Matthew, Gospel According to – Medan

Matthew, Gospel According to

1. The First Gospel in the Early Church. — Papias (c. a.d. 140 or earlier), as quoted by Eusebius (HE iii. 39), says: ‘Matthew, however, composed the logia in the Hebrew dialect, but each one interpreted them as he was able.* This remark occurs in his work The Exposition of the Lord’s logia, and is practically all the external information that we have about the Matthaean Gospel, except that Irenieus says:’ Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome andfounding the Church ‘(,Hcer. iii. 1). Irenaeus is probably quoting from Papias. In the 4th cent., Eusebius tells a story of Pantsenus finding in the 2nd cent, the original Aramaic Mt. in India, but the story is very uncertain; Epiphanius says that the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew existed in hia day, in the possession of an Ebionite sect (distinguished in modern times as Elkesaites), and describes it; and Jerome describes what he alleges to be the original of Mt. as in use among the Nazarenes, and says that he translated it into Greek. We have therefore first to interpret Papias, and then to deal with the later testimonies.

(o) What does Papias mean by the ‘logia’ f — The word may be translated ‘oracles’ or ‘discourses,’ and it is much disputed which sense we should take here. The interpretation of many (Westcott, Lightfoot, etc., who choose the translation ‘oracles’) is that it is an early word for the Gospels. The ‘Lord’s logia’ which Papias expounded would be the story of our Lord’s life and teaching, and Papias would mean that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (cf. Romans 3:2 where ‘oracles’ may mean only God’s sayings, but more naturally may be taken to mean the whole of the OT). Certainly the word in the 1st cent, was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative. Others deny that at so early a date a NT writing as such could be called ‘the Lord’s oracles,’ and take logia to mean ‘discourses.’ But from this point critics have diverged. Many understand Papias to mean that Matthew wrote our Lord’s sayings only; but this does not appear from his words. The argument against the translation ‘oracles’ is deprived of force if we understand the reference to be, not necessarily to a written record, but to the Gospel story pure and simple, whether written or oral. Papias would then mean that Matthew wrote down the Gospel story in Hebrew. Even if we take the translation ‘discourses’ or ‘sayings,’ it is extremely unlikely that Papias meant that Matthew’s Gospel contained no narrative, though it is quite likely that discourse predominated in it. (For Renan’s theory, see art. Mark [Gospel acc. to]).

(6) What does Papias mean about the original language of Matthew? — All the testimony as to its being Aramaic [‘Hebrew ‘] probably reduces itself to this one sentence. One interpretation is that Matthew wrote down Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic, but did not expound them, and that Papias’ own Ijook had this object. But most writers understand Papias to mean that individuals translated Matthew’s work into their own language for themselves. If so, this period must have been over in Papias’ time, for he uses the past tense ‘interpreted’; he must have had a Greek Matthew before him, And our Mt. is clearly an original composition, derived from Greek sources, such as Mk. and other documents, at any rate for the most part (see art. Gospels), and is not a translation from Aramaic. There is no reason for thinking that the Matthaean Gospel actually used by Papias was other than ours. We have then to ask. Did Papias make a mistake about the original language? We know that there was a ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ current early in the 2nd cent., known to Hegesippus, probably to the writer of the Clementine Homilies, perhaps to Ignatius. Jerome knew of it and gives us extracts from it; and Epiphanius knew of a derived or kindred Gospel, used by the sect of the Nazarenes and containing several episodes different from our canonical narrative, e,g. in connexion with our Lord’s baptism, and His appearance to James after the Resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:7). In this Gospel the Holy Spirit is called the ‘Mother’ of Christ, the word ‘Spirit’ being feminine in Aramaic. Most critics (but Hilgenfeld and Harnack are exceptions) agree that this Gospel is later than our canonical four; Zahn gives good reasons for thinking that it is derived directly from our Mt.; and it is possible that Papias made the mistake fallen into later by Jerome, and, knowing that there was an Aramaic Gospel in existence purporting to be by Matthew (though he had apparently never seen it), thought that it was St. Matthew’s in reality. Eusebius says that he was a man of not much understanding. He may, then, have erroneously thought that St. Matthew, writing in Palestine for Jewish Christians, must have written in Aramaic (Salmon). Another solution, however, is more commonly received. Papias is our only authority before Irenaeus for attributing a Gospel to St. Matthew. Possibly then the Apostle Matthew may have written in Aramaic a document incorporated in, or largely drawn upon by, our First Gospel — e.g. the original of the Greek ‘non- Markan document’ (see art. Gospels); and this fact may account for his name being attached even early in the 2nd cent, to the First Gospel. Both these solutions seem to be quite possible; but it is not possible to suppose that our First Gospel was originally written in Aramaic.

