Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2008 with funding from

Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofchri02hastuoft

^/

Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels

<?

Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels

EDITED BY

JAMES HASTINGS, D.D.

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

JOHN A. SELBIE, D.D. _^ _ ^^

AND (in THE READING OF THE PROOFS) OF

JOHN C. LAMBERT, D.D.

^7^^ ^^'^

VOLUME II LABOUE-ZION

WITH

APPENDIX AND INDEXES

k

s

^

New YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER^S SONS

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK

1908

IP-

PREFACE

In issuing the second volume of the Dictionaky of Christ and the Gospels, the Editor desires, first of all, to thank his colleagues and contributors for the interest that they have taken in the work. He desires, further, to express his gratitude for the reception which the first volume has met with. All concerned in it are ready to confess that the task of producing a Dictionary which could be spoken of as really worthy of its subject has been beyond them. And they have felt this only the more as the work has proceeded. But reviewers have generously recognized the fact that no trouble has been spared to make the Dictionary as worthy as possible ; and the public everywhere, but especially preachers of the Gospel, have responded. It is hoped that the second volume will be found to be not inferior to the first.

The Appendix belongs to the original idea. It was felt from the beginning that the articles which it contains should be placed in a group, apart from the general alphabetical order.

x%

LIST OF ABBEEVIATIONS

I. General

Alex. = Alexandrian.

Apoc. = Apocalypse, Apocalyptic,

Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocryphal.

Aq. =Aquila.

Arab. = Arabic.

Aram. = Aramaic.

Assyr. — Assyrian.

Bab. = Babylonian.

c. = circa, about.

Can. = Canaanite.

of. = compare.

ct. = contrast.

D = Deuteronomist.

E = Eloliist.

edd. = editions or editors.

Egyp. = Egyptian.

Eng.= English.

Eth. = Ethiopic.

f . = and following verse or page : as Ac 10^'*.

tl'. =and following verses or pages : as Mt IP

Gr.= Greek.

H = Law of Holiness.

Heb. = Hebrew.

Hel. = Hellenistic,

Hex. =Hexateuch.

Isr. = Israelite.

J = Jahwist,

J" = Jehovah.

Jerus. = Jerusalem.

Jos. = Josephus,

LXX = Septnagint.

MSS = Manuscripts.

MT = Massoretic Text,

n. =note.

NT = New Testament.

Onk. = Onkelos.

0T = Old testament.

P = Priestly Narrative.

Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian,

Pent. = Pentateuch.

Pers. = Persian.

Phil. = Philistine.

Phoen. = Phanician.

Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book.

R = Redactor.

Kom. = Roman.

Sam. = Samaritan.

Sem. = Semitic.

Sept. = Septuagint.

Sin. = Sinaitic.

Symm. =Symmachus.

Syr. = Syriac.

Talm. = Talmud.

Targ. = Targum.

Theod. =Theo<lotion.

TR = Textus Receptus.

tr. = translate or translation.

VSS = Versions.

Vulg. = Vulgate.

WH = Westcott and Hort's text.

IL Books of the Bible

Old Testament.

Gn = Genesis,

Ex = Exodus,

Lv = Leviticus,

Nu = Numbers.

Dt = Deuteronomy.

Jos = Joshua.

Jg = Judges.

Ru = Rutli.

1 S, 2 S = 1 and 2 Samuel.

1 K, 2 K = l and 2 Kings.

1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2

Chronicles. Ezr = Ezra. Neh = Nehemiah. Est = Esther. Job.

Ps = Psalms. Pr = Proverbs. Ec = Ecclesiastes.

Apocrypha. 1 Es, 2 Es = l and 2 To = Tobit. Esdras. Jth = Judith.

Ca = Canticles, Is = Isaiah. Jer = Jeremiah. La = Lamentations. Ezk = Ezekiel. Dn = Daniel. Hos = Hosea. Jl = Joel. Am = Amos. Ob^Obadiah. Jon = Jonah. Mic = Micah. Nab = Nahum. Hab= Habakkuk. Zeph = Zephaniah. Hag = Haggai. Zee = Zechariah. Mal = Malachi.

Ad. Est = Additions to

Esther. Wis = Wisdom. Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi-

asticus. Bar = Baruch. Three = Song of the

Three Children.

Sus = Susanna.

Bel = Bel and the

Dragon. Pr. Man = Prayer of

Manasses. 1 Mac, 2 Mac=l and 2

Maccabees.

Mt = Matthew. Mk = Mark. Lk = Luke. Jn = John. Ac = Acts. Ro = Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1

Corinthians. Gal = Galatians. Eph = Ephesians. Ph = Philippians. Col = Colossians.

Neio Testament.

1 Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2

Thessalonians. 1 Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2

Timothy. Tit = Titus. _ Philem = Philemon, and 2 He = Hebrews. Ja = James.

1 P, 2P = 1 and 2 Peter. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn = l, 2,

and 3 John. Jude. Rev = Revelation.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

III. English Versions

\Vyc.=Wyclif's Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382,

Purvey 's Revision c. 1388). Tind.=Tindale's NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. Gov. = Coverdale's Bible 1535. Matt, or Rog.= Matthew's (i.e. prob. Rogers')

Bible 1537. Cran. or Great = Cranmer's 'Great' Bible 1539. Tav. = Taverner's Bible 1539. Gen. = Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

Bish. = Bishops' Bible 1568.

Tom.=Tomson's NT 1576.

Rhem, =Rhemish NT 1582.

Don. = Douay OT 1609.

AV = Authorized Version 1611.

A Vm = Authorized Version margin.

RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885.

RVm = Revised Version margin.

EV = Autli. and Rev. Versions.

IV. For the Literature

AHT— Ancient Hebrew Tradition.

.(4 J^S'-L = American Journal of Sem. Lang, and

Literature. ^J'TA = American Journal of Theology. ^r=Altes Testament. BL = Bampton Lecture. £if= British Museum. i^i?P=; Biblical Researches in Palestine. CIG = Coi'pus Inscriptionum Grjecaruni. OIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. C/,S'= Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. (707"= Cuneiform Inscrijitions and the OT. Di?— Dictionary of the Bible. DCA = Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. ^i?i = EncyclopaHlia Biblica. £'i?7-= Encyclopiwlia Britannica. ^G2'=Ex2)ositor's Greek Testament. EHH^'Esivly History of the Helirews. ERE = Encyclopanlia of Religion and Ethics. ExpT= Expository Times. G^4P=Geographie des alten Palastina. GG^^ =G6ttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. (rGV=Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. (TJ'F'=Geschichte des Jlidischen Volkes. (rF/=Geschichte des Volkes Israel. HE A = Handworterbuch des biblischen Alter-

tums. /rC^l/= Higher Criticism and the Monuments. -ff^=Historia Ecclesiastica. i/G^/fX = Historical Geog. of Holy Land. 111= History of Israel. /rJP = History of the Jewish People. HP J[=B.istory, Prophecy, and the Monuments. i/^PV= Hebrew Proper Names. HJVB = Handworterbuch. ICC= International Critical Commentary. /•/G = Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte. JBL =Jonvnii\ of Biblical Literature. J"Z) r/i=Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Tlieologie. JE = Jewish Encyclopedia. JQR = Jewish. Quarterly Review. ./P^.S'= Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JSL — Journal of Sacred Literature. J'7'A,.% = Journal of Theological Studies A''^7'=Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. AGP=Keilinschriften u. Geschiehtsforschung. A'/5= Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. LB = The Land and the Book. iC£^= Literarisches Centralblatt.

iOr=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. LT=Liie and Times of Jesus the Messiah

[Edei'sheim]. i)/AZ)PF=Mittheilungen u. Nachrichten d.

deutschen Pal.-Vereins. NHWB = Neuhebrjiisches Worterbuch. A'^A'Z^Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift. NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. CV=Otium Norvicense. OP = Origin of the Psalter. OTJC =The Old Test, in the Jewish Church. PP = Polychrome Bible. PEF~ Palestine Exploration Fund. FEFSt = Quarterly Statement of the same. PSBA = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. PPA' = Real-Encykloj)adie fiir protest. Tlieologie

und Kirche. (?PP = Queen's Printers' Bible. ii?P = Revue Biblique. RE = Realencyklopiidie. REJ= Revue des Etudes Juives. PP= Records of the Past. P»S' = Religion of the Semites. R WB = Realworterbuch. »S'P£'= Sacred Books of the East. 6'P(9r = Sacred Books of Old Test. -SA'or r.SA'=Theol. Studien und Kritiken. ,S'P = Sinai and Palestine.

,S7rP= Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine. ThL or ThLZ =liheo\. Literaturzeitung. r/ir=Theol. Tijdschrift. T'S'= Texts and Studies.

TSBA = Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. TU =Texte und Untersuchungen. IF^ /= Western Asiatic Inscriptions. TrZ/irJ/= Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des

Morgenlandes. ZA = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. ZAW or Z^r IF = Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest.

Wissenschaft. .Z'Z)J/G = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-

landischen Gesellschaft. ZZ)P F= Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-

Vereins. Z/r.S'P- Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung. ZKW or ZKWL = Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche

Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben. ZVTlF=Zeitsclirift fiir die Neutest. Wissen- schaft. Zr/i/ir= Zeitschrift f. Theologie u. Kirche.

A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to : as KAT\ LOT^

•<

AUTHOES OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

Rev. Robert M. Adamson, M.A., Ardrossan.

Rev. Walter Frederick Adeney, D.D., Pro- fessor of Theology and Principal of the Lancashire College, Manchester.

Rev. Gross Alexander, S.T.D., late Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Vander- bilt University, Nashville.

Rev. WiLLOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Chaiilain, Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.

Rev. Frederick Lincoln Anderson, M.A., D.D., Professor of New Testament Interpre- tation, Newton Theological Institution, Mass.

Rev. Benjamin Wisner Bacon, D.D., LL.D., Lit.D., Professor of New Testament Criticism and Exegesis in Yale University, New Haven.

Rev. P. MoRDAUNT Barnard, B.D., late Rector of Headley, Epsom.

Rev. J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church History in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Late Rev. Francis R. Beattie, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Apologetics and Syste- matic Theology in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky.

Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., D.C.L., Dean of St. Patrick's and Archbishop King's Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin.

Rev. Harry Bisseker, M.A., The Leysian Mission, London.

Rev. Andrew Bogle, M.A., Leith.

Rev. Albert Bonus, M.A., Alphington, Exeter.

Rev. George H. Box, M.A., late Hebrew Master, Merchant Taylors' School, London, Rector of Linton, Ross.

Rev. E. P. Boys-Smith, M.A., Vicar of Kordle, Brockenhuist.

Rev. J. B. Bristow, B.D., Rector of Clondalkin, Co. Dublin.

Rev. MORISON Bryce, Baldernock, Milngavie.

Rev. A. E. Burn, D.D., Rector of Handsworth, Birmingham, and Prebendary of Lichfield.

Rev. Adam G. Campbell, M.A., Afton, New Cumnock.

Rev. R. J. Campbell, M.A., City Temple, London.

Rev. William M. Christie, Aleppo.

Rev. DUGALD Clark, B.D., Glassary, Loch- gilphead.

Rev. John S. Clemens, B.A., B.D., Principal of Ranmoor College, Sheffield.

Rev. Camden M. Cobern, Pli.D., D.D., Pro- fessor of the English Bible and the Philosophy of Religion in Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa.

Rev. Arthur W. Cooke, M.A., Newcastle-on- Tyne.

Rev. James Cooper, D.D., Professor of Ecclesi- astical History in the University of Glasgow.

Rev. Henry Cowan, D.D., Professor of Church History in the University of Aberdeen.

Rev. Hugh H. Currie, B.D., Keig, Aberdeen- shire.

Rev. Edgar Daplyn, Child's Hill, London.

Right Rev. Charles Frederick D'Arcy, D.D., Bishop of Clogher.

Rev. Edward Charles Dargan, D.D., LL.D., formerly Professor of Homiletics and Ecclesi- ology in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Rev. Percy Dearmer, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary's the Virgin, Primrose Hill, London.

Rev. Francis Brigham Denio, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature in Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine.

Rev. James Denney, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D., Principal and Pro- fessor of Exegetical Theology in the New College, Edinburgh.

Rev. James Donald, D.D., Keithhall, Inverurie.

Rev. Henry E. Dosker, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky.

Rev. F. Homes Dudden, D.D., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.

Rev. Alexander A. Duncan, B.D., Auchterless, Aberdeenshire.

Rev. Hugh Duncan, B.D., Garturk, Coatbridge.

Rev. W. H. DuNDAS, B.D., Rector of Magheragall,

Lisburn. Rev. William Henry Dyson, Edgerton, Hudders-

field.

AUTHOKS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

Rev. George Boardmax Eager, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical Introduction and Pastoral Theology in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Right Rev. Rowland Ellis, D.D., Bishop of

Aberdeen and Orkney.

Rev. Cyril W. Emmet, M.A., Vicar of West Hendred, Berks.

Rev. \V. EwiNG, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. R. A. Falconer, D.Litt., D.D., President of the University of Toronto, Canada

Rev. J. H. Farmer, B.A., LL.D., Dean in The- ology and Professor of New Testament and Patristic Greek in M 'Master University, Toronto.

Rev. C. L. Feltoe, D.D., Rector of Duxford, Cambridge.

Rev. Adam Fyfe Findlay, M.A., Arbroath.

Rev. J. Dick Fleming, B.D., Professor of Syste- matic Theology and Ethics in Manitoba College, Winnipeg.

Rev. Frank Hugh Foster, Ph.D., D.D., Pro- fessor of History in Olivet College, Michigan.

Rev. William Barrett Frankland, M.A., late Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and Assistant-Chaplain at Giggleswick School.

Rev. Robert Sleightholme Franks, M.A., B.Litt., Birmingham.

Rev. Norman Eraser, B.D., Edinburgh.

Rev. Henry William Fulford, M.A., Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.

Rev. Alfred Ernest Garvie, D.D., Principal of New College and Professor of Ethics, Theism, and Comparative Religion in New and Hackney Colleges, London.

Rev. Owen H. Gates, Ph.D., Librarian and In- structor in Hebrew in Andover Theological Seminarj', Mass.

Rev. LuciEN Gautier, D.D., Ph.D., Honorary Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and History, Geneva.

Rev. Alfred S. Geden, M.A., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Richmond College, Surrey.

Rev. Richard Glaister, B.D., Kirkcudbright.

Rev. Calvin Good.speed, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Rev. George Pearce Gould, M.A., Principal of Regent's Park College, London.

Rev. Thomas Gregory, M.A., Kilmalcolm.

Rev. Canon Charles T. P. Grierson, B.D., Rector of Seapatrick, Banbridge, Co. Down.

Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Rector of Remen- ham, Henley-on-Thames.

Rev. James O. Hannay, M.A., Rector of Augh- aval, Westport, Co. Mayo.

Rev. J. M. Harden, B.D., Headmaster, Kilkenny College.

Rev. Charles Harris, D.D., Vicar of Claverley, Wolverhampton, late Lecturer in Theology in St. David's College, Lampeter.

Rev. D. A. Hayes, Ph.D., S.T.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of New Testament Exegesis in GaiTett Biblical Institute, Evanston, 111.

Rev. W. J. Henderson, B.A., Principal of the Baptist College, Bristol.

Rev. R. Travers Herford, B.A., Stand, White- field, Manchester.

Rev. John Herkless, D.D., Professor of Church History in the University of St. Andrews.

Rev. W. W. HOLDSWORTH, M.A., Professor of New Testament -Language and Literature in Handsworth College, Birmingham.

Rev. A. Mitchell Hunter, M.A., Cardross, Dumbartonshire.

Rev. H. L. Jackson, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary's, Huntingdon.

Rev. Arthur Jenkinson, Innellan, Greenock.

A. J. JENKIN.S0N, M.A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Rev. M. P. Johnstone, B.D., Fraserburgh.

Rev. E. Griffith- Jones, B.A., Principal and Professor of Theology in the Yorkshire United College, Bradford.

Friedrich Wilhelm Ferdinand Kattenbusch, D.D., Ph.D., Ord. Professor of Dogmatics in the University of Halle.

Rev. John Kelman, D.D., Edinburgh.

Rev. W. S. Kerr, B.D., Vicar of Bally waiter, Co.

Down. Rev. David M. W. Laird, M.A., Edinburgh. Rev. J. C. Lambert, D.D., Fenwick, Kilmarnock.

Rev. Harrington C. Lees, M.A., St. John's Vicarage, Kenilworth.

Rev. Robert Leggat, Berwick-on-Tweed.

Rev. John Robert Legge, M.A., Buckhurst Hill, Essex.

Rev. Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal and Professor of Church History in the United Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev. William F. Lofthouse, M.A., Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature in the Theological College, Handsworth, Birmingham.

Rev. Charles Scott Mac alpine, B.D., Man- chester.

Rev. A. B. Macaulay, M.A., Dundee.

Rev. C. A. M 'Donald, B.D., Arrochar, Dum- bartonshire.

Rev. John Edgar M'Fadyen, M.A. (Glas.), B.A. (Oxon.), Professor of Old Testament Litera- ture and Exegesis in Knox College, Toronto.

Rev. George M'Hardy, D.D., Kirkcaldy.

Rev. George M. Mackie, D.D., Chaplain to the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria.

Rev. Duncan A. Mackinnon, M.A., Marykirk, Kincardineshire.

Rev. Robert Mackintosh, D.D., Professor of Christian Ethics, Apologetics, and Sociology in the Lancashire Independent College, Man- chester.

Right Rev. Arthur J. Maclean, D.D., Bishop of Moray.

Rev. A. H. M'Neile, B.D., Fellow and Dear of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.

Rev. James Edmond M'Ouat, B.D., Logiealmond, Perthshire.

Rev. Robert Macpherson, D.D., Elgin.

Rev. Joseph T. L. Maggs, D.D., Leeds.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

Rev. David Samuel Margoliouth, M.A.,

D.Litt., Laudian Professor of Arabic in the

University of Oxford. Rev. John Turner Marshall, D.D., Principal

of the Baptist College, Manchester. Rev. Newton Herbert Marshall, M.A., Ph.D.,

Hampstead, London. Rev. A. Stuart Martin, B.D., Scone, Perth.

Rev. G. CURRIE Martin, B.D., Professor of New Testament Theology and Patristics in the United College, Bradford.

E. W. GURNEY Masterman, M.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.G.S., D.P.H., Jerusalem, Syria.

Rev. Shailer Mathews, D.D., Professor of His- torical and Comparative Theology and Dean of the Divinity School in the Unversity of Chicago.

Rev. Andrew Miller, M.A., Glasgow.

Rev. W, J. S. Miller, B.D., Hound wood, Reston.

Rev. George Milligan, D.D., Caputh, Murthly.

Rev. Joseph Mitchell, B.D., Mauchline.

Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Broughty Ferry.

Rev. W. S. Montgomery, B.D., Abbeyleix, Queen's County.

Rev. R. W. Moss, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the Didsbury College, Manchester.

Rev. Warren Joseph Moulton, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of New Testament Language and Literature in Bangor Theo- logical Seminary.

Rev. T. Allen Moxon, MA., Vicar of Alfreton,

Derbyshire. Rev. John Muir, B.D., Kirkcowan, Wigtownshire. Rev. George Murray, B.D., Sauchie, Alloa. Rev, James Ross Murray, M.A., Manchester.

Rev. James Mursell, M.A., Adelaide, South Australia.

Eberhard Nestle, Ph.D., D.D., Professor at Maulbronn.

Rev. M. R. Newbolt, B.A., Vicar of IfHey, Oxford.

Rev. Albert Henry Newman, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in Baylor Uni- versity, W^aco, Texas.

Rev. Thomas Nicol, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen.

Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley, B.D., Organizing Secretary of the Parochial Missions to the Jews.

Rev. James Orr, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics in the United Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev, James Patrick, B.D., B.Sc, Burntisland.

Rev. William Patrick, D.D., Principal of Manitoba College, W^innipeg.

Arthur S. Peake, D.D., Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Victoria University, Manchester.

Rev. John Robert van Pelt, Ph.D., Methodist Episcopal Church, Lewisburg, Pa.

Rev. Samuel Plantz, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Presi- dent of Lawrence University, Ajipleton, Wis.

Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham.

Rev. Edward B. Pollard, D.D., Professor in Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa,

Rev. William Louis Poteat, M.A., LL.D., President of Wake Forest College, N.C.

Rev. Cyril Henry Prichard, M.A., Rector of Wiston, Steyning, Sussex.

Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A., Fellow and Lec- turer of St. John Baptist College, Oxford.

Rev. Frederick J. Rae, M.A., Aberdeen.

Rev. F. S. Ranken, M.A., Rector of South Walsham, Norwich.

Rev. W. H. Rankine, B.D., Glasgow,

Rev. John Reid, M.A., Inverness.

Frank Richards, M.A., Kingswood School, Bath.

Rev. Charles W^esley Rishell, Ph.D., Professor of Historical Theology and Assistant Dean in Boston University, Mass.

Rev. John Edward Roberts, B.D., Manchester.

Rev. Frank Edward Robinson, B.A., Professor of Hebrew and Church History in the Baptist College, Bristol.

Rev. George Livingstone Robinson, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis in the M'Cormick Theological Seminary, Chicago.

Rev. Arthur E. Ross, B.D., Rector of Portrush, Co. Antrim.

Rev. Alfred Norman Rowland, M.A., London.

Rev. John Richard Sampey, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Rev. William Sanday, D.D. , LL. D. , Litt. D. , Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, Chaplain in Ordinary to H.M. the King.

Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., Professor of the Language, Literature, and Theology of the New Testament at Westminster College, Cambridge.

Rev. Ernest F. Scott, B.A., Prestwick.

Rev. Hugh M 'Donald Scott, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Theological Semi- nary, Chicago.

Rev. Robert Scott, D.D., Professor in Wilson

College, Bombay. Rev. Edward Sell, D.D., M.R.A.S., Fellow of

the University of Madras and Hon. Canon of

St. George's Cathedral, Madras.

Rev. Henry Clay Sheldon, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Boston University.

Rev. Edward Shillito, M.A., London.

Rev. S. J. Ramsay Sibbald, B.D., Crathie,

Ballater. Rev. J. G, Simpson, M.A., Principal of the Clergy

School, Leeds. Rev. W. J. Sparrow Simpson, M.A., Chaplain,

St. Mary's Hospital, Ilford. Rev. John W. Slater, B.D., Scone, Perth. Rev. David Smith. M.A., Blairgowrie.

Rev. Harold Smith, M.A., Rector of Grimley,

Worcester.

Rev. J. Cromarty Smith, B.D., Coatdyke, Coat- bridge.

XIV

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. II

W. Taylor Smith, B.A., Sevenoaks, Kent.

Late Rev. J. SouTAR, M.A., Tiberias, Palestine.

Alexander Souter, M.A., D.Litt., Yates Pro- fessor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rev. James Stalker, D.D., Professor of Church

History and Christian Ethics in the United

Free Church College, Aberdeen. Rev. Wilbur Fletcher Steele, M,A., S.T.D.,

Professor in the Department of Biblical Science

of Denver University, Coloi-ado.

Rev. Robert Stevenson, B.D., Gargunnock.

