Sei sulla pagina 1di 25

MAGISTRATE MAHANAIM

Rabbinical term for phylacteries ; see F RONTLETS . It is not at and iry as corruptions of a dittographed 1 ~ (i.e., 3 Missur=
all impossible that Jesus’ words in Mt. 16 19 18 18 were suggested MuSri); ~ 1 ~ ‘ i n1the
, land (of)’ precedes. The city conquered
by this magical practice, known in his time and in his country as by the Danrtes was apparently in the far south (see hfiCAH i.,
in all times and lands. See B INDING A N D LOOSING. 2 ; ZIKLAG), not in the far north.
5. $a&((t)+inu)in Is. 47 XI, isexplained by the greatmajority 3. A p x i , Lk. 1211 AV; cp 2020.
of critics (Hi. Ew. Di. etc.) ‘to charm (away),’or the like (so 4. i p x o v , Lk. 12 58 ; cp R ULER .
RVmg.). This can be well defended (see the Comm.); but the 5. u T p a q y 6 r : ( a ) Acts 16 20-38; cp PRSZTOR, PHILIPPI ; (6)
absence of any analogy in Heb. and Aram. favours the view Lk. 224 etc., see A RMY, 5 6. T. K. C.
that the text is corrupt.’
Among the ancients the employment of certainformulze MAGOG. S e e G o ~A N n MAGOG.
was considered efficacious in proportion to the number MAGOR-MISSABIB. See PASHHUR( I ) .
4. In NT. of repetitions. In India to-day if an ascetic
says in one month the name of Radha,
MAGPIASH (L!’~%~n, cp MAGRISH?), signatory to
Krishna, or Rorn 100,ooo times, he cannot fail to the covenant (see E ZRA i.. 5 7) ; Neh. lOzo[zr] (Bar&-
obtain what he wants ; and it is in the same spirit that @ H C [BN]. M N A . [AI, Mq-aiac ELI).
Moslem dervishes renew their shrieks or whirlings. MAGUS (Acts 1 3 6 8 RVmg,). See BAR-JESUS, M AGIC ,
Similarly, the prophets of Baal called upon their god § 4.
from morning until night, saying ‘Baal, hear us,’
MAHALAH. See M AHLAH .
I K. 1826.
The words of Jesus ‘ say not the same thing over and MAHALALEEL, RV Mahalalel (!&JkJn. 5 34,
over again ’ (Mt. 6 7 p+ @ T T O X O Y $ U T ~ ~ ) have reference as if ‘ praise of God ’ ; but t P A E L ,M ~ A & H A , suggests
to the same superstition. $&\$an, ‘ praiser of God ’ [Gray, HPN 201,with Reds-
In 2 Tim. 3 13 y b ~ m s(from yo&, ‘ to sigh,’ ‘ to utter lob and Nestle] ; but see below).
low moaning tones ’ ) is used of a class of magicians who I. Fourth in descent from Seth, Gen. 5 1 2 8 ; I Ch. 1z t
uttered certain magical formulae in a low deep voice. (Bk. Jubilees, MalBl6l). Cp CAIKITES,M EHU J AEL .
They were to be found, according to Herodotus, in 2. One of the bne Jadah in a post-exilic list, Neh.
Egypt (233) and elsewhere (4105 7191) ; they are ll4t (paXdqp [BN]). See PEREZ.
mentioned also by Euripides and Plato. The Judahite name, if not also the Sethite, is probably to
Paul, in addressing the Galatians ( ~ z o ) names, among be explained like J EHALLELEL , as one of the many popular
the works of the flesh + U , ~ ~ U K & I [EV ’ sorcery ’1; Syr. corruptions f: the tribal name Jerahmeel. Cp pehrhqh ‘ S I 5
&ru#shzitlra; Heb. versions of Salk. and Del. o*?$$ I Cb. 8 I, a fuller form of the Benjamite name Bela, which: like
Balaam, seems also to come from Jerahmeel. See also M AGUIEL .
[KPdzZfhim], which is closely connected with idolatry T. K. C.
by being placed next after it. It is not possible here to MAHALATH (nbng,5574,78 ; alsoasapropername
d o more than mention Simon Magus (Acts89f:) and in Talm. Bab. Pes. I 12 a. The name possiblycomes from
Bar-jesus, the sorcerer whom Lk. calls also Elymas n~~~p ~?:,
Jerahme’elithz ‘awomanof Jerahmeel‘ [Che.]).
(Acts 138). This name the writer explains by pdyos ;
I. Esan’s Ishmaelite wife: Gen. 289 [p] ( M & € h € e
it is really the Arabic (‘Alim), ‘learned,’ which is much
the same in sense as pdyos (cp SIMON MAGUS, ELYMAS). [ADEL]), called B ASHEMATH (p...) in chap. 36. For
C p EXORCISTS. T. w. n.
an explanation of the double name see SALMAH.
2. Daughter of Jerimoth b. David, and wife of Reho-
F. B. Jevons, Introd. to Hisf. of Rel., 1896; A. C. Lyall,
Asiatic Studies, chap. 4 ; E. B. Tylor, art. ‘Magic,’ E N ) ; boam : 2 Chr. 11 18 (poX[X]aO [BA], paeXXcO [L]).
Frazer Golden Bouglriz) 1 7.128 ’ W. R.
6. Bibliography. Smith’; articles in /. Phil. (li 273-288 MAHALATH upon [AV], or set to [RV] (n$n&Jp,
14 113-128) treat ably on the principal y m p MA€hfe W A R T I ; e m xopsia LAq.1, Ala
biblical terms. also Rel. Sem. 246 427. et&zssihz; Driver
on Deut. 18 1 0 EV; T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divina-
7 xopoy [sym.], ynep T H C ~ o p s i a c[Theod., Quintal ;
fion and Dewzonology among fhe ffe6re7m and related pro rhoro, jber cho~zrm[Jer.]), Ps. 83, e8 (headings).
$to.&x (1898); Scholz, Gtfsendienst und Z a u b m c s e n bci den Ibn Ezra suggested that Mahalath was the first word of
Hebr&wz, 1877 (uncritical); D. Joel, Der Aberglaube und aie a song, to the tune of which these two psalms were set.
Stellung des Judmthunrr zu demselben (1881-83).
On the Bab. Magic cp the work of Lenormant-now of course Ewald and Wellhausen adopt this view ; the ‘ sickness ’
somewhat antiquated{LamagikckezZesChaldiensrf lesongines might be that of God’s people. Rashi, however, thought
Accadiennes, 1874 ; Chaldean Magi2, its or& and darelo$- that the flute, Gesenius and Lagarde that the cithara or
ment, trans. with add. by the author, 1877 ; Dit Mug72 und
Wahrsnge-KunstdErChald~er,1878). Lenormant is to be sup- cithern, was meant. Jerome and the Greek versions
plemented by reference to the various works cited in $ z b ; see except LXX imply the pointing n n p , m l h d f t h , ’dances‘:
alsotherelativesectionsinTiele’sBAG, 1886; and Gesck.derReZ. cp beading of Ps. 88, where Leannoth (perhaps= ‘for
im AZtedhwm 189- ’ in A. H. Sayce’s ‘Origin and Growth of
Rel.’ (ffibbert’Le&rm), 1888 ; in Hommel’s Die Sem. Volker singing ’) follows. None of these views has much plausi-
z. Sjrachn, 1888 ; (by F. Jeremias) in Chantepie de la Saus- bility or is free from objection. A musical note w-hich
saye’sLekrb. der Rel.-gesch.izl 1897 ’ and in Jastrow Rel. of occurs in only two psalm-headings, and has no clear
Bab. and Ass., 1898; L. W.’King,’ Babylonian Mhgic and
Soicery, (1896); Zimmern, ‘ Beitrsge mr Kenntnis der bab. Re- meaning, is probably corrupt. As Gratz has seen, a
ligion in Assyriolog. Bibliotkk., Bd. xii., with L. W. King’s better reading is almost certainly ‘ upon ALAMOTH ’
review in A J S L 13 1 4 2 3 H. Z . , 5 2 6 ; T. W. D. Cg.v.3. LEANNOTH (njipL, ; TOO d?roKpprO+ar [6]; TOO
&$ippprv [Aq.] ; ad respondendum [Jer.]) is also prob-
MAGISTRATE. See generally G OVERNMENT , L AW
ably a mis-written nb>y, originally intended as a correc-
A N D J USTICE .
The terms to be enumerated are five- tion of n$nn; see PSALMS [BOOK], 5 12 a (on ‘Alamoth’).
I. (Dt. 16 18 etc.).
U?bi I@%?; See J UDGE , I. T. K. C .
l:&’
2. d?.’,y8rG‘P:er(Judg. 187 t) RV ‘possessingauthority’ MAHALI. See MAHLI.
(mg. ‘power of restraint‘), an impossible rendering (Moore). MAHANAIM (PJnP,‘encampment,’ cpcnstra).’ A
The text is very corrupt. In connection with other emendations, city on the E. of Jordan, placed by P on
and parallel cases of misunderstood references to the N. Arabian T.
Mugri (see MrzRAini, f zb), it may be best to regard both vi- Refere;ces. the frontier of Gad and Manasseh (Josh.
132630), and mentioned by him again
1 Ges. IWBu. (2) (followed by Che. ‘ Isaiah,’ SBOT,‘ Heb.) as a ‘ city of refuge ’ together with ‘ Ramoth in Gilead ‘
most felicitously reads for mnd in ~ i n d . Render : There 1 [Tnat the form is not really dual, is maintained elsewhere (see
shall come upon thee au evil which thou art not able to prevent NAMES, 0 107). We. (Cff46) would take njnn,(ma&nd) in Gen.
by payment.’ Note the use of the verb in Job622, and the 3222 [211 as a proper name, parallel and equivalent to Maha-
parallelism of l g b and l@in Prov. 6 35. naiin ; but blahan6 does not occur elsewhere, and Ball (SBOT)
2 FromBattus, a stuttering Greekpoet(seeHerod.1155). Cp therefore reads DJno. There may however have been a form
Ecclns. 7 14 ‘ Repeat not thy words in thy prayer ’ 0.;1 GrvrcpJqs Mahanath (see MINNITH).Note ;he sporadic paavar0 in I Ch.
hiyov Zv rrpoamu)(lj OW). For references relating to hattology 6 & (B), as well as the cases where 2
raprppoh+. See a d f i n .
‘ 3 renders by the sing. +
among hfoslems and others, see Lange in Herwg, 18 396. S. A. C.]

2901 2902
MAHANAIM MAHAVITE
Heshbon, and Jaazer (ib. 2138[36]. cp I Ch. 680[6s]). sible from Mizpah, which we have elsewhere provision-
There was doubtless an ancient sanctuary there, for ally identified with Sfif. Putting all this together, we
Jacob, so E represents, when he came to the place may plausibly identify Mahanaim with ‘Ajltin, so
after parting from Laban, met there a ’ host (ma&neh) finely situated at a point where valleys meet, with
of divine ones ‘ : a skiiful application of the obvious abundant wood in its neighbourhood (G ILEAD , $ 7), and
etymology. Some find a second reference to the ety- with an unequalled site for a fortress not far off,which
mology in Gen. 327 ( J ) , where a two hosts’ (ma/rdnCth) is still occupied by the imposing Kal ‘at er-Kabad. At
are spoken o f ; but there are difficulties in supposing some distance to the N. is still found the name of Mihn&
that the scene of Gen. 3 2 4 8 ( J ) is N. of the Jabbok, or Mahni?, and some of the best geographers (Robinson,
where E rightly, of course, places Mahanaim (see van Kasteren,’ and Buhl) would therefore place Maha-
Holzinger, ad Zoc., and G ILEAD , $ 4). On two great naim there. I t seems better, however, to suppose that
occasions the security of the position of Mahanaim the ‘ wood of Mahanaim ’ extended as far as Mihni?, and
seems to have led royal personages to make it their that the name of Mi+& is really an abbreviation of that
residence. ‘ Ishbosheth’ resided there during his short ancient phrase.
reign ( z S. 2x12). and David retired thither in his flight Here, as elsewhere geographical results are dependent on
from Absalom ( 2 S. 172427 ; cp 1 9 3 2 I K. 28). Under critical exegesis. The‘ idea that ‘Ajliin might be Mahanaim has
also occurred to Prof. G. A. Smith ( H G 587 ; cp 335 n., 586);
Solomon, Mahanaim was the administrative centre of a but he did not recognise that it was almost forced upon us by
department ( I K. 4 1 4 ) ; see A HINADAB . T h e name the biblical data, rightly viewed. Miihlau (RiehmW, 954) feels
occurs in the list of Palestinian cities taken by Shishak a similar hesitation ; he thinks that Mihne is not near enough to
the Jabhok and the Jordan Valley.
(Maspero, Strugge of the Nations, 773), and is finally Readings : Josh. 13 26/3aav [Bl, p a w [Bab], pavarp [AI, paav.
met with (if the article prefixed to o m D is no objection) [Ll ; I). 30 paava [Bl, AL as above. Jos. 21 38 [36] xaprrv [Bl,
in Cant. 613 [;I], where the Shulammite is somehow pavefp [Ll, A as above. I Ch. 680 [65] paavad [Bl, -aLp [AI,
brought into connection with the ‘ dance of Mahanaim ’ pavaB [Ll, [Pesh.]. 2 9.28 i x mj5 aapappohrjc[BAL],
(xopol T& aapappoXOu, AV, ‘ company of two armies’ ) ; B add cis pavaep, cp We. ad Zoc. ; v. 12 pavarrp [AI, rapepPoA<s
criticism, however, throws much doubt upon the text [L], lost in €3 ; v. 29 (dp)rrapepPahrjv [BA], aapsp6oA-k pasrap
(see C ANTICLES , 5 g ; D ANCE , $ 7 ) . [Ll ; Jos. (Ant. vii. 1 3) Mavd‘s. z S. 17 24 pavacrp [Bl, -v [AI,
rapeppoA8s [L] ; v. 27 paavaap [BA], L as before ; 19 32 pavasrp
Reference is probably made to a re-conquest of Mahanaim in [BA], L as before. I K. 2 8 aapepflOh85 [BAL]. 4 14 paavaierov
Am. 6 13 ; for 0 q . r ~read oqnn, and render, ‘ Have we not, by [Bl, papvabp [A], paXerAap [L]. The ethnic is perhaps to be
our strength, taken Mahanaim’? The name of the other town found in I Ch. 11 46 (crit. emend.). See MAHAVITE ; also JEPH-
was hardly Lo-debar, but Jabesh-gilead (of which the MT & THAH, li 3, n. 4. T. K. C .
131 is a corruption). See MEPmeosHETH ; SAUL, li 6.
MAHANEE-DAN or Dan’s camp (]?-Yla& ; nap-
The exact site of Mahanaim is uncertain. Conder’s
reasons for placing it to the east of es-Salt.2 beyond EMBOAH A ~ [BAL]),
N a place ‘ behind’-Le-., W. of-
a. IdentificP- the round basin of the Bukei‘ will Kirjath-jearim, where the 600 Danites from Zorah and
tion. hardly bear examination. T h e critical Eshtaol encamped in the course of their advance north-
wards (Jud. 1812). The explanation of the name is
analysis of Gen. 32 seems to show that
Mahanaim lay N. of the Jabbok. but where, is disputed. questionable, and a different localisation of Mahaneh-
Dan is given in Judg. 13~5-viz., ‘ between Zorah and
Merrill (East of fhe Jordan, 437) thinks of the ruin
Eshtaol.’ I t was there that the spirit of Yahw& first
called Suleikhat, 300 ft. above the Jordan valley, in
stirred up Samson. T h e explanation of this discrepancy
the W2dy ‘Ajlfin. Robinson, van Kasteren ( Z D P V
13205f.), and Buhl (PuZ.257),however, urge the claims is to be found in I Ch. 25254. at least if we may read
of Mihni? or M e n & in the Jebel‘Ajlfin, a little to the
iym?instead of p-mn. The Manahethites were partly
NE. of the town of ‘Ajliin, whilst Porter and, according ‘sons ’ of Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, and partly
to Gautier, Germer-Durand, suggest that Gerasa rose connected with the Zorites (of Zorah). See M A N A -
on the ruins of Mahanaim. HETHITES. S. A. C.
In z S. 2 29, Abner and his men, on leaving Gibeon, are said
to have passed over Jordan, and gone through all Bithron, and
MAEARAI (+?iJp,cp Ph. htlnn?), a Neto-
phathite [of the Zerahites], one of David‘s heroes ( z S.
so come to Mahanaim. Prof. H. P. Smith explains filil?S, as
‘doubtless the proper name of one of the side valleys up which
2328, NOIPE [Bl. MAEPAEI [AI, M M A P N ~ [o N T OY
Mahnnaim was situated.’ This is correct except that ‘all + E A T I ~ ] [L], I Ch. 1130, N E I ~ E [BK, z.e., ’132],
Bithron’ is corrupt; the real proper name ofihe side valley was MOO^^ [A], MAPPI [L] ; 2713, M W ~ A[Bl, M O O ~ A I
probably ‘the valley of Pistachio trees ’ 3 (O’!U?a Sn?). Accord- [AI, M A A ~ I[LI).
ing to 2 s. 186 the battle between the army of David and that of
Absalom took place in the ‘wood of Ephraim. For ‘ Ephraim MILHATH (nnt2, cp Ahimiti, son of Azuri king of
an early authority reads ‘ Mahanaim’ ; hut probably ‘ Ephraim’ Ashdod. temp. Sargon, see below ; Maae [BAL]).
should rather be Rephaim (see EPHRAIM, WOOD OF). At any I. b. Amasai, in the genealogyof the Kohathite Samuel ; I Ch.
rate, it was clearly in the vicinity of Mahanaim, and the nearest 635 [20] ( p d [B], r y * d [L]) apparently=AHIMoTH (q.U.) in
way from this ‘wood’ or copse-land to the city was by the p? v. 2 5 [IO] (where L bas apuoB as here); perhaps derived from
(EV ‘plain ’), or rather, since no satisfactory explanation of this Mahath b. Amasai in 2 Ch. 29 12 (pa:@ [A]). F p JPHATH, 2,
GENEALOGIES i $ 7 iii. c. Mahath, Amasai Azariah are all
reading (v. 23) has been offered,4 by the $?!-that is to say, the Kohathite (i. e., ‘h. PAlestinian) names. Amadi probably comes
eager Ahimaaz ran along in the wady in which, at some little from ’IshmP%li(Ishmaelite, cp,I C h 2 17), ‘Azariah from ’AsshGri
distance, Mahanaim lay. (cp ASSHURIM); Mahath or Ahtmoth is presumably alsoan ethnic,
and perhaps (like Ahitub?), comes from Rehahathi. A Reho-
From a critical glance at the OT passages it is evident bothite king of Ashdod, and a Levite cpnnected with Rehoboth
that Mahanaim was a strong city ; we have to look for are very possible.
one of the very best sites for such a city in N. Gilead. 2. A temple officer temp. Hezekiah ( z Ch. 31 13 ; Bavar [B ; see
I t must also, as Gen. 32 shows, have been easily acces- NAHATH, 31, aa0 [L]), perhaps the same as I. T. K. C.
M-AVITE. Eliel the Mahavite is the EV render-
1 Plausible as the ‘sword-dance’ theorv mav he. there is so
I , ,

much corruption in the context that we may suggest an emenda- ing of the M T P’!lJP;! h&a ( I Ch. 1146 . ..
o MIEI
tion akin to that proposed for Cant. O r r (see TIRZAII).Read: [BK], o M ~ W I I N [AI, o Mawel [LI). a rendering
\\‘hat doyouqeein the Shulainmite? A nnrci~ausofthevalleys which cannot be legitimately obtained from the present
( O ’ p p ? n$p?r$. This is grammatically easier and suits the state of the text.
context.
.. ....
C””tCXt. .
Heih and M o d 180f Read ’pinan (cpvg., Mahumites), ‘a man ofBahurim.’ Eliel
3 Pistachio-trees Are fo&d in Gilead (Post PEFQ 1888, p. and BahuriA-are both probably Jerahmeelite names (Che.).
200 : Tristrarn, N H B 367). The current explination df Bithron Be. (Chron.) and Barnes (Cumb. BibZe) would read ‘!cQi?, an
as ‘ravine‘ will hardly bear examination (cp BETHER). Cp inhabitantofMAHANAIM($7.%). Pesh. presentsaform p.u).
q ~ (EV x Brtonim), a place in Gad, mentioned beside Maha-
:aim. Tosh. 1326.
4 S&, e.g., Lrjhr, ad Zoc.

2903
MAHAZIOTH MAKTESH
MAHAZIOTH (n\KVnQ, ‘ visions,’ cp N AMES , 23) of alternate speeches.’ Lag. (Or.2 25) more plausibly thought
according to the Chronicler a son of Heman (I Ch that Ytn? ’Jp meant ‘dancers’ (and singers); cp i,+c nbp,
2.5430. M E A Z W ~ 0. 4, M E A Z U ~ V. 30 P I , M A A Z I U ~ Eccles. 124. T. K. C.
[AL], mahazioth [Vg.]), see HEMAN. MAHSEIBH (8,’DnP) RV. Jer. 3212 5159. See
MAASEIAH
i.
MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ (T2E$ $>@ 7gQ
23; O f f X d C l l p O N O M H N lT0IHCA.I CKYhWh MAIANEAS, RV Maiannas (MAIANNAC [BA]),
and T A X E ~ CCKYAEYCON, o f s w c TTPONOMEYCO~ I Esd. 948 = Neh. 87. M AASEIAH ii., 16.
[BHAQI’]), the name given by Isaiah to his son (Is. 813). MAID, MAIDEN ( n?J P, ‘ d m a h , Ex. 28, etc.;
T\-
Like SHEaR-jAsHuB (9.v.) this name is intended a: ntlilg, 6PthziZtihp Lam. 511, etc.). See IYMANUEL,
an omen (cp Che. ZS.(~),ad Zoc.). The name rneanr
I , F AMILY , 5 4.
swiftly cometh spoil, speedily hasteneth prey’ or, tc
6

keep closer to the abruptness of the Hebrew, ‘haster M U (YPP; MAXEMAC [B], MAXMAC [AI.
booty, speed spoil.‘ See I SAIAH i., § 4. MarXAc [L]), mentioned first among the cities of
the second of the prefectures of the land of Israel, I K.
MAHLAH (a?nQ; M ~ A A [BAL]. MAAAA [F]), 2 49. The next three places named being among those
daughter of Z ELOPHEHAD [q.v.] (Nu. 2633 1371 ; 27 1 reckoned to Dan (Josh. 1941-43). it would seem that
[L om. all the names of the daughters] ; 3611 M A A A ~ ’ Makaz’ should be a corruption of one of the other
[B], MAAAA [AL] : Josh. 173 MAAAA [BL]). In R b names of Danite towns. M E - JARKON (p.v.) suggests
of I Ch. 7 18 Mahlah (AV M AHALAH ) is one of the son: itself as probable. If the site proposed for this place is
of H AMMOLEKETH [g.v.], Machir’s sister (paeha [B], correct, Me-jarkon well deserved to be so prominently
p o o h [A], paaha8 [L]). mentioned.’ .WnRKzis, a little to the NE. of Ascalon,
All these names are corrupt ; hut the true readings can proh. once proposed by Conder, is neither in an important
ably he recovered. Zelophehad springs from Salhad ’ Hammo.
leketh from Salecah (another name of the same‘ place).’ Mahlah position, nor would the site be Danite. T. K. C.
may come from [Abell-mehol+ ; there was possibly a secona MAKED ( MAKBA [AKVJ ; Vg. Mag&), an unknown
p$ce of this name, which ultimately comes from ‘ Jerahmeel.
ote that Gideon, who has been fused with Jerubhaal, is ar place in Gilead, mentioned in I Macc. 526 ( M A K ~ B [A])
Abiezrite, and that Ahiezer in I Ch. 7 18 is a brother of Mahlah. -cp 36 (where AV MacED)-along with Bosora and
T. K. C. Carnaim.
MAHLI (??nn,
§ 74 : ~ooA[e]i[BAL]), a Levitical BEAKHELOTH (JlhopP ; M A K H ~ W [BAF],
~ MA-
subdivision which appears as a distinct family in Nu. K H A W ~[L]), a place named in NU. 3325f., probably
2658 (@,A,, om.), but is elsewhere associated with the identical with K EHELATHAH : cp also MIKLOTH.
division M ERARI . These names seem to appear inde- All, these forms are almost certalnly corruptions of ‘Jerah-
pendently in Ezra818f. ( s e e SHEXEBIAH)= I Esd. 847 meel. P s list of stations is artiticial ; the substratum how-
(poohher [L]); more commonly, however, they are ever, consists of place-names belonging to the Jerahkeelite
region, S. of Palestine.
brought into relationship. Thus Mahli is either made See W ANDERINGS . T. K. C.
the son of Merari (and brother of MUSHI)in Ex. 619
(AV MAHALI)Nu. 320 I Ch. 619[4] (poohhr [L]) 29[14] MAKKEDAH (all?r?: MAKHAAN.MAKHAA ; Jos.
(om. B) 2321 (povh [B in 61) 2426, or becomes the son Ant. v. 117 MAKXIAA, MAKKHAA ; Pesh. mikikdr,
v. I

of Mushi and grandson of Merari, as in I Ch. 632 1471 but in 1541 nakdu), a royal Canaanite city (Josh. 1216 ;
( p o o X X ~[L]), cp 2323 2430 (poohher [B]). See, generally, 3m. [?I B) in the lowland of Judah (1541), mentioned
G ENEALOGIES i., 7 . at the end of a group of cities together with Beth-dagon
s: _ _
The gentilic Yahlites (’ nmn) occurs only in Nu.333 and Naamah. It was ‘ in the cave at Makkedah ’ that
the ‘ five kings of the Amorites.’ who had sought refuge
(6 F o h a [B], 6 pooA\[e]r [BabAFLl) 2658 (see above).
The name is possibly derived from MAHALATH (q.u.) ; hut may there after the battle of Beth-horon (101016), were
come straight from ‘Jerahme’eli ’ (Che.) ; note that one of Mahli’s :aken and slain. Makkedah itself was captured after-
descendants is named Jerahmeel (cp I Ch. 23 21 24 z8X.X and see Nards (1021). Eusebius places Makkedah 8 R. m. E.
MOLID.
?om Eleutheropolis (OS278g0; cp 1388). This is
MAHLON. See CHILION,and cp R UTH (BOOK). :learly impossible. Nor is it at all certain (the name
M O L (kng. 74 ; MAA [B], MAOyh[Aln MAAAA laving disappeared) whether the site proposed by
[L]), the father of Heman, Calcol, and Darda, three Warren at el-MughLr ( # t h e cave ’), SW. of Ekron.
(foreign) wise men who, together with Ethan the Ezra- j m. E. of Nikd’aneh (perhaps the Naamah of Josh.).
hite, were surpassed in wisdom by Solomon ( I K. 431 md some 2 5 m. from Gibeon, is the right one. There
[ ~ I I ] ) . These names can all he accounted for on the ire, indeed, signs that an ancient town stood here, and
assumption that the wisdom of the Edomites is referred Zonder says that this is the only site in the plain where
to. Ethan and Heman both seem to be corrupt forms :aves are to be found. The Wtidy es-Sartir has, in
of T EMAN [q.v.] ; C a l c o l ( i ~ $ 3is) probably a corruption act, made a way here through a bar of soft sandy stone,
of Caleb (h), and Darda ( y i i i ) of A ROER (iyly). md the precipitous cliffs are pierced by caverns of
EZRAHITE is certainly another form of ‘ Zarhite,’ and wious sizes (PEPMem.2411). The narrative in Josh.
Zerah in Gen. 3613 17 is an Edomite clan. Lastly, )oints to a single specially large cave (niynn) which was
Mahol, like HAMU!,, comes from JERAHMEEL (SNnni-). utside of the town. T h e name may seem to suggest R
It was really, perhaps, only Aroer that was a son of heep-breeding region (cp i z j and Dr. on Am. 11).
Jerahmeel ; t?3BL give 1116s or ui6v, not uiotr in I K. Z.C. t may, however, have suffered changes, and the original
T h e enthusiastic remark of I K. 431 [5 1x1 now becomes lame may possibly have had the same origin as ME-
more striking, for the wisdom of the Edomites (with :IDDO[ p . ~ . ] . It has not been traced with certainty
whom the Jerahmeelites were connected) was proverbial 1 the Egyptian name-lists. T. K. C.
