or U.^4 5ec ^/a,/^^ / 3 «;^1 -^. OLD TESTAMENT (^hi\or\ ki\(i rl\ilology. A SYLLABUS OF Prof. Wm. Henry Green's Lectures, PRINTED — NOT PUBLISHED — EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF THE STUDENTS OF THE JUNIOR CLASS IN PRINCETON SEMINARY. [prepared by the class of '8o.] PRINCE TON: PRESS PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT, 1878. PREFATORY REMARKS. It is hoped that all due allowance will be made for the various inaccuracies and defects in these notes. They are taken from the notes of a student of the Seminary who was here several years ago, and have been corrected or improved as they seemed to require. The abbrevia- tions and the conciseness of statement are such as are usual in taking notes, and the labor of correcting proofs has been performed at odd moments in the midst of more essential duties. The Syllabus is offered to the Class under the conviction that they will not find in them a help to negligence of duty, but an assistance to reaching h higher and more effi- cient standard of scholarship. S. R. H. L.c-VA^^ j;_ /? cc^e-^-''^ '-' ' ' ^^>-^^Y.jL.cL, \ Introduction to Old Testament. LECTURE I. O. T. consists of a number of separate books or treatises by different authors over a long period of time. Hence the necessity for studying the canon. Canon, xavcbv, any straight rod; then one used in measuring, as a car- penter's rule; then any rule to fix, regulate and deter- mine other things. We speak of canons of Rhetoric, of Grammar. " Canons "=Standard authors. Also "that which fixes anything" — hence the Alexandrian Gram'marians applied the word to the classics — thus in Gal. 6: 16; "according to this rule," r - otherwise called Hagiographa, Aycoypacprj — sacred writings (Kathabh to write). Just the books we find in our Bibles are given here — 24 books, according to the number of Greek letters, Samuel, Chronicles and Kings being each one book, the " twelve minor prophets" one, and " Nehe- miah and Ezra" being in one. Josephus — Born a" D. 37— -priest, lived in Jerusalem, a Pharisee. Had therefore a good opportunity of know- ing : in discussion against Appian only gives their num- ber, not their names, and describes them. He gives only 22 books, the number of Hebrew let- ters, att'achina: Ruth to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah. This frequently done. Three classes. ^^^^-^I-.-, I. 5 Books by Moses. , ^ *^ ^vs n. 13 " by Prophets. ^.lut^fl^ w.^»^i-Tl a>^t>^^>^^- in. 4 " of Hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. L Same as usual. III. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Sorig of Solomon. IL Historical and Prophetical Books-Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra^'N'ehemiah, Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Can prove it also from his own works. Job and the three -/,, , books of Solomon only are not quoted, as not relating to ^^ (Af^ 10 the liue of his history: but these are needed to make up his number, 22. Josephus nowhere quotes or makes use of any one of the apocryphal books. We might prove it also by early Christian fathers. Find it later in account of canon as received in Christian church. ^ General argument. The canon could not have been corrupted before close of T., for a succession of in- spired men, the prophets, would most certainly have exposed it. Since then the extreme reverence in which it has been held by the Jews would not permit it; not to speak of the fact that an authentic copy was kept in the temple after the exile also. Josephus says — " How firml}^ we give credit to these books is evidenced by what we do, for we willingly suffer and die for them, and none are so bold as to add or take therefrom." As to its safe handing down, even the Romanists admit it. . But does it constitute allf Romanists say there are " tioo canons — one restricted, the other enlarged, Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical, of like authority." Of the latter 7 are entire and there are parts of two others — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus or Cyrach, M p^ Barak, 1st and 2nd Maccabees : with chapters added to ; W-Esther and Daniel. " First canon earlier, 2nd later — no '•'■y difference in authority and inspiration." Some distin- guished Romanists say they " differ in grade of authority, though both inspired." But this is absurd — gives up the point : and they mean it. In favour of 2nd canon the}^ say that the canon being closed at the time of Malachi, all inspired books of a later date have to be put in a second canon. Skeptical writers. They say the limitation of 1st canon was simply a matter of time : and was only a col- lection of all earl}^ Jewish writers. But 1. This ignores the character claimed and accorded to them from the beginning. All Jewish authors, Barak, Jose[)hus, Philo, !N". T. writers say they were from God. 2. The O. T. did not in fact contain all the extant writings. Chronicles, one of the latest O. T. books, men- tions several histories and works as extant, viz., I^athan, Gad, Ahija, Iddo, &c. They are not now known in the Jfuu^ n.^^^^L^ -^y-a/'. (J f" f^rr^^ a^AjL ^^i^^ 1 ■J- ^ ' I CP UZzy^ N-c. 3 ^<^ C^^A^'- -i^ ;^uj)ju^^ &^ V- >L. LSjicX-A^ C^-^u^-' V _ / ■^^^ /-tMU-<^^^-^^^ y6x^-n^ •/. / 11 canon because not in the canon then and not J ealousb/ guarded since ; and not because they had perished at the time the / canon was made up. -^ ' " The apocryphal books are refused, not because after a certain date, but because not inspired. Joseph us says after Artaxerxes, prophets ceased. Some say Jewish canon was " limited by the language in which written, and Apocryphal books not admitted i)ecause written in Greek.'' But apocryphal books were originally in Hebrew. See Jerome, Maccabees, Tobit and Cyrach. Some say there were two separate canons among the Jews — that, though only one at Palestine, the Jews else- where, as the Alexandrian Jews, bad two. No authority for this statement. The Samaritans, a scbismatical body, not belonging to the Jews, it is true, acknowledged only the books of Moses, but this was be- cause the later books conflicted with their cherished views, and not because the Jews in general attached superior authority to the books. They had their temple at Mount Gerizim, and therefore refused to accept books w^hich recommended Zion and Jerusalem, Also had much intercourse with the heathen around them. Some say the Sadducees acknowledged only Moses. Mistake. Josephus says 22 books were accepted by the nation at large, and if so large and powerful a portion of the nation as the Sadducees had not received all, he would have certainly mentioned it. Had this been so, Christ (Math. 22) would rather have rebuked them for it, than 'Eave~gi ven way to it : his design in using it was that a reference to Exodus might show them that the doctrine of the resurrection pervaded the entire Scrip- tures. Mystics, Therapeutoe, Essenes, &c., accepted the canon and merely added their own views thereto. "YhQjeiDSofAlexandriadidliiive lax views of inspiration, but even if they had had two canons, their position among the Gentiles would make us distrust any novelty from such a quarter. 1. These Jews also were extremely desirous of keep- ■ ing up intercourse with Jews of Palestine, and nothing 12 would so effectually prevent this as introducing two canons. 2. Translator of Cyrach speaks of the book which his grandfather used in Palestine, and which he himself used in Egypt, and makes no distinction between them. 3. Josephus in his treatise againts Appian, an eminent Jew of Alexandria^ speaks of no difference. ■►- 15 the latter sense, there were three cUisses of books, (a) Canonical or inspired, (b) JScdesiasiical, i. e. approved bj' the church for reading, or orthodox=our Apocrypha where "canonical" is used in its looser sense, (c) Apoc- ryphal, books of evil tendency. How are we to tell which the church did admit ? 1. By catalogues. 2. By early versions. 3. By readings in public worship. 4. By quotatiotis in the Fathers. Catalogues of the sacred books — great authority- given 1. by the Fathers: 2. by Councils, valuable (a) as testimony of many fathers collected from a great extent of country, (b) Best, for they used more precise language. Melito — Bishop of Sardis (the church mentioned in Revelation) — oldest catalogue — A. D. 160 — only one of 2nd century. He travelled to Judsea and inquired care- fully. He opposes all but those in the Hebrew volume. Gives their names, not their number. 1. Abundant tes- timony elsewhere, and 2. this is not a quesion of dispute. Romanists admit this. Adds the words /J xac GOifia after Proverbs; .-. Romanists say it means the Apocryphal book of Wisdom. But the real meaning (/^ yM.t not xat /y) is " which is also wisdom," referring to Proverbs. Lamen- tations not mentioned : probably included under Jeremiah. Rath, with Judges. So ITehemiah, probably included under Ei^As^^. Esther not mentioned— beginsin Sep- -f^^^^^^^^^^ tuagint with an Apocryphal section and .*. Esther joined to ^-^-t^ex^ Jeremiah; or Melito inadvertently rejected the whole of it, or fault of transcriber, or included in another book. Justin Martyr. 2nd century, died 164 A. D. Born in Palestine, after conversion lived in Rome. N'o regular catalogue. Quotes frequently, but never from Apocry- pha. In his controvery with Trypho, a Jew in Ephesus, he does not refer to Apocrypha nor accuse the Jews of rejecting inspired works, as he would naturally have done had he believed those books inspired. Syriac Pesliito, 2nd century, only included canonical books. Or^(/e?^— Greek Father— 3rd century— most learned of Greek Fathers. Educated at Alexandria. Died at Tyre, 70 years of age. His catalogue gives 22 books, as preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, the 16 same as Josephus, and then sa^'s — "and apart from these are books of Maccabees." Minor prophets omitted, but inadvertent!}^, and not by Origen himself, for they are found in every other catalogue, and are necessary to com- plete the 22, (he says 22, and names only 21) — .-. fault of the transcriber. The old Latin translation by Kuffin gives it. Under Jeremiah he includes Lamentations and '''-Epistle of Jeremiah.''' This must be either the epistle to the captives at Babylon, Jer. 29; or an Apocryphal epistle given in the Yulgate as the last chapter of Baruch. Probable that he was misled, for Origen follows the He- brew Qdiwow p)r of essedly, and this certainly never contained it. Tertullian. — 3rd century — no catalogue — speaks of 24 books as in Talmud. Tertullian, oldest of Latin fathers whose works have been preserved to us, thinks the num- ber 24 refers to the 24 beasts around the throne, and the 24 elders, in Revelation. .-. In 2nd and 3rd centuries, we have Melito and the Syriac from the Eastern church ; 'jf<=v5^^C2^ Origen from Greek church ; Tertullian from Latin church. -"^ Fourth C^e^z^wr^.— Corroborated from all parts of church. Coiuicil of Laodicea. Representatives from Asia, f Athanasius — I3ishop of Alexandria. I Cyril — " Jerusalem. Greek j Ejpiphanius — " City of Salamine, in Writers. { Cyprus j Amphilochius — " Iconium. I Gregory of Kaz- (^ ianzus — " Constantinople. Basil the Great of Cappadocia, and Chrysostom of Constantinople give no formal catalogues but equivalent statements — the former says the number was 22: the latter says all the books of O. T. were written in Hebrew — .-. he followed the Jewish canon. f Hilary — Bishop of Poitiers.^ Latin J Ruffinus — " of Aquileia, in Italy. Writers. ] Jerome — Monk of Palestine, (most learned (^ man of his time, born in Dalraatia.) Two, those of Athanasius and Epiphani us, omitted J/si/ier— explained as under Melito. Athanasius even puts 1-1, . T-.d:^uww.»-^i '^<-'A* ;^ , -r^~^ ^ -f'\ ' ^ ^^yxJL^^^^ ."v^M^xTX. \ 17 it among Apocrypha, but for the same reason. There is abundant proof of its canonicity : the only difficulty is to ascertain clearly how this difference happened. They reject whole of Esther, because burdened with spurious chapters. Hilary says " Jeremiah and his epistle "—(see Origen) — Athanasius, Cyril and Council of Laodicea speak of •' Jeremiah, Baruch and the epistle," but Baruch may = part of genuine Jeremiah, (29 chap.) which speaks of Baruch — may be the Apocryphal book of Baruch, which contains this epistle. Later catalogues have not book o^ Banco 't in Apocry- pha, which Rome says is canonical. With these exceptions all sustain the Protestant canon. The catalogues of the lirst four centuries uniting with strict canon. Rome says they give the Jewish canon, and not the larger Christian canon — mere evasion. They give the Jewish because the Christian is the same as this. Again they say they are excusable for the church had given no decision yet. But the church can't decide this: all we want is testimony. Romanist Objectioms. At the close of the fourth century Augustine (good theologian, poor critic) — and the councils of Hippo and Carthage, added most of the books which are now in Romish canon — (I.) But not exactly same. Baruch not in any — and first Esdras=ITehemiah and Ezra, and they contain a book of Esdras (2nd of Vulgate, 1st of English apocrypha) which Rome does not recognize as inspired. (II.) These are "not = three independent witnesses. Augustine was bishop of Hippo near Carthage and his intiuence and views probably determined the decisions of the two Councils. (III.) They would not reasonably differ so greatly from what was held in all the rest of the church, and in Carthage itself at an earlier date. (IV.) The preface and conclusion of the catalogues shows they were meant to include not merely inspired works, but also orthodox, edifying ones. Augustine ad. vises a distinction — that those received by all the churches ^dl (^i 18 should be preferred to those received by fewer, and among the latter preference should be given to most important or influential churches. He certainly would not have made such a distinction among inspired books. Used "canonical" as referring to good, profitable, edifying books. (V.) He elsewhere says "the Jews had no prophet after Malachi until the father of John the Baptisf." And yet the Apocrypha was written in that interval. And he says "all the books of 0. T. were with the Jews, who^libra- rians of the church." But the Apocrypha was rejected and also Judith. And says " the Jews don't receive Maccabees as they do the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, but it is received by the church as books good to be read, especially Mpccabees, who suffered persecu- tion so much for the faith." A sect called Circumcel- iones allowing suicide appealed to the case of Drasis in 2nd Maccabees. To these persons Augustine replies "they are in. great straits for authorities, having only this book, one which neither Jews, nor Christ, nor the Apos- tles sanctioned as they did the prophets and Psalms," and "which the church receives only as the history of men who suffered for God." And says " they are to be read soberly and with caution, only that which is sound being received." Self-murder, though approved in Maccabees, is not right. Maccabees as " canonical," means as ap- proved by church for private and public reading. " What is not in the canon of the Jews cannot be received with so much confidence against opposers." c^v^*^^lC (VI.) There is a presumption that the churcti' at Car- thage did not design to cut itself off" from rest of the church, for it proposed to submit this canon to the judgment of Boniface, Bishop of Rome. Question whether this catalogue is authentic and among the decrees of the church. (YII.) Tertullian, a lawyer of Carthage, in preceding century, and Primazius and Junilius in fifth century, add their testimony. Primazius — Bishop of Africa later — admits only 24 books. 