Rev. G. Wauchope Stewart, B.D., Fyvie, Aber- deenshire.

Rev. Robert Laird Stewart, D.D., Professor of Biblical Archaeology in the Tiieological Sem- inary of Lincoln University, Pa.

Rev. Darwell Stone, M.A., Pusey Librarian,

Oxford. Rev. G. Gordon Stott, D.D., Musselburgh.

Very Rev. Thomas B. Strong, D.D., Dean of

Christ Church, Oxford. Rev. A. PoLLOK Sym, B.D., Lilliesleaf.

Rev. John G. Tasker, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Handsworth Col- lege, Birmingham.

Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A., London.

Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

Rev. Charles H. Thomson, M.A., Constantinople.

Rev. William D. Thomson, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. Edward Harper Titchmarsh, M.A., Sheffield.

Rev. Geerhardus Vos, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J.

Rev. Canon G. H. S. Walpole, D.D., Rector of Lambeth.

Rev. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, D.D., LL.D., Charles Hodge Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church at Princeton, N.J.

Rev. George C. Watt, B.D., Edinkillie.

Rev. Thomas H. Weir, B.D., M.R.A.S., Lecturer in Hebrew and Arabic in the University of Glasgow.

Johannes Weiss, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Marburg.

Rev. E. Wheeler, M.A., Canning Town, London.

Rev. B. Whitefoord, D.D., Prebendary of Salis- bury Cathedral and Principal of the Theo- logical College, Salisbury.

Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, D.D., Senior Tutor in Cheshunt College, Cambridge.

Rev. A. R. Whitham, M.A., Principal of the Culham Training College, Abingdon.

Rev. J. R. Willis, B.D., Rector of Preban and Moyne, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow.

Rev. Charles Travers Wood, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew in Queens' College, Cambridge.

Rev. H. J. Wotherspoon, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. Arthur Wright, D.D., Fellow, Tutor, and Vice-President of Queens' College, Cambridge.

Rev T. H. Wright, Edinburgh.

Rev D. G Young, B.D., Moneydie, Perth.

Rev. J Young, B.D., Paisley.

Rev. Andrew C. Zenos, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the M'Cormick Theo- logical Seminary, Chicago.

DICTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS

LABOUR.— The verb Komdv in NT Greek signi- fies not only the weariness produced by constant toil (see Jn 4* KeKoinaKws), which is the idea attach- ing to the word in classical writings (cf. Liddell and Scott's Lex. s.v.) ; it also has reference to the toil itself (cf. Mt 628 1128, Lk 5' 122^, Jn 438), ^nd some- times to its result in the field of operations (6 ovx vfieh KeKowiaKaTe^Tov kowov in Jn 4^*8). This ex- tension in the use of the word is not confined, however, to the NT, and it is probable that it is l)orrowed from the LXX. We find it employed, for instance, in Joshua (24^^). Nor is it unlikely that Jesus had in His mind this passage and was even conscious of a parallel between Himself and the warlike leader of Israel's armies, who brought the nation into a land on the development of which they spent no wearisome toil {e(p' ^v ouk eKoiria(ya.Te, k.t.X.). The perfection of Christ's liuman nature is emphasized by the use of this word in the Johannine narrative of the woman of Samaria (Jn 4^), and it is worthy of note that the record of this incident is peculiar to that writing (see Westcott's Gospel of St. John, ad loc).

Closely allied to this word is epyd^ecrdaL and its cognates, ^pydrrjs which occurs frequently in the Gospels, and ^pyaffia almost peculiar to the Lukan writings. The last mentioned word not only im- plies the business or trade by which men gain their livelihood (Ac 192-*), but includes in its meaning the resultant gain or profit accruing (see Ac 16^^- ^^), and sometimes the trouble or toil involved in the pursuit of an object (Lk 12^8) ^n ethical content is imported into the word by St. Paul (Eph 41"), just as is done in St. Luke's Gospel Avhere a Latin- ism (56s epyacriav) is employed to emphasize the warning of Jesus with respect to the conciliation of an adversary. ' In medical language it was used for the making of some mixture, the mixture itself — the work of digestion and that of the lungs,' etc. (Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 243). At the same time it must not be forgotten that this word is found in the LXX (cf. e.g. Wis 13'"), where St. Luke may have become familiar with its uses. A similar spiritual significance fre- quently attaches to the words Koiriav, kowo^, and ipydrr)! in the Gospel narratives (cf. Jn 4^8, jyjt, 9^'^^- = Lk 192, Mt 10i» = Lk 10^ 1327).

Considerations like these show us clearly in what spirit Jesus claimed the active support of His followers. Theirs was to be no half-hearted

allegiance. They were expected to work in His cause ceaselessly and in spite of weariness, for the field of operations was large and the toilers few (oi ipydrai oXiyoi, 6 depicffibs iroXvs, Mt Q^'^Lk 102). The conditions as to remuneration which obtained in the case of the ordinary field-labourer held good in the case of those who preached the Gospel (fi^tos yap 6 ipydr-qs rrjs rpocpris avTov, Mt 10'", cf. Lk 10'). His disciples were reminded that they were the successors of a long line of toilers who sowed the seed, of which they were about to reap the fruit {&W01 KiKOTn.dKacnv, (cat uyiiets eh rbv Kdirov avrQv elcreXr)- MdaTf, Jn 4=^8).

This is a thought which has a large place in the Pauline conception of Christian work, and the Christology of St. Paul enhances the dignity of, as it supplies the motive power which guides and strengthens, the toiler (cf. toXXo, ixo-riaa-iy h Kupiai, Ro 1612 ; see also 1 Co I510, Gal 411, Ph 216, Col 129, 1 Th 512). With this conception of laborious effort as the norm of Chris- tian life we may compare what is told of Rabbi Judah in the Midrash on Genesis, who sat labouring ' in the law ' before the Babylonish synagogue in Zipper (Bereshith Rabba, § 33). We are reminded of the exhortation respecting those ' who labour (0/ xoTiUvTii) in the word and in teaching' (1 Ti 5I'?). It may not be out of place to call attention here to those incidental statements which picture for us the Apostle of the Gentiles and his companions working day by day to supply their physical necessities (1 Co 412 x.<rriSyiv', cf. 96, 1 Th 29, 2 Th 38).

Not only does the life of Jesus exhibit the great example of self-sacrificing labour for the sake of the souls of men ; it furnishes, moreover, the prin- ciple that human life in all its phases is, at its best, a life of service. In its earliest stages obedi- ence to parental authority (Kal fjv viroTaaaonevoi avroU, Lk 2^') leads the way to willing obedience to a primal and fundamental law which conditions man's living to the full his present life (see Gn 3'" if idpuiTi Tov irpocribvov cov (pdyrj tov dprov aov, k.t.X.).

The question of His Galiljean neighbours who were familiar with the circumstances of Jesus' early life, ' Is not this the worker in wood ? ' (6 TiKTwv, Mk 6^), shows clearly how fully He adopted this principle as regulating the prepara- tory discipline of His young manhood. Nor must we forget that it was amongst that class which is dependent for its livelihood upon its capacity for physical labour and endurance that Jesus gained His most thoughtful, whole-hearted adherents (cf. Mk 116-20 = Mt4'8-22, Li^ 55ff.)^ ^vhile many of His most beautiful and effective similes are taken from the surroundings of the busy life (cf. Jn 4^"^-, Lk 102f-, Mt O^T'- 201-15 etc.). On the other hand, He reserved His profoundest commiseration for those

LABOUR

LAMENTATION

upon whom superfluous wealth had imposed a selfish idleness (see Mt 1923ff- = Mk lO'^^^ff.^ lj^ IQ^^f^-), and perhaps the most caustic remark in connexion with the life led by the unjust steward was that in which he confessed his inability for honest physical work (aKd-n-Teiv ovk iVxi'w, Lk 16^).

The remarkable apocryphal addition to Lk 6* found in Codex Bezoe (D), while primarily having reference to the Sabbath controversy, may not be without its bearing on this question. This passajje relates that Jesus ' seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath day said to him, " (), man, if thou indeed knowest what thou art doing, thou art blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law." ' Westcott believes that this saying ' rests on some real incident' (see his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. C) ; and, indeed, the spirit underlying these words is not out of harmony \vith the general tenor of Christ's known atti- tude towards the active life of busy service. Whether any man's labour is a blessing or not to himself depends, of course, on whether he knows what he does and recognizes its bearing upon his whole life and character (cf . il alha,; m the passage just quoted, wliere there is evidently a reference to the relation between the work done and the doer of that work [see Cremer's Biblico-Theol. Lexicon of NT Greek, p. 229]).

A charge, which has been brought again and again against the Christian religion, is that it is too exclusive in its other - worldliness to be of l^ractical value in the midst of life's stern realities. Enough has been already said to show that such an accusation misinterprets completely the moving spirit of Christianity. At the same time, we must not forget that at a very early period of the Church's history there was a grave danger of pro- fessing Christians degenerating into idle dreamers and useless busybodies (irepiepyoi, 1 Ti 5^^, cf. 2 Th 3^1). Against this abuse St. Paul felt compelled repeatedly to contend (cf. Eph 4-^, 1 Th 4^^), while he set the e.xample in his own life of unflagging industry (see Ac 18^ etc.). There can be no doubt that in his restatement of the law of social econ- omics (' if any will not work, neither let him eat,' 2 Th 3^") St. Paul was profoundly influenced by the life as well as by the teaching of Jesus.

No thoughtful student of modern problems can fail to note how completely the future of the Christian Church is bound up with her attitude towards the labour question. Year by year that question assumes graver proi^ortions as the danger of a complete breach between emjjloyer and em- ployed becomes more formid.able. Nor can there be any serious doubt in the mind of a loyal subject of 'the Kingdom of the Incarnation,' that in the true interests of Christian development and pro- gress a real active harmony of aims and aspirations between capital and labour must be established. Representatives of both must be taught that the only solution of problems which seem to baffle them lies in the recognition of the truth that at bottom all hunum life is true and sacred according as it may be measured in terms of service. Jesus, who employed labourers in fields of activity selected by Himself (cf. Mt 10^), points out distinctly the complete identification of employer and employed as being the root idea underlying all vital jirogress (8s dv d4\7] iv v/j.7v elvai irpCoTOs '^crrai v/xwt> dov\os, Mt 2027, cf. Mk W^). Nor is the Incarnation above the sphere of this universal law. The Son of ]Man Himself {wawep) came not to be served but to serve {5iaKoi'Tja-ai), yielding up even His life for the sake of His fellow-men (Xvrpov avrl ttoWGjv, Mk 10*^ = Mt2028; cf. Lk2226'-).

' The labourer is worthy of his hire ' (Lk 10^) is a basal principle both broad and deep. It does not mean either that the employer's liability to his servant is discharged when he has paid him his stipulated wage, or that the latter's duty to his master ends with the outward fulfilment of a set task. Personal relationship involving mutual re- , sponsibility forms an essential part in the Chris- . tian solution of this economic problem. For the labourer is no longer in the position of a bond-

servant but of a friend, and is to be recognized as such (ovK^Tt. \e7a) i/yotas SovXovs . . . v/j.ds de eiprjKa ^LXovs, Jn 15^'').

Literature. — See three remarkable addresses on social service by Westcott in his Christian Aspects of Life, especially that on 'The Christian Law,' in which he quotes from Bishop 'Tucker of Uganda the salutation ordinarily addressed in that country to a man engaged in manual labour, 'Many thanks; well done.' Consult also Westcott, Social Aspects of Christianity ; W. H. M. H. Aitken, Temptation and Toil, p. 209; E. Griffith- Jones, Economics of Jesus (1905) ; and The Citizen of To-morroiv (ed. S. E. Keeble), esp. ch. vi. with the bibliography on p. 123.

J. R. Willis. LAKE OF GENNESARET.— See Sea of Galilee.

LAMB.— See Animals (vol. i. p. 64'^), Names AND Titles of Christ, and Sheep.

LAME. — This word, perhaps originally meaning bruised, signifies a cri^jpled or disabled condition caused by injury to or defect of a limb or limbs ; specifically walking with difficulty, inefficient from injury or defect, unsound or impaired in strength. It is applied metaphorically to all kinds of in- efficiency, such as inadequate excuses, or verses which offend against the laws of versification. The term embraces all varieties of defect in walk- ing arising from various causes, and includes halt- ing and maimed (see artt. ), which are separate and distinct species of lameness.

The Greek word is xaAoj, from obsolete ydcu or ^aXan; (to loosen, slacken), which is tr. ' lame ' in Mt lis 1530. 31 oii'i, Lk 722 1413 ; but in other passages for no apjiarent reason the same word is translated 'halt.' In Jn 53 x'^^-'^" is rendered 'halt' without any indication that a special species of lameness is intended, where the description is quite general as in the above passages. In Mk 943-45 it is used synonymously, with xuXXo;, where a.ia.rrr,()o? might have been expected in both cases, seeing that the injury referred to is the definite cutting off of the hand or foot. zi/AXo; is, however, most commonly associated with the hand, while x^^oV more specifically has to do with lameness in the foot or feet. In Mt 188 we have ;t_«Ai)v v, xuX^ev — trans- posed in the authorities followed by RV, making the corre- spondence between x.^ip and xvXXov, and to'u; and xi^^''-

Healing of the lame was a characteristic work of Christ. Among the multitudes that gathered round Him seeking restoration for various ailments were jn-obably sufferers from many different kinds of lameness (as Mt 15^", Lk 7"-). Jn 5^ gives a comprehensive list of such sick jjersons, including the feeble, the blind, the lame, and the withered (TrXrjdos Twv do'devovvTwv, rixpXQv, xwAcDy, ^ijpwv). Prob- ably these miscellaneous cases would include those suffering from chronic rheumatism and from in- firmities having a nervous origin, many of which resulted in a withering of the limbs and of the bodily frame. It is significant that Jesus is never said to have restored the dvdir-qpoi, the badly mutilated — deprived of their limbs (see Maimed). T. H. Wright.

LAMECH. — Father of Noah, mentioned in our Lord's genealogy, Lk 3^^.

LAMENTATION (dprivos, epyveii').—An expres.sion of sorrow accompanied by wailing and other demon- strations of grief. It is as.sociated in Jn 16"'' with weeping, and also in Lk 23-', in the case of the women accompanying the Saviour to the Cruci- fixion. It is applied equally to sorrow for the dead and to grief for approaching disaster (Mt 2^**, Jn 1620, Lk 2327), and it is referred to by the Lord as one of the common games of children.

When a death occurred, it was intimated at once by a loud wail which is described (Mk 5^^) as accom- panied by a 'tumult,' and this lamentation was renewed at the grave of the deceased. Oriental demonstrations of grief are very vivid. Mourners hang over the lifeless form and beg for a response from its lips. When a young person dies un- married, part of the ceremony of mourning is a form of marriage (see art. MOURNING). Lamenta-

Li^MP

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

tion for the dead was also accompanied by beating the breast and tearing the hair, as well as by rend- ing the garments (see Rending of Garments) and fasting. W. H. Rankin E.

LAMP. — There are two words in the tiospels translated 'lamp,' \vxfoi and Xa/xirds. The former (RV 'lamp,' AV 'candle') is used Mt o'^, Mk 4-', Lk 8'* of the usual means of lighting a house. In Mt 6-- the eye, as the source of light, the organ by which light is appreciated, is called the lamp (RV ; A V ' light ') of the body. In Jn 5»s the same word is applied to John the Baptist, who is not the eternal light ((puis, Jn P), but the burning and shin- ing lamp kindled by it and bearing witness to it.

The word Xafxirds occurs in Jn 18'', where it is rendered 'torch.' It is also used in tlie jjarable of the Ten Virgins, Mt 25, where it would be better translated 'torch.' In Ea.stern countries the torch, like the lamj), is fed with oil, wbich is carried in small vessels constructed for tlie purpose {dyyeiov, Mt 25^). See Candle, Light, Torch.

Literature.— Trench, Si/nonyms, ,\lvi. ; Hastings' DB, artt. ' Lamp ' and ' Lantern ' ; Edersheini, Life and Times, ii. 455 flf. ; H. J. van Lennep, Bible Lands and Customs, p. 132 ; W. M. Thomson, Land and Book, iii. 472.

C. H. Prichard. LANE.— See Street.

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST.— Recent historical and critical research has narrowed the ground which it is necessary to cover in the discussion of the question as to the language spoken by Christ. It has ruled Hebrew out of court. The practically unanimous verdict of recent scholars is that, considerably before the time of Christ, though when is uncertain, Hebrew had ceased to be spoken in Palestine, and its jjlace as the ver- nacular had been taken by Aramaic, the language represented in OT by Ezr 48-i« 7'-■-^ Jer 10", and Dn 2^-7-®, and mistakenly named ' Chaldee.'

The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in- volved no great linguistic revolution, as it was simply a transition from one Semitic language to another, and that a closely cognate one. It was, however, only very gradually effected, and was chiefly due to the predominance to which Aramaic attained in Western Asia during the Persian period, coming, as it did, to be, with dialectical differences, the lingua communis from the Eujihrates to the Mediterranean. While, however, Aramaic thus gradually superseded Hebrew as the living tongue of Palestine, and by the time of Alexander the Great had probably reached a position of ascend- ency, if it had not gained entire possession of the field, yet Hebrew remained, though with some loss of its ancient purity, the language of sacred litera- ture, the language in Avhich Prophet and Psalmist wrote, and as the language of the books ultimately embraced in the OT Canon, continued to be read, with an accompanying translation into Aramaic, in the synagogues, and to be diligently studied by the professional interpreters of the Scriptures. It is, therefore, quite possible that Christ possessed a knowledge of Hebrew, and had thus access to the Scriptures in the original.

With Alexander the Great, however, there came a fresh disturbance of the linguistic situation. Thenceforward (ireek entered into competition with Aramaic. And though, as a non-Semitic language, the adoption of Greek could not come so readily to the Jews as Aramaic, yet the circum- stances were such as to tend in no small degree to counterbalance the disadvantage under which Greek thus lay. For not only was it the official language alike of the Lagid, Seleucid, and, after the Maccabfean interregnum, of the Idumwan- Roman rulers to whom the Jews were successively

subject; but its cause was furthered by the Hellenizing policy which these rulers generally followed, and by the existence, more or less, all through of a party among the Jcavs themselves favourable to that policy. The result on the linguistic situation of the political conditions thus obtainmg cannot be certainly determined from the historical data bearing directly thereon. It is, however, clear that whatever headway Greek may have made before the Maccakean revolt,— wliicii was a revolt against the Hellenizing policy referred to, as pushed to extremes by Antiochus Epiphanes, —it suffered a decided set-back, and was practi- cally expelled the country during the Maccaba-an regime. And though it had again made consider- able progress by the time of Christ, and especially through the influence of Herod the (jireat, who particularly affected Greek culture, there is nothing to show that the political conditions were such as to secure for it the ascendency claimed by some scholars, and notably by Dr. Roberts in his book, Greek the Language of Christ and His A2wstles.

At the time of Christ, then, Palestine was bi- lingual, Greek as well as Aramaic being, to some extent at least, spoken. The question, therefore, to be ansAvered is. Which of these languages did Christ speak, or, if He knew and spoke both, which of them did He mainly, if not exclusively, employ as the vehicle of His teaching? Consideration need be given to the question only in its latter form. For, as undoubtedly spoken by some of the Palestinian Jews, as the language of perhajis the great majority of His countrymen scattered throughout the Roman world, as the predominant language of the representatives of the Gentile world in Palestine and of that Gentile world itself, which, though wide, was not yet wider than He conceived the scope of His mission to be, and i;s, besides, the language of the Septuagint Version of the OT, which had no doubt acquired consider- able popularity, it niay reasonably be assumed that Christ would acquire some knowledge of Greek, and be able, in some measure at least, to speak it. Was it, then, Aramaic or Greek that Christ habitually employed in His public ministry ? The question resolves itself into that of the rela- tive prevalence of the two languages in the country at the time, so far as that can be deter- mined by such evidence, direct and indirect, as is available. And this evidence, though someA\hat meagre, is decisive for Aramaic. That furnished by the reported words of Christ Himself does not go very far, but yet goes some length towards that conclusion. All that it certainly establishes is that Christ knew Aramaic, and, apart from His emj^loyment of Aramaic terms and proper names, on which perhajjs little stress is to be laid, as these terms and jjroper names may have formed part of the ordinary vocabulary of Greek-speaking Jews, expressed Himself in Aramaic on three difl'erent occasions. The thrrc expressions are: (\) Take id d Kovfi, the Gr. transliteration of the Aram. t<ri-j!^ or C'p xn''?!? Mk 5^*^ ; (2) i(p(padd, euphonic for the Aram. nnsriN Mk 1^ ; and (3) ifKel ijXei Xa/xd aa^axOavei (Mt 27'*®), or according to JNlk 15^"* i\oil, eXooi, Xe/xd (rajSaxGavei, the Aram, -m^'i' n?^ 'ri^?? "■■'^?? or 'h>t "^n. How these three Aramaic expressions alone came to be preserved is matter of conjecture. An obvious explanation is that they alone were preserved because they were exceptional, Greek being the language for the most part used by Christ. That," however, is not the only possible explanation. More probable is it that they alone were preserved because associated with moments of exceptional emotion on Christ's part, and there- fore felt to be exceptionally precious. The cry upon the cross was peculiarly a cry de profundis. In the case of the deaf and dumb man, Christ, for

LANGUAGE OF CHEIST

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

some reason or other, was unwontedly moved, for it is said that ' he looked up to heaven and sighed.' And, though it is not stated, the spectacle of Jairus' child-daughter lying cold yet beautiful in death, was calculated to touch profoundly the heart of the great Child-Lover.

The two main sources of direct evidence con- clusively proving the predominance of Aramaic as the popular language, are the i^ooA; of Acts and the Works of Jonephus.

1. In Ac P" it is said with reference to the suicide of Judas in the field which he had pur- chased 'with the reward of iniquity,' 'And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; inso- much as that field is called in their own tongue {rri SiaX^KTu avrCv) Akeldama.' Now Akcldama is the Aram, n^t %n, and points not only to the fact that Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the ver- nacular, but that at the time of Christ it was the popular language, even of the inhabitants of Je- rusalem. Equally conclusive on the latter point are two other passages in the Acts. In describing his conversion to Agrippa, St. Paul said, 'And Avhen we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying, in the Hebrew tongue (r^ "E^patdi diaX^KTifj), Ac 26". By ' He- brew ' St. Paul undoubtedly meant Aramaic. The terms 'Ej3pai5i and 'Ej3pal'crTi, as is generally ad- mitted, are used both in the NT and by Joseplius when not Hebrew but Aramaic is meant. Thus in Jn 19'' it is said that ' Pilate sat down in the judgnient-.seat in a place that is called the Pave- ment, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha ' ("E/3/)at'(Tri 5e TalS^add); and Va^^add, is not Hebrew, but Ara- maic. That the ascended Christ should have spoken to Saul in Aramaic is unintelligible except on the supposition that that had been the language which He had spoken when on earth, and that it was the prevailing language of Palestine.

