THADDBUS
been a transposition, the word haviiig been written
Nn‘i Nabatiean “25. W H (Notes, 11) suppose ArSBaios to he due
a t the end of a line in the archetype.
Some corruptions are older than any of the versions,
perhaps older than the final redaction of the Pentateuch.
Thus all extant authorities give ~2p1 as the end of
i$*i
Nu. 2 3 3 , generally translated : ‘And he [Balaam] went
to a level place.’ Apart from the grammatical harshness,
however, this and every other sense which these letters
can be made to bear are alike poor, and Koenen has
suggested that at some period 6&wz the dmehpment uf
medial 3 the letters 16 had been written once instead of
twice over ; then by reading the final * as i (or sup-
posing i to have been lost before the following 1 ~ 9 1 )we
get i * w i $ q $ i (Le., i*& qh),he,went to his incanta- ASHURITES);
tions.’ This agrees with N u . 2 4 1 , where we read that
Balaam ‘went not, as at other times, to seek for
enchantments.’
E ually brilliant is Lagarde’s emendation of Ps.526. For
qnw! p l N m nY$ he writes qp@$p lyp n&i.e., ixn has
been written 1Nxn (for lip) by some scribe. Translate ‘in the
time of distress ; the sound of the flood of mighty waters shall
not come ni-h him. Finally we may uote WellhausenS
restoration o? the original of z)K. 19 26A ?=Is. 37 27J). For
1 n 3 a i ( z 7 ) :nDp *I$ he writes - p 3 a i q?? m) ( 2 7 ) : so that (see THOMAS). The evidence of the Gospels being so
v. 27 begins ‘Before me is thy rising up a?d thy sitting down
and thy going out and coming in I know. I t is worth whil:
pointing out, as a final testimony to the excellence of @ in its
original form, that this palmary emendation is not without sup-
port from @. In Is. 37 27 the *,& of MT i s omitted. I n Pasch. Thaddaeus = Lebbaeus = Barsabas, whilst Judas
z K 19 26 most documents havein6vavrr i u ~ ~ r d for s ,>&, Jacobi=Simon the Canaanite. I n the Abgar legend
~ o nnnp
but the text called 91 in the Syro-Hexaplar MSS (see col.
5019) had &&auri dvam&e& uou-ie., *>a$, the con- guished from Judas Jacobi=’lhonias.
sonantal text suggested by Wellhausen.
concluding an article of any length on the textual
sm of the Bible it is always wholesome‘ to remind
oneself of the comparative soundness of the text. That
there are blots, especially in the OT, some of them
probably irremovable, must be admitted ; but they are
not enough seriously to obscure the main features of
the narratives related or the ideas expressed. So far
as the Pentateuch is concerned we may be especially at
our ease. I t would have been impossible to separate
the documents with the minuteness which modern
scholarship has found possible if the text had been
much confused by scribal errors. And with regard to
the Prophets, though their works are less accurately
preserved than the Pentateuch, we can be sure that
textual corruption never improves the style or the
thought. The fact that so much of the Prophetical
Books is-judged by any standard-of the first rank as
literature, is the strongest proof that they have not
been utterly disfigured in transmission.
Some of the most important bibliographical references have
already been indicated above. The best general account of
the text and versions of the OT in any
67. Bibliography. language is Wellhausen’s monograph in
the fourth edition of Bleek‘s Einkitun
in dus AZte Testament, Berlin, 1878 85 275- 298; later e d f
are arranged on a different plan. Sdmewhat similar in plan
hut more confined to the special books treated of, are the intro!
ductions in Driver’s Notes on the Hehew Text of fhe Books of
Sawruel, pp. xxx-lxxxiv, and in Cornill’s Ezeeckiel 1-160.
Klostermann, quoted by Driver, p. E, says ‘Let him who
would himself investigate and advance learning, by the side of
the other Ancient Versions accustom himself above all things
t o the use of Field’s Hex&la, and Lagarde’s edition of the
Recension of Lucian. To thesespecially valuable authorities the
present writer would add any well edited fragment of the Old
Latin.
[See also Kittel, Ueber die Nokuendigkeit und M(iglichkeif
einer neuen Assgabc der hsbr. Bi6el: Sfudirn u.Erzvagun en
(1901) ; Cheyne, Critica Bi6Zicu, pt. I (Isaiah and Jeremiahf]
F; C. 8.
THADDIEUS. I n Mk. 3 13 BaAAaioc appears
tenth in the list of apostles. Aej3j3a;os is here a western
variant (D a b ff 1 i 9). In Mt. 103 BaSSaior is
1. Name. the right reading (NB) but Aaj3@ior is found
in western texts (D 1k2 Ang.), and the con-
flate As&& i, irrrrAp9eir @ass. in the late ‘Syrian text.
BaSSaios has been derived from the Heh. itjj=Syr. ihPdX=
mamma, and Ar@@aiorfrom &=cor. But Dalman (Worte
5031
THASSI
J e w , 40) connects OaNaZor with Oms& and Ae,9,9aZor with the
to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk. 2 14) within the number of
the Twelve. But we should have expected Acuris. hrppaiop=
Aweis is unparalleled. It seems clear that Asj3Baior is a
‘Western’ gloss of a cop k t who connected Od6a?os with
tht?dh=munzma, and wisled to substitute a not dissimilar
name which should be more appropriate to an apostle, and
less undignified. If Asj3j3a;or can be thus explained as an early
emendation the difficult @a&Salor remains. Dalman’s Baa-
Gaios=@euSCs is improbable. It is more likely that Qa6Gaias
by corruption in Greek or Aramaic, represents an originai
mO)n* or ~i(i)n*. For the 0 cp Bov8ovia [Bl= niiin, Neh. 7 4 3
(see HODAVIAH), Bv+ [ B * v i d . N l = h i N , EnalOj4 (see UEL);
Boue[BI=~i;(~(Ahava), Ezra8 ZI ; B&ae [A]=np$n (Helkath),
Josh. 21 31 ; BamLpeL [Bl, Bauoup [AI = ’ y i v ~ , a S. 2 g (see
Bauoj3av[ADI, -~[L]=12~~(Ezbon),Gen.4616.
the doubled 6 and the ending -aios cp q*=’Ia88aios, De VogiiC,
For
Syr. Cent. 63.
In Lk. 6 16 Acts 1 1 3 ’IodSas ’IaKdaou=Judas, .con of
James,’ takes the place of Thaddaeus. See JUDAS, 7.
be reasonably
2. Identification. I t ,may, therefore,
conjectured that Judas was the name
of the apostle, that Thaddaeus is a corruption of Judas,
and that Lebbaeus is a gloss upon Thaddaeus. Of
James, the father of Judas, nothing is known. Syr.
Cur. has here Judas Thomas, and Syr. Sin. Thomas
confused we not unnaturally find great uncertainty in
the post-biblical tradition. I n Origen (Ft-aJ ad Rom. )
Thaddrous= Lebb;eus= Judas Jacobi. In the Chron.
preserved by Eusebius ( H E 1 1 3 ) Thaddmus is distin-
I n the Acta
Thome Judas Thomas is the Lord‘s brother. Accord-
ing to the Syrian Ischodab (9th cent.) quoted by Zahn
(Einl.2263) the Diafesravun identified James son of
Alphmus with Lebbmus (note that D in Mk. 214 has
’ I ~ K w @for v Asuefv).
The earliest form of legend connected with Thaddens is that
which represents him as preaching at Edessa. A very ex-
haustive bibliography of the literature and sources of this
tradition may be found in von Dohschiitz, Ckrisfudi~drr,158*-
149’. In the account given by Eusebius (HE 113) from Syriac
sources Thaddeus the Apostle one of the Seventy, was sent
by the’Apostle Judas Thoma:to Abgar king of Edessa, in
accordance with a promise made by Christiefore his death. In
the later Syriac legend(Doctrina Addai, th cent.? ed. Phillips)
Addai is substituted for Thaddeus. f n the Gk. IIp&&rs
OdSalou (Lips. Acfa Apost. Apocr. 1273 - 278) Lehbzus is
identified with Thaddzus, one of the Twelve. For this and
the later legends which represent Thaddaeus as preaching in
Armenia, in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Persia, see Lips.
Did. Chrisi. Biog., s.z: ‘Thaddeus’ W.C. A.
THAHASH, or (RV) TAHASH (dr?~, roxoc,
[ADL]), a name in the Nahorite genealogy (Gen.
22 24f).
He is identified b Winckler (Mittkcil. d . Vordcras. Ges.,
1896, p. 207) with Tibs, mentioned in the so-called Travels of
an Egyptian (Pa+. Anasi. i. 223 ; see RP 2 I I I ) and elsewhere
a s in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes (to the N.). C$
WMM, As. n. Bur. 258. But see also TEBAH. T. K. c.
THAMAH ( n q , &Ma [BA]), Ezra253 AV, RV
T EMAH (P.v.).
THAMAR (earnap [Ti.WH]), Mt. 13. See T AMAR.
THAMNATHA (@aMN&ea [AKV]), I Macc. 950.
See TIMNAH (3).
THANK OFFERING (?l?J7)# 2Ch.2931 etc. See
S ACRIFICE, 5 29 6.
THARA (eapa [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3 3 4 AV, RV TERAH.
THARRA (eappa [BKC.aAL]), Esth. 121. See
TERESH.
THARSRISH (~$@-II), 1 ~ . 1 0AV~. ~r m TAR-
SHISH (Y.V.).
THASSI (eacc[a]l [NV]), I Macc. 2 3 . See S IMON
(I), and M ACCABEES , $5 I, 5.
1 SO Syr. Sin. Mt. 10 3 Lk. 6 16; Pesh. Lk.6 16 Acts 113.
5032
 'THEATRE
THEATRE. Although theatres and amphitheatres
wcrc erected by the Herods in Jerusalem and other
towns of Syria (Jos. .-lnt. xv.81, 96, xvi.51, xis. 7 5 ,
8 2 ; B/ i. 21 8, ii. 7 2 ) in which magnificent spectacles
were exhibited, principally in honour of the Roman
emperors, there is n o reference to them in the Gospels
or Acts. Even in narrating the death of Herod Agrippa
{ActslSzrf.), whore fatal seizure, according to the
Jewish historian, took place in the theatre at Caesarea
( - 4 ~ t .xix.82), the word does not occur. The word
theatre is absent alike from the canonical and from the
apocryphal books of the OT, and in N T is found only
in Actslgs9-3r where the theatre of Ephesus is spoken
of. I t was probably the usual place of meeting for
the assembly; and the ruins can still be seen (see
EPHESUS, 3).
I Cor. contains two probable references to theatrical
representations, neither of which is very apparent in EV.
T h e word translated ' spectacle ' ( I Cor. 49) is Blarpov,
and the whole passage seems to refer to ' t h e band of
gladiators brought out at last for death, the vast range
of an amphitheatre under the open sky well representing
the magnificent vision of all created beings. from men
up to angels, gazing on the dreadful death-struggle ;
and then the contrast of the selfish Corinthians sitting
by unmoved at the awful spectacle' (Stanley, Con'n-
f h i m s , 73). C p Heb.1033 'being made a gazing-
stock ' (&arpr@pcvor). In I Cor. 731, ' the fashion of this
world passeth away' (rapdyer 7 b uxijpa 70; K ~ U ~ O U ) ,
many have seen an allusion to the drama, drawn either
from the shifting o f the scenes, or the passing across
the stage of the gorgeous processions then so common.
Ancient history records the name of at least one Jewish
dramatist-Ezekiel, who lived in Alexandria in the second
century R.C. and wrote a 'tragedy' or dramatic poem, entitled
The Exodus ('E&tp '), of which considerable fragments are
preserved in CIernArx. (Strom. 1 q ) , Eusehius (Prej. ED. typical cases in connection with the present subject, in
928f:) and Eustathius (ad W e x d m . 25). On the question
of a Semitic drama cp CANTICLES, I 7, POETICAL LITERATURE,
B 4 (5).
THEBES. See NO-AMON.
THEBEZ (Yam), where Abimelech was killed whilst
besieging the citadel (Judg. 950 : B H B H C [BL]. BalBa~c is partial.
[A] ; 2 S. 1121and ZJ. 22 in 6 , e&M&C[E]I [BA, - M E C C ~ ~
[L]), was situated, according to Eusebius and Jerome
{OS, 26244, 1571s), 13 R. m. from Neapolis on the
road to Scythopolis. Starting from this, Robinson
plausibly identifies Thebez with the mod. T i h i s , a large
village on the W. :dope of a fruitful valley, I O m. due
NE. from Niiblus. So Buhl, Pal. 204 and the PEF
Survey.
But is this correct? TOhZs suggests rather y$. Apart from form was by means of the ' angel
this, the form of the name is peculiar. We expect some famous
fortress to be referred to. From :he point of view of SHECHEB~,
2, one may naturally think of Zephath (= Zarephath) ; "91 might
easily he written n39, out of which by transposition would come with Yahwe, though -often in the same narrative a
y l n . This seems to give greater vividness to the narrative.
T. K. C.
THECOE ( e € K r n € [AKY), I Macc.933 AV, RV
T EKOAH.
THELASAR (@K$?), 2 K.1912 AV, RV TEL- (cp further 2'. IO with e.g., 122). On the other hand
ASSAR (q.3.).
THELERSAS (eahspcac [B]), I Esd.536. See
TEL-HARSHA.
THEMAN (B&iMaN [BAQI']), Bar. 3223 AV, RV
T EMAN.
THEOCANUS ( B w K a N o y [AI, BOK. [B]), I Esd.
914 A V = E z r a l O ~ j ,TIKVAH(4.v.).
THEODOTUS ( & o h o T o C [AV]). one of Nicanor's
ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B . C . ( 2
MRCC.1 4 '9).
THEOPHANIT. The invisibility of God formed no
part of early Hebrew belief. illthoneh " it was commonlv
1. Immediate. thought that to see God (or indeed to
hear his voice Dt.433 5 2 3 8 [ z o s ] )
was dangerous and even fatal (Ex. 3320 Judg. 1322 cp
5033
THEOPHANY
Gen. 1613' Ex.36 1921 Judg. 6 z z J I K. 1 9 1 z J Is.65),
many narratives, including those just cited, record cases
in which men saw God, or at least perceived hrough
the senses that he was present, and yet lived. The
most striking of these is in Ex. 2410 ( J E ) where it is
quite simply related that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and
Abihn, and seventy elders of Israel, having gone up Mt.
Sinai, saw the God of Israel. The narrator is well
aware of the exceptional character of the occasion, for
in the next verse he expressly records that God 'laid
not his hands' upon them ; but he gives no hint that
what was seen was anything less than the fullness of
the glory and person of the deity or that it was seen
in any other way than by ordinary vision. C p Xu.
126-8 (E).
In most cases, however. it is implied that the deity,
although he makes his presence known by a physical
appearance, does not manifest himself in his fullness
to the ordinary human eye. W e may conveniently
classify the OT theophanies into those in which the
appearance is of the human form and those in which it
is some other physical phenomenon.
I. Theophanies in human form. - ( a ) Ex. 24 IO
records, as we have seen, a complete exception to the
a. In human law that the sight of God u'as fatal.
The nearest parallel to this occurs in Ex.
form* 33 IT$ ( J ) , which relates that Moses saw
the back of Yahwe as he passed away, but that even he
could not with safety see the face of Yahwe. In other
narratives, however, it is just the face of God which is
seen- Ex. 3311 (E), Gen. 3230 [31] (probably E ) ; in
Nu. 126-8 it is said that Moses, unlike others (cp Dt.
4 12 IS), in his customary and immediate intercourse with
Yahwb sees his form or tSmim8h (somerhing less distinct
than his appearance- cp Job4 16). But these are only
which looseness and inconsistency of expression corre-
spond to looseness and variety of thought. W e are
dealing with popular ideas and expressions, not with
theological and systematic thought. What is common
to the present type of theophany is that the sight of God
(6) In another type the peculiarity consists in the fact
that God is seen in human form indeed, but only by
3. In vision. means of dream or vision (cp Nu. 243f.).
So we should probably interpret the ex-
perience of Isaiah (Is. 6 ) and certainly those of Ezekiel
(Ezek. 1 etc.) and Daniel (Dan. 72 9). Cp Gen. 28
13-16 (J).
(6) But the commonest type of a theophany in human
- of YahwP ' or ' of
4.
of God ' (o& b, nin- -&J). Cp ANGEL,
5 2 ; N AME , 5 6. The narratives
clearly identify the ' Angel of YahwP '
certain differentiation is also implied. Thus in Gen. 16
the angel of YahwP who appears to Hagar is called
'YahwP who spake unto her' (3.13), and Hagar
expresses surprise that she still lives after seeing God
in a. IZ the angel speaks of Yahwk in the third person.
For further illustrations from other narratives of this identifica-
tion, see Gen. 2211 f: E x . 3 (angel of Yahwh, 71. z-Yahwh,
7m. 4a 5 7), Nu. 2232.35 (cp especially v. 35 with 24 r g ) , Judg.
21-5 611-24 (angel of Yahwh, m,.1 1 8 20&=Yahwt 7m.
14 16 23), 1923; for indications ofdifferentiations see Gen. 2 k 7 4 0
-yet cp m. 2748 Nu. 2231 Judg. lS8J z S. 24 15-17.3 See also
DESTROVER.
1 Read 'Have I even seen God and am I (still) alive?' So
R?ll,in SGOT in accordance with a large consensus of critical
npimon. See B EER- LAHAI-ROI, 8 I .
2 I n E x . 3 2 the 'angel of Yahwk' exceptionally manifests
himself in 'a flame of fire,' presumably not in human form.
3 The Vahwistic narrative in Gen. 1Sf: presents special
peculiarities. Yahwk appears to Abraham (18 I ) as three men
p. 2) who speak or are addressed sometimes in the singular
,zm.3 IO), sometimes in the plural (vu. 4 f l ) . Suhsequently
:16-33) one of the three, who is identified with Yahwk, remains
7ehind with Abraham, the other two, who are described in 19 I
5034
 THEOPHANY
In brief, the ' angel of Yahwk' is an occasional
manifestation of Yahw&in human form, possessing no
distinct and permanent personality but speaking and
spoken of, at times as Yahwk himself (cp the way in
which the word of Yahwk passes over insensibly into the
prophetic comment), at times as distinct from him.
The danger which attached to the sight of God attached
also to the sight of the angel. The two early literary
strata of the Hexateuch differ in their detailed accounts
of the angel. In J he eats, drinks, and converses with
men, and in every respect comports himself as a human
being-the narratives of Judg. 6 13 are also in many
respects similar ; in E there is a tendency to keep even
the angel from close contact with men-thus he appears
in and speaks from heaven (.g.,Gen. 2211).
At a later date, theophanies in (human) form were
denied (Dt. 4 15) or, as regularly in P, the theophany is
referred to in the barest possible terms without any
indication of its character-e..<., ' And God [or ' YahwP '1
appeared ... and spoke (said)' (Gen.171 3 5 9 ;
"9
Ex. 63) ; and thus (after the Exile) the ' angel of Yahwk
was no longer regarded as a theophany but became one
of the numerous distinct angelic personalities which
thencefonvard formed prominent objects of belief (see
A NGEL , § 3J).
z. Theophanies in which t h manifestation i s not in
human form. ( a ) Fire, in one form or another, fre-
5. Fire, quently indicated the divine presence. T h e
most notable illustrations of this are the
' Burning Bush ' (Ex. 3) and the ' Pillar of Fire ' (Ex.
13 21). In Ex. 14196 ( J ) the ' pillar of cloud'= ' the
angel of God,' v. ~ g a( E ) . For further details see the
articles B USH and P ILLAR OF FIRE. But there are a
number of other passages where fire or a fiery
appearance clearly has the same significance-e.g.,
Gen. 15 17 Ex. 1 9 18 24 17 Dt. 4 12 15.
We ought also to compare the part played hy fire in the
destruction of Nadah and Abihu (Lev. lo), of Korah and his
company (Nu. 1635). of the people at Tab'ernh(Nu. 11 1-3). in
Elijah's conflict with the priests of Baal ( I K.18 cp zK.
1 io&), in the the0 hany at Horeb (in I K. 19 II), where
fire 1s not itself the tteophany hut an accompaniment of it), in
the assumption of Elijah ( z K. 2 II), and generally in the later
literary theophanies (see helow, $3 $4 and in similes ( e g . , Is.
10 17 ; ' Yahwl: is a devouring fire, Dt. 4 24 9 3). Cp also the
Arabic stories of fiery appearances of the jinn ; Goldziber, Abh.
zur Arab. Philologie, 2 0 5 8
Even in the N T we find, in addition to citations from
or references to the Or (e.g.,Acts730 Heh.1218 ~ g ) ,
two or three instances of theophanic fire; the fire
clearly indicates, or is the accompaniment of, the divine
presence in Acts23 z Thess. 1 8 (of the second coming
of Christ) z Pet. 3 TO-TZ Rev. 101 (of an angel) ; perhaps
also Mt. 3 II = Lk. 3 16 should be compared. Generally,
however, in N T (as already in Enoch ; e.g., 10 13 21 7-10
983) fire is the instrument of the divine punishment and
does not necessarily or explicitly affirm the divine
presence. T h e transition from the older to the later
conception was facilitated by such passages as Am. 56
Is. 3314 (cp 6624) Mal. 32, and is actually seen in
certain N T passages-2 Thess. 1 8 z Pet. 3 10.12 I Cor.
313-15.
(6) The ' glory of Yahwk' ("* i i x j ) , which from Isaiah
(63) onwards (e.g., Nu.1421J Dt. 521 1241 Ezek.39~1
6. Glory of P~.8119~[1]963)expressesthemanifestation
of the divine character in nature and history,
yahwh. is used by Ezekiel to express also the fiery
appearance which, in his visions, indicates the presence of
YahwP-128 lo4 432 etc. In P the phrase is invariably
used of a fiery theophany-in the first instance of the
theophany on Sinai (Ex. 24 15 17) and, subsequently, of
that in the tabernacle-Ex. 2943 4034f. 167 I O (in v . I O
restore w i p , tabernacle, for the redactorial minx),
Lev. 96 23 Nu. 14 IO 16 19 ; cp further, I K. 8 IO$, which
is dependent on P (Corn. B i d . 108). In its last usage
as the two angels ' proceed to Sodom * but these in turn are
addressed and spdk in the singular (&.19.21)~and speak and
act as Yahwl: himself (vu. 2 1 s ) .
5035
THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
the phrase corresponds closely to the Shechinah of post-
biblical Hebrew. The fact that the ' glory of Yahu-&,'
where it indicates a fiery appearance, is so frequently
associated with cloud and the similar combination of
fire and cloud in the stories of the Pillar of Fire and
Cloud ( 9 . v . ) may be, in part at least, explained as
modified survivals of an old view, which also maintained
itself in greater purity in poetical passages (e.g., Pss.
18 29), that YahwP manifested himself in the thunder-
storm.
(c) Closely related to the term just discussed, and in
some cases almost synonymous a i t h it, are the ' Name
o1 of Yahwk' and the ' Face of Yahwk' ;
7.
the former stands in parallelism with
yahwb. of the glory of Yahw&' in Is. 5919 Ps.
102 ~ 5 . T h e most strictly theophanic
passage in which either occurs is Is. 3027, and even that
is clearly figurative. Cp N AME , 16. Generally speak-
ing, both terms are used of God as niade known to men,
hut rather by some decisive event, or otherwise indirectly,
than by a physical phenomenon. In Phoenician, on the
other hand, ' the face ' or ' name of Baal ' is a goddess-
S j n pnm, 5x1 PO ninwp (cp Baethg. B&r. 5 6 J ~ 6 7 8 ~
also N AME , 5 6 ; and see Fr. Giesebrecht's monograph,
Die AliiesfamentZiche Schutzung des Gottesnamens u.
ihre religionsgeschichtche Grundlage [19011).
Two remarks are suggested by the preceding survey.
( I ) The belief that fire, especially the lightning of the
'' storm, was the physical indication of
Yahwgs presence may lie at the base of
estimate' the belief in the danger of beholding
YahwB's face ; at the same time, it must be remembered
that analogous beliefs occur in other religions. ( 2 ) A
large proportion of the stories are connected with the
Exodus and the subsequent Wanderings. The idea of
the ' Angel ' or ' Messenger of Yahwe ' may well hare
sprung out of an attempt to reconcile the belief that
Yahwk abode in Sinai, and yet that he accompanied
Israel to Canaan (cp Ex. 2320-23): , A similar conflict
would still have called for reconciliation when Yahw&
was regarded as seated in heaven.
I n addition to the narratives of theophanies where the
theophany is regarded as sober historical fact, we have numerous
purely literary theophanies-i.e., descriptions
9. Later. clearly intended by the writers to be metaphorical
and imaginative. Some of these are conceived in
the boldest anthropomorphic manner (cp e.g., the descriptions
of Yahwl: as a warrior-Is. 65 1-6 50 156h) ; in others, figures
drawn from the storm or other natural phenomena play a large
part (c , e.,q., Ps. 18 Hab. 3).
In tge N T we haire angelophanies (see A NGE L, 0 7), but
(except as indicated above $ z a , ad$%) no occasional theo-
phanies such as the OT records. Instead, we have the life of
esus which, most clearly hy the author of the fourth gospel,
i! ut also by other N T writers, is regarded as a prolonged mani-
festation of God in the flesh (cp especially Jn. 11-3 14,and e.g.,
Rom. 11-7 Col. 1 1 5 3 2 9 Heb. 11-3). I n the same n a y the
belief in the Parotrsia is tantamount to the exoectation of a
coining theophan
Literature.- &. J. Trip, Die Theopia.ien in den Ge-
schichts6iicherndesA T(Leyden 1858); thisisprimarilya history
and discussion of the view that the 'Angel of Yahwt'= ' the son
of God.' Kosters, ' D e Mal'ach Jahwe' in Th.T, 1875, pp.
369.415. See, further, under ANGEL. G . B. G.
THEOPHILUS (&oc$lAoc [Ti. WH]), the 'most
excellent' person to whom the Third Gospel and the
Book of Acts are dedicated (Lk. 1 3 Acts11). See
GOSPELS, 37.
THERAS (espa [BA]), I Esd. 861 (cp v. 41)=Ezra
831, AHAVA.
THERMELETH(~~~MEA&[BA]),
I Esd. 5361 Ezra
2 59, TEL-MELAH.
THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
Place and time (g I). Its authorship (I 8).
Character of epistles (I 6). z Thess. (9 4A).
Thessalonian Christians (5 7). Its authorship ($5 9-15).
r Thess. ($ z x ) . Bibliography (5 16).