19 Juniliiis dlstiiiguisbes among the " divine" books — some of perfect, some of medium, some of no autlioritj'. Hence Carthage had not the canon, in its wide sense, — in strict sense, the same. Hei^ce by all the "■ canon'- was used in its looser sense. Thus we see there was no disagreement in the first four centuries, if the word " canon " be used in the sti'ict sense. Same canon now. LECTURE IV. We have seen that all the catalogues except three sus- tain uur canon ; and that they do so without ambiguity. And that these three have no more weight than one', and ^^~>^f' that they do not in reality disagree from the other, but ^^ ^ merely use the word canon in the loose sense. But ^ even if this be not so, it is enougb to condemn the Apoc- ^ rypha that it is not in any catalogue before the 4th century. Parallel of (J. and IN. T. Oanoa. To neutralize this the Romanists bring up the Antelegoraena, disputed books of the N. T. which were not generally received until the 4th century, but which we all hold canonical now. But the cases are not similar. The Antelegomena consists of a few small books which required time to be- come generally known ; they were gladly accepted where first 'known, aiid gradually spread. But the Apocrypha (1) were never so'accepted where first known ; (2) where so adopted, it was without critical investigation ; (3.) were classed with 0. T. loosely; (4.) and even in this lax sense w^ere not universally received. N. T. w^as. Greek Church.— R\^tovy of the Canon after the 4th Cen- tury. Followed the Council of Laodicea, against the Apocrypha without a dissenting voice. Latin C7mrc7i.— Division. Many were influenced by Augustine's great learning; as well as influenced by the growino; custom of public reading; others follow Jerome (strict),^but the greater number, especially of the intelli- gent, favored only the strict canon. Catalogues for the large canon in all this time, only two or three. 20 Gregory -¥ifr, the Great, A. D. 600, First Bishop of Rome, quoting from Maccabees, sy^eaks of them as " not canonical, but yet published for the edification of the church." Councils of Trent, France, Eiigland, &c., agree with strict canon. All are considered authorities. There are few genuine authorities favoring Augus- tine's catalogue. In the 16th century, Cardinal Xi'^^^'ies, Archbishop of Toledo, (author of Complutensian Polyglot,) says in the preface, as his dedication to Pope Leo, and approved by him, "These books of the Apocryphal O. T. (given in Greek only) were not in the canon, and were received by the church rather for edification than for doctrine." Cardinal Cagetan, at Rome, an eminent theologian, who would have been Pope, had he lived after Clement y ^, defended the strict canon onlj' ten years before the Council of Trent. The Prologue of Jerome, defending the strict canon, is always in the preface to the Romish Bible. Council of Trent — ecumenical and binding in its de- crees — 8th April, 1546, adopted the looser canon as inspired : " The Apocrypha is to be received with equal veneration with the other O. T. books," and decreed anath- ema on those who rejected it. This is really i\\Q first time it was ever decreed that these books were on a par with the inspired w^ord of God ; or that those of contrary views should be anathema. The decision was owing not to thorough investigation, but to the fact that at that time many of the " lessons " of the t^hurch were from the Apocrypha, and to the desire to make an issue with the Protestants. There was much and earnest dissent in the council even then. Other Romanist Arguments for Apocrypha^ besides the early catalogues : I. Contained in early versions. ^ XL Read in public worshij) early. ^ III. Quoted by early Fathers as of Divine authority."^ Prelim. Remark — The whole church w\as united for the strict canon. Even if undue value was placed upon the Apocrypha in certain places, even if some have ex- pressed themselves thoughtlessly, incautiously, on the subject, yet the general opinion is against them. 21 I. Objection " contained in early versions." — Answer. (1.) Apocrj'pba was not in all ancient versions. The Sj/riac Peshito, and the Latin version of Jerome did not have them. The latter is the foundation for the Vulgate, which took the Apocrypha^ however, from an earlier Latin version — the Itala. (2.) Though in the Sepiuagint, it was there as a mere appendage, not as equal to the rest in authority, because the Alexandrian Jews, among whom and for whom the translation was made, did not so receive the Apocrypha; other early versions made from the Septuagint were copied in the Apocrypha as an integral part. (3.) The Romish argument inverts the real order of facts and makes the effect the cause, saying it was in early versions because it was inspired, whereas it was con- sidered inspired by them merely because it was in ancient versions. There was a great dearth of religious books, and therefore these were more naturally classed with Bible, and bound with it, to •' kill two birds with one stone " in their circulation. For most early Fathers did not understand Hebrew ; it was therefore translated from the Greek versions. (4.) From anal ogjj of modern versions. It might have been included inthe early versions without being con- sidered inspired. See Luther's version— King James' version. (5.) Their argument, if valid, proves too much. They reject as uncanonical, 3rd Esdras and 3rd Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh, which are in early ver- sions. The Ethiopic version contains even more, as the book of Enoch. II. Objection—'' Read in public worship in same man- ner as cai'ionical books, and therefore equal." (l.j The fact is admitted but the argument from it is unsound; everythins: turns on the intention with which they read it ; must first show this before the argument is of anv weight. (£) From analogy. Church of England shows that its beino; read in churches and being canonical, are not the same' thing necessarily. " Read on festival days and not on the Sabbath." 22 (3.) That the early church in reading these books thus did not thereb}^ esteem them canonical, appears from express testimony. Jerome- — "Read for instruction, but not to prove any doctrine." Very explicit. Euffin says, *' there are other books not canonical, but are called Ecclesiastical, as Wisdom of Solomon, or Cyrach or Eccle- siasticus. To be read in the churches, but not for authority in faith." AtkoJiaduB — "Contains not indefinite, but determined and canonized books, but also others not canonical, but read bv catechumens, as Wisdom, Cyrach, Judith, Tobit."^^^ '« . - m' . .. ^..^c lA..,.x.s^ (4.) This argument also would prove too much, for man}' books were read which Rome herself does not esteem canonical. III. Objection — " Quoted by Early Fathers in a way which shows they esteemed them inspired." The most plausible objection ; but even if well-founded, we must take it cautiously in connection with other evidence But it is not a valid objection, however. (1.) Ascertain whether the quotation alleged is realjj^ from the Apocq^^ha. (2.yTf so, whether it is quoted as from the inspired word of God. -" ^ ''"• ••i*^' ,j-># <«« -^^l-u-.^. I. Fact of being quoted ? Answered. First Century. In the Fathers of this century there are a few allusions to persons and things in the Apoci^- pha, and a few expressions like those in the Apocrypha, b-ut n^_ formal quotations from it. This shows merely that they were %cqu.ai»lte^l with the Apocrypha. From the Second Century on. (a) Freely quoted. So are Home'r, Yirgil, &c. Shows only that tliey were known or contained something pertaining to the matter in hand. (b) The Apocrypha is mentioned with respect and rever- ence, and appealed to as true^ but not as inspired. II. Manner of quotation : There must be something in the mode of quotation showing it to have been regarded as inspired ; of this there is no proof Rome says they do so quote. (1.) "They make use of the same formulas in quoting from Apocrypha as in quoting from the other books." ^(2.) " They employ the same terms in speaking of the writers of these as in speaking of those of the other books." 23 Objection I. Formula — " It is written," the established phrase for "quoting" from the inspired word. The}- speak of Apocrypha as the Holy Scriptures, Divine Scriptures. But (1) although to us the word Scripture, from long and familiar usage suggests the Bible, yet its original import is general — writing s {yoaipri) ; and -sa^ret^ scriptures — writ- ings on sac7ed sul)jects. In other words, they merely meant Sacred Literature, in contrast with Profane Lit- erature, using the loose sense of canonical. (i^.) That the phrases are used in this general sense or in the loose sense just mentioned, is shown by the fact that the same writers who exclude these books from the inspired word, yet cite them under these terms — Origen, Jerome, Athanasius. Origen quotes Tobit, Wisdom, &c., and speaks of them as the Divine word, and yet in his catalogue of the canon, leaves them out. (3.) Such distinctions are made in the " divine books," &c., as to show that these terms must have been general. Junilius says " some divine books are of perfect author- ity, some of medium, some of no authority." Cyprian quotes from the Apocrypha as the Scriptures, and then tries to (establish the. truth of the quotation by referring to Acts, which he calls the " testimony of truth." (4.) Analogy — The Homilies of the Chu.rch of Eng- land cite some books under the name of Scriptures, as the Book of Wisdom. (5.) Their argument proves too much. Books are cited under this name by Augustine and others, which Roman- ists themselves do not admit and never have admitted, viz : the Apostolic Constitutions, the Book of Enoch, even the Sibylline Yerses, &c. v^/;^ ■■ tt' Vnu.^'L'^ ,rl Another class of quotations. Writers are called by titles proper only to inspired men, as prophets, etc., or the writings are attributed to some known inspired writers, as"" the 5 Books of Solomon," viz : the three genuine ones. Wisdom, and Cyrach. Answer — (1.) These expres'sions are in a loose, popu- lar sense, so declared by Augustine, who says the two other books are attributed to Solomon (see above) and^ are so because of their similarity of style. So " Book of Daniel" does not assert that Daniel was the author, and so " Baruch and Jeremiah." 24 (2.) If we insist, however, on these points, they only prove that the Fathers were mistaken, for it can clearly be shown that many of the books so spoken of are not genuine. (3.) The Fathers did not mean that they were the word of God, for they elsewhere expressly exclude them. (4.) Analogy — Church of England calls Baruch " a prophet.'' (5.) Proves too much — " argumentum ad hominem." So Rome cites 3rd and 4th Esclras under Ezra. Ergo, the Apocrypha was excluded by the Jews, by our Lord and the Apostles, and by the Christian church generally, if not universally, until Council of Trent. rv Internal Evidence. ^ot decisive (e. g. Esther, Ruth, Ecclesiastes,) yet aids in settling the extent of the canon. Even Luther doubted the canonicity of the Epistle of James, because it seemed to contradict the apostle Paul. Historical evidence must decide historical questions. A book containing what is false in fact or doctrine or unworthy of God, is not in- spired : Tobit and Judith so— are full of topographical and chronological mistakes. Tobit— 1 :"4-5. In the youth of Tobit the ten tribes revolted from Judah under Jeroboam. Hence he must have been 270 years old at the A^ssyrian captivity, at which time he was taken captive. But (14 : 11) he was only 158 years old when he died. ^cL,l^^ ^i,. , ';^ ^v- . His angels' visits, contrary to all analogy, are long continued; an angel journeying on foot with him 300 miles. The angel Raphael induces him to lie to Azarias and to call himself a captive of Naphtali — 5: 12. 12: 15. He teaches a doctrine nowhere else taught : of seven angels going in and out before God : borrowed from Per- sian superstition. His absurdities. An evil spirit in love with a woman ; can be driven away only by a smoking heart and the liver of a fish — 6: 7-17. Says almsgiving can ^deliver from death and purge away all sin. 12 : 9. 14 :i'lO and 11. Judith — 6^ 10-11. The scene is laid in Bethuliah ; no trace of it. The name means virgin. It is probably an allegor}^ or romance. 25 There is no time possible for the events related; as the protracted peace of 80 years, &c. The march of Holo- fernes is decidedly zigzag. The book says it was in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Nineveh, (1: 1) ; but Babylon was his capital. That Joiakim was the contem- porary high-priest ; but there was no high-priest of this name till after the exile. Judith's language and conduct is false and deceitfuL Teaches the Jesuitical plea that " the end justifies the means." Even pra3's God to assist her in so doing. The crime of Simeon, condemned in Gen. ^9 : 5 : is here praised. It is said to be a crime to break me ceremonial law even to save life. (11 : 10.) Jesus taught otherwise. LECTURE V. Internal Evidence Against the ApocnypHA. (continued). The Books of Wisdom and Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus, contain many excellent maxims, yet their morality is defective, and is based mainly on expediency. And the wisdom is less that of Solomon than of the late Alexan- drian philosophers. Wisdom 7 : 25 — The doctrines of Emanation from God, and (8: 19-20) pre-existence of the soul are taught, and that the world was created from preexisting matter. 