A HANDBOOK BIBLE FFIPIIITI yt j(-i Ex Libris \ C. K. OGDEN A HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. UNIFORM WITH 'SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY BIBLE DIFFICULTIES.' NEW EDITION, tastefully printed in demy 8vo, and handsomely bound in cloth, price ys. 6d., post free. A HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES; OR, Reasonable (Solutions of perplexing Citings in cSacrcb h, \. 18; a nameless six-fingered man, v. 20. But the third name seems uncertain. It is given in verse 19, and in i Chron. xx. 5 ; these two verses may 'be set beside each other as given in the Revised Version. 2 Sam. xxi. 19:' And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan, the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.' i Chron. xx. 5 : ' And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.' There is certainly some confusion here. Let us see how much is clear. 1. Both the compiler of Samuel, and of Chronicles, distinctly affirm that all the persons they speak of as conquered and slain were sons of the giant, born to the giant in Gath. See 2 Sam. xxi. 22 ; i Chron. xx. 8. Whatever, then, may be the confusion of the names given, the four persons in Samuel, and the three persons in Chronicles, were all sons of the giant, and cannot be confused with their father. 2. This also is clear : the battle in which Elhanan conquered occurred at Gob (2 Sam. xxi. 19) orGezer (i Chron. xx. 4). Whether this name ' Gob ' stands for ' Gezer ' or ' Gath,' one thing is certain it cannot be the same as ' Ephes-dammim,' where David fought Goliath. In the passage as given in Samuel (A.V.) the words ' the brother of are in italics, intimating that they are not in the original, but were inserted by the translators in order to make sense, and harmonize the passage with the one in Chronicles. They cannot be the proper ones to insert, because verse 22 plainly asserts that the man was a son of Goliath, whom David slew, and not a brother. There is evident error in the text i Chron. xx. 5 ; the same remark applies to it. The compiler is made to say, in verse 5, that Elhanan slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath, and in verse 8, this Lahmi was one of the sons born to the giant in Gath. It is evident that the words ' Lahmi, the son of,' have slipped out of the text in Samuel ; and ' brother ' has taken the place of ' son ' in the text of Chronicles. We then have the four sons of the original Goliath fully accounted for, Ishbi-benob, Saph, Lahmi, and the 'six-fingered,' and their 2 2 20 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. deaths were brought about at the hands of Abishai, Sibbechai, Elhanan, and Shimea. All writers agree that the text of these two passages is imperfect, but there is difference of opinion as to which should be regarded as the corrective of the other. In favour of correcting Samuel from Chronicles, we have Michaelis, Kennicott, Dathe, Keil, and Thenius, In favour of correcting Chronicles from Samuel, we have Ewald and Bertheau. Ewald's suggested explanation is based on the purest conjecture, and is a good illustration of the way in which theories are invented when common sense would suffice to remove the difficulty. He says : ' We know from one of the earliest accounts that Goliath of Gath the giant "whose spear-shaft was like a weaver's beam " was really slain by a certain Elhanan, the son of Jair of Bethlehem ; and, indeed, according to the same authority, this event did not take place until David had already become king. Since we cannot doubt that the giant so described is the same whose name is now introduced in David's early history, we must suppose that his name was transferred to the Philistine whom David slew (who is, moreover, generally called simply "the Philistine,") when his proper name had been lost. This would be all the more likely to happen, because Elhanan, like David, was a native of Bethlehem.' Another attempt to get over the difficulty has been made. Jerome suggested that Elhanan may have been another and an earlier name of David. It is enough to reply that he is distinctly classed with David's generals Abishai, Sibbechai, and Shimea. R. F. Norton, in his work ' Inspiration and the Bible,' uses the difficulty of identifying Goliath to support his theory of various frag- mentary sources for the Scripture histories. He regards the story of David's killing Goliath as a distinct, and interpolated, narrative. He says : 'Read i Sam. xvi. 14-23 and then go on at xviii. 6, and you see you have a straightforward narrative ; the section xvii. to xviii. 5, appears plainly as a separate piece, coming no doubt from a separate source. This interpolated section is one of the most conned and loved of Old Testament stories; but it is certainly very puzzling to find our author in xxi. 19, informing us that Goliath of Gath was killed, not by David at all, but by another Bethlehemite named Elhanan. The chronicler (i Chron. xx. 5) was as puzzled as we are, and took the liberty of altering the statement, saying that Elhanan slew, not Goliath, but his brother.' Mr. Horton did not, we fear, seek for any explanation of the confusion, or note that the ' brother ' of verse 5 is the ' son ' of verse 8. The only other attempted explanation to which reference need be THE PHARAOH OF AB RAM'S DA VS. 21 made regards Goliath as a family name, and treats the several names as distinctive of individual members. We should therefore read, Ishbi-Goliath, Saph-Goliath, Lahmi-Goliath, etc. Bishop Words- worth writes : ' The word " Goliath " means a stranger, an alien. It may describe any one of the family of giants at Gath, the Anakim, or sons of Anak, the Philistine Titans ; as Hamor was the name of the chiefs of Shechem, Abimelech of Gerah, Pharaoh and Ptolemy of those of Egypt, Caesar of Rome, and the members of the giant family of the Cyclops are all called Cyclopes by Homer and other poets." It is quite possible that the word in Samuel, ' Bethlehemite,' which is wanting in Chronicles, is a corruption of ' Lahmi, the brother (or son) of.' The Pharaoh of Abram's Days. GENESIS xii. 15 : 'The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh : and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.' Question. Is it possible to decide ; with any great probability, the name and dynasty of this Pharaoh ? Answer. No certainty is attainable. The name ' Pharaoh ' gives us no help, as its derivation and meaning are now well known. M. De Rouge has shown that the hieroglyphic which is the regular title of the Egyptian kings, signifies ' the great house,' or the ' double house,' and must be read, Peraa, or Perao. The identity of this name with Pharaoh is admitted by Brugsch, Ebers, Canon Cook, etc. How early in Egyptian history this name was applied to the reigning monarch cannot be known. It was a title of respect, veiling the person of the monarch under the name of his dwelling, in much the same manner as we include the sovereign and his attendants under the name of the 'Court.' Some have argued that because Abram, an Arab Sheikh, found favour in Egypt, its Pharaoh must have been one of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, and as it is almost certain that the Pharaoh of Joseph's time belonged to the twelfth dynasty, the Pharaoh of Abram's time must have belonged to that dynasty or an earlier one. ' Very little beyond the names of the kings who belonged to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh dynasties is known ; and a gap of about 500 years occurs in the history, which it is absolutely impossible to fill up in detail. The first king of the twelfth dynasty was called Amenemha.' W. J. Deane, M.A., in his recent ' Life of Abraham,' favours an earlier date : ' To determine the exact date of Abram's arrival in Egypt, and who was the Pharaoh whom he found upon the throne, is impos- 22 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. sible. Josephus calls him in one place Nechaoh, and in another Pharaothes ; other Jewish authorities name him Rikaion or Rakaion, adding that he came from Sinear, and obtained the royal dignity by force and fraud. Malala gives him the name of Naracho, of which Rikaion seems to be a corruption, and which is probably the same as the Nechaoh of Josephus. That the Egypt even of that early date was a country of vast importance, and of venerable antiquity, is certain from the monuments which have survived ; but the obscurity of its early annals has not yet been cleared up, nor is the chronology of its several dynasties accurately fixed. But it was probably between the sixth and eleventh dynasties, and during the dominion of the Hyksos, or Shepherds, that Abram appeared in the land.' Professor Sayce takes the same view. ' The Middle Empire, from the twelfth dynasty, did not last long. Semitic invaders from Canaan and Arabia overran the country, and established their seat at Zoan or Tanis. For 511 years they held the Egyptians in bondage, though the native princes, who had taken refuge in the south, gradually acquired more and more power, until at last, under Aahmes or Amosis, founder of the eighteenth dynasty, they succeeded in driving the hated foreigners out. It must have been while the Hyksos monarchs were holding their court at Zoan that Abraham entered the land. He found there men of Semitic blood, like himself, and speaking a Semitic language. A welcome was assured him, and he had no need of an interpreter.' Kings of the Hittites. 2 KINGS vii. 6 : ' For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host : and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.' Difficulty. As the. only other Bible allusions to Hittites refer to the small nation which formed one of the Canaanite nations that were dispossessed by the Israelites, this mention of the Hittites as a distinct and powerful nation seems to be incorrect. Explanation. This difficulty was seriously felt by all the older Biblical writers. But it has no more foundation than lack of know- ledge. That lack has been quite recently supplied, and consequently the difficulty can now be completely removed. The history of the comments on this text furnishes so severe a rebuke to the dogmatic spirit, which asserts error when adequate explanation is not at once forthcoming, that we may give it a careful consideration. Matthew Henry says on this verse : ' There was, for aught we KINGS OF THE HITTITES. 23 know, but one king of Egypt ; and what kings there were of the Hittites nobody can imagine ; but as they were imposed upon by that dreadful sound in their ears, so they imposed upon themselves by the interpretation they made of it.' Dr. Sayce tells of a distinguished scholar, nearly forty years ago, who, selecting this passage for criticism, wrote in this way concerning it : ' Its unhistorical tone is too manifest to allow of our easy belief in it. No Hittite kings can have compared in power with the King of Judah, the real and near ally, who is not named at all ... nor is there a single mark of acquaintance with the contemporaneous history.' Even Dean Stanley had to write on the subject without adequate knowledge. He says, ' The Amorites, or mountaineers, occupied the central and southern hills (of Palestine) with the Hittites and Hivites. The Hittites belong to the more peaceful occupants, and their name is that by which Palestine, in these early ages, was chiefly known in foreign countries.' Ewald has no idea of Hittites, save as one of the small nations inhabiting Canaan at the time of the Israelite invasion. ' The con- trast to these highlanders (the Amorites) with their strong castles is furnished by the Hittites, as dwellers in the valley, who had different employments and manners, and lived, wherever possible, in distinct and independent communities. We are not, therefore, surprised to find them living near the mountains wherever they could find room, as for instance in the south near Hebron, and extending from thence as far as Bethel in the centre of the land. They nowhere appear as warlike as the Amorites, but rather lovers of refinement at an early period, and living in well-ordered communities possessing national assemblies. Abraham's allies in war are Amorites; but when he desires to obtain a possession peaceably he turns to the Hittites.' These extracts may suffice to indicate what was known or imagined concerning the Hittites up to quite recent years. But by-and-by it began to be perceived that the above text, and similar references to tribes, or a nation, of Hittites (i Kings x. 29; 2 Chron. i. 17), and more especially their association with the 'kings of Syria,' pointed to a people settled independently beyond Lebanon, possibly on the south-eastern frontier towards Arabia. When the Egyptian annals came to be more fully known, and more carefully examined, they were found to refer to a war with Hittites, and these could not be the petty tribe dwelling in Canaan. Egyptian pictures, too, were believed to represent Hittites. The way was thus preparing for the most interesting and important 24 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. discovery of modern times. It is now known that the Hittites of Palestine were only a colony, or offshoot, from a large and strong nation occupying the tract of North Syria, between the Euphrates and Orontes. In the thirteenth century before Christ, as is proved by inscriptions cut in the rocks, their power extended over great part of Asia Minor. Carchemish, Kadesh, Hamath, and Helbon (or Aleppo) were their capitals. ' They are found among the Syrian enemies of the Egyptians in the monuments of the nineteenth dynasty (about B.C. 1300), and in the early Assyrian monuments they appear as the most powerful people of Northern Syria, dwelling on both banks of the Euphrates in the country along its course from Bir to Balis. In this tract they formed a great confederacy under a number of petty kings, while, at the same time, there is a second confederacy of their race further to the south, which seems to inhabit the Anti-Lebanon between Hamath and Damascus.' (Speaker's Commentary.} By the Egyptians the Hittites were called Kheta, or Khata. Dr. Sayce finds it possible to speak of a ' Hittite Empire ' from the time of Ramses II. He says : ' From this time forward it becomes possible to speak of a Hittite Empire. Kadesh was once more in Hittite hands, and the influence formerly enjoyed by Egypt in Pales- tine and Syria was now enjoyed by its rival. The rude mountaineers of the Taurus had descended into the fertile plains of the south, interrupting the intercourse between Babylonia and Canaan, and superseding the cuneiform characters of Chaldsea by their own hieroglyphic writing. From henceforth the Babylonian language ceased to be the language of diplomacy and education.' 'The "land of the Hittites," according to the statements of the Vannic Kings, stretched along the banks of the Euphrates from Palu on the east as far as Malatiyeh on the west. The Hittites of the Assyrian monuments lived to the south-west of this region, spreading through Komagene to Carchemish and Aleppo. The Egyptian records bring them yet further south, to Kadesh on the Orontes, while the Old Testament carries the name into the extreme south of Pales- tine. It is evident, therefore, that we must see in the Hittite tribes fragments of a race whose original seat was in the ranges of the Taurus, but who had pushed their way into the warm plains and valleys of Syria and Palestine. They belonged originally to Asia Minor, not to Syria, and it was conquest only which gave them a right to the name of Syrians. Hittite was their true title, and whether the tribes to which it belonged lived in Judah or on the Orontes, at Carchemish or in the neighbourhood of Palu, this was the title under which they were known.' KINGS OF THE HITTITES. 25 As to the personal appearance of this race, Dr. Sayce says : ' The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and "Mongoloid" features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricature. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was because they were so in reality.' In his interesting work, 'Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments,' Dr. Sayce has a chapter on the Empire of the Hittites, which contains a sketch of the history of the discovery of this people, their sculptures, and their writing ; and he has more fully dealt with the subject in a recent work on ' The Hittites.' From the former of these books we take the following passages, premising that it was quite recently published. ' Five years ago there was no one who suspected that a great empire had once existed in Western Asia, and contended on equal terms with both Egypt and Assyria, the founders of which were the little noticed Hittites of the Old Testament. Still less did anyone dream that these same Hittites had once carried their arms, their art, and their religion to the shores of the ^Egean, and that the early civilization of Greece and Europe was as much indebted to them as it was to the Phoenicians. ' The discovery was made in 1879. Recent exploration and excava- tion had shown that the primitive art and culture of Greece, as revealed, for example, by Dr. Schliemann's excavations at Mykenae, were influenced by a peculiar art and culture emanating from Asia Minor. Here, too, certain strange monuments had been discovered, which form a continuous chain from Lydia in the west to Kappadokia and Lykaonia in the east. The best known of these are certain rock sculptures found at Boghaz, Keui and Eyuk, on the eastern side of the Halys, and two figures in relief in the pass of Karabel, near Sardes, which the old Greek historian, Herodotus, had long ago supposed to be memorials of the Egyptian conqueror, Sesostris, or Ramses II. ' Meanwhile, other discoveries were being made in lands more imme- diately connected with the Bible. Scholars had learned from the Egyptian inscriptions that, before the days of the Exodus, the Egyptian monarchs had been engaged in fierce struggles with the powerful nation of the Hittites, whose two chief seats were at Kadesh on the Orontes, and Carchemish on the Euphrates, and who were able to summon to their aid subject-allies not only from Palestine, but also far away from Lydia and the Troad, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Ramses II. himself, the Pharaoh of the oppression, had 26 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. been glad to make peace with his antagonists ; and the treaty, which provided, among other things, for the amnesty of political offenders who had found a shelter during the war among one or other of the two combatants, was cemented by the marriage of the Egyptian king with the daughter of his rival. A century or two afterwards Tiglath- Pileser I. of Assyria found his passage across the Euphrates barred by the Hittites of Carchemish and their Kolkhian mercenaries. From this time forward the Hittites proved dangerous enemies to the Assyrian kings in their attempts to extend the empire towards the west, until at last, in B.C. 717, Sargon succeeded in capturing their rich capital, Carchemish, and in making it the seat of an Assyrian satrap. Henceforth the Hittites disappear from history. ' That they were a literary people, and possessed a system of writing of their own, we learn from the Egyptian monuments. What this writing was has been revealed by recent discoveries. Inscriptions in a peculiar kind of hieroglyphics or picture-writing have been found at Hamath, Aleppo, and Carchemish, in Kappadokia, Lykaonia, and Lydia. They are always found associated with sculptures in a curious style of art, some of which from Carchemish, the modern Jerablus, are now in the British Museum. It was the discovery of this fact (by Dr. Sayce), in 1879, which first revealed the existence of the Hittite Empire and its importance in the history of civilization. Certain hieroglyphic inscriptions, originally noticed by the traveller Burckhardt, at Hamah, the ancient Hamath, had been made acces- sible to the scientific world by the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the conjecture had been put forward that they represented the long- lost writing of the Hittites. The conjecture was shortly afterwards confirmed by the discovery of similar inscriptions at Jerablus, which Mr. Skene and Mr. George Smith had already identified with the site of Carchemish. If, therefore, the early monuments of Asia Minor were really of Hittite origin, it was clear that they ought to be accom- panied by Hittite hieroglyphics. And such turned out to be the case. On visiting the sculptured figure in the pass of Karabel, in which Herodotus had seen an image of the great opponent of the Hittites, Dr. Sayce found that the characters engraved by the side of it were all of them Hittite forms.' It is only necessary to add, ' that the Hittites were intruders in the Semitic territory of Syria. Their origin must be sought in the high- lands of Kappadokia, and from hence they descended into the regions of the south, at that time occupied by Semitic Arameans. Hamath and Kadesh had once been Aramean cities, and when they were again wrested from the possession of the Hittites they did but return to KINGS OF THE HITTITES. 27 their former owners. The fall of Carchemish meant the final triumph of the Semites in their long struggle with the Hittite stranger. ' Even in their southern home the Hittites preserved the dress of the cold mountainous country from which they had come. They are characterized by boots with turned-up toes, such as are still worn by the mountaineers of Asia Minor and of Greece. They were thick-set, and somewhat short of limb, and the Egyptian artists painted them without beards, of a yellowish-white colour, with dark black hair. In short, as M. Lenormant has pointed out, they had all the physical characteristics of a Caucasian tribe. Their descendants are still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus, and on the plateau of Kappa- dokia, though they have utterly forgotten the language or languages their forefathers spoke. What their language was is still uncertain. But the proper names preserved on the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments show that it did not belong to the Semitic family of speech, and an analysis of the Hittite inscriptions further makes it evident that it made large use of suffixes. But we must be on our guard against supposing that the language was uniform throughout the district in which the Hittite population lived. Different tribes, doubtless, spoke different dialects; and some of these dialects probably differed widely from each other. But they all belonged to the same general type and class of language, and may, therefore, be collectively spoken of as the Hittite language, just as the various dialects of England are collectively termed English.' Identification of Belshazzar. DANIEL v. 30 : ' In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldaeans, slain.' Question. What light has been thrown upon the reign, and the death, of this king by recent discoveries ? Answer. It will be well to see first what was the knowledge at command a few years ago, so that we may clearly understand the importance of the additions and corrections that have been recently suggested. The kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar, who died 561 B.C., were Evil-Merodach (561-559), Neriglissar (559-556), Laborosoarchod (reigned nine months), and Nabu-Nahid (555-538). Herodotus gives only the one name Labynetus to fill, up the interval; and the Scriptures only mention Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar. Belshazzar is called the ' son of Nebuchadnezzar,' but this need not occasion difficulty, because the term ' son' is freely used to mean 28 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. ' descendant,' and Belshazzar would be regarded as a son of the royal house if he married one of the princesses. Two explanations seem to have gained favour. Belshazzar was regarded as a second name for Evil-Merodach, who perished, as Belshazzar is said to have done, after a reign of the same length as is ascribed to Belshazzar. But the dates cannot be fitted to this theory. In 1854 a remarkable discovery was made by Sir H. Rawlinson, at Mugheir, the ancient Ur ; but the value of it in relation to the question before us is not universally admitted. ' Documents were brought to light which prove that Nabonnedus (Nabu-Nahid), during the last years of his reign, associated his son Bil-shar-uzur with himself in the government, and allowed him the royal title. He, then, may have conducted the defence of Babylon within the walls ; while the father commanded without. Bil-shar-uzur was very young at the time ; but princes as young as he have held high command in the East ; thus Herod the Great was Governor of Galilee at fifteen ; and the interference of the queen is some presumption of the king's youth. If Nabonnedus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and if Belshazzar was the issue of that marriage, the expressions of Dan. v. n, 13, 18, 22 are accounted for. Also, as there were two sovereigns, it is seen why Daniel was proclaimed third ruler of the kingdom.' According to Berosus, Nabonnedus had retired from Babylon to the neighbouring city of Borsippa ; there he was blockaded, and, surrender- ing at last to Cyrus, his life was spared, a principality in Carmania was bestowed on him, and there he died. The circumstances connected with the taking of Babylon by Cyrus are disputed. Xenophon speaks of the capture of the city during a night of feasting, and of the death of the king, whom, however, he does not name. A fairly reasonable account of Belshazzar was thus given in explanation of the Scripture references. He was represented as the son, and joint king, of Nabonnedus, and entrusted with the defence of Babylon, while his father led the army in the field. Scripture does not give any intimation of a desperate assault on Babylon. It is quite open to the possibility that the city was taken by stratagem, or even entered quietly at the goodwill of the officials. The only thing affirmed is that, on the very night of the banquet, Belshazzar was slain. Professor George Rawlinson presents the following arguments in support of the discovery of Sir H. Rawlinson, which provides such important help toward the identification of Belshazzar. 'Sir H. Rawlinson's inference from the inscription has been denied. (On IDENTIFICATION OF BELSHAZZAR. 29 cylinders placed by Nabonidus at the corners of the great temple of Ur, he mentioned by name "his eldest son, Bel-shar-uzur," and prayed the moon-god to take him under his protection "that his glory might endure.") Mr. Fox Talbot has maintained that the inscription does not furnish the " slightest evidence," that Bel-shar- uzur was ever regarded as co-regent with his father. " He may," he says, "have been a mere child when it was written." The controversy turns upon the question, What was Oriental practice in this matter ? Sir H. Rawlinson holds that Oriental monarchs generally, and the Assyrian and Babylonian kings in particular, were so jealous of possible rivals in their own family, that they did not name even their own sons upon public documents unless they had associated them with them in the government. Kudur-mabuk mentions his son Rim-agu ; but he has made him King of Larsa. Sennacherib mentions Asshur- nadinsum, but on the occasion of his elevation to the throne of Babylon. Apart from these instances, and that of Bel-shar-uzur, there does not seem to be any mention made of their sons by name by the monarchs of either country.' ' The supposition that Bel-shar-uzur may have been " a mere child," when the inscription on which his name occurs was set up, is com- pletely negatived by the newly discovered tablet of Nabonidus, which shows him to have had a son and Bel-shar-uzur was his "eldest son"- who held the command of his main army from his seventh year, B.C. 549, to his eleventh, B.C. 545. It is a reasonable supposition that the prince mentioned upon this tablet was Bel-shar-uzur. He is called emphatically " the king's son," and is mentioned five times. While Cyrus is threatening Babylon both on the north and on the south, Nabonidus is shown to have remained sluggish and inert within the walls of the capital, the true kingly power being exercised by " the king's son," who is with the army and the officers in Akkad, or northern Babylonia, watching Cyrus, and protecting Babylon. When the advance of the army of Babylon is finally made, what " the king's son " did is not told us. Nabonidus must have roused himself from his lethargy, and joined his troops ; but as soon as he found himself in danger, he fled. Pursuit was made, he was captured possibly at Borsippa, as Berosus related. The victorious Persians took him with them into Babylon. If at this time " the king's son " was still alive, any further resistance that was made must, almost certainly, have been made by him. Now, such resistance was made. A body of " rebels," as they are called, threw themselves into Bit-Saggatu, or the fortified enclosure within which stood the Great Temple of Bel- Merodach and the Royal Palace, and, shutting to the gates, defied 30 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. the enemy. It is true one record says no preparations had been previously made for the defence of the place, and there was no store of weapons in it. But the soldiers would have their own weapons ; the temple and the palace would probably be well supplied with wine and provisions ; the defences would be strong ; and the feeling of the defenders may well have been such as Herodotus ascribes to the mass of the Babylonians when they shut themselves within the walls of the town. Bel-shar-uzur and his lords may have felt so secure that they could indulge in feasting and revelry. They may have maintained their position for months. It is at any^ rate most remarkable that the writer of the tablet, having launched his shaft of contempt against the foolish "rebels, "interposed a break of more than four months between this and the next paragraph. It was at the end of Tammuz that the " rebels " closed the gates of Bit-Saggatu ; it was not till the third day of Marchesvan that "Cyrus to Babylon descended, and made peace there. It may have been on the night of his arrival with strong reinforcements that the final attack was made, and that Belshazzar, having provoked God by a wanton act of impiety, was slain." ' The objections to this identification of the Belshazzar of Daniel with Bil-shar-uzur, the eldest son of Nabonidus, are: (i) Belshazzar is called repeatedly the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but there is no evidence that Bel-shar-uzur was in any way related to that monarch. (2) The Book of Daniel gives no hint of Belshazzar's having a father still alive, and on the throne. (In replying to this, due importance may be given to the fact that Daniel was constituted third ruler ; v. 7-) Professor A. H. Sayce reads the latest inscriptions in such a way as to venture on the statement that Babylon was not besieged and taken by Cyrus. It opened its gates to his general long before he came near it, and needed neither fighting nor battle for its occupa- tion. There may have been several sieges of the city, and foreign historians may have confused these together. We need to be very careful in not making Scripture responsible for the errors of Herodotus and other historians. And concerning Belshazzar Scripture affirms no more than the banquet of the king, and his death by violence on the night of the banquet, and the change of the government of Babylon on the event of his death. It may be further noticed that the name of the last King of Babylon, on the Babylonian records, is Maruduk-sarra-usur, which is not unlike Belshazzar, or Bel-shar-uzur. There will probably be further discoveries which may help to clear IDENTIFICATION OF BELSHAZZAR. 31 up difficulties ; but it must be admitted that the most recent dis- coveries tend to increase difficulties rather than to relieve them. ' In the inscription of Cyrus, of which Professor Sayce gives a somewhat full account, Cyrus states that he "took Babylon without bloodshed, and made Nabonidus prisoner." He also mentions that " the king's son " was at Accad, " with his great men and soldiers," in the same year as the capture of Babylon, and that the men of Accad raised a revolt. Further on in the inscription, which is much mutilated, a statement is made, " and the king died. From the seventh of the month Adar unto the third day of the month Nisan there was weep- ing in Accad." Now, according to the last mention made of Nabonidus in this inscription, he was taken bound to Babylon. It is highly probable, therefore, that the king who died at Accad was " the king's son " mentioned in an earlier part of the inscription. May it not be conjectured that this was Belshazzar, and that the scene de- scribed in Dan. v. occured at Accad, and not at Babylon?' (H. Deane, B.D.} We may venture to say that Belshazzar is identified as the eldest son of Nabonidus, but the materials are not yet at our command for presenting his history with minuteness and precision. Fulfilment of the Curse on Jericho. I KINGS xvi. 34 : 'In his days did Kiel the Bethel-ite build Jericho : he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son, Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua, the son of Nun.' Difficulty. As Jericho is mentioned as an existing town between the time of Joshua and the time of Ahab, it is not easy to recognise in what lay the precise sin of Hiel. Explanation. It will be well first to have all the passages relating to the matter before us. The first is the curse pronounced by Joshua : ' And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho ; he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.' On this curse it may be remarked that the interest of the siege of Jericho gathers about the walls, or fortifications, of the city. The miraculous power of God was directed to the throwing down of the walls ; and the significant reference in the curse to the ' gates ' may indicate that the curse took a soldier's form, and was concerned only with the peril which might attend upon rebuilding the walls, and refortifying the 32 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. town. Jericho, as an open town, would be no peril to the young nation, but Jericho, walled and fortified, might easily become a serious menace if seized by a hostile army. As we read the original curse, then, it may be intended to curse the fortifier rather than the re- builder of the city. The following are the intimations that a city was to be found at the site of Jericho up to the time of David. In Judges i. 16, the children of the Kenite are said to have gone up ' out of the city of palm-trees ;' and that this was the recognised name of Jericho is inferred from Deut. xxxiv. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. In Judges iii. 13, we are told that Eglon of Moab confederated with the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went 'and smote Israel, and they possessed the city of palm-trees.' But the matter is made quite certain by the fact that David appointed Jericho for the place of retirement to his ambassadors whom the Ammonites had maltreated. They were to tarry at Jericho until their beards were grown ; and there certainly must have been a Jericho to tarry at (2 Sam. x. 5). Two explanations have been suggested, (i) As a devoted city might not be rebuilt (Deut. xiii. 16), and the Jews in all probability levelled the houses, we may assume that the open towns referred to in Judges, and Samuel, were built in the neighbourhood, but not at the original site. But if there was already a Jericho quite near, it is difficult to understand why Hiel should take the trouble to build on the old site. (2) The other suggestion is, in every way, the most reasonable one, and is supported by most Biblical writers. As a part of Ahab's military schemes, taken without giving any heed to the word or will of God, Hiel was entrusted with the work of re- fortifying Jericho, as a frontier garrison of the territory of Israel, and as commanding the ford over the Jordan. It was designed to be a Divine warning to Ahab, that the old curse so surely fell on him who thus wilfully acted against a positive Divine command. The narrative of Hiel is given as a proof of the general impiety of Ahab's time. Men were wilful because the king set an example of wilfulness. ' The curse of Joshua had hitherto been respected but now faith in the old religion had so decayed that Joshua's malediction terrible as it was no longer exercised a deterrent power.' THE TIME FOR KILLING THE PASSOVER. 33 The Time for Killing the Passover. EXODUS xii. 6 : ' And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month : and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.' REV. VER. : ' At even.' HEB. : ' Between the two evenings.' Question. Does any symbolical importance attach to the precision of these Passover requirements ? Answer. The thing that most arrests attention, in the account of the institution of the Passover, is the precision and minuteness of the details. Everything had to be done at exactly prescribed times, and in exactly prescribed ways. But the explanation is to be found in the necessity for putting to the test the obedience of the people, rather than in the symbolical suggestion of all the details of the ritual. It is always safer to seek for moral than for symbolical meanings in the Divine regulations : for, even if symbolical ones can be found, they are only the handmaids of the moral. The end of all Divine dealings, whatever may be the forms they take, is always the culture of character. Symbol and rite are never ends in themselves, nor can they ever have value apart from their religious and moral influence. Moral obedience can be tested by requirements definite in form, and precise in detail. A formal obedience may satisfy itself with doing the thing that is required ; but heart obedience will find its natural expression in doing the thing that is required exactly as he who commands wishes it to be done. The details of the Divine requirement are of the deepest interest to the man who desires to show his love by his obedience. And these minute requirements of the Passover rite are to be regarded as a gracious provision of opportunities for showing obedience. The arrangement of one particular time for killing the lamb, is perhaps the most striking of these details. What is called in the Hebrew, ' between the two evenings,' was doubtless quite distinctly understood by the Israelites, though it seems confusing to us. According to Onkelos and Aben Ezra, the first evening was at sun- set, the second about an hour later, when the twilight ended, and the stars came out (Deut. xvi. 6). Canon Cook thinks the most probable explanation is that it includes the time from afternoon, or early eventide, until sunset. ' This accords with the ancient custom of the Hebrews, who slew the paschal lamb immediately after the offer- ing of the daily sacrifice, which on the day of the Passover took place a little earlier than usual, between two and three p.m. This would allow about two hours and a half for slaying and preparing all the 3 34 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. lambs. It is clear that they would not wait until sunset, at which time the evening meal would take place. This interpretation is supported by Rashi, Kimchi, Bochart, Lightfoot, Clericus, and Patrick. Thus Josephus : " They offer this sacrifice from the ninth to the eleventh hour." The Greeks had the same idiom, dis- tinguishing between the early and late evening.' The Pharisees, in our Lord's time (and the Jews now), understood the time between the sun's declining and its actual setting. Kalisch translated : ' at dusk,' and quotes with approval the follow- ing from Aben Ezra. ' We have two evenings ; the first, the setting of the sun, that is, the time when he disappears beneath the horizon ; and the second, the ceasing of the light which is reflected in the clouds ; and between both lies an interval of about one hour and twenty minutes.' Sentiment of Egyptians concerning Shepherds. GENESIS xlvi. 34 : ' For every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' Question.- -Is it possible for us to trace the causes, in Egyptian manners, or in Egyptian history, for this strong sentiment ? Answer. It is not reasonable to suppose the Egyptians merely objecting, in an aristocratic spirit, to the occupation of tending cattle. Mere class-feeling is not sufficient to explain so strong an expression as ' an abomination.' The sentiment must have been a national and political one. It seems that, ' in the reign of Timaus, or Thamuz, Egypt was invaded by a tribe of Cushite Shepherds from Arabia. The Egyptians submitted without trying the event of a battle, and were exposed, for a period of 260 years, to the most tyrannous and insulting conduct from their new masters ; who made one of their own number king, and established their capital at Memphis ; having in proper places strong garrisons, which kept both Upper and Lower Egypt under subjection and tribute. There were six kings of this dynasty, who were called Hyksos, or " King-shepherds," and they exercised a degree of cruelty and oppression upon the natives which left an indelible sense of hatred upon the minds of the Egyptians, even in periods long subsequent. At last the national spirit was roused, and after a war of thirty years, the princes of Upper Egypt succeeded in obliging them to withdraw from the country which had been so deeply injured by their invasion ' (Kitto). Professor George Rawlinson points out that, though this sentiment against shepherds prevailed among the native Egyptians, while the SENTIMENT CONCERNING SHEPHERDS. 35 foreign Hyksos reigned, such an immigration as Jacob's would be specially welcome to the authorities. ' Egypt had been conquered, some centuries before the time of Joseph, by a nomadic race from Asia, of pastoral habits. The conquest had been accompanied with extreme cruelty and violence ; wherever the nomads triumphed, the males of full age had been massacred, the women and children reduced to slavery, the cities burnt, the temples demolished, the images of the gods thrown to the ground. An oppressive and tyrannical rule had been established. The old Egyptians, the native African race, were bowed down beneath the yoke of unsympathetic aliens. Although by degrees the manners of the conquerors became softened, and, as so often happens, the rude invaders conformed themselves more and more, in language, habits and methods of thought, to the pattern set them by their more civilized subjects, yet, so far as feelings and sentiments were concerned, a wide gulf still separated the two. Like the Aryan Persians under the rule of the Parthians, like the native Chinese under the Mantchu Tartars, the Egyptians groaned and re- pined in secret, and persistently nurtured the hope of one day re- asserting their independence. Nor were their foreign masters un- aware of these feelings. They knew themselves to be detested ; they were conscious of the volcano under their feet ; they lived in expecta- tion of an outbreak, and were always engaged in making preparations against it. In this condition of affairs, each band of immigrants from Asia, especially if of nomadic habits, was regarded as an acces- sion of strength, and was therefore welcomed and treated with favour. Shepherds were " an abomination " to the real native Egyptians. To the Hyksos kings, who held the dominion of Egypt, shepherds were congenial, and Asiatic shepherds, more or less akin to their own race, were viewed as especially trustworthy and reliable.' As the date of the Shepherd dynasty is doubtful, many writers prefer to explain the sentiment of the Egyptians towards shepherds, as a class, as being merely the prejudice of a settled and civilized people against a wandering and rough-mannered race. Inglis well illustrates this point. ' The Egyptians, being a settled, civilized and cultivated people, despised the rude, wandering shepherd ; in proof of which they are always depicted on the monuments with long, lean, sickly and distorted forms. So great was the hatred of shepherds, that the figures of them were wrought into the soles of their sandals, that they might tread at least on their effigies. There is a mummy in Paris having a shepherd bound with cords painted beneath the buskins. Wool was considered by the priests to be unclean, and was never used for wrapping the dead. The Pharisaic prejudices, and.the 32 36 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. repulsions of caste, meaningless and irrational, so violent in India in the present day, may help us to an explanation of the Egyptian aversion to shepherds.' Speaker's Commentary adds : ' Herodotus speaks of the aversion of Egyptians for swineherds. To this day, sheep-feeding is esteemed the office of women and slaves. The fact that the Egyptians them- selves were great agriculturists, tillers of land, and that their neighbours the Arab tribes of the desert, with whom they were continually at feud, were nomads only, may have been sufficient to cause this feeling. The Egyptians looked on all the people of Egypt as of noble race, and on all foreigners as low-born. Hence they would naturally esteem a nomadic people in close proximity to themselves, and with a much lower civilization than their own, as barbarous and despic- able.' Kitto is probably right in a careful distinction which he makes. ' We are inclined to consider that the aversion of the Egyptians was not so exclusively against rearers of cattle as such, as against the class of pastors who associated the rearing of cattle with habits and pursuits which rendered them equally hated and feared by a settled and re- fined people like the Egyptians. We would therefore understand the text in the most intense sense, and say that " every nomad shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians ;" for there is no evidence that this disgrace attached, for instance,- to those cultivators who, being proprietors of lands, made the rearing of cattle an important part of their business. The nomad tribes who pastured their flocks on the borders, or within the limits of Egypt, did not in general belong to the Egyptian nation, but were of Arabian, or Libyan, descent j whence the prejudice against them as nomads was superadded to that against foreigners in general. The turbulent and aggressive dis- position which usually forms part of the character of nomads and their entire independence, or at least the imperfect and uncertain control which it is possible to exercise over their tribes are circum- stances so replete with annoyance and danger to a carefully organised society, like that of the Egyptians, as sufficiently to account for the hatred and scorn which the ruling priestly caste strove to keep up against them ; and it was probably in order to discourage all inter- course that the regulation precluding Egyptians from eating with them was first established.' Note, The question whether one of the Hyksos kings was on the throne at the time of Joseph and the migration of Jacob's family, is treated in another paragraph. Wallis Budge, M.A., estimating care- fully the evidence, says, ' The last king of the twelfth dynasty was SENNACHERIB'S CALAMITY. 37 Amenemha IV. ; and from this period (about 2200 B.C.) to the eighteenth dynasty there is a gap of about 500 years. It is during this break that the rule of the Hyksos or " Shepherd Kings " comes in. But the Hyksos only preserved their power for some 260 years. Sennacherib's Calamity. 2 KINGS xix. 35 : ' And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand : and when men arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.' Rev. Ver. 2 CHRON. xxxii. 21 : 'And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains, in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land.' Difficulty. One of these accounts seems to intimate that the great mass of the army was slain ; the other appears to limit the slaughter to the officers. Explanation. The note in Chronicles is evidently only a brief epitome of the incident, and, as it gives no special details, cannot be regarded as in any sense contradictory of the accounts in 2 Kings xix., or Isaiah xxxvii. 36. It is an accepted rule for all historical compositions, that what is omitted by one author shall not be regarded as contradicting what is stated by another author, unless it is plainly inconsistent. The author of Chronicles, in stating that the ' officers ' perished, does not deny that the ' common soldiers ' also perished ; and, whatever was the agent used for the infliction of this judgment, it is hardly conceivable that it would be limited, in its range, to the leaders. What we are to understand is, that the loss was so utterly overwhelming because amongst the slain were all the principal officers. Herodotus gives the Egyptian version of this calamity. ' Senna- cherib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched a large army into Egypt. On this the Egyptian army refused to help their king, Sethon, a priest of Vulcan. He, therefore, being reduced to a strait, entered the temple and lamented before the god the calamities impending. While thus engaged he fell asleep, and the god appeared to him in a vision, telling him that he would stand by him, and encouraging him by the assurance that he should not suffer, since he, the god, would send him help. Trusting this vision, the priest-king took with him such men as would follow him, and shut himself up in Pelusium, at the entrance of Egypt. But when they arrived there myriads of field-mice, pouring in on their enemies, devoured their quivers and bows and the handles of their shields, so that when they 38 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. fled next day, defenceless, many of them were killed ; and to this day a stone statue of this king stands in the temple of Vulcan, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription : " Whoever looks on me, let him revere the gods." ' Kitto says : ' Either some terrible known agency, such as that of the pestilence, or the hot poisonous wind, was employed, or some extraordinary and unknown operation took place. Berosus says that it was a pestilence. It has been objected that no pestilence is so suddenly destructive. Yet we do read of instantaneously destructive pestilence in Scripture, as in the wilderness and at Bethshemesh ; and it may be remarked, even of the natural pestilence, that under that disease death supervenes at a certain number of days (not more in any case than seven), from the commencement ; and if, therefore, any number of men were smitten with it at one time, they would all die at the same period, or within a very few hours of each other. If this were the case here, the Assyrians who died before Jerusalem may have been smitten with the pestilence before they left Egypt. But we do not think that it was the plague. The almost immediately mortal pestilence so often mentioned in Scripture, and known from other ancient authorities, was clearly not the plague the symptoms described do not agree with those of the plague ; and it is probably an extinct disease. It is not now known, even in the East, though there is abundant evidence in history, tale, and song, of its former existence. Of the glandular plague, the present prevailing epidemic of the East, there is no certain trace in history anterior to the third century, even in Egypt. Some suggest the agency of the simoon, the hot, pes- tilential, desert wind ; but this does not usually affect Palestine. Its effects sometimes prove instantly fatal, the corpse being livid or black, like that of a person blasted by lightning ; at other times it produces putrid fevers, which become mortal in a few hours, and very few of those struck recover/ Dean Stanley says : ' By what special means this great destruction was effected, with how large or how small a remnant Sennacherib returned, is not told. It might be a pestilential blast (Isai. xxxvii. 7), according to the analogy by which a pestilence is usually described in Scripture under the image of a destroying angel (Ps. Ixxviii. 49 . 2 Sam. xxiv. 16) ; and the numbers are not greater than are recorded as perishing within very short periods 150,000 Carthaginians in Sicily, 500,000 in seven months at Cairo. It might be accompanied by a storm. So Vitringa understood it, and this would best suit the words in Isaiah xxx. 29. Such is the Talmudic tradition, accord- ing to which the stones were still to be seen in the pass of Bethoron SENNACHERIB'S CALAMITY. 39 up which Sennacherib was supposed to be advancing with his army.' Geikie gathers up some important information. ' The vast multitude who perished 185,000 men points to a far greater calamity than could have befallen the army corps detached for service against Jerusalem. It seems probable that affairs had not prospered with Sennacherib from the first, in spite of his pompous inscriptions. Indeed, it appears as if this could be read between the lines ; for, though he boasts of having gained a victory at Eltekeh, no list of prisoners or details of the booty are given, and he has to con- tent himself with stating that he took the town of Eltekeh, and Timnah, which very possibly was only an unwalled village. He speaks of having shut up Hezekiah like a bird in a cage, but there is nothing said of the capture of Jerusalem, nor of the conquest of Egypt, or even of his having entered it, though this was the great object of the campaign. It seems probable that, after the doubtful triumph at Eltekeh, Sennacherib contented himself with besieging and taking Lachish with part of his army ; a large force being sent on, possibly, towards Egypt, while a corps was detached against Jerusalem. But the plague, which had perhaps already shown itself in the host, appears to have broken out violently in its different sections before Jerusalem, beyond Eltekeh, and at Libnah, to which the head- quarters had been removed on the fall of Lachish. The Jewish tradition, handed down from generation to generation, understood the language of Scripture as indicating an outbreak ' of pestilence, let loose, as in the case of the similar visitation of Jerusalem under David, by the angel of God specially commissioned to inflict the Divine wrath. . . . Instead of the thousands of mail-clad warriors, lately so eager for the battle, only a terrified remnant could marshal round him. His mighty men of valour the rank and file of his proudest battalions his officers and generals, had been struck down. . . . Deserted by heaven, and left to the fury of the dreaded demons of pestilence and death, the panic-stricken king could think of nothing but instant, though ignominious, flight towards Nineveh, where he might hope to appease his gods. Orderly retreat was impossible. The skeleton battalions were too demoralized. A deadly fear had seized the survivors. The spectacle in each camp was too appalling to leave room for hesitation.' Sennacherib lived for twenty years after his withdrawal from Palestine. 40 HA.\ 7 DBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Darius the Median. DANIEL v. 31 : ' And Darius the Median took ihe kingdom, being about three score and two years old.' Difficulty. No person evidently answering to this description appears in the records of Persian or Median history. Explanation. Dean Stanley says that ' Darius the Mede is still an unsolved problem.' The secular history says that Cyrus, after the capture of Babylon, appointed a man named Gubaru (Gobryas) as his governor in Babylon. The question is whether this Gubaru and Darius can possibly be the same person. Certainly Darius cannot be identified with any person mentioned in profane history, and hitherto no traces of any such name have been found in Babylonian inscriptions belonging to this period. The part of the inscription of Cyrus that refers to this matter reads as follows : ' On the third day of Marchesvan (October), Cyrus entered Babylon. The roads (?) before him were covered. He grants peace to the city, to the whole of Babylon Cyrus proclaims peace. Gobryas, his governor, was appointed over the (other) governors in Babylon, and from the month Chisleu (November) to the month Adar (February) the gods of Accad, whom Nabonidus had brought to Babylon, were restored to their shrines. On the eleventh day of the previous Marchesvan, Gobryas (was appointed) over Babylon, and the King Nabonidus died.' But we cannot be sure that the death of Belshazzar was connected with the taking of Babylon by Cyrus on this occasion ; and history gives no record of any Median kingdom intervening between the 1'abylonian and the Persian Empires. The readiest explanation is found by treating Darius as a deposed king, or a royal relative of Cyrus, and assuming that he was appointed chief governor of the conquered province of Babylon, with the courtesy title of ' king,' his official name being Darius, his personal name Gobryas. But this is assumption, and cannot be called knowledge. The only Darius of this date known in history is Darius the son of Hystaspes, who was the real founder of the Persian Empire; and some think he is the ' Darius ' of the Book of Daniel. The dates may be first given, and then Sayce's account of this Darius Hystaspes. Cyrus takes Babylon, 538 B.C. Cambyses, his son, reigns 529-519 (eleven years). Smerdis, the Magian, reigns seven months. Darius Hystaspes, the Persian, reigns 517-486 (thirty-one years). DARIUS THE MEDIAN. 4' ' The Empire of Cyrus was broken up after the death of Cambyses, and had to be reconquered by Darius Hystaspes. Darius was a Zoroastrian monotheist as well as a Persian, and under him and his successors polytheism ceased to be the religion of the State. Twice during his reign he had to besiege Babylon. Hardly had he been proclaimed king when it revolted under a certain Nidinta Bel, who called himself, " Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabonidus." Babylon endured a siege of two years, and was at last captured by Darius only by the help of a stratagem. Six years afterwards it again rose in revolt, under an Armenian, who professed, like his predecessor, to be " Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabonidus." Once more, however, it was besieged and taken, and this time the pretender was put to death by impalement. His predecessor, Nidinta Bel, seems to have been slain while the Persian troops were forcing their way into the captured city. In Nidinta Bel the line of independent Babylonian Kings may be said to have come to an end, since the leader of the second revolt was not a native, but an Armenian settler.' Quite an attractive theory might be constructed on the basis of the identification of Nidinta Bel, who called himself a 'son of Nebuchadrezzar,' with Belshazzar ; and of Darius the Median with Darius, the son of Hystaspes, the Persian. But there are serious difficulties to overcome before such a theory can be accepted. Two especially need attention. The Darius of Scripture is called the ' son of Ahasuerus.' But Darius Hystaspes was the son of Achsemenes, the founder of the Persian Royal Family. Then the Darius of Scripture is said to have been ' of the seed of the Medes ' (Dan. ix. i). But there is the strongest evidence that Darius Hystaspes was of pure Persian race, and not an atom of evidence that he had any Persian blood in his veins. It is among his proudest boasts that he is an ' Aryan, of Aryan descent, a Persian, the son of a Persian.' The explanation that is perhaps the most generally accepted is thus stated by Professor George Rawlinson : 'It is said, in Dan. v. 31, that " Darius the Median took the kingdom, and in ix. i, that he " was made king over the realm of the Chaldseans." Neither of these two expressions is suitable to Cyrus (with whom some would identify Darius, making out Darius to be a royal title). The word translated "took" means "received," "took from the hands of another ;" and the other passage is yet more unmistakable. " Was made king," exactly expresses the original, which uses the Hophal of the verb, the Hiphel of which occurs when David makes Solomon king over Israel (i Chron. xxix. 20). No one would say of Alexander the Great, when he conquered Darius Codomannus, that he " was 4 2 HANDS O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. made king over Persia." The expression implies the reception of a kingly position by one man from the hands of another. Now Babylon, while under the Assyrians, had. been almost always governed by viceroys, who received their crown from the Assyrian monarchs. It was not unnatural that Cyrus should follow the same system. He had necessarily to appoint a governor, and the " Nabonidus Tablet " tells us that he did so almost immediately after taking possession of the city. The first governor appointed was a certain Gobryas, whose nationality is doubtful ; but he appears to have been shortly after- wards sent to some other locality. A different arrangement must then have been made. That Cyrus should have appointed a Mede, and allowed him to take the title of " King," is in no way improbable. He was fond of appointing Medes to high office, as we learn from Herodotus. He was earnestly desirous of conciliating the Babylonians, as we find from his cylinder. ' It was not many years before he gave his son, Cambyses, the full royal power at Babylon, relinquishing it himself, as appears from a dated tablet. The position of "Darius the Median" in Daniel is compatible with all that we know with any certainty from other sources. We have only to suppose that Cyrus, in the interval between the brief governorship of Gobryas and the sovereignty of Cambyses, placed Babylon under a Median noble named Darius, and allowed him a position intermediate between that of a mere ordinary "governor" and the full royal authority.' But, if we accept this explanation, it remains to consider whether we can further identify this Darius, and find out the relationship in which he stood to Cyrus. The most satisfactory theory is that attested by Josephus and Xenophon. ' According to these historians, Cyrus conquered Babylon for his father-in-law, Cyaxares II., the son of Astyages, and did not come to the throne of Babylon as an inde- pendent prince till after his death. Josephus mentions that Darius was known to the Greeks by another name ; and this, it has been concluded, was Cyaxares, the name given to him by Xenophon.' Dr. C. Geikie summarizes the knowledge which is at present at command very effectively : ' The transition from the Chaldsean dynasty to the rule of the conquerors followed at once, for resistance appears to have ceased after the taking of Babylon. Cyrus was now supreme over all Asia, from India to the Dardanelles ; but, though the moving spirit of this vast revolution, the obscurity of his original position as king only of Elam, and his relations to the Medes, and perhaps the Persians, seem to have led him for the time to deny himself the titular sovereignty. A Median prince appears, therefore, to have DARIUS THE MEDIAN. 43 been put forward by him as the nominal king, though the real power remained in his own hands. Elam and Persia had been hitherto very inferior in power and rank to Media, the haughty clans of which followed him rather as their adopted chief than as their conqueror, and the time was not yet ripe for affronting this proud assumption of independence. Cyrus had gained the leadership by affecting to liberate Media from a tyrannical despot, and the support of the aristocracy and army had been won only by his diplomacy. A Median prince was therefore established for the time as king in Babylon Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, or Cyaxares, a childless and easily-managed man of sixty-two. Two years later this phantom king died, and no further opposition to the accession of Cyrus, as an Elamite, being possible, he openly assumed the empire.' As a caution, we add a sentence from a note by Deane : 'In modern times the identity of Darius with Cyaxares II. has been strongly maintained, though without paying sufficient attention to the very slight evidence in favour of the existence of the latter.' The fact is, that no absolute decision can be made in relation to either Belshazzar, or Darius the Mede, until we can be sure which fall of Babylon is referred to in the Book of Daniel, and what is its precise date. The materials for forming such a decision are certainly not at present within our reach ; and we must be satisfied with what may seem to us the most reasonable explanatory theory. Esau's Wives. GENESIS xxxvi. 2, 3 : ' Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan ; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite ; and Bashemath, Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth.' Question. Are we to understand that Esau thus deliberately cut himself, and his descendants, off from all share in the rights and privileges of the Abrahamic covenant 1 ! And how can this list of names be reconciled with the lists given in xxvi. 34 ; xxviii. 9 ? Answer. The verse heading this paragraph belongs to a genealogical table. For the history we must refer to the earlier notices. As indicating the wild, wayward, wilful, impulsive character of Esau, we are told of the indifference he showed to his birthright, as eldest born, and the readiness with which, under stress of hunger, he sold that birthright to Jacob for ' bread and pottage of lentils ' (Gen. xxv. 29-34). It has become the fashion to compare Jacob unfavourably with Esau ; and to praise Esau in a very uncritical 44 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. fashion. It is not sufficiently noticed that Scripture exhibits his character in this incident, and it cannot be regarded as commendable. The man who has no restraint of his animal appetites, is not likely to have restraint of his bodily passions, or mastery of his will and moral nature. And, lest we should form this unfavourable comparison between Jacob and Esau, we are carefully informed of the troubles that Esau's wilfulness, lack of self-control, and indifference to all higher considerations, made in the family, before Jacob guilefully secured the 'blessing.' In Gen. xxvi. 34, 35, we read: 'and Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, which were a grief of mind (bitterness of spirit) unto Isaac and to Rebekah.' It may be said that the grief of Isaac was caused by Esau offend- ing against tribal sentiment, which required the leading family of a tribe to marry only within the tribe, or strictly allied tribes, in order to preserve the exclusiveness of each race. But the Scripture records must always be read in the light of the Jehovah covenant. Isaac regarded Esau as, not only the tribal heir, but as the covenant- heir, and his marriage to Canaanite women was a distinct and wilful offence against the covenant conditions, an open declaration that Esau despised the covenant if it interfered with his following the ' devices and desires of his own heart.' This comes out yet more clearly in the conduct of Esau, when he found he had lost the patriarchal blessing, as well as the birthright. His act then was a violent expression of the ' don't care ' spirit as if he had said, ' What is your covenant to me ? I can get along very well without it. Take your birthright, and your blessing, and your covenant. My own energy and enterprise shall stand to me instead of birthright and blessing and covenant.' There is every intimation that Esau meant to wash his hands of the whole covenant business, by going and taking to wife the daughter of Ishmael. The passage (Gen. xxviii. 6-9) gains its explanation when read in this light. ' When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take him a wife from thence ; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan ; and that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padan-aram ; and Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father ; then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.' ESAU'S WIVES. 45 Seeizen says of the Arabs : ' They always marry in their own tribe, not allowing any member of it to marry into another.' Dr. C. Geikie supports the view we have taken of the relation of Esau's conduct to the covenant. ' The marriages of the patriarchal families decided the history of their subsequent branches. Quiet progress from households of shepherds to a settled nation turned necessarily on the life adopted, and that again was largely affected by the domestic alliances made. The daughter of Bethuel, coming from the " city " of Nahor, must have brought with her the instincts of a settled life, and so, also, with the daughters of Laban, Bethuel's son. But what instincts could grow up in the children of Tshmael or Esau, except those of the wild, unimproving Arab ; born as they were of idolatrous mothers, wherever the wandering camp of their parents chanced for the time to be pitched ? It was a Divine impulse, therefore, which, acting through the Eastern craving for unmixed blood, led to the choice of brides, for Isaac and Jacob, from the old home of the race. Esau's leanings were only too plain in his bring- ing home two Hittite maidens as wives. It was clear that the tradi- tions of Abraham and Isaac had no hold on him, and that their worship of the One only God, to whom he himself had been dedicated by circumcision, was nothing in his eyes. To build up a chosen race, the heirs of the Divine covenant, involved strict separa- tion from the heathen around ; but Esau, with this knowledge, had deliberately forsaken his own race, with all its hopes and aspirations, and identified himself with those from whom God had required them to keep themselves distinct. No wonder that it was " bitterness of heart " to both Isaac and Rebekah, to see him thus break away from all they counted most sacred, and despise his birthright by slighting the conditions which God had imposed for its inheritance.' The lists of Esau's wives are as follows : GEN. xxvi. 34 ; xxviii. 9 : 1. Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite. 2. Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite. 3. Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth. GEN. xxxvi. 2 : 1. Aholibatnah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite. 2. Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite. 3. Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth. There is manifest confusion of names. It is easy to recognise the daughter of Elon, and the daughter of Ishmael, and to give them their right names, or assume that they had two names. But the first wife is not so readily recognisable. Not only do the names differ, but also the parentage, and even the tribe to which the women belonged. 46 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Suggestions in explanation are that ' daughter of Zibeon ' should read ' son of Zibeon,' that Anah having discovered ' hot springs ' (true reading of word mules, in verse 24), was also called Beeri, or the ' well-finder ;' that an error in copying made Hivite for Hittite ; or that the general name Hittite included the Hivites and Horites. ' We may conclude that Judith the daughter of Anah, called Beeri, from his finding the hot springs, and the grand-daughter of Zibeon the Horite, one of the tribes reckoned in the great Hittite family, when she married Esau, assumed the name of Aholibamah, mean- ing, " the tent of the height." ' Judgments in the order of Providence. 2 KINGS vii. 19, 20 : ' And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof. And so it fell out unto him : for the people trode upon him in the gate.' 2 KINGS ix. 25, 26 : ' Then said Jehu to Bidkar his captain, Take up and cast him (Jehoram) in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite ; for remember how that when I and thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden upon him ; surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, saith the Lord, and I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord.' Question. Are we justified, from such cases of manifest fulfil- ment of prophecy, in establishing as a truth that Go Kaph, 20 ; Q, Samekh, 60 ; *j, Daleth, 4 ; H, He, 5 ; H, Cheth, 8 ; *|, Resh, 200 ; fi, Tau, 400 ; 1, Vau, 6 ; f, Zayin, 7 ; f, Yodth, 10 ; J, Nun, 50. In any of these instances, a slight care- lessness, or confusion, or slip of the pen, would alter the value of the letter, and the mistake might easily escape the notice of a person when correcting the copy. The Assyrian Location of Captive Israel. 2 KINGS xvii. 6 : 'In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.' Question. How many separate districts are indicated by these terms, and where were they situated? Answer. It is necessary first to explain, that carrying away populations from conquered countries, and captured cities, was a part of the policy introduced by Tiglath-pileser II., the founder of the second Assyrian Empire. ' The first empire was at best a loosely-connected military organization ; campaigns were made into distant countries for the sake of plunder and tribute, but little effort was made to retain the districts that had been conquered.' ' Tiglath consolidated and organized the conquests he made ; turbulent popu- lations were deported from their old homes, and the empire was divided into satrapies or provinces. It is difficult for us to conceive of the removal of entire populations. We are oppressed as we think of the hardships such removals involved. But it was a much simpler thing in ancient times than we can now conceive. A living was more easily gained, and men's daily wants were strictly limited.' Sargon gives his own account of this deportation : ' I besieged the city of Samaria, and took it. I carried off 27,280 of the citizens ; I chose fifty chariots for myself from the whole number no HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. taken ; all the other property of the people of the town I left for my servants to take. I appointed resident officers over them, and im- posed on them the same tribute as had formerly been paid. In the place of those taken into captivity I sent thither inhabitants of lands conquered by me, and imposed the .tribute on them which I require from Assyrians.' Another part of Sargon's annals reads thus : 'Having overcome the King of Babylon I carried away of the inhabitants, with their goods, and settled them in the land of the Chatti,' that is, in Syro Israel. On a cylinder is this inscription : ' Sargon, who subdued the people of Thammud an Arab race of Arabia Petraea of Ibadid, Marsiman, and Chayapu, after slaying many, carried off the rest to the distant land of the House of Omri ' (Samaria). In the annals of Sargon's seventh year, we read : ' I subdued the inhabitants of Tasid, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chayapu, the people of distant Arba, the dwellers in the land of Bari, which even the learned have not known, and which had never brought their tribute to the king, my father, and transplanted the survivors and settled them in the city of Samaria.' By Halah we are to understand a district on the upper course of the river Khabour in North-western Mesopotamia, the region ap- parently being known as 'Gozan.' By the'' cities of the Medes ' we may understand the wild highland region on the east side of the Tigris, north of the Persian Gulf. According to this explanation, only two districts are referred to in the text, Halah or Gozan on the Khabour, and the ' cities (or mountains) of the Medes.' Ewald says : ' The Book of Kings specifies Halah, Habor, the river Gozan, and the cities of Media, as the localities to which the exiles were consigned. The two first of these names indicate places north of Nineveh, and south of the lake of Van ; the river Gozan, still known by the name Ozen, rises south of the lake of Ourmia, and forms approximately the northern boundary of Media, which is mentioned with it.' The Speaker's Commentary, noticing the connection of Halah, both here and in i Chron. v. 26, with Gozan and the Habor, says it shows, almost beyond a doubt, that it is the tract which Ptolemy calls Chalcitis, and which he places on the borders of Gauzanitis (Gozan), in the vicinity of the Chaboras, or Khabour. In this region is a re- markable mound called Gla, which probably marks the site, and represents the name, of the city Chalach, whence the district Chal- citis was so called. The Habor is the great affluent of the Euphrates, the western Khabour. This stream, which is often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions under the same name, is pre-eminently ' the THE ARK OF GOD WITH SAUL'S ARMY. in river of Gozan ' (Gauzanitis), all the waters of which it collects and conducts to the Euphrates. Gozan is mentioned, not only in three passages in combination with Halah and the Habor (comp. 2 Kings xviii. n, and i Chron. v. 26), but also in a fourth in com- bination with Haran (2 Kings xix. 12). Its identity with Gauzanitis follows almost necessarily from the fact that in this region only are all the four names combined. The Ark of God with Saul's Army. I SAMUEL xiv. 18 : ' And Saul said unto Ahijah, Bring hither the ark of God. For the ark of God was there at that time with the children of Israel.' Difficulty. As we have no indication of the ark having left Kirjath-jearim until David removed it, can this reference to the ark be correct ? Explanation. So far as the history of the ark can be traced by the help of Scripture references, it was during the judgeship of Samuel that the men of Kirjath-jearim fetched up the ark from the country of the Philistines (i Sam. vii. i). Then it was lodged in the house of Abinadab, who resided in Gibeah, that is, in the hill. It was from this house David fetched it (2 Sam. vi. 3) ; but in conse- quence of the death of Uzzah, who touched it against the Divine rule, David rested it for some months in the house of Obed-Edom, the Gittite. There is no trace whatever of Saul's showing any interest in the ark, or making the slightest attempt at securing its restoration. The question to be decided concerns the correctness of the word ark in this verse. In favour of retaining it is the fact, that it is found in all extant Hebrew manuscripts, and also in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Chaldee Targums. And on the face of it, there is no impos- sibility involved in the idea that Saul had the ark brought for the occasion from Kirjath-jearim. But the arguments against the correctness of the term are over- whelming. There can be no doubt that ephod, not ark, is the proper term. The Septuagint Version reads : ' And Saul said to Ahijah, Bring hither the ephod ; for he bore the ephod in those days before the children of Israel.' Josephus reports the incident in this way : ' He bid the priest take the garments of his priesthood, and prophesy,' etc. We should carefully notice, that Saul did not want the presence of the ark in the same sense, and for the same purpose, as the Israelites did, in the time of Eli, when they sent for it into the battlefield. Saul wanted it as a means of inquiring of God as to the way in which 1 1 2 HAND BOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. he should act in a pressing emergency. ' Should he seeing the panic that was evidently increasing in the Philistine camp, and knowing nothing of the cause, only that his son and the armour- bearer were missing should he risk his little force, and, leaving his strong position, attack that great host of apparently panic stricken enemies ?' But if Saul meant to inquire of God, the ark was not the proper thing to send for. There is no trace of the ark ever being used as the medium of inquiries. The proper thing was to send for the high priest, requesting him to put on the ephod, with the Urim and Thummim in it ; and, in some mysterious way which has not been revealed to us, the Divine answer was given, and the Divine will was revealed, through some change in that Urim and Thummim. It has also been pointed out, that the expression 'Bring hither' is never applied to the ark, and it could not properly be applied to that most sacred symbol of the Divine presence. No king could possibly have authority to order about, at his own will, the ark of God. He might command the attendance of the high priest, in order to make inquiries, through him, concerning the Divine will. This expression, ' Bring hither,' is used in connection- with the ephod. (See i Sam. xxiii. 9.) ' David said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod,' and, through it, David made definite inquiry of God. Another precisely similar instance will be found in i Sam. xxx. 7. It only need be added, that Saul required an immediate decision, and this he could get from the priest, who was always close at hand ; but this he could not have obtained if the ark had to be fetched from Kirjath-jearim. Stanley is right in saying that the reading of ark for ephod is an ' obvious mistake.' Hilkiah's Book of the Law. 2 KINGS xxii. 8 : 'And Hilkiah, the high priest, said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.' Question. Can the work discovered by Hilkiah be identified with any degree of certainty ? Answer. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Books of Moses are referred to ; but there is dispute as to whether we are to understand the Five Books comprising the Pentateuch ; portions containing only the judgments of the law ; or only the summary, or the primary portions of the summary, now known as the Book of Deuteronomy. ( The discussion of the origin and contents of Deu- HILKIAH' S BOOK OF THE LAW. 113 teronomy is not required for the elucidation of this particular ques- tion, but will be found treated elsewhere.) Dr. C. Geikie gives an explanatory account of the incident. ' Eighteen years had passed since Josiah's accession, though he was still only a young man of twenty-six. The whole country had been cleared of its high places, and other heathen or superstitious dis- figurements, and the Temple was rapidly being repaired and restored to its ancient uses, under a commission, consisting of Hilkiah, the high priest ; Shaphan, the king's secretary, or minister of finance ; Maaseiah, the Sar, or governor of Jerusalem, and Joah, the king's mazkir, or keeper of the State archives. While engaged in their duties, Hilkiah came upon a manuscript roll, which proved to be a copy of " The Book of the Torah, or Law, of Jehovah, by the hand of Moses " (Heb. of 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14 ; comp. 2 Kings xxii. 8). In what part of the Temple it was found is not stated, but the discovery took place when the commissioners were removing the money gathered to repair the Temple, from the chests in which it had been stored, which may mark either when the book was found, or the place where it was discovered. In the days of Christ it was believed that the king had sent Hilkiah to get what money remained, after the restoration of the Temple, to melt into cups, dishes, etc., for the sacred ministrations, and that while he was bringing it out, he lighted upon "the Holy Books of Moses." The Rabbinical tradition is, that " the Book " was found beneath a heap of stones, under which it had been hidden when they burned the other copies of the Law. It may be, however, that it had lain hid in the ark itself, which Manasseh had thrown aside into some of the many cells, or chambers, round the Temple, where it might easily have remained unnoticed till the searching eagerness of the commission discovered it. Hitherto the king had acted only from the traditional knowledge of the old reli- gion, preserved by the godly through the dark times of Manasseh and Amon ; but the written Law was now in his hands. That its earlier existence was well known is shown by its instant recognition as " The Book of the Law." Nor is it possible that Josiah himself, and those around him, should have received it as the ancient sacred book of the nation, had no such book formerly existed.' That there was a copy of the Law specially preserved beside the ark, within the Holy of Holies, is evident from the passage, Deut. xxxi. 25, 26 : ' Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.' But the actual contents ii4 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. of this ' Book of the Law ' are not given, and we cannot tell whether it included the historical portions, or was strictly limited to the original legislative sections. Whatever this Temple-copy of the Law contained, the importance attached by all parties to the discovery of Hilkiah certainly suggests that it was this particular copy, specially sacred because of its asso- ciations, which was now recovered. Dr. Lumby gives the preceding historical associations, which enable us to appreciate the significance of the discovery. 'Josiah had suc- ceeded his father at the age of eight, and in the previous fifty-seven years the kingdom hid twice over been deluged with all the abomina- tions of idolatry. The greater proportion, therefore, of the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have had little chance of knowing the Law and its requirements. The Temple had been neglected, perhaps closed, during a large part of these years. If we may judge of what would be needed now by what had been found necessary in Hezekiah's time (2 Chron. xxix. 5-7), the holy place would have become foul with neglect, the doors shut up, the lamps unlit, no incense within, no sacrifice without, the building. As for the Book of the Law, whatever might have been the contents of it at this time, rolls containing it would certainly not be numerous. In the possession of the priests they might be expected to be found, but only here and there. The copy made (according to the Law) for the use of the king would most certainly have perished. We must lay aside, in thinking of this time, all our modern conceptions about books and about a number of copies. The priests, in the matter of services and sacrifices in the Temple, taught the people by word of mouth what was proper in every part of the ceremonial, and much of the priestly training was traditional, passed on from one generation of priests to another. That an authoritative copy of the law, whatever it may have com- prised, would be supplied for preservation in the Temple we certainly might, expect ; but after nearly sixty years of neglect of the Temple and its services, we can feel little surprised that neither Hilkiah nor his fellows were aware of its existence, and that Josiah knew con- cerning it only what had been taught him by the priests. The half- century previous to Josiah's accession had been a period of utter darkness, both for people, priests, and king. . . . Neither Hilkiah nor Shaphan are surprised at what has been found. The high priest describes it to Shaphan by a form of words which must have had a definite meaning before he used them. That is, there was known among the priests, and to some degree, no doubt, among the people, a collection of precepts which were called by the name of "the Book HILKIAH'S BOOK OF THE LAW. 115 of the Law." Therefore the " finding " mentioned in this verse was not a discovery of something unknown before, but the rescuing of the Temple-copy of the Law from the hiding-place in which it had long lain (perhaps in one of the chambers round about the Temple). Hilkiah knows what it is which he has come upon : the scribe with professional instinct begins to peruse it. Neither of them shows any ignorance or any surprise at the sight or perusal.' The discussion of the probable contents of the book is reviewed and summarized by Canon Cheyne, in his recent work on ' Jeremiah.' Referring to Shaphan, the scribe, he says : ' At present we must accompany him to his royal master, and watch the effect of the tidings which he bears from the Temple, where a discovery has just been made by Hilkiah the priest. It is a book which has been found containing directions on religious and moral points which cut at the root of many popular customs and practices. The name which Hilkiah gives to it is, " The Book of Torah " (i.e., of Divine direc- tion or instruction) ; the narrator himself calls it " The Covenant Book" (2 Kings xxiii. 2). The chronicler, however, gives it a fuller title, " The Book of Jehovah's Torah given by Moses " (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), which probably expresses the meaning of the earlier narrator. For certainly it was as a Mosaic production that the " Book of Torah " effected such a rapid success, though not (even according to the compiler of Kings) the whole of what is now called the Pentateuch. There can be no longer any doubt that the book found in the Temple was substantially the same as our Book of Deu- teronomy. Does the narrative in Kings describe the book as the Book of Torah, and its stipulations collectively as " the Covenant " ? (2 Kings xxii. 8 ; xxiii. 3). These are also phrases of the expanded Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. xxix. i, 21; xxx. 10; xxxi. 26, etc.). Do the king and the people pledge themselves " to walk after Jehovah, and to keep His commandments and His precepts and His statutes with all their heart, and with all their soul, performing the words of this covenant that are written in this book "? (2 Kings xxiii. 3). The same phrases occur over and over again in Deuteronomy. (See Deut. iv. 13; vi. 5 ; viii. 6, n ; x. 12, 13; xxix. 9.) Does Josiah devote himself to the suppression of the local sanctuaries and the centralization of worship ? This is also one of the principal aims of the Book of Deuteronomy.' Canon Cheyne quotes together the following passages, Deut. vi. 4, 5 ; xii. 2-6; xvi. 21, 22; xviii. 9-15 ; xxviii. 15-21, and says of them: ' Such is the only setting in which a Biblical scholar is permitted to place the kernel at least of Deuteronomy (if the somewhat misleading 82 1 1 6 HANDB O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFF1CUL TIES. name is still to be used), but not more than this, for the fifth of the so-called " Books of Moses " has most certainly grown like the other four. It is too soon to inquire what this " kernel " was ; too soon to set forth the probable origin of this earliest part of the book.' In the face of searching modern criticism we may still keep the older explanation of Hilkiah's discovery. ' The thorough search which was made in the Temple, for the removal of every relic of idolatry or superstition, which former kings had introduced, brought to light the autograph copy of the Law written by Moses ; and, in opening it, the eye fell upon the passage, Deut. xxviii. 15-68, de- claring the doom of the nation if it fell into idolatry.' (Kitto.} The Speaker's Commentary meets the objection that a fraud was arranged to serve the purposes of the priesthood, and after showing how certainly a fraud would have been detected, adds : ' On the whole, it may be said that fraud or mistake might as easily have imposed a new " Bible " on the Christian world in the sixteenth century, as a new "law" on the Jews in the reign of Josiah.' Kirjath-Sepher, the Book Town. JOSHUA xv. 16 : ' And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.' Question. As this name means ' Book Town,' may we infer that the Canaanites were sufficiently civilized to have public libraries ? Answer. Up to recent times, it could only be conjectured from this name that this town was an ancient seat of learning. Dr. Wright and Professor Sayce have now brought to light information of an extremely interesting character, which fully supports what was previously only a conjecture. Writing of the times of Rameses II., Sayce says : ' It is clear that already at this period the Hittites were a literary people. The Egyptian records make mention of a certain Khilip-sira, whose name is compounded with that of Khilip or Aleppo, and describe him as "a writer of books of the vile Kheta." Like the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Hittite monarch was accompanied to battle by his scribes. If Kirjath-sepher, or " Book Town," in the neigh- bourhood of Hebron, was of Hittite origin, the Hittites would have possessed libraries like the Assyrians, which may yet be dug up. Kirjath-sepher was also called " Debir," the " Sanctuary," and we may, therefore, conclude that the library was stored in its chief temple, as were the libraries of Babylonia. There was another Debir or Dapur further north, in the vicinity of Kadesh on the Orontes, which is mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions ; and since this was in the KIRJATH-SEPHER, THE BOOK TOWN. 117 land of the Amorites, while Kirjath-sepher is also described as an Amorite town, it is possible that here, too, the relics of an ancient library may yet be found. We must not forget that in the days of Deborah, " out of Zebulon," northward of Megiddo, came " they that handle the pen of the writer." ' (Judg. v. 14.) After giving an historical description of what has become known in regard to the conquest of Amenophis III., as shown by the archives of his palace, Professor Sayce says, of the tablets and inscriptions : ' From them we learn that, in the fifteenth century before our era a century before the Exodus active literary intercourse was going on throughout the civilized world of Western Asia, between Babylon and Egypt and the smaller states of Palestine, of Syria, of Mesopotamia, and even of Eastern Kappadokia. And this intercourse was carried on by means of the Babylonian language, and the complicated Baby- lonian script. This implies that all over the civilized East there were libraries and schools where the Babylonian language and literature were taught and learned. Babylonian appeared to have been as much the language of diplomacy and cultivated society as French has become in modern times, with the difference that, whereas it does not take long to learn French, the cuneiform syllabary required years of hard labour and attention before it could be acquired. We can now understand the meaning of the name of the Canaanitish city which stood near Hebron, and which seems to have been one of the most important of the towns of Southern Palestine. Kirjath-sepher, or " Book Town," must have been the seat of a famous library, consist- ing mainly, if not altogether, as the Tel el-Amarna tablets inform us, of clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform characters. The literary influence of Babylonia in the age before the Israelitish conquest of Palestine explains the occurrence of the names of Babylonian deities among the inhabitants of the West. Moses died on the summit of Mount Nebo, which received its name from the Babylonian god of literature, to whom the great temple of Borsippa was dedicated ; and Sinai itself, the mountain of " Sin," testifies to a worship of the Baby- lonian Moon-god, Sin, amid the solitudes of the desert Moloch, or Malik, was a Babylonian divinity like Rimmon, the Air-god, after whom more than one locality in Palestine was named ; and Anat, the wife of Anu, the Sky-god, gave her name to the Palestinian Anah, as well as to Anathoth, the city of the " Anat-goddesses." ' In a careful reading of the tablets, Professor Sayce came upon many ancient names and incidents known up to the present only from their appear- ance in the Bible. Some account of Babylonian and Assyrian libraries may help us to n8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. realize the provision made in the temple of this Canaanitish town, Kirjath-sepher. ' A literary people ' like the Babylonians needed libraries, and libraries were accordingly established at a very early period in all the great cities of the country, and plentifully stocked with books in papyrus and clay. In imitation of these Babylonian libraries, libraries were also founded in Assyria by the Assyrian kings. There was a library at Assur, and another at Calah, which seems to have been as old as the city itself. But the chief library of Assyria, that, in fact, from which most of the Assyrian literature we possess has come, was the great library of Nineveh (Kouyunjik). This owed its magnitude and reputation to Assur-bani-pal, who filled it with copies of the plundered books of Babylonia. A whole army of scribes was employed in it, busily engaged in writing and editing old texts. Assur-bani-pal is never weary of telling us, in the colophon at the end of the last tablet of a series which made up a single work, that 'Nebo and Tasmit had given him broad ears and enlightened his eyes so as to see the engraved characters of the written tablets, whereof none of the kings that had gone before had seen this text, the wisdom of Nebo, all the literature of the library that exists,' so that he had ' written, engraved, and explained it on tablets, and placed it within his palace for the inspection of readers.' All the branches of knowledge known at the time were treated of in Assyrian literature, though naturally history, legend, and poetry occupied a prominent place in it. But even such subjects as the despatches of generals in the field, or the copies of royal correspondence found a place in the public library. The chronology of Assyria, and, therewith, of the Old Testament also, has been restored by means of the lists of successive ' eponyms,' or officers after whom the years were named, while a recent discovery has brought to light a table of Semitic Babylonian kings, arranged in dynasties, wnich traces them back to B.C. 2330. Jeroboam's Two Calves. I KINGS xii. 28, 29 : ' Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and he said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem ; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.' Difficulty. There was no precedent for making two calves. Whence did Jeroboam get the idea, and what object did he propose to himself 1 } Explanation. Jeroboam had become familiar, while exiled in Egypt, with the worship of the sacred ox Apis, and the calf Mnevis, JEROBOAMS TWO CALVES. 119 and all over Western Asia, including the heathen parts of Palestine, the ox was the favourite symbol of Baal. The young bull was the symbol of creative power. It does not appear that any religious object was in view in making two calves. If visible representatives of God are once admitted, the multiplication of them is only a matter of convenience. Jeroboam was wholly swayed by considerations affecting the establishment of his new kingdom, and he was not checked by any religious con- siderations. He would have made ten gods as readily as two, if he had thought that ten would serve his state purposes. The one set up at Dan was, perhaps, to be the great religious centre, but, as Bethel was a recognised holy place, the calf there seems to have received the greatest attention, though Jeroboam may only have meant it to keep the southern section of his people from going to Jerusalem to worship. And with the calf at Bethel there came to be connected a new temple, ' known for centuries as the royal and national sanctuary, a rival of the great Temple of Jerusalem, with a distinct priesthood, ritual, and festivals, and all the pomp of the religious centre of the kingdom.' There was no actual intention to cast off Jehovah these calves were but to represent Him but the fact that there were two tended to destroy the primary conception of the Divine Unity, as the material figure tended to destroy the other primary conception of the Divine Spirituality. Canon Rawlinson suggests that these ' calves of gold ' were repre- sentations of the cherubic form, imitations, more or less close, of the two cherubirn which guarded the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies. As, however, they were unauthorized copies, set up in places which God had not chosen, and without any Divine sanction, the sacred writers call them ' calves.' We may gather from this that they were not mere human figures with wings, but had, at any rate, the head of a calf or ox. Jeroboam, in setting them up, was probably not so much influenced by anything that he had seen in Egypt, as ( i ) by a conviction that the Israelites could not be brought to attach themselves to any worship which did not present them with sensible objects to venerate ; (2) by the circumstance that he did not possess any of the old objects of reverence which had been concen- trated at Jerusalem ; and (3) by the fact that he could plead for his ' calves ' the authority of so great a name as Aaron. 