¦At^M,

¦¦¦ '¦¦¦¦

And LnocT) waJKld with

V MEMORIAL^
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

OLD TESTAMENT

Canon and Philology.

A SYLLABUS

OF

Prof. Wm. Henry Green's Lectures.

PRINTED — NOT PUBLISHED — EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE
USE OF THE STUDENTS OF THE

JUNIOR CLASS IN PRINCETON SEMINARY.

%\t Ijrinttton Igrtss:
C. S. Kobikson & Co., Steam Power Pbijsteks.
1889.

PREFATORY REMARKS.

It is hoped that all due allowance will be made for the various-
inaccuracies and defects in these notes. They are taken from the notes
of a student of the Seminary who was here several years ago, and have
been corrected or improved as they seemed to require. The abbrevia
tions and the conciseness of statement are such as are usual in taking
notes, and the labor of correcting proofs has been performed at odd
moments in the midst of more essential duties. The Syllabus is offered
to the Class under the conviction that they will not find in them a help
to negligence of duty, but an assistance to reaching a higher and more
efficient standard of scholarship. S. R. H.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

The Reviser wishes to add that he has inserted into the Syllabus
some lectures and single arguments bearing chiefly upon the advanced
Pentateuchal Criticism. No greater degee of perfection is claimed
for it than it possessed before — merely an enlargement.
Princeton, Dec. 15th, 1888. L. A, 0.

INTRODUCTORY.

0. T. consists of a number of separate books or treatises
by different authors over a long period of time. Hence
the necessity for studying the canon. Canon, xavcbv, any
straight rod; then one used in measuring, as a carpenter's
rule ; then any rule to fix, regulate and determine other
things. We speak of canons of Rhetoric, of Grammar.
" Canons " = Standard authors. Also " that which fixes
anything " — hence the Alexandrian Grammarians applied
the word to the classics — thus in Gal. 6 : 16; " according
to this rule," tw xauout — So in 2 Cor. 10 : 13. In the
Fathers we find the words, canon of the church, canon of
faith, and of the truth, &c, — the body of Christian doc
trine — this last expression was first found in Irenseus. As
applied to Scripture — inspired ride of faith and practice.
This the modern use. The Old Testament canon consists
of those books containing the rule of faith and practice
given by God prior to the coming of Christ ; not merely the
list of books — this is a secondary and derivative sense.
Two things necessary to make a book canonical — 1.
Its authorship ; by inspired men. 2. Its design ; given to
church as part of her permanent rule of faith.
The first is not all ;'. all writings by inspired men are
not canonical — See 1 Kings 4 : 32. " Songs by Solomon "
1005; all lost; he also spake much on Natural History,
&c. It does not follow that all his utterances were
inspired, nor that every inspired prediction was intended
to form part of the canon. So also as to the writings of
Nathan, Ahija. Much that the prophets spoke was
intended only for the existing generation and has not
been kept; was intended only for a particular age or
nation. The historical books on which the books of Chronicles
are founded are not in existence and never were in the

canon. Decrees of Councils have value as being the con
current testimony of many from a great region, thus giv
ing precision, &c.
But no book ever in the canon has been lost.
The church has no authority to decide what should be
in the canon — it is merely the custodian and witness, to keep
and testify to it. Romanists hold the former doctrine.
Romanists say the authority of Scripture is based on the
authority of the church, as we have to go to the church of
old to find out the canon. But the church has no existence
without the Scriptures.
Two ways to study it.
(1) Historically.
(2) Theologically, to determine if correct on theological
grounds. Our inquiry is purely historical. What books have
been given to, and from the beginning received by, the
church as the canon ?
Greater difficulties in Old Test. 1. Great antiquity, and
absence of contemporaneous testimony. In N. T. each
book is distinctly marked as to authorship — can be refer
red clearly to an inspired author. But in 0. T. many
books cannot be traced to their authors. 2. Entire
Christian world is agreed about N. T. canon : not so with
the 0. T. canon. Romanists.
Advantages for 0. T. canon. N. Test, has borne inspired
witness to the other.
Inquire into A. the history of the formation into one
volume; (1) orthodox view, (2) critical view, projected by
Dr. Robertson Smith. B. the Extent of O. T. canon, to
identify the books which have been and ought to be in it.
This second inquiry has three distinct though intimately
related divisions; (1) the canon among the Jews, (2) the
canon as recognized by Christ and his disciples, and (3)
that recognized by the Christian church.
A. History of Formation. (1.) Presumptive argu
ment, a priori. We may naturally expect that God would
guard His revelation : that the people would do so ; that
if God would reveal His will for the permanent instruction
of his people, He would take measures to preserve, and
safely transmit it ; and also that the people to whom He
communicated it would jealously guard it.

(2.) Argument from analogy, from heathen antiquity.
The Romans had their Sibylline books, the Egyptians
theirs, deposited with priests ; the Babylonians, Pheni-
cians, Greeks had sacred hooks and guarded them so.
(3.) Historical argument. But we are explicitly informed
that such was the case with the Hebrews — Moses imme
diately after he had copied it, (for the last chapter of
Deut, giving account of Moses' death, &c, must of course
have been added by Joshua. He added also a description
of the laud — Josh. 24 : 26,) commanded the Levites to
put the book of the law in the side of the ark to be there
jor a witness — Deut. 31 : 24-26 ; and that it should be read
by the priests before all the people every seven years at
the Feast of Tabernacles — Deut. 31 : 9-13 ; the future
king was required to transcribe the law — Deut. 17 : 18.
Joshua was. required to have a copy and meditate upon it
— Josh. 1 : 8. Pentateuch contains divine constitution
and laws — Joshua the title-deed to Canaan, Josh. 24 : 26.
Josh, wrote in the same book of the law of the Lord which
Moses had written in. So other originals were guarded.
¦See also 1 Sam. 10: 25; if even merely national papers
were laid before the Lord, surely care was taken of His
word. See also 1 Chron. 25 : 7. Many of the Psalms of
David were committed to the chief musician, a priest in
the house of the Lord; "those trained in songs of the
Lord were 288 " — 1 Chron. 25 : 7. Hence such writings
were preserved.
No doubt when the temple was built, the original copy
of the law was transferred to it. Not disproved by 1 Kings
8 : 9, or by 2 Chron. 5 : 10. In both these passages it
says that nothing was in the ark except the two tables of
stone. This objection is stated by some of the early Fathers
and the later Rabbins. They were doubtless conversant
with the more modern Jewish custom of putting a copy
of the law in the ark which they have in the synagogue.
It was not put in the ark ever, but "alongside" or in
the side of it. 2 Kings 22 : 8, shows that the law was
treasured up somewhere in the temple until Josiah's reign
at least 33 years before the exile. During the evil reigns
of Judah and Menasseh worship had been suspended.
When the temple was burned, it did not involve the loss

of the law, even if we disbelieve the tradition that Jere
miah hid it, for it was still in the minds of the people;
and was read to them, Neh. 8 : 1. Each king was required
to have a copy, 2 Kings 11:12. When Joash was crowned,
Jehoiada, high-priest, gave him " the testimony." The
law of God which was kept as a witness. Ps. 119 : 14.
There is a presumption that the rest of Scripture was
preserved; if the people preserved the law of God, they
would naturally preserve also what God spake through the
prophets. And the people must have had many copies.
Synagogues perhaps formed at captivity or later, but meet
ings were certainly held to read the law, Isa. 8:16. "Bind
up the testimony ; seal the law among my disciples."
Isa. 8 : 20—" To the law and -to the testimony." — Isa.
8:16; 1 Psalm.
These considerations prove the preservation of the law
of Moses at least. The incorporation of the other inspired
books is proved by independent hints only. We have
evidence of this in the frequent allusions by succeeding
prophets to their predecessors in recognition of their
authorship and canonicity. The Proverbs not all written
at one time and in their present form, but Prov. 25 : 1,
must mean inspired men in reign of Hezekiah completed
them by making selections from extant writings of Solo
mon. " I, Daniel, understood by the books, &c." Dan.
9 : 1. Isa. 34 : 16, " Seek ye out the book of the Lord and
read." The " Books " — a definite und well-known collec
tion, complete including Jeremiah his contemporary, Zech.
1 : 4; 7 : 12. " Lest they should hear the law, and the
words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit by
the former prophets." After the exile, the law and the
prophets are classed together as of like authority. Soon
after the exile about 400 B. C. prophets and canon ceased
with Malachi. Next proof, over 200 years later, 130 B. C.
in prologue to the apocryphal book of Syrach or Eccle-
siasticus — speaks of O. T. books as if collected and
arranged in three divisions — when and by whom not
stated by the author, but some time before even his
grandfather's day, " studying the law and the prophets and
the rest of the boohs."
Josephus, priest, born A. D. 37, says "there continued
to be additions to O. T. till Artaxerxes of Persia (Esther),

and then the exact succession of prophets ceased — and
hence though books were still written, they were not of
like authority, and none were so bold as to add to or take
from ' the canon.' "
After this only legends and conjectures till time of
Cyril — in relation to the process by which and the time
when and by whom collected. (The time when and by
whom they were collected in one volume does not affect
their authority : they have as much when separate.) It
is supposed Ezra put them in their present form. Evi
dence of this. 1. Legends aid. 2. Esdras — close 1st
century, A.D., in chap. 14: 21, says the law was burned
when the temple was, but Ezra by divine inspiration
restored it, and in 40 clays dictated 94 books, [Ethiopia
version (best) says — 94 books, vulgate 204] — of which 24
to he written and for general circulation (the canon), and
the rest oral, 70, only for. the wise.
Same legend in early Christian fathers, Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian.. They merely say Scrip
tures were lost and Ezra enabled to restore them without
the loss of a single word or letter. But no credence
should be given this, except so far as that Ezra did take a
prominent part in collecting and editing the books after
the exile. A tradition arose through Elias Leviter, a
Rabbi of great eminence, about the time of the refor
mation, that Ezra and the Great Synagogue of 120 men
collected the canon. No foundation for this except an
obscure passage in the Talmud. 2nd Book of Maccabees
says Nehemiah gathered the Acts of the Kings and
prophets, — i. e., historical and prophetic books; the
writings of David, — i. e., Psalms; and the Epistles of the
kings concerning holy gifts [=letters of kings of Persia
(decrees) which are preserved in Ezra,] and tries to say
when and by whom different books were introduced into
the canon, and then says Great Synagogue introduced
books written outside of Palestine, viz., Ezekiel, Daniel
and the 12 Minor Prophets — not clear. Great Synagogue
—a body of men associated with Ezra and Nehemiah in
oversight of the spiritual affairs of the nation.
If any weight is to be given to the traditions it is only
that Ezra and Nehemiah and perhaps others finally gath
ered them into one volume, and perhaps aided in multi-

8
plying and circulating them. This is probable from the
following independent considerations, derived from the
Scriptures themselves.
I. Ezra was a "scribe" "a ready scribe in the law of
Moses"— "a scribe of the law of the God of heaven," &c.
Known so before he went up from the Captivity. He was
the first of that long list of scribes so prominent in after
times, as custodians and servitors of the sacred text. —
Nehemiah 8: 4—12: 26 and 36— Ezra, 7: 6, 11, 12, 21.
II. The period succeeding the exile was one in which
there was great necessity and zeal for gathering and treas
uring all the sacred relics, institutions, &c. Ezra engaged
in restoring temple services, &c.
III. Order of prophets ceased with Malachi, who was
contemporary with Nehemiah and Ezra : naturally gave
rise to desire to collect the books.
IV. The succeeding period was conscious that prophecy
had ceased. I. Maccabees, 4: 46; 14: 4; speaks of
perplexity from want of a prophet — and decision of diffi
cult questions, if a prophet should arise.
V. Statement of Josephus, no " additions, and no
change" from time of Artaxerxes, .-. not only- written
hut collected by that time.
VI. II. Maccabees, 2: 14, says of Judas Maccabeus:
that he was " restoring the things lost during persecu
tion :" means this probably — war with Antiochus Epi-
phanes, in his efforts to destroy the Jewish nation and
religion. " Jfrgathered all books lost by reason of the
war and they remain with us :" this implies a previous
gathering. Recommend — Alexander on Canon (see evidences) —
Canon Wordsworth, on Inspiration of the Scriptures.
Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon. Apoc
rypha. Dr. Thornwell : arguments of Romanists dis
cussed and refuted. Smith's Dictionary : Kitto on the
canon. Also Canon Westcott on the Bible in the Church.
The conclusion of all this is that the foundation of the
Jewish canon was laid by Moses himself; that Joshua
was added, and perhaps others as written ; that the books
were gathered by Nehemiah and Ezra shortly after the
return from exile ; and the lost book, written in the time
of Nehemiah, was immediately added.

2. Critical Theory. — The collection of the canon was
gradual, and the three divisions mark three distinct periods.
Prof. Robertson Smith holds that the canon of Ezra was
simply the Law — then the prophetical books and the his
torical were gathered and subsequently arranged; finally
the Kethuvim. Arguments for the theory.
I. The collection must have taken a long time.
II. The divisions. — Law, Prophets and llagiographa
show that the divisions were the result of different periods ;
e. g., we find Kings among the Prophets, and Chronicles,
its counterpart among the llagiographa.
III. Internal evidence shows that the canon was not
completed at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Some of
the poems were written at the time of Mac, as was also
the book of Daniel.
Reply. — A. The theory proceeds on a false view as to
the aim and collection of the canon in that its aim is to
collect all religious Jewish literature. They aimed to col
lect certain well-known, and generally received canonical
books. There was no search, no uncertainty as to whether
they had all the remains of Hebrew literature prior to a
given date. The aim was to collect the canon. The
question is what it pretended to be, not what it is.
Skeptics say all old writings are in a sense inspired.
This work was to put together all that were known to be
inspired. a. 0. T. claims to be the inspired, word of God.
b. All Jews regarded them as inspired, and not a mere
collection of old literature. Even the Apocryphal writers
affirm this. N. T. refers to 0. T. as the word of God.
O. T. does not contain all Jewish writings prior to their
collection. It was not so designed. Chronicles, the latest,
mentions some books then extant which did not perish at
the time of the collection of canon, yet they are not
incorporated in it. These books are now lost ; e. g., Ahijah,
Nathan, etc., but could not have been lost before the time
of collection of the canon. So the 0. T. was not designed
to be a complete body of Jewish writings. Apocrypha
furnish no evidence of inspiration, hence not incorporated.
B. Neh. 8 : 10 shows that Ezra had canonical books.
Prof. Smith says merely the Pentateuch. We have equal
reason for including others. Prof. Smith says there is no

10
«lear principle of distinction according to divisions given ;
but that they are confused. There is no evidence of dis-
• tinction from inherent reasons, but confused because col
lected at different times. First, the Law; second, the
Prophets; and finally the other books were collected and
a third division added including all newly discoverd
books. This theory said to be confirmed because there
are books iu the third that belong in the second, and vice
versa ; e. g., Dan. is in third, should be in the second;
Kings, in second, ought to be in the third ; why is Chron
icles" in the third ? unless when these books were dis
covered the canon was already closed, so they were put
into a new division.
This theory does not account for the phenomena it was
intended to explain.
a. No canon can be said to be closed until it contains
all the books it is intended to contain.
b. It conflicts with the facts. The Psalms were in use
from the beginning of time of second division. Why not
in the second division ?
c. The principle of arrangement is easily explained.
The Rabbins say that the Law was written by Moses, who
spoke face to face with God ; he stands alone in this
privilege. The prophets were officially inspired of God and
so next highest in grade. Hagiographa was not written
bj the officially inspired prophets, but by men under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, not officially inspired. It,
therefore, occupies the third place. It was held by Rab
bins that there were three degrees of in-piration. The
real division was based on the official character their
authors and the writings themselves were called upon by
God to sustain.
1. Moses was a legislator, unique: and stood alone.
His writings are the Law, and so stand in the highest
place as most essential.
2. Prophetical books were written by prophets who
were to labor among the people officially, and they stand
by themselves whether prophetical or historical, and so
occupy the next highest grade.
3. Other inspired writers, yet not prophets in. the full
sense; e. g., David, Solomon, etc., yet wrote prophecies.
These are classed in the Hagiographa. Daniel did not

11
labor among the people as did Jer. So not really a
prophet in the sense this latter was. Chronicles were
probably written b}' Ezra, and Kings by some prophet
and classified accordingly. Lamentations alone embar
rasses this theory. It was written by Jeremiah, and was
probably formerly attached to the book of Jer., and sepa
rated by reason of its poetical character.
C. It is said that some books were not written until
the 3rd Century after Ezra and Neh. Prof. Smith says
Psalms belongs to the time of Mac, and book of Daniel
to the same period.
But this has no historical basis, a. Ablest critics deny
the late date of these. Daniel was written long before
the time of Maccabees.
b. This theory contradicts the prologue to Syrach writ
ten 130 B. C. The translation says the canon was studied
by his grandfather (167 B. C.)
c. This view is inconsistent with Josephus, who says
the canon was closed at the time of Artaxerxes (465 B. G)
Josephus and Syrach are not the only historical proof of
this. There are other sources of confirmation with noth
ing to oppose them but critical suggestion. Against it
we cannot show that Ezra collected the canon. Some
object to Josephus saying he identifies Artaxerxes with
Ahasuerus. But (1) if canon was finished in time of
Xerxes it was earlier still and the evidence stronger. (2)
That Josephus was inaccurate in smaller things does not
prove that the main statement was inaccurate. Olshausen
ventures to assert that the prologue to Syrach is not
authentic, but all other critics accept it.
B. EXTENT OF CANON.
I. Amono the Jews.
Determine precisely what books, and identify them.
Jews are now all agreed, and the unanimity exists as
far back as we can trace.
The Talmud, — a record of 0. T. tradition — at least be
fore the 5th cent, gives a cata^gue of them in three
classes: Law, Prophets and Kethuvim, otherwise called
Hagiographa, Ayioypaipy] — sacred writings (Kathabh=to

12
write). Just the books we find in our Bibles are given
here— Law, 5. Prophets, 8. Hagiographa, 11. (Talmud)
— 24 books in all, according to the number of Greek
letters, Samuel, Chronicles and Kings being each one
book, the " twelve minor prophets" one, and Nehemiah
and Ezra being one. Homeric Books numbered by Greek
letters. Josephus— Born A. D. 37 — priest,— lived in Jerusalem,
a Pharisee. Had, therefore, a good opportunity of know
ing: discussions with Appian only gives their number,
not their names, and describes them. His testimony not
so explicit as Talmud, not giving names, but they are
described. He gives only 22 Books, the number of the Hebrew
letters, attaching Ruth to Judges, ancLLamentations to
Jeremiah. This is frequently done. Three classes:
I. 5 books of Moses.
II. 13 books by Prophets, from death of Moses to
Artaxerxes. III. 4 Hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of
human life. This was perhas gotten from the Talmud.
I. Same as usual.
II. Historical and Prophetical books ; Joshua, Judges
and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,
Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Minor Prophets.
III. 4 Hymns: — Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
Songs of Solomon. Therefore, no apocrypha quoted.
We can prove it from his works, also. Job and the three
books of Solomon only are not quoted ; Job was outside
the Jewish people, and so neither Job nor Solomon's
books related to line of history ; but they are all needed
to make out the number 22. Josephus nowhere makes
use of or quotes any one of the Apocryphal books.
We might prove it also by the early Christian fathers
who made careful enquiry. In later account of canon as
received by the Christian Church.
General Agreement.— The canon could not have been
corrupted before the close of 0. T., for an uninterrupted
succession of inspired men, the prophets, would most
certainly have exposed it. There was a general agree
ment as to the number of the books and also their names.

13
Since then, the extieme reverence in which it has been
held by the Jews would not permit it; not to speak of
the fact that an authentic copy was kept in the temple
after the exile also. Josephus says — " How firmly we
give credit to those books is evidenced by what we do,
for we willingly suffer and die for them, and none are so
bold as to add to or take therefrom.'' There can be no
intelligent dispute about the authenticity.
As to safe handing down, even the Romanists admit it.
But does the canon contain atl f Romanists say " two
canons — one restricted, the other enlarged — Protocan-
ouical and Denterocanonical, of like authority."
Of the later 7 are entire and there are parts of two
others — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastieus or Sirach,
Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees : with chapters added to
Esther and Daniel in the Greek and Latin bibles, 1st and
2nd Esdras not recognized by Romanists. " First canon
erlier, 2nd later — no difference in authority and inspira
tion." Some distinguished Romanists say they " differ in
grade of authority, though both inspired." But this is
absurd, gives up the point.
Iu favor of the second canon they say the canon being
closed at the time of Malachi, all inspired books of a later
date had to be put in a second cauon.
Skeptical writers say the limitation" of first canon was
simply a matter of time; and was only a collection of early
Jewish writers. But,
1. Not literary. Ignores the character claimed and
accorded to them from the beginning. All Jewish authors,
Baruch, Josephus, Philo. N. T. writers say they were
from God.
2. The 0. T. did not in fact contain all the extant writ
ings. Chonicles, one of the latest O. T. hooks, mentions
several histories and works as extant ; viz., Nathan, Gad,
Ahija, Iddo, &c. They are not knowm now in the canon
because not in the canon then and not jealously guarded since ;
and not because they had perished at the time the canon
was made up.
The apocryphal books are refused, not because after a
certain date, but because not inspired. Josephus says after
Artaxerxes, prophets ceased. This is not an arbitrary
date, but there was no succession of prophets.

14
Some sav Jewish canon was " limited by the language
in which written, and Apocryphal books not admitted
because written in Greek" But some apocryphal books
were originally in Hebrew. Jerome says this of others.
See Jerome, Maccabees, Tobit and Cyrach.
Some say there were two separate canons among the
Jews— that, though only one at Palestine, the Jews else
where, as the Alexandrian Jews, had two.
No authority for this statement. The Samaritans, a
schismatical body, not belonging to the Jews, it is true,
acknowledged only the book's of Moses, but this was be
cause the later books conflicted with their cherished views,
and not because the Jews in general attached superior
authority to the books. They had their temple at Mount
Gerizim, and therefore refused to accept books which
recommended Zion and Jerusalem. Also had much
intercourse with the heathen around them.
Some early fathers say the Sadducees acknowledged only
Moses. Mistake. They confounded the Sadducees and
Samaritans. The Sadducees rejected only tradition, not
the canon. Josephus says 22 books were accepted by the
nation at large, and if so large and powerful a portion of
the nation as the Sadducees had not received all, he would
have certainly mentioned it. Had this been so, Christ
(Math. 22) would rather have rebuked them for it, than
have given way to it : his design in using it was that a
reference to Exodus might show them that the doctrine
of the resurrection pervaded the entire Scriptures. This
sanctions only the Pent., but he elsewhere sanctions all
the 0. T.
Mystics, Therapeu/jr, Essenes, &c, accepted the canon
and merely added their own views thereto.
The Jews of Alexandria did have lax views of inspira
tion, but even if they had two canons, their position
among the Gentiles would make us distrust any novelty
from such a quarter. There is no proof that they had a
different canon.
1. These Jews also were extremely desirous of keeping
up intercourse with Jews of Palestine, and nothing would
so effectually prevent this as introducing two canons.
2. Translator of Syrach speaks of the book which his-
grandfather used in Palestine, and which he himself used
in Egypt, and makes no distinction between them.

15
3. Josephus in his treatise against Appiav, an eminent
Jew of Alexandria, speaks of no difference.
4. Philo A. D. 41 — no list — no general description —
makes repeated incidental reference to 0. T. books, all
same as those given in Talmud, as inspired : no mentions
of Apocryphal books ; nearly all 0. T. books referred to.
Defense of Apocryhal books.
I. " The Aprocryphal books are in the Septuaginl." But
adignoranliam. (1.) But origin and even design of Septna-
gint is obscure: perhaps merely literary: .-. collect all
tor the Library. Tradition, that it was translated by
' Ptolemy Philadelphia, for his library. (2.) Not all pre
pared at one time, or by one body of translators. We do-
not know the exact time of the compilation. Internal
evidence. Varied merit and ability of translation. Cyril
says the 22 were rendered by LXX.,the rest by others. (3.)
Apocryphal books were probably attached as appendix,.
as relating to the same subject, and not to anything in
profane history.
II. " Accepted by Fathers." — Consider this objection
later. III. " Jerome's expression that ' Tobit aud Judith '
ranked among the ' Hagiographa ' — and since this was not
so at Palestine, must have been so at Alexandria." Bnt
the word Hagiographa must be here a corruption for
Apocrypha, for Jerome elsewhere expressly denies that
these books were in the Hagiographa.
IV. Prof. Smith says that certain portions of the O. T_
canons were fixed among the Jews, and that at the time
of Christ the canonical authority of others was in dispute-
That this canon was not fixed until the close of the 1st
Century A. D. It was not settled when the Books of the
N. T. were written, and there is no explicit testimony in
them given in favor of the belief that it was then settled.
There is no dispute about the canonicity of the La\vT
Prophets or three Poetical Books (Ps., Proverbs and
Job.) The following books of the Hagiographa — Songs
of Solomon, Ecc, &c, — were later additions. Strife over
these books was not ended until the end of the 1st Cen
tury A. D., and the book of Esther was excluded until a
later period.

16
This argument Prof. Smith rests on a certain expression
in the Talmud—" The Holy Scriptures defile the hands."
It means probably that the Sacred Scriptures were so
holy the hands must be washed before touching them;
i. e., they caused the hands to be considered unclean.
Rabbins say this was an arbitrary regulation to preserve
the Scriptures from injury. They held that they were
unclean or defiled the hands, to prevent them from being
placed with the fruits and sheaves for offerings, where the
mice might gnaw them ; i. e., they rendered impure what
ever they touched, even the offerings. At any rate it_
was used to express canonicity of any book. To allege
that a particular book defiled the hands was to say it was
canonical. Shammai and Hillel were noted Rabbins of
about the time of Christ. The school of Shammai
affirmed that certain books did not defile the hands,
while that of Hillel affirmed they did. (The books were
Songs of Sokrmon, Ecc. and Esther.) But the Talmud
states that at a meeting of a Synod about 95 A. D.. 72
Elders decided that Solomon's Songs and Ecclesiastes do
defile the hands ; ?'. e., are canonical.
But the question reajly was: —
1. Whether the book which was and had been in the
canon ought to be there, and
2. Did not effect the canonicity of the books themselves,
but concerned only their contents. It was urged that
Ecc. treats of worldly enjoyments, and Solomon's Songs
of worldly love.
These objections were overruled and the books retained.
They had no more weight than Luther's objections to the
Epistle of James, or than any modern dispute in regard
to any book of the Holy Writ.
3. These objections of the Rabbins were not confined
to what Prof. Smith claims, but extended to Proverbs
and Ezra, &c.
4. The omission of Esther from Chrysostom's Catalogue
does not favor the theory of Smith because by his own
concession the book was definitely retained and the canon
settled long before this Catalogue was written.
It is said that the Talmud pronounces Baruch and
Syrach canonical. This is denied by most competent
authorities. Prof. Scott says: Not a single passage can

17
be adduced which proves the canonicity of Baruch and
the interpretation which sanctions Syrach is equally as
unfounded. In no place is Syrach mentioned as a book
of Scripture. In every place it is excluded from the
canon. Baruch sometimes cited as, "It is written," same ex
pression used in quoting from Canon, but it is stated iu
this way: "It is written in the book of Baruch," and
therefore not cited as canonical, because even heathen
poets cited this way ; sometimes quoted from memory and
sometimes mistakes are made. In no place in the Talmud
isSirach spokeu of as canonical, but affirmed not to be in
the canon.
II. The Christian Canon — brings most decisive ar
gument, though the foregoing is conclusive.
The books were recognized by our Lord and the
apostles. They recognized the same as the Jews. They
never charged the Jews with altering the letter of the law.
They sanctioned the canon.
1. Proved negatively ; they never charged the Jews with
corrupting or mutilating the word of God, though our
Lord says they made it void by their traditions and gave
erroneous interpretations to it. He would have reproved
any omission or insertion.
2. Proved positively, a. By express statements. " Unto
them were committed the oracles of God." Rom. 3:2;
2 Tim. 3: 16— " all scripture", etc.
b. By general implication. Appeal to sacred writings of
the Jews, (1) as a whole, as " scriptures," etc. John 5 :
39; Matt. 22 : 29 ; John 10 : 35. Or (2) to the three-Md
divisions, "Law and Prophets." Matt. 6 : 17; Law and
Prophets used in synagogue and known to people : Law,
Prophets and Psalms. Luke 24 : 44 ; the later for Hagio
grapha, part for whole, or because of the prevailingly
poetical character of Hagiographa, because the Psalms
especially testify of Christ, and is the largest book.
Luke 24 : 27 ; Robertson Smith says our Lord only-
intended to refer to certain admitted, well-known parts of
scripture; that the canon was completed after Christ by
Sanhedrin about close of 1st century. Christ does not refer
to Song of Solomon, Esther and Ecclesiastes because dis
puted." But, 1st, not needed ; 2nd, not censured.