9: l5_That the material body is a weight upon the soul. 10 : 15-20 — Israel is represented as righteous, and all God's favors to it as a just reioard. Even real miracles are spoken of in an exaggerated way, from mere love of the marvellous. 16 : 20-21 — It says the manna was agreeable to every taste, and tempered itself to every man's liking. 16th and 17th Chaps.— Plagues of Egypt are described with embellishments which are not warranted. 18 : 24-25 — False explanation of the high-priest's dress : virtue is ascribed to his dress which is due only to his mediatorial office. 26 10 : 4 — Cain's murder of Abel is said to have caused the flood. 14: 15 — The account of the origin of idolatry, flimsy and untrue. " Owing to fathers making images of their deceased children." No moral cause is assigned, as by Paul, in Rom. 1: 21-23. rrvilrvvTth Chap, and 9 : 7-8 — Solomon said to be the author, yet the people are spoken of as being at the time under subjection to their enemies — 15 : 14. And it can be proved that it was originally written in Greek. Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus. — Many passages teaching justification by works. 3 : 30 — Almsgiving atones for sin. 3 : 3 — Honoring parents atones for sin. 35 : 3 — And forsaking unrighteousness atones for sin. 12 : 26-28 — Kindness to the wicked is prohibited. 33 : 26-28 — Cruelty to slaves is allowed. 50: 25-26 — Hate towards Samaritans is also allowed. Exhortations to do right to gain the favor of men. Expe- QCi^-i.- ^.'1 diency substitnted for right as the ground of obligation. ^^' ' /W t. V ^^ • 1^ — " Weep for the dead, lest thou be evil spoken ' ' ■• of." Chap. 7. — Carnal enjoyment taught, because life is l^i'ief. , ^z,i. 45 : 15. — " Aaron priest, as long as the heavens stand." Baruch. — Said to have been written by Baruch, the helper of Jeremiah, yet originally in Greek, and quotes IS'ehemiah and Daniel, who lived later. Baruch is said to have gone to Babylon : did not if the real Baruch, but went to Egypt. The Temple is spoken of as standing, and ofiPerings were to be made in Jerusalem, though in Jeremiah's time it was in ashes. Belshazzar is called the son of ^N'ebuchadnezzar, though he was \i\% grandson. ' Speaks of sending vessels back by Jeremiah, (1 : 8) though this was not done till after the exile. See Ezral : 7. - 27 3 : 4—" God hears the prayers of the dead." (So also 2d Maccabees, 15 : 14 teaches.) Proof texts for Romanists. The captivity according to Jeremiah, 70 years ; Baruch's Epistle of Jeremiah says seven generations. Manifestly written later therefore, and as an explanation. I. and II. Maccabees. — I. Has many errors, histor- ical and geographical, but is better than IL, which abounds in fobles and legends. In the latter, preserva- tion of sacred fire; Jeremiah hiding the tabernacle and ark and altar of incense, in Mount ]N"ebo,and the appari- tion which is said to have prevented the Emperor Ilelio- dorus from invading the sanctity of the Temple. Justi- fies suicide ; prayers for the dead. The writer does not even claim inspiration — 15 : 38-39. " Wrote according to his ability." Esther. — The genuine Book of Esther only in Hebrew ; the spurious additions only in Greek, and in the old Latin version. Jerome remarks as to the addition, that some writer undertook to add what might have been said. But it really breaks the connection, contradicts, and adds things improbable and evidently untrue. The Sophists did so often. Additions to Daniel. — Three of them. I. Prayer of the three children in the fiery furnace Devotional, but not adapted to the occasion or their situ- ation, (verses 23-27) and contains unwarrantable asser- tions. II. Story of Susannah — improbable. III. Bel and the Dragon — absurd and ridiculous. The Council of Trent, though few in members, and representing a limited territory, imposed the Apocrypha as inspired,"in the face of all preceding authority, upon the whole Romish church, denouncing its anathema on all who presumed to reject it. Since then, of course, the line of witnesses in the Latin church, against the Apocrypha, has ceased. Yet some few object, and make a distinction between the Deuterocanonical (i. e. the Apocrypha) and the Protocanonical books — the former as of less authority and veneration. But this does not accord v.ith the language of the Council of Trent, and there can be no degrees in such a matter. 28 Greek Church. Favors the strict canon. Cyril Leucar, 1631, Constantinople — address to the Council of Laodicea. Dositheus, of Jerusalem, 1672, under Romish influ- ence, sanctioned the Apocrypha. Platon, of Moscow, a'pproves of the authorized Rus- sian catechism, and authorizes only the strict Jewish canon. Protestant Church. Has always been unanimous for the strict Hebrew canon as to its inspiration. The opinion about the use of the Apocrypha has been various, (none regarding it as inspired, but) some approving the " reading of it for in- struction in life and manners, though not for doctrine" (Jerome.) Church of England : — the Westminster Con- fession says it is to be used no more than human writ- ings. The former of these views naturally led to keeping it in Bibles as an appendix; the latter banished it altogether from the volume. The antagonism culminated in the " Apocryphal controversy."' The German branches -ot^'d**^* /Jc<^U. of the British and Foreign Bible Society used Luther's version, containing the Aprocypha. In 1811, the Society resolved to require its auxiliaries to leave out the Apocry- pha. Owing to opposition, the order was rescinded in 1814. In 1819 the Society allowed their auxiliaries to print the Catholic Bibles in Italian, Spanish and Portu- guese Bibles and insert the Apocrypha with the inspired books indiscriminately — saying the Bible could not be distributed in those countries unless it were so. Much opposition, resulting in the compromise (1822) that they should use the money of the Society only to print the strict canon, the Apocrypha at private expense. Still many were dissatisfied. -In 1827 it was resolved by the Society that " no person or association circulating the Apocrypha should receive aid from the Society, and none but bound books should be issued." Strife renewed in Germany lately, some theologians entirely excluding the Apocrypha, some claiming a subordinate place for it owing to long 29 ecclesiastical usage. But the usage grew up when books were scarce; now that books are plenty and accessible, it is not necessary to put the two together. But the Apocrypha deserves to be carefully read, for its prominence in the controversy and because it has some intrinsic worth (especially I. Maccabees), and sheds much light on the canonical books, explains customs, &c. - The^threefold division of Law, Prophets and Ilagio- grapha or Kethuvim (writings.) This threefold classifica- tion is first referred to in the P^rologue to Cyrach, where this division is mentioned twice. Five books are in the Law, eii^ht in the Prophets, and eleven in the Hagiog- rapha. For Josephus' division see previous lecture, page 9. He made it for his own use and purpose. See also Luke 24: 44. , , , x^ o , ^ Our Lord only singles out the book of Psalms from the Hagiographa as mainly Messianic; or^else the Psalms, as being the leading book, first in order, and most im- portant,''is named to include the rest. So we speak of the Confession of Faith, and Book of Common Prayer It is said they also bear internal evidence of gradual and successive formation. " Law first ; all given subsequently were afterwards o-athered into a second volume, the Prophets, which was dosed; a third collection was again made of ones which were not before known or discovered, and this is the third division or Kethuvim." Those who make this state- ment say it is confirmed by the fact that there are books in the third division which should have been iii the seco d thevhad been known. Daniel is not in the Prophets but in theVnird division. Kings in the second among F»'ophot. but Chronicles, which has precisely the same chamc^^^^ is in the third. Hence they say the formation into thiee classes was a process of time and discovery. ReiDlv-I This view is based upon the idea that the collection of' the canon was a purely literary rescue f^^^^ destruction. But the books were all we known, and all the collectors had to do was to arrange them- n This theory of time, &c., does not account fortlie phenomenon. TlLy say the book of^the Prophets was closed. What is meant by ^^]''\^f'''^^^^^^^ any book remained ; no sense in which it can be true. 30 III. The whole theory is in conflict with the facts : the Psalms, &c., were known w^ien the collection of the Prophets was made, and the Psalms were used in tem- ple-worship. Why not then in this division ? IV. There is an easy and satisfactory explanation. The Rabbins distinguished various grades of inspiration in the inspired writers. 1st. The Law, given to Moses face to face with God ; 2nd. the Prophets, those written under the influence of the spirit of prophecy ; 3rd. those written under the ordinary inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Some truth in this tradition. The ground is the official char- acter of the authors. 1. Moses' functions were unique, the legislator. 2. Prophets officialbj such, class by themselves. 3. There were other inspired men not set apart specially, men exercising secular functions, as, David, Solomon, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah. The Chronicles were probably written by Ezra, the Kings by a Prophet; using the word in the proper official sense of the term. .-. The classification regards not the contents but the authors. Only one book, Lame'ntations, causes any embar- rassment, according to this principle. The prophecies of Jeremiah are among the Prophets : and Hjs probable that Lamentations was originally also so included. It seems so from the enumerations of Josephus and of Origen, who give only 22 books, and Lamentations must then have been included under Jeremiah's proplie- cies. It was probably transferred afterward for liturgical purposes, or from its resemblance to the Psalms. This division was in force in the time of Christ, Matth. 23 : 35. As if to take from the extremes of Scrip- ture, as well as of time, Abel (in the first book) is mentioned, and Zacharias from (probably the last book of the O. T. written) II. Chronicles. Though this is not decisive. Greek and Latin and English Bibles give a fourfold division. 1. Law — Pentateuch."^ 2. Historical Books. ! 3. Poetical " j 4. Prophetical " J I' / 31 Athanasiiis divides into four Pentateuchs, covering all but two of the books, Ezra and Esther. 1. Moses' Books. 2. Five Historical Books. 3. Poetical Books — Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias- tes. Canticles. 4. Prophetical Books — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets. Samaritans had 27 — count double books as single. ^ ^ a.^ This corresponds with the Hebrew alphabet, 22 conson- ants, 5 double forms. This is according to Jerome and Epiphanius. The number 33 has also been given, making with ]N". T. Books, 60 in all. This was done by counting the 12 Minor Prophets singly, and not as one. The number 60 was given a mystical sense, as referring to the 60 queens of Solomon. The English version of the 0. T. numbers 39. 32 Ceremonial Institutions of Mosaic LECTURE 16' /r.^cr:.,-^^.,^^c The Law of Moses as it relates to worship, may be divided into — Sacred Places — Tabernacle. " Persons — Priesthood, '' Actions — The Ritual. " Times — The Calendar. 1. The Tabernacle. — Rectangular; 30 cubits long, 10 wide, 10 high — divided into 2 apartments by a richly wrought veil. 1. Holy of Holies — Innermost room; per- fect cube; 10 cubits each way. 2. The Holy Place — Rect- angle ; 20 cubits long, 10 high and wide. This was sepa- rated from the court by ano'ther rail. 3. The Court — 100 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 5 cubits high. The people w^ere admitted only to the court, in which stood the Altar of Burnt Offering and the Larer. The Priests were admit- ted into the Holy Place, in which were the Altar of Incense^ the Golden Candlestick and the Table of Shew Bread. Into the Holy of Holies, containing the Ark and Mercy Seat, only the High Priest could go, and that once a year — on the great day of Atonement. Meaning and Design. Is there any special signification in the structure, apart from its uses? It might be that the ritual w^as the only significant portion, and everything else subsidiary to it. There must be some place for this ritual, also priests and set times. While it is true that the ritual was the most essential and important, to which the others are subsidiary, yet the latter had their signification. 1. This appears ^r5/, because the arrangement and plan of the structure are not determined by simple regard^ to convenience or adaptability of its uses, (a) The build- . ( ^ • k. r^'.. -^t,-#»=*^^^ ;- /r'C-^^ (> ' ^ /f -A ^^i^^^ ~r " 33 iug was not demanded to shelter the crowd of worship- pers, for they were not really sheltered at all. The court was open to the sky. (b) The dimensions were out of proportion to its contents, (c) No purpose of convenience was answered by closing these from the light, nor (d) do we know why they were set toward the East. Second Reason. — The minute and careful directions in the most trifling matters, e. g., the number of boards in the court, chords, loops, curtains, &c. This shows some further meaning in the thing itself. ilTothing was left to human invention. All w^as prescribed by God. This shows its sacredness and heavenly origin, just as in Rev. 21 : 15 ; 11 : 1-2 ; also in Ezekiel Rev. 11 : 1-2— The court was not to be measured but given to the Gentiles. Measurements imply sacredness. Third Reason.