Quite as significant is the circumstance men- tioned in Ac 22^ that Paul addressed the infuriated Jerusalemites in Aramaic, and that when they ascertained from his opening words that he was to speak to them in that language, ' they kept the more silence' (fiaXKov ■n-apicx^*' vcrvxi.o.v), the refer- ence being to the fact that Paul had not attempted to speak until by a gesture indicative of his desire to be heard he had stilled the iiproar, and, as it is said, ' there was made a great silence.' It does not necessarily follow', as has been maintained, that the peojjle expected Paul to address them in Greek, and that the fact that they were jirepared to give him a hearing when they expected him to speak in that language, proves that they were familiar with it. The simple fact that, as his gesture indicated, Paul was going to address them was in itself sufficient to secure their quiet attention. And in any case, even though they had expected to be addressed in Greek, the deeper silence into which they settled when they found that they were to be addressed in Aramaic, proves that they were more familiar with the latter language than the former, and that the latter was the language generally spoken by them.

2. The evidence of Josephus is as direct and con- clusive as that furnished by the Acts of the pre- dominance of Aramaic. In BJ v. vi. 3, Josephus records how during the siege of Jerusalem the Jewish watchmen warned their compatriots of the discharge of the Roman missiles by crying out in their native tongue {rfj waTpltf y\u(xa-ri), 6 lb$ ipxerai. In the same work, vi. ii. 1, he tells how in his capacity of intermediary during the same siege he communicated the proposals of Titus to the be- sieged in their native tongue (ttJ iraTpLip yXwaarj). In the preface to BJ he records how that work was at first written in Aramaic and afterwards translated into Greek.

The passage runs : ' I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate these books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our own country, and sent to the Upper Bar- barians,' i.e. to the Aramaic-speaking peoples, whom he describes in the following paragraph as ' the Parthians, Babylonians, the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni.'

That a Palestinian Jew such as Josephus, who was of a distinguished priestly family, who re- ceived a careful rabbinic education and studied in the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, should not only characterize Aramaic as ' the language of our own country,' but should write his first book in that language, is in itself conclusive proof that Aramaic had not then been materially driven from its position as the vernacu- lar of Palestine. Suggestive also in this connexion, and giving added weight to the case for Aramaic, is Josephus' own confession of the difficulty he ex- jierienced in acquiring such mastery of Greek as that which he ultimately attained. In the preface to his Antiquities he tells how he found the writ- ing of that work a hard .and wearisome task, ' it being,' as he says, ' a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign and to us unaccustomed language ' (els dXXoSaTrTjv i]ij.7p Kal ^evrjv 8ia\iKTov crvv-qdeiav), and how he was able to continue and accomplish the task only by the encouragement and help of a friend, Epaphroditus. To the same difficulty he refers in the closing paragrajjhs of the Antiquities :

' I am so bold as to say, now that I have completed the task set before me, that no other person, either Jew or Greek, with whatever good intentions, would ha\ e been able to set forth this history to the Greeks as accurately as I ha\e done ; for I am acknowledged by my countrymen to excel them far in our national learning. I also did mj' best to ol)tain a knowledge of Greek by practising myself in the granmiar, though native habit prevented me from attaining accuracy in its use.'

Josephus' difficulty with Greek is very signi- ficant. For if that difficulty obtained with him, what of his countrymen generally ? Stress has been laid, as, e.g., by Dr. Roberts, upon the attain- ments in Greek of such men as Peter and James and John, as shown in the speeches or writings •ittributed to them, and it has been argued there- from that a knowledge of Greek must have been common among the rank and file. But even though Peter and James and John were the authors of the speeches and writings referred to, and did speak or write such Greek as is found therein, which is open to question, they cannot fairly be regarded as representative of the people generally in this respect. The very fact of their not only being of the number of the Twelve, but forming the inner group of that favoured circle, difierentiates them from the crowd. ' Unlearned and ignorant men,' the Council at Jerusalem dubbed them (Ac 4^^) ; but the contemptuous epithets Avere but the expression of a twofold prejudice, the prejudice of antagonism and the prejudice of the Schools. In virtue of their discipleshii), Peter and James and John have to be placed in a difi'erent category from the mass of the people of their social rank, who, as compared with them, must have been ' unlearned and ignorant ' in the broader sense of the terms.

3. The case for Aramaic as the prevailing lan- guage of Palestine in the time of Christ, and the language, therefore, which Christ must necessarily have employed generally in His teaching, is thus incontestably established by the direct evidence of the Acts and of Josephus, And though less direct and certain, there is other evidence to the same effect to which reference may be made, and speci- ally that furnished by the "^Targums and what is known as The Aramaic Gospel.

(a) The Targums are Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the OT books, and cover the whole

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST

LAST SUPPER

of those books with the exception of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The two principal Targums are (1) that on the Pentateuch, known as the Targum of Onkelos, which is characterized by its almost slavish literalism ; and (2) that of Jonathan ben- Uzziel on the Prophets, i.e. the Historical books and the Prophets properly so called, which is largely paraplirastic. The dates of these Targums are uncertain, and by scholars they have been made to range from the end of the 1st to that of the 4th cent. A.D. The important jjoint, however, is that they undoubtedly embody material from a much earlier time, and were the outcome of the practice, originating in the gradual disuse of Hebrew as the vernacular, of translating the synagogue readings of the OT into Aramaic for the benefit of the people generally. Written Tar- gums were at first forljidden. The translation was required to be oral, the translator (;c3-inp) giving his translation after each verse of the Pentateuch and every three verses of the Prophets. Whether the rule which forbade written Targums had fallen into desuetude by the time of Christ cannot be de- finitely determined. Probably it had. But even though it had not, and there were no written Targums till a later date, yet the existence of written Targums at that later date points con- clusively to the prevalence of the i^ractice of the oral translation of the synagogue lessons into Aramaic, and therefore to the prevalence of that language as the vernacular.

As against this, the supporters of Greek hold that the Septuagint version was in such general use that it may be described as the 'People's Bible.' The special arguments in favour of this theory are :

(1) that copies of the Septuagint could be had at a much smaller cost than Hebrew or Aramaic MSS, that indeed the price of the latter was prohibitive so far as the people generally were concerned ; and

(2) that the OT quotations in the NT point to a very general familiarity with the Septuagint, in- asmuch as the majority of them are verbatim or practically verbatim, or show unmistakable traces of the Septuagint, and particularly as in some cases tlie Septuagint is followed when it differs from the Hebrew. The j^rice argument scarcely deserves notice, and very little weight is to be attached to the quotation argument. For while it must be admitted that those who were responsible for the quotations were familiar with the Septua- gint, it by no means follows that such familiarity obtained with the people generally. And while it was to be expected that the writers of the NT books would not only be familiar with the Septua- gint, but in quoting from the OT would take ad- vantage of a translation ready to hand, it is yet a significant fact that that translation was not always taken advantage of, not a few of the quotations showing an entire independence of the Septuagint.

(b) The question of an Aramaic Gospel {Ur- Eyrmr/eliuin), while important chiefly in connexion with the Synoptic problem, bears closely upon that of the language spoken by Christ. If Christ spoke Aramaic, such a Gospel was to be expected, and at the same time its existence would furnish weighty proof at once of the prevalence oi Aramaic and of the use of that language by our Lord. And the labours of recent critical scholars, if they have not conclusively established the existence of an Aramaic Ur-EvangeUiim, have at least made it much less open to question. Of special interest in this connexion is the series of articles in the Ex- positor (Ser. IV.), by Professor Marshall, on 'The Aramaic Gospel.' The theory which Professor Marshall in these articles works out with great ability and skill is that the variant Greek Avords m parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels can be traced to one original Aramaic word ; and the

result of i\\e application of his theory is that the Aramaic Gospel contained, speaking generally, the ministry of Christ in Galilee. That Professor Marshall's theory will ever find anything like general acceptance is perhaps unlikely. But whether or not it may be possible by his or any other method to recover with certainty and to any extent the precise Aramaic words used by our Lord, there can be no doubt that Aramaic had the supreme honour of being the language in which He gave expression to His imperishable thoughts.

Literature. — Pfannkuche, Language of Palestine, Clark's Cabinet Library, voL ii. ; Roberts, Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles, 1S88 ; W. H. Simcox, Language of the NT, 1889 ; T. K. Abbott, Essays chie/ly on the Oriqirml Texts of OT and NT, 1891, p. 129 ; A. Meyer, Jesu Mutter- sprache, 1896; Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Kng. tr. 1902; Schultze, Gram, dcr Aram. Mutterspraehe Jcsu, 1899; Marshall' Expositor, Ser. iv. ii. 69ff., iii. 1 ff., 109 ff., 205 ff., 275 ff., 375 ff ' 452fif., iv. 208 ff., 373 ff., 4.35 fl., vi. 8Uf., viii. 170 ff. ; Exp. Times' IV. 260 ; Schiirer, njp i. i., ii. ii. JaMES YoUNG.

LANTERN (^ai'6s) occurs in Jn 18^ Avliere the band of soldiers accompanying Judas is described as provided with lanterns and torches (see Lamp).

LAST DAY.— See Day of Judgment.

LAST SUPPER — Althou';h the relation of the Last Supper to the Jewish Passover is treated with more or less fulness elsewhere (see DATES, vol. i. p. 413 fi'., and Lord's Supper (I.)), it appears advisable to handle the Avhole subject in a special article.

The Paschal controversy, which agitated the first ages of Cliristianity (.see Calendar), has only a general connexion with the inquiry on which we are entering. We note * that the trend of opinion at first was towards the view that Christ was cruci- fied on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan, and therefore on the day on which the Paschal lamb was killed ; from which it follows that the Last Supper (whatever was its nature) jireceded tlie Jewish Passover by several iiours. In the 3rd cent, the view that our Lord kept the Passover with the Jews on the 14th, and Avas crucified on the loth, began to come into favour. Wlien we approach the sacred records, we find that tiie first tiiree Evangelists so express themselves, that, in the opinion of some, they represent our Lord as eating the Paschal Supper with His disciples on the night of His betrayal. It is certain tliat St. John (18-^) represents some of the Jews as not having eaten the Passover several hours later. On tiiese prem- ises, there appears to l)e a discrepancy between the accounts in the sacred narratives. When an honest attempt is made to arrive at a conclusion, a great authority on the history of Christ's ministry is compelled to confess his inability to solve the enigma, t By some it has been thought that Christ anticipated the day of the Paschal Supper, in order to eat it with His disciples ; J by others, that the heads of the Jewish people deferred their Passover in order to have time to apprehend and condemn Jesus.§ The object of this .article is to show that the first three Gospels preclude the notion that the

* See art. ' Chronology ' (Turner) in Hasting-s' DB i. 411 f.

t See Sanday, art. 'Jesus Christ' in DB ii. 034b.

t This seems to be the view which Dr. Sanday, on the whole, favours ; see art. quoted in preceding- note. For the view that the Last Supper was an anticipated Passover meal, resembling- the ordinary Passover in form and order, and held before the statutory date, see artt. ' .Jesus Christus ' (Zockler) in PRE'^, ix. p. .32 ; ' Eucharist' (-J. Armitage Robinson) in EBi, col. 1419. A good summary of arguments and opinions is given by Ellicott in Lectures on the Life of otir Lord, pp. 322, 32.3, nn.

§ The Passover might be deferred for a month for those who were legally debarred from observing it on the proper day (Nu 99-1-), but there is no provision in the Law for postponing it for one day : this explanation of the action of the rulers is improbable in itself, and contrary to their expressed intention (Mt 26-'') ; further notice of it is superfluous.

6

LAST SUPPER

LAST SUPPER

Last Supper was a Passover, and therefore, as St. John certainly seems to represent the Passover as still to come while the Supper was proceeding,* that there is no discrepancy in the accounts, t

1. In examining the evidence afforded by the four accounts, we lind, with satisfaction, that they have been handed down to us intact, and that no attempt was made to harmonize the records, as by the omis- sion of the words to wdax"- from Lk 22'^, which seem at variance with the statements in St. John. There is one critical problem in St. Luke — the retention, or omission, of the mention of a second cup, and the order of the Bread and the Cup in the Institu- tion ;t but the solution of tliis problem will not affect tlie chief thesis in our jwsition. Herein is another proof, if proof be needed, of the honesty and faithfulness of the ancient scribes, who, in the midst of one of the greatest controversies of the early Church, resisted the temptation to accom- modate the records to particular views of the event.

2. The five following indications of time may be collected from the several accounts :

(1) When Jesus had linished His great eschato- logical discourse, and the rulers were forming a plan for His apprehension and condemnation, it wanted two days to the commencement of the Paschal Feast — /ierd. duo rj/mepas to irdu^^a yivsTai (Mt 26-, Mk 141, Li^ 22i). 'After two days' must be interpreted according to the reckoning which makes ' after three days ' equivalent to ' on the third day.' This Jewish usage is well known, and is found, e.g., in Mt 20^9 parallel with Mk 10=** and Lk 18^^, Avhere ttj rp/rTj ii/j.^pa in the First and Third corresponds to /ierd rpeis rnxepas in the Second Evan- gelist. § Now the Passover was slain late in the afternoon of the 14th Nisan, and some hours earlier leaven was jjut out of the houses, in preparation for the 'days of unleavened bread,' which, strictly speaking, began with the eating of the lamb in the early hours of loth Nisan. i| The terminus ad qiiem of the 'two days' must be the last hours of 14th Nisan. The terminus a quo may be any hour after 12th Nisan had been succeeded by the 13th.

(2) In arranging for the apprehension of Jesus, the rulers decided that it should not be attempted on the Feast Day (:\It 26\ Mk 14-). If they carried out their intention, it follows that the night of the apprehension and trial was before the slaying of the Passover ; and that the Last Supper, whatever it was, did not coincide with the Paschal Feast.

* -l" 1,5"^: Edersheim (Life and Times, ii. 566 ff .) explains the fxyiiv TO Txirxx of Jn 18'-8 as referring to sacrifices of tlie Pasclial season. The opinion of such a writer demands respectful con- sideration, and a similar explanation is adopted by many. From 2 Ch 35 we learn that other sacrifices were offered at the Paschal season besides the lambs ; see vv.7. 8. is.

t The position maintained in this article is identical with the explanation <riven by the late G. Wildon Peiritz in The Gospels from the Rabbinical point of view, 1873. By birth a Jew, of German nationality, a Cambridge graduate, " and an Anglican priest, of wide reading and profound learning, Peiritz had, to an exceptional extent, the ability to form a correct opinion on the problem before us.

X The Received Text of Lk 2219- 20 is read in ' codd. Gr»c. et verss. fere omn.' (Nov. Ti-st., Lloyd-Sanday, Append, p. HI)— i.e. It has the very highest diplomatic attestation, including the old uncials. It can be rejected only on a priori grounds. The case Illustrates the difference between two schools of criticism— those who follow the testimony of ancient MSS, and those who are innueneecl by subjective considerations. Dr. Sanday (I.e. 636i') says : We cannot doubt that both these t\T}es of text existed early in the 2nd cent. Either may be original. And this is just one of those cases where internal evidence is strongly in favour ot the text which we call Western. Tlie temptation to expand VL""^'"' '''^'■?"§^" than to contract ; and the double mention of the Cup raises real difficulties of the kind which suggest in- terpolation See also a full discussion of the Lukan account of he Institution by Mr. Blakiston, in JThSt, Julv 1903, p. 548 f. Dr Lambert (''a Jan. 1903) well sums un the arguments and authorities for adhering to the Received Text Afl '^^ *';«,'■'' 'sa P.l. harmonizing the text'of Mk. with that of Mt and Lk. we may compare Mt 2763, where the text is certain.

• '^"i^^yo'son in Das letztr Passamahl Christi und der Tan smnesTodes, quoted by Mr. Box and Dr. Lambert ; see note < p. 8b below. Cf. Turner, I.e.

The hurried proceedings of the night suggest an attempt to secure a condemnation within a limited time. This is intelligible if the Feast had not begun ; otherwise it is hard to see why men who were, in that case, willing to try a prisoner on the hrst day should have scrupled about extending the proceedings to any necessary length.

(3) The third indication of time jiresents some difficulty. On a day called ' the first day of Azuma' j^reparations were made for the Feast, according to Mt. (26'^) and Mk. (I41-), at the sug- gestion of the Twelve ; according to all three (Mt 26'8- 1^ Mk 14i3-'«, Lk 22'-'3), with the consent and at the command of the Master. Strictly speaking, the ■7rpu}T7) Twv d^v/xwv would indicate the 15th Nisan, for the period during which leaven was prohibited commenced with the Paschal meal, following the slaying of the Paschal lamb in the closing hours of 14th Nisan. So late a date for the vpdjTr] is pre- cluded by the circumstances of the narrative ; but it is incredible that Mt. could make an erroneous statement in a matter connected with the greatest solemnity of the whole of the Jewish sacred year. The reasonable conclusion is, that, in a popular way of speaking, a day before the legal day had acquired the name of ' First day of Azuma,' and not unfitly, if on that day early arrangements were commenced for the complete exclusion of leaven from the houses.* ]Mk., bearing in mind, as often, the needs of non-Jewish readers, adds, oT€ TO Trdo-xa idvov. The point of time need not be pressed too strictly ; the gloss is no more than an explanation that the season of Azuma was the time of the offering of the Passover. The expression in Lk. is more difficult. In 22^ we read, i)\dev Se 7} Tjfiepa tQv d^vfiiov, iv "f fj ^dei Ovfcrdai Tb irdcrxo.. But there was more than one day of Azuma. In v.^ he had written ijyyi^ev 8e rj eopTrj r. df. It looks as if rj/j-ipa below was equivalent to eoprij above — not 24 hours, but a period ; J or else there is .some little inexactitude in a mere reference to an observance which it was unnecessary for the purpose of the narrative to describe precisely.

(4) The fourth note of time is given by the 6\pias yevoixiv-ns of :Mt 20,-'^ and Mk 14i^.§ These verses immediately follow the statement that the disciples 'made ready the Passover.' The natural inter- pretation is to take them as indicative of the evening of the day when the Upper Room was en- gaged. We have therefore another date, from which we may argue backwards to the limitations of the TrpwTTj T. df. It ended with sunset on the night of the Betrayal. It began with the preced- ing sunset. At any time during those 24 hours

* Wieseler, quoting from the Talmudical tract Pesachim, that the search for leaven in houses must be made in the night pre- ceding 14th Nisan, in order that it might be put away by mid- da3, and nothing leavened eaten afterwards, argues that the day before the Passover was made ready was reckoned as be- longing to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. See Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, tr. Venables, pp. 334, 335, and art. Passover in Hastings' DR (W. J. Moulton), vol. iii. p. 090, Peiritz (op. cit. pp. 28, 29, 33, 34) describes the arrangements made by Jews on the day before the legal Preparation day, and adds : ' There is a very intelligible reason why that Thursday should, in a subordinate sense, — loosely, we may allow, — be called the first day of unleavened bread.'

f h is omitted by some authorities; but the attestation is in- sufficient, nor would the omission affect the translation — ' when it behoved,' or ' in which ' ; see Winer's Grammar, iii. § xxxi. 9, a.

t Many examples occur of the use of r,u,-fix for a period of long duration ; but it is then regarded in contrast to conditions which may be described as ' night,' — e.tj. Ro 13^2 ; or as the time when certain conditions are realized, — e.rf. 2 Co 6^, to which latter sense belongs the oft-recurring expression 'day of the Lord,' or ' my day ' (Jn 8''<>) ; but there seems no exact parallel to the use we have supposed of iu-tpa. as equivalent to :i«.='/j«;. Yet, if we limit the term to the ' first day,' the remainder of the sen- tence is inexact, the lamb being slain before the legal ' first day ' began. It seems impossible to treat the sentence as rigidly and historically accurate, in the terms in which the text has come to us.

§ Of the ' two evenings,' it is better to take this as the second, rather than the first, which would be our 'late afternoon.'

LAST SUPPER

LAST SUPPER

it is permissible to place the comnieuceiuent by the disciples of preparations for a Passover which would be kept in circumstances they never antici- pated. According to our present argument, the Master had passed into Paradise before the Passover was eaten. That would not prevent the disciples complying with the requirements of the Law, except in so far as some might have contracted ceremonial delilement during the events of Good Friday. But this would not apply to all ; and here may be found the explanation of the prepara- tions. The Master permitted the disciples to make ready for what was legally requisite ; but He made this the occasion of suitable provision for the new Passover which He designed to provide, but of which they, as yet, knew nothing.

Parallel with the 6\pLa of the first two Evangelists is an interesting exjiression in Lk 22^^ ore iyivero 17 ibpa. While in itself absolutely vague, in connexion with the preceding words, ' they made ready the Passover,' it would naturally indicate the com- mencement of 15th Nisan, when the lamb was eaten ; but in view of considerations already stated, we must reject such interpretation, and read the term in connexion with Avhat follows, and is peculiar to Lk., 'with desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.' The ibpa was the Master's time for one of the great acts of His incarnate life, not a particular division of a par- ticular day in the Jewish calendar. So it is used in v.^-* below — avT-rj v/xQu iariv i) wpa, 'your time,' 'opportunitj'.' *

(5) The appellation ^rtr«s^"c«e affords yet another mark of time. There were paraskeuai before various days. In connexion with our present in- quiry we note the Preparation of the Sabbath (Mk 15^^ Lk 235^), and the Preparation of the Passover (Jn 19^^). On this latter paraskeuc our Lord stood before Pilate, and was condemned (Jn. I.e.). Therefore the Passover had not jet been eaten ; much less could the day before have been the Day of the Passover. But the day of the condemnation and crucifixion was also the p)^~o- sabbaton (Lk 2^'^- ^\ cf. Mk 15^-). In that year the two 'paraskeuai coincided, and the first day of unleavened bread was also the Sabbath ; hence St. John calls that Sabbath 'an high day' (19^^). The paraskeue was our Friday,t Nisan 14, and the day of tlie crucifixion.

3. (i.) St. John was one of the two disciples who were specially charged with the Paschal pre- l^arations. It is recognized that the evidence afibrded by his narrative is absolutely plain and consistent. It has been said that he silently cor- rects the others.! From our point of view, as we hold that they preclude the notion that the Last Supper was a Passover, St. John adds the emphatic testimony of an eye-witness to our conclusion. The Slipper was before the feast of the Passover (13^) ; it was supposed that it might be necessary to buy what there was need of against the feast (13-^); several hours later some oif the rulers had not yet eaten the Passover (18-") ;§ the following

* Cf. the same use of lipa. by Christ at Cana (Jn 2'»), and a similar sense in 1 Jn '21**.

t Paraskeue is rendered in the Pesh. by 'arubhta, which is from a root meaning to set (of the sun). It became the name of Friday in the use of the Syrians, ' because on that day the sun set and darkness reigned ' (see Payne-Smith, Thes. Sijr. col. 29S4). Herein is preserved a tradition of tlie day of tlie Crucifixion, accepted witli sucli confidence that from it the sixtli day de- rived its name, as the first day has been known from earliest times as the Lord's day, because it was the day of the Resurrec- tion. Cf. Mr. Turner's remarks, I.e. p. 411 f.

t So Mr. Turner in art. quoted above.

