+t Among others, Ἧ Ew., Mey., Lange, Keim, Wesl., Newm., Alf., Tren., ely ‘arrar, Westcott. The Apocr. Judicium Petri represents both Bartholomew and Nathanael as apostles.
t Elias is followed by Ebedjesu and other Nestorians Ri 8s. hii. 806). In the West the suggestion is found first in Rupertus of Deutz (12th cent., Com. in loc.), but did not excite much attention until the 16th cent., when it was approved by C. Jansenius (Com. p. 142), and condemned by Baronius as ‘levis conjectura’ (1, 123).
Mt. and Jn., prefers to identify Nathanael with Bartholomew) ; (5) Simon the Cananzan, from a misinterpretation of this surname, as if ‘of Cana’; and (6) Stephen, owing to Jn 15! and Ac 7% (both the last conjectures mentioned by Chemnitius, Harm. Evan. 312; ef. Lipsius, Apoer. Apos. iii. 152). Literature (in addition to works quoted).—Kindler in Thes. Theol.-Philol. ii. 370ff.; Trench, Studies in the Gospels; N. Marshall, Three Discourses on Nathanael in Sermons, vol. ii.; Newman, Sermone, vol. ii.; M‘Laren, Year's Ministry, ii. 169. H. Cowan.
NATHANIAS (Na@avias), 1 Es 95 = Nathan, Ezr 109,
NATHAN-MELECH (35272); Eng. as Vulg.).— An official in the reign of Josiah, whose name is used to designate one of the halls or chambers (ni2¥7) of the temple (2K 23"; see EuNnucn). Gifts and offerings were received in these cham- bers (Neh 1059 ()), and they may have been assigned particularly to the control of those whose names are attached to them (Jer 35* 36%). In the ‘hall of Nathan-melech’ Josiah deposited the horses of the sun (?a group of statuary) which he removed from near the temple entrance (2 K 23"; translate, ‘and he removed the horses . . . to the chamber of N.’). The express identification of the chamber suggests that it was a permanent repository for these horses rather than an ‘ office’ to which they were handed over. Regarding its situation in the temple area, see PARBAR. The name 35>-jn3 ‘ Melech gave,’ is exactly pecalleled by 73373 and 5xin3 ‘J” gave,’ ‘El gave.’ It isnot necessarily a recognition of an idol god Melech (Molech), for Melech, ‘ king,’ was no doubt a titleof J”. But the name may bea trace of the idol-worship of the 7th cent. (Gray, Heb. Proper Names, pp. 146-148). In the LXX 755 does not seem to have been taken as part of the proper name (Luc. Ναθὰν εὐνούχου τοῦ βασιλέως ; B Ναϑθὰν βασιλέως τοῦ εὐνούχου. W.B. STEVENSON.
NATIONS.—See GENTILES, ΟΟΠΜ, RACEs.
NATURAL.—Two different Greek words are thus rendered in AV and RV, which it is necessary here todistinguish. 1. φυσικός, ‘that which is according to the nature’ (φύσις) of any organism, which is the outcome of its constitution. Thus St. Paul con- trasts ἡ φυσικὴ χρῆσις with that which is παρὰ φύσιν (Ro 1%); and in like manner the ‘natural branches,’ οἱ κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι (Ro 11"), are con- trasted with the graft from a foreign stock. It is plain that it is impossibte to decide finally whether or not ay process is or is not φυσικός, unless we understand thoroughly the constitution of the φύσις. It is only because we assume that we certainly know the true τέλος of sex, that we un- hesitatin Vy condemn as ‘unnatural,’ abominable precues ike those condemned by St. Paul (Ro 155),
espite the fact that they are widely prevalent in various parts of the world. Science assures us that they contradict the ‘constitution of human nature,’ the φύσις of man, and conscience acquiesces in the decision.
There is, however, little dispute as to what is unnatural for man, t.e. that which contradicts the whole system of man’s nature, and is not merely repugnant to certain elements of it. But when we ask questions about the distinctions between what is natural and what is supernatural in the universe, difficulties emerge. Certainly (see NATURE, p. 493"), if we understand by φύσις ‘the sum of all that is,’ nothing is strictly supernatural. But science usually employs the word ‘nature’ (described in art. NATURE, § 1) as equivalent to the complex of »henomena, the sum of material forces. And we have not yet exhausted the meaning of ‘nature’
Many
in this sense, for we are not omniscient.
190 NATURAL HISTORY
NATURAL HISTORY
things once considered supernatural are now found to be strictly the results of ‘natural’ processes, of hitherto undiscovered laws of the physical universe. The progress of science largely consists in en- larging the domain of ‘natural’ law. Hence of a given event, seemingly anomalous, it may be im- possible for the observer to say with confidence that it is not the result of unknown natural law, and that it must be referred to supernatural inter- vention. The degree of confidence with which this can be asserted in any particular instance must be measured by the completeness of our knowledge of the circumstances and of the agents. And Butler’s observation is profound, ‘that there may be beings in the universe whose capacities and knowledge and views may be so extensive as that the whole Christian dispensation may to them appear natural, i.e. analogous or conformable to God’s dealings with other parts of His creation ; as natural as the visible known course of things appears to us. For there scarce seems any other possible sense to be put upon the word, but that only [of] similar, stated, or uniform’ (Anal. 1.1 sub fin.). This, however, is only a speculation ; the fact remains, that of certain alleged phenomena our knowledge of nature assures us that they are not in accordance with its ordinary laws as known to us, and that they must therefore be classified as supernatural. The classification is provisionally necessary, although it may not be scientific sub