neither does the final manifestation of evil exclude partial and anticipatory realizations, embodying many of the features of the prophecy.
See THESSALONIANS,THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ,III .
James Orr
Man of War
Man of War - See WAR.
Man, Natural
Man, Natural - nat'-u-ral, nach'-u-ral (psuchikos anthropos): Man as he is by nature, contrasted with man as he becomes by grace. This phrase is exclusively Pauline.
I. Biblical Meaning. The classical passage in which it occurs is 1 Corinthians 2:14 King James Version: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." In his anthropology Paul uses four groups of descriptive adjectives in contrasted pairs: (1) the old man and the new man (Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9; Ephesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10); (2) the outward man and the inward man (2 Corinthians 4:16; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16); (3) the carnal man and the spiritual man (Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 3:1, 3-4); (4) the natural man and the spiritual man (2 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 3:3-4; Ephesians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; 15:46; Galatians 6:1). A study of these passages will show that the adjectives "old," "outward," "carnal," and "natural" describe man, from different points of view, prior to his conversion; while the adjectives "new," "inward" and "spiritual" describe him, from different points of view, after his conversion. To elucidate the meaning, the expositor must respect these antitheses and let the contrasted words throw light and meaning upon each other.
1. The Old Man: The "old man" is the "natural man" considered chronologically--prior to that operation of the Holy Spirit by which he is renovated into the "new man."
The old house is the house as it was before it was remodeled; an old garment is the garment as it was before it was re-fashioned; and the "old man" is man as he was before he was regenerated and sanctified by the grace of the Spirit. "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin" (Romans 6:6 the King James Version). Here the "old man" is called the "body of sin," as the physical organism is called the body of the soul or spirit, and is to be "crucified" and "destroyed," in order that man may no longer be the "servant of sin." "Put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt. .... Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:22, 24 the King James Version). Here the "old man" is said to be "corrupt," and we are called upon to "put it off." The figure is that of putting off old clothes which are unclean, and putting on those garments which have come from the wash clean and snowy white. We have the same idea, in different language and with a slightly different imagery.
When Paul calls the "natural man" the "old man," and describes it as the "body of sin" which is "corrupt" in its nature and "deeds," and tells us that it must be "crucified" and "destroyed" and "put off" in order that we may "not serve sin," but may have "righteousness" and "true holiness" and "knowledge" and the "image" of God, we get some conception of the moral meaning which he is endeavoring to convey by these contrasts (Galatians 5:19-24). He has reference to that sinful nature in man which is as old as the individual, as old as the race of which he is a member, which must be graciously renovated according to that gospel which he preached to Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, Romans and all the world.
2. The Outward Man: The apostle also establishes a contrast between "the inward man" and "the outward man." "Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Corinthians 4:16). Now what sort of man is the "outward man" as contrasted with the "inward man"? In Greek, the exo-anthropos is set over against the eso-anthropos.
See OUTWARD MAN.
"The contrast here drawn between the `outward' and the `inward man,' though illustrated by the contrast in Romans 7:22 between the `law in the members' and `the inner man,' and in Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9 between `the old man' and `the new man' is not precisely the same. Those contrasts relate to the difference between the sensual and the moral nature, `the flesh' and `the spirit'; this to the difference between the material and the spiritual nature" (Stanley, in the place cited.).
"The outward man" is the body, and "the inward man" is the soul, or immaterial principle in the human make-up. As the body is wasted by the afflictions of life, the soul is renewed; what is death to the body is life to the soul; as afflictions depotentiate man's physical organism, they impotentiate man's spiritual principle. That is, the afflictions of life, culminating in death itself, have diametrically opposite effects upon the body and upon the soul. They kill the one; they quicken the other.
"The inward man" is the whole human nature as renewed and indwelt and dominated by the Spirit of God as interpenetrated by the spirit of grace. As the one is broken down by the adverse dispensations of life, the other is upbuilt by the sanctifying discipline of the Spirit.
3. The Carnal Man: There is another Pauline antithesis which it is necessary for us to interpret in order to understand what he means by the "natural man." It is the distinction which he draws between the "carnal mind" and the "spiritual mind." The critical reference is Romans 8:1-14. In this place the "carnal mind" is identified with the "law of death," and the "spiritual mind" is identified with the "law of the Spirit." These two "laws" are two principles and codes: the one makes man to be at "enmity against God" and leads to "death"; the other makes him the friend of God, and conducts to "life and peace." The word "carnal" connotes all that is fallen and sinful and unregenerate in man's nature. In its gross sense the "carnal" signifies that which is contrary to nature, or nature expressing itself in low and bestial forms of sin.
4. The Natural Man: The "natural man" is the "old man," the "outward man," the "carnal man"--man as he is by nature, as he is firstborn, contra-distinguished to man as he is changed by the Spirit, as he is second-born or regenerated. There. is an "old" life, an "outward" life, a "carnal" life, a "natural" life, as contrasted with the "new" life, the "inward" life, the "spiritual" life, the "gracious" life. The "natural man" is a bold and vivid personification of that depraved nature which we inherit from Adam fallen, the source and seat of all actual and personal transgressions.
II. Theological Meaning. We know what we mean by the nature of the lion, by the nature of the lamb. We are using perfectly comprehensible language when we speak of the lion as naturally fierce, and of the lamb when we say he is naturally gentle. We have reference to the dominant dispositions of these animals, that resultant of their qualities which defines their character and spontaneity. So we are perfectly plain when we say that man is naturally sinful. We are but saying that sinfulness is to man what fierceness is to the lion, what gentleness is to the lamb. The "natural man" is a figure of speech for that sinful human nature, common to us all. It is equivalent to the theological phrases: the "sinful inclination," the "evil disposition," the "apostate will," "original sin," "native depravity." It manifests itself in the understanding as blindness, in the heart as hardness, in the will as obstinacy.
See MAN.
Robert Alexander Webb
Man, Old
Man, Outward
Man, Outward - See MAN, NATURAL; OUTWARD MAN.
Man, Son of
Man, Son of - See SON OF MAN.
Man; New
Man; New - (neos anthropos or kainos anthropos): Generally described, the "new man" is man as he becomes under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, contrasted with man as he is by nature. The phrase has (1) its Biblical, and (2) its theological, meanings.
I. Biblical Meaning. There are four Biblical contrasts which must be considered as opposites: (1) the "old man" (palaios anthropos) and the "new man" (neos anthropos or kainos anthropos); (2) the "outward man" (exoanthropos) and the "inward man" (esoanthropos); (3) the "carnal man" (sarkikos anthropos) and the "spiritual man" (pneumatikos anthropos); (4) the "natural man" (psuchikos anthropos) and the "spiritual man" (pneunatikos anthropos). These are not four different sorts of men, but four different sorts of man. Take up these antitheses in their reverse order, so as to arrive at some clear and impressive conception of what the Biblical writer means by the "new man."
1. The Spiritual Man: The "spiritual man" is a designation given in opposition to the "carnal man" and to the "natural man" (Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 3:1, 3-4; 2:14; 3:11; 14:37; 15:46; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:3). All three of these terms are personifications of human nature. The "carnal man" is human nature viewed as ruled and dominated by sensual appetites and fleshly desires--as energized by those impulses which have close association with the bodily affections. The "natural man" is human nature ruled and dominated by unsanctified reason--those higher powers of the soul not yet influenced by Divine grace. The "spiritual man" is this same human nature after it has been seized upon and interpenetrated and determined by the Holy Spirit. The word "spiritual" is sometimes used in a poetic and idealistic sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of beauty; sometimes in a metaphysical sense, as when we speak of the spirituality of the soul; but in its prevalent Biblical and evangelical sense it is an adjective with the Holy Spirit as its noun-form. The spiritual life is that life of which the Holy Spirit is the author and preserver; and the "spiritual man" is that nature or character in man which the Holy Spirit originates, preserves, determines, disciplines, sanctifies and glorifies.
2. The Inward Man: The "inward man" is a designation of human nature viewed as internally and centrally regenerated, as contrasted with the "outward man" (2 Corinthians 4:16; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16). See MAN, OUTWARD. This phrase indicates the whole human nature conceived as affected from within--in the secret, inside, and true springs of activity--by the Holy Spirit of God. Such a change--regeneration--is not superficial, but a change in the inner central self; not a mere external reformation, but an internal transformation. Grace operates not from the circumference toward the center, but from the center toward the circumference, of life. The product is a man renovated in his "inward parts," changed in the dynamic center of his heart.
3. The New Man: The "new man" is an appellation yielded by the contrasted idea of the "old man" (Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9; Ephesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:10). The "old" is "corrupt" and expresses itself in evil "deeds"; the "new" possesses the "image of God" and is marked by "knowledge," "righteousness," and "holiness." There are two Greek words for "new"--neos and kainos. The former means new in the sense of young, as the new-born child is a young thing; the latter means "new" in the sense of renovated, as when the house which has been rebuilt is called a new house. The converted man is "new" (neo-anthropos) in the sense that he is a "babe in Christ," and "new" (kaino-anthropos) in the sense that his moral nature is renovated and built over again.
In the New Testament there are 5 different verbs used to express the action put forth in making the "old man" a "new man." (1) In Ephesians 2:10 and Ephesians 4:24, he is said to be "created" (ktizo), and in 2 Corinthians 5:17 the product is called a "new creature" (kaine kisis), a renovated creature. Out of the "old man" the Holy Spirit has created the "new man." (2) In 1 Peter 1:3, 13 and elsewhere, he is said to be "begotten again" (anagennao), and the product is a "babe in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1). The "old man" thus becomes the "new man" by a spiritual begetting: his paternity is assigned to the Holy Ghost. (3) In Ephesians 2:5 and elsewhere, he is said to be `quickened' (zoopoieo), and the product is represented as a creature which has been made "alive from the dead" (Romans 6:13). The "old man," being `dead in trespasses and sins' (Ephesians 2:1), is brought forth from his sin-grave by a spiritual resurrection. (4) In Ephesians 4:23 he is represented as being made "young" (ananeoo), and the product is a child of the Spirit at the commencement of his religious experience. The "old man," dating his history back to the fall in Eden, has become, through the Spirit, a young man in Christ Jesus. (5) In 2 Corinthians 4:16 and in Romans 12:2, he is said to be `renovated' (anakainoo). The "old man" is renovated into the "new man." Sinful human nature is taken by the Spirit and morally recast.
II. Theological Meaning. The "new man" is the converted, regenerated man. The phrase has its significance for the great theological doctrine of regeneration as it expands into the broad work of sanctification. Is the sinner dead? Regeneration is a new life. Is holiness non-existent in him? Regeneration is a new creation. Is he born in sin? Regeneration is a new birth. Is he determined by his fallen, depraved nature? Regeneration is a spiritual determination. Is he the subject of carnal appetites? Regeneration is a holy appetency. Is he thought of as the old sinful man? Regeneration is a new man. Is the sinful mind blind? Regeneration is a new understanding. Is the heart stony? Regeneration is a heart of flesh. Is the conscience seared? Regeneration is a good conscience. Is the will impotent? Regeneration is a new impotentiation. The regenerated man is a man with a new governing disposition--a "new man," an "inward man," a "spiritual man."
(1) The "New Man"--the Regenerate Man--Is Not a Theological Transubstantiation:
A being whose substance has been supernaturally converted into some other sort of substance.
(2) He Is Not a Scientific Transmutation:
A species of one kind which has been naturally evolved into a species of another kind.
(3) He Is Not a Metaphysical Reconstruction:
Being with a new mental equipment.
(4) He Is an Evangelical Convert:
An "old man" with a new regnant moral disposition, an "outward man" with a new inward fons et origo of moral life; a "natural man" with a new renovated spiritual heart.
See MAN, NATURAL; REGENERATION.
Robert Alexander Webb
Manaen
Manaen - man'-a-en (Manaen, Greek form of Hebrew name "Menahem," meaning "consoler"): Manaen is mentioned, with Barnabas, Saul and others, in Acts 13:1, as one of the "prophets and teachers" in the recently rounded Gentile church at Antioch, at the time when Barnabas and Saul were "separated" by Divine call for their missionary service. He is further described as "the foster-brother (suntrophos) of Herod the tetrarch" (i.e. Herod Antipas (see HEROD)). He was probably brought up and educated with this Herod and his brother Archelaus. An earlier glimpse of Christian influence in Herod's court is afforded by Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuzas, among the holy women who ministered to Jesus (Luke 8:3). Manaen may have been related to the older Manaen, the Essene, who, Josephus tells us, foretold the greatness of Herod the Great, and was afterward treated by Herod as his friend (Ant., XV, x, 5). His position in the church at Antioch was evidently an influential one, whether he himself ranked among the "prophets," or perhaps only among the "teachers."
James Orr
Manahath
Manahath - man'-a-hath (manachath; Machanathi):
(1) A place to which certain Benjamites, victims, apparently, of intra-tribal jealousy, were carried captive (1 Chronicles 8:6). Of this town the Manahathites were probably natives. It is possibly denoted by Manocho which Septuagint adds to the list of towns in Judah (Joshua 15:59). This place is named along with Bether (Bittir). The name seems to be preserved in that of Malicha, a large village not far from Bittir, Southwest of Jerusalem. The change of "l" to "n", and vice versa, is not uncommon. The same place may be intended by Menuhah (Judges 20:43 the Revised Version margin), where the King James Version reads "with ease," and the Revised Version (British and American) "at their resting-place."
(2) One of the sons of Shobal, the son of Seir the Horite (Genesis 36:23; 1 Chronicles 1:40), the "name-father" of one of the ancient tribes in Mt. Seir, afterward subdued and incorporated in Edom.
W. Ewing
Manahathites
Manahathites - man'-a-hath-its (menuchoth (1 Chronicles 2:52), manachti (1 Chronicles 2:54); Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Monaio; Codex Alexandrinus Ammanith (1 Chronicles 2:52); Codex Vaticanus Malathei; Codex Alexandrinus Manath, (1 Chronicles 2:54); the King James Version, Manahethites): These men were the inhabitants of Manahath. They were descendants of Caleb, one-half being the progeny of Shobal, and the other of Salma. In 1 Chronicles 2:52 the Revised Version (British and American) transliterates "Menuhoth," but Manahathites is preferable.
Manahethites
Manahethites - man-a-he'-thits, ma-na'-heth-its.
See MANAHATHITES.
Manasseas
Manasseas - man-a-se'-as (Manasseas): One of those who had married "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:31); "Manasseh" of Ezra 10:30.
Manasseh (1)
Manasseh (1) - ma-nas'-e (menashsheh, "causing to forget"; compare Genesis 41:51; Man(n)asse):
(1) The firstborn of Joseph by Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On. See next article.
(2) The tribe named from Manasseh, half of which, with Gad and Reuben, occupied the East of Jordan (Numbers 27:1, etc.). See next article.
(3) The "Manasseh" of Judges 18:30-31 the King James Version is really an intentional mistake for the name Moses. A small nun ("n"), a Hebrew letter, has been inserted over and between the first and second Hebrew letters in the word Moses, thus maNesheh for mosheh. The reason for this is that the individual in question is mentioned as priest of a brazen image at Dan. His proper name was Moses. It was felt to be a disgrace that such a one bearing that honored name should keep it intact. The insertion of the nun hides the disgrace and, moreover, gives to the person a name already too familiar with idolatrous practices; for King Manasseh's 55 years of sovereignty were thus disgraced.
(4) King of Judah. See separate article.
(5) Son of PAHATH-MOAB (which see), who had married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:30). Manaseas in 1 Esdras 9:31.
(6) The Manasses of 1 Esdras 9:33. A layman of the family of Hashum, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra's order (Ezra 10:33).
In the Revised Version (British and American) of Matthew 1:10 and Revelation 7:6 the spelling "Manasseh" is given for the King James Version "Manasses." The latter is the spelling of the husband of Judith (Judith 8:2, 7; 10:3; 22, 23, 24); of a person named in the last words of Tobit and otherwise unknown (Tobit 14:10), and also the name given to a remarkable prayer probably referred to in 2 Chronicles 33:18, which Manasseh (4) is said to have uttered at the end of his long, unsatisfactory life. See MANASSES,THE PRAYER OF . In Judges 12:4, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Manasseh" for the King James Version "Manassites."
Henry Wallace
Manasseh (2)
Manasseh (2) - 1. Son of Joseph: Following the Biblical account of Manasseh (patriarch, tribe, and territory) we find that he was the eider of Joseph's two sons by Asenath, the daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On (Genesis 41:51). The birth of a son marked the climax of Joseph's happiness after the long bitterness of his experience. In the joy of the moment, the dark years past could be forgotten; therefore he called the name of the firstborn Manasseh ("causing to forget"), for, said he, God hath made me to forget all my toil. When Jacob was near his end, Joseph brought his two sons to his father who blessed them. Himself the younger son who had received the blessing of the firstborn, Jacob preferred Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, to Manasseh his elder brother, thus indicating the relative positions of their descendants (Genesis 48:1-22). Before Joseph died he saw the children of Machir the son of Manasseh (Genesis 50:23). Machir was born to Manasseh by his concubine, an Aramitess (1 Chronicles 7:14). Whether he married Maacah before leaving for Egypt is not said. She was the sister of Huppim and Shuppim. Of Manasseh's personal life no details are recorded in Scripture. Acccording to Jewish tradition he became steward of his father's house, and acted as interpreter between Joseph and his brethren.
2. The Tribes in the Wilderness and Portion in Palestine:
At the beginning of the desert march the number of Manasseh's men of war is given at 32,200 (Numbers 1:34 f). At the 2nd census they had increased to 52,700 (Numbers 26:34). Their position in the wilderness was with the tribe of Benjamin, by the standard of the tribe of Ephraim, on the West of the tabernacle. According to Targum Pseudojon, the standard was the figure of a boy, with the inscription "The cloud of Yahweh rested on them until they went forth out of the camp." At Sinai the prince of the tribe was Gamaliel, son of Pedahzur (Numbers 2:20). The tribe was represented among the spies by Gaddi, son of Susi (Numbers 13:11, where the name "tribe of Joseph" seems to be used as an alternative). At the census in the plains of Moab, Manasseh is named before Ephraim, and appears as much the stronger tribe (Numbers 26:28 ff). The main military exploits in the conquest of Eastern Palestine were performed by Manassites. Machir, son of Manasseh, conquered the Amorites and Gilead (Numbers 32:39). Jair, son of Manasseh, took all the region of Argob, containing three score cities; these he called by his own name, "Havvoth-jair" (Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:4, 14). Nobah captured Kenath and the villages thereof (Numbers 32:42; Joshua 17:1, 5). Land for half the tribe was thus provided, their territory stretching from the northern boundary of Gad to an undetermined frontier in the North, marching with Geshur and Maacah on the West, and with the desert on the East. The warriors of this half-tribe passed over with those of Reuben and Gad before the host of Israel, and took their share in the conquest of Western Palestine (Joshua 22:1-34). They helped to raise the great altar in the Jordan valley, which so nearly led to disastrous consequences (Joshua 22:10 ff). Golan, the city of refuge, lay within their territory.
The possession of Ephraim and Manasseh West of the Jordan appears to have been undivided at first (Joshua 17:16 ff). The portion which ultimately fell to Manasseh marched with Ephraim on the South, with Asher and Issachar on the North, running out to the sea on the West, and falling into the Jordan valley on the East (Joshua 17:7 ff). The long dwindling slopes to westward and the fiat reaches of the plain included much excellent soil. Within the territory of Issachar and Asher, Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, with their villages, were assigned to Manasseh. Perhaps the men of the West lacked the energy and enterprise of their eastern brethren. They failed, in any case, to expel the Canaanites from these cities, and for long this grim chain of fortresses seemed to mock the strength of Israel (Joshua 17:11 ff)
Ten cities West of the Jordan, in the portion of Manasseh, were given to the Levites, and 13 in the eastern portion (Joshua 21:5-6).
Manasseh took part in the glorious conflict with the host of Sisera (Judges 5:14). Two famous judges, Gideon and Jephthah, belonged to this tribe. The men of the half-tribe East of Jordan were noted for skill and valor as warriors (1 Chronicles 5:18, 23 f). Some men of Manasseh had joined David before the battle of Gilboa (1 Chronicles 12:19).
3. Its Place in Later History: Others, all mighty men of valor, and captains in the host, fell to him on the way to Ziklag, and helped him against the band of rovers (1 Chronicles 12:20 ff). From the half-tribe West of the Jordan 18,000 men, expressed by name, came to David at Hebron to make him king (1 Chronicles 12:31); while those who came from the East numbered, along with the men of Reuben and Gad, 120,000 (1 Chronicles 12:37). David organized the eastern tribes under 2,700 overseers for every matter pertaining to God and for the affairs of the king (1 Chronicles 26:32). The rulers of Manasseh were, in the West, Joel, son of Pedaiah, and in the East, Iddo, son of Zechariah (1 Chronicles 27:20-21). Divers of Manasseh humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem at the invitation of Hezekiah to celebrate the Passover (2 Chronicles 30:11). Although not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, they ate the Passover. Pardon was successfully sought for them by the king, because they set their hearts to seek God (2 Chronicles 30:18 ff).
Of the eastern half-tribe it is said that they went a-whoring after the gods of the land, and in consequence they were overwhelmed and expatriated by Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria (1 Chronicles 5:25 f). Reference to the idolatries of the western half-tribe are also found in 2 Chronicles 31:1; 34:6.
There is a portion for Manasseh in Ezekiel's ideal picture (Ezekiel 48:4), and the tribe appears in the list in Rev (Ezekiel 7:6).
The genealogies in Joshua 17:1 ff; Numbers 26:28-34; 1 Chronicles 2:21-23; 1 Chronicles 7:14-19 have fallen into confusion. As they stand, they are mutually contradictory, and it is impossible to harmonize them.
The theories of certain modern scholars who reject the Biblical account are themselves beset with difficulties: e.g. the name is derived from the Arabic, nasa, "to injure a tendon of the leg." Manasseh, the Piel part., would thus be the name of a supernatural being, of whom the infliction of such an injury was characteristic. It is not clear which of the wrestlers at the Jabbok suffered the injury. As Jacob is said to have prevailed with gods and men, the suggestion is that it was his antagonist who was lamed. "It would appear therefore that in the original story the epithet Manasseh was a fitting title of Jacob himself, which might be borne by his worshippers, as in the case of Gad" (EB, under the word, par. 4).
It is assumed that the mention of Machir in Judges 5:14 definitely locates the Manassites at that time on the West of the Jordan. The raids by members of the tribe on Eastern Palestine must therefore have taken place long after the days of Moses. The reasoning is precarious. After the mention of Reuben (Judges 5:15-16), Gilead (Judges 5:17) may refer to Gad. It would be strange if this warlike tribe were passed over (Guthe). Machir, then probably the strongest clan, stands for the whole tribe, and may be supposed to indicate particularly the noted fighters of the eastern half.
In dealing with the genealogies, "the difficult name" Zelophehad must be got rid of. Among the suggestions made is one by Dr. Cheyne, which first supposes the existence of a name Salhad, and then makes Zelophehad a corruption of this.
The genealogies certainly present difficulties, but otherwise the narrative is intelligible and self-consistent without resort to such questionable expedients as those referred to above.