§ The Passover, which was slain ' between the evenings ' of Nisan 14, was usually eaten in the early hours of the night following, for time must be allowed for taking the lamb to the house and roasting it. This would be the commencement of Nisan 15 (see Ex 128). But Ex 1210, Nu 912, and Dt 16-* suggest the possibility of extending the time of eating, provided all was

day, when Jesus was crucified, was the preparation of the Passover (\Q^^). Language could hardly be more distinct ; and some evidence, wliich seems to support a ditierent view, can be explained. Taking St. John's words in their natural sense, and reading them without prejudice, no one would gather from them that the Supper described by him was the Passover. It seems reasonable to demand that the less distinct and somewhat in- exact language of the other three should be inter- preted in the light of the last account.

(ii.) It has been claimed by some that the account of the meal in the three Evangelists agrees with the ritual of a Passover ; by others, that no trace of a Passover can be found in it. To us, we confess, it seems that the details of a Paschal celebration have been discovered after the impor- tation of ideas which are not on the surface of the narrative. The initial statement that Jesus sat down with the TavcIvc {dv^Keiro, Mt 26-" ; dvetreaei', Lk 22") is against the usual interpretation of the directions given in Ex 12i' : it is supposed that a change of posture had been admitted in later times. The two cups of wine are regarded as tAvo of the four or five which were handed round at the feast ; but in view of the serious ditterence of opinion amongst critics as to the genuineness of the reading in Lk., which gives the notice of a second cup, it seems unfair to press this identification. Tlie dish in which the sop was dipped is identified with the dish of haroseth, a kind of sauce,* which was an adjunct of the Paschal meal ; but this is an assumption, rather than a deduction from evidence. The hymn sung on leaving the upper chamber is identified with the Hallcl (Pss. 115-118) sung at the conclusion of the Passover ritual ; but vnvelv (Mt 26^", Mk 14^6) does not necessarily denote the use of a particular composition, and in Eph 5^", Col 3^^, vjxvoL are distinguished from \pa\fioi.

(iii.) Those who fail to discover traces of a Pass- over meal in the accounts of the Last Supper, who jioint to the absence of allusion to a lamb, and gener- ally to the weakness of the evidence adduced, may reasonably claim an argument c silentio for what that is worth. It may be added that the supposi- tion of the disciples, that the preparations for the feast were not complete (Jn 13-^), seems strange indeed if they were already keejnng the feast. Preparation for the Passover was so imjaortant in the eyes of the Jews, that the day preceding had derived its appellation of paraskeuc from their scrupulous care ; see Mt 27®^.

i. We can now tabulate the order of the sacred days in accordance with the conclusions at which we have arrived. It will be convenient to use the modern names for the days. In the early morning of Sunday our Lord rose. This tradition is uni- versally accejited, and further discussion would be superfluous. The Saturday was the ' first day of un- leavened bread ' (for the eating of unleavened bread began legally with the Paschal meal),t and was Nisan 15. P'riday, Nisan 14, was the oflicial Pre- paration Day. Between it and the commencement of Nisan 15 the lamb was slain and eaten. Thurs- day evening was the beginning of the paraskeue, and some hours before that the exclusion of leaven commenced, from which custom, as we have sug- gested, the day had acquired the popular appella- tion of 'first day of Azuma.' This was the 13th

consumed before morning light. But it was already morning (Mt 271- 2) when the Jews objected to enter the Judgment Hall (Jn 1928) ]est they should be debarred from eating the Passover. Therefore they could not have contemplated eating of a lamb slain the afternoon before. They must liave anticipated a Pass- over in the hours to follow. Every scraia of evidence tends to confirm the view for which we contend.

* Its nature is described in Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud, col. 831.

t Ex 1218 I but in later practice, for greater strictness, leaven was excluded earlier. See note *, p. 6'' above.

LAST SUPPER

LAST SUPPER

of Nisan, and began with sunset on Wednesdaj' evening. During the 24 hours whicli followed Wednesday afternoon, the discii^les began to make ready for the Passover. On Thursday evening (Mt 26-0, Mk 141^) Jesus sat down with them for the Last Supper ; and this, according to St. John (13'), was before tiie Passover.

5. But our Lord called that Thursday evening meal Ji ' passover ' — tovto to ■Ko.axo-, Lk 22'^. As we have shown tliat the meal preceded the legal Passover by some 24 hours, there are but two explanations of the words recorded by St. Luke— (i. ) an anticipatory celebration was held, or (ii.) iraaxa- is used in a mystical sense.

(i.) An anticipation of the Passover might have been either («) from a desire to keep with the disciples a rite which, on the legal and customary day, would be precluded by the crucifixion ; or {h) with the intention of reverting to a more exact date, and correcting an error in time which had crept into the Jewish calculations.* The im- possibility of procuring the sacrifice of a lamb except on the day commonly observed, would have been fatal to any such plan. (1) Our Lord was not a householder, but a guest. It would be usual, perhaps, in such a case, to share in the lamb offered by the householder. This Avould require the assent of the householder to an abnormal, and apparently illegal, arrangement. Or if (2) we suppose that the thirteen were to constitute a family, and have their lamb to themselves, there would still be, as there would be in the former case also, the insuperable difficulty of getting the lamb killed by the priests before the legal day. (3) It has been supposed that there was a dift'erence of opinion between Jewish schools as to the date of the Passover ; but this argument, if it has, which is doubtful, any foundation, is of n j value in the present inquiry. One party only was paramount at a time : there is no proof that there was a choice of dates far the celebration, f If, however, by an ' anticipatory Passover ' is meant an imi- tative meal, with herbs and unleavened bread and wine, but without a lamb.J this is not forbidden by the second exjilanation of our Lord's woi'ds ; yet we doubt whether such an imitation of the reality would have been contemplated. It seems so utterly alien to Jewish sentiment,§ as to be inconceivable for the deliberate act of One who held the Law in honour. Moreover, the act could hardly have been kept secret, even if the 'good- man of the house' had respectfully submitted to what would have greatly shocked his religious sentiments. Some rumour must have reached the ears of those who were willing to bear witness

* The Rev. Matthew Power, S.J., in his learned and elaborate essay, Anglo- Jewish Calendar for every day in the Gospels, says, Our Lord, keeping to the lunar-legal computation, partook of His last supper on Thursday evening, Nisan 14. . . . The Jews, in obedience to the popular reckoning, had their Paschal Supper on Friday evening. . . . The Synoptists adopt, like our Lord, the strict lunar-legal mode of reckoning; the Fourth Gospel elects to follow the popular style.' Even if the rule of hadhu was alreadj- in force, as Father Matthew supposes, there remains the difficulty, which writers shirk, of anv one obtaining the sacrifice of the lamb before the hour appointed by the priests. Stapfer is one of the few who recognize the difficulty ; but ho overcomes it by rejecting the Johannine account and ^°°o?,i"' *;"'^ "thers. See Palestine in the time of Christ, p. 323 f . Of. .IE IX. 5r)3.

,^ ^^A-l^' ^^'^ parallels compared with Jn 131-2 do not suggest anniversar""*^ practice as to the date of observing the

cnLSfcTn ^?"''"'- '^^T'- ^''"^e^*-), referring to Pesachim x., supposes the Supper to have been a Mazzothmeal, of which the essential element was unleavened cakes {mazzoth), with or with- out a lamb, eaten everywhere, and by all-for all were required to eat unleavened bread, though only the ceremonially clean

nWrloH"' f^*^ *° P^''^''^ °f *^^ lamb-such meals being still observed in the present age.

f^l ' '^^r^ ■ Iv:- '^^""'^^ consider it a shocking piece of profanation to enact anything resemblmg the great Paschal meal the evening before Its time.' Peiritz (himself a Jew), op. cr« p 30

against Jesus. On such evidence a most damaging charge could have been founded ; yet not a word of such charge is found in the records of the trial.*

(ii. ) Seeing then that a literal interpretation of irdcxo. in our Lord's words to the Twelve is pre- cluded by the conditions of the occasion, we adopt the alternative, and understand 'passover' to be here used in a mystical sense. t In such .sense undoubtedly He spoke when He called the bread His body, and the wine His blood. Whatever opinion may be held of the nature of the presence in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine were then before His sacrifice, as they are now after His resurrection, His body and His blood in a mystical and spiritual sense. His promise to drink wine with them in the Kingdom of God (Mt 26^'-*, Mk 14-5, L]^ 22^'*) Avas conveyed in the same terms of mysfJery ; for in the kingdom of redemption there is no place for the Jewish Passover, — that hr,s waxed old and vanished, — and still less can a literal fulfilment be conceived as having hereafter a place in the kingdom of glory. Yet in that kingdom there will be a feast, the mystical ,and spiritual supper of the Laml), where the host will be the real Passover, of which the annual victims were the figures ; He who is therefore called by St. Paul, ' Christ our passover. ' +

6. It has been thought that the Last Supper, while not an imitation, Avas celebrated Avith some outAvard features Avhich connected it with the annual Passover, although the chief characteristic, the lamb, Avas absent.g It maj- have been so. Perhaps there Avas unleavened bread, and the dish of bitter herbs ; but the narratiA^es contain not a Avord to favour such a supposition. They seem to describe an ordinary Eastern meal, Ii Avith the one dish in the centre, into Avhich all the guests put their hands. The usual custom of giving the com- plimentary sop Avas observed, and Avine Avas passed round. We believe that the Last Supper Avas in form only an ordinary repast, but that it was attended by the exceptional circumstances of the Avashing of the feet by the host, the mystic acts Avith bread and Avine, and the strange, jiroplietic, and spiritual utterances of a long discourse. As Ave attempt to portray the scene, tlie outlines

* The Rev. G. H. Box has contended with much ability in an article in JThSt, April 1902, that not the Passover, but the weekly Kiddush, which preceded the meal on the eve of the Sabbath, is the antecedent of the Eucharist. In this case our Lord must have celebrated it 24 hours earlier ; but Jlr. Box sui^poses that He often celebrated Kiddush ; there was Kiddush of Passover and of Pentecost, and other occasions, besides the weekly Sanctification. In the January number of JThSt the Rev. Dr. Lambert, replying to Mr. Box's argument, that the evidence of the first three Evangelists is self-contradictory, follows Chwolson by supposing an error in the text. We make no supposition, but offer an explanation of the traditional evidence.

Dr. J. Armitage Robinson expresses himself in harmony with our view : ' The Eucharist had, in its earliest form, an element in common with the ordinary Jewish meal, which was sanctified by thanksgivings uttered over the bread and over the cup. . . . Our conception of the original institution must not be dominated bj- the consideration of the elaborate ceremonial of the Passover cele- bration. Such a consideration belongs rather to the subsequent development of the Eucharist as a Christian rite ' (art. ' Eucharist ' in Enoje. B!hl. coll. 1410, 1420).

t Our Lord was pleased to veil the meaning of His words in many ways. Besides prophecies of Ilis death, which were mis- understood (Mk 9-''2), and parables, which were not explained to all (Alt 1310. fir^'l figures, as sleep for death (Jn 111^), He spoke in mystery of His body as a temple (Jn 21"), of birth by water and the Spirit (35), of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (Q5.1). So, we believe, He called the Supper 'this Passover,' not in the literal, but in a mystical sense.

; This title of the Saviour, although of such frequent occur- rence in ecclesiastical and theological language, occurs in the NT only at 1 Co 57, the writer being St. Paul, who was intimately associated with the only Evangelist who records (Lk 2215) that our Lord spoke of His Last Supper as touti to txo-x"-

§ See note t on preced. column.

II See the account, from personal experience, of an Eastern sunper, given by Peiritz, oj7. cit. pp. 13-15 and note, and the similar account by Thomson in The Land and the Book, pp. 126-128.

LATCHET

LAUGHTER

9

are simple, homely, ordinary ; but the whole is pervaded by an air of mystery. It was not the Passover of Moses, but it was the initiation of the Passover of Christ.* But see Passover (II.).

7. When we pass from the sacred narratives to Patristic tradition, we encounter controversy about the date of Easter which lasted for several genera- tions, but produced no decision as to the nature of the Last Supper. The early separation of the Church from the Synagogue, although inevitable, was a loss to the former. Gentile converts found themselves the inheritors of rites and Scriptures derived from Jewish believers whose language and ideas they understood but imperfectly ; hence the opinion obtained some credence, that Clu'ist celebrated an anticipatory Passover ; for they over- looked the insuperable hindrances to such an act whicli the Jewish customs would present. But one tradition has an important bearing on our inquiry. T!ie Primitive Church had no scruple about the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist. Such has been the immemorial custom of the un- changing East ; while in the AVest (as few would now deny), the use of unleavened wafers was brought in during the Middle Ages. If our Lord instituted the Sacrament at a Paschal Supper, He used, of necessity, unleavened bread. The desire to imitate His acts would, surely, if He had con- secrated in iinleavened, have found expression in an opinion that ordinary l)read was inadmissible. There is no ancient tradition, of universal accept- ance, that the sacramental bread must be un- leavened. The use of ordinary bread is an un- conscious admission that the Last Supper was not a Passover, t

8. The discussion of this question is not merely academical. The practice of some Christians has been affected by the views entertained of the nature of the Last Supper. On the supposition that it was a Passover, it has been contended that the use of unleavened bread is obligatory in the Eucharist. The teetotaller extends the exclusion of leaven to the chalice, and demands the use of unfermented wine. Many love to think that they can find the words sung after the Supper in the Psalms of the Paschal Ilallcl. But the conclusions at which we have arrived lend no authority to the exclusion of leaven from the Lord's Table, and are inconsistent with many expressions in well-known Communion Hymns, and in books of Sacramental devotion. i There may he practical reasons for the use of wafers in preference to culjes of ordinary bread. As to what is called ' unfermented wine,' a pre- vious question arises, M'hether mere grape juice is true wine. But whatever may be deemed most suitaljle for the sacramental elements in present- day use, our contention is that the Holy Mysteries were lirst administei'ed at an ordinary meal, and with ordinary bread and wine for their outward a!ul visible form.

Literature. — See under Dates and Lord's Supper.

G. H. GWILLIAM. LATCHET (Ifids, Lk S^", Mk V, Jn 1-^).— The leathern strap attached to the .sandal, which, pass-

* Compare the remarks of Isaac Williams in Thn Holy Week, pt. iv. § ii. It is interesting to note that two writers so widel.v separated by antecedents and education, and to some extent by sympathies, as were he and Peiritz, arrive from different points at the same conclusion. In one case it is the opinion of a mind steeped in Patristic lore, in the other of a verj' learned Rab- binical scholar.

t See full account of the Eucharistic bread in art. ' Elements ' in Diet, of Christ. ^Jifi^. (Smith and Cheetham), i. p. 601 f. ; cf. Bingham's Antiquities, bk. xv. ch. ii. § 5. Some heretics of early days, the Aquarians, Encratites, and Hydroparastat?e, who were teetotallers, consecrated in water ; see Bingham, Hi. §7.

t The Anglican Liturgy in the Proper Preface for Easter recognizes Christ as ' the very Paschal Lamb,' but throughout the Service there is not an expression or allusion which implies a particular view of the nature of the Last Supper.

ing several times across the foot, was secured round the ankle, thus hxing the sandal securely. See artt. Sandal and Shoe. The mo.st menial service which can be exacted from an Oriental is to remove o carry his master's shoes. Hence, too, the greatest honour a host can show to his guest is to stooj) down and remove his shoes. John the Baptist counted himself unworthy to per- form this service for Christ. J. SOUTAR.

LATIN.— See Title on Cross.

LAUGHTER.

The two words found in NT for ' laughter ' correspond almost exactly iti significance with the two commonly occurring in OT. xxTocyacu (ilt 924 II Mk 5-»0 and Lk 853) = :ii;^, which alwa.ys means scornjul, derisive laughter {e.g. Pr 175, Is 3722, pg 24). On the other hand, yiX^u (Lk 62i)=pn'^, which is the more general term, and while sometimes implying derision (as in Job 301, Pr i'26), isj more usually found in the sense of merry laughter, as opposed to the gloom of sadness {e.q. Pr 29^', Ec 84 22 iui9, Pr 1413). But, while in OT these words and otliers denoting mirth and gleefulness are often found, their parallels are very rare in NT. Beyond the two passages already men- tioned, there is onl.y one (Ja 4^) in which laughter is referred to, — and this is obviouslj' a reminiscence of Christ's savings as reported in Lk 621- 25, — and one other in which jesting {il-rpx- TiXia) * is forbidden to the Christian by St. Paul (Eph .54). The word which does occur in NT, and which is characteristic of it, is z'^P'^ (53 times), x'^'P'" (^ times) ; but this is almost alwajs a restrained and chastened joy rather than one which breaks out into laughter — describing the condition of the mind rather than the expression of the emotions. A stronger word, imply- ing more emotional demonstration, is a,yx.XXii.u ; see esp. Lk 1021, where it seems to be implied that Jesus manifested His joy by outward signs ; the word in 14i- 44 gas {a-y.ipT(i.u) is stronger still, and can hardlv be used except where almost extravagant demonstrations of pleasure are intended.

It has been too readily inferred from the com- parative absence in NT of allusions to mirth, that Jesus was characterized by a certain sobriety of demeanour which precludes us from thinking of Him as ever laughing or even smiling, and that ' Christianity from the first discouraged anything in the form of laughter-provoking mirth. Thus the statements — ' V* e are never told tliat (Jesus) laughed, while we are once told that He Mejif (Farrar, Life of Christ, p. 242); 'we never read that Jesus laughed, and but once that He rejoiced in spirit ' ( Jer. Taylor), and similar statements are based on nothing more than a dim and untrust- worthy tradition, t and convey an impression which is far from being warranted by the general tenor of the Gospel narrative. The common use of the title ' INIan of Sorrows,' dictated no doubt bj' the deepest motives, and the conventional jiortraits of Christ, showing Him ahva,ys pensive and often sorrowful, have been responsible for fostering the thought of a Christ who was constantly grave, if not sad. A writer like Renan goes to the opposite extreme ; but there is at least as much support for his representation of a teacher Avhose ' sweet gaiety constantly found expression in lively reflexions and kindly pleasantries.' J What evidence there is, indeed, is on the whole against the traditional view. Jesus dcflnitelj^ dissociated Himself from the austerer school of His time (Lk b^^«-, Mt 9'*, Mk 2'**) ; He made it a habit to enter convivial assemblies, and was a guest at feasts where laughter, jest, and song were a part of the order of the day;! He Avatched, if He did not join in, the meriy games of children (Lk 7^"), and loved their company. He chose, as an analogy for the joy of God over a redeemed .soul, the exuberant nierry-

* See Trench, Synonyms, s. i\ ; and cf. ' the pleasantries of ioo^a' (x^.p,Ti; fjMoiv), Sir 2013.

+ The alleged Ep. of P. Lentulus, Procons. of Judaea, to the Roman Senate.

{ Vie de Jesus, 1879, p. 196.

§ Edersheim, describing marriage-feasts, says, ' Not a few instances of riotous merriment and even dubious jokes on the part of the greatest Rabbis are mentioned ' {Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. p. 355).

10

LAUGHTER

LAUGHTER

making (Lk 15-*- -') of a father to whom his son was restored,* and in bidding His disciples rejoice in their very tribulations, uses a word which suggests vehement demonstrations of joy (Lk 6-^). There is nothing in the Gospels to encourage the supposition that He frowned upon innocent mirth or checked its exhibition in His followers. On the conti'ary, on one occasion at least, He declined to interfere with a spontaneous outburst of ex- hilaration on their part (Lk 19^"). He bade them, even when they fasted, not be of a sad counten- ance (Mt 6^"), and His chief concern Avas not so much to regulate the manner of their joy as to purify its motive (Lk 10"").

Against the a priori view that Jesus never laughed, a view wliich is based upon a misdirected reverence and a one-sided conception of His nature, has to be set the consideration that such a view tends to dehumanize the ' Son of Man. ' The faculty for laughter, as recent psychologists have shown, is eminently human, and its absence is a defect. f There may be saintly men to whom anything like boisterous hilai'ity is impossible, but he whose face is never lit with a smile, and whose voice never has the infectious ring of joy, is lacking in full- orbed humanity (cf. Carlyle, Sartor, ad init.). If Jesus showed the natural emotions of sorrow, there is every reason to suppose that He showed those of joy.

There is as little support for the view that the NT encourages a religion in which laughter finds no legitimate place. The first disciples of Jesus, like those of St. Francis, who became known as joculatorcs Domini, appear to have shown a vivacity and cheerfulness in complete contrast to the rigid and frigid demeanour engendered by Pharisaism ; and this attitude was encouraged by their Master, who did not expect ' the sons of the bride-chamber ' to mourn so long as the ' bride- groom' Avas with them (Mt 9^^, cf. 15^- -).

But there is more to be said. Nearly all the world's greatest teachers have employed laughter, in one or other of its subtler forms, as a means of gaining a hearing for the truth they had to deliver. Was Jesus an exception to this rule? Is thei'e any real reason for refusing to apply to His case the saying, Hidentem dicere vermn quid vetat? Can it be said that He never used the Socratic method of proving the reasonableness of His teaching by showing the incongruous and even ridiculous position in which those Avho rejected it involved themselves? It has been very generally assumed th.at such a method was beneath the dignity, or foreign to the nature of the Son of God. Thus it is said, ' He brought peace Avher- ever He came, but He never aAvakened mirth . . . The inquiry whether Jesus had the sense of humour is not simply trivial and irreverent ; it betrays a fundamental misconception of that holy life of redeeming love.' J The question, however, cannot be so easily disposed of. In the Gospels there are sayings of Jesus which a rational exegesis finds it almost impossible to explain apart from the assumption that they show a vein of humour. Indeed, the writer jiist quoted admits that Jesus ' deigned to make use of the quaint and often humorous maxims so dear to the common folk.' It is allowed by writers of the most orthodox school that irony and satire were used by Jesus upon occasion ; if He saw fit to employ these sterner weapons, the gentler one of humour would not be beneath Him. When Jesus says to the Jews, ' ]Many good works have I showed you

* il(ppa.i}iur6tt.i in Lk. ia specially used of convivial mirth (see 1219 1523).

t See James Sully, Essay on Laughter.