18
And : 1. He only quotes what speaks expressly of
himself. 2. There is an explicit statement in Luke 24 : 27, of
the three-fold division and that he expounded all.
3. Prof. Smith says Job and Proverbs are canonical,
but according to this they would be left out. He says
because Esther and Eecl., etc., not mentioned they were
disputed. There is no hint that they did not belong to
the canon. No occasion for them to be mentioned.
c. By their abundant citations of it as the word of God
— of the Holy Ghost — of inspired men. All the books
are thus quoted except some minor prophets and it is hard
to tell which definitely. Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes,
Esther, admitted not to be quoted.
Every such citation lends the sanction of inspiration not
only of the passage, but to the canonicity of the book thus
quoted, and to the entire volume in which this book is
found. Those not cited are so merely because there was
no occasion for it. They do not profess to quote all : it is
merely incidental, for the moment.
They take O. T. as found among the Jews and ascribe
to it divine authority : a most decisive proof that it con
tained nothing more nor less than what it should.
Objection. — " N. T. writers used the Septuagint version
and therefore sanctioned all the books which it contained,
including the Apocrypha."
Answer — 1. They admittedly did not sanction its inac
curacies : no more did they sanction its spurious additions.
2. And there was no danger of their being misunderstood
by the Jews around— .-. did not expressly say they
accepted only the genuine. 3. They never even quote
from the Apocrypha — in regard to every passage said to be
so quoted it can be proved (a) that there is no such resem
blance, or (b) that the passage in the Apocrypha is itself
conformed to an 0. T. passage, and this is what is in
reality quoted — or (c) even if so quoted it meaiiy affords
the historical proot of the quotation ; the apostles quoted
the heathen poets, but they did not sanction them. Heb.
11: 35; refers to the sufferings of the Jews as related in
Mace, but to the historical truth and does not thereby
sanction canonicity any more than " sawn asunder " sanc
tions the legend of Niobe's death. 4. They make positive

19
statements which exclude these books. Matt. 11 : 13-14
and Mark 1 : 1-2 link end of 0. T. with beginning of the
N. T. — a distinct proof of inspiration. 5. They do not
always quote at all from the LXX., but sometimes from
the Hebrew. 6. Even some prominent Romanists them
selves have felt that the Apostles did not sanction these
passages. Some additions of the Vulgate give quotations
from 0. T., but not from Apocrypha.
The 0. T. canon thus sanctioned is a true one : even
Bellarmine (a Romish authority of note), acknowledges
that none other are canonical.
III. Canon of Christian Church,. This the Romanists'
last resort : " These books must be canonical because
sanctioned by the early church." But this could not
occur without the sanction of the Apostles and they did
not sanction it. Plowever, the Church might have erred.
It erred in doctrinal matters ; though here we reject the
development theory, that the canon grew with the Church.
Meaning of some terms used.
Canonical books— books inspired of God, given to the
church as her rule of faith.
Canonical books, loose sense, =books agreeing in gen
eral character with inspired books, orthodox books.
Apocrypha — dTtoxponzio—'1 Hidden." 1. Some say this
refers to the obscurity which clouded their origin ; — false:
Augustine, (quia origo non pariut) as regards their being
inspired. Yet Samuel, Kings, &c, have not known au
thors. But Ecclesiasticus is known as written by Jerus
Son of Sirach. 2. The contents of the books, mysterious,
as the heathen Eleusinian mysteries: not allowed circula
tion, as the heathen books (called xpuma) which are intel
ligible only to the initiated. Hence=heathenish i. e.
heretical esoteric writings unfit to be placed in the hands
of Christians .-. uninspired. 3. In contrast with the
Scriptures, which were read in public worship— which
hence = " open" books, the others " hidden " = Hebrew
g'nuzim hidden — (But the Jews applied this word to
obscure passages in the canon itself and to uninspired
copies of the Scriptures too full of mistakes to be used in
the Synagogue.)
Apocrypha, used by the Fathers in two senses. 1. As
we use the word,=books claiming inspiration and place

20
in canon but which have it not. 2. Books of pernicious
character or forged to sustain heresies. According to
the latter sense, there were three classes of books, (a)
¦Canonical or inspired, (b) Ecclesiastical, i. e. approved by
the church for reading, or orthodox=our Apocrypa where
-"canonical" is used in its looser sense, (c) Apocryphal,
books of evil tendency.
How are we to tell which the church did admit? A.
By catalogues. B. By early versions. C. By readings in
public worship. D. By quotations in the Fathers.
A. Catalogues of the sacred books— great authority —
most satisfactory evidence given 1, by the Fathers : 2, by
-Councils, valuable (a) as joint testimony of many fathers
•collected from a great extent of country, (b) Best, for
they used more precise language.
Second Century, Melito — Bishop of Sardis (the church
mentioned in Revelation) — oldest catalogue — A. D. 160 —
only one of 2nd century. It seems doubt had arisen about
the canon. He travelled to Judaea and inquired care
fully. He opposes all but those in the Hebrew volume.
<3ives their names, not their number. But a. Abundant
testimony elsewhere, and b. this is not' a question of
dispute. Romanists admit this. Adds the words fj xac
4fO(pia after Proverbs ; .¦. Romanists say it means the
Apocryphal book of Wisdom. But the real meaning ifj xac
not xat ft is "which is also wisdom," referring to Pro
verbs. Lamentations not mentioned : probably included
under Jeremiah. Ruth, with Judges. So Nehemiah,
probably included under Ezra. Esther not mentioned.
The omission of Esther by Melito as well as by others,
gives necessity for some canonical reason besides inad
vertence. It.is either included with some other book, as
Judges (most probably), or, as is mentioned, from the
-circumstance that in the Greek Bible, a copy of what
- Melito doubtless possessed, Esther begins with an apocry
phal introduction. Whatever explanation is adopted it
¦does not invalidate the argument. The Romanists confess
to its presence in the canon at that time ; so does the
school of Smith — begins in Septuagint with an Apocry
phal section and .-. Esther joined to Jeremiah; or Melito
inadvertently rejected the whole of it, or fault of. tran
scriber, or included in another book.

21
Justin Martyr. 2nd century, died 164 A. D. Born iu
Palestine, after conversion lived in Rome. No regular
catalogue. Quotes frequently, but never from Apocry
pha. In his controversy with Trypho, a Jew in Ephesnsr
he does not refer to Apocrypha nor accuse the Jews of re
jecting inspired works, as he would naturally have done-
had he believed those books inspired.
Syriac Peshito, 2nd century, only included canonical1
books. Third Century — Origen — Greek Father — most learned
of Greek Fathers. Educated at Alexandria. Died at
Tyre, 70 years of age. His catalogue gives 22 books, by
name in full, both in Hebrew and Greek. As preserved
by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, the same as
Josephus, and then says — " and apart from these are
books of Maccabees." Minor prophets omitted, but inad
vertently, and not by Origen himself, for they are found
in eveiy other catalogue, and are necessary to complete
the 22, (he says 22, and names only 21) — .•. fault of the
transcriber. The old Latin translation by Ruffin gives it„
mentioning minor prophets also.
Under Jeremiah he includes Lamentations and " Epistle
of Jeremiah." This must be either the epistle to the
captives of Babylon, Jer. 29; or an Apocryphal epistle
given in the Vulgate as the last chapter of Baruch.
Probable that he was misled, for Origen follows the He
brew canon professedly, and this certainly never contained
it. But it is easily demonstrable that Jer. never wrote
this book.
lertullian. — 3rd century — no catalogue — speaks of 24
books as in Talmud. Tertullian, oldest of Latin fathers
whose works have been preserved to us, thinks the num
ber 24 refers to the 24 wings of beasts around the throne,.
and the 24 elders, in Revelation. .-. In 2nd and 3rd cen
turies, we have Melito and the Syriac Peshito from the
Eastern church; Origen from Greek church; Tertullian
from Latin church.
Fourth Century. — Corroborated from all parts of church.
Council of LModicea. Representatives from Asia.

22.
Athanasius — Bishop of Alexandria.
Cyril — " Jerusalem.
Greek Epiphanius — " City of Salamine, in
Writers. <J Cyprus.
Amphilochius — " Iconium.
Gregory of Naz-
ianzus — " Constantinople.
Basil the Great of Cappadocia, and Chrysostom of Con
stantinople give no formal catalogues but equivalent
statements — the former says the number was 22: the
latter says all the books of O. T. were written in Hebrew
— ,-. he followed the Jewish canon.
f Hilary — Bishop of Poitiers.
Latin ! Ruffinus — " of Aquileia, in Italy.
Writers. (Jerome — Monk of Palestine, (most learned
^ man of his time, born in Dalmatia.)
Two, those of Athanasius and Gregory, omitted Esther
— explained as under Melito. Athanasius even puts
it among Apocrypha, but for the same reason that open
ing chapter is apocryphal. There is abundant evidence
for it, and Romanists admit it. There is abundant proof
of its canonicity; the only difficulty is to ascertain clearly
how this difference happened. They reject whole of
Esther, because burdened with spurious chapters. Hilary
says " Jeremiah and the epistle " — (see Origen) — Athan
asius, Cyril and Council of Laodicea speak of "Jeremiah,
Baruch and the epistle," but Baruch may=part of genuine
Jeremiah, (29 chap.) which speaks of Baruch : may be
the Apocryphal book of Baruch, which contains this epis
tle. If it is adopted they have unwittingly given credit
to a forgery.
Later catalogues have not book of Baruch, in Apocry
pha, which Rome says is canonical.
With these exceptions all sustain the Protestant canon.
The catalogues of the first four centuries uniting with
strict canon. Rome says they give the Jewish canon, and
not the larger Christian canon — mere, evasion. They give
the Jewish because the Christian is the same as this, and
likewise binding on the Christian Church.
Again they say they are excusable for the church had
given no decision yet. But the church can't decide this:
all we want is testimony.

23
Romanist Objections.
At the close of the fourth century Augustine (good
theologian, poor critic) — and the councils of Hippo and
Carthage, added most of the books which are now in
Romish canon —
But (I.) Not exactly same, (a) Baruch not in any — and
(b) first Esdras=Nehemiah and Ezra; and they contain a
book of Esdras (2nd of Vulgate, 1st of English apocry
pha) which Rome does not recognize as inspired.
(II.) These are not = three independent witnesses. Au
gustine was bishop of Hippo near Carthage, and his influ
ence and views probably determined the decisions of the
two Councils.
(III.) The three catalogues would not reasonably differ
so greatly from what was held in all the rest of the church,
and in Carthage itself at an earlier date.
(IV.) The preface and conclusion of the catalogues
show that they were meant to include not merely inspired
works, but also orthodox, edifying ones as prefaces. Au
gustine advises a distinction — that those received by all
the churches should be preferred to those received by fewer,
and among the latter preference should be given to most
importaut or influential churches. It is plain these apoc.
books were not received by early fathers. He certainly
would not have made such a distinction among inspired
books. Used " canonical " as referring to good, profitable,
edifying books, — under the second class.
(V.) Augustine elsewhere says " the Jews had no
prophet after Malachi until the father of John the Bap
tist." And yet the Apocrypha was written in that inter
val. And he says " all the books of 0. T. were with the
Jews, who = librarians of the church." But the Apocry
pha was rejected and also Judith, according to Augustine.
He says " the Jews don't receive Maccabees as they do
the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, but it is received
by the church as a book good to be read, especially Mac
cabees, who suffered persecution so much for the faith."
A sect called Circumceliones allowing suicide appealed
to the case of Drassis in 2nd Maccabees. To these per
sons Augustine replies " they are iu great straits for
authorities, having only this book, one which neither

24
Jews, nor Christ, nor the Apostles sanctioned as they did
the prophets and Psalms," and " which the church re
ceives only as the history of men who suffered for God."
And says " they are to be read soberly and with caution,
only that which is sound being received." Self-murder,
though approved in Maccabees, is not right. Maccabees
as " canonical," means as approved by church for private
and public reading. " What is not in the canon of the
Jews cannot be received with so much confidence against
opposers." He further says " the accounts of these times
of persecution are not found in the Holy Scriptures which
are canonical, but in certain historical books as Mac,
which the Jews do not, but the church does esteem canon
ical." So he used the term " canonical " in two senses —
the loose in respect to the books which contained the
story of Jewish and church sufferings, and were meant to
be read as salutary in the days of persecution. Further
— " Things which are not written in the canon of the
Jews cannot be adduced with so much force against op-
posers." So, from the records of martyrdom as well as from the
Scriptural language and its connections with the 0. T. in
the LXX and Vulgate, the Apocrypha gained a certain
sanctity. It has such yet from its occasional use in the
Church of England.
(VI.) There is a presumption that the church at Car
thage did not design to cut itself off from rest of the
church, for it proposed to submit this canon to the judg
ment of Boniface, Bishop of Rome.
Question whether this catalogue is authentic and among
the decrees of the church.
(VII.) Tertullian, a lawyer of Carthage, in preceding
century, and Primazius and Junilius in fifth centuiy, add
their testimony.
Primazius — Bishop of Africa later— in fifth century —
admits only 24 books.
Junilius distinguishes among the " divine " books —
some of perfect, some of medium, some of no authority—
Books on divine subjects not necessarily inspired.
Hence Carthage had not the canon, in its wide sense,
— in strict sense, the same as present Romish canon.
Hence by all " canon " was used in its looser sense.

25
Thus we see there was no disagreement in the first four
centuries, if the word " canon " be used in the strict sense.
Same canon now, — the Jewish.
Fifth Century. — We have seen that all the catalogues
except three sustain our canon ; and that they do so with
out ambiguity, and unanimously. And that these three
have no more weight than one; and that they do not in
reality disagree from the other, but merely use the word
canon in the loose sense. But even if this be not so, it is
enough to condemn the Apocrypha that it is not in any
catalogue before the 4th century.
Parallel of 0. and N. T. Canon. To neutralize this the
Romanists bring up the Antelegomena, disputed books of
the N. T. which were not generally received until the 4th
century, but which we all hold canonical now. But the
cases are not similar. The Apocrypha was older and the
Antelegomenaconsists of a few small books which required
time to become generally known ; they were gladly ac
cepted where first known, and gradually spread. But the
Apocrypha (1) were never so accepted where first known
among Jews; (2) where so adopted, it was without critical
investigation; (3) were classed with 0. T. loosely; (4) and
even in this lax sense were not universally received. N.
T. was.
Greek Church. — History of the Canon iu the 5th Cen
tury. Followed the Council of Laodicea, against the
Apocrypha without a dissenting voice.
Latin Church. — Division. Many were influenced by
Augustine's great learning; as well as influenced by the
growing custom of public reading in churches ; others fol
low Jerome (strict), but the greater number, especially of
the intelligent, favored only the strict canon. Catalogues
for the large canon in all this time, only two or three.
Sixth Century.— Gregory VIIL, the Great, A. D. 600,
First Bishop of Rome, quoting from Maccabees, speaks of
them as " not canonical, but yet published for the edifica
tion of the church." Council of Trent; — France, Eng
land and Germany agree with strict canon. All are con
sidered authorities.
There are few genuine authorities favoring Augustine's
catalogue, — not more than three or four in 18 centuries.

26
In the 16th century, Cardinal Zimenes, Archbishop of
Toledo, before Council of Trent, (author of Compluten-
sian Polyglot,) says in the preface, as his dedication to
Pope Leo X. and approved by him. " These books of
the Apocryphal 0. T. (given in Greek only) were not in
the canon, and were received by the church rather for
edification of people than for doctrine."
Cardinal Cagetan, at Rome, an emient theologian, who
would have been Pope, had he lived after Clement VII.,
defended the strict canon only ten years before the Coun
cil of Trent.
The Prologue of Jerome, defending the strict canon, is
always in the preface to the Romish Bible.
Fourth Session of Council Trent — ecumenical and bind
ing in its decrees — 8th April, 1546, adopted the looser
canon as inspired : " The Apocrypha is to be received
with equal veneration with the other 0. T. books," and
decreed anathema on those who rejected it. So that it
was said, " the Romanists have made a canon to condemn
their own Bible." This is really the first time it was ever
decreed by any ecclesistical body that these books were
on a par with the inspired word of God ; or that those of
contrary views should be anathema. The decision was
owing not to thorough investigation, but to the fact that
at that time many of the " lessons " of the church were
from the Apocrypha, and to the desire to make an issue
with the Protestants, who had planted themselves on the
Jewish Canon. There was much and earnest dissent in
the council even then. The Romanists say the adverse
testimony of the early fathers was excusable because as
yet the church had given no decision as to canonicity of
books. Other Romanist Arguments for Apocrypha, besides the
early catalogues :
B. Contained in early versions.
C. Read in public tvorship early.
D. Quoted by early Fathers as of Divine authority.
Prelim. Remark. — The whole church was united for
the strict canon. Even if undue value was placed upon
the Apocrypha in certain places, even if some Fathers
have expressed themselves thoughtlessly, incautiously, on
the subjeet, yet the general opinion is against them. Their

27
criticism has no more weight than other erroneous judg
ment. B. Objection " contained in early versions." — Answer.
(1.) Apocrypha was not in all early versions. The Syriac
Peshito, and the Latin version of Jerome did not have
them. The latter is the foundation for the Vulgate,
which took the Apocrypha, however, from an earlier Latin
version — the Itala. But evidence is incomplete as to the
number of versions in which it was found.
(2.) Though in the Septuagint, it was there as a mere
appendage, not as equal to the rest in authority, because
the Alexandrian Jews, among whom and for whom the
translation was made, did not so receive the Apocrypha ;
other early versions made from the Septuagint copied the
Apocrypha as an integral part.
(3.) The Romish argument inverts the real order of
facts and makes the effect the cause, saying it was in early
versions because it was inspired, whereas it was con
sidered inspired by them merely because it was in ancient
versions. There was a great dearth of religious books,
and therefore these were more naturally classed with
Bible, and bound with it, to " kill two birds with one
stone" in their circulation. For most early Fathers did
not understand Hebrew ; it was therefore translated from
the Greek versions.
(4.) From analogy of modern versions, it might have
been included in the early versions without being con
sidered inspired. See Luther's version — King James'
version. Found there as in Eng. version of James, and
yet not considered inspired.
(5.) Their argument, if valid, proves too much. They
reject as uncanonical, 3rd Esdras and 3rd Maccabees, and
the Prayer of Mauasseh, which are in early versions.
The Ethiopic version contains even more, as the book of
Enoch. C. Objection— " Read in public worship in same man
ner as canonical books, and therefore equal."
(1.) The fact is admitted but the argument from it is
unsound ; everything turns on the intention with which
they read it; must first show this before the argument is
of any weight. Letters were read from absent pastors
also.

28
(2.) From analogy. Church of England shows that its
being read in churches and being canonical, are not the
same thing necessarily. " Read only on festival days and
not on the Sabbath," being read " for the example of life
and the instruction of men."
(3.) That the early church in reading these books thus,
did not thereby esteem them canonical, appears from
express testimony. Jerome — " Read for instruction, but
not for authority." Very explicit. Ruffin says, " there
are other books not canonical, but are called Ecclesias
tical, as Wisdom of Solomon, or Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus.
To be read in the churches, but not for authority in
faith." Athanasius — " Contains not indefinite, but deter
mined and canonized books, and also others not can
onical, but read by catechumens, as Wisdom, Cyrach,
Judith, Tobit and Esther; i. e., Apocrypha Edition.
(4.) This argument also would prove too much, for
many books were read which Rome herself does not
esteem canonical.
D. Objection. — " Quoted by Early Fathers in a way
which shows they esteem them inspired." The only
plausible objection ; but even if well-founded, we must take
it cautiously in connection with other evidence. But it is
not a valid objection, however."
(1.) Ascertain whether the quotation alleged is really
from the Apocrypha. Many citations are not quotations
at all, but general expressions which may occur anywhere.
(2.) If so, whether it is quoted as from the inspired
word of God.
(1.) Fact of being quoted? Answered.
First Century. In the Fathers of this century there are
a few allusions to persons and things in the Apocrypha,
and a few expressions like those in the Apocrypha, but
no formal quotations from it. This shows merely that
they were acquainted with the Apocrypha.
From the Second Century on. (a) Freely quoted. So are
Homer, Virgil, &c. Shows only that they were known
or contained something pertinent to the matter iu hand.
(b) The Apocrypha is mentioned with respect and rever
ence, and appealed to as true; but this is very different
from saying it is inspired.

29
(2.) Manner of quotation : There must be something
in the mode of quotation showing it to have been regarded
as inspired ; of this there is no proof. Rome says they
do so quote (a) " They make use of the same formulas
in quoting from Apocrypha as in quoting from the other
books." (b) " They employ the same terms in speaking
of the writers of these as in speaking of those of the
other books."
Objection to (a ) Formula — " It is written," the estab
lished phrase for " quoting " from the inspired word. It
was nothing to use the same formula, for the Apocrypha
was appended to sacred volume and appointed to be read
in churches. They speak of Apocrypha as the Holy
Scriptures, Divine Scriptures. But (1) although to us the
word Scripture, from long and familiar usage suggests the
Bible, yet its original import is general — writings (ypacpft ;
and sacred, scriptures — writings on sacred subjects. In
other words, they merely meant Sacred Literature, in
contrast with Profane Literature, using the loose sense of
canonical. (2.) That the phrases are used in this general sense or
in the loose sense just mentioned, is shown by the fact
that the same writers who exclude these books from the
inspired word, yet cite them under these terms — Origen,
Jerome, Athanasius. Athanasius even quotes from Ecc.
beginning, " the Holy Ghost saith." Such must have
been done inadvertently, and without recollection of pecu
liar location of the passage quoted. In formal statement
they always leave these books out. Origen quotes Tobit,
Wisdom, &c, and speaks of them as the Divine word,
and yet in his catalogue of the canon, leaves them out.
We prefer to accept their formal statement rather than
this sort of evidence.
(3.) Such distinctions are made in the " divine books,"
&c, as to show that these terms must have been general.
Junilius says " some divine books are of perfect authority,
some of medium, some of no authority." Cyprian quotes
from the Apocrypha as the Scriptures, and then tries to
establish the truth of the quotation by referring to Acts,
which he calls the " testimony of truth ; " so placing N.
T. above Apoc

30
(4.) Analogy— The Homilies of the Church of England
cite some books under the name of Scriptures, as the Book
of Wisdom ; yet it does not form part of their canon.
(5.) Their argument proves too much. Books are cited
under this name by Augustine and others, which Roman
ists themselves do not admit and never have admitted,
viz : the Apostolic Constitutions, the Book of Enoch,
even the Sibylline Verses, &c.
(b.) Another class of quotations. Writers are called by
titles proper only to inspired men, as prophets, etc., or
the writings are attributed to some known inspired writ
ers, as " the 5 books of Solomon," viz : the three genuine
ones, Wisdom, and Cyrach.
Answer — (I.) These expressions are in a loose, popular
sense, so declared by Augustine, who says the two other
books are attributed to Solomon (see above), and are so
because of their similarity of style; but " the learned do
not doubt they are not his." So "Book of Daniel " does
not assert that Daniel was the author, and so " Baruch
and Jeremiah." Solomon was not the author of Wisdom,
and Daniel not of Dan. of the Canon. Baruch is dis
tinctly declared to be written by another than Jer., and
Ecc. by other than Sol.
(2.) If we insist, however, on these points, they only
prove that the Fathers were mistaken, for it can clearly
be shown that many of the books so spoken of are not
genuine. (3„) The Fathers did not mean that they were the word
of God, for they elsewhere expressly exclude them.
(4.) Analogy — Church of England calls Baruch " a
prophet," without any design of putting the book into
the canon.
(5.) Proves too much — " argumentum ad hominem."
So Rome cites 3d and 4th Esdras under Ezra.
Ergo, the Apocrypha was excluded by the Jews, by our
Lord and the Apostles, and by the Christian church gen
erally, if not universally, until Council of Trent.
Internal Evidence.
Not decisive (e. g. Esther, Ruth, Ecclesiastes,) yet aids
in settling the extent of the canon. Even Luther doubted
the canonicity of the Epistle of James, because it seemed

31
to contradict the apostle Paul. Historical evidence must
decide historical questions. A book containing what is
false in fact or doctrine or unworthy of God, is not in
spired : Tobit and Judith so — are full of topographical
and chronological mistakes, and historical.
Tobit — 1 : 4-5. In the youth of Tobit, the ten tribes
revolted from Judah. under Jeroboam. Hence he must
have been 270 years old at the Assyrian captivity, at which
time he was taken captive. But (14 : 11) he was only 15'8
years old when he died.
His angels' visits, contrary to-all analogy, are long con
tinued; an angel journeying on foot with him 300 miles.
The angel Raphael lies to Tobias, representing himself as
Azarias 5: 12; they both lie to R. calling themselves
Nephthalim 7:3; the book contains ridiculous supersti
tion, 6 : 2, 6 : 17.
He teaches a doctrine nowhere else taught : of seven
angels going in and out before God ; borrowed from Per
sian superstition.
His absurdities. An evil spirit in love with a woman;
can be driven away only by a smoking heart and the liver
of a fish — 6 : 7-17. Says almsgiving can deliver from
death and purge away all sin. 12 : 9. 14 : 10 and 11.
Judith — 6 : 10-11. The scene is laid in Bethuliah ; no
trace of it. The name means virgin. It is probably an
allegory or romance.
There is no time possible for the events related ; as the
protracted peace of 80 years, &c. The march of Holo-
fernes is decidedly zigzag. The book says it was in the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Nineveh, (1 : 1) ; but
Babylon was his capital. That Jehoiakim was the contem
porary high-priest ; but there was no high-priest of this
name till after the exile. (4 : 6.)
Judith's language and conduct is false and deceitful.
Teaches the Jesuitical plea that " the end justifies the
means." Even prays God to assist her in so doing. (9:
10-13.) The crime of Simeon, condemned in Gen. 49:
5; is here praised. It is said to be a crime to break the
ceremonial law even to save life. (11 : 10.) Jesus taught
otherwise, and rebuked for such strict adherence.
The Books of Wisdom and Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus,
contain many excellent maxims, yet their morality is

32
defective, and is based mainly on expediency. And the
wisdom is less that of Solomon than of the late Alexan
drian philosophers.
Wisdom 7: 25 — The doctrines of Emanation from God,
and (8 : 19-20) pre-existence of the soul are taught, and
that the world was created from preexiiting matter. (11 :
17.) Philosophy of Plato.
9 : 15 — That the material body is a weight upon the
soul. 10: 15-20 — Israel is represented as righteous, and all
God's favors to it as a just reivard. Even real miracles
are spoken of in an exaggerated way, from mere love of
the marvellous; e. g., manna.
16 : 20-21 — It says the manna was agreeable to every
taste, and tempered itself to every man's liking.
16th and 17th Chaps. — Plagues of Egypt are described
with embellishments which are not warranted.
18: 24-25 — False explanation of the high-priest's dress:
virtue is ascribed to his dress which is due only to his
mediatorial office,
10: 4 — Cain's murder of Abel is said to have caused
the flood.
14: 15 — The account of the origin of idolatry, flimsy
and untrue. •' Owing to fathers making images of their
deceased children." No moral cause is assigned, as by
Paul, in Rom. 1: 21-23 Alienation of.the heart from God.
7th Chap, and 9 : 7-8 — Solomon said to be the author,
yet the people are spoken of as being at the time under
subjection to their enemies — 15 : 14. This was never the
case in days of Solomon.
And it can be proved that it was originally written iu
Greek. Cyrach or Ecclesiasticus.— Many passages teaching
justification by works.
3: 30 — Almsgiving atones for sin.
3 : 3 — Honoring parents atones for sin.
35 : 3 — And forsaking unrighteousness atones for sin.
12 : 4-7 — Kindness to the wicked is prohibited.
33: 26-28 — Cruelty to slaves is allowed and justified.
(47:5.) 50: 25-26— Hate towards Samaritans is also approved.
Exhortations to do right to gain the favor of men. Expe
diency substituted for right as the ground of obligation.

33
38: 18 — " Weep for the dead, lest thou be evil spoken
of." Chap. 14: 11-16 — Carnal enjoyment taught, because
life is brief. Cf. Paul I Cor. 15 : 32.
45 : 15.— "Aaron priest, as long as the heavens stand."
Baruch. — Said to have been written by Baruch, the
helper of Jeremiah, yet originally in Greek, and quotes
Nehemiah. and Daniel, who lived later. Baruch is said to
have gone to Babylon : did not if the real Baruch, but
went to Egypt.
1 : 10. — The Temple is spoken of as standing, and offer
ings were to be made in Jerusalem, though in Jeremiah's
time it was in ashes.
1: 11. — Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar,
though he was his grandson.
Speaks of sending vessels back by Jeremiah, (1 : 8)
though this was not done till after the exile. See Ezra
1: 7."
3 : 4 — " God hears the prayers of the dead." (So also
2d Maccabees, 15 : 14 teaches.) Proof texts for Romanists.
The captivity according to Jeremiah, 70 years ; Baruch's
Epistle of Jeremiah says seven generations. Manifestly
written later therefore, and as an explanation.
I. and II. Maccabees. — I. Has many errors, historical
and geographical, but is better than II., which abounds
in fables and legends. Iu the latter, 1 : 19, preservation
of sacred fire ; 2 : 4, Jeremiah hiding the tabernacle and
ark and altar of incense, in Mount Nebo; and 3: 25, the
apparition which is said to have prevented the Emperor
Helioclorus from invading the sanctity of the Temple.
14 : 41-46 justifies suicide; 12:42-45, prayers for the
dead. The writer does not even claim inspiration — 15 : 38-39.
" Wrote according to his ability."
Esther. — The genuine Book of Esther only in Hebrew;
the spurious additions only in Greek, and in the old Latin
version. Jerome remarks as to the addition, that some
writer undertook to add what might have been said. But
it really breaks the connection, contradicts, and adds
things improbable and evidently untrue. The Sophists
did so often.