Quotations from Mt. are found in the Epistle of ‘Barnabas’ (c. a.d. 1007), one with the formula ‘as it is written.’

2. Contents, sources, and characteristics of theGospel. The Birth narrative (chs. 1. 2) rests on an unknown source (see Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 3), and is independent of the other Synoptics. The Baptist’s preaching, Jesus’ baptism and temptation, the early ministry, and the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John (chs. 3. 4) follow the ‘Petrine tradition’ with additions from the non-Markan source (esp. in the Baptism and Temptation), from which also the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7) comes. The narrative of the Galilaean ministry (which extends from 4:12 to 16:20) is taken mainly from these two sources, but the order of neither is strictly adhered to. It includes the Charge to the Twelve (ch. 10), a large number of parables (ch. 13), and many miracles, some peculiar to Mt. From 16:21 to the end of the book is the story of the Passion with the preparation for it, including the Transfiguration (17), the Discourse on the End (ch. 24), the parables which specially speak of the Passion and of the End of the World (20 21 22 25"- and warnings against Pharisaism (esp. ch. 23). In the story of the Passion itself Mt. follows Mk. very closely, but has some additions.

We may now consider the manner in which the First Evangelist has treated his sources. We are at once struck with a great difference of order. Incidents are grouped together according to subject rather than to chronology. The Sermon on the Mount is a collection of sayings which were uttered at different times, as we see from Lk., where they occur in various contexts (Luke 6:20–49 11:2–4 12^- Mff. etc.). It contains a passage (Matthew 5:20) which would suggest (if Mt. were a chronological work) that the breach with the Pharisees had already, at that early stage, taken place; whereas Mk. shows how gradual the breach was (see the various stages in Mk 2im. 3 7:5). At first Jesus treats the Pharisees gently, and gives them explanations of di£Bculties; only when they are obstinate does He denounce them. This shows that Matthew 5:20 is not in its chronological order. Then, again, many of the parables in Mt. are grouped together (see ch. 13), but they would not have been spoken all at one time. The Charge to the Twelve (ch. 10) includes much of the Charge to the Seventy and other sayings to the disciples in Luke 6, 12-14, 17. The Discourse on the End in Mt. is grouped (see § 6). The groups in Mt. are often closed with a formula taken from Deuteronomy 31:1 [LXXl; thus — 7 (Sermon on the Mount), 11:1 (Charge to the Twelve), 13 (group of parables), 19:1 26:1 (groups of warnings). In fact, the First Evangelist aims at a synoptic view of Christ’s teaching as a whole rather than at a chronological statement. In one or two particulars only, Mt. seems to borrow the grouping tendency from Mk., as in the case of the anointing at Bethany (Matthew 26; Mark 14:3 ff.). which is related in close connexion with Judas’ compact with the ctiief priests (the Evangelists seem to mean that the ‘waste’ of the ointment greatly influenced the traitor’s action), whereas Jn. (12:1) gives the more chronologically correct position of the incident, ‘six days before the passover.’