W. Ewing
Manasseh (3)
Manasseh (3) - A king of Judah, son and successor of Hezekiah; reigned 55 years (2 Kings 21:1; 2 Chronicles 33:1), from circa 685 onward. His was one of the few royal names not compounded with the name of Yahweh (his son Amon's was the only other if, as an Assyrian inscription gives it, the full name of Ahaz was Jehoahaz or Ahaziah); but it was no heathen name like Amon, but identical with that of the elder son of Joseph. Born within Hezekiah's added 15 years, years of trembling faith and tender hope (compare Isaiah 38:15 f), his name may perhaps memorialize the father's sacred feelings; the name of his mother Hephzibah too was used long afterward as the symbol of the happy union of the land with its loyal sons (Isaiah 62:4). All this, however, was long forgotten in the memory of Manasseh's apostate career.
I. Sources of His Life. The history (2 Kings 1:1-18 through 2 Kings 18:1-37) refers for "the rest of his acts" to "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah," but the body of the account, instead of reading like state annals, is almost entirely a censure of his idolatrous reign in the spirit of the prophets and of the Deuteronomic strain of literature. The parallel history (2 Chronicles 33:1-20) puts "the rest of his acts" "among the acts of the kings of Israel," and mentions his prayer (a prayer ascribed to him is in the Apocrypha) and "the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of Yahweh." This history of Chronicles mentions his captive journey to Babylon and his repentance (2 Chronicles 33:10-13), also his building operations in Jerusalem and his resumption of Yahweh-worship (2 Chronicles 33:14-17), which the earlier source lacks. From these sources, which it is not the business of this article either to verify or question, the estimate of his reign is to be deduced.
II. Character of His Reign. 1. Political Situation: During his reign, Assyria, principally under Esar-haddon and Assur-banipal, was at the height of its arrogance and power; and his long reign was the peaceful and uneventful life of a willing vassal, contented to count as tributary king in an illustrious world-empire, hospitable to all its religious and cultural ideas, and ready to take his part in its military and other enterprises. The two mentions of his name in Assyrian inscriptions (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 182) both represent him in this tributary light. His journey to Babylon mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:11 need not have been the penalty of rebellion; more likely it was such an enforced act of allegiance as was perhaps imposed on all provincial rulers who had incurred or would avert suspicion of disloyalty. Nor was his fortification of Jerusalem after his return less necessary against domestic than foreign aggression; the more so, indeed, as in so long and undisturbed a reign his capital, which was now practically synonymous with his realm (Esar-haddon calls him "king of the city of Judah"), became increasingly an important center of wealth and commercial prosperity. Of the specific events of his reign, however, other than religious, less is known than of almost any other.
2. Reactionary Idolatry: That the wholesale idolatry by which his reign is mainly distinguished was of a reactionary and indeed conservative nature may be understood alike from what it sought to maintain and from what it had to react against. On the one side was the tremendous wave of ritual and mechanical heathen cults which, proceeding from the world-centers of culture and civilization (compare Isaiah 2:6-8), was drawing all the tributary lands, Judah with the rest, into its almost irresistible sweep. Manasseh, it would seem, met this not in the temper of an amateur, as had his grandfather Ahaz, but in the temper of a fanatic. Everything old and new that came to his purview was of momentous religious value--except only the simple and austere demands of prophetic insight. He restored the debasing cults of the aboriginal Nature-worship which his father had suppressed, thus making Judah revert to the sterile Baal-cults of Ahab; but his blind credence in the black arts so prevalent in all the surrounding nations, imported the elaborate worship of the heavenly bodies from Babylon, invading even the temple-courts with its numerous rites and altars; even went to the horrid extreme of human sacrifice, making an institution of what Ahaz had tried as a desperate expedient. All this, which to the matured prophetic sense was headlong wickedness, was the mark of a desperately earnest soul, seeking blindly in this wholesale way to propitiate the mysterious Divine powers, his nation's God among them, who seemed so to have the world's affairs in their inscrutable control. On the other side, there confronted him the prophetic voice of a religion which decried all insincere ritual (`wickedness and worship,' Isaiah 1:13), made straight demands on heart and conscience, and had already vindicated itself in the faith which had wrought the deliverance of 701. It was the fight of the decadent formal against the uprising spiritual; and, as in all such struggles, it would grasp at any expedient save the one plain duty of yielding the heart to repentance and trust.
3. Persecution: Meanwhile, the saving intelligence and integrity of Israel, though still the secret of the lowly, was making itself felt in the spiritual movement that Isaiah had labored to promote; through the permeating influence of literature and education the "remnant" was becoming a power to be reckoned with. It is in the nature of things that such an innovating movement must encounter persecution; the significant thing is that already there was so much to persecute. Persecution is as truly the offspring of fear as of fanaticism. Manasseh's persecution of the prophets and their adherents (tradition has it that the aged Isaiah was one of his victims) was from their point of view an enormity of wickedness. To us the analysis is not quite so simple; it looks also like the antipathy of an inveterate formal order to a vital movement that it cannot understand. The vested interests of almost universal heathenism must needs die hard, and "much innocent blood" was its desperate price before it would yield the upper hand. To say this of Manasseh's murderous zeal is not to justify it; it is merely to concede its sadly mistaken sincerity. It may well have seemed to him that a nation's piety was at stake, as if a world's religious culture were in peril.
4. Return to Better Mind: The Chronicler, less austere in tone than the earlier historian, preserves for us the story that, like Saul of Tarsus after him, Manasseh got his eyes open to the truer meaning of things; that after his humiliation and repentance in Babylon he "knew that Yahweh he was God" (2 Chronicles 33:10-13). He had the opportunity to see a despotic idolatry, its evils with its splendors, in its own home; a first-fruit of the thing that the Hebrew exiles were afterward to realize. On his return, accordingly, he removed the altars that had encroached upon the sacred precincts of the temple, and restored the ritual of the Yahweh-service, without, however, removing the high places. It would seem to have been merely the concession of Yahweh's right to a specific cult of His own, with perhaps a mitigation of the more offensive extremes of exotic worship, while the toleration of the various fashionable forms remained much as before. But this in itself was something, was much; it gave Yahweh His chance, so to say, among rivals; and the growing spiritual fiber of the heart of Israel could be trusted to do the rest. It helps us also the better to understand the situation when, only two years after Manasseh's death, Josiah came to the throne, and to understand why he and his people were so ready to accept the religious sanity of the Deuteronomic law. He did not succeed, after all, in committing his nation to the wholesale sway of heathenism. Manasseh's reactionary reign was indeed not without its good fruits; the crisis of religious syncretism and externalism was met and passed.
John Franklin Genung
Manasses
Manasses - ma-nas'-ez (Manasses; Codex Vaticanus Manasse):
(1) One who had married a "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:33) = "Manasseh" of Ezra 10:33.
(2) The wealthy husband of Judith; died of sunstroke when employed at the barley harvest (Judith 8:2 f,7; 10:3; 16:22 ff).
(3) A person mentioned in Tobit 14:10, who "gave alms, and escaped the snare of death." It must be admitted that Manasses here is an awkward reading and apparently interrupts the sense, which would run more smoothly if Manasses were omitted or Achiacharus read. There is great variety of text in this verse. Codex Sinaiticus (followed by Fritzsche, Libri apoc. vet. Test Greek, 1871) reads en to poiesai me eleemosunen exelthen, where Manasses is omitted and Achiacharus is understood as the subject. Itala and Syriac go a step further and read Achiacharus as subject. But Codex Vaticanus (followed by Swete, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) reads Manasses, which must be the correct reading on the principle of being the most difficult. Explanations have been offered (1) that Manasses is simply the Hebrew name for Achiacharus, it not being uncommon for a Jew to have a Greek and a Hebrew name; (2) that on reading Amon, Manasses was inserted for Achiacharus according to 2 Chronicles 33:22 ff; (3) that Manasses here is an incorrect reading for Nasbas (Tobit 11:18), identified by Grotius with Achiacharus: "It seems impossible at present to arrive at a satisfactory explanation" (Fuller, Speaker's Commentary). There is as great uncertainty as to the person who conspired against Manasses: Aman, in Codex Alexandrinus, followed by the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), who is by some identified with the Haman of Esther and Achiacharus with Mordecai; Adam, in Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete; Itala Nadab; Syriac Ahab (Acab).
(4) A king of Judah (Matthew 1:10 the King James Version, Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) "Manasseh"), whose prayer forms one of the apocryphal books.
See MANASSES,THE PRAYER OF .
(5) The elder son of Joseph (Revelation 7:6, the King James Version Greek form, the Revised Version (British and American) "Manasseh").
S. Angus
Manasses, the Prayer of
Manasses, the Prayer of - 1. Name
2. Canonicity and Position
3. Contents
4. Original Language
5. Authenticity
6. Author and Motive
7. Date
8. Text and Versions
(1) Greek
(2) Latin
LITERATURE
The Prayer of Manasses purports to be, and may in reality be, the prayer of that king mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:13, 18 f.
1. Name: In Cod. A it is called simply "A Prayer of Manasses," in the London Polyglot "A Prayer of Manasses, King of the Jews." Its title in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is "A Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah, when He Was Held Captive in Babylon." In Baxter's Apocrypha, Greek and English this Prayer appears at the end with the heading "A Prayer of Manasses, son of Ezekias" (= Hezekiah).
2. Canonicity and Position: The Greek church is the only one which has consistently reckoned this Prayer as a part of its Bible. Up to the time of the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), it formed a part of the Vulgate, but by that council it was relegated with 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras to the appendix (which included uncanonical scriptures), "lest they should become wholly lost, since they are occasionally, cited by the Fathers and are found in printed copies. Yet it is wholly absent from the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Sixtus V, though it is in the Appendix of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of Clement VIII. Its position varies in manuscripts, versions and printed editions of the Septuagint. It is most frequently found among the odes or canticles following the Psalter, as in Codices Alexandrinus, T (the Zurich Psalter) and in Ludolf's Ethiopic Psalter. In Swete's Septuagint the Psalter of Solomon followed by the odes (Odai), of which The Prayer of Manasseh is the 8th, appear as an Appendix after 4 Maccabees in volume III. It was placed after 2 Chronicles in the original Vulgate, but in the Romanist Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) it stands first, followed by 3 and 4 (1 and 2) Esdras in the apocryphal Appendix. It is found in all manuscripts of the Armenian Bible, where, as in Swete's Septuagint, it is one of many odes. Though not included in Coverdale's Bible or the Geneva VS, it was retained (at the close of the Apocrypha) in Luther's translation, in Mathew's Bible and in the Bishops' Bible, whence it passed into our English Versions of the Bible.
3. Contents: According to 2 Chronicles 33:1-25 (compare 2 Kings 21:1-26) Manasseh was exiled by the Assyrians to Babylon as a punishment for his sins. There he became penitent and earnestly prayed to God for pardon and deliverance. God answered his prayer and restored him to Jerusalem and to the throne. Though the prayer is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:13, 18 f, it is not given, but this lack has been supplied in the The Prayer of Manasseh of the Apocrypha. After an opening invocation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Judah and their righteous seed, the Creator of all things, most high, yet compassionate, who has ordained repentance, not for perfect ones like the patriarchs who did not need it, but for the like of the person praying, there follows a confession of sin couched for the most part in general terms, a prayer for pardon and a vow to praise God forever if this prayer is answered.
4. Original Language: The bulk of scholars (Fritzsche, Reuss, Schurer, Ryssel, etc.) agree that this Prayer was composed in Greek. The Greek recension is written in a free, flowing and somewhat rhetorical style, and it reads like an original work, not like a translation. Though there are some Hebraisms, they are not more numerous or striking than usually meet us in Hellenistic Greek. It is of some importance also that, although Jewish tradition adds largely to the legends about Manasseh, it has never supplied a Hebrew version of the Prayer (see VERSIONS; TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). On the other hand, Ewald (Hist. Isr, I, 186; IV, 217, note 5, German edition, IV, 217 f), Furst (Gesch. der bibl. Lit., II, 399), Budde (ZAW, 1892, 39 ff), Ball (Speaker's Apocrypha) and others argue for a Hebrew original, perhaps existing in the source named of 2 Chronicles 33:18 f (see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Die Apocrypha des Altes Testament, 167).
5. Authenticity: Have we here the authentic prayer of Manasseh offered under the circumstances described in 2 Chronicles 33:1-25? Ewald and the other scholars named (see foregoing section), who think the Prayer was composed in Hebrew, say that we have probably here a Greek rendering of the Hebrew original which the Chronicler saw in his source. Ball, on the other hand, though not greatly opposed to this view, is more convinced that the Hebrew original is to be sought in a haggadic narrative concerning Manasseh. Even if we accept the view of Ewald or of Ball, we still desiderate evidence that this Hebrew original is the very prayer offered by the king in Babylon. But the arguments for a Greek original are fairly conclusive. Many Old Testament scholars regard the narrative of the captivity, prayer and penitence of Manasseh as a fiction of the Chronicler's imagination, to whom it seemed highly improper that this wicked king should escape the punishment (exile) which he richly deserved. So De Wette (Einleitung), Graf (Stud. u. Krit., 1859, 467-94, and Gesch. Bucher des Altes Testament, 174) and Noldeke (Schenkel's Bibelwerk, "Manasse"). Nothing corresponding to it occurs in the more literal narrative of 2 Kings 21:1-26, an argument which, however, has but little weight. Recent discoveries of cuneiform inscriptions have taken off the edge of the most important objections to the historicity of this part of Chronicles. See Ball (op. cit., 361 ff) and Bissell (Lange's Apocrypha, 468). The likeliest supposition is that the author of the Prayer was an Alexandrian Jew who, with 2 Chronicles 33:1-25 before him, desired to compose such a prayer as Manasseh was likely to offer under the supposed circumstances. This prayer, written in excellent Alexandrian Greek, is, as Fritzsche points out, an addition to 2 Chronicles 33:1-25, corresponding to the prayers of Mordecai and Esther added to the canonical Est (Additions to Esther 13:8 through 2 Chronicles 14:15), and also to the prayer of Azarias (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 2 Chronicles 1:2-17) and the Song of the Three Young Men (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 2 Chronicles 1:17) appended to the canonical Book of Daniel.
6. The Author and His Motive: That the author was an Alexandrian Jew is made probable by the (Greek) language he employs and by the sentiments he expresses. It is strange to find Swete (Expository Times, II, 38 f) defending the Christian authorship of this Prayer. What purpose could the writer seek to realize in the composition and publication of the penitential psalm? In the absence of definite knowledge, one may with Reuss (Das Altes Testament, VI, 436 f) suppose that the Jewish nation was at the time given up to great unfaithfulness to God and to gross moral corruption. The lesson of the Prayer is that God will accept the penitent, whatever his sins, and remove from the nation its load of sufferings, if only it turns to God.
7. Date: Ewald and Furst (op. cit.) hold that the prayer is at least as old as the Book of Chronicles (300 BC), since it is distinctly mentioned, they say, in 2 Chronicles 33:13, 18 f. But the original form was, as seen (compare 4 above), Greek, not Hebrew. Moreover, the teaching of the Prayer is post-Biblical. The patriarchs are idealized to the extent that they are thought perfect and therefore not needing forgiveness (2 Chronicles 33:8); their merits avail for the sinful and undeserving (2 Chronicles 33:1) (see Weber, Jud. Theologie, 292). The expressions "God of the Just" (33:8), "God of those who repent" (33:13), belong to comparatively late Judaism. A period about the beginning of the Christian era or (Fritzsche) slightly earlier would suit the character (language and teaching) of the Prayer. The similarity between the doctrines implied in The Prayer of Manasseh and those taught in apocryphal writings of the time confirms this conclusion. There is no need with Bertholdt to bring down the writing to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Fabricius (Liber Tobit, etc., 208) dates the Prayer in the 4th or 5th century AD, because, in his opinion, its author is the same as that of the Apostolical Constitutions which has that date. But the source of this part of the Apostolical Constitutions is the Didaskalia (3rd century), and moreover both these treatises are of Christian origin, the Prayer being the work of an Alexandrian Jew.
8. Text and Versions: (1) Greek: The Greek text occurs in Codices Alexandrinus, T (Psalterium Turicence 262, Parsons). Swete (OLD TESTAMENT in Greek, III, 802-4) gives the text of Codex Alexandrinus with the variations of T. It is omitted from the bulk of ancient manuscripts and editions of the Septuagint, as also from several modern editions (Tischendorf, etc.). Nestle (Septuaginta Studien, 1899, 3) holds that the Greek text of Codices Alexandrinus, T, etc., has been taken from the Apostolical Constitutions or from the Didaskalia. The common view is that it was extracted by the latter from the Septuagint.
(2) Latin: The Latin text in Sabatier (Bib. Sac. Latin, III, 1038) is not by Jerome, nor is it in the manner of the Old Latin; its date is later.
LITERATURE.
The outstanding literature has been cited in the foregoing article. Reference may be made to Howorth ("Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible," PSBA, XXXI, 89 ff: he argues that the narrative concerning Manasseh, including the Prayer in the Apostolical Constitutions, represents a portion of the true Septuagint of 2 Chronicles 33:1-25).
T. Witton Davies
Manassites
Manassites - ma-nas'-its (menashshi; ho Manasse): Members of the tribe of Manasseh (Deuteronomy 4:43; Judges 12:4 the King James Version; 2 Kings 10:33).
Man-child
Man-child - man'-child (American Standard Revised Version; "man child," the English Revised Version; not in the King James Version; mashtin beqir): The expression is used with the meaning of "male," but is found only in the description of the extermination of a whole family, where it is employed to express every male descendant of any age. It occurs in 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8.
Mandrakes
Mandrakes - man'-draks (dudha'im; mandragoras (Genesis 30:14 f; Song of Solomon 7:13); the marginal reading "love apples" is due to the supposed connection of dudha'im with dodhim, "love"): Mandrakes are the fruit of the Mandragora officinarum, a member of the Solanaceae or potato order, closely allied to the Atropa belladonna. It is a common plant all over Palestine, flourishing particularly in the spring and ripening about the time of the wheat harvest (Genesis 30:14). The plant has a rosette of handsome dark leaves, dark purple flowers and orange, tomato-like fruit. The root is long and branched; to pull it up is still considered unlucky (compare Josephus,BJ ,VII , vi, 3). The fruit is called in Arabic baid el-jinn, the "eggs of the jinn"; they have a narcotic smell and sweetish taste, but are too poisonous to be used as food. They are still used in folklore medicine in Palestine. The plant was well known as an aphrodisiac by the ancients (Song of Solomon 7:13).
E. W. G. Masterman
Maneh; Mina
Maneh; Mina - man'-e, or mi'-na (maneh; mna, "pound" (English Versions of the Bible)): A weight containing 50 shekels, according to Hebrew usage, but which varied according to the standard adopted. Estimated on the Phoenician, or commercial, standard, it was equal to 11,200 grains, or about 2 lbs. troy, or about 1,6 lbs. avoirdupois. This is probably the weight intended in 1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69 and Nehemiah 7:71 f (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES). When used in a monetary sense, the maneh of silver was worth about 6 pounds 17 shillings, or $34 (in 1915); the gold maneh was equal to about 102 pounds 10 shillings, or $510 (in 1915).
H. Porter
Manes
Manes - ma'-nez (Manes): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:21). It represents the two names Maaseiah and Elijah of the parallel Ezra 10:21. The real equivalent is probably Maaseiah, Elijah being dropped. the Revised Version margin and the King James Version margin give Harim of Ezra 10:21 as identical--apparently incorrectly, for the words "and of the sons of Harim" (Ezra 10:21) are simply omitted. the King James Version blunders strangely here in reading Eanes after a misprint Eanes (for Manes) in the Aldine edition.
Manger
Manger - man'-jer (phatne): Properly the place in a stall or stable where the food of cattle is placed (in the Old Testament "crib" (Job 39:9; Proverbs 14:4; Isaiah 1:3)); thus also, apparently, in the narrative of the nativity in Luke 2:7, 12, 16. In Septuagint, the Greek word, representing different Hebrew words, has also the extended meaning of "stall" (2 Chronicles 32:28; Habakkuk 3:17); thus also in Luke 13:15, where the Revised Version margin has "manger." Old tradition says that Jesus was born in a cave in the neighborhood of Bethlehem; even so, a place for food for cattle may have been cut in the side of the rock.
James Orr
Mani
Mani - ma'-ni (Mani): Head of a family (1 Esdras 9:30) = "Bani" in Ezra 10:29, the form which appears in 1 Esdras 5:12.
Manifest; Manifestation
Manifest; Manifestation - man'-i-fest, man-i-fes-ta'-shun (phaneroo, phaneros): "To manifest" is generally the translation of phaneroo, "to make apparent" (Mark 4:22; John 17:6; Romans 3:21; 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "manifested"; 1 John 1:2 twice, etc.); also of phaneros, "manifest" (Acts 4:16; Romans 1:19; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 John 3:10, etc.); "to make manifest" (phaneroo) (John 1:31; Romans 16:26); of emphanizo, "to make fully manifest" (John 14:21 f); of emphanes, "fully manifest" (Romans 10:20); of delos, "evident," translated "manifest" (1 Corinthians 15:27, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of ekdelos, "very evident" (2 Timothy 3:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of prodelos, "evident beforehand" (1 Timothy 5:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "evident"); of aphanes, is "not manifest" (Hebrews 4:13, "There is no creature that is not manifest in his sight"); "manifest," occurs once in the Old Testament as the translation of barar, "to clear," "to purify" (Ecclesiastes 3:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "prove"); of phaneros (2 Maccabees 3:28, the Revised Version (British and American) "manifestly").
Manifestation is the translation of apokalupsis, "uncovering" (Romans 8:19, "the manifestation of the sons of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "revealing"); of phanerosis, "manifestation" (1 Corinthians 12:7; 2 Corinthians 4:2).
The Revised Version (British and American) has "manifest" for "shew" (John 7:4); "was manifested" for "appeared" (Mark 16:12, 14); "was manifested to the," for "shewed himself to his" (John 21:14); "be made manifest" for "appear" (2 Corinthians 5:10; 7:12; Revelation 3:18); "became manifest" for "was made known" (Acts 7:13); "gave him to be made manifest" for "shewed him openly" (Acts 10:40); "He who was manifested" for "God was manifest" (1 Timothy 3:16) (margin "The word "God," in place of "He who," rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which"); "is not yet made manifest" for "doth not yet appear" (1 John 3:2); "by the manifestation" for "with the brightness" (2 Thessalonians 2:8) "be manifested" for "appear" (Colossians 3:4 twice; 1 Peter 5:4); "if he shall be manifested" for "when he shall appear" (1 John 2:28; 3:2), etc.
W. L. Walker
Manifestly
Manifestly - man'-i-fest-li (mar'eh, "(in) personal presence"): Has the meaning of "by direct vision," as in 1 Corinthians 13:12, "face to face," stating positively (Numbers 12:8) what the next clause states negatively, namely, "not in dark speeches." "Apparently" of the King James Version is ambiguous.
