Miracles – Mnason

Miracles

1. The narratives. — (a) In the Gospels Jesus is recorded to have cast out devils (Matthew 8:28 15:28 17:18, Mark 1), restored paralytics (Matthew 8 9:6, John 5:9), revived the withered hand (Matthew 12:13), released from the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:12), stanched an issue of blood (Matthew 9:22), cured dropsy (Luke 14:2), allayed fever with a touch (Matthew 8:15), given speech to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind (Matthew 9:33 2:22, Mark 7:35. Matthew 9:29 20:34, Mark 8:25, John 9:7), cleansed leprosy (Matthew 8, Luke 17:19), and even raised from the dead (Matthew 9:25, Luke 7:15, John 11:44). Besides these miracles of healing there are ascribed to Him other extraordinary acts, such as the Stilling of the Storm (Matthew 8:26), the Feeding of Five Thousand (Matthew 14:19) and Four Thousand (15:36), the Walking on the Sea (14:26), the Change of Water into Wine (John 2:9). The blasting of the Fig Tree (Matthew 21:19), and the finding of the Coin in the Fish’s Mouth (17:27), may possibly be figurative sayings misunderstood. The Two Draughts of Fishes (Luke 5:6 and John 21:6) may be variant traditions of one occurrence, and, like the recovery of the Nobleman’s Son of Capernaum (John 4), may be regarded as proof of superhuman wisdom, and not of supernatural power. These miracles are presented to us as the acts of a Person supernatural both in the moral character as sinless and perfect, and in the religious consciousness as alone knowing and re vealing the Father. It was the universal conviction of the early (Christian Church that after three days He rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4), and was universally present in supreme power (Matthew 28:18, 20).

Regarding the miracles of Jesus the following general considerations should be kept in view, (a) It is impossible to remove the records of miracles from the Gospels without tearing them to pieces, as these works of Jesus are so wrought into the very texture of His ministry. (6) The character of the miracles is absolutely harmonious with the power of Jesus; with only two apparent exceptions they are beneficent. The blasting of the fig tree (Matthew 21:19), even if the record is taken hterally, may be explained as a symbolic prophetic act, a solemn warning to His disciples of the doom of impenitent Israel. The finding of the coin in the fish’s mouth (Matthew 17:27) would be an exception to the rule of Jesus never to use His supernatural power on His own behalf, and the narrative itself allows us to explain it as a misunderstanding of figurative language, (c) The miracles were not wrought for display, or to prove His claims. Jesus rejected such use as a temptation (Matthew 4:6, 7), and always refused to work a sign to meet the demands of unbelief (Matthew 16:4). He did not highly esteem the faith that was produced by His miracles (John 4:48). The cure of the paralytic, which He wrought to confirm His claim to forgive sins, was necessary to assure the sufferer of the reality of His forgiveness (Matthew 9:6). The miracles are not evidential accessories, but essential constituents of Jesus’ ministry of grace, (d) While faith in the petitioner for, or recipient of, the act of healing was a condition Jesus seemingly required in all cases, while He was prevented doing His mighty works, as at Nazareth, by unbehef (Matthew 13:58). while the exercise of His power was accompanied by prayer to God (John 11:41, 42), His healing acts were never tentative; there is in the records no trace of a failure, (e) In view of one of the explanations offered, attention must be called to the variety of the diseases cured; nervous disorders and their consequences did not limit the range of His activity.