Anotherfeature of Mt. is the frequency of quotations from the OT, and the mysticEd interpretations given. The interests of the First Evangelist lie largely in the fulfilment of prophecy (5:17). The principles of interpretation common among the Jews are applied: a text, for example, which in its literal sense applies to the Exodus, is taken to refer to the departure of tne Child Jesus from Egypt (2:15. Hosea 11:1). and the Evangelist conceives of events as coming to pass that prophecy might be fulfilled (l^^‘-; cf . 2’5- ‘"■ " 4:14 ff. 12 13 21 27). It is thought that the second ass, which is found only in the Matthsean narrative of the Triumphal Entry (21: the ass and *a colt the foal of an ass’), is due to the influence of the words of the prophecy. Zee 9:9; for the narrative is taken closely from the Petnne tradition, but the second ass of Mt. is an addition to it. So the ‘wine mingled with gall’ (27) for the ‘wine mingled with myrrh’ (lit. ‘myrrhed wine’) of the Petrine tradition (Mark 16) seems to be due to Psalms 69:21. The treatment of the non-Markan source is similar. In Luke 11:29 f. Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah and to the repentance of the Ninevites, to whom, by his preaching, Jonah was a sign; but the Firat Evangelist sees (with justice) a type of our Lord’s Resurrection in the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale (Matthew 12:39 ff.; see, further, Kohinaon, Siitdy of theGospelSt p. QQi.). — The matter peculiar to Mt. is large in amount. Besides the Birth narratives we have the healing of the two blind men (9^^-), and of the blind and dumb demoniacs (18:2 f. 12;, thought by some to be one incident), the walkang of St. IPeter on the water (I428B), the coin in the fish’s mouth (17:24). Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands (27:19, 24 f.). and some other incidents, especially m the Passion; also many sayings, and part of the Sermon on the Mount.

3. Purpose of the Gospel. — That it was written tor Jewish Christians appears from the frequency of OT quotations, from the mystical interpretations, and from the absence of explanations of Jewish customs. Yet the author was no Judaizer. He alone tells us of the visit of the Gentile Magi ; with Lk, he relates the healing of the Gentile centurion’s servant (8:5 f.) ; and the admission of the Gentiles to the Kingdom and the rejection of some of the Jews is announced in 8:11 f. (cf. 21:43). The Gospel is to be preached, and baptism and discipleship are to be given, to all nations (28:19).

4. Author. — The question of authorship has partly been anticipated in § 1. The earliest MSS give the title simply as ‘According to Matthew,’ and similar titles to the other Gospels. The titles need not be, indeed almost certainly are not, those of the original authors, but they must have been applied at a very early date. What do they imply? It has been thought that they meant merely that the Gospels reflected the preaching of the persons named (so Bartlet in Hastings’ DB iii. 297). But in that case the Second Gospel would be entitled ‘According to Peter,’ a title very close to Justin Martyr’s ‘Memoirs of Peter,’ which probably refers to Mk. (see art. Mark [Gospel acc. to], § 1). There can be little doubt that those who used the title in the second half of the 2nd cent, meant it to imply authorship. It is a question, however, whether at the first the phrase actually meant that the Gospel in its latest form was the work of the author named. For lack of external information as to the First Gospel, we are driven to internal evidence. But this would not lead us to think of the author or (if the phrase be preferred) the editor who brought the Gospel into its present form as an Apostle and eye-witness. Unlike Jn., which claims to be written by an eye-witness (Jn. l’< 19). — a claim fully borne out by internal evidence, — and unlike Mk., which abounds in autoptic characteristics, — though in that case we have reason to think that they come not from the writer, but from the writer’s teacher, — the First Gospel has none of the marks of an eye-witness. The autoptic characteristics of the Petrine tradition have in many cases been taken away by the alterations introduced by the First Evangelist (see art. Mark [Gospel acc. to], § 4). The conclusion is that it was not the Apostle Matthew who gave us the Gospel in its present form. The name comes simply from ecclesiastical testimony of the 2nd cent., and not from the sacred writings themselves. Yet the Matthaean tradition is strong. Even Papias, apparently, thought that the Greek Mattbaean Gospel which he used was a translation of the Apostle’s work. And there is no rival claimant to the authorship. On the other hand, Matthew, as an Apostle, was a sufSciently prominent person for an anonymous work to be assigned to him, especially if he had written a work which was one of its sources. These considerations may lead us to prefer the second solution mentioned above, in § 1 (6) — that Matthew the Apostle composed the Aramaic original of the Greek ‘non-Markan document,’ the ‘Logla’ (not consisting of sayings only, but of sayings and narrative combined ) , and thatinthis way his name became attached to the First Gospel. The real author must remain unknown. That the work of an Apostle should have entirely disappeared is not a very serious difficulty when we reflect on the number of St. Paul’s Epistles that have perished.