Manifold
Manifold - man'-i-fold (rabh; poikilos): "Manifold," which occurs only a few times, is in the Old Testament the translation of rabh, "many," "abundant" (Nehemiah 9:19, 27; Amos 5:12, where it is equivalent to "many"), and of rabhabh, "to multiply," "to increase" (Psalms 104:24, "O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works"); poikilos, properly, "many colored," "spotted," "variegated," is translated "manifold": 1 Peter 1:6 margin, "manifold temptations"; 1 Peter 4:10, "manifold grace," suggests variety, diverseness; polupoikilos has this meaning more intensely (Ephesians 3:10, "the manifold wisdom of God"). With this may be compared a fine passage in Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, where it is said that in Wisdom there is "an understanding spirit, holy, one only (the Revised Version (British and American) "alone in kind," margin "Greek: sole-born"), manifold (polumeres)." In like manner, pollaplasion, "manifold more" (Luke 18:30), indicates the varied elements of the reward of him who is faithful to Christ. In Ecclesiasticus 51:3, we have "manifold afflictions" (pleion).
W. L. Walker
Manius; Titus
Manius; Titus - ma'-ni-us, ti'-tus (Tito Manios, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Venetus, and the Syriac; Manlios, Swete following Codex Alexandrinus; Manilius, Itala and Vulgate, the King James Version, Manlius): Titus Manius and Quintus Memmius were the legates of the Romans who carried a letter unto the Jewish people consenting to the favorable terms which Lysias, the captain of Antiochus, granted to the Jews after his defeat, 163 BC (2 Maccabees 11:34). That the letter is spurious appears from the facts (1) that it is dated in the 148th year of the Seleucidian era adopted by the Jews and not, after the Rom fashion, according to consulates; (2) that it is also dated the same day as that of Eupator--the 15th of the month Xanthicus; (3) that the Jews had as yet no dealings with the Romans; Judas first heard of the fame of the Romans a year or two years later (1 Maccabees 8:1 ff), after the death of Nicanor (1 Maccabees 7:47); (4) that no such names are found among the Roman legati mentioned by Polybius as sent to the East. If Manius is not altogether a fabrication, it is difficult to decide exactly who he is. The reading fluctuates between "Manius" and "Manlius." About the same time a T. Manlius Torquatus was sent by the Romans on an embassy to Egypt to settle a quarrel between Philometor and Euergetes II Physc. on (Polyb. xxxi. 18; Livy xliii.11), but not to Syria, and his colleague was Cn. Merula. Perhaps Manius Sergius is intended, who with C. Sulpicius was sent to investigate the state of Greece and to see what Antiochus Epiphanes and Eumanes were doing (165BC ) (Polyb. xxxi.9). But no such name as Titus Manius or Manlius is otherwise found as legate to Asia with a colleague Quintus Memmius.
See also MEMMIUS.
S. Angus
Mankind
Mankind - man-kind': In Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, the term is applied to men, as distinguished from women; in Job 12:10, to the human race; in James 3:7, to the human nature.
Manlius, Titus
Manlius, Titus - man'-li-us.
Manna
Manna - man'-a (man; manna): The Hebrew man is probably derived, as Ebers suggests, from the Egyptian mennu, "food." In Exodus 16:15, we have a suggested source of the name, "They said one to another, What is it?" i.e. manhu, which also means, "It is manna" (see margin).
1. Old Testament References: This substance is described as occurring in flakes or small round grains, literally, "hoax frost"; it fell with the dew (Numbers 11:9) and appeared when the dew left the ground (Exodus 16:14); "It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey" (Exodus 16:31). In Numbers 11:8, its taste is described "as the taste of fresh oil," margin "cakes baked with oil." "And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came .... unto the borders of the land of Canaan" (Exodus 16:35). It ceased the day after they ate the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain, in the plains of Jericho (Joshua 5:10-12). Although an important article of diet, it was by no means the sole one as seems implied in Numbers 21:15; there are plenty of references (e.g. Exodus 17:3; 24:5; 34:3; Leviticus 8:2, 26, 31; 9:4; 10:12; 24:5; Numbers 7:13, 19 f, etc.) which show that they had other food besides. The food was gathered every morning, "every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted" (Exodus 16:21); a portion of the previous day's gathering bred worms and stank if kept (Exodus 16:20); on the 6th day a double amount was gathered, the Sabbath portion being miraculously preserved (Exodus 16:22-27). A pot--a golden one (Hebrews 9:4)--with an omer of manna was "laid up before Yahweh" in the tabernacle (Exodus 16:33). Manna is referred to in Nehemiah 9:20. It is described poetically as "food from heaven" and "bread of the mighty" (Psalms 78:24 f); as "bread of heaven" (Psalms 105:40); and as "angels' bread" (2 Esdras 1:19; Wisdom of Solomon 16:20).
2. New Testament References: In John 6:31-63, our Lord frequently refers to "the manna" or "bread from heaven" as typical of Himself. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:3) refers to it as "spiritual food," and in Revelation 2:17 we read, "To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna."
Manna, as might be expected, figures largely in rabbinical literature. It was, it is said, adapted to the taste of each individual who could by wishing taste in the manna anything he desired (compare Wisdom of Solomon 16:21). Manna is reserved as the future food of the righteous (compare Revelation 2:17), for which purpose it is ground in a mill situated in the third heaven (Chag 12b; Tan. Beshallach 22).
3. Natural Explanations: No substance is known which in any degree satisfies all the requirements of the Scriptural references, but several travelers in the wilderness have reported phenomena which suggest some of the features of the miraculous manna.
(1) In the Peninsula of Sinai, on the route of the children of Israel, a species of tamarisk, named in consequence by Ebers Tammaris mannifera, is found to exude a sweet, honey-like substance where its bark is pierced by an insect, Gossyparia mannifera. It collects upon the twigs and falls to the ground. The Arabs who gather it to sell to pilgrims call it mann-es-sama, "heavenly manna"; it is white at first but turns yellow; in the early morning it is of the consistency of wax but when the sun is hot it disappears. This substance occurs only after mid-summer and for a month or two at most.
(2) A second proposal is to identify manna with a lichen--Lecanora esculenta and allied species--which grows in the Arabian and other deserts upon the limestone. The older masses become detached and are rolled about by the wind. When swept together by sudden rain storms in the rainy season they may collect in large heaps. This lichen has been used by the Arabs in time of need for making bread. It is a quite reasonable form of nourishment in the desert, especially when eaten with the sugary manna from the trees.
E. W. G. Masterman
Manner; Manners
Manner; Manners - man'-er, man'-erz (dabhar, derekh, mishpaT; ethos, houtos):
1. As Used in the Old Testament: "Manner" (probably from manus, "the hand," mode of handling things, or acting) is in the Bible in general equivalent (1) to way, custom, habit, etc., (2) to kind or sort. There are some special senses, however, and archaic usages. It is frequently the translation of dabhar, "speaking," "word," "thing" (Genesis 18:25, "That be far from thee to do after this manner" (i.e. in this way); Genesis 32:19, "On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau" (in this way); Genesis 39:19, "After this manner (in this way) did thy servant to me"; Exodus 22:9, "every manner of trespass" (every kind, sort, or way); Deuteronomy 15:2; 1 Samuel 17:27, 30 bis); also of derekh, "way" (Genesis 19:31, "after the manner of all the earth (way); 1 Samuel 21:5 the King James Version "(the bread) is in a manner common"; "manner" here might be taken as equivalent to "way" or "measure," but the passage is a difficult one and the text uncertain; the Revised Version (British and American) omits "manner," and in the text makes the reference to be to the journey, not to the bread, but in the margin it has "common (bread)"; Isaiah 10:24, 26, after the manner of Egypt" (after the way or fate of Egypt); so also Amos 4:10; 8:14, the manner of Beer-sheba liveth" the Revised Version (British and American) "the way," margin "manner, the reference here being to the religious way, or manner of worship); of mishpaT, "judgment," "ordinance," hence, also "manner" or "custom" (Genesis 40:13; Exodus 21:9; 2 Kings 1:7, "what manner of man" (sort or kind); 2 Kings 17:26 the King James Version; 1 Chronicles 24:19; Ezekiel 11:12, "after the manners (the Revised Version (British and American) "ordinances") of the nations"); torah, "instruction," "law," is also translated "manner" (2 Samuel 7:19, "(is) this the manner (margin "law") of man, O Lord God?" the Revised Version (British and American) "and this (too) after the manner of men, O Lord Yahweh," margin "and is this the law of man, O Lord Yahweh?"). Other words are: 'orach, "path," "custom" (Genesis 18:11); dobher, "leading," "pasture" (compare "sheep-walk," "sheep-fold"); Isaiah 5:17, "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner," the Revised Version (British and American) "as in their pasture" (in Micah 2:12, the same word is translated the King James Version "fold," the Revised Version (British and American) "pasture"); demuth, "likeness" (Ezekiel 23:15); dath, "law," "sentence" (Esther 2:12); chuqqah, "statute," "custom" (Leviticus 20:23) in the King James Version. In Numbers 5:13 "with the manner" is supplied to "taken" (in adultery). "Manner" here is an old law-French phrase, "a thief taken with the mainour"--that is, with the thing stolen upon him in manu (in his hand) (Blackstone, Comm., IV, xxiii), the Revised Version (British and American) "in the act" (compare John 8:4 "in the very act"); gam, "also" is translated (1 Samuel 19:24) "in like manner," the Revised Version (British and American) "also."
2. As Used in the Apocrypha: In Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 4:13 the King James Version, we have "increase of heathenish manners," the Revised Version (British and American) "an extreme of Greek fashions"; 2 Maccabees 6:9, the "manners of the Gentiles," the Revised Version (British and American) "the Greek rites"; in 2 Esdras 9:19, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), "manners" appears in the sense of "morals"; compare 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Revised Version (British and American) "Evil companionships corrupt good morals."
3. As Used in the New Testament: In the New Testament various words and phrases are rendered by "manner"; we have ethos, "custom," "usage," "manner" (John 19:40; Acts 15:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "custom"); kata to eiothos (Luke 4:16, the Revised Version (British and American) "as his custom was"); tropos a "turning," "manner," "way" (Jude 1:7); hon tropon, "in which manner" (Acts 1:11); houtos, "thus," "so," "accordingly," is "after this manner," "in like manner" (Matthew 6:9; Mark 13:29 the King James Version); in Acts 15:23, "after this manner" stands in the King James Version for "by their hands," the Revised Version (British and American) "thus"; pos (Acts 20:18), "after what manner"; agoge, "course of life" (2 Timothy 3:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "conduct"); biosis, "mode of life" (Acts 26:4); in 1 Corinthians 15:33, we have manners in the moral sense, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," the American Standard Revised Version "Evil companionships corrupt good morals." Acts 13:18 is interesting because of diversities of rendering; the King James Version has "suffered he their manners in the wilderness," margin "etropophoresen, perhaps for etrophophoresen, bore, or fed them as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child, Deuteronomy 1:31 (2 Maccabees 7:27) according to Septuagint, and so Chrysostom"; the English Revised Version text, same as the King James Version margin "Many ancient authorities read `bear he them as a nursing father in the wilderness.' See Deuteronomy 1:31"; the American Standard Revised Version (text) "as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness," margin "Many ancient authorities read `Suffered he their manners in the wilderness.' See Deuteronomy 9:7." The Greek words differ only by a single letter, and authorities are pretty equally divided.
Among other changes the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently "ordinance" for "manner" (Leviticus 5:10, etc.) and "custom" (Ruth 4:7; John 19:40; Hebrews 10:25, etc.); "manner of" is introduced (1 Samuel 4:8, etc.); "manner of" and "manner" omitted (Genesis 25:23; Exodus 35:29, etc.); "what manner of house" for "where is the house" (Isaiah 66:1); "manner of life" for "conversation" (Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22); "after the manner of men" for "as a man" (Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 9:8); "how to inquire concerning these things" (Acts 25:20) for "of such manner of questions"; "in an unworthy manner," the American Standard Revised Version, for "unworthily" (1 Corinthians 11:27); "who" for "what manner of man" (Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25, "who then is this?"); in Luke 9:55, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" is omitted, with the margin "Some ancient authorities add and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."
W, L. Walker
Manoah
Manoah - ma-no'-a (manoach, "rest"): A man of Zorah and of the family of the Danites. Manoah was the father of Samson, and his life-story is but imperfectly told in the history of the conception, birth and early life of his son. No children had been born to Manoah and his wife, and the latter was considered barren (Judges 13:2). Finally it was revealed to her by an angel of the Lord that she would conceive and bear a child. She was cautioned against strong drink and "unclean" food, for her child was to be born and reared a Nazirite to the end that he might save Israel out of the hands of the Philistines (Judges 13:3-5). That Manoah was a devout man seems certain in view of the fact that, upon hearing of the angel's visit, he offered a prayer for the angel's return, in order that he and his wife might be instructed as to the proper care of the child to be born (Judges 13:8). The request was granted and the angel repeated the visit and the instructions (Judges 13:9-13). Manoah with true hospitality would have the guest remain and partake of food. The angel refused, but commanded a sacrifice unto Yahweh. When Manoah had prepared the sacrifice and lit it on the altar, the angel ascended in the flame from the altar and appeared no more (Judges 13:15-21). The child was born according to the promise and was named Samson. Manoah and his wife appear twice in the narrative of Samson's early life--once as they protestingly accompanied him to sue for the hand of a Philistine woman of Timnah in marriage, and again when they went with him to Timnab for the wedding.
Josephus richly embellishes this Scriptural narrative concerning Manoah, but offers no further light upon the occupation or character of Manoah. At the death of Samson, his brothers went down to Gaza and brought back the body and buried it by the side of Manoah in the family tomb near Zorah (Judges 16:31). In Samson Agonistes Milton gains dramatic effect by having Manoah survive Samson and in deep sorrow assist at his burial.
C. E. Schenk
Manservant
Manservant - man'sur-vant (`ebhedh): A male slave; usually coupled with maidservant or female slave (Genesis 12:16; Exodus 20:10; 1 Samuel 8:16; Job 31:13; Luke 12:45).
See SERVANT; SLAVE.
Mansion
Mansion - man'-shun (mone, "abode"): In John 14:2, the word is used in the plural: "In my Father's house are many mansions," the Revised Version margin "abiding places." The ideas conveyed are those of abundance of room, and permanence of habitation, in the heavenly world.
Manslayer
Manslayer - man'-sla-er (meratstseach, from ratsach (Numbers 35:6, 12); androphonos (1 Timothy 1:9)): A term employed with reference to both premeditated and accidental or justifiable killing. In the latter case, an asylum was granted (Numbers 35:6, 12) until the death of the high priest, after which the slayer was allowed to "return into the land of his possession" (Numbers 35:28). The cases in which the manslayer was to be held clearly immune from the punishment imposed on willful killing were: (1) death by a blow in a sudden quarrel (Numbers 35:22); (2) death by anything thrown at random (Numbers 35:22-23); (3) death by the blade of an axe flying from the handle (Deuteronomy 19:5). Among the cases in which one would be held responsible for the death of another, is to be counted the neglectful act of building a house without a parapet (Deuteronomy 22:8).
Manslaughter, as a modern legal term, is employed to distinguish unpremeditated killing from coldblooded murder, but formerly (2 Esdras 1:26) it was used in a more general sense.
See MURDER.
Frank E. Hirsch
Manstealing
Manstealing - man'-stel-ing.
See CRIME, under "Kidnapping"; PUNISHMENT.
Mantelet
Mantelet - man'-tel-et, man'-t'-l-et, mant'-let (Nahum 2:5).
See SIEGE, 4, (d).
Mantle
Mantle - man'-t'-l: Used 5 times of Elijah's mantle ('addereth, 1 Kings 19:18-19; 2 Kings 2:8, 13-14), which was probably of hair. Found in plural once (Isaiah 3:22), where it (ma`ataphoth) is an upper wide tunic with sleeves (kethoneth).
Manuscripts
Manuscripts - man'-u-skripts: In the broadest sense manuscripts include all handwritten records as distinguished from printed records. In a narrower sense they are handwritten codices, rolls and folded documents, as distinguished from printed books on the one hand and inscriptions, or engraved documents, on the other. More loosely, but commonly, the term is used as synonym of the codex.
The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and New Testament, respectively, form the primary sources for establishing the text or true original words of the respective authors. The subordinate sources, versions and quotations have also their text problem, and manuscripts of the versions and of the church Fathers, and other ancient writers who refer to Biblical matters, play the same part in establishing the true words of the version or the writer that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts play in establishing the original of Scripture. For discussion of the textual aspects, see the articles on TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, on VERSIONS, and especially the SEPTUAGINT. For the material, writing instruments, form of manuscripts, etc., see BOOK; and especially the literature under WRITING.
E. C. Richardson
Manuscripts of the New Testament
Manuscripts of the New Testament - See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Manuscripts of the Old Testament
Manuscripts of the Old Testament - See LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Maoch
Maoch - ma'-ok (ma`okh, "oppressed," "bruised"): The same as Maacah (1 Kings 2:39). The father of that Achish, king of Gath, with whom David and his 600 sojourned under fear of Saul's treachery (1 Samuel 27:2).
Maon; Maonites
Maon; Maonites - ma'-on, ma'-on-its, ma-o'-nits (ma`on; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maor, Maan; Codex Alexandrinus Maon):
(1) A town in the mountain of Judah named along with Carmel and Ziph (Joshua 15:55). It appears again as the home of Nabal, the great flockmaster (1 Samuel 25:2). In the genealogical list of 1 Chronicles 2:1-55, Maon stands as the "son" of Shammai and the "father" of Beth-zur (1 Chronicles 2:44-45). This evidently means that Shammai was the founder of Maon. About a mile South of el-Karmil, the ancient Carmel, lies Tell Ma`in. This may be confidently identified with Maon, the radicals of the names being the same. It suits the requirements of the narratives in other respects, being near to Carmel, while the surrounding wilderness is still used as the wide pasture land for multitudinous flocks. In this district, the wilderness of Maon, David was hiding when his whereabouts was betrayed to Saul by the men of Ziph (1 Samuel 23:24 f), and only a timely raid by the Philistines delivered him out of that monarch's hands (1 Samuel 23:27 ff).
(2) (Madiam): Maon is named along with the Zidonians and Amalek as having at some time, not mentioned, oppressed Israel (Judges 10:12). The Septuagint "Midian" has been accepted by some scholars as restoring the original text, since, otherwise, the Midianites remain unmentioned. But the Maonites are evidently identical with the Meunim of 1 Chronicles 4:41 (Revised Version), the pastoral people destroyed by Hezekiah. In 2 Chronicles 20:1 the King James Version, instead of "other beside the Ammonites" we must read "some of the Meunim," as associated with the Ammonites in the battle with Jehoshaphat. Against them also Uzziah was helped of God (2 Chronicles 26:7). They are included among the inhabitants of Mt. Seir (2 Chronicles 20:10, 23), so that an Edomite tribe is intended. It is natural to connect them with Ma`an, a place on the great pilgrimage road, and now a station on the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, to the Southeast of Petra. It undoubtedly represents an ancient stronghold.
The Maonites appear in the lists of those who returned from exile (Ezra 2:50, the King James Version "Mehunim," the Revised Version (British and American) "Meunim"; Nehemiah 7:52, "Meunim"). These may possibly be the descendants of prisoners taken in the wars of Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, to whom menial tasks may have been appointed in the temple services.
W. Ewing
Mar
Mar - mar: "To mar" means "to destroy," "to disfigure," "to damage." Job 30:13, "They mar my path" (the Revised Version margin "they break up"); Nahum 2:2, "and destroyed their vine" (the King James Version "and marred their vine"); compare Leviticus 19:27; 2 Kings 3:19; Isaiah 52:14; Jeremiah 13:9.
Mara
Mara - ma'-ra, mar'-a (marah, "bitter"): The term which Naomi applies to herself on her return from Moab to her native country (Ruth 1:20). Changed beyond recognition, she creates astonishment among her former acquaintances, who ask, "Is this Naomi?" She replies, "Call me not Naomi" (i.e. "pleasant" or "sweet"), but "call me Mara" (i.e. "bitter"). In the light of her bitter experience, and her present pitiable plight, the old name has become peculiarly inappropriate.
Marah
Marah - ma'-ra, mar'-a (marah, "bitter"): The first camp of the Israelites after the passage of the Red Sea (Exodus 15:23; Numbers 33:8 f). The name is derived from the bitterness of the brackish water. Moses cast a tree into the waters which were thus made sweet (Exodus 15:23).
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
Maralah
Maralah - mar'-a-la (mar`alah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Maragelda; Codex Alexandrinus Marila): A place on the western border of Zebulun (Joshua 19:11). Peshitta renders Ramath ta`le', "height of the fox." It is not identified.
Maranatha
Maranatha - mar-a-nath'-a, mar-an-a'-tha (from Aramaic words, marana' 'athah, "Our Lord cometh, or will come"; according to some, "has come"; to others, "Come!" an invitation for his speedy reappearance (compare Revelation 22:20); maranatha, or maran atha): Used in connection with anathema, "accursed" (1 Corinthians 16:22), but has no necessary connection therewith. It was used by early Christians to add solemn emphasis to previous statement, injunction or adjuration, and seems to have become a sort of watchword; possibly forming part of an early liturgy.
Marble
Marble - mar'-b'-l (shayish, shesh, 'abhne shayish, "stones of marble" (1 Chronicles 29:2); ritspath bahat wa-shesh we-dhar we-cochareth, "a pavement of red, and white, and yellow, and black marble," or, according to the margin, "a pavement of porphyry, and white marble, and alabaster, and stone of blue color" (Esther 1:6); `ammudhe shesh, "pillars of marble" (Esther 1:6; Song of Solomon 5:15); compare shesh, the King James Version margin "silk" or the Revised Version (British and American) "fine linen" (Genesis 41:42; Exodus 25:4, etc.); shoshannim, "lilies" (Song of Solomon 2:16, etc.), apparently from a root signifying "white"; marmaros, "marble" (Revelation 18:12)): Marble is properly crystalline limestone, usually pure white or veined with black, the former being in demand for statuary, while the latter is used in architecture, especially for floors and pillars. True marble is not found in Palestine, but is obtained from Greece or Italy. Much of the stone described as marble is non-crystalline limestone capable of being smoothed and polished. White or yellow stone of this character is abundant in Palestine. Non-crystalline rocks of other colors are also sometimes called marble. In the passage from Esther cited above (compare margin), it is a question whether the reference is to marble and other stones or to marble of different colors. In 1 Chronicles 29:2, "marble stones" are mentioned among the materials brought together by David for the building of the temple. In Esther 1:6, pillars and a pavement of marble are features of the palace of Ahasuerus. In Song of Solomon 5:15, the various parts of the body of the "beloved" are likened to gold, beryl, ivory, sapphire, and marble. In Revelation 18:12, marble occurs in the list of the merchandise of Babylon. All these references imply a costly stone, and therefore probably one imported from other countries, and make it likely that true crystalline marble is meant.
Alfred Ely Day
March; Marches
March; Marches - march, march'-iz.
See ARMY; WAR.
Marcheshvan
Marcheshvan - mar-chesh'-van.
See TIME.
Marcion, Gospel of
Marcion, Gospel of - mar'-shun.
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
Marcus
Marcus - mar'-kus.
Mardocheus
Mardocheus - mar-do-ke'-us (Mardochaios):
(1) One of the Jewish leaders who accompanied Zerubbabel on the return from Babylon to Judah (1 Esdras 5:8, where it stands for "Mordecai" of Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7).
(2) Another form of Mordecai, the uncle of Esther (Additions to Esther 10:3; 2, 12; 1, 4 ff; 16:13).
