THADDBUS been a transposition, the word haviiig been written

Nni a t the end of a line in the archetype.

Some corruptions are older than any of the versions, perhaps older than the final redaction of the Pentateuch. Thus all extant authorities give ~2p1 i$*i as the end of Nu. 233 , generally translated : And he [Balaam] went to a level place. Apart from the grammatical harshness, however, this and every other sense which these letters can be made to bear are alike poor, and Koenen has suggested that at some period 6&wz the dmehpment uf medial 3 the letters 16 had been written once instead of twice over ; then by reading the final * as i (or sup- posing i to have been lost before the following 1 ~ 9 1 ) we get i *w i$q$ i (Le. , i*& qh), he,went to his incanta- tions. This agrees with N u . 2 4 1 , where we read that Balaam went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments.

For qnw! p l N m nY$ he writes qp@ $p lyp n&i.e., ixn has been written 1Nxn (for l ip) by some scribe. Translate in the time of distress ; the sound of the flood of mighty waters shall not come ni-h him. Finally we may uote WellhausenS restoration o? the original of z)K. 19 26A ?=Is. 37 27J). For 1 n 3 a i ( z 7 ) :nDp *I$ he writes -p3a i q?? m) ( 2 7 ) : so that v. 27 begins Before me is thy rising up a?d thy sitting down and thy going out and coming in I know. I t is worth whil: pointing out, as a final testimony to the excellence of @ in its original form, that this palmary emendation is not without sup- port from @. In Is. 37 27 the *,& of MT i s omitted. In z K 19 26 most documents havein6vavrr i u ~ ~ r d ~ o s for nnnp ,>&, but the text called 91 in the Syro-Hexaplar MSS (see col. 5019) had &&auri dvam&e& uou-ie., *>a$, the con- sonantal text suggested by Wellhausen.

concluding an article of any length on the textual sm of the Bible it is always wholesome to remind

oneself of the comparative soundness of the text. That there are blots, especially in the OT, some of them probably irremovable, must be admitted ; but they are not enough seriously to obscure the main features of the narratives related or the ideas expressed. So far as the Pentateuch is concerned we may be especially at our ease. I t would have been impossible to separate the documents with the minuteness which modern scholarship has found possible if the text had been much confused by scribal errors. And with regard to the Prophets, though their works are less accurately preserved than the Pentateuch, we can be sure that textual corruption never improves the style or the thought. The fact that so much of the Prophetical Books is-judged by any standard-of the first rank as literature, is the strongest proof that they have not been utterly disfigured in transmission.

Some of the most important bibliographical references have already been indicated above. The best general account of

the text and versions of the OT in any 67. Bibliography. language is Wellhausens monograph in

the fourth edition of Bleeks Einkitun in dus AZte Testament, Berlin, 1878 85 275-298; later e d f are arranged on a different plan. Sdmewhat similar in plan hut more confined to the special books treated of, are the intro! ductions in Drivers Notes on the Hehew Text of fhe Books of Sawruel, pp. xxx-lxxxiv, and in Cornills Ezeeckiel 1-160. Klostermann, quoted by Driver, p. E, says Let him who would himself investigate and advance learning, by the side of the other Ancient Versions accustom himself above all things to the use of Fields Hex&la, and Lagardes edition of the Recension of Lucian. To thesespecially valuable authorities the present writer would add any well edited fragment of the Old Latin.

[See also Kittel, Ueber die Nokuendigkeit und M(iglichkeif einer neuen Assgabc der hsbr. Bi6el: Sfudirn u. Erzvagun en (1901) ; Cheyne, Critica Bi6Zicu, pt. I (Isaiah and Jeremiahf]

E ually brilliant is Lagardes emendation of Ps.526.

F; C. 8.

THADDIEUS. In Mk. 3 13 BaAAaioc appears tenth in the list of apostles. Aej3j3a;os is here a western

variant (D a b ff 1 i 9). In Mt. 103 BaSSaior is 1. Name. the right reading (NB) but Aaj3@ior is found

in western texts (D 1k2 Ang.), and the con- flate As&& i, irrrrAp9eir @ass. in the late Syrian text. BaSSaios has been derived from the Heh. itjj=Syr. ihPdX= mamma, and Ar@@aior from &=cor. But Dalman (Worte

5031

THASSI Jew, 40) connects OaNaZor with Oms& and Ae,9,9aZor with the Nabatiean 25. W H (Notes, 11) suppose ArSBaios to he due to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk. 2 14) within the number of the Twelve. But we should have expected Acuris. hrppaiop= Aweis is unparalleled. It seems clear that Asj3Baior is a Western gloss of a cop kt who connected Od6a?os with tht?dh=munzma, and wisled to substitute a not dissimilar name which should be more appropriate to an apostle, and less undignified. If Asj3j3a;or can be thus explained as an early emendation the difficult @a&Salor remains. Dalmans Baa- Gaios=@euSCs is improbable. It is more likely that Qa6Gaias by corruption in Greek or Aramaic, represents an originai mO)n* or ~i(i)n*. For the 0 cp Bov8ovia [Bl= niiin, Neh. 743 (see HODAVIAH), Bv+ [B*vid .Nl=hiN, EnalOj4 (see UEL); Boue[BI=~i;(~(Ahava), Ezra8 ZI ; B&ae [A]=np$n (Helkath), Josh. 21 31 ; BamLpeL [Bl, Bauoup [AI = y iv~, a S. 2 g (see ASHURITES); Bauoj3av[ADI, -~[L]=12~~(Ezbon),Gen.4616. For the doubled 6 and the ending -aios cp q*=Ia88aios, De VogiiC, Syr. Cent. 63.

In Lk. 6 16 Acts 1 1 3 IodSas IaKdaou=Judas, .con of James, takes the place of Thaddaeus. See JUDAS, 7. 2. Identification. I t ,may, therefore, be reasonably conjectured that Judas was the name of the apostle, that Thaddaeus is a corruption of Judas, and that Lebbaeus is a gloss upon Thaddaeus. Of James, the father of Judas, nothing is known. Syr. Cur. has here Judas Thomas, and Syr. Sin. Thomas (see THOMAS). The evidence of the Gospels being so confused we not unnaturally find great uncertainty in the post-biblical tradition. In Origen (Ft-aJ ad Rom. ) Thaddrous= Lebb;eus= Judas Jacobi. In the Chron. Pasch. Thaddaeus = Lebbaeus = Barsabas, whilst Judas Jacobi=Simon the Canaanite. In the Abgar legend preserved by Eusebius (HE 113) Thaddmus is distin- guished from Judas Jacobi=lhonias. In the Acta Thome Judas Thomas is the Lords brother. Accord- ing to the Syrian Ischodab (9th cent.) quoted by Zahn (Einl . 2263) the Diafesravun identified James son of Alphmus with Lebbmus (note that D in Mk. 214 has I ~ K w @ v for Asuefv).

The earliest form of legend connected with Thaddens is that which represents him as preaching at Edessa. A very ex- haustive bibliography of the literature and sources of this tradition may be found in von Dohschiitz, Ckrisfudi~drr, 158*- 149. In the account given by Eusebius (HE 113) from Syriac sources Thaddeus the Apostle one of the Seventy, was sent by theApostle Judas Thoma:to Abgar king of Edessa, in accordance with a promise made by Christiefore his death. In the later Syriac legend(Doctrina Addai, th cent.? ed. Phillips) Addai is substituted for Thaddeus. f n the Gk. IIp&&rs OdSalou (Lips. Acfa Apost. Apocr. 1273 - 278) Lehbzus is identified with Thaddzus, one of the Twelve. For this and the later legends which represent Thaddaeus as preaching in Armenia, in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Persia, see Lips. Did. Chrisi. Biog., s.z: Thaddeus W. C. A.

THAHASH, or (RV) TAHASH (d r?~ , roxoc, [ADL]), a name in the Nahorite genealogy (Gen. 22 24f).

Winckler (Mittkcil. d . Vordcras. Ges., 1896, p. 207) with Tibs, mentioned in the so-called Travels of an Egyptian (Pa+. Anasi. i. 223 ; see RP 2 I I I ) and elsewhere as in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes (to the N.). C$ WMM, As. n. Bur. 258. But see also TEBAH.

THAMAH (nq, &Ma [BA]), Ezra253 AV, RV TEMAH (P.v.).