(cp Obad. 8), and when we take into consideration that
in 0.30 we should almost certainly read npi 9 3 3 ( a cor-
MUTESH (~n?m?; T H N KATAKEKOMMENHN
ruption of hnni* $12, * sons of Jerahmeel ’) for MT’s BKAQI; BIC TON OAMON CAq.1, TUN OAMWN
nip 332, and that Job was also ‘greater than all the Symm.], BN TU B A ~ E I [Theod.]), usually supposed
3 be the name of a quarter of Jerusalem where mer-
Jerahmeelites ’ (read o p i ~2 Job 1 3 ) . the view here offered
hants and dealers resided (Zeph. 1I , ) , and to be so
becomes in the highest degree probable. See EAST
alled because in configuration it resembled a mortar
(CHILDREN OF), J ERAHMEEL , M AHALATH .
Klo.’s ingenious theory (see his notes on I K. Z.C.) that there RVmg., a the mortar’); cp Judg. 1519 ‘the mortar
was a poetic dialogue, like our Job, in which Ethan and the EV ‘ hollow place ’) that is in Lehi.’ See M ORTAR .
other sages took part, is baseless; h i ?cannot mean ‘a round 1 In the main as Klost., who reads the name Me-rakkon.
2905 2706
MALACHI MALACHI
T h e Tg. thinks of the Valley of the Kidron, most use of the a teaching.’ The meaning of the charge is
moderns of the Tyropeon (see J ERUSALEM , 23). not quite clear, and it is decidedly out of place as it
The name, however, which is both odd in itself and stands.
nowhere else found, is not improbably corrupt. It is (6) In the passage 210-16, with which the second
best to read n’pp?i? (2K. 23 13). or rather o~~rm~pi-ig main division of the book begins, nearly all interpreters
(see D ESTRUCTION , M OUNT OF) ; the locality ‘meant since Jerome have seen the prophet’s rebuke of two
is the Mount of Olives. Observe that the ‘ gates ’ and evils-marriage with heathen women, and divorce (so
the ’ hills ’ are mentioned just before. also Targ., though with a noteworthy variation in v. 16.
This may he illustrated by Neh. 13 15, where we read, accord- due to the corrupt state of the Hebrew original; see
ing to a probable critical emendation of a corrupt text, that sellers also E ZR A i., 5). This interpretation fails to meet the
of agricultural produce brought their goods into Jerusalem ‘ b y requirements of the text (see below, 4). The rebuke
theascent ofthose who worship ’ (OYn?@f?? hY>? for n w 1 . ~ ~ 1is rather directed against the encroachment of foreign
i ’ y oi,~). Probably there were houses o r shelters on the worship in Israel (so 6,Pesh.). Judah has dealt
Mount of Olives for those sellers who could not return home in falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion,
the day. Possibly, too, the phrase 0’
and is wedding a strange cult. The people lament
original name of the o ‘ n , ~77~ (Zech. 14 because their offerings fail to bring a blessing, and are
may he a corruption of o . i ~ w n(‘those who worship’). In
z S. 15 30 we find the phrase p n - ~ nspo
n (‘the ascent of the strangely unable to see why ill-fortune has come upon
olives’), for which we should perhaps read (cp ZI. 32) n $ y ~ them (vu.13 14~).
ov,nwn%lil. Cp OLIVES, M OUNT OF. T. K. C. The two sections 2 17-35 and 3 13-21 [4 3 ] are very much
alike in character and contents. In each, the assertion
MALACHI. According to the title (Mal. 1I), the last of some of the people that Yahwb does not concern
book of the Minor Prophets contains ‘ t h e word of himself with human affairs is answered by the prophet’s
1. Name. Yahwb to Israel by Malachi.’ I t would assurance that the great and terrible day will soon
seem that a proper name is intended here, come, when the good shall be separated from the evil
but the difficulty of understanding the word mahchi and the righteous shall finally triumph. These oracles
(&’P, ‘ m y messenger ’) in this way has been felt are interrupted by a characteristic passage (36-12) in
which the people are censured for neglecting to pay
since the earliest times. Even @BX*Q has &v XeLpl their tithes. T h e passage was begun in a quite different
CiyykXou air~o0,’ by his messenger’ ; a translation which strain (see esp. ‘u. 7 ) , suggested by the catalogue of sins
(whether from &n or ixh)would hardly have been in v. 5. The way in which the prophet seizes upon this
possible at a time when the existence of a prophet particular delinquency as it occurs to him, abandoning
Malachi was generally recognised. In fact, the prevail- the main line of his reasoning altogether, illustrates
ing tradition among the Jews for some time after Christ both the hasty looseness of style into which he some-
continued to reject the proper name. times falls, and his present interest in matters connected
The Jon. Targ. (Mal. 1 I ) declares this ‘messenger’ to have with the public worship.
been no other than Ezra the scribe and Jerome adopts this
view. Cp also Talm. MegiZL. rsa. khe earliest Church Fathers I t isprabablethat 322-24[44-6]isalaterappendixtothebook.1
generally regard the word as an appellative (see Reinke, It has no natural connection with the preceding, hut has all the
Mulacki, 6-9 : Klihler, Nackexil. Prop/. 4 4f: ; Nestle, Sept. appearance of an addition by another hand, having for its chief
Stud. 3 13, and cp 4 Esd. 140). In any case, it is hardly to be object the providing of an im ressive close for the collection of
doubted that the superscription is the work of a later hand3 the prophetic writings. It is gardly by accident that Moses and
Elijah, the two great representatives of Israel‘s golden age,
When, finally, it is observed how the phrase ‘ m y appear together in these isolated verses at the end of the last
messenger ’ is employed in 3 I, at the beginning of the of all the prophets.
most striking passage in the book, the conclusion seems T h e most interesting passage in the book from the
imperative that the proper name ’ Malachi ’ originated theological point of view is 1 1 1 , with its assertion that
in a misinterpretation of this word, aided perhaps by 3. aeathea all sincere worship of the one God, even
Hag. 113 as well as Mal. 2 7. among the heathen, is accepted by
The book falls into two main divisions : ( u ) a rebuke worship. Yahwb, whose name is truly honoured
addressed to the priests (16-29) ; (d) a series of oracles (cp in the N T Rom. 11gf: [cp 210f. ; Wisd. 136.91 ;
2. Contents. addressed to all the people (210-321 [4 31). Acts 1035). This interpretation, which is now adopted
( u ) The theme of the brief introduction by most OT scholars, is the one required by both the
( 1 2 - 5 ) , Israel God’s peculiar people, plays a very im- language and the context of the verse. See esp.
portant pnrt in the book from beginning to end. See Kuenen, Hibdert Lectures (1882). p. 180f. ; GASm.
1 6 210 36$, and cp 2 5 J That the prophet should The TwelveProphets (1898),p. 3 5 8 8 But the passage
choose here as his sole illustration of this truth a refer- stands alone in the OT. In Ps. 653 [ z ] , which is perhaps
ence to calamities that have recently come upon Edom, the nearest approach to a parallel, the language is much
Israel’s brother nation, is characteristic of the time at less definite. Still, remarkable as the expression is, the
which he wrote (see below, 5 6). idea was certainly not foreign to Judaism-it is quite in
Of the charges brought against the priests, the fore- the spirit of the ‘ Wisdom ’ literature, for example-nor
most is one of gross misconduct in their performance of can it be said to be out of keeping with the character of
the temple service (16-13). They treat the sacred rites this prophet as it appears in the rest of the book.
with indifference, and bring the most worthless offerings It has been remarked above that the current inter-
as good enough for the worship of Yahwb. They are uretation of 210-16 is untenable.
~ The text of the
further accused of betraying their trust as the official 4. Figurative passage is, unfortunately, corrupt ; 2 but
guides of the people in religious matters (24-9). As interpretation it IS not difficult to recognise the nature
members of the priestly tribe, they are the bearers of the of the charge brought by the prophet
t6r%h (;nin) or (oral) teaching concerning the religion of divorce. acainst his fellow-countrvmen. T h e
0

andworship of Yahwb. They have broken their covenant, sin which he is attacking is one of unfaithfulness, of
however, and turned aside from the path ; their teaching false dealing (verb digud). T h e accusation is stated
has become a stumbling-block to the people. I n v. gb, definitely in v. i r b : ‘ Judah has profaned the sunctuuvy
if the text is correct, still another accusation is unex- of YnIwd, which he loves, and has espoused a dath ’d
pectedly introduced, namely that of partiulig in the nZk&-’ ( i j j 5~ n1, ‘ daughter of a foreign god ’). A few
verses farther on (vv. 14$) the charge is made: ‘ T h o u
1 So far as the form is concerned, *,&n might be a con- hast dealt falsely with the wife of thy youth, the wife of
traction of n‘,i-& or in*,&, ‘messenger of Yahws.’ But the
name is not a likely one, and there is no evidence of the OCCUI- 1 [The phraseological evidence for this view bas been collected
rence of the longer form in any Hebrew text (to appeal to the by B8hme, Z A TW7 Z I O ~ - - E I ) . I
later Greek sujcrscrijtion, Mahaxias, is absurd). 2 No one of the attempts to emend zw. 15a I& can be called
2 Cp especially Zech. 9 I (text incomplete) 12 I . even partially successful.
2907 2908
thy covenant.' To treat these expressions literally, as arch enemy of Israel) is to be classed with Am. 9 12 and
referring to actual marriage and divorce,' involves us in '
Ob. 21 ; the apocalyptic passages 3 I 8 19 ( 4 ~)fi, with
insuperable difficulties. T o assume, in the first place, their conception of the day of judgment as the day when
that divorce of Israelitish wives stood in any necessary ' the wicked ' ( o y ~ a ishall
) be destroyed out of Israel,
or even probable connection with the wedding of women remind us of the Psalms (Wellh. ) ; the theological
from other nations is unreasonable. Many modern
commentators, in the desire to avoid this difficulty,
suppose a change of subject, from intermarriage with
' development presupposed by the book finds its nearest
parallels in the Psalter and the Wisdom literature ; and
finally, the position of Mal. at the end of the collection
Gentiles to divorce in general (Kohler, Orelli, Wellh., of the Prophets may be adduced, though the argument
etc.). It is not possible, however, thus to separate 'uz. is not weighty. W e may, therefore, assign the book

vors/eZLun,q -240,f has shown conclusively) is plainly


contrasted with ' daughter of a foreign god ' ; 'with
whom thou hast falsely dealt' (v. 14) refers to the
charge made with the same word in v . 1 1 ; bfriitiz in
v. 14 is repeated from v. IO. Better evidence of con-
tinuity could hardly be desired.2 Another attempt to
remove the apparent incongruities of the passage is that
of G. A. Smith (The TweZve Pm$hets# 2 340 3 6 5 ) , who
proposes to strike out v v . I I and 12-a desperate ex- certainly was kcognised.
pedient. There is one, and but one, admissible inter- T h e diction of Mal. is pure, the style vigorous, though
pretation, namely, that which recognises the use of often prosaic and sometimes awkward. In more than
figurative language here. ' Wedding ' a foreign cult
necessarily involved ' divorce ' from the covenant religion. ,. one place, the meaning is seriously obscured
by an abrupt transition, due apparently to
The figure employed by the prophet is very natural and the writer's impulsive haste. A personal peculiarity of
effective, certainly better suited to his time than that his style is seen in his favourite way of opening a n
introduced by Hosea. argument, by introducing the supposed objections of his
The book of Malachi gives us in small compass a hearers, which he then refutes ( 1 2 8 6 8 2 1 7 37f:
many-sided view of the religious conditions in which the 1 3 & ) . ~ Originality and earnestness are marked cliar-
Israel was beginning to acteristics of the book in all its parts. T h e estimate
6. Conditions. writer lived.
feel the effects of her more intimate that pronounces it a monument of the degeneracy of
acquaintance with the great nations round about. T h e Hebrew prophecy, the product of an age whose religious
world had grown larger, and the perspective had teachers could only imitate, but not attain to, the
changed. A new type of 'free thinkers' had arisen spiritual fervour of the old prophets (so esp. Duhm,
(217 3 1 3 8 ) ; a class too numerous, and perhaps too Reuss) is decidedlv uniust.
sincere, to be ignored. T h e feeling was gaining ground Among the speciafcomms. on Mal. those of Edward Pococke
that the old beliefs and rites were outgrown. Hence 1677 ((21, I@?), Reinke, 1856, Kohler, 1865:
the shamefnl conduct of some of the priests. and the 8. Literatuge. may he mentioned. Cp also Stade, Gesch.
(SI. 2 128.138; and fBL 17 1-15, where the
readiness of many influential men among the people to views expressed in this article, as now revised, are more fully
' betray' the nation (as the prophet insists, 2 I O ) by . ,, 210 ti?: Wi.
set forth. [See also W. BBhme. Z A T I V 7 (1887) L

openly espousing foreign cults. On the other hand, the A O F ~ 53121 W. K. S.-C. C. T.
orthodox, the ' God-fearing,' formed a sort of church or MALCHAM, R V W c a m (n&p).
party by themselves (316) in opposition to these tend- I. b. SHAHARAIM
[q.vl, in the genealogy of B ENJ AMIN (g.v.,
encies. The situation closely resembles that which pro- 5 g, ii. B), I Ch. 8 g t ( p d x a s [Bl, -ap [AI, -op [Ll).
duced the two parties of the Pharisees and the Sadducees 2. In Zeph. 1 5 (TO; @aorh& airsiv [RKAQI, pohox [Qmg.])
at a later day. The prophet's own position is that of R V w . has 'their king ' as in z S. 1230 R V w has hfALCAM for
EV's 'their king.' Se6 MILCOM.
one who can welcome the broader view, while remaining
thoroughly loyal to the national religion. H e declares MALCHIAH. See MALCHIJAH.
without hesitation that heathen worship is accepted by MALCHIEL ($&?2, ' God is King (or my king) '
l"ahw8, but in the next breath appeals to the patriotism $5 24, 36 ; on early history of name see M ALCHI J AH ;
of his hearers, and to their hope of a Messianic time.
MBAx(E)IHA[ADFL]; butinNu. ~ ~ h h l ~ A [ B * ] , i n C h .
As for the date of Malachi, it was certainly written in
the Persian period (allusion to the ' governor ' in 1 8 )
MEAAGIH [B]). an Asherite family, Gen.4617 Nu.
after the completion of the temple (310). 2645 (where also ' $&Q, Malchielite, MBAAIHAI [B],
6. Date. Regarding the other criteria it may be said
M B ~ X ( S ) I H ~ ( B )[Bab-fFLl)
I, I. Ch. 731. T h e Same
that they all point distinctly to a late rather than a n name is prominent in the correspondence of the
early date.$ The remarkable passage 12-5 (Edom the Aniarna tablets. Milkil (=Malchiel) was one of the
chief enemies of the governor of Jerusalem (cp Jastrow,
1 [The latest advocacy of the literal interpretation is to be /BLllno ; Sayce, Put. PaL 135, etc. ). See ASHERi.,
found in Nowack's KI. Pro@. 389 4 1 0 8 and ~ Che. Jew. ReZ.
Life (60). The most plausible reconstruction of the whole hack- § 1.
ground of the passage (Mal. 210-16) on the same view is that of
tade ( G V f 2 136J), who remarks, 'The connection shows that MALCHIJAH (V?$p,$iP?$3, as if ' YahwB is my
the writer has to do in the first place with matrimonial alliances king'; 36) ; but possibly the original name was a
which respected members of the community, who were already
of a certain age, had contracted with rich and influential families exegesis of 2 105 a?d
, the fact that mixed marriages are assailed
of the peoples of the land. These persons were already married in Ezra-Neh., to assign Mal. to the middle of the fifth century.
and their non-Jewish fathers-in-law were able, in consequenc; [The precise position of the hook in relation to Nehemiah and
of their social position, to make the new,marriage conditional Ezra is a matter of controversy. Stade places it before the
on a preceding divorce of the Jewish wife. Against this, how- arrival of Ezra; Driver during the absence of Nehemiah at the
ever, 5ee Winckler A O F 2 5368- ED.] Persian Court ; Che. (few. ReZ. Lzyc) shortly before the arrival
2 [It is, of cours;, v. 16 which may appear to break the con- of Nehemiah, and consequently before that of Ezra. The ques-
tinuity of Mal. 2 10-16. ' For I hate dismissal (of a wife), says tiou has passed into a new phase in consequence of recent
Yahwt,' may ~ e e mtoo general and far-reaching to serve as a n critical study of the Rooks of Ezra and Nehemiah.-E~.]
argument in this special case. But it is urged that reformers 1 SeefBL 17 16-20 ; also EDOM, P 9.
often do not see all that follows from the general principles 2 I t is a curious fact that many scholars, following Ewald,
which they invoke, which explains some of the strange incon- have seen in this (in itself by no means remarkable) habit of
sistencies in the later O T literature.-E~.] style a mark of the transition to the dialectic manner of the
3 It has been customary, chiefly because of the traditional Jewish schools, although dating Mal. in the fifth century.
2909 2910
MALCHIRAM MAMMON
corruption of Jerahme’el ; Hamnielech and Harim J UNIPER , and for a recovered parallel to Job304 (Job
( 2 4 - 6 ) seem to be corruptions of Jerahme’el. Note 66) see P URSLAIN .] M n L l C Z h comes from rnCluh, ‘ salt,’
also Malchijah the Rechabite (7, 8 ) ; cp M ALCHIEL . and it is now agreed that the plant is that called BXipos
That nos. 4-6, 7 and 8, and 9-11 represent only three or Bhipov hy the Greeks, viz. the sea orache, Afriplex
individuals is highly probable. pAx[c]ta [BKA], peh- H n C m u s , L. This was first shown by Bochart (Hieroz.
Xias [L]. 3 r 6 ) , who quoted the statement of Ihn Baitar (d. 1248
I. Father of PASHHUR, q.v. ; Jer. 21 I MELCHIAH[AVl, A . D . ) that the peopleof Syria in his timegave the name
MALCHIAH [RV] ( ~ ~ A X . X L[BNAQ]),
OU Jer. 38 I EV MALCHIAH mallulzinh to the BXipov.
BHA om., ~ ~ A X L O([Aq.,
U Theod., in Qlng.1). The plant is described hy Dioscor. (1no) as ‘a hedge shrub,
2. h. Hammelech (RV ‘the king’s son,’ hut see above), into resembling a bramble, whitish, hut thornless. Its leaves are like
whose dunzeon Jeremiah was cast ; Jer. 386 EV MALCHIAH those of the olive, hut broader and softer; they are used as
(psAx[e]rou~BNAQ1). potherbs and cooked for food.
3. Ancestor of Adaiah the priest; I Ch.912 ( p a h p a [El, According to Tristram (NHB 466) the sea. orache
pshxtou [A]); Neh.llrz AV MALCHIAH; probably to he
identified with the Malchijah who gave his name to one of the
‘ grows abundantly on the shores of the Mediterranean,
twenty-four priestly lots; I Ch. 249 (pehxqh [LI); cp the in salt marshes, and also on the shores of the Dead
occurrence of the name in the Asaphite genealogy in I Ch. Sea still more luxuriantly. .. . I t forms a dense mass
6 4 0 [25] AV MALCHIAH ( p f h ‘a [Ll). of thin twigs without thorns, has very minute purple
4, 5, 6. (AV MALCHIAH) h.%arosh, h. Parosh secundus, and flowers close to the stem, and small, thick, sour-tasting
(AV MALCHIAH) h. Harim, laymen in list of those with foreign
leaves which conld he eaten, as is the Atriplex hodensis,
wives (see E ZRA i... I_ <I end), .: Ezra 1024- -16isl. -
-,10 71 (BRA
. om.
or Garden Orache, but it would he very miserable food.’
the second Malchijah in 10 25 and add ua@a [N],auaQia[A], etc.,
see ASIBIAS . L for the first reads pcxaras. In I Esd. 926 32 N. M.
MELCHIAS). ’ Malchijah h. Harim was one of the repairers of MALLUCH ($22, 5 57 ; MAAOYX [BKA], -K [LI).
the wall : Neh. 3 II ( p e h a a s [EA]). I. A Merarite: I Ch.644 [291 (paAox [BAL]); see GENE-
7 8. (AV MALCHIAH)~. Rechab, ruler of the district of Beth- ALOGIES i., $ 7 (iii. a).
haicherem, Neh.3 14; and ‘one of the goldsmiths,’ Neh. 331, 2. h. Bani, a layman in list of those with foreign wives (see
both repairers. If ?en-rechah the designation of the former,
means ‘Rechahite it show; that the Kenites still lived E ZRA i. 5 5 end); Ezra102 (ahoup [Bl, adoup [ N ] ) = I Esd.930
among the repre;entatives of the old people of Israel. MAMU;HUS ( p w o v p r [EA$.
Cp Be.-Rys. ad lor. ; E. Meyer Entst. 167. And certainly 3. h. Harim, a layman in same list ; Ezra1032 ( p d o u x [N?].
‘Rechabite’ is the meaning, if, in accordance with parallels p d o c [Ll) ; Neh. 1027 [ z 8 ] (paahoux [~vid.]).
almost innumerable, * a y x q l (a24rifex) is a corruption of -11 4. A priestly signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i., 7);
Neh.104 [SI; the name occurs also in the list of those who
*ng?y, ’son of a Zarephathite.’ Observe that in Neh. 3 32 (by returned with Zerubhahel ; Neh. 12 2 (pahouh [Bl). The head
a ‘necessary ’ emendation) the Zarephathites ( o * n q x d and the of the ‘fathers’ house’ of MALLUCHI or the Malluchites in
Jerahmeelites (&nnyn for &i$
operating in the repairs. See ZAREPHATH.
are mentioned as co-
9, TO, TI. A supporter of Ezra at the reading of the law (see
(‘$9 Kt., but &
Joiakim’s time was onathan(see E ZRA ii., 5 66, 5 II), Neh. 12 14
Kr. RV%. MELICU). See MALLUCHI.
Both ‘ Harim ’ and Malluchi ’ suggest ‘Jerahmeel’ (Che.).
E ZRA ii., 5 1 3 J ; cp i. $ 8, ii., $3 16 [SI, ii. $ 15 [I] c), Neh.84
( ~ N \ X C L ([BRA]),
LS cp I Esd. 944 MELCHIAS ; priestly signatory MALLUCHI, see M ALLUCH , 4. (See E ZRA ii., $5 66,
to the covenant (see E ZRA i. 5 7) Neh. 10 7 (41 ; and a priest in 11).
procession at dedication of ;all (iee E ZRA ii., 5 13g) Neh. 1242
(phxaas mg’; BNA om.]).
MALLUS (MAAAL~TAI 2 Maw. 430). Mallus re-
T. K. C.
belled, along with Tarsus, against Antlochus Epiphanes
MALCRIRAM (Q+, § 41, my king is exalted ’ ;
about 171 R . C . Its earliest Greek name was Marlos
perhaps an adaptation of a name corrupted (cp HAMME- (cp coins) ; in the Middle Ages it was called Malo. I t
LECH, MALCHIJAH) from J ERAHMEEL (Che.), one of the was a town of some importance, lying on a height (6+’
sons of Jeconiah ; I Ch. 3 18 (~eAx[e]tPAM [BAL]). Uq:us ~ ~ i p h v $Strabo,
. 675),on the E. of the Pyramus
MALCHI-SHUA (U.l@?)Q or in one word [Bab. (Jzhun),for Alexander the Great had to bridge the river
MSS] as in I S . ; N AMES , 5 41 ;’ MEAXICOYE [KAL] before reaching the town in his advance to Issus. T h e
site lies about I hour SW. of the small village of Kuru-
but M ~ A X I P O Y [AI,
~ I S. 312 ; M E A X I C ~ A A[L].
I I S.
tush. T h e Pyramus divides near its mouth into two
1449 ; M ~ A X ~ I C O Y PE I , 1 Ch. 939 102 ; MEAXEC. P I , which flow respectively E. and W. of the short
1Ch.833; MEAXEICA[BI. 1s.1449312; M E A X I C ~ A E K arms,
[K]; I Ch. l o a ) , son of Saul, said to have fallen with his range of hills extending along the coast NE. of Kara-
father (I S . 312). Both fact and name, however, are tash. In ancient times the western arm was the more
questionable. important ; but now it is almost dry and the real mouth
As to the fact, see SAUL, $4. As to the name, the second of the river is at the opposite end of the chain, at the
element yiv is a corruption of )NU,the first three letters of 5 1 ~hay~ of Ayash (anc. Egae).
dittographed. 2-j~ in the preceding name 131 is evidently a The conclusion as to the site given above, which is that ot
variant of pi in pi)’. The name of Saul’ssecond son may have Ramsay (Hisf.Geogr. of AM, 385 ; cp Murray’s Hand6ook to
been either 15 - 1(Ahimelech)
~ or, if is merely a variant of AM, 190, with map), is controverted by Heherdey, the most
y (Marq.) 38, is most probably a corruption of h i n n recent authority. He holds that Kara-tash represents the
(Mahriel): 5Nnny. Uerahme’el). The latter view is preferable. ancient Magarsa (Straho, 676), Mallus lying 150 stades farther
Cp MEPHIBOSHBTH ; SAUL,$ 6. T. K. C.
inland, just at the point at which the +amus forks. Some
support to this view is given by the coins, which show the
MALCHUS (M&,XOC [TLWH]), the name of the goddess of the city between two river gods : the proposed site
bond-servant of the high-priest whose right ear was is now a marsh. The ancient authorities, however, combined
with the presence of many inscri tionz of Mallus at Kara-tash,
struck off by Peter (Jn. 18 IO). The name is of Semitic would seem conclusive against tiis view-though undoubtedly
origin and not unfrequent (cp MaLLUCH and see the Sfadiaslnus in saying that Mallus lay 150 stades E. of
NAMES,5 57). Magarsa is greatly in error. W.J. W.
MALELEEL (Lk. 337!, RV M AHALALEEL (4.v.). MALOBATHRON (Cant. 2 17t RVmg.). See BETHER.
MALLOS (2 Macc. 4 3 0 ) ~RV MALLUS(4.v.). MALTANNEUS (MAATANN~IOC [B]), I Esd. 933
RV=EzralOgg, M ATTENAI , 2.
MALLOTHI (+&, 5 23 ; i.e. ‘ I have fulfilled’ ;
MAMAIAS, RV Samaias ( C A M A I A[BA]),
N I Esd.
M ~ A A H ~ [L];
I hut in I Ch.254 MEAhLdel [AI. 844 = Ezra816, S HEMAIAH , 17.
M A N ~ E I [ B l ; and in ZJ. 261. MB?AHBI [AI, Ms9a9ai
[B]), one of the a sons of Heman. See HEMAN. MAMDAI ( M ~ M A [B]).
~ I I Esd. 934RV=Ezra1035,
MALLOWS, RV Salt-wort (mullclririh,d n , a ~ l M a 1 B ENAIAH , 9.
Job304f). The abject wretches who make Job their MAMMON. T h e word occurs four times in the N T
mock are described as cave-dwellers who feed miserably in two passages, Mt. 624 Lk. 1 6 9 11 13, the last of these
on the maZW4 and other desert plants. [See further 1. Spelling. verses being parallel to Mt.624. AV
1 Aq. rendered ‘oil’(2hrcppa) ; Sym. andVg. ‘ bark’(+Aoco&, everywhere ‘ Mammon,’ in Lk. 169 II mg.
cortices). ‘ O r , riches ; ’ RV ‘mammon.’ Yet no critical editor
2911 2912
MAMMON MAMMON
of the Greek now sanctions the m m ; p a p w v i is found \ma; it is met with, however, in MH, see, e.g.,
as early as the Complutensian Polyglot and the first two 3. Uee and Pit-kZ A-hith 212 (R. Jose used to say
editions of Erasmus ; it is in editions 3-5 of Erasmus, meaning. 1’7~3+y 3 m -pm iim w , ‘ the mamon
in Stephens, and in Elzevir that we first find pappwua. (riches) of thy neighbour shall be dear to
and this not in Lk., but only in Mt., ‘ c . min. ut vid. thee as thy own ‘ ; or npir i:m nbn, ‘ the salt of mamon
pauc.‘ (Tisch.).’ is almsgiving. ‘
Though not found as yet in any uncial MS this spelling is Here Strack vocalises fin$ even in the st. cstr., whilst
attested by several ancient versions, especially’MSS of the 0.