Mare
Mare - mar ((1) cucah, "steed," the King James Version "company of horses"; Septuagint he hippos, "mare" (Song of Solomon 1:9); (2) bene ha-rammakhim, "bred of the stud," the King James Version and the Revised Version margin "young dromedaries" (Esther 8:10); compare Arabic ramakat, "mare"): The word "mare" does not occur in English Versions of the Bible, but in Song of Solomon 1:9 we find cucah, the feminine of cuc, "horse," and in Esther 8:10, bene ha-rammakhim is by some translated "sons of mares."
Mareshah
Mareshah - ma-re'-sha (mareshah; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Bathesar; Codex Alexandrinus Maresa): A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Keilah and Achzib (Joshua 15:44). It occupied such a position that Rehoboam thought well to fortify it for the protection of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 11:8). In the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah, Asa overwhelmed Zerah the Ethiopian and his army, pursuing them as far as Gezer (2 Chronicles 14:9 ff). From Mareshah came Eliezer the prophet who denounced disaster upon the commercial copartnery of Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 20:37). The place is mentioned in Mic (2 Chronicles 1:15). Mareshah was plundered and burned by Judas Maccabeus (Ant., XII, viii, 6; 1 Maccabees 5:66 the Revised Version margin). Hither Gorgias escaped, having been rescued from the hands of Dositheus by a Thracian horseman (2 Maccabees 12:35). It was taken by John Hyrcanus, who allowed the inhabitants to remain on condition that they adopt circumcision and submit to the Jewish law. This they did; and later John avenged an injustice done to Mareshah by the Samaritans. It is then described as "a colony of Jews" (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; x, 2). The city was treated with favor by Pompey (XIV, iv, 4). When the Parthians invaded Judea in support of Antigonus they demolished Mareshah (xiii, 9).
According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Mareshah was 2 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). Until recently it was thought that Khirbet Mir`ash, where the old name lingers, not far Southwest of Beit Jibrin, represented the ancient city. The work of Dr. Bliss, however ("Excavations in Palestine," PEF), shows that it must be located at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile South of Beit Jibrin. A series of remarkable tombs was discovered here. From 1 Chronicles 2:42 we may perhaps gather that Hebron was colonized by the men of Mareshah.
W. Ewing
Marimoth
Marimoth - mar'-i-moth, mar'-i-moth: An ancestor of Esdras (Ezra) (2 Esdras 1:2), identical with Meraioth (Ezra 7:3). In 1 Esdras 8:2, it appears also as "Memeroth" (the King James Version "Meremoth").
Mariner
Mariner - mar'-i-ner.
See SHIPS AND BOATS,II , 2, (3);III , 2.
Marisa
Marisa - mar'-i-sa (Marisa): The Greek form of MARESHAH (which see) in 2 Maccabees 12:35.
Marish
Marish - mar'-ish (gebhe'; helos): An old form of "marsh," found in the King James Version, the English Revised Version Ezekiel 47:11 (the American Standard Revised Version "marsh"). Some (not all) editions of the King James Version Apocrypha have retained this same spelling in 1 Maccabees 9:42, 45 (the Revised Version (British and American) "marsh").
Mark
Mark - mark: In the King James Version this word is used 22 times as a noun and 26 times as a predicate. In the former case it is represented by 5 Hebrew and 3 Greek words; in the latter by 11 Hebrew and 2 Greek words. As a noun it is purely a physical term, gaining almost a technical significance from the "mark" put upon Cain (Genesis 4:15 the King James Version); the stigmata of Christ in Paul's body (Galatians 6:17); the "mark of the beast" (Revelation 16:2).
As a verb it is almost exclusively a mental process: e.g. "to be attentive," "understand ": bin (Job 18:2 the King James Version), rightly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "consider"; shith, "Mark ye well her bulwarks" (Psalms 48:13), i.e. turn the mind to, notice, regard; shamar, i.e. observe, keep in view; so Psalms 37:37, "Mark the perfect man"; compare Job 22:15 the King James Version. This becomes a unique expression in 1 Samuel 1:12, where Eli, noticing the movement of Hannah's lips in prayer, is said to have "marked her mouth." Jesus "marked" how invited guests chose out (epecho, i.e. "observed") the chief seats (Luke 14:7); so skopeo (Romans 16:17; Philippians 3:17), "Mark them," i.e. look at, signifying keen mental attention, i.e. scrutinize, observe carefully. The only exceptions to this mental signification of the verb are two verses in the Old Testament: Isaiah 44:13, "He marketh it out with a pencil" ("red ochre," the King James Version "line"), and "with the compasses," where the verb is ta'ar, "to delineate," "mark out"; Jeremiah 2:22, "Thine iniquity is marked (katham, "cut (i.e. engraved)) before me," signifying the deep and ineradicable nature of sin. It may also be rendered "written," as in indelible hieroglyphics.
As a noun the term "mark" may signify, according to its various Hebrew and Greek originals, a sign, "a target" an object of assault, a brand or stigma cut or burnt in the flesh, a goal or end in view, a stamp or imprinted or engraved sign.
(1) 'oth, "a sign": Genesis 4:15 the King James Version, "The Lord set a mark upon Cain" (the American Standard Revised Version "appointed a sign"). It is impossible to tell the nature of this sign. Delitzsch thinks that the rabbins were mistaken in regarding it as a mark upon Cain's body. He considers it rather "a certain sign which protected him from vengeance," the continuance of his life being necessary for the preservation of the race. It was thus, as the Hebrew indicates, the token of a covenant which God made with Cain that his life would be spared.
(2) mattara', "an aim," hence, a mark to shoot at. Jonathan arranged to shoot arrows as at a mark, for a sign to David (1 Samuel 20:20); Job felt himself to be a target for the Divine arrows, i.e. for the Divinely decreed sufferings which wounded him and which he was called to endure (Job 16:12); so Jeremiah, "He hath set me as a mark for the arrow" (Lamentations 3:12); closely akin to this is miphga`, an object of attack (Job 7:20), where Job in bitterness of soul feels that God has become his enemy, and says, `Why hast thou made me the mark of hostile attack?'; "set me as a mark for thee."
See TARGET.
(3) taw, "mark" (Ezekiel 9:4, 6). In Ezekiel's vision of the destruction of the wicked, the mark to be set upon the forehead of the righteous, at Yahweh's command, was, as in the case of the blood sprinkled on the door-posts of the Israelites (Exodus 12:22-23), for their protection. As the servants of God (Revelation 7:2-3)--the elect--were kept from harm by being sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, so the man clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side, was told to mark upon their foreheads those whom God would save from judgment by His sheltering grace. Taw also appears (Job 31:35) for the attesting mark made to a document (the Revised Version (British and American) "signature," margin "mark").
The equivalent Hebrew letter taw ("t") in the Phoenician alphabet and on the coins of the Maccabees had the form of a cross (T). In oriental synods it was used as a signature by bishops who could not write. The cross, as a sign of ownership, was burnt upon the necks or thighs of horses and camels. It may have been the "mark" set upon the forehead of the righteous in Ezekiel's vision.
(4) qa`aqa`, "a stigma" cut or burnt. The Israelites were forbidden (Leviticus 19:28) to follow the custom of other oriental and heathen nations in cutting, disfiguring or branding their bodies.
The specific prohibition "not to print any marks upon" themselves evidently has reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands. It was intended to cultivate reverence for and a sense of the sacredness of the human body, as God's creation, known in the Christian era as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
See also CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.
(5) skopos, something seen or observed in the distance, hence, a "goal." The Christian life seemed to Paul, in the intensity of his spiritual ardor, like the stadium or race-course of the Greeks, with runners stretching every nerve to reach the goal and win the prize. "I press on toward the goal (the King James Version "mark") unto the prize" (Philippians 3:14). The mark or goal is the ideal of life revealed in Christ, the prize, the attainment and possession of that life.
In Wisdom of Solomon 5:21 "they fly to the mark" is from eustochoi, "with true aim" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).
(6) stigma, "a mark pricked or branded upon the body." Slaves and soldiers, in ancient times, were stamped or branded with the name of their master. Paul considered and called himself the bondslave of Jesus Christ. The traces of his sufferings, scourging, stonings, persecution, wounds, were visible in permanent scars on his body (compare 2 Corinthians 11:23-27). These he termed the stigmata of Jesus, marks branded in his very flesh as proofs of his devotion to his Master (Galatians 6:17).
This passage gives no ground for the Romanist superstition that the very scars of Christ's crucifixion were reproduced in Paul's hands and feet and side. It is also "alien to the lofty self-consciousness" of these words to find in them, as some expositors do, a contrast in Paul's thought to the scar of circumcision.
(7) charagma, "a stamp" or "imprinted mark." "The mark of the beast" (peculiar to Revelation) was the badge of the followers of Antichrist, stamped on the forehead or right hand (Revelation 13:16; compare Ezekiel 9:4, 6). It was symbolic of character and was thus not a literal or physical mark, but the impress of paganism on the moral and spiritual life. It was the sign or token of apostasy. As a spiritual state or condition it subjected men to the wrath of God and to eternal torment (Revelation 14:9-11); to noisome disease (Revelation 16:2); to the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20). Those who received not the mark, having faithfully endured persecution and martyrdom, were given part in the first resurrection and lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Revelation 20:4). The "beast" symbolizes the anti-Christian empires, particularly Rome under Nero, who sought to devour and destroy the early Christians.
(8) molops, "bruise," Sirach 23:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) "bruise"); 28:17.
Dwight M. Pratt
Mark, John
Mark, John - mark, John (Ioannes) represents his Jewish, Mark (Markos) his Roman name. Why the latter was assumed we do not know.
1. Name and Family: Perhaps the aorist participle in Acts 12:25 may be intended to intimate that it dated from the time when, in company with Barnabas and Saul, he turned to service in the great Gentilecity of Antioch. Possibly it was the badge of Roman citizenship, as in the case of Paul. The standing of the family would be quite consistent with such a supposition.
His mother's name was Mary (Acts 12:12). The home is spoken of as hers. The father was probably dead. The description of the house (with its large room and porch) and the mention of the Greek slave, suggest a family of wealth. They were probably among the many zealous Jews who, having become rich in the great world outside, retired to Jerusalem, the center of their nation and faith. Mark was "cousin" to Barnabas of Cyprus (Colossians 4:10) who also seems to have been a man of means (Acts 4:36). Possibly Cyprus was also Mark's former home.
2. His History as Known from the New Testament: When first mentioned, Mark and his mother are already Christians (44 AD). He had been converted through Peter's personal influence (1 Peter 5:13) and had already won a large place in the esteem of the brethren, as is shown by his being chosen to accompany Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, a little later. The home was a resort for Christians, so that Mark had every opportunity to become acquainted with other leaders such as James and John, and James the brother of the Lord. It was perhaps from the latter James that he learned the incident of Mark 3:21 which Peter would be less likely to mention.
His kinship with Barnabas, knowledge of Christian history and teaching, and proved efficiency account for his being taken along on the first missionary journey as "minister" (huperetes) to Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:5). Just what that term implies is not clear. Chase (HDB) conjectures the meaning to be that he had been huperetes, "attendant" or chazzan in the synagogue (compare Luke 4:20), and was known as such an official. Wright (English translation, February, 1910) suggests that he was to render in newly founded churches a teaching service similar to that of the synagogue chazzan. Hackett thought that the kai of this verse implies that he was to be doing the same kind of work as Barnabas and Saul and so to be their "helper" in preaching and teaching. The more common view has been (Meyer, Swete, et al.) that he was to perform "personal service not evangelistic," "official service but not of the menial kind"--to be a sort of business agent. The view that he was to be a teacher, a catechist for converts, seems to fit best all the facts.
Why did he turn back from the work (Acts 13:13)? Not because of homesickness, or anxiety for his mother's safety, or home duties, or the desire to rejoin Peter, or fear of the perils incident to the journey, but rather because he objected to the offer of salvation to the Gentiles on condition of faith alone. There are hints that Mark's family, like Paul's, were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and it is not without significance that in both verses (Acts 13:5, 13) he is given only his Hebrew name. The terms of Paul's remonstrance are very strong (Acts 15:38), and we know that nothing stirred Paul's feelings more deeply than this very question. The explanation of it all may be found in what happened at Paphos when the Roman Sergius Paulus became a believer. At that time Paul (the change of name is here noted by Luke) stepped to the front, and henceforth, with the exception of Acts 15:12, 25, where naturally enough the old order is maintained, Luke speaks of Paul and Barnabas, not Barnabas and Saul. We must remember that, at that time, Paul stood almost alone in his conviction. Barnabas, even later than that, had misgivings (Galatians 2:13). Perhaps, too, Mark was less able than Barnabas himself to see the latter take second place.
We hear nothing further of Mark until the beginning of the second missionary journey 2 years later, when Paul's unwillingness to take him with them led to the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and to the mission of Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:39). He is here called Mark, and in that quiet way Luke may indicate his own conviction that Mark's mind had changed on the great question, as indeed his willingness to accompany Paul might suggest. He had learned from the discussions in the council at Jerusalem and from subsequent events at Antioch.
About 11 years elapse before we hear of him again (Colossians 4:10 f; Philemon 1:24). He is at Rome with Paul. The breach is healed. He is now one of the faithful few among Jewish Christians who stand by Paul. He is Paul's honored "fellowworker" and a great "comfort" to him.
The Colossian passage may imply a contemplated visit by Mark to Asia Minor. It may be that it was carried out, that he met Peter and went with him to Babylon. In 1 Peter 5:13 the apostle sends Mark's greeting along with that of the church in Babylon. Thence Mark returns to Asia Minor, and in 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul asks Timothy, who is at Ephesus, to come to him, pick up Mark by the way, and bring him along. In that connection Paul pays Mark his final tribute; he is "useful for ministering" (euchrestos eis diakonian), so useful that his ministry is a joy to the veteran's heart.
3. His History as Known from Other Sources: The most important and reliable tradition is that he was the close attendant and interpreter of Peter, and has given us in the Gospel that bears his name account of Peter's teaching. For that comradeship the New Testament facts furnish a basis, and the gaps in the New Testament history leave plenty of room. An examination of the tradition will be found in MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO (which see).
Other traditions add but little that is reliable. It is said that Mark had been a priest, and that after becoming a Christian he amputated a finger to disqualify himself for that service. Hence, the nickname kolobo-daktulos, which, however, is sometimes otherwise explained. He is represented as having remained in Cyprus until after the death of Barnabas (who was living in 57 AD according to 1 Corinthians 9:5 f) and then to have gone to Alexandria, founded the church there, become its first bishop and there died (or was marthyred) in the 8th year of Nero (62-63). They add that in 815 AD Venetian soldiers stole his remains from Alexandria and placed them under the church of Mark at Venice.
LITERATURE.
Chase, HDB, III, 245 ff; Rae, DCG, II, 119 f; Harnack, Encyclopedia Brit; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 427-56; Lindsay, Salmond, Morison and Swete in their Comms.
J. H. Farmer
Mark, the Gospel According To, 1
Mark, the Gospel According To, 1 - I. OUR SECOND GOSPEL
II. CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Scope
2. Material Peculiar to Mark
3. Quotations
4. A Book of Mighty Works
5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher
6. A Book of Graphic Details
III. THE TEXT
IV. LANGUAGE
1. General Character
2. Vocabulary
3. Style
4. Original Language
V. AUTHORSHIP
1. External Evidence
2. Internal Evidence
VI. SOURCES AND INTEGRITY
VII. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION
VIII. HISTORICITY
IX. PURPOSE AND PLAN
1. The Gospel for Romans
2. Plan of the Gospel
X. LEADING DOCTRINES
1. Person of Christ
2. The Trinity
3. Salvation
4. Eschatology
LITERATURE
I. Our Second Gospel. The order of the Gospels in our New Testament is probably due to the early conviction that this was the order in which the Gospels were written. It was not, however, the invariable order. The question of order only arose when the roll was superseded by the codex, our present book-form. That change was going on in the 3rd century. Origen found codices with the order John-Matthew-Mark-Luke--due probably to the desire to give the apostles the leading place. That and the one common today may be considered the two main groupings--the one in the order of dignity, the other in that of time. The former is Egyptian and Latin; the latter has the authority of most Greek manuscripts, Catalogues and Fathers, and is supported by the old Syriac.
Within these, however, there are variations. The former is varied thus: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark, and Matthew-John-Mark-Luke, and Matthew-John-Luke-Mark; the latter to Matthew-Mark-John-Luke. Mark is never first; when it follows Luke, the time consideration has given place to that of length.
II. Contents and General Characteristics. 1. Scope: The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included. These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in Acts 10:37-43. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in Acts 10:1-48) practically make up the Gospel.
2. Material Peculiar to Mark: Matter peculiar to Mark is found in 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); 3:21 (his kindred's fear); 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); 8:22-26 (the blind man); 13:33-37 (the householder and the exhortation to watch); 14:51 (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark's account is very much fuller; e.g. 6:14-29 (death of John the Baptist); Mark 7:1-23 (on eating with unwashen hands); Mark 9:14-29 (the demoniac boy); Mark 12:28-34 (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists. Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11).
3. Quotations: In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isa part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in John 3:28. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequency. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John. Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21:1-25, Acts 107. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in Mark 7:7 where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, "in vain do they worship me"--a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but "teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, Mark 9:48; 10:19; 12:32.
4. A Book of Mighty Works: Judged by the space occupied, Mark is a Gospel of deeds. Jesus is a worker. His life is one of strenuous activity. He hastens from one task to another with energy and decision. The word euthus, i.e. "straightway," is used 42 times as against Matthew's 7 and Luke's 1. In 14 of these, as compared with 2 in Matthew and none in Luke, the word is used of the personal activity of Jesus. It is not strange therefore that the uneventful early years should be passed over (compare John 2:11). Nor is it strange that miracles should be more numerous than parables. According to Westcott's classification (Introduction to Study of the Gospel, 480-86), Mark has 19 miracles and only 4 parables, whereas the corresponding figures for Matthew are 21 to 15 and for Luke 20:1-47 to Luke 19:1-48. Of the miracles 2 are peculiar to Mark, of the parables only Luke 1:1-80. The evangelist clearly records the deeds rather than the words of Jesus. These facts furnish another point of contact with Peter's speeches in Acts--the beneficent character of the deeds in Acts 10:38, and their evidential significance in Acts 2:22 (compare Mark 1:27; 2:10, etc.).
The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (1:21-28), the paralytic (2:1-12), the withered hand (3:1-5), the storm stilled (4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-17), Jairus' daughter (5:22 ff), the woman with the issue (5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (8:1-10), walking on the water (6:48 ff); the Syrophoenician's daughter (7:24-30), the deaf mute (7:31-37), the blind man (8:22-26), the demoniac boy (9:14 ff), blind Bartimeus (10:46-52), the fig tree withered (11:20 ff), the resurrection (16:1 ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott's Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea.
5. The Worker Is Also a Teacher: Though what has been said is true, yet Mark is by no means silent about Jesus as a teacher. John the Baptist is a preacher (Mark 1:4, 7), and Jesus also is introduced as a preacher, taking up and enlarging the message of John. Very frequent mention is made of him as teaching (e.g. Mark 1:21; 2:13; 6:6, etc.); indeed the words didache, and didasko, occur more frequently in Mark than in any other Gospel. Striking references are made to His originality, methods, popularity and peerlessness as a teacher (Mark 1:22; 4:1 f,33; Mark 11:27 through Mark 12:37; especially Mark 12:34). A miracle is definitely declared to be for the purpose of instruction (Mark 2:10), and the implication is frequent that His miracles were not only the dictates of His compassion, but also purposed self-revelations (Mark 5:19 f; Mark 11:21-23). Not only is He Himself a teacher, but He is concerned to prepare others to be teachers (Mark 3:13 f; Mark 4:10 f). Mark is just as explicit as Matthew in calling attention to the fact that at a certain stage He began teaching the multitude in parables, and expounding the parables to His disciples (Mark 4:2-11 f). He mentions, however, only four of them--the Sower (Mark 4:1-20), the Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29), the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32) and the Husband-men (Mark 12:1-12). The number of somewhat lengthy discourses and the total amount of teaching is considerably greater than is sometimes recognized. Mark 4:1-41 and Mark 13:1-37 approach most nearly to the length of the discourses in Matthew and correspond to Matthew 13:1-58 and Matthew 24:1-51 respectively. But in Mark 7:1-23; Mark 9:33-50; Mark 10:5-31, 39-45 and Mark 12:1-44 we have quite extensive sayings. If Jesus is a worker, He is even more a teacher. His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works. The teachings grew naturally out of the occasion and the circumstances. He did and taught. Because He did what He did He could teach with effectiveness. Both works and words reveal Himself.
6. A Book of Graphic Details: There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (7:33; 9:36; 10:16) and His looks of inquiry (5:32), in prayer (6:41; 7:34), of approval (3:34), love (10:21), warning (to Judas especially 10:23), anger (3:5), and in judgment (11:11). Jesus hungers (11:12), seeks rest in seclusion (6:31) and sleeps on the boat cushion (4:38); He pities the multitude (6:34), wonders at men's unbelief (6:6), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (6:34; 8:12), grieves at their hardening (3:5), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (8:33; 10:14). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (1:31; 2:11 f; 3:5), sometimes as gradual or difficult (1:26; 7:32-35; 9:26-28), and once as flatly impossible "because of their unbelief" (6:6). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (1:32), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (3:10), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (1:22) and power (2:12). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (4:41), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (10:32). Many other picturesque details are given, as in 1:13 (He was with the wild beasts); 2:4 (digging through the roof); 4:38 (lying asleep on the cushion); 5:4 (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); 6:39 (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (1:29; 3:6; 13:3; 15:21), numbers (5:13; 6:7), time (1:35; 2:1; 11:19; 16:2), and place (2:13; 3:8; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68 and 15:39). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark's Gospel, 26 ff.)
III. The Text. Of the 53 select readings noted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (Into), only a few are of special interest or importance. The following are to be accepted: en to Esaia to prophete (Mark 1:2) hamartematos (Mark 3:29); pleres (indeclinable, Mark 4:28); to tekton (Mark 6:3; Jesus is here called "the carpenter"); autou (Mark 6:22, Herod's daughter probably had two names, Salome and Herodias); pugme (Mark 7:23, "with the fist," i.e. "thoroughly," not pukna "oft"). Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek are to be followed in rejecting pisteusai (leaving the graphic To Ei dune (Mark 9:23)); kai nesteia (Mark 9:29); pasa...halisthesetai (Mark 9:49); tous...chremasi (Mark 10:24); but not in rejecting huiou Theou (Mark 1:1). They are probably wrong in retaining hous...onomasan (Mark 3:14; it was probably added from Luke 6:31); and in rejecting kai klinon and accepting hrantisontai instead of baptisontai (Mark 7:4; ignorance of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews led to these scribal changes; compare Luke 11:38, where ebaptisthe is not disputed). So one may doubt eporei (Mark 6:20), and suspect it of being an Alexandrian correction for epoiei which was more difficult and yet is finely appropriate.
The most important textual problem is that of Mark 16:9-20. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter's words, that for some reason those then failed him and that Mark 16:9-20 are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think Mark 16:8 is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that Mark 16:9-20, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John's authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.
It is just possible that the Gospel did end at verse 8. The very abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived in the atmosphere of the Resurrection and would form an even appropriate closing for the Gospel of the Servant (see below). A Servant comes, fulfills his task, and departs--we do not ask about his lineage, nor follow his subsequent history.