(6) In the Acts the record of miracles is continued. The promise of Jesus to His Apostles (Matthew 10:8. cf. Mk 16:17, 18) is represented as abundantly fulfilled. In addition to the charisms of tongues and prophecy (wh. see), there were signs and wonders wrought by the Apostles and others (Acts 2:43 5:12, 16 6:8 8:13). Miracles of which further details are given are the restoration of the lame man at thegate Beautiful (3:7), and of the cripple at Lystra (14:9), the cure of the palsied .lEneas (9:34), the expulsion of the spirit of divination at Philippi (16:18), the healing of the father of Publius in Melita (28:8), the restoration to life of Dorcas (9:40) and Eutychus (20:10, the narrative does not distinctly affirm death). This supernatural power is exercised in judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (S’- "), and on Elymas (13:11) — acts the moral justification of which must be sought in the estimate formed of the danger threatening the Church and the gospel, but which do present an undoubted difficulty. One may hesitate about accepting the statement about the miracles wrought by Peter’s shadow (5:15) or Paul’s aprons (19:12). What are represented as miraculous deliverances from imprisonment are reported both of Peter (12:8) and of Paul {16«). Paul’s escape from the viper (28:3) does not necessarily involve a miracle. These miracles, which, talcen by themselves as reported in Acts, there might be some hesitation in believing, become more credible when viewed as the continuation of the supernatural power of Christ in His Church for the confirmation of the faith of those to whom the gospel was entrusted, and also those to whom its appeal was first addressed. In this matter the Epistles of Paul confirm the record of Acts (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 2 Corinthians 12:12). paul claims this supernatural power for himself, and recognizes its presence in the Church.

(c) We cannot claim to have contemporary evidence of the miracles of the OT, as we have of those of the NT. The miracles are almost entirely cormected either with the Exodus from Egypt, or with the ministry of Elijah and of Elisha. The majority of the miracles of the first group are not outside of the order of nature; what is extraordinary in them Is their coincidence with the prophetic declaration, this constituting the events signs of the Divine revelation. While the miracles ascribed to Ehjah and Ehsha might be considered as their credentials, yet they cannot be regarded as essential to their prophetic ministry; and the variations with which they are recorded represent popular traditions which the compiler of the Books of Kings has incorporated without any substantial alteration. The record of the standing still of the sun in Gibeon is obviously a prosaic misinterpretation of a poetic phrase (Joshua 10:12–14) ; behind the record of the bringing back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz (2 Kings 20:11) we may assume some unusual atmospheric phenomenon, refracting the rays of the sun; the speech of Balaam’s ass (Numbers 22:27) may be regarded as an objectifying by the seer of his own scruples, doubts, and fears; the Book of Jonah is now interpreted not literally, but figuratively; the Book of Daniel is not now generally taken as history, but rather as the embellishment of history for the purposes of edification. The revelation of Jehovah to Israel is seen in the providential guidance and guardianship of His people by God, and in the authoritative interpretation of God’s worlis and ways by the prophets, and in it miracle, in the strict sense of the word, has a small place. While the moral and religious worth of the OT, as the hterature of the Divine revelation completed in Christ, demands a respectful treatment of the narratives of miracles, we are bound to apply two tests: the sufficiency of the evidence, and the congruity of the miracle in character with the Divine revelation.

2. The evidence. — In dealing with the evidence for the miracles the starting-point should be the Besurrection. It is admitted that the belief that Jesus had risen prevailed in the Christian Church from the very beginning of its history; that without this belief the Church would never have come into existence. Harnack seeks to distinguish the Easter message about the empty grave and the appearances of Jesus from the Easter faith that Jesus lives: but he is not successful in showing how the former could have come to be, apart from the latter. No attempt to explain the conversion of Paul without admitting the objective manifestation of Christ as risen can be regarded as satisfactory. It may not be possible absolutely to harmonize in every detail the records of the appearances, but before these narratives were written it was the common belief of the Christian Church, as Paul testifies, ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4). If the Resurrection of Christ is proved, this fact, conjoined with His absolutely unique moral character and religious consciousness, invests the Person of Jesus with a supernaturalness which forbids our limiting the actions possible to Him by the normal human tests. His miracles are not wonders, for it is no wonder that He should so act, but signs, proofs of what He is, and works, congruous with His character as ‘ever doing good,’ and His purpose to reveal the grace of the Father. Harnack will not ‘reject peremptorily as illusion that lame walked, blind saw, and deaf heard,’ but he will not believe that ‘a stormy sea was stilled by a word.’ The miracles of healing are not all explicable, as he supposes, by what Matthew Arnold called moral therapeutics — the influence of a strong personahty over those suffering from nerve disorders, as they embrace diseases of which the cure by any such means is quite incredible; and the evidence for the cosmic miracles, as the miracles showing power over nature apart from man have been called, is quite as good as for the healing miracles. It the Synoptic Gospels can be dated between a.d. 60 and 90, as is coming to be admitted by scholars generally, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is thoroughly satisfactory; the mythical theory of Strauss must assume a much longer interval. Harnack regards as ‘a demonstrated fact’ that ‘Luke, companion in travel and associate in evangelistic work of Paul,’ is the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts; nevertheless he does not consider Luke’s history as true; but Ramsay argues that the Lukan authorship carries with it substantial accuracy. In his various writings he has endeavoured to show how careful a historian Luke is, and if Luke’s excellence in this respect is established, then we can place greater reliance on the evidence for miracles in the early Church, as well as in the ministry of Jesus. Harnack lays great stress on the credulity of the age in which the Gospels were written; but this credulity was not universal. The educated classes were sceptical; and, to judge Luke from the preface to his Gospel, he appears as one who recognized the duty of careful inquiry, and of testing evidence. The miracles of the Gospels and the Acts are closely connected with the Person of Jesus, as the Word Incarnate and the risen Lord, and the credulity of the age does not come into consideration unless it can be shown that among either the Jews or the Gentiles there was a prejudice favourable to belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The character of the miracles, so harmonious with the Person, forbids our ascribing them to the wonder-loving, and therefore wondermaking, tendency of the times.