120 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The Resting-Place of Noah's Ark. GENESIS viii. 4 : 'And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.' Difficulty. Mount Ararat is almost inaccessible. It is inconceiv- able that the women and animals climbed down from its summit. Explanation. The expression 'mountains of Ararat ' suggests some part of the range known by that name, and not necessarily the highest part. In its love for the extraordinary, tradition has fixed the site as one of the two highest peaks, the Aghri-dagh, and the Kara- dagh, which are more than 10,000 feet above the level of the sea. We may more wisely assume that it rested on one of the lower ridges, and that when the mists cleared, Noah found himself surrounded by an amphitheatre of mountains. ' The Targum of Onkelos and the Syriac translate " on the moun- tains of Carduchia." This range, which separates Armenia from Kurdistan, is regarded by many authorities as the hills really meant, because, as they are nearer the place whence the ark started, the difficulty regarding the course taken by it is not so insuperable.' 'Ararat is the name of a territory (2 Kings xix. 37) which is mentioned (Jer. li. 27) as a kingdom near to Mirmi (Armenia) probably the middle province of the Armenian territory, which Moses of Chorene calls Arairad, Araratia. The mountains of Ararat are, doubtless, the mountain-group which rises from the plain of the Araxes in two high peaks, the Great Ararat, 16,254 feet, and the Lesser, about 12,000 feet above the level of the sea. This landing- place of the ark is of the highest significance for the development of humanity, as it is to be renewed after the flood. Armenia, the fountain-land of the Paradise rivers, a " cool, airy, well-watered, insular mountain-tract," as it has been called, lies in the middle of the old continent. And so, in a special manner, does the mountain of Ararat lie nearly in the middle, not only of the Great African- Asiatic desert-tract, but also of the inland, or Mediterranean waters, extending from Gibraltar to the Sea of Baikal at the same time occupying the middle point in the longest line of extension of the Caucasian race, and of the Indo-Germanic lines of language and mythology ; whilst it is also the middle point of the greatest reach of land in the old world as measured from the Cape of Good Hope to Behring's Straits in fact, the most peculiar point on the globe, from whose heights the lines and tribes of people, as they went forth from the sons of Noah, might spread themselves to all the regions of the earth. CYRUS NO MONOTHEIST. 121 ' The Koran has wrongly placed the landing-place of Noah on the hiliy/rt////, in the Kurd mountain tract, but this -wordfad/ii may only be an epithet, meaning the Hill of Mercy. The Samaritan Version locates it on the mountains of Ceylon ; the Sybilline books in Phrygia, in the native district of Marsyas. The Hindoo story of the Flood names the Himalaya, the Greek Parnassus, as the landing- place of the delivered ancestor.' (Lange.} It is evident that no exact information can be obtained, and that we are left to form reasonable conjectures. Cyrus no Monotheist. EZRA i. I : ' Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing.' Question. What corrections of previous notions concerning Cyrus have come to us through recently-discovered documents ? Answer. It may be well to notice first the commonly-received notions concerning Cyrus, that we may value, by comparison, the recent information that has been obtained. Dean Stanley calls this hero ' Cyrus, or Koresh, or Khosroo, the King of the Persians. The day of Persian glory which he ushered in, the empire which he founded, for that brief time, embraced all that there was of civilization from the Himalayas to the ^gean Sea. ... Of all the great nations of Central Asia, Persia alone is of the same stock as Greece and Rome and Germany. . . . Cyrus belongs to the only nation in the then state of the world which, in any sense at all approaching the Israelite, acknowledged the unity of the Godhead. The religion of the Persians was, of all the Gentile forms of faith, the most simple and the most spiritual. Their abhorrence of idols was pushed almost to fanaticism. " They have no images of the gods, no temples, no altars, and consider the use of them a sign of folly." This was Herodotus's account of the Persians of his own day, and it is fully borne out by what we know of their religion and of their history.' Professor Sayce tell us that ' the history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire, and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about the restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account, given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian and 122 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the history into the first year of Cyrus, as King of Babylon. The other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of Bel Merodach, the patron god of Babylon.' In these inscriptions Cyrus does not call himself and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used is Anzan, or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam, who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king, Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province. In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of ' King of Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first became King of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B.C. 549) Cyrus is still King of Elam ; in the ninth year he has become King of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he must have gained possession of Persia, either by conquest, or in some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages, his rule did not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own fore- father. That Cyrus was an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped Bel Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities of Babylon. We have learnt a similar fact in regard to his son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by Kambyses, given by Herodotus, is a fiction ; a tablet accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of Kambyses sculptured upon it, kneeling before the Egyptian god. The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of the Zoroastrian faith ; there is nothing in Scripture to warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only CYRUS NO MONOTHEIST. 123 because he was His chosen instrument in bringing about the restora- tion of Israel ; it is expressly said of him, ' I girded thee, though thou hast not known Me ' (Isaiah xlv. 5). Experience had taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore re- versed the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered population to another country, and sought instead to win their gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored from exile, would not only pro- tect the south-west corner of his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his intended invasion of Egypt itself. The permission, therefore, which he granted to the Jewish exiles to return again to Palestine, and there rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, doubtless seemed to him a master-stroke of policy ; he little knew that he was but an instrument in the hand of God, who was using him and his worldly counsels to fulfil the promises that had been made years before to the chosen people. The return from the captivity took place in the first year of the reign of Cyrus in Babylonia, that is, in 538 B.C. The journey of so large a caravan from Babylonia to Palestine must have occupied a considerable time. Solomon's Forced Labourers. I KINGS ix. 20-22 : 'As for all the people that were left of the Amorites, the Hittiies, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebu-ites, which were not of the children of Israel ; their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants, unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondservants : but they were the men of war, and his servants; and his princes, and his captains, and the rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen.' Difficulty. The accounts of the levy as given in Kings and in Chronicles differ in some important particulars. If the demand for forced labour did not apply to the Israelites, how could it be a cause of complaint in the time of Rehoboam ? Explanation. It will be helpful to place the passages referring to Solomon's ' tribute of men ' side by side ; and they may be given from the Revised Version, so as to secure the utmost precision attainable. They will be found to harmonize themselves, i Kings v. 13-16 : ' And King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel ; and the levy was thirty thousand men. And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses : a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home : and Adoniram was over the levy. And Solomon 124 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES, had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand that were hewers in the mountains ; besides Solomon's chief officers that were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work.' Here are mentioned 30,000 men specially working in Lebanon at tree-felling and cutting. There is no statement made as to their being Israelites or strangers, but the careful arrangement to secure that they were not overworked, suggests that they were Israelites. And Samuel had duly warned the people that if they had a king, he would exact forced labour (i Sam. viii. 16). Besides this levy, the narrator informs us that Solomon had 70,000 labourers, and 80,000 quarrymen : and these may have been drawn from the Canaanite population. Over these it seems to have been necessary to appoint 3,300 overseers, and these were taken from the native Israelites. It is only said that ' Adoniram was over the levy.' As the building of the Temple was a work of love, the skilled native workmen would be independent of overseers, and would be likely to organize them- selves under their own foremen. We may not be correct in making this distinction between the levy of Israelites for the Lebanon work, and the great mass of labourers and stone-cutters for the quarries, but it seems to be the most reasonable rendering of the passage, and it paves the way for understanding the other passages which refer to the matter. i Kings ix. 20, 21, is given above ; and from the context it will be seen that reference is here made to Solomon's permanent arrange- ments for building his palaces and cities, and not to his special arrange- ments for building the Temple. For that work a levy of Israelites was reasonably made ; but for ordinary state enterprises Solomon did not venture to exact forced labour from his own people. The work for which the levy from the Canaanite populations was raised, is clearly indicated in ch. ix. 17-19 : 'And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether, and Baalath, and Tadmor (Tamar, R.V.) in the wilderness, in the land, and all the store cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.' The descendants of the Canaanite population had become so mixed up with the Israelites in all the cities that no further effort could be made to dislodge them, but they never had the citizen-rights of native Israelites, and were liable to calls for forced labour, and were always distinguished from the Israelites in the service they must render and the tribute they must bear. We can quite understand that Solomon could SOLOMON'S FORCED LABOURERS. 125 demand forced labour even from his own people on emergencies, but the Canaanite population seem to have been under a permanent claim ; their levy is said to have been continuous 'unto this day.' The other passage dealing with this matter is in 2 Chron. ii. 17, 18 : ' And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them ; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred. And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand that were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people awork.' Comparing this passage with that in i Kings v. 13-16, it will be seen that the writer of the ' Chronicles ' makes no reference to the 30,000 who were sent in batches of 10,000 to Lebanon, and who were probably skilled Israelite workmen ; but confines himself to the 150,000 labourers and stone-cutters, who served in the quarries of the mountains. The only difference between the two passages is found in the number of the overseers, which is given in Kings as 3,300, and in Chronicles as 3,600. But in the Hebrew writing three (shalosh) and six (shesh) might easily be confused. The Speaker's Commentary supports the view taken of the distinc- tion between the 30,000 and the 150,000 in the Book of Kings. Its note on i Kings v. 13 is as follows : 'This was, apparently, the first time that the Israelites had been called upon to perform forced labour. It had been prophesied, when they desired a king, that, if they insisted on having one, he would " take their menservants, and their maidservants, and their goodliest young men, and put them to his work " and David had bound to forced service the " strangers that were in the land of Israel" (i Chron. xxii. 2), but hitherto the Israelites had escaped. Solomon now, in connection with his pro- posed work of building the Temple, with the honour of God as an excuse, laid this burthen upon them. Out of the 1,300,000 able- bodied Israelites (2 Sam. xxiv. 9), a band of 30,000 one in forty- four was raised, of whom one-third was constantly at work in Lebanon, while two-thirds remained at home, and pursued their usual occupations. The working 10,000 were relieved every month, and thus each man laboured for one month in Lebanon, then spent two months at home, then in the fourth month returned to his forced toil, in the fifth month found himself relieved, and so on year after year. This, though a very light form of task-work, was felt as a great oppression, and was the chief cause of the revolt of the ten tribes at Solomon's death.' (i Kings xii. 4.) 126 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The chief grievance represented to Rehoboam was the forced labour to which the Israelites had been subjected. ' Forced labour has been among the causes leading to insurrection in many ages and countries. It alienated the people of Rome from the last Tarquin ; it helped to bring about the French Revolution, and it was for many years one of the principal grievances of the Russian serfs.' Dr. C. Geikie explains the different levies in another way, which, however, makes it more difficult to harmonize the several passages. He says : ' Another grievance that sapped the loyalty of the people was the systematic enforcement of compulsory or virtually slave labour, to carry out the various schemes of the king. The Temple ; the vast series of royal buildings at Jerusalem ; the fortifications of that city ; the erection of strongholds at different points ; the con- struction of the great royal roads ; the creation of the royal gardens and parks ; the building of the huge aqueducts and reservoirs at the capital, and much else, had required an amount of labour which could not be obtained by ordinary means. Even Solomon's revenues would not, indeed, have met the cost of it, had they been available. In imitation of the Pharaohs, therefore, he established and enforced a system of forced, unpaid labour, on the community at large. At first, however, this was demanded only from the remnants of the Canaanites. They had, indeed, been subjected to this serfdom in the later years of David's reign, but the yoke was now laid on them much more heavily. Thirty thousand men were drafted to toil in the forests of Lebanon and in the quarries at Jerusalem, felling trees, and hewing vast stones ; 10,000 serving a month in rotation, with an interval of two months at home, to attend to their own affairs ; a tax of four months' labour a year from each of the 30,000. But even this army of unwilling labourers was insufficient, as the buildings and other undertakings of the king increased. A levy was therefore raised from " all Israel," not from the Canaanites only, amounting to 70,000 men to carry loads, and 80,000 to hew down and square timber in Lebanon, and to quarry and prepare building stones : 3,300 overseers watching that the tasks were performed. How great the suffering imposed by these corv'ees must have been, is easy to imagine. Continued through years, involving exposure for months together on the mountains, or toil in the darkness of quarries worked like mines, where the smoke of their torches, used in the thick darkness, may still be seen they must have been fatal to many. But besides all this, there was the exhausting labour of moving huge trees to the distant sea-shore ; and on their reaching Joppa, dragging them up the steep mountain passes to Jerusalem ; or transporting immense blocks KINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAPTIVITY. 127 of stone on rough sledges, from the quarries to the Temple site on Mount Moriah. Forced labour in the East has, in all ages, been as fatal as war, and it was probably as destructive in Solomon's time.' As indicating that even the Israelites were subject to forced labour, Geikie recalls the fact that, in i Kings xi. 28, Jeroboam, the master of the public works, is said to have been ' over all the charge of the house of Joseph.' The Kings Associated with the Captivity. 2 KINGS xvii. 3 : ' Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria ; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.' 2 KINGS xvii. 5 : ' Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.' Question. Can it be the same King of Assyria that is mentioned in these two verses ? Answer. The fact that the name is not given in the second passage suggests that another king may be referred to, and another invasion, or another phase of the invasion, is dealt with. The history, as corrected by recent discoveries, shows that Tiglath-Pileser died in B.C. 727, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV., the king referred to above in verse 3. The refusal of Hoshea to continue the yearly tribute of ten talents of gold, and a thousand of silver, which Hoshea had promised to Tiglath-Pileser, brought Shalmaneser into the West. He unsuccessfully besieged Tyre, but carried Hoshea away captive, and commenced a blockade of Samaria, which lasted for three years. During this blockade Shalmaneser died, and the crown was seized by one of the Assyrian generals. He assumed the name of Sargon, in memory of the famous Babylonian monarch who had reigned so many centuries before. The later phases, therefore, of the taking of Samaria, and the deportation of the inhabitants, belong to Sargon rather than to Shalmaneser, though Sargon did but carry out the scheme which Shalmaneser had devised and commenced. The association of the two kings will explain the different form in which the reference in verse 5 is set. The second invasion of Shalmaneser fell in the year B.C. 723, and the time given for the siege of Samaria is three years according to the Hebrew method of reckoning, but only two years according to our method. The Speaker's Commentary says : ' The King of Assyria who took Samaria appears by the Assyrian inscriptions not to have been Shalmaneser, but Sargon. At least this monarch claims to have captured the city in the first year of his reign, which was B.C. 721 128 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. according to the Canon of Ptolemy, the very year of this capture, according to the Hebrew numbers. It will be observed that the writer of Kings does not say that Shalmaneser took Samaria, but only that the " King of Assyria " did so ; and in ch. xviii. 10 he is still more cautious ; for, having stated that " Shalmaneser came up against Samaria and besieged it," he adds, that "at the end of three years they took it." ' Nothing is known respecting the death of Shalmaneser ; but Sargon reports concerning himself, in the great inscription published by Botta : ' The city of Samaria (Samerina) I assaulted, I took ; 27,280 men dwelling in the midst thereof I carried off; fifty chariots among them I set apart (for myself), and the rest of their wealth I let (my soldiers) take ; my prefect over them I appointed, and the tribute of the former king upon them I laid.' Dr. Lumby in a note on ch. xviii. 10, observes that the consonants might be fitted with vowel-points, making them read, ' he took it.' But the vowels for the plural form, they, as given by the Massoretes, can only be the result of a long-retained tradition. The various Fates of the Scapegoat. LEVITICUS xvi. 21, 22 : ' And shall send him away by the hands of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness ; and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a solitary land : and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.' Difficulty. This requirement would have to be modified when the people no longer lived in the desert districts. Are there any traces of the later fulfilment of the injunction ? Explanation. According to the law of Moses, the scapegoat was led into the wilderness, and there set free. But on one occasion the animal returned to Jerusalem, and the omen was thought so bad that afterwards it was led out to a high mountain, called Sook, and there pushed over the precipice, and dashed to pieces. It was taken out on the Sabbath day. To evade, therefore, the law of the Sabbath- day's journey, a tabernacle was erected at every term of 2,000 cubits, in which the messenger ate and drank, after which he was legally enabled to travel another stage. Ten such tabernacles were constructed between Sook and Jerusalem, and the distance was ninety Ris, or about six and a half English miles. The district was called Hidoodim, and the high mountain, Sook, the first meaning sharp, the second narrow, both applying well to the knife-edged ridges of the desert and hill. The distance of ninety Ris, measured from Jerusalem, brings us now to a great hill called El Muntar ; 2 HE VARIOUS FATES OF THE SCAPEGOAT. 129 beside the ancient road from Jerusalem there is now a well called Suk, while in the modern Hadeidun, which is applied to a part of the ridge, we may recognise the earlier Hebrew word Hidoodim. Captain Conder, R.E., who suggests this identification, thinks we have in the present El Muntar the scene of the destruction of the scapegoat. (' Biblical Things.'} There are now no sacrificial priests, and of course the ' scapegoat,' or goat of Azazel, is not sent into the wilderness. The curious feature of the modern Day of Atonement is the sacrifice of a cock : and the greatest pains are taken to secure a white cock. ' The reason why they use a cock rather than any other creature is this : In Hebrew a man is called Gever. Now if Gever (man) has sinned, Gever must also sustain the penalty thereof. But since the punishment is heavier than the Jews can bear, the Rabbis have substituted for them a cock, which in the Chaldee dialect is called Gever, and thus the Divine justice is assumed to be satisfied ; because as Gever has sinned, so Gever, i.e., a cock, is sacrificed.' But no attempt is made to provide two cocks, and liberate one, which would seem to be the fitting reproduction of the older ceremony. The Nature of Solomon's Idolatry. I KINGS xi. 4 : c For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods : and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.' Question. Are there any qualifications that should be put on the apparent representation of Solomon as an apostate ? Answer. The Bible never represents Solomon as a personally pious man. He was officially religious. Religion for him belonged to kingship. It was a matter of state policy to uphold the national ceremonial, and to make it as magnificent as possible. But when a man's attention is attracted to ceremonial, he loses the sense of ex- clusiveness in religion, and becomes interested in various ceremonials, and inclines towards the most magnificent. But Solomon's grave peril lay in the exaggerated liberalism of the religion he had. It was such liberalism as usually characterizes a commercial and wealthy age. It is especially pointed out, that Solomon's self-indulgence led him to take wives from the princely families of the neighbouring idolatrous nations, and it was inevitable that their religious preferences would have to be considered, and though Solomon would not go the length of introducing idolatrous altars or temples into Jerusalem, he did allow the hilltops round the 9 130 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Holy City to become idolatrous ' high places.' He even went so far as to meet the wishes of his wives, and make the required provision for their worship. ' Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jeru- salem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.' It is pressing the narrative too hard to make it mean that Solomon became himself an idolater. His sin lay in his indifference to the exclusive claims of Jehovah in the land of Canaan. It lay in what he permitted rather than in what he himself did. The true-hearted servant of Jehovah cannot fail to be vigorous in his opposition to all rival deities. Jealousy of the Divine honour is a necessary feature of the ' perfect heart ' towards Jehovah, which was characteristic of David, but could not be found in Solomon. Solomon was officially true to Jehovah right to the end of life. If he had been personally pious, heart-consecrated to Jehovah, he would have guarded Jehovah's claim, and Temple, and land, from every encroachment of idolatry. It was in that he so shamefully failed, through a false liberalism, which almost persuaded him to say : ' Each man's religion is the best for himself.' ' One religion is as good as another.' As careful estimates of Solomon's religious character are seldom made, it may be helpful to select, from the foremost writers on the Old Testament history, some judicious criticisms. One writer says : ' Brought up from his infancy in wealth, he never knew poverty, hardship, or trouble, and consequently sides of his nature must have been undeveloped. We never find in him that heart-crying for God which distinguished his suffering and persecuted father. His religion had not been a thing of personal struggle, and was always viewed by him as intended for the practical guidance of conduct ; it did not possess him as a Divine force, finding expression first in commun- ings with God, and then in a life of holiness. . . . Very much im- portance attached to the personal character of the king, and that very sadly deteriorated towards the end of his life. It may fairly be dis- puted whether he ever gave up the worship of Jehovah and became an idolater. We incline to think that he did not, and that his sin was the laxity with which he regarded the introduction of foreign and idolatrous customs, and the luxury of living which he permitted to himself and his court.' Professor Wilkins writes as follows concerning the restoration of the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth : ' In the days of Solomon, partly no doubt from policy, partly from a dangerous latitudinarianism, taking the form of a desire to recognise the germ of good that might under- THE NA TURE OF SOL OMON'S ID OLA TRY. 131 lie the evil of foreign religions, partly, as the Scripture narrative dis- tinctly asserts, from the fascination of " strange women," he went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians. Perhaps we may accept the opinion of Ewald, supported by many forcible arguments, that Solomon did not himself fall into idolatry, but only sanctioned the hereditary worship of his Sidonian, Ammonite, and Moabite wives. And Dean Milman has well reminded us that the extent of Solomon's empire enforced either toleration or internecine persecu- tion. " When the king of the Jews became king of a great Eastern empire, he had no course but to tolerate the religion of his non- Jewish subjects, or to exterminate them." ' In the most recent ' Life of Solomon,' Archdeacon Farrar takes the severest view of Solomon's apostasy. ' For an apostasy we must call it, as St. Augustine does.' 'For the sake of his other wives (other than Pharaoh's daughter) he lent to idolatry the sanction not only of tolerance, not only of acquiescence, but of direct participation in the most revolting forms of superstition. The bare mention of the fact in the Book of Kings affords us no measure of the depth of his fall. If we are to take the statement literally, he offered burnt offerings and thank offerings on stated occasions during all his life upon the great brazen altar, and also burnt incense. The case is thus made much worse. The worship of Jehovah was rigidly and jealously exclusive whenever it was in any way sincere. But Solomon's devotions became not merely eclectic, but were a syncretism of the most glaringly contrasted and violently opposing elements, between which no union was for a moment possible. Like the dregs of a mixed population which the kings of Assyria placed in Samaria an ignorant multitude, who " feared the Lord and served their own gods" so Solomon, but with infinitely less excuse, worshipped alike in the Temple of Jehovah and in that of Chemosh, and that not only in secrecy, but publicly on the hill opposite his own palace and Temple. For Solomon " went after " in other words, idolatrously worshipped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians.' The Altar of Ed. JOSHUA xxii. 10 : ' And when they came unto the borders of Jordan, that are in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manassch built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to.' Question. Has any light been thrown, by recent explorations, on the position of the hill on which this altar was erected ? Answer. The question is an interesting one, as showing the im- portance of the work done by the f Palestine Exploration Society/ 92 132 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The site of this altar seems to have been entirely forgotten ; and until recent times, no successful attempt had been made to recover it > and yet its identification would be a striking confirmation of the genuineness of the Old Testament history, and a remarkable survival of the old Biblical names. All that was known was, that the altar was erected, purely as a monument, on some conspicuous position, near the Jordan, and on the western side. It stood to represent the rights of the Trans- Jordanic tribes in the Holy Land. Conder, in his ' Survey of Pales- tine,' gave particular attention to this site, and the identification of it will ever be associated with his name. The following is the most interesting portion of his report on the subject : ' From the internal evidence we are able to point with tolerable accuracy to the approximate position and character of the great Witness Altar. It must be near and above Jordan, on some hilltop west of the river, between the modern village of Seilun and the ford of the Damieh, placed in a conspicuous position, and possibly giving ruins of some magnitude. In addition to which we should hope to find remains of the name in some modern Arabic word. There is but one spot in Palestine which will fulfil these very definite require- ments, and that spot is perhaps the most conspicuous in the country. From the heights of Ebal its sharp cone stands out against the white valley ; from the Castle of Kaukab el Hawa, near Gennesaret, it is visible at a distance of thirty miles ; from the shores of the Dead Sea and the plains of Jericho it stands forth prominently as a great bastion closing the Jordan Valley ; from the eastern highlands it is no less conspicuous, and from the Judaean watershed it is visible at a great distance. Every traveller who has been to Jericho has seen it ; all have asked what it is, and been disappointed to find that it was of no historical importance, and had only a modern Arabic name. For nearly a month I lived at its foot, firmly convinced that so con- spicuous a landmark must have played a part in history, yet utterly puzzled as to what that part could have been. To every explorer it has been a point of interest, and yet I hardly know of one who has examined it. The place in question is the high cone of the Kurn Surtabeh, the Surtabeh of the Talmud, and one of the most impor- tant of our trigonometrical stations on the eastern border of the survey. . . . Upon its summit remains to this day the ruin of a great monument of the kind indicated in the Bible account. At the foot of the mountain lie the Gelilloth of Jordan, the ground being of that peculiar broken character to which I suppose the word specially to refer. When, in addition to these indications, we find a trace of the THE ASSYRIAN COLONISTS OF SAMARIA. 133 original name, the conclusion seems irresistible. For some time I sought this in vain on the map. It is a question which I leave to the learned whether there can be any connection between the name Surtabeh and the Hebrew Metzebeh the altar. The remaining summits of the block are called respectively El Musetterah, Ras el Kuneiberah, and Ras el Hafireh. The real name, as often happens, has deserted the place itself, but may still be traced in the neighbour- hood. I have already pointed out that the natural ascent to the Kurn is from the north. On this side I find marked on our map, as a valley name, Tal 'at Abn 'Ayd (The ascent of tlie father of 'Ayd}. The peculiar use in the vernacular Arabic of the word Abn, as mean- ing that which produces, leads to, or possesses, would make the natural translation of this term to be, "The going up which leads to 'Ayd," or Ed. Though the monument itself has lost its real name, the ascent to the summit, by which the strong men of the two and a half tribes must have gone up, preserved the memory of the Witness Altar/ The Assyrian Colonists of Samaria. 2 KINGS xvii. 33, Rev. Ver. : ' They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.' Question. Is the recognition of Jehovah by these colonists to be regarded as in any sense satisfactory or hopeful ? Answer. The removal of populations, in ancient times, was not done in the interests of religion, but of public and national policy. The idea that each kingdom and country had its own local gods pre- vented the ancients from attempting to extend their religions. No religion then was thought of as having exclusive claims to the alle- giance of everybody, and even the Jews were under no obligation to propagate that really universal religion which had been entrusted to their care, until the fulness of the times had come. It was only an accident, therefore, and no settled intention of the conquerors, that the colonists brought their religion from their Eastern homes, and established it in Samaria. It is difficult to recover the circumstances which made the wholesale removal of populations a wise policy. It may have been the ancient method of relieving districts that were overcrowded, and so it answered to the emigration schemes of modern times. It may have been the most efficient way of securing conquests that were made very rapidly; and the persons carried away may have been the leaders, who might head revolt against the conquerors. It was a vigorous way of dealing with turbulent populations, breaking them up into widely-separated i 3 4 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. sections, beyond the power of inter-communication. Or it may have been a way of reoccupying devastated districts, so as to secure revenue from them for the conquerors. We are to understand that the Assyrians carried away the aristo- cratic sections of the people of Samaria, and the artisan and trading classes, but left the poor and disabled. To take possession of houses, farms, etc., and carry on the ordinary life of the towns and villages, people of the commercial and the working classes were brought from various parts of Assyria. Purposely people from different districts had been selected, so that there might be conflicting interests, and no chance of combination to secure independence. At first these colonists were scattered over the country, and not sufficient in number to till all the land, or even preserve themselves from the increase and inroads of the wild beasts. This particular evil, indeed, so grew upon them, that common counsel for the common protection became necessary. They could but think about the matter along their own lines, and the readiest solution to men who believed in gods belonging to each country was, that the god of the country of Samaria was taking this method of avenging himself for the neglect of his worship; and that the way to appease him was to give him a place among the gods of their own lands. Of course, their real interest lay in the gods with whom they were familiar, and those they really served with their hearts. It is significantly said, ' They feared the Lord,' because whatever worship they offered to Him was due only to anxiety about the safety of themselves and their property. It is manifest that religion of this kind could be no satisfaction at all to Jehovah, nor could it unfold, in after generations, into anything better than a mixed religion, in which superstitious elements would be of much more importance than moral elements. Our Lord, in talking to the woman of Samaria, would not recognise the Samaritan religion as based on any sound foundations. Geikie supports this view. ' Stripped of its inhabitants the land of Samaria threatened to relapse into a wilderness. Beasts of prey, and notably lions, increased so much as to become dangerous a calamity which seemed to the superstitious foreign settlers scattered over it a judgment on them for their not knowing how to worship the local god. At their humble request, therefore, an Israelite priest was sent from Assyria to give them the needful instruction, and to set apart whom he could as his colleagues. But heathenism is difficult to eradicate, and the only result was the addition of the God of Israel to the gods of the different nations now in the land.' C, J. Ball points out that the term ' fear of the Lord ' is used, not THE ASSYRIAN COLONISTS OF SAMARIA. 135 in the modern ethical but in the ancient ceremonial sense, and says : 'In the interval between the Assyrian depopulation and the re- peopling of the land, the lions indigenous to the country had multi- plied naturally enough. Their ravages were understood by the colonists as a token of the wrath of the local deity on account of their neglect of his worship. The sacred writer endorses this inter- pretation of the incidents, probably remembering Lev. xxvi. 22.' The remnant of the ten tribes who amalgamated with the new settlers seem to have accepted the mixed religion which they adopted ; but we must keep in mind that the people of Israel had become virtual idolaters before the Samaritan kingdom was destroyed. Speaker's Commentary meets the question why the colonists could not learn the manner of the old worship from the ' remnant of Israel,' if any were left in the land. ' The answer seems to be, that the arcana of the worship would be known to none excepting the priests who had ministered at the two national sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel ; and that these, as being important personages, had been carried off. The expression, " One of the priests whom ye brought from thence" shows that the colonization had taken place, the afflic- tion from the lions been suffered, and the embassy sent, while the original captives were still living therefore long before Esar-haddon.' Commenting on this attempt to unite Jehovah worship with idolatry, Bishop Hall says : ' This they did, not for devotion, but for impunity. Vain politicians, to think to satisfy God by patching up religions ! What a prodigious mixture was here, true with false, Jewish with paganish, Divine with devilish! No beggar's cloak is more pieced than the religion of these new inhabitants of Israel. I know not how their bodies sped for the lions. I am sure their souls fared the worse for this medley. Above all things, God hates a mongrel devotion. If we be not all Israel, it were better to be all Asshur. It cannot so much displease God to be unknown or neg- lected as to be consorted with idols.' Dr. J. A. Alexander says the mistake of these people 'lay in imagining that forms of worship, extorted from them by their selfish fears, would be sufficient to propitiate the Most High, and secure them from His vengeance ; while their voluntary service, their cordial and habitual devotion, was expended on His enemies and rivals.' 136 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. David and the Philistine Images. 2 SAMUEL v. 21, Rev. Ver. : ' And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away.' i CHRON. xiv. 12, t\ev. Vcr.: 'And they left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire.' Difficulty. One account seems to say they wert ' taken away,' the other seems to say that they were ' destroyed.' 1 Explanation. In the Authorised Version of 2 Sam. v. 21, it is said that ' his men burned them ;' but the marginal note is ' took them away,' and this has been properly put in the text of the Revised Version. The Hebrew word rendered ' took them away ' is equi- valent to ' destroyed them;' and then the statement found in i Chron. xiv. 12, is only an addition, giving the particular way in which they were destroyed. We understand that the attack of David on the Philistines was a sudden raid, and the passage 2 Sam. v. 21 indicates the precipitancy of their flight, so they could not even attempt to save their gods, or the images which the nations of antiquity were accustomed to carry into battle with them, believing that there was virtue in the images themselves, and that military success would be obtained by means of them. The suddenness of the Israelite attack is likened to the bursting forth of a breach of waters. Among the spoil these images, or gods, were discovered, and they were carried off by the people. Subsequently David found them an occasion of mischief, and therefore commanded that they should be burned. The first passage may simply narrate what took place on the day of battle ; the second tells what ultimately was done with the images. Canon Rawiinson may be cited as supporting this view. 'The present passage (i Chron. xiv. 12) has been called a "contradiction" of the one in Samuel, but at the utmost it is an addition. We may either understand the phrase, " took them away," as equivalent to "destroyed them," or we may take it literally, and conclude that David, in the first instance, carried the images as trophies to Jeru- salem, but that when he had exhibited them there, he obeyed the injunctions of the law (Deut. vii. 5, 25) and destroyed them with fire.' ASSYRIA HELPING AHAZ. 137 Assyria Helping Ahaz. 2 KINGS xvi. 9 : 'And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him : for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it.' 2 CHRON. xxviii. 20: 'And Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not.' Difficulty. These verses give distinctly opposite accounts of the relations subsisting between Ahaz and the king of Assyria. Explanation. Let us first see clearly what the contradiction appears to be. We read in the Book of Kings of a monarch who is said to have hearkened to another monarch's plea for help, and so far to have succeeded in rendering it as to have taken his enemy's capital, put its king to death, and carried its inhabitants away into captivity. Yet it is stated in the parallel narrative in Chronicles that the same monarch distressed the King of Judah, for whom he had done such a work of destruction, and strengthened him not. The king referred to as the one from whom help was sought was Tiglath-Pileser, the Tiger-Lord of Assyria. And a tiger he proved himself to be to more than one party engaged in the strife. He slew Rezin, King of Syria ; took possession of Damascus, its capital ; sent its inhabitants into captivity, and broke up the kingdom, establishing himself upon its ruins. So far he hearkened to Ahaz, and helped him out of his impending difficulties. But when we inquire what price Ahaz had to pay for this help, we find that it was no real help. The removal of peril in one direction involved the infliction of serious distress in another. Ahaz paid a dear price for his alliance with Assyria. He had to strip his own palace, and rob the house of God, of all the gold and silver in it ; he had to rob the princes, rob the people, to bribe this heathen prince to render him assistance. So it came to pass that, while in one way Tiglath helped Ahaz, in another way he seriously distressed him, and both the Scripture representations are correct. An illustration may be found in our own national history. The Britons invoke the Saxons to aid them against the Picts and Scots. They comply gladly enough, help them to repel the invaders, but forget to return, and remain masters of the country. The Saxons ' hearkened ' to the Britons, but it is equally true that ' they distressed them, and strengthened them not.' The expression 'distressed him,' refers to the King of Assyria's demands upon Ahaz, before and after the battle, and not to any failure on his part in the performance of his compact relating to the Syro-Israelitish invasion. 138 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Abijah's Mother. 2 CHRON. xi. 20 : ' Maachah the daughter of Absalom." 2 CIIKON. xiii. 2 : ' Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.' Question. Who was the actual father of Maachah 1 Answer. This subject is of interest as illustrating a class of Bible difficulties those which are created by the incompleteness of the information that is at our command. Common-sense usually suffices to supply the missing connections, and to adjust the various relationships. Here it is evident that Michaiah is a corruption of Maachah, as elsewhere Michaiah is a man's name. The Sept., Syriac, and Arabic versions read Maachah. In i Kings xv. 2, Maachah is called ' the daughter of AbishalomJ which is evidently another spelling of Absalom. But Absalom is re- ported to have had only one daughter, Tamar (2 Sam. xiv. 27); and therefore Maachah must have been grand-daughter of Absalom, and not daughter. We are left to assume that Tamar married Uriel of Gibeah, and Maachah was the offspring of this marriage. She took her name from her great-grandmother, Maachah of Geshur, wife of David and mother of Absalom. Joseph confirms the supposition that Maachah was the daughter of Tamar. (Ant. viii. 10, i). Observe with what simplicity a series of divergences may be harmonized. Here are two forms of the name Maachah. Two forms of the name Absalom. The assertion that Maachah was the daughter of Absalom, and the assertion that Maachah was the daughter of Uriel. And yet every difficulty fades away when the indistinctness of Eastern relationships is once recognised, and daughter is in the one case understood to mean grand-daughter. Very many similar difficulties in the historical books simply need a similar common-sense treatment. Solomon's Ascent to the Temple. i KINGS x. 5 : ' And his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord.' Question. Is there any independent information at command, which will help us to understand what this so-called ' ascent ' was ? Answer. There is a preliminary difficulty which must be con- sidered. The word translated ' ascent,' in this passage, is not pre- cisely the same as the word translated ' ascent ' in 2 Chron. ix. 4. Strictly the word found in Kings should be rendered, ' and his burnt SOLOMON'S ASCENT TO THE TEMPLE. 139 offering.' This rendering is placed in the margin of the Revised Version, as an alternative reading. The difference between the original words is, however, so slight, that it is probably due to an error of the copyist. The authors of the Revised Version have recognised this, and preferred to harmonize the text in Kings with that in Chronicles. Some kind of building certainly suits better the very material things with which the ascent is associated in this verse. There was nothing specially to surprise the Queen of Sheba in Solomon's mode of sacrificing burnt offerings. Assuming that some sort of erection, of a novel character, is meant, we may choose between the following suggestions. Archdeacon Farrar says : ' As the palace stood on a lower elevation than the Temple, the king built for his private use a staircase of the red and scented sandal-wood, which now became an article of import for the wealthy. This precious staircase led to the seats in the Temple, which were specially used for the king on state occasions, of which one seems to have stood in the inner court surrounded by a balus- trade, and another was supported on a platform or pediment of brass.' (See 2 Kings xi. 14; xvi. 18; xxiii. 3 ; 2 Chron. vi. 13.) Lewin, in his work ' Jerusalem,' says : ' The palace of Solomon was below the Temple platform, and in laying the solid foundations of Millo, provision had been made for a double passage from the palace to the Temple, about 250 feet long and 42 feet wide, formed of bevelled stones, and rising by a gentle incline to one of the gates of the inner Temple. This marvellous subterranean approach, im- pregnable from its nature to the ravages of time, still remains, though painfully disfigured : it is called, to this day, the Temple of Solomon.' Porter gives an account of the recent discoveries, which appear to throw light on the question before us, but suggest quite a different explanation : ' The palace of King Solomon was built on Mount Zion, while the Temple stood on the summit of Moriah. Between these two hills was a deep valley or ravine. Recent research has brought to light the remains of a colossal bridge which spanned this ravine, and connected the palace and the Temple. It must have been one of the most splendid architectural works in the Holy City. The masonry is unquestionably Jewish, but of what period of Jewish rule cannot be yet said to have been fully ascertained. One of the stones in the fragment of the arch still remaining measures twenty- four feet in length, and another twenty. Calculating by the curve of the arch, and the distance from the Temple wall to the rocky side of Mount Zion opposite, the bridge when complete would seem to 140 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. have been composed of five arches, each about forty-one feet in span ; and its elevation above the bottom of the ravine could scarcely have been less than a hundred feet. The first definite mention of this bridge is in connection with the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, twenty years before Herod ascended the throne. It was not, there- fore, a work of Herod. It was built long before his day. There are no data, however, by which to connect it with the "ascent" of Solomon. The Hebrew word is correctly rendered "ascent," and it may either be by stairs or otherwise. The same ascent is apparently referred to in i Chron. xxvi. 16 : "To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, at the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up." The word translated " causeway " means a viaduct of any kind, and then a staircase. Would it not strike one, on reading the whole narratives, that some very remarkable approach to the Temple is referred to by the sacred writers ; and that it was in some way appropriated to the use of the king ? If such a bridge as that, whose ruins are now seen, existed in Solomon's day, it would, unquestion- ably, make a profound impression on the mind of the Queen of Sheba.' The Pharaoh who Advanced Joseph. GENESIS xli. 14 : ' Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon.' Question. Have recent researches settled whether this Pharaoh was, or was not, one of the Hyksos sovereigns ? Answer. Difficulty in coming to a decision is created by the condition of the Egyptian dynastic records. We have the names of the 1 2th dynasty, closing with Amenemha IV., B.C. 2266. Then for 500 years there is a break, during which the dynasties 13 to 17 were established. The ' Shepherd Kings ' come in somewhere during this 500 years. The list is resumed with the i8th dynasty, the first name being Ahmes, B.C. 1700, Professor George Rawlinson says : ' How long the Egyptians groaned under the tyranny of the " Shepherds," it is difficult to say. The cpitomists of Manetho are hopelessly at variance on the subject, and the monuments are silent, or nearly so. Moderns vary in the time which they assign to the period, between two centuries and five. There is but one dynasty of " Shepherd Kings " that has any distinct historical substance, or to which we can assign any names. This is a dynasty of six kings only, whose united reigns are not likely to have exceeded two centuries. After the dynasty had borne rule for five reigns, covering the space perhaps of one hundred and fifty years, a THE PHARAOH WHO ADVANCED JOSEPH. 141 king came to the throne named Apepi, who has left several monu- ments, and is the only one of the " shepherds " that stands out for us in definite historical consistency as a living and breathing person. Apepi built a great temple to Sutekh at Zoan or Tanis, his principal city, composed of blocks of red granite, and adorned it with obelisks and sphinxes. The pacific rule of Apepi and his predecessors allowed Thebes to increase in power, and her monuments now re- commence.' There was an ancient tradition, that the king who made Joseph his prime minister, and committed into his hands the entire ad- ministration of Egypt, was Apepi. George Syncellus says that the synchronism was accepted by all. It is clear that Joseph's arrival did not fall, like Abraham's, into the period of the Old Empire, since under Joseph horses and chariots are in use, as well as waggons or carts, all of which were unknown until after the Hyksos invasion. It is also more natural that Joseph, a foreigner, should have been advanced by a foreign king than by a native one, and the favour shown to his brethren, who were shepherds, is consonant at any rate with the tradition that it was a ' Shepherd King ' who held the throne at the time of their arrival. A priest of Heliopolis, moreover, would scarcely have given Joseph his daughter in marriage unless at a time when the priesthood was in a state of depression. Add to this that the Pharaoh of Joseph is evidently resident in Lower Egypt, not at Thebes, which was the seat of government for many hundred years both before and after the Hyksos rule. If, however, we are to place Joseph under one of the ' Shepherd Kings,' there can be no reason why we should not accept the tradi- tion which connects him with Apepi. Apepi was dominant over the whole of Egypt, as Joseph's Pharaoh seems to have been. He acknowledged a single god, as did that monarch (Gen. xli. 38, 39). He was a thoroughly Egyptianized king. He had a council of learned Scribes, a magnificent court, and a peaceful reign until towards its close. His residence was in the Delta, either at Tanis, or Avaris. He was a prince of a strong will, firm and determined ; one who did not shrink from initiating great changes, and who carried out his resolves in a somewhat arbitrary way. The arguments in favour of his identity with Joseph's master are, perhaps, not wholly conclusive ; but they raise a presumption, which may well incline us, with most modern historians of Egypt, to assign the touching story of Joseph to the reign of the last of the shepherds. Canon Bell, in his interesting work ' A Winter on the Nile,' reports a visit to Bubastis, the Pi-beseth of the Bible, in order to examine 142 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. the excavations proceeding under the direction of M. Naville, and quotes the following passage from a letter sent by M. Naville to the Times, of April 6, 1888 : ' Our most important discovery up to the present time was made yesterday morning. I had noticed on Friday the corner of a block of polished black granite which I thought might belong to some good monument, and I had it unearthed yesterday. It proved to be the lower half of a life-size figure of very beautiful workmanship, with two columns of finely-cut hieroglyphics, engraved down each side of the front of the throne to right and left of the legs of the statue. These inscriptions give the name and titles of an absolutely unknown king, who, judging from the work, must belong to the Hyksos period, or, at all events, to one of the obscure dynasties preceding the Hyksos invasion. I forward a copy of the inscriptions. One car- touche contains a sign which is quite new to me, and which I there- fore cannot decipher. The other reads " Jan-Ra," or "Ra-ian" a name unlike any I have ever seen. He is described, most strangely, as the worshipper of his Ka (i.e., his ghost, or double). . . . Since writing the above, I have been over to Boulak, and have shown my copy of the inscriptions to Ahmed-Kemaled Been Effendi, the Mohammedan official attached to the museum. He was deeply interested, and said at once, " That is the Pharaoh of Joseph. All our Arab books call him Reiydn, the son of El Weli'd." He then wrote the name for me in Arabic, which I enclose herewith. For my own part, I know nothing of Arab literature or Arab tradition. I should not, however, be disposed to attach much weight to this curious coincidence. Still it is curious, and certainly interesting.' Canon Bell adds : ' It may be well not to be too hasty in concluding that the statue with the cartouche, on which is the name Jan-Ra, is Joseph's Pharaoh, but it is possible that it is ; and Mr. F. D. Griffith, student attached to the Egypt Exploration Fund, furnishes some additional evidence bearing on this possibility. He says : " The only Hyksos (shepherd) monument in the British Museum is a small lion in the northern vestibule. This monument is of Hyksos style, and bears a name that hitherto has baffled students. It is very in- distinctly engraved. On examining it I feel convinced that the name is the singularly written throne name of Raian, as inscribed on the seat of the statue discovered by M. Naville. The date thus obtained is in harmony with the general opinion that Joseph ruled Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos Pharaohs." ' NA A MAN'S COMPROMISE. 143 Naaman's Compromise. 2 KINGS v. 18 : ' In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I how myself in the house of Rimmon ; when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.' Difficulty. Can we conceive of God as willing to accept private religion which a man was unwitting to let influence his official rela- tions ? Explanation. Naaman's was but an imperfect conversion. To his mind Jehovah was simply the god of the country ; one among the many gods of the many countries. He had even paid Jehovah some respect by being willing to submit his case to His consideration. In the sudden impulse of gratitude, he was prepared to recognise Jehovah as a superior God, as even the supreme God. But, if he had been truly converted changed in heart he would not have taken into consideration the peril of losing his official position through loyalty to Jehovah. Like all imperfectly converted persons, Naaman wanted his new religion to keep away from his life and relations. He was willing to have it as a private enjoyment And true religion will not come to a man at all, unless the man is willing to let it be a life-controlling force. Naaman would not keep his Jehovah-religion long, if he went bowing with his master in the house of Rimmon. The Prophet Elisha in no way expresses approval of his suggestion. Elisha's 'go in peace ' is merely a polite farewell, with the intimation that, on the question of bowing to Rimmon, he has nothing to say. The history tells us no more about Naaman, and we should always bear in mind that narratives introduced into Scripture concerning heathen lands or persons, are never introduced for their sakes, but only for the sake of the influence these had on God's people. Naaman's story was an impressive declaration of Jehovah's power to help ; and it was made all the more impressive because it concerned the chief captain of one of the national enemies. The request of Naaman for ' two mules' burden of earth ' is ex- plained by the common notion of the day, that the power and in- fluence of each god was limited to the soil of the country to which he belonged. So by carrying the soil of Canaan to Syria, and standing on it when he prayed to Jehovah, Naaman thought he could ensure the acceptableness of his prayers and worship. Elisha ex- pressed no sort of approval of this notion. Indeed, his relations with Naaman were almost curt. He evidently did not feel it any duty of his to rejoice over this sudden convert to Jehovah. He had 144 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. done his duty to God in cleansing the man ; but he did not wish to have any more to do with him. Dr. Luniby sees more in Elisha's simple answer to Naaman than we do, but, in general, he supports the explanation given above. ' Naaman can see the inconsistency of his conduct. He will offer no more sacrifices to Rimmon. But the king his master worships in Rimmon's temple, and Naaman must be in attendance, and must bow when the king bows down, or he will give offence. He sets his difficulty before Elisha, and Elisha, regarding the degree of his faith and obedience as all that could be expected from his amount of light, gives him a comforting answer. We must judge both Naaman and the prophet according to the times in which they lived. It was impossible for the former at once to cast away all his old ideas. His strongest wish, for some of the soil of the holy land to carry home, bespeaks the darkness in which he had lived and was living, and a new creature is not to be made in a moment out of men like Naaman. Elisha, on the other hand, had no light such as we have concerning God's message to the heathen ; the Jew has not, either in ancient or in modern times, been a missionary, and we need not judge Elisha hardly, because he felt no call to rebuke the half-converted heathen for his imperfect service. The Lord had not yet given His message to any of the chosen people " Go ye out into all the world." . . . We are not to consider Elisha's answer as implying that service of God and service of Rimmon might be combined without any in- congruity. The prophet appears rather to be willing to leave the good seed already sown to bear fruit in due season.' Geikie treats Elisha's answer as an approval of the suggested com- promise. ' It is in keeping with the ideas of the age, that the grateful Syrian should ask leave to carry back to Damascus two mules' burden of earth to build an altar to Jehovah on the soil of his own land : on which alone, men would then think, He could be rightly honoured. The altar, moreover, would be a memorial to the God of Israel in a foreign land, like the synagogue raised, ages later, by the Jews of Nahardea, in Persia, all the stones and earth of which had been brought from Jerusalem. He makes only one request more, and this the prophet, with a fine anticipation of Christian charity, tacitly grants. When his master, leaning on his arm, required him to go into the temple of Rimmon, and he had to prostrate himself before the god ; he trusted it would not be reckoned disloyalty to Jehovah, whom alone he would henceforth worship.' Matt. Henry says : ' Naaman's dissembling his religion cannot be approved ; yet by promising to offer no sacrifice to any but the God NAAMAN'S COMPROMISE. 145 of Israel, and by asking pardon in this matter, he showed such ingenuousness as gave hope of further improvement; and young converts must be tenderly dealt with.' Kitto strongly objects to the idea that Naarrian proposed to build an altar with the earth. Such an idea was not likely to enter Naaman's mind. ' If we look to the uses to which the Easterns apply the soil of places accounted holy, it is possible we may discover the right reason for Naaman's singular request. To Mohammedans the sacred soil is that of Mecca ; and the man accounts himself happy who has in possession the smallest portion of it for use in his devotions. He carries it about his person in a small bag ; and in his prayers he deposits this before him upon the ground in such a manner that, in his frequent prostrations, the head comes down upon this morsel of sacred soil, so that in some sort he may be said to worship thereon. May it not be that Naaman contemplated forming, with this larger portion of the soil of the sacred land, a spot on which he might offer up his devotions to the God of Israel ?' Burder suggests that Naaman may have asked for the earth with a view to purification, and gives the following illustrations : ' If the Arab Algerines cannot come by any water, then they must wipe themselves as clean as they can, or they must smooth their hands over a stone two or three times, and rub them one with the other as if they were washing with water.' In a Mohammedan treatise on prayer, it is said : ' In case water is not to be had, that defect may be supplied with earth, a stone, or any other product of earth, and this is called tayatnum, and is performed by cleaning the insides of the hands upon the same, rubbing therewith the face once ; and then again rubbing the hands upon the earth -stone, or whatever it be, stroking the right arm to the elbow with the left hand, and so the left with the right.' Canon Rawiinson deals very considerately both with Naaman and with Elisha. ' Naaman was not prepared to offend his master, either by refusing to enter with him into the temple of Rimmon, or by remaining erect when the king bowed down and worshipped the god. His conscience seems to have told him that such conduct was not right ; but he trusted that it might be pardoned, and he appealed to the prophet in the hope of obtaining from him an assurance to this effect. Elisha avoided any expression of either approval or di~ approval. He saw Naaman's weakness, but did not feel that it was necessary to rebuke it. Perhaps he was wrong not to be harder and more uncompromising, for the Old Testament saints are far from perfect characters. He was tender and soft-hearted, not stern and 10 146 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. rugged, like Elijah. He was drawn to the new convert, and inclined to hope the best for him. Moreover, he had no distinct message to the heathen, and no means of knowing with any certainty what God would require of them. Elisha may be pardoned if he did not himself clearly see the obligation of the convert to refuse all partici- pation in idolatry.' ' As a parting benediction, he wished that Jehovah's peace might rest on the Syrian general, and thus committed him to the Divine guidance without answering his closing words.' South calls the truth ' that we are neither to worship or cringe to anything under the Deity, a truth too strict for a Naaman ; he can be content to worship the one true God, but then it must be in the house of Rimmon. The reason was implied in his condition ; he was captain of the host, and therefore he thought it reason good to bow to Rimmon rather than endanger his place ; better bow than break.' Porter's summary of the narrative may be regarded as satisfactory. ' Naaman was no true convert to Judaism. He had experienced the omnipotent power of the God of Israel : he resolved henceforth to acknowledge God as Supreme God, but he would not go so far as to give up his rank, or to risk his worldly power, by refusing to join with his sovereign in the worship of an idol. He was an intellectual convert, but his heart remained untouched by Divine grace. Even his knowledge was yet very imperfect. His old superstitious feelings remain, though they have received a new object. He thinks Jehovah can only be worshipped aright on the soil over which He specially ruled. We are not informed whether he was ever fully instructed, or whether the germs of intellectual belief implanted in his mind were ever changed by the power of the Divine Spirit into saving faith. Elisha's answer to the plausible, but really humiliating, plea of Naaman throws no light on this point. " Go in peace," was, and is still in the East, the ordinary parting salutation. It neither approves nor disapproves of Naaman's pleas or plans.' The Site of Ebenezer. I SAMUEL iv. i : 'Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Ebenezer : and the Philistines pitched in Aphek.' Question. Has it been found possible to recover, with any certainty, the precise situation of Ebenezer ? Answer. The following suggestions, made by Dr. T. Chaplin^ appeared in one of the ' Palestine Exploration Fund ' reports. A critical note on the theory, or proposed identification, is added by Capt. C. X. Conder. THE SITE OF EBENEZER. 147 Many years ago, after considerable study of the subject and repeated examination of the ground, I formed the opinion that the place of Ebenezer is now occupied by the village of Beit Iksa, and, notwithstanding that another site has been advocated by distinguished investigators, I still venture to think that this is the only spot which satisfactorily meets all the requirements of the case. 1. The spot should be 'between Mizpah and Shen,' and, as we may suppose, be a prominent and conspicuous spot. Such a spot is Beit Iksa. Taking Neby Samwil to be Mizpah, and Deir Yesin to represent Shen, an examination of the map will show that a line drawn from one to the other would intersect this village. It is also remarkable that, owing to an opening in the hills, a person standing at Deir Yesin and looking towards Neby Samwil has Beit Iksa in full view, although at a short distance to the right or left it is not visible at all. From many other points it is very conspicuous, owing to its position near the summit of a hill abutting on the great valley of Beit Hannina, which is there very open. 2. The locality should be adapted for the camping-ground of a large army (i Sam. iv. i), have a supply of water, be easily defensible, so situated as to render communications with the interior of the Israelite territory easy, and afford a ready means of retreat in trie event of an unsuccessful battle with the Philistine invaders. All these characterize the position of Beit Iksa. The hill on which it is built is nearly surrounded by deep valleys, whose steep, and in some parts precipitous, sides render the place almost impregnable in that direction, whilst a narrow ridge connects it with the only road along which the Philistines could march to the attack, which road, more- over, would expose the flank of the attacking force to an assault from the side of Mizpah. There is some water at the place itself, still more at Neby Samwil, and an unlimited supply at the neighbouring fountain of Lifta, which must have been well within the Israelite lines. 3. There should be in the near neighbourhood some spot meriting the name of Aphek, the stronghold, in which the Philistines could securely encamp, and from which they could make their attack on the Israelite position. Such a spot is Kustul, castellum, which com- mands the modern road between Jerusalem and Jaffa. To the north of the miserable hamlet called by this name there is a broad plateau which affords evidence of having been used for a camping-ground in ancient times, being still surrounded by the remains of a rampart of large stones. From this position the Philistines could march in great security along the summit of the hill, past the site of the present Beit Surik, until they came to where Biddu now is, when turning to the 10 2 i 4 8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. right they could direct their attack against either Mizpah or an enemy on the hill to the south, where Beit Iksa is situated. 4. The place should be so situated that a runner could reach Shiloh from it in a few hours. ' There ran a man of Benjamin out of the army and came to Shiloh the same day,' bearing news of the defeat of the Israelites, and loss of the ark. From Beit Iksa this might be accomplished by an eager and active messenger in four hours, or less ; the distance being about eighteen miles. From Deir Aban Shiloh is eleven or twelve miles further. 5. Mizpah should be so situated that an attacking force, if badly beaten, seized with panic, and thinking only of escape to its own territory in the south-western plain, would naturally flee down the valley which passes ' under Beth Car,' and that the pursuing Israelites, especially if they happened to be imperfectly armed (Josephus, Ant., 6, 2, 2), would not deem it prudent to follow the fugitives further than that. The valley which divides the hill of Beit Surik from that on which Beit Iksa stands affords such a means of retreat from Neby Samwil, and it was probably down this valley, past 'Ain el 'Alik and 'Ain Beit Tulma, that the terrified Philistines (2 Sam. vii. 10, 1 1) reached the great watercourse which they knew would conduct them to their own country. Pressed by their pursuers, they would rush on by Motza (Kulonieh) under their late camping-ground at Aphek, over the boulders and rocks in the bed of the wady, and through the olive gardens at its sides, until they came ' under Beth Car,' which may be taken to be the village now called 'Ain Karim, where their foes would give up the pursuit, lest, becoming entangled in the narrow and stony valley, they should expose themselves to great risk in the event of the discomfited host rallying and turning upon them. It may be objected to this identification that Neby Samwil has never been proved to be Mizpah, Deir Yesin Shen, or 'Ain Karim Beth Car. Yet, when all the circumstances connected with the events narrated being taken together support this theory ; when it is found that the ancient names of two of the places are still retained ; when it is remembered that the position of Neby Samwil and the tradition connecting it with that prophet are by almost all investigators held to favour the supposition that it is Mizpah ; and when it is considered that the identification of each of these four places in a very remarkable manner supports that of the others, there is surely a strong presumption that we need go no further in search of the site of this famous monument of the last of Israel's Judges. It may not be altogether idle to inquire why Samuel placed his THE SITE OF EBENEZER. 149 memorial ' between Mizpah and Shen ' instead of at Mizpah. The latter was not only a very conspicuous spot, as its name implies, but it was also a seat of government, and a centre of the religious life of the people. It was not to Shiloh, where the Tabernacle was, but to Mizpah that Samuel gathered all Israel and drew water and poured it out before the Lord and prayed to the Lord for them. Perhaps the answer to such an inquiry is, that he placed his monument where the ark of God had once stood. We are taught in the second Book of the Chronicles (viii. n), that a place whereunto the ark of the Lord had come was regarded as holy, and what more natural, after the signal deliverance which had been experienced, than that the great ruler and guide of the nation should erect ' the stone of help ' upon the spot once sanctified by the sacred emblem of the Divine strength ? Josephus tells us the stone was called ia%vpo:, ' the stone of strength? In Psalm Ixxviii. 61, we have, 'And delivered his strength (i.e., the ark) into captivity ;' and again in 2 Chron. vi. 41, ' Arise, O Lord God, into Thy resting-place, Thou and the ark of Thy strength ;' in the Septuagint, ^ xiftuj-o: TI\$ ia^upoc sov. If the memorial came to be called in late times by its Greek name, it is not impossible that in Iksa, a word the derivation of which no one seems to know, we have a corruption of ischuros, like Amwas of Emmaus, Nablus of Neapolis. I have heard the place called Beit Iska, and a Mohammedan sheikh once told me that that is the right name. The point is not of importance. The tendency of the Arabs to transpose consonants is well known. It would seem that this idea of Ebenezer having marked the place on which the ark was once set, misled Eusebius and his translator into supposing that the monument occupied the spot to which the Philistines brought back the ark. It is needless to say that there is no indication of this in the Bible ; and it may reasonably be supposed that if Samuel had erected his trophy at Bethshemesh, or in the field of Joshua the Bethshemite, the narrative would have said so. I have often questioned with myself whether these struggles with the Philistines did not (as some seem to suppose) take place nearer to the Philistine frontier than Neby Samwil and Beit Iksa are. But I find no confirmation of this suggestion in the sacred text. Other important battles against the same foes took place still further in the heart of the Israelite country, as at Michmash and on Mount Gilboa. Note by Capt. C. R. Conder. Dr. Chaplin having kindly sent me the proof of his paper on Ebenezer, I have only one or two remarks to offer on the subject. 150 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. I do not hold it to be proved that Deir Aban is Ebenezer, but, as I have pointed out in the 'Memoirs,' Deir Aban is the place which Jerome supposed to be Ebenezer. It is quite possible that Jerome was wrong in this as in other cases. The site of Mizpah is uncertain, as it may be either at Neby Samwil, or perhaps at Shaf at. The identity of Shen and Deir Yasin seems to me doubtful, because names with Deir preceding are usually of Christian origin. 'Ain Karim is, I believe, the Biblical Beth Haccerem, but it might be Beth Car also. On two occasions I have searched the country south of Neby Samwil, hoping to find some monument such as Ebenezer, but we never found anything of the kind. I agree with Dr. Chaplin, however, in thinking that the distance from Deir Aban to Shiloh is an objection to the fourth century traditional site. David's Introduction to Saul's Court. i SAMUEL xvi. 21 : 'And David came to Saul, and stood before him ; and he loved him greatly ; and he became his armour-bearer." Difficulty. As Saul had personal knowledge of, and interest in, David, his settlement at court could not have preceded the introduction of David to Saul after the slaughter of Goliath. Explanation. It is not possible, with any amount of ingenuity, to fit into a natural historical order the earliest records concerning David. We have to bear in mind that the historical books of Scripture are compilations of fragments, and chronological considera- tions do not seem to have controlled the placing of them together. One account seems to deal with David's visits to the court as a minstrel, but how this stands related to the slaughter of Goliath, which another fragment makes David's earliest introduction to Saul, does not appear. In these cases it is altogether better to deal honestly with the records, and admit confusion of the accounts, the earlier including relations to the king and court, which, in actual fact, occurred later on. If an attempt might be made to put the passages in chronological order, we should say that the minstrelsy of David at the court belongs to a period some years preceding the conflict with Goliath, and that David was then quite a youth. While a minstrel only David may not have come into personal contact with the king ; and the verse heading this paragraph represents the response to a request made of Jesse for David's entire service at the court. This request was made after the victory over Goliath ; then it was that Saul became personally attached to David, and made him his armour-bearer. The DAVID'S INTRODUCTION TO SAUL'S COURT. 151 narrative of the seventeenth chapter is omitted from the earlier fragment, and consequently ch. xviii. 2 repeats the fact, presented under differing circumstances in ch. xvi. 22, that David became permanently attached to the court. We then have the following order : David called to court occa- sionally as a minstrel. Saul's mental condition improved for a time. David returned to his shepherding. Some years pass without need for calling David, and he is quite forgotten. Incident of Goliath. David not recognised by the officers, because much changed in appearance. After the victory inquiries are made, and David reminds the king who he is, by saying, ' I am the son of Jesse,' evidently meaning, ' the son of Jesse whom, you remember, once played for you in your illness.' This wakening of recollections made Saul resolve to have David with him permanently at court, so he became first one of the king's armour-bearers, and then was gradually advanced until he reached some of the chief places of trust and honour in the army. It may not be wise to assert that this is the order of events ; but it may be said that this is a reasonable and natural order, and may be maintained without doing any violence to the records, as we have them preserved in the Word. R. F. Norton regards the narrative which is now before us as a proof that the author of the Books of Samuel had before him two different accounts. He says : ' Reading the account of David's introduction to Saul in i Sam. xvi., we first of all hear of Samuel anointing David at Bethlehem ; then at ch. xvi. 18, David is brought before the king as not only " cunning in playing," but " a mighty man of valour and a man of war." He stands before Saul because he has found favour in the king's sight Then in ch. xvii. we are surprised to meet with David as a mere shepherd lad coming up from the country to the army, slaying Goliath, and so being intro- duced to Saul for the first time. In fact, as he goes out to the combat, Saul sends Abner to inquire who he is ; and in consequence of this episode the young man is enlisted in the king's service. Now there cannot be any reasonable doubt that this confusion arises from the existence of two accounts of David's first introduction to Saul. According to the one, he was sought out in Saul's mental distress as a cunning player on the harp. According to the other, he attracted the king's attention by an act of heroic valour in the army. So distinct are these accounts, that even in the welded narrative, it is quite easy to separate them. Read ch. xvi. 14-33 and then go on at ch. xviii. 6, and you see you have a straightforward narrative : the 152 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. section ch. xvii-xviii. 5 appears plainly as a separate piece coming no doubt from a separate source.' Edersheim reminds us that the credit of being ' a mighty, valiant man, and a man of war,' need only refer to his recognised fearlessness and prowess as a shepherd. David could have had no experience of actual warfare, with national enemies, save through connection with Saul's armies. Edersheim remarks : ' David, who had never been permanently in Saul's service, had, on the outbreak of war, returned to his home.' And he makes the following contribution to the solution of the difficulty which is being treated in this paragraph : ' There is considerable difficulty about the text as it now stands. That the narrative is strictly historical cannot be doubted. But, on the other hand, verses 12-14, and still more verses 55-58, read as if the writer had inserted this part of his narrative from some other source, perhaps from a special chronicle of the event. The LXX. solve the difficulty by simply leaving out verses 12-31, and again verses 55-58 ; that is, they boldly treat that part as an interpolation ; and it must be confessed that the narrative reads easier without it. And yet, on the other hand, if these verses are interpolated, the work has been clumsily done ; and it is not easy to see how any interpolator would not at once have seen the difficulties he created, especially by the addition of verses 55-58. Besides, the account in verses 12-31, not only fits in very well with the rest of the narrative bating some of the expressions in verses 12-14 but also bears the evident impress of truthfulness. The drastic method in which the LXX. dealt with the text, so early as about two centuries before Christ, at least proves that, even at that time, there were strong doubts about the genuineness of the text. All this leads to the suggestion, that somehow the text may have become corrupted, and that later copyists may have tried emendations and additions, by way of removing difficulties, which, as might be expected in such a case, would only tend to increase them. On the whole, therefore, we are inclined to the opinion thac, while the narrative itself is strictly authentic, the text, as we possess it, is seriously corrupted in some of the expressions, especially in the concluding verses of the chapter. At the same time it should be added, that its correctness has been defended by very able critics.' We naturally turn to Josephus, to see what help he can give us in arranging the story. And it is plain that the materials at his com- mand were the same as those with which we have to deal ; but he seems not to have before him the confusing conversation between Saul and Abner, given in verses 55-58, and so he does not feel our DA VID'S INTR OD UCTION TO SA UL'S COURT. 153 difficulty. His record may not be at the ready command of our readers, and we give it as showing that a consecutive story can be reasonably constructed from the record, as we have it. On the recommendation of the court physicians, ' Saul did not delay, but commanded them to seek out a skilful harper ; and when a certain stander-by said he had seen in the city of Bethlehem a son of Jesse, who was yet no more than a child in age, but comely and beautiful, and in other respects one that was deserving of great regard, who was skilful in playing on the harp, and in singing of hymns (and an excellent soldier in war), he sent to Jesse, and desired him to take David away from the flocks, and send him to him, for he had a mind to see him, as having heard an advantageous character of his comeli- ness and his valour. So Jesse sent his son, and gave him presents to carry to Saul ; and when he was come, Saul was pleased with him, and made him his armour-bearer, and had him in very great esteem. . . . He sent to Jesse, the father of the child, and desired him to permit David to stay with him, for that he was delighted with his sight and company, which stay, that he might not contradict Saul, he granted.' ' Now, while this war with the Philistines was going on, Saul sent away David to his father Jesse.' Then follows an account of the battle with Goliath, in which Josephus assumes that David was quite well-known to Saul, who was anxious for the safety of one whom he cared for ; and the first sign of jealousy Josephus associates with the unwise ascription of chief merit to David ; and he adds : ' Accord- ingly, he removed David from the station he was in before, for he was his armour-bearer, which, out of fear, seemed to him much too near a station for him ; and so he made him a captain over a thousand, and bestowed on him a post better, indeed, in itself, but, as he thought, more for his own security ; for he had a mind to send him against the enemy, and into battles, as hoping he would be slain in such dangerous conflicts.' Canon Spence gives the explanation which is likely to commend itself more and more to thoughtful students. It sustains the suggestions given above. ' The real solution of the difficulty probably lies in the fact that this and the other historical books of the Old Testament were made up by the inspired compiler from well- authenticated traditions current in Israel, and most probably pre- served in the archives of the great prophetic schools.' (May we not rather think, preserved in unwritten form, as 'Folklore'? Ed. B.D.} ' There were, no doubt, many of these traditions connected with the principal events of David's early career. Two here were selected which, to a certain extent, covered the same ground. ... As for the 154 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. great love of the king, and position of royal armour-bearer, these things we have little doubt came to David after the victory over the giant Philistine, and very likely, indeed, in consequence of it.' The Stronghold of Zion. 2 SAMUEL v. 7 : ' Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion ; the same is the city of David.' Question. Have recent researches brought to light any relics of this very interesting fortress ? Answer. Josephus gives a magnificent account of the defences of the city, natural and artificial, in his day, and specially at or about this point. The first of its three walls ran round the summit of Mount Zion. It had sixty towers. ' The largeness of the stones,' he says, 1 in three of these was wonderful.' They were white marble (mizzey), 27 feet long, by 10 feet broad, and 5 feet deep. In 1874, Mr. Henry Maudslay, following the former work of Sir Charles Warren, fully explored and laid bare the rock foundation of this wall on the south-west brow of Mount Zion, in all probability the famous Jebusite fortress, ' the stronghold of Zion.' It proved, indeed, a magnificent natural fastness, rendered by human art practically impregnable. The limestone crag at this point appeared as a per- pendicular scarp that is, cut smooth and straight as a wall to an average height of 30 feet, as far as the Turkish authorities would allow him to lay it bare, a distance of some hundred and thirty yards. A base of a huge tower was exposed to view, in the shape of a pro- jecting buttress 45 feet square, also scarped that is, cut straight as a wall. Thirty-six steps were seen cut in the face of this rock wall for the purpose of ascending to the top of a second smaller projecting square buttress, the base of a second tower. The bases of three towers were found to contain no less than eighteen beers, or water- cisterns, hewn in the rock. These ' cisterns to receive rain-water,' and these ' steps ' are specially described by Josephus. A number of fallen stones, from three to four feet long, were found at the bottom with marks indicating Roman work. A ditch 20 feet wide was found at the foot of this scarp with a steep rough rock slope below, and, in one place at least, a second deeper scarp beneath the other, giving a rock-cut perpendicular face of some 50 feet in height. This rock-cut scarp thus exposed, and which, if the authorities had not interfered, would doubtless have been traced round much of the city, must have formed part of the lofty, immovable foundation upon THE STRONGHOLD OF ZION. 155 which the rmghty wall Josephus describes was reared. Towers of amazing strength, relative to ancient weapons and engines of attack, must once have stood out on the projecting buttress-like bases. But not one stone of these remains upon another. Well has Captain Conder, R.E., pointed out that this scarp is peculiarly 'valuable as showing that, however the masonry may have been destroyed or lost, we may yet hope to find indications of the ancient enceinte (boundary wall) in the rock scarps which are imperishable.' (Pales- tine Exploration Reports.} Sir J. W. Dawson gives a sketch of the position of Jerusalem, as seen by the geologist, which enables us to realize the situation, the relations, and the importance, of the ' stronghold of Ziori.' At ' Jeru- salem we are on the summit of the ridge separating the Mediterranean slope from the more abrupt descent to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley. The surface of the Dead Sea is 1,292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, while Jerusalem is 2,590 feet above that level, and consequently no less than 3,880 feet above the great depression which lies to the east of it. The city occupies a little promontory, connected on the north with the main table-land of the summit of the hills, and separated, on the east and west, by deep valleys from the neighbouring eminences. The promontory itself is divided by a furrow, the Tyropean Valley, into two unequal portions, so that it may be compared to a cloven hoof, with one toe longer than the other. The longer or western toe, separated from the adjoining hills by the Gihon or Hinnom Valley, is that which is usually identified with the ancient Zion, and on which the greater part of the city now stands, and its southern part must have been the site of the old Jebusite town, which was so strong that it retained its independence till the time of David. The smaller, or eastern toe, separated by the deep Kedron Valley from the Mount of Olives, is that of Moriah and Ophel, and on it stands the quarter known as Bezetha, and the great area of the Mosque of Omar, once the site of Solomon's Temple. ' Geologically, Jerusalem is on the eastern side of the ridge of the hill country, for the beds underlying it all dip eastward. This com- manding position accounts for its importance as an ancient Amorite stronghold, and also for its selection by David as his capital. The geologist, on inspecting such a site, at once thinks of its original con- dition, and of the causes of the features which it presents. The former is not difficult to realize, for though there has been some filling of hollows with debris and some scarping and walling up of slopes, the relief of the surface is too decided to be easily obscured, and the 156 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. excavations of Colonel Warren and his colleagues have, sounded the depths of most of the masses of rubbish. The clue to the latter is most easily to be found in the dip of the rock, as seen in the great quarries and excavations in the eastern ridge, which show that we have a general easterly dip, and consequently an ascending series from Zion to the Mount of Olives, the outcropping edges of the harder beds forming the ridges, and the cutting out of the soft layers producing the valleys. The rock of the western or Zion Hill is a hard, reddish and gray limestone, much used for building and paving stones, and capable of taking a good polish. It is called Misie stone that is, hard or resisting.' It is necessary to refer briefly to the theory, advocated by Mr. Ferguson, in Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible,' that the evidence of the Old Testament distinctly leads to the identification of Zion with the eastern hill, on which the Temple stood. According to this view, the fortress captured by David occupied the northern part of the ridge, on which the Temple was afterwards built. Though this theory does certainly relieve some difficulties, it has not found general acceptance. Under Saws and Harrows. 2 SAMUEL xii. 31 : ' And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln ; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon.' (Marg. : ' made them labour at.') Difficulty. It does not seem clear whether these terms mean modes of execution, or merely the punishment of subjection to hard forms of labour. Explanation. The answering passage, i Chron. xx. 3, reads as follows, and the Revisers propose no alteration in it : ' And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes.' If the passage in Samuel may refer to 'slavish labour,' that in Chronicles certainly suggests 'torture.' Mercifulness in dealing with conquered enemies is quite a Western and Christian idea. It is a surprise to Easterns even in these days. We need not suppose that David rose superior to the common senti- ments of his country and his times, and we should take due account of the fact that the Ammonites had offered a peculiarly unbearable insult in their treatment of David's ambassadors. G. D. Copeland thinks that the sense of these passages is met if we only understand that David condemned the Ammonites to rigorous and painful toil. ' The English Version is, on the whole, UNDER SAWS AND HARROWS. 157 excellent, and has been honoured of God as no other. Yet the English Version is not an inspired translation, though the translation of an inspired original. Now it so happens that the original here is susceptible of a different rendering to that given in our translation ; thus, instead of under saws and harrows, the word may be equally unto saws and harrows. This would imply only that David made slaves of his captives, reduced them to penal servitude, and made of them sawyers and so forth. Further, the word translated harrows of iron may also be rendered iron mines, implying that David put his captives to work in the mines. And again, the Hebrew word trans- lated " cut them " with saws, in Chronicles, is almost exactly the same as that rendered put in Samuel, and is capable of the same interpre- tation, and, indeed, the majority of the Hebrew MSS. have the very word which means, " he put them to saws." ' While we would gladly relieve the records of David's life of such inhumanities as are suggested by the Authorised Version, we fear that the older view of our text must be regarded as the true one. The latest writers are obliged to recognise in it descriptions of tor- turing and degrading modes of capital punishment in accordance with the spirit and sentiment of the age. We may helpfully set together the views of the passage taken by leading Bible writers. Cambridge Bible (A. F. Kirkpatrick, M.A.) : ' " Put them upon saws," or perhaps we should read as in Chronicles, " Sawed them with saws." This barbarous practice was not unknown at Rome. See Heb. xi. 37. "Threshing-sledges of iron." Sledges or frames armed on the underside with rollers or sharp spikes used for the purpose of bruising the ears of corn and extracting the grain, and at the same time breaking up the straw into small pieces for use as fodder. " Burned them in brick-kilns." The phrase is chosen with reference to the idolatrous rite practised by the Ammonites of " making their children pass through the fire " in honour of Moloch. These cruel punishments must be judged according to the standard of the age in which they were inflicted, not by the light of Christian civilization. The Ammonites were evidently a savage and brutal nation (i Sam. xi. i, 2 ; 2 Sam. x. 1-5 ; Amos i. 13), and in all probability they were treated no worse than they were accustomed to treat others. It was the age of retaliation, when the law of "like for like " the lex talionis prevailed (Judg. i. 7; Lev. xxiv. 19,20). They had foully insulted David, and it is not to be wondered at if he was provoked into making a signal example of them by this severity. In this respect he did not rise above the level of his own age. Modern history has its parallels, not only in the barbarities perpetrated at Alengon by a 158 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. ruthless soldier like William the Conqueror, but in the merciless massacre by which the Black Prince sullied his fair fame on the capture of Limoges.' Ellicotfs Commentary (Dr. F. Gardiner] takes the view that tortures are referred to, and says : ' In the infliction of these cruelties on his enemies, David acted in accordance with the customs and the know- ledge of his time. Abhorrent as they may be to the spirit of Chris- tianity, David and his contemporaries took them as matters of course, without a suspicion that they were not in accordance with God's will.' Ewald writes thus : ' The captive warriors of this and the other cities of the country David punished with great severity on account of the original cause which had led to the war. He mangled them with saws, iron flails, and iron-shearing machines, or roasted them in burning kilns.' Dean Stanley makes the following reference : ' The expressions agree well with the cruel extermination of the conquered inhabitants by fire and by strange and savage tortures a vengeance to be accounted for, not excused, by the formidable resistance of the besieged.' Wordsworth says of the severer reading of the text : ' This seems to be the right interpretation, though controverted by some.' And he refers to Keil and Kitto. Speakers Commentary (Bishop Hervey} has this note : ' The cruelty of these executions belongs to the barbarous manners of the age, and was provoked by the conduct of the Ammonites.' Critical Commentary (Jamiesori) brings out another point : ' This excessive severity and employment of tortures, which the Hebrews on no other occasion are recorded to have practised, was an act of retributive justice on a people who were infamous for their cruelties.' Kitto gives the milder view, but is not able to accept it as the correct one : 'The common, and as it seems to us the true, interpre- tation is, that they were put to deaths of torture. We would very gladly, were it in our power, agree with Dantz, who, followed by Delany, Chandler, and other writers, contends that David merely condemned his Ammonitish captives to severe bodily labours, to hewing and sawing wood, to burning of bricks, and to working in iron mines. But this interpretation has little real foundation. It does much violence to the Hebrew words, which it takes in an un- usual and previously unimagined acceptation.' See ' Biblical Diffi- culties,' Series I., p. 316. S UMMAR Y AND RE VIE W OF SE CTION. 