J e w , 40) connects OaNaZor with Oms& and Ae,9,9aZor with the 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. to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk. 2 14) within the number of the Twelve. But we should have expected Acuris. hrppaiop= Some corruptions are older than any of the versions, Aweis is unparalleled. It seems clear that Asj3Baior is a perhaps older than the final redaction of the Pentateuch. ‘Western’ gloss of a cop k t who connected Od6a?os with Thus all extant authorities give ~2p1 as the end of i$*i tht?dh=munzma, and wisled to substitute a not dissimilar name which should be more appropriate to an apostle, and Nu. 2 3 3 , generally translated : ‘And he [Balaam] went less undignified. If Asj3j3a;or can be thus explained as an early to a level place.’ Apart from the grammatical harshness, emendation the difficult @a&Salor remains. Dalman’s Baahowever, this and every other sense which these letters Gaios=@euSCs is improbable. It is more likely that Qa6Gaias by corruption in Greek or Aramaic, represents an originai can be made to bear are alike poor, and Koenen has mO)n* or ~i(i)n*. For the 0 cp Bov8ovia [Bl= niiin, Neh. 7 4 3 f suggested that at some period 6&wz the dmehpment u (see HODAVIAH), [ B * v i d . N l = h i N , EnalOj4 (see UEL); Bv+ medial 3 the letters 16 had been written once instead of Boue[BI=~i;(~(Ahava), Ezra8 ZI ; B&ae [A]=np$n (Helkath), twice over ; then by reading the final * as i (or supJosh. 21 31 ; BamLpeL [Bl, Bauoup [AI = ’ y i v ~ , a S. 2 g (see posing i to have been lost before the following 1 ~ 9 1 )we ASHURITES); Bauoj3av[ADI, -~[L]=12~~(Ezbon),Gen.4616. For get i * w i $ q $ i (Le., i*& qh), he,went to his incantathe doubled 6 and the ending -aios cp q*=’Ia88aios, De VogiiC, tions.’ This agrees with N u . 2 4 1 , where we read that Syr. Cent. 63. Balaam ‘went not, as at other times, to seek for In Lk. 6 16 Acts 1 1 3 ’IodSas ’IaKdaou=Judas, .con of enchantments.’ James,’ takes the place of Thaddaeus. See JUDAS, 7. be reasonably E ually brilliant is Lagarde’s emendation of Ps.526. For 2. Identification. I t ,may, therefore, qnw! p l N m nY$ he writes q @ lyp n&i.e., ixn has p $p conjectured that Judas was the name of the apostle, that Thaddaeus is a corruption of Judas, been written 1Nxn (for lip) by some scribe. Translate ‘in the and that Lebbaeus is a gloss upon Thaddaeus. Of time of distress ; the sound of the flood of mighty waters shall not come ni-h him. Finally we may uote WellhausenS James, the father of Judas, nothing is known. Syr. restoration o? the original of z)K. 19 2 A ?=Is. 37 27J). For 6 Cur. has here Judas Thomas, and Syr. Sin. Thomas 1 n 3 a i ( z 7 ) :nDp * $ writes - p 3 a i q?? m) ( 2 7 ) : so that I he (see THOMAS). The evidence of the Gospels being so v. 27 begins ‘Before me is thy rising up a?d thy sitting down confused we not unnaturally find great uncertainty in and thy going out and coming in I know. I t is worth whil: the post-biblical tradition. I n Origen (Ft-aJ ad Rom. ) pointing out, as a final testimony to the excellence of @ in its Thaddrous= Lebb;eus= Judas Jacobi. In the Chron. original form, that this palmary emendation is not without support 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 nnnp ,>&, Jacobi=Simon the Canaanite. I n the Abgar legend ~os preserved by Eusebius ( H E 1 1 3 ) Thaddmus is distinbut the text called 91 in the Syro-Hexaplar MSS (see col. I n the Acta 5019) had &&auri dvam&e& uou-ie., *>a$, the con- guished from Judas Jacobi=’lhonias. Thome Judas Thomas is the Lord‘s brother. Accordsonantal text suggested by Wellhausen. ing to the Syrian Ischodab (9th cent.) quoted by Zahn concluding an article of any length on the textual (Einl.2263) the Diafesravun identified James son of sm of the Bible it is always wholesome‘ to remind Alphmus with Lebbmus (note that D in Mk. 214 has oneself of the comparative soundness of the text. That ’ I ~ K w @for Asuefv). v there are blots, especially in the OT, some of them The earliest form of legend connected with Thaddens is that probably irremovable, must be admitted ; but they are which represents him as preaching at Edessa. A very exnot enough seriously to obscure the main features of haustive bibliography of the literature and sources of this tradition may be found in von Dohschiitz, Ckrisfudi~drr, 158*the narratives related or the ideas expressed. So far 19. 4’ In the account given by Eusebius (HE 113) from Syriac as the Pentateuch is concerned we may be especially at sources Thaddeus the Apostle one of the Seventy, was sent our ease. I t would have been impossible to separate Abgar king of Edessa, in by the’Apostle Judas Thoma:to accordance with a promise made by Christiefore his death. In the documents with the minuteness which modern the later Syriac legend(Doctrina Addai, th cent.? ed. Phillips) scholarship has found possible if the text had been Addai is substituted for Thaddeus. f n the Gk. IIp&&rs much confused by scribal errors. And with regard to OdSalou (Lips. Acfa Apost. Apocr. 1273 - 278) Lehbzus is identified with Thaddzus, one of the Twelve. For this and the Prophets, though their works are less accurately the later legends which represent Thaddaeus as preaching in preserved than the Pentateuch, we can be sure that Armenia, in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Persia, see Lips. textual corruption never improves the style or the Did. Chrisi. Biog., s.z: ‘Thaddeus’ W.C. A. thought. The fact that so much of the Prophetical THAHASH, or (RV) TAHASH roxoc, Books is-judged by any standard-of the first rank as literature, is the strongest proof that they have not [ADL]), a name in the Nahorite genealogy (Gen. 22 24f). been utterly disfigured in transmission. He is identified b Winckler (Mittkcil. d . Vordcras. Ges., Some of the most important bibliographical references have 1896, p. 207) with Tibs, mentioned in the so-called Travels of already been indicated above. The best general account of an Egyptian (Pa+. Anasi. i. 223 ; see RP 2 I I I ) and elsewhere the text and versions of the OT in any a s in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes (to the N.). C$ 67. Bibliography. language is Wellhausen’s monograph in WMM, As. n. Bur. 258. But see also TEBAH. T. K. c. the fourth edition of Bleek‘s Einkitun in dus AZte Testament, Berlin, 1878 85 275- 298; later e d f THAMAH ( n q , &Ma [BA]), Ezra253 AV, RV are arranged on a different plan. Sdmewhat similar in plan hut more confined to the special books treated of, are the intro! T EMAH (P.v.). ductions in Driver’s Notes on the Hehew Text o fhe Books o f f Sawruel, pp. xxx-lxxxiv, and in Cornill’s Ezeeckiel 1-160. THAMAR (earnap [Ti.WH]), Mt. 13. See T AMAR. Klostermann, quoted by Driver, p. E, says ‘Let him who would himself investigate and advance learning, by the side of THAMNATHA (@aMN&ea [AKV]), I Macc. 950. the other Ancient Versions accustom himself above all things See TIMNAH (3). t o the use of Field’s Hex&la, and Lagarde’s edition of the Recension of Lucian. To thesespecially valuable authorities the THANK OFFERING (?l?J7)# 2Ch.2931 etc. See present writer would add any well edited fragment of the Old S ACRIFICE, 5 29 6. Latin. [See also Kittel, Ueber die Nokuendigkeit und M(iglichkeif THARA (eapa [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3 3 4 AV, RV TERAH. einer neuen Assgabc der hsbr. Bi6el: Sfudirn u.Erzvagun en (1901) ; Cheyne, Critica Bi6Zicu, pt. I (Isaiah and Jeremiahf] THARRA (eappa [BKC.aAL]), Esth. 121. See


F; C. 8.


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 conflate 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

I n Mk. 3 13 BaAAaioc appears



1 ~ . 1 0 V. ~ m TARA~ r See S IMON

THASSI (eacc[a]l [NV]), I Macc. 2 3 .



SO Syr. Sin. Mt. 10 3 Lk. 6 16; Pesh. Lk.6 16 Acts 113.



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'nf h i m s , 73). C p Heb.1033 'being made a gazingstock ' (&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.


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.

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. Ancient history records the name of at least one Jewish 4 12 IS), in his customary and immediate intercourse with dramatist-Ezekiel, who lived in Alexandria in the second Yahwb sees his form or tSmim8h (somerhing less distinct century R.C. and wrote a 'tragedy' or dramatic poem, entitled than his appearance- cp Job4 16). But these are only 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 which looseness and inconsistency of expression correof a Semitic drama cp CANTICLES, I 7, POETICAL LITERATURE, spond to looseness and variety of thought. W e are B 4 (5). dealing with popular ideas and expressions, not with THEBES. See NO-AMON. theological and systematic thought. What is common to the present type of theophany is that the sight of God THEBEZ where Abimelech was killed whilst besieging the citadel (Judg. 950 : B H B H C [BL]. BalBa~c is partial. (6) In another type the peculiarity consists in the fact [A] ; 2 S. 1121and ZJ. 22 in 6 , e&M&C[E]I [BA, - M E C C ~ ~ that God is seen in human form indeed, but only by [L]), was situated, according to Eusebius and Jerome 3. In vision. means of dream or vision (cp Nu. 243f.). {OS, 26244, 1571s), 13 R. m. from Neapolis on the So we should probably interpret the exroad to Scythopolis. Starting from this, Robinson perience of Isaiah (Is. 6 ) and certainly those of Ezekiel plausibly identifies Thebez with the mod. T i h i s , a large Cp Gen. 28 (Ezek. 1 etc.) and Daniel (Dan. 72 9). village on the W. :dope of a fruitful valley, I O m. due 13-16 (J). NE. from Niiblus. So Buhl, Pal. 204 and the PEF (6) But the commonest type of a theophany in human Survey. form was by means of the ' angel of YahwP ' or ' of But is this correct? TOhZs suggests rather y$. Apart from of God ' (o& b, nin- -&J). Cp ANGEL, this, the form of the name is peculiar. We expect some famous 4. 5 2 ; N AME , 5 6. The narratives fortress to be referred to. From :he point of view of SHECHEB~, 2, one may naturally think of Zephath (= Zarephath) ; "91 might clearly identify the ' Angel of YahwP ' easily he written n39, out of which by transposition would come with Yahwe, though -often in the same narrative a y l n . This seems to give greater vividness to the narrative. certain differentiation is also implied. Thus in Gen. 16 T. K. C. the angel of YahwP who appears to Hagar is called THECOE ( e € K r n € [AKY), I Macc.933 AV, RV 'YahwP who spake unto her' (3.13), and Hagar T EKOAH. expresses surprise that she still lives after seeing God THELASAR (@K$?), 2 K.1912 AV, RV TEL- (cp further 2. IO with e.g., 122). On the other hand ' in a. IZ the angel speaks of Yahwk in the third person. ASSAR (q.3.). For further illustrations from other narratives of this identificaTHELERSAS (eahspcac [B]), I Esd.536. See tion, see Gen. 2211 f: E x . 3 (angel of Yahwh, 71. z-Yahwh,


