Per contra, that there were two men of the name is argued from various considerations. (1) Though Josephus does not explicitly say that he is speaking of two di-stinct jiersons, his descriptions imply such a distinction. Lysanias the son of Ptolemy was not a tetrarch, but bore the title of king (so he is also called by Dio Cassius). (2) The limits of the territories over which the Lysaniases of Josephus raled are ditierent. The elder Lysanias inherited fiom his father a kingdom including Chalkis on the Lebanon. This was not, however, included in the realm of the tetrarch Lysanias. (3) Abila was associated with the name of the tetrarch, but not with that of the son of Ptolemy. (4) Dui'ing the reign of Tiberius, or at least 50 years after the death of the first Lysanias, a certain Nyniph.'eus buUt a road and erected a temple, and left an account of these acts in an extant inscrip- tion (CIG 4.521). In this inscription he calls him- self 'a freedman of Lysania.<.' It is impossible that he should have been the freedman of the son j of Ptolemy. He must be regarded as living under the tetrarch. (5) Another inscription at Heliopolis, I whose foc?/?»fr have been filled out by Renan, renders it exceedingly probable that there were more than I one ruler bearing the name in question. (6) A I coin discovered by Pococke at Nebhi-Abel (Abila) bears the superscription Arcrai'ioi' rerpapx- kolI apx'f- pews. But as Dio calls the first Lysanias a king, it is at least doubtful that the lower title of tetrarch should appear on his o'wii coin. In that case the coin must have been strtick by the
96
MAATH
MADNESS
second Lysanias. (7) Finally, an inscription [CIG 4523) informs us that Lysanias the son of Ptolemy left children behind him. It is jJrobable that the names Lysanias and Zenodorus were dynastic names, and that the second Lysanias was given the name of him who was put to death in 36. This is the view supported by S. Davidson, Wieseler, Renan, Schiirer, Plummer, and others.
An earlier effort to establish the historical accu- racy of St. Luke's statement regarding Lysanias was made by Paulus (Com. i. 1) through the suggestion that the word rerpapxavvTos should be erased from St. Luke's text, or that it should be connected with ^ikiinrov, making Philip the ' tetrarch of Itursea, Trachonitis, and the Abilene of Lys
i.e. of that province of which Lysanias had been tetrarch in his day. But this has always been considered an arbitrary way of dealing with the text, resorted to solely for the purpose of saving the historical precision of the Evangelist, and has not found mut'li favour in any quarter.
Literature. — Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1835, pp. 310-313 ; S. Davidson, Intr. to NT, i. pp. 214-221 ; Wieseler, Chron. Synop. d. vier Evang. 1843, pp. 174-183, Beitr. z. Wurdigu7i(j der Evang. 1869, pp. 194-204; Herzog - Plitt, PRE'i, 1877, art. 'Abilene'; Renan, Mem. de I'Acad. d'Inscr. 26. 6, 1870, pp. 49-84 ; Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. 618, ii. 384 ; Krenkel, Jos. u. Lucas, 1894, pp. 95-98; Schtlrer, 6JV3, 1901, i. pp. 716-720 [HJP I. ii. 335] ; Plummer, Com. on St. Luke, 1900, p. 84 ; Schmiedel, Ency. Bibl, art. ' Lysanias.'
A. C. Zenos.
M
MAATH.— An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3^^).
MACH.SRUS. — A fortress on the east of the Dead Sea, in which, according to Josephus (Ant. XVIII. V. 2), John the Baptist was imprisoned and put to death by Herod Antipas (Mt W-'^'\ Mk 6"-29, Lk 3^9). It liad been originally fortified by Alexander Jannteus (Jos. BJ VII. vi. 2), and after- wards destroyed by Gabinius (ih. i. viii. 5; Ant. XIV. V. 4). It was restored by Herod the Great, who used it as a residence (BJ Vli. vi. 1, 2.). On his death it passed into the hands of Antipas, as it lay in the Penisan portion of his tetrarchy. At the time of the Jewish revolt it was occupied by a Roman garrison, which was constrained to abandon it in A.D. 66 (ib. II. xviii. 6). After the fall of Jerusalem it was recaptured, and finally destroyed by the Roman general Lucilius Bassus (ib. VII. vi. 4). The ruins, called Mkatvr, on a projecting height near the Dead Sea on its eastern side, are supposed to mark the site of the fortress.
Literature. — Hastings' DB, art. 'Machaerus,' and the Lit. there cited ; to wh. add PRE3 ix. 326 f.
James Patrick.
MADNESS. — It is somewhat remarkable that the OT ideas about madness should differ so much from those of the Gospels. In the OT madness is due to the influence of a spirit from God (1 S l&* 18^"), in the Gospels to a demon ; in the OT it is conceived of as being closely connected with the ' spirit of prophecy' (which likewise came from God) ; this is clear from such passages as 1 S lu^' ^"'^ 19-^- ^'*, Hos 9^ 2 K 91', Jer 29^6 ; there is no sign of this in the Gospels.* It was, no doubt, owing to the belief that madness was a sign of the indwelling of a spirit from God that a madman was looked upon (in the OT) as, in some sense, .sacred ;+ in the Gospels the reverse of this seems to be the case, if one regards the demoniac described in Lk 8^^"^^ as a madman [see Demon].