Parchments – Parthians

Parchments

parch'-ments (membranai, "membranes," "parchments," "vellum"): The skins, chiefly of sheep, lambs, goats and calves, prepared so as to be used for writing on (2 Timothy 4:13).

In Greek and Roman times parchment was much employed as a writing material. "At Rome, in the 1st century BC, and the 1st and 2d centuries AD, there is evidence of the use of vellum, but only for notebooks and for rough drafts or inferior copies of literary works. .... A fragment of a vellum MS, which may belong to this period, is preserved in British Museum Add. manuscript 34,473, consisting of two leaves of Demosthenes, De Fals. Leg., in a small hand, which pears to be of the 2nd cent." (F. G. Kenyon in HDB, IV, 947).

Paul directs Timothy that, when he comes from Ephesus to Rome, he is to bring "the books, especially the parchments." These, as well as the "cloak," which is also mentioned, had evidently been "left at Troas with Carpus." What were these parchments? They are distinguished from "the books," which were probably a few choice volumes or rolls, some portions of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, some volumes of the Law of Moses or of the Prophets or of the Psalms. Among "the books" there might also be Jewish exegetical works, or heathen writings, with which, as is made evident by references in his Epistles, Paul was well acquainted.

The parchments were different from these, and were perhaps notebooks, in which the apostle had, from time to time, written what he had observed and wished to preserve as specially worthy of remembrance, facts which he had gathered in his study of the Old Testament or of other books. These notes may have been the result of many years' reading and study, and he wished Timothy to bring them to him.

Various conjectures have been made in regard to the contents of "the parchments." It has been suggested by Kenyon (HDB, III, 673) that they contained the Old Testament in Greek; by Farrar, that the parchments were a diploma of Paul's Roman citizenship; by Bull, that they were his commonplace books; by Latham, that the parchments were a copy of the Grundschrift of the Gospels, a volume containing the all-important narrative of the Saviour's life and cross and resurrection. Workman (Persecution in the Early Church, 39) writes: "By tas membranas I understand the proofs of his citizenship."

Whatever their contents may have been, they were of such value that Paul wished to have them with him in his prison at Rome, so that, if life were spared for even a few weeks or months, the books and parchments might be at hand for reference. Perhaps in the fact that the books and the parchments and the cloak had been left at Troas with Carpus, there may be a hint that his final arrest by the Roman authorities took place at that city, and that was the suddenness of his arrest that caused him to be unable to carry his books and parchments and the cloak with him. "The police had not even allowed him time to find his overcoat or necessary documents" (Workman, op. cit., 39; see p. 1886, 14).

Be this as it may, he desired to have them now. His well-disciplined mind, even in the near prospect of death by public execution, could find the most joyous labor in the work of the gospel, wherever his influence reached, and could also find relaxation among "the books, especially the parchments."

John Rutherfurd

Pardon

par'-d'n, par'-dun.

See FORGIVENESS.

Pare, (The Nails)

par (`asah, "to fix," "manipulate"): The word, which in Hebrew has a very wide range of application, and which is of very frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, is found in the above meaning in but one passage of English Versions of the Bible (Deuteronomy 21:12; see NAIL). In a similar sense it is found in 2 Samuel 19:24, where it is used to express the dressing of the feet anti the trimming of the beard.

Parent

par'-ent.

See CHILDREN; CRIMES; EDUCATION; FAMILY; PUNISHMENTS.

Park

park (pardec; Septuagint paradeisos; compare Arabic firdaus): "I made me gardens and parks," the King James Version "orchards" (Ecclesiastes 2:5); "Asaph the keeper of the king's forest," the Revised Version margin "park" (Nehemiah 2:8). The same word occurs in Song of Songs 4:13, "Thy shoots are an orchard (the Revised Version margin "paradise") of pomegranates." according to Liddell and Scott, paradeisos occurs first in Xenophon, who always uses it of the parks of Persian kings and noblemen. Like many other quadriliterals the word is undoubtedly of eastern origin. It seems to connote an enclosure. It is used in Septuagint of the Garden of Eden. Compare Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7.

See PARADISE.