IV. Language. 1. General Character: Mark employs the common coloquial Greek of the day, understood everywhere throughout the Greek-Roman world. It was emphatically the language of the Character people, "known and read of all men." His vocabulary is equally removed from the technicalities of the schools and from the slang of the streets. It is the clean, vigorous, direct speech of the sturdy middle class.
2. Vocabulary: Of his 1,330 words, 60 are proper names. Of the rest 79 are peculiar to Mark, so far as the New Testament is concerned; 203 are found elsewhere only in the Synoptics, 15 only in John's Gospel, 23 only in Paul (including Hebrews), 2 in the Catholic Epistles (1 in James, 1 in 2 Peter), 5 in the Apocalypse (Revelation) (see Swete, Commentary on Mark). Rather more than a fourth of the 79 are non-classical as compared with one-seventh for Luke and a little more than one-seventh for Mr. Hawkins also gives a list of 33 unusual words or expressions. The most interesting of the single words are schizomanous, ephien, komopoleis, ekephaliosan, proaulion, and hoti, in the sense of "why" (Mark 2:16; 11, 28); of the expressions, the distributives in Mark 6:7, 39 f and Mark 14:19, the Hebraistic ei dothesetai, and hotan with the indicative. Of ordinary constructions the following are found with marked frequency: kai (reducing his use of de to half of Matthew's or Luke's), historic present (accounting for the very frequent use of legei instead of eipen the periphrastic imperfect, the article with infinitives or sentences, participles, and prepositions.
There are indications that the writer in earlier life was accustomed to think in Aramaic. Occasionally that fact shows itself in the retention of Aramaic words which are proportionately rather more numerous than in Matthew and twice as numerous as in Luke or John. The most interesting of these are taleitha koum, ephphatha, and Boanerges, each uttered at a time of intense feeling.
Latinisms in Mark are about half as numerous as Aramaisms. They number 11, the same as in Matthew, as compared with 6 in Luke and 7 in John. The greater proportion in Mark is the only really noteworthy fact in these figures. It suggests more of a Roman outlook and fits in with the common tradition as to its origin and authorship.
For certain words he has great fondness: euthus 42 times; akathartos 11 times; blepo, and its compounds very frequently; so eperotan, hupagein, exousia, euaggelion, proskaleisthai, epitiman compounds of poreuesthai, sunzetein, and such graphic words as ekthambeisthai, embrimasthai, enagkalizesthai, and phimousthai. The following he uses in an unusual sense: eneichen, pugme, apechei, epibalon.
The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the anacolutha and other broken constructions, e.g. Mark 4:31 f; Mark 5:23; 6:8 f; Mark 11:32. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in Mark 7:3-5; some to the introduction of a quotation as in Mark 7:11 f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II, 6 above).
3. Style: The style is very simple. The common connective is kai. The stately periods of the classics are wholly absent. The narrative is commonly terse and concise. At times, however, a multitude of details are crowded in, resulting in unusual fullness of expression. This gives rise to numerous duplicate expressions as in Mark 1:32; 2:25; 5:19 and the like, which become a marked feature of the style. The descriptions are wonderfully vivid. This is helped out by the remarkably frequent use of the historic present, of which there are 151 examples, as contrasted with 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke, apart from its use in parables. Mark never uses it in parables, whereas Matthew has 15 cases, and Luke has 5. John has 162, a slightly smaller proportion than Mark on the whole, but rather larger in narrative parts. But Mark's swift passing from one tense to another adds a variety and vividness to the narrative not found in John.
4. Original Language: That the original language was Greek is the whole impression made by patristic references. Translations of the Gospel are always from, not into, Greek. It was the common language of the Roman world, especially for letters. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek. Half a century later Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth in Greek. The Greek Mark bears the stamp of originality and of the individuality of the author.
Some have thought it was written in Latin. The only real support for that view is the subscription in a few manuscripts (e.g. 160, 161, egraphe Rhomaisti en Rhome) and in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac. It is a mistaken deduction from the belief that it was written in Rome or due to the supposition that "interpreter of Peter" meant that Mark translated Peter's discourses into Latin
Blass contended for an Aramaic original, believing that Luke, in the first part of Acts, followed an Aramaic source, and that that source was by the author of the Second Gospel which also, therefore, was written in Aramaic. He felt, moreover, that the text of Mark suggests several forms of the Gospel which are best explained as translations of a common original. Decisive against the view is the translation of the few Aramaic words which are retained.
V. Authorship. 1. External Evidence: The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the manuscripts. The most important patristic statements are the following:
Papias--Asia Minor, circa 125 AD--(quoted by Eus., HE, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."
Justin Martyr--Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD--(In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his `Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee `Boanerges,' which means `Sons of Thunder,' " etc.
Irenaeus--Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD--(Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria--circa 200 AD--(Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."
Also (Eus., HE, II, 15): "So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mk. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches."
Tertullian--North Africa, circa 207 AD--(Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."
Origen--Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD--("Comm. on Mt" quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."
Eusebius--Caesarea, circa 325 AD--(Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."
Epiphanius--Cyprus, circa 350 AD--(Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."
Jerome--East and West, circa 350 AD--(De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."
Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."
Preface Commentary on Matthew: "The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching."
To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment--circa 170 AD--"which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: `quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit' " (see below).
These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.
That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (3:17).
A second point is equally clear--that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (1 Peter 5:13 the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view--that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)--is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).
There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.
The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: "(ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit," and understands it to mean that "at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down." Chase (HDB) and others regard "quibus tamen" as a literal translation of the Greek hois de, and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, "was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them." Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: "Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne," compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark's association with Peter.
The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest manuscripts, namely, kata Markon. This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been kata Petron. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle kata Matthaion.
2. Internal Evidence: The internal evidence offers much to confirm the tradition and practically nothing to the contrary. That Peter is back of it is congruous with such facts as the following:
(1) The many vivid details referred to above (III, 6) must have come from an eyewitness. The frequent use of legei, in Mark and Matthew where Luke uses eipen, works in the same direction.
(2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark's turning of Peter's original, e.g. Mark 1:29, where Peter may have said, "We went home, James and John accompanying us." So in Mark 1:36 (contrasted with Luke's impersonal description, Luke 4:42 f); Mark 3:16; 13:3.
(3) Two passages (Mark 9:6 and Mark 11:21) describe Peter's own thought; others mention incidents which Peter would be most likely to mention: e.g. Mark 14:37 and Mark 14:66-72 (especially imperfect erneito); Mark 16:7; Mark 7:12-23 in view of Acts 10:15).
(4) In Mark 3:7 the order of names suits Peter's Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem--Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness.
(5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus. Compare Mark 5:37 with Matthew 9:23, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke's corresponding passage (Luke 8:51) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of Mark 9:14 is clearly from one of the three, Luke's may be, but Matthew's is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and Luke 9:51 through Luke 18:14 lends weight to this consideration.
(6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter's address to Cornelius (Acts 10:37-41).
(7) The book suits Peter's character--impressionable rather than reflective, and emotional rather than logical. To such men arguments are of minor importance. It is deeds that count (Burton, Short Intro).
It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter's career narrated in Matthew 14:28-33 (walking on the water), Matthew 17:24-27 (tribute money), and Matthew 16:16-19 (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew's list of the Twelve that he himself is called "the publican." So "Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke" (Bacon).
As to Mark's authorship, the internal evidence appears slight. Like the others, he does not obtrude himself. Yet for that very reason what hints there are become the more impressive.
There may be something in Zahn's point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author's own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in Mark 14:51 seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents. But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated. In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in Acts 12:1-25. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word "ready"--a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife's exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare Mark 14:17 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Matthew 26:20 reads: "Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples"; Luke 22:14: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him"; while Mark has: "And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve." The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms "the twelve disciples," "the apostles" and "the twelve" suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.) Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.
Continued in MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, 2.
Mark, the Gospel According To, 2
Mark, the Gospel According To, 2 - Continued from MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, 1.
VI. Sources and Integrity. We have seen that, according to the testimony of the Fathers, Peter's preaching and teaching are at least the main source, and that many features of the Gospel support that view. We have seen, also, subtle but weighty reasons for believing that Mark added a little himself. Need we seek further sources, or does inquiry resolve itself into an analysis of Peter's teaching?
B. Weiss believes that Mark used a document now lost containing mainly sayings of Jesus, called Logia (L) in the earlier discussions, but now commonly known as Q (Quelle). In that opinion he has recently been joined by Sanday and Streeter. Harnack, Sir John Hawkins and Wellhausen have sought to reconstruct Q on the basis of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and Luke. Allen extracts it from Matthew alone, thinking that Mark also may have drawn a few sayings from it. Some assign a distinct source for Mark 13:1-37. Streeter considers it a document written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, incorporating a few utterances by Jesus and itself incorporated bodily by Mark. Other sources, oral or written, are postulated by Bacon for smaller portions and grouped under X. He calls the final redactor R--not Mark but a Paulinist of a radical type.
In forming a judgment much depends upon one's conception of the teaching method of Jesus and the apostles. Teaching and preaching are not synonymous terms. Matthew sums up the early ministry in Galilee under "teaching, preaching and healing," and gives us the substance of that teaching as it impressed itself upon him. Mark reports less of it, but speaks of it more frequently than either Matthew or Luke. Jesus evidently gave teaching a very large place, and a large proportion of the time thus spent was devoted to the special instruction of the inner circle of disciples. The range of that instruction was not wide. It was intensive rather than extensive. He held Himself to the vital topic of the kingdom of God. He must have gone over it again and again. He would not hesitate to repeat instructions which even chosen men found it so difficult to understand. Teaching by repetition was common then as it is now in the East. The word "catechize" (katecheo) implies that, and that word is used by Paul of Jewish (Romans 2:18) and by Luke of Christian teaching (Luke 1:4).
See CATECHIST.
The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power (Mark 1:27). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.
Thus before His death the general character of that kingdom, its principles and prospects, were taught. That furnished the warp for the future Gospels. The essence, the substance and general form were the same for all the Twelve; but each from the standpoint of his own individually saw particular aspects and was impressed with special details. No one of them was large enough to grasp it all, for no one was so great as the Master. And it would be strange indeed, though perhaps not so strange as among us, if none of them wrote down any of it. Ramsay, Salmon and Palmer are quit justified in feeling that it may have been put in writing before the death of Jesus. It may well be that Matthew wrote it as it lay in his mind, giving us substantially Harnack's Q. John and James may have done the same and furnished Luke his main special source. But whether it was written down then or not, the main fact to be noted is that it was lodged in their minds, and that the substance was, and the details through mutual conference increasingly became, their common possession. They did not understand it all--His rising from the dead, for example. But the words were lodged in memory, and subsequent events made their meaning clear.
Then follow the great events of His death and resurrection, and for forty days in frequent appearances He taught them the things concerning the kingdom of God and expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, especially the necessity of His death and resurrection. These furnished the woof of the future Gospels. But even yet they are not equipped for their task. So He promises them His Spirit, a main part of whose work will be to bring to their remembrance all He had said, to lead them into all the truth, and show them things to come. When He has come they will be ready to witness in power.
The apostles' conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ's ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church (Acts 8:2). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the "certainty" or undoubted truth of it (Luke 1:4). Thus Jesus' post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.
Of that company Peter was the recognized leader, and did more than any other to determine the mold into which at least the post-resurrection teachings were cast. Luke tells us of many attempts to record them. He himself in his brief reports of Peter's addresses sketches their broad outlines. Mark, at the request of Roman Christians and with Peter's approval, undertook to give an adequate account. Two special facts influenced the result--one, the character of the people for whom he wrote; the other, the existence (as we may assume) of Matthew's Q. It would be natural for him to supplement rather than duplicate that apostolic summary. Moreover, since Q presented mainly the ethical or law side of Christianity the supplement would naturally present the gospel side of it--and so become its complement--while at the same time this presentation and the needs of the people for whom he specially writes make it necessary to add something from the body of catechetical material, oral or written, not included in Q, as his frequent kai elegen, seems to imply (Buckley, 152 ff). So Mk's is "the beginning of the Gospel." He introduces Jesus in the act of symbolically devoting Himself to that death for our sins and rising again, which constitutes the gospel and then entering upon His ministry by calling upon the people to "repent and believe in the gospel." The book is written from the standpoint of the resurrection, and gives the story of the passion and of the ministry in a perspective thus determined. About the same time it may be, Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, combines this gospel side of the teaching with his own Q side of it, adding from the common stock or abridging as his purpose might suggest or space might demand. Later Luke does a similar service for Greek Christians (compare Harnack, The Twofold Gospel in the New Testament).
The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see underIII above. Some have suggested that Mark 1:1-13 is akin to Mark 16:9-20, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects Mark 1:1-13 is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying Mark 13:1-37 as a true report of what Jesus said. Wendling's theory of three strata assignable to three different writers--historian, poet, and theologian--is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke's omission of Mark 6:45 through Mark 8:26. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.
VII. Date and Place of Composition. Ancient testimony is sharply divided. The Paschal Chronicle puts it in 40 AD, and many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive (Harnack, Chronologie, 70, 124) 10 or 12 years after the Ascension. These Swete sets aside as due to the mistaken tradition that Peter began work in Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius (42 AD). Similarly he would set aside the opinion of Chrysostom (which has some manuscripts subscriptions to support it) that it was written in Alexandria, as an error growing out of the statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 16) that Mark went to Egypt and preached there the Gospel he composed. This he does in deference to the strong body of evidence that it was written in Rome about the time of Peter's death. Still there remains a discrepancy between Irenaeus, as commonly understood, and the other Fathers. For, so understood, Irenaeus places it after the death of Peter, whereas Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria clearly place it within Peter's lifetime. But it does not seem necessary so to understand Irenaeus. It may be that it was composed while Peter was living, but only published after his death. Christopherson (1570 AD) had suggested that and supported it by the conjectural emendation of ekdosin, "surrendering," "imprisonment" for exodon, in Irenaeus. Grabe, Mill and others thought Irenaeus referred, not to Peter's death, but to his departure from Rome on further missionary tours. But if we take exodon in that sense, it is better to understand by it departure from Palestine or Syria, rather than from Rome. Irenaeus' statement that the apostles were now fully furnished for the work of evangelization (Adv. Haer., iii.1) certainly seems to imply that they were now ready to leave Palestine; and his next statement is that Matthew and Mark wrote their respective Gospels. And Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24) states explicitly that Matthew committed his Gospel to writing "when he was about" to leave Palestine "to go to other peoples." The same may very possibly be true of Mark. If the fact be that Romans in Caesarea or Antioch made the request of Mark, we can easily understand how, by the time of Irenaeus, the whole incident might be transferred to Rome.
If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of Galatians 2:11 ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be "fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization." But may it not be that Paul's strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on
hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are Mark 2:26 and Mark 13:1-37. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark's explanatory addition. Mark 13:1-37 has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.
Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James (Mark 5:37) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers--though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author's instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.
The relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is important if the very widespread conviction of the priority of Mark be true. For the most likely date for Acts is 62 AD, as suggested by the mention of Paul's two years' residence in Rome, and Luke's Gospel is earlier than the Acts. It may well have been written at Caesarea about 60 AD; that again throws Mark back into the fifties.
The great objection to so early a date is the amount of detail given of the destruction of Jerusalem. Abbott and others have marshalled numerous other objections, but they have very little weight--most of them indeed are puerile. The real crux is that to accept an earlier date than 70 AD is to admit predictive prophecy. Yet to deny that, especially for a believer in Christ, is an unwarranted pre-judgment, and even so far to reduce it as to deny its presence in this passage is to charge Luke--a confessedly careful historian--with ascribing to Jesus statements which He never made.
The eagerness to date Matthew not earlier than 70 is due to the same feeling. But the problem here is complicated by the word "immediately" (24:29). Some regard that as proof positive that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Others (e.g. Allen and Plummer) feel that it absolutely forbids a date much later than 70 AD, and consider 75 AD as a limit. But is it not possible that by by eutheos (not parachrema), Christ, speaking as a prophet, may have meant no more than that the next great event comparable with the epochal overthrow of Judaism would be His own return and that the Divine purpose marches straight on from the one to the other? The New Testament nowhere says that the second advent would take place within that generation. See below under "Eschatology." There is therefore no sufficient reason in the Olivet discourse for dating Luke or Matthew later than 60 AD, and if Mark is earlier, it goes back into the fifties.
VIII. Historicity. Older rationalists, like Paulus, not denying Mark's authorship, regarded the miraculous elements as misconceptions of actual events. Strauss, regarding these as mythical, was compelled to postulate a 2nd-century date. When, however, the date was pushed back to the neighborhood of 70 AD, the historicity was felt to be largely established. But recently theory of "pragmatic values" has been developed; Bacon thus states it: "The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of Biblical narrative .... is the recognition of motive. The motive .... is never strictly historical but always etiological and frequently apologetic. .... The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary church" (Modern Commentary, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 9). Bacon works out the method with the result that Mark is charged again and again with historical and other blunders. This view, like Baur's tendency-theory, has elements of truth. One is that the vocabulary of a later day may be a sort of necessary translation of the original expression. But translation is neither invention nor perversion. The other is that each author has his purpose, but that simply determines his selection and arrangement of material; it neither creates nor misrepresents it if the author be honest and well informed. The word "selection" is advisedly chosen. The evangelists did not lack material. Each of the Twelve had personal knowledge beyond the content of Q or of Mark. These represent the central orb--the one the ethical, the other the evangelic side of it--but there were rays of exceeding brightness radiating from it in all directions. Luke's introduction and John's explicit declaration attest that fact. And neither John nor Luke throws the slightest suspicion on the reliability of the material they did not use. There is no sufficient reason for charging them with misstating the facts to make a point. Bacon seems to trust any other ancient writers or even his own imagination rather than the evangelists. The test becomes altogether too subjective. Yet since Christianity is a historical revelation, perversion of history may become perversion of most vital religious teaching. In the last analysis, the critic undertakes to decide just what Jesus could or could not have done or said. The utter uncertainty of the result is seen by a comparison of Schmiedel and Bacon. The former is sure that the cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" is one of the very few genuine sayings of Jesus; Bacon is equally sure that Jesus could not have uttered it. Bacon also charges Mark with "immoral crudity" because in 10:45 he reports Jesus as saying that He came "to give his life a ransom for (anti) many." Thus, on two most vital matters he charges the evangelists with error because they run counter to his own religious opinions.
Plummer's remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): "To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism." And A.T. Robertson ("Matthew" in Bible for Home and School, 26): "The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels." The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin--a standing miracle. If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.
IX. Purpose and Plan. 1. The Gospel for Romans: Mark's purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them. In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen (a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark 3:17 (Boanerges), Mark 5:41 (Talitha cumi), Mark 7:11 (Corban), Mark 10:46 (Bartimaeus), Mark 14:36 (Abba), Mark 15:22 (Golgotha); (b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in Mark 14:12 and Mark 15:42; (c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark's own narrative; (d) the Gentile sections, especially in Mark 6:1-56 through Mark 8:1-38.
That it was for Romans is seen in (a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in Mark 12:42; (b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (Mark 2:10), patience and heroic endurance (Mark 10:17 ff); (c) Mark 10:12 which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman. Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (Mark 15:21; compare Romans 16:13) and the resemblance between Romans 7:1-23 and Romans 14:1-23. The Roman centurion's remark (Romans 15:33) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark's purpose as John 20:31 to John's.
But one cannot escape the feeling that we have in this Gospel the antitype of the Servant of Yahweh. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, 365) tells us that there are two great figures around which Isaiah's thoughts gather--the King and the Servant. The former rises "to the unsurpassable height of `God with us,' `mighty God,' teaching that in Him God shall be wholly present with His people." The Servant is the other. The former is depicted in Mt, who also identifies Him with the Servant (12:18 f); the latter by Mk who identifies Him with the Messianic King (11:10; 14:62). Davidson summarizes the description of the Servant: "(1) He is God's chosen; (2) He has a mission to establish judgment on the earth. .... The word is His instrument and the Lord is in the Word, or rather He Himself is the impersonation of it; (3) His endowment is the Spirit and an invincible faith; (4) There is in Him a marvelous combination of greatness and lowliness; (5) There are inevitable sufferings--bearing the penalty of others' sins; (6) He thus redeems Israel and brings light to the Gentiles. (7) Israel's repentance and restoration precede that broader blessing." It is not strange that this Servant-conception--this remarkable blend of strength and submission, achieving victory through apparent defeat--should appeal to Peter. He was himself an ardent, whole-souled man who knew both defeat and victory. Moreover, he himself had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and now for years had been a servant of Christ (compare Acts 4:29). That it did appeal to him and became familiar to the early Christians can be seen from Acts 3:13 and Acts 4:30. In his First Epistle he has 17 references to Isaiah, 9 of which belong to the second part. Temperamentally Mark seems to have been like Peter. And his experience in a wealthy home where servants were kept (Acts 12:13), and as himself huperetes of apostles in Christian service, fitted him both to appreciate and record the character and doings of the perfect servant--the Servant of Yahweh. For Roman Christians that heroic figure would have a peculiar fascination.
2. Plan of the Gospel: The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception. Christ's kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:1-12. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in Acts 10:1-48. That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:
Title: Mark 1:1
1. The Baptist preparing the way: Mark 1:2-8; compare Isaiah 40:3 f.
2. Devotement of Jesus to death for us and endowment by the Spirit: Mark 1:3-9; compare Isaiah 42:1 ff.
3. His greatness--the Galilean Ministry: Mark 1:14 through Mark 8:30; compare Isaiah 43:1-28 through Isaiah 52:12.
(1) In the synagogue: period of popular favor leading to break with Pharisaic Judaism: Mark 1:14 through Mark 3:6.
(2) Outside the synagogue: parabolic teaching of the multitude, choice and training of the Twelve and their Great Confession: Mark 3:7 ff through Mark 8:30.
4. His lowliness--mainly beyond Galilee: Mark 8:31 through Mark 15:1-47; compare Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:9.
(1) In the north--announcement of death: Mark 8:31 through Mark 9:29.
(2) On the way to Jerusalem and the cross--through Galilee (Mark 9:30-50), Peraea (Mark 10:1-45), Judea (Mark 10:46-52).
(3) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-11).
(4) In Jerusalem and vicinity--opposed by the leaders (Mark 11:12 through Mark 12:44); foretelling their doom (Mark 13:1-37); preparing for death (Mark 14:1-42); betrayed, condemned, crucified and buried in a rich man's tomb (Mark 14:43 through Mark 15:1-47).
5. His victory--the resurrection: Mark 16:1-20; compare Isaiah 53:10-12. What follows in Isaiah is taken up in Acts, for the first part of which Peter or Mark may have been Luke's main source.
Generally speaking the plan is chronological, but it is plain that the material is sometimes grouped according to subject-matter.
This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word "straightway"; the predominance of deeds; the Son's not knowing the day (Mark 13:32); and the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 (see III ).