X See art. ' Our Lord's Use of Common Proverbs,' Expositor, Dec. 1902.

from my Father ; for which of these works do ye stone me ? ' the touch of irony is unmistakable (Jn 10^-),* as it is also in the expression 'ever- lasting tents' (Lk 16**). When He says to His disciples, 'Sleep on now' (Mk 14''i), it is in a tone of gentle raillery ; t and His conversation with the Syrophcenician woman is in the same tone (T'-"'"^')- His answer to the lawyer, ' This do and thou shalt live,' seems to be most naturally inter- preted as ironical (Lk 10*^). The reply to His critics, ' I came not to call the righteous, but sinners' (Mk 2^''), is in the same vein, as is the passage, ' Full well [koKQis) do ye reject the com- mandment of God' (7^). In Mt 6^, literalists have sought in vain to prove that it was a practice among I'harisaic almsgivers to ' sound a trumpet ' ; obviously the passage is satirical. The element of satire runs through the scathing denunciations of the Pharisees and scribes (23, etc.). But the crucial instance is the parable of the Unjust Steward (Lk 16^"^). Commentators have exhausted their ingenuity in devising all possible and im- possible explanations of Christ's commendation of the steward, through failing to see that the whole passage is sarcastic, pouring laughter upon the futile trust that men put in the power of mammon; v.^ in particular is 'a sudden turn of the sublimest and most crushing irony.' J

But if it was in keeping with the mission of Jesus that He should use irony, still more natural was it that humour (wh. see) should enter into His speech. Humour is in its nature both human and humane. The greatest humorists have been the best lovers of men and the most endowed with sympathy (c. 17. 'gentle" Shakspeare and Charles Lamb). The foremost religious teachers have almost invariably been possessed of humour, and have proved the truth of Milton's dictum (Preface to Animadversions upon the Remonstrant) that ' the vein of laughing hath ofttimes a strong and sinewy force in teaching and confuting.' It is probable that the reluctance, which has existed from early times, to admit any tone of raillery or playfulness in Christ's teaching, has been respons- ible for the loss of the original force of some of His sayings. Jesus has suflered from His reporters. Yet enough passages remain to show that this element was often present. The pictures of a man endeavouring to serve two masters at once (Mt e-"*), of another who feeds swine with pearls (7''), of a camel trying to get through a needle's eye (19-'*), of a light being put under a bushel (5^^), of him who sees a splinter in his Ijrother's eye, but fails to notice the beam in his own (t^), of Beelzebub at variance with Beelzebub (12-^*-). of men who have eyes but do not see (Mk 8^*), of one blind man guiding another (Mt 15"), of a father who should give his son a stone instead of a loaf (7^) — these are all instances of that per- ception of the incongruous which is the soul of humour. § We know that Jesus sometimes used words Avith a play upon their meaning (Lk 5'", INIt 4^8, Lk 9™). The ready Avay in which He answers a question by propounding another wliich at first seems irrelevant (Mi 20" 21'-^), His unexpected manner of turning the tables upon a critic (Lk 7^*"^-)) His use of illustrations which would cause, by their homely aptness, an involuntary smile (Mk 2=\ Lk IP)," His epigrammatic Avay of putting a truth so as to give a sudden satisfaction (]Mk 227), and His use of daring hyperbole (Lk 19^''),||

* Westcott, in loe.

t Cf. F. W. Robertson, Serm. (2nd ser.) xx. 'The Irreparable Past.'

t See Expositor, Dec. 1895 ; Good Words, Oct. 1SG7.

§ Cf. the Lngion of Grenfell and Hunt : ' Thou hearest with one ear (but the other thou hast closed).'

i\ Cf. the obscure saAnnar, reported by Papias and quoted by IrensBus (adi: Ucer. v. 33. 3), of the vine with ten thousand

are indications that Jesus thought it not beneath Him to laugh with those that laugh.

On this whole subject nothing can be more just than the words of A. B. Bruce {Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 149) :

' With pathos often goes huniour, and so it is in the parables. . . . The spirit of Jesus was too earnest to indulge in idle mirth ; but just because He was so earnest and so sympathetic, He expressed Himself at times in a manner which provokes a smile ; laughter and tears, as it were, mingling in His ejes as He spake. It were a iz.:^s propriety which took for granted that an expositor was ne'':essarily oflf the track, because in his interpretation of these parables an element of holj- playfulness appears blended with the deep seriousness which pervades them throughout.'

LiTERATURK. — Martensen, Chr. Ethics, i. 186 ff. ; D. Smith in Exp. Times, xii. [1901] 546 ; Expositor, ii. viii. [1884] 92 ff. ; Well- don, Fire Upon the Altar, 105 ; G. H. Morrison, Sun-rise, p. 43.

J. Ross Murray. LAW. — The question of Christ's relation to the Jewish law is one of fundamental importance for the origin of Christianity, but at the same time one of peculiar difficulty. The difficulty arises, to some extent, from the fact that His own teaching marks a period of transition, when the old was already antiquated, while the new was still un- born. A further difficulty is created by the rela- tion in which the actual conduct of Jesus stood to the principles which He laid down. Moreover, the question arises whether His attitude remained the same through the whole course of His ministry, or whether He came to realize that His fundamental principles carried Him further than He had at first anticipated. Lastly, when we remember how bitter was the strife which this very question aroused in the primitive Church, the misgiving is certainly not unreasonable, that this may have been reflected back into the life of the Founder, and sayings placed in His mouth endorsing one of the later partisan views. Our present subject is that of the Ceremonial Law.

It must be clearly recognized that the distinction between moral and ceremonial law is not one sanctioned in the Law itself. All its parts alike were the command of God. The dis- tinction has maintained its vitality in virtue of a praiseworthy ethical interest. The antinomianism of St. Paul seemed to endanger morality, and those who could not rise to his point of view, that it was precisely in this way that morality was secured, turned Christianity into a new legalism, and explained his doctrine that the Law was abolished to mean that Christians wore no longer compelled to practise Jewish ceremonies. This was, of course, to reduce much that he said to the uimieaning. It is precisely the moral law that St. Paul had chiefly in mind. The Decalogue is described as ' the ministration of death written and engraven on stones ' (2 Co S^ RV) ; and, to illustrate the sin- producing effects of the Law, St. Paul quotes one of the Ten Commandments (Ro 7"!). His doctrine was unquestionably that the Law as a whole was done away for all who were in Christ, inasmuch as they had crucified the flesh, which was the home of sin, and thus had lost everything to which the Law could appeal as provocation to sin, while they had escaped into the freedom of the Spirit, and could therefore no longer be under the constraint of the Law. But even St. P.aul was forced to recognize that his magnificent idealism was not milk for babes, hence moral exhortation found a large place in his Epistles, side by side with the loftiest assertions of a Christian's freedom from sin, flesh, and the L-i w. But St. Paul is quite explicit that this freedom is to be strenuously maintained in the sphere of Jewish ceremonies, especially circumcision, and sacred days and seasons. On the other hand, a party in the Early Church in- sisted passionately on the permanent validity of the Law, and especially of circumcision, as essential to salvation. It lies be- yond our limits to trace the history of this controversy, but a reference to it is necessary for the reason already indicated.

Jesus was Himself born into a Jewish home, and the rites prescribed by the Jewish law were scrupulously fulfilled in His case. His parents did not belong to the ranks of the Pharisees, hence His early training was healthier than that of St. Paul ; but He, like His great Apostle, was born imder the Law (Gal 4^), and initiated by circum- cision into the Covenant on the eighth day (Lk 2'-'). His mother presented Him as her firstborn male child to the Lord in the Temple, and offered the

stems. In its exuberant playfulness of fancy it exceeds any- thing in the Gospels : it is probably based on an actual saying of Christ (see Westcott, Introd. p. 433).

sacrifice of purificati9n prescribed in the Law (Lk 2^-"^'*), and thus ' accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord ' (Lk 2'^'*). Joseph and Mary went uj) each year to the feast of the Passover at Jerusalem (Lk 2*^). So far as we can see, Jesus Himself was a strict observer of the Law. Whatever His attitude towards it durmg His ministry, we may assume without question that, till He was conscious of His Messianic voca- tion. His obedience to the Law was scrupulously and heartily rendered. It lay in the nature of the case, however, that the old bottles of Judaism should be unfit to receive the new wine of the Kingdom with which He knew Himself to be in- trusted. The question whether this was clear to Him from the first, or whether it became clear only in the course of His controversy Avith the scribes, cannot be answered with certainty, in view of the doubt which hangs over the chronology of the ministry. And His conduct here was regu- lated by much the same need for reserve as He practised in reference to His self-revelation as Messiah. A premature declaration would have created an extremely difficult situation. All He could do was to utter His principles and leave the practical inferences to be drawn, when the time was ripe, by those who shared His spirit.

On one great branch of this question, however, Jesus expressed Himself clearly and without com- promise. The morbid anxiety of the scribes to make a hedge about the Law so that all possible approaches to its violation might be blocked, added to the hair-splitting casuistry in which moralists of their type delighted, and the lawyer's instinct for precise and exhaustive definition, had led to the elaboration of the precepts in the Law into a vast system of tradition. Moreover, the heavier the burden grew, the greater grew the temptation to find a literal fulfilment which should be an escape from the spirit. All this apparatus of piety demanded leisure to master and perform, such leisure as no man with his daily bread to earn could command ; hence arose a morality unfitted for the normal human life. Against all this tra- dition Jesus entered an emphatic protest. His attitude towards it was wholly difterent from that which He assumed towards the written Law. The scribes made void by their tradition the word of God, and every plant which His heavenly Father had not planted He said should be rooted n\). Nevertheless, in vindicating the Law against the tradition, He enunciated principles which pointed forward to the abolition of both. The points on which He came into conflict with Jewish cere- monialism were Fasting, the law of Uncleanness, the Temple .service, and the cancelling of primary human duties by feigned respect for duties to God.

1. If the order of incidents in the Gospel of St. Mark could be accepted as chronological, the first collision of Jesus with the representatives of the tradition was occasioned by His eating with pub- licans and sinners at the house of Levi (Mk 2'5«'-). Although stress cannot be laid on the order in which the incidents are narrated, this furnishes us with an excellent illustration of the way in which the fundamental ideas of Jesus brought Him into conflict with the religious prejudices of His time. His doctrine of the Fatherhood of Gt)d and of the incomparable value of tlie human soul were fundamental convictions. To this was added the consciousness of His own mission to restore the lost children to their Father. Hence He met the criticism of His conduct in associating with the degraded by the explanation that He was a physician, and where was the physician's place but in the midst of the sick ? There is indeed a terrible irony in the words, for there were none whose moral and religious health was, to the eyes

of Jesus, in a more desperate condition than that of His critics. But scandalized as they might be by conduct so unprofessional on the part of a teacher, there was an obvious conclusiveness in the reply of Jesus which could have been evaded only by the assertion that the salvation of such people was not desirable. The two types of holiness emerge in clear contradiction — the type which seeks to avoid all contact with the contaminating in order that personal purity may not be compromised, and the type that is entirely forgetful of self in its zeal for the regeneration of others. It is in connexion with a similar accusation that St. Luke relates the parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Drachma, and the Lost Son (Lk 15). Similarly Christ's lodging with Zacchaeus the publican gave rise to criticism ; and here again Jesus explained His action by His mission : ' The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost' (Lk 19^").

2. The second point in which the new type dis- played a contrast with the old was in the matter of Fasting. Wonder was excited that, while the Pharisees and the disciples of the Baptist fasted, the discijjles of Jesus neglected this religious exer- cise. The Pharisees fasted twice in the week, on Monday and Thursday. What fasts were observed by the disciples of John we do not know. But the distinction was not one simply between disciples, it went back to the leaders. The Baptist was an ascetic, clothed in camel's hair and a leathern girdle, with locusts and wild honey for his food ; his congenial home Avas the desert, his message one of judgment to come, the axe already lying at the I'oot of the tree. He came neither eating nor drinking, and this unsociable disposition called fortli the charge that he had a devil. Jesus, on the other hand, was no ascetic ; so little of an ascetic, in fact, that His enemies taxed Him with over-indulgence : ' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and .sinners' (Mt IP"). Jesus defends His disciples against the criticism implied in the question, ' Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Phari- sees fast, but thy disciples fast not?' (Mk 2^*) by the answer, ' Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them ? as long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.' The princijjle underlying this is that the external practice must be a spontaneous expression of the inward feeling. Fasting is out of place in their present circumstances, they have the bride- groom with them, therefore all is joy and festivity. It would be a piece of unreality to introduce into their present religious life an element so incongru- ous. But He proceeds : ' The days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.' The reference is to His own death ; and possibly the foreboding expressed should lead us to assign this incident to His later ministry, after the declaration of Messiahship had been made and the prediction of death had been uttered. On the other hand, the veiled allusion makes it possible that those who heard it would not catch His meaning, and we can, in that case, assign it to a late date only if we are clear that Jesus Himself became con- .scious at a comparatively late period in His mini- stry of the deatli that awaited Him. The incident itself rather makes the impression that it belongs to the earlier period of Christ's activity. This was one of the respects in which failure to conform to conventional piety would early attract attention.

Wellhausen regards the incident as unauthentic. He points to the curious fact that the question is one between the dis- ciples of the Baptist and of Jesus, and draws the inference that it is a justification for the deviation of the later practice of Christ's followers from that of Jesus Himself, who in practice conformed strictly to the Judaism of His time. He confirms

this by pointing out that as a matter of fact the bridej^room is not taken away from wedding festivities, and here therefore the choice of expression has been determined by the actual fact of Christ's removal by death. However plausible this sug- gestion may be, the sayings bear rather the stamp of Jesus than of the early Apostolic Church. The criticism of the dis- ciples rather than of Jesus has its parallel in the incident of the plucking of the ears of corn on the Sabbath and the disciples eating with unwashed hands, and the temper of the Master was much freer than that of the timidly legalistic disciples.

In the Sermon on the Mount fasting is recognized as a fitting religious exercise ; but, as in the case of prayer and almsgiving, it is es.sential, for its true religious quality to be preserved, that it should be practised without ostentation. The religious self- advertisement which characterized the Pharisees eviscerated these exercises of all their value. They were to be a secret between a man and his God. In the most rigorous fa.sts washing and anointing were forbidden (Taanith, i. 6), while they were allowed in the less severe (ib. i. 4f. ). Jesus bids His followers anoint the head and wash the face when they fast, that no one may be able to detect that they are fasting (Mt 6"^"'*). See Fasting.

Immediately following the defence of the dis- ciples for not fasting, we have in all the Synoptics (Mt 9i«f-, Mk 2-"-, Lk 5^^-) the sayings about the undressed cloth and the new wine in the old wine- skins. The parables are difficult ; the lesson taught is clearly the incompatibility of the new with the old, and the disaster that will inevitably follow any attempt to combine them. But it is by no means clear with what ' old ' and ' new ' should be identified, nor again can we assume that both parables express the same truth. It is pos- sible, though improbable, that Jesus may intend by 'the old' the ancient piety of the Old Testa- ment, and by ' the new ' the new-fangled regula- tions of the scribes. His sense being that the old Divinely-given mode of life is being ruined by the tradition of men. But it is more likely that the usual view is right, according to which ' the old ' is Jiulaism and ' the neAV ' is the gospel. Even so, however, various interpretations are possible. Usually it has been thought that in both sayings Jesus is defending the attitude of His disciples : you cannot expect the new spirit of the gospel to be cast in the old moulds of Judaism ; the new spirit must create new forms for it.self. Weiss, hoAvever, considers that both parables constitute a defence of the attitude of John's disciples, they cannot be expected to combine the spirit of the Gospel with their legalist and ascetic habit of life {Bibl. Thcol. of NT, i. 112). It is possible, however, that Beyschlag is correct in thinking that the parable of the undressed cloth on the old garment is a justification of John's discijiles in fasting, while the parable of the new wine in the old bottles is a justification of the disciples of Jesus for refusing to follow their example {NT Theol. i. 114). The two sayings .are connected by 'and,' it is true, but this conjunction has in the Synop- tics a wider range of meaning than in English. Wellhausen finds the sayings difficult. He is not disposed to question their authenticity, though, as already mentioned, he strikes out the sayings immediately preceding.

3. Another point in which Jesus came into con- flict with the tradition was that of Ablutions (Mk 7^"^- II). To secure that nothing ceremonially unclean should be eaten, the Jews were verj' scrupvilous in washing the hands before meals. The laws of cleanness and uncleanness touch life so much more closely than .any others, that the casuistry of the scribes naturally finds in this matter a large field of exercise. The largest of the six books of the Mishna is given up to this topic. The purification of vessels alone occupies thirty chapters of this book. The Pentateuch itself exhibits more than the usual tendencj'' to

casuistry in this matter, but the tradition left the Law out of sight in the elaborateness of its regulations. In the time of Jesus tradition had become very strict with reference to the washing of the hands. The practice originated with the Pharisees, but was adopted by almost all the Jews. Even when the hands were ceremonially clean it was necessary to wash them, no doubt to guard against the possibility of unconscious d^Hlement. If they were known to be unclean, they had to be washed twice before a meal ; they were also washed after food ; and some Pharisees washed even between the courses. The hands were held with the fingers up, so that the uncleanness might be washed down from them ; and for the ceremony to be effectual it was necessary that the water should run down to the wrist (though we should probably not translate irvyixri, Mk 7*, 'to the wrist' ; see Swete, ad loc). In Jn 2® we read of the six stone water-pots for the water of purification at the marriage in Cana ; and the same Gospel tells us how the Jews purified themselves for the Passover (IP'''), or took precautions against defilement which would disqualify them from eating it(182«).

It was therefore natural that the neglect of some of the disciples should evoke criticism ; and this criticism was uttered by officials from Jerusalem who had come down to watch the new movement (Mk 7'). No mention is made here of any viola- tion of the tradition on the part of Jesus Himself ; thougli in Lk \l^^ we are told that the Pharisee, at whose house Jesus was eating, was surprised that He neglected this ceremony. Jesus defended His disciples by a complete repudiation of the tradition. He pointed out that its effect Avas to nullify the Law rather than to establish it ; and He illustrated this from the jn-actice of dedicating to God that which ought to have been used by a man for the support of his parents. To this point it will be necessary to return. But in con- nexion with the question of hand-washing Jesus enunciated a principle of far-reaching importance which not only set aside the tradition, but even abrogated a large section of the Law. He asserted that not that which is without a man can, by going into him, defile him, but the things which proceed out of the man. Tlie heart is the essential thing, food cannot come into contact with that ; but it is in it that evil thoughts, words, or actions have their rise, and it is these that make a man unclean. Not what a man eats, but what he is, determines the question of his purity. Thus Jesus lifted the whole conception of cleanness and un- cleanness out of the ceremonial into the ethical domain. But it is plain that this carried with it revolutionary conclusions, not only as to the tradi- tion, but as to the Law ; for much of the Law was occupied precisely with the uncleanness created by external things, and it is not improbable that St. Mark has definitely drawn tliis inference in his Gospel.

It is possible that the usual view taken of the passage, ac- cording to which the words ' making all meats clean ' (Mk 719) are the concluding words of Jesus, should be accepted. This involves, however, a grammatical irregularity, and we ought perhaps to adopt the view taken by Origen, Gregory Thauma- turgus, and Chrysostom, ably defended by Field (Notes on the Translation of the NT, pp. 31, 32) and adopted by RV, Weizsiicker, Swete, Gould, Salmond, that they are the "comment of the Evangelist, and that we should translate ' this he said, making all meats clean.' On the other hand, the notes of Menzies and Wellhausen on the passage may be consulted.

The evasion of the Law by the Tradition here asserted by Jesus has been affirmed by some Jewish scholars not to have existed. (The reader may consult an appendix on 'Legal Evasions of the Law," by Dr. Schechter in Montefiore's Hibbert Lectures, pp. 557-563; an article by Montefiore on 'Jewish Scholarship and Christian Silence ' in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1903 ; the rejoinder to this by Menzies in July 1903, with a further rejoinder by Montefiore' in Oct. 1903.) "it is urged that the reference in the Jewish treatise Nedarim does not

confirm the statement in St. Mark about Corban. Dr. Menzies accepts this ; but when that is said, the matter is by no means ended. To the present writer it seems that the evidence of St. Mark is quite good evidence for the contemporary Judaism. If the assertion about Corban is untrue, of course it cannot be ascribed to Jesus, who could not have quoted, as a conclusive proof that the Jews cancelled the Law by their tradition, an example which His hearers would know to have no existence. Accordingly, if the statement is mistaken, it would have to be put down to the account of the Evangelist, though how he should have hit upon it unless such a custom was actually in vogue would be difficult to understand. In forming our judg- ment on a question of this kind certain leading principles must be kept in mind. The contemporar.y Judaism is most imper- fectly known to us, and the documents which we have to use as our sources of information are, in many instances, centuries later than the rise of Christianity. Further, the stereotyping of Judaism must not be blindlj- accepted as if it guaranteed that doctrines or practices for which we have only late literary attestation were already developed in the time of Christ. We must remember that Judaism did not live in an intellectual vacuum, but in an atmosphere saturated with Christian germs. Especially, we cannot forget that controversy «ent on between Jews and Christians ; and under its pressure it is by no means unreasonable to believe that Judaism may ha\e undergone a considerable modification, above all, in the elimination of matter which proved susceptible to criticism. In the light of these principles the present writer has no hesitation in regarding the statement in St. Mark as good evidence for the existence of the practice of Corban in the time of Christ.

i. The next question touches Christ's relation to tlie Temple. His per-sonal attitude towards it was that of a loyal Jew. Not only did He as a boy of twelve years recognize it as His Father's house (Lk 2"'^), but, after He had entered on His ministry, He cleansed it bj' driving out the money- changers, and overturning the stalls of the traders (JNIt 2Ii2ff- II). According to the Fourth Go.spel, His visits to Jerusalem were largely connected with the feasts. In His Sermon on the Mount He assumes that His disciples will ofier sacrifice, and only requires that, before he oirers, a man shall be recon- ciled to liis brother (Mto-^'-)- In His great indict- ment of the scribes and Pharisees He rebukes them for their ruling that an oath by the temple or by the altar counts for nothing, while an oath by the gold of the temple, or a gift at the altar, is binding. The temple is greater than its gold, and makes it holy ; and similarlj' it is by the altar that the gift is sanctified. To swear by the altar is to swear not only by it, but by the ott'ering placed upon it ; while to swear by the temple is to swear not only by it and all that it contains, but by Him who dwells therein {Mi 23i«f- il). But all this loyal re- cognition of the place filled by tlie temple and the honour due to it was combined with an inward detachment from it, which was a presage of the ultimate deliverance of Christianity from its con- nexion with it. This comes out very clearly in the story of the stater in the fish's mouth (Mt 17-'*"'-). The very doubt wliicli was implied in the question whether Jesus jjaid the half - shekel which was levied as a temple -tax is most significant as to the drift towards freedom, which was already de- tected in His teaching. That He had not repudi- ated tlie toll, Peter is aware ; but the reason for His obedience comes out plainly in the conversa- tion He has with Peter on the subject. Taxes are taken by monarchs not from their sons, but from strangers. Therefore, since Jesus knows that He and His disciples are not aliens to God, but His children, the inference is that no payment of the tax can be legitimately expected from the chil- dren of the Kingdom. "^ Jesus, however, bids Peter pay the tax for both, to avoid giving offence. In other words, Jesus regarded Himself and members of His Kingdom as released from every obligation to pay the half - shekel for the service of the temple, even if, in tender concession to the feelings of others, they did not avail themselves of tlieir liberty. The temple-due in question was not definitely commanded in the Law, though it was a not unnatural deduction from Ex 30^^ which was itself a development of the rule of

Nehemiah that there slioukl be an annual pay- ment of a third of a shekel for the temple service (Neh W--^^). The temple itself, Christ predicted, would be destroyed. However we may explain the saj-ing, ' Destroy this temple, and I will build it lip in three days' (Jn 2^''), He certainly foretold in His eschatological discourse (Mt 24-) the over- throw of the literal temple, and therewith naturally the cessation of the Jewish cultus.