Some indications have already been given in regard to the evidence for the miracles of the OT. The frequent references to the deliverance from Egypt made in the subsequent hterature attest the historical reality of that series of events; and it cannot be said to be improbable that signs should have accompanied such a Divine intervention in human history. Some of the miracles ascribed to EUsba are not of a character congruous with the function of prophecy; but it may be that we should very cautiously apply our sense of fitness as a test of truth to these ancient narratives. In the OT history. Prophecy (wh. see) was the supernatural feature of deepest significance and highest value.

3. Explanations. — Admitting that the evidence is satisfactory, and the miracles are real, what explanations can be offered of them? (a) One suggestion has already been considered; it is favoured by Harnack and Matthew Arnold: it is that one person may exercise over another so strong an influence as to cure nervous disorders. The inadequacy of this explanation has been shown; but even were it admissible, a reason would need to be given why Jesus used a means not known in His age, and thus anticipated modern developments of medical skill. It is certain that Jesus worked His miracles relying on the Divine powers in Himself; whether in any cases this obscure psychic force was an unknown condition of His miracles is a matter of secondary importance.

(6) A second suggestion, made by the late Duke of Argyll ( Reign of Law, p. 16), is that God chooses and uses laws unknown to man, or laws which, even it he knew, he could not use. He thinks that this would meet the prejudice of scientific thought against effects without causes. This explanation recognizes that miracles are not explicable by the laws of nature as known to man, and that it is of God’s free choice that for certain ends He uses means otherwise unknown. As these laws are quite hypothetical, and as this use of them only occasionally is not at all probable, this explanation does not appear to make miracles any more credible.

(c) We may now attempt to define more closely what we mean by a miracle. It does seem, on the whole, desirable to restrict the term ‘miracle’ to an external event of which there is sensible evidence. Inward changes, such as in the prophetic inspiration, or the religious conversion of an individual, however manifest the Divine presence and action may be for the person having the experience, should not be described as miracles, unless with some qualification such as spiritual or moral. The negative feature of the external event which justifies our describing it as a miracle is that it is inexplicable by the natural forces and laws as known to us. The will of man is a force in nature with which we are familiar, and therefore the movements of the body under the control of the will are not to be described as miraculous. We say more than we are justified in saying if we describe a miracle as an interference with the laws and forces of nature, or a breach in the order of nature; for just zs the physical forces and laws allow the exercise of human will in the movements of the body, so the power that produces the miracle may, nay must, be conceived as so closely related to nature that its exercise results in no disturbance or disorder in nature. The miracle need not interfere with the continuity of nature at all. The modem theory of Evolution is not less, but more, favourable to the belief in miracle. It is not a finished machine, but a growing organism, that the world appears. Life transcends, and yet combines and controls physical forces (Lodge’s lAt^ and Matter, p. 198). Mind is not explicable by the brain, and yet the will directs the movements of the body. There is a creative action of God in the stages of the evolution, which attaches itself to the conserving activity. Applying the argument from analogy, we may regard the Person of Christ and the miracles that cluster round His Person as such a creative action of God. If we adequately estimate the significance of the Exodus in the history of mankind, the providential events connected with it will assume greater credibility. But there is a final consideration. The purpose of God in Christ is not only perfective — the completion of the world ‘s evolution ; it is also redemptive— the correction of the evil sin had brought on the human race. It was fitting that the redemption of man from sin should be acco-npanied by outward remedial signs, the relief of his need and removal of his sufferings. God is without variation and shadow that is cast by turning in His purpose, but His action is conditioned, and must necessarily be conditioned, by the results of man’s use of the freedom which for His wise and holy ends He bestowed. He may in His action transcend His normal activity by a more direct manifestation of Himself than the natural processes of the world afford. The consistency of character of a human personality is not disproved by an exceptional act when a crisis arises; and so, to deal effectively with sin for man’s salvation, God may use miracles as means to His ends without any break in the continuity of His wisdom, righteousness, and grace.