5. Date. — Irenaeus (Hcbt. iii. 1. 1) explicitly states that Matthew wrote first, ‘while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome,’ but that Mark wrote ‘after their departure." In the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180-2007), a list of NT books, Mt. seems to have come before the rest, though, as it is incomplete at the beginning, this is not certain. This probably was also the general opinion of the succeeding ages,- and finds an echo in Augustine’s dictum that Mk. is an abbreviation of Mt. But internal evidence strongly negatives the idea of the priority of Mt. (see Mark [Gospel acc. to]). Though it is possible to make some reservations as to editorial touches, Mk. is seen to have been in the hands of the Matthsean writer; and whatever date we fix for it must be the earliest limit for Mt. We can get a further indication from the Discourse on the End (Matthew 24:1 ff.). Both in Mt. and Mk. (whatever be thought of Lk.) the discourse is reported as if the fulfilment were only in prospect, and in a manner that would be unhkely if the siege of ‘Titus had already taken place. This conclusion becomes still more likely when we compare the three Synoptics together. They all three begin with the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13:1, 2 and Mt. Lk.). In Mk. and Lk. there follows a discourse which apparently speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13), and then there comes in Mk. and partly in Lk. a passage which seems to refer to the end of the world (Mark 13:21–37). But the First Evangelist, as so often, weaves together the sayings of Jesus which in Mk. are distinct, and makes the two events apparently one. (Cf . Matthew 24:3 with Mark 13:4, Luke 21:7). Thus the writer must have thought that both events would be synchronous, and therefore must have written his account of the prophecy before the Fall oJ Jerusalem. That this is so we may see by a contrast. The Fourth Evangelist gives a prophecy of our Lord which had been fulfilled when he wrote; but he refers to

2 P the fulfilment (John 21:18 f.: the death of St. Peter). It is, of course, possible that the Discourse was written down as we have it in Mt . before a.d. 70, and that a later writer incorporated it unchanged. But would not the later writer have betrayed some consciousness of the fulfilment of the prophecy? For these reasons a date before A.D. 70 is probable. But this conclusion is much disputed, and in any case we must acknowledge that the authorship and date of the First Gospel are among the most perplexing of all NT problems.

A. J. Maclean.

Matthew's Bible

See English Vehsions, § 20.

IlIATTHIAS (‘gift of Jehovah’).— The disciple who was nominated against Joseph Barsabbas (see Joseph [in NT], No. 6) and chosen to fill the place of Judas. Of his antecedents the NT records nothing beyond the fact that he had been a disciple from the beginning of the Lord’s ministry; and of his subsequent career it tells nothing whatsoever.

Tradition is more lavish of information. Matthias, it is said, had been one of the Seventy (cf . Luke 10:1). , and he justified his election by evangelizing the savages of Ethiopia and writing two books — a Gospel and a work entitled ‘Traditions’ iParadoseis) . From the latter Clement of Alexandria quotes two sayings; (1) ‘Wonder at the tilings before you’ (‘making this,’ lie explains, ‘the firet step to the knowledge beyond.’ Cf . Plato’s doctrine that wonder is the beginning of philosophy);(2) ‘If an elect man’s neighbour sin, the elect man has sinned.

It is thought by some that the election of Matthias was a blunder, due to the impetuosity of St. Peter; and there is reason tor the opinion. (1) It was a hasty step. It was taken during the season when the disciples were waiting, according to the Lord’s command (Acts 1:4). for ‘the promise of the Father,’ the Baptism of the Spirit. (2) The method was objectionable, (o) The qualification required in the new Apostle was not a spiritual one: he must be a man who had been with Jesus all along. It was his lack of this qualification that made the Jewish Christians deny St. Paul’s Apostleship. (6) They prayed for guidance, and then, instead of trusting to Divine direction, they had recourse to the superstitious practice of casting lots — a practice nowhere else observed in the Apostolic Church. Had they waited until they were endued with power from on high, they would have acted otherwise. As a matter of fact the election of Matthias was set aside by God. The true successor to the vacant ofiice was St. Paul. David Smith. .

Mattithiah

1. One of the sons of Nebo who had married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:43) called in 1 Esdras 9:35 Mazitias. 2. A Korahite Levite (1 Chronicles 9:31). 3. A Levite of the guild of Jeduthun (1 Chronicles 15:18, 21 25:3, 21). 4. An Asaphite Levite (1 Chronicles 16:5). 5. See Mattathias, No. 2.

