exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/3200.html

113 lines
610 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[3201]='Eshek`e\'-shek (\'esheq, "oppressor"):<P>A descendant of Jonathan, son of Saul, first king of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,39);">1Ch 8:39</a>).``1';
isbe[3202]='Eshkalonite`esh\'-ka-lon-it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHKELONITES">ASHKELONITES</a>`1';
isbe[3203]='Eshtaol`esh\'-ta-ol (\'eshta\'ol; Astaol):<P>A town in the Shephelah of Judah named next to Zorah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,33);">Jos 15:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,41);">19:41</a>). Between these two cities lay Mahaneh-dan (the camp of Dan) where the Spirit of the Lord began to move Samson (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,25);">Jud 13:25</a>), and where he was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,31);">Jud 16:31</a>). A contingent from Eshtaol formed part of the 600 Danites who captured Laish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,2,11);">Jud 18:2, 11</a>).<P>It is probably represented by the modern Ashu\'a, about a mile and a half east of Zorah, the modern Car\'ah.``1';
isbe[3204]='Eshtaolites; Eshtaulites`esh\'-ta-ol-its, eshta-u\'-lits (ha\'eshta\'uli, literally, "the Eshtaolite"; the King James Version):<P>Inhabitants of Eshtaol, named among the descendants of Shobal, the son of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,53);">1Ch 2:53</a>).``1';
isbe[3205]='Eshtemoa`esh-te-mo\'-a, esh\'-te-mo-a (\'eshtemoa\'):<P>A Levitical city in the hill country of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,14);">Jos 21:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,57);">1Ch 6:57</a>); Eshtemoh (\'eshtemoh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,50);">Jos 15:50</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17,19);">1Ch 4:17, 19</a>, Eshtemoa is said to be a Maacathite and "son" of Ishbah. David after routing the Amalekites sent a present to his friends in (among other places) Eshtemoa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,28);">1Sa 30:28</a>).<P>It is now es-Semu\'a, a considerable village of evident antiquity some 8 miles south of Hebron.``1';
isbe[3206]='Eshtemoh`esh\'-te-mo.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESHTEMOA">ESHTEMOA</a>`1';
isbe[3207]='Eshton`esh\'-ton (\'eshton, "uxorious"):<P>A name found in the genealogical table of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a>).``1';
isbe[3208]='Esli`es\'-li (Eslei, Esli; probably for Hebrew \'atsalyahu):<P>An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy, the 10th before Joseph, the husband of Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,25);">Lu 3:25</a>).``1';
isbe[3209]='Esora`e-so\'-ra.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AESORA">AESORA</a>`1';
isbe[3210]='Espousal; Espouse`es-pouz\'-al, es-pouz\':<P>In the King James Version these words, following English usage of an earlier day, are used to signify either marriage or betrothal, while the American Standard Revised Version discriminates, and uses them only for marriage. For example, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,14);">2Sa 3:14</a>, "I espoused to me" (Hebrew \'erasti li) becomes "I betrothed to me." So also, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,18);">Mt 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,27);">Lu 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,5);">2:5</a> which refer to the relation between Joseph and Mary before the birth of Jesus, "espoused" (mnesteuo) becomes "betrothed." On the other hand, "espoused" is retained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,11);">So 3:11</a> ("the day of his espousals"<22>that is, day of marriage); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,2);">Jer 2:2</a> ("the love of thine espousals"<22>that is, the love of married state); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,2);">2Co 11:2</a> ("I espoused (hermosamen) you to one husband").``61';
isbe[3211]='Espy`es-pi\': "Espy" in modern English means "to catch sight of," rather than "to explore secretly." the Revised Version (British and American) therefore retains it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,27);">Ge 42:27</a>, "He espied his money" (Hebrew ra\'ah, "see"), while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,7);">Jos 14:7</a> "espy out the land" (the King James Version) becomes "spy out the land." the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "watch" for "espy" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,19);">Jer 48:19</a>, and "searched out" for "espied" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,6);">Eze 20:6</a>, with a gain in accuracy of rendering (cf the context).``1';
isbe[3212]='Esril`es\'-ril, ez\'-ril:<P>the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZRIL">EZRIL</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[3213]='Esrom`es\'-rom, ez\'-rom (Esrom):<P>the King James Version, the Greek form of Hezron (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,3);">Mt 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,33);">Lu 3:33</a>).``1';
isbe[3214]='Essenes (I-II)`es-senz\', (Essenoi, Essaioi):<P>Contents<p><b>I. THE NAME</b><P class="in15">Forms It Assumes - Etymology, Origin<P><b>II. AUTHORITIES FOR THE TENETS OF THE ESSENES</b><P class="in15">1. Philo<P class="in30">(1) Description from Quod Omnis Probus Liber<P class="in30">(2) Description from Quotation in Eusebius, Preposition Evang.<P class="in30">(3) Description of Therapeutae from De Vita Contemplativa<P class="in15">2. Josephus<P class="in30">(1) Description from Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, i, 5<P class="in30">(2) Description from Wars of the Jews, II, viii, 2-13<P class="in30">(3) Incidental Notices<P class="in15">3. Pliny<P class="in15">4. Hegesippus<P class="in15">5. Porphyry<P class="in15">6. Hippolytus<75>Uses Josephus, but to Some Extent Independent<P class="in15">7. Epiphanius<75>Confused Account<P><b>III. DEDUCTIONS AND COMBINATIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Government<P class="in15">2. Doctrines<P><b>IV. HISTORY AND ORIGIN</b><P class="in15">1. Essenes and Chasidhim<P class="in15">2. Position of Essenes in Josephus<P class="in15">3. Doctrinal Affinities<P class="in15">4. Essenes and Pythagoras<P class="in15">5. Buddhism and Essenism<P class="in15">6. Parseeism and Essenism<P class="in15">7. Essenism Mainly Jewish<P><b>V. RELATION TO APOCALYPTIC BOOKS</b><P class="in15">1. Reasons for Holding the Essenes to Be the Writers of the Apocalypses<P class="in15">2. Objections Answered<P><b>VI. THE ESSENES AND CHRISTIANITY</b><P class="in15">1. Resemblances between Essenism and Christianity<P class="in15">2. Points of Difference<P class="in15">3. Disappearance of Essenism in Christianity<P class="in15">4. Monachism<p><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>When Josephus describes the sects of the Jews, he devotes most of his time and attention to the third of these sects, the Essenes. Strangely enough, although there are frequent references in the New Testament to the other two sects, the Sadducees and Pharisees, no reference has been found to the Essenes. Notwithstanding this silence of the Gospels, the prominence of this third sect is undeniable. Even in Egypt they are known. Philo, the Jewish philosopher, gives an account of these Essenes in terms that, while in the main resembling those used in Josephus, yet differ enough to prove him clearly an independent witness. Another contemporary, Pliny the Naturalist, also mentions these Essenes. Approximately a century later we have a long account of the habits and tenets of these sectaries in Hippolytus\' Refutation of All Heresies. A century and a half later still Epiphanius describes these under various titles. Despite the fact that no reference to the Essenes can be found in the Gospels or the Acts, at all events under that name, there can be no doubt of their existence. Would one understand the Palestine in which our Lord\'s ministry was carried on, he must comprehend the place occupied by the Essenes.<P>I. The Name.<P>This assumes several forms in different authors<72>indeed sometimes two forms appear in the same author. Josephus uses most frequently the form of the name which stands at the head of this article, but sometimes he speaks of individuals as "Essaeans" (BJ, II, vii, 3; viii, 4). This latter form is that preferred by Philo, a form that is adopted by Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius, IV, 22. Pliny in his Natural History, v.15 writes "Essaeans." Hippolytus also has "Essenus." Epiphanius has mixed his information so that this sect appears with him under several names as "Ossaei" and "Jessaei." Forms It Assumes<65>Etymology, Origin:<P>It is clear that the name is not primarily Greek<65>it has passed into Greek from another tongue, since none of the forms has any easy derivation in Greek. Notwithstanding, there have been attempts to derive it from some Greek root, but all are preposterous as etymologies. The etymology must be sought either in Hebrew or its cognate, Aramaic The usage in regard to the translation of proper names is our only guide. Reasoning from the practice as seen in the Greek translation of the Scriptures and in Josephus, we can deduce that the first letter of the original word must have been one of the gutturals \', chapter, h, \'.That the second letter was a sibilant is certain, and the last was probably y, \',for the final "n" in the common form of the name is due to the desire to render the word suitable for Greek accidence. We may say that to us the two most likely derivations are \'asiya\', "doers" or \'aciya\', "healers." Our preference is for the latter, as one of the characteristics of the Essenes dwelt upon by Josephus is the fact that they were healers by means of herbs and incantations (BJ, II, viii, 6). This view is held by the great mass of investigators, as Bellerman, Gfrorer, Hamburger, Herzfeld, Dahm, etc. The name "Therapeutae" given by Philo to the kindred sect in Egypt supports this etymology, as it would be in one of its senses a translation of it. Lightfoot\'s objection that it is improbable that the ordinary name of the sect "should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental" does not follow analogy. The term "Methodist" was derived from a purely temporary characteristic of the society that gathered round Wesley. The extreme probability, from the fact that the name is not found in the New Testament, is that it was the nature of a nickname, like "Quakers" applied to the Society of Friends. The multitude that followed Our Lord affords evidence of the influence that a reputation for healing gave to one.<P>II. The Authorities for the Tenets of the Essenes.<P>Philo and Josephus, as contemporaries and Jews, are necessarily our principal sources of information. Next is Pliny, though a contemporary of the sect, yet as a Roman, of necessity receiving his information secondhand. There is next in point of date Hippolytus in his work Refutation of All Heresies, written more than a century after the fall of the Jewish state and the disappearance of the Essenes. One point in his favor as an authority is his habit of quoting from sources that would be reckoned good even now. He seems to have founded to some extent on Josephus, but he appears to have made use of some other source or sources as well. Slightly later is Porphyry. He avowedly draws all his information from Josephus The latest of the ancients who may be reckoned as authorities is Epiphanius. Writing in the 4th century, and naturally of a somewhat confused intellect, any statement of his unsupported by other authority is to be received with caution.<P>1. Philo:<P>In estimating the evidence that Philo gives concerning the Essenes, we must remember that he was living in Alexandria, not shut up in a Ghetto, but mingling to some extent with the scholars and philosophers of that city. The Jewish community there appears to have been more completely Hellenized than any other assemblage of Jews. The object of Philo\'s numerous works seems to have been the twofold one of commending Jewish religious thought to the Greek philosophic society in which he mingled, and of commending Greek philosophy to his Jewish kinsmen. The geographic distance from Palestine may be to some degree neglected from the frequent communications between it and Egypt. The work in which Philo devotes most attention to the Essenes is his early work, Quod Omnis Probus Liber, "that every good man is free." This treatise is intended for a Gentile audience<63>the "Lawgiver of the Jews" is introduced casually first, and then more emphatically, till he is named. The Essenes are brought forward as the very flower and perfection of Mosaism.<P>(1) Description from Quod Omnis Probus Liber.<P>"There is a portion of that people called Essenes<65>over four thousand in my opinion. They are above all servants (therapeutai) of God. They do not sacrifice animals but study to preserve the sanctity of life. They live in villages, avoiding all cities on account of the lawlessness of those that inhabit them. Some of these men cultivate the soil, others live by peaceful arts and so benefit themselves and all their neighbors. They do not lay up treasures of gold or silver for themselves, judging contentment and frugality the great riches. With them are no makers of arms or of military engines and no one is occupied with anything connected with war. They all avoid commerce and navigation, thinking that these employments make for covetousness. They possess no slaves, holding all men to be free and all are expected to aid one another as real (gnesiois) brethren. They devote their attention to the moral part of philosophy<68>to the neglect of logic<69>using, as instructors, the laws of their country which it would have been impossible for the human mind to devise save by Divine inspiration. They abstain from all work on the seventh day, which they look on as sacred. On it they assemble in sacred buildings which are called synagogues and, seated in order according to age, they hear the Scriptures (tas biblous) read and expounded. They are thus taught to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. They use a threefold criterion<6F>love of God, love of virtue, love of man. They carefully avoid oaths and falsehood<6F>they regard God as the author of all good. They all dwell in companies, so that no one has a dwelling absolutely his own. They have everything in common, their expenses, their garments, their food. When they work for wages they do not retain these for themselves, but bring it into the common stock. The sick are not neglected when they are unable to contribute to the common store. They respect their seniors as if they were their parents. Such men never can be enslaved. As a proof of this none of the many oppressors of their land were able to bring any accusation against the Holy Essenes."<P>The above is a very much condensed summary of the passage on the Essenes in Philo, QOPL. No one can fail to be struck with the resemblance all this has in the first place to the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the practice of the early church. Although celibacy is not mentioned it is implied in the picture here presented of the Essenes. There is another account in a passage quoted from Philo by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, VIII, 11:<P>(2) Description from Quotation in Eusebius, Preposition Evang.<P>"Our lawgiver trained (eleipsen, "anointed") ten thousands of his followers and formed them into a community called Essenes from their holiness. They dwell as numerous communities in many cities and villages of Judea." It will be observed that this contradicts the statement above that there were only 4,000 Essenes and that they avoided cities. "This sect is not hereditary. There are no children nor youths among the Essenes as such persons are unstable. No one among them has property of his own. They regard all possessions as part of a common stock. They all dwell in the same place, forming themselves into clubs and societies. They do everything for the benefit of the whole society, but different members take up different employments, laboring ceaselessly despite cold or heat. Before sunrise they go to their work and do not quit it till sunset. Some are tillers of the soil, some shepherds, some tend bees, some are artisans. These men when they have received their wages give them up to the general manager who purchases what is necessary. Those who live together eat at the same table day after day. Their dress also is common. In winter they have thick cloaks, in summer light mantles. Each takes what he wants. When anyone falls sick he is cured from their common resources. Old men, even if they happen to be childless, are as if they had a numerous offspring of affectionate children. They repudiate marriage because they look on woman as a selfish creature and specially addicted to jealousy and hypocrisy, thus likely to dissolve their brotherhood. A man bound to a woman is hampered by his affection, is no longer a free man but a slave" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,1);">1Co 7:1</a>. Paul mentions the same difficulties in regard to wedlock).<P>(3) Description of Therapeutae from De Vita Contemplativa:<P>In his Treatise De Vita Contemplativa Philo, commencing with a reference to the Essenes, passes on to describe a similar class of coenobites who have their settlements near the Moerotic Lake. These he calls Therapeutae, or in the feminine, Therapeutrides, a title which he interprets as "healers." While there are many points of resemblance, there are also not a few features of difference. We shall give as full an extract as in the previous instances.<P>It is related that they have separate houses and only come together for worship or for feasts. They have parallel societies for men and for women. As in the case of the Essenes there is a reading of ancient sacred books and an exposition of the passage read. The name Therapeutae, with the explanation of the name given by Philo, affords a link, as said above, with the Essenes, if the etymology of their name which we have seen reason to prefer be the true one. There seems also to be some connection between these Jewish monks and the Christian monks of some three centuries later. It ought to be remarked that many suspicions have been thrown on the authenticity of De Vita Contemplativa. Although critical names of authority may be named on that side, yet it may be doubted whether the reasons are sufficient. Lucius, who is the main opponent, does so mainly to invalidate the existence of the Therapeutae. He thinks De Vita Contemplativa was composed by a Christian to give an antiquity to the Christian monks. To prove a practice to have been Jewish would be far from commending it to Christians. But more, the resemblance to the Christian monks, although close on some points, in others of importance the difference is equally prominent. While the common feast suggests the Agapae of the early church, we must remember that this was not a monastic peculiarity. The fact that a female community existed alongside of the male and joined with them in worship is out of harmony with what we know of early monasticism. The feast of the 50th day has no parallel in Christianity.<P>2. Josephus:<P>Like Philo, Josephus wrote for a non-Jewish audience. In Rome the philosophic ideas held in the Hellenic world were prevalent, so he, as much as Philo, had a temptation to be silent on any subject which might shock the sensibilities or provoke the ridicule of his masters. In particular, in describing the habits and tenets of the Essenes, for whom he professed so high an admiration, he would need to be specially careful to avoid causes of offense, as in such a case he would be liable to be involved in their condemnation. In dealing with the notices he gives of the Essenes we would consider the descriptions at length first, and then the incidental notices of individual Essenes.<P>(1) Description from Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, i, 5<P>The description which comes earliest in history<72>not, however, the earliest written<65>is in Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, in connection with the census and survey under Quirinius (Cyrenius) and the resistance to it by Judas of Gamala. He there (Ant., XVIII, i, 5) begins by referring to their theological position, that they believed in the most absolute preordination. They teach the immortality of souls and a state of rewards and punishments. Although they dedicated gifts to the temple they offered no sacrifices, presumably bloody sacrifices, as they have offerings of their own. A singular statement is made that "they are on this account excluded from the common court" (koinou temenismatos). They occupy themselves with husbandry. "They excel in justice all other men." They have all things in common. They neither marry wives nor keep slaves. He says, as does Philo, that they number over four thousand men. They appoint "good men priests who should receive the fruits of their labor for the sake of corn and food."<P>(2) Description from Wars of the Jews, II, viii, 2-13<P>A much fuller account is found in the earlier written treatise on the Wars of the Jews, II, viii, 3. In this work he emphasizes the ascetic side of Essenism.<P>"The Essenes," he says, "reject pleasures as vice. They despise marriage though they do not absolutely repudiate it, but are suspicious of women. They despise riches and have all things in common. They think oil a defilement. They wear white garments. They elect overseers (epimeletai) to manage their common affairs, much as the Christian bishops did those of the churches under them. They have no one city but many of them dwell in every city." It may be observed that this statement is a contradiction of Philo\'s statement and that of Josephus himself above, that they were only 4,000. "When any of them go from one city to another they find the houses of those of their sect open to them as if they were their own." It is probable that as the apostles, when sent out by our Lord to preach, were on entering a city to ask who in it was worthy, the traveling Essenes would inquire who in it were Essenes. Like the apostles they took nothing with them when they traveled save weapons for defense against robbers, just as the apostles had at the time of the Last Supper two swords with which they had likely provided themselves for similar reasons. "They get up before sunrise and offer up prayers which they have received from their ancestors. They are then dismissed to their several employments to the fifth hour, they bathe in cold water, put on white linen garments and enter the refectory as if into a temple. Food is set before each." Much like the Christian grace before meat, a priest offers up prayer. Again, as grace after meat, when the meal is finished the priest again prays. "Both before and after their refection they sing praise to God. As Christ commanded His disciples and said, \'Swear not at all,\' they avoid oaths, indeed esteem them worse than perjury. New members were admitted to the society by baptism, and oaths were laid upon them that they were to be submissive to those in authority in the society. They were to keep the doctrines of the sect secret. They kept the Sabbath with greater strictness than did any other section of the Jews. Heinous sins were punished by expulsion from the order which, as they felt their oaths still binding on them, amounted to death. Judicial sentences are arrived at with the utmost care; decisions are come to by an assembly of not less than a hundred who are chosen to be judges. When once the sentence has been pronounced it stands fixed. They regard the bodies as corruptible but the souls are immortal. They believe in a Paradise resembling the Islands of the Blest." One thing is to be observed: "they are bound by oath to preserve the sacred books of their sect, ta haireseos auton biblia, and the names of the angels." They utter predictions by means of their sacred books, which predictions are generally fulfilled. There is, however, another sort of Essenes who do not avoid marriage.<P>The philosopher Porphyry mentions that Josephus had an account of the Essenes in the second book against the Gentiles. If this means Contra Apienem, no such passage is to be found in that work now. It may, however, be some work of Josephus which has not come down to us, which Porphyry has misnamed, though this is unlikely.<P>(3) Incidental Notices:<P>This is not, however, the whole of the information concerning the Essenes which we can gather from Josephus. The earliest of these incidental notices occurs under the reign of Jonathan (Ant., XIII, v, 9), when the historian mentions the three sects of the Jews, when the only peculiarity he assigns to the Essenes is that they believe that everything happens according to fate. Next, in relating the fate of Antigenus, he tells how Judas, an Essene teaching in the temple, when he saw Antigonus, declared that he was proved a false prophet, as he had foretold that Antigonus was to die that day at Struto\'s tower (Caesarea), and he was now six hundred furlongs off from there. Here the statement that the Essenes were excluded from the temple seems directly contradicted. In the days of Herod (XV, x, 4,5) Josephus relates that while Herod demanded oaths of submission from others he excused the Essenes, from the favor he had to them on account of one Menahem, a member of this sect, who foretold his reign. This Essene seems to have been about the court and to have nothing of the coenobitic agriculturist about him. The Essenian fame for prediction and the interpretation of dreams is related in regard to Archelaus, the son of Herod (BJ, II, vii, 3). Archelaus had a dream, and applied to an Essene, Simon or Simeon, who foretold the end of his reign. In singular contrast to what had been said by Philo of the objection the Essenes had in regard to everything connected with war, one of the leading generals of the Jews when they rebelled against the Romans was John the Essene, who was made governor of certain toparchies in the North (BJ, II, xx, 4). He was killed in the battle near Ascalon with which the war began, which ended in the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (BJ, III, ii, 1). There is also mention of a gate of the Essenes in Jerusalem, which seems to imply that a number of them permanently resided there.<P>3. Pliny:<P>Pliny speaks of the Essenes in his Natural History (v.17) in somewhat rhetorical terms. They dwell on the west side of the Dead Sea<65>"a wonderful race without women, without money, associates of the palms." They are recruited by those wearied of life, broken in fortunes. "Thus a race is eternal through thousands of ages (seculorum) in which no one is born; so fruitful to them is repentance of life in others." He refers to the fertility of Engedi and adds, "now burned up."<P>4. Hegesippus:<P>There is an enigmatical passage quoted by Eusebius from Hegesippus in which the Essaeans (Essenes), the Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbotheans, Samaritans and Pharisees are declared to hold different opinions about circumcision among the sons of Israel "against the tribe of Judah and of Christ" (kata tes phules Iouda kai Christou).<P>5. Porphyry:<P>Porphyry\'s note regarding the Essenes is simply taken from Josephus<P>6. Hippolytus:<3A>Uses Josephus, but to Some Extent Independent<P>In the great work of the mysterious bishop, Hippolytus, discovered some sixty years ago, there is a description of the Essenes. Although the work is a Refutation of All Heresies, implying that the opinions maintained were erroneous and required to be refuted, the author does nothing to exhibit the erroneousness of the Essene tenets or habits. In regard to the Gnostic heresies Hippolytus endeavored to reach original sources; presumably he did so in the present case. Although there is no doubt of his indebtedness to Josephus, yet for the features where he differs from Josephus, or supplements him, we may assume that he has behind his statements some authority which he regarded as valid. In some cases there may be a suspicion that in his eagerness to show that certain heresies were derived from this or that heathen philosophical system he has modified the heresy to suit the derivation he has supposed. This, however, does not apply to the Essenes. In the ninth book of his Refutation of All Heresies, Hippolytus takes up Jewish sects (haireseis) which, following Josephus, he reckons as three. The first he discusses is the Essenes. They are very devotional and temperate and eschew matrimony. They despise wealth, and from sharing with the destitute they do not turn away (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,42);">Mt 5:42</a>; the verb used is the same). Anyone joining the sect must sell all that he has (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,21);">Mt 19:21</a>; the same words are used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,32,37);">Ac 4:32, 37</a>). Overseers epimeletai are chosen by show of hands cheirotonein (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,23);">Ac 14:23</a>). They do not stay in one city but many settle in every city. They dress always in white, but do not own two cloaks or two pairs of shoes, much as our Lord\'s instructions to His apostles when He sent them out two and two (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,10);">Mt 10:10</a>). Their daily course of conduct is described very much in the same terms as those used by Josephus Before dawn they begin their day by prayer and singing a hymn. They return from their work before midday, at the fifth hour, and bathemselves in cold water and clothemselves in garments of white linen. After that they repair into the common apartment. They seat themselves in silence; the cook places food before each individual. The priest prays and pronounces a blessing on the food. At the end of the meal the priest again prays, and those who have partaken join in singing a hymn of thanksgiving. They lay aside their white linen garments, and resume their ordinary clothing and betake themselves again to their occupations. Supper at sunset is conducted in a similar manner. All obey the president (proestos) in whatever he enjoins. No one amongst them is in the habit of swearing. They are careful to read the law and the prophets. Other works of faithful men they also study. All that join the sect are put on probation. The entrant receives a white robe and a linen girdle, and is supplied with an axe for the purposes mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,13);">De 23:13</a>. He has to take solemn oaths to worship God, to be just, not to hate anyone who injures him, but to pray for him (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,44);">Mt 5:44</a>). He promises also to show respect to all in authority, as all authority is from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,13);">1Pe 2:13</a>). He is not to divulge the secret doctrines of the society. There follows a description of the fate of those expelled from the society and the mode of conducting trials, borrowed from Josephus Hippolytus proceeds to give an account of four different subsects of the Essenes, all seeming of more than even the wonted fanaticism of the Essenes. One sect would not use coins because of the image of the Emperor on them, inasmuch as this was of the nature of idolatry. Others were prepared to enforce circumcision at the point of the sword. According to Hippolytus the Zealots were Essenes. Later he mentions the class that were freer and did not abjure marriage. A very marked point of difference between the tenets of the Essenes, as described by Philo and Josephus, and those attributed to them by Hippolytus, is in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection. Hippolytus affirms that they did believe in the resurrection of the body. The others, while not in terms denying that they did believe in it, ignore it in such a way as might lead the reader, as indeed it did Bishop Lightfoot, to think that they denied it altogether. The treatment Paul received at Athens when he preached the resurrection showed how incongruous this doctrine seemed to the Greeks. Philo and Josephus wrote for Greek audiences<65>for the Romans, so far as culture went, were Greeks<6B>and had to consider their taste. Another point held in abeyance by both those writers was the Messianic hopes that we know from the New Testament were so prevalent. Hippolytus says "all sections look for the Messiah," but held that He was to be merely man born in the ordinary way. The reason of Philo\'s silence and that of Josephus is easily understood. They had commended the Essenes so highly; if they mentioned that they had treasonable hopes of a Messiah who should rule the world, their own personal loyalty would become doubtful. For our part we should regard all the positive elements in Hippolytus\' description as worthy of acceptance.<P>7. Epiphanius<75>Confused Account:<P>The last authority to whom we would refer is Epiphanius. In his anxiety to make up the number of heresies, the Essenes figure repeatedly under different names. He declares the Essenes to be a sect of the Samaritans closely associated with the Sebuans and Gortheni. Among the Jews he has three sects whom he calls Hemerobaptistae, Nazaraei and Osseni. Besides he has a sect called Sampseans, evidently also Essenes, which he mixes up with the followers of Elkaisa. He does not seem to have any clear idea about their tenets or habits. The Samaritan sects differ about the three Jewish feasts, but he does not make it clear in what they differ. The Sebuans seem to have reversed the order of the Jewish feasts, but whether the Essenes and Gortheni did so likewise is not clear. That the Essenes whom we are considering were not Samaritans appears to be as certain as anything about this enigmatic sect can be. The obscure sentence quoted by Eusebius from Hegesippus might be interpreted as supporting this statement of Epiphanius, but it is too enigmatic to be pressed. As to the three Jewish sects the first named<65>Hemerobaptistae<61>suits the daily washings of the Essenes, but he asserts that they agree with the Sadducees in denying the resurrection. The Nazareans or Nazarenes are not to be confounded with a Christian sect of nearly the same name. They resided in the district east of Jordan. They held with the Jews in all their customs, believing in the patriarchs, but did not receive the Pentateuch, though they acknowledged Moses. The Osseni are the likest to the Essenes, as they are said to dwell near the Dead Sea, only it is on the side opposite to Engedi. Epiphanius leaves them to denounce Elxai and his brother Jexais, of which latter nothing further is known.``173';