34
Additions to Daniel. — Three of them.
I. Prayer of the three children in the fiery furnace.
Devotional, but not adapted to the occasion or their situ
ation, (verses 23-27) and contains unwarrantable asser
tions. II. Story of Susannah — improbable, and doubtful as to
basis of fact.
III. Bel and the Dragon — absurd and ridiculous.
The Council of Trent, though few in members, and
representing a limited territory, imposed the Apocrypha
as inspired, in the face of all preceding authority, upon
the whole Romish church, denouncing its anathema on
all who presumed to reject it. Since then, of course, the
line of witnesses in the Latin church, against the Apoc
rypha, has ceased. Yet some few object, and make a
distinction between the Deuterocanonical (i. e., the Apoc
rypha) and the Protocanonical books — the former as of
less authority and veneration. But this does not accord
with the language of the Council of Trent, and there can
be no degrees in such a matter.
Greek Church.
Favors the strict canon.
Cyril Leucar, 1631, Constantinople — adheres to the
Council of Laodicea.
Dositheus, of Jerusalem, 1672, under Romish influence,
sanctioned the Apocrypha.
Platon, of Moscow, approves of the authorized Russiau
catechism, and authorizes only the strict Jewish canon —
1836. Protestant Church.
Has always been unanimous for the strict Hebrew canon
as to its inspiration. The opinion about the use of the
Apocrypha has been various, (none regarding it as in
spired, but) some approving the " reading of it for instruc
tion in life and manners, though not for doctrine"
(Jerome.) Church of England :— the Westminster Con
fession says it is to be used no more than human writings.
The former of these views naturally led to keening itin
Bibles as an appendix; the latter banished it altogether

35
from the volume. The antagonism culminated in the
"Apocryphal controversy." The German branches of
the British and Foreign Bible Society used Luther's ver
sion, containing the Apocrypha. In 1811, the Society
resolved to require its auxiliaries to leave out the Apocry
pha. Owing to opposition, the order was rescinded in
1813, In 1819, the Society allowed their auxiliaries to-
print the Catholic Bibles in Italian, Spanish and Portu
guese and insert the Apocrypha with the inspired books
indiscriminately — saying the Bible could not be distrib
uted in those countries unless it were so. Much opposi
tion, resulting in the compromise (1822) that they should
use the money of the Society only to print the strict
canon, the Apocrypha at private expense. In 1824,
Leander Van Ness, the publisher of the vulgate, asked
aid of Bible Society in publication of it. Said he would
hear entire cost if they would permit. This they con
sented to do, but arrangements were made for ordy a
year when they decided to publish the Apoc. separately.
Still many were dissatisfied. In 18 17 it was resolved by
the Society that " no person or association circulating the
Apocrypha should receive aid from the Society, and none
but bound books should be issued." Basis on which Bible
Society works now. Strife renewed in Germany lately,
some theologians entirely excluding the Apocrypha, some
claiming a subordinate place for it owing to long ecclesi
astical usage. But the usage grew up when books were
scarce ; now that books are plenty and accessible, it is
not necessary to put the two together.
But the Apocrypha deserves to be carefully read, for its
prominence in the controversy and because it has some
intrinsic worth (especially I. Maccabees), and sheds much
light on the canonical books, explains customs, &c.
"The threefold division of Law, Prophets and llagio
grapha or Kethuvim (writings). This threefold classifica
tion is first referred to in the Prologue to Cyrach, where
this division is mentioned twice. Five books are in the
Law, eight in the Prophets, and eleven in the Hagiog
rapha. For Josephus' division see previous lecture, page
9. He made it for his own use and purpose. See also
Luke 24 : 44.
Our Lord only singles out the book of Psalms from the
Hagiographa as mainly Messianic; or else the Psalms, as

36
being the leading book, first in order, and most important,
is named to include the rest. So we speak of the Con
fession of Faith, and Book of Common Prayer. It is said
they also bear internal evidence of gradual and successive
formation. "Law first; all given subsequently were afterwards
gathered into a second volume, the Prophets, which was
closed ; a third collection was again made of ones which
were not before known or discovered, and this is the third
division or Kethuvim." Those who make this statement
say it is confirmed by the fact that there are books in the
third division which should have been in the second if
they had been known. Daniel is not in the Prophets but
in the third division. Kings in the second among Pro
phets; but Chronicles, which has precisely the same char
acter, is in the third. Hence they say the formation into
three classes was a process of time and discovery.
Reply — I. This view is based upon the idea that the
collection of the canon was a purely literary rescue from
destruction. But the books were all well known, and all
the collectors had to do was to arrange them.
II. This theory of time, &c, does not account for the
phenomenon. They say the book of the Prophets was
closed. What is meant by this ? Not so as long as any
book remained ; no sense in which it can be true.
III. The whole theory is in conflict with the facts : the
Psalms, &c, were known when the collection of the
Prophets was made, and the Psalms were used in temple-
worship. Why not then in this division ?
IV. There is an easy and satisfactory explanation. The
Rabbins distinguished various grades of inspiration in the
inspired writers. 1st. The Law, given to Moses face to
face with God ; 2nd. the Prophets, those written under the
influence of the spirit of prophecy; 3rd. those written
under the ordinary inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Some
truth in this tradition. The ground is the official char
acter of the authors.
1. Moses' functions were unique, the legislator.
2. Prophets officially such, class by themselves.
3. There were other inspired men not set apart specially,
men exercising secular functions, as, David, Solomon,
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah. The Chronicles were probably

37
written by Ezra, the Kings by a Prophet, using the word"
in the proper official sense of the term.
.•. The classification regards not the contents but the
authors. Only one book, Lamentations, causes any embarrass
ment, according to this principle. The prophecies of Jere
miah are among the Prophets : and it is probable that
Lamentations was originally also so included. It seems
so from the enumerations of Josephus and of Origen, who
give 011I3' 22 books, and Lamentations must then have
been included under Jeremiah's prophecies. It was prob
ably transferred afterward for liturgical purposes, or from
its resemblance to the Psalms.
This division was in force in the time of Christ, Matth.
23 : 35. As if to take from the extremes of Scripture, as
well as of time, Abel (in the first book) is mentioned, and
Zaebarias from (probably the last book of the 0. T. writ
ten) II. Chronicles. Though this is not decisive.
Greek and Latin and English Bibles give a fourfold
division. 1. Law — Pentateuch.
2. Historical Books.
3. Poetical
4. Prophetical " j
Athanasius divides into four Pentateuchs, covering all"'
but two of the books, Ezra and Esther.
1. Moses' Books.
2. Five Historical Books.
3. Poetical Books — Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias-
tes, Canticles.
4. Prophetical Books — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,.
Daniel, and the Minor Prophets.
Samaritans had 27 — or 28 separating Ruth— count
double books as single. This corresponds with the Hebrew
alphabet, 22 consonants, 5 double forms. This is accord
ing to Jerome and Epiphanius.
The number 33 has also been given, making with N.
T. Books, 60 in all. This was done by counting the 12
Minor Prophets singly, and not as one. The number 60
was given a mystical sense, as referring to the 60 queens
of Solomon. The English version of the 0. T. numbers-
39.

38

Ceremonial Institutions of Mosaic
Law.
mosaic law.

nature and design.
The Pentateuchal Legislation was divided into three
forms :
I. Book of the Covenant. Ex. 24 : 7 ; Ex. 20 : 23.
II. The Ceremonial system, or Levitical Code. Ex.
25 to end, Lev. and Num. This was given partly during
the 40 days sojourn at Sinai, partly during the 40 years
wandering in the wilderness. It is a journal of the laws,
and the fact of its being interspersed with irrelevant his
torical incidents is a strong proof of the contemporaneous
•character of the record.
III. The Deuteronomic Code; given just before Moses'
death and the entrance into Canaan.
We have to do with the Ceremonial Law, or Levitical
Code, because of its importance. It is important, because:
1. In it we become acquainted with the Jewish religion.
2. Teaching of 0. T. all presupposes this system.
3. Necessary to proper understanding of N. T.
4. Especially important because of modern criticism,
whose skepticism tends to undermine the truth of the
Bible and the reality of supernatural Revelation.
The Ceremonial Law may be divided into : —
1. Sacred Places — Tabernacle.
2. Sacred Persons — Priesthood.
3. Sacred Actions — The Ritual.
4. Sacred Times — The Calendar.
Before the time of Moses there was no structure for
worship. The Patriarchs built altars in the open air on
mountains or under trees.

39
1. The Tabernacle. — Built of acacia wood overlaid
with gold— sockets of silver or brass. Rectangular— 30
cubits long, 10 wide, 10 high — inside measurements;
divided into two apartments''by a richly wrought veil.
This veil wrought with cherubim could not have "been the
outer covering, but was the inner lining. One cubit of
the gold covered ceiling. Near the floor was not covered
by this veil.
The Tabernacle had no roof but an awning. First
covering — 10 separate pieces called curtains, each 28x4,
of fine linen — inner lining. 2nd covering— over this
was of goats' hair. "A tent over the dwelling"— 11
parts, 30-4; — 3rd and 4th were two additional coverings
— one of rams' skins dyed red, the other of badgers'
skins or seal skin. The roof was fiat. Ex. 25 : 31."
Apartments (a.) Holy of Holies.— Innermost room;
perfect cube, 10x10x10. (b.) Holy Place— Rectangular;
.20 cubits long, 10 high, and 10 wide. Separated from
court by a rail Ex. 36 : 40.
(c.) The Court — Surrounding the Tabernacle proper,
100 cubits long, 50 wide, 5 high. The people were ad
mitted only to the court — through middle entrance in end
—in which stood the Altar of Burnt Offering and Laver.
The Priests were admitted into the Holy Place — through
entrance by east — in which were the Altar of Incense,
Golden Candlestick, and Table of Shew Bread. Into the
Holy of Holies or Most Holy Place, where were the Ark
and Mercy Seat, only the High Priest could go, and that
only once a year — on the great day of Atonement. The
Tabernacle was 50 cubits back from the front of the
Court. Meaning and Design.
Is there any special signification in the structure, apart
from its uses ? It might, be that the ritual was the only
significant portion, and everything else subsidiary to it.
There must bo some place for this ritual, also Priests and
set times. While it is true that the ritual was the most
essential and important, to which the others are subsidiary,
yet the latter had a signification. 1. This appears because
the arrangement and plan of the structure are not deter
mined by simple regard to convenience, or adaptability to

40
its uses, (a1) The building was not demanded to shelter
the crowd of worshippers, for they were not really shel
tered at all. The court was open to the sky. (b). The
dimensions were out of proportion to its contents, (c)
No purpose of convenience was answered by closing these
from the light, nor (d) do we know why they were set
toward the East.
Second Reason. — The minute and careful directions in
the most trifling matters, e. g., the number of boards in
the court, chords, loops, curtains, &c This shows some
further meaning in the thing itself. Nothing was left to
human invention. All was prescribed by God. This
shows its sacredness and heavenly origin, just as in Rev.
21 : 15 ; 11 : 1-2 ; also in Ezckiel 40 to end. Rev. 11 : 1-2
— The court was not to be measured but given to the
Gentiles. Measurements imply sacredness.
Third Reason.— Moses (Ex. 25: 40; 26 : 30) was directed
to make all things after the pattern shown him in the
Mount. What was the Symbolical Meaning ? Various views :
I. The Mcderialistic. — Some say that it was modelled
after the tents of earthly rulers, and was designed to be
the abode of the divine monarch of Israel. There is a
gross material sense of this view held by some, as though
God had the same necessities and wants as men. This
view is inconsistent with God's nature, To this we say : —
(1.) The plan does not correspond to a human tent. The
seat or throne is set in a dark apartment; the candlestick
in another room. (2.) The food is on the table, the fire on
the altar, but no bed. (3.) Its being made after the pattern
shown in the Mount, proves that it was not made after a
human tent. Others who have held this general view,
said it was an ideal structure for God, who had no need
of shelter, but yet condescended to dwell in a tent. There
is a measure of truth in this, but still it does not explain
the structure.
II. Cosmical Theory. — They say the Tabernacle, &c,
represents the Universe. The Tabernacle represented
heaven, and the Court represented the earth.
Three Modifications of this View :
1. It represented the material heaven and earth. Philo,
Josephus, some Christian Fathers, Talmud and the Rab-

41
bins, held this. They held that the contents of the
Tabernacle were celestial, and those in the Court ter
restrial. The Seven Lamps represented the seven planets;
Twelve Loaves— twelve signs of the Zodiac : Two Cheru-
bim = tho two hemispheres of the heavens, winged to
denote constant motion. Four Materials of the Veil =the
four elements. In the Court, the Laver = the sea. The
Altar=the laud. This view is false because (1) there is
no intimation in Scripture that these objects were repre
sented in the temple. This is what misled Philo and
Josephus. (2) This would be a mere worship of nature,
like the heathen who had these ol jects in their temples.
(3) The very objects here supposed to be represented, are
those which were forbidden to bo represented by images
and worshipped — Deut. 4 : 19; Ex. 20: 4. This would
seduce the people to idolatry by Divine appointment, the
same thing that Manasseh was accused of doing — 2 Kings
21 : 15. (4) The Tabernacle would thus contain none of
the things we should expect to find there in connection
with the Mosaic System.
Second, Modification of the general theory, held by a few
Rabbins, who maintained that there was a literal taber
nacle in the heavens and copied by Moses.
Third, Modification. — That the Tabernacle represented
the invisible heavens. 1. This is based on the fact that
the Scriptures use the same terms in reference to the
Tabernacle as of Heaven ; e.g., " God dwelleth in both."
2. ThatSolomon, in his prayer, (I Kings, 8 : 30) asks that
God would hear in heaven, &c, when they prayed toward
the temple. 3. That this view has the authority of the
N. T., lleb. 9: 24; 9: 11; 8: 2; 6: 20.
Against this we say: The apostle does establish a
relationship between the Tabernacle and Heaven, but not
that of a symbol but of a type. Distinction between symbol
and type to be kept in view. A type is a prophetic symbol.
A symbol is a natural object which represents some spirit
ual truth ; a type is the ultimate form in which that truth
finds representation. What was done by the priest in the
Tabernacle was typical of what Christ does in Heaven.
As to the other arguments: God did dwell in the
Tabernacle and in Heaven ; but the Tabernacle was not
the symbol of Heaven. He manifested himself in both,

42
but in different ways. One was the abode of his conde
scension as the God of Israel, the other the abode of his
glory as the God of the Universe.
Luther's View. — Tabernacle represents the man himself,
the human nature in which God dwells; its two depart
ments represent the soul and spirit. One of Luther's
disciples compares parts of Tabernacle with parts of body.
Bones, muscles, veins, and sinews all represented by parts
of Tabernacle. This confounds type and symbol.
The true meaning is shown (1) by the different expres
sions used in reference to it. It is called the tent or
tabernacle and house, of God; the palace or temple, (1 Sam.
1 : 9) the dwelling place of God. These names are con
founded in the received version, but kept distant in N. V.
These names suggest the idea of earthly residence. God
is not a God afar'off, but near at hand. (2) The design
was expressly declared by God himself (Ex. 25 : 8) as the
place where he would dwell. God was there, and there
spoke and manifested his presence. The people went up
there to meet him and address him.
(3.) The character of the symbol itself: The house was
designed for God, and placed in the centre of his camp.
The several families of the Levites encamped with Moses
and Aaron near it, and three tribes on each side. It was
set by the points of the compass, fronting the East, show
ing it to be set for the whole earth. His kingdom was to
control all the earth ; the end of the Jewish nation was
to correct the world; to correct the idea that -the Jews
were the exclusive favorites of heaven. (4) This general
idea of God dwelling on the earth is further specified (Ex.
27 : 21)=the Tabernacle of the congregation, which reads
in Hebrew, =Tent of meeting — a meeting place for two par
ties—Ex. 29 : 42-43. " Where I will ' meet you." Not
called a meeting house because the people met together,
hut because God met with the people. — Ex. 25 : 22. The
purpose of the meeting was — the Tabernacle of Testimony
or Witness. See Num. 9 : 15; 18:2. God gave to Moses
tables of testimony— Ex. 31: 18; 25 : 16 ; Deut. 31 : 26.
God's commandments are called testimony, because they
testify God's will to men. This is the Tabernacle of testi
mony because it is the place where his will is made
known. The purpose for which God meets his people

43
is shown in the name Sanctuary and also in the special
names Holy' Place and Holy of Holies. Called Sanctuary
not because set apart for sacred duties; still less in the
sense of " asylum," which is a heathen idea. — These ideas
are subordinate. But it did signify imcard moral purity,
the place where holiness is required and imparted. Lev.
21 : 23. The full idea then is — The place where God
dwells with his people in order to testify his will and thus
to sanctity them.
Examination of its structure and meaning of its parts.
1. The Tabernacle proper, vabz.
2. The Court, Upov.
The Tabernacle was in the strict sense the House of
God. The Court was not strictly so. Beyond the outer
veil (translated hanging in Received Version), the people
could not pass, only the representatives of the people, the
priests, could do so. The Tabernacle proper was divided
by another veil — not by solid wall, indicating a perma
nent division. The veil formed an impassable barrier for
the time to all but the High Priest. It was rent and
access open to all at the crucifixion. The veil divided
the Tabernacle into two unequal departments. 1. The
Holy Place into which the Priests could all come. 2.
Holy of Holies into which the High Priest could go, and
he only on the great day of atonement.
The three stages of approach represented —
1. The Court opened to the people.
2. The Holy Place opened to the priests.
3. The Holy of Holies opened to the High Priest once
a year. These representatives secured access and showed that
free entrance was only temporarily withheld. The gifts
of the people could be taken in by the priests. The sym
bols of the people were in the Holy place. These sym
bols showed that in time they might enter there.
The articles in the Holy of Holies signified God's rela
tion to his people. Those in the Holy place signified the
relation of the people to God.

44
Description of the Ark.
It was a wooden chest, overlaid with gold, containing
the two tables of the Law. The cover was a solid slab
of gold on which the two cherubim beaten from the same
slab. Two Explanations.
First. — Based on the term "Ark of the testimony."
Deut. 31 : 26. The book of the Law is here called a witness.
Now it is said that this " book of the Law " is just an
expansion of, or commentary upon the tables of the Law
as delivered upon Mount Sinai. The book was put in the
side of the ark and this reveals the purpose why the tables
were put in the Ark. The '¦ Tables of testimony " were
so called because they are the testimony against the sins
of the people. They say that the golden Mercy seat
covers up this testimony of the sins of the people; and
that the Hebrew word signifies this. This is defective.
(a) When God pardons the sins of the people, he covers
their guilt or sin but not the Law. The Law is not
silenced but satisfied. Paul teaches that believers are free
from the Law, but this is a New Testament declaration.
(b) The analogy of the book of the Law being put in
the side of the Ark is against the case which it was drawn
to adduce. The Books should have been put where the
tables were, on this hypothesis.
(c) The name mercy-seat (Kapporeth. Translated 'daa-
trjpiov in LXX and N. T.) does not mean cover or lid, as
given by Gesenius. There is a Daghesh forte in the Pe,
showing that the Piel is meant, signifying to propitiate or
forgive sin. It was the place where the High Priest
made expiation.
Second Explanation. — The true view is this : The
tables of the Law were God's covenant with Israel and
therefore their most sacred treasure, kept in the Ark as
a place of safety. The Golden Mercy-seat represents the
Throne of God. God's mercy is based on his immutable
Law. It was golden, to show the perfection and beauty
of that mercy. Above the Mercy-seat, between the
Cherubim, was the Shekinah, God's manifested glory.
The cloud betokened his presence. From here he spoke

45
with Moses, Ex. 25: 22. Hence God is said to dwell
between the Cherubim. He occupied this throne not for
wrath or vengeance, but for mercy. It was the Mercy-
seat to represent the presentation and acceptance of the
blood of sacrifice. The Cherubim were composite figures,
(Ex. 25 : 20) having the face of a man and wings. Ez. 1 :
5 ; 10 : 20. The Cherubim are described, but not exactly
the same as in Exodus — Man, Lion, Ox, Eagle. Shows
the concentration in one of all the highest and noblest
qualities in creation. The quintessence of creation, ador
ing and surrounding the throne of God. Such compound
figures were familiar to the people of Assyria and Egypt,
where Moses and Ezekiel lived. The Sphinx of Egypt
consisted of the body of a lion and head of a man. The
Eagle was the king of birds ; the Lion, the king of beasts ;
the Ox, the chief of domestic animals ; the Man, the high
est of intelligent creation. The combination of these
brings together the most noble of the animate creation.
It is the entire animate creation condensed ; the ideal
embodiment of creation, and sets forth the noblest beings
God has made. These were not actual representations,
for the descriptions vary in different parts of Scripture.
In Isaiah 6th, six wings are mentioned; Ez. 1 : 6, four
faces and four wings ; Ez. 41 : 18, every cherub had two
faces ; Rev. 4 : 7-8 — six wings. Though not described
in the Pentateuch, the cherubim of the Ark had one face
and two wings. Each beast represented one of the ele
ments which constituted the Cherubim. (Seraphim are
probably identical with Cherubim.) These variations in
form, while the general character remains the same, show
that they are symbols and not exact images.
This appears first from other parts of Scripture. (1)
Gen. 3 : 24, where first mentioned. " Place at the east
of the garden," &c. (2) They are commonly represented
as being in the immediate presence of God — Isaiah 6, six
wings; Ezekiel 1, "four faces and four wings;" Ezekiel
10, "hands under the wings;" Rev. 4: 6, "full of eyes
before and behind ;" Psalm 18: 10," rode upon a cherub."
(3) In the Mosaic Ritual they are at the ends of the Mercy-
seat, and therefore near the Throne of God. The cur
tains were wrought with Cherubim. Ex. 26 : 1. So also
the Veil— Ex. 26 : 31. The High Priest could enter the

46
Holy of Holies once a year, but the Cherubim remained
there continually. So of the priests in the Holy Place
and the Cherubim there. (4) The language of Peter,
(1 Peter 1 : 12) contains an allusion supposed to refer to
the posture of the Cherubim, with their faces toward the
Ark. Therefore the Cherubim, represented the Angels, the
highest order of created beings. The pure gold repre
sented their purity and extreme value. In Rev. 6: 8-14,
the beasts are represented as leading the praises of the
universe. They were one piece with the Mercy-seat,
therefore they are a part of God's throne, the ground of
his dominion. They were two in number, in order to
show, perhaps, that they were. not a representation of God
himself. They were bended toward the Mercy-seat with
heads bowed in loving adoration. The Holy of Holies
was a perfect cube. The New Jerusalem mentioned in
Revelation, was also a perfect cube, which indicated per
fection. The perfect symmetry of the Holy of Holies
represented the perfection of the room itself. The Holy
Place had a diminished degree of perfection. While the
Court (only 5 cubits high) was a step toward perfection,
it wns not to be compared with the Holy of Holies. The
Holy of Holies had no artificial light. The Shekinah was
the only light. The New Jerusalem needed no light, for
God was the light.
Was the Shekinah permanent ? — Ex. 40 : 34. (1) Some
say that the brilliancy was confined to the times when it
is mentioned. (2) Tradition says that it was continued
down to the time of the Babylonish captivity, and this was
one reason why the latter temple was inferior to the first.
Lev. 16 : 2, implies that the Shekinah was there. " I
will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Others
think that the cloud meant the cloud of incense, but this
is wrong conception.
The Holy Place.
The Holy Place contained (1) the Altar of Incense, (2)
the rla,ble of Shew Bread, and (3) the Candlestick.
I. That of Baehr. As these were in God's house, he
supposes that they represented something belonging to 'or
proceeding from God himself. The table was merely to

47
receive the bread. The Shew Bread, (Leiiem Happantm}
or the bread of the face, of the Divine face, according to
Baehr. The Bread of God which he provides for'his
people; twelve loaves, (Lev. 24: 5) one for each tribe. It
was removed every Sabbath, and what was taken away
was eaten by the priests as the representatives of the
people. Baehr says it represented the Bread of Life, " of
which if a man eat, he shall live forever."
The Candlestick was for the sake of the light which it
was to shed. Baehr says it is the light which God dis
penses to his people. The seven branches denoted the
perfection of the light — Rev. 4: 5; Psalm 12: 6. Ac
cording to Baehr, it was the centre and seat of spiritual
light and life. These two articles one on the north and
the other on the south side, stand in relation to the third
article placed between them directly in front of the ark,,
and separated from it only by a veil, i. e. the Altar of
Incense. Baehr assumes that the incense means the
diffusion of the Name of God, i. e. God as he is revealed,
or His Spirit, himself veiled from sight but made known
by the Spirit. The light and ft'/e-giving Spirit. Hence
the meaning of the Shew Bread and Candlestick. Hence
the Holy Place is the place where the Spirit is diffused as
the source of spiritual life and tight. This opinion is
erroneous and at variance with Scripture. These articles
represented what belonged to God, but not necessarily
what proceeded from God. The furniture of the Holy
Place represented what the people are to do in reference
to God. The Jncense was the symbol of ivorship and prayer.
—Psalms 141 : 2 ; Rev. 5:8; 8 : 3, 4 ; Luke 1 : 10 ;
Num.16: 46. It represented the intercession of the High
Priest. — Lev. 1 .• 16 ; 7 : 9. To burn incense was to offer
worship. It is often mentioned also iu heathen worship.
There is no symbol about which there is less difference of
opinion. The Candlestick is explained in Scripture — Rev. 1: 12-
20 ; Zech. 4. It was a symbol of the church or people of
God. " Ye are the light of the world. Let your light
so shine," &c. The lamps were fed with oil, which is a
symbol of the Holy Spirit. It was used in anointing
Priests and Kings to signify the gift of needed blessings.
Referred to in 1 John 2 f 27. The oil in lamps represented

48
the Holy Spirit given to the church as the source of their
knowledge, holiness and joy.
The Table of Shew Bread, represented what the people
of God are expected to do. Service to be rendered ; —
Lev. 24 : 8, 9. The Bread was not from God but to Him "
from the people. 12 loaves =1 for each tribe. So each
tribe had a share in the ottering. Bread is the fruit of
labor and toil, and represented so much labor done for
God. It also represented their means of subsistence. It
denoted that their lives and property were consecrated to
God. It denoted the devotion of their activity to God's
service. Symbol of good works. Hence incense was
placed upon it, (Lev. 24: 7) to denote the union of prayer
and good works. The Bread was renewed every Sab
bath, showing that good works are to be perpetual. None
could eat it but the priests This shows that they who
work for God are fed from his table. David ate of it
when in need, hence we see that the outward ceremony
gave way to a case of necessity.
Have these articles of furniture any significance in
themselves ?
1. Some say not : — that they are only instrumental and
have no inherent meaning, hence are not symbolic. This
theory is not true for we know that the Candlestick was
a symbol of the church.
2. Some say that the Altar and Table were symbols
per se, as the Candlestick and the Altar represented the
Church as the offerer of prayer, and the Table rep
resented the Church as the bearer of good works. This
is not conclusive for:
(a.) Although the Candlestick is a symbol, there is no
such declaration as to the Table and the Altar.
(b) The Altar cannot be symbolical of the church,
because it must always have the same meaning and this
would not apply to the Altar of Burnt Offering in the
Court. It would not explain the horns of the altar and
the atonement.
(c) There was nothing in the construction of the Table
or Altar to fit them for such symbolism, but in the Candle
stick there was.
(d) There was a radical difference in their character.
The Candlestick was an agent in producing light ; the Altar

49
and the Table were not agents in producing incense and
bread and therefore cannot represent the church as the
offerer and performer. They only receive what is pre
pared elsewhere They were but vessels. The Bread
on the table becomes the offering, and the incense on the
altar. The table is thus a modified altar. Simply the
place to which the offering is brought. The candlestick
is not merely a place on which oil is poured but where
light is produced. It is an instrument which, by the infu
sion of oil and fire, gives light. As to its form and material.
The Candlestick was made of gold to indicate its purity —
branching and with buds to indicate that the church is a
tree, spreading,, living, thriving and fruitful. The symbols
of the Holy Place therefore represent the offerings of
God's people, prayer and good works, and the people of
God. The Furniture of the Court:
The Brazen Altar and Lever.
1. Altar. This was for sacrifice and was called brazen
from its hollow frame of boards overlaid with brass or
rather bronze. Ex.22: 1-8. The Altar itself was made
of earth and stones. Ex. 20 : 24, 25. This shows that the
altar was not a human structure in its conception, but an
ascent toward heaven, signifying drawing near to God.
Thus Noah sacrificed on Mt. Ararat; Abraham on Mt.
Moriah; Moses and Aaron communed with God on top
of Mt. Sinai. Ex. 24: 29. There was a tendency to
worship God on the tops of mountains and high hills and
in groves, whose silence denoted solemnity. Gen. 21 : 33.
Other nations had this idea. Mt. Olympus in Greece was
the abode of their Gods. An altar represented a moun
tain in miniature, an ascent toward heaven, and God
comes down to meet the offerer there. When the Greeks
offered to the Gods of the lower world, they offered in
trenches. The word altar in the Heb. MiZBEHA=to lift
up. Altar from alius high — Greek firjfjuz from fiaivto. Ex.
20: 24. There was such a place to meet God in each
division of the Tabernacle. In the Court, the Altar of
Burnt Offering; in the Holy Place, the Altar of Incense;
and the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. The divine
presence was to-be met in each, and expiation and forgive
ness given in each of these places. This rendered the

50
Tabernacle the house of meeting and entitled it to the
name of the House of God. (2.) The Laver—Ex. 30 :
18. It is less minutely described than any other article
in the Tabernacle. It was for Aaron and his sons to wash
in, when they went into the Tabernacle at the northern
door, or approached the Altar,— Ex. 30: 19-21. This
symbolized the need of purity. The hands doing God's
will and the feet treading on sacred ground. Moses at the
burning bush, and Joshua in the preseuce of the captain
of the Lord's host, were directed to loose their shoes from
off their feet. The Laver, (Ex. 38 : 8) was made of the
looking-glasses or metallic mirrors of the women. These
mirrors were converted into instruments of cleansing and
this was an instance of consecrating what was secular to
sacred ends.
Other views. — Some make wood a symbol of life and
shittim wood of immortality.
Metals light; gold, splendor of heaven ; copper, light of
God, as manifested on earth; silver, purity.
This is overdone. Woochjand metal most accessible
and natural materials — stone unsuitable — shittim wood
only kind available. Temple was made of cedar. Purity
and brilliancy adorned, but preciousness was considered —
noblest to he used. Metals disposed in order of value.
Tabernacle and furniture adorned with gold — silver
sockets intermediate. Copper used in court. There is
a gradation in use according to value and prominence.
Measurements. — Attention is drawn to recurrence of
particular numbers — some numbers more fit — how?
One is uncompounded — two is dualistic opposition —
3 resolves and harmonizes. In pagan world 3 represented
superior divinities. Not decided whether reference is
made to the Trinity. 4 comes from 3, so world comes
from God. Right angle and squares — 4 points, 4 sides,
4 elements, etc. All symbolical numbers are resolvable
into these — 3 + 4= God + world — 7, or totality of the
universe. Circumcision after 7 days, — Feast for 7 days, —
Purification 7 days, — Sabbath every seventh day, —
7 planets, — wise men 7. 3x4 = 12= universe gov
erned. by God. 12 tribes — 12 jewels in breastplate —
12 stones on Jordan — 12 apostles — 12 gates in new Jeru
salem — 12 signs of Zodiac.

1 + 2 + 3+4= 10 — symbol of completeness, 10 com

mandments— 10 plagues — j\ tith

ic.

It is more satisfactory to take a realistic view. 7 derived
its sacredness from creation ; — 12, number of sons of
Jacob; — 10, from universal decimal division of numbers;
ten figures, — representative number of completeness.
Few numbers can be explained by convenience, but by this
way. 3 degrees of comparison, — 4 symmetry,— 7 lamps, —
12 loaves — 4 X 12 boards, — 4 cu. wide, — 4 X 7 curtains
— 10 unit for terrestrial measurements— 5 of court— silver-
sockets 10 X 10, &c.
Mosaic Origin of Tabernacle.
Critical Objections. I. The people had not wealth, skill
or leisure to construct such an edifice. But, valuables
brought from Egypt helped them, and their long stay in
Egypt had given them skill. Ex. 12 : 35, 36. Of. Ex.
19: 1; 24: 18; 34: 28 ; 40 : 17.
If. Alleged conflicting accounts respecting time, and
location of Tabernacle, &c
(a) Ex. 33 : 1-11 alleged to be account of departure
from Sinai differing from Num. 10 : 11 sq. Kno-bel says
because of sin of Golden Calf they wept. Dillman ex
punges v. 3, (for I will not, &c.,) and v. 5, (ye are a
 consume thee).- As text stands God's presence is
contrasted with God's angel. Angel v. 3, same as Ex.
23 : 20 sq. Dillman thinks that this is not the meaning
of passage because God's angel = God. According to
present text people mourn because God will not go with
them ; Dillman says, they are grieved because they are
leaving Sinai where God's presence has been manifested.
They stripped themselves of ornaments for building taber
nacle, account of which has been left out between vs. 6 and
7, herein contrary to Ch. 35 : 40. In 7th verse the Taber
nacle is spoken of as already made.
(b) Tabernacle located outside of camp, contrary to
Num. Ch. 2. Verbs in fut., in Ex. 33: 7-11 denoting
customary action. Num. 10 : 33 ; Josh. 3 : 3, 4 ark pre
cede the host contradictory to Num. 10: 26; Num. 11:
26, " in the Camp," contrasted with " going out into the
Tabernacle."