Mattock

The mattock of Isaiah 7:25 is rather the hoe with which land inaccessible to the plough was hoed — noun and verb being the same here, cf. 5’ RV ‘hoed’ for AV ‘digged.’ For descriptions and illustrations of the triangular hoe and the mattock, or pick, of modern Palestine, see PEFSt, 1901, p. 110 f., and Hastings’ DB iii. 306. The passage 1 Samuel 13:20 f. is very corrupt, and in v. 20 at least ‘mattock’ should probably be ‘goad.’ The same applies to 2 Chronicles 34:6. where AVm suggests ‘mauls,’ and RV has ‘ruins.’ A. R. S. Kennedy.

Maul

See AuUonR and Arms, § 1 (f).

Mauzzhh

The Heb. phrase ‘eWah ma’uzzlm (Dn 1138) has been very variously understood. We need not discuss the different renderings that have been proposed, as there is now practical agreement to tr. with RV’ god of fortresses,’ and ‘fortresses’ for ma’uzzim again in v.". It is not so easy to decide which god is intended. Antioohus Epiphanes is the king referred to. He had begun to build a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20). Holtzmann (Guthe’s BibelwSTterlmch, s.v.), and others, therefore. conclude that he is the god meant. But Antiochus also sent ‘an old man from Athens’ to ‘pollute the temple in Jerusalem, and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius’ (2 Maccabees 6:2). Hence some have claimed consideration for the Olympian Jupiter. On the available data, no certain decision is possible.

W. EWINQ.

Maw

This Old Eng. word for the stomach is used by AV in Deuteronomy 18:3. and by RV in Jeremiah 51:34. Coverdale tr. 1 Kings 22:34. ‘A certayne man bended his bowe harde and shott the kynge of Israel betwene the mawe and the longes.’

Mazitias

Mazitias (1 Esdras 9:35) =Mattithiah, Ezra 10.

Mazzaloth, Mazzaroth

See Staeb.

Mazzebah

See Pillar.

Mazzoth

See Leaven, Passoveb.

Meadow

This word disajipears from RVin the only two places where it is found in AV (Genesis 41:2, 18, Judges 20:33). In the former passages the Heb. reads ocftc, an Egyptian word which probably means ‘reed grass’ (RV), and may possibly cover the natural pasture lands of old Egypt. It occurs again in Job 8:11 (EV ‘rush,’ RVm ‘papyrus’ ) . In Judges 20:33. where RV simply transUterates ‘Maareh-geba,’ it is practically certain that we should read ma’arab, and translate ‘from the west of Gibeah’; see Gibeah, No. 2. In RV ‘meadows’ stands tor ‘Sr8(ft (Isaiah 19:7, AV ‘paper reeds’), where it is possible that ‘BrBth may be a misreading tor aclUSth. W. Ewinq.

Meal

See Food, § 2.

Meal-offering

See SACKmcE, § 11.

Meals

In the art. Food attention was confined to the various articles of diet supplied by the vegetable and animal kingdoms. It now remains to study the methods by wiiich these were prepared for the table, the times at which, and the manner in which, they were served.

1. Preparation of food. — The preparation of the food of the household was the task of the women thereof, from the days of Sarah (Genesis 18:6) to those of Martha. Only the houses of royalty and the great nobles had apartments specially adapted for use as kitchens, with professional cooks, male (1 Samuel 9:23) and female (8:13). At the chief sanctuaries, also, there must have been some provision for the cooking of the sacrificial meals (1 Samuel 2:13 ff.). although Ezekiel (46 RV) is the first to mention ‘boiling -houses’ in this connexion (cf. Exodus 29:31. Leviticus 8:31).

The usual method of cooking and serving meat can have differed but little from that most commonly observed at the present day in Syria. The meat is out into larger or smaller pieces (1 Samuel 2:13. Ezekiel 24:3 ff.; cf. Micah’s telling metaphor 3:3), and put into the cookingpot with water. It is then left to stew, vegetables and rice being added. Such a stew — with perhaps crushed wheat in place of rice — was the ‘savoury meat’ which Rebekah prepared for her husband trora ‘two kids of the goats’ (Genesis 27:9). When meat was boiled in a larger quantity of water than was required for the more usual stew, the result was the broth of Judges 6:19 f.: from which we learn that the meat and the broth might be served separately. The cooking-pots were of earthenware and bronze (Leviticus 6. For an account of coolring utensils generally, with references to illustrations, see House, §9).

