Literature. — On the subject in general see T. Mommsen, Rum. SlaatsreclU^, Leipzig, 1S88 ; A. H. J. Greenidge, limnan Public Li/e, London, 19U1, chs. iv., viii., x., xi. especialh' ; an admiralile synopsis by B. W. Henderson in A Cumpaniim to Latin Studies-, ed. Sandys, Caiiibridce, 1913, p. 372 1. ; on the relations between Romans and non-Uonians in provincial towns, see Mommsen in Ephem^.ris Epi<jraphi<:a, vii. [18S)2J 4;itiff. ; on the scene at Philippi, W. M. Ramsay, St. I'anl the. Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, ISO.O, p. 2l7fl., JTh.^t i. (181)9-1000) 114 ff.; and F. Haverfield.rt. p. 434r; Thessalnnian inscriptions conlaininj? the title 'Politarch' collected by E. D. Burton in AJTh ii. [1898J 6H8fl. ; for the title in Etryptian documents, see Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, no. 746 (iv. (1904)).
A. SOUTER.
MAGOG.— See Gog and Magog.
MAGUS.— See Simon Magus.
MAJESTT. — Two words are so translated — fueya- Xft6Tj;s and /j,eya\t,icn!vrj. According to formation (the first from /ie7a\eros = ' stately,' 'magnificent'; the second from /ie7oXo-= 'great') they denote re- spectively the appearance and the fact of great- ness, regal state, and regal might. On the whole, the distinction holds good in usage.
1. neyaXciiT-qs, ' magnificence,' is applied to Solo- mon (I Es 1'^), and in the NT (by Demetrius, the silversmith) to the Ephesian Artemis (Ac 19^). In 2 P 1'^ it is used of Christ's transfiguration- glory on the mountain-top, and, with interesting coincidence, in Lk 9*' of the manifestation of Divine power in His healing of the demoniac boy at the mountain-foot (cf. Clement, Ep. ad Cor. xxiv., Ign. ad Rom. 1. ; ra fieyaXela tov 8(oO, Ac 2").
2. fu-ya'KiDaivq is used in the LXX as the trans- lation of nj'ts or ^"fi. It is applied to David (2 S 7'-') and to the Kings of the earth (Dn 7-'') ; elsewhere to the sovereign greatness of God (Dt 32^, 1 Ch 29", Ps 145''°, etc.). From the LXX it has passed into the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism (e.q. Book of Enoch, v. 4, xii. 3, xiv. 16), of the NT, and the Apostolic F'athers (Clement, Ep. ad Cor. xx., xxvii., Iviii., Ixi., Ixiv.). In He 1' 'the Majesty on high,' and in 8' 'the Majesty in the heavens,' is equivalent to God Himself in His heavenly dominion (cf. Book of Enoch, v. 4, ' ye spake hard words . . . against His Majesty'; Clement, Ep. ad Cor. xxvii., 'by the word of His Majesty all things were framed together'). Most frequently it is used in doxology ( jude '■^, 1 Ch 29" ; Clement, Ep. ad Cor. xx., Ixi., Ixiv.). Robert Law.
MALICE (Ko/c/a). — Malice is the propensity to inllict injury upon another, or to take pleasure in his misfortunes. In early English it denoted wickedness in general (HDB iii. 223), but the modern meaning is found in Shakespeare, e.g. in Othello's words :
' Speak of me as I am ; nothing extenuate, Nor set down aught in malice '
(Act v. so. ii. line 342).
Kada changed its connotation in much the same way. In classical Greek it was not a particular fault or vice, but that badness of nature or character (opp. to dpcT^, ' virtue,' ' excellence ') which is the root of all faults. Cicero discusses the point in Ttisc. Diip. IV. XV. 34: 'Hujus igitur virtutis con- traria est vitiositas. Sic enim malo quam malitiara
MAN
MAN
appellare earn, (|uam Grreci Kanlaf appellant. Nam nialitia certi cujusdam vitii iionion est; vitiositus omnium.' In the NT tlie context generally in- dicates that KaKla is a siiecitic fault or vice. ■ The compound itaxoijtffia (' malicious disposition ') desig- nates hut one of the nu\ny elements or workings of the rejirobate mind (Ko l-'-*). Christians recall the time, before 'thewashin" of regeneration,' when they were ' living in malice {iv (taxi?) and envy ' (Tit 3^). KaKia. is one of the .sins which the believer must resolutely put away (Eph 4°', Col 3*) ; he is not to eat the Chrisitian passover with the leaven of malice ( 1 Co 5") ; in malice ho is to be a babe (14™). Without apparent cause the Revisers prefer ' wickedness' in Ja 1-', 1 V 2'- "*, relegating 'malice' to the margin. Only once is the wider meaning unquestionable : the Ka«'a of which Simon the Magiau is urged to repent is no specific fault, but the deep-seated wickedness of a man who is still in the gall of bitterness (Ac 8'--'- ^).
J.\MES STRAHAN.
MAN. — Intrnduction. — The fundamental fact for apostolic anthropology is the new value eussigned to human nature by Jesus Christ, both through His personal attitude and teaching, and through His life, death, and resurrection. Jesus saw every man thrown into relief against the background of the kingly Fatherhood of God — encompa.ssed by His mercy, answerable to His judgment. For Jesus, the supreme element in human person- ality was its moral content, as the supreme value in the life of men was human personality itself. This conception of human nature goes back to the Hebrew Scriptures, in which we can trace five principles, summarily stated in modern terms as follows, (a) Human nature is conceived as a unity ; there is no dualism of body and soul as in Greek thought, and consequently no asceticism. Man becomes man by the vitalization of a physical organism (for which Hebrew has no word) by a breath-soul {nephesh, ruah) ; death is their divorce, and ihey have no separate history, (b) Man de- pends absolutely on God for his creation and con- tinued existence ; his inner life is easily accessible to spiritual influences from without, boh for good and for evil, (c) Man is morally responsiole for his conduct, because ultimately free to choose ; if he chooses to rebel against the declared will of God, he will suffer for his sin. (d) The will of God gives a central place to the realization of social righteous- ness, the right relation of man to man. (c) In the purposes of God man has consequently a higli place, as in the visible world he has a unique dignity. In the period between the OT and the NT, this con- ception of human nature received two imimrtant developments (cf. W. Fairweather, The Bwkground of the Gospels"; 1911, pp. 283-291). From the Maccabsean age onwards there is a much more pronounced individualism ; along with this there is the extension of human personality into a life beyond death. Both developments are begun in the OT itself ; but neither beginning is comparable in importance with the established doctrine of the time of Christ. These two developments, sepai-- ately and in union, formed a most important con- tribution to the Christian interpretation of human nature. But its foundation was already laid in the OT, the main ideas of which Jesus liberated from the restraints of Jewish nationalism to incor[iorate them into a universal faith. He gave them a new religious significance by His conception of the Father. He added the purified ethical content of the prophetic teaching to the current supernatural- ism of apocalyptic writers, purged of its vagaries. In His own person. He gave to man an example, a motive, and an aiii>roach to God which have made His teaching a religion as well as a philosophy. The result is seen in the Christian doctrine of man,