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written,
5036
 THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
n3t in Athens (cp I Thess. 3 I ) as stated in the subscrip-
tion to the epistles in the Te.ztus h'eceptus,
1. Place but in Corinth during Paul's first visit
and time* there recorded in Acts 18 18 This
appcnrs from the following considerations :-
i. T h e names of Silvanus and Timothy are joined with the
name of Paul in the salutations of both epistles, and they were
with Paul in Corinth during his first vislt there, according to
Acts 185, which is confirmed by 2 Cor. 1 1 9 A considerable
period had elapsed since Paul left Thessalonlca, for the fame of
the Thessalonian Christians had already spread throughout
Macedonia and Achaia ( I Tbess. 1 7 3 ) and Paul must have
laboured at least for some months in Achka, as may be gathered
from the spread of Christianity in that province implied in the
same passage. Timothy had been sent back to Thessalonica
from Athens, and had had time to return and make his report
to the apostle ( r Thess.326), and this return may fairly he
identified with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth,
mentioned in Acts 18 5. See TIMOTHY, $3 3 ; cp SILAS.
ii. On the other hand, the e istles cannot have been written
at a time subsequent to Paul's grst visit to Corinth, for the first
of them was evidently written immediately after the return of
Timothy from Thessalonica, whither he had been Sent by Paul
from Athens (I Thes!;. 36); the Thessalonian church was
apparently still a young church (I Thess. 1 g), and, finally, there
is no sign that Paul and Silvanus and Timothy were together
again after the first visit in Corinth; cp SILAS.
The epistles were written probably in the year 48 or
49,' or, according to the generally accepted chronology
of Paul's life, in 53 or 54.2 They are commonly
regarded as the earliest of Paul's epistles ; but there is
good reason for thinking the Epistle to the Galatians
still earlier.3 The notable lack in I and 2 Thessalonians
of the doctrinal element which is so prominent in most
of Paul's epistles counts for nothing in the matter of
date, for in any case they were written later than the
Council of Jerusalem, sixteen years or more after Paul's
conversion, and an interval of only some five years
separates them from the Epistle to the Romans, and still
less from Galatians and Corinthians. As a matter of
fact, the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles and the
absence of the great characteristic Pauline doctrines are
to be explained, not by the date of the epistles, but by
the particular circumstances which called them forth.
Those circumstances are indicated with sufficient
clearness in the epistles themselves. Paul had been
Thess. : compelled to leave Thessalonica before
a. he wished to do so, and under circum-
occasion. stances which made him fear for the
permanence of his work there ( I Thess. 2 17 3 T ). H e/I:
had apparently been driven away from the city by a
persecution which continued to assail the disciples after
his departure. Whether this persecution is to be
directly connected with the attack of the Jews upon
Paul recorded in Acts 17 5f: is uncertain. At any rate,
if the persecution was begun a t the instance of the Jews,
it was carried on afterwards by the Gentiles, and it was
a t their hands that the Christians of Thessalonica chiefly
suffered ( I Thess. 2 1 4 ) . ~ T h e persecution was so
severe that Paul feared his Thessalonian converts might
lose courage and renounce their faith, and he therefore
greatly desired to return himself to Thessalonica ( IThess.
2 17f. ). For some reason, however, possibly because
his friends had given bonds for his continued absence
(Acts17g), he was unable to do so, and he therefore
sent Timothy from Athens to encourage and strengthen
his converts and to bring him news concerning them
( I Thess. 3 1 $ ) . ~
It is possible that Timothy also carried a letter from Paul to
the Thessalonian church (see Rendel Harris in Ex#os. 8 174
1 According to the chronology of Paul's life adopted by
Kellner, Katkolik, 1887, 1 146x, 0. Holtnann, NTZiche
Zfgesch. (1894) Rlass Acta A#ostolorum (1895) Harnack
Chronol (1897),' M'Gikeert, Hisf. Ckrisf. in Ajost. hze (1897):
and some others.
2 Cp C HRONOLOGY $ 7 2 8
3 See M'Giffert, i c . n26f: ; Zahn, Einl. 1 1 3 8 3 ; Bartlet,
Aposfolic Age, 84 ; Bacon Introd. to NT,57.
4 Zimmer (Dererste Thrssalonicher6rief;f~ 34, 94$) takes the
opposite view, but without sufficient warrant.
5 Of this mission of Timothy to Thessalonica we hear nothing
in Acts. In fact there is no hint in Acts that Timothy was with
Paul in Athens, As we know from I Thess. that he was.
5037
[+8]); but we have no evidence of such a letter, and the
information which Paul gives his readers in I Thess. 2 17 3 5
rather argues against an earlier communication from him. But
though we have no adequate ground for asmming that Paul
sent to Thessalonica another epistle before our I Thessalonians,
there is some reason for thinking that the Thessalonians sent a
letter hack to Paul by 'rimothy (see Harris, ihid. 167J). Harris
finds evidence of such a letter in I Thess. 1 2 5 2 I 5 g 10 13 3 3 - 5
epistle ; but beyond these hints we can hardly go. It will not
do at any rate to regard the words ' ye know ' (o&zm) as evidence
of such an epistle, for we cannot well suppose that the Thessa-
lonians gave Paul an account of his sufferingsin Pbilippi (2 2).
T h e report which Timothy brought back from
Thessalonica was upon the whole very cheering ; but
he informed Paul of the existence of certain evils among
the Thessalonians which demanded the apostle's atten-
tion. T h e common fleshly impurity of the heathen
world, especially prevalent in a great commercial
metropolis like Thessalonica, had not been entirely
overcome by the Thessalonian Christians ( I Thess. 44f: ) ;
a spirit of enthusiasm was abroad among them which
led them to neglect their ordinary employments and so
bring disrepute upon the brotherhood ( I Thess. 4 1 r f . ) ;
and there was on the part of some a tendency, entirely
natural where fanaticism had so free play, to disregard
the counsel and authority of the leaders of the church
(I Thess. 51zf.). On the other hand, in opposition to
the common enthusiasm, there were some who ' despised
prophesyings ' and frowned upon all spiritual manifesta-
tions ( I Thess. 5 2 0 ) . I t looks also as if some of the
disciples were casting aspersions upon the character
and motives of Paul himself, possibly because he had
left the city during a time of persecution. At any rate
he felt obliged to defend himself in his epistle against
various charges, such as covetousness, avarice, selfishness,
and personal ambition ( I Thess. 21-12). Finally, the
Thessalonians had apparently asked the apostle a
question touching the fate of Christian brethren dying
before the return of Christ ( I Thess. 4 13J ). Evidently
they had believed that Christ would come so soon that
they shonld all be alive to greet h i m ; but as time
passed some of their number died and Christ still
tarried. T h e question naturally forced itself upon them,
Were such brethren to he deprived of the privilege of
seeing the Lord at his coming and sharing his glory?
Either Timothy was asked to consult the apostle upon
the matter, or the question was raised in the epistle to
the Thessalonians referred to just above. It was due to
all these circumstances that Paul wrote his first epistle
to the Thessalonians.
The epistle has no central theme, nor is it a studied
composition constructed upon a well-defined plan. It
is a familiar letter in which expressions
3. Contents. of affection and words of exhortation
and warning €ollow one upon another with no attempt
a t logical arrangement.
After a salutation, in which the names of Silvanus and
Timothy are joined with his own (1 I), Paul expresses his
gratitude, beginning with the conventional termsofcontemporary
correspondence (see Harris, &id.), for the faith and steadfast-
ness of the Thessalonians (1z-s), and reminds them of his own
conduct while among them, of his devotion and self-sacrifice
which some had evidently Called in question (21.12)~ gives
utterance to his joy at the reception they had given his message
and at the steadfastness they had shown in the face of persecu?
tion (213-16), tells them of his anxiety about them while in
Athens and of his great desire to see them which resulted,
when he could not go himself, in his sending'Timothy to visit
them (3 1 4 , and which is now fully relieved by the good news
brought by him (3 6-10). The commendatory, apologetic, and
explanatory portion of the letter is concluded with a beautiful
prayer for the readers' growth in grace (3 11-13).
The passage just referred to serves at the same time to
introduce the second and hortatory section of the epistle (45).
After ernphasising the importance of purity (4 1.8), of brotherly
love (4g,f), and of quietness and diligence in daily business
5038
 THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
(II~:), the apostle turns to the subject of eschatology and
instructs the Thessalonians, first, touching the brethren dying
before the return of Christ (413-18), and secondly, touching the
uncertainty of the time of the Parousia, which makes it necessary
to be constantly watchful and zealous (5 I - I I ) . ~ Then follow
various exhortations having especial reference to the disciples'
association with each other as a Christian brotherhood (5 ~ w m )
and the epistle closes with a petition for their perfect sanctificatioi
(23J), a request for their prayers (25), a salutation, and a
benediction (26-28).
The epistle apparently accomplished its purpose, for
we hear nothing more of aspersions upon Paul's
4.
Thess. character, and the Thessalonians seem to
have needed no further instruction as to
the resurrection of the dead. Rut Paul's words touch-
ing the Day of the Lord ( 5 z J ) evidently led them to
believe that the Parousia was imminent. and some of
them in their expectation of the immediate return of
Christ were greatly excited and were neglecting their
ordinary employments ( 2 Thess. 2 x 8 ) . It is possible
that it was this expectation which had led them to
similar fanaticism before Paul wrote his first epistle
( I Thess. 41rf.) ; but if so he cannot have been aware
of it, or he would have dealt with the matter in that
epistle.
How Paul learned of the existing situation we do not
know. It is not impossible that he had received
another letter from the Thessalonians in answer to his
former one (see Bacon, IC. p. 72); but we have no
positive evidence of it. At any rate, however the news
reached him, it led him towrite a second epistle intended
to put a stop t o such unwarranted
After commending the patience and faithfulness of
the Thessalonians ( z Thess. 11-4). .I
as he had done in
5. Its contents. the first epistle, and comforting them
with a reference to the recomDense
which God will render both them and their enemies
(15-12), he proceeds at once to his main point. When
he wrote before, he supposed that an exhortation to go
about their daily business with quietness and diligence
would snffice to put a stop to their fanatical conduct,
and that they needed no special instruction touching
the time and the season of the consummation ( I Thess.
51). H e saw now, however, that it was because they
believed that Christ might come a t any moment that
their minds were disquieted, and so he reminded them
that certain events must occur before the consummation.
The ' man of sin,' the 'son of perdition,' the 'lawless
o n e ' must be revealed as he had told them when he
was with them ( z Thess. 25) ; but he cannot be until
' t h a t which now restraineth ( a Thess. 2 6 r b KUTCXOV,
z. 7 b K u r h w v ) has been taken out of the way'
( 2 Thess. 23-10).%
This eschatological passage is followed by renewed
commendations, and by exhortations to steadfastness
and patience, sobriety and diligence (213-315), and the
epistle concludes with benedictions and with a salutation
from Paul's own hand, which he asserts is the token in
every letter ( 3 16-18).
I t would seem that those disciples who were insisting
that the Parousia was immediately at hand were appeal-
ing to a letter bearing Paul's name ( 2 Thess. 22) ; but
as he was not conscious of having written anything to
support their opinion, he concluded that they n u s t be
making use of a forged document, and so he was careful
to call attention to his autograph signature which
guaranteed the genuineness of all his letters. I t is not
likely that Paul's surmise was correct, for it can hardly
1 On this apocalypsesee H. St. John Thacketay, ThcRelution
o f s t . Paul t u Coniewz#orary 3 m i s h Thought, iozf:
2 It was formerly maintained by some scholars ( c . ~ . , Ew.
Sendschreiben des Parrluc, I ~ JLament, , NTZiche Si'dien,
49J) that z Thess. is earlier than I Thess. ; but this is excluded
by the literary relationship between the two epistles, which
clearly points to the secondary character of the second, by the
sharper tone of a Thess. in dealing with the disorderly (S6,9,
and by the relation of the apocalyptic passage in 2 21: to
I Thess. 4 13f:
3 Upon the interpretation of this passage see ANTICHRIST,
I 4f:
5039
be supposed that any one would venture to palm off a
forged letter upon the Thessalonians so soon after the
apostle's departure, and as a matter of fact the eschato-
logical passage in the first epistle (51-11) was of such a
character that it might easily serve to promote the
belief in the immediate consummation, though he seems
not to have realised it.
T h e Epistles to the Thessalonians are almost wholly
personal and ethical and throw very little light upon
Paul's theological views,l exccpt i n t h e
6' Character matter of eschatology to which there
Of are a great many allusions. Thus,
the Parousia of Christ is-referred to in I Thess. 1 IO 219
3 1 3 415f: 5zf.23 zThess.l7$ 2 1 f : ; the judgment
in I Thess.110 a Thess. 16f: 2 1 2 ; the resurrection of
believers in I Thess. 4 1 4 3 ; their future glory and blessed-
ness in I Thess. 417 5 IO 2 Thess. 2 14 ; and the final
kingdom in I Thess. 212 P Thess. 15. I t is evident
that the Thessalonian Christians were much interested
in eschatological questions, and it would seem that Paul
must have laid considerable stress, while in Thessalonica,
at any rate upon the speedy return of Christ and the
impending judgment (cp I Thess. 1 IO 5 zf: z Thess. 2 5).
Possibly he was led to do so by the great prevalence of
vice and inimorality in the city. However that may be,
the Thessalonians expected the return of Christ very
soon, before any of their number had passed away, and
Paul had evidently given them some warrant for the
expectation, for even when he wrote his First Epistle he
looked for the Parousia during his own lifetime and
theirs (cp 219 415J). I t was doubtless because of this
that Paul had not instructed them touching the resur-
rection of believers and so was obliged to do so at
some length in I Thess. 413J (cp I Cor. 15 and see
M'Giffert, Lc. p 248).
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians throw con-
siderable lieht u m n Paul's work in Thessalonica and
" 1
Tn2sEu upon the character and condition of
his converts there. T h e Christians ad-
dressed were most, if not all, of them
Gentiles ( I Thess. l g 214) ; and, more-
over, as appears from the former passage, they had
been converted directly from heathenism to Christianity
under Paul's preaching. But the account of Paul's work
in Thessalonica contained in Acts (17 I J) gives a very
different picture of the Thessalonian converts. Accord-
ing to that passage, 'Some of them ( L e . . of the Jews)
were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas, and
of the devout Greeks ( L e . , Jewish proselytes) a great
multitude, and of the chief women not a few.' Of
these Jews and Jewish proselytes there is no trace in
either of Paul's epistles, and though of course it is quite
possible that there were some of them among his.
converts, it is certain that they must have formed an
altogether insignificant minority. It is clear then that
the author of Acts, as is frequently the case, has
recorded the least important part of Paul's activity in
'Thessalonica, and that it was not in the synagogue
that he did his chief work (the only part of his work
mentioned in Acts), but among the heathen population
of the city. At the same time there is no reason for
doubting that Paul actually did preach to Jews and
proselytes in the synagogue of Thessalonica.2 But after
a brief period spent in that work he must have turned
to the Gentiles, instead of leaving the city directly as
implied in Actsl7ro, and must have spent at least some
months in labour among them, as is clear from I Thess.
2 7 $ and Phil.416. and also from the large and
permanent results accomplished. T h e account in Acts
is thus very meagre and misleading at this point and
has to be not only supplemented but also corrected by
I Thess. I t is evident that that epistle was not in
the hands of the author of Acts when he was writing
1See1Thess.21aS81347e5101s~Thess.lrr21316fot
familiar Pauline ideas.
2 See M'Giffert, op. cil. 246.
5040
 THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
his account of this part of Paul's work, nor was Acts in
the hands of the author of I Thess.
The Thessaloninn epistles bear eloquent testimony to
the success of Paul's missionary labours in Thessalunica.
H e succeeded in founding there a strong and vigorous
church, and the faith and patience and brotherly love of
his convertswere so marked that theirfamespeedilyspread
even beyond the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia ( I
Thess. 17f. ), and their generosity in ministering to the
necessities of other churches, even though poor them-
selves, called forth the apostle's hearty commendation
( I Thess. 4 IO ; cp z Cor. 8 ~f. and Acts 204). To none
of his churches was he bound by warmer ties of affection
than to the churches of Thessalonica and Philippi, and
none of his epistles, except that to the Philippians, is
more thoroughly pervaded with joy and confidence and
affection than I Thess.
It has been assumed throughout this article that both
I and z Thess. are genuine epistles of Paul. So far as
8. Author- the former is concerned its authenticity,
ship: of denied a couple of generations ago by
many :scholars, is to-day generally recog-
Thesa. nised except by those who deny the
genuineness of all the Pauline epistles (see PAUL,
5 38). As a matter of fact, if one accepts any of
Paul's epistles there is no good reason for denying the
authenticity of I Thess. T h e argument against its
genuineness, drawn from its lack of the doctrinal and
polemical material found in the great epistles to the
Galatians, the Corinthians, and the Romans, is now
universally recognised as fallacious, for the situation
in Thessalonica as indicated in the epistle itself fully
accounts both for what it contains and for what it
omits. Moreover, the style of the epistle, its revelation
of the character of its author, its familiar and personal
tone, the absence of any doctrinal or polemic interest
which would account for pseudonymity, the discrepancies
between the epistle and Acts, the use of the three names
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (the form ZiXas k i n g
found uniformly i n Acts and ZrXouark only in
I and 2 Thess. a Cor. 1x9 and I Pet. 5 I S ) all make for
genuineness [cp SILAS] : and the evidence brought by
Rendel Harris in the article referred to above (s 2)
that it is part of a correspondence with the Thessalonian
church, strengthens rhe argument, and if that evidence
be regarded as conclusive, of course places the geiiuine-
ness of the epistle beyond all question. Finally, the
implication in 4 17 that Christ was to return during the
lifetime of the apostle is of itself enough to prove that
it was not written afi.er his death.l
On the other hand, the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians
is by no means so clear, nor is it so widely recognised.
9. Of aThess. The tendency to view it as a genuine
epistle of Paul has apparently grown
somewhat in recent years among scholars of the critical
school (e.g., Julicher, Einl. 40f. [1894] ; Harnack,
Chi-mol. 239 [1898]; Bacon, Introd. to N T , 755
[ I ~ o o ] ; and compare the statement of Holtzmann
[ E i n ~ ' . ' 2161
~ ) that ' a t the present day the question is
not whether the epistle is to be brought down into the
post-apostolic age, but whether it does not on the con-
trary reach up into the lifetime of the apostle, and
whether consequently it must not be genuine, and have
been written soon after I Thess.'). Many. however, who
accept I 'lhessalonians reject a Thessalonians altogether
(as, e.,r., Lipsius, Ililgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer,
Schmiedel. Weizsacker), or regard it as largely inter-
polated ( e . g . , P. Schmidt, Der evste Thssalonichevbrief,.$
=7f. ).
The first objection urged against the genuineness of
1 Schmiedel, while accepting the epistle as a whole, suggests
that 2 15f: is an interpolation. There is however no reason to
doubt the genuineness of the passage thdugh it is &e possible
that z. 166 is an inteqmlation . and'the same may be said of
0,236. The latter 100l.s decidehly un-Pauline, and by its omis-
sion v. 24 is brought into immediate connection with u. 23a with
which it seems t o belong.
5 W
the epistle is the apocalyptic passage, 2 Thess. 22-12.
lo. Argument This objection is based chiefly upon
the assumption that the passage is in-
from
eschatology. consistent with I 'Ihess. 52f., and since
its substance is said to have been
imparted to the Thessalonians while Paul was still
present with them ( z Thess. 25), the inconsistency cannot
be explained as due to the further development of
Paul's thought after the writing of I Thessalonians.
I t is to be noticed. however, that though the author
indicates in z Thess. 2 that certain events must occur,
and, consequently, some interval elapse before the final
consummation, there is no'sign that he regards the
interval as long, and that he does not expect to live
until the Parousia. Nor is the fact that certain signs
are to precede the consummation inconsistent with the
exhortation in I Thess. 5 2 to be watchful, for the day of
the Lord comes as a thief in the night only for those
who sleep, the implication being that those who are
awake know the signs of its coming and will not be
taken unaware. I t is quite conceivable that Paul might
have told the Thessalonians when he was with them
why the Parousia was delayed, and might have spoken
of the traditional figure of Antichrist (the ra6Ta of 25
refers to what precedes), without contradicting his belief
or theirs that the consummation was to take place very
soon. Only when he found that their expectation of its
imminence was leading them into fanaticism would he
naturally, in order to show that it could not come
immediately, dwell more at length upon the inter-
vening events, and indicate still more fully what those
events were. Possibly the protection of the Roman
pro-consul a t Corinth (Acts 18 12) had led him to recog-
nise more clearly than ever before the protecting power
of Rome (to which r b K a r k o v and 6 KaTtxxWV [ ' t h e
restrainer'] certainly refer), and so, for the first time,
to bring this element of the traditional eschatology into
prominence as in 2 Thess. 2 6 5
The further objection brought against the genuineness
of z Thess. 2 a f . , on the ground of its alleged dependence
upon the Apocalypse, or of its acquaintance with the
Nero redivivus legend, breaks down completely when
the passage is interpreted as it should be in the light of
current Jewish eschatology, and the figure of Antichrist
is recognised as purely traditional (see ANTICHRIST,
5 4f.b
I t must be recognised then that there is not sufficient
ground in the eschatology of the second epistle for deny-
ing its Pauline authorship. If there is good reason for
ascribing the remainder of the epistle to Paul, there
need he no difficulty in assuming that he wrote the
apocalypt.ic passage, 2.f: In fact, we may perhaps go
farther and say that that passage, when taken in con-
nection with the remainder of the epistle, can be better
understood on the assumption of its authenticity than on
that of its pseudonymity. It can hardly be supposed that
any one would ventnre t~ produce such a pseudonymous
epistle during Paul's own lifetime, or that it would find
acceptance if he did. On the other hand, if Paul's
first epistle gave rise to misunderstandings-asthe second
epistle, whether genuine or not. seems to show that it
did-we should expect those misnnderstandings to have
arisen immediately, not after an interval of many years,
when the expectation expressed in the epistle was
already at least partially discredited by Paul's own
death. And if the fanatical abuse of his words appeared
during his lifetime. it would be strange if he took n o
notice of it. If it could be supposed that the epistle
was written simply to save Paul's reputation and set
him right with the Thessalonians after his death, by
showing that he had not expected the consummation as
soon as ~Thessalonians seemed to imply, its post-
Pauline date would be easy to understand, but there is
no sign of such an interest. T h e sole purpose of the
eschatological passage is clearly to put a stop to the
fanaticism to which the belief in the speedy consum-
5042
 THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
mation was giving rise. Under these circumstances
2 Thessalonians, so far as the eschatological passage is
concerned, seems easier to explain as a letter of Paul’s,
written within a few months of I Thessalonians, than as
the work of a later time and of another hand.
It has been suggested by some scholars ( e g . ,
Schmidt, op. cit. 127) that 2Thess. 22-12 has been inter-
polated in a genuine epistle of Paul ; but there is no
ground for such a hypothesis. The point of the epistle
is entirely gone if the apocalyptic passage be omitted,
and the difficulties which beset the genuineness of the
remainder of the epistle are even greater than those
which beset the apocalyptic passage. As a matter of
fact, the suggestion of Hausrath (NTZiche Zeitgesch.P)
3 198) that this passage is the only genuine part of the
epistle is much more plausible.
A second objection to the Pauline authorship of
2 Thessalonians is drawn from its language and style.
.. ____
LA. rrom
language
I t is true that the epistle contains an
and uncommonly large number of words
and phrases which occur nowhere else
contents. in Paul (the Pastoral epistles not being
I
reckoned as Pauline).
Such are : ‘ roweth exceedingly’(da=pau5d-l), 13;1 ‘glory’
(~yKaUXdOpar*T, v. 4 ; ‘token ’ ( a v k p a * ) , ‘judgment ’ ( K ~ ~ u L S ) ,
‘ count‘ worthy ’ ( K a r & d w ) , 5 ; ‘Xaming fir: ’ ( r 0 p $Aoy&)
v. 3 ; pynishment ’ ( 8 i q ) suffer ’ (T~vo*), everlasting de’
struction (aiujvros, .BhrBios*), ‘ from the presence’ (&ab
rrpouujaov), v. g ; ‘glorify’ (wSo&i@*), zw. IO 12 ; ‘ good pleasure
of go,odness’( & d o r i a b at)wyhqs*),, v. 11 ; ‘gathering togethe:
unto ( Z m m v a y w Y j ) , ; shake ( u a h e d w ) ‘be ‘troubled
worship’ (ui@aupa) 7’. 4 ‘ ‘deceit of unrighteoudess’ (&&q
.
(Bpoooirpa~), v. z ; ‘falling away’ ( b r r o u T a u i a ) , ’ v . 3 object of
&rias*), ‘because’\&v8’ kv), ‘love of truth’ (&ydrp &Apeelas*),
v. I O ; ‘ a working of error’ ( i v i p y a a rrAdqs*), v. 11; ‘be-
.
lief of truth ’ (aiorrr &Aq&ias*) v. 13 ‘ chose ’ ( a i p i o p a c ) , v.
13 (occurs once in Phil. 1 2 2 A d Hed. 11 25 in another con-
nection ; the common word in Paul, to ex ress the idea, being
Z ~ h i y w;) ‘good hope ’ (&rk bya&i*), v. 18(cp Heb. 7 19 I Pet.
13) ; ‘ unreasonable ’ (droaos), 3 2 ; busybodies (aepLepyd<o-
p a r * ) , v. I I ; ‘ well-doing ’ ( K ~ O W O & * ) , 71.13 ; ‘ note ’ ( q p c L -
oQuBBs*),v. 14 ; and the particle ‘ nor ’ (&e) in 2 2.
Considerably more than half of these, however, are
found in the apocalyptic passages in chaps. 1 and 2,
and their presence is sufficiently accounted for by the
nature of the subject-matter, and it is now generally
recognised that very little weight can be laid in any
case upon the mere occurrence of hapax Zegomena.
More striking is the fact that the epistle contains very
few words which are found in Paul’s epistles but not
elsewhere in the N T , except such as it has in common
with I Thessalonians.
The particle ‘if so he’ ( & r e p ) , zThess. 1 6 , and the word
‘working’ (&ipycra), 2911, are found half a dozen times in
Paul, the former in Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, the latter
in Philippians, Ephesians and Colossians and ‘goodness ‘
(bya9ouJq) in Romans, Ghatians, and Eph’esians, once each.
The phrase ‘ a s that ’ (As &), 2 Thess 2 z, occurs only in 2 Cor.
1121 ; ‘exalteth himself’ ( d m p a i p o p a r ) , ~Thess. 2 4 , only in
2 Cor. 127 ; ‘ withdraw ‘ ( m k h h o p a r ) , z Thess. 3 6, only in z Cor.
8 20 ; ‘keep company with ’ ( u u v a v a p i y v u p a r ) , z Thess. 3 14, only
in I Cor. 5 g I I ; ‘ deceive ’ ( Z & m a d w ) , z Thess. 2 3, which is
found in Romans and I and 2 Corinthians, occurs also in the
post-Pauline I Timothy.
On the whole, the argument from style, so far .as it
goes, seems to point away from Paul rather than
toward him as author ; but it must be recognised that
no definite conclusion can be drawn from it.