isbe[3215]='Essenes (III-VI)`III. Deductions and Combinations.<P>From the characteristics so many, so confusing, indeed, in some respects so contradictory, it is difficult to get a consistent picture. They are said to be only four thousand, yet they are many ten thousands. They reside in Engedi, a company of coenobites. They dwell in villages and avoid towns, yet they dwell many in every city and in populous communities. They avoid everything connected with war, yet one of their number is one of the trusted generals of the Jews in their rebellion against the Romans. They keep away from the Temple, yet one of them, Judas, is teaching in the Temple when he sees Antigonus, whose death he had foretold. The only way in which any consistency can be brought into these accounts is by taking advantage of what Josephus and Hippolytus say about the subsections into which the Essenes were distinguished.<P>A parallel the present writer has elsewhere used of the Methodists is illuminative. While the most prominent body of Methodists are Arminians, there are the Calvinistic Methodists. While Wesleyan Methodists do not allow women to preach, the Primitive Methodists do. This is so far confirmed by the fact that while the abjuring of marriage is a marked feature in the representation of Philo, yet the latter says that one class of the Essenes not only do not themselves oppose matrimony but regard those that do oppose it as enemies of the human race. The residents in Engedi formed but a small proportion of the Essenes. It is probable that of them the statement, found alike in Philo and Josephus, that they were 4,000, applies. All the features of the picture of the daily common meals, rising before sunrise, joint devotions, may be true in their fullness only of the community by the Dead Sea. What Philo says (quoted by Eusebius, Preposition Evan., VIII, 11), that among the Essenes "there are no youths or persons just entering on manhood, only men already declining towards old age," would indicate that the settlement at Engedi was an asylum for those who, having borne the burden and heat of the day, now retired to enjoy repose.<P>1. Government:<P>They had communities apparently all over Palestine, if not also beyond its bounds, over each of which there was a president appointed (Hip., IX, 15). This would mean that in towns of any size they would have a synagogue. They appear to have had houses of call, though it may have been that every member of the Essene community kept open house for all members of their sect who might be traveling. The traveler, when he came to a city, would inquire for any that were Essenes, as the apostles were commanded by their Lord, in similar circumstances, to inquire ("search out") who in a city were "worthy." The common meals might to some extent be observed in these different scattered communities, probably at intervals, not daily as at Engedi. At these the secret sacred books, read and studied with so great regularity at Engedi, would also be read. In this synagogue not only would the canonical books be preserved but also those other books which gave them the names of the angels, as now in the synagogues of Palestine the library preserved in the synagogue may be used by those connected with it throughout the week. The head of the community at Engedi might have some suzerainty over all the different communities, but in regard to this we have no information. One external feature which would at once make the Essenes known to each other was the fact that they always dressed in white linen. They had priests probably in every one of their communities. The Jewish exorcists in Ephesus, in whom Bishop Lightfoot (Col, 93) recognizes Essenes, were the sons of one Sceva, a high priest (archiereus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,14);">Ac 19:14</a>). The high-priesthood was evidently not connected with the temple at Jerusalem, for no such name appears in the list of high priests. It thus most probably was an Essenian high-priesthood.<P>2. Doctrines:<P>In regard to their tenets, their belief in the absolute preordination by God of everything appears the feature in the doctrinal position which most appealed to Josephus Hippolytus affirms in terms their belief in the resurrection of the body. This point, as above noted, Philo and Josephus ignore. The passage in Hippolytus is the more striking from the fact that the latter portion so closely resembles the parallel passage in Josephus. Josephus as we have suggested above, avoided crediting the Essenes with belief in resurrection because of the ridicule to which it would expose not only the Essenes, his proteges, but also himself. Hippolytus, writing with information other than what might be got from Josephus or Philo and as, writing for Christian readers, without the fear of ridicule, in regard to the resurrection of the body, boldly and in terms ascribes that doctrine to them. The silence of our two main witnesses as to the Essenes cherishing any Messianic hopes cannot be pressed, as their silence may be explained as above mentioned by fear of the suspicions of Rome in regard to any such hopes. The statement of Hippolytus that all the Jews had these expectations may be said to cover this case. The abjuring of marriage and the shunning of everything connected with war seem to be prominent opinions in some sections of the Essenes, but not held by others.<P>IV. History and Origin.<P>There is much in Essenism that is difficult to understand. We have seen contradictory features assigned to the Essenes by different authorities; but even in the case of those features concerning which there is least dubiety the new difficulty emerges as to how it appeared as a characteristic of a Jewish sect. This is especially the case in regard to abstinence from marriage. Easterners always have an earnest desire to have sons to keep their memory green, for on a death many of them had and still have ceremonies which only the son of the dead can perform. Yet despite this they avoided marriage. The Jews with their Messianic hopes desired children, as no one knew but that his child might prove the child of promise, the Christ of God.<P>1. Essenes and Chasidhim:<P>The earliest note of the existence of the Essenes, as of the Pharisees and Sadducees, is under the pontificate of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus (Ant., XIII, v, 9). Josephus says "at this time there were three sects of the Jews," and proceeds to name them. If this, however, were precisely true, it is singular that there is no mention of any of these sects in either of the Books of the Maccabees. The only sect named is the Hasideans (chacidhim) who are called (1Macc 2:42) "mighty men of Israel, every one that offered himself willingly for the law" (the King James Version "voluntarily devoted himself to the law"; Greek hekousiazomenos). These again are not mentioned by Josephus The meaning of the word is "saints," and in this sense it appears frequently in the Psalms. A parallel in modern history to their warlike activity and their claim to saintliness may be found in the Cameronians of "society folk" in Scotland toward the end of the 17th century. They were Peden\'s "praying folk," yet they fought and won battles. When William of Orange came they formed the Cameronian regiment which helped to quell the clans and checked their advance after Killiecrankie. Some have identified these Hasideans with the Pharisees (as W. Robertson Smith, article "Assidaeans," Encyclopedia Biblica, and others). Hitzig would regard their successors as the Essenes. The great resemblance there was between the Pharisees and the Essenes renders it not improbable that originally they were really one sect and split off. If Josephus is to be trusted this division must have occurred, if not before the Maccabean struggle, at least early during its continuance. The Sadducean authors of 1Maccabees may have grouped them together. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus was a Pharisee, from which it may be presumed that Judas Maccabeus and his brethren belonged to the same sect of the Jews. The Assideans deserted Maccabeus, so that it would seem at least possible that by that time the separation had become complete, so that the Hasideans are now to be regarded as Essenes. It would seem as if they deserted the Maccabeans when they<65>the Maccabeans<6E>made alliances with heathen powers like Rome. Then they objected to the high-priestly family being passed over for the Hasmoneans, hence their foolish surrender to Bacchides because Alcimus (called by Josephus Jacimus = Jehoiakim) was with him, a descendant of the race of the high priests. All this is utterly unlike the quiet contemplative lives of the coenobites in Engedi. It would seem that the thousand who died in the wilderness themselves, their wives, their children and their cattle (1Macc 1:29-38), were more like the inhabitants of Engedi. Before leaving the Hasideans it must be said that the representation of the connection of the Hasideans with Judas Maccabeus put in the mouth of Alcimus by the writer of 2Macc 14:6 is not trustworthy. After this desertion of the Maccabeans the more religious of them retired to Engedi, while the rest of the party were scattered over the country in the various cities and villages.<P>2. Position of Essenes in Josephus:<P>As above mentioned the earliest mention of Essenes is by Josephus (Ant., XIII, v, 9) while Jonathan was high priest. The next is the story of Judas the Essene seated in the Temple surrounded by his scholars "who attended him (paremenon) in order to learn the art of foretelling," thinking that the appearance of Antigonus in the Temple courts proved his prophecy false that he was that day to die in Strato\'s tower (Caesarea). Judas is evidently a resident in Jerusalem and meets his pupils in the Temple courts. This would imply that he had no horror of the Temple nor was debarred from its courts. He had no repugnance for residence in cities. Menahem, the next figure that presents itself, shows a man who is mingling in court circles. He inflicts on Herod, the son of the favorite counselor of the high priest, a playful domestic chastisement and prophesies his future greatness. Herod, as we are told, always favored the Essenes in consequence. Later Archelaus consults Simon or Simeon, an Essene, as to the interpretation of a dream. He is at all events resident in Jerusalem and known in the court circles. He may have been Simeon of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'25-35\');">Lu 2:25-35</a>. It must, however, be observed that the name is one of the commonest among the Jews at that time. After this they disappear, unless Hippolytus\' identification of the Zealots with a section of the Essenes is admitted. Those in Engedi were aside from the course of the war, though if Pliny\'s representation is to be taken as accurate the vines and palm trees of Engedi had been burned and the settlement had been rendered desolate. They may have betaken themselves to Pella like the Christians, so as not to be involved in the destruction of the city and the Temple. The communities of the sect in Asia Minor disappear also. To all appearance they are absorbed in the church.<P>3. Doctrinal Affinities:<P>Owing to the fact that so many of the doctrines and practices attributed to the Essenes have no resemblance to anything else in Judaism the question of origin has a special meaning in regard to them. Although like all Easterners the Jews have a desire for progeny<6E>indeed the man who has no child occupies a secondary place in social esteem-yet the Essenes, or at all events some of them, shunned marriage. Despite the elaborate system of animal sacrifices that claimed to originate with Moses whom they venerated, they abjured bloody sacrifices. Although the seed of Aaron were anointed priests, they set up priests of their own. Their habit of morning and evening prayer, timed by the rising and setting of the sun, suggested sun-worship. The external resemblance of these tenets of the Essenes to those of the Pythagoreans impressed Josephus, and was emphasized by him all the more readily, since thus he brought himself and his nation into line with Greek thought. This suggestion of Josephus has led some, eg. Zeller, to the deduction that they were Jewish neo-Pythagoreans. The features of resemblance are formidable when drawn out in catalogue. He shows that like the Pythagoreans the Essenes regarded asceticism a means of holiness. Both abstained from animal food and bloody sacrifices, admired celibacy and, dressing in white linen garments, had frequent washings. Both prohibited oaths, both formed a corporate body into which admission was had by act of initiation and after probation. Community of goods was the custom in both. Both believed in transmigration of souls. The value of this formidable list is lessened by the fact that there is something of uncertainty on both sides as to the precise views and customs. Philo and Josephus unquestionably Hellenized the views of the Essenes when they presented them before readers educated in Greek culture; further the views of Pythagoras have come down to us in a confused shape.<P>4. Essenes and Pythagoras:<P>As to the assertion that the Pythagoreans dressed in white linen, Diogenes Laertius says that linen was not yet invented. Zeller has no sufficient evidence that the Essenes avoided the flesh of animals as food, and Diogenes Laertius expressly says that Pythagoras ate fish, though rarely (VIII, 18). While there seems no doubt as to the Pythagorean belief in the transmigration of souls, it seems certain that this was not a doctrine of the Essenes. Neither Philo nor Josephus attribute this view to them. This is the more striking that, immediately after dealing with the Essenes, Josephus proceeds to take up the doctrines of the Pharisees to whom he does attribute that view. Moreover the distinctive views of the Pythagoreans as to numbers and music have no sign of being held by the Essenes. On the other hand the fact that Pythagoras had a wife seems to throw doubt on their alleged preference for celibacy. Another chronological difficulty has to be met. The Pythagoreans as a society were put down in the 5th century before Christ. They may be regarded as having disappeared, till in the 2nd century AD they reappear as prominent neo-Pythagoreans. It is true that Cicero and Seneca mention Pythagoreans, but only as individuals who would claim to be the followers of Pythagoras, and not as members of a sect: they were without influence even in Italy.<P>5. Buddhism and Essenism:<P>Chronology is equally against the view favored by Hilgenfeld that the influence of Buddhism may be traced in Essenism. As late as the end of the 2nd century AD, Clement of Alexandria, although acquainted with the name Buddha, is ignorant of his tenets and of divisions of his followers. The Alexandria which Hilgenfeld identified with Alexandria of Egypt, in which there was a Buddhist settlement, was really to be found in Bactria, where a Buddhist settlement was likely.<P>6. Parseeism and Essenism:<P>There is more to be alleged in favor of Parsee influence being traceable. Neither geography nor chronology protests against this influence. The Jews were for centuries under the domination of the Persians, who were followers of Zoroaster. They seem on the whole to have been favored by the Persian rulers, a state of matters that would make the Jews all the more ready to view with sympathy the opinions and religion of these masters. Moreover the Persian worship had spread away to the west, far beyond Syria. At the same time it is easy to exaggerate the points of resemblance. The dualism alleged to be a leading feature in Essenism is more a matter of deduction than of distinct statement. Indeed the proofs alleged by Zeller are almost ludicrous in their insufficiency, since Philo says that the Essenes shun marriage because women are selfish (philautos), and Josephus, that they do so because women are addicted to excess (aselgeia); that therefore they regard the female generally as under the dominion of the evil principle, the fact being that this is really a part of the Hellenizing which the Essene views underwent at the hands of Philo and Josephus. The alleged sun-worship is scarcely more worthy of credit: it is a deduction not even plausible. When carefully looked at the evidence points the other way. Their first prayer is offered not at sunrise but before it (BJ, II, viii, 5); in other words, they work while it is day. Their evening orisons are offered after the sun has set. At the same time their elaborate angelology seems to be due to the influence of the Zend-Avesta, but in this the Essenes merely shared with the rest of the Jews. We know that the Jews brought the names of the angels with them from Babylon.<P>7. Essenism Mainly Jewish:<P>The most singular feature in Essenism is really a feature of Judaism emphasized out of proportion. It was unlike the Jews to shun marriage, yet in seasons when special holiness was required intercourse between the sexes was forbidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,15);">Ex 19:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,5);">1Sa 21:5</a>). The whole act of sexual intercourse was regarded as unclean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'16-18\');">Le 15:16-18</a>). In the Pauline Epistles uncleanness is used as equivalent to fornication (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,24);">Ro 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,19);">6:19</a>, etc.). So also in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,10);">2Pe 2:10</a>. Such a view naturally led to the idea which soon became regnant in Christianity that the state of virginity was one of special sanctity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,4);">Re 14:4</a>). The respect they gave to the unmarried state may be exaggerated. If Philo\'s representation (quoted in Euseb., Preposition Evan., VIII, 11) be correct, men were not admitted until maturity was attained and passed, when, therefore, such desires had begun to die down. Their avoidance of marriage is a matter of less importance. Their extreme reverence for the Sabath is of a piece with their celibacy. Their avoidance of the Temple sacrifices, so far as they did so, may well be due to something of more than contempt for the religion of the Sadducean high-priestly party. Moreover the long residence of Israel in Babylon, when the Temple worship had to be in abeyance, and the consequent prevalence of synagogue worship, tended to lessen the importance of the sacrifices of the Temple. Thus it would seem that the Essenes were really a Jewish sect that had retained more of the Zoroastrian elements than had the rest of the Jews.<P>V. Relation to the Apocalyptic Books.<P>Among the features of Essenism which seem to have impressed Josephus most was the fact that they had sacred books of their sect which they preserved, as also the names of the angels, thus bringing the Essenian special books into connection with angelology. These books their proselytes were bound by oath to preserve (BJ, II, viii, 7). Concerning the kindred sect of the Therapeutae, Philo says, "They have also writings of ancient men" (De Vita Contemp., III). On the other hand we have a mass of writings the same in character, dependent on one another, all apparently proceeding from one school of Jewish thought. Of the three sects of the Jews from which alone they could have proceeded the Sadducees are excluded because, while the apocalyptic books are full of angels, they believe neither in angel nor spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,8);">Ac 23:8</a>). While doctrinally the Pharisees might suit, the fact that practically there is no reference to any of these books in the Talmud, which proceeded from the Pharisaic school, renders them unlikely to have been the authors. The Essenes seem to us to have been the school from which these apocalyptic works proceeded. The sect, at the fall of the Jewish state, disappeared in Christianity, and in the Christian church these books are preserved.<P>1. Reasons for Holding the Essenes to Be the Writers of the Apocalypses:<P>The section of the Essenes who dwelt as coenobites beside the Dead Sea were in circumstances specially liable to see visions and to have distorted views of morality, so that the composition of pseudonymous writings, literary forgeries, might seem right. As seen in the study of the apocalyptic books there is the undue prominence given to sexual sin<69>a prominence that seems to be symptomatic of the unhealthy mental state engendered by celibacy. These writings are the product of a school that professed to have secret sacred books. In 2 (4) Esdras 14:45,46 we have an account of how, while 24 of the sacred books were published to the multitude, 70 were retained for the "worthy," that is, for some inner circle, some brotherhood like the Essenes. In the Assumption of Moses, Joshua is commanded to place the revelations given him "in certain vessels and anoint them with oil of cedar." Such an order would be held as explaining at once the disappearance of the book for the years succeeding Moses and its opportune reappearance. On the one hand we have a sect that professes to have secret sacred books, and on the other we have sacred books that have been composed by a school that must have had many features which we recognize as Essenian. Further, the Essenes disappeared in the Christian church, and in the Christian church and not among the Jews are these books preserved.<P>2. Objections Answered:<P>The main objection to this ascription is the prominence of the Messianic hope in the apocalyptic books, and the absence of any notice in Josephus and Philo that the Essenes had this hope. But from neither of these writers could be discovered that any of the Jews cherished this hope. Yet from the New Testament we know that this hope was a prominent feature in national aspirations. Philo, associating perpetually with Greeks, would be sensitive to the ridicule to which such views would expose him, and how it would undo much of his laborious efforts to commend Judaism to the Greeks as a higher philosophy. Josephus had not only that motive, but the more serious one of personal safety. To have enlarged on Messianic hopes and declared these hopes to have been cherished by these Essenes whom he had praised so much would be liable to bring him under suspicion of disloyalty to Rome. The silence of these two writers proves nothing because it proves too much; and further we have easy explanation of this silence. The assumption of Dr. Charles that the Essenian ideal was ethical and individualistic is pure assumption. There is another objection that while the doctrine of resurrection is recognized in these books we know nothing of the Essenes holding it. That the Greeks and their scholars in philosophy, the Romans, looked at the idea of resurrection from the dead as a subject for ridicule would be reason sufficient for Philo and Josephus to suppress such a feature in their description of the Essenes. From them it could not be learned that the Pharisees ever had any such belief. It is also objected that while the Essenes held the pre-existence of souls, there is no trace of this belief in the apocalyptic books. Josephus, however, does not really assert that they believed in the prior existence of individual souls, but rather in a soul-stuff from which individual souls were separated. Thus both positively and negatively we think there is a strong case for the Essenes being regarded as the authors of the apocalyptic books. Further objections are brought forward by Dr. Charles as applicable to the Assumption of Moses specially. One is the interest manifested in the Temple by the writer while, so says Dr. Charles, "the Essene was excluded from its courts," and refers to Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i, 5. He must have forgotten, while penning this sentence, Ant, XIII, xi,2,in which Judas, the Essene, is represented as teaching in the Temple. His objection that Josephus credits the Essenes with a belief in a paradise beyond the ocean like the Greek Islands of the Blest, appears to us to lay too much stress on what is in both cases figurative language. Moreover, in Enoch the description of Paradise (chapters 24-26) would almost seem to be the original from which Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) drew his picture. He seems to regard our ignorance of how far the Essenes agreed with the rest of their countrymen in considering the enemies of Israel "the wicked," as evidence that they disagreed with them on that point.<P>VI. The Essenes and Christinaity.<P>1. Resemblances between Essenism and Christianity:<P>That there were many points of resemblance between the Essenes and the church in its earliest form cannot be denied. The Essenes, we are told, maintained a community of goods and required anyone who joined their society to sell all he had and present it to the community (Hippolytus, Adv. Heret., ix; x; Josephus, BJ, II, viii, 3), just as so many of the primitive Christians did in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,37);">Ac 4:37</a>). Another peculiarity of the Essenes<65>noted by Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 4)<29>that they moved about from city to city, and wherever they went found accommodation with members of their order, although perfect strangers, may be compared with our Lord\'s instructions to His disciples when He sent them forth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,11);">Mt 10:11</a>): "Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy." When one thinks of who those worthy persons could be, and what was the evidence by which their worthiness was expected to be established, one is almost obliged to suppose that it was some specially easily recognized class that was so designated. If the worthiness in question was the moral quality, there are so many ideas of moral worth that when the apostles inquired, on entering a city, who was worthy, before they could act on the answer they would need to discover what was the criterion of worthiness in the mind of him from whom they had inquired. If, however, this term was the private designation of the members of a sect, one by which they, in speaking of each other, indicated that they were co-members, as the "Quakers" speak of each other as "Friends," the inquiry for those who were worthy would be simple enough. If the Essenes were "the worthy," then identification would be complete, but we cannot assume that. The majority of the points in which the Essenes resembled the primitive Christians are noted above in connection with each feature as it appears in the passage or passages of the authorities that record it, and to these we refer our readers.