Alfred Ely Day

Parlor

par'-ler: This word in the King James Version, occurring in Judges 3:20–25; 1 Samuel 9:22; 1 Chronicles 28:11, is in every instance changed in the Revised Version: in Judges into "upper room," in 1 Samuel into "guest-chamber," in 1 Chronicles into "chambers," representing as many Hebrew words.

See HOUSE.

Parmashta

par-mash'-ta (parmashta'; Septuagint Marmasima, or Marmasimna): One of the sons of Haman (Esther 9:9).

Parmenas

par'-me-nas (Parmenas): A Greek name, an abbreviated form of Parmenides. Parmenas was one of "the seven" chosen by the people and appointed by the apostles to superintend the daily distribution to the Christian poor of Jerusalem (Acts 6:5). Tradition states that he was martyred at Philippi, in the reign of Trajan, but his name does not appear again in Scripture.

Parnach

par'-nak (parnakh, "gifted"): Father of Elizaphan, the prince of Zebulun (Numbers 34:25).

Parosh

pa'-rosh, par'-osh (par`osh, "flea" (leap)): a family that in part returned under Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:3; Nehemiah 7:8), and in part under Ezra (Ezra 8:3; there spelt "Pharosh," the King James Version). Some of the family had foreign wives (Ezra 10:25). One descendant, Pedaiah (see PEDAIAH, (3)), helped to rebuild the city walls (Nehemiah 3:25), and others were among those who "sealed" the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:1,Nehemiah 10:14). In 1 Esdras 5:9; 8:30; 9:26, "Phoros."

Parousia

pa-roo'-zhi-a:

I. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE

1. Terms

2. Data and Sources

3. Consistency

4. Meaning of the Symbolism

II. THE TEACHING OF JESUS

1. Critical Problems

2. Summary

3. Fall of Jerusalem

4. Time

III. JOHN'S EVALUATION

1. Solution of Problem

2. The Church a Divine Quantity

LITERATURE

I. The Apostolic Doctrine.

1. Terms:

The Second Coming of Christ (a phrase not found in the Bible) is expressed by the apostles in the following special terms:

(1) "Parousia" (parousia), a word fairly common in Greek, with the meaning "presence" (2 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:12). More especially it may mean "presence after absence," "arrival" (but not "return," unless this is given by the context), as in 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6,2 Corinthians 7:7; Philippians 1:26. And still more particularly it is applied to the Coming of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 Thessalonians 2:8; James 5:7,James 5:8; 2 Peter 1:16; 2 Peter 3:4,2 Peter 3:12; 1 John 2:28--in all 13 times, besides 2 Thessalonians 2:9, where it denotes the coming of Anti-christ. This word for Christ's Second Coming passed into the early Patristic literature (Diognetus, vii.6, e.g.), but its use in this sense is not invariable. For instance the word in Ignatius, Philadelphians, ix.2, means the Incarnation. Or the Incarnation is called the first Parousia, as in Justin, Trypho, xiv. But in modern theology it means invariably the Second Coming. Recent archaeological discoveries have explained why the word received such general Christian use in the special sense. In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC (Dittenberger, Sylloge

(2), Number 803, 34), "Parousia" is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius. Consequently, the adoption by the Greek-speaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural. (The evidence is well summarized in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East3, 372-78, German edition, 281-87.) (2) "Epiphany" epiphaneia), "manifestation," used of the Incarnation in 2 Timothy 1:10, but of the Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13. The word was used like Parousia in Hellenistic Greek to denote the ceremonial arrival of rulers; compare Deissmann, as above.

(3) "Apocalypse" apokalupsis), "revelation," denotes the Second Coming in 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7,1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:13.

(4) "Day of the Lord, more or less modified, but referring to Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6,Philippians 1:10; Philippians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2. The phrase is used of the Father in the strict Old Testament sense in Acts 2:20; 2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 1:6–14, and probably in 2 Peter 3:10. Besides, as in the Old Testament and the intermediate literature, "day of wrath," "last day," or simply "day" are used very frequently.

See DAY OF THE LORD.

Of the first three of the above terms, only Parousia is found in the Gospels, 4 times, all in Matthew 24:3,Matthew 24:17,Matthew 24:37,Matthew 24:39, and in the last three of these all in the set phrase "so shall be the Parousia of the Son of Man." As Christ spoke in Aramaic, the use of "Parousia" here is of course due to Matthew's adoption of the current Greek word.