Nor can any conclusion be drawn from the ethical
and theological content of the epistle. There are but
few characteristically Pauline ideas-cg., 1 1 1 : ‘ that
our God may count you worthy of [your] calling’ (l‘va
3pLiis dfcdug 75s KX+SCWE 6 Beds +pGw ; cp Eph. 4I ) ; 2 16,
‘ God x h o loved us‘ (6 Bebs . . . 6 dyarr4uas +piis ; cp
Rom. 8 3 Eph. 2 4) ; 2 1 3 , ‘ God chose you from the begin-
ning unto salvation’ ( d h a ~3pLiis o 6 B d s drr’dpxijs eis uwrv-
piaw ; cp Eph. 1 4 , where the idea is the same but not
the language), and no argument can be drawn from any
of these. On the other hand, there is nothing in the
teaching of the epistle which can be pronounced in any
1 The words and phrases marked with an asterisk are found
nowhere else in the NT.
5043
way u n - Pauline, except possibly the conception of
divine recompense and vengeance in 16-12. One might
almost be tempted, if accepting the epistle as a whole,
to regard these verses as an interpolation and to con-
nect the ‘ t o which e n d ’ (& 6) of z. 1 1 directly with
‘ that ye may be counted worthy’ (cis r b KarafrwB+ar
3pks) of v. 5.
-_-_
Much more serious than the objections to the genuine-
ness of the epistle already mentioned is the objection
.1
LB. rrom
drawn from its close resemblance to
I Thessalonians, amounting at times to
to ’ an almost slavish dependence.
detailed comparison of the two shows
A
that th&only new matter in the second is found in 15-12
22-12 15 31-5 IO 1 3 3 17.
Even within these passages there is more or less dependence
upon I Thessalonians. Thus z Thess. 17 suggests I Thess. 1 IO
2 19 4 16 ;and z Thess. 1 I M suggests I Thess. Y 13. 2 Thess. 2 15
taken with the verses immediately preceding, seems to show th;
influence of I Thess. 5 6-10. n Thess. 3 I and I Thess. 5 25 both
have the words ‘brethren, pray for us ’ ( r r p o c d x e d e &A+oi
m p i I j p i v ) , whi)ch occur nowhere else in Paul, and 2 khess. 3
and I Thess. 1 8 4 15 have the phrase ‘ word of the Lord ’ (A+=
r v p i o u ) , which is also wanting in Paul‘s other epistles, though
‘word of Christ ’ (hoyos X p r m o 0 ) is found in Col. 3 16. 2 Thess.
3 3-5 contains reminiscences of I Thess. 5 22.24 1 3 3 11, and
z Thess. 3 15 of I Thess. 5 12 74.
T h e remainder of the epistle. about a third of the
whole, is simply a more or less close -reproduction of
the first epistle.
Thus, in addition to the salutation at the beginning and the
benediction at the close which are identical except for the
addition of ‘from God the Father and the Ldrd Jesus Christ ’
( A r b BsoJ a a r p b s .ai K U ~ ~ O’Iquoii
U X p r u r o f ) in 2 Thess. 1 2, and
of ‘all ’( d v r w v ) in 3 18,we find that z Thess. 1 1-4 is a condensed
summary of I Thess. 1. zThess.21 has the clause ‘now
we beseech you, brethren ’ ( ; p w r i p c v 6;-$ p i s , dSeA+oi). which
occurs in I Thess. 5 12 (cp 4 I ) but nowhere else in Paul ; also the
clause ‘touching the Parousia,’ etc. ( i r a l p 6 s rrapouuias
which is nearly identical with I Thess. 2 19 3 13 4 15 5 23,
remainder of the verse suggests I Thess. 4 17. z Thess. 2 1 3 8
contains reminiscences of I Thess. 1 z 2 13 (though ‘we are
bound ’ [&+eiAopev] is added as in 13) ; of T Thess. 1 4 (‘brethren
beloved of the Lord’ [&A oi +pappkvo~ O r b ~ u p i o v l foi
‘ brethren, beloved of God ’ [&A$oi w a s p p 6 v o r Grrb OPOQ]) ; of
I Thess. 4 7 (though the combination of ‘ of spirit’ [ ~ v r d p a ~ a s ]
with ‘sanctification’ [ b y ~ a r p i ]and , the phrase ‘belief of truth’
[ % i u r a dhpdeias] are new) ; aAd of I Thess. 5 9. 2 Thess. 2 16f:
may be compared with I Thess. 8 z 12f: (notice the connectioi!
of the two words ‘comfort’ [ r r a p a r a h b a t ] and ‘stablish
[urppi<w]). z Thes; 36-12is entirely, with the exce tion of the
latter part of v. TO, which is new a reproduction of r%hess. 2 6f:
4 I I ~ ;: v. 8 being verbally idenkal with a part of I Thess. 2 9
(‘wrought in labour and travail night and day that we might
not burden any of you ’ [ i u K ~ T ? ai p6xBw V U K T ~ Sx a i Ijpe‘par
ipyd’pevor mpbs 7 b r*;l I a r p a p i i u a i rwa G & v ] ) ; and w. I M
with the first clause of I Thess. 3 4 (‘for even when we were with
you’[rai y i p 6 ~ 6qpcv lrpbs I+&], the particle ‘when’ [brs]
being found nowhere else in either epistle, and ‘for even’ [ r a i
y+] ,only here in 2 Thessalonians). The passage also contains
striking reminiscences of I Thess. 16f: 4 I I I 5 14. 2 Thess. B 16,
‘now the Lord of peace himself’ ( a i n b s 62 b K J ~ L O 6S s d p j q r )
may he compared with I Thess. 5 23, ‘and the God of peace
himself’ ( a h b s 62 i, Bfbr 6 s a i p j w s ) . The following words and
phrases, which are common to I and z Thesalonians, but occur
nowhere else in Paul, may also be referred to: ‘work of faith’
(Zpyov a i u r e w s ) 2 Thess. 1 I I I Thess. 1 3 ’ ‘obtaining’ (acpr-
aonpurs), nThels. 2 14 I Thess. 59 (the woid is found once in
Ephesians in a different sense); ‘stablish’ ( u q p i < w ) with
‘heart’(rap&s), zThess. 2 17 I Thess. 3 13 ; ‘direct’(rarru8dvw),
z Thess. 3 5 T Thess. 3 I I ; ‘ patience of Christ’ (3nopov+ TOG
X p r o r o Q ) , aThess. 3 5 (in T Thess. 13, ‘patience of the hope of
pur Lord Jesus Christ’ [drropovj 6 s ihrriSos TOG K U P ~ O UIjpiv
I p s o 0 X p r u ~ o C ] ) ;‘disorderly’ [adv.] ( b ~ d ~ r w ~2 Thess.
), 36 T I ;
‘behave disorderly’(brorrrCw), 3 7 ; ‘disorderly’[adj.] (&amooC),
I Thess. 5 14.
In the light of these many and close resemblances
between the two epistles it is clear that the genuineness
? of the second requires the assumption
13. By
that Paul had much of the thought and
language of the first epistle in his mind when he wrote
the second. If it could be supposed that the two were
written at a single sitting, or within a few hours or
days of each other, as is possible in the case of Ephesians
and Colossians, the resemblances might be explained ;
but an interval of at least some months separates
z Thessalonians from I Thessalonians. The verbal
resemblances are altogether too many and too close to
be accounted for on the ground that the general situa-
5044
 THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)
tion in Thessalonica and Corinth remained much the
same, and suggested consequently a similar line of
thought. The genuineness of the second epistle can be
maintained, in fact, only by assuming that Paul had a
copy of I Thessalonians in his possession, and that he
read it over again short!.y before writing 2 Thessalonians,
and saturated himself with its thought and language.
It seems a little unlikely that Paul should have had a
copy of his earlier epistle at hand,' but it is not im-
possible; and if he had, it was not perhaps unnatural
that, when the report reached him that Thessalonians
were appealing to a letter of his in support of their
views touching the Parousia, he should read over the
earlier epistle to see if it gave any justification for such
an appeal.
This would also serve to explain particuiarly the
relation between z Thess. 36f: and I Thess. 2 6 J In
both passages Paul refers in almost identical terms to
the fact that he had supported himself with his o!vn
hands while in Thessalonica; but in the first epistle
he cites the fact as a defence against the charges of
his enemies, in the second as an example to the
disorderly.
T h e effort of Spitta ( Z u r Gesch. u. Lit. des Uychris-
tenthums, 112.f.; cp TIMOTHY, 5 6 ) to explain the
resemblances and divergencies between the two epistles
14. Not bs by the ingenious suggestion that the
second was written not by Paul but by
pau17 Timothy at Paul's request and in the
name of the three fellow-workers, while it might relieve
the difficulties somewhat, is rendered impossible by the
use of the first person singular in 2 5 which cannot, occur-
ring as it does without qualification. refer to Timothy, as
Spitta assumes, but must refer to Paul, That the Thessa-
lonians should have known from the handwriting that
'I'imothy was the author of the epistle instead of Paul
there is no ground for supposing, for it was Paul's
custom to dictate his epistles to an amanuensis, and 3 17
must suggest to the readers of 2 Thessalonians that it
was written in the same way.
Those who deny the authenticity of z Thessalonians
explain the striking resemblances between the two
epistles by the assumption that the author of the second
purposely conformed it to I Thessalonians in order to
gain Pauline authority for its eschatological teaching,
and so to displace the earlier epistle, which was giving
rise to so much trouble in the Thessalonian church.
Such a procedure is not without parallels, nor can it be
regarded as in itself more improbable than the unique
self-repetition involved in Pauline authorship. Indeed,
while the reproduction of the earlier epistle is at times
subtle and of such a character as to suggest that the
author wrote with a free hand, it seems quite as easy to
suppose that some one familiar .with Paul's style pro-
duced z Thessalonians in conscious imitation of I Thes-
salonians as to suppose that Paul unconsciously repeated
himself so slavishly. And if this conscious effort be
assumed, the reference to Paul's own signature in 3 1 7
, - I Cor. 1621 Col. 418 Gal. 611) need constitute no
(cp
16.
Conclusion. insurmountable obstacle. At the
same time, in view of the considera-
tions urged above in connection with the apocalyptic
passage, the present writer is inclined to think that the
evidence points rather in the direction of the Pauline
authorship of the epistle, but it must be recognised that
its genuineness is beset with serious difficulties, and that
it is at best very doubtful.
Upon the epistles to the Thessalonians see the various intro-
1 The common notion that copies of Paul's epistles must have
been from the beginning carefully preserved either by Paul
himself or by his companions r e s s upon a cdnception of their
dogmatic importance which Gas not shared in Paul's own time
as IS sufficiently indicated by the fact that so few of his epistle;
-so far as we know, only those which we still have-were
handed down to the next generation, and that even the author
of Acts apparently made no use of them in the composition of
his work (see McGiffert, k.,436).
161 5045
THESSALONICA
ductions to the NT, the histories of the apostolic age, and lives
of Paul, and the special conlmentaries: by
16. Literature. Schott (1834); Jowett,, ?'h Episfbs of St.
Paul to fke Thessdonzans, Galatians, and
Romam (1856, (3) 1894); Eadie (1877); P. Schmidt, Der ersfc
Thessalonieherbrirf neu erkLdrf nrbsf einenr Lxkurs Uber den
m e i f e n gCeichnamigen Brief (1885); Zimmer, Theologischer
Kommenfar zu den Tkessalonickerbrifr,~(1891). Of the
general commentaries on the N T special mention may be made
of Liinemann (Meyer's Handbuchl'8), Bornemann (Meyer: Is)
and PJ), and Schmiedel in Holtzmann's Hand-Conrmenfur zum
NT Bd. 2 (1889). On the integrity of the epistles, see especially
CleAen, Die Einheiflichkeifderpaulinischen Briefc (1894), p.
1 3 3 , and on the text Zimmer, Der Text der Tkessalonicker-
6riefe (1893).
In defence of the genuineness of both epistles, see the N T
introdiictions of Weiss, Jiilicher and Zahn, also Bornemann in
Meyer. In defence of the firs; epistle, see also vou Soden in
St.Kr., 1885, p. 2 6 3 3 , and Weizsacker, Ap. Zeifalter, 241J;
in defence of the second, Kl6pper in Thologisclre Studien und
Skizzen aus Orfpreussen, 8 (1889). Against the genuineness of
both epistles, see especially Baur, Der Aposfel Paulus (1845,
(3) 1867); and against the genuineness of the second Weiz-
sacker, Z.C., 2 4 9 3 ; Schmiedel, Z.C., 8 s ; Bahnsen, JPT,1880,
4orJ For further literature see Holtzmann, Einl. (3) 21o.L.
and Findlay in Expos., 1900, 2251f: A. C. MCG.
TRESSALONICA ( B € C C & ~ ~ , N I K H , ~ Acts 171
WH,
II 13 Phil. 4 16 2 Tim. 4 I O ; ethnic BwuahovcKch, Acts
2 2 0 4 I Thess. 1 I 2 Thess. 1T [translated
"
;'the three latter passages by the curious
syncopated form 'Thessalonians,' EV]). A large and
important city (now SaZoonica) at the head of the Gulf
of Salonica, which in ancient times was called the
Thermaic Gulf, from the city itself. Thessalonica, we
are told, was originally named Therma or Therme,*
from the hot springs found on the coast in its neighbour-
hood. But Therme seems to have been a small place in
the vicinity, from which, as well as from twenty-five
other towns on the gulf, the inhabitants were compelled
to migrate in order to create the new city (Strabo, 330,
frg. ZI ; Plin. H N , 417).
f Thessalonica was due, according to the most
(that of Strabo 1 c ) to Cassander, who called
hessalonica stgp-&er of Alexander the Great
The histo& of the town begins therefore with
the Macedonian, and its importance increases as we approach
the Roman, period. It was the great Macedonian naval station
(Livy, 44 IO); and when Macedonia was conquered by the
Romansand was divided by them into four districts, Thessalonica
was made the capital of the second region, Macedonia Secwufa
(168 B.C. ; see 1\IAC&DONIA).3 When the whole of Macedonia
was reduced to a single province (146 B.c.)Thessalonica became
virtually its capital.
Even before the close of the Republican period the
natural advantages of Thessalonica had raised it to
importance, for it lay upon the great route which con-
nected Rome with the East (cp Cic. De Prow. Cons. z :
' Thessalonicenses, positi in gremio imperii nostri '),
about midway between Dyrrhachiuni on the Adriatic,
and the river Hebrus in Thrace. I t was the residence
of the proconsul ; Cicero during his exile found here a
refuge, in the quaestor's house ( P m PZanc. 41).
During the first Civil W a r the town was the head-
quarters of the Pompeian party (Dio Cass. 41 18) ; but '
in the second war it took the side of Octavius and
Antonius (Plut. Brut. 46 ; Appian, B C 4 118), and by
way of reward was made a 'free city' (Plin. HN 417).4
As a free city it was ruled by its own assembly (cp the
use of the word 8ijpos in Acts 175, in accordance with
the actual constitutional fact) and by its own magis-
, ~ here bore the special title of politarchs
t r a t e ~ who
(rroksdpxar, Acts 176).
1 B s r r d o v i q in Pol. 23 4 ; B o u s d o v i r ~ r ain Str. 330, frg. 20
etc.
2 Ofpppq, Herod. 7 121, et s q 5 . : Thuc. 161 2 29. Bippprr,
Bschm. D e Pal. Le 29 (Bekker).
3 After 158 B.c., d e n the right of silver coinage was granted
by the Senate, Thessalonica issued silver tetradrachms with the
inscription MAKEAONON AEYTEPAI. See Head, Hisf.
Nzmm. 213. Its bronze coins before and during the empire are
plentiful, bearing the name of the town, or the ethnic in the
genitive, often with titles ppqrp6nohrs or ~ o h o v i a . The latter
title dates from the time ofvalerian (see Momms.-Marq. 1 320).
4 To this may allude the word ZhovOspia with feade head on
some of its coins.
6 Cp Livy, 45 29, where Bmilius Paulus at Amphipolis
5046
 THESSALONICA
T h e title politarch does not occur elsewhere in Greek
literature, but its use here is quite accurate, as appears
from an inscription (CIG, 1967) which w-as engraved on
a Roman arch of the Yui-dar gate (perhaps a monu-
ment of the victory of Philippi) recording its erection
when certain persons, whose names are given, were
politarchs of the city ' ( a o X t ~ u p ~ o d v ~ w vIt) .is
~ doubtful
whether the number of politarchs was five or six (see a
paper on the politarchs by Dr. Burton, reprinted from
the Am. 10~~7'. Theol [1897], 598, where other inscrip-
tions are cited from Macedonia, and more particularly
from Thessalonica, in which the title aoht~&pxur, or the
verb a o X t ~ u p ~ o d v r e soccurs).
, going and returning, on his third missionary journey
The town flourished greatly. Strabo (330 fyg. 21) calls it the
p q r p 6 m h r s of the Macedonia of his time and notes its populous-
ness ( 3 ~ 3 i,j vSv wdhcma 761" dhhov &bvSp&). Lucian, in the
second century A.u., speaks in similar terms (Asin. Aur. 46,
d h s o s r61v iv M a r s 8 o v i p p e y l u ~ q sO e u u d o v l ~ q s ) .
The spread of the Jews after Alexander's death would
doubtless affect the citv. well Dlaced as it was for con-
trolling ;he trade of Macedonia. That
the Jewish community in Paul's time
was fairlv, large
" is evident from the fact
that it possessed a synagogue here (Acts I 7 I ; con-
trast Philippi. and compare with Bercea, which also,
being a commercial town, possesses a synagogue, Acts
1710). The number of the Jews settled in the town
had also produced a n appreciable effect upon the
Hellenic section of the population, and prepared the
way for Paul's work of evangelisation by the creation of
a large class of proselytes (cp Acts 174, ' of the devout
Greeks a great multitude,' E V ; xh?jOos aoX6). A
testimony to the number and influence of the Jews,
both in Thessalonica and in all this region of Macedonia,
is to be found in the apparent ease with which they
excited hostility against Paul. T h e exact ground of
complaint alleged against Paul at Thessalonica should be
closely compared with the charge used against him at
Philippi, for the difference runs closely parallel with the
actual difference of political status between the two
towns.
The charge at Thessalonica is virtually one of politics!
innovation or revolution (u. ' contrary to the decrees of Caesar
. . . 'another king')-a thing to which the Empire was very
sensitive, and one fraught with grave possibilities of undesirable
changes for the people of Thessalonica if the imperial authorities
were minded to take it seriously. In Philippi, on the other
hand, a Roman colony, where there could be no question of
loyalty, the charge touches religious innovations (see on this
point, Ramsay, St. Paul tke Traveller, z z g x ) . The riot itself,
though not so represented in the narrative in Acts, would appear
to have surpassed that at Philippi in malignity and violence (cp
I Thess. 2 143). The attitude of the magistrates, so far as can
be inferred from the short account, would seem to have differed
entirely from that of the magistrates at Philippi, and to have
been not in harmony with the feelings of the dre s of the popu-
lace stirred up by the Jews. With the attitude o f the politarchs
and upper classes of Thessalonica we may well compare that of
the Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19 31). Nevertheless the poli-
tarchs were obliged in the interests of their own safety to fetter
Paul's work effectually by taking sureties of Jason and other
prominent Christians of Thessalonica against the repetition of
the teaching. Paul was therefore cut off from the city by a
barrier more effectivethan the thrFat of merely personal danger
( I Thess.218, 'Satan hindered us. Cp Rams. o#. L i t . 230).
As regards the time spent in the city by Paul, nothing certain
can he inferred. Probably, however, it would be an error to
confine his work to the limited space mentioned in Acts 17 2
('three sabbath days'). Not only is a longer sojourn indicated
by the expression used in I Thess. 1 8 (' For from you sounded
ont the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia '),
but such is perhaps proved by the statement in Phil. 4 16 For
even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity').
_____~.
declares ' omnium primum liberos esse iuhere Macedona3,
habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, annuos
Creantes magistratus.
1 The arch was demolished ahout 1867. hut the inscription is
now preserved in the Brit. Mus. (Murray, Hdbk. to Greece, 826).
I t is remarkedas a curiouscoincidence (Conybeare and Howson,
Lifr and E)). of S f . Paul, 1395) that three of the names on the
inscription are identical with those of three of Paul's friends in
this region (Sopater, Gaius, and Secundus ; cp Acts 19 zg 20 4).
Possibly a later date should be assigned to the arch than is
given above (so Leake and Tafel), but that will hardly invalidate
the weight of the inscription as a testimony to the accuracy of
Acts in this passage.
5047
THESSALY
Further, the church in Thessalonica would seem to have been
composed very largely of Gentile converts (whether proselytes or
pagans at the time of Paul's teaching is, of couIse, not to be
decided). At any rate the Jewish Scriptures are not employed
in the two Epistles to the l'heesalonians, and in I Thess. 1g thq
members are spoken of as having ' turned to God from idols.
Hence we should infer that much time was spent in Gentile
circles, apart from the work among the Jews which is most
prominent in Act% It does not appear that the inference as to
the length of Paul's stay in Thessalonica derives any further
support from a consideration of such passages as I Thess. 29
z Thess. 3s$, in which stress is laid upon Paul's self-supporting
industry.
Though the name of Thessalonica does not recur in
Acts, Paul almost certainly saw the town again, both
(Acts 201J). On his return two members of the
church of Thessalonica accompanied 'him into Asia
(v.4 ) [see A RISTARCHUS , SECUNDUS]. Possibly he
was also there after his first imprisonment (cp Phil. 126
224) ; the visit to Macedonia recorded in I Tim. 1 3
might very well embrace an excursion to ThGssalonica.
Of members of the church a t Thessalonica we can
specify Jason (Acts 17 5 ; possibly identical with the
Jason of Rom. 16 ZI), Demas (probably ; 2 Tim. 4 m ) ,
Gaius (Acts lQzg), Secundus (Acts 204), and above all
Aristarchus (Acts 1929 2 0 4 272 ; he is alluded to also
in Col. 4 IO and Philem. 24).
Christianity, having been once established in Thessa-
lonica, spread rapidly ( I Thess. 1 8 ) , and in later times
the city was the bulwark of religion in this region of
Europe, so much so that it was designated ' The Ortho-
dox City.' Its name is prominent in the Byzantine
historians. I t was a safeguard of the Empire during
the Gothic inroads, and later during the Sclavonic wars,
of which it bore the brunt from the middle of the sixth
century A . D . onwards. During the Middle Ages the
city was thrice captured, by the Saracens, the Normans,
a n d the Turks. I t is now a flourishing place, the second
in European Turkey after Constantinople. It is specially
rich in remains of Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture.
surpassing in this respect any other city in Greece
(Leake).
The most elaborate work is that by Tafel, the first part of
which was published in 1835 andafterwardsprefixed asProlego-
91Zpna to his De Thessalonica eiaspue a 0,
3. Literature. Dissertafiogeo a#hica (Berlin, 1839). Gis
isespeciallyf u l g relation to the topography
and the Gothic and Sclavonic wars. For the history Finlay's
Histmy ofGYeece (ed. Tozer) may also be consulted. Descrip-
tions of the town and remains are given by all travellers from
Clark (1810) to Leake (18351, and onwards. A good succinct
account will be found in Murray's Wandhok t o Greece.
W. J. 1%'.
THESSALY (BsccaAla, Acts1715 D). Thessaly is
mentioned only in an addition to Acts1715 in D, which
runs, ' a n d those who conducted Paul brought him a s
far as Athens ; [and he passed by Thessalia, for he was
prevented from preaching the word unto them].' I t is
not clear whether a t this time Thessaly was included in
the province of Achza, or fell to Macedonia. If the
latter was the case, we should naturally expect to find
Paul going from Bercea to Larissa, the chief town in
Thessaly, for his call was to Macedonia (Actsl61o) ;
and in that case his neglect to visit Thessaly must have
been due to divine injunction (as in Acts167). If
Thessaly fell at that time to Achza, there was no
necessity specifically to mention its omission, unless we
assume that already Paul felt that he was called to a
wider field than Macedonia. It is indeed a strange
omission in Acts that nowhere is it indicated when
and how this conviction forced itself upon his mind :
already in Athens (Acts1717) the special call to Mace-
donia is forgotten in the absorbing self-imposed task
of disputing with the Jews and proselytes of that city.
Apparently there is no feeling of restriction to a particular
province.
As regards the actual attribution of Thessaly, Ptolemy
assigns it to Macedonia, Strabo to Achga (p. 840).
T h e separation may have been the work of Vespasian.
W. J. W.
5048
 THEUDAS
!PHEUDAS
COXTENTS
I. .kts and Jos. on Theudas. 5. TextandpurposeofActs536f:
6. Separation of sources.
2. Not two persons.
3. No error in Jos. 7. Inexact use of Jos. by Lk.
4. Did Lk. know Jos. 7 8. Literature.
Theudas ( g ~ y b a c 'Ti. W H ) is mentioned only in
Acts 6 36, where Gamaliel, in his speech in the synedrium
1. Acts and in support of his plea for letting the
apostles alone, uames him as the leader
Jos on of a movement which, notwithstanding
its threatening appearance at first, very
soon came to nothing. The peculiar interest which
attaches to this passage lies in the fact that a quite
similar story is foun,d also in Josephus (Ant. xx. 5 1 ,
$5 9 7 3 ) . ( a ) !is the point to be investigated is
whether Lk. has here drawn upon Josephus, it will be
convenient to print both passages in close juxtaposition.
Josephus.--rP&3ou 62 6 s ' I o u S a i a r ~ n r r p o a e i o v ~ oydgs
s TLS dvilp
OsvS& bv6parr d 8 e r sbv ~ r A a ; m o v6,yAov i v a h a i 3 d v r a 72s X ~ ' U E L S
lrreoflar mpbs rbv 'IopSdvqv T o r a p b v ai&. rrpo+<qr y i p Iheysu
rtvac, .ai a p o s r i y p a r ' rbv ?rosa+ oxibac SSOV +q Irapiterv
aitraip I;aSiav. K a i T a k a XCywv rroMo4s $&qufv. oh p i v
r I a a a v a&+s i+p&qs Bvauoar &SOF, ~ A A '&$CWC,L~"~CY
i a i r i w v I T ' airroir, ~ T L bnpacS6rqros
S & a r m u o i i u a rrohho3s p?v
aGrGv dvohv, a o M o P s 62 3Gvsas iha,¶cv ' a h 5 v ~6 rbv OrvSiv
<wyp*juavrer ~TTOTC,LYOU(TI 7i]v tw+aA?v rai K O ~ ~ < O U U L Vcis 'Iepou6-
hupa. 'While Fadus was procurator of Judza, a certain
charlatan, Theudas by name persuaded a very great number of
people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river
Jordaii ; for he told them that he was a prophet, and said he
would at the word of command divide the river and give them
an easy passage through it ; and by these words he deluded
many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to gain aught hy
their folly, but sent a regiment of cavalry against them, which,
falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took
many alive. Taking Theuqas also alive, they cut off his head,
and carried it to Jerusalem.