THAMAR (earnap [Ti. WH]), Mt. 13. See TAMAR. THAMNATHA (@aMN&ea [AKV]), I Macc. 950.

THANK OFFERING (?l?J7)# 2Ch.2931 etc. See

THARA (eapa [Ti. WH]), Lk. 334 AV, RV TERAH. THARRA (eappa [BKC.aAL]), Esth. 121 . See

He is identified b

T. K. c.

See TIMNAH (3).

SACRIFICE, 5 29 6.

TERESH. THARSRISH (~$@-II), 1 ~ . 1 0 ~ ~ AV. r m TAR-

SHISH (Y.V.).

THASSI (eacc[a]l [NV]), I Macc. 23. See SIMON ( I ) , and MACCABEES, $5 I, 5.

1 SO Syr. Sin. Mt. 10 3 Lk. 6 16; Pesh. Lk. 6 16 Acts 1 13. 5032

'THEATRE THEATRE. Although theatres and amphitheatres

wcrc erected by the Herods in Jerusalem and other towns of Syria (Jos. .-lnt. xv.81, 96, xvi.51, xis. 7 5 , 82 ; 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. The word translated ' spectacle ' (I Cor. 49) is Blarpov, and the whole passage seems to refer to ' the band of gladiators brought out at last for death, the vast range of an amphitheatre under the open sky well representing the magnificent vision of all created beings. from men up to angels, gazing on the dreadful death-struggle ; and then the contrast of the selfish Corinthians sitting by unmoved at the awful spectacle' (Stanley, Con'n- fh ims , 73). Cp Heb.1033 'being made a gazing- stock ' (&arpr@pcvor). In I Cor. 731, ' the fashion of this world passeth away' (rapdyer 7 b uxijpa 70; K ~ U ~ O U ) , many have seen an allusion to the drama, drawn either from the shifting o f the scenes, or the passing across the stage of the gorgeous processions then so common.

Ancient history records the name of at least one Jewish dramatist-Ezekiel, who lived in Alexandria in the second century R.C. and wrote a 'tragedy' or dramatic poem, entitled The Exodus ('E&tp '), of which considerable fragments are preserved in CIernArx. (Strom. 1 q ) , Eusehius (Prej. ED. 928f:) and Eustathius (ad Wexdm. 25). On the question of a Semitic drama cp CANTICLES, I 7, POETICAL LITERATURE, B 4 (5).

THEBES. See NO-AMON. THEBEZ (Yam), where Abimelech was killed whilst

besieging the citadel (Judg. 950 : B H B H C [BL]. BalBa~c

[L]), was situated, according to Eusebius and Jerome {OS, 26244, 1571s), 13 R. m. from Neapolis on the road to Scythopolis. Starting from this, Robinson plausibly identifies Thebez with the mod. T i h i s , a large village on the W. :dope of a fruitful valley, IO m. due NE. from Niiblus. So Buhl, Pal. 204 and the PEF Survey.

But is this correct? TOhZs suggests rather y$. Apart from this, the form of the name is peculiar. We expect some famous fortress to be referred to. From :he point of view of SHECHEB~, 2, one may naturally think of Zephath (= Zarephath) ; "91 might easily he written n39, out of which by transposition would come y ln .

[A] ; 2 S. 1121 and ZJ. 22 in 6, e&M&C[E]I [BA, - M E C C ~ ~

This seems to give greater vividness to the narrative.

THEOPHANY Gen. 1613' Ex. 36 1921 Judg. 6 z z J I K. 1 9 1 z J Is.65), many narratives, including those just cited, record cases in which men saw God, or at least perceived hrough the senses that he was present, and yet lived. The most striking of these is in Ex. 2410 (JE) 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. Cp 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. We 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. 33 IT$ (J) , which relates that Moses saw

the back of Yahwe as he passed away, but that even he could not with safety see the face of Yahwe. In other narratives, however, it is just the face of God which is seen-Ex. 3311 (E), Gen. 3230 [31] (probably E ) ; in Nu. 126-8 it is said that Moses, unlike others (cp Dt. 4 12 IS), in his customary and immediate intercourse with Yahwb sees his form or tSmim8h (somerhing less distinct than his appearance-cp Job4 16). But these are only typical cases in connection with the present subject, in which looseness and inconsistency of expression corre- spond to looseness and variety of thought. We are dealing with popular ideas and expressions, not with theological and systematic thought. What is common to the present type of theophany is that the sight of God is partial.

(6) In another type the peculiarity consists in the fact that God is seen in human form indeed, but only by 3. In vision. means of dream or vision (cp Nu. 243f.).

So we should probably interpret the ex- perience of Isaiah (Is. 6 ) and certainly those of Ezekiel (Ezek. 1 etc.) and Daniel (Dan. 72 9). Cp Gen. 28 13-16 (J).

(6) But the commonest type of a theophany in human form was by means of the ' angel of YahwP ' or ' of

form*

T. K. C. THECOE (eKrn [AKY), I Macc.933 AV, RV

THELASAR (@K$?), 2 K.1912 AV, RV TEL-

THELERSAS (eahspcac [B]), I Esd.536. See

TEKOAH.

ASSAR (q.3.).

TEL-HARSHA. THEMAN (B&iMaN [BAQI']), Bar. 3223 AV, RV

TEMAN. THEOCANUS (BwKaNoy [AI, BOK. [B]), I Esd.

914 A V = E z r a l O ~ j , TIKVAH (4 .v . ) . THEODOTUS ( & o h o T o C [AV]). one of Nicanor's

ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B.C. ( 2

The invisibility of God formed no illthoneh it was commonlv

MRCC. 1 4 '9).

part of early Hebrew belief. THEOPHANIT.

" 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

- 4. of God ' (o& b, nin- -&J). Cp ANGEL, 5 2 ; NAME, 5 6. The narratives

clearly identify the ' Angel of YahwP ' with Yahwe, though -often in the same narrative a certain differentiation is also implied. Thus in Gen. 16 the angel of YahwP who appears to Hagar is called 'YahwP who spake unto her' (3. 13), and Hagar expresses surprise that she still lives after seeing God (cp further 2'. IO with e.g., 122). On the other hand in a. IZ the angel speaks of Yahwk in the third person.

For further illustrations from other narratives of this identifica- tion, see Gen. 2211 f: Ex.3 (angel of Yahwh, 71. z-Yahwh, 7m. 4a 5 7), Nu. 2232.35 (cp especially v. 35 with 24 r g ) , Judg. 21-5 611-24 (angel of Yahwh, m,. 1 1 8 20&=Yahwt 7m. 14 16 23), 1923; for indications ofdifferentiations see Gen. 2k740 -yet cp m. 2748 Nu. 2231 Judg. lS8J z S. 24 15-17.3 See also DESTROVER.

1 Read 'Have I even seen God and am I (still) alive?' So R?ll,in SGOT in accordance with a large consensus of critical npimon. See BEER-LAHAI-ROI, 8 I.

2 In Ex.32 the 'angel of Yahwk' exceptionally manifests himself in 'a flame of fire,' presumably not in human form.

3 The Vahwistic narrative in Gen. 1Sf: presents special peculiarities. Yahwk appears to Abraham (18 I) as three men p. 2) who speak or are addressed sometimes in the singular ,zm. 3 IO), sometimes in the plural (vu. 4 f l ) . Suhsequently :16-33) one of the three, who is identified with Yahwk, remains 7ehind with Abraham, the other two, who are described in 19 I

5034 5033

THEOPHANY In brief, the ' angel of Yahwk' is an occasional

manifestation of Yahw& in human form, possessing no distinct and permanent personality but speaking and spoken of, at times as Yahwk himself (cp the way in which the word of Yahwk passes over insensibly into the prophetic comment), at times as distinct from him. The danger which attached to the sight of God attached also to the sight of the angel. The two early literary strata of the Hexateuch differ in their detailed accounts of the angel. In J he eats, drinks, and converses with men, and in every respect comports himself as a human being-the narratives of Judg. 6 13 are also in many respects similar ; in E there is a tendency to keep even the angel from close contact with men-thus he appears in and speaks from heaven (.g., Gen. 2211).

At a later date, theophanies in (human) form were denied (Dt. 4 15) or, as regularly in P, the theophany is referred to in the barest possible terms without any indication of its character-e..

