Hj^n 
 
 H 
 
 
 ^^^^9 
 
 
 H' 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 SrSS 
 
 !w 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 |: 
 
 
tihravy of Che t:heolo0ical ^tminary 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 'd^t' 
 
 From the library of the Rev. Wil- 
 liam Park Armstrong, D.D, 
 
V 
 
 \^ 
 
 \^^' 
 
 'Oy. 
 
 '4^^ 
 
 lQ.'i:l 
 
 OLD TESTAMENI^^^,^^^^^^ 
 
 Canon and Philology 
 
 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. 
 
 %\lt Irmtctoix grcss: 
 
 C. S. liOBiNSOX «& Co., Steam Poweh Pkintkiis. 
 
J" 
 
 PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 It is hoped that all due allowance will be made for the various- 
 inaccuracies aud 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 lias been performed at odd 
 moments in the midst of more essential duties. The Syllabus is oflfered 
 to the Class under the conviction that they will not tind in them a help 
 to negligence of duty, but an assistance to reaching a higher and more 
 efficient standard of scholarship. S, R. H. 
 
 PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The Reviser wishes to add that he has inserted into the Syllabus 
 some lectures and single arguments bearing chiefly upon the advanced 
 Pentateuchal Criticism. No greater degee of perfection is claimed 
 for it than it possessed before— merely an enlargement. 
 
 Princeton, Dec. 15th, 1888. L. A. O. 
 
/A^T* OLjcxL. ^^^7 ,ao^ /L^ ^ 6-^ u^cc^ 
 
 
 -*> fxSL- - 
 
 
[XTRODUCTOEA^ 
 
 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, xavcov^ any 
 straight rod ; then one used in measuring, as a carpenter's 
 rule V then a ny rule to tix , re.<j^ulate and determine other 
 things. We' speak of canons of Rhetoric, of Grammar. 
 " Canons " = Standard authors. Also " that which fixes 
 anything" — hence the Alexandrian Grammarians applied 
 the word to the classics — thus in Gal. 6 : 16 ; " according 
 to this rule," no xav6vi—^o in 2 Cor. 10: 13. In the 
 Fathers we find the words, canon of the church, canon of 
 faith, and of the truth, &c., — the b odji of Christian doc- 
 trine — this last expression was first found in Iren?eus. As 
 applied to Scripture — inspired ride of faitk and practice . 
 ?JThis the modern use. The Old Testament canon consists 
 3. of those books containing the rule of faith and practice 
 given by God prior to the coming of Christ ; not merely the 
 list of books — this is a secondary and derivative sense. 
 
 Two things necessary to make a book c anonical — 1. 
 Its a uthorship ; by ins pired men . 2. Its desi(/n ; given to 
 church as part ot her pe rnianen t rule of faitli. 
 
 The first is not all ; all writings by inspired men are 
 ^ not canonical— See 1 Kings 4 : 32." " Songs by Solomon " 
 1005; all lost; he also spake much on Natural History, 
 &c. It does not follow that all his utterances Vv^ere 
 inspired, nor that every inspired prediction was intended 
 to form part of the canon. So also as to the writings of 
 Nathan, Ahija. Much that the prophets spoke was 
 intended only for the existing generation and has not 
 been kept ; was intended only lor a particular age or 
 nation. 
 
 The historical books on which the books of Chronicles 
 are founded are not in existence and never were in the 
 
Aa*^ 
 
 -Ut^f % 
 
 
 canon. Decrees of Councils have value as being the con- 
 current testimony of many from a great region, thus giv- 
 ing precision, &c. ^^^t-«**Y ^A^Z^ A^t^tL-Z^Z-^T^u-cX-r^, 
 
 But no book ever in the canon has been lost . 
 
 The c hurch has n o authority to decide what should be 
 / in the canon— it is merely the custodian and witness, to keep 
 and testiftj to it. Eomanists hold the former doctrine. 
 Romanists say the authority of Scripture is based on the 
 authority of the church, as we have to go to the church of 
 old to find out the canon. But the church has no existence 
 without the Scriptures. 
 
 Two ways to study it. 
 
 (1) Historically. 
 
 (2) Theologically, to determine if correct on theological 
 grounds. 
 
 Our inquiry is purely historica l. What books have 
 been given to, and from the beginning received by, the 
 church as the canon ? 
 /iL "^^^ Greater difficulties in Old Test. 1. Great antiquity, and 
 absence of contemporaneous testimony. In N". T. each 
 book is distinctly marked as to authorship — can be refer- 
 red clearly to an inspired author. But in 0. T. many 
 books cannot be traced to their authors. 2. Entire 
 Christian world is agreed about K. T. canon : not so with 
 the 0. T. canon. Romanists. 
 
 Advantages for O. T. canon. X. Test, has borne inspired 
 witness to the other. 
 
 Inquire into A. the history of the formation into one 
 volume; (1) orthodox view, (2) critical view, projected by 
 Dr. Robertson Smith. B. the Extent of 0. T. canon, to 
 identify the books which have been and ought to be in it. 
 This second inquiry has three distinct though intimately 
 related divisions; (l)^the canon among the Jews, (2) the 
 canon as recognized by Christ and his disciples, and (3) 
 that recognized by the Christian church. 
 
 A. History of Formations^ (1.) Presumptive argu- 
 ment, a priori. -vWe may naturally expect that God would 
 guard His revelation : that the people would do so ; that 
 if God would reveal His will for the permanent instruction 
 of his people, He would take measures to preserve and 
 safely transmit it; and also that the people to whom He 
 communicated it would jealously guard it. 
 
 tji-i^ 
 
^ /(^ ^c 
 
 -<. 
 
 t^ ^ 
 
 ^i^. 
 
 
 ,^i.f^-<^r^ — 
 
 ^:^ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 .^^^^^^i c 
 
 ^^ 
 
 -^i-^H^ ^in^-e^ r\</fU>uC^ A^ Urz^c4^ ^'X /^^^ /^/S^ 
 
^^ I^ i = -^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 "Tkjq^^co 
 
 duS'M^ .c^-Pt>A .— ^ 
 
 CA^^,^-~i. f~-ip iyf- . 
 
5 
 
 (2.) Argument from analogij^ from heathen antiquity. 
 The Romans had their Sibylline books, the Egyptians 
 theirs, deposited with priests ; the Babylonians, Pheni- 
 cians, Greeks had sacred books and guarded them so. 
 
 (3.) Historical iXYgwxaawi. But we are explicitly i nforme d 
 that such was the case with the Hebrews — Moses imme- 
 diately after he had copied it, (for the last chapter ot 
 Deut., giving account of Moses' death, &c., must of course 
 have been added by Joshua. lie added also a description 
 of the land — Josh. 24 : 26,) commanded the Levites to 
 put the book of the law in the side of the ark to be there 
 for (I witness — D eut. 31 : 24-26 ; and that it should beread 
 by the priests before all the people every seven years at 
 the Feast of Tabernacles— Deut. 31 : 9-13 ; the future 
 king was required to transcribe the law — Deut. 17 : 18. 
 Joshua was required to have a copy and meditate iT|3on it 
 — Josh. 1 : 8. Pentateuch contains divine constitution 
 and laws^— Joshua the title-deed to Canaan, Josh. 24 : 26. 
 Josh, wrote in the same book of the law of the Lord which 
 Moses had written in. So other originals were guarded. 
 See also 1 Sam. 10 : 25 ; if even merely national papers 
 were laid before the Lord, surely care was taken of Ilis 
 word.^ See also 1 Chron. 25 : 7. Many of the Psalms of 
 David were committed to the chief musician, a priest in 
 the house of the Lord; "those trained in songs of the 
 Lord were 288 " — 1 Chron. 25 : 7. Hence such writings 
 were preserved. 
 
 iSTo doubt when tlie temple was built, the original copy 
 of the law was transferred to it. Not disproved by 1 Kings 
 8 : 9, or by 2 Chron. 5 : 10. In both these passages it 
 says that nothing was in the ark except the two tables of 
 stone. 
 
 This objection is stated by some of the early Fathers 
 and the later liabbins. They were doubtless conversant 
 with the more modern Jewish custom of i)utting a copy 
 of the law in the ark which they have in the synagogue. 
 It was not put in the ark ever, but " alongside " or in 
 the side of it. 2 Kings 22 : 8, shows that the law was 
 treasured up somewhere in the temple until Josiah 's reign 
 at least 33 years before the exile. During the evil reigns 
 of Judah and Menasseh worship had been sus])ended. 
 When the temple was burned^it did not involve the loSvS 
 
6 
 
 of the law, even if we disbelieve the tradition that Jere- 
 miah hid it, for it was still in the minds of the people; 
 and was read to them, Neh. 8: 1. Each king was required 
 to have a copy, 2 Kings 11: 12. Wlien Joash was crowned, 
 Jehoiada, higli-priest, gave him " the testimon y.'^ The 
 law of God which was kept as a witness. Ps. 119: 14. 
 
 There is a presumption that the rest of Scripture was 
 preserved; if the people preserved the law of God, they 
 would naturally preserve also what God spake through the 
 prophets. And the people must have had many copies. 
 Sj^nagogues perhaps formed at captivity or later, but meet- 
 ings were certainly held to read the law, Isa. 8 : 16. '* Bind 
 up the testimony ; seal the law among mv disciples." 
 
 Isa. 8: 20— "To the law and to the testimonv."— Isa. 
 8: 16; 1 Fsalmy. , 
 
 These considerations prove the preservation of the law 
 of Moses at least. The incorporation of the other inspired 
 books is proved bj independent hints only. We have 
 evidence of this in the frequ ent a jlusions by succee.ding 
 projjhets to their predecessors in recognition of their 
 authorsliip and canonicity. The Proverb s not all written 
 at one time and in their present form, but Prov. 25 : 1, 
 must mean in spired men in reign of Ilezekiaji c ompleted 
 them by making selections from extant writings of Solo- 
 mon. " 1, Daniel, understood by the books, &c." Dan. 
 9 : 1. Isa. 34 : 16, '' Seek ye out the hook of the Lord and 
 read." The '• Books " — a definite and well-known collec- 
 tion, complete including Jeremiah his contemporary ^Zecjx_ 
 1:4; 7:12 . " Lest they should hear the law, and the 
 words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit by 
 the former prophets." After the exile, the law and the 
 prophets are classed together as of like authority. Soon 
 after the exile about 400 B. G. prophets and canon ceased 
 with Malachi. Next proof, over 200 years later, 130 B. C. 
 in prolo^ie to the apocryphal book of Syrach or Eccle- 
 siasticus — speaks of O. T. books as if collected and 
 arranged in three divisions — when and by whom not 
 stated by the author, but some time before even his 
 grandfather's day, ^' studying the lair caul the prophets and 
 the rest of the books. ^^ 
 
 Josephus, priest, born A. D. 37, says " there continued 
 to be additions to 0. T. till Artaxerxes of Persia (Esther), 
 
^ / 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
^ 71^-^j^ C^^JoJ^ C-^^c^-^ _■ ^^y^^^^ tZ^ 
 
 i*^^^ ^-far-x^<:^ *^l 
 
 w^ lV 
 
 ^L^^^^j^:^-^ — o<. Juu^^^ ^-f--^ ^''^-''-^ ^^^^ 
 
"^^Aorw 
 
 (Xo 
 
 r - 
 
 and then the e xact succession of prophets ceased — and 
 bence though books were still written, they were not of 
 like authority, and n one were so bold as to add to or take 
 f rom '• the canon.' " 
 
 After this only legends and conjectures till time ^^ ^ ^ ■ 
 Cyril — in relation to the process by which and the time ^^ln C^h *x 
 Tvhen and by v.diom collected. (The time when and by / jtI^^-t^^ 
 whom they were c ollected in one volume does not affect 
 their authority : they have as much when separate.) It 
 is supposed Ezra put them in their present form. Evi- 
 dence of this. 1. Legends aid. 2. Esdras — close 1st 
 century, A.D., in chap. 14: 21, says the law was burned 
 when the temple was, but Kzra by divine inspiration 
 restored it, and in 40 days dictated 94 books, [Ethiopie 
 version (best) says — 94 books, vulgate 204] — of which 24 
 to be written and for general circulation (the canon), and 
 the rest oral, 70, only for the wise. 
 
 Same legend in early Christian fathers, Clemens Alex- 
 andrinns, IrentBus, Tertullian. They merely say Scrip- 
 tures were lost and Ezra enabled to restore them without 
 the loss of a single word or letter. But no credence 
 should be given this, except so far as that Ezra did take a 
 prominent part in collecting and editing the books after 
 the exile. A tradition arose through Elias Leviter, a 
 llabbi of great eminence, about the time of the refor- 
 mation, that Ezra and the Great Synagogue of 120 men 
 -collected the canon. No foundation for this except an 
 obscure passage in the Talmud. 2nd Book of Maccabees 
 says N ehemiah g athered the Acts of the Kings and 
 _prophets , — i. e . , historical and prophetic books ; tlie 
 writings of Davi d, — i. e., Psalms; an d the Epistles of tlie 
 kings concerning holy gifts [=letters of kings of Persia 
 (decrees) which are preserved in Ezra,] and tries to say 
 when and by whom diUerent books were introduced into 
 the canon, and then says Great Synagogu e introduced 
 books written outside of Palestine, viz., Ezekiel, Daniel 
 and the 12 Minor Prophets — not clear. Great Synagogue 
 =a body of men associated with Ezra and Nehemiah in 
 oversight of the spiritual affairs of the nation. 
 
 If any weight is to be given to the traditions it is only 
 that Ezra and JN'ehemiah and pe rhaps others finally gath- ^ 
 €red them into one volume, and perhaps aided in multi- 
 
8 
 
 plying and circulating them. This is probable from the 
 following independent c onsideratio ns, derived from_the 
 Scriptures themselves. 
 
 I. Ezra was a ''scribe,'' "a ready scribe in the law of 
 Moses" — " a scribe of the law of the God of heaven," &c. 
 Known so before he went up from the Captivity. He was 
 the first of that long list of scribes so prominent in after 
 times, as custodians and servitors of the sacred text. — 
 Nehemiah 8: 4—12: 26 and 36— Ezra, 7: 6, 11, 12, 21. 
 
 II. The period succeeding the exile was one in which 
 there was great necessity and zeal for gathering and treas- 
 uring all the sacred relics, institutions^&c. Ezra_engaged 
 in restoring temple service s, &c. 
 
 III. Order of prophets ceas ed_yvith_31 xilaclii, w ho was. 
 c ontemporary with Kehemiah a nd Ezra: natural]}' gave 
 rise to desire to collect the books] ' 
 
 IV. The succ eeding period was conscious that prophecy 
 had ceased. I. Maccabees, 4: 46; 14: 4|; speaks of 
 perplexity from want of a prophet — and decision of diffi- 
 cult questions, if a prophet should arise. 
 
 V. Statement of Joseph u s, no " additions , and no 
 change" from time oT Artaxerxes, /. not only written 
 but collected by that time. 
 
 jn VI. II. Maccabees, 2: 14, says of Judas Maccabeus: 
 
 M^^^^-^^"^^^ that he was "restoring the things lost during persecu- 
 tion :" means this probably — war with Antiochns Epi- 
 phanes, in his efforts to destroy the Jewish nation and 
 religion. " iiVgathered all books lost by reason of the 
 war and they remain with us :" this implies a previous 
 gathering. 
 
 Eecommend — Al exander on Cano n (see evidences) — 
 Can o_Q Wordswort h, 'on Inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 Bishop Cosi)vs Scholastical History of the Canon. Apoc- 
 r3^pha. Dr . Thornwel l : arguments of Romanists dis- 
 cussed and refuted. Smith's Dictionary : Kitto on the 
 canon. Also Canon Westcott on the Bible in the Church. 
 
 The conclusion of all this is that the foundation of the 
 Jewish canon was laid by Moses himself; that Joshua 
 w-as added, and perhaps others as written ; that the books 
 were gathered by Nehemiah and Ezra shortly after the 
 return from exile; and the h^st book, written in the time 
 of ISTehemiah, was immediately added. 
 
 iU^. 
 
fVt ^^TA-.^^,^.^-..^^-^ Cfy-ZtA. cA^i^ ^-ru/Tt^i^ f^ ^^ 
 
 
 oe-^CAj 
 
^A^- ^u^ UvJ- vKj^4.;_ ,i-r^x^ o:^^ ^ci.^ 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^..t^ . %^u^^ ^^-t^c^ .^^^tH'L^ W-e*:^^ ^^crwX- 
 
 
 {ZMXk^O> ^J^?^^'^^^- -"^^^^ A^-^-f" /^J-t^^r-L^xTy^ -W-W^p-^-.-'lAA^ 
 
 *^ 
 
9 
 
 2. Critical Theory. — The collection of the canon was 
 gradual, and the three divisions mark th ree distinct periods . 
 Prof. Ixobertson Smith holds that the canon of Lzra was 
 simply the Law — then the prophetical books and the his- 
 torical were gathered and subsequenlly arranged; finally 
 the Kethuvim. Arguments /or the theory. 
 
 T. The collection must have taken a long time. 
 
 II. The divisions. — Law, Prophets and llagiographa 
 show that the divisions were the result of different periods ; 
 e. g., we lind Kings among the Prophets, and Chroni(;les, 
 its counterpart among tlie llagiographa. 
 
 III. Internal evidence sliows that the canon was not 
 completed at the time of Ezra and Xehemiah. Some of 
 the poems were wj-itten at the time of Mac, as was also- 
 the book of Daniel. 
 
 Reply. — A. The theory proceeds on a false vie\y as to 
 the aim and collection of the canon in tliat its aim is to 
 collect <'i/^ reliofious Jewish literature. They aimed to col- 
 lect certain well-known, and generally received 'canonical 
 books. There was no search, no uncertainty as to whether 
 they had all the remains of Hebrew literature prior to a 
 given date. The aim was to collect the canon. The 
 question is what it pretended to be,' not what it is. 
 Ske[)tics say all old writings are in a sense inspired. 
 Tiiis work was to put together all that were known to be 
 inspired. 
 
 a. 0. T. claims to be the inspired word of God. 
 
 b. All Jews regarded them as inspired, and not a mere 
 collection of old literature. Even the Apocryphal writers 
 affirm this. IS^ T. refers to O. T. as the word of God. 
 0. T. does not contain (dl Jewish writings prior to their 
 collection. It was not so designed. Chronicles, the latest,, 
 mentions some books then extant which did not perish at 
 the time of the collection of canon, yet they are not 
 incorporated in it. These books are now lost ; e. //., Ahijah, 
 E'athan, etc., but could not have been lost before the time 
 of collection of the canon. So the O. T. was not designed 
 to be a complete body of Jewish writings. Apocrypha 
 furnish no evidence of inspiration, hence not incorporated. 
 
 B. Xeh. 8:10 shows that Ezra had canonical books. 
 Prof. Smith says merely the Pentateuch. We have equal 
 reason for includino; others. Prof Smith savs there is no- 
 
 HciLti-lo 
 
m 
 
 10 
 
 4^jL jr^^, >5-^~" clear pri nciple of distinct ion according to divisions given ; 
 but that they are confused. There is no evidence of dis- 
 tinction from inherent reasons, but confused because col- 
 lected at different times. First, the Law ; second, the 
 Prophets; and finally the other books were collected and 
 a third division added including all newly discoverd 
 books. This theory said to be confirmed because there 
 are books in the third that belong in the second, and vice 
 versa; e. g., Dan. is in third, should be in the second; 
 Kings, in second, ought to be in the third ; loliy is Chron- 
 icles in the third ? unless when these books were dis- 
 covered the canon was already closed, so they were put 
 into a new division. 
 
 This theory does not account for the phenomena it was 
 iiiiended to explain. 
 
 a. No canon can be said to be closed until it contains 
 all the books it is intended to contain. 
 
 b. It conflicts with the facts. The Psalms were in use 
 from the l:)eginning of time of second division. Why not 
 in the second division ? 
 
 c. The principle of arrangement is easily explained. 
 f 'f\^ The Rabbins say that the Law was written by Moses, who 
 
 fli.f^^^^pok( 
 / privil 
 
 IM^^ ^ A.#^^^^"^spoke f a c e to face,, with God ; he stands alone in this 
 j^njX ^ I privilege. The prophets were officially/ inspired of God and 
 
 ^ ^--^ so next highest in grade. Hagiographa was not written 
 
 by the officially inspired prophets, but by men under the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit, not officially inspired. It, 
 therefore, occupies the third place. It was held by Rab- 
 bins that there were three degrees of in-piration. The 
 real division was based on the ofiicial character their 
 authors and the writings themselves' were called upon by 
 6rod to sustain. 
 
 1. Moses was a legisla ^r. unique: and stood alone. 
 His writings are the Law, and so stand in the highest 
 place as most essential. 
 
 2. Prophetical books were written by prophet s who 
 were to labor among the people official ly, and they stand 
 by themselves whether prophetical or historical, and so 
 occupy the next highest grade. 
 
 3. Other inspired writers, yet not prophets in the full 
 sense; e. g.^ David, Solomon, etc., yet wrote prophecies. 
 These are classed in the Hagiographa. Daniel did not 
 
^vu^. 
 
 ^^ H c>^» r>«^ ^ 
 
 <ylc^^Cf ^ /iUi- ^>-. ru^. ^ ytT f^'i.. gt^^ ^^^ . 
 
 7kj^ /6X:^_c <5-^tx;:^ cc.-^^ ^CATin t^^^^ju^^v^ ,^_. 
 
 

 
 ^*Sa^--.^<,/ /U^ ,,:<..,5h7. Z-^e^c Uyii^^^^:^^ . /^ f^cf^-A.^ 
 •""^^^ /tw-C^^ C^f^^rxA^ i^^^r^fc^*,^ <=^ 
 
 
 /7 /4ftr^^<: «- " 
 
11 
 
 labor among the people as did Jer. So not really a 
 prophet in the sense this latter was. Chronicles were 
 probably written by Ezra, and King's by some prophet 
 and classified accordingly. * Lamentations alone embar- 
 rasses this theory. It was written by Jeremiah, and was I 
 probably formerly attached to the book of Jer., and sepa- q 
 rated by reason of its poetical character. 
 
 C. It is said that some books were not written until 
 the 3rd Century after Ezra and INeh. Prof. Smith says 
 Psalms belongs to the time of Mac, and book of Daniel 
 to the same period. 
 
 But this has no historical basis, a. Ablest critics deny 
 the late date of these. Daniel was written long before 
 the time of Maccabees. 
 
 b. This theory contradicts the prologue to Syrach writ- 
 ten 130 B. C. The translation says the canon was studied 
 by his grandfather (167 B. C.) 
 
 c. This view is inconsistent with Joseph us, wvh o says /Sa^jT . Vn 
 
 the canon was closed at the time of Artaxerxes (465 B. (3.) 
 
 Josephus and Syrach are not the only historical proof of 
 this. There are other sources of confirmation with noth- 
 ing to oppose them but critical suggestion. Against it 
 we cannot show that Ezra collected the canon. Some 
 object to Josephus saying he identifies Artaxerxes with 
 Ahasuerus. But (1) if canon was finished in time of 
 Xerxes it was earlier still and the evidence stronger. (2) 
 That Josephus was inaccurate in smaller things does not 
 prove that the main statement was inaccurate. Olshausen 
 ventures to assert that the prologue to Syrach is not 
 authentic, but all other critics accept it. 
 
 B. EXTENT OF CANON. ^ . 
 I. Amon(} tue Jews. ^ 
 
 Determine preciseli) v^hat books, and identify them. 
 Jews are now all agreed, and the unanimity exists as 
 far back as we can trace. 
 
 The Talmud, — a record of O. T. tradition — at least be- 
 fore the 5th cent., gives a catalogue of them in three 
 j^. classes: Law, Prophets and Kethuvim, otherwise called 
 UJ^ Hagiographa, Aycoyftaip-fj — sacred loritings (Kathabh=to 
 
12 
 
 
 
 write). Just the books we find in our Bibles are given 
 here— Law, 5. Prophets, 8. Hagiographa, 11. (Talmud) 
 — 24 books in all, according to the number of Greek 
 letters, Samuel, Chronicles and Kings being each one 
 book, the "twelve minor prophets" one, and Kehemiah 
 and Ezra being c)ne. TTomeric Books numbered by Greek 
 letters. 
 
 Josephus — Born A. D. 37 — priest,— lived in Jerusalem, 
 a Pharisee. Had, therefore, a good opportunity of know- 
 ing: discussions with Appian only gives their n umber,^ 
 not their names, and describes them. His testimony not 
 
 rl-, *"SC/ ^^ explicit as Talmud, not giving names, but they are 
 ^.^^^ ^^JX^described. 
 
 ^ ^ FO He gives only 22 Books, the number of the Hebrew 
 
 letters, attaching Kuth to Judges, and Lamentations to 
 Jeremiah. This is frequently done. Three classes: 
 
 I. 5 books of Moses. 
 
 II. 13 books by Prophets, from death of Moses to 
 Artaxerxes. 
 
 III. 4 Hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of 
 human life. This was perhits gotten from the Talmud. 
 
 I. Same as usual. 
 
 II. Historical and Prophetical books; Joshua, Judges- 
 and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and I^^ehemiah, 
 Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiuh and Lamentations, EzekieL 
 Daniel, Minor Prophets. 
 
 HI. 4 Hymns: — Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and 
 
 Songs of Solomon. Therefore, no apocrypha quoted. 
 
 We can prove it from his works, also. Job and the three 
 
 books of Solomon onlji are not quoted; Job was outside 
 
 the Jewish people^and so neither Job nor Solomon'^ 
 
 I books related to line of history : but they are all needed 
 
 ""^ I to make out the number 22. Josephus nowhere makes 
 
 use of or quotes anj^ one of the Apocryphal books. 
 
 I We might prove it also by the early Christian fathers 
 
 who made careful enquiry. In later account of canon as 
 
 , received by the Christian Church. 
 
 ^' 0^4-^ ^^^^^^^"^ General Agreement./^The canon could not have been 
 5 ^'^^U^^^^^ corrupted before the close of O. T., for an uninterrupted 
 /^.. .^ O^-^-'^^M succession of inspired men, the prophets, would most 
 certainly have exposed it. There was a general agree- 
 ment as to the number of the books and also their names. 
 
 
 
 
13 
 
 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 co[)y was kept in the temple 
 
 after the exile also. Josephus says — " IIovv firmly we 
 
 give credit to those books is evidenced by what we do, 
 
 for we willingly suffer and die for them, and none are so 
 
 bold as to add to or take therefrom.'" There can be no 
 
 intelligent dispute about the authenticity. 
 
 ^ As to safe handing down, even the Romanists admit it. 
 
 , 7^-.B ut _ does the canon contain all ? Romanists say "two /^ 
 
 ^'-"'^ canons — one restricted, the other enlarged — P rotocan-__ Y^ 
 
 onical and Deuterocanonical, of like authoritv."_^ 
 ^^^ Of the later 7 are entire and there are parts of two 
 -^ others — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, 
 S^ Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees: with chapters added to 
 Esther and Daniel in the Greek and Latin bibles, 1st and 
 2nd Esdras not recognized by Romanists. '' First canon 
 erlier, 2nd later — no difference in authority and inspira- 
 tion."' Some distinguished Romanists say they " differ in 
 grade of authority, though both inspired." But this is 
 absurd, gives up the point. 
 
 In favor of the second canon they say the canon being 
 closed at the time of Malachi, all inspired books of a later 
 date had to be put in a second canon. 
 
 Skeptical waiters say the limitation of first canon was 
 simply a matter of time; and was only a collection of early 
 Jewish writers. But, 
 
 1. Kot literary. Ignores the character claimed and 
 accorded to them from the beginning. All Jewish authors, 
 Baruch, Josephus, Philo. iST. T. writers say they wpre 
 from God. 
 
 2. The 0. T. did not in fact contain all the extant writ- 
 ings. Chonicles, one of the latest O. T. books, mentions 
 several histories and works as extant ; viz., Nathan, Gad, 
 Ahija, Iddo, &c. The}^ are not known now in the canon 
 because not in the canon then and not jealously 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. Josephus says after 
 Artaxerxes, prophets ceased. This is not an arbitrary 
 date, but there was no succession of prophets. 
 
14 
 
 Some say Jewish canon was " limited by the language 
 in which written, and Apocryphal books not admitted 
 because w^^itten in Greek," But some apocryphal books 
 were originally in Hebrew. Jerome says this of others. 
 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, had two. 
 
 Xo authority for this statement. The Samaritans, a 
 schismatical 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 which 
 recommended Zion and Jerusalem. Also had much 
 intercourse with the heathen around them. 
 
 Some early fathers say the Saddacees acknowledged only 
 Moses. Mistake. They confounded the Sadducees and 
 Samaritans. The Sadducees rejected only tradition, not 
 the canon. 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 
 have given 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 Scriptures. This 
 sanctions oidy the Pent., but he elsewhere sanctions all 
 the 0. T. 
 
 ^Mustics, Therapeuta:, Essenes, &c., accepted the canon 
 and merely added their own views thereto. 
 
 The Jews of Alexandria did have lax views of inspira- 
 tion, but even if they liad two canons, their position 
 among the Gentiles would make us distrust any novelty 
 from such a quarter. There is no proof that they had a 
 different canon. t(/Au^ c^ /^~ n=cj'^(^ ^^ jy^/Kf^*~\^ 
 
 1. These Jews also were extremely desirous of keeping 
 up intercourse with Jews of Palestine, and nothing would 
 so effectually prevent this as introducing two canons. 
 
 2. Translator of Syrach speaks of the book which his 
 grandfather used in Palestine, and which he himself used 
 in Egypt, and makes no distinction between them. 
 
15 
 
 3. Josephus in his treatise against Appiat), an eminent 
 Jew of Alexandria, speaks of no difference. 
 ) T* 4. Philp A. D. 41 — no list — no general description — ^w^X^ 
 t**^ makes repeated incidental reference to O. T. books, all 
 1 . same as those given in Talmud, as inspired : no mention 
 of Apocryphal books; nearly all O. T. books referred to. 
 Defense of Apocrvhal books . 
 
 I. " The Aproanjphal books are in the SeptuagintJ' But ^ -^ ^'^ 
 adignorantiam. (1.) But origin and even design of Septua- 
 
 gint is obscure: perhaps merely literary: .*. collect all 
 for the Library. Tradition, that it was translated by 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, for his library. (2.) Not all pre- 
 pared at one time, or by one body of translators. AV^e do 
 not know the exact time of the compilation. Internal 
 evidence. Varied merit and ability of translation. Cyril 
 says the 22 were rendered by LXX.,the rest by others. (3.) 
 Apocryphal books were probably attached as appendix, 
 as relating to the same subject, and not to anything in 
 profane history. 
 
 II. "Accepted by Fathers.'' — Consider this objection 
 later. 
 
 III. " Jerome's expression that ' Tobit and Judith ' 
 ranked among the ' Ilagiographa ' — and since this was not 
 so at Palestine, must have been so at Alexandria." But 
 the word Hagiographa must be here a corruption for 
 Apocrypha, for Jerome elsewhere expressly denies that 
 
 these books were in the Ilagiographa. _ 
 
 IV. Prof. Smith says that certain portions of the O. T, A^ ^^^^ ^/ 
 canons were fixed among the Jews, and that at the time f^^ '^ 
 
 of Christ the canonical authority of others was in dispute, """"" 
 That this canon was not fixed until the close of the 1st 
 Century A. D. It was not settled when the Books of the 
 N. T. were written, and there is no explicit testimony in 
 them given in favor of the belief that it was then settled. 
 There is no dispute about the canonicity of the Law, 
 Prophets or three Poetical Books (Ps., Proverbs and 
 Job.) The following books of the Hagiographa — Songs 
 of Solomon, Ecc, &c., — were later additions. Strife over 
 these books was not ended until the end of the 1st Cen- 
 tury A. D., and the book of Esther was excluded until a 
 later period. 
 
16 
 
 This argument Prof. Smith rests on a certain expression 
 in the Tahiiucl — " Tlie Holy Scriptures defile the hands.'* 
 It means probably that the Sacred Scriptures were so 
 holy the hands must be washed before touching them ; 
 L e., they caused the hands to be considered unclean. 
 Rabbins say this was an arbitrary regulation to preserve 
 the Scriptures from injury. They held that they were 
 unclean or defiled the hands, to prevent them from being 
 placed with the fruits and sheaves for offerings, where the 
 mice might gnaw them ; i. f'., they rendered impure what- 
 ever they touched, even the offerings. At an}^ rate it 
 was used to ex press canonicitv of any boo_ k. To allege 
 that a particular book defiled the hands was to say it was 
 canonical. Shammai and Hillel were noted Eabbins of 
 about the time of Christ. The school of Shammai 
 afiirmed that certain books did not defile the hands, 
 while that of Hillel afiirmed they did. (The books were 
 Songs of Solomon, Ecc. and Esther.) But the Talmud 
 states that at a meeting of a Synod about 95 A. D., 72 
 Elders decided that Solomon's Songs and Ecclesiastes do 
 defile the hands ; /. <?., are canonical. 
 
 .But the question really was: — 
 
 1. Whether the book which was and had been in the 
 canon ought to be there, and 
 
 2. Did not effect the canonicity of the books themselves, 
 but concerned only their contents. It was urged that 
 Ecc. treats of worldly enjoyments, and Solomon's Songs 
 of worldly love. 
 
 These objections were overruled and the books retained. 
 They had no more Aveight than Luther's objections to the 
 Epistle of James, or than any modern dispute in regard 
 to any book of the Holy Writ. 
 
