Furthermore, when these parallels are closely scrutinized, the first aspect of plausibility given to the mythical theory by them vanishes. The parallels are in most cases far-fetched. In .some instances the resemblances are striking indeed. But a relation of derivation of one from the other or from a common source seems to be out of the question. In other in.stances Avliere a genetic con- nexion might be possibly established, the parallel- isms are forced.
In the case of the birth-narratives (Mt l^'^"^, Lk l*^*-)> the question is one of evidence. The ettort
216
NAAMAJf
NAKED^^ESS
to reduce these to mythology is based upon the a priori conception that they are mythical. If it could be proved, apart from the theory itself, upon purely critical grounds, that these accounts are of later origin, a basis for the theory might be found ; but, as a matter of fact, the assumption that they are mythical furnishes the strongest consideration for their critical rejection — a process -which can scarcely be called scientific.
Literature. — D. F. Strauss, Das Lehen Jesu, 1835-1836 (4th ed. 1840), also Das Leben Jesu, /. d. deiitscke Volk bearheitet, 1864 (4th ed. 1877) ; Gfrorer, Die Heilige Sage, 1838 ; UUmann,
Historisch oder Mythisch? 1838 (2nd ed. 1864); Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesu\ 1873; Luthardt, Die modernen Dar- stellungen des Lebens Jesu^, 1865 (for products of the Strauss controversy, see, further, Grimm, Glaubwiifdigkeit d. Evang. Gesch. 1845, pp. 128-131) ; Pfleiderer, Early Christian Concep- tion of Christ, 1905 ; J. May, Miracles and Myths of NT, 1901 ; Kalthoff, Eatsteh. Christenthums, 1904. For the influence of the Babylonian Marduk myth and other myths on Jewish thought, and indirectly on the Gospel historj', cf. Gunkel, Schiipfung w. Chaos, also Bousset, Antichrist, and A. Jeremias, Bahylonisches irn ST. For incarnation parallels, R. Seydel, Das Eoang. in sein. Verhiiltnissen z. d. Buddha-Sage u. Buddha- Lehre, Leipzig, 1882, Die Buddha- Legende u. d. Leben Jesu, 1884 ; Verus, Vergleichendc Uebersicht d. vier Evang. in unver- ] kiirztem Wortlaut, Leipzig, 1897. A. C ZENOS.
N
NAAMAN (Lk 4^7 Xee/xdi', TR ; 'Saip.dv, Tisch., WH ; Heb. I7y = ' pleasantness'). — The famous captain of Benhadad il., whose cure by the instrumentality of Elisha is related in 2 K 5, and who was referred to by our Lord as ' Naaman the Syrian ' in His discourse in the synagogue at Nazareth.
Whether our Lord's visit to Nazareth took place early in His ministry as here related by St. Luke, or later on as some think (cf. Mt \Z^*-^, Mk &-^), or whether there were two distinct visits, does not concern this article, since the purpose of our Lord's reference to Naaman is the same at what- ever period of His ministry He may have made it. He suggested to His audience that they were ready to quote the proverb ' Physician, heal thy- self,' and to say, ' Whatsoever we have heard done in CJapernaum, do also here in thy country.' 'And (better 'But') he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.' His hearers apparently inferred from these words that He had determined to work no miracle among them, and were irritated accordingly, although perhaps our Lord intended to imply no more than that He had little hope of being able to do so (cf. Mt 1358, Mk 65). Then, to justify and to illustrate His action in working miracles outside the limits of His own city. He referred to the cases of the widow of Sarepta and of Naaman, which were instances of blessings bestowed through the instru- mentality of two of Israel's greatest prophets on persons who were not of the house of Israel at all. This afforded a complete justification of His own action, and was, further, a very pointed rebuke to them if, as seems the case, they were annoyed that He had neglected them for Capernaum, wliich, situated in that region known as ' Galilee of the Gentiles,' might be considered as less a Jewish town than their own. And, further, our Lord in these words rebuked Jewish exclusiveness in general, and quite clearly indicated the great truth that the benefits of His gospel, whether bodily or spiritual, were not only for the Jew, but also for the Gentile. It is probable that it was this underlying sugges- tion, coupled with His application to Himself of the great passage from Is 61, which caused the final outbreak of His hearers' wrath (cf. Ac 22-^ 2828- 29).
Albert Bonus.
NAGGAI.— An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3^5 (-0T Nogah, 1 Ch 3^ 14«).
NAHOR.— Grandfather of Abraham, named in our Lord's genealogy, Lk 3**.
NAHSHON.— An ancestor of Jesus, Mt 1^ Lk S^^.
NAHUM.— An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3^^
NAIL.— See Crucifixion, and Feet.
NAIN (NaiV KBCD Ti WH, etc. ; Saelv EGFA, etc., 'Sadfji 1 and 209, al pauc) is named only once in Scripture. St. Luke mentions it (7^^) as the ' city ' to wliicli the widow, whose dead son Jesus raised to life, belonged. The miracle was wrought near to the 'gate,' and in the presence of 'much people.' This Nain cannot be the same as the village on the E. side of the Jordan mentioned by Josephus (BJ IV. ix. 4). Ro. inson (BRP'^ ii. 361) identified Nain with the modern Nein, a collection of squalid huts on the N. slope of Jebel ed-Duhy (Little Hermon), 2 miles W. of Endor and about a day's journey from Capernaum (cf. Lk 7'- " (margin) | Robinson's view has been generally accepted. It agrees roughly with the statements of Eusebius and Jerome, both of whom place it S. of Tabor and not far from Endor. Eusebius reckons it 12 miles to the south (Onom. s.v. 'Saeiv), Jerome {ib. s.v. 'Naim') says 2 miles. The situation of the present village is bleak and uninviting, thougli it commands a wide and interesting view. A few liundred paces above the huts, to the S.E., are rock-tombs in the hillside. Ramsay (Educa- tion of Jesus, Preface, ji. ix) .says he has 'little doubt tliat the ancient city was on the top ' of the hill, somewhere above the modern village. He expresses his belief that this site has more claim to be the ' city set on a hill ' (Mt 5^*) than Safed. It should be noted that Cheyne doubts the cor- rectness of the reading NaiV here (Encyc Bibl. iii. 3263), and claims Nestle (Philol. Sacra, 20) as al.so recognizing ' the doubtfulness of the locality as- signed in Luke.'