<P>2. Points of Difference:<P>At the same time, although there are thus many points of likeness, it is not to be denied that there are also many features in Essenism which are at variance with the practice of the early church and the teaching of our Lord and His apostles. The most prominent of these is the difference of attitude toward marriage and the female sex. Our Lord sanctified marriage by His presence at the marriage at Cana of Galilee, although He himself never married. He used the festivities of marriage again and again as illustrations. He drew women to Him and had none of the contempt of the sex which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essenes. The apostles assume the marriage relationship as one into which Christians may be expected in due course to enter, and give exhortations suited to husbands and wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'1-7\');">1Pe 3:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'22-33\');">Eph 5:22-33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,18,19);">Col 3:18-19</a>). The apostle Paul uses the relation of husband and wife as the symbol of the relation of Christ to His church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,32);">Eph 5:32</a>). The writer of the Epistle to the He declares, "Marriage is honorable in all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,4);">Heb 13:4</a> the King James Version). Another point in which the Essenes differed from the practice of our Lord and His disciples was the exaggerated reverence the former gave to the Sabbath, not even moving a vessel from one place to another on the seventh day. our Lord\'s declaration, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,27);">Mr 2:27</a>), cuts at the feet of that whole attitude. The point of His conflict with the Pharisees was His disregard of the Sabbath as fenced by their traditions. The Essenes shrank from contact with oil, which our Lord certainly did not do. On the contrary He rebuked the Pharisee for his neglect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,46);">Lu 7:46</a>). He was twice anointed by women, and in both cases commended the deed. The purely external and material bulked largely in the opinions of the Essenes, our Lord emphasized the internal and spiritual. Many have held and do hold that our Lord was an Essene. If at the beginning of His career He belonged to this sect He must have broken with it long before the end of His ministry.<P>Why our Lord Never Meets the Essenes. There are some phenomena which, irrespective of these resemblances and differences, have a bearing on the relation between Essenism and Christianity. The first is the fact that our Lord, who met so many different classes of the inhabitants of Palestine<6E>Pharisees and Sadducees, Zealots and Herodians, publicans, Samaritans, Greeks<6B>never is recorded to have met an Essene. The common answer, which satisfied even Bishop Lightfoot, is that they were so few and lived so retired that it was no marvel that He never encountered any of them. They had little or no effect on the national life. This mistaken answer is due to forgetting that though both Josephus and Philo say the Essenes were 4,000 they also declare that they were "many in every city," that there were "ten thousands of them." Our Lord must have met them; but if the name "Essene" was a designation given from without like "Quakers," then they may appear in the Gospels under another name. There is a class of persons three times referred to<74>those "that waited for the consolation of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,25);">Lu 2:25</a> the King James Version), "looking for the redemption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,38);">Lu 2:38</a>), "waited for the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,43);">Mr 15:43</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,51);">Lu 23:51</a> the King James Version). There are thus Simeon and Anna at the beginning of His earthly life, and Joseph of Arimathea at the end, connected with this sect. If, then, this sect were the Essenes under another name, the difficulty would be removed. If, further, in any sense our Lord belonged, or had belonged, to the Essenes, then as He would be perpetually meeting and associating with them, these meetings would not be chronicled. A man cannot meet himself. If they are the authors of the apocalyptic books, as we contend, then the title "waiters for the kingdom of God" would be most suitable, full as these books are of Messianic hopes. If this opinion is correct our Lord\'s assumption of the title "Son of Man" is significant, taken in connection with the prominence given to that title in the Enoch books.<P>3. Disappearance of Essenism in Christianity:<P>Another significant phenomenon is the disappearance of Essenism in Christianity. Bishop Lightfoot, in his dissertation on the Colossian Heresy (Comm. on Col, 21-111), proves that it was Essenism. These Essenes must have been baptized into Christ, or they could not have got entry into the Christian communities which had been drawn to Christ from heathenism. But that is not the only heresy that is connected with the Essenes. The Ebionites seem to have been Essenes who had passed over into Christianity. In the Apostolical Constitutions the Ebionites and Essenes are brought into very close connection. Epiphanius, in his confused way, mixes up the various names under which the Essenes appear in his works with a certain Elkaisa, a connection also to be found in Hippolytus, an earlier and better authority. But Elkaisa claimed to be a Christian. His leading follower, Alcibiades, appeared in Rome and was resisted by Hippolytus. The Clementine Homilies, a religious novel of which Peter is the hero, has many Essenian features. It is assumed to be Ebionite, but that only makes the evidence that the Essenes had become Christians all the more convincing. The Ebionites were Christians, if defective in their views, and the presence of Essenian features in a work proceeding from them emphasizes the identity. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EBIONISM">EBIONISM</a>.<P>4. Monachism:<P>There is another phenomenon, more extensive and important than those we have considered above<76>the presence of Monachism in the church. Notwithstanding that our Lord prayed "not that" the disciples be taken "out of the world," but that they be kept "from the evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,15);">Joh 17:15</a>), implying that they were not to retire into solitude, and that the apostle Paul regards it as demonstrating the falsity of our possible interpretation of an exhortation of his that it would imply that the disciples "must needs go out of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,10);">1Co 5:10</a>); yet the monks did retire from the world and regarded themselves as all the holier for so doing, and were regarded so by others. The apostle Paul declares the "forbidding to marry" one of "the doctrines of demons," yet very soon asceticism set in and virginity was regarded as far holier than the married state. Retirement from the world and asceticism were the two cardinal characteristics of Monachism. Despite that these were in antagonism to the teachings of Christ and His apostles, within little more than a century after our Lord\'s ascension Monachism began to appear, and prevailed more and more and continues to this day. These characteristics, retirement from the world and asceticism, especially forbidding to marry, were marked features of Essenism. The wholesale entrance of the Essene sect into the church would explain this. On the other hand this wholesale passing over into Christianity of so intensely Jewish a sect implies a historic connection or affinity. It is true that the catechetic school of Alexandria praises the contemplative life, so admired by their contemporaries, the neo-Platonists, and that philosophy which had been looked at askance by the church was, so to say, taken under their protection by the Alexandrian school, and the retirement of solitaries into the deserts or the formation of monasteries served to promote this contemplation. This led to all the extravagances of the monks being regarded as heights of philosophy. Such views were a cause, but as certainly were they also effects. The cause of these effects as it seems to us was to some extent the admiration extended by Philo, the Alexandrian, to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and the influence of Philo on his Christian successors in Alexandria.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Sources: Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Hegesippus, Porphyry, Hippolytus, Epiphanius. Secondary Literature: Besides works specially on the Essenes, the following are mentioned: Frankel, Die Essaer; Lucius, Der Essenismus; Ginsburg, Essenes; and portions of books, as Delaunay, Moines et Sibylles, 1-88; Thomson, Books Which Influenced our Lord, 74-122; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche, 179-203; Lightfoot, Commentary on Col, 7-111, 347-417.<P>There are in histories of the Jews discussions of the questions in order. Of these may be noted: Ewald, Hist of Israel, V, 370-71; Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, III, 657-63; Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, ii, 188-218, translation. This opens with a fairly full account of the literature up to the date of the 2nd German edition; Zeller, Geschichte der Philos. der Griechen, III, ii,2,pp. 235-93. There are also articles in various Bible and theological dictionaries, as Smith and Wace, Dict. of Eccles Biography; Smith and Fuller, Dict. of the Bible; HDB; Jewish Encyclopedia; RE; Schenkel, Bibel-Lexikon; M\'Clintock, Theological Dict.<P>At the same time, while submitting these as a sample, and only as a sample, of the vast literature of the subject, we agree in the advice given by F. C. Conybeare<72>in HDB, under the word: "The student may be advised to study for himself the very limited documentary sources relating to the Essenes and then to draw his own conclusions." We feel the importance of this advice all the more that perusal has shown us that most of these secondary writers have considered exclusively the coenobite community at Engedi to the neglect of the wider society. After the student has formed opinions from a careful study of the sources he may benefit by these secondary works.``173';
isbe[3216]='Estate`es-tat\':<P>While the King James Version uses both "estate" and "state" with the meaning of "condition," the American Standard Revised Version distinguishes, using "state" for the idea of condition, "estate" for position; and replaces "estate" of the King James Version by more definite expressions in many cases. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,7);">Col 4:7</a> the King James Version, "All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you," but 4:8, the King James Version "might know your estate" the Revised Version (British and American) "may know our state"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,48);">Lu 1:48</a> the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "the low estate" (of the Lord\'s hand-maiden); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,21);">Mr 6:21</a>, the King James Version "chief estates" the Revised Version (British and American) "chief men"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,7,20,21,38);">Da 11:7, 20-21, 38</a>, the King James Version "his estate," the Revised Version (British and American) "his place," both with margin "his office."``57';
isbe[3217]='Esteem`es-tem\' (chashabh; hegeomai):<P>"To esteem" means sometimes simply "to think" or "reckon"; in other connections it means "to regard as honorable" or "valuable." We have examples of both senses in the Bible. The word most often so translated in the Old Testament is chashabh, meaning perhaps originally, "to bind," hence, "combine," "think," "reckon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,27);">Job 41:27</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,16,17);">Isa 29:16-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,4);">53:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,2);">La 4:2</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,3);">Isa 53:3</a> we have the word in the higher sense, "We esteemed him not." This sense is expressed also by \'arakh, "to set in array," "in order" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,19);">Job 36:19</a>, the King James Version "Will he esteem thy riches?" the English Revised Version "Will thy riches suffice?" margin "Will thy cry avail?" which the American Standard Revised Version adopts as the text); also by tsaphan, "to hide," "to conceal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',23,12);">Job 23:12</a>, the King James Version "I have esteemed the words of his mouth," the Revised Version (British and American) "treasured up"); qalah, "to be light," is translated "lightly esteemed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,23);">1Sa 18:23</a>, "I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed"), also qalal, same meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,30);">1Sa 2:30</a>, "They that despise me shall be lightly esteemed"). In the New Testament, hegeomai, "to lead out," is used in the sense of "counting honorable," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,3);">Php 2:3</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "counting"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,13);">1Th 5:13</a>; perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,26);">Heb 11:26</a>, but the Revised Version (British and American) has simply "accounting"); krino, "to judge," is used in the sense of "to reckon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,5);">Ro 14:5</a> twice); also logizomai, "to reckon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,14);">Ro 14:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "accounteth"); hupselos, "high," "exalted," is rendered "highly esteemed" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,15);">Lu 16:15</a> the King James Version, but in the Revised Version (British and American) "exalted"; exoutheneo, "to think nothing of," is translated "least esteemed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,4);">1Co 6:4</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "of no account").<P>The following changes in the Revised Version (British and American) are of interest: for "He that is despised and hath a servant, is better than he that honoreth himself and lacketh bread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,9);">Pr 12:9</a>), "Better is he that is lightly esteemed"; for "Better is he than both they, which hath not yet been" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,3);">Ec 4:3</a>), "Better than them both did I esteem him," margin "Better than they both is he"; for "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter\'s clay" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,16);">Isa 29:16</a>), "Ye turn things upside down!" (margin, "Oh your perversity!"), "Shall the potter be esteemed (the English Revised Version "counted") as clay," etc.<2E>in this connection a forcible assertion of the necessary possession of knowledge by the Creator of man.``185';
isbe[3218]='Esther`es\'-ter (\'ecter, akin to the Zend tstara, the Sanskrit stri, the Greek aster, "a star," Esther):<P>Esther was a Jewish orphan, who became the queen of Xerxes, in some respects the greatest of the Persian kings. She was brought up at Susa by her cousin Mordecai, who seems to have held a position among the lower officials of the royal palace. Vashti, Xerxes\' former queen, was divorced; and the most beautiful virgins from all the provinces of the empire were brought to the palace of Susa that the king might select her successor. The choice fell upon the Jewish maiden. Soon after her accession a great crisis occurred in the history of the Jews. The entire people was threatened with destruction. The name of Esther is forever bound up with the record of their deliverance. By a course of action which gives her a distinguished place among the women of the Bible, the great enemy of the Jews was destroyed, and her people were delivered. Nothing more is known of her than is recorded in the book which Jewish gratitude has made to bear her name.<P>Change of Name:<P>The change in the queen\'s name from Hadassah hadacah, "a myrtle," to Esther, "a star," may possibly indicate the style of beauty for which the Persian queen was famous. The narrative displays her as a woman of clear judgment, of magnificent self-control, and capable of the noblest self-sacrifice.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESTHER+BOOK+OF">ESTHER, BOOK OF</a>`180';
isbe[3219]='Esther, Book of`Contents<P>1. The Canonicity of Esther<P>2. Its Authorship<P>3. Its Date<P>4. Its Contents<P>5. The Greek Additions<P>6. The Attacks upon the Book<P>7. Some of the Objections<P>8. Confirmations of the Book<hr /><P>This book completes the historical books of the Old Testament. The conjunction "w" (waw = and), with which it begins, is significant. It shows that the book was designed for a place in a series, the waw linking it on to a book immediately preceding, and that the present arrangement of the Hebrew Bible differs widely from what must have been the original order. At present Esther follows Ecclesiastes, with which it has no connection whatever; and this tell-tale "and," like a body-mark on a lost child, proves that the book has been wrenched away from its original connection. There is no reason to doubt that the order in the Septuagint follows that of the Hebrew Bible of the 3rd or the 4th century BC, and this is the order of the Vulgate, of the English Bible, and other VSS: The initial waw is absent from Genesis, Deuteronomy, 1 Chronicles and Nehemiah. The historical books are consequently arranged, by the insertion and the omission of waw, into these four divisions: Genesis to Numbers; Deuteronomy to 2 Kings; 1 Chronicles to Ezra; Nehemiah and Esther.<hr /><P>1. The Canonicity of Esther:<P>Of the canonicity of the book there is no question. That there was a distinct guardianship of the Canon by the Jewish priesthood has figured less in recent discussions than it should. Josephus shows that there was a Temple copy which was carried among the Temple spoils in the triumph of Vespasian. The peculiarities of the Hebrew text also prove that all our manuscripts are representatives of one standard copy. In the Jewish Canon Esther had not only a recognized, but also a distinguished, place. The statement of Junilius in the 6th century AD that the canonicity of Esther was doubted by some in his time has no bearing on the question. The high estimation of the book current among the ancient Jews is evident from its titles. It is usually headed "Megillath Esther" (the volume of Esther), and sometimes "Megillah" (the volume). Maimonides says that the wise men among the Jews affirm that the book was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and adds: "All the books of the Prophets, and all the Hagiographa shall cease in the days of the Messiah, except the volume of Esther; and, lo, that shall be as stable as the Pentateuch, and as the constitutions of the oral law which shall never cease."<P>2. Its Authorship:<P>By whom was the book written? This is a point in regard to which no help is afforded us either by the contents of the book or by any reliable tradition. Mordecai, whose claims have been strongly urged by some, is excluded by the closing words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,3);">Es 10:3</a>), which sum up his life work and the blessings of which he had been the recipient. The words imply that when the book was written, that great Israelite had passed away.<P>3. Its Date:<P>Light is thrown upon the date of the book by the closing references to Ahasuerus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,2);">Es 10:2</a>): "And all the acts of his power and of his might,...are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?" The entire history, therefore, of Xerxes was to be found in the state records when the book was written. In other words, Xerxes had passed away before it saw the light. That monarch was assassinated by Artabanus in 465 BC. This gives us, say 460 BC, as the highest possible date. The lowest possible date is the overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander in 332 BC; for the royal records of the Median and Persian kings are plainly in existence and accessible, which they would not have been had the empire been overthrown. The book must have been written, therefore, some time within this interval of 128 years. There is another fact which narrows that interval. The initial waw shows that Esther was written after Nehemiah, that is, after 430 BC. The interval is consequently reduced to 98 years; and, seeing that the Persian dominion was plainly in its pristine vigor when Esther was written, we cannot be far wrong if we regard its date as about 400 BC.<P>4. Its Contents:<P>The book is characterized by supreme dramatic power. The scene is "Shushan the palace," that portion of the ancient Elamitic capital which formed the fortified residence of the Persian kings. The book opens with the description of a high festival. All the notabilities of the kingdom are present, together with their retainers, both small and great. To grace the occasion, Vashti is summoned to appear before the king\'s guests; and, to the dismay of the great assembly, the queen refuses to obey. A council is immediately summoned. Vashti is degraded; and a decree is issued that every man bear rule in his own house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,\'1-\');">Es 1</a>). To find a successor to Vashti, the fairest damsels in the empire are brought to Shushan; and Hadassah, the cousin and adopted daughter of Mordecai, is of the number. Esther (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>) closes with a notice of two incidents:<P>(1) the coronation of Hadassah (now and henceforth named "Esther") as queen;<P>(2) Mordecai\'s discovery of a palace plot to assassinate the king.<P>Chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,\'1-\');">3</a> introduces another leading personage, Haman, the son of Hammedatha, whose seat the king had set "above all the princes that were with him." All the king\'s servants who are at the king\'s gates prostrate themselves before the powerful favorite. Mordecai, who is not a trained courtier but a God-fearing Jew, refrains. Though expostulated with, he will not conform. The matter is brought to Haman\'s notice for whose offended dignity Mordecai is too small a sacrifice. The whole Jewish people must perish. Lots are cast to find a lucky day for their extermination. The king\'s consent is obtained, and the royal decree is sent into all the provinces fixing the slaughter for the 13th day of the 12th month.<P>The publication of the decree is followed by universal mourning among the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,\'1-\');">Es 4</a>). News of Mordecai\'s mourning is brought to Esther, who, through the messengers she sends to him, is informed of her own and her people\'s danger. She is urged to save herself and them. She eventually decides to seek the king s presence at the risk of her life. She presents herself (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,\'1-\');">5</A>) before the king and is graciously received. Here we breathe atmosphere of the place and time. Everything depends upon the decision of one will<6C>the king\'s. Esther does not attempt too much at first: she invites the king and Haman to a banquet. Here the king asks Esther what her petition is, assuring her that it shall be granted. In reply she requests his and Haman\'s presence at a banquet the following day. Haman goes forth in high elation. On his way home he passes Mordecai, who "stood not up nor moved for him." Haman passes on filled with rage, and unbosoms himself to his wife and all his friends. They advise that a stake, fifty cubits high, be prepared for Mordecai\'s impalement; that on the morrow he obtain the royal permission for Mordecai\'s execution; and that he then proceed with a merry heart to banquet with the queen. The stake is made ready.<P>But (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,\'1-\');">Es 6</a>) that night Xerxes cannot sleep. The chronicles of the kingdom are read before him. The reader has come to Mordecai\'s discovery of the plot, when the king asks what reward was given him. He is informed that the service had received no acknowledgment. It is now early morn, and Haman is waiting in the court for an audience to request Mordecai\'s life. He is summoned to the king\'s presence and asked what should be done to the man whom the king desires to honor. Believing that the king can be thinking only of him, he suggests that royal honors be paid him. He is appalled by the command to do so to Mordecai. Hurrying home from his lowly attendance upon the hated Jew, he has hardly time to tell the mournful story to his wife and friends when he is summoned to Esther\'s banquet. There, at the king\'s renewed request to be told her desire, she begs life for herself and for her people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,\'1-\');">Es 7</a>). The king asks in astonishment, who he is, and where he is, who dared to injure her and them. The reply is that Haman is the adversary. Xerxes, filled with indignation, rises from the banquet and passes into the palace garden. He returns and discovers that Haman, in the madness of his fear, has thrown himself on the queen\'s couch, begging for his life. That act seals his doom. He is led away to be impaled upon the very stake he had prepared for the Jew. The seal of the kingdom is transferred to Mordecai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,\'1-\');">Es 8</a>). Measures are immediately taken to avert the consequence of Haman\'s plot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,\'1-\');">Es 9</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>). The result is deliverance and honor for the Jews. These resolve that the festival of Purim should be instituted and be ever after observed by Jews and proselytes. The decision was confirmed by letters from Esther and Mordecai.<P>5. The Greek Additions:<P>The Septuagint, as we now have it, makes large additions to the original text. Jerome, keeping to the Hebrew text in his own translation, has added these at the end. They amount to nearly seven chapters. There is nothing in them to reward perusal. Their age has been assigned to 100 BC, and their only value consists in the indication they afford of the antiquity of the book. That had been long enough in existence to perplex the Hebrew mind with the absence of the name of God and the omissions of any reference to Divine worship. Full amends are made in the additions.<P>6. The Attacks upon the Book:<P>The opponents of the Book of Esther may undoubtedly boast that Martin Luther headed the attack. In his Table-Talk he declared that he was so hostile "to the Book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness." His remark in his reply to Erasmus shows that this was his deliberate judgment. Referring to Esther, he says that, though the Jews have it in their Canon, "it is more worthy than all" the apocryphal books "of being excluded from the Canon." That repudiation was founded, however, on no historical or critical grounds. It rested solely upon an entirely mistaken judgment as to the tone and the intention of the book. Luther\'s judgment has been carried farther by Ewald, who says: "We fall here as if from heaven to earth; and, looking among the new forms surrounding us, we seem to behold the Jews, or indeed the small men of the present day in general, acting just as they now do." Nothing of all this, however, touches the historicity of Esther.<P>The modern attack has quite another objective. Semler, who is its real fens et origo, believed Esther to be a work of pure imagination, and as establishing little more than the pride and arrogance of the Jews. DeWette says: "It violates all historical probability, and contains striking difficulties and many errors with regard to Persian manners, as well as just references to them." Dr. Driver modifies that judgment. "The writer," he says, "shows himself well informed on Persian manners and institutions; he does not commit anachronisms such as occur in Tobit or Judith; and the character of Xerxes as drawn by him is in agreement with history." The controversy shows, however, no sign of approaching settlement. Th. Noldeke (Encyclopaedia Biblica) is more violent than De Wette. "The story," he writes, "is in fact a tissue of improbabilities and impossibilities." We shall look first of all at the main objections urged by him and others and then at the recent confirmations of the historicity of Esther.<P>7. Some of the Objections:<P>(1) "There is something fantastic, but not altogether unskillful," says Noldeke, "in the touch whereby Mordecai and Haman are made to inherit an ancient feud, the former being a member of the family of King Saul, the latter a descendant of Agag, king of Amalek." It is surely unworthy of a scholar to make the book responsible for a Jewish fable. There is absolutely no mention in it of either King Saul or Agag, king of Amalek, and not the most distant allusion to any inherited feud. "Kish, a Benjamite" is certainly mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,5);">Es 2:5</a>) as the great-grandfather of Mordecai; but if this was also the father of Saul, then the first of the Israelite kings was a sharer in the experiences of the Babylonian captivity, a conception which is certainly fantastic enough. One might ask also how an Amalekite came to be described as an Agagite; and how a childless king, who was cut in pieces, became the founder of a tribe. But any semblance of a foundation which that rabbinic conceit ever had was swept away years ago by Oppert\'s discovery of "Agag" in one of Sargon\'s inscriptions as the name of a district in the Persian empire. "Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite" means simply that Haman or his father had come from the district of Agag.<P>(2) The statement that <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,5,6);">Es 2:5-6</a> represents Mordecai as having been carried away with Jeconiah from Jerusalem, and as being therefore of an impossible age, is unworthy of notice. The relative "who" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,6);">2:6</a>) refers to Kish, his great-grandfather.<P>(3) "Between the 7th and the 12th years of his reign, Xerxes\' queen was Amestris, a superstitious and cruel woman (Herod. vii.114; ix.112), who cannot be identified with Esther, and who leaves no place for Esther beside her" (Driver). Scaliger long ago identified Esther with Amestris, an identification which Prideaux rejected on account of the cruelty which Herodotus has attributed to that queen. Dr. Driver has failed to take full account of one thing<6E>the striking fact that critics have leveled this very charge of cruelty against the heroine of our book. It is quite possible that Esther, moving in a world of merciless intrigue, may have had to take measures which would form a foundation for the tales recorded by the Greek historian.