4. Objections. — It seemed desirable to state the facts. the proofs for them, and the reasonableness of them, before taking up the objections that are made. These objections refer to two points, — the possibility of miracle at all, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the miracles of the Bible. Each of these may be very briefly dealt with, (o) For materialism, which recognizes only physical forces; and pantheism, which so identifies God and man that the order of nature is fixed by the necessity of the nature of God ; and even for deism, which confines the direct Divine activity to the beginning, and excludes it from the course of the world, miracles are impossible. Agnosticism, which regards the ultimate reality as an inscrutable mystery, is under no logical compulsion to deny the possibility of miracles; Huxley, for instance, pronounces such denial unjustifiable. Two reasons against the possibility of miracles may be advanced from a theistic standpoint. In the interests of science it may be maintained that the uniformily of ncUure excludes miracle; but, as has just been shown, the theory of Evolution has so modified the conception of uniformity that tills argument has lost its force. Life and mind, when first appearing in the process of evolution, were breaches in the uniformity. The uniformity of nature is consistent with fresh stages of development, inexplicable by their antecedents; and only when science has resolved life and mind into matter ‘will the argument regain any validity. In the interests of philosophy, it may be argued that miracles interrupt the continuity of thought: the world as it is is so reasonable (idealism) or so good (optimism) that any change is unthinkable. But the affirmation ignores many of the problems the world as it is presents: sin, sorrow, death are real ; would not the solution of these problems give both a more reasonable and a better world? and if miracles should be necessary to such a solution, they are thinkable. Again, is it not somewhat arrogant to make man’s estimate of what is reasonable and good the measure of God’s wisdom and grace?

(6) The more usual objection is the insufftctencu of the evidence. Hume laid down this criterion: ‘No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. Or briefly, it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.’ But to this statement it may properly be objected, that it assumes what is to be proved ; for, while it may be contrary to ordinary experience that miracles happen, what the defenders of miracles maintain is that there have been exceptional experiences of miracles. If miracles were common, they would cease to be so described; their uncommonness does not prove their incredibility. Although the test is one that has no warrant, yet it may be argued that Christ’s character and resurrection would stand it. It is less credible that the portrait of Jesus given in the Gospels was invented, than that Jesus lived as there depicted. It is less credible that the Apostolic faith in the risen Lord, and all it accomplished, should have its origin in illusion, than that He rose from the dead. The improbability of miracle is usually the tacit assumption when the sufficiency of the evidence is denied. If the relation of God to the world is conceived as a constant, immanent, progressive, perfective, redemptive activity, the probability of miracles will be so great that the evidence sufficient to prove an ordinary event will be regarded as satisfactory, provided always that this test is met, that the miracle is connected with the fulfilment of the Divine purpose, and is congruous in its character with the wisdom, righteousness, and grace of God.

