redominant Diana-worship and the fact that Philippi was ‘ built upon the Thracian frontier, in the pathway of the original course of the Mysteries of Dionysus, and probably also of those of Demeter, as they spread throughout Greece’ (Carman, p. 634 ; et. Anrich, p. 144 note), may not another whose immediate object is to demonstrate the influence of the LXX underestimate indications of other influences? At least a side reference to the heathen Mysteries could scarcely be denied except upon the supposition, in itself somewhat unlikely, that the Nt writers, and particularly St. Paul, were so ignorant of the Mysteries that the term had only its LXX association for their minds, or that the Mysteries had altogether failed to colour by imagery drawn from them the language of the time. The cautious words of Kennedy (Sources of NT Greek, 109) should be borne in mind: ‘Several of the biblical meanings, though appar- ently moulded by the Greek of the OT, may have been common enough in the spoken language as found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria. ‘When it is borne in mind that there are literally almost no remains of the later spoken language except the LXX and the NT, in addition to the Comie writers, the supposition gains colour. At any rate, it shows us that we are not at liberty to make dogmatic assertions even in that sphere of the NT vocabu- lary where the influence of the LXX appears most powerful, the sphere of religious and theological terms.’ That a writer like St. Paul, who alludes to the Greek games, the Greek theatre, the Roman camp, should have passed over a phenomenon which offered so many suggestive points of view as the Mysteries, is almost incredible. Hatch himself, in his Hibbert Lectures, ascribes to them great in- fluence upon the language and institutions of the early Church. Clement of Alexandria sees and makes explicit use of the parallelism (Protrept. ch. xii.). Lightfoot (on Col 155) holds that there is a connexion between the language of St. Paul and the Mysteries, though he dwells on the ‘intentional paradox,’ that while ‘the heathen mysteries were strictly confined to a narrow circle, the Christian myetenes are freely communicated to all.’
f Lightfoot were right in finding in Col traces of an incipient Gnosticism, and if, as Anrich says, the relation between the Greek Mysteries and Christianity began with Gnosticism, the special frequency of reference to the Mysteries in Col and Eph, already noted, would acquire a new signifi- cance. But itis fair to say that the present trend of opinion is to follow Hort in giving a Judaic rather than a Gnostic interpretation to the heresies referred to in these Epistles. The tendency to re- gard the Mysteries as ignored in the NT is possibly
ue in part to a disinclination to find in them an formative influence upon primitive Christian insti- tutions. For such influence at this early stage it is not contended here ; later, as Cheetham remarks (Mysteries, p. 74), the concern is not with words, but things. But, as he also says, ‘ when Mysteries
were every where found, their terminology naturally
NAAM
came to be commonly employed, and to be applied to matters altogether foreign to its original usage.’ The question is whether the analogy between the experiences of Christians and those who had under- gone the mystic initiation was sutfticiently close and striking to account for the former being ex-
ressed to some extent in terms of the latter even in the apostolic age. It must be admitted that the balance of authority on this point is somewhat doubtful ; we must wait, as already remarked, for further light from inscriptions and other sources upon the usage of the time before it can be de- finitely decided. Meanwhile it cannot be called illegitimate, as it certainly is an enrichment of NT language, to surround such words as μυστήριον, τέλειος, ἐπόπτης with associations derived from so important an element of contemporary Greek life as the Mysteries.
NAAMAN 469
LITERATURE.—A great deal has been written upon this sub ject. Its modern treatment dates from the publication of the Aglaophamus of O. A. Lobeck in 1829. One of the most recent books is Canon Cheetham's Hulsean Lectures—The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian, in the preface to which a good account of the most important works is given. Special reference may be made here to W. M. Ramsay’s article in Eneycl. Brit., 9th ed., to the chapters on the Mysteries in Gardner and Jevons' Manual of Greek Antiquities (1898); in Jevons’ Introduction to the History of Religion (1896) ; and in Professor L. Campbell's Religion in Greek Literature (1898). Compare also Mommsen’s Feste der Stadt Athen in Alterthum (1898), a revision of the same author's Heortologie ; Anrich’s Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einjluss auf das Christenthwm (1894); and Wobber- min’s Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur rage der Beeinjlus- sung des Urchristenthums durch das antike Mysterienwesen (1896). For the use of μυστήριον in the NT see Cremer’s Biblico- theological Leawicon; Thayer-Grimm’s Lexicon; Principal G. Campbell's Dissertations on the Gospels, ix. pt. i.; Hatch’s Essays in Biblical Greek; and Carman’s article, Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 1. pp. 613-639.
A. STEWART.
N
NAAM (oy3).—The eponym of a Calebite family, 1 Ch 4” (B Νόομ, A Ndauw).—See GENEALOGY, IV.
NAAMAH (πον: ‘ pleasant)’ ; Noeud).—1. Sister of Tubal-cain, daughter of Lamech and Zillah (Gn 4” ; Josephus, Ant. I. ii. 2). 2. One of Solomon’s Ammonitish wives, and mother of Rehoboam (1 K 1431. [B* Μααχάμ, A Naayd)* (Gr. 124%, B Naavdy], 2 Ch 12" [Noouud]). According to the second Greek narrative, which follows 1 12%, she was the daughter of Ana, i.e. Hanun, son of Nahash, kin of the Ammonites (2S 10'4, where, however, reads‘Avydv). If Rehoboam were forty-one at his accession (1 K 145, and not sixteen as in the second Greek account, Naamah must have been married to Solomon before the death of David.