 3. These objections of the Rabbins were not confined 
 to what Prof Smith claims, but extended to Proverbs 
 and Ezra, &c. 
 
 4. The omission of Esther from Chrysostom's Catalogue 
 does not favor the theory of Smith because by his own 
 concession the book was definitely retained and the canon 
 settled long before this Catalogue was written. 
 
 It is said that the Talmud pronounces Baruch and 
 Syrach canonical. This is denied by most competent 
 authorities. Prof Scott says : JN"ot a single passage can 
 
17 
 
 be adduced which proves the canonicity of Baruch and 
 the interpretation which sanctions Syrach is equally as 
 unfounded. In no place is Syrach mentioned as a book 
 of Scripture. In every place it is excluded from the 
 cano!i. 
 
 Ba.'uch sometimes cited as, " It is written," same ex- 
 pression used in quoting from Canon, but it is stated in 
 this way: "It is written in the book of Baruch," and 
 therefore not cited as canonical, because even heathen 
 poets cited this way ; sometimes quoted from memory and 
 sometimes mistakes are made. In no place in the Talmud 
 isSirach spoken of as canonical, but affirmed not to be in 
 the canon. 
 
 II. The Ch'isiia/f Canon — brings most decisive ar- 
 gument, though the foregoing is conclusive. 
 
 The books were recognized by our Lord and the 
 apostles. They recognized the same as the Jews. They 
 never charged the Jews witli altering the letter of the law. 
 
 The}' sanctioned the canon. 
 
 1. Frove([ negafirely ; they never charged the Jews with 
 corrupting or mutilating the word of God, though our 
 Lord says they made it void by their traditions and gave 
 erroneous interpretations to it. He would have reproved 
 any omission or insertion. 
 
 2. Proved poslticely. a. B}i express statements. " Unto 
 them were committed the oracles of God." Rom. 3:2; 
 2 Tim. 3 : 16—" all scripture ", etc. 
 
 b. Bij general implication. Appeal to sacred writings of 
 the Jews, (1) as a whole, 'as "scriptures," etc. John 5: 
 39; Matt. 22 : 29 ; John 10 : 35. Or (2) to the three-Mdi 
 divisions, "Law and Prophets." Matt. 5 : 17; Law and 
 Prophets used in synagogue and known to people : Law, 
 Prophets and Psalms. Luke 24 : 44 ; the later for Hagio- 
 grapha, part for whole, or because of the prevailingly 
 poetical character of Hagiographa, because the Psalms 
 especially testify of Christ, and is the largest book. 
 
 Luke 24: 27; Robertson Smith says our Lord only 
 intended to refer to certain admitted, well-known parts of 
 scripture; that the canon was completed after Christ by 
 Sanhedrin about close of 1st century. Christ does not refer 
 to Song of Solomon, Esther and Ecclesiastcs because dis- 
 puted. But, lst,^not needed ; 2nd,^not censured 
 
 
 
18 
 
 /A.x^ 
 
 And : 1. He only quotes what speaks expressly of 
 himself. 
 
 2. There is an explicit statement in Luke 24 : 27, of 
 the three-fold division and that he expounded all. 
 
 3. Prof Smith says Job and Proverbs are canonical, 
 but according to this they would be left out. He says 
 because Esther and Eccl, etc., not mentioned they were 
 disputed. There is no hint that they did not belong to 
 the canon. J^o occasion for them to be mentioned. 
 
 c. By their abundant citations of it as the word of God 
 — of the Holy Ghost — of inspired men. All the books 
 are thus quoted except some minor prophets and it is hard 
 to tell which definitely. Ezra, Xehemiah, Ecclesiastes, 
 Esther, admitted not to be quoted. 
 
 Every such citation lends the sanction of inspiration not 
 only of the passage, but to the canonicity of the book thus 
 quoted, and to the entire volume in which this bool^ is 
 found. Those not cited are so merely because there was 
 no occasion for it. They do not profess to quote all : it is 
 merely incidental, for the moment. 
 
 They take O. T. as found among the Jews and ascribe 
 to it divine authority : a most decisive proof that it con- 
 tained nothing more nor less than what it should. 
 
 Objection. — " N. T. writers used the Septuagint version 
 and therefore sanctioned all the books which it contained, 
 including the Apocrypha." 
 
 Answer — 1. They admittedly did not sanction its inac- 
 curacies : no more did they sanction its spurious additions. 
 2. And there was no danger of their being misunderstood 
 by the Jews around— .-. did not expressly say they 
 accepted only the genuine. 3. They never even quote 
 from the Apocrypha — in regard to everv passage said to be 
 so quoted it can be proved (a) that there is no such resem- 
 blance, or (b) that the passage in the Apocrypha is itself 
 conformed to an O. T. passage, and this is what is in 
 reality quoted — or (c) even if so quoted it njeajjy affords 
 the historical proot of the quotaiion ; the apostles quested 
 the heathen poets, but they did not sanction them. Heb. 
 11: 35; refers to the sulferings of the Jews as related in 
 Mace, but to the historical truth and does not thereby 
 sanction canonicity any more than ** sawn asunder " sanc- 
 tions the legend of IN'iobe's death. 4. They make positive 
 
X uxL ise^^Lv 
 
 -<lre^ttX^ iLci^ A^^spt^ 
 
 6o-ec^ 
 
19 
 
 statements which exclude these books. Matt. 11 : 13-14 
 and Mark 1 : 1-2 link end of 0. T. with beginning of the 
 iN". T. — a distinct proof of inspiration. 5. They do not 
 always quote at all from the LXX., but sometimes from 
 the Hebrew. 6. Even some prominent Romanists them- 
 selves have felt that the Apostles did not sanction these 
 passages. Some a&ditions of the Vulgate give quotations 
 from O. T., but not from Apocrypha. 
 
 The 0. T. canon thus sanctioned is a true one : even 
 Bellarmine (a Romish authority ot note), acknowledges 
 that none other are canonical. 
 
 III. Canon of Christian Cliurch. This the Romanists' 
 last resort : '' These books must be canonical because 
 sanctioned by the early church." But this could not 
 occur without the sanction of the Apostles and they did 
 not sanction it. However, the Church might have erred. 
 It erred in doctrinal matters ; though here we reject the 
 development theorj', that the canon grew with the Cliurch. 
 
 Meaning of some ttrms used. 
 
 Canonical books— books ii^spired of God, given to the 
 church as her rule of faith.' 
 
 Canonical books, loose sense, ==books agreeing in gen- 
 eral character with inspired books, orthodox books. 
 
 Apocrypha— aTToxpuTizco — " Hidden." 1. Some say this 
 refers to the obscurity which clouded their origin ; — false: 
 ^Augustine, (quia origo non pariut) as regards their being 
 inspired. Yet Samuel, Kings, &c., have not known au- 
 thors. But Ecclesiasticus is known as written by Jerus 
 Son of Sirach. 2. The contents of the books, mysterious,* 
 as the heathen Eleusinian mysteries : not allowed circula- 
 tion, as the heathen books (called xpuTiza) which are intel- 
 ligible only to the initiated. Hence^heathetiish i. e. 
 heretical esoteric writings unlit to be placed in the hands 
 of Christians .-. uninspired. 3. In contrast with the 
 Scriptures, which were read in public worship — which 
 hence = '' o;;^'?? " books, the others " hidden "== Hebrew 
 g'nuzim hidden — (But the Jews applied this word to 
 obscure passages in the canon itself and to uninspired 
 copies of the Scriptures too full of mistakes to be used in 
 the Synagogue.) 
 
 Apocrypha^ used by the Fathers in two senses. 1. As 
 w^e use the word,=books claiming inspiration and place 
 
20 
 
 in canon but which have it not. 2. Books of pernicious 
 character or forged to sustain heresies. According to 
 the latter sense, there were three classes of books, (a) 
 Canonical or inspired, (b) Ecdesiastkal, i. e. approved by 
 the church for reading, or orthodox=our Apocrypa where 
 *' canonical " is used in its looser sense, (c) Ayocryphal^ 
 books of evil tendency. 
 
 How are we to tell which the church did admit? A. 
 By catalogues. B. By early versions. C. By readings in 
 public worship. D. By quotations in the Fathers. 
 
 A. Catalogues of the sacred books — great authority — 
 most satisfactory evidence given 1, by the Fathers : 2, by 
 Councils, valuable (a) as joint testimony of many fathers 
 collected from a great extent of country, (b) Best, for 
 they used more precise language. 
 
 /Second Century, Melito — Bishop of Sardis (the church 
 mentioned in Revelation) — old est catalog ue— A. D. 160 — 
 only one of 2nd century. It seems doubt had arisen about 
 the canon. He travelled to Jud?ea and inquired care- 
 fully. He opposes all but those in the Hebrew volume. 
 Gives their names, not their number. But a. Abundant 
 testimony elsewhere, and b. this is not a question of 
 dispute. Romanists admit this. Adds the words jJ -/at 
 ao(fia after Proverbs ; .-. Romanists say it means the 
 Apocryphal book of Wisdom. But the real meaning (fj xac 
 not xo.t -fj) is " which is also wisdom," referring to Pro- 
 verbs. Lamentcdions not mentioned : probably included 
 under Jeremiah. Ruth, with Judges. So Nehemiah, 
 probably included under Ezra. Esther not mentioned. 
 The omission of Esther by Melito as well as by others, 
 gives necessity for some canonical reason besides inad- 
 vertence. It is either included with some other book, as 
 Judges (most probably), or, as is mentioned, from the 
 circumstance that in the Greek Bible, a copy of what 
 Melito doubtless possessed, Esther begins with an apocry- 
 phal introduction. Whatever explanation is adopted it 
 does not invalidate the argument. The Romanists confess 
 to its presence in the canon at that time ; so does the 
 school of Smith — begins in Septuagint with an Apocry- 
 phal section and .'. Esther joined to Jeremiah; or Melito 
 inadvertently rejected the whole of it, or fault of tran- 
 scriber, or included in another book. 
 
21 
 
 Justin Martyr. 2ncl century, died 164 A. I). Born in 
 Palestine, after conversion lived in Rome. No regular 
 catalogue. Quotes frequently, but never from Apocry- 
 pha. In his controversy with Trypho, a Jew in Ephesus, 
 he does not refer to Apocrypha nor accuse the Jews of re- 
 jecting inspired works, as he would naturally have done 
 had he believed those books inspired. 
 
 Sjjrktc Peshito, 2nd century, only included canonical 
 books. 
 
 Tliird Century — Origen — Greek Father — most learned 
 of Greek Fathers. Educated at Alexandria. Died at 
 Tyre, 70 years of age. His catalogue gives 22 books, by 
 name in full, both in Hebrew and Greek. As preserved 
 by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, the same as 
 Josephus, and then says — " and apart from these are 
 books of Maccabees." Minor prophets omitted, but inad- 
 vertently, and not by Origen himself, for they are found 
 in every other catalogue, and are necessary to complete 
 the 22, (he says 22, and names only 21) — .*. fault of the 
 transcriber. The old Latin translation by Ruffin gives it, 
 mentioning minor prophets also. 
 
 Under Jeremiah he includes Lamentations and " Epistle 
 of Jeremiah.'' This must be either the epistle to the 
 captives of Babylon, Jer. 29; or an Apocryphal epistle 
 given in the Vulgate as the last chapter of Baruch. 
 Probable that he was misled, for Origen follows the He- 
 brew canon irrojessedly^ and this certainly never contained 
 it. But it is easily demonstrable that Jer. never wrote 
 this book. 
 
 Jertullian. — 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 wings of beasts around the throne, 
 and the 24 elders, in Revelation. .-. In 2nd and 3rd cen- 
 turies, we have Melito and the Syriac Peshito from the 
 Eastern church; Origen from Greek church; Tertullian 
 from Latin church. 
 
 Fourth Century. — Corroborated from all parts of church. 
 Counril of Laodicea. Representatives from Asia. 
 
 QM<>JUrp,.^ ^ * 
 
22 
 
 Athanasius — Bishop of Alexandria. 
 Cyril — " Jerusalem. 
 
 Greek Epiphanius — " City of Salamine, in 
 
 Writers. -( Cyprus. 
 
 Amphilochius — " Iconium. 
 
 Gregory of Naz- 
 
 ianzus — " Constantinople. 
 
 Basil the Great of Cappadocia, and Chrysostoin of Con- 
 stantinople 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 liuffinus — " of Aquileia, in Italy. 
 Writers, j Jerome — Monk of Palestine, (most learned 
 1^ man of his time, born in Dalmatia.) 
 
 Two, those of Athanasius and Gregor}', omitted Esther 
 — explained as under Melito. Athanasius even puts 
 it among Apocrjqjha, but for the same reason that open- 
 ing chapter is apocryphal. There is abundant evidence 
 for it, and Romanists admit it. 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 witli spurious chapters. Hilary 
 says "Jeremiah and the epistle" — (see Origen) — Athan- 
 asius, 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 epis- 
 tle. If it is adopted they have unwittingly given credit 
 to a forgery. 
 
 Later catalogues have not book of Bai'uch in Apocry- 
 pha, which Rome says is canonical. 
 
 With these exceptions all sustain the Protestant canon. 
 The catalogues of the first four centuries uniting wdtli 
 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, and 
 likewise binding on the Christian Church. 
 
 Again they say they are excusable for the church had 
 given no decision yet. But the church can't decide this : 
 ail we want is testimony. 
 
23 
 
 Romanist Objections. 
 
 At the close of the fourth century Augustine (good 
 theologian, poor critic) — and the councils of Hippo and 
 Carthage, added most of the hooks which are now in 
 Romish canon — 
 
 But (I.) Not exactly same (a) Baruch not in any — and 
 (b) first Esdras=:Nehemiah and Ezra; and they contain a 
 book of Esdras (2nd of Vulgate, 1st of English apocry- 
 pha) which Rome does not recognize as inspired. 
 
 (II.) These are not ^== three independent witnesses. Au- 
 gustine was bishop of Hippo near Carthage, and his influ- 
 ence and views probably determined the decisions of the 
 two Councils. 
 
 (III.) The three catalogues would not reasonably differ 
 so greatly from what was held in all the rest of the church, 
 and hi Carthage itself at an earlier date. 
 
 (IV.) The preface and conclusion ol' the catalogues 
 show that they were meant to include not merely inspired 
 works, but also orthodox, editying ones as prefaces. Au- 
 gustine advises a distinction — that those received by all 
 the churches should be preferred to those received by fewer, 
 and among the latter preference should be given to most 
 important or influential churches. It is plain these apoc. 
 books were not received by early fathers. He certainly 
 would not have made such a distinction among inspired 
 books. Used " canonical " as referring to good, profitable, 
 edifying books, — under the second class. 
 
 (V.) Augustine elsewhere savs " the Jews had no v 
 
 prophet after Malachi^until the father of John the Bap- >^^ .«• J*< • 
 list." And yet the Apocrypha was written in that inter- 
 val. And he says " all the books of O. T. were with the 
 Jews, who = librarians of the church." But the Apocry- 
 pha was rejected and also Judith, according to Augustine. 
 He 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 a book good to be read, especially Mac- 
 Mr:^^ cabees, who suftered persecution so much for the faith." vU Id 2*<^*^ H^»> 
 «^>A sect called Circumceliones^allowing suicide, appealed Ur^ ^ ^ 
 ^ to the case of Drassis in 2nd Maccabees. To these per- 
 sons Augustine replies " they are in great straits for 
 authorities, having only this book, one which neither 
 
24 
 
 Jews, nor Christ, nor the Apostles sanctioned as they did 
 the prophets and Psalms," and " which the church re- 
 ceives only as the history of men who sutfered 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 approved by church for private 
 land public reading. " What is not in the canon of the 
 J^ws cannot be received with so much confidence against 
 opposers." He further says " the accounts of thesetimes 
 of persecution are not found in the Holy Scriptures which 
 are canonical, but in certain historical books as Mac, 
 which the Jews do not, but the church does esteem canon- 
 ical." So he used the term " canonical " in two senses — 
 the loose in respect to the books which contained the 
 story of Jewish and church sufferings, and were meant to 
 be read as salutary in the days of persecution. Further 
 — " Things which are not written in the canon of the 
 Jews cannot be adduced with so much force against op- 
 posers." 
 
 So, from the records of martyrdom as well as from the 
 Scriptural language and its connections with the O. T. in 
 the LXX and Vulgate, the Apocrypha gained a certain 
 sanctity. It has such yet from its occasional use in the 
 Church of England. 
 
 (VI.) There is a presumption that the church at Car- 
 thage did not design to cut itself off from rest of the 
 church, for it proposed to submit this canon to the judg- 
 ment of Boniface, Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Question whether this catalogue is authentic and among 
 the decrees of the church. 
 ,^ -C^^tA^ - (VII.) Tertuljian, a lawyer of Carthage, in preceding 
 century, and Primazius and Junilius in fifth century, add 
 their testimony. "^"^^ A-w'^^-^./a^ 
 
 Primazius — Bishop of Africa later— in fifth century — 
 admits only 24 books. 
 
 Jiuiilius distinguishes aniong the " divine " books — 
 ^wlXCw^ some of perfect, ^on\Q of Wifdium, some of no authoriiy= 
 
 Books on divine subjects not necessarily inspired. 
 
 Hence Carthage had not the canon, in its w^ide sense^ 
 — in strict sense, the same as present Romish canon. 
 
 Hence bv all " canon " was used in its looser sense. 
 

 ^« u^^ 
 
 /- - 
 
 i:? 
 
 (£dL^ -v-^«s^cX jO<2e^e<-^e<^"^a.*je_ -^^ "^^-^d o^ 
 
 ^^■^^^r^:^^ -..^^^^>.-.-*^ >^ '^ /z.^.-^ ^^^^^^ .^-^^' 
 
JLfa ^ 
 
 Ccc4y^ '*^ ^^~Sy 'iJ-e*^,4^ <^^^ i^ — cS ^^Ck^^ 
 
 Ur^^ 
 
 U^Lc^ 
 
 '^ a-^-t^e,<_r-< 
 
 1 
 
 t'X-t^v 0*~>i^ .eL--C^>— ^ 
 
Thus we see there was no disagreement in the first four 
 centuries, if the word " canon " be used in the strict sense. 
 Same canon now, — the Jewish. 
 
 Fifth Century. — We have seen that all the catalogues 
 except three sustain our canon ; and that they do so with- 
 out ambiguity, and unanimously. And that these three j 
 have no more weight than one; and that they do not in I 
 reality disagree from the other, but merely use the word 1 
 canonm the loose sense. But even if this bo not so, it is ' 
 enough to condemn the Apocrypha that it is not in any 
 catalogue before the 4th century. 
 
 Parallel of 0. and K T. Canon. To neutralize this the 
 Romanists bring up the Antelegomena, disputed books of - 
 the ^. T. which were not generally received until the 4th 
 century, but which we all hold canonical now. But the 
 cases are not similar. The Apocrypha was older and the 
 Antelegomena consists of a few small books which required 
 time to become generally known ; they were gladly ac- 
 cepted \x\\QYQ first known, and gradually spread. But the 
 Apocrypha (1) were never so accepted where first known 
 among Jews; (2) where so adopted, it was without critical 
 investigation; (3) were classed with O. T. loosely) (4) and 
 even in this lax sense were not universally received. N. 
 T. was. 
 
 Greek Church. — History of the Canon in the 5th Cen- 
 tury. Followed the Council of Laodicea, against the 
 Apocrypha without a dissenting voice. 
 
 Latin Church. — Division. Many were influenced by 
 Augustine's great learning; as well as influenced by the 
 growing custom of public reading in churches ; others fol- ^ <^^^<. • 
 low Jerome (strict), but the greater number, especially of 
 the intelligent, favored only the strict canon. Cqtalogues 
 for the large canon in all this time, only two or three. 
 
 Sixth Century.— Gregory VIII., the Great, A. D. 600, 
 First Bishop ot Rome, quoting from Maccabees, speaks of 
 them as " not canonical, but yet published for the editica- Oaj^^ Ja^ 
 tion of the church." Council of Trent ;-^France, Eng- <^'^^' f^ 
 land and Germany agree with strict canon. All are con- 
 sidered authorities. 
 
 There are few genuine authorities favoring Augustine's 
 catalogue, — not more than three or four in 18 centuries. 
 
26 
 
 III the 16th century, Cardinal Zimenes, Archbishop of 
 ^^x^^t,^,'^^ Toledo, before Council of Trent, (author of Compluten- 
 "^^ sian Polyglot,) says in the preface, as his dedication to 
 Pope Leo X. 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 of people than for doctrine." 
 
 Cardinal Cagetan, at Rome, an emient theologian, who 
 would have been Pope, had he lived after Clement VIL, 
 defended the strict canon onlv ten years before the Coun- 
 cil of Trent. 
 I The Prologue of Jerome, defending the strict canon, is 
 always in the preface to the Romish Bible. 
 
 Fourth Session of Council Trent — ecumenical and bind- 
 ing in its decrees — 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 anathema on those Avho rejected it. So that it 
 was said, " the Romanists have made a canon to condemn 
 their own Bible." This is really the first time it was ever 
 decreed by any ecclesistical body that these books were 
 Ion a par with the inspired word 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 church were' 
 \from the Apocrypha, and to the desire to make an issue 
 I with the Protestants, who had plante/1 themselves on the 
 Jewish Canon. There was much and earnest dissent in 
 the council even then. The Romanists say the adverse 
 testimony of the early fathers was excusable because as 
 yet the church had given no decision as to canonicity of 
 books. 
 
 Other JRomanist Arguments for Apocrypha, besides the 
 ea rly catalogues : ^ A . 
 oukt^^'^^^'^^ ^-/spoiitained in early versions. 
 ' ' C. Read in public ivorship early. 
 
 D. Quoted by early Fathers as of Divine authority. 
 
 Prelim. Remark. — The whole church was united for 
 the strict canon. Even if undue value was placed upon 
 the Apocrypha in certain places, even if some Fathers 
 have expressed themselves thoughtlessly, incautiously, on 
 the subject, yet the general opinion is against them. Their 
 
fc^*,^!^ ^^ o-i^<-^--^^'- y^^ ^' 
 
 ■ C-A-^ ^- /^ , 
 
 -6 
 
 
 
 ^-^•^ 
 
 (3XvC 
 
 ^, 
 
 =^^.~^ X '^^-^-^ t^f- >^ 
 
27 
 
 criticism has no more weight than other erroneous judg- 
 ment. 
 
 B. Objection. ^^ co ntained in early versi ons." — Answer. 
 (1.) Apocr yjy.ia waTT?o/f in all early version s. The Suriac 
 P eshit o, arul the Latin version of_JLni.^^'^di(l not have (^^-^^ \ 
 them. The latter is the foundation for the Vulgate, »rU£-^ 
 which took the Apocn/pJuf, however, from an earlier Latin 
 version — the Itala. But evidence is incomplete as to the 
 number of versions in which it was found. 
 
 (2.) Though in the Septuafp'nt , it was there as a mere 
 a ppendag e, 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 copied 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 i_n^early 
 versions be(*ause 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 oneg> 
 stone" in their circulation. For most early Fathers did | 
 not understand Hebrew ; it was therefore translated from I 
 the Greek versions. 
 
 (-Ir.) From analogy of modern versions, it might have i 
 been included in the early versions without being con- ) 
 sidered inspired. See Luther's version — King James' 
 version. Found there as in Eng. version of James, and 
 yet not considered inspired. 
 
 (5.j Their argument, if valid, proves too much.. They 
 reject as uncanonical, 3rd Esdras and 3rd Maccabees, and /fc-- 
 
 the Prayer of Manasseh, which are in^ early versions. ^'**--"l/^ '^^^ 
 The Ethiopic version contains even more, as the book of 
 Enoch. 
 
 C. Objection— "liii ixd in public worship in same man- 
 ner as canonical books, and therefore equal." 
 
 (L) The fact is admitted but the argument from it is . ^^z.,,,^c^^^^<^ ^ 
 unsound ; everything turns on^the i ntention with whicji , ^^ ^^^-<^^*^^^^ 
 t he'/ read it : must first show this before the argument is 
 of any weight. Letters were read from absent pastors 
 also. 
 
28 
 
 (2.) From analogy. Churcb_of_Eng]ancl shows that its 
 
 being read in~cTrurches and being canonical, are not the 
 
 Ou^htcL' same thing necessarily. ^^ Reado nj y on festival days and 
 
 not on the Sabbath," being read "Tor the example of life 
 
 and the instruction of men." 
 
 (3.) That the early church in reading these books thus,, 
 did not thereby estee m them can onical, appears from 
 e xpress testim ony. Jerome — " Ke ad^o r instructjo.n, but 
 not for authority." Very explicit. Baffin says, " there 
 are other books not canonical, but are called Ecclesias- 
 tical, as Wisdom of Solomon, or Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus. 
 To be read in the churches, but not for authority in 
 /le^f*^' faith." Atkanasius — /^Contains not indefinite, but deter- 
 ^""^ mined and canonized books, and also others not can- 
 
 onical, but read by catechumens, as Wisdom, Cyrach, 
 fJudith, Tobit and Esther; i. e., Apocrypha Edition. 
 
 (4.) This argument also would prove too much, for 
 many books were read which Rome herself does not 
 esteem canonical.Ngg^go. 
 
 D. Objeetion. — ^\^Qu oted by Early Fathe rs in a w^ay 
 which shows they esteem them inspired." The only 
 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. 
 ^-'^'^ (l.)^Ascertain whether the qu otation alleged is reallj ^ 
 f rom the Apocryph a. Man}' citations are not quotations 
 at all, but general expressions which may occur anywhere. 
 
 (2.) If so, whether it is quote d as from the inspired 
 word of Go d. 
 
 (1.) i<l?d of being quoted ? Answered. ^ 
 
 First Centuri/. In the Fathers of this century there are 
 a few allusions to persons and things in the Apocrypha^ 
 and a few expressions like those in the Apocrypha, but 
 no formal quotations from it. This shows merely that 
 they were acquainted with the Apocrypha. 
 
 From the ISecond Century on. (a) Freely quoted. So are 
 Homer, Virgil, &c. Shows only that they were known 
 or contained something pertinent to the matter in hand. 
 (b) The Apocrypha is mentioned with respect and rever- 
 ence, and appealed to as true ; but this is very different 
 from saying it is inspired. 
 
o^-r1U^^*^^ _, ^^'^ ^'^ p^c^o^ 
 
 
29 
 
 (2.) Man ner of quota tion : There must be something 
 in the mode ot quotation showing it to have been regarded 
 as inspired ; of this there is no proof. Rome says they 
 do so quote (a) "They make use of the same formulas 
 in quoting from Apocrypha as in quoting from the other 
 books." (b) " They employ the same terms in speaking 
 of the writers of these as in speaking of those of the 
 other books." 
 
 Objection to (a ) Formula — " It is written," the estab- 
 lished phrase for " quoting" from the ins[)ired word. It 
 was nothing to use the same formula, for the Apocrypha 
 was appended to sacred volume and appointed to be read 
 in churches. They 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 — loritings [ypfJ^ifrj) r» 
 and sacred scriptures — writings on sacred subjects. In 
 other words, they merely meant Sacred Literature, in i 
 contrast with Profane Literature, using the l oose sen ^se of j 
 canonical. 
 
 (2.) 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. Athanasius even quotes from Ecc. ' /^^ ^.^ cJa/i, 
 beginning, "the Holy Ghost saith." Such must have / / ' 
 
 been done inadvertently, and without recollection of pecu- 
 liar location of the passage quoted. In formal statement f 
 they always leave these books out. Origen quotes Tobit, ' 
 Wisdom, &c., and speaks of them as the Divine word, 
 and yet in his catalogue of the canon, leaves them out. 
 We prefer to accept their formal statement rather than 
 this sort of evidence. 
 
 (3.) Such distinctions are made in the " divine books," 
 &c., as to show that these terras must have been o:eneral. 
 Junilius says " some divine books are of perfect authority, 
 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 ; " so placing N. 
 T. above Apoc. 
 
30 
 
 (4.) Analogy — The Homilies of the Church of England 
 cite some books nnder the name of Scriptures^ as the Book 
 of Wisdom ; yet it does not form part of their canon. 
 
 (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 Verses, &c. 
 
 (b.) 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 writ- 
 ers, as " the 5 books of Solomon," viz : the three genuine 
 ones,'fWisdom, and Cyrach. 
 
 Answer — (1.) These expressions are in a loose, popular 
 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; but " the learned da 
 not doubt they are not his." So " Book of Daniel " does 
 not assert tbat Daniel was the author, and so " Baruch 
 and Jeremiah." Solomon was not the author of Wisdom,, 
 and Daniel not of Dan. of the Canon. Baruch is dis- 
 tinctly declared to be written by another than Jer., and 
 Ecc. by other than Sol. 
 
 (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 elsew^here expressly exclude them. 
 
 (4.) Analogy — Church of England calls Baruch " a 
 prophet," without any design of putting the book into- 
 the canon. 
 
 (5.) Proves too much — " argumentum ad hominem.'" 
 So Rome cites 3d and 4th Esdras under Ezra, 
 /.^^c^t-- Ergo, the Apocrypha was excludedxhy the Jews, by our 
 ' Lord and the Apostles, and by the Christian church gen- 
 
 erally, if not universally, until Council of Trent. 
 
 CJo<xU< i"-^^-^ <S</uSlux.^^.'^ ^ Int ernal Ev id ence . ^ 
 
 N ot decisiv e (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 
 
H ^ <<fc ^-o-*a-«' <ZcJ-0i.sf~^ 
 
 Kji^ a^ y^ 
 
 ^. 
 
31 
 
 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, and historical. 
 
 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 Assyrian captivity, at which 
 time he was taken captive. But (14 : 11) he was only 158 
 years old when he died. 
 
 His anofels' visits, contrarv to all analos^v, are Ions: con- 
 tinned; an angel journeying on foot with him 300 miles. 
 The angel Raphael lies to Tobias, representing himself as 
 Azarias 5: 12; they both lie to R. calling themselves 
 ^N'ephthalim 7:3; the book contains ridiculous supersti- 
 tion, 6: 2, 6: 17. 
 
 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 : 10 and 11. 
 
 Judith — 6 : 10-11. The scene is laid in Bethuliah ; no 
 trace of it. The name means virghi. It is probably an 
 allegory or romance. 
 
 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 Jehoiakim was the contem- 
 porary high-priest ; but there was no high-priest of this 
 name till after the exile. (4 : 6.) 
 
 Judith's language and conduct is false and deceitful. 
 Teaches the Jesuitical plea that "the end justifies the 
 means." Even prays God to assist her in so doing. (9: 
 10-13.) The crime of Simeon, condemned in Gen, 49 : 
 5; is here praised. It is said to be a crime to break the 
 ceremonial law even to save life. (11 : 10.) Jesus taught 
 otherwise, and rebuked for such strict adherence. 
 
 The Books of Wisdom and Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus,. 
 contain many excellent maxims, vet their morality is 
 
32 
 
 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. (11 : 
 17.) Philosophy of Plato. 
 
 9 : 15 — That the material body is a weight upon the 
 soul. 
 
 10 : 15-20 — Israel is represented as righteoua, and all 
 God's favors to it as a just reward. Even real miracles 
 are spoken of in an exaggerated way, from mere love of 
 the marvellous; e. g.^ manna. 
 
 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 w^arranted. 
 
 18: 21-25 — False explanation of the high-priest's dress: 
 virtue is ascribed to his dress which is due only to his 
 mediatorial office. 
 
 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 Alienation of the heart from God. 
 
 7th 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. This was never the 
 case in days of Solomon. 
 
 And it can be proved that it was originally written in 
 Greek. 
 ^^' J^RACii OR EccLESiASTicus.— Many passages teaching 
 justification by works. 
 
 3 : 30 — Almsgiving atones for sin. 
 
 3 : 3 — Honoring parents atones for sin. 
 
 35 : 3 — And forsakino' unrio^hteousness atones for sin. 
 
 12 : 4-7 — Kindness to the wicked is prohibited. . 
 
 33: 26-28 — Cruelty to slaves is allowed and justified. 
 (47: 5.) 
 
 50: 25-26— Hate towards Samaritans is also approved. 
 Exhortations to do right to gain the favor of men. Expe- 
 diency substituted for right as the ground of obligation. 
 
33 
 
 38: IK — " Weep for the dead, lest thou be evil spoken 
 of." 
 
 Chap. 14: 11-1(5 — Carnal enjoyment taiiirht, because 
 life is brief Cf Paul I Cor. 15 : 32. 
 
 45 : 15. — ''Aaron priest, as long as the heavens stand.'' J4-^^ Gz.*^.^^ 
 
 Barucii. — Said to have been written bv Baruch, the 
 helper of Jeremiah, yet oriii^inally in Greek, and quotes 
 Nehemiah and Daniel, who lived later. Baruch is said to 
 have gone to Babylon : did not if the real Baruch, but 
 went to Egypt. 
 
 1 : 10. — The Temple is spoken of as standing, and offer- 
 ings were to be made in Jerusalem, though in Jeremiah's 
 time it was in ashes. 
 
 1 : 11. — Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 though ho was his (jrands(yn. 
 
 Speaks of sending vessels back by Jeremiah, (1 : 8) 
 thoucrh this was not done till after the exile. See Ezra 
 1 : 7.^ 
 
 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 XL Maccabees. — I. Has many errors, historical 
 and geographical, but is better than II., which abounds 
 in fables and legends. In the latter, 1 : 19, preservation 
 of sacred fire ; 2 : 4, Jeremiah hiding the tabernacle and 
 ark and altar of incense, in Mount Nebo ; and 3 : 25, the 
 apparition which is said to have prevented the Emperor 
 Heliodorus from invading the sanctity of the Temple. 
 14:41-46 justifies suicide; 12:42-45, prayers for the 
 dead. 
 