In addition to boiling, or, as in EV more frequently, seething (‘sod,’ ‘sodden,’ Genesis 25. Exodus 12:9 etc.; but Amer. RV has ‘boil’ throughout), roasting was much in vogue, and is, indeed, the oldest of all methods of preparing meat. Originally the meat was simply laid upon hot stones from which the embers had been removed, as in the parallel case of the ‘cake baken on the coals’ (1 Kings 19:6 RVm). The fish of which the disciples partook by the Sea of Galilee was cooked on the charcoal itself. A more refined mode of roasting was by means of a spit of iron or wood. In NT times the Passover lamb had always to be loasted in an oven, suspended by a spit of pomegranate laid across the mouth.

Eggs (Job 6:6. Luke 11:12), yf^ read in the Mishna, might be cooked by being boiled in the shell, or broken and fried, or mixed with oil and fried in a saucepan.

As regards the important group of the cereals, wheat and barley ears were roasted on an iron plate or in a pan, producing the ‘parched com’ (Amer. RV ‘parched grain’) of OT. A porridge of coarse wheat or barley meal has also been referred to under Food, § 2. The seeds of the leguminous plants were mostly boiled (Genesis 25:29; of. 2 Kings 4:38). A ‘good savour’ (1 Esdras 1:12) was imparted to the stew by the addition of other vegetables of a more pungent character, such as onions. In short, it may be affirmed that the Hebrew housewives were in no way behind their modern kinsfolk of the desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ‘the Arab housewives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it and putting thereto only a little salt and samn [clarified butter].’

The direction in which Hebrew, like most Eastern, cooking diverged most widely from that of our northern climate was in the more extensive use of olive oil, which served many of the purposes of butter and fat among ourselves. Not only was oil mixed with vegetables, but it was largely used in cooking fish and eggs (as we have just seen), and in the finer sorts of baking. The poor widow of Zarephath’s ‘little oil’ was not intended for her lamps, but to bake her ‘handful of meal’ withal (1 Kings 17:12). The flour was first mixed with oil, then shaped into cakes and afterwards baked in the oven (Leviticus 2:4) or a species of thin flat cake might first be baked in the usual way and then smeared with oil. The latter are the ‘wafers anointed with oil’ of Exodus 29:2 etc. Honey and oil were also used together in the baking of sweet cakes (Ezekiel 16:13, 19). In this connexion it is interesting to note that while Exodus 16:31 compares the taste of manna to that of ‘wafers made with honey,’ the parallel passage, Numbers 11:8, compares it to ‘the taste of cakes baked with oil’ (RVm).

2. The two chief meals. — Among the Hebrews, as among their contemporaries in classical lands, it was usual to have but two meals, properly so called, in the day. Before beginning the work of the day the farmer in the country and the artizan in the city might ‘break their fast’ (John 21:12, 15 RV) by eating a morsel of bread — the ‘morning morsel’ as it is called in the Talmud — with some simple relish, such as a few olives; but this was in no sense a meal. Indeed, to ‘eat [a full meal] in the morning’ was a matter for grave reproach (Ecclesiastes 10:16). .

The first meal-time (Ruth 2:14 RV), speaking generally, was at an hour when the climate demanded a rest from strenuous exertion, namely, about noon; the second and more important meal of the two was taken a little before or after sunset, when the labourers had ‘come in from the field’ (Luke 17:7). . This was the ‘supper time’ of 14:17. The former, the ariston of the Greeks — in EV rendered dinner, Matthew 22:4, also Luke 11:38 but RVm here breakfast— was in most cases a very simple meal. ‘A servant plowing or keeping sheep’ or harvesting would make his midday meal of bread soaked in light wine with a handful of parched corn (Ruth 2:14), or of ‘pottage and bread broken into a bowl’ (Bel "), or of bread and boiled fish (John 21:13). All the evidence, including that of Josephus, goes to show that the second or evening meal was the principal meal of the day.