— Mosqs (Ex. 25 : 40; 26 : 30) was di- rected to make all things after the pattern shown him in the Mount. What was the Symbolical Meaning? Various views: I. The 31aterialistic. — Some say that it was modelled after the tents of earthly rulers, and was designed to be the abode of the divine monarch of Israel. There is a gross material sense of this view held by some, as though God had the same necessities and wants as men. This view^ is inconsistent with God's nature. To this we say : The plan does not correspond to a human tent. The seat or throne is set in a dark apartment ; the candlestick in another room. The food is on the table, the tire on the altar, but no bed. Its being made after the pattern shown in the Mount, proves that it was not made after a human tent. Others who have held this general view, said it was an ideal structure for God, who had no need of shelter, but yet condescended to dwell in a tent. There is a measure of truth in this, but still it does not explain the structure. II. Cosmical Theorfj.— They say the Tabernacle, &c., represents the Universe. The Tabernacle represented heaven, and the Court represented the earth. Three Modifications of this Vieio ; 1. It represented the material heaven and earth. Philo, Josephus, some Christian Fathers, Talmud and 34 the Rabbins, held this. They held that the contents of the Tabernacle were celestial and those in the Court ter- restrial. The Seven Lamps represented the seven planets : Twelve Loaves=twelve signs of the Zodiac ; Two Chern- bim=--the two hemispheres of the heavens, winged to denote constant motion. Four Materials of the Veil — the four elements. In the Court, the Laver^the sea. The Altar = the land. This view is false because (1) there is no in- timation in Scripture that these objects were represented in the temple. (2) This would be a mere worship of nature, like the heathen who had these objects in their temples. (3) The very objects here supposed to be repre- sented, are those which were forbidden to be represented by images and worshipped — Deut. 4: 19; Ex. 20: 4. This would seduce the people to idolatry by Divine appointment, the same thing that Manasseh was accused of cloing— 2 Kings 21 : 15. (4) The Tabernacle would thus contain none of the things we should expect to find there in connection with the Mosaic System. Second Modification of the general theory, held by a few Rabbins, who maintained that there was a literal tabernacle in the heavens and coi)ied by Moses. Third Modification.— ll\vAl the Tabernacle represented the invisible heavens. 1. This is based on the fact that the Scriptures use the same terms in reference to the Tabernacle as of Heaven ; e. g., " God dwelleth in both." 2. That Solomon, in his prayer, (I Kings, 8 : 30) asks that God would heiir in heaven, &c., when they prayed toward the temple. 3. That this view has the authority of the K T. Heb. 9 : 24 ; 9 : 11 ; 8 : 2 ; 6 : 20. Against this we say : The apostle does establish a relationship between the Tabernacle and Heaven, but not that of a symbol but of a type. What was done by the priest in the Tabernacle was typical of what Christ does in Heaven. As to the other arguments : God did dwell in the Tabernacle and in Heaven ; but the Tabernacle was not the symbol of Heaven. He manifested himself in both, but in different ways. One was the abode of his conde- scension as the God of Israel, the other the nbode of his glory as the God of the Universe. / e» 35 /r The true nieaning is shown by the difibrent ex-'' pressions used in reference to it. It is called the tent or tabernacle and house of God ; the valace or temple, (1 Sam. 1 : 9) the dwelling place of God.. I These names suggest the idea of earthly residence. God is not a God afar off, but near at hand. :^ The design was expressly declared by God himself (Ex. 25 : 8) as the place where he would dwell. God was there, and there spoke and manifested his pres- ence. The people went up there to meet him and address him. ^ The character of the symbol itself : The house was designed for God, and placed in the centre of his camp. The several families of the Levites encamped near it, and three tribes on each side. It was set by the points of the compass, fronting the East, showing it to be set for the whole earth. His kingdom was to control all the earth ; to correct the idea that the Jews were the exclu- sive favorites of heaven^ This general idea of God dwell- ing on the earth is further specified (Ex. 27 ; 21)=the Tab- ernacle of the congregation, which reads in Hebrew,=:the Tent of mQQ\:u\t^6u<^ 42 ^^ v^- \/ rather bronze. Ex. 22: 1-8. The Altar itself was made of earth and stones. Ex. 20 : 24, 25. This shows that the altar was not a human structure in its conception, but an ascent toward heaven, signifying drawing near to God. Thus ^oah sacrificed on Mt. Ararat; Abraham on Mt. Moriah; Moses and Aaron communed with God on top of Mt. Sinai. Ex. 24 : |9. There was a tendency to worship God on the tops of mountains and high hills and in groves, whose silence denoted solemnity. Gen. 21 : 3S Other nations had this idea. Mt. Olympus in Greece was the abode of their Gods. An altar represented a mountain in miniature, an ascent toward heaven, and God comes down to meet the offerer there. When the Greeks offered to the Gods of the lower world, they offered in trenches. The word altar in the Heb. MiZBEHA^^=to lift up. Altar from alUm high — Greek ^^fia from ^aivco. Ex. 20 : 24. There was such a place to meet God in each division of the Tabernacle. In the Conrt, the Altar of Burnt Offer- ing ; in the Holy Place, the Altar of Incense; and the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. The divine presence was to be met in each, and expiation and forgiveness given in each of these places. This rendered the Taber- nacle the house of meeting and entitled it to the name of the House of God. (2.) The iai^er,— Ex. 30 : 18. It is less minutely described than any other article in the Taber- nacle. It was for Aaron and his sons to wash in, when they went into the Tabernacle or approached the Altar, — Ex. 80 : 19-21. This symbolized the need of purity. The hands doing God's will and the feet treading on sacred ground. Moses at the burning bush, and Joshua in the presence of the captain of the Lord's host, were directed to loose their shoes from off their feet. The Laver^ (Ex. 38 : 8) was made of the looking-glasses or metallic mir- rors of the women. These mirrors were converted into instruments of cleansing and this was an instance of con- secrating what was secular to sacred ends. LECTURE lY. .7 'j n ^'j U-t ^Sacrifices. There are two classes of sacred actions, offerings and purifications. Offerings were the most sacred and could be performed only at the Sanctuary. M a (^ CU u I i ' ' ' .V ^. / •Alt ^-^'tt. t. < ■ .'0 ' , f> / 5'^ '^ ^ C r-.^^^ lu^ 4-... . - - ■r this ceremony in Lev. 16 : 21. ''2.) It may be inferred from the position which the laying on of hands holds in the sacrificial service. It occurs in all animal sacrifices, except that of doves, and never in the vegetable offerings. This shows that it must be related to something peculiar to the animal sac- rifice, i. e., the atonement. This act is done by the offerer, and not by the priest, and therefore indicates something connected with himself. It also follows the presentation of the victim and immediately precedes the slaughter. The effect of imposition of hands is to qualify the victim to make atonement for the sin of the offerer. Lev. 1 : 4. (3.) This is the ancient, traditional, and commonly received explanation. Some recent interpreters have made a distinction in thfe signification of this ceremony in the different t >Jk.A. *.-<* e/.d ' 'VV'^ ;t^ /^- >>o<2>u#K^ "/•JO. ^ / ■ 7 ^^ C / Co ^^^ l^-i^' I /I 47 kinds of sacrifices. Holding that in the sin-offering^ it denoted a transfer of the guilt of the otfereV, but in the hurnt-offering it signified the desire of the offerer to be consecrated to God. In the peaee-offering it denoted gratitude and thankfulness to God. Reply. (a.) Although the ultimate aim is dififerent in each, the immediate end is the same in all, i. e., atonement for sin. (b.) The transfer of legal relations is easily compre- hended, but we cannot conceive of a transfer of the emo- tions of the oflTerer. (c.) Lev. i : 4, expressly says that the acceptance of the atonement depends on the laying on of hands in the burnt-off'ering. The hands were laid on the head not for convenience sake, but because the penalty was a capital one. II. Slaying of the Sacrifice. The infliction of the penalty. It showed the doctrine of substitution which is taught in Isaiah 53. Various vieivs. 1. Some say that slaj-ing here means only renuncia- tion of the victim and surrender of it to God on the part of the offerer. The death rendering it useless to the offerer. Complete consecration to God. This falls with the error on which it is based, which is not analogous to the Roman custom of manumission. 2. Spiritualistic View. — That it represented the dying of a sinful nature and the giving up of a worldly life, and obtaining communion with God by presentation at his altar. Answer — (1.) The victim was not a symbol of the offerer, but a sinless substitute. (2.) The life of the ani- mal cannot represent a sinful life. The imputation of sin transfers the liability to punishment, and not the moral character. Clirist was our substitute, but did not possess our sinful nature. (3.) The death of one to whoni sin is imputed cannot be the medium of bringing the offerer near to God, except as being a substitute for him. (4.) This makes inward holiness the ground of pardon, and sanctification to precede justification. The death of the animal here means that the offerer thus dies unto sin, whereas his sin must be atoned for as a preliminary to his being brought into communion with God. r-ti-^-<^^ , yi 2 ; ^ ^ 7 /Z s5^^ '48 3. This view regards the slayincj as iiierel}^ an iiidis- peusable means of securing the blood and flesh, and has no signification in or of itself. Answer — (1.) The slaying of the victim was an integral part of the ritual, prescribed to be done at the Tabernacle in the presence of the priests, &c. (2.) This is tantamount to a confession that it is the penalty of the law endured in the offerer's stead. 4. Penal Vieiv. — It has been objected to this true penal view, (1) that the victim was slain by the offerer and not by the priest. Answer — (a.) The sinner is his own destroyer, (b.) The sinner is his own accuser and confessor, (c.) It is typically significant of Christ. Doves were slain b}^ the priests because of the scarcity of blood. Objection (2.) — This makes the slaying of more conse- quence than the sprinkling. Answer — (a.) In a judicial view% it is still the sprinkling which actually effects the expiation, (b.) The slaj'ing is an equally essential part of the ritual. III. Sjjrinkling of the Blood. — Different Views. — 1. That it was the complement to the act of slaying. This is not so, for (a.) The blood was not wasted but carefully gathered, and (b.) It was brought to a specified place and used in a prescribed way. 2. Sjjiritualistic View. — That the bringing of the blood, which is the life, to the altar, represented that the life of the offerer shall be made holy and sanctified. An- swer— (a.) According to Lev. 1 : 4 ; 7: 11, the blood makes the atonement and is not itself atoned for. (b.) It is dis- tinguished from the offerer as making the atonement for him, not as a symbol but a substitute. 3. The blood was sprinkled upon the sacred vessel s^because they were regarded as defiled by the sins A^ . ol""tHe people, and the blood covered this defilement. This is argued from Lev. 16 : 15-19. Answer — (a.) It would be more natural to sprinkle the offerer himself, who was the sinner, (b.) A separate service was used for the atonement of the Sanctuary once a year, but not in every sacrifice. 'If,^ --rrjvd £j -6 49 4. True View.— It is an exhibition at the altar of the blood which has been shed tor rhe offerer, and repre- sents expiation and that death has been suffered. The blood was sprinkled (1) on the Brazen Altar; (2) at the Golden Altar of Incense ; (3) at the Mercy seat— at places where God especially met with his people. The fact of his requiring it to ''be placed there, denoted his acceptance of it. IV. Burning of the Victim at the Altar. With the sprinkling, the atonement was completed. Now comes the oblation, which was accomplished by burnino- the victim. This was common to the animal and veo:etable offering. Some regarded the fire as the wrath o"f God, showing that temporal death did not exhaust the penalty of the law, but that the vengeance of eternal fire should fol- low. Answer— (a.) Fire may be regarded as a purifier as well as a destroyer. It leaves the "earthly portion here and carries the rest heavenward, (b.) The whole penalty of the law is represented by the death of the victim, (c.) This burning follows the sprinkling, by which expia- tion has been already effected, (d.) The victim is said to be a sweet savor unto the Lord. — Lev. 1 : 9. (e.) The bloodless offering was also burned on the altar. There was no sin represented in these offerings, hence the sym- bol must mean the same in both cases. The fire carnes the sacrifice to God relieved from all earthly dross. It is an oblation of food made to him— Lev. 21 : 6-8. It is a tribute returned to God for most necessary gifts — not to absolve from further consecration, but pledges prop- erty, labor and life, all to God. Rom. 12:1; Psalms 40 : 6-8. The animal was skinned, for the skin was not used for food, and the flesh washed, so that the ottering might be clean — free from defilement. LECTURE VL Different Kinds of Sacrifice. They v;ere not first instituted by Moses. They ex- isted from the earliest Bible History. Moses modified, 50 regulated and enlarged them. What liad been left to the pleasure of the offerer, was now explicitly determined by Divine statute. Rigor, precision and complexity succeed simplicity, &c. This was progress. The elements were separated and made distinct to the mind of the offerer with an ultimate reference to Christ. The Burnt-offering was the principal form in the Patriarchal System. Besides this was the '' Sacrifice ." Gen. 46 : 1. In Ex. 10 :25, this is distingui-hed from the burnt-otfering. In Gen. 31: 54, a sacrificial feast formed part of the service. This must have corresponded to the Peace-otfering. Vegetable- offering, Gen. 4:3; Drink-offer inq, Gen. 35 : 14. — That these were not distinct offerings in former times appears from Gen. 8 : 20, where Noah offers a Burnt -offering. The Mosaic ritual would have required a Peuce-o^Qvmg. See also Job 1 : 5 ; 42: 8. ^wry^f-offerings instead of Sin- offe rings. There were two ideas in the Sacrifices : 1. Atonement — Expiation by sprinkling of blood. 