It is not improbable that the saying, 'Destroy this temple,' should be similarly interpreted. The autlienticity of the utter- ance is ffuaranteed by the use made of it in the trial of Jesus (Mk 145S), and the similar accusation at the trial of Stephen (Ac Gi-*), as well as the taunt addressed to Jesus on the cross (Mk 15-y). It is true that the author of the Fourth Gospel interprets the saying as a reference to the body of Christ, fulfilled in the death and the resurrection. But this inter- pretation did not at the time occur either to the Jews or to the disciples. The retort of the former showed that they under- stood the reference to be to the literal temple, while the E\an- gelist ex])ressly says that the interpretation he adopts occurred to the disciples only after the resurrection. It is, in fact, very difficult to believe that the saying referred to the death and resurrection of Jesus. In its connexion with the desecration and cleansing of the actual temple the allusion could natural!}- be nothing less than to its destruction, unless Jesus made His meaning clear by pointing to His body. But in that case the misunderstanding on the part of the Jews and the disciples would have been impossible, even if we leave aside the objection that so unveiled an allusion to His death and resurrection at this early period is most unlikely. Moreover, the contrast with the temple made with hands (Mk 1458) does not at all suit the human body. A difficulty, however, is raised by the Johannine version of the saying. We may, perhaps, assume that the latter is to be jireferred to the version of the witnesses at the trial, in that it refers the work of destruction not to Jesus Himself, but to the Jews. Their present course of desecration, if they persist in it, will lead to the destruction of the temple. But it is not easy to believe that Jesus can have said that He would rebuild the temple that had been destroyed. Here the version of the witnesses is intrinsicallj- the more credible, that He would build another temjile in its place. And the contrast between the temple made with hands and the temple made withoi:t hands bears also the stamp of authenticity ; the new is not simply to be a reproduction of the old, it is to be not a material, but a spiritual, structure. We niaj' therefore conclude with some confidence that Jesus definitely anticipated the de- struction of the centre of Jewish worship and the substitution of a spiritual temple in its place.

In the conversation with the woman of Samaria (Jn 4), Jesus is represented as dealing sjjecifically with the question of the legitimate sanctuary as against the Samaritan temple (vv. -"'-''). He gives His verdict in favour of the temple at Jerusalem, but He asserts that the hour has already come for both sanctuaries to lose whatever exclusive legitimacy they may possess. The true worship of God transcends all local limitations ; for (jod is spirit, and as such cannot be localized ; and the worship He desires is a worship in spirit and in trutli. There is no reason whatever for supposing that here the Evangelist is putting his own doc- trine into the mouth of Jesus. The pregnant aphoristic form and penetrating insight of the saying stamp it as authentic. Moreover, it is quite in the line of the other teachings of Jesus with reference to the temple. He recognizes that the temple is His Father's house, and yet looks forward to its destruction ; and similarly here He asserts the legitimacy of the JewLsli as against the Samaritan tem]ile, and yet looks forward to the sjieedy termination of Avorship in it.

5. It is certainly a very striking fact, in view of the immense importance attached in Judaism to the rite, that Jesus nowhere raises the question of the permanence of CiFcumciaion. Had He pro- nounced upon it, the bitter controversy excited by the question in the primitive Ciiurch could hardly have arisen. But, naturally, occasion for discussing it did not so readily arise, and it was part of the method of Jesus to leave questions of practice to be settled by His disciples under the guidance of the Spirit and in tlie light of principles with which He had imbued them. There can be no reasonable doubt that St. Paul drew the true Christian inference. The great principle, that

the external was unimportant in comparison with the inward, expressed in the abolition by Jesus of the Levitical laws as to unclean food, and in His doctrine that for worship in the material temple there was to be substituted worshiii in spirit and in truth, carried with it the conclusion that as a purely external rite circumcision could have no place in the religion of the spirit. Moreover, it was the sign of the Old Covenant ; but Jesus knew that His blood consecrated a New Covenant. This implied the abolition of the Old Covenant, and naturallj' the abolition of circumcision, which was its sign. Indeed, the Old Testament itself was on the way to this, not simply in Jeremiah's predic- tion (SP'"^*) of the New Covenant, but in the pro- phetic demand for a circumcision of the heart ( Jer 4* 9-« ; cf. Ezk 44^ Lv 26«). Here, as else- wliei'e, the attitude of Jesus linked itself closely to that previously taken bj^ the prophets. Nor must we forget that Jesus contemplated that His religion would become universal. This in itself suggested the abolition of a rite which possessed no spiritual value, and was at the same time an almost insuperable barrier to the wide acceptance among the cultured of a religion that required it for full membership. See, further, art. Circum- cision.

6. We have left till the last the much-debated passage Mt o^"'"", since it is helpful in our inter- pretation of it to have before us the application of the principle in detail. The opening words of the passage, ' Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets,' show clearly that Jesus was conscious that His teaching might not un- justihably seem to carry this implication with it. There was an element which suggested a revolu- tionary attitude, but it Avas a mistaken inference that He meant to destroy the Law or the Prophets ; it was His intention to fultil them. It is important to observe here and elsewhere the way in which Jesus combines the Prophets with tiie Law. Un- like the current theology of His time. His teacliing brought the Prophets into equal prominence with the Law ; and it is of the OT system as a whole that He is thinking, and not simply of the legal enactments which constituted for the Rabbis almost the whole of religion. Yet it would be a mistake to infer that tiie Levitical requirements are here left out of sight. It is true that both the Rabbis and Jesus recognized degrees of importance among the laws, though their emphasis Avas very diiler- ently placed. Yet the Levitical laws were equally with others regarded by Jesus as laAvs of God, so that, in a comprehensive statement of tiie relation of His teaching to the religion of the OT, He could not leave them out of account. Now, Ave have already seen that the teaching of Jesus came into conflict not simply Avith the Tradition of the Elders, but Avith the Levitical laAvs of purity ; that He ex- plicitly abolished the laAvs of clean and unclean food, and looked forAvard to the cessation of the temple Avorship. Accordingly, Ave must give .such a sense to His Avords as Avill harmonize the ex- planation of His intention not to destroy the LaAv Avith the fact tiiat He did abolish some of its precepts, and contemplate the impossibility, through the destruction of the temple, of a large part of its injunctions. The unifj-ing con- ception is contained in the Avord 'fulfil' (■7r\7]p&&aL). Jesus does not mean that He came to render a perfect obedience to the LaAV and the Projjhets in His oAvn life. The fulfilment forms an anti- thesis to the destruction. The destruction Avas such as AA'ould be accomplished by His teaching, not by His action, and similarly the fulfilment is something effected by His teaching. Besides, it is very difficult to believe that Avith the freedom of His principles, Jesus should haA'e attached any

imijortance to the perfect carrying out in action of the Law and the Prophets. What is meant is that, to use a familiar ilhistration, the gospel fulfils the Law as the flower fulfils the bud. Jesus sees in the Law a Divinely ordained system, but He is conscious that it is stamped with immaturity and defect. His function is to bring out its in- trinsic significance by disengaging and carrying to perfection the principles entangled in it. Thus He does not abrogate the Law, but He transcends it, and, in doing so, antiquates it. In Beyschlag's words, it is ' confirmed and transformed in one breath.' What this means is admirably explained by Stevens in the following words: 'Jesus fulfils the OT system by rounding out into entire com- pleteness what is incomplete in that system. In this process of fulfllment all that is imperfect, provisional, temporary, or, for any reason, needless to the perfect religion, falls away of its own accord, and all that is essential and permanent is conserved and embodied in Christianity' {The Thcologij of the New Testament , j). 19).

The two following verses (Mt 5'^-^^) create much difficultj'. They seem to assert a permanence of the Law and its minutest details, and to affirm the insignificant place assigned in the Kingdom to any Avho should set aside one of the minor commandments. In view of the attitude adopted by Jesus towards the laAv of uncleanness, the Sabbath, and divorce, it is not surprising that doubts have been expressed as to the genuineness of the saying. It is out of the question to argue with Wendt that ' the law ' is not a written law but an ideal law, for the reference to the jot and tittle implies a written law, and there is nothing to indicate that ' the law ' is used here in two different senses. Beyschlag argues for the genu- ineness of the saying, which is also attested by Lk IG'^ ' It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.' If it is genuine, the best explanation is that given by Beyschlag, that we must explain here of spiritual fulfilments. No commandment, even the most trifling, is a mere emjity husk ; each has a Divine thought which must come to its rights before the husk of the letter is allowed to perish [NT Theul. i. 1 10 f. ). It is, however, very difficult to believe that this interpretation is correct, inasmuch as it would be hard to understand what Divine idea Jesus could think was latent in innumerable trifling details of the Law. The immediate impression made by the words is surely that the Law, to its minutest details, was to be regarded as permanent. When we remember how bitter was the controversy created by the question of the Law in the Early Church, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that here we have an expression from a Jewish- Christian point of view, according to which Jesus is made explicitly to disavow the movement led by St. Paul, not indeed that St. Paul is regarded as outside the Kingdom, but as one of the least in it. It would, however, be perhaps too far-fetched to connect the Avords ' least in the kingdom of heaven ' with St. Paul's designation of himself as the 'least of the apostles.'

Literature.— The subject is discussed in tlie New Testament Theoloffies, the treatises on the Teaching of Jesus, and in the Lives of Christ and the commentaries. A ver.v able monoa-raph by R. Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Law, is devoted to the subject. Other works that mav be mentioned are : Sehiirer, Die Prediiit Jcxii in ihrem Verhdltniss ziim alien TfKtampnt und zum Jn,l,',itl,in,i (1882); Bousset, Jesu Prrdi'il !ii ihrem Gegensatz zim, .ludenthu'in (1892); Jacob, Jcsn Ste/hnti, :^inii mosaisehen (iesetz (1893); also the section ' Christus und das mosaisnhe Oesetz ' in RitSchl's Die Entgtehung der altkatholi- "ehen Kn-che - (1857) ; cf. also Hastings' DB iii. 73-76, and Extra Vol. p. 22 ff.

See also following article.

A. S. Peake.

LAW OF GOD.— We are not entitled to gather from the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels that He made any formal distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of God. His mission being not to destroy but to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5^"), so far from saying anything in disparage- ment of the Law of Moses or from encouraging His disciples to assume an attitude of indepen- dence with regard to it, He exf»ressly recognized the authority of the Law of Moses as such, and of the Pharisees as its official interpreters (Mt 23i-»).

One great aim of His teaching being, however, to counteract the influence of the Pharisaism of the time, under which zeal for the Law had degenerated into a pedantic legalism, which made outward con- formity to the letter all-important and caused the true interests of religion and morality to be lost sight of amid the Shibboleths of national ritualism, He sought to concentrate the attention of His hearers uj)on the true meaning of the Law. In doing this He practically ignoi'ed the distinctions of the scribes between greater and lesser com- mandments of the Law, and between the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (or ' the Writings'), and insisted upon the authority of Scripture as the Avord of God. What God says in Scripture, the inspired record of Revelation, is for Jesus the flnal court of appeal. ' The Scripture cannot be broken ' (Jn l(F') is a principle never once lost sight of in any controversy.

At the same time, as Jesus Himself taught as One who had authority (Mt 7"" II Mk 1"), quietly but none the less emphatically asserting His right to explain the spirit and meaning of the Divine word, He did distinguish and teach His disciples to distinguish between letter and spirit, that which was permanent and universal in the Law and that which Avas partial and temporary. It is therefore possible, and even almost necessary, Avitli a view to a clear understanding of Christ's attitude to- Avards the Law, to distinguish betAveen the Law of God, meaning by the term that Avhicli is of uni- versal validity, and those elements in the LaAv of Moses Avliich are merely associated Avith a par- ticular dispensation, a temporary manifestation of God's Avill.

1. A typical illustration of the propriety of such a distinction is found in that passage in Avhich Jesus, dealing with the question of marriage and divorce, treats the Mosaic laAv on the subject as an instance of accommodation to an imperfect state of society (Mt 19"-** |] Mk lO^-"). ' For the hardness of your heart he Avrote you this j^recept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female,' etc. (Mk 10^'^^-). Here we see at once a distinction made betAveen the Mosaic precept and the DiA-ine law. The former allowed divorce iipon certain Avell-understood grounds. Tlie Pharisees jmt their oavu lax interpretation upon this precept, and multij^lied the causes of divorce to an extent fiir beyond Avhat the pi'ecept actually justified. Christ's reply to the question of His adversaries on this point Avas simply to remind them of the original Divine ordinance, according to Avhich the marriage bond Avas made indissoluble. The LaAV of Moses permitted divorce, but the LaAV of God maintained the sanctity of the marriage bond, and this represented the point of vieAV from Avhicli the Avhole question ought to be regarded. ' They tAvain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.' In this connexion the Law of God and the LaAv of Moses are to one another in the relation of the spirit to the letter. This typical instance illustrates the principle upon Avhich Jesus proceeded in His interpretation cf the Divine laAV. His aim throughout Avas to call at-

16

LAW OF GOD

LAW OF GOD

tention to the true spirit and purpose of the Law, to that in it ■which -was of essential and permanent value. That the spirit of tlie Law, of which the letter is but the necessarily inadequate expression, is the Law of (iod, the manifestation of the Father's will for the moral and spiriturd good of His children.

2. The attitude which Jesus adopted towards the whole question of the Law, considered as the Law of God, is well exemplified in the Sermon on the ISIount, and in particular in those words which may be fitly tiiken as the motto of His teaching : ' Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil' (Mt5^^; see preced. art.). In the contrast between what ' was said by them of old time ' and His own emphatic ' But I say unto you,' we find the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of God. In the latter case He clearly speaks as God's representative, and we are reminded of John the Baptist's illustration of the difference between Christ and himself, the last of the Prophets : ' He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him] ' (Jn S^'^). In the one case, the statute which Jesus quotes, we have to do with the letter of the Law, that with which alone tlie scribes occu[)ied themselves and upon Avliich they founded their casuistical refinements. In the other case, the words ' But I say unto you ' bid us go behind the letter and get at the root of the matter, 'for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life' (2 Co 3"). Thus, in proceeding to apply the prin- ciple which He has just laid down (5lt 5'"), Jesus starts with the comprehensive statement of v.-" ' For I say unto you, That except your righteous- ness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

From this point He goes on to deal with typical instances of the difference between letter and s^jirit in the Law. He begins with a command- ment of the Decalogue, the Sixth, coupled with a corresponding passage from the ^losaic legisla- tion, ' and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment' (5-^). He says in effect, ' The spirit of the commandment is this : Anger is murder. I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother . . . shall be in danger of the judgment ' (v.--). And then, as if still further to emphasize the point that the Law is not satisfied by negative or formal obedience, Jesus shows that brethren at variance must give effect to the positive law of love before they can render acceptable worship at God's altar (Mt 5-^"-''). Nor is this enough. At a later point in His discourse, in connexion with the law of retaliation, He returns to the subject and insists upon the Divine principle of love, showing that the aim of God's Law is to make man resemble God Himself. The law of love leaves no room for enemies. A Christian has no enemies ; for by loving and praying for them he makes them friends (vv.**"^^).

So again, in another place, Jesus shows that the neighbour to whom the Law of God refers is any one in need whom one can help (Lk 10'*"^^). Again Jesus takes up the Seventh Commandment. Ac- cording to the letter it forbids the sin of un- chastity, unchaste actions, unlawful intercourse between the sexes. The spirit of the command- ment has a far higher aim. It is only one aspect of the grand law of purity. It demands purity of heart. Every impure thought, every \in chaste look, are transgressions of this law of God (Mt 5^'^-). Jesus deals with the Ninth Commandment upon the same principle. According to the letter, it forbids false swearing. According to the spirit, it is just a form of the law of sincerity and truthful-

ness. Its real meaning is that (iod desireth truth in the inward parts (vv.^"^').

Proceeding (Mt 6^^-) to the subject of religious exercises, Jesus shows that questions of ritual and outward form, upon which the Pharisees founded their ideas of 'righteousness' (diKaiocrvvriv . . , vouiv, V.') and meritorious service, are of trifling im- portance in comparison with the question of the heart's approach to God. Religion is not a per- formance, to be judged by what men can see and pronounce their opinions upon, and involving such trivial points as ritual, excellency of sy)eech, pro- priety of form, reverence and decorum of posture. It is a matter of communion of spirit with spirit, needy souls, humbly conscious of their needs, confessing their wants and desiies to One who seeth in secret, the poor in spirit hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and .so convinced of their entire dependence upon the forgiveness and compassion of the All- Merciful as to feel that for them to claim the mercy and giace of God is to bind themselves by the law of love to the duty of forgiving as they would themseh^es be forgiven. F'rom this point of view the essence of worship is prayer, — not sacrifice and ottering — the humble, fervent outpouring of contrite hearts (cf. Lk IS^o-^'*), and cordial surrender to the will of God — not questions of posture or of such material things as rich gifts (Lk 2P- '', Jn 4-^- -•*). Prayer is the kernel ; all external ordinances, whole burnt-offerings, sacrifices and the like, are but the husk (Mt 6^''*). So the prayers even of the Gentiles are of infinitely more consequence than the temple offerings, and God's house is a house of prayer for all people (Mt 2V-^- || Mk 11" 1] Lk 19« ^6, cf. Jn 2i'*-i6).

In connexion with Christ's teaching on the sub- ject of heart religion and morality, and the true meaning of the Law considered as the Law of God, an interesting case suggests itself, in which Jesus seems to anticijjate the abrogation of the Old Covenant with its laws and ordinances. It is that of His controversy with the Pharisees with refer- ence to the ceremonial ablutions which the dis- ciples were accused of neglecting (ISIt 15^'-" 11 Mk 7'"-^). Jesus defends His disciples by turning the tables upon the Pharisees, whom He taxes with setting their traditions above the express com- mandments of God Himself, and with neglecting in the interest of mere technicalities the weightier matters of the Law (cf. His denunciation of Phari- saic scrupulosity in Mt 23'*-»'' |1 Lk IP'-*'), and cites as an instance their treatment of the Fifth Com- mandment and the law of filial affection. But what calls for notice is, in particular, the circum- stance that what specially offended the Pharisees, and startled even Christ's own disciples, was His pronouncement upon the point immediately in dis- pute, the question of ceremonial ablution.s, and the whole Levitical legislation on the .subject of the clean and the unclean. In view of the fact that a large portion of the Mosaic law is taken up with and deals minutely with these very points, in view also of the fact that the controver.sies in the Early Church itself between Jewish and Gentile Chris- tians turned upon these things, our Lord's treat- ment of the question is very remarkable, and illustrates clearly the nature of the distinction wiiich, in His revision of the Law, He emphasized between letter and spirit. He practically teaches that the principle of those Levitical precepts is simply the Divine law of holiness. Kightly under- stood, they only restate in another form the com- mand, ' Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy ' ; and they are truly obeyed only by those whose hearts are renewed in every thought by the Spirit of God. The scribes who, forgetting the teaching of the prophets (for here Jesus made no essential

LAWLESSNESS

LAWYER

17

addition to Jeremiah's doctrine of the New Cove- nant or Ezelviel's doctrine of the renewed heart and the washing of regeneration, Jer SP^*''-, Ezk 36-''"-'), made the external ritual everything, and took no account of heart-religion, were on that account compared to those who should cleanse the outside of the cup and the platter, and be utterly careless as to the condition of the inside. If, on tlie other hand, the heart were purged from evil thoughts and wicked inclinations, then the life wouUl correspond, as the tree is known by its fruit, and God's law would be fuUilled in the spirit of it. The Law of God appeared thus as the per- fect law of liberty, the worship of God in spirit and in truth. In a word, true religion and true morality, the teaching of which in all their par- ticulars is the grand purpose of the Law of God, are from first to last a matter of the heart. Let the heart be pure. Let it be truly turned to God, in simple faith casting aside every care and anxious thought of the world and things of time, and trust- ing that God will deny His children no good thing, temporal or spiritual, of which, as their Father, He knows them to stand in need, and there is the secret of tiie fulfilling of the Law. All else follows from tliat. The pure in heart see God, the poor in spirit are already inheritors of the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 6^^-^* V'^'-^).

Jesus taught essentially the same truth when, in controversy with the Pharisees, He summarized the teaching of the Law and the Prophets. So far from repudiating as a mere matter of Pharisaic casuistry the question often agitated among the scribes as to whether there were any command- ments which in themselves summed up the teach- ing of tlie whole Law, He was ready to discuss such questions with them ; and when, in response to His dehnition of love to God and one's neigh- bour as the essential commandment of the Law, a scribe conmiended His answer, and said that such love was ' more than all whole burnt-oflerings and sacrifices,' He declared that he was not far from the Kingdom of God (Mk 122«-«'»).

On the same principle, Jesus at once defended His disciples against the charge of Sabbath-break- ing, and vindicated His right to perform works of beneficence on the Sabbath day, by appealing to the spirit of the ordinance. Like other parts of the Law, He showed that this was only an expres- sion of God's beneficent will for the good of man, a provision for his temporal and s])iritual welf.are. Therefore in the case of the cripple at Bethesda, He declared that, as God's providential govern- ment of the world recognized no distinction be- tween the Sabbath and other days, so Christ Him- self, as Son of God, must, like the Father, seek man's benefit even on the Sabbath. Again, as Son of Man, He no less emphatically asserted His right to interpret the Sabbath law in the interest of man, for whose benefit it was framed (Jn 5^''^', Mt 121-8 II Mk 223-28 ,1 Lk 61-5). See also artt. Ac- commodation, Authority of Christ, Law, etc.

Literature. — Crenier, Bib.-Theol. Lex. s.v. vif^o; ; Grimm, Lex. Novi Tentamenti, s.v. vifMc ; Comm. of Meyer and Alford ; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, i. 261-313, ii. 3-'io ; H. J. Holtz- mann, Lehrbuch der NT Theol. i. 29-45, 116-146 ; Beyschlag, NT Theologij, i. 37-40, 97-129 ; Weiss, Bihl. Theol. of NT, i. 107-120 ; Brig-gs, Ethical Teaching of Christ, 143 ; Gore, Sermon on Mount ; Bruce, Kingdom of God, 63-84 ; Dykes, Manifesto of the King [ed. 1887], 203-329 ; 'cf. also Literature at end "of pre- 3eding article. HUGH H. CURRIE.