Acts.-rpb ydp T O ~ T W VTGV IjlrepGv dvCov 0 e u 8 L , hdywv &ai
rwa dam& 6 Irpomrhim9q bvSpGv bprtl,~bsAs ssrparouiov. 6s
I q p d O q rta$&vrcs gum daeiflovro a h + 8dhliOguav rai iydvov.ro
cis oLSCv. ' For before these days rose up Theudas, giving him-
self out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four
hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many
as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought.
( d ) In so far as the differences betwen the two ac-
counts affect their substance, they are so unimportant
as in no way to hinder us from believing that the same
fact is intended in both.
Lk. naturally is shorter, for his object is not to tell the
history of Theudas, but simply to cite an instance appropriate
to the purpose of Gamdiel's speech. He therefore mentions
only the beginning, and the ultimate issue of the move.
ment. Therefore, there is no contradiction with Josephus
when Lk. says of the followers of Theudas simply that 'they
were dispersed and came to nought. If Theudas gives himself
out 'to be somebody,' the meaning can well be what Josephus
says-that he called himself a prophet.:! Lk.'s expression re-
calls Acts 8 9, where almost the same claim is atriboted to Simon
Magus-an identical claim if 'great' ( p ' y a v ) there be a gloss
(see S IMON MAGUS,8 I , n.).
T h e greatest discrepancy is that whilst Lk. is able to
give the number of followers of Theudas as about 400
men, Josephus has sbv ~ A s k - r o vdxXov. It does not
follow from this expression that he intends a substanti-
ally larger number.
Krenkel (below, 5 8), r7of:, has collected ahundant instances
to show that Josephus, in places where we are able to control
his statements, often gives much too high figures. On the other
hand, we are not precluded from supposing that to Lk.'s 400
men, women and children ought to be added.
That the number must have been a relatively moderate one is
evident from Josephus's own statement that an gAq (=ala) of
cavalry (some joo men) was all that was required for the sup-
pression of the rising.
(c) Much more serious is the next difficulty. Lk.
goes on to say that after Theudas. Judas of Galilee
raised another revolt in the days of the taxing. As he
particulnrises the taxing by means of the definite article
(Pv T U ~ S?jp&pais T ~ ~ S ~ o y p a @ ? jand
a ) in his own Gospel
( 2 1 f . )mentions that un&r Quirinius (in 6 or 7 A D . )
and that alone, he cannot intend any other here ; and
1 On the name see nert col., n. 1.
2 2 If Theudas gromised his followers to lead them through
:
. like anot er Joshua, this will be not the sole purpose he
ordan,
ad in new, but probably onlya first trial by means of which he
hoped LO confirm faith in his miraculous power with a view to
being afterwards in a position to take up some bolder enterprise.
5049
THEUDAS
it was at the time of this taxing that in point of fact
Judas of Galilee did make his revolutionary attempt
(see J u ~ . i sO F G A L ILE E ). Thus, Lk. carries the in-
surrection of Theudas back to a somewhat early date.
According to Josephus, however, the insurrection of
Theudas was when Cuspius Fadus was procurator, that
is, some time between 44 and about 46 A.D. (Tiberius
Alexander, the successor of Fadus, held office till 48
A. D.). If Lk. is thinking of the same Theudas, he has
thus not merely assigned him to a wrong date but, what
is more, has put into Garnnliel's mouth a reference to
an occurrence which at the alleged time of spcaking
had not yet happened.
T o avoid the ascription of so serious a n error to Lk.,
it has often been assumed that he has in his mind
2. Not two another Theudas than the one mentioncd
Indeed, the attempt has
Theudases. been by Josephus.
made to prove this from Tosephus
himself. ( u )Sountag (below, 5 8 ) though he-had
discovered Lk. 's Theudas in the Simon who, originally
a slave of Herod the Great, shortly after the death of
that monarch ( 4 B .c.), gathered round him a band of
robbers in PerEa, got himself chosen to be their king,
burned and plundered royal citadels in Jericho and else-
u-here, but finally was defeated in battle by Gratus, a n
officer of Herod's, pursued and beheaded (B/ ii. 42,
§S 57-59, A n t . xvii. 106,$5 273-276). That this Simon,
however, also bore the name of Theudas is a mere
conjecture. (6) Zuschlag (below, $ 8 ) identifies
Lk.'s Theudas with Theudion, brother of Doris, the
first wife of Herod the Great and mother of his eldest
son, Antipater.
After the execution of Herod's third son, Aristobulus (7 B.c.),
Theudion married Berenice his widow (81i. 28 I P 553). He
subsequently engaged in a plot against the life Af Herod the
Great which had been set on foot by the Antipater just men-
tioned. Antipater caused poison to he fetched from Egypt
through the agency of Antiphilus, one of his friends; Antiphilus
passed it on to Theudion and Theudion to Pheroras the brother
of Herod. Pheroras handed it over to the charge of his wife.
Not till after the death of Pheroras (5 B.c.) did the matter come
to the knowledge of H e r d ; the result was that Antipater was
put to death (B/i. 3 0 5 J , @ 592.598; A n i . xvii.42, SS 09-77).
It is plain that between this Theudion and the Theudas of Lk.
there is not the faintest resemblance, and it is therefore quite
useless to inquire whether Theudion could also be called Theudas.
In point of fact, Theudas caii quite well he an abbreviation of
Theudion ; but with few exceptions a person was known ex-
clusively either by the full or by the abbreviated form of his
name, not by both indifferently (Winer, Gram.@),5 169).
(c) Wieseler (below, § 8) discerns the Theudas of
Lk. in Matthias the son of Margaloth or Mergaloth or
Margalos, a teacher of the law, who, together with his
colleague Judas the son of Sariphzns or Sephoraeus,
in the last days of Herod the Great, persuaded a number
of their pupils to cut down the golden eagle which
Herod, in contravention of the law against graven
images (Ex.2O4f: Dt.415-1823 58f: 2715). had caused
to be placed over the great gate of the temple. Herod
roused himself from his deathbed and caused Matthias
and Judas and their most prominent accomplices to be
burnt to death, and the rest of the forty who had been
taken to be executed ( B / i. 332-4, $5 648-655, A n t .
xvii. 62-4, 5s 149-167).
This story also has but few points of agreement with what we
read in Acts. That Matthias gave himself out to he any great
person of any kind is neither asserted nor probable ; he simply
appealed to the OT command. Nor can it be said that he won
over a band of followers; for those who joined in his under-
taking were from the outset his pupils, arid the entire action
was an affair of a few hours, since the templecaptain intervened
at once with armed force. At the same time all those taking
part, who were not captured, were dispersed, and it was only
afterwards that Matthias and &das, were seize<!. Further,
Judas was as deeply involved as atthias ; in fact, in B/ and in
the first two mentions of him in Ant. he is named before Mattbias,
and only afterwards (9 167) does Josephus name Matthias alone
because directly before he has spoken of another Matthias ; so
also xvii. 9 I, $ 206 : M a r O l a v i a i roPr o h air;. The only
rkason Wieseler has for passing Judas over is tbat the name
Matthias has the same meaning as Theudas.' But that Mat-
thias bore this second name also by no means follows.
-. _ _ ~ ~~ ___
1 O4Sas is oneofthe names formed with the well-knownabbrevi-
ation-ending (cp NAMES, 5 86, end ; LUKE, 8 6 ; APOLLOS, B I.
SO50
 THEUDAS
(d) Other critics, with rather more prudence, attempt
no Identifications, but nevertheless declare that some
Theudas other than the Theudas of Josephus must have
come forward before Judas of Galilee. Thus, in the
last .instance, again Ramsay (below, § 8). The scholar
who with Ramsay starts from the axiom that Lk. is a
historian of the same rank as Thucydides (see GALAT1.4,
12. end) will not readily give up this way of dealing
with the difficulty. Those on the other hand who take
cognisance of the great untrustworthiness of Lk. in
specifically historical questions (cp A CTS , 5s I, 4 , 1 3 5 ;
GOSPELS, 5 132 ; L YSANIAS) will regard the assertion
as rash. Ramsay is certainly right in saying (p. 2 5 9 )
of Josephus that ' h e does not allude, or profess to
allude, to every little disturbance on the banks of the
Jordan.' But it is just as certain that Gamaliel must
be supposed to be alluding not to a little hut to a great
disturbqnce. if his speech is to be in keeping with the
gravity of the occasion. An occurrence which could
reasonably be placed side by side with the affair of
Judas of Galilee would certainly not have been passed
over by Josephus.
Therefore also it isquite irrelevant to urge that the name
Theudas was a common one, that the later Theudas was perhaps
the son or grandson of the earlier (so Blass), or that Theudas
was not his original name but only one which he had afterwards
assumed (so Ramsay). As for the frequency with which the
name occurs, the evidence-particularly that from the inscriptions
-will be found in Schiirer (GJVF)1473, E T i. 2 168s) That
. are not shocked'at the suggestion of an acquaintance with
the name was frequent among the Jews, however, is not affirmed.
John Lightfoot (on Acts 5 36) mentions two men named onin in
rabbinic literature with regard to whom he himself adds that
neither of them ca; he the person intended in Acts.
Lastly, some critics have asked : If one or other of
the two authors must have been mistaken, why not
3. No erro= Josephus ' cui et in historia et in chrono-
in Josephus. logia titubari et vagari non insuetum 7 '
(so John Lightfoot). Joh. Dav. Michaelis
(E'inl.i. d. Schriften d. Newn Bundes,(4)l[1788]p.62f.)
formulates this position with greater precision thus :
Lk. dates Theudas correctly ; Josephus correctly re-
members (from his childhood) that a revolt occurred
under Cuspius Fadus, but is mistaken in thinking that
Theudas was the name of the leader on that occasion.
Blass is conscious that such a charge against Josephus
would be inadmissible, but reaches the same result by
the extremely bold assumption (which. however, he
introduces only with a fortusse) that, in describing the
risingunder Cuspius Fadus, Josephus wrote either another
name than that of Theudas or no name at all, and that
his copyists, carelessly identifying this narrative with
that of Acts 5 36, introduced the name of Theudas into
his text. This identification would have been occasioned
by the circumstance that with both authors the mention
of Judas of Galilee immediately follows.
Indeed our problem becomes still more complicated
than at first sight it appeared to be, by reason of the
4. Did Lk. fact that Josephus, immediately after the
words about Theudas quoted above (§ I),
how
Josephus mentions Tiberius Alexander's succession
to Cuspius Fadus in the procuratorship
and the famine in Judaea durinz hi; term (Acts 1128),
and then proceeds as follows :-
(Ant. xx. 5 2, fi I O [Naber])
~ rrpbs ~ ~ h o68t rai
s oi w a h 'IodSa
.
n. I SILAS8 7 a). Probably it comes from Beiswpos, @eidsoroc,
or sbme sulh form, and thus the meaning does coincide with
that of Matthias ('gift of God'); hut various other forms such
as @ao8irn)s, @sd&qporandthe like could also have produced it.
BEV-for @eo- rests upon a contraction met with mostly in the
Ionic dialect (Gust. Meyer (7riLclt. Gram.12) $ irg ; Schweizer,
G m m . der $ergamen. Inshii&n, 1898, 5 8 2 6 ; Meisterhans,
Grain. der uti. Znschrizten 13) 0 19 I). If the accent lies on the
first element of the compdsite name as in the first instances
given above (of which B ~ S O T O isSestablished in Attic inscrip-
tions of ahout 2co B.C. and @&wpor-both with rv-from the
period of the empire, whilst Bdbosor is already found in Plato
and @s6Swpos in Thucydides), it is proper to accentuate the
word as @&as (see SILAS,col. 4519,n. 2); if such a form as
Bsv8doros-a name met with also in Attic inscriptions of about
160 B.c.-is at the bask of the contraction BrvSir will be the
correct accentuation.
50.9
THEUDAS
700 ra?iAaiou bqpdtbpav [Niese, bv~xthluavl700 ~ b vAabv brb
.
PwFarwv mrounjuavros Kvprviou n j s 'IovAaias ~ ~ p q r t Q o v ~ &s
os!
;v 7 o k r p b 70lirwv &%plWuww
'I&w@os
, rai Zlpov, 06s ava-
uravpbar rpooirafev 6 'AA4.$au8pos: ' Besides all this, the sons
of Judas the Galikan were now put to death,-[that Judas] who
drew away the people from the Romans when Quirinius made a
census of J u d a as has been shown in a former part of this work.
Their names were James and Simon, whom Alexander com-
manded to he crucified.'
With this must be carefully compared what is said
in Acts 5 3 7 :
per& 7oQrov bvdurq 'IoJSas b FaArAaTor ;v Tars $pipars 6 s
.
broypa+<s, rai bw6urqu~vAabv b d u w a k a 8 r&r?vas br6Aero
rai ~ ~ Y T F&or
F ;w&awo a t h i S ~ e s l t o p r i ~ u a 'After
v: this
man rose up Judas of Galilee in'the days of the enrolment, and
drew away [some of the1 people after him : he aho perished, and
all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad.
(u) If Lk. cannot be cleared of the charge of having
made a mistake about Theudas it will be exceedingly
natural to look for the cause of his mistake in this
passage of Josephus, on the assumption that Lk. took
the latter part of the passage just quoted from Josephus
as referring not to the sons of Judas but to Judas him-
self. If so, it could indeed appear as if Theudas ought
to be placed before Judas as long as Lk. confined his
attention to the dating of Judas which he found in his
own gospel (215)and left that of Theudas out of con-
sideration (see further, § 7 6).
The remarkable collocation, by which the two are mentioned
in the same order has (since Keim) determined most critics who
Josephus on the part of Lk. to see here a proof of such an
acquaintance-aview which it is rather difficult to avoid. Indeed,
so strong is the proof that it and it alone has led Wendt, who in
the seventh edition of Meyer's commentary on Acts had still
denied the use of Josephus by Lk.,to affirm it in the eighth
edition (1899, pp. 35-38); and Blass,,who does not admit it,
nevertheless says : non facile adduclmur ut casui tribuamus
Theodz Judzque apud utrumque scriptorem junctam com-
memorationem,' and has no better way of escape than that
mentioned in fi 3, end.
(6) As for the phraseology : the expression ' to draw
away the people ' ( X a b dnouTijuar) in particular is one
that two authors writing independently would not easily
happen upon. Then there is also the mention of the
census. In obeyed ' (taef8owTo)I,k. uses, both in the
case of Judas and in that of Theudas, the same verb
which Josephus uses in speaking of Theudas ( ' per-
suades,' asiOer). It is specially important to mark that
of all the five passages of Josephus in which Judas is
mentioned (see J UDAS ) only that which we are a t
present considering exhibits these agreements with Lk.
Theudas's description of himself is introduced in both
cases by hdyeiv, and the participle h.&yywv which Lk.
employs Josephus has in his second passage. The
statement that after his capture Theudas had his head
cut off was plainly too detailed for Lk.; but he uses
with reference to him the verb dvarpciv ( ' was slain ')
which Josephus applies to the death of the followers
of Theudas (dvctXcv, ' he slew '), and to the sons of Judas
in precisely the sameaor. pass. (dvpp&uav, 'were slain')
as we find in Lk. Any one of these coincidences can
appear indecisive, but taken together they turn the
scale.
T h e last of the coincidences enumerated above is, it
is true, denied by Blass. (u) Eusebius ( H E ii. 111)
li. Text and quotes the words of Gamaliel regarding
object of Theudas in indirect narrationasfollows :-
acts 3Bf. 5s &pa Karb rbv Gqhodpcvov ~ p b v o vd v l u r ~
~ E U G ~ hdywv
S, i a w b v cTvaf n v a , as KaTc-
h%q, Kal ~ T ~ W T E Stlaoi dreiu8quav at@ GreXbOquav :
' that at the time specified Theudas arose, giving him-
self out to be somebody, who was destroyed, and all, as
many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'
Although this quotation is far from being verbally
exact (notice 6rciuOquav and the order of the uords
taurbv eiwaf n v a ) . Blass, nevertheless, believes that we
have a survival of the original text of Lk. in KareMOq,
and that we shall be warranted in supposing the dv~pkOq
of the best authorities to have been first introduced into
Lk. by copyists of the Bible, from the text of Josephus
5052
 THEUDAS
( c i v d X ~ v ;cp civgpiOquav in his section relating to the
sons of Judas), and vice veysu that the name of Theudas
was introduced into the text of Josephus also by copyists
(above, 5 3). Assuredly a bold hypothesis.
(d) Blass considers that some support for this hypo-
thesis can be found in the reading of D* : SE GtchriOv
airrbs 61' ahso0 ai a d v ~ e sSuor PadtlovTo atr@ ~ a l
eyivovro €IS OdSdV.
Not only, however, does this vary greatly from the rendering
of Eusebius; it also appears to be the older of the two. This
has been recognised by Blass in so far as he takes up into whet
he maintains to be the first form in which Acts was written the
words a b r b s 66' ~ b m (:=iauroir)
3 and omits the GwA~@uQv. It
is all the more remarkable to find that he refrains from proceed-
ing to the natural consequencethat of taking the KaT€Ad@
of Eusebius as a modilication of the 8mbh9q in D which was
preferred after the Grd'rd@rav had been introduced from the
ordinary text into the text of D. KaraAdcrv will have been
selected in the process because it occurs in vu. 3 8 3 The con-
verse, that D or his predecessor changed the rrreAdBq (of the
original text put forward by Blass) which yet was not followed
by any GrsAdBquav, into GrsA6@, might he hard to explain.
(c) On the other hand it is nevertheless quite intel-
ligible why Blass should have found difficulty in
accepting the text of D entirely, including the GreXdBr],
as the original. For Ds text admits very readily of
being regarded as modification-not indeed of the
primitive text assumed by Blass, yet certainly of the
generally received text of the best authorities. The
dvgp& K a i . . . GrehliOquav has here been compressed
into one verb GreXliOq.
If this 8reAhg&uav had not lain before the scribe, the single
verb 8rddBq would newr have been chosen. It can he applied
to a group of men who have been dispersed or to a thing which
has been destroyed, but to apply it to one man is not natural.
Only K a T a A f s r u is so used (v. 39) ; but K Q T ~ A ~ @
in view of what
has been said above cannot be accepted as the original reading.
By the compression of the two verbs above referred to, however,
the construction also has suffered. The subject to 8 d d B q is in
D not merely 6s hut also the plural as well, rdvres h o t iaaib'ono
ab&, and this same second subject receives further a verb in the
plurd : rai Ey&ovovro eis ob8&. The Latin translator of D has
seen that this is inadmissible, and has therefore taken occasion
to delete the ai before Eydvowo: 'qui interfectus est, et omnes
quotquot obtemperahant ei facti sunt nihil'; and Hilgenfeld
(Acta ajost. grrecl. e t [at., 1899) has found necessary the
following punctuation --so completely inconsistent with the
genius of the Greek language-of the words of D which he too
regards as those of the true original : 6s 8ccAhg& ~ b r d . 8r' ~, ahoB
r a ? r&v~vres 6oor hrrsieovro a h & rai h y b o v r o 8;s ob8iv. The
reason for the compression of the two verbs into one (8m46tJ~)
was perhaps that the eye of the copyist before it reached &qp6&
had already run ahead to Siahd@uav. Yet the addition of the
words abrbp 6r' airsoit seems to indicate that the alteration, even
if in the first instance it was due to an accident of the sort
indicated, was nevertheless carried out with full consciousness.
( d ) Mass also urges reasons derived from the context
for preferring KarcXtOq to dvyp4Oq. Gamaliel's design
is to persuade his hearers to leave the apostles alone
(vv. 38,f) ; but if the revolt of Theudas had been
quelled by his being put to death, such an instance
wonld tend to show on the contrary that the right policy
was to punish the apostles with death. W e are willing
to believe that it was this argument, whether by itself or
taken in connection with the oversight conjectured above
under (c), which led. to the reading GreXtOq adrbr Gr'
ahroD in D. But the argument is not conclusive.
Wendt (in Meyer's Comnz.) has already pointed out that it is
not the apostles who are intended to be put in the parallel
position to that of Theudas, but Jesus himself as the bead of the
new movement; Jesus, however, has already suffered the
penalty of death, and Gamaliel therefore might all the more
assume that his followers were no longer seriously to he feared.
At the same time it is by no means indisputable that Lk. was
here thinking of Jesus. Had it been so, to have referred ex-
pressly to the fact of his death would have been very natural. In
point of fact not only is this reference not made, but in speaking
of the case of Theudas it is not so much as hinted that his death
was the cause of the dispersion of his followers ; rather are the
two facts brought into juxtaposition merely.
Thus the point of the comparison between the move-
ment originated by Theudas and that in which the
apostles were engaged will rather be simply that both
at first had an apparently threatening character but
soon lose it, without reference to the manner in which
the change is effected, If this view is correct, it must
be conceded that the example of Theudas from Josephus
5053
THEUDAS
is not in all its particulars quite apposite, and the
attempt of Blass to discover or conjecture another
Theudas who was not 'slain' (dvyppdOq) but only
' broken' (KureXL;Or])must appear to be called for.
( e ) But let us now for a little leave aside all this
argumentation and simply a s k : What of Judas of
Galilee? What avails it to eliminate the death of
Theudas by operations on the text if nevertheless that of
Judas remains? True, Josephus knows nothing of it ;
but this does not come into account, for Lk. makes
Gamaliel say, ' he also perished ' : K ~ K E ~ V OdS a l j X ~ r o .
Against this Blass can only adduce the Perpignan codex
cited in ACTS, col. 50, n. 2. This in fact has for
dadhero in the case of Judas, just as for dvyphOq in that
of Theudas, ' dissolutus est ' ; but must we believe that
the original has been preserved in a solitary Latin trans-
lation? Is it not very easily conceivable that the second
' dissolutus est ' is due to repetition by a careless copyist ?
And who was it who introduced the d a d X ~ r oin the case
of Judas? T h e d v y p i O r ] for Theudas, Blass will have
it, is taken from Josephus ; but the d r l j X e 7 0 for Judas
could not at all have been taken from Josephus by way
of correction of a KarEXL;Oq originally written by Lk.
(according to Blass), for Josephus says nothing a t all
about the end of Judas.
It thus appears that text-criticism is of no avail in the
endeavour to show that Lk. has fallen into no error or
6 , separation to disprove his acquaintance with
of BoumBB, Josephus. Our next question there-
fore must be as to whether analysis of
the sources can contribute nothing to a solution of the
problems of our passage. Most of the source-critics
named in ACTS, 5 11, have no difficulty in attributing
the mistake as to Theudas along with the entire speech
of Gamaliel to the author of their ' secondary' source,
to whom also they trace everything else that is inappro-
priate or incredible in Acts. The situation is changed
somewhat if, as Clemen holds, the two verses about
Theudas and Judas of Galilee were introduced into
Gamaliel's speech by the final redactor only. Clemen
shares the view of Blass as to the inappropriateness of
both these instances to the purpose of the speech, and
therefore assumes that its purpose had not been recog-
nised with sufficient clearness by that redactor. Lastly,
B. Weiss, with whom Feine and Hilgenfeld concur,
regards only the instance of Theudas (from dvkurq in
v. 36 to dvdurq in v. 37) as being dne to the final
redactor. T h e motive of the interpolation was, he
thinks, because the movement led by Theudas, as being
of a more religious character, supplied a better parallel
to that led by the apostles than the purely political
agitation of Judas of Galilee. Even if this is not very
convincing, there is nevertheless this advantage gained
by means of Weiss's hypothesis that the literatim repeti-
tion of b v & uwhich
~ ~ would seem clumsy if we suppose
a single writer, as well as that of T ~ Y T E S Suor $aelOovTo
a h $ , become less inexplicable. All critics who accept
separation of sources at all are agreed in admitting the
existence of the error in the existing text of Acts ; as :o
acquaintance with Josephus on the part of the author of
v. 36 they differ in opinion, and this is easily possible,
since separation of sources naturally cannot shed any
light upon this question.
(u)Thuswemust resume thequestionat the pointwhere
we left it in 4 a. Lk.'s acquaintance with Josephus
., was in no case an exact one ; in fact
by Lk. It 1s sometimes denied even from a
of standDoint for which the chronolopical
difficulty does not e x k . Thus Schurer (below 8) 1
without holding the priority of Lk. in point of time,
says : ' either Lk. took no knowledge of Josephus at
all, or if he did he afterwards forgot all that he had read.
The first supposition, as the simpler, seems preferable.'
With reference to the case before us, he therefore
supposes that any knowledge Lk. had regarding
Theudas was by hearsay only. In that case, however,
5054
 THEUDAS
the remarkable degree of coincidence with Josephus
must be set down to mere chance-at which explanation
even Blass stumbles (above, $ 4 u).
( a ) It is difficult to see why the following explanation
might not serve. Lk. had made notes from Josephus
in which occurred the exact words now common to both
authors. According to the order of Josephus, Theudas
stood in the first place, Judas in the second. Perhaps
in his reading Lk. had overlooked the circumstance that
Josephus strictly speaking was dealing with the sons of
Judas, and thus erroneously took what was said of the
fate of these as referring to the father ; perhaps, how-
ever, on the other hand he read quite correctly, but at
the same time made his note only to some such effect
as this, that ‘Judas of Galilee stirred the people to
revolt in the days of the taxing ’ ; because the instance
of the father seemed to him better suited for his purpose
than that of the sons. If now he had never before
heard anything of a trustworthy kind about Theudas,
it will certainly be excusable in him if he did not retain
in his memory the date of Theudas (which of course he
did not require for his actual purpose and therefore did
not note), and (especially if the composition of his work
did not follow immediately on the making of his notes)
took the order of his notes to be also in chronological
order, and therefore represented Theudas as appearing
before Judas whose date was well known to him. If he
assigns to Judas himself the fate which according to
Josephus overtook his sons, this admits of being ex-
plained, on the first of the assumptions suggested above,
from careless reading of the passage ; on the second it
explains itself. Even Krenkel concedes that Lk., even
without literary authority for it, could believe that Judas
must have come to the same end as nearly all the in-
surrectionary leaders of that period (see J UDAS , I O ).
An instructive example of careless reading which no one can
dispute is to he met with in Eusehius ( H E 211) who reproduces
verbatim Josephus’s account of Theudas i n c l u h g the mention
of Fadus and nevertheless says that it rllates to the same event
as Gamdiel refers to in his speech. The mention of Fadus had
thus failed to suggest to him the question as to the date to
which the event ought to he assigned, and as to whether it could
possibly be reconciled with the assumed date of Gamaliel’s
speech.
(c) The attempt here made to account for the remark-
able degree of coincidence between Josephus and Lk.
would have to be abandoned only in the event of its
being possible to show that Lk. could not have used
Josephus. Not to speak, however, of the great number
of cases in which his employment of that author is
raised to a very high degree of probability indeed, if
not to absolute certainty, the non-employment in the
strict sense is incapable of being proved. It is not
difficult, indeed, to prove that Lk. did not make use of
Josephus in the manner in which a modern scholar
does ; but all the cases in which he diverges from him
admit of being arranged under two classes; either he
knows some other account besides that of Josephus and
prefers it1 (whether, in OIU judgment. rightly or no is
not the question), or he fails to use statements of
Josephus as to the accuracy of which he would have had
no doubts, simply because he has forgotten them, unless
indeed, perchance, he had never read them (for it is
possible that his use of Josephus may have been
sporadic only).