5 7), Nu. 2232.35 (cp especially v. 35 with 24 r g ) , Judg. 21-5 611-24 (angel of Yahwh, m,. 1 8 20&=Yahwt 1 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
7m. 4a


914 A V = E z r a l O ~ j ,TIKVAH. v . ) . (4 THEODOTUS ( & o h o T o C [AV]). one o Nicanor's f ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B . C . ( 2 MRCC. 4 '9). 1 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

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



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 ; 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, fre5. 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.

the phrase corresponds closely to the Shechinah of postbiblical 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 thunderstorm. (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. stands in of the former of Yahw&'parallelism with yahwb. the glory 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 speaking, 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 goddessS 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.




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 3 4 literary theophanies (see helow, $ $ 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.

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 1 6 ) in others, figures 5 h; 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 theophanies 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 manifestation 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 Geschichts6iicherndesA 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.

(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 ) .

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]),
831, AHAVA.

Esd. 861 (cp v. 41)=Ezra Ezra

THERMELETH(~~~MEA&[BA]), 5361 I Esd.
2 59, TEL-MELAH.

Place and time (g I). Character of epistles (I 6). Thessalonian Christians (5 7). r Thess. ($ z x ) . Its authorship (I 8). z Thess. (9 4A). Its authorship ($5 9-15). Bibliography (5 16).

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written,



n3t in Athens (cp I Thess. 3 I ) as stated in the subscription 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, 3 mentioned in Acts 18 5. See TIMOTHY, $ 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 circumoccasion. stances which made him fear for the permanence of his work there ( I Thess. 2 17 3 T ). H e 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
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


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~ 94$) takes the 34, 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, A we know from I Thess. that he was. s

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 Thessalonians 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 attention. 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 manifestations ( 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 steadfastness 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 18, of brotherly .) love (4g,f), and of quietness and diligence in daily business



(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 Thess. character, and the Thessalonians seem to 4. have needed no further instruction as to the resurrection of the dead. Rut Paul's words touching 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 o f the Thessalonians ( z Thess. 11-4). as he had done in .I 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 appealing 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 ~ J , Lament, 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,

be supposed that any one would venture to palm o f a f forged letter upon the Thessalonians so soon after the apostle's departure, and as a matter of fact the eschatological passage in the first epistle (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 blessedness i I Thess. 417 5 IO 2 Thess. 2 14 ; and the final n 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 o Christ very f 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 resurrection 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 considerable lieht u m n Paul's work in Thessalonica and upon the character and condition of his converts there. T h e Christians addressed were most, if not all, of them Gentiles ( I Thess. l g 214) ; and, moreover, as appears from the former passage, they had been converted directly from heathenism to Christianity under Paul's preaching. But the account of Paul's work in Thessalonica contained in Acts (17 I J) gives a very different picture of the Thessalonian converts. According 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




I 4f:

1See1Thess.21aS81347e5101s~Thess.lrr21316fot familiar Pauline ideas. 2 See M'Giffert, op. cil. 246.



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 themselves, 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 recogThesa. 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 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 geiiuineness 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 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 contrary 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 interpolated ( e . g . , P. Schmidt, Der evste Thssalonichevbrief,.$ the epistle is the apocalyptic passage, 2 Thess. 22-12. lo. Argument This objection is based chiefly upon the assumption that the passage is infrom 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 intervening 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 recognise 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, I t must be recognised then that there is not sufficient ground in the eschatology of the second epistle for denying its Pauline authorship. If there is good reason for ascribing the remainder of the epistle to Paul, there need he no difficulty in assuming that he wrote the apocalypt.ic passage, 2.f: In fact, we may perhaps go farther and say that that passage, when taken in connection with the remainder of the epistle, can be better understood on the assumption of its authenticity than on that of its pseudonymity. It can hardly be supposed that any one would 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 postPauline 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 consum5042


5 4f.b

=7f. ).
The first objection urged against the genuineness of 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 omission v. 24 is brought into immediate connection with u. 23a with which it seems t o belong.

5 W

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 interpolated in a genuine epistle of Paul ; but there is no ground for such a hypothesis. The point of the epistle is entirely gone if the apocalyptic passage be omitted, and the difficulties which beset the genuineness of the remainder of the epistle are even greater than those which beset the apocalyptic passage. As a matter of fact, the suggestion of Hausrath (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. I t is true that the epistle contains an LA. rrom language and uncommonly large number of words and phrases which occur nowhere else contents. in Paul (the Pastoral epistles not being 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 (Bpoooirpa~), v. z ; ‘falling away’ ( b r r o u T a u i a ) , ’ v . 3 object of worship’ (ui@aupa) 7’. 4 ‘ ‘deceit of unrighteoudess’ (& &q &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; ‘belief 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 connection ; 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<o71.13 ; ‘ note ’ ( q p c L p a r * ) , v. I I ; ‘ well-doing ’ ( K ~ O W O & * ) , 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. 4 , only in 2 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 beginning unto salvation’ ( d h a ~3pLiis 6 B d s drr’dpxijs eis uwrvo 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 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 connect 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 genuineness of the epistle already mentioned is the objection drawn from its close resemblance to LB. rrom I Thessalonians, amounting at times to an almost slavish dependence. A to detailed comparison of the two shows that th&only new matter in the second is found in 15-12

. 1


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 X p r u r o f ) in 2 Thess. 1 2, and U 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 o the verse suggests I Thess. 4 17. z Thess. 2 1 3 8 f 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 ~ 6 qpcv 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 6 s d p j q r ) S 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’ (acpraonpurs), 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 ~ Thess. 36 T I ; 2 ), ‘behave disorderly’(brorrrCw), 3 7 ; ‘disorderly’[adj.] (&amooC), I Thess. 5 1 . 4 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 o Ephesians f 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 situa5044

.. ____




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


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 impossible; and if he had, it was not perhaps unnatural that, when the report reached him that Thessalonians were appealing to a letter of his in support of their views touching the Parousia, he should read over the earlier epistle to see if it gave any justification for such an appeal. This would also serve to explain particuiarly the In relation between z Thess. 36f: and I Thess. 2 6 J 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 Uychristenthums, 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, occurring as it does without qualification. refer to Timothy, as Spitta assumes, but must refer to Paul, That the Thessalonians should have known from the handwriting that '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 produced z Thessalonians in conscious imitation of I Thessalonians as to suppose that Paul unconsciously repeated himself so slavishly. And if this conscious effort be assumed, the reference to Paul's own signature in 3 1 7 (cp I Cor. 1621 Col. 418 Gal. 611) need constitute no , 16. obstacle. At the Conclusion. insurmountableview of the considerasame time, in 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 intro1 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 havewere 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).

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 o St. f 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 Tkessalonicker6riefe (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 Weizsacker, ZC, 2 4 9 3 ; Schmiedel, ZC, 8 s ; Bahnsen, JPT, .. .. 1880, 4orJ For further literature see Holtzmann, Einl. (3) 21o.L. and Findlay in Expos., 1900, 2251f: A. C. MCG.

;'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 neighbourhood. 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 connected 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 headquarters of the Pompeian party (Dio Cass. 41 18) ; but in the second war it took the side of Octavius and Antonius (Plut. Brut. 46 ; Appian, 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 magist r a t e ~ who here bore the special title of politarchs ,~ (rroksdpxar, Acts 176).


TRESSALONICA ( B € C C & ~ ~ , N I K H , ~ Acts 171 WH, 13 Phil. 4 16 2 Tim. 4 I O ; ethnic BwuahovcKch, Acts 2 2 0 4 I Thess. 1 I 2 Thess. 1 [translated T


B s r r d o v i q in Pol. 23 4 ; B o u s d o v i r ~ r a Str. 330, frg. in


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 See Head, Hisf. inscription MAKEAONON AEYTEPAI. 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
2 Ofpppq,





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 monument 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 0~' the Am. 1 ~ 7 . Theol [1897], 598, where other inscriptions are cited from Macedonia, and more particularly or from Thessalonica, in which the title aoht~&pxur, the verb a o X t ~ u p ~ o d v r e s , occurs). 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 populousness ( 3 ~ 3 i,j vSv wdhcma 7 1 dhhov &bvSp&). Lucian, in the 6" 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 ) .

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 going and returning, on his third missionary journey On his return two members of the (Acts 201J). 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 Thessalonica, 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 Orthodox 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 asProlego91Zpna to his De Thessalonica eiaspue a 0, 3 Literature. Dissertafiogeo a#hica (Berlin, 1839). . 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. Descriptions 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.

The spread of the Jews after Alexander's death would doubtless affect the citv. well Dlaced as it was for controlling ;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 ; contrast 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 C e a asr . . '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 populace 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 3) Nevertheless the poli1. 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').



W. J. 1%'.


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)). o S f . Paul, 1395) that three of the names on the f 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.

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 Macedonia is forgotten in the absorbing self-imposed task of disputing with the Jews and proselytes of that city. Apparently there is no feeling of restriction to a particular province. As regards the actual attribution of Thessaly, Ptolemy assigns it to Macedonia, Strabo to Achga (p. 840). T h e separation may have been the work of Vespasian.
W. J. W.

THESSALY (BsccaAla, Acts1715 D).