159 SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF SECTION. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HISTORIES. In an article by Professor William R. Harper, Ph.D., contributed to the American Sunday School Times, the points of chief interest connected with the Bible histories are carefully treated, with com- petent knowledge, and in a liberal spirit. Dr. Harper's conclusions will commend themselves to all earnest and devout students who are willing to learn what the Bible really is, and cannot be satisfied with any decision beforehand as to what man thinks God's Bible for the race ought to be. A critical examination of the actual contents of the Old Testament, and a scientific attempt to discover the original material, and to trace the processes of compilation and of editing, are quite consistent with a reverent love for God's Word, and a devout recognition of its inspiration as the world's rule of faith and morals. What is needed is that the critical study of Holy Scripture should be undertaken by godly and devout men, who will honestly point out what can be known, and will jealously preserve all that can be honestly maintained. That which is ' of God ' even adverse and over-confident criticisms cannot overthrow. Professor Harper notices that : i. There is in many portions of the historical books a lack of chronological order. The writer does not always feel it incumbent upon him to describe the events in the order in which they took place, (i) Judg. xii. 8-15 covers a period from the death of Jeph- thah to the death of Abdon ; but this overlaps chs. xiii.-xvi., the story of Samson, while the story of Samson reaches down into the period covered by i Sam. i.-vi. (2) 2 Sam. xxi. i-n, which de- scribes a three years' famine, because of Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites, and the execution of Saul's sons, does not follow ch. xx., but belongs, without doubt, before the rebellion of Absalom (chs. xv.-xviii.) ; for in 2 Sam. xvi. 7, 8 ; xix. 28 we find references to these events. (3) 2 Sam. xxii., David's thanksgiving for deliverance from Saul, belongs, of course, to the early period of his life. (4) 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39, David's heroes and their exploits, is found in 1 Chron. xi. 11-41, after the account of David's becoming king. (5) 2 Sam. vi., the removal of the ark, is by some (Professor Beecher, in ' Old Testament Student,' vol. vii., p. 61 et seq.) regarded as having taken place after, not before, the sin with Bathsheba (ch. xi.). (6) 160 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The chapters of Isaiah which are connected with that memorable year 701, the year of Sennacherib's invasion, are as follows : i. (?) ; x. 5 to xii. 6; xiv. 24-27; xvii. 12-14; xvui - 33. 3 6 > 37- (?) Tne chapters of Jeremiah which belong to the reign of Jehoiakim are vii.-x., xxvi., xiv., xv., xviii., xix., xxv., xxxv., xlvi.-xlix., xxxvi. ; while those of the period of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are xiii., 1., li., xxvii.- xxix. ; xxi., xxii., xxiii., xxiv., xxxiv., xxxvii., xxxviii., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxiii., xxxix., lii. (though some of these may possibly better be as- signed to another period). Other examples might be cited, but these are sufficient to show that the arrangement of matter which has come down to us, whatever may have been its origin, is in many cases not a chronological one. Now, either (i) the writer made an effort to put the matter in chrono- logical order and failed; or (2) the original writer placed it in such order, but later copyists have disarranged it ; or (3) the writer made no particular effort to secure a chronological order. In the case of the Book of Judges, the supposition that no effort was made to secure this order is strengthened by the fact that in the enumeration of periods, seven, twenty, forty, and eighty occur so frequently ' numerals which have the appearance of round numbers, rather than exact dates.' 2. There is found in many portions either no chronological indica- tion, or at best a very defective one ; that is, the text is not careful to point out the time when or during which the events described in it took place. Still further, what seems to be the meaning of the text is sometimes discovered from other portions of Scripture, or from outside sources, to be incorrect, (i) The fact that there have been proposed more than fifty ways of explaining the chronology of the Book of Judges would indicate that the chronological data of the book were, to say the least, defective. (2) It is only by the com- parison of several passages that one discovers that Samson's great exploits were performed after the death of Eli, and just before Samuel's reformation. (3) At the time of Saul's election he was a young man. Chs. ix. and x. (i Sam.) tell of his choice by Samuel and the people ; ch. xi. tells of his victory over Ammon, which immediately followed ; ch. xii. of Samuel's farewell address at the age of seventy ; while in ch. xiii., which to all appearances, follows at once, Saul has a son Jonathan old enough to command a division of the army. We must suppose that the first period of his reign (per- haps ten or fifteen years) is passed over in silence (between chs. ix and xiii.). (4) One would scarcely suppose that a period of twenty years elapsed between verses 37 and 38 of Isaiah xxxvii. ; yet such is the S UMMAjR Y AND RE VIE W OF SE CTION. 1 6 1 case. (5) The great doubt as to the duration of the nation's stay in Egypt whether 430 or 230 years is due to the lack of clearness in the indication of chronological data. (6) It is not told us how long Samuel judged, or how long his sons were judges. (7) While the prophecies of Ezekiel are in nearly every case clearly and definitely located, so far as concerns the time of their utterance, and while those of Jeremiah are frequently so designated, Isaiah's material is in the majority of instances left in great doubt, the order and position having often to be determined solely by internal evidence. (8) The lack of any direct statement in reference to the date of Joel, though the book abounds in historical material as distinguished from the prophetic, has left its position to be determined wholly by internal evidence. (9) All are familiar with the difficulties which are con- nected with the question of Solomon's age when he ascended the throne, and with the exact chronology of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, as indeed of many others of Israel's and Judah's kings. It is quite certain, therefore, that, in striking contrast with the habit of some writers for example, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah many of the Old Testament writers seem to have cared little about giving such statements as would have made the time of writings and events certain. In other words, there are in certain periods few, if any, indications of chronology. If it is asked whether, in the absence of such data, there is evidence of some other system of arrangement, it may be answered that in some cases for example, 2 Sam. xxii. 24 the material seems to have been roughly thrown together in the form of an appendix. In others, as in the arrangement of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, no particular system has as yet been discovered. 3. In reading these various histories, one is frequently struck with the incompleteness, the fragmentary character, of the narratives. This is something different from that brevity of statement for which the sacred writers are so justly praised. It is rather the omission of what seem to us to be important facts ; and these omitted facts are, in some cases certainly, necessary to any full or satisfactory under- standing of the matter in hand, looked at from an historical point of view. Their omission, indeed, gives an impression which is some- times entirely wrong. (i) In the story of Saul's reign we have, according to the best interpretation of the material, no record of the first ten or fifteen years : the impression produced by the narrative is that Saul disobeys Samuel, and comes into conflict with him almost immediately after his appointment. When, however, we discover ii 162 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. that this long period has been omitted, the whole case becomes more intelligible, and the development of the evil side of Saul's nature is explained. (2) Jonathan, as will be remembered, suddenly appears as the leader of a part of the army, though no mention of him had before been made in any connection. (3) From a strictly historical point of view, one is scarcely satisfied to find the writer of 2 Samuel, after furnishing such minute details of every other part of David's life, omitting any reference to his death ; nor is this feeling changed when we find the death recorded in two verses in i Kings. (4) jehoshaphat's war with Moab and Ammon (2 Chron. xx.) is passed without mention by the writer of Kings ; nor is anything said of Uzziah's victories over the Philistines, or of Manasseh's capture by Assyria. (5) Shishak's capture of Jerusalem, a most important event, receives only two verses (i Kings xiv. 25, 26) ; Abijam's war with Jeroboam, one (i Kings xv. 6) ; Josiah's contest with Pharaoh-Necho, one of the most critical in sacred history, only one (2 Kings xxiii. 29). (6) The writer or compiler of Chronicles thought it un- necessary, or foreign to his purpose, to make any mention of (a) the reign of David at Hebron, or the civil war between David and Saul's house (2 Sam. i.-iv.) ; (//>) David's adultery and punishment (2 Sam. xi., xii.); (c) Absalom's vengeance upon his brother and his rebellion (2 Sam. xiii.-xx.), together with several other matters of minor import- ance. One feels that an account of David's life, with the story of Bathsheba and the consequences of that crime omitted, is exceeding fragmentary and incomplete. (7) The writer of Samuel has also omitted many facts, a knowledge of which is essential to any just comprehension of the history of religious worship in the time of David and Solomon (i Chron. xiii. 1-5 ; xv., xvi., xxii., xxiii.-xxvii., xxviii., xxix.). (8) In the story of Jonah, which, after all, must be taken along with the Elijah and Elisha stories as historical, and not, with many modern critics, as fiction or allegory, one searches in vain for (a) the location of Jonah's abode, (#) the spot where he was vomited up, (c) an account of his long, wearisome journey to Nineveh, (d} the name of the Assyrian king, (e) his fate after his rebuke by God, (/) his subsequent relations to Nineveh. These are but a few of the more striking omissions omissions which leave us in greater or less confusion of mind. It may be said this is only the result of the brief and condensed method which the writer was compelled to adopt ; a book which covers so much ground must, in places, be fragmentary and incomplete. This is true ; but notice must also be taken of the fact that the Old Testament, brief as it is, contains a great many repetitions ; for example, (a) of the SUMMAR Y AND RE VIE W OF SECTION. 163 account of the tabernacle in Exodus ; () and of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy ; (c) of the history of David and the later kings in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles ; (d) David's thanksgiving (2 Sam. xxii. ; Psa. xviii.); () Consider the leading topics in i Samuel : the contrast between Samuel and the sons of Eli ; Samuel's steady growth ; Eli's weak character ; the decay of religion ; punishment of sin, as seen in the loss of the ark ; the manifestation of Jehovah's power in defence of His ark ; the wilfulness and superstition of Saul ; the providential escapes of David ; the gradual hardening of Saul's heart, etc. (c) Recall the great story of 2 Samuel, the sin of David and the punishment which followed, a story to which everything else is made subordinate, (d] In the Book of Kings this is seen not only in the prominence given to the work of the prophets, especially Elijah and Elisha, but also in the almost monotonous ' he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord,' or, ' he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord,' a judgment always based on prophetic insight. (3) The form and spirit of the material, as well as the material itself, furnishes evidence of this. There is not space here for a detailed comparison of the Hebrew historical writings with those of other nations, but if such a comparison could be instituted with, for example, the Assyrian and Babylonian material, what would it show ? Many are now familiar with the character and contents of the Assyrian records, fragmentary, full of idle boasting, given chiefly to the describing of scenes of blood and pillage, lists of kings conquered, lists of mountains ascended, of rivers crossed, of countries subdued ; without aim or purpose, save to boast ; with no common bond ; statistical records, not history ; in almost every sense disappointing. Put side by side with these records those of the Hebrews, com- plete from the point of view of the writer, that only being omitted which did not serve the great purpose of his work ; containing, all told, less of the spirit of egotistical bravado than will be found in a single column of an Assyrian inscription ; battles, to be sure, but battles which were fought for principles ; statistics, to be sure, but only those which had to do with the interests of the kingdom of SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF SECTION. 167 God ; from beginning to end written with a single purpose in view, and that to teach men (men of all times) how to live, how not to live ; holding up as examples of the punishment which follows sin the lives of the nation's most revered leaders. The result of such a comparison, with whatever literature it may be made, will be the same, namely, to show the presence of a ' something ' in the Hebrew historical writings which no other historical writings contain. That something is the prophetic element. The Old Testament pages with this element omitted would be as commonplace, as unsatisfactory, in short, as human, as the records of all other ancient nations are to-day. The Old Testament histories, so far as concerns their literary form and character, when judged by the standard of modern historio- graphy, show, it must be conceded, certain defects ; but these defects, when examined, prove to be the necessary accompaniment of the ruling purpose of that history. R. F. Horton concludes a careful consideration of the Old Testa- ment History with the following remarks : ' We have seen, broadly speaking, that, regarded as historical compositions, they show the marks of an origin similar to that of most other ancient historical works. The writers, writing centuries after the events, rely upon existing records which were more or less contemporaneous with the things recorded in them. Using these historical materials, very much as historians use materials still, the writers endeavoured to extract from them a uniform and consistent narrative; but their endeavour is seldom quite successful, for a careful study of their books constantly reveals discrepancies which are best explained by recognising a combination of different sources. . . . From all this we are bound to infer that Inspired History is not history which in its method of composition and infallibility of detail is marked off from other Ancient History.' NEW TESTAMENT. PRELIMINARY NOTE. HISTORY A SECONDARY FEATURE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE New Testament records cover but a brief space of time, as compared with the long ages that are treated in the Old Testament. All the books of the New Testament, if actually written by those whose names they bear, must have been composed well within the first hundred years after the birth of Christ ; and as the creation of a Christian literature could hardly have begun before A.D. 40, the New Testament represents the treasures preserved for us from the writings of only about fifty years. Very few disputable questions of history, or chronology, are intro- duced, and those which do occur are chiefly associated with inexact quotations from the older Scriptures, or with the cases in which the Old Testament records are themselves uncertain. Of our Lord's life, the only important disputable matters are, the exact date of His birth, and the precise length of His active ministry. As the Evangelists do not seem to have designed a strict chrono- logical setting of the incidents of our Lord's life, it has been found impossible to construct any chronological order that can be univer- sally acceptable, by fitting together the accounts of the four Evange- lists. There are evident instances of duplicate records, but we may err in making statements that are nearly alike memorials of but one event. The epistles bear very slight relation to history, and do but help to fix some of the dates given in the Acts of the Apostles. It should be understood that the paragraphs contained in the following section are not strictly historical, but come under the head- ing which is chosen for the entire section, including both the Old and the New Testament ' Difficulties relating to Matters of History.' BAPTIZING OF PROSELYTES. 169 Baptizing of Proselytes. MATTHEW xxiii. 15 : ' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte.' Difficulty. The rites associated with the admission of proselytes are not sufficiently known to form a ground for requiring any particular rite in cases of admission to the Christian Church. Explanation. Dean Plumpfre has collected what is known con- cerning these baptizing customs, which seem to apply to those who became proselytes of Righteousness, or, as they were also called, Proselytes of the Covenant, perfect Israelites. ' The proselyte was first catechized as to his motives. If these were satisfactory, he was first instructed as to the Divine protection of the Jewish people, and then circumcised. A special prayer was appointed to accompany the act of circumcision. Often the proselyte took a new name, opening the Hebrew Bible and accepting the first that came. ' All this, however, was not enough. The " convert " was still a " stranger." His children would be counted as bastards i.e., aliens. Baptism was required to complete his admission. When the wound (of circumcision) was healed, he was stripped of all his clothes in the presence of the three witnesses who had acted as his teachers, and who now acted as his sponsors, the " fathers " of the proselyte, and led into the tank or pool. As he stood there up to his neck in water, they repeated the great commandments of the Law. These he promised and vowed to keep, and then, with an accompanying benediction, he plunged under the water. To leave one hand- breadth of his body unsubmerged would have vitiated the whole rite. The Rabbis carried back the origin of the baptism to a remote antiquity, finding it in the command of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 2), and of Moses (Exod. xix. 10). The Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan inserts the word " Thou shalt circumcise and baptize " in Exod. xii. 44. Even in the Ethiopic version of Matt, xxiii. 15, we find "compass sea and land to baptize one proselyte.'" But the questions which present difficulty are these : Was this ritual observed as early as the commencement of the first century ? If so, was the baptism of John, or that of the Christian Church, in any way derived from, or connected with, the baptism of proselytes ? The following conclusions are arrived at by Dean Plumptre in a careful review of the materials that are at command : (i) There is no direct evidence of the practice being in use before the destruction of Jerusalem. The statements of the Talmud as to its having come 170 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. from the fathers, and their exegesis of the Old Testament in connec- tion with it, are alike destitute of authority. (2) The negative argument, drawn from the silence of the Old Testament, of the Apocrypha, of Philo, and of Josephus, is almost decisive against the belief that there was in their time a baptism of proselytes, with as much importance attached to it as we find in the Talmudists. This must therefore be admitted : the supposed Jewish ritual of baptism, before the time of Christ, is a matter of presumption, and not of evidence. The Christian rite cannot be safely founded on a mere assumption. Its authorization must be obtained in some other direction. In further support of a position which may occasion some surprise, reference may be made to a note by Dean Mansel, who says : ' The Rabbinical writers represent the admission of proselytes as consisting of three successive steps circumcision, baptism and sacrifice. The baptism of proselytes was regarded by the latter Rabbis as equally necessary with circumcision, but it is probable that in earlier times it was merely a purification, preliminary to the offering of sacrifice such as is enjoined in other cases. After the destruction of the Temple, when the sacrifice was no longer possible, the baptism seems to have assumed the character of an independent and essential rite, with special reference to the initiation of proselytes ; but there is no evidence of its having had this character at earlier periods ; and the absence of all mention of it in the Old Testament, or in any works written while the Temple was standing, may be regarded at least as a proof that it had not at that time assumed the importance which was afterwards attached to it. ' On these grounds it is concluded by Leyrer that the baptism of John was not directly derived from that administered to proselytes, though the same idea, that of repentance and conversion from spiritual uncleanness, was symbolized by both. But th-'s symbolism may be also found in the purification commanded by the Mosaic Law, and it is probably to these, and to the figurative language of the prophets, that we should look to find a precedent for the baptism with water unto repentance administered by the forerunner of Christ.' THE A CCO UNTS OF SA UL'S CONVERSION. 1 7 1 The Accounts of Saul's Conversion. ACTS ix. 7 : ' And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' ACTS xxii. 9 : ' And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.' ACTS xxvi. 14 : ' And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language.' Question. Do the differences in these narratives amount to dis- crepancies, which imperil the. historical truthfulness of the records ? Answer. In such records of incidents as are given us in our daily newspapers we constantly find similar differences, which often amount to discrepancies and contradictions ; but we readily allow such things to pass by, and never think of letting them spoil our general impression of the truth of the narrators. Each man will see things from his own standpoint, and only see what is in the field of his vision. Each man sees what he is disposed to see, and puts some- thing of himself into his seeing. Absolute correctness belongs to no man's testimony, based on personal observation. We accept this fact universally, and so complete one man's witness by the witness o other men. We are constantly making efforts to see things all round ; to see them from various points of view. We need not, therefore, wonder at the very slight diversity in the narratives of Paul's con- version. The accounts given by Paul himself, in his two speeches, are in complete harmony : only the early one, given in a quieter mood, is more full and precise. In it he declares that the people did not hear, in such a way as to comprehend, the voice which he himself heard, and comprehended. In the latter speech he says he heard the voice, but does not make any remark about the people, leaving us to assume that he heard the voice, and they did not. The Evangelist Luke seems to contradict this by declaring that the men who journeyed with him heard a voice. The passages, however, can be readily harmonized by understanding Luke to say the men heard a noise, as of a man's voice, but they did not comprehend what the voice uttered. ' They did not hear the words could attach no meaning to the sounds which for Saul himself had so profound a significance.' Olshausen says : ' How this difference is to be explained, in accord- ance with the principle that literal agreement must exist between the different narratives of Holy Writ, I do not see.' But his translator puts the following footnote: ' Surely the discrepancies commented upon 1 72 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. by the author are merely apparent, and too much has been made of them. The two statements : " they heard a voice but saw no man," and "they heard nothing, but saw the light," are by no means opposed to one another ; for surely they might see the light and yet see no person, and they might hear the voice so far as the sounds of it were concerned, and yet not hear the words which were addressed to Paul. The two statements combined intimate that they saw the light, but saw not the person of Jesus, that they heard the sound of His voice, but did not catch His words.' The Fate of Judas Iscariot. MATTHEW xxvii. 3-8 : ' Then Judas, which betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought wilh them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.' ACTS i. 1 8, 19 : ' Now this man obiained a field with the reward of his iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.' Difficulty. Both the manner of Judas' death, and the circum- stances of the purchase of the field, are so distinctly different as to be irreconcilable in any natu?'al and unforced way. Explanation. This must be granted. But it is evident that, upon such a matter, the Apostles would have no direct and personal knowledge ; they would be wholly dependent on current reports, the gossip of the day, which was as inexact, and uncertain, as we well know it to be now. Peter's account wholly differs from Matthew's. Peter says Judas obtained the field, Matthew says, the chief priests bought the field with the money that Judas flung down. Peter says : Judas fell and killed himself in the field he had obtained; but Matthew says he hanged himself, and Matthew does not connect the death with the field ; but naturally connects the name of the field with the betrayal of Jesus to His death. If these two narratives were given in any ordinary book, we should, at once say, that Matthew's account is manifestly the historical one, and Peter's the legendary and untrustworthy. Professor Hackett gives the accepted harmonizing of the passages, which is, however, too strained and unnatural, to be readily accepted. ' These passages do not necessarily contradict each other. Matthew does not say that Judas, after having hanged himself, did not fall to THE FATE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT. 173 the ground, nor, on the contrary, does Luke say that Judas did not hang himself before he fell to the ground : and unless the writers affirm the reality of the events which they respectively mention in such a way as to assert or imply that if the one event be true the other must be false, it is obvious that they do not contradict each other. Of the precise relation of the two events in question to each other we have no information, and can affirm nothing with certainty. Some intermediate circumstance connected the one with the other as parts of the same transaction, but that circumstance has not been recorded. It is conjectured that Judas may have hung himself on the edge of a precipice near the valley of Hinnom, and that, the rope breaking by which he was suspended, he fell to the earth and was dashed to pieces. As I stood in this valley, and looked up to the rocky heights which hang over it on the south side of Jerusalem, I felt that the proposed explanation was a perfectly natural one ; I was more than ever satisfied with it. I measured the precipitous, almost perpendicular walls, in different places, and found the height to be variously 40, 36, 33, 30, and 25 feet. Olive-trees still grow quite near the edge of these rocks, and, anciently, no doubt, these and other trees were still more numerous in the same place. At the bottom of these precipices are also rocky ledges on which a person would fall from above, and in that case not only would life be destroyed, but the body almost inevitably would be bruised and mangled. ' Dean Plumptre regards Acts i. 18, 19, as not an integral part of Peter's speech, but a note of explanation inserted by the historian : ' The whole passage must be regarded as a note of the historian, not as part of the speech of Peter. It was not likely that he, speaking to disciples, all of whom knew the Aramaic, or the popular Hebrew of Palestine, should stop to explain that Aceldama meant, " in their proper tongue," the Field of Blood.' 'The horrors recorded in Acts may have been caused by the self-murderer's want of skill, or the trembling agony that could not tie the noose firm enough.' Olshausen takes the view that verses 18, 19, do not belong to the original speech of Peter. He says : ' Rather than give assent to forced interpretations, we would prefer the supposition that a twofold tradition obtained concerning the fate of Judas, since in such secondary matters, disparities otherwise occur. Yet we must confess that the accounts may be so connected as to permit the conjecture that Judas hanged himself, and falling down, was so injured that his bowels gushed out.' Buxiorf suggests that the expression of St. Matthew, 'hanged 174 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. himself,' might be rendered 'he was choked,' as if by asphyxia, from over-excitement and anguish. He says the Jews have so explained the end of Ahithophel, and that a like explanation might suit in the Gospel. St. Chrysostom uses the expression to be strangled by con- science. But these views suggest even more serious difficulties. Theophylact seems to think there were two acts of suicide, one abortive and one successful, and by the aid of this suggestion recon- ciles the two accounts. He says the rope broke on the first attempt, and, after the resurrection of Christ, Judas flung himself off some height. Alford says : ' The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system.' Alford thinks Luke's account in the Acts is precise, and that in Matthew general. ' It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder, the account given in Acts does not preclude the catas- trophe related having happened, in some way, as a Divine Judgment, during the suicidal attempt. Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go.' The Fate of Herod Agrippa. ACTS xii. 23 : ' And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory : and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.' Difficulty. The description of the disease from which Herod suffered is not consistent with the sudden death that seems to be implied. Explanation. It should always be borne in mind that the descriptions of disease given in Scripture are not strictly scientific. They represent ordinary observation, and, in such a case as that of Herod Agrippa, reproduce the talk of the court rather than any proper medical report, or any precise and direct knowledge of the Christian disciples. There are similar accounts of the deaths of men who have been infamous for their persecuting zeal, and there is a common notion that a kind of poetical justice is done when the per- secutor who has tortured the bodies of others himself dies a miser- able, degrading, and painful death. There are many cases in which historical truth is sacrificed for the sake of this sentiment concerning what oug\t to have happened. Francis Jacox has collected a number of illustrations of these 'retributive surprises.' 'So fond is popular history of teaching this sort of philosophy by examples, that examples THE FATE OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 175 to the purpose are widely accepted which are not yet historical. Cardinal Balue, under Louis XL, is pointed out in his iron cage as malignant inventor punished in and through his own invention ; but Michelet has exposed the fallacy of supposing Balue the inventor of those iron cages, which had long been known in Italy. The French doctor Guillotin is even now not uncommonly believed to have perished in the reign of terror by the instrument invented by, and named after, him ; whereas he quietly died in his bed many, many years later than that.' But it is more to the point to recall how the persecuted Protestants in the active times of the Inquisition delighted at the reports that the leading Inquisitors had died dreadful and degrading deaths. Herod the Great died of some terrible form of internal ulceration and corruption, and so did some of the most violent and self-indulgent of the Roman emperors. Without more careful and scientific de- scription it would seem to be impossible to identify the disease. It is very doubtful whether there is such a disease as phthiriasis, or morbus pedicularis, which is usually assumed as the disease of Herod Agrippa ; but peculiarly painful and offensive suffering sometimes ends the lives of those who have been unusually vicious. In the case of Herod Agrippa we must distinguish between what the Bible states and what the reader assumes. The language of Luke is very general. He merely narrates signs of a sudden attack on the day when a grand state audience was given, the rapid develop- ment of disease, its taking revolting forms, and the patient's ultimate death. What is assumed, but not stated, by the writer, is that the beginning of the disease was on the day of audience, and that the death of the patient occurred on the day that he was smitten. How- ever rapidly the disease may have progressed, all ulcerous and can- cerous affections require certain time for development, and there is no reason why the miraculous features of this Divine judgment should be unduly extended. Farrar says : ' The death of Herod Agrippa, like that of his grand- father, has been ascribed to phthiriasis, but not by the sacred his- torians. It is, however, an historic fact that many cruel tyrants have died of ulcerous maladies, which the popular rumour described much as Lactantius describes them in his tract De Mortibus Perstcutorum* Instances are Pheretima (Herodotus), Antiochus Epiphanes ('Mac- cabees II.), Herod the Great (Josephus). Maximius Galerius (Euse- bius), Maximin (Eusebius), Claudius Lucius Herminianus (Tertullian), Duke of Alva, etc.' Dr. Oswald Dykes, after referring to the blasphemous flattery of 176 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. the people, says : ' Presently, even as his ears drank in, well pleased, the impious homage, he was struck where he sat with sudden illness. An angel from God smote him, says St. Luke. In a state of violent pain he had to be carried from the theatre to his palace, a dying man. After this shocking interruption to the ceremony the crowd broke up in consternation. The town went into mourning. For five days long the king lay in the grip of his horrible and excruciating malady. On August 6 the king was dead. Then the false and heartless mob that had been ready to worship the sovereign while he lived, and had filled the streets with pretended lamentations for his seizure, gave themselves up, troops and populace together, to the most indecent and open rejoicings over his decease, toasting the tyrant's end in public banquets, and heaping cowardly and brutal insults on the royal princesses. So, amid lies and shame and execra- tion, there passed away into corruption and the grave the godlike Herod.' For these facts the authority of Josephus may be cited. Dr. Dykes goes on to ask: 'Why should this old-world story be rehearsed in Sacred Writ ? Is it that there was anything miraculous in this man's illness ? or that putrid internal ulcers, of which Antio- chus Epiphanes and Herod the Great had both died before him, is a disease specially fit to scourge the royal persecutors of the faith ? or that the sudden death of wicked men is always to be looked for and accepted as a special judgment from Almighty God? No; but to teach us that God the Avenger, with His spiritual ministers of judg- ment, stands as close beside wicked and impious sinners, even in the hour of their proudest success, as, in the night of the saint's trial, there stands by him the angel of deliverance. The hand of Him in whom we live can reach up to the loftiest to pluck them down from their seats, as well as down to the lowliest to uplift. If here again we are not often suffered to see the end as it was seen in the case of Herod Agrippa, if no such dramatic denouement should point the moral of a selfish life, nor loathsome death follow always like a satire on the heels of pride, it is not because God's angel of wrath has not been standing all the while beside the chair of state, or at the board of luxury ; it is only that the wicked are kept a little longer for the day of their judgment.' The chief portions of Josephus' narrative may be given for the sake of readers who have no ready access to libraries : ' Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judaea, he came to the city Ctesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower, and there he exhibited shows in honour of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. THE FATE OF HEROD AGR1PPA. 177 At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity throughout his pro- vince. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning, at which time the silver of his garment, being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a dread and shuddering over those that looked intently upon it, and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god. And they added : " Be thou merciful to us, for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him, and fell into the deepest sorrow. A violent pain also arose in his belly, having begun with great severity. He therefore looked upon his friends and said : " I whom you call a god am commanded presently to depart this life, while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me, and I who was called by you immortal am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept what Providence allots, as it pleases God, for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he had said this his pain became violent. Accord- ingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumour went abroad everywhere that he would certainly die in a little time. . . . And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his bowels for five days, he departed this life.' The Scripture account seems to recall the narrative of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, as given in 2 Maccabees ix. 5 : ' The Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and in- visible plague, for as soon as he had spoken these words a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inward parts ... so that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man.' 12 1 7 8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. Saul's Life from Conversion to Ministry. GALATIANS i. 15-18 : 'But when it was the good pleasure of God .... to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles ; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood : neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ; but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.' Difficulty. Saul's account differs, in material points, from\that given in Acts ix. 19-30, which seems to imply an early visit to Jeru- salem, and actual preachings in the Holy City. Explanation. It is evident that the record in the Acts is not to be taken as a full and detailed account. It has to be completed, and even fitted up, by the insertion, in their proper places, of the personal references found in the Epistles. It is not difficult to form a connected narrative of St. Paul's early movements, by a careful comparison of the various notices which have been preserved. Immediately after his conversion, he retired into Arabia, by which is usually to be understood the Sinaitic peninsula, though the desert districts lying eastward of Damascus would have provided, abundantly, the seclusion he sought. The time of his retirement cannot be known. He mentions three years, but if this is to be dated from the time of his conversion, it included the time of preaching in Damascus, which occasioned such active persecution that his life was imperilled. From Arabia he returned to Damascus, where he had made friends. Probably he hesitated about going to Jerusalem, as the Christians there could not know what the brethren at Damascus did concerning him. He was compelled to escape from persecution by going into the dangerous surroundings of the Holy City. The question which is most difficult to answer is this : Did Paul (or Saul) begin to preach in the synagogues of Damascus immediately after his conversion ; and did he excite opposition in Damascus before he retired to Arabia ? This would certainly be the first im- pression of a reader of the Acts (ix. 19-30); but it may fairly be doubted, because the retirement would be sought for purposes of mental and spiritual preparation, and he was not likely to begin work before he felt prepared. The analogy of Moses, who had his desert experience before beginning his active ministry ; and the case of our Lord, who retired into the wilderness districts immediately on His ordination to His mission, prepare us to expect that Saul (or Paul) would retire for spiritual preparations as soon as the new con- viction had given fresh character to his life. There was so much he needed to think over. S4 ULS LIFE FROM CONVERSION 7V MINISTR Y. 179 Farrar takes this view, and gives reasons for his opinion drawn from the probable mental moods of the Apostle. ' A multitude of writers have assumed that St. Paul first preached at Damascus, then retired to Arabia, and then returned, with increased zeal and power, to preach in Damascus once more. Not only is St. Paul's own language unfavourable to such a view, but it seems to exclude it. What would all psychological considerations lead us to think likely in the case of one circumstanced as Saul of Tarsus was after his sudden and strange conversion ? The least likely course the one which would place him at the greatest distance from all deep and earnest spirits who have passed through a similar crisis would be for Kim to have plunged at once into the arena of controversy, and to have passed, without pause or breathing-space, from the position of a leading persecutor into that of a prominent champion. In case of men of shallow nature, or superficial convictions, such a proceeding is possible ; but we cannot imagine it of St. Paul. It is not thus with souls which have been arrested in mid-career by the heart-searching voice of God. Just as an eagle which has been drenched and battered by some fierce storm will alight to plume its ruffled wings, so when a great soul has "passed through fire and through water" it needs some safe and quiet place in which to rest The lifelong con- victions of any man may be reversed in an instant, and that sudden reversion often causes a marvellous change ; but it is never in an instant that the whole nature and character of a man are transformed from what they were before. It is difficult to conceive of any change more total, any rift of difference more deep, than that which separated Saul the persecutor from Paul the Apostle ; and we are sure that like Moses, like Elijah, like our Lord Himself, like almost every great soul in ancient or modern times to whom has been entrusted the task of swaying the destinies by moulding the convictions of mankind like Sakya Mouni, like Mahomet in the cave of Hira, like St. Francis of Assisi in his sickness, like Luther in the monastery of Erfurt he would need a quiet period in which to elaborate his thoughts, to still the tumult of his emotions, to commune in silence and secrecy with his own soul. It was necessary for him to understand the Scriptures ; to co-ordinate his old with his new beliefs. It is hardly too much to say that if Saul ignorant as yet of many essential truths of Chris- tianity, alien as yet from the experience of its deepest power had begun at once to argue with and to preach to others, he could hardly have done the work he did. To suppose that the truths of which afterwards he became the appointed teacher were all revealed to him as by one flash of light in all their fulness is to suppose that which 12 2 i So HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. is alien to God's dealings with the human soul, and which utterly con- tradicts the phenomena of that long series of Epistles in which we watch the progress of his thoughts. Even on grounds of historic probability, it seems unlikely that Saul should at once have been able to substitute a propaganda for an inquisition. Under such circum- stances it would have been difficult for the brethren to trust, and still more difficult for the Jews to tolerate him. The latter would have treated him as a shameless renegade, the former would have mis- trusted him as a secret spy.' Professor^ Findlay says : ' The place of the Arabian journey seems to us to lie between verses 21 and 22 of Acts ix. That passage gives a twofold description of Paul's preaching in Damascus, in its earlier and later stages, with a double note of time (verses 19 and 23). Saul's first testimony, taking place " straightway," was, one would presume, a mere declaration of faith in Jesus : " In the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus (saying) that He is the Son of God"(R.V. ), language in striking harmony with that of the Apostle in the text, Gal. i. 12, 1 6. Verse 22 presents a different situation. Paul is now preaching in his established and characteristic style.' The First Christian Council. ACTS xv. 6 : ' And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.' Question. Did the Apostles and elders, at this first council, assume authority over the Churches ? Answer. The founders of the early Christian Church were Jews, born into, and trained in, Jewish associations. When they had to organize the Christian disciples, and arrange for the order and government of the new church, they could but take as models the system with which they were familiar. When separate worship had to be organized, it was inevitable that Christian services would be modelled on the pattern of synagogue services, such modifications or additions being made as the fresh circumstances and feelings de- manded. In the same way, when churches arose in various places, and Christians, widely separated from each other, needed some central bond of unity, and some outside authority to settle questions of doctrine, and some direction towards securing uniformity of ritual, it was inevitable that a council should be formed, similar to the familiar council which regulated the ecclesiastical opinions and practices of Judaism. Some knowledge of the Jewish Council will therefore help us in THE FIRST CHRISTIAN COUNCIL. 181 an effort to understand the Council formed in the early Church. In a previous passage, the Sanhedrin has been fully described ; and it is only necessary to add that every town, even every village, in Palestine, had a little local Sanhedrin of seven members, the seven who con- ducted the synagogue. Among these seven were three leaders, called triumvirs, who decided by themselves unimportant causes. They settled questions of inheritance. ' The triumvirs,' says Maimonides, ' ought to have seven qualifications : wisdom, gentle- ness, piety, hatred of mammon, love of truth ; they should be loved of men, and be of good repute.' The seven were entrusted with the police of the town or village, and judged all causes not involving capital punishment. The officers of a synagogue formed a college of elders. With their head they became a kind of chapter, managing the affairs of the synagogue, and possessing the power of excommunicating. Elders, in this sense, seem to have been appointed for what may be called the ' Christian Synagogue.' Only some of the Apostles remained at Jerusalem, and they would naturally be joined with the elders in the practical management of the Christian community. What is to be specially noticed is, that no authority on other churches was demanded by the Christian Council at Jerusalem. They only advised what was most suitable ; and even the advice did not come from the officials, but from the whole body of the Church, which acted under their direction. So far as we can gather, the first council claimed no authority beyond that which came from the fact that the first organized Christian community was formed at Jerusalem, and had the advantage of the advice and counsel of the Apostles who had been with Jesus. ' It will be seen at once ho\r closely the organization of the synagogue was reproduced in that of the Ecclesia. Here also there was the single presbyter-bishop in small towns, a council of presbyters under one head in large cities. The legatus of the synagogue appears in the angelos, perhaps also in the apostolos, of the Christian Church. The presbyters, or elders, discharged functions which were essentially episcopal that is, involving pastoral superintendence. The existence of a body bearing the name of " elders " is implied in the narrative of Ananias (Acts v. 6). The order itself is recognised in Acts xi. 30, and takes part in the deliberations of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts xv. It is transferred by Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile Churches in their first missionary journey (Acts xiv. 23). Of the order in which the first elders were appointed, as of the occasion which led to the institution of the office, we have no record.' 1 82 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. What is quite dear is, that the authority belonging to the first Christian Council was the authority belonging to a conference, not to any individuals, or to any official position. Conferences and councils can never assert dominion over faith and ritual, save in a very limited sense. They cannot, indeed, be unanimous enough to claim more than the right of a majority. Their decisions always have this possible weakness in them the right may be on the side of the few who dissent, or withhold their opposition. The result of a conference must always be submitted to the judgment, and voluntary acceptance, of those whom it may concern. Dr. Dykes skilfully shows in what an informal way the early Church gained its organization. ' It is true that from the first there was order, for order is essential to healthy life. Without order of some sort there could have been no discipline, and Ananias and Simon show that from the first discipline was indispensable. It is no less true that as the church grew more independent of the synagogue, and realized better its corporate unity, officers were multiplied, regulations were laid down, and a polity and an order of worship became inevitable. The Church took its external mould under the slow pressure of providences. So far indeed was the Church from being launched in its perfect or final shape, that it is extremely difficult to say at what point of its slow development it really became the Church at all. In fact, it might be said that not till Jerusalem had welcomed Antioch, and Antioch greeted Jerusalem, was there really and truly a Church free of Mosaism or Catholic for all men. Even after this point was reached, questions of organization and legislation, about office-bearers, liturgy, discipline, and the like points of controversy, still slumbered among the unstirred difficulties of the future.' Dean Plumptre says of this conference : ' The meeting rightly takes its place as the first in the long series of councils, or synods, which mark the course of the Church's history. It bore its witness that the government of the Christian Society was not to rest in the autocracy of a single will, but in the deliberative decision of those who, directly or indirectly, having been appointed by the choice, or with the approval, of the people, represented the whole community. Presbyters had an equal voice with the Apostles, whose position was analogous to that of the later bishops. Those whom we should call the laity were present at the deliberations, and, though we have no proof that they took part in them, gave their vote.' THE SITUATION OF GOLGOTHA. 183 The Situation of Golgotha. MATTHKW xxvii. 33 : ' And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull.' Question. Can the late identification of this place, by the shape of a mound resembling a skull, be reasonably accepted ? Answer. This place is not mentioned by any Jewish writer, and until quite recently the position was wholly a matter of conjecture. ' A fourth century tradition identifies the spot with the building known as the Church of the Sepulchre. One eminent archaeologist of our time (Mr. James Fergusson) identifies it with the Dome of the Rock in the Mosque of El Aksa. Both sites were then outside the city, but were afterwards enclosed by the third wall, built by Agrippa II. There can be no doubt that the place was named Golgotha on account of its skull-like shape, and efforts have been directed to the discovery of such a mound or hillock, near the city. Kitto gives suggestive hints to those who make a search for it, when he says : ' The place of execution was always outside the walls of towns. At Jerusalem it was upon a swell of ground called Golgotha the place of a skull some say on account of the skulls of dead criminals that lay about there, forgetting that the Jews never suffered the bodies or bones even of criminals to remain unburied. The name was there- fore, doubtless, derived from the skull-like shape of the hill ; for we are not bound to credit the tradition, that it was thus named because the skull of Adam had been found there.' This tradition adds, that as the blood flowed from the sacred wounds on his skull his soul was translated to paradise. Thenius was the first to suggest identification with the rocky knoll to the west of Jeremiah's Grotto, and later explorers confirm his suggestion. Sir J. W. Dawson, Dr. Selah Merrill, C. R. Conder, and others, give good evidence of the skull-like features of the place, and we strongly incline to the view that the traditional site must be abandoned, and this accepted as the ' most sacred spot of earth,' where ' our dear Lord was crucified, who died to save us all.' Sir J. W. Dawson gives a careful record of his own personal observations, which convince us of the probability that the true site has been at last recovered. After showing that the execution must have taken place on the table-land north of the city, near the road leading from the Damascus, or St. Stephen's, Gate, which is pro- bably the ' old gate ' of Nehemiah, he says : ' There is, however, one 1 84 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. positive indication given by the Evangelists which is of the greatest significance, and that is the name which they all agree in giving to the place of crucifixion. This name is Golgotha, " the skull," and in its Greek form, Kranion, translated by the Latin Calvary. Three of the Evangelists translate the name as meaning " skull-place." Luke gives it simply as " skull." There is no reason to suppose that the name arose from skulls being there, which, indeed, would have been very unlikely, considering the laws and habits of the Jews ; and the name is not "place of skulls," but "skull-place," or "skull." The most probable reason of the name is that the place was a knoll or rising ground, which by its form suggested the idea of a skull, and so received that name. Now there happens to be outside the north wall of the city, but near to it, about 100 yards distant, a knoll of rock, of rounded form, and covered with shallow soil and grass which, in its form, and certain old tombs, which simulate sockets of eyes, has a remarkable resemblance from some points of view to a skull partly buried in the ground. This resemblance has suggested itself to many observers, independently of any supposition that it is Golgotha. It is true that such resemblances depend very much on point of view, and direction of light. But these conditions, as is well known, add to the effect, for it flashes out upon us suddenly and strikingly when least expected ; and it is this that excites the popular imagination, and often gives rise to a name.' ' Jewish traditions, first ascertained by Dr. Chaplin, and cited by Conder, show that this hill was anciently used as a place of execution, and it is not improbably the place where Stephen the proto-martyr was stoned. It is now quite unoccupied, except by some Moslem graves. It is further to be observed that this place fulfils all the other indications of the Evangelists. It is near to the city, between the ancient roads leading from the Damascus Gate and Herod's Gate, not distant from the site of the Praetorium, and having gardens and tombs close to it. It is also so situated as to command a view of the whole city and the Temple, and of the amphitheatre of surround- ing hills, and there is no other place which fulfils all these conditions. Dr. Fisher Howe argues, in an able manner, in favour of this site. He quotes Van de Velde, Robinson, and other travellers, in support of his view; and I found that my friends, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Chaplin of Jerusalem, who are thoroughly acquainted with the topo- graphy of the city, were of the same opinion, and it was also adopted by the late General Gordon, who had carefully surveyed the ground, and had caused a model of the hill to be prepared by the -sculptor Paulus, of which I have a copy now before me, which, as one turns THE SITUATION OF GOLGOTHA. 185 it around, and exposes it to different lights, admirably shows the peculiar and often startling effect of the features of the skull.' Recent writers on the Life of Christ, who have had this suggested identification of Calvary before them, have exercised their judgments on it, and the results may be briefly summarized. The general result is decided approval. Farrar says : ' The data for anything approaching to certainty are wholly wanting ; and, in all probability, the actual spot lies buried and obliterated under the mountainous rubbish heaps of the ten- times-taken city. It is hardly worth while to enter into elaborate arguments about the site, which may any day be overthrown by a discovery of the course of the second wall.' Edersheim says : ' We cannot here explain the various reasons for which the traditional site must be abandoned. Certain it is, that Golgotha was "outside the gate," and "near the city." In all likeli- hood, it was the usual place of execution. Lastly, we know that it was situated near gardens, where there were tombs, and close to the highway. The three last conditions point to the north of Jerusalem. It must be remembered that the third wall, which afterwards sur- rounded Jerusalem, was not built until several years after the Cruci- fixion. The new suburb of Bezetha extended at that time outside the second wall. Here the great highway passed northwards ; close by were villas and gardens ; and here also rock-hewn sepulchres have been discovered, which date from that period. But this is not all. The present Damascus Gate in the north of the city seems, in most ancient tradition, to have borne the name of St. Stephen's Gate, because the proto-martyr was believed to have passed through it to his stoning. Close by, then, must have been the place of execution. And at least one Jewish tradition fixes upon this very spot, close by what is known as the Grotto qf Jeremiah, as the ancient " place of stoning " (Btth ha SegilaJi). And the description of the locality answers all requirements. It is a weird, dreary place, two or three minutes aside from the high-road, with a high, rounded, skull-like rocky plateau, and a sudden depression, or hollow, beneath, as if the jaws of that skull had opened. Whether or not the " tomb of the Herodian period in the rocky knoll to the west of Jeremiah's Grotto " was the most sacred spot on earth the " Sepulchre in the Garden," we dare not positively assert, though every probability attaches to it.' Vallings says : ' Golgotha may have been rightly identified with the rounded knoll near Jeremiah's Grotto, just outside the present Damascus Gate. But the excavation of the newly-discovered wall must be completed before opinion can utter its last word. The knoll 1 8 6 HA NDB O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. is higher than the sacred rock of the Temple. "A sort of amphi- theatre is formed by the gentle slopes on the west ; and the whole population of the city might easily witness from the vicinity anything taking place on the top of the cliff. The knoll is just beside the main north road." " The hill is now quite bare, with scanty grass covering its rocky soil." It has been discovered to be the traditional place of stoning. And the probability of the identification gains ground. It is generally agreed that it was the usual place of execution.' Stalker thinks the name Golgotha probably refers to the ghastly relics of the tragedies happening at the usual place of execution, which might be lying about. And he asserts that the place cannot now be identified. The Speaker's Commentary, in an Additional Note, vol. i., p. 190, argues strongly in favour of the traditional site, the evidence in support of which it considers to be strong, and well-nigh conclusive ; the only disputable question being whether it was within, or outside the second wail of the city. But it is doubtful whether the suggestion of Thenius, which is given above, and so ably supported, has received due consideration from the writer. Canon Liddon, after referring to Mr. Fergusson's curious notion, that the true site of the sepulchre was that of the present so-called Mosque of Omar in the Temple area, adds : ' A more plausible opinion, warmly upheld, among others, by the late General Gordon, is that it is in a garden at the foot of the striking hill which is just out- side the Gate of Damascus. This site is so much more picturesque and imposing than the traditional one, that, had there been any evidence in its favour in Constantine's day, it would certainly have been adopted. The old belief is likely to hold its ground unless one thing should happen. We know that our Lord was crucified and buried outside the Gate of Jerusalem. If excavations ever should show that the second that is, in our Lord's day, the outer wall of the city embraced the site of the sepulchre within its circuit, then it would be certain that the traditional site is not the true one.' DIFFERING RE CORDS OF OUR L ORHS INFANC Y. 187 Differing Records of our Lord's Infancy. LUKE ii. 39 : ' And when they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.' MATTHEW ii. 22, 23 : ' But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither ; and being warned of God in dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth.' Difficulty. Matthew and Luke distinctly differ as to the time and the circumstances of the return to Nazareth. Explanation. Omissions should never be confused with con- tradictions. Fuller information on matters of detail in no way impugns the correctness of a general account of the leading facts. Luke fixes the fact that the return to Galilee was subsequent to the presentation in the Temple, but he says nothing concerning the interval between the presentation and the return. Sequence he affirms, but immediate sequence he does not affirm, though that would be our assumption, if we had his words only, and no correction through Matthew's record of intervening events. It should always be borne in mind that the four Gospels are not lives of Christ in any such sense as we now attach to that term. They are properly ' reminiscences,' we might even say ' contributions towards the formation of a life of Christ,' and therefore completeness is not to be looked for, but the records preserved by each are to be skilfully fitted to the records given by the others. This matter is an interesting one, because it shows the genuine- ness of each narrative, the independence of each Evangelist. Matthew could not have compared his work with Luke's, or Luke with Matthew's, or such a simple divergency would have been rectified. From Matthew we can fill in the interval between the presentation and the renewed residence at Nazareth. It probably included the visit of the Magi, the massacre of the infants, the flight into Egypt, and the Divinely-guided return, with the reason for not making a permanent settlement in Bethlehem. Farrar says all that need be said on this subject : ' It is difficult to believe that either of the Evangelists had seen the narrative of the other, because the frima facie inference from either singly would be imperfectly correct. They supplement each other, because they each narrate the truth, though probably neither of them was aware of all that has been delivered to us.' iS8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Dates of John's Imprisonment and Death. MATTHEW xiv. 3 : ' For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison, for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife.' Question. Will not a decision on these dates aid in settling the order of events in our Lord's life ? The materials for forming a decision are not at command. No one has succeeded in putting the events of either John Baptist's life or our Lord's life into an order that can be universally accepted. We may, however, consider what materials can be supplied as a basis on which a judgment may be formed. Comparing together Matt. iv. 12, 'Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee,' and Mark i. 14, 'Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,' we learn that the imprisonment of John took place a little time before our Lord's second visit to Galilee. For the incidents of that second visit, see John iv. 43-54. Another point seems to be well defined. The Baptist was living at the time of our Lord's third visit to Galilee, for he sent two of his disciples with an inquiry while our Lord was preaching in the cities of Galilee (Matt. xi. 2). He seems to have been put to death soon after, for the tidings came to Jesus while in Galilee, and towards the close of His third visit. This will make John's imprisonment to have lasted nearly twelve months, and his death to have occurred in our Lord's second ministerial year. Very much depends on the decision we make concerning the feast referred to in John v. i, 'After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.' It is usual to regard this as a Passover, but Wieseler, and some other modern critics, think it was Purim. (See a later paragraph on the ' Unknown Feast.') Then we can only fit together the narratives by assuming that John's imprison- ment only lasted three weeks or a month. In favour of this view, it may be added that so unscrupulous a woman as Herodias was not likely to wait twelve long months before getting her revenge. Dr. E. R. Conder thinks the imprisonment must have lasted the greater part of two years, from May, A.D. 27, to the spring of A.D. 2g y when he was put to death by the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas. ' Assuming the Passover named in John vi. 4 to be that of A.D. 29 (and the third in our Lord's ministry), we infer the date of John's death from the following facts : The account of the imprisonment PHILIPPI AS A COLONY. 189 and murder of John is given in Matt. xiv. i-n, Mark vi. 14-29, intro- duced in both cases with the statement that Herod, hearing the fame of Jesus, concluded that John was risen from the dead (comp. Luke ix. 7-9). Matthew relates that John's disciples, having buried his corpse, brought the tidings of his death to Jesus, and that after hearing of it, 'Jesus departed thence by ship into a desert place apart ' (Matt. xiv. 12, 13). Mark and Luke state this retreat to the desert to have been in company with the twelve, immediately on their return from their mission (Mark vi. 30-32 ; Luke ix. 10).' All that can confidently be said is that John's death occurred towards the close of the second year of our Lord's ministry ; and we incline to the view that the imprisonment had lasted but a brief period. Philippi as a Colony. ACTS xvi. 12 : ' And from thence to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony.' Question. In what sense was Philippi a colony, and what signifi- cance attaches to the mention of the fact? It is singular that St. Paul should appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen, and that the magistrates of Philippi should be so gravely anxious when they found out that they had scourged a Roman citizen. St. Paul's appeal, and the alarm of the magistrates, are only explained by the fact that Philippi enjoyed the privileges of a Roman colony. The references to Philippi in contemporary profane history are but slight. It received its name from Philip, King of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great, who rebuilt and fortified it. Its fame was increased by the defeat in its neighbourhood of Brutus and Cassius by Augustus Caesar and Antony in the year B.C. 42. Pliny, the celebrated heathen historian, who flourished in the same century as Luke, and who could not be suspected of any sympathy with him or his despised religion, makes mention of Philippi as a colony. And a number of coins have been found, some testifying of Philippi under the character of a colony, and one in particular stating that Julius Caesar himself bestowed on this city the dignity and privileges of a Roman colony, which was afterwards confirmed and augmented by Augustus. The full title, ' Colonia Augusta Julia Victrix Philippensium,' is found on inscriptions. Archdeacon Farrar sums up briefly the history of this town, and gives an explanation of the relation in which it stood to neighbouring towns. (Its being called the chief city, as in A.V., has occasioned i 9 o HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. difficulty, as it was in no sense a capital.) 'The city of Philippi was a monumental record of two vast empires. It had once been an obscure place, called Krenides from its streams and springs ; but Philip, the father of Alexander, had made it a frontier town to protect Macedonia from the Thracians, and had helped to establish its power by the extremely profitable working of its neighbouring gold mines. Augustus, proud of the victory over Brutus and Cassius won at the foot of the hill on which it stands, and on the summit of which Cassius had committed suicide elevated it to the rank of a colony, which made it, as St. Luke calls it, if not the first, yet certainly " a first city of that district of Macedonia." ' (Bishop Wordsworth reads: 'the chief city of the frontier of Macedonia.') 'And this, probably, was why St. Paul went directly to it. When Perseus, the last successor of Alexander, had been routed at Pydna (June 22, B.C. 1 68), Macedonia had been reduced to a Roman province in four divisions. These, in accordance with the astute and Machiavellic policy of Rome, were kept distinct from each other by differences of privilege and isolation of interests which tended to foster mutual jealousies. Beginning eastwards at the river Nestus, Macedonia Prima reached to the Strymon, Macedonia Secunda to the Axius, Macedonia Tertia to the Peneus, and Macedonia Quarta to Illyricum and Epirus. (So says Livy.) The capitals of these divisions respec- tively were Amphipolis, Thessalonica at which the Proconsul of the entire province fixed his residence Pella, and Pelagonia. It is a very reasonable conjecture that Paul, in answer to the appeal of the vision, had originally intended to visit as, perhaps, he ultimately did visit all four capitals. But Amphipolis, in spite of its historic celebrity, had sunk into comparative insignificance, and the proud colonial privileges of Philippi made it in reality the more important town.' Conybeare and Howson give the characteristic features of a 'colony,' which was a miniature resemblance of Rome, its citizens sharing in the privileges of the citizens of Rome. ' The city of Rome might be transplanted, as it were, into various parts of the empire, and repro- duced as a colof/ia ; or an alien city might be adopted, under the title of a municipium* into a close political communion with Rome. A Roman colony was very different from anything which we usually intend by the term. It was no mere mercantile factory, such as those which the Phoenicians established in Spain, or on those very shores of Macedonia with which we are now engaged, or such as modern nations have founded in the Hudson's Bay Territory, or on * A colonia was Rome transplanted : a municipium was an alien city adopted. PHI LIP PI AS A COLONY. 191 the coast of India. Still less was it like those incoherent aggregates of human beings which we have thrown, without care or system, on distant islands and continents. It did not even go forth, as a young Greek republic left its parent state, carrying with it, indeed, the respect of a daughter for a mother, but entering upon a new and in- dependent existence. The Roman colonies were primarily intended as military safeguards of the frontiers, and as checks upon insurgent provincials. Like the military roads, they were part of the great system of fortification by which the Empire was made safe. They served also as convenient possessions for rewarding veterans who had served in the wars, and for establishing freedmen and other Italians whom it was desirable to remove to a distance. The colonists went out with all the pride of Roman citizens to represent and reproduce the city in the midst of an alien population. Though the colonists, in addition to the poll tax which they paid as citizens, were compelled to pay a ground tax (for the land on which their city stood was pro- vincial land, and therefore tributary, unless it were assimilated to Italy by a special exemption), yet they were entirely free from any intrusion by the governor of the province. Their affairs were regu- lated by their own magistrates. These officers were named Duum- viri, and they took a pride in calling themselves by the Roman title of Praetors (strategoi)? ' By the Lex Portia (B.C. 247), Roman citizens were exempted from degrading punishment, such as that of scourging. It was the heaviest of all the charges brought by Cicero against Verres, the Governor of Sicily, that he had broken this law. The words avis Romanus sum (I am a Roman citizen) acted almost like a charm in stopping the violence of provincial magistrates. These strategoi at Philippi, when they found the prisoners were Romans, evidently did not consider that their ignorance would be regarded as a sufficient defence. They had acted illegally, and the consequence of that illegality went further than they counted on ; but they could not, therefore, shake off their responsibility. They were liable to a prosecution.' (Dean Plumptre.} History of Jewish Stoning. ACTS vii. 59 : ' And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Question. How was it that the Sanhedrin could do with Stephen as they dare not do with the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Answer. In all probability, the absence of the Roman procurator made this tumultuous stoning possible. If this is not a satisfactory i 9 2 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. explanation and some may say, that the Roman authority would be delegated to somebody, if the governor was absent then we may regard the riot as an unexpected tumult, and both the people and the Sanhedrin acted under powerful and sudden excitement, without thinking of the consequences of their act. Then we must suppose that the authorities would make necessary explanations to the Roman ruler after the deed was done, excusing themselves on the ground of the uncontrollable excitement of the people. Dean Plumptre says : ' The violence reported presents a singular contrast to the general observance of the forms of a fair trial in our Lord's condemnation. Then, however, we must remember, the Roman procurator was present in Jerusalem. Now, all restraint was removed, and fanaticism had full play. That neither office nor age was enough to guard, under such conditions, against shameful out- rage has been seen even in the history of Christian assemblies, as, e.g., in that of the Robber Synod of Ephesus, in A.D. 449. The facts in this case seem to imply that the accusers, and perhaps also the excited crowd which they represented, were present as listening to the speech, as well as the members of the Sanhedrin.' To understand how such an informal execution could be possible, it is necessary to remember that there were two kinds of stoning permissible ; an official stoning, and a tumultuous stoning. The methods of these differed in some important respects. ' Stoning to death was the ordinary capital punishment among the Jews, just as much as hanging is with us, decapitation in France and Germany, and strangulation in Spain. The manner of execution was as follows : A crier marched before the man who was to die, pro- claiming his offence, and the names of the witnesses on whose testimony he had been committed. This was for the humane purpose of enabling anyone, possessing knowledge of the parties and the circumstances, to come forward and arrest the execution until his further evidence had been heard and considered. Hence, usually, the tribunal which had sentenced the prisoner remained sitting to hear such evidence as might thus be produced, and did not rise until certified that the execution had taken place. The place of execution was always outside the town. Arrived at the place, the convict was divested of his clothing, except a small covering about the loins ; and, his hands being bound, he was taken to the top of some eminence a tower, a building, or a cliff not less than twice a man's height. When the top was reached, the witnesses laid their hands upon him, and then cast off their upper clothing, that they might be the more ready for the active exertion their position imposed HISTORY OF JEWISH STONING. 193 being virtually that of executing the sentence which had been the result of their evidence. All being thus ready, one of the witnesses cast the condemned down from that high place with great violence, endeavouring to do it so that he should fall upon a large stone, which was designedly placed below. The fall usually rendered him in- sensible, if it did not kill him ; but if he was not dead, those below turned him upon his back, and then the other witnesses, remaining above, cast down a large stone aimed at the chest. This stroke was generally mortal; but if not, the people below hastened to cast stones at him till no life remained. Thus the execution was quickly over, and was attended by fewer revolting circumstances than must have ensued from that indiscriminate pelting by the people, which is commonly supposed to have constituted the stoning to death.' (From Kitto.} There are also many examples of a more tumultuous kind of stoning, when, without judicial procedure, the people seized stones at once to put to death those whom they deemed guilty of flagrant crime. This is said to have been called the ' Rebel's beating ' : and it appears to have been regarded as permissible in the case of blasphemy, when a sudden vindication of the dishonoured name of God seemed to be called for, and aroused feeling could not wait for any judicial process. In some cases, such as that of Naboth and that of Stephen, the tumultuous and the judicial seem to be blended : the forms of law merely giving a kind of sanction to the popular, or class, excitement. Of manifestly tumultuous stonings we may mention that of Adoram, tribute-master to Rehoboam. ' Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute ; and all Israel stoned him with stones that he died ' (i Kings xii. 18). Of our Lord it is said, 'Then took they up stones to cast at Him/ ' Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.' And in a riot raised at Lystra by certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, the people ' stoned Paul, and drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead' (Acts xiv. 19). ' It is noticeable that we first hear of death by stoning in the deserts of stony Arabia ; this mode having been suggested probably by the abundance of stones, and the fatal effect with which they were often employed in broils among the people.' What seems probable is, that at first the people merely pelted the bound criminal with the stones lying about until he died. But as this was found to excite passion, and lead to painful and demoralising scenes, the execu- tions were regulated, and subjected to orderly arrangements, the object of which was to bring the criminal to his end as expedi- '3 i 9 4 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. tiously as possible, and to divest the punishment of a tumultuary- aspect. Kitto points out the tumultuous character of the proceedings in the case of Stephen. ' The defence itself is interrupted by the un- governable rage of those who heard it ; and when Stephen declared that he saw Jesus standing at God's right hand, they stayed to hear no more, but rushed upon him, and hurried him away to death. The matter reached a point at which they might have felt authorised to act without the usual formalities. The words Stephen uttered sounded in their ears as rank blasphemy ; and, when that was the case, the Jews seem always to have been ready to stone a man on the spot without any trial.' There is nothing, therefore, in so unusual a case as this, incon- sistent with the view that the Romans had divested the Sanhedrin of the sovereign power of inflicting capital punishment. Precise Date of the Last Supper. MATTHEW xxvi. 17 : 'Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt Thou that we make ready for Thee to eat the Passover ?' Difficulty. A comparison of the Gospel records leaves us uncertain whether the usual Passover-day was anticipated on this occasion or not. Explanation. We shall see precisely what this difficulty is if we put together the passages referring to the matter from the four Gospels, giving them in the Revised Version. Besides the text given above, as the heading of this paragraph, Matthew says : ' Now when even was come ' (evidently, even of the ' first of unleavened bread '), ' He was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples.' The day following was clearly not one of the feast days, since the arrest and trial and crucifixion were all completed before the sacred festal Sabbath day began. But this suggests some further inquiries. Was the Passover meal always the eve of a Sabbath day ? or did it only so happen on this particular year? If all the people observed the Passover on the same day as Jesus and His disciples did, we are landed in this very practical difficulty the feast-time then began, and the next day was a sacred feast day ; and we know that the high priest's party advised strongly against arresting Jesus 'on the feast day,' lest there should be an uproar of the people (Matt. xxvi. 5). On the face of it, the reasonable suggestion certainly is, that Christ PRECISE DATE OF THE LAST SUPPER. 195 anticipated the usual Passover-time, and observed the ordinance a day earlier. Only in the light of very clear proofs can this, our first impression, be removed. Mark's references are precisely similar to those in Matthew. Luke is more precise. ' Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.' ' And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover must be sacrificed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and make ready for us the Passover, that we may eat.' We should certainly gather from this that the day was the usual day, and that our Lord kept the Passover when everybody else kept it. John's record creates the great difficulty. Writing of procedures after the examination of Christ before the Sanhedrin, he says : ' They lead Jesus, therefore, from Caiaphas into the palace : and it was early ; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.' The chief priests and the members of the Sanhedrin could not have partaken of the Passover at the same time as Jesus and His disciples, for it is clearly stated that they were anxiously keeping themselves undefiled in expectation of eating the Passover that night. Matthew and John, the Evangelists who had personal knowledge of Christ's doings, and Mark, who represents Peter, who also had personal knowledge, can be fitted to the idea that our Lord antici- pated the usual day, and held His Passover on the day previously. Luke's materials are second-hand, and if there is lack of precision anywhere, we may expect it in his collection rather than in the remini- scences of his fellow-Evangelists. But, examining Luke's expression carefully, we find it is more general than it appeared at first sight. His reference is fully satisfied if we 'take him to mean ' a day of unleavened bread,' ' the time of the Passover sacrifice.' This difficulty has been elaborately discussed by many Bible writers, but it will be of practical service to our readers if we take out the chief matters of fact and of argument, and present them as clearly and briefly as possible. Dean Mansel carefully explains what may be meant by ' the first (day) of unleavened bread ' : ' Legally, the first day of unleavened bread was the fifteenth day of Nisan or Abib, commencing on the evening of the fourteenth day, after the Paschal lamb was eaten ; and the feast of unleavened bread lasted seven days, till the evening of the twenty-first day of the month. Josephus speaks of the feast of unleavened bread as beginning on the fifteenth day of the month, 'the legal day commencing after sunset. But the day meant in Matt. 132 * 1 9 6 HANDB O OK OF BIBLICA L DIFFIC UL TIES. xxvi. 17 is clearly the fourteenth, being that on which the Passover was slain (Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7), which is also spoken of by Josephus in another place as the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread. On this day it was usual, though not necessary, to abstain from leaven ; and by including it, the feast was sometimes reckoned as lasting eight days. A question may arise respecting the part of the day to which the Evangelist's words refer. If to the legal begin- ning i.e., to the evening following the sunset of the thirteenth it is possible that the preparation might be made, and the Passover eaten by our Lord and His disciples a day earlier than the usual time. And this is, perhaps, the most natural mode of reconciling the account of the Synoptists with that of St. John.' ' According to the Mishna, it was customary in Judaea to work till noon on the day pre- ceding the Passover i.e., Nisan 14 whereas in Galilee no work at all was done on that day, though the schools of Shammai and Hillel differed as to the lawfulness of work on the preceding evening. If this statement represents the practice in our Saviour's time, it would be natural for the disciples, who were Galileans, even if they took the more liberal view as regards the evening, to commence their pre- paration immediately after sunset on the thirteenth i.e., at the legal commencement of the fourteenth though the Jews of Judaea might postpone their task till the following morning. The disciples, in asking their question, may have had a view to a Passover to be eaten on the following day, though our Lord Himself gave directions for its being eaten the same evening.' Dr. E. R. Conder argues strongly for our Lord's observance of the Passover on the usual day, Nisan 14, and endeavours to explain how it is that John fixes the day of the Crucifixion as Nisan 14, the day on which the Paschal lambs were sacrificed, so that the Last Supper took place on the evening of Nisan 13. His arguments do not, how- ever, appear conclusive; and the difficulty seems to us to be insuper- able, that if the priest-party had already kept their Passover, they could not possibly be anxious not to defile themselves, and so render themselves unfitted for keeping the feast. It is certainly easier to think of our Lord as adjusting Himself to circumstances He fore- knew than to explain away the very distinct references made by the Apostle John. Carr says : ' The events of the Passover are full of difficulty for the harmonist. It is, however, almost certain that the " Last Supper " was not the Paschal meal, but was partaken of on the fourteenth that is, after sunset on Nisan 13. It is quite certain from John xviii. 28 that Jesus was crucified on the preparation, and although' PRECISE DATE OF THE LAST SUPPER. 197 the Synoptic narratives seem at first sight to disagree with this, it is probably only the want of a complete knowledge of the facts that creates the apparent discrepancy.' Edersheim treats almost with scorn the bare idea that the feast kept by our Lord could be any other than the ordinary Paschal feast. He says : ' St. Luke's account of what actually happened, being in some points the most explicit, requires to be carefully studied, and that without thought of any possible consequences in regard to the harmony of the Gospels. It is almost impossible to imagine any- thing more evident than that he wishes us to understand that Jesus was about to celebrate the ordinary Jewish Paschal supper. " And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover must be sacrificed." The designation is exactly that of the commencement of the Pascha, which was Nisan 14, and the description that of the slaying of the Paschal lamb. What follows is in exact accordance with it : " And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and make ready for us the Pascha, that we may eat it." Then occur these three notices in the same account : " And . . . they made ready the Pascha " ; " and when the hour was come, He reclined " (as usual at the Paschal supper), " and the Apostles with Him " ; and finally, these words of His : " With desire I have desired to eat this Pascha with you." And with this fully agrees the language of the other two Synoptists, St. Matt. xxvi. 17-20 ; St. Mark xiv. 12-17. No ingenuity can explain away these facts. The suggestion that in that year the Sanhedrin had postponed the Paschal supper from Thursday evening (Nisan 14-15) to Friday evening (Nisan 15-16), so as to avoid the Sabbath following on the first day of the feast, and that the Paschal lamb was therefore in that year eaten on Friday, the evening of the day on which Jesus was crucified, is an assumption void of all support in history or Jewish tradition. Equally untenable is it that Christ had held the Paschal supper a day in advance of that observed by the rest of the Jewish world a supposition not only inconsistent with the plain language of the Synoptists, but impossible, since the Paschal lamb could not have been offered in the Temple, and, there- fore, no Paschal supper held, out of the regular time.' The subject is too controversial for further consideration here. It is certainly not possible to reconcile the references made in the four Gospels without some accommodation, and it seems to be St. Luke's Gospel that really occasions the difficulty. The most hopeful plan is to follow the lead of St. John, and then read the two earlier Evan- gelists in the light of St. John's references, subjecting St. Luke to the necessary accommodation, in view of the fact that St. Luke's materials 198 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. were wholly documentary and traditional. If there is lack of pre- cision in the details of such a matter, we should naturally expect to find it in the Gospel that was prepared for the use of Gentiles, rather than of Jews, and by one whom we have no reason to think was a born Jew. The History of Crucifixion. MATTHEW xxvii. 35 : ' And they crucified Him.' Difficulty. // seems strange that the Jewish rulers should have chosen for Jesus a distinctly foreign method of execution. Explanation. Crucifixion was certainly a foreign invention, and it was never naturalized among the Jews. There are traces of its infliction by the Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Indians, Scythians, Greeks, and Macedonians. Among the Romans it prevailed from very early times down to the reign of Constantine the Great, by whom it was abolished. Crucifixion should be distinguished from gibbeting, which was an exposure of the body after death. Edersheim thinks that crucifixion was of Phoenician origin, although Rome adopted and improved on it. ' Crucifixion was not a Jewish mode of punishment, although the King Jannaeus had so far forgotten the claims of both humanity and religion as on one occasion to crucify not less than eight hundred persons in Jerusalem itself. But even Herod the Great, with all his cruelty, did not resort to this mode of execution. It seems especially to characterise the domination of Rome in Judaea under every governor.' This is to be particularly noticed. It was the fate reserved for rebels against the Roman rule, and though Pilate repudiated the idea of Jesus being a rebel, he condemned Him as such, and He was therefore executed in the manner that such a rebel would be. The Jewish modes of execution were strangulation, beheading, burning, and stoning. The Jewish enemies of our Lord were actuated by very mixed motives in desiring that Christ should be crucified, but their chief purpose was to relieve themselves from the responsibility of His death in the view of the people. They could always say : ' We did not put Him to death ; the Roman governor executed Him. See, He did not die in any of our Jewish methods.' And they were also quite willing to take advantage of the common sentiment concerning cruci- fixion, which was regarded as not only the most dreadful of deaths, but also the most disgraceful ; a kind of death reserved for slaves, and the vilest criminals. Christ's enemies were glad thus to put up to public shame the claims of the Nazarene impostor, as they re- THE HISTORY OF CRUCIFIXION. 199 garded Him ; and the exhibition of suffering helplessness on the cross they thought would settle for ever the pretensions of the new Messiah. The sentiment concerning crucifixion, of which the enemies of Christ took ready advantage, is illustrated in the oldest pictorial representations that are extant. There is a picture of the Crucifixion in a Syrian Evangelarium, of the date A.D. 586, in the Laurentian Library at Florence. The treatment of the subject is exceedingly rude, bordering on the grotesque. The figure of our Lord is crowned with a nimbus, and clothed with a long purple robe. The soldiers on the ground are casting lots for His garments, and the sun and moon look down on the scene. A few years since a drawing representing the Crucified was found upon the walls of the ancient palace of the Caesars at Rome. Some heathen servant of the emperor is taunting his Christian fellow- servant with this contemptuous sign. The relic belongs to about the year A.D. 200, and is by far the most ancient crucifix we know of. But this, the oldest known crucifix, is an ironical one. It is a cari- cature of Christ, before which a Christian stands worshipping, and it bears the inscription : ' Alexamenos,' the name of the derided Christian, ' worshipping his God.' The infamy of crucifixion is still preserved in the reproachful name Taint, in which the Talmud speaks of Jesus ; and also ' Worshippers of the Hung,' which they apply to Christians, though, according to their fable, He was first stoned, and then hung on a tree. Geikie's note contains some points of additional interest, and helps to explain the adoption of this method of execution in the case of Jesus. ' Death by the cross was the most terrible and the most dreaded and shameful punishment of antiquity a punishment, the very name of which, Cicero tells us, should never come near the thoughts, the eyes, or ears, of a Roman citizen, far less his person. It was of Eastern origin, and had been in use among the Persians and Carthaginians long before its employment in Western countries. Alexander the Great adopted it in Palestine, from the Phoenicians, after the defence of Tyre, which he punished by crucifying two thousand citizens, after the place had surrendered. Crassus signalized its introduction into Roman use by lining the road from Capua to Rome with crucified slaves, captured in the revolt of Spartacus, and Augustus finally inaugurated its general use by crucifying six thou- sand slaves at once, in Sicily, in his suppression of the war raised by Sextus Pompeius.' ' It was not a Jewish punishment, for the cases mentioned in the 200 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Old Testament of " hanging up " criminals or offenders refer only to their dead bodies, or were imitations of the heathen custom by some of the kings. For Jews to crucify a Jew, indeed, would have been impossible, as the national sentiment would have revolted from it. The cruelty of heathenism had to be called in by the corrupt and sunken priesthood, before such a death could be inflicted on any member of the nation, far less on one declared by the Procurator himself to be innocent. It was the punishment inflicted by heathenism which knew no compassion or reverence for man as man on the worst criminals, on highway robbers, rebels, and slaves, or on pro- vincials, who, in the eye of Rome, were only slaves, if they fell into crime.' By some writers the demand to crucify Jesus, as made by Jewish priests, by the Jewish Sanhedrin, and, under their leading, by the Jewish mob, is taken as indicating the state of wild and unreasoning excitement into which they had worked themselves, through fear that they would not be able to overcome the scruples of Pilate. 