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO) n3t in Athens (cp I Thess. 3 I ) as stated in the subscrip-

tion to the epistles in the Te.ztus h'eceptus, but in Corinth during Paul's first visit

and time* there recorded in Acts 18 18 This appcnrs from the following considerations :-

i. The 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. 173) and Paul must have laboured at least for some months in Achka, as may be gathered from the spread of Christianity in that province implied in the same passage. Timothy had been sent back to Thessalonica from Athens, and had had time to return and make his report to the apostle ( r Thess.326), and this return may fairly he identified with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth, mentioned in Acts 18 5.

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 he wished to do so, and under circum- stances which made him fear for the

permanence of his work there ( I Thess. 2 17 3 T /I: ). 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 ) . ~ The 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 ( I Thess. 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

1. Place

See TIMOTHY, $3 3 ; cp SILAS.

a. occasion.

( I Thess. 3 1 $ ) . ~ It is possible that Timothy also carried a letter from Paul to

the Thessalonian church (see Rendel Harris in Ex#os. 8 174

1 According to the chronology of Paul's life adopted by Kellner, Katkolik, 1887, 1 146x , 0. Holtnann, NTZiche Zfgesch. (1894) Rlass Acta A#ostolorum (1895) Harnack Chronol (1897),' M'Gikeert, Hisf. Ckrisf. in Ajost. hze (1897): and some others.

2 Cp CHRONOLOGY $ 7 2 8 3 See M'Giffert, i c . n26f: ; Zahn, Einl. 11383 ; Bartlet,

4 Zimmer (Dererste Thrssalonicher6rief;f~ 34, 94$) takes the

5 Of this mission of Timothy to Thessalonica we hear nothing In fact there is no hint in Acts that Timothy was with

Aposfolic Age, 84 ; Bacon Introd. to NT, 57.

opposite view, but without sufficient warrant.

in Acts. Paul in Athens, As we know from I Thess. that he was.

5037

[+8]); but we have no evidence of such a letter, and the information which Paul gives his readers in I Thess. 2 17 3 5 rather argues against an earlier communication from him. But though we have no adequate ground for asmming that Paul sent to Thessalonica another epistle before our I Thessalonians, there is some reason for thinking that the Thessalonians sent a letter hack to Paul by 'rimothy (see Harris, ihid. 167J). Harris finds evidence of such a letter in I Thess. 1 2 5 2 I 5 g 10 13 3 3 -5

epistle ; but beyond these hints we can hardly go. It will not do at any rate to regard the words ' ye know ' (o&zm) as evidence of such an epistle, for we cannot well suppose that the Thessa- lonians gave Paul an account of his sufferings in Pbilippi (2 2).

The report which Timothy brought back from Thessalonica was upon the whole very cheering ; but he informed Paul of the existence of certain evils among the Thessalonians which demanded the apostle's atten- tion. The common fleshly impurity of the heathen world, especially prevalent in a great commercial metropolis like Thessalonica, had not been entirely overcome by the Thessalonian Christians ( I Thess. 44f: ) ; a spirit of enthusiasm was abroad among them which led them to neglect their ordinary employments and so bring disrepute upon the brotherhood ( I Thess. 4 1 r f . ) ; and there was on the part of some a tendency, entirely natural where fanaticism had so free play, to disregard the counsel and authority of the leaders of the church (I Thess. 51zf.). On the other hand, in opposition to the common enthusiasm, there were some who ' despised prophesyings ' and frowned upon all spiritual manifesta- tions ( I Thess. 520) . 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 im; but as time passed some of their number died and Christ still tarried. The 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 3. Contents. is a familiar letter in which expressions of affection and words of exhortation

and warning ollow one upon another with no attempt a t logical arrangement.

After a salutation, in which the names of Silvanus and Timothy are joined with his own (1 I), Paul expresses his gratitude, beginning with the conventional termsofcontemporary correspondence (see Harris, &id.), for the faith and steadfast- ness of the Thessalonians (1 z-s), and reminds them of his own conduct while among them, of his devotion and self-sacrifice which some had evidently Called in question (21.12)~ gives utterance to his joy at the reception they had given his message and at the steadfastness they had shown in the face of persecu? tion (213-16), tells them of his anxiety about them while in Athens and of his great desire to see them which resulted, when he could not go himself, in his sending'Timothy to visit them (3 1 4 , and which is now fully relieved by the good news brought by him (3 6-10). The commendatory, apologetic, and explanatory portion of the letter is concluded with a beautiful prayer for the readers' growth in grace (3 11-13).

The passage just referred to serves at the same time to introduce the second and hortatory section of the epistle (45). After ernphasising the importance of purity (4 1.8), of brotherly love (4g,f), and of quietness and diligence in daily business

5038

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO) (II~:) , the apostle turns to the subject of eschatology and instructs the Thessalonians, first, touching the brethren dying before the return of Christ (413-18), and secondly, touching the uncertainty of the time of the Parousia, which makes it necessary to be constantly watchful and zealous (5 I - I I ) . ~ Then follow various exhortations having especial reference to the disciples' association with each other as a Christian brotherhood (5 ~ w m ) and the epistle closes with a petition for their perfect sanctificatioi (23J), a request for their prayers (25), a salutation, and a benediction (26-28).

The epistle apparently accomplished its purpose, for we hear nothing more of aspersions upon Paul's

Thess. character, and the Thessalonians seem to have needed no further instruction as to

the resurrection of the dead. Rut Paul's words touch- ing the Day of the Lord ( 5 z J ) evidently led them to believe that the Parousia was imminent. and some of them in their expectation of the immediate return of Christ were greatly excited and were neglecting their ordinary employments (2 Thess. 2 x 8 ) . It is possible that it was this expectation which had led them to similar fanaticism before Paul wrote his first epistle ( I Thess. 41rf . ) ; but if so he cannot have been aware of it, or he would have dealt with the matter in that epistle.

How Paul learned of the existing situation we do not know. It is not impossible that he had received another letter from the Thessalonians in answer to his former one (see Bacon, IC. p. 72); but we have no positive evidence of it. At any rate, however the news reached him, it led him towrite a second epistle intended to put a stop to such unwarranted

After commending the patience and faithfulness of the Thessalonians ( z Thess. 11-4). as he had done in

4.

.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 (1 5-12), 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). He 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 one ' must be revealed as he had told them when he was with them ( z Thess. 25) ; but he cannot be until ' that which now restraineth (a Thess. 2 6 r b KUTCXOV, z. 7 b K u r h w v ) has been taken out of the way' (2 Thess. 23-10).%

This eschatological passage is followed by renewed commendations, and by exhortations to steadfastness and patience, sobriety and diligence (213-315), and the epistle concludes with benedictions and with a salutation from Paul's own hand, which he asserts is the token in every letter ( 3 16-18).

I t would seem that those disciples who were insisting that the Parousia was immediately at hand were appeal- ing to a letter bearing Paul's name ( 2 Thess. 22) ; but as he was not conscious of having written anything to support their opinion, he concluded that they nus 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 apocalypse see H. St. John Thacketay, ThcRelution ofst . Paul t u Coniewz#orary 3mish 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,

I 4f: 5039

be supposed that any one would venture to palm off a forged letter upon the Thessalonians so soon after the apostle's departure, and as a matter of fact the eschato- logical passage in the first epistle (51-11) was of such a character that it might easily serve to promote the belief in the immediate consummation, though he seems not to have realised it.

The 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$ 21f: ; the judgment in I Thess.110 a Thess. 16f: 2 1 2 ; the resurrection of believers in I Thess. 4 1 4 3 ; their future glory and blessed- ness in I Thess. 417 5 IO 2 Thess. 2 14 ; and the final kingdom in I Thess. 212 P Thess. 15. I t is evident that the Thessalonian Christians were much interested in eschatological questions, and it would seem that Paul must have laid considerable stress, while in Thessalonica, at any rate upon the speedy return of Christ and the impending judgment (cp I Thess. 1 IO 5 zf: z Thess. 2 5). Possibly he was led to do so by the great prevalence of vice and inimorality in the city. However that may be, the Thessalonians expected the return of Christ very soon, before any of their number had passed away, and Paul had evidently given them some warrant for the expectation, for even when he wrote his First Epistle he looked for the Parousia during his own lifetime and theirs (cp 219 415J). I t was doubtless because of this that Paul had not instructed them touching the resur- rection of believers and so was obliged to do so at some length in I Thess. 413J (cp I Cor. 15 and see M'Giffert, Lc. p 248).