5. Value.— A few words may in conclusion be added regarding the value of the miracles. The old apologetic view of miracles as the credentials of the doctrines of Christianity is altogether discredited. It is the truth of the doctrines that makes the fact of the miracles credible. It is Christ’s moral character and religious consciousness that help us to believe that He wrought wonderful works. The NT recognizes that a miracle proves only superhuman power (2 Thessalonians 2:9) only it its character is good, is it proved Divine. In the OT prophecy is declared false, not only when unfulfilled (Deuteronomy 18:22). but also when it leads to idolatry (13:3). The moral test, which can be applied to the miracles of the Gospels, shows the irrelevancy, not to say the ffippancy, of Matthew Arnold’s sneer about the turning of a pen into a pen-wiper as the proof of a doctrine. The miracles of the Gospels are constituent elements of Christ’s moral perfection. His grace towards men. While the miracles are represented in the Gospels as not in themselves sufBcient to generate faith (John 11:46 12:37). yet it is afBrmed that they arrested attention and strengthened faith (Matthew 8:27. Luke 5:8 7:16. John 2:11 6:14). Christ Himself is reported as appealing to them as witness (John 5). but the appeal seems deprecatory, as elsewhere He rates low the faith that rests on seeing miracles (John 4:48 14:11). while condemning the unbelief that resists even this evidence (Matthew 11:20). At the beginning of the Christian Church the miracles had some value as evidence. To-day the change Christ has wrought in human history is the most convincing proof of His claim; but we must not ignore the value the miracles had when they occurred, and their value to us still as works of Christ, showing as signs His grace. Alfked E. Gabvie.

Miria

Miria jyi. — 1 . The sister of Moses and Aaron, probably older than either. It was she who watched Moses in the ark of bulrushes (Exodus 2:4 ff.). She is called ‘the prophetess,’ and led the women In the song of victory at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20 f.). In the course of the wilderness wanderings she combined with Aaron against Moses, and was punished by leprosy, which was healed in answer to the prayer of Moses (Numbers 12:1–15). She died in Kadesh towards the end of the wilderness journey (Numbers 20:1). Her story is referred to in Deuteronomy 24:8–9 jn connexion with the ceremonial law of leprosy, and in Micah 6:4 she is spoken of along with Moses and Aaron as a leader of the people.

The name Miriam becomes in Greek Ma nam and Mariamne, a!3d,Maria, our Mary and is probably of Egyptian derivation (mer Amon, ‘beloved of Amon ‘).

2. A man (or woman) of the family of Caleb (1 Chronicles 4:17).

W. F. Boyd.

Mirbiah

Eponym of a Benjamlte family (1 ChS").

Mirror

See Glass.

Misael

1. l Es9«=]VIishael, Neh S’. 2. Three«> = Uishael, No. 3.

Misham

Eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Chronicles 8:12)

Mishma

1. A son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:14 = 1 Chronicles 1:30). 2. The eponym of a Simeonite family (1 Chronicles 4).

Mishmahnah

A Gadite chief (1 Chronicles 12:10).

Mishna

See Talmud.

Mishraites

A family of’Kiriath-jearim (1 Chronicles 2).

lynSPAR. — One of the exiles who returned with Zerub. (Ezra 2:2) = Nehemiah 7:7 Mispereth, 1 Esdras 5:8 Aspharasus.

mSPERETH.— See preceding article.

MISREPHOTH -MAIM.— From the Waters of Merom the defeated Canaanites Sed to Great Zidon, and unto Misrephoth-maim (Joshua 11:8). it marks the S. boundary of the Zidonians, who had not been driven out by Joshua (13:6). The Ladder of Tyre formed a natural limit to the territory of the Zidonians. On the slope of Bos en-Nagtirah, the most southerly of the promontories forming the ‘Ladder,’ is found a site called Musheirifeh, which Thomson (LB) with great probability identifies with Misrephoth-raaim. W. Ewing.

Mite

See Money, § 7.

Mithkah

One of the 12 ‘stations’ (Numbers 33).

Mithnite

A gentilic name applied to one of David’s officers in 1 Chronicles 11:43. The text is doubtful.

Mithradates

1. 1 Esdras 2:11 =Mithredath, Ezra 1:8. 2. (AV Mithridates) 1 Es 2’«=mithredath, Ezra 4:7.