X. Leading Doctrines. 1. Person of Christ: The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples' confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father's declaration of Him as His Beloved Son (Mark 1:11; 9:7). That the sonship is unique is indicated in Mark 12:6 and Mark 13:32. At the same time He is the Son of Man--true man (Mark 4:38; 8:5; 14:34); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (Mark 10:40; 14:36), and Head of humanity (Mark 2:10, 28), their rightful Messiah or King (Mark 1:1; 14:62)--yet Servant of all (Mark 10:44 f); David's Son and David's Lord (Mark 12:37). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (Mark 2:5, 8; 8:17) and future (Mark 8:31; 10:39; 14:27; Mark 13:1-37), superiority to all men, whether friends (Mark 1:7; 9:3 ff) or foes (Mark 12:34), and to superhuman beings, whether good (Mark 13:32) or evil (Mark 1:13, 12; 3:27).
2. The Trinity: The Father speaks in Mark 1:11; 9:7; is spoken of in Mark 13:32; and spoken to in Mark 14:36. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in Mark 11:25; 12:6 and Mark 13:32. The Spirit is mentioned in Mark 1:8, 10, 12; 3:29 and Mark 13:11. The last passage especially implies His personality.
3. Salvation: As to salvation, the Son is God's final messenger (Mark 12:6); He gives His life a ransom instead of many (Mark 10:45); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant (Mark 14:24); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God (Mark 15:34). From the outset He knew what was before Him--only so can His baptism be explained (Mark 1:5, 11; compare Mark 2:20); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward (Mark 10:32; Mark 14:33-36); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life (Mark 10:45). The human condition is repentance and faith (Mark 1:15; 2:5; 34, 36; 6:5; 9:23; 16:16), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith (Mark 1:23-26; Mark 5:1-20; Mark 6:35-43). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless (Mark 11:25); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ's true kindred (Mark 3:35). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew (Mark 7:24-30).
4. Eschatology: The eschatology of this Gospel is found chiefly in Mark 8:34 through Mark 9:1 and Mark 13:1-37. In Mark 9:1 we have a prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem which is here given as a type and proof of His final coming for judgment and reward which He has had in mind in the preceding verses. Mark 13:1-37 is a development of this--the destruction of Jerusalem being meant in Mark 13:5-23 and 28-31, the final coming in Mark 13:24-27 and 32. The distinction is clearly marked by the pronouns (tauta, and ekeines, in Mark 13:30 and 32 (compare Matthew 24:34, 36). In each passage (Mark 9:1; 13:30) the fall of Jerusalem is definitely fixed as toward the close of that generation; the time of the latter is known only to the Father (Mark 13:32). Between Christ's earthly life and the Second Coming He is seated at the right hand of God (Mark 12:36; 16:19). The resurrection which He predicted for Himself (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) and which actually took place (Mark 16:1-20), He affirms for others also (Mark 12:24-27).
LITERATURE.
The works marked with the asterisk are specially commended; for very full list see Moffat's Introduction.
Commentaries:
Fritzsche, 1830; Olshausen, translated 1863; J.A. Alexander, 1863; Lange, translated 1866; Meyer, 1866, American edition, 1884; Cook, Speaker's Commentary, 1878; Plumptre, Ellicott's, 1879; Riddle, Schaff's, 1879; W.N. Clarke, Amer. Comm., 1881; Lindsay, 1883; Broadus, 1881 and 1905; Morison, 1889; H.G. Holtzmann(3), 1901; Maclean, Cambridge Bible, 1893; Gould, International Critical Commentary, 1896; Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament, 1897; B. Weiss, Meyer, 1901; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901; Salmond, Century Bible; Wellhausen2, 1909; Swete, 1908; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909; Wohlenberg, Zahn's Series, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1910. For the earlier see Swete.
Introduction:
Eichhorn, 1827; Credner, 1836; Schleiermacher, 1845; De Wette, 1860; Bleek, 1866, translated 1883; Reuss, 1874, translated 1884; B. Weiss. 2nd edition, translated 1886; 3rd edition, 1897; H.J. Holtzmann, 1892; Th. Zahn, 1897, translated 1909; Godet, 1899; Julicher(6), 1906; von Soden, 1905, translated 1906; Wendling, Ur-Marcus, 1905; A. Muller, Geschichtskerne in den Evang., 1905; Wrede, Origin of New Testament Scriptures, 1907, translated 1909; Horne, 1875; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, 7th edition, 1888, and The Canon, 6th edition, 1889; Salmon, 1897; Adeney, 1899; Bacon, 1900; Burton, 1904; Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901; Introduction to the Literature of New Testament, 1911; Peake, 1909; Gregory, Einleitung., 1909; Charteris, Canonicity, 1881; The New Testament Scriptures, 1882, and popular Intros by Plumptre, 1883; Lumby, 1883; Kerr, 1892; McClymont, 1893; Dods, 1894; Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, 1889; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, 1874; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, I, 1903; II, 1909.
Mark and the Synoptic Problem:
Rushbrooke, Synopticon, 1880; Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd edition, 1906; Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890; Some New Testament Problems, 1898; H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang., 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuch. uber die evang. Gesch., 2nd edition, 1901; Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 1899; Loisy, Les ev. syn., 1908; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evang., 1905; Blass, Origin and Char. of Our Gospels, English translation, xviii; Norton, Internal Evid. of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1847; F.H. Woods, Stud. Bibl., II, 594; Palmer, Gospel Problems and Their Solution, 1899; J.A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, 1902; Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels; Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 1904; Stanton, as above, and in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), II, 234 ff; Turner, "Chronology of New Testament," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), I, 403 ff; J.J. Scott, The Making of the Gospels, 1905; Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 1906; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I, 1893; II, 2nd edition, 1904; Beitrage zur Einleitung in das New Testament, 4 volumes, translated in "Crown Theol. Lib.," Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909; Denney, Jesus and the Gospel; Cambridge Biblical Essays, edition by Swete, 1909; Oxford Studies in the Syn. Problem, edition by Sanday, 1911; Salmond, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), III, 248 ff; Maclean, Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, II, 120 f; Petrie, Growth of Gospels Shown by Structural Criticism, 1910; Buckley, Introduction to Synoptic Problem, 1912.
The Language:
Dalman, Words of Jesus, translated 1909; Deissmann, Bible Studies, translated 1901; Light from the Ancient East, translated 1910; Allen, The Expositor, I, English translation, 1902; Marshall, The Expositor, 1891-94; Wellhausen, Einleitung.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889; Swete and Hawkins.
Text:
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek; Salmon, Introduction, chapter ix; Gregory, Text and Canon; Morison and Swete, in Commentary; Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
Special:
Schweizer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research; Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospels, 1911; Hogg, Christ's Message of the Kingdom, 1911; Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890; Davidson, Old Testament Theology.
J. H. Farmer
Market, Sheep
Market, Sheep - See SHEEP MARKET.
Market; Marketplace; Mart
Market; Marketplace; Mart - mar'-ket, mar'-ketplas, mart (ma`arabh, cachar; agora): (1) Ma`arabh, from a root meaning "trading" and hence, goods exchanged, and so "merchandise" in the Revised Version (British and American), "market" in the King James Version, occurs only in Ezekiel 27:13, 17, 19, 25, and is translated correctly "merchandise" in both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version. (2) Cachar means a "trading emporium," hence, mart, and merchandise. It occurs only in Isaiah 23:3 (see MERCHANDISE). (3) Agora, from root meaning "to collect," means a "town meeting-place," "resort of the people," so a place where the public generally met to exchange views and wares. No doubt, the central place soon filling up, the people thronged the adjoining streets, and so in time each street thus used came to be called agora, "marketplace"; translated "marketplace(s)" in 1 Esdras 2:18; Tobit 2:3; Matthew 11:16; 20:3; 23:7; Mark 6:56; 7:4; 12:38; Luke 7:32; 11:43; 20:46; Acts 16:19; 17:17; "Market of Appius" in Acts 28:15 means, probably, "street" (see APPII FORUM).
The marketplace in New Testament times was the public open space, either simple or ornate, in town, city or country, where (Mark 6:56) the people congregated, not only for exchange of merchandise, but for one or more of the following purposes: (1) a place where the children came together to sing, dance and play, a "back-to-date" municipal recreation center (Matthew 11:16-17; Luke 7:32); (2) a place for loafers, a sort of ancient, irresponsible labor bureau where the out-of-work idler waited the coming of an employer with whom he might bargain for his services, usually by the day (Matthew 20:1-16); (3) a place where the proud pretender could parade in long robes and get public recognition, "salutations in the market-places," e.g. the scribes and Pharisees against whom Jesus emphatically warns His disciples (Matthew 23:3-7; Mark 12:38; Luke 11:43; 20:46); (4) a place where the sick were brought for treatment, the poor man's sanatorium, a municipal hospital; Jesus "who went about doing good" often found His opportunity there (Mark 6:56); (5) a place of preliminary hearing in trials, where the accused might be brought before rulers who were present at the time, e.g. Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:19); (6) a place for religious and probably political or philosophical discussion (gossip also), a forum, a free-speech throne; no doubt often used by the early apostles not only as a place of proclaiming some truth of the new religion but also a place of advertisement for a coming synagogue service, e.g. Paul in Athens (Acts 17:17).
Wisdom of Solomon 15:12 (the King James Version) has "They counted ... our time here a market for gain," the Revised Version (British and American) "a gainful fair," margin "a keeping of festival," Greek panegurismos, "an assembly of all." Such assemblies offered particular opportunities for business dealings.
William Edward Raffety
Marmoth
Marmoth - mar'-moth, mar'-moth (Codex Vaticanus, Marmothi; Codex Alexandrinus, Marmathi): "The priest the son of Urias" to whom were committed the silver and gold for the temple by the returning exiles (1 Esdras 8:62) = "Meremoth" in parallel Ezra 8:33.
Maroth
Maroth - ma'-roth, ma'-roth (maroth; (katoikousa) (odunas): An unknown town probably in the Philistine plain, named by Micah (1:12).
Marriage
Marriage - mar'-ij:
Introduction
Scope and Viewpoint of the Present Article
1. Marriage among the Hebrews
2. Betrothal the First Formal Part
3. Wedding Ceremonies
4. Jesus' Sanction of the Institution
5. His Teaching concerning Divorce
LITERATURE
It would be interesting to study marriage biologically and sociologically, to get the far and near historical and social background of it as an institution, especially as it existed among the ancient Jews, and as it figures in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For, like all social institutions, marriage, and the family which is the outcome of marriage, must be judged, not by its status at any particular time, but in the light of its history. Such a study of it would raise a host of related historic questions, e.g. What was its origin? What part has it played in the evolution and civilization of the race? What social functions has it performed? And then, as a sequel, Can the services it has rendered to civilization and progress be performed or secured in any other way? This, indeed, would call for us to go back even farther--to try to discover the psychology of the institution and its history, the beliefs from which it has sprung and by which it has survived so long. This were a task well worth while and amply justified by much of the thinking of our time; for, as one of the three social institutions that support the much challenged form and fabric of modern civilization, marriage, private property and the state, its continued existence, in present form at least, is a matter of serious discussion and its abolition, along with the other two, is confidently prophesied. "Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it" (Bebel, Socialism and Sex, 199, Reeves, London; The Cooperative Commonwealth in Its Outline, Gronlund, 224). But such a task is entirely outside of and beyond the purpose of this article.
Neither the Bible in general, nor Jesus in particular, treats of the family from the point of view of the historian or the sociologist, but solely from that of the teacher of religion and morals. In short, their point of view is theological, rather than sociological. Moses and the prophets, no less than Jesus and His apostles, accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to certain practical, ethical questions, and they dealt with it accordingly. There is nothing in the record of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles to indicate that they gave to marriage any new social content, custom or sanction. They simply accepted it as it existed in the conventionalized civilization of the Jews of their day and used it and the customs connected with it for ethical or illustrative purposes. One exception is to be made to this general statement, namely, that Jesus granted that because of the exigencies of the social development Moses had modified it to the extent of permitting and regulating divorce, clearly indicating, however, at the same time, that He regarded such modification as out of harmony with the institution as at first given to mankind. According to the original Divine purpose it was monogamous, and any form of polygamy, and apparently of divorce, was excluded by the Divine idea and purpose. The treatment of the subject here, therefore, will be limited as follows: Marriage among the Ancient Hebrews and Other Semites; Betrothal as the First Formal Part of the Transaction; Wedding Ceremonies Connected with Marriage, especially as Reflected in the New Testament; and Jesus' Sanction and Use of the Institution, Teaching concerning Divorce, etc.
1. Marriage among the Hebrews: With the Hebrews married life was the normal life. Any exception called for apology and explanation. "Any Jew who has not a wife is no man" (Talmud). It was regarded as awaiting everyone on reaching maturity; and sexual maturity comes much earlier indeed in the East than with us in the West--in what we call childhood. The ancient Hebrews, in common with all Orientals, regarded the family as the social unit. In this their view of it coincides with that, of modern sociologists. Of the three great events in the family life, birth, marriage and death, marriage was regarded as the most important. It was a step that led to the gravest tribal and family consequences. In case of a daughter, if she should prove unsatisfactory to her husband, she would likely be returned to the ancestral home, discarded and discredited, and there would be almost inevitably a feeling of injustice engendered on one side, and a sense of mutual irritation between the families (Judges 14:20; 1 Samuel 18:19). If she failed to pass muster with her mother-in-law she would just as certainly have to go, and the results would be much the same (compare customs in China). It was a matter affecting the whole circle of relatives, and possibly tribal amity as well. It was natural and deemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of the wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians of the couple involved. Though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Genesis 24:8) and romantic attachments were not unknown (Genesis 29:20; 34:3; Judges 14:1; 1 Samuel 18:20), the gift or woman in the case was not currently thought of as having a personal existence at her own disposal. She was simply a passive unit in the family under the protection and supreme control of father or brothers. In marriage, she was practically the chattel, the purchased possession and personal property of her husband, who was her ba`al or master (Hosea 2:16), she herself being be`ulah (Isaiah 62:4). The control, however, was not always absolute (Genesis 26:34; Exodus 2:21).
The bargaining instinct, so dominant among Orientals then as now, played a large part in the transaction. In idea the family was a little kingdom of which the father was the king, or absolute ruler. There are many indications, not only that the family was the unit from which national coherence was derived, but that this unit was perpetuated through the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus society became patriarchal, and this is the key of the ancient history of the family and the nation. Through the expansion of the family group was evolved in turn the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority of the father became in turn that of the chief, the ruler, and the king. The Oriental cannot conceive, indeed, of any band, or clan, or company without a "father," even though there be no kith or kinship involved in the matter. The "father" in their thought, too, was God's representative, and as such he was simply carrying out God's purpose, for instance, in selecting a bride for his son, or giving the bride to be married to the son of another. This is as true of the far East as of the near East today. Accordingly, as a rule, the young people simply acquiesced, without question or complaint, in what was thus done for them, accepting it as though God had done it directly. Accordingly, too, the family and tribal loyalty overshadowed love-making and patriotism, in the larger sense. Out of this idea of the solidarity and selectness of the tribe and family springs the overmastering desire of the Oriental for progeny, and for the conservation of the family or the tribe at any cost. Hence, the feuds, bloody and bitter, that persist between this family or tribe and another that has in any way violated this sacred law.
Traces of what is known as beena marriage are found in the Old Testament, e.g. that of Jacob, where Laban claims Jacob's wives and children as his own (Genesis 31:31, 43), and that of Moses (Exodus 2:21; 4:18). This is that form of marriage in which the husband is incorporated into the wife's tribe, the children belonging to her tribe and descent being reckoned on her side (compare W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 94). In Samson's case we seem to have an instance of what is known among Arabs as tsadqat marriage (from tsadaq, "gift"), the kid here being the customary tsadaq (Judges 14:1-20; 15:1; 16:4). There is no hint that he meant to take his wife home. It is differentiated from prostitution in that no disgrace is attached to it and the children are recognized as legitimate by the tribe. Such marriages make it easier to understand the existence of the matriarchate, or the custom of reckoning the descent of children and property through the mothers. The influence of polygamy would work in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with the several wives. There is, however, no clear evidence in the Old Testament of polyandry (a plurality of husbands), though the Levirate marriage is regarded by some as a survival of it. In other words, polygamy among the Hebrews seems to have been confined to polygyny (a plurality of wives). It is easy to trace its chief causes: (1) desire for a numerous offspring ("May his tribe increase!"); (2) barrenness of first wife (as in Abraham's case); (3) advantages offered by marital alliances (e.g. Solomon); (4) the custom of making wives of captives taken in war (compare Psalms 45:3, 9); (5) slavery, which as it existed in the Orient almost implied it.
2. Betrothal the First Formal Part: Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the "engagement" is with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. Genesis 24:58, 60 seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (Genesis 29:1-35; 1 Samuel 18:25). It is customary in Syria today, when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all the financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage as contracted for. Then God's blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal effected, all danger from any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day. Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on till the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price--say a year or two, or, as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was "adultery" (Deuteronomy 22:23; Matthew 1:19).
Polygamy is likely to become prevalent only where conditions are abnormal, as where there is a disproportionate number of females, as in tribal life in a state of war. In settled conditions it is possible only to those able to provide "dowry" and support for each and all of the wives.
The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (1 Chronicles 7:4); among the middle class (1 Samuel 1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (Genesis 2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (Genesis 4:19). Kings are warned against it (Deuteronomy 17:17; compare Genesis 29:31; Genesis 30:1-43). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Kings 4:1-44; Psalms 128:1-6; Proverbs 31:1-31; compare Sirach 25:1; 1, 13). Marriage is applied figuratively, too, to the union between God and Israel, implying monogamy as the ideal state. Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society. Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant, XVII, i, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial., 134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having "four or even five wives," and for "marrying as many as they wish" (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. Side by side with this practice all along has been the ideal principle (Genesis 2:18) rebuking and modifying it. The legal theory that made the man "lord" of the wife (Genesis 3:16; Tenth Commandment) was likewise modified in practice by the affection of the husband and the personality of the wife.
The difference between a concubine and a wife was largely due to the wife's birth and higher position and the fact that she was usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. A slave could not be made a concubine without the wife's consent (Genesis 16:2).
3. Wedding Ceremonies: There is a disappointing uncertainty as to the exact ceremonies or proceedings connected with marriage in Bible times. We have to paint our picture from passing allusions or descriptions, and from what we know of Jewish and Arabic customs. In cases it would seem that there was nothing beyond betrothal, or the festivities following it (see Genesis 24:3 ff). Later, in the case of a virgin, an interval of not exceeding a year came to be observed.
The first ceremony, the wedding procession, apparently a relic of marriage by capture (compare Judges 5:30; Psalms 45:15), was the first part of the proceedings. The bridegroom's "friends" (John 3:29) went, usually by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants to the home of the groom (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29). The joyousness of it all is witnessed by the proverbial "voice of the bridegroom" and the cry, "Behold the bridegroom cometh!" (Jeremiah 7:34; Revelation 18:23). The procession was preferably by night, chiefly, we may infer, that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.
The marriage supper then followed, generally in the home of the groom. Today in Syria, as Dr. Mackie, of Beirut, says, when both parties live in the same town, the reception may take place in either home; but the older tradition points to the house of the groom's parents as the proper place. It is the bringing home of an already accredited bride to her covenanted husband. She is escorted by a company of attendants of her own sex and by male relatives and friends conveying on mules or by porters articles of furniture and decoration for the new home. As the marriage usually takes place in the evening, the house is given up for the day to the women who are busy robing the bride and making ready for the coming hospitality. The bridegroom is absent at the house of a relative or friend, where men congregate in the evening for the purpose of escorting him home. When he indicates that it is time to go, all rise up, and candles and torches are supplied to those who are to form the procession, and they move off. It is a very picturesque sight to see such a procession moving along the unlighted way in the stillness of the starry night, while, if it be in town or city, on each side of the narrow street, from the flat housetop or balcony, crowds look down, and the women take up the peculiar cry of wedding joy that tells those farther along that the pageant has started. This cry is taken up all along the route, and gives warning to those who are waiting with the bride that it is time to arise and light up the approach, and welcome the bridegroom with honor. As at the house where the bridegroom receives his friends before starting some come late, and speeches of congratulation have to be made, and poems have to be recited or sung in praise of the groom, and to the honor of his family, it is often near midnight when the procession begins. Meanwhile, as the night wears on, and the duties of robing the bride and adorning the house are all done, a period of relaxing and drowsy waiting sets in, as when, in the New Testament parable, both the wise and the foolish virgins were overcome with sleep. In their case the distant cry on the street brought the warning to prepare for the reception, and then came the discovery of the exhausted oil.
Of the bridegroom's retinue only a limited number would enter, their chief duty being that of escort. They might call next day to offer congratulations. An Arabic wedding rhyme says:
"To the bridegroom's door went the torch-lit array,
And then like goats they scattered away."
With their dispersion, according to custom, the doors would be closed, leaving within the relatives and invited guests; and so, when the belated virgins of the parable hastened back, they too found themselves inexorably shut out by the etiquette of the occasion. The opportunity of service was past, and they were no longer needed.
At the home all things would be "made ready," if possible on a liberal scale. John 2:1-25 gives a picture of a wedding feast where the resources were strained to the breaking point. Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it:
"He who does not invite me to his marriage
Will not have me to his funeral."
To decline the invitation to a marriage was a gross insult (Matthew 22:1-46).
It was unusual in Galilee to have a "ruler of the feast" as in Judea (John 2:1-25). There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us--there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible. The marriage was consummated by entrance into the "chamber," i.e. the nuptial chamber (Hebrew chedher), in which stood the bridal bed with a canopy (chuppah), being originally the wife's tent (Genesis 24:67; Judges 4:17). In all lands of the dispersion the name is still applied to the embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand or sit during the festivities. In Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew the bridegroom is said to "go in" to the bride.
A general survey of ancient marriage laws and customs shows that those of the Hebrews are not a peculiar creation apart from those of other peoples. A remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic races especially, may be noted, and striking parallels are found in the Code of Hammurabi, with regard, e.g., to betrothal, dowry, adultery and divorce. But modern researches have emphasized the relative purity of Old Testament sexual morality. In this, as in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world. Yet we should not expect to find among them the Christian standard. Under the new dispensation the keynote is struck by our Lord's action. The significance of His attending the marriage feast at Cana and performing His first miracle there can hardly be exaggerated. The act corresponds, too, with His teaching on the subject. He, no less than Paul, emphasizes both the honorableness of the estate and the heinousness of all sins against it.
4. Jesus' Sanction of the Institution: The most characteristic use of marriage and the family by our Lord is that in which He describes the kingdom of God as a social order in which the relationship of men to God is like that of sons to a father, and their relation to each other like that between brothers. This social ideal, which presents itself vividly and continuously to His mind, is summed up in this phrase, "Kingdom of God," which occurs more than a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. The passages in which it occurs form the interior climax of His message to men. It is no new and noble Judaism, taking the form of a political restoration, that He proclaims, and no "far-off Divine event" to be realized only in some glorious apocalyptic consummation; but a kingdom of God "within you," the chief element of it communion with God, the loving relation of "children" to a "Father," a present possession. Future in a sense it may be, as a result to be fully realized, and yet present; invisible, and yet becoming more and more visible as a new social order, a conscious brotherhood with one common, heavenly Father, proclaimed in every stage of His teaching in spite of opposition and varying fortunes with unwavering certainty of its completion--this is the "kingdom" that Jesus has made the inalienable possession of the Christian consciousness. His entire theology may be described as a transfiguration of the family (see Peabody, Jesus Christ, and the Social Question, 149 ff; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 200; Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 62; B. Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, I, 72, English translation, 1882).