Lati? c, f, ffi, gi, h, Ulfilas in Mt. (nzammonin, with the Delitzsch punctuates hip? in Lk.1611 [but in ed. 1892
marginal glossfa2hu-praihna=)ecunia; the latter word stand- i h h W 3 $ X ] ; Pagninus gave f i D P N$G, Dalman (Gram.
ing In Lk. in the text); the official Vulgate, with some ten of
the MSS of Jerome as collated by Wordsworth-White, who now, 135) gives ficp, Ex. 21 30 (Onk.). In the Syriac versions it is
with the greater number of older MSS, write matnona; the
Sahidic (though in the Catena published by Lagarde everywhere uniformly L& (Z),though Karmsedinoyo in the Thrs-
[7 times] papova, p. 15, 160). In ecclesiastical literature
pappovis is the prevalent spelling (Zahn, Einl. 112) ; but the
aums Syriacus mentions the spelling d (2)in the first
editions ?f the fathers can only in part be trusted. For papovis syllable. In the Palestinian Syriac we have the spellings
see Clem. ad Cor. 6, I ; Clem.Al. (ed Dindorf, i. 98 5, iii. 314 3)
Orig. c. Cefs. 8 3 56 (ed. Koetschau, ii. 222 25, 273 13) ; Adam!
1~- cod. B (in Mt.), C (in Lk. 11 13).bcuDk, cod. B
antius (ed. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, 5623f: 584 6); Aport. (in Lk. 11 I3), b e . = C (in Mt.), AC (Lk. IT 13). On the
Consf. 3, 7 (ed. Lagarde, 102 17 22 ; Pitra in both passages Mandaic forms NJIND and ~ j i j ’ n (with j), see Naldeke, M u d .
-,~p). There is an interesting passage in the newly dis- Gr. 50.
covered Latin DidascaZia (ed. Hauler, p., 46), ‘De solo T h e LXX seems to have found the word in Ps. 36 (37) 3
maniinona cogitant, quorum Deus est sacculus ; in the Syriac
N J ~ ~ D - ,‘they
, are only of (=for) the nzamon, whose God is the for ~ I D N .The ~ word is especially frequent in the Tar-
purse and the belly ’ (p. 65, 8, 11) ; in the Greek :i v r i TOG 8foG T$ gums and sometimes supplemented there by i p u i ( = r i j s
papov4 Aa.ipedcr mvr&rr Govhetiier T@ ripaer. Origen (ed. &GLKIUSof Lk. ). T h e passages of this kind are marked
Klostermann, iii. 53.28). 866: mf ~ U T W‘ $ K o l A l a ’ (Phil. 319)
. . . 066s uo6 e v n v o pwovas rar KV~LOS.
in the following list with a star.
It corresponds to Heh. p: in Gen. 37 26 Ex. 18 21 Judg. 5 19
T h e question of spelling is more important here than
elsewhere because of the etymology (see below, $5 3, 4); *I S. 8 3 *Prov. 15 27 *Ezek. 22 27. 1’” in Ps. 44 13 [12] Prov. 3 9.
for the Greek the single p seems to be certain (cp also fin?, Eccles. 59, Tg. and Pesh., Targ. with the addition l * W ;
Edward Miller. TexiuaZ Commenfavy 47, pupwua, cp 6 rrrprrz6s in Suidas above, 2. ’7;c in Ps. 49 II [IO]. W> in
Burgon, ‘All Uncials and most Cursives ’) ; the Latin Ex. 21 30 (also Pesh.) ; Nu. 35 31 *I S. 12 3 *Amos5 12. lkp in
‘ mni ’ may he influenced by the analogy of mamma and Dt. 6 5 Onk. 031 (wherewith cp Ecclus. 5 8 , >,yw ‘~jj=xp~jpaor
annora ; cp also gradbatum for grabaftum, Earrubas Mlrars). l’np in Is. 55 I. 1s: in *Hos. 5 XI. W737 in Gen. 14 12
for Barabbas, and similar cases.
T h e question of accentuation is also of unusual im- (Jon.). lnki in *Is. 33 15 45 13.2 In the Peshitta of Ecclus. the
word isfound 108142 (e, ap4para), 3158 (e,~pvulav). In
a.
portance.2 All modern editors write ~ a ~ w vin$ the
dative, with ‘ iota subscript&’
the oldest MSS of the N T have no
As
the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus it is now found 51 8, not In 14 3 (where
pin). On the proposal to read pap)” or p,also 40 26c (e,
Eo@aav) see Schechter-Taylor, 55. In 429 we have 3 ~ ni 5
accents we cannot tell how far this iota rests on MSS i p w n j n ~ (marg.,
n iiDDn)=@, 8vyi711prrarpi L ~ K ~ V Lypvm-
~JOS
authority ; but the nominative / ~ , ~ p w v 8is s found in the via, Pesh. -
,e J&&a. Strange that in Tg. it stands
Onomastica Vaticana (Lag. 194,59,pupwvcLs n h o k o s +)
pGpos, GGpu 4 T.$+~TLY, with t
[ T ~ L i.m.
] at the last nowhere for i i ~ p ) ” (Tg. mostly=I:DD, always Bvuavpol
Gen. 43 23 Job3 21 Pror. 2 4 Is. 45 3 Jer. 41 8), from which many
word); in Suidas (ed. Bernhardy, 8679): MapwvBr
derive it.
x p w b s , -&os rrhoGros oirxl 6 PK TOG Z U T U V ~ , b
&AX’
m p p m b s Kal h k p T ~ Yx p ~ i a v . As the word is already T h e following are the chief etymologies which have
been proposed. ( I ) From .Jim, the thing in which
inflected in the earliest Latin writers ( e . g . , Tertullian) we
need not doubt that the nominative was papwv6s (not
e Etymology. men tt-ust or what is entrusted to man,
or that which szrpports and nourishes
-ti), like Z U T U U B SCertainly
.~ to Greek readers papwvdr
men. The Syriac lexicographers favour the last view.
must have had the ring of a masculine proper name,
I n Lk. 1611 there is an apparent play of words with
a t least in such a connection as that of Mt. 6 24 = Lk. 1613.
this root ( T L U T O ~ , ~b dAqBiubu. T L U T E ~ U E L ) .
T h e latest editor, Fr. Blass (Evangelium secundum
2. From d m n = iiddn, Eccl. 5 9 Ps. 37 16.
Matthczum cum varire lectionis delectu, Lipsiae,
Tenbner, MCMI) returns to the spelling with a capital
3. From Jp,as contraction of iiDBn. This ex-
planation is much older than Gesenius (Thes.), being
as W H had printed in their privately - distributed
already quoted by Calovius and Castell-Michaelis. I t
Gospels. As an impersonal neuter it would have been
spelt papGuu like pLduua. nduxa. That it really is mas- is maintained also by Dalman ( G r a m . 13j),who thinks
culine as the dictionaries mostly state is shown by the that (:m=finpe, came as a Hebrew word to the
passage from Origen, 353, quoted in 5 I . ~ Aramzeans, and that its origin was considered to be
Biblical Hebrew does not contain a word fin? or of the form kat131 and consequently vocalised with B
and without dagesh.
1 Bengel quotes for papova the cursive MSS 83, 84, 86, 89, 4. From d i n in the sense of njn=the allotfed f o r -
c v s t 24, et mulfiaZii; for papp. only ‘editions. f i o n ; thus Frz. Delitzsch ( Z L T , 1876,p. 600). For a
2 Kautzsch (Aratn. Gramm. I O) states that W H accentiiate different view see Michaelis (Cast. Lex. Sur. ).
p p o d but in fact-in all impressions-they have pap& as
genitivi and papwvol as dative. This ‘ iota subscripturn’ points j. Lagarde (Mittlreil. 1229 and obersicht) maintained
to the fact that the$ consider the nominative to he papovks. I t that it is = p y n = Arab. madmen.
is strange too, that Baljon should give in the dictionarypapovk, 6. It was even connected in early times with pGpor
1 6 (wifh CremerP), 632) ; in N T he himself gives the dative as
(*“WV,+.
(see Onomastica and Buxtorf) ; with pucCUjw (see Bux-
3 Hence arises the question whether Lagarde was right when torf, Castell) ; and in modern times, by G. Hoffmann,
he inferred from the termination -as that a word like Zaravis with u6p~upu(see details in his Phon. Insclrriftn, 43).
was regarded as a proper name and not as an appellative.
Schmiedel-Wine,, $ 6, n. 17, denied it, and we may compare 1 Not, however (as is sometimes stated), in Is. 33 6, where dv
KOp&v& beside iop@v.
4 Nic. de Lyra,(on Mt.) remarks, in accordance with the
t9quavpo;c corresponds to p. Nevertheless this passage is
Glossa Ordinaria, mammona syra lingua diwifie,’adding that important, because Bquavpa; 8rrarowJvl)r(ii$x) later in the verse
it was also said to be the name of a demon (‘nomen daemonis reminds us of the papovi 6 s 1 6 r r i a s in Lk.
qui tentat de cupiditate divitiarum’ ; Glossa Ordinaria, ‘qui 2 Cp, further, I S . 2 5 Ps. 112 g, 2 S. 14 14 (nothing to corre-
praeest divitiis ’). In Lk. he takes the other course: ‘ Mammon spond in Hebrewhand y d l l ilDiJ, Hah. 2 9 = p Yrp. The plural
est nomen dmmonis tentantis de divitiis male acquirendis et
ideo nomen eius ad divitias significanda derivatur et potest esse does not seem to occur in the Targums; hut in Jewish writings
primae vel tertiae declinationis dicendo mammona, mammonze, n~jinn9*1, ‘processes about jropen‘y,’ are distinguished from
vel mammon, mammonis. ni& ’7.
94 29’3 2914
MAMNITANAIMUS MAN, MEN
Hoffmann's objection to Lagarde's explanation, that it I t was probably at Rehoboth, not at Hebron, that the tall
does not fit the Punic meaning lucrum, known to sons of Anak dwelt; cp I Ch. 1123, which suggests that the
Augustine ( ' Lucrum Punice mammon dicitur,' on the MuSrites were noted for their stature (see MIZRAIM).Reho-
both HalBph, and Beer Jerahmeel were all important laces in
Sermon on the Mount, ii. 1417) is scarcely to the point. the kegeb, and famous in legend (see NEGEB,HEIIRON~.
That there was a god (or as Nic. de Lyra said [§ 2 , S.A.C.,§I;T.K.C.,$2.
n. 31, a demon) called Mammon or Mamon, like the MAMUCHUS ( M A M O Y X O C [BA]), I Esd. 930; see
IIXoikor of the Greeks, does not follow from the words MALLUCH, 2.
of Tert. adv. Mauc. 433, iniustitize enim autorem et
dominatorem totius saeculi nuinmum scinius omnes ' ; MAMZER (1TPD). This word, probably of popular
nor from those quoted above from the Didascalia, origin (see below), became a technical term in later
a quorum Deus est sacculus.' T h e personification of Judaism for one born of related persons between whom
riches lies close at hand. marriage is illegal (see BASTARD). An old Talmudic
Luther is apparently the first German translator of the Bible tradition, however, defines a Mamzer differently, a s
to give 'Mammon'. the early translators (like Ulfilas and
later translations like' the French Martin) gave its equivhent. meaning a child born of a marriage of a non-Jew or a
So far as we have hitherto been able to learn, it makes its first slave with a Jewess (see references in Geiger, Urschriff,
appearance in English in Piers Plowman (1392 ?) : ' And of Mam- 5 4 ) . Geiger thinks that this is the original meaning,
monaes money mad hym many frendes' (1187). The wide and that this is proved by Zech. 96, ' a mamz2r shall
currency of the idea that Mammon is the name of a god is due
to Milton (W. H. Bennett, in Hastings, DB 3 224). dwell in Ashdod' (cp Neh. 1323f:). I t is highly
See Thayer-Grimm Acua'emy 1888 2416 c ' Barth Etymo-
Zogzsch Studien, 4 0 j ; ZA 5 568); the bictioniries of i e v y and
Jastrow. Eb. N.
probable, however, that ?inn in that passage is a cor-
ruption of an Assyrian loan-word mindidu, measuring-
clerk' (see S CRIBE ), so that the passage means that
.
MAMNITANAIMUS, RV Mamnitanemua ( M ~ M - Ashdod shall be subject to Assyrian functionaries. If
ThNhlMOC [BIv MhMNIThNhIMOC [A],MhTehNIh[?] so, the only O T passage containing mamz2r is Dt. 232 ;
[L]),, a corruption in I Esd. 934 of ' Mattaniah, Mat- the ideas which gathered round the word, however, are
tenai. and Jaasu' (Ezra 1037). alluded to in Jn. 749, which Nestle is probably right
(against B. Weiss) in paraphrasing thus, ' W e are no
MAMaE (WF))I; MAMBPH [ADEL]), name
heathen, but the legitimate members of the assembly of
closely connected with the legends of Abraham. T h e God ' ( E x p . T , Feb. 1 9 0 0 , p. 235).
' o a k s ' (or rather perhaps ' o a k ' ; so The origin of nramzdr seems far from being settled. Must it
*' References' 6, Pesh. ; cp Gen. 184, 'the tree') ' of not be an old popular corruption, not of :1 O p , as Geiger
Mamre,' for which AV constantly gives ' plains ' (see
thought, but of the lengthy Hebrew phrase Y%? OY,'am haire!
P LAIN ) are mentioned in Gen. 1318 1413 181 (all J,
(cp Jn.749)? Dt. 23 z$ can hardly be pre-exilic. Nestle,
except 1413). In 1413, as also in v. 2 4 . Mamre is Der Mamzer von Asdod,' Z A TW20 [I~co], p. ~ a t f : , raises the
described as an Amorite, and as the brother of ANER question of a connection between Zech. 96 and Neh. 1323J,
and ESHCOL. In P (Gen.231719 259 3527 4930 5013) but quite misses the sense both of llnn and of 1 ~ 3 ~ Cp . the
Mamre is connected with Abraham's burial place, and present writer's article, PSBA 22 [1900] 165f:
T. K. C.
is identified (2319 3527) with H EBRON [g.v.]. Jos.
(BJiv. 9 7 ) speaks of a large terebinth, as old as the MAN,MEN. Five Hebrewwords are thus rendered :-
world, which stood in his time six stadia from the I. O V , '&~'rim (on possible root, see A DAM AND E VE , 0 3 [a],
city ; doubtless it was traditionally associated with the and cp Del. Prol. 103f: : Muss.-Am. Ass. Did. 20; Di. Gen.(W
oak of Mamre, and in the Jewish legends which sprang 53 f: : in Sab. 0 1 ~ means 'servant, vassal'). A collective
up later, Mamre plays a prominent part. Sozomen term (properly with art.) for 'mankind' (Gen. 6 I 7) or 'men' as
states that in his time it was called TqdpvBos,l and opposed to God ( II d'! or O@
' :E LIs.217, and,withoutart.,9r1]).
was the scene of a yearly feast and fair (cp WRS Re.?. Also, ' a representative or typical member of the human race,' so
Sem.(9 177, 193). W e may admit, then, that Josephus's 'n 025, ' a living man,' Lam. 3 39 (but see LAMENTATIONS,
statement ' as old as creation ' is not without an element I 4, end); Ye; 025, ' a wicked man' (Job2Ozg 2713 Prov.
of truth ; the old, heathenish tree-worship survived, in 6 IZ 117). In late usage, 025 can mean 'any man' (Neh. 2 IO).
an innocent form, even to Christian times. See further, If emendations suggested elsewhere are accepted, it is re-
markable bow liable this word is to corruption : consequently
N ATURE -W ORSHIP , 2, and, on the name, cp M ARY . some very doubtful meanings have found their way into
Winckler, however (Gf 2 38J), thinks that the connection of the lexicons. Examples are, Gen. 16 12 (see I SHMAEL ); Is.
Mamre with Hebron is due to misunderstanding. Mamre and 43 4 Jer. 32 20 Hos. 6 7 (see LOVINGKINDNESS) ; Job 3133 Ps.
Kirjath-arba were connected ; but Kirjath-arha was in the far
N., and may have been Dan. 'I'be terebinths of Mamre re- 174 827 11611. In J's narrative of creation, O%p is the first
present the sacred precinct of the sanctuary. created man (see ADAM A N D EVE). On the phrase 'son of
So far we have proceeded on the assumption that M T man,' see special article. Cp M ESSIAH.
2. d.!, 'is' (root uncertain; the plur. O't@! is evidently
is correct in its readings. In the light of emenda-
a. Textual tions, however. which have been sug- connected with Wile [31). The word is-used as a designation
gested in other passages, we can hardly of the male sex ( e g . , Gen. 4 I I S. 111, and [of animals] Gen. 7 2).
Also for a hushand as opposed to a wife (Gen. 36 29 32 34 Ruth
help emending uinn 'I~K? (Gen. 13 18 1 4 13 111). Hence for Yahw&as Israel'shusband (Hos. 2 7 [9] 16 [la]).
18 I ) into 5unn-y ' in Jerahmeel,' or ni* i u l l 'by the Also, for an inhabitant of a city or country (Judg. 10 I I S. 7 T I
well of Jerahmeel. This and the related critical emenda- etc.); generally as a collective (Josh. 96 Judg. 723, cp M i
tions pour a flood of light on the legends of Abram or 1TO). Also for servants or soldiers ( I S.233 12, etc.); cp the
Abraham, whose name indeed possibly means ' T h e phrase 'man of God'=prophet. Whether d ? ~ ? , and : O?N-*lg
(divine)father loves' (properly Ab-raham), indicating that inantithesis(Ps. 493[2] 6210[9]' cp43[2l)mean'lowand high''
'men of low degree,' and 'men of high degree' (so EV), is
he represented originally the tribe of Jerahmeel ( ' God disputed. In Jer. 5 I d .
! even acquires an ethical connotation.
loves '?). The brothers of Mamre are Aner and Eshcol. (possibly connected by the Hebrews with
3. dllg, 'e%&
For i i y , Aner, read y l i ~ Arba2, (probably from q ,
"p/ y>!, 'to he weak' ; a mere Volksetynrobgz2); cp Ass.
'Arabia,' and for ky:, Eshcol, read n$n, HalHsah (re- f&zzsetum, 'human beings'= ' mankind' ; xi&, ' a people,' pl.
niZ,'people.' Properly a collective=the human race (Dt.32 26
membering that pnr., ' Isaac,' not improbably comes
Job 7 17 15 14 Ps. 8 4 [SI); so also Vht$-]z (Ps. 144 3). Rarely
from y$nvp+ Qiheles ; see ISAAC ).
of individuals (Is. 56 2 Jer. 20 10 Ps. 55 13[14] Job 5 17 139). In
1 The 7fpl@rvBoc in &i12)29736, is that ofGen. 354(Shechem). Is. 8 I dilg D?p,'aman'spen'='incommoncharacters'(RVmg.).
'There 1s also a TpepbOoik In Cyprus, explained from the
trembling of the ground when Aphrodite set her feet upon the In allusion to its supposed etymology WlJN can mean 'frail
spot, but really, as Steph. Byz. says TprpreoSs is Cypriote for (mortal) man,' as opposed to God : 50 in Job,'Psalms, Is. 51 7 12
Tf'ppwBoc, terebinth. The connec;ion of the terebinth with 2 Cb. 14 10[11]. Di. and Del. would thusexplain Enos(Enosh)in
Aphrodite is doubtless correct' (WRS, MS note). Gen. 4 26 : but see ENOS,and on Is. 8 I , see C r i i . Bi6.
Y!p ' Anak,' is suggested by Wi. (GI2 40) as a possibility ;
2 , 4. 122,gPblter (Aram. lg! ; MI 50 16, j l 2 2 and nlX, ' men'
but see SODOM. and 'women'; Arab. iudr, 'a vigorous young man'; cp
2915 2916
MANACLES MANASSEH
?\a!, ‘a strong man’). In the sing. only once in prose-viz., is not mentioned, but presumably it was Danite. SHOBAL
in Dt. 32 5 (opposed to ne!, ‘woman ’) ; in plur. Ex. 10 11 12 37 Cg.v.1, it should be remembered, is both Edomite and
Josh. 7 14 17f: I Ch. 23 3 2 4 4 26 12. D’:?! (the pl. form) is Judahite. There was also an Edomite M ANAHATH
more definite than LlV+h! (see z), which includes men, women, !q.v., I). Note, too, that Salma (called in I Ch. 251,
and children. 132 is (a)=d?-i.e., simply ‘ man ’ (Ps. 349 [8l the father of Beth-1ehem.’-Le. .Beth-jerahmeel? [Che.])
is properly N. Arabian. See SALMAH.
40 5 141 52 9 [7] 94 12 Jer. 17 5 7) ; (6) ‘ strong man,’ like lb!
(Job383 Is.2217); (c)=l?X, ‘male’(Jer.306 31zz),also of a MANASSEAS (MANACCHAC [BA]), I Esd. 931 =
male child (Job 3 3) ; (d)‘husband ’ (Prov. 6 34) ; ( e ) ‘ warrior ’ Ezra 1030, MANASSEH(2).
(Judg. 5 30) ; cf) ‘man ’ ( = Ll:?), as opposed to God (Job 4 17
10 5 14 10 14 Prov. 20 24 Lam. 3 35). MANASSEH.
5. o‘nn, mZtthim (sing. m p ,cpperhaps METHUSAEL, METHU- Application of name ($ I). OT references ($ 5f:).
S E L A H ; cp Ass. mutu, Eth. met, both meaning ‘husband’), Relation to Ephraim ($ 2 3 ) Probable history ($ 7).
especially in the phrase ’,SOP ’Cs?, ‘few people ’ (Gen. 34 30 Dt. Meaning of name ($ 4). P’s geographical data (5 8).
Genealogies (0 9).
4 27 Ps. 105 12 I Ch. 16 IS), or the synonymous DYO ’ne (Dt. 265
Manasseh (?i@lp ; § 62 ; on etymology see below,
28 62). Six times in Job (11 3 11 19 19 22 15 24 12 31 3’): six times
in Ut. (2 34 3 6 4 27 26 5 28 6 2 33 6). The only old passage is Is. 5 4 ; gentilic Manassite, @JQ [see 5 4, end] ; noun and
3 25, where it seems to mean ‘warriors.’ In Judg. 2048 (see adjective alike, MANACCH [BAEDFL],
Moore, Bu.) Un? should he read for on?. T. K. C.
MA“. [A], MANACCHC [BAQRT]) is
of name. mentloned in Is. 9 20 as a Dart of Israel.
MANACLES (D’PM),Jer. 40I AVmg. ; EV, CHAINS engaged, or about to be engaged (Marti, ad Zoc.), in
(4.v. 2).
strife with Ephraini (cp E PHRAIM , § 5 , i. end). There
MANAEN (MANAHN [Ti.WH], L e . , DnJP; cp is no other contemporary reference of a historical char-
readings of M ENAHEM ), a Christian prophet or teacher acter.2 In the genealogical schemes Manasseh ranks
a t Antioch called [RV] the ‘ foster-brother ’ [Vg. c o b as a brother of Ephraim. Since Ephraim is practically
lactaneus] of Herod the tetrarch, Acts 13 I (‘Hpq3ou TOO synonymous with Israel (see E PHRAIM . § I ) , if we
T E T P U ~ P X O U uL;v~po$,os). ‘ Foster-brother,‘ however, could feel sure that the seniority ascribed by J, E
seems to say too much; uliv.rpo$,os is well attested (virtually), and P (see below, 2 ) to Manasseh repre-
as a court-title in Hellenistic Greek (Frankel, AZtw- sented a real tradition, we should be tempted to believe
fhurner won Pevgnrnon, viii. 1,pp. I I I $ , quoting inscrip- that the people who held the highlands of N. Israel a t
tions and Polyb. v. 94 xxxii. 25 10 ; Deissmann, Bibel- an early date were called Manasseh.3 Machir, who in
studien, 180$, cp 173): Manaen, then, was in the Judg. 5 14 seems to represent Manasseh, is in Josh. 17 I
confidence of Herod Antipas ; the title implies nothing Manasseh’s eldest son, and in Nu.2629fl (cp Gen.
as to his early life. 5023) his only son, and is therefore perhaps Manasseh
Mavaq+o~was also the name of an Essene who foretold that himself (cp M ACHIR , and below, § 5 , end). It is not im-
Herod the Great would one day become king (Jos. Ant. possible, if ’ Benjamin ‘ was not originally mentioned
xv. 10 5), and who is to be identified with the colleague of
Hillel in the Sanhedrin (C/rZgi@ 2 2 ’ Geiger, Iud. Z t . , 1869, in J u d g . 5 1 4 ~ (cp B EN J AMIN , § 4), that Ephraim and
pp. 176f:). But the coincklenc: is ’accidental. The name Manasseh (or Machir) were by poetical parallelism
would naturally be a favourite with those who ‘waited for the names for the same thing. This would explain how,
consolation of Israel ’ (Lk.2 25). Cp ‘ Manairn’ (ISRAEL, s IOI), when, at a later date (Graf, Gesch. des Stammes Sirneon,
a zealot. Acc. to Talm. J e . Bey. 2 4, Midr. on Lam. 116, one
of the names of the Messiah would be Menahem, ‘comforter.’ 5 ; Ew. Ge.rch. 2 4 2 3 8 ) . Western Israelites planted the
Cp MENAHEM. T. K . C. name of Machir-Manasseh E. of Jordan ( J AIR , M ACHIR ),
MANAHATH (nnJp,5 78 ; M A N A X A e [ADL]). the geographical name of E PHRAIM [g.v., 21 pre-
I . One of the sons of Shobal the Horite. Gen. 3623
vailed in the west. If the names ascribed to Manasseh
(there is no definite territory: EPHRAIM, 11) in Josh.
(pavvaXa0 [A], pavaxa [E]) ; I Ch. 1 4 0 ( p a x a v a p [B],
pavaa0 [L]). Cp the origin assigned to the Mana- 172 be taken to make probable the existence of some
hathites of Judah, I Ch. 252 54. special Manassite clan or clans forming part of the
2. A place to which the Benjamites of Geba were
population of the Ephraini country they may, before
compelled by other Beiijamite clans to migrate, I Ch. most of them migrated eastwards, have been influential
86 ( p a p v a 0 e r [E], pavaxaer [A], p a v o l d [L]). This enough to lend their name sometimes to the whole.
Manahath may be assunied to he the chief town or How well Machir as an equivalent for Joseph would
village of the M ANAHATHITES of Judah [g.v.], and may suit the Genesis narrative has been pointed out else-
reasonably be identified with (3). where ( E P H R A I M , § I). It may have been the com-
paratively early migration of most of these settlers that
3. (pavoxw [R4L], puvax [4454 etc.], pavvax [7476
etc.], Afidnak [Syrohex.].) One of the cities of Judah led to the western story of the seniority of Manasseh.
added by d in Josh. 1559 (cp SBOT); it follows BETHER Whatever may have been the real history of the name
(see - (3 I ),. then. a t some time or other Manasseh was
( g . ~ . )as the last in the list. Perhaps the modern 1

M d i h n ( n and I confounded, as often), a large village 2. Relation not identified uith Ephraim, was in fact
SW. of Jerusalem, near Bitfir (Bether). So C1.-Gan. to Ephraim. subordinated to it. T h e supremacy of
PEFQ, 1874,p. 162. See above, 2. Eohraim could not be denird
~~~~ ~ ~ It was
~. ~~-
held to be the effect of the laying of the right hand of
MANAHETHITES (?In>??; MAAAOGI [B]. the blind old Jacob-Israel on the head of the eporiymos
MAN& [A], - I [L]), I Ch.254, and, by avirtual cor- of Ephraim (Gen. 48 14a, J ) . J, however, evidently
rection of the text, n. 52. RV ‘ MENUHOTH ’ (nin+>pg ; felt that there was something strange about the dis-
M U N A ! f A [B], A M M A N l e [A] om. L). AV’S (virtual) tinction falling to the lot of Ephraim. His explanation
harmonisation of v. 52 and 8. 54 is fully justified (see Ki. is the quaint story told in Gen. 48 : Ephraim had not
SBOT) ; but the English form Manahathites in RV is always been first.
preferable to Manahethites. ’ Manahathite ’ is 3 gentilic 1 Che., however (‘Isaiah ’ Heb. SSOT, 194). thinks that
noun from M ANAHATH [u.v.]. The clan so called had 9~0[1g]u619 [IS] c m[1g]c’21[zo]a6 ‘probably’ come ‘from
Calehite aflinities. The origin of one half of it is traced another context,’ and that ‘ Judah alone was referred to by the
original writer [of the poem].’ This would leave the date of the
to the tribal hero Shobal, that of the other half to Salma. reference to Manasseh and Ephraim uncertain, for n. 21 [20] u 6
T h e locality of Salma’s half is at and near Zorah-the can hardly be brought into connection with 3 14 ; it would have
well-known town of MANOAHCp.v.1-that of Shobal’s to he a gloss.