<P>(4) The aim of the book is said to be the glorification of the Jews. But, on the contrary, it is merely a record of their being saved from a skillfully planned extirpation.<P>(5) The description of the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,8);">Es 3:8</a>) as "dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of" the kingdom is said to be inapplicable to the Persian period. That argument is based upon an ignorance of the ancient world which investigation is daily correcting. We now know that before the time of Esther, Jews were settled both in eastern and in southern Egypt, that is, in the extreme west of the Persian empire. In the troubles at the end of the 7th and of the 6th centuries BC, multitudes must have been dispersed, and when, at the latter period, the ties of the fatherland were dissolved, Jewish migrations must have vastly increased.<P>(6) The Hebrew of the book is said to belong to a much later period than that of Xerxes. But it is admitted that it is earlier than the Hebrew of Chronicles; and recent discoveries have shown decisively that the book belongs to the Persian period.<P>(7) The suggestion is made (Driver) "that the danger which threatened the Jews was a local one," and consequently, that the book, though possessed of a historical basis, is a romance. But against that are the facts that the observance of the feast has from the first been universal, and that it has not been observed more fully or more enthusiastically in any one place than in the others.<P>(8) There is no reference to it, it is urged, by Chronicles, Ezra or Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus). But Chronicles ends with the proclamation of Cyrus, granting permission to the Jews to return and to rebuild the Temple. There is little to be wondered at that it contains no reference to events which happened 60 years afterward. In Ezra, which certainly covers the period of Esther, reference to the events with which she was connected is excluded by the plan of the work. It gives the history of the return, the first part under Zerubbabel in 536 BC, the second under Ezra himself, 458 BC. The events in Esther (which were embraced within a period of a few months) fell in the interval and were connected with neither the first return nor the second. Here again the objector is singularly oblivious of the purpose of the book to which he refers. There is quite as little force in the citation of Ecclesiasticus. In dealing with this time Ben Sira\'s eye is upon Jerusalem. He magnifies Zerubbabel, "Jesus the son of Josedek," and Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',49,11,12,13);">49:11-13</A>). Even Ezra, to whom Jerusalem and the new Jewish state owed so much, finds no mention. Why, then, should Esther and Mordecai be named who seem to have had no part whatever in rebuilding the sacred city?<P>(9) The book is said to display ignorance of the Persian empire in the statement that it was divided into 127 provinces, whereas Herodotus tells us that it was partitioned into 20 satrapies. But there was no such finality in the number, even of these great divisions of the empire. Darius in his Behistun inscriptions gives the number as 21, afterward as 23, and in a third enumeration as 29. Herodotus himself, quoting from a document of the time of Xerxes, shows that there were then about 60 nations under the dominion of Persia. The objector has also omitted to notice that the medhinah ("province") mentioned in Esther (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1);">1:1</a>) is not a satrapy but a subdivision of it. Judea is called a medhinah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,1);">Ezr 2:1</a>, and that was only a small portion of the 5th satrapy, that, namely, of Syria. But the time is past for objections of this character. Recent discoveries have proved the marvelous accuracy of the book. "We find in the Book of Esther," says Lenormant (Ancient History of the East, II, 113), "a most animated picture of the court of the Persian kings, which enables us, better than anything contained in the classical writers, to penetrate the internal life and the details of the organization of the central government established by Darius."<P>8. Confirmations of the Book:<P>These discoveries have removed the discussion to quite another plane<6E>or rather they have ended it. Since Grotefend in 1802 read the name of Xerxes in a Persian inscription and found it to be, letter for letter, the Ahasuerus of Eat, research has heaped up confirmation of the historical character of the book. It has proved, to begin with that the late date suggested for the book cannot be maintained. The language belongs to the time of the Persian dominion. It is marked by the presence of old Persian words, the knowledge of which had passed away by the 2nd century BC, and has been recovered only through the decipherment of the Persian monuments. The Septuagint translators were unacquainted with them, and consequently made blunders which have been repeated in our own the King James Version and in other translations. We read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,5,6);">Es 1:5-6</a> the King James Version) that "in the court of the garden of the king\'s palace," "were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple," etc. As seen in the ruins of Persepolis, a marked feature in the Persian palace of the period was a large space occupied by pillars which were covered with awnings. It may be noted in passing that these were situated, as the book says, in the court of the palace garden. But our knowledge of the recovered Persian compels us now to read: "where was an awning of fine white cotton and violet, fastened with cords of fine white linen and purple." White and blue (or violet) were the royal Persian colors. In accord with this we are told that Mordecai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,15);">Es 8:15</a>) "went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white." The highly organized postal system, the king\'s scribes, the keeping of the chronicles of the kingdom, the rigid and elaborate court customs, are all characteristic of the Persia of the period. We are told of the decree obtained by Haman that "in the name of King Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king\'s ring" (or signet). It was not signed but sealed. That was the Persian custom. The seal of Darius, Xerxes\' father, has been found, and is now in the British Museum. It bears the figure of the king shooting arrows at a lion, and is accompanied by an inscription in Persian, Susian and Assyrian: "I, Darius, Great King." The identification of Ahasuerus, made by Grotefend and which subsequent discoveries amply confirmed, placed the book in an entirely new light. As soon as that identification was assured, previous objections were changed into confirmations. In the alleged extravagances of the monarch, scholars saw then the Xerxes of history. The gathering of the nobles of the empire in "the third year of his reign" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,3);">Es 1:3</a>) was plainly the historical assembly in which the Grecian campaign was discussed; and "the seventh year," in which Esther was made queen, was that of his return from Greece. The book implies that Susa was the residence of the Persian kings, and this was so. The proper form of the name as shown by the inscriptions was "Shushan"; "Shushan the Palace" indicates that there were two Susas, which was the fact, and birah ("palace") is a Persian word meaning fortress. The surprisingly rigid etiquette of the palace, to which we have referred, and the danger of entering unbidden the presence of the king have been urged as proof that the book is a romance. The contrary, however, is the truth. "The palace among the Persians," says Lenormant, "was quite inaccessible to the multitude. A most rigid etiquette guarded all access to the king, and made it very difficult to approach him....He who entered the presence of the king, without having previously obtained permission, was punished with death" (Ancient History of the East, II, 113-14; compare Herodotus i.99). But a further, and peculiarly conclusive, testimony to the historical character of the book is afforded by the recovery of the palace of Xerxes and Esther. An inscription of Artaxerxes Mnemon found at Susa tells us that it was destroyed by fire in the days of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. Within some 30 years, therefore, from the time of Esther, that palace passed from the knowledge of men. Nevertheless, the references in the book are in perfect accord with the plan of the great structure as laid bare by the recent French excavations. We read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,\'1-\');">Es 4</a>) that Mordecai, clad in sackcloth, walked in "the broad palace of the city, which was before the king\'s gate." The ruins show that the House of the Women was on the east side of the palace next to the city, and that a gate led from it into "the street of the city." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,\'1-\');">Es 5:1</a>, we read that Esther "stood in the inner court of the king\'s house, over against the king\'s house." "The king," we also read, "sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the entrance of the house," and that from the throne he "saw Esther the queen standing in the court." Every detail is exact. A corridor led from the House of the Women to the inner court; and at the side of the court opposite to the corridor was the hall, or throne-room of the palace. Exactly in the center of the farther wall the throne was placed and from that lofty seat the king, overlooking an intervening screen, saw the queen waiting for an audience. Other details, such as that of the king\'s passing from the queen\'s banqueting-house into the garden, show a similarly exact acquaintance with the palace as it then was. That is a confirmation the force of which it is hard to overestimate. It shows that the writer was well informed and that his work is characterized by minute exactitude.<P>The utter absence of the Divine name in Esther has formed a difficulty even where it has not been urged as an objection. But that is plainly part of some Divine design. The same silence is strictly maintained throughout in regard to prayer, praise and every approach toward God. That silence was an offense to the early Jews; for, in the Septuagint additions to the book, there is profuse acknowledgment of God both in prayer and in praise. But it must have struck the Jews of the time and the official custodians of the canonical books quite as painfully; and we can only explain the admission of Esther by the latter on the ground that there was overwhelming evidence of its Divine origin and authority. Can this rigid suppression be explained? In the original arrangement of the Old Testament canonical books (the present Hebrew arrangement is post-Christian), Esther is joined to Nehemiah. In 1895 I made a suggestion which I still think worthy of consideration: More than 60 years had passed since Cyrus had given the Jews permission to return. The vast majority of the people remained, nevertheless, where they were. Some, like Nehemiah, were restrained by official and other ties. The rest were indifferent or declined to make the necessary sacrifices of property and of rest. With such as these last the history of God\'s work in the earth can never be associated. In His providence He will watch over and deliver them: but their names and His will not be bound together in the record of the labor and the waiting for the earth\'s salvation.``180';
isbe[3220]='Esther, the Rest of`Contents<P>Introductory<P>1. Name<P>2. Contents<P>3. Original Language<P>4. Versions<P>5. Date<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>Introductory.<P>The Book of Esther in the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint (BAN, etc.) contains 107 verses more than in the Hebrew Bible. These additions are scattered throughout the book where they were originally inserted in order to supply the religious element apparently lacking in the Hebrew text. In Jerome\'s version and in the Vulgate, which is based on it, the longest and most important of these additions are taken out of their context and put together at the end of the canonical book, thus making them to a large extent unintelligible. In English, Welsh and other Protestant versions of the Scriptures the whole of the additions appear in the Apocrypha.<P>1. Name:<P>In the English Versions of the Bible the full title is "The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee." Since in the Septuagint, including the editions by Fritzsche, Tischendorf and Swete, these chapters appear in their original context, they bear no separate title. The same is true of Brereton\'s English translation of the Septuagint; but in Thompson\'s translation the whole of the Apocrypha is omitted, so that it is not strictly a translation of the whole Septuagint.<P>2. Contents:<P>In Swete\'s edition of the Septuagint the interpretations constituting "the Rest of Esther" (sometimes given as "Additions to Esther") are designated by the capital letters of the alphabet, and in the following enumeration this will be followed. The several places in the Greek Bible are indicated in each case.<P>A (Latin, English, Ad Es 11:2; 12:6): Mordecai\'s dream; how he came to honor. Precedes <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,1);">Es 1:1</a>.<P>B (Latin, English, Ad Es 13:1-7): Letter of Artaxerxes. Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,13);">Es 3:13</a>.<P>C (Latin, English, Ad Es 13:8-14:19): The prayers of Mordecai and Esther. Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,17);">Es 4:17</a>.<P>D (Latin, Ad Es 15:4-19; English, 16:1-16): Esther visits the king and wins his favor. Follows C, preceding immediately <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,1);">Es 5</a>.<P>E (Latin, English, Ad Es 16:1-24): Another letter of Artaxerxes. Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,12);">Es 8:12</a>. F (Latin, English, Ad Es 10:4-11): Epilogue describing the origin of the Feast Purim. Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,3);">Es 10:3</a>.<P>But besides the lengthy interpolations noticed above there are also in the Septuagint small additions omitted from the Latin and therefore from the English, Welsh, etc., Apocrypha. These short additions are nearly all explanatory glosses. In the Century Bible (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) the exact places where the insertions occur in the Septuagint are indicated and described in the notes dealing with the relevant passages of the canonical text. With the help thus given any English reader is able to read the additions in their original setting. Unless they are read in this way they are pointless and even in most cases senseless.<P>3. Original Language:<P>All scholars agree that "The Rest of Esther" was written originally in Greek Both external and internal evidence bears this out. But the Greek text has come down to us in two recensions which differ considerably.<P>(1) The commonly received text supported by the manuscripts B, A, N, and by Josephus (Ant., XI, i).<P>(2) A revision of (1) contained in the manuscripts 19, 93a and 108b. In the last two manuscripts both recensions occur. This revised text has been ascribed by many recent scholars (Lagarde, Schurer, R. H. Charles) to Lucian. In his Libr. Vet. Test. Canon. Graece, Pars Prior, 1833 (all published), Lagarde gives on parallel pages both recensions with critical notes on both.<P>4. Versions:<P>The two Greek texts are also given by Fritzsche (1871) and Swete (1891) in their editions of the Septuagint, and also by Scholz in his German Commentary on the Book of Esther (1892). For the ancient versions see "Esther Versions."<P>5. Date:<P>Practically all modern scholars agree in holding that "The Rest of Esther" is some decades later than the canonical book. In his commentary on Esther (Century Bible) the present writer has given reasons for dating the canonical Esther about 130 BC. One could not go far astray in fixing the date of the original Greek of the Additions to Esther at about 100 BC. It is evident that we owe these interpolations to a Jewish zealot who wished to give the Book of Esther a religious character. In his later years John Hyrcanus (135-103 BC) identified himself with the Sadducean or rationalistic party, thus breaking with the Pharisee or orthodox party to which the Maccabeans had hitherto belonged. Perhaps we owe these additions to the zeal aroused among orthodox Jews by the rationalizing temper prevailing in court circles. R. H. Charles (Encyclopedia Brit, XI, 797b) favors a date during the early (?) Maccabean period; but this would give the Ad Esther an earlier date than can be ascribed to the canonical Esther.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the literature cited above, and in addition note the following: Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (1851), 67-108; Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II, iii, 181ff (Ger. edition 4, III, 449ff); Ryssel (in Kautzsch, Apocrypha, 193ff); Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 257 if; the articles in the principal Bible Dictionaries, including Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESTHER">ESTHER</a>`33';
isbe[3221]='Estimate; Estimation`es\'-ti-mat, es-ti-ma\'-shun (\'arakh, \'erekh):<P>These words, meaning "to set in order," "valuation," are used in connection with the priestly services in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,15,18);">Le 5:15, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,6);">6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,14);">27:14</a>, and frequently; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,16);">Nu 18:16</a>.``1';
isbe[3222]='Esyelus`e-si-e\'-lus (Esuel, Esuelos; the King James Version Syelus):<P>One of the governors of the Temple in the time of Josiah (1Esdras 1:8); called "Jehiel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,8);">2Ch 35:8</a>.``1';
isbe[3223]='Etam`e\'-tam \'etam; Codex Alexandrinus, Apan, Codex Vaticanus, Aitan:<P>(1) Mentioned in Septuagint along with Tekoa, Bethlehem and Phagor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,59);">Jos 15:59</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,6);">2Ch 11:6</a> it occurs, between Bethlehem and Tekoa, as one of the cities built "for defense in Judah" by Rehoboam. Josephus writes that "there was a certain place, about 50 furlongs distant from Jerusalem which is called Ethan, very pleasant it is in fine gardens and abounding in rivulets of water; whither he (Solomon) used to go out in the morning" (Ant., VIII, vii, 3). Mention of \'Ain \'Aitan, which is described as the most elevated place in Palestine, occurs in the Talmud (Zebhachim 54b), and in the Jer. Talmud (Yoma\' 3 fol 41) it is mentioned that a conduit ran from \'Atan to the Temple.<P>The evidence all points to \'Ain \'Atan, the lowest of the springs supplying the aqueduct running to Solomon\'s pools. The gardens of Solomon may very well<6C>by tradition, at any rate<74>have been in the fertile valley below \'Urtas. The site of the ancient town Etam is rather to be looked for on an isolated hill, with ancient remains, a little to the east of \'Ain \'Atan. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,3);">1Ch 4:3</a> may also have reference to this Etam.<P>(2) A town assigned to Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,32);">1Ch 4:32</a>). Mentioned with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EN-RIMMON">EN-RIMMON</A> (which see), identified by Conder with Khurbet \'Aitun in the hills Northwest of Beersheba.<P>(3) The rock of Etam, where Samson took up his dwelling after smiting the Philistines "hip and thigh with a great slaughter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,8,11);">Jud 15:8, 11</a>), was in Judah but apparently in the low hill country (same place). The rocky hill on which lies the village of Beit \'Atab, near Sur\'ah (Zorah), was suggested by Conder, but unless (3) is really identical width (1), which is quite possible, the cavern known as \'Arak Isma\'in, described by Hanauer (PEFS, 1886, 25), suits the requirements of the story better. The cavern, high up on the northern cliffs of the Wady Isma\'in, is a noticeable object from the railway as the train enters the gorge.``117';
isbe[3224]='Eternal`e-tur\'-nal (\'olam; aionios, from aion):<P>The word "eternal" is of very varying import, both in the Scriptures and out of them.<P>1. \'Olam:<P>In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word \'olam is used for "eternity," sometimes in the sense of unlimited duration, sometimes in the sense of a cycle or an age, and sometimes, in later Hebrew, in the signification of world. The Hebrew \'olam has, for its proper New Testament equivalent, aion, as signifying either time of particular duration, or the unending duration of time in general. Only, the Hebrew term primarily signified unlimited time, and only in a secondary sense represented a definite or specific period. Both the Hebrew and the Greek terms signify the world itself, as it moves in time.<P>2. Aion, Aionios:<P>In the New Testament, aion and aionios are often used with the meaning "eternal," in the predominant sense of futurity. The word aion primarily signifies time, in the sense of age or generation; it also comes to denote all that exists under time-conditions; and, finally, superimposed upon the temporal is an ethical use, relative to the world\'s course. Thus aion may be said to mean the subtle informing spirit of the world or cosmos<6F>the totality of things. By Plato, in his Timaeus, aion was used of the eternal Being, whose counterpart, in the sense-world, is Time. To Aristotle, in speaking of the world, aion is the ultimate principle which, in itself, sums up all existence.. In the New Testament, aion is found combined with prepositions in nearly three score and ten instances, where the idea of unlimited duration appears to be meant. This is the usual method of expressing eternity in the Septuagint also. The aionios of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,18);">2Co 4:18</a> must be eternal, in a temporal use or reference, else the antithesis would be gone.<P>3. Aidios:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a> the word aidios is used of Divine action and rendered in the King James Version "eternal" (the Revised Version (British and American) "everlasting"), the only other place in the New Testament where the word occurs being <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,6);">Jude 1:6</a>, where the rendering is "everlasting," which accords with classical usage. But the presence of the idea of eternal in these passages does not impair the fact that aion and aionios are, in their natural and obvious connotation, the usual New Testament words for expressing the idea of eternal, and this holds strikingly true of the Septuagint usage also. For, from the idea of aeonian life, there is no reason to suppose the notion of duration excluded. The word aionios is sometimes used in the futurist signification, but often also, in the New Testament, it is concerned rather with the quality, than with the quantity or duration, of life. By the continual attachment of aionios to life, in this conception of the spiritual or Divine life in man, the aeonian conception was saved from becoming sterile.<P>4. Enlargement of Idea:<P>In the use of aion and aionios there is evidenced a certain enlarging or advancing import till they come so to express the high and complex fact of the Divine life in man. In Greek, aiones signifies ages, or periods or dispensations. The aiones of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2);">Heb 1:2</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,3);">11:3</A>, is, however, to be taken as used in the concrete sense of "the worlds," and not "the ages," the world so taken meaning the totality of things in their course or flow.<P>5. Eternal Life:<P>Our Lord decisively set the element of time in abeyance, and took His stand upon the fact and quality of life<66>life endless by its own nature. Of that eternal life He is Himself the guarantee<65>"Because I live, ye shall live also" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,19);">Joh 14:19</a>). Therefore said Augustine, "Join thyself to the eternal God, and thou wilt be eternal."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETERNITY">ETERNITY</a>`96';
isbe[3225]='Eternity`e-tur\'-ni-ti (olam; Greek equivalent, aion):<P><b>Contents</b><P>1. Contrast with Time<P>2. In the Old Testament<P>3. In the New Testament<P>4. The Eternal "Now"<P>5. Defect of This View<P>6. Philosophical Views<P>7. Time Conceptions Inadequate<P>8. All Succession Present in One Act to Divine Consciousness<P>9. Yet Connection between Eternity and Time<P>10. The Religious Attitude to Eternity<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>1. Contrast with Time:<P>Eternity is best conceived, not in the merely negative form of the non-temporal, or immeasurable time, but positively, as the mode of the timeless self-existence of the Absolute Ground of the universe. The flux of time grows first intelligible to us, only when we take in the thought of God as eternal<61>exalted above time. Timeless existence<63>being or entity without change<67>is what we here mean by eternity, and not mere everlastingness or permanence through time. God, in His internal being, is raised above time; in His eternal absoluteness, He is throned above temporal development, and knows, as the Scriptures say, no changeableness. The conception of eternity, as without beginning or ending, leaves us with but a negation badly in need of filling out with reality. Eternity is not a mere negative idea; to make of eternity merely a blank and irrelevant negation of temporality would not satisfy any proper theory of being; it functions as the positive relation to time of that eternal God, who is King of all the eons.<P>2. In the Old Testament:<P>In the Old Testament, God\'s eternity is only negatively expressed, as implying merely indefinitely extended time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,33);">Ge 21:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>), though <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,28);">Isa 40:28</a> takes more absolute form. Better is the view of eternity, objectively considered, as a mode of being of God in relation to Himself. For He was eternal, while as yet the world and time were not. But even in the New Testament, the negative form of expression prevails.<P>3. In the New Testament:<P>Time, with its succession of events, helps to fill out such idea as we can form of the eternal, conceived as an endless progress. But, as finite beings, we can form no positive idea of eternity. Time is less contradictory of eternity, than helpful in revealing what we know of it. Plato, in his Timaeus, says that time is the "moving image of eternity," and we may allow that it is its type or revelation. Not as the annulment of time, though it might be held to be in itself exclusive of time, is eternity to be taken, but rather as the ground of its reality.<P>4. The Eternal "Now":<P>Eternity might, no doubt, be taken as just time no longer measured by the succession of events, as in the finite universe. But, on a strict view, there is something absurd in an eternity that includes time, and an eternity apart from time is a vain and impossible conception. Eternity, as a discharge from all time limits, is purely negative, though not without importance. Eternity, absolutely taken, must be pronounced incommensurable with time; as Aquinas said, non sunt mensurae unius generis. Eternity, that is to say, would lose its character as eternal in the very entering into relations with the changeful or becoming. Eternity, as in God, has, since the time of Augustine and the Middle Ages, been frequently conceived as an eternal Now. The Schoolmen were wont to adopt as a maxim that "in eternity is one only instant always present and persistent." This is but a way of describing eternity in a manner characteristic of succession in time; but eternal Deity, rather than an eternal Now, is a conception far more full of meaning for us.<P>5. Defect of This View:<P>To speak of God\'s eternity as an eternal Now<6F>a present in the time-sense<73>involves a contradiction. For the eternal existence is no more described by the notion of a present than by a past or a future. Such a Now or present presupposes a not-now, and raises afresh the old time-troubles, in relation to eternity. Time is certainly not the form of God\'s life, His eternity meaning freedom from time. Hence, it was extremely troublesome to theology of the Middle Ages to have a God who was not in time at all, supposed to create the world at a particular moment in time.<P>6. Philosophical Views:<P>Spinoza, in later times, made the eternity of God consist in His infinite<74>which, to Spinoza, meant His necessary<72>existence. For contingent or durational existence would not, in Spinoza\'s view, be eternal, though it lasted always. The illusoriness or unreality of time, in respect of man\'s spiritual life, is not always very firmly grasped. This wavering or uncertain hold of the illusiveness of time, or of higher reality as timeless, is still very prevalent; even so strong-souled a poet as Browning projects the shadow of time into eternity, with rarely a definite conception of the higher life as an eternal and timeless essence; and although Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer may have held to such a timeless view, it has by no means become a generally adopted doctrine so far, either of theologians or of philosophers. If time be so taken as unreal, then eternity must not be thought of as future, as is done by Dr. Ellis McTaggart and some other metaphysicians today. For nothing could, in that case, be properly future, and eternity could not be said to begin, as is often done in everyday life.<P>The importance of the eternity conception is seen in the fact that neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian thinkers alike have shown a general tendency to regard time-conceptions as unfit, in metaphysics, for the ultimate explanation of the universe.