LAWLESSNESS.— The service of God becomes perfect freedom through the work of the Holy Spirit restoring the Divine image more and more in the heart of man. This liberty cannot there- fore be a licence for lawlessness. St. Augustine's maxim, ' Love, and do as you like,' derives its truth from the principle that love is not the

VOL. II. — 2

abolition but the recaj)itulation of all the Divine law for mankind. The love of God and the love of man constitute the essence of the Law's de- mands and the Prophets' promises (Mt 22^"). It is not the Law which Christ denounces, but traditional excrescences and empty forms (Mk 7^^). These traditional excrescences gave op[)ortunities for hypocrisy, a condition detested by the Lord (Mt 15'-'*). The empty forms distracted attention from vital concerns (Mk T"*). The scribes and Pharisees were losing all sense of proportion in the duties of the religious life (Mt 23--*, Lk 11 •'2). The exponents of the Law were erring, yet the Law itself stood as a Divine ordinance (Mt 23^, Lk 16'''). The commandments are necessary to eternal life (Lk 18'-"). Nay, not one tittle can pass away from the Law (INIt 5'^). Perfect and com- plete obedience will be demanded of men (Mt 5'^). Not less but more will be expected of the disciples of Christ (Mt 5). And yet Christ's yoke is to be easy (Mt IP"). So there is a paradox, the solution of which lies in the recapitulation of the entire Law as consisting in the love of God and the love of one's fellow - man. The revelation of the guiding principle summing up the Law renders light a burden which the Pharisees made heavy (Lk IP*"). Mechanical conformity to a legal code is thus avoided. The conscience of man finds exercise and discipline. This point is emphasized in the Western addition to Lk 6* ' O man, blessed art thou if thou knowest wliat thou doest.' In His technical breaches of the Sabbath the Lord knew what He did (Lk U^). Yet the legalists took advantage of these to charge Him with lawlessness (Jn 9'"). Nevertheless, He came fulfilling all righteousness (Mt 3'^), and appealing to the Law in the face of temptation (Mt 4'*"'"). When He cleansed the Temple, He vindicated His action from Scripture (Lk lO'*^). There was no lawlessness in His pattern life of perfect obedience to God (Jn 15'"). Lawless eflbrts at good, however strenuous, are not acceptable (Jn 10'). Indeed, St. John sums up the matter in the words, ' Sin is lawlessness' (1 Jn 3**).

Literature.— Hastings' DB, art. 'Law (in NT)'; Bruce, Training of the Twelve, pp. 67-95 ; Kingdom of God, pp. 63-84 ; Wendt, ^Teaching of Jesus, ii. 1-48 ; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, pp. 203-220 ; Dale, Christian Doctrine, 198 ; Hobhouse, Spiritual Standard, iii. \V. B. FrANKLAND.

LAWYER {voiJ.tK6s) or 'teacher (doctor) of the law ' {i>o/ji,o5i5d(TKa\os) is found occasionally, almost exclusively in Lk., for the more usual 'scribe' {ypafj.fj.aT€^Js). The identity of these terms is shown by the following passages. 1. Lk 5''', Pharisees and doctors of the law are sitting by; but (v.^') the scribes and Pharisees begin to reason (so || Mt., Mk.). 2. Lk IP'^^- is a denunciation first of Phari- sees, then of lawi/ers ; this is parallel to Mt 23 against scribes and Pharisees ; and at its close (v.^^) ' the scribes and Pharisees began to urge him vehe- mently.' The TR reading (v.**) 'scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' which, when compared with the next verse, might imply a difl'erence between 'scribes' and 'lawyers,' is omitted by critical editors on the authority of KBCL Vulg. etc. ; and is obviously an assimilation to Mt 23-'. 3. Mt 22='^ a lawyer questions Jesus as to the greatest com- mandment; in Mk 12-8 {^ is 'one of the scribes' ; cf. also Lk 10-'> ' a certain lawyer.' i. The martyr Eleazar is called in 2 Mac 6^^ < one of the principal scribes,' in 4 Mac 5* he is a lawyer. Thus these titles are equivalent. ypa/xfiaTeiis ('scribe') is a literal translation of the Heb. n?iD (a literary mari or a student of Scrijiture), while vofj.iK6s ('lawyer,' 'jurist,' a regular term for Roman lawyers, Yulg. legis peritus), and, still hotter, vonoSiMaKoXo^, are more distinct descriptions of this class, explain-

18

LAZARUS

LAZARUS

ing to Gentile readers their character and office. Hence their comparative frequency in Luke. ' Kabbi,' the title by which they were addressed, i.s perhaps for us their best designation.

Mt. has ypa.ij.iJM-n-:^( 23 times, moix,ixo; once only (2233, where Syr-Sin omits). Mk. has ypxfx.uux.Tiui only, 21 times. Lk. has ypa.iJ.ua.Tiui \i times, besides (of .Jewish scribes) twice in Acts ; vofAixoi 6 times (7^0 1025 ii4o.4B. 5i! 14:1), ,oij.ohhd.a-xa.Xii; once (517, and in Ac 5^^ of Gamaliel). Josepluis also, while once using tipisypa.u.ix'j.Tiiii (BJ VI. V. 3), commonly uses plirases with more definite meaning for Gentile readers : (roifia-Tv,s (BJ i. xxxiii. 2, II. .wii. 8) or iir,y/iTy,i tUv rraTpiiiy vofjxkiv (Ant. XVII. vi. 2).

These titles show that the great sphere of their activitj' was the Law, whether contained in Scrip- ture or handed down traditionallj'. They studied, of course, the other books of Scripture besides the Pentateuch, but these were regarded as merely supplementary to the Law of Moses, and as them- selves presenting a revealed rule of life and con- duct ; so that the term ' Law ' is applied sometimes in the NT to the whole of the UT (Jn 10»* 15•-^ 1 Co 14-'). So also in the Mislina (see Buhl, Canon, § 3).

Their work, in all its dejjartments, is sketched in the saying ascribed to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue,' their traditional predecessors : ' Be careful in judgment, raise up many disciples, and set a hedge about the Law' (Pirkc Aboth, I. i.). They acted as judges ; they gave instruction in the Law, and trained disciples ; and they interpreted and developed the Law. Though anyone might be a judge, the office was naturally most commonly held by those learned in the Law ; and we find the leaders of the Scribes an integral part of the Sanhedrin (Mk 15' etc.). Their leaders gathered disciples round them, and taught them the tradi- tional law, instructing them by discussing real or imagined legal ca.ses ; and they developed the Law, a]iplying it to all actual and possible cases, and laying down rules to secure against its being broken. See Scribes.

LiTEBATURE.— Schiirer, HJP 11. i. p. 312 ff., and literature there mentioned ; Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., i. 93 ; artt. ' Lawyer ' and ' Scribe ' (by Eaton) in HastinL'^s' DB, and litera- ture there. HaROLD SMITH.

LAZARUS. — A common Jewish nanse, meaning ' God hath helped ' ; a colloquial abbreviation of Eleazar (cf. Liezer for Elieze.r).*

1. Lazarus the beggar, who, in our Lord's par- able (Lk 16'""^'), lay, a mass of loathsome sores, at the gateway of the rich man, named tradition- ally Nineuis (Euth. Zig.) or Pliinees (Clem. Re- cogn.). The notion that he was a leper (whence lazar-house, Inzzaretto) is impossible, since he must then have ke])t afar oil", and durst not have lain at the rich man's gateway.

This has lieeii pronounced no authentic parable of Jesus, but an ' evangelic discourse upon His words — " that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God"' (Lk 16^^), t on the following grounds : (1) Its introduction of a proper name. Nowhere else in the Gospels is a parabolic per.sonage named, and the idea prevailed in enrly times that this is not a parable but a story from real life (cf. Tert. de Anim. §7 ; Iren. adv. H(er. iv. 3. 2).

(2) Its alleged Ebionism. The contrast be- tween the two men on earth is not moral or religious. It is not said that the rich man got his wealth unrighteously, or that he treated Lazarus cruelly. The ditlerence was merely that the one was rich and the other poor, and their dooms are a reversal of their earthly conditions. ' In this parable,' says Strauss, ' the measure of future recompense is not the amount of good done

* Jvchasin, 81. 1 : ' In Talmude Hierosolymitano unusquis- que R. Eleazar scribitur, absque Aleph, R. Lazar.' t E. A. Abbott in Encycl. Bibl. art. ' Lazarus,' § 2.

or wickedness perpetrated, but of evil endured and fortune enjoyed.'

(3) Its Jewish imagery, {a) ' The beggar died, and he was carried away by the angels.' It was a Jewish idea that the souls of the righteous were carried by angels to paradise (cf. Targ. on Ca 4^ ' Non possunt ingredi Paradisum nisi justi, quorum aniniiv eo feruntur per angelos.' {h) The Jews called the unseen world Slieol ; and so closely identical was their conception thereof with that of the Greeks, that Sheol is rendered by the LXX Hades.* It was the common abode of all souls, good and bad alike, where they received the due reward of their deeds ; and it was an aggravation of the misery of the wicked that they continually beheld the felicity of the righteous, knowing all the while that they were excluded from it. See Light- foot and Wetstein on Lk IG"^^ ; cf. Rev W. So in the parable ' the rich man in Hades lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom.' (c) There were three Jewish phrases descrijitive of the state of the righteous after death : ' in the Garden of Eden ' or ' Paradise ' ; ' under the throne of glory ' (cf. Piev & 1^- '5) ; ' in Abraham's bosom.' The last appears in the parable (vv.'-"" ^^). The meaning is that Lazarus was a guest at the heavenly feast. Cf. Lk 14'-' and the saying of R. Jacob : ' This world is like a vestibule before the world to come : prepare thyself at the vestibule, that thou mayest be admitted into the festal -chamber.' Lazarus occupied the place of honour, reclining on Abia- ham's breast, even as the beloved disciple at the Last Supper reclined on the Master's (Jn 13-^).

These objections, however, are by no means insurmountable. The name Lazarus is perhaps introduced signihcantly, defining the beggar's character. He was one who had found his help in God. It was not because he Mas poor, but because God had helped him, that the beggar was carried away into Abraham's bosom ; and the rich man was doomed not simply because he had been rich, but because he had made a selfish use of his riches. The parable is an illustration and enforce- ment of the moral which Jesus deduces from the preceding parable of the ShreAvd Factor : ' Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness {i.e. earthly riches, unsatisfying and une.nduringt), that, Avhen it faileth, they may receive you into the eternal tents' (v.**). Had the rich man befriended the beggar, he would have laid up for himself treasure in heaven. He would have bound Lazarus to himself, and would have been welcomed by him on the threshold of the unseen world.

As for the Jewish imagery, it constitutes no argument against the authenticity of the parable. Jesus was accustomed to speak the language of His hearers in order to reach their understandings and hearts. He often spoke of the heavenly feast : cf. Mt 8"- '^ (Lk 13-^- -"), Lk 13-5-27 (Mt V" ^\ Mt22i-" (Lk 1416--^), Mt25'-''\ Lk 22'8 = Mt 26""= Mk 1425. And it is noteworthy how, when He employed Jewish imagery. He was wont to in- vest it with new significance. Thus, the Rabbis taught that the abodes of the righteous and the wicked in Hades were nigh to each other ; accord- ing to one, there was only a span between them ; according to another, the boundary was a wall (Midr. Kohel. 103. 2: 'Dens statuit hoc juxta illud (Ec 7"), id est, Gehennam et Paradisum. Quantum distant? Palmo. R. Jochanan dicit : Paries interponitur.') But what says Jesus? ' In all this region betwixt us and you a great chasm has been fixed, that they that wish to pass over

*Cf. Schultz, Orjheol. ii. p. 321 ff.

t Cf. Ps 233 pTi-'ljiy;?, rpiSou; hixKioa-Cyv};, in contrast to ' de- lusive tracks which lead nowhere' (Cheyne).

LAZARUS

LAZARUS

19

from this side unto you may not be able, nor those on that side cross over unto us.' The sentence, He Avould indicate, is final, the separation eternal. See Gulf.

2. Lazarus of Bethany, brother of Martha and Mary. There was a close and tender intimacy between Jesus and this houseliold (cf. Jn ip. n. sb^ From the Feast of Tabernacles (October) until tlie Feast of Dedication (December) Jesus so- journed in Jerusalem, making His appeal to her rulers and people. The former proved obdurate, and tinally jjroceeded to violence ( Jn 10^^- '•'^}. It was unsafe for Him to remain among them, and He retired to Bethany beyond Jordan (v.'*'*, cf. 1-^ KV). A crowd followed Him thither, and, un- disturbed by His adversaries, He exercised a ministry wliich recalled, while it surpassed, the work of John tiie Baptist on the same spot three years earlier. All tiie while He was thinking of Jerusalem. He would fain win her even yet, and He prayed that God would bring about some crisis which might persuade her of His Messiahsliip or at least leave her without excuse (cf. Jn II'*'- ^2). He saw not the way, but He was waiting for God to open it up ; and suddenly a message reached Him from the other Bethany tliat Lazarus was sick (Jn IP). He recognized in this turn of events God's answer to His prayer. It afforded Him just such an opportunity as He had craved. ' This sickness,' He said, ' is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Hon of God (i.e. the Messiah) may be glorihed thereby.' He did not hasten to Bethany and lay His hand upon the sick man, nor did He, abiding where He was, ' send forth His word and heal him,' as He had done to the courtier's son (Jn 4*"^'*) and the Syrophoenician woman's daughter (Mt 15-'--8 = Mk T-^-^**). He deliberately remained where He was for two days, ami tiien set out for Judrea. On His arrival at Bethany, Lazarus was dead and buried, and a large company, including many of the rulers from the adjacent capital (v.'**), had gathered, in accord- ance with Jewish custom, to testify their esteem for the good Lazarus and condole with his sisters. The situation favoured tiie Lord's design. He repaired to the sepulchre, which lay at least 2000 cubits outside the town,* and in presence of the assemblage recalled the dead man to life and sum- moned him forth in his cerements.

It was an indubitable miracle. In the sultry East it was necessary that the dead should be buried immediately (cf. Ac 5^- ^), and it sometimes happened that a swoon was mistaken for death, and the man awoke. Tiie Jewisii fancy was tiiat for tiiree days after deatii tiie soul hovered about the sepulchre, fain to re-enter and reanimate its tenement of clay ; and the bereaved were wont to visit the sepulciire to see if iiaply their dead had come to life. After three days decomposition set in, and when they saw its gliastly disfigurement on tlie face, they abandoned hope.t Had Jesus arrived within tiiree days after Lazarus' death, it migiit iiave been pronounced no miracle ; but He arrived on tlie fourtli day, when decomposition would iiave already set in (v ^^).

If anything could have conquered the unbelief of tiie rulers, this miracle must have done it ; imt tiiey iiardened their iiearts, and ail the more tiiat tiie people were ]irofoundly impressed. The San- liedrin met under tiie presidency of Caiaplias tlie liigii priest, and resolved to put Jesus to death, at the same time puliiisiiing an order tiiat, if any knew wiiere He was, tliey sliouid give information for His arrest. He did not venture into the city, but retired northward to Ei)iiraim, near the Samaritan frontier. There He remained until the Passover was nigh, and then He went up to keep the Feast

* Lightfoot, ii. p. 424. t Lig:htfoot on .Jn 11»9.

and to die. Six days before the Feast began. He readied Bethany, and in defiance of the San- iiedrin's order received an ovation from the towns- folk. Tiiey iionoured Him with a banquet in the liouse of Simon, one of tlieir leading men, who had been a leper, and liad perhaps been healed by Jesus (see art. Anointing, i. 2.). Lazarus of course was present. Tiie news tliat Jesus was at Betiiany readied Jerusalem, and next day a great multitude thronged out to meet Him and escorted Him witli Messianic lionours into tiie city. It was tiie raising ot Lazarus tliat had convinced tlieni of tiie claims of Jesus (Jn 12"- is). Tiie Triumphal Entry is a powerful evidence of the miracle. Witiiout it such an outburst of enthusiasm is unaccountable.

It miglit be expected that Lazarus of all men should liave stood by Jesus during the last dread ordeal ; liut he never appears after the banquet in Simon's liouse. His name is nowhere mentioned in the story of tlie Lord's Passion. Wiiat is tiie explanation? Enraged by the impression wliicli tiie miracle made and tlie support whicii it brougiit to Jesus, tiie liigh priests plotted tlie deatii of Lazarus (Jn 12'"- '') ; and it is probable that, ere the final crisis, he had been compelled to witiidraw from the vicinity of Jerusalem.

It was a stupendous miracle, the greatest wliicli Jesus ever Avrougiit ; yet it is not tlie supreme miracle of tiie (Jospel - story. The Lord's own Resurrection iiolds that place, and one who is per- suaded of His claims will hardly hesitate to i)e- lieve in tiie raising of Lazarus. ' He raised tlie man,' says St. Augustine,* ' who made tiie man ; for He is Himself tiie Father's only Son, tiirougii wlioiii, as ye know, all tilings were made. If, tiierefore, all tilings were made througii Him, wiiat wonder if one rose from the dead througii Him, wiien so many are daily born througii Him? It is a greater tiling to create men than to raise tliem.'

Naturalistic criticism, however, has assailed the miracle. Much has been made of tiie silence of the Synoptists, wlio must, it is alleged, have re- corded it had they known of it, and must have known of it had it occurred. Their silence in tliis instance, however, is merely part of a larger problem — their silence regarding the Lord's Judapan ministry generally, and tiieir peculiar reticence regarding the family of Bethany.

It is no exaggeration to affirm that the desperate- ness of tiie assaults whicii Iiave been directed against it constitute a powerful apologetic for the miracle. (1) The earlier rationalists (Paulus, Ven- turini), in spite of the Evangelist's specific testi- mony to the contrary, supposed that Lazarus had not really died but only fallen into a trance. He had iieen buried alive, and lie awoke to conscious- ness througii the combined influences of the cool- ness of the cave, tlie pungent odour of tiie burial spices (cf. Jn 19*'), and the stream of warm air whicii rushed in when the stone was removed. Jesus, looking in, perceived that he was alive, and bade liini come forth.

(2) According to Strauss, the story, like the t^o earlier stories of resuscitation (Mt g'*- '"• -3--« = Mk 521-24. 35-43 ^Lj^ ^40-42. 4st-56 . yn-H)^ i^ a mytli, originat- ing in tlie desire of the primitive Ciiurch tiiat tiie Messiaii siiould not only rival lint surpass His great prototypes in tlie OT. Elijah and Elis^ha had wrougiit miracles of resuscitation (1 K 17^^"-, 2 K 4**«-), and Jesus must do the like in a more Avonderful manner.

(3) Renan regarded the miracle as an imposture. ' Tired of the cold reception whicii the Kingdom of God found in the capital, tiie friends of Jesus Avished for a great miracle which should strike powerfully the incredulity of the Jerusalemites.'

* In Joan. Ev. Tract, xlix. § 1.

20

LEADING

LEAENING

And the sick Lazarus lent himself to their design. Pallid Avitli disease, he let himself he wrapped in grave-clothes and shut up in the sepulchre ; and when Jesus, believing tliat he was dead, came to take a last look at his friend's remains, Lazarus came forth in his bandages, his head covered with a winding-sheet. Jesus acquiesced in the fraud, ' Not by any fault of his own, but by that of others, his conscience had lost something of its original purity. Desperate and driven to extremity, he was no longer liis own master. His mission over- whelmed him, and he yielded to the torrent. . . . He was no more able than St. Bernard or St. Francis to moderate tlie avidity for the marvellous displayed by the multitude, and even by liis own disciples.'

(4) Later criticism is still more destructive. Not only was the miracle never wrought, but there was never such a man as Lazarus. The story is ' non- liistorical, like the History of the Creation in Genesis, and like the records of the other miracles in tlie Fourth Gospel ; all of which are poetic de- velo]>ments.' * Keini finds the germ of the story in the Ebionite parable of the Rich ALan and the Beggar (Lk lOi""^'). ' If,' says Abraham in the parable, ' to Moses and tlie prophets they do not hearken, not even if o e rise from the dead will they be jjersuaded'; and the Johannine narrative is this saying converted into a history : a man rose from the dead, and the Jews did not believe. Lazarus full of corr^^ption corresponds to the beggar full of sores. The story is thus doubly divorced from reality, • being an unhistorical de- velopment of an unauthentic parable.

Literature. — 1. Hastings' DB, art. 'Lazarus and Dives'; Trench, Bruce, Orelli, and Dods on the Parables ; PKimmer, ' St. Luke ' (ICC), in loc. ; Bersier, Gospel in Paris, p. 448 f .

2. Hastings' DB, art. ' Lazarus of Bethany ' ; the standard Lives of Christ ; Elmslie, Expository Lectures and Sermons, p. 92 ff.; Maclaren, Unchanging Christ, p. 282 ff. On the rationalistic objections to the miracle see the chapter on ' The Later Miracles ' in Fairbairn's Studies in the Life of Christ (or in Expositor, 1st Ser. ix. [1879] p. ITSflf.), where the theories of Paulus, Strauss, Baur, and Renan are fully dealt with.

D. Smith.

LEADING. — ' Lead' is used in the Gospels in its ordinary senses : intransitively in the description of the ways that lead to life or destruction (Mt 7^^' '■*), and transitively often. The OT metaphor of Jehovali as a Shepherd leading His peojile like a flock (Ps 23^ 80') is repeated in the parables repre- .senting Christ as a Shepherd whose slieep recognize and obey Him ( Jn 10^- ^- ^^). The general concep- tion of God's leading His people, so frequent in the Psahns and in Ueutero-Isaiah and elsewhere, is assumed in the petition ' Lead us not into temptation' (Mt 6^3, Lk 11^); for the true life is along a right path wherein God leads His children.

The leadership of religious authorities is referred to in the description of scribes and Pharisees as 'blind guides' or 'blind leaders of the blind' (Mt 23^'' IS'"*) ; the metaphor being based on tlie sight, familiar in Eastern cities, of rows or files of blind persons each holding by tlie one in front. But, as this saying is placed by St. Luke (6"**) in im- mediate connexion with the appointment of the Twelve, it may be presumed that Jesus pressed on His disciples the necessity of their recognizing and qualifying for tlie duties of true leadership. They are required to have light and to let it shine, to be, in short, 'men of light and leading.'

The position of Jesus as a Leader is most fre- quently expressed in terms of following. The imperative ' Follow me ' is addressed to individuals, as Peter and Andrew, James and John (Mt 4'8- -'), Matthew (Mt 9«), and Philip (Jn 1«) ; and to un- named disciples or listeners (Mt 8" 19-'). It is repeated in the fundamental law of the Kingdom, where self-denial or cross-bearing is enjoined (Mt 1624, Mk 8^*, Lk 9-3, Jn 12'^«) ; but here the refer- * E. A. Abbott, art. 'Lazarus,' § 4, in Encyc. Biblica.

ence is to Jesus as a supreme example rather than a present guide, and the instruction is primarily spiritual. It may be said that during His whole public ministry Jesus was leading and training disciples to carry on His work ; while the risen Christ is the Head of the Church and the Leader of the Christian army (Mt 28'8-20).

Four times the term 'Leader' {dpxvyos) is applied to Christ: in the EV phrases 'Prince of life,' 'Prince,' 'Captain (RV 'Author') of salvation,' 'Author of faith' (Ac 3'^ o^'. He 2'" 12-); and a similar meaning is expressed by ■n-podpofx.o?, ' Fore- runner ' (He e-"). In the.se passages the leadership is through death from life on earth to life in heaven.

Literature.— H. Bushnell, The yew Life, p. 74 ; Phillips Brooks, Mystery of Iniquity, p. 171 ; B. B.' Warfield, Power of God unto Salvation, p. 151. J{_ SCOTT.

LEARNING. — To what extent did learning pre- vail in Palestine in the time of Christ ? and is it correct to say that He Himself and His Apostles and disciples were illiterate ?