2 For a hypothetical mention see col. 2406, n. 5.
1 niniinn *sn was unintelligible to the old translators (surrpa 3 Note that ‘~Manasseh’of Judg. 127 becomes ‘Israel’ in
pmvarw [Bl, e u a a p w a v d [AI ; L om.). Tg. makes ‘nn equiva- v. 2%
4 Its mention 6etween Ephraim and Manasseh would be
lent to n i p ? . strange.
29’7 2918
MANASSEH MANASSEH
Original precedence is definitely ascribed to Manasseh Benjamin monarchy, which, through the expulsion of
by J (Gen. 4 8 1 4 and practically 18), and virtually by E the Philistines, became a state of considerable dimen-
(a. zo ; followed by P, v . 5) in the adoption story, and sions (161 164). A forecast of this is given in the
by P quite explicitly (7132) in Josh. 171, perhaps to victory of Jephthah over Ephraim ( 2 1 4 1 ) ~ which
account for Manasseh‘s inheritance being Originally Winckler thinks originally made Jephthah king in
described by P (cp 1 6 4 ) before that of Ephraim (n.5), Shechem (141). and with this he connects the story
not, as in our present book of Joshua, after it (171). of Abimelech. Manasseh had thus the supremacy in
Apart from these passages there is no evidence a very real sense before it passed to Ephraim with
excepting ( I ) the order in which the names of the two Jeroboam. T h e theory that Saul‘s home was across
tribes occur in statements made about them, and ( 2 ) the Jordan is strongly defended by Winckler. For
the order in which they are dealt with when all the Cheyne’s reasons for rejecting it, and the emendations
tribes are treated in succession. of the text on which his own theory partly rests, see
( I ) In the case of assages dealing with the two tribes, SAUL.
Manasseh first is founcf(once) in P possibly (Josh. later Naturally the name as well as the status of Manasseh
(Steuernagel) in 144 certainly. Nor need J be opposed to this.2
The Chronicler’sfive passages3 give no positive light 01: his way was popularly explained. I t was connected with the
of thinking, the order (Ephraim first) being merely geographical. 4. lVIertninh:verb to forget. Josephus says that the
(2) I? the case of passages treating of all the tribes, Manasseh name means ‘ causing t o forget’ (Ant.
is again first in the genealogical lists of this kind in P (which of name. ii. 6 1 , 5 92, Palh@ov) : Joseph’s present
may belong to supplementary strands : Gen. 46=Nu. 26), in
P s list of dividers of Palestine, and in the arrangement adopted happiness made him forget his former misfortunes.
bv the Chronicler in the first section of his hook : Manasseh T h e explanation intended by Josephus occurs in Gen.
( I Ch. 7 14). Ephraim (v. Z O ) ; ~ Frhaps also in J 5. All the 4151 (E), alongside of another version ( J ? so Gunkel)
other lists in P and in Chronicles give Ephraim first.6
There may possibly have been from the first, a s which makes the thing forgotten not Joseph’s trouble
Staerk (Studien, 221) suggests, two orders in use : but (h~g [E]) but his father’s house.
I t is not very clear what is the point of the emphasis laid
it,
3.
explanation.
if those who repeated the story told by
J and implied by E saw no underlying
(41 50 [El) on Manasseh and Ephraim being horn in the fruitful
year: 6efoore the years of famine : it is doubtful whether it
meaning, it would have been enough. as implies a special interpretation of the names-Manasseh=
Winckler remarks, s&ply to say that Ephraim was postponer (cp Arabic nasu’a), Ephraim=fruitful (cp EPHRAIM,
$ .A). Such a popular etymology would fit admirably Winckler’s
the first-born. When a Vedic hymn says ‘ T h e Brah- ( G I 2 7 4 x ) mythological account of Ephraim’s taking the place
mana was his mouth, the Raganya was made his arms, of Manasseh as referring to the postponing of the new year
etc.’ the explanation may explain nothing; but there from autumn to spring (see YEAR, $38 6 8); hut the theory is
was something t o explain. In addition to what is said precarious (see above, $3)’
elsewhere (E PHRAIM , 5 5 , i. ; JOSEPH i., z), some T h e real etymology of the name is unknown. T h e
considerations must be offered here. abnormal vocalisation (v@) of the verb expressing E’s
In favour of Jacobs’ explanation as a survi\-al of a ‘junior- explanation would confirm the traditional vocalisation
right’ from a pastoral period (EPHRAIM i., 8 5, i.) is the ad- of the name if we could be sure that it is not (so Ball,
vantage it has of ex laining so many other cases of the younger
being preferred.7 fi is doubtful however, whether the genea-
logical system is quite old enougk to have retained a custom so
ad Loc.) accidental. Fortunately Manasseh is one of
the few tribe names that were early used by individuals.
antique. Still, though the whole question of the meaning and and so we have seventh-century evidence of the pro-
origin of the ‘junior birth-right’ where it is known to have nunciation.2 It is, however, not quite decisive. In
prevailed is difficult, the suggestion that some at least of the old
Hebrew genealogical relationships are due to it perhaps deserves Esarhaddon’s list of tributary princes the name is
more consideration than it seems to have received.8 Reference MenasE (Me-na-si-e) ; but in that of AHur-bani-pal it is
is made below ($4, begin.) to the view of Winckler(GI 2 7 4 ~ that3 MinsE (Mi-in-si-e).
the two sons of Joseph, whom he regards as in some respects a
solar character (above col. 2582 n. 3) represent the two halves Noting certain other names ending in sa (NW), Sieg-
of the year, and that {heir exchinge ok places refers to a change fried in 1875 suggested that hfanasseh was a compound
in the mode of calcnlatint.the year that is known to have name : Men-nasa (cp @A, pavvauq), ‘ Men sustulit ’
occurred (MONTH, 5 3). T is seems one of the least tempting (cp Amasiah, V D D J J ) . Meni, who seems t o have been,
mythical interpretations,a and appears to he uncalled for, as
Winckler himself offers another explanation decidedly more like Gad, a god of fate (see F ORTUNE , G AD , 8 I, end),
plausible (GI2 85). found worshippers in Israel even in very late times (Is.
Winckler suggests that there was much more than 6511, RV). If Meni has been shortened into -man in
the story of Gideon-Abimelech to indicate a n early Ahiman, as Fiirst suggested (cp A HIMAN), it is possible
importance of Manasseh. T h e fact that in one account that it might h e treated similarly even a t the beginning
the career of Saul began at Jabesh in Gilead h e regards of a word. It is not certain, however, that the names
as one of several indications ( G 1 2 1 5 8 ) that Saul was ending in sa support the theory. NW in Nwnm may be a
from across the Jordan, probably a Manassite leader of divine name like DuSara in Niwnnn. and in N W Z it ~
a band of warriors who made the chieftainship of may be like Bel in h a h ( E X a ~ ~ X o s ) . *
Benjamin a stepping-stone to the kingship of a I t would thus be possible, indeed, to regard the name
1 So MT @L and Pesh: but @BA gives Ephraim first. Manasseh as one of a class by no means small, the
2 J seem; to take the &her side (Ephraim first); but it is class namely of names that contain two divine titles.
only in appearance : in Josh. 17 17 the phrase is a gloss (@L,
@BA om.), and in Dt. 34 z the same is robably true : although 1 The suggestion of G. H. B. Wright (Wns Israel in Egypt?
the passage is old enough to he founzin @ (@BAL), its place 245) that we should connect the name with the story of a sur-
in the Sam. text is taken by one quite different. viving remnant of Ephraim in Judg. 12 4 ( ~ W .o:$o, N a k being
3 I Ch. 9 3 (dwellers at Jerusalem), z Ch. 159 (gk-im at
Jerusalem : temp. Asa) 30 I (letters) 30 IO (posts), 30 18 (at considered equivalent to 011, whence Manasseh) is hardly con-
Hezekiah‘s passover : dehruction of sahctuaries). sistent with a recognition of the fact (see Moore, Bu., Now. ad
Zoc.) that the text of the passage is corrupt. (Theuse Steuernagel
4 Since he has already given Benjamin the order cannot be
[ W u d e y u q - , 251 makes of the passage is more cautious.) Nor
geographical, as that in Ezek. 48 may wedbe in this part of it.
5 The order, Manasseh first (w.27j: and 29 in the account is theremore to be said for a connection (Wright, Lc.) with D3,
of the tribes in Judg. l), may be due to R ; and what to make ‘standard’; whatever the story of the ‘witness’-altar in
of udg 5 (Ephmim [Benjamin] Machir) is not clear. Josh. 22 may owe its origin to (see col. 2922, n. 3), it is hardly
2 : Nu 1 5 3 (censors) 1 3 2 3 (census) 2 IE&? (cam ) 10 2zf:
(camp), 13811 (‘spies’’), Josh.Z15=1’Ch. 6 6 f l gohathite
possible that a nb-standard had anything to do with it ; and
moreover, even if we should incline to accept Stenernagel‘s
cities) 2121 25=1 Ch. 665 [where Ephraim in omitted] (priests’ acute suggestion (Einwuxderung, g6) that originally it was
citiesi I Ch. 12 3oJ (deserters to David), I Ch. 27 2J. (David‘s only certain Josephites that were blamed (see REUBEN). ‘ Manas-
tribal rulers [n&@fJ). seh’ does not seem to have been mentioned in the story originally.
7 Jacobs’ list (Bi6Z. Arck. 50) is : Abraham, Isaac, Bethuel, a We must remember. however. the uossibilitv that the
Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, Ephraim, pronunciation of the personal nam; may have reacted on the
Moses etc tradition of the tribal name.
8 Eden kunkel in his interesting note (Gcn. 271A) does not 3 ZPT(r875) 166f: He is followed by C.Niehuhr(Gesch. E ~ Y .
refer to it. Zeif. 252 [1894]).
9 Cp Gunkel, Genesis, p. liv, n. I. 4 611names in sa see S. A. Cook, Ex#. T 10 5 2 5 J (1899).
2919 2920
*
MANASSEH MANASSEH
Min-Se, which would be the exact Hebrew equivalent side the Hexateuch on the other hand-i.c., in Chronicles--.yn
of ASur-bani-pal’s MinsC, would in that case contain c)>w (4 times) does not take the article,l and it is therefore at
the two divine names Men and Sa (cp B AASHA ). least quite possible that the abnormal 3wje)n is due to misreading
*wje)n in t h e archaic script, which may have continued in use
It would he natural then to conjecture that the strange name in the Torah(and Joshua?) longer than elsewhere. This gentilic
Ninshi ought to be Minshe (see, however, NIMSHI).Jehu, the
founder of the third great post-Davidic northern dynasty, would ‘ Manassite ‘ 6wg) occurs four times, always (quite normally)
thus he called ‘ben Minshe’-a Manassite. It has been sug- with the article2 and always of the trans-Jordan tribe.
gested elsewhere (ISSACHAR, 5 4) that there are perhaps hints of Reference has been made to the representation in
a recognition of a deity Sa in N. Ephraim. If Men, on the
other band were more at home on the eaSt of the Jordan, the com- Judg. 5 of a Machir ( = Manasseh) settled in the high-
pound titl; MinSe would be symbolical of the east a n d the west. 6. Legends of lands of Ephraim and the representation
Menahem, who was probably a Gadite (ben Gidi : see GADI, of J according to which the Macliirites
G AD, 5 TO), may have borne the name of the same deity : to settlement. crossed the Jordan (?) and established
judge from the spelling of the king’s name in Tiglath-pileser’s
contemporary list of tributaries (Me-ni-bi-irn-me),Menahem themselves (Nu. 32 39 41 ) in Gilead, the land of the
may stand related to HAMUEL ] JOAB to ABIEL.
[ q . ~ . as Amorites. See further J AIR , N OBAH . Gad and
If on the other hand we are willing to follow the old Reuben, however, having been described in JE (Nu. 32)
Hebrew etymology in regarding Manasseh as a parti- as being assigned their homes before their kinsmen
cipial form (see below), it will be plausible to find in it settled in W. Palestine (cp G AD , 5 11), it came to be
the name or title of a divine being honoured by said that Machir too received Gilead from Moses (v.40).
Manassite clans. The unnamed god who vanished \Vith this is connected the view of the Deuteronomic
with the appearance of morning (Gen. 3224 [ z 5 ] 8 ’ . J E ) writers that the whole country from the Jabbok north-
inflicted a n injury in what v. 25 [26] calls n+? 3,: (EV, wards-the half of Gilead ( J o s h . 1 2 ~ 51331), L e . , the
‘ t h e sinew o f ’ the ‘hip’). In Arabia nus+ is to part not given to Gad (Dt. 3m), and all BASHAN,all
suffer, and n a s i , to inflict, such a n injury. Manasseh (the the region of A R G O B , the kingdom of 013 (Dt. 3 13)-was
pie1 participle) would thus be the name of a super- given by Moses to Manassites (cp Dt. 298 Josh. 126 138
natural being of whom the inflicting of such an injury [e, Di. etc.] 3of: 187 227 ; for Bashan Dt. 443 Josh. 208
was characteristic (so Land, De Gids, Oct. 1871. ‘ D e 21627), who come to be called regularly ‘half the tribe
wording van staat en godsdienst in het oude Israel,’ of Manasseh.’ Naturally it became necessary to asso-
Gunkel suggests that the story is connected with ciate these Manassites with Gad and Reuben in helping
a local religious dance of a peculiar halting kind. It is their kinsmen (mentioned alone in Nu.32) to effect a
worth noting that tu&IZuj, ‘walking in a loose manner, settlement in the west (Josh. 1 IZ 4 12 [DJ) and in the
as though disjointed, ... as though dragging a thing‘ obscure story of the altar (Josh. 22 ; see G AD , 5 I I , and
especially R EUBEN ). T h e view of P has often been
is the effect of contact with a n n ( H a m . p. 30, 1. 4 ;
compare the story in Abulf. A n n . 3202). It is not supposed to be similar (cp Josh. 1329 143 ?).
certain, however, who it was that was lamed. Gen. According to Steuernagel, however. E and (so now
3226a (E, Gunkel) certainlysuggests that it was Jacob’s also Holzinger, Joshua, p. xii) P recognise only Reuben
antagonist, and Jacob’ in v. 266 ( J ? Gunkel) may and Gad in the east (Josh. 201) ; his view being based
very well be an erroneous gloss. W. M. Muller (As. u. on the P parts of Nu. 32 and on the genealogy (216).
Eur. 163, n. I ) well compares Iliad, 23725-727 (Odysseus’ From the fact that the Manassite genealogies in Nu.
unfair wrestling). That this is really the view of J 2629 f14 and Josh. 1 7 1 8 differ only in their account of
seems to be borne out by v. 29 ( J ) where Jacob has Machir and Gilead,6Steuernagel argues that Machir and
‘prevailed with gods and men.’3 I t would appear, Gilead are a later insertion into P which knows nothing
therefore, that in the original story the epithet Manasseh of any Machir-an insertion worked in in two ways
was a fitting title of Jacob himself, which might be borne (217f.l.
by his worshippers. as in the case of Gad. According The confusion on this subject is perhaps past repair ;
to I K. 1826 the N. Israelite prophets (priests?) were but we venture to make the following suggestions. I t
accustomed to perform certain religious dances which appears that in Josh. 17 ~b 2 as it now stands the sons
could be called limping (RVmg. ; rnm;!). There may -being called ‘ the rest ’ in opposition to Machir who
figures as the father of Gilead-are regarded as settling
have been something similar east of the Jordan, where it
in W. Palestine. Steuernagel reaches the same result,
is commonly held that the wrestling scene is laid.
for when he cuts out the mention of Machir he cuts out
Bernh. Luther, however, argues with some plausibility
also the words ‘the rest of.’ O n the other hand it is
(ZATW2169 [I~oI])that it really belongs to Bethel just as certain that in P s list (Nu. 2634) the sons are
(Gen. 28). The question is of less importance in the
assigned to the east (on Nu. 27 I 361 see below). Kuenen
present inquiry, since, if the story is connected with a
argues that Gen. 5023 ( E ) also held Machir to be the
real tradition of some kind, it refers to settlers on their
only son of Manasseh. Is it necessary, however, to
way to the west.
suppose that E would have called Machir ‘father of
It is perhaps in favour of this last explanation that
Gilead’? May not the ‘sons of Machir’ mean the
there is some evidence that the name Manasseh was
‘tribe of Machir,‘ and the ‘adoption’ (St. Z A T W
felt to be a participle, therefore in a sense an adjective,
and consequently capable of being used with the article.
6 r 4 5 8 [18861) be E’s acknowledgment of the equiva-
lence of Manasseh and Machir? (so practically Gunkel).
Manasseh occurs in the Hexateuch with the article some The names of some of the sons certainly suggest the west.
twelve times ( D and P), in each case after the construct *yn
c)>w,f’ which occurs only thrice 6 (P)7 without the article. Out- That is true of Abiezer. Shechem. and Heuher : uerhaus also

1 The critical analysis of the passage is still matter for dis-


cussion. Verse z j [z6] niay lie wholly late. 1 In I Ch. 27 21 occurs ndjnn *yn.
2 Land compares the Arabian ginn.
3 Cp Holzinger, Gen. 210; PENUEL. Of course J may have 2 ,.: L : and twice with c)>w *yn,
Dt. 4 43 *@I$, E K. 10 33 W1211,
had a parallel to E’s Mahanaim fragment 32 z J ,which perhaps Dt. 29 8 [TI I Ch, 26 32. In each case Reubenite precedes.
originally told of a (successful?) conflict of Jacob with divine 3 On the possibility of some historical reminiscence underlying
hosts (so Gunkel). this story (Steuernagel Einwarrderung, 94) see R E U BE N .
4 The dancing of David (2 S. 6 14) is called ‘whirling’ Gen. 46 20 gives ndgenealogy of Manasseh ( E I ’ H R A I M , $ 12.
. . at least if the text is right (but cp D ANCE, 5 4 [41).
(l?l?D), ?. I , and see below). @BAL inserts a notice agreeing with I Ch.
8 14: by an Aramaean concubine Manasseh hegat Machir, who
5 After n m (*rn), on the other hand, the article is never begat Gilead.
inserted. Is this d u e to the final n of nm? 5 Machir’s relation to Hepher, etc., is in Nu. that of grand-
6 Of course also in Nu. 32 33 before p. father, in Josh 17 z that of brother (in u. 3, however, grandfather:
7 The ungrammatical nwje)n ~ l w in n Josh. 13 7 is no doubt see Kue. Th. T 11487).
a scribnl error (probably homoioteleuton). Kiinig’s explanation 6 @B reads D& f Josh.; but thew ma be a graphical error
(LeArge6. 2 z , B m c ) itself needs explanation. Kautzsch’s ex- from e In I Ch: 7 18 Ishhdod may possibyy represent Shemida
planation (Gramin. $ 125d, n.) is not convincing. (so Benzinger, ad (06.) especially if the y is not original.
2921 2922
MANASSEH MANASSEH
suggests the east: Helek is unknown and so is Asriel, if indeed it Dothan.' H e thinks that there were probably struggles
be not an intruder, for it seems on the whole as probable as not with the Leah tribes Issachar and Zebulun who were
that the writer of the words (17 5 ) 'And there fell ten parts to
.
Manasseh [. .]1 (a.6) for the daughters of Manasseh received making their way from the SW. of Ephraim where they
an inheritance amongst his sons ' counted the brothers carelessly had at first settled (see ZERUI.UN).
as five, including Hepher. How the name Asriel might come Judg. 5 seems to imply that the whole of Manasseh
into existence we see from I Ch. 7 14 (see ASRIEL).
was in West Palestine. When the Machirites are to be
If the sons must then be assigned to the west are we supposed to have crossed into Gilead of course we do
to conclude that, as Dillmann (on Nu.26) suggests, not know. Steuernagel thinks that there was a conflict
the writer who is responsible for the mention of Gilead between (W.) Manasseh and Gad (Einzuanderung, 24,
had lost all hold of the geographical meaning of the below) which ended in the conquest of northern Gad
name Gilead, or, believing that Gilead was conquered (Gi1ead)bythe Machirites (expedition of Gideon, conquest
first, regarded the W. Manassites as offshoots of the of Succoth and Peniel ; see, however, G IDEON ) : when
E. Manassites?2 I t is on the whole more likely that the Gileadites are called a Machirite clan they are
the source of confusion is the word Machir. Sons were thereby treated as dependent on Machir.
assigned to Machir-Manasseh ( e . g . , Gen. 5023, E), who The 'Blessing of Jacob' contains at present no
was then mistaken for Machir-Gilead, and therefore mention of Manasseh (or Ephraim), treating it as part
called in a gloss ' father of Gilead ' (see below, n. 3 ) . of JOSEPH (see, however, JOWPH i., 6 2,
I t seems natural to suppose that the five daughters 6. Other first small type, E PHRAIM , 5 5 , ii., second
references.
(Nu. 26 33) are to be judged like the sons. paragraph), and there is considerable
27 7 does not say that Moses actually gave the daughters theil;
inheritance, nor does 36 2 , whilst in Josh. 17 4d ' t h e m ' not 'us confusion in the biessings connected with the adoption
shows that weare to regard the provision as having been carried of Joseph's sons (see Carpenter- Battersby and the
out by Joshua-i.e., in W Palestine:& The case had to be comm. ). In the ' Blessing of Moses ' on the other hand
mentioned in Nu 2736 because it was necessary that the legal the last two lines of Dt. 3317 where Manasseh is
decision should be attributed to Moses. The most natural ex-
planation of the postponement of the carrying out to Josh. 17 mentioned are a gloss. W h o the 'first-born' (MT,
is that the whole story w a s known to belong to the west. There i i i d iix) referred to in the first line is, is disputed ; but
is nothing in the five names as they appear in the present text in any case the reference is not to Manasseh.
to suggest the east : lirzah, Beth-hoglab, and Adelmeholab are
in the west ' Noah is probably, like Neah (Josh. 19 r3), a corru It is improbable that z S. 20 26 tells us that David had a
tion of sornkthing else (Naarah on the houndary of EphraimK Manassite priest-having perhaps (Winckler) carried off some
and Milcah is obscure (see, however, the special articles). On Manassite deity to his capital. Besides the question at what
the question who the father wa~,see below, $ 9. date ' Jairite' and ' Manassite' were equated (see R. 9, ii ), there
is the question whether the reading ' Jairite' is correct. In
W e must pass on to other aspects of the Manasseh addition to what is said elsewhere (I RA, 3) is to he noted
question. On the assumption, which is universal, that Winckler's suggestion ( G I 2 241. n. 2) that Ja'irite has arisen
Manasseh is a real tribe name, it is generally supposed from a variant air or 'Ira The sixth and the seventh in the
list of SolomoJs adkinistrkre districts ( I K. 4 13f.) lay in the
that when the curtain rises the Manassites are part of northern part of the trans - Jordan country. In Ps. ,60[7]
the inhabitants of Mt. Ephraim. (=lo8 8) Gilead and Manasseh represent the trans-Jordan district
Winckler's suggestion that the Gideon-Abiinelech (I1 Ephraimand Judah); in80 ~EphraimBenjamin,and Manasseh
are the representatives of the ancient 'northern 1smel.z There
story is a monument of the arrival of Manasseh from is nothing to be learned from the Chronicler's list of seven
the east has been mentioned above ($ 3). Steuernagel, Manassites who deserted to David at Hebron (I Ch. 12 20).
conversely, remarks that Gideon's claim on Succoth and It is now time to ask whether it is possible to get
Peniel suggests that part of what he calls the Jacob-tribe behind the legends and other data and arrive a t any
- i . e . , what afterwards became Joseph (=Ephraim,
Benjamin, and Manasseh)-may have remained E. of
., Probable theory of the actual course of events.
The ccntre of gravity of northern Israel
the Jordan when the others entered Palestine ( E i n - history. in historical times appears to have been
_.
wandeerung, 64). a t Shechem (EPHRAIM i., $5 4 I O ). There is no hint in
Although it is also commonly supposed that Benjamin the O T of any tradition of the southern Leah tribes ever
had already been constituted when Manasseh or Machir having been farther north than Shechem. If we are to
became distinct from Ephraim,4 this is by no means connect them, as seems probable, with the Habiri of the
certain (see B EN J AMIN , $I I f. 5 , EPHRAIX,$ 5. ii., Amarna letter^,^ the settlement of the Israelites proper
J OSEPH , 5 2). The expansion of Joseph seems to be (including ' Manasseh ' ) in the Ephraim highlands will
dealt with in a much discussed passage in Josh. fall later (cp NAPHTALI, $5 I 3 ) . They contributed, as
(1714-18). The house of Joseph (see the cornm.) we have seen, to the struggle sung of in Judg. 5. I t
complains that the blessing of Yahwe has made it too seems probable that the southern ' Benjamite ' monarchy
large for a single tribal portion : it finds the highlands of Saul was made possible by earlier achievements
too narrow and the plain inaccessible. The answer is : farther north. It is not possible to distinguish definitely
clear the forest and force a way into the plain. At the Manasseh from the rest of the Ephraim highlands which
same time it is admitted to be entitled to more than one are dealt with elsewhere (E PHRAIM, i. 35). There can
portion. If the plausible theory of Budde (Ki.Sa. 3 5 5 ), be little donbt that there w-as always more or less com-
adopted by Kittel (Gerch. Heb. 124o), that the forest to munication with the trans-Jordan lands. The history of
be cleared was in Gilead5 (cp EPHRAIM,$ 3), be the northern portion of the trans-Jordan lands, which is
adopted, it is natural to regard the spread of Machir- traditionally regarded as Manassite, is very obscure.
Manasseh to the E. (Nu. 3239) as a further stage of See G ILEAD , BASHAN, A RGOB , A RAM , H AVVOTH - JAIR ,
the same expansion which produced West Manasseh. J EPHTHAH . The most obvious fact written on the face
Steuernagel (Binwanderung, 97) finds an echo of the of the records preserved to us is the series of stniggles
birth of Manasseh in the story of the advance of Joseph to with Aramzeans. If there were such, as no doubt there
were, in the earlier days (see J ACOB , LABAN),it is even
1 The omitted words and the second part of v. 6 are probably
from another hand (Steuernagel). more certain that they were frequent later ( e . g . , Am. 1 3 ) .
2 So also E. L. Curtis, Hastings' D B 2 1296 and perhaps On the contribntions made to the history of Israel by
Driver 3 232. the trans-Jordanic division see G AD , $ IO. On East
3 In'Nu. 36 it is heads of the fathers' houses of the family of
the children of Gilead (u. I ) that call Zelophehad their brother
(v. 2) ; but, in 7). 5 the speakers are called ' the tribe of the sons 1 He combines with this the fight at the waters of Merom,
of Joseph. ' Gilead ' and ' Machir,' therefore, in a. I are prob- which, following OS278 99, he places near Dothan.
ably not original. According to Jos. Ant. iv. 7 5 it was the 2 Either Benjamin or Manasseh mu5t bean addition-perhaps
chief men of the tribe of Manasseh that told Moses of the death Manasseh, as best accounting- for the strange order (cp Judg.
of Zelophehad. 5 14).
4 So Stade ( G V I l 160) Guthe (GVZ5 6 ) and others. 8 Seeabove, col. 1316, n, 5. Since that was written Steuernagel
5 Hitzig (GVI 106) fdund it in S. Ephraim, Knobel, Keil, has argued ably for this view in his very clever discussion of the
and Steuernagel(ad roc.), in the N., Ewald (GVl(312z43A) in settlement of Israel (Eikuatrderung, ITS-123). On the general
the plain. question see (besides NAPHTALI, S I ) SIMEON.