( d ) Let us suppose, however, the case that a modern
scholar has read the whole of Josephus-or most of
him. Will he at the end of his reading be in a position
to say with confidence, for example, what were the
territories included in the tetrarchy of Philip, and par-
ticularly whether Iturzea (Lk. 31) was one of them
(there are, in all, five passages in Josephus. not all of
them in full agreement, t 3 oe taken account of here;
c p HEROD, 1 1 ; L YSANIAS . $ I b ) , or to recapitulate the
facts about Lysanias? H e will have to refer to his
author again. But not only was such an expedient more
1 For example on the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts
19 20.23) ; see H&oD, p 1 2 , end.
5055
THEUDAS
laborious and time-consuming in those days in the case
of a large w-ork not then, as now, divided into chapters
and paragraphs or provided with an index ; we do not,
above all, in the least know whether Lk. deemed this
necessary, or whether he did not rather acquiesce all
too willingly in the suggestion that he knew the matter
well enough already without verifying it. W e do not
by any means deny that Lk. often gives way to fancies
which a careful reading of Josephus on his part would
certainly have dispelled ; as for example the notion that
two men could be high priest at one and the same time
(Lk.32) or that the census under Quirinius which
Josephus plainly assigns to 6-7 A.D. could have coin-
cided in date with the birth of Jesus. The question,
however, is whether Lk. read Josephus with so much
attention as to be able to correct these errors which had
already passed into his flesh and blood. If, for example,
as has been with probability supposed (see C HRONOLOGY ,
$5 59 f. ; Q UIRINIUS ), he had already confounded the
census under Quirinius with some other, it could not
of course make any great impression on him if he found
it in Josephus mentioned in another connection than
that in which he had already in his own mind placed it.
( e ) If we are to form any correct judgment as to Lk.’s
procedure with reference to sources which in our modern
view ought to have been absolutely authoritative for him,
it will be our duty to observe the manner in which he
uses the Pauline epistles. H e leaves so much of their
contents unnoticed and contradicts them to so large an
extent (cp ACTS, $5 4, 7, 14 ; C OUNCIL ; R ESURREC -
T I O N , $5 16-18,21, 23, 27 d , etC. ; SIMON PETER, $ 3 ;
SPIRITUAL G IFTS , 5 9 J ) that even some critical theo-
logians have supposed he was entirely unacquainted with
them. Yet this, if he wrote about 100-130 A.D., is
almost more impossible than it would be on the
assumption of his having been a companion of Paul.
W e could imagine that not every companion of Paul
became acquainted with the contents of his epistles
before they were dispatched. Yet this is a matter of
indifference here; for a companion of Paul became
acquainted, from his own observation or from the oral
accounts of eye-witnesses, with facts of which but a small
number is known to us from the epistles, yet in sufficient
number to show us how far it was from Lk.’s intention
to pay serious heed even to these authentic sources in
constructing his picture of the apostolic age.
(f) To return once more to Theudas, it is clear that
in this case also Lk.’s divergences (above, 16) from a
the account in Josephus are not decisive against his use
of Josephus. It is very easily possible that Lk., as
Schiirer thinks, knew something about Theudas by
hearsay, and indeed that the reported number of his
followers reached him in this manner. With this it is
not at all irreconcilable that his collocation of Theudas
with Judas of Galilee and the chronological error may
be due to his use of Josephus. T h e case is not such as
makes it possible to say that every other explanation is
excluded ; but the explanation here offered has in point
of fact a probability that presses, and no counterproof
can be brought forward. As against it may be urged,
if one chooses, the contradiction apparently involved in
the fact that Lk. is found accurately reproducing certain
words of Josephus while yet altering so profoundly the
general contents of his statements. This last fact seems
to counteract the evidential value of the verbal coinci-
dences. W e believe, however, that this difficulty has
been obviated by the suggestion that the words in
question come from Lk.’s notes of Josephus (see
above, a).
That Josephus had been used by Lk. was first affirmed
by Holtzmann (ZWT,1873, pp. 85-93, and especially Pgl; ;
1877, pp. 535-549). See also Hausrath,
8. Literature. NTZfch Zt.-gesch.P) 4, 1877, pp. 239-24j ;
Keim, BL 5, 1875, pp. 5.10-5~3, and Aus dem
Urchristenthum, 1, 1878, pp. 1-27? especially 18-21 ; Clemen,
Chvonol. d.pauZin. Bne c 1893, pp. 66-69, and Sf.KY.1895,pp.
375-337 : and K r e n k e l , ~ & h m16. Lucas, 1894, pp. 16~-17q(very
thorough). Lk.’s use of Josephus was denied by Sonntag, St.
5056
 THXMNATHAH
Kr. 1837, pp. 622-652; ‘Wieseler, Ckronolog. Sympse, 1843, pp.
r o - . ~ o j ,and Beitr. zur Wurd&ung der Evaxgciim, 186q, pp.
10:-104 ; Zuschlag, Tkzudu, 1849; Schiirqr, Z W T , r 0 7 ~ ,pp.
&74-j82 ; Belser, Tiib. theol. Quartaischrzft, 1696, pp. 61-71;
lass St. Kr. 1896, p. 459f., and Acta apostolortrm .. .
secukdunzfomnam Romanam, Leipsic. 1896,p. xvif: (cp Acta
a#ostolormz edit.pkiLolo~-lca, Gottingen, 1895,adioc.) ; Ramsay,
Was Christ born at Bethlehem? r8g8, 2jz-160; Feiue, Theol.
Lif..Bktt, 1900, 6of: ; Cross, Ex). T,r8gg-xgmr pp. 538-540.
P. w. s.
THIMNATHAH (;lc??3?),
Josh. 1943. See T I M N A H .
THISBE ( e l C B H [BK],~ I B H[A]), the native place
of Tobit (Tob. 12).
It was situated ‘at the right hand ’-id., southward-ofrcu8ros
[BN]or rcu8rov [AI (Kadesh) in Galilee, and above aw[wlqp
(Hazor?). N adds that it was baiuw GuwpGv jhiou, g t Bprwrr-
p i ” goywp.
So far on the hypothesis that we have the Book of Tobit in an
approximately original form. There is, however, strong reason
to believe that the stories of Daniel (in part), Esther Judith,
and Tobit, have been !systematically altered as regdds their
historical and geographical names (see Crit. 83.).Thus the
addition in N represents qiy n $Nn&n 2iynn inN, hut this is a
corruption of sNY??: x :
l ’5 Hnnl: and the names Naasson,
Rajhain, Seplrrf in It. Vg. come respectively, (a)from 1233,(6)
from OW?: (see REPHAIM), and (c) from rims. $ 3 5 ~ and 1 ~ 5 1 name ~ ~ U O W O C b, r a r & J m o sp&.rqs=Hebrew fiJzbm@in?,in
are liable to confusion : the original reading was probahly not
‘Galilee’ hut ‘Gilead’-i.a. the southern Gilead in the Negeb.
‘Naphtah’ is a southern district so called, and ‘Asher’ repre-
sents the southern Asshur or Ashhur. See, however, TOBIT,
and on another reference to a Thisbe or Tishbeh, see TISHRITE. otherhand,’Siegfried-Stade, Lex.; Konig, 269 ; Dalman, Gramm.
T. K . C .
THISTLE, THISTLES occur in AV as the rendering
of the following words :-
I. im?, dardar (~pipohor,Gen.318 Hos.108+), a
word also found in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but
apparently quite distinct from another word d a r d i r
which, in Persian and Arabic, denotes the ‘elm tree’
(see Low, 9 8 8 ) . E:eing coupled in both places with
yip, (‘ thorns ’ or ‘ thorn-hushes,’ see T H O R N ),dardnr
has been reasonably identified both in ancient and
modern times with the Tpf,8OhOS of the Greeks-Le.,
either a thistle or more probably a spinous plant of the
knapweed kind, such as Cenfaurea C a k i f r a p a , L.
(Ascherson ap. Liiw, 4 2 7 ) or the more formidable C.
verufum (Tristram, N H B 426). Petermann (Reisen
irn Orient, 174) reported that the name dardar was still
used in Syria for plants of the thistle kind.
2 . For 15)$, acrid, ,idpuoc, E V ‘bramble,’ AVmg. offers in
Judg. 9 14 the alternative rendering ‘thistle.’ See BRAMBLE, I.
3. gin, @Z&, is rendered ‘thistle’ in 2 K. 1 4 g 2 Ch. 25 78 Job
31 40, and ‘bramble’ (AV only) in Is. 34 13, elsewhere and in
R V m g . CXC. Is. THORN (g.?~.).
4. rpiSahar occurs twice in N T ( M t . 7 16 Heb. 68t) ; the mean-
in is probably the same as that of OT llii.
%histledownappears once in AVmg. (Is. 17 13), producing as
the result, ‘like thistledown before the whirlwind.’ But if a
definite plant is required one might think rather with W. M.
Thomqon 1 of the globe-de branches of the wild artichoke(prob-
ably Cynara syriacn). When ripe and dry in autumn these
‘vegetable glohes ’ are carried far and wide by the wind. AV
curiously, gives in the ttdxt of Is. (Lc.) ‘a rolling thing,’ and i; The name Judas-Thomas occurs also in the Syriac
the similar passage, Ps. 83 13 [14], ‘ a wheel’ (see WHEEL) ; RV
in both passages renders ‘the whirling dust.’ The analogy of
Syr.geiZri, Arab.j‘z‘lL, would, however, rather recommend ‘stubble
as the true meaning of h!?,gargal, in these two passages.
N. M.
THOCANUS ( e O K A N U Y [B], ~ W K [A]). . I Esd. 914 ’IoGas d Kal 90& (HE113. where the Syriac text of
RV=Ezra 1015, TXKVAH (4.v.).
THOMAS THE AI?OSTLE. For the order in which
the name occurs in the lists in Mt. 10 Mk. 3 Lk. 6
1. The name. Acts 1, see A POSTLE , 5 I (col. 264). In
the Fourth Gospel the name occurs
seven times, thrice with the addition ‘who is called
Didynius,’ 6 heybpwos Af6upos (1116 2024 212 145
2 0 2 6 8 ) . From Jn. this addition found its way into
the Greek and Latin text of Lk. in cod. D. Formerly
the name was read also in Jn. 2029 by the T R without
any Greek attestation and in the Vulgate of this passage,
1 The Land and tkz Eook, 563=S. PaZesfineand fcmsalem,
11 2s
5057
THOMAS T H E APOSTLE
though none of the MSS collated by Wordsworth-
White have it there.
The spelling of the name is without exception O w p i s , in
Latin Thomas (only two MSS of Wordsworth-White have fre-
quently T o m u ) ; in Syrinc T J z a m d ( b d / L)according to Bar-
Hehrzus, hut the Nestorian vocalisation is Thddmri (bo{b,
preserving the consonantal character of N as in Hebrew ; the
Syro-Palestinian writes the Grecised -)-yJoiL (cod. A, JIL
1116 &lis&, and for A i b p o s I*spoil (cod c, 2024
)so/,& The Syriac appellative for twin is tkdnzd (Nes-
torian thr‘imri), and scarcely differs in pronunciation from
the proper name, for which reason the explanation b hfy6psvor
Ai&. was omitted in all three passages in Syr. Sin. Syr. Cur. is
defective in all passages of the Gospels where Thomas occurs.
But in both these Syriac texts the name Thomas occurs in a
passage where it is not found in the original Greek, namely Jn.
1422. instead of ’IoriSas oGx 6 ’IwtcaprS.igs, Syr. Sin. gives
TkotAa, Syr. Cur. Juda-Thoma: Blass gives now ’1048~~[, 06x
b Arb KapuSrou]. The Greek A i S u p o ~has been preserved as
Didymus in the Latin versions, hut rendered no creszentz or
dubitos in the MSS of Lyon and Carpentras of the ProvenGaI
version and ein nveifrier in the pre-Lutheran German Bible, as
if it were=di+uxos (see PREP) 366). The OS translates the
Pal.-Syr. ttinzri) and 8iSupos. The meaning ‘twin’ is certain,
hut the original form of the Semitic word is much dis-
puted (see, on the one hand, Olshausen 5 1816, Lagarde,
UeJersicht 144; Barth, 1826, n. r ; Ges.-)Buhl, Lex.; on the
). The question is whether the Hebrew word be tr‘dm
1 1 2 n. 4
(raher than tb’em) or tb’dm (in Arabic tau’atn). Still more douht-
ful is the relation to the corresponding Ethiopic word. The
spelling tiyam in the Targums is merely due to the pronunciation
of between two vowels. No exam le of the use of the noun as
a propername older than the N T is Enown to the resent writer.
There is no Thomas for instance in Josephus, gut cp Phen.
+ni>y 13nNn in C I S 1 no. 46, where also Oapos A,¶Gauwrpou,
though the name became very frequent in all parts of Christen-
dom ; for modern Syriac instances, see Maclean’s Dictionary.
From the reading ‘ Thomas ’ or ‘ Judas-Thomas ’ for
‘Judas not Iscariot’ in Jn. 1422, it is apparent that
a. The person. Thomas was identified at a very early
date with ’ Judas of James ’ in the lists
of Lk. 6 and Acts 1. This is strange enough, since the
name Thomas also occurs in these lists. Yet so it is,
and this identification has been maintained by Resch
(Te.rte u. Unt. x. 3824 Z), who explains ‘ J u d a s of
James ’ as bruthev (not son) of James, and finds the other
twin in James the son of Alphaeus, taking Lebbzus-
Thaddzus to be different from ‘Judas of James‘ (see
J UDAS , 7 , col. 2623). This ‘Judas of James ’ has been
identified further with Judas (or Jude) the son of Joseph,
the brother of Jesus, and thus Thomas has been made
brother of Jesus himself. On the latter identification see
especially Th. Zahn, Forsehungen, 6 346 3 , who thinks
that it is an invention of the author of the Acts of
Thomas. i\ Syriac origin for these Acts has been
maintained by Niildeke and supported lately upon valid
grounds by Burkitt (Journ.TheoL Stud. l z h 8 294f:).
Doctrine of Addai (see Lagarde, R e l i g u i e Syrz’ace, p.
4 2 22. 16f: ; Grace, p. 9 4 2. 35 ; Cureton, Docuvzenfs, 3 3 ;
ed. Phillips, 5 ; Barhebrzeus, Chron. EccZ. 32), and it was
doubtless from a Syriac source that Eusehius got his
Eusebius has only Judas Thomas). Ephrem Syrus,,
too, called- him Judas-Thomas (616 F of his works,
where the Roman edition printed ‘Thomas,’ see
Burkitt, T e z t s and Studies, vii. 2 4 ) . Others make Simon
Zelotes a brother of Judas or James (see the Armenian
Commentary of Ephrem on Acts in Rendel Harris,
Four Lectures on the Western Text of Acts, 3 7 ) . and
from this combination the other fact may be ex-
plained, that for Lebbaeus also Judas Zelotes is found in
Latin MSS in Mt. 103,in Miinter’s Sahidic version. Jn.
1422 (see Lipsius, 3163), in the Latin Chronicle of the
year 334 (ed. Mommsen, 6 7 0 , ed. Frick, 100, who
wrongly presupposes a lacuna between Judas and
Zelotes). For the question whether under the ‘ things
5058
 THOMEI
which Judas Thomas wrote from India’ (Lagarde,
Reliquice Syr. 41 6 ; Cureton, Documents, 32) the
epistle of Jude is to be understood, see Lipsius, 3194 ;
Zahn, f . o r s c h n g e n 95116 122 6347? n. 4. T h e ‘Gospel
of the Twelve Apostles’ (ed. by J. Rendel Harris, 190)
makes him a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the
‘Book of the Bee’ (ed. Budge, 1886) of the tribe of
Judah.
The legends that gathered round this apostle are of the most
fanciful kind and too intricate to be treated at length here; cp
the Greek edition of Bonnet, the Syriac of Wright, and its
supplement by F. C. Burkitt in Shrdiu SinuiticuQ25-44, and
the treatment of these Acts in Lipsius, Die AjokryPlrm AposteL
geschichten.
In the Clementine Homilies Thomas has a twin brother
Eliezer (or, Eleazar, see Lipsius, ErgZnzungsheft, 24), in
another list a twin sister Lysias ( Q j . ad Chron. pusch. 2 142,
ed. Bonn). In the Apostolic Constitutions,vi. 14 (173, ed.
Lagarde) the name Thomas is omitted in the list of the Apostles
by the MSS w x , supplied between Bartholomew and Matthew
by oyzt.
I n the ‘ Apostolic Church order or Thud book of Clement’s
Teuching of the Twelve Apostles as published by T. P.
Arendzen (In /. TheoZ. Stud. 360) ;he order is (7) James, (6)
Nathanael ( ) Thomas (IO) Kephas (11) Bartholomew, and(iz1
Judas son ;?James (thk Sahidic veriion bas ‘brother of James,
see Arendzen, 74). In the corresponding text (to be published
by hlrs. M. D. Gibson in Hwre Semitic@ 120) we get (7)
James, (8) Judas son of James, with (9) Nathahael, (IO) Thomas,
(11) Bartholomew (12) Matthias. A MS in the possession of
R. Harris agrees k t h the text of Arendzen (Gibson, appendix).
In the Hirimy of Mu7y (Budge E T 105) Thomas is said to
have preached to ‘the Indians,’and’ the Chinese, an$ the
Cushites, and (the people of) all the islands near and far ...
His day in the Western church is the zIst Dec. m the Greek
the 6th Oct., in the Syriac the 3rd July (see fiilles, Kulen-
dumwn). On the zmd Oct. 394 his coffin was deposited in the
great church of Edessa; but this was, perhaps, only a removal,
as other sources tell of his grave at Edessa at a much earlier
time. On the church of the Thomas-Christians of Malabar,
which refers its origin to the apostle himself, see Germann, Die
KircJu der Tho?naschn>tcn (1877); on the character of the
apostle see the Commentaries on the Gospel of John and
exegetical and homiletical books. That the legends make him
a carpenter and builder may have arisen from his association
with Jesus. E. N.
THOMEI (0OMEI [A]), I Esd. 532 RV, AV Thomoi.
See TEMAH.
THORN, THORNS, OCCUT in AV as the rendering of
many different words. I t is in nearly all cases impossible
to arrive at a determination of the particular species
intended, and indeed most of the words may be pre-
sumed to be of somewhat general application.
I. X35, ~ @ (see
d BRAMBLE), is probably some species of
Rhammus. MT in Ps. 56 g [IO] where ~ D occurs H is probably
corrupt. [In Cheyne’s restoration the ‘pots’ and ‘thorns’ dis-
appear in asentencewhich mayremind us of Job2Tzof: Duhm
here is more conservative. Olshausen’s note, however, still
deserves consideration.]
2. p y , &&k, is rendered ‘brier’ in Mic. 74 (but cp Q), and
‘thorns’ in Prov. 15 1st. See BRIER, 6.
3. gin, &E& ( 2 K. 149 2 Ch. 2518 Job 3140 F’rov. 269
Cant. 22 Is. 3413 (cp 6)Hos. 96), rendered in AV thrice
’thorn,’ thrice ‘thistle,‘ and once ’ bramble,’ is a word
which elsewhere denotes a ‘ hook ’ (Job 4026 [412]
2 Ch. 3311) the n y r ~ kEvi&im.
, of I S. 136f is pro-
bably a corruption (Dr., ud loc. ). d has in three places
&KavOar (‘thorns’) and once Kvf6q (‘nettle’) ; in z K.
U K U Y (accus. U K U Y ~ [ Y ] but U K X U V [L]) ; in z Ch. 2518
the word is merely transliterated. 6 XO&L, T ~ Ya x o q
[B]. 6 oxor, T ~ Yax. [A], 6 U K X ~ Y[L]. I t is usually
taken to be a tall and strong thistle, such as Notobusis
syriucu ( F F P 336), whose ‘ powerful spines ’ ( N H B 424)
would explain the connection with the meaning ‘ hook ’;
but some other thorny plant may be intended. Arab.
and Pers. hawb ( ’ peach ’ or ‘ plum ‘) is probably quite
a different word, and does not justify the rendering
d sloe’ adopted by Celsius, 1 4 7 8 g See Low, I47f.
4. ylrv’, nu‘&@ (wrjharov Is. 7 19, u ~ o r g $ 2Is. 55 13th is
1 On the reading in z Ch. see MANASSEH.
2This word appears in Dioscorides (412) as the name of a
common lant. According to Pliny(2115, g 54) it had a prickly
stalk. &aas (Syn. PI. FZ. Class. 78) identifies UTOI,¶< with
5059
THREE TAVERNS
probably a general name for a prickly plant or bush, and con-
nected with the verL yy2 (~E‘u:),to ‘pierce’ or ‘prick,’ which
appears in post-biblical Hebrew (see Barth, Nominul6. 213).
5. D’TD,sirim(Eccles.761s.3413 Hos.28[61Nah.l rot), denotes
‘ thorns ’ ‘thorny branches ’ or thorny bushes.’ @ has in
Eccles. knadar, in Is. &Kdvdva&Aa(?) and in Hos. u r i h o m p ; in
Nah. its text differs from MT which’is corrupt (see Wellh. ad
doc.). As the etymology is uhknown, no nearer speculation is
possible.1 The form nllq sirmh, in one place denotes ‘hooks’
(h 4 2).
6. fib, sillan (Ezek. 2624, m6Ao$), and o’$$p, sullcinim,
mpoim&uouuc? (Ezek. 2 6 ) . See BRIER.
7. a?
’ :, ginnim (Job55 Prov. 225t) and (8) O’S??, - . :Znnininr
(Nu. 33 55 Josh. 23 13t) are also general words for ‘ thcrns.’
The former is rendered ~pi,Bohor by @ (in Prov. 22 5 ) ; the latter
The Hehrew words are possibly
@oA&r. . . connected with
n z p , :in:heth, Aram. Hi:, Ar. sinn, which all mean ‘basket.’
In Job 5 5 the reading of MT is not supported hy @ and seems
suspicions (see Hoffmann, ud roc.).
9. yip, &ci?(iiavOa. Gen. 8 18 Ex. 22 5 [6] Judg. 6 7 I6 2 S. 236 Ps.
116 12 Is. 32 13 33 12 Jer. 4 3 1 2 13 Ezek. 28 24 Hos. lost), is the
commonest OT word for ‘ thorn’ or ‘thorns,’ but is also (so far
as we know) quite general ( L ~ w198). ,
IO. Wbp, &immciT(Prov.2431 Is. 34 13 Hos. 96t). See N ETTLE .
11. ill@, k y i t h ( I s . 5 6 7 q f i Qr~[18]10172741), awordwhich
only occurs in Is., is, in all the seven places where it appears,
combined with Vp#, TEnzir, and is probably of similar meaning
(see BRIER, 2). Dietrich (Abhundl. zur semit. Wortforsch. 73)
proposes a derivation from ># !, TE’ih, ‘to be waste,’ hut this
i s unlikely.
12. P@”YOFoccurs Bar. 6 71 [.lo]. Cp BRAMBLE.
13. U K ~ A O $ ,z Cor. 1 2 7. See ahore (5), (6). I n Ecclus. 43 IQ
Heb. is 1 7 ~ ~ For . the meaning of the expression see P AUL , g 32,
EYE, DISEASES OF, S 4. N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
THRACE. A ‘ Thracian ’ horseman ( T&Y Imrhwv
T L Y ~ 8ppKGv)
S is incidentally mentioned in 2 Macc. 1235
as one of the bodyguard of Gorgias, the governor of
Idunizea under Antiochus Epiphanes. The opportune
arrival of the Thracian saved Gorgias from capture by
one Dositheus.
Thrace at this period was the general name for the
entire region included between the Strymon and the
Danube, embracing a variety of tribes (cp Herod.
53). With the death of Lysimachus in 281 B . C . , all
chance of Thrace becoming an independent kingdom
ceased. T h e country became a recruiting ground for
all who needed troops and could pay for them.
Thracian troops were chiefly light-armed infantry and
irregular horse (Xen. A n a b . i. 29 ; Memor. iii. g 2).
Frequent references are made to them as an element in
Macedonian, Roman, and other armies ; probably the
name came to be applied to indicate a certain type of
equipment and mode of fighting rather than actual
nationality.
[For Bpaiwv of @A however @Vi reads 80 UOF and @Ira
Baeuouc’ and it is, o; say the’least quite as fkelf that the
Syrian :avalry was drawn from Cificia as from Thrace (cp
ARMY,5 7). As to the possible identification of Tiras (Gen. 10 2)
with Thrace, see TIRAS.] W. J. W.
THRASEAS or (RV)THRASEUS (epacaloy [A],
eapcioy eapcsoy [Val. thrasius [ ~ y r . ] ) ,
father of APOLLONIUS, zMacc.35. T h e name m a y
possibly be another form of Tarsus.
THREAD (h,
etc.), Josh. 218 etc. See CORD.
T-E CHILDREN, SONG OF THE. See D ANIEL
(B OOK ), J 22.
THREE-STRINGED INSTRUMENT (&’@), I S.
186 EVmg. See M USIC, 3[4].
THREE TAVERNS ( T P I W N T+PNWN [Ti. WH];
Acts 28 1st. AV ‘ The three taverns, RV ‘ T h e Three
Taverns. ’).
Here Paul was met on the final stage of his journey
Poterium spimsum, a low herb occurring in Syria, the branches
of which terminate in intricate branching spines.
1 BrcvBa in both Greek and Latin writers was undoubtedly
Acunthlrs spinonrs. The nearly allied A. syriucus is abundant
in Syria.
5060
 THRESHING INSTRUMENT
to Rome by a company of the Roman Christians. It
was a station on the Via Appia ; evidently, from the
order of the names. lying between Rome and Appii
Forum. From Cicero (Ep. ad Att. 212, emerseram
commode ex Antiati in Appiam ad Tris Tabernas ’), we
learn that it stood just where a cross road from Antium
on the coast fell into the Appian Way from the W . Tres
Tabern2 stood thei-efore very near the northern end of
the Pomptine marshes, in the midst of w-hich Appii
Forum actually lay (cp Horace, Sat. i. 53f: ). The A n t .
Itin. gives 17 R.m. between Aricia and Tres Tabernae.
and I O R.m. from Tres Tabernae to Appii Forum ;
Xricia stood 16 m. S. of Rome. These distances locate
Tres Tabernre at about 3 miles from the modern
Cisterna on the Appian road. W.J. W.
THRESHING INSTRUMENT (2*D), 2 S. 2422.
See A GRICULTURE , 5 8.