COXTENTS 5. TextandpurposeofActs536f: I. .kts and Jos. on Theudas. 6. Separation of sources. 2. Not two persons. 7. Inexact use of Jos. by Lk. 3. No error in Jos. 8. Literature. 4. Did Lk. know Jos. 7 Theudas ( g ~ y b a c ' W H ) is mentioned only in Ti. 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 ~ o s TLS dvilp ydgs OsvS& bv6parr d 8 e r sbv ~ r A a ; m o v 6,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, . i a p o s r i y p a r ' rbv ?rosa+ oxibac SSOV a +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 & a r m u o i i u a rrohho3s p?v S 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 V 'Iepou6cis hupa. 'While Fadus was procurator of Judza, a certain

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 insurrection of Theudas back to a somewhat early date. According to Josephus, however, the insurrection of Theudas was when Cuspius Fadus was procurator, that is, some time between 44 and about 46 A.D. (Tiberius Alexander, the successor of Fadus, held office till 48 A. D.). If Lk. is thinking of the same Theudas, he has thus not merely assigned him to a wrong date but, what is more, has put into 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 made to prove this from Tosephus by Josephus. 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 elseu-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 (81 28 I P 553). He i. subsequently engaged in a plot against the life Af Herod the Great which had been set on foot by the Antipater just mentioned. 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 exclusively 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 undertaking 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 Matthias bore this second name also by no means follows.

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,~bs ssrparouiov. 6s As
cis oLSCv. ' For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought. ( d ) In so far as the differences betwen the two accounts affect their substance, they are so unimportant as in no way to hinder us from believing that the same fact is intended in both. Lk. naturally is shorter, for his object is not to tell the history of Theudas, but simply to cite an instance appropriate to the purpose of 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 recalls Acts 8 9, where almost the same claim is atriboted to Simon an Magus- 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 dxXov. It does not men, Josephus has sbv ~ A s k - r o v follow from this expression that he intends a substantially 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 suppression of the rising. (c) Much more serious is the next difficulty. Lk. goes on to say that after Theudas. Judas of Galilee raised another revolt in the days of the taxing. As he particulnrises the taxing by means of the definite article (Pv T U ~ S ?jp&pais T ~ ~ ~ o y p a @ ? j a ) in his own Gospel S and ( 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 If Theudas gromised his followers to lead them through ordan, like anot er Joshua, this will be not the sole purpose he . 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.
I q p d O q rta$&vrcs


daeiflovro a h + 8dhliOguav




_ _ ~



1 O4Sas is oneofthe names formed with the well-knownabbreviation-ending (cp NAMES, 5 86, end ; LUKE, 8 6 ; APOLLOS, I B.




(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 1 8 ) 6 s. That 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 chronoin 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 remembers (from his childhood) that a revolt occurred under Cuspius Fadus, but is mistaken in thinking that Theudas was the name of the leader on that occasion. Blass is conscious that such a charge against Josephus would be inadmissible, but reaches the same result by the extremely bold assumption (which. however, he introduces only with a 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 o68 rai oi w a h 'IodSa ~ t s 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&qporand like could also have produced it. the 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 S is established in Attic inscriptions 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.

700 ra?iAaiou bqpdtbpav [Niese, bv~xthluavl700 ~ b v Aabv brb



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 commanded 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 ;w&awo a t h i S ~ e s l t o p r i ~ u a 'After this F v: 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 himself. If so, it could indeed appear as if Theudas ought to be placed before Judas as long as Lk. confined his attention to the dating of Judas which he found in his and left that of Theudas out of conown gospel (215) 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 are not shocked'at the suggestion of an acquaintance with Josephus on the part of Lk. to see here a proof of such an acquaintance-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 commemorationem,' 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 ( ' persuades,' 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 f cut o f 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. 5 &pa Karb rbv Gqhodpcvov ~ p b v o v v l u r ~ s d ~ E U G ~ hdywv i a w b v cTvaf n v a , as KaTcS, h%q, Kal ~ T ~ W T E Stlaoi dreiu8quav at@ GreXbOquav : ' that at the time specified Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, who was destroyed, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.' Although this quotation is far from being verbally exact (notice 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

PwFarwv mrounjuavros Kvprviou n j s 'IovAaias ~ ~ p q r t Q o v ~ &s ! os ;v 7 o k r p b 70lirwv & pW w 'I&w@os rai Zlpov, 06s ava%l u w ,




( c i v d X ~ v ; civgpiOquav in his section relating to the cp 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 hypothesis 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) and omits the GwA~@uQv. It 3 is all the more remarkable to find that he refrains from proceeding 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 converse, 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 intelligible 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 ~ @ view of what in 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', a h o B ~ 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 expressly to the fact of his death would have been very natural. In point of fact not only is this reference not made, but in speaking of the case of Theudas it is not so much as hinted that his death was the cause of the dispersion of his followers ; rather are the two facts brought into juxtaposition merely. Thus the point of the comparison between the movement originated by Theudas and that in which the apostles were engaged will rather be simply that both at first had an apparently threatening character but soon lose it, without reference to the manner in which the change is effected, If this view is correct, it must be conceded that the example of Theudas from Josephus

is not in all its particulars quite apposite, and the attempt of Blass to discover or conjecture another Theudas who was not 'slain' (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 Od a l j X ~ r o . S 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 translation? Is it not very easily conceivable that the second ' dissolutus est ' is due to repetition by a careless copyist ? And who was it who introduced the d a d X ~ r o the case in 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 therefore must be as to whether analysis of the sources can contribute nothing to a solution of the problems of our passage. Most of the source-critics named in ACTS, 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 inappropriate or incredible in Acts. The situation is changed somewhat if, as Clemen holds, the two verses about Theudas and Judas of Galilee were introduced into Gamaliel's speech by the final redactor only. Clemen shares the view of Blass as to the inappropriateness of both these instances to the purpose of the speech, and therefore assumes that its purpose had not been recognised with sufficient clearness by that redactor. Lastly, B. Weiss, with whom Feine and Hilgenfeld concur, regards only the instance of Theudas (from 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 repetition 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) without holding the priority of Lk. in point of time, says : ' either Lk. took no knowledge of Josephus at all, or if he did he afterwards forgot all that he had read. The first supposition, as the simpler, seems preferable.' With reference to the case before us, he therefore supposes that any knowledge Lk. had regarding Theudas was by hearsay only. In that case, however,

. ,




the remarkable degree of coincidence with Josephus must be set down to mere chance-at which explanation even Blass stumbles (above, $ 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, however, on the other hand he read quite correctly, but at the same time made his note only to some such effect as this, that ‘Judas of Galilee stirred the people to revolt in the days of the taxing ’ ; because the instance of the father seemed to him better suited for his purpose If now he had never before than that of the sons. heard anything of a trustworthy kind about Theudas, it will certainly be excusable in him if he did not retain in his memory the date of Theudas (which of course he did not require for his actual purpose and therefore did not note), and (especially if the composition of his work did not follow immediately on the making of his notes) took the order of his notes to be also in chronological order, and therefore represented Theudas as appearing before Judas whose date was well known to him. If he assigns to Judas himself the fate which according to Josephus overtook his sons, this admits of being explained, on the first of the assumptions suggested above, from careless reading of the passage ; on the second it explains itself. Even Krenkel concedes that Lk., even without literary authority for it, could believe that Judas must have come to the same end as nearly all the insurrectionary leaders of that period (see 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.

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 coincided 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 theologians have supposed he was entirely unacquainted with them. Yet this, if he wrote about 100-130 A.D., is almost more impossible than it would be on the assumption of his having been a companion of Paul. 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 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 coincidences. 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).

(c) The attempt here made to account for the remarkable degree of coincidence between Josephus and Lk. would have to be abandoned only in the event of its being possible to show that Lk. could not have used Josephus. Not to speak, however, of the great number of cases in which his employment of that author is raised to a very high degree of probability indeed, if not to absolute certainty, the non-employment in the strict sense is incapable of being proved. It is not difficult, indeed, to prove that Lk. did not make use of Josephus in the manner in which a modern scholar does ; but all the cases in which he diverges from him admit of being arranged under two classes; either he knows some other account besides that of Josephus and prefers 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 particularly 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.


That Josephus had been used by Lk. was first affirmed 1873, pp. 85-93, and especially Pgl; ; by Holtzmann (ZWT, 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, Aus dem and 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.



Ckronolog. Sympse, 1843, pp. r o - . ~ o j ,and Beitr. zur Wurd&ung der Evaxgciim, 186q, pp. 1 : 1 4 ; Zuschlag, Tkzudu, 1849; Schiirqr, Z W T , r 0 7 ~ ,pp. 0-0 &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.

though none of the MSS collated by WordsworthWhite 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 frequently T o m u ) ; in Syrinc T J z a m d ( b d / L)according to BarHehrzus, hut the Nestorian vocalisation is Thddmri preserving the consonantal character of N as in Hebrew ; the Syro-Palestinian writes the Grecised -)-yJoiL (cod. A, JIL

Kr. 1837, pp.