2. Oblation — Con- secration by burning on the altar. The Sin-offering emphasizes Atonement. The Burnt-offering emphasizes Oblation. There were two other offerings : 3. Trespass- offering, with the idea of satisfaction by pecuniary compensation. 4. Pmc6^-offering, with the idea of restored communion with God by n»eans of a sacrificial feast. When differ- ent kinds of sacrifices are to be offered together tbey are invariably named in order, and Sin-offering always pre- cedes Burnt-offering, and both of these before the Peace- offering. Ex. 29 : 14, 18, 2^ Judges 20 : 26 ; Ez. 45 : 17. The Sin and Trespass-offerings were designed to restore the Theocratic relations with God. The Burnt and Peace- offerings, to express and maintain these relations. I. DlSTINCTIOX BETWEEN THE SlN AND TRESPASS-OFFER- INGS. Various Opinions. — 1. That there was no real difference. The offerer could do as he chose. 2. That the Sin-offering was for sins of ignorance, and the Tres- pass-offering for venial sins. 3. That the Sin-offering was for sins of omission, and the Trespess-offering for sins of commission. 4. That the Sin-offerings were for sins vol- untarily confessed, and the Trespass-offerings for sins '{aa/J L r M/J M- 51 proven by testimony. 5. That the Sin-offering was for lighter sins, and the Trespass-offering for nio'i-e serious offences. The True View.--VhiiX the Sin-offering was for simple transgression of the Law, and the Trespass-offering for trespass or injury against God or fellow-men, for wdiieh amends must be made together with one-fifth in arldition. The Trespass-offering was also required in cleansing a leper, because he must make amends for his lack of service to God during his defilement. Also required of a Nazarite who had a special vow, and had contracted ceremonial uncleanness in the meantime. The ritual of these two offerings was determined by their character and design. The animal varied according to the theocratic standfiig of the offerer, in the Sin-offering. For the sins of the entire people, or of the High Priest as the representative of the people, a young bullock was required. For an ordinary ruler, a Ae-goat. For one of the common peo- ple, a. ^A^-goat or sheep. For the poor, two doves or pigeons. For extreme poverty, one-tenth of an ephah of "flour. '3 f^''' The enormity of the sin was aggravated by the standing of the sinner. This gradation is peculiar to the iSm-offer- ing. In the Trespass-oW^vrng^ a ram was required in every case, because the damage was the same, irrespec- tive of the wealth of the offerer. The ^SV/i-offering was for the whole people, and was offered at the 'dmm'c\\ feasts , to atone for the sins of the whole people in the interral. V^ J -^o Trespass-offering was required, because the nature of this required the [tarticular sin to be made known. Ordy a single animal was offered in the Sin and Trespass- offering. There was an indefinite number in the Burnt and Peace-offerings. Because in the Sin and Trespass- offerings the expiation for sin was the pure act of God's grace, and not to be purchased by the number of the offerings. In the Burnt and Peace-offerings, which rep- resented the inward devotion of the heart, and there- fore could be intensified, an indefinite number of vic- tims might be offered. At the dedication of the temple^ tens and hundreds of thousands were offered. The great idea of the Trespass-offering is satisfaction for sin, repa- ration for damage by pecuniary compensation. In the 't- 52 Sin-offering, the prominence is given to the sprinkling of blood, and the great idea is expiation for sin. The blood was brought to the altar in every sacrifice; but in the others it was sprinkled round about the altar, while in the Sin-offering a greater formality was required. (1.) In the case of the Mkfh^Prks^. The blood was taken by the Priest on his finger, and smeared on the horns of the altar; these were the vertices or culminating points, the idea being that the virtue in it rose to its maximum. The rest of the blood was poured at the base of the altar. See Lev. 4 : 3-12. (2.) In the case of the sin of the ivhole people. The blood was carried into tlie Holy Place and sprinkled seven times in front of the rail, and was also taken on the finger of the Priest and put on the horns of the Golden Altar of Incense, while he poured the rest of the blood at the base of the Altar in the court. Lev. 13 : 21, On the great Day of Atonement, tlie Higli Priest took the blood of the sin-offering and sprinkled it upon tlie mercy-seat in the Holy ()f Holies. In the case of the Sin and Trespass-offering, the fat only was to burned on the altar; the flesh was given to the Priests to be eaten in the court, in case the sacrifice was for a layman ; but if for the priest or for the whole people, it was to be burned in a clean place without the camp. Lev. 6 : 25. Different Explanations of this rule. These offerings were made unholy by the sin imputed to them ; therefore the flesh could not be burned with acceptance on God's altar, but must be consumed in some other way, either outside the camp or be eaten by the priests. Tliis symbolized the annihilation of the sin which had been imputed to it. If eaten, it was sup- posed to be abs(,)rbed in the holiness of the priests. If the priest was the sinner, or the people, then the holiness re- quired to consume the sin was lacking. Hence the flesh must be burned. In support of this, those who hold it quote Lev. 10: 17. They inferred that the eating of the Sin-offering by Aaron and his sons was equal to consum- ing the sin of the people. This is not necessarily the meaning of the passage. That this view is not correct 53 appears from Lev. XQ • 25 and 10 : 17. The flesh is there called "most holy," also Lev. 6 : 26-29. It was eaten only in the Holy Phice, and anythino: it touched was made holy by it. It must be washed in the Holy Place, and a brazen pot in which it was sodden must be rinsed and scoured, and an earthen vessel was to be broken. The fat was burned on the Altar. This would not have been so, if there were any defilement in the animal ; nor would the priest be allowed to eat defilement. The sin had already been atoned for, by the si)rinkling of the blood before the flesh was to be eaten. The burning of it out- side the camp, in a clean place whither the'ashes had been carried, was analogous to the burning of what was left from the Passover and Peace-ofFering, and was to preserve it from decay and corruption. The priests could not eat the sacrifice offered for themselves, because they could not profit by their own sins. They were Grod's servants, and therefore were to bo ted from his table. II. Burnt-offering. — Emi)hasized oblation and con- secration. Its characteristic was the burning of the whole eatable portion of the animal. It could be offered at any time, and was the most frequent of the offerings. The other offerings were for special occasions. There was a regular public Burnt-offering for every day, con- sisting of a lamb every morning and evening. The fire was never allowed to go out. On the Sabbath, the daily Burnt-offering was doubled. On the first of the month there was a larger offering; and at the annual feast, larger still. It was the only kind of offering that could be offered alone. No act of worship was acceptable with- out the consecration which the burnt-offering represented. Any kind o^ clean animals might be offered. It must be without blemish and a male, except in the case of Doves, where there was but little difference in the size of the two sexes, (and yet the 7nasculme' suf^x is used in the case of Doves.) In the Sin-ofifering, where gradation was re- quired, this was made in part by distinction of gender. Males were considered higher than females. The female was not allowed in the Burnt-offering at all. Some say that the male represented greater strenuousness, &c., on the part of the offerer, to God's service. But difference in size is the most plausible explanation. 54 LECTURE VII. III. The PEACE-OFrERiNG — To express and ratify peace with God. Its characteristic feature was a feast^ which signified peace and communion with God. When this Sacrifice is mentioned in a series, it is the highest and Jast. Three kinds are recognized. 1. Thankscjivingm acknowledgement of some benefit from God, or for God's mercy in general. 2. Voids in fulfillment of pledges previously given. 3. Free-will offering of the inward, spontaneous im- pulse. Peace-ofterings were presented for benefits desired, as well as for benefits received. Judges 20 : 26 ; 21 : 4 ;-; 1 Sam. 13: 9; 2 Sam. 24: 25. Any sacrificial animal, male or female might be pre- sented, according to the wish of the ofierer. It could be male or female. Doves and pigeons are not men- tioned, because this sacrifice was not urgent, and so the very poor did not need to ofier at all. Moreover, doves and pigeons would have been unsuitable for the sacrifi- cial feast which followed. The animal must be without blemish. Only in the free-will ottering one " superfiuous or lacking in its parts " might be presented. It was a spontaneous gift, so an animal of less value would be accepted. The disposition of the flesh was peculiar to this kind of sacrifice. The fat was burned on the altar. The breast and right (shoukhr or) ham were waved or heaved and given to the priests ; the ham to the friends who ministered in this particular sacrifice, and the breast to the priests in general. There was no particular meaning in them, as that the breasts" afiection," and the shoulder=" work." These are called technically the wave breast and heave shoulder, because of the consecration by waving and heaving. There is a tradition about this ceremony. The waving was by some supposed to be a horizontal motion toward each of the four points of the compass. Others think that it was waved forward, toward the sanctuary, and then backward again. This, they say, showed it to be 55 given to God and then God gave it to the priests. The heamng was the raising of it np to heaven and lowerino^ it again. The rest of the flesh was given to the offerer, who, with his family and friends and some needy Levites, ate it. This symbolized communion with God and his peo- ple. 1. The Spiritualistic Vieiv. That the animal repre- sented the offerer himself. Part was given to God on the altar, and part given to the priests, (i. e., God's people,) and thus the offerer was brought into union and fellowship with God and his people. The objections to this view are : - (1) The offen-e« eats a symbol of himself Ee was not excluded from the sacrificial feast. (2) The priests and the friends form two separate companies, but according to this they should be one. 2. The True View. That this is a feast in which God is the host, and the offerer and friends are guests. This appears: (1.) The flesh was the flesh of a sacrifice which belonged wholly to the Lord. (2.) Not only that which was burned, but that which was eaten, is called the - bread of God." Lev. 7 : 20-21 ; 21 : 22. (3.) It was to be eaten before the Lord in his court. (4.) From K T., 1 Cor. 10: 18-21, we learn that the offerer is the guest of that deity of whose sacrifice he eats. (5.) Analogy of the Lord's supper, and of the parables of our Lord. (6.) This view is necessary to the sio^nificance of the em- blems. This feast is a symbol of and a pledge of friend- ship, peace, and communion with God. It is upon the flesh of a sacrificial animal, and in an inward apprecia- tion of the benefits of the sacrifice. The guests repre- sented the whole body of God's people. It was impos- sible for them all to get together in one place and at one tirne, (except in such'a case as the dedication of the tem- ple,) and so a selection must be made. And the family and friends composed the company and represented the entire body of God's people. So, in the case of the^Pass- over, each company represented the entire people of God. So also in the Lord's supper. What remained was to be burned and thus preserved from contamination and cor- 56 ruption. There was a distinction between the thank- offering and the vow or free-will-offering. The thank- offering was the holiest, and hence corruption was more strictl}' guarded against. No part of it was to be left until the next day. Lev. 7: 15. The Vow Siud free-ivill offering could be left until the second day. Lev. 7 : 16-21 ; 19 : 6. U^ /vThe Bloodless ov Vegetable or Meat-offering, (Heb., MiNHAH.) "Meat," in our English version,--^" food." The r/^6<:<^ U 'LJ ^iU>u^. >4 t h tf*. i-^u^ yt^cnJ^P \ <» i- jtcct4'^' > r^ v^'»u*<-^^ ^ci^/^ '''U-4 7 i 79 intercourse ; — e. g., Moslem, Sultan, Dragoman, are from the Arabic, and yet the EngHsh has no connec- tion with it. 3. They paid attention only to the etymology of the words, disregarding the grammatical structure of the language, which is a truer test. Though the English has words from many languages, its gram- matical structure clearly denotes its origin, the Anglo- Saxon, Germanic. The Turkish, the Persian, the Hindoo languages are entirely distinct from the Ara- bic, and though they are full of words borrowed from the Arabic,, their grammatical structure clearly shows their distinctness. 4. It was assumed that relationship between two languages proved that one was derived from the other : whereas both may have been derived from some other language. Latin is related to Greek ; both are related to Sanscrit ; yet neither has sprung from the other. There is only an affmity. Now that sounder principles have been adopted, although unity of language has not been and prob- ably cannot be reached, yet astonishing analogies have been discovered, and languages have been re- duced to a few Groups. Ethnology aids here, though its divisions and those of Philology do not precisely coincide. There are nations closely allied by physi- cal structure, which speak languages entirely dis- tinct, and vice vei^sa. Hence existing diversit)' oi both are not inconsistent with unity of origin. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, (with a few verses in Chaldee). This language was not selected because of anyspecial sacredness,or because it was the primitive language ; but merely because it was the language spoken by the people chosen as the custodians of revelation during the time the reve- lation was being given. 