2. Data and Sources:

The last of the 4 terms above brings the apostolic doctrine of the Parousia into connection with the eschatology (Messianic or otherwise) of the Old Testament and of the intermediate writings. But the connection is far closer than that supplied by this single term only, for newly every feature in the apostolic doctrine can be paralleled directly from the Jewish sources. The following summary does not begin to give complete references to even such Jewish material as is extant, but enough is presented to show how closely allied are the eschatologies of Judaism and of early Christianity.

The end is not to be expected instantly. There are still signs to come to pass (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and in especial the determined number of martyrs must be filled up (Revelation 6:11; compare 2 Esdras 4:35,36). There is need of patience (James 5:7, etc.; compare 2 Esdras 4:34; Baruch 83:4). But it is at hand (1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10; compare 2 Esdras 14:17). "Yet a little while" (Hebrews 10:37), "The night is far spent" (Romans 13:12), "The Lord is at hand" (Philippians 4:5). "We that are alive" expect to see it (1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:51; compare Baruch 76:5); the time is shortened henceforth (1 Corinthians 7:29; compare Baruch 20:1; 2 Esdras 4:26, and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Indeed, there is hardly time for repentance even (Revelation 22:11, ironical), certainly there is no time left for self-indulgence (1 Thessalonians 5:3; 1 Peter 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation 3:3; compare Baruch 83:5), and watchfulness is urgently demanded (1 Thessalonians 5:6; Revelation 3:3).

An outpouring of the Spirit is a sign of the end (Acts 2:17,Acts 2:18; compare Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 18:11; Sib Or 4:46, always after the consummation in the Jewish sources). But the world is growing steadily worse, for the godly and intense trials are coming (passim), although those especially favored may be spared suffering (Revelation 3:10; compare Baruch 29:2). This is the beginning of Judgment (1 Peter 4:17; compare Enoch 99:10). Iniquity increases and false teachers are multiplied (Jude 1:18; 2 Peter 3:3; 2 Timothy 3:1–17, especially 2 Timothy 3:13; compare Enoch 80:7; Baruch 70:5; 2 Esdras 5:9,10). Above all there is to be an outburst of diabolic malevolence in the antichrist (1 John 2:18,John 2:22; John 4:3; 2 John 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:8–10; Revelation 19:19; compare Baruch 36:8-10; Sib Or 3:63-70, and see ANTICHRIST), who will gather all nations to his ensign (Revelation 19:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:10 compare 2 Esdras 13:5; Enoch 56). Plagues fall upon men (Rev, passim; compare especially Philo, Execr.), and natural portents occur (Acts 2:19,Acts 2:20; Rev, passim; compare 2 Esdras 5:4,5; Enoch 80:5-8). But the conversion of the Jews (Romans 11:26) is brought about by these plagues (Revelation 11:13; in the Jewish sources, naturally, conversion of Gentiles, as in Sib Or 3:616-623; Enoch 10:21). Then Christ is manifested and Antichrist is slain or captured (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19:20; compare 2 Esdras 13:10,11). In Revelation 20:3 the Millennium follows (compare 2 Esdras 7:28; 12; 34; Baruch 40:3, and often in rabbinical literature; the millennium in Slavic Enoch, chapter 33, is of very dubious existence), but other traces of millennial doctrine in the New Testament are of the vaguest (compare the commentaries to 1 Corinthians 15:24, for instance, especially Schmiedel, J. Weiss, and Lietzmann, and see MILLENNIUM). The general resurrection follows (see RESURRECTION for details).