52
(c) Ex. 33: 11; Joshua an Ephraimite in the Taber
nacle, contrary to Num. 3 : 10-38 ; 18 : 7. But only
revelation spoken of, not sacrifice. Tabernacle a simple
tent, not an elaborate structure.
Answer — (a). These discrepancies are due to the critics
themselves. Passages are taken out of context, expurgated
and interpolated by critics. The Sin of Golden Calf had
broken the Covenant, God refuses to recognize Israel as
his people. People which Moses had brought out. Not
angel of Jehovah, but a mere angel. Now the people
mourn and lay off their ornaments; no gift from the
people would have been acceptable, (b). A visible token
of God's estrangement was given by making a tent out
side the Camp. " The tent" Ex. 33 : 7 ; (1) Moses' own
as LXX. and Ex. 18: 7; (2) are previously in use and
well known, though not before mentioned. Cf. Ex. 19:
22. (3). Definite in writer's mind. Definite article only
proves this. Cf. Gen. 14 : 13 ; Num. 11 : 27 ; 1 Sam. 9 : 9.
Pitching outside of Camp was temporary and significant,
because not ordinary. Nothing in passage to intimate
that this was customary except so long as this state of
things lasted.
(c) That God revealed His will and no mention is made
of sacrifice is because laws of sacrifice were not yet
promulgated and Joshua was there because a Levite and
Aaron not yet set apart. Ex. 34 : 10 sq. Provisional
Tabernacle again alluded to in Ex. 34: 34, 35.
(d) Alleged that Mosaic Tabernacle is not mentioned in
historical books except in Joshua until David. They
discredit Joshua or attach to Pentateuch, .-. not men
tioned at all. Chronicles which mentions it was written
after the exile, and when mentioned it is speaking of the
time of David and Solomon. But it is based on earlier
and well-authenticated manuscripts. They say Assyrian
Captivity referred to in Judges.
But: Judges, Samuel and Kings are not silent. Jud.
18 : 30, 31, cf. Josh. 18 : 1, " Captivity of Land." So I.
Sam. 4: 10, 11, 22, cf. Ps. 78 : 60, 61. Jud. 19: 18; 21 :
19 in early part of period of Judges. Jud. 18 : 1, 20, 28;
at close of this period; I Sam. 1: 3-7; not local sanctuary
2 : 14 ; Mosaic 2 : 22.

53
(e) Alleged that it was not a tout but a house. 1 Sam.
1: 7, 24; 3: 15; Jud. 18: 31; 19: 18. A Temple,! Sam.
1 : 9 ; 2 : 3 Cf. II Sam. 7 : 2 ; I Cbr. 6 : 32, with posts 1 : 9,
and doors 3 : 15 ; and in which Samuel slept, I Sam. 3: 3.
Therefore it is said it had doors and door-posts, and fold
ing doors. And Samuel slept in Tabernacle of God.
But: (1) Gen. 28: 7 Jacob speaks of Bethel "House
of God," and no tent but only a stone. Ex. 23 : 19; 34
26; Deut. 23: 18; Josh. 6 : 24 : II Sam. 12: 20; Cf. 6
17:1 Chr. 6: 31, 32; Ps. 23: fi ; 52: 8; 55: 14; 102
1 ; 18 : 6 ; 29 : 9 ; 68 : 29; 5:7; 65 : 4 ; especially Ps. 27
4, 5, 6. Exodus speaks of " House of the Lord," and also
Samuel. II Sam. 7 : 76.
(2) Again that it was same sanctuary, — candlestick and
ark. 1 Sam. 2 : 22, 28 ; 3:3; 4:4 expressly said to be
the Tabernacle. God said in the time of David he had
never dwelt in a house made with hands.
(3) Doors : II Sam. 7:6; I Chr. 1 7 : 5 ; I Kings 8 : 6.
During long abode solid structures may have been built
around it in which Samuel slept.
(f) Alleged that there was another temple at Nob.
But: when the ark was captured God forsook Shiloh ;
and in the reign of Saul the Tabernacle was removed to
Nob ; I Sam. 21 where was same priesthood as formerly
at Shiloh. I Sam. 22 : 1 ; Cf. 14 : 3; also I Sam. 22 : 20 ;
28 : 6, Cf. I Kings, 2:27; the Shew Bread, I Sam. 21:6;
the Ephod v. 9 ; the place for inquiry of the Lord, 22 : 10,
15. A.rk was not returned to Tabernacle when Ephod
was brought away, David hid in his camp, 23 : 2, 4, 9.
When Nob was destroyed, 1 Sam. 22 : 19 the Tabernacle
was removed to Gibeou,I Chr. 21: 29; II Chr. 1:3; and
thence taken to the temple, IK. 8 : 4.
Great pains have been taken to show that this is David's
tent. They say if tabernacle had been in existence ark
would have been returned to it, but it was kept inKirjath
Jearim at a private house until David took it to Mt. Zion.
This was not David's tent because tbev are distinguished
from each other. I Chr. 16 : 1 ; 37 : 39 : II Chr. 1 : 3, 4
Ewald says, Philistines destroyed Shiloh, but God's allow
ing the ark to be taken was his forsaking Israel. (Jer. 7 :
12, 14). Why was ark kept in a private house ? I Sam.
7:1; Jer. 7 : 12, 14 ; 26 : 6 ; '

54
19, &c. When Israel lamented loss of ark (I Sam. 6)
repentance was required. Not till David (II Sam. 6) was
Israel restored.
It is said if Moses' Tabernacle had been in existence
David would have transferred it. But David saw a new
stage was begun. Unsettled wandering was represented
by tent. Permanent location (II Sam. 7:10) David
was forbidden to build, hut Solomon. He made a tem
porary resting place till Solomon should build.
It is said that if Solomon could have offered 6000 bul
locks it was sufficient. But Solomon had new vessels
I K. 7 : 40-48. Also said that description of the Taber
nacle was after idea of Temple. The points of the com
pass determined its position. This only means it was
always set this way and not that it was fixed. The side
of ark was not toward south of Palestine but toward the
South. Gulf of Mexico and South.
Sacred Actions. — Sacrifices.
There are two classes of sacred actions: (1) offerings,
(2) purifications. Offerings were the most sacred and
could be performed only at the sanctuary. Purification
could be performed anywhere. The word offering =
Korban — r>(dpov'= gift. This word, used also in Mark 7:
11, denotes anything brought near to God, and hence in-
eludes what was brought to adorn the Sanctuary and to
maintain the Priests, as well as those for offerings.
1. Gifts for the House of God.
2. " " Ministers of God.
3. " " God himself— -offerings.
Those designed for the Altar are: (a) Animal or
bloody, (b) Vegetable or bloodless. The first consisted
of oxen, sheep and goats, and in cases of extreme pov
erty, doves and pigeons The second consisted of grain
and flour, oil and wine, brea <; or cakes. Salt and incense
were added as an accompaniment but were not a part of
the offering. Honey and leaven were expressly prohibited.
Why were these particular objects offered ? The answer
depends on the ideas held as to what the sacrifice repre
sented.

I. Materialistic View. That it was intended as food for
the deity. These were given him because they were the
nsual articles of food, which he needed as well as light
and shelter. Answer— 1. This is utterly inconsistent
with the character of God. It is opposed'to the Spiritu
ality of God, which was constantly taught. Ps. 50 : 12-13.
2. The principal and most essential element of the sacri
fice was blood, and this was expressly prohibited as food.
II. Pecuniary View. That the sacrifice was a penalty or
fine exacted as a condition of pardon ; and that the mate
rial offered represented their wealth and property. An
swer — 1. The prominence given to blood is not explained
by this. 2. The limitation in the objects ottered is not
explained. Why would not camels, asses, costly garments
and furniture answer equally well ?
III. Exclusively TypiccdVie to That the sole design was
to prefigure Christ and his work, and the materials selected
were to set forth his personal qualities of a Redeemer, or
his official character, or the nature of his work. Answer
— This is defective for: (1.) It is a mistake to suppose
that this is the sole object. The design of types is to set
forth truths and not to delineate objects. (2.) This leads
to far-fetched explanations and analdgies. If a lamb was
sacrificed to represent Christ, why not a Lion, since he
was called the Lion of the tribe of Judah ? Why- were
hulls and goats sacrificed, since they are represented in
the Scripture- as enemies, (Ps. 22 : 12 and Matt. 25 : 3)
and why not the roe and hart, Canticles 2 : 17 ?
What particular qualities were each designed to repre
sent ? Why were different animals offered, and why of
different age and sex ? Why sacrificed at different times ?
Why grain, and why so prepared ? Some say that the
fine flour represented Christ's sufferings from the fact of
its being ground ; and cakes, because they were prepared
by fire. (3 ) These allusions would have been utterly
unintelligible to the Jews, and thus the types would have
failed of their object.
IV. Spiritualistic View. That the sacrifice represented
the inward spiritual transaction of the offerer. The ani
mal repiesented the offerer. The death of the animal
represented his death for sin. The presentation of blood
represented the consecration of his life to God, hence

56
those objects are proper to be offered which best serve as
symbols of the offerer.
Answer — (1.) A sacrifice would then signify an inward
change of heart but no atonement for sin. Lev. 1: 4.
(2.) There is no foundation in Scripture for the assump
tion that the sacrifice represented the offerer himself. It
symbolized not a sinner but a sinless being. The heathen
offerings vary according to the divinity and not according
to the offerer. The animal was not chosen as a repre
sentative of man, but as one acceptable to the divinity.
(3.) The thing to be represented is forgiveness and purifi
cation. This, the sacrifice of the animal could not teach.
There is nothing to suggest a return to spiritual life.
The animal remains dead, unlike the case of the purifica
tion of the leper. Lev. 14 : 49-53.
V. The True View. That the offerings were to set forth
(a) Expiation for sin, and (b) Consecration to God;=a
vicarious atonement and an oblation to God. The animal
sacrifices showed both, the vegetable only the latter. The
victim is not a symbol of the offerer, but a substitute.
The substitute is slain ; showing that the forfeited life has
been taken. The arguments in favor of this;
1. This is the old traditional view.
2. This will explain all forms of the service.
3. This is in accordance with scripture.
4. This is conformable to the design of Christ's death.
5. This presents the most satisfactory explanation for
the limitation of animals in the sacrifice. An oblation
(1.) Must be his own possession.
(2 ) The product of his toil. This excludes spontaneous
productions, and fruits and wild animals.
(3.) It should be his food by which his life is sustained,
as a pledge of his life being consecrated toGod. This ex
cludes what may be raised for show, &c.
A Substitute must be (1.) an animal having .a life to give.
Lev. 5: 11 is the only exception, and it proves the "rule.
(2.) This life must be a sinless life, not only negatively
but positively; clean and without blemish ; at least in a
symbolic and ceremonial sense. This last consideration
excludes human sacrifice. (3.) Yet a substitute should
possess a community of nature with the offerer, hence the
use of domestic animals as being most closelv allied to
man.

57
Significance of these Acts.
Meaning of the acts included in the Animal Sacrifice,
Lev. 1 : 1-9. After the presentation of the victim at the
Tabernacle the sacrificial service included : 1. Laying on
of hands. 2. Killing the victim. 3. Sprinkling the blood.
4. Burning the animal cither whole or in part. Besides
these there were, 5. Pecuniary compensation in the tres
pass offering, and 6. A sacrificial feast in the peace offer
ing. The first four were common to all sacrifices.
I. Laying on of hands, Lev. 1: 4. The offerer put his
hand on the head of the animal. The imposition of hands
is always employed in Scripture to denote the impartation
of something by a person authorized or qualified to do so.
(1) Giving Blessing. Gen 48: 13,14; Matt. 19: 12-15.
(2) Giving Holy Ghost. Acts 8 : 17-18; 19: 6.
(3) Conferring Office. Deut. 34: 9; Num. 8: 16: Acts
6: 6; I Tim. 4: 14..
(A) Impartation of Miraculous Virtue. Alatth. 9:18;
Mark, 6:5.
(5) Witnesses laid hands on a blasphemer's' head. Lev.
24: 14. Putting guilt where it belongs.
This ceremony always denotes the impartation of some
thing, and refutes all views in which this element is not
found. First View. Philo says that it is an exhibition of the
hands of the offerer, and denotes his innocence. This is
not true, for a different ceremony would have been more
appropriate, such as the washing of hands. E. g. Pilate.
Second View. That it designated the animal as the
property of the offerer, corresponding to the Roman
ceremonyof manumission of slaves, and his consecration
of it to God. But both these ideas were shown sufficiently
by the act of bringing the animal to the Sanctuary.
Third View. That it was a solemn consecration of the
victim, but if so, the priest, and not the ofterer, would
have laid his hand upon it.
Fourth and true View. It can only mean that the guilt
of the offerer is transferred to the victim — not his moral
character, but his liability to punishment. This appears:
(1.) From express explanation of this ceremony in Lev.
16: 21. (2.) It may be inferred from the position which

58
the laying on of hands holds in the sacrificial service.
It occurs in all animal sacrifices, except that of cloves, and
never in the vegetable offerings. This shows that it must
be related to something peculiar to the animal sacrifice,
i. e., the atonement. This act is done by the ofterer, and
not by the priest, and therefore indicates something con
nected with himself. It also follows the presentation of
the victim and immediately precedes the slaughter. The
effect of imposition of hands is to qualify the victim to
make atonement for the sin of the offerer. Lev. 1 : 4.
(3.) This is the ancient, traditional, and commonly
received explanation
Some recent interpreters have made a distinction in the
signification of this ceremony in the different kinds
of sacrifices. Holding that in the sin-offering it denoted a
transfer of the guilt of the ofterer, but in the burnt-offer
ing it signified the desire of the ofterer to be consecrated
to God. In the peace-offering it denoted gratitude and
thankfulness to God. Reply.— (a.) Although the ultimate
aim is different in each, the immediate end is the same in
all, i. e., atonement for sin. (b.) The transfer of legal
relations is easily comprehended, but we cannot conceive
of a transfer of the emotions of the offerer, (c) Lev. 1 : 4
expressly says that the acceptance of the atonement de
pends on the laying on of hands in the burnt-offering.
The hands were laid on the head not for convenience
sake, but because the penalty was a capital one.
II. Slaying. of the Sacrifice. The infliction of the pen
alty. It showed the doctrine of substitution which is
taught in Isaiah 53! Various views.
1. Some say that slaying here means only renunciation
of the victim and surrender of it to God on the part of
the offerer. The death rendering it useless to the offerer.
Complete consecration to God. This falls with the error
on which it is based, which is not analogous to the Roman
custom of manumission
2. Spiritualistic Vicir.— That it represented the dying of
a sinful nature and the giving up of a worldly life, and
obtaining communion with God by presentation at his
altar. Answer — (1.) The victim was not a symbol of the
offerer, but a sinless substitute. (2.) The life of the ani-

59
mal cannot represent a sinful life. The imputation of sin
transfers the liability to punishment, and not the moral
character. Christ was our substitute, but did not possess
our sinful nature. (3.) The death of one to whom sin is
imputed cannot be the medium of bringing the offerer
near to God, except as being a substitute for him. (4.)
This makes inward holiness the ground of pardon, and
sanctification to precede justification. The death of the
animal here means that the offerer thus dies unto sin,
whereas his sin must be atoned for as a preliminary to his
being brought into communion with God.
3. This view regards the slaying as merely an indispen
sable means of securing the blood and flesh, and has no
significance in or of itself, except as a penalty.
Answer — (1.) The slaying of the victim was an integral
part of the ritual, prescribed to be done at the Tabernacle
in the presence of the priests, &c (2.) This is tantamount
to a confession that it is the penalty of the law endured
in the offerer's stead.
4. Penal View. — It lias been objected to this true penal
view, (1) that the victim was slain by the ofterer and not
by the priest.
Answer — (a ) The sinner is his own destroyer, (b.)
The sinner is his own accuser and confessor, (c.) It is
typically significant of Christ. Doves were, slain by the
priests because of the scarcity of blood.
Objection (2.) — This makes the slaying of more conse
quence than the sprinkling. Answer — (a.) In a judicial
view, it is still the sprinkling which actually effects the
expiation, (b.) The slaying is an equally essential part
of the ritual.
III. Sprinkling of the Blood.— Different Views. — 1. That
it was the complement to the act of slaying. This is not
so, for fa.) The blood was not wasted but carefully gath
ered, and (b.) It was brought to a specified place and used
in a prescribed way.
2. Spiriluedistic View. — That the bringing of the blood,
which is the life, to the altar, represented that the life of
the ofterer shall be made holy and sanctified. Answer —
(a.) According to Lev. 1:4; 7 : 11, the blood makes the
atonement and is not itself atoned for. (b.) It is distin
guished from the offerer as making the atonement for
him, not as a symbol, but a substitute.

60
3. The blood was sprinkled upon the sacred vessels
because they were regarded as defiled by the sins of the
people, and the blood covered this defilement. This is
argued from Lev. 16 : 15-19. Answer— la.) It would be
more natural to sprinkle the ofterer himself, who was the
sinner, (b.) A separate service was used for the atone
ment of the Sanctuary once a year, but not in every sac
rifice. 4. True View. — It is an exhibition at the altar of the
blood which has been shed for the offerer, and represents
expiation and that death has been suffered. The blood
was sprinkled (1) on the Brazen Altar; (2) at the Golden
Altar of Incense; (3) at the Mercy seat — at places where
God especially met with his people. The fact of his re
quiring it to be placed there, denoted his acceptance of it.
IV. Burning of the Victim at the Altar. With the
sprinkling, the atonement was completed. Now comes
the oblation, which was accomplished by burning the
victim. This was common to the animal and vegetable
offering. Some regarded the fire as the wrath of God,
showing that temporal death did not exhaust the penalty
of the law, but that the vengeance of eternal fire should
follow. Answer — (a.) Fire may be regarded as a purifier
as well as a destroyer. It leaves the earthly portion here
and carries the rest heavenward, (b.) The whole penalty
of the law is represented by the death of tthe victim, (c.)
This burning follows the sprinkling, by which expiation
has been already effected, (d.) The victim is said to be a
sweet savor unto the Lord. — Lev. 1 : 9. (o.) The blood
less offering was also burned on the altar. There was no
sin represented in these offerings, hence the symbol must
mean the same in both cases. The fire carries "the sacrifice
to God relieved from all earthly dross. It is" an oblation
of food made to Him— Lev. 21: 6-8. It is a tribute re
turned to God for most necessary gifts — not to absolve
from further consecration, but pledges property, labor and
life, all to God. Rom. 12: 1; Psalms 40: 6-8. The
animal was skinned, for the skin was not used for food,
and the flesh washed, so that the offering might be clean
— free from defilement.

61
Different Kinds of Sacrifice.
They were not first instituted by Moses. They existed
from the earliest Bible History. Moses modified, regulated
and enlarged them. What had been left to the pleasure
of the offerer, was now explicitly determined by Divine
statute. Rigor, precision and complexity succeed freedom
and simplicity, &c. This was progress. The elements
were separated and made distinct to the mind of the
offerer with an ultimate reference to Christ. The Burnt-
offering was the principal form in ths Patriarchal System.
Besides this was the " Sacrifice." Gen. 46 : 1. In Ex.
10 : 25, this is distinguished from the the burnt-offering.
In Gen. 31 : 54, a sacrificial feast formed part of the
service. This must have corresponded to the Peace-
offering. Vegetable-offering, Gen. 4:3; Drink-offering, Gen.
35 : 14. — That these were not distinct offerings in former
times appears from Gen. 8 : 20, where Noah offers a
Bund offering. The Mosaic ritual would have required a
Peace-offering. See also Job 1 : 5; 42: 8. Burnt-offer
ings instead of »S'm-offerings.
There were two ideas in the Sacrifices : 1. Atonement —
— -.Expiation by sprinkling of blood. 2. Oblation — Con
secration by burning on the altar. The Sin-offering
emphasizes Atonement. The Burnt-offering emphasizes
Oblation, — -whole victim burned.
There were two other offerings : 3. Trespass- offering,
with the idea of satisfaction by pecuniary compensation.
4. Peace-offering, with the idea of restored communion
with God by means of a sacrificial feast. When different
kinds of sacrifices are to be offered together they are
invariably named 'n order, and Sin-offering always pre
cedes Burnt-offering, and both of these before the Peace-
offering. Ex. 29 : 14, 18, 24. Judges 20 : 26 ; Ez. 45 : 17.
The Sin and Trespass offerings were designed to restore
the Theocratic relations with God. The Burnt and Peace-
offerings, to express and maintain these relations.
I. Distinction between the Sin and Trespass-offer
ings. Various Opinions. — 1. That there was no real
difference. The offerer could do as he chose. 2. That
the Sin-offering was for sins of ignorance, and the Tres
pass-offering for other venial sins. 3. That the Sin-offering

62
was for sins of omission, and the Trespass-offering for sins
of commission. 4. That the Sin-offerings were for sins
voluntarily confessed, and the Trespass-offerings for sins
proven by testimony. 5. That the Sin-offering was for
lighter sins, and the Trespass-offering for more serious
offences. The True View. — That the Sin-offering was for simple
transgression of the Law, and the Trespass-offering for
trespass or injury against God or fellow-men, for which
amends must be made together with one-fifth in addition.
The Trespass offering was also required in cleansing a
leper, because he must make amends for bis lack of service-
to God during his defilement. Also required of a Nazarite
who had a special vow, and had contracted ceremonial
uncleanness in the meantime. The ritual of tliese two
offerings was determined by their character and design.
The animal varied according to the theocratic standing of
the offerer, in the Sin-offering. For the sins of the entire
people, or of the High Priest as the representative of the
people, a young bullock was required. For an ordinary
ruler, a he-goat. For one of the common people, a she-
goat or sheep. For the poor, two doves or pigeons. For
extreme poverty, one-tenth of an ephah of flour. The
enormity of the sin was aggravated by the standing of the
sinner. This gradation is peculiar to the Sin-offering. Li
the Trespass-ottering, a ram was required in every case,.
because the damage was the same, irrespective of the
wealth of the offerer. The iSm-oft'ering was for the whole
people, and was offered at the annual feasts, to atone for
th e unconscious sins of the whole people in the interval.
No Trespass-offering was required, because the nature
of this required the particular sin to be made known.
Only a single animal was offered in the Sin and Trespass-
offering. There was an indefinite number in the Burnt
and Peace-offerings. Because in the Sin and Trespass-
offerings the expiation for sin was the pure act of God's
grace, and not to be purchased by the number of the
offerings. In the Burnt and Peace-offerings, which rep
resented the inward devotion of the heart, and therefore
could be intensified, an indefinite number of victims
might be offered. At the dedication of the temple, tens
and hundreds of thousands were offered. The great idea

63
of the Trespass-offering is satisfaction for sin, reparation
for damage by pecuniary compensation. In the Sin-offer
ing, the prominence is given to the sprinkling of blood,
and the great idea is expiation for sin. The blood was
brought to the altar in every sacrifice; but in the others it
was sprinkled round about the altar, while in the Sin-
offering a greater formality was required.
(1) In the case of the High Priest. The blood was taken
by the Priest on his finger, and smeared on the horns of
the altar; these were the vertices or culminating points,
the idea being that the virtue in it rose to its maximum.
The rest of the blood was poured at the base of the altar.
See Lev. 4: 3-12.
(2.) In the case of the sin. of the whole people. The blood
was carried into the Holy Place and sprinkled seven times
in front of the rail, and was also taken on the finger of the
Priest and put on the horns of the Golden Altar of Incense,
while he poured the rest of the blood at the base of the
Altar in the court. Lev. 13: 21. On the great Day of
Atonement, the High Priest took the blood of the sin-
offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat in the Holy
of Holies.
In the case of the Sin. and Trespass-offering, the fat only
was to burned on the altar; the flesh was given to the
Priests to be eaten in the court, in case the sacrifice was
for a layman ; but if for the priest or for the whole peo
ple, it was to be burned in a clean place without the camp.
Lev. 6 : 25.
Different Explanations of this rule.
These offerings were made unholy by the sin imputed
to them ; therefore the flesh could not be burned with
acceptance on God's altar, but must be consumed in some
other way, either outside the camp or be eaten by the
priests. This symbolized the annihilation of the sin
which had been imputed to it. If eaten, it was supposed
to be absorbed in the holiness of the priests. If the
priest was the sinner, or the people, then the holiness re
quired to consume the sin was lacking. Hence the flesh
must be burned. In support of this, those who hold it
quote Lev. 10 : 17. They inferred that the eating of the
Sin-offering by Aaron and his sons was equal to consum
ing the sin of the people. This is not necessarily the

64
meaning of the passage. That this view is not correct
appears~from Lev. 16:^25 and 10 : 17. The flesh is there
called " most holy," also Lev. 6: 20-29. It was eaten
only in the Holy Place, and anything it touched was made
holy by it. It must be washed in the Holy Place, and a
brazen pot in which it was sodden must be rinsed and
scoured, and an earthen vessel was to be broken, because
it was too holy for any other use. The fat was burned
on the Altar." This would not have been so, if there were
any defilement in the animal ; nor would the priest be
allowed to eat defilement. The sin had already been
atoned for, by the sprinkling of the blood before the flesh
was to be eaten. The burning of it outside the camp, in
a clean place whither the ashes had been carried, was
analogous to the burning of what was left from the Pass
over and Peace-offering,"and was to preserve it from decay
and corruption. The priests could not eat the sacrifice
offered for themselves, because they could not profit by
their own sins. They were God's servants, and therefore
were to be fed from His table.
II. Burnt-offering. — Emphasized oblation and con
secration. Its characteristic was the burning of the whole
eatable portion of the animal, and the skin given to the
priest. It could be offered at any time, and was the most
frequent of the offerings. The other offerings were for
special occasions. There was a regular public Burnt-
offering for every day, consisting of a lamb every morn
ing and evening. The fire was never allowed to go out.
On the Sabbath, the daily Burnt offering was doubled.
On the first of the month there was a larger offer
ing; and at the annual feast, larger still. It was
the only kind of offering that could be offered alone.
No act of worship was acceptable without the
consecration which the burnt-offering represented. Any
kind of clean, animals might be offered. It must be
without blemish and a male, except in the case of Doves
where there was but little difference in the size of the two
sexes, (and yet the masculine suffix is used in the case of
Doves.) In the Sin-offering, where gradation was re
quired, this was made in part by distinction of gender.
Males were considered higher than females. The female
was not allowed in the Burnt-offering at all. Some say

65
that the male represented greater strenuousness, &c, on
the part .of the offerer, to God's service. But difference
in size is the most plausible explanation.
III. The Peace-offering— To express and ratify peace
with God. Its characteristic feature was a feast, which
signified peace and communion with God. When this
Sacrifice is mentioned in a series, it is the highest and
last. Three kinds are recognized.
1. Thanksgiving in acknowledgment of some benefit
from God, or for God's mercy in general.
2. Vows in fulfillment of pledges previously given.
3. Free-will offering of the inward, spontaneous im
pulse. Peace-offerings were presented for benefits desired, as
well as for benefits received. Judges 20 : 26 ; 21 : 4 ; 1
Sam. 13: 9; 2 Sam. 24:25.
Any sacrificial animal, male or female, might be pre
sented, according to the wish of the offerer. It could be
male or female. Doves and pigeons are not mentioned,
because this sacrifice was not urgent, and so the very poor
did not need to offer at all. Moreover, doves and pigeons
would have been unsuitable for the sacrificial feast which
followed. The animal must be without blemish. Only
in the free-will offering one " superfluous or lacking in its
parts" might be presented. It was a spontaneous gift,
so an animal of less value would be accepted.
The disposition of the flesh was peculiar to this kind of
sacrifice. The richest fat was burned on the altar. The
breast and right shoulder or ham were waved or heaved and
given to the priests ; the ham to the friends who minis
tered in this particular sacrifice, and the breast to the
priests in general.
There was no particular meaning in them, as that the
breast = " affection," and the shoulder = " work." They
are choice parts. These are called technically the wave
breast and heave shoulder, because of the consecration by
waving and heaving. There is a tradition about this
ceremony. The waving was by some supposed to be a
horizontal motion toward each of the four points of the
compass, first to right, then to left. Others think that it
was waved forward, toward the sanctuary, and then back
ward again. This, they say, showed it to be given to

66
God and then God gave it to the priests. The heaving
was the raising of it up to heaven and lowering it again-;
toward heaven to dedicate to God, and toward earth,
given by God to priests.
The rest of the flesh was given to the offerer, who, with
his family and friends and some needy Levites, ate it.
This symbolized communion with God and his people.
1. The Spiritualistic Vieio. That the animal represented
the offerer himself. Part was given to God on the altar,
and part given to the priests, (i. e., God's people,) and
thus the offerer was brought into union and fellowship
with God and his people. The objections to this view
are :
(1) The offerer eats a symbol of himself. He was not
excluded from the sacrificial feast.
(2) The priests and the friends form two separate com
panies, but according to this they should be one.
2. The True View. That this is a feast in which God
is the host, and the offerer and friends are guests. This
appears : (1.) The flesh was the flesh of a sacrifice which
belonged wholly to the Lord. (2.) Not only that which
was burned, but that which was eaten, is called the
" bread of God." Lev. 7 : 20-21 ; 21 : 22. (3.) It was to
be eaten before the Lord iD his court. ,(4.) From N. T.,
1 Cor. 10 : 18-t21, we learn that the offerer is the guest
of that deity of whose sacrifice he eats. (5.) Analogy of
the Lord's supper, and of the parables of our Lord. (6.)
This view is necessary to the significance of the emblems.
This feast is a symbol of and a pledge of friendship, peace,
and communion with -God. It is upon the flesh of a sacri
ficial animal, and is an inward appropriation of the
benefits of the sacrifice. The guests represented the
whole body of God's people. It was impossible for them
all to get together in one place and at one time, (except
in such a case as the dedication of the temple,) and so a
selection must be made. And the family and friends
composed the coirrpany and represented the entire body
of God's people. So, in the case of the Passover, eacn
company represented the entire people of -God. So also in
the Lord's supper. What remained was to be burned
and thus preserved from contamination and corruption.
There was a distinction between the thank-offering and

67
the vow or free-will-offering. The thank- ottering was the
holiest, and hence corruption was more strictly guarded
against. No part of it was to be left until the next day.
Lev. 7 : 15.
The Vow and free-will offering could be left until the
second day. Lev. 7 : 16-21 ; 19 : 6.
The Bloodless or Vegetable or Meat-offering, (Heb.,
Mmjhah.) "Meat," in our English version, = " food."
The meatoffering was distinguished from the drink-offev-
ing, and yet it often included all vegetable offerings. The
materials were the three products, grain, oil, and wine.
Ps. 104 : 15. Fruits of trees and garden herbs were ex
cluded. Baehr finds a correspondence between these materials
and those of the animal-offerings, viz., bre,ad = flesh, oil=
fat, wine=blood. This he says is the reason why meal
is sometimes allowed. Lev. 5 : 11. This is imaginary,
for oil was forbidden in the meal when offered as a sin-
offering; and wine cannot represent blood, which was
forbidden to be drunk. Grain could be offered (a) as
grain or grits, (b) as flour, fine flour, (c) as bread or cakes.
A handful of flour or a cake was burned on the altar as a
>memo.rial before God. (It signified the same as the flesh
in the animal sacrifice. It was an oblation of food, and
represented the consecration of labor and life to God.)
The rest was given to the priests, who ate it in the court.
Lev. 6 : 16. Thus God's servants were to be fed at his
table. If presented by the priest, none was eaten, (Lev.
6 : 16) because they were not to profit by their own sins.
Oil was not a separate constituent, but an adjunct, (1^
because the oil was not used separately, but mingled ; (2)
the oil is co-ordinated with incense (Lev. 2 : 15) ; (3) oil
was not an actual article of food, but was used in prepar
ing it. It is spoken of in connection with bread and
wine. Hence, it represented not a separate gift, or that
which yields the light of knowledge, but here as else
where, it represented the Holy Spirit, without whom the
sacrifice would not be complete or acceptable.
Salt and Incense. -^Salt wras used, because it repre
sented preservation, the opposite of decay. A covenant
of salt = a lasting covenant. Meat which endures. In-
,cen$e was an accompaniment. It was burued on the offer-

68
ing but not mixed with it. All the incense was burned.
It represented prayer, which must hallowT every oblation.
Honey and Leaven were prohibited. Leaven leads to fer
mentation and corruption, hence it was a symbol of evil.
1 Cor. 5: 6-8. Honey also turns to sourness and cor
ruption. The drink-offering was a separate oblation, but was
invariably added to the meat-offering. It consisted of
wine, not poured at the base of the altar, but upon the
altar. The drink on the table. Ex. 30 : 9. We know
this to be true also from the analogy of heathen offerings.
The vegetable-ofter\x\g:$, were never presented alone, but
must follow a burnt or ^eaee-offering. The only instances
to the contrary are the sin-offering of meal in poverty,
and in the offering of jealousy. Num. 5 : 15.
Purification of the Mosaic Law.
These form the second class of Sacred actions. They
were designed to symbolize the removal of the defilement
and pollution of sin, as the removal of guilt was represented
by the sacrificial expiation. The distinction of clean and
unclean was made by the Levitical Law. The design of
these minute regulations was not to promote 1. Cleanliness
and decency among the people ; because (a) in that case,
everything filthy would have been ceremonially unclean.
This was not the case. The number of objects was
limited, (b) The idea of personal purity and ceremonial
cleanliness are distinct, (c) The orientals are careful about
the latter and negligent about the former, (d) The reli
gious character of the purifications is not explained by
this view.
2. The design was not Sanitary, i. e., to promote the
health of the people, (a) This view entirely overlooks the
religious character of the institutions. The Purifications
belong to the same order with the Sacrifices, and pertain
to a like end ; and it would be in contradiction to the
Mosaic system to suppose that religion was only a cover
to some secular end. (b) This view will not account for
what these laws contain or omit. A person may come in
contact with any disease except leprosy without becoming
defiled, but could not come into the presence of a dead
body.