2923 2924
MANASSEH MANASSEH
Manasseh's reputation for valour see Josh. 1 7 1 I Ch. omits=Shereshl, Ulam [Benjamite in 8 391. Rekem [a Benjamite
518-22. According to the Chronicler the [eastern] half town, Josh.18271 and Bedan) cannot he conjectured. The
same is true of the)little list of seven names which some one has
of Manasseh was transported by Tiglath-pileser (I Ch. inserted, as a register of ' half the tribe of Manasseh ' ' who dwelt
526); 2 K.16 29 had said simply ' Gilead,' on which see in the land,' to supplement the Reuben and Gad lis&.
NAPHTALI. 3, n. In the fragment referred to below Since the famous J A I R [q.v.], called Gileadite in
(next col.) we are told, if the reading is correct, that Judg. 103, appears to be assigned in Nu. 3241 to
Geshur and Aram obtained possession of the Havvoth- Manasseh, it is strange that there is no mention of him
jair (I Ch. 2 2 3 ) . The Chronicler is strangely fond of in the genealogies. The Chronicler has perhaps re-
introducing references to Manasseh (see col. 2919,n. 3). paired the omission : a fragment ( I Ch. 221-23) wedged
There is nothing surprising in the fact that the geo- into the Judah genealogy tells that a daughter of Machir
_ _
graphical data as to where Manassites were settled are
8. p,s gee- perplexing. P s south border is dealt
had a grandson named Jair who had twenty-three cities
in the land of Gilead. The closing words of v. 23
graphical data. with elsewhere (EPHRAIM, j 11); suggest that the fragment belongs to the obscure gene-
the northern border is omitted (see alogy in 7 1 4 8 ' Whatever be the real meaning of that
J OSHUA , § 9). unless the last clause of v. I O , which has no genealogy, however, it is not quite certain that anywhere
grammatical subject, represents it. No list of Manassite else, at least, Jair is correctly made to b e a Manassite.
cities is given (cp J OSHUA , fj 9).only a list of those which Dt. 3 '4 is not a reliable passage ; but it may mean this :
might have been expected to be Manassite, but were no doubt Moses had given the territory mentioned in
not : Tappuah belonged to Ephraim, and five-viz., the context to half the tribe of Manasseh, but (read
B ETH - SHEAN near the Jordan, I B L E A M , TAANACH. i w i with 6)Jair took all the region, etc. ' Son of
and MECIDDOon the S. edge of the great plain. and Manasseh' was probably appended to ' Jair' after
Dor' on the coast-remained in the hands of the Nu. 3241 had received its present form-Le., probably
Canaanites (on the text of v. I I see ASHER,fj 3). What after the insertion of v. 40 about Machir the son of
the Naphoth in Issachar and Asher were we do not Manasseh. Originally v. 41 probably resembled v. 42
know (see N.wwrALx, § 2). Instead of a list of where Nobah has no patronymic. air was therefore
Manassite cities we have in a. 2 a list unparalleled in the Gileadite rather than exactly Manassie.2
book of Joshua : each item is ' the sons of-.' Some, The late passage Josh. 13 30 of course implies the later form of
however. if not all. of the names are names of towns ; Nu. 32 41.
and the same is true no doubt, as Kuenen saw ( T h . T Whether we may venture to infer from I Ch. 2 21-23 that Jair
was the outcome of a fusion of Reuhenite (cp Ed. Meyer Entsteh.
1 1 4 8 8 [1877]), of the daughters mentioned in v. 3 16) families (Hezron) with Gileadite families (sister d Gilead),
(see col. 2923, small type). that it was settled at first somewhat S. in Gilead (Judg. 10 3 8 )
i. Thelistjust referred to (Josh. l i ~ ~and ? )theequiva-
, and afterwards moved northwards (Nu. 32 41). mingling w i t i
Manassites (so Steuernagel, Eimwandemng, 25), is less certain.
lent list in Nu. 2634%has been discussed already (col. See R EUBEN . If SEGUB, Jajr's ' father' ( I Ch. 2 zz), is a corrup-
9. Genealogies. 2922) in its bearing on the Manasseh- tion of Argob, which Jair is said to have conquered (ut. 3 14), there
Machir-Gilead question. As a gene- may have been a theory to that effect.
alogy it raises a further question. The brothers among On the problem connected with Manasseh see in
whom the daughters received their inheritance ( * n Tin2 ~ addition to the commentaries, the histories, and the
1 3 . 2 ~; Josh. 1 7 ) are nowhere nientioned. The father dictionaries, Kuenen, ' D e stam Manasse ' ( T h . T
himself is named in five passages (Nu. 26=1 Ch. 7 11 478-496 [1877]) and Steuernagel, Die Einwanderunf
Nu. 27 Nu. 36 and Josh. 17) ; but nowhere is there any der isruelifischen Stiimme in Kunuan (~gor), especially
hint of his having any brothers. In fact, as Kuenen 21-28. H. W. H.
(for another object) has pointed out ( T h . T 1 1 4 8 9 ) , only MANASSEH (n@p ; MANACCH(C) [BKALI).
if there were no such brothers could the daughters I. King of Judah (692-639 R . c . ) , son of Hezekiah,
succeed to Hepher's inheritance. In Nu. 3611, how- and father of Amon ; on his mother's name see HEPH-
ever, it is expressly said that the five daughters married ZIBAH. Very little is recorded of his long and, it would
sons of their uncles (i"-ii* * ~ 2 ) . If the daughters' seem, extremely prosperous reign. As we approach
father were Hepher instead of being Hepher's son the the final catastrophe, the editor feels it less important to
difficulty would disappear. If we suppose that Nu. communicate details, because of the reactionary character
2633 originally began And Hepher had no sons,' and of the religion favoured by the latest kings. The sins
that later Hepher became corrupted into Zelophehad of Manasseh, so we are assured--i.e., first, his patronage
(&i becoming i n h r ) , necessitating the gloss ' son of of heathenish cults, and next, his shedding of innocent
Hepher,' we clear up the matter and also get rid of the blood (as a persecutor of the prophets?)-were the true
difficult name ' Zelophehad.' Cheyne very acutely causes of the captivity. But how could this wickedness
treats Zelophehad as a corruption of a supposed Salhad of the king be consistent with the long-continued pros-
(see S ALECAH ) ; bnt that assumes that we are to look perity which the annals appear to have recorded ?
in the E., and that view, it has been urged above (fj 5 , According to a long-assumed critical result (see
mid.), is not without difficulty. Graf, St. K r . , 1859,pp. 4 6 7 8 ; Kue. 0nd.P) i. 473 ;
ii. The I O (11) Manassite (?) names mentioned before Wellh. Pr0Z.W 215 [ E T 2071, and cp C HRONICLES ,
(I j) reappear for the most part, though quite differ- § 8 ( e ) ) ,the Chronicler found a way of reconciling this
ently arranged, in what seems to be the Chronicler's inconsistency, which seemed to threaten his dogma of
main Manassite genealogy (I Ch. 7 14-19) : it comes prompt retribution for sin, by supposing a Babylonian
between Naphtali and Ephraim. The passage seems captivity of Manasseh (a sort of prophecy of the later
to be deeply corrupt (see the separate articles). captivity under Nebuchadrezzar), from which the king
Abiezer is a son (not an uncle), and Mahlah a son or daughter was only delivered through his repentance (zCh. 33
{not a sister) of Milcah who is called Molecheth. Helek(called 11-13). Schrader. however (KAT(%) 3678), has
Likhi)and Skechem are sons (not brothers) of Shemida. Hepher given highly plausible arguments in favour of the accuracy
is nbt mentioned, being represented by Zelophehad. Shemida
has no brothers, two of them appearing as sons (Helek and of the Chronicler, so far as his facts are concerned. (i. )
Shechern) among whom is also No'ah one of 'Zelophehad's In the lists of twenty-two tributary kings of Canaan and
daughters (in Joshua), of whom two (Hoglah and Tirzah) dis- the small neighbouring countries given alike by Esarhad-
appear, whilst two new names appear (Ahian son of Shemida,
and Ishhod son of Moleketh). don and by A6ur-bZni-pal we find the name of MBnasse
The source of the names in m. 16 17a (Peresh [which BE king of Jaudu--i.e., Judah (KBii. 149239). (ii.) When
1 ' Endor' which M T adds to the list as given in Judg. 127 gama:-Sum-ukin, king or vicero of Babylon, rebelled
and in B (hut see ENDOR)
NAFHTALI, 8 2.
of Josh. 17 is to he omitted : see e
against his royal brother (cp AbVRRANIPAL, § 7), he
obtained the support of the kings of the very region to
2 On Gen. 46 see above, col. 1320, n. I .
3 In estimating the value of this datum it must of course he 1 See col. 2361, n. 3 and especially ZELOPHEHAD.
remembered that dad is a somewhat indefinite term. 2 So also Cheyne ( J ~ P H T H A H , !j 3).

292s 2926
MANASSES MANLIUS
which the tributaries on the lists belonged ( K B 2185 ; cp general period of ripening. Tristram describes the
195). It is not known whether Manasseh was more blossom as ' cup-shaped, of a rich purple colour. The
cautious than the rest; but we have no reason to suppose fruit is of the size of a large plum, quite round, yellow,
this. (iii. ) Even if we grant that Manasseh was suspected and full of soft pulp. It has a peculiar, but decidedly not
of being implicated in the revolt, he would certainly have unpleasant, smell, and a pleasant, sweet taste. ' Tristram
been summoned by A h - b a n i - p a l to give an account of adds that the belief still survives in Palestine that the
his actions, and there are inscriptions to prove that after fruit when eaten ensures conception. A quite distinct
the overthrow of SamaS-Sum-ukin(647B.C.), ASur-&ni- tradition is that on which rests the use of the plant as
pal received both kings and ambassadors in Babylon. an aphrodisiac (see Wetzstein, Z.C., and Lbiv, 188). C p
Knowing, as we do, much better than Graf, how the M AGIC , § 2 a, and see S t a n , A m . Antiq. and Or. Journ.,
Chronicler generally worked-viz., by adopting and 3225g-268 (1901).
modifying or supplementing earlier traditional material [The connection of the story in Gen. 30 14J (on the origin of
-we have no sufficient reason to doubt that Manasseh which see ISSACHAR, 5 2) with heathen superstition is easily
recognised. Like the mallow, the mandrake was potent in all
did go to Babylon at the call of his suzerain. Whether kinds of enchantment (see Maimonides in Chwolson, Ssadier,
he was carried thither in chains, like Pharaoh Necho I., 2 459 and the notes). The German name of the plant (Alraun ;
or whether this is a romantic addition to the story, we ped. AlrGna) indicates the prophetic power supposed to lie
in littleimagesmadefrom thisroot which werecherishedasoracles.
cannot venture to say. That the repentance of Manasseh The possession of such roots was lucky (see Ducange, S.V. ' Man-
was a fact, no historian could assert. The whole course dragora,' and Littrk).] N. M. -W. T. T. -D.
of the later history is opposed to such a view (cp I SRAEL ,
5 36; Wi. A T Unt. 122 f.; MCurdy, Hisf. Proph. MANEH is given in EV once (Ezek. 4512) for Heb.
Mon. 2386, who boldly corrects 'Babylon' in Ch. into n:p ( d / m D . cp M E N E ; MNA [BAQ]; Vg. ~nV.4 or
' Nineveh' ; Driver, in Hogarth, Author. and Arched. hm"). In all other places where mmrineh or pwE occurs
114-116). (x K.1017 Ezra'269Neh.771f. 1Esd.545 1Macc.1424
The vagueness of the Chronicler's statement in 2 Ch. 33 11may 1518 Lk. 19 13 16 18 23 24 f.) E V has ' pound.' See
seem to support the idea that the narrative is an edifying fiction. WEIGHTS A N D M EASURES , KESITAN,POUND.
But wa5 the vagueness always there 1 One expression may lead In Ezek. 45 12 MT is indefensible : the true form of the text is
us to doubt this-viz., took him with hooks' (so RVw. for that in @ A (so Co.). J. P. Peters (JBL, 1893 fp: 48.J) has
Vnh?). This expression might pass in poetry (see 2 K. 19 28 explained the motive of the ungrammatical emeh ation in MT
Ezek. 19 4 : cp Job 40 26 [41z]), but hardly in sober prose. Yet which ' succeeds after a fashion in making Ezekiel say that sixt;
.
the rendering ' i n chains' (RV so 6 Vg Tg.)does violence to shekels=one maneh, and so harmonising what was regarded as a
prediction with fact.' The cause of this early emendation is now
usage. We must either rende; 'with'hodits' or emend the text.
A parallel assage (2 K. 25 5 ) suggests that pnrn may conceal plain. 'The [true] text of Ezekiel places the maneh at fifty
the name o?a place, and further, that the latent place-name may shekels, which seems to have been the old Hebrew ratio, and
be erichn (in*,-> ; miswritten .ninx=o*nin$. If so, Manasseh was actually retained in the silver coinage. But the maneh of
fled to' Jericho on the capture of Jerusalem, and was taken there. fifty shekels gave way to the Babylonian mmeh of sixty shekels.
The whole note inJBL, Z.C., is well worth reading.
So, too, y~fnay perhaps be a relic of $9>iy&$j-i.e., 'of
AF;ur-hBni-pal. Observe that the parallel description of the MANES (MANHC [BA]), I Esd.921 RV=EzralOzr,
imprisonment of Pharaoh Necho (Schr. K A T 371) says nothing MAASEIAH(q.v. ii., 11).
of hooks.
2. One of the B'ne Pahath-moab in list of those with foreign MANGER (+ATNH), Lk. 27 12 16 EV ; also Lk. 1315
wives (see E ZRA i., 8 5, end), Ezra 1030t (pavacq [B~?])=IEsd. RVmg., EV ' stall.' See CATTLE, 5 5 ; I NN , end.
9 31 (pavauuias IBAI).
3. One of the B'ne Hashum in same list, Ezra 10 33t = I Esd. MAN1 ( M I N I [BA]), I E s d . 9 3 0 = E z r a 1 0 ~ 9 , B ~ ~ 1 , 2 .
9 33.
4. In Judg. 18 30 [MT] b a v v a u q [A]), ancestor of Jonathan MANIDS ( M A N I O C [AV]), zMacc.1134 RV, AV
the Dame priest. See, however, JONATHAN, MOSES. MANLIUS.
T. K. C .
MANASSES (MANACCHC [BAL]). MANLIUS, RV MANIUS, TITUS ( TITOC MANIOC
I. I Esd. 933=EzralO 30 MANASSEH 11. (3). [AV], so Syr. and Vg. ; MANAIOC [uZ.]),the name of
2. Tobit 14 IO. See A C ~ A C H A R T S, .
UOBIT one of the ambassadors who is said t o have written a
3. Judith 8 2 , the husband of J UDITH . letter to the Jews, confirming whatever concession
4. Mt. 1IO. See MANASSEH ii. (I).
5. Rev. 7 6. See MANASSEH
i. Lysias had granted them ( 2 Macc. 1134). Four letters
MANASSES, PR.AYER OF. See APOCRYPHA, 5 6. were written to the Jews, of which the last is from
' Quintus Memmius and Titus Manlius, ambassadors
MANASSITE ('YJP), Dt. 443 etc. See MANAsSEH i. (?rpeu@bai)of the Romans.' There is not much doubt
5 4. end. that the letter is a fabrication, as history is entirely
MANDRAKES, RVmS L OVE - APPLES (P'KTIV ; ignorant of these names. Polybius (xxxi. 96), in-
MHAA M A N h p A r O p O y , Gen. 3014 ; M A N A ~ A ~ Ohl deed, mentions C. Sulpitius and Munius Sergius, who
(-01A D once), Gen. 301sf. Cant. 713 [14] [-pat A]{). were sent to Antiochus IV. Epiphanes about 163 B.C.,
T h e Hebrew name, dzida'im, was no doubt popularly and also (xxxi. 129) Cn. Octavius, Spurius Lucretius,
associated with didim, p?s, 'love' ; but its real ety- and L. Aurelius, who were sent into Syria in 162 B. c.,
in consequence of the contention for the guardianship
mology (like that of ,uuv6payr5pas) is obscure. I t de-
of the young king Antiochus V. Eupator ; but he entirely
notes the fruit-in Cant. f 13 [I+] possibly the flowers-
ignores Q. Memmius or T. Manlius. W e may, there-
of a plant of the same genus as the belladonna plant
fore, conclude that legates of these names were never in
(Atropa EeZludonnu. L.). A Greek description of the
Syria. The true name of T. Manlius may be T.
mandrake will be found in Dioscorides (476) ; among
Manius (cp RV), and, as there is not sufficient time for
its names he mentions KipKaia.' Wetzstein, who on
an embassy to have been sent to Syria between the two
9th May (1860)found the already ripe fruits growing
recorded by Polybius, the writer may have been thinking
profusely on a mountain in HaurLn (cp Del. Hohelied
of the former.
u. Kokekth, 439J?), argues for the plant of the OT The letter is dated in the 148th year of the Seleucidan era
being the autumn mandrake (Mandragora autumnalis, ('165 B.c.) and in that year there was a consul of the name of
Bertol.), rather than the spring mandrake ( M . o@- T.Manli;; Torquatus, who appears to have been sent on an
narum, L . ) , because in Palestine the spring mandrake embassy to Egypt about 164 B.C. to mediate between the two
Ptolemies, Philometor and Enerietes (Livy, 43 11 ; Folyb. Rel.
would have disappeared long before the time of wheat 32 I 2).
harvest ( i d . 4443). I t appears, however, that M. The employment of this Seleucidan era a s a date the absence
autumndis is not a Palestinian plant at all ; and the of the name of the city and especially the fact thit the first in-
other species, which flowers from February to March, or tercourse of the Jews And Romans did not take place till twn
years later, when Judas heard of the fame of the Romans
in warm situations as early as Christmas, has, according (I Macc. 8 I, seq.), all prove that the document is far from
to Tristram ( N E B468),the time of wheat harvest a s its authentic.
1 &ecQ G o ~ e $i ,%{a 4iArpwv dvar TOL/TCK$.
2927
MANNA MANNA
The three other letters do not merit serious attention (2 Macc. of the nature of the biblical manna which identifies it
11 16-33 ; cp Wernsdorff, Dejid. Libr. Maccab., sec. 66 ; Grimm, with lichen -viz., Lecanora esculenta, Eversni., and
Ezeg. Handbsch, ad /oc., also MACCAHEES, SECOND, S 3).
allied species. A good account is to be found in
XA"A (ID; rcwr
; 1 EX. 1615 31 MAN Kerner von Marilaun's Nut. Hist. of Plants, Eng. ed.
in thiscap. except A in 35a] 33 35 [composite, P and JE, 28108 It is met with in Arabia and many other parts
see below, § 31, Nu. 116-9 [JE], Dt. of W. Asia, as well as in the Sahara and deserts of
Meaning 83 16 [U], Josh. 512 [PI, Neh. 920 Ps. Algeria. It first forms thick wrinkled and w-arted crusts
Of
7 8 2 4 ; also Jn. 631 49 Heb. 9 4 Rev. 217. on stones, preferably on small fragments of limestone ;
and, in some MSS, Jn. 6 5 8 t ) . The origin of the the outer colour of the crust is a grayish yellow, whilst
name is still doubtful, though Ebers's derivation from on breaking it appears as white as a crushed grain of
a n Egyptian word of the same meaning (mennu) is corn. As they get older the crusts separate from their
probable (Durch Gosen, 2 2 6 J ). A play on the name substratum, and become rolled back ; ultimately the
is suggested in Ex. 1615; there can be little doubt that loosened piece forms an elliptical or spherical warted
in that verse i p = z ~ , 'what,' though the use of an body. Owing to their extreme lightness these pieces
Aramaic pronominal form is peculiar.* T h e explanation are rolled about by the wind, and are carried hither and
of Ges. and others that it is there=Ar. mann 'gift,' thither in the air, which in dry countries is the means
is most unlikely (see Di. ad loc.) ; the Arabic use of the of their distribution. Where, on the other hand, there are
name mann is almost certainly due to Hebrew. heavy rains the pieces are washed along by the water and
According to P manna was first given to the Israelites deposited in great heaps, from which ' a single man can
in the Wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the and in a day collect 4-6 kilograms (about 12,ooo to 20,ooo
month of the Exodus, from which point pieces, varying in size from a pea to a hazel nut). In
a.cations. -
Identifi it continued to form their nourishment the steppe region and in the high lands of south-west
Asia, the manna lichen is used as a substitute for corn
during the wilderness journey.
(i.) T h e indication of place and time and the in years of famine--being ground in the same way and
description given of the substance itself have led baked into a species of bread. T h e so-called manna
to its identification as the exudation of a tree which is still rains occur generally between January and March-Le.,
common, and probably was formerly more abundant, in during the wet season.
the E. of the Sinai peninsula-viz., a species of T a m a r i x The tamarisk manna consists chiefly of sugar (Fluck.
galLz'ca, L., called by Ehrenberg mannz+eru. Ebers and Hanb.(*) 415) and it is difficult to see how this could
(op. cit. 2 2 3 8 : ) . who visited the peninsula in 1871, by itself form the sustenance of human beings for any
journeying from N. to S. along the eastern side accord- lengthened period. T h e manna-lichen, on the other
ing to the recorded route of the Israelites, came upon hand, is said to be ' dry and insipid ' (Teesdale in Science
these trees first in the W. Gharandel, and found them Gossip, 9233). and so would not answer altogether to the
most plentiful in the W. FeirSm and fairly plentiful description in Ex. 1631 [PI ; hut the comparison of its
in the W. esh-Sheikh (see S INAI ). This agrees with the taste to that of honey is wanting in JE (Nu. 116-9). It
older accounts by Seetzen and Burckhardt. T h e former, is conceivable, however, that both these substances may
visiting the district on 10th June 1809, found quantities have been known and occasionally used as food by the
of 'manna,' partly adhering to the soft twigs of the Israelites.
tamarisks, and partly fallen beneath the trees. At six T h e passages relating to the gift of the manna are
in the morning it was of the consistency of wax; but the Ex. 16 and Nu. 1~16-9. The latter belongs to a chapter
sun's rays soon melted it. and later in the day it dis- 3. Criticism which is certainly pre-exilic, and of which
appeared, being absorbed into the earth. A fresh supply ZN. 4-15 are, with some confidence, to be
appears each night during its season (June and July). n$a$&. ascribed largely to J. Ex. 16, ' o n e of
Burckhardt describes its taste as sweet like honey, the most perplexing battle- grounds of
pleasant and aromatic, and its hue as dirty yellow ; criticism,' consists of a few old fragments (4 15a 16a 19-
others say that as it falls by night it is pure white. 21 35), the rest being P and R,.I
(SF The fact that the manna was given to assuage the hunger of
the accounts of these and other travellers collected in
Ritter. Erdk. 1 4 6 6 5 3 ) . I n 1823 Ehrenberg discovered the people, whereas the presence of food in the form of cattle is
expressly mentioned in Ex. 17 3.1913 24 5 32 6 34 3 might help us
that the flow of manna from the twigs of the tamarisk to ascertain the source of these fragments were it not that critics
was due to their being punctured by a scale insect which are not unanimous respecting them.2
is now called Gossypahu m a n n i f r a , Hardn. Doubt has T h e wilderness of Sin was the scene of the first
been thrown on this view by later travellers, who found appearance of the manna, according to P ( 5 2 above).
manna at a season when the trees no longer bore traces Where the older narrative placed it does not a t first
of the insect ; but there can be little doubt that Ehren- sight appear ; at all events it comes immediately before
berg's explanation of the origin of this exudation is true. the smiting of the rock a t Massah and Meribah. In
T h e quantity now produced in the peninsula is small- the article MASSAH A N D MERIBAH(4.v.) the view
according to Burckhardt only between 500 and 600 has been taken that these names were originally distinct,
pounds annually; but it may once have been much and since we find that in Nu. 116-9 the account of
greater when the woods were thicker and more extensive. the manna is wedged in between the events a t
(ii.) Another kind of ' m a n n a ' said to be found in the Taberah ( I - 3 ) , and Kibroth - hattaavah (31-35),~ and
desert of Sinai is that yielded by the Camel's Thorn- that in Dt. 922 Massah is placed between these two
AZhngi camehrum, Fisch.-a small spiny plant of the names, it seems probable that in the older narrative
order Leguminosra. The ' manna' used as a drug is in Ex. 16, the giving of the manna was located in
derived from quite a different tree-viz., the manna ash, Massah; cp the punning allusion to the name in Ex.
Ijraxinus Ornus. L. On this and other sorts of manna, 164 ( ' t h a t I mayprove them,' ?jDm).'
.--: It is noteworthy
see Fliick. and Hanb. 4 0 9 8 , and cp ZDMG 23 275 8 , that another tradition in Ex. I T 7 B (gloss), Dt. 616,
35 254 on Turkish and Kurdish mannas.
(iii. ) More recently has been put forward another view 1 So, following Bacon, Trifile T r d . of ihe Exod. 80-87
Addis, POL.Hex. 2 246, n. I . Otherwise Dr. and the OxJ Hex.:
1 @ uses the same form repeatedly in the prophets to render cp also Exonus, B z , and the tables to Holi. Ei&.
"""?. 2 Dr. (cp also Kue., Co.)ascribesall to E. Rut 34 3 is ascribed
to J E by Kue., nnd to J by Co., and the 0x3 Hex. Di. We.
2 Field (on Ex. 16 rs) cites (from @F) a Gk. version pav ahmi
(cp Zenner, ZKT, 1899, r65J) 'is that manna?' [Parthey Bacon, on the other hand, find both J and E varyingly in)thes;
(Vucab. Cupf.-/at.106)gives a Cobtic word vap= 'arbor similis passaqes.
3 The election of the elders (vv. 16-17)belongs to alater phase
tamarisco' (Schulte, ZKT, '899, 570). Wi. A O F 2 322 3, of E (see ELnAn AND MEDAD) and may be safely passed over.
quoting a Palm. inscr. published by Clermont-Ganneau. bt.
&Arch. Or. 1129 explains 13(here Ii ani) to mean ambrosia, 1 Cp also Ps. 78 18; ' they tempted ' (?DP>)God by asking for
food of the gods (cp below, 5 4).1 food.
2929 2930
MANOAH MANTLE
associates the name not with the proving’ of Israel by are the hadara, specifically a striped and spotted
Yahwe, but with the ‘ tempting ’ of Yahwi: by Israel (see garment, and the b u d , often simply an oblong dark
Bacon, IC., also MASSAHAN D M ERIBAH ). piece of thick woollen cloth, or plain with dark stripes
Manna is called ‘heavenly corn,’ and ‘bread of the mighty’
- _ (717 close together (called musayya4). The poorest and
D a w , and n q q N onk Ps.-78 2 4 ~ 3 ‘,heavenly bread ’ ( 1 ‘kh.
~ meanest of garbs is the Kisd, the mark of a poor man,
105 40), cp 4 Esd. 1 19 @anis angeZoruy), an oblong cloth, sometimes cut and sewn.