THRESHOLD. This is the rightful rendering of (I)
ID, saph (some scholars compare Ass. sup(p)zi),the more
usual term (see D OOR ) ; ( 2 ) p?p, m@htun, is
Hebrew probably the special term for the threshold
of the sanctuary proper (Thenius), I S. 54f:
(Dagon’s temple), Zeph. 1 9 Ezek.93 10418 462 471 (cp
D AGON , 5 3 ) . The rendering ‘ threshold’ in AV of
I Ch. 2615 17 needs correction (see A SUPPIM ). W e also
find the plural n.90, s@p?n, ‘ thresholds.‘ So in Is. 6 4 ,
‘And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the
sound of theirvoices’ (read D*DD” ’I?! , cp Job 386).
and
W e are probably to suppose the front of the temple
divided by one or more pillars into several entrances.
So, too, in Am. 91,‘Strike the capitals (of the pillars)
that the thresholds may tremble.‘ T h e temple at Bethel
is spoken of. These ‘ thresholds’ had special keepers
( E V ‘ porters ’), I Ch. 922 z Ch. 234. Elsewhere the
phrase is ‘keeper (or keepers) of the threshold’ (but I D
may be used collectively) ; so, e.g., Jer. 354 2 K. 224
234 etc., for which in Esth. 221 d gives ~ ~ X ~ U U ~ U T Oor- pulpit.
@ 6 X a ~ c s taking
, the Hebrew phrase as synonymous with
‘ Keeper of the king’s head‘ ( I S. 282, d ~ ~ X L U W ~ U T O - 6. rrporoxaBeSpia, the first or chief seat in a synagogue
@dXaE). In Ps. 84 I I (if the text is correct), a psalmist
values even this Levitical office highly (q$nj;r. but 6
7rupaprmeiuBar). Gates and thresholds being sacred.
it was of course a privilege to guard them. But though
it is usual to quote this passage, it is doubtful whether
this is critically justified.
Sacrifices for the family were originally at the entrance
of the home. According to Hommel, the Ass. sup(p)zi,
‘ prayer,’ is a denominative form -s$pu,
2. Sacred- ‘threshold.’ In modern Egypt a threshold
ness of the sacrifice may be offered to welcome the
threshold incoming master of the house,l and, in
stone. ancient times, Herodotus reports that
every Egyptian sacrificed a hog to Osiris before the door
of his house (248). Trumbull makes it probable that,
in the narrative of the institution of the Passover, the
words a and he shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it
in the blood that is in the bason’ (Ex. 1222) misrepresent
the true meaning. 1pp might in fact mean either ‘ i n
the bason ’ or ‘ at the threshold,’ and Trumbull prefers
the latter rendering (6 r a p & T ~ VBdpav, Vg. in limine). Ri6k. ad Zoo..), and of the throne of Solomon ( I K.
T o set foot on the t;hreshold in a careless manner was
probably unlucky ; Trumbull reports that even now in
Syria ‘ i t is unlucky to tread on a threshold,’ and that
in Upper Syria the bride is sometimes carried across the
threshold of the bridegroom’s house by the friends of the
bridegroom. In Egypt it is the bridegroom who does
this, and in ancient Greece and Rome, also in ancient
India, similar customs are well known to have existed.
Obscure passages in I K. 1821 and Zeph. 7 9 can now be
understood ; also probably the name of the Pesah (EV
1 So on the arrival of the new Khedive at his palace in 1882
(H. Clay Trumbull, Thc Threshold Covenant (1896), 7, quoting
Folk-LoreJournaf,191).
5061
THRONE
’ Passover ’). nDB, @sa&, means ‘ to leap, to dance.
The Pesah was perhaps so called because the Israelites
‘ leaped ’ over the threshold after the special sacrificial
rite referred to had been performed at the threshold in
recognition of its freshly attested sanctity, or performed
a ritual dance near it.
In I K. 1821, ‘ How long halt e between two opinions’ (AV),
is admittedly most improbable. %herevisers, however not beinq
allowed to correct the text without ancient authority,’could finh
nothing that was plainly better. But Klostermann has provided
the easy and natural correction n’9pg (for MT D?p?). It only
remains to interpret the reference to the sippiin aright. The
true explanation seems to be, ‘How long will ye leap over both
thresholds?’--r.e., enter with the same scrupulous awe the
sanctuaries of the two rival deities, Yahwb and Baal. And in
Zeph. 1 9 (reading v. 96 as in (5) we may araphrase, ‘And on
that day I will punish those who, though tfey leap with scrupu-
lous awe over the sacred threshold, yet bring with them into
Yahwb’s house hands stained with cruelty and injustice ’ (Che.
JQR 405684 [18,98]; cp Jastrow, JBL171afi [r8g8]). See
further, Crtt. B d . Trumbull has already explained I S. 5 1-5
by the light of the same archgological facts. The explanation in
I S. 5 5 is of course an uncritical guess akin to that in Gen. 32 32.
T. I<. C.
THRONE. It will be convenient under this heading
to deal with seats in general, the Hebrew
1. word for throne being applied to all articles
of furniture of that description. The terms are :-
I. kiss8 (HE?, but ”E? I K. 1019 Job26gt). is apparently
derived from the Ass. klrss?i ‘seat, throne,’ the Aram. equiva-
lent korsi’ (HDl? Dan. 5 20, etc., cp Syr. K?irs8yE), from which is
borrowed Ar. Kursi ‘chair ’ being probably an earlier form.1
Purely colourless are the tdo terms-
2. m&i6 (lflD, I S.2018, etc., E V ‘seat,’ lit. ‘place of
sitting’ from yrisa6), or $&th (”I?’, Am. 6 3 , EV i6., 0
raOi6pa; and
3. ttkrinrih (?+?J?, Job 23 3 ‘ seat,’ lit. ‘fixed place ’), used of
the dwelling-place of the Almighty.
4. @<pa,Acts1221 (RVmg. ‘ judgment-seat’). Properly a
raised platform (Lat. Iri6unaf, cp suggeslum) upon which, as
E
os. Blii. 1I shows, the Bpivos (Lat. sella) was erected. In
Aeh. 8 4 @<pastandsfor migdd, ‘tower’-i.e., anelevated stand
5. KaBCSpa, Ecclus. 7 4 (Heb. nz&~6), cp Mt. 21 12 Mk. 115
(seat of the dove-sellers).
(Mt. 236 Mk. 1239 etc.). Cp SVXAGOGUE g 9f:
7.. Bp6vos (in (5 f& I above), Rev. 4 4 11L, etc. a state chair
having a footstool. Plu. in Col. 1 1 6 as the’nam; of a class of
angels ; cp Test. Levi, 3, where they appear as in the seventh
heaven. See ANGEL, g I.
Such pieces of furniture as chairs, seats, or stools are
unknown to the ordinary tent-dweller, and doubtless the
Hebrewsfirstcame touse themafter they
*’ References’ occupied Canaan (see M EALS , 5 3 b ) .
It is true that in the representation of Sennacheribs
camp before Lachish a kind of seat or bench is to be
seen in some of the tents, but this departure from the
ordinary custom is doubtless due to the superior culture
of the Assyrians (see T E N T , fig. I ). As in Assyria.
Babylonia. and Egypt, seats were no doubt to be found
in every house in Canaan, and together with a bed,
table, and lamp formed part of the equipment of a well-
appointed room ( 2 K. 410 ; EV ’ stool ’).2 The word
used in this passage (KissZ) elsewhere refers to the seat
or throne of Eli the priest ( I S. l 9 413 18), of the
governor ‘beyond the River’ (Neh. 37, see Ryle, Camb.
1 0 1 8 8 ,2 Ch. 9 1 7 8 ) .
The reference to Satan’s throne at Pergamos (Rev. 2 13, see
PERCAMOS, 5 z), if the great altar of Zeus is meant, is associated
1 According to another view the I in the Aram. forms has
been inserted to compensate for the loss of the doubled s (for a
statement of the views see Bevan, Daniel,104f:). It is to be
noticed that the form with Y occurs in the old Aramaic inscription
of Bar-rekub (Zenjirli, B5, temp. Tiglath-pileser 111.). The
same form appears to recur in Phaenician inscriptions from
Cyprus of the beginniny<of the fourth century B.C. (CIS1, nos.
22: 44, 88), where D*D~,(”) via, ‘interpreter of the two thrones,’
is perhaps the ;pp‘)vev+ (cp Gr. inscr.) between the rulers of
Cyprus and Persia (see C f S 1.55).
2 But note perhaps that the hostess is said to have been a
‘great’ woman.
5062
 THRONE
with the interesting question of throne-worship. That there is a
very close connection between the throne of the deity and his altar
appears certain, and it is not improbable that they were originally
identical. On the whole subject see Reichel, Vorhelfen.Gdtter-
czdte, 3 8 (Vienna, 1897)~ with Budde’s remarks, Erp.T
9 3 9 6 5 ; and Clermont-Ganneau, Rec. ZArch. Orimt. 42473.
‘There are three main varieties of seats to be noticed :
(, a,) the seat with neither back nor arms, (6)the seat with
. \ , Is. 3030, cp‘Jer. 1013. plur. nihp, Ex. 923, or o&
3. Description. straight back, and (c) the straight-
backed seat with arms. T h e three
practically correspond to the classical selZa, cathedra,
and thonus respectively. The first of these is frequently
represented upon Assyrian and Babylonian seals,’ and
bears a general close resemblance to the primitive
altars and table upon the Assyrian slabs.2 In a large
numher of cases it is shaped like a square stool, often
with several cross-bars, though instances are by no
means wanting where the legs cross transversely, not
unlike the construction of the modern camp-stool.
These shapes are found in the ancient classical world and were
probably borrowed from the Ea% The Greek term for them
Gi+por, is used by 6 to render kiss8 in I S . 1 9 4 13 18 2 K. 4 IO:
and in accordance with Gr. usage occurs in I S. 25 23 to render
nzi(&ih. On the use of beds, couches. and divans, cp BED, S 3.
Representations of the second and third variety
are likewise found in Assyria where they are often
accompanied with a footstool: cp the analogy of the
Gr. Bp6vos and its Bpjjvvv.
The OT references to the footstool (h&G;n, ob, 6 ;7rorri&ov,
always metaphorical) would show that the Hebrews were well
acquainted with seats of this nature. On kdbd (.;a?),
2 Ch. 9 18,
see below, 11. 6.
The two last-mentioned varieties lent themselves to
decoration and elaboration to a greater extent than the
seZla. They were frequently of the finest workmanship
and adorned with gold and plaques of carved ivory (see
I VORY, 5 2).3 An overspread or baldachino was often
added, and a reference to this is perhaps rightly seen in
the Sa$hrir (Kr., but Ktb. inyd) of Jer. 4 3 1 0 . ~ A
common form of ornament was the representation of
animals or men, to support the arms or seat.
If Benzinger is correct in his suggestion that Solomon‘s
throne (situated in the Porch of the Throne, I K. 7 7 )
was the work of Hiram, it is natural to suppose that it
was based upon the familiar Egyptian or Assyrian
models. The throne was decorated with ivory and gold,
and was approached by six steps (cp Is. 6 I ‘ a throne
high and lifted up ’), at each end of which was the figure
of a lion.6 T h e back appears to have been adorned with
heads of bulls. The second Targ. on Esther adds many
fanciful details which are devoid of value.
On the text of I K. 10 1 8 8 2 Cb. 9 1 7 3 see the Comm.of
Ki. and Benz. In T K. 10 19;he reading ‘;ounded top’ (head-
rest) appears obvious, but we should probably read $ 2 - ~ .;~i
‘the heads of hulls’ (6 r r p o r o p l p i q x o v ) . In 2 Ch. 9 18 t h i
words have been seriously niisunderstood.6
The meaning of ycidath, EV ‘stays‘ (lit. hands, S ‘ Xcipas,
nunus [K.], i,yy.Svsr, bruchiolu [Ch.]) is not clear. Jos. Ant.
viii. 5 z offers W+QTOV, which means (a)the slats of the frame-
work of a bed, (6) the rungs of a ladder, and (c) axle-pins (cp
I K. 7 32). Following (u)we might think of the slats forming
the seat of the throne, hut the idiomatic on either side ’ (>?p
?l’??l), and 6 ’ s byrSver in Ch. points rather to the arm5. Such
arms are represented, e.g., upon the throne of ASur.bani-pa1
(Perrot and Chipiez, A r i in Clurld. 1108, fig. z8), and of
Sennacherib before Lachish (ib. 2 105, fig. 47, cp,Ball, L i 4 t
f ~ o mthe East, 193). What is meant by the ‘two lions stand&
by (near) the stays’ is also obscure ; the words are omitted by
6 A in I K. 10 19, perhaps rightly. S. A. C.
1 See Menant, La GIyptipire Orirntule, 1,and cp S. I. Curtis,
Prim. Sem. ReZ. 267-276 (1902).
2 Cp the table in T ENT, fig. I.
3 For details see Perrot and Chipiez, Art. in Clurld. 2313.321.
4 See Hoffmann,Z A TW, 1882, p. 68, and on verss. see Field,
ad zoc.
5 I K. 10 20 p q x t elsewhere n 1 - 7 ~ . In a Phcenician inscrip-
tion from Citium in Cyprus ( c r s l , no. IO) mention is made of
the offering of an altar and two niiN-i:e., perhaps (on the
analogy of our pssage) ‘lions’ (n!?K).
6 ““72, footstool’ (@L ;rron&ov, scabellurn) is for b>3, a
variant of $ 4 , in I K. (emended text). See, primarily, Geiger,
Urschr. 343.
5063
THYATIRA
2.-
THRUM ( i l ‘ l ) , Is. 3812 RVmg. See W EAVING .
THUMMIM (D’p?), E s . 2 8 3 0 . See U RIM A N D
T HUMMIM.
THUNDER (Duy, Ps. 7719[18] 818[7] 1 0 4 7 J o b 2 6 1 4
Is. 29 6 ; ppovnj ; also, much more frequently, %p, Ps. 29 3
n’qp 9 2 8 ;
in N T evil ,Spovnjr, Rev. 6 I 14 2 19 6 (j3pov~Sv),+wval rai
Bpovraitev. 4 5 8 5 11 19, etc.
This most sublime of natural phenomena is repre-
sented by a poetical echo of primitive myth a s the voice
of God, Ps. 1 0 4 7 Job 3 7 4 $ , 409 Ps. 1813 [I.+], and
especially Ps. 29. In Ps. 2 4 a (cp v . 5a) as his laugh
(see Del. and Che. P L ( ~ ) )When, . however, in Ezek.
1 0 5 the sound of the wings of the cherubim is likened
tautologically to ‘ t h e voice of El Shaddai (EV God
Almighty) when he speaketh,’ we naturally ask whether
this is not some error in the text, and the result is
interesting, for it opens up a vista of possible rectifica-
tions of early mistakes (see SHADDAI). And if we
lose the traditional reference in Ezek. l o 5 (and 124), we
have still enough to show that thunder to the ancient
Israelites had a special sanctity as the expression of the
divine omnipotence (Ps. 2 9 3 ) , and of the terrible divine
vengeance ( I S. 2 I O Ps. 1 8 1 3 [14] Is. 3030). Thiinder
in summer-time was peculiarly awful ( I S. 12 17),
though perhaps the case mentioned is but a poetical way
of stating that with God nothing is impossible ; Tristram
( T H P 33) says, ‘ i t is unknown in summer.’ T h e
wise men of later times, such as the poet of Job, were
well aware that thunderstorms did not occurcapriciously,
but were subject to laws appointed by the Creator (Job
28 26 38 25, cp Ecclus. 43 17).
‘ Right-aiming thunderbolts ’ (Wisd. 5 21) has been changed :i
RV into ‘shafts of lightning (BohiG~sdrrparrGv) with true aim.
In Ps. 78 48 ‘hot thunderbolts’ remains, though O ? f l more
probably means here ‘burning sicknesses ’ in accordance with
the requirements of parallelism. Another peculiar phrase, ‘ in
the secret place of thunder ’ (Op? l;D?, Zv Lmoqx+oxararyQor),
still remains in the RV of Ps. 817 [8]. Duhm explains, ‘ in the
cloud which hides the thunder and at the same time veils God
fromsight(Joh22 13J).’ This isnodouhta worthyexplanation;
but the Hebrew phrase does not appear to suit the parallelism.
On the so-called Bath-kol see V OICE and on the title given
to James and John, ind rendered “sons of thunder,’ see
BOANERGES.
THYATIRA (Byb-retpb [Ti. W H J 1 Rev. 1 1 1 ; dv
8varrlpots [Ti. WH], Rev. 2 1 8 and 2 2 4 ; abhrws &a-
TElpwY, Acts 1 6 14).
Thyatira was a town in northern Lydia, so close to
the indefinite borderland between Mvsia and Lvdia that
some preferred to rkckon it io Mysia
1. Position (Strabo, 625 fiv MvuGv 6uxcir~vri&s
and history. Qauiv). It lav east of the Lvcus. a
tributary of the‘ Phrygios, whiih river itself falls into the
Hermus from the north. Thyatira thus was placed
almost exactly midway between the Caicus (N. ) and the
Hernius (S.), on the great road which crossed this region
going to the SE., into the valley of the Mzander. Its
geographical position is the key to its historical import-
ance. T h e watershed in which it lay was, in fact, of
the utmost importance strategically, as it was the line
of demarcation between the territory of competing
sovereigns. For in 301 B . C . Lysimachus, king of
Thrace, and Seleucus I. (Nicatos). king of Syria, had
partitioned Asia Minor, which they had taken from
Antigonus, in such wise that Lysimachus had the western
portion, as far as central Phrygia, whilst the remainder
fell to Seleucus (see SELEWCIDAL 5 2). When, subse-
quently (from 283 B.c. ), hostilities broke out between
the two monarchs, the district in question would be of
great military importance ; and, still later, when in 277
B. c. the Gauls (Galatia) invaded Asia Minor and founded
their robber state in north-eastern Phrygia (cp G ALATIA ,
1 Neut. plur. ~d 0 u d r a p a . but the u.Z. in Rev.1 I I 6;s
O u L ~ r r p a v ,is ‘wkll attested ’ (WH 2 App. 163). Cp the c d e of
LVSTRA (q..y.). The form Thyuteiru gradually gives place to
Thynfiru. The place is now called Ak-hissur, a large town
of mud houses’ (Murray, Hdbk. to A M 84).
5064
 THYATIRA
3 I), its importance was enhanced. Consequently, we
find established here a group of so-called ' Macedonian
colonies ' ; and Strabo describes Thyatira as such a
Colony (625,K a T O L K h >IaK€6hUWU).'
The word Macedonian in this connection undoubtedly
implies, firstly, Macedonian blood and descent, and
secondly the nucleus; of the standing armies kept on
foot by the Seleucidz, Ptolemies, and other kings.
This nucleus of ti-usted troops was in reality the remnant
of the soldiers of Alexander the Great, or their children,
their numbers being continually recruited by drafts of
volunteers from hfacedonia itself.
In course of time many men who were not of Macedonian
blood would doubtless find their way into these select corps of
panis. It is in this sense that the term ' Macedonians is used
In z Macc. 8 20 (see M ACEDONIA, $5 I ; THKACE). It is ahund-
antly clear from the extant inscriptions from the region in whice
Thyatira stood that the bulk of the colonists were 'Macedonians
both in the sense of being men of the standing army and also as
being of Macedonian blood.$
The date of the foundation of Thyatira as a military
colony is uncertain ; probably it was subsequent to 277
E.c. T h e name is a compound ; -teira = ' village ' or
' town,' and the whole name signifies ' the town of Thya '
(for Thya, cp the town-names Thyessus, Thyassus [see
Ramsay, Hist. &of. 114, 148, 4371). W e are told
that previously the place was called Pelopeia, or Semi-
ramis, or Euhippa (Plin. HN531)-names which scarcely
sound historical. According to a piece of false ety-
niologising based upon mere similarity of sound, it was
said that the name 'I'hyatira was derived from Thygatira
(8IJydT€lpU), because Seleucus heard here of the birth
of his daughter (BuydrTp). (See Steph. Thes. s.v.; and
c p Rams. op. cit. 127. note.)
The town became of importance owing to its favour-
able position in two respects.
(a)It was here, for example, that Antiochusthe Great assembled
his troops for the campaign which ended so disastrously for him
agnesia (see SELEUCIDR, p 7) a few
to the S. In consequence it submitted
e Romans as a matter of course, and
ncluded within the territory made over
by them to their ally the king of Pergamus. Then followed a
long period during which Thyatira does not appear in history;
not until the time of the empire, in fact, does it seem to have
realised to the full the natural advantages of its position as above
described. Naturally it was only in a peaceful direction that
such could, under the empire, make themselves felt, as it was
not until ,the, later Byzantine period that strategic advantages
came again in question. A glance at the network of Roman
roads in western Asia Minor is sufficient to reveal the importance
of Thyatira at this time. Startingfrom Pergamus, an important
road ran through Germe and Nakraqa 48 R. m. to Thyatira
thence 36 R. m. to Sardis, and so through Philadelphia and
Hierapolis to Laodicea on the Lycus (Rams. Hist. Geog. 167).
When we take into account the fact that an important road runs
northwards along the coast from Ephesus through Smyrna to
Pergamus we see that the order of names of the seven chnrches
is capable' of easy and rational explanation, quite apart from
any question of political or ecclesiastical precedence. The
order is in fact simply that of the occurrence of the towns as one
follows the main road from Ephesus in a great loop through
Pergamus, and so down to Laodicea (Rev. 111).
(6) Thyatira owed its importance to its connection
with the wool trade, or rather the manufacture of
3. Commercial. woollen goods, and more especially to
that of dyed fabrics. This was always
a staple industry in Lydia4 The 'certain woman
named Lydia' (so EV in Acts 1614; perhaps 'called
the Lydian ' would be more correct) was a ' seller of
purple,' 'of the city of Thyatin- that is to say, prob-
ably an agent of some great house of dyers and mauu-
facturers in Thyatira (Rams. St. Paul. 214).
The dyers and other handicraftsmen in Thyatira were united
in guilds (called :pya in inscr. from Thyatira, Zpyaular else.
_ _ - - ~ _ _
1 This is confirmed by inscriptions ; see BUZZ.de Cow. he&'.,
1886, p. 398 : 18.87, p. 466 : CIG 3496.
2 Cp Diod. Sic. 18 TZ, iumdvr<e .a; 4 Maresoula mparrwrjv
V r b ahrjOas 76" & a c a r d p & o v els i u 'Aulav Zm'r
T O A L T C K ~Sih
erasox+ T<P urpariic-!;peakingofthe time ofAntigonus Gonatas.
3 See on this Schuchhardt 'Die Maked. Kolonien zwischen
Hermos und Kaikos' in Mitti. Arch. Inst. eu Atken, 1888,p. ~ f :
4 Cp Hom. IZ. 4 141, c k s' Bre rls iihC4avra p.;I +oivrxr
p i < q I Mqov'rs $2 K&pa Cp Claudian, Dc Rapt. Pros. 1270
' no6 sic 'decus ardet eburnum i Lydia Sidonio quod fernin;
tinxerit ostro.
5065
THYINE WOOD
where, as, e g . , at Hierapolis), as was the case at other Asiatic
towns (e.<., Smyma, Ephesus, and Philadelphia). The Thya-
tiran guild of ' dyers (@a+&) is known to us from inscriptions,
as well as the guilds of cloakmakers' ( i p a r f u d p v o i ) , 'potters'
(repapeis), ' brass-workers ' (Xahrsic), and numerous others (see
Clerc, De re6us Thyat. 92, quoted by Rams. Cifies and B i d .
of Pkrygiia, 1i o j n. 2. Cp Bull. C o r . HeZi. 10407,and 1900,
P. 5 9 2 J ) .
I n the epistle to the Thyatiran church (Rev. 2 1 8 J )
there does not seem to be any reference to this promi-
*' nent side of the life of the town, such as
lies on the surface of the epistle to the
Laodiceans (Rev. 3 14 f ). Nevertheless, in Rev. 220
the reference to ' that woman Jezebel ' points to some-
thing distinctive and characteristic of the place. From
the context it is clear that under this figure is concealed
some iorm of teaching or practice, or some intellectual
movement, which presented itself as a rival or per-
version of Christian teaching.
The following interpretation has been suggested.
Outside the city there stood the ZappaBciou or sanctuary
of Sambatha (Zappp?jOT),a Chaldean or Persian Sybil
or prophetess.2 Apparently this was some form of
eastern superstition, of great popularity, if the reference
in Rev. 220 is to this shrine. Jezebel,' if (Schurer and
others) a definite person, must be the Sibyl of some
shrine connected with an eclectic (pagan - Hebrew-
Christian) system. It appears more probable, how-
ever, that we should interpret the denunciation more
broadly, with reference to the prevailing tone of Thyatiran
Christianity rather than to a superstition idolatrous i n
origin and general content, which could hardly have
infected the majority of the church. In other words, the
expression in the message obtains full significance only
if we understand the church of Thyatira to have developed
some heretical or impure form of belief or practice, such
as might naturally be typified by a notorious figure drawn
from O T history (cp 2 K. 9 2.). W e here touch upon the
relation of the Jewish settlers and colonists in Phrygia
and neighbouring districts to the mixed population amid
which they dwelt. T h e evidence of the Talmud is clear,
that these immigrant Jews were divided from their
brethren and failed to maintain their peculiar religious
position (see Neub. G h g ~ dzl . Talm. 315; and Rams.
Cities and Rish. of Pkrygia, 2674J). The population
of Asia Minor was undoubtedly attracted to the religious
system of the Jews ; but the other aspect of this fact was
that the Jews became merged with them (see Ranis. Sf.
Paul the TraveZZer, 142 f: ; Comm. on Gal. 189J ,
where the position of the Jews in S. Galatia is treated at
length). Such syncretism must have had its dangers
for the Christian churches, based as they w-ere in general
upon proselytes and containing a more or less large
admixture of Jewish elements. It is to some form of
gross degeneration of Jewish practice and belief that
reference is made in the epistle lo the Thyatiran church
(see art. by Schiirer, ' Prophetin Isabel in Thyatira ' in
ABhand. Weizuckergewidmet, 39J ). In Cyprus (Acts
136) and Ephesus (Acts 19x3) also we find that certain
Jews had abandoned themselves to the practice of magical
arts forbidden by the Mosaic law.
For a parallel to the church factions produced hy a question
about pagan institutions, cp the case of Corinth ( I Cor. 10 I j,f;
cp Ramsay, K r j o s . r y o o x ; Zahn, Einl. 260sf [also Nico-
LAITANS, Col. 34111). W. J. W.
THYINE WOOD ( t y h o ~eyloN [Ti.WH], Rev.
18 I.?) is mentioned among the precious wares sold in
the market of the apocalyptic Babylon. The wood
intended is n o doubt that of the tree called Buia or Btia
by the Greeks, and citrus by the Latins (cp Hehn,
KuZfurp$unzen, 386). The former name would seem
to refer to the fragrance of the wood; and citrus is
probably a corruption of xCGpos and so points to a tree
of aromatic, antiseptic wood.