Beyond this Jesus frequently used figures drawn from marriage to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the kingdom, as Paul did concerning Christ and the church. There is no suggestion of reflection upon the Old Testament teaching about marriage in His teaching except at one point, the modification of it so as to allow polygamy and divorce. Everywhere He accepts and deals with it as sacred and of Divine origin (Matthew 19:9, etc.), but He treats it as transient, that is of the "flesh" and for this life only.
5. His Teaching concerning Divorce: A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? Upon the answer to that question in every age depend momentous issues, social and civic, as well as religious. The facts bearing on the question are confessedly enshrined in the New Testament, and so the inquiry may be limited to its records. Accepting with the best scholarship the documents of the New Testament as emanating from the disciples of Jesus in the second half of the 1st century AD, the question is, what did these writers understand Jesus to teach on this subject? If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistles of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see Mark 10:2 ff; Luke 16:18; Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 7:10). The Old Testament permission was a concession, He teaches, to a low moral state and standard, and opposed to the ideal of marriage given in Gen (1 Corinthians 2:16).
"The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them" (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181 f).
Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mk and Luke. Here he seems to allow divorce for "fornication" (ei me epi porneia, save for fornication"), an exception which finds no place in the parallels (compare 1 Corinthians 7:15, which allows remarriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen). The sense here demands that "fornication" be taken in its wider sense (Hosea 2:5; Amos 7:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1). Divorce to a Jew carried with it the right of remarriage, and the words `causeth her to commit adultery' (Matthew 5:32) show that Jesus assumed that the divorced woman would marry again. Hence, if He allowed divorce, He also allowed remarriage. A critical examination of the whole passage in Mt has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of having been rewritten from Mark or from a source common to both Matthew and Mark, and combined with a semi-Jewish tradition, in short, that it is due to literary revision and compilation. The writer or compiler attempted to combine the original sayings of Jesus and His own interpretation. Believing that our Lord had not come to set aside the authority of Moses, but only certain Pharisaic exegesis, and supported, as doubtless he was, by a Jewish-Christian tradition of Palestine, he simply interpreted Mark's narrative by inserting what he regarded as the integral part of an eternal enactment of Yahweh. In doing this he was unconsciously inconsistent, not only with Mark and Luke, but also with the context of the First Gospel itself, owing to his sincere but mistaken belief that the Law of Moses must not be broken. The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible (compare Hosea; Jeremiah 3:1-25; Hermas, Mand iv.1). Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), extra vol, 27b, and The Teaching of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A. Oxon., University of the South, 1912).
The general principle expanded in the New Testament and the ideal held up before the Christians is high and clear. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole all are agreed must depend upon social conditions and the general moral development and environment.
See further DIVORCE.
LITERATURE.
Material from Mishna in Selden, Uxor Heb, London, 1546; Hamberger, Real. Encyclopedia f. Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie; McLennan, Primitive Marriage; Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895; Tristram, Eastern Customs, London, 1894; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, III, concerning the family.
George B. Eager
Marrow
Marrow - mar'-o (moach, chelebh, shiqquy, machah, "to make fat," "to grease"; muelos): Marrow is the nourisher and strengthener of the bones; it is said to moisten the bones: "The marrow (moach) of his bones is moistened" (Job 21:24). The fear of Yahweh "will be health to thy navel, and marrow (shiqquy, margin "refreshing, Hebrew moistening") to thy bones" (Proverbs 3:8). Thus, the expression is used figuratively of the things which alone can satisfy the soul: "My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow (chelebh, "fat") and fatness" (Psalms 63:5); "In this mountain will Yahweh of hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow (memuchayim, particle, plural, Pual of machah), of wines on the lees well refined" (Isaiah 25:6). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the writer speaks of the word of God, which is "living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow" (Hebrews 4:12).
H. L. E. Luering
Mars' Hill
Mars' Hill - marz hil.
See AREOPAGUS.
Marsena
Marsena - mar-se'-na, mar'-se-na (marcena'; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (Esther 1:14)): One of "the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom."
Marsh
Marsh - marsh ((1) gebhe', the American Standard Revised Version "marsh," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "marish" (Ezekiel 47:11); the King James Version "pit," the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern" (Isaiah 30:14); compare Arabic jaba', "reservoir," "watering-through"; (2) bots, "mire"; bitstsah, "mire," "fen"; compare Arabic badda, to "trickle," badad, "a little water"; (3) TiT, "mire" "clay"; (4) chomer, "mire," "clay," "mortar"; (5) ma`abheh ha-'adhamah (1 Kings 7:46), and `abhi ha-'adhamah (2 Chronicles 4:17), "clay ground"): In the vision of Ezekiel the saltness of the Dead Sea is "healed" by the stream issuing from under the threshold of the temple, "But the miry places (bitstsah) thereof, and the marshes (gebhe') thereof, shall not be healed" (Ezekiel 47:11). Gebhe' occurs elsewhere only in Isaiah 30:14, where the King James Version has "pit" and the Revised Version (British and American) "cistern." Bots, "mire," is found only in Jeremiah 38:22. Bitstsah is found also in Job 8:11,
"Can the rush grow up without mire (bitstsah)?
Can the flag grow without water?"
and in Job 40:21 (of the behemoth),
"He lieth under the lotus-trees,
In the covert of the reed, and the fen (bitstsah)."
In 1 Maccabees 9:42, 45 helos, but in 9:42 Codex Vaticanus reads oros, "mount."
Marshes are found near the mouths of some of the rivers, as the Kishon, about the Chuleh (? waters of Merom), at various places in the course of the Jordan and about the Dead Sea, especially at its south end. For the most part Palestine is rocky and dry.
Alfred Ely Day
Marshal
Marshal - mar'-shal: Not found in the King James Version, but in the Revised Version (British and American) the word represents two Hebrew words: (1) copher (Judges 5:14), translated "they that handle the marshal's staff." A difficulty arises because the usual meaning of copher is "scribe" or "writer" (so the King James Version). The revisers follow Septuagint and Greek authority which favor "marshal" as against "scribe." The office of marshal was to help the general to maintain discipline (compare 1 Maccabees 5:42). (2) Tiphcar (Jeremiah 51:27), a loan-word whose meaning is clear. Lenormant thinks it akin to a Babylonian-Assyrian word meaning "tablet-writer" (compare Delitzsch). Accordingly, the Revised Version margin renders Nahum 3:17 "thy scribes," though the Syriac has "thy warriors," as does the Targum in Jeremiah. We must await further light on both words.
George B. Eager
Mart
Mart - mart.
See MARKET.
Martha
Martha - mar'-tha (Martha, "mistress," being a transliteration of the feminine form of mar, "Lord"): Martha belonged to Bethany, and was the sister of Lazarus and Mary (John 11:1 f). From the fact that the house into which Jesus was received belonged to Martha, and that she generally took the lead in action, it is inferred that she was the eider sister. Martha was one of those who gave hospitality to Jesus during His public ministry. Thus, in the course of those wanderings which began when "he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerus" (Luke 9:51), he "entered into a certain village"--its name is not stated--and "a certain woman named Martha received him into her house" (Luke 10:38). Martha, whose sense of responsibility as hostess weighed heavily upon her, was "cumbered about much serving," and her indignation was aroused at the lack of assistance given to her by her sister. Her words, "Lord, dost thou not care?" implied a certain reproach to Jesus also, in that she felt He showed a want of sympathy with her efforts and was the cause of Mary's remissness. But Jesus, in tones of gentle reproof, reminded her that for Him not the preparation of an elaborate meal but the hearing of His Word in the spirit of Mary was the "one thing needful" (Luke 10:39-42).
Martha is first mentioned by John--the only other Gospel writer who refers to Martha--in his account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (John 11:1-44). The narrative indicates, however, that Jesus was already on terms of the closest friendship with her and her household (compare John 11:3, 5). In the incident which John here records, Martha again displayed her more practical nature by going out to meet Jesus, while Mary sat in the house (John 11:20). But she was not behind her sister in her love for her brother (John 11:19), in her faith in Jesus (John 11:21 f) and in her belief in the final resurrection (John 11:24). The power of Him, whom she termed the "Teacher," to restore Lazarus to life even upon earth was beyond her understanding. To the words of Jesus concerning this she gave, however, a verbal assent, and went and informed Mary, "The Teacher is here, and calleth thee" (John 11:27 f). Yet she remained inwardly unconvinced, and remonstrated when Jesus ordered the stone before the grave to be removed (John 11:39). Jesus then recalled His previous words to her remembrance (John 11:40), and vindicated them by restoring her brother to life (John 11:41-44). After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus then made His departure, but after a short stay in Ephraim (John 11:54) He returned to Bethany (John 12:1). While He supped there, Martha once more served, and Lazarus was also present (John 12:2). It was on this occasion that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (John 12:3-8). According to Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, the anointing took place in the house of Simon the leper, and it has hence been concluded by some that Martha was the wife or widow of Simon. The anointing described in Luke 7:36-50 happened in the house of Simon a Pharisee. But in none of the synoptist accounts is Martha mentioned. For the relationship of these anointings with each other, see MARY,IV . As, according to John, the abode of the sisters was in Bethany, a further difficulty of a topographical nature is raised by those who hold that Luke implies, from the Galilean setting of Luke 10:38-41, that the sisters lived in Galilee. But the information supplied by Luke, upon which this inference is based, is of the vaguest (compare Luke 10:38), and the great division of Luke's Gospel (Luke 9:51 through Luke 18:31) has within it no organic cohesion of parts. In it is mentioned that on two separate occasions Jesus passed through Samaria (Luke 9:52; 17:11). It is therefore more logical to suppose that the events described in Luke 10:38-41, falling within the intervening period, took place in Bethany during an excursion of Jesus to Judea, and formed one of the several visits upon which the friendship recorded in John 11:3, 5 was built. According to a fragment of a Coptic gospel belonging to the 2nd century (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 38, 39), Martha was present with the other two Marys at the empty grave of Jesus (compare Matthew 28:1, 11), and went and informed the disciples.
C. M. Kerr
Martyr
Martyr - mar'-ter (martus, Aeolic martur): One who gives heed, and so, a "witness," so translated in numerous passages, both as of one bearing testimony, and also as of one who is a spectator of anything (see WITNESS). In the King James Version rendered "martyr" in Acts 22:20, "thy martyr Stephen"; and Revelation 2:13, "Antipas my faithful martyr"; also 17:6, "the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," where alone the American Standard Revised Version retains "martyrs." These 3 passages are the beginning of the use of the word "martyr" for such witnesses as were faithful even unto death, its uniform modern use.
Marvel; Marvelous
Marvel; Marvelous - mar'-vel, mar'-vel-us (tamah, pala'; thaumazo, thaumastos): "To marvel" is the translation of tamah, "to wonder" (Genesis 43:33; Psalms 48:5, the Revised Version (British and American) "were amazed"; Ecclesiastes 5:8); of thaumazo, "to admire," "wonder" (Matthew 8:10, 27; Mark 5:20; John 3:7; Acts 2:7; Revelation 17:7 the King James Version, etc.); "marvel" (substantive) occurs in the plural as translation of pala', "to distinguish," figuratively, "to make wonderful" (Exodus 34:10, "I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought" (the Revised Version margin "created")); and of thaumastos (thauma) (2 Corinthians 11:14).
"Marvelous" is the translation of pala', "marvelous works" (1 Chronicles 16:12, 24; Psalms 9:1); "marvelous things" (Job 5:9; 10:16; Psalms 31:21; 118:23; Isaiah 29:14; Daniel 11:36; Zechariah 8:6, bis); "marvellously," pala' (Job 37:5; Habakkuk 1:5 twice (tamah), "regard and wonder marvelously," literally, "marvel marvelously"); thaumastos, "admirable," "wonderful," is translated "marvelous" (Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 15:1, 3, etc.).
In Apocrypha we have "marvel" (Ecclesiastes 11:10; 2 Maccabees 1:22; 7:12); "marvelleth" (Ecclesiasticus 40:7; 43:18); "marvellous" (Wisdom of Solomon 10:17; 19:8, etc., mostly thaumazo and compounds).
The Revised Version (British and American) has "wonder" for "marvel" (Revelation 17:7)' "the marvel" for a "marvellous thing" (John 9:30); "marvelled" for "wondered" (Luke 8:25; 11:14); "marvelled at" for "admired" (2 Thessalonians 1:10); "marveling" for "wondered" (Luke 9:43); "marvellous" for "wondrous" (1 Chronicles 16:9; Psalms 105:2); "marvellous things" for "and wonders" (Job 9:10); "wonderful" for "marvellous" (Psalms 139:14); for "marvelled" (Matthew 9:8), "were afraid," and (Mark 12:17) "marvelled greatly" (different texts).
W. L. Walker
Mary
Mary - ma'-ri, mar'-i (Maria, Mariam, Greek form of Hebrew miryam):
I. DEFINITION AND QUESTIONS OF IDENTIFICATION
The Name Mary in the New Testament
II. MARY, THE VIRGIN
1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives
2. Mary at Cana
3. Mary and the Career of Jesus
4. Mary at the Cross
5. Mary in the Christian Community
6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition
(1) Legend
(2) Dogma
(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness
(b) Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity
(c) Doctrine of Mary's Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor
(3) Conclusion
III. MARY MAGDALENE
1. Mary Not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7
2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck
IV. MARY OF BETHANY
1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative
2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone
3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison
4. Character of Mary
V. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES
VI. MARY, THE MOTHER OF JOHN MARK
I. Definition and Questions of Identification. A Hebrew feminine proper name of two persons in the Old Testament (see Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4; 1 Chronicles 4:17) and of a number not certainly determined in the New Testament. The prevalence of the name in New Testament times has been attributed, with no great amount of certainty, to the popularity of Mariamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I.
The Name Mary in the New Testament:
(1) The name Mary occurs in 51 passages of the New Testament to which the following group of articles is confined (see MIRIAM). Collating all these references we have the following apparent notes of identification: (a) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (b) Mary Magdalene; (c) Mary, the mother of James; (d) Mary, the mother of Joses; (e) Mary, the wife of Clopas; (f) Mary of Bethany; (g) Mary, the mother of Mark; (h) Mary of Rome; (i) the "other" Mary.
(2) A comparison of Matthew 27:56; 28:1 with Mark 15:47 seems clearly to identify the "other" Mary with Mary the mother of Joses.
(3) Mark 15:40 identifies Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses (compare Mark 15:47) (see Allen's note on Matthew 27:56).
(4) At this point a special problem of identification arises. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned as being present at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, the latter's sister and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). In the other notices of the group at the cross, Mary, the mother of James, is mentioned (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). Elsewhere, James is regularly designated "son of Alpheus" (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). Since it can hardly be doubted that James, the apostle, and James the Less, the son of Mary, are one and the same person, the conclusion seems inevitable that Mary, the mother of James, is also the wife of Alpheus. Here we might stop and leave the wife of Clopas unidentified, but the fact that the name Alpheus (Alphaios) is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic chalpay, together with the unlikelihood that anyone important enough to be mentioned by John would be omitted by the synoptists and that another Mary, in addition to the three definitely mentioned, could be present and not be mentioned, points to the conclusion that the wife of Clopas is the same person as the wife of Alpheus (see ALPHAEUS). Along with this reasonable conclusion has grown, as an excrescence, another for which there is no basis whatever; namely, that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This would make the apostle James the cousin of Jesus, and, by an extension of the idea, would identify James, the apostle, with James, the "Lord's brother." The available evidence is clearly against both these inferences (see Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).
(5) One other possible identification is offered for our consideration. Zahn, in an exceedingly interesting note (New Testament, II, 514), identifies Mary of Rome (Romans 16:6) with the "other" Mary of Matthew. We need not enter into a discussion of the point thus raised, since the identification of a woman of whom we have no details given is of little more than academic interest.
We are left free, however, by the probabilities of the case to confine our attention to the principal individuals who bear the name of Mary. We shall discuss Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Magdala; Mary of Bethany; Mary, the mother of James and Joses; Mary, the mother of Mark.
II. Mary, the Virgin. The biography of the mother of Jesus is gathered about a brief series of episodes which serve to exhibit her leading characteristics in clear light. Two causes have operated to distort and make unreal the very clear and vivid image of Mary left for us in the Gospels. Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration has well-nigh removed Mary from history (see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION). On the other hand, reaction and overemphasis upon certain features of the Gospel narrative have led some to credit Mary with a negative attitude toward our Lord and His claims, which she assuredly never occupied. It is very important that we should follow the narrative with unprejudiced eyes and give due weight to each successive episode.
Mary appears in the following passages: the Infancy narratives, Matthew 1:1-25 and Matthew 2:1-23; Luke 1:1-80 and Luke 2:1-52; the wedding at Cana of Galilee, John 2:1-11; the episode of Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:21, 31 ff; the incident at the cross, John 19:25 ff; the scene in the upper chamber, Acts 1:14.
1. Mary in the Infancy Narratives: (1) It is to be noted, first of all, that Mary and her experiences form the narrative core of both Infancy documents. This is contrary to the ordinary opinion, but is unquestionably true. She is obviously the object of special interest to Luke (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 76 f), and there are not wanting indications that Luke's story came from Mary herself. But, while Matthew's account does not exhibit his interest in Mary quite so readily, that he was interested in the pathetic story of the Lord's mother is evident.
Luke tells the story of Mary's inward and deeply personal experiences, her call (1:26 f), her maidenly fears (1:29,35), her loyal submission (1:38), her outburst of sacred and unselfish joy (1:39-55). From this anticipatory narrative he passes at once to the Messianic fulfillment.
Matthew tells the story of the outward and, so to say, public experiences of Mary which follow hard upon the former and are in such dramatic contrast with them: the shame and suspicion which fell upon her (1:18); her bitter humiliation (1:19), her ultimate vindication (1:20 f). Here the two narratives supplement each other by furnishing different details but, as in other instances, converge upon the central fact--the central fact here being Mary herself, her character, her thoughts, her experiences. The point to be emphasized above all others is that we have real biography, although in fragments; in that the same person appears in the inimitable reality of actual characterization, in both parts of the story. This is sufficient guaranty of historicity; for no two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied the other--which is evidently not the case here. More than this, the story is a truly human narrative in which the remarkable character of the events which took place in her life only serves to bring into sharper relief the simple, humble, natural qualities of the subject of them.
(2) One can hardly fail to be impressed, in studying Mary's character with her quietness of spirit; her meditative inwardness of disposition; her admirable self-control; her devout and gracious gift of sacred silence. The canticle (Luke 1:46-55), which at least expresses Luke's conception of her nature, indicates that she is not accustomed to dwell much upon herself (4 lines only call particular attention to herself), and that her mind is saturated with the spirit and phraseology of the Old Testament. The intensely Jewish quality of her piety thus expressed accounts for much that appears anomalous in her subsequent career as depicted in the Gospels.
2. Mary at Cana: The first episode which demands our attention is the wedding at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). The relationship between Jesus and His mother has almost eclipsed other interests in the chapter. It is to be noted that the idea of wanton interference on the part of Mary and of sharp rebuke on the part of Jesus is to be decisively rejected. The key to the meaning of this episode is to be found in 4 simple items: (1) in a crisis of need, Mary turns naturally to Jesus as to the one from whom help is to be expected; (2) she is entirely undisturbed by His reply, whatever its meaning may be; (3) she prepares the way for the miracle by her authoritative directions to the servants; (4) Jesus does actually relieve the situation by an exercise of power. Whether she turned to Jesus with distinctly Messianic expectation, or whether Jesus intended to convey a mild rebuke for her eagerness, it is not necessary for us to inquire, as it is not possible for us to determine. It is enough that her spontaneous appeal to her Son did not result in disappointment, since, in response to her suggestion or, at least, in harmony with it, He "manifested his glory." The incident confirms the Infancy narrative in which Mary's quiet and forceful personality is exhibited.
3. Mary and the Career of Jesus: In Matthew 12:46 (parallel Mark 3:31-35), we are told that, when His mother and His brethren came seeking Him, Jesus in the well-known remark concerning His true relatives in the kingdom of heaven intended to convey a severe rebuke to His own household for an action which involved both unbelief and presumptuous interference in His great life-work. The explanation of this incident, which involves no such painful implications as have become connected with it in the popular mind, is to be found in Mark's account. He interrupts his narrative of the arrival of the relatives (which belongs in Mark 3:21) by the account of the accusation made by the scribes from Jerusalem that the power of Jesus over demons was due to Beelzebub. This goes a long way toward explaining the anxiety felt by the relatives of Jesus, since the ungoverned enthusiasm of the multitude. which gave Him no chance to rest and seemed to threaten His health, was matched, contrariwise, by the bitter, malignant opposition of the authorities, who would believe any malicious absurdity rather than that His power came from God. The vital point is that the attempt of Mary and her household to get possession of the person of Jesus, in order to induce Him to go into retirement for a time, was not due to captious and interfering unbelief, but to loving anxiety. The words of Jesus have the undoubted ring of conscious authority and express the determination of one who wills the control of his own life--but it is a serious mistake to read into them any faintest accent of satire. It has been well said (Horace Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subject, 30) that Jesus would scarcely make use of the family symbolism to designate the sacred relationships of the kingdom of heaven, while, at the same time, He was depreciating the value and importance of the very relationships which formed the basis of His analogy. The real atmosphere of the incident is very different from this.
4. Mary at the Cross: To be sure that many have misinterpreted the above incident we need only turn to the exquisitely tender scene at the cross recorded by John (19:25 ff). This scene, equally beautiful whether one considers the relationship which it discloses as existing between Jesus and His mother, or between Jesus and His well-beloved disciple removes all possible ambiguity which might attach to the preceding incidents, and reveals the true spirit of the Master's home. Jesus could never have spoken as He did from the cross unless He had consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of an eldest son. The tone and quality of the scene could never have been what it is had there not been a steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and His mother. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself.
5. Mary in the Christian Community: The final passage which we need to consider (Acts 1:14) is especially important because in it we discover Mary and her household at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer. It is also clear that Mary herself and the family, who seemed to be very completely under her influence, whatever may have been their earlier misgivings, never broke with the circle of disciples, and persistently kept within the range of experiences which led at last to full-orbed Christian faith. This makes it sufficiently evident, on the one hand, that the household never shared the feelings of the official class among the Jews; and, on the other, that the family of Jesus passed through the same cycle of experiences which punctuated the careers of the whole body of disciples on the way to faith. The beating of this simple but significant fact upon the historical trustworthiness of the body of incidents just passed in review is evident.
The sum of the matter concerning Mary seems to be this: The mother of Jesus was a typical Jewish believer of the best sort. She was a deeply meditative, but by no means a daring or original thinker. Her inherited Messianic beliefs did not and perhaps could not prepare her for the method of Jesus which involved so much that was new and unexpected. But her heart was true, and from the beginning to the day of Pentecost, she pondered in her heart the meaning of her many puzzling experiences until the light came. The story of her life and of her relationship to Jesus is consistent throughout and touched with manifold unconscious traits of truth. Such a narrative could not have been feigned or fabled.
6. Mary in Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Tradition: (1) Legend. The ecclesiastical treatment of Mary consists largely of legend and dogma, about equally fictitious and unreliable. The legendary accounts, which include the apocryphal gospels, deal, for the most part, with details tails of her parentage and early life; her betrothal and marriage to Joseph; her journey to Bethlehem and the birth of her child. At this point the legendary narratives, in their crass wonder-mongering and indelicate intimacy of detail, are in striking contrast to the chaste reserve of the canonical story, and of evidential value on that account.