The Father holds the Judgment in Hebrews 10:30; Hebrews 12:23; Hebrews 13:4; James 4:11,James 4:12; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 20:11, and probably in Jude 1:14,Jude 1:15. Christ is Judge in Acts 10:42; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1. The two concepts are interwoven in Romans 14:9,Romans 14:10. God mediates judgment through Christ in Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16, and probably in Romans 2:2–6; Romans 3:6. In 2 Thessalonians Christ appears as the executor of punishment. For similar uncertainties in the Jewish schemes, compare, for instance, 2 Esdras 7:33 and Enoch 45:3. For the fate of the wicked see ESCHATOLOGY; HELL; Paul, rather curiously, has very little to say about this (Romans 2:3; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,2 Thessalonians 1:9). Then all Nature is renewed (Romans 8:21; Enoch 45:4,5) or completely destroyed (1 Corinthians 7:31; Hebrews 12:27; Revelation 21:1; compare Enoch 1:6; 2 Esdras 7:30); by fire in 2 Peter 3:10 (compare Sib Or 4:172-177), so as to leave only the eternal verities (Hebrews 12:27; compare 2 Esdras 7:30(?)), or to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1; compare Slavic Enoch 33:1-2). And the righteous receive the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 21:2,Revelation 21:10; compare Baruch 4:2-6; 2 Esdras 7:26).

3. Consistency:

It is of course possible, as in the older works on dogmatics, to reconcile the slight divergences of the above details and to fit them all into a single scheme. But the propriety of such an undertaking is more than dubious, for the traditional nature of these details is abundantly clear--a tradition that is not due solely to the fact that the Christian and the Jewish schemes have a common Old Testament basis. That the Jewish writers realized that the eschatological details were merely symbolic is made obvious by the contradictions that every apocalypse contains--the contradictions that are the despair of the beginner in apocalyptics. No writer seems to have thought it worth while to reconcile his details, for they were purely figures of dimly comprehended forces. And the Christian symbolism must be interpreted on the same principle. No greater injustice, for instance, could be done Paul's thought than to suppose he would have been in the least disturbed by John's interpretation of the Antichrist as many persons and all of them ordinary human beings (1 John 2:18,John 2:19).

4. Meaning of the Symbolism:

The symbolism, then, in which the Parousia is described was simply that held by the apostles in their pre-Christian days. This symbolism, to be sure, has been thoroughly purified from such puerilities as the feast on Leviathan and Behemoth of Baruch 29, or the "thousand children" of Enoch 10:17, a fact all the more remarkable as 2nd-century Christianity has enough of this and to spare (e.g. Irenaeus, v.33). What is more important is that the symbolism of the Parousia is simply in the Jewish sources the symbolism of the coming of the Messiah (or of God in such schemes as have no Messiah). Now it is to be observed that among the apostles the Kingdom of God is almost uniformly regarded as a future quantity (1 Corinthians 6:9,1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:1,2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 12:10), with a definitely present idea only in Colossians 1:13. Remembering again that the term "Messiah" means simply "the Bringer of the Kingdom," the case becomes entirely clear. No apostle, of course, ever thought of Christ as anything but the Messiah. But neither did they think of His Messianic work as completed, or, if the most exact terminology be pressed, of the strict Messianic work as done at all. Even the Atonement belonged to the preliminary acts, viewed perhaps somewhat as Enoch 39:6 views the preexistent Messiah's residence among the "church expectant." This could come to pass more readily as the traditions generally were silent as to what the Messiah was to do before He brought the Kingdom, while they all agreed that He was not to be created only at that moment. Into this blank, especially with the aid of Isaiah 53:1–12, etc., our Lord's earthly life and Passion fitted naturally, leaving the fact of His Second Coming to be identified with the coming of the Messiah as originally conceived.