622-652; ‘Wieseler,


c, 2024

THIMNATHAH 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-



w. s.


and for A i b p o s



The Syriac appellative for twin is tkdnzd (Nestorian 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 p i ” goywp. defective in all passages of the Gospels where Thomas occurs. So far on the hypothesis that we have the Book of Tobit in an But in both these Syriac texts the name Thomas occurs in a approximately original form. There is, however, strong reason passage where it is not found in the original Greek, namely Jn. to believe that the stories of Daniel (in part), Esther Judith, 1422. instead of ’IoriSas oGx 6 ’IwtcaprS.igs, Syr. Sin. gives and Tobit, have been !systematically altered as regdds their TkotAa, Syr. Cur. Juda-Thoma: Blass gives now ’1048~~[, 06x historical and geographical names (see Crit. 83.).Thus the b Arb KapuSrou]. The Greek A i S u p o ~has been preserved as addition in N represents qiy n $Nn&n 2iynn inN, hut this is a Didymus in the Latin versions, hut rendered no creszentz or dubitos in the MSS of Lyon and Carpentras of the ProvenGaI : l Hnnl: and the names Naasson, corruption of sNY??: x version and ein nveifrier in the pre-Lutheran German Bible, as Rajhain, Seplrrf in It. Vg. come respectively, (a)from 1233,(6) if it were=di+uxos (see PREP) 366). The OS translates the 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 Pal.-Syr. ttinzri) and 8iSupos. The meaning ‘twin’ is certain, ‘Galilee’ hut ‘Gilead’-i.a. the southern Gilead in the Negeb. hut the original form of the Semitic word is much dis‘Naphtah’ is a southern district so called, and ‘Asher’ repreputed (see, on the one hand, Olshausen 5 1816, Lagarde, sents the southern Asshur or Ashhur. See, however, TOBIT, UeJersicht 144; Barth, 1826, n. r ; Ges.-)Buhl, Lex.; on the and on another reference to a Thisbe or Tishbeh, see TISHRITE. otherhand,’Siegfried-Stade, Lex.; Konig, 269 ; Dalman, Gramm. T. K . C . 1 1 2 n. 4 ) The question is whether the Hebrew word be tr‘dm . (raher than tb’em) or tb’dm (in Arabic tau’atn). Still more douhtTHISTLE, THISTLES occur in AV as the rendering ful is the relation to the corresponding Ethiopic word. The of the following words :spelling tiyam in the Targums is merely due to the pronunciation I. im?, dardar (~pipohor,Gen.318 Hos.108+), a 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. word also found in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but There is no Thomas for instance in Josephus, gut cp Phen. apparently quite distinct from another word d a r d i r +ni>y 13nNn in C I S 1 no. 46, where also Oapos A,¶Gauwrpou, which, in Persian and Arabic, denotes the ‘elm tree’ though the name became very frequent in all parts of Christen(see Low, 9 8 8 ) . E:eing coupled in both places with dom ; for modern Syriac instances, see Maclean’s Dictionary. yip, (‘ thorns ’ or ‘ thorn-hushes,’ see T H O R N ),dardnr From the reading ‘ Thomas ’ or ‘ Judas-Thomas ’ for has been reasonably identified both in ancient and ‘Judas not Iscariot’ in Jn. 1422, it is apparent that modern times with the Tpf,8OhOS of the Greeks-Le., a. The person. Thomas was identified at a very early either a thistle or more probably a spinous plant of the date with ’ Judas of James ’ in the lists knapweed kind, such as Cenfaurea C a k i f r a p a , L. of Lk. 6 and Acts 1. This is strange enough, since the (Ascherson ap. Liiw, 4 2 7 ) or the more formidable C. name Thomas also occurs in these lists. Yet so it is, verufum (Tristram, N H B 426). Petermann (Reisen and this identification has been maintained by Resch irn Orient, 174) reported that the name dardar was still (Te.rte u. Unt. x. 3824 Z), who explains ‘ J u d a s of used in Syria for plants of the thistle kind. James ’ as bruthev (not son) of James, and finds the other 2 . For 15)$, acrid, ,idpuoc, E V ‘bramble,’ AVmg. offers in twin in James the son of Alphaeus, taking LebbzusJudg. 9 14 the alternative rendering ‘thistle.’ See BRAMBLE, I. Thaddzus to be different from ‘Judas of James‘ (see 3 gin, @Z&, is rendered ‘thistle’ in 2 K. 1 4 g 2 Ch. 25 78 Job . J UDAS , 7 , col. 2623). This ‘Judas of James ’ has been 31 40, and ‘bramble’ (AV only) in Is. 34 13, elsewhere and in identified further with Judas (or Jude) the son of Joseph, R V m g . CXC. Is. THORN (g.?~.). the brother of Jesus, and thus Thomas has been made 4. rpiSahar occurs twice in N T ( M t . 7 16 Heb. 68t) ; the meanbrother of Jesus himself. On the latter identification see in is probably the same as that of OT l i . li especially Th. Zahn, Forsehungen, 6 346 3 , who thinks %histledownappears once in AVmg. (Is. 17 13), producing as the result, ‘like thistledown before the whirlwind.’ But if a that it is an invention of the author of the Acts o f definite plant is required one might think rather with W. M. Thomas. i\ Syriac origin for these Acts has been Thomqon 1 of the globe-de branches of the wild artichoke(probmaintained by Niildeke and supported lately upon valid ably Cynara syriacn). When ripe and dry in autumn these ‘vegetable glohes ’ are carried far and wide by the wind. AV grounds by Burkitt (Journ.TheoL Stud. l z h 8 294f:). 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 Doctrine of Addai (see Lagarde, R e l i g u i e Syrz’ace, p. in both passages renders ‘the whirling dust.’ The analogy of 4 2 22. 16f: ; Grace, p. 9 4 2. 35 ; Cureton, Docuvzenfs, 3 3 ; Syr.geiZri, Arab.j‘z‘lL, would, however, rather recommend ‘stubble ed. Phillips, 5 ; Barhebrzeus, Chron. EccZ. 32), and it was as the true meaning of h!?, gargal, in these two passages. N. M. doubtless from a Syriac source that Eusehius got his ’IoGas d Kal 90& (HE113. where the Syriac text of THOCANUS ( e O K A N U Y [B], ~ W K [A]). I Esd. 914 . Eusebius has only Judas Thomas). Ephrem Syrus,, RV=Ezra 1015, TXKVAH (4.v.). too, called- him Judas-Thomas (616 F of his works, THOMAS THE AI?OSTLE. For the order in which where the Roman edition printed ‘Thomas,’ see the name occurs in the lists in Mt. 10 Mk. 3 Lk. 6 Burkitt, T e z t s and Studies, vii. 2 4 ) . Others make Simon 1 The name. Acts 1, see A POSTLE , 5 I (col. 264). In . Zelotes a brother of Judas or James (see the Armenian the Fourth Gospel the name occurs Commentary of Ephrem on Acts in Rendel Harris, seven times, thrice with the addition ‘who is called Four Lectures on the Western Text o Acts, 3 7 ) . and f Didynius,’ 6 heybpwos Af6upos (1116 2024 212 145 from this combination the other fact may be ex2 0 2 6 8 ) . From Jn. this addition found its way into plained, that for Lebbaeus also Judas Zelotes is found in the Greek and Latin text of Lk. in cod. D. Formerly Latin MSS in Mt. 103,in Miinter’s Sahidic version. Jn. the name was read also in Jn. 2029 by the T R without 1422 (see Lipsius, 3163), in the Latin Chronicle of the any Greek attestation and in the Vulgate of this passage, year 334 (ed. Mommsen, 6 7 0 , ed. Frick, 100, who wrongly presupposes a lacuna between Judas and 1 The Land and tkz Eook, 563=S. PaZesfineand fcmsalem, Zelotes). For the question whether under the ‘ things 1 s 1 2





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 i the treatment of these Acts in Lipsius, D e AjokryPlrm AposteL

probably a general name for a prickly plant or bush, and connected with the verL yy2 (~E‘u:), ‘pierce’ or ‘prick,’ which to 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 @oA&r. The Hehrew words are possibly 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 . 1 . ill@, k y i t h ( I s . 5 6 7 q f i Qr~[18]1017 1 2741), 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. See ahore (5), (6). I n Ecclus. 43 IQ 13. U K ~ A O $ ,z Cor. 1 2 7. 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.

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 o the Twelve Apostles as published by T. P. f 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 o Mu7y (Budge E T 105) Thomas is said to f 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, Kulendumwn). 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.




Esd. 532 RV, AV Thomoi.

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 presumed to be of somewhat general application. I. X35, ~ @ (see BRAMBLE), is probably some species of d Rhammus. MT in Ps. 56 g [IO] where ~ D occurs is probably H corrupt. [In Cheyne’s restoration the ‘pots’ and ‘thorns’ disappear 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 ~ Y x o q a ax. [A], 6 U K X ~ Y [L]. I t is usually [B]. 6 oxor, T ~ Y 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 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

THRACE. A ‘ Thracian ’ horseman ( T&Y Imrhwv 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, 7). As to the possible identification of Tiras (Gen. 10 2) 5 with Thrace, see TIRAS.] W. J. W.
T L Y ~ 8ppKGv) S

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.

(B OOK ), J

(h, 218 etc. etc.), Josh.



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.

This word appears in Dioscorides (412) as the name of a common lant. According to Pliny(2115, g 54) it had a prickly Z stalk. &aas (Syn. PI. F . Class. 78) identifies UTOI,¶< with

1 On the reading in z Ch. see MANASSEH.



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.

’ 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 It only the easy and natural correction n’9pg (for MT D?p?). 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 scrupulous 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.



5 8.