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians throw con- siderable lieht u m n Paul's work in Thessalonica and

" 1

upon the character and condition of Tn2sEu his converts there. The Christians ad- dressed were most, if not all, of them Gentiles ( I Thess. lg 214) ; and, more-

over, as appears from the former passage, they had been converted directly from heathenism to Christianity under Paul's preaching. But the account of Paul's work in Thessalonica contained in Acts (17 IJ ) gives a very different picture of the Thessalonian converts. Accord- ing to that passage, 'Some of them ( L e . . of the Jews) were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks ( L e . , Jewish proselytes) a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.' Of these Jews and Jewish proselytes there is no trace in either of Paul's epistles, and though of course it is quite possible that there were some of them among his. converts, it is certain that they must have formed an altogether insignificant minority. It is clear then that the author of Acts, as is frequently the case, has recorded the least important part of Paul's activity in 'Thessalonica, and that it was not in the synagogue that he did his chief work (the only part of his work mentioned in Acts), but among the heathen population of the city. At the same time there is no reason for doubting that Paul actually did preach to Jews and proselytes in the synagogue of Thessalonica.2 But after a brief period spent in that work he must have turned to the Gentiles, instead of leaving the city directly as implied in Actsl7ro, and must have spent at least some months in labour among them, as is clear from I Thess. 2 7 $ and Phil.416. and also from the large and permanent results accomplished. The 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

1 S e e 1 T h e s s . 2 1 a S 8 1 3 4 7 e 5 1 0 1 s ~ T h e s s . l r r 2 1 3 1 6 f o t familiar Pauline ideas.

2 See M'Giffert, op. cil. 246. 5040

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO) his account of this part of Paul's work, nor was Acts in the hands of the author of I Thess.

The Thessaloninn epistles bear eloquent testimony to the success of Paul's missionary labours in Thessalunica. H e succeeded in founding there a strong and vigorous church, and the faith and patience and brotherly love of his convertswere so marked that theirfamespeedilyspread even beyond the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (I Thess. 17f. ), and their generosity in ministering to the necessities of other churches, even though poor them- selves, called forth the apostle's hearty commendation (I Thess. 4 IO ; cp z Cor. 8 ~f. and Acts 204). To none of his churches was he bound by warmer ties of affection than to the churches of Thessalonica and Philippi, and none of his epistles, except that to the Philippians, is more thoroughly pervaded with joy and confidence and affection than I Thess.

It has been assumed throughout this article that both I and z Thess. are genuine epistles of Paul. So far as

8. Author- the former is concerned its authenticity, ship: of denied a couple of generations ago by

many :scholars, is to-day generally recog- 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. The 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 in Acts and ZrXouark only in I and 2 Thess. a Cor. 1x9 and I Pet. 5 IS) all make for genuineness [cp SILAS] : and the evidence brought by Rendel Harris in the article referred to above (s 2) that it is part of a correspondence with the Thessalonian church, strengthens rhe argument, and if that evidence be regarded as conclusive, of course places the geiiuine- ness of the epistle beyond all question. Finally, the implication in 4 17 that Christ was to return during the lifetime of the apostle is of itself enough to prove that it was not written afi.er his death.l

On the other hand, the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is by no means so clear, nor is it so widely recognised. 9. Of aThess. The tendency to view it as a genuine

epistle of Paul has apparently grown somewhat in recent years among scholars of the critical school (e.g., Julicher, Einl. 40f. [1894] ; Harnack, Chi-mol. 239 [1898]; Bacon, Introd. to N T , 755 [ I~oo] ; and compare the statement of Holtzmann [ E i n ~ ' . ' ~ ) 2161 that ' a t the present day the question is not whether the epistle is to be brought down into the post-apostolic age, but whether it does not on the con- trary reach up into the lifetime of the apostle, and whether consequently it must not be genuine, and have been written soon after I Thess.'). Many. however, who accept I 'lhessalonians reject a Thessalonians altogether (as, e.,r., Lipsius, Ililgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel. Weizsacker), or regard it as largely inter- polated (e .g . , P. Schmidt, Der evste Thssalonichevbrief,.$

The first objection urged against the genuineness of

1 Schmiedel, while accepting the epistle as a whole, suggests that 2 15f: is an interpolation. There is however no reason to doubt the genuineness of the passage thdugh it is &e possible that z. 166 is an inteqmlation . and'the same may be said of 0,236. The latter 100l.s decidehly un-Pauline, and by its omis- sion v. 24 is brought into immediate connection with u. 23a with which it seems t o belong.

5 W

Thesa.

=7f. ).

the epistle is the apocalyptic passage, 2 Thess. 22-12. lo. Argument This objection is based chiefly upon

the assumption that the passage is in- eschatology. consistent with I 'Ihess. 52f., and since

its substance is said to have been

from

imparted to the Thessalonians while Paul was still present with them ( z Thess. 25), the inconsistency cannot be explained as due to the further development of Paul's thought after the writing of I Thessalonians.

I t is to be noticed. however, that though the author indicates in z Thess. 2 that certain events must occur, and, consequently, some interval elapse before the final consummation, there is no'sign that he regards the interval as long, and that he does not expect to live until the Parousia. Nor is the fact that certain signs are to precede the consummation inconsistent with the exhortation in I Thess. 5 2 to be watchful, for the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night only for those who sleep, the implication being that those who are awake know the signs of its coming and will not be taken unaware. I t is quite conceivable that Paul might have told the Thessalonians when he was with them why the Parousia was delayed, and might have spoken of the traditional figure of Antichrist (the ra6Ta of 25 refers to what precedes), without contradicting his belief or theirs that the consummation was to take place very soon. Only when he found that their expectation of its imminence was leading them into fanaticism would he naturally, in order to show that it could not come immediately, dwell more at length upon the inter- vening events, and indicate still more fully what those events were. Possibly the protection of the Roman pro-consul a t Corinth (Acts 18 12) had led him to recog- nise more clearly than ever before the protecting power of Rome (to which r b Karkov and 6 KaTtxxWV [ ' the 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 deny- ing its Pauline authorship. If there is good reason for ascribing the remainder of the epistle to Paul, there need he no difficulty in assuming that he wrote the apocalypt.ic passage, 2.f: In fact, we may perhaps go farther and say that that passage, when taken in con- nection with the remainder of the epistle, can be better understood on the assumption of its authenticity than on that of its pseudonymity. It can hardly be supposed that any one would ventnre t~ produce such a pseudonymous epistle during Paul's own lifetime, or that it would find acceptance if he did. On the other hand, if Paul's first epistle gave rise to misunderstandings-as the 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 no notice of it. If it could be supposed that the epistle was written simply to save Paul's reputation and set him right with the Thessalonians after his death, by showing that he had not expected the consummation as soon as ~Thessalonians seemed to imply, its post- Pauline date would be easy to understand, but there is no sign of such an interest. The sole purpose of the eschatological passage is clearly to put a stop to the fanaticism to which the belief in the speedy consum-

5042

5 4f.b

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO) mation was giving rise. Under these circumstances 2 Thessalonians, so far as the eschatological passage is concerned, seems easier to explain as a letter of Pauls, written within a few months of I Thessalonians, than as the work of a later time and of another hand.

It has been suggested by some scholars ( e g . , Schmidt, op. cit. 127) that 2Thess. 22-12 has been inter- polated in a genuine epistle of Paul ; but there is no ground for such a hypothesis. The point of the epistle is entirely gone if the apocalyptic passage be omitted, and the difficulties which beset the genuineness of the remainder of the epistle are even greater than those which beset the apocalyptic passage. As a matter of fact, the suggestion of Hausrath (NTZiche Zeitgesch. P) 3 198) that this passage is the only genuine part of the epistle is much more plausible.