'The cry, "Crucify Him!" twice repeated deliberately and fiercely, shows more than common fury. This terrible word shows how thoroughly the evil passions of the people were excited. The death which the people deliberately chose for their King was that of a slave, of a criminal handed over to their secular and detested rulers.' In the estimate of motives a place should also be given to another view, which we have not found elsewhere noticed. As the feast was so closely approaching, the priest-party would have been in extreme difficulty if Pilate had handed Jesus back to them to be executed in a Jewish mode. They must have kept Jesus over the feast, and that involved two perils excitement would have died down, and public opinion in His favour would be aroused. The Romans might do what they could not do, lest they should defile themselves, and unfit themselves for the feast. So the Romans executed Jesus. Chronology in Stephen's Speech. ACTS vii. 6 : ' And God spake on this wise, that His seed should sojourn in a strange land ; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.' Difficulty. This i four hundred years' 1 cannot be verified by the early records on any chronological system. Explanation. It is unreasonable to look for historical or chronological precision in a prisoner's defence, uttered on sudden impulse under great excitement, and without any possibility of CHRONOLOGY IN STEPHEN'S SPEECH. 201 verifying any statements that might be made under the pressure of passing emotion. None of us, under such circumstances, could ensure the correctness of our memory of historical details ; and especially of details which we only wanted to use in a general way for purposes of illustration. So far as Stephen's purpose in his defence is concerned, it does not matter whether the number ' four hundred ' is exact or not, because he only uses it casually, and as equivalent to ' a long period.' The note given in the ' Speaker's Commentary ' puts clearly and succinctly all that need be said on a subject which has caused much discussion : ' This verse 6 and the following verse are quoted, not with verbal exactness, from Gen. xv. 13, 14, according to the LXX. A parenthesis marked after the words land and evil would make it clear that the four hundred years are the length of the entire time throughout which Abraham and his descendants were to be sojourners that is, to have no country which they could call their own. The Egyptian servitude did not begin until after the death of Joseph, and did not exceed two hundred and fifteen years. If the calcula- tion is made from the weaning of Isaac, the interval is exactly four hundred years. In speaking, the round number of the prediction was used instead of the precise total of four hundred and thirty years, which is given in the historical statement, Exod. xii. 40, quoted Gal. iil 17, which the received chronology makes to be the interval between Abraham's going down into Egypt and the Exodus. The same variation is found in Josephus, who states, II. xv. 2, that the Israelites quitted Egypt in the four hundred and thirtieth year ; but in II. ix. i, and in a report of a speech of his own, J. W., V. ix. 4, gives four hundred years as the length of their stay in Egypt. Between Jacob's going down into Egypt and the Exodus, Josephus reckoned two hundred and fifteen years, II. xv. 2. Isaac was born twenty-five years after Abraham's arrival in Canaan, was sixty years old at the birth of his twin sons, and Jacob was one hundred and thirty when he went down into' Egypt, 25 + 60 + 130 = 215. Again, from Jacob's going down into Egypt until the death of Joseph was an interval of seventy-one years ; thence till the birth of Moses sixty-four years ; and thence again till the Exodus eighty years, 71+64 + 80 = 215. It should be noticed that, as a quotation, Stephen's sentence is precisely correct. Quoting a passage does not necessarily involve even a belief in its correctness. Gen. xv. 13 reads : ' And they shall afflict them four hundred years.' 202 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The History of the Sanhedrin. MATTHEW xxvi. 3 : 'Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.' Question. Does the history of the Sanhedrin enable us to decide the measure of authority and influence it had, and its composition, in the time of Christ ? Answer. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the origin of the Sanhedrin, Wieseler arguing that it was a Roman institution. Edersheim traces the Sanhedrin back to the time of Hyrcanus, and finds its origin in the 'eldership,' which, under the earlier Maccabees, was called 'the tribunal of the Asmonaeans.' He thinks its power varied according to surrounding political conditions, and that, though at times absolute, it was usually shorn of all but ecclesiastical authority. The Jews find its origin in the appointment of the seventy elders by Moses (Num. xi. 16, 17, 24, 25). But that appointment seems to have borne a strictly local and temporary character. No further notice of such a body is found in the Old Testament. The earliest mention of a council at all like the Sanhedrin is found in the Apocrypha (see II. Mace. i. 10 ; iv. 44; xi. 27). It is probable, therefore, that it was constituted after the return from Babylon ; and the name, Sanhedrin, is of Greek derivation, implying 'a body of assessors.' In the Mishna it is called Beth-din, or ' house of judgment.' Dr. Edinond Staffer summarises the information that is at com- mand : ' In the first century, the administration of public affairs and of justice was divided between the procurators and tetrarchs on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. It is sometimes difficult to fix the limits of their respective functions. Subject to the supreme jurisdiction of the procurators, however, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem was occupied almost exclusively with religious questions and internal affairs. This Sanhedrin was a permanent assembly, a senate, having its seat at Jerusalem. Its powers had been very extensive under the Maccabees. It is needless to say that Jewish tradition traced back its institution to Moses, and held that it was clearly set forth in the law ; but it is equally needless to say that there was nothing in common between the Sanhedrin and the men of whom Moses speaks, who were chosen as representatives of the people. Nor is there any connection between this assembly and that subsequently formed. Even under Ezra, the Sanhedrin had as yet no existence. Ezra created what is called " the Great Synagogue," THE HISTOR Y OF THE SANHEDRIN. 203 an improper term, which confounds that institution with the Synagogues properly so-called. It should rather be "the Great Assembly." This lasted until the year 300 B.C. It was a college of scribes to settle questions of theology. The Sanhedrin, on the con- trary, was a governing body. We find the first traces of its existence under Antiochus Epiphanes (223-187 B.C.). Josephus speaks indeed of a gerousta, or senate, which was then acting. It is possible, there- fore, that the Ptolemies may have permitted the Jews to form a Sanhedrin, in order to gain their affection by permitting them the semblance of self-government. But the power of this assembly must have been very limited under their administration and that of the Seleucidae. It is evident that only under the Asmonasans can this gerousia have become powerful. From 162 to 130 B.C. we find no mention of its existence. Everything indicates that it was Hyrcanus who, in 130 B.C., organised, or re-organised, the Sanhedrin. He made it a sort of national representation ; before this time the power belonged almost exclusively to the high priest. The Romans, when they took possession of Palestine (63 B.C.), allowed the Sanhedrin to remain, but curtailed its powers. ' The Sanhedrin had an official existence in the first century under the Herods and the procurators. It met and deliberated, and had a semblance of authority. It had seventy-one members. This figure is given us in the Mishna. It is borrowed from the law, and can scarcely be disputed. Josephus confirms it when he says that he established in Galilee a council of seventy elders, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem. The president was the seventy-first. ' The New Testament distinguishes, in this assembly, between the "High priests," the "Elders," and the "Scribes." The Mishna also gives us a similar division : " The Sanhedrin is composed," it says, " of priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters are per- mitted to marry the priests." By this last expression it means Israelites who, by producing their genealogical tables, could prove the purity of their Jewish origin. Such members were found in all classes of society. The majority of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees. All the priests, among others, were Sadducees, and it was a rare thing in the first century to find a priest who was a Pharisee. ' The functions of the Sanhedrin were very numerous. It passed the laws, and was therefore a legislative body. It executed justice, and possessed the most extensive judicial powers. Before its tribunal false prophets were arraigned. It dealt with questions of doctrine, and when occasion arose could exercise the functions of a council. It was, moreover, charged with certain details of great importance at 204 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. this period. It watched over the priestly families, and controlled the marriages made in them. It kept in its archives the genealogical tables of the principal priests' families. It authorised wars, fixed the limits of towns, and alone had the power of modifying their precincts and those of the Temple. It settled the calendar and the new moons ; this duty devolved on the president and three members. In brief, it was at once parliament and council.' Stapfcr points out that the right of capital punishment was not really taken away from the Sanhedrin ; the Sanhedrin itself re- nounced it. ' The Romans did not precisely take it away ; but, for very weakness, the Sanhedrin dared no longer condemn and execute the brigands, Sicarii, and fanatic zealots, the more as their attempts had often a religious and patriotic intent. The people might have accused it of striking down patriots whose sole crime was that they sought to deliver their country.' 'The Sanhedrin did not dare take upon itself alone the responsibility of our Lord's execution, for they knew that Jesus had been at one time very popular. They therefore begged Pilate to support them. The saying, " It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," was not so much the expression of a truth as a flattery of the governor.' They did, subsequently, put Stephen to death. Two passages in the Talmud prove that the San- hedrin retained the power of life and death subsequent to the time of Christ. The Herodians. MARK Hi. 6 : ' And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.' Question. Can we discover any reason for the special enmity shown by this party to Christ ? Answer. Two explanations of the position and relations of the Herodians have been given. Following a conjecture of Origen's, some say that, as supporters of the family of Herod, who held their dominions by the grant of the Roman Emperor, they would be in favour of paying tribute to the supreme power. Others think they were an intensely patriotic party, who were supporters of the Herodian family as the last hope of retaining for the Jews a fragment of national government as distinguished from absolute dependence upon Rome, as a province of the empire. This view is advanced by Grotius, and supported by Meyer and Ewald. According to this view, the Phari- sees and Herodians, however differing in other respects, were united in antagonism to the absolute dominion of Rome. THE HERODIANS. 205 Little or nothing is known of this party save through the references in the Gospels. They could not have been rigid observers of the Mosaic ordinances, but inclined to approve of that approximation of Judaism to heathen civilisation, of which the Herodian family were the chief representatives. ' Their leaven, or influence, though rather political than religious, would in its tendency coincide with that of the Sadducees, the freethinkers of Judaism.' Edersheim says : ' We know comparatively little of the deeper political movements in Judaea, only so much as it has suited Jose- phus to record. But we cannot be greatly mistaken in regarding the Herodians as a party which honestly accepted the house of Herod as occupants of the Jewish throne. Differing from the extreme section of the Pharisees, who hated Herod, and from the ' Nationalists,' it might have been a middle, or moderate Jewish party, semi-Roman, and semi-Nationalist. We know that it was the ambition of Herod Antipas again to unite under his sway the whole of Palestine ; but we know not what intrigues may have been carried on for that purpose, alike with the Pharisees and the Romans.' Dr. E. Staffer says the Herodians are only mentioned three times in the Gospels (Matt. xxii. 16 ; Mark iii. 6 ; xii. 13). ' Josephus does not mention them. They were probably the same as the Boethusim, the descendants of Boethus, grandfather of Mariamne Maccabeus, third wife of Herod, and were, therefore, members of his family. They were Sadducees by their origin, since Boethus was a Sadducee. But it is probable that the majority of the Sadducees repudiated their anti-patriotic servility. These Herodians seem to have com- bined with some of the Pharisees to ensnare Jesus.' The Two Apostles named * James.' ACTS xii. 2 : ' And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword.' ACTS xv. 13 : ' And after they had held their peace, James answered.' Question. Can these two men be kept distinct, and how are they related to the author of the Epistle ? Answer. The name ' James ' is a later form of the familiar Hebrew name, ' Jacob,' and we need not be surprised to find it frequently occurring among any body of Hebrew men. There was constant repetition of the family name, or Christian name, as we should call it, and men were distinguished from one another by having their names associated with their fathers' names. They might be James, the son of Zebedee, or James, the son of Alphgeus. The father's name became, in fact, a j/V-name. 206 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. In the New Testament there are seven references to persons named James, which may possibly refer to distinct individuals, (i) James, the son of Zebedee. (2) James, the son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas. (3) James, the Lord's brother. (4) James, the son of Mary. (5) James the 'Less,' or the 'Little.' (6) James, the brother of Jude. (7) James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. These may be seven persons, but a little examination will suffice to show that they may represent only two persons. What is quite clear is, that James, the son of Zebedee, is distinct from James, the son of Alphseus, seeing that both these men were members of the Apostolic company. From the list of men called James we can at once and clearly eliminate the son of Zebedee, because his individuality stands out prominently, and because he was martyred by Herod long before the Epistle which goes by the name of James could possibly have been written (A.D. 44). The identification of James the son of Alphaeus, and his relation to the Epistle, are the great difficulties. In the list of names above given, James, the son of Mary, is the same as James the son of Alphseus, if Mary was the wife of Alphaeus. If this Mary was a sister of the Virgin Mary, then James would be the ' Lord's brother,' or near kinsman, in which sense the word ' brother ' seems to be used. The same man might be the actual brother of Jude. He might be known by a sort of nickname, ' the Less/ because of his under size. And he might be recognised by his official position as ' bishop of Jeru- salem.' ' By comparing St. Paul's description concerning numbers 4 and 7 (above) in Gal. i. 19 ; and ii. 9-12, it is thought he must be referring to one and the same man ; let that be granted, therefore, to begin with. We may identify numbers 3 and 4 by the knowledge that James, the son of Mary, had a brother called Joses (Matt, xxvii. 56), and so also had James " the Lord's brother " (Matt. xiii. 55) ; and further we may consider numbers 3 and 6 identical, because each was brother to Jude (Mark vi. 3 ; Jude, verse i) ; James the Little, number 5, is clearly the same as the son of Mary, number 4. (Comp. Matt, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10.) These might, it is true, be coincidences merely, and, when we remember the frequency of Hebrew names, seem insufficient for more than hypothesis. Thus far, then, numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are thought to be one and the same person the Apostle James, and he the Lord's brother.' There does not seem an insuperable difficulty in identifying him with James, the son of Alphseus, seeing that he cannot be James, the son of Zebedee. THE TWO APOSTLES NAMED 1 JAMES: 207 A sketch of the career of these two men will best distinguish them. James, the son of Zebedee, was, with his younger brother John, engaged in the fishing trade, and they probably belonged to Bethsaida, on the Lake of Galilee. Both brothers were disciples of John the Baptist, and were, by him, pointed to Jesus. James was called, with his brother, to a personal attendance on Christ during our Lord's Galilean ministry. (Matt. iv. 21, 22; Mark i. 19, 20; Luke v. i- 1 1.) Subsequently he was named one of the Apostles, and took rank among the leaders, being placed in the first group. The name Christ found for James and his brother, ' Sons of Thunder,' suggests an impetuous and zealous disposition, and this we may think of as more characteristic of the elder than of the younger brother. James, with his brother and Peter, was favoured by being permitted to attend our Lord on His raising the Ruler's daughter, at the Trans- figuration, and in Gethsemane. We can only suppose that, after our Lord's ascension, he shewed unusual, and almost excessive zeal, which gave him prominence among the Christian leaders, and made him the mark for Herod's sword. This James was martyred about the time of the Passover, A.D. 44. The other James, the son of Alphseus, was not a fisherman. There is no reference to his call in the New Testament, but his name is given in each list of the Apostles, and he was favoured by the Saviour with a separate interview soon after the resurrection (i Cor. xv. 7). He was afterwards distinguished as one of the Apostles of the circumcision ; and he appears, soon after the death of Stephen, A.D. 34, to have been appointed president, or bishop, of the church at Jerusalem to have resided thenceforth in that city and to have presided at the council which was convened there A.D. 49. He maintained in Jerusalem and its neighbourbood such a reputation for sanctity as to acquire, even among his unbelieving countrymen, the honourable appellation of ' the Just.' But the high opinion that was entertained of his character did not suffice to save him from martyr- dom. According to an account which we receive from the middle of the second century, he was precipitated from an eminence or battlement of the Temple, standing upon which he had avowed, in the presence of an excited multitude, his faith in Christ ; and this not having terminated his life, he was afterwards stoned, and at last killed, while, kneeling down, he prayed God to forgive his murderers. This event occurred A.D. 62. If all the later references to James may be referred to James, the son of Alphaeus, we can have little doubt that he was the author of the Epistle. It is in perfect harmony with the impression that is left 208 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. on us by the historical notices we have of him. The opening words of the Epistle do not help us : and it should not be forgotten that the Epistle itself only became recognised in the third century. If it was not written by this James, the son of Alphgeus, the author cannot be identified, and apostolic authority cannot be associated with it. The Epistle was first circulated among the Eastern churches ; in the course of the fourth century its authority was more and more widely acknowledged ; and in the fifth century its reception by the churches of both the East and the West became universal. The Lord's Brethren. MARK vi. 3 : ' Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Jose?, and Judas, and Simon 1 and are not his sisters here with us?' Question. Did the Jews express family relationships with suffi- cient precision to warrant us in thinking our Lord had younger brothers and sisters ? Answer. -These so-called 'brethren' may have been either children of Joseph's before he married Mary ; children of Mary's, born after our Lord ; or children of near relatives of Mary, or of Joseph, who would in reality be ' cousins.' This third explanation is the one that is now recognised as the most probable; and it is thought that special reference is intended to Cleopas (or Alphaeus), whose wife Mary is called the sister of the Virgin (see John xix. 25), and whose four sons were named James, Joses, Simon (or Symeon), and Judas. Early tradition makes this Cleopas to be a brother of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus ; and if this is true the four sons were cousins of Jesus both on the father and on the mother's side. It is pointed out that ' the term " brethren " is frequently used in Scripture of other near relatives : of Abram and Lot (Gen. xiv. 14), of Jacob and Laban (Gen. xxix. 12-15), of the cousins of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x. 4), of uncles and their sons (Lev. xxv. 48, 49), and probably also of the uncles of Jeconias (see on Matt. i. n, Spk. Com.). So also Isaac calls Rebekah his sister (Gen. xxvi. 7), pro- bably because she was his cousin ; and the brethren of Aha/iah (2 Kings x. 13) are called the "sons of his brethren" (2 Chron. xxii. 8), and probably were in reality his cousins, the sons of the brethren of his father Jehoram, mentioned 2 Chron. xxi. 2, 4.' Dean Plumptre reviews the various theories and arguments, and says : ' On the whole, then, I incline to rest in the belief that the so- called " brethren " were cousins who, through some unrecorded THE LORD'S BRETHREN. 209 circumstances, had been so far adopted into the household at Nazareth as to be known by the term of nearer relationship.' Rev. E. G. Punchard, M.A., in ' Ellicott's Commentary,' gives the different theories that have found favour. The terms ' brother ' and ' brethren ' meet us so often in the New Testament, as applied to Jesus Christ, that we can hardly pass them by. Do they infer the strict and actual relationship, or one merely collateral ? (1) The Uterine or Helvidian Theory. Held by the advocates of the natural sense, that these men were the younger sons of Joseph and Mary. They urge the plain meaning of the Greek word adelphos, i.e., brother, and deny its use figuratively. They point, moreover, to Matt. i. 25, and suppose from it the birth of other children in the holy family. Those who shrink from such a view are charged with sentiment, as impugners of marriage, and even with ideas more or less Manichsean concerning the impurity of matter. The German commentator Bleek, and Dean Alford and Dr. Davidson among ourselves, contend thus for the actual brotherhood, maintaining the theory originally propounded by Helvidius, a writer of the fourth century, answered by the great Augustine. (2) The Agnatic or Epiphanian Theory. A second class of divines are in accordance with the theory of Epiphanius, who was Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, towards the end of the fourth century, and no mean antagonist of the Helvidians. At the head of their modern representatives, facile princeps for scholarship and fairness, is Canon Lightfoot. The ' brethren of the Lord ' are said to be sons of Joseph by a former wife, i.e., before his espousal of the Virgin Mary, and are rightly termed adelphoi accordingly. Far from being of the number of the twelve, they were believers only after Christ's resurrection. Thus, then, are explained such texts as Matt. xii. 46 ; Mark iii. 31 ; Luke viii. 19; John vii. 5. By this supposition, James, the 'Lord's brother,' must be a distinct person from ' James, the son of Alphaeus.' (3) The Collateral or Hieronymian Theory. There remains one proposition more, known, from the name of its foremost champion, Jerome, as the Hieronymian theory ; and this, on the whole, presents fewest difficulties to the religious mind. The sons of Alphseus (or Cleopas ; the name is the same in different dialects) were the cousins of our Lord, their mother and his being sisters ; and such a relation- ship would entirely justify the use of the word 'brethren.' Two considerations demand notice. If Mary, the mother of our Lord, had other children of her own, or even stepsons, it is difficult to understand our Lord's committing her to the care of John, who was no near relative, if a relative at all. 2io HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. And if a difficulty is created by the general statement that ' our Lord's brethren did not believe on Him,' we must bear in mind that general statements admit of individual exceptions, and, in this case, James may be the exception. The Two Genealogies. MATTHEW i. I : 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.' LUKE iii. 22 : 'And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.' Difficulty. These genealogies differ in so many important par- ticulars that a common origin for them does not seem possible. Explanation. It is admitted by all competent writers that the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke both refer to Joseph, and not directly to Mary. What needs explanation is (i) how the genealogy of Joseph can prove the Davidic relationship of the son of Mary, who was not also the son of Joseph ; and (2) how the names given in the two genealogies come to differ in such remarkable ways. To the first question two answers have been given: (i) Genea- logies were only kept in the male line ; but as Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, he was regarded legally as his heir, and so took his place in the genealogical list ; (2) Mary may have been the daughter of Jacob (Matt. i. 16), and therefore cousin to Joseph; and, if so, the genealogy which concerned him must equally have concerned her. It should, however, be known that Dean Plumptre clings to the idea that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, through Heli and Nathan, the son of David. He says : ' A third, and, as it seems to the present writer, a more probable view is, that we have in St. Luke the genealogy, not of Joseph, but of Mary, the words " being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph " being a parenthesis, the first link being Jesus (the heir, and in that sense, son of Heli). On this hypothesis, the Virgin, as well as Joseph, was of the house and lineage of David ; and our Lord was literally, as well as by adoption, " of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. i. 3); on the mother's side through the line of Nathan, on the reputed father's through that of Solomon. This view has at least the merit of giving a sufficient reason for the appearance of two different genealogies.' It may be helpful to remind our readers that St. Luke preserves a number of records which could only have been given by Mary, and which imply that St. Luke was in direct communication with her. THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 211 In that case, we can quite understand that the private family genea- logy was placed at his command. Matthew seems to have had access to the official lists that were kept by the priests ; and if the families descending from David, through Nathan and through Solomon, at some time intermarried, the divergencies in the names at some points of the list is easily explained. ' It may be noted that genealogies, such as those given by St. Mat- thew and St. Luke, were common in almost every Jewish family. The Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, compiled after the return from Babylon, show that they existed then. Josephus tran- scribes his own pedigree, from the time of the Asmonsean, or Mac- cabean, priest-rulers, from public registers, and states that, not in Judaea only, but in Alexandria and Babylon and other cities, wherever the Jews were settled, such registers were kept of the births and mar- riages of all belonging to the priesthood ; that copies were sent to Jerusalem ; that the registers went back for 2,000 years. The members of the house of David were hardly likely to be less careful in preserving records of their descent than those of the house of Aaron. Hillel the scribe, for instance, was known to be of the lineage of David, and must have had evidence of some kind to prove it. So, at a later time, the princes of the Captivity, who ruled over the Jews of Babylonia, claimed their allegiance as sons of David.' (Plumptre.) The hypothesis that seems to have gained most favour is that which assumes St. Matthew to have given the table of royal succes- sion, or heirship, to the throne of David, and St. Luke to have given the table of actual descent. ' If this hypothesis be carried through the tables, we must suppose that the royal line through Solomon became extinct in Jeconias, when the right of succession passed to the collateral line of Nathan in Salathiel ; and again, that the elder branch of Zorobabel's posterity became extinct in Eleazar or in Jacob, when the succession passed to the younger branch in Matthan, or in Joseph the son of Heli. This view is maintained in part by Grotius and Possinus, and recently by Dr. Mill, and is carried out more fully by Lord Arthur Hervey. This scheme seems in itself by far the most natural that has been proposed, and is supported by at least two remarkable coincidences with the Old Testament the childlessness of Jeconias predicted by Jeremiah (xxii. 30), and the mention of the " family of the house of Nathan " by Zechariah (xii. 12) in a manner which seems to indicate the then principal branch of the house of David.' (Speaker's Commentary.} From a pamphlet which passed through our hands some years ago- 142 2i2 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. we took the following notes, which are worthy of a careful considera- tion : ' The Jews, like other nations, gave more than one name to each individual. The life of a Jew was essentially twofold ; he was a member of a civil State, and he was at the same time a member of a theocracy ; his life was both political and religious. This distinction seems to have been preserved in the giving of names. Traces of the double name are found throughout the course of Scripture history, and may be found, under certain modifications, differing in different countries, existing to the present day. A well-informed writer says, in reference to the naming of a Jewish child : " The parents must give it a name, that it may be mentioned at its circumcision. It must be a Hebrew name, and, generally, one adopted in the family, or that of a celebrated man. This is a sacred name, and is always made use of in connection with religion. He may have another name, a common one, by giving a Gentile turn to his Hebrew name, or by adopting a Gentile name altogether. For example, his Hebrew name may be Moshe, and his common name Moses or Philip. Whenever he is named in the synagogue, or elsewhere connected with any religious duty, he is called by his Hebrew name, but in all other affairs he is called by his common name." ' It is highly probable that the sacred name imposed at birth would be entered in a different list to the common name by which a man was known in his civil relationships. The former would be registered in infancy at the first presentation before the Lord in the Temple, and would be preserved amongst the sacred documents of the house of the Lord. The latter, entered later in life (2 Chron. xxxvi. 4), or after death, would be preserved amongst the records of the State, or, it may be, would be entered into a private family pedigree. Bishop Hervey, in his work on the " Genealogy of our Lord," adduces his- torical evidence to show that both public and private registers were kept among the Jews. ' The conclusion to which we are brought is, that we have before us (in Matt. i. and Luke iii.) two such registers, one drawn from public, and the other from private sources, or one from a civil genea- logy, the other from writings laid up in the Temple. ' In support of this view, we may note that in the genealogy of St. Luke the Evangelist whose opening chapters show a close familiarity with the interior of the Temple, and what took place there the names appear to have a sacred character. Even an English reader may remark at a glance the different aspect of the two lists. That in Luke contains, with striking frequency, the familiar names of THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 213 distinguished patriarchs, prophets, and priests, and thus confirms the impression that his genealogy, rather than that of Matthew, is of a purely religious character. ' This hypothesis receives a remarkable confirmation by a com- parison of the dates of the two lists with the dates of the first build- ing, the destruction, and the second building of the Temple. What, then, is the relation between the two genealogies before Solomon's time, when there was no Temple? And during the lives of Salathiel and Zorobabel, who flourished at the time of the Babylonish cap- tivity, when again, for seventy years, there was no Temple ? It is precisely at these periods that only one list exists. The divergence in Luke's genealogy from that of Matthew is exactly coincident with the periods during which the Temple was standing. What explana- tion of this striking fact can be more natural than that, at the point where the two genealogies unite, there was but one list to refer to, and that the absence of entries in the sacred register required it to be supplemented by a reference to the State chronicles ?' The two lists may be set side by side : FROM DAVID IN BOTH LISTS. FROM SALATHIEL, IN BOTH LISTS. After Matthew. After Luke. After Matthew. After Luke. i. Solomon. Nathan. i. Zorobabel. Zorobabel. 2. Roboam. Mattatha. 2. Abiud. Rhesa. 3. Abia. Menan. 3. Eliakim. Joanna. 4. Asa. Melea. 4. Azor. Juda. 5. Josaphat. Eliakim. 5. Sadoc. Joseph. 6. Joram. Jonan. 6. Achim. Semei. 7- Joseph. 7. Eliud. Mattathias. 8. Juda. 8. Eleazar. Maath. 9- Simeon. 9- Nagge. 10. Ozias. Levi. 10. Esli. ii. Joatham. Matthat. ii. Naum. 12. Achaz. Jorim. 12. Amos. 13. Ezekias. Eliezer. 13- Mattathias. 14. Manasses. Jose. 14. Joseph. 15. Amon. Er. IS- Janna. 1 6. Josias. Elmodam. 1 6. Melchi. 17. Cosam. 17- Levi. 1 8, Jechonias. Addi. 18. Matthan. Matthat. 19. Melchi. 19. Jacob. Heli. 20. Neri. 20. Joseph. Joseph or Mary. The Date of our Lord's Birth. MATTHEW ii. i : ' Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.' Difficulty. The known date of the death of Herod makes the date of our Lord's birth as A.D. i nearly impossible. Explanation. It is now well-nigh universally recognised that the usual date of our Lord's birth as A.D. i is three, if not four, years 2 1 4 HANDS O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. too late. Whether it should be B.C. 3, or B.C. 4, seems still uncertain. Dr. E. R. Conder argues for B.C. 4, and his arguments are likely to convince our readers, and ensure the acceptance of this date. ' In order to determine the date of the Nativity with such accuracy as may be found possible, we have first to ascertain the date of Herod's death, and then to consider by what interval of time our Saviour's birth probably preceded it. Neither of these points is free from difficulty. Absolute certainty (let us at once candidly admit) is not attainable. But when the facts are clearly stated, they lead to a conclusion in which we may rest with a near approach to certainty, which is greatly confirmed when we find how the date thus deter- mined harmonises with all the after-facts of the Gospel history. ' Herod the Great reigned, as Josephus informs us, thirty-four years from the time when he took Jerusalem by storm, and put Antigonus to death. This was in the month Sivan, in the summer of A.U.C. 717 (B.C. 37), three years after Herod had been made king by the Roman Senate. According to our mode of reckoning, there- fore, Herod's thirty-fourth year would be from Sivan of the year 750 (B.C. 4) to Sivan of 751 (B.C. 3). But the Jewish custom was to reckon regnal years from the beginning of the Jewish sacred year, at whatever time the actual accession might take place. Consequently, Herod's thirty-fourth year, by Jewish reckoning, was from i Nisan 750 to the eve of i Nisan 751 (B.C. 4-3). Between these two dates his death must have occurred. And even if he died in the first week of Nisan, he would be held to have " reigned thirty-four years "- that is, entered his thirty-fourth year as king, though the actual anniversary of his accession was not till between two or three months later. ' Now, if the account given by Josephus be carefully studied, it will be found to furnish decisive proof that the death of Herod occurred shortly before the Passover. The facts may be briefly stated thus. Herod died at Jericho, having previously gone to the hot baths of Callirhoe, beyond Jordan, in the vain hope of gaining some alleviation of his intolerable sufferings. Archelaus, his son and successor, after providing a magnificent funeral, and observing the necessary week of mourning, came to Jerusalem, sacrificed in the Temple, and addressed the people in regal state. At first he was well received, but in the evening a public lamentation burst forth throughout the city, not for King Herod, but for certain Rabbins, whom he had cruelly put to death. These Rabbins, when the king was thought to be dying, had instigated their disciples to hew down a golden eagle, erected by him over the great gate of the Temple. THE DATE OF OUR LORD'S BIRTH. 215 Herod had taken savage vengeance, causing the Rabbins, and their most active followers, to be burnt alive. The Passover, Josephus tells us, was now approaching. The multitudes who, on that account, were arriving at Jerusalem, swelled the disturbance to a formidable sedition, which Archelaus suppressed with severity worthy of his father, three thousand persons being massacred by his troops. After establishing order in this fashion, he hastened to Rome, to seek the imperial sanction to his father's testament, appointing him King of Judaea. At Caesarea he met the procurator of Syria, on his way to Jerusalem, to take charge of Herod's wealth in the name of the Roman Government. No exact dates are given by Josephus, but Archelaus was at Rome before Pentecost ; manifestly in the summer of the same year. ' The question then arises : Was this Passover, which thus followed the death of Herod, that of B.C. 4, or B.C. 3 ? Here we have a remarkable note of time. On the night after the Rabbins were burned, an eclipse of the moon took place. Astronomers find that the only eclipse to which this statement can refer occurred on March 13, B.C. 4 (A.U.C. 750). The succeeding full moon, April u, was that of the Passover (Nisan 14-15); and Nisan i fell on March 29. Now, if we deduct the seven days of mourning, in- cluding the funeral, together with at least three or four days for the visit of Archelaus to Jerusalem, and the influx of the multitude before the Passover, we are thrown back to April i or March 31 (Nisan 4 or 3) as the latest day on which we can suppose the death of Herod to have happened.' Arguing the probable length of the events between Herod's death and our Lord's birth, giving four or five weeks between the visit of the Magi and the death, forty days for the ' presentation,' and an interval between the ' presentation ' and the visit of the Magi, we are led to fix the first part of January, A.U.C. 750 (B.C. 4), as the precise period of our Lord's birth. There is no proof that December 25 is the actual day, but it cannot be many days off the true date ; and, indeed, the Old Christmas-Day, January 6, may be the absolutely correct day. 2 1 6 HANDB O OK OF BIBL ICAL DIFF1CUL TIES. The Last Arrival at Jerusalem. MARK xi. i : ' And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sendeth forth two of His disciples.' Difficulty. A comparison of the Gospel narratives leaves us quite uncertain as to what our Lord did immediately on His arrival at Jerusalem. Explanation. It will be helpful to set the four narratives together, and, to ensure as much exactness as possible, they may be given from the ' Revised Version.' Matthew xxi. i, 2 : 'And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her ; loose them, and bring them unto me.' Matthew appears to make the triumphal entry take place on the evening of the day that Jesus left Jericho ; but his words will allow of a time of tarrying at Bethany, or Bethphage. Mark xi. i : ' And when they drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sendeth two of His disciples.' Mark differs from Matthew in the tense ' draw,' and in adding the name Bethany ; but he leaves the same impression, that the trium- phal entry took place immediately on our Lord's arrival from Jericho. Luke xix. 28, 29 : ' And when He had thus spoken, He went on before, going up to Jerusalem. And it came to pass, when He drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,' etc. Luke distinctly confirms the view of the previous Evangelists. John xii. i : ' Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead.' Then an account is given of a family feast held at Bethany, which could not have been given on the Friday night, because the Sabbath began at sundown on Friday ; but may have been given on Saturday night, because the Sabbath ended at sundown of Saturday, and feasts were often held after the Sabbath closed. John xii. 12 : 'On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of the palm-trees, and went forth to meet Him,' etc. Verse 14 : ' And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon,' etc. THE LAST ARRIVAL AT JERUSALEM. 217 John gives fuller details, and seems to correct the impression made on us by the Synoptists, that Jesus visited Jerusalem on the night of His arrival from Jericho. If the references of the four writers are taken literally, it would seem necessary to assume two triumphal entries, one on the arrival from Jericho, on the Friday afternoon, and a second on the following Sunday morning. We may now see how this difficulty has been treated by competent writers. Dean Mansel states the explanations that are possible, but scarcely indicates his own judgment. ' The time is fixed by the data furnished by St. John (xii. i). Our Lord came to Bethany six days before the Passover, i.e., on the 8th Nisan, the reckoning being exclusive of the Passover-day itself, the i4th, but inclusive of the day of arrival. If we regard Friday, the day of the Lord's crucifixion, as the 1 4th, the 8th was the Sabbath, and the entry into Jerusalem, which took place the next day (John xii. 12), was on the Qth Nisan, the day now known as Palm Sunday. If we adopt the view that our Lord was crucified on the i5th, and consequently that the Passover fell on Thursday, the arrival at Bethany must be placed on the Friday, and we must suppose that our Lord remained at Bethany over the Sabbath, and entered Jerusalem on Sunday the loth Nisan. Both theories agree in assigning the entry into Jerusalem to Palm Sunday, though differing as to the day of the month ; but in the latter case we must suppose a day to intervene between the entry into Bethany (John xii. i) and the supper (verse 2), of which there is no hint in St. John's narrative.' Canon Westcotl remarks : ' The pause at Bethany is not mentioned by the Synoptists ; but there is nothing surprising in the omission.' On John xii. 12 he has the following note: 'In this incident again St. John's narrative is parallel to that of the Synoptists, but more exact in details. The Synoptists say nothing of the rest at Bethany ; and it appears at first sight as if they placed the triumphal entry on the same day as the journey from Jericho. And yet in each case there is the sign of a break : Matt. xxi. i ; Luke xix. 29. And the return to Bethany noticed by St. Mark (xi. n) suggests at least that village for the starting point.' Professor Watkins observes that the whole question of the arrange- ment of days during this last great week depends upon the conclu- sion which we adopt with regard to the day on which our Lord was crucified. ' St. John only gives the definite note of time, connecting the entry with the previous sojourn at Bethany. The Synoptic narrative is more general, describing the approach from Jericho, and naming Bethphage (Matthew and Luke) and Bethany (Mark and 2i8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Luke) as stages in the journey, but not connecting the Supper at Bethany with the entry.' Vallings takes the view which seems, in every way, the most reasonable. ' While Jewish pilgrims were speculating about His coming to the feast, Jesus spent the last Friday (evening) before His Passion in the now dearer home of Bethany. On the following day He shared the Sabbath feast with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, and apparently other guests, in the house of Simon the leper.' With his descriptive power Farrar writes of the journey on the Friday : The disciples ' fell reverently back, and followed Him with many a look of awe as He slowly climbed the long, sultry, barren gorge which led up to Jerusalem from Jericho. He did not mean to make the city of Jerusalem His actual resting-place, but preferred as usual to stay in the loved home at Bethany. Thither He arrived on the evening of Friday, Nisan 8 (March 31, A.D. 30), six days before the Passover, and before the sunset had commenced the Sabbath hours.' Edersheim, Stalker, Pres sense, Geikie, etc., agree in following the lead of John's narratives, and treat the triumphal entry as taking place on the Sunday morning, after a resting-time at Bethany from the previous Friday evening. The ' six days ' mentioned by St. John may be filled up thus. Friday, arrival at Bethany. Saturday, quiet Sabbath, with feast after Sabbath was ended. Sunday, triumphal entry. Monday, second visit to Jerusalem. Tuesday, third visit. Wednes- day, quiet day at Bethany. Thursday, the Passover supper. The mode of reckoning the day from sunset to sunset makes our calcula- tion very difficult. The evening of the previous day may be reckoned a day, or it may not. The Passovers in Christ's Ministry, or The Unknown Feast. JOHN ii. 13 : ' And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.' Question. Do the references to this feast in the Gospels help to a decision concerning the length of our Lord's ministry ? Answer. Very much depends on the decision to which we come concerning the feast that is mentioned, without being defined, in John v. i : ' After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.' This ' feast ' has been identified by some writers with each of the great Jewish festivals, and even with the minor ones. THE PASSOVERS IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 219 Irenaeus, Eusebius, Lightfoot, Neander, Greswell, etc., regard it as the Passover. Cyril, Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel, etc., prefer Pentecost. And Ewald advocates Tabernacles. Caspari prefers the Day of Atonement, and Wieseler, Meyer, Godet, etc., plead for the claims of the Feast of Purim. On a subject involving so much diversity of opinion, it will be wise only to give the material for the formation of a satisfactory judgment. Professor H. IV. IVatkitis, M.A., puts the case succinctly and suggestively : ' The time-limits are ch. iv. 35, which was in Tebeth (January), and ch. vi. /), which brings us to the next Passover in Nisan (April), that is, an interval of four months, the year being an intercalary one, with the month Veadar (and Adar) added, or, as we should say, with two months of March. The only feast which falls in this interval is the Feast of Purim, and it is with this that the best modern opinion identifies the feast of John v. i. It was kept on the i4th of Adar (March), in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews from the plots of Haman, and took its name from the lots cast by him (Esth. iii. 7 ; ix. 24, et seg.}. It was one of the most popular feasts, and was characterised by festive rejoicings, presents, and gifts to the poor. At the same time it was not one of the great feasts, and while the writer names the Passover (chs. ii. 13 ; vi. 4 ; xiii. i), the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 2), and even that of the Dedication (ch. x. 22), this has no further importance in the narrative than to account for the fact of Jesus being again in Jerusalem.' Dr. Plummer says that this Feast of Purim was 'a boisterous feast, and some have thought it unlikely that Christ would have any- thing to do with it. But we are not told that He went to Jerusalem in order to keep the feast ; Purim might be kept anywhere. More probably He went because the multitudes at the feast would afford great opportunities for teaching. Moreover, it does not follow that because some made this feast a scene of unseemly jollity, therefore Christ would discountenance the feast itself.' Dr. E. R. Conder brings out the relation of this feast to a decision as to the length of our Lord's ministry. ' What feast this was is a much-debated and important question, the answer to which has been regarded as furnishing the key to the chronology of the Gospel narrative. To some extent it does so, for, if this feast was a Passover, then we have four Passovers distinctly noted in St. John's Gospel (ii. 13 ; v. i ; vi. 4 ; xi. 55), necessarily implying a duration of three years for our Lord's ministry. The converse, however, is not true. If it was not a Passover, it does not follow that that ministry lasted less than three years. If it was not the Passover, it does not in fact 220 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. greatly matter to the Gospel chronology what feast it was. For, in addition to the separate evidence on which we assign the cleansing of the Temple to A.D. 27, and the Crucifixion to A.D. 30, we have independent proof from the Synoptic Gospels of the occurrence of a Passover between that which preceded the Galilsean ministry and that which was approaching (John vi. 4), when our Lord fed the five thousand in the wilderness. This proof consists in the narrative of the walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath, when the disciples offended the Pharisees by plucking the ripe ears of corn and rubbing them out in their hands. This could not have happened before a Passover, not only because the corn would not be ripe, but because the disciples would not have dared to gather it until after the sacred sheaf of firstfruits had been offered in the Temple. Moreover, the difficult phrase in Luke vi. i (literally, " the second-first Sabbath "), whatever be its precise meaning, points, it can hardly be doubted, to a Passover. But we are forbidden by Matt. xii. i to identify the Passover thus indicated with that at the beginning of our Lord's ministry (John ii. 13). And unless we surrender the task of framing any connected view of the Gospel history, we are equally forbidden by the three Synoptic narratives to identify it with that Passover (John vi. 4) which followed the death of John the Baptist, the return of the twelve, and the feeding of the five thousand.' Edersheim calls this the ' Unknown Feast.' But he thinks it is clear that it was either the feast of ' Wood Offering,' on the i5th of Abh (August), when, amidst demonstrations of joy, willing givers from all parts of the country brought the wood required for the service of the altar ; or else the ' Feast of Trumpets ' on the ist Tisri (about the middle of September), which marked the beginning of the new (civil) year.' Canon Westcott says : ' The fixed points between which the feast lies are the Passover (ii. 23) and the feeding of the five thousand, the latter event taking place, according to the universal testimony of MSS. and versions, when the Passover was near at hand ' (vi. 4). The following details in St. John b,ear more or less directly upon the date : (i) After leaving Jerusalem at the conclusion of the Passover (iii. 22), the Lord 'tarried' in Judaea. This stay was sufficiently long to lead to results which attracted the attention of the Baptist's disciples, and of the Pharisees (iv. i). (2) On the other hand, the interval between the Passover and the Lord's return to Galilee was such that the memory of the events of that feast was fresh in the minds of those who had been present at it (iv. 45), and from the mention of ' the feast,' it is unlikely that any other great feast had THE PASSOVERS IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 221 occurred since. (3) The ministry of the Baptist, who was at liberty after the Passover (iii. 26 ff.), is spoken of as already past at the unnamed feast (v. 35). (4) To this it may be added that the language in which the Lord's action in regard to the Sabbath is spoken of implies that His teaching on this was now familiar to the leaders of the people. (5) The phrase used in iv. 35 has special significance if the conversation took place either shortly after seed- time, or shortly before harvest. (6) The circumstances of the con- versation in ch. iv. suit better with summer than with early spring. (7) At the time when the healing took place the sick lay in the open air under the shelter of the porches. (8) From vii. 21 ff. it appears that the Lord had not visited Jerusalem between this unnamed feast and the Feast of Tabernacles, and that the incident of ver. i ff. was fresh in the minds of the people at the later visit. (9) It is im- probable that the feast was one of those which St. John elsewhere specifies by name. A consideration of these data seems to leave the choice between Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets (the Day of Atone- ment), and Purim. Purim (March) would fall in well with the succession of events ; but the character of the discourse has no connection with the thoughts of the festival, and the festival itself was not such as to give a natural occasion for such teaching. Pentecost would suit well with the character of the discourse, but the interval between the Passover of ch. ii. and the Pentecost of the same year would scarcely leave sufficient time for the events implied in chs. iii., iv., while to regard it as the Pentecost of the year after seems to make the interval too great. ' The tradition of the early Greek Church identified it with Pentecost. Most modern com- mentators suppose it to be the Feast of Purim.' Farrar says : ' The Synoptists are silent respecting any visit of Christ to the Passover between His twelfth year and His death, and it is St. John alone, who, true to the purpose and characteristics of his Gospel, mentions the earliest Passover of Christ's ministry. The feast of John v. i would make four Passovers, if it were certain that a Passover was intended.' In an ' additional note ' Farrar gives reasons why, if the feast was Purim, St. John withheld the name. ' Looking, therefore, at minor feasts (after showing that it could not be one of the greater feasts), there is only one for which we can see a reason why the name should have been omitted, viz., the Feast of Purim. The mere fact of its being a minor feast would not alone be a sufficient reason for excluding the name, since St. John mentions by name the comparatively unimportant and humanly-appointed 222 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Feast of the Dedication. But the name of this feast was represented by a familiar Greek word (Encaenia), and explained itself; whereas the Feast of Purim was intensely Jewish, and the introduction of the name without an explanation would have been unintelligible. Purim means " lots," and if St. John had merely translated the name into Greek, it might have led to very mistaken impressions. Moreover, the fact that it was the most unimportant, non-religious, and ques- tionably-observed of the Jewish feasts, would be an additional reason for leaving the name unnoticed.' The Census of Quirinius. LUKE ii. r, 2 : ' Now, it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Cresar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.' Difficulty. The Roman records cannot readily be harmonised with this statement. Explanation. Later writers are not able to improve upon the note given by Bishop Ellicott in his ' Hulsean Lecture,' p. 58. We give this note in full. Referring to Luke ii. 2, he says: 'Without entering at length into this vexed question, we may remark, for the benefit of the general reader, that the simple and grammatical mean- ing of the words, as they appear in all the best MSS. (B alone omits r, before droypa^), must be this : " This taxing took place as a first one while Cyrenius was governor of Syria " ; and that the difficulty is to reconcile this with the assertion of Tertullian, that the taxing took place under Sentius Saturninus, and with the apparent historical fact that Quirinius did not become president of Syria till nine or ten years afterwards. There are apparently only two sound modes of explaining the apparent contradiction (I dismiss the mode of regard- ing -~P^TTI as equivalent to Kporspa as forced and artificial), either by supposing (a) that ^/EuofsiWos (governor) is to be taken in a general and not a special sense, and to imply the duties of a commissioner- extraordinary a view perhaps best and most ably advocated by the Abbe Sanclemente, but open to the objection arising from the special and localising term T-JJS Zupiae (of Syria) ; or by supposing (&) that, under historical circumstances imperfectly known to us, Quirinius was either de facto or de jure president of Syria, exactly as St. Luke seems to specify. In favour of this latter supposition we have the thrice-repeated assertion of Justin Martyr that Quirinius was president at the time in question, and the interesting fact recently brought to light by Zumpt that, owing to Cilicia, when separated from THE CENS US OF Q UIRIN1 US. 223 Cyprus, being united to Syria, Quirinius, as governor of the first- mentioned province, was really also governor of the last-mentioned whether in any kind of association with Saturninus, or otherwise, can hardly be ascertained and that his subsequent more special connection with Syria led his earlier and apparently brief connection to be thus accurately noticed. This last view, to say the least, deserves great consideration, and has been adopted by Merivale.' On the face of it, we cannot but think it incredible that the Evangelist should have erred on a matter of public history, with all the contemporary sources of information open to him. Wteseler, writing before the publication of Zumpt's investigations, combines two explanations of St. Luke's words, which he translates : ' This registration was the first (that was made) before Cyrenius was governor of Syria.' Dean Merivale concludes that ' the enumeration, begun or ap- pointed under Varus, and before the death of Herod, was completed after that event by Quirinius.' For the full discussion of this subject, see ' Speaker's Com- mentary,' N. T., Vol. I., pp. 326-329 ; an ' additional note ' by Canon Cook. Slaughter of the Bethlehem Children. MATTHEW ii. 16 : ' Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, accord- ing to the time which he had carefully learned of the wise men. Question. Is there any possibility of finding corroboration of this incident from secular history ? Answer. No writer has succeeded in finding the remotest historical allusion ; and it is certainly remarkable that Josephus makes no mention of the incident. Carr says : ' Profane history- passes over this atrocity in silence. But Josephus may well have found his pages unequal to contain a complete record of all the cruel deeds of a tyrant like Herod. Macaulay relates that the massacre of Glencoe is not even alluded to in the pages of Evelyn, a most diligent recorder of passing political events. Besides, the crime was executed with secrecy, the number of children slain was probably very incon- siderable, for Bethlehem was but a small town ; and though it was probably crowded at the time (Luke ii. 7), the number of very young children would not have been considerably augmented by those strangers.' If the visit of the Magi is placed after the Presentation in the 224 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Temple, and the presentation took place forty days after birth, we may be sure that the special visitors to Bethlehem for the ' enrolling ' had long before returned to their homes. Mary's circumstances detained her, but the population affected by Herod's decree could have been only the usual one. In a note, Geikie says : ' Josephus, though he does not expressly name the incident at Bethlehem, has two allusions to a massacre which Herod ordered shortly before his death, which very probably refer to it. He says : " Herod did not spare those who seemed most dear to him " "he slew all those of his own family who sided with the Pharisees, and refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Emperor, because they looked foruiard to a change in the royal line." ' Dean Plumptre acknowledges that the slaughter is not mentioned by Josephus or any other writer. But he adds : ' Nor need we wonder that the act was not recorded elsewhere. The population of Bethlehem could hardly have been more than two thousand, and the number of children under two years of age in that number would be between twenty and thirty. The cruelty of such an act would naturally impress itself on the local memory, from which, directly or indirectly, the Gospel record was derived, and yet escape the notice of an historian writing eighty or ninety years afterwards of the wars and court history of the period. The secrecy which marked the earlier part of Herod's scheme (verse 7) would extend naturally, as far as Jerusalem was concerned, to its execution.' Ellicott and Farrar think credit may be given to a sentence from Macrobius, who lived about A.D. 400, but may have used early materials. He says : ' On Augustus being informed that " among the boys under two years of age whom Herod ordered to be slain in Syria, his own son also had been slain," exclaimed, " It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" Most writers regard this allusion as quite untrustworthy. Events between the Baptism and First Passover. MATTHEW iv. 12, 13 : ' Now when He heard that John was delivered up, He withdrew into Galilee ; and, leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum.' Difficulty. A chronological arrangement of the incidents occur- ring during the six months following on our Lord's baptism seems impossible. Explanation. No absolute certainty can attach to any scheme for this six months that human ingenuity can devise. Probability is THE BAPTISM AND THE FIRST PASSOVER. 225 the utmost that can be attained to ; but there is a very general agree- ment in the view that the events narrated in John i. 19 to iv. 54 occupy this period. Modern Gospel Harmonies will be found arranged on this supposition. The order of events may, with good show of reasonableness, be mapped out as follows : Our Lord's Baptism. Forty-days' Temptation. Return to John Baptist, and call of Andrew and Simon. Visit to Galilee. Call of Philip and Nathanael. Visit to Cana. Short visit to Capernaum. First Passover at Jerusalem. Interview with Nicodemus. Journey through Samaria. Beginning of the longer ministry in Galilee. These certainly take the early months of the year A.D. 27, and the rest of the year, up to Passover A.D. 28, was occupied with evangelistic labours in Galilee. It is, however, a matter of dispute whether our Lord, on His first visit to Jerusalem and Judaea, remained only a few weeks, or some months. Probably it was only a few weeks; and there is a grave difficulty in the way of associating the conversation between our Lord and Nicodemus with the early period of Christ's ministry. At that time His teaching and miracles could not have become common talk, and Nicodemus could have had no ground on which to say : ' We know that Thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with Him.' It must be freely admitted that it is a hopeless task to put the contents of the four Gospels into historical order. It has been wisely said : ' If we would trace a clear outline of our Saviour's life and ministry, we must be content with an outline, and must resist the temptation to labour after a fulness and exactitude for which the Gospels do not supply the materials. We must free ourselves from the notion that the object of the Gospels bound the writers to strict chronological order, so that in relating events in a different sequence they are guilty of misplacing them, or if they pass them by in silence are mutilating history. The object of the Gospels is neither historical nor biographical, but religious. It is a pedantic and inappreciative, not to say ignorant, criticism which censures or slights the Gospels as "fragmentary."' Dr. E. R. Conder. 226 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The Date of our Lord's Baptism. MATTHEW iii. 13 : 'Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.' Question. Will a discovery of the date of this incident help us to fix the time of the beginning of our Lord's ministry '? Answer. Dr. E. R. Conder discusses this question, in its rela- tion to the date given for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist. It should be noted that the Gospel Harmonies give A.D. 26 as the year of John's ministry, and of our Lord's baptism by him. ' The Evangelist Luke states with unusual fulness the date of the preparatory mission of John. " In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Coesar .... the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness" (Luke iii. i, 2). Singularly enough, this very exactness is a source of difficulty. Augustus Caesar died, and was succeeded by Tiberius, in August, A.D. 14. Reckoning from this date, the fifteenth year of Tiberius was from August, A.D. 28, to August, A.D. 29. This would give us the spring of A.D. 29 for the Passover following our Lord's baptism, at which He cleansed the Temple ; and (as will presently be shown) the early part of that year for His baptism. But this does not fit with the date which on other grounds we are led to assign to the beginning of our Lord's ministry, viz., A.D. 27. These grounds are briefly as follows : '(i) According to Luke iii. 23, Jesus was about thirty years of age at His baptism. (There is a difficulty, concerning which scholars are not agreed, regarding the meaning of the word beginning, and the exact reading of the text ; but this does not affect the general sense.) If we have been correct in fixing the Nativity about the beginning (a little before or after) of B.C. 4, then in the spring of A.D. 29 our Lord would be more than thirty-two years of age. ' (2) At the Passover at which Jesus began His public ministry, the rebuilding of the Temple had been going on during forty-six years (John ii. 20). Now the building of the Temple was begun by Herod the Great in the eighteenth year of his reign. (See Josephus, Ant. xv. ii. i.) Herod's eighteenth year was from ist Nisan of A.U.C. 734 to the same time, A.U.C. 735. Therefore, adding forty- five complete years at the Passover (i.e. Nisan i5th to 2ist) in A.U.C. 780 (A.D. 27), forty-six regnal years had elapsed, and the forty- seventh had just begun, from the year in which the rebuilding com- menced. THE DATE OF OUR LORD'S BAPTISM. 227 ' (3) The date A.D. 27 harmonizes with the view, strongly established on other grounds, that our Lord's ministry occupied three years, and that the crucifixion took place A.D. 30. ' Although it is necessary to state thus fully this difficulty, since it affects the entire scheme of Gospel Chronology, the solution is simple and satisfactory. The reign of Tiberius as sole Emperor began at the death of Augustus ; but he had been joint Emperor with Augustus a sort of Vice-Emperor for two years previously. The word used by St. Luke, translated " reign," by no means implies sole empire, but applies with perfect accuracy to this share in the government, which had special reference to the provinces. Insomuch that, had St. Luke spoken of A.D. 27 as " the thirteenth year of the government of Tiberius," his critics might have taxed him with ignorance of this association of Tiberius with Augustus in the Imperial sovereignty. With this explanation, both the Evangelist's chronology and his phraseology are seen to be perfectly accurate. We therefore under- stand " the fifteenth year " of Tiberius to have begun in August, A.D. 26. And we may with great probability suppose that " the word of the Lord came to John," and he began his public ministry, about the close of the summer, or the beginning of autumn, shortly before the time when, at the signal of the early rains, the ploughman and the sower go forth to their work.' If Dr. Conder's explanation be accepted, the baptism of Jesus took place early in the year A.D. 27. Fallings says : ' It was " in winter, according to the unanimous tradition of the early Church," and possibly on January 6 or 10 (B.C. 4), according to the Basilidean tradition, that the Messiah stood unrecognised on the bank.' But this is quite an impossible date. It is the date of our Lord's birth, not of His baptism. Bishop Ellicott says : ' It was now probably towards the close of the Year of the City 780 when the Holy Jesus, moved we may humbly presume by that Spirit which afterwards directed His feet to the wilderness, leaves the home of His childhood, to return to it no more as His earthly abode.' His explanation of St. Luke's reference to Tiberius coincides with that of Conder. Ellicott has a further note as follows : ' The conclusion at which Wieseler arrives, after a careful consideration of all the historical data that tend to fix the time of our Lord's baptism, is this : Jesus must have been baptized by John not earlier than February, 780 A.U.C. (the extreme " terminus a quo " supplied by St. Luke), nor later than the winter of the same year (the extreme " terminus ad quern " supplied by St. John). Wieseler himself fixes upon the spring or summer of 780 A.U.C. as the exact J 2 228 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. date but to this period there are two objections : First, that if, as seems reasonable, we agree (with Wieseler) to fix the deputation to the Baptist about the close of February, 781 A.U.C., we shall have a period of eight months, viz., from the middle of 780 to the end of the second month of 781 wholly unaccounted for. Secondly, that it is almost the unanimous tradition of the early church that the baptism of our Lord took place in winter, or in the early part of the year. The tradition of the Basilideans, mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, that the baptism of our Lord took place on the nth or 1 5th of Tybi (January 6 or 10) deserves consideration, both from the antiquity of the sect, and from the fact that the baptism of our Lord was in their system an epoch of the highest importance.' Edersheim supports the date thus assigned by Ellicott, and also the idea that the baptism took place in the winter-time. Our Lord's Visits to Nazareth. LUKE iv. 16 : ' And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up.' MATTHEW xiii. 53, 54 : ' And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence. And coming into His own country' (the Greek freely rendered is ' His old home ') ' He taught them in their synagogue.' MARK vi. i : ' And He went out from thence, and came into His own country ; and His disciples follow Him.' Difficulty. St. Luke may only give a detailed account of what Matthew and Mark briefly allude to, and so these passages may refer to the same visit. Explanation. The fact that certain visits are recorded does not involve that no other visits besides these were paid. His rejection is not likely to have occurred twice over ; and it has been again and again shown that the Bible writers were not anxious about chrono- logical order. Each of the Synoptists record a visit to Nazareth which was of special interest, and we may reasonably incline to the idea that only one such visit was paid. But the Bible-writers favour the idea of two visits. Of these Wieseler, Tischendorf, Krafft, and Meyer, may be referred to. There is a mention of Nazareth in Matthew iv. 13, but there was no such excitement, as Luke narrates, in His leaving Nazareth on that occasion. Dean Plumptre gathers up all that need be said on this subject. ' The visit to Nazareth, recorded in Matthew in almost identical terms with Mark, has so many points of resemblance with the narrative of Luke iv. 16-31, that many critics have supposed it to be a less complete account of the same fact. On this assumption the narra- tive must be misplaced in its relation to other facts in one or other OUR LORD'S VISITS TO NAZARETH. 229 of the Gospels. A dislocation of some kind must indeed be admitted in any case, as St. Mark places it after the resurrection of Jairus's daughter, and makes that event follow the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, and places that on the next day after the first use of parables. We are compelled to admit the almost entire absence of any trustworthy notes of chronological sequence, beyond the group- ing, in some cases, of a few conspicuous facts. In comparing, how- ever, St. Matthew and St. Mark with St. Luke, there seems no sufficient ground for hastily assuming identity. The third Gospel places the visit which it narrates at the very beginning of our Lord's work, and as giving the reason of His removal to Capernaum. Here (in Matthew) there is no outburst of violent enmity, such as we find there (in Luke), but simple amazement. It seems, therefore, more probable that we have here a short account (short and imperfect, it may be, because our Lord went without His disciples) of another effort to bring the men of Nazareth to acknowledge Him, if not as the Christ, at least as a Prophet. The circumstances of the case in St. Matthew's record suggest another motive as, at least, possible. He had recently, as in Matt. xii. 48, when His mother and His brethren had come in their eager anxiety to interrupt His work, spoken in words that seemed to repel them to a distance from Him. What if this visit were meant to show that, though as a Prophet He could not brook that interruption, home affections were not dead in Him, that His heart still yearned over His brethren and His towns- men, and that He sought to raise them to a higher life? On comparing the account here with that in St. Luke, it would seem almost certain that there was now a less direct assertion of His claims as the Christ than there had been before a proclamation of the laws of the kingdom rather than of His own position in it. And so the impression is one of wonder at His wisdom, not of anger or scorn at what He claims to be.' Geikie, writing of the scene described in St. Luke, says : ' But though He left Nazareth never to return, He remained in the neigh- bourhood for a time, preaching in the villages of the great plain of Esdraelon, far and near.' He appears, therefore, to identify the visits as differing records of one occasion. Edersheim gives the matter a very careful consideration, and pre- sents his conclusion in the following note. 'Many, even orthodox commentators, hold that this history in Luke is the same as that related in Matthew and in Mark. But, for the reasons about to be stated, I have come, although somewhat hesitatingly, to the conclu- sion that the narrative of St. Luke, and those of St. Matthew and 2 3 o HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. St. Mark, refer to different events, i. The narrative in St. Luke (which we shall call a) refers to the commencement of Christ's ministry, while those of St. Matthew and St. Mark (which we shall call b] are placed at a later period. Nor does it seem likely that our Lord would have entirely abandoned Nazareth after one rejection. 2. In narrative a Christ is without disciples ; in narrative b He is accompanied by them. 3. In narrative a no miracles are recorded in fact, His words about Elijah and Elisha preclude any idea of them ; while in narrative b there are a few, though not many. 4. In narrative a He is thrust out of the city immediately after His sermon, while narrative b implies that He continued for some time in Nazareth, only wondering at their unbelief. If it be objected that Jesus could scarcely have returned to Nazareth after the attempt on His life, we must bear in mind that this purpose had not been avowed, and that His growing fame during the intervening period may have rendered such a return not only possible, but even advis- able. The coincidences as regards our Lord's statement about the Prophet, and their objection as to His being the carpenter's son, are only natural in the circumstances.' Farrar favours the view that only one visit to Nazareth is narrated. ' And so He left them, never apparently to return again, never, if we are right in the view here taken, to preach again in their little synagogue.' Olshausen says : ' Schleiermacher has conclusively proved that the narratives refer to the same occurrence. For if the narrative of St. Matthew were transferred to the later years of Christ's life, it is not easy to suppose that the inhabitants of Nazareth could ask "Whence hath this Man this wisdom?" And still less can it be thought that the events recorded by St. Luke are posterior to those related by St. Matthew. In point of internal character both histories are entirely alike, and the single circumstance that countenances the idea of their being distinct, is the chronological succession of events. This very fact, however, is another proof that there is, especially in St. Matthew and St. Mark, the absence of any prominent attempt to trace the course of events according to the period of time in which they happened.' MATTERS OF SCIENCE. 231 SECTION II. DIFFICULTIES RELATING TO MATTERS OF SCIENCE. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. ' SCIENCE is knowledge ; it deals with what is, or may be, known ; compels a clear comprehension of truths or facts ; has little to do with ingenious theories.' Professor W. Griffiths skilfully indicates the general relation of Scripture to advancing modern science : ' Ever since the great revival of learning, and the entry of science upon that prosperous career of discovery which she still pursues, alarm has been entertained by the disciples of revelation lest these two instructors of mankind should come into collision fatal to the pretensions of the latter. And the dread of this mischance has betrayed some into a nervous timidity, under whose influence they shrink from free inquiry themselves, and are slow to accept its proffered fruit from others. The enemies of the Faith have, at the same time, been quick to discern, and prone to exaggerate, real or apparent discrepancies between the disclosures of Nature and the statements of the Book, and are ever ready to pro- claim the authority of Scripture undermined. But neither the fears of friends nor the hopes of foes have as yet been realized. The annals of geography, astronomy, and geology supply notable instances of escape from shocks which threatened disaster to the Word of God, and show the folly of those frantic efforts, once made by superstition, to save the credit of the Bible by trying to arrest the march of science. Happily, no body of clergy could now be found to pronounce Colum- bus a heretic for holding it possible to get to the east by sailing west. The Church has ceased to maintain, on the presumed authority of Scripture, that we live upon a vast plain, not the surface of a globe. And, in our day, Galileo would not have been driven to the extremity of avoiding torture by recanting his theory of the earth's motion The Bible was not responsible for the crude notions about the earth and the solar system which prevailed in ignorant times, and soon the proscribed views were fully established, without prejudice to the Christian Faith. But the friends of the Church are proverbially backward in trusting the inquisitive spirit of the age. Weak appre- 232 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. hension, exploded in one direction, crops up somewhere else, and always lurks in the rear of bold research, as if prepared to clog its steps and prevent a progress too fast and far for the exigencies of theological belief. The rapid strides of geology have done much to keep the quaking phantom astir. Those who first hinted that sea- shells found at the tops of mountains could not be the remains of the Deluge were looked upon with an unfriendly eye both in Popish and Protestant circles. Again and again has the veracity of the Bible seemed to be called in question by the youthful science, but its announcements prove to be expository of, not contradictory to, the Word of God. Instead of being dishonoured, revelation is better understood. Not a few of the excrescences with which popular belief disfigured its pages have been swept away. Intelli- gent men have ceased to think that suffering and death were unknown on earth until after the fall of man ; that fossil plants and animals come from the Creator's hands as we find them ; that the world was made in six natural days ; and that the flood extended over every part of the habitable globe. . . . The science which now helps the Bible would, 1,000 years ago, have been a grievous obstacle in its path.' Differing views are held concerning the relations of science and the Bible. Some would take the position that the Bible, being an inspired book, should test all scientific facts and conclusions, and that we should distinctly refuse to recognise any scientific statement which seems opposed to the plain meaning of God's Word. But, as the exercise of men's faculties on material things that are adjusted to those faculties, science should be perfectly free and unfettered. We need ask from the scientific observer no more than competent truth- fulness and thoroughness. We will decide what we can do with his facts when we have them before us in an unquestionable form. We would not, if we could, make the Bible put conditions or limitations on the scientific man's observations and researches. If he is honest, he may be free. Some, on the other hand, think that science should test the Bible, since it has to deal with facts. But it is found that the man who cultures and uses the senses is always exposed to the temptation of bias and prejudice against the Bible, which appeals to man's moral and emotional nature, which the man of sense and fact readily despises. The science-man is over-quick at recognising things in the Word which cannot at once be fitted to his knowledge, and is impatient with the cautious friend of the Bible who suggests that possibly even science-facts may need correction, seeing the science- books of the past generation are practically useless for the science- MATTERS OF SCIENCE. 233 students of this time. We decline the interference and the testing of science until, round her entire circle, she has reached irrefragable con- clusions, and until she has learned sharply and satisfactorily to dis- tinguish between her facts and her theories about her facts. If science proposes to test our Bible, we simply decline her competency for any such undertaking. ' We should, as Christians, be absolutely fearless of all accurate and adequate statements of facts related to God's world of the seen. We should be ready to listen, receptively, to any man who can tell us the wonders of our earth and heaven. But we should be unwil- ling to hear any scientific man explain how his discoveries disagree with our Bible. We simply tell him to keep to his own business, which is to find facts and construct theories. We can settle for our- selves how the seen in Nature and the unseen in the Bible that which is apprehended by the sense, and that which is apprehended by the soul are in the eternal harmony of the One Divine and Holy Will ; or, if we cannot quite see now, we are content to wait awhile for the harmonizing. We refuse to argue any scientific question on Bible grounds.' An ever-increasing number of thoughtful persons are asking whether we have been right in our method of associating science and the Bible. What have they to do with each other? Where comes in the point of their connection ? Is it not quite possible that both the friends of science and the friends of the Bible have assumed have perhaps even forced relations which have become the occasions of needless difficulty ? ' The object of the Bible is not to teach science, but moral and spiritual truth. Scientific facts and truths may be dis- covered by the intellect and industry of man, and hence no revela- tion of them is needed. But our origin and destiny, our relations to God, the way of peace and purity, the link between the here and the hereafter the highest wisdom of man has only guessed at these things, and here comes the need that God shall speak.' The appeal of the Bible is not, primarily, to man as an intellectual being, but as a moral being. A Bible for the scientific if one had been necessary would have taken scientific form. A Bible for man as a moral being has precise adaptation to his moral condition and necessities. As an intellectual book, or set of books, the Bible reflects the science-knowledge of the age which each of its books represents. As a moral book, the Bible meets the enduring condi- tions of moral being in every age and clime. From the literary point of view it is unreasonable to expect, in any book, absolute accuracy in any other matters than those which belong 234 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. strictly to the main subject of the book. ' In history any matter of science touched upon would be only casual, and whatever scientific errors or inadvertencies might occur would not impair its value as a narrative of facts. So a treatise on mathematics would not be the less trustworthy as a guide in working out difficult problems, simply because there might be words mis-spelled, or inaccurate statements about geography.' Every book is judged by its main purpose; all else is incidental. No book was ever written that a specialist, in some other department of knowledge than that dealt with in the book, could not find fault with. But we never would allow this to subtract from the value of the book to us within its own proper lines. In our great national classic, Shakespeare's poems, there are some extraordinary errors in botany and natural history, but no one ever dreamed of undervaluing Shakespeare because of these errors. If the Bible is found to be trustworthy and efficient on its own moral and religious lines, it is a matter of comparative indifference that it should be found incorrect on matters incidentally introduced, of which it does not pretend to treat. A similar conclusion is reached by treating the subject historically. The Bible is a product of many and varying ages. Scientific know- ledge had its birth-times, and its growing times, in those ages. At first it depended on imperfect observation ; gradually observation gained some kind of scientific training ; then mere observation was aided by instruments, and the modern scientific knowledge is almost wholly the product of the telescope and the .microscope and the spectroscope, used according to the Baconian method. Books written before the invention of these instruments, and before the adoption of Bacon's method, would have been unsuitable to their age, unnatural, out of harmony with current opinion and sentiment, if they had referred in any way to such things. If they were abreast of the best knowledge of their time, we are fully satisfied with them. All we can reasonably ask of any book is, that it shall be true to eternal principles of righteousness ; and, in all variable questions, all matters in which there can be growth and advance in knowledge, that it shall be in line with the current opinion, or only just enough in advance of it to lead on the new generation. A book out of harmony with its age would be ineffective in its age ; men could do no good with it. And it should never be forgotten that the Bible had its first and immediate mission to those persons who first received it, book by book ; and the first thing we should require to recognise is, that each book was strictly adapted to the apprehension, and to the capacity, of those who first received it. MATTERS OF SCIENCE. 235 This may readily be illustrated by the poetical and figurative speech of our Bible. There is much of it for which we have to make meanings, because we know nothing of those local and tem- porary circumstances which gave point to the figures when they were written. And we can plainly see that Bible readers of the olden time would have been able to make nothing of their Bible if its figures had been taken from the exact science of these Baconian days. It is important that we should observe within what very narrow limitations scientific matters are introduced in Scripture. Apart from the apparently precise descriptions of the Creation and the Flood, we have no authoritative deliverance about any question as to which man is intellectually competent to search for himself. Side allusions there may be, casual and illustrative references there may be, but no Bible writer claims Divine authority for statements he may make that are aside of his Divine commission. Beyond the legendary chapters of Genesis, which demand a separate and distinct treatment, there is no scientific statement in the whole Word of God that is gravely dis- putable, or beyond reasonable, easy, and common-sense explanation. When we have ceased, in familiar speech, to talk of the ' sun-rising and the sun-setting,' we may begin to complain of the Bible writers expressing themselves in the line of their natural observation rather than in the line of scientific precision. Sometimes we have tried to conceive how the Bible could have been better done, so as to accord with this nineteenth-century science. But we are landed at once in hopeless difficulties. Why should the Bible accord with nineteenth- century science rather than with twelfth-century science, or fourth- century science, or twenty-fourth-century science ? Why should it be expected to fit exactly the ideas of evolutionists rather than the ideas of theurgists, or alchemists, or materialists ? If the Bible had come to us with a clear nineteenth-century science stamp upon it, its enemies would have been delighted ; they would have gladly pounced on such things, and loudly declared that they proved the Book to be a deception, for they showed its late origin. Such things could not have been known before their time. It cannot be too firmly declared that the Bible bears no necessary relation to science. It leaves it alone, and asks to be left alone by it. The Bible is this, and only this a gracious revelation of that which man supremely needs to know, as a responsible moral being, but either cannot find by personal and independent research, or is led, by his sinfulness, to confuse and misrepresent. Science deals with invariable things, of which man is only able, at any given time, 236 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. to gain a variable and imperfect apprehension. The Bible deals with invariable things, in another sphere, of which man had invariable and adequate apprehension from the first. Moral principles were re- vealed at once, and the Bible deals with their recovery from the confusion into which man has put them. Has nineteenth-century science a fair claim to the absolute con- fidence it demands ? Will the twentieth century find no corrections of even the most positive conclusions of the nineteenth ? The ancient Egyptians of the embalming days might have claimed absolute certainty for their facts. So might Aristotle. So might the Hindoo philosophers. In spite of the very strong assertions made in behalf of modern science, and with the fullest sympathy in all earnest labour for the enlargement of human knowledge, the cautious man will hold even the most positive conclusions open to correction. He will say, The healthy eye is the only eye we can assume to have the perfect vision, and we cannot be sure that every scientific observer's eye is healthy. Men find out their facts by the aid of instruments, and no absolutely perfect instrument ever yet came from human hands. No instrument was ever yet made which could not be improved. And if we have now conclusions reached by instru- ments which multiply a thousand times, how can we be sure that there will be no corrections of those observations and conclusions when the instruments multiply ten thousand times ? Scientific men must be men of faith and imagination, as well as of observation. They must trust, and work on the basis of, each other's conclusions. They must, inventively, try to find out what the things they see are like ; and so the elements of uncertainty are always present. Those they trust may not be faithful or competent. And they have no ground for positive assertion until they have not only shown what things are like, but also that they are like those things, and nothing else. If we think precisely, we shall be disposed to say that certainty belongs alone to morals ; and the results of human observation can only be in measure true, true to date, true to capacity, true to the instruments of inquiry. It is only the ' Word of God that abideth for ever.' It may be helpful to give some passages from modern Christian writers which may be regarded as supporting the general views to which expression has been given. Professor Drummond says of the record of creation : ' What we have to note is that a scientific theory of the universe formed no part MA TTERS OF SCIENCE. 2 3 7 of the original writer's intention. Dating from the childhood of the world, written for children, and for that child-spirit in man which remains unchanged by time, it takes colour and shape accordingly. Its object is purely religious, the point being, not how certain things were made, but that God made them. It is not dedicated to science, but to the soul. It is a sublime theology, given in view of ignorance, or idolatory, or polytheism, telling the worshipful youth of the world that the heavens, and the earth, and every creeping and flying thing, were made by God.' Professor Agar Beet says : ' We have no reason to expect that this record would contain anticipations of the discoveries of modern science ; and if not, its writers could hardly avoid using here and there forms of speech contradicting these later discoveries.' Professor Jowett points out that ' what is progressive is necessarily imperfect in its earlier stages, and even erring to those who come after, whether it be the maxims of a half-civilised world which are compared with those of a civilised one, or the Law with the Gospel.' ' Any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of history or of science. The same fact cannot be true and untrue, any more than the same words can have two opposite meanings. The same fact cannot be true in religion when seen by the light of faith, and untrue in science when looked at through the medium of evidence or experiment. It is ridiculous to suppose that the sun goes round the earth in the same sense in which the earth goes round the sun ; or that the world appears to have existed, but has not existed, during the vast epochs of which geology speaks to us. But if so, there is no need of elaborate reconcilements of revelation and science ; they reconcile themselves the moment any scientific truth is distinctly ascertained. As the idea of nature enlarges, the idea of revelation also enlarges ; it was a temporary misunderstanding which severed them.' Dr. Monro Gibson, in a popular address, said : ' When things in Nature are referred to in the Bible, it is in language which the people of the time could understand. There was no attempt to speak over the little heads of the people of the time to the big folks that live in the nineteenth century, and represent its glorious culture. The Bible speaks about Nature in a natural way in a way that would be natural to the people of the time ; and -that is what all sensible people do, and that is what all sensible people approve except when they are very badly off for something to say against the Bible. There is no pedantry in the Bible ; no affectation of scientific accuracy ; no attempt to anticipate modern discoveries.' \ 2*8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. help to the understanding of this reference to it as a sign ? Answer.' Rainbows are of two kinds, solar and lunar. The latter are of comparatively rare occurrence ; the former are those referred to in the Bible. The rainbow is seen when the sun is shining on rain falling in the part of the atmosphere on which the spectator's eye is fixed. When the rays strike the falling drops they are refracted as they enter them, and reflected back on the rain-cloud. On leaving the drops a second refraction of rays takes place, and the result is the rainbow. When the rain falls in considerable quantities, and the circumstances now named concur, a second bow is often seen concentric with the first, the prismatic colours in both being arranged in bands as in the solar spectrum the order, however, being reversed in the second bow. Instead of the upper edge being, as in the exterior bow, violet, it is red, and the lower edge is violet instead of red. The cloud is generally dark on which the bow appears, though this is not always the case. Rainbows have been seen when only a few light fleecy clouds were scattered over the sky, and more than once they have been observed when no clouds were perceptible.' That the rainbow is a result of universally working natural law is illustrated by the fact that they are created in miniature by the sunlight falling on the spray from a waterfall. The scientific man will refuse to admit that, at any time, or under any circum- stances, the result would fail to appear if the given conditions were found. This must be fully and freely admitted ; rainbows were always formed when sunshine in the atmosphere was reflected from falling drops of water. It is not reasonable to assume that the rainbow must have been a special creation after the Flood. Common-sense assumes what the language of the Bible narrative distinctly supports, that the existing rainbow had, from the time of the restoration of the earth, a new suggestion associated with it. Its appearance in the sky was to suggest to man God's promise, and God's faithfulness to His promise. It was specially significant because, as a natural phenomenon, it came when sunshine broke out after passing storm. Only by unnatural forcing of the Bible language can Bible authority be claimed for the idea of a readjustment of natural conditions to produce the rainbow as a new thing. THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RAINBOW. 