S. 2422.

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

It will be convenient under this heading to deal with seats in general, the Hebrew of the sanctuary proper (Thenius), I S. 54f: 1 . word for throne being applied to all articles (Dagon’s temple), Zeph. 1 9 Ezek.93 10418 462 471 (cp of furniture of that description. The terms are :D AGON , 5 3 ) . The rendering ‘ threshold’ in AV of I. kiss8 (HE?, but ”E? I K. 1019 Job26gt). is apparently I Ch. 2615 17 needs correction (see A SUPPIM ). W e also derived from the Ass. klrss?i ‘seat, throne,’ the Aram. equivafind the plural n.90, s@p?n, ‘ thresholds.‘ So in Is. 6 4 , lent korsi’ (HDl? Dan. 5 20, etc., cp Syr. K?irs8yE), from which is ‘And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the borrowed Ar. Kursi ‘chair ’ being probably an earlier form.1 I ! , sound of theirvoices’ (read D*DD” ’ ?and cp Job 386). Purely colourless are the tdo terms2 m&i6 . (lflD, I S.2018, etc., E V ‘seat,’ lit. ‘place of W e are probably to suppose the front of the temple Am. 6 3 , EV i6., 0 sitting’ from yrisa6), or $&th (”I?’, divided by one or more pillars into several entrances. raOi6pa; and So, too, in Am. 91,‘Strike the capitals (of the pillars) 3. ttkrinrih (?+?J?, Job 23 3 ‘ seat,’ lit. ‘fixed place ’), used of that the thresholds may tremble.‘ T h e temple at Bethel the dwelling-place of the Almighty. is spoken of. These ‘ thresholds’ had special keepers 4. @<pa,Acts1221 (RVmg. ‘ judgment-seat’). Properly a ( E V ‘ porters ’), I Ch. 922 z Ch. 234. Elsewhere the raised platform (Lat. Iri6unaf, cp suggeslum) upon which, as phrase is ‘keeper (or keepers) of the threshold’ (but I D os. Blii. 1I shows, the Bpivos (Lat. sella) was erected. In eh. 8 4 @<pastands migdd, ‘tower’-i.e., anelevated stand for may be used collectively) ; so, e.g., Jer. 354 2 K. 224 or 234 etc., for which in Esth. 221 d gives ~ ~ X ~ U U ~ U T O - pulpit. 5. KaBCSpa, Ecclus. 7 4 (Heb. nz&~6), cp Mt. 21 12 Mk. 115 @ 6 X a ~ c s taking the Hebrew phrase as synonymous with , (seat of the dove-sellers). ‘ Keeper of the king’s head‘ ( I S. 282, d ~ ~ X L U W ~ U T O - 6. rrporoxaBeSpia, the first or chief seat in a synagogue (Mt. 236 Mk. 1239 etc.). Cp SVXAGOGUE g 9f: @dXaE). In Ps. 84 I I (if the text is correct), a psalmist 7.. Bp6vos (in (5 f& I above), Rev. 4 4 1 L etc. a state chair 1, values even this Levitical office highly (q$nj;r. but 6 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 7rupaprmeiuBar). Gates and thresholds being sacred. heaven. See ANGEL, g I. it was of course a privilege to guard them. But though it is usual to quote this passage, it is doubtful whether Such pieces of furniture as chairs, seats, or stools are this is critically justified. unknown to the ordinary tent-dweller, and doubtless the Sacrifices for the family were originally at the entrance Hebrewsfirstcame touse themafter they of the home. According to Hommel, the Ass. sup(p)zi, *’ References’ occupied Canaan (see M EALS , 5 3 b ) . ‘ prayer,’ is a denominative form -s$pu, It is true that in the representation of Sennacheribs 2. Sacred- ‘threshold.’ camp before Lachish a kind of seat or bench is to be ness of the sacrifice may In modern Egypt a threshold be offered to welcome the seen in some of the tents, but this departure from the threshold incoming master of the house,l and, in ordinary custom is doubtless due to the superior culture stone. ancient times, Herodotus reports that of the Assyrians (see T E N T , fig. I ). As in Assyria. every Egyptian sacrificed a hog to Osiris before the door Babylonia. and Egypt, seats were no doubt to be found of his house (248). Trumbull makes it probable that, in every house in Canaan, and together with a bed, in the narrative of the institution of the Passover, the table, and lamp formed part of the equipment of a wellwords a and he shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it appointed room ( 2 K. 410 ; EV ’ stool ’).2 The word in the blood that is in the bason’ (Ex. 1222) misrepresent used in this passage (KissZ) elsewhere refers to the seat the true meaning. 1pp might in fact mean either ‘ i n or throne of Eli the priest ( I S. l 9 413 18), of the governor ‘beyond the River’ (Neh. 37, see Ryle, Camb. the bason ’ or ‘ at the threshold,’ and Trumbull prefers Ri6k. ad Zoo..), and of the throne of Solomon ( I K. the latter rendering (6a p & T ~ V r Bdpav, Vg. in limine). 1 0 1 8 8 ,2 Ch. 9 1 7 8 ) . T o set foot on the t;hreshold in a careless manner was The reference to Satan’s throne at Pergamos (Rev. 2 13, see probably unlucky ; Trumbull reports that even now in PERCAMOS, if the great altar of Zeus is meant, is associated 5 z), Syria ‘ i t is unlucky to tread on a threshold,’ and that in Upper Syria the bride is sometimes carried across the 1 According to another view the I in the Aram. forms has threshold of the bridegroom’s house by the friends of the been inserted to compensate for the loss of the doubled s (for a bridegroom. In Egypt it is the bridegroom who does statement of the views see Bevan, Daniel,104f:). It is to be this, and in ancient Greece and Rome, also in ancient noticed that the form with Y occurs in the old Aramaic inscription India, similar customs are well known to have existed. of Bar-rekub (Zenjirli, B5, temp. Tiglath-pileser 111.). The same form appears to recur in Phaenician inscriptions from Obscure passages in I K. 1821 and Zeph. 7 9 can now be Cyprus of the beginniny< the fourth century B.C. (CIS1, nos. of understood ; also probably the name of the Pesah (EV 22: 44, 88), where D*D~,(”) via, ‘interpreter of the two thrones,’ is perhaps the ;pp‘)vev+ (cp Gr. inscr.) between the rulers of 1 So on the arrival of the new Khedive at his palace in 1882 Cyprus and Persia (see C f S 1.55). (H. Clay Trumbull, Thc Threshold Covenant (1896), 7, quoting 2 But note perhaps that the hostess is said to have been a Folk-LoreJournaf,191). ‘great’ woman.

Hebrew probably the special term for the threshold






with the interesting question of throne-worship. That there is a THRUM ( i l ‘ l ) , Is. 3812 RVmg. See W EAVING . very close connection between the throne of the deity and his altar THUMMIM (D’p?), E s . 2 8 3 0 . See U RIM A N D appears certain, and it is not improbable that they were originally identical. On the whole subject see Reichel, Vorhelfen.GdtterT HUMMIM. czdte, 3 8 (Vienna, 1897)~ with Budde’s remarks, Erp.T 9 3 9 6 5 ; and Clermont-Ganneau, Rec. ZArch. Orimt. 42473. THUNDER (Duy, Ps. 7719[18] 818[7] 1 0 4 7 J o b 2 6 1 4 ‘There are three main varieties of seats to be noticed : Is. 29 6 ; ppovnj ; also, much more frequently, %p, Ps. 29 3 (, a,) the seat with neither back nor arms, (6)the seat with Is. 3030, cp‘Jer. 1013. plur. nihp, Ex. 923, or o& n’qp 9 2 8 ; 3 Description. straight back, and (c) the straight. in N T evil ,Spovnjr, Rev. 6 I 14 2 19 6 (j3pov~Sv),+wval rai Bpovraitev. 4 5 8 5 11 19, etc. backed seat with arms. T h e three This most sublime of natural phenomena is reprepractically correspond to the classical selZa, cathedra, sented by a poetical echo of primitive myth a s the voice and thonus respectively. The first of these is frequently of God, Ps. 1 0 4 7 Job 3 7 4 $ , 409 Ps. 1813 [I.+], and represented upon Assyrian and Babylonian seals,’ and especially Ps. 29. In Ps. 2 4 a (cp v . 5a) as his laugh bears a general close resemblance to the primitive (see Del. and Che. P L ( ~ ) )When, however, in Ezek. . altars and table upon the Assyrian slabs.2 In a large 1 0 5 the sound of the wings of the cherubim is likened numher of cases it is shaped like a square stool, often tautologically to ‘ t h e voice of El Shaddai (EV God with several cross-bars, though instances are by no Almighty) when he speaketh,’ we naturally ask whether means wanting where the legs cross transversely, not this is not some error in the text, and the result is unlike the construction of the modern camp-stool. interesting, for it opens up a vista of possible rectificaThese shapes are found in the ancient classical world and were probably borrowed from the Ea% The Greek term for them tions of early mistakes (see SHADDAI). And if we Gi+por, is used by 6 to render kiss8 in I S . 1 9 4 13 18 2 K. 4 IO: lose the traditional reference in Ezek. l o 5 (and 124), we and in accordance with Gr. usage occurs in I S. 25 23 to render have still enough to show that thunder to the ancient nzi(&ih. On the use of beds, couches. and divans, cp BED, S 3. Israelites had a special sanctity as the expression of the Representations of the second and third variety divine omnipotence (Ps. 2 9 3 ) , and of the terrible divine are likewise found in Assyria where they are often vengeance ( I S. 2 I O Ps. 1 8 1 3 [14] Is. 3030). Thiinder accompanied with a footstool: cp the analogy of the in summer-time was peculiarly awful ( I S. 12 17), Gr. Bp6vos and its Bpjjvvv. though perhaps the case mentioned is but a poetical way The OT references to the footstool (h&G;n, 6 ;7rorri&ov, of stating that with God nothing is impossible ; Tristram always metaphorical) would show that the Hebrews were well ( T H P 33) says, ‘ i t is unknown in summer.’ T h e 2 Ch. 9 18, acquainted with seats of this nature. On kdbd wise men of later times, such as the poet of Job, were see below, 11. 6. well aware that thunderstorms did not occurcapriciously, The two last-mentioned varieties lent themselves to but were subject to laws appointed by the Creator (Job decoration and elaboration to a greater extent than the 28 26 38 25, cp Ecclus. 43 17). seZla. They were frequently of the finest workmanship ‘ Right-aiming thunderbolts ’ (Wisd. 5 21) has been changed :i and adorned with gold and plaques of carved ivory (see RV into ‘shafts of lightning (BohiG~s drrparrGv) with true aim. I VORY, 5 2).3 An overspread or baldachino was often In Ps. 78 48 ‘hot thunderbolts’ remains, though O ? f l more added, and a reference to this is perhaps rightly seen in probably means here ‘burning sicknesses ’ in accordance with the Sa$hrir (Kr., but Ktb. inyd) of Jer. 4 3 1 0 . ~ A the requirements of parallelism. Another peculiar phrase, ‘ in common form of ornament was the representation of the secret place of thunder ’ (Op? l;D?, Zv Lmoqx+oxararyQor), animals or men, to support the arms or seat. 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 If Benzinger is correct in his suggestion that Solomon‘s fromsight(Joh22 13J).’ This isnodouhta worthyexplanation; throne (situated in the Porch of the Throne, I K. 7 7 ) but the Hebrew phrase does not appear to suit the parallelism. was the work of Hiram, it is natural to suppose that it On the so-called Bath-kol see V OICE and on the title given to James and John, ind rendered “sons of thunder,’ see was based upon the familiar Egyptian or Assyrian BOANERGES. models. The throne was decorated with ivory and gold, THYATIRA (Byb-retpb [Ti. W H J 1 Rev. 1 1 1 ; dv and was approached by six steps (cp Is. 6 I ‘ a throne 8varrlpots [Ti. WH], Rev. 2 1 8 and 2 2 4 ; abhrws &ahigh and lifted up ’), at each end of which was the figure TElpwY, Acts 1 6 14). of a lion.6 T h e back appears to have been adorned with Thyatira was a town in northern Lydia, so close to heads of bulls. The second Targ. on Esther adds many the indefinite borderland between Mvsia and Lvdia that fanciful details which are devoid of value. some preferred to rkckon it io Mysia On the text of I K. 10 1 8 8 2 Cb. 9 1 7 3 see the Comm.of 1 Position (Strabo, 625 fiv MvuGv 6uxcir~vri&s . Ki. and Benz. In T K. 10 19;he reading ‘;ounded top’ (headand i history. Qauiv). It lav east of the Lvcus. a rest) appears obvious, but we should probably read $ 2 - ; ~ . ~ ‘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 tributary of the‘ Phrygios, whiih river itself falls into the words have been seriously niisunderstood.6 Hermus from the north. Thyatira thus was placed The meaning of ycidath, EV ‘stays‘ (lit. hands, S Xcipas, ‘ nunus [K.], i,yy.Svsr, bruchiolu [Ch.]) is not clear. Jos. Ant. almost exactly midway between the Caicus (N. ) and the viii. 5 z offers W+QTOV, which means (a) slats of the framethe Hernius (S.), on the great road which crossed this region work of a bed, (6) the rungs of a ladder, and (c) axle-pins (cp going to the SE., into the valley of the Mzander. Its I K. 7 32). Following (u)we might think of the slats forming geographical position is the key to its historical importthe seat of the throne, hut the idiomatic on either side ’ (>?p ance. T h e watershed in which it lay was, in fact, of ?l’??l), and 6 ’ s byrSver in Ch. points rather to the arm5. Such the utmost importance strategically, as it was the line 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 of demarcation between the territory of competing Sennacherib before Lachish (ib. 2 105, fig. 47, cp,Ball, L i 4 t sovereigns. For in 301 B . C . Lysimachus, king of f ~ o mthe East, 193). What is meant by the ‘two lions stand& Thrace, and Seleucus I. (Nicatos). king of Syria, had by (near) the stays’ is also obscure ; the words are omitted by partitioned Asia Minor, which they had taken from 6 A in I K. 10 19, perhaps rightly. S. A. C. Antigonus, in such wise that Lysimachus had the western 1 See Menant, La GIyptipire Orirntule, 1,and cp S. I. Curtis, portion, as far as central Phrygia, whilst the remainder Prim. Sem. ReZ. 267-276 (1902). 5 2). fell to Seleucus (see SELEWCIDAL When, subse2 Cp the table in T ENT, fig. I . quently (from 283 B.c. ), hostilities broke out between 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, the two monarchs, the district in question would be of ad zoc. great military importance ; and, still later, when in 277 5 I K. 10 20 p q x t elsewhere n 1 - 7 ~ . In a Phcenician inscripB. c. the Gauls (Galatia) invaded Asia Minor and founded tion from Citium in Cyprus ( c r s l , no. IO) mention is made of their robber state in north-eastern Phrygia (cp G ALATIA , the offering of an altar and two niiN-i:e., perhaps (on the analogy of our pssage) ‘lions’ (n!?K). 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 , ‘wkll attested ’ (WH 2 App. 163). Cp the c d e of is 6 ““72, footstool’ ( L ;rron&ov, @ scabellurn) is for b>3, a LVSTRA (q..y.). The form Thyuteiru gradually gives place to variant of $ 4 , in I K. (emended text). See, primarily, Geiger, Thynfiru. The place is now called Ak-hissur, a large town of mud houses’ (Murray, Hdbk. to A M 84). Urschr. 343.
. \ ,