A second objection to the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is drawn from its language and style. .. ____ I t is true that the epistle contains an

LA. rrom

contents. language and uncommonly large number of words

and phrases which occur nowhere else in Paul (the Pastoral epistles not being

I

reckoned as Pauline). Such are : roweth exceedingly(da=pau5d-l), 13;1 glory

(~yKaUXdOpar*T, v. 4 ; token ( a v k pa*) , judgment ( K ~ ~ u L S ) , count worthy (Kar&dw) , 5 ; Xaming fir: ( r 0 p $Aoy&) v. 3 ; pynishment (8 iq ) 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 (&dor ia b at)wyhqs*),, v. 11 ; gathering togethe: unto ( Z m m v a y w Y j ) , ; shake (uahedw) be troubled (Bpoooirpa~), v. z ; falling away (brrouTauia) , 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; be- lief of truth (aiorrr &Aq&ias*) v. 13 . chose (a ip iopac) , v. 13 (occurs once in Phil. 1 2 2 A d Hed. 11 25 in another con- nection ; the common word in Paul, to ex ress the idea, being Z ~ h i y w ) ; good hope (&rk bya&i*), v. 18(cp Heb. 7 19 I Pet. 13) ; unreasonable (droaos), 3 2 ; busybodies (aepLepyd

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO) tion in Thessalonica and Corinth remained much the same, and suggested consequently a similar line of thought. The genuineness of the second epistle can be maintained, in fact, only by assuming that Paul had a copy of I Thessalonians in his possession, and that he read it over again short!.y before writing 2 Thessalonians, and saturated himself with its thought and language. It seems a little unlikely that Paul should have had a copy of his earlier epistle at hand,' but it is not im- possible; and if he had, it was not perhaps unnatural that, when the report reached him that Thessalonians were appealing to a letter of his in support of their views touching the Parousia, he should read over the earlier epistle to see if it gave any justification for such an appeal.

This would also serve to explain particuiarly the relation between z Thess. 36f: and I Thess. 2 6 J In both passages Paul refers in almost identical terms to the fact that he had supported himself with his o!vn hands while in Thessalonica; but in the first epistle he cites the fact as a defence against the charges of his enemies, in the second as an example to the disorderly.

The effort of Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Uychris- tenthums, 112.f.; cp TIMOTHY, 5 6 ) to explain the resemblances and divergencies between the two epistles

14. Not bs by the ingenious suggestion that the second was written not by Paul but by Timothy at Paul's request and in the

name of the three fellow-workers, while it might relieve the difficulties somewhat, is rendered impossible by the use of the first person singular in 2 5 which cannot, occur- ring as it does without qualification. refer to Timothy, as Spitta assumes, but must refer to Paul, That the Thessa- lonians should have known from the handwriting that 'I'imothy was the author of the epistle instead of Paul there is no ground for supposing, for it was Paul's custom to dictate his epistles to an amanuensis, and 3 17 must suggest to the readers of 2 Thessalonians that it was written in the same way.

Those who deny the authenticity of z Thessalonians explain the striking resemblances between the two epistles by the assumption that the author of the second purposely conformed it to I Thessalonians in order to gain Pauline authority for its eschatological teaching, and so to displace the earlier epistle, which was giving rise to so much trouble in the Thessalonian church. Such a procedure is not without parallels, nor can it be regarded as in itself more improbable than the unique self-repetition involved in Pauline authorship. Indeed, while the reproduction of the earlier epistle is at times subtle and of such a character as to suggest that the author wrote with a free hand, it seems quite as easy to suppose that some one familiar .with Paul's style pro- duced z Thessalonians in conscious imitation of I Thes- salonians as to suppose that Paul unconsciously repeated himself so slavishly. And if this conscious effort be assumed, the reference to Paul's own signature in 317 (cp I Cor. 1621 Col. 418 Gal. 611) need constitute no

pau17

, - 16. Conclusion. insurmountable obstacle. At the same time, in view of the considera-

tions urged above in connection with the apocalyptic passage, the present writer is inclined to think that the evidence points rather in the direction of the Pauline authorship of the epistle, but it must be recognised that its genuineness is beset with serious difficulties, and that it is at best very doubtful.

Upon the epistles to the Thessalonians see the various intro-

1 The common notion that copies of Paul's epistles must have been from the beginning carefully preserved either by Paul himself or by his companions r e s s upon a cdnception of their dogmatic importance which Gas not shared in Paul's own time as IS sufficiently indicated by the fact that so few of his epistle; -so far as we know, only those which we still have-were handed down to the next generation, and that even the author of Acts apparently made no use of them in the composition of his work (see McGiffert, k., 436).

161 5045

THESSALONICA ductions to the NT, the histories of the apostolic age, and lives

of Paul, and the special conlmentaries: by 16. Literature. Schott (1834); Jowett,, ?'h Episfbs of St.

Paul to fke Thessdonzans, Galatians, and Romam (1856, (3) 1894); Eadie (1877); P. Schmidt, Der ersfc Thessalonieherbrirf neu erkLdrf nrbsf einenr Lxkurs Uber den m e i f e n gCeichnamigen Brief (1885); Zimmer, Theologischer Kommenfar zu den Tkessalonickerbrifr,~ (1891). Of the general commentaries on the N T special mention may be made of Liinemann (Meyer's Handbuchl'8), Bornemann (Meyer: Is) and PJ), and Schmiedel in Holtzmann's Hand-Conrmenfur zum NT Bd. 2 (1889). On the integrity of the epistles, see especially CleAen, Die Einheiflichkeif derpaulinischen Briefc (1894), p. 1 3 3 , and on the text Zimmer, Der Text der Tkessalonicker- 6riefe (1893).

In defence of the genuineness of both epistles, see the N T introdiictions of Weiss, Jiilicher and Zahn, also Bornemann in Meyer. In defence of the firs; epistle, see also vou Soden in St.Kr., 1885, p. 2 6 3 3 , and Weizsacker, Ap. Zeifalter, 241J; in defence of the second, Kl6pper in Thologisclre Studien und Skizzen aus Orfpreussen, 8 (1889). Against the genuineness of both epistles, see especially Baur, Der Aposfel Paulus (1845, (3) 1867); and against the genuineness of the second Weiz- sacker, Z.C., 2493 ; Schmiedel, Z.C., 8 s ; Bahnsen, JPT, 1880, 4orJ For further literature see Holtzmann, Einl. (3) 21o.L. and Findlay in Expos., 1900, 2251f:

TRESSALONICA ( B C C & ~ ~ , N I K H , ~ WH, Acts 171 I I 13 Phil. 4 16 2 Tim. 4 IO ; ethnic BwuahovcKch, Acts

2 2 0 4 I Thess. 1 I 2 Thess. 1 T [translated " ;'the three latter passages by the curious syncopated form 'Thessalonians,' EV]). A large and important city (now SaZoonica) at the head of the Gulf of Salonica, which in ancient times was called the Thermaic Gulf, from the city itself. Thessalonica, we are told, was originally named Therma or Therme,* from the hot springs found on the coast in its neighbour- hood. But Therme seems to have been a small place in the vicinity, from which, as well as from twenty-five other towns on the gulf, the inhabitants were compelled to migrate in order to create the new city (Strabo, 330, frg. ZI ; Plin. HN, 417).

f Thessalonica was due, according to the most (that of Strabo 1 c ) to Cassander, who called hessalonica stgp-&er of Alexander the Great The histo& of the town begins therefore with

the Macedonian, and its importance increases as we approach the Roman, period. It was the great Macedonian naval station (Livy, 44 IO); and when Macedonia was conquered by the Romansand was divided by them into four districts, Thessalonica was made the capital of the second region, Macedonia Secwufa (168 B.C. ; see 1\IAC&DONIA).3 When the whole of Macedonia was reduced to a single province (146 B.c.) Thessalonica became virtually its capital.

Even before the close of the Republican period the natural advantages of Thessalonica had raised it to importance, for it lay upon the great route which con- nected Rome with the East (cp Cic. De Prow. Cons. z : ' Thessalonicenses, positi in gremio imperii nostri '), about midway between Dyrrhachiuni on the Adriatic, and the river Hebrus in Thrace. I t was the residence of the proconsul ; Cicero during his exile found here a refuge, in the quaestor's house (Pm PZanc. 41). During the first Civil War the town was the head- quarters of the Pompeian party (Dio Cass. 41 18) ; ' but in the second war it took the side of Octavius and Antonius (Plut. Brut. 46 ; Appian, BC 4 118), and by way of reward was made a 'free city' (Plin. HN 417).4 As a free city it was ruled by its own assembly (cp the use of the word 8ijpos in Acts 175, in accordance with the actual constitutional fact) and by its own magis- t r a t e ~ , ~ who here bore the special title of politarchs (rroksdpxar, Acts 176).