69
3. Nor was there anything wrong or peculiarly sinful
in those things which were called unclean.
(a) There was nothing morally wrong in eating one
animal and not another. The unclean animals had no
connection with the kingdom of evil, (b) Nor was there
any sin involved in those conditions of the human body
which were considered unclean. E. g., no sin was con
nected with the natural birth of children. Barrenness
was even regarded as a curse in those times. So the
corpse of a good man was as defiling as that of a bad
man. (c) Defilement might arise from actions which
were actual duties; e. g., the burial of a relative, and cer
tain other services which the ritual prescribed, and which
could not be neglected.
The Distinction in Animals had a two-fold purpose.
1. It carried a distinction of right and wrong, duty and
transgression, into the ordinary matters of daily life.
2. These laws were practically a wall of separation
between Israel and the Gentiles, with whom (Acts 10 : 28)
they could not so much as eat. This distinction in ani
mals had relation only, first, to food, and, secondly, to the
worship of God. Clean animals only could be eaten or
sacrificed. Other animals could be used for any other
purpose. The criteria of distinction were drawn partly
from the organs of motion, and partly from food. In
beasts, both were regarded. Those were clean which had
the parted hoof and chewed the cud. In fish, those which
had fins and scales were clean. This referred only to the
organs of motion. In birds, food was the characteristic.
Birds of prey were unclean. The distinction between
clean and unclean was not without foundation in the
nature of things. The rules were simple and clear, and
embraced the chief, if not all, of the animals used for
food. One class represented the idea of pure and clean,
the other that of unclean. It has been supposed that it
was designed to suggest that those who belonged to God's
kingdom were distinguished by their walk and food.
This may be stretching the matter too far. This distinc
tion is only a reflection of man's state of defilement in the
presence of God. When men come near to God, or He
to them, they must be cleansed from impurity. Ex. 19:
10-14 ; Lev. 8 : 6 ; Ex. 30 : 20 ; Num. 8 : 7. None but the
pure could come near the holy God.

70
But besides these rare occasions, and the select few
engaged in sacred functions, the idea of clean and un
clean was to receive a symbolical representation which
should carry it into the affairs of daily life. The defile
ment was not that arising from voluntary sin, but frofti
the involuntary and hereditary taint of sin in all men.
This was denoted by selecting the extremes of \ife-*-birtk
and death. BMh is the source of human corruption, and
death the final result of it. Each of these had its own
specific curse attached to it in the fall of our first parents.
These are the two poles about which ceremonial defile
ment centred, creating two classes of impurity. First.
Everything relating to birth was defiled ; everything sex
ual, whether natural or diseased, though not necessarily
involving sin. See Lev., Chapters 12 and 15. The series
culminated in birth. The measure and gradation of de
filement was indicated by three particulars :
(1.) The length of time during which the uncleanness
continued. (2.) The extent to which this defilement could be com
municated. (3.) The character of the ritual necessary to its removal.
All this was very complicated.
We will consider them in order.
(1) The Duration was various. It might be till evening
only ; in grosser cases for a week, measured from the
beginning of the uncleanness, or the cessation of its cause;
of for 40 days or twice 40. Forty was a sacred number.
The four sides of a square, (the symbol of regularity)
multiplied by 10, (the symbol of completeness)=40. Israel
was in the wilderness 40 years. The period of defilement
at fhe birth of a male child was 40 days ; of a female, 80
days. These longer periods were subdivided into two
parts, — the first period consisting of 7 or 14 days, and the
second of 33 or 66 days. The grade of defilement was
greater during the first 7 or 14 days.
(2) The liability of the defilement to be communicated
varied. The lighter kind was not transmissible. The
more serious affected all who came in contact with the
one so defiled. The most serious kind defiled not only
the clothes, bed, etc., but every thing that was touched or
spit upon.

71
(3) The mode of effecting purification varied also, (a)
By simple washing of the person and clothes in water; or
(b) in addition, he must bring two doves or young pigeons
to the Sanctuary, one for the burnt offering and the
other for the sin-offering : or (c) a lamb of the first year
for the burnt-offering and a turtle-dove for the sin-offering.
The Second Source of Ceremonial Defilement was
Death; — either contact with a dead body, or leprosy,
which was a sort of living death. Num. 12: 12. The
eating of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn
by wild beasts, was a source of defilement. Ex. 22: 31;
Lev. 11: 39; 17: 15. Also to touch the dead carcass of
an unclean beast. Lev. 11 : 24-28. A human corpse was
still' more defiling. This appears (a) from the duration of
the uncleanness which was for 7 days ; (b) in its com-
municability. Num. 19: 14; (c) in the ritual for cleans
ing. The washing with water was not enough here, not
even pure running water, but ashes must be mingled with
it, and these ashes must be prepared in a peculiar and
significant way. The ashes were those of a sin-offering,
prepared with peculiar rites for this special purpose.
Hence this exhibits sin, not only as defilement to be
washed away, and shows the necessity of a sacrificial
atonement, but also shows that this atonement is an indis
pensable prerequisite to the cleansing. The customary
sin-offering was a young bullock. Lev. 4 : 14. But this
sin-offering was a red heifer. In ordinary sin-offerings,
the color was indifferent. The red was a symbol of life
and vigor, — being the color of blood. " To prepare an
antidote to death," refers to the means of purification
from contact with a corpse. The heifer must be one upon
which a yoke had never rested to impair its vigor. This
heifer, unlike the ordiuary sin-offering, was not to be
taken to the door of the tabernacle and there slain ; but it
must be brought without the camp and slain there by the
eldest son of the High Priest and the blood sprinkled 7
times toward the Sanctuary. It was then burned whole
and the ashes gathered by a clean man and put in a clean
place outside the camp, to be used in purifying. Those
officiating in this service were all rendered unclean and
were required to wash their clothing, etc. This exclusion
from the sanctuary and all the defilement resulting from

72
the ceremony brought the whole service into connection
with the idea of defilement and pollution, and was per
formed in relation to it. Thus the ceremony was defiling,
though a duty. So the lesson is taught : — we may con
tract defilement in holy services. While the heifer was
burning, the priest cast into the flames cedar wood, hyssop,
and scarlet. Cedar was incorruptible ; hyssop was used in
cleansing; and scarlet was the color of blood, suggesting
life. These ashes, mingled with running water, were
sprinkled upon the unclean person from a bunch of hyssop,
on the third and seventh days, and after bathing and
washing his clothes, he shall be clean at evening. Num.
19 : 19. And the persons who officiated, and any who
touched the water, were rendered unclean.
Leprosy was but a living death. Very minute specifica
tions are given, (Num. 14,) by which the priests could
detect it. Read Lev. 13 and 14 chapters, for the mode of
purification. The rites of cleansing consisted of two parts,
The first effected the restoratien to civil rights ; the second
to the communion of the Sanctuary. In order to the first,
two living birds were taken, one as a sacrifice for the
ofterer, the other as a symbol of himself. The former
was killed over running water, and the living bird was
then dipped in the mixture of blood and water and the
leper sprinkled 7 times with it. The leper was then
pronounced clean and the bird let loose. After washing,
bathing and shaving, and a probation of 7 days, he was
admitted to full civil rights. See Lev. 14 : 8, 9. His
restoration to the privileges of the Sanctuary was effected
on the following day. A Trespass, Sin, Burnt and Meat
offering were to be made; a trespass-offering in compensa
tion for lack of service. Blood and oil were taken. Lev.
14 : 12-19. This signified the application of the benefits
of the sacrifice to the organs of hearing, doing, and run
ning to obey God's commands. Oil signified the Holy
Spirit. The sin-offering (Lev. 14: 19) was added to the
satisfaction of the trespass-offering, as an atonement for
the sin which the leprosy represented. Restoration being
thus effected, the burnt and meat-offerings signified con
secration of self and life. Read Lev., chapters 13 and 14,
and Num. 19; also, in Smith's Dictionary, the article on
Purification.

73
Sacred Persons
Were those who were admitted to Sacred Places and
entrusted with the performance of Sacred Rites. Mau
had forfeited the right of access to God, and no act of
service rendered by him was acceptable. None could
approach God, save those whom He chose. Israel was
God's peculiar people — a holy nation. They were God's
people in a special sense, and had the privilege of access
to Him in a special way. In the encampment in the
wilderness, the Tabernacle was placed in the centre of the
encampment. God thus dwelt in the midst of his people.
They also had access to the court of his Tabernacle.
Within the square formed by the encampment of the
tribes around the Tabernacle, was another square in which
dwelt the Sacerdotal Tribe of Levi and the Priests. The
Levites were chosen for the service of the Sanctuary.
They belonged to it, not only as worshippers, but were
permanently occupied there. They were selected for the
service of God, in lieu of all the first-born of Israel, who
were to be consecrated to God in acknowledgment that
they had received all things from him, and to com
memorate the slaying of the first-born In Egypt. They
were located next to the Tabernacle on two sides and in
the rear. They were charged with the transportation of
the Tabernacle and the keeping of the sacred vessels.
Moses, Aaron, and his sons, encamped in front of the
Tabernacle. They were allowed a still nearer approach
to God. The priests were admitted into the Holy Place,
and the High Priest once a year entered the Holy of
Holies. These was, then, a gradation in the sanctity of
the people, corresponding to the apartments themselves.
The Priesthood wTas not a caste, but was chosen "from
among the people " by God and invested with the office
which originally belonged to all the people. God promised
to make them all kings and priests. Ex. 19 : 6. This is
the destiny of God's people. They were not at first ready
for the full realization of this promise. They showed, by
defalcation and disorders, that they could not yet rule
themselves. This right to reign was therefore left in
abeyance for a time. The kingly authority was temporarily
committed to one of their number, (Deut. 17: 15 ;) to one

74
who had no claim to it, in anticipation of the full realiza
tion of the promise. This is so also in the Priesthood.
The Priest is one who enjoys a degree of intercourse with
God which is denied to others. He comes nearer to God.
Heb. 5 : 1. The characteristic expression is that they
come near to God, and bring near the appointed offerings.
Israel was a nation of Priests, but was not yet ripe for the
office. They showed this at Mount Sinai. They trembled
at the presence of God and entreated Him not to come
near them, but speak through Moses. This was a con
fession of their unfitness to approach God, but the Priestly
office was not to be abandoned ; it was put into the hands
of a few as representatives, until the time when all should
be priests.
The Levites had no inheritance. The Lord was their
inheritance. Their labor was given exclusively to Him.
No other labor was allowed them. The Lord gave them
their support from the Sanctuary. Forty-eight cities,
four in each tribe, with their suburbs, were assigned them
in the territory of the several tribes. Six of them were
Cities of Refuge. The cities were counted as belonging to
the tribes in which they were situated. The Levites were
thus distributed 'among the people. These six Cities of
Refuge — three on each side of the Jordan— were sanc
tuaries or asylums not for criminals but to protect the
unintentional manslayer. 1 Kings, 2 : 26. As the altar
was the place of refuge, so were these cities. The man-
slayer was to remain there till the death of the High
Priest. Num. 35 : 25 ; Josh. 20 : 6. There are various
explanations of this.
1. Some think that the death of the High Priest was so
great a public calamity, that all private feelings of grief
and revenge should be obliterated. 2. Others think that
the Cities of Refuge were under the special control of the
High Priest, and his control being ended at his death,
they became free. 3. The true view is, that the High
Priest being the representative of the whole people, his
death had a peculiar expiatory force, and set the man free
from his disabilities. This was typical of Christ.
The Support of the Levites.— Sum. 18 : 21-32. There
was no tribute paid by the people directly to the Levites,
but one-tenth was given to God. Ten was the complete

75
number of the digits, and hence represented the total
amount of their possessions. One part was given to God
in acknowledgment that the whole came from Him. Gen,
28 : 22. This tithe was given to the Levites, and they in
turn gave one-tenth of what they received to the Lord, and
this was bestowed upon the priests. Lev. 23 : 9. The
first fruits of the harvest were presented a wave offering to
the Lord and given to the priests ; also the firstlings of
cattle; also the first-born of men and of unclean beasts were
to be redeemed and the sum obtained given to the priests.
This furnished ample support for the Levites. They had
no landed estates. They were dependent upon the
rigorous observance of the Law by the people. The
Levites were to attend to the service of the Sanctuary
from the age of 25 or 30, to 50— in the prime of life.
The Priests must be without blemish in their persons.
They might eat of the sacred things, but could not offer
at the altar, unless free from impurity.
Dress.— The ordinary dress of the priests consisted of
fine white linen; namely, the mitre, robe, cloak, &c. Ex.
28. They wore a cap, breeches, and a cloak reaching
from the neck to the feet. These represented purity and
holiness. This appears: (1.) They were called "holy
garments." Ex. 28: 4. (2.) In Rev. 19: 8, 13, 14, the
.same dress is repeatedly spoken of as worn by angels ;
Mark 16: 5. Also worn by " the ancient of davs." Dan.
1: 9; 10: 5; Ezra 9: 3.
The Girdle was made of fine linen ornamented with
blue, purple and scarlet. The High Priest's dress was
distinguished by its elegance and costliness. He wore
the same style of dress a3 the ordinary priest, but over it
he wore a robe of blue woven in one piece. It was thus
seamless, like the robe of our Saviour, signifying com
pleteness or perfection. Blue is the color of the heavens,
indicating the celestial character of the wearer.
The Ephod was in two pieces, back and front, joined by
clasps on the shoulders. The clasps were made of onyx,
on which were graven the names of the tribes. It was
Made of fine linen, ornamented with gold, blue, purple
and scarlet. These were the colors of a gorgeous sky and
of the inner coverings of the Tabernacle. They denoted
the divine or heavenly functions of the wearer.

76
The Breastplate was over the Ephod— was made of linen
in a square piece, and was adorned with gold, blue, purple
and scarlet. In it were twelve precious stones in four
rows ; on each stone was the name of a tribe. The material
of the Breastplate was folded so as to make a pouch, to
contain the Urim and Thummim, which signified respec
tively light and perfection. These terms are nowhere
explained. The Breastplate was attached to the Ephod
by chains and rings and blue cord. Ex. 28 : 28. The
High Priest thus bore the names of the tribes conspicu
ously on his person, when he approached the Lord,
signifying that he appeared as the representative of the
people. The stones were all precious but different, signify
ing that God's people have their distinctive peculiarities.
The Urim and Thummim were worn when the High
Priest approached God to ask counsel, — signifying the
divine infallibility, etc.
The Mitre was of linen, like that of the ordinary priests
but differed in form — probably being higher — and had a
golden plate on the forehead, bearing the inscription —
"Holiness to the Lord." No mention is made of a
covering for the feet, whence it appears that they went
unshod, as, e. g., Moses on Mt. Sinai, and Joshua in the
presence of the captain of the Lord's hosts. Shoes were
to protect the feet from defilement. Those who were in
the Tabernacle were on holy ground, where nothing was
needed for the feet. The idea is that purity was required
of those who came near to God.
The sacredness attached to the Priests and Levites was
conveyed to them by the rites of consecration. Israel was
originally constituted the people of God by a solemn
service. It was after the proclamation of the Law from
Sinai, Ex. Chapters 20 and 23. The people promised
obedience. It was before the Tabernacle was made or
any ordinance of worship established. To conclude this
covenant, an Altar was erected as a point of meeting,
around which were 12 pillars. So the place where God
revealed himself was in the midst of the people. Moses
who acted as Priest, took the blood, and sprinkled half on
the Altar, and half on the people. This was done after
the reading of the law, and the people had promised
obedience. There was no sin-offering on this occasion,

77
because the law of the sin-offering was not. yet promul
gated. The Patriarchal sacrifice was still in use. The
burnt-offering, which was the primitive form, stands here
as sufficient for expiation. The sprinkling of blood was
designed to express expiation for sin. The peculiarity
of this sacrifice was that one-half of the blood was placed
on the altar, signifying God's acceptance of his part of his
covenant; and one-half on the people, denoting the
application of its merits to those for whom it was shed.
Some have thought that an additional reason was, that it
was a ratification of a covenant, and the blood was divided
between the two contracting parties, as was sometimes
customary. It indicated that both would be united in life
and purpose henceforth. The slaying of the victim denoted
the judgment which would follow the breakers of the
covenant. After this was the Sacrificial Meal. The peo
ple were represented by Moses, Aaron and his sons, and
the 70 elders. Seventy was a symbolical number. It was
the product of 7 and 10 — the latter denoting complete
ness. It was also a historical number, being the number
of Jacob's descendants, when he went down to Egypt,
Gen. 46 : 27. It was also the number of Noah's descend
ants, Gen. 10. The number represented a world-wide
function and destiny. These representatives of the peo
ple went up and saw God in Mt. Sinai, and ate and drank
before him. The people were then brought into com
munion with God, and became his peculiar people. This
relation was to be permanently maintained and expressed
by the service of the Sanctuary.
The Consecration of the Priests. — Lev. 8. Effected by
two series of equivalent acts of three each. The first series
was symbolical, and the second, sacrificial. Ex. 29.
• The first series consisted of (1) Washing, which denoted
preliminary cleansing ; (2) Clothing, which denoted inves
titure with the priestly office ; (3) Anointing, which denoted
the imparting of the Holy Spirit.
The second series consisted of (1) Sm-offering, which
purged from sin, and corresponded to the washing ; (2)
Pw?7^-offering, which denoted consecration to sacred
office, and corresponded to the clothing ; (3) Peace-offer
ing, which sealed communion with God, and corresponded
to the anointing.

78
Moses officiated in the .sacrifices because there wejie im>
Priests yet,; for Aaron and bis sons were not properly
priests until the service was over. Blood was put on the
tip of the ear, right thumb, and right great toe, to make
atonement for guilt and purify these organs for God's
service. Their persons and dress were also sprinkled
with blood and oil. These services were repeated for
seven days, and on the eighth day began their sacred func
tions. During those first seven days, they were .not to
leave the court of the Tabernacle. These services ,vye,re
to be repeated whenever a new High Priest was to be
consecrated. The Consecration of the Levites is described in Numbers
8 : 5-22. This took place when they were leaving Mt
Sinai, because their part of the services was to transpoEt
the Tabernacle, and there was thus a necessity for them.
The rites of consecration were inferior in solemnity to
the consecration of the priests. Moses was directed to
cleanse the Levites, but to sanctify the Priests.. There were
two series of acts and two in each.
The first series, symbolical as before, consisted of (1)
Washing and Cleansing; ;(2) Consecration by Waving.
The second series was sacrificial. (1) Sin-offering; (2)
Burnt-offering. In the cleansing they were sprinkled
with the water of purifying. Their hair was shaven and
clothes washed. Their clothes were renewed and cleansed,
because they were to enter upon a new function. They
had no official dress, since they only attended the priests,
and were not really invested with office. They were sub
stitutes for the first-born of all the tribes. The children
of Israel laid their hands on the Levites, and the obliga
tion of service was thereby transferred to them. Then
the Levites were waved toward the Tabernacle and to
ward the Priests, denoting that they were given to the
latter to perform the service of the sactuary. Theteac-
rificial acts were (1) Sin-offering, whiph denoted purga
tion of sin, and (2) -Bwn^-offering, which denoted conse
cration. They were then prepared for the service of the
Tabernacle, to which they were set ;apart.

79
Sacred Times.
The most general term is Moadhim, set times, because
they returned at stated periods. The general idea is that
of certain portions of time withdrawn from their ordinary
occupations, and devoted to God; yet not as a payment,
but as a tribute, and an acknowledgment that all their
time belonged to God and His service.
These special duties were (a) Negative, i. e., abstinence
from ordinary secular labor; (b) Positive, i. e., special acts
of worship, both ceremonial and spiritual, as the multi
plication of sacrifices and holy convocations, prayer and
religious devotions.
The Sacred Seasons instituted by Moses, were of three
kinds, contemplating God under three aspects, as 1. Cre
ator ; 2. Preserver ; 3. Sanctifier.
I. As Creator. A series of Sabbaths, or Sabbatical Series,
-based on the weekly Sabbath, being the same idea ex
tended. The Sabbath had existed from the beginning of
the world, just as the sacrifice had from the Fall. Both
these primitive institutions were incorporated and ex
panded iu the Mosaic Ritual. That the Sabbath was so
instituted at the beginning of the world appears —
(1) From Gen. 2 : 3. This could not have been inserted
in the, account by way of anticipation of a future Sabbath,
because God's blessing the seventh day could no more be
postponed than His blessing the other days of creation.
(2) From the actual allusions before Sinai, to periods
of seven days, and the sacredness of the number seven.
There were seven clean animals in the Ark ; and Noah
waited seven days at different times. It was incorporated
in the language : — the verb to swear, in Hebrew, is derived
from the word seven.
(3) These periods of seven days, and the sacredness of
the number seven, can be traced to other nations who did
not borrow from the Jews.
;(4) The Sabbath was observed before Sinai by the
children of Israel. Ex. 16 : 22 Manna.
;(5>) In the Fourth Commandment the word remember
occurs. The Sabbatical Series was formed by applying the num
ber seven to every denomination of time. The seventh

80
day was the Sabbath ; — a day of rest for man and beast.
The seventh year was a year of rest for the land, which
was to remain uncultivated that year. The Fiftieth year,
or the year following the Seventh Sabbatical year was the
Year of Jubilee, when took place the restoration of property,
reparation for injuries, etc. The seventh month was in a
certain sense sacred. Its first day was to be kept as a
Sabbath by abstaining from labor, and there were a great
number of festivals in this month. These were all in
tended to be remembrances of God, and a testimony to
Him who Himself rested on the seventh day of Creation.
The refusing to keep the Sabbath was a denial of the
Creator, and hence the Sabbath was spoken of as a sign
of the covenant of God with Israel. It represented the
covenant on the side of Nature, as circumcision did on the
side of Grace. These various Sabbaths were periods
of rest from worldly labor in commemoration of God's
rest. They were designed further to remind the Israel
ites of the rest that God had given them from the bondage
of Egypt. It restored man's strength, and was also a tran
sient restoration of man's primitive condition before the
curse of labor had been pronounced upon him, and further
more was a type of the future rest from toil.
II. Those which celebrate God as Preserver, in two
respects, viz., Historical and Agricultural. These feasts
numbered three, and were
1. The Passover, commemorating their deliverance from
Egypt and the slaying of the first-born. It was at the
beginning of the harvest. It was on the fifteenth day of
the first month, (?'. e., the day following the fourteenth
day,) and lasted for seven days.
2. The Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, occurring on the
fiftieth day after the Passover, lasting one day only. This
feast marked the end of the harvest. The Feast of Weeks,
according to tradition, commemorated the giving of the
Law. 3. The Feast of Tabernacles, on the fifteenth day of the
seventh month, and lasted seven days. It commemorated
the dwelling in tents in the wilderness. It also marked
the end of the vintage, or the ingathering of fruits.
The feasts of the Passover and Tabernacles began at
full moon. After the feast of Tabernacles was the day of

81
the Solemn Assembly, a general and formal conclusion
of all the festivals of the year.
III. Those iu which God is regarded as a Sanctifier.
This class contained one item, the great Day of Atone
ment. It was a general expiation for the sins of the year.
It occurred on the tenth day of the seventh month.
There were seven days in the year which were festive
Sabbaths, besides the weekly Sabbaths. These were the
first and seventh days of the Passover, the day of the Feast
of Weeks, and four days in the sacred (i. e., the seventh)
month. These last were the first, the tenth (i. e., day of
atonement,) the fifteenth (i. c., the first day of the Feast
of Tabernacles,) and the twenty-second (i. e., the day after
the Feast of Tabernacles.) All these were to be observed
as Sabbaths by abstinence from labor, &c.
These various sacred times had their special sacrificial
services. On every day, a lamb was offered, morning and
evening, for a burnt-offering, together with the appropri
ate meat-offering. On the weekly Sabbath, the daily Sac
rifices were doubled and fresh. Shew Bread was to be
put on the Table. On the first day of each month, there
was a festival-offering of a he-goat for a Sin-offering, and
ten animals, viz., two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs
of the first year, for a burnt-offering. No abstinence from
labor was enjoined, but a trumpet was blown, (Num.
10 : 10) which represented the loud call to God by the
people that He would remember them. The first day of
the seventh month was to be kept as a Sabbath, and a
double festival-offering was to be presented. Abstinence
from labor was enjoined, and the trumpet was sounded,
in louder tones.
I. The Passover was instituted when they left Egypt, and
was to be observed annually thenceforth. It was called
also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It consisted of two
parts, (a) The Passover Meal strictly so called ; (b) the
eating of unleavened bread for seven days. The Passover
is to be reckoned a sacrifice. Some of the Reformed
Theologians deny this in order to confute the Romanists
who said that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice, because
the passover which it supplanted was such. That it was
a sacrifice appears

82
(1) Because it was expressly so called. Ex. 12: 27;
I Cor. 5 : 7. (2) It was so regarded by the Jews, although
the blood was not sprinkled on the altar at first, (Deut.
16 : 5-7) because the Tabernacle was not yet built. It
ivas offered there and the blood sprinkled on the altar in
later times. II Chron. 30: 16; 35: 11. The Passover
was not a Sz>i-offering. It had none of the latter's peculiar
features, but its blood had an atoning virtue. It- was a
species of Peace-offering. It included a Sacrificial Meal,
The requirements were exact. The lamb was to be
selected on the tenth day, i. e.,four days previous to the
feast. This was fancifully supposed by Hoffman to repre
sent the four generations of Israel in Egypt, (Gen. 15 : 16,)
while others — Kurtz — supposed it to have reference to
the symbolical character of the number four. Both expla
nations are too remote. It was probably set apart on the
tenth day for the same reason that the great Day of
Atonement was on the tenth day. Notice the Ten Com
mandments and the ten plagues, etc. It occurs frequently,
and besides being convenient, is symbolical of complete
ness. The lamb was to be slain between the evenings, where
the original does not use the Dual, and which may mean
(a) between the sunset of the first day and the total dark
ness of the second ; or (b) from the latter part of the
afternoon till sunset. This is the correct view, as may be
shown. In the first place, the blood was to be sprinkled
on the door posts and lintels of the house. Aionement
was thus made for the house and its occupant. The head
of the family exercised this priestly function, which was
afterward confined to the priests.
The Passover Meal denoted communion with God,
based on the expiation of sin.
Peculiarities of this Feast. — The lamb must be placed
upon the table whole. No bones were to be broken. It
was typical of Christ's body, and the unity of His church
and people. The whole lamb was to be eaten in- one
house. The same idea was included as before. None
must be left until the next day. It must not be boiled,
which would separate it, but was to be roasted, to pre
serve its oneness. No part of it was to be carried out of
the house. All that remained was to be burned, to pro
tect it from corruption or contact with common things.