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, a T O L K h >IaK€6hUWU).' K 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, $ I ; THKACE). It is ahund5 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 a s 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 Semiramis, or Euhippa (Plin. HN531)-names which scarcely sound historical. According to a piece of false etyniologising 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 favourable position in two respects. (a) was here, for example, that Antiochusthe Great assembled It his troops for the campaign which ended so disastrously for him p agnesia (see SELEUCIDR,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. 1 7 . 6) 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, probably an agent of some great house of dyers and mauufacturers 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 Cow. he&'., 1886, p. 398 : 18.87, p. 466 : CIG 3496. 2 Cp Diod. Sic. 18 TZ, iumdvr<e .a; 4 Maresoula mparrwrjv T O A L T C K ~ V r b ahrjOas 76" & a c a r d p & o v els i u 'Aulav Zm'r 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 s Bre rls i k ' ihC4avra 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.

where, as, e g . , at Hierapolis), as was the case at other Asiatic towns (e.<., Smyma, Ephesus, and Philadelphia). The Thyatiran 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 . o Pkrygiia, 1i o j n. 2. Cp Bull. C o r . HeZi. 10407,and 1900, f
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 prominent 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 something 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 perversion of Christian teaching. The following interpretation has been suggested. Outside the city there stood the ZappaBciou or sanctuary of Sambatha (Zappp?jOT), Chaldean or Persian Sybil a 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 - HebrewChristian) system. It appears more probable, however, that we should interpret the denunciation more broadly, with reference to the prevailing tone of Thyatiran Christianity rather than to a superstition idolatrous 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. o Pkrygia, 2674J). f 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 NicoLAITANS, 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 v i s mihsoc mpbp s r+ Za&aOelrt, i v re X d s a l o u mepr@Mo. 5066


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., ZC) 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 ,

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 o Tucitus vol. I Introd. chaps. 4 and f
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.

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.), sometimes with Chinnereth. See Neubauer, Gdogr. 208 ; Schurer, G / V ( 2 )2 1 2 6 8 ; ET ii. 1 1 4 3 8

TIBHATH ; 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 5 79 ; see below on meaning ; cp Ass. T a b n i , Tabnl'a, Phcen. 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 See I SRAEL , 29, OMRI,


Like so many other successful adventurers, including his rival Omri (=Imri= Jerahmeeli) Tihni seems to have been of Jerahmeelite origin. His name'is a gentilic in form, and probably j should he read , ~ >(Nehatite) 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.

§ 1.

TIBERIAS, SEA OF ( H e b h a c c a
[Ti. WH]), Jn. 21 I.




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
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. o the Romans under the Empire, ch. 6 4 ) , f and it cannot be denied that the satiric tendency, ' to take extreme acts as typical of the man, and extreme men as typical of the age,' is a conspicuous feature of the book. Consequently, his portraiture of Tiberius, the most elaborate analysis of character in his writings, is most often attacked as untrustworthy. 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, degenerated from the moment of assuming the purple until he became that monster of cruelty and vice and impotence which perhaps for all time he is in the imagination of mankind. This is not the place in u-hich

TIDAL 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 f in the highest degree precarious (see King, Letters o 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 o Bab. Hist. f 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 Babylonian 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(Goiim) as often has the same origin. See meel) and that SODOM, I. T. K. C. TIGLATH-PILESER pD&a 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; EayAaE +ahva I uap p [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 corruption of a familiar name at the hands of the Chronicler or of his Midrashic source.'



+* .





T h e question now arises whether Azriau or Izriau The biblical Tiglath-pileser was the third of the (Rost)-ie., Azariah of Jiidah- came into touch with Assyiian kings of that name, and came to the throne 7. Azariah. Tiglath-pileser on this occasion. I t must Nothing is known of his 2. Possible in. 745 B.C. be confessed that the frequent mention of origin and parentage, but as he is called ol.igin. his name in the exceedingly mutilated portion of the in the Babylonian Canon Pulu ( P u L , 2 K. annals which seem to refer to this period gives Tiele 15 19, etc. ), it is thought that he was not of royal race, justification for replying in the aflirmative (BZ4G2 3 0 J ; but was probably a general under A h - n i r a r i , his preon the whole question, however, see UZZIAH). All decessor, and that he called himself Tiglath-pileser on the princes of middle and northern Syria now submitted coming to the throne on account of the renown attaching and paid tribute, including RaSunnu (see R EZIN ) of to this royal name. Damascus, Menihimme (Menahem) of Samaria, Hirummu Thc chief sources of the history of his reign are the (Hiram) of Tyre, and others, including Zabibi queen of inscribed slabs found in the remains of his palace at Arabia (see O KEB and ZEEB). There is no statement, 3. Sources of &.ah, and two tablets which appear so far as the texts are preserved, that the Assyrian king history, and to have been copied from records on penetrated as far S. as Samaria, but the fact that he stone to the accession. slabs. similar, in some respects,several received tribute from that country (cp 2 K . 15 1g$) is a With regard to the latter, sufficient indication that he at least threatened i t , and of them are only known from squeezes now in the British had to be bought off (see M ENAHEM ). The policy of Museum, where also the clay tablets referring to his reign deportation was on this occasion resorted to extensively. are preserved. The chronology of his reign has been The following year (737 B .c.) the state of affairs on placed beyond a doubt by the Eponym Canon with the E. called the Assyrian king to Media ( m d t M a d d a ) historical references (KB1 2 1 2 - z q ) , from which it appears and the district, where he set up images that he mounted the throne on the 13th of the month 8. Urartu. and Media of himself, and peace again reigned-at Iyyar (April-May) of the year 745 R . c . , as successor to least, as far as the Assyrians were conASur-nirari (11. ) , in the last year of whose reign there was cerned. This left Tiglath-pileser free to march, in a rising in Calah ; not improbably Tiglath-pileser seized 736 B . C . , to the foot of the Nal mountains, on the N. this opportunity to assume the supreme power. Whether of Assyria, where he took a large number of cities, thus the fact that the E:ponym for the next year was the preparing the way for the conquest of the land of governor of Calah supports this supposition or not, is a Urartu, which, in the following year (735), he promatter of opinion. ceeded to carry out. H e penetrated as far as SarThe first campaign of this king, which took place in durri's capital, l u r u s p l , and though, on account of its the year of his accession, is stated to have been ' into naturally advantageous position on the lake Van, he 4, History of the mfdst of the rivers '-i. e., ' to Babyhis 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 come. excessive and dangerous Dower of the For the year 734 B. c. the Eponym-list has this entry : 'rme8. Aramzan tribes. -In this he was fullv successful, and the Babylonians themselves, who suffereh ' t o the land Pili&-ie.. ' t o Philistia.' Schrader in from the tribes in question, thankfully acknowledged his 9. Phiiistia. 1878 (KGF 126), in consequence of suzerainty. Owing to this success, he seems to have W A l l 2:. n. I . 11."l . considered this to f involve a campaign against Judah, Samaria, Phoenicia, assumed, from the first, the title of king of &mer and etc. Rost, however, thinks differently, contending that Akkad. ' the mere reception of tribute from the countries menT h e next year (744 B.c.) Tiglath-pileser turned his tioned in WAZ, Zoc. cit., would sufficiently account for attention to the mountainous district on the E. of the references to the southern districts. As, honever, Namri. Assyria, inhabited by wild tribes who had the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, where they speak of always been troublesome to the Assyrian relations with Judah, have no date (the text being kings. This district, which was called Namri (cp defective at the important points), he follows the indiZIMRIii.), he wasted with fire and sword, annexing a catidhs of the Eponym-list, which makes Philistia ( L e . , portion of it to Xssyria. the small states on the shores of the Mediterranean) the In 743 B.C. affairs in the W . claimed his attention. The state of which .\RPAD (q.v.) was the capital, snpchief object of the campaign. I n proceeding thither, Tiglath-pileser, like the Assyrian kings in general, ported, to all appearance, by the king of 6. Kuliani, etc. Urartu (ARARAT). seems to have thrown would take the coast-road from N. to S. The name of the city which was first threatened is broken away, but o f f the Assyrian yoke; it had to be reduced again to submission. This probably gave an Rost conjectures it to have been Ashdod or Ekron. Its opportunity to Sar-durri, king of Urartu, to march prince bought his reinstatement only by means of heavy tribute. It was Hanfinu of G a m , however, who H ~ to S towards Assyria. It was therefore necessary to put off all appearance more especially aimed at by Tiglaththe subjection of Arpad, and proceed against the northern pileser, and, feeling this, he lost no time in seeking foe, who was completely defeated. In 742 operations against Arpad were resumed, and in 741 (to judge from refuge in Egypt.l Gaza then fell an easy prey to the Assyrians ; its treasure and its gods were carried away, the Eponym-list) the city was taken, though the Assyrian the worship of ASur was introduced, and the royal 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 'Ihe entry !or 733 and 732 B.C. is ' to the land of Assyrian might. DiniaSka ' - L e . , Aram-Damascus. No doubt it was lo. Ahax. part of the king's plan to subjugate the In 739 B.C. Tiglath-pileser carried on war in Ulluba, on the N., taking several cities and founding another, states of the W . , but he was also induced which he called ASur-ikiHa ( ' ASur has presented '). It to make this campaign by the appeal of Ahaz of Judah was apparently during this period that the Assyrian for help against KEZIN and P E K A H . T h e appeal was
" I