1 i v 7;1~aka'If<@eA [WH] ; r;lv yvvakd DOU is a reading
which le to the interpretation that the denunciation wasdirected
against the bishop's wife. Cp JEZEBLL, ad&
Cp CIG 3509, Zrri r&rov Kdapoir, 6 ~ 0 rrpb
s v i s mihsoc mpbp
r+ Za&aOelrt, i v re X d s a l o u mepr@Mo.
5066
 TIBERIAS
The Eda (or citrus)par excellence was a N . African tree
(Theopbr. 5 3, I 7, Plin. 13 15, D zg), probably to be identified
with Thuja urfirzrlafa, Vahl., which, according to Sprenger
(Erliiuterungen ZUIII Theojhrust. 205), is a tree resembling the
cypress and growing to a height of 24 ft. In accordance with
Phny's statement (Z.C.),it is found in the region of Mt. Atlas.
In the days of Roman luxury the citrus was much used in the
nuking of costly furniture ; the phrase 'all thyine wood' (Rev.,
Z.C.) probably alludes to the great variety of objects constructed
from it.
TIBERIAS ( T I B E P I ~ C )on
, a narrow strip of plain
under a hill, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee,
was founded by Herod Antipas, apparently not before 26
A.D.. and so was quite a new place at the time of the
public life of Jesus in Galilee. Its founder named it in
honour of his friend and patron the emperor Tiberius.
Though it became the capital of Galilee, it was at first a
purely Greek city, which accounts for its not appearing
among the scenes of the Galilean ministry. It joined in
the war of liberty, but yielded without resistance to
Vespasian, and was restored by him to its master
Agrippa, on whose death in 100 it fell directly under
Roman rule. The place came to be a great seat of
Jews and Jewish learning; it was the residence of R.
Judah, the editor of the Mishnah; and, though the
schools of Palestine were ultimately overshadowed by
those of Babylonia, the school of Tiberias was still
famous in the time of Jerome. On Jn. 6 I 23 21 I see
G ALILEE , S EA OF, 5s I , 4f:
Half an hour to the S. of the modern T a b a r q e h (a
town of some 4 0 0 0 inhabitants) are the famous hot
baths (now el-@nmmeh) which are mentioned by Pliny
("5 15 [71] ; Tiberiade aquis calidis salubri) and by
Josephus ( T O ~ S Pv TcpepidSt Oeppois liSaurv, B l i i . 216).
In Ant. xviii. 23, BJiv. 1 3 he alludes to the &pp& as
not far from Tiberias and as being called 'AppaBour,
' which being interpreted is Oeppd.' I t seems to be the
Hammath of Josh. 1935. See HAMMATH. This
Hammath is mentioned in Egyptian records (see
P ALESTINE, § 15, no. 1 6 ) . The Talmud of Babylon
identifies Tiberias sometimes with the biblical Hamath,
sometimes with Raccath (see also Talm. Jerus.), some-
times with Chinnereth. See Neubauer, Gdogr. 208 ;
Schurer, G / V ( 2 )2 1 2 6 8 ; ET ii. 1 1 4 3 8
TIBERIAS, SEA OF ( H e b h a c c a THC TIBE~IAAOC
[Ti. WH]), Jn. 21 I. See G ALILEE , S EA OF.
TIBERIUS ( T I B E P I O C [Ti. W H ] ) is mentioned only
in Lk.31, where the commencement of the ministry of
John the Baptist is assigned to the fifteenth year ' of the
reign of Tiberius C z s a r ' (T+S +yepovfas TipepLou
Kafoapos).
Tiberius Claudius Nero succeeded Augustus as
Emperor of Rome in 14 A. D ., and reigned until 37 A. D.
H e was son of Tiherius Claudius Nero and Livia, so
that he was only the stepson of Augustus. The two
chief authorities for his life are Suetonius. who revels in
court scandal, and Tacitus, whose political views marred
his historical accuracy. Hence little justice has been
done to Tiberius. The Annals of Tacitus have been in
fact maintained to be ' almost wholly satire ' (Merivale,
Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 6 4 ) ,
and it cannot be denied that the satiric tendency,
' to take extreme acts as typical of the man, and ex-
treme men as typical of the age,' is a conspicuous
feature of the book. Consequently, his portraiture of
Tiberius, the most elaborate analysis of character in his
writings, is most often attacked as untrustworthy. W e
have in fact, in accepting the picture in Tacitus as
historical, this problem before us- to explain how
Tiberius, who up to the age of fifty-five (when he
became emperor) had shown himself a commander with
more than ordinary talent, an orator of no mean calibre,
and an administrator of acknowledged sagacity, de-
generated from the moment of assuming the purple until
he became that monster of cruelty and vice and
impotence which perhaps for all time he is in the
imagination of mankind. This is not the place in u-hich
5067
TIGLATH-PILESER
to attempt to review either the private life or the public
acts of Tiberius. Thus much is certain, that his life
cannot be disposed of in a 'cascade of epigrams'
(Beesly, Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius, I IS), such as
compose the summary in which Tacitus gives his most
deliberate judgment o n Tiberius ( A n n . 651).
Fnrneaux, Annals of Tucitus vol. I Introd. chaps. 4 and
8 gives a careful review of the ekdence' with an unfavourable
verdict. Beesly's Cafiline, Clodius, UP& Ti6eeiw is a vigorous
defence. Champagny, Les Cksnrs, an unmeLured invective.
See also Boissier, L'Oppcsition sous les Cdsars. For the
chronological questions in connection with the N T , see Ramsay,
W a s Christ born a t Bethlehn ? and the articles C HRONOLOGY ,
LYSANIAS, QUIRINIUS, etc. W.J. W.
TIBHATH (nr?>t?
; M ~ T A B H X A C [BKl, M&T€B€e
[A]. TAB&& [L] ; 'Pesh. <dah),a city of Hadadezer,
I Ch. 188. See 'rERAH.
TIBNI ('!3n, 5 79 ; see below on meaning ; cp Ass.
T a b n i , Tabnl'a, Phcen. nnn, Tabnith; eaMN[€]l
[BA], e&BENNE! [L]; Thebni), b. G INATH , a com-
petitor with Omri for the throne of Israel after the death
of Zimri (I K. 1621 Jt).
See I SRAEL , 29, OMRI,
§ 1.
Like so many other successful adventurers, including his rival
Omri (=Imri= Jerahmeeli) Tihni seems to have been of Jerah-
meelite origin. His name'is a gentilic in form, and probably
should he read , ~ >(Nehatite)
j or -nq>(Nebaiothite). Cp
I Ch. 5 15, where (in the original form ofthe text ; see SHAPHAM)
Guni is a clan-name in the southern Gilead (temp, Jeroboam ii.).
T. K. C.
TIDAL (5p:n; e a p r a h [EL], Bahr. [D? and A
in 591, 8a)q-a [A]; Pesh. hZr'tZ),'king of Goiim,' an ally
of Chedorlaomer (Gen. 1419). Nothing has yet been
made out either as to a king called Tid'al (or Tar'al) or
as to the ' Goiim ' or ' nations ' over which, according to
M T and 6 , herded. T h e identification of Tid'al with a
supposed ancient name in a very late cuneiform tablet is
in the highest degree precarious (see King, Letters of
fiummurdbi. 1p. liii; and cp Haupt, note on Gen. 141 in
Ball's Genesis, Heb. text, SBOT). Sir H. Rawlinson
thought that Goiim' was a corruption of Gutium, the
situation of which district (see K OA ) accords well with
the mention of ' Goiim ' after Elam. I t is certain (see
inscription quoted by Rogers, Outlines of Bab. Hist.
I O ) that Gutium was early subject to Babylonian
influence. If ' Goiim ' comes from ' Gutium,' Tar'al
(if we may follow may conceivably be a Baby-
lonian name. The only word which approaches it,
however, seems to he turgul, ' rudder ' (Deluge-story,
9 7 ) , which is sometimes a title of the god ' Ninib ' (see
Jensen, Kosmol. 422). But ' seductive' as Rawlinson's
theory is, it is too hazardous (see Hal. Rev. slm. 1 8 9 4 ,
p. 279) to make g correspond to y in ipyi (Zagumari)
and to 1 in o w ( =gutium?).
So far we have assumed that MT and @ correctly represent
the original text. But in the general failure of critical theories
based on this assumption, it becomes reasonable t o suppose that
Tidal and the other names in Gen. 14 T are deeply corrupt,
that spn (EV Tidal) is a corrupt fragment of h m * (Jerah-
meel) and that (Goiim) as often has the same origin. See
SODOM, I. T. K. C.
TIGLATH-PILESER pD&a n$;in,Z K . 1529 1610,
lDj? n$p, 2 K. 167) or Tilgath-pilneser (n)$n
lDK!)B, I Ch. 56 2 Ch. 2820, lpl\@ n$n, I Ch. 5 2 6 ) .
6 ' s 'readings are : in 2 K. 15 29, ah aE+aAAauap [BA] ; 16 7,
OaAyaO+. [B], om. A ; 1610, EaAyaA+. [%I; ayAaE+aAAauap [A];
OsyAa+aAauap [L] throughout; m I Ch. 56, EaAya~avauap[BI;
OayAaE' +aAvauap [A]; 5 26, Eayv4apauap [Bl;, Bayhat".
varrap [A]; 2 Ch. 28 20, B a A y ~ c A A d a [Bl;
p . +*
.
EayAaE +ahva I uap
[A] ; EryAaO+zAauap [L] throughout.
In the Zenjirli-Inscriptions m h n h n and i o k n h n ,
Assyr. Tukulti-dpil-barra, ' M y help is the son of
'' &Sarra.' fiSarra, ' t h e house of the
His name' multitude,' was the name of thentemple
of Ninip, who was therefore called ' the son of ESarra. '
The strange form in Chronicles is, according to Kittel
( C h o n . Heb. SBOT 6 8 ) , 'merely an accidental cor-
ruption of a familiar name at the hands of the
Chronicler or of his Midrashic source.'
5068
 TIGIATH-PILESER
The biblical Tiglath-pileser was the third of the
Assyiian kings of that name, and came to the throne
Nothing is known of his
2. Possible in. 745 B.C.
origin and parentage, but as he is called
ol.igin. in the Babylonian Canon Pulu ( P u L , 2 K.
15 19, etc. ), it is thought that he was not of royal race,
but was probably a general under A h - n i r a r i , his pre-
decessor, and that he called himself Tiglath-pileser on
coming to the throne on account of the renown attaching
to this royal name.
Thc chief sources of the history of his reign are the
inscribed slabs found in the remains of his palace at
3. Sources of &.ah, and two tablets which appear
history, and to have been copied from records on
stone similar, in some respects, to the
accession. slabs. With regard to the latter, several received
of them are only known from squeezes now in the British
Museum, where also the clay tablets referring to his reign
are preserved. The chronology of his reign has been
placed beyond a doubt by the Eponym Canon with
historical references (KB1 2 1 2 - z q ) , from which it appears the E. called the Assyrian king to Media ( m d t M a d d a )
that he mounted the throne on the 13th of the month
Iyyar (April-May) of the year 745 R . c . , as successor to
ASur-nirari (11. ) , in the last year of whose reign there was
a rising in Calah ; not improbably Tiglath-pileser seized
this opportunity to assume the supreme power. Whether
the fact that the E:ponym for the next year was the
governor of Calah supports this supposition or not, is a
matter of opinion.
The first campaign of this king, which took place in
the year of his accession, is stated to have been ' into
4, History of the mfdst of the rivers '-i. e., ' to Baby-
his reign. loma. His object was, not so miich was unable to take the city, he nevertheless broke the
The Aramaaan to conquer the country as to break the power of the kingdom of Urartu for many years to
excessive and dangerous Dower of the
'rme8. Aramzan tribes. -In this he was fullv
successful, and the Babylonians themselves, who suffereh
from the tribes in question, thankfully acknowledged his
suzerainty. Owing to this success, he seems to have
assumed, from the first, the title of king of &mer and
Akkad. '
T h e next year (744 B.c.) Tiglath-pileser turned his
attention to the mountainous district on the E. of
~. Namri. Assyria, inhabited by wild tribes who had
always been troublesome to the Assyrian
kings. This district, which was called Namri (cp
ZIMRIii.), he wasted with fire and sword, annexing a
portion of it to Xssyria.
In 743 B.C. affairs in the W . claimed his attention.
The state of which .\RPAD (q.v.) was the capital, snp-
ported, to all appearance, by the king of
6.
Kuliani, etc. Urartu (ARARAT). seems to have thrown
o f f the Assyrian yoke; it had to be re-
duced again to submission. This probably gave an
opportunity to Sar-durri, king of Urartu, to march
towards Assyria. It was therefore necessary to put off
the subjection of Arpad, and proceed against the northern
foe, who was completely defeated. In 742 operations
against Arpad were resumed, and in 741 (to judge from
the Eponym-list) the city was taken, though the Assyrian
army remained in the same district in 740 B.C. One
result was the annexation of IJnki fidentifid hv Tom. , throne and imape set n n in the n a l a r e of Haniinn
BInS' with Amk), a dlstrlct which had already felt the
Assyrian might.
In 739 B.C. Tiglath-pileser carried on war in Ulluba,
on the N., taking several cities and founding another,
which he called ASur-ikiHa ( ' ASur has presented '). It
was apparently during this period that the Assyrian
resulted in the capture of Kullanl-Le. (according to P.
Rost). the C ALNO (4.a.)of Is. l o g 2 (738 B .c.).
* ' Geographyof Northern Syria' in BOR 3 6 For the extent
of Uiki see Rost Tig(ath-#iZe.wr 1 p. xxi n. I.
a W'ith regard to the identifigation the're given, it may be
noted that Kullani would seem from W A I ii. 53- to be one of
TIGLATH-PILESER
T h e question now arises whether Azriau or Izriau
(Rost)-ie., Azariah of Jiidah- came into touch with
7. Azariah. Tiglath-pileser on this occasion. I t must
be confessed that the frequent mention of
his name in the exceedingly mutilated portion of the
annals which seem to refer to this period gives Tiele
justification for replying in the aflirmative (BZ4G2 3 0 J ;
on the whole question, however, see UZZIAH). All
the princes of middle and northern Syria now submitted
and paid tribute, including RaSunnu (see R EZIN ) of
Damascus, Menihimme (Menahem) of Samaria, Hirummu
(Hiram) of Tyre, and others, including Zabibi queen of
Arabia (see O KEB and ZEEB). There is no statement,
so far as the texts are preserved, that the Assyrian king
penetrated as far S. as Samaria, but the fact that he
tribute from that country (cp 2 K . 15 1g$) is a
sufficient indication that he at least threatened i t , and
had to be bought off (see M ENAHEM ). The policy of
deportation was on this occasion resorted to extensively.
The following year (737 B .c.) the state of affairs on
and the district, where he set up images
and8. Media
Urartu. of himself, and peace again reigned-at
least, as far as the Assyrians were con-
cerned. This left Tiglath-pileser free to march, in
736 B . C . , to the foot of the Nal mountains, on the N.
of Assyria, where he took a large number of cities, thus
preparing the way for the conquest of the land of
Urartu, which, in the following year (735), he pro-
ceeded to carry out. H e penetrated as far as Sar-
durri's capital, l u r u s p l , and though, on account of its
naturally advantageous position on the lake Van, he
come.
For the year 734 B. c. the Eponym-list has this entry :
' t o the land Pili&-ie.. ' t o Philistia.' Schrader in
9. Phiiistia. 1878 (KGF 126), in consequence of
W A l l 2:. n. I . 11."f l . considered this to
"I
involve a campaign against Judah, Samaria, Phoenicia,
etc. Rost, however, thinks differently, contending that
the mere reception of tribute from the countries men-
tioned in WAZ, Zoc. cit., would sufficiently account for
the references to the southern districts. As, honever,
the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, where they speak of
relations with Judah, have no date (the text being
defective at the important points), he follows the indi-
catidhs of the Eponym-list, which makes Philistia ( L e . ,
the small states on the shores of the Mediterranean) the
chief object of the campaign. I n proceeding thither,
Tiglath-pileser, like the Assyrian kings in general,
would take the coast-road from N. to S. The name of
the city which was first threatened is broken away, but
Rost conjectures it to have been Ashdod or Ekron. Its
prince bought his reinstatement only by means of heavy
tribute. It was Hanfinu of G a m , however, who H ~ to S
all appearance more especially aimed at by Tiglath-
pileser, and, feeling this, he lost no time in seeking
refuge in Egypt.l Gaza then fell an easy prey to the
Assyrians ; its treasure and its gods were carried away,
the worship of ASur was introduced, and the royal
'Ihe entry !or 733 and 732 B.C. is ' to the land of
DiniaSka ' - L e . , Aram-Damascus. No doubt it was
lo. Ahax. part of the king's plan to subjugate the
states of the W . , but he was also induced
to make this campaign by the appeal of Ahaz of Judah
for help against KEZIN and P E K A H . T h e appeal was
a- --.-r-.. --
of resisting the advance of the Assyrians, and retreated
to their own territories. They thns played into the
the towns along the Taurus, implying an extension of operations
in that direction.
1 For another view see Wi. M u y i , 5034$, and cp I S A IA H ,
R 26.
B OOK O F , $ 12, n. I ; MIZRAIM,
 TIGLATH-PILESER
hands of Tiglath-pileser, who may perhaps refer to this
in his annals (112 2 7 f . ) as follows :-
I In my former expeditions I had counted (as spoil) all the
cities (of Pekah) and had cirried pff his
Samaria alone ... their king . . .
... and he forsook
Kost completes the last phrase '(they overthrew Pekah), their
king,' which is not impossible, and is supported by his revised
text of W A 1 3 IO, no. 2 , 5028.
Previously to this, however, as it would seem, the
king paid a visit to the Phcenician states to assure
ll. Razin. himself of their fidelity, and on this occasion
he may have annexed wide tracts of Israel,
including 'all the land of Naphtali' ( z K. 1 5 2 9 ) ; No
reference to this, however, occurs in his inscriptions
(though, perhaps, as Hommel suggests, the -Zi of 1 7
of W z 4 Z 3, pl. I O , no. 2 may be the end of that word,
for the preceding line refers to Bit-Humria or Israel).
Rezin of Damascus boldly resisted the invader, but
on this occasion fortune deserted the Aramaeans;
Rezin took to flight, and fortified himself in Damascus.
A siege of the city followed, during which the sur-
rounding country was completely devastated. A suc-
cessful expedition was also made against Samsi, queen
of N. Arabia, which led to the submission of other
tribes of that region, as far as Sa'ba (Yemen). Damascus
itself fell at the end of 732 B.c.; it is not again
mentioned as an independent state. T h e fate of Rezin
is related in z K. 169. See D AMASCUS , §§ 105; R EZIN .
The relations of Hoshea, who seized the crown of
Israel, to Tiglath-pileser are treated elsewhere (see
12. Israel H OSHEA ). A third rebel against Assyria
now claims our attention, namely Mi-
and the tinti of Ashkelon, who had been joined by
neighbouring
states. Metenna of Tyre.. According to Rost,
the Assyrian statement is' that Mitinti
went mad on realising that he might soon have to share
the fate of Rezin. His son RClkipti now mounted the
throne on account, as it would seem, of his father's
mental state, and hastened to reconcile himself with the
Assyrian conqueror by means of tribute and gifts.
Tiglath-pileser now sent his rab-sake (see R AB - SHAKEH )
against Metenna of Tyre, who, finding no other course
feasible, decided to submit and pay tribute. T h e rab-
sake was also successful in bringing about the submis-
sion of Uassurmi, chief of Tahal, who, however, was
deposed, and a man named Hulll set in his place.
To all appearance, affairs in the W. had reached a
satisfactory settlement for the Assyrians. Leaving that
district in 732 B.c., Tiglath-Gleser
13' operations found trouble awaiting him in the
in following year in Babylon, owing to
the restlessness of the- Chaldzans and Aramzans.
Nabonassar had been succeeded by his son Nabti-
nadin-z&i, who was killed after a reign of two years.
His murderer, Nabti-Sum-ukin, made himself king, but
was deposed after rather more than two months' rule by
the Chaldpan prince Ukln-z&r (Chinziros) of Blt-
Amukkani. At this period, the Babylonians proper had
but little love for the dominion of the rough Chaldzans,
and probably encouraged an Assyrian intervention in
order to get release from a thoroughly distasteful rule.
Tiglath-pileser therefore entered Babylonia, and besieged
UkIn-z&r in his capital Sapia, but without result. H e
wasted the territory of the other tribes, however, and
carried Zakiru, prince of Bit -sa'alli, into captivity.
According to the Eponym Canon, the Assyrian king
did not engage in any campaign in 730, but remained
at home ' in the land.' Apparently his army continued
the siege of Sapia, which fell in the following year.
The result was, that Ukin-z&r lost his throne, and the
other Chaldzean chiefs submitted, including MERODACH-
BALADAN (g...), prince of the land of Tamtim ( ' t h e
sea-coast '). Tiglath-pileser could now celebrate one of
his greatest triumphs. H e proceeded to Babylonia as
the saviour of his people, and was universally acknow-
ledged as king : in the Babylonian Chronicle, and on at
1 The preceding pasage is very defective.
5071
TILE
least one contract- tablet, he is called Tukulii-Bpii-
CSarra. (This has a bearing on the question whether
Pur. [g.~.]was his official name at Babylon, or not.)
T h e next year (728 B.c.) found the king again in
Babylonia, performing the ceremony of ' taking the hand
14. Last Jrears of Bel,' which would thus seem to have
been a yearly duty for one who claimed
and death. to be ruler of the land. The Eponym
Canon mentions the name of a city, which may be Dir ;
it may be surmised that a rebellion had taken place
there. It is probably to this city that the entry in the
same document with regard to the expedition of 727
B.C. refers ; after which it is stated that Shalmaneser set
himself on the throne. T h e death of Tiglath-pileser. as
we learn from the Babylonian Chronicle, took place in
the month l e b e t , thus closing a reign, than which none
was more glorious for Assyria or more fateful for Israel<
Turning now to other signs of progress, we note that
the material prosperity of Assyria was well maintained,
15. Buildings. and one can see from the extant sculp-
tures of the period that Assyrian art,
too, had not declined. When at home, the king seems
to have generally resided in Calah, but also in Nineveh.
Being more of a warrior than a builder, he apparently
contented himself with rebuilding and changing the
great central palace at C ALAH , which had been founded
by his predecessor Shalmaneser II., copying the Hittite
style, and adorning it with the objects sent as tribute
by Hittite and Chaldzan princes.' Unfortunately, this
building was for the most part demolished by Esar-
haddon, so that the sculptures and inscriptions were
partly destroyed, partly mutilated. This, added to the
ravages of time, has deprived us of much valuable
material, rendering the records of Tiglath-pileser very
fragmentary. Happily the order of his campaigns.
is well preserved by the Eponym Canon with historical
references, though the meagreness of the entries leaves
one or two points still uncertain.
[As in the case of the articles S ARGON and SENNACHERIB, it.
is necessary t o warn the reader that the basis of the ordinary
representationof the history of Israel needs to be tested afresh
by textual criticism, and that one result of this is that the in-
fluence of the N . Arabian neighbours of Palestine is seen ta
have been at least as strongly felt as that of Assyria. In P RO -
PHET, 5 35, it is shown that the captivity foretold by Amos was.
most probably a N. Arabian one, and the region which was t a
hear the brunt of the invasion was that art of the Negeb which
was in Israelitish occupation. Similar6 in 2 K. 15 zg it is not
the Assyrian king commonly called Tiglath-pileser, but Jerah-
meel king of Ashhur in N . Arabia who carries away captive the
people of certain places and districts, which places and districts.
are not in N. Israel, but in the Israelitish Negeb. The critical
proof of this is both interesting and suggestive. It entirely clears
up the mystery of the three names, Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Tilgath-
pilneser. See Crit. &6.-T.K.C.]
Rost, Keilschriftfexte Tiglat-Pikers I??. (1893); G. Smith,
Assyria (Ancient €fisfory from ilre Monuments), 74 8:
Rogers, Hist. of Bab. and Ass. 2 104-138 ;
16. Bibliography. Miirdter-Delitzsch, Gesch. w o n Ba6. zz..
Ass. 177J (1891); Honirnel, GBA 6488.%
(1885); Schrader, 'Zur Kritik d. inschr. Tiglat-Pilesers 11.
(KgZ.Pr. Akad. der Wiss. 1881); C O T 1 2 1 3 8 2 4 2 8 ; KB
vol. 2. T. G. P.
TIGRIS ($R;n), Gen. 2 14 RVmg., Dan. 104 RVmg. ;
EV HIDDEKEL(q...).
TIKVAE (nW9 'hope,' 5 74 ; &Koyf CALI-ie..
T EKOA).
I . FatherofSHALLuM(z), 2K.2214 ( ~ f K K o u a um i , -KKOU€ [A]).
Cp T IKVATH .
2. Father of J AHAZIAH , EzralOig ( e h ~ s t a[EN]); in ~ E s d .
914 he is called THEOCANUS, RV THOCANUS (Baravou [B] Bo.
[AI).
TIKVATH, RV TOKHATH (nnpin, K t . ; n a p ,
ke),father of SHALLUM [Bl,~ BaKoua@
(2). z Ch. 34 22 ( K ~ O U
[AI, Bs.oa [Ll). See TIKVAH.
TILE. (I) For n?$, I'%nih, rrhlNeoc (Ezek.
4 I+), see B RICK . (2) For rQapos (Lk. 5 IS), see HOUSE, ?j4.
_ _ _ ~ _~~ ~ ~
____._
1 According to Frd. Delitzsch however the palace built by
Tiglath-pileser 111. was on the k.side oi the great terrace of
Calah, beside that of Shalmaneser I.
5072
 TILGATH-PILNESER
TILGATH-PILNESER (-ID& n$q. 1 Ch.
56 26 z Ch. 2520. See TIGLATH-PILESER
(with ap-
pendix).
TILON (lhn, Kt. l1h; INWN [B], elhWN [A],
e W A s l M [L]), son of SHIMON
a Judahite ( I Ch. 4 z o t ) .
TIMEUS (TIMAIOC [Ti. WH]), Mk. 1 0 4 6 RV,
AV Timeus. See BARTIMZIJS.
TIMBREL (qn,t q n ) , E . 1520, etc.
X c p T ABRET ,
and see MUSIC, 3 ( I ).
TIME. See C HRONOLOGY ; also D AY , MONTH,
W E E K , YEAR.
TIMES, OBSERVER OF (I$Yq), Dt. 18 10. etc.
See D IVINATION , 3 (2).
TIMNA (Y>pn,P!nn, 54 ; e a M N & [BADEL]) in
Gen. 3612 ranks as the concubine of Eliphaz b. Esau
and mother of Xmalek ; but in I Ch. 1 3 6 Timna and
Anialek are among the sons of Eliphaz (so 6'-; but dB,
Kai rijr 6 a p a apah?K ; b A Bupva 6; 4 7rahhadj Ehrq5at
&KEY abrh rbv apaXqK). Timna appears, however, as
the sister of Lotan ti. Seir (see LOT)in Gen. 3622 I Ch.