4. Mystical Wisd. 16 20 (&yyCAw ~ p o $ 4 ) , 19 21 6 (ap-
On the Egyptian outer garment see EGYPT, § 39.
interpretations. ~;;~p;;~j);;;~e; wG;i ~ r ; ~ ; ~ ~ ;
Its use was established by the eighteenth dynasty, though
touch with Jewish beliefs (cp Bammidbrir I . 16, ana see above, priests still retained the primitive tunic or skirt. T h e
# I , n. 2). With Wisd. 16206, ‘bread .. . agreeing to every
taste ’ agrees the Rabbinical legend that the manna adapted
upper garment was a short shirt sometimes with a left
itselito every one’s taste ; to him who preferred figs its taste was sleeve and a slit for the right arm. Gala dresses were
like a fig etc. (cp Eisenmenger Entdeckf.Jndenf7z. 1485). See of course common, and it is worth noticing that men’s
also Si6. b 149 (cp Rev. 2 17), A>m. Bar. 2 98, Taylor, Sayings of garments were usually more ornamented than the
the Fathers (21, 178f: N.M.,§If:; S.A.C.,§3f: women’s, whose earliest clothing consisted of a simple
MANOAH (ni>Q, 74 ; a rest’ or from il3D, to foldless garment reaching from below the breasts to the
present a gift,’ MANWE [BAL] ; Jos. MANWXHC), the ancles.
father of Samson, of Zorah (q.v.), ‘ of the clan (see D A N ) I n the regions of Assyria and Babylonia, on the other
of the Danites’ (Judg. 1 3 ~ 8 51631). See JUDGES hand, so far as can be judged from the sculptures, the
[BOOK], 11, T HEOPHANY . Manoah is obviously ordinary dress is a tunic from neck to knee, with short
the legendary eponym of the M ANAHATHITES of Judah sleeves down to above the elbow. Very frequently the
(or Dan) ; hence his burying-place can be also that of outer garment reaches only from the waist, and is elabor-
Samson (Jndg. 1631). The story in which Manoah plays ately ornamented.’ A girdle encircles the waist, and
a part should he compared with the parallel narrative in not uncommonly the skirt is so draped as to fall below
Judg. 611-24 (GIDEON), which is usually assigned to the the ancle of the right foot, whilst the whole of the left
same author. ’The story is that first Manoahs wife, and from just above the knee-cap downwards is bare.
then Manoah himself as well, were visited by a messen- T h e upper part of the body is often bare, save only
ger of Yahwk. who was sent to announce the birth of a for various kinds of ornamented bands, etc. Occasion-
son, and to give directions respecting his bringing up. ally, however, the garment seems to be thrown over the
It was this son (Samson) who should deliver Israel from left shoulder (leaving the right arm bare). Most striking
the Philistines. is the mantle sculptured upon the royal statue in the
On the ‘misleading’ editorial alteration in Judg. 145a ab see Louvre (see Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ass. 2, pl. 6 ) .
Moore’s Commentary. Cp S AMSON. Turning finally to representations of the inhabitants
MANOCHO (MANOXU [BAL]), Josh. 1 5 5 9 6. See of Palestine and their nearer neighbonrs, we note the
M ANAHATH , 3. over-garment with cape worn by the princes of Lebanon
(see above, col. 1225, fig. 5). The Asiatics depicted
MANSLAYER (n$7?, Nu. 3 5 6 1 2 ; ANA~O@ONOC, above, col. r z z ~ f : . fig. 3, wear the garment wound
I Ti. 19). See GOEL. round their bodies. Jehu’s tribute-bearers* show a
MANTELET (y?D), Nah. 2 5, RV. See SIEGE. mantle with ornamented borders, and short sleeves, and
Jehu himself is clad more simply in a long garment,
MANTLE. In addition towhat has been said generally fringed round the bottom. T h e artist represents the
in the article D RESS on the clothing of the Israelites people of Lachish quite differently. They wear a long
a few supplementary remarks are necessary here on the shirt or mantle, which seems to have a slit for the right
mantle in particular. Under this heading are included arm.4 T h e people of Tyre and Sidon in Shalmaneser’s
not only the words so rendered (sometimes incorrectly) inscription are dressed only with a skirt, whilst ASur-
by the EV, but also and more especially, those Hebrew bani-pal’s Arabians fight in a waist-cloth. Noteworthy
terms which appear to denote anyouter garment, cloak, or is the rich clothing of the N. Arabian ‘Amu women
wrapper. It will be prudent for the present to keep the depicted on a Beni-Hasan tomb.5 I t reaches from
archEologica1 evidence-the sculptures of Assyria and neck to ancle, and the right arm is left bare. The men
Egypt, and Muhammadan usage--quite distinct from on the other hand have simply a skirt, apparently of
the very insufficient evidence afforded by the OT alone. skin.
One of the difficulties associated with a discussion of Leaving to the article T UNIC what may have to be re-
the kinds of outer-garment
- worn by the Israelites is the marked upon the under-garment of the Israelites, we
1. ArchrologJr. question whether it was worn over the a. Tarms. proceed now to a discussion of the Hebrew
loin-cloth, or skirt (see G IRDLE ) alone, terms which fall to be considered
or over the tunic alone, or over both. The ‘Roman I. +W (itmzrih; less frequently i~p’?W,iazmrih; e, ipanu-
toga was apparently worn a t first over the loin-cloth or p&, ip&rov [=Rom. faZZiuml), the garment of both sexes (of
subligaculumonly, and the same, probably, was frequently women in Ex. 3 22 Dt. 22 17 Ru. 3 3 Cant. 4 II), though, as Dt.
the case with the Israelite mantle. On the other hand, 22 5 implies, there was a difference between them ; probably the
woman’s was longer and perhaps characterised by some colonr-
the first caliph Abu Bekr, distinguished for his simplicity ing. It was something more than a mere tunic. Ruth (33)
of dress, is once described as wearing the Jamla (cp puts one on before going out-of-doors, and a man could dispense
iimluh, 5 2 [ I ], below) and ‘add’a-the latter a striped with it, at all events, in the day-time (Ex. 2226 f: Dt. 24 13).
and ornamented mantle with short sleeves ; and his Its folds (484, lit. ‘bosom ’ Ex. 46f: Prov. 6 27) were adapted for
hearing loads or for wrapding round an object (Judg. 825 Ex. 12 34
successor Omar, equally simple in his tastes, wore a I S.21 IO Prov. 30 4 . cp 6iged 2 K. 4 39),6 and we may assume,
woollen jubha (a garment reaching to the knees, sewn therefore, that it w d primarily nothing more than a rectangular
down the front with the exception of the extreme top piece of cloth. The iimlah accordingly would correspond
with the Roman toga, or b&ter still, tbe’fallium. On the
and bottom) and the ‘add’a. Here we have to d o other hand. the term is sometimes used apparently of clothing
with tunic and mantle. No mention is made of a ingeneral(cp Job931 Cant.41r)-e.g.,ofaprophet(i K. 11@;
primary garment corresponding with loin- or waist-
cloth. Finally, Muhammad himself wore +amiS(tunic),2 Orient. Congr. (Stockholm and Christiania i. 1303 8, 315 fi
[Leyden, 1891]), and L. Bauer, ZDPL’243;-38 (1901).
sirbdl (trousers), and above both ajubda bordered with 1 For a specimen %e Perrot and Chipiez, Art. in Ass. 2 153,
silk. Among Arabian 3 outer garments of a finer sort fig. 75. -
a Cp fig in Moore S B O T ‘Judges ’ 58.
1 The priests, however, according to Jos. Ant. iii. 7 1-4wear 3 Cp Bail, Lighf~romfhe E m f , 186.
breeches (D*D)3D), tunic (mn,), an outer girdle, and a turban. 4 Cp Ball, 192, where, however, this slit does not appear.
To these the high-priest adds the mantle. 5 Cp Ball, 74, WMM As. u. Eur. 296.
2 Etymologically the same as our word chemise. 6 In Ezra 9 3 5 6dged and mGZ (see no. 6 ) are named together.
3 See generally Dozy Dirt. ddfaiZZ4 d.noms d.u#temenb Since the me‘2 &as certainly a mantle (see n a 6), bdged may
chez ies A r d c s (Amskidam, 1849, H. Almkvist in the 8th perhaps he used of the inner garment.
2931 2932
MANTLE MAON
on his usual garb see helow 5), and of a warrior (Is. 9 5 [+I), who, 11. 1.71, rCu'Sd, Cant. 5 7 Is. 323, EV 'veil' is appropriate,
we may be sure, would hardly go into battle clad in a long
flowing garb. Another, probably similar, outer garment was the though piimarily it is, probably, a wide loose mantle. Tg. on
2. mo?, Krsiifh (cp Ar. hisd, 0 I above), used generally (see
Gen. 2465 uses ~toirender *~ :- i
12. I'pf, gi'iph, Gen. 2465. I t is also used as a woman's
DRESS 4 I [4]) hut also specifically Ex. 22 26, and Dt. 22 12,
where ;he appeAding of F RINGES [4.v.] is commanded. article of clothing (EV 'veil'), hut etymologically it means
3. nmpp, nzifp&zafh, Ruth 3 15 (AVw. 'sheet, or apron,'
properly some quare garment.
13. S'l??, fnkrik, Esth. 8 15 AV 'garment,' RV preferably
arpi<u+a ; Is. 3 2 2 ; hut cp @), a large wrapper, which could he
gathered up for bearing loads. It is possible that this word is 'robe,' in'MH a shroud.
to be read in Ezek. 13 18 21, instead of ninm? (EV wrongly 14. hip, sur6ril, probably correctly rendered ' mantle' by
'kerchiefs'), on which see DRESS, col. 1141. AVmg. in Dan. 321 (AV 'coats,' RV 'hosen'); see BREECHES.
4. 1'15,sridin (cp Ass. sudinnu), prohably a rectangular piece
In h1H it denotes some garment reaching from the neck down-
words.'
of fine linen cloth ; cp Judg. 14 rz f:, where AV ' sheets' (mg. 15. N > p , kar&ld, Dan. 3 21,for which RV has 'mantles,' is
'shirts,' RV 'garments'). The sddin wasan article of domestic
manufacture (Prov. 51 24), worn also by women (Is. 3 23). In more likely 'hats' (AV) or 'turbans' (AVw.), the supposed
Mish. Heb. it is used of a curtain, wrapper, or shroud. Levy, denom. I Ch. 15 27 (52i3n, as though ' wrapped in a mantle ')
Cha?d. WB, s.u., cites Men. 41 u where the sddin is styled a being insecure ( /I 2 S. 6 14 73yjn); see J. Ph. 26310, and cp
summer garment, the ~ 5 2 on 1 the
~ other hand, being used in TURRAN.
winter. It has, probably, no connection with u i v 8 i r v l which Some of the common classical mantles are referred to in the
in T hbcc. 1064 is used of Jonathan's regal garment (@A, but Apoc. and N T :-
16. uroA<, Mk. 16 5 (common also in M H in the form & p ~ ;
@rNv TO +6pav, cp Syr.), and in N T of a garment worn next the
skin (h1&.1451d),or of a shroud (Mt. 27 59, cp Herod. 286). cp Tg. for nipbn Gen.4522). Both m o A < and Lat. sfola
5. "vu, d d i r e f h (lit. 'glory'? or cp Ass. ndw 'purple,'
primarily had a general meaning ; on the specific use of sfofato
designate the garb of the Roman matron, see Did. Class.
Muss-Arnolt, m 6 ) , denotes a garment of the richest as well as Ant., S.V.
of the simplest description. On the one hand, it was the dis- 17. i+drbov ( = R o n pallium), Mt. 920, etc., distinguished
tinctive garb of the prophet ( I K. 19 13 19 2 K. 2 8 13J, p p l w n j ) ; from the XL&V (tunic) in Mt. 5 40 Lk. 6 29 Acts939.
it was of hair (cp 1 w 'N Zech. 13 4 and ipv i y P'K ~ 2 K. 1 s).Q 18. aoS<pqs, Rev. 113, EV 'garment,' one reaching down to
On the other h a d , the uddivefh was worn hy 'kings (Jon. 36 the feet.
EV 'robe ' uroA<), and one was found and coveted by Achan i; 19. m p r / ? M a r o v , Heh. 1 12 (AV 'vesture,' RV 'mantle'), a
the spoil of Jericho uos. 721). If the reading in Josh. 721 is wrapper or cover.
correct, the best mantles came from Bahylonia. Possibly we 20. ,yha+4r Mt. 27 2s 31 a military mantle (Rom. puludn-
should read 1 W
t for 1YIW (see, however, SHINAR). mentum) faAened by a h;ckle on the right shoulder so as to
6. $*&h?, mc'iZ(deriv. uncert., see BDB), an outergarment worn
2
hang in cprve across the body. Cp 2 Macc. 12 35 AV 'coat,'
RV 'cloke.
by men of high degree ( I S. 18 4 24 5 12 [4 111 Job 1 zo), also by 21. $aX&qp, 2 Tim. 4 13 (Ti.WH ; prop. $arv6Avr=$mulu).
Samuel ( I S. 15 27 28 14 cp 2 ~ q ) and
, Ezra (Ezra 9 3 5). It had worn on journeys. It was a long sleeveless mantle of durable
flowing ends ( I S. 15 27, etc., Kdndjh, see FRINGES). In 2 S. 13 IS, cloth. Sometimes, but wrongly, taken to he a receptacle (esp.
where themc'ilwouldseem tohaveheen worn byfemales, thetext is of books, cp Syr.). I. A.-S. A. C.
corrupt (read O$Yp, see the Comm.), and in I Ch. 1527 (hyn MAOCH ($Up),I S. 272. See M AACAH, 4.
yil) where David is said to have worn it before the ark, the
/I 2 S. 6 14 (ly $32) warns us against accepting the M T too MBON (?Up ; MAON [AL], MAAN [B] ; but in Josh.
readily. 1 5 5 5 M A O ~ [B], in I s.2324f. 2.51 H E ~ H M O CH
The mc'il(or na'il of the Ephod) is a recognised term for the
high-priest's extra garment worn upon special occasions. The BTTHKOOC [L]), a town in the hill-country of Judah
descriptions (Ex. 28 31 3, 39 22 3, Jos. Ant. iii. 7 4, By5 7, cp (Josh. 1555), interesting from its twofold connection with
Ecclus. 457-9 [Heb.]) make it a long seamless garment of blue the story of David ( I S . 2 3 2 4 3 251f. [if in v. I we read
(ilk?, 8a'atvOor [Jos.]), with an open bordered neck. At the ' Maon ' for ' Paran ' with bB; but see PARAN]). As
foot were hells and pomegranates arranged alternately. See Robinson has shown, it is the modern Teff Ma'in,
further EPHOD,5 3. which is about I O m. SSE. from Hebron, and z m. S.
7. The precise meaning of nix>$, rna?z&'Z@fh (pl. only), of from the ruins of eZ-KurmuZ. Eastward of the ridge on
high priest (Zech. 3 4) and of females (Is. 3 82) is uncertain. EV which it stands is an extensive steppe, called in I S. 2 3 2 4
understands scnie change of garments removed or taken off (cp
.\/&Clap, Dt. 259 Is. 202) in ordinary hfe. According to Orelli and perhaps (hut see P A R A N )251 [aB],' t h e wil-
they were 'state dresses which the wearer "takesoff' and places derness of Maon.' The greater part of this district
on some honoured guest.' With this agrees the specific meaning is waste pasture-land. rough rocks with that dry
of iiiilisdh ( z S. 2 21 Judg. 14 rg), and the analogy of the Ar. vegetation on which goats and even sheep seem to thrive
&irk3idpull off).
Another term usually taken to mean some change of garments - though a little corn and maize is grown in the valleys
1s- (Conder, PEFQ, 1875, cp p. 46). It slopes towards the
8. & &2Zf$&h4
l , Uudg. 14 19 ; with n i b & Gen. 45 22, Dead ,Sea. Cp the MAON of Chronicles.
with DTI Judg. 14 1.3, 2 K. 5 5 223): cp 9. Such changes Genealogically, Maon (pcwv [B]) is represented as a
were necessary for purification (Gen. 352) after a period of descendant of Hebron through Rekem ( L e . , Jerahmeel?)
mourning ( 2 S. 12 zo), or more especially as honorific gifts. In and Shammai, and as the ' father ' or founder of Beth-
ancient Arabian custom the gift should consist of the donor's
own personal clothing, though naturally in course of time zur ( I Ch. 245).
supplies were kept for the purpose. Such gifts are still con- In Gen. 10 13 (if for p*D>y,Anamim, we should read D'!Yp,
sidered an honour-a scarlet cloak, in particular, being held
particularly flattering.5 Meonini) the clan of Maon is represented as a son of D?yn (i.e.,
9. 5'l'ng,gcfhigil (Is. 324, EV 'stomacher,' X L T ~ Vprrromip- Misrim not Misraim). See MIZRAIM.Observe that, according
to ;his ;iew, Maon and Cannel (see LVD,LUDIM,I) are grouped,
$upor), usually interpreted 'mantle,' is obscure. This foreign- as in Josh. 15 55. T. K. C.
looking word resembles the Tg. ~jn~,'over-garment,' with which.
indeed, Levy(ChuZd. WB)actually connects it ;Che. (Crii. Bi6.) MAON ; MAA IAM [BAL], XANAAN [Symm. I :
would read, ni+ (n and > confounded). CHANAAN [Vg.] ; ' Ammon,' Pesh. ), EV [rather
IO. nioyp. ma*dtZ#hafh, Is.322 (EV 'mantles'), cp Ar.
boldly] Maonites. a people mentioned in Judg. 1012
in conjunction with the Zidonians and Amalekites as
_i<d_f~and
~ m_ Q_Z_i _a long-sleeved
_ _ _ ~ robe. early oppressors of Israel. Tradition is silent else-
1 So in Syr. we should probably distinguish the rare native
word stdin& from the foreign seddo'nd. where as to Maonite oppressors, and some critics (in-
2 Later an ascetic's garb. The founder of the Jacohite church cluding Be., Gr., Kau., Buhl, and [SBOT,but not
in Asia, Jacob bar Theo hilus, was surnamed Burdi'anB because Comm. ] Moore) would therefore adopt @'*1-'s reading
his dress consisted of a furu'u'fhd or coarse horse-cloth (Wright, ' Midian. ' To this course, however, there'are objections.
Syn'ac Lit. 85).
( I ) It would he strange that the familiar ' Midian' should be
3 A connection with p s i n 'loins '-as though primarily a loin-
cloth-seems out of the question. corrupted into the unfamiliar hfaon. (2) The 'Zidonians'and
4 .\/to pass away or change (of garments Gen. 35: Ps. 102 27 ' Amalek ' are only less troublesome than ' Maon ' in this context :
(261). Note, however, Ass. &zl&$u 'be) clothed, +allu$fu the text needs to be more thoroughly criticised. The list of
' covering, trappings ' (cp IRON, 0 2). names in uv. I I f : is probably partly made up of corrupt
5 Doughty, AY. Des. 141 348 2 20 35 55 310 351. According doublets. The Zidonians, Amalekites, and Maonites of n. 12
to Doughty (2 19) an outfit consists of a tunic, a coarse worsted
cloth, and a kerchief for the head. 1 See J . Phil. 26 307.
2933 2934
MARA MARBLE
correspond to the Misrim, the Amorites and the bene Ammon u m p , nrirun ethd. Rev. 2220 makes it likely that
of 0. 11. The true text appears to thk present writer to be some such formula (verb in the imperative) was in use
‘ Did not the Migrites and the Jerahmeelites oppress you, and
when ye cried unto me, I saved you,’ etc. lryn is a conjectural in early times, and the Aramaic expression itself is found
emendation of, or a scribe’s error for jrny Ammon) ; ]ray, as in in the DiduchC (106),where the invitation to approach
some other passages, is a corruption of phy(Amalek), and p k y the L o r d s table runs thus : d T I E tlyrbs ~ ( T T L V&p-&Bw
,
is an early popular distortion of $Nnny (Jerahmeel). >inN FI T L S O ~ QUTL,
K gcravoeirw’ papavaed. d p j v .
is also miswritten for * S N D ~ Uerahmeelite);
- ~)*ji-psis an On the suggested possibility of a similar formula having been
error (cp p y x in I K. 17 9, Joel 3 4 for lWF, Missur = MiSrim in use among Jews see / Q R Oct. 1896, 18J, and for a dis-
cussion of the whol; question ’cp N. Schmidt / B L 1894, pp. 50-
for nqra). Cp MIZRAIM. 60. See, further, under BAN, 0 3, EXCO~MUNILATION, $ 2.
The result, if it be accepted, is highly important, and must be J., H. Tbayer, in Hastings’ D B 3 241.243, deals at some length
taken in connection with Judg. 106, where, for ‘Aram, Zidon, with the history of interpretation. H. W. H.
Moab Amnion, Philistines’-rrors due to an age which had
forgo;ten early history-we should certainly read ‘Jerahmeel, MARBLE. In three passages in the O T the EV
Mkgur (twice), Amalek (=Jerahmeel). and Zarephathites;’ , Cp suggests that in their architecture the Hebrews were
JERAHMEEL ZAREPHACH. I t is an anticipation of the sin of
Jerohoam,’ \;hich consisted in falling back on Migrite religion. acquainted with the use of marble of different colours
Cp MOSK?,# 11 (a). For a different view, proposed by Hommel, ( I Ch. 292 Cant. 515 Esth. 16). Themention of marble
see MEUNIM. T. K. C. in these late hooks need not surprise 11s ; but t h e
MARA (K??, a bitter’), Ruth 120. See N AOMI. references being so few, and the passages in which they
occur bearing traces of corruption, the question is in-
MARAH (?I?? ; in Ex. 1523n 6 ~ a p [BAFL] p ~ ; volved in great obscurity.
in v. 236 ~ I K P I A [BAFL]; in Nu. 338f: ~ I K P I A I In I Ch. 29 2, where the allusion is supposed to Le to stones of
[BAFL] ; M A R / ) , the name of a well of brackish water, white marble (AV; RV ‘marble stones’; MT ~ 9 j l - ~ l ? w ) ,the
mentioned in connection with the wilderness of Shur or word translated ‘white marble ’ is probably misplaced.1.
Again, in Cant. 5 15, the author, influenced b his character-
(see SHUR) Beer-sheba. C p EXODUS i., MASSAHA N D istic fondness for trees (see CANTICLES,.$ IS), prozably compares
MERIBAH,
W ANDERINGS . the legs of the bridegroom to ‘pillars of acacia’s rather than to
There is no need to trouble about identifications. Later ‘pillars of white marble’ ( d e ‘13mY).
writers fancied a locality for the well of Marah. but reall Marah Finally, in Esth. 1 6 , if with EV we are to follow MT, three
belongs to the realm of the imagination. W i are famiEar with
a localisation (in the Negeb?) of the land that flows with milk other species ofmarble (besides the supposed ‘white marble,’ d e )
and honey (see HONEY). Wi. (Gcsch. 2 93 n. 3) has recently are mentioned. The versions, however, point to a different text.
illustrated this by the mythic lake (pseudd-Callisthenes, 2 42)) Following these we should perhaps read
with waters as sweet as honey beside which Alexander the 11YUZZ I!3XT$Y IDJl >ill nlWJ ’1lDJl
Great encamped, and corresponhing to which is mentioned a
river with waters too bitter to drink (i6.3 17). ‘ After some had nin+ a r p f wv ~ p p
died, wee ing and wailing arose beyond measure ’ (cp Ex. 15 24). and illars of acacia, couches of gold and silver upon a pavement
See also tge Syriac Hist. of AZexunder (Budge), pp. 96f: Cp i f alagaster and mother-of-pearl-like stone, and screens of fine
also the W L K ~ ~880
V (the Hellespont). introduced by Herodotus linen in the form of shields (or ‘round about ’).‘a
into the story of $,,.xes (Herod. 735; Miicke, V o m E u j h a t According to this view of the text, only two species of stone
e l m Tiber, 90 9 3 , and see SALT SEA. T.K. C. were used for the pavement (see PAVEMENT, 8 I ) on which the
couches of silverandgold rested in theimprovised banquet-room of
MARALAH (?I$g>g ; M A P A A ~ [L]), a place on the Ahasuerus (Esth. 16). Of these stones, one, day (l;), would
SW. border of Zebulun, and apparently E. of Jokneam, seem to have possessed the brilliance of ‘ mother-of-pearl ’ since
Josh. 191it (MbpayshhA [BJ, MAPIAA [AI). the same word ( ~ U Y Y , dzw~ut)in Arabic and Persian ‘mems
The reality of the name is,, however, very doubtful. The ‘pearl ’or even ‘mother-of-pearl’ itself. For in spite of the
Pasek (vertical line) before a%’, warns us to suspect the text. fact that pearls were used by the ancients in decorating the
walls of apartments in royal palaces, we have no warrant for as-
a$ymivery possibly comes from 22ll: where is of course suming th& use in the case of pavements. We must therefore
a mere dittogram. If so, Maralah passes out of existence. with Kautzsch (HS) Wildeboer (KHC),and the Varibrum Bibl;
T. K. C. suppose the word tdmean in this passage ‘ mother-of-pearl-like
stone.’4 The other stone 6dhaf (an>), was rohahl as Ges..
MARANATHA, in RV Maran Atha (MAPAN &ea, Buhl (confparing Ar. b h u t ) k d Kautzscg (HS’ suggest,
Ti. [DCL, etc.], WH ; as one word [M, etc.] ; MAPAN- ‘ alabaster.
Even now the two words (lpbl>) are perhaps to be taken
N A ~ A[FG**], M.IRANATHA [vet. Lat. ; Vg.] ; .afARA-
closely together, and are really only meant to suggest one species
THANA [ T ] ; fN ADYENTCI DOMfNf [g ; Cp &th. VeTS.]), of stone, the AZabastritcs of Pliny (HN 3678)-a kind of
an Aramaic expression used in I Cor. 16221.. ala6aster with the gloss of mother-of-pearl.5 I t was found, ac-
Althongh it has been proposed to regard the expres- cording to Pliny, in the neighbourhood of Damascus.
sion as a single word,’ there can be little doubt that it M. A. C.
represents two, and the only question is where to make 1 For WlW (Syr. s G i ) Ges.-Buhl, cp Assyr. Pa% ; but, ac-
the division, and how to explain the component parts. cording to Del., the Assyrian word is of doubtful meaning.
Most scholars, however (e.g.,Dalman, Gram. 120,11. 2 ; ;mpii is probably out of place and should be read after
Nold. GGA, 1884,p. 1023 ; Kau. in Siegfr. ZWTh.,
1885, 128 ; N. Schmidt, / B L , 1894, 5 5 8 , etc.) have
c$hj(for$;e), being corrupt for *~.?k!. Translate : ‘and
weavers [or ‘woven work ’1 of fine linen and chequered work in
accepted the explanation propounded in 1884 by Bickell ahundance’ (cp Ex. 28 32 a K. 23 7). See, however, PRKCIOUS
(ZKTh., 1884,p. 403, n. 3). that it means ‘our Lord, STONES.
come,’ and the restoration, proposed in the same year 2 Read ?ipV ’l?OY, the word 9$1”‘ being a more likely parallel
by Halevy ( R E / 9 9 ) , Wellhausen (Nold. Xc.). .and to L?:.!’) See also below on Esth. 16.
Duval ( R E / , 1884, p. 143),of N? ~ ~ 1mdrrind
1, fha, as 3 The words X p ? ? . . . ’e???? (cp Ezek. 27 7) dropped out
the original form,2 though Schmidt argues strongly for of the text or were illegible, and wv and 11 were transposed.
1 For example hy Bullinger. ,%<’l9OY is suggested by the Syriac. The additional phrase
For the phildlogical evidence see Dalman (op. rit. 8 74,13). appears in 6 an rai mpopvai Bcagaweis rror~iAosGnqvEiupiuar
The form adopted in RV is that rendered by the Church Fathers K ~ K &A %a~ rrsraupba-where K G K A ~should be read with what
Chrys.,Theod., etc.), bmiprosjp~vFjh@ev, etc.(cpglosson Codex precedes, &%a rmaupdwa being a gloss on ;r??lp. An addition
Loislin,
- - 6athL-i.e.,
c Maran K . mapay+) ‘our Lord is come’ (cp Arab. vers.
‘ the Lord is already come ” ’), and it is ap- of the kind proposed above is also presupposed ‘by Vulg., Syr.,
parently a feeling that this does not fit well into the context that (id. Lagarde).
has led to the substitution, so often found in later commentators &; :
an,d (~~uvivo AiOov)
v ; Syr. omits ; Targ. (ed. Lag.) has
(but also already, e.g., in Euseb. OSFl195 65), and reproduced on
R V w , of a present-future for the past tense. For an account
.. . ..
u~1-1. . uearl. I
Sieefried ( H K )has ‘mother of pearl.’
, I

5 J. D. Michaelis suggested that 1 ; alone was used to denote


ofothei b o t very plausible) hypotheses and a careful exegetical this stone. @BN* renders D-I;J by [ A r E o u i p d ~ ~ o vupLapay8irw
l
discussion of the passage in I Cor. Lee Klo.’s essay in his
Prodlemc im Aposteltexfe (1889, pp. ;20-246. His own theory AiEov (A L E. upapaysirov [LB], A d . u LlpaySov [ALal); Vnlg. has
that M8ran Bth8 means ‘ our Lord IS the sign ’ and was a formula: sniaragdinus ; Targ. (ed. Lag.) ]?j$&)l?, ‘crystal,’ but Syriac
used in connection with the fraternal kiss (v. zo), is very in- apparently omits. BDR proposes ‘porphyry’ (so RVmg,), com-
genious, hut does not carry conviction. See also Schmidt, I.c. paring Eg. 6ehiti, dehet, behaf.