 The writer does not even claim inspiration — 15 : 38-39. 
 '' Wrote according to his ability." 
 
 Esther. — The genuine Book of Ebiher 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. 
 
34 
 
 Additions to Daniel. — Three of thetii. 
 
 I. Prayer of the three children in the fiery furnaqe. 
 Devotional, but not adapted to the occasion or their situ- 
 ation, (verses 23-27) and contains unwarrantable asser- 
 tions. 
 
 II. Story of Susannah — improbable, and doubtful as to 
 basis of fact. 
 
 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 wdiole 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 Apoc- 
 rypha, has ceased. Yet some few object, and make a 
 distinction between the Deuterocanouical [L e., the Apoc- 
 rypha) and the Protocanonical books — the former as of 
 less authority and veneration. But this does not accord 
 with the language of the Council of Trent, and there can 
 be no degrees in such a matter. 
 
 Gkeek Church. 
 
 Favors the strict canon. 
 
 Cyril Leucar, 1631, Constantinople — adheres to the 
 Council of Laodicea. 
 
 Dositheus, of Jerusalem, 1672, under Romish influence^ 
 sanctioned the Apocrypha. 
 
 Platon, of Moscow, approves of the authorized Russian 
 catechism, and authorizes onl}^ the strict Jewish canon — 
 1836. 
 
 Protestant Church. 
 
 lias 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 in- 
 spired, but) some approving the " reading of it for instruc- 
 tion 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 writings. 
 
 The former of these views naturally led to keeping it in 
 Bibles as an appendix; the latter banished it altogether 
 

 r ■ 
 
 -tr, ^ 
 
 / ^ rx. *. -^t^— <. ti-V Co-- 
 
 -y^^/. 
 
 
35 
 
 from the volume. Tlie antagonism culminated in the 
 "Apocryphal controversy/' The German branches of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society used Luther's ver- 
 sion, containing the Apocrypha. In 1811, the Society 
 resolved to require its auxiliaries to leave out the Apocry- 
 pha. Owing to opposition, the order was rescinded in 
 1813, In 1819, the Society allowed their auxiliaries to 
 print the Catholic Bibles in Italian, Spanisli and Portu- 
 guese and insert the Apocrypha with the inspired books 
 indiscriminately — saying the Bible could not be distrib- 
 uted in those countries unless it were so. Much opposi- 
 tion, 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. In 1824, 
 Leander Van Ness, the publisher of the vulgate, asked 
 aid of Bible Society in publication of it. Said he would 
 bear entire costy^f they would permit. This they con- ^ ^^ <^o^ 
 sented to do, but arrangements were made for only a 
 year when they decided to publish the Apoc. separately. 
 Still many were dissatisiied. 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." Basis on which Bible 
 Society works now. Strife renewed in Germany lately, 
 some theologians entirely excluding the Apocrypha, some 
 claiming a subordinate place for it owing to long ecclesi- 
 astical usage. But the usage grew up when books w^ere 
 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 ^a^./o/ 
 intrinsic worth (especially I. Maccabees), and sheds much 
 light on the canonical books, explains customs, &c. — ■ 
 
 The threefold division of Law, Prophets and Hagio- iqk ^q ^f-^f 
 grapha or Kethuvim (writings). This threefold classitica- ' ' 
 tion is first referred to in the Prologue to Cyrach, where 
 this division is mentioned twice. Five books are in the 
 Law, eight 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. 
 
 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 important, 
 is named to include the rest. So we speak of the Con- 
 fession of Faith, and Book of Common Praver. It is said 
 they also bear internal evidence of gradual and successive 
 formation. 
 
 "Law first; all given subsequently were afterwards 
 gathered into a second volume, the Prophets, which was 
 closed : 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 statement 
 say it is confirmed by the fact that there are books in the 
 third division which should have been in the second if 
 they had been known. Daniel is not in the Prophets but 
 in the third division. Kings in the second among Pro- 
 phets ; but Chronicles, which has preciseh' the same char- 
 acter, is in the third. Hence they say the formation into 
 three classes was a process of time and discovery. 
 
 Reply — I. This view is based upon the idea that the 
 collection of the canon was a purely literary rescue from 
 destruction. But the books were oil well known, and all 
 the collectors had to do was to arrange them. 
 
 IT. This theory of time, &c., does not account for the 
 phenomenon. They say the book of the Prophets was 
 closed. What is meant by this ? Not so as long as any 
 book remained ; no sense in which it can be true. 
 
 III. The whole theory is in conflict with the facts : the 
 l*salms, <fec., were known when the collection of the 
 Prophets was made, and the Psalms were used in temple- 
 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 ; 8rd. those written 
 under the ordinary inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Some 
 truth in this tradition. The ground is the offlcial 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, Kehemiah. The Chronicles were probably 
 
37 
 
 written by Kzra, the Kings by ji Prophet, using the word 
 in the proper ofiicial sense of the term. 
 
 .-. The clas.-^itication regards not the contents but the 
 authors. 
 
 Only one book, Lamentations, causes any eml)arras3- 
 ment, according to this princii»le. The prophecies of Jere- 
 miah are among the Prophets : and it is probal)le that 
 Lamentations was originally also so included, ft seems 
 so from the enumerations of Josephns and of Origen, who 
 give only 22 books, and Lamentations must then have 
 been included, under Jeremiah's prophecies. It was prob- 
 ably transferred afterward for liturgical purposes, or from 
 its resemblance to the Psalms. 
 
 This division was in force in the time of Christ, Matth. 
 28 : 35. As if to take from the extremes of Scripture, as 
 well as of time, Abel (in the tirst book) is mentioned, and 
 Zacharias from (probably the last book of the O. T. writ- 
 ten) IL Chronicles. Though this is not decisive. 
 
 Greek and Latin and English Bibles give a fourfold 
 division. 
 
 L Law — Pentateuch.^ 
 
 2. Historical Books. ! 
 
 3. Poetical " ( 
 
 4. Prophetical " J 
 
 Athanasius divides into four Pentateuchs, covering all 
 but two of the l)ooks, Ezra and Esther. 
 
 1. Moses' Books. 
 
 2. Five Historical Books. 
 
 3. Poetical Books — Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
 tes, Canticles. 
 
 4. Prophetical Books — Isaiah, Jeremiah, EzekieU 
 Daniel, and the Mi nor Prophets. 
 
 Samaritans had 27 — or 28 separating Ruth— count 
 double books as single. This corresponds with the Hebrew 
 alphabet, 22 consonants, 5 double forms. This is accord- 
 ing to Jerome and Epiphanius. 
 
 The number 33 has also been given, making with X. 
 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 n)ystical sense, as referring to the 60 queens 
 of Solom.on. The English version of the O. T. numbers 
 39. 
 
38 
 
 Ceremonial Institutions of Mosaic 
 
 Law. 
 
 MOSAIC law. 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN. 
 
 The Pentatenclial Lei^islatioii was divided into three 
 forms : 
 
 L Book of the Covenant. Ex. 24: 7; Ex. 20: 23. 
 
 IL The Ceremonial system, or Levitical Code. Ex. 
 25 to end, Lev. and Num. This was o^iven partly during 
 the 40 days sojourn at Sinai, i)artly durino- the 40 years 
 wandering' in the wilderness. It is a journal of the laws, 
 and the fact of its heing interspersed with irrelevant his- 
 torical incidents is a strong proof of the contemporaneous 
 -character of tlie record. 
 
 III. The Deuteronomic Code; given just before Moses' 
 death and the entrance into Canaan. 
 
 We have to do with the Ceremonial Law, orLEviTiCAL 
 •Code, because of its im[)ortance.. It is important, because: 
 
 1. In it we become acquainted with the Jewish religion. 
 
 2. Teaching of 0. T. all presupposes this system. 
 
 3. Necessary to proper understanding of N. T. 
 
 4. Especiallj' important because of modern criticism, 
 whose ske|)ticism tends to undermine the truth of the 
 Bible and the reality of supernatural Revelation. 
 
 The Ceremonial Law may l)e divided into : — 
 
 1. Sacred Places — Tabernacle. 
 
 2. Sacred Persons — Priesthood. 
 
 3. Sacred Actions — The Ritual. 
 
 4. Sacred Times — The Calendar. 
 
 Before the time of Moses there was no structure for 
 worship. The Patriarchs built altars in the open air on 
 mountains or under trees. 
 
39 
 
 1. The Tabernacle. — Built of acacia wood overlaid 
 with gold — sockets of silver or brass. Rectangular— 30 
 -cubits long, 10 wide, 10 high — inside measurements; 
 divided into two apartments by a richly wrought veil. 
 This veil wrought with cherubim could not have been the 
 ■outer covering, but was tlie inner lining. One cubit of 
 the gold covered ceiling. Near the floor was not covered 
 by this veil. 
 
 The Tabernacle had no roof but an awning. First 
 ■covering — 10 separate pieces called curtains, each 28x4, 
 of line linen — inner lining. 2nd covering — cn-er this 
 was of goats' hair. "A tent over the dwelling" — 11 
 parts, 30-4; — 3rd and 4th were two additional coverings 
 — one of rams' skins dyed red, the other of badgers' 
 skins or seal skin. The roof was jiat. Ex. 25 : 31. 
 
 Apartments (a.) Holy of Holies. — Innermost room; 
 perfect cube, 10x10x10. (b.) Holy P/^/ee— Eectangular ; 
 20 cubits long, 10 high, and 10 wide. Separated from 
 court by a rail Ex. 36 : 40. 
 
 (c.) The Court — Surrounding the Tabernacle proper, 
 100 cubits long, 50 wide, 5 high. The people were ad- 
 mitted only to the court — through middle entrance in end 
 — in which stood the Altar of Burnt Offering and Larer. 
 The Priests were admitted into the Holy Place — through 
 etitrance by east — in which were the Altar of Incense^ 
 Golden Candlestick, and Ihhle of Shew Bread. Into the 
 Holy of Holies or Most Holy Place, where were the Ark 
 and Mercy Seat, only the High Priest could go, and that 
 only once a year — on the great day of Atonement. The 
 Tabernacle was 50 cubits back from the front of the 
 Court. 
 
 MEANIN(i AND DeSIGN. 
 
 Is there any special signilication in the structure, apart 
 from its uses ? It might be that the ritual was 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 a signification. 1. This appears because 
 the arrangement and plan of the structure are not deter- 
 mined by simple regard to convenience, or adaptability to 
 
40 
 
 its uses, (a) The building was not demanded to shelter 
 the crowd of worshippers, for they w^ere not really shel- 
 tered 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 lieason. — The minute and careful directions in 
 the most trifling matters, e. g.^ the number of boards in 
 the court, chords, loops, curtains, A:c. This shows some 
 further meaning in the thing itself Nothing was left to 
 human invention. All was prescribed by God. This 
 shows its sacrcdness and heavenly oriofin, just as in Rev. 
 21 : 15 ; 11 : 1-2 ; also in Ezckiel 40 to end. Rev. 11 : 1-2 
 — The court was not to be measured but given to the 
 Gentiles. Measurements imply sacredness. 
 
 Third licason.—Moi^es (Ex. 25: 40; 26: 30) was directed 
 to make all things after the pattern shown him in the 
 Mount. 
 
 AV^hat was the Symbolical Meaning? Various views: 
 
 I. The Materialistic. — 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 : — 
 (1.) The plan does not correspond to a human tent. The 
 seat or throne is set in a dark apartment; the candlestick 
 in another room. (2.) The food is on the table, the fire on 
 the altar, but no bed. (3.) 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, w^ho 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 Theory. — They say the Tabernacle, &c., 
 represents the Universe. The Tabernacle represented 
 heaven, and the Court represented the earth. 
 
 Three Modificcdions of this View : 
 
 1. It represented the material heaven and earth. Philo, 
 Josephus, some Christian Fathers, Talmud and the Rab- 
 
41 
 
 bins, held this. They lielil that the contents of the 
 Tabernacle were celestial, and those in the Court ter- 
 restrial. The Seven Lanijis represented the seven planets: 
 Twelve Loaves—twelve signs of the Zodiuc : Two Cherii- 
 bini = the two hemispheres of the heavens, winsred to 
 denote constant motion. Four Materials of the Veil :=the 
 four elements. In the Court, the Laver = the sea. The 
 Altar=r=the land. This view is false because (1) there is 
 no intimation in Scripture that these objects were repre- 
 sented in the temple. This is what misled Philo and 
 Josephus. (2) This would be a mere worship of nature, 
 like the lieathen who had these objects in their temples. 
 (3) The very objects here supposed to be represented, are 
 those which were forbidden to be represented by images 
 and worshipped — Deut. 4 : 19; Kx. *20 : 4. This would 
 seduce the people to idolatry l)y Divine appointment, the 
 same thing that Manasseh was accused of doing — 2 Kings 
 21: 15. (4) The Tabernacle would thus contain none of 
 the things we should expect to tind there in connection 
 with the Mosaic System. 
 
 Second Modijicailon of the general theory, held by a few 
 Rabbins, who maintained that there was a literal taber- 
 nacle in the heavens and copied by Moses. 
 
 Tliird 31odifi,cat)OiK — That 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 hear in heaven, etc., when they [)rayed toward 
 the temple. 3. That this view has the authority of the 
 N. T., lleb. 9: 24; 9: 11; 8: 2; G: 20. 
 
 Against this we say: The ai)ostle does establish a 
 relationship between the Tabernacle and Heaven, but not 
 that of a symbol but of a type. Distinction between si/mbol 
 and ti/pe to l)e kept in view. A type is a prophetic symbol. 
 A sijmbol is a natural object which represents some spirit- 
 ual truth ; a type is the ultimate form in which that truth 
 finds representation. What was done by the priest in the 
 Tabernacle was tj'pical 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. 
 
42 
 
 but \n ditfereiit ways. One was the abode of his conde- 
 scension as the God of Israel, the other the abode of his 
 glory as the God of the Universe. 
 
 Luther's Vt'eir. — Tabernacle represents the man himself, 
 the human nature in which God dwells; its two depart- 
 ments represent the soul and spirit. One of Luther's 
 disciples compares parts of Tabernacle with parts of body. 
 Bones, muscles, veins, and sinews all represented by parts 
 of Tabernacle. This confounds type and symbol. 
 
 The true meaning is shown (1) by the ditierent expres- 
 sions used in reference to it. It is called the teiU or 
 tabernacle and house of God; the palace or temple, (1 Sam. 
 1 : 9) the dicelling place of God. These names are con- 
 founded in the received version, but kept distant in I^. V. 
 These names suggest the idea of earthly residence. God 
 is not a God afar^'oif, but near at hand. (2) The design 
 w^as expressly declared by God himself (Ex. 25 : 8) as the 
 place where he would dwell. God was there, and there 
 spoke and manifested his presence. The people went up 
 there to meet him and address him. 
 
 (3.) The character of the symbol itself: The house was 
 designed for God, and placed in the centre of his camp. 
 Theseveral families of the Levites encamped with Moses 
 and Aaron i»ear it, and three tribes on each side. It was 
 set by the points of the compass, fronting the East, show- 
 ing ii to be set for the whole earth. His kingdom was to 
 control all the earth ; the end of the Jewish nation w^as 
 to correct the world ; to correct the idea that the Jews 
 were the exclusive favorites of heaven. (4) This general 
 idea of God dwelling on the earth is further specified (Ex. 
 27 : 21)--=the Tabernacle of the congregation, which reads 
 ■ in Hebrew, =Tent of meeting — a meeting place for two par- 
 ties—Ex. 29 : 42-43. " Where I will meet you." Not 
 called a meeting house because the people met together, 
 but because God met with the people. — Ex. 25 : 22^. The 
 purpof^e of the meeting was — the Tabernacle of Testimony 
 or Witness. See Num. 9 : 15 ; 18 : 2. God gave to Moses 
 tables of testimony— Ex. 31: 18; 25: 16; Deut. 31 : 26. 
 God's commandments are called testimony, because they 
 testify God's will to men. This is the Tabernacle of testi- 
 mony because it is the place where his will is made 
 known. The purpose lor which God meets his people 
 
43 
 
 is sl)0\vn in the name Sanrtuarj/ and also in the special 
 names Holy Llace and Holy of Holies. Called Sanctuary 
 Dot because set apart for sacred duties; still less in the 
 sense of '' asylum," which is a heathen idea. — These ideas 
 are subordinate. But it did signify inward moral -pimUj^ 
 the place where holiness is required and imparted. Lev. 
 21 : 23. The full idea then is — The place where God 
 dwells with his people in order to testify his will and thus 
 to sanctity them. 
 
 Examination of its structure and meaning of its parts. 
 
 1. The Tabernacle proper, i^«oc. 
 
 2. The Court, Uobv. 
 
 The Tabernacle was in the strict sense the House of 
 •God. The Court was not strictly so. Beyond the outer 
 veil (translated hanging in Received Version), the people 
 <jould not pass, only the representatives of the people, the 
 priests, could do so. The Tabernacle proper was divided 
 by another veil — not by solid wall, indicating a perma- 
 nent division. The veil formed an impassable barrier for 
 the time to all but the High Priest. It was rent and 
 access open to all at the crucifixion . The veil divided 
 the Tabernacle into two unequal departments. 1. The 
 Holy Place into which the Priests could all come. 2. 
 Holy of Holies into which the High Priest could go, and 
 he only on the great day of atonement. 
 
 The three stages of approach represented — 
 
 1. The Court opened to the people. 
 
 2. The Holy Place opened to the priests. 
 
 3. The Holy of Holies opened to the High Priest once 
 a year. 
 
 These representatires secured access and showed that 
 free entrance was only temporarily withheld. The gifts 
 of the people could be taken in by the priests. The sym- 
 bols of the people were in the Holy place. These sym- 
 bols showed that in time they might enter there. 
 
 The articles in the Holy of Holies signified God's rela- 
 tion to his people. Those in the Holy place signified the 
 relation of the people to God. 
 
44 
 
 Description of the Ark. 
 
 It was a wooden chest, overlaid with gold, containing 
 the two tables of the Law. The cover was a solid slal) 
 of gold on which the two cherubim beaten from the same 
 slab. 
 
 Two Explanations. 
 
 First. — Based on the term "Ark of the testimony. ''^ 
 Deut. 31 : 26. The book of the Law is here called a witness, 
 ^ow it is said that this " book of the Law " is just an 
 expansion of, or commentary upon the tables of the Law^ 
 as delivered upon Mount Sinai. The book was put in the 
 side ot the ark and this reveals the purpose why the lables 
 were put in the Ark. The " Tables of testimony '' were 
 so called because they are the testimony against the sins 
 of the people. They say that the golden Mercy seat 
 covers up this testimony of the sins of the people; and 
 that the Hebrew word signifies this. This is defectke. 
 
 (a) When God pardons the sins of the people, he covers 
 their guilt or sin but not the Law. The Law is not 
 silenced but satisfied. Paul teaches that believers are free 
 from the Law, but this is a Xew Testament declaration. 
 
 (b) The analogy of the book of the Law being put in 
 the side of the Ark is against tbe case which it was drawn 
 to adduce. The Books should have been put where the 
 tables were, on this hypothesis. 
 
 (c) The name mercy-seat [Kappordh. Translated daa- 
 TJpiov in LXX and N. T.) does not mean cover or lid, as 
 given by Gesenius. There is a Daghesh forte in the Pe, 
 showing that the Piel is meant, signifying to propitiate or 
 forgive sin. It was the i»lace where the High Priest 
 made expiation. 
 
 Second Explanation. — The true view is this : The 
 tables of the Law were God's covenant with Israel and 
 therefore their most sacred treasure, kept in the Ark as 
 a place of safety. The Golden Mei-cy-seat represents the 
 Throne of God. God's mercy is based on his immutable 
 Law. It was golden, to show the perfection and beauty 
 of that mercy. Above the Mercy-seat, between the 
 Cherubim, was the Shekinah, God's manifested glory. 
 The cloud betokened his presence. From here he spoke 
 
! 
 
46 
 
 with Moses, Ex. 25: 22. Hence God is said to dwell 
 between the Cherubim. He occupied this throne not for 
 wrath or vengeance, but tor niercv. It was the Mercy- 
 seat to re[)resent the presentation and acceptance of the 
 blood of sacritice. The Clteriihirn were composite figures, 
 (Ex. 25 : 20) having the face of a man and wings. Ez. 1 : 
 5 : 10 : 20. The Cherubim are described, but not exactly 
 the same as in Exodus — Man, Lion, Ox, Eagle. Shows 
 the concentration in one of all the highest and noblest 
 qualities in creation. The quintessence of creation, ador- 
 ing and surrounding the throne ot God. Such compound 
 figures were familiar to the people of Assyria and Egypt, 
 where Moses and Ezekiel lived. The Sphinx of Egypt 
 consisted of the body of a lion and head of a man. The 
 Eagle was the king of birds : the Lion^ the king of beasts ; 
 the Ox, the chief of domestic animals: the Man, the high- 
 est of intelligent creation. The combination of these 
 brings together the most noble of the animate creation. 
 It is the entire animate creation condensed; the ideal 
 embodiment of creation, and sets forth the noblest beings 
 God has made. These were not actual representations, 
 for the descriptions varv in different parts of Scripture. 
 In Isaiah 6th, six wings are mentioned; Ez. 1 : (j, four 
 faces and four wings ; Ez. 41 : 18, every cherub had two 
 faces ; Kev. 4 : 7-8 — six wings. Though not described 
 in the Pentateuch, the cherubim of the Ark had one face 
 and two wings. Each beast represented one of the ele- 
 ments which constituted the Cherubim. (Seraphim are 
 probably identical with Cherubim.) These variations in 
 form, while the general character remains the same, show- 
 that they are symbols and not exact images. 
 
 This appears first from other parts of Scripture. (1) 
 Gen. 3 : 24, where first mentioned. " Place at the east 
 of the garden,"' &c. (2) They are commonly represented 
 as being in the immediate presence of God — Isaiah 6, six 
 wings; Ezekiel 1, "four faces and four wings;" Ezekiel 
 10, "hands under the wings;" Rev. 4: 6, "full of eyes 
 before and behind ;" Psalm 18: 10," rode upon a cherub." 
 (3) In the Mosaic Ritual they are at the ends of the Mercy- 
 seat, and therefore near the Throne of God. The cur- 
 tains were wrought with Cherubim. Ex. 26 : 1. So also 
 the Veil— Ex. 26 : 31. The High Priest could enter the 
 
46 
 
 Holy of Holies once a year, but the Cherubim remained 
 there continually. So ot the priests in the Holy Place 
 and the Cherubim there. (4) The language of Peter,. 
 (1 Peter 1 : 12) contains an allusion supposed to refer ta 
 the posture of the Cherubim, with their faces toward the 
 Ark. Therefore the Cherabini represented the Angels, the 
 highest order of ci*eated beings. The pure gold repre- 
 sented their purity and extreme value. In Rev. 5 : 8-14, 
 the beasts are represented as leading the praises of the 
 universe. They w^ere one piece with the Mercy-seat, 
 therefore they are a part of God's throne, the ground ot" 
 his' dominion. They were two in number, in order to 
 show, perhaps, that they were not a representation of God 
 himself. They were bended toward the Mercy-seat with 
 heads bowed in loving adoration. The Hol^i/ of Holier 
 was a perfect cube. The New Jerusalem mentioned in 
 Revelation, was also a perfect cube, which indicated per- 
 fection. The perfect symmetry of the Holy of Holies 
 represented the perfection of the room itself. The Holy 
 Place had a diminished degree of perfection. While the 
 Court (only 5 cubits high) w^as a step toward perfection, 
 it was not to be compared with the Holy of Holies. The 
 Holy of Holies had no artificial light. The Shekinah was 
 the only light. The I^ew Jerusalem needed no light, for 
 God was the light. 
 
 Was the Shekinah permanent ? — Ex. 40 : 34. (1) Some 
 say that the brilliancy was confined to the times when it 
 is mentioned. (2) Tradition says that it was continued 
 down to the time of the Babylonish captivity, and this was 
 one reason why the latter temple was inferior to the first. 
 Lev. 16 : 2, implies that the Shekinah was there. " I 
 will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Others 
 think that the cloud meant the cloud of incense, but this 
 is wrong conception. 
 
 The Holy Place. 
 
 The Holy Place contained (1) the Altar q/ Incense, (2) 
 the Tahle of Shew Bread, and (3) the Candlestick. 
 
 I. That of Baehr, As these were in God's house, he 
 supposes that they represented something belonging to or 
 proceeding from God himself. The table was merely ta 
 
47 
 
 receive the bread. The Shew Bread, (Lehem Happanim) 
 or the bread of the face, of the Divine face, according to 
 Baehr. The Bread of God which he provides for his 
 people; twelve loaves, (Lev. 24: 5) one for each tribe. It 
 was removed every Sabbath, and what was taken away 
 was, eaten by the priests as the representatives of the 
 people. Baehr says it represented the Bread of Life, " of 
 which if a man eat, he shall live forever." 
 
 The Candlestick was for the sake of the light which it 
 was to shed. Baehr says it is the light which God dis- 
 penses to his people. The seven branches denoted the 
 perfection of tiie light — Kev. 4: 5; Psalm 12: 6. Ac- 
 cording to Baehr, it was the centre and seat of spiritual 
 light and lite. These two articles one on the north and 
 the other on the south side, stand in relation to the third 
 article placed between them directly in front of the ark, 
 and separated from it only by a veil, /. e. the Altar of 
 Incense. Baehr assumes that the incense means the 
 diffusion of the Name of God, i e. God as he is revealed, 
 or His Spirit, himself veiled from sight but made known 
 by the Spirit. The lujht and //Ye-giving Spirit. Hence 
 the meaning of the Shew Bread and Candlestick. Hence 
 the Holy Place is the place where the Spirit is diffused as 
 the source of spiritual life and light. This opinion is 
 erroneous and at variance with Scripture. These articles 
 represented what belonged to God., but not necessarily 
 what proceeded from God. The furniturf^ of the Holy 
 Place represented what the people are to do in reference 
 to God. The Incense was the symbol oiicorship andpi^ayer'. 
 —Psalms 141 : 2 ; Rev. 5:8; 8 : 3, 4 ; Luke 1 : 10 ; 
 Num. 16 : 46. It represented the intercession of the High 
 Priest — Lev. 1 : 16 ; 7 : 9. To burn incense was to offer 
 worship. It is often mentioned also in heathen worship. 
 There is no symbol about which there is less difference of 
 opinion. 
 
 The Candlestick is explained in Scripture — Pev. 1:12- 
 20 ; Zech. 4. It was a symbol of the church or people of 
 God. '' Ye are the light of the world. Let your light 
 so shine," &c. The lanips were fed with oil, which is a 
 symbol of the Holy Spirit. It was used in anointing 
 Priests and Kings to signify the gift of needed blessings. 
 Referred to in 1 John 2 : 27. The oil in lamps represented 
 
48 
 
 the Holy Spirit g\ven to the church as the i^ource of their 
 kiiowledije, holiness and joy. 
 
 The Table of Shew Bread, re])resented what the people 
 of God are expected to do. Service to he rendered ; — 
 Lev. 24: 8, 9. The Bread was not from God but to Him 
 from the people. 12 loaves = 1 for each tribe. So each 
 tribe had a share in the offerino*. Bread is the fruit of 
 labor and toil, and represented so much labor done for 
 God. It also represented their means of subsistence. It 
 denoted that their lives and property were consecrated to 
 God. It denoted the devotion of their activity to God's 
 service. Symbol of good works. Hence incense was 
 placed upon it, (Lev. 24 : 7] to denote the union of prayer 
 and good works. The Bread was renewed every Sab- 
 bath, showing that good works are to be perpetual. None 
 could eat it but the priests This shows that they who 
 work for God are fed from his table. David ate of it 
 when in need, hence we see that the outward ceremony 
 gave way to a case of necessity. 
 
 Have these articles of furniture any significance in 
 themselves ? 
 
 1. Some say not : — that they are only instrumental and 
 have no inherent meaning, hence are not sN'mbolic. This 
 theory is not true for we know that the Candlestick was 
 a symbol of the church. 
 
 2. Some say that the Altar and Table were symbols 
 per se, as the Candlestick and the Altar represented the 
 Church as the offerer of prayer, and the Table rep- 
 resented the Church as the bearer of good works. This 
 is not conclusive for : 
 
 (a.) Although the Candlestick is a symbol, there is no 
 such declaration as to the Table and the Altar. 
 
 (b) The Altar cannot be symbolical of the church, 
 because it must always have the same meaning and this 
 w^ould not apply to the Altar of Burnt Ofiering in the 
 Court. It would not explain the horns of the altar and 
 the atonement. 
 
 (c) There was nothing in the construction of the Table 
 or Altar to fit them for such symbolism, but in the Candle- 
 Mick there was. 
 
 (d) There was a radical difference in their character. 
 The Candlestick was an agent in producing light ; the Altar 
 
49 
 
 and the Table were not ai^ents in producinii: incense and 
 bread and therefore cannot represent the church as the 
 offerer and performer. They only receive what is pre- 
 pared elsewhere They were but vessels. The Bread 
 o)i tlie tahle becomes the oti:ering, and the incense on the 
 altar. The table is thus a modified altar. Simjdy the 
 place to which the ort'ering is brouii'ht. The candlestick 
 is not merely a place on which oil is poured but where 
 light \$r ]>ro(/i(cc(l. It is an instrument wliich, by the infu- 
 sion of oil and fire, gives light. As to its /on/? and material. 
 The Candlestick was made of gold to indicate its ourity — 
 branching and with buds to indicate that the churrch is a 
 tree, spreading, living, thriving and fruitful. The symbols 
 of the Holy Place therefore represent the offerings of 
 God's }>eople, ])raver and o;ood works, and the people of 
 God. 
 
 The Fur^^iture of the Court: 
 
 The Brazen Altar and Laver. 
 
 1. Altar. This was for sacrifice and was called brazen 
 from its hollow frame of boards overlaid with brass or 
 rather bronze. Ex.22: 1-8. The Altar itself was made 
 of earth and stones. Ex. 20: 24, 25. This shows that the 
 ahar was not a human structui-e in its conception, but an 
 ascent toward heaven, signifying drawing near to God. 
 Thus Koah sacrificed on Mt. Ararat ; Abraham on Mt. 
 Moriah; Moses and Aaron communed with God on top 
 of Mt. Sinai. Ex. 24: 29. There was a tendency to 
 worship God on the tops of mountains and high hills and 
 in groves, whose silence denoted solemnity. Gen. 21 : 33. 
 Other nations had this idea. Mt. Olympus in Greece was 
 the abode of their Gods. An altar represented a moun- 
 tain 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 v/orld, they offered in 
 trenches. The word altar in the Heb. Mizbeha — to lift 
 up. Altar from altas high — Greek [Hrj^a from fiacvoj. Ex. 
 20: 24. There was such a place to meet God in each 
 division of the Tabernacle. In the Court, the Altar of 
 Burnt Offering; 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 forgive- 
 Bes& given in each of these places. This rendered the 
 
50 
 
 Tabernacle the house of meeting and entitled it t-o the 
 name of the House of God. (2.) Tlie Laver, — Ex. 30: 
 18. It is less minutely described than any other article 
 in the Tabernacle. It was for Aaron and his sons to wash 
 in, when they went into the Tabernacle at the northern 
 door, or approached the Altar,— Ex. 30: 19-21. This 
 symbolized the need of purity. The hands doing God's 
 Avill and the feet treading on sacred ground. Moses at the 
 burning bush, and Joshua in the presence of the ca})taiii 
 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-Jlasses or metallic mirrors of the women. These 
 mirrors were converted into instruments of cleansing and 
 this was an instance of consecrating what was secuh^r to 
 sacred ends. 
 
 Other cie.ws. — Some make wood a sj'mbol of life and 
 shittim wood of immortality. 
 
 Metals light ; gold, splendor of heaven ; copper, light of 
 God, as manifested on earth; silver, purity. 
 
 This is overdone. Wood and metal most accessible 
 and natural materials — stone unsuitable — shittim wood 
 onl}^ kind available. Temple was made oi cedar. Purity 
 and brilliancy adorned, but preciousness was considered — 
 noblest to he used. Metals disposed in order of value. 
 Tabernacle and furniture adorned with gold — silver 
 sockets intermediate. Copper used in court. There is 
 a gradation in use according to value and prominence. 
 
 Measurements. — Attention is drawn to recurrence of 
 particular numbers — some numbers more fit — how? 
 
 One is uncompounded — two is dualistic opposition — 
 
 3 resolves and harmonizes. In pagan world 3 represented 
 superior divinities. Not decided whether reference is 
 made to the Trinity. 4 comes from 3, so world comes 
 from God. Bight angle and squares '■ — 4 points, 4 sides, 
 
 4 elements, etc. All symbolical numbers are resolvable 
 into these — 3 + 4= God + world — 7, or totality of the 
 universe. Circumcision after 7 days, — Feast for 7 days, — 
 Purification 7 days, — Sabbath every seventh day, — 
 7 planets, — wise men 7. 3 X 4 = 12 = universe gov- 
 erned by God. 12 tribes — 12 jewels in breastplate — 
 12 stones on Jordan — 12 apostles — 12 gates in new Jeru- 
 salem — 12 signs of Zodiac. 
 