<P>7. Time-Conceptions Inadequate:<P>Eternity, one may surely hold, must span or include, for God\'s eternal consciousness, the whole of what happens in time, with all of past, present or future, that lies within the temporal succession. But we are by no means entitled to say, as does Royce, that such wholeness or totality of the temporal constitutes the eternal, for the eternal belongs to quite another order, that, namely, of timeless reality. Eternity is not to be defined in terms of time at all. For God is to us the supra-temporal ens perfectissimum, but One whose timeless self-sufficiency and impassable aloofness are not such as to keep Him from being strength and helper of our temporal striving. Our metaphysical convictions must not here be of barren and unfruitful sort for ethical results and purposes.<P>8. All Succession Present in One Act to Divine Consciousness:<P>Eternity is, in our view, the form of an eternal existence, to which, in the unity of a single insight, the infinite series of varying aspects or processes are, together-wise, as a totum simul, present. But this, as we have already shown, does not imply that the eternal order is nowise different, essentially, from the temporal; time is not to be treated as a segment of eternity, nor eternity regarded as interminable duration; the eternal cannot pass over into the temporal; for, an eternal Being, who should think all things as present, and yet view the time-series as a succession, must be a rather self-contradictory conception. For the Absolute Consciousness, time does not exist; the future cannot, for it, be thought of as beginning to be, nor the past as having ceased to be.<P>9. Yet Connection Between Eternity and Time:<P>After all that has been said, however, eternity and time are not to be thought of as without connection. For the temporal presupposes the eternal, which is, in fact, its positive ground and its perpetual possibility. These things are so, if only for the reason that the Divine mode of existence does not contradict or exclude the human mode of existence. The continuity of the latter<65>of the temporal<61>has its guaranty in the eternal. The unconditioned eternity of God brings into harmony with itself the limitations and conditions of the temporal. For time is purely relative, which eternity is not. No distinctions of before and after are admissible in the eternity conception, hence, we have no right to speak of time as a portion of eternity. Thus, while we maintain the essential difference between eternity and time, we at the same time affirm what may perhaps be called the affinity between them. The metaphysics of eternity and its time-relations continue to be matter of proverbial difficulty, and both orders<72>the eternal and the temporal<61>had better be treated as concrete, and not left merely to abstract reflection. Our idea of the eternal will best be developed, in this concrete fashion, by the growth of our God-idea, as we more completely apprehend God, as actualized for us in His incarnate Son.<P>10. The Religious Attitude to Eternity:<P>Thus, then, it is eternity, not as immeasurable time, but rather as a mode of being of the immutable God, who is yet progressively revealing Himself in time, which we have here set forth. This is not to say that the religious consciousness has not its own need of the conception of God as being "from everlasting to everlasting," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,2);">Ps 90:2</a>, and of His kingdom as "an everlasting kingdom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,3);">Da 4:3</a>). Nor is it to make us suppose that the absolute and self-existent God, who so transcends all time-dependence, is thereby removed far from us, while, on the contrary, His very greatness makes Him the more able to draw near unto us, in all the plenitude of His being. Hence, it is so truly spoken in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>, "Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite." Hence, also the profound truthfulness of sayings like that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,27,28);">Ac 17:27-28</a>, "He is not far from each one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being." After all that has been said, our best knowledge of eternity, as it exists in God, is not developed in any metaphysical fashion, but after the positive and timeless modes of the spiritual life<66>the modes of trust and love.<P>LITERATURE.<P>H. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek, English edition, 1880; G. B. Winer, Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd edition, 1882; R. C. French, Synonyms of the New Testament, 9th edition, 1880; E. H. Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, 3rd edition, 1885; J. Orr, Christian View of God and the World, lst edition, 1893; I. A. Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, English edition, 1885; J. H. Stirling, Philosophy and Theology, 1890; J. Lindsay, Studies in European Philosophy, 1909; The Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics, 1910.``96';
isbe[3226]='Eth-Kazin`eth-ka\'-zin (\'ittah qatsin; the King James Version Ittah Kazin):<P>A town on the eastern border of Zebulun, mentioned between Gath-hepher and Rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>). The site is not identified. "Ittah" of the King James Version is due to misunderstanding of the Hebrew letter "he" locale.``1';
isbe[3227]='Etham`e\'-tham (\'etham; Othom, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,20);">Ex 13:20</a>; Bouthan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,6,7);">Nu 33:6-7</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,8);">33:8</a> the Septuagint has a different reading, "in their wilderness" showing another pointing for the word):<P>The name used to be explained as the Coptic Atium, "border of the Sea" (Gesenius, Lexicon, under the word) which would agree with the Hebrew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,8);">Nu 33:8</a>) where the "wilderness of Etham" is noticed instead of that of Shur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,22);">Ex 15:22</a>) east of the Red Sea (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHUR">SHUR</a>). At Etham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,20);">Ex 13:20</a>), the Hebrews camped in the "edge," or at "the end," of the desert west of the sea that they were to cross (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE">EXODUS</a>). This camp was probably near the north end of the Bitter Lakes, a march from Succoth. Brugsch (Hist. Egypt, II, 359) would compare Etham with the Egyptian Khetam ("fort"), but the Hebrew word has no guttural. The word Khetam is not the name of a place (see Pierret, Vocab. hieroglyph., 453), and more than one such "fort" seems to be noticed (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PITHOM">PITHOM</a>). In the reign of Seti II a scribe\'s report mentions the pursuit of two servants, apparently from Zoan, to the fortress of I-k-u southward, reaching Khetam on the 3rd day; but if this was the "Khetam of Rameses II," or even that "of Minepthah," it would not apparently suit the position of Etham.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIGDOL">MIGDOL</a>`28';
isbe[3228]='Ethan`e\'-than (\'ethan, "firm," "enduring"; Gaithan):<P>(1) A wise man with whom Solomon is compared (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,31);">1Ki 4:31</a>). Called there "Ethan the Ezrahite," to whom the title of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,\'1-\');">Ps 89</a> ascribes the authorship of that poem.<P>(2) A "son of Kishi," or "Kishaiah," of the Merari branch of the Levites, and, along with Heman and Asaph, placed by David over the service of song (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,44);">1Ch 6:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,17,19);">15:17, 19</a>).<P>(3) An ancestor of Asaph of the Gershomite branch of the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,42);">1Ch 6:42</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEDUTHUN">JEDUTHUN</a>`1';
isbe[3229]='Ethanim`eth\'-a-nim (\'ethanim):<P>The seventh month of the Jewish year (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,2);">1Ki 8:2</a>). The word is of Phoenician origin and signifies "perennial," referring to living streams. It corresponds to September-October.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALENDAR">CALENDAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIME">TIME</a>`1';
isbe[3230]='Ethanus`e-tha\'-nus, the King James Version Ecanus (Apocrypha):<P>One of the scribes who wrote for forty days at the dictation of Ezra (2Esdras 14:24).``1';
isbe[3231]='Ethbaal`eth-ba\'-al, eth\'-ba-al (\'ethba\'al, "with Baal"):<P>"King of the Sidonians," and father of Jezebel whom Ahab king of Israel took to wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,31);">1Ki 16:31</a>).``1';
isbe[3232]='Ether`e\'-ther (\'ether; Ather):<P>A town in Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,42);">Jos 15:42</a>), near Libnah, assigned to Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,7);">Jos 19:7</a>). Kh. el \'Atr (identical in spelling with Ether) is possibly the site.<P>It is near Beit Jibrin and is described as "an ancient site: cisterns, foundations, quarried rock and terraces" (PEF, III, 261, 279).``1';
isbe[3233]='Ethics of Jesus`eth\'-iks:<P>Contents<p><b>I. IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS</b><P class="in15">1. The Blessings of the Kingdom<P class="in30">(1) Nature of the Kingdom<P class="in30">(2) Blessedness of the Kingdom<P class="in30">(3) Righteousness<73>Its Contrasts<P class="in30">(4) Apocalyptic Theories<P class="in15">2. The Character of the Subjects of the Kingdom<P class="in30">(1) Condition of Entrance<P class="in30">(2) Christ\'s Attitude to Sin<P class="in30">(3) Attainment of Righteousness<P class="in45">(a) Repentance<P class="in45">(b) Faith "Coming" to Christ<P class="in45">(c) Imitation of Christ<73>Service Example of Jesus<P class="in15">3. Commandments of the King<P class="in30">The Great Commandments<P class="in45">(a) Love to God God\'s Worship, etc. The Church<P class="in45">(b) Duty to Man Exemplified in Christ The New Motives<P><b>II. IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL</b><P class="in15">1. Eternal Life<P class="in15">2. Its Source in God<P class="in15">3. Through the <span class="noTag">Son</span><P class="in15">4. Need of New Birth<P class="in15">5. Nature of Faith<P class="in15">6. Fruits of Union with Christ<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. In the Synoptic Gospels.<P>If, following the custom prevalent at present, we adopt, as the general name for the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptists, the Kingdom of God, then the divisions of His ethical teaching will be (1) the Blessings of the Kingdom, (2) the Character of the Subjects, (3) the Commandments of the King.<P>1. The Blessings of the Kingdom:<P>(1) Nature of the Kingdom.<P>"The Kingdom of God" was not a phrase invented by Jesus. It was used before Him by the Baptist. Its proximate source, for both Jesus and John, was the prophet Daniel, who uses it in very striking passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,44,45);">2:44,45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',13,14);">7:13,14</a>). The idea of a kingdom of God goes back to the very commencement of the monarchy in Israel, when the prophet Samuel told those who demanded a king that Yahweh was their king, and that they should desire no other. Through all the subsequent history of the monarchy, which was, on the whole, so disappointing to patriotic and pious minds, the conviction lingered that, if God Himself were king, all would be well; and, when at length the Hebrew state was destroyed and the people were carried into captivity, the prophets still believed that for their country there was a future and a hope, if only Yahweh would take to Himself His great power and reign. In the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament such sentiments so greatly prevailed that Schurer has compiled, from the apocryphal literature, a kind of Messianic creed, embracing no fewer than eleven articles, which he supposes to have prevailed before the Advent. It may be doubtful how far such beliefs had taken possession of the general mind. Many of the Sadducees were too satisfied with things as they were to concern themselves about such dreams. But the Pharisees undoubtedly gave a large place in their minds to Messianic expectations, and for these the Zealots were ready to fight. It is, however, to the prosdechomenoi, as they are called, because they were "waiting for the consolation of Israel," that we must look for the purest expression of this heritage derived from the piety of the past. In the hymns at the beginning of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with which the birth of Jesus was greeted, we encounter an intense and lofty conception of the kingdom of God; and, as the earthly home in which Jesus grew up belonged to this select section of the population, there is little doubt that it was here He imbibed both His Messianic ideas and the phraseology in which these were expressed. His use of the term, the kingdom of God, has sometimes been spoken of as an accommodation to the beliefs and language of His fellow-countrymen. But it was native to Himself; and it is not unlikely that the very commonness of it in the circle in which He grew up rendered Him unconscious of the difference between His own conception and that which prevailed outside of this circle. For, as soon as He began to preach and to make known the sentiments which He included within this phrase, it became manifest that He and His contemporaries, under a common name, were thinking of entirely different things.<P>They emphasized the first half of the phrase<73>"the kingdom"; He the second<6E>"of God." They were thinking of the external attributes of a kingdom<6F>political emancipation, an army, a court, subject provinces; He of the doing of God\'s will on earth as it is done in heaven. Even He had felt, at one stage, the glamor of their point of view, as is manifest from the account of the Temptation in the Wilderness; but He had decisively rejected it, resolving not to commence with an external framework on a large scale, to be subsequently filled with character, but to begin with the individual, and trust to time and Providence for visible success. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem proves that He never abandoned the claim to be the fulfiller of all the Old Testament predictions about the kingdom of God; but His enemies not unnaturally interpreted the failure of that attempt as a final demonstration that their own view had been the correct one all along. Still, God was not mocked, and Jesus was not mocked. When, at the end of a generation, the Jewish state sank into ruin and the city by which Jesus was martyred had been destroyed, there were springing up, all over the world, communities the members of which were bound more closely to one another than the members of any other kingdom, obeyed the same laws and enjoyed the same benefits, which they traced up to a King ruling in the heavens, who would appear again on the great white throne, to be the Judge of quick and dead.<P>(2) Blessedness of the Kingdom.<P>The enemies of Jesus may be said to have carried out to the bitter end their conception of the kingdom of God, when they nailed Him to a tree; but, in the face of opposition, He carried out His own conception of it too, and He never abandoned the practice of employing this phrase as a comprehensive term for all the blessings brought by Him to mankind. He used, however, other nomenclature for the same objects, such as Gospel, Peace, Rest, Life, Eternal Life, Blessedness. His exposition of the last of these, at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount, is highly instructive. Seldom, indeed, has the structure of the Beatitudes been clearly understood. Each of them is an equation, in which "blessed" stands on the one side and on the other two magnitudes<65>the one contained in the subject of the sentence, such as "the poor in spirit," "the meek," and so on; and the other contained in a qualifying clause introduced by "for." Sometimes one of these magnitudes may be a minus quantity, as in "they that mourn"; but the other is so large a positive magnitude that the two together represent a handsome plus, which thoroughly justifies the predicate "blessed." It is remarkable that the first and the eighth of the reasons introduced by "for" are the same: "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," justifying the statement that this is Christ\'s own name for the blessedness brought by Him to the world; and the sentences between these, introduced in the same way, may be looked upon as epexegetic of this great phrase. They embrace such great conceptions as comfort, mercy, the inheritance of the earth, the vision of God and sonship, which are all certainly blessings of the kingdom; and the list does not finish without mentioning a great reward in heaven<65>an immortal hope, which is the greatest blessing of all.<P>(3) Righteousness<73>Its Contrasts.<P>If the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was to expound at length any one of these bright conceptions, it might have been expected to be the kingdom of God itself; and this we should have desired. But the one to which this honor fell has still to be mentioned. It is "righteousness." In one of the Beatitudes the speaker had promised that to be filled with this should be part of the blessedness which He was expounding; and, when He had finished the Beatitudes, He turned back to this conception and devoted the rest of His discourse to its interpretation. Nowhere else, in the reports of His preaching which have come down to us, is there to be found an exposition so sustained and thorough. There is no better way of describing a new thing, with which those who listen are unfamiliar, than to contrast it with something with which they are perfectly acquainted; and this was the method adopted by Jesus. He contrasted the righteousness with which the subjects of the kingdom were to be blessed with the figure of the righteous man familiar to them, first, in the discourses of the scribes, to which they were wont to listen in the synagogue, and secondly, in the example of the Pharisees, to whom they were wont to look up as the patterns of righteousness. It is well known what ample opportunities He found, by means of this felicitous disposition, for probing to the very depths of morality, as well as for covering His opponents with ridicule and exploding the honor in which they stood with the masses. The whole of this scheme is, however, exhausted long before the Sermon comes to a close; and the question is, whether, in the latter half of the Sermon, He still keeps up the exposition of righteousness by contrasting it with the ordinary course of the world. I am inclined to think that this is the case, and that the key to the latter half of the discourse is the contrast between righteousness and worldliness. The doctrine, at all events, which issues from the whole discussion is that the righteousness promised is distinguished by three characteristics<63>inwardness, as distinguished from the externality of those who believed morality to extend to outward words and deeds alone, and not to the secret thoughts of the heart; secrecy, as distinguished from the ostentation of those who blew a trumpet before them when they were doing their alms; and naturalness, like that of the flower or the fruit, which grows spontaneously from a healthy root, without forcing.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERMON+ON+THE+MOUNT">SERMON ON THE MOUNT</a>.<P>(4) Apocalyptic Theories. This substitution of righteousness for the kingdom in the greatest public discourse which has come down to us is a significant indication of the direction in which the mind of Jesus was tending, as He drew away from the notions and hopes of contemporary Judaism. It is evident that He was filling the idea of the kingdom more and more with religious and moral contents, and emptying it of political and material elements. There are scholars, indeed, at the present day, who maintain that His conception of the kingdom was futuristic, and that He was waiting all the time for an apocalyptic manifestation, which never came. He was, they think, expecting the heavens to open and the kingdom to descend ready made to the earth, like the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. But this is to assume toward Jesus exactly the attitude taken up toward Him in His own day by Pharisees and high priests, and it degrades Him to the level of an apocalyptic dreamer. It ignores many sayings of His, of which the parable of the Mustard Seed may be taken as an example, which prove that He anticipated for Christianity a long development such as it has actually passed through; and it fails to do justice to many passages in His teaching where He speaks of the kingdom as already come. Of the latter the most remarkable is where He says, "The kingdom of God is within you"<22>a statement preceded by a distinct rejection of the notion of an apocalyptic manifestation; for the word "observation," which He employs in describing the way in which the kingdom is not to come, is an astronomical term, describing precisely such a phenomenon as He is supposed by such scholars as John Weiss and Schweitzer to have been expecting. The more it became evident that He was not to command the homage of the nation, the more did He devote Himself to the education of the Twelve, that they might form the nucleus of His kingdom upon earth; and it was certainly not with apocalyptic visions that He fed their receptive minds.<P>2. The Character of the Subjects of the Kingdom:<P>(1) Conditions of Entrance.<P>The righteousness described so comprehensively in the Sermon on the Mount is not infrequently spoken of as the condition of entrance to the kingdom of God; but this is altogether to misunderstand the mind of Jesus. The righteousness described by Him is the gift of God to those who are already inside the kingdom; for it is the supreme blessing for the sake of which the kingdom is to be sought; and the condition imposed on those who are outside is not the possession of righteousness, but rather a bottomless sense of the want of it. The more utterly they feel their own lack of righteousness, the more ready are they for entrance into the kingdom. They must "hunger and thirst after righteousness." It has been remarked already that the description, in the Beatitudes, of the character of the candidates for the kingdom is sometimes of a negative character; and indeed, this is the account in the teaching of Jesus generally of those whom He attracts to Himself. They are drawn by a sense of boundless need in themselves and by the apprehension of an equivalent fullness in Him; He calls those "that labor and are heavy laden," that He may give them rest.<P>(2) Christ\'s Attitude to Sin.<P>The first word of the prophetic message in the Old Testament was always the denunciation of sin; and only after this had done its work did the vision of a good time coming rise on the horizon. The same was repeated in the message of John the Baptist; and it did not fail to reappear in the teaching of Jesus, though His mode of treating the subject was entirely His own. He did not, like the prophets, take up much time with convicting gross and open sinners. Perhaps He thought that this had been sufficiently done by His predecessors; or, perhaps He refrained because He understood the art of getting sinners to convict themselves. Yet, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, He showed how profoundly He understood the nature and the course of the commonest sins. If, however, He thus spared transgressors who had no covering for their wickedness, He made up for this leniency by the vigor and even violence with which He attacked those who hid their sins under a cloak of hypocrisy. Never was there a prophetic indignation like that with which He assailed such sinners in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,\'1-\');">Mt 23</a>; and He shaped the same charges into an unforgettable picture in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. He never named the Sadducees in the same unreserved manner as He thus designated their antagonists; but in more parables than one it is possible that He had them in view. The Unjust Judge was probably a Sadducee; and so was the Rich Man at whose gate the beggar Lazarus was wont to sit. The sin of the Sadducees, at all events, did not escape His prophetic animadversion. In Luke especially He alludes with great frequency to worldliness and the love of money as cankers by which the life of the human soul is eaten out and its destiny destroyed. Thus did Jesus exercise the prophetic office of denouncing all the sins of His time; and He showed what, in this respect, He thought of mankind in general when He began a sentence with, "If ye then, being evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,13);">Lu 11:13</a>), and when He gave the dreadful description of the heart of man which begins, "Out of the heart come forth evil thoughts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,19);">Mt 15:19</a>).<P>(3) Attainment of Righteousness.<P>To all serious students of the Sermon on the Mount it is well known that the popular notion of it, as containing a simple religion and an easy-going morality, is utterly mistaken; on the contrary, the righteousness sketched by the Preacher is far loftier than that ever conceived by any other religious teacher whatever. Not only, however, does He thus propose to conduct human beings to a platform of attainment higher than any attempted before, but He, at the same time, recognizes that He must begin with men lower than almost any others have allowed. It is here that the ethics of Jesus differ from those of the philosophers. He takes the task much more seriously; and, as the ascent from the one extreme to the other is much longer, so the means of reaching the goal are much more difficult. Philosophers, assuming that man is equal to his own destiny, lay the demands of the moral law before him at once, taking it for granted that he is able to fulfill them; but the path adopted by Jesus is more remote and humbling. There are in it steps or stages which, in His teaching, it is easy to discern.<P>(a) Repentance:<P>The first of these is repentance. This was a watchword of all the prophets: after sin had been denounced, penitence was called for; and no hope of improvement was held out until this had been experienced. In the message of John the Baptist it held the same place; and, in one of the Gospels, it is expressly stated that Jesus began His ministry by repeating this watchword of His predecessor. Not a few of the most touching scenes of His earthly ministry exhibit penitents at His feet, the most moving of them all being that of the woman who was "a sinner"; and, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, we have a full-length picture of the process of repentance.<P>(b) Faith:<P>The second step is faith<74>a word of constant recurrence in the teaching Of Jesus. In many cases it is connected with His healing ministry; but this was a parable of a more interior ministry for the soul. In many cases it formed a school of preparation for the other, as in the case of the man borne of four, who was brought to Christ for the healing of his body, but was presented, in addition, with the gift of the forgiveness of his sins. In healing him Jesus expressly claimed the power of forgiving sins; and, in His great saying at the institution of the Lord\'s Supper, He showed the connection which this was to have with His own death.<P>(c) Imitation of Christ<73>Service:<P>Instead of speaking of faith and of believing, Jesus frequently spoke of "coming" to Himself; and then followed the invitation to "follow" Him, which, accordingly, is the third stage. Following Him meant, in many cases, literally leaving home and occupation, in order to accompany Him from place to place, as He journeyed through the land; and, as this involved sacrifice and self-denial, He frequently combined with "following" the invitation to take up "the cross." But by degrees this literal meaning dropped away from the invitation, or at least became secondary to that of imitation, which must be the only meaning when Paul, adopting the language of his Master, calls upon men and women to be "followers" of him, as he was of Christ. It is seldom that Jesus, in so many words, calls upon others to imitate Himself; indeed, He does so less frequently than Paul; but it is implied in following Him, if not literally expressed; and it was a direct consequence of keeping company with Him and coming under the influence of His example. It is highly characteristic that, in the only place where He directly calls upon others to "learn" from Him, the virtue to which He draws attention is meekness<73>"Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart." The same quality was often emphasized by Him, when He was describing the character which He wished to see exhibited by others, "For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,11);">Lu 14:11</a>). In spite, however, of the importance thus attached by Him to humility, He not only combined with it, as has been pointed out by Bushnell, in his famous chapter on the character of Christ in Nature and the Supernatural, the most stupendous personal claims, but also attributed to His followers a position of personal distinction among men, and called upon them to perform services far beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, saying to them, "Ye are the salt of the earth," "Ye are the light of the world," and ordering them to make disciples of all nations. The principle by which this apparent contradiction is bridged over is another favorite idea of His teaching, namely, Service. He who is able to serve others on a large scale is, in a sense, superior to those he serves, because he is furnished with the resources of which they stand in need; yet he places himself beneath them and forgets his own claims in ministering to their necessities. There are few of the utterances of Jesus in which the very genius of His ethical system is more fully expressed than that in which He contrasts greatness as it is conceived among men of the world with greatness as He conceives it and His followers must learn to conceive it: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Of this difficult rule, He was able to add, He Himself had given, and was still to give, the most perfect illustration; for "even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,25);">Mt 20:25</a>ff the King James Version).