80 There are eig^ht o^reat Families of Lanoruaores, in- eluding- almost all. Some few have not yet been classified ; e. g., the Basque language, near the Bay of Biscay, in France, has no apparent affinity to any language. Many have not yet been thoroughly ex- amined. But enough is known to justify the fore- going classification. These eight Families differ not only in their stock o( words, but also in their £-e7iera/ structure, and are thus divided into three ereat Groups. I. Isolating Lang2iages, or those of undeveloped roots : having no inflection ; no parts of speech ; no modifications of the forms of words to express num- ber, gender, tense, etc. ; and no derivation of words from one another ; but only ultimate roots thrown together. II. Agglutinative Langtiages : — One step better ; not having mere ultimate roots loosely thrown to- gether, but possessing all the various parts of speech, gender, number, etc., by modifying syllables ; though these are only artificially cemented to the root, and do not lose their individuality. The word is built up by additions, the original and independent character of its constituents not however beine lost sig^ht of. III. Injlective La?ig7iages : — most highly devel- oped ; the word not being a mere conglomeration, but an oro^anic whole. It is a growth, in which the branches are inseparably joined to the trunk. I. Includes 3 families. II. " 3 '< III. " 2 " We will glance at all these families. For details see Dwiorht's Philoloev. — Max Muller, — Whitney, etc. 81 I. Isolating Group. First Family, — Malay ov Polynesian. This ex- tends over Malacca and the great body of islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans from Madagascar to the Sandwich Islands. Polysyllabic ; restricted in the number of sounds ; has from seven to ten consonants. Each word is a simple syllable, i. e., a vowel, or a consonant and vowel. A mixed syllable, or a final, or compound consonant is unknown. Second Family, — Chinese. This extends over S. E. Asia, China proper, farther India, Thibet, Bir- mah, Siam. Mo?iosyllabic ; words have no determinate value as parts of speech ; the same word may be a verb, and an adjective, and a noun, etc. There is no in- flection for gender, except personal pronouns, which have a peculiar variation for number, by fusion with numerals, forming a singular, dual, triple and plural. The Pronoun of the First Person has a variation, ac- cording as the speaker is included or not. This is the purest type of Isolating Languages ; the most improtant ; the best known ; the most highly culti- vated ; has a large and extensive literature. Third Family, — Hamitic, Coptic, or Ancient Fgyptiafi. This is separated from the other families of the group by the entire continent ot Asia. It is spoken also in Abyssinia, and among the Libyan tribes, as well as among the Hottentots, and the Bushmen of South Africa. Mcnosyllabic ; consists of mere roots ; has a slight approach to inflection ; has syllabic suffixes. See the hieroglyphics, mummy wrappings, etc. This language ceased to be spoken in Egypt three or four centuries ago. 82 11. Agglutinative Group. First Family. This is the most important Group — Turanian or Scythian, includes the roving tribes ^, pa, pater.) Some say all triliteral roots were originally bilit- eral, and that the triliterals were formed by inserting 88 weak letters, or adding letters : i: to cut, \t:- — to off — ru to cut down — '^u to flay — tt: to shear — nj: to hew — Qj: to devour — ;:>: to separate — ^u to pass through, etc. The name given to the family of languages kin- dred to Hebrew and Chaldee, have been many, Je- rome called them " orientaiy but we know of coun- tries farther east, where the Semitic prevails ; ''Syro- Arabianr 'named from the extreme limits, just as Indo-European ;) Semitic ^ (from Shem) is the name most used, for 'Gen. lo,) Shemites are the chief member of the group. The Hebrew, Aramaeic and Arabic languages, come from Shem ; the Elamites and Libyans are also from Shem, though these speak Indo-European. Canaanites and Phoenicians are from Ham, yet they speak the Semitic lan- guages. The Semitic tongue extends from the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, to the Persian Gulf and Ti- gris, and from Mt. Taurus on the North, to the southern extremity of the Arabian Peninsula. It includes Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and Meso- potamia. These tongues existed here as far back as they can be traced, and whenever driven hence, They are spoken there yet, though overrun by Mo- hammedanism. Semitic was the lanoruao^e of civilization, of trade, of religion, in Ninevah, Babylon, Tyre, Judeat Juda- ism and Christianity arose in Palestine. The latter, though spread through the medium of Greek, yet took Semitic types of thought. Some say that parts of the N. T., as Matthew, were originally in Hebrew, but of this we cannot be certain. Mohammed took his language from Arabia. Babylon (Babel, confu- sion of tonguesj has had a mixed population, and therefore mixed languages ever since, just as in 89 Constantinople to-day. Nebuchadnezzar and other monarchs were Indo-Eiiropeans, but their generals, e. g., Robshekar, Avere Semites and spoke Aramaean. The name of their deity Bel is Semitic. Some names are partly each. On their ruins there are some Semitic characters, some Indo-European, some in a third language, perhaps Scythian. The Canaanites spoke a Semitic dialect much like the Hebrew. Abraham held intercourse with- out an interpreter ; but in Egypt Jacob's sons re- quired one. Proper names, Melchisedec, Abimelech, Kirjath-jearim, Baal, Moloch, etc., are Semitic. The Phoe7iicians spoke Semitic, and so also did their colonies, Carthage, and even Tarshish on the southern coast of Spain. This might arise from their nearness to Canaan. Their extensive litera- ture has all perished. We can judge (a) from an- cient authors of other languages, quoting proper names and other words. But the sound is often inadequately expressed in a foreign language, and is unreliable. (b) From Phoenician monuments ; but they have no sounds, and no vowels, spacing, punc- tuation, etc. (a) Proper names — Tyre, ^s^, Rock ; Carthage, i^/nn J7p, New City; Adonis, 'vv^, Lord; Hannibal, Sr^ ^iin, favor of Baal ; Hasdrubal, S;*3 nr;:, help of Baal ; Dido, beloved ; Cadmus, did, the east, oriental. Plautus has a passage in Carthaginian and a Latin translation. (bj Moimments, as found at Malta, Marseilles, and Cadiz, have Phoenician names. The same is learned from Carthage. From Tyre we have coins, gems, votive tablets. All show that the language of the Phoenicians was like the Hebrew. Some have said that Coptic should be classed with Semitic, as being merely an older type and a 90 more primitive form of it. This point is still In dis- pute. The argument Is based on similarity of pro- nouns and some pronominal suffixes. But the weight of authority is against it. There are three branches of Semitic Languages : 1. //6'^r^?V= Hebrew and Phoenician. 2. Arama/'<-<^ <^2 ' still continued to speak Aramcean. Is the Hebrew language throughout, of indistin- guishable character or diversified like others ? 1. The differences are due to diversities of " dia- lects T 2. They are due to the different species of compo- sition. 3. Differences also arise from stcccessive periods of time. 96 We will consider them in order. 1. Differences due to Dialects. Some have gone to a great length in dividing up the dialects of the Hebrew. A recent German writer gives three dialects. ( i ) That of Eph-aim on the North ; (2) of Jtidah in the middle, (3) of Simeon on the South. More sober critics say we have no data for this, because the small extent of Palestine and the frequent assemblies of the people would prevent the formation of such dialects. There were undoubt- edly provincialisms, as there are now in the United States. E. g., in Judges 12:6; Neh. 13 : 24. In Judges 18:3, the Danites are said to have known the voice of the Levite by his dialect. This not so. They simply recognized it as the voice of an acquain- tance. In the N. T., (Matt. 26 : ^i) we read that Galli- leans could be distinguished by their speech. 2. The differences in cofnpositio7i are wider. The lang. of poetry and prose differs much in all languages. Poetry delights in rare and unprosaic and bold forms of speech. E. g., (i) Rare words: — 13^, word, - -»D}< n-)9X n^p X13, to oro or come, - T\r' =- ^Sn:, will go, (taking the form ^^n in the future.) yp, from, - 'AP ^5? or S;: - ^Sj<^ or ^S;?^ The suffix y. = o:^ i;: ^ n;^ 3 --^ iroa 3 - 1:23 (4.) Some peculiar endings or terminatio7is. n^ = n^ d; = j: D = 10 dh: - id; |\ = ^n\. or 'HI y_ = '3\ (5) Peculiar grc mmatical constructions. The demonstrative n.^ (or poetical n) used for the relative ^^m. The relative often omitted, also the article. Bold ellipses. Many of these forms are called Arabisms or Aramseisms and said to be borrowed from the Ara- m^an. But this is not so. They seem to belong to that common stock of all the Semitic tongues from which the Hebrew and Aramaean and the Arabic all came. In the Hebrew these terms passed into dis- use and were used only in poetry, while they were retained in the Aramaean or Arabic. The book of Isaiah is almost all poetry, Daniel almost all prose. The Prophetic style occupies an intermediate place between poetry and prose. In the books of Moses we find both poetry and prose. In Deut, we find the prophetic style. \^ Q — ^ 3. Differences arising from successive periods of time. The Hebrew language underwent a great change between the beginning and end of the Old Testa- ment. The most obvious division is into two periods. 98 The point of separation between these was shortly before the Babylonian exile. (i) From the time of Moses to the time of Isaiah the language suffered little change. In the writings of the later prophets, (Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc.,) there is a manifest decline, produced by a large in- flux of foreign words, especially Aramaean. The Jews were brought into contact with these nations. Esther, Daniel, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and Ezra, exhibit a striking contrast in purity. The Book of Chroni- cles was written later than Kings, and hence is more corrupt. Ezekiel shows the greatest number of varieties in form and the greatest variety of anoma- lies, which exhibit an actual deterioration ol the lan- guages. In the prophets subsequent to the exile, Haeeai, Zechariah and Malachi, the lanenaore is less corrupt, and there is an advance to the former purity and correctness of style. The stationary character of the language during the former period, (there being no change for 800 years,) is made the ground of an objection to the antiquity of the Pentateuch. To this we reply (a) that it is the character of all of the Semitic laneua^es to be fixed and stationary. All the cus- toms and habits and even the names of places, are unchanging, in some cases the names being the same now as in the time of Abraham and Joshua. The Syriac and Arabic also have the same permanence. Chinese scholars say that the writings of Confucius (550 B. C) do not differ in language from the best writers of the present time in China. (b) The circumstances favored this preservation of language, (a) because they had little intercourse with other languages, separation being required by their laws ; and (/?) the Canaanites also spoke the Semitic language. 99 (c) The booses of Moses containing the civil and rehgious code served to fix the language, as the Koran has the Arabic, and Luther's Bible the Ger- ma7i, and the English Bible the English. They also furnished a model of writing, as Homer did to the Greeks. The language of Moses would often be better fixed, even after the spoken language had itself changed. (d) The Hebrew was not wholly stationary dur- ing this long periods There are some changes ; e. g., the third feminine pronoun «^n in the Books of Moses is changed to N-n in Isaiah ; -»;:; is used in the Pentateuch to denote either a boy or girl, — in Isaiah it was used with \\\^ fejuinine ending n^n for a girl. The Plural is used for both always. Some words and phrases are peculiar to the Pentateuch and never occur afterwards ; others vanish until the later writings of the O. T. ; others, which Moses used in prose, occur again later only in poetry. In I. Sam. 9 : 9, mention is made of a change in a word, viz., seer as changed to prophet. Some say that in Exodus 6 : 3, God revealed a new name of Himself to Moses. This was not a new name, but was meant to show a new phase of his character. (2.) Many new words and phrases, and a more frequent use of vowel letters, i. e., '' scriptio plena',' as distinguished from " scriptio defectal' appear in the later books, and also the adoption of genuine Ara- maisms. Examples of new phrases : n^Sr^r? with the plural construct later noS-D ; D'jan onS, bread of the presence, shew bread, is in later books r\^":^.r.,'?n uryi. (from n;?"^.>:j? a row, \\x, to arrange). God of Heaven, is later hovah of Hosts. Thus the decay of the Hebrew is not always distinguishable from poetic license. For this reason 100 the character of the Hebrew in any book is not a criterion of its date or age. Did the written Hebrew differ from the spoken? It may have to some extent, as in Eng. The latest books of the O. T. represent a purer style than could have been current among the people at that time, and was formed from a careful study of the ancient models. When did the Hebrew cease to be spoken? i. The Talmud and the Jewish grammarians and some Christian scholars say that the Hebrew was displaced by the Aramcean at the time of the Babylonish exile, though it long continued to be known by the old men who had learned it in Palestine, and also by the learned men. The young generation spoke Ara- m^an and knew nothincr of the Hebrew. 