51 
 
 l-t-2-j-3-|-4=:10 — symbol ot completeness, 10 com- 
 mandments— 10 plagues — yig- tithe. 
 
 It is more satisfactory to take a realistic view. 7 derived 
 its sacredness tVoni creation ; — 12, number ot" sons of 
 Jacob; — 10, from universal decimal division of numbers; 
 ten figures, — representative number of completeness. 
 Few numbers can be explained by convenience^ but by this 
 way. 3 degrees of comparison, — 4 symmetry,— 7 lamps, — 
 12 loaves — 4 X 12 boards, — 4 cu. wide, — 4 X 7 curtains 
 — 10 unit for terrestrial measurements — 5 of court — silver 
 sockets 10 X 10, &c. 
 
 • 
 
 Mosaic Origin of Tabernacle. 
 
 Critical Objections. I. The people had not wealth, skill 
 or leisure to construct such an edifice. But, valuables 
 brouo'lit from Egypt helped them, and their long stav in 
 Eo:ypt had given them skill. Ex. 12: 35, 36. "Cf. "Ex. 
 19: 1; 24: 18; 34: 28; 40: 17. 
 
 IL Alleged conflicting accounts respecting time, and 
 location ot Tabernacle. &c. 
 
 (a) Ex. 33: 1-11 alleged to be account of departure 
 from Sinai differing from Num. 10 : 11 sq. Knobel says 
 because of sin of Golden Calf they wept. Dillman ex- 
 punges V. 3, (for I will not, &c.,) and v. 5, (ye are a 
 
 consume thee). As text stands God's presence is 
 
 contrasted with God's angel. Angel v. 3, same as Ex. 
 23: 20 sq. Dillman thinks that this is not the meaning 
 of passage because God's angel = God. According to 
 present text people mourn because God will not go with 
 them ; Dillman says, they are grieved because they are 
 leaving Sinai where God's p)resence has been manifested. 
 They stripped themselves of ornaments for building taber- 
 nacle, account of which has been left out between vs. 6 and 
 7, herein contrary to Ch. 35 : 40. In 7th verse the Taber- 
 nacle is spoken of as already made. 
 
 (b) Tabernacle located outside of camp, contrary to 
 JSTum. Ch. 2. Verbs in fut., in Ex. 33: 7-11 denoting 
 customary action. Num. 10 : 33 ; Josh. 3 : 3, 4 ark pre- 
 cede the host contradictory to Num. 10: 26; Num. 11: 
 26, ^' in the Camp," contrasted with " going out into the 
 Tabernacle." 
 
(c) Ex. 33: 11: Joshua an Ephraimito in the Taber- 
 'nacle, contrary to ^N'uni. 3 : 10-38: 18: 7. But only 
 -revelation spoken of, not sacrifice. Tabernacle a simple 
 tent, not an elaborate structure. 
 
 Ansicer — (a). These discrepancies are due to the critics 
 themselves. Passages are taken out of context, expurgated 
 and interpolated b}^ critics. The Sin of Golden Calf had 
 broken the Covenant, God refuses to recognize Israel as 
 his people. People which Moses had brought out. Not 
 angel of Jehovah, but a mere angel. Xow the people 
 TQOurn and lay off their ornaments: no gift from the 
 peoj^le would have been acceptable, (b). A visible token 
 of God's estrangement was given by makinii; a lent out- 
 side the Camp.' "The tent" Ex. 33: 7; (1) Moses' o?i;?i 
 as LXX. and Ex. 18: 7; (2) are previously in use and 
 well known, though not before mentioned. Cf. Ex. 19: 
 22. (3). Definite in writer's mind. Definite article only 
 proves this. Cf. Gen. 14 : 13 ; Num. 11 : 27 ; 1 Sam. 9 : 9. 
 Pitching outside of Camp was temporary and significant, 
 because not ordinary. Nothing in passage to intimate 
 that this was customary except so long as this state of 
 things lasted. 
 
 (c) That God revealed His uill and no mention is made 
 of sacrifice is because laws of sacrifice were not yet 
 promulgated and Joshua was there because a Levite and 
 Aaron not yet set apart. Ex. 34 : 10 sq. Provisional 
 Tabernacle again alluded to in Ex. 34: 34, 35. 
 
 (d) Alleged that Mosaic Tabernacle is not mentioned in 
 historical books except in Joshua until David. They 
 fliscredit Joshua or attach to Pentateuch, .-. not men- 
 tioned at all. Chronicles which mentions it was written 
 after the exile, and when mentioned it is speaking of the 
 time of David and Solomon. But it is based on earlier 
 and well-authenticated manuscripts. They say Assyrian 
 Captivity referred to in Judges. 
 
 But: Judges, Samuel and Kings are not silent. Jud. 
 18 : 30, 31, cf. Josh. 18 : 1, " Captivity of Land." So I. 
 ^Sam. 4: 10, 11, 22, cf. Ps. 78 : 60, 61. Jud. 19: 18; 21 : 
 19 in early part of period of Judges. Jud. 18:1, 20, 28 ; 
 at close of this period; I Sam. 1: 3-7; not local sanctuary 
 2 : 14 : Mosaic 2 : 22. 
 
53 
 
 (e) Alleged that it \vas not a tent hut a liouse. I Sam.. 
 1: 7, 24; 3: 15; Jud. 18: 81; 19: 18. A Temple, I Sam. 
 1 : 9 ; 2 : 3 Cf. II Sam. 7:2:1 Chr. 6 : 32, with posts 1:9. 
 and doors 8:15; and in which Samuel slept, I Sam. 3 : 3. 
 Therefore it is said it had doors and door-posts, and fold- 
 ing doors. And Samuel slept in Tahernaele of God. 
 
 But: (1) Gen. 28: 7 Jaeoh speaks of Bethel "House 
 of God,"' and no tent hut only a stone. E.\. 28: 19; 34: 
 26; Deut. 23: 18; Josh. (J : 24: IT Sam. 12: 20; Cf 6: 
 17; I Chr. 6: 31, 32: Ps. 23 : 6; 52: 8; 55: 14: 102: 
 1 ; 18 : 6 : 29 : 9 ; 68 : 29; 5:7; 63: 4 ; especialhj Ps. 27 : 
 4, 5, 6. Exodus speaks of " House of the Lord," and also 
 Samuel, II Sam. 7 : 76. 
 
 (2) As^ainthat it was same sanctuary, — candlestick and 
 ark. 1 Sam. 2 : 22, 28 ; 3:3; 4:4 expresslj- said to be 
 the Tabernacle. God said in the time of David he had 
 never dwelt in a house inade with hands. 
 
 (3) Dours : TI Sam. 7 : 6 ; I Chr. 17 : 5 : I Kings 8 : 6. 
 During long abode solid stru<?tures ina\- have been built: 
 around it in which Samuel slept. 
 
 (f) Alleged that there was another tem|.)le at JS^ob. 
 But: when the ark was captured God forsook Shiloh ; 
 
 and in the reign of Saul the Tabernacle was removed to 
 Kob : I Sam. 21 where was same priesthood as formerly 
 at Shiloh. I Sam. 22 : 1 ; Cf 14 : 3 ; also I Sam. 22: 20; 
 28 : 6, Cf I Kings, 2 : 27 ; the Shew Bread, I Sam. 21 : 6; 
 the Ephod V. 9 : the place for in(|uiry of the Lord, 22 : 10, 
 15. Ark was not returned to Tabernacle when Ephod 
 was brought away, David hid in his camp, 23: 2, 4, 9. 
 When Nob was destroyed, I Sam. 22 : 19 the Tabernacle 
 was removed to Gibeon,! Chr. 21 : 29: II Chr 1:3; and 
 thence taken to the temple, I K. 8 : 4. 
 
 Great pains have been taken to show that this is David's 
 tent. They say if tabernacle had heen in existence ark 
 would have been returned to it, but it was kept inKirjath 
 Jearim at a private house until David took it to Mt. Zion. 
 This was not David's tent because thev are distimj^uished 
 from each other. I Chr. 16 : 1 ; 37 : 39 : II Chr.^1 : 3, 4 
 Ewald says, IMiilistines destroyed Shiloh, but God's allow- 
 ing the ark to be taken was his forsaking Israel. (Jer. 7r 
 12, 14). Why was ark kept in a private house ? I Sam. 
 7:1: .](i\\ 7: 12,14; 26: 6: Ps. 78: 56-64: I Sam. 6r 
 
54 
 
 19, ^c. Wlien Ismel lamented loss of ark (I Sam. 6) 
 repentance was required. Xot till David (TI Sam. 6) was 
 Israel restored. 
 
 It is said if Moses' Tabernacle had been in existence 
 David would have transferred it. But David saw a new 
 stage was begun. Unsettled wandering was represented 
 by tent. Permanent location (II Sam. 7:10) David 
 was forbidden to build, but Solomon. lie made a tem- 
 porary resting place till Solomon should build. 
 
 It is said that if Solomon could have offered 6000 bul- 
 locks it was sufficient. But Solomon had new vessels 
 I K. 7 : 40-48. Also said that descri|)tion of the Taber- 
 nacle was after idea of Temple. The points of the com- 
 pass determined its position. This only means it. was 
 always set this way and not that it was fixed. The side 
 of ark was not toward south of Palestine but toward the 
 South . G u 1 f of M e X i c o an d S o u th . 
 
 Sacred iVcTioNS. — Sacrifices. 
 
 Thcj'e aro f>ro classes of sacred actions: (1) offerings, 
 (2) purifications. Ofierings were the most sacred and 
 could be performed only at the sanctuary. Purification 
 could be performed anywhere. Tlie word ofiering = 
 KoRBAN — o(7)(>ou = [lift. This word, used also in Mark 7: 
 11, denotes anything brought near to God, and hence in- 
 cludes what was brought to adorn the Sanctuary and to 
 maintain the Priests, as well as those for offerings. 
 
 1. Gifts for the [[ouse of God. 
 
 2. " '^ Ministers of God. 
 
 3. '' '' God himself=oficrings. 
 
 Those designed for the Altar are : (a.) Aniiiial or 
 bloody, (b) Vegetable or bloodless. The first consisted 
 of oxen, sheep and goats, and in cases of extreme pov- 
 erty, doves and pigeons. The second consisted of grain 
 and fiour, oil and wine, brea : ov cakes. Salt and incense 
 were added as an accompaniment but w^ere not a part of 
 the offering. Honey and leaven were expressly proliibited. 
 
 Why were these particular objects offered ? The answer 
 depends on the ideas held as to what the sacrifice repre- 
 sented. 
 
I. Jlatcrudisttc Vietr. Tliat it was iiitetuled as food for 
 the deity. Those were given him because tliey were the 
 usual articles of foo<], which he needed as Avell as lit^lit 
 and shelter. Answer — 1. This is utterly inconsistent 
 with the character of God. It is opposed to the S/nrUu- 
 fiUti/ of Gody which was constantly taught. Ps. 50 : 12-13. 
 ^ 2. The principal and most essential element of the sacri- 
 fice was- blood, and this was expressly prohibited as food. 
 ir. Pecuniar)/ Vine. That the sacrifice was a penalty or 
 iine exacted as a condition of [pardon ; and that the mate- 
 rial offered re[)resented their wealth and propert}'. An- 
 swer — 1. The |)rominence given to blood is not explained 
 by this. •2. Tlie limitation in the objects offered is not 
 €xplained. AV by would not camels, asses, costly garments 
 and furniture answer equally well ? 
 
 III. E.K<:-Uf.slcehjTi/picalVicu: That the sole design was 
 to prefigure Clirlst and his work, and the materials selected 
 were to set forth his [)ersoiial qualities of a Redeemer, or 
 his official character, or the nature of his ^^•ork. Answer 
 — This is defective for: (1.) It is a mistake to suppose 
 that this is the sole object. The design of types is to set 
 forth truths and not to delineate objects. (2) This leads 
 to far-fetched ex[)lanations and analogies. If a lamb was 
 sacrificed to represent Christ, why not a Lion, since he 
 was called the Ijion of the tribe of Judah ? Why were 
 bulls and goats sacrificed, since they are represented in 
 the Scripture- as enemies, (Ps. 22: 12 and Matt. 25: 3) 
 and why not the roe and hart. Canticles 2 : 17 ? 
 
 What i^articular qualities were each designed to repre- 
 sent ? Why were different animals offered, and why of 
 different age and sex ? Why sacrificed at different times ? 
 Why grain, and why so prepared ? Some say that the 
 fine flour represented Christ's sufferings from the fact of 
 its being ground ; and cakes, because they were prepared 
 by fire. (3 ) These allusions would have been utterly 
 unintelligible to the Jews, and thus the types would have 
 failed of their ol)ject. 
 
 IV. SpirituaUstic View. That the sacrifice represented 
 the inward spiritual transaction of the offerer. The ani- 
 mal repiesented the offerer. The death of the animal 
 represented his death for sin. The presentation of blood 
 represented the consecration of his life to God, hence 
 
5(^ 
 
 those objects are proper to be offered which best s^i-ve as 
 symbols of the ofterer. 
 
 Answer — (1.) A sacrifice would then signify an inward 
 change of heart but no atonement for sin. Lev, 1 : 4. 
 (2.) There is no foundation in Scripture tor the assump- 
 tion that the sacriiice represented the otferer himself. It 
 symbolized not a sinner but a sinless being. The heathen 
 offerings vary according to the divinity and not according 
 to the offerer. The animal ^^•as not chosen as a repre- 
 sentative of man, but as one acceptable to the divinity. 
 (3.) The thing to be represented is forgiveness and puriil-* 
 cation. This, the sacrifice of the animal could not teach. 
 There is nothing to suggest a return to spiritual life. 
 The animal remains dead, unlike the case of the purifica- 
 tion of the leper. Lev. 14 : 49-53. 
 
 V. Tlie True View. That the offerings were to set forth 
 (a) Expiation for sin, and (b) Consecration to Ood;=a 
 vicarious atonement and an oblation to God. The animal 
 sacrifices showed both, the vegetable only the latter. The 
 victim is not a symbol of rhc off<3rer^ but a substitute. 
 The substitute is slain ; showing that the forfeited life has 
 been taken. The arguments in favor of this: 
 
 1. This is the old tradiUonal ri.ei(\ 
 
 2. This will explain all i\)rms of the service. 
 
 3. This is in accordance with scripture. 
 
 4. This is conformable to the design of Christ's death. 
 
 5. This presents the most satisfactory explanation for 
 the limitation of animals in the sacrifice. An oblation 
 
 (1.) Must be his own possession. 
 
 (2.) The product of his toil. This excludes spontaneous 
 productions, and fruits and wild animals. 
 
 (3.) It should be his food by which his life is sustained, 
 as a pledge of his life being consecrated to Cod. This ex- 
 cludes what may be raised for show, &c. 
 
 A Substitute must be (1.) an animal having a life to give. 
 Lev. 5: 11 is the only exception, and it proves the rule. 
 (2.) This life must be a sinless life, not only negatively 
 but positively ; clean and without blemish ; at least in a 
 symbolic and ceremonial sense. This last consideration 
 excludes human sacrifice. (3.) Yet a substitute should 
 possess a community of nature with the offerer, hence the 
 use of domestic animals as being most closely allied to 
 man. 
 
1 
 
 Significance of these vVcts. 
 
 Mejininic of the acts included in the Animal Sacrifice, 
 Lev. 1 : 1-9. After the presentation of the victim at the 
 Tabernacle the sacrificial service included : 1. Laying on * 
 of bands. 2. Killing- the victini. 8. Sprinkling the blood. 
 4. Burning the animal eitlier whole or in part. Besides 
 these there were, 5. Pecuniarv compensation in the tres- 
 pass offering, and 6. A sacrificial feast in the peace offer- 
 ing. The first four were common to all sacrifices. 
 
 I. Laying on i)f hands. Lev. 1: 4. The offerer ])ut bis 
 hand on the head of the animal. The imposition of bands 
 is always employed in Scri[)ture to denote the impartation 
 of something bv a person authorized or (pialified to do so. 
 
 (1) Gkimi Blcssmq. Gen 48 : 13,14: Matt. 19: 12-15. 
 
 (2) Gkirif) Hobj Ghosl. Acts 8 : 17-18: 19: 6. 
 
 (3) Coiiferrwcj Office. Deut. 84:9: Xum. 8: 16: Acts 
 6: 6; I Tim. 4: IL. 
 
 (4) Impartation of Miraculxnis Vlrtiic. Mattli. 9 : 18 ; 
 Mark, 6: 5. 
 
 (5) \Vitiies.^cs laid hands on a hta-'iphemcrsi head. Lev. 
 24: 14. Putting guilt where it belongs. 
 
 This ceremony always denotes the impartation of some- 
 thing, and refutes all views in whicli this element is not 
 found. 
 
 First Vieu\ Philo says that it is an exhibition of the 
 bands of the offerer, and denotes bis innocence. This is 
 not true, for a different ceremony would have Ijeen more 
 appropriate, sucb as the washing of hands. E. g. T*ilate. 
 
 Second. Vieir. That it designated the animal as the 
 property of the offerer, corresponding to tbe Roman 
 ceremonyof manumission of slaves, and his consecration 
 of it to God. But both these ideas were shown sufficiently 
 by the acr of bringing the animal to the Sanctuary. 
 
 Third View. That it was a solemn cem-^ecration of the 
 victim, but if so, tbe priest, and not the offerer, would 
 bave laid his band upori it. 
 
 Fourth and true View. It can only mean tbat tbe guilt 
 of tlie offerer is transferred to the victim — not his moral 
 cbaracter, but bis liability to punishment. Tliis appears: 
 
 (1.) From express explanation of this ceremony in Lev\ 
 16: 21. (2.) It may be inferred from the position whicli 
 
58 
 
 the lajino: on of hands holds in the sacrilicial service. 
 It occurs in all animal sacrifices, except that of doves, and 
 never in the vegetahle offerings. This shows that it must 
 be related to something peculiar to the animal sacrifice, 
 i. e., the atonement. This act is done by the offerer, and 
 not by the priest, and therefore indicates something con- 
 nected 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 the 
 signification of this ceremony in the different kinds 
 of sacrifices. Holding that in the sin-offerinfj it denoted a 
 transfer of the guilt of the offerer, but in the hurnt-offn'- 
 Wfi it signified the desire of the offerer to be consecrated 
 to God. In the pface-offering it denoted gratitude and 
 thankfulness to God. Rephj. — (a.) Although the ultimate 
 aim is different in each, the immediate end is the same in 
 all, /. c, atonement for sin. (b.) Tlie transfer of legal 
 relations is easily comprehended, out we cannot conceive 
 of a transfer of the emotions of the offerer, (c.) Lev. 1 : 4 
 expressly says that the acceptance of tlie atonement de- 
 pends on the laying on of hands in the burnt-offering. 
 The liands were laid on the head not for convenience 
 sake, but because the penalty was a capital one. 
 
 IL Slaying of the Sacrifice. The infliction of the pen- 
 alty. It showed the doctrine of substitution which is 
 taught in Isaiah 53. Various rieirs. 
 
 1. Some say that slaying here means only renunciation 
 of the victim and surrender of it to God on the part of 
 the offerer. Tlie 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. SpiritaaUstic Vieir. — That it j-epresented the dying of 
 a sinfid 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- 
 
59 
 
 iiial ciiniiot re])i"eseMt ii siiirul life. Tliu iuiputtition ol .sin 
 transfers the liability to punishment, and not tlie moral 
 character. Christ was our substitute, but did not possess 
 our sinful nature. (o.) The death of one to whom sin is 
 imputed cannot be the medium of brin^-ini:: the offerer 
 near to God, except as being a substitute for him. (4.) 
 This makes itiward holiness the i>:round of pardon, and 
 sanctitication t<> 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 preliminai'v to his 
 being brought into communion with God. 
 
 3. This view regards the d<ni'w(i as merely an indispen- 
 sable means of securing the blood and flesh, and lias no 
 significance in or of itself, exce|>t as a penalty. 
 
 "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, &e. (2.) This is tantamount 
 to a confession that it is the |)enalty of the law endured 
 in the offerer's stead. 
 
 4. Penal View. — 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 hi;; own destroyer, (b.) 
 The sinner is iiis own accuser and confessor, (c.) It is 
 typically significant of Christ. Doves n-crc slain by the 
 priests because of the scarcity of blood. 
 
 Ohjecfion (2.) — This makes the slaying of more conse- 
 quence than the sprinkling. Answer — (a.) In a judicial 
 view, it is still the s[)rinkling which actually effects the 
 expiation. (b.) The slaying is an e([ually essential part 
 of the ritual. 
 
 TIL Sprinldhici of the Blood— iJiffhrnf Vietr.s. — \. That 
 it was the complrnwht to the act of slaying. This is not 
 so, for (a.) The blood was not wasted but carefully gath- 
 ered, and (b.) It was brought to a specified place and used 
 in a ju'escribed way. 
 
 2. SpirUu all stir Vietr. — That the bringing of the blood, 
 Avhich is the life, to the altar, represented that the life of 
 the offerer shall be made holy and sanctified Answer — 
 (a.) According to Lev. 1:4; 7 : 11, the blood makes the 
 atonement and is not itself atoned for. (b.) It is distin- 
 guished from the offerer as making the atonement for 
 him, not as a symbol, but a sahstitnfr. 
 
60 
 
 8. The blood was sprinkled upon tlie saered vessels 
 because they were regarded as detiled by the sins of the 
 people, and the blood covered this defilement. This is 
 argued from Lev. 16: 15-19. Answer — la.) It would be 
 more natural to sprinkle the ofi:erer himself, who was the 
 sinner. (b.) A separate service was used for the atone- 
 ment of the Sanctuary once a year, but not in every sac- 
 rifice. 
 
 4. True Vkno. — It is an exhibition at the altar of the 
 blood which has been shed for the ofi'erer, and represents 
 expiation and that death has been sufi-'ercd. The blood 
 was sprinkled (1) on the Brazen Altar; (2) at the Golden 
 Altar of Iiicense ; (3) at the Mercy seat — at places where 
 God especially met with his people. The fact of his re- 
 quiring it to be placed there, denoted his acceptance of it. 
 
 lY.^ Burning of the Victim at the Altar. With the 
 sprinkling, the atonement was completed. Now comes 
 the oblation, which w^as accomplished by burning the 
 victim. This was common to the animal and vegetable 
 offering. Some regarded the fire as the wrath of God, 
 showing that temporal death did not exhaust the penalty 
 of the law, but that the vengeance of eternal tire should 
 follow. 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 l)y the death of the victim, (c.) 
 This burning follows the sprinkling, by which expiation 
 has been already efteeted. (d.) The victim is said to be a 
 sweet savor unto the Lord.— rLev. 1 : 9. (e.) The blood- 
 less ofiering was also burned on the altar. There was no 
 sin represented in these offerings, hence the symbol must 
 mean the same in both cases. The fire carries the sacrifice 
 to God relieved from all earthly dross. It is an oblation 
 of food made to Ilim — Lev. 21 : 6-8. It is a tribute re- 
 turned to God for most necessary gifts — not to absolve 
 from further consecration, but pledges property, labor and 
 life, all to God. Rom. 12: 1; Psalms 40: 6-8. The 
 animal was skinned, for the skin was not used foi* food, 
 and the flesh washed, so that the offering might be clean 
 — free from defilement. 
 
61 
 
 Different Kinds of Sacrifice. 
 
 They were not first instituted by Moses. They existed 
 from tlie earliest Bible History. Moses modified, regulated 
 and enlarged them. What had been left to the pleasure 
 of the otferer, was now explieitly determined by Divine 
 statute. Rigor, precision and eon)plexity succeed freedom 
 and simplicity, &c. This was progress. The elements 
 were separated and made distinct to the mind of the 
 oflerer with an ultimate reference to Christ. The Barnt- 
 offcrinfi was the [)rincipal form in ths Patriarchal System. 
 Besides this was the '' Sacrifice.'' Gen. 46 : 1. In Ex. 
 10 : 25, this is distinguished from the the burnt-offerino^. 
 In Gen. 81 : 54, a sacrificial feast formed part of the 
 service. This must have corresponded to the Peace- 
 offering. VegetaJde-offering, Gen. 4:3; Drink-oferiiig, Gen. 
 35 : 14. — Tiuit the^e 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 
 P^^rtct'- offering. See also Job 1 : 5; 42: 8. i^i^r/i/- offer- 
 ings instead of ^S'/y^-ofterings. 
 
 There were two ideas \n 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, — whole victim burned. 
 
 There were two other offerings : 3. Trespass- o^evm^., 
 with the idea of satisfaction by pecuniary compensation. 
 4, Peace-o^Qving^ with the idea of restored communion 
 with God by means of a sacrificial feast. AVhen different 
 kinds of sacrifices are to be offered together they are 
 invariabh' named in order^ and Sin-offering always pre- 
 cedes Burnt-offering, and both of these before the Feacc- 
 offering. Ex. 29 : 14, 18, 24. 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. Distinction between the Sin and Trespass-offer- 
 iN(is. 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 other reri/V/? sins. 3. That the Sin-offering 
 
62 
 
 was for sins of omission, and the Trespass-oifering for sins 
 of commission. 4. That the Sin-otferings were for sins 
 voluntarily confessed, and the Trespass-offerings for sins 
 proven by testimony. 5. That the Sin-offering was for 
 lighter sins, and the Trespass-offering lor more serious 
 offences. 
 
 The True Vieir. — That the Sin-offering was for simple 
 transgression of the Law, and the Trespass-offering for 
 trespass or injury against God or felk>\v-men, for which 
 amends must be made together with one-fifth in addition. 
 The Trespass oiferi ng 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 rifual of these twcv 
 offerings was determined hy their character and design. 
 The animal varied according to the theocratic standing 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 he-goat. For one of the common people, a she- 
 goat or sheep. For the poor, two doves or pigeons. For 
 extreme poverty, one-tenth of an ephah of fiour. The 
 enormity of the sin was aggravated by the standing of the 
 sinner. This gradation is peculiar to the *S^/??-offering. In 
 the Trespass -oWQvmg, a ram was required in every case, 
 because the damage was the same, irrespective of the 
 wealth of the offerer. The ^S'm-offering was for the whole 
 people, and was offered at the annual feasts^ to atone for 
 the unconscious sins of the whole people in the interval. 
 
 No Trespass-offering was required, because the nature 
 of this required the particular sin to be made known. 
 Only a single animal was offered in the Sin and Trespass- 
 ofiering. 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-ofterings, which rep- 
 resented the inward devotion of the heart, and therefore 
 could be intensified, an indefinite number of victims 
 might be offered. At the dedication of the temple, tens 
 and hundreds of thousands were offered. The sreat idea 
 
63 
 
 of the Trespass-oitering is satisfaction for sin, reparation 
 for claniage by pecuniary compensation. In the tSin-offer- 
 ing, the prominence is given to the sprinkling of blood, 
 and the great idea is expiation for sin. The blood was 
 broughtto the altar in every sacrifice; but in the others it 
 was sprinkled round about the altar, while in tlie Sin- 
 ofiering a greater formality was required. 
 
 (1.) In the case of (he Il/'fjh Priest. 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 ir hole people. The blood 
 was carried into the 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, the High Priest took the blood of the sin- 
 offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat in the Holy 
 of Holies. 
 
 In the case of the Sin and Tres pass-offering, the fat only 
 was to burned on the altar ; the iiesh was given to the 
 Priests to be eaten in the court, in case tlie sacrifice was 
 for a layman ; but if for the priest or for the whole peo- 
 ple, 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 iiesh could not be burned with 
 acceptance on God's altar, but must be consumed in some 
 otlier way, either outside the camp or be eaten by the 
 priests. This sym])olized tlie annihilation of the sin 
 which had been imputed to it. If eaten, it was supposed 
 to be absorbed 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 
 
64 
 
 meaning of the passage. That this view is not correct 
 appears from Lev. 16: 25 and 10: 17. The flesh is there 
 called ''most holy," also Lev. 6: 20-29. It was eaten 
 only in the Holy Place, and anything 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, because 
 it was too holy for any other use. 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 sprinkling of the blood before the flesh 
 was to be eaten. The burning of it outside the camp, in 
 a clean place whither the ashes had been carried, was 
 analogous to the burning of what was left from the Pass- 
 over and Peace-ofiering, and was to preserve it from decay 
 and corruption. The priests could not eat the sacrifice 
 oflTered for themselves, because they could not profit by 
 their own sins. They were God's servants, and therefore 
 were to be fed from His table. 
 
 n. Burnt-offering. — Emphasized oblation and con- 
 secration. Its characteristic was the burning of the whole 
 eatable portion of the animal, and the skin given to the 
 priest. It could be ottered at any time, and was the most 
 frequent of the ofierings. The other ofi'erings were for 
 special occasions. There was a regular public Burnt- 
 offering for every day, consisting of a lamb every morn- 
 ing 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 offer- 
 ing; and at the annual feast, larger still. It was 
 the only kind of offering that could be offered alone. 
 'No act ot worship was acceptable without the 
 consecration which the burnt-offering represented. Any 
 kind of dean 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 masculine suffix is used in the case of 
 Doves.) In the Sin-offering, 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 
 
65 
 
 that the male represented greater strenuousness, t^'C, on 
 the part of the otFerer, to God's service. But diiterence 
 in size is the most phiusible explanation. 
 
 III. The Peace-offering— 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 
 last. Three kinds are recognized. 
 
 1. Thanksgiring in acknowledgment of some benefit 
 from God, or for God's mercy in general. 
 
 2. Voirs in fulfillment of pledges previously given. 
 
 3. Free-irill ofitering of the inward, spontaneous im- 
 pulse. 
 
 Peace-ofiferings 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 ofl:erer. It could be 
 male or female. Doves and pigeons are not mentioned, 
 because this sacrifice was not urgent, and so the very poor* 
 did not need to oflfer at all. Moreover, doves and pigeons 
 would have been unsuitable for the sacrificial feast which 
 followed. The animal must be without blemish. Only 
 in the free-will oflfering one " superfluous 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 richest fat was burned on the altar. The 
 breast and right shoulder or hcmi were waved or heaved and 
 given to the priests ; the ham to the friends who minis- 
 tered in this particular sacrifice, and the breast to the 
 priests in general. 
 
 There was no particular meaning in them, as that the 
 breast = " affection," and the shoulder ==" work." They 
 are choice parts. These are called technically the iccu'e 
 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, first to right, then to left. Others think that it 
 was waved forward, toward the sanctuary, and then back- 
 ward again. This, they say, showed it to be given to 
 
66 
 
 God and then God gave it to the priests. The heaving 
 was the raising of it up to heaven and lowering it again ; 
 toward heaven to dedicate to God, and toward" earth, 
 given by God to priests. 
 
 The rest of the flesh was given to the oiFerer, who, with 
 his family and friends and some needy Levites, ate it. 
 This symbolized communion with God and his people. 
 
 1. The Spiritualistic View. That the animal represented 
 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 offerer eats a symbol of himself. He was not 
 excluded from the sacrificial feast. 
 
 (2) The priests and the friends form two separate com- 
 panies, but according to this they should be one. 
 
 2. The True Vieio. 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.) Xot 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 N. 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 significance of the emblems. 
 This feast is a symbol of and a. pledge of friendship, peace, 
 and communion with God. It is upon the flesh of a sacri- 
 ficial animal, and is an inward appropriation of the 
 benefits of the sacrifice. The guests represented the 
 whole body of God's people. It was impossible for them 
 all to get together in one place and at one time, (except 
 in such a case as the dedication of the temple,) 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 Passover, each 
 company rejyresenied the entire people of God. So also in 
 the Lord's supper. What remained was to be burned 
 and thus preserved from contamination and corruption. 
 There was a distinction between the thank-offering and 
 
67 
 
 the vow or free-will-otfering. The ihcoik-oti:'ering was the 
 holiest, and hence corruption was more strictly guarded 
 against. No part of it was to be left until the next daj.. 
 Lev. 7 : 15. 
 
 The Voir and free-idll offering could be left until the 
 second day. Lev. 7 : 16-21 ; 19 : 6. 
 
 The Bloodless or Vegetable or Meat- offering, (Heb., 
 MiNHAH.) "Meat," in our English version, — " food." 
 The meat-o^Qvmg was distinguished from the c/nV?A;-offer- 
 ing, and yet it often included all vegetable offerings. The 
 materials were the three products, grain, oil, and wine. 
 Ps. 104 : 15. Fruits of trees and garden herbs were ex- 
 cluded. 
 
 Baelir Ijnds a correspondence between these materials 
 and those of the animal-offerings, viz., bread = flesh, oil=^ 
 fat, wine= blood. This he says is the reason why meal 
 is sometimes allowed. Lev. 5 : IL This is imaginary, 
 for oil was forbidden in the meal when offered as a sin- 
 offering; and wine cannot represent blood, which was 
 forbidden to be drunk. Grain could be offered (a) as 
 grain or grits, (b) as four, fine flour, (c) as bread or cakes. 
 A handful of flour or a cake was burned on the altar as a 
 memorial before God. (It signified the same as the flesh 
 in the animal sacrifice. It was an oblation of food, and 
 represented the consecration of labor and life to God.) 
 The rest was given to the priests, wh(» ate it in the court. 
 Lev. 6 : 16. Thus God's servants were to be fed at his 
 table. If presented by the priest, none was eaten, (Lev. 
 6 : 16) because they were not to profit by their own sins. 
 Gil was not a separate constituent, but an adjunct, (1) 
 because the oil was not used separately, but mingled ; (2) 
 the oil is co-ordinated with incense (Lev. 2 : 15) ; (3) oil 
 was not an actual article of food, but was used in prepar- 
 ing it. It is spoken of in connection with bread and 
 wine. Hence, it represented not a separate gift, or that 
 which yields the light of knowledge, but here as else- 
 where, it represented the Holy Spirit, without whom the 
 sacrifice would not be complete or acceptable. 
 