<P>This reminds us that, while the character of the subjects of the kingdom is to be learned from the words of Jesus, it may be also derived from His example. That which He demanded from others He fulfilled in His own conduct; and thus the dry precepts of the moral law were invested with the charm of a living personality. Brief as the records of His life are, they are wonderfully rich in instruction of this kind; and it is possible, by going through them with study and care, to form a clear image of how He bore Himself in all the departments of human life<66>in the home, in the state, in the church, as a friend, in society, as a man of prayer, as a student of Scripture, as a worker, as a sufferer, as a philanthropist, as a winner of souls, as a preacher, as a teacher, as a controversialist, and so on. This is the modern imitation of Christ<73>that of the details of His earthly existence<63>the Imitation of a Kempis was an imitation of the cosmical history of the Son of God, as He moves on His Divine mission from heaven to the cross and back to the throne of the universe. See the writer\'s Imago Christi.<P>3. Commandments of the King:<P>The Great Commandments.<P>In accordance with Scriptural usage, Jesus called by the name of "commandments" those actions which we call "duties"; and He has made this part of our subject easy by reducing the commandments to two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'37-39\');">Mt 22:37-39</a>). He did not invent either of these commandments; for both occur in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,5);">De 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">Le 19:18</a>). There, however, they lie far apart and are buried out of sight. The second of them was still more deeply buried under a misinterpretation of the scribes, to which reference is made in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus rescued them from oblivion; He showed the vital and indissoluble connection between the sentiments which they enforce<63>love of God and love of man<61>which had been long and violently separated; and He lifted them up into the firmament of ethics, to shine forever as the sun and moon of duty.<P>(a) Love to God:<P>It has been denied by some writers on Christian ethics that there can be any such thing as duties to God, and by writers on philosophical ethics love to God is not generally regarded as coming within the scope of their science. But the duty of man is concerned with all the objects, and especially all the beings, he is related to; and to Jesus the outflow of man\'s heart toward Him who is the author of his being and the source of all his blessings seemed the most natural of actions. "I love Yahweh" was a sentiment to which mankind had risen even in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,1);">Ps 116:1</a>), where it corresponds with not a few expressions of the Divine love equally fervent; and it is not a figure of speech at all when Jesus demands love for His Father from heart and soul, strength and mind.<P>Love to God involves, however, love to what may be called the Things of God, toward which Jesus always manifested tenderness and honor. Those who are not themselves ecclesiastically minded have, indeed, taken it for granted that Jesus<P>was indifferent, if not hostile, to the objects and actions by which the Almighty is honored; and it is often said that the only service of God which mattered in His eyes was the service of man. But, although, like the prophets before Him, Jesus exposed with withering rebuke the hypocrisy of those who put ritual in the place of righteousness, it requires no more than a glance at His sayings, and the other records of His life, to perceive that His mind was occupied no less with duties to God than with duties to men; indeed, the former bulk more largely in His teaching. The only arrangement of religion with which He seems out of sympathy is the Sabbath; but this was due to a peculiarity of the times; and it is quite conceivable that in other circumstances He might have been a strenuous supporter of Sabbath observance. If there had been in His day a Sadducean attempt to rob the people of the day of rest, He would have opposed it as strenuously as He did the Pharisaic attempt to make it a burden and a weariness to the common man. By declaring the Sabbath to have been made for man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,27);">Mr 2:27</a>) He recognized that it was instituted at the beginning and intended for the entire course of man\'s existence upon earth. With the other things of God, such as His House, His Word, and His Worship, He manifested sympathy equally by word and deed; He frequented both the Temple and the synagogue; so imbued was His mind with the lit of the Old Testament that He spoke habitually in its spirit and phraseology, having its figures and incidents perfectly at command; and by both precept and example He taught others to pray.<P>Nothing is commoner than the statement that Jesus had nothing to do with the founding of the church or the arrangement of its polity; but this is a subjective prejudice, blind to the facts of the case. Jesus realized that the worship of the Old Testament was passing away, but He was Himself to replace it by a better order. He did not merely breathe into the air a spirit of sweetness and light; if this had been all He did, Christianity would soon have vanished from the earth; but He provided channels in which, after His departure, His influence should flow to subsequent generations. Not only did He found the church, but He appointed the most important details of its organization, such as preaching and the sacraments; and He left the Twelve behind Him not only as teachers, but as those who were able to instruct other teachers also. There may be ecclesiastical arrangements which are worked in a spirit far removed from the love of God; and such are of course contrary to the mind of Christ; but the love of God, if it is strong, inevitably overflows into the things of God, and cannot, in fact, permanently exist without them.<P>(b) Duty to Man:<P>As has been hinted above, the sayings of our Lord about the details of duty to man are less numerous than might have been expected, but what may be lacking in numbers is made up for in originality and comprehensiveness. Many single sayings, like the Golden Rule (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,12);">Mt 7:12</a>) and the lovely word about a cup of cold water given in the name of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,42);">Mt 10:42</a>), are revolutionary in the ethical experience of mankind; and so are such parables as the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the Unmerciful Servant. The commandment to love enemies and to forgive injuries (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>), if not entirely novel, received a prominence it had never possessed before. The spirit of all such sayings of Jesus is the same: He seeks to redeem men from selfishness and worldliness and to produce in them a godlike passion for the welfare of their fellow-creatures. These they may bless with gifts of money, where such may be required, still more with sympathy and helpfulness, but most of all with the gospel.<P>Besides such directions as to the behavior of man to man, there are also among the words of Jesus memorable maxims about the conduct of life in the family, in the state, and in society; and here again He taught even more by example than by precept. As son, brother and friend, He fulfilled all righteousness; but He also, as teacher, determined what righteousness was. Thus He opposed the laxity as to divorce prevalent in His time, pointing back to the pure ideal of Paradise. His conception of womanhood and His tenderness toward childhood have altered entirely the conceptions of men about these two conditions. He was a patriot, glorying in the beauty of His native Galilee and weeping over Jerusalem; and though, from birth to death, He was exposed to constant persecution from the constituted authorities, He not only obeyed these Himself but commanded all others to do the same. Nothing moved Him more than the sight of talents unused, and, therefore, it lay deep in His system of thought to call upon everyone to contribute his part to the service of the body politic; but no less did He recognize the right of those who have done their part of the general task to share in the fruits of industry; "for the laborer is worthy of his hire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,7);">Lu 10:7</a>).<P>Priceless, however, as are the commandments of Jesus in regard to the things of man, as well as in regard to the things of God, it is not in these that we have to seek His ethical originality, but in the new motive brought into play by Him for doing the Divine will, when once it has been ascertained. As He made it easy to love God by revealing God\'s love, so did He make it easy to love man by revealing the greatness of man, as an immortal creature, who has come from God and is going to God. Whatever is done to man, good or evil, Jesus esteems as done to Himself; for the great saying to this effect, in the account of the Last Judgment in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'1-\');">Mt 25</a>, though applicable in the first place to Christians, may be extended to men in general. The corollary of the fatherhood of God is the brotherhood of men; and the second great commandment stands under the protection of the first.<P>II. In the Fourth Gospel.<P>1. Eternal Life:<P>In the Fourth Gospel Eternal Life takes the same place as the kingdom of God in the other three. The author is not, indeed, unaware that Jesus employed the latter phrase for the sum of the blessings brought by Him to the world; and it has already been remarked that the Synoptists occasionally employ "life" as an equivalent for the phrase they usually make use of. The reason of John\'s preference for his own phrase may have lain in some personal idiosyncrasy, or it may have been due to the Gentile environment in which he wrote. But the phrase is one suggestive and instructive in itself in the highest degree. It had already entered deeply into the language of religion before the time of Christ; indeed, in every part of Holy Writ the idea is common that separation from God is death, but that union with Him is life.<P>2. Its Source in God:<P>In the teaching of Jesus, as this is found in John, the world lies in death, because it has become separated from God, and the children of men are in danger of perishing everlastingly as the punishment of their sin; but "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>).<P>3. Through the Son:<P>This life is, first, in God, who abides in everlasting blessedness; but it is not, even in Him, at rest, but agitated with an impulse to communicate itself. Then, it is in the Son<6F>"For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,26);">Joh 5:26</a>); not, however, for Himself alone, but for the purpose of being communicated to those destitute of it. For this reason He was made flesh and dwelt among us; and He communicated it through His words, which were "words of eternal life." The words of Jesus, as thus bringing life, are the "light" of the world; and they are the "truth"<22>two favorite expressions of this Gospel<65>or He of whom they speak is Himself the light and the truth; He said Himself, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." He is in His word in such a way that, when it is received in the right spirit, He enters the soul personally<6C>"ye in me, and I in you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,20);">Joh 14:20</a>). As food is taken into the body, to sustain life, so does He become the life of the soul; He is the "bread of life" and the "water of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,35);">Joh 6:35</a>). As, however, bread has to be broken, before it is eaten, and water to be poured out, when it is drunk, so does the virtue which is in the Son of God only become available through His death<74>"I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,51);">Joh 6:51</a>).<P>4. Need of New Birth:<P>The world lying dead in sin, a new birth is required for those who are to enter into life; and this is necessary even for so fine a character as Nicodemus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3,5,7);">Joh 3:3, 5, 7</a>). Without this change, the children of men are insensible to Divine revelations; and even the children of privilege, who had enjoyed the Old Testament revelation, were indifferent to eternal life, when it came near to them in the person of Christ. Hence, there was required a special drawing on the part of God to awaken the sleeping soul<75>"No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,44);">Joh 6:44</a>); and, where this influence was not responded to, there might be the most violent and persistent opposition to Christ on the part of those who believed themselves to be the favorites of heaven. The new birth is accompanied with spiritual vision<6F>"seeing the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3);">Joh 3:3</a>)<29>and, throughout the Fourth Gospel, remarkable stress is laid on the virtue of such seeing or knowing. It leads so directly to faith that to "know" and to "believe" are virtually the same act (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,38);">Joh 10:38</a>). Faith is the reception into the soul of the life eternal, or of Him who has been discerned by the spiritual vision and who is Himself the life. It is the eating of the bread of life, the drinking of the water of life, and it makes and keeps alive.<P>5. Nature of Faith:<P>Since faith is thus the means whereby the eternal life becomes a personal possession, it is the one thing needful and the sum of all the commandments<74>"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,29);">Joh 6:29</a>). It is the unique commandment, comprehending all the commandments, and it "worketh by love" toward the fulfillment of them all. What these are is, however, less brought out in detail in this Gospel than in the others, for it is a peculiarity of the mind of Jesus, as recorded by John, to deal with central principles and to assume that the consequences will follow as a matter of course. Of the organization, for example, of the community which was to perpetuate His influence, after He had left the world, He says much less in this Gospel than even in the Synoptists; yet He characterizes the very essence of the new body in such words as this, "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,23);">Joh 17:23</a>). In the last half of this saying there is a hint of the influence to be exerted on the outside world by the display of Christian character, with the result of producing belief; but this aim was to be sought more directly through testimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,27);">Joh 15:27</a>) and the "word" of the disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,20);">Joh 17:20</a>). Thus would even the distant, "which are not of this fold," be brought in, so that there might be "one flock" and "one shepherd" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,16);">Joh 10:16</a>). Inside the fold it is the greatest privilege and honor, as well as responsibility, to feed the "sheep" and to feed the "lambs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,15,16,17);">Joh 21:15-17</a>).<P>6. Fruits of Union with Christ:<P>Character and conduct are, even for the disciples of Christ, "commandments," as, indeed, Jesus does not disdain to speak of the various parts of His own vocation by the same humble name, implying the necessity of moral effort and the temptation to failure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,10);">Joh 15:10</a>). Therefore, they are also proper subjects for prayer. He prayed for the disciples, both that they might be kept from the evil in the world and that they might be sanctified through the truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,15,17);">Joh 17:15, 17</a>), and doubtless He expected them to ask the same things for themselves, as theirs was to be a life of prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,24);">Joh 16:24</a>). But, in the last resort, they are the fruits of union with Himself, and eternal life is not merely a gift of the future, to be given at the death of the body, but is enjoyed even now by those who abide in the vine.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Monographs on the ethics of Jesus in German by Grimm and in English by King; compare also Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, and Jesus Christ and the Christian Character; relevant portions works of larger scope, such as Jacoby, New Testament Ethik, Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, and the handbooks of New Testament theology by Weiss, Holtzmann, Schlatter, Feine, Weinel, Stevens. Very ample references to literature in Stalker, The Ethic of Jesus.``163';
isbe[3234]='Ethics, I`eth\'-iks:<P>Contents<P><b>I. NATURE AND FUNCTION OF ETHICS</b><P class="in15">1. Rise of Ethics<P class="in15">2. Ethics as a Science<P class="in15">3. A Normative Science<P class="in15">4. Relation to Cognate Sciences<P class="in30">(1) Ethics and Metaphysics<P class="in30">(2) Ethics and Psychology The "Ought"<P class="in15">5. Relation of Christian Ethics to Moral Philosophy<P class="in30">(1) Not an Opposition<P class="in30">(2) Philosophical Postulates<P class="in30">(3) Method<P class="in15">6. Relation of Christian Ethics to Dogmatics<P class="in30">(1) The Connection<P class="in30">(2) The Distinction<P class="in30">(3) Theological Postulates<P class="in45">(a) The Christian Idea of God<P class="in45">(b) The Christian Doctrine of Sin<P class="in45">(c) The Responsibility of Man<P><b>II. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ETHICS</b><P class="in15">1. Greek Philosophy<P class="in30">(1) Sophists<P class="in30">(2) Socrates<P class="in30">(3) Plato<P class="in30">(4) Aristotle<P class="in30">(5) Stoics and Epicureans<P class="in30">(6) Stoicism<P class="in30">(7) Stoicism and Paul<P class="in15">2. Scholasticism<P class="in15">3. Reformation Descartes and Spinoza<P class="in15">4. English Moralists<P class="in15">5. Utilitarianism<P class="in15">6. Evolutionary Ethics<P class="in15">7. Kant<P class="in15">8. German Idealists<P class="in30">(1) Hegel<P class="in30">(2) Watchwords: Pleasure and Duty<P><b>III. PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL ETHICS</b><P class="in15">1. Ethics of the Old Testament<P class="in30">(1) Religious Characteristics of Hebrew Ethics<P class="in45">(a) The Decalogue<P class="in45">(b) Civil Laws<P class="in45">(c) Ceremonial Laws<P class="in45">(d) Prophecy<P class="in45">(e) Books of Wisdom<P class="in45">(f) Apocryphal Books<P class="in30">(2) Limitations of Old Testament Ethics<P class="in45">(a) As to Intent<P class="in45">(b) As to Extent<P class="in15">2. Outline of New Testament Ethics<P class="in30">(1) Ethics of Jesus and Paul<P class="in30">(2) Character<P class="in30">(3) Inwardness of Motive<P class="in30">(4) Ultimate End<P class="in15">3. The Ethical Ideal<P class="in30">(1) Holiness<P class="in30">(2) Christlikeness<P class="in30">(3) Brotherhood and Unity of Man<P class="in15">4. The Dynamic Power of the New Life<P class="in30">(1) The Dynamic on Its Divine Side<P class="in30">(2) The Dynamic on Its Human Side<P class="in15">5. Virtues, Duties and Spheres of the New Life<P class="in30">(1) The Virtues<P class="in45">(a) The Heroic Virtues<P class="in45">(b) The Amiable Virtues<P class="in45">(c) The Theological Virtues<P class="in30">(2) The Duties<P class="in45">(a) Duties toward Self<P class="in45">(b) Duties in Relation to Others<P class="in45">(c) Duties in Relation to God<P class="in30">(3) Spheres and Relationships<P class="in15">6. Conclusion Absoluteness, Inwardness and Universality<p><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>In this article, which proposes to be of a general and introductory character, we shall first deal with the nature and function of ethics generally, showing its difference from and relation to other cognate branches of inquiry. Secondly, we shall sketch briefly the history of ethics in so far as the various stages of its development bear upon and prepare the way for Christian ethics, indicating also the subsequent course of ethical speculation. Thirdly, we shall give some account of Biblical ethics; treating first of the main moral ideas contained in the Old Testament, and enumerating, secondly, the general principles and leading characteristics which underlie the ethical teaching of the New Testament.<P>I. Nature and Function of Ethics.<P>Ethics is that branch of philosophy which is concerned with human character and conduct. It deals with man, not so much as a subject of knowledge, as a source of action. It has to do with life or personality in its inward dispositions, outward manifestations and social relations. It was Aristotle who first gave to this study its name and systematic form. According to the Greek signification of the term, it is the science of customs (ethika, from ethos, "custom," "habit," "disposition"). But inasmuch as the words "custom" and "habit" seem to refer only to outward manners or usages, the mere etymology would limit the nature of the inquiry. The same limitation exists in the Latin designation, "moral," since mores concerns primarily manners.<P>1. Rise of Ethics:<P>Men live before they reflect, and act before they examine the grounds of action. So long as there is a congruity between the habits of an individual or a people and the practical requirements of life, ethical questions do not occur. It is only when difficulties arise and new problems appear as to right and duty in which the existing customs of life offer no solution, that doubt awakes, and with doubt reflection upon the actual morality which governs life. It is when men begin to call in question their past usages and institutions and to read-just their attitude to old traditions and new interests that ethics appears. Ethics is not morality but reflection upon morality. When, therefore, Aristotle, following Socrates and Plato, employed the term, he had in view not merely a description of the outward life of man, but rather the sources of action and the objects as ends which ought to guide him in the proper conduct of life. According to the best usage the names Moral Philosophy and Ethics are equivalent and mean generally the rational explanation of our nature, actions and relations as moral and responsible beings. Ethics therefore may be defined as the systematic study of human character, and its function is to show how human life must be fashioned to realize its end or purpose.<P>2. Ethics as a Science:<P>But accepting this general definition, how, it may be asked, can we speak of a science of conduct at all? Has not science to do with necessary truths, to trace effects from causes, to formulate general laws according to which these causes act, and to draw inevitable and necessary consequences? But is not character just that concerning which no definite conclusions can be predicted? Is not conduct, dependent as it is on the human will, just that which cannot be explained as the resultant of calculable forces? If the will is free then you cannot decide beforehand what line it will take, or predict what shape character must assume. The whole conception of a science of ethics, it is contended, must fall to the ground if we admit an invariable and calculable element in conduct. But this objection is based partly upon a misconception of the function of science and partly upon a too narrow classification of the sciences. Science has not only to do with cause and effect and the laws according to which phenomena actually occur. Science seeks to deal systematically with all truths that are presented to us; and there is a large class of truths not belonging indeed to the realm of natural and physical events which, however, may be studied and correlated. Ethics is not indeed concerned with conduct, as a natural fact, as something done here and now following from certain causes in the past and succeeded by certain results in the future. It is concerned with judgments upon conduct<63>the judgment that such conduct is right or wrong as measured by a certain standard or end. Hence, a distinction has been made between the physical sciences and what are called normative sciences.<P>3. A Normative Science:<P>The natural or physical sciences are concerned simply with phenomena of Nature or mind, actual occurrences which have to be analyzed and classified. The normative sciences, on the other hand, have to do not with mere facts in time or space, but with judgments about these facts, with certain standards or ends (norms, from norma, "a rule") in accordance with which the facts are to be valued. Man cannot be explained by natural law. He is not simply a part of the world, a link in the chain of causality. When we reflect upon his life and his relation to the world we find that he is conscious of himself as an end and that he is capable of forming purposes, of proposing new ends and of directing his thoughts and actions with a view to the attainment of these ends, and making things subservient to him. Such an end or purpose thus forms a norm for the regulation of life; and the laws which must be observed for the attainment of such an end form the subjects of a normal or normative science. Ethics therefore has to do with the norm or standard of right or wrong, and is concerned primarily with the laws which regulate our judgments and guide our actions.<P>4. Relation to Cognate Sciences:<P>Man is of course a unity, but it is possible to view his self-consciousness in three different aspects, and to regard his personality as constituted of an intellectual, sentient and volitional element. Roughly corresponding to these three aspects, one in reality but separable in thought, there arise three distinct though interdependent mental sciences: metaphysics, which has to do with man\'s relation to the universe of which he forms a part; psychology, which deals with the nature, constitution and evolution of his faculties and feelings as a psychical being; and ethics, which treats of him as a volitional being, possessing will or determining activity.<P>(1) Ethics and Metaphysics.<P>Ethics, though distinct from, is closely connected with metaphysics on the one hand, and psychology on the other. If we take metaphysics in its widest sense as including natural theology and as positing some ultimate end to the realization of which the whole process of the world is somehow a means, we may easily see how it is a necessary presupposition or basis of ethical inquiry. The world as made and governed by and for an intelligent purpose, and man as a part of it, having his place and function in a great teleological cosmos, are postulates of the moral life and must be accepted as a basis of all ethical study. The distinction between ethics and metaphysics did not arise at once. In early Greek philosophy they were closely united. Even now the two subjects cannot be completely dissociated. Ethics invariably runs back into metaphysics, or at least into theology, and in every philosophical system in which the universe is regarded as having an ultimate end or good, the good of human beings is conceived as identical with or included in the universal good (see Ziegler, Gesch. der christlichen Ethik; also Sidgwick, History of Ethics).<P>(2) Ethics and Psychology.<P>On the other hand ethics is closely associated with, though distinguishable from, psychology. Questions of conduct inevitably lead to inquiries as to certain states of the agent\'s mind, for we cannot pronounce an action morally good or bad until we have investigated the qualities of intention, purpose, motive and disposition which lie at the root of the action. Hence, all students of ethics are agreed that the main object of their investigation must belong to the psychical side of human life, whether they hold that man\'s ultimate end is to be found in the sphere of pleasure or they maintain that his well-being lies in the realization of virtue. Questions as to existence, evolution and adequacy of a moral faculty (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONSCIENCE">CONSCIENCE</a>); as to the relation of pleasure and desire; as to the meaning of validity of voluntary action; as to the historical evolution of moral customs and ideals, and man\'s relation at each stage of his being to the social, political and religious institutions, belong indeed to a science of ethics, but they have their roots in psychology as a study of the human soul.<P>The very existence of a science of ethics depends upon the answers which psychology gives to such questions. If, for example, we decide that there is no such faculty in man as conscience and that the moral sense is but a natural manifestation which has gradually evolved with the physical and social evolution of man (Darwin, Spencer); or if we deny the self-determining power of human beings and assume that the freedom of the will is a delusion, or in the last resort a negligible element, and treat man as one of the many phenomena of a physical universe, then indeed we may continue to speak of a science of the moral life as some naturalistic writers do, but such a science would not be a science of ethics as we understand it. Whatever be our explanation of conscience and freedom, no theory as to these powers must depersonalize man, and we may be justly suspicious of any system of psychology which undermines the authority of the moral sense or paves the way for a complete irresponsibility. The "Ought."<P>Ethics is based on the assumption that man is a person possessing rights and having duties<65>responsible therefore for his intentions as well as his actions. The idea of personality involves not only a sense of accountability but carries with it also the conception of a law to which man is to conform, an ideal at which he is to aim. The end of life with all its implications forms the subject of ethics. It is concerned not simply with what a man is or does, but more particularly with what he should be and do. Hence, the word "ought" is the most distinctive term of ethics. The "ought" of life constitutes at once the end or ideal and the law of man. It comprises end, rule and motive of action. Thus the problem of ethics comes to be regarded as the highest good of man, the to agathon, of the Greeks, the summum bonum of Latin philosophy.<P>5. Relation of Christian Ethics to Moral Philosophy:<P>If ethics generally is based upon the postulates of philosophy and psychology, and at each stage of human consciousness grounds its principles of life upon the view of the world and of man to which it has attained, Christian ethics presupposes the Christian view of life as revealed by Christ, and its definition must be in harmony with the Christian ideal. Christian ethics is the science of morals conditioned by Christianity, and the problems which it discusses are the nature, laws and duties of the moral life as dominated by the Supreme Good which Christians believe to have been revealed in and through the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Christian ethics is thus a branch or particular application of general ethics. So far from being opposed to moral philosophy it is the inevitable outcome of the evolution of thought. For if the revelation of God through Christ is true, then it is a factor, and the greatest in life and destiny, which must condition man\'s entire outlook and give a new value to his aims and duties.