II. The Teaching of Jesus.

1. Critical Problems:

It will be found helpful, in studying the bitter controversies that have raged around Christ's teaching about the future, to remember that the apostolic idea of the word "Messiah" is the only definition that the word has; that, for instance, "Messiah" and "Saviour of the world" are not quite convertible terms, or that a redefinition of the Messiah as a moral teacher or an expounder of the will of God does not rest on "spiritualizing" of the term, but on a destruction of it in favor of "prophet." Now the three expressions, "Messianic work," "coming of the Kingdom," and "Parousia" are only three titles for one and the same thing, while the addition of "Son of Man" to them merely involves their being taken in the most transcendental form possible. In fact, this is the state of affairs found in the Synoptists. Christ predicts the coming of the Kingdom. He claims the title of its king (or Regent under the Father). The realization of this expectation He placed on the other side of the grave, i.e. in a glorified state. And in connection with this evidence we find His use of the title Son of Man. From all this the doctrine of the Parousia follows immediately, even apart from the passages in which the regular apocalyptic symbolism is used. The contention may be made that this symbolism in the Gospels has been drawn out of other sources by the evangelists (the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of Mark 13:7–9,Mark 13:14–20,Mark 13:24–27,Mark 13:30–31 is the usual point of attack), but, even if the contention could be made out (and agreement in this regard is anything but attained), no really vital part of the case would be touched. Of course, it is possible to begin with the a priori assumption that "no sane man could conceive of himself as an apocalyptic being walking the earth incognito," and to refer to later tradition everything in the Gospels that contradicts this assumption. But then there are difficulties. The various concepts involved are mentioned directly so often that the number of passages to be removed grows alarmingly large. Then the concepts interlock in such a way as to present a remarkably firm resistance to the critical knife; the picture is much too consistent for an artificial product. Thus, there are a number of indirect references (the title on the Cross, the "Palm-Sunday" procession, etc.) that contradict all we know of later growths. And, finally, the most undeterred critic finds himself confronted with a last stubborn difficulty, the unwavering conviction of the earliest church that Christ made the eschatological claims. It is conceivable that the apostles may have misunderstood Christ in other matters, but an error in this central point of all (as the apostles appraised things) is hardly in the realms of critical possibility. On the whole, such an attempt to force a way through the evidence of the documents would seem something surprisingly like the violence done to history by the most perverse of the older dogmatists.

2. Summary:

The number of relevant passages involved is so large and the critical problems so intricate that any detailed discussion is prohibited here. Moreover, the symbolism presents nothing novel to the student familiar with the usual schemes. Forces of evil increase in the world, the state of the righteous grows harder, distress and natural portents follow, at the climax Christ appears suddenly with His angels, bringing the Kingdom of God, gathers the elect into the Kingdom, and dismisses the wicked into outer darkness (or fire). The Father is the Judge in Matthew 10:32,Matthew 10:33, but the Son in the parallel Luke 12:8,Luke 12:9, and in Matthew 13:41; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:32; probably in Matthew 24:50 parallel Luke 12:46; Mark 8:38 and its parallel Luke 9:26 are uncertain. At all events, the eternal destiny of each man depends on Christ's attitude, possibly with the Father's (invariable) ratification considered.

3. Fall of Jerusalem:

How far Christ connected the Parousia and the fall of Jerusalem, it is not easy to say. Various sayings of Christ about the future were certainly grouped by the evangelists; compare Matthew 24:1–51 with Mark 13:1–37 and Luke 17:20–37; or Luke 17:31 with Mark 13:15,Mark 13:16 (noting the inappropriateness of Luke 17:31 in its present context). The critical discussions of Mark 13:1–37 are familiar and those of Luke 21:1–38 (a still more complex problem) only less so. Remembering what the fall of Jerusalem or its immediate prospect would have meant to the apostles, the tendency to group the statements of Christ will be realized. Consequently, not too much stress should be laid on the connection of this with the Parousia, and in no case can the fall of Jerusalem be considered to exhaust the meaning of the Parousia.

4. Time:

The most debated question is that of the time of the Parousia. Here Mark 13:30 parallel Luke 21:32 parallel Matthew 24:34 place it within Christ's generation, Mark 9:1 parallel Luke 9:27 parallel Matthew 16:28 within the lifetime of some of His hearers, Matthew 10:23 before all the cities of Judea are closed to Christ's apostles. (Only the first of these contains any reference to the fall of Jerusalem.) Then there is "ye shall see" of Mark 14:62; Luke 13:35 parallel Matthew 23:39. Agreeing with this are the exhortations to watchfulness (Mark 13:33–37; Luke 12:40 parallel Matthew 24:44, etc., with many parables, such as the Ten Virgins). Now Mark 13:32 parallel Matthew 24:36 do not quite contradict this, for knowledge of the generation is quite consistent with ignorance of the day and hour; "It will be within your generation, but nothing more can be told you, so watch!" The real difficulty lies in Mark 13:10 parallel Matthew 24:14, the necessity of all Gentiles hearing the gospel (Luke 21:24 is hardly relevant). To leave the question here, as most conservative scholars do, is unsatisfactory, for Mark 13:10 is of no deep value for apologetic service and this value is far outweighed by the real contradiction with the other passages. The key, probably, lies in Matthew 10:18, from which Mark 13:10 differs only in insisting on all Gentiles, perhaps with the apostles' thought that "world" and "Roman Empire" were practically coextensive. With this assumption the data yield a uniform result.