83
The manner of eating it was designed to remind them
of their previous condition, and of the circumstances of
its institution and the great deliverance which it com
memorated. It was to be eaten with bitter herbs, which
suggested the bitterness of Egyptian oppression, and with
unleavened bread, which was a symbolical representation
of incorruption, and which had also an historical associa
tion, because they had not time to leaven their bread.
Deut. 16 : 3. It was to be eaten in haste, with their loins
girded, and shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands.
These peculiar circumstances were laid aside in later
times. During each of these seven days, a goat was to be
offered for a sin-offering, and, in addition, ten animals,
viz., 2. bullocks, 1 ram, and 7 lambs, for a burnt offering,
and the prescribed meat-offering. A sheaf of the first-
fruits was to be waved before the Lord, before they could
partake of the harvest. Lev. 23 : 10.
II. The Feast of Weeks. — Fifty days after the second
day of fhe Passover, i. e., the day following the completion
of seven weeks. It was called also the Feast of Harvest,
Ex. 23: 16; the day of First Fruits; and was called
Pentecost in Josephus and in the New Testament, Acts
2: 1. Barley harvest began at the time of the Passover,
and wheat harvest ended with the Feast of Weeks. This
feast lasted one day, which day possessed a Sabbatic
character. No work was to be clone ; and a holy convo
cation was enjoined. Two loaves of the first fruits and
the usual festive offering, viz , a he-goat for the sin-offer
ing, and ten animals for the burnt-offering, consisting of
2 bullocks, 1 ram, and 7 lambs — and the customary meat
offering. Now that the harvest was concluded, loaves
and not sheaves, were to be brought, just as at the Pass
over. Two loaves were now brought, representing a
livelier sense of gratitude at the end of the feast.
III. The Feast of Tabernacles, called also the Feast of
Ingathering, was held after the fruits were gathered in,
particularly the oil and wine. It was celebrated for seven
days, beginning with the 15th day of the 7th month.
They were to dwell in booths, commemorating their so
journ in the wilderness. It thus had both historical and
agricultural associations. It was the most joyous feast of
the year. The offerings were larger than on the other oc-

84
casions, consisting of two rams, fourteen lambs, and thirteen
bullocks at the beginning, and seven at the close. The
number decreased one each day, making 70 in all.
The first day was observed as a Sabbath, and then the
¦eighth day, or the day after the festival, which did not be
long strictly to the feast. That this is so appears, (1)
because the lodging in the booths lasted only seven days ;
and (2) because the sacrifices on this day did not stand in
regular gradation to those of the other, days, but consisted
of ten animals, viz., one he-goat, one bullock, one ram, and
seven lambs. This was a solemn termination of all the
festivals of the year.
The Great Day of Atonement. — This occurred five days
before the feast of Tabernacles, on the tenth day of the
seventh month. It represented a general atonement for the
sins of Israel during the year, and for the sanctuary itself;
Lev. 16 : 16. The atonement on this day was not merely
for undiscovered sins, because these were included in the
general atonement at the new moon, but all the sins of the
year were atoned for afresh. This was an intimation that
the acts of atonement were incomplete, as indicated in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. This was not merely to supple
ment the previous sacrifices or atonement, but it was the
same act. It was made in the Holy of Holies by the High
Priest, and was thus a fuller and more exalted type of
Christ, the true and adequate atonement. The entire day
was observed as a fast, the only fast of divine appointment
in the Jewish Calendar. Then came the special services
of the day. The High Priest first bathed himself and put
on a clean white garment, i. e., the ordinary dress of the
priests and not his usual robe. After making a Sin- and
Burnt-offering for himself and his house, came the char
acteristic service of the day — an offering of two he-goats
and a ram for a burnt-offering. The atonement was made
in the Holy of Holies. God appeared in a cloud over the
Mercy-seat, and the blood of the sin-offering of the priests
and of the sin-offering of the people was sprinkled upon
the Mercy-seat. This expiation was repeated at the Altar
of Incense and at the Brazen Altar in the Court. The
most remarkable peculiarity was in the fact that there
were two he-goats in the sin-offering. One was slain, and
its blood was carried into the Holy of Holies. The other

85
was sent into the wilderness. Lots were first cast upon
them, one for Jehovah, (La-Jehovah) and one for (La-
Azazel,) a word derived from Azal, to remove.
Four explanations of this term.
1. As a place ;
2. As the name of the goat ;
3. As an abstract term ;
4. As a personal being.
I. If a place, it must be either the proper name of some
particular locality in the wilderness to which the goat was
to be taken, or a remote retired place. There is no trace
anywhere of such a name or place. In Lev. 16 : 10, he
was to be taken into the wilderness.
II. The English version and the Vulgate apply this
term to the goat, and render it " Scape-goat." Some say it
is a compound word, from E Z, a goat, and that Azal
means to go away. This is not true, but a fanciful expla
nation. It may mean something entirely removed. One
name was given to Jehovah, and one La-Azazel.
III. If it was an abstract term, it must have represented
a complete removal, and explained the two ideas in the
pardon of sin, — (a) expiation, (b) removal. The ordinary
sacrifice was sufficient to express the former, but, in this
case, both ideas must be represented ; first, a goat was to
be slain as an expiation, and, secondly, the sins were to he
carried away by the other goat.
IV. Those who adopt this view say it was a personal des
ignation, a name for Satan. They argue (1) that it makes
a more exact contrast in the lots, as God in contradistinc
tion to Satan. (2) That this goat was sent to Azazel, in
the wilderness, and that in several passages of Scripture
the wilderness is represented as the especial abode of
devils and evil spirits; Isa. 13: 21; 34: 14. The word
translated Scdyr is translated Devils in Lev. 17 : 7, and in
Rev. 23 : 2. Devils are spoken of as inhabiting waste
places. In Matth. 12 : 43, the evil spirit is spoken of as
walking through dry places. In Luke 8 : 27, we read
that an evil spirit was in the tombs. Also in the Apoc
rypha; Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4 : 35. (3) The name Azazel,
they say, is appropriate for Satan, as being utterly removed
• from the presence of God. The difficulties of this per
sonal view are (a) Satan is nowhere else in the Bible called

to

86
by this name, (b) There is no allusion to Satan as con
nected with the Day of Atonement. There is nothing in
the Ceremonial to suggest this view, unless it be the doubt
ful meaning of this word. Many in modern times adopt
this view, on this supposition.
If Azazel is Satan, it is variously explained in four ways.
(1.) That the goat was sent as, a sacrifice to propitiate
the Devil. To this we say : (a) This idea is abhorrent to
the notions of religion and to the Mosaic institutions,
which particularly forbade the worship of anything but
God, — and expressly prohibited sacrifice to Devils ; Lev.
17 : 7. (b) The two goats were one offering and not two ;
and were also a Sin-offering, which could not have been
appropriately offered to the Devil, because it implied holi
ness in the person to whom it was offered. Both the
goats were brought to the Tabernacle, and God decided
which was to be sent into the wilderness. The only
reason why there were two animals was because two ideas
were to be represented ; one must be alive to carry away
the sin after the other had been sacrificed. The second
goat was really the first one over again, being analogous
to the two birds in the cleansing of the leper.
(2.) That the Goat, laden with the sins of the people,
was sent to the Devil, to be tormented by him, and to
show God's hatred of sin. There is nothing to substan
tiate this view.
(3.) That the sins belonged to the Devil, and hence
were sent there in the person of the goat.
(4.) This is the most common explanation, that it was
an act of defiance and scorn against the Devil, the seducer
and accuser of Mankind. The sins are sent to the Devil,
having been first atoned for, that he may do his worst
with them. He can never bring Israel into condemnation.
The choice seems to be between this last view and the
view which makes it an abstract idea. It would seem that
the latter is preferable. It appears that the two goats are
identical in signification, one supplementing the other, —
the second carrying out what the first could not do.
All typical theories which make a distinction between
the two goats are erroneous.
(1.) Prof. Bush says that the first goat represents Christ,
and the second the Jews.

87
(2.) Some hold that the first goat represented Christ's
human nature, and the second his divine nature.
(3.) Or that the first represented Christ's death, and the
second his resurrection.
Christ accomplished both ideas, and hence both were
typical of Christ, the first making atonement for, and the
second securing the removal of sin. After this, the High
Priest removed his dress, washed himself, put on his
official robes, and then offered the proper offerings. The
person who took the goat into the wilderness, and the one
who burned the fat of the sin-offering, were both rendered
unclean.

88

Lectures in Philology.

The Families of Languages.
Gen. n: i — "And the whole earth was of one
language, and of one speech :" and so it was origi
nally. This verse has been a stimulus to endeavors to
find this primitive tongue. The test of having found
it would be to show clearly that all others owe their
origin to and are derived from it. All research, how
ever, has thus far shown that at this day it is too late
to discover it. But though such is the case, yet
astonishing analogies have been discovered.
Research formerly proceeded on several errone
ous assumptions : — e. g.,
i. It was assumed that a bare similarity of sound
between words of like sense denoted identity of ori
gin. But this is not so; while, on the other hand,
sounds and words originally alike must be so much
changed as not to be recognized. The modern
Greek /ucwt — Eye, and the Polynesian mata — Eye,
have no connection of origin. On the other hand,
journey comes from dies, through diurnus and the
French jour. So also stranger.
2. It was assumed that the presence of the same
or related words in two languages, established their
organic connection. But such words may have been
merely borrowed from one language by another by
intercourse; — e. g., Moslem, Sultan, Dragoman, are

89
from the Arabic, and yet the English has no connec
tion with it.
3. They paid attention only to the etymology of
the words, disregarding the grammatical structure of
the language, which is a truer test. Though the
English has words from many languages, its gram
matical structure clearly denotes its origin, the
Anglo-Saxon, Germanic. The Turkish, the Persian,
the Hindoo languages are entirely distinct from the
Arabic, and though they are full of words borrowed
from the Arabic, their grammatical structure clearly
shows their distinctness.
4. It was assumed that relationship between two
languages proved that one was derived from the
other: whereas both may have been derived from
some other language. Latin is related to Greek :
both are related to Sanscrit: yet neither has sprung
from the other. There is only an affinity.
Now that sounder principles have been adopted,
although unity of language has not been and prob
ably cannot be reached, yet astonishing analogies
have been discovered, and languages have been
spontaneously reduced to a few Groups. Ethnology
aids here, though its divisions and those of Philology
do not precisely coincide. There are nations closely
allied by physical structure, which speak languages
entirely distinct, and vice versa. Hence existing
diversity of both are not inconsistent with unity of
origin. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, (with
a few verses in Chaldee, now called Palestinian
Aramaic). This language was not selected because
of any special sacredness, or because it was the
primitive language ; but merely because it was the
language spoken by the people chosen as the cus
todians of revelation during the time the revelation
was being given.

90
There are eight great Families of Languages, in
cluding almost all. Some few have not yet been
classified ; e. g., the Basque language, near the Bay
of Biscay, in France, has no apparent affinity to any
language. Many have not yet been thoroughly ex
amined. Only two have. But enough is known to
justify the foregoing classification. These eight
Families differ not only in their stock of words, but
also in their general structure, and are thus divided*
into three great Groups.
I. Isolating Languages, or those of undeveloped
roots: having no inflection ; no parts of speech; no
modifications of the forms of words to express num
ber, gender, tense, etc. ; and no derivation of words
from one another; but only ultimate roots thrown
together, like stones in a heap.
II. Agglutinative Languages : — One step better;
not having mere ultimate roots loosely thrown to
gether, but possessing all the various parts of speech,
gender, number, etc., by modifying syllables ; though
these are only artificially cemented to the root, and
do not lose their individuality. The word is built
up by additions, the original and independent char
acter of its constituents not however being lost sight
of, — a building.
III. Inflective Languages : — most highly devel
oped: the word not being a mere conglomeration of
distinct roots, but an organic whole. It is a growth,
in which the branches are inseparably joined to the
trunk, — a growth.
I. Includes 3 families.
II. *' 3
III. " 2
We will giance at these families. For details see
Dwight's Philology, Max Muller, Whitney, etc.

91
I. Isolating Group.
First Family, — Malay or Polynesian. This ex
tends over Malacca and the great body of islands in
the Indian and Pacific oceans from Madagascar to
the Sandwich Islands.
Polysyllabic; restricted in the number of sounds;
has from seven to ten consonants. Each word is a
simple syllable, i. e., a vowel, or a consonant and
vowel. A mixed syllable, or a final, or compound
consonant is unknown.
Second Family, — Chinese. This extends over S. E.
Asia, China proper, farther India, Thibet, Birmah,
Siam. Monosyllabic ; words have no determinate value
as parts of speech ; the same word may be a verb,
and an adjective, and a noun, etc. There is no in
flection for gender, except personal pronouns, which
have a peculiar variation for number, by fusion with
numerals, forming a singular, dual, triple and plural.
The Pronoun of the First Person has a variation, ac
cording as the speaker is included or not. This is
the purest type of Isolating Languages ; the most
important; the best known; the most highly culti
vated ; has a large and extensive literature.
Third Family, — Hamitic, Coptic, or Ancient Egyp
tian. This is separated from the other families
of the group by the entire continent of Asia. It is
spoken also in Abyssinia, and among the Libyan
tribes, as well as among the Hottentots, and the
Bushmen of South Africa.
Monosyllabic ; consists of mere roots ; has a slight
approach to inflection ; has syllabic suffixes.
See the hieroglyphics, mummy wrappings, etc.
This language ceased to be spoken in Egypt three
or four centuries ago.

92
II. Agglutinative Group.
First Family. This is the most important Family,
— Turanian or Scythian. Includes the roving tribes
of Central and Northern Africa, and along the north
of Europe ; consisting of Mongolians, Tartars, Fins,
Laplanders, Turks, Southern Hindostanee, Japanese.
The root is always at the beginning of the word,
agglutinative ; the syllables being always suffixed.
Second Family, — South African. All Southern
Africa, from a few degrees north of the Equator,
with the exception of the Hottentots and Bushmen.
All the languages of this Family are closely re
lated, the West and East Coast of Africa being much
alike. Though spoken by barbarous tribes, yet it
has great flexibility of structure and copiousness of
form. It has a series of conjugations much like the
Hebrew. The agglutinative syllables are often pre-
jixed. Uniformly so in the declension of nouns, etc.
Third Family, — American. North American
Indians. It has an immense variety of dialects, yet
all are related.
Polysynthetic or incorporative ; accumulates words
of enormous length. Pronouns and numerals have
from three to ten syllables.
III. Inflective Group.
Two Families, — spoken by the white race, and the
most influential. It is spoken by civilized nations,
and is therefore best known.
(i.) Indo-European.
(2.) Semitic.
The New Testament is written in the former ; the
Old Testament in the latter. The Indo-European is
so called from the extremes of territory where it is
spoken — India and Europe. We find a belt ex
tending between them through Afghanistan, Persia,
Europe, (excepting in the north of Europe.)

93
Differences Between the Two Families:
Indo-European tongues form words and inflections
by additions external to the root; Semitic by internal
changes mainly. E. g. :
Love — lover — loving — beloved.
Amo — amor — amatus — amabilis.
hQfi — Sc?p — hap — ^ap — Sap — etc.
The Semitic is formed by vowel changes in the
body of the root, or prefixed or affixed; or else by
doubling the letters of the root, (except in pronomi
nal suffixes.)
In the Indo-European, formative prefixes, etc.,
are outside ; the root only changes through laws of
euphony, as caedo, csesus, incido, in order to ease the
pronunciation. Some internal changes have now a
signification which they did not originally possess ;
e, g., man, men ; foot, feet ; break, broke. These
look like internal inflection, but are not so. Man
had a regular plural mans, — the change of a to e
being merely euphonic, and often occurring in the
singular. The Indo-European root is a single syllable, the
ultimate unit of articulate speech ; a vowel, or a
vowel with one or more associated consonants. The
root is one indivisible, invariable whole, the vowel
being an inalienable part of it. The Semitic roots
have only consonants, and as a root is unpronounce
able, being a frame-work or skeleton, while the
vowels are the tissue and flesh. Consonants deter
mine the radical signification of the word which the
vowels shade or alter. The Semitic alphabet has no
vowels ; the Indo-European languages, in which
vowels form an essential part, in adopting the Semi
tic alphabet, changed the superabundant guttural
into vowels, e. g., «=a, a ; n=e, e; n=»7, a; y=o.

94
There is no fixed number of letters in the Indo-
European roots, but they must be pronounced in one
syllable. The Semitic has a uniform number ; bilit-
erals are too brief, and triliterals are the briefest that
could give a sufficient number of combinations.
Therefore Semitic words are triliteral. Quadriliterals
are a later formation.
(i.) It is hence easier for the Semitic verb to have
its peculiarities than for the Indo-European verb.
The verb in Semitic is the word par excellence, giv
ing life to every sentence. It has the simplest
vowels, as Kamets, etc., especially in the Arabic. It
intensifies the meaning and pronunciation by doub
ling the radicals. The verb has fewer peculiarities
in the Indo-European. Causatives, desideratives,
etc., correspond in some degree to the Semitic .in
flections. (2.) Hence there is a richness in the Indo-Euro
pean inflections, and more variety is possible ; pov
erty in the Semitic as to tense, mood, etc. Greek
has nine tenses ; Semitic two. Unlimited means in
Indo-European of multiplying them ; but the changes
of vowels possible in the three consonants of the
Semitic, are few. The Semitic noun in the construct
state, results from the same fundamental principle.
The Indo-European great variety of tongues, —
Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Sclavonic, Greek, Iranian,
Indian. The Semitic has only four branches — Ara
maean, Hebrew, and Arabic, all closely related.
(3.) The Semitic has been of a stationary character
from its very formation ; the Indo-European has
more mobility. The former is rigid and changes
slowly. From Moses to Malachi, (1,000 years,) there
appears less change than in the English since Shake
speare, (300 years,) while 1,000 years back, in the
time of Alfred, the Saxon language was used, and
the English was still unformed. The Indo-European

95
is perpetually developing and progressing ; old forms
dropping out, new forms coming in. The Semitic
structure does not admit of this — and this reacted on
the nations speaking it. The Semite is the same
from age to age ; has the same habits and modes of
life. The Semite remains in the same place ; the
Indo-European stretches over both of the continents
of Europe and Asia. For this reason, the Old Testa
ment was given to the Semite, to remain and keep
the oracles of God. But when Christ came, and the
Gospel was aggressive, and to be spread, then the
New Testament was given in an Indo-European
tongue. The lack of variety in the Semitic tongues is due
not only to their method of internal flection, but also
to their triliteral roots. No attrition of consonants
at ends of words is possible, for the word can't spare
any, without changing itself entirely ; no abridging- ;
no changing of the -three consonants. The Arabic
has now many roots which are the same as those
used by Moses.
The stationary character of the people reacted on
the language, as seen in the fact that there is no need
of new terms, and their own language was not im
posed by conquest and commerce on new nations,
or corrupted and mixed thereby, as is seen in the
English. Arabic is now left alone to represent the
family. The Second great Difference, (relating to the mean
ing, not to the outward form,) is that the Semitic
is more pictorial ; the Indo-European is more reflec
tive. E.g., (i.) Semitic has only two genders; the idea
of sex being carried through all inanimate nature
and abstractions. Indo-European languages almost
all have a third gender for objects destitute of sex,
though not always regarding it.

96
(2.) While, in both languages, words denoting
spiritual abstractions are based on roots primarily
relating to external objects, in Indo-European this
primary, idea is lost sight of, in Semitic it is retained.
As Sincere, sine cera — pure honey; tribulation, tri-
bulum, a threshing instrument ; agony, referring to
the struggles of the contestants in games. Inculcate,
tread grain into the soil. In Semitic the metaphor
remains in consciousness; both significations co-exist.
Anger, t\«, ^x, to breathe, hard breathing; npn, heat;
I'nn, burning; t;>, boiling; un, breaking asunder; rjjn,
roaring. Desire, kds, thirst; ^dd, grow pale. Pardon,
133, cover; dm, hide. Patient, slow breathing; im
patient, fast breathing.
(3.) A want of precision, or definiteness of expres
sion. Their pictorial form of expression barely sug
gests the thought in outline. It aims at vividness
and force more than detail. Thus the Semitic (in the
tenses) refers all to the unlimited past or the unlim
ited future, and has only one form- of each. The
Indo-European adds the vanishing present, and to
the other various modifications, adds the imperfect,
perfect, pluperfect, future, and future perfect. So of
moods. The Semitic gives the sentences in simple suc
cession without concatenation, without denoting their
relation, and has few conjunctions. It simply joins
two clauses by the word and, leaving the reader to
guess at the nature of the connection. The Indo-
European has a multitude of particles, etc.
(4.) Range and description of their literatures.
The Semitic writes history (or palpable facts,)
tales, fables, parables (or imaginative fiction,) lyric
and sententious poetry, brief utterances of the feel
ings or wise sayings. But it has no romances proper,
no heroic or dramatic poems with complicated plots.
It has no orations of such a kind as those of Webster

97
and Calhoun ; and no arguments advancing to an
irresistible conclusion.
Renan, taking up the idea, says the Semites were
monotheists by instinct ; but he takes no notice of the
idolatrous Assyrians and Ninevites, who were Sem
ites. Hence the Semitic was especially fitted for the
Old Testament, dealing in outlines and shadows.
The New Testament is precise and clearly revealed,
and therefore in its final form, required an Indo-
European tongue. Paul was educated in Grecian
philosophy, etc.
The Third Difference is a subordinate one. The
mode of writing. The Semite writes from right to
left; the Indo-European the reverse. (Exceptions to
both are found. The Ethiopic from left to right like
the Greek ; Persian, Hindoo, from right to left like
the Arabic.) Points of Agreement.
They belong:to the same Group, the Inflective,
and have, therefore, (i) many grammatical analogies ;
(2) a great number of roots clearly identical. For
examples, see Gesenius. (Though many similar
sounds are merely casual; e.g., ntc well, and the
English bore are not related ; nor are -\y\ and direc
tion; nor natural sounds sod, cry ; a«, pa, pater.)
Some say all triliteral roots were originally bilit-
eral, and that the triliterals were formed by insert
ing weak letters, or adding letters: u to cut, ijj — to cut
off — pn to cut down — Su to flay — in to shear— nu to
hew — dtj to devour — n; to separate — ttj to pass
through, etc.
The name given to the family of languages kin
dred to Hebrew and Chaldee, have been many. Je
rome called them "oriental," but we know of coun
tries farther east, where the Semitic prevails ; " Syro-

98
Arabian',' (named from the extreme limits, just as
Indo-European ;) " Semitic" (from Shem) is the name
most used, for (Gen. 10,) Shemites are the chief
member of the group. The Hebrew, Aramseic and
Arabic languages, come from. Shem ; the Elamites
and Libyans are also from Shem, though these
speak Indo European. Canaanites and Phoenicians
are from Ham, yet they speak the Semitic lan
guages. The Semitic tongue extends from the Red Sea
and the Mediterranean, to the Persian Gulf and Ti
gris, and from Mt. Taurus on the North, to the
southern extremity of the Arabian Peninsula.
It includes Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and Meso
potamia. These tongues existed here as far back as
they can be traced, and whenever driven hence.
They are spoken there yet, though overrun by Mo
hammedanism. Semitic was the language of civilization, of trade,
of religion, in Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Judea, Juda
ism and Christinanity arose in Palestine. The latter,
though spread through the medium of Greek, yet
took Semitic types of thought. Some say that parts
of the N. T, as Matthew, were originally in Hebrew,
but of this we cannot be certain. Mohammed took
his language from Arabia. Babylon (Babel, confu
sion of tongues) has had a mixed population, and
therefore mixed languages ever since, just as in
Constantinople to-day. Nebuchadnezzar and other
monarchs were Indo-Europeans. but their generals,
e. g., Robshekar, were Semites and spoke Ara
maean. The. name of their deity Bel is Semitic.
Some names are partly each. On their ruins there
are some Semitic characters, some Indo-European,
some in a third language, perhaps Scythian.
The Canaanites spoke a Semitic dialect much like
the Hebrew. Abraham held intercourse without an

99
interpreter ; but in Egypt Jacob's sons required one.
Proper names, Melchisedec, Abimelech, Kirjath-
jearim, Baal, Moloch, etc., are Semitic.
The Phoenicians spoke Semitic, and so also did
their colonies, Carthage, and even Tarsbish on the
southern coast of Spain. This might arise from
their nearness to Canaan. Their extensive literature
has all perished. We can judge (a) from ancient
authors of other languages, quoting proper names
and other words. But the sound is often inadequately
expressed in a foreign language, and is unreliable.
(b) From Phoenician monuments; but they have no
sounds, and no vowels, spacing, punctuation, etc.
(a) Proper names — Tyre, its, Rock; Carthage, tsnn
jnp, New City; Adonis, 'jik, Lord; Hannibal, hyi ^n,"
favor of Baal ; Hasdrubal, Sjra nir., help of Baal ; Dido,
beloved; Cadmus. Dip, the east, oriental.
Plautus has a passage in Carthaginian and a Latin
translation, but text is corrupted.
(b) Monuments, as found at Malta, Marseilles, and
Cadiz, have Phoenician names. The same is learned
from Carthage. From Tyre we have coins, gems,
votive tablets. All show that the language of the
Phoenicians was like the Hebrew. The Moabite
Stone shows this.
Some have said that Coptic should be classed
with Semitic, as being merely an older type and a
more primitive form of it. This point is still in dis
pute. The argument is based on similarity of pro
nouns and some pronominal suffixes. But the weight
of authority is against it. There are three branches
of Semitic Languages :
i . Hebraic= Hebrew and Phoenician.
2. Aramaic~Cha\dee, Syriac, Samaritan (mon
grel). 3. Ara6ic=^Arabic proper, and Ethiopic (spoken
in Abyssinia).

100
Hebrew is intermediate, both geographically and
philologically. Aramaic is north of it, Arabic south.
The Arabic is the most soft, flexible and copious, the
Aramaic least so. The Aramaic regular verb has
one vowel (bm), the Hebrew two (San), Arabic three,
C?Dp) Conjugations or species. The Aramaic has
thirteen, eleven of which are double, thus numbering
twenty-four. The Hebrew has seven, the Arabic
The Future, The Arabic has four forms, the
Hebrew has three, (simple, paragogic, and apocopat
ed). The Dual. The Aramaic has none ; the He
brew only in nouns ; the Arabic in nouns and verbs.
Their varying copiousness is shown in vocabularies
and alphabets. The Aramaic has the original twenty-
*two letters; the Hebrew doubles the pronunciation
of one, Sin or Shin, really making twenty-three ; the
Arabic doubles six, making twenty-eight.
Historical OkDEK.
i. Hebrew. 2. Aramaean. 3. Arabic. Hebrew
is the oldest and has the oldest literature. The
Arabic is the only one now in use as a spoken lan
guage, except among a few scattered tribes. The
number of dialects of Semitic, therefore, unlike the
Indo-European, is diminishing rather than increasing;
the Arabic alone remains. But this does not prove
that the Arabic is the youngest and an outgrowth
of the others.
Gen. 31 : 47. — Aramaean was distinct from He
brew ; e. g., Laban gives the place mentioned an
Aramaean name, Jegarsahadutha, but Jacob gives it
a Hebrew name, Gilead.
Gen. 10: 26.— The name Almodad has the prefix
Stt, the Aramaic article.
In reality Arabic is the oldest and stands in rela
tion to the Semitic as Sanskrit does to Indo-Euro
pean. Even in the days of Moses, Hebrew had

101
undergone more changes than Arabic had in Mahom
et's time.
For purposes of comparison, Arabic is more
copious and living ; Aramaic is more closely related
to Hebrew.
All these languages have been and still are re
garded as sacred, as Hebrew amon^ the Jews ;
Aramaic or Syriac among oriental Christians ; Ara
bic among Mohammedans, Turks, and as in thej
Koran. HEBREW.
The Hebrew Language, or the original language
of the Old Testament.
The Semitic family of languages included three
principle branches.
I. Aramaic, including the Chaldee and Syriac.
2. Hebrew.
3. Arabic.
The Hebrew was intermediate between the other
two in its geographical position and its character.
The Hebrew, as a language, received its name
from the Hebrew people, who were so-called for one
of two reasons ; the word -\zy. is derived either (a)
from -u#, meaning beyond, and applied to one be
longing to the region beyond the Euphrates east
ward, and hence applicable to Abraham, Gen. 14 : 13.
This derivation has the sanction of the Septuagint,
which renders the word 6 Tttqatwi, which means the
one beyond, (b) It may be derived from Eber, (Gen.
11 : 14,) an ancestor of Abraham of the sixth gene
ration. (Eber in English has no aspiration, but the
loss of the aspirate only shows the transition from
Hebrew to English.) Gen. 10 : 25 may suggest the
reason why Eber was the name given to his descend
ants. In this passage Eber called his son Peleg,
because in his days the earth was divided. Eber

102
then would be the head of a family after the confu
sion of tongues, and his descendants would naturally
have his name. It is according to O. T analogy
that a race should be named from an individual;
e. g„ Israelites, Ammonites, &c. Whichever deriva
tion be approved, the term Hebrew might be expect
ed to embrace other races than the Israelites, and
there is such an intimation in Num. 2 : 24. Eber
is spoken of as a name extending over a number of
peoples east of the Euphrates. It has been claimed
that Gen. 10: 21, shows that the words "all the
children of Eber" indicate that the word Hebrew
came from this derivation. This is not conclusive,
because Eber may have been the name of a territory.
In ordinary language, the term Hebrew 'is used exclu
sively of the Israelites. Abraham was a Hebrew,
but the children of Keturah, or Ishmael, or Esau,
were never called Hebrews. Hebrew was their
national name, Israel 'was their domestic and theocratic
name. From the reign of David, the name Hebrew is
almost lost, and Israel came to be used for the ten
tribes in distinction from Judah. In the N. T. the
word few denoted any one belonging to the Jewish
people anywhere ; Hebrews were those Jews who
dwelt in Palestine and spoke the Aramaic. Those
who spoke Greek were called Grecians, not Greeks.
The Hebrew language is not so called in the O.
T, but is called the Jew's language, Is. 36: 11. In
Is. 19: 18 it is called the language of Canaan. The
first application of the name Hebrew to a language
is found in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. In the
N. T. and Josephus, the term " Hebrew language"
is used both for the Hebrew proper and for Ara
maean ; i. e., the tongue spoken by the Hebrew
people at that time. jno. 5 ; 2 ; Acts 21 : 40. Later
Jewish writers called the Hebrew the " holy tongue,"

103
in distinction from the Aramaean, which succeeded
it and was called the "profane tongue."
The very high antiquity of the Hebrew is shown
from the antiquity of its literature, which is more
ancient than that of any other language. The writ
ings of Moses preserve antediluvian fragments ; —
e. g., that of Lamech. In these and in proper names,
we have glimpses of roots and phrases already
obsolete in the time of Moses. The Targum on
Gen. 1 1 : i, says that the Hebrew was the primitive
language of the world. Some modern Christian
scholars have supported this view for the following
seasons : —
i. That the proper names of Adam to Babel are
derived from Hebriw and have a Hebrew meaning.
2. The fragments from Lamech and Noah are
certainly Hebrew.
3. The great longevity of the Patriarchs, which
was such that Adam was contemporaneous with
Methusaleh, and he with Shem, and Shem with
Abraham. Thus Adam is joined to Abraham by
two links or generations.
4. It is not probable that the pious people took
part at Babel. Some say that the race of Shem
were not there, and that hence their language was
not confused and therefore not destroyed. This
reasoning, however, is not conclusive, for it assumes
that these proper names and fragments have been
preserved, not only as to their exact signification,
but in their original form, and have neither been
translated nor explained in reference to Hebrew
etymology. To all this we say; — (1) The names
which are undeniably foreign to the Hebrew may
often admit of a satisfactory Hebrew explanation ;
e. g., in Ex. 2 : 10, " Moses" is an Egyptian name,
(meaning "drawn out of the water,") but may be
explained from the Hebrew. So also Pharaoh,

104
(meaning " ruler ;") Ham, as in Ps. 105 : 23 ; Behe
moth, (a Coptic word) in Job. 40: 15, means "hip
popotamus." In Gen. 41 : 43, the word translated
" bow the knee" (Shesh) is an Egyptian word, yet
may be explained by Hebrew etymology. But it
would not do to say that the Hebrew was the lan
guage of Egypt. (2) Proper names are often trans
lated from their original languages into another
language ; e. g., On (a city) is, in Jer. 43 : 13, called
Bethshemesh, the " house of the sun," in Greek
Heliopolis. So also No-Ammon is called Ai6(77to/U$,
the '• city of Jupiter." So Erasmus, Melancthon, etc.,
are Greek translations of their own names from
their native languages. (3) Some of the names
before the confusion at Babel cannot be thus ex
plained ;— -e. g., Tubal-Cain, Arphaxad. (4) Such
antediluvian words may have been appellatives and
not proper names ; — e. g., Adam (meaning " man,")
is connected with the ground ; nirw the ground ;
Eve is ''life," Abel is "breath ;" Cain is " possession"
and "weapon;" Noah is "rest."
We need not conclude from these that the Hebrew
was the original language of mankind. No language
can lay claim to that honor.
Renan, in his history of the Semitic language,
says, "since more than a thousand years B. C, the
Shemitic roots have suffered no decay or injury.
We are dealing with a language of steel, and not
with a worm-eaten one. The Shemitic language, has
preserved to us traces of the primitive tongue." He
says that "the grammatical structure savors of the
infancy of the human intellect. The radicals of the
modern Arabic correspond with the Hebrew. If in
3000 years there was no sensible alteration, can we
not conclude that the primitive language was similar
to the Hebrew ? " It is not impossible that this may
be true.

