Lirzraturs. — Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 173; Sanday- Headlam, Romans, p. 425; Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. xili. p. 687. A. Ο. HEADLAM.
NARD.—‘ Pure nard’ is the AVm rendering for * It appears in the Targums as ΝΎ Ὁ (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm 4442).
(88
NASBAS
spikenard’ (Mk 145, RVm ‘pistice nard’). SPIKENARD.
See
NASBAS (B NacSés) occurs only in To 118 ‘And Achiacharus and Nasbas his brother’s son came,’ namely, to the wedding of Tobias the son of Tobit. The AV gives in the margin the suggestion of Junius: ‘Achiacharus, who is also called Nasbas’ (i.e. ᾿Αχιαχαρ ὃς καὶ N. for Αχιάχαρος καὶ N.). The MSS and Versions offer the following variants (cf. Ball, Variorum Apoc- rypha): καὶ ‘A. and Nabad his cousins’ (but a second hand corrected οἱ ἐξάδελφοι into the singular) ; cursives ‘ A. and Nabas his cousins’ ; Itala ‘ A. and Nabal his maternal uncle’ (Cod. Sangerm. 15: ‘Achiacar in Navis soceri illius’); Syr. ‘A. and Laban, his sister’s son’ (135 omitted in the Thes. Syr. col. 1886); Vulg. ‘Achior and Nabath the cousins of Tobias.’
The question whose brother’s or sister's son Nasbas was, whether of Tobit (so Vulgate and others) or of Achiacharus, which could not be settled by the data in the Book of Tobit, is now decided in favour of the latter view through the newly published Story of Ahikar and his Nephew. For there can be no doubt as to the identity of these personages; and it is now also certain that we must find the same person (Nasbas) in the Aman of the received text of To 1410 (see art. ΑΜΑΝ in vol. i. p. 79 and correct there, that the Syriac spells ‘ Akab’ [223] not ‘ Ahab’) ; ef. further, Ball, Variorum Apocrypha, where the Sinaitic Text (ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί με ἐλεημοσύνην) must be trans- lated: ‘because he gave me alms,’ not ‘ because I did alms.’
The original form of the name is most probably Nadab, though it is not easy to say on paleo- graphical or other grounds how all the variants could arise, especia y the received form Nasbas. See J. R. Harris in the Introduction to The Story of Ahikar (London, 1898, pp. xxix, xlv).
Es. NESTLE.
NASI (B Navel, A Νασίθ, AV Nasith), 1 Es 5%= Neziah, Ezr 2%, Neh 756,
NATHAN (jn; ‘(whom God) gave’; Naédv).—1. Successor of Samuel in the line of prophet states- men (Sir 47), When first introduced into the his- tory (2S 7!7, 1 Ch 171-16) he is already David’s chief spiritual adviser (cf. 1 Καὶ 157 Keré). The incident is a remarkable one, whether we regard it as indi- cative of the prophetic as contrasted with the priestly policy in religious affairs (Ewald, HZ iii. 131), or as marking an epoch in the development of the Messianic ideal. The transfer of the seat of government from Hebron to Jerusalem was the first step towards the unification of the kingdom. It only remained to centralize the religious system as well, and so render Israel τ ΠΣ omo-
eneous. The building, therefore, of the temple at
erusalem was something more than an expression of fervent piety; it was a stroke of far-reaching policy. At first, indeed, it was not altogether successful; but after the fall of the Northern Kingdom the temple became so inextricably associ- ated with the religion of the Hebrews as to involve in its own ruin the system which it was designed to consolidate and preserve. The prophet his- torian represents Nathan’s purely human impulse as favourable to the project. That very night, however, a Divine revelation warned him that the time was not yet ripe for this innovation, and bade him communicate to the king a consolatory promise, which is one of the most important Messianic prophecies in the whole OT. The conception of the Son of David, whose kingdom should have no end, struck the imagination of every subsequent Messianic prophet, and is the most prominent
NATHANAEL
feature in NT retrospect. The signiicant varia- tions of the Chronicles in this speech need not here be indicated. But Nathan fulfilled the prophet’s truest function in that scene in which his idyllic parable awoke the conscience of his friend and master (2S 12! Ps 51 title). As we read the words of restrained emotion in which Nathan lays bare the meanness and selfishness of David’s sin, we feel that their effect must have been, in great measure, due to the peculiarly intimate relations of the king and the prophet. Doubtless it was a consolation to Nathan to be commissioned subse-
uently (2S 12") to bestow on the first child of the now forgiven union his name ‘in religion,’ ‘Jedidiah, after the meaning of Jah’ (Ewald, HJ iii. 168). The infant thus favoured was afterwards to owe his crown to the prophet’s astuteness and pap anude It was Nathan that first detected the plot of Adonijah, and suggested and carried through the plan of action by which it was bafiled, and he took a leading part in the joyous corona- tion ceremony that followed (1 1). One is tempted to suggest that the far-seeing and enlight- ened statesmanship which marked the ery years of Solomon’s reign was a result of the teaching of Nathan. It is significant that his son Zabud was selected by Solomon as a special priest and ‘ king’s friend’ (1 K 4°). The Chronicler ascribes to Nathan histories of David (1 Ch 29%) and of Solomon (2 Ch 9”). It remains to add that Jerome (Qu. Hebd. on 1S 17, 2S 21", 1Ch 207 27%) identifies Nathan with David’s nephew Jonathan. He says that he is called Nathan as a prophet, but Jonathan as a warrior, and that when called by the former name his father is not mentioned, since he was not a prophet. x