255 This is now generally admitted, but as the error still lingers among us, it may be well to give some authoritative judgments on the subject. The helplessness of all attempts to scientifically explain the origina- tion of the rainbow in Noah's time, indicates to what straits the advo- cates of that theory are driven. We give one specimen : ' Though it had rained before the deluge, yet the superintending Providence which caused the rainbow to appear as a pledge of the assurance that He gave (that the world should never more be destroyed by water), might have prevented the concurrence of such circumstances in the time of rain as were essentially necessary for the formation of a bow. It might have rained when the sun was set, or when he was more than fifty-four degrees high, when no bow could be seen, and the rain might continue between the spectator and the sun until the clouds were expended, or in any other direction but that of an opposition to the sun.' But the existence of rain long before man is evidenced by the impressions of rain-drops found in several geological formations. And no evidence whatever can be adduced to show that atmospheric con- ditions were different in antediluvian times from what they have been since. ' The general opinion of theologians and expositors is, that the rainbow did not then appear visible for the first time, but that it was then set, or appointed, or given, as the token of the covenant.' Dr. Gumming says : ' The literal rendering is, " I do appoint My bow in the cloud ;" and the very expression shows that the rainbow must have existed prior to the Flood though it was subsequent to the Flood that it became a symbol, or sign, to denote that the world should never again be overflowed. If there were raindrops and sun- beams before the Flood, there must have been rainbows, because the rainbow is produced by the refraction of the rays of light from the drops of water which fall in a shower. But the Bible does not assert that God created the rainbow immediately after the Flood, but that He then applied it to this special use, just as He applied the twelve stones set up after the children of Israel had crossed the Jordan, as He still applies bread and wine in the Lord's supper, and water in baptism namely, old things for new uses, sacred symbols to give consolation and peace to true believers.' Bishop Home suggestively paraphrases the above passage. ' When, in the common course of things, I bring a cloud over the earth, under certain circumstances, I do set My bow in it. That bow shall be from henceforth a token of the covenant I now make with you to 256 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. drown the earth no more by a flood. Look upon it, and remember this covenant.' Prebendary Eddrup, in ' Smith's Dictionary,' says : ' The right interpretation of Gen. ix. 13 seems to be that God took the rainbow, which had hitherto been but a beautiful object shining in the heavens when the sun's rays fell on falling rain, and consecrated it as the sign of His love, and the witness of His promise.' Dean Payne Smith says : ' We may dismiss all such curious specu- lations as that no rain fell before the Flood, or that some condition was wanting necessary for producing this glorious symbol. What Noah needed was a guarantee and a memorial which, as often as rain occurred, would bring back to his thoughts the Divine promise ; and such a memorial was best taken from the natural accompaniments of rain. We may further notice, with Maimonides, that the words are not, as in our version, "I do set," but, "My bow have I set in the cloud" that is, the bow which God set in the cloud on that day of creation in which He imposed upon air and water those laws which produce this phenomenon, is now to become the sign of a solemn compact made with man by God, whereby He gives man the assur- ance that neither himself nor his works shall ever again be swept away by a flood.' The Speakers Commentary says : ' It appears at first sight as if the words of the sacred record implied that this was the first rainbow ever seen on earth. But it would be doing no violence to the sacred text to believe that the rainbow had been already a familiar sight, but that it was newly constituted the sign or token of a covenant, just as afterwards the familiar rite of baptism, and the customary use of bread and wine, were by our blessed Lord ordained to be the tokens and pledges of the New Covenant in Christ between His heavenly Father and every Christian soul.' Geikie has a very interesting note : ' The first covenant between God and man was confirmed by a sign worthy of a transaction so unique. The rainbow had glittered on the clouds for immeasurable ages before man's creation, but it was now to be adopted as a Divine pledge of goodwill to our race. Other covenants would be made with Abraham and with Moses, but they were sealed only by a per- sonal or passing pledge ; this had a perennial sign in heaven vouch- safed it. The simplicity of the language used is only equalled by its beauty. ' When I bring a cloud over the earth,' and cause it to rain, ' the bow shall be on the cloud, and I will look on it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature,' and stay the rain, ' that it become no more a flood like BALAAM THE MAGICIAN. 257 that which has just ended.' The sacredness of the rainbow has passed from this consecration into the religions and poetry of all nations. Homer tells us that Jupiter set it in the clouds for a sign. In the so-called Field of the Magi, in Persia, there may still be seen a picture cut in the rock, showing a winged boy sitting on a rainbow, and an old man before it in the attitude of prayer. The Greeks fabled Iris, who brought messages from God to man, as the rainbow. The old Scandinavians, and perhaps the Germans, fancied it a bridge built by God to link heaven and earth. But in Genesis the symbol is grandly monotheistic and spiritual. The rainbow is the pledge of friendship between God and man, the token of Divine grace and pity, the assurance of preserving care. Appearing only when the sun has finally broken through the clouds, it is, moreover, a special sign that the watery destruction which the clouds held in their bosom is already turned aside.' Balaam the Magician. NUMBERS xxii. 5 (Rev. Ver.) : ' And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him.' Difficulty. // is unreasonable to imagine that Balak would send to a Jehovah-prophet to curse Jehovah's people. Explanation. It is too hastily assumed that Balaam was a prophet of the one true God. It may even be disputed whether the common notion that Balaam came from the far East is a correct one. The Revised Version tells us that Balak sent to 'the land of the children of his people,' which implies a district where either descendants of the Moabites, or a kindred race, were settled. It would be a very strange thing for Balak to get a prophet of another religion to do his work. He would naturally seek for the best-known and most successful prophet of his own religion. And Balaam was well known, and had been so successful, that he could charge his. own price, and was not likely to act without large rewards. It should be noticed that heathen religions recognised one supreme God, and many subordinate gods, who were the manifestation and the agency of the supreme. And it was quite within their concep- tion that a prophet of one of the subordinate gods should at times be directly guided by the supreme God. It is possible that we have something of this kind in the case of Balaam. The supreme God interferes, and checks Balaam in doing what he proposed to do as the prophet of Balak's god and his own. The supreme God even 17 258 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. overmasters the prophetical gift, and compels Balaam to utter bless- ings instead of curses. This view will help to explain the confusion of Balaam's mind, and the fact that he evidently says and does throughout what was against his inclination. He was but the prophet of the true God for the nonce, and under compulsion. It is important to observe that idolatry which puts gods in the place of God is far less frequently found than idolatry which makes gods represent, and act as agents for, God. The ignorant masses limit their vision to gods, but behind every idolatrous system there is, more or less clearly discernible, the figure of the supreme and spiritual God. And that it is so is shown by the form of the com- mandment given to the Jews. They are not thought of as in danger of putting away God, but of putting something between them and Him. ' Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make any likeness,' etc. Let us see what can be known concerning the district from which Balaam came, and the god he may be supposed to have served. Dean Stanley was perhaps unconsciously led to make more of Balaam than the brief records we have of him fairly warrant. He finds in him a true prophet of God, working beyond the limits of the Jewish people. He calls him ' the Gentile prophet Balaam,' and says : ' His home is beyond the Euphrates, amongst the mountains where the vast streams of Mesopotamia have their rise. But his fame is known across the Assyrian desert, through the Arabian tribes, down to the very shores of the Dead Sea. ... In his career is seen that recognition of Divine inspiration outside the chosen people, which the narrowness of modern times has been so eager to deny, but which the Scriptures are always ready to acknowledge, and, by acknowledging, admit within the pale of the teachers of the universal Church the higher spirits of every age and of every nation.' But the only hint given us of Balaam's location is in the words of Num. xxii. 5, with which this paragraph is headed, and it is plain from it that Pethor must be looked for in some district near Moab, and not in the distant East, which would involve months of travel for Balak's messengers and for Balaam. In Num. xxiii. 7 Balaam says : ' Balak, the King of Moab, hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east.' But Aram is a term covering a vast area, and many authorities read in Num. xxii. 5, for ' children of his people,' ' children of Ammon.' Pethor has been sought in vain on the line of the Euphrates. It is placed somewhere only because it has first been settled that it BALAAM THE MAGICIAN. 259 must be there somewhere. Probably it would soon be identified if it were sought only a few days' journey from Moab in the Syrian district. Ayre suggests that it should be looked for in the neigh- bourhood of Bashan, and refers to Journal Sac. Lit., Jan., 1852, PP- 3S4-3 86 - If we may look for the home of Balaam near, comparatively, to Moab, and find his work among the Moabites and kindred neigh- bouring nations, we may fairly assume that his religion was the religion of the races among whom he worked. We know that those nations recognised Jehovah as the God of Israel, and a mighty God, and it would be no surprise to them that the God of Israel should influence the magician, and so defend His own people. Balaam is best regarded as a famous magician, like other magicians of the age. Just as the woman of Endor was overmastered by the power of God, and Samuel was brought up apart from her incanta- tions, so Balaam was surprised and mastered by Divine communica- tions such as he had never known before, and never knew again. He never had been in any sense a prophet of God, and he never became one. He belonged to the class of magicians who are fairly represented by the ' rain-makers ' of savage tribes. The story of Balaam is given as an illustration of the Divine defence of the chosen people from one of the terrors of the age. Harper, in his recent book ' The Bible and Modern Discoveries,' gathers up some very interesting information relating to the heathen character of Balaam's magical rites : ' The first station of Balaam was the hill of Baal, the sun-god ; the second that of Nebo, or Mercury ; the third, of Peor, the Priapus of Moab, who resembled the Egyptian Khem. At each site seven altars were raised, one to each of the seven planetary gods the Cabiri of Phoenicia, whose aid was invoked against the God of Israel. ' The third station evidently gave a more extensive view, and it could not have been far from the other two stations. Such a ridge we find immediately south of that of Bamoth-Baal, in the narrow spur that runs out to Minyeh. The very name at once suggests a connection with Peor, for it means luck or desire, and is intimately connected with that of Meni, or Venus, the proper wife of Peor ; while a legend of a magic well, springing from the spear of 'Aly, attaches to the spot. ' It was, therefore, a most interesting discovery to find, on the very edge of the cliff of Minyeh, a line of seven monuments of large stones, concerning which the Arabs have no traditions, only that they are very ancient. In each case a circle has existed, with a 172 260 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. central cubical stone, such as the ancient Arabs used to consecrate to their chief female divinity, and each had originally a little court or enclosure on the east, where the worshipper stood with his face to the west, the proper quarter of Hathor (or Venus) in Egypt, the home of the evening aurora seen behind the mountains of Judah. ' Cairns of huge size, stone circles, huge upright standing stones, are found in many places ; but in this region they abound, and their position points to the fact that here, where Balaam was brought by Balak, was the very centre of the heathen worship. Some circles are 100 yards in diameter. Of the upright stones, called menhirs, the most important group was found by the " Palestine explorers" at El Mareighat, then a square enclosure, an inner circle, a central group on the top of the knoll, and alignments on the west. The Arabs call them " the smeared stones," and there is little doubt that they were originally the objects of pagan worship once anointed with oil, or smeared with blood. There is no evidence to connect any of them with places of sepulture. The main object of their erection seemed always to be the construction of a flat table, ar- ranged with a slight tilt in the direction of its length. They are nearly always near streams of water always in places where good views are to be got. Cup-hollows are in the tables, or top-stone. Sometimes channels are cut from the cup-hollow, all irresistibly giving evidence that some sort of libation was poured on the stone. ' It may seem a bold suggestion, but there appears nothing ex- travagant in the idea, that the altars erected by Balaam, or some of them, are these very altars found by the exploring party.' Soothsayers. ISAIAH ii. 6 : ' And are soothsayers like the Philistines.' Question. How are soothsayers distinguished from diviners gener- ally ? Answer. It may be questioned whether the term ' soothsayer ' is to be regarded as referring to any exclusive magical methods. The word Gazerim, if it is connected with the word Kazir of the Assyrian inscriptions, should mean men who collected the laws on astrological phenomena and portents, and pronounced upon them. Some trans- late Gazerim as ' deciders,' and think the term refers to those who cast nativities, and by various modes of computing foretell the fortunes of men. SO O THSA YERS. 2 6 1 Delitzsch renders the word ' soothsayers ' ' cloud-makers,' which suggests the common name of sorcerers in savage tribes, ' rain-makers.' Cheyne renders, ' diviners of the clouds,' and reminds us that the clouds, both of the day and night, were studied by the Chaldsean diviners. From i Sam. vi. 2, we learn that the Philistines had a recognised order of diviners, and a famous oracle at Ekron. Dean Phimptre has a suggestive note on this verse : ' " Sooth- sayers," literally, cloud-diviners. The word points to the claim of being " storm-raisers," which has been in all ages one of the boasts of sorcerers. The conquests of Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 6) had brought Judah into contact with the Philistines, and the oracles at Ekron and elsewhere (2 Kings i. 2) attracted the people of Judah. There was, as it were, a mania for divination, and the diviners of Philistia found imitators among the people of Jehovah.' Woolwrych gives the derivation of soothsayer as in first English soth-bora (truth-bearer). He says, soth-cwithe is an oracle ; s0(A-saga } history. Sooth is common in Chaucer for truth, and opposed to false. As used in Scripture it denotes a class of men who decided nativities, observed clouds, and divined by means of cups or rods. The word suggests at least the pretension of telling the truth (sooth) to a man ; the truth, that is, about his future. Jehovah's People casting * Lots.' JOSHUA xviii. 6 : ' And ye shall describe the land into seven portions, and bring the description hither to me : and I will cast lots for you here before the Lord our God.' Difficulty. It is not easy to see a sufficient reason for apportioning by lot, when the inspiration of God might have led Joshua to make satisfactory divisions. Explanation. The plan was evidently adopted in order to secure the aid of the people in the apportionment, and to convince them that everything was perfectly fair and straightforward. The disposal was, even by the system of lot, left absolutely in the hand of God ; but if every man felt that he had his chance, all heart- burnings and jealousies were prevented. If the apportionments had been made through Joshua, the people who were discontented with their portions would be sure to say that they were made by Joshua, and that he had shown favouritism. It is true that deciding by lot is common under heathen and pagan systems ; but in these cases everything is left to chance. In the case 262 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. of the Israelites the will of the living Lord was simply made known through this particular agency, instead of by the words of Joshua. The lot was, for Israel, an acted expression of the will of Jehovah. Then it should be noticed that the people did not cast lots for themselves Joshua cast lots for them ; and he did it in a solemn manner before the symbols of the Divine presence. When we notice similarities between heathen customs and Jewish, we should be very keen to observe the differences, because these may effectively remove the evils of the custom. The custom of deciding doubtful questions by lot is one of great extent and high antiquity, recommending itself as a sort of appeal to the Almighty, secure from all influence of passion or bias, and is a sort of divination employed even by the gods themselves. It may fairly be used still when a question cannot be decided absolutely on its merits, but feeling is sure to bias the judgment. The Speaker's Commentary makes suggestions as to the ways in which the lot was taken by Joshua. On such a matter there can be no more than conjecture. ' Perhaps two urns were employed, one containing a description of the several districts to be allotted, the other the names of the tribes ; and the portion of each tribe would then be determined by a simultaneous drawing from the two urns. Or a drawing might be made by some appointed person, or by a delegate of each tribe from one urn containing the descriptions of the ten inheritances.' In whatever way it was taken, the lot would be appealed to as finally deciding the matter, and foreclosing jealousies and disputes. \ The Pillar of Cloud and Fire. EXODUS xiii. 21 :' And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way ; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light ; that they might go by day and by night.' Question. Is it possible to suggest, with any confidence, the form and appearance of this 'pillar ' ? Answer. A column of smoke rising from a desert fire may properly be spoken of as a pillar. Such a pillar of smoke during the day would look dark like a cloud, but at night it would be bright, lighted up by the glow of the fire in it. We are to imagine, then, such a pillar of smoke rising perpendicularly from some point in the camp, probably Moses' tent. It manifestly differed from any bank of cloud in the sky, as clouds lie parallel with the earth, and this pillar stood between earth and sky. The wonder of it lay in its being smoke from no fire, and at night a bright appearance, though there THE PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE. 263 was no blaze to send its glow into it. When the tabernacle was erected, and the Shekinah glory rested on the mercy-seat, the pillar of cloud and fire gained its full associations, which, previously, could only have been suggested and anticipated. Eastern caravans and armies are still, in many cases, guided by signals of fire and smoke, which take their place at the front of the march. Some illustrations have been collected. Alexander the Great had a huge cresset set up on a tall pole over his tent as a signal for departure, seen far off by all, by its light in darkness and its smoke by day. Seetzen quotes from an old Arab MS. the fact that the caliphs used fire to send news swiftly the brightness serving this end by night and the smoke by day. The vast pilgrim caravans to Mecca guide themselves in a similar way. An Egyptian general, in an ancient inscription, is compared to a flame streaming in advance of an army, and this is repeated in an old papyrus. It has been said of the Hebrews : ' Their march was guided by Jehovah Himself, who, from the commencement of their journey to their entrance into Canaan, displayed His banner, the Shekinah, in their van.' Dr.J. Macgregor says : ' In that region a military chief, by way of banner, may have a column of smoke, rising from a fire which is carried on a brazier for the purpose. In the pure atmosphere it can be seen from a great distance, so that by means of it he may lead a population spreading wide over the whole region. The same fire, maintained through the night, will still have in it the authoritative guidance, because the flame shows through the darkness, as smoke shows through the clear sky. An expression of Quintus Curtius, in his " Life of Alexander the Great," has been noted on account of its resemblance to the description in the above passage " Observabatur ignis noctu fumus interdiu " " They kept their eye upon the fire by night, and upon the smoke by day." ' The Speakers Commentary adds a point or two of interest : ' The Lord Himself did for the Israelites by preternatural means that which armies were obliged to do for themselves by natural agents. Passages are quoted from classical writers which show that the Persians and Greeks used fire and smoke as signals in their marches. Vegetius and Frontinus mention it as a general custom, especially among the Arabians. The success of some important expeditions, as of Thrasybulus and Timoleon, was attributed by popular supersti- tion to a Divine light guiding the leaders. To these well-known instances may be added two of peculiar interest, as bearing witness to a custom known to all the contemporaries of Moses. In an in- 264 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. scription of the Ancient Empire an Egyptian general is compared to " a flame streaming in advance of an army." Thus, too, in a well- known papyrus, the commander of an expedition is called " a flame in the darkness at the head of his soldiers." By this sign, then, of the pillar of cloud, the Lord showed Himself as their leader and general.' Canon Rmvlinson says : ' From Succoth certainly, probably from Rameses, God moved in front of the host in the form of a pillar, which had the appearance of smoke by day and of fire by night. The Israelites marched, it is implied, some part of each day and some part of each night, which would be in accordance with modern prac- tice, and is an arrangement introduced to get the march accomplished before the sun attains its full power. The pillar was at once a signal and a guide.' Fighting Stars. JUDGES v. 20 : ' They fought from heaven ; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.' Difficulty. Accepting this as a poetical figure, there must, never- theless, have been some astrological notions on which it was based. Explanation. It will be well to inquire first what historical facts are thus poetically represented. It is not possible to improve on Dean Stanley's vigorous and suggestive description of the defeat of Sisera. The final encampment of the Canaanitish army 'was beside the numerous rivulets which, descending from the hills of Megiddo into the Kishon, as it flows in a broader stream through the cornfields below, may well have been known as " the waters of Megiddo." It was at this critical moment that (as we learn directly from Josephus, and indirectly from the song of Deborah) a tremendous storm of sleet and hail gathered from the East and burst over the plain, driving full in the faces of the advancing Canaanites. " The stars in their courses fought against Sisera." As in like case in the battle of Cressy, the slingers and the archers were disabled by the rain, the swordsmen were crippled by the biting cold. The Israelites, on the other hand, having the storm on their rear, were less troubled by it, and derived confidence from the consciousness of this Provi- dential aid. The confusion became great. The "rain descended," the four rivulets of Megiddo were swelled into powerful streams, the torrent of the Kishon rose into a flood, the plain became a morass. The chariots and the horses, which should have gained the day for the Canaanites, turned against them. They became entangled in the swamp ; the torrent of Kishon the torrent famous through former FIGHTING STARS. 265 ages swept them away in its furious eddies ; and in that wild con- fusion "the strength" of the Canaanites "was trodden down," and " the horsehoofs stamped and struggled by the means of the plungings and plungings of the mighty chiefs " in the quaking morass and the rising streams. Far and wide the vast army fled, far through the eastern branch of the plain by Endor. There, between Tabor and the Little Hermon, a carnage took place, long remembered, in which the corpses lay fattening the ground' (Psa. Ixxxiii. 10). As a poetical figure of this storm, the above passage receives illus- tration from a sentence of ^Eschylus, who represents ' water and fire in ruin reconciled,' as fighting against the Grecian fleet. It is helpful to form an estimate of the poetical characteristics of Deborah's Song, of which this striking sentence forms a part. ' Her strains are bold, varied, and sublime ; she is everywhere full of abrupt and impas- sioned appeals and personifications ; she bursts away from earth to heaven, and again returns to human things. She touches now upon the present, now dwells upon the past, and closes at length with the grand promise and result of all prophecy, and of all the dealings of God's providence, that the wicked shall be overthrown, while the righteous shall ever triumph in Jehovah's name.' To such an exalted poetical genius such a figure as that of stars fighting would not appear extravagant. But the figure rests on curious notions of the relations of the stars to clouds and storms. Our notions of the immense distances of the stars had not then been reached. Stars and clouds, being both in the visible heavens, were thought to be connected, and it was easy to imagine the movements of the stars being the cause of the storms. But there must have been a very general idea that the stars were directly concerned with the events of earth. The stars had come to be thought of as in some mysterious way the rulers of men's lives. This common astrological notion may be thought of as giving shape to the expressions of the poet, but we need not go so far as from a poetical expression to infer the religious belief of the poetess. If an astrological basis for the figure can be recognised, importance will be felt to attach to a note given by Stanley, who says : ' I have taken verse 20 as it is usually rendered, as if "against." But the ambiguity of the original " with," combined with the repetition of the word " fought" from the previous verses, suggests the possibility that what is meant is the contrast between the fighting of the stars for Sisera, and the flood of the Kishon against him.' Following this hint, we get quite a new explanation. Deborah may be satirizing the dependence of Sisera on his omens and oracles. Generals and kings 266 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. consulted the astrologers and the star-gazers before entering on their expeditions ; and, no doubt, they had encouraged Sisera. Neverthe- less, God fought for Israel, and conquered the army for which, according to the notions of the times, even the stars were fighting. Bertheau, Bachmann, and others, take the figure as simply expres- sive of Divine assistance. ' Filled with the thoughts of God's wonderful aid, and venturing under the impulses of a bold enthusiasm to give definite representation of His distinctly recognised yet mys- terious work on earth and in the midst of men, it is to her as if the heavens, the eternal dwelling-place of the holy God, had bowed themselves down to earth, or to use the language of the text as if the stars, forsaking their usual orbits, had fought against Sisera. See the language of Psalm xviii.' Lange says what we cannot fully follow : ' Consistently with Israelitish conceptions, the help of the stars can only be understood of their shining.' Ewald is somewhat vague : ' Then ensued a concussion whose violence and decisive force could not be better depicted than by the figure in the song. For it might indeed well appear as if only supernal, heavenly powers could thus put to flight one who possessed the prestige of victory, and led such vast forces to battle.' An ingenious explanation has been given by an English clergyman. The season was probably that of the autumn storms, which occur early in November. At this time meteoric showers are commonest, and are remarkably fine in effect seen in the eveninglight at a season when the air is specially clear and bright. The scene presented by the falling fiery stars, as the defeated host fled away by night, is one very striking to the fancy, and it would form a fine subject for an artist's pencil. (From C. R. Conder.} Making Arrows Bright. EZKKIEL xxi. 21 : ' For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination : he made his arrows bright, he con- sulted with images, he looked in the liver.' Rev. Ver. : ' He shook the arrows to and fro.' Question. Can the methods of ancient divination be known ? Answer. No real importance attaches to this subject ; it can have only an archaeological interest. A student of human nature may be anxious to know the various constitutions that are easily deluded, and the variety of forms that delusion may take ; but no Scriptural importance attaches to such inquiries. The above passage has been variously translated or paraphrased. MAKING ARROWS BRIGHT. 267 Geikies translation is suggestive : ' For the King of Babylon stands at the parting of the roads, at the head of the two ways, to use divination as to which he should take. He shakes in a quiver the two arrows, marked Ammon and Jerusalem, to see which will be drawn out first by one blindfolded ; he consults his idols ; he looks at the liver of the sacrifices. In his right hand the fortunate one is already the arrow marked " Jerusalem," which has been drawn by him from the quiver.' Geikie says of this shaking the arrows : ' It was a common form of divination among the heathen Arabs.' The Speaker's Commentary tells us that ' Pocock describes it at length. Before undertaking a journey, marrying a wife, and entering upon any important business, it was usual to place in some vessel three arrows, on one of which was written, " My God orders me ;" on the other, " My God forbids me ;" on the third was no inscrip- tion. These three arrows were shaken together until one came out ; if it was the first, the thing was to be done ; if the second, it was to be avoided ; if the third, the arrows were again shaken together, until one of the arrows bearing a decided answer should come forth. The method of obtaining an omen by shaking lots together in a helmet was familiar to the ancient Greeks.' Divination by shooting arrows was very common. Many were shot, and the march of an army was prosecuted in the direction in which the greatest number fell. Or the arrows were marked with the names of devoted cities, and that was first attacked the name of which was first drawn. Divination by rods was practised in this manner : The staff was placed upright, and then allowed to fall, and the decision of the course of an army, etc., was according as the staff fell. The different systems are detailed in Cicero's treatise, ' De Divina- tione.' Generally they were divided into the following branches : aeromancy, or divination by the air ; astrology, by the heavens ; augury, by birds, etc. ; arithnomancy, by numbers ; capnomancy, by the smoke of sacrifices ; cheiromancy, by the lines on the palms of the hands ; geomancy, by observing cracks or clefts in the earth ; haruspicy, by inspecting the bowels of animals ; horoscopy, marking the position of the heavens when a person is born ; hydromancy, by water ; and pyromancy, by fire. 268 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Consulters of Familiar Spirits. DEUTERONOMY xviii. II : ' Or a consulter with a familiar spirit.' R.V. Difficulty. Such a description, made without qualification, suggests the belief of the age that there were ' familiar spirits? Explanation. That undoubtedly was the common belief of ancient times. Such persons as we now call ' mediums ' would, in former ages, be regarded as being possessed and used by some spirit. Indeed, the spiritualist notions of modern times are but a reproduc- tion, with marked characteristics for this age, of the old-world notions. ' Magic, as a science, was supposed to depend on the influence of evil spirits, or the spirits of the dead. In early times all who engaged in the study of natural phenomena were accounted magicians, the term being thus used in a good sense, nearly equivalent to the word philosophers. Magic has been divided into natural, which consists in the application of natural causes to produce wonderful phenomena ; planetary, which assigns either to the planets, or to spirits residing in them, an influence over the affairs of men ; and diabolical, which invokes the aid of demons to accomplish supernatural effects. Our translation ' familiar spirit ' embodies the superstition of the Middle Ages, that demons attended on favoured persons. Some- times the name was applied to the person considered as instructed and inspired by the demon. Possibly persons are meant who, by means of ventriloquism, pre- tended to converse with their ' familiars,' and to receive audible responses from them. ' Even the wise Socrates laid claim to the aid of some such spirit.' Dr. Ginsburg says : ' This phrase represents the single word oboth in the original, and the translators of our Authorised Version, by adopting it, implied that those who practised this craft were supposed to be attended by an invisible spirit who was subject to their call to supply them with supernatural information. According to the authorities during the second Temple, it denotes one who has a spirit speaking from under his armholes, or chest, with a hollow voice, as if it came out of a bottle, which is the meaning of ob in Job xxxii. 1 9. They identified it with the spirit of Python, by which the ancient Chaldee Version renders it.' When we remember the hold which popular superstitions have even in these modern scientific days, and the trick of personifying every- thing which is a marked characteristic of imaginative and unscientific O UTMOST PAR TS OF HE A VEN. 269 times, we cannot wonder that the claim of the magicians to work by the agencies of ' familiar spirits ' was so generally recognised. We need not admit that there was any truth in their claims ; as scientific explanations can be given of all their characteristic features and devices. We may regard them as having been in part deceivers, and in part self-deceived. Outmost Parts of Heaven. DEUTERONOMY xxx. 4 : ' If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven.' Question. On what notion of the shape of the earth is this figure based 1 Answer. The Revised Version renders this sentence thus : ' If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven.' Nehemiah, recalling this sentence in his prayer, gives it thus : ' Though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven ' (Neh. i. 9). And our Lord used a similar expression (Matt xxiv. 31), ' From the one end of heaven to the other.' The words are to be regarded as poetical, but poetical figures depend on received notions and sentiments ; they would not be effective for their age if they did not embody the commonly-received ideas of their age. Until men's mere observations could be scientifi- cally corrected, there can be no doubt that they looked upon the earth as a level plane, and the blue sky as a solid arch, the horizon being the place where this arch touched the earth. That is the first notion of a child still, and that must have been the notion of the child-ages. From this point of view, the ' outmost parts of heaven ' would be the parts nearest to the horizon edge. It has further to be noticed that, in later times, Palestine was con- ceived to be the centre of the earth, and centre of the sky-dome. The ' outmost parts ' were, therefore, the outer rim of the circle of which Palestine was the centre, so it expressed the idea of ' uttermost distance.' ' The word rdkia in Genesis, which we translate " firmament," properly signifies solid surface, and the Jews imagine the blue of the sky to be solid.' ' The earth was, to the Jews, as to the whole ancient world, the centre of the universe, and all the stars revolved around that immovable centre.' Dr. Staffer gives a careful view of the ideas entertained in the time of Christ, but it does not seem possible to recover, with pre- cision, the views of the Hebrews of the time of Moses. The later 2 yo HA NDB O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. views, however, suggest the earlier. He says : ' The Jew looks upon the earth as a circular plane. God is seated above this plane, the circumference of which had been originally traced by Him on the abyss. The four cardinal points are called the ends of the heavens. Jerusalem is in the centre of this round flat disc which forms the earth. The surface of this plane is divided into two parts the land of Israel, and that which is not the land of Israel. . . . The land of Israel was in the centre of the disc, surrounded on all sides by the world. At the edge of the disc was the sea, the great sea upon which no one had yet ventured far. It encircled the round plane, and as it washed the shores of pagan countries, these were sometimes called "the region of the sea." Rabbi Solomon said!": "All the outer region is called the region of the sea, with the exception of Babylon " ; and Rabbi Nissim says : " It is imperative to call all that is outside the land of Israel the region of the sea." It is impos- sible to say what idea the Jew had of the size of the disc of the earth It is evident that the geography of the Jews was like that of other ancient nations. It had no surer basis than the direct testimony of the senses and childish observation.' Ueberweg reminds us that ' Philosophy as science could originate neither among the peoples of the north, who were eminent for strength and courage, but devoid of culture ; nor among the Orientals, who, though susceptible of the elentents of higher culture, were content simply to retain them in a spirit of passive resignation ; but only among the Hellenes (Greek races), who harmoniously com- bined the characteristics of both. The Romans, devoted to practical, and particularly to political, problems, scarcely occupied themselves with philosophy except in the appropriation of Hellenic ideas, and scarcely attained to any productive originality of their own. The so-called philosophy of the Orientals lacks in the tendency to strict demonstration, and hence in scientific character. Whatever philo- sophical elements are discoverable among them are so blended with religious notions, that a separate exposition is scarcely possible.' As an illustration of the way in which the book of an age reflects the current notions of the age in which it was written, reference may be made to the Book of Enoch. ' The writer is evidently under the influence of Greek mythology. Moreover, he mixes up imagination and reality, and so completely confounds his individual fancies with the geographical notions of his contemporaries, that it is impossible to separate them. He is fascinated with the number seven, and speaks of seven great rivers which water the earth. The earth itself COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH DREAMS. 271 is composed of seven islands that have arisen out of the heart of the sea. He thinks the sun sets each evening in an ocean of fare in which are the dead.' The movements of the sun and moon, and also of the stars, must have been a constant source of wonder in early times. How the sun could get from one side of the sky-dome to the other during each night must have sorely puzzled them. They could only imagine and invent extraordinary solutions of what was a hopeless problem until a proper conception of the solar system had been arrived at. Communications through Dreams. i KINGS iii. 5 : ' In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night.' Difficulty. The mediums of Divine communication with men vary greatly, and there seems to be no rule guiding the selection of a medium in any particular case. Explanation. Certainly the principles on which God has selected His methods of communication with men have never been discovered. There appears, however, to be some good ground for the suggestion that dreams were the agencies preferred in the case of individuals outside the Jewish covenant, or of individuals removed from the ordinary Jewish relationships. We should recognise estab- lished modes of communication, through Urim and through prophets, and also special modes of communication, which were by vision or dream, the line of demarcation between these two modes being very difficult to trace. Possibly we may understand vision as belonging to the day-time, and dream as belonging to the night-time. In either case the man sees and hears what has no corresponding material form and substance, so he receives it as a Divine, a spiritual, com- munication. A study of this difficulty will be aided by an examination of the cases of dream-revelation recorded in the Sacred Word : Abime- lech, Gen. xx. 3-7 ; Laban, Gen. xxxi. 24 ; Pharaoh's butler and baker, Gen. xl. 5-19 ; Pharaoh, Gen. xli. 1-7 ; Midianite, Judg. vii. 13-15; Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. ii. i, 31; iv. 5, 8; Wise Men, Matt. ii. ii, 12 ; Pilate's wife, Matt, xxvii. 19. All these are cases outside the Hebrew covenant. Cases which must be more or less clearly regarded as within the Jewish covenant are the following: Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 12; Gen. xxxi. 10 ; his son Joseph, Gen. xxxvii. 5-9 ; Solomon, i Kings 272 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Hi. 5-15 ; Daniel, ch. vii. ; Joseph, the reputed father of our Lord, Matt. i. 20, 21 ; ii. 13, 19, 20. If we regard dreams as being the ordinary operation of the mind severed from the control of the will, we can readily understand how God can take the place of the sleeping will, and guide the selec- tions and adjustments of the things brought up by the mind so as to convey His will to men. That God has done this leaves it open to say that it may please Him to do this still. But we should ever keep in mind that this is the time of ' the ministration of the Spirit,' and as God is now pleased to guide our thoughts, He does not need to fashion our dreams. ' In an early and simple age of the world dreams were held in high account, as giving clear and trustworthy intimations of coming events, it being thought, as Homer says, that they were from Jupiter. Hence, in Scripture great events are made to turn on dreams, and their interpretation. Before superstition had begun to abuse the best things and debase the purest, dreams may have been no unsuitable medium of communication between God and man.' It is probably true, as has been said, that ' dreams, as means of revelation, are almost always referred to the periods in which God's servants had but the earliest and most imperfect knowledge of Him.' The selection of this mode of communication in the case of Solomon suggests that he was officially, rather than personally, godly. Heavenly Bodies as Figures of Earthly Calamities. ISAIAH xiii. 10 : ' For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light ; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.' Question. Will astrological notions explain these figures ? Answer. They depend rather on popular superstitions and alarms than on astrological ideas. Eclipses of sun and moon, con- junctions of stars, and what are known as ' falling stars,' created the greatest excitement and fear, as indeed they do still in heathen lands. It became, therefore, an easy thing to use these heavenly signs as indicative of commotions and troubles among the nations. Bishop Wordsworth says : ' Such descriptions as these betoken a state of national confusion and panic like that which would be caused by the darkening of the heavenly bodies, to the contempla- tion of which the Babylonians were addicted for purposes of divina- tion.' Henderson, writing on this verse, says : ' A fine specimen of the HE A VENL Y B ODIES. 2 7 3 figurative manner in which the Hebrew prophets depict the horrors of national calamity. The metaphors of light and darkness to express prosperity and adversity are quite common ; but when the effect is to be heightened, the writer represents the sources of light as being themselves affected, and their splendour as either increased or com- pletely obscured.' The Chaldaeans early marked out the heavens into groups or con- stellations. The word translated ' constellations ' in this text is, literally, ' the Orions,' that is, Orion and similar constellations, or remarkable groups of fixed stars. In the Persian mythology Orion is Nimrod, the founder of Babel, who was translated from earth to the position which he now occupies in the starry heavens. A similar belief appears to have been popular among other ancient nations. The name by which the Arabs designate this constellation is ' the Giant ' (Gen. x. 8, 9). They also give him Sirius as a dog for his companion, which furnishes another point of coincidence with the Scripture account of Nimrod's favourite pursuit. Clericus distinctly connects this verse with Babylonian astrology and even astrolatry (star-idolatry) ; he translates thus : ' The stars of heaven which are even their confidence.' Malvenda also supposes a special allusion to the astrological belief and practice of the Baby- lonians. Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis understand the image here presented to be that of a terrific storm, veiling the heavens and con- cealing its luminaries. But this is too prosaic. On the similar figures as used by our Lord (Matt. xxiv. 29), Dean Plumptre remarks : ' The words reproduce the imagery in which Isaiah had described the day of the Lord's judgment upon Babylon, and may naturally receive the same symbolic interpretation. Our Lord speaks here in language as essentially apocalyptic as that of the Revelation of St. John (Rev. viii. 12), and it lies in the very nature of such language that it precludes a literal interpretation. Even the common speech of men describes a time of tribulation as one in which the " skies are dark " and " the sun of a nation's glory sets in gloom " ; and the language of Isaiah, of St. John, and of our Lord, is but the expansion of that familiar parable. Sun, moon, and stars may represent, as many have thought, kingly power, and the spiritual influence of which the Church of Christ is the embodiment, and the illuminating power of those who " shine as lights in the world " (Phil. ii. 15); but even this interpretation is, it may be, over-precise and technical, and the words are better left in their dim and terrible vagueness.' There is a largeness, unrestrainedness, almost unnaturalness (at 18 274 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. least, from our points of view) in Eastern metaphor, which makes the figurative element in Scripture very difficult for us to deal with. Dr. E. Stapfer well illustrates the extravagant notions of Messianic times which prevailed in the ancient Jewish nation, and intense and exaggerated figures and metaphors precisely suited the prevailing moods. ' The people looked forward with dread to the coming of the Messianic era. They were afraid of seeing the wars of Gog and Magog which the scribes predicted as its precursor. All looked for fearful calamities. Rabbi Eliezer ben Abena said : " When ye shall see nations rising up one against the other, then look for Messiah to follow ; and ye may know that this is true by this token -that the same thing was done in the days of Abraham, for then the nations rose up against one another, and there came a Redeemer for Abraham. In the week of years in which the Son of David shall come there will be in the first year abundance of rain upon one city and drought upon another. In the second year the arrows of famine will go abroad. In the third there will be a great famine, and men, women, and children will die, as well as the saints and the rich ; and there will be a judgment of forgetfulness upon those that study the law. In the fourth year there will be abundance for some and barrenness for others. In the fifth year a great abundance ; and they shall eat, drink, and rejoice, and the law shall be again held in honour among those who teach it. In the sixth year voices will be heard. In the seventh year wars will break out, and at the end of the seventh year the Son of David will appear." The Jewish poet excels in describing the windy storm and tempest ; he scarcely glances at Nature under any other aspect. The contemporaries of Christ portrayed in eloquent language the coming in of the Messianic era, but always under one aspect, speaking of the elements being dissolved, the stars falling, the earth being burnt up.' As a specimen of the writing of these times the Book of Enoch may be mentioned. ' The style of this work is extravagant to a degree. All the images are exaggerated. Every- thing is on a grander scale than nature.' Seeking the Seer. i SAMUEL ix. 6 : ' Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is a man that is held in honour ; and all that he saith cometh surely to pass : now let us go thither ; peradventure he can tell us concerning our journey whereon we go.' Difficulty. // is strange thus to find Samuel only known as an Oracle. Explanation. This difficulty is increased when we realize that the home of Saul was at no great distance from the usual abode of SEEKING THE SEER. 275 Samuel. Possibly we have here only an illustration of the familiar proverb, ' A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.' Samuel may have been well known throughout the land, and yet very imperfectly known and estimated by his actual neigh- bours. But explanation may be suggested along another line. The servant does not give a full account of Samuel to his young master, he only deals with the precise matter that is before him. The minds of the two men were concerned about the lost asses, and they were not, then, specially interested in Samuel the Judge or Samuel the Re- former ; they wanted a seer, a man gifted with what we call ' second sight,' who should direct their way. To this one point the servant directs the attention of the master. Two other points need consideration. Young Saul was evidently a big, clumsy, yet handsome, slow-minded young man, not in the least likely to trouble himself about the work and influence of Samuel. And, moreover, the events which had brought Samuel into public prominence had occurred years before, and had passed almost out of memory. The young generation only vaguely knew about the prophet-judge. There had been no miraculous, or even specially remarkable, features about his teaching or his magistracy for many years. He had become one of the regular institutions of the country. Kirkpatrick supports these views. ' It seems strange that Saul apparently knows nothing about Samuel. But the days of Samuel's greatest activity were long past, and he had for some time been living in comparative retirement, while " up to this point Saul had been only the shy and retiring youth of the family, employed in the common work of the farm," and knowing little of the political or religious movements of the time.' The gifts of the 'seer' may be, or may not be, what we understand by miraculous. There is abundant evidence that some men and women are entrusted in a natural way with the gift of ' second sight.' And this may have been, in the case of Samuel, the agency which God was pleased to use in a direct way as the medium by which He communicated His will. The language of the servant certainly suggests that he only regarded Samuel as a seer among seers, but a seer who had an established and honourable reputation. There are mysteries of mind ; special senses given to some men, and peculiar powers, and sensitivenesses, characteristic of some men, which must be much better understood before we can rightly judge between the miraculous and the non-miraculous in any given case. The opinion 1 8 2 276 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. of the servant is only interesting as an indication of public sentiment. What he thought of Samuel does not decide for us what Samuel was. Geikic. has an interesting passage on the ideas of the age concern- ing Oracles and Prophets. ' The prophet is essentially an appear- ance peculiar to early ages, and to the simple state of society before the fulness of revelation has yet been made known. The ancient world at large was marked by its eager efforts to penetrate the secrets of the higher powers which control human destiny. Nothing impor- tant was undertaken either in public or private life without inquiring the will of the gods through seers, diviners, augurs, oracles, or prophets, who claimed ability to satisfy this craving. But there was a signal difference between the representatives of the heathen gods and those of Jehovah. To the former the indications of the divine will were read in the phenomena and occurrences of outer nature and of the animal world ; in the whispering of the oak leaves of Dodona, in the flight of birds, in the motions of the entrails of a sacrifice, in the sounds of birds or beasts, or in their unexpected appearances. But in the true religion this noble instinct was met only by communi- cations made from the unseen God through the spirit of man, His image on earth.' IV. J. Deane, after referring to Saul's proposal, on the third day, that they should return home, says : ' The servant, however, con- sidered that there was still one chance left of recovering the lost animals. They might consult a wise man, and ask his advice. Just before them rose the hill of Ramathaim-Zophim, and the attendant opportunely remembered that in that city dwelt a man of God, highly honoured and respected, and one whose statements always proved true ; he suggested that they should have recourse to him before giving up the quest as hopeless. He does not speak as if he had known Samuel by name, and Saul seems to be equally ignorant. One calls him the "man of God," and the other the "seer." The fact, if fact it were, would be most perplexing. Gibeah was not very far distant from Ramah ; and that Samuel, the eminent prophet, and the chief ruler of Israel, should have been unknown by name to Saul and his domestic is quite incredible. That they had never met before is plain from what happened subsequently, when Saul speaks to him as to a stranger, and inquires the way to the seer's house (i Sam. ix. 1 8) ; but how are we to account for this apparent ignor- ance? Probably the personal name was almost forgotten in the office, and it was by this title he was generally known, the people near Ramah calling him " the seer," the Benjamites referring to him SEEKING THE SEER. 277 as the "man of God." Another alternative is, that the dialogue between Saul and his servant is imaginary, founded upon the facts which came afterwards into prominence, and not to be taken as literally occurring. ... It is as a " wise man " that the attendant wishes to consult Samuel as one who, by his more than human knowledge, might direct them in their perplexity. ... It would appear that it was no new thing to resort to seers for consultation in private affairs, and that it was customary to offer a present on such occasions. Whether the practice led to chicanery, and whether there was at this time a class of pretended soothsayers, cannot be decided. Saul could hardly have placed Samuel in any such category, though he is willing to appeal to him on a business which any mere sooth- sayer might have decided.' SUB-SECTION II. DIFFICULTIES RELATED TO MEDICAL SCIENCE. An Incurable Disease. 2 CHRONICLES xxi. 18 : 'And after all this the Lord smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease.' Question. Can this disease be identified and described! Was it absolutely incurable, or only incurable by the medical skill and science of that day ? Answer. The British Medical Journal had an article on Ancient Medical Art, from which a few extracts are taken, in order to prepare for a consideration of these questions. ' Medical art was, among the Hebrews, practised from early times by a special profession the Ropheim and is already mentioned in the ancient Book of the Covenant, which embodies the oldest fundamental laws (Exod. xxi. 19). They may possibly have derived much of their knowledge from the Egyptians, famous for their discovery of remedies from remote ages, and for their medical skill generally; and during their sojourn in Egypt they had Hebrew midwives (Exod. i. 15-20). Their art seems, for the most part, to have been limited to surgery and the cure of external injuries (comp. Isa. i. 6 ; Ezek. xxx. 2152 Kings viii. 29 ; ix. 15) ; but the physicians, many of whom belonged to the prophetic order (2 Kings iv. 33-36; v. 10; viii. 7 ; xx. 7; Isa. xxxviii. 21), enjoyed great respect and confidence, and were very generally 278 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. employed, especially after the time of the exile, when even the smaller towns had their medical practitioners (Jer. viii. 22; Sirach xxxviii. 1-15, a remarkable passage; Joseph., Vita, 72, etc.), though the priestly Book of Chronicles severely blames King Asa for " not having consulted God, but the physicians" (2 Chron. xvi. 12). In later times the priests and Levites, who officiated barefooted at the Temple, had a special physician (" medicus viscerum ") to cure the colds to which they were liable ; the Essenes particularly were cele- brated for their knowledge of medicine and the natural sciences.' It has been explained that ' the art with the Israelites was only in its infancy. Individual observations and scattered experiences formed its substance ; there was neither the induction of instances, nor the power of mind requisite to form an art. Medical skill was restricted to the external handling of serious bodily injuries, and to the know- ledge of certain simples, of whose nature and working only a rough and vague idea was held. Chance sometimes threw better means in the way, but want of knowledge could turn them to but little account. Gradually, however, there was gathered a small treasure of skill and of resources, which was applied according to established rules Some of the precepts of the law rest on medical knowledge of a more or less accurate nature, in judging of which we must remember the age, climate, and race to which these precepts pertain.' The writer in Smith's Dictionary regards the illness of Jehoram as a severe dysentery, which was epidemic; and from verse 15 ('Until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day ') it is assumed that the peculiar symptom was ' prolapsus ani ' (Dr. Mason Good mentions a case of the entire colon exposed). Perhaps, how- ever, it was what is known as diarrhoea tubularis, formed by the coagulation of fibrine into a membrane discharged from the inner coat of the intestines, which takes the mould of the bowel, and is thus expelled. Kitto says : ' Jehoram's disease is probably referable to chronic dysentery, which sometimes occasions an exudation of fibrine from the inner coats of the intestines. The fluid fibrine thus exuded coagulates into a continuous tubular membrane, of the same shape as the intestine itself, and as such is expelled. A precisely similar formation of false membranes, as they are termed, takes place in the windpipe in severe cases of croup.' Such a disease would certainly be regarded as incurable in those days ; and even now it would only be mastered if dealt with in its earlier stages. The language of Scripture may suggest a sudden form of disease, and one of an acute character ; but Bible writers THE INFECTION OF LEPROSY. 279 prefer to recognise in it a disease of a chronic character. Geikie even goes so far as to say, ' Jehoram, moreover, seemed in his own person to be judged and punished for his course by a long and agonizing internal disease which had struck him down. When, therefore, he died, no pretence of regret was heard ; the customary funeral honours of a king were denied him, and his body, refused admission to the royal tombs ' (possibly on account of the offensive character of his last illness), ' was buried in a separate spot inside the walls.' Two years is mentioned in verse 19 as the length of the disease, but this is not sufficient basis on which to decide its chronic character. If not absolutely curable and this cannot be decided without more minute details of its symptoms the patient could certainly, nowadays, have found great relief through medicine, or possibly through surgical skill. The Infection of Leprosy. LEVITICUS xiii. 46 : ' All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled ; he is unclean : he shall dwell alone ; without the camp shall his habitation be.' Question. Has modern scientific observation and study settled the question of the infection, or contagiousness, of leprosy 1 Answer. This matter is still disputable, but the preponderating evidence favours the view that it is not contagious in the ordinary and popular sense. Trench's note is familiar to Bible students. ' I allude to the common misapprehension that leprosy was catching from one person to another, and that lepers were so carefully se- cluded from their fellow-men, lest they might communicate the poison of the disease to them, as in like manner that the torn gar- ment, the covered lip, the cry " Unclean, unclean !" were warnings to others that they should keep aloof, lest, unawares touching the lepers, or drawing into too great a nearness, they should become partakers of their disease. . . . All those who have examined into the matter the closest are nearly of one consent, that the sickness was incommunicable by ordinary contact from one person to another- A leper might transmit it to his children, or the mother of a leper's children might take it from him ; but it was by no ordinary contact transferable from one person to another. All the notices in the Old Testament, as well as in other Jewish books, confirm the assertion that we have here something quite different from a mere sanitary regulation. Thus, where the law of Moses was not observed, no such exclusion necessarily found place. Naaman the leper com- manded the armies of Syria (2 Kings v. i) ; Gehazi, with his leprosy 2 8o HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. that never should be cleansed, talked familiarly with the King of apostate Israel (2 Kings viii. 5). And even where the law of Moses was in force, the stranger and the sojourner were expressly exempted from the ordinances in relation to leprosy, which could not have been had the disease been contagious, and the motives of the leper's exclusion been not religious but civil, since the danger of the spread- ing of the disease would have been equal in their case and in that of native Israelites. How, moreover, should the Levitical priests, had the disease been this creeping infection, have ever themselves escaped it, obliged as they were, by their very office, to submit the leper to such actual handling and closest examination ? Light- foot can only explain this by supposing in their case a perpetual miracle.' In a note the Speaker's Commentary discusses this question, treat- ing leprosy under the scientific term, ' Elephantiasis ' : ' But the question whether Elephantiasis is contagious or not is one of the most peculiar interest in connection with the Levitical law. The committee of the College of Physicians consider that the weight of evidence is decidedly on the negative side. The freedom with which lepers often live with others in the closest domestic relation indicates that common opinion practically takes the same view. Several surgeons are said to have wounded themselves in the dissec- tion of leprous bodies, without suffering any characteristic injury. But many of those who have replied to the Leprosy Committee affirm their belief that the disease is contagious at a certain stage when the ulcers are running. It is evident that, if the disease is contagious, a very rare and critical concurrence of circumstances is required to develop the contagion. But it should not be overlooked that the contagiousness of a disease cannot be disproved by the mul- titude of escapes, if there are a few well-attested and well-observed facts in its favour. It cannot, at any rate, be doubted that the few Englishmen who have suffered from Elephantiasis have always, or nearly always, associated with leprous people, or lived in leprous countries. The case of Dr. Robertson, who, while superintending the leper-house in the Seychelles Islands, became a leper, is a very important one.' Mr. Wilson, in his ' Notes on the Granada Hospital,' says : ' An excellent observer in Mauritius, in a private letter, states that he has personally known only two Europeans affected with the disease. Each of these had married Creole women, apparently free from disease, but they have left leprous children.' H. E. W. Grant, private secretary to the Governor of Trinidad, THE INFE CTION OF LEPR OSY. 281 writes as follows : ' As the question of the contagiousness of leprosy has attracted considerable attention of late, I give the following in- formation : The Cocorite (leper) Asylum in Trinidad was established in 1845. T ne normal population for many years past may be roughly estimated at about 200. The management of the institution was entrusted to a staff of Dominican sisters in 1869, and it has remained in the hands of this body since that date. No sister attached to the institution has ever contracted the disease of leprosy. The resident superintendent, who resigned last year, but who still lives in the asylum, has never quitted its precincts for a day since 1869, and the dispenser, who also was first appointed to the asylum twenty-one years ago, has only been absent from it for eight days during that period. Other sisters have been attached to the asylum as follows : two for fifteen years, two for thirteen, one for twelve, one for ten, one for nine, one for eight, and two for six years.' Dr. Ginsburg declares firmly that there was no fear of contagion on the part of the authorities who had personally to deal with this distemper. It is apparently clear that leprosy was popularly regarded as con- tagious ; the regulations made concerning it in every age and every land certainly suggest this. The law for the Synagogue was this : ' If a leper comes into the synagogue he has to sit in a place apart, raised ten spans from the floor, and four cubits broad. He comes in first, and goes out last.' In his latest book, Geikie says : ' Lepers are found over the whole country. Precautions are, indeed, taken to guard the healthy, but as leprosy is not contagious, these are in reality of no value. In Bible times, anyone thought to be attacked was shut up, and re- moved outside the city on the disease showing itself, he, his clothes, his very house, and everything he touched, being pronounced un- clean. Nowadays, he may, perhaps, be allowed to live immediately inside the gates of Jerusalem, but he has still a separate dwelling assigned him, and everyone keeps aloof from him as polluted and dangerous. Nor will anyone touch a leper, or eat with him, or use anything he has handled. Arabs thrust a leper away from their encampments.' Harper gives a curious fact illustrative of the anxiety of the people to keep leprosy from spreading : ' An English resident medical man told how that more than once some man would come to him who had been driven out with curses from his village, the inhabitants of which declared that he showed signs of leprosy. A medical examina- tion of the closest nature failed to show any spot or blemish, and, 282 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. obtaining a certificate to that effect, the man would go back to his village, only to be driven out again by its residents, and ere long that man did show the leprous sign, and became a complete leper. What enabled those ignorant people to detect the very first signs of the disease none can tell.' But it is evident that they feared contagion, and their fear could only have been based on ex- perience. Egyptian Boils. EXODUS ix. ii : 'And the Egyptians could not stand before Moses because of the boils ; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.' Question. -Are we to understand some neiv form of disease, or an exaggeration of an ordinary national trouble ? Answer. Three words are used for apparently the same afflic- tion. Boils, blains, botch. The word ' blains ' is found in Exod. ix. 9, 10, where it is associated with 'boils.' 'It shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast throughout the land of Egypt.' The word ' botch ' is found in Deut. xxviii. 27, and is there mentioned as a characteristic Egyptian disease. ' The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt (various reading, " boil "), and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.' Boils and tumours are common in hot countries, and one of the causes may be the irritation produced by the particles of sand in the atmosphere. It has been declared by modern science, that a few handfuls of ashes can be divided into particles so inconceivably minute as to fill the air over a whole country. And Professor TyndalPs experiments incontestably show that invisibly small particles may be poisonous germs of infectious plagues. Roberts, who writes of Hindoo customs, tells us that ' when the magicians pronounce an imprecation on an individual, a village, or a country, they take ashes of cow's dung (or from a common fire) and throw them in the air, saying to the objects of their displeasure, such a sickness, or such a curse, shall surely come upon you.' Some identify the ' botch ' with the black form of leprosy, and speak of it as an eruption to which the Egyptians were subject at the rising of the Nile. There was first an inflamed ulcer or boil, and then the pustules, or blains, broke out upon it. ' Cutaneous erup- tions of extreme severity are common in the valley of the Nile, some bearing a near resemblance to the symptoms described in this EGYPTIAN BOILS. 283 passage. In an old calendar mention is made of several contagious diseases in the month of December. The analogy of natural law is still preserved, the miracle consisting in the severity of the plague, and its direct connection with the act of Moses.' {Speaker's Com- mentary.) Canon Rawlinson describes the disease as ' an inflammation pro- ducing pustules ;' and he adds : ' Diseases of this character are not uncommon in Egypt, but they are not often very severe ; nor do they attack indifferently man and beast. The miraculous character of the plague was shown (i) by its being announced beforehand; (2) by its severity (Exod. ix. n); (3) by its universality; and (4) by its extension to animals.' ' Rashi says of this "boil": " It was very bad, being moist on the inside, and dry outside." A learned Dalma- tian Jew, with whom I have read this passage, tells me that he has seen many cases of this kind among the Hungarian and Polish Jews, and that it prevails among them, being traceable partly to their un- cleanliness.' Geikie associates the act of Moses with a well-known Egyptian custom. ' Handfuls of ashes from the "furnaces," it maybe the smelting furnaces for iron the special emblems in Scripture of the bitter slavery of the Hebrews were sprinkled towards heaven in the sight of Pharaoh ; an act familiar to those who may have seen it done, though the import could not for the moment be realized. In various Egyptian towns, sacred to Set or Typhon, the god of Evil Heliopolis and Busiris, in the Delta, among them red-haired and light-complexioned men, and as such, foreigners, perhaps often Hebrews, were yearly offered in sacrifice to this hideous idol. After being burnt alive on a high altar, their ashes were scattered in the air by the priests, in the belief that they would avert evil from all parts whither they were blown. But now, the ashes thrown into the air by Moses, instead of carrying blessing with them, fell everywhere in a rain of blains and boils on the people, and even on the cattle which the murrain had spared.' Possibly in vague reference to this, Tacitus says : ' Many authors agree that a plague which made the body hideous having broken out in Egypt, the King Bocchoris, on the counsel of the oracle of Ammon, from which he had asked what he should do, was ordered to purge the kingdom of those thus afflicted, and to send them away to other countries, as hateful to the gods.' The ' botch ' seems to mean the foul ulcer mentioned by Aretaeus, and called by him aphtha^ or eschare. He ascribes its frequency in Egypt to the mixed vegetable diet there followed, and to the use of 284 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. the turbid water of the Nile, but adds that it is common in Ccelo- Syria. Advanced cases are said to have a cancerous aspect, and some even class it as a form of cancer, a disease dependent on faults of nutrition. A Disease of the Feet. 2 CHRONICLES xvi. 12 :' And in the thirty and ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet ; his disease was exceeding great ; yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians.' Question. Can this disease be identified with any of those that afflict men in our time ? Answer. For ' exceeding great,' some would read ' which moved upward,' and this suggests something of a dropsical character. The parallel passage, i Kings xv. 23, does not add much to our informa- tion : ' Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.' All that can be said is, that it may have been either oedema, swel- ling, or podagra, gout. The former is common in aged persons, in whom, owing to the difficulty of the return upwards of the sluggish blood, the watery part stays in the feet. The latter, though rare in the East at present, is mentioned by the Talmudists, and there is no reason why it may not have been known in Asa's time. Most of the. Bible writers identify Asa's disease with the 'gout.' Geikie says : ' At the close of a long and prosperous reign of forty- one years, King Asa died, after suffering for two years with a disease in the feet, apparently the gout, though details are not given.' The word commencing the sentence in i Kings xv. 23, ' nevertheless, suggests some direct connection between his doings, or his neglect- ings, and his disease. ' Nevertheless ' sets us upon thinking that he need not have suffered in this way if he had been more careful ; and it is quite usual to connect the gout with self-indulgence in meat and drink. Job's Disease. JOB ii. 7, 8 : 'So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal ; and he sat down among the ashes.' Difficulty. If Job's disease be identified as a form of leprosy \ it becomes strange that no intimation is given of any miraculous heal- ing. Explanation. There is no absolute necessity for any such identification. The descriptions of the symptoms of the disease are not sufficiently distinct to guide any decision ; and we must bear in JOB'S DISEASE. 285 mind that men might be, and have been, afflicted with boils covering their bodies, which were of a simple, and curable, and in no sense of a malignant type. Indeed, the word ' boils ' suggests a curable kind of complaint. Gatherings and boils are not infrequently signs of the impoverishment of the blood and general depression, following upon prolonged seasons of anxiety and distress such as Job had known. The fact of his having, later on, a family of beautiful children not only affirms the completeness of his cure, but declares the temporary and local character of his complaint. We prefer to regard his disease as a simple case of boils, producing, as they do when forming, intense irritation, and when rising to a head great pain and ex- haustion. But other opinions may be given, and in the study of them all the reader may form a satisfactory judgment. Kit to makes a point of the boil in this case being ' a sore boil,' and says : ' The opinion entertained by the best scholars and physicians is, that it was the elephantiasis > or black leprosy, so called to distinguish it from the white leprosy, which was that most frequently indicated in the laws of Moses bearing on the subject ; and was also the kind with which Miriam and Gehazi were smitten, for they are described as having become ' white as snow.' The opinion that Job's disease was the black leprosy is also of most ancient date. It is founded on the indications which the book contains, and which are observed to answer to this disease. These indications are afforded in the fact of his skin being so covered from head to foot that he took a potsherd to scrape himself; in its being covered with putrefactions and crusts of earth, and being at one time stiff and hard, while at another it cracked and discharged fluid ; in the offensive breath, which drove away the kindness of his attendants ; in the restless nights, which were either sleepless, or scared with frightful dreams ; in general emaciation of the body ; and in so intense a loathing of the burden of life that strangling and death were preferable to it. The black leprosy, which has been described as " a universal ulcer," is by some supposed to have received its current medical name of "elephantiasis" from the Greeks, on account of its rendering the skin like that of an elephant, scabrous and dark-coloured, and furrowed all over with tubercles. But others rather trace the name to the resemblance which may be found in the patient's foot to that of the elephant, after the toes have been lost, the hollow of the foot filled up, and the ankle enlarged.' Delitzsch says : ' The description of this disease calls to mind Deut. xxviii. 35 with 27, and is, according to the symptoms men- 286 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. tioned further on in the book, elephantiasis, Lepra nodosa, the most fearful form of lepra, which sometimes seizes persons even of the higher ranks. Artapan says that an Egyptian king was the first man who died of this disease. Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, was afflicted with it in a very dangerous form. The disease begins with the rising of tubercular boils, and at length resembles a cancer spreading itself over the whole body, by which the body is so affected that some of the limbs fall completely away. Scraping with a potsherd will not only relieve the intolerable itching of the skin, but also remove the matter.' Those who take the view that the Book of Job is a poem written in the Solomonic age, and based upon an ancient legend of the ' Patriarch of Uz,' are not required to seek for any precise identifica- tion of the disease. For the purposes of the poet, some disease involving irritation, disgrace, and depression of spirits, is selected, and the descriptions given of it are designedly poetical and suggestive, rather than critical, historical, or scientific. It may be possible to find notice of symptoms similar to those of elephantiasis ; but they are symptoms found in connection with other diseases ; and the most marked feature of elephantiasis the falling away of limbs is cer- tainly wanting in this case of Job. To form an exact judgment it would be necessary for us to know accurately, not only the symptoms that were present, but also the symptoms that were absent. The question of the historical or imaginative character of the Book of Job is discussed elsewhere. Here it need only be remarked that, if the work is strictly historical, there ought to be some plain indica- tions of the agencies by which Job's cure from such a dreadful disease was effected. As a poem, the writer was under no obligation to provide such details, and the winding up of the book is certainly a remarkable illustration of what is called ' poetical justice.' It is cer- tainly extraordinary, and beyond easy explanation, if it must be treated as historical. Leprosy in Clothing and Houses. LEVITICUS xiii. 47 : 'The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment or a linen garment.' LEVITICUS xiv. 34 : ' And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession.' Difl&CUlty. Can a disease be properly spoken of as affecting both houses, garments, and people ? Explanation. Infection will linger in house and in garment, and this we know well in relation to ordinary forms of infectious LEPROSY IN CLOTHING AND HOUSES. 287 disease ; and no more than this may possibly be meant in relation to leprosy. Certain conditions of the houses and the garments may have been regarded as productive of the disease. So we speak of scarlet-fever being in houses, or being conveyed by garments. And Thomson helps to this suggestion when he says that the upper rooms of the houses in Palestine, if not constantly ventilated, become quickly covered with mould, and are unfit to live in. But the Mosaic regulations seem to involve something more serious than that, and even appear to support the conclusions of Sommer, Kurtz, and other recent authors, who attribute a vegetable origin to the leprosy. Hugh Macmillan takes this view, and gives some specially interesting information. ' The characteristics mentioned in the Levitical narrative are such as can belong only to plants. There are some species of fungi which could have produced all the effects described, and whose form and colour answer admirably to the appearances presented by the leprosy. We are, therefore, safe in believing that the phenomena described were caused by fungi. The leprosy of the house consisted of reddish and greenish patches. The reddish patches on the wall were, in all likelihood, caused by the presence of a fungus well known under the common name of dry-rot, and called by botanists, Merulius lachrymans. Builders have often pain- ful evidence of the virulent and destructive nature of this scourge. Most people are acquainted with the effects of this fungus, but its form and appearance are familiar to only a few. At first it makes its presence known by a few delicate white threads, which radiate from a common centre, and resemble a spider's web. Gradually these threads become thicker and closer, coalescing more and more, until at last they form a dense cottony cushion of yellowish-white colour and roundish shape. The size of this vegetable cushion varies from an inch to eight inches in diameter, according as it has room to develop itself and is supplied with the appropriate pabulum. Hundreds of such sponge-like cushions may be seen in places affected by the disease oozing out through interstices in the floor or wall. At a later stage of growth the fungus developes over its whole surface a number of fine orange or reddish-brown veins, forming irregular folds, most frequently so arranged as to have the appearance of pores, and dis- tilling, when perfect, drops of water, whence its specific name of lachrymans, or weeping. When fully matured it produces an immense number of rusty seeds, so minute as to be invisible to the naked eye, which are diffused throughout the atmosphere, and are ever ready to alight and germinate in suitable circumstances.' ' The greenish streaks were caused by a much humbler kind of 2 8S HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. fungus, the common green mould, or Penicilium glaucum of botanists. This fungus is extremely abundant everywhere, and seems to have been no less general in the ancient world, for we find traces of it pretty fre- quently in amber, mixed with fragments of lichens and mosses. To the naked eye it is a mere greenish, downy crust, spreading over a decaying surface, but under the microscope it presents a singularly lovely spectacle. The little patch of dusty cobweb is transformed into a fairy forest of the most exquisite shapes. Hundreds of delicate transparent stalks rise up from creeping, interlacing roots of snowy purity, crowned with bundles of slender hairs, each like a miniature painter's brush. Interspersed among these hairs, which, under a higher power of the microscope are seen to be somewhat intricately branched, occur greenish, dust-like particles, which are the sporidia^ or seed-cases, containing in their interior the excessively minute and impalpable spores or germs by which the species is perpetuated.' 'The leprosy of garments may have been caused by the same fungi.' Dr. Hayuian, writing in ' Smith's Dictionary,' deals with this question. ' Some have thought garments worn by leprous patients are intended. The discharges of the diseased skin absorbed into the apparel would, if infection were possible, probably convey disease ; and it is known to be highly dangerous in some cases to allow clothes which have so imbibed the discharges of an ulcer to be worn again. But no mention of infection occurs ; no connection of the leprous garment with a leprous human wearer is hinted at : and this would not help us to account for a leprosy of stone walls and plaster. . . . It is now known that there are some skin diseases which originate in an acarus, and others which proceed from a fungus. In these we may probably find the solution of the paradox. The analogy between the insect which frets the human skin and that which frets the gar- ment that covers it, between the fungus growth that lines the crevices of the epidermis and that which creeps in the interstices of masonry, is close enough for the purposes of a ceremonial law, to which it is essential that there should be an arbitrary element intermingled with provisions manifestly reasonable. ... It is manifest also that a disease in the human subject caused by an acarus or by a fungus would be certainly contagious, since the propagative cause could be transferred from person to person. Some physicians, indeed, assert that only such skin diseases are contagious. Hence, perhaps, arose a further reason for marking, even in their analogues among lifeless substances, the strictness with which forms of disease so arising were to be shunned.' THE MANIA OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 289 The Mania of Nebuchadnezzar. DANIEL iv. 33 : ' The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar : and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown as eagle's feathers, and his nails like bird's claws.' Difficulty. As grass will not nourish human bodies, this must be a poetical rather than historical description ; or it must need some im- portant qualifications. Explanation. Nebuchadnezzar's disease certainly belongs to the more obscure, infrequent, and extraordinary cases of mania. We may assume that he personated the habits of the beast he supposed himself to be, but the term ' grass ' must be taken as including cereal food, or we must understand that he was supplied with other and more nutritious forms of vegetable food than grass. Hugh Macmillan points out that the grasses are the food of animals which supply man with milk and flesh, but that man cannot himself digest the grasses, and could not live on this food alone. Possibly the king's mania came on in paroxysms of intensity, and usually he may have been fed in some reasonable way. Interesting accounts are given of persons suffering from this class of mania. Dr. Nicholson, the physician, says : ' The disease was a species of melancholy monomania, called by authors zoanthropia, or more commonly lycanthropia, because the transformation into a wolf was the most ordinary illusion. Esquirol considers it to have originated in the ancient custom of sacrificing animals. But what- ever effect this practice might have had at the time, the cases recorded are independent of any such influence ; and it really does not seem necessary to trace this particular hallucination to a remote historical cause, when we remember that the imaginary transforma- tions into inanimate objects, such as glass, butter, etc., which are of every-day occurrence, are equally irreconcilable with the natural instincts of the mind. The same author relates that a nobleman of the court of Louis XIV. was in the habit of frequently putting his head out of a window, in order to satisfy the urgent desire he had to bark. Calmet informs us that the nuns of a German convent were transformed into cats, and went mewing over the whole house at a fixed hour of the day.' Geikie tells us that ' instances of those afflicted in this way, eating grass, leaves, twigs, etc., like the great king, are familiar to medical men. Nor is it uncommon for the mind to lose its balance in some direction, in one raised so far above all other men as a mighty 19 290 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. despot, and so irresponsible. . . . That some terrible illness seized Nebuchadnezzar is strangely proved by the recent discovery of a bronze doorstep, presented by him to the great temple of El Saggil, at Borsippa, one of the suburbs or divisions of Babylon. It speaks of his having been afflicted, and of his restoration to health, and may well have been a votive offering to the gods on his recovery from the attack mentioned in Daniel.' Dr. William Wright gathers up some information which greatly helps toward the elucidation of this difficulty in Kind's ' Cycloptzdia? ' The difficulties attending the nature of the disease and recovery of Nebuchadnezzar, have not escaped the notice of commentators in ancient as well as modern times. The impression made by them on the acute mind of Origen, that father thus expresses : ' How is it possible to suppose a man metamorphosed into a beast ? This sounds well enough in the poets, who speak of the companions of Ulysses and of Diomede as transformed into birds and wolves, fables which existed in the poet's imagination only. But how could a prince like Nebuchadnezzar, reared in delicacy and pleasure, be able to live naked for seven years, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, and having no nourishment but grass and wild fruits ? How could he resist the violence of wild beasts? Who governed the empire of Chaldsea in his absence ? . . . It must be borne in mind that Origen's passion for allegorizing frequently led him to overstate the difficulties of Scripture, and his own solution of those which he enumerates, viz., that the account of Nebuchadnezzar's metamorphosis was merely a representation of the fall of Lucifer, is not likely to meet with many supporters. Besides Origen's, there have been no less than five different opinions in reference to this subject. Bodin maintains that Nebuchadnezzar underwent an actual metamorphosis of soul and body, a similar instance of which is given by Cluvier on the testimony of an eye-witness. Tertullian confines the transformation to the body only, but without loss of reason, of which kind of metamorphosis St. Augustine reports some instances said to have taken place in Italy, to which he himself attaches little credit ; but Gaspard Peucer asserts that the transformation of men into wolves was very common in Livonia. Some Jewish Rabbins have asserted that the soul of Nebuchadnezzar, by a real transmi- gration, changed places with that of an ox ; while others have sup- posed not a real, but an apparent or docetic change, of which there is a case recorded in the life of St. Macarius, the parents of a young woman having been persuaded that their daughter had been trans- formed into a mare. The most generally received opinion, however, ELISHA'S WAY OF RESTORING A DEAD CHILD. 291 is, that Nebuchadnezzar laboured under the species of hypochon- driacal monomania, which leads the patient to fancy himself changed into an animal (or other substance), the habits of which he adopts.' The Scripture statements are quite satisfied by our assuming that during seven years Nebuchadnezzar was subject to fits of insanity, and while they were on him, imagined himself an animal, and behaved as if he really were one. During his fits he would be kept securely within the palace grounds. Elisha's Way of Restoring a Dead Child. 2 KINGS iv. 34 : ' And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands ; and he stretched himself upon the child ; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.' Difficulty. This seems to be the restoration of the child by natural means. It is not easy to see where the miraculous element comes in, since all restorative means are dependent on God's power working through them. Explanation. We are at grave disadvantage in the absence of scientific descriptions of Bible diseases. It is certainly open to any- one to suggest that this was a case of suspended animation, rather than of death, and that the child was restored by the will-power of the prophet. There have been cases in which doctors have, by their own breath, started the vital action of the organs in new-born children. There have been cases in which life has been breathed into those who were unconscious from drowning. And there is good and sufficient evidence to support the claims of those who affirm that persons can recover the dying under certain circumstances by willing their life into them. It must also be borne in mind that both Old and New Testament miracles are associated with some kind of agency. Our Lord made clay and anointed the eyes He opened. Elisha put wood to make iron swim, etc. It may be that the agency was not essential to the miracle, and yet it seems more reverent to say, that if it was used it was essential, and there must be something for us to learn from the fact that the miracle was made dependent on the agency. All restorative agents, be they medical or surgical, electrical, mesmeric, hypnotic, biological, or otherwise, we regard as absolutely dependent on the Divine blessing. A recovery from disease is never adequately explained by treating only the agency ; the effective force behind the agency must be considered, and that is God working. We may then distinctly recognise in Elisha's acts restorative agencies, 19 2 2 92 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. and with equal distinctness hold that the efficient force which worked through the agency was the miraculous power of God. The result of sunstroke may be unconsciousness and suspended animation ; and from sunstroke this child evidently suffered. In such a case nowadays effort would certainly be directed to the restoration of suspended vitality, just as in cases of drowning. And we must bear in mind that there is no support of the woman's idea that the child was dead ; she acted on her own conviction with great prompti- tude and great secrecy. The narrative clearly indicates that the restoration of the child in- volved so much physical exhaustion for Elisha, that he had to stop in the middle of it, and restore his own wasted breath by walking to and fro in the house. We may say that it was a case of miraculous restoration in which the material agency employed was unusually ex- tensive and long-continued. A Cloth on the Face. 2 KINGS viii. 15 : c And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died.' Question. Did Hazael do this as a remedy, or with the distinct intention of putting his master to death ? Answer. The Revised Version renders, ' He took the coverlet/ The word used means literally ' The woven cloth.' This alteration of the Authorized Version suggests that Hazael attempted to ad- minister what we should now call the ' water-cure.' He may have applied it at an unsuitable time, or it may have proved unsuitable for this particular patient. We only know that the result was fatal, but the record leaves open the question whether the death was designed or accidental. If there is bias in the narrative, it certainly is against Hazael, who seems to have been excited to action by the prophecy of his becoming king. The words spoken by Elisha to Hazael (verse 12) indicate that he was a man of violent and un- scrupulous character, who would think little of removing his king if he stood in the way of his ambitions. Harper takes the view that Hazael intended murder. Elisha saw from Hazael's face the black thought in his heart, for murder was seething there; and though he indignantly says, 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing ?' yet he goes back, and with a wet cloth suffocates his royal master, and usurps the throne. Geikie's explanation is quite imaginative. ' Next day, however, Hazael was king. He, or some one commissioned by him, had A CLOTH ON THE FACE. 293 overpowered Benhadad in his bath, and had suffocated him with the wet cloths he had been using.' Ewald says, ' On the next day, however, the king was found dead, not certainly from his illness, but from violence ; as he was going to take his bath, his servant (we do not know from what particular motive) dipped the bath-cloth into the warm water, and, before the king could call for help, drew it so tight over his head that he was smothered.' Josephus tells us that Hazael strangled his master with a mosquito- net. Dr. Lumby thinks the means Hazael employed was probably the coverlet of the bed, which, soaked and laid over the sick man's face, would effectually stop his breath. Death so caused would give very little sign of violence, and might in those early times be readily re- ferred to the disease of which the king was sick. The Speaker's Commentary thinks that the article used was ' a cloth, or mat, placed between the head and the upper part of the bedstead, which in Egypt and Assyria was often so shaped that pillows (in our sense) were unnecessary.' It mentions, but only to reject, the notion of Geddes, Boothroyd and Schultz, that Benhadad is the subject of the verbs ' took,' ' dipped,' ' spread,' and that he put the cloth on himself to give himself relief, and so unintentionally caused his own death. As illustration, it notices that Suetonius declares the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, to have been smothered with his pillow as he lay upon a sick-bed. Bruce, in his travels, gives an account of a fever which prevailed in Abyssinia, called the nedad, and he adds : ' If the patient sur- vives till the fifth day, he very often recovers by drinking water only, and throwing a quantity of cold water upon him, even on his bed, where he is nevertheless permitted to lie without attempting to make him dry or to change his bed, till another deluge adds to the first. Such a custom suggests the possibility that Hazael was doing his best, or perhaps only pretending to do his best, to effect a water- cure.' Stanley says, Elisha 'gazed earnestly on Hazael's face; saw his future elevation, and saw with it the calamities which that elevation would bring on his country .... Hazael himself stood astounded at the prophet's message. He, insignificant as he seemed, a mere dog, to be raised to such lofty power, and do such famous deeds ! But so it was to be. By his deed, or another's, the king died, not of his illness, but by an apparent accident in his bath ; and Hazael was at once raised to the throne of Syria. 