105
Scientific Philology may one day accord to the
Hebrew the honor of being the original language.
The Hebrew leaves evidence of being the language
of Palestine because their word for West was Yam,
which is the same as their word for sea.
Some have supposed that they were idolaters,
because they used the plural vrriv.. This is unfound
ed. It is simply the plural of majesty. Abraham
n came from Aram and therefore spoke Aramasan.
In Deut. 26 : 5, Syrian is used for Aramczan. In
Gen. 31: 47, the members of Abraham's family still
continued to speak Aramezan.
Is the Hebrew language throughout, of indistin
guishable character or diversified like others ?
1. The differences are due to diversities of " dia
lects." 2. They are due to the different species of compo
sition. 3. Differences also arise from successive periods of
time. We will consider them in order.
1. Difference due to Dialects.
Some have gone to a great length in dividing up
the dialects of the Hebrew. A recent German writer
gives three dialects. (1) That of Ephraim on the
North ; (2) of Judah in the middle, (3) of Simeon on
the South. More sober critics say we have no data
for this, because the small extent of Palestine and
the frequent assemblies of the people would prevent
the formation of such dialects. There were undoubt
edly provincialisms, as there are now in the United
States. E.g., in Judges 12: 6; Neh. 13: 24. In
Judges 18: 3, the Danites are said to have known
the voice of the Levite by his dialect. This not so.
They simply recognized it as the voice of an acquain
tance.

106
In the N. T, (Matt. 26: 73) we read that Galli-
leans could be distinguished by their speech.
2. The differences in composition are wider.
The lang. of poetry and prose differs much in all
languages. Poetry delights in rare and unprosaic
and bold forms of speech. E. g.,(i) Rare words: —
¦ot, word, = ids rnpx nbn
xia, to go or come, -¦= nnx
trx, man, = "oj tsnjjj
ntojj, to do, = hya
yoi, to plant, = Sn©
sib, not, = 4?
nnnSp, war, = a^p
aru, gold, = da?
(2.) Words used in a different sense in poetry.
Attributives often substituted for nouns. Ex.:
Bto#, sun, = nan, hot.
nv, moun, = ruaS, white or pale.
D'Si'u (flowing) used poetically for streams.
¦>'3K (mighty), " " '¦ God.
(3.) Peculiar grammatical forms for the same word.
D'ribx = niSg. God.
D'p; = nin;, days.
D'jty = nutf, years.
d'sj; = D'anjr., nations (by resolution of the Dagh-
esh-forte.) ^1 = i^n:, will go, (taking the form ^n in the
future.) pp, from, = 'jp 4k or 4;: = 'Sx or ,L>#
The suffix •]-„ = o:t i>: = "U- a •= ma a = raa
(4.) Some peculiar endings or terminations.
n = n d1. = |; d = id on:. = id:.
t\ = in: or Tii }\ = o;
(5.) Peculiar grammatical constructi9ns. The
demonstrative nj (or poetical it) used for the relative
itsta. The relative often omitted, also the article.
Bold ellipses.

107
Many of these forms are called Arabisms or
Aramseisms and said to be borrowed from the Ara
maean. But this is not so. They seem to belong
to that common stock of all the Semitic tongues from
which the Hebrew and Aramaean and the Arabic all
came. In the Hebrew these terms passed into dis
use and were used only in poetry, while they were
retained in the Aramaean or Arabic.
The book of Isaiah is almost all poetry, Daniel
almost all prose. The Prophetic style occupies an
intermediate place between poetry and prose. In
the books of Moses we find both poetry and prose.
In Deut. we find the prophetic style.
3. Differences arising from successive periods of
time. The Hebrew language underwent a great change
between the beginning and end of the Old Testa
ment. The most obvious division is into two periods.
The point of separation between these was shortly
before the Babylonian exile.
(1) From the time of Moses to the time of Isaiah
the language suffered little change. In the writings
of the later prophets, (Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc.,)
there is a manifest decline, produced by a large in
flux of foreign words, especially Aramaean. The
Jews were brought into contact with these nations.
Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra, exhibit a strik
ing contrast in purity, though Daniel and Ezra have
sections in Aramaean. The Book of Chronicles was
written later than Kings, and hence is more corrupt,
Ezekiel, written during the Exile, shows the greatest
number of varieties in form and the greatest variety
of anomalies, which exhibit an actual deterioration
of the languages. In the prophets subsequent to
the exile, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the lan
guage is less corrupt, and there is an advance to the
former purity and correctness of style. The sta-

108
tionary character of the language during the former
period (there being no change for 800 years,) is
made the ground of an objection to the antiquity of
the Pentateuch. To this we reply:
(a) That it is the character of all of the Semitic
languages to be fixed and stationary. All the cus
toms and habits and even the names of places, are
unchanging, in some cases the names being the same
now as in the time of Abraham and Joshua. The
Syriac and Arabic also have the same permanence.
Chinese scholars say that the writings of Confucius
(550 B. C.,) do not differ in language from the best
writers of the present time in China.
(b) The circumstances favored this preservation
of language, a) because they had little intercourse
with other languages, separation being required by
their laws ; and (ft) the Canaanites also spoke the
Semitic language.
(c) The books of Moses containing the civil and
religious code served to fix the language, as the
Koran has the Arabic, and Luther's Bible the Ger
man, and the English Bible the English. They also
furnished a model of writing, as Homer did to the
Greeks. The language of Moses would often be
better fixed, even after the spoken language had
itself changed.
(d) The Hebrew was not wholly stationary during
this long period. There are some changes; e.g.,
the third feminine pronoun Kin in the Books of Moses
is changed to x'n in Isaiah ; -\y\ is used in the Pen
tateuch to denote either a boy or girl, — in Isaiah it
was used with the feminine ending rnyji for a girl.
The Plural is used for both always. Some words
and phrases are peculiar to the Pentateuch and
never occur afterwards ; others vanish until the
later writings of the O. T ; others, which Moses
used in prose, occur again later only in poetry. In

109
I. Sam. 9 : 9, mention is made of a change in a word,
viz., seer as changed to prophet. Some say that in
Exodus 6: 3, God revealed a new name of Himself
to Moses. This was not a new name, but was
meant to show a new phase of his character.
(2.) Many new words and phrases, and a more
frequent use of vowel letters, i. e., •' scriptio plena"
as distinguished from " scriptio dejecta" appear in
the later books, and also the adoption of genuine
Aramaisms. Examples of new phrases : nabpa with the plural
construct later rvoSp ; Duan Drib, bread of the pres
ence, shew bread, is in later books rg-iyan orri (from
rcnjra a row, ip;;, to arrange). God of Heaven, is
later Jehovah of Hosts, which is itself later than
Moses. Thus the decay of the Hebrew is not always dis
tinguishable from poetic license. For this reason the
character of the Hebrew in any book is not a cri
terion of its date or age.
Did the written Hebrew differ from the spoken?
It may have to some extent, as in Eng. The latest
books of the O. T. represent a purer style than
could have been current among the people at that
time, and was formed from a careful study of the
ancient models.
When did the Hebrew cease to be spoken? 1.
The Talmud and the Jewish grammarians and some
Christian scholars say that the Hebrew was dis
placed by the Aramcean at the time of the Babylon
ish exile, though it long continued to be known by
the old men who had learned it in Palestine, and
also by the learned men. The young generation
spoke Aramaean and knew nothing of the Hebrew.
2. It is thought by some modern scholars that the
Hebrew, though corrupted by the exile, continued
to be the language for 400 years after the exile.

110
that is, until the Maccabees and Syrian domination.
These advocates are influenced mainly by the hypo
thesis that some of the books of the O. T were
written during this period. Neh. 13: 24 is no proof
that the Hebrew was unchanged as a spoken lan
guage. Is. 36 : 11 does not prove that the Jews
still spoke Hebrew ; nor, on the other hand, does
Neh. 8 : 8 prove that they had given up Hebrew
and adopted Aramaean. They say that the passage
shows that the Levites translated the book of the
law ; this is not so, but our version is correct, where
we read that they read the law " distinctly," with
explanations. And a captivity of only 70 years was
too brief a time for them to give up their own lan
guage and adopt another, especially as only a part
of the people were carried away, and the remainder
were not put among Aramaeans. The Prophets too,
in the later books, after the exile, would not have
used a language unknown to the people. The
deterioration of the language began before the exile,
though it was accelerated by that exile. The Chaldee
was familiar, as seen from Daniel and Ezra.
The change was a gradual transformation. We
cannot tell the exact date of the change any more
than we can tell that of the Anglo-Saxon into Eng
lish, or of the Latin into Italic. But it could not
have been long after the exile.

Character of the Hebrew.
There are no adequate data for estimating or
ascertaining the copiousness of the Hebrew lan
guage. Gesenius gives 5642 words in the Hebrew
Bible, with about 500 roots. But these are only
those found in the O. T, and hence are not the en
tire vocabulary of the language.

Ill
Shultans, living in the last century, calculated the
number of the combinations of the letters of the
alphabet into triliteral roots, finding i 2000 of them,
and to each of these he assigned 30 derivates ;
hence he makes 360,000 words, not reckoning
quadriliterals and their derivatives.
This principle is false. The number of words in
any language does not depend on the number of
roots, nor upon the number of possible combina
tions. The stock of words will not go beyond the
necessities of a people. Ideas and objects unknown
would of course have no words. Simple agricul
tural peoples, like the Hebrews, knowing little of the
outside world, and uniform in their modes of life,
would not have a very extensive circle of ideas, and
hence of words. Yet the language shdws an affluence
of synonyms. E. g., there were eight terms for
darkness, seven names for the lion, four for the ox,
eleven for the different kinds of rain. These and
other instances show a great richness and profuse-
ness of terms and a careful observation and nicety
of distinction between objects and a close study of
nature, etc. This quality is favored by the parallel
isms of their poetry.
The Hebrew is richest in religious words, e. g.,
there are fourteen expressions for confidence in God,
nine for forgiveness of sins, twenty-five for the observ
ance of the Law.
The structure of the Hebrew language is such as
to produce an economy of words and roots. A
small number of each do a large amount of service.
The paucity of adjectives is compensated for by the
distinctions in .abstract nouns. The different species
of the same verb express different ideas ; e. g.,
Come and bring are expressed by different species
of the same verb; so also to eat and to feed ; to
learn and to teach ; to go and to lead.

112
There were also modifications of meaning by the
construction of the sentences, e. g., run to see, with
different forms has different constructions, and with
prepositions can mean to see, look, enjoy, despise,
live, choose, provide, visit, learn from, aim at, respect,
care for, abide for, know, appear, show, perceive.
Nouns from the same root, — prophet, vision, mirror,
form, sight, vulture (i. e., keen sight.)
Some lost roots in the Hebrew have left their
traces, but can now only be explained by the Arabic.
The great number of ajta^ hsyofieva suggests that a
great number of words have been lost. The Arabic
most frequently preserved the primitive grammati
cal forms, but the Hebrew retained the primary
meanings of words the longest. The Arabic has the
most verbal simplicity, Hebrew next, Aramasic least.
In Hebrew the relics of some independent species
are found, which in the other two languages appear
rarely, and as imperfect anomalous forms ; e. g.,
plural endings, paragogic letters, of which the Arabic
shows the formation and connection. The primary
significations of words are retained in the Hebrew,
when in the cognate languages it has given place to
a- derivative and secondary sense, e. g., na in He
brew always means what, though sometimes used as
a negative ; — in the Arabic, it is a negative. n;» in
Hebrew means to untie ; in Arabic it means to dwell,
to put up for the night, (from the idea of untying the
beasts of burden. ru?n to wander, in Hebrew ; in
Arabic and Aramaeic means to be idolaters, (i. e., to
wander in a religious sense.) tjSn — togoin Hebrew;
in Arabic, to perish. r\w in Hebrew means to
change ; in Arabic and Aramaeic means to change
the understanding, to be mad, deranged, nax to say,
in Arabic means to say with authority, to command
(-English Emir.) isa in Hebrew means to cover;
in Arabic, to cover the truth, to disbelieve. Hence

113
is derived the name of the Kaffir (in Africa,) who
does not believe the Koran. An exception is the
Hebrew to miss the mark, to sin, which in Arabic
means the former only.
Most words borrowed from the Syriac and other
languages are connected with idolatry. The word
which in Syriac means to worship, (ijd) in Hebrew
means to worship idols. Syriac to supplicate, (^tva)
in Hebrew means to use enchantment. The Syriac
for priests, onaa, in Hebrew means priests of idols.
The Hebrew contains a very few words not of
Shemitic extraction. In the Pentateuch; (i) there
are several Egyptian words, especially names of ob
jects, persons, places, e.g., -ix; river (always referring
to the Nile,) inx bulrushes, nan a box, (--=the ark in
which Moses was put,) na'x an ephah, ni'ia Pharaoh,
^ax bend the knee. (2) In the later books there are
a few names of Indian objects ; there are some San
scrit words, e. g., ophir, nard, dellian, aloes, ivory,
apes, peacocks, — which show the extent of country
to which the Phenician navigators had penetrated.
In Esther 1 : 6, the word for cotton or linen (o?"ia)
was a Sanscrit word. (3) Persian words were intro
duced during the Persian rule. In Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, Daniel, and Chronicles ; e. g., Satrap ; also
names of monarchs and coins, as daries dram (Ezra
8 : 27.) Xerxes, Cyrus, Haman ; also the word for
crimson, red of worms, (coming to us through the
Arabic.) Pleasure ground o-ns, paradise, in Cant.
4: 13. (4) There are a few names of musical in
struments in Dan. borrowed from the Greek. A
number of words are transferred from the Hebrew
or Phenician into the Greek and from thence into
the Western languages, (a) by Phenicians, (b) by
Christians, (c) by modern Jews. Such words are
hyssop, balsam, copper, ebony, jasper, alphabet,
amen, ephod, hallelujah, cummin, cinnamon, sapphire,

114
seraph, cherub, caballa, jubilee, Sabbath. From the
modern Jews we have Rabbi, Sanhedrim, Targum,
Mishna. The Hebrew yielded to the Aramaeic after
the exile, yet both were used and studied by the
more learned. The Aramaeic became the popular,
and the Hebrew the learned language. The Mishna,
the oldest portion of the Talmud, is in corrupted
Hebrew. The more modern portion of the Talmud
is in Aramaeic, the dialect of the people. From the
i ith Century onward there is a decided tendency to
return to the Hebrew. It is still a learned language
among Jewish scholars.
I. Shape of the Letters, and the Origin of the
Vowels of the Hebrew Language.
All the Hebrew manuscripts which we possess
are written in the present square character, but on
Jewish coins supposed to belong to the time of the
Maccabees, and in the books of the Samaritans, we
find a round character similar to the Phenician and
Samaritan. Is, then, the present square character the original
one? This was a subject of dispute in the 17th century
between the Buxtorfs and Capellus. Buxtorf, a
Professor at Basle, together with his son and suc
cessor, maintained that the square letters were the
original ones. Capellus, Professor at Somer, first
opposed this view. The Buxtorfs assumed that
" there were two separate characters in use, one the
sacred letter found in the Bible, the other, the secular
letter used in business transactions. This latter one
is what was found on the coins. During the exile
at Babylon, the Priests kept up a knowledge of the
sacred writing, but the common secular dialect fell

115
into disuse, while those Jews who were left in Pales
tine had only the secular character, because they
had neglected the reading of the Law, and the
Samaritans borrowed their characters from them.
When Ezra returned to Palestine, he restored the
old sacred character." This hypothesis they sup
ported —
i. By the analogy of other nations. The Egyp
tians had a threefold character, (a) The Hiero
glyphic; (b) The Hieratic, or sacred; (c) The De
motic, or popular. The Persians used different
methods of writing for history, poetry and letters.
The Turks had also a threefold character.
2. From Isaiah 8 : i. They say that the phrase
" a man's pen" refers to the secular, ordinary, or
common character.
3. From a passage in Irenat- us, who speaks of a
Sacerdotal character in use among the Hebrews.
The verse in Isaiah merely means to write plainly.
Irenaeus is really no authority on this subject, be
cause he was ignorant of the Hebrew language, as
other mistakes make by him clearly show. The
argument from analogy would illustrate the fact if
proved, but is no proof in itself. This hypothesis is
now abandoned.
Gesenius says that the secular character was that
in use by Judah and Israel until the Babylonish
Captivity, and then it was preserved by the ten
tribes and the Samaritans, while Judah adopted the
character of their Babylonian captors, i. e., the
square character.
This would account for the early traditions and
the inscriptions found at Palmyra. But,
(1) This does not account for the use of the coin
letter so late as the time of the Maccabees.
(2) There is no reason to believe that the square
letter ever was used at Babylon.

116
It is now settled that all the Semitic families, as
to their alphabets, are related to the old Phenician,
which was the original letter, and that from it came
that Hebrew character which was used on the coins
at the time of the Maccabees. The square charac
ter succeeded this slowly and gradually by succes
sive changes through a long period of time. The
change was similar to the change in Greek from
uncials to cursives. The connecting links between
the alphabets we can trace by means of inscriptions
at Palmyra and in Egypt. When the change took
place cannot now be determined. It must have been
before the 3d or 4th Century, A. D.
Quotations from Origen and Jerome show that
the Hebrew character, in their day, was the same as
in ours. Jerome says that the word mrr was read by
the Greeks as if it were 111111. This shows that
the square characters were in use at that time. The
change probably took place before the time of
Christ, as, in Matt. 5:18, "jot" (i. e., Yodh,) would
seem to indicate ; for in the old character the ' was
as large as any of the letters, but in the square char
acter it is the smallest.
If, in examining the Septuagint, it could be found
that there had been errors of transcription, such as
confounding 1 and i, it would show that the square
character was used at that time. No satisfactory
results, however, have ever been obtained from this
examination. We must assume jthat the change
took place between the time of the Maccabees and
the time of Christ.
This question has often been mixed up with other
questions. It has been treated as if it affected the
Bible and its text. Capellus said that the Hebrew
text of the O. T was full of mistakes, and needed
constant revision. The Buxtorfs held extreme views
in the opposite direction. They said that the text

117
of the Bible had letters of the same shape in which
it was given. To say that the Samaritans had kept
the old alphabet and that the Jews lost it, seems to
be admitting the superiority of the Samaritan over
the Heb. Bible. The form of the letters, however,
does not affect the purity of the text.
II. This question was subsidiary to another, re
lating to the antiquity and authority of the vowels
and accents.
The Rabbins in the middle ages held that the
vowels were either an integral part of the text, or
that they were divinely sanctioned as added by Ezra.
In 1 6th Cent. Elias Leviter held that the vowels
were added afterwards by the Jewish grammarians.
at Tiberias. The elder Buxtorf replied, trying to
show that the vowels were not made by gram
marians. Leviter's arguments found favor with
Capellus, who wrote them out and strengthened
them, and then sent the MS. to the elder Buxtorf,
who commented on it and returned it, confessing
the difficulties of the case, and advising him not to
publish it. It was printed, however, in 1624. and
Buxtorf was expected to reply to it, but did not do
so. His son, however, in 1648, published a work
which was (1) a refutation of Capellus, and (2) a
proof of the antiquity of the vowel-points.
His views were adopted by the orthodox party in
Europe and England. It was even made an article
of faith in one of the Swiss Confessions of Faith,
that the vowels and points of the Bible were inspired.
John Owen attacked Capellus, and thought that it
would impair the truth of the Bible to believe that
such an important matter as the vowels was fixed by
unbelievers, and by men who as Jews were under
a curse, and were the murderers of Christ. It is
now admitted that the vowels are not ancient. We
may infer this.

118
i. Because the minuteness of their notation im
plies that the Hebrew was not a living tongue when
they were introduced.
2. From the analogy of kindred languages. The
Syriac and Samaritan have no vowel points, nor did
the Phenicians have any, nor were any found on the
coins or on the monuments. The Arabic in the
Koran has a few vowels, elsewhere none,
3. Tradition among the Rabbins, that the vowels
were handed down orally until the time of Ezra, and
that he reduced them to writing. They are ascribed
to him probably in order that they may have the
sanction of inspiration.
4. The Synagogue Rolls, which are greatly es
teemed, have no vowels ; a fact hard to account for,
if vowels formed an original part of the text.
5. The different readings of K'ri and K'thibh all
refer to the consonants and not to the vowels. And
yet the vowels are much more open to dispute and
variation. 6. The present vowel system was not in use at
the time of the Septuagint, as proved by its transla
tion of some words in a manner consistent with the
consonants, but not with the vowels, as we now have
them. When were they introduced? We notice
(1.) That the Jewish grammarians from the be
ginning of the 1 ith century had the points, and did
not know but that they had always existed. A table
of various readings made in 1034 refers to the
vowels and points exclusively, and thus we know
that they existed at that time.
(2.) The Septuagint and Josephus do not appear
to have them. Origen, in his Hexapla, givesa pro
nunciation which does not agree with the vowel-
points. Jerome was probably not acquainted with
the present vowel system. By vowels, he meant

119
vowel letters; and by accent, he meant vocal utter
ance. It is doubtful whether the Talmud of the 5th
century recognizes them. The Masora does con
tain the names of nearly all the vowels, although the
K'ri and K'thibh relate to the consonants. The
general conclusion is that the points were introduced
by Jewish grammarians between the 5th and 10th
centuries, with the intention of preventing all am
biguity of pronunciation and meaning.
Gesenius sets the time to be between the 6th and
8th centuries. This would bring us to about the
time when the Arabic and Syriac vowels were first
used. Some now began to give up all authority of
the points, as being entirely of human origin.
Others went to the opposite extreme. Careful
examination gives us a medium ground. The signs
are Masoretic, but the sounds are not. There was
no Rabbinical trifling with the text, but preserved a
rigid accuracy in its pronunciation, besides giving
traditional commentary on the text. By careful no
tation they have given us the sounds just as exact
tradition had given those sounds to them. They
had good facilities, and were accurate and worthy
of our trust.
History of the Study of the Hebrew. It may
be divided into two periods. 1. Among the Jews.
(a) From the introduction of the Masoretic System
to the 10th century, (b) From the introduction of
the Grammatical System in the- 10th century to the
Reformation. 2. Among Christians.
I. Among the Jews. Schools were established in
Jerusalem as early as the time of Christ, for teach
ing the Scriptures and Traditions. Such were those
of Hillel, (Gamaliel,) and Shamai. After the de
struction of Jerusalem, there were schools also at
Tiberias and Babylonia. There was no systematic
or scientific study of the language, but an adherence

120
to ancient traditions. The very letters of the Bible
were reverenced. Even a letter which happened to
be written smaller or larger was retained in the
text. Even the number of the letters was known.
To these scholars we owe the Masora, which are
the notes and the vowels, and the Talmud and their
Targums or translations.
II. Among Christians. The Fathers of the Church,
except the Syrian Christians, were mostly ignorant
of Hebrew, but Origen in the 3d century and Jerome
in the 4th century were Hebrew scholars. In the
10th century the schools were transferred to Spain.
There, under Arabic rule, they flourished for a long
period. There were schools in Toledo, Barcelona,
Grenada, and thus, stimulated by Arab grammarians,
Hebrew was studied grammatically and scientifically .
Grammars and Lexicons were written which still
exist in MS. in European libraries. Especially note
worthy among these scholars were Kimchi and his
two sons. The work of David, the younger son,
which he called " Perfection," was that used by the
Reformers, and formed the basis of similar works till
very lately.
From the time of Jerome till the 16th century,
the study of Hebrew was almost entirely neglected
by the Christian Church. Charlemagne tried to
revive the study of the language, and the Council of
Vienna, 131 1. voted annuities for professors of He
brew in Vienna. But the resolution was not carried
into effect. Raymond Martini studied Hebrew to use
it against the Jews, and Nicholas De Lyra studied it
to facilitate the exposition of the Old Testament.
The Romish Church distrusted the spirit of the
Reformers, but the revival of letters called attention
to the Hebrew in spite of this opposition. The Rab
bins also were jealous of its popularity, and would
not give instruction except at exorbitant prices.

121
The first Hebrew Grammer issued by a Christ
ian was made by Conrad Pelican in 1503. He was
a monk at Tubingen, and at that time was only 22
years old. He derived most of his knowledge from
a Hebrew Bible, aided by a Latin translation.
John Reuchlin was really the father of Hebrew
literature and learning in the Christian Church. He
published in 1506 a grammar and dictionary called
" Hebrew Rudiments," closely following the plan
introduced by Kimchi.
Hebrew, from that time onward, has received
marked attention, and when the Church declared the
Scriptures in the original the only rule of faith and
practice, there was a new incentive to study it.
The methods of study underwent several changes.
I. The Traditional School, in which everything
was settled by tradition, even as regarded the mean
ings of words and the construction of sentences, etc.
The Buxtorfs were representatives of this school. It
was the only practical method in early times. It was
partial and one sided, and neglected other important
means. It was too narrow in its views, seeking for
information only in Jewish Targums, and not in the
Septuagint. II. The Comparative or Dutch School. The He
brew was compared with the cognate languages,
Arabic and Syriac. The Grammars and Lexicons
were a comparison of the various Shemitic dialects.
This may be called the Dutch School. The best
early Grammar was the Heptaglot Grammar and
Lexicon of Edmund Castell of Cambridge, in He
brew, Persian, Aramaic, Arabic, etc. Schultans of
Leyden applied his knowledge of Arabic to elucidate
the Hebrew. He was the best representative of this
school. This school was too one-sided on the other
extreme. No regard was paid to the Syriac, nor to
Rabbinical authority and tradition, and too much to

122
the Arabic. Hence many imaginary significations
are found in their works.
Ill The Idiomatic School rejected all external
helps, and substituted a minute examination of the
text, context, and parallel passages of the Scriptures
themselves. But it also was partial. It said all tril-
iteral roots were originally biliteral, and even tried
to*give each individual letter of the biliteral a distinct
meaning, from the form, etc.
This method led to a more accurate study of the
peculiarities of the Hebrew, but was not on the
whole a good method. All these schools gave a
foundation for
IV. The Comprehensive School, including all the
former methods. The modern scholars adopt this
school. Gesenius is its best representative. His
Lexicon, however, is not faultless. There are a few
ana% teyofieva whose meanings are not known ; e.g.,
the names of some of the clean and unclean beasts
in Lev. n, and some terms used in Is. 3 18-23,
articles of apparel. These may hereafter be ex
plained. They are not important words however.
Early- Veksions.
There are four versions of the O. T. which are
ancient and immediate. By an immediate version,
we mean one made directly from the original and
not from any pre-existing versions, which would be
a mediate version. By an ancient version, in a
technical sense, is meant one made prior to the
Masorites. To be of any critical authority, it should
be both ancient and immediate. A mediate version
may be authority in reference to that from which it
was taken. These four versions are:
1. The Greek Septuagint.
2. " Chaldee Targums.
3. " Syriac Peshito.
4. " Latin Vulgate.

123
Each of these represents the traditions of a par
ticular locality. The Septuagint is that version of
the text as held by the Alexandrian Jews. The
Targum — by Jews of Palestine. The Syriac Peshito
— by the Oriental Church. The Latin Vulgate — by
the Western Church. Two of these, the Syriac
Peshito and the Vulgate, include the New Testa
ment, and therefore have a critical authority in
regard to it also. The LXX.and the Targum are con
fined to the Old Testament. Besides these, there
are several versions immediate in the N. T. and
mediate in the O. T, and hence are of no critical
value except in regard to the N. T. ; e.g., the Itala
and Philoxenian Syriac. Both of these made from
the Greek Bible, and hence give the original of the
N. 7., but not of the O. T. Other versions are
mediate in both ; e. g., the Anglo-Saxon, made from
the Latin. This would also be called a modern
version. I. The Septuagint.
The first language into which the O. T. was trans
lated was the Greek, and the Septuagint was the
first translation. There is now much doubt and
uncertainty as to its origin. According to a letter
purporting to have been written by Aristeas to his
brother Philocrates (see Smith's Dictionary,, p. 2919,
Vol. IV.), Ptolemy Philadelphus sent Demetrius
Phalereus to Jerusalem to obtain a copy of the
Jewish Law for his library. The High Priest Eleazar
chose six interpreters from each tribe, seventy-two
in all, and sent them with a copy of the Law n
letters of gold. These men, by conference and
comparison, translated the Bible. Josephus gives
the same account.
Other writers say that the interpreters were shut
up, two by two, in cells, and made out separate
copies, and that all the versions agreed in every let-

124
ter, when compared. There are differences of opin
ion about this letter of Aristeas. Some regard it as
spurious ; other receive it in part, and assume that
the pentateuch was thus prepared, but the rest was
added afterwards. The majority of critics reject it
altogether. The historical and internal evidences
are against it. The internal evidence of the LXX.
shows that it was made by Alexandrian Jews, and
not by the Jews of Palestine, and that it was not
done by one person or at one time. It was called
forth by the need of the Greek-speaking Jews, o
having a copy for their own use.
The Pentateuch was translated first, and Daniel
last, judging from the character of the translation.
Ptolemy Philadelphus began to reign 283 B. C. The
whole of the O. T. must have been translated before
the year 130 B. C, as it is spoken of in the prologue
to the Book of Sirach, which was made in that year.
The language is Hellenistic Greek. Different
portions of the version are of different character.
The Pentateuch is the best, but Daniel was so incor
rect, that after the time of Origen it was laid aside,
and another by Theodotian was substituted for it,
and this is the one we have. Ecclesiastes is slavishly
literal, to a disregard of the plainest rules. In Jer
emiah, verses and chapters are transposed out of
their proper order. The translation, in places,
shows great liberty in omission and insertion, the
most remarkable instance being the systematic var
iation and alteration in the chronology of chapters 6
and 11 of Genesis. The Samaritan translation also
differs from the Hebrew chronology. This Greek
Septuagint version was held in the highest venera
tion in Alexandria and Palestine. Many held it to
be inspired. It was read in the Synagogues of the
Greek Jews in Palestine, and was used by Josephus,
Philo, the Apostles and the Evangelists. The Chris-

125
tian Fathers received it with the same veneration as
the Hebrew Bible. As, in their controversies, the
Christians drew their arguments from the LXX., the
Jews gradually fell back on the Hebrew original, and
hence began to give up the LXX., and at length
despised it.
Mutual recriminations arose between the Jews
and Christians, as to who had corrupted the text. A
number of new translations arose from either party ;
e. g., Aquila, Theodo.tian, and Symmachus. These
versions did not attain to ecclesiastical sanction or
general use, and hence are only preserved in a frag
mentary state.
Aquila, thought by some to be the same as On-
kelos, a Jewish proselyte of Sinope in Pontus, during
the second century. His version was slavishly lit
eral, even to the particles; e. g.,ctvv is often inserted
(as in Gen. i. i) where the preposition really belongs
to the verb. The idiom of the Greek is violated in
order to give an exact rendering.
Theodotian, an Ephesian of the second century.
His translation was really a revision of the LXX.
His translation of Daniel is used in place of the
LXX.'s translation of that book, which was very
faulty. Symmachus, an Ebionite, translated with great
freedom, elegance and purity. (See Smith's Dic
tionary, page 3379.)
In the course of repeated transcriptions, the text
of the LXX. has suffered greatly, until Origen com
plained that every manuscript contained a distinct
text. To remedy this, and to furnish aid to Chris
tians in controversy, Origen undertook the labor of
removing the discrepancies by comparing the best
MSS., and pointing out their agreement with the
original Hebrew and with other Greek versions.