2935 2936
MARCABOTH MARK
MARCABOTH, in the compound name BETH- Roman praenomen need not surprise us ; the name Titus
MARCABOTH [ q . ~ . ] ,aplace in the territory of Simeon also is so employed in the N T in the Grecian region,
(Josh. 1 9 5 I Ch. 431). Most probably a corrupt ex- whilst the prrenonien GAIUS[q.v.] is met with in three
pansion of Rehoboth (nilh?). suggested by the following or perhaps even four cases. That of Marcus is met
name HALAR-SUSAH (or -SUSIM). with in a similar way also in inscriptions (cp Swete,
No one has attempted to identify Beth-marcaboth, and with Expos. 18976, p. 81); it ought to be accented, not as in
good reason. The confusion between 2 n and
~ 237 was easy ; cp all editions of the NT, Mdprtos. hut M6pxos.l
Rabab and Rechnb (see RAHAB). So C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1356). In the ' captivity ' epistles of Paul, Mark figures as
T. K. C .
the apostle's ' fellow-worker ' ( u v v ~ p y b s , Philem. 24.
MARCHESHVAN (p@nln,~ n ' r i n ,i. 3 4 ) . See a. Rela~ionCol. 4 11) ; he is commended to the good-
M ONTH , 5 5. will of the Colossians (Col. 410 : ' Mark
to ... touching whom ye received com-
MARCUS [Ti.WH]), Col.
(M~PKOC 410 Philem. 24
I Pet. 5x3, RV M ARK . mandments ; if he come unto you receive him ') and in
MARDOCHEUS ( M A ~ A O X A I K H C ) ,2 Macc. 1536, z Tim. 411, Timothy is bidden ' take Mark and bring
AV M ORDECAI . him with thee ; for he is useful to me for ministering'
(dxpquros eis &UKoviUV). This last statement is
MARESHAH (3@Q; M A P H C ~ [A]; hut Josh.
noticeable because we read (Acts 1 5 3 8 ; less precisely
1544 ilvtN'lf?, BAPCHA [L]; B A ~ H C A ~[BI), the i n 1313) that on the apostle's first journey Mark had
M A ~ H C Aof Eusebiu (OS2) 279 27), a city in the withdrawn from him at Pamphylia, for which reason he
shPphElah of Judah. T h e Chronicler mentions it in was not taken as a companion on the second journey
I Ch. 2426' (papeiua [B], papiua [,A]), 421 ( q p i u a [L], (1537-39). It is, however, quite possible that in the
but puixa [HI), as having Calebite and Jerahmeehte course of the years intervening between the journeys,
connectlons; for Mareshah is a son of Caleh, on the this breach may have been healed and Mark have re-
one hand, and, on the other, of Jerahmeel, son of instated himself in Paul's confidence. Moreover, the
Shelah ( m y $ a h $ 2 is~ an expansion of fragments of story of the separation between Pzul and Barnabas on
$Noni-). The Chronicler also gives Mareshah a genea- Mark's account is not free from suspicion (see COUNCIL,
logical superiority to Ziph, and even to Hebron (neigh- 5 3, end). Possibly, therefore, the cause of the
bouring places). Coming down to the historical period, separation between Paul and Mark on the first journey
he states ( 2 Ch. 1 1 8 , pup(e)iua [BAL]) that Mare- may not have been so serious as to cause lasting aliena-
shah was fortified by Rehoboam, and that Asa won tion. In any case the fact mentioned in Col. 410, that
his victory over Zerah, the Cushite, in a valley defined Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, would supply a
(probably) as north of Mareshah ( z Ch. 149$, papiuqX, sufficient explanation why Barnabas should have been
puprua [B], pupiua [L]; see Z EPHATHAH , Z ERAH ). willing to take Mark on the second journey, and ulti-
It was the home of one of the Chronicler's prophets, mately did take him with him to Cyprus, in spite of his
Eliezer b. Dodavah ( 2 Ch. 2037, papciua [B], papiua premature withdrawal 011 the first occasion (Acts 1539).
[A], papiua [L]) ; also of the prophet Micah, if T h e epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, which
' Moresheth' and ' Mareshah ' mean the same town profess to have been both written at the same period,
(this, however, depends on a critical emendation of the agree in what they say as to Mark's being with Paul ;
M T of Mic. l 1 4 $ , on which see M ORASTHITE , but in 2 Tim., on the other hand, Mark is represented
also M ORESHETH -G ATH ). as at a distance from him. Even, however, if we
Mareshah is the Mspromz of Josephus (Ant. xii. 8 6), and was assume the genuineness of these epistles,--or, at least,
Idumzan in the Maccabzean period (Jos. Ant. xK.9 ~h It was
plunderedby Judas theMaccabee(Jos. Ant.xii.86; I Macc.566, in Col., that of the personal notices in 47-15 and in
where read Marissa' for 'Samaria'; cp RVma., also zMacc. 2 Tim. that of 49-18--we cannot here discuss, any more
12 35, paprca [VA],E V MARISA). John H,yrcanus captured it than in the case of Luke (see L UKE , 5 I), the question
(Ant. xiii. 0 I ' cp iQz); Pompey restored it to the Idumzeans
(ib.xiv.44' i l i . 77); Gahiniusrefortifiedit(Ant.xiv.53); and as to the captivity to which they respectively belong.
finally the karthians destroyed it (i6. 137). Eusehius (Onom. That Mark was the constant companion of Peter
270 27) describes it as in his time 'desert. Its place in history seems t o be vouched for by ' the old church teacher '
is now taken hy ELEUTHEROPOLIS [gal. T. K. C.
3. Papias (6 H ~ E U @ E ~ O S ) whose words are quoted by
MARIMOTH, a name in the genealogy of Ezra Papias (up. Ens. HE iii. 3 9 1 5 ) : K U ~TOOTO 6
(4Esd. 12). See M ERAIOTH , I. On Mark* W ~ E U @ ~ EE~ AO ~~ E M+KOS . $v 2ppqvew+s
MARINER occurs as a rendering of two Hebrew O S 6pv.?pbvevuev dqy9Qs &ypaqev, ozI
I U r p o u ~ E V ~ ~ E VIlua
terms :- phroi rd&i, r d Lab 700 XpiuroO +) XeXO&a fi H ~ C L X -
I. njp, malhih, Ezek. 279 Jon. 1 5 . t%TU. O h € Y d p fKOVUC 700 KUplOV OflTE HUp?lKOhOd8~UEV
2 . In pl. D'U$, f@m, Ezek. 27 8 ;in RV and in v. 26 'rowers.' at79, fiurepov 66, hs +y, nprpy,.K.r.x.2 (cp GOSPELS,
See S HIP . 5 65 b ) . Perhaps the authority thus referred to by
MARISA ( M A ~ I C & . [AV]), 2 Macc. 1235. See Papias may have been the ' presbyter John (see J OHN ,
M ARESHAH . S O N OF Z EBEDEE , 5 4), but possibly also he may have
MARISH (K?J), Ezek. 4711. S ~ ~ C O N D U I5TIS(2). , been some other person; for we do not possess the,
preceding context.
MARK ( M A P K O C [Ti.WH]) is the surname of that True, the words just quoted have sometimes been quite
John whose mother Mary (see M ARY , 5 27) according differently explained 3 as meaning that by writing his gospel
1. Name. t o Acts 1212 had a house in Jerusalem. Mark became ;ppqvrvnjr of Peter, that is, the publisher of his
H e is again referred to by both names in oral communications regarding the life of Jesus. This view of
Acts 1225 1537, but only by that of John in 1 3 5 1 3 , 1 The length of the a is vouched for by the spelling Maarcus
while in Acts 1539 Col. 4 IO Philem. 24 2 Tim. 4 11 I Pet. found both in Latin and in Greek inscriptions. See Ditten-
513 he appears only as Mark (AV, thrice, M ARCUS ). berger, Hemes, r872, p. 136, n. I ; Viereck, Sermo graecus
The name of Mark, it is clear, had been assumed only senntus Romani, 57 (Gettlngen, ~ 8 8 8 ); Eckinger, Orthogr.
Zutein. Wdrter in gnkch. Znschnyten, 8-11 (Zurich, 1892) ;
for use in non-Jewish circles (cp B ARNABAS , 5 I , end ; Schweizer, Gramnz. der #ergamen. Znschnzten, 42 (1898) ;
N AMES , 5 86). That this name, selected to be borne in Blass, Gramm. des neutest. Gmkcl. B 4 2 end.
the Greek fashion as a sole name, should have been a a [And the 'presbyter' wa4 wont io siy ;his : Mark, who had
been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately as many
1 ' Mareshah ' ought to he read also in I Ch. 2 42a where MT things a s he recalled to remembrance (or, repeated by word of
has Mesha; the context, as well as @A, requires ;his. How- mouth : see below, g 3 end)--not, indeed, in order-the things
ever, this correction is not enough. Either v. 426 is incomplete, either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord,
or 'the sons of Mareshah,' should he omitted. The second nor accompanied him, but afterwards, as I was saying, he ac-
vi;w is preferable. ' Mareshah' is a correction of ' Mesha,' and companied Peter etc.]
'the sons of' is an insertion made after the marginal correction 3 Most recentl; by Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, 1878-682 EinL,
' Mareshah' had intruded into the text. Thus neither @ nor 5 51, n. 12.15=2 206-2ro 215-220. As against the first-kited of
M T is quite correct. these passages, see Link, St. Kr. 1896, pp. 405-436.
2937 2938
MARK MARK
the passage presents two great^ advantages for conservative no serious objection to this last interpretation of the word ‘son’
theology. (I) It.gives free scope for the supposition that.Mark (u16.r) that, in the other passages cited it is ‘child’ (rCrvov) that
was for the greater part of his time the companion of Paul or is always used ; yet the first-that Mkrk was a hearer of Peter
Barnabas a supposition which might otherwise seem ditlicult to -suffices, Swete (Exjos. 18976,p. 86s)adding that Mark
reconcile k t h the belief that he was for very long the companion honoured Peter as a second father.
of Peter. (2) it obviates the necessity of inferring that Peter, It has to be borne in mind, however, that the genuine-
owing to(his ignorance of Greek, could not possibly have written
-in Greek at leastl-the two epistles attributed to him. ness of I Pet. cannot be maintained, and that most
Assuredly, however, this explanation is not the correct one. I t probably it was not written before 1 1 2 A.D. (see
is very forced to say ‘ Mark having become the publisher of the C HRISTIAN , 5 8 ; for a less definite date, PETER
oral communications of Peter, wrote ’ etc. The participial clause,
in fact, in such a case becomes wholly superfluous. The reverse [EPISTLES], § 7). Thus, the statement that Mark was
order wonld he the only right one: ‘By his writing Mark with Peter when the epistle was being written must be
became publisher of the oral coinmunications of Peter.’ More- given up. Moreover, even if the doctrinal contents of
over, such an interpretation would not enable us to dispense with the epistle should not be held to be due to the desire to
the supposition that Mark had spent a long time in the company
of Peter ; for not only are we expressly told in the sequel that effect a compromise between Paulinism and primitive
Mark did accompany Peter, hut it lies in the nature of the case Christianity, the Tubingen school may still possibly
that Mark can have hecome the ;ppqveu+ of Peter only by be right in holding that two well-known companions
committing to writing discourses which he had repeatedly heard.
The ‘as I was saying’ (& ;+I)”) wonld be decisive if only we of Paul-Silvanus and Mark-are transferred to the
could be sure that the expression is still part of the quotation society of Peter with the object of bringing into promin-
from the ‘preshyter ’ ; in that case its reference could he sought ence that accord between Peter and Paul, of which Acts
only within the limits of the citation, since otherwise Papias
would have omitted the two words. In fact, they could only he also i; full (see A CTS , § 4). The designation of Mark
taken as referring to what he has stated at the beginning of the as the ’ son ’ of Peter has little independent value, even
fragment before us (Cpp. II&pou y w . ) , and that in turn wonld if there is no disposition to question it.
have the same meaning as the words by which the reference is There is a difficulty in the statement of the ’ presbyter’
made back to it : rapI)Kol\ov’@Ue IIf‘rpy (so Link). It is, however,
better to suppose, with Zahn, that the words of the ‘presbyter’ that Mark ever was a companion of Peter, even if we leave
close with r p a Bf‘vra, and that those which follow belong to
Papias, althougt he does not expressly indicate this. The sup-
~. More than the epistle out of account. It is a
difficulty that can be met, indeed, as
position has indeed the disadvantage that according to it we one long as it is regarded as chronological
cannot tell what it is that Papias is referring to by hi5 ‘as I
was saying ’ (&s T+I)v) ; but as it is only a fragment that we have only. As we do not know for how long a time Mark
before us, this is intelligible enough. What ought to turn the was the travelling companion of Barnabas alone, there
scale in favour of this view is that only thus is justice done to the remains between his first and second association with
imperfect (Ehfyf) ‘the presbyter was wont to say.’ According
to Papias’ own statement (see J OHN , S O N OF ZEBEDBE5 4), the Paul an interval of several years, in the course of which
communications of the presbyter to him were excl&vely by he might very well have been a companion of Peter, and
word of mouth, not in writing; the ‘as I was saying’ (;F ;+qv) there is no necessity even to assume with Swete (Erpos.
would then be inappropriate if attributed to the presbyter.
The translation ought to run : ‘Mark, who had been the inter- 1897 6, pp. 87-89) that he was not so till after the
reter of Peter, wrote,’ etc. That y r w p v o r can mean ‘ who had death of Paul. Still less are we compelled to interpret
fee,’ just as easily as ‘ who had become ’- a rendering less the ‘presbyter’ or the quotation of Eusebius ( H E
suitable to the context-is shown by Link (420.425). Whether vi. 14 6) from the Hypuotypuses of Clement of Alex-
ipq+tvus means ‘he recalled to remembrance’ or ‘he repeated
by word of mouth ’ (see GOSPELS col. 1811 n. I) is not of de- andria to the effect that Mark had followed Peter
cisive importance for the main &tion her;. r b p p w t k v (=from of old) in the sense that he had
As for the credibility of the statements of the ‘ pres- accompanied Peter on uZZ his journeys. In fact, \ye
byter,’ the most important of them all-that our second learn from the same authority (Clem. Strun. vii. 15 106,
4. Mark,s gospel rests upon oral communications of end) that Peter had yet another interpreter, Glaukias by
relation the apostle Peter- does not stand, and the name. The question of the identity of the companion
to second, that it was written by Mark, of Paul with the companion of Peter becomes more
remains doubtful (G OSPELS , § 148). But serious, however, when we take into account the well-
this does not necessarily involve our giving up the third, known differences of temperament, of opinion, and even
that Mark was an interpreter of Peter. It may have of practice, which separated the two apostles (Gal. 2 11-21 :
originated independently of the other two, and if the C OUNCIL , 5 3). Did Mark, when in the society of Paul
informant of Papias was a personal disciple of Jesus, or, regard himself as free from the law of Moses, and when
at all events, a man of great age, he could very well in that of Peter as bound by it? In the one case did
have been adequately informed upon such a fact as this. he teach that it had ceased to be valid, in the other that
Thus, I Pet. 5 1 3 seems to gain in probability when it it had n o t ? By way of softening this last difficulty it
says that at the time when the letter was being written, can indeed be urged that in Paul’s society Mark took
Mark was with Peter, and describes him as being Peter‘s only a subordinate place, both according to Acts 135
son. ( I ~ * P . ! T ~ ] S ) ,and according to 2 Tim. 411 (cis G C U K O V ~ V ) ,
I f this last expression is to be taken literally the reference and that thus he perhaps was not called upon to teach
cannot be to the person named in Acts 12, for t i e house where at all. Nevertheless, the identity of the companion of
Mark lived, and to which Peter betook himselfon his deliverance
from prison would then have been described as Peter’s, not a? Paul with the companion of Peter remains surrounded
Mary s . 1; is, however, quite possible to take the word son with such difficulty, that one is readily inclined to
in a spiritual sense, in accordance with I Cor. 4 15 17 Philem. IO suppose them to have heen distinct persons, if unwilling
Phil. 2 zz I Tim. 1z 18 z Tim. 1 2 2 I Tit. 1 4 . On this view one
very willingly supposes that Mark as a youth, most likely in his to doubt the statement of the presbyter altogether.
mother’s house, may have had opportunities of listening to Peter For other reasons, most of them quite inadequate, scholars in
and even may have been converted and baptised by him.2 It ik the last centuries have sometimes assumed two, three, or four,
persons of the name of Mark (see Lightfoot on Col. 4 IO) ; indeed,
1 Lightfoot’s view (A#mioZic liathers, 1z, revised ed. p. 494) at a much earlier date we even find in the list of apostles of the
that Mark translated thediscourses of Peter into Latin is utterl; pseudo-Dorotheus (5th cent.), designated as A by Lipsiusl
improbahle. According to Gal. 2 9, Peter directed his missionary (123, zoz), as many as three distinct Marks-the evangelist, to
activities to ews, and doubtless continued to do so to the end whom, on account of his having been ersonally unacquainted
of his life (EOUNCIL, 5 9); but the Jews even in Rome itself with Jesus, it gives a place along with gaul and Luke between
s oke Greek. Latin was necessary only in dealing with thelower the twelve and the seventy disciples’ next the cousin of
crases in It&. Moreover, even if Peter addressed himself Barnabas, who, later, became bishop of ipollobias ; and, lastly,
at all to the Latin-speaking Gentiles, or visited Italy at all (see John Mark, who subsequently became bishop of Byhlos. The
PETER), he did not do so exclusively’ and Mark was his two last-named are both enumerated among the seventy (Lipsins,
follower (aapnrohov’Bqufv)-that is to say,’ accompanied him on ii. 2 328).
journeys to various places. Furthermore the Second Gospel Further statements regarding Mark, which apply to
even if not by Mark is nevertheless, notLithstanding the faci him only in so far as he can be regarded as author of
of its being ,intended ?or Latin-speaking readers (GOSPELS, s 108,
middle), writtm in the Greek language.
2 This last is expressly said in the ‘ Prrefatio vel argumentum 1 Vr all that follows, cp Lipsius, Ajokr. A#.-gcsch.,
Marci ’ from the first half of the third century, given in Words- especially ii. 2 321-353;also Zahn, E i d . 0 51, and Swete, Exjos,
worth’and White’s NTLat. 1171 ; cp L UKE, # 5. 1897 6, pp. 268-277.
2939 2940
MARK MARRIAGE
the Second Gospel, in viewof the uncertaintyof his author- MARKB (up?? [nanq),Lev. 1 9 ~ 8 . S~CUTTINGS
ship (§ 4), need only be mentioned here, and do not OF THE FLESH, $ 6 .
6. lyLark call for discussion. H e has been identified
MARMOTH (MapMUel [B]), IEd. 862=E~ra833,
&B author. with the unnamed young man of Mk. 14 MEREMOTH.
or with the unnamed water-bearer of 1413.
This agrees with that interpretation of the opening MAROTH (nil?; OAYNAC [BAQI, H T T A ~ A T T I K -
words of the Muratorian fragment, which takes the p a l ~ o y c a[Symm.]), a place mentioned by Micah
words ‘ quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit ’ as warrant- (1 1 2 ) ) and supposed by some to be near Jerusalem (so
ing the inference that Mark, though not in any strict Hi., Now.), and by G. A. Smith to be in the maritime
sense a follower of Jesus, was present a t certain plain. Perhaps it is Jarmuth that is meant. The
incidents in his life. O n another interpretation, how- prophet’s paronomasia has been misconceived : it is not
ever, it has been held that the incidents at which Mark ‘ bitterness’ that the name of the place referred to
was present, in the view of the author of the fragment, suggests to him, nor can we infer from the following
were events after the resurrection. On this view, the words that Jerusalem was close to Maroth.
words ‘ e t ita posuit’ are taken as explaining why the Probably we should emend the text thus, ‘Yea, sick unto
account of the resurrection in Mk. 169-20 constitutes an death has Jarmuth’s community become’(n1Ul: ‘ ~ 1 ,n1Ui ail$?;
appendix to the Gospel, Mark as distinguished from so Che. J Q K , July, 1898). G . A. Smith (ad loc.) renders the
Luke (I. 3 : post ascensum Chnsti) having written his text, ‘The inhabitress of Maroth tremhleth forgood?for evil has
come down from Jehovah to the walls of Jerusalem.
gospel Sefore the ascension of Jesus. For other state-
ments in the fathers regarding the composition of the
Second Gospel see GOSPELS, J 147. Most difficult of MARRIAGE
all is a third interpretation of the Muratorian fragment
-viz., that it was a t the narratives (of Peter) that Mark Preliminary steps (5 IX). Polygamy, divorce (5 5J).
Festivities (g 3). Widows, levirate (s 7jC).
was sometimes present, sometimes not. The home (I 4). Literature (5 9).
Dionysius of Alexandria (up. Euseb. HE vii. 25 I S ) Legally considered. the marriage relation was formed
being unable to attribute the Apocalypse to the apostle
John, thinks of John Mark as a possible author, but
rejects the supposition on the ground-a very insufficient
by the act of betrothal-that is to sav, bv the Dav-
-

1. Betrothal ment, on the bridegroom’s part, of the


I __
and ,,,hha,. m&v to the parent or guardian of
one, it is true-that Mark travelled with Paul and
the bride: with this she Dassed into
Barnabas only so far as to Pamphylia, not as far as
the possession of her husband. T o beiroth a wife
Ephesus. Hitzig (/oh. Marcus u. seine Schriften, 1843) to oneself (b~!, ’irui), meaut simply to acquire pos-
would have Mark to be really the author of the Apoca-
lypse. Spitta (Ofen6. des /oh., 1889, see especially pp. session of her by payment of the purchase-money:
502-504) would make him author, at least, of one of the the betrothed (ae?itp, rnc~rZ?Z)is a girl for whom the
sources, which he calls ‘ Urapocalypse’ (cp APOCALYPSE, purchase-money has been paid (see FAMILY, 4 ; and
§ 29). cp We. C C N , 1893, p. 435). The betrothal once
In the nrpiosoc BapvQa written according to Lipsius (ii. 2, effected, the husband can take his wife home and
p. 297) shortly after 485 h.~.,Mark comes forward as the celebrate his nuptials when he will (Gen. 2 4 4 9 8 , Judg.
author, speaking in the first person.
In other lists of the ‘ seventy * apart from that mentioned in 1 4 7 $).I T h e girl’s consent is unnecessary and the
$ 5, the evangelist Markis also ehumerated(first in Adamantius; need for it is nowhere suggested in the law. Ordinary
cp L UKE , $ 4 , n. I). Epiphanius (Hac?. li. 6 428a) human affection would, no doubt, lead the parents
7. Later reconciles the personal discipleship implied generally to allow their daughters some voice in the
traditions. in this with Mark‘s filial relation to Peter matter (Gen. 2458) ; hut the arrangements about the
by explaining that Mark had heen one of the
seventy-two disciples of esu5, who according to Jn. 6 66, fell marriage, and especially about the mjhar, belonged to
away from him, hut that he was afterwards reclaimed hy Peter. the province of the father or guardian (Gen. 2 4 5 0 8 ,
The ancient rologue given in Wordsworth-White (see above,
col. 2939. n. 27 speaks of Mark as ’ sacerdotium in Israel agens, 2 9 2 3 3412). T h e girl herself sometimes (but evidently
secundum carnem Levita’ (this is plainly an inference merely not always) receives presents (rep, muttdn) from the
from his consinship with Barnabas the Levite, Acts 436), and suitor.
adds (p. 172jC) that ‘amputasse sihi post fidem pollicem dicitur
ut sacerdotio reprobus fieret.’ Doubtless the designation ICOAO- In Eliezer’s negotiation for Rebekah these gifts are given at
~ ~ O ~ L I C Wgiven
A O S to Mark in the nearly contemporary Philoso- the betrothal and before the actual union (Gen. 24 53) ; thus they
dhumena (7 30, begin.) has reference to this. According to the have here the character of a gift made in confirmation of the
first preface in the Codex Toletanus ( n j . Wordsworth-White, betrothal contract (so also Gen. 3412) not like the s d a k
171), the defect was a natural one. The view of Tregelles that of the Arabs, that of a morg~nga6e.z 1; SaAson’s case iuch H
the word means ‘ a deserter,’ and is applied with reference to ‘morgengabe’ to the wife is also mentioned (Judg. 15 1) and
Mark’s premature return from Pamphylia, is rightly rejected by there can be little doubt that such was originally the meaning of
Swete (Exfis. 1897 6, p. 276J). The prologue first cited the ‘gift ’ made to the bride.
goes on to say that in spite of this mutilation, Mark became As to the amount of the m h z r we unfortunately have
bishop of Alexandria. Eusebius, in reliance on older sources but little information. Dt. 2229, compared with Ex.
(Lipsius, ii. 2, pp. 323), gives the date of Mark‘s arrival there as
42 A.D. (Chrm. ad ann. Abrah. 2057 [ed. Schone, 2 1521 ; cp H E 2 2 1 5 [16]J. tells us that in the time of D the average
ii. 16 I). According to Epiphanius (Z.C.), Mark was sent from was fifty silver shekels (about f;4 ; see SHEKEL). T h e
Rome to Alexandria by Peter after he had written his gospel ; nt6har did not, however, require to he paid in money.
according to the IIcppio8or Bapvdpa (24-26), he went to Alexandria I t could be paid in personal service (so in Jacob’s case,
from Cyprus after the death of Barnabas(Lipsius, ii. 2, pp.264J):
Eusehius has it (Chron. ad. ann. Abrah. 2077 red. Schone, 2 1541, Gen. 2920 27). Maidens were given in marriage to
HE 2 24) that Anianus, or Annianus, succeeded Mark in the see heroes for their prowess in war (Josh. 15 16 Judg. 1 IZ
of Alexandria in 62 A.D. Jerome (Vi?.ill: 8) places the death I S. 1725) : David bought Michal for a hundred fore-
of Mark in the same year. H e does not speak of any
martyrdom. The earliest mention of a martyrdom is in the skins [unless this is due to corruption of the text ; see
Acta Ma&, which according to Lipsius (ii. 2, pp. 344-346). were MOSES, 6 n.JS
written in Alexanhria towards the end of the fourth or the The Homeric heroes paid in cattle. hence the complimentary
beginning of the fifth century. Mark is there spoken of as epithet, ‘oxen-bringing’ as applied td maidens (rra@&oc &+kcL
a native of the Pentapolis in North Africa to which Cpene @orar, ZZ.18 593). The same may have heen the practice with
belonged. The legend which names him’as founder of the the nomad Israelites.
church at Aquileia first makes its appearance in the seventh
century ; the similar legend which associates him with Venice 1 Samson’s marriage, however, was exceptional in various
is still later (Lipsius, ii. 2, pp. 346-353). P. w. s. respects. See S AMSON, K INSHIP , 5 8.
For the Gospel according to Mark, see GOSPELS. 2 Or ‘morning gift,’ referring to the German custom by which
the bride receives a present from the bridegroom on the morning
MARKET ( 2 V D ) , Ezek. 2 7 1 3 A V . RV ‘merchan- after the marriage.
3 In view of this last narrative it is surely ill-judged on the
dise’ ; (aropa) Mk. 7 4 etc. : and MarkebPlace part of Keil (Arckabl. 541) and others to treat the m&ar as
(&yopa), Mt. 203 etc. S e e T RADE AN D COMMERCE. morgengahe’ presented to the bride.
294’ 294=
MARRIAGE MARRIAGE
T h e m6hav in time gradually lost its original meaning better position than as an alien abroad. The principle
of a purchase money ' as the custom arose of giving it, is clearly stated by Laban (Gen. 2919) : ' I t is better
not to the father but to the wife herself. There was a that I give her to thee than that I should give her to a
similar development among the Arabs ; in the Koran it strange man.' Marriages outside the tribe occurred
is assumed to be usual to give the mahr to the wife. indeed, but were discouraged (Gen. 2634f: 2746 Judg.