resulted in the capture of Kullanl-Le. (according to P. Rost). the C ALNO (4.a.) Is. l o g 2 (738 B .c.). of

a- - . r . ---.

of resisting the advance of the Assyrians, and retreated to their own territories. They thns played into the


' 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


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 , B OOK O F , $ 12, n. I ; MIZRAIM, R 26.

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 and he forsook cities (of Pekah) and had cirried pff his

least one contract- tablet, he is called Tukulii-BpiiCSarra. (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 sculptures of the period that Assyrian art, too, had not declined. When at home, the king seems to have generally resided in Calah, but also in Nineveh. Being more of a warrior than a builder, he apparently contented himself with rebuilding and changing the great central palace at 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 Esarhaddon, so that the sculptures and inscriptions were partly destroyed, partly mutilated. This, added to the ravages of time, has deprived us of much valuable material, rendering the records of Tiglath-pileser very fragmentary. Happily the order of his campaigns. is well preserved by the Eponym Canon with historical references, though the meagreness of the entries leaves one or two points still uncertain.
[As in the case of the articles 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 influence 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 Jerahmeel king of Ashhur in N . Arabia who carries away captive the people of certain places and districts, which places and districts. are not in N. Israel, but in the Israelitish Negeb. The critical proof of this is both interesting and suggestive. It entirely clears up the mystery of the three names, Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Tilgathpilneser. See Crit. &6.-T.K.C.] Rost, Keilschriftfexte Tiglat-Pikers I??. (1893); G. Smith, Assyria (Ancient €fisfory from ilre Monuments), 74 8: Rogers, Hist. o Bab. and Ass. 2 104-138 ; f 16. Bibliography. Miirdter-Delitzsch, Gesch. w o n Ba6. z. z . 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.

their king . . . Samaria alone 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 surrounding country was completely devastated. A successful expedition was also made against Samsi, queen of N. Arabia, which led to the submission of other tribes of that region, as far as Sa'ba (Yemen). Damascus itself fell at the end of 732 B.c.; it is not again mentioned as an independent state. T h e fate of Rezin R is related in z K. 169. See D AMASCUS , §§ 105; 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 Miand the neighbouring tinti of Ashkelon, who had been joined by 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 rabsake was also successful in bringing about the submission 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 Nabtinadin-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 BltAmukkani. 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 MERODACHBALADAN (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 acknowledged as king : in the Babylonian Chronicle, and on at
1 The preceding pasage is very defective.


Gen. 2 14 RVmg., Dan. 104 RVmg. ; CALI-ie..


(nW9 'hope,' 5 74 ; &Koyf

I . FatherofSHALLuM(z), 2K.2214 ( ~ f K K o u a u i , -KKOU€ [A]). m Cp T IKVATH . 2. Father of J AHAZIAH , EzralOig ( e h ~ s t a [EN]); in ~ E s d . 914 he is called THEOCANUS, THOCANUS RV (Baravou [B] Bo. [AI).

TIKVATH, RV TOKHATH (nnpin, K t . ; n a p , k ) father of SHALLUM z Ch. 34 22 ( K ~ O U ~ BaKoua@ e, (2). [Bl,
[AI, Bs.oa [Ll). See TIKVAH.

TILE. _ _



~ _




4 I+), see B RICK .


For rQapos (Lk. 5 IS), see HOUSE, ?4. j



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.



56 26
z Ch. 2520.

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 Ganneau, PEFQ, 1 8 7 j , p. 169; Schiirer, GVJ2138.

1 Ch. See TIGLATH-PILESER ap(with



(lhn, Kt.


INWN [B], elhWN [A],

e W A s l M [L]), son of SHIMON a Judahite ( I Ch. 4 z o t ) .

AV Timeus.



[Ti. WH]), Mk. 1 0 4 6 RV, See BARTIMZIJS.


(qn,t q n ) , E . 1520, etc.

c p T ABRET ,

and see MUSIC, 3 ( I ). See C HRONOLOGY ; also D AY , MONTH, Dt. 18 10. etc.

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 timnathserah (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, where, on the N. slope of the hill to 3). 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 m ) comes from ino---i.e., D 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 Jerahmeelite 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 Gibeathpinehas, '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.


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], d v X 5 66 hwrav Bapva [A], Ge qh K U ~ X . 8. [L]) : and as an Edomite phylarch or rather 8. clan in Gen. 3640 I Ch. 151 (Oarpar [B], Bapava [A] ; in Gen. EV, against rule, gives T IMNAH).
3 G r z a (Timna a concubine) is a later insertion in P.

These inconsistencies are not surprising (see GENEALOGIES, Perhaps, however, Gunkel is right in supposing that Gen. Cp A MALEK, 8 4.


I ).

TIMNAH e A M N A [B.%L]; also 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 TIMON ( T I M W N [Ti. WH]), one of the seven been a Timnah SE. of Hebron. Most scholars have deacons (Acts 6 5 ) . H e has a Greek name and was sitpposed this place to be intended in Gen. 3 8 1 2 - 1 4 perhaps a Hellenist. Traditions contained in Pseudo(Oarpva [A] in v. 12 : Oapvav [L] in v. I?), but Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus make him bishop of the emended reading of the first place-name In v. 14 Bostra in Arabia, and according to the former he (see TAPPUAH, I ) favours the view that the Timnah suffered martyrdom by burning a t the hands of the (see below, 2 ) of Jo:;h. 1510Judg. 141 is meant. The neathen. gentilic of this Timnah, 'Timni,' seems to occur, misTIMOTHEUS (TiMo&oc [AKV]). I. An 'Amwritten 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 name, or a Greek who had been put by the Syrian NArHAH, where d varies as in 1557 [see above]. In :enera1 in command of the Ammonites is unknown. Judg. Oapva8a [HAL]. The gentilic w n , Oapvvei [B], He was defeated on various occasions by Judas the BapvaOarou [AL], Timnite, Judg. 156.) A place on Maccabee; first in the campaign which resulted the northern frontier of Judah (Josh. 15IO, where and again that of d has I d Xipa [13L], d7rl v h o u [4]), assigned to in the capturebattlesJazer, Dathema andinRaphonwhich ncluded the of and Dan in Josh. 1 9 4 3 , but according to Judg. 14 in:he relief of Bosora, Rosor, Alema, Casphor, Maked habited by Philistines in the pre-regal period. T h e m d Carnaim ( I Macc. 5 6 - 1 2 24-44). H e is also menlatter narrative describes most graphically an occasion :ioned in 2 Macc. 8 3 0 32 9 3 1024 32 37 122 IO 16-21 24, on which Samson ' went down to Timnah ' (Judg. 1 4 I ) #here the scene is transferred to Western Palestine and from Zorah. T h e <Chronicler includes it among the i chronology implied which has suggested to many cities taken from .\ha2 by the Philistines ( 2 Ch. 28 16 ; icholars that a different person must he intended. T h e om. BE), and the contemporary evidence of Sennost probable explanation of the discrepancies, however, nacherib in the ' Prism-inscription ' ( K BZ p f : ) records s that suggested under MACCABEES (S ECOND ), 2. 3 ; that king's capture of Tamna after the battle of Altaku :ol. 2870 middle, col. 2871, viz., the inadequacy of the before he laid siege to Amkaruna or Ekron. Timnali iources, and the uncritical character of the compiler, of is now represented by the village of Tibneh, on the S. hat book. side of the WRdy SarHr, z m. W. of 'Ain Shems (Beth2. See T IMOTHY. shemesh) and a little farther to the SW. of Sar'ah TIMOTHY (Zorah). The site, however, has been robbed of threefourths of its ruins by the builders of a neighbouring Birthplace, etc. (8 I). Journeys (80 3-5). Circumcision ($2). An author? ($ 6). village (GuBrin, Jud. 23of:). But cp ZORAH. Traditions (8 7). 3. A third Timnah (possibly the same as TIMNATHThis Hellenistic name (see TIMOTHEUS)in the is HERES) may be recognised in the T HAMNATHA of T T (TIMoeaoc [Ti.WH]) borne by one of Paul's I MRCC. 950 (on the readings, se'e PIRATHON), which rounger companions who was connected with, and was one of the Judzan cities fortified by Racchides. It xobably born at, L YSTRA (0 3) in Lycaonia, where the is doubtless the Thamna mentioned by Josephus (BY rpostle first came across him. iii. 3 5 ) and Pliny (HiVv. 1470) as giving name to one In Acts16 I drri i s epexegetic of K& C;S hu'urpav, and the text o the toparchies (the Thamnitica) of Judzea, and inf correctly aescribed by Eusebius and Jerome ( O S 2 6 0 3 1 For a parallel cp Sn in >*IK in, which may represent i ~ r n ; 1566) as being in the district of Lydda on the road to e e Ter - A ~ I R .