Mithredath

Mithredath (Pers.=‘given by Mithra, or the sun’). — 1. The Persian treasurer, whom Cyrus commanded to deliver to Sheshbazzar the sacred vessels (Ezra 1:8 Esdras 2:11 Mithradates). 2. Apparently a Persian ofilcer stationed in Samaria. Together with his colleagues he wrote to Artaxerxes (Longimanus) to hinder the re-building of the walls of Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7 = 1 Esdras 2:16 Mithiadates).

Mitre

With the exception of Zee 3:5 where it represents the Heb. tsanlph or turban (for which see Dress, § 5 a), and Ezekiel 21:26 RV (see below), ‘mitre’ in EV is used exclusively of the characteristic headdress of the Jewish high priest. The ‘mitre’ (Heb. mitsnepheth, from the same root, signifying to ‘wind round,’ as tsanlph) was an elaborate species of turban, composed of a long swathe of ‘fine linen’ (Exodus 28:39). 16 cubits in length, according to the Talmud. Its precise form, however, is uncertain; the descriptions given by Josephus of the high-priestly mitre of his day, besides being obscure in themselves, agree neither with one another nor with the OT text.

On the now common assumption that the Priests’ Code originated in Babylonia, it is probable that the mitre was intended’to have the conical form characteristic of the tiara of the Babylonian kings. For ornament it had ‘a plate of gold,’ on which were engraved two Hebrew words signifying ‘holiness to J"’ (Exodus 28:36. Leviticus 8:9; cf. Sirach 45:12). The plate rested on the front of the mitre, and was kept in position by a blue-purple ribbon (Exodus 28 39:31), which probably served as a fillet and was tied behind, perhaps with the ends hanging down, as in the case of the jewelled diadem or fillet worn by the Assyrian kings. Hence the fillet could be described as ‘the holy crown’ (Leviticus 8:9). and by ben-Sira as ‘a diadem (EV’ crown’) of gold upon the mitre’ (Sirach 46:12). The royal crown of Judah, according to Ezekiel (21:26). consisted of the same two parts (see Heb. text in each case): ‘remove the mitre (RV), and take off the diadem (EV’ crown’).’ This passage is our warrant for saying that the headdress prescribed for the high priest in the Priests’ Code, consisting of mitre and diadem, is intended to signify that the high priest shall unite in his person the highest office in both Church and State.

The headdress of the high priest is always distinguished from that of his subordinates, for which see Bonnet.

A. R. S. Kennedy. MITYLENE was the chief town of Lesbos on its E. coast, subsequently giving its name to the whole island. It was one of the early iEoUan colonies, and one of the earliest hornes of Greek lyric poetry — the birthplace of Sappho and Alcaeus. It attained great naval power, and founded colonies such as Sigeum and Assos. It took a prominent part in the Ionian revolt, but helped Xerxes against Greece. It joined the Athenian alliance, but revolted in B.C. 428 and was nearly annihilated. After opposing Rome in the Mithradatic War, it was made a free city. It has belonged to the Turks since a.d. 1462. Its mention in Acts 20:14 is merely incidental, — St. Paul’s ship spent a night there. A. E. Hillahd.

Mixed Multitude

A description given (1) to certain persons who joined Israel In the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12:38), and who fell a lusting at Kibrotlihattaavah (Numbers 11:4) (2) to those who were separated from the Israelites after the return from the Captivity (Nehemiah 13:3).

In Exodus 12 those referred to are probably strangers of non-Israelltic or half-Israelitic origin. The Hebrew consonants (differently pointed) mean either ‘mixed’ or ‘Arabian,’ and some have suggested that we ought here to translate ‘Arabians.’ In Jeremiah 25:20 SO", Ezekiel 30:5, the same Hebrew word is translated by the expression ‘mingled people,’ where it has been supposed by some to refer to foreign mercenaries. In Ezekiel 30:5 at least ‘Arabians’ gives a better meaning. The Hebrew word in Numbers 11:4 is a different one, and is probably a contemptuous term signifying the mob, the rabble.

The context in Nehemiah 13:3 leaves no doubt as to the meaning. The reference is to the strangers with whom the Israelites had intermarried and the children of such alliances. W. F. Boyd.

