SIR {KOpie). — The title is employed as a term of courtesy or reverence in various relationships. It is the salutation of servants (slaves) to their masters ('Sir, didst thou not sow good seed?' Mt 1327) ; of a son to a father (' I go, sir,' Mt 213") ; of the priests and Pharisees to Pilate ( ' Sir, we re- member that that deceiver said,' Mt 27^^) ; of the Greeks to Philip ('Sir, Ave would see Jesus,' Jn 12^^). In the English versions ' lord ' (Kvpte) is frequently used in the same sense ( ' Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents,' Mt 252'*" ^^-^^ ; ' Lord, let it alone this year also,' Lk 13*- 14^^ 2916. 18. 20) j^;^ jg j^j^Q 3^ term frequently employed in addressing Jesus, both by disciples and others (' Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean,' Mt 8^, Jn IP-) ; so the woman of Samaria says to Jesus, ' Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with ' (Jn 4"). See art. Lord. John Reid.
SISTERS.— 1. Nothing is known positively of thesefemale relatives of Jesus. There is but one in- cidental reference to their existence (Mk63 = Mt 13^^ at dSeX^al avTov) by His fellow-townsmen of Naza- reth, who were astonished and offended by His assumed claims to be their religious Teacher. The knowledge which they possessed of His family affairs was too intimate to allow them to examine without prejudice the words and deeds of Jesus. Tlie question as to the precise family relationship which His ' brothers ' and ' sisters ' bore to Jesus is one which has occupied the attention of scholars and writers in every age of the Christian Church (see art. Brethren" of the Lord). It is, perhaps, significant of the estimation in ^\'lnch women were held, that although the names of Jesus' 'brothers' are given in detail, we are nowhere in the canonical Gospels told either the names or the number of His •sisters.' That there were more than two seems to follow from the Matthajan addition (Tracrat) to the Markan question, ' Are not his sisters here with us ? ' It is true that tradition ascribed two daughters to Joseph, though one uncanonical Gos-
pel at least describes Joseph as acknowledging sons, but denying the presence of daughters in his household.
This interpretation of the words «XX' eiiao-iv ^x.i7t; el vlei 'ltrpci.v,X on eOx 'itrri /j-ou 6uya.Trip {Protev. Jacohi, c. xvii., in Tisch- endorf's Evang. Apocr.) seems to the present writer to be warranted by the context, though doubtless the words have a primarj' reference to the Virgin Mar.v (see Lightfoot's 'The Brethren of the Lord ' in Dissert, on the Apostolic Age, p. 28). The daughters of Joseph are ahiiost universally said to be two in number (' Genuit quoque sibi . . . duas filias,' Hist. Jos. Fabri Lignarii, cap. ii. ; ' Ambae pariter nupserunt filiae,' ih. cap. xi., cf. also pseudo-Matt. cap. 42), while there seems to be no agreement in these documents, nor, indeed, among Church writers generally, as to their names ('nomina duarum filiarum [erant] Assia et Lydia,' Hist. Jos. Fabri Lignarii, cap. ii.' ; cf. the Bohairic Version of the same writing, which changes their names to Lysia and Lydia). Other writers give their names very variously as Mary and Salome, Anna and Salome, Esther and Thamar ; while Theophylact curiously enough names three as the daughters of Joseph — Esther, Thamar, and Salome (see Donehoo's Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, p. 27 n.*).
These Apocryphal additions can, hoMever, have but little claim on our sympathy, and one Church Father at least betrays his sense of the "inadequacy of the sources of his information by api^ealing to Scripture as his authority for the names Mary and Salome (Epiphanius, Hceres. p. 1041, ed. Petav. referred to and quoted by Lightfoot [pp. cit. p. 40]), which he chooses as the names of Jesus' ' sisters.'
If Jesus had sisters, as the writers of the first two Gospels evidently believed, it is easy to under- stand what was the source of His general attitude towards women which drew them to Him in humble and loving service (cf. Lk l^''^- S^-^, Mk 143-»= Mt 268-'3, Jn 121-8 47ft. gio)^ outlasting in its loyalty tlie devotion of the majority of His disciples, and stretching beyond the cross and the grave (Mk IS""- 16\ Mt 275sf- 281, Lk 23^9-55 24i-i», Jn W^^ 2oif. 11. 18) Traces, moreover, of His keen apprecia- tion of the beauty and happiness attaching to the home life of the human family may be seen in His reference to the highest act of self-abnegation demanded from His followers ; where the pointed reference to ' sisters ' (d5eX<^ds) along.side ' brethren ' (d5eX^oi;s) marks this characteristic feature of Jesus' teaching (see Mk lO^^f—Mt 19=^ Lk U^s).
2. On the sisters of Bethany see artt. Martha, and Mary § 3.
3. Amongst the witnesses of the Crucifixion mentioned by all four Evangelists were, according to St. John, two sisters — Mary the mother of Jesus, and His mother's sister. Though it has been argued that Mary the (wife) of Clopas (Mapta ^ tov KXwTra) was the sister of the Virgin, it is now generally agreed that the interpretation of Pesh. (Jn 19-^), which inserts the conjunction 'and' between the words ' His mother's sister ' and ' Mary of Clopas,' is correct (cf., on the other hand, psendo-Matt. c. 42 : ' . . . Jesus et Maria mater ejus cum sorore sua Maria Cleophae,' where tlie reason given why two sisters should liave the same name is that the first having been devoted to the service of the Lord, the second too was called Mary for the consolation of her parents). From a comparison of the names of the women who witnessed the Crucifixion, given by tlie first, .second, and fourth Evangelists, the most likely conjecture would seem to be that by ' the sister of his mother ' St. John meant his own mother Salome (see, hoM'ever, Schmiedel's art. ' Mary ' in EBi iii. 2969, which denies her identity either with ' Mary of Clopas ' or with Salome ; cf. also Edersheiin, LT ii. 602, and Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc). If the identification by Hegesippus of Clopas with the brother of Josepli be correct, Ave have the interesting fact that this Mary, thus referred to by St. John, Avas closely connected Avitli Jesus by the ties of family relation- ship (see Euseb. iii. 11, iv. 22). J. R. WILLIS.