294 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. (NEW TESTAMENT.) The Medicine of our Lord's Time. MARK v. 26 : ' And bad suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse.' Question. Is it possible to discover any scientific elements in the medical system of the time of oiir Lord? Answer. The Cyclopaedias deal fully with the medical systems associated with the Old Testament, and but little with those associated with the New Testament. Dr. E. Stapfer, in his work on ' Palestine in the Time of Christ,' has collected some curious and interesting information. He says : ' Everyone at this moment meddled with medicine, yet no one understood its very first principles. Scientific medicine had been known in Greece for five hundred years, but it had been confined to that country. The persistent ignorance of the Jews on the subject of medicine is accounted for by their belief that sickness was the punishment of sins committed either by the sufferer himself or by his relations ; hence it was almost always attributed to the action of evil spirits. The only cure possible, therefore, was the expulsion of the evil spirit (or spirits, for there might be many), and the whole science of medicine consisted in discovering the best method of exorcising the demon. It was not the most educated man who was competent to this work of benevolence, but the most religious. The more pious a man was, the more fit was he to heal the sick, that is, to cast out the evil spirits. Everyone, therefore, practised this art of healing as best he could for himself and for those who belonged to him. The rabbis, scribes, and doctors of the law undertook the casting out demons, and some of them were considered very skilful in the art. The healing art was simply exorcism. . . . When the sick man was not possessed, the methods of cure were more serious. . . . Some doctors tried to employ real remedies. The Essenes, for example, were acquainted with some medicinal herbs, and knew their properties. They were the possessors of the famous Book of Incantations said to be by King Solomon. Perhaps it contained some recipes which may have been of use. The softening, soothing properties of oil seem to have been appreciated even then. It was often mixed with wine, and this remedy is still very efficacious in certain cases. The sick man was anointed with oil. These unctions may, however, have been credited with some magic virtue. Nor is this all. Occasionally the Talmuds THE MEDICINE OF OUR LORD'S TIME. 295 speak of prescriptions for other complaints. The cedar cone was used in medicine. Ophthalmia was common. The traveller is struck now with the number of blind people in the East. Thus the Bible speaks of eye-salve. It was a favourite remedy to wash the eyes with saliva and wine. This gave much relief, but it was forbidden to use it on the Sabbath-day.' Stapfer gives a curious passage from the Talmud of Babylon illustrating the treatment of a patient suffering as did the woman mentioned in the passage at the head of this paragraph. We know who these physicians were. They were the rabbis. And we know also what remedies they had prescribed for this poor woman. Rabbi Yochanan says : ' Take a denarius weight of gum of Alexandria, a denarius weight of alum, a denarius weight of garden saffron, pound all together, and give it to the woman in some wine. If this remedy does not succeed, take three times three logs of Persian onions, boil them in the wine, and give this to the woman to drink, saying to her, " Be free from thy sickness." If this does not succeed, take her to a place where two roads meet, put in her hands a cup of wine, and let some one coming up behind, startle her, saying to her : " Be free from thy sickness." If still nothing answers, take a handful of saffron and a handful of fcenum gracum, boil them in some wine, and give it her to drink, saying : " Be free from thy sickness." ' The Talmud goes on thus, proposing a dozen other means to be used, among them the following : ' Dig seven pits, and burn in them some vine-branches not yet four years old. Then let the woman, carrying a cup of wine in her hand, come up to each pit in succession, and sit down by the side of it, and each time let the words be repeated : "Be free from thy sickness." ' The mixture of science and superstition in these very curious prescriptions is striking. Saliva as a Curative Agent. JOHN ix. 6 : ' When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.' Question. Are we to recognise in the clay so mixed an actual agent in effecting the recovery of this man's eyesight ? Answer. The incident is to be viewed entirely from the side of the blind man. The use of an agent was not necessary for the peoplej or for the disciples, but the man, being unable to see, could only be approached and influenced through feeling. The feeling 296 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. had to be one which he would be able to recognise ; the remedy was probably one which he had tried before. It had hitherto been inefficient ; then, since it was now efficient, the difference lay not in the clay, but in the person administering. So his faith was drawn out to Christ. The point needing illustration is the popular sentiment concerning saliva in the time of our Lord. There can be little doubt that the means used by our Lord found their place in the ordinary prescriptions of the day. ' We know from the pages of Pliny, and Tacitus, and Suetonius, that the saliva jejuna was held to be a remedy in cases of blindness, and that the same remedy was used by the Jews is established by the writings of the Rabbis. That clay was so used is not equally certain, but this may be regarded as the vehicle by means of which the saliva was applied. Physicians had applied such means commonly to cases of post-natal blindness, but congenital blindness had always been regarded as incurable.' Farrar and Geikie both tell us that it was the belief, in antiquity, that the saliva of one who was fasting was of benefit to weak eyes, and that clay relieved those who suffered from tumours on the eye- lids. It may be that Jesus thought of this. Dr. Plummer says : ' Regard for Christ's truthfulness compels us to regard the clay as the means of healing ; not that He could not heal without it, but that he willed this to be the channel of His power. Elsewhere He uses spittle, to heal a blind man (Mark viii. 23); to heal a deaf and dumb man (Mark vii. 33). Spittle was believed to be a remedy for diseased eyes (comp. Vespasian's reputed miracle, "Tac. Hist.," iv. 81, and other instances); clay also, though less commonly. So that Christ selects an ordinary remedy, and gives it success in a case confessedly beyond its supposed power (v. 32).' Trench says : 'The virtue especially of the saliva jejuna, in cases of disorders of the eyes, was well known to antiquity.' Devil-Possessions, viewed Medically. MATTHEW ix. 28 : ' There met him two possessed with devils (demons) coming forth out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.' Difficulty. Medical Science seems able to account for these and similar cases without having any resort to suppositions of spirit pos- sessions. Explanation. In the former volume, ' Handbook of Biblical Difficulties,' p. 515, this topic was somewhat fully treated. It is DEVIL-POSSESSIONS, VIE WED MEDICALLY. 297 only necessary to add here some of the more recent additions to the elucidation of a difficult subject. Dr. E. Staffer says : ' Cases of madness, hysteria, hallucination, were frequent among the Jews in the first century. If they were wrong in calling almost every sort of disease "possession," it was very natural that they should give the name of possessed persons, or demoniacs, to the sufferers from those strange nervous affections which still baffle science. We know now what these so-called " possessions " were, and anyone who has witnessed one of the crises of mania can easily understand how among the Jews, and in the middle ages, people believed in the influence of demons. These affections were all the more frequent in the time of Christ, on account of the state of high-strung religious and political excitement in which the Jewish people were living.' It should be kept in mind, that the descriptions given of these ' demoniacs ' in the New Testament depend entirely on the casual observation of the beholder, toned by the common sentiment and superstition of the age. In no instance have we anything that can be called a scientific record of the signs of the disease. It is, therefore, difficult for us to say whether modern medical science has covered and included all the New Testament cases. Scientific details now given can hardly be expected to match precisely what are merely vague and indefinite hints and descriptions. But a candid mind could hardly fail to recognise, that the presumption is wholly in favour of the strictly medical character of all these so-called devil-possessions. Indeed, the explanation of them as spirit-possessions would never be suggested to anyone unless a previous theory in relation to the malevolent influence of spirits were held. We can hardly hesitate to class them under ' diseases.' There is, however, still found among Bible writers an unwillingness to yield the idea that some unique form of suffering through the agency of spirits is meant ; and we must therefore submit the matter to the judgment of our readers, who are likely to take one or the other view, according as they are related to the materialistic or spiritualistic schools of thought. Stalker says : ' Besides these bodily cures, He dealt with the diseases of the mind. These seem to have been peculiarly prevalent in Palestine at the time, and to have excited the utmost terror. They were believed to be accompanied by the entrance of demons into the poor imbecile or raving victims, and this idea was only too true.' Fallings say : ' The psychology of demonism is obscure. Modern 298 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. lunacy furnishes points of contact, and apparent instances of it now and then. But the two are not to be confounded, as the ordinary lunatic may merely suffer from some cerebral disease, while the demonized need have none.' But proof of this distinction is lacking. Medicinal Value of Music. i SAMUEL xvi. 16 : ' Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man who is a cunning player on the harp : and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.' Difficulty. There may be a soothing value in music, but only in a way of accommodation can it be called a medicinal agent. Explanation. It is quite true that all disease involves the disturbance of some bodily process, the injury, or unnatural working, of some bodily organ, and music can hardly be thought of as repair- ing or restoring such. But we are learning more and more clearly that many forms of disease have their true causes in conditions of mind. The diseased brain, or nervous system, may be the effect of the real disease, whose seat is in disposition, character, feel- ing, etc. There are two ways in which disease may be viewed. Bodily conditions may create mental conditions ; but it is equally true that mental conditions may create bodily conditions. Constantly the doctor, visiting a fresh patient, will have to say : ' You have something on your mind ;' or ' Have you not had some great trouble lately ?' or ' You have been overworking the brain.' Now music may be a restorative agent when the cause of disease is mental, or belongs to character rather than to bodily organ. Saul's case belongs to the mental, and not to the bodily, class, though the account we have of him suggests some slowness of brain- movement, which may have developed into an obscure form of insanity. Jealousy was the irritating cause of his times of un- restrained passion ; and there are illustrations of the medicamental power of music in such cases. The prominent feature of Saul's disease was fits of moodiness and melancholy, which sometimes were so severe as to become murderous mania. There is a story recorded concerning Philip V. of Spain. He was seized with a total dejection of spirits, which rendered him incapable of appearing in Court, or of attending to his affairs. A celebrated musician, Farinelli, was invited to Spain, and he gained power over the king by the fascination of his songs. Edersheim writes, somewhat fancifully : ' The evil spirit sent from God was the messenger of that evil which in the Divine judgment was MEDICINAL VALUE OF MUSIC. 299 to come upon Saul, visions of which now affrighted the king, filled him with melancholy, and brought him to the verge of madness but not to repentance. It is thus, also, that we can understand how the music of David's harp soothed the spirit of Saul, while those hymns which it accompanied perhaps some of his earliest psalms brought words of heaven, thoughts of mercy, strains of another world, to the troubled soul of the king.' Francis Jacox gathers up some very striking examples of what he calls ' Medicamental Music :' ' That there is something more than ordinary in music, Bishop Beveridge, in his " Private Thoughts," infers from this fact that David made use of the harp for driving away the evil spirit from Saul, as well as for bringing the good spirit upon himself. The gentle prelate therefore recognises in music a sort of secret and charming power, such as naturally dispels "those black humours which the evil spirit is apt to brood upon," and such, too, as composes the mind into a more regular, sweet, and docile disposition, thereby rendering it " the fitter for the Holy Spirit to work upon, the more susceptive of Divine grace, and more faithful messenger to convey truth to the understanding." ' And he cites his personal experience experto crede in favour of this view. Buretti declares music to have the power of so affecting the whole nervous system as to give sensible ease in a large variety of disorders, and in some cases a radical cure. Particularly he instances sciatica as capable of being relieved by this agency. Theophrastus is men- tioned by Pliny as recommending it for the hip-gout ; and there are references on record by old Cato and Varro to the same effect. ^Esculapius figures in Pindar as healing acute disorders with soothing songs : ' Music exalts each joy, allays each grief, Expels diseases, softens every pain, Subdues the rage of poison and of plague ; And hence the wise of ancient days adored One power of Physic, Melody, and Song.' Over Luther, as Sir James Stephen has remarked, there brooded a constitutional melancholy, sometimes engendering sadness, but more often giving birth to dreams so wild that, if vivified by the imagina- tion of Dante, they might have passed into visions as awful and majestic as those in the ' Inferno.' Various were the spells to which Luther had recourse, to cast out the demons that haunted him ; and of these remedial agencies the most potent, perhaps, was music. ' He had ascertained and taught that the spirit of darkness abhors sweet sounds not less than light itself; for music (he says), while it chases away the evil suggestions, effectually baffles the wiles of the 300 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. tempter. His lute, and hand, and voice, accompanying his own solemn melodies, were therefore raised to repel the vehement aggres- sions of the enemy of mankind.' It is characteristic, as Herr Kohl observes, of music-loving Bohemia, that, in the lunatic asylum of its capital, music should be considered one of the chief aids and appliances for the improvement of the patients. In addition to the garden concerts, in which all assist who can, there is chamber-music quartets, trios, etc. every morn- ing and evening in the wards, and a musical-director takes high rank in the official staff of the establishment. Elizabeth Charlotte of Orleans, mother of the Regent, describes in one of her letters a Madame de Persillie, well born and well bred, but a dangerous lunatic ; who, however, if you could but slip a guitar into her hand when the fury-fit came on, would become calm again as soon as she began to play. Browning, in ' Paracelsus,' has the following lines : ' My heart ! they loose my heart, those simple words; Its darkness passes, which nought else could touch ; Like some dank snake that force may not expel, Which glideth out to music sweet and low.' Paul's Thorn in the Flesh. 2 CORINTHIANS xii. 7 : ' Wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn (stake) in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch.' (Rev. Ver.) Question. Have modern discussions provided ground for a decision concerning this chronic affliction of the apostle ? Answer. It may be said with some confidence that the evi- dences and the arguments favour the idea that St. Paul suffered from chronic inflammation of the eyes. The word chosen by the apostle, which is translated ' thorn,' means a stake, or goad, a thing that pricks, and this would suggest the painful and extremely irritating pricking sensation that is characteristic of inflammation of the eye. Various other suggestions have been offered. Tertullian is the first Christian writer who ventured on an explanation. He thinks it was a pain in the ear or head. Some think that the Apostle suffered from epileptic fits. The Greek commentators say the Apostle may be referring, in a figurative manner, to the opponents of his Apostolic authority. Professor Lias elaborates a theory which may have novelty for some of our readers : ' Our last alternative must be some defect of character, calculated to interfere with St. Paul's success as a minister PAULS THORN IN THE FLESH. 301 of Jesus Christ. And the defect which falls in best with what we know of St. Paul is an infirmity of temper. There seems little doubt that he gave way to an outbreak of this kind when before the San- hedrin, though he set himself right at once by a prompt apology. A similar idea is suggested by St. Paul's unwillingness to go to Corinth until the points in dispute between him and a considerable portion of the Corinthian Church were in a fair way of being settled. In fact, his conduct was precisely the reverse of that of a person who felt himself endowed with great tact, persuasiveness, and command of temper. Such a man would trust little to messages and letters, much to his own presence and personal influence. St. Paul, on the con- trary, feared to visit Corinth until there was a reasonable prospect of avoiding all altercation. In fact, he could not trust himself there. He "feared that God would humble him among them." He desired above all things to avoid the necessity of " using sharpness," very possibly because he feared that when once compelled to assume a tone of severity, his language might exceed the bounds of Christian love. The supposition falls in with what we know of the Apostle before his conversion. It is confirmed by his stern language to Elymas the sorcerer, with which we may compare the much milder language used by St. Peter on a far more awful occasion. The quarrel between St. Paul and St. Barnabas makes the supposition infinitely more probable. The passage above cited from the Epistle to the Galatians may be interpreted of the deep personal affection which the Apostle felt he had inspired in spite of his occasional irritability of manner. The expression that he " desired to be present with them and to change his voice," would seem to point in the same direction. And if we add to these considerations the fact, which the experience of God's saints in all ages has conclusively established, of the difficulty of sub- duing an infirmity of temper, as well as the pain, remorse, and humiliation such an infirmity is wont to cause to those who groan under it, we may be inclined to believe that not the least probable hypothesis concerning the "thorn" or "stake" in the flesh, is that the loving heart of the Apostle bewailed as his sorest trial the mis- fortune that by impatience in word he had often wounded those for whom he would willingly have given his life.' Farrar summarises the arguments in favour of ophthalmia : ' We know that he was physically blinded by the glare of light which surrounded him when he saw the risen Lord. The whole circum- stances of that event the noonday journey under the fierce Syrian sun, the blaze of sun which outshone even that noonday brightness, and the blindness which followed it would have been most likely to 302 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. leave his eyes inflamed and weak. His stay in the desert and in Damascus regions notorious for the prevalence of this disease would have tended to develop the mischief when it had once been set up, and though we are never told in so many words that the Apostle suffered from defective sight, there are yet so many undesigned coincidences of allusion all pointing in this direction, that we may regard it as an ascertained fact. Apart from the initial probability that eyes which had once been so seriously affected would be liable to subsequent attacks of disease, we have the following indications : (i) When speaking of his infirmity to the Galatians, St. Paul implies that it might well have rendered him an object of loathing ; and this is pre-eminently the case with acute ophthalmia. The most dis- tressing objects, next to the lepers, which the traveller will ever see in the East those who will most make him inclined to turn away his face with a shudder of pity and almost involuntary disgust are pre- cisely those who are the victims of this disease. (2) And this would give a deeper pathos and meaning to the Apostle's testimony that the Galatians, in the first flush of their Gospel joy, when they looked on the preacher of those good tidings as an angel of God, would, had it been possible, have dug out their eyes in order to place them at the sufferer's service. (3) The term, "a stake in the flesh," would be most appropriate to such a malady, because all who have been attacked with it know that the image which it recalls most naturally is that of a sharp splinter run into the eye. (4) Moreover, it would be ex- tremely likely to cause epileptic or other symptoms, since in severe attacks it is often accompanied by cerebral disturbance. (5) In spite 'of the doubt which has been recently thrown on the commonly accepted meaning of the expression which St. Paul uses to the Gala- tians, " Ye see in what large letters I write to you with my own hand," it must at any rate be admitted that it suits well with the hypothesis of a condition which rendered it painful and difficult to write at all. That this was St. Paul's normal condition seems to. result from his almost invariable practice of employing an amanuensis, and only adding in autograph the few last words of greeting or blessing, which were necessary for the identification of his letters in an age in which religious forgeries were by no means unknown. (6) It is obvious, too, that an ocular deformity, caused as this had been, might well be compared to the brand fixed by a master on his slave. (7) Lastly, there is no other reasonable explanation of the circumstance that, when St. Paul had uttered an indignant answer to the high priest, and had been rebuked for it, he at once frankly offered his apology by saying that " he had not recognised the speaker to have been the THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOON. 303 high priest." Now, considering the position of the high priest as Nast of the Sanhedrin, seated at the end of the hall, with the Ab Beth Din on one side of him, and the Chacham on the other, it is almost inconceivable that Paul should not have been aware of his rank if he had not suffered from defective sight. All that his blurred vision took in was a white figure, nor did he see this figure with suffi- cient clearness to be able to distinguish that the overbearing tyrant was no less a person than the high priest himself.' The Influence of the Moon. DEUTERONOMY xxxiii. 14 : ' Blessed of the Lord be His land, for the precious things put forth by the moon.' Question. Is there any scientific basis for the commonly received notion, that the moon can affect injuriously the bodies and the minds of men ? Answer. The idea is certainly sustained in tropical climates. The inhabitants of these 'countries are most careful in taking pre- cautionary measures before exposing themselves to its influence. Sleeping much in the open air, they are careful to cover well their heads and faces. It has been proved beyond a doubt that the moon smites as well as the sun, causing blindness for a time, and even dis- tortion of the features. In Montgomery Martin's ' History of the British Colonies ' we have the following account of the influence of the moon : ' In con- sidering the climate of tropical countries, the influence of the moon seems to be entirely overlooked ; and surely, if the tides of the ocean are raised from their fathomless bed by lunar power, it is not too much to assert that the tides of the atmosphere are liable to a similar influence. This much is certain, that in the low lands of tropical climates no attentive observer of nature will fail 'to witness the power exercised by the moon over the seasons, and also on animal and vegetable nature. As regards the latter, it may be stated that there are thirteen springs and thirteen autumns in Demerara in the year ; for so many times does the sap of trees ascend to the branches, and descend to the roots. For example, the wallaba (a resinous tree, common in the Demerara woods, somewhat resembling mahogany), if cut down in the dark a few days before the new moon, is one of the most durable woods in the world for house-building, etc. ; in that state, attempt to split it, and with the utmost difficulty it will be riven in the most jagged, unequal manner that can be imagined. Cut down another wallaba, that grew within a few yards 304 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. of the former, at full moon, and the tree can be easily split into the finest smooth shingles, of any desired thickness, or into staves for making casks ; but if in this state it be applied to house-building, it speedily decays. Again, bamboos, as thick as a man's arm, are sometimes used for paling, etc. ; if cut at the dark moon, they will endure for ten or twelve years ; if at full moon, they will be rotten in two or three years : thus it is with most, if not all, of the forest trees. Of the effects of the moon on animal life very many instances could be cited. I have seen in Africa the newly-littered young perish in a few hours at the mother's side, if exposed to the rays of the full moon ; fish become rapidly putrid ; and meat, if left exposed, in- curable or unpreservable by salt. The mariner, heedlessly sleeping on deck, becomes afflicted with nyctalopia, or " night-blindness," at times the face hideously swollen, if exposed during sleep to the moon's rays ; the maniac's paroxysms renewed with fearful vigour at the full and change ; and the cold, damp chill of the ague superven- ing on the ascendancy of this apparently mild yet powerful luminary. Let her influence over this earth be studied ; it is more powerful than is generally known.' The popular belief that the moon's rays will cause madness in any person who sleeps exposed to them has long been felt to be absurd ; and yet it has appeared to have its source in undoubted facts. Some deleterious influence is experienced by those who rashly court slumber in full moonshine, and probably there is no superstition to which the well-to-do pay more attention. Windows are often care- fully covered, to keep the moonbeams from entering sleeping-rooms. A gentleman living in India furnishes Nature with an explanation of this phenomenon, which is, at least, plausible. He says : ' It has often been observed that when the moon is full, or near its full time, there are rarely any clouds about. And if there be clouds before the full moon rises, they are soon dissipated ; and, therefore, a perfectly clear sky with a bright full moon is frequently observed. A clear sky admits of rapid radiation of heat from the surface of the earth, and any person exposed to such radiation is sure to be chilled by rapid loss of heat. There is reason to believe that under the cir- cumstances paralysis of one side of the face is sometimes likely to occur from chill, as one side of the face is more likely to be exposed to rapid radiation and consequent loss of its heat. This chill is more likely to occur when the sky is perfectly clear. I have often slept in the open air in India on a clear summer night, when there was no moon ; and, although the first part of the night may have been hot, yet toward two or three o'clock in the morning the chill THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOON. 305 has been so great that I have often been awakened by an ache in my forehead, which I as often have counteracted by wrapping a hand- kerchief round my head and drawing the blanket over my face. As the chill is likely to be greatest on a very clear night, and the clearest nights are likely to be those on which there is a bright moonshine, it is very possible that neuralgia, paralysis, or other similar injury caused by sleeping in the open air, has been attributed to the moon, when the proximate cause may really have been the chill, and the moon only a remote cause, acting by dissipating the clouds and haze (if it do so), and leaving a perfectly clear sky for the play of radiation into space.' The Galaxy. SUB-SECTION III. DIFFICULTIES RELATED TO GEOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, AND TOPOGRAPHY. Agreement of Mosaic Creation with Geology. GENESIS ii. 4 : 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth.' Question. How has the progress of geological science affected the Mosaic record? Answer. While the record has remained the same, the scientific points of view from which it is regarded have materially changed, and are continually changing. Geology at first fashioned an explana- tion of existing phenomena by imagining a long continued series of catastrophes. Now it is trying to re-read the story of the earth in the light of a theory of evolution. We are not called upon to endeavour to square Bible records with any scientific theory that may be fashionable in any age. We are required to find essential harmony between the broad, general facts of Bible statement, and the broad, general facts of scientific discovery. Such essential harmony has been shown over and over again by men who must be recognised as fully competent to deal with geological questions. Many of the efforts to make geological conclusions accord with Bible statements we cannot but regard as mischievous, because lay- ing upon the early narration a burden which it was never intended to bear, and was wholly unfitted to bear. The possible questions that may be asked are indeed all settled if we can answer them by saying, 20 306 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. that God gave these early chapters of Genesis to Moses as a direct and immediate revelation. But very few intelligent persons find themselves able to take this ground. It is not God's way of dealing with men thus to act directly. He uses agencies. It is not fitting that we should even think of placing limitations on the agencies God may use, and it may please Him to employ the legends of pre-historic times, as well as the written records of historic times. It is better that we should distinctly recognise the legendary character of the early chapters of Genesis, and see what we call ' history ' in its beginnings, and then only in its initial stages, in the records of Abraham. Legendary matter must of necessity be largely imaginative and poetical ; it cannot be strictly descriptive. And if we think closely, we shall be willing to admit that a description of the processes of creation is impossible in these scientific days, and must have been if we may so speak even more impossible in those unscientific days. Only certain broad features could be seized and exhibited : details of processes working through countless ages could find no fitting human language in which they could be clothed. It is poetry, not prose, that recounts such things as creation. And poetry utterly refuses to be imprisoned by scientific fact. Poetry sees things with a glamour on them. But what needs to be clearly seen, what comes out fully from the strife over the first chapters of our Bible, is this : Legendary matter can be made revelational of moral and religious truth ; and the moral purpose of these first chapters can be fully secured, whether modern science can or cannot fit its conclusions to the Bible state- ments. We are, indeed, lifted away from a merely scientific interest in these early world legends, when we can clearly see the moral purposes for which they are preserved. This point has been efficiently stated in the following passage : ' The first chapter of Genesis is the introduction to a Book which is to contain the records of God's more direct dealings with man, the highest the distinctly unique creature which He was pleased to make. Unique, as a creature subject to all the natural laws by which he was surrounded, yet endowed with a marvellous power of independent will, which would enable him to mould, and modify, and control both those laws, and all other living creatures. It does not, therefore, consist of a really precise and definite account of the processes of creation ; but, in view of its main and high object, it contains a series of distinct and repeated affirmations of God's supreme relations to all forms of existence, in all their order, all their origin, MOSAIC CREATION AND GEOLOGY. 307 all their growth, all their relations, It is designed to impress on us that the world was not created by chance, by self-generation, by impersonal powers of nature, or by many agents acting either in harmony or in antagonism. God is distinct from that He has made. God is the one primal source of all things. God's will is represented in all laws that rule. God's good pleasure shapes all ends. The proper religious object of this chapter is reached when it has strongly impressed on mind and heart the existence, independence, and personality of one Divine Being, the universality of His rule, the omnipotency of His power, and the eternal persistence of His relationship to the world He has created.' ' Age of Great Patriarchs,' p. 44. Some opinions on the relations of geological science to the narrative of the creation may be interesting, and also helpful to the formation of a sound judgment on this subject. Dr. Rainy says : ' That this chapter is very different, both in what it says and in what it leaves unsaid, from what many persons think they might expect, in view of all that is known of geological eras and processes, may be granted.' Dr. Harold Browne writes : ' While we cannot say that we have in it a detailed scientific account, which may be tested at every point by the discoveries of geologists, we can safely affirm that the general out- line and order indicated are in perfect accordance with geological conclusions.' Dr. McCausland says : ' A correct reading of the Mosaic narra- tive, and a competent knowledge of geological facts, have made it plain that Scripture and science tell one and the same wondrous tale.' Dr. Pusey very pertinently remarks : ' It would be well for geology to come to a result within itself before turning its results against revelation.' Dr. Geikie collects a number of early legends of creation, with a view to showing the superiority of those preserved for us in the Bible. And he points out the moral bearing of the Bible record : ' In language, the simplicity of which befits the remote antiquity in which it was uttered, it declares the absolute and eternal distinction between the creation and the Creator, and between the creature and Him who formed it.' ' The God of Moses stands in the strongest contrast with all conceptions of the Divine Being attained by unaided reason.' Professor W. Griffiths closes a chapter on the creation with these words : ' Science, when hand in hand with faith, does not demur to 20 2 308 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. the first words of the Bible, and refuse to pass the portal of Revela- tion, but freely enters the new temple of Truth, to pay her homage at its shrine.' From the strictest orthodox standpoint, Dr. Pierson writes, in his recent work, ' Infallible Proofs ' : ' Geology teaches a watery waste, whose dense vapours shut out light. Moses affirms that, at first, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Geology makes life to precede light, and the life develops beneath the deep. Moses presents the creative spirit as brooding over that great deep before God said, " Let light be." Geology makes the atmosphere to form an expanse by lifting watery vapours, into clouds, and so separating the fountains of waters above from, those below. Moses affirms the same. Geology tells us that continents next lifted themselves from beneath the great deep, and bore vegetation. Moses also declares that the dry land appeared,, and brought forth grass, herb, and the tree, exactly correspondent to the three orders of primeval vegetation ! Geology then asserts that the heavens became cleared of cloud, and the sun and moon and stars appeared. Moses does not say that God created all these heavenly bodies on the fourth creative day, but that they then began to serve to divide day from night, and to become signs for seasons,, days, and years ! Geology then shows us sea-monsters, reptiles, and winged creatures. Moses likewise reveals the waters bringing forth moving and creeping creatures, and fowl flying in the expanse- Geology unfolds next the race of quadruped mammals; and so^ Moses makes cattle and beasts of the earth to follow, in the same order, and on the sixth day of creation. Geology brings man on the scene last of all, and so does Moses. Geology makes the first light and heat not solar, but chemical, or " cosmical." Moses makes light to precede the first appearance of the sun by the space of three creative days ! Look at the order of animal creation ! Geology and comparative anatomy combine to teach that the order of creation was from lower to higher. Fish, proportion of brain and spinal cord,. 2 to i ; reptiles, 2^ to i ; birds, 3 to i ; mammals, 4 to i ; man, 33 to i. Now this is exactly the order of Moses.' It would be difficult to find sentences richer in practical wisdom,, or more needing to be spoken over and over again, than the follow- ing, penned by Dean Payne Smith : ' The unwise disputes between science and theology almost always arise from scientific men crying aloud that some new theory just hatched is a dis-proof of the super- natural, and from theologians debating each new theory on the ground of Scriptural exposition. It is but just to the author of MOSAIC CREATION AND GEOLOGY. 309 Evolution to say that he never made this mistake. Really, every scientific hypothesis must be proved or disproved on the ground of science alone ; but when the few survivors of the very many theories which scientific men suggest have attained to the rank of scientific verities, then at last the necessity arises of comparing them with Holy Scripture ; for we could not believe it to be the Word of God if it contradicted the Book of Nature, which also comes from Him. God is truth, and His revealed Word must be true.' A recent article by Mr. W. E. Gladstone, on the Mosaic account of the creation, concludes with the following words, after a careful dealing with some of the best known ' contradictionist ' criticisms : ' We may justly render our thanks to Dana, Guyot, Dawson, Stokes, and other scientific authorities, who seem to find no cause for supporting the broad theory of contradiction. For myself, I cannot but at present remain before and above all things impressed with the profound and marvellous wisdom which has guided the human instrument, whether it were pen or tongue, which was first commis- sioned from on high to hand onwards for our admiration and instruction this wonderful, this unparalleled relation. And I submit to my readers that my words were not wholly idle words when, with- out presuming to lay down any universal and inflexible proposition, and without questioning any single contention of persons specially qualified, I said that the true question was whether the words of the Mosaic writer, taken as a whole, do not stand, according to our present knowledge, in such a relation to the facts of nature as to warrant and require thus far the conclusion that the Ordainer of Nature, and the Giver or Guide of the creation story, are one and the same.' Note. Our readers may be glad to have one early legend of creation, with which to compare and contrast the Bible record. We give the Babylonian, as preserved by Berosus, who lived B.C. 260 : ' In the beginning all was darkness and water, and therein were generated monstrous animals of strange and peculiar form. There were men with two wings, and some even with four, and two faces ; and others with two heads, a man's and a woman's, on one body ', and there were men with the heads and horns of goats, and men with hoofs like horses, and some with the upper parts of a man joined to the lower parts of a horse, like centaurs ; and there were bulls with human heads, dogs with four bodies and with fishes' tails, and horses with dogs' heads, creatures with heads and bodies of horses, but with tails of fish, and other animals mixing the forms of various beasts. 3 io HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Moreover, there were monstrous fish and reptiles and serpents, and divers other creatures which had borrowed something from each other's shapes ; of all which the likenesses are still preserved in the temple of Belus. A woman ruled them all, by name Omorka, which is in Chaldee Thalatt/i, and in Greek Thalassa (the sea). Then Belus appeared, and split the woman in twain ; and of the one half of her he made the heaven, and of the other half the earth ; and the beasts that were in her he caused to perish. And he split the dark- ness, and divided the heaven and the earth asunder, and put the world in order ; and the animals that could not bear the light perished. Belus, upon this, seeing the earth was desolate, yet teeming with productive power, commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, and to mix the blood which flowed forth with earth, and form men therewith, and beasts that could bear the light. So man was made, and was intelligent, being a partaker of the divine wisdom. Likewise Belus made the stars, and the sun and moon, and the five planets.' Mahanaim. GENESIS xxxii. 2 : ' And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God's host : and he called the name of that place Mahanaim.' Question Is it possible to decide in favour of either of the sug- gested places which have been identified as Mahanaim ? Answer. It must be borne in mind that the district lying east of Jordan is much less known than that on the west, and it has been subject to even greater changes. Moreover, we can never be quite sure that a name has not been applied to more than one place in the course of ages. In this case a tradition of Jacob's time may have lingered, and given a name to a city subsequently built in the neigh- bourhood, but not at the precise spot, of Jacob's adventure. There was no town in Jacob's day, and the name was naturally suggested to him when God's host, or camp, met, and seemed to join his. The term ' Mahanaim ' means 'two hosts, or camps.' It is only possible, in this handbook, to deal with a few specimen difficulties connected with the identification of sites, and as this is quite a representative case, the summary of the results of recent exploration and inquiry, as given by Harper, will be suggestive. ' Laban departs. Then the angels of God meet Jacob, who calls the place Mahanaim (the two hosts). The Septuagint says, where Israel " saw the camp of God encamped." Many have been the attempts to identify this place. Canon Tristram thinks he has found the place in Birket Mahneh, where there are five fine ponds " Birket "- MAHANAIM. 311 and some ruins. Dr. Merrill, of the American Survey, does not accept this place. Mr. Laurence Oliphant thinks, after an examina- tion of the country, that Canon Tristram is more likely to be right than Dr. Merrill ; while Major Conder says the site is unsettled. He gives many reasons. Jacob was going to Edom to meet Esau (Gen. xxxii. 3). He had sent messengers, and they had returned, hearing that Esau was coming with 400 men. Jacob, afraid, divides his party, passes his wife Leah and flocks over the ford of Jabbok, while he remains on the other side. Then there is that wonderful wrestling with the angel, and Jacob calls the place Peniel, which means "face," or " appearing " of God. This " Peniel " would seem to have been a ridge, for Jacob passed over it as the sun rose ; and Conder suggests that the high summit of the hill, now called Jebel Osh'a, is the place. In Murray's map a valley called Faneh is marked If this is correct the Arabic word would be a good translation of the Hebrew, Penuel. Jacob, no doubt, was going on the old pilgrim road to the north. And we find from Josh. xiii. 26 that Mahanaim is noted as opposite the border of Debir "the edge of the ridge." Mahanaim was near a wood, for Absalom was killed there. The slopes of Mount Gilead are clothed with woods of fine oak.' (The ' wood ' of Absalom's time is better rendered ' waar,' or ' thicket.') On a later page of his work, Harper favours the identification suggested by Dr. Merrill, who says that the account given of the two messengers, sent by Joab to David, in the time of Absalom, gives a clue to the ground. ' Ahimaaz wishes to run, Joab declines to trust him, but selects a stranger, a Cushite, to run, but afterwards allows Ahimaaz to go, but says he will get no reward, implying that he cannot possibly come in first ; but we are told Ahimaaz went " by the way of the plain." Doubtless he was familiar with the country, and took the easiest route, while the stranger might take the direct line, and yet, having to cross wadies and broken ground, his speed would be impeded. Most travellers have suggested Mahneh, fourteen miles south-east of Bethshan. These ruins cover about a fourth of a mile in extent, but do not indicate any great age or importance, and no one could "run by the way of the plain" to reach it. There is no room in Wady Mahneh for troops to manoeuvre by " thousands," and the distance at which the runners were discovered by the watch- men is not applicable to Mahneh. There does not exist for many miles in any direction from Mahneh a region corresponding to a field or a great plain ; but six miles north of the Zerka, Wady Ajlun is found. It has three names. There is a large ruin called Fakaris at the mouth of the wady. Here is an important valley, abundance of 3 1 2 HANDS O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES, water, and the ruins of an important city. Three miles further north, passing about midway a smaller ruin, mostly buried, Wady Suleikhat is reached ; this wady bears the name of El Kirbeh in its upper course. Here water is abundant, and at the mouth of the wady are the ruins of a large city lying on both sides of the stream. This is by far the largest ruin in the Jordan Valley east of the river. Khurbet Suleikhat is some 300 feet above the plain, and among the foothills in such a way that it overlooks the valley, while the road running north and south along the valley passes nearly a mile to the west of it. The surrounding country is most fertile, and hence we should naturally expect that the principal city of the valley would be placed here. A watchman from a tower could see to the north for a con- siderable distance, also clear across the valley to the west, and down the valley to the south, a long stretch, nearly or quite to the point where the Zerka and Jordan unite at the foot of Kiirn Surtubeh. In addition to these facts, if we consider that the town is double (Maha- naim means " two camps "), that these ruins lie on two sides of a stream, their size, the abundance of good water, the fertile region round about it, it would seem that here the principality of East Jordan in David's time probably stood.' Names for Hermon. DEUTERONOMY iii. 9 : ' Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion ; and the Amorites call it Shenir.' Difficulty. This paragraph indicates later knowledge than belongs to the Israelites in the time of Moses, and must be the insertion of a later editor. Explanation. It must be admitted that no particular reason appears for the insertion of this parenthesis. Those for whom Moses wrote need not have been interested in the various names for Hermon, and they had no such connection with Sidon as to make Sidonian opinion at all important. But if we may suppose that the Book of Deuteronomy was re-edited, and received its present form in the times of Ezra, we can well understand how such an explanatory para- graph came to be inserted, for in those days the earlier name Hermon had probably been dropped, and the range was generally known as Sirion or Shenir. If Moses knew the Sidonian name, it must have been through the constant traffic which had gone on from the most ancient times between Sidon and Egypt. 'Syria was repeatedly traversed in all directions by the Egyptian armies from the accession of the eighteenth NAMES FOR HERMON. 3*3 dynasty downwards. The transcription of Semitic words in the papyri of the nineteenth dynasty is remarkably complete.' Dean Stanley gives the meanings of the various names applied to this mountain range. ' Rising with its gray snow-capped cone to a height of about 9,500 feet, it is visible from most parts of the Promised Land, and even from the depths of the Jordan valley and the shores of the Dead Sea. Hence it was " Sion," " the upraised ;" or " Her- mon," "the lofty peak;" or " Shenir," and "Sirion," the glittering "breastplate" of ice; or above all "Lebanon," the "Mont Blanc" of Palestine ; the "White Mountain " of ancient times ; the mountain of the " Old White-headed Man " (Jebel es Sheykh) ; or " the moun- tain of ice " (Jebel eth Tilj), of modern times.' The Targums give Shenir as meaning ' the rock of snow ;' and Gesenius translates Sirion as 'glittering like a breastplate.' Dr. Geikie gives a different rendering to the names. ' We were now under the very top of Hermon " the Lofty Height " famous m Scripture, known as Jebel esh Sheikh "the Mountain of the White-haired Old Man" among the populations of to-day. . . . The Sidonians knew it as Sirion, the Amorites as Senir both mean- ing "The Banner," a fitting name for the great white standard it raises aloft over the whole land. The mass of its gigantic bulk is of the age of the Middle Chalk, as shown both by the prevailing rock and by its fossil fish and shells, some of which I myself got, thousands of feet above the sea-level.' Harper gives the meaning of the word Shenir as ' the Shining.' The fact that the Book of Deuteronomy, in the form in which we now have it, represents the work of an editor living in the times of the Restoration, is now recognised by all competent scholars ; but there are very different opinions as to the amount of original Mosaic matter that was placed at his command. Explanatory parentheses to bring a work up to date are the natural additions of editors. The Extent of the Flood. GENESIS vi. 13 : ' And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me ; for the earth is filled with violence through them ; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.' Difficulty. The idea of the flood covering the whole earth is given up by all well-instructed persons, but it is not easy to re-read the Bible records in the light of modern ideas and knowledge. Explanation. It may be well to give first the latest dealing with this difficulty from the strictly orthodox standpoint. Dr. A. T. 314 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Pierson, in his book on the Evidences of Christianity, entitled ' Many Infallible Proofs,' says: 'The Deluge, as recorded in the days of Noah, has been thought to be irreconcilable with modern science. The grand point where objections centre is that of the universal character of the flood. As the human race then occupied but a small part of the globe, to submerge the whole, so that even the loftiest mountains should be more than covered, seems a needless waste of Divine energy, especially as it may well be doubted whether the entire atmosphere, condensed into rain, would suffice to lift the seas to such a height ; and there are believed to be many evidences, in certain parts of the earth, that no universal flood has prevailed within the last 6,000 years. ' To these objections it is only necessary to reply that the moment the Bible record is interpreted with reference to the inhabited world, all difficulties vanish. Such phrases as "the whole earth," "under the whole heaven," etc., are frequently used in Scripture of so much of the earth as was peopled ; or even of Palestine, and the lands lying about it. Terms of a universal character are to be interpreted not literally, but by the design and end of the writer. When we are told that " all countries came into Egypt to buy corn," what do we under- stand ? Are we to suppose that, if there were inhabitants in Britain, they journeyed to Egypt for grain ? It would take about as much time, in those days, to get there and back, as it would to secure a new harvest. But if we understand that Egypt became a granary a house of bread to all the district over which the famine prevailed, the record is plain. ' Now, in the account of the Deluge, Moses is writing of God's awful judgment upon the sin of the race. His judgment fell upon the earth for man's sake, and only so much of the earth as was the scene of man's sin was necessarily concerned. If, then, we under- stand the " whole earth " to refer to the entire inhabited surface, the flood is still relatively universal, i.e., universal as to mankind, and the usage of similar terms in other parts of Scripture justifies such inter- pretation.' We ought to inquire carefully into the ideas concerning the shape of the earth, and the relations of the sky to the earth, in ancient times, and so try to think what ideas of the universality of the flood would come to those for whom Moses immediately wrote. A uni- versal flood is so inconceivable to us, because we know that the earth is virtually round ; but the ancients thought of it as an extensive and virtually flat plain, with only mountains, like mounds, making a rough surface ; and the sky was a solid dome rising from the edge of the THE EXTENT OF THE FLOOD. 315 plain. In fact, the earth and sky were like a dish with its cover, only the cover was conceived as fastened to the edges of the dish. Now a person with this notion in his mind need not stumble at the idea of a universal flood, covering the very tops of the hills. It is easy to conceive of the water rising the necessary height within the limits of the corer. We can think of many difficulties in the way of such an explanation, but they are difficulties which would not be suggested to an ancient mind. The limited scale of the flood is immediately suggested when a truer view of the shape of the earth, and of the relation of the sky to it, is taught. It can then be shown that the Divine purpose was fully accomplished by a flood which, though local, was effective to the removal of the race that had sinned. There is a question arising when the local character of the Flood is admitted, which as yet has received very little attention. Perhaps it is one that never can be solved, and must be treated as belonging to the domain of pure speculation. What race of men is it that we are to understand was swept away by the Flood ? There were two distinct human races the Sethite and the Cainite. Now the Cainite race is removed from the Bible record after a very brief allusion to it, and the Bible is wholly concerned with the Sethite race. We are, indeed, told that the ' sons of God ' married the ' daughters of men,' which probably means, that the men of the Sethite race took wives from the women of the Cainite race ; and it appears that the people whose violence and iniquity aroused the Divine wrath, and called for the Divine judgment, were not the original Cainites, but the children of these mixed marriages. It is an assumption usually made that the Cainites were destroyed with the Sethites, and that only the Sethites re-peopled the earth after the Flood. But there is no real ground for any such assumption, and it would be equally reasonable to assume that the Cainite race was untouched by the Flood, which bore relation only to the Sethites. This subject may be referred to again in its ethnological bearings. If the continuance of a Cainite race can be admitted, the threefold original of all existing humanity, through Noah's sons, will have to be reconsidered. This we may take as definitely settled no competent scholar would for a moment attempt to argue the absolute universality of the Flood. Attempts have been made to explain the natural agencies which might have been used in order to produce a vast and overwhelming local flood. Dr. Geikie says: 'A rise of 220 feet in the volcanic region of the Bosphorus would effect startling results, for it needs no more than that to spread an inland fresh-water ocean from the plains 3 1 6 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. of the Lower Danube and Southern Russia over the areas of the Black, the Caspian, and the Aral Seas, with their neighbouring steppes, far and near to create, in fact, a second Mediterranean. With the surface of the earth rising and sinking by steady oscillation in so many regions even now, who can say that the tradition is wrong which ascribes the drainage of this vast region to a volcanic commo- tion rending open the Bosphorus about 1,500 years before Christ, and causing the terrible catastrophe which antiquity handed down in the legend of Deucalion's flood the flood, it may be, of Genesis. See also ' Hours with the Bible,' vol. i., pp. 210-219. Blaikie says : ' It is a question among theologians and men of science, whether the Flood was absolutely universal, or whether it was universal only in the sense of extending over all the part of the world that was then inhabited. We do not here enter into this con- troversy ; but we may notice the remarkable fact, that the district lying to the east of Ararat, where the ark rested, bears traces of having at one time been under water. It is a peculiarly depressed region, lying lower than the districts around, and thus affording peculiar facilities for such a submersion. The level of the Caspian is 83 feet below that of the Black Sea ; and vast plains white with salt, and charged with sea-shells, show that at no distant period the Caspian was much more extensive than now. From Herodotus, and other ancient writers, it appears that at one time the Sea of Azoff (the Palus Mceotis of the ancients) was nearly equal in extent to the Black Sea.' Heywood W. Guion, of North Carolina, has suggested a theory of the Deluge, which both harmonizes all the discoveries of science with the record in Genesis, and may yet displace all previous concep- tions of the subject. He takes literally the statement of St. Peter, ' The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.' In Genesis we read, ' Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' In both passages there is no hint of more than one continent or more than one sea. The dry land or earth seems to be by itself in one grand elevation above sea-level, and the waters gathered in one place. This would imply, as every scientist knows, certain peculiar conditions. This solitary continent, rising in one mass from the midst of one sea that surrounds it, would present no great inequalities of surface, though there might be elevations that, compared with the rest, would be hills, or even mountains ; there would be a great uniformity of climate and temperature, no rains or clouds, but heavy mists con- stantly keeping the earth moist; and consequently vast vegetable THE EXTENT OF THE FLOOD. 317 growths, very luxuriant and abundant, making animal food unneces- sary either for man or beast there would be a paradise of verdure, and one perennial spring. This, Mr. Guion holds, was the case. At the time f the Deluge, this huge dome, that rose out of the water, was shattered by volcanic explosions and a great earthquake, and its grand roof fell in and became the bed of what is now the Pacific Ocean, while its shattered and irregular ruin was tilted up into the great mountain ranges that line the eastern boundary of the Pacific ; and the bed of this original ocean was lifted into the continents of our eastern and western hemispheres, while the sea rushed into the new bed formed by the submersion of the original continent. This would give us, in the new order of things, great mountain ranges, with marked inequalities of climate and temperature and all the pheno- mena of the changing seasons, winds, clouds, storms of rain and snow, and consequently the first rainbow. Animals inhabiting barren districts would be driven to devour animals weaker than they, and animal food would become necessary to man. This theory makes the whole original world to be submerged, and all the high hills covered. The gigantic animals of that primeval continent engulphed in the foaming waters, and afterwards buried beneath the superficial mass of shifting soil, would furnish the remarkable remains found in so many places, showing that the creatures they represent were over- taken in some universal catastrophe. For the Hindoo, Chaldaean, and Phrygaean accounts, or legends of the Flood, see ' Biblical Things not Generally Known,' Nos. 5, 264, 5 6 4. There is an important principle of explanation of which we need to be reminded. A difficulty ought to be regarded as removed if a solution can be found that is efficient and reasonable, though it may not in actual fact be the true solution. Science vindicates the narrative of Scripture when it shows how an extensive, and, for the then inhabited world, virtually universal flood could have been caused. The Cities of Argob. DEUTERONOMY iii. 4, 5 : ' And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars ; besides un walled towns a great many.' Difficulty. Some of the descriptions of the buildings of this dis- trict seem to be strangely exaggerated and extravagant. Explanation. We may often be led into error when testing the descriptions given by travellers by our own limited associations and 3 i8 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. knowledge. The days of extravagant accounts of travelling experiences are long since past ; and now anything reported by one traveller is soon supported or denied by another. And, on the whole, the statements made concerning the stone houses of Bashan are found to be true, with due allowance for sensational styles of writing. The careful observations of members of the Palestine Survey parties, and such travellers as Schumacher and Merrill, have been gathered together in Harper's late work, ' The Bible and Modern Discoveries.' ' This region in the Bible is called " Argob," " a heap of stones." It would be difficult to mention a spot in civilized lands which could be compared to this ancient region in regard to its wild and savage aspect. It is one great sea of lava. The lava-bed proper embraces about 350 square miles ; its average height above the surrounding plain is perhaps twenty feet ; but it sends out black promontories of rock into the surrounding plain. There are few openings into the interior. Roads had to be excavated to the towns situated in Argob (now called Lejjah, "a place of refuge"). The surface of this " Argob " is almost black, and has the appearance of the sea when it is in motion beneath a dark, cloudy sky ; but this sea of lava is motionless, its great waves are petrified. In cooling, the lava cracked and split, so there are great fissures and chasms which cannot be crossed. Often this lava-bed is broken into hillocks, and between them, and also in the rolling plains, are many intervals of soil, which is of amazing fertility. The country is full of extinct craters, too many to number. The whole lava region embraces several thousand square miles, extending to the Hauran mountains. The region is not waterless. In many places are copious living fountains, with abundant water, cool and sweet. Ruins of towns abound. The Arabs say that in the Hauran, which includes Argob, there are quite a thousand. The Bible especially mentions one place, Edrei, which would seem to have been the capital town of Og. This place has been identified and visited by a few travellers. Its present name is Ed-Dera'ah. It is a subterranean city. There is a small court, 26 feet long, 8 feet 3 inches wide, with steps leading down into it, which has been built as an approach to the actual entrance of the caves. Then come large basaltic slabs, then a passage, 20 feet long, 4 feet wide, which slopes down to a large room, which is shut off by a stone door ; so this underground city could be guarded. Columns 10 feet high support the roof of the chamber into which you now enter ; these columns are of later period, but there are other supports built out of the basaltic rock. Then come dark and THE CITIES OF ARGOB. 319 / winding passages a broad street, which had dwellings on both sides of it, whose height and width left nothing to be desired. The temperature was mild, no difficulty in breathing ; several cross streets, with holes in the ceiling for air ; a market-place, a broad street with numerous shops in the walls; then into a side street, and a great hall with a ceiling of a single slab of jasper, perfectly smooth, and of immense size. Air-holes are frequent, going up to the surface of the ground about 60 feet. Cisterns are frequent in the floors. Tunnels partly blocked, too small for anyone now to creep through, are found.' 'In 1874 the president of Queen's College, Belfast, found a curious old city about two miles in circuit, the buildings of black basalt. Some of the ruins were inhabited, but they were chiefly buried. The ancient houses were cave-like, of massive walls, of roughly-hewn blocks of basalt ; stone doors of the same material, and roofs of long slabs closely laid together. Most of the houses were originally above ground. Others were excavated out of the solid rocks.' The Speaker's Commentary thinks the threescore cities of Argob are identical with the Bashan-havoth-jair, i.e., cities of Jair, in Bashan, of verse 14, and with the ' towns of Jair,' in Bashan, of the same number in Josh. xiii. 30; i Kings iv. 13 ; and i Chron. xi. 23. ' The Hebrew word rendered " region " means literally rope, or cable ; and though undoubtedly used elsewhere in a general topographical sense for portion, or district, has a special propriety in reference to Argob. This name means stone-heap, and is paraphrased by the Targums "Trachonitis," or " the rough country ;" both titles, like the modern Lejah (or Lejjah), designating, with the wonted vigour of Hebrew topographical terms, the more striking features of the district. The Argob is described as an island of black basaltic rock, oval in form, measuring 60 miles by 20, rising abruptly to the height of from 20 to 30 feet from the surrounding plains of Bashan. Its borders are compared to a rugged shore-line, hence its description as the "girdle of the stony country" would seem peculiarly appro- priate.' It hardly seems possible that travellers can exaggerate in their descriptions of so strange, so unique, and so wonderful a district. 320 HA NDB O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFF1C UL TIES. Identification of Ur. GENESIS xi. 28 : ' And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.' Question. Have recent investigations helped to fix , with reason- able certainty, the situation of Ur ? Answer. Though the identification with Orfa, the Edessa of the Greeks, well known in Christian times as the capital of Abgarus, its first Christian king, is not absolutely disproved, it is now almost universally abandoned. This Orfa was never included within the Chaldsean boundaries. There can be no reasonable doubt that Ur is identical with Mugheir, on the right bank of the Euphrates, some 6 miles back from the river. The ruins are 40 miles from Warka, 90 miles from Niffer, 150 miles from Babylon. Harper says : '" Ur of the Chaldees " has been found, the ruins of its temples excavated ; some of its engraved gems may be seen in the British Museum. The place is now called Mugheir, on the western side of the Euphrates, on the border of the desert west of Erech low down near the Persian Gulf, and not the Ur of most Biblical maps, near Haran. The name " Ur " is Semitic for Accadian eri " city." The worship of Ur was that of the moon god. Abram's original name is found on an early Babylonian contract-tablet, written Abu-ramu, or Abram, "the exalted father." Haran, the place to which Terah emigrated, was the frontier town of Babylonia, com- manding both the roads and the fords of the Euphrates. The word Haran means " road." ' Professor Sayce says : ' It is probable that Ur had passed into the hands of the Semitic " Casdim " before the age of Abraham ; at all events, it had long been the resort of Semitic traders, who had ceased to lead the roving life of their ancestors in the Arabian desert.' An article in ' Biblical Things not Generally Known ' collects some further information, chiefly from Professor Rawlinson : ' The excavations conducted at Ur have brought to light the name of Urukh, which seems to have been borne by a very ancient king of that region. The basement platforms of all the most ancient buildings all through the entire region were built by this king, who calls himself in the inscriptions on the bricks King Ur, and also King of Accad. Professor Rawlinson considers that he was the immediate successor of Nimrod, or, at least, the oldest king after the great hunter of whose works any fragments at present remain. His bricks are of a rude and coarse make, and the inscriptions are marked by the most THE SALT SEA AND THE SITE OF SODOM. 321 primitive simplicity. His substitute for lime and mortar was either wet mud or bitumen, and the bricks are, for the most part, ill-set. The language of the inscriptions belongs to the Hamitic class, and on one of the bricks occurs the inscription : "Urukh, King of Ur, he is the builder of the temple of the moon-god." It is chiefly as a builder of enormous structures that Urukh is known ; it is calculated that he used up no less than 30,000,000 square bricks in the construc- tion of one building alone. . . . His erections are carefully placed with the angles facing the four cardinal points of the compass, and they were dedicated to the sun or moon, to Belus, Bel, Nimrod, or Beltis. Rawlinson places the date of Urukh's reign in the time of Terah, the father of Abraham.' Does the Salt Sea cover the Site of Sodom ? GENESIS xix. 25 : ' And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." Difficulty. The geological formation of the district does not admit of our seeking for lost Sodom beneath any portion of the present Dead Sea. Explanation. There can be no doubt that the Dead Sea occupied its present position, to its full extent, long ages before the time of Abraham. But the level of its waters must have varied greatly at different times. Sir J. W. Dawson, who writes on the ' Physical Features of Egypt and Syria,' gives the results of careful observation of the district : ' Standing on the beach we see before us the placid waters of this strange lake, blue and clear, but, owing to their great density, having a heavy and oily aspect. The shore on either side is formed of bare but brightly-tinted cliffs, running out in a succession of rugged points into the sea, and capped by grassy peaks and table- lands. But flanking these original margins we see successive flats and terraces of gray marly beds. These are the old deposits of the sea when it was larger than at present, and among them we find gravel layers marking beaches similar to the existing margin, but at higher levels. The lowest of these terraces is about 30 feet above the sea. A second attains an elevation of 100 feet, and others have been traced as high as 1,400 feet. ... I may state that the deposits at the north end of the Dead Sea are evidently similar in kind and origin, though different in degree, from those which in Jebel Usdum, at the south end of the sea, rise to the height of 400 feet, and contain thick beds of rock-salt, and gypsum. At the north end, 21 322 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. where the principal supply of fresh water is poured in, and the evaporation is less, the deposition of salt is always likely to have been inferior to that at the southern end, south of the Lisan peninsula, which may always have represented a bar or shallow in the lake.' The idea that the cities occupied positions south of the Lisan peninsula, and were submerged by volcanic action, has no scientific basis. It is no more than an imaginative effort to explain the entire removal of all trace of these ancient places. Sir J. W. Dawson gives convincing proof that the cities occupied what is now known as the ' Plain of Jordan,' to the north of the Dead Sea. He says : ' It may be affirmed, in the first place, that Sodom and its companion cities were not, as held by later tradition, at the south end of the sea, but at its northern end, and that this must, at the time, have occupied, approximately at least, its present position. This appears from the name " Cities of the Plain," or Ciccar, that is, of the Jordan valley, or the lower end of it. It is also stated that Abraham and Lot could see this plain from the high ground between Bethel and Hai, whence only the northern end of the Dead Sea is visible. Abraham could not see the cities from Mamre, but he saw their smoke ascending. The most convincing geographical note, however, is that in Genesis xiv., which describes the invasion of Canaan by the five eastern kings in the time of Abraham. They are said to have come down on the east side of the Dead Sea, to have defeated the Hivites and Amalekites on the south, and then to have come up by way of Engedi, on the west side of the sea, and to have fallen on the Sodomites and their allies from the south-west. Thus the Book of Genesis, from which alone we have any contemporary account of these cities, fixes their position. The Speaker's Commentary seems to think that much may be said in favour of the view that the Vale of Siddim corresponds with the southern bay of the Dead Sea. It admits, however, that there is no Scriptural authority for saying that Sodom and the other guilty cities were immersed in the sea ; and that the arguments in favour of the northern site are very strong, and presented with great ability. Harper has gathered up the results of the Palestine Exploration Survey, and these distinctly favour the northern site, which is also advocated by Tristram and Merrill. Harper's passage may suffice in support of the views already given from Dawson : ' We must now examine the position " of the cities of the plain," and see if the commonly-accepted notion is true, that the Dead (or Salt) Sea covers their sites. Lot, standing on the Bethel THE SALT SEA AND THE SITE OF SODOM. 323 hill, saw " the Valley of the Jordan." From no hill there, except one called by the Arabs " the Hill of Stones," can any view of the Jordan Valley or Dead Sea be seen ; and what can there be seen is the northern end of the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley, and the river running like a blue thread through the green plain. The hills of Engedi shut out completely all view of the southern end of the sea. I have wandered over all the Bethel hills, and tested this question. . . . Again, look at Abraham at Mamre, not 20 miles off; he hears nothing, sees nothing, though he is full of anxiety, till, early in the morning, Abraham got up to the place where he stood before the Lord, and he looks towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and sees the smoke. He had heard nothing, felt nothing, before. Had it been, as some say, an earthquake, why, Palestine would have shaken to its centre to make that deep depression. Geology proves as, in fact, anyone can see that the deep depression of the valley and the Dead Sea must have existed from prehistoric times, when in long ages past the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea were united through the Wady Arabah, and the whole plain was an inland sea. But we do not rest on these proofs alone. In Deut. xxix. 23 it is written : " And the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger, and in His wrath." Nothing here about a sea covering the sites ! And again, Deut. xxxii. 32 : " For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah ; their grapes are the grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter." And St. Peter (2nd epistle ii. 6), speaking of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire, remarks : " Turning the cities into ashes" Poets may write of " That bituminous lake where Sodom flamed," but many things of Milton have been accepted as Bible truths with as little foundation in fact.' A passage in Gen. xiv. 3, ' All these joined together in the Vale of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea),' is the only Bible support to the southern identification ; and it is at once evident that this passage is fully satisfied if we read it ' (the same is the Salt Sea district).' 21 2 3 2 4 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The River of Egypt. GENESIS xv. 18 : 'In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.' Question. Can the identification of this river with Wady el Arish be confidently maintained ? Answer. The term ' River of Egypt ' naturally suggests the Nile, but it is quite certain that there never was any sense in which the territory of Palestine could be said to have the Nile for its southern boundary. Harper collects some interesting descriptions of the river, or river- bed, that must be meant, first premising that the word rendered ' river ' is probably ' brook,' or ' torrent-bed ' (see 2 Kings xxiv. 7 ; Josh. xv. 4, Revised Version). Mr. G. J. Chester, writing of his journey from San (or Zoan) to the border, says : ' Evening corning on, I again camped near the sea-shore, and the next morning arrived at the Wady Fiumara, or dry torrent-bed of " El 'Arish," so strangely and misleadingly termed in the Authorised Version "the river of Egypt." The town, or rather village, of clay houses, stands between the desert and the sea, at the distance of about a quarter of a mile from the latter. . . . To the west of the entrance of the wady, close to the sea-shore, are the remains of some ancient houses. Occasion- ally, in winter, when heavy rains have fallen amongst the mountains inland, the wady of El 'Arish is temporarily a turbulent rushing torrent. ... El 'Arish, or rather the wady at that place, is the natural boundary of Egypt, and appears as such in many maps.' The Rev. F. W. Holland says that this wady has been traced from the Medi- terranean Sea to Nakhl; it is. really more than 100 miles in length. Professor Palmer shows how two great valleys drain the mountain plateau of the Tih Desert, and how they ' combine their streams, and then, flowing into Wady el 'Arish, are carried on to the Mediterranean.' Dr. Trumbull says : ' Egypt proper is bounded definitely enough on the east by a line drawn from El Arish to Akabah.' Harper adds : 'Enough has been quoted to show how true was the expression "brook" or "torrent" of Egypt, and that it should neve be con- founded with the Nile. So this, the southern frontier of the Promised Land, is seen to be a well-defined gorge or wady, which reaches from the Great Sea westward to Nakhl, and continues to Akabah on the Red Sea. If we look at 2 Chron. ix. 26, we read, " Solomon ruled over all the kings from the river (i.e. Euphrates) even unto the land CROSSING AND DISASTER OF THE RED SEA. 325 of the Philistines, and the border of Egypt." The writer there did not confuse the " brook " with the Nile, as so many Bible commen- tators do now.' The Crossing and Disaster of the Red Sea. EXODUS xiv. 22, 28 : ' And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground. . . And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them.' Question. Can recent explorations be said to have fixed the pre- cise point of the crossing and the disaster ? Answer. There are still various opinions held, and a certain decision may never be attained because of the physical changes of the district ; but Sir J. W. Dawson has materially contributed to a settlement by a careful geological examination of the surrounding country. The chief points in his conclusions may be given. ' A still more important question is as to the precise locality where the Hebrews were overtaken, and where the crossing of the sea occurred. It is evident, in the first place, that no important town or city existed at the locality. This is implied in the description given and in the character of the names employed. The place of this great event was so important that care was taken to define it by mentioning three points, presumably well known to the narrator ; but this method implies that there was no one definite name for the locality. All the names employed are Semitic, and not Egyptian, except, perhaps, the prefix Pi in one of them. Pi-hahiroth may have been a village, but its distinctive character is that of " place of reeds " a reedy border of the sea, near the embouchure of fresh water from the Nile, or Sweet-water Canal. Migdol cannot have been, as supposed by some, a fortified place. It would have been madness, with Pharaoh in their rear, for the Israelites to have encamped near such a place. It must rather have been a commanding height used, as the name implies, as a watch-tower to command an extensive view, or to give signals. Baal-Zephon " the Lord of the North " is generally under- stood to have been a mountain, though both Jebel Attaka and the northern peak of Jebel er Rabah may lay claim to the title. In any case, the place so named by Moses was " opposite" to the camp of the Israelites, and consequently across the sea. ' After somewhat careful examination of the country, I believe that only one place can be found to satisfy these conditions of the Mosaic narrative, namely, the south part of the Bitter Lake, between station Fayid on the railway, and station Geneffeh. Near this place are 326 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. some inconsiderable ancient ruins, and flats covered with Arundo and Scirpus, which may represent Pi-hahiroth. On the west is the somewhat detached peak known as Jebel Shebremet, more than 500 feet high, commanding a very wide prospect, and forming a most conspicuous object to the traveller approaching from the north. Opposite, in the Arabian desert, rises the prominent northern point of the Jebel er Rabah, marked on the maps as Jebel Muksheih, and which may have been the Baal-Zephon of Moses. Here there is also a basin-like plain, suitable for an encampment, and at its north side the foot of Jebel Shebremet juts out so as to form a narrow pass, easy of defence. Here also the Bitter Lake narrows, and its shallower part begins, and a north-east wind, combined with a low tide, would produce the greatest possible effect in lowering the water. ... It may further be observed as an incidental corroboration that the narrative in Exodus states that after crossing the sea the Israelites journeyed three days and found no water. From the place above referred to, three days' journey would bring them to the Wells of Moses, opposite Suez, which thus come properly into place as the Marah of the narrative, whereas the ordinary theory of a crossing at Suez would bring the people at once to these wells. They are also said to have journeyed for three days in the wilderness of Etham, and then to have come to the wilderness of Shur, or " the wall," whereas the wilderness of Shur is directly opposite Suez, and not three days' journey to the south. The three days' journey from the place of crossing would not be long journeys, the whole distance being about thirty miles, but there was now no reason for haste, and the want of water would not be favourable to long marches.' For a full study of the question of the extension of the Red Sea northwards in ancient times, see Dawsorfs ' Egypt and Syria,' p. 67. With this view of Dawson's may be compared the account given in a recent work on Exodus by Professor Macgregor. ' Not far from Suez, south and eastward on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea, there is a plain, which reaches inland some twelve miles from that sea. At the upper extremity of that plain there is a height on which is an ancient fort named Ajrud. This Ajrud we shall take as the site of Pi-hahiroth. Pi means town. So that Pi-hahiroth is Hahiroth-town. And Hahiroth may have dwindled into Ajrud. From this Pi-hahiroth, at the head of the plain, facing towards the Red Sea at the foot of it, we look beyond the narrow sea, on the east side of it, for Baal- Zephon, which the Israelites saw, if they looked across the sea from this plain, between it and Ajrud. The geographer finds it by first observing that Baal-Zephon is a Zephon of Baal. And Zephon is a CROSSING AND DISASTER OF THE RED SEA. 327 Phoenician deity that was known to the Egyptians as the foreign god Sutech. Now this Sutech went into the composition of the name of a city which in old times was on that coast beyond the Red Sea. Finally, we need to have a Migdol, since that name, too, is in the history. And this by some geographers is found in Maktal, an ancient Egyptian fort (Migdol means " tower ") near the site of a well named Bir Suaveis (the well of Suez). This Migdol, if the Israelites were in the plain, would be close upon them, near the sea, while Pi-hahiroth was behind them, on the height, and Baal-Zephon was before them beyond the Gulf. On their left hand the Gulf extended much farther toward the Mediterranean than it does at present ; and the land was much under water, of marsh, lagoon or lake; while they have further been turned from that direction by the formidable- ness of the Philistines beyond the head of the Gulf. But if they thus be intercepted on their left side, on the right hand of the plain they have reached there is broken, if not mountainous ground, which practically barricades their way in that direction. And if, while they are thus shut in on the right hand and on the left, with the Red Sea before them, the Egyptians come up behind them, where there is the height and foot of Hahiroth, plainly, with no outgate but the sea, they are, as the history says, entangled caught as in a trap, which they have entered, and which the Egyptians have now closed behind them.' The Two Dans. GENESIS xiv. 14 : ' And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.' Difficulty. If this is identified with Laish, it is strange to find it here called Dan, seeing that this name was not given to the place until after its conquest by the Danites. Explanation. At first sight it may seem necessary to associate the name of this place with Dan, one of the sons of Jacob ; but the word simply means ' a judge,' and so was in use long before Dan, Jacob's son, was born, and may have been the name of a place in Canaan in Abraham's time. Two very simple explanations of this reference have been given. 1. Le Clerc suggests that the original name of the fountain was ' Dan ' ; that is, ' The Judge,' the neighbouring town being Laish ; but that the Danites gave the name of the well, which corresponded with that of their own tribe, to the city as well as the fountain. 2. Keil, with Kalisch, noticing that Laish did not lie in either of the two roads leading from the Vale of Siddim to Damascus, suggest that 328 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. quite another place is referred to ; they think it must be Dan-Jaan ( 2 Sam. xxiv. 6), apparently belonging to Gilead, and to be sought for in Northern Peroea, to the south-west of Damascus. A traveller thus describes the situation of Laish : ' Laish, or Dan, is now called Tell el Kady ("the mound of the judge"), a broad round Tell, a mile south of Hermon, and stands prominently on the plain. Very fine springs exist, for the Jordan source is here. The top of the Tell comprises several acres. It would be difficult to find a more lovely situation than this ; even now, on the west, are thickets of oak, oleander, and reeds.' Dan-Jaan, which the Septuagint and Vulgate read as ' Dan in the Woods,' may be the ruin Danian, 4 miles north of Achzib, between Tyre and Akka, as suggested by the Palestine Survey party. For the seizure of the district of Laish by a party of Danites, see Josh. xix. 47 ; Judg. xviii. 29. It seems that the portion allotted to the tribe of Dan proved too small for the numbers of the tribe. Stanley says : ' Squeezed into the narrow strip between the mountains and the sea, its energies were great beyond its numbers.' They therefore sent out spies, who tracked the Jordan to its source, and found a town known as Leshem, or Laish, in a most fertile district. The inhabitants were a colony from Sidon, and under the protection of Lebanon, and in an out-of-the-way spot, they dwelt secure. Six hundred Danites from Zorah and Eshtaol seized this town and settled in this district, adding it to Danite territory. The original allotment to the Danites was only about 14 miles of coast-line, from Joppa to Ekron ; but it was one of the most fertile tracts in the land, the corn-field and garden of Southern Palestine. Inglis gives a suggestion which deserves attention. As this town was situated near the sources of the river Jonfo;*, it might have been known from the earliest times as Dan. This seems to be quite clear. The name of the place, as Dan, is not necessarily associated with the expedition of the Danites in the time of the Judges. The Limits of the Solomonic Kingdom. I KINGS iv. 21 : 'And Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt.' Difficulty. Only in a special sense could the country of Israel ever be said to reach the river Euphrates. Explanation. In the boastful style of Eastern language, the limits of a kingdom were made to include not only its natural territory, but also the territory of the countries that were, in any THE LIMITS OF THE SOLOMONIC KINGDOM, 329 sense, dependent on it. Solomon exercised a suzerainty over the kings of the countries lying north and east of Palestine, as far the Euphrates ; but probably this involved little more than the sending to Solomon of a yearly present, as is even now done by some of the surrounding nations which regard themselves as dependent on China. This is the special sense in which Solomon can be said to have reigned over these kingdoms. As to the southern limit, the confusion of the so-called ' River of Egypt ' with the Nile, has now been fully corrected. See previous paragraph on the ' River of Egypt.' Wady el 'Arish is the natural southern boundary of Palestine, and equally the natural ' border of Egypt.' Only when the original promises of God are carefully limited and qualified can the fulfilment in subsequent history be recognised. To Abraham (Gen. xv. 18) God said : 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the River of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.' Moses assures the people by saying (Deut. xi. 24) : 'Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours, from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the utmost sea shall your coast be.' Joshua repeats the Mosaic form of expression (Josh. i. 4) : ' From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.' Dr. Geikie gives an account of the troubles of Solomon's early reign, and the way in which they were overruled to give him a secure and extensive kingdom : ' The various warlike nations which David had conquered fretted at their dependence, and hailed the great king's death, and that of Joab, his renowned captain, soon after, as the signal for revolt. Hadad of Edom, who had found refuge in Egypt, managed to escape, and flew to his native mountains, where he was forthwith acknowledged king by many of his countrymen, and was able to give Solomon great trouble, though he never succeeded in gaining the entire independence of his race. About the same time commotions arose in the north. Rezon, a Syrian, formerly an officer of the fallen King of Zobah, had risen as a local chief even in David's reign, and had roamed through the deserts as a freebooter. On Solomon's accession, an opportunity for bolder action seemed to offer, and, making a swoop on Damascus, he took it, and tried to make it the centre of a new power. He was not able, however, to hold it long, though his audacity continued to disturb Israel. Hamath, on the Orontes, also revolted, but Solomon soon re- 330 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. conquered it. Disturbances rose, likewise, in the west, where the petty kingdom of Gezer, or Geshur, between the hills and the Philistine cities, strove to regain its independence, probably with the help of various allies. The king of Egypt conquered it, and handed it over as part of the dowry of the Egyptian princess whom Solomon married.' It does not appear that Solomon extended the borders of his country by war, but he was skilful in securing alliances, and offering protection to smaller states. It is, therefore, necessary to consider how far David enlarged the boundaries, and what size the kingdom was when Solomon came to the throne. By the defeat of Shobach, the general of Hadadezer, the kingdoms of Rehob, Maachah, and Tob passed under the rule of David, and the territories of Zobah became part of the Hebrew dominions. The Aramaean King of Damascus was involved in the ruin of Hadadezer, and his territory was held by Hebrew garrisons. ' Between the Euphrates and the Lebanon officials from Jerusalem levied tribute for the new Jewish empire.' The Edomites and the Ammonites were conquered, and the Philistines were subdued. ' The limits of the kingdom, a short time before, had been Dan and Beersheba, on the north and south. But David now reigned from the " River (brook) of Egypt " to the Euphrates ; from Gaza, on the west, to Thapsacus, on the east ; and from all the subject-nations in this vast empire yearly tribute was exacted; in part, probably, in the form of drafts of slave labour to toil on the royal buildings and other public works.' Whence came the Water for the Carmel Sacrifice ? i KINGS xviii. 33 : ' And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.' Question. Have recent researches effectually removed the difficulty of getting so much water high up on the mountain side ? Answer. It is not only the unlikely situation, but also the long continuance of the drought, that has occasioned difficulty, and suggested sceptical objections to the narrative. The River Kishon was certainly accessible, but its actual nearness depends on the position fixed for the great assembly. Both Kitto and Thomson find no natural impossibility in obtaining the water from Kishon. There were plenty of people about ready to fetch and carry, and from the dwellings of the district buckets could readily be obtained. More- over, as Elijah knew what he intended to do, and there were long THE WATER FOR THE CAR MEL SACRIFICE. 331 hours during which the Baal prophets were trying to bring down the fire, the messengers of Elijah had plenty of time in which to fetch and store large quantities of water ready for the supreme moment. It may be therefore firmly held that the water may have been brought from the Kishon. A perennial fountain has, however, been found near to the place of sacrifice, but opinion seems to vary concerning its sufficiency for Elijah's purpose. On this a few extracts from Bible writers may be given. Jamieson says : ' Two hundred and fifty feet beneath the altar plateau there is a perennial fountain, which, being close to the altar of the Lord, might not have been acceptable to the people, and whence, therefore, even in that season of severe drought, Elijah could procure those copious supplies of water which he poured over the altar. The distance between this spring and the altar is so short as to make it perfectly possible to go thrice thither and back again ; whereas it must have been impossible once in an afternoon to fetch water from the sea. The summit is i.ooo feet above the Kishon.' Canon Tristram writes as follows : ' During my travels I was in the habit of collecting carefully the many species of small fresh-water shells which inhabit the streams, fountains, and wells of Palestine Now, among the best ascertained and most universally acknowledged sites of scenes of deep Scriptural interest, there is none more unani- mously accepted than the site of Elijah's sacrifice at the east end of Mount Carmel. This spot was first brought to the notice of English readers by the Rev. G. Williams, and has been admirably described both by him and by Dean Stanley. The name of the place is El Moharakah, "the place of burning." There is the rocky platform standing out in front of the ridge, there is the gently sloping place below, with the sides of the hill gently spreading down to the plain, and washed by the Kishon, as it winds round the mountain's base. On its bank, full in view, is the artificial-looking knoll, or mound, Tell Kassis, " the mound of the priests," where Elijah slew the pro- phets of Baal. Close by the place of sacrifice, shaded by a noble old tree, by a rock on which the king may have sat, is a large natural cistern of sweet water, which the people of the neighbourhood say is never exhausted. One traveller remarks that in a very dry season he found it nearly dry (probably from having been largely drawn upon), but all others, at all times of the year, have found it full. The exist- ence of this well at once solves any difficulty as to the copious supply of water at hand for Elijah, wherewith to drench the altar and its sacrifice. My search for shells illustrated the permanence of the 332 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. fountain in another way. It is well known that there are many species of pluviatila molluscs which can survive a long drought, buried in the mud at the bottom of pools. But this is not the case with all species. Especially the well-known genus Neritina, of which very pretty group of fresh-water shells one species is found in our English rivers, is very sensitive to removal from water, and only exists in permanent streams and pools. I found Neritina Michonii, the species common in the Kishon and neighbouring streams, in this fountain only of the neighbourhood. The inference is plain, viz., that, when the other pools and fountains of the district are dry, the fountain of Elijah, fed by the drainage of the limestone cliffs which tower above it, continues to afford a supply, as it did during the three years of drought. Van de Velde says : ' Two hundred and fifty feet beneath the altar- plateau is a vaulted and very abundant fountain, built in the form of a tank, with a few steps leading down into it, just as one finds else- where in the old wells or springs of the Jewish times. Possibly the water of the spring may have been consecrated to the Lord, so as not to be generally accessible to the people even in times of fearful droughts. In such springs the water remains always cool, under the shade of a vaulted roof, and with no hot atmosphere to evaporate it. While all other fountains were dried up, I can well understand that there might have been found here that superabundance of water which Elijah poured so profusely over the altar.' Josephus distinctly states that it was from the neighbouring well (a? T%S xpfari.) the water was obtained. Geikie assumes the sufficiency of the well. ' Close beneath the rocks, under the shade of ancient olive-trees, is a well which is said never to fail, and this, even after the long drought, still held sufficient water to supply Elijah with as much as he required.' Describing more minutely in his latest work, Geikie says : ' There are still some fine trees in the amphitheatre, overhanging an ancient fountain, with a square stone-built reservoir about eight feet deep beside it, traces still remaining of the steps by which the water was reached when low. This spring never dries up, as is shown by the presence of living fresh-water molluscs, which would die if water were at any time to fail them. One can thus understand how, although drought had scorched the land for three years, and the Kishon, after shrinking to a string of pools, had dried up altogether, there was still water for the sacrifice of Elijah, though he needed so much.' Canon Rawlinson speaks of this perennial fountain as being ' fed by the dews that the wooded upland condenses from the moist THE WATER FOR THE CARMEL SACRIFICE. 