3. Position at meals. — Within the period covered by OT the posture of the Hebrews at meals, in so far as the men were concerned, was changed from sitting to reclining. In the earliest period of all, the Hebrews took their meals sitting, or more probably, squatting on the ground (Genesis 37:25 etc.), like the Bedouin and fellahin of the present day, among whom squatting ‘with both knees downwards, and vrith the legs gathered tailorfashion, alone is the approved fashion when at table’ {PEFSt, 1905, 124). The food was served in a large wooden bowl placed upon a mat of leather or plaited grass, round which the company gathered. The first advance on this primitive practice was to present the food on a wooden or other tray, set upon a low stand raised but a few inches from the ground. The next step was the introduction of seats, which would naturally follow upon the change from nomadic to agricultural life after the conquest of Canaan. /Saul and his messmates sat upon ‘seats’ (1 Samuel 20:25), the precise form of which is not specified, as did Solomon and the high oflicials of his court (1 Kings 10:5, where the queen of Sheba admires the ‘sitting,’ i.e. the seated company of his servants; cf. 13:20 etc.).|

With the growth of wealth and luxury under the monarchy, the Syrian custom of reclining at meals gradually gained ground. In Amos’ time it was still looked upon as an innovation peculiar to the wealthy nobles (Amos 3:12 6:4). Two centuries later, Ezekiel is familiar with ‘a stately bed’ or couch (as Esther 1:6 RV) with ‘a table prepared before it’ (Ezekiel 23:41). In the post-exilic period the custom must have taken firm root, tor by the end of the 3rd cent. b.c. it was probably universal save among the very poor (Judith 12:15, Tobit 2:1). In NT, accordingly, whenever ‘sitting at meat’ is mentioned, we are to understand ‘reclining,’ as the margin of RV everywhere reminds us. At table, that is to say, the men — for women and children still sal — reclined on couches with wooden frames, upholstered with mattresses and provided with cushions, on which they leaned the left elbow (see Sirach 41:19), using only the right hand to eat vrith (see § 5 below).

4. From the Mishna we learn that in NT times the tables were chiefly of wood, and furnished with three or four feet. They were lower and smaller than with us. The couches or divans were as a rule capable of accommodating several people. In the houses of the great each guest at a banquet might have a couch and table for himself. The Greek custom was to assign two, the Roman three, guests to each couch. As each guest reclined on his left elbow, the person next on his right on the same couch could be said to ‘recline in the bosom’ of his fellow-guest. Such were the relative positions of John and Jesus at the Last Supper (John 13 RV).

5. Procedure at meals, etc. In our Lord’s day, as we learn from the Gospels, great importance_ was attached by the Jewish authorities to the ‘washing of hands’ before meals. This consisted of pouring water (which had been kept from possible defilement in large closed jars, the ‘waterpots of stone’ of John 2:6) over the hands and allowing it to run to the wrist (cf. Mark 7:3 RVm and commentaries).

This washing over, the food was brought in by the women of the household (Mark 1:31. Luke 10:40) in wealthy families by male slaves, the ‘ministers’ of 1 Kings 10:5, ‘waiters’ of Judith 13:1, ‘servants’ of John 2:5, 9. At this stage grace was said. The date of the introduction of this custom is unknown, for 1 Samuel 9:13 is not a case in point. In NT the blessing before a meal has the repeated sanction of our Lord’s example (Matthew 15 26:26 etc.; cf. Acts 27 for Paul).

As to what may be termed, with the Mishna, ‘the vessels for the service’ of the table, these naturally varied with the social position of the household, and more or less with the progress of the centuries. In early times earthenware vessels would be used, for which, as civilization advanced, bronze would be substituted, and even in special cases, silver and gold (see House, § 9). Bread, we know, was usually served in shallow wicker baskets (Exodus 29:23). The main part of the meal in the hornes of the people will have been served in one or more large bowls or basins, of earthenware or bronze, according to circumstances. Such was the ‘dish’ into which our Lord dipped the ‘sop’ (Mt 26:23, Mark 14:20). A shallower dish is that rendered ‘charger’ in Matthew 14:8, 11, and ‘platter,’ Luke 11:39.

In the case of a typical dish of meat and vegetables, prepared as described above, those partaking of the meal helped themselves with the fingers of the right hand (Proverbs 19:24 EV, Matthew 26:23). — knives and forks being, of course, unknown at table, — while the more liquid parts were secured, as at the present day, by using pieces of thin wafer-like bread as improvised spoons, or simply by dipping a morsel of bread, the sop of John 13. into the dish. It was customary, as this passage shows, for the head of the family to hand pieces of food to various members; these are the portions of 1 Samuel 1:4.