 Salt and Incense. — Salt was used, because it repre- 
 sented preservation, the opposite of decay. A covenant 
 of salt = a lasting covenant. Meat which endures. In- 
 cense was an accompaniment. It was burued on the ofler- 
 
68 
 
 ing but not mixed with it. AH the , incense was burned. 
 It represented j9rrt^e7% which must hallow every oblation. 
 Honey and Leaven were prohibited. Leaven leads to fer- 
 mentation and corruption, hence it was a symbol of evil. 
 1 Cor. 5: 6-8. Honey also turns to sourness and cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 The drink-offering was a separate oblation, but was 
 invariably added to the meat-offering. It consisted of 
 -wine, not poured at the base of the altar, but upon the 
 altar. The drink on the table. Ex. 30 : 9. We know 
 this to be true also from the analogy of heathen offerings. 
 The cegetable-o^Qvmg^ were never presented alone^ but 
 must follow a burnt or peace-o^Qvmg. The only instances 
 to. the contrary are the sin-offering of meal in poverty, 
 and in the offering of jealousy. Num. 5:15. 
 
 Purification of the Mosaic Law. 
 
 These form the second class of Sacred actions. They 
 were designed to symbolize the removal of the defilement 
 and pollution of sin, as the removal of guilt was represented 
 by the sacrificial expiation. The distinction of clean and 
 unclean was made by the Levitical Law. The design of 
 these minute regulations was not to promote 1. Cleanliness 
 and decency among the people; because (a) in that case, 
 everything filthy would have been ceremonially unclean. 
 This was not the case. The number of objects was 
 limited, (b) The idea of personal purity and ceremonial 
 cleanliness are distinct, (c) The orientals are carefal about 
 the latter and negligent about the former, (d) The reli- 
 gious character of the purifications is not explained by 
 this view. 
 
 2. The design was not Sanitary., i. e., to promote the 
 health of the people, (a) This view entirely overlooks the 
 religious character of the institutions. The Purifications 
 belong to the same order with the Sacrifices, and pertain 
 to a like end ; and it would be in contradiction to the 
 Mosaic system to suppose that religion was only a cover 
 to some secular end. (b) This view will not account for 
 what these laws contain or omit. A person may come in 
 contact with any disease except leprosy without becoming 
 defiled, but could not come into the presence of a dead 
 body. 
 
69 
 
 3. Xor was there anything wrong or peculiarly sinful 
 in those things which were called unclean. 
 
 (a) There was nothing morally wrong in eating one 
 animal and not another. The unclean animals had no 
 connection with the kingdom of evil, (b) IS'or was there 
 any sin involved in those conditions of the human body 
 which were considered unclean. E. g., no sin was con- 
 nected with the natural birth of children. Barrenness 
 was even regarded as a curse in those times. So the 
 corpse of a good man was as defiling as that of a bad 
 man. (c) Delilement might arise from actions which 
 were actual duties; e. g.^ the burial of a relative, and cer- 
 tain other services which the ritual prescribed, and which 
 could not be neglected. 
 
 The Distinction in Animals had a two-fold purpose. 
 
 1. It carried a distinction of right and wrong, duty and 
 transgression, into the ordinar}- matters of daily life. 
 
 2. These laws were practically a wall of separation 
 between Israel and the Gentiles, with whom (Acts 10 : 28) 
 they could not so much as eat. This distinction in ani- 
 mals had relation only, first, to food, and, secondly, to the 
 loorship of God. Clean animals only could be eaten or 
 sacrificed. Other animals could be used for any other 
 purpose. The criteria of distinction were drawn partly 
 from the organs of motion, and partly from food. In 
 heasfs, both were regarded. Those were clean which had 
 the parted hoof and chewed the cud. In Jish, those which 
 had fins and scales were clean. This referred only to the 
 organs of motion. In birds, food was the characteristic. 
 Birds of prey were unclean. The distinction between 
 clean and unclean was not without foundation in the 
 nature of things. The rules were simple and clear, and 
 embraced the chief, if not all, of the animals used for 
 food. One class represented the idea of pure and clean, 
 the other that of unclean. It has been supposed that it 
 was desio'ned to sus^crest that those who belonged to God's 
 kingdom were distinguished by their u'alk and food. 
 This may be stretching the matter too far. This distinc- 
 tion is only a reflection of man's state of defilement in the 
 presence of God. When men come near to God, or He 
 to them, they must be cleansed from impurity. Ex. 19: 
 10-14 ; Lev. 8 : 6 ; Ex. 30 : 20 ; Num. 8 : 7. N^one but the 
 pure could come near the holy God. 
 
But besides these rare occasions, and the select few- 
 engaged in sacred functions, the idea of clean and un- 
 clean was to receive a symbolical representation wdiich 
 should carry it into the affairs of daily life. The delile- 
 ment was not that arising from voluntary sin, but from 
 the involuntary and hereditary taint of sin in all men. 
 This was denoted by selecting the extremes of life — birth 
 and death. Birth is the source of human corruption, and 
 death the iinal result of it. Each of these had its own 
 specific curse attached to it in the fall of our lirst parents. 
 These are the two poles about w^hich ceremonial defile- 
 ment centred, creating two classes of impurity. First. 
 Everything relating to birth was defiled ; everything sex- 
 ual, w^hether natural or diseased, though not necessarily 
 involving sin. See Lev., Chapters 12 and 15. The series 
 culminated in birth. The measure and gradation of de- 
 filement was indicated by three particulars : 
 
 (1.) The length of time during w^hich the uncleanness 
 continued. 
 
 (2.) The extent to which this defilement could be com- 
 municated. 
 
 (3.) The character of the ritual necessary to its removal. 
 All this was very complicated. 
 
 We will consider them in order. 
 
 (1) The Duration was various. It might be till evening 
 only; in grosser cases for a week, measured from the 
 beginning of the uncleanness, or the cessation of its cause; 
 or for 40 days or twice 40. Fort\^ was a sacred number. 
 The four sides of a square, (the symbol of regularity) 
 multiplied by 10, (the symbol of completeness)=40. Israel 
 was in the wilderness 40 years. The period of defilement 
 at the birth of a male child was 40 days ; of a female, 80 
 days. These longer periods w-ere subdivided into two 
 parts, — the first period consisting of 7 or 14 days, and the 
 second of 33 or 66 days. The grade of defilement was 
 greater during the first 7 or 14 days. 
 
 (2) The liability of the defilement to be communicated 
 varied. The lighter kind was not transmissible. The 
 more serious affected all who came in contact with the 
 one so defiled. The most serious kind defiled not only 
 the clothes, bed, etc., but every thing that was touched or 
 spit upon. 
 
71 
 
 (3) The mode of effecting purification varied also, (a) 
 By simple washing of the person and clothes in water ; or 
 (b) in addition, he must bring two doves or young pigeons 
 to the Sanctuary, one for the burnt ottering and the 
 other for the sin-offering : or (c) a lamb of the iirst year 
 for the burnt-offerins^ and a turtle-dove for the sin-offerino^. 
 
 The Second Source of Ceremonial Defilement was 
 Death; — either contact with a dead body, or leprosy, 
 which was a sort of living death. Num. 12: 12. The 
 eating of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn 
 by wild beasts, was a source of defilement. Ex. 22: 31; 
 Lev. 11: 39; 17 : 15. Also to touch the dead carcass of 
 an unclean beast. Lev. 11 : 24-28. A human corpse was 
 still more defiling. This appears (a) from the duration of 
 the uncleanness which was for 7 days ; (b) in its com- 
 municability. Num. 19: 14; (c) in the ritual for cleans- 
 ing. The washing with water was not enough here, not 
 -even pure running water, but ashes must be mingled with 
 it, and these ashes must be prepared in a peculiar and 
 significant way. The ashes were those ot a sin-offering, 
 prepared with peculiar rites for this special purpose. 
 Hence this exhibits sin, not only as defilement to be 
 washed away, and shows the necessity of a sacrificial 
 atonement, but also shows that this atonement is an indis- 
 pensable prerequisite to the cleansing. The customary 
 sin-offering was a young bullock. Lev. 4 : 14. But this 
 sin-offering was a red heifer. In ordinary sin-ofierings, 
 the color was indifferent. The red was a S3'mbol of life 
 and vigor, — being the color of blood. " To prepare an 
 antidote to death," refers to the means of purification 
 from contact with a corpse. The heifer must be one upon 
 which a yoke had never rested to impair its vigor. This 
 heifer, unlike the ordinary sin-offering, was not to be 
 taken to the door of the tabernacle and there slain ; but it 
 must be brought without the camp and slain there by the 
 -eldest son of the High Priest and the blood sprinkled 7 
 times toward the Sanctuary. It was then burned whole 
 and the ashes gathered by a clean man and put in a clean 
 place outside the camp, to be used in purifying. Those 
 officiating in this service were all rendered unclean and 
 were required to wash their clothing, etc. This exclusion 
 from the sanctuary and all the defilement resulting from 
 
72 
 
 the ceremony brought the whole service into connection 
 with the idea of defilement and pollution, and was per- 
 formed in relation to it. Thus the ceremony was defiling, 
 though a duty. So the lesson is taught : — we may con- 
 tract defilement in holy services. While the heifer was 
 burning, the priest cast into the flames cedar wood, hyssop, 
 and scarlet. Cedar was incorruptible ; hyssop was used in 
 cleansing; and scarlet was the color of blood, suggesting 
 life. These ashes, miugled with running water, were 
 sprinkled upon the unclean person from a bunch of hyssop, 
 on the third and seventh days, and after bathing and 
 washing his clothes, he shall be clean at evening. Num. 
 19 : 19. And the persons who ofiiciated, and any who 
 touched the water, were rendered unclean. 
 
 Leprosy was but a living death. Very minute specifica- 
 tions are given, (Num. 14,) by which the priests could 
 detect it. Read Lev. 13 and 14 chapters, for the mode of 
 purification. The rites of cleansing consisted of two parts. 
 The first efl^ected the restoratien to m^Y rights; the second 
 to the communion of the Sanctuary. In order to the first, 
 two living birds were taken, one as a sacrifice for the 
 ofi:erer, the other as a symbol of himself. The former 
 was 'killed over running water, and the living bird was 
 then dipped in the mixture of blood and water and the 
 leper sprinkled 7 times with it. The leper was then 
 pronounced clean and the bird let loose. After washing, 
 bathing and shaving, and a probation of 7 days, he was 
 admitted to full civH rights. See Lev. 14 : 8, 9. His 
 restoration to the privileges of the Sanctuary was efl:ected 
 on the following day. A Tresimss, Sin, Burnt and Meat- 
 oftering were to be made ; a tresiMss-oJXmuif in compensa- 
 tion for lack of service. Blood and oil were taken. Lev. 
 14 : 12-19. This signified the application of the benefits 
 of the sacrifice to the organs of hearing, doing, and run- 
 ning to obey God's commands. Oil signified the Holy 
 Spirit. The sin-ofiering (Lev. 14: 19) was added to the 
 satisfaction of the trespass-ofi:*ering, as an atonement for 
 the sin which the leprosy represented. Restoration being 
 thus effected, the burnt and meat-offerings signified con- 
 secration of self and life. Read Lev., chapters 13 and 14, 
 and Num. 19; also, in Smith's Dictionary, the article on 
 Purification. 
 
73 
 Sacred Persons 
 
 Were those who were admitted to Sacred Places and 
 entrusted with the performance of Sacred Rites. Man 
 had forfeited the right of access to God, and no act of 
 service rendered by him was acceptable. None could 
 approach God, save those whom He chose. Israel was 
 God's peculiar people — a holy nation. They were God's 
 people in a special sense, and had the privilege of access 
 to Him in a special way. In the encampment in the 
 wilderness, the Tabernacle was placed in the centre of the 
 encampment. God thus dwelt in the midst of his people. 
 They also had access to the court of his Tabernacle. 
 Within the square formed by the encampment of the 
 tribes around the Tabernacle, was another square in which 
 dwelt the Sacerdotal Tribe of Lei'i and the Priests. The 
 Levite^ were chosen for the service of the Sanctuary. 
 They belonged to it, not only as worshippers, but were 
 permanently occupied there. They were selected for the 
 service of God, in lieu of all the first-born of Israel, who 
 were to be consecrated to God in acknowledgment that 
 they had received all things from him, and to com- 
 memorate the slaying of the first-born in Egypt. They 
 were located next to the Tabernacle on two sides and in 
 the rear. They were charged with the transportation of 
 the Tabernacle and the keeping of the sacred vessels. 
 Moses, Aaron, and his sons, encamped in front of the 
 Tabernacle. They were alloAved a still nearer .approach 
 to God. The priests were admitted into the Holy Place, 
 and the High Priest once a year entered the Hoh^ of 
 Holies. These was, then, a gradation in the sanctity of 
 the people, corresponding to the apartments themselves. 
 The Priesthood was not a caste, but was chosen "from 
 among the people " by God and invested with the office 
 which originally belonged to all the people. God promised 
 to make them all kings and priests. Ex. 19 : 6. This is 
 the destiny of God's people. They were not at first ready 
 for the full realization ot this promise. They showed, by 
 defalcation and disorders, that they could not yet rule 
 themselves. This right to reign was therefore left in 
 abeyance for a time. The kingly authority was temporarily 
 committed to one of their number, (Deut. 17: 15 ;) to one 
 
74 
 
 who had no claim to it, in anticipation of the full realiza- 
 tion of the promise. This is so also in the Priesthood. 
 The Priest is one who enjoys a degree of intercourse with 
 God which is denied to others. He comes nearer to God. 
 Heb. 5 : 1. The characteristic expression is that they 
 come near to God, and bring near the appointed offerings. 
 Israel was a nation of Priests, but was not yet ripe for the 
 office. They showed this at Mount Sinai. They trembled 
 at the presence of God and entreated Him not to come 
 near them, but speak through Moses. This was a con- 
 fession of their unfitness to approach God, but the Priestly 
 office was not to be abandoned ; it was put into the hands 
 of a few as representatives, until the time when all should 
 be priests. 
 
 The Levites had no inheritance. The Lord was their 
 inheritance. Their labor was given exclusively to Him. 
 ]^o other labor v/as allowed them. The Lord gate them 
 their support from the Sanctuary. Forty-eight cities, 
 four in each tribe, with their suburbs, were assigned them 
 in the territory of the several tribes. Six of them were 
 Oxies of Refuge. The cities were counted as belonging to 
 the tribes in which they were situated. The Levites were 
 thus distributed among the people. These six Cities of 
 Refuge — three on each side of the Jordan— were sanc- 
 tuaries or asylums not for criminals but to protect the 
 unintentional manslayer. 1 Kings, 2 : 26. As the altar 
 was the place of refuge, so were these cities. The man- 
 slayer was to remain there till the death of the High 
 Priest, ^um. 35: 25; Josh. 20: 6. There are various 
 explanations of this. 
 
 1. Some think that the death of the High Priest was so 
 great a public calamity, that all private feelings of grief 
 and revenge should be obliterated. 2. Others think that 
 the Cities "of Refuge were under the special control of the 
 High Priest, and his control being ended at his death, 
 they became free. 3. The true view is, that the High 
 Priest being the representative of the whole people, his 
 death had a peculiar expiatory force, and set the man free 
 from his disabilities. This was typical of Christ. 
 
 The Support of the Levites.— l^wm. 18 : 21-32. There 
 was no tribute paid by the people directly to the Levites, 
 but one-tenth was given to God. Ten was the complete 
 
75 
 
 number of the digits, and hence represented the total 
 amount of their possessions. One part was given to God 
 in acknowledgment that the whole came from Him. Gen. 
 28 : 22. This tithe was given to the Levites, and they in 
 turn gave one-tenth of what they received to the Lord, and 
 this was bestowed upon the priests. Lev. 23 : 9. The 
 first fruits of the harvest w^ere presented a wave ottering to 
 the Lord and given to the priests ; also the firstlings of 
 cattle; also the first-born of men and of unclean beasts vvere 
 to be redeemed and the sum obtained given to the priests. 
 This furnished ample support for the Levites. They had 
 no landed estates. They were dependent upon the 
 rigorous observance of the Law by the people. The 
 Levites were to attend to the service of the Sanctuary 
 from the age of 25 or 30, to 50 — in the prime of life. 
 The Priests must be without blemish in their persons. 
 They might eat of the sacred things, but could not offer 
 at the altar, unless free from impurity. 
 
 Dress. — The ordinary dress of the priests consisted of 
 Jine white linen ; namely, the mitre, robe, cloak, &c. Ex. 
 28. They wore a cap, breeches, and a cloak reaching 
 from the neck to the feet. These represented purity and 
 hohness. This appears: (1.) Thev were called "holy 
 garments." Ex. 28 : 4. (2.) In Rev. 19 : 8, 13, 14, the 
 same dress is repeatedly spoken of as worn by angels; 
 Mark 16:5. Also worn bv " the ancient of davs." Dan. 
 7: 9; 10: 5; Ezra 9: 3. 
 
 The Girdle was made of fine linen ornamented with 
 blue, purple and scarlet. The High Priest's dress was 
 distinguished by its elegance and costliness. He wore 
 the same style ot dress as the ordinary priest, but over it 
 he w^ore a robe of blue woven in one piece. It was thus 
 seamless, like the robe of our Saviour, signifying com- 
 pleteness or perfection. Blue is the color of the heavens, 
 indicating the celestial character of the wearer. 
 
 The Ephod was in two pieces, back and front, joined by 
 clasps on the shoulders. The clasps were made of onyx, 
 on which were graven the names of the tribes. It was 
 made of fine linen, ornamented with gold, blue, purple 
 and scarlet. These were the colors of a gorgeous sky and 
 of the inner coverings of the Tabernacle. They denoted 
 the divine or heavenly functions of the w^earer. 
 
76 
 
 The Breastplate was over the Ephod — was made of linen 
 in a square piece, and was adorned with gold, blue, purple 
 and' scarlet. In it were twelve precious stones in four 
 rows ; on each stone was the name of a tribe. The material 
 of the Breastplate was folded so as to make a pouch, to 
 contain the Urini and Thummim, which signified respec- 
 tively light and 7J>^r/ec^zo?7. These terms are nowhere 
 explained. The Breastplate was attached to the Ephod 
 by chains and rings and blue cord. Ex. 28 : 28. The 
 High Priest thus bore the names of the tribes conspicu- 
 ously^ on his person, when he approached the Lord, 
 signifying that he appeared as the representative of the 
 people. The stones were all precious but different, signify- 
 ing that God's people have their distinctive peculiarities. 
 
 The Urim and Tliuyiimim were worn when the High 
 Priest approached God to ask counsel, — signifying the 
 divine infallibility, etc. 
 
 The Mitre was of linen, like that of the ordinary priests 
 but differed in form — probably being higher — and had a 
 golden plate on the forehead, bearing the inscription — 
 "Holiness to the Lord." ]^o mention is made of a 
 covering for the feet, whence it appears that they went 
 unshod, as, e. g., Moses on Mt. Sinai, and Joshua in the 
 presence of the captain of the Lord's hosts. Shoes were 
 to protect the feet from defilement. Those who were in 
 the Tabernacle were on hoh^ ground, where nothing was 
 needed for the feet. The idea is that purity was required 
 of those who came near to God. 
 
 The sacredness attached to the Priests and Levites was 
 conveyed to them by the rites of consecration. Israel was 
 originally constituted the people of God by a solemn 
 service. It was after the proclamation of the Law from 
 Sinai, Ex. Chapters 20 and 23. The people promised 
 obedience. It was before the Tabernacle was made or 
 any ordinance of worship established. To conclude this 
 covenant, an Altar was erected as a point of meeting, 
 around which were 12 pillars. So the place where God 
 revealed himself was in the midst of the people. Moses 
 who acted as Priest, took the blood, and sprinkled half on 
 the Altar, and half on the people. This was done after 
 the reading of the law, and the people had promised 
 obedience. There was no sin-oft'ering on this occasion, 
 
77 
 
 because the law of the sin-oftering was not yet promul- 
 gated. The Patriarchal sacrilice was still in use. The 
 burnt-otfering, which was the primitive form, stands here 
 as sufficient for expiation. The sprinkling of blood was 
 designed to express expiation for sin. The peculiarity 
 of this sacrifice was that one-half of the blood was placed 
 on the altar, signifying God's acceptance of his part of his 
 covenant; and one-half on the people, denoting the 
 application of its merits to those for whom it was shed. 
 Some have thought that an additional reason was, that it 
 was a ratification of a covenant, and the blood was divided 
 between the two contracting parties, as was sometimes 
 customar}^ It indicated that both would be united in life 
 and purpose henceforth. The slaying of the victim denoted 
 the judgment which would follow the breakers of the 
 covenant. After this was the ISacrificial Meal. The peo- 
 ple were represented by Moses, Aaron and his sons, and 
 the 70 elders. Seveniii was a symbolical number. It was 
 the product of 7 and 10 — the latter denoting complete- 
 ness. It was also a historical number, being the number 
 of Jacob's descendants, when he went down to Egypt. 
 Gen. 46 : 27. It was also the number of Noah's descend- 
 ants. Gen. 10. The number represented a world-wide 
 function and destiny. These representatives of the peo- 
 ple went up and saw God in Mt. Sinai, and ate and drank 
 before him. The people were then brought into com- 
 munion with God, and became his peculiar people. This 
 relation was to be permanently maintained and expressed 
 by the service of the Sanctuary. 
 
 The Consecration of the Priests. — Lev. 8. Effected by 
 two series of equivalent acts of three each. ThQ first series 
 was symbolical, and the second, sacrificial. Ex. 29. 
 
 TliQ first series consisted of (1) Washing, wdiich denoted 
 preliminary cleansing ; (2) Clothing, which denoted inves- 
 titure with the priestly office ; (3) Anointing, which denoted 
 the imparting of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The second series consisted of (1) /Sm-offering, which 
 purged from sin, and corresponded to the washing ; (2) 
 i^«/'/^^offering, which denoted consecration to sacred 
 office, and corresponded to the clothing ; (3) Feace-o^QY- 
 ing, which sealed communion with God, and corresponded 
 to the anointino:. 
 
78 
 
 Moses officiated in the sacrifices because there were no 
 Priests yet ; for Aaron and his sons were not properly 
 priests until the service was over. Blood was put on the 
 tip of the ear, right thumb, and right great toe, to make 
 atonement for guilt and purify these organs for God's 
 service. Their persons and dress were also sprinkled 
 with blood and oil. These services were repeated for 
 seven days, and on the eighth day began their sacred func- 
 tions. During those first seven days, they were not to 
 leave the court of the Tabernacle. These services were 
 to be repeated whenever a new High Priest was to be 
 consecrated. 
 
 The Consecration of the Levites is described in Numbers 
 8 : 5-22. This took place when they were leaving Mt. 
 Sinai, because their part of the services was to transport 
 the Tabernacle, and there was thus a necessity for them. 
 The rites of consecration were inferior in solemnity to 
 the consecration of the priests. Moses was directed to 
 cleanse the Levites^ but to sanctify the Priests. There were 
 two series of acts and two in each. 
 
 The first series, symbolical as before, consisted of (1) 
 Washing and Cleansing ; (2) Consecration by Waving. 
 
 The second series was sacrificial. (1) Sin-ofiering ; (2) 
 Burnt-oiFering. In the cleansing they were sprinkled 
 with the water of purifying. Their hair was shaven and 
 clothes washed. Their clothes were renewed and cleansed^ 
 because they were to enter upon a new function. They 
 had no official dress, since they only attended the priests, 
 and were not really invested with office. They were sub- 
 stitutes for the first-born of all the tribes. The children 
 of Israel laid their hands on the Levites, and the obliga- 
 tion of service was thereby transferred to them. Then 
 the Levites were waved toward the Tabernacle and to- 
 ward the Priests, denoting that they were given to the 
 latter to perform the service of the sactuary. The sac- 
 rificial acts were (1) Sin-ofiering, which denoted purga- 
 tion of sin, and (2) ^^/?^?2^ofFering, which denoted conse- 
 cration. They were then prepared for the service of the 
 Tabernacle, to which they were set apart. 
 
79 
 Sacred Times. 
 
 The most general term is Moadhim, set times, because 
 they returned at stated periods. The general idea is that 
 of certain portions of time withdrawn from their ordinary 
 occupations, and devoted to God; yet not as sl pai/ment, 
 but as a tribute, and an acknowledgment that all their 
 time belonged to God and His service. 
 
 These special duties were (a) Negative, i, e., abstinence 
 from ordinary secular labor; (b) Positice, i. e., special acts 
 of worship, both ceremonial and spiritual, as the multi- 
 plication of sacrifices and holy convocations, prayer and 
 religious devotions. 
 
 The Sacred Seasons instituted by Moses, were of three 
 kinds, contemplating God under three aspects, as 1. Cre- 
 ator ; 2. Preserver ; 3. Sanctifier. 
 
 I. As Creator. A series of Sabbaths, or Sabbatical Series, 
 based on the w^eekly Sabbath, being the same idea ex- 
 tended. The Sabbath had existed from the beginning of 
 the world, just as the sacrifice had from the Fall. Both 
 these primitive institutions were incorporated and ex- 
 panded in the Mosaic Ritual. That the Sabbath was so 
 instituted at the beginning of the world appears — 
 
 (1) From Gen. 2 : 3. This could not have been inserted 
 in the account by way of anticipation of sl future Sabbath, 
 because God's blessing the seventh day could no more be 
 postponed than His blessing the other days of creation. 
 
 (2) From the actual allusions before Sinai, to ijeriods 
 of seven days, and the sac redness of the numhe^seven. 
 There w^ere seven clean animals in the Ark ; and Xoah 
 waited seven days at difi:erent times. It was incorporated 
 in the language : — the verb to sivear, in Hebrew, is derived 
 from the word seven. 
 
 (3) These periods of seven days, and the sacredness of 
 the number seven, can be traced to other nations who did 
 not borrow from the Jews. 
 
 (4) The Sabbath was observed before Sinai by the 
 children of Israel. Ex. 16 : 22 Manna. 
 
 (5) In the Fourth Commandment the w^ord remember 
 occurs. 
 
 The Sabbatical Series was formed by applying the num- 
 ber seven to every denomination of time. The seventh 
 
80 
 
 day was the Sabbath ; — a day of rest for man and beast. 
 The seventh year was a year of rest for the land^ which 
 was to remain uncultivated that year. The Fiftieth year, 
 or the year following the Seventh Sabbatical year was the 
 Year of Jubilee, when took place the restoration of property, 
 reparation for injuries, etc. The seventh r)ionth was in a 
 certain sense sacred. Its first day was to be kept as a 
 Sabbath by abstaining from labor, and there were a great 
 number of festivals in this month. These were all in- 
 tended to be remembrances of God, and a testimony to 
 Him Avho Himself rested on the seventh day of Creation. 
 The refusing to keep the Sabbath was a denial of the 
 Creator, and hence the Sabbath was spoken of as a sign 
 of the covenant of God with Israel. It represented the 
 covenant on the side of Nature, as circumcision did on the 
 side of Grace. These various Sabbaths were periods 
 of rest from worldly labor in commemoration of God's 
 rest. They were designed further to remind the Israel- 
 ites of the rest that God had given them from the bondage 
 of Egypt. It restored man's strength, and was also a tran- 
 sient restoration of man's primitive condition before the 
 curse of labor had been pronounced upon him, and further- 
 more was a type of the future rest from toil. 
 
 II. Those which celebrate God as Preserver, in two 
 respects, viz., Historical and Agricultural. These feasts 
 numbered three, and were 
 
 1. The Passover, commemorating their deliverance from 
 Egypt and the slaying of the first-born. It was at the 
 beginning of the harvest. It was on the fifteenth day of 
 the first month, (/'. e., the day following the fourteenth 
 day,) and lasted for seven days. 
 
 2. The Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, occurring on the 
 fiftieth day after the Passover, lasting one day only. This 
 feast marked the end of the harvest. The Feast of Weeks, 
 according to tradition, commemorated the giving of the 
 Law. 
 
 3. The Feast of Tabernacles, on the fifteenth day of the 
 seventh month, and lasted seven days. It commemorated 
 the dwelling in tents in the vvdlderness. It also marked 
 the end of the vintage, or the ingathering of fruits. 
 
 The feasts of the Passover and Tabernacles began at 
 full moon. After the feast of Tabernacles was the day of 
 
81 
 
 the Solemn Assembly, a general and formal conclusion 
 of all the festivals of the 3'ear. 
 
 III. Those in which God is regarded as a Sanciijier, 
 This class contained one item, the great Day of Atone- 
 ment. It was a general expiation for the sins of the year. 
 It occurred on the tenth day of the seventh month. 
 
 There were seven days in the jqhv which were festive 
 Sabbaths, besides the weekly Sabbaths. These were the 
 first and seventh days of the Passover, the day of the Feast 
 of Weeks, and four days in the sacred (z. e., the seventh) 
 month. .These last were the first, the tenth (/. e., day of 
 atonement,) the fifteenth {i. t., the first day of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles,) and the twenty-second (/. e.,the day after 
 the Feast of Tabernacles.) All these were to be observed 
 as Sabbaths by abstinence from labor, &.c. 
 
 These various sacred times had their special sacrificial 
 services. On every day, a lamb was offered, morning and 
 evening, for a burnt-offering, together with the appropri- 
 ate meat- offering. On the weekly Sabbath, the daily Sac- 
 rifices were doubled and fresh. Shew Bread was to be 
 put on the Table. On the first day of each months there 
 was a festival-offering of a he-goat for a Sin-offering, and 
 ten animals, viz., two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs 
 of the first year, for a burnt-offering. Ko abstinence from 
 labor was enjoined, but a trumpet was blown, (^um. 
 10 : 10) which represented the loud call to God by the 
 people that He would remember them. The first day of 
 the seventh month was to be kept as a Sabbath, and a 
 double festival- offering was to be presented. Abstinence 
 from labor was enjoined, and the trumpet was sounded, 
 in louder tones. 
 
 I. The Fassover was instituted when they left Egypt, and 
 was to be observed annually thenceforth. It was called 
 also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It consisted of two 
 parts, (a) The Passover Meal strictly so called ; (b) the 
 eating of unleavened bread for seven days. The Passover 
 is to be reckoned a sacrifice. Some of the Reformed 
 Theologians deny this in order to confute the Romanists 
 who said that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice, because 
 the passover which it supplanted was such. That it was 
 a sacrifice appears 
 
82 
 
 (1) Because it was expressly so called. Ex. 12: 27; 
 I Cor. 5 : 7. (2) It was so re,^arded by the Jews, although 
 the blood was not sprinkled on the altar at first, (Deut. 
 16 : 5-7) because the Tabernacle was not yet built. It 
 2vas offered there and the blood sprinkled on the altar in 
 later times. II Chron. 30 : 16 ; 35 : 11. The Passover 
 was not a iS'i/^offering. It had none of the latter's peculiar 
 features, but its blood had an atoning virtue. It was a 
 species of Peace-oU'ering. It included a Sacrificial Meal. 
 
 The requirements were exact. The lamb was to be 
 selected on the tenth day, i. e.^foitr days previous to the 
 feast. This was fancifully supposed by fioftman to repre- 
 sent the four generations of Israel in Egypt, (Gen. 15 : 16,) 
 while others — Kurtz — supposed it to have reference to 
 the symbolical character of the number four. Both expla- 
 nations are too remote. It was probably set apart on the 
 tenth day for the same reason that the great Day of 
 Atonement was on the tenth dsij. Notice the Ten Com- 
 mandments and the ten plagues, etc. It occurs frequently, 
 and besides being convenient, is symbolical of complete- 
 ness. The lamb was to be slain between the ecenings, where 
 the original does not use the Dual, and which may mean 
 (a) between the sunset of the first day and the total dark- 
 ness of the second ; or (b) from the latter part of the 
 afternoon till sunset. This is the correct view, as may be 
 shown. In the first place, the blood was to be sprinkled 
 on the door posts and lintels of the house. A^tonement 
 was thus made for the house and its occupant. The head 
 of the family exercised this priestly function, which was 
 afterward confined to the priests. 
 
 The Passover Meal denoted communion with God, 
 based on the expiation of sin. 
 
 Peculiarities of this Feast. — The lamb must be placed 
 upon the table whole. No bones were to be broken. It 
 was typical of Christ's body, and the unity of His church 
 and people. The v/hole lamb was to be eaten in one 
 house. The same idea was included as before. None 
 must be left until the next day. It must not be boiled, 
 which would separate it, but was to be roasted, to pre- 
 serve its oneness. No part of it was to be carried out of 
 the house. All that remained was to be burned, to pro- 
 tect it from corruption or contact with common things. 
 
83 
 
 The mmmer of eating it was designed to remind them 
 of their previous condition, and of the circumstances of 
 its institution and the great deliverance which it com- 
 memorated. It was to be eaten with bitter herbs, which 
 suggested the bitterness of Egyptian oppression, and with 
 unleavened bread, which was a symbolical representation 
 of incorruption, and which had also an historical associa- 
 tion, because they had not time to leaven their bread. 
 Deut. 16 : 3. It was to be eaten in haste, with their loins 
 girded, and shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands. 
 These peculiar circumstances were laid aside in later 
 times. During each of these seven days, a goat was to be 
 oftered for a sin-oliering, and, in addition, ten animals, 
 viz., 2 bullocks, 1 ram, and 7 lambs, tor a burnt ofiering, 
 and the prescribed meat-offering. A sheaf of the first- 
 fruits was to be waved before the Lord, before they could 
 partake of the harvest. Lev. 23 : 10. 
 