(2) Dogma. There is, in addition, a full-grown legend concerning Mary's later life in the house of John; of her death in which the apostles were miraculously allowed to participate; her bodily translation to heaven; her reception at the hands of Jesus and her glorification in heaven. In this latter series of statements, we have already made the transition from legend to dogma. It is quite clear, from the statements of Roman Catholic writers themselves, that no reliable historical data are to be found among these legendary accounts. The general attitude of modern writers is exhibited in the following sentences (from Wilhelm and Scannel, Manual of Catholic Theology, II, 220, quoted by Mayor, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 288, note): "Mary's corporeal assumption into heaven is so thoroughly implied in the notion of her personality as given by Bible and dogma, that the church, can dispense with strict historical evidence of the fact." If that is the way one feels, there is very little to say about it. Aside from the quasi-historical dogma of Mary's bodily assumption, the Roman Catholic doctrinal interpretation of her person falls into three parts.
(a) The Dogma of Her Sinlessness: This is discussed under IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (which see) and need not detain us here.
(b) Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity: It is evident that this, too, is a doctrine of such a nature that its advocates might, with advantage to their argument, have abstained from the appearance of critical discussion.
Even if all the probabilities of exegesis are violated and the cumulative evidence that Mary had other children done away with; if the expression, "brethren of the Lord" is explained as "foster-brethren," "cousins" or what-not; if Jesus is shown to be not only "first-born" but "only-born" Son (Luke 2:7); if the expression of Matthew 1:25 is interpreted as meaning "up to and beyond" (Pusey, et al.; compare Roman Catholic Dict., 604), it would still be as far as possible from a demonstration of the dogma. That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginity--perpetual or otherwise. That this thought has entered the minds of Roman Catholic apologists although not openly expressed by them, is evidenced by the fact that while certain forms of dealing with the "brethren-of-the-Lord" question make these the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the favorite doctrine includes the perpetual virginity of Joseph. Just as the idea of the sinlessness of Mary has led to the dogma of the immaculate conception, so the idea of her perpetual virginity demands the ancillary notion of Joseph's. No critical or historical considerations are of any possible use here. It is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence, and might better be openly made such.
It is evident that a very serious moral issue is raised here. The question is not whether virginity is a higher form of life than marriage. One might be prepared to say that under certain circumstances it is. The point at issue here is very different. If Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. How a Roman Catholic, to whom marriage is a sacrament, can entertain such a notion is an unfathomable mystery. The fact that Mary was miraculously the mother of the Messiah has nothing to do with the question of her privilege and obligation in the holiest of human relationships. Back of this unwholesome dogma are two utterly false ideas: that the marriage relationship is incompatible with holy living, and that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life.
(c) Doctrine of Mary's Glorification as the Object of Worship and Her Function as Intercessor:
With no wish to be polemic toward Roman Catholicism, and, on the contrary, with every desire to be sympathetic, it is very difficult to be patient with the puerilities which disfigure the writings of Roman Catholic dogmaticians in the discussion of this group of doctrines.
(i) Take, for example, the crude literalism involved in the identification of the woman of Revelation 12:1-6 with Mary. Careful exegesis of the passage (especially Revelation 12:6), in connection with the context, makes it clear that no hint of Mary's status in heaven is intended. As a matter of fact, Mary, in any literal sense, is not referred to at all. Mary's motherhood along with that of the mother of Moses is very likely the basis of the figure, but the woman of the vision is the church, which is, at once, the mother and the body of her Lord (see Milligan, Expositors' Bible, "Revelation," 196 f).
Three other arguments are most frequently used to justify the place accorded to Mary in the liturgy.
(ii) Christ's perpetual humanity leads to His perpetual Sonship to Mary. This argument, if it carries any weight at all, in this connection, implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother. It is, however, clear from the Gospels that the subjection to His parents which continued after the incident in the Temple (Luke 2:51) was gently but firmly laid aside at the outset of the public ministry (see above,II , 2, 3). In all that pertains to His heavenly office, as Lord, Mary's position is one of dependence, not of authority.
(iii) Christ hears her prayers. Here, again, dogmatic assumption is in evidence. That He hears her prayers, even if true in a very special sense, does not, in the least, imply that prayers are to be addressed to her or that she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Him.
(iv) Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally His spiritual body would be her special care in heaven. But, on any reasonable hypothesis, Mary was, is, and must remain, a part of that body (see Acts 1:14). Unless she is intrinsically a Divine being, her care for the church cannot involve her universal presence in it and her accessibility to the prayers of her fellow-believers.
To a non-Romanist, the most suggestive fact in the whole controversy is that the statements of cautious apologists in support of the ecclesiastical attitude toward Mary, do not, in the least degree, justify the tone of extravagant adulation which marks the non-polemical devotional literature of the subject (see Dearden, Modern Romanism Examined, 22 f).
(3) Conclusion. Our conclusion on the whole question is that the literature of Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and, psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.
III. Mary Magdalene
(Maria Magdalene = of "Magdala").--A devoted follower of Jesus who entered the circle of the taught during the Galilean ministry and became prominent during the last days. The noun "Magdala," from which the adjective "Magdalene" is formed, does not occur in the Gospels (the word in Matthew 15:39, is, of course, "Magadan"). The meaning of this obscure reference is well summarized in the following quotations from Plummer (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 215): "'Magdala is only the Greek form of mighdol or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine' (Tristram, Bible Places, 260); and is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bears the name of Mejdel near the center of the western shore of the lake."
1. Mary not the Sinful Woman of Luke 7: As she was the first to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus, it is important that we should get a correct view of her position and character. The idea that she was a penitent, drawn from the life of the street, undoubtedly arose, in the first instance, from a misconception of the nature of her malady, together with an altogether impossible identification of her with the woman who was a sinner of the preceding section of the Gospel. It is not to be forgotten that the malady demon-possession, according to New Testament ideas (see DEMON,DEMONOLOGY ), had none of the implications of evil temper and malignant disposi-tion popularly associated with "having a devil." The possessed was, by our Lord and the disciples looked upon as diseased, the victim of an alien and evil power, not an accomplice of it. Had this always been understood and kept in mind, the unfortunate identification of Mary with the career of public prostitution would have been much less easy.
According to New Testament usage, in such cases the name would have been withheld (compare Luke 7:37; John 8:3). At the same time the statement that 7 demons had been cast out of Mary means either that the malady was of exceptional severity, possibly involving several relapses (compare Luke 11:26), or that the mode of her divided and haunted consciousness (compare Mark 5:9) suggested the use of the number 7. Even so, she was a healed invalid, not a rescued social derelict.
The identification of Mary with the sinful woman is, of course, impossible for one who follows carefully the course of the narrative with an eye to the transitions. The woman of Luke 7:1-50 is carefully covered with the concealing cloak of namelessness. Undoubtedly known by name to the intimate circle of first disciples, it is extremely doubtful whether she was so known to Luke. Her history is definitely closed at Luke 7:50.
The name of Mary is found at the beginning of a totally new section of the Gospel (see Plummer's analysis, op. cit., xxxvii), where the name of Mary is introduced with a single mark of identification, apart from her former residence, which points away from the preceding narrative and is incompatible with it. If the preceding account of the anointing were Mary's introduction into the circle of Christ's followers, she could not be identified by the phrase of Luke. Jesus did not cast a demon out of the sinful woman of Luke 7:1-50, and Mary of Magdala is not represented as having anointed the Lord's feet. The two statements cannot be fitted together.
2. Mary Not a Nervous Wreck: Mary has been misrepresented in another way, scarcely less serious. She was one of the very first witnesses to the resurrection, and her testimony is of sufficient importance to make it worth while for those who antagonize the narrative to discredit her testimony. This is done, on the basis of her mysterious malady, by making her a paranoiac who was in the habit of "seeing things." Renan is the chief offender in this particular, but others have followed his example.
(1) To begin with, it is to be remarked that Mary had been cured of her malady in such a marked way that, henceforth, throughout her life, she was a monument to the healing power of Christ. What He had done for her became almost a part of her name along with the name of her village. It is not to be supposed that a cure so signal would leave her a nervous wreck, weak of will, wavering in judgment, the victim of hysterical tremors and involuntary hallucinations.
(2) There is more than this a priori consideration against such an interpretation of Mary. She was the first at the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). But she was also the last at the cross--she and her companions (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:40). A glance at the whole brief narrative of her life in the Gospels will interpret this combination of statements. Mary first appears near the beginning of the narrative of the Galilean ministry as one of a group consisting of "many" (Luke 8:3), among them Joanna, wife of Chuzas, Herod's steward, who followed with the Twelve and ministered to them of their substance. Mary then disappears from the text to reappear as one of the self-appointed watchers of the cross, thereafter to join the company of witnesses to the resurrection. The significance of these simple statements for the understanding of Mary's character and position among the followers of Jesus is not far to seek. She came into the circle of believers, marked out from the rest by an exceptional experience of the Lord's healing power. Henceforth, to the very end, with unwearied devotion, with intent and eager willingness, with undaunted courage even in the face of dangers which broke the courage of the chosen Twelve, she followed and served her Lord. It is impossible that such singleness of purpose, such strength of will, and, above all, such courage in danger, should have been exhibited by a weak, hysterical, neurotic incurable. The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Master's need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.
IV. Mary of Bethany. Another devoted follower of Jesus. She was a resident of Bethany (Bethania), and a member of the family consisting of a much-beloved brother, Lazarus, and another sister, Martha, who made a home for Jesus within their own circle whenever He was in the neighborhood.
The one descriptive reference, aside from the above, connected with Mary, has caused no end of perplexity. John (11:2) states that it was this Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. This reference would be entirely satisfied by the narrative of John 12:1, 8, and no difficulty would be suggested, were it not for the fact that Luke (John 7:36-50) records an anointing of Jesus by a woman, accompanied with the wiping of His feet with her hair. The identification of these two anointings would not occasion any great difficulty, in spite of serious discrepancies as to time, place and other accessories of the action, but for the very serious fact that the woman of Luke 7:1-50 is described as a sinner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Testament times. This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hypothesis.
On the other hand, we are confronted with at least one serious difficulty in affirming two anointings. This is well stated by Mayor (Hastings Dictionary Bible, III, 280a): "Is it likely that our Lord would have uttered such a high encomium upon Mary's act if she were only following the example already set by the sinful woman of Galilee; or (taking the other view) if she herself were only repeating under more favorable circumstances the act of loving devotion for which she had already received His commendation?" We shall be compelled to face this difficulty in case we are forced to the conclusion that there were more anointings than one.
1. Attack upon Luke's Narrative: In the various attempts to solve this problem, or rather group of problems, otherwise than by holding to two anointings, Luke, who stands alone against Mark, Matthew and John, has usually suffered loss of confidence. Mayor (op. cit., 282a) suggests the possibility that the text of Luke has been tampered with, and that originally his narrative contained no reference to anointing. This is a desperate expedient which introduces more difficulties than it solves. Strauss and other hostile critics allege confusion on the part of Luke between the anointing at Bethany and the account of the woman taken in adultery, but, as Plummer well says, the narrative shows no signs of confusion. "The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity toward Simon, and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection" (International Critical Commentary, "Luke," 209).
2. Evidence of Luke Taken Alone: The first step in the solution of this difficulty is to note carefully the evidence supplied by Luke's narrative taken by itself. Mary is named for the first time in Luke 10:38-42 in a way which clearly indicates that the family of Bethany is there mentioned for the first time (a "certain tis woman named Martha," and "she had a sister called Mary," etc.). This phrasing indicates the introduction of a new group of names (compare John 11:1). It is also a clear indication of the fact that Luke does not identify Mary with the sinful woman of Luke 7:1-50 (compare Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8).
3. Evidence Sifted by Comparison: Our next task is to note carefully the relationship between the narratives of Mark, Matthew and John on one side, and that of Luke on the other. We may effectively analyze the narratives under the following heads: (1) notes of time and place; (2) circumstances and scenery of the incident; (3) description of the person who did the anointing; (4) complaints of her action, by whom and for what; (5) the lesson drawn from the woman's action which constitutes our Lord's defense of it; (6) incidental features of the narrative.
Under (1) notice that all three evangelists place the incident near the close of the ministry and at Bethany. Under (2) it is important to observe that Matthew and Mark place the scene in the house of Simon "the leper," while John states vaguely that a feast was made for Him by persons not named and that Martha served. Under (3) we observe that Matthew and Mark say "a woman," while John designates Mary. (4) According to Matthew, the disciples found fault; according to Mark, some of those present found fault; while according to John, the fault-finder was Judas Iscariot. According to all three, the ground or complaint is the alleged wastefulness of the action. (5) Again, according to all three, our Lord defended the use made of the ointment by a mysterious reference to an anointing of His body for the burial. John's expression in particular is most interesting and peculiar (see John 12:7). (6) The Simon in whose house the incident is said to have taken place is by Matthew and Mark designated "the leper." This must mean either that he had previously been cured or that his disease had manifested itself subsequent to the feast. Of these alternatives the former is the more natural (see Gould, International Critical Commentary, "Mark," 257). The presence of a healed leper on this occasion, together with the specific mention of Lazarus as a guest, would suggest that the feast was given by people, in and about Bethany, who had especial reason to be grateful to Jesus for the exercise of His healing power.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the narratives of Matthew, Mark and John refer to the same incident. The amount of convergence and the quality of it put this identification among the practical certainties. The only discrepancies of even secondary importance are a difference of a few days in the time (Gould says four) and the detail as to the anointing of head or feet. It is conceivable, and certainly no very serious matter, that John assimilated his narrative at this point to the similar incident of Luke 7:1-50.
An analysis of the incident of Luke 7:1-50 with reference to the same points of inquiry discloses the fact that it cannot be the same as that described by the other evangelists. (1) The time and place indications, such as they are, point to Galilee and the Galilean ministry. This consideration alone is a formidable obstacle in the way of any such identification. (2) The immediate surroundings are different. Simon "the leper" and Simon "the Pharisee" can hardly be one person. No man could have borne both of these designations. In addition to this, it is difficult to believe that a Pharisee of Simon's temper would have entertained Jesus when once he had been proscribed by the authorities. Simon's attitude was a very natural one at the beginning of Christ's ministry, but the combination of hostility and questioning was necessarily a temporary mood. (3) The description of the same woman as sinner in the sense of Luke 7:1-50 in one Gospel; simply as a woman in two others; and as the beloved and honored Mary of Bethany in a third is not within the range of probability, especially as there is no hint of an attempt at explanation on the part of any of the writers. At any rate, prima facie, this item in Luke's description is seriously at variance with the other narratives. (4) Luke is again at variance with the others, if he is supposed to refer to the same event, in the matter of the complaint and its cause. In Luke's account there is no complaint of the woman's action suggested. There is no hint that anybody thought or pretended to think that she had committed a sinful waste of precious material. The only complaint is Simon's, and that is directed against the Lord Himself, because Simon, judging by himself, surmised that Jesus did not spurn the woman because He did not know her character. This supposed fact had a bearing on the question of our Lord's Messiahship, concerning which Simon was debating; otherwise one suspects he had little interest in the episode. This fact is, as we shall see, determinative for the understanding of the incident and puts it apart from all other similar episodes.
(5) The lesson drawn from the act by our Lord was in each incident different. The sinful woman was commended for an act of courtesy and tenderness which expressed a love based upon gratitude for deliverance and forgiveness. Mary was commended for an act which had a mysterious and sacramental relationship to the Lord's death, near at hand.
This brings us to the point where we may consider the one serious difficulty, that alleged by Mayor and others, against the hypothesis of two anointings, namely, that a repetition of an act like this with commendation attached would not be likely to occur. The answer to this argument is that the difficulty itself is an artificial one due to a misreading of the incident. In the point of central reference the two episodes are worlds apart. The act of anointing in each case was secondary, not primary. Anointing was one of those general and prevalent acts of social courtesy which might mean much or little, this or that, and might be repeated a score of times in a year with a different meaning each time. The matter of primary importance in every such case would be the purpose and motive of the anointing. By this consideration alone we may safely discriminate between these incidents. In the former case, the motive was to express the love of a forgiven penitent. In the latter, the motive was gratitude for something quite different, a beloved brother back from the grave, and, may we not say (in view of John 12:7), grief and foreboding? That Mary's feeling was expressed in the same way outwardly as that of the sinful woman of the early ministry does not change the fact that the feeling was different, that the act was different and that, consequently, the commendation she received, being for a different thing, was differently expressed. The two anointings are not duplicates. Mary's act, though later, was quite as spontaneous and original as that of the sinful woman, and the praise bestowed upon her quite as natural and deserved.
4. Character of Mary: With this fictitious and embarrassing identification out of the way, we are now free to consider briefly the career and estimate the character of Mary. (1) At the outset it is worth mentioning that we have in the matter of these two sisters a most interesting and instructive point of contact between the synoptic and Johannine traditions. The underlying unity and harmony of the two are evident here as elsewhere. In Luke 10:38-42 we are afforded a view of Mary and Martha photographic in its clear revelation of them both. Martha is engaged in household affairs, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, absorbed in listening. This, of course, might mean that Mary was idle and listless, leaving the burden of responsibility for the care of guests upon her more conscientious sister. Most housewives are inclined to take this view and to think that Martha has been hardly dealt with. The story points to the contrary. It will be noticed that Mary makes no defense of herself and that the Master makes no criticism of Martha until she criticizes Mary. When He does speak, it is with the characteristic and inimitable gentleness, but in a way leaving nothing to be desired in the direction of completeness. He conveyed His love, His perfect understanding of the situation, His defense of Mary, His rebuke to Martha, in a single sentence which contains a perfect photograph of the two loved sisters. Martha is not difficult to identify. She was just one of those excellent and tiresome women whose fussy concern and bustling anxiety about the details of household management make their well-meant hospitality a burden to all their guests. Mary's quiet and restful interest in the guest and His conversation must be set against the foil of Martha's excess of concern in housework and the serving of food. When one comes to think of it, Mary chose the better part of hospitality, to put no higher construction upon her conduct. (2) In John 11:20, we are told that Martha went forth to meet Jesus while Mary remained in the house. In this we have no difficulty in recognizing the same contrast of outwardness and inwardness in the dispositions of the sisters; especially, as when Mary does come at Martha's call to meet Jesus, she exhibits an intensity of feeling of which Martha gives no sign. It is significant that, while Mary says just what Martha had already said (John 11:21, 32), her way of saying it and her manner as a whole so shakes the Lord's composure that He is unable to answer her directly but addresses His inquiry to the company in general (John 11:34). (3) Then we come to the events of the next chapter. The supper is given in Bethany. Martha serves. Of course she serves. She always serves when there is opportunity. Waiting on guests, plate in hand, was the innocent delight of her life. One cannot fail to see that, in a single incidental sentence, the Martha of Luke 10:38-42 is sketched again in lifelikeness. It is the same Martha engaged in the same task. But what of Mary in this incident? She is shown in an unprecedented role, strange to an oriental woman and especially to one so retiring in disposition as Mary. Her action not only thrust her into a public place alone, but brought her under outspoken criticism. But after all, this is just what we come to expect from these deep, intense, silent natures. The Mary who sat at Jesus' feet in listening silence while Martha bustled about the house, who remained at home while Martha went out to meet Him, is the very one to hurl herself at His feet in a storm and passion of tears when she does meet Him and to break out in a self-forgetful public act of devotion, strange to her modest disposition, however native to her deep emotion.
Martha was a good and useful woman. No one would deny that, least of all the Master who loved her (John 11:5). But she lived on the surface of things, and her affections and her piety alike found adequate and satisfying expression at all times in the ordinary kindly offices of hospitality and domestic service. Not so Mary. Her disposition was inward, silent, brooding, with a latent capacity for stress and the forthwith, unconventional expression of feelings, slowly gathering intensity through days of thought and repression. Mary would never be altogether at home in the world of affairs. Hers was a rare spirit, doomed often to loneliness and misunderstanding except at the hands of rarely discerning spirits, such as she happily met in the person of her Lord.
V. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses. Under this caption it is necessary merely to recall and set in order the few facts concerning this Mary given in the Gospels (see Matthew 27:55-56, 61; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; compare Luke 23:49-56).
In Matthew 27:55-56 (parallel Mark 15:40), we are told that at the time of the crucifixion there was a group of women observing the event from a distance. These women are said to have followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him and to the disciples. Among these were Mary Magdalene (see III , above); Mary, mother of James and Joses; and the unnamed mother of Zebedee's children. By reference to Luke 8:2-3, where this group is first introduced, it appears that, as a whole, it was composed of those who had been healed of infirmities of one kind or another. Whether this description applies individually to Mary or not we cannot be sure, but it is altogether probable. At any rate, it is certain that Mary was one who persistently followed with the disciples and ministered of her substance to aid and comfort the Lord in His work for others. The course of the narrative seems to imply that Mary's sons accompanied their mother on this ministering journey and that one of them became an apostle. It is interesting to note that two mothers with their sons joined the company of the disciples and that three out of the four became members of the apostolic group. Another item in these only too fragmentary references is that this Mary, along with her of Magdala and the others of this group, was of sufficient wealth and position to be marked among the followers of Jesus as serving in this particular way. The mention of Chuzas' wife (Luke 8:3) is an indication of the unusual standing of this company of faithful women.
The other notices of Mary show her lingering late at the cross (Mark 15:40); a spectator at the burial (Mark 15:47); and among the first to bear spices to the tomb. This is the whole of this woman's biography extant, but perhaps it is enough. We are told practically nothing, directly, concerning her; but, incidentally, she is known to be generous, faithful, loving, true and brave. She came in sorrow to the tomb to anoint the body of her dead Lord; she went away in joy to proclaim Him alive forevermore. A privilege to be coveted by the greatest was thus awarded to simple faith and trusting love.
VI. Mary, the Mother of John Mark. This woman is mentioned but once in the New Testament (Acts 12:12), but in a connection to arouse intense interest. Since she was the mother of Mark, she was also, in all probability, the aunt of Barnabas. The aunt of one member and the mother of another of the earliest apostolic group is a woman of importance. The statement in Acts, so far as it concerns Mary, is brief but suggestive. Professor Ramsay (see Paul the Traveler, etc., 385) holds that the authority for this narrative was not Peter but Mark, the son of the house. This, if true, adds interest to the story as we have it. In the first place, the fact that Peter went thither directly upon his escape from prison argues that Mary's house was a well-known center of Christian life and worship. The additional fact that coming unannounced and casually the apostle found a considerable body of believers assembled points in the same direction. That "many" were gathered in the house at the same time indicates that the house was of considerable size. It also appears that Rhoda was only one of the maids, arguing a household of more than ordinary size. There is a tradition of doubtful authenticity, that Mary's house was the scene of a still more sacred gathering in the upper room on the night of the betrayal. We conclude that Mary was a wealthy widow of Jerusalem, who, upon becoming a disciple of Christ, with her son, gave herself with whole-souled devotion to Christian service, making her large and well-appointed house a place of meeting for the proscribed and homeless Christian communion whose benefactor and patron she thus became.
Louis Matthews Sweet
Mary, the Passing of
Mary, the Passing of - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
Masaloth
Masaloth - mas'-a-loth.
See MESALOTH.