6. In the event of a Jew of some position resolving to entertain his friends at dinner, it was usual to send the invitations by his servants (Matthew 22:3). and later to send them again with a reminder on the appointed day (v. 4. Luke 14:17). Arrived at his host’s residence, the guest is received with a kiss (Luke 7:45). his feet are washed (v. 44), and his head is anointed with perfumed oil (v. 38; cf. Psalms 23:5). He himself is dressed in white gala costume (Ecclesiastes 9:8; see Dhess, § 7), for to come to such a feast in one’s everyday garments would be an insult to one’s host (cf. Matthew 22:11 f.). After the ‘chief places’ (Matthew 23:6 EV; AV ‘uppermost rooms’) on the various couches had been assigned to the principal guests, the hands duly washed, and the blessing said, the meal began. This would consist of several courses, beginning with light appetizing dishes, such as salted fish, pickled olives, etc. During the course of the dinner those whom the host wished to single out for special distinction would receive, as a mark of favour, some dainty portion, such as Samuel had reserved for Saul (1 Samuel 9:23). These were the messes sent by’ Joseph to his brethren (Genesis 43:34. — ^for a list of the parts of an animal in order of merit, so to say, used for this purpose at a fellahin banquet to-day, see PEFSt, 1905, 123).

At the close of the dinner the hands were again washed, the attendants bringing round the wherewithal, and tables with all sorts of fruit were brought in, over which a second blessing was said. Although wine was served in the first part of the banquet as well, it was at this second stage that the ‘fruit of the vine’ was chiefly enjoyed. The wine-cups were filled from the large mixing bowls (Jeremiah 35:5) in which the wine had been diluted with water and perfumed with aromatic herbs. It was usual, also, to appoint a ‘ruler o£ the feast’ (John 2:8 EV; cf. Sirach 32:1) to regulate the manner and the quantity of the drinking, and to enforce penalties in the case of any breach of etiquette. ‘Music and dancing’ (Luke 15:25) and other forms of entertainment, such as the guessing of riddles (Judges 14:12 ff.). were features of this part of the banquet. For instruction in the ‘minor morals’ of the dinner-table, Jesus ben-Sira has provided the classical passages. Sirach 31:12–18 32:3–12, expanding the wise counsel of the canonical author of Proverbs 23:1 f.:

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Mearah

Mentioned amongst the districts of Palestine that had yet to be possessed (Joshua 13:4). The text is doubtful.

Measures

See Weights and Measxjues.

Measuring Line, Measuring Reed

See Arts and Crafts, §§ 1. 3.

Meat

This word is used in AV for food in general, as it is in Scotland still. Thus 2 Esdras 12:51 ‘I had my meat of the herbs’; cf. Hall, Works i. 806, ‘There was never any meat, except the forbidden fruit, so deare bought as this broth of Jacob.’

Meat-offering

See Sacrifice, § 11.

Mebunnai

The name in 2 Samuel 23:27 of one of David’s thirty heroes. It is a scribal error for Sibbecai, the form which has been preserved in the parallel lists, 1 Chronicles 11:29 27:11. and also 2 Samuel 21:18 Ch 20:4.

Mecherathite

l Ch 11, for ‘Maachathite.’

Meconah

See Mekonah.

Medaba

Medaba (1 Maccabees 9:36) =Medeba (wh. see).

Medad

See Eldad.

Medan

One of the sons of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:2 = 1 Chronicles 1:32). The existence of such a tribe, however, is very doubtful. In Genesis 37:36 ‘Medanites’ is miswritten for Midianites (see EVm), and there is every likelihood that in the former passage ‘Medan’ is a doublet of ‘Midian,’ the next word in the verse. Medan is unknown elsewhere in the Bible, nor is it represented by the name of any people in any extra-Biblical document. To connect it with the name of an Arabian god Madan, or with the similar name of a wady in N.W. Arabia, is very hazardous, both because the associations are remote, and because the word-form is common in Semitic, and is liable to occur in various relations.

J. F. M’ Curdy.