3 ; II. i. 3), and was thus on a level lower than the new dispensation ; He 2^ ' For not to angels did he subject the world to come, whereof we speak.' Angels were the media of God's government ; and, havin" 'a certain independence in the discharge of their functions, could stand (to use Ritschl's phrase) in " relative opposition to God," so that, in some cases, their service was an imperfect representation of God, in other cases an actual misrepresentation of Him, and consequently a veiling rather than an unveiling of Him. In this light we can moie easily under.stand how St. Paul can attribute to angels the imperfect and transitory dispensation of the law ; and the perplexing passage Col 2", where Christ is said to have " stripped off from himself the principalities and the powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in [his cross]," — or, as it may be otherwise worded, "exhibited them in their real nature, leading them in his triumphal train," — may pos- sibly lind its elucidation in tlie idea that these dp^ai and iiovaiai (cf. ^^ovtrlav 4irl tQiv voo-tuv Rev 1 1^) had hidden His personal activity, and even attracted worship to themselves.' * This relative opposition may become absolute, the relative independence may become absolute insubordination, as in the case of the Prince of Persia (Dn 10"), and Satan and his angels (2 P 2*, Jude "), yet never in the dualistic sense. Accordingly, Christ can speak of ' the prince of this world ' (Jn 12^'), and St. Paul of the ' god of this age ' (2 Co 4'') : both can attribute evils and hindrances to Satan (Lk 13", Mk S^, 2 Co 12', I Th 2'*), and St. Paul can see the Saiixivia. in the dark background of idolatry (1 Co lO™'). Over all these powers Christ is to triumph (1 Co 15-''), either by crushing insubordination and destroying the insubordinate (Rev lO™), or by displaying His real headship, which by the 'tradition of men' has been concealed (Ph 2'°, Eph l->"-, Col 2"- '»), and delivering the ' heirs ' from the tutelage of the iirlTpoTToi, the ' governors,* the aroLxf^o. toD koV/xou, under whom they had been enslaved (Gal 4'"*) (cf. Everling, Angelulogie, 74 n., for Michael as called iTrirpoiroi of Israel in later .Jewish literature, the word being transliterated into Hebrew).
The suggestion by St. Paul in his tois <f>6<ret ht) otffi deoh ((jal 4*), that by his o-Toixeia he means angelic powers, is not illustrated by any actual use of the word in this sense in the extant litera- ture of the 1st cent. ; but Everling (p. 70) quotes the following passage from the Testament of Solomon (date uncertain, probably not very early ; Harnack, Gcsch. Alt. Christ. Lit. 1. 2, 858), where the spirits that appear to Solomon say, ' We are the so-called sroix^'a, the world rulers of this world.'
For the ' Stoicheiolatry ' of the modern Greeks and their belief that there is a (rroiXfiof everywhere to be jiropitiated, see Kean in Expos. Times, viii. (1897) 514.
LiTKRATUBi!.— Klopper, Bnr/andlt Kol. 18S2; .Spitta, Zweitt Brief df* I'etnu, lb8.'> ; .Me.vcr-Iiuiipt, />iV (ifjantjpiutcht^fu- brie/e, 1807 ; Everling, Die I'aulinijfche A nietot»jiir utid llnmon- ologie, 1888; Iliiicks, Journal of Bib. Lit., Bosu>n, ISUli, pp. 183-192 ; and Kean, as above quoted. J. MaSSIE.
ELEPH (I^Ni?), Jos 18»»only.— A town of Ben- jamin, proliably the present village Lifta \V. of Jerus., which has often been wrongly identified with Nephtoah. See SWP vol. iii. slieet xvii.
C. R. CONDKR.
ELEPHANT ('E\/(^af, tlephas).—'V\\\a animal ia mentioned in 1 and 2 Mac as employed in war. It is not found in AV of t)T, except in the marg. for beliemiith (Job 40"), and ele/ih'tnts' terth for ivory (1 K 10", 2 Ch 9'"). The word is 0'?n}y shen-
* QuntcMl from an article by the present writ^rin the Thinker, May 18U5, on * SU Paul's view of tb« Greek Kods.'
684
ELEUTHEEUS
ELI, ELI
habbtm. The word shen is the ordinary word for ivory in OT, and hahbim seems to be the same as the modern vernacular word for elephant in the languages of Malabar and Ceylon. See IvORY.
G. E. Post. ELEUTHEROS ("EXfiieepos), 1 Mac 11' IS*".— A river which separated Syria and Phajnicia (Strabo, xvi. ), and appears to be the mod. Nahr el-Keblr or ' Great River,' which divides the Lebanon in two north of Tripoli. C. R. CONDER.
ELHANAN (i;ci^n).— 1. In 2 S 21" we read : 'and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Betlilehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the statt' of whose spear was like a weaver's lieam ' ; in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 20°, by a slight change in the Heb. this becomes 'and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, etc' The ductus litterarum in each case is so similar tliat most moderns agree that the two passages represent but one original text. It is evident that the superlluous 'orefjim' in 2 S has merely crept into tlie text from the following line (' 'oregim' = weavers) ; for the rest, it can hardly be disputed that ' Lahmi the brother of ('n>< 'Pn'p-nK, 1 Ch) is a corruption or harmonistic correction of ' the Beth- lehemite'(rN •pn'jrT n-3, 2S), whilst ' Jaare' ('ij!,:, 2 S) is merely a transposition of the letters of ' Jair ' (I'y;, 1 Cii). It is impossible that any one who had a similar text to that of 1 Ch before him, and who knew the story of 1 S 17, should have altered it into direct contradiction with the earlier narrative, whilst the correction of 2 S by the Chronicler is clearly due to harmonistic motives. It is admitted by most modern critics that the story of David and Goliath in 1 S I7'-18° embodies a later tradition as to the introduction of David to Saul (as opposed to the earlier account, IB"'**), in which the exploit of the warrior Elhanan was transfeiTed to his royal master. The reading of 1 Ch, then, is merely an attempt to harmonize the two independent narratives. 2. Son of Dodo the Betlilehemite, one of David's 'Thirty' (2 S 23=^ = 1 Ch IV^). See Dodo (2). J. F. Stennino.