III. John's Evaluatlon.

1. Solution of Problem:

It appears, then, that Christ predicted that shortly after His death an event would occur of so transcendental a nature that it could be expressed only in the terms of the fullest eschatological symbolism. John has a clear interpretation of this. In place of the long Parousia discourses in the Synoptists, we have, in the corresponding part of the Fourth Gospel, John 13-17, dealing not only with the future in general but concretely with Christ's coming and the Judgment. Christ indeed came to His own (John 14:18), and not He only but the Spirit also (14:16), and even the Father (14:23). When the disciples are so equipped, their presence in the world subjects the world to a continual sifting process of judgment (16:11). The fate of men by this process is to be eternally fixed (3:18), while the disciples newly made are assured that they have already entered into their eternal condition of blessedness (11:25,26; 5:24; 10:28; 17:2,3). Equally directly the presence of Christ is conceived in Revelation 3:20. So in Paul, the glorified Christ has returned to His own to dwell in them (Romans 8:9,Romans 8:10, etc.), uniting them into a body vitally connected with Him (Colossians 1:18), so supernatural that it is the teacher of `angels' (Ephesians 3:10), a body whose members are already in the Kingdom (Colossians 1:13), who even sit already in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). The same thought is found in such synoptic passages (Luke 7:28 parallel Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21(?); see KINGDOM OF GOD) as represent the Kingdom as present. Already the eschatological promises were realized in a small group of men, even though they still lacked the transforming influence of the Spirit. Compare the continuous coming of Matthew 26:64 (Luke 22:69).

It is on these lines of the church as a supernatural quantity (of course not to be confused with any particular denomination) that the immediate realization of the Parousia promises is to be sought. Into human history has been "injected" a supernatural quantity, through which a Divine Head works, whose reaction on men settles their eternal destiny, and within which the life of heaven is begun definitely.

2. The Church a Divine Quantity:

The force in this body is felt at the crises of human history, perhaps especially after the catastrophe that destroyed Jerusalem and set Christianity free from the swaddling clothes of the primitive community. This conception of the church as a divine quantity, as, so to speak, a part of heaven extended into earth, is faithful to the essentials of the predictions. Nor is it a rationalization of them, if the idea of the church itself be not rationalized. With this conception all realms of Christian activity take on a transcendental significance, both in life and (especially) death, giving to the individual the confidence that he is building better than he knows, for even the apostles could not realize the full significance of what they were doing. Generally speaking, the details in the symbolism must not be pressed. The purpose of revelation is to minister to life, not to curiosity, and, in teaching of the future, Christ simply taught with the formal language of the schools of the day, with the one change that in the supernatural process He Himself was to be the central figure. Still, the end is not yet. "The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice" (John 5:28; compare John 6:40; John 21:23; 1 John 2:28). In Christ human destiny is drawing to a climax that can be expressed only in spiritual terms that transcend our conceptions.

See, further, ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

LITERATURE.

This is overwhelming. For the presuppositions, GJV4 (HJP is antiquated); Volz, Judische Eschatologie; Bousset, Religion des Judentums(2). General discussions: Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (the best in English); Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewusstein Jesu (a classic); von Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of the Gospels (popular, but very sound). Eschatological extreme: Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von Reimarus zu Wrede), is quite indispensable; Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross Roads (perverse, but valuable in parts); Loisy, Gospel and the Church (compare his Evangiles synoptiques). Anti-eschatological: Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (minute criticism, inadequate premises, some astounding exegesis); Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (based on Wellhausen). For the older literature see Schweitzer, Sanday, Holtzmann, as above, and compare Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels, and Brown, "Parousia," in HDB, III.

Burton Scott Easton

Parshandatha

par-shan-da'-tha, par-shan'-da-tha (parshandatha; Septuagint Pharsan, or Pharsanestan; perhaps from the Persian fratsna-data, "given by prayer"): One of the sons of Haman (Esther 9:7).