2. It is thought by some modern scholars that the Hebrew, though corrupted by the exile, continued to be the language for 400 years after the exile, that is, until the Maccabees and the Syrian domination. These advocates are influenced mainly by the hypothesis that some of the books of the O. T. were written during this period. Heh. 13 : 24 is no proof that the Hebrew was unchanged as a spoken language. Is. 36:11 does not prove that the Jews still spoke He- brew ; nor, on the other hand, does Neh. 8 : 8 prove that they had given up Hebrew and adopted Ara- msBan. They say that the passage shows that the Levites translated \\\(t book of the law ; this is not so, but our version is correct, where we read that they read the law " distinctly," with explanations. And a captivity of only 70 years was too brief a time for them to give up their own language and adopt another, especially as only a part of the people were carried away, and the remainder were not put among Aramasans. The Prophets too, in the later 101 books, after the exile, would not have used a lan- guage unknown to the people. The deterioration of the language began before the exile, though it was accelerated by that exile. The Chaldee was fani.liir, as seen from Daniel and Ezra. The chanofe was a (gradual transformation. We cannot tell the exact date of the change any more than we can tell that of the Anglo-Saxon into En- glish, or of the Latin into Italic. But it could not have been long after the exile. Character of the Hebrew. There are no adequate data for estimating or ascertaining the copiousness of the Hebrew lan- guage. Gesenius gives 5642 words in the Hebrew Bible, with about 500 roots. But these are only those found in the O. T., and hence are not the en- tire vocabulary of the language. SJiidtans, living in the last century, calculated the number of the combinations of the letters of the alphabet into triliteral roots, finding 12000 of them, and to each of these he assigned 30 derivates ; hence he makes 360,000 words, not reckoning quadrilite- rals and their derivatives. This principle is false. The number of words in any language does not depend on the number of roots, nor upon the number of possible combinations. The stock of words will not go beyond the necessi- ties of a people. Ideas and objects unknown would of course have no words. Simple agricultural peo- ples, like the Hebrews, knowing little of the outside world, and uniform in their modes of life, would not have a very extensive circle of ideas, and hence of words. Yet the language shows an affluence of synonyms. E. g., there were eight terms for dark- ness, seven names for the lion, four for the ox, eleven 102 for the different kinds of rain. These and other in- stances show a great richness and profuseness of terms and a careful observation and nicety of dis- tinction between objects and a close study of nature, etc. This quality is favored by the parallelisms of their poetry. The Hebrew is richest in religious words, e. g., there are fourteen expressions iox confidejice in God, nine iov forgiveness of sifts, twenty-five for xh&observ- ance of the Law. ^'^ ?:i^,.>. //,'• -yi.-(^.^ er ; in Arabic, to cover the truth, to disbelieve. Hence is derived the name of the Kaffir (in Africa,) who does not believe the Koran. An exception is the Hebrew to miss the mark, to sin, which in Arabic means the former only. Most words borrowed from the Syriac and other languages are connected with idolatry. The word which in Syriac means to worship, (-ijo) in Hebrew means to worship idols. Syriac to supplicate, {^^2) in Hebrew means to use enchantment. The Syriac for priests, d^od, in Hebrew means priests of idols. The Hebrew contains a very few words not of Shemitic extraction. In the Pentateuch; (i) there are several Egyptian words, especially names of ob- jects, persons, places, e. g., -ij<: river (always referring to the Nile,) ^^^i bulrushes, r\2T) a box, (=the ark in which Moses was put,) n3^j< an ephah, nj?-)£i Pharaoh, 104 ^-)3X bend the knee. (2) In the later books there are a few names of Indian objects ; there are some San- scrit words, e. g., ophir, nard, delHan, aloes, ivory, apes, peacocks, — which show the extent of country to which the Phenician navigators had penetrated. In Esther i : 6, the word for cotton or linen (dd^d) was a Sanscrit word. (3) Persian words were intro- duced during the Persian rule. In Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, David, arid' Chronicles ; e. g.. Satrap ; also names of monarchs and coins, as darix, dram (Ez. 8 : 27.) Xerxes, Cyrus, Haman ; also the word for crimson, red of worms, (coming to us through the Arabic.) Pleasure ground Bn^a, paradise, in Cant. 4 : 13. (4) There are a few names of musical instruments in Dan. borrowed from the Greek. A number of words are transferred from the Hebrew or Phenician into the Greek and from thence into the Western languages, (a) by Phenicians, (b) by Christians, (c) by modern Jews. Such words are hyssop, balsam, copper, ebony, jasper, alphabet, amen, ephod, halle- lujah, cummin, cinnamon, sapphire, seraph, cherub, caballa, jubilee. Sabbath. From the modern Jews we have Rabbi, Sanhedrim, Targum, Mishna. The Hebrew yielded to the Aramseic after the exile, yet both were used and studied by the more learned. The Aramaeic became the popular, and the Hebrew the learned language. The Mishna, the oldest por- tion of the Talmud, is in corrupted Hebrew. The more modern portion of the Talmud is in Aramaeic, the dialect of the people. From the iith Century onward there is a decided tendency to return to the Hebrew. It is still a learned language among Jew- ish scholars. J A ..^^ ^/^ 105 I. Shape of the Letters, and the Origin of the Vowels of the Hebrew Language. All the Hebrew manuscripts which we possess are written in the present square character, but on Jewish coins supposed to belong to the time of the Maccabees, and in the books of the Samaritans, we find a round character similar to the Phenician and Samaritan. Is, the?i, the. prese?tt square characte}^ the original one ? This was a subject of dispute in the 17th century between the Buxtorfs and Capellus. Buxtorf, a Professor at Basle, together with his son and succes- sor, maintained that the square letters were the original ones. Capellus, Professor at Somer, first opposed this view. The Buxtorfs assumed that '* there were two separate characters in use, one the sacred letter found in the Bible, the other, the secular letter used in business transactions. This latter one is what was found on the coins. Durinor the exile at Babylon, the Priests kept up a knowledge of the sacred writing, but the common secular dialect fell into disuse, while those Jews who were left in Pales- tine had only the secular character, because they had neglected the reading of the Law, and the Samari- tans borrowed their characters from them. When Ezra returned to Palestine, he restored the old sacred character." This hypothesis they supported I. By the analogy of other nations. The Egyp- tians had a threefold character, (a) The Hiero- glyphic ; (b) The Hieratic, or sacred ; (c) The De- motic, or popular. The Persians used different methods of writing for history, poetry and letters. The Turks had also a threefold character. 106 2. From Isaiah 8 : i. They say that the phrase " a man's pen" refers to the secular, ordinary, or common character. 3. From a passage in Irenaeus, who speaks of a Sacerdotal character in use among die Hebrews. The verse in Isaiah merely means to write plainly. Irenaeus is really no authority on this subject, because he was itjnorant of the Hebrew lanouage, as other mistakes made by him clearly show. The argument from analogy would illustrate the fact if proved, but is no proof in itself. This hypothesis is now aban- doned. Gesenius says that the secular character w^as that in use by Judah and Israel until the Babylonish Captivity, and then it was preserved by the ten tribes and the Samaritans, while Judah adopted the charac- ter of their Babylonian captors, i. e., the square character. This w^ould account for the early traditions and the inscriptions found at Palmyra. But, (i) This does not account for the use of the coin letter so late as the time of the Maccabees. (2) There is no reason to believe that the square letter ever was used at Babylon. It is now setded that all the Semitic families, as to their alphabets, are related to the old Phenician, which was the original letter, and that from it came that Hebrew character which was used on the coins at the time of the Maccabees. The square charac- ter succeeded this slowly and gradually by succes- sive changes through a long period of time. The change was similar to the change in Greek from uncials to cursives. The connecting links between the alphabets w^e can trace by means of inscripdons at Palmyra and in Egypt. When the change took 107 place cannot now be determined. It must have been before the 3d or 4th Century, A. D. Quotations from Origen and Jerome show that the Hebrew character, in their day, was the same as in ours. Jerome says that the word nin^ was read by the Greeks as if it were nini. This shows that the square characters were in use at that time. The change probably took place before the time of Christ, as, in Matt. 5:18, '7W," (i. e., Yodh,) would seem to indicate ; for in the old character the ^ was as large as any of the letters, but in the square char- ^ acter it is the smallest. If, in examining the Septuagint, it could be found that there had been errors of transcription, such as confounding -1 and n, it would show that the sqitare character was used at that time. No satisfactory results, however, have ever been obtained from this examination. We must assume that the change took place between the time of the Maccabees and the time of Christ. This question has often been mixed up with other questions. It has been treated as if it affected the Bible and its text. Capellus said that the Hebrew text of the O. T. was full of mistakes, and needed constant revision. The Buxtorfs held extreme views in the opposite direction. They said that the text of the Bible had letters of the same shape in which it was given. To say that the Samaritans had kept the old alphabet and that the Jews lost it, seems to be admitting the superiority of the Samaritan over the Heb. Bible. The form of the letters, however, does not affect the purity of the text. — II. This question was subsidiary to another, re- '^f^ lating to the antiquity mid authority of the vowels and accents. 108 The Rabbins in the middle ages heM that the vowels were either an integral part of the text, or that they were divinely sanctioned as added by Ezra. /^. c<^ Elias Levita held that the vowels were added afterwards by the Jewish grammarians at Tiberias. The elder Buxtorf replied, trying to show that the vowels were not made by grammarians. Levita's arguments found favor with Capellus, who wrote them out and strengthened them, and then sent the MS. to the elder Buxtorf, who commented on it and re- turned it, confessing the difficulties of the case, and advising him not to publish it. It was printed, how- ever, in 1624, and Buxtorf was expected to reply to it, but did not do so. His son, however, in 1648, published a work which was (i) a refutation of Ca- pellus, and (2) a proof of the antiquity of the vowel- points. His views were adopted by the orthodox party in Europe and England. It Avas even made an article of faith in one of the Swiss Confessions of Faith, that the voivels d^nd points of the Bible were inspired. John Owen attacked Capellus, and thought that it would impair the truth of the Bible to believe that such an important matter as the vowels was fixed by unbe- lievers, and by men who as Jews were under a curse, and were the murderers of Christ. It is now admit- ted that the vowels are not ancient. We may infer this, 1. Because the minuteness of their notation im- plies that the Hebrew w^as not a living tongue when they were introduced. 2. From the analogy of kindred languages. The Syriac and Samaritan have no vowel points, nor did the Phenicians have any, nor were any found on the coins or on the monuments. The Arabic in the Koran has a few vowels, elsewhere none. 109 3- Tradition among the Rabbins, that the vowels were handed down orally until the time of Ezra, and that he reduced them to writing. They are ascribed to him probably in order that they may have the sanction of inspiration. 4. The Synagogue Rolls, which are gready esteemed, have no vowels ; a fact hard to account for, if vowels formed an original part of the text. 5. The different readings of K'ri and K'thibh all refer to the consonants and not to the vowels. And yet the vowels are much more open to dispute and variation. 6. The present vowel system was not in use at the time of the Septuagint, as proved by its transla- tion of some words in a manner consistent with the consonants, but not with the vowels, as we now have them. Wheii zverc they introduced? We notice "ly UTr^ (i.) That the Jewish grammarians from the be- / ginning of the i ith century had the points, and did not know but that they had always existed, a; A table of various readings made in 1034 refers to the vowels and points exclusively, and thus we know that they existed at that time. (2.) The Septuagint and Josephus do not appear to have them. Origen, in his Hexapla, gives a pro- nunciation which does not agree with the vowel- points. Jerome was probably not acquainted with the present vowel system. By vowels, he meant vowel letters ; and by accent, he meant vocal utter- ance. It is doubtful whether the Tabnud of the 5th century recognizes them.(O) The Masora does contain the names of nearly all the vowels, although the K'ri and K'thibh relate to the consonants. The general conclusion is that the points were introduced by Jew- ish orrammarians between the 5th and loth centuries, \ v^- clAM^ 110 with the intention of preventing all ambiguity of pronunciation and meaning. Gesenius sets the time to be between the 6th and 8th centuries. This would bring us to about the time when the Arabic and Syriac vowels were first used. Some now began to give up all authority of the points, as being entirely of human origin. Others went to the opposite extreme. Careful examination orives us a medium crround. The siens are Masorelic, but the sounds are not. There was no Rabbinical trifling with the text, but preserved a rigid accuracy in its pronunciation, besides giving traditional commentary on the text. By careful no- tation they have given us the sounds just as exact tradition had given those sounds to them. They had good facilities, and were accurate and w^orthy of our trust. History of the Study of the Hebrew. It may be divided into two periods. i. Among the Jews. (a) From the introduction of the Masorelic System to the loth century. (b) From the intro- duction of the Gra77i7Jiatica/ Sysii^m. in the loth cen- tury to the Reformation. 2. Among Christians. 