 II. The Feast of Weeks.— ¥\^{y days after the second 
 day of the Passover^ i. e., the day following the completion 
 of seven weeks. It was called also the Feast of Harvest, 
 Ex. 23: 16; the day of First Fruits; and was called 
 Pentecost in Josephus and in the Xew Testament, Acts 
 2 : 1. Barley harvest began at the time of the Passover, 
 and wheat harvest ended with the Feast of Weeks. This 
 feast lasted one day, which day possessed a Sabbatic 
 character, ^o work was to be done; and a holy convo- 
 cation was enjoined. Two loaves of the first fruits and 
 the usual festive ofterino;, viz , a he-o:oat for the sin-offer- 
 ing, and ten animals for the burnt-offering, consisting of 
 2 bullocks, 1 ram, and 7 lambs — and the customary meat- 
 offering. ]N'ow^ that the harvest was concluded, loare.^ 
 and not sheaves, w^ere to be brought, just as at the Pass- 
 over. Tiro loaves were now brought, representing a 
 livelier sense of gratitude at the end of the feast. 
 
 III. The Feast of Tabernacles, called also the Feast of 
 Ingathering, was held after the fruits were gathered in, 
 particularly the oil and wine. It was celebrated for seven 
 days, beginning wdth the 15th day of the 7th month. 
 They were to dwell in booths, commemorating their so- 
 journ in the wilderness. It thus had both historical and 
 agricultural associations. It was the most joyous feast of 
 the year. The offerings were larger than on the other oc- 
 
84 
 
 casions, consisting oi^ t/ro rsims, fonrieen lambs, and thirteen 
 bullocks at the beginning, and seven at the close. The 
 number decreased one each day, making 70 in all. 
 
 The first day was observed as a Sabbath, and then the 
 eighth day, or the day after the festival, which did not be- 
 long strictl}^ to the feast. That this is so appears, (1) 
 because the lodging in the booths lasted only seven days ; 
 and (2) because the sacrifices on this day did not stand in 
 regular gradation to those of the other da3^s, but consisted 
 of ten animals, viz., one he-goat, one bullock, one ram, and 
 seven lambs. This was a solemn termination of all the 
 festivals of the year. 
 
 The Great Day of Atonement. — This occurred five days 
 before the feast of Tabernacles., on the tenth day of the 
 seventh month. It represented a general atonement for the 
 sins of Israel during the year, and for the sanctuary itself; 
 Lev. 16 : 16. The atonement on this day was not merely 
 for undiscovered sins, because these were included in the 
 general atonement at the new moon, but all the sins of the 
 year were atoned for afresh. This was an intimation that 
 the acts of atonement were incomplete, as indicated in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. This was not merely to supple- 
 ment the previous sacrifices or atonement, but it was the 
 same act. It Avas made in the Holy of Holies by the High 
 Priest, and was thus a fuller and more exalted type of 
 Christ, the true and adequate atonement. The entire day 
 was observed as a fast, the only fast of divine appointment 
 in the Jewish Calendar. Then came the special services 
 of the day. The High Priest first bathed himself and put 
 on a clean white garment, /. e., the ordinary dress of the 
 priests and not his usual robe. After making a >SV?^ and 
 Burnt-o^'eviBg for himself and his house, came the char- 
 acteristic service of the day — an offering of two he-goats 
 and a ram for a burnt-offering. The atonement was made 
 in the Holy of Holies. God appeared in a cloud over the 
 Mercy- seat, and the blood of the sin-offering of the priests 
 and of the sin-offering of the people was sprinkled upon 
 the Mercy-seat. This expiation was repeated at the Altar 
 of Incense and at the Brazen Altar* in the Court. The 
 most remarkable peculiarity was in the fact that there 
 •were two he-goats in the sin-offering. One was slain, and 
 its blood was carried into the Holv of Holies. The other 
 
85 
 
 was sent into tlie wilderness. Lots were first cast upon 
 them, one for Jehovah, (La-Jehovah) and one for (La- 
 AzAZEL,) a word derived from Azal, to remove!" 
 Four explanations of this term. 
 
 1. As a place ; 
 
 2. As the name of the oroat ; 
 
 3. As an abstract term ; 
 
 4. As a personal being. 
 
 I. If a place, it must be either the proper name of some 
 particular locality in the wilderness to which the goat was 
 to be taken, or a remote retired place. There is no trace 
 anywhere of such a name or place. In Lev. 16 : K), he 
 was to be taken into the wilderness. 
 
 II. The English version and the Vulgate apply this 
 term to the goat, and render it " Scape-goat.'' Some say it 
 is a compound word, from E Z, a goat, and that Azal 
 means to go away. This is not true, but a fanciful expla- 
 nation. It may mean something entirely removed. One 
 name was given to Jehovah, and one La-Azazel. 
 
 III. If it was an abstract term, it must have represented 
 a complete removal, and explained the two ideas in the 
 pardon of sin, — (a) expiation, (b) removal. The ordinary 
 sacrifice was sufficient to express the former, but, in this 
 case, both ideas must be represented ; ^fJrst, a goat was to 
 be slain as an expiation, and, secomUg, the sins were to be 
 carried away b}' the other goat. 
 
 IV. Those who adopt this view say it was a personal des- 
 ignation, a name for Satan. They argue (1) that it makes 
 a more exact contrast in the lots, as God in contradistinc- 
 tion to Satan. (2) That this goat was sent to Azazel, m 
 the wilderness, and that in several passages of Scripture 
 the wilderness is represented as the especial abode of 
 devils and evil spirits; Isa. 18: 21; 34: 14. The word 
 translated Satgr is translated Devils in Lev. 17 : 7, and in 
 Rev. 23 : 2. Devils are spoken of as inhabiting waste 
 places. In Matth. 12 : 48, the evil spirit is spoken of aa 
 walking through dry places. In Luke 8 : 27, we read 
 that an evil spirit was in the tombs. Also in the Apoc- 
 rypha ; Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4 : 35. (3) The name Azazel, 
 they say, is appropriate for Satan, as being utter]y removed 
 from the presence of God. The difficulties of this per- 
 sonal view are (a) Satan is nowhere else in the Bible called 
 
86 
 
 by this name, (b) There is no allusion to Satan as con- 
 nected with the Day of Atonement. There is nothing in 
 the Ceremonial to suggest this view, unless it be the doubt- 
 ful meaning of this word. Many in modern times adopt 
 this view, on this supposition. 
 
 If Azazel is Satan, it is variously explained m four toays. 
 
 (1.) That the goat was sent as a sacrifice to propitiate 
 the Devil. To this w^e say : (a) This idea is abhorrent to 
 the notions of religion and to the Mosaic institutions, 
 which particularly forbade the worship of anything but 
 God, — and expressly prohibited sacrifice to Devils ; Lev. 
 17 : 7. (b) The two goats were one ofifering and not two ; 
 and were also a /S'm-offering, which could not have been 
 appropriately offered to the Devil, because it implied holi- 
 ness in the person to whom it was offered. Both the 
 goats were brought to the Tabernacle, and God decided 
 which was to be sent into the wilderness. The only 
 reason why there were two animals was because two ideas 
 were to be represented ; one must be alive to carry away 
 the sin after the other had been sacrificed. The second 
 goat was really the first one over again, being analogous 
 to the two birds in the cleansing of the leper. 
 
 (2.) That the Goat, laden with the sins of the people, 
 was sent to the Devil, to be tormented by him, and to 
 show God's hatred of sin. There is nothing to substan- 
 tiate this view. 
 
 (3.) That the sins belonged to the Devil, and hence 
 were sent there in the person of the goat. 
 
 (4.) This is the most common explanation, that it was 
 an act of defiance and scorn against the Deril, the seducer 
 and accuser of Mankind. The sins are sent to the Devil, 
 having been first atoned for, that he may do his worst 
 with them. He can never bring Israel into condemnation. 
 
 The choice seems to be between this last view and the 
 view which makes it an abstract idea. It would seem that 
 the latter is preferable. It appears that the two goats are 
 identical in signification, one supplementing the other, — 
 the second carrying out what the first could not do. 
 
 All t}jpical theories which make a distinction between 
 the two goats are erroneous. 
 
 (1.) Prof Bush says that the first goat represents Christ, 
 and the second the Jews. 
 
87 
 
 (2.) Some hold that the first s^oat represented Christ's 
 human nature, and the second his divine nature. 
 
 (3.) Or that the first represented Christ's death, and the 
 second his resurrection. 
 
 Christ accomplished hoth ideas, and hence both were 
 typical of Christ, the first making atonement for, and the 
 second securino; the removal of sin. After this, the High 
 Priest removed his dress, washed himself, put on his 
 official robes, and then offered the proper offerings. The 
 person who took the goat into the wilderness, and the one 
 who burned the fat of the sin-oftering, were both rendered 
 unclean. 
 
88 
 
 Lectures in Philology. 
 
 The Families op Languages. 
 
 Gen. ii: i — "And the whole earth was of one 
 language, and of one speech :" and so it was origi- 
 nally. 
 
 This verse has been a stimulus to endeavors to 
 find this primitive tongue. The test of having found 
 it would be to show clearly that all others owe their 
 origin to and are derived from it. All research, how- 
 ever, has thus far shown that at this day it is too late 
 to discover it. But though such is the case, yet 
 astonishing analogies have been discovered. 
 
 Research formerly proceeded on several errone- 
 ous assumptions :— e. g., 
 
 1. It was assumed that a bare similarity of sound 
 between words of like sense denoted identity of ori- 
 gin. But this is not so; while, on the other hand, 
 sounds and words originally alike must be so much 
 changed as not to be recognized. The modern 
 Greek ^aTt — Eye, and the Polynesian i/m^a — Eye^ 
 have no connection of origin. On the other hand,. 
 jou7'ney comes from dies, through diurnus and the 
 
 French jo2ir. So also strange7\ 
 
 2. It was assumed that the presence of the same 
 or related words in two languages, established their 
 organic connection. But such words may have been 
 merely borrowed from one language by another by 
 intercourse; — e. g., Moslem, Sultan, Dragoman, are 
 
89 
 
 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 
 Arabic, 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 affinity. 
 
 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 
 spontaneously reduced to a few Groups. Ethnology 
 aids here, though its divisions and those of Philology 
 do x\oX. pi^ecisely coincide. There are nations closely 
 allied by physical structure, which speak languages 
 entirely distinct, and vice versa. Hence existing 
 diversity of both are not inconsistent with unity of 
 origin. 
 
 The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, (with 
 a few verses in Chaldee, now called Palestinian 
 Aramaic). This language was not selected because 
 of any special sacredness, or because it was the 
 primitive language; but merely because it was the 
 language spoken by the people chosen as the cus- 
 todians of revelation durinor the time the revelation 
 was being given. 
 
90 
 
 There are eight great FamiHes of Languages, in- 
 cluding 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. Only two have. But enough is known to 
 justify the foregoing classification. These eight 
 Families diffe.r not only in their stock of zuords, but 
 also in xh^w general structure, and are thus divided 
 into three great Groups. 
 
 I. Isolating Languages, 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, like stones in a heap. 
 
 II. Agglutinative Languages : — 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 char- 
 acter of its constituents not however being lost sight 
 of, — a building. 
 
 III. I7iflective Languages : — most highly devel- 
 oped: the word not beine a mere conglomeration of 
 distmct roots, but an organic whole. It is a growth, 
 in which the branches are inseparably joined to the 
 trunk, — a growth. 
 
 I. Includes 3 families. 
 11. '' 3 " 
 
 III. '' 2 
 
 We will giance at these families. For details see 
 Dwight's Philology, Max Muller, Whitney, etc. 
 
91 
 
 I. Isolating Group. 
 
 First Family, — Malay or 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. 
 
 Sec o7id Family, — Chinese. This extends over S. E. 
 Asia, China proper, farther India, Thibet, Birmah, 
 Slam. 
 
 Monosyllabic ; 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 
 important; the best known; the most highly culti- 
 vated ; has a lar^e and extensive literature. 
 
 Third Family, — Haniitic, Coptic, or Ancie^it Egyp- 
 tian. This is separated from the other families 
 of the group by the entire continent of Asia. It is 
 spoken also in Abyssinia, and among the Libyan 
 tribes, as w^ell as among the Hottentots, and the 
 Bushmen of South Africa. 
 
 Monosyllabic ; 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. 
 
92 
 
 II. Agglutinative Group. 
 
 First Family. This is the most important Family, 
 — Turanian or Scythian. Includes the roving tribes 
 of Central and Northern Africa, and along the north 
 of Europe ; consisting of Mongolians, Tartars, Fins, 
 Laplanders, Turks, Southern Hindostanee, Japanese. 
 
 The root is always at the beginning of the word, 
 agglutinative ; the syllables being always suffixed. 
 
 Second Family, — South African. All Southern 
 Africa, from a few degrees north of the Equator, 
 with the exception of the Hottentots and Bushmen. 
 
 All the languages of this Family are closely re- 
 lated, the West and East Coast of Africa beingf much 
 alike. Though spoken by barbarous tribes, yet it 
 has great flexibility of structure and copiousness of 
 form. It has a series of conjugations much like the 
 Hebrew. The agglutinative syllables are often pre- 
 fixed. Uniformly so in the declension of nouns, etc. 
 
 Third Family, — American. North American 
 Indians. It has an immense variety of dialects, yet 
 all are related. 
 
 Polysynthetic or incorporative ; accumulates words 
 of enormous length. Pronouns and numerals have 
 from three to ten syllables. 
 
 III. Inflective Group. 
 
 Two Families, — spoken by the white race, and the 
 most influential. It is spoken by civilized nations, 
 and is therefore best known. 
 
 ( I . ) Indo-European . 
 
 (2.) Semitic. 
 
 The New Testament is written in the former ; the 
 Old Testament in the latter. The Indo-European is 
 so called from the extremes of territory where it is 
 spoken — India and Europe. We find a belt ex- 
 tending between them through Afghanistan, Persia, 
 Europe, (excepting in the north of Europe.) 
 
9a 
 
 Differences Between the Two Families: 
 
 Indo-European to7igues form words and inflections 
 by additions external to the root ; Semitic by internal 
 changes niaijdy. E. g. : 
 
 Love — lover — loving — beloved. 
 
 Amo — amor — amatus — amabilis. 
 
 Stap — Stsp — ^Dp — StDp — Stsp — etc. 
 
 The •Semitic is formed by vowel changes in the 
 body of the root, or prefixed or affixed : or else by 
 doubling the letters of the root, (except in pronomi- 
 nal suffixes.) 
 
 In the Indo-European, formative prefixes, etc., 
 are outside ; the root only changes through laws of 
 euphony, as caedo, caesus, incido, in order to ease the 
 pronunciation. Some internal changes have now a 
 signification which they did not originally possess ; 
 e.g., man, men; foot, feet; break, broke. These 
 look like internal inflection, but are not so. Ma^i 
 had a regular plural mans, — the change of ^ to ^ 
 being merely euphonic, and often occurring in the 
 singular. 
 
 The Indo-European root is a single syllable, the 
 ultimate unit of articulate speech ; a vowel, or a 
 vowel with one or more associated consonants. The 
 root is one indivisible, invariable whole, the vowel 
 being an inalienable part of it. The Semitic roots 
 have only consonants, and as a root is unpronounce- 
 able, being a frame-work or skeleton, while the 
 vowels are the tissue and flesh. Consonants deter- 
 mine the radical signification of the word which the 
 vowels shade or alter. The Semitic alphabet has no 
 vowels ; the Indo-European languages, in which 
 vowels form an essential part, in adopting the Semi- 
 tic alphabet, changed the superabundant guttural 
 into vowels, e. ^-., x=^a, a ; n^^^f, e ; nrj^ a; ;* o. 
 
94 
 
 There is no fixed number of letters In the Indo- 
 European roots, but they must be pronounced in one 
 syllable. The Semitic has a uniform number ; bilit- 
 erals are too brief, and triliterals are the briefest that 
 could give a sufficient number of combinations. 
 Therefore Semitic words are triliteral. Quadriliterals 
 are a later formation. 
 
 (i.) It is hence easier for the Semitic verb to have 
 its peculiarities than for the Indo-European verb. 
 The verb in Semitic is the word par excellence, giv- 
 ing life to every sentence. It has the simplest 
 vowels, as Kamets, etc., especially in the Arabic. It 
 intensifies the meaning and pronunciation by doub- 
 ling the radicals. The verb has fewer peculiarities 
 in the Indo-European. Causatives, desideratives, 
 etc., correspond in some degree to the Semitic in- 
 flections. 
 
 (2.) Hence there is a richness in the Indo-Euro- 
 pean inflections, and more variety is possible ; pov- 
 erty In the Semitic as to tense, mood, etc. Greek 
 has nine tenses ; Semitic two. Unlimited means In 
 Indo-European of multiplying them ; but the changes 
 of vowels possible in the three consonants of the 
 Semitic, are few. The Semitic noun in the construct 
 state, results from the same fundamental principle. 
 
 The Indo-European great variety of tongues, — 
 Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Sclavonic, Greek, Iranian, 
 Indian. The Semitic has only four branches — Ara- 
 maean, Hebrew, and Arabic, all closely related. 
 
 (3.) The Semitic has been of a stationary character 
 from its very formation; the Indo-European has 
 more mobility. The former is rigid and changes 
 slowly. From Moses to MalachI, (1,000 years,) there 
 appears less change than in the English since Shake- 
 speare, (300 years,) while 1,000 years back, in the 
 time of Alfred, the Saxon language was used, and 
 the English was still unformed. The Indo-European 
 
95 
 
 is perpetually developing and progressing- ; old forms 
 dropping out, new forms coming in. The Semitic 
 structure does not admit of this — and this reacted on 
 the nations speaking it. The Semite is the same 
 from age to age ; has the same habits and modes of 
 life. The Semite remains in the same place ; the 
 Indo-European stretches over both of the continents 
 of Europe and Asia. For this reason, the Old Testa- 
 ment was given to the Semite, to remain and keep 
 the oracles of God. But when Christ came, and the 
 Gospel was aggressive, and to be spread, then the 
 New Testament was given in an Indo-European 
 tongue. 
 
 The lack of variety in the Semitic tongues is due 
 not only to their method of internal y7^<f/w2, but also 
 to their triliteral roots. No attrition of consonants 
 at ends of words is possible, for the word can't spare 
 any, without changing itself entirely ; no abridging ; 
 no changing of the three consonants. The Arabic 
 has now many roots which are the same as those 
 used by Moses. 
 
 The stationary character of the people reacted on 
 the language, as seen in the fact that there is no need 
 of new terms, and their own lannruagre was not im- 
 posed by conquest and commerce on new nations, 
 or corrupted and mixed thereby, as is seen in the 
 English. Arabic is now left alone to represent the 
 family. 
 
 The Second great Differe?ice, (relating to the mean- 
 ing, not to the outward form,) is that the Semitic 
 is more pictorial ; the Indo-Ettropean is more reflec- 
 tive. 
 
 E. g., (i.) Semitic has only two genders; the idea 
 of sex being carried through all inanimate nature 
 and abstractions. Indo-European languages almost 
 all have a third gender for objects destitute of sex, 
 though not always regarding it. 
 
96 
 
 (2.) While, In both languages, words denoting 
 spiritual abstractions are based on roots primarily 
 relating to external objects, in Indo-European this 
 primary idea is lost sight of, in Semitic it is retained. 
 As Sincere, sine cera — pure honey; tribulation, tri- 
 hulu7n, a threshing instrument; agony, referring to 
 the struggles of the contestants in games. Licidcate, 
 tread grain into the soil. In Semitic the metaphor 
 remains in consciousness; both significations co-exist. 
 Anger, ^, '"];«, to breathe, hard breathing; n:?n, heat; 
 ]nn, burning; i';\ boiling; tj^, breaking asunder; D^n, 
 roaring. Desire, xpy, thirst; f]DD, grow pale. Pardon, 
 n?3, cover; nna, hide. Patie?it, slow breathing; im- 
 patient, fast breathing. 
 
 (3.) A want of precision, or definiteness of expres- 
 sion. Their pictorial form of expression barely sug- 
 gests the thought in outline. It aims at vividness 
 and force more than detail. Thus the Semitic (In the 
 tenses) refers all to the unlimited past or the unlim- 
 ited future, and has only one form of each. The 
 Indo-European adds the vanishing present, and to 
 the other various modifications, adds the imperfect, 
 perfect, pluperfect, future, and future perfect. So of 
 moods. 
 
 The Semitic gives the sentences in simple suc- 
 cession without concatenation, without denoting their 
 relation, and has few conjunctions. It simply joins 
 two clauses by the word and, leaving the reader to 
 guess at the nature of the connection. The Indo- 
 European has a multitude of particles, etc. 
 
 (4.) Range and description of their literatures. 
 The Semitic writes history (or palpable facts,) 
 tales, fables, parables (or imaginative fiction,) lyric 
 and sententious poetry, brief utterances of the feel- 
 ings or wise sayings. But It has no romances proper, 
 no heroic or dramatic poems with complicated plots. 
 It has no orations of such a kind as those of Webster 
 
97 
 
 and Calhoun ; and no arguments advancing to an 
 irresistible conclusion. 
 
 Renan, taking up the idea, says the Semites were 
 monotheists by instinct ; but he takes no notice of the 
 idolatrous Assyrians and Ninevites, who were Sem- 
 ites. 
 
 Hence the Semitic was especially fitted for the 
 Old Testament, dealing in outlines and shadows. 
 The New Testament is precise and clearly revealed, 
 and therefore in its final form, required an Indo- 
 European tongue. Paul was educated in Grecian 
 philosophy, etc. 
 
 The Third Dijference is a subordinate one. The 
 mode of writing. The Semite writes from right to 
 left; the Indo-European the reverse. (Exceptions to 
 both are found. The Ethiopic from left to right like 
 the Greek ; Persian, Hindoo, from right to left like 
 the Arabic.) 
 
 Points of Agreement. 
 
 They belong to the same Group, the Inflective, 
 and have, therefore, (i) many grammatical analogies ; 
 (2) a great number of roots clearly identical. For 
 examples, see Gesenius. (Though many similar 
 sounds are merely casual; e.g., "ikd well, and the 
 English bore are not related ; nor are iq'\ and direc- 
 tion ; nor natural sounds k^d, cry ; i"^, pa, pater.) 
 
 Some say all triliteral roots were originally bilit- 
 eral, and that the triliterals were formed by insert- 
 ingweak letters, or adding letters : tj tocut. -^j: — tocut 
 off — ;•]: to cut down — Sn to flay — ttj to shear — njj to 
 hew — dt: to devour — in: 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 '' oriental'' but we know of coun- 
 tries farther east, where the Semitic prevails ; " Syro- 
 
98 
 
 Arabian,'' (named from the extreme limits, just as 
 Indo-P2uropean ;) " Seinitic^' (from Shem) is the nam^ 
 most used, for (Gen. lo,) Shemites are the chief 
 member of the group. The Hebrew, Aramagic 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 language of civilization, of trade, 
 of religion, in Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Judea, Juda- 
 ism and Christinanity 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 tongues) has had a mixed population, and 
 therefore mixed languages ever since, just as in 
 Constantinople to-day. Nebuchadnezzar and other 
 monarchs were Indo-Kuropeans, but their generals, 
 e. g., Robshekar. were Semites and spoke Ara- 
 maean. 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 without an 
 
99 
 
 Interpreter ; but in Egypt Jacob's sons required one. 
 Proper names, Melchlsedec, x^blmelech, Klrjath- 
 jearlm, Baal, Moloch, etc., are Semitic. 
 
 The Phoejiiciajis 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 expensive literature 
 has all perished. We can judge (a) from ancient 
 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, punctuation, etc. 
 
 (a) Proper names — Tyre, niv, Rock; Carthage, lyin 
 J7p, New City ; Adonis, 'j-i«. Lord ; Hannibal, ^;'3 '3n, 
 favor of Baal ; HasdriibaL ^;:3 ni;', help of Baal ; Dido, 
 beloved ; Cadmus, Dip., the east, oriental. 
 
 Plautus has a passage in Carthaginian and a Latin 
 translation, but text is corrupted. 
 
 (b) Monuments, 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. The Moabite 
 Stone shows this. 
 
 Some have said that Coptic should be classed 
 with Semitic, as being merely an older type and a 
 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. //<?^r<2/V=? Hebrew and Phoenician. 
 
 2. Aramaic Q\\2\(\^^, Syrlac, Samaritan (mon- 
 grel). 
 
 3. Arabic^ hr^xa proper, and Ethiopic (spoken 
 in Abyssinia), 
 
100 
 
 Hebrew is intermediate, both geographically and 
 philologically. Aramaic is north of it, Arabic south. 
 The Arabic is the most soft, flexible and copious, the 
 Aramaic least so. The Aramaic regular vei^b has 
 one vowel (Spp), the Hebrew two i'lMpj. Arabic th7^ee, 
 . C^Pp) Co7ijugations or species. The Aramaic has 
 thirteen, eleven of which are double, thus numbering 
 twenty-four. The Hebrew has seven, the Arabic 
 
 The Future, The Arabic has four forms, the 
 Hebrew has three, (simple, paragogic, and apocopat- 
 ed). The Dual. The Aramaic has none ; the He- 
 brew only in nouns ; the Arabic in nouns and verbs. 
 Their varying copiousness is shown in vocabularies 
 and alphabets. The Aramaic has the original twenty- 
 two letters; the Hebrew doubles the pronunciation 
 of one. Sin or Shin, really making twenty-three ; the 
 Arabic doubles six, making twenty-eight. 
 
 Historical O^^dek. 
 
 I. Hebrew. 2. Aramaean 3. Arabic. Hebrew 
 is the oldest and has the oldest literature. The 
 Arabic is the only one now in use as a spoken lan- 
 guage, except among a few scattered tribes. The 
 number of dialects of Semitic, therefore, unlike the 
 Indo-European, is diminishing rather than increasing; 
 the Arabic alone remains. But this does not prove 
 that the Arabic is the youngest and an outgrowth 
 of the others. 
 
 Gen. 31 ; 47. — Aramaean was distinct from He- 
 brew; ^. ^-.j Laban gives the place mentioned an 
 Aramaean name, Jegar-sahadutha, but Jacob gives it 
 a Hebrew name, Gilead. 
 
 Gen. 10: 26. — The name Almodad has the prefix 
 "^K, the Aramaic article. 
 
 In reality Arabic is the oldest and stands in rela- 
 tion to the Semitic as Sanskrit does to Indo-Euro- 
 pean. Even in the days of Moses, Hebrew had 
 
101 
 
 undereone more chancres than Arabic had in Mahom- 
 et's time. 
 
 For purposes of comparison, Arabic is more 
 copious and Hving ; Aramaic is more closely related 
 to Hebrew. 
 
 All these languages have been and still are re- 
 garded as sacred, as Hebrew amonn- the Jews ; 
 Aramaic or Syriac among oriental Christians ; Ara- 
 bic among Mohammedans, Turks, and as in the 
 Koran. 
 
 /^/^.a 
 
 HEBREW. 
 
 The Hebrlw Language, or the original language 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 The Semitic family of languages included three 
 principle branches, 
 '/^v- I. Aramaic, including the Chaldee and Synac. 
 
 2. Hebrew, -^<^^' '-^^^'- '^^ 
 
 3. Arabic. C^ - r-/.^^.. 
 
 The Hebrew was intermediate between the other 
 two in its geographical position and its character. 
 
 The Hebj^ew, as a language, received its name 
 from the Hebrew people, who were so called for one 
 of two reasons ; the word -^3;^ is derived either (a) 
 from n;:!;*, meaning beyond, and applied to one be- 
 longing to the region beyond the Euphrates east- 
 ward, and hence applicable to Abraham, Gen. 14 : 13. 
 This derivation has the sanction of the Septuagint, 
 which renders the word 6 Ttf parng, which means tke 
 one beyond, (b) It may be derived from Eber, (Gen. "^ r?'^?' 
 II : 14,) an ancestor of Abraham of the sixth gene- 
 ration. (Eber in English has no aspiration, but the 
 loss of the aspirate only shows the transition from 
 Hebrew to English.) Gen. 10 : 25 may suggest the 
 reason whyZi<5^r was the name given to his descend- 
 ants. In this passage Eber called his son Peleg, 
 because in his days the earth was divided. Eber 
 
102 
 
 then would be the head of a family after the confu- 
 sion of tongues, and his descendants would naturally 
 have his name. It is according to O. T. analogy 
 that a race should be named from an individual ; 
 e. g., Israelites, Ammonites, &c. Whichever deriva- 
 tion be approved, the term Hebreiv might be expect- 
 ed to embrace other races than the Israelites, and 
 there is such an intimation in Num. 2 : 24. Ebe7' 
 is spoken of as a name extending over a number of 
 peoples east of the Euphrates. It has been claimed 
 that Gen. 10: 21, shows that the words "all the 
 children o{ Ebei''^ indicate that the word Hebrew 
 came from this derivation. This is not conclusive, 
 because Eber may have been the name of a territory. 
 In ordinary language, the term Hebrezvis used exclu- 
 sively of the Israelites. Abraham was a Hebrew, 
 but the children of Keturah, or Ishmael, or Esau, 
 were never called Hebrews. Hebreiv was their 
 national name, Israel -wdiS their domestic and theocratic 
 name. 
 
 From the reign of David, the name Hebrezu is 
 almost lost, and Israel came to be used for the ten 
 tribes in distinction from Judah. In the N, T. the 
 word y^ew denoted any one belonging to the Jewish 
 people anywhere ; Hebrews were those Jews who 
 dwelt in Palestine and spoke the Aramaic. Those 
 who spoke Greek were called Grecians^ not Greeks. 
 
 The Hebrew language is not so called in the O. 
 T., but is called the Jew's language. Is. 36: 11. In 
 Is. 19: 18 it is called the language of Canaan. The 
 first application of the name Hebrew to a language 
 is found in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. In the 
 N. T. and Josephus, the term " Hebrew language" 
 is used both for the Hebrew proper and for Ara- 
 maean ; i. e., the tongue spoken by the Hebrew- 
 people at that time. jno. 5:2; Acts 21 : 40. Later 
 Jewish writers called the Hebrew the " holy tongue," 
 
103 
 
 In distinction from the Aramaean, which succeeded 
 it and was called the ''profane tongue." 
 
 The very high antiquity of the Hebrew is shown 
 from the antiquity of its literature, which is more 
 ancient than that of any other language. The writ- 
 ings of Moses preserve antediluvian fragments ; — 
 e. o., that of Lamech. In these and in proper na'nes, 
 we have L^dimpses of roots and phrases already 
 obsolete in the time of Moses. The Targum on 
 Gen. I r : I, says that the Hebrew wa3 the primitive 
 language of the world. Some modern Christian 
 scholars have supported this view for the following 
 seasons : — 
 
 1. That the proper names of Adam to Babel are 
 derived from Hebrew and have a Hebrew meaning. 
 
 2. The fragments from Lamech and* Noah are 
 certainly Hebrew. 
 
 3. The great longevity of the Patriarchs, which 
 was such that Adam was contemporaneous with 
 Methusaleh, and he with Shem, and Shem with 
 Abraham. Thus Adam is joined to Abraham by 
 two links or generations. 
 
 4. It is not probable that the pious people took 
 part at Babel. Some say that the race of Shem 
 were not there, and that hence their language was 
 not confused and therefore not destroyed. This 
 reasoning, however, is not conclusive, for it assumes 
 that these proper names and fragments have been 
 preserved, not only as to iheir exact significatioiu 
 but in their original form, and have neither been 
 translated nor explained in reference to Hebrew 
 etymology. To all this we say: — (i) The names 
 which are undeniably foreign to the Hebrew may 
 often admit of a satisfactory Hebrew explanation ; 
 e. g., in Ex. 2 : 10, " Moses" is an Egyptian name, 
 (meaning '' drawn out of the water,") but may be 
 explained from the Hebrew. So also Pharaoh, 
 
7 
 
 104 
 
 (meaning " ruler ;") Ham, as in Ps. 105 : 23; Behe- 
 moth, (a Coptic word) in Job. 40 : 15, means "hip- 
 popotamus." In Gen. 41 : 43, the word translated 
 " bow the knee" (Shesh) is an Egyptian word, yet 
 may be explained by Hebrew etymology. But it 
 would not do to say that .the Hebrew was the lan- 
 guage o{ Egypt. (2) Proper names are often trans- 
 lated from their original languages into another 
 language ; e. g.. On (a city) is, in Jer. 43 : 13, called 
 Bethshemesh, . the " house of the sun," in Greek 
 Heliopolis. So also No-Ammon is called AtocTTto^t^, 
 the " city oi Jupiter." So Erasmus, Melancthon, etc., 
 are Greek translations of their own names from 
 their native languages. (3) Some of the names 
 before the confusion at Babel cannot be thus ex- 
 plained ; — 'e. g., Tubal-Cain, Arphaxad. (4) Such 
 antediluvian words may have been appellatives and 
 Q~]^ not proper names ; — e. g., Adam (meaning "man,") 
 "^■^ is connected with the ground ; nrDij^^^ the ground ; 
 
 y\*\'Y[ Eve is ''life'' Abel is ''breath ;'' Cain is "possession" 
 
 •^ "■ and ''weapon :'' Noah is " restT "^ X'Jr- 
 ^y\i We need not conclude from these that the Hebrew 
 "'* V was the original language of mankind. No language 
 can lay claim to that honor. 
 