<P>(1) Not an Opposition.<P>In Christianity we are confronted with the motive power of a great Personality entering into the current of human history, and by His preeminent spiritual force giving a direction to the moral life of man. This means that the moral life can only be understood by reference to the creative power of this Personality. If there is any place at all for a distinct science of Christian ethics, that place can be indicated only by starting from the ethical ideal embodied in Christ, and working out from that point a code of morality for the practical guidance of the Christian life. But while this truth gives to Christian ethics its distinctive character and preeminent worth, it neither throws discredit upon philosophical ethics nor separates the two sciences by any hard-and-fast lines. They have much in common. A large domain of conduct is covered by both. The so-called pagan virtues have their worth for Christian character and are in the line of Christian virtues. Man even in his natural state is constituted for the moral life and is not without some knowledge of right and wrong (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>). The moral attainments of the ancients are not simply "splendid vices." Duty may differ in content, but it is of the same kind under every system. Purity is purity, and benevolence benevolence, and both are excellences, whether manifested in a heathen or a Christian. While therefore Christian ethics takes its point of departure from the revelation of God and the manifestation of man\'s possibilities in Christ, it accepts and uses the results of moral philosophy in so far as they throw light upon the fundamental facts of human nature. As a system of morals Christianity claims to be inclusive. It takes cognizance of all the data of consciousness, and assumes all ascertained truth as its own. It completes what is lacking in other systems in so far as their conclusions are based on an incomplete survey of facts. Christian morals, in short, deal with personality in its highest ranges of moral power and spiritual consciousness, and seek to interpret life by its greatest possibilities and loftiest attainments as they have been revealed in Christ.<P>(2) Philosophical Postulates.<P>As illustrating what has just been said two distinctive features of Christian morals may be noted, of which philosophical ethics takes little or no account:<P>(a) Christian ethics assumes a latent spirituality in man awaiting the Spirit of God to call it forth. "Human nature," says Newman Smyth, "has its existence in an ethical sphere and for moral ends of being." There is a natural capacity for ethical life to which man\'s whole constitution points. Matter itself may be said to exist ultimately for spirit, and the spirit of man for the Holy Spirit (compare Rothe, Theologische Ethik, I, 459). No theory of man\'s physical beginning can interfere with the assumption that man stands upon a moral plane and is capable of a life which shapes itself to spiritual ends. Whatever be man\'s history and evolution, he has from the beginning been made in God\'s image, and he bears the Divine impress in all the lineaments of his body and soul. His degradation cannot wholly obliterate his nobility, and his actual corruption bears witness to his possible holiness. Christian morality is therefore nothing else than the morality prepared from all eternity, and is but the highest realization of that which heathen virtue was striving after. This is the Pauline view of human nature. Jesus Christ, according to the apostle, is the end and consummation of the whole creation. Everywhere there is a capacity for Christ. Man is not simply what he now is, but all that he is yet to be (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'47-49\');">1Co 15:47-49</a>).<P>(b) Connected with this peculiarity is another which further differentiates Christian ethics from philosophical<61>the problem of the re-creation of character. Speculative systems do not advance beyond the formation of moral requirements; they prescribe what ought ideally to be done or avoided. Christianity, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the question, By what power can I achieve the right and the good? (compare Ottley, Christian Ideas and Ideals, 22). It regards human nature as in need of renewal and recovery. It points to a process by which character can be restored and transformed. It claims to be the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,16);">Ro 1:16</a>). Christian ethics thus makes the twofold assumption, and in this its contrast to philosophical ethics is disclosed, that the ideal of humanity has been revealed in Jesus Christ and that in Him also there is supplied a power by which man may become his true self, all that his natural life gives promise of and potentially is.<P>(3) Method.<P>Passing from a consideration of the data of Christian ethics to its method, we find that here again there is much that is common to philosophy and Christian morals. The method in both is the rational method. The Christian ideal, though given in Christ, has to be examined, analyzed and applied by the very same faculties as man employs in regard to speculative problems. All science must be furnished with facts, and its task is to give a consistent explanation of them. While the speculative thinker finds his facts in the constitution of the moral world at large, the Christian discovers his in Scripture, and more particularly in the teachings of Christ. But it is sufficient to point out that while the New Testament is largely occupied with ethical matters, there is no attempt at a scientific formulation of them. The materials of systematic treatment are there, but the task of coordinating and classifying principles is the work of the expositor. The data are supplied but these data require to be interpreted, unified and applied so as to form a system of ethics. Consequently in dealing with his facts, the same method must be employed by the Christian expositor as by the student of science. That is the method of rational inquiry and inductive procedure<72>the method imposed upon all mental problems by the essential nature of the mind itself. The authority to which Christian ethics appeals is not an external oracle which imposes its dictates in a mechanical way. It is an authority embodied in intelligible forms and appealing to the reasoning faculties of man. Christian ethics is not a cut-and-dried, ready-made code. It has to be thought out by man and brought to bear, through the instrumentality of his thinking powers, upon all the relationships of life. According to the Protestant view, at least, ethics is no stereotyped compendium of rules which the Bible or the church supplies to save a man from the trouble of thinking. It is a complete misapprehension of the nature of Scripture and of the purpose of Christ\'s example and teaching to assume that they afford a mechanical standard which must be copied or obeyed in a slavish way. Christ appeals to the rational nature of man, and His words are life and spirit only as they are apprehended in an intelligent way and become by inner conviction and personal appropriation the principles of thought and action:<P>6. Relation of Christian Ethics to Dogmatics:<P>Within the domain of theology the two main constituents of Christian of teaching are dogmatics and ethics, or doctrine and morals. Though it is convenient to treat these separately, they really form a whole, and are but two sides of one subject. It is difficult to define their limits, and to say where dogmatics ends and ethics begins.<P>The distinction has sometimes been expressed by saying that dogmatics is a theoretic, while ethics is a practical science. It is true that ethics stands nearer to everyday life and deals with methods of practical conduct, while dogmatics is concerned with beliefs and treats of their origin and elucidation. But on the other hand ethics discusses thoughts as well as actions, and is interested in inner judgments not less than outward achievements. There is a practical side to all doctrine; and there is a theoretic side of all morals. In proportion as dogmatic theology becomes divorced from practical interest there is a danger that it may become mere pedantry. Even the most theoretic of sciences, metaphysics, while, as Novalis said, it bakes no bread, has its justification in its bearing upon life. On the other hand, ethics would lose all scientific value and would sink into a mere enumeration of duties if it had no dogmatic basis and did not draw its motives from beliefs. The common statement that dogmatics shows what we should believe and ethics what we should do is only approximately true and is inadequate. For moral laws and precepts are also objects of faith, and what we should believe involves a moral requirement and has a moral character.<P>(1) The Connection.<P>Schleiermacher has been frequently charged with ignoring the differences between the two disciplines, but with scant justice; for while he regards the two studies as but different branches of Christian doctrine and while emphasizing their intimate connection, he by no means neglects their differences (compare Schleiermacher, Christliche Lehre, 1-24). Recent Christian moralists (Dorner, Martensen, Wuttke, Haering, Lemme) tend to accentuate the distinction and claim for them a separate discussion. The ultimate connection cannot indeed be overlooked without loss to both. It leads only to confusion to talk of a creedless morality, and the attempt to deal with moral questions without reference to their dogmatic implication will not only rob Christian ethics of its distinctive character and justification, but will reduce the exposition to a mere system of emotionalism. Dogmatics and ethics may be regarded as interdependent and mutually serviceable. On the one hand, ethics saves dogmatics from evaporating into unsubstantial speculation, and, by affording the test of life and workableness, keeps it upon the solid foundation of fact. On the other hand, dogmatics supplies ethics with its formative principles and normative standards, and preserves the moral life from degenerating into the vagaries of fanaticism or the apathy of fatalism.<P>(2) The Distinction.<P>While both sciences form the complementary sides of theology, and stand in the relation of mutual service, ethics presupposes dogmatics and is based upon its postulates. Dogmatics presents the essence, contents and object of the religious consciousness; ethics presents this consciousness as a power determining the human will (Wuttke). In the one, the Christian life is regarded from the standpoint of dependence on God; in the other, from the standpoint of human freedom. Dogmatics deals with faith in relation to God, and as the receptive organ of Divine grace; ethics considers it rather in its relation to man as a human activity, and as the organ of conduct (compare Lemme, Christliche Ethik, I, 15). Doctrine shows us how our adoption into the kingdom of God is the work of Divine love; ethics shows us how this knowledge of salvation manifests itself in love to God and our neighbor and must be worked out through all the relationships of life (compare Haering).<P>(3) Theological Postulates.<P>From this point of view we may see how dogmatics supplies to ethics certain postulates which may briefly be enumerated.<P>(a) The Christian Idea of God:<P>God is not merely a force or even a creator as He is presented in philosophy. Divine power must be qualified by what we term the moral attributes of God. We do not deny His omnipotence, but we look beyond it to "the love that tops the power, the Christ in God." Moreover we recognize a gradation in God\'s moral qualities:<P>(a) benevolence or kindness;<P>(b) more deeply ethical and in seeming contrast to His benevolence, Divine justice<63>not mere blind benevolence but a kindness which is wise and discriminating (compare Butler);<P>(c) highest in the scale of Divine attributes, uniting in one comprehensive quality kindness and justice, stands Divine love or grace. The God whom dogmatics postulates to ethics is God in Christ.<P>(b) The Christian Doctrine of Sin. It is not the province of ethics to discuss the origin of evil or propound a theory of sin. But it must see to it that the view it takes is consistent with the truths of revelation and in harmony with the facts of life. A false or inadequate conception of sin is as detrimental for ethics as it is for dogmatics, and upon our doctrine of evil depends very largely our view of life as to its difficulties and purposes, its trials and triumphs. Three views of sin have been held. According to some (eg. the ancient Greeks) sin is simply a defect or shortcoming, a missing of the mark (hamartia, the active principle, or hamartema, the result); according to others, it is a disease, a thing latent in the constitution or at least an infirmity or limitation inherent in the flesh and resulting from heredity and environment (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVOLUTION">EVOLUTION</A>). While there is truth in both of these views, by themselves, each separately, or both in combination, is defective. They do not sufficiently take account of the personal self-determinative element in all sin. It is a misfortune, a fate from which the notion of guilt is absent. The Christian view implies these conceptions, but it adds its own distinctive note which gives to them their value. Sin is not merely a negative thing, it is something positive, an inward dominating force. It is not merely an imperfection, or want; it is an excess, a trespass. It is not simply an inherited and inherent malady; it is a self-chosen perversion. It is not inherent in the flesh or animal impulses and physical passions: it belongs rather to the mind and will. Its essence lies in selfishness. It is the deliberate choice of self in preference to God. It is personal and willful rebellion. It is to be overcome, therefore, not by the suppression of the body or the excision of the passions, but by the acceptance of a new principle of life and a transformation of the whole man. There are of course degrees and stages of wrongdoing, and there are compensating circumstances which must be taken into account in estimating the significance of evil; but in its last resort Christian ethics postulates the fact of sin and regards it as personal rebellion against the holiness of God, as the deliberate choice of self and the willful perversion of all the powers of man into instruments of unrighteousness.<P>(c) The Responsibility of Man:<P>A third postulate arises as a consequence from the Christian view of God and the Christian view of sin, namely, the responsibility of man. Christian ethics treats every man as accountable for his thoughts and actions, and therefore capable of choosing the good as revealed in Christ. While not denying the sovereignty of God or minimizing the mystery of evil and clearly recognizing the universality of sin, Christianity firmly maintains the doctrine of human freedom and accountability. An ethic would be impossible if, on the one side, grace were absolutely irresistible, and if, on the other, sin were necessitated, if at any single point wrongdoing were inevitable. Whatever be our doctrine on these subjects, ethics demands that freedom of the will be safeguarded.<P>At this point an interesting question emerges as to the possibility, apart from a knowledge of Christ, of choosing the good. Difficult as this question is, and though it was answered by Augustine and many of the early Fathers in the negative, the modern, and probably the more just, view is that we cannot hold mankind responsible unless we accord to all men the larger freedom. If non-Christians are fated to do evil, then no guilt can be imputed. History shows that a love for goodness has sometimes existed, and that many isolated acts of purity and kindness have been done, among people who have known nothing of the historical Christ. The New Testament recognizes degrees of depravity in nations and individuals and a measure of noble aspiration and earnest effort in ordinary human nature. Paul plainly assumes some knowledge and performance on the part of the heathen, and though he denounces their immorality in unsparing terms he does not affirm that pagan society was so utterly corrupt that it had lost all knowledge of moral good.<P>Continued in next article<6C>[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS,+II">Ethics, II</a>]</a>``2';
isbe[3235]='Ethics, II`II. Historical Sketch of Ethics.<P>A comprehensive treatment of our subject would naturally include a history of ethics from the earliest times to the present. For ethics as a branch of philosophical inquiry partakes of the historical development of all thought, and the problems which it presents to our day can be rightly appreciated only in the light of certain categories and concepts<74>such as end, good, virtue, duty, pleasure, egoism and altruism<73>which have been evolved through the successive stages of the movement of ethical thoughts. All we can attempt here, however, is the baldest outline of the different epochs of ethical inquiry as indicating the preparatory stages which lead up to and find their solution in the ethics of Christianity.<P>1. Greek Philosophy:<P>(1) Sophists.<P>All the great religions of the world<6C>of India, Persia and Egypt<70>have had their ethical implicates, but these have consisted for the most part of loosely connected moral precepts or adages. Before the golden age of Greek philosophy there were no ethics in the strict sense. The moral consciousness of the Greeks takes its rise with the Sophists, and particularly with Socrates, who were the first to protest against the long-established customs and traditions of their land. The so-called "wise men" were in part moralists, but their sayings are but isolated maxims presenting no unity or connection. Philosophy proper occupied itself primarily with purely metaphysical or ontological questions as to the nature of being, the form and origin and primal elements of the world. It was only when Greek religion and poetry had lost their hold upon the cultured and the beliefs of the past had come to be doubted, that questions as to the meaning of life and conduct arose.<P>(2) Socrates.<P>Already the Sophists had drawn attention to the vagueness and inconsistency of common opinion, and had begun to teach the art of conduct, but it was Socrates who, as it was said, first brought philosophy down from heaven to the sphere of the earth and directed men\'s minds from merely natural things to human life. He was indeed the first moral philosopher, inasmuch as, while the Sophists talked about justice and law and temperance, they could not tell, when pressed, what these things were. The first task of Socrates, therefore, was to expose human ignorance. All our confusion and disputes about good arise, says Socrates, from want of clear knowledge. He aimed, therefore, at producing knowledge, not merely for its own sake, but because he believed it to be the ground of all right conduct. Nobody does wrong willingly. Let a man know what is good, that is, what is truly beneficial, and he will do it. Hence, the famous Socratic dictum, "Virtue is knowledge and vice is ignorance." With all his intellectualism Socrates was really a hedonist, believing that pleasure was the ultimate end of life. For it must not be imagined that he conceived of knowledge of virtue as distinct from interest. Everyone naturally seeks the good because the good is really identified with his happiness. The wise man is necessarily the happy man, and hence, "to know one\'s self" is to learn the secret of well-being.<P>(3) Plato.<P>While Socrates was the first to direct attention to the nature of virtue, his one-sided and fragmentary conception of it received a more systematic treatment from Plato, who attempted to define the nature and end of man by his place in the cosmos. Plato thus brought ethics into intimate connection with metaphysics. He conceived an ideal world in which everything earthly and human had its prototype. The human soul is derived from the world-soul and, like it, is a mixture of two elements. On the one side, in virtue of reason, it participates in the world of ideas, or the life of God; and on the other, by virtue of its animal impulses, it partakes of the world of decay, the corporeal world. These two dissimilar parts are connected by an intermediate element, which Plato calls thumos, embracing courage, the love of honor and the affections of the heart<72>a term which may be translated by the will. The constitution of the inner man is manifested in his outward organization. The head is the seat of reason, the breast of the heart and the affections, and the lower part of the body of the organs of animal desire. If we ask, Who is the just man? Plato answers, The man in whom the three elements just mentioned harmonize. We thus arrive at the scheme of the so-called "cardinal virtues" which have persisted through all ages and have given direction to all ethical discussion<6F>wisdom, courage, temperance which, in combination, give us justice. It will thus be observed that virtue is no longer simply identified with knowledge; but another form of bad conduct besides ignorance is assumed, namely, the internal disorder and conflict of the soul, in which the lower impulses war with the higher. This, it will be seen, is a distinct advance on the one-sided position of Socrates; but in his attempt to reconcile the two movements in the conflict of life, Plato does not succeed in overcoming the duality. The inner impulses are ever dragging man down, and man\'s true well-being lies in the attainment of the life of reason. But though there are gleams of a higher solution in Plato, as a rule he falls back upon the idea that virtue is to be attained only by the suppression of the animal passions and the mortifying of the lower life. Plato affords us also the primal elements of social ethics. Morality as conceived by him is not something belonging merely to the individual, but has its full realization in the state. Man is indeed but a type of the larger cosmos, and it is not as an individual but as a citizen that he is capable of realizing his true life.<P>(4) Aristotle.<P>The ethics of Aristotle, while it completes, does not essentially differ from that of Plato. He is the first to treat of the subject formally as a science, which assumes in his hands a division of politics. For, as he says, man is really "a social animal"; and, even more decisively than Plato, he treats of man as a part of society. Aristotle begins his great work on ethics with the discussion of the chief good, which he declares to be happiness or well-being. Happiness does not consist, however, in sensual pleasure, or even in the pursuit of honor, but in a life of well-ordered contemplation, "an activity of the soul in accordance with reason" (Nic. Eth., I, chapter v). But to reach the goal of right thinking and right doing, both favorable surroundings and proper instruction are required. Virtue is not virtue until it is a habit, and the only way to become virtuous is to practice virtue. It will thus be seen that Aristotle balances the one-sided emphasis of Socrates and Plato upon knowledge by the insistence upon habit. Activity must be combined with reason. The past and the present, environment and knowledge, must both be acknowledged as elements in the making of life. The virtues are thus habits, but habits of deliberate choice. Virtue is therefore an activity which at every point seeks to strike the mean between two opposite excesses. Plato\'s list of virtues had the merit of simplicity, but Aristotle\'s, though fuller, lacks system and consists generally of right actions which are determined in reference to two extremes. One defect which strikes a modern is that among the virtues benevolence is not recognized except obscurely as a form of liberality; and in general the gentler self-sacrificing virtues so prominent in Christianity have no place. The virtues are chiefly aristocratic and are impossible for a slave. Again while Aristotle did well, in opposition to previous philosophy, to recognize the function of habit, it must be pointed out that habit of itself cannot make a man virtuous. Mere habit may be a hindrance and not a help to higher attainment. You cannot reduce morality to a succession of customary acts. But the main defect of Aristotle\'s treatment of virtue is that he regards the passions as wholly irrational and immoral. He does not see that passion in this sense can have no mean. If you may have too much of a good thing, you cannot have even a little of a bad thing. In man the desires and impulses are never purely irrational. Reason enters into all his appetites and gives to the body and all the physical powers an ethical value and a moral use. We do not become virtuous by curbing the passions but by transfiguring them into the vehicle of good. Aristotle, not less than Plato, is affected by the Greek duality which makes an antithesis between reason and impulse, and imparts to the former an external supremacy.<P>(5) Stoics and Epicureans.<P>The two conflicting elements of reason and impulse which neither Plato nor Aristotle succeeded in harmonizing ultimately gave rise to two opposite interpretations of the moral life. The Stoics selected the rational nature as the true guide to an ethical system, but they gave to it a supremacy so rigid as to threaten the extinction of the affections. The Epicureans, on the other hand, seizing the doctrine that happiness is the chief good, so accentuated the emotional side of nature as to open the door for all manner of sensual enjoyment. Both agree in determining the happiness of the individual as the final goal of moral conduct. It, is not necessary to dwell upon the particular tenets of Epicurus and his followers. For though both Epicureanism and Stoicism, as representing the chief tendencies of ethical inquiry, have exercised incalculable influence upon speculation and practical morals of later ages, it is the doctrines of Stoicism which have more specially come into contact with Christianity.<P>(6) Stoicism.<P>Without dwelling upon the stoic conception of the world, according to which the universe was a whole, interpenetrated and controlled by an inherent spirit, and the consequent view of life as proceeding from God and being in all its parts equally Divine, we may note that the Stoics, like Plato and Aristotle, regarded the realization of man\'s natural purpose as the true well-being or highest good. This idea they formulated into a principle: "Life according to Nature." The wise man is he who strives to live in agreement with his rational nature in all the circumstances of life. The law of Nature is to avoid what is hurtful and strive for what is appropriate; and pleasure arises as an accompaniment when a being obtains that which is fitting. Pleasure and pain are, however, to be regarded as mere accidents or incidents of life and to be met by the wise man with indifference. He alone is free, the master of himself and the world, who acknowledges the absolute supremacy of reason and makes himself independent of earthly desires. This life of freedom is open to all, for all men are equal, members of one great body. The slave may be as free as the consul and each can make the world his servant by living in harmony with it.<P>There is a certain sublimity in the ethics of Stoicism. It was a philosophy which appealed to noble minds and "it inspired nearly all the great characters of the early Roman empire and nerved every attempt to maintain the dignity and freedom of the human soul" (Lecky, History of European Morals, I, chapter ii). We cannot, however, be blind to its defects. With all their talk of Divine immanence and providence, it was nothing but an impersonal destiny which the Stoics recognized as governing the universe. "Harmony with Nature" was simply a sense of proud self-sufficiency. Stoicism is the glorification of reason, even to the extent of suppressing all emotion. It has no real sense of sin. Sin is un-reason, and salvation lies in the external control of the passions, in indifference and apathy begotten of the atrophy of desire. The great merit of the Stoics is that they emphasized inner moral integrity as the one condition of all right action and true happiness, and in an age of degeneracy insisted on the necessity of virtue. In its preference for the joys of the inner life and its scorn of the delights of sense; in its emphasis upon duty and its advocacy of a common humanity, together with its belief in the direct relation of each human soul to God, Stoicism, as revealed in the writings of a Seneca, a Marcus Aurelius and an Epictetus, not only showed how high paganism at its best could reach, but proved in a measure a preparation for Christianity with whose practical tenets, in spite of its imperfections, it had much in common.<P>(7) Stoicism and Paul.<P>That there are remarkable affinities between Stoicism and Pauline ethics has frequently been pointed out. The similarity both in language and sentiment can scarcely be accounted for by mere coincidence. There were elements in Stoic philosophy which Paul would not have dreamed of assimilating, and features with which he could have no sympathy. The pantheistic view of God and the material conception of the world, the self-conscious pride, the absence of all sense of sin and need of pardon, the temper of apathy and the unnatural suppression of feelings<67>these were features which could not but rouse in the apostle\'s mind strong antagonism. But on the other hand there were certain well-known characteristics of a nobler order in Stoic morality which we may believe Paul found ready to his hand, ideas which he did not hesitate to incorporate in his teaching and employ in the service of the gospel. Without enlarging upon this line of thought (compare Alexander, Ethics of Paul), of these we may mention the immanence of God as the pervading cause of all life and activity; the idea of wisdom or knowledge as the ideal of man; the conception of freedom as the prerogative of the individual; and the notion of brotherhood as the goal of humanity.<P>2. Scholasticism:<P>It will be possible only to sketch in a few rapid strokes the subsequent development of ethical thought. After the varied life of the early centuries had passed, Christian ethic (so prominent in the Gospels and Epistles), like Christian theology, fell under the blight of Gnostieism (Alexandrian philosophy; compare Hatch, Hibbert Lectures) and latterly, of Scholasticism. Christian truth stiffened into a cumbrous catalogue of ecclesiastical observances. In the early Fathers (Barnabas, Clement, Origen, Gregory), dogmatic and ethical teaching were hardly distinguished. Cyprian discussed moral questions from the standpoint of church discipline.