Part

part: "to part" as a verb is no longer in good use (except in a few special phrases, compare Ruth 1:17), but is obscure only in Proverbs 18:18, where the meaning is "break up their quarrel" (compare 2 Samuel 14:6). the Revised Version (British and American) has not changed the King James Version's usage, except (strangely) in 1 Samuel 30:24, where "share" is written. For the noun see PORTION.

Parthians

par'-thi-anz (Parthoi):

1. Country and Early History:

A people mentioned in Acts 2:9 only, in connection with other strangers present at Jerusalem at Pentecost, from which we infer that they were Jews or proselytes from the regions included in the Parthian empire. This empire stretched from the Euphrates to the confines of India and the Oxus, and for centuries was the rival of Rome, and more than once proved her match on the battlefield. The Parthians are not mentioned in the Old Testament, but are frequently in Josephus, and they had an important connection with the history of the Jews, on account of the large colonies of the latter in Mesopotamia, and the interference of the Parthians in the affairs of Judea, once making it a vassal state.

Parthia proper was a small territory to the Southeast of the Caspian Sea, about 300 miles long by 120 wide, a fertile though mountainous region, bordering on the desert tract of Eastern Persia. The origin of the Parthians is rather uncertain, though the prevailing opinion is that they were of Scythic stock or of the great Tartar race. We have no reference to them earlier than the time of Darius the Great, but they were doubtless among the tribes subdued by Cyrus, as they are mentioned by Darius as being in revolt. They seem to have remained faithful to the Persians after that, and submitted to Alexander without resistance.

2. The Seleucid Kings:

Next they came under the rule of the Seleucid kings of Syria, but revolted about 250 BC, in the reign of Antiochus II (Theos), and gained their independence under the lead of Arsaces I who established the dynasty of the Arsacidae, which continued for nearly 5 centuries. His capital was Hecatompylos, but his reign continued only about 3 years, and his brother Tridates succeeded him as Arsaces II and he consolidated the kingdom. The war between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies freed him from interference from that quarter until 237 BC, when Seleucus II (Callinicus) marched against him, but was completely defeated, and Parthian independence was secured. Artabanus I, who followed him, extended his dominions westward to the Zagros Mountains, but Antiochus III would not permit such an encroachment with impunity, and led an expedition against him, driving him back and even invading his ancestral dominion. But after a struggle of some years the Parthians remained still unsubdued, and the difficulties of the contest led Antiochus to conclude peace with him in which he acknowledged the independence of Parthia. For about a quarter of a century the king of Parthia remained quiet, but Phraates I (181-174 BC) recommenced aggressions on the Seleucid empire which Were continued by Mithridates I (174-137), who added to his dominions a part of Bactria, on the East, and Media, Persia and Babylonia on the West. This was a challenge to Demetrius II, of Syria, to whose empire the provinces belonged, and he marched against him with a large force, but was defeated and taken prisoner. He remained in Parthia some years, well treated by Phraates II, whose sister he married, and, when Phraates wished to create a diversion against Antiochus Sidetes, he set Demetrius at liberty and sent him back to Syria. Antiochus was at first successful, as his force of 300,000 men far outnumbered the Parthians, but he was at last defeated and slain in 129 BC and his army destroyed. This was the last attempt of the Seleucid kings to subdue Parthia, and it was acknowledged as the dominant power in Western Asia. But Phraates fell in conflict with the Scyths, whom he called in to aid him in his war with Sidetes, and his successor likewise, and it was only on the accession of Mithridates in 124 BC that these barbarians were checked. The king then turned his attention toward Armenia, which he probably brought under his control, but its king Tigranes recovered its independence and even attacked the Parthians, and took from them two provinces in Mesopotamia.

