“To overcome in battle, and subdue Nations, and bring home spoils with infinite Man-slaughter, shall be held the highest pitch Of human glory.’ J. HASTINGS.
MAN-STEALING.—In Ex 21* (Book of the Cove- nant, JE) the law is laid down, ‘he that stealeth a man (es 333) and selleth him, or (}) if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.’ In Dt 247 this enactment is repeated in Deuteronomic lan-
uage, and the general term vx is restricted to sraelites (Sxy: 322 Y9XP τ᾽5}}, a restriction which is introduced even in Ex by Targ. Onk. and LXX (τινὰ τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ). The penalty of death is to be inflicted in either of two events,—if the kidnapped Israelite is retained as a slave by his fellow-country- man, or if (which would happen more frequently) he is sold into slavery in a foreign land (cf. the story of Joseph, Gn 37%». 38,37. 3880 [.1}. The LXX and Vulg., indeed, understand the words '7;3 ἈΚ) in Ex 211° differently from EV, rendering respectively καὶ ἐὰν εὑρεθῇ ἐν αὐτῷ, and convictus noe, but there can be little doubt that ‘if Ae be found in his hand’ is the correct sense. This is confirmed by Dt 247 \a~2ynm, ‘if he play the master over him’ (Driver); LXX καὶ καταδυναστεύσας.
The aggravated nature of the offence of one Israelite selling another into foreign slavery is insisted upon by Philo (de Leg. Spec. ii. 338, ed. Mang.). The facilities afforded for the slave trade
MANTLE 239
(the Edomites, the Philistines, the Pheenicians, the Greeks, etc., were ready purchasers, cf. Ezk 27%, Am 1°, Jl 3**), and its lucrative character, necessitated the prohibition of kidnapping a fellow-Israelite on pain of death (inflicted, according to Sanhed. xi. 1,
y strangulation). A similar Taw was in force amongst the Athenians (Xen. Mem. 1. ii. 62: ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται ἀνδραποδιζόμενος, τουτῷ θάνατον εἶναι τὴν ζημίαν).
In the list of those for ‘whom the law is made’ (1 Ti 1106) are specified men-stealers (ἀνδραποδισταί).
J. A. SELBIE.
MANTELET (525, AV ‘defence’; LXX ras προ- φυλακάς ; Vulg. wmbraculum).—The only occurrence of this word is in Nah 2 [Heb. 56], in the (ideal) description of the siege and fall of Nineveh. The Heb. term comes from the root ‘to cover or protect’ (hence AVm ‘covering’). In all probability Nahum refers to some engine of war, such as a siege tower or a vinea or testudo under cover of which the battering-ram (which see) was worked. The context appears to require that the 725 belong to the assailants, not to the de- fenders. See Wellh., Nowack, and especially A. B. Davidson, ad loc.
The Eng. word is formed by adding the dimin. suffix e¢ to the word ‘mantel,’ which in that spelling is now used for the shelf over a fireplace, but it is really the same word as ‘mantle,’ a cloak. The origin is unknown, but the meaning is always ‘covering.’ J. A. SELBIE.
MANTLE.—1. nqx* ’addereth, from a root [7x] ‘to be wide,’ wideness being apparently the char- acteristic feature of this article of attire, which is rarely mentioned, and generally, if not always, as a robe of office or state. On its possible form (which there are not sutlicient data in Scripture to determine) see art. DRESS in vol. i. p. 625%. The name is used 5 times (1 K 19% 1%, 2 Καὶ 985. 18. 14) of Elijah’s ‘mantle’ (AV, RV), which was probably of hair,+ and appears to have been copied i succeed - ing Son (ef. Zee 134 [swe myx § ‘a hairy mantle’; AV ‘a rough garment’), and what we are told in Mt 34, Mk 1° of John the ge deeds A Babylonish mantle (lit. ‘mantle of Shinar’ ‘sx .y3?) was one of the articles appropriated by Achan from the spoil of Jericho, Jos 7% *. See BABYLONISH GARMENT. The king of Nineveh laid aside his nx and put on sackcloth when the news of Jonah’s proclamation reached him, Jon 3°.
2. nispyp once only, Is 3" (where both AV and RV have ‘mantles’). The article of dress referred to is probably (Dillm. compares Arab. ‘ita, mi'taf) an upper wide tunic (kéthéneth) with sleeves (so Siegiried-Stade—‘ die obere Tunika’).
3. Syn 1S 1577 28", Ezr 9% 5, Job 1% 213. Ps 109%. In all these passages AV has ‘mantle’; in the first. two RV has ‘robe,’ which is read in the whole of them by Amer. RV, and is generally given else- where by AV as tr® of Syp (e.g. Ex 28% 5: and oft., Lv 87, 1 S 184, Ezk 26"). This article of dress is fully described in vol. i. p. 625".
* 77x in Mic 28 may be a textual error for N77, the n having been lost before the following n (so Oxf. Heb. Lex. and Siegtried- Stade). Wellh. and Nowack pronounce the text hopelessly corrupt.
+ The LXX has in Kings μηλωτή, ‘sheepskin’; in Zec 134 οἰκῇ ‘leathern coat’; in Gn 2525, Mic 25 δορά, ‘hide’; in Jos
Ψιλὴ woman; in Jon 86 στολή.
t In Zec 113 it is uncertain whether ΠΝ should be taken to the sense of ‘glory,’ ‘magnificence’ (cf. its use in Ezk 175 unless here it is an adjective fem. from 178, and the use of Wx in Zec 1118), or of ‘mantle,’ the shepherds being false prophets Nowack emends OF778 to Ony>> ‘their pasture.’