333 Mediterranean air, even when it is not sufficiently charged with vapour to descend in rain.' One or two things need to be considered by way of correcting the commonly-received impressions concerning this incident, (i) The term ' barrels ' is quite confusing. No such things as we call ' barrels ' could have been found among the people under such circumstances, and it is this word which has suggested large quantities of water. The term is the same as is used in Gen. xxiv. 14-20, Judg. vii. 16, 19, and it clearly means the common pitcher, or water-jar, which the maidens used to carry on their heads. (2) The altar was only a simple heap of stones, of no great size, and so lightly put together that every drop of water poured on it would run through and be caught in the trench ; and the trench was only a big furrow hastily dug round the stones, so as to keep the water from draining away. A few pails of water sufficed to meet Elijah's purpose, and prove the impossibility of deception. This may be regarded as an illustration of the way in which Scrip- ture difficulties are needlessly manufactured. We imagine things that are altogether beyond the record, and then find all sorts of perplexi- ties in the endeavour to explain what we have imagined. It is only necessary to add Thomson's criticism of the suggestion that the fountain sufficed to supply Elijah's need : ' I cannot agree with Van de Velde that the water poured upon the sacrifice was pro- cured from the fountain he mentions. The fountain was nearly dry when I saw it ; nor do I think that it could hold out through the dry season even of one ordinary summer . . . nor are there any marks of antiquity about it. The water was obtained, as I suppose, from those permanent sources of the Kishon at the base of Carmel.' Dr. Kitto may be quoted as supporting this explanation of Thom- son's : ' The water thus copiously provided was probably from the Kishon, which, towards the end of its course, is supplied from peren- nial springs in Carmel, where the upper part (which is but the bed of a winter torrent) has become dry. Being so near the sea, these fountains may not have dried up from lack of rain.' Identification of Adullam. I SAMUEL xxii. I : 'David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam.' Question. Have recent explorers succeeded in discoloring this interesting cave ? Answer. The traditional site is the cave at Khureitun, 5 miles south-east of Bethlehem, but this is quite untenable. Some arc 334 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. inclined to place it at Deir Dubban, about 6 miles north of Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis). M. Clermont Ganneau, however, was the first to discover the site of Adullam, and the existing name of Ayd el Mieh, which preserves all the essential letters of the Hebrew. Major Conder has now made a careful survey of the spot. He finds the ruins of an ancient town (Gen. xxxviii. i, 12, 20) strongly situated (Josh. xii. 15, and 2 Chron. xi. 7) on the height commanding the broad valley of Elah, which was the highway by which the Philistines invaded Judah (i Sam. xvii. 17), and where David killed Goliath. Roads connect it with Hebron, Bethlehem, and Tell es Safiyeh the probable site of Gath. There are terraces of the hill for cultivation, scarped rock for fortification, tombs, wells, and aqueducts. The ' cave ' is a series of caves, some of moderate size and some small, but quite capable of housing David's band of followers. If this site be adopted it will be seen that some of the most picturesque events of David's life are collected into a small area, bringing out most clearly the nature of the incidents recorded, such as the swiftness with which he avenged the foray of the Philistines in Kilah; the strong places which he held barring the valley to the enemy on the one hand, and protecting himself from Saul on the other. Fuller details serve to give us confidence that this most interesting site has certainly been recovered. Harper says : ' Adullam was a city in the low country between the hill country of Judah and the sea. It was very ancient, being mentioned in Gen. xxxviii. i, 12, 20. Now the great valley of Elah was the highway from Philistia to Hebron, and Wady es Stint is identified with Elah. It answers all the requirements of the sacred text. Eight miles from the valley head stands Shochoh. The wady is here a quarter of a mile across. Getting deeper and deeper, it runs between rocky hills to an open vale of rich cornland, flanked by ancient fortresses, and ends at the cliff Tell es Safi. Two miles and a half south of the great angle, near Shochoh, there is a large and ancient terebinth, the tree from which Elah took its name. Near are two ancient wells, with stone water- troughs. A high hill near is covered with ruins. Caves, tombs, and rock-quarryings exist. A building dedicated to "the notable chief" is here placed. Ruins below and near the wells are called " the feast of the water," or " feast of the hundred." The Arabic words are identical with the Hebrew Adullam. We may, therefore, safely consider these ruins to-be the city of Adullam ; and the cave is on the hill. The Crusaders fixed on some caves east of Bethlehem. We know on what slight grounds they identified places. The present IDENTIFICA TION OF A DULL AM, 335 Adullam is ruinous, not deserted ; the sides of the valley are lined with caves, some now used to fold flocks and herds. There is one separate cave, with ample accommodation for 400 men. The hill is 500 feet high, and the whole of the country of David's exploits with the Philistines is close at hand.' In his latest work, ' The Holy Land and the Bible,' Geikie gives what appear to be the results of personal observation : ' About two miles to the south of the scene of David's triumph the Palestine Surveyors appear to have discovered the Cave of Adullam, so famous in the after-life of the Hebrew king. It lies in a round hill about 500 feet high, pierced with a number of caverns, the hill itself being isolated by several valleys, and marked by ancient ruins, tombs, and quarryings. At its foot are two old wells of special antiquity, one measuring 8 to 10 feet in diameter, not unlike the wells at Beersheba, and surrounded, as those are, by numerous stone water-troughs. Near these wells, under the shadow of the hill which towers aloft, a veritable natural stronghold, are other ruins, to which the peasants give the name of Aid-el-Ma, which is identical with the Hebrew Adullam. Such a verification seems to mark the spot as, beyond question, that in which the famous cave should be found, for it was near the royal city of Adullam, and the ruins on the hilltop may well be those of that place. . . . The road from Hebron to the plains passes the hill, winding along the valley of Elah, here called Wady es Sir, from the side of which the hill of Adullam rises, the road continuing down the valley, which is called Wady es Sunt, from Socoh to the plains. Other roads trend off in different directions, marking Aid-el-Ma as an important centre of communication in former ages. A cave which completes the identification exists in the hill, which, in fact, is pierced by many natural caverns. It is not necessary to suppose that the one used by David was of great size, for such spacious recesses are avoided by the peasantry even now, from their dampness and tendency to cause fever. Their darkness, moreover, needs many lights, and they are disliked from the number of scorpions and bats frequenting them. The caves used as human habitations, at least in summer, are generally about 20 or 30 paces across, lighted by the sun, and comparatively dry. I have often seen such places with their roofs blackened by smoke ; families lodging in one ; goats, cattle, and sheep stabled in another ; and grain or straw stored in a third. At Adullam there are two such caves on the northern slope of the hill, and another farther south ; while the opposite sides of the tributary valley are lined with rows of caves, all smoke-blackened, and mostly inhabited, or used as pens for flocks and herds. The cave on the 336 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. south of the hill itself was tenanted by a single family when the surveyors visited it, just as it might have been by David and his immediate friends, while his followers housed themselves in those near at hand.' Identification of Hormah. NUMBERS xiv. 45 : ' Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.' Question. Can a decision be made behveen rival candidates for this site ? Answer. The two suggestions are : (i) Zephath, south of Beer- sheba (2) Khurbet Hora, east of Beersheba. Harper says : ' Zephath, or Hormah, has not been identified, though the name Khurbet Hora has been found east of Beersheba. A low hill, an important site, with wells and underground granaries, a large bell-mouthed cistern, and five small towers. The site occupies a circle of one-and-a-half miles in diameter. Rowlands thought it was S'baita, where there are extensive ruins ; a ruined fortress also ; it would be near Geder and Arad. The latter is sixteen miles from Hebron, where there is a large ruin, now called Tell 'Arad, on a large mound.' After explaining the recent discovery of Kadesh-barnea, and the correction of our idea of the later movements of the Israelites which this discovery involves, Harper adds : ' It shows us that the Israelites did not use the " Arabah " as their main camping ground. That great wady, surrounded as it was by their enemies, would have been no safe camping-ground for them ; but stopping at Kadesh, and the desert near, they would be out of the track and in defensible positions. So also the traditional Mount Hor must be recognised as an impossible Mount Hor. . . . Blind to all warning, the Israelites presume to "go up into the hilltop," and are defeated, and discom- fited even to Hormah. The word means " banning," and is identical with Zephath. This has been identified by Palmer with " S'beita," and he discovered, close by, the ancient " watch-tower " (which again is the meaning of the Hebrew word). This tower is on the top of a hill. The ruins are primeval, though there are more recent fortifica- tions. From this fort the Amorites and Canaanites most likely issued to attack Israel. The Arabic words used for the valley near the moun- tain mean, " the ravine of the Amorites," and the mountains themselves are called by a word meaning " head," or "top," of the Amorites.' Geikie adds some points of interest, and favours the Zephath rather than the Hora site. ' The inhabitants of the region between Israel CLEAN AND UNCLEAN FOODS. 337 and Palestine were " Amalekites and Canaanites," who had occupied a comparatively fertile expanse of country, partly arable, partly pastoral, between Kadesh and Engedi. They allowed the invaders to pene- trate far towards Palestine, and then turning upon them, pursued them as far as Hormah, a city which has been identified as situated on the southern verge of the table-land, about twenty-four miles north of Kadesh. Its name at the time of the attack was not Hormah, however, but Zephath, " the watch-tower ;" " Hormah," " a desolated place," being the name given it after its utter destruction by the Israelites in the times succeeding Joshua (Judg. i. 17). It was the great point from which the roads across the desert, after having been all united, again diverge towards Gaza and Hebron, and its site is still marked by the ruins of a square tower of hewn stones, with a large heap of stones adjoining, on the top of a hill, which rises a thousand feet above the wady on the edge of which it stands.' SUB-SECTION IV. DIFFICULTIES RELATING TO NATURAL HISTORY. Clean and Unclean Foods. LEVITICUS xi. 2: 'Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.' Question. Is the Mosaic distinction between ' clean ' and ' un- clean ' based on the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the different kinds of food ? Answer. It should be borne in mind that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts is a natural one, which was fully recognised in the arrangements made for preserving the species in the Ark. ' Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female ; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female ' (Gen. vii. 2). The terms appear to mean ' fit for human food/ ' unfit for human food ' ; or ' domestic ' and ' wild.' But clearly Noah must have had some well-known signs by which he recognised the distinctions between them, and those signs may well have been ' parting the hoof ' and ' chewing the cud,' which we find in the Mosaic legislation. Duns says : ' Clean beasts were originally such as were offered in sacrifice. The rest were unclean. As the race increased, the dis- 22 338 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. tinctions were carried further. Men became acquainted with a greater number of animals. Certain animals came to be associated with the idolatrous habits of certain tribes. This introduced other considerations. The habits of some disgusted the conventional feelings of one tribe, while they were regarded with favour by another. Circumstances of climate also were taken into account in connection with the food best suited to the inhabitants of such countries. All these things influenced men's views of the lower animals, and they are acknowledged in the Levitical arrangements.' Bishop Harold Browne says : ' The boundary-line between clean and unclean animals is marked by nature. Every tribe of mankind would distinguish between the sheep and the hyaena, between the dove and the vulture. Whether animal food was eaten before the Deluge or not, it is certain that flocks and herds were fed for the sake of their milk and wool, and that of them victims were offered in sacrifice. This alone would separate between the clean and the unclean. It is not improbable that the distinction even of the names " clean and unclean " had been fully established by custom long before it was recognised and ratified by the Law.' Keifs suggestion is altogether too vague : ' The distinction between clean and unclean beasts is not first made by Moses, but only becomes fixed in the law as corresponding to it, though existing long before. Its beginnings reach back to the primitive time, and ground themselves on an immediate conscious feeling of the human spirit not yet clouded by any unnatural and ungodly culture, under the influence of which feeling it sees in many beasts pictures of sin and corruption which fill it with aversion and abhorrence.' xS. Clark, M.A., in ' Speaker's Commentary,' gives some of the opinions formed as to what considerations directed the line by which clean animals were separated from unclean. 'It has been held (i) That the food forbidden was such as was commonly eaten by the neighbouring nations, and that the prohibition served as a check to keep the people away from social intercourse with the Gentiles. (So Davidson.} (2) That the flesh of certain animals from which the Egyptians abstained, because they held it to be sacred, was pro- nounced clean, and treated as common food, and that the flesh of other animals, which was associated with the practice of magic, was abominated as unclean, in order that the Israelites might, in their daily life, bear a testimony against idolatry and superstition. (3) That it is impossible to refer the line of demarcation to anything but the arbitrary will of God. (4) But the notion which has been accepted with most favour is, that the distinction is based wholly or mainly on CLEAN AND UNCLEAN FOODS. 339 symbolical ground. By some it has been connected with the degra- dation of all creation through the fall of man. The apparent reflec- tion of moral depravity in the disposition of some animals has been identified in rather a loose way with the unclean creatures of the Law. (5) Many have considered that the prohibition of the unclean animals was based mainly or entirely on sanitary grounds, their flesh being regarded as unwholesome.' ' It cannot be doubted that the distinction which is substantially recognised by different nations is in agreement with the laws of our earthly life. All experience tends to show, that the animals generally recognised as clean are those which furnish the best and most whole- some sorts of food. The instinct of our nature points in the same direction. Everyone dislikes the snake and the toad. No one likes the form and habits of the pig. We shrink from the notion of eating the flesh of the hyaena or the vulture. When we are told of our fellow-creatures eating slugs, snails, and earthworms, and accounting the grubs found in rotten wood a delicacy, the feeling of disgust which arises within us would not seem to be the offspring of mere conventional refinement. This conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that our own repugnant feelings have been subdued in the case of the oyster and the pig. In regard to the distinction as it is laid down in the Mosaic Law, Cyril appears to be amply justified in saying that it coincides with our natural instinct and observation.' ' The chief part of the food of all cultivated nations has been taken from the same kind of animals. The ruminating quadrupeds, the fishes with fins and scales, the gallinaceous birds and other birds which feed on vegetables, are evidently preferred by the general choice of mankind.' The law .of clean and unclean appears in its broader shape to be this : All creatures whose food is wholly vegetable are wholesome food for man. All creatures whose food is wholly animal are un- wholesome food for man. Creatures whose food is partly vegetable and partly animal may be wholesome, or may not be. And even after \he physical influence of certain foods has been duly considered, we have to take into account their moral influence, the effects they produce by exciting bodily passion. 340 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The Ways of the Partridge. JEREMIAH xvii. n : 'As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not.' Rev. Ver. renders, ' As the partridge that gathereth young which she hath not brought forth.' With marginal alternative, ' Sitteth on eggs which she hath not laid.' Question. Is there any foundation in fact for this account of the partridge ? Answer. According to Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Chry- sostom, and the Arabian naturalist Damir, there was an old belief that the partridge took eggs out of other bird's nests, and that when the young were hatched, and were old enough, they ran away from their false parent. Such a notion may have been held by the ancient Hebrews, though it is quite unfounded. Geikie speaks of this as a ' popular fancy of Jeremiah's day.' Fausset notes that the Hebrew name for this bird is korea, from a root ' to call,' alluding to its cry ; a name still applied to a bustard by the Arabs. Its nest is liable, being on the ground, to be trodden under foot, or robbed by carnivorous animals, notwithstanding all the beautiful manoeuvres of the parent-birds to save their brood. The translation, ' sitteth on eggs which it has not laid,' alludes to the ancient notion that she stole the eggs of other birds, and hatched them as her own, and that the young birds when grown left her for the true mother. It is not needful to make Scripture allude to an exploded notion as if it were true. The Speaker's Commentary thinks the notion of the partridge steal- ing the eggs of other birds might easily have been taken from the great number of eggs which the partridge lays. Dean Plumptre says : ' Modern naturalists have not observed this habit, but it is probable that the belief originated in the practice of the cuckoo laying its eggs in the nest of the partridge, as in that of other birds.' Theodoric, the King of the Goths, in his letter quoted by Cassio- dorus, refers to the popular belief that young birds brought up by partridges fly away to their own parents. Identification of the Unicorn. JOB xxxix. 9 : ' Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib ?' Rev. Ver. reads, ' Will the wild ox be content to serve thee ?' Question Are there any one-horned creatures thai can possibly be referred to by the English term ' unicorn '? Answer. The Revised Version seems to have fixed a decision in relation to this animal, whose name in Hebrew is reem. It was IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNICORN. 341 the wild bull, a two-horned creature. Remains of this animal have recently been discovered in Palestine. One of the earliest Assyrian kings, probably Tiglath-Pileser I., speaks of ' wild rimi destructive, which he slew at the foot of Lebanon,' plainly meaning wild-bulls. The rhinoceros is the only animal we know that bears one horn, but it must be borne in mind that though the English translation sets us upon seeking an animal with one horn, the Hebrew term provides no such condition. Dr. Good thinks there can be no doubt that rhinoceros is the proper term; for this animal is universally known in Arabia by the name of reem to the present day. The traveller, Mr. Browne, says that the Arabians call the rhinoceros Abu-kurn, ' father of the one horn.' This creature is distinguished from all other animals by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries on his nose. This is very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward, and has been seen four feet in length. It is certainly a very remarkable thing that the LXX., in all the passages of the Bible in which the word occurs, with one exception, should have rendered the word monokeros, that is, ' unicorn,' if the existence of some such animal had not been familiar to them. But the identification with the rhinoceros cannot be sustained. The fact that the reem was an animal with two horns is settled by the passage, Deut. xxxiii. 1 7, which reads : ' His horns are like the horns of a reem ' (see the margin, Authorised Version). The two horns of the reem represent the two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim, which sprang from the one tribe Joseph. The only trace of a one-horned creature which we have been able to hear of, besides the rhinoceros, is a kind of antelope, but not a fierce enough or a strong enough creature to answer the Bible descriptions of the reem. Abbe Hue, in his ' Travels in Tartary and Thibet,' says that the ' unicorn really exists in Thibet. It is repre- sented in the sculptures and paintings of the Buddhic temples. Even in China you often see it in landscapes that ornament the inns of the northern provinces. M. Hue had at one time a small Mongol treatise on natural history for the use of children, in which the unicorn formed one of the pictorial illustrations. He was not, how- ever, fortunate enough to see one during his travels. Mr. Hodgson, an English resident in Nepaul, has succeeded in getting possession of one, the skin and horn of which were sent to Calcutta. It is a species of antelope, reddish in colour, with white belly. Its distinc- tive features are, first, a black horn, long and pointed, with three slight curvatures, and circular annulations towards the base. There are two tufts of hair which project from the exterior of each nostril, 342 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. and much hair also down round the nose and mouth, which gives the animal's head a heavy appearance.' The following extracts will show whence we have derived the heraldic figure of the unicorn. Ctesias (B.C. 400) says: 'The Onoi Agrioi are as large as horses, and even larger, with white bodies, red heads, blue eyes, and have each on their foreheads a horn a cubit and a half long, the base of which is white, the upper part red, the middle part black. Drinking-cups are formed of these horns, and those who drink out of them are said to be subject neither to spasm, nor epilepsy, nor to the effects of poison. Other asses have no astra- galus ; but these have one, as well as a gall-bladder. The astragalus I have seen myself; it is beautifully formed, in shape like that of an ox, and very heavy and red throughout. The animal is so swift that no horse can overtake it, and so strong and fierce that it is with difficulty destroyed by arrows and javelins. It begins its running slowly, but gradually increases its speed. It shows great attachment to its young, which it defends against its pursuers, fighting with horn, teeth, and heels. The flesh is so bitter that it is not eaten ; but men set a high value on the horns and astragali.' Plit/y (A.D. 70) says: 'The Orssean Indians hunt a very fierce animal, called the monoceros, which has the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, and the tail of a wild boar ; it utters a deep lowing noise, and has a single horn, two cubits long, projecting from the middle of its forehead. They say this animal cannot be taken alive.' sElian (A.D. 130) gives a further account of this monoceros. ' It is as big as a full-grown horse, with a mane and yellow woolly hair, of greatest swiftness, with feet like the elephant, and the tail of a wild boar. It has a black horn growing between the eyebrows, which is not smooth, but with natural twistings, and is very sharp at the point. It utters loud, harsh sounds. It lives peaceably with other animals, but quarrels with those of its own kind, the males even destroying the females, except at breeding-time, at which season the animals are gregarious ; but at other times they live in solitude in wild regions.' Making due allowance for inexactnesses and extravagances of description, the above may be referred to the rhinoceros, when that was a little known animal. CONEY AND HARE STATED TO CHEW THE CUD. 343 The Coney and Hare stated to Chew the Cud. LF.VITICUS xi. 5, 6 : ' And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.' Difficulty. The description given of these animals is not correct. Explanation. It is the description which would be given by a mere observer. Whenever the hare is at rest on its form, the restless motion of its jaws betrays the constant working of its teeth, and the same habit has been noticed in the coney. The similarity between this movement and that of the cow's mouth when chewing the cud could not fail to strike the unscientific observer, who would naturally give the same explanation for each case. It is rather a remarkable thing that the Arabs of the present day class the hare among animals lawful to be eaten, on the express ground that it does chew the cud. This presents a striking illustration of the unscientific character of the Scriptures. They record popular fallacies in matters of science. Moses repeats the common opinion of his day in all such things as natural history. Neither the hare nor the coney does, in fact, chew the cud. Neither creature is provided with the necessary internal apparatus. For them both it is a natural impossibility. They were thought to do it in Moses' day. It is thought by many persons still that they do it. It is only fair and straightforward to recognise a scientific error in this classification of the hare and coney among ruminants. Tristram tries to get over the difficulty by saying that the Hebrew word does not imply 'having a ruminant stomach, 'but simply re-chew, or masticate. But there is no point in the passage if in' these two cases the term is to be taken in some sense that will not apply to the cow, or other ruminant creatures. J. D. Michaelis takes the same line as Tristram. ' Although there may have been no genuine rumi- nation in the strict sense of the term, yet the act of the hare munch- ing its food went popularly by the name of rumination, or chewing again, ' How curiously persistent the unscientific notion has proved is shown in the fact that Linnaeus classed the hare with ruminating animals, speaking from the popular opinion with regard to it. And the poet Cowper who kept hares, and observed them diligently says that 'one of his hares chewed the cud all day till evening.' And Goldsmith tells us that ' the rhinoceros, the horse, the rabbit, the marmot, and the squirrel, all chew the cud by intervals,' which is utterly untrue. 344 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. The scientific fact is thus stated by Houghton : ' The simple fact is that all ruminants are bisulcate i.e., divide the hoof into two parts and all bisulcates are ruminant. The hornless ruminants belong- ing to the genera Camelus and Llama differ somewhat from other ruminants in the structure of the foot. The toes of the camel are conjoined nearly to the apex, and the feet are callous beneath ; in the llama the sole is cloven as far as the middle of the fore part. Hence, in point of fact, all ruminants are bisulcate, but not to an equal extent.' The Ceremonial Uncleanness of Swine. LEVITICUS xi. 7 : ' And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven- footed, yet he cheweth not the cud ; he is unclean unto you.' Difficulty. Surely there must be some deeper reason for forbidding the eating of swine's flesh than appears in the fact that swine do not chew the cud. Explanation. There can be little doubt that the association of this animal with idolatrous worship was the real reason for its pro- hibition. But it should be noticed that the food of the pig is not strictly confined to vegetable substances. It is to a considerable extent a flesh-eater, and therefore is unwholesome food. Kalisch gives some of the associations of swine with idolatrous systems : ' The abhorrence of the Israelites to pork struck the heathen as the most conspicuous characteristic of their religion, and it was believed they would eat human flesh with no greater repugnance than pork. This peculiar aversion to the pig must have had a peculiar reason ; it must in some way have been connected with the very essence of the Hebrew faith itself. In searching for the reason, we obtain welcome aid from statements of classical writers. It cannot be doubted that the swine, on account of its prolificness, was extensively regarded as an emblem of the fertility of Nature and of her productive powers ; it received, therefore, a cosmic significance ; it represented the main principle of all heathen religions the eternal working of the elements and of the innate forces of matter, a principle directly opposed to that of Hebraism, which rigorously insists upon one personal Deity creating, ruling, and preserving the universe and all mankind. Hence many pagan nations sacrificed the swine to those gods to whom they attributed the fertility of the soil and the fruitfulness of cattle. Though the Egyptians commonly avoided the pig as particularly unclean, they offered and consumed one once every year, at the feast of the full moon, in honour of Isis and Osiris, the fructifying powers of Nature, and this was done so scrupulously THE CEREMONIAL UNCLEANNESS OF SWINE. 345 that the poor, who could not afford a pig, were ordered to shape one of dough, and to hallow and eat this image. The pig was indeed believed to have suggested the first idea of ploughing and the plough- share by breaking up the earth with its protruding snout. In Egypt it was no unimportant agent in securing agricultural success ; for in some parts of the country, especially in the Delta, as soon as the subsiding Nile had irrigated the fields, the husbandmen turned swine into their land to press the seed into the ground, thus protecting the grain from the birds ; and at harvest-time pigs were employed to tread out the corn. The famous Zodiac of Denderah represents, under the sign of the fishes, a man carrying a small pig, which points to the Egyptian swine-offering in reference to the progress of the seasons. A pig formed the usual sacrifice for Demeter. Thus the Athenians generally offered one in their mysteries, which mainly related to the secret activity of Nature. On Athenian Eleusinian coins Ceres is figured together with a swine. The Boeotians, at an annual festival celebrated in their sacred grove near Potnise in honour of Demeter and Kora (Proserpine), let down into subterranean chambers pigs, which were supposed to reappear in the following summer at Dodona, near the old and sacred oracle. The early Romans honoured Ceres or Tellus, after the conclusion of the harvest, by the sacrifice of a pig, generally a fat and pregnant sow, which, indeed, was considered to have been the first offering slaughtered to Ceres, if not the first of all sacrifices, " because the swine is useful to men mainly by its flesh," that is, by its death. Therefore pigs, so far from being detested, were often declared holy. Thus the Syrians in Hierapolis, who neither ate nor offered swine, did so, according to some ancient authorities, "not because they believed pigs to be a pollution, but sacred animals." The Cretans held the pig holy, not on account of the mythical reason put forth by some foreign writers that a sow allowed the infant Jupiter to suck her teats, and by her grunting prevented the child's cries from being heard, but because it was the emblem of fruitfulness, whence the Praisians, a tribe of Crete, regularly sacrificed a sow before marriage. Callimachus called Venus Castnietis the wisest of her sisters, because she was the first among them who accepted the sacrifice of swine. . . . Hence, again, as Ceres, or agriculture, was looked upon as the originator of all personal and civil ties, of matrimonial law, of special and political order, the swine was employed for various solemn and imposing rituals connected with domestic and public life. The Athenians, on entering the national assembly, used certain parts of the pig for purification. When they desired to expiate a house, a 346 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. temple, or a town, the priests carried young pigs round the edifice or the city ; and they sprinkled with pig's blood the benches used at popular assemblies. . . . Moreover, as pork was, in its nature and taste, considered to resemble human flesh, the offering of a swine was, on peculiar emergencies, substituted for a human sacrifice.' ' Can it then be surprising that the Jewish doctors and sages, anxious to wean the people from the worship of Nature and her powers, and to imbue them with reverence for the one eternal Creator, the bestower of all earthly blessings, looked with implacable detestation upon the animal which typified a main feature of paganism, and declared the eating of pork as nothing less than a revolt against the foundations of Judaism nay, that the early teachers among the Christians shared the same repugnance, and relaxed in it only after long struggles ? The very persecution and ridicule which the Jews constantly suffered on that account helped to intensify their abhorrence, especially as the eating of pork was in later times also enforced and regarded as the first and most con- spicuous act of the Jewish renegade, as among Mohammedans it is still held to be equivalent to abjuring the Islam.' Kalisch summarizes the things that made the pig hateful to the Jews : ' Loathsome uncleanness, unwholesomeness, carnivorous ferocity, and dangerous seduction to paganism.' Swine are still held in abomination by Moslems, Jews, Druses, and most Orientals. Even some Christians refuse swine's flesh. The Eagle's Ways with her Young. DEUTERONOMY xxxii. 1 1 (Rev. Ver. ) : 'As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, that fluttereth over her young, He spread abroad His wings, He took them, He bare them on His pinions.' Question. Is this poetical figure based on any such observations as can nmv be verified '? Answer. Thomson thinks it maybe a precise description. 'The eagle is strong enough to do it, but I am not aware that such a thing has ever been witnessed.' He reports having himself seen ' the old eagle fly round and round the nest, and back and forth past it, while the young ones fluttered and shivered on the edge, as if eager but afraid to launch forth from the giddy precipice. And no wonder, for the nest " is on high," and a fall from thence would end their flight for ever.' A recent traveller, writing in view of a deep chasm in the range of Lebanon, says : ' It is not necessary to press every poetical figure THE EAGLES WAYS WITH HER YOUNG. 347 into strict prosaic accuracy. The notion, however, appears to have been prevalent among the ancients that the eagle did actually take up her yet timid young, and carry them forth to teach them how, and embolden them to try their own pinions.' Moses could not but be observant of the wild birds during his long sojourn in Arabia, and this is quite a matter of careful observa- tion, not one in which science has any special concern. A person accustomed to observe accurately the habits of animals reports having seen an eagle in one of the deep gorges of the Himalayas thus teaching its young to fly. While with his glass he watched several young ones on a ledge of rock at a great height, the parent bird swept gently past the young, one of which ventured to follow, but seemed as if unequal to the flight. As it gently sunk down with extended wings, one of the parent birds glided underneath it, and bore it aloft again. Sir Humphrey Davy writes : ' I once saw a very interesting sight above one of the crags of Ben Nevis, as I was going in the pursuit of black game. Two parent eagles were teaching their offspring, two young birds, the manoeuvres of flight. They began by rising from the top of a mountain in the eye of the sun. It was about mid-day, and bright for this climate. They at first made small circles, and the young birds imitated them. They paused on their wings, waiting till they had made their first flight, and then took a second and larger gyration, always rising towards the sun, and enlarging their circles of flight, so as to make a gradually extending spiral. The young ones still slowly followed, apparently flying better as they mounted ; and they continued this sublime kind of exercise, always rising, till they became mere points in the air, and the young ones were lost, and afterwards their parents, to our aching sight.' Ants Storing their Food. PROVERBS vi. 6-8 (Rev. Ver.} : ' Go to the ant, thou sluggard ; consider her ways, and be wise ; which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.' Difficulty. Careful absentation of the ants of Palestine does not confirm the fact which is here used as illustration. Explanation. It must be admitted that no answer is given to this objection if we can only show that there are some kinds of ants, in some parts of the world, which do store up their food. It is necessary to show that such ants as came within the sphere of the observations of this writer did so. What can be known concerning the ants of Palestine? 348 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Dr. C. Geikie, in his latest work, ' Holy Land and Bible,' writes with great confidence on this subject. ' Modern science has felt a difficulty in these words, since the ant does not live on grain, but on flesh, insects, and the sweet sap or other exudations of trees, which it could not store up for winter use, and since it sleeps during winter, in all but very hot climates. The truth is, we must not look in Scripture for science, which was unknown in early ages, for it is not the purpose of Revelation to teach it, and the sacred writers, in this as in other matters of a similar kind, were left to write according to the popular belief of their day. We find the same idea in another passage of Proverbs (ch. xxx. 24, 25) : "There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise : the ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer." It was universally believed in antiquity that ants did so. Thomson and Neil still cling to the idea. Ants do, indeed, fill their nest with many things, but it is to pad them warmly, and keep themselves from the damp earth ; and hence, though they are undoubtedly assiduous in harvest-time in carrying off grains of corn, chaff, grass, seeds, and vegetable husks of all kinds, they do so to make their underground rooms comfortable, not to lay up food for a season during which, in many parts, they eat nothing. Anyone may see the proof of this for himself by opening an ant's nest. He will find everything to make it warm, but the supposed " stores " are left quite untouched. ' It is not certain, indeed, that in Palestine ants hibernate, for they may be seen at least in the warm district round the Dead Sea busy on the tamarisk-trunks, seeking their food, even in January. The mistake is similar to that which prevails very generally, even in our own day, as to ants' eggs, which is the name popularly given, both in England and Germany, to the pufice, or ants in process of transformation into the perfect insect. They then closely resemble grains of corn, and are carried out daily by their nurses to enjoy the heat of the sun, and taken in again before evening. Who that has broken into an ant's nest, by accident or intentionally, has not seen the workers rushing off with these white, egg-like bodies, in trembling haste, to bear them to a place of security ? But if we nowadays make a popular mistake in thinking these to be eggs, how much more natural was it that erroneous ideas, on another point of ant-life, should obtain three thousand years ago ! Mr. Neil's experience, indeed, shows how easily a mistake might arise. While encamped, about the middle of March, near Tiberias, on the Lake of Galilee, he noticed a line of large, black ants marching towards their nest, each laden with a grain of barley, larger and longer than itself, so that they looked ANTS STORING THEIR FOOD. 349 like a moving multitude of barleycorns. This line, he found, ex- tended to a spot where some of the corn for his beasts had been spilt by the mule-drivers, or had fallen from the nose-bags, and was now being appropriated by the ants. That they should carry it off seemed at once to justify the supposition that they were doing so to lay up food for the winter, and yet, as I have said, nothing is more certain than that ants do not eat dried barley, or any other dry grain.' Houghton says : ' That the ant stores up grains of corn is quite true, but the corn is not eaten by the insects, which are chiefly carnivorous in their habits, though they are also fond of saccharine matters. Ants take a pleasure in running away with various small objects, as beans, seeds, etc., which they convey to their nests, and use as a lining to keep out the damp.' The late Colonel Sykes tells of a species of Indian ant, the Atta providens, so called from his having found a large store of grass-seeds in its nest ; he says that this insect carries seeds underground, and brings them again to the surface, after they have got wet during the monsoons, apparently to dry, thus corroborating what the ancients have written on this particular point. Tristram's note will be regarded as altogether satisfactory. He says : ' The ancients unanimously believed that the ant stored up food for winter consumption ; and who that has watched the in- cessant activity of these little creatures, issuing in long files from their subterranean labyrinths by a broad, beaten track, and gradually dispersing in all directions by pathways that become narrower and fainter as they are sub-divided and diverge, while a busy throng is uninterruptedly conveying back by the same paths every movable object which they are able to drag with their powerful forceps, would not at once arrive at the same conclusion ? The language of the Wise Man is in accordance with the universal belief; and the lessons of wisdom and industry are none the less forcible because the more accurate observation has shown that, in most countries at least, the stores are not husbanded for food, but for furnishing their homes. The language of the inspired writer must be read simply as we read the expressions of the sun rising and setting, explained by the dis- coveries of more recent astronomy. At the same time, it has not yet been ascertained that, in the warmer climates of the Holy Land, the ant is dormant throughout the winter. Among the tamarisks of the Dead Sea it may be seen in January actively engaged in collecting the aphides and saccharine exudations, in long files, passing and repassing up and down the trunk.' 350 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Bees in a Lion's Carcase. JUDGES xiv. 8 : ' And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion ; and behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.' Difficulty. // is hard to believe that bees would settle inside the carcase of an animal. Explanation. Two statements have been made, either of which suffices to remove this difficulty. Rosenmiiller says : ' If one were to understand this of a putrid and offensive carcase, the narra- tive would lose all probability, for it is well known that bees will not approach the dead body of either man or animal. But in the desert of Arabia the heat of the summer season often so dries up the moisture of the bodies of dead men and camels within twenty-four hours, that they remain a long time like mummies, unaltered and without offensive smell.' The other suggestion, however, seems more reasonable. The bodies of dead animals in the East are immediately attacked by carrion bird and beast, who swiftly remove every soft portion, and leave the mere bony skeleton to whiten in the sun. The skeleton would be a not unlikely place for a bee-hive ; and it was in the dried skeleton of the lion that Samson found the bees. Herodotus gives a story which is strikingly illustrative of this one. He tells of a certain Onesilas, who had been captured by the Amathusians, and had been beheaded, that his head, after having been suspended over the gates, had become occupied by a swarm of bees. In Palestine bees are abundant ; the dry recesses of the limestone rocks everywhere afford shelter and protection for the combs. Rosenmiiller quotes the authority of the physician Aldrovand for the story that swarms of bees built their combs between the skeletons of two sisters who were buried in the church of Santa Croce, at Verona, in 1566. Hugh Miller, in ' Schools and Schoolmasters,' tells the following story : ' A party of boys had stormed a humble-bee's nest on the side of the old chapel-brae, and digging inwards along the narrow winding earth-passage, they at length came to a grinning human skull, and saw the bees issuing thick from out a round hole at its base. . . . The wise little workers had actually formed their nest within the hollow of the head, once occupied by the busy brain ; and their spoilers, more scrupulous than Samson of old, who seems to have THE BEAR OF PALESTINE. 351 enjoyed the meat brought out of the eater, and the sweetness extracted from the strong, left in very great consternation their honey all to themselves.' The Bear of Palestine. I SAMUEL xvii. 37 : ' David said moreover, The Lord that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, He will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine.' Question. Is there any evidence that the bear of Palestine was a special foe of the shepherds ? Answer. It appears to have been dreaded at particular times of the year. Van Lennep gives the fullest account of the habits of this creature. ' The bear is powerful, keen-scented, sagacious, and cunning. He is generally harmless, and greatly terrifies people by the cool, unconcerned manner in which he makes his nightly calls to the choicest fruit-trees, even when close to an inhabited dwelling. The depredations of the bear are very extensive, for he not only consumes a vast quantity of fruit, but breaks many branches of the trees on which he climbs, and roughly handles other people's property. 'As long as the fruit season lasts, the bear is well-behaved and harmless. He hides on the lofty mountains during the day, and comes down at night to the gardens, or orchards and vineyards, and skilfully avoids the snares laid for him. Honey is his favourite food, and he will often run considerable risks in order to gratify his greedi- ness for it. When winter comes, and the snow covers the lofty mountains which he inhabits, the bear withdraws to a cave, and awaits the return of spring in a dormant state. It is during the interval between the cessation of autumnal fruits and crops, and his retirement to winter quarters, that he manifests his carnivorous pro- pensities, and becomes ferocious and aggressive even to man. He prowls about mountain villages, and fiercely attacks the flocks of goats and sheep, even in broad daylight. We remember visiting a village on the Anti-taurus, which the day before had suffered the depredations of a bear of monstrous size. He had surprised a flock of goats, and when attacked by the shepherds and their dogs with a hue and cry which brought out every villager from his hut, he had slowly retired, flinging stones at his pursuers with such accurate aim and force that severe wounds were inflicted on them. Later in the day he had gone boldly into the fold on the edge of the village, and carried off a goat, which he dragged to a hillock near by, and de- liberately devoured, in plain sight of the inhabitants, who, not pos- 352 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. sessing a single gun, dared not disturb the audacious brute. He was pointed out to us ranging over the hills, already covered with a slight fall of snow ; and, watching with our spy-glass, we saw him dig up the remains of another goat which he had partly devoured and buried there. We have repeatedly known the bear at this season to fall upon and devour children who had strayed out but a short distance from the mountain villages ; and we particularly remember a Turkish girl about thirteen years of age, who thus lost her life on the Ak-dagh, near Amasia. ' Some have supposed that the bear has not the thirst for blood which is characteristic of the wolf or panther. He sometimes, how- ever, seems quite as ferocious, and has been repeatedly known to kill apparently for the pleasure of it. In a certain mountain village the sheep were shut up in one of those stables which are partly dug out of the mountain side, and have a room in front built of rough stones, with a flat roof overhead, and a broad chimney. The door was made fast at evening, and the dogs, being released from duty, had sought refuge from the cold in their master's house. A bear came, however, at dead of night, and, descending by the chimney, strangled every one of the sheep. After gorging himself with their blood he piled their bodies in the wide fireplace, and climbing thereon, escaped un- perceived !' Meen gives a much less favourable account of this creature : ' Con- cealing himself in some thicket, the bear watches his victim, then steals upon him in silence ; escape, either for man or beast, being all but impossible. Although many animals surpass it in the rapidity of their movements, few men are swift enough to elude him. The widest river, the most inaccessible rock, or the loftiest tree, offers no protection. His whole aspect is such as to inspire terror. Morose, sullen, and capricious, we fail to discover any redeeming quality except in its attachment to its young, which cannot be surpassed. The Syrian bear not only preys on animals, but also devastates the fields. The lion and other beasts spring on their prey with a single bound, but the bear has a mode of attack peculiar to itself. Stealing up to his victim in silence, he rises upon his hind legs, and throwing his horrid arms around, crushes him to death. The female is more formidable than the male, and on the loss of her young she is almost driven to madness.' It may be interesting to add, that the Hebrew name for the bear is dob, being identical with the modern Arabic name dub, a ' he-bear ;' dubbe, a ' she-bear.' Some writers derive the word from a Hebrew root, dabab, ' to walk slowly ;' but others, with more probability, refer A PLAGUE OF MICE. 353 it to an Arabic root, meaning 'to be hairy;' dob being thus the 'shaggy animal.' The name of the bear occurs on the Assyrian monuments ; the word phonetically is read ddbu, evidently the Hebrew dob. Layard says that at the present day bears appear not to be un- common in the neighbourhood of Tiyari, a district north of Assyria, where they are very mischievous, robbing the trees of their fruit, and taking the fruit when laid out to dry. ' These bears are probably the descendants of those hunted by the Assyrian monarchs more than 2,500 years ago.' A Plague of Mice. I SAMUEL vi. 5 : ' Wherefore ye shall make images of your tumours, and images of your mice that mar the land ; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel : peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.' Difficulty. Mice are such small creatures, and so -well within the control of man, that it is strange to find them becoming a serious national plague. Explanation. The reference here is to the field-mouse, and not the household mouse with which we are familiar. This class of animals multiplies with amazing rapidity. The field-mouse has its natural enemies, which keep its numbers in check. If by any cir- cumstances these natural enemies are removed from a district, the breeding proceeds with an amazing rapidity, and the creatures become a nuisance, and even a plague. Illustration may be found in the rabbit-pest of Australia, or in the destructive work of a large species of bat in New South Wales. As illustrating the rapidity with which the rodents breed, mention may be made of a farmer's daughter who had a pair of Norwegian rats given to her, and iri three or four months found them increased to seventy. The Hebrew word 'akhbar seems to include any small destructive rodent, the root of the name meaning ' to bite to pieces,' or ' to gnaw.' ' The mice that marred the land of the Philistines were pro- bably some kind of field-mice, of which several kinds occur at the present day in the Holy Land. The short-tailed field-vole, com- monly known as the field-mouse (Arvicola arvalis), is very common there, and perhaps there is not a more destructive little creature in existence than it. In our own country extensive injury both to newly-sown fields and to plantations has often been caused by this little agricultural pest. In the years 1813 and 1814 the ravages were 2 3 354 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. so great in the New Forest and the Forest of Dean that considerable alarm was felt lest the whole of the young trees in those extensive woods should be destroyed by them.' Herodotus has a curious story about the mischief that can be wrought by mice. When Sennacherib invaded Egypt in the time of Sethos, Vulcan sent a great multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bows of the Assyrian army, as well as the thongs by which they managed their shields ; thus were the Assyrians over- thrown. Van Lennep tells of a brown rat which multiplies with such amaz- ing rapidity that, were it not for its numerous foes, a single pair would increase to nearly a thousand individuals in one year. Van Lennep gives an interesting account of the short-tailed field-mouse which abounds throughout Western Asia, and 'must be endowed with great powers of increase, for he has many enemies. The owl is after him by night, and by day the hawk, with other birds of prey, flutters in the sky, and comes down with a swoop, and carries him off to his nest, while the indefatigable little ferret creeps into his hole, successfully encountering him, and destroying his little ones ; yet he seems in no wise diminished. You see him in all the arable lands, running across the fields, industriously carrying off the grain to stow it away for winter, chirping gaily from time to time, sitting up on his haunches to get a good sight of you as you approach, and then sud- denly diving into his hole. This animal is apt so greatly to multiply as at times to cause a sensible diminution of the crops, and its ravages are more generally dreaded than those of the mole. A per- fectly trustworthy friend has informed us that in 1863, being on a farm (chifliK) of an acquaintance in Western Asia Minor, he saw about noon the depredations committed by an immense number of these mice, which passed over the ground like an army of young locusts. Fields of standing corn and barley disappeared in an in- credibly short space of time, and as for vines and mulberry trees, they were gnawed at the roots and speedily prostrated. The annual produce of a farm of one hundred and fifty acres, which promised to be unusually large, was thus utterly consumed, and the neighbouring farms suffered equally.' Aristotle, in his ' History of Animals,' says : ' In many places mice are wont to appear in the fields in such unspeakable numbers that scarce anything is left of the whole crop. So rapidly do they con- sume the corn, that in some cases small farmers have observed their crops ripe and ready for the sickle on one day, and coming the next with the reapers, have found them entirely devoured.' CHANGED NATURE OF THE BEASTS. 355 In 1848, it is said, the coffee-crop in Ceylon was entirely destroyed by mice. It is difficult to imagine what can become of such vast multitudes of creatures, and what natural agencies are employed to restore the proper balance and proportion of the creatures in a given district ; but of the possibility of a really serious ' plague of mice ' there is abundant evidence. Changed Nature of the Beasts. ISAIAH xi. 6 : ' The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and the calf and the young lion and the falling together, and a little child shall lead them.' Question. Is this to be taken as a literal prophecy of what shall one day happen ? Answer. There is no necessity whatever for forcing Scripture references in such a bald and bare way. The imagination of such a time sufficiently met the case of the prophet. A man's sphere of illustration may reasonably include what he can imagine, as well as what he knows. It is not conceivable that the characteristic peculi- arities of the animals will ever be altered. They would then become other animals than they are. The prophet has in mind men who may be represented by the wolf, the leopard, the lion, the bear, and the asp ; and the nature of men or rather the #-natural condition of men may be changed by Divine grace. Bishop Wordsworth takes this view. The ancient expositors de- clared their judgment that these predictions have been verified by the moral and spiritual change wrought in savage nations, which for- merly were like lions, leopards, bears, and wolves, and by the bringing together of hostile tribes to dwell together in peace in the Church of Christ, as the savage and tame creatures, the unclean and clean animals, dwelt together in the Ark of Noah, the type of the Church. The Speaker's Commentary, while admitting that the allegorical sense is the primary one, says : ' This need not exclude a real fulfil- ment of the prophecy in the subordinate sphere of animal life. To a mind which is not so enslaved by the actual facts of history that it dares not consider what the ideal order of nature may fairly be thought to demand, there is nothing unphilosophic in such an expec- tation. On the contrary, reason itself requires us to cherish it. The existence of so many creatures, in which it might almost seem that bad passions or tempers were embodied, is of itself a perplexing 23 2 356 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. phenomenon. It indicates an abnormal condition of the world, a state of temporary frustration (Rom. viii. 20) or corruption of nature, from which we may well believe it shall be emancipated as soon as the Redeemer of mankind shall have fully established His kingdom of righteousness. How gladly the human mind turns to contemplate such a change is shown by the fourth Eclogue of Virgil.' Professor Raivlinson says : ' Primarily, no doubt, the passage is figurative, and points to harmony among men, who, in Messiah's kingdom, shall no longer prey one upon another. But, from the highest spiritual standpoint, the figure itself becomes a reality, and it is seen that, if in the " new heavens and new earth " there is an animal creation, it will be fitting that there harmony should equally prevail among the inferior creation. Human sin may not have intro- duced rapine and violence among the beasts at least, geologists tell us that animals preyed one upon another long before the earth was the habitation of man but still, man's influence may prevail to eradicate the beasts' natural impulses, and educate them to some- thing higher.' Already domestication has done something towards this end. The Curse on the Serpent. GENESIS iii. 14 : ' And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shall thou go, and dust shall thou eat all Ihe days of Ihy life." Difficulty. This curse seems to imply an immediate change in the form, the habits, and the food of the serpent-class of creatures ; and if science can trace signs of a gradual change, it finds no indication of any sudden change. Explanation. It must be fully admitted that geological dis- coveries have proved that the serpent-form, as we know it, is anterior to the age of man. There were serpents on the pre-Adamic earth whose structure was analogous to that of the true serpents (Ophidid) of our day. Geological discoveries have put this as much beyond doubt as the fact that there were shell-fish in those primaeval times. The Ophidia range from the top of the chalk, up through the Tertiary group of rocks, and culminate at the top of the highest member of that series the Pliocene. Professor Owen says : ' The earliest evidence of an Ophidian reptile has been obtained from the eocene clay of Sheppey ; it consists of vertebrae indicating a serpent of twelve feet in length the Palceophis THE CURSE ON THE SERPENT. 357 toliapicus. Still larger, more numerous, and better-preserved vertebrae have been obtained from the eocene beds of Bracklesham, on which the species Palceophis typhaus and the Palizophis porcatus have been founded. These remains indicate a boa-constrictor-like snake of about twenty feet in length. Ophidian vertebras of much smaller size, from the newer eocene at Hordwell, support the species Paleryx rhombifer and Paleryx depressus. Fossil vertebrae from a tertiary formation near Salonica have been referred to a serpent, probably poisonous, under the name of Laophis. A species of true viper has been discovered in the miocene deposits at Sansans, in the South of France.' It is said that embryo legs and feet have been found under the skin of serpents, indicating that they were once of a lizard type ; but this can only apply to some kinds, and has not been established as a fact concerning all serpents. Possibly the curse means that, henceforth, degrading and repulsive associations shall be in the minds of men in connection with the crawling or grovelling of the serpent types, and certainly there are no creatures which are so repulsive to man. Dean Payne Smith seems to approve of this explanation : ' The serpent is but the type ; diabolic agency the reality. First, therefore, the serpent is con- demned to crawl. As he is pronounced to be " cursed above " (or, rather, among) " all cattle " that is', the tame animals subjected to man's service, and also " among all beasts of the field " that is, the wild animals, but a term not applicable to reptiles it has been sup- posed that the serpent was originally erect and beautiful, and that Adam had even tamed serpents, and had them in his household. But such a transformation belongs to the region of fable, and the meaning is, that henceforward the serpent's crawling motion is to be to it a mark of disgrace, and to Satan a sign of meanness and con- tempt. He won the victory over our guileless first parents, and still he winds in and out among men, ever bringing degradation with him, and ever sinking with his victims into deeper abysses of shame and infamy.' The part of the curse relating apparently to the serpent's food is explained by Thomson in the ' Land and the Book ' : ' Perhaps the phrase " eat dust " has a metaphorical meaning, equivalent to " bite the dust," which, from time immemorial, has been the favourite boast of the Eastern warrior over his enemy. To make him eat dust, or, as the Persians have it, dirt, is the most insulting threat that can be uttered. In pronouncing sentence upon the serpent, we need not suppose that God used the identical Hebrew words which Moses 358 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. wrote some thousands of years afterwards ; but the Jewish lawgiver was guided to a proverb which fully expressed the purport of that Divine communication. We may paraphrase it after this fashion : Boast not of thy triumph over a feeble woman, proud, deceitful spirit ; you shall be overthrown and reduced to the most abject degradation.' Ay re, in his 'Treasury of Bible Knowledge,' takes the position which can be most wisely and hopefully held : ' There was no change wrought in the constitution of the serpent. Geological research has demonstrated the existence of serpents with serpent forms, and (we may conclude) with the same habits and propensities, in the earlier periods of the world's history. But it is not by any means a strange thing for a natural object to have a new significance given to it. Doubtless from ordinary causes the rainbow had been seen long before it was made the sign of God's covenant to Noah (Gen. ix. 12-17). The curse on Cain wrought no physical change in him (Gen. iv. 1 1 ). So there was no change in the physical conformation of the literal serpent. But the serpent's habits, trailing on its belly amid the dust, venomous, and loathsome to the eye of man, read to every age a striking lesson, and expose the tempter, whose vehicle of mischief it was, as cursed and to be hated. Mischief indeed he has done, and can still do ; he can bite the heel, but it will always be to the bruising and crushing of his own head. The facts of the fall, as narrated by the sacred historian, must not be explained away, or regarded as of a mythic character. Other parts of Scripture bear testimony to their literal truth (2 Cor. xi. 3), but yet to comprehend their whole significancy we must look beyond the reptile to the dark power who for a time identified himself with it. Hence it was that the serpent was feared, and thought a being to be propitiated. And hence that strange worship which in so many ages and so many lands was offered to it. It was from this well-known practice, true in the main, but not true in the particular instance, that part of the Apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon was constructed.' Morning Cloud and Early Dew. HOSEA vi. 4 (Rev. Ver.) : ' O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee ? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that goeth early away.' there any marked peculiarities in the dew of Palestine which may account for the frequent allusions to it in Scripture ? Answer. The influences of the dew are not prominent in the minds of those who dwell in rainy countries, though its import- MORNING CLOUD AND EARLY DEW. 359 ance ought always to be recognised. In Eastern lands vegetation is very largely dependent on it, and the dews are far more copious than we can imagine. In warm countries the night-dews supply the place of showers. Savary says of Egypt : ' It would be uninhabitable did not the nocturnal dews restore life to vegetables. These dews are so copious, especially in summer, that the earth is deeply soaked with them, and in the morning one would imagine that rain had fallen during the night.' The usual scientific explanation of the dew is as follows : ' It is formed during the night by a gradual deposition, on bodies rendered, by radiation, colder than the bodies round them, of part of the moisture which rises invisibly from the surface of water into the air during the heat of the day. In a clear night, the objects on the surface of the earth radiate heat to the sky through the air, which impedes not, while there is nothing nearer than the stars to return the radiation : they consequently soon become colder ; and if the air around has its usual load of moisture, part of this will be deposited on them in the form of dew, exactly as the invisible moisture in the air of a room is deposited on a cold glass bottle when brought into it from a colder place. The reason why the dew falls or is formed so much more copiously upon the soft spongy surface of leaves and flowers, where it is wanted, than on the hard surface of stone or sand, where it would be of no use, is the difference of their radiating powers. There is no state of the atmosphere in which artificial dew may not be made to form on a body, by sufficiently cooling it, and the degree of heat at which the dew begins to appear is called the dew-point. In cloudy nights, heat is radiated back from the clouds ; and, the earth below being not so much cooled, the dew is scanty or de- ficient.' Dr. Duns, explaining the relation of the dew to Gideon's fleece, remarks : ' It is a curious fact that wool is one of the substances best fitted for the reception of moisture in the form of dew. The metals are least so. Gideon was led to choose a substance on which the sign sought for would be most distinctly marked. It is not neces- sary here to seek to establish that the phenomena described were miraculous. They served as a sign ; this was the only purpose for which they were regulated. By a few simple experiments the appear- ances which met the eye of Gideon can be produced. The point of the narrative is, that by the arrangement of Him in whose hands are all the forces of nature, the phenomena for which His servants looked were produced at the time and in the circumstances determined on 360 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. by Him, without any artificial interferences thereto. Gideon had noticed that in nature, when dew was formed, all the articles in the same area became covered with it. Let there then be an exception to this let the fleece be wet, and all the earth around dry. It was so. Again, let the earth be wet and the fleece dry. " And God did so that night : for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground." In the one case, the sky needed to be clouded except at the point which looked down on the fleece ; in the other, it needed to be all clear except above the fleece. Thus though natural means might be used in producing the effect, these were so guided as to shut Gideon up to the direct acknowledgment of God's interfer- ence in making the phenomena a sign.' One of the freshest things in Dr. Geikie's ' Holy Land and Bible ' is his explanation of the causes of dew in Palestine. Writing of the melon-growing district of Palestine, he says : ' The secret of this luxuriant fertility lies in the rich supply of moisture afforded by the sea winds which blow inland each night, and water the face of the whole land. There is no dew, properly so called, in Palestine, for there is no moisture in the hot summer air to be chilled into dew- drops by the coolness of the night, as in a climate like ours. From May till October rain is unknown, the sun shining with unclouded brightness day after day. The heat becomes intense, the ground hard ; and vegetation would perish but for the moist west winds that come each night from the sea. The bright skies cause the heat of the day to radiate very quickly into space, so that the nights are as cold as the day is the reverse : a peculiarity of climate from which poor Jacob suffered, thousands of years ago, for he, too, speaks of " the drought consuming him by day, and the cold by night." To this coldness of the night air the indispensable watering of all plant life is due. The winds, loaded with moisture, are robbed of it as they pass over the land, the cold air condensing it into drops of water, which fall in a gracious rain of mist on every thirsty blade. In the morning the fog thus created rests like a sea over the plains, and far up the sides of the hills, which raise their heads above it like so many islands. At sunrise, however, the scene speedily changes. By the kindling light the mist is transformed into vast snow-white clouds, which presently break into separate masses, and rise up the mountain-sides, to dis- appear in the blue above, dissipated by the increasing heat. These are the "morning clouds and the early dew that go away " of which Hosea speaks so touchingly. Anyone standing at sunrise on a vantage-ground in Jerusalem, or on the Mount of Olives, and looking down towards the Dead Sea, must have seen how the masses of ANCIENT GIANT RACES. 361 billowy vapour, filling the valleys during the night, sway and break up when the light streams on them from over the mountains of Moab, their shape and colour changing each moment before the kindling warmth as they rose from the hollows of the landscape, and then up the slopes of the hills, till they passed in opal or snowy brightness into the upper air, and at last faded into the unclouded sky.' SUB-SECTION V. DIFFICULTIES RELATED TO ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY. Ancient Giant Races. GENESIS vi. 4 : ' There were giants in the earth in those days.' Difficulty. It is strange that no traces of the existences of what we understand by giant races have ever been found in any part of the world. Explanation. Families of unusual height, size, and strength have been found in every age, and in almost every country, but the general average of height, size, and strength has been preserved in all races. The variations from the tallest to the shortest have been but slight. ' So far as research has gone, ancient tombs, mummies, armour, etc., give evidence that from the earliest historic ages, the ordinary size of the human race has been nearly the same. But the existence of certain tall tribes is neither incredible nor improbable : indeed, we know on the surest evidence that, according to climate, there is a variety in the sizes of men ; the natives of the extreme north, as the Laplanders and Esquimaux, being diminutive, while those of other regions the Patagonians, for example, and other tribes of South America though not so gigantic as they were once represented, are remarkably tall. Tallness of stature is often found to run in families ; and there are plenty of examples within modern memory of individuals attaining the extraordinary height of seven or even eight feet.' The term giants as applied to the antediluvians seems to refer to character rather than to bodily size. They were a fierce and de- praved race, who had filled the earth with violence. The allusions made to the Anakim, Emim, Rephaim, etc., indicate the fear of the Israelites, which led them to exaggerate the bodily 362 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. size and strength of their enemies. In fact, overgrown giants are not to be greatly feared, for they are usually unwieldy, clumsy, and dull- brained, as was Goliath of Gath. The literature of the nations con- stantly records how the quick-witted overcome the big-bodied, as in our own stories of ' Jack the Giant-Killer,' and Abbe Hue's story of the ' Giant of Efe.' There is good reason, based on the measurement of the mummies, to believe that the average stature of the Egyptians was five and a half feet ; and, to them, anything over six feet would seem to be gigantic. It should also be noticed that, though the height of some individuals is given in cubits, the size of the cubit varied, and it is impossible to decide, in any given case, which standard was used. Referring to Goliath, Ishbi-benob, etc., Dr. Geikie says: 'These colossal warriors seem to have been the last of their race, which we do not need to conceive of as all gigantic, but only as noted for boasting some extra tall men among a people famous for their stature. The Goths in old times were spoken of in the same way by their contemporaries as a race of giants, but though they were huge com- pared with the populations they invaded, giants were a very rare exception among them, as among other nations.' The word 'giants,' in Gen. vi. 4, means ' the distinguished ' (Tucti), 'invaders' (Keil\ 'tyrants' (Luther), 'fallen ones,' 'apostates' (DelitzscK). They were powerful men, and doers of violent deeds. Dr. Duns notices that 'two classes are referred to : (i) the giants (Nephilim} " There were giants in the earth in those days " ; (2) the mighty ones (Gibboriui) "The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The statement that there were giants is complete in itself. Having been told this, we are next informed that those were mighty men. They were thus both Nephilim and Gibborim both giants and other strong ones. The giants are not affirmed to have been born of the daughters of men who had been united to the sons of God. The " strong ones " were their children. There is no necessity, either from the tenor of this verse or from the use of the word in other portions of Scripture, for holding that these " strong ones " were " giants." The same word occurs in the singular in Isaiah iii. 2, where it points to eminence as a military leader, and to a type of heroism which is well illustrated by the great captains of modern times. In them the qualities of greatness are moral and intellectual ; they do not consist in personal strength and physical prowess. The expression which follows indicates men of the latter stamp " the mighty man (the hero) and the man of war (the man of personal strength)." It thus appears that the Nephilim were men of ANCIENT GIANT RACES. 363 great stature, distinguished, because of well-marked bodily features, by the name " giants." Scripture usage is clear on this matter. The report of the men who were sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan concluded with the words, " And there we saw the giants (the Nephilim\ the sons of Anak, which come of the giants (the Nephilini) ; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight" (Num. xiii. 35). The way in which the giants are introduced in the sacred narrative suggests that they were regarded as the wonders of their time, and as comparatively rare among the families of men. The ordinary size of men seems to have been much the same in all time. That this was undoubtedly the case during the earliest periods of history, is seen from the tombs of Egypt. And there is no countenance given here to the popular impression that all the men in antediluvian times were giants. That there were, in those ancient times before the flood, men of a gigantic size and strength, is a thing very credible, both from later instances in historians both sacred and profane, and modern instances in our own times. But we must not conclude from this, as some have done, that mankind in general were, in the first ages, of a much larger stature than they are at present ; though the number of giants seems to have been much greater before the flood than afterwards.' Calvin says : ' I class myself on the side of those who think that these giants were so called because, like a tempest or hurricane which ravages the fields, and destroys the crops, these brigands, by means of their perpetual invasions, spread through the world devasta- tion and carnage. Moses did not say that they were of extraordinary physical stature, but only that they were corporally very robust.' The author of the ' Explication du Livre de la Genese ' says : ' They were not, perhaps, all of an enormous height or size . . . but they were all, as the Scripture describes them, full of confidence in their strength, their prowess, their training, and their skill in every exercise of the body, but making no account of judgment, learning, piety, or justice.' The Origin of Woman. GENESIS 5i. 21, 22 : 'And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept ; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man.' Difficulty. If this is strictly descriptive, it would seem reasonable to expect that man should have, on one side of his body, a rib less than woman. Explanation. Early legends are wrongly treated when they 364 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. are regarded as descriptive or historical. They embody the poetry of the ages to which they belong ; and this legend preserves, in a poetic form, the facts that woman as well as man is the immediate creation of God, and that God gave woman to be man's helpmeet. There have been very curious traditions preserved which relate to the origin of woman ; and science appears to have discovered some very curious facts bearing on the subject. It should first be noticed, as entirely removing the difficulty con- nected with the rib, that the word should be translated ' side,' and the sentence should read, ' The side he built up into a woman.' It is, however, no more easy for us to conceive of man's side being made into a woman, than man's rib. The form in which the origin of woman is given to us in the early legend has suggested the idea that man and woman were originally united in one body, till the Creator separated them. But though we do find stamens and pistils the two forms necessary to ordinary vegetable generation on the same tree or flower, there are neither geological nor existent animals in which the male and female prin- ciples are combined. The scientific notion is best represented by Darwin, who, in his second book, showed that ' man is developed like other animals from an ovule or egg about the one hundred and twenty-fifth part of an inch in diameter ; in embryo he bears the closest resemblance to other embryonic forms ; he has rudimentary muscles, like those which twitch the skin of horses ; he has even the faint survival of a point to his ears and the genuine remnant of a tail. These and other details rank him merely as one of the Quadrumana (four- handed animals), and afford him a position among the primates, which include all the apes and monkeys. It is even possible to go further, and assign him a place among the Catarhine (downward nostril), and not among the Platyrhine (broad nostril) apes, on account of the character of his nose and teeth, and, as the former are confined to the Old World, and the latter to the New, to conclude that he first assumed his final characteristics in the eastern hemi- sphere, perhaps in Africa. In tracing his development to this position, we may believe that all the Quadrumana were derived from an ancient marsupial animal (i.e., one with a pouch like the kan- garoo), and this through a long line of diversified forms, from some creature dwelling half on land and half in water, and this again from some fish-like animal.' ' In the dim obscurity of the past we can see that the early progenitors of all the Vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiae' (gills, of which the faint THE ORIGIN OF WOMAN. 365 trace in his embryo are the last surviving proof in man), ' with the two sexes united in the same individual, and with most organs of the body (such* as the brain and heart) imperfectly or not at all de- veloped.' The Talmud declares, in the Bereshith rabba, that Adam was created at once male and female. There is a Babylonian legend of the creation, which makes the present world of living creatures be preceded by a world of biform monsters with two faces. ' Suppose then that the first being formed was a double being, both male and female in one, what we have recorded in Gen. ii. 21-23 would be the separation of the two into distinct beings, or the removal of the one from the other's "side." ' The following legends were related by Persian Brahmins to a traveller named John Marshall, in the early part of last century. Once on a time, as (God) was set in eternity, it came into His mind to make something, and, immediately, no sooner had He thought the same, but that the same minute was a perfect beautiful woman present immediately before Him, which He called Adea Suktee, that is, the first woman. Then this figure put into His mind the figure of a man, which He had no sooner conceived in His mind, but that he also started up, and represented himself before Him ; this He called Manapuise, that is, the first man ; then, upon a reflection of these things, He resolved further to create several places for them to abide in, and accordingly assuming a subtil body, He breathed in a minute the whole universe, and everything therein, from the least to the greatest.' ' The Brahmins of Persia tell long stories of a great giant that was led into a most delicate garden, which, upon certain conditions, should be his own for ever. But one evening, in a cool shade, one of the wicked devotas, or spirits, came to him and tempted him with vast sums of gold, and all the most precious jewels that can be imagined ; but he courageously withstood that temptation, as not knowing what value or use they were of. But at length this wicked Devota brought to him a fair woman, who so charmed him that, for her sake, he most willingly broke all his conditions, and thereupon was turned out.' There is an ancient Persian legend of the first man and woman which is very singular. Their names are given as Meschia and Meschiane, and they lived for a long time happily together : they hunted together, and discovered fire, and made an axe, and with it built a hut. But no sooner had they thus set up housekeeping than they fought terribly, and, after wounding each other, parted. It is 366 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. not said which remained master of the hut, but we learn that after fifty years of divorce they were reunited.' Many Rabbis imagined that Adam and Eve were originally created with one body between them, and they curiously conceived that the two heads were turned back to back, Eve being afterwards separated, and presented to Adam as his wife. Lenormant gets over the diffi- culty by a satisfactory suggestion, if it can be duly supported. He thinks the Hebrew text means that Eve was formed at Adam's side, not from it. Delitzsch does not think Adam was double sexed. He says : ' To speak generally, the form of Adam was without sex. In its most refined nature Adam had the sexual contrast in himself. With its going forth from the unity of his personality, there neces- sarily connected itself that configuration which was demanded for the then commencing sexual life.' The South Sea Islanders say that ' the first man, who had pre- viously been a stone, thought one day he would make a woman. He collected the light earth on the surface of the ground in the form of a human body, with head, arms, and legs. He then plucked out one of his left ribs and thrust it into the breast of his earth-model. Instantly the earth became alive, and up starts a woman. He called her fvi, which is their word for " rib." ' Joseph's Land Scheme. GENESIS xlvii. 20 : ' And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh ; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them ; so the land became Pharaoh's.' Difficulty. According to modern ideas, Joseph secured the inde- pendence of the crown at the cost of the liberties and natural rights of the people. Explanation. All political devices have to be considered in view of the special circumstances of the nation with which they are concerned. The sovereignty of the people is entirely a modern, civilized, and Western notion. The prevailing idea throughout the world has been that peoples exist for the sake of their rulers, and even in Western lands it is difficult to get the better idea fully estab- lished that rulers exist for the sake of the people. It is curious, however, to notice that the modern socialistic move- ments tend in the direction of Joseph's scheme, and propose the re- sumption of land by the State, the removal of all private ownership of land, and the division of the country in the interests of the people. The special circumstances of Egypt in Joseph's time may partly explain his scheme, and show it to have been good statesmanship. JOSEPH'S LAND SCHEME. 367 If a foreign dynasty was ruling, Joseph's plan tended to give it fixity. But we may look for the real explanation of his scheme in the need for securing the country against possible recurrence of famine. The improvident people would never store their grain in any efficient way, but the universal tax which Joseph secured sufficed both for the royal and national expenditure, and for the full furnishing of the great national store-cities and granaries. That Joseph's was a familiar Eastern scheme is shown by the con- dition of Egypt recently under Mehemet Ali. By an edict he appro- priated the whole country to himself, so that Egypt became as much the property of its ruler as it was in the days of Joseph. The people were not turned out of their possessions, except when it pleased the Pasha to take the land under his own care. In that case the fellah was not permitted to seek some other residence, but had to remain as a labourer in the Pasha's service. Two-thirds of the rental went to the government as taxes. It is now generally assumed that the Pharaoh under whom Joseph served was Apepi, the last shepherd (Hyksos) king, and prede- cessor of Aahmes, who, after a long and severe struggle, expelled the Hyksos, and re-established in Egypt the rule of a native dynasty. Lange says : ' This proceeding of Joseph, reducing the Egyptians in their great necessity to a state of entire dependence on Pharaoh, has been made the ground of severe reproach, and, indeed, it does look strange at first. The promotion of earthly welfare, and of a comfortable existence, cannot excuse a theocratic personage in bring- ing a free people into the condition of servants.' Lange thinks Joseph did not act in an arbitrary manner, and that he could not be expected to advise Pharaoh from the points of view of modern con- stitutional governments. Professor Tayler Lewis, in a note to Lange, says : ' All this difficulty about Joseph's proceeding vanishes when one studiously considers what the Egyptians would have done, or how fatal their free improvidence might have proved, without his sagacious political economy. There would have been no cattle to be sold, the lands would have been barren for the want of hands to till them. Each one for himself, without a common weal, and a wise ruler taking care of it, and taxing them for such care, there would not have been, in their future prospects, any stimulus to frugality or industry. It is yet an unsettled question whether un- regulated individual cultivation of land in small portions, or a judi- cious system of landlordism, for which, of course, there must be rent or tax, is the better method for the universal good. The 20 per cent, which Joseph exacted for the government care was not a 368 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. system of slavery, and it may have been far better than a much greater percentage, perhaps, to capitalists and usurers.' To this should be added that the proportion of a fifth enabled the govern- ment to secure stores of food against possible famine times, as is now done, to some extent, in China. Kitto gives a hearty approval of Joseph's scheme, and adds : ' The Scripture, as usual, records the proceedings without passing any judgment upon them ; and considering the influences by which he was surrounded, and the age and the circumstances in which he lived, it would be surprising indeed to find all his proceedings con- formable to modern European notions of political justice. It would be enough to find that his measures were such as would in his own age be considered just and wise, and if in any point his ideas were in advance of his age, he is entitled to the greater credit, for we can- not rightly expect more from him than the spirit of his own age demanded.' We may sum up the matter by saying that ' the change effected by Joseph in the tenure of the lands could only have been necessary if it were the policy of the king to secure his throne. Joseph bought up the goods and lands of the people, and let them out again at the fixed rent of one-fifth of the produce. He thus made the people directly dependent on the king, taking away from them all their rights of personal liberty and property. The priesthood were exempted from this arrangement, possibly because they were too strong a body, and exercised too wide an influence, to permit such interference with their liberties. It is very easy to see how Joseph's device was in the interests of the king, but very difficult to see that it could be a blessing for the people.' NOTE. The Speaker's Commentary gives the illustrations of Joseph's scheme that are found in Herodotus, Diodorus, Strabo, and the monuments : ' Herodotus says that Sesostris divided the soil among the inhabitants, assigning square plots of land of equal size to all, and obtained his revenue from a rent paid annually by the holders. Diodorus says that Sesoosis divided the whole country into thirty-six nomes, and set nomarchs over each to take care of the royal revenue, and administer their respective provinces. Strabo tells us that the occupiers of land held it subject to a rent. Again, Diodorus represents the land as possessed only by the priests, the king, and the warriors, which testimony is confirmed by the sculptures. The discrepancy of this from the account in Genesis is apparent in the silence of the latter concerning the lands assigned to the warrior JOSEPH'S LAND SCHEME. 369 caste. The reservation of their lands to the priests is expressly men- tioned in Gen. xlvii. 22, but nothing is said of the warriors. There was, however, a marked difference in the tenure of lands by the warriors from that by the priests. Herodotus says that each warrior had assigned to him twelve arurth thinks the Latin gives the best sense of this sentence : ' Qui conterunt super pulverem terrae capita pauperum ' ' Who tread down the heads of the poor into the dust of the earth ;' that is, they throw them into the dust, and then trample upon them. The Chaldee paraphrase understands the verb shaaph in the sense of despising, which comes near the sense of trampling upon : the LXX. render it by xara-radw, to tread upon, both here and in Psalm Ivi. i, 2 ; Ivii. 3. The verb shoph, which is near akin to shaaph, plainly signi- fies to 'tread upon,' to 'bruise' (Gen. iii. 15). The Revised Version suggests no alteration ; and the Variorum Reference Bible indicates no alternative renderings. It may be an extravagant way of stating the grasping, avaricious spirit that will take everything the poor man has, and covet the very dust on his head. They utterly and shamelessly oppress the poor. Roberts suggests an explanation from Indian customs. ' I believe the expression " dust of the earth " alludes to the lands of the poor, of \vnich they had been deprived by the princes and judges. Nothing is more common in Eastern language than for a man to call his fields and gardens his man, that is, his dust, his earth. "That man has gnawed away my dust or sand." "Ah, the fellow! by degrees he has taken away all that poor man's earth." "The cruel wretch ! He is ever trying to take away the dust of the earth." In consequence of there not being fences in the East, landowners often encroach on each other's possessions.' Some interpret the verse as expressing the eager desire of the rich to see the head of the poor laid low and rolled in the dust. Others ' WATER OUT OF HIS BUCKETS: 513 think the verse rebukes that greediness after land which, in the prophet's sarcastic language, made men covet the very dust which the oppressed sprinkled on his head in token of mourning (Neh. ix. i ; Lam. ii. 10). Ewald and Keil interpret thus : ' They long to see the poor reduced to such distress that dust is thrown on their heads in token of grief.' 