Mizar

Psalms 42 runs: " I remember thee from the land of Jordan and the Hermons, from the hill Mizar.’ It is a question whether Mizar is a proper name or an appellative — ‘the little’ (?). If the former, Mizar must be a peak of the Hermons, and is otherwise unknown. If the latter, the text must in some way be corrected. The simplest and most satisfactory expedient is to remove the initial m from rriehar in the phrase iriShar mizar, and render ‘O, thou little hill." The reference will then be to Zion. As the whole Psalm reads like the cry of an exile from Zion, expressive of his home-sickness, this rendering makes admirable sense.’ O, my God, my soul is cast down within me; for I remember thee from the land of Jordan and of the Hermons, O, thou little hill (of Zion).’ The initial m in mShar might well have crept in from the final m of the preceding word, Hermonim.

W. F. Cobb.

Mizpah, Mtzpeh

These words (from ts&pMh, to ‘look out,’ esp. as a watchman) mean ‘outlook-point’; and they are the names of several places and towns in Palestine, all presumably situated on elevated spots, and all probably ancient sacred places. The sites of several are, however, uncertain. As both names are signiflcant, they nearly always in the Heb. have the article,.

1. Mizpah in Genesis 31:49. where Jacob and Laban made their compact together, and where the name is explained, by a popular etymology, from the words used by Laban, ‘J" watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another’ (and interpose, it is implied, if either attempts to take an advantage of the other). The name has not been preserved, and hence the site cannot be fixed, except conjecturally. Improbable sites have been suggested : to judge from the general line of Jacob’s route from Haran, the ‘Mizpah’ here referred to will have been some eminence on the N.E. of the Jebel Ajlun, some 40 miles S.E. of the Lake of Gennesaret (cf. Driver, Genesis, pp. 288, 301 f.).

2. The ‘land of Mizpah,’ at the foot of Hermon, in Joshua 11:3, probably the same as the ‘cleft (or plain between mountains) of Mizpeh’ in v. 8. ‘This’ Mizpah,’ or ‘Mizpeh,’ has been Identified with the Druse village Mutelle’ (the ‘climbed up to’), on a hill 200 ft. high, at the S. end of the broad and fertile plain called the Merj ‘AyQn (the’ meadow of ‘AyQn’), overlooking the basin of the Huleh sea, a little N. of Abil, and 8 m. W.N.W. of Banias (Eob. ill. 372 f.). This, however, is thought by some to be not enough to the E. (notice ‘under Hermon’ v. 3, and ‘eastward’ v. 8) and Buhl (GAP 240) conjectures that it may have been the height on which are now the ruins of the Saracenic castle Kal’at es-Subebd, 2 m. above Banias.fou the N .B. In the former case the ‘land’ of M. would be the Merj ‘AyQn itself, between the rivers Litanl and Hasbani; in the latter it would be the plain stretching down from Banias towards Lake Huleh.

3. Mizpeh in Jos Is’s, in the Shephglah, or ‘lowland’ of Judah, mentioned in the same group of cities as Lachish (Tell el-Hesj/, 34 miles S.W. of Jerusalem). According to Eusebius (Onotn. 279), there was a Mizpeh in the district of Eleutheropolis (Beit-Jibrfn, 23 m. S.W. of Jerus.), on the N., and another on the road from Eleutheropolis to Jerusalem. The former of these descriptions would suit Tell es-Saftyeh, on a hill of white chalk 7i m. N.N.W. of Beit-Jibrin, with a commanding view, which, however, is now identified by many with Gath; the latter is too indefinite to permit of any identification being made with confidence.