A. C. MCG.

1 B s r r d o v i q in Pol. 23 4 ; B o u s d o v i r ~ r a in Str. 330, frg. 20 etc.

2 Ofpppq, Herod. 7 121, et s q 5 . : Thuc. 161 2 29. Bippprr, Bschm. D e Pal. Le

3 After 158 B.c., d e n the right of silver coinage was granted by the Senate, Thessalonica issued silver tetradrachms with the inscription MAKEAONON AEYTEPAI. See Head, Hisf. Nzmm. 213. Its bronze coins before and during the empire are plentiful, bearing the name of the town, or the ethnic in the genitive, often with titles ppqrp6nohrs or ~ohov ia . 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

29 (Bekker).

5046

THESSALONICA THESSALY The title politarch does not occur elsewhere in Greek

literature, but its use here is quite accurate, as appears from an inscription (CIG, 1967) which w-as engraved on a Roman arch of the Yui-dar gate (perhaps a monu- ment of the victory of Philippi) recording its erection when certain persons, whose names are given, were politarchs of the city ' ( a o X t ~ u p ~ o d v ~ w v ) . ~ It is doubtful whether the number of politarchs was five or six (see a paper on the politarchs by Dr. Burton, reprinted from the Am. 10~~7'. Theol [1897], 598, where other inscrip- tions are cited from Macedonia, and more particularly from Thessalonica, in which the title aoht~&pxur, or the verb a o X t ~ u p ~ o d v r e s , occurs).

The town flourished greatly. Strabo (330 fyg. 21) calls it the pqrp6mhrs of the Macedonia of his time and notes its populous- ness ( 3 ~ 3 , i j vSv wdhcma 761" dhhov &bvSp&). Lucian, in the second century A.u., speaks in similar terms (Asin. Aur. 46, d h s o s r61v iv Mars8ov ip

The spread of the Jews after Alexander's death would doubtless affect the citv. well Dlaced as it was for con-

p e y l u ~ q s O e u u d o v l ~ q s ) .

trolling ;he trade of Macedonia. That the Jewish community in Paul's time was fairlv large is evident from the fact , "

that it possessed a synagogue here (Acts I 7 I ; con- trast Philippi. and compare with Bercea, which also, being a commercial town, possesses a synagogue, Acts 1710). The number of the Jews settled in the town had also produced an 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,' EV ; 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. The 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. . . . 'another king')-a thing to which the Empire was very sensitive, and one fraught with grave possibilities of undesirable changes for the people of Thessalonica if the imperial authorities were minded to take it seriously. In Philippi, on the other hand, a Roman colony, where there could be no question of loyalty, the charge touches religious innovations (see on this point, Ramsay, St. Paul tke Traveller, z z g x ) . The riot itself, though not so represented in the narrative in Acts, would appear to have surpassed that at Philippi in malignity and violence (cp I Thess. 2 143). The attitude of the magistrates, so far as can be inferred from the short account, would seem to have differed entirely from that of the magistrates at Philippi, and to have been not in harmony with the feelings of the dre s of the popu- lace stirred up by the Jews. With the attitude o f the politarchs and upper classes of Thessalonica we may well compare that of the Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19 31). Nevertheless the poli- tarchs were obliged in the interests of their own safety to fetter Paul's work effectually by taking sureties of Jason and other prominent Christians of Thessalonica against the repetition of the teaching. Paul was therefore cut off from the city by a barrier more effective than the thrFat of merely personal danger (I Thess.218, 'Satan hindered us.

As regards the time spent in the city by Paul, nothing certain can he inferred. Probably, however, it would be an error to confine his work to the limited space mentioned in Acts 17 2 ('three sabbath days'). Not only is a longer sojourn indicated by the expression used in I Thess. 1 8 (' For from you sounded ont the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia '), but such is perhaps proved by the statement in Phil. 4 16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity').

declares ' omnium primum liberos esse iuhere Macedona3, habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, annuos Creantes magistratus.

1 The arch was demolished ahout 1867. hut the inscription is now preserved in the Brit. Mus. (Murray, Hdbk. to Greece, 826). I t is remarkedas a curiouscoincidence (Conybeare and Howson, Lifr and E)). of Sf . Paul, 1395) that three of the names on the inscription are identical with those of three of Paul's friends in this region (Sopater, Gaius, and Secundus ; cp Acts 19 zg 20 4). Possibly a later date should be assigned to the arch than is given above (so Leake and Tafel), but that will hardly invalidate the weight of the inscription as a testimony to the accuracy of Acts in this passage.

' contrary to the decrees of Caesar

Cp Rams. o#. Lit . 230).

_____~.

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. 1 g 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 (Acts 201J). On his return two members of the church of Thessalonica accompanied 'him into Asia (v. 4 ) [see ARISTARCHUS, 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 204 272 ; he is alluded to also in Col. 4 IO and Philem. 24).

Christianity, having been once established in Thessa- lonica, spread rapidly ( I Thess. 18) , and in later times the city was the bulwark of religion in this region of Europe, so much so that it was designated ' The Ortho- dox City.' Its name is prominent in the Byzantine historians. I t was a safeguard of the Empire during the Gothic inroads, and later during the Sclavonic wars, of which it bore the brunt from the middle of the sixth century A.D. onwards. During the Middle Ages the city was thrice captured, by the Saracens, the Normans, and 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 andafterwards prefixed asProlego-

91Zpna to his De Thessalonica eiaspue a 0, 3. Literature. Dissertafiogeo a#hica (Berlin, 1839). Gis

isespecially f u l g relation to the topography and the Gothic and Sclavonic wars. For the history Finlay's Histmy ofGYeece (ed. Tozer) may also be consulted. Descrip- tions of the town and remains are given by all travellers from Clark (1810) to Leake (18351, and onwards. A good succinct account will be found in Murray's Wandhok t o Greece.

W. J. 1%'.

THESSALY (BsccaAla, Acts1715 D). Thessaly is mentioned only in an addition to Acts1715 in D, which runs, ' and those who conducted Paul brought him a s far as Athens ; [and he passed by Thessalia, for he was prevented from preaching the word unto them].' I t is not clear whether a t this time Thessaly was included in the province of Achza, or fell to Macedonia. If the latter was the case, we should naturally expect to find Paul going from Bercea to Larissa, the chief town in Thessaly, for his call was to Macedonia (Actsl61o) ; and in that case his neglect to visit Thessaly must have been due to divine injunction (as in Acts167). If Thessaly fell at that time to Achza, there was no necessity specifically to mention its omission, unless we assume that already Paul felt that he was called to a wider field than Macedonia. It is indeed a strange omission in Acts that nowhere is it indicated when and how this conviction forced itself upon his mind : already in Athens (Acts1717) the special call to Mace- donia is forgotten in the absorbing self-imposed task of disputing with the Jews and proselytes of that city. Apparently there is no feeling of restriction to a particular province. As regards the actual attribution of Thessaly, Ptolemy

assigns it to Macedonia, Strabo to Achga (p. 840). The separation may have been the work of Vespasian.

W. J. W.

5048 5047

THEUDAS THEUD AS !PHEUDAS COXTENTS

I. .kts and Jos. on Theudas. 2. Not two persons. 3. No error in Jos. 4. Did Lk. know Jos. 7

Theudas ( g ~ y b a c ' Ti. W H ) is mentioned only in Acts 6 36, where Gamaliel, in his speech in the synedrium 1. Acts and in support of his plea for letting the

apostles alone, uames him as the leader 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. 51 , $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 ouSa iar ~ n r r p o a e i o v ~ o s ydgs TLS dvilp OsvS& bv6parr d 8 e r sbv ~ r A a ; m o v 6,yAov ivaha i3dvra 72s X ~ ' U E L S lrreoflar mpbs rbv 'IopSdvqv T o r a p b v ai&. rrpo+

THEUDAS THEUDAS . ( d ) Other critics, with rather more prudence, attempt

no Identifications, but nevertheless declare that some Theudas other than the Theudas of Josephus must have come forward before Judas of Galilee. Thus, in the last .instance, again Ramsay (below, 8). The scholar who with Ramsay starts from the axiom that Lk. is a historian of the same rank as Thucydides (see GALAT1.4, 12. end) will not readily give up this way of dealing

with the difficulty. Those on the other hand who take cognisance of the great untrustworthiness of Lk. in specifically historical questions (cp ACTS, 5s I, 4 , 1 3 5 ; GOSPELS, 5 132 ; LYSANIAS) will regard the assertion as rash. Ramsay is certainly right in saying (p. 259) of Josephus that ' h e does not allude, or profess to allude, to every little disturbance on the banks of the Jordan.' But it is just as certain that Gamaliel must be supposed to be alluding not to a little hut to a great disturbqnce. if his speech is to be in keeping with the gravity of the occasion. An occurrence which could reasonably be placed side by side with the affair of Judas of Galilee would certainly not have been passed over by Josephus.