3. In Contact with Rome:

Not long after, the power of Rome came into contact with armenia and Parthia. In 66 BC when, after subduing Mithridates of Pontus, Pompey came into Syria, Phraates III made an alliance with him against Armenia, but was offended by the way in which he was treated and thought of turning against his ally, but refrained for the time being. It was only a question of time when the two powers would come to blows, for Parthia had become an empire and could ill brook the intrusion of Rome into Western Asia. It was the ambition and greed of Crassus that brought about the clash of Rome and Parthia. When he took the East as his share of the Roman world as apportioned among the triumvirs, he determined to rival Caesar in fame and wealth by subduing Parthia, and advanced across the Euphrates on his ill-fated expedition in 53 BC. The story of his defeat and death and the destruction of the army and loss of the Roman eagles is familiar to all readers of Roman history. It revealed Parthia to the world as the formidable rival of Rome, which she continued to be for nearly 3 centuries. After the death of Crassus, the Parthians crossed the Euphrates and ravaged Northern Syria, but retired the following year without securing any portion of the country, and thus ended the first war with Rome. In 40 BC, after the battle of Philippi, Pacorus, who was then king, invaded Syria a second time and took possession of it together with all Palestine, Tyre alone escaping subjection. He set Antigonus on the throne of Judea, deposing Hyrcanus for the purpose. Syria and Palestine remained in the hands of Parthia for 3 years, but the coming of Ventidius gave a new turn to affairs. He drove the Parthians out of Syria, and when they returned the following year, he defeated them again and Pacorus was slain. Parthia had to retire within her own borders and remain on the defensive. Antony's attempt to subdue them proved abortive, and his struggle with Octavian compelled him to relinquish the project. The Parthians were unable to take advantage of the strife in the Roman empire on account of troubles at home. an insurrection led by Tiridates drove the king Phraates IV from the throne, but he recovered it by the aid of the Scyths, and Tiridates took refuge in Syria with the youngest son of the king. Augustus afterward restored him without ransom, and obtained the lost standards of Crassus, and thus peace was established between the rival empires. Each had learned to respect the power of the other, and, although contention arose regarding the suzerainty of armenia, peace was not seriously disturbed between them for about 130 years, or until the reign of Trajan. Parthia was not at peace with herself, however. Dynastic troubles were frequent, and the reigns of the kings short. Artabanus III, who reigned 16-42 AD, was twice expelled from his kingdom and twice recovered his throne. In his days occurred a terrible massacre of Jewish colonists in Mesopotamia, as narrated by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ix). The contest with Rome over Armenia was settled in the days of Nero in a manner satisfactory to both parties, so that peace was not broken for 50 years. The ambition of Trajan led him to disregard the policy inaugurated by Augustus, adhered to, for the most part, by succeeding emperors, not to extend the limits of the empire. After the conquest of Dacia he turned his attention to the East and resolved on the invasion of Parthia. The Parthian king, Chosroes, endeavored to placate Trajan by an embassy bearing presents and proposals of peace, but Trajan rejected them and carried out his purpose. He subdued armenia, took Upper Mesopotamia, Adiabebe (Assyria), Ctesiphon, the capital, and reached the Pets Gulf, but was obliged to turn back by revolts in his rear and failed to reduce the fortress of Hatra. The conquered provinces were restored, however, by Hadrian, and the Parthians did not retaliate until the reign of Aurelius, when they overran Syria, and in 162 AD Lucius Verus was sent to punish them. In the following year he drove them back and advanced into the heart of the Parthian empire, inflicting the severest blow it had yet received. It was evident that the empire was on the decline, and the Romans did not meet with the resistance they had experienced in former times. Severus and Caracalla both made expeditions into the country, and the latter took the capital and massacred the inhabitants, but after his assassination his successor, Macrinus, fought a three days' battle with the Parthians at Nisibis in which he was worsted and was glad to conclude a peace by paying an indemnity of some 1,500,000 British pounds (217 AD).

4. Fall of the Empire:

But this was the last achievement of the Parthians. It is evident that Artabanus had suffered severely in his conflict with the Romans, and was unable to put down the revolt of the Persians under the lead of Artaxerxes, who overthrew the Parthian empire and established the dynasty of the Sassanidae in its place (226 AD).

5. Culture:

The Parthians were not a cultured people, but displayed a rude magnificence, making use, to some extent, of remains of Greek culture which they found within the regions they seized from the empire of Alexander. They had no native literature, as far as known, but made use of Greek in writing and on their coins. They were familiar with Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, and the later kings had Semitic legends on their coins. Josephus is said to have written his history of the Jewish War in his native tongue for Parthian readers. In their method of government they seem to have left the different provinces pretty much to themselves, so long as they paid tribute and furnished the necessary contingents.

H. Porter