Even in E (Gen. 3115) it is mentioned as a reproach 143). , As the coherence of the tribe depended on the
against Laban that he had spent entirely upon himself sense of kinship (see K INSHIP ), it was also really best
the price paid for his daughters. that marriage relationships should not be entered into
The requirement that the bride should bring some- with other tribes, at the risk of embarrassing one's
thing to her husband at her marriage or should receive feeling of relationship with one's own tribe. The
a dowry from her parents is not according to ancient marriage of Moses cannot be quoted against this ; he
Hebrew custom. The case of Pharaohs daughter is was a fugitive and compelled to seek the shelter of
evidence only for Egyptian practice. At the same time, another tribe. If, too, the genealogy-legend allows
the genealogical legend of Josh. 15 1 6 8 (cp Judg. 11 2 8 ) Judah and others to make marriages with Canaanites,
shows that parting gifts to the daughter on leaving her this is in full agreement with what we know to have
home were not unknown. Leah and Rachel receive been the state of matters after the settlement, but proves
their female slaves at their marriage (Gen. 2924 ag ; cp nothing as regards ancient exogamy. The many
161). This, however, is no 'dowry' brought by the instances of marriages of kinsfolk in the patriarchal
wife to her husband; such gifts remain the personal history show that on this point the older views were
property of the wife. Conveyance of property through different from those which afterwards became prevalent.
the wife cannot strictly be made, simply because Abraham married his half-sister on the father's side
daughters had no right of inheritance (see FAMILY, (not on the mother's ; see K INSHIP § j?), and even in
6 5) ; and even at a comparatively late date heiresses David's time such a marriage in the king s family would,
were subject in their marriages to certain restrictions it seems, have been regarded as unusual, indeed, yet not
designed to prevent the alienation of land to outside as wrong or reprehensible ( 2S. 13 13). Moses himself
clans (see L A W A N D JUSTICE. 18). In post-exilic
times a dowry somewhat in the modern sense seems to
have been usual (Tob. 821 Ecclus. 25zz), and mention
Yjr the fruit of a marriage between nephew and
aternal) aunt (Nu. 2659. P). On marriage with a
fyher's wife (other than one's o n n mother) see below
is also made of written marriage-contracts (Tob. 714). (5 7). A cousin on the father's side was considered a
. ( I ) In earZy times.--In ancient Israel the choosing of 'particularly eligible bridegroom-a view that survives to
the bride was the business of the man's father or, rather, the present day among the Bedouins and partly also
a, Choice of of the head of the family (cp Gen. 2 4 2 8 , among the Syrian peasantry. Compare the cases of
Bride. 3 8 6 881 8 2121). This is intelligible Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 244), Jacob and Leah-Rachel
enough when we recollect that the person (Gen. 2919).
chosen was to become a member of the clan. I t was ( 2 ) Later.-At the time when the patriarchal history
regarded as unbecoming (though not impossible) that a came to be written, matters had indeed altered in one
son should be so self-willed as to insist on marrying a respect ; the settlement, and the changes it had wrought
wife whom his family were unwilling to receive (Gen. in the tribal relationship, had altered the ancient custom
26'34.f: 2746; cp Judg. 142). Now and then it did in regard to marriages also, and alliances with Canaan-
indeed happen that love-matches were made ( I S. 18 20 ites and other aliens soon came to be regarded as quite
Judg. 1 4 1 8 ) , and that the inclinations of the parties natural (Judg. 36).
chiefly concerned were consulted. Esau marries as he In the post-exilic genealogy of David we find the name of
does against the will of his parents (Gen. 2634 J ) ; Ruth the Moabitess: and David himself married a daughter of
Rebekah is asked by her brother for her consent to the the king of the Ge4hmites (2 S. 3 3). Solomon is said to have
marriage (Gen. 24 58). Opportunities for the formation married not only the daughter of Pharaoh but also Moabite and
Ammonite princesses ( I K. 11 I ) ; Ahab was the husband of the
of romantic attachments were not wanting, the social Phcenician Jenebel ( I K. 16 3 I ) ; the two murderersof Joash were
relations of the sexes being under no specially severe sons of an Ammonitess and of a Moahitess respectively ( z Ch.
restrictions. In the patriarchal history we find in this 2426; see JOASH).
respect the same customs as are still to be seen amongst There are instances also of Israelite women marrying
the modern Bedouins : women and girls are kept in no foreigners-in the recorded cases doubtless under some
severe isolation. Meetings occur easily and naturally stipulation that the husbands should make Israel their
where the flocks and herds are being pastured, or at the adopted country. Thus Uriah was a Hittite ( 2 S. 113).
wells. Jether, the husband of David's sister Abigail, an
The feeling of a certain degree of independence and of an Ishmaelite ( I Ch. 2 17 against 2 S. 1725 ; see JETHER).
equality of right with men to pursue their dail tasks gives the W e know of one instance-doubtless there were many
girls confidence and freedom ; they do not sgun conversation
with a stranger, willingly accept useful help, and are ready to unrecorded - in which a n Israelite woman married
render reciprocal service (Gen. 24 1 5 3 29 IO Ex. 2 16 I S. 9 11). abroad ; Huram-abi. the Tyrian artificer. was the son
L o doubt there are risks of rudeness or even of outrage
2 r 6 f i Gen. 34 13)
&
acob's acquaintance with Rachel began at the well (Gen. 29 I
; but, on the whole, good manners and good
of a Hebrew mother ( I K. 7 1 4 ; see H I R A M ) .
Here again with D there comes in a change, which
morals are an effective safeguard (cp also Ex.2216[151 Dt. allows marriage indeed with foreign women taken in
22 2 3 3 =SA). war (Dt. 21 IO^), but forbids, on the other hand, any
In these pictures the manners of the narrator's time marriage-alliance with Canaanites ( 7 1 8 ) or with other
are reflected ; but passages like Judg. 1 4 1 8 I S . 911 heathen peoples (234 [ 3 ] 8 ; Ex. 34 15 has probably
1820 8 show to what an extent nomadic customs been deuteronomistically redacted). The motives are
continued to hold their ground among the settled religious ; such women might seduce their husbands to
Israelites. idolatry. It is conceivable that in actual fact this
I t was in accordance with ancient custom for the man objection to connubium with Canaanites may have
to look for his wife in the circle of his own family and grisen out of a change of feeling under the monarchy-
clan. Such endogamy is not original in baal-marriages, 'friendly tolerance having been gradually superseded by
which at an earlier time were marriages by capture (see fierce antipathy. Whether this be so or not, the pro-
K INSHIP , § 11); but it is easily explicable from the hibition in D cannot be dissociated from a certain
position of the woman, who becam? tne property of her particularistic narrowness. W e are no longer in posses-
husband. T o give away one's daughters into another sion of the reason for the exemption of Edomites and
tribe wasequivalenttosending them beyond the protecting Egyptians from the general condemnation (Dt. 237f.
influence of their own family ; and a wife married within [Bf:]). That the enforcement of the precepts of D met
her own clan might naturally be expected to enjoy a with much opposition, and in the first instance was a
"943 2944
MARRIAGE MARRIAGE
failure, is shown by the narrative in E z r a 9 5 (see whom little ceremony was observed (We. G G A , 1893.
E Z R A ). P. 442).'
D also seeks to introduce reforms with regard to the As a valnablechattel (to say the least) of her husband
marriage of related persons. I t expressly prohibits (see F AMILY, $ 4) the wife was carefully looked after.
marriage with a father's wife (2230 [231] 2 7 z o ) , with
a sister or half-sister ( 2 7 2 z ) , or with a mother-in-law
*, The home. Of the strict isolation obierved through-
out Islam we find, it is true, no trace
(2723). Here again the force of custom proved loo in the ancient time. T h e women had indeed in the
strong for the law ; in Ezekiel's day marriage with a innermost part of the house their own apartments to
stepmother, with a daughter-in-law, or with a sister, which access was not permitted to men (Judg. 151 l s g ) ,
seems to have been frequent (Ezek. 221of:). or, in the case of wealthy people or people of rank,
P places aniong the prohibited degrees marriage with they had a separate house to themselves (z S. 137
( I ) mother, or father's wife generally; ( 2 ) sister and I K. 7 8 2 K. 24 15 Esth. 23 14). This, however, does
half- sister ; ( 3 ) granddaughter ; (4) maternal and not hinder them from taking part in the ordinary duties
paternal aunt ; ( 5 ) uncle's wife on the father's side ; of the household; they spin, sew, weave, make gar-
(6) mother-in-law ; (7) daughter-in-law ; ( 8 ) brother's ments, fetch water, bake bread, and tend the flocks
wife; ( 9 ) two sisters at the same time (Lev. 186-18; and herds (Gen.299 Ex. 216 I S. 219 813 2 S. 138 Prov.
c p 20118).The prohibition of marriage with a 31 1 0 8 : ) . They are not shut off from the outside world
daughter has no doubt fallen out by a copyist's careless- of men, and they even take part in feasts (Ex. 2122 Dt.
ness. Marriage is permitted between uncle and niece, 2511 R ~ t h 2 5 8I S . 9 1 1 2 S . 2 0 1 6 Mt.920 1246 267
between nephew and widow of uncle on the mother's Lk. 1038 Jn. 21 8 47). Women and girls shared in
side, and between cousins. On the whole these ordi- public rejoicings with song and dance (Ex. 15 z o f . Judg.
nances come very near the prescriptions of pre- 16 27 I S. 18 6 8 Judg. 21 19 3). Whilst, however,
Islamic Arab custom which were made statutory by fidelity on the husband's part was in no way enforced,
Mohammed. law and custom were very strict as regarded the wife
Here again the motives of the legislation are not quite (cp Dt. 2221). Adultery on her part was by veryancient
apparent. From what has been said above on the usage punishable by stoning (Dt. 222zJ ; cp Ezek. 1640
custom of old Israel it is evident that the prohibitions Jn. 8 5 7 ) . unless, indeed, the injured husband (as he was
cannot rest on the view that what they prohibit is entitled to do) took the vindication of his honour into
destructive of the essence of blood-relationship ; just his own hand. A like punishment befell the wife who
as little can they rest on a perception of the injurious a t her marriage was found not to have been a virgin
effects of marriage between near relations. Not to (Dt. 2221)-a custom which is to he interpreted in the
refer to other prohibitions with which they appear to he same sense as the punishment for transgression on the
classed, it is enough to quote the words of Am. 27, part of a betrothed maiden (see F AMILY, 4). How
a man and his father ' g o unto the same maid, to fierce was the jealousy with which men regarded their
profane the name' of YahwB. which doubtless imply wives is shown by the laws which sought to protect
the formation of some unholy bond between father and women against false accusations, and by the very in-
son. With regard to levirate marriages (see below, adequacy of these laws. One of them punishes false
8) no reason is apparent why they should have accusations brought against a wife with a money fine
been abolished on moral grounds: here again it and withdrawal of the right of divorce (Dt. 22 1 3 5 ) ;
is highly probable that some religious idea was a t another, no less naively conceived, lets the man go
work. free even after false accusation-he can compel his wife
As to the marriage-festivities our information is but to submit to the ordeal of jealousy (see J EALOUSY ),
small. The central and characteristic feature was the but, whatever the result, 'the man shall be free from
3. Marriage solemn bringing of the bride to her blame ' (Nu. 5 T I - 30). ' Mistrust and jealousy, not
Festivities. husbands house, in which act the signifi- about love but about a property-right, are conspicuous
cance of marriage as an admission of the characteristics of the Arabs' (We., IC., 448). This
bride into the clan of her husband found expression. is to a considerable degree true of the Hebrews also.
In wedding attire (Is. 61 IO ; see D RE SS ), and accom- Yet, in spite of all this strictness, the prophets have
panied by his friends (Judg. 1411f: ; cp Jn. 329 and to raise a continual protest against the prevalence of
parall.), the bridegroom marched on the festal day to adultery (Jer. 7 9 23 IO Hos. 4 2 Mal. 3 5, and often).
the house of the bride. Thence she was led, in bridal T h e man who owns his wife as a chattel can on the
garments, but veiled (Jer. 232 Is. 49 18, etc. ), accompanied same DrinciDle own as manv as he Dleases-as
. I
manv.
,.
by her companions as the bridegroom was by his (Ps. 6. polygamy. that is to say, as he can afford to buy
45 x 4 [15]), to his parent's house (Jer. 7 34 16 9 25 IO Cant. and keeo. T h e luxurv , of a ereat
- harem
36$). It was no doubt at eventide and by the light of was of course attainable only by the wealthy. These,
torches that such processions were held (Mt. 2 5 1 5 ) . so far as we can judge, made ample use of their
Occasionally-but this was rare-the bride was led to privilege : witness the notices about Gideon's seventy
meet the bridegroom ( I Macc. 937J). The custom sons (Jndg. 830 9 z ) , David's wives ( 2 S. 5 13 etc. ),
now is for the guests in the procession to sing songs Solomon's harem ( I K. 111$), and the like. The
in praise of the bride and bridegroom, and this may law of the kingdom forbidding the possession of many
well have descended from antiquity ; indeed, the Song wives has manifestly a side-reference to the actual king
of Solomon may perhaps be formed out of a collection (Dt. 17 17). The Talmudists formulate the rule that no
of such marriage lays (see, further, C ANTICLES , D ANC - Jew may have more than four wives ; kings may have
I N G ), and in Ps. 45 we have a song composed for and a t the most eighteen. The ordinary Israelite a t all
sung a t the marriage of a king. In the bridegroom's times, like the modern Syrian peasant, would doubtless
house was then held the great nuptial feast, which with have to be content with one secondary wife in addition
the rich and great might last for seven, or even fourteen, to the principal wife, or a t most with two wives. T h e
days (Gen. 2927 Judg. 14 12 17 Tob. 820). The same last-named arrangement seems to receive the sanction
custom of fetching the bride existed also among the of widely-diffused custom ( I S. 12 Dt. 21 1 5 z Ch. 24 3 ;
ancient Arabs, though as a rule without the pomp that cp the case of Jacob). When the first wife proved
was customary with the Israelites-a survival perhaps childless, polygamy, to this extent at least, was regarded
from the days of marriage by capture (Robertson Smith, as a pecessity. T h e examples of Sarah, of Leah, and of
Kins. 81). The consummation of the marriage was in
the home of the bridegroom ; among Hebrews and Arabs 1 The naive method employed even at the present day
this was regarded as the more civilised arrangement : throughout the whole & the East, for satisfying curiosity as
to certain physical details, dates from a very remote antiquity
otherwise the bride was regarded as a mere captive about (ut.22.13fi).
95 2945 2946
MARRIAGE MARRIAGE
Rachel, show how little the u m o w pvopve of the child- falsely accused his wife of not having been a virgin when
less wife was wounded by any such arrangement. he married her (Dt. 22 IS), or in which he 'had been
To turn to the other side of the picture : polygamy compelled to marry a virgin whom he had wronged
carried with it its own hardships and inconveniences. (Dt.2228). This last innovation in the law is also
T h e lot of the childless wife, when she had to live under directly contrary to the ancient practice, which did not
the same roof with the mother of sons, was hard (I S. even demand marriage as a compensation for the injury
1 1 8 ) . Even the concubine was sometimes known done. Here also we see the advance we have already
to exalt herself over the wife (Gen. 1 6 4 f i ; cp Gen. 30), noted, point by point, towards the securing of a higher
and the situation was not always so simple as in the position for the wife. Mal. 2 (see M ALACHI , 2. 4)con-
case of Sarah and Hagar, where the mistress could demns divorce in the strongest terms. The wife is the
send her rival away; more usually she had no alter- mother o f ' seed of God ' : if there are children the end
native but to submit. Very eloquent are the words of marriage has been fulfilled. I t is to Yahw&a hateful
that the language provides for the two wives-zzinw, thing that a man should put away the wife of his youth
dlrzibrih, the loved one,' and nyip. iZnzidh, the hated and the mother of his children simply because she has
one.' T h e later legislation found it necessary to inter- grown old and has ceased to be personally attractive.'
vene on behalf of the superseded wife (Dt. 2115-17). The right of divorce belongs of course only to the
T h e prohibition of the old practice of marrying two husband. T h e wife has no means of freeing herself from
her husband, apart from the means employed also by
sisters at the same time (see above, § z) is doubtless
intended to obviate the subversion of sisterly relations the Arabs-namely to make herself so objectionable to
her husband as to force him to send her away. W e do
through jealousy. Such also is the drift of the whole
not know whether a thing of common occurrence among
development towards the monogamy which, if never
the Arabs ever happened also among the Hebrews-
legally insisted on, was yet so extensively practised in
that a man sent his wife away at her own request or a t
the end. Gen. 218f. unmistakably discloses the view
that monogamy, properly speaking, is the normal the request of her relations on repayment of the mihay.
Salome the daughter of Herod might take the freedom
arrangement. When the prophets represent the relation
of sending a bill of divorce to her husband Costabaros ;
of Yahwt) to his people under the figure of a marriage,
it is of course a monogamous marriage that is thought but this was condemned as a foreign indecency (Jos.
o f ; for Yahwt) had entered into no similar relation with Ant. xv. 7 IO).
any other nation besides Israel. Finally, the praise of Traces of evidence are not wanting that with the
the virtuous woman in Proverbs and the many incidental older Hebrews, as with the Arabs before Mohammed, a
references to woman and to marriage, both here and 7. Widowe. man's widow co$d be inherited exactly
like his other property. The grasping
in Ecclesiasticus (Ps.128 Prov. 124 1822 1914 31108
Ecclus.251 8 2 6 1 J 14 etc.), show that the practical Reuben-so ran the legend-sought to seize this inheri-
wisdom of the later age had settled that monogamy was tance even in his father's lifetime (Gen.3522); the
rebellious Absalom comes Torward publicly as heir and
the only ideal kind of marriage.
The woman being a man's property, his right to successor to his father by taking possession of his harem
( z S. l 6 2 0 8 ) - a n act which does not in itself at all
divorce her follows as a matter of course. As in doing
6. Divorce. so he must return the m&w, no injustice shock the moral sense of the people. Abner by appro-
1s done either to her or to her fauiily. priating Saul's concubine Rizpah infringed the rights of
Ishbosheth ( z S.3 7 8 ) ; and when Adonijah asks the
T h e divorcee returns to her family and can, if circum-
hand of Abishag he is asking a portion of the
stances favour, be married a second time from there.
No moral stigma of any kind arises from the mere inheritance of Solomon, who a t once infers his ulterior
fact of her being divorced. Yet, we can well suppose designs (I K. 222 ; cp v. 15). As already said, in spite
that from the first the family of the woman would, be of the deuteronomic prohibition such marriages of son
disposed to look with disfavour upon such treatment, with step-mother were not unusual down to Ezekiel's
and the account which the husband was bound to take time (Ezek. 221:). T h e genealogical register of
of the views and feelings of the wife's blood-relations Chronicles mentions a further case : Caleb marries
Ephrath, the wife of his father ( I Ch.224 d ; We.,
(see above, 5 z) laid from the very beginning a con-
siderable restraint upon absolute freedom of divorce.
De Gent. 14 ; see C ALEB , E PHRATH , 3). On the kindred
T h e deuteronomic law has unmistakably the intention subject of levirate marriage, see below, § 8.
of limiting in some degree the liberty too frequently This inheritance of widows, however, was by no
means a general custom in historical times. As a rule
exercised, without at the same time curtailing in any
the lot of the widow is even harder than that of the
respect the rights of the husband.
divorc6e. I t was always open to her, indeed, to
The expression 12: n y , Srwnflr drfdir(AV 'uncleanness,'
go back to her family; but it is not to be supposed
RV 'unseemly thing') can hardly be taken, with the stricter that she could always coiint on a welcome there. D
school of Shammai in the ethical sense and interpreted as mean-
ing unchastity (tho;gh this is certainly favoured by such a detail interests itself to the utmost on her behalf. Judgment
as the going forth with uncovered head) ; had the law intended must be executed for her justly, with fairness and
such a very considerable curtailment of the general right of the promptitude (Dt. 10 18 24 17 27 19 ; cp the corresponding
man to dismiss a wife with whom he was dissatisfied, this ought
to have been stated in much more definite terms. exhortations of the prophets, Is. 1 1 7 102 Jer. 76 223
Some restriction, however, was at the same time laid etc.). Widows are to be bidden as guests to the
upon divorce by the mere fact that a writing ( ' bill of sacrificial meals and feasts (Dt. 1429 161114 26123);
divorcement ') was now required by law (Dt. 24 I 8 ). the gleanings of the fields and vineyards and oliveyards
Further, it is enacted in D that the divorced wife, if, are to be left for them (2419-21 ; cp Ruth 2 2 ) . Of
after divorce, she has married again and been separated their remarriage the law says nothing, except in the
from the second husband in turn by divorce or by his case of levirate marriage. Later usage seems, however,
death, cannot again be taken back in marriage by her to have conceded to the widow certain claims over the
first husband. The old practice as to this was quite property of her deceased husband ; the rabbins laid
different (Hos. 33 ; cp z S.3 14), and was similar to the down very exact rules as to this (cp Selden, De success.
old Arab custonl ; the Koran in fact lays it down as a ad legem W Y . i n dona defunct.; Sadlschutz, Mor. Recht,
condition that the wife can be taken back only if in the 1 This teaching, it must indeed be sorrowfiilly admitted,
interval she has been the wife of another man. T h e proved ineffective. We need only recall the practice in the
manifest purpose of D and of the Koran alike is to put time nf Christ which was entirely in accord with the school of
some kind of check upon rash and inconsiderate divorce. Hillel in the iherpretation of Dt. 2 4 1 8 (see above), according
to which divorce was left open to any man on any ground he
Lastly, D withdrew, as a penalty, the husband's right chose, althonxh specially (of course) on the ground of misconduct
of divorce in two cases-those, namely, in which he had (cp also Ecclus. 7 26 25 26 42 9).
2947 2948
MARRIAGE MARRIAGE
831 8 860f.). On widows' garments see M OU RN IN G not as the son of Ruth's first husband, hut as the son of
CUSTOMS. his real father Boaz. Here too we doubtless have a cor-
As a relic of the ancient right to inherit the widow-a rect reminiscence. I n the old law about the right of
right which belonged to the son or rather to the agnates heirs to widows of deceased men it was by no means
8. Levirate -the custom of levirate marriage (which is contemplated that the heir should in all cases himself
marriage. not exclusively Israeli'tish) survived down marry the widow ; it was open to him to marry her to
even to post-exilic times. D, which elevates another man. T o the right of inheritance, however, was
the custom into a law, enacts that when a man dies always attached the corresponding duty of caring for the
without sons (not without children, as the Jews afterwards women so inherited. At the same time, the practice
read it, Mt.2224) his brother must marry the widow. in old Israel will doubtless have been similar to that
The first son of this marriage shall be reckoned the of Arabia : when the widow was not desirable, or was
son of the deceased .brother, so that his name be not looked upon only as a burden, she was simply neglected.
blotted out of Israel (Dt. 2 5 5 8 ) : ) . I n this form the So with Taniar, and so with Ruth (We.. Z.C. 456, and
law essentially changes the old custom. The story of compare what has been said already a s to the lot of
Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38, esp. D. 26) shows that in widows). Judah nevertheless-notwithstanding all
certain circumstances-namely, when there was no his neglect-holds fast by his rights ; if Tamar has gone
brother-it became the duty of the father of the dead astray with a man of another clan, she has been guilty
man to come forward and marry his daughter-in-law. of ' adultery' (Gen. 38218).
W h a t seems plain from this narrative-that it relates to The reckoning of the son of such a marriage to the
a duty involved in the right of agnates to inherit-is deceased husband is nevertheless an ancient custom,
confirmed by the book of Ruth. T h e whole course of not an innovation of D. In D, however, it has under-
the story here rests upon the postulate that the agnate gone a not-unimportant alteration ; in Gen. 389 all the
who claims the inheritance must take oYer the widow children (not only the first son) are to be reckoned
together with the land of the deceased ; and in point of to the dead man. Modern scholars explain this for
fact the story deals with somewhat remote kinsmen. the most part from ancestor-worship. T h e dead child-
This certainly is in accordance with the older use. T h e less man has his right to have this ordinance observed
story, however, goes on to represent the whole as a (Gen.388f.), and it is for contempt of it that God
nght of inheritance which the man can relinquish if he slays Onan. W h a t the dead man is defrauded of
choose. Over against this would he the corresponding by its non-observance is the reverence and worship of
right of the woman to refuse the marriage and to go his posterity (cp 2 S. 1818). Stade (GZ13g4) points
back to her own reladons instead (as Orpah does). out that marriages of this kind are customary precisely
Ancient custom, however, so far as exhibited in Gen. among those peoples who have ancestor-worship also-
38, would seem not to sanction withdrawal on any Indians, Persians, Afghans, and so forth. It was when
pretext whatever. Which of the two representations is the religious consideration was added that the right of
the correct one we have no means of determining : they inheriting (which resulted from the very nature of baal-
will harmonise in the end, if we are allowed to suppose marriage) became also a duty. It is not necessary
that only the remoter agnates had the right of refusal. therefore to resort, with Robertson Smith, to an old
T h e origin of this compulsory character, which certainly form of polyandry for an explanation (see K I N S H IP ,
did not attach to the original right of inheritance, § 10).
will appear later. D, for whom the old religious meaning of the matter
According to D, the purpose of the whole custom is has become obscured, is able on that account to relax
that the man's name be not blotted out of Israel. This the stringency of the demand and give release from it
is certainly, in the sense which the law attaches to it, under certain conditions. T h e refusal to comply with
at the best but a secondary and subordinate considera- it brings, however, open shame to the unwilling brother-
tion. For what 1)has in view is the preservation of the in-law. T h e practice here referred to, w-hich is of very
family property. When the first son of a levirate great antiquity and not quite rightly understood by D,
marriage is reckoned son of the deceased brother he again clearly exhibits the ancient connection with the
becomes thereby his heir, he inherits the land, not of right of inheriting. The contemned sister-in-law is to
his actual father but, of the deceased. T h e effect of go up to the place of justice before the competent court
this is not only that the family property is prevented (the elders of the city) and, loosing her brother-in-law's
from passing into the hands of outsiders, but also, in shoe from off his foot, is to spit in his face, saying ' So
particular, that it is preserved as such, and the family shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his
belonging to it does not die out. An interest of this brother's house,' and ever after his family is to be called
kind-to secnre the continuance of the property not the barefoot family. This loosing of the shoe was,
only within the clan but also as an independent family according to Ruth 47, customary at every transaction
property-can, of course, have come into being only in landed property. The seller gave his shoe to the
in connection with questions of landed property, in buyer in token of renunciation of his right in the
other words, after the settlement. The same effort led Dbject sold (see SHOES, § 4). So, in the story, when
on another side to this, that anyone who found himself the near kinsman divests himself of his title to the
compelled to sell his land always retained a right of inheritance he plucks off his shoe. In D this no-longer-
redemption and preemption-which right also passed understood custom, which probably had survived only
over to the agnates entitled to inherit (Jer. 3 2 8 8 ) . In in connection with the matter of levirate marriage, is
the story of Ruth this is also what we find ; the near construed into an insult, ever to be remembered, not
kinsman, the g5 ZZ (see GOEL),must first buy back the mly against the renouncing kinsman but also against his
alienated land in virtue of his right of inheritance and whole family.
redemption (Ruth 4 3 8 ). In process of time this class of marriages underwent
With P also this preservation of landed property still further restrictions, when daughters became capable
within the family is the one consideration present in its 3f inheriting in default of sons. Henceforward they
revision of the older law (see below, 5 2). I t is :odd he thought of only in cases where there were no
noticeable that in Ruth a somewhat different matter :hildreu at a l l ; for to niarry the widow when the
is placed in the foreground as the object primarily nheritance had fallen to the daughters was not in con-
aimed at. Naomi's purpose is not to secure posterity sonance with the meaning of the institution. The
for her son, hut to gain a husband for her step-daughter ; hject of keeping the property within the clan was
not the continuance of the name of hlahlon, but the iecured by prohibiting heiresses from marrying outsiders.
well-being of Ruth is her real desire ( 1 1 1 831). T h e Such becomes the law in P (Nu. 27 4). and marriage
first son of the marriage actually is in the end regarded, with a brother-in-law is forbidden as incestuous (Lev.
2949 2950

Potrebbero piacerti anche