Higher education existed at least in the col- legiate institutions of the cajjital. From the restoration following the epoch of the Exile there was a class of men who are known to us as ' scribes ' (sojiherim). Their point of union was their knowledge of the Law, and Scriptures, and Traditions. So far they are parallel to the shastrif, who are the authorities on Hindu litera- ture. Ezra, the second founder of the theocracy and a man of priestly birth, is designated a scribe (Ezr 7®). From his date measures were taken, directed to the establishment and maintenance of the .sacred authority of the Law. The scribe was an interpreter to the peojile. The period of higher inspiration was giving place to an age of didactic literature. And a succession of able scribes arose who expounded the sacred books, clierished and enlarged tradition, determined the details of re- ligious observance, and wrote the Law in its ex- clusiveness on the minds of the people. They were at their best in the 4th or 3rd cent. B.C. ; but they continued for many centuries. Pharisaism was a development of tliem, and they are also connected witli the later books of Wi.saom, while in the po.st-Cliristian period their chief men are the Rabbis. Part of their work consisted in the training of young scribes, and for this end schools or colleges were formed. In these the Scriptures formed a literary and theological basis, the Law, traditions, and national history were expounded, and judgment was given on the problems and practical questions of the time. This education was professional, and contained no secular culture ; and it was intensely national or JcMish. Yet here as elsewhere there were varieties of opinion and diverging tendencies. The schools of Hillel and Shammai were rival institutions in the years pre- ceding the birth of our Lord. A generation later Hillel was succeeded by his perhaps more liberal grandson, Gamaliel, to whose classroom St. Paul came from Asia Minor to be trained in the Law.

Other schools less exclusivel}' religious, more akin to Greek institutions, are known to have existed in Jerusalem and other towns, where especially the sons of men not ojiposed to the Roman occupation might be trained for public life. Jews of the Dispersion were at home in the Greek language, and had more immediate access to Greek literature. About the time of Christ several of the later apocryphal books were written. Culture was widespread, and at least two Jews belong to general literature : Pliilo the philosopher of Alexandria, who endeavoured to reconcile Hel- lenism and Judaism ; and Josephus the historian, who was brought up in Jerusalem.

But the work of the scribes w-as not confined to

LEAKNING

LEAVEN

21

' higher education.' In every village they had planted a synagogue, and in connexion with every synagogue an elementary school was ultimately opened. For many centuries the training of the young was a duty enjoined upon parents. About B.C. 75, Simon ben Shetach, a scribe and Pharisee, is said to have carried a law requiring boys to attend ' tlie elementary school.' Probably before that date a lower school system (such as was known to exist in the Greek world) was tentatively tried in all leading centres. Now education was made compulsory. The schoolroom, known as the ' house of the book,' was either part of the synagogue or of the teacher's house. The teacher, or hazzan, belonged to a humble rank of the fra- ternity of scribes. Lk (5'') refers to a gathering of teachers of the law (co/^coSiSdcr/caXot) from every city and village of the land. Whether or not school- masters are included, the reference implies a wide diffusion of education.

The instruction given in these schools is con- sidered by Ramsay (Education of Christ) superior to that of Greece or any other ancient land. The subjects of study and methods of teaching were calculated to call forth and develop the best mental faculties of the bovs. In the choice of subjects the theoretical and practical were suc- cessfully combined ; and pujjils were taught both to think and to act, while maxims of duty were graven on their memories. The standard of aver- age intelligence was therefore high. And while in most cases no regular secondary education fol- lowed, it is to be remembered that the synagogue remained a place of instruction rather than of formal worship, and also that talented young men could carry reading and study farther tiian public provision was made for. Whether any of the leading disciples were educated in Jerusalem can- not be definitely known. But they were not ignorant. On the contrary, they were men of keen intelligence and ardent spirit, who had been cherishing the Messianic hope and found in Jesus the realization of their dreams.

Ancient literature was mainly religious ; and learning is founded on liter.ature. But though the circle of learning had religion as its centre, it in- cluded some study of all the ol)vious phenomena of nature. Modern discovery is proving that not only famous countries such as Egypt or Baby- lonia, but also peoples whose very names were formerly unknown, had a developed civilization and system of thought. Amongst the Israelites Moses and Solomon are credited (Ac 7", 1 K 4-^"*'') with all the knowledge the world then possessed ; and to the latter are attributed not only poetry and philosojjhy, but also an exhaustive knowledge of Natural History. The people were skilled in music and in works of architecture. But while Israel was producing its prophets, the imaginative genius of Greece was creating a secular literature and founding sciences. Gradually Greek influence extended to all lands. It was felt in Jerusalem even in the days of greatest exclusiveness. Greek was the language of the Hellenistic Jews, and the Septuagint was their Bible. Greek ideas were thus diffused over the surface of Hebraic religion, and helped to enrich the thought and life of the planters of Christianity. Of the NT writings it may confidently be siiid that they are not the work of unlearned men. St. Paul Avas probably much more learned than his letters show (Ac 263. 24)_ The Johannine writings are artistically conceived, and studded with gems of thought and expression. The Epistles to the Hebrews and Ephesians show an imaginative scope and a rhe- torical power scarcely surpassed. St. Luke had a literary faculty rare amongst pliysicians. It is true that Peter and John are styled ' unlearned '

(Ac 4^^) ; yet this is but the technical description (dypd/ji,fji,ciToi. K-ai idiwrai) of men who had not gradu- ated in the colleges of the scribes. If not many noble were called (1 Co 1-'^), there were at least some who combined spiritual insight with literary culture, and who were able to express the new ideas in forms whose beauty is partially hidden by their Divineness.

Of Jesus Himself His enemies asked (Jn 7^^), ' How knoweth tliis man letters (ypd/j.iJi,aTa), having never learned ? ' No doubt it was true that He had never studied Jewish theology at any of the great Rabbinical schools. But not only did He have a thorough knowledge of the letter of the OT, as He repeatedly showed (see, e.g., Mt 5"-i-«

2415. 37ff. 2Q^i 27^**), but He revealed an insight into Scripture and an expository skill (and this was what the Jews specially meant by His 'knowing letters') at which they were compelled to marvel ( Jn 7'°*). This ' learning ' of Jesus, for ypdiJ.fiaTa in Gr. (like Lat. literce, Eng. 'letters') is synonymous with 'learning,' had its human side without doubt. His education in Scripture would begin in the family circle, and most probably be continued in a synagogue school. In early youth He showed His interest in the synagogal instruction (Lk '2^"), and ever afterwards it was His 'custom' to frequent those services of the synagogue at which Moses and the Prophets were read and explained {Lki^^). But His ' learning ' and consequent • teaching,' on the spiritual side, as He Himself declared, came from an inward and Divine spring (Jn 7'^' "), a saying which helps to explain the statement of two of the Synoptists (Mt 7-« II Mk l'-^), ' He taught thein as one having authority, and not as the scribes ' [ypapLfxaTels). See also art. EDUCATION.

Literature. — Hastings' DB, art. ' Education ' ; Sehiirer, HJP II. i. 323-350, ii. 47-52 ; Edersheim, Life and Times, i. 228-234 ; Stallier, Imago Christi, pp. 147-164. R. SCOTT.

LEAVEN. — The effect of leaven upon dough to which it is added is due to minute living organisms disseminated through it in great numbers. These organisms are one or more species of yeast-fungi. They are the most important agents of the alcoholic fermentation, which they produce in dough as well as in solutions of sugar. Whether lodged in sour dough (leaven) or collected free out of fermenting vats (compressed yeast), they cause the same ettect when introduced into bread sponge. At the pre- sent time leaven is not so much used for the light- ening of bread as yeast, because it is apt to impart to bread a sour taste and a disagreeable odour.

Yeast-fungi were first recognized (1680) by the Dutch naturalist Leuwenhock in the scum floating on the surface of fermenting beer. With his imperfect lenses he was able to observe little of their structure bejond the fact that they were very small globules. They are now known to be single - celled plants, having for the most part an oval or ellipsoidal shape. The in- dividual yeast-cell consists of a mass of protoplasm enclosed in a delicate wall of cellulose. The protoplasm, as in the case of all the fungi, contains no chlorophyll, and is, accordingly, dependent upon organic matter for its nourishment. It is granular, and usually shows one large non -contractile vacuole or several small vacuoles containing water. It has also a nucleus, which, however, can be brought into view only after special treatment. The size of the yeast-cell varies from 1-5 microns to 15 microns in diameter. (The micron equals ir-^hnn inch). During the inactive stage the cells are isolated, but in an actively fermenting medium they occur in groups or families, organically united and consisting of from two to six or eight members "in varying stages of de^•elopment. When the mem- bers reach maturity, they separate from one another, each one having the capacity to produce a new group. This is the method by which the plant propagates itself. An isolated cell sends out a little pimple or bud on the surface. The bud is destined to become an independent cell of the same size as the cell which produced it ; but, before it is mature, it may itself form a bud which in turn may form another bud of its own, the mother-cell m the meantime forming a second bud at a different point. A sort of chain of sprouts, usually curved, is formed as the result of this process of biutdincj or gemmation. The suc- cessive buds round up and finally separate themselves as in-

22

LEAVES

LEBB^EUS

dependent individuals. Pasteur, to whose elaborate investiga- tions we are deeply indebted for our knowledge of the agents and the process of fermentation, found that two cells produced eiglit in two hours at a temperature of 13 degrees C. The multiplication is more rapid at a higher temperature.

Yeast-fungi secure their food for the most part from weak solutions of grape-sugar. They convert grape-sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide. Tliis conversion is known as the alcoholic fermentation. The same action takes place in moistened wheat- flour when yeast is mixed with it. The wheat grain contains a ferment, diastase, whose function is the conversion of the in- soluble starch of the grain into soluble grape-sugar for the nourishment of the embryo when the grain germinates. Dias- tase is present, of course, in wheat-flour, and when the condi- tions of moisture and temperature are supplied, as in a gently heated bread sponge, it effects the same conversion as under natural conditions in the germinating grain. Some of the flour starch is changed into grape-sugar, in which the yeast-cells excite the alcoholic fermentation. Tlie bubbles of the gas carbon dioxide produced in the fermentation are entangled in the glutinous sponge, and, expanded by heat, puff it up or lighten it. If, now, more flour is thoroughly mixed with this sponge so as to scatter the yeast-cells of the sponge throughout the mass, the whole will shortly be leavened by the gas which continues to be given off by the agency of the rapidly multiply- ing cells. A practically indefinite quantity of flour so treated can be leavened by 'a little leaven.'

The week which began with the Passover is called 'the days of unleavened bread' (Mt 26", Mk 14'- '2, Lk 221- ''), from the practice enjoined in Ex 2315, Lv 236, Dt 16^- ^- «.

The effect of leaven in raising a mass of dough (see above) is the basis of our Lord's parable of the Leaven (Mt 13^, Lk IS-"- =•), which sets _ forth the gradual and pervasive influence of the Kingdom of (Jod upon the whole of human society.

The fermentation produced by leaven was re- garded as a s])ecies of putrefaction, and this, together with the tendency of leaven to sjjread, explains the figure in which ' the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees ' stands for their corruj^t teaching (Mt IB"- ", Mk 8^^), or, as St. Luke puts it more specilically in the case of the Pharisees, their hypocrisy (Lk 12'). ' The leaven of Herod ' (.Mk 8^^) similarly denotes the policy of the Herodian party.

Literature. — Trench, Dods, Bruce, Orelli on the Parables ; Winterbotham, Kingdom of Heaven, 70 ; Drummond, Stones Rolled Away, 144 ; Scott-Holland, God's City, 143 ; Macmillan, Two Worlds are Ours, 153 ; R. Flint, Christ's Kingdom, 170.

W. L. PoTEAT and James Patrick.

LEAVES.— The tree is often used in NT as a symbol of the life of a man. Leaves are the in- dication of the existence of life in the tree. The barren fig-tree was cursed by our Lord because it had leaves only (Mt 2V^, Mk IV^) and no fruit. See Fig-tree. We have here a type of religious profession unaccompanied by practice, a spiritual condition which always drew from our Lord the strongest condemnation.

The putting forth of leaves by the fig-tree is referred to by our Lord as one of the indications that summer is nigh (Mt 24^2, Mk 1328). See Robertson Nicoll, Ten Minute Sermons, 59.

C. H. Prichard.

LEBB^US. — The name ' Lebbseus ' has com- pletely disappeared from the RV ; in the AV it occurs (Mt 10^) in the list of the Apostles : ' Leb- beus, whose surname Avas Thaddeus.' [On this spelling see Scrivener's Paragraph Bible, p. Ixxxi, note 3]. This is the reading of the Received Text, which is still maintained in the Patriarchal Edition of the Greek Testament (Constantinople, 1904), and supported by most of the Greek MSS, to which was added lately the Palimpsest of Cairo. The modern critical editions are unanimous in the omission of ' Avhose surname was,' but are divided about the name itself, reading either ' Thaddseus,' as Lachmann, Tregelles, WH, RV, or ' Lebba;us,' as Alford, Tischendorf, and WH in the margin. The question of reading is here of singular importance ; for the name is one of the test passages of textual criticism in the NT. WH (§ 304) adduce the read- ing ' Thaddseus ' found only in KB as proof of the

unique excellence of these MSS, and are inclined to attribute the name ' Lebbisus ' to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk 2i'*) within the number of the Twelve. But if so, Avhy was this attempt not made in Mk 2>^^ ? There ' Lebbseus ' is attested only by D and the Old Latin MSS a b dff i q r, whereas in Mt. D has the support of at least one Greek minuscule (122), of k — the oldest Latin witness, spelt iebbceus [the others, a b (f It gat, read in jNlt. ' Judas Zelotes '] — and of all witnesses for the TR. The reading of the latter is ajjparently a conflation of the name Lebbtieus (Mt.) with the name Thad- dajus (Mk.) ; while D, as is its custom, assimilated Mk. to Mt. Allen (EBi 5032) sees in ' Lebbreus ' the ' Western ' gloss of a copyist, wdio connected the name Thaddieus with thMd = mamma, and wished to substitute a not dissimilar name, which should be more approinnate to an Apostle and less undignified.

A trace of the name ' Lebbseus ' is also found in the list of the Apostles as given in Tatian's Dia- tessaron according to Ishodad; but here 'Lebbseus' is inserted between ' James ' and ' son of Alphai,' and Judas Jacobi is added afterwards (see Zahn's Com. on Mt. , and Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephar- reshe, ii. 270). The Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahlul exjjlained that Judas Thomas was called Lebbceus and Thaddceus on account of his wisdom. Very curious is the testimony of the MSS of the Evartgeliariitm Hierosolymitanum. The MSS AB give 'p jiD'D nxn npriNT y-\n Dva'Vi

C has 'p JD'D npm jnn mv'^i

Here DivS seems to be a combination of ' Leb- bseus ' and ' Judas,' and npn a confusion of ' Thad- dseus ' with ' was surnamed.' In the A}). Const. vi. 14, cod. h spells \evaios, viii. 25, cod. d Ae^aios ; it is a pity that the new edition of Funk does not contain the lists of the Ajiostles given by de Lagarde, p. 282 f. In Ap. Con.st. vii. 46, Judas Jacobi is mentioned as third bishop of Jerusalem. The list of Lag. p. 283, distinguishes Judas Jacobi as the tenth Apostle from QaSSalos 6 AejBalos /cat 'lot'Sas as the eleventh. In the Synaxaries of the Greek Church (1) Judas (in Lk. ), ' who is called by Mt. and Mk. Thaddseus and Lebba;us,' the brother of Jesus after the flesh, is celebrated on the 19th June, and, together Avith the other Apostles, on 30th June, as the last of them. From him is dis- tinguished (2) the Apostle Thaddseus, who is also Lebbseus, one of the Seventy, celebrated on the 21st August ; and (3) Judas Zelotes on the 22nd May.

As supplement to the art. Ji'das (i. 906), it may be stated that this strange combination ' Judas Zelotes,' mentioned above as the reading of the Old Latin MSS in Mt 10*, is attested for Rome by the chronographer of the year 334, by the list of the canonical books of the year 382 ; and for Ravenna by the mosaics of the great Baptistry (5th cent.). From the oldest JISS of the Mar- tyrolngium Ilicronymianum it would appear that also in the name of the 2Sth Oct. ' SS. Simon and Jude App. MM.' the latter name is not an abbreviation of Judas Jacobi, but of Judas Zelotes.

The meaning of the name ' Lebbseus ' is equally doubtful. The explanation corcuhim by Jerome (after the surname of Scipio Nasica) is not proved. For relationship with Levi the spelling Aevaios and Aaj3id might be adduced, against it the double bb. A I at the beginning of a name may have the same origin as the L in Lulianus = Julianus, Lestus = Justus, etc. J. Lightfoot {Hor. Hob. 325) derived ' Lebbseus ' from the home of the man, and so already Ishodad. Josephus {Ant. xiii. § 97) men- tions a town Lemba in Moab, which he calls Libba (xiv. 17 [v.l. Libias]). Dalman ( Words of Jesus, 50, Granimatik-, 178) compares Phcen. xn'? {CIS i. 147), and Sinaitic 'NnS (Euting, Sin. Inschriften, 421) and denies affinity with Levi. Finally, the name Labbu ( = Nebo) may be compared in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai.

That there was another Judas besides the traitor among the Twelve is attested by Jn 14^^, and it is

LEGION

LEGS

23

possible that later his name was less used to avoid remembrance of the traitor and confusion with him, and that his original name ' Judas ' was re- placed by ' ThatUla3us ' in Mk. and by ' Lebbseus ' in Mt. (if this be the true reading for Mt.). In Ac V^ we have three names — Joseph, Barsabbas, Justus ; in a similar way we should get here three or even four — Judas, son of James, Lebbaius, Thaddteus. The testimony of Origen (c. C'els. i. 62 [Berlin ed. i. 113]) is rather confused. Against Celsus, who mentioned ' publicans and sailors ' in the plural among the ten or eleven followers of Jesus, Origen says that by the sailors Celsus may mean the sons of Zebedee ; but of publicans there was only Matthew among the Twelve. Even if the publican Aeu??s (so cod. A, Aevts P) followed Jesus, yet he was not of the number of the Twelve, ei firj Kara tlvo. tcDc avriypdcpiov toO /card MdpKov evayyeXlov. Did Origen know the reading of D and its Latin allies in Mk. , and identify Leb- bteus with Levi ? *

Literature. — See vol. i. pp. 103, i.")?, 906 ; and below at end of art. TuADD^us. Eb. NeSTLE.

LEGION (Xeyiwv [Xeyeuv], a loan-word from the Latin legio, which meant originally a ' gathering ' of the citizen army of Rome). — The word 'legion' occurs in two contexts in the Gospels. One is in the scene at Gethsemane, when Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's slave (Mt 26''^) ; the other occurs in the narrative about the man with the unclean spirit in the country of the Gerasenes (Mk 5"- 1^ Lk 83« ; but not in Matthew's account, which gives two men). In both cases the reference is to the large number of jiersons who compose a legion : in the one case the legions of angels are at the disposal of Jesus, if He asks for them ; in the other the great number of evil spirits can be de- scribed only by the name ' legion.' The present writer cannot recall any such use of the word ' legion ' in non-Christian authors. It seems certain also that in the NT the word is not a translation of any Aramaic word. The conclusion is that, if Aramaic is behind the passages where the word occurs, the expression was imported into that lan- guage from Greek, and reveals the great im- pression made on the minds of Orientals by the vast organized unity of the Koman army, with which they had become acquainted since the Roman occupation of Syria by Pompej' (B.C. 64-63). At least three and often more (see Hardy's Studies iti Roman History, 181 ff. ) legions were quartered in that province during the whole of the 1st cent. A.D. , and the sight of these mag- nificent troops, as they marched in column along the great roads of the country, must have power- fully impressed the natives with the numbers and power of the Roman people. An innumer- able number of persons came to be spoken of as % legion.

The full strength of a Roman legion was about BOOO men, or about that of a modern infantry division, but the subdivision was different. In- stead of brigades, battalions, companies, and sec- tions, there were 10 eohortes, each commanded by a tribiiniis inilitum, 3 manipuli in each cohors, and 2 centurice in each manipulus. The uniform of all ordinary legionaries was the same. The legion was commanded by a legatus legionis [lieutenant-general). See also Band.

Literature. — W. Ramsay, A Manual of Roman Antiquities, revised and partly rewritten by R. Laneiani, 15th ed. (London, 1894) ch. xli. (on p, 459 f. there are references to other literature).

Alex. Souter.

* On the reading &x}>h«.'io; i InxXritiik liijijia.7o? for Mt. see V. Soden, i. p. 1074, and ih. p. 1313 for the reading of D in Mk. What, according to v. Soden, the true reading in Mt. is we have not been able to discover. The MSS nB represent, accord- ing to him (and others), the recension of Hesychius.

LEGS (Jn 19^"-)-— The breaking of the legs with a heavy club or bar (cr/ceXo/coTrta, rrurifragiurii) was inflicted as a capital punishment on slaves and others who incurred the anger of irresponsible masters (for reff. see Westcott's note). Tlie victim, Mith legs broken, hands cut off, and otherwise mutilated, was thrown still alive into a pit ; often the deathblow was given in some other way ('fractis cruribus occiduntur,' Ammian Marcell. Hist. xiv. 9). Crurifragium formed no part of crucihxion itself, but was perhaps usually added in Judtea to .secure a speedy death, as otherwise tliose crucified might linger for several days (cf. Lactantius, iv. 26, ' His executioners did not think it nece.ssary to break His bones, as was their pre- vailing custom'). Death would then ensue in one of the following ways — (1) From shock; in which case it would be immediate. (2) From hoemor- rhage ; such blows given by a heavy bar migiit cause complete tearing of the skin, producing what is known as 'a compound fracture,' which would speedily result in bleeding to death owing to the tearing of the blood-vessels. This would be especi- ally likely to occur from the upright [losition in which the victim was suspended. (3) From gan- grene, which would ensue if neither sliock nor hfemorrhage were fatal, and woukl make recovery impossible. Thus the bodies might be removed. Edersheim .says (Life ami Times, ii. 613) : ' The breaking of the bones was always followed by a coup de grdce by sword, lance, or stroke (the perforatio or percussio sub alas), which immedi- ately put an end to what remained of life. Thus the " breaking of the bones" was a sort of increase of punishment by way of compensation for its shortening by the final stroke that followed.' Cf. Quinctilian, ' cruces succiduntur : percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat.' But Meyer is of opinion that the addition of a finishing blow by which (and tlierefore not by crurifragitim in itself) death was brought about, cannot be shown, and least of all from Jn 19^^. Crurifragium, as well as crucifixion, was abolished by Constantine, the first Christian emperor. The JeAvs did not make their request to Pilate with the desire to intensify the sufierings of Jesus and the robbers, but because only in tiiis way could they have the bodies taken down. They had in view Dt 21'-^ (though this law did not refer to crucifixion, a punishment unknown to the Israelites), more especially as they feared the pollution of the coming Sabbath, which Avas a high day (v.^^).

Jesus being crucified 'in the midst,' the soldiers would naturally begin with the robbers who were on either side, and so come last to Him. This is better than Bengel's explanation ( ' cui destinatum cruri- fragium distulerant, diuturnioris doloris causa').