Therefore also it isquite irrelevant to urge that the name Theudas was a common one, that the later Theudas was perhaps the son or grandson of the earlier (so Blass), or that Theudas was not his original name but only one which he had afterwards assumed (so Ramsay). As for the frequency with which the name occurs, the evidence-particularly that from the inscriptions -will be found in Schiirer (GJVF) 1473, E T i. 2 168s). That the name was frequent among the Jews, however, is not affirmed. John Lightfoot (on Acts 5 36) mentions two men named onin in rabbinic literature with regard to whom he himself adds that neither of them ca; he the person intended in Acts.

Lastly, some critics have asked : If one or other of the two authors must have been mistaken, why not 3. No erro= Josephus ' cui et in historia et in chrono- in Josephus. logia titubari et vagari non insuetum 7 '

(so John Lightfoot). Joh. Dav. Michaelis (E'inl. i. d. Schriften d. Newn Bundes,(4)l[1788]p.62f.) formulates this position with greater precision thus : Lk. dates Theudas correctly ; Josephus correctly re- members (from his childhood) that a revolt occurred under Cuspius Fadus, but is mistaken in thinking that Theudas was the name of the leader on that occasion. Blass is conscious that such a charge against Josephus would be inadmissible, but reaches the same result by the extremely bold assumption (which. however, he introduces only with a fortusse) that, in describing the risingunder Cuspius Fadus, Josephus wrote either another name than that of Theudas or no name at all, and that his copyists, carelessly identifying this narrative with that of Acts 5 36, introduced the name of Theudas into his text. This identification would have been occasioned by the circumstance that with both authors the mention of Judas of Galilee immediately follows.

Indeed our problem becomes still more complicated than at first sight it appeared to be, by reason of the

4. Did Lk. fact that Josephus, immediately after the words about Theudas quoted above ( I),

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 o t s 68 rai oi w a h 'IodSa

how

n. I . SILAS 8 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 the like could also have produced it. BEV- for @eo- rests upon a contraction met with mostly in the Ionic dialect (Gust. Meyer (7riLclt. Gram.12) $ irg ; Schweizer, Gmm. 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~SOTOS is established in Attic inscrip- tions of ahout 2co B.C. and @&wpor-both with rv-from the period of the empire, whilst Bdbosor is already found in Plato and @s6Swpos in Thucydides), it is proper to accentuate the word as @&as (see SILAS, col. 4519, n. 2); if such a form as Bsv8doros-a name met with also in Attic inscriptions of about 160 B.c.-is at the bask of the contraction BrvSir will be the correct accentuation.

50.9

700 ra?iAaiou bqpdtbpav [Niese, bv~xthluavl 700 ~ b v Aabv brb PwFarwv mrounjuavros Kvprviou n j s 'IovAaias ~ ~ p q r t Q o v ~ o s ! &s

;v 7ok r p b 70lirwv &%plWuww, 'I&w@os rai Zlpov, 06s ava- uravpbar rpooirafev 6 'AA4.$au8pos : ' Besides all this, the sons of Judas the Galikan were now put to death,-[that Judas] who drew away the people from the Romans when Quirinius made a census of J u d a as has been shown in a former part of this work. Their names were James and Simon, whom Alexander com- manded to he crucified.'

With this must be carefully compared what is said in Acts 537 :

per& 7oQrov bvdurq 'IoJSas b FaArAaTor ;v Tars $pipars 6 s broypa+

THEUDAS THEUDAS ( c i v d X ~ v ; cp civgpiOquav in his section relating to the sons of Judas), and vice veysu that the name of Theudas was introduced into the text of Josephus also by copyists (above, 5 3). Assuredly a bold hypothesis.

(d) Blass considers that some support for this hypo- thesis can be found in the reading of D* : SE GtchriOv airrbs 61' ahso0 ai a d v ~ e s Suor PadtlovTo atr@ ~ a l

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 abrbs 66' ~ b m 3 (:=iauroir) and omits the GwA~@uQv. It is all the more remarkable to find that he refrains from proceed- ing to the natural consequencethat of taking the KaTAd@ of Eusebius as a modilication of the 8mbh9q in D which was preferred after the Grd'rd@rav had been introduced from the ordinary text into the text of D. KaraAdcrv will have been selected in the process because it occurs in vu. 3 8 3 The con- verse, that D or his predecessor changed the rrreAdBq (of the original text put forward by Blass) which yet was not followed by any GrsAdBquav, into GrsA6@, might he hard to explain.

(c) On the other hand it is nevertheless quite intel- ligible why Blass should have found difficulty in accepting the text of D entirely, including the GreXdBr], as the original. For Ds text admits very readily of being regarded as modification-not indeed of the primitive text assumed by Blass, yet certainly of the generally received text of the best authorities. The dvgp& K a i . . . GrehliOquav has here been compressed into one verb GreXliOq.

If this 8reAhg&uav had not lain before the scribe, the single verb 8rddBq would newr have been chosen. It can he applied to a group of men who have been dispersed or to a thing which has been destroyed, but to apply it to one man is not natural. Only K a T a A f s r u is so used (v. 39) ; but K Q T ~ A ~ @ in view of what has been said above cannot be accepted as the original reading. By the compression of the two verbs above referred to, however, the construction also has suffered. The subject to 8 d d B q is in D not merely 6s hut also the plural as well, rdvres h o t iaaib'ono ab&, and this same second subject receives further a verb in the plurd : rai Ey&ovovro eis ob8&. The Latin translator of D has seen that this is inadmissible, and has therefore taken occasion to delete the ai before Eydvowo: 'qui interfectus est, et omnes quotquot obtemperahant ei facti sunt nihil'; and Hilgenfeld (Acta ajost. grrecl. et [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 ah& 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. We 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.

Wendt (in Meyer's Comnz.) has already pointed out that it is not the apostles who are intended to be put in the parallel position to that of Theudas, but Jesus himself as the bead of the new movement; Jesus, however, has already suffered the penalty of death, and Gamaliel therefore might all the more assume that his followers were no longer seriously to he feared. At the same time it is by no means indisputable that Lk. was here thinking of Jesus. Had it been so, to have referred ex- pressly to the fact of his death would have been very natural. In point of fact not only is this reference not made, but in speaking of the case of Theudas it is not so much as hinted that his death was the cause of the dispersion of his followers ; rather are the two facts brought into juxtaposition merely.

Thus the point of the comparison between the move- ment originated by Theudas and that in which the apostles were engaged will rather be simply that both at first had an apparently threatening character but soon lose it, without reference to the manner in which the change is effected, If this view is correct, it must be conceded that the example of Theudas from Josephus

5053

eyivovro IS OdSdV.

But the argument is not conclusive.

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 ask: 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 O S d a l j X ~ r o . Against this Blass can only adduce the Perpignan codex cited in ACTS, col. 50, n. 2. This in fact has for dadhero in the case of Judas, just as for dvyphOq in that of Theudas, ' dissolutus est ' ; but must we believe that the original has been preserved in a solitary Latin trans- lation? Is it not very easily conceivable that the second ' dissolutus est ' is due to repetition by a careless copyist ? And who was it who introduced the dadX~ro in the case of Judas? The d v y p i O r ] for Theudas, Blass will have it, is taken from Josephus ; but the dr l jXe70 for Judas could not at all have been taken from Josephus by way of correction of a KarEXL;Oq originally written by Lk. (according to Blass), for Josephus says nothing a t all about the end of Judas.