126
This work was called the Hexaple. He spent
twenty years on it. It was so called because it had
six parallel columns. The first column contained
the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters ; the second,
the Hebrew text in Greek characters, so as to be
pronounced more readily; the third contained the
version of Aquila ; the fourth, the version of Sym
machus ; the fifth, that of Theodotion ; and the sixth,
the Septuagint text. Besides these, there were two
or three additional columns for different partial ver
sions. These supplementary versions are only known
from their connection with this Hexapla, and a few
citations from them. Their authors are for the most
part unkown. They are called Quinta, Sexta, and
Septima, from their respective places in the Hexapla.
The author of the Sexta was probably a Christian,
for in Habakkuk 3:18, instead of the phrase " thine
anointed," he substitutes "Jesus, thy Christ."
The Hexapla was chiefly exegetical and polemi
cal. The purpose was not so much to bring back
the Septuagint to its primitive condition as to ade
quately represent the original Hebrew. The plan
of Origen was, when any words occurred in the He
brew which were not in the LXX., to insert them
from one of the other versions, generally from The
odotion s, and these were indicated by an asterisk.
If, on the other hand, there were any words in the
LXX. which were not found in the Hebrew, he pre
fixed an obelisk to them to indicate the fact.
In addition to the Hexapla of Origen, mention is
made by early writers of a Tetrapla and Octapla. It
is not agreed whether these are distinct works or
another name for the Hexapla. The Tetrapla may
have been so called (1) as containing the four prin
cipal versions of the Hexapla, or (2) as being a sep
arate publication of those four versions by themselves
without the original.

127
This work was too cumbrous for general use,
and probably was never completely transcribed. It
was used chiefly for comparison or for making ex
tracts. After the death of Origen, it was preserved
at Caesarea, and was probably destroyed at the sack
of the Saracens. Fragments of it have been collected
and published at various times.
These labors of Origen indirectly tended to in
crease -the variations, for transcribers often neglected
his marks of variation and so confounded the ver
sions. Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius of Egypt tried
to correct the LXX., but all attempts to find out
their readings have been in vain. All we know is
that their labors did not give us a uniform text, for
Jerome still complained of a great diversity of texts
in his day.
The MSS. of to-day are not uniform. A great
number of MSS. of the LXX. in the libraries of
Europe have been examined. The principal ones
are the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum,
the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library at Rome,
and the Codex Sinaiticus at St. Petersburg. The
first portion of the LXX. printed was the Psalter,
two editions of which appeared before the entire O.
T. was printed in Greek, 1482-1486. The Greek
Old and New Testaments were first printed in the
Complutensian Polyglot, in 1522. During the delay
in issuing this edition, the Aldine, from Aldus Minu-
tius, appeared in 15 18. Both claimed to have fol
lowed ancient MSS.
A large number of mediate versions were made
from the LXX., the early Fathers being familiar with
Greek and not with Hebrew, most commonly trans
lating from the Greek. The oldest Latin version is
the Itala. The Syro-Hexaplaric of the seventh cen
tury follows the text of Origen's Hexapla. The

128
Ethiopic version of the fourth century, also severa
Egyptian versions in the Coptic language, in the
third and fourth centuries, the Armenian in the early
part of the fifth century, the Georgic in the sixth
century, the Slavonic in the ninth, and several Ara
bic and one valuable Gothic version by Bishop Ulfi-
las, in the fourth century, of which the O. T. has
perished, and only a portion of the N. T. exists.
The Critical Value of the LXX. is variously
estimated ; some giving it no weight whatever, and
others placing it above the Masoretic Hebrew.
Morinus affirms the superiority of the LXX. and so
also does Capellus, who tried to show that in many
instances the readings of the LXX. were preferable
to the Hebrew. This was regarded as against the
authority of the Hebrew. Some modern critics also
prefer the LXX. The majority, however, while val
uing it greatly, affirm that the Masoretic text is the
best and not to be corrected by the LXX.
II. Chaldee Targums.
These ancient versions or paraphrases are called
Targums from a Chaldee root meaning to explain,
or translate. The word Dragoman, still used in the
East, is derived from the same root. In Ezra 4: 7,
the word is translated "interpret." These Targums
are paraphrases and not exact versions. The Jewish
account of them is, that when the Chaldee became
the language of the people, and the Hebrew was no
longer intelligible, each synagogue appointed an in
terpreter, as well as a reader, who should translate
into Chaldee the Scriptures as read. For the sake
of greater certainty and accuracy these extempor
aneous translations were superseded by written ver
sions, called Targums. They are distinct works by
various authors and at different times, each contain
ing one or more books of the O. T. They are var
iously reckoned.

129
The are eleven principal ones, viz., three on the
Pentateuch, Onkelos, Pseudo -Jonathan, and the Jeru
salem; 'two on the Prophets, Jonathan Ben- Uzziel,
and the Jerusalem ; one on the Hagiographa by
Joseph the Blind, containing Job, Psalms, and Pro
verbs ; one on the five small books called Megilloth,
viz., Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Eccle
siastes ; three on Esther ; one on I. and II. Chron
icles. The most ancient and valuable is that on the
Pentateuch, by Onkelos, and that on the Prophets,
by Jonathan Ben-Uzziel. These two are distin
guished from all the rest by the purity of their
Chaldee, which approaches that of Daniel and Ezra.
They are free from the legends of the later Tar
gums, and from arbitrary additions, although Jon
athan followed the original less closely than Onkelos.
These two are highly esteemed by the Jews.
Onkelos refers Gen. 49: 10 and Num. 24: 17 to
the Messiah ; Jonathan refers Isaiah 53 to the
Messiah; according to Jewish tradition, they were
both pupils of Hillel, a distinguished teacher of
Jerusalem, who died 60 B. C. The accounts are
obscure, Onkelos being by some confounded with
Aquila. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Penta
teuch was so called because it was erroneously
ascribed to the Jonathan above mentioned, whereas
its barbarous Chaldee and historical allusions assign
it to the seventh century.
The Jerusalem Targum is so called either from
the place where it was made, or from the dialect in
which it was written. It is not complete. It fre
quently corresponds with the Pseudo- Jonathan. It
is doubtful whether it is original, or a compilation
from other Targums.

130
The remainder of the Targums are of compara
tively modern date, written in wretched Chaldee,
and utterly worthless for purposes of criticism.
There are no Targums on Daniel, Ezra, and Nehe
miah. The Talmud says that Daniel reveals the
exact time of the Messiah's advent, and therefore
should not be made known to the people. The most
probable reason was that these books were written
in inspired Chaldee, and they were unwilling to
mingle with it their uninspired Chaldee.
III. The Syriac Version.
This was likewise written in the Aramaic tongue.
The Peshito, or Old Syriac. It was called Peshito,
or " Simple^ (i,) either because of its literal charac
ter as a translation, or (2,) because of its plain, una
dorned, and simple style, or (3,) because it clings to
the literal interpretation, as opposed to the allegor
ical. It is evidently the work of a Christian trans
lator, perhaps a converted Jew, inasmuch as this was
made directly from the Hebrew, and with great
accuracy. Most of the ancient versions are made
from fhe LXX. The age of this old Syriac version
is disputed, and its origin obscure. It is the basis of
the Christian literature of the old Syrian church. It
was known in the fourth century, for Ephraim Syrus,
who died A. D. 378, makes it the basis of his com
mentary, and says that it was in common use in the
Syrian church. It has been ascribed to the third,
second, and even to the first century, prepared dur
ing the lifetime of the Apostles themselves. It is
urged in favor of its age that it was generally received
in the time of Ephraim Syrus, and that many words
and phrases were at that time obscure, and besides,
the early Syrian church would require such a version.
On the other hand, it is not supposable that it could
have existed more than a century before any other
Christian writings appeared in that language. This

131
originally contained only the Canonical books. The
Apocryphal books were afterwards added. It con
tinued to be the received translation among them
until the controversy between the Monophysitesand
the Nestorians gave rise to another.
Paul, Bishop of Tela, made the Syro-Hexaplaric
version from the Septuagint of Origen's Hexapla,
early in the seventh century; English translation of
it by Dr. Murdoch of New Haven.
IV. Latin Versions.
From a statement made by Augustine, there
must have been several Latin versions. He says that
those who translated into Greek from the Hebrew
could be numbered, but the Latin translators could in
no manner be counted. He speaks of one of them
under the name of the Itala. To this he gives prefer
ence on account of its superior accuracy and perspic
uity. All these Latin versions were made, not from
the Hebrew, but from the Greek, — from the LXX. in
the Old Testament, and from the original Greek in
the New. This variety of translations produced
•such confusion and so many discrepancies, that it
was complained that there were almost as many
different texts as there were MSS.
Repeated solicitations were accordingly made of
Jerome, a monk of Palestine, the most learned man
of his time, equally skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin, that he should undertake the revision and
correction of the Latin versions. In 382. or 383
A. D., at the urgent request of Damasus, Bishop of
Rome, he began a hasty revision of the Gospels,
then proceeded to the rest of the N. T, and then
passed to the Psalms, and reviewed them afterward
more carefully. The first of these two revisions of
the Psalms by Jerome was adopted at Rome and
hence was called the Roman Psalter. The second
was adopted in Gaul and hence was called the Gallic

132
Psalter. Jerome, after going over many books of
the O. T, then resolved upon a new and independ
ent version from the original Hebrew. He ob
tained at considerable expense the assistance of
native Jews, and made use also of pre-existing.
Greek versions. Such was the veneration for the
LXX. that every departure from it was regarded as
a deviation from the word of God and offensive to
Him. Even Augustine begged him to desist.
Jerome persevered, nevertheless, but kept as closely
to the LXX. as possible, sometimes against his better
judgment. He began in 385, but the work was not
completed and published until 405. Some parts
were hastily prepared. He speaks of translating a
thousand verses in one day and says thit he trans
lated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, in three
days. This translation is one of the best preserved to
us from antiquity. It was long in coming into gene
ral use. The old Itala continued to be used in
connection with it until about the beginning of the
seventh century, when all the Western Church ac
cepted it, but retained, the old version of the Psalter.
The modern Vulgate consists of the Apocrypha
from the Itala, the Psalter of the Itala corrected by
Jerome, and the rest is Jerome's version. The Itala
and Vulgate have been corrected by each other, and
hence both have become corrupted. Repeated
attempts have been made by later scholars to cor
rect the text of the Latin Bible. The learned Alcuin
in the ninth century, under the direction of Charle
magne, undertook the restoration of the true text.
Also Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury in eleventh
century and Cardinal Michaelis of the twelfth
century. There were several works in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries called the " Correctoria
Biblica or Epanorthica," containing also different

133
readings, especially the Sorbonne Edition and that
of Hugo St. Clair.
Great importance was givento this Latin version
by a decision of the Council of Trent. On the 8th
of April, 1546, it was decreed that the Vulgate
should be held as authentic in public reading, preach
ing and exposition, and that no one should dare or
presume to reject it on any pretense whatever.
This decree accordingly contained an order for the
printing of an accurate edition. A standard edition
was published in 1590 under the direction of Pope
Sixtus V., called the Sixtine edition. This was de
clared to be the one pronounced authentic by the
Council of Trent, and the printing of any other copy
different from this was forbidden under penalty of
excommunication. Errors were immediately dis
covered in it, however, and only two years after,
Clement VIII. published a new edition differing
from the other in some thousands of places, and
this last is now the standard edition of the Vulgate.
This action of the Popes has always been a sore
point with those who hold the doctrine of the Papal
Infallibility.
Hebrew Manuscripts.
The MSS. of the original in the N. T. are more
numerous and older than of the O. T., but this is
compensated for by the fact that in the MSS. of O.
T. there is greater care and accuracy in transcrip
tion. The variations are few and unimportant.
The existing Hebrew MSS. consist of two classes :
— 1. Those for the use of the Synagogue ; 2. Those
used by private persons. Of the latter there are
two classes: — (a) Those written in the square letter,
and (b) those written in the abbreviated Rabbinical
letter or running hand.

134
I. The Synagogue MSS. These are the most
valuable, and contain those portions of the O. T,
which were selected for reading in the Synagogues ;
i. e., the Law and the Prophets.
(a) The Law was on one MS. The lessons
from the Law were read in course, and were called
Parashoth. (b) The Prophets were not read in course, but
from lessons, and these were written on separate
MSS,, called Haphtheroth,and were numbered to cor
respond to the passages of the Pentateuch to be read
on the same Sabbath. The tradition is that the les
sons were originally only to be read from the Law,
but when Antiochus Epiphanes forbade the reading
of the Law in the Synagogue, lessons were selected
from the Prophets to evade the requirement of the
king. There were separate rolls for the five smaller
books, i. <?., the Megilloth, viz., Esther, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Ruth, and Lamentations. Esther was read
at the feast of Purim. These MSS. or rolls were
prepared with the greatest care, according to rules
given in the Talmud, which were superstitiously mi
nute. They must be written on parchment prepared
from the skin of a clean animal. The text was to be
the square character, written in columns, without
vowels or points, and to be written in black ink.
All large and small letters were to be carefully
noted. The copyist must look at each word in the
original before transcribing it. The copy must be
corrected within thirty days, and if four errors were
discovered on one skin, that MS. must be rejected.
These MSS. are very valuable, and are highly
prized. Very few of them are in the hands of Chris
tians, because the Jews generally burned them when
they became old, lest they should be polluted by the
touch of a Christian.

135
II. Private MSS. These are rarely complete.
They generally contain only parts of the O. T.
Sometime are written in rolls, but generally bound
in books of various sizes.
(a) Those which were written in the square char
acter are most valuable, and contain the points and
vowels. The letters were written first, the points
and vowels being added afterwards. One wrote
the consonants, another the vowels and the K'ri.
Another corrected it. Another added the Masora
and Scholia. They are nearly all written in black
ink, with ornamented words or letters in the opening
paragraphs. The prose was written in columns, and
the poetry in clauses. Sometimes the Hebrew text
was accompanied by translations in Chaldee or Ara
bic. The upper and lower margins contain the Great
Masora or traditions as to the text ; the outer mar
gin the scholia or some Rabbinical commentary ; the
inner margin the K'ri and Little Masora. Some
times the material was parchment, but oftener linen
or cotton paper.
(b) The Private MSS. in the Rabbinical charac
ter are mostly on paper, without points, accents, or
Masora, and with many abbreviations.
Those MSS. designed for the use of the Syna
gogues are the most important. The Private MSS.
in the square characters are next in value, and the
Private MSS. in the Rabbinical character are least
important. The determination of the age of Hebrew MSS.
is very difficult, especially if there be no date or in
scription. A criterion available in Greek or Latin
MSS., drawn from the shape of the letters, is not
available here, because the square letter is the same
in all existing MSS. Some MSS. have subscriptions
giving the date, but some of these are found to be
fraudulent and are added to increase the value.

136
There is great difficulty in interpreting these sub
scriptions even when the date is given, because they
bear record from different eras, and it is uncertain
what these eras were.
The. Hebrew MSS. are obtained from the remotest
countries, from the Jews in India and China, and
have the same text as in our Bibles. A large
number of MSS. have been described and examined
by Pinner and others. Pinner gives an account of
several Hebrew MSS. found at Odessa, which must
be by several centuries the oldest known to exist, if
his word can be taken. What he regards as the
oldest, is the Pentateuch Roll on leather, which was
brought to Odessa from Dhagistan. The sub
scription says that it was corrected in 580, hence it
is probably much older than that. Another was
written in 843, another in 881.
The oldest MSS. in DeRosse's collection were
some rescued from the Genesa at Lucca, where the
Jews were accustomed to bury their MSS. These
consisted of fragments of the Pentateuch which he
supposed to belong to MSS. of the eighth century.
The oldest in Kennecott's collection bears the
date 1018 A. D.
No uniform Hebrew text is preserved in the
Samaritan letters and among the Samaritans, though
they have the Hebrew Pentateuch. There is what
is called a Samaritan Pentateuch, and there is a
Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch. The first is
the Hebrew Pentateuch written in Samaritan letters,
by Joseph Skaliger of the sixteenth century. The
first copy ever seen in Europe was obtained by
Peter Delaval on his return from Palestine in 1662,
when he published an account of the countries
visited. The Samaritans now consist of a few families in
Nablous. They seem to have lived in small com-

137
munities at that time. Delaval was in Damascus in
1616, and succeeded in purchasing two manuscripts,
one containing the Hebrew text, or the Samaritan
Pentateuch, on parchment, which he deposited in a
Paris Library; the other, the Samaritan Version of
the Pentateuch, he retained himself.
Since this time, various other copies of the Sam
aritan Pentateuch have been obtained by Euro
pean scholars. The opinions of scholars vary as to
its value. Its first publisher, Murinus, vindicated
the claim of the Samaritan Pentateuch to be superior
to the Masoretic text ; others depreciate it. The
strife continued a long time, but the matter is now
very much at rest as to the main points. It was
claimed by Morinus to have been derived from the
Pentateuchs of the ten tribes at the time of the
schism of Jeroboam ; the common opinion now, how
ever, is that it appeared after the Babylonish exile.
Manassas, brother of the high-priest at Jerusalem,
being threatened with exclusion from the priest
hood for marrying a Samaritan woman, fled to the
temple on Mt. Gerizim, carrying the Pentateuch
with him, and the modern Samaritan copies are
derived from this.
In favor of that view that gives the greatest anti
quity to it, it was argued that the hatred between
the Samaritans and Jews was such that they would
not adopt their books. It was further urged that
the Samaritans received of all the books of O. T only
the Pentateuch. It was urged that, if these were in
existence when they borrowed the Pentateuch, they
would have taken them likewise. In reply to this,
however, we may say that the Samaritans are not
the legitimate descendants of the ten tribes, but
are rather the descendants of the heathen colonists
introduced by the king of Assyria, after the ten
tribes were carried into captivity. The enmity be-

138
tween the two was not a bar to their adopting the
books. The Samaritans claimed at the end of the
captivity, to be the children of Israel, and offered to
unite with them in rebuilding the temple. The Jews
refused this claim, which refusal was the basis of the
hostility between them. They renewed their claim
as often as it was to their interest to do so. This
claim was the ground of their hatred. Hence the
Samaritans would catch with eagerness anything
tending to strengthen their claim. Almost every
thing they had was borrowed from the Jews. • So
they coveted the Pentateuch. Their reverence for
the Pentateuch, while rejecting the rest of the O. T,
cannot be accounted for by saying this was not
written, for other portions were in existence at that
time. The Samaritans have a book of Joshua, but
not the correct, one. The true reason arose out of
the nature of their religious system. It was the
same as that which led the heretics of the early
Christian Church to reject the epistles of Paul, &c.
The contents did not suit their creed. The grand
Article of Faith with the Samaritans, was, that on
Mt. Gerizim everybody should worship, and not at
Jerusalem. The Pentateuch was altered for this
purpose in more than one place. And all those
books which speak of a local seat of God's house
after the people were settled in Canaan, were reject
ed by them from the canon ; but Moses they could
not reject. The opinion that it was derived at the
schism of Jeroboam has been given up for the rea
sons given. The period of the defection of Man
assas, is the best that can be obtained. /
While the Samaritan and the Jewish Pentateuch
agree in the main, yet they differ in several thou
sand readings. A large portion consists merely of
the insertion of vowel letters, or the insertion or
omission of the copulative conjunction or the article,

139
or other trifling variations. Quite a number, how
ever, are of greater consequence. In upwards of a
thousand readings it agrees with the Septuagint as
against the Masoretic text. The manuscripts are
written with little care and exhibit many discrepan
cies among themselves. These are of no critical
value ; yet they agree in many particulars. The
investigations of Gesenius have shown that the
great body were intentional alterations of the text,
made for the purpose of simplifying, etc., the reasons
for which can still be assigned. Gesenius gives
several classes.
i. Grammatical emendations ; unusual forms
changed for the more ordinary ; archaisms avoided ;
want of agreement between verb and subject, noun
and adj., etc., in very many cases agreeing with the
K'ri. 2. System of explanatory glosses ; difficult words
or unusual forms of speech explained ; some simpler
phrase or word used without varying the sense.
3. Conjectural emendation of a letter or two, to
improve the sense and to remove imaginary difficul
ties. 4. Alterations for the sake of conforming to
parallel passages; e. g., the father-in-law of Moses,
in Ex. 4: 18, is said to be Jether, which the Samari
tans make Jethro. The name of Moses' successor,
which the Bible occasionally gives in a different way,
the Samaritan Pentateuch gives as Joshua. In the
genealogies, Gen. 11," and he died" is added to the
name of every patriarch, as in the fifth chap. When
ever any names of the Canaanitish tribes occur, the
Samaritan Pentateuch gives all of them.
5. The fifth class of corrections involve still
greater interpolation, where whole sentences, and
often verses, are interpolated.

140
6. Corrections to remove historical and other
difficulties. Ex. 12: 40, "430 years." The Samaritan
copy makes this cover the wandering of the Patri
archs in Canaan as well as their settlement in Egypt
by inserting "who dwelt in -the land of Canaan."
The most remarkable variations occur in Gen. 5 and
11. The Samaritan and the Septuagint text differ
here from the Hebrew and from each other. It is
easy to discover that both were altered from the
Hebrew, but with different ends in view.
7. ' Samaritanisms," as Gesenius calls them. In
these they slide into their native idioms.
8. Those which have been altered to conform to
Samaritan ideas. The removal of anthropomor
phisms, — the imputing to God that which belongs to
man, e. g., such as would impute bodily passions or
human parts to God. Deut. 27 : 4.
The Samaritans change Ebal to Gerizim.
The MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch were
partly on parchment, or on cotton and linen paper ;
no vowels or pointing ; sometimes there is a dia
critical line to separate words similarly written ;
words are separated by a point or by two points.
Three native versions have been made from the
Samaritan Pentateuch, one into Greek, one into the
Samaritan language, and the third into the Arabic.
The last two are still extant. The Greek has per
ished. These versions are of no account.
Criticism and History of the Text of the Old
Testament.
By text is meant the very words of the writer.
The office of criticism is to remove errors in the
existing MSS. by means of all the evidence existing.
The name criticism is repugnant to some minds from
the erroneous notion entertained of it. The legiti-

141
mate aim of criticism is the restoration of the text as
it came from the hands of the sacred penman. It
does not produce uncertainty. It establishes the
correctness of the received text.
The sources of textual criticism are four- fold. i.
Manuscripts. 2. Versions. 3. Quotations. 4.
Conjectures. 1. Manuscripts are liable to error in transcription.
If it were not for this they would be certain evidence.
These errors are by accident or design.
(1.) Errors by accident. Liability to error was
greater formerly than now. Yet even now errata
are common in printed books. They increase in
arithmetical progression in the old manuscripts.
There are, (a) errors of the eye. (b) Errors of the
ear, one reading while another writes, (c) Errors
of memory, causing transposition, omission, inter
change, taking parallel passage, etc. (d) Errors of
judgment. The erroneous divisions of words ; mis
understanding abbreviations, mistaking syllables for
words, and marginal remarks for part of the text.
(2.) Errors by design. The early Christians charged
the Jews and heretics with intentional errors ; with
regard to the former they were groundless. Manu
scripts were subjected to intentional alterations,
made to introduce corrections, etc. This was done
designedly, though with good motives ; yet it was no
less a mistake.
The first consideration in determining the authen
ticity of a manuscript is its date: another, the care
with which it was written, whether there are marks
of carelessness ; again, the general agreement of the
text with other valuable manuscripts.
2. The second class of critical authorities are the
ancient versions. By their critical value is meant
the aid they give in restoring or settling the true
text of Scripture ; their hermeneutical value. They

142
place before us the system of interpretation adopted
by the translators. To these may be added the ex-
egetical value of a version, the aid which they render
us. Now different versions are of unequal merit in
these various respects.
These two uses are quite independent of each
other. No version can have critical value unless it
is both ancient and immediate ; the older the better;
the nearer the fountain-head, the purer the stream.
Those before the Masorites are called ancient. Since
that tirne the text is the same as Ave have before us.
Some have even proposed to substitute a version
for the original. So the Council of Trent did in
regard to the Vulgate, which they declared authen
tic. None shall reject it. Some doctors of the
Romish Church understand this to legitimatize its
use ; others understand it to set aside other copies
in favor of this. We cannot make the stream
higher than its source. No one is willing to rely
upon translations, if he can read the original. •
None can vie with the original Scriptures as being
universally received and authoritative. No one has
ever claimed the Vulgate to be inspired, (i) The
only grounds would be that the original has become
hopelessly corrupt, or (2) wholly unintelligible. For
the first, it must be shown that this corruption did
not enter before the version was made. As to the
second, it must be shown that the version has been
kept pure itself. It has been shown that the original
Scriptures have been preserved purer than any
other. And that it is unintelligible without points,
which are of human authority.
This argument is at fault both in the premises
and in the conclusion. The Hebrew Bible can be
read without the points. Ancient and valuable
translations may be used as helps, but not sub-

143
stituted in its place. This argument has been
abandoned by the greater number.
Versions are not of as great importance as man
uscripts. If a copy is taken from a manuscript and
one from a version, the version would be one step
from the source. Manuscripts, therefore, are the
primary authorities in criticisms, versions of second
ary authority. No new reading on the sole author
ity of versions should be admitted, though they may
lend their aid. It is necessary to institute careful
examinations of the versions, separately. The first
inquiry must be as to the state of the version itself.
The work of the version depends upon the accuracy
of the copy from which it is made.
Versions have another source of corruption peculiar
to themselves, viz., the interpretation and correction
of one version from another. When the primary
text of the immediate versions has been obtained,
the question arises, does it give a free or literal
translation ? If free, it is of little worth to the critic.
Further, if it gives a paraphrase, it increases the
hermeneutical value, but ruins it for critical pur
poses. For the aid of the critic, it is better if it
renders every particle, however unintelligible it
might be made.
Closely allied with the preceding is the nature of
the language into which the version was made.
The closer the affinity between the languages, the
clearer the meaning, and the less the change. A
version into Syriac would have an advantage over
one into the Greek or the Latin.
Another point is the general accuracy of the ver
sions, including the fidelity and ability of the trans
lators. The use of a version in the criticism of the
original requires great caution.
3. Third source of criticism is quotations found
in the early writers. The first printed editions

144
known to have been taken from ancient manuscripts
since lost are entitled to credit, corresponding to
their respective sources. Some internal grounds
arising from these various readings themselves. The
most general rule is, that reading which will give the
most satisfactory account of all the others is probably
the true one. For this reason the most difficult read
ing is often to be regarded as the original one. Yet
this rule must be used with caution. Again, that
reading which gives the best sense, and agrees best with
the text ; the style of the author also may furnish a
presumption in favor of one reading. An improper
use has often been made of parallel passages.
Copies sometimes give parallel passages instead of
the true one. It is particularly so with the Psalms.
Discrepancies are often proof of the conscientious
care with which they are preserved.
4. Where everything else fails, recourse must be
had to critical conjecture. Our object should be to
determine what the text actually was, not to deter
mine what it might have been. Our authorities are
so ample that critical conjecture is only to be re
sorted to in extreme cases, or not at all. This is
much more extensively used in the profane writings.
The general result of all this is to establish the
correctness of the inspired text. None of them
materially affect the inspired text. While the
mechanical correctness of the text is maintained, its
correctness in the main is established. There could
have been no mutilations before the time of the
Saviour, for He or the Apostles would have exposed
them. They charge the Jews with other sins, but
not with this. To this agrees their own scrupulous
adherence to the word of God, and their supersti
tious veneration for it. It has not been changed
since the time of the Saviour, from the impossibility
of Jews combining to corrupt them, scattered as they

145
are over the world. Then they had no access to
those in the hands of the Christians.
The internal evidence of their Scriptures is the
same as the Christians have. The charges of this na
ture made by the early Christians seem to have arisen
from the veneration in which the Septuagint was
then held. While the Jews were guiltless of wilful
alteration, they took great pains to prevent errors,
which are almost unavoidable in repeated transcrip
tions. Even the size of the letters, position of the
letters, finals and medials, etc., were transmitted from
age to age, and so printed in our Hebrew Bible.
Guarding it thus, they counted the verses, words,
and even the letters of Scripture, marking the mid
dle word, etc., showing the disposition to preserve
them entire.
The mass of criticism called the Masora accumu
lated gradually ; the beginning was very early. It
is now very unwieldy. There are the Great Masora
and the Little Masora : the latter is an abridgement
of the former. To the Masora belong the K'ri and
the K'thibh, (read and written,) referring exclusively
to the letters, never to the vowels. They are about
one thousand in number. The origin of these
various readings is involved in great uncertainty.
Perhaps from the collation of MSS. It seems plain
that all did not arise from this source. Many arose
perhaps from a desire for grammatical uniformity.
K'thibh refers to the original text, the K'ri is a gloss
upon it. The K'thibh and K'ri do not stand side
by side as resting upon independent authority. The
K'thibh was placed in the text, and required it to be
read according to the K'ri in the margin. This
seems to show that the Masora found already in
existence a text which was to be considered true
and unaltered. They made no alterations in the
context.

146
The first portion of the Hebrew Bible ever printed
was the Psalms, in 1477, accompanied by a com
mentary. The Hebrew Bible was printed entire at
St. Senna in the duchy of Milan, in 1488 ; only nine
copies of this are known to be in existence. The
second complete edition, the one which Luther used,
was made six years later. Luther used it in making
his German Bible. By a Rabbinical Bible is meant
a Hebrew Bible containing the Chaldee Targums as
well as the Masora and the commentaries of the
Rabbins. Three editions have been printed ; Daniel
Vombar in 15 18, Buxtorf in 1618 (a copy of which
is in the Seminary Library,) Amsterdam in 1724.
The text of the Pentateuch was divided for read
ing in the Synagogue into 54 sections ; these were
subdivided into 669 lesser divisions, called Parashoth.
These smaller sections are some of them designated
by the 3 or 0. The large sections are marked with
three large a's or d's ; corresponding are the les
sons from the Prophets, the Hafturas. When the
reading of the Law was prohibited, the reading of
the Prophets took its place. Chapters are of Chris
tian origin. Cardinal Hugo first introduced them
into the Vulgate in the 13th Century. The division
of the Bible into verses is as old as the system of
accents. By a critical edition we mean one having a col
lection of various readings. The most noted are
those of How, begun in Paris in 1753 ; and of Ken-
nicott in Oxford in 1776. This last is made from
694 MSS. De Rosse, a few years later, exhibited
various readings from 700 MSS. The Polyglot ex
hibits several ancient versions possessing critical
authority. There are four principal Polyglots;
Complutensian Polyglot of Spain, Antwerp, Paris
and London. A copy of each is in the Seminary
Library. The Antwerp edition, or " Biblia Regia,"

147

in 8 Vols., 1269, was published under the patronage
of Philip of Spain. The Parisian is in 10 Vols.,
1645, anQl was published at Paris. The London
Polyglot in 6 Vols., folio, in 1657.

9002 08867 3331