 Renan, in his history of the Semitic language, 
 says, "since more than a thousand years B. C, the 
 Shemitic roots have suffered no decay or injury. 
 We are dealing with a language of steel, and not 
 with a worm eaten one. The Shemiticlanguage has 
 preserved to us traces of the primitive tongue." He 
 says that "the grammatical structure savors of the 
 infancy of the human intellect. The radicals of the 
 modern Arabic correspond with the Hebrew. If in 
 3000 years there was no sensible alteration, can we 
 not conclude that the primitive language was similar 
 to the Hebrew ? " It is not impossible that this may 
 be true. 
 
105 
 
 Scientific Philology may one day accord to the 
 Hebrew the honor of being the original language. 
 The Hebrew leaves evidence of being the language 
 of Palestine because their word for H'^esl was Yam, 
 which is the same as their word for sea. "T3!J 
 
 Some have supposed that they were idolaters, 
 because they used the plural wnhvi. This is unfound- 
 ed. It is simply the plu ral_ o f majesty. Abraham 
 came from Ai^am and therefore spoke Aramaean. 
 In Deut. 26: 5, Syrian is used for AramcBa7i. In 
 Gen. 31: 47. the members of Abraham's family still 
 continued to speak Aranicean. "^ 
 
 Is the Hebrew language throughout, of^indistin- d jUM^^^^<rry^ - 
 guishable character or diversified like others ? 
 
 1. The differences are due to diversities of ''dia- 
 lects!' 
 
 2. They are due to the different species of compo- 
 sition. 
 
 3. Differences also arise from successive periods of 
 time. 
 
 We will consider them in order. 
 
 I. Difference due to Z^/V?/^(f/i-. • ^tAiJ^cx^^ _ 
 
 Some have gone to a great length in dividing up yfc^-<i*-£^^< 
 the dialects of the Hebrew. A_recerU German writer fV^>WT 
 gives three dialects. ( i ) That of Ephraim on the" 
 
 North ; (2) of Judah in the middle, (3) o{ Si me 071 on 
 
 the South. More sober critics say we have no data^ ^ ur^Jk.^1 a 
 for this, because the small extent of Palestine and /5^-v.<u.c^ j^-^J^ 
 the frequent assemblies of the people would prevent Uo ^</IJ'^^cji. /? 
 the formation of such dialects. There were undoubt- ^ru^.^^ <yC-' . 
 edly provincialisms, as there are now in the United ,^^-^=- — 
 States.*^ E. o., in~ Judges 12: 6; Neh;_L3_i24^^^ In 
 Judges 18: 3, the Danites are said to hav^~KnowTr---^ Juh^k^ . 
 the voice of the Levite by his dialect. This not so. <:%>vuj^-f^ (n 
 They simply recognized it as the voice of an acquain- MAXjH~l)^o-n!ax^ 
 tance. ^»-z^ o^jrf^ ^^ 
 
 y^^^ v^r->i^t*^'^-A ^^^ ^ /i^*,r7^«->«<'-«^'W- 0'-' 
 
106 . 
 
 In the N. T., (Matt. 26: ']i) we read thit Galli- 
 leans could be distinq;uished by their speech. 
 
 2. The differences in composition are wider. 
 
 The lang. of poetry and pilose differs much in all 
 languages. Poetry delights in rare and unprosaic 
 and bold forms of speech. E- g-> (0 Rare words: — 
 
 ">n^, word, = "ipj^ h^-dk nSn 
 
 Nu, to go or come, = nn5< 
 
 u^'K, man, = "^^a m^ 
 
 hk;;;, to do, = S;:3 
 
 I'm, to plant, = hrw 
 
 «b, not, = S2 
 
 n-onS::, war, = 3-)p 
 
 2nT, gold, = 0^3 
 
 (2.) Words used in a different sense in poetry. 
 Attributives often substituted for nouns. Ex.: 
 
 ty?c^, sun, = T\^T\, hot. 
 
 n-^;, moun, = njnS, white or pale. 
 
 d'Stu ijlozving) used poetically for streams. 
 
 -»'3X {mighty), " " '• God. 
 
 (3.) Pecu 1 ia r grammatical fornn s for the same word. 
 
 o'r'^^? = o'""^^- God. 
 
 D'p; = nin;, days. 
 
 D'jtj? ^ niyj;, years. 
 
 q^<3;t = D'rpD;', nations (by resolution of the Dagh- 
 esh- forte.) 
 "ivvf. l'?: = ^^n:, will go, (taking the form tjSh in the 
 ' future.) 
 
 p-p, from, - -ii? h^ or S;: = -Sx or ^S;' 
 
 The suffix ^'. = *D\ i;: = '-|;v 3 ^ "1^33 3 - ^^3 
 
 (4.) Some peculiar endings or terminations. 
 
 n = n D^. = 1" D =- ID on:. = id: 
 
 |\ = in: or -m ^\ = *p' 
 
 (5.) Peculiar grammatical constructions. The 
 demonstrative r\\ (or poetical u) used for the relative 
 •^i^tf. The relative often omitted, also the article. 
 Bold ellipses. 
 
^ i-<rtd. /L'^"-^ "f^-^o, «V 
 
 ^^.-.H J^^^A^ 
 
 JUzc . 
 
 
 ^/4^^ 
 
 ''-^' 
 
 ^^-CMU^^^ 
 
107 
 
 Many of these forms are called Arabisms or 
 Aramaeisms and said to be borrowed from the Ara- 
 maean^ But this is not so. They seem to belong 
 to that common stock of all the Semitic tongrues 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 (pj^opheti^c) style. (A^ajhyvZ.*^-^^ 
 
 3. Differences arising from successive periods of 
 time. 
 
 The Hebrew lanoruai/e underwent a crreat chanore 
 between the beeinnine and end of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The most obvious division is into two periods. 
 The point of separation between these was shortly 
 before the Babylonian exile. 
 
 (i) From the time of Moses to the dme 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, Nehemiah, and Ezra, exhibit a strik- 
 ing contrast in purit>^though Daniel and Ezra have 
 sections in Aramaean. The Book of Chronicles was 
 written later than Kings, and hence is more corrupt, 
 Ezekiel, written during the Exile, shows the greatest 
 number of varieties in form and the greatest variety 
 of anomalies,' which exhibit an actual deterioration 
 of the languages. In the prophets subsequent to 
 the exile, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the lan- 
 guage is less corrupt, and there is an advance to the 
 former purity and correctness of style. The sta- 
 
 L^-'J^^^i'^^-^t 
 
 
 
108 
 
 tionary 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 
 languages to ,be fixed and stationary. All the cus- 
 toms and habits and even the names of places, are 
 ffC y^-O-*^ unchanging, in some cases the namesjDeing the same 
 ' now as in the time of Abraham and Joshua. The 
 
 Syriac and Arabic also have the same permanence. 
 A^yJi^ ' Chmese 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. 
 th '^n^'^^^ ' ('^) ^\^^ circumstances^favored this preservation 
 I 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. 
 
 (c) The books of Moses containing the civil and 
 religious code served to fix the language, as the 
 Koran has the Arabic, and Luther's Bible the Ger- 
 man, and the English Bible the English. They also 
 furnished a model of waiting, as Home?' 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 during 
 this long period. There are some changes; e.g., 
 
 /the third feminine pronoun x^n in the Books of Moses 
 is changed to x'n in Isaiah ; -i;'j is used in the Pen- 
 tateuch to denote either a boy or girl, — in Isaiah it 
 was used with the feminine ending nn;».; 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 
 

109 
 
 1. Sam. 9 : 9, mention is made of a change in a word, 
 viz., seei^ 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 '' sci^iptio defectaj' appear in 
 the later books, and also the adoption of genuine 
 Aramaisms. 
 
 Examples of new phrases : hdSdo with the plural 
 construct later noS-o ; d'jsh urfi, bread of the pres- 
 ence, shew bread, is in later books rgi;'-:?! onS (from 
 r>3"^;*p a row, i]:^;;, to arrange). God of Heaven, is 
 later Jehovah of Hosts, which is itself later than 
 Moses. 
 
 Thus the decay of the Hebrew is not always dis- 
 tinguishable ivom poetic license. For this reason the 
 character of the Hebrew in any book is not a cri- 
 terion of its date or ao^e. 
 
 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? 1 . *^^^j^ ^r^*- 
 The Talmud and the Jewish grammarians and some <^»''^^-'-«^^-*-<^ 
 Christian scholars say that the Hebrew was^dis- ■<Ua^Ky\^ 
 placed by the ArarncBan at the time of the Babylon- 
 ish 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 Aramaean and knew nothing 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. 
 
110 
 
 that Is, until the Maccabees and Syrian domination.^ 
 These advocates are influenced mainly by the hypo- 
 thesis that some of the books of the O. T. were 
 written during this period. Neh. 13: 24 is no proof 
 that the Hebrew was unchanged as a spoken lan- 
 guage. Is. 36 : II does not prove that the Jews 
 still s,^6ktt Hebrew ; nor, on the other hand, does 
 Neh. 8 : 8 prove that they had given up Hebrew 
 and adopted Aramaean. They say that the passage 
 shows that the Levites translated the 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 lan- 
 guage and adopt another, especially as only a part 
 of the people were carried away, and the remainder 
 were not put among Aramaeans. The Prophets too, 
 in the later books, after the exile, would not have 
 used a language unknown to the people. The 
 deterioration of the language4)egan before the exile, 
 though it was accelerated by that exile. The Chaldee 
 was familiar, as seen from Daniel and Ezra.T 
 
 The change was a gradual transformation. Vv^e 
 cannot tell the exact date of the change any more 
 than we can tell that of the Anglo-Saxon Into Eng- 
 lish, 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. Gesenlus 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. 
 
^CCriu^ ^A— Zo-au^^^- 
 
 /t X 
 
 
Ill 
 
 Shultans, 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 
 quadriliterals 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 combina- 
 tions. The stock of words will not go beyond the 
 necessities of a people. Ideas and objects unknown 
 would of course have no words. Simple agricul- 
 tural peoples, 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 af fluen ce 
 of s ynonym s. E. g., there were eight terms for 
 darkness, seven names for the lion, four for the ox, 
 eleven for the different kinds of rain. These and 
 other instances show a great richness and profuse- 
 ness of terms and a careful observation and nicety 
 of distinction between objects and a close study of 
 nature, etc. Thi s quality is favored by the parallel- 
 isms of their poetry. 
 
 The Hebrew is richest in re ligious wor ds, e. g., 
 there are fourteen expressions for confidence in God, 
 nine iov forgiveness of sins, tvj^nty-^vQ for the observ- 
 ance of the Law. 
 
 The structure of the Hebrew language is such as 
 to produce an economy of words and roots. A 
 small number of each do a larae amount of service. 
 The paucity of adjectives is compensated for by the 
 distinctions in abstract nouns. The different species 
 of the same verb express different ideas ; e. g., 
 Come and bring are expressed by different specu 
 of the same verb; so also to eat and to feed ; to 
 learn and to teach ; to ^^ and to lead. 
 
 i^^^ k^A^ cw-^^ yi^out f^ruh 
 
112 
 
 There were also modifications of meaning by the 
 construction of the sentences, e, g., rx^") to see, with 
 different forms has different constructions, and with 
 prepositions can mean to see, look, enjoy, despise, 
 live, choose, provide, visit, leai'n from, aim at, respect, 
 care for, abide for, know, appear, show, perceive. 
 Nouns from the same root, — prophet, vision, mirror, 
 form, sight, vidture (i. e., keen sight.) 
 
 Some lost roots in the Hebrew have left their 
 traces, but can now only be explained by the Arabic. 
 The great number of aixa^ T^yo^eva suggests that a 
 great number of words have been lost. The Arabia : 
 most frequently preserved the pr imitive grammat i- 
 c al form s, but the Hebrew retained the p rimary 
 m eaning s of words the longest. The Arabic has the 
 mosX xerbalsimplic ity, H ebrew next , Aramseic least. 
 In Hebrew the relics of some independent* species 
 are found, which in the other two languages appear 
 rarely, and as imperfect anomalous forms ; e. g,, 
 plural endings, paragogic letters, of which the Arabic 
 shows the formation and connection. The pr^imaix 
 significations of words are retained in the Hebrew, 
 
 io - I , 
 
 when in the cognate languages it has given plice to 
 a derivative and secondary sense, e. g., hd in He- 
 brew always means what, though sometimes used as 
 a negative ; — in the Arabic, it is a negative, njiy in 
 Hebrew means to untie ; in Arabic it means to dwell, 
 to put up for the night, (from the idea of untying the 
 beasts of burden. x\\\t\ to wander, in Hebrew ; in 
 Arabic and Aramaeic means to be idolaters, {i. e., to 
 wander in a religious sense.) ijSri = to go'\v) Hebrew; 
 in Arabic, to peinsh. np^ in Hebrew means to 
 change ; in Arabic and Aramaeic means to change 
 the understanding, to be mad, deranged. -ipi< to say, 
 in Arabic means to say with authority, to command 
 (^English i5;;^/r.) -133 in Hebrew means to cover; 
 in Arabic, to cover the truth, to disbelieve. Hence 
 
/V ^^W^^ ^f^C.^/**y~^ 
 
 
113 
 
 is derived the name of the Kaffir (in Africa.) wlio 
 
 does not beheve the Koran . An exception is the 
 
 Hebrew to miss the mark, to .sv;/, which in Arabic ^ <3 TT 
 
 means the former only. 
 
 Most w ords borrow ed from the S\TJa c and other 
 languao^es are onnected with idolatry. The word 
 which in Syriac means to worship, (njo) in Hebrew 
 means to worship idols. Syriac to supplicate, [^^?2) 
 in Hebrevv means to use enchantment. The Syriac 
 for priests, d-^od, in Hebrew means priests of idols. 
 
 The Hebrew contains a v'we^' few words not of 
 Shemitic extraction. In the Pentateuch; (i) there 
 are several Egyptian words, especially names of ob- 
 jects, persons, places, e. g., -^i^; river (always referring 
 to the Nile,) ^nj< bulrushes, n::o a box, ( the ark in 
 which Moses was put,) hd'^^ an ephah, n;n£) Pharaoh, 
 ^"^35S{ bend the knee. (2) In the later books there are ,^^ ^ Sa^ 
 
 a few names of Indian objects ; there are some San- -^ ^»»*-w^ 
 
 scrit words, c. g.^ ophir, nard, dellian, aloes, ivory, S^ 
 
 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 (ds'^d) 
 
 was a Sanscrit word. (3) Persian words were in tro- (^yxK (<<*7f^//*w> 
 
 duced during the Persian rule. In Ezra, Nehemiah, A^^Ci i^^yUij^ 
 
 Esther, Daniel, and Chronicles; e. g., Satrap; also ^i. //jj;/^ /^./^ 
 
 names of monarchs and coins, as daries dram (Ezra 
 
 8: 27.) Xerxes, Cyrus, Haman ; also the word for 
 
 crimson,* red of worms, (coming to us through the 
 
 Arabic.) Pleasure ground 0173, paradise, in Cant. 
 
 4:13. (4) There are a few names of musical in- 
 
 struments in Dan. borrowed from the Greek. A /^^ ^ 1 - "^ 
 
 number of words are transferred from the Hebrew du*^ yU ^Jjl ■* 
 
 or Phenician into the Greek and from thence into -^L^,^ , -ip 
 
 the Western languages, (a) by Phenicians, (b) b)' ' -- | 
 
 Christians, (c) by modern Jews. Such words are 
 
 hyssop, balsam, copper, ebony, jasper, alphabet, 
 
 amen, ephod, hallelujah, cummin, cinnamon, sapphire, 
 
n-! 
 
 f^- 
 
 kX"" 
 
 ^' 
 
 se;raph, cherub, caballa, jubilee, Sabbath. From the 
 modern Jews we have Rabbi, Sa /hedrim . Targum, 
 Mishna. The Hebrew yielded to the Aramaeic 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 portion of the T almud , is in corrupted 
 Hebrew. The more modern portion of the Talmud 
 is in Aramaeic, the dialect of the people. From the 
 I ith Century onward there is a decided tendency to 
 return to the Hebrew. It is still a learned lanoruao-e 
 among Jewish scholars. 
 
 Shape t)F 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 
 Je wish corn s supposed to belong to the time of the 
 Maccabees, and in the books of the S amaritan' s, we 
 find a round character similar to the Phenician and 
 Samaritan- 
 
 Is, then, the present square character the original 
 one ? 
 
 This was a subject of dispute in the 17th century 
 between the Buxtorfs and Capellus. Buxtor f, a 
 Professor at Basle, together with his son and suc- 
 cessor, maintained that the s quare letters were the 
 o riginal one s. C apellu s, Processor at Somer, first 
 o ppose d this view. The Buxtorfs assumed that 
 " there were two separate characters in use, one the 
 sacre d lett er found in the Bible, the other, the secular 
 letter used in business transactions. This latter one 
 is what was found on the coins. Durme the exile 
 at Babylon, the Priests kept up a knowledge of the 
 sacred writing, but the common secular dialect fell 
 

 ^tr-^f^ ) ^ 
 
115 
 
 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 
 Samaritans borrowed their characters from them. 
 When Ezra returned to Palestine, he restored the . 
 
 old sacred character." This hypothesis ^they sup- ^^^ to^r-o-j^-^i^ 
 ported — ^ (U^^K^^ i^4^. 
 
 1. 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 P ersian s used different 
 methods of writing for history, poetry and letters. 
 The Turks had also a thr eefold char acter. 
 
 2. PTo m 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 ol a y(M^/->v^^ /A^^rv- 
 Sacerdotal character in use among the Hebrews. iu^cl //^/ri?.^^ 
 
 The verse in Isaiah merely means to write plainly. 
 Irenseus is really no authority on this subject, be- 
 cause he was ignorant of the Hebrew language, as 
 other mistakes maSe by him clearly show. The 
 argument from analogy would illustrate the fact if 
 proved, but is no proof in itself. This hypothesis is 
 now abandoned. 
 
 •Gesenius says that the se cular charact er was that 
 in use Fy J udah and Isra el until the Babylonish 
 Captivit y, and then it was preserved by the ten 
 tribes and the Samaritans, while Judah adopted the 
 ch aracter of the ir Babylo nian captor s, /. e., the 
 square character. 
 
 This would 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 w^as used at Babylon. 
 
116 
 
 It is now settled that a ll the Semitic families , as 
 to their al phabe ts, are related to the o ld 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 co cursives. The connecting links between 
 the alphabets we can trace by means of inscriptions 
 at Palmyra and in Egypt. When the change took 
 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 nilll. 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, ''jot^' (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 -» and i, it would show that the sqiuwe 
 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 
 

aw%y* cv^ <^>^ ^jv..^.^^^ Ci^*.*^' 
 
117 
 
 of the Bible had letters of the same shajje in which 
 it was given. To say that the Samaritans had kept 
 the old alphabet and that the Jews lost it, seems to 
 be admittinor the superiority of the Samaritan over 
 the Heb. Bible. The f orm of the letters , however. 
 d oes not affect the purity of the t ex t . 
 
 II. This question was subsidiary-' to anodier, re- i 
 lating to //le antiquity and authority of the voiucls I 
 and accents. ^ 
 
 The Rabbins in the middle ages held that the 
 vowels were either an integral part of the text, or 
 that they w^ere divinely sanctioned as added by Ezra. 
 
 In I 6th Cent. Elias Leviter held that the vowels 
 were ad ded afterw ards by the Jewish grammarians, 
 at Tiberias, The elder Buxtorf replied, trying to 
 show that the vowels were not made by gram- 
 marians. Leviter'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 returned it, confessing 
 the difficulties of the case, and advising him not to 
 publish it. It was printed, however, 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 Capellus, and (2) a 
 proof of the antiquity of the vowel-points. 
 
 His views were adopted by the orthodox party in 
 Europe and England. It was even made an article 
 of faith in one of the Swiss Confessions of Faith, 
 that the vowels and 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 
 unbelievers, and by men who as Jews were under 
 a curse, and were the murderers of Christ. It is i 
 now ad mitte d that the vowels are not jinci ent. We ) 
 may infer this. 
 
^ttt^^ 
 
 118 
 
 1. Because the n iinutene ss of their notation im- 
 pHes that the Hebrew was not a Hving tongue when 
 they were introduced. 
 
 2. From the analoirv of kindred lancruaees. The 
 Syriac^and Samaritan have no vowel points, nor did 
 the Phenicians have an\', nor were an\ found on the 
 coins or on the monuments. The Arabic in the 
 Koran has a few vowels, elsewhere none, 
 
 3. Tr aditio n among the Rabbins, that the v gwel s 
 were h anded down orally until the time ^ ' Ezr a, and 
 that he reduced them to writmg. They are ascribed 
 to him probably in order that they may have the 
 sanction oi inspiration. 
 
 4. The Syn_aCTogue_RoJls, which are greatly es- 
 teemed, h ave no vowel s ; a fact hard to account for, 
 if vowels formed an original part of the text. 
 
 I — uv-A^ 5- ^^^^ different readings of KVi 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 pre sent vowel system was n ot in use^ at 
 t he dme of the Septuagint , as proved by its transla- 
 tion~of some woras in a manner consistent with the 
 consonants, but not with the vowels, as we now have 
 them. 
 
 JJ^ken ivere they introduced? We notice 
 
 (i.) That the le wish ^ramrri arians from the be- 
 ginning of the I ith cen tury had the poin ts, and did 
 not know but that they had always existed. 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 
 
Itc /^>zyl4 -.^7^**^ ^ 
 
^j\\urviLfcU(^ oji 2lJm 
 
 ru/0 
 
 
 
110 
 
 vowel letters; and by accent, he meant vocal utter- 
 ance. It is doubtful whether the falmitd oi the 5th 
 century recognizes them. The Masora does con- 
 tain the names of nearly all the vowels, although the 
 K'ri and Kthibh relate to the consonants. The' 
 general conclusion is that th e point s were i ntroduce d 
 b\^ Jewish grammarians betw een the 5th and loth 
 c entur ies<^with the intention of preventing all am- 
 biguity 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 x^rabic 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 gives us a medium ground.^ The sig.ns 
 are Masoretic, but the sounds are not. There was 
 no Rabbinical trifling with the text, but preserved a 
 rigid accuracy in its pronunciation, besides giving r^ 
 traditional commentary on the text. By careful no- ^r^^ v{^^ . 
 tation they have given us the sounds just as exact ^ /. 
 
 tradition had given those sounds to them. They "^^^^h 
 had good facilities, and were accurate and worthy 
 of our trust. <*/- 
 
 History of the Study of the Heb rew. It may 
 be divided into two periods, i. Among- the Jews. 
 (a) From the introduction of the Masoretic System 
 to the loth century, (b) From the introduction of 
 the Grammatical System in the 10th century to the 
 Reformation. 2. Amo7ig Christians. 
 
 I. Among the Jews. 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 de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, there were schools also at 
 Ti beri as and Bab yloni a. There was no systematic 
 or scientific study of the language, but an adherence 
 
120 
 
 to ancient traditions. 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 Maso ra, which are 
 the notes and the vowels, and the Ta lmud and their 
 Targums or tr anslati ons. 
 
 11. Among Christians. The Fathers of the Church, 
 except the Syrian Christians, were mostly ignorant 
 of Hebrew, but Orjo^e n in the 3d century and Jerome 
 in the 4th century were Hebrew scholars. In the 
 loth century the schools^ere transferred to Sp^n^ 
 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 studied g-j^ am? na tic ally 7\.x\d 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 " Perfecdon,'' was that used by the 
 Reformers, and formed the basis of similar works till 
 very lately. 
 / From the time of Jerome till the i6t!i ,^-century, 
 \ 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. 
 
i.. (?(U<JLt/^^ 
 
 ^y-^T^^c^^c^c^ 
 
 Ca^^-^ *^^^ 
 
 tyiOL^ft 
 
 A-t-^fJ^-^C^ /^MiJ^4-^>^^^ '^-^^ 
 
 <^Ux» 
 
 '^'^^^ X<<rjX^ 
 

 
 C^^4Ucn^ 
 
121 
 
 The first Hebrew Granuner issued by a Christ- 
 ian was made bv Conrad PeHcan in i so^. 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. 
 
 Jo hn Reuch lin was really the father of Hebrew 
 literature andTearninor in the Christian Church. He 
 published in i = ^06 a grammar and dictionary called 
 *' H ebrew Rudimen ts/' closely following the plan 
 introduced by Kim.chi. 
 
 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 Traditio7ia[^ School, in which everything 
 was settled by tradition, even as regarded the mean- 
 ings of words and the construction of sentences, etc. 
 The B uxtorfs 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, seeking for 
 information only in Jewish T argum s. and not in the 
 Septuagint. ^ rtAn oS-Zr-^:^ e*^ ^r^^c-^— ^ -><--fe=- 
 
 II. The Com pcx ra tive_ or Dutch School. The He- 
 brew was compared with the cogma te languag ^^, 
 Arabic and Syriac. The Grammars and Lexicons 
 were a comparison of the various Shemitic dialects. 
 This may be called the Dutch School. The best 
 early Grammar was the Hejita glot Grammar and 
 Lexicon of Edmund Castey, of Cambridge, in He- 
 brew, Persian, Aramaic, Arabic, etc. Schultans of 
 
 , Leyden applied his knowledge of Arabic t6"eTuadate 
 the Hebrew. He was the best representative of this 
 school. This school was too one-sided on the other 
 extreme. No regar d was paid to the Syriac , nor to 
 Rabbinical authority and tradition, and too much to 
 
122 
 
 t he A rabic^ Hence many Imaginary significations 
 are found in their works. 
 
 Ill The Idioniatic School rejected all externa] 
 help s, and substituted a mi nute examination of the 
 text, context, and pa rallel passages of the Scrijj tures 
 tTiemselves. But it also was partial. It said all tril- 
 iteral roots were originally biliteral, and even tried 
 to give each individual letter of the biliteral a distinct 
 meaning, 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 Co mprehensiv e School, including all the 
 former methods. The modern scholars adopt this 
 school. Geseniiis is its best representative. His 
 Lexicon, however, is not faultless. There are a few 
 ctTtaJ ^eyo(i6va whose meanings are not known ; e.£'., 
 the names of some of the clean and unclean beasts 
 in Lev. ii, and some terms used in Is. 3 18-23, 
 articles of apparel. These may hereafter be ex- 
 . plained. They are not important words however. 
 
 /ol^St-^ — -"^ Eaklv Veksions. 
 
 There are fou?' versions of the O. T. which are 
 ancient and immediate. By an immediate version, 
 we mean one made directly from the original and 
 not from any pre-existing versions, which would be 
 a mediate version. By an ancient version, in a 
 technical sense, is meant one made prior^ to the 
 Masorites. To be of any critical authority, it should 
 be both ancient and immediate. A mediate version 
 may be authority in reference to that from which it 
 was taken. These four versions are: 
 
 1. The Greek Septuagint. [ ^ --, 
 
 2. " Chaldee Targums. J 
 
 3. " Syriac Peshito. 
 
 4. " Latin Vulgate. 
 
Uc ^ /^ AMfi^^ J^ca.^ ^/^y^/4r^^^ 
 
 u^. 
 
 , ^ . U_>c-^. <r-v-< 
 
 u ^ ^ 5^ ^ 
 
Zcxx^^^L U^i^^L^.^i^/-^ f^ r^i^'-^:^-^>^„^.t^'^ ^<^c:r-^^^ z'^'^^^. 
 
 O^CjO^ J— 
 
123 
 
 Each of these represents the traditions of a par- 
 ticular locaHty. The Septuagint is that version of 
 the text as held by the Alexandrian Jews. The 
 Targum — by Jews of Palestine. The Syriac Peshito 
 — by the Oriental Church. The Latin Vulgate — by 
 the Western Church. Two of these, the Syriac 
 Peshito and the Vulgate, include the New Testa- 
 ment, and therefore have a critical authority in 
 regard to it also. The LXX.and theTargumare con- 
 fined to the Old Testament. Besides these, there 
 are several versions immediate in the N. T. and 
 mediate in the O. T., and hence are of no critical 
 value except in regard to the N. T. ; c.g.^ the Itala 
 and Philoxejiian Syi'iac. Both of these made from 
 the Greek Bible, and hence give the original of the 
 N. T., but not of the O. T. Other versions are 
 mediate in both ; e. g., the Anglo-Saxon, made from 
 the Latin. This would also be called a modern 
 version. 
 
 I. The Septuagint. 
 
 The first language into which the O. T. was trans- 
 lated was the Greek, and the Septuagint was the 
 first translation. There, is now much doubt and 
 uncertainty as to its origin. According to a letter 
 purporting to have been written by Aristeas to his 
 brother Philocrates (see Smith's Dictionary, p. 2919, 
 Vol. IV.), Ptolemy Philadelphus sent Demetrius 
 Phalereus to Jerusalem to obtain a copy of the 
 Jewish Law for his library. The High Priest Eleazar 
 chose six interpreters from each tribe, seventy-two 
 in all, and sent them with a copy of the Law in 
 letters of gold. These men, by conference and 
 comparison, translated the Bible. Josephus gives 
 the same account. 
 
 Other writers say that the interpreters were shut 
 up, two by two, in cells, and made out separate 
 copies, and that all the versions agreed in every let- 
 
124 
 
 ter, when compared There are differences of opin- 
 
 ^•^^ ion about this letter of Aristeas. Some regard it as 
 
 '^■'^AA^ spurious;^ other receive it in part, and assume that 
 
 ^^^-^^"^^ the pentateuch was thus prepared, but the rest was 
 
 added afterwards. The majority of critics reject it 
 
 altoc^ether. The historical and internal evidences 
 
 are against it. The int ernal evide nce of the LXX. 
 
 shows that it was made by Alex ^ndrj an jews, and 
 
 not by the Jews of Palestine, and that it was not 
 
 done by one _perso n or at ^ne time . It was called 
 
 forth by the need of the Greek-speaking jews^of 
 
 having a copy for their own use. 
 
 The Pentateuch was translated first, and Daniel 
 last, judging from the character of the translation. 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus began to reign 283 B. C. The 
 whole of the O. T. must have been translated before 
 the year 130 B. C, as it is spoken of in the prologue 
 to the Book of Sirach, which was made in that year. 
 The language is Hellenistic Greek^ Different 
 portions of the version are of different character. 
 The Pentateuch is th e be st, but Dariiel was so incor- 
 rect, that after the time of Origen it was laid aside, 
 and another by Theodotian was substituted for it, 
 and this is the one we have. Ecclesiastes is slavishly 
 I c^^iju- literal, to a disregard of the plainest rules^ In Jer- 
 
 /TyVt^^A*-^ emiah, verses and chapters are transposed out of 
 
 ^'^^^^^^ their proper order. ^ The translation, in places, 
 
 shows great liberty in omission and insertion, the 
 most remarkable instance being the systematic var- 
 iation and alteration in the chronology of chapters 6 
 and 1 1 of Genesis. The Samaritan translation also 
 differs from the Hebrew chronology. This Greek 
 Septuagint version was held in the highest venera- 
 tion in Alexandria and Palestine. Many held it to 
 be inspired. It was read in the Synagogues of the 
 Greek Jews in Palestine, and was used by Josephus, 
 Philo, the Aposdes and the Evangelists. The Chris- 
 
/^\^,f»^^..^..S^ tl^ i'l^/.^wT-/" , -'^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 /2^/_^. ^ ^^y/^-~ '^' 
 
 i^-1\UjU^ (2^t-<L>*-7 
 

 CX^^f^J^'^'*— 
 
 C-^'^"^ — c_ n^->-«=«--^ 
 
125 
 
 tian Fathers received it with the same veneration as 
 the Hebrew Bible. As, in their controversies, the 
 Christians drew their arguments from the LXX., the 
 Jews gradually fell back on the Hebrew original, and 
 hence began to give up the LXX., and at length 
 des])ised it. 
 
 Mutual recriminations arose between the Jews 
 and Christians, as to who had corrupted the text. A 
 number of new translations arose hum either party ; 
 e. £\, Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus. These 
 versions did not attain to ecclesiastical sanction or 
 general use, and hence are only preserved in a frag- 
 mentary state. 
 
 Acjuila, thought by some to be the same as On- 
 kelos, a Jewish proselyte of Sinope in Pontus, during 
 the second century. His version was sl avishly lit- 
 _eral, even to the particles; e. £,,avv is often inserted 
 (as in Gen. i. i) where the preposition really belongs 
 to the verb. The idiom of the Greek is violated in 
 order to»^ive an exact rendering. 
 
 Theodotian, an Ephesian of the second century. 
 His translation was really a revision of the LXX. 
 His translation ot Daniel is used in place of the 
 LXX.'s translation of that book, which was very 
 faulty. 
 
 S ymmach us. an P^bionite, translated with great 
 f reedom , el eganc e and purity. (See Smith's Dic- 
 tionary, page 3379.) 
 
 In the course of repeated transcriptions, the text 
 of the LXX. has suffered greatly, until Origen com- 
 plained that every manuscript contained a distinct 
 text. To remedy this, and to furnish aid to Chris- 
 tians in controversy, Origen undertook the labor ot 
 removing the discrepancies by comparing the best 
 MSS.,and pointing out their agreement^with the ^ ^^^^ ^ 
 original Hebrew arid with other Greek versions. 
 