1. Among the Jeivs. Schools were established in Jerusalem as early as the time of Christ, for teach- ing the Scriptures and Traditions. Such were those of Hillel, Gamaliel, and Shamai. After the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, there were schools also at Tiberias and Babylonia. There was no systematic or scientific study of the language, but an adherence to ancient tra- ditions. The very letters of the Bible were reverenced. Even a letter which happened to be written smaller or larger was retained in the text. Even the number of the letters was known. To these scholars we owe the Masora, which are the notes and the vowels, and the Talmud and their Targums or translations. ^ i^t-tl^-V Ill II. Among Christians. The Fathers of the Church, except the Syrian Christians, were mostly ignorant of Hebrew, but Origen in the 3ci century and Jerome in the 4th century were Hebrew scholars. In the loth century the schools were transferred to Spain. There, under Arabic rule, they flourished for a long period. There were schools In Toledo, Barcelona, Grenada, and thus, stimulated by Arab grammarians. Hebrew was 's,Xx\di\(tdi g7'annnatically and scientifically . Grammars and Lexicons were written which still exist in MS. in European libraries. Especially note- worthy among these scholars were Kimchi and his two sons. The work of David, the younger son, which he called "Perfection," was that used by the Reformers, and formed the basis of similar works till very lately. , . y , . From the time of Jerome till the i6th century, '^'^ '-^-i>/^ the study of Hebrew was almost entirely neglected by the Christian Church. Charlemagne tried to revive the study of the language, and the Council of Vienna, 131 1, voted annuities for professors of He- brew in Vienna. But the resolution was not carried Into effect. Raymond Martini studied Hebrew to use it against the Jews, and Nicholas De Lyra studied it to facilitate the exposition of the Old Testament. The Romish Church distrusted the spirit of the Reformers, but the revival of letters called attention to the Hebrew In spite of this opposition. The Rab- bins also were jealous of Its popularity, and would not give instruction except at exorbitant prices. The first Hebrew Gram?jtar issued by a Christ- ian was made by Conrad Pelican in 1503. He was a monk at Tubingen, and at that time was only 22 years old. He derived most of his knowledge from a Hebrew Bible, aided by a Latin translation. 112 John Reuchlin was really the father of Hebrew literature and learning in the Christian Church. He published in 1506 a grammar and dictionary called •' Hebrew Rudiments." closely following the plan introduced by Kimchi. Hebrew, from that time onward, has received marked attention, and when the Church declared the Scriptures in the original the only rule of faith and practice, there was a new incentive to study it. The methods of study underwent several changes. I. The Traditional School, in which everything was settled by tradition, even as regarded the mean- ings of words and the construction of sentences, etc. The Buxtorfs were representatives of this school. It was the only practical method in early times. It was partial and one-sided, and neglected other important means. It was too narrow in its views, seekincr for information only in Jewish Targums, and not in the Septuagint. II. The Comparative School. The Hebrew was compared with the cognate languages, Arabic and Syriac. The Grammars and Lexicons were a com- parison of the various Shemitic dialects. This may be called the Dutch School. The best early Gram- mar was the Heptaglot Grammar and Lexicon of Edmund Castell of Cambridge, in Hebrew, Persian, Aramaic, Arabic, etc. Schultans of Leyden applied his knowledge of Arabic to elucidate the Hebrew. He was the best representative of this school. This school was too one-sided on the other extreme. No regard was paid to the Syriac, nor to Rabbinical authority and tradition, and too much to the Arabic. Hence many imaginary significations are found in their works. III. The Idiomatic School rejected all external helps, and substituted a minute examination of the g i ucc y ^ . ^ cu^ <^ ^^t.^e-.c_-^ 113 text, context, and parallel passages of the Scriptures themselves. But It also was partial. It said all triliteral roots were originally biliteral, and even tried to give each individual letter of the biliteral a distinct meaninor, from the form, etc. This method led to a more accurate study of the peculiarities of the Hebrew, but was not on the whole a good method. All these schools gave a foundation for IV. The Comprehensive School, including all the former methods. The modern scholars adopt this school. Gesenius is its best representative. His Lexicon, however, is not faultless. There are a few QLTiaJ 'k^yQyisvd whose meanings are not known ; e. g., the names of some of the unclean beasts in Lev. 1 1, and some terms used in Is. 3. These may hereafter be 1 % t>^ 1^ explained. They are not important words however. Early Versions. /"^ptr 6 Hebrew Manuscripts. The MSS. of the original in the N. T. are more numerous and older than of the O. T., but this is compensated for by the fact that in the MSS. of O. T. there is greater care and accuracy in transcrip- tion. The variations are few and unimportant. The existing Hebrew MSS. consist of tzvo classes: — i. Those for the use of the Synagogue ; 2. Those used by private persons. Of the latter there are two classes : — (a) Those written in the square letter, and (b) those written in the abbrevia- ted Rabbinical letter or running hand. 126 I. The Synagogue AISS. These are the most valuable, and contain those portions of the O. T. which were selected for reading in the Synagogues; i. e., the Law and the Prophets. (a) The Law was on 07ie MS. The lessons from the Law were read in course, and were called Parashoth. (b) The Prophets were not read in course, but from lessons, and these were written on separate MSS., called //(^^/////^;W//, and were numbered to cor- respond to the passages of the Pentateuch to be read on the same Sabbath. The tradition is that the les- sons were originally only to be read from the Law, but when Antiochus Epiphanes forbade the reading of the Law in the Synagogue, lessons were selected from the Prophets to evade the requirement of the king. There were separate rolls lor the ^v^ smaller books, i. e., the Megilloth, viz., Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ruth, and Lamentations. Esther was read at the feast of Purini. These MSS. or rolls were prepared with the greatest care, according to rules given in the Talmud, which were superstitiously mi- nute. They must be written on parchment prepared from the skin of a clean animal. The text was to be the square character, written in columns, without vowels or points, and to be written in black ink. All large and small letters were to be carefully noted. The copyist must look at each word in the original before transcribing it. The copy must be corrected within thirty days, and if four errors were discovered on one skin, that MS. must be rejected. These MSS. are very valuable, and are highly prized. Very few of them are in the hands of Chris- tians, because the Jews generally burned them when they became old, lest they should be polluted by the touch of a Christian. 126 II. Private MSS. These are rarely complete. They generally contain only parts of the O. T. Sometimes are written in rolls, but generally bound in books of various sizes. (a) Tiiose which were written in the square char- acter are most valuable, and contain the points and vowels. The letters were written first, the points and vowels beine added afterwards. One wrote the consonants, another the vowels and the K'ri. Another corrected it. Another added the Masora and Scholia. They are nearly all written in black ink, with ornamented words or letters in the opening paragraphs. The prose was written in columns, and the poetry in clauses. Sometimes the Hebrew text was accompanied by translations in Chaldee or Ara- bic. The upper and lower margins contain the Great Masora or traditions as to the text ; the o2cter mar- gin the scholia or some Rabbinical comm^nidiVy ; the inner margin the K'ri and Litde Masora. Some- times the material was parchment, but oftener linen or cotton paper. ^^ ^^"^ "^'^ r^U.^ A--^ -t.u<„.^^ ^ X-* (b) 'rhe Private MSS. in the Rabbinical charac- ter are mostly on paper, without points, accents, or Masora, and with many abbreviations. Those MSS. designed for the use of the Syna- gogues are the most important. The Private MSS. in the square characters are next in value, and the Private MSS. in the Rabbinical character are least important. The determination of the age of Hebrew MSS. is very difficult, especially if there be no date or in- scription. A criterion available in Greek or Latin MSS., drawn from the shape of the letters, is not available here, because the square letter is the same in all existing MSS. Some MSS. have subscriptions giving the date, but some of these are found to be V r 127 fraudulent and are added to increase the value. There is great difficulty in interpreting these sub- scriptions even when the date is given, because they bear record from different eras, and it is uncertain what these eras were. The Hebrew MSS. are obtained from the remotest countries, from the Jews in India and China, and have the same text as in our Bibles. A large number of MSS. have been described and examined by Pinner and others. Pinner gives an account of several Hebrew MSS. found at Odessa, which must be by several centuries the old- est known to exist, if his word can be taken. What he regards as the oldest, is the Pentateuch Roll on leather, which was brought to Odessa from Dhagis- tan. The subscription says that it was corrected in 580, hence it is probably much older than that. Another was written in 843, another in 881. The oldest MSS. in DeRosse's collection were some rescued from the Genesa at Lucca, where the Jews were accustomed to bury their MSS. These consisted of fragments of the Pentateuch which he ^ supposed to belong to MSS. of the eighth century. ^"^-"^^-^ The oldest in Kennecott's collection bears the ^^ ^^ date 1018 A. D. '^t^^ i^t^-^.K. No uniform Hebrew text is preserved in the Samaritan letters and among the Samaritans, though they have the Hebrew Pentateuch. There is what is called a Samaritan Pentateuch, and there is a Samari- tan Version of the Pentatench. The first is the He- brew Pentateuch written in Samaritan letters, by Joseph Skaliger of the sixteenth century. The first copy ever seen in Europe was obtained by Peter Delaval on his return from Palestine in 1662, when he published an account of the countries visited. 128 The Samaritans now consist of a few families in Nablous. They seem to have hved in small com- munities at that time. Delaval was in Damascus in 1616, and succeeded in purchasing two manuscripts, one containing the Hebrew text, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, on parchment, which he deposited in a Paris Library ; the other, the Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, he retained himself. Since this time, various other copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch have been obtained by Euro- pean scholars. The opinions of scholars vary as to its value. Its first publisher, Morinus, vindicated the claim of the Samaritan Pentateuch to be superior to the Masoretic text ; others depreciate it. The strife continued a long time, but the matter is now very much at rest as to the main points. It was claimed by Morinus to have been derived from the Pentateuchs of the ten tribes at the time of the schism of Jeroboam ; the common opinion now, how- ever, is that it appeared after the Babylonish exile. Manassas, brother of the high-priest at Jerusalem, being threatened with exclusion from the priesthood for marrying a Samaritan woman, fled to the temple on Mt. Gerizim, carrying the Pentateuch with him, and the modern Samaritan copies are derived from this. In favor of that view that gives the greatest anti- . quity to it, it was argued that the hatred between <^<^^**;^ *^^ the Samaritans and jews was such that they would » U:^ fyZixjL^ not adopt their books. It was further urged that the Samaritans received of all the books of the O. T. only the Pentateuch. It was urged that, if these were in existence when they borrowed the Pentateuch, they would have taken them likewise. In reply to this, however, we may say that the Samaritans are not the leo^itimate descendants of the ten tribes, but 129 are rather the descendants of the heathen colonists introduced by the king of Assyria, after the ten tribes were carried into captivity. The enmity be- tween the two was not a bar to their adopting the books. The Samaritans claimed at the end of the captivity, to be the children of Israel, and offered to unite with them in rebuilding the temple. The Jews refused this claim, which refusal was the basis of the hostility between them. They renewed their claim as often as it was to their interest to do so. This claim was the ground of their hatred. Hence the Samaritans would catch with eagerness anything tending to strengthen their claim. Almost every thing they had was borrowed from the Jews. So they coveted the Pentateuch. Their reverence for the Pentateuch, while rejecting the rest of the O. T., cannot be accounted for by saying this was not written, for other portions were in existence at that time. The Samaritans have a book of Joshua, but not the correct one. The true reason arose out of the nature of their religious system. It was the same as that which led the heretics of the early Chrisdan Church to reject the episdes of Paul, &c. The contents did not suit their creed. The grand Article of Faith with the Samaritans, was, that on O-Uji^ ih By a critical edition we mean one having a col- lection of various readingrs. The most noted are those of How, begun in Paris in 1753 ; and of Kennicott in Oxford in 1776. This last is made from 694 MSS. De Rosse, a few years later, exhibited vari- ous readings from 700 MSS. The Polyglot exhibits several ancient versions possessing critical authority. There are four principal Polyglots; Complutensian- Polyglot of Spain, Antwerp, Paris, and London. A copy of each is in the Seminary Library. The Antwerp edition, or " Biblia Regia," in 8 Vols., i^'Bq, ^ was published under the patronage of Philip of yxLct^ Szrp Spain. The Parisian is in 10 Vols., 1645, ^^^ was 'muJ^ ^ published at Paris. The London Polyglot in 6 ( Vols., folio, in 1657. - z**^ j '1 ^^ ^*h\ % / . J: tTx^^u^