1 Water out of His Buckets.' NUMBERS xxiv. 7 : ' He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his kingdom shall be higher than Agag, and his king- dom shall be exalted.' Difficulty. There is a mixture of metaphors in this verse which is altogether confusing. Explanation. This is an illustration of the limitation of poetical figures to the associations, observations, and knowledge of the poet. Only a man living in a country dependent on artificial irrigation would have lighted on such a figure. The land of Egypt was watered by buckets, and the idea is presented of a land which would not be dependent on man's artificial watering, but would be duly supplied with rain from heaven, which is conceived of as ' water out of God's buckets.' Literally, the clause should be rendered, ' He shall stream with water from his two buckets.' ' Balaam's native soil was ordinarily irrigated by water fetched from the neighbouring Euphrates, and carried in buckets suspended from the two ends of a pole. Water in the East is the first essential of all fertility. Thus the metaphor would import that Israel should have his own exuberant and unfail- ing channels of blessing and plenty.' Geikie gives some interesting descriptions of the kind of watering by buckets from which Balaam may have obtained his figure ; the precise point of his application of the figure is disputed, but the hint given above is so simple as to be on the whole satisfactory. Writing of the neighbourhood of Joppa, Geikie says : ' The harvest is every- where immense, the abundance of water being the secret of this fertility. Wherever a well is sunk in the orchards, it is sure to tap a spring at a very moderate depth. It seems, in fact, as if a great subterranean stream runs continually from the hills towards the sea, under the whole of the lowlands, from above Joppa to Beersheba in the far south ; for water can be had everywhere if a well be dug. The rains which fall on the porous strata of the mountains, or on the soft bosom of the plains, filter downwards till stopped, not far below 33 5 J 4 the surface, by a bed of hard limestone, which turns them off in a vast perennial stream, down its slope, towards the west. Every orchard has thus ample means of irrigation, effected by countless clumsy water-wheels, the creaking of which never ceases. These ingenious contrivances, though rudely enough put together, are at once simple and efficient. An ox, a mule, or an ass, yoked to a long pole projecting from the side of a thick upright post, and driven slowly round, turns this beam, which carries on its top a large horizontal wheel, with numerous wooden teeth, working into another wheel set up and down, and joined by a long wooden axle to a third, revolving, mill-fashion, into and out of the well. This lets down and draws up in turn, as it goes round, a series of pottery jars, or wooden buckets, fastened to it at short intervals by two thick, endless ropes of palm-fibre or myrtle-twigs, the roughness of which keeps them from slipping. As the jars or buckets pass over the top of the wheel, full of water, they empty themselves into a large trough, from which the life-giving stream runs into a little canal leading it through the orchard. This is tapped every here and there on its way, and thus furnishes numberless brooklets to moisten the roots of each tree ; so that all, in effect, are planted " by the streams of waters." Modifica- tions of the water-wheel are naturally met with in different parts of Palestine and Syria. Thus, on the Orontes, huge wheels, varying in diameter from fifteen to ninety feet, are set up between strong walls at the edge of the river, so that in revolving, by the force of the current, the rim, armed with a series of wooden buckets, dips into the water and fills each in succession, carrying the whole round with it till, as they begin to descend, after passing the top of the circle, the contents are discharged into a trough leading to a raised tank, from which little canals run off through the neighbouring gardens. ... In many places, however, very simple wheels are sufficient, when the water is near the surface. Thus, at the Virgin's Tree, near Cairo, and in many parts of the sea-plain of Palestine, a horizontal cog-wheel, fixed on an upright shaft, from which a long pole projects at one side, works directly into an upright wheel, hung with wooden buckets, or earthenware jars, which, in turn, dip under the water, and duly empty their contents, as the wheel revolves, into a trough. A blindfolded ox at the outer end of the pole keeps the whole in motion as it paces round and round.' A poet familiar with this watering of the land by buckets would, in a very simple and natural way, represent the rain as ' water out of God's buckets,' or ' out of the buckets provided by God.' WA TER FROM THE ASS'S JAW. 515 Water from the Ass's Jaw. JUDGES xv. 19 : ' But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout ; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived : wherefore he called the name thereof En-hakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day. ' Difficulty. Water out of an ass's jaw implies so extraordinary, and so unnecessary, a miracle, that there surely must be some mistake in the language. Explanation. This subject is carefully treated by Dr. Abbott, in his book, ' The Kernel and the Husk ;' and as in his case there is full competency of knowledge and ability to deal with such a difficulty, the entire passage from his book may be given. ' You must recollect, and I think you ought to have been perplexed by, the astounding incident in the life of Samson connected with the "ass's jawbone." The hero is said first to have slain some hundreds of men with the jawbone of an ass, and then to have thrown away the jawbone in the anguish of a parching thirst. Upon this the Lord is said (in the Old Version of the Bible) to have opened a fountain of water in the hollow of the jawbone in answer to his cry : and the fountain was henceforth named En-hakkore, i.e., the "fountain of him that calleth," because Samson "called upon the Lord" More- over, when he cast away the jawbone, he is said to have called the place Ramath-lehi, which the margin (not of the New Version, but of the Old) interprets, "the lifting up of the jawbone," or "the casting .away of the jawbone." Without pausing to dwell on the extreme improbability of the details of the story, I will merely state the probable explanation. It is probable that the valley containing the " hollow " in which the fountain lay, was called, from the configura- tion of the place, "the Ass's Jawbone," before the occurrence of any exploit of Samson in it. Indeed, we find it actually called " Lehi," or " Jawbone," in the narrative now under discussion, just before the supposed incident of the jawbone took place : "The Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi (Jawbone)," Judges xv. 9. This latter fact, indeed, is not conclusive (as the narrator, living long after the event, might possibly use the name of the place handed down to him, even in writing of a time when he believed the name to have been not yet given) ; but the probability of a natural explanation of the origin of the name receives strong confirmation from a passage in Strabo (303), who actually mentions some other place (I think in Peloponnesus), called the "Ass's Jawbone." I need not say that Strabo narrates no such Samsonian 332 5 1 6 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICUL TIES. incident to explain the name, and that it was probably derived (like Dog's Head, Hog's Back, and many other such names) from some similarity between the shape of an ass's jawbone, and the shape of the valley. Moreover, the word translated " hollow," though it might represent the cavity in an ass's jawbone, might also represent the hollow in a valley, as in Zephaniah (i. n) "Howl, ye inhabitants of the hollow" Again, the name Ramath-lehi cannot mean "casting away of the jawbone ;" it means " lifting up," or "hill" of Lehi ; and accordingly the Revised Version translates, "that place was called Ramath-lehi ;" and the margin represents the name thus, " The hill of the jawbone." I should add also that the Revisers instead of the Old Version, "clave an hollow place that was in the jaw" give us now, "clave the hollow place that is in Lehi." You must see now, surely, how on every side the old miraculous interpretation breaks down and makes way for a natural and non-miraculous explanation of the legend. But we have still to explain the name of the fountain, said to have been given from the "calling" of Samson. This is easily done. It appears that the phrase "him that calleth," or "the Caller," is a Hebrew name for the Partridge, so named from its "call "or "cry." The "Fountain of the Caller," therefore, in the " hollow-place" of the "Ass's Jawbone," was simply, as we might say, " Partridge Well in Jawbone Valley, which lay below Jawbone Hill."' But .now, many years after the champion of Israel had passed away, comes the legendary poet or historian, who has to tell of some great exploit of deliverance wrought by the hero Samson in this Valley of the Jawbone of the Ass by the side of the Fountain of the Caller. Straightway, every local name must be connected with the incident that fills his mind and the minds of all his countrymen who live . in the neighbourhood. And so ' Jawbone Valley ' became so called because it was there that Samson smote the Philistines with the ' Jawbone of an ass ;' and ' Jawbone Heights ' are so called because on this, spot Samson ' lifted up ' the jawbone against his foes, or ..' threw it away ' after he had destroyed them ; and ' the Well of the Caller ' derives not only its name, but even its miraculous existence from ' the calling of Samson upon Jehovah.' Fcirrfir 3>zx\\y supports this view : ' The notion that God made a miraculous fountain in one of the tooth-sockets of the jawbone of an ass is one of the childish misinterpretations with which Scripture exegesis is constantly defaced. Lehi is here the name of the place, and if the fountain is said to have sprung up in jffammaktesh, " the tooth-socket " (Vulg. molareni), that is only due to the play on words WATER FROM THE ASS'S JAW. 517 which characterizes the narrative. When the cliff had got the name of "Jawbone," the spring would naturally be called "a tooth-socket." The word " maktesh " probably means " a mortar " (Greek, hohniskos ; Lat, mortariolum) (Prov. xxvii. 22) ; and this name was transferred to the sockets of teeth.' Conder thinks he has identified the place : ' A little way north-west of Zoreah, seven miles from Beit Atab, is a low hill, on the slope of which are springs, called 'Ayun Abu Meharib, or the " fountains of the place of battles." Close by is a little Moslem chapel, dedicated to Sheikh Nedhir, or "the Nazarite chief;" and higher up, a ruin with the extraordinary title "Isma 'Allah" "the name of God." The Nazarite chief is probably Samson, whose memory is so well preserved in this small district, and the place is perhaps connected with one of his exploits. The " Ism Allah " is possibly a corruption of " Esm 'a Allah " " God heard," in which case the incident intended will be the battle of Ramath-lehi. Finally, we were informed by a native of the place that the springs were sometimes called " 'Ayun Kara," in which name we should recognise easily the En hakkore, or "fountain of the crier."' Iron and Brass Shoes. DEUTERONOMY xxxiii. 25 : ' Thy shoes shall be iron and brass ; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be.' Difficulty. The figure of metal shoes is a strange one. Perhaps ' shoes ' does not fittingly represent the Hebrew term. Explanation. The Revised Version gives ' Thy bars shall be iron and brass ' : but it is not easy to see what can be meant by bars, as applied to the locality of a tribe. Possibly metals, more especially iron and copper, were found in this territory ; but there is no evidence of Asher's being occupied in mining operations. It is better to see in this expression a striking, almost an extravagant, Eastern figure of speech. Put in simple form, it means that the strength and firm- ness of Asher should be as if he were shod with iron and brass. The Chaldee paraphrasts understand the sentence figuratively, ' Thou shalt be strong and bright as iron and brass.' Bishop Wordsworth examines the figures carefully : ' Or thy bars and strongholds shall be iron and brass. The word rendered shoe (mineaf) occurs only here. It has been supposed by some to mean a bar, or bolt. (So Arabic, Onkelos, Kimchi, R. Solomon, Gesenius, and Keil.) The root is naal, to fasten with a bolt ; hence naal, a shoe, fastened by a latchet. But there does not seem to be sufficient 5 1 8 HAND BO OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. reason for abandoning the translation shoes, which is authorized by Sept., Vulg., Syriac : and there is something expressive in this figure, as indicating the force with which Asher would tread down his enemies. Besides, Asher had (it is probable) mines of iron and copper, and Misrephoth Maim, which seems to be in Asher, is said by the Rabbis to have been famous for its smelting furnaces, and to have derived its name from them.' Dean Stanley says : ' Asher was to be " blessed with children," " acceptable to his brethren," dipping his foot in the " oil " of his olive-groves, shod with " the iron and brass " (copper) of Lebanon.' And he observes that iron is found in Lebanon ; copper is not now found, but its frequent mention in connection with the Tyrians justifies the allusion. Geikie intimates that Asher failed to reach, or to maintain, the destiny prophesied for it. With Naphtali Asher occupied the high lands stretching from the Jordan to the Phoenician plain. The por- tion of Asher reaching from Carmel northwards. But Asher could not, any more than Ephraim, hold his own against the chariots of the Canaanites, and was soon contented to live among them, rejoicing in the possession of some of the richest land in Palestine. . . . Sinking into purveyors for the Phoenician cities, they soon lost their high tone until national spirit had so faded away, that when Zebulon and Naphtali ' jeoparded their lives to the death,' in the struggle against . Sisera, Asher cravenly sought its own interests in the havens and villages of its heathen allies. The Undying Worm and Unquenched Fire. ISAIAH Ixvi. 24 : ' For their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhoring unto all flesh.' Question. Can the associations on ivhich this poetical figure is based be explained ? Answer. Canon Rawlinson says : ' It cannot be by chance that the Evangelical prophet concludes his glorious prophecy with this terrible note of warning. Either he was divinely directed thus to terminate his teaching, or he felt the need that there was of his emphasizing all the many warnings dispersed through his book, by a final, never-to-be-forgotten picture. The undying worm, and the quenchless fire images introduced by him became appropriated thenceforth to the final condition of impenitent sinners (Judith xvi. 17 ; Ecclus. vii. 17), and were even adopted by our Lord Himself in the same connection (Mark ix.). The incongruity of the two images shows UNDYING WORM AND UNQ UENCHED FIRE. 519 that they are not to be understood literally ; but both alike imply everlasting continuance, and are incompatible with either of the two modern heresies of universalism or annihilationism.' In criticism of this last remark it may be said that both the worm and the fire can only continue so long as they have suitable matter to feed upon. Without food neither worm nor flame can endure. Cheyne, in his work on ' Isaiah,' discusses this sentence : ' By the inconsistency of the description, the prophet clearly warns us not to understand it literally. The Egyptian authors of the "Book of the Dead " would have equally deprecated a literal interpretation of the torments of the condemned. The eschatology of the Bible is symbolic ; the prophet, like the other men of God, speaks in figures. His symbols are borrowed partly from the valley of Hinnom, which had formerly been the scene of the burnt sacrifices to Moloch, and afterwards became the receptacle of the filth of Jerusalem, and partly from the popular imaginations respecting the soul. We must be on our guard, however, against supposing that the kernel of his symbols is a mere abstraction. This would be high treason against his Semitic origin and his prophetical calling. There is no reasonable doubt that material torments form a very definite part of his eschato- logy. In one essential point, however, our prophet is distinguished from non-prophetical writers, viz. : his self-restraint in referring to the unseen world. . . . Did the prophet merely mean "that nothing should put the fire out, while any portion of the carcases remained to be devoured that it should be unquenchable until it had done its work, and all was entirely consumed ?" And, in the application of the figure to the soul, that pangs of conscience should continue to afflict the guilty ones until they were purified thereby ? This, at any rate, does not seem to have been the interpretation of the early readers of the prophecy. The proverbial use of the fire and the worm in Sirach vii. 1 7 ; Judith xvi. 1 7, would hardly have arisen if the Jewish people had given the phrases so mild a meaning. But the theory mentioned may, I think, be refuted out of the Book of Isaiah itself, where we read (xxxiv. 10) respecting the fire with which guilty Edom is threatened, that it shall be quenchless, and that its smoke shall go up for ever, so that " none shall pass through " Edom " for ever and ever." There is no arriere pens'ee here ; the everlastingness spoken of is absolute, and without qualification. The phrase "perpetual burnings " (xxxiii. 14) has quite another reference.' The Speaker's Commentary gives the following note : ' Ordinarily, the " worm " feeds on the disorganized body, and then dies ; the " fire " consumes its fuel, and goes out. But here is a strange 5 2 o HANDS O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. mystery of suffering a worm not dying, a fire not becoming extinct a remorseful memory of past guilt, an all-penetrating sense of Divine justice.' Dean Plumptre has a valuable note on the passage as used by our Lord (Mark ix. 44) : ' The words are taken almost literatim from the closing verse of Isaiah, where they appear as part of the description of the triumph of Jehovah. The true worshippers should serve in His Temple continually, and they should go forth and see the carcases of the transgressors, " for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." The scenery is, like that of Isa. Ixiii. 1-6, drawn from the slaughter of earthly battles, and the prophet exults in vision over the putrid carcases and the blazing fires that consume them, and thinks of that scene as perpetuated throughout eternity. The imagery was thus already familiar, and it coalesced naturally with the ideas of Gehenna. Possibly the valley of Hinnom, as the great cloaca of Jerusalem, receiving its solid as well as its fluid sewage, with putrid offal and blazing fires consuming them, had become in this way a visible type of the unseen Gehenna ; but the authorities are hardly definite enough to warrant the positive statement that it presented such a scene. The interpretation of the symbols (for a literal acceptance of the words is obviously out of the question) is not far to seek. Well- nigh all Christian thinkers have seen in the gnawing worm the anguish of an endless remorse, the memory of past sins. Fire re- tains its wonted force as the expression of the righteousness of God (Heb. xii. 29) manifesting itself to the consciousness of the sinner in all its awfulness, purifying where there is any desire, and therefore capacity, for purification, but never altering its essential character, even as the fire " never can be quenched." So much the words declare distinctly, as the law of righteous retribution. They do not absolutely exclude the thought that the fire may consume or destroy that which it cannot purify ; still less do they affirm that it will.' The ' Days ' of Creation. GENESIS i. 5 : ' And the evening and the morning were the first day.' Question. Is the term 'day' to be taken in a poetical, or in a natural, sense ? Answer. Mr. W. E. Gladstone can neither be regarded as a trained exegete nor as a trained theologian, but in dealing with the first chapter of Genesis he has skilfully expressed the conclusions which most reasonable and fair-minded men are prepared to accept. THE l DAYS' OF CREA TION. 5 2 1 The following passage from his article in Good Words bears relation to the ' days ' into which the Creative action is divided. ' I submit that the days of creation are neither the solar days of twenty-four hours, nor are they the geological periods which the geologist himself is compelled popularly, and in a manner utterly remote from precision, to describe as millions upon millions of years. To use such language as this is simply to tell us that we have no means of forming a determinate idea upon the subject of the geologic periods. I set aside both these interpretations, as I do not think the Mosaist intended to convey an idea like the first, which was false, or like the second, which would have been barren and unmeaning. Unmeaning, and even confusing in the highest degree; for large statements in figures are well known to be utterly beyond comprehen- sion for man at an early intellectual stage; and I have myself, I think, shown that, even among the Achaian or Homeric Greeks, the limits of numerical comprehension were extremely narrow, and all large numbers were used, so to speak, at a venture. It seems to me that the days of the Mosaist are more properly to be described as CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION. That IS to Say, the purpose of the writer in speaking of the days was the same as the purpose of the historian is when he divides his work into chapters. His object is to give clear and sound instruction. So that he can do this, and in order that he may do it, the periods of time assigned to each chapter are longer or shorter according as the one or the other may minister to better comprehension of his subject by his readers. Further, in point of chronology, his chapters often overlap. He finds it needful, always keeping his end in view, to pursue some narrative to its close, and then, stepping backwards, to take up some other series of facts, although their exordium dated at a period of time which he has already traversed. The resources of the literary art, aided for the last four centuries by printing, enable the modern writer to confront more easily these difficulties of arrangement, and so to present the material to his reader's eye, in text or margin, as to place the texture of his chronology in harmony with the texture of the action he has to relate. The Mosaist, in his endeavour to expound the orderly development of the visible world, had no such resources. His expedient was to lay hold on that which to the mind of his time was the best example of complete and orderly division. This was the day, an idea at once simple, definite, and familiar. As one day is divided from another not by any change visible to the eye at a given moment, yet effectually by the broad chasm of the intervening night, so were the stages of the creative work several and distinct, 522 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. even if, like the lapse of time, they were without breach of continuity. Each had its work, each had the beginning and the completion of that work, even as the day is begun by its morning, and completed and concluded by its evening. ' And now to sum up. In order that the narrative might be intelli- gible, it was useful to subdivide the work. This could most effectively be done by subdividing it into periods of time. And further, it was well to choose that circumscription or period of time which is the most definite. Of these the day is clearly the best, as compared with the month or the year : first, because of its small and familiar compass ; and, secondly, because of the strong and marked division which separates one day from another. ' Hence, we may reasonably argue, it is that not here only, but throughout the Scripture, and even down to the present time in familiar human speech, the day is figuratively used to describe periods of time, perfectly undefined as such, but defined, for practical pur- poses, by the lives or events to which reference is made. And if it be said there was a danger of its being misunderstood in this particular case, the answer is that such danger of misapprehension attaches in various degrees to all use of figurative language ; but figurative language is still used. And with reason, because the mischiefs arising from such danger are rare and trivial, in comparison with the force and clearness which it lends to truth on its passage through a clouded atmosphere of folly, indifference, and prejudice, into the mind of man. In this particular case the danger and incon- venience are at their minimum, the benefit at its zenith ; for no moral mischief ensues because some have supposed the days of the creation to be pure solar days of twenty-four hours, while the benefit has been that the grand conception of orderly development, and ascent from chaos to man, became among the Hebrew people a universal and familiar truth, of which other races appear to have lost sight.' Dean Payne Smith describes a creative day as not a period of twenty-four hours, but an ceon, or period of indefinite duration ; and he tells us that among the Chaldseans a cosmic day was a period of 43,200 years, being the equivalent of the cycle of the procession of the equinoxes. Kurtz suggests that the revelation of the manner of creation was made in a succession of representations or pictures, displayed before the mental vision of the tranced seer. The explanations offered may be briefly summarized. There is the literal interpretation, which sees in the 'days' twenty -four hours. Some regard the 'days' as periods. Some treat the account of the THE FIRE OF GOD. 523 creation as a series of dramatic scenes presented in vision, each scene answering to a 'day.' And the strange notion has been suggested that the work of the six days only refers to the fitting up of that particular portion of the earth, which was the first abode of man. The Fire of God. JOB i. 16 : ' While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them ; and I only am escaped to tell thee.' Question. May we identify this poetical description as referring to the lightning ? Answer. Probably we may. Lightning has done all that this ' fire of God ' is represented as doing. It strikes dead. It sets- buildings alight. And yet the reading of Holy Scripture leaves on us the impression of something unusual in these manifestations of the 'fire of God.' This report of the servant of Job can hardly be ex- plained by the consequences of lightning-flash : it better suits a blast of the hot scorching wind. But if we regard the Book of Job as a poetical creation, we are relieved of the necessity for finding facts of history precisely answering its descriptions. A simple explanation has been offered. The term ' Fire of God ' may be only a figure for a 'great destructive fire,' according to the Hebrew idiom, which calls great trees ' trees of God,' and great mountains 'hills of God.' Then we can suppose that some calamity of an ordinary character is referred to. It would not be difficult for those who are familiar with prairie fires to imagine the disaster which had overtaken the sheep. Other suggestions have been made. Some think the sultry, poisonous wind of the desert, the Samoom (Samum), may be meant. It suddenly destroys man and beast. It is indicated by certain atmospheric phenomena, appearing first of a yellow colour, which changes to a leaden hue, and spreads through the atmosphere, so that the sun when at the brightest becomes a dark red. Delitzsch thinks a rain of fire or brimstone such as fell on Sodom and Gomorrah may be meant ; but we have no historical records of such rains, nor any experiences to help us in conceiving such. Most writers prefer to identify the term as poetical for 'lightning.' The Speaker's Commentary says, l This is a new and more terrible calamity. Incursions of robbers must have entered into the calculations of a rich chieftain in the Hauran, but a storm extending over the vast tracts occupied by seven thousand sheep, and destroying them, 5 2 4 HANDS O OK OF BIBLICAL DIFFIC UL TIES. together with their guards, would scarcely be attributed to merely natural causes, certainly not in that age by God-fearing men.' The particular expression is also found in connection with Elijah. (See i Kings xviii. 24 ; 2 Kings i. 12.) ' None shut up, or left.' 2 KINGS xiv. 26 : ' For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter : for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.' Question. What could have been the condition of the people which is thus described '? Answer. We must get the precise turn of the expression from the Revised Version. ' For there was none shut up, nor left at large, neither was there any helper for Israel.' From i Kings xiv. 10 we gather that the words ' shut up and left ' were an alliterative phrase, meaning 'men of all sorts.' It may mean, 'whether a man be young, and so under wardship, or older, and free to go about as he pleases. Hence the expression amounts to " young and old." ' There was no one, great or small, young or old, to whom they could look for aid. In a special note on Deut. xxxii. 36, where this expression first appears, the Speaker's Commentary says : ' The phrase is proverbial, and based upon a paronomasia (21T1M 11^). Its general sense is clear. It means, ' all men of all sorts ' ; and its literal force is cor- rectly given in the Authorised Version, though the word translated 'left ' might perhaps as well be rendered 'set free.' Its original and proper significance has, however, been uncertain from very early times, The best explanation of it is probably that of De Dieu, which has analogies in the Arabic, and is followed by Dathe, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Keil, Knobel, etc., who regard it as originally meaning " married and single " (cf. the German ledig). Others (Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, De Wette, etc.) suggest " bond and free," or " confined and at large " ; others (Kimchi and some Jewish authorities) ' precious ' (and so " shut up and guarded "), and " vile " (and so neglected) ; others (Fiirst, etc.), " He who is restrained and he who is his own Master," which is substantially identical with " he who is not of full age, and he who is so, and therefore is indepen- dent"' This passage provides a striking illustration of a large number of Bible expressions which are exceedingly difficult for us to under- stand, because they are colloquial sayings, people's proverbs, which depend for their point on the precision with which they are repro- WITH A CART-ROPE. 525 duced in another language, and the degree in which we can recover the associations which once made them effective. These people's proverbs turn, oftentimes, on the double meaning attached to words, and that double meaning may be quite beyond our reach, because one of the meanings may be a local and temporary, and not a dic- tionary meaning. Great confusion may be made by missing the par- ticular connotation given to a term in a proverb at some definite period of a nation's history, or in some limited part of a country. The familiar saying in Isaiah, ' Precept must be upon precept ; line upon line,' is an effective illustration. It really is an imitation of the thickened speech of drunken revellers in the days of Isaiah ; but this does not appear in our English translation, and consequently we fix new ideas of our own to Isaiah's words. Sin with a Cart- Rope. ISAIAH v. 18 : ' Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope.' Question. What characteristic feature of sin does this figure indicate ? Answer. There are no associations of modern life that help to make this figure intelligible ; and one is tempted to think that the precise force of the original word can hardly have been caught ; but the Revised Version suggests no alteration, and there are no various renderings ; so we are left to discover what explanations have been given by Bible writers. Henderson criticises other explanations, and gives his own. ' The idea of drawing out or continuing in the practice of sin, and thereby accumulating it, like a rope-maker, who continually adds to his materials, first suggested by Houbigant, and approved by Lowth, is quite forced j having no other ground than the simple occurrence of the terms cords and ropes ; which are manifestly spoken of as imple- ments, by the use of which the action was performed, and not them- selves the subjects of the operation. Besides, it is at variance with the following context. The meaning is, that the persons described were not satisfied with ordinary modes of provoking the Deity, and the consequent ordinary approach of His vengeance, but, as it were, yoked themselves in the harness of iniquity, and putting forth all their strength, drew down upon themselves with accelerated speed the load of punishment which their sins deserved. The verse would better read, " Woe to them that draw calamity with cords of inquity, and punishment as with the ropes of a cart." ' Drawing punishment 526 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. down as with a cart-rope is altogether more intelligible than drawing sin. Dean Plumptre suggests other associations. ' This phrase is boldly figurative. Evil-doers are thought of as harnessing themselves to the chariot of sin. The "cords of vanity " i.e., of emptiness, or ungodliness -are the habits by which they are thus bound. The "cart-ropes," thicker and stronger than the "cords," represent the .extreme stage, when such habits become irresistibly dominant. Pro- bably the words may point to some idolatrous procession, in which the chariot of Baal or Ashtaroth was thus drawn by their wor- shippers like that of Demeter or Cybele in Greece, or Juggernath in India.' As showing how difficult it is to be satisfied with any explanation of striking and unusual Eastern figures, the criticism of J, A. Alexander may be given : ' This verse contains the third woe, having reference to presumptuous sinners who defy God's judgments. They are here represented not as drawn away by sin (Jas. i. 14), but as laboriously drawing it to them by soliciting temptation, drawing it out by obstinate persistency in evil and contempt of divine theaten- ings. Woe to the drawers of iniquity (those drawing, those who draw it) with cords of vanity and sin (a parallel expression to iniquity) as (or as with) a cart-rope, i.e., a strong rope, implying difficulty and exertion. The interpretation which supposes iniquity and sin to mean calamity and punishment (Menochius, Gesenius, Ewald, Hende- werk, Henderson}, although it seems to make the sentence clearer, impairs its strength, and takes the words in an unusual and doubtful sense. Knobel objects that men cannot be said to draw sin with cords of sin. But even this figure is perfectly consistent both with reason and experience. Or vanity may be taken in the sense of falsehood or sophistical reasoning by which men persuade themselves to sin (Calv. Vitr. Cler.). The Targum, followed by Jarchi, supposes an antithesis between the beginnings of sin and its later stages, slight cords and cart-ropes. But this confounds the sin itself with the instrument by which they draw it ; and the same objection lies against the Syriac and Vulgate Versions, which make drawing out, or pro- tracting, the primary idea, and also against Houbigant's and Lowth's interpretation, which supposes an allusion to the process of rope- making. Luther's idea that the verse relates to combination among wicked men, " who bind themselves together " to do mischief, is at variance with the usage of the Hebrew verb. The true interpretation of the verse, which supposes the act described to be that of laboriously drawing sin to one's self, perhaps with the accessory idea GOD PRESSED AS A LOADED CART. 527 of drawing it out by perseverance, is substantially given by Kimchi, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Maurer, and Umbreit.' Cheyne explains thus: 'In their "emptiness" of true religion, these men allow themselves to be yoked to sin like beasts of burden. The same figure is found in the Rig Veda (Max Miiller's translation) " Undo the rope of sin." ' The Speaker's Commentary reads, 'As if they had yoked them- selves, like bullocks, to drag onward their piles of ungodliness.' God Pressed as a Loaded Cart. AMOS ii. 13 : ' Behold I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves.' Question. What idea of God is thus presented 1 } Answer. Van Lennep tells us that in many portions of Asia Minor, the sheaves are piled into a rude cart, upon which they are kept from falling by a wicker-work about four feet high. These carts, or arabas, are probably similar to those used by the Hebrews, and drawn by a pair of oxen. Describing harvesting operations, Geikie says : ' The bundles of cut grain are carried on asses, or sometimes on camels, to the open-air threshing-floor, near the village ; one of the huge bundles, nearly as large as the camel itself, being hung on each side of the patient beast, in a rough netting of rope, as he kneels to receive them. Rising and bearing them off, he once more kneels at the threshing-floor, to have them removed, returning forthwith to the reapers to repeat the same round.' According to Geikie, there are no wheeled vehicles now in Palestine, though there were in antiquity. And Ayre says, that ' at present wheel-carriages are all but unknown in Syria ; the only carts known in Western Asia have two wheels of solid wood, such as may be seen in Spain.' The passage is a difficult one, because the grammatical form obscures the point. Bishop Wordsworth gives a suggestive explana- tion : ' The propriety of the simile of the cart, pressed down and groaning with its load of ripe sheaves, consists further in this, that the cart bears them to the threshing-floor, and shoots them down there to be threshed. In like manner, Israel, wearying God with the weight of their sins, will be cast down by Him on the threshing-floor, to be crushed like sheaves by the sharp threshing instruments of Divine judgment.' St. Jerome says : 'As a cart loaded heavily with corn or hay, creaks and groans with the weight, so I, overburdened by your 528 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. sins, utter my voice and say, "The flight shall perish from the swift." ' Some take the passage as correctly rendered in the Authorised Version : ' The difficulty of the passage consists chiefly in the form of the verb here employed by the prophet, which cannot be adequately rendered by the passive, " I am pressed." Its meaning may be con- veyed by " I feel pressed or straitened " : " Behold I, even I, feel the pressure of your sins, as the cart that is full of sheaves (full as it can hold, is the meaning of the idiom) feels its heavy load." ' The marginal rendering suggests a different idea : ' I will press your place, as a cart full of sheaves presseth.' But this is open to ' more than one objection. It violates the Hebrew idiom, and gives a turn to the passage which ill-agrees with the image employed. The pressure of a heavily-laden cart on the ground can hardly represent the crushing of a people. The punishment, too, seems to be described in the words that follow.' Job's Perfectness. JOE i. 8 : ' And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?' Difficulty. The term ' perfect] as we understand it, cannot properly be applied to any human being, Explanation. Much confusion has been caused by our failing to see that the word ' perfect ' as used in the Scripture is a figurative and poetical term, and not strictly descriptive and logical. A doctrine of ' perfectionism ' would never have been created if the suggestive character of this word had been properly estimated. As used in the Old Testament, it represents the simple, single-hearted man, who has but one ruling purpose ; who means to do right, whenever he can see what is right. The perfect man is the man who does not wilfully or consciously commit sin : but the idea of an absolute and entire free- dom from all taint or peril of sin never enters into the Old Testa- ment term. In such a sense no individual is presented to us in the ancient histories. In the New Testament the word ' perfect ' sometimes is the same as ' complete,' ' entire,' with no part or faculty lacking, or undeveloped. But as our Lord used the word, it retains its Old Testament idea of ' simple, sincere, single-willed, resolutely set on the good, and the right.' In the description of Job four characteristics are mentioned : ' Per- fect] as opposed to 'perverse,' 'self-willed.' ' Upright] fair, honour- JOB'S PERFECTNESS. 529 able, straightforward, in all his dealings with men. ' One that feareth God,' and therefore offers Him the worship, and the service, that are His due. ' Escheweth ew7,' finds everything wilful and dis- obedient actually distasteful to him. He had such an inward-abiding sense of God's holiness, that all evil and the essence of evil is wilful- ness was abhorrent to him. The precise use of the term in this Book of Job is indicated by Dr. A. B. Davidson : ' The term " perfect " means properly " complete," without defect. It does not imply that the man was sinless, for Job never puts forward any such pretension ' (and we should not believe him if he did), ' but that he was a righteous man, and free from specific sins such as were held to bring down the chastisement of heaven. That he was so is the very foundation of his trial and the first principle of the book. Job's " perfection " is affirmed in heaven (ch. i. 8 ; ii. 3) ; it is understood by his wife : " Dost thou still hold fast thy per- fection ?" (ii. 9) ; and it is persistently claimed for himself by Job, not only in moments of excitement when stung by the insinuations of his friends : " I am perfect " (ix. 21), but also when the heat of the conflict is over, and under the most solemn oaths : " As God liveth, who hath taken away my right ... I will not remove my perfection from me ; my righteousness I hold fast " (xxvii. 2, 5, 6). The word occurs again, xxxi. 6, and in another form (xii. 4), " The just, perfect man is laughed to scorn." Even the three friends admit Job's per- fectness in general, although they are under the impression that he must have been guilty of some serious offences to account for his calamities, and they urge it upon Job as a ground of confidence for his ultimate recovery : " Is not thy hope the perfectness of thy ways ?" (iv. 6) ; and again : " God will not cast away a perfect man " (viii. 20). One of the objects the writer of the book had in view was to teach that sufferings may fall on men for reasons unconnected with any sin on their own part ; and using the history of Job for this purpose, it was necessary that he should lay emphasis in all parts of the book upon Job's perfection. The term " perfect " is used of Noah in the same sense : Noah, a just man, was perfect in his generation ; that is, he was righteous and exempt from the sins of his contemporaries ' (Gen. vi. 9). It is a sufficient proof that the Hebrew word here used for ' perfect ' (tarn) cannot mean ' without any human failings ' that it is applied to Jacob (Gen. xxv. 27), who was certainly not without his frailties. ' Perfect ' may be said to include completeness in all the parts of moral character : sincerity r , which is rather a matter of purpose than of performance, but is the foundation of a gracious character; and 34 530 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. blamelessness, or moral integrity. A man may be blameless though not sinless ; he may be blameless as judged by a human standard, not sinless when judged by the Divine standard. In a sense care- fully limited, perfection may be said to belong to saints both of the Old and New Testaments ; but the holiness of believers on earth can only be partial and progressive. Christ is the only absolutely righteous and perfect One. The Picture of Old Age. ECCLESIASTES xii. i : ' While the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shall say, I have no pleasure in them,' etc. Question. Should this picture be regarded as suitable only to the miserable old age of a worn-out sensualist 1 Answer. The old age that follows on a sober and healthy life is not fitly described in this passage. The point of the passage is the misery of the old man who has nourished sensual desires and passions, until they have become masterful, and yet has no longer any bodily power to indulge them : and there is no misery to be compared with that which such an old man knows. Set a fair description of an old Christian's experience over against this description of the sensualist's old age, and the contrast will be seen to be most striking. Dr. James Hamilton takes this view of the passage : 'A dissipated youth is sure to be followed by a cross and joyless old age. During the years of his ungodliness, Solomon had been a fast liver, and, most likely, he now felt creeping over him the jejune and dreary feelings which foretell a premature decline. No dew of youth survived to create a green old age, and having forestalled the reserve of strength and spirits, he had failed withal to lay up against this time a good foundation of faithful friends and pleasant memories. The portrait is general ; but an old worldling seems to have supplied the original.' Dean Plumptre says of this chapter : ' The description which follows forms in some respects the most difficult of all the enigmas of the book. That it represents the decay of old age, or of disease anticipating age, ending at last in death, lies beyond the shadow of a doubt ; but the figurative language in which that decay is re- presented abounds in allusive references which were at the time full of meaning for those that had ears to hear, but which now present riddles which it is not easy to solve. Briefly, the two chief lines on which commentators have travelled have been (i) that which starts, as in the comment of Gregory Thaumaturgus, from the idea of the THE PICTURE OF OLD AGE. 531 approach of death as the on-coming of a storm ; (2) that which assumes that we have, as it were, a diagnosis of the physical phe- nomena of old age and its infirmities, and loses itself in discussions as to what bodily organ, heart, brain, liver, gall-duct, or the like, is specially in the author's mind. It will be seen, as the imagery comes before us in detail, how far either solution is satisfactory, how far they admit of being combined, or what other, if any, presents itself with stronger claims on our attention. The " evil days " are those which are painted in the verses that follow, not necessarily the special forms of evil that come as a punishment of sensual sins, but the inevitable accompaniment of declining years, or disease. There is the implied warning that unless a man has remembered his Creator in his youth, it will not then be easy to remember Him as for the first time in the " evil days " of age or infirmity. In those days it will be em- phatically true that there will be no pleasure in them.' Francis Jacox has the following passage : ' Graphic, after the manner of the man, is Dr. South's picture of the old age that comes to wait upon what he calls a " great and worshipful sinner," who for many years together has had the reputation of eating well and doing ill. " It comes (as it ought to do to a person of such quality) attended with a long train and retinue of rheurns, coughs, catarrhs, and dropsies, together with many painful girds and achings, which are at least called the gout. How does such a one go about, or is carried rather, with his body bending inward, his head shaking, and his eyes always watering (instead of weeping) for the sins of his ill-spent youth. In a word, old age seizes upon such a person like fire upon a rotten house ; it was rotten before, and must have fallen of itself, so that it is no more but one ruin preventing another." Virtue, we are ad- monished, is a friend and a help to Nature, but it is vice and luxury that destroy it, and the diseases of intemperance are the natural products of the sins of intemperance. " Chastity makes no work for a chirurgeon, nor ever ends in rottenness of bones." Whereas, sin is the fruitful parent of distempers, and ill lives occasion good phy- sicians.' ' You must become an old n|an betimes, if you would be an old man long,' runs the Latin adage , implying that you must put an early stop on the irregularities of young blood if you care to attain length of days. According to Lowth, 'by the "keepers of the house" the sacred penman describes the hands and the arms, which in old age "tremble"; and by the "strong men" he represents the "legs" which "bow themselves." "The grinders" are the teeth, which 342 532 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. "fail because they are few," whilst "those that look out at the windows " mean the eyes, which are " darkened." " The doors shut in the street " indicate the lips, necessarily closed by the loss of the teeth, which causes " the sound of the grinding to be low." The hoary head is depicted by the " flourishing of the almond-tree," whose blossoms are white and very abundant. " The silver cord " is generally thought to figure the spinal marrow, "the golden bowl" the skull, which contains the brain ; " the pitcher broken at the fountain " indicates that the functions of the heart have ceased ; and " the wheel broken at the cistern" the action of the lungs being at an end.' For the scheme by which the figures are explained as the on- coming of a storm, see S. Cox's ' Quest of the Chief Good.' Jotham's Parable. JUDGES ix. 7 : 'And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.' Question. What differences can be observed between this parable and the parables of the New Testament 1 Answer. Dr. Douglas says : ' Though this (parable) is the name so long applied (to Jotham's speech) that it may be difficult now to effect a change, it is manifestly incorrect. A parable has to do with the kingdom of God and the workings of grace ; and though it uses natural objects for illustration, it never transgresses the limits of actual occurrences. But this is a fable, in which there is no hesita- tion about making trees and animals speak, and which has for its purpose only moral lessons in the sphere of natural life. Yet it is true that a fable in the mouth of a godly Israelite would present some points of contact with a parable, especially as Abimelech's ambition invaded the province of the true though invisible king of Israel. This is the most ancient fable known : and its beauty and completeness have made it very familiar to all readers of the Bible, for which reason there is little need of comment, if we recollect the fundamental truth, that Israel had as little need of a king as had the trees.' Dean Stanley says : ' In the parable of Jotham the earliest known fable we fall upon the first instance of that peculiar kind of com- position, in which the Eastern and Western imagination coincide. The fables of yEsop are alike Grecian and Indian. The fable of Jotham might, as far as its spirit goes, have been spoken i,n the market-place of Athens or of Rome as appropriately as on the heights of Gerizim.' JOTHAM' S PARABLE. 533 Farrar tells us that ' fables are extremely popular in the East, where they are often current, under the name of the slave-philosopher Lokman, the counterpart of the Greek ./Esop. But though there are many apologues and parables in Scripture, there is only one other fable, and that is one closely akin to this (2 Kings xiv. 9). St. Paul, however, in i Cor. xii. 14-19, evidently refers to the ancient fable of Menenius Agrippa, about the belly and the members (Livy, ii. 30). A fable is a fanciful story, to inculcate prudential morality. In the Bible " trees " seem to be more favourite dramatis persona than the talking birds and beasts of other nations.' Dr. Paulus Cassel, in a note in ' Lange's Commentary,' brings out some fresh and interesting points : ' Fable and so-called apologue are of Oriental, non-Israelitish, as also non-Grecian, origin. They spring from a pantheism in which trees and animals furnished symbols for expressing the popular ideas. Although rooted in the religious vivi- fication of nature, their employment was, nevertheless, brought to maturity by the pressure of social necessities. In the East fable and tale were always the weapons of mind against violence and tyranny. They furnished the people with individual consolation against general misery. In their original appearance among the Greeks also, they fail not to exhibit this character. In the same way, Jotham speaks to the tyrants of Shechem in this popular language, which all under- stand. He does not speak like a prophet, for he is none, and Baal has stopped the ears of his auditors. He does not even speak of the power and mighty deeds of Jehovah, from whom his own name is derived. He speaks of Elohim, and His retributions of the Deity in the general sense in which the heathen also acknowledge him. He speaks altogether in their language, popularly, with popular wisdom. But what a difference between the moral strength which justifies Jotham to put forth his parable, and (for instance) the motives of the Greek Archilochus. There we hear 'the wounded vanity of a rejected suitor ; here, one solitary voice of indignation and truth against the tyrant and murderer. By this moral motive, Jotham elevates the parable to the level of the Divine word, and furnishes the first illustration of how a popular form of discourse, the offspring of directly opposite principles, could be employed for moral purposes, and (in the parables of Christ) become a medium for the highest doctrines and mysteries.' Trench points out the two leading distinctions between a fable and a parable, from which we gather that the distinction lies rather in their spheres than in their literary characteristics : ' The parable is con- structed to set forth a truth spiritual and heavenly ; this the fable, 534 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. with all its value, is not. It is essentially of the earth, and never lifts itself above the earth. It never has a higher aim than to inculcate maxims of prudential morality, industry, caution, foresight ; and these it will sometimes recommend even at the expense of the higher self- forgetting virtues. The fable just reaches that pitch of morality which the world will understand and approve . . . the parable is deeply in earnest, allowing itself therefore no jesting nor raillery at the weaknesses, the follies, or the crimes of men. . . . There is another point of difference between the parable and the fable. While it can never be said that the fabulist is regardless of truth, since it is neither his intention to deceive, when he attributes language" and discourse of reason to trees, birds, and beasts, nor is anyone deceived by him ; yet the severer reverence for truth, which is habitual to the higher moral teacher, will not allow him to indulge even in this sporting with the truth, this temporary suspension of its laws, though upon agreement, or, at least, with tacit understanding. In his mind, the creation of God, as it came from the Creator's hands, is too perfect, has too much of reverence owing to it, to be represented otherwise than as it really is. The great Teacher by parables, there- fore, allowed Himself in no transgression of the established laws of Nature in nothing marvellous, or anomalous ; He presents to us no speaking trees, nor reasoning beasts, and we should be at once con- scious of an unfitness in His so-doing.' ' Concerning the Vapour.' JOB xxxvi. 33 : ' The cattle also concerning the vapour.' Difficulty. This must be an imperfect translation, for it conveys no meaning to the reader as it stands. Explanation. There is perhaps no other case in the Bible in which the English translation is so absolutely unintelligible to the ordinary reader ; and it would be difficult to find a more striking instance of the need for a Revised Version. The full passage, as given in the Authorised and in the Revised Versions, will impress the value of the service which the Revisers have rendered us. Authorised Version. ' With clouds he covereth the light ; and commandeth it not to shine by the cloud that cometh betwixt. The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.' Marg., ' that which cometh up.' Revised Version. ' He covereth his hands with the lightning ' (marg., ' light ') ; ' and giveth it a charge that it strike the mark ' ' CONCERNING THE VAPOUR: 535 (marg., ' against the assailant '). ' The noise thereof telleth concern- ing him' (marg., 'it'), 'the cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up ' (marg., ' him that cometh up '). But even the Revised Version needs some explanation, for the poetical figures are very abrupt and involved. Delitzsch translates as poetry : ' Both hands he covereth over with light, And directeth it as one who hitteth the mark. His noise announceth Him, The cattle even that He is approaching.' Dr. A. B. Davidson also translates as poetry : ' He covereth over His hands with light, And giveth it commandment against the adversary ; His thundering telleth concerning Him ; Unto the cattle, even concerning Him that cometh up.' The subject is evidently God's manifestation of Himself in a thunder-storm. The lightning is held in His hands, and it illuminates the hands that hold it. God directeth the aim of the lightning as the soldier his arrows. The thunder that follows the lightning is a voice for God, declaring His majesty and power. And even the cattle are affected by the coming storm, and are poetically thought of as, in their fear, learning something concerning God. It is uncertain whether the last clause of verse 33 should be referred to the coming storm, or to God as coming up in the storm. Bishop Wordsworth explains thus : ' The cattle also give notice of His rising up. Even the irrational animals, the herds and flocks, feel the presence of God in the elements, and give presages of the coming storm, when He rises up to show His majesty and power ; how much more oughtest thou, who art endued with reason, to recognise the working of God in the universe ? Probably, while Elihu was utter- ing these words, there were symptoms visible of the coming storm, and of the sweeping forward of the whirlwind, from which the Lord spake to Job (see xxxviii. i), and perhaps even the cattle in the neighbouring fields, cowering beneath the tempest, gave signs of the approach of their Creator.' The note in Speaker's Commentary gives a different turn to the passage by omitting the reference to the ' cattle.' ' These two verses are exceeding obscure, and the meaning of nearly every word is dis- puted. The following interpretation, on the whole, seems to adhere most closely to the text, and to be best adapted to the context : ' He clothed His hands with light' (sc. lightning), 'and giveth it command whom it shall reach ; the sound thereof ' (the crash that follows the 536 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. lightning) ' announces concerning Him fierceness of wrath against unrighteousness.' This rendering requires no change in the letters, and but a slight change in the punctuation.' Dr. Stanley Leathes says of verse 33 : 'This verse is extremely difficult, and the sense very uncertain. We may translate the first clause, "The noise thereof" (i.e., the crash of the thunder) " declareth concerning Him " ; it is His voice, and speaks of Him ; but the last clause is almost unintelligible. The words as they stand mean, or may mean, cattle even concerning a goer-up ; but what this means, who shall say? Possibly, the thunder-crash telleth the cattle even concerning Him who gotth up i.e., even the cattle show, by their terror, that the thunder speaketh to them of God, who goeth up on high. Some render the last clause, "The cattle also concerning Him as He riseth up"; or, "The cattle also concerning the rising storm." There can be no doubt but that the general meaning is that all nature participateth in the terror caused by the thunder, which is regarded as the audible voice of God ; but what the exact expression of this general thought may be it is very hard to say.' Delitzsch says : 'It is to be interpreted : His thunder-clap announces Him (who is about to reveal Himself as a merciful judge), the cattle even (announce) Him at His first rising up, since at the approach of a storm they herd together affrighted and seek shelter. The speakers are Arabian, and the scene is laid in the country. Elihu also refers to the animal world in ch. xxxv. n. This feature of the picture, therefore, cannot be surprising.' The ' Eloi ' of David. PSALM xxii. i : ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring ?' Difficulty. This may be either an anticipative representation of our Redeemer's agony, or an actual expression of the Psalmisfs distress. Explanation. Probably most readers of the Psalm will feel that the language is too strained and intense to be wholly fitted to any ordinary human experience ; but it is the genius of the poet to idealize human experiences, and present them in what men, in their calmer moods, may think exaggerated terms. How far the Hebrew poets must be regarded as having also prophetic insight, and antici- pating the experiences of Messiah, will be decided by the school of thought to which we belong. The tendency of some minds is to exaggerate the supernatural element in the Bible, and find it every- THE l ELOr OF DAVID. 537 where, and in every conceivable connection. The tendency of other minds is to a strict limitation of the supernatural element. If God be fully recognised as working in the natural, little can be gained by making for Him supernatural situations. It may be fairly urged that, making due allowance for the poetical form of this passage, it expresses a time of great mental distress ; and because the words were suitable, they were used by our Lord as fittingly uttering the mental distress accompanying His last bodily agonies. The words suited the Psalmist, but they even better suit our Lord. Great differences of opinion are found as to the authorship of the Psalm. Some argue that it is David's ; others ascribe it to Jeremiah ; others to one of the exiles in Babylon. Some urge that the nation Israel is in it personified ; and some declare that as it neither suits David, nor Jeremiah, nor anyone else, it must be entirely prophetic, and refer to the Man of Sorrows, and to Him alone. Dean Perowne thinks 'the Psalm was composed by one of the exiles during the Babylonish captivity. And though the feelings and expressions are clearly individual, not national, yet they are the feelings and expressions of one who suffers not merely as an indi- vidual, but, so to speak, in a representative character. Naturally, one who was made the scoff and derision of the heathen, and the object of their worst cruelty, would cling to the thought that he suffered not only as an individual, but as one of the chosen of God. The bitterness of his grief was that God so it seemed had forsaken him ; the joy born out of that grief was that he should yet praise God for His saving health in the midst of his brethren (delivered like himself out of the hands of their oppressors), and that thus, and as a consequence of this deliverance, all the kindreds of the nations should worship before the Lord.' Aglerfs note in Ellicotfs Commentary is perhaps the most satisfac- tory and suggestive, and best meets the difficulty above indicated. ' The fact that Jesus uttered from His Cross the words of bitter woe that begin this poem, have given, and must ever give it, a special interest and importance. It was natural that Christian sentiment should fasten lovingly on it, and almost claim it, not only as a record of suffering typical of our Lord's suffering, but as actually in every detail prophetic of Him. But the signs of a true Messianic character of prophecy are to be looked for in moral likeness, not in accidental resemblances of situation, or coincidences of language, and in this sense Ps. xxii. must ever be considered Messianic. 'Nothing in David's recorded life bears out the title. The identifi- cation of the sufferer with Jeremiah, though much more probable, is 53S HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. excluded by the joyous and hopeful tone of the conclusion of the poem. But is it an individual sufferer at all, and not rather suffering Israel, whose profound misery in the first part, and whose happy restoration in the second, the poet depicts ? If such an interpretation suits the description of the suffering servant of Jehovah in Isaiah Hi., liii., as many critics think (cf. Isa. xlix. 3), it suggests itself for this Psalm, which has so many points of analogy with that passage. The herds of wild beasts that surround the sufferer are more appropriate as a figure of hostile tribes than of personal enemies, and the vivid picture of suffering in verses 14 and 15 are not less applicable to the material condition of an oppressed nation than the description in Isa. i. 5, 6, is to their moral condition. Such a view certainly suits the conclusion of the Psalm better than any other. . . . Still, the strong personal tone in the opening of the Psalm suggests that this prophet was himself closely identified with the sufferings he depicts, and shared them not only in sympathy but in reality, and the great consensus of opinion looks for the author among the sufferers in the exile, and probably among the Levites.' The natural expression of mental distress takes form as a question. This question of the text is not any asking with desire or expectation of answer. It is no more than an uttering aloud of the anguish of the soul which creates doubt and fear. Delitzsch points out that this disconsolate cry of anguish 'is neither an expression of impatience nor despair, but of alienation and yearning. The sufferer feels himself rejected of God ; the feeling of Divine wrath has completely en- shrouded him ; and still he knows himself to be joined to God in fear and love ; his present condition belies the real nature of his relationship to God ; and it is just this contradiction that urges him to the plaintive question which comes up from the lowest depths : Why hast thou forsaken me ? But in spite of this feeling of desertion by God, the bond of love is not torn asunder ; the sufferer calls God ' My God,' and, urged on by the loving desire that God again would grant him to feel this love, he calls Him, ' My God, my God? That complaining question, ' Why hast Thou forsaken Me ?' is not without example even elsewhere in the Psalms. See Ixxxviii. 15 ; cf. Isa. xlix. 14. THE CHAMPION FIGURE OF MESSIAH. 539 The Champion Figure of Messiah. ISAIAH Ixiii. i : ' Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah ? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength ? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.' Question. Can this be exclusively applied to Messiah, or must we see a first reference to some ordinarily historical person ? Answer. Much depends on the principles of interpretation which we adopt. If the Bible is treated as a book whose language is to suggest Christian thoughts and associations, allusions to the Messiah may easily be found anywhere and everywhere. If the Bible is regarded as a book of history and literature, having its direct references to the times in which the books were written, or the prophecies uttered, then it will be felt that this passage must be greatly forced if it is to be made into a description of the Messiah, or the Messiah's mission. No one would for a moment question the strict orthodoxy of Henderson, and yet he is constrained by simple honesty to say : ' In prophetic vision a triumphant conqueror is dis- covered, arrayed in military attire, and returning from Idumsea the scene of battle and victory. To excite attention, the question is put, " Who can he be ?" To which he himself replies, in language which leaves us at no loss to doubt, that he is the Divine Logos, or Speaker, who, from the beginning, revealed the Will of God to men ; and as the Angel, or Messenger, of the Divine Presence, acted as the Pro- tector and Saviour of ancient Israel (see verse 9). This interpreta- tion, which is that adopted by most commentators, both ancient and modern, alone satisfies the claims of the passage ; but nothing can be more preposterous, or more directly at variance with the entire spirit of it, than the application which some have made of it to the victory which he obtained upon the cross.' Matthew Arnold states the connection of the passage very plainly : ' So sure are God's purposes, that even if mortal instruments (such as Cyrus) fail, God Himself will do the work upon the enemies of Israel. The prophet selects Edom as a kindred and neighbour people of Israel, and yet their ancient and specially bitter enemy (comp. chap, xxxiv. ; see also Obadiah, and Ezek. xxxv. 5 ; Ps. cxxxvii. 7), who had assisted Nebuchadnezzar in the destruction of Jerusalem. In a kind of short drama, of sublime grandeur, the prophet exhibits God Himself as returning from executing vengeance upon Edom.' Cheyne says : ' Modern critics in general, both Roman Catholic (see Rohling and Neteler) and Protestant, deny, at any rate, that the primary reference of the prophecy is to the personal Servant of 540 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Jehovah. Calvin long ago put this view with a clearness and a force which leave nothing to be desired ; he calls the traditional Christian interpretation a violent wresting of the prophecy, which simply declares, in figurative terms, that God will interpose for His people. The only doubt is whether Edom is to be taken literally or symboli- cally ; whether, that is, the calamity described means only the general judgment upon the world, or a special visitation of Edom ; or whether, again, we may combine these views.' Canon Rawlinson takes much the same view as Cheyne. ' Isaiah had already, in the first portion of his prophecy, announced " a great slaughter in the land of Idumoea," as resolved on in the counsels of God (ch. xxxiv. 5-10). He now recurs to the subject, and represents Jehovah as a warrior with blood-stained garments, fresh from the field of battle in Edom, where he has trodden down his foes, and taken a fierce vengeance on them. The Idumaeans probably repre- sent the world-power ; and the " day of vengeance " may be one still future, in which the enemies of God will feel the weight of His hand. The description stands by itself, neither connected with what goes before nor with what follows. It has the appearance of a separate poem, which accident has placed in its present position. In form it is "a lyrico-dramatic dialogue between the prophet as a bystander, and a victorious warrior (/. nearly impossible to follow the Apostle's argu- ment in this passage. He seems to use the historical allusion in a strained sense. A MYSTICAL ALLEGORY. 555 Explanation. The passage may properly be called a mystical allegory, ' in which a double meaning is couched under the same words, or when the same prediction, according as it is differently interpreted, relates to different events, distant in time, and distinct in their nature. The Mystical Allegory differs from the ordinary Allegory, or continued metaphor, and from the parable, or simili- tude, in the nature of its materials ; the mystical allegory is ex- clusively derived from things sacred. There is likewise this further distinction, that in those other forms of allegory, the exterior or ostensible imagery is fiction only ; the truth lies altogether in the interior or remote sense, which is veiled, as it were, under this thin or pellucid covering. But, in the mystical allegory, each idea is equally agreeable to truth. The exterior or ostensible image is not a shadowy colouring of the interior sense, but is in itself a reality ; and, although it sustains another character, it does not wholly lay aside its own. As every allegory is a representation of real matters of fact under feigned names and characters, it must be subjected to a twofold examination. We must first examine the immediate representation, and then consider what other representation it was intended to excite. Now, in most allegories the immediate repre- sentation is made in the form of a narrative ; and since it is the object of an allegory to convey a moral, not an historical truth, the narrative itself is commonly fictitious. The immediate representa- tion is of no further value, than as it leads to the ultimate representa- tion. It is the application or moral of the allegory which constitutes its worth.' In explaining the Scripture parable, Trench points out how it differs from the allegory, and so is led to give his idea of the allegory. ' In the allegory an interpenetration of the thing signifying and the thing signified finding place, the qualities and properties of the first are attributed to the last, and the two are thus blended together, instead of being kept quite distinct, and placed side by side, as is the case in the parable. Thus John xv. 1-8, " I am the true vine," etc., is throughout an allegory ; and there are two allegories scarcely kept apart from one another, John x. 1-16 ; the first, in which the Lord sets Himself forth as the Door, the second, as the Good Shepherd of the sheep. So "Behold the Lamb of God" is an allegorical, "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" a parabolical, expression. The allegory needs not, as the parable, an interpretation to be brought to it from without, since it contains its interpretation within itself; and, as the allegory proceeds, the interpretation pro- ceeds hand in hand with it, or, at least, never falls far behind it. 556 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. And thus the allegory stands to the metaphor, as the more elaborate and long drawn out composition of the same kind, in the same relation that the parable does to the isolated comparison or simile. And as many proverbs are concise parables, in like manner many also are brief allegories. For instance, the following, which is an Eastern proverb, " This world is a carcase, and they who gather round it are dogs," does, in fact, interpret itself as it goes along, and needs not, therefore, that an interpretation be brought to it from without ; while it is otherwise with the proverb spoken by our Lord, " Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together ;" this gives no help to its own interpretation from within, and is a saying, of which the darkness and difficulty have been abundantly witnessed by the very different interpretations of it which have been proposed. ... A parable differs from an allegory, com- paring as it does one thing with another, but, at the same time, pre- serving them apart as an inner and an outer, and not transferring, as does the allegory, the properties, and qualities, and relations of one to the other.' J. Farrar, in ' Bib. and Theo. Dictionary,' refers to this passage, and says : ' The Apostle says : " Which things " events in the history of Isaac and Ishmael "are an allegory" that is, "have been allegorized. 15 He does not mean that this portion of the Old Testament is an allegory, which ordinarily means a fiction, but that these facts are allegorically applied. An allegory is a continued metaphor, or a series of metaphors, in one or more sentences. The term " allegory " denotes a representation of one thing, which is intended to excite the representation of another thing. There are, then, two representations the immediate and the ultimate ; and the former is only important, as it leads to the latter. It is the applica- tion of the allegory which constitutes its value. The immediate representation is understood from the words, and with them we are concerned ; the ultimate must be gathered from the things signified by the words.' G. G. Findlay, writing on the fourth chapter of Galatians, says : ' Allegory was the instrument of Rabbinical and Alexandrine Scripturists, an infallible device for extracting the fire-determined sense from the letter of the sacred text. . . . But Paul's allegory, and that of Philo and the Allegorical School, are very different things, as widely removed as the " words of truth and soberness " from the intoxications of a mystical idealism. With Paul the spiritual sense of Scripture is based on the historical, is, in fact, the moral content and import thereof; for he sees in history a continuous manifestation A MYSTICAL ALLEGORY. 557 of God's will. With the Allegorists the spiritual sense, arrived at by a priori means, replaces the historical, destroyed to make room for it. The Apostle points out in the story of Hagar a spiritual intent, such as exists in every scene of human life if we had eyes to see it, something other than the literal relation of the facts, but nowise alien from it. Here lies the difference between legitimate and illegitimate allegory. The utmost freedom may be given to this employment of the imagination, so long as it is true to the moral of the narrative which it applies. In principle the Pauline allegory does not differ from the type. In the type the correspondence of the sign and thing signified centres in a single figure or event ; in such an allegory as this it is extended to a group of figures and a series of events. But the force of the application depends on the actuality of the original story, which in the illicit allegory is matter of indifference. ' " Which things are allegorized " so the Apostle literally writes in verse 24 made matters of allegory. The phrase intimates, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests, that the Hagarene episode in Genesis (xvi. ; xxi. 1-21) was commonly interpreted in a figurative way. The Galatians had heard from their Jewish teachers specimens of this popular mode of exposition. Paul will employ it, too ; and will give his own reading of the famous story of Ishmael and Isaac. Philo of Alexandria, the greatest allegorist of his day, has expounded the same history. These eminent interpreters both make Sarah the mother of the spiritual Hagar of the worldly offspring ; both point out how the barren is exalted over the fruitful wife. So far, we may imagine, Paul is moving on the accepted lines of Jewish exegesis. But Philo knows nothing of the correspondence between Isaac and Christ, which lies at the back of the Apostle's allegory. And there is this vital difference of method between the two divines, that whereas Paul's comparison is the illustration of a doctrine proved on other grounds the painting which decorates the house already built (Luther) with the Alexandrine idealist it forms the substance and staple of his teaching. ' Under this allegorical dress the Apostle expounds once more his doctrine, already inculcated, of the difference between the Legal and Christian State. The former constitutes, as he now puts the matter, a bastard sonship like that of Ishmael, conferring only an external and provisional tenure in the Abrahamic inheritance. It is con- trasted with the spiritual sonship of the true Israel in the following respects : It is a state of nature as opposed to grace : of bondage as opposed to freedom ; and, further, it is temporary^ and soon to be ended by the Divine decree.' 558 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Because of the Angels. i COR. xi. 10 {Rev. Ver.) : 'For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.' Difficulty. No other passage even sttggests that the angels bear any special relation to married women. Explanation. This passage is chosen for treatment as a speci- men of not a few New Testament expressions which depend for their meanings upon lost associations. We do not regard Old Testament Scriptures precisely as the Jews did : and we have no such surround- ing of legend and tradition as they had. We do not even use terms with the same meanings, and it is often difficult for the antiquary to discover the lost connotations. The subject which the Apostle is here dealing with is the appro- priateness of a woman appearing in public only with a covering on her head. But that is clearly a matter of custom and sentiment, which may change for different nations, and different periods. The only natural basis the Apostle can find for his advice is that woman is provided with long hair, which is a kind of covering for the head. The Apostle had to deal with a practical difficulty which had arisen in the Corinthian Church. The converted women had taken up the idea that sex-distinctions were abolished in Christ. They claimed to do all that the men did in Church-life ; and they took upon them- selves to appear unveiled in the Christian assemblies. St. Paul tells the women that they should not affect any attire which was felt to be unbecoming. They had no right to defy those established rules of decorum that were rooted in the feelings of the country. F. W. Robertson says : ' The veiled head is a symbol of depen- dence, and a token also of modesty, for to pray unveiled was to insult all the conventional feelings of Jew and Gentile. Here let us distinguish between rules and principles : of course, there is no eternal rule in this : it cannot be a law for ever that man should appear habited in one way, and woman in another, and it is valuable to us only so far as a principle is involved. . . . The use of the veil was a representation and symbol of dependence. It is the doctrine of St. Paul that, as Christ is dependent on God, and man is dependent on Christ, so is woman dependent on man. St. Paul perceived that the law of Christian equality was quite consistent with the vast system of subordination running through the universe. . . . He distinguishes between inferiority and subordination, that each sex exists in a certain order, not one as greater than the other, but both great and right in being what God intended them to be.' BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS. 559 Archdeacon Farrar, in the ' Pulpit Commentary,' says of the first clause of this verse : ' The only question worth asking is why the word exousia (power, authority) had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for a ' veil ' or ' covering ' ? The simplest answer is that just as the word ' kingdom ' in Greek may be used for ' a crown ' (compare regno as the name of the pope's tiara), so authority may mean a sign of authority (Revised Version), or ' a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband' (Authorized Version, margin). The margin of the Revised Version, ' authority over her head,' is a strange suggestion. Some have explained the word of her own true authority, which consists in accepting the rule of her husband ; but it probably means ' a sign of her husband's authority over her.' Similarly, the traveller Chardin says that in Persia the women wear a veil, in sign that they are ' under subjection.' If so, the best comment on the word may be found in the exquisite lines of Milton, which illustrate the passage in other ways also : ' She, as a veil, down to the slender waist Her unadorned golden tresses wore . . . As the vine curves her tendrils, which implied Subjection, but required with gentle sway, And by her yielded, by him best received.' The brief comment of Luther sums up all the best of the many pages which have been written on the subject. He says that exousia means ' the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband's authority' (Gen. iii. 16). Professor Agar Beet asks : ' What is the authority which, by wear- ing a veil, woman carries on her head ? Not a liberty of action or control over others which she herself exercises ; for of such we have no mention in the whole passage. The only authority here is that to which, by the ordinance of the Ruler of the universe, she is subject. And this authority, looked upon as representing the great abstract principle of authority, which is the law of the Kingdom of God, she ought to bear upon her head. But how can she do this ? By wearing on her head the distinctive dress which proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex, and that she accepts her divinely appointed position ; for of the authority to which she bows, her headdress is a visible embodiment.' This will prepare us to understand the second sentence of the verse, ' Because of the angels.' Terlullian suggests that the reference may be to the bad angels, who might take advantage of unveiled women. ' In the opinion and traditions of Oriental Jews, a woman is liable to injury from the shedim, if she appears in public unveiled ; 560 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. and these evil spirits are supposed to delight in the appearance of unveiled women.' ' The verse may, however, mean (in accordance with the Jewish belief of the day) that good angels, being under the possibility of falling from the same cause as their evil brethren, fly away at once from the presence of unveiled women. Thus Khadijah tested that the visitant of her husband Mohammed really was the angel Gabriel, because he disappeared the moment she unveiled her head ' (Farrar). Beet has the following explanation : ' But is there any aspect in which the angels furnish to women a real motive for veiling their faces at public worship? I think there is. The distinction of sex is so radical and so important that it ought to be clearly set forth in the dress of the sexes. This is taught by a genuine human instinct, which has found expression, in every age and country, in the different dress of men and women. And the same true instinct con- demns as shameful all attempts of women to make themselves look like men, either by cutting their hair, or by disowning a woman's headdress. Now every correct instinct is strengthened by the felt presence of the good. A good man before our eyes gives fresh force to every good principle in our hearts. This influence is felt and acknowledged in various ways by all men, good and bad. Therefore St. Paul, after appealing in verse 6 to his readers' instinctive sense of the impropriety of that which he condemns, and after supporting his appeal by tracing this instinctive sense to its source in the original constitution of the sexes, now supports it further by bringing his fair readers into the presence of superhuman goodness. He appeals to the common Jewish teaching that in the worship of God's people the angels of heaven join. This teaching commends itself to us at once. If angels take interest in men, and afford them invisible help, surely they will take most interest in us in those moments when we are nearest to God. Without hesitation we may say that when God's people on earth bow together to their Father in heaven, they join the worship of the one great family of earth and heaven. And no thought is more powerful than this to repress all impropriety in public worship, by strengthening every true instinct of propriety. St. Paul knew that he had an ally in a deeply-seated and divinely-planted instinct ; and to his appeal to this instinct he gives force by drawing aside the veil which hides from our view the great company of heavenly worshippers, that his readers may feel the influence of the presence of these celestial companions.' Chrysostom expounds the passage thus : ' If thou despisest the man, respect the angels.' INDEX. INDEX OF TOPICS. PAGE Abel and Cain Offerings - - 429 Abijah's Mother - - - - 138 Abomination of Desolation - - 388 Adullam, Identification of - - 333 Age, The Picture of Old - - 530 Ahasuerus, Identification of - - 93 Ahaz, Assyria helping - - - 137 Allegory, A Mystical - - - 554 Angel-Charge - 437 Angel-Worship .... 469 Angels of Book of Daniel - - 445 Angels, Because of the - - - 558 Ants Storing their Food - - 347 Appeal to God, An Egyptian - 442 Araunah, Identification of - - 103 Argob, Cities of - - - - 317 Ark of God with Saul's Army - ill Ark, Later Contents of - - 397 Arrows Bright, Making - - 266 Ass's Jaw, Water from- - - 515 Assyrian Invasion, The First - 65 Astrologers, Chaldsean - - - 248 Astronomy, Ancient - - - 243 Atonement, Phinehas' - 457 Babel, Scattering from - - - 398 Balaam's Prophecy - - - 48 Balaam, the Magician - - - 257 Baptism and First Passover, Events between ----- 224 Baptism, Date of Our Lord's - 226 Bear of Palestine - - - -351 Beast, Spirit of the - - - 430 Beasts, Changed Nature of the - 355 Bees in Lion's Carcase - - - 350 Belshazzar, Identification of - - 27 Bethshemesh, Number smitten at - 411 Birth, Date of Our Lord's - - 213 Blood is the Atonement - - 435 Body of Moses, Dispute over - 475 Bodies, Burning Dead - - - 395 Boils, Egyptian - 282 Brethren, The Lord's - - - 208 Cain ? Who was there to find - 369 Cain and Abel Offerings - - 429 Calamities, Heavenly Bodies as figures of Earthly ... 272 Calves, Jeroboam's Two - - 118 Canaanites not Native Races of Palestine 373 Captivity, Kings associated with the 127 Carmel Sacrifice ? Whence came Water for the - - - - 330 Cart, God pressed as a Loaded - 527 Census of Quirinius ... 222 Children, Slaughter of Bethlehem 223 Colony, Philippi as a - - - 189 Commands, Necessity for Positive 464 Coney and Hare chewing the Cud 343 Council, The First Christian - 180 ' Create,' The Senses of the Word 503 Cross as a Symbol - - - 552 Crucifixion, History of - - 198 Dans, The Two - - - - 327 Darius the Median - - - 40 David, Saul's and Abner's Ignor- ance of 84 David and the Philistine Images - 136 David's Lion and Bear - - 59 David's Magnanimity, Two Ac- counts of - - - - - 62 Day,' The Expression, 'Unto this 501 Days of Creation - - - - 520 Dead Child, Elisha restoring a - 291 Death, Early Conceptions of - 449 Desire,' ' Unto thee shall be his - 489 Devil Possessions viewed Medi- cally 296 Devils, Sacrifice unto - - - 424 Dew, Morning Cloud and Early - 358 Disease, An Incurable - Job's - 277 - 284 Dreams, Communications through 271 Dust, Panting after the - - 512 Eagle's Ways with Young - - 346 Ears,' ' Opening the - - - 498 Ebal, Joshua's March to - 69 36 562 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. Kbenezer, Site of- - - - 146 Ed, Altar of - - - - 131 Egypt, The River of - - - 324 Election, The Divine - - - 471 ' Eloi ' of David .... 536 Ephraimites, Number of Slain - 409 Esau's Wives - - - - 43 Eternal Life .... 460 Evil, God creating - - - 443 Eace, A Cloth on the - - - 292 Father ?' ' Who is their - 500 Fatherhood of God in Old Testa- ment - - - - 453 Feelings to God, Transference of Human 542 Feet, Disease of the - - - 284 Fire Unquenched - - - 518 Eire of God 523 Flood, Extent of the - - - 313 Food of Humanity before and after Flood 385 Food, Angels' - 549 Foods, Clean and Unclean - - 337 Foot, Watering with the - - 506 'For Ever,' The Old Testament term 452 Genealogies, The Two - - - 210 Geology, Mosaic Creation and - 305 Giant Races, Ancient - - - 361 Gleaning Better than Vintage - 490 God, The Fire of '- - - 523 Goel, Law of the - - - - 70 Goel, Job's Confidence in his - 546 Golgotha, Situation of - - - 183 Goliath, Identification of - - 18 Goliath's Head and Armour? What became of - - - - 55 Hainan's Plot - - - - 80 Hart and Waterbrooks - - 483 Heaven, Outmost Parts of - - 269 Hell for Wicked Nations - - 433 Ilermon, Names for - - 312 Herod Agrippa, Fate of - - 174 Herodians, The - - - - 204 Ilittites, Kings of the - - - 22 Hormah, Identification of - - 336 Idolatry, Nature of Solomon's - 129 Image, The Divine, in Man - 419 Immortality, Psalmist Hopes of - 422 Infancy, Different Records of our Lord's 187 Tshbosheth's Reign, Time of - 410 Israel, Assyrian Location of Cap- tive ------ 109 Israelites, Syrian Origin of the - 378 James, Two Apostles named Jealousy applied to God - 205 - 463 PAGE Jehoshaphat's Men of War - - 414 Jericho, Fulfilment of Curse on - 31 Jerusalem, The First Siege of - 97 David's Siege of - - 99 Our Lord's last Arrival at 216 John's Imprisonment and Death, Dates of 188 Jordan Memorials - - - 90 Joseph's Land Scheme - - - 366 Judah, The Sceptre in - - - 89 Judas Iscariot, The Fate of - - 172 Judicial Deadness ... 465 Kingship, Mosaic Preparations for 94 Kinsman Duties ... - 389 Kirjath-Sepher, The Book-Town - 116 ' Kiss the Son,' The Command to - 492 Labourers, Solomon's forced - 123 Lamech's Boasting - - - 510 Law, Hilkiah's Book of the - - 112 Leprosy, The Infection of - - 279 Leprosy in Clothing and Houses - 286 Life, Eternal - ... 460 Light before the Sun - - - 244 Lots, Jehovah's People casting - 261 Mahanaim - - - - - 310 Males, Number of First-born - 408 Man, Spirit of 430 Medicine of our Lord's Time - 294 Melchizedek, Mysterious Figure of 52 Mercy is Just Dealing - - - 448 Messiah, Champion Figure of - 539 Mice, Plague of - - - - 353 Mining Allusions in Job - - 381 Mixt Multitude, Influence of 82 Moab and Ammon, Origin of - 60 Molech and his Rites - - - 470 Monotheist, Cyrus no - - - 121 Moon, Influence of the - - 303 Music, Medicinal Value of - - 298 Naaman's Compromise - - 143 Name of God, The ' I am ' - - 487 Nazareth, Our Lord's Visits to - 228 Nebuchadnezzar, Mania of - - 289 Nimrod, Scripture Figure of - - 77 Noah's Ark, The Resting-place of 120 ' None shut up, or left ' - - 524 Original Sin, David's Idea of - 427 Parable, Jotham's - - - 53 2 Partridge, The Ways of the - - 340 Passover, Time for Killing the - 33 Passovers in Christ's Ministry - 218 Perfectness, Job's - 528 Pharaoh of Abram's Days - - 21 who advanced Joseph - 140 ,, who knew not Joseph - 86 INDEX. 563 Pillar of Cloud and Fire - - 262 Pit, Bars of the - - - - 543 Ploughman and Thresher, Parable of - - - - - 550 Positive Commands, Necessity for - 464 Power over the Angel, Jacob's - 472 Prayer, Jonah's - - - 544 Pressed as loaded Cart - - - 5 1 ? Proselytes, Baptizing of - - 169 Providence, Judgments in order of 46 Races, Distribution of - - - 391 Rahab, A Name for Egypt - - 506 Rahab's Scarlet Line - - - 508 Rainbow, Appointment of - 254 Red Sea, Crossing and Disaster at 325 ' Revenge,' applied to God - - 463 Sacrifices ? Did God Command - 434 Saliva as a Curative Agent - - 295 Samaria, Assyrian Colonists of - 133 Sanhedrin, History of the - - 202 Satan, Direct Agency of - - 450 ,, Resisting the High Priest - 456 ,, among the Sons of God - 486 Satan's Proverb - 495 Saul's Death, Different Accounts of 98 Court, David's Introduction to 150 Saul's Conversion, Accounts of - 171 Life from Conversion to Ministry - - - - - 178 Saws and Harrows, Under - - 156 Scapegoat, Various Fates of - - 128 Seer, Seeking the ... 274 Sennacherib's Calamity - -37 Serpent, Curse on the - - - 356 Seventh-Day Rest, Institution of the 43 8 Shepherds, Sentiments of Egyptians concerning - - - -34 Shishak, Identification of - - 105 Shoes, Iron and Brass - - - 5*7 ' Shut up or left, None ' - 524 Sin, David's Idea of Original - 427 The Unpardonable - - 474 ,, with a Cart-rope - - - 525 So, King of Egypt, Indentification of 5 PAGE Sodom ? Does the Salt Sea cover the Site of 321 Solomon, Hiram's Contract with - 101 ,, as Avenger of Blood - 396 Solomonic Kingdom, Limits of - 328 Son of God, A Form like the - 425 Sons of God and Daughters of Men - - - - 371 Soothsayers 260 Soul-Sin ? What is a - - 467 Souls going to Egypt with Jacob, Number of ... 406 Species in Ark, Preservation of - 376 Spirit, The Holy, in Old and New Testaments - 439 Spirits, Consulters of Familiar - 268 ,, in Prison - - - 454 Stars Fighting - 264 Stephen's Speech, Chronology in - 200 Stones, Listening of - - 497 Stoning, History of Jewish - - 191 Supper, Precise Date of the Last - 194 Swine, Ceremonial Uncleanness of 344 Temple, Solomon's Ascent to the - 138 Date of Building the - 412 Theocracy, Dissatisfaction with the 74 Thorn in the Flesh, Paul's - - 300 Thunder Clothing the Horse's Neck 502 Vapour,' ' Concerning the - - 534 Uncircumcised, Left - - -57 Unicorn, The - 340 Ur, Identification of - - - 320 Wars of the Lord, Book of the - 384 Water out of His Buckets - - 513 Weeds and Thorns following on Man's Culture - 379 Weeks, Limits of the Seventy - 415 Witch, A - - - - 251 Woman, Origin of 363 Worm Undying - - - - 518 Years, Forty or Four - - - 108 Zerubbabel, Descendants of - - 91 Zion, Stronghold of - - 154 Zipporah's Exclamation - - 493 CHAPTER i. I ' 5 - i. 3> 14 i. 27 - INDEX OF TEXTS. OLD TESTAMENT. GENESIS. PAGE CHAPTER ii. 2, 3 - PAGE - 438 53 520 244 419 n. 4 - ii. 16, 17 ii. 21, 22 iii. 14 - - 464 - - - -363 - - - - 356 362 564 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. iii. 18 - iv. 3: 4 iv. 7 - iv. 14 - iv. 23, 24 vi. 4 vi. i, 2 vi. 13 - vi. 19 - viii. 4 - ix. 3, 4 ix. 13 - x. 8-10 x. 32 - xi. 8 - xi. 28 - xii. 15 - xiv. 14 xiv. 1 8 xv. 18 - xix. 25 xix. 37, 38 xxxii. 2 xxxvi. 2, 3 xii. 14 - xlvi. 26, 27 xlvi. 34 xlvii. 20 xlix. 10 i. 8 - iii. 8 - iii. 14 - iv. 24-26 ix. u - xii. 6 - xiii. 21 - xiv. 22, 28 xxii. 1 8 IV. 2 xi. 2 - xi. 5, 6 4.7 " xiii. 46 xiii. 47 xiv. 34- XVI. 21, 22 xvii. 7 xvii. 1 1 xx. 2 - iii. 42, 43 xi. 4 xiv. 45 xxi. 14 xxii. 5 - xxiv. 7 - LEVITICUS. NUMBERS. PAGE CHAPTER PAGE 379 xx iv. 17 - 48 429 XXV. II 457 489 XXXV. 12 - - 70 3 6 9 51 DEUTERONOMY. 36i iii. 4, 5 .... - 317 371 iii. 9 - 312 313 iii. 14 - - 501 376 xi. 10 - 506 120 xvii. 14, 15 - - 94 385 xviii. u - 268 254 xxvi. 5 - 378 77 xxx. 4 - - 269 391 xxxii. II - - 346 398 xxxiii. 14 - - 303 320 xxxiii. 25 - - 517 21 327 JOSHUA. 52 ii. 21 - 508 324 iv. 9, 20 - - 90 321 v- 5 - 57 60 vni. 35 .... - 69 310 xii. 6 - - 409 43 xv. 16 - 116 140 xviii. 6 - 261 406 xxii. 10 - 131 34 xxiv. 27 - 497 366 89 JUDGES. i. 8 - - 97 i. 21 - 97 86 v. 20 - - 264 373 487 493 282 viii. 2, 3 - i*. 7 xii. 6 xiv. 8 - 490 - 532 - 409 - 350 33 5*5 262 RUTH. 325 251 iii. 12 - iv. 6-8 - -389 - 389 I SAMUEL. 467 iv. I - - 146 337 vi. i - - 412 343 344 vi. 5 - vi IQ - 353 - 4.1 I iJT^ 279 vi. ly viii. 7 74 286 ix. 6 - - 274 286 X. 12 - - 500 128 A ?A xiv. 18 - in 4 Z 4 435 xvi. 16 54 2 - 298 470 xvi. 21 - 150 xvii. 4 - - 18 xvii. 34-36 - - 59 408 xvii. 37 - 35i 82 xvii. 54 - - ' * . - 55 336 xvii. 55 .... - 84 384 xxi. 9 - - 55 257 xxii. i - - 333 513 xxiv. 7 - 62 INDEX. 565 CHAPTER I'AGE - 62 EZRA. CHAPTER PACE - 121 oX xxxi. 4 xxxi. 12 2 SAMUEL, i. 8-10- - - - - ii. 10 - v. 6-8 v 7 - - 90 - 395 - 98 - 410 - 99 - 154 - 136 - 156 - 108 - 103 - 396 - 271 - 328 - 101 - 412 - 46 - 123 - 46 - 138 - 129 - 118 - 105 6s ESTHER, i. I - - 93 - 80 JOB. ; f. . 486 coX J. 8 525 xii. 31 - xv. 7 - xxiv. 16 I KINGS. ii. 31 - ' iii. 5 - iv. 21 - v. 9 - vi. i - vii. 19, 20 - ix. 20-22 - - - - ix. 25, 26 - i. 16 ii. 4 ;; n c ' 5 2 3 - 495 - 284 ix. 7-9 X. 21, 22 - xvii. 16 - - - - xix. 25 - - - - xxxyi. 33 - - 243 - 449 - 543 - 546 - 534 - 781 xxxix. 9 - - - - xxxix. 19 PSALMS. - 340 - 52 ix. 17 xvi. 10 - 433 - 422 x. 5 xi. 4 xii. 28, 29 - xiv. 25 . . - - xxii. i - - 536 - /inR 21 xl. 6 - xlii. I - H. 5 Ii. II, 12 Ixii. ii, 12 - 490 - 483 - 427 - 439 - 448 xvi. 34 xviii. 33 2 KINGS. - 330 - 1f\1 iv. 34 ,Q . ' M3 Ixxxix. 10 - ' 22 xc i. IT . - 292 . C 2 A PROVERBS. - 506 - 437 - 347 - A f> vii. 6 - viii. 15 xvi. 9 - xvii. 3, 5 - xvii. 4 - xvii. 6 - - 137 - 127 - 5 - 109 vi. 6-8 - ECCLESIASTES. 40-' - - 260 - 525 - 465 - 355 - 272 - 550 xiii. IO - xxviii. 24 - - - - - C7O Ixiii. 16 Ixvi. 24 - - - - JEREMIAH. ioy - 453 - 5i8 - 434 - 34 - 266 xi. 20 - xiii. 2 - xvi. 12 xvii. 14 - xxi. 18 xxviii. 20 - - - - xxxii. 21 - xxxv. 21 - - 138 - 138 - 284 - 414 - 277 - 137 - 37 - 442 xvii. ii EZEKIEL. xxi. 21 566 HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES. CHAl'TER PAGE CHAl'TEK PAGE ii. 2 - - 248 ii. 7 - - - 512 iii. 25 - - 425 ii. 13 - . ' 527 iv- 33 - - 289 v. 30 - - 27 JONAH. v. 31 - - 40 ii. i . 544 ix. 21 - - 445 ix. 26 - - 415 NAHUM. xii. II- - 388 i. 2 . - 463 HOSEA. vi. 4 - - - 358 ZECHARIAH. xii. 3, 4 - 472 iii. I - - - 456 NEW TESTAMENT. MATTHEW. ACTS. CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER PAGE i. I * 2 IO i T 5^ T n ii. i - 213 i. 1 0, 1 l ' vii. 6 - . 172 - 20O ii. 16 - ^j vn. 59 - 191 ii. 22, 23 - - - - - 187 ix. 7 - - - 171 iii. 13 - - 226 xii. 2 - - - 205 iv. 12, 13 - 224 xii. 23 - . - 174 ix. 28 - - 296 xv. 6 - - - 180 x. 38 - - 552 xv. 13 - . - 205 xii. 31 - - 474 xvi. 12 - - 189 xiii. 53, 54 - - 228 rCO xxii. 9 - - - 171 xiv. 3 - xxiii. 15 - - - 169 xxvi. 14 - 171 xxvi. 3 - - 2O2 ix. II ROMANS. - A *7 f xxvii. 3-8 - 194 - 172 4/1 xxvii. 33 ... - - 183 I CORINTHIANS. xxvii. 35 - 198 xi. 10 - - - 558 MARK. 2 CORINTHIANS. iii. 6 - - - - - 204 3 v. 26 - - - 294 GALATIANS. vi. i - vi. 3 xi. i - - 228 - 208 - 216 i. 15-18 iv. 24 - T*T - 175 -.554 COLOSSIANS. LUKE. ii. 18 - . - 469 ii. I, 2 - 222 ii. 39 - - 187 I PETER. iii. 22 - - 2IO iii. 19 - - 454 iv. 16 - - 228 I JOHN. JOHN. ii. 25 - - - 460 ii. 13 - - 218 JUDE. ix. 6 - ' 295 verse 9 - - 475 Elliot Stock, Paternoster Roiv, London. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. APP 07 A 000108484 7