This work was called the Hexaple. He spent 
 twenty years on it. It was so called because it had 
 six parallel columns. The first column contained 
 the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters ; the second, 
 the Hebrew text in Greek characters, so as to be 
 pronounced more readily ; the third contained the 
 version o^ Aquila ; the fourth, the version of Syni- 
 macJius ; the fifth, that of Theodotion ; and the sixth, 
 the Septuagint text. Besides these, there were two 
 or three additional columns for different /<^r//^/e'^r- 
 sions. These supplementary versions are only known 
 from their connection with this Hexapla, and a few^ 
 citations from them. Their authors are for the most 
 part unkown. They are called Ouinta, Sexta, and 
 Septima, from their respective places in the Hexapla. 
 The author of the Sexta was probably a Christian, 
 for in Habakkuk 3:18, instead of the phrase " thine 
 anointed," he substitutes "Jesus, thy Christ." 
 ^^^ The Hexapla was chiefly exegetical and polemi- 
 vi^L^ /m*^*^ cal./^The purpose was not so much to bring back 
 c^yj^ ^'^'^''^ the Septuagint to its primitive condition as to ade- 
 ^^ quately represent the original Hebrew. The plan 
 
 of Origen was, when any words occurred in the He- 
 brew which were not in the LXX., to insert theni 
 from one of the other versions, generally from The- 
 odotion s, and these were indicated by an asterisk. 
 If, on the other hand, there were any words in the 
 LXX. which were not found in the Hebrew, he pre- 
 fixed an obelisk to them to indicate the fact. 
 
 In addition to the Hexapla of Origen, mention is 
 made by early writers of a Tetrap la and O eta pi a. It 
 is not agreed whether these" are distmct works or 
 another name for the Hexapla. The Tetrapla may 
 have been so called (i) as containing \\\^ four prin- 
 cipal versions of the Hexapla, or (2) as being a sep- 
 arate publication of those four versions by themselves 
 without the original. 
 
 0A^' 
 
X^^tr-rr 
 
 yf~t> /C*-*^ 
 

 /^ fi'Hu^ - rifA^- /^Z^ .ii-^^l^ ^6- ^.^^ >4 >^^-^-^*^*2^ 
 
127 
 
 This work was too cumbrous for ,£^eneral use, 
 and probably was never completely transcribed. It 
 . was used chiefly for comparison or for makinjj^ ex- 
 tracts. After the death of Origen. it was preserved 
 at Caesarea, and was probably destroyed at the sack 
 of the Saracens. Fragments of it have been collected 
 and published at various times.- ^ov^, uw ■Uc /Os-«^ — 
 
 These labors of Origen indirectly tended to in- 
 crease the variations, for transcribers often neglected 
 his marks of variation and so confounded the ver- 
 sions. 
 
 Lucia n of Antioch and H esychj us of Egypt tried 
 to correct the LXX., but alT attempts to find out 
 their readings have been in vain. All w^e know is 
 that their labors did not give us a uniform text, for 
 Jerome still complained of a great diversity of texts 
 in his day. . 
 
 The MSS. of to day are not uniform. A great^/>^ ' 
 number of MSS. of the LXX. in the libraries of 
 Europe have been examined. The principal ones 
 are the Co dex Alexa ndrinus in the British Museum, r\ \ 
 the Co dex Y^tica nus in the Vatican Library at Rome, fj \ 
 and the C^d ex Sinait icus at St. Petersburg. l he \J^ \. 
 first portion of the LXX. printed was the Psaker, 
 two editions of which appeared Before the entire O. 
 T. was printed in Greek. 1 48^-jj^. The Greek 
 Old and New^ Testaments were first printed in the 
 Com plutensian Poly olot, in 1522^ During the delay 
 in issumg this edition, the Aldme, from Aldus Minu- 
 tius, appeared in 15 18. Both claimed to have fol- 
 lowed ancient MSS. ~ ^5.....^-tk_:r ^-^^ ^^^^i-^-^ .^^n^<^^ ^ 
 ^ A large number of mediate versions were made 
 from the LXX., the early Fathers being familiar with 
 Greek and not with Hebrew, most commonly trans- 
 lating from the Greek. The oldest Latin version is 
 the /^a/a. The Syro-Hexaplaric of the seventh cen- 
 tury follows the text of Origen's Hexapla. The 
 
128 
 
 Ethiopic version of the fourth century, also severa 
 Egyptian versions in the Coptic language, in the 
 third and fourth centuries, the Armenian in the early 
 part of the fifth century, the Georgic in the sixth 
 century, the Slavonic in the ninth, and several A^^a- 
 bic and one valuable Gothic version by Bishop Ulfi- 
 las, in the fourth century, of which the O. T. has 
 perished, and only a portion of the N. T. exists. 
 
 The Critical Value of the LXX. is variously 
 estimated ; some giving it no weight whatever, and 
 others placing it above the Masoretic Hebrew. 
 Morinus affirms the superiority of the LXX. and so 
 also does Capellus, who tried to show that in many 
 instances the readings of the LXX. were preferable 
 to the Hebrew. This was regarded as against the 
 authority of the Hebrew. Some modern critics also 
 prefer the LXX. The majority, however, while val- 
 uing it greatly, affirm that the M asoretic text is the 
 best and not to be corrected by the LXX. / 
 
 II. Chaldee Targums. 
 
 These ancient versions or paraphrases are called 
 c^j^'^y^joJ'-^^^ Targums from a C hald ee root meaning to explain, 
 or translate. 1 he word Dragoman, still used in the 
 East, is derived from the same root. In Ezra 4 : 7, 
 the word is translated ''interpret!' These Targums 
 are para phrases and not exact versions. ;,The Jewish 
 account of them is, that when the Chaldee became 
 the language of the people, and the Hebrew was no 
 longer intelligible, each synagogue appointed an in- 
 terpreter, as well as a reader, who should translate 
 into Chaldee the Scriptures as read. For the sake 
 of greater certainty and accuracy these extempor- 
 aneous translations were superseded by written ver- 
 sions, called Targums. They are distinct works by 
 various authors and at different times, each contain- 
 ing one or more books of the O. T. They are var- 
 iously reckoned. 
 
 (c^ 
 

 / y--- - - ■^■'- 
 
 ,fc. 
 
^.._..^, ^^/^yi-^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 ^-♦-^ <1 .' '-'*'^--'-^ 
 
 
 jU>..<w^? lA- fbli>->^ 
 
 fMi 
 
1-29 
 
 The are eleven principal ones. vi/.. three on the' 
 Pentateuch, Onkelos, PseudoJonatlian^AXXiX \\\^yeru- 
 salem ; two on the Prophets, Jonathan Ben-Uzzie/, 
 and the Jerusalem ; one on the Hafrioij^rapha by ) 
 Joseph the Blind containincr Job, Psalms, and Pro- 
 verbs ; 07ie on the hve small books called Aleoilloth. 
 viz., Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations. Esther, Eccle- 
 siastes ; three on Esther ; dne on /. and //. Chron- 
 icles. 
 
 The mo st ancient and valuable is that on the 
 Pe ntat euch, by O nkelos , and that on the Prophets, ' 
 by Jon athan Be n-Uzziel. These two are distin 
 ouished from all the rest by the purity of their 
 Chaldee, which approaches that ol" Daniel and Plzra. 
 They are free from the legends of the later Tar- 
 gums, and from arbitrary additions, although )on- 
 athan followed the original less closely than Onkelos. 
 These two are highly esteemed by the Jews. i 
 Onkelos refers Gen. 49: 10 and Num. 24: 17 to ( 
 the Messiah; Jonathan refers Isaiah 53^ to the 
 Messiah; according to Jewish tradition, they were 
 both pupils of Hillel, a distinguished teacher of 
 Jerusalem, who died 60 B. C. The accounts are 
 obscure, Onkelos being by some confounded with 
 Aqulla. 
 
 The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Penta- 
 teuch was so called because it was erroneously 
 ascribed to the Jonathan above mentioned, whereas 
 its barbarous Chaldee and historical allusions assign 
 it to the seventh century. 
 
 The Jerusalem Targum is so called either from 
 the place where it was made, or from the dialect in 
 which it was written. It is not complete. ^ It fre- 
 quently corresponds with the Pseudo- Jonathan, it 
 is doubtful whether it is original, or a compilation 
 from other Targums. 
 
130 
 
 The remainder of the Tar^ums are of compara- 
 tively modern date, written in wretched Chaldee, 
 and utterly worthless for purposes of criticism^ 
 There are nojargum s on Danie l, Ezra, and N ehe- 
 miah. The Talmud says that Daniel reveals the 
 exact time of the Messiah's advent, and therefore 
 should not be made known to the people. The most 
 probable reason was that these books were written 
 in inspired Chaldee, and they were unwilling to 
 mingle with it their uninspired Chaldee. 
 
 III. The Syriac Version. 
 
 This was likewise written in the Aramaic toni^aie. 
 The Peshito, or Old Syriac. It was called Peshito, 
 or " Simple'' (i,) either because of its literal charac- 
 ter as a translation, or (2,) because of its plain, una- 
 dorned, and simple style, or (3,) because it clings to 
 the literal interpretation, as opposed to the allegor- 
 ical. It is evidently the work of a Christian trans- 
 lator, perhaps a converted Jew, inasmuch as this was 
 made dir ectly from the Hebr g-W. and with great 
 accuracy. Most of the ancient versions^are made 
 from the LXX. The age of this old Syriac" version 
 is disputed, and its origin obscure. It is the basis of 
 the Christian literature of the old Syrian church. It 
 was known in the fourth century, for Ephraim Syrus, 
 who died A. D. 378, makes it the basis of his com- 
 mentary, and says that it was in common use in the 
 Syrian church. It has been ascribed to the third, 
 second, and even to the first century, prepared dur- 
 ing the lifetime of the Apostles themselves. It is 
 urged in favor of its age that it was generally received 
 in the time of Ephraim Syrus, and that many words 
 and phrases were at that time obscure, and besides, 
 the early Syrian church would require such a version. 
 On the other hand, it is not supposable that it could 
 have existed more than a century before any other 
 Christian writings appeared in that language. This 
 
u-t^^^^^U-fr-^-— ^ 
 
 k^^ 
 
131 
 
 originally contained only the Canonical books. The i 
 Apocryphal books were afterwards added^. It con- I 
 tinned to be the received translation amontr them 
 until the controversy between the Monophysites and 
 the Nestorians ^ave rise to another. 
 
 Paul, Bishop of Tela, made the Syro Hexaplaric \ 
 version from the Septuagint of Origen's Hexapla, ' 
 early in the seventh century; English translation of 
 it by Dr. Murdoch of New Haven. 
 
 IV. LaTiN Versions. 
 
 From a statement made by Augustine, there 
 must have been several Latin versions. He says that 
 those who translated into Greek from the Hebrew 
 could be numbered, but the Latin translators could in 
 no manner be counted. He speaks of one of them 
 under the name of the //a/a. To this he gives prefer- 
 ence on account of its superior accuracy and perspic- 
 uity. All these Latin versions were made, not from 
 the Hebrew, but from the Greek, — from the LXX. in 
 the Old Testament, and from the original Greek in 
 the New. This variety of translations produced 
 such confusion and so many discrepancies, that it 
 was complained that there were almost as man\ 
 different texts as there were MSS. 
 
 Repeated solicitations were accordingly made ot 
 Jerome, a monk of Palestine, the most learned man 
 of his time, equally skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and 
 Latin, that he should undertake the revision and I 
 correction of the Latin versions. In 382 or 383 
 A. D., at the urgent request of Damasus, Bishop of 
 Rome, he began a hasty revision of the Gospels, 
 then proceeded to the r^sl of the N. T., and then ^^^^^^/l TVI^ 
 passed to the Psalms,/^nd^ reviewed them afterward ^ 
 
 more carefully. The first of these two revisions ot 
 the Psalms by Jerome was adopted at Rome and 
 hence was called the Roman Psalter. The second 
 was adopted in Gaul and hence was called the irallic 
 
132 
 
 
 J' 
 
 Psalter. Jerome, after 
 
 over many books of 
 
 K^n 
 
 the O. T.^hen resolved upon a new and independ- 
 ent version fr om the original Heb rew^. He ob- 
 tained aT considerable expense the assistance of 
 native Jews, and made use also of pre-existing 
 Greek versions. Such was the veneration for the 
 LXX. that every departure from it was regarded as 
 a deviation from the word of God and offensive to 
 Him. Even Augustine begged him to desist. 
 Jerome persevered, nevertheless, but kept as closely 
 to the LXX. as possible, sometimes against his better 
 judgment. He began in 385, but the work was not 
 completed and published until 405. Some parts 
 were hastily prepared. He speaks of translating a 
 thousand verses in one day and says that he trans- 
 lated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, in three 
 days. 
 
 This translation is one of the best preserved to 
 us from antiquity. It was long in coming into gene- 
 ral use. The old Itala continued to be used in 
 connection with it until about the beginning of the 
 seventh century, when all the Western Church ac- 
 cepted it, but retained the old version of the Psalter^ 
 
 The moder n Vulgate consists of the Apocrypha 
 from the Itala, the Psalter of the Itala corrected by 
 Jerome, and the rest is Jerome's version. The Itala 
 and Vulgate have been corrected by each other, and 
 hence both have become corrupted. Repeated 
 attempts have been made by later scholars to cor- 
 rect the text of the Latin Bible. The learned Alcuin 
 in the ninth century, under the direction of Charle- 
 magne, undertook the restoration of the true text. 
 Also Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury in eleventh 
 century and Cardinal Michaelis of the twelfth 
 century. There were several works in the twelfth 
 and thirteenth centuries called the " Correctoria 
 Biblica" or* Epanorthica/' containing also different 
 
c^-j- €^ ^-la- fyptJ^^ C^.cMy'j ^"^ 
 
183 
 
 readings, especially the Sorbonne Edition and that 
 
 of Hugo St. Clair^x^ U:^ Sw^e/trt...r-«57 t^ "f^ ^ n^ ^07>^^^<^, 
 
 Great importance was given to mis Latin version 
 by a decision of the C ouncil ^ f_Txent. On the 8th 
 of April, 1546. it was decreed that the Vj^hrate, 
 should be held as authentic in public reading, preach- 
 ing and exposition, and that no one should dare or 
 presume to reject it on any pretense whatever. 
 This decree accordingly contained an order for the 
 printing of an accurate edition. A standard edition 
 was published in 1590 under the direction of Pope 
 Sixtus v., called tHeS ixtine edition. This was de- 
 clared to be the o ne pronounced authent ic by the 
 Council of Trent, and the printing of aTny other copy 
 different from this was forbidden under penalty of 
 excommunication. Errors were immediately dis- 
 covered in it, however, and only two years after. 
 Cle rnent VIj I. published a new edition diflering; 
 fronTTTie other i n some thousands of place s, and 
 this last is now the standard edition of the Vulgate. 
 This action of the Popes has always been a sore 
 point with those who hold the doctrine of the Papal 
 Infallibility. 
 
 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 ^z£^^ 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 abbreviated Rabbhiica/ 
 letter or running hand. 
 
134 
 
 I. The Synagogue MSS. These are the most 
 valuable, and contain those portions of the O. T. 
 which were selected for reading in the Synagogues ; 
 /. e., the Law and the Prophets. 
 X (a) The Law was on one 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 
 iMSS., called Hapkthei^oth, ^nd 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 for the five smaller 
 books, i, e., the Megilloth, viz., Esther, Ecclesiastes, 
 Canticles, Ruth, and Lamentations. Esther was read 
 \ at the feast of Purini. These M SS. or roll s were 
 ^ pre pared with the greatest car e, according to rules 
 given in the T'almud, which were superstitiously mi- 
 nute?'-^They m.ust be written on parchment prepared 
 from the skin of a clean anirnal. 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. 
 
*^ 
 
 
 14^. 
 
i^^j.^^^ azu^ A^- ^^^^^ ^' 
 
 ^x.^^-'^^-*<«^ 
 
 
 Tu^iL^^ */ f'-'^ 
 
 ^A.-^^^— '^"'- 
 
 
^.^ 
 
 135 
 
 11. Private MSS. These are rarely complete. 
 They oenerally contain only parts of the O. T. 
 Sometime are written in rolls, but generally bound 
 in books of various sizes. 
 
 (a) Those which were written in the square char- 
 acter are most valuable, and contai n^ the points and 
 vowejs. The letters were written first, the points 
 
 and vowels being added afterwards^. One wrote ^^^ urdt ^ 
 the consonants, another the vowels and the K^ri. ^^6 ^^^ 
 Another corrected it. Another added the Masbra ^T^ 
 and Scholia. Thev 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 outer mar- 
 gin the scholia or some y?<2/^<5/;/?V^/ commentary^ the 
 inner margin the K'ri and Little Masora. Some- 
 times the material was parchment, but oftener linen 
 or cotton paper. 
 
 (b) The Private MSS. in the Rabbimcal charac 
 ter are mostly on paper, wi thout pomt s, accents, or 
 Masora, and with many abbreviations. 
 
 Those MSS. designed for the use of the Syna- 
 go^es are*TEe most important. The Private MSS. 
 in the square characters are next in value, and the 
 Private MSS. in the Rabbinical character are least 
 ii^portant.<: ^ ^-<>.-/^— ^-^^ >--^ -^-^^^" 
 /The determination of the age of Hebrew MSS. 
 \k very difficult, especially if there be no date or in- 
 scription. A criterion available in Greek or Latin ^ u^c^titv^ 
 MSS., drawn from the shape of the lettersjs not 
 available here, because the s quare le tter is the same 
 in all e xisting MSS . Some MSS. have subscriptions 
 givmg the date, but some of these are found to be 
 fraudulent and are added to increase the value. 
 
^ 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 '-^7*^ 
 
 IM 
 
 /^-^' 
 
 There is great difficulty in interpretino- 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 PijTjier and others. Pinner gives an account of 
 several Hebrew MSS. found at Odessa, which must 
 be by several centuries the oldest known to exist, if 
 ^ his word can be taken. What he regards as the 
 (%j'<S^ ^Cz!/^ oldest, is the Pentateuc h Ro ll on leather, which was 
 A^^o>t ^^'^Z^^^. brought to Odessa from Dhagristan. The sub- 
 
 scription says that it was corrected m 580, hence it 
 is probably much older than that. Another was 
 written in 843, another in 881. 
 
 The oldest MSS. in DeBi^se's collection were 
 some rescued from the Genesa at Lucca, where the 
 Jews were accustomed fo 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 1 01 8 A. D. > 
 
 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 Samaritari Pentateuch, and there is a 
 Samaritan Version of the Pe^itateuch. The first is 
 the Hebrew 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. 
 
 The Samaritans now consist of a few families in 
 Nablous. They seem to have lived in small com- 
 
 >^. 
 
,^-f1 ^-^^ — 
 
 
 ^/>^^ if 
 
 — =-— = — ^ ^ x<r» — - '^ — ) 
 
 ^Ic^ i^^/O^ tU^ ,>..Ao /cf^ ^(W^>V _ 
 
1:^7 
 
 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 V^ersion ot 
 the Pentateuch, he retained himself. 
 
 Since this time, various other copies of the Sam- 
 aritan Pentateuch have been obtained by Euro- 
 pean scholars. The opinions of scholars vary as to 
 its value. Its first publisher, Murinus, 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 priest- 
 hood 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 
 not adopt their books. It was further urged that 
 the Samaritans received of all the books of 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 legitimate descendants of the ten tribes, but 
 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- 
 
138 
 
 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 w^ould 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 
 Christian Church to reject the epistles of Paul, &c. 
 The contents did not suit their creed. The grand 
 Article of Faith with the Samaritans, was, that on 
 Mt. Gerizim everybody should worship, and not at 
 Jerusalem. The Pentateuch was altered for this 
 purpose in more than one place. And all those 
 books which speak of a local seat of God's house 
 after the people were settled in Canaan, were reject- 
 ed by them from the canon ; but Moses they could 
 not reject The opinion that it was derived at the 
 schism of Jeroboam has been given up for the rea- 
 sons given. The period of the defection of Man- 
 assas, is the best that can be obtained. 
 
 While the Samaritan and the Jewish Pentateuch 
 agree in the main, yet they differ in several thou- 
 sand readings. A large portion consists merely of 
 the insertion of vowel letters, or the insertion or 
 omission of the copulative conjunction or the article, 
 
139 
 
 or other trifliiig variations. Quite a number, how- 
 ever, are of greater consequence. In upwards of a 
 thousand readings it agrees with the Septuagint as 
 against the Masoretic text. The manuscripts are 
 written with Httle care and exhibit many discrepan- 
 cies among themselves. These are of no critical 
 value ; yet they agree in many particulars. The 
 investigations of Gesenius have shown that the 
 great body were intentio nal alterat ions of the text, 
 made for the purpose of simplifying, etc., the reasons 
 for which can still be assigned. Gesenius gives 
 several classes. 
 
 1. Grammatical emendations; unusual forms 
 changed for the more ordinary ; archaisms avoided ; 
 want of agreement between verb and subject, noun 
 and adj.. etc., in very many cases agreeing with the 
 K'ri. 
 
 2. System of explanatory glosses; dilRcuk words 
 or unusual forms of speech explained ; some simpler 
 phrase or word used without varying the sense. 
 
 3. Conjectural emendation of a letter or two, to 
 improve the sense and to remove imaginary difficul- 
 ties. 
 
 4. Alterations for the sake of conforming to 
 parallel passages; e. g., the father-in-law of Moses, 
 in Ex. 4: 18, is said to be Jether, which the Samari- 
 tans make Jethro. The name of Moses' successor, 
 which the Bible occasionally gives in a different way, 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch gives as Joshua. In the 
 genealogies, Gen. 11," and he died" is added to the 
 name of every patriarch, as ir^ the fifth chap. When- 
 ever any names of the Canaanitish tribes occur, the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch gives all of them. 
 
 5. The fifth class of corrections involve still 
 greater interpolation, where whole sentences, and 
 often verses, are interpolated. 
 
Xt^y 
 
 
 <^ . M^I.^n^-.^^ 1 ^'hJrv^ 6^'^^~ y^'o Xr^^^ 
 
 
141 
 
 mate aim of criticism is the restoration of the text as 
 it came from the hands of the sacred penman. It 
 does not produce uncertainty. It estabhshes the 
 correctness of the received text. 
 
 The sources of textual criticism are four-fold. i. 
 Manuscripts. 2. Versions. 3. Quotations. 4. 
 Conjectures. 
 
 1. Manuscript s are liable to error in transcription. 
 If it were not for this they would be certain evidence. 
 These errors are by accident or design. 
 
 (i.) Ein'ors by accident. Liability to error was 
 greater formerly than now Yet even now enata 
 are common in printed books. They increase in 
 arithmetical progression in the old manuscripts. 
 There are, (a) errors of the eye. (b) Errors of the 
 ear, one reading while another writes, (c) Errors 
 of memory, causing transposition, omission, inter- 
 change, taking parallel passage, etc. (d) Errors of 
 judgment. The erroneous divisions of words ; mis- 
 understanding abbreviations, mistaking syllables for 
 words, and marginal remarks for part of the text. 
 ( 2 . ) Ei^rors by design . The early Christians charged 
 the Jews and heretics with intentional errors ; with 
 reo[^ard to the former thev were crroundless. Manu- 
 scripts were subjected to intentional alterations, 
 made to introduce corrections, etc. This was done 
 designedly, though with good motives ; yet it was no 
 less a mistake. 
 
 The first consideration in determining the authen- 
 ticity of a manuscript is its date j. another, the care 
 with which it was written, whether there are marks 
 of carelessness ; again, the gene_ral_agTeejTient ol the 
 text with oth er valuable manuscr ipts. 
 
 2. The second class of critical auth^ Titles are the 
 ancient versions. By their critical value is meant 
 the aid they give in restoring or setding the true 
 text of Scripture ; their hermeneutical value.- They 
 
142 
 
 place before us the system of interpretation adopted 
 
 by the translators. To these may be added the ex- 
 
 egetical value of a version, the aid which they render 
 
 us^ Now different versions are of unequal merit in 
 
 these various respects. 
 
 ^ These two uses are quite independent of each 
 
 .j^ other. No version can have critical value unless it 
 
 \ ■ . is both andent and i7miiediate ; the older the better; 
 
 ju^<yrJf^^^ the nearer the fountain-head, the purer the stream. 
 
 ^-^" Those before the Masorites are called a7icient. Since 
 
 that time the text is the same as we have before us. 
 
 Some have even proposed to sub stitute a vers ion 
 for the onginal. So the Co uncil of Tr ent did in 
 regard to rhe Vulgate, which they declared authen- 
 tic. None shall reject it. Some doctors of the 
 Romish Church understand this to leo^itimatize its 
 use ; others understand it to set aside other copies 
 in favor of this. We cannot make the stream 
 higher than its source. No one is willing to rely 
 upon translations, if he can read the original. 
 
 None can vie with the original Scriptures as being 
 universally received and authoritative. No one has 
 ever claimed the Vulgate to be inspired, (i) The 
 only grounds would be that the original has become 
 hopelessly corrupt, or (2) wholly unintelligible. For 
 the first, it must be shown that this corruption did 
 not enter before the version was made. As to the 
 second, it must be shown that the version has been 
 kept pure itself. It has been shown that the original 
 tA Scriptures have been preserved purer than any 
 j.*jL^ other. | And that it is ^intelligible without points, 
 
 which are of human authority. 
 
 This argument is at fault both in the premises 
 and in the conclusion. The Heb rew Bible _can bg 
 r ea.d withou t the points. ( Ancient and valuable 
 translations may be used as helps, but not sub- 
 
 
^ 4^-7^^^ ^h^ ^ <^-C(^ o-''-^^''^^ '^ j^ 
 
 9tncJ-^ jC. €Z <^CZ^xyy^ 
 
 C^y>^ O-J^ 5 
 
143 
 
 stituted in its place. This argument has been 
 abandoned by the greater number. 
 
 Versions are not of as great importance as man 
 uscripts. If a copy is taken from a manuscript and 
 one from a version, the version would be one step 
 from the source. Ma nuscrip ts, therefore, are the 
 p rimary auth orises in criticisms, versions of second 
 a~ry authority^ No new reading on the sole author- 
 ity of versions should be admitted, though they may 
 lend their aid. It is necessary to institute careful 
 examinations of the versions, separately. The first 
 inquiry must be as to the state of the version itself. 
 The work of the version depends upon the accuracy 
 of the copy from which it is made. 
 
 Versions have another source of corruption peculiar 
 to themselves, viz., the interpretation and correction 
 of one version from another. When the primary 
 text of the immediate versions has been obtained, 
 the question arises, does it give a free or literal 
 translation ? If free, it is of little worth to the critic. 
 Further, if it gives a paraphrase, it increases the 
 hermeneutical value, but ruins it for critical pur- 
 poses. For the aid of the critic, it is better if it 
 renders every particle, however unintelligible it 
 might be made. 
 
 Closely allied with the preceding is the nature of 
 the language into which the version was made. 
 The closer the affinity between the languages, the 
 clearerthe meaning, and the less the change. A 
 versiofvin^o Syriac would have an advantage over 
 one into the Greek or the Latin. 
 
 Another point is the general accuracy of the ver- 
 sions, including the fideHty and ability' of the trans- 
 lators. The use of a version inTHe criticism of the 
 original requires great caution. 
 
 3. Third source of criticism is q uotations found 
 in the early writers. The first printed editions 
 
144 
 
 known to have been taken from ancient manuscripts^ 
 since lost^ are entitled to credit, corresponding to 
 their respective sources. Some internal grounds 
 arisincT from these various readinos themselves. The 
 most general rule is, that i^eading which zvill give the 
 most satisfactory accottnt of all the othei^s is p7^obably 
 the true one. For this reason the most difficult read- 
 ing is often to be regarded as the original one. Yet 
 this rule must be used with caution. Again, that 
 reading which gives the best sense, and agrees best with 
 the text ; the style of the author also may furnish a 
 presumption in favor of one reading. An improper 
 use has often been made of parallel passages. 
 Copies sometimes give parallel passages instead of 
 the true one. It is particularly so with the Psalms. 
 Discrepancies are often j)roof of the conscientious 
 care with which they are preserved. 
 
 4. Where everything else fails, recourse must be 
 had to critical conjecture. Our object should be to 
 determine what the text actually was, not to deter- 
 mine what it might have been. Our authorities are 
 so ample that critical conjecture is only to be re- 
 sorted to in extreme cases, or not at all. This is 
 much more extensively used in the profane writings. 
 
 The general result of all this is to establish the 
 
 correctness^ of the inspired text. None of them 
 
 '^''c(^^ materially affect the inspired text. While the 
 
 -^mechanical correctness of the text is maintained, its 
 
 ' correctness in the main is established. There could 
 
 have been no mutilations before the time o f^the 
 
 Sa vio ur, for He or the Apostles would have exposed 
 
 them. They charge the Jews with other sins, but 
 
 not with this. To this agrees their own scrupulous 
 
 adherence to the word of God. and their supersti 
 
 tious veneration for it. It has n ot been change d 
 
 sjnce the time of the Saviour, froni the impossibility 
 
 of Jews combining to corrupt them, scattered as they 
 
--0 / i ■A-" 
 
 .r^ 
 
145 
 
 are over the world. Then they had no acce ss to 
 those in the hand s of the Christia ns. ' 
 
 "" TheTnternal evidence of their Scriptures is the 
 same as the Christians have. The charges of this na- 
 ture made by the early Christians seem to have arisen 
 from the veneration in which the Septuagint was 
 then held. While the Jews were guiltless of wilful 
 alteration, they took great pains to prevent error s, 
 which are almost unavoidable m repeated transcrip- 
 tions. Even the size of the letters, position of the 
 letters, finals and medials, etc., were transmitted from 
 age to age, and so printed in our Hebrew Bible. 
 Guarding it thus, they counted the verses, words, 
 and even the letters of Scripture, marking the mid- 
 dle word, etc., showing the disposition to preserve 
 them entire. 
 
 The m ass of critici sm called the Masora accumu- 
 lated gra3TraITyT"THe^ beginning was very early. It 
 is now very unwieldy. There are the Great Masora 
 and the Little Masora : the latter is an abridgement 
 of the former. To the Masora belong the K'ri and 
 the K'thibh, {read and wriHen^ referring exchi^ively 
 to the lette rs, never to the vowels. They are about 
 one thousand in number. The origin of these 
 various readings is involved in orreat uncertainty. 
 Perhaps from the collation of MSS. It seems plain _^ yf, .^ 
 that all^did not arise from this source. Many arose ^^^ 
 perhaps from a desire for grammatical uniformity. 
 K'thibh refers to the original text, the K'ri is a gloss 
 upon it. The K'thibh and K'ri do not stand side 
 by side as resting upon independent authority. The 
 K'thibh was placed in the text, and required it to be 
 read accordincr to the K'ri in the margin. This 
 seems to show that the Masora found already in 
 existence a text which was to be considered true 
 and unalteredJThey made no alterations in the 
 
 Asr^^ 
 
 lUW^ 
 
146 
 
 The first portion of the Hebrew Bible ever jjripted 
 was the Psalms, in 1^477^ accompanied by a com- 
 mentary. The Hebrewjlble was printed entire at 
 St. Senna in the ducEyof Milan, in 1488 ; only nine 
 copies of this are known to be in existence. The 
 l*^a^ second complete edition^he one which Luther used,^ 
 was made six years later. Luther used it in making 
 his German Bible. By a Ra bbi nic aLBIble is meant 
 a H ebrew Bib le con_tami.ng the C haldee T arg^ums as 
 well as the "Masora and the commentaries of the 
 R abbi ns. Three editions have been printed ; Daniel 
 Vombar in 15 18, Buxtorf in 161 8 (a copy of which 
 is in the Seminary Library,) Amsterdam in 1724. 
 The text of the Pentateuch was divided for read- 
 ^nM^^ ing in the Synagogue into 54^sections ; these were 
 1 A^*-T subdivided into 669(lesseddi visions, called^<3;r^i"^^/^. 
 ^ These smaller sections^are some of them designated 
 
 by the 3 or d. The large sections are marked with 
 three large s's or o's ; corresponding are the les- 
 sons from the Prophets, the Hafturas. When the 
 reading of the Law was prohibited^ the reading of 
 the Prophets took Its place. Chapters are of Chris- 
 tian origin. Cardinal Hugo first introduced them 
 into the Vulgate in the 13th Century. The division 
 of the Bible into verses is as old as the system of 
 accents. 
 ^'^^^ ■^^'^^^ By a cr itical edi tion we mean one having a jgol- 
 ^lLr9"-^' ^ «^-/ lection of various read ings/^ The most noted are 
 _^'^^ those of How_^ begun Tn P aris in 17JJ ; and of Ken.- 
 
 nicott in Oxford i n 1776. i'his last is made from 
 694 MSS. De Rosse^ a few years later, exhibited 
 various readings from 700 MSS. The Polyglot ex- 
 hibits several ancient versions possessing critical 
 authority. There are four principal Polyglots; 
 ^^^^-^^^-''^'^^^ Compluten sian P olygdol of Spain. Antwerp, Parisi*t% 
 and London. A copy of each is in the Seminary 
 Library. The Antwerp edition, or " Biblia Regia," 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 m 
 
 / 
 
 Tt 
 
BS1171 .G79 1889 ^ _^., , 
 
 Old Testament canon and philology : a 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00043 0530 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 
 ] 
 
 i\