4. The Mizpah of Judges 10:17 11:11, 34, Jephthah’s home,— apparently, to judge from the narrative, not very far from the Ammonite territory, and (11:33) the Aroer in front of Rabbath-ammon (Joshua 13:25). The site can only be fixed conjecturally. Moore suggests the Jebel Osha’ , 16 m. N.W. of Rabbath-ammon, the highest point of the mountains S. of the Jabbok (3597 ft.), commanding a view of almost the whole Jordan Valley, as well as of much of the country opposite, on the W. of Jordan (Conder, Heth and Moab, 186 f .). Whether the ‘Mizpeh of Gilead’ of Judges 11:29 is the same spot is uncertain; from the difference of name, it would rather seem that it is not. The Mizpah of Hosea 5:1 is, however, very probably the same as Jephthah’s Mizpah. The Bamathmizpeh (‘height of the outlook-point") of Joshua 13, on the N. border of Gad, has also been supposed to be the same as Jephthah’s Mizpah; but this is uncertain; a point further to the N. seems to be required.

5. The Mizpah, on the W. of Jordan, mentioned in Judges 20:1, 3 21:1, 5, 8, 1 Samuel 7:5 ff. 10:17 as a meeting-place of Israelites on important occasions; in 1 Kings 15:22 ( =2 Ch 16:6) as fortified by Asa; in 2 Kings 23, Jeremiah 40:6, 8, and several times besides in Jeremiah 40. 41, as the residence of Gedaliah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar over Judah after the capture of Jerusalem in 686; and in Nehemiah 3:7, 15, 1. The same place appears to be in^ tended by the ‘Mizpeh’ of 1 Maccabees 3:46 (Gr. Masslpha, as often in LXX for ‘Mizpah,’ e.g. Judges 20:1, 3), ‘over against Jerusalem,’ a former ‘place of prayer’ [i.e. sanctuary) for Israel, at which the faithful Israelites assembled after Antiochus Epiphanes had desecrated the Temple and stopped all worahlp in it. This Mizpah was identified with much probability by Robinson (1. 460) with Nebi Samwil, a height 4i m. N.W. of Jerusalem, 2935 ft. above the sea, and some 500 ft. above the surrounding plain (notice ‘gone or came up’ in Judges 20:3 21:5, 8), with a commanding view of the country round (i6. 457 f.). Nebi Samwil is 3 m. W.N.W. of Gibeah (cf. Judges 20:1, 3 with the sequel), 2 m. S. of Gibeon (cf. Nehemiah 3:7), and a little N. of the present road from Joppa to Jerusalem. It is the actual point from which travellers ascending by the ancient route through the pass of Beth-horon caught their first glimpse of the interior of the hills of Palestine. ‘It is a very fair and delicious place, and it is called Mount Joy, because it gives joy to pilgrims’ hearts; for from that place men first see Jerusalem’ (Maundeville, cited in SP, p. 214). Its present name, Nebi Samwil (the ‘Prophet Samuel’), is due to the Moslem tradition that it was Samuel’s burial-place (cf. 1 Samuel 7:6, 16, where Mizpah is mentioned as one of Samuel’s residences); and the mosque there — once a Crusaders’ church — contains a cenotaph revered by the Moslems as his tomb.

6. Mizpeh of Moab (1 Samuel 22, — ‘Mizpeh’ is perhaps also to be read in v. for ‘the hold’), the residence of the king of Moab when David consigned his parents to his care. It must have been situated on some eminence in Moab; but we have no further clue to its site.

S. R. Driver. MIZBAHS. — Thename of Egypt (wh. see), and especiallyof Lower Egypt. Mizraim was son of Ham and father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim (i.e. the inhabitants of Upper Egypt), Casluhim, and Caphtorim (Genesis 10:6, 13, 14). Of. also art. Pathros.

F. Ll. Griffith.

Mizzah

A ‘duke’ of Edom (Genesis 36:13, 17 = 1 Chronicles 1:37).

Mnason

Mnason of Cyprus, mentioned in Acts 21:16 as one who entertained Paul and his companions on their journey from Csesarea to Jerusalem. The Greek in this passage admits of two constructions, either ‘bringing with them one Mnason,’ or ‘bringing us to Mnason.’ The most probable explanation is that Mnason lived in some village between Csesarea and Jerusalem, and that Paul broke his journey there and stayed the night with him. The distance was between ,60 and 70 miles, too great for a day’s journey.

He is called ‘an old (RV’ early ‘) disciple,’ that is, one of the first disciples, probably one of those converted on the day of Pentecost. Mohley Stevenson.