1;g (arXaO Kai vapva [B], dGveXq5h 66 hwrav Bapva [A],
K U ~8. X . 8. [L]) : and as an Edomite phylarch or rather
clan in Gen. 3640 I Ch. 151 (Oarpar [B], Bapava [A] ;
in Gen. EV, against rule, gives T IMNAH).
These inconsistencies are not surprising (see GENEALOGIES,
6 Perhaps, however, Gunkel is right in supposing that Gen.
I ).
3 G r z a (Timna a concubine) is a later insertion in P. Cp
A MALEK, 8 4.
TIMNAH (il!nn; e A M N A [B.%L]; also ncJnn,
Josh. 1 9 4 3 Judg. 1 4 1 2 5 ; i . e . , 'allotted portion').
I. A town in the hill-country of Judah, in the same
group with Maon and Carmel (Josh. 1 5 5 7 ; OapvaOa
[HI), and therefore not to be identified with Tibneh or
Tibnah, 4 h. W. of Bethlehem. There must have
been a Timnah SE. of Hebron. Most scholars have
sitpposed this place to be intended in Gen. 3 8 1 2 - 1 4
(Oarpva [A] in v. 12 : Oapvav [L] in v. I?), but
the emended reading of the first place-name In v. 14
(see TAPPUAH, I ) favours the view that the Timnah
(see below, 2 ) of Jo:;h. 1510Judg. 141 is meant. The
gentilic of this Timnah, 'Timni,' seems to occur, mis-
written as 'TEMENI ( q v . ) , or Timgni. in I c h . 46.
2. (AV Timnath, and once, Josh. 1 9 4 3 , THIM- monite' leader ; whether an Ammonlte with a Greek
NArHAH, where d varies as in 1557 [see above]. In
Judg. Oapva8a [HAL]. The gentilic w n , Oapvvei [B],
BapvaOarou [AL], Timnite, Judg. 156.) A place on
the northern frontier of Judah (Josh. 15IO, where
d has I d Xipa [13L], d7rl v h o u [4]), assigned to in
Dan in Josh. 1 9 4 3 , but according to Judg. 14 in-
habited by Philistines in the pre-regal period. T h e
latter narrative describes most graphically an occasion
on which Samson ' went down to Timnah ' (Judg. 1 4 I )
from Zorah. T h e <Chronicler includes it among the
cities taken from .\ha2 by the Philistines ( 2 Ch. 28 16 ;
om. BE), and the contemporary evidence of Sen-
nacherib in the ' Prism-inscription ' ( K BZ p f : ) records
that king's capture of Tamna after the battle of Altaku
before he laid siege to Amkaruna or Ekron. Timnali
is now represented by the village of Tibneh, on the S.
side of the WRdy SarHr, z m. W. of 'Ain Shems (Beth-
shemesh) and a little farther to the SW. of Sar'ah
(Zorah). The site, however, has been robbed of three-
fourths of its ruins by the builders of a neighbouring
village (GuBrin, Jud. 23of:). But cp ZORAH.
3. A third Timnah (possibly the same as TIMNATH-
HERES) may be recognised in the T HAMNATHA of
I MRCC.950 (on the readings, se'e PIRATHON), which
was one of the Judzan cities fortified by Racchides. It
is doubtless the Thamna mentioned by Josephus (BY
iii. 3 5 ) and Pliny (HiVv. 1470) as giving name to one
of the toparchies (the Thamnitica) of Judzea, and in-
correctly aescribed by Eusebius and Jerome ( O S 2 6 0 3
1566) as being in the district of Lydda on the road to
5073
TIMOTHY
Jerusalem. The topographical notices in Jos. 01ir. S i
confirm the view that this Timnah or Thnmna is the
northern Tibneh, a village about IO m. N W . of Bethel,
with extensire ruins which have been described a t
length by GuCriu (Sam. 2 6 9 J).Cp Clermont Gan-
neau, PEFQ, 1 8 7 j , p. 169; Schiirer, GVJ2138.
TIMNATH-HERES (3lnn>pg,as if ' Portion of
the Sun,' see N AMES , 8 9 5 ; Judg. 2 9 OapvaOa ES [BL],
Oapvab'ap'sor [A], also called 111 Josh. 19 50 24 30 timnath-
serah (ma n:;-F ; O a y a p x a p q r [BI, B a p v a u a p a x [Ba. ms.1,
OapvaBuapa [A], OapvaOauap [L] in 19 5 0 ; O a p v d a u a x a p a [E],
Bapvacaxap [A], BapvaOu. [Ll, in 24 30).
A locality ' i n Mt. Ephraim on the N. side of the
>It. G A A S H '(g.v.). According to the book of Joshua
it was assigned to Joshua at his own request ; he
fortified the city, dwelt there, and was buried there.
The place has been identified with the modern Zi'brrrh
(see TIMNAH, 3). where, on the N. slope of the hill to
the S., are some remarkable tombs described by GuBrin
( S a m . 289.104). This, however, assumes that there is
only one Ephraim, whereas the probability is that there
was a second Ephraim ( =Jerahmeel) in the Negeb.
The alternative identification with Kefr Hsrith (a small
village NE. of Tibneh), proposed by Conder, has only the
support of a late Jewish and Moslem mediaeval tradition (see
Z D P Y 2 13 6.195 8,and cp Goldziher, PEFQ, 1679, pp.
1 9 3 8 ) . It also implies the correctness of -/leres whereas Josh.
(Kc.)gives -sera+ which is hardly to be triated'as a dcZ~6ilrrafe
metathesis (so Mobre).
But possibly D i n (whence by error mD) comes from ino---i.e.,
im@v(this also accounts best for ' Mount Heres '). This will
become still more probable if ' N u n ' in 'Joshua son of Nun'
should really be Nahshonl (apparently a Rehobothite or Jerah-
meelite name). Joshua surely represents a clan of the Negeb .
5ee JosnaA. It isalso important that Eleazarson of Aaron (appar;
entlya kinsman ofJoshua),is said to have been buried in Gibeath-
pinehas, 'which was given him [omit 1311 in Mt. Ephraim,' for
bf[nc]/las is not improbably another corruption of Jerahme'el.
See PHINEHAS. ' T. I<. C.
TIMON ( T I M W N [Ti. WH]), one of the seven
deacons (Acts 6 5 ) . H e has a Greek name and was
perhaps a Hellenist. Traditions contained in Pseudo-
Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus make him bishop of
Bostra in Arabia, and according to the former he
suffered martyrdom by burning a t the hands of the
neathen.
TIMOTHEUS (TiMo&oc [AKV]). I. An 'Am-
name, or a Greek who had been put by the Syrian
:enera1 in command of the Ammonites is unknown.
He was defeated on various occasions by Judas the
Maccabee; first in the campaign which resulted
the capture of Jazer, and again in that which
ncluded the battles of Dathema and Raphon and
:he relief of Bosora, Rosor, Alema, Casphor, Maked
m d Carnaim ( I Macc. 5 6 - 1 2 24-44). H e is also men-
:ioned in 2 Macc. 8 3 0 32 9 3 1024 32 37 122 IO 16-21 24,
#here the scene is transferred to Western Palestine and
i chronology implied which has suggested to many
icholars that a different person must he intended. T h e
nost probable explanation of the discrepancies, however,
s that suggested under MACCABEES (S ECOND ), 2. 3 ;
:ol. 2870 middle, col. 2871, viz., the inadequacy of the
iources, and the uncritical character of the compiler, of
hat book.
2. See T IMOTHY.
TIMOTHY
Birthplace, etc. (8 I). Journeys (80 3-5).
Circumcision ($2). An author? ($ 6).
Traditions (8 7).
This Hellenistic name (see TIMOTHEUS) is in the
T T (TIMoeaoc [Ti.WH]) borne by one of Paul's
rounger companions who was connected with, and
xobably born at, L YSTRA (0 3) in Lycaonia, where the
rpostle first came across him.
In Acts16 I drri i s epexegetic of K& C;S hu'urpav, and the text
1 For a parallel cp Sn in >*IK in, which may represent i ~ r n ;
e e Ter - A ~ I R .
5074
 TIMOTHY
of 204 is too secure to justify any alteration which (GAIUS,2)
would connect Asppa;os with Tbp6Beos, identifying this Gaius
with the Macedonian of the same common name (1929) from
whom in all likelihood the epithet Aeppdor is expressly intended
to distinguish him. Cp Holtzmann, Die Pastora16riefee,65 f:
(1880).
T h e diminished strictness of local Judaism ( PHXYGIA, after
6 -,
~ . .
q) is betrayed by two features in the Lvstran house-
1. Birthplace hold where Timothy was brought up ; his
and familp. Jewish mother had married a pagan,
and their son was allowed to reach man-
hood uncircumcised. His father, it has been con-
jectured, died during the boy's early years; this is
corroborated at any rate by the absence of all reference
to him as well as by the strong influence assigned in
reliable tradition to the lad's mother (E DUCATION , 5 5)
and (maternal?) grandmother, even though we hesitate
to lay stress on the slight textual evidence for Eunice's
widowhood (Actsl61, add x$ps 25 : x. for 'Iou&das,
gig. f a ) , or even on the tense of L H ~ ~ ~ X (fuerat, EV
Acts163 ; brdpxer would have been used, had he been
alive [Blass]) Whether her husband was among ' the
e&)
men that worship God' ( U E P ~ ~ ~ TE ~L YE Y O ~ or not,
Eunice (ActslGr, cp v. 15) seems to have become a
Christian at Paul's first visit to Lystra (Acts146 f:
20-22). Later notices, embodying a tradition which
there is no reason to suspect, indicate that her mother
Lois had assisted her to train the lad in the knowledge
and piety of the O T previous to their joint conversion
( z Tim. 1 5 3 1 4 5I cp I Tim. 54) ; and it may be inferred
that their influence subsequently brought Timothy over
to the new faith some time before the return of Paul a
couple of years or so later. Passages like I Cor. 417
(contrast v. 15), 2 Tim. 21, etc., refer to kinship of
spirit, and Phil. 2 22 expressly identifies Timothy's
'genuine sonship' with his loyal service to Paul, not
with spiritual parentage. At any rate his intimate
connection with Paul dates from the latter's second tour
with Silas, when he found the young Lystran not a
neophyte but a full member (waSq+) of the local
church.
The allusion in a Tim. 3 IO f: (a genuine fragment) simply
means (Lk. 13) acquaintance with the facts and experiences
narrated-an acquaintance involving moral imitation ( I Tim.
4 6)-and does not imply that Timothy accompanied Paul on the
journey described in Acts 1314-1420. In this flight, according
to Acta Peiriet PauK, etc. (ed. Lips. 1891,pp, qsf:), Paul is
accompanied b Demas and Hermogenes 6 X a k & S , 6rrorpwsws
~ C ~ O V T C Srai
, &Ara~popovv ~ b TIaGAov
v Ss &ya&vres ah&.
The language of Acts161 (miiGoli, cp 1 1 0 827 1017
127) is intended to denote a remarkable and happy
a. Circum-episode in the tour (cp Hort, Chvistian altb&gh the fact of the laying-on-of-hands at such a time is in
cision. Ecclesia, 178 f.). I t seemed providential
that another youth was found willing and
fit to join Paul's company and enterprise, after the
defection of John Mark and Barnabas. Characteristic-
ally (cp 63 1022 2212)an excellent reputation is singled
out as one essential feature in his moral equipment ;
Acts162 suggests also, though it does not necessarily
imply, that he had already preached in the neighbour-
hood. However, as his father's nationality was
notorious in the locality, Paul had him circumcised.
H e carried out this long-deferred rite upon the eve of
proceeding farther on a tour among the Phrygian
churches with their Jewish surroundings and partially
Jewish atmosphere, his object being to prevent people
taking needless offence either at Timothy's connection
with Paul or at his entrance into Jewish circles.
Acts1636 is often taken as an editorial gloss (e.g. Clemen,
ITiingst, Hilgenfeld, and Wendt), and on different 'lines the
ast-named critic and McGiffert (Apostolic Age, 232-234) have
attempted to explain the whole passage as the popular and
later misstatement of an actual fact, in opposition to the
dominant, view (cp ACTS, Iff 4, 7) which-apart from minor
1 As the nearest synagogue was at Iconium, the religious
instruction of the child devolved on Eunicz, who probably
possessed a copy of some part of the OT scriptures 8s well as
the little parchment rolls, specially for the use of children, con-
taining,' c.g., the Shema', the Hallel, the history of Creation
down to the Flood, and Lev. 1-8 (Edersheim, Skefckesofjpiuidz
Social Lifr, irq-1x7).
5075
TIMOTHY
variations-generally regards the story as an invention of the
author, introduced in order to illustrate what he conceived was
or should have been Paul's deferential and conciliatory attitude
towards Jewish-Christian scruples. But the existence of a
strong Timothy-tradition in the later church makes it hard to
believe that a strange story like this could be spread not long
Timothy's death, if it did not correspond to fact. And
psychological reasons can be adduced which render the tradition
airly acceptable (cp Renan, S. P a d , 125, 313; Hort, jud.
Ckrist. E g J ) . Paul, either before or after the conference at
J,erusale.m, was independent of petty scruples against or for
cIrcumcIsion which he probably regarded as among the
udiajkora (i Cor. 7 18). Particularly in the case of a half-caste
or semi-Jew like Timothy, where no principle was at stake,
Paul could not have felt bound to abstain from circumcision, if
it promoted effectiveness any more than to insist upon it
uniformly. His liberal views (cp Rom. 2 z8J 14 13-21) left him
free to act upon his own judgment and to decide any case upon
its merits, free even to accommodate himself to scruples felt by
Jews when such accommodation could not fairly (yet cp Gal.
5 11, and Rams. Hist. Comm. GaQf., 8) be misunderstood.
Timothy's circumcision was a matter of convenience, not of
principle; and Paul would make that perfectly clear before
permitting his friend to become legally a Jew to save the Jews.1
Upon the whole, therefore, there is a distinct case to be made
out on behalf of the historicity of this paragraph, as against
the plausible but somewhat arbitrary view that it represents a
make-weight to Gal.23J The case of Titus was entirely
different. And it is one thing for a writer to omit an awkward
fact another and a much more serions thing-requiring greater
motives and historical justification than can be reasonably
brought forward in this case-deliberately to invent a story
which hundreds of contemporary Christians (cp Heb. 1323)
could have readily refuted. This forms an almost insuperable
difficulty in the way of accepting the ordinary hypothesis of
criticism upon Acts 16 1-3; and it seems therefore more natural
to regard Paul's action as somewhat exceptional, though it
depends on the view taken of the date of Galatians (cp 5 2 )
whether we suppose Paul deliberately made this exception
afterwards (so Weber, A6fassuxgdes Gahtrrdri>fes, 77f: [ 1900]),
or advanced to a clearer and more consistent line of action.
In sketching at a later date some personal traits of Timothy,
the author of the pastoral epistles, either drawing upon Acts or
upon independent oral tradition, lays characteristic stiess on
the questions of good character and reputation as a requisite
for the ministry (e.g., I Tim. 3 7) reserves the names of Eunice
and Lois (2 Tim. 15), suggests 'tr)midity and backrvardness as
qualities of Timothy ( 2 Tim. 1 7 f:), and refers to several cir-
cumstances attending Paul's selection of the younger man.
There is no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of such
notices or of the tradition that this momentous event ( I Tim.
1 18 4 14) was due to some local Christians possibly including
Paul himself, who felt themselves inspired 'in the assembly to
single out the youth as a fit companion for Paul. The statement
agrees at any rate with phenomena such as those noted in Acts
133, etc., and merely implies that the local prophets and leaders
felt themselves divinely guided in selecting Timothy, or in
ratifying Paul's judgment on a matter which may have already
occupied his mind. But ecclesiastical tendency of a later age is
felt in the further description, throughout these passages and
elsewhere ( e g . 2 Tim. 1 6 cp TInloTHY A N D TITUS[EPISTLES],
5 7) of a su;ernatural',yQiopa due to solemn ordination;
itself quite credible (cp Acts133 1423).
Accompanying Paul and Silas on their European
tour (P AUL , 5 zo), Timothy apparently took a specially
3. In Macedonia. keen interest in the Macedonian
churches which he helped to found
at Philippi and Thessalonica, although it is remarkable
that the narrative in Acts only mentions his name quite
incidentally (Acts17 14 185). With the former church
(Phil. 220-22) his relations remained singularly close and
warm, but it is impossible to see him (with Volter,
Th. T , 1892, p. 124) in a second-century allusion (43)
to ubvrtrye (cp SYNZYGUS).His subsequent movements
between Bercea (B EREA , 3 ) and Corinth are not quite
clear owing to the loose and general statements of Acts
at this point. The probabilityis, however, that ( I Thess.
32 being parallel to 3 5 ) Timothy rejoined Paul soon at
Athens, and was sent back (perhaps with a letter, cp
Rendel Harris: Erpor., 5th ser., 8 161 f: 4 0 1 5 ) to
Thessalonica to confirm the local Christians and bring
back news of their condition to their anxious apostle.
Returning from this errand Timothy, now accompanied
by Silas, found that in despair Paul had gone across
from Athens to Corinth. C p THESSALONIANS, 5 13
1 Zahn (EinL1479f:) subtly traces an allusion to this
chnracteristic of Timothy in the i p r k of Phil.33, which he
insists on taking (as in v. 17) as a reference to Paul's coadjutor
(Phil. 1I). See further K. Schmidt's A#.-gesch. 358J (1882).
5076
 TIMOTHY
The 'awkward and badly constructed' (Ramsay, St. Paul,
233) narrative of Acts17 iof: shows that the author, or the
so.urce which he followed here, was ignorant of this Macedonian
mission ; he offers no explanation of the extraordinary delay
which -on his own statement-transpired between 17 13f: and
1s 5, imagining that Silas and Timothy had simply remained
in Bercea. Whereas it is probable that the visit of Paul's
two emissaries extended to Philippi as well as to Thessa-
lonica, and that they conveyed from the former church to Paul
(2 Cor. 11 9? Phil. 4 15) a gift of money.
A t Corinth and throuchout Achaia. Timothv.
~~ ~
7
' ,. as an
' apostle' ( I Thess. 1I 2 6 ) in the wider sense of the
term (cp M INISTRY , $ 17 ; McGiffert,
4. At Corinth ApostoZic Age, 648f. ), shared Paul's
and pioneering work (cp 2 Cor. 119) and
was associated with him in the epistles (epistle?) to
Thessalonica, which were written in the earlier part of
the apostle's stay on the Isthmus-for although the
mention of Athens ( I Thess 31) does not exclude the
possibility of that city as the place where they were
composed (see I Cor. 1 5 3 2 168), it is plain from other
allusions (cp I Thess. 18) that they presuppose the
apostle's entry into Achaia. From Corinth two years
later 'Timothy seems to have accompanied Paul as far
as Ephesus, where he became known to the churches
in the neighbourhood (Col. 1I ) and to local individuals
(Philem. I ) . ~ At anyrate(cpCHRONOLoGY,$ 68) towards
the close of the two or three years spent by Paul in
Ephesus and the surrounding district, Timothy and
Erastus (Acts 2 9 2 ~ ) as~two assistants of Paul upon the
spot, were despatched to Macedonia and Achaia (possibly;
M v PA@, I Cor. 1610) in advance of their leader, who
intended to follow up his letter to Corinth (despatched
by sea after March 5 , when navigation became open)
by a personal visit. It is plain, from I Cor. 417 161of.,
chat there was a chance of Timothy failing to arrive
until after the letter reached its destination ; for Paul
bespeaks a conrteous reception for his young representa-
tive. The absence of any greeting from the latter, and
the temporal aorist Qmp$a (' I have sent,' I Cor. 4x7).
show that he had left before the epistle was despatched.
His instructions were to return with some other Christians
directly ( i e . , by the sea-route) to Paul at Ephesus
( I Cor. 16r1), after instructing the Corinthians afresh
upon Pauline methods and views ( I Cor. 417) and
generally consolidating their faith.
The obscurity of the Corinthian episode at this stage (cp
T IT U S 0 z ) renders it difficult to decide whether Paul's silence
in 2 CAI. upon the mission of Timothy and any resultsattending
it forms a tacit proof tha.t Timothy did not manage to reach
Corinth (so, e.g., Lightfoot, Weiss, and Ramsay), or that he did
arrive and then, failing t > cope subsequently with the fresh
trouble, returned to Paul or simply sent him word of the crisis.
On the last-named hvoothesis he m v have been either (so
Pfleiderer, %. G. Findlay) in person, or with
Beyschlag, Pfleiderer or Gith-PaA
Paul
on the latter's painfh painful visit (2 Cor. 2 r 5 33)), actually the man
insulted ((6Q b S l K q Oe ff kk ; 7 12) by the recalcitrant
recalcitrant'majority
majorityat
at Corinth.
On the whole intricate question see Schmiedel, IICii. 1220-223. 12m-2~3.
Whatever happened to Timothy in the interval, Paul
a t last met* him somewhere among his favourite
Macedonian churches i z Cor. 1 1 7 5 ) whither he had
retired from Corinth probably to find a more congenial
sphere ; unless we are to suppose that he accompanied
Paul thither from Ephesus. Evidently he had not
been in Achaia lately ( 2 Cor. 75f. 13). But when
Paul went on to Corinth, Timothy accompanied him
(Rom. l621), and formed a member of the apostle's
enlourage on his return to Asia in the spring of the
following year.
Whether he accompanied Paul to Rome or was
summoned by him afterwards, the scanty
6.. Later data avai!able do not permit us to deter-
movemellts.
mine ; the latter conjecture (cp T IMOTHY
A N D T I T U S [EPISTLES], 5 1.f.) fits in well with the
1 If the note to Ephesus, incorporated in Rom. 10 extended
(as, e.g., Weizsacker and McGiffert suggest) to v. 23, tde mention
of Timothy in w. zr would he highly appropriate. But the note
probably contained zrv. 1-20 and no more. [Cp, further,
ROMANS $13.1
9 Or ient for him; if one plausible reconstruction of the
p d , ' based on a critical view of z Tim. 4 9 11-18zof: (see
IMOTHY A N D T ITUS [EPISTLES], B IZ), could he established.
162 5077
TIMOTHY
tone of z Tim.413-15 zr-zza when that fragment is
assigned to a genuine note sent by Paul either late in
the Czesarean or early in the Roman imprisonment.
urging his friend to join him. At any rate it is obvious
that Timothy did stay beside him a t Rome for a con-
siderable period (Col. 1I Philem. I Phil. 11). Later
on, however, Paul's concern for the Philippian Christians
led him to arrange for the disinterested and zealous
Timothy paying them a visit (Phil. 219-22) in order to
relieve the apostle's mind by bringing back news of his
old friends. Timothy had a tried character by this
time and his ' solicitude for the Philippians had become
a second nature' (Lightfoot). ' Clearly he was not a
a prisoner, but free to come and go. His journey may
have detained him ; or he may have proceeded farther
to Ephesus.l At least a genuine fragment preserved
in z Tim. 115-18 46-12 16-19shows that a t some subse-
quent period Paul had been forced to abandon his hope
of release and now, in view of a martyr's death, wanted
to have Timothy beside him again in his isolation.
W e do not know if the summons was obeyed in time,
or at all. A final glimpse of the envoy is afforded,
some twenty years later, by a casual remark in a n
epistle apparently addressed t o some Christians a t
Rome (Heb. 1 3 q ) , from which it would appear that
Timothy, who was familar to this circle of readers (cp
Rom. 1621, H EBREWS , 9), had been recently released
from imprisonment somewhere and might possibly
revisit Rome in company with his friend the writer.
Apart from a hypothesis, which needs on1 to be chronicled,
that he actually edited the two pastoral epistzs bearing his own
name, three lines of critical reconstruction
6. A S author. connect Timothy with authorship either
independently or as an amanuensis of Paul.
(i.) Least probable of all is Spitta's ingenious attempt to find in
him the author of 2 Thess. ( Z u r Gesch. U . Lift. des Ur-
christenthums, l z z f ) an epistle written by him in the name
of his companions (i 'Thess. 1 1)-hence its somewhat formal
and official tone-and saturated with apocalyptic fantasies of
Judaism peculiar to himself (cp Acts 16 I 2 Tim. 3 15f: I Tim
1 4 47). See THESSALONIANS 0 14. (ii.) When 2 Cor. 10.13 is
accepted as part of an interAediate letter to Corinth, written
previous to 2 Cor. 1-9, it is natural (Pfleid. Das Urchristent/~um,
z06f:) though far from necessary to suppose that these four
chapters were preceded by a part (no longer extant) written by
Timothy or by some other companion of Paul interested in the
local church. On thisview the a h b s 62 27; IIaChor means that
Paul now strikes in to speak aloneand independently. (iii.) With
more plausibility the composition of the ' We-journal' in Acts
has been assigned occasionally to Timothy ( e g . , by Kanigsmann,
Ulrich, Beyschlag, de Wette, Bleek, and [?I Weizsacker),
although the threads of positive proof are extremely suhtle (cp
ACTS, 0 96) and the general probabilities point rather to Luke
as the diarist. Besides, even if the Bezan reading in Acts 1127f:
be rejected, a passage like Acts 204-6 (unless we are to suspect
a serious dislocation of the text) tells against the composition
of the journal by Timothy. Sorof, however, has followed a modi-
fied form of Mayerhoffs theoryin attributing to Timothy the task
of editing Acts in its extant shape from (a)a Lucan sketch of
early Christianity in connection with Paul and (6) a rather
legendary Petrine source (Die Entstehtrng der A$.-gesch. 1890).
The widespread belief of Christian tradition (A$. Const. 746,
Euseb. HE 3 4, Photius, Bidl. q4), that Timothy was appointed
by Paul as the first bishop of Ephesus
7. In tradition. is probably nothing better than an infe;
ence from the pastoral epistles ( I Tim.
1 d), which, however, may echo some historical relationship.
The story is occasionally improved by some circumstantial
details: e g . , that he was succeeded in his episcopate by the
apostle and the presbyter John, suffering martyrdom (Jan. 22
Greek church; Jan. 24, Latin; Sept. 27, Ephesus) during th;
former's exile at Patmos towards the close of the first century
A.D. (see Nicephorus in H E 3 11). No miracles are narrated of
him in the fifth century Acta Tiircofhei (ed. Usener, 1877).
For these and other legends see further Lipsius, Apokr. A#.-
ref&. (1884), 372-4a0, and, for the traditional connection of
Timothy and Ephesus, Zahn, Eid. 1426f: His martyrdom
1 If so, this would be the basis for the literaiy setting adopted
by the later author of the pastoral epistles in his third com-
position (I Tim. 1 3 J , cp TIMOTHVA N D TITUS[EPISTLES],
$ TI). The casual way in which Timothy's connection with
Ephesus is assumed there, may he pure fantasy ; but it is more
likely that it may reflect some actual tradition of his career after
Paul's removal : certainly (although the far from exhaustive or
accurate nature of Acts as a record of Paul's later life does not
make this an insuperable objection) there is no recorded period
in Acts when Paul started for Macedonia leaving Timothy to
superintend matters at Ephesus.
5078