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 i to distinguish him. Cp Holtzmann, D e Pastora16riefee,65 f:


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 (1880). it fact. And T h e diminished strictness of local Judaism ( PHXYGIA, after Timothy's death, if be did not correspond tothe tradition psychological reasons can adduced which render 6 -, is betrayed by two features in the Lvstran houseq) airly acceptable (cp Renan, S. P a d , 125, 313; Hort, jud. Ckrist. E g J ) . Paul, either before or after the conference at 1 Birthplace hold where Timothy was brought up ; his . J,erusale.m, was independent of petty scruples against or for and familp. Jewish mother had married a pagan, cIrcumcIsion which he probably regarded as among the and their son was allowed to reach manudiajkora (i Cor. 7 1) Particularly in the case of a half-caste 8. hood uncircumcised. His father, it has been conor semi-Jew like Timothy, where no principle was at stake, Paul could not have felt bound to abstain from circumcision, if jectured, died during the boy's early years; this is it promoted effectiveness any more than to insist upon it corroborated at any rate by the absence of all reference uniformly. His liberal views (cp Rom. 2 z8J 14 13-21) left him to him as well as by the strong influence assigned in free to act upon his own judgment and to decide any case upon its merits, free even to accommodate himself to scruples felt by reliable tradition to the lad's mother (E DUCATION , 5 5) Jews when such accommodation could not fairly (yet cp Gal. and (maternal?) grandmother, even though we hesitate 5 11, and Rams. Hist. Comm. GaQf., 8) be misunderstood. to lay stress on the slight textual evidence for Eunice's Timothy's circumcision was a matter of convenience, not of widowhood (Actsl61, add x$ps 25 : for 'Iou&das, principle; and Paul would make that perfectly clear before permitting his friend to become legally a Jew to save the Jews.1 gig. f a ) , or even on the tense of L H ~ ~ ~ X (fuerat, EV Upon the whole, therefore, there is a distinct case to be made Acts163 ; brdpxer would have been used, had he been out on behalf of the historicity of this paragraph, as against alive [Blass]) Whether her husband was among ' the the plausible but somewhat arbitrary view that it represents a make-weight to Gal.23J The case of Titus was entirely men that worship God' ( U E P ~ ~ ~ T ~ Y Y O ~ or not, ELE different. And it is one thing for a writer to omit an awkward Eunice (ActslGr, cp v. 15) seems to have become a fact another and a much more serions thing-requiring greater Christian at Paul's first visit to Lystra (Acts146 f: motives and historical justification than can be reasonably 20-22). Later notices, embodying a tradition which brought forward in this case-deliberately to invent a story which hundreds of contemporary Christians (cp Heb. 1323) there is no reason to suspect, indicate that her mother could have readily refuted. This forms an almost insuperable Lois had assisted her to train the lad in the knowledge difficulty in the way of accepting the ordinary hypothesis of and piety of the O T previous to their joint conversion criticism upon Acts 16 1-3; and it seems therefore more natural to regard Paul's action as somewhat exceptional, though it ( z Tim. 1 5 3 1 4 5I cp I Tim. 54) ; and it may be inferred depends on the view taken of the date of Galatians (cp 5 2 ) that their influence subsequently brought Timothy over whether we suppose Paul deliberately made this exception to the new faith some time before the return of Paul a afterwards (so Weber, A6fassuxgdes Gahtrrdri>fes, 77f: [ 1900]), couple of years or so later. Passages like I Cor. 417 or advanced to a clearer and more consistent line of action. In sketching at a later date some personal traits of Timothy, (contrast v. 15), 2 Tim. 21, etc., refer to kinship of the author of the pastoral epistles, either drawing upon Acts or spirit, and Phil. 2 22 expressly identifies Timothy's upon independent oral tradition, lays characteristic stiess on 'genuine sonship' with his loyal service to Paul, not the questions of good character and reputation as a requisite for the ministry (e.g., I Tim. 3 7) reserves the names of Eunice with spiritual parentage. At any rate his intimate and Lois (2 Tim. 15), suggests 'tr)midity and backrvardness as connection with Paul dates from the latter's second tour qualities of Timothy ( 2 Tim. 1 7 f:), and refers to several cirwith Silas, when he found the young Lystran not a cumstances attending Paul's selection of the younger man. There is no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of such neophyte but a full member (waSq+) of the local notices or of the tradition that this momentous event ( I Tim. church. 1 18 4 14) was due to some local Christians possibly including The allusion in a Tim. 3 IO f: (a genuine fragment) simply Paul himself, who felt themselves inspired 'in the assembly to means (Lk. 13) acquaintance with the facts and experiences single out the youth as a fit companion for Paul. The statement narrated-an acquaintance involving moral imitation ( I Tim. agrees at any rate with phenomena such as those noted in Acts 4 6-n )a d does not imply that Timothy accompanied Paul on the 133, etc., and merely implies that the local prophets and leaders journey described in Acts 1314-1420. In this flight, according felt themselves divinely guided in selecting Timothy, or in to Acta Peiriet PauK, etc. (ed. Lips. 1891,pp, qsf:), Paul is ratifying Paul's judgment on a matter which may have already accompanied b Demas and Hermogenes 6 X a k & S , 6rrorpwsws occupied his mind. But ecclesiastical tendency of a later age is ~ C ~ O V T C Srai &Ara~popovv ~ b TIaGAov Ss &ya&vres ah&. , v felt in the further description, throughout The language of Acts161 (mi iGoli, cp 1 1 0 827 1017 elsewhere ( e g . 2 Tim. 1 6 cp TInloTHY A N D these passages and TITUS [EPISTLES], 127) is intended to denote a remarkable and happy 5 7) of a su;ernatural',yQiopa due to solemn ordination; 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 itself quite credible (cp Acts133 1423). cision. Ecclesia, 178 f.). I t seemed providential Accompanying Paul and Silas on their European that another youth was found willing and tour (P AUL , 5 zo), Timothy apparently took a specially fit to join Paul's company and enterprise, after the 3. In Macedonia. keen interest in the Macedonian defection of John Mark and Barnabas. Characteristicchurches which he helped to found ally (cp 63 1022 2212)an excellent reputation is singled at Philippi and Thessalonica, although it is remarkable out as one essential feature in his moral equipment ; that the narrative in Acts only mentions his name quite Acts162 suggests also, though it does not necessarily incidentally (Acts17 14 185). With the former church imply, that he had already preached in the neighbour(Phil. 220-22) his relations remained singularly close and hood. However, as his father's nationality was warm, but it is impossible to see him (with Volter, notorious in the locality, Paul had him circumcised. Th. T , 1892, p. 124) in a second-century allusion (43) H e carried out this long-deferred rite upon the eve of His subsequent movements to ubvrtrye (cp SYNZYGUS). proceeding farther on a tour among the Phrygian between Bercea (B EREA , 3 ) and Corinth are not quite churches with their Jewish surroundings and partially clear owing to the loose and general statements of Acts Jewish atmosphere, his object being to prevent people at this point. The probabilityis, however, that ( I Thess. taking needless offence either at Timothy's connection 32 being parallel to 3 5 ) Timothy rejoined Paul soon at with Paul or at his entrance into Jewish circles. Athens, and was sent back (perhaps with a letter, cp Acts1636 is often taken as an editorial gloss (e.g. Clemen, Hilgenfeld, and Wendt), and on different 'lines the Rendel Harris: Erpor., 5th ser., 8 161 f: 4 0 1 5 ) to ast-named critic and McGiffert (Apostolic Age, 232-234) have Thessalonica to confirm the local Christians and bring attempted to explain the whole passage as the popular and back news of their condition to their anxious apostle. later misstatement of an actual fact, in opposition to the Returning from this errand Timothy, now accompanied dominant, view (cp ACTS, Iff 7) which-apart from minor 4, by Silas, found that in despair Paul had gone across 1 As the nearest synagogue was at Iconium, the religious C p THESSALONIANS, 5 13 from Athens to Corinth. instruction of the child devolved on Eunicz, who probably possessed a copy of some part of the OT scriptures 8s well as 1 Zahn (EinL1479f:) subtly traces an allusion to this the little parchment rolls, specially for the use of children, conchnracteristic of Timothy in the i p r k of Phil.33, which he taining,' c.g., the Shema', the Hallel, the history of Creation insists on taking (as in v. 17) as a reference to Paul's coadjutor down to the Flood, and Lev. 1-8 (Edersheim, Skefckesofjpiuidz Social Lifr, irq-1x7). (Phil. 1I). See further K. Schmidt's A#.-gesch. 358J (1882).








The 'awkward and badly constructed' (Ramsay, S . Paul, t 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 - his own statement-transpired between 17 13f: and on 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 Thessalonica, 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. 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 ) . ~ anyrate(cpCHRONOLoGY,$ 68) towards At the close of the two or three years spent by Paul in Ephesus and the surrounding district, Timothy and Erastus (Acts 2 9 2 ~ ) ~two assistants of Paul upon the as 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 representative. 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 Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, %. G. Findlay) in person, or Gith-PaA Pfleiderer with Paul on the latter's painfh visit (2 Cor. 2 r 5 3 )), actually the man painful 3 Q e k recalcitrant'majority at insulted ((6 b S l K q O ff k ; 7 12) by the recalcitrant majorityat Corinth. On the whole intricate question see Schmiedel, IICii. 1 2 m - 2 ~ 3 . 1220-223. 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 movemellts. data avai!able do not permit us to determine ; the latter conjecture (cp T IMOTHY A N D T I T U S [EPISTLES], 5 1f) . . 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 I) could he established. Z,
~~ ~

tone of z Tim.413-15 zr-zza when that fragment i s 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 considerable 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 subsequent 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 a all. A final glimpse of the envoy is afforded, t 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 Urchristenthums, 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 1 27f: 1 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 modified 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 1 ) 1. 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 composition (I Tim. 1 3 J , cp TIMOTHV N D TITUS PISTLES], A [E $ 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.

7 '