It thus appears that text-criticism is of no avail in the endeavour to show that Lk. has fallen into no error or

6, separation to disprove his acquaintance with of BoumBB, Josephus. Our next question there-

fore must be as to whether analysis of the sources can contribute nothing to a solution of the problems of our passage. Most of the source-critics named in ACTS, 5 11, have no difficulty in attributing the mistake as to Theudas along with the entire speech of Gamaliel to the author of their ' secondary' source, to whom also they trace everything else that is inappro- priate or incredible in Acts. The situation is changed somewhat if, as Clemen holds, the two verses about Theudas and Judas of Galilee were introduced into Gamaliel's speech by the final redactor only. Clemen shares the view of Blass as to the inappropriateness of both these instances to the purpose of the speech, and therefore assumes that its purpose had not been recog- nised with sufficient clearness by that redactor. Lastly, B. Weiss, with whom Feine and Hilgenfeld concur, regards only the instance of Theudas (from dvkurq in v. 36 to dvdurq in v. 37) as being dne to the final redactor. The motive of the interpolation was, he thinks, because the movement led by Theudas, as being of a more religious character, supplied a better parallel to that led by the apostles than the purely political agitation of Judas of Galilee. Even if this is not very convincing, there is nevertheless this advantage gained by means of Weiss's hypothesis that the literatim repeti- tion of b v & u ~ ~ which 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

,. of

was in no case an exact one ; in fact by Lk. It 1s sometimes denied even from a

standDoint for which the chronolopical difficulty does not e x k . Thus Schurer (below 1 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,

5054

THEUDAS THEUDAS the remarkable degree of coincidence with Josephus must be set down to mere chance-at which explanation even Blass stumbles (above, $ 4 u).

( a ) It is difficult to see why the following explanation might not serve. Lk. had made notes from Josephus in which occurred the exact words now common to both authors. According to the order of Josephus, Theudas stood in the first place, Judas in the second. Perhaps in his reading Lk. had overlooked the circumstance that Josephus strictly speaking was dealing with the sons of Judas, and thus erroneously took what was said of the fate of these as referring to the father ; perhaps, how- ever, on the other hand he read quite correctly, but at the same time made his note only to some such effect as this, that Judas of Galilee stirred the people to revolt in the days of the taxing ; because the instance of the father seemed to him better suited for his purpose than that of the sons. If now he had never before heard anything of a trustworthy kind about Theudas, it will certainly be excusable in him if he did not retain in his memory the date of Theudas (which of course he did not require for his actual purpose and therefore did not note), and (especially if the composition of his work did not follow immediately on the making of his notes) took the order of his notes to be also in chronological order, and therefore represented Theudas as appearing before Judas whose date was well known to him. If he assigns to Judas himself the fate which according to Josephus overtook his sons, this admits of being ex- plained, on the first of the assumptions suggested above, from careless reading of the passage ; on the second it explains itself. Even Krenkel concedes that Lk., even without literary authority for it, could believe that Judas must have come to the same end as nearly all the in- surrectionary leaders of that period (see JUDAS, IO).

An instructive example of careless reading which no one can dispute is to he met with in Eusehius (HE 211) who reproduces verbatim Josephuss 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 Gamaliels speech.

(c) The attempt here made to account for the remark- able degree of coincidence between Josephus and Lk. would have to be abandoned only in the event of its being possible to show that Lk. could not have used Josephus. Not to speak, however, of the great number of cases in which his employment of that author is raised to a very high degree of probability indeed, if not to absolute certainty, the non-employment in the strict sense is incapable of being proved. It is not difficult, indeed, to prove that Lk. did not make use of Josephus in the manner in which a modern scholar does ; but all the cases in which he diverges from him admit of being arranged under two classes; either he knows some other account besides that of Josephus and prefers it1 (whether, in OIU judgment. rightly or no is not the question), or he fails to use statements of Josephus as to the accuracy of which he would have had no doubts, simply because he has forgotten them, unless indeed, perchance, he had never read them (for it is possible that his use of Josephus may have been sporadic only).

(d ) Let us suppose, however, the case that a modern scholar has read the whole of Josephus-or most of him. Will he at the end of his reading be in a position to say with confidence, for example, what were the territories included in the tetrarchy of Philip, and par- ticularly whether Iturzea (Lk. 31) was one of them (there are, in all, five passages in Josephus. not all of them in full agreement, t3 oe taken account of here; cp HEROD, 11 ; LYSANIAS. $ I b ) , or to recapitulate the facts about Lysanias? He 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 12, end.

5055

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. We do not by any means deny that Lk. often gives way to fancies which a careful reading of Josephus on his part would certainly have dispelled ; as for example the notion that two men could be high priest at one and the same time (Lk.32) or that the census under Quirinius which Josephus plainly assigns to 6-7 A.D. could have coin- cided in date with the birth of Jesus. The question, however, is whether Lk. read Josephus with so much attention as to be able to correct these errors which had already passed into his flesh and blood. If, for example, as has been with probability supposed (see CHRONOLOGY, $5 59 f. ; QUIRINIUS), 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. He leaves so much of their contents unnoticed and contradicts them to so large an extent (cp ACTS, $5 4, 7, 14 ; COUNCIL ; RESURREC- SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 5 9 J ) that even some critical theo- logians have supposed he was entirely unacquainted with them. Yet this, if he wrote about 100-130 A.D., is almost more impossible than it would be on the assumption of his having been a companion of Paul. W e could imagine that not every companion of Paul became acquainted with the contents of his epistles before they were dispatched. Yet this is a matter of indifference here; for a companion of Paul became acquainted, from his own observation or from the oral accounts of eye-witnesses, with facts of which but a small number is known to us from the epistles, yet in sufficient number to show us how far it was from Lk.s intention to pay serious heed even to these authentic sources in constructing his picture of the apostolic age.

(f) To return once more to Theudas, it is clear that in this case also Lk.s divergences (above, a 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. The case is not such as makes it possible to say that every other explanation is excluded ; but the explanation here offered has in point of fact a probability that presses, and no counterproof can be brought forward. As against it may be urged, if one chooses, the contradiction apparently involved in the fact that Lk. is found accurately reproducing certain words of Josephus while yet altering so profoundly the general contents of his statements. This last fact seems to counteract the evidential value of the verbal coinci- dences. We believe, however, that this difficulty has been obviated by the suggestion that the words in question come from Lk.s notes of Josephus (see above, a).

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

1877, pp. 535-549). See also Hausrath, 8. Literature. NTZfch Zt.-gesch.P) 4, 1877, pp. 239-24j ;

Keim, BL 5, 1875, pp. 5.10-5~3, and Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1, 1878, pp. 1-27? especially 18-21 ; Clemen, Chvonol. d.pauZin. Bne c 1893, pp. 66-69, and Sf. KY. 1895, pp. 375-337 : and K r e n k e l , ~ & h m 16. Lucas, 1894, pp. 16~-17q(very thorough). Lk.s use of Josephus was denied by Sonntag, St.

TION, $5 16-18, 21, 23, 27 d, etC. ; SIMON PETER, $ 3 ;

5056

THXMNATHAH Kr. 1837, pp. 622-652 ; Wieseler, Ckronolog. Sympse, 1843, pp. ro- .~oj , and Beitr. zur Wurd&ung der Evaxgciim, 186q, pp. 10:-104 ; Zuschlag, Tkzudu, 1849; Schiirqr, ZWT, r 0 7 ~ , pp. &74-j82 ; Belser, Tiib. theol. Quartaischrzft, 1696, pp. 61-71 ;

lass St. Kr. 1896, p. 459f., and Acta apostolortrm . . . secukdunzfomnam Romanam, Leipsic. 1896, p. xvif: (cp Acta a#ostolormz edit.pkiLolo~-lca, Gottingen, 1895, adioc.) ; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? r8g8, 2jz-160; Feiue, Theol. Lif..Bktt, 1900, 6of: ; Cross, Ex). T, r8gg-xgmr pp. 538-540.

P. w. s. THIMNATHAH (;lc??3?), Josh. 1943. See TIMNAH. THISBE (elCBH [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-

So far on the hypothesis that we have the Book of Tobit in an approximately original form. There is, however, strong reason to believe that the stories of Daniel (in part), Esther Judith, and Tobit, have been !systematically altered as regdds their histo