<P>The first real attempt at a Christian ethic was made by Ambrose, whose treatise on the Duties is an imitation of Cicero\'s work of the same title. Even Augustine, notwithstanding his profound insight into the nature of sin, treats of moral questions incidentally. Perhaps the only writers among the schoolmen, except Alcuin (Virtues and Vices), who afford anything like elaborate moral treatises, are Abelard (Ethica, or Scito te Ipsum), Peter Lombard (Sentences), and, above all, Thomas Aquinas (Summa, II).<P>3. Reformation:<P>Emancipation from a legal dogmatism first came with the Reformation which was in essence a moral revival. The relation of God and man came to be re-stated under the inspiration of Biblical truth, and the value and rights of man as man, so long obscured, were disclosed. The conscience was liberated and Luther became the champion of individual liberty. Descartes and Spinoza.<P>The philosophical writers who most fully express in the domain of pure thought the protestant spirit are Descartes and Spinoza, with whom speculation with regard to man\'s distinctive nature and obligations took a new departure. Without following the fortunes of philosophy on the continent of Europe, which took a pantheistic form in Germany and a materialistic tone in France (though Rousseau directed the thought of Europe to the constitution of man), we may remark that in England thought assumed a practical complexion, and on the basis of the inquiries of Locke, Berkeley and Hume into the nature and limits of the human understanding, the quest. ions as to the source of moral obligation and the faculty of moral judgment came to the front.<P>4. English Moralists:<P>British moralists may be classified mainly cording to their views on this subject. Beginning with Hobbes, who maintained that man was naturally selfish and that all his actions were self-regarding, Cudworth, More, Wallaston, Shaftesbury, Hutchison, Adam Smith and others discussed the problem, with varying success, of the relation of individual and social virtues, agreeing generally that the right balance between the two is due\' to moral sense which, like taste or perception of beauty, guides us in things moral. All these intuitional writers fall back upon a native selfish instinct. Selfishness, disguise it as we may, or, as it came to be called, utility, is really the spring and standard of action. Butler in his contention for the supremacy and uniqueness of conscience took an independent but scarcely more logical attitude. Both he and all the later British moralists, Paley, Bentham, Mill, suffer from a narrow, artificial psychology which conceives of the various faculties as separate and independent elements lying in man.<P>5. Utilitarianism:<P>Utilitarianism is a scheme of consequences which finds the moral quality of conduct in the effects and feelings created in the subject. With all their differences of detail the representatives of theory are at one in regarding the chief end of man as happiness. Bentham and Mill made the attempt to deduce benevolence from the egoistic startingpoint. "No reason can be given," says Mill (Utilitarianism, chapter iv), "why the general happiness is desirable except that each person...desires his own happiness...and the general happiness therefore is a good to the aggregate of all persons." Late utilitarians, dissatisfied with this non-sequitur and renouncing the dogma of personal pleasure, maintain that we ought to derive universal happiness because reason bids us (compare Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, III, xiii). But what, we may ask, is this reason, and why should I listen to her voice?<P>6. Evolutionary Ethics:<P>The intuitional theory has more recently allied itself with the hypothesis of organic evolution. "These feelings of self-love and benevolence are really," says Spencer, "the products of development. The natural instincts and impulses to social good, though existent in a rudimentary animal form, have been evolved through environment, heredity and social institutions to which man through his long history has been subject." But this theory only carries the problem farther back, for, as Green well says (Proleg. to Ethics), "that countless generations should have passed during which a transmitted organism was progressively modified by reaction on its surroundings till an eternal consciousness could realize itself...might add to the wonder, but it could not alter the results."<P>7. Kant:<P>The great rival of the pleasure-philosophy is that which has been styled "duty for duty\'s sake." This position was first taken by Kant whose principle of the "Categorical Imperative" utterly broke down theory of "pleasure for pleasure\'s sake." For Kant, conscience is simply practical reason; and its laws by him are reduced to unity. Reason, though limited in its knowledge of objects to phenomena of the senses, in the region of practice transcends the phenomenal and attains the real. The autonomy of the will carries us beyond the phenomenal into the supersensible world. Here the "Categorical Imperative" or moral law utters its "thou shalt" and prescribes\' a principle of conduct irrespective of desire or ulterior end. In accordance with the nature of the Categorical Imperative, the formula of all morality is, "Act from a maxim at all times fit for law universal" (Kritik d. praktischen Vernunft and Grundlage zur Metaphysik der Sitten).<P>This principle is, however, defective. For while it determines the subjective or formal side of duty, it tells us nothing of the objective side, of the content of duty. We may learn from Kant the grandeur of duty in the abstract and the need of obedience to it, but we do not learn what duty is. Kant\'s law remains formal, abstract and contentless, without relation to the matter of practical life.<P>8. German Idealists:<P>To overcome this abstraction, to give content to the law of reason and find its realization in the institutions and relationships of life and society, has been the aim of the later idealistic philosophy which starts from Kant.<P>(1) Hegel.<P>Following Fichte, for whom morality is action according to the ideas of reason<6F>selfconsciousness finding itself in and through a world of deeds<64>Hegel starts with the Idea as the source of all reality, and develops the conception of Conscious Personality which, by overcoming the antithesis of impulse and thought, gradually attains to the full unity and realization of self in the consciousness of the world and of God. The law of Right or of all ethical ideal is, "Be a person and respect others as persons" (Hegel, Philosophic des Rechtes, section 31). These views have been worked out in recent British and American works of speculative ethics by Green, Bradley, Caird, McTaggart, Harris, Royce, Dewey, Watson. Man as a self is rooted in an infinite self or personality. Our individual self-consciousness is derived from and maintained by an infinite eternal and universal self-consciousness. Knowledge is, therefore, but the gradual discovery of mind in things, the progressive realization of the world as the self-manifestation of an infinite Personality with whom the finite intelligence of man is one. Hence, morality is the gradual unfolding of an eternal purpose whose whole is the perfection of man.<P>(2) Watchwords: Pleasure and Duty.<P>We have thus seen that in the history of ethics two great rival watchwords have been sounded<65>pleasure and duty, or, to put it another way, egoism and altruism. Both have their justification, yet each taken separately is abstract and one-sided. The problem of ethics is how to harmonize without suppressing these two extremes, how to unite social duty and individual right in a higher unity. We have seen that philosophical ethics has sought a synthesis of these conflicting moments in the higher and more adequate conception of human personality<74>a personality whose ideals and activities are identified with the eternal and universal personality of God. Christianity also recognizes the truth contained in the several types of ethical philosophy which we have passed under review, but it adds something which is distinctively its own, and thereby gives a new meaning to happiness and to duty, to self and to others.<P>Christian synthesis:<P>Christianity also emphasizes the realization of personality with all that it implies as the true goal of man; but while Christ bids man "be perfect as God is perfect," He shows us that we only find ourselves as we find ourselves in others; only by dying do we live; and only through profound self-surrender and sacrifice do we become ourselves and achieve the highest good.<P>Continued in next article<6C>[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS,+III">Ethics, III</a>]``2';
isbe[3236]='Ethics, III`III. Principles and Characteristics of Biblical Ethics.<P>The sketch of the history of ethics just offered, brief as it necessarily is, may serve to indicate the ideas which have shaped modern thought and helped toward the interpretation of the Christian view of life which claims to be the fulfillment of all human attempts to explain the highest good. We now enter upon the third division of our subject which embraces a discussion generally of Biblical ethics, dealing first with the ethics of the Old Testament and next with the leading ideas of the New Testament.<P>1. Ethics of the Old Testament:<P>The gospel of Christ stands in the closest relation with Hebrew religion, and revelation in the New Testament fulfils and completes the promise given in the Old Testament. We have seen that the thinkers of Greece and Rome have contributed much to Christendom, and have helped to interpret Bible teaching with regard to truth and duty; but there is no such inward relation between them as that which connects Christian ethics with Old Testament morality. Christ himself, and still more the apostle Paul, assumed as a substratum of his teaching the revelation which had been granted to the Jews. The moral and religious doctrines which were comprehended under the designation of "the Law" formed for them, as Paul said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24,25);">Ga 3:24-25</a>), a paidagogos, or servant whose function it was to lead them to the school of Christ. In estimating the special character of Old Testament ethics, we are not concerned with questions as to authenticity and dates of the various books, nor with the manifold problems raised by modern Biblical criticism. While not forgetting the very long period which these books cover, involving changes of belief and life and embracing successive stages of political society, it is possible to regard the Old Testament simply as a body of writings which represent the successive ethical ideas of the Hebrews as a people.<P>(1) Religious Characteristics of Hebrew Ethics.<P>At the outset we are impressed by the fact that the moral ideal of Judaism was distinctly religious. The moral obligations were conceived as Divine commands and the moral law as a revelation of the Divine will. The religion was monotheistic. At first Yahweh may have been regarded merely as a tribal Deity, but gradually this restricted view gave place to a wider conception of God as the God of all men; and as such He was presented by the later prophets. God was for the Jew the supreme source and author of the moral law, and throughout his history duty was embodied in the Divine will. Early in the Pentateuch the note of law is struck, and the fundamental elements of Jewish morality are embedded in the story of Eden and the Fall. God\'s commandment is the criterion and measure of man\'s obedience. Evil which has its source and head in a hostile though subsidiary power consists in violation of Yahweh\'s will.<P>(a) The Decalogue:<P>First among the various stages of Old Testament ethic must be mentioned the Mosaic legislation centering in the Decalogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,\'1-\');">De 5</a>). Whether the Ten Commandments issue from the time of Moses, or are a later summary of duty, they hold a supreme and formative place in the moral teaching of the Old Testament. All, including even the 4th, are purely moral enactments. But they are largely negative, only the 5th rising to positive duty. They are also chiefly external, regulative of outward conduct, forbidding acts but not taking note of intent and desire. The 6th and 7th commandments protect the rights of persons, while the 8th guards outward property. Though these laws may be shown to have their roots and sanctions in the moral consciousness of mankind and as such are applicable to all times and all men, it is clear that they were at first conceived by the Israelites to be restricted in their scope and practice to their own tribes.<P>(b) Civil Laws:<P>A further factor in the ethical education of Israel arose from the civil laws of the land. The Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,23);">Ex 20:23</a>), as revealing a certain advance in political legislation and jurisprudence, may be regarded as of this kind. Still the hard legal law of retaliation<6F>"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"<22>discloses a barbarous conception of right. But along with the more primitive enactments of revenge and stern justice there are not wanting provisions of a kindlier nature, such as the law of release, the protection of the fugitive, the arrangements for the gleaner and the institution of the Year of Jubilee.<P>(c) Ceremonial Laws:<P>Closely connected with the civil laws must be mentioned the ceremonial laws as an element in the moral life of Israel. If the civil laws had reference to the relation of man to his fellows, the ceremonial laws referred rather to the relation of man to God. The prevailing idea with regard to God, next to that of sovereign might, was holiness or separateness. The so-called Priestly Code, consisting of a number of ceremonial enactments, gradually took its place alongside of the Mosaic law, and was established to guard the being of God and the persons of the worshippers from profanation. These had to do (a) with sacrifices and offerings and forms of ritual which, while they typified and preshadowed the ideas of spiritual sanctity, often degenerated into superstitious practices (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25,26);">Am 5:25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">Ho 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'11-13\');">Isa 1:11-13</a>);(b) commands and prohibitions with regard to personal deportment<6E>"meats and drinks and divers washings." Some of these had a sanitary significance; others guarded the habits of daily life from heathen defilement.<P>(d) Prophecy:<P>The dominant factor of Old Testament ethics lay in the influence of the prophets. They and not the priests were the great moralists of Israel. They are the champions of righteousness and integrity in political life, not less than of purity in the individual. They are the witnesses for God and the ruthless denouncers of all idolatry and defection from Him. They comment upon the social vices to which a more developed people is liable. They preach a social gospel and condemn wrongs done by man to man. Government and people are summoned to instant amendment and before the nation is held up a lofty ideal. The prophets are not only the, preachers, but also the philosophers of the people, and they direct men\'s minds to the spiritual and ideal side of things, inveighing against worldliness and materialism.<P>Under their reflection, theories as to the origin and nature of evil begin to emerge, and the solemnity and worth of life are emphasized. While on the one hand the sense of individual responsibility is dwelt upon, on the other the idea of a hereditary taint of soul is developed, and it is shown that the consequences of sin may affect even the innocent. A man may inherit suffering and incur penalties, not apparently through any fault of his own, but simply by reason of his place in the solidarity of the race. Problems like these awaken deep perplexity which finds a voice not only in the Prophets but also in the Book of Job and in many of the Psalms. The solution is sought in the thought that God works through evil, and by its effects evolves man\'s highest good. These conceptions reach their climax in the Second Isaiah, and particularly in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">53</a>. God is constantly represented as longing to pardon and reinstate man in His favor; and the inadequacy of mere ceremonial as well as the failure of all material means of intercourse with Yahweh are repeatedly dwelt upon as preparing the way for the doctrine of salvation. In the Book of Psalms<6D>the devotional manual of the people reflecting the moral and religious life of the nation at various stages of its development<6E>the same exalted character of God as a God of righteousness and holiness, hating evil and jealous for devotion, the same profound scorn of sin and the same high vocation of man are prevalent.<P>(e) Books of Wisdom:<P>Without dwelling at length on the ethical ideas of the other writings of the Old Testament<6E>the Books of Wisdom, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes<65>we may remark that the teaching is addressed more to individuals than prophecy is; while not being particularly lofty it is healthy and practical, shrewd, homely common sense. While the motives appealed to are not always the highest and have regard frequently to earthly prosperity and worldly policy, it must not be overlooked that moral practice is also frequently allied with the fear of God, and the fight choice of wisdom is represented as the dictate of piety not less than of prudence.<P>It is to the sapiential books (canonical and apocryphal) that we owe the most significant ethical figures of the Old Testament<6E>the wise man and the fool. The wise man is he who orders his life in accordance with the laws of God. The fool is the self-willed man, whose life, lacking principle, fails of success. The nature of wisdom lies not in intellectual knowledge so much as in the control of passion and the prudent regulation of desire. The idea of human wisdom is connected in these books with the sublime conception of Divine wisdom which colors both them and the Psalms. In some of the finest passages, Wisdom is personified as the counselor of God in the creation of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,\'1-\');">Pr 8</a>; <span class="noTag">Wisdom 10</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,\'1-\');">Job 28</a>), or the guide which guards the destinies of man (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 10:15ff</span>).<P>If the sapiential books are utilitarian in tone the Book of Ecclesiastes is pessimistic. The writer is impressed with the futility of life. Neither pursuit of knowledge nor indulgence in pleasure affords satisfaction. All is vanity. Yet there is an element of submission in this book which only escapes despair by a grim and stolid inculcation of obedience to Divine command.<P>(f) Apocryphal Books:<P>In an article on the Ethics of the Bible some allusion ought to be made to the spirit of the apocryphal books, reflecting as they do the ideas of a considerable period of Jewish history immediately before and contemporaneous with the advent of Christ. While in general there is a distinct recognition of true moral life and a high regard for the moral law, there is no system of ethics nor even a prevailing ethical principle in these books. The collection presents the ideas of no one man or party, or even of one period or locality. The moral ideas of each book require to be considered separately (see special articles), and they ought to be studied in connection with the philosophy of Philo and generally with the speculation of Alexandria, upon which they exercised considerable influence. The Wisdom of Solomon is supposed by Pfieiderer and others to have affected the Hellenic complexion of Paul\'s thought and also to have colored the stoic philosophy.<P>The apocryphal books as a whole do not give prominence to the idea of an ancient covenant and are not dominated by the notion of a redemptive climax to which the other Old Testament books bear witness. As a consequence their moral teaching lacks the spirituality of the Old Testament; and there is an insistence upon outward works rather than inward disposition as essential to righteousness. While wisdom and justice are commended, there is a certain self-satisfaction and pride in one\'s own virtue, together with, on the part of the few select spirits which attain to virtue, a corresponding disparagement of and even contempt for the folly of the many. In Sirach especially this tone of self-righteous complacency is observable. There is a manifest lack of humility and sense of sin, while the attainment of happiness is represented as the direct result of personal virtue (Sirach 14:14ff).<P>The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon shows traces of neo-Platonic influences and recognizes the four Platonic virtues (<span class="noTag">8:7</span>) and while admitting the corruption of all men (<span class="noTag">9:12ff</a>) attributes the causes of evil to other sources than the will, maintaining the Greek dualism of body and soul and the inherent evil of the physical nature of man. The Book of Judith presents in narrative form a highly questionable morality. On the whole it must be recognized that the moral teaching of the Apocrypha is much below the best teaching of the Old Testament. While Sirach gives expression to a true piety, it manifests its want of depth in its treatment of sin and in the inculcation of merely prudential motives to goodness. In general the essence of love is unknown, and the moral temper is far inferior to the ethics of Jesus. It is a mundane morality that is preached. Hope is absent and righteousness is rewarded by long life and prosperity (Tobit). Legalism is the chief characteristic (Baruch), and Pharisaic ceremonialism on the one hand, and Sadducaic rationalism on the other are the natural and historical consequences of apocryphal teachings.<P>(2) Limitations of Old Testament Ethics.<P>In estimating the ethics of the Old Testament as a whole the fact must not be forgotten that it was preparatory, a stage in the progressive revelation of God\'s will. We are not surprised, therefore, that, judged by the absolute standard of the New Testament, the morality of the Old Testament comes short in some particulars. Both in intent and extent, in spirit and in scope, it is lacking.<P>(a) As to intent:<P>The tendency to dwell upon the sufficiency of external acts rather than the necessity of inward disposition, may be remarked; though as time went on, particularly in the later Prophets and some of the Psalms, the need of inward purity is insisted upon. While the ideal both for the nation and the individual is an exalted one<6E>"Be ye holy for I am holy"<22>the aspect in which the character of God is represented is sometimes stern if not repellent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'1-\');">Ex 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,18);">Nu 14:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">Ge 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,17);">2Sa 24:17</a>). But at the same time there are not wanting more tender features (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,17);">Isa 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>), and the Divine Fatherhood finds frequent expression. Even though the penal code is severe and the ceremonial law stern, a gentler spirit shines through many of its provisions, and protection is afforded to the wage-earner, the poor and the dependent, while the regulations regarding slaves and foreigners and even lower animals are merciful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,14,15);">De 24:14-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,13,17);">Jer 22:13, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,5);">Mal 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,4);">De 25:4</a>).<P>Material motives:<P>Again we have already remarked that the motives to which the Old Testament appeals are often mercenary and material. Material prosperity plays an important part as an inducement to moral conduct, and the good which the pious patriarch contemplates is earthly plenty, something which will enrich himself and his family. At the same time we must not forget that the revelation of God\'s purpose is progressive, and His dealing with men educative. There is naturally therefore a certain accommodation of the Divine law to the various stages of moral apprehension of the Jewish people, and on the human side a growing sense of the meaning of life as well as an advancing appreciation of the nature of righteousness. Gradually the nation is being carried forward by the promise of material benefits to the spiritual blessings which they enshrine. If even in the messages of the prophets there is not wanting some measure of threats and penalties, we must remember the character of the people they were dealing with<74>a people wayward and stubborn, whose imaginations could scarcely rise above the material and the temporal. We must judge prophecy by its best, and we shall see that these penalties and rewards which undoubtedly occupy a prominent place in Old Testament ethics were but goads to spur the apathetic. They were not ends in themselves, nor mere arbitrary promises or threats, but instruments subservient to higher ideals.<P>(b) As to extent:<P>With regard to the extent or application of the Hebrew ideal it must be acknowledged that here also Old Testament ethics is imperfect as compared with the universality of Christianity. God is represented as the God of Israel and not as the God of all men. It is true that a prominent commandment given to Israel is that which our Lord endorsed: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">Le 19:18</a>). The extent of the obligation, however, would seem to be restricted in the language immediately preceding it: "Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people." It has been pointed out that the term rea\' is of wider signification than the English word "neighbor," and expresses the idea of friend, and is applied to any person. The wider rendering is enforced by the fact that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,33,34);">Le 19:33-34</a> the word "stranger" or "foreigner" is substituted for neighbor. The stranger is thus regarded as the special client of God and is commended to look to Him for protection. However this may be, in practice at least the Jews were not faithful to the humanitarianism of their law, and generally, in keeping with other races of antiquity, showed a tendency to restrict Divine favor within the limits of their own land and to maintain an attitude throughout their history of aloofness and repellent isolation toward foreigners. At the same time the obligation of hospitality was regarded as sacred and was practiced in early Hebrew life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-9\');">Ge 18:1-9</a>). Nor must we forget that whatever may have been the Jewish custom the promise enshrined in their revelation implies the unity of mankind (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,3);">Ge 19:3</a>), while several of the prophecies and Psalms look forward to a world-wide blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,\'1-\');">Isa 61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,27);">Ps 22:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,2,10);">48:2, 10</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,\'1-\');">Isa 54</a> we even read, "God of the whole earth shall he be called." "Everything," it has been said, "is definitely stated except the equality of all men in God\'s love." The morality of bare justice is also in some measure transcended. The universal Fatherhood of God, if not clearly stated, is implied in many passages, and in Second Isaiah and Hosea there are most tender revelations of Divine mercy though it is mercy to Israel only. But we know that the apostle Paul drew the inference from God\'s treatment of Israel that His mercy and salvation would extend to all.<P>2. Outline of New Testament Ethics:<P>We are now prepared to indicate briefly the distinctive features of the ethics of Christianity. As this article is, however, professedly introductory, and as the ethics of Jesus forms the subject of a separate treatment (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS+OF+JESUS">ETHICS OF JESUS</A>), it will not be necessary to offer an elaborate statement of the subject. It will be sufficient to suggest the formative principles and main characteristics. What we have to say may conveniently be divided under three heads:<P class="in15">(1) the Christian ideal;<P class="in15">(2) the dynamic power;<P class="in15">(3) the virtues, duties and spheres of Christian activity.<P>(1) Ethics of Jesus and Paul.<P>Before, however, entering upon these details, a few words may fittingly be said upon the relation of the ethics of Jesus to those of Paul. It has been recently alleged that a marked contrast is perceptible between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul, and that there is a great gulf fixed between the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus is a moralist, Paul a theologian. The Master is concerned with the conditions of life and conduct; the disciple is occupied with the elaboration of dogma. This view seems to us to be greatly exaggerated. No one can read the Epistles without perceiving the ethical character of a large portion of their teaching and noticing how even the great theological principles which Paul enunciates have a profound moral import. Nor does it seem to us that there is any radical difference in the ethical teaching of Christ and that of the Apostle.<P>(2) Character.<P>Both lay emphasis on character, and the great words of Christ are the great words of Paul. The inmost spring of the new life of love is the same for both. The great object of the Pauline dialectic is to place man emptied of self in a condition of receptiveness before God. But this idea, fundamental in Paul, is fundamental also in the teaching of Jesus. It is the very first law of the kingdom. With it the Sermon on the Mount begins: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." If we analyze this great saying it surely yields the whole principle of the Pauline argument and the living heart of the Pauline religion. In perfect agreement with this is the fundamental importance assigned both by Jesus and Paul to faith. With both it is something more than mental assent or even implicit confidence in providence. It is the spiritual vision in man of the ideal, the inspiration of life, the principle of conduct.<P>(3) Inwardness of Motive.<P>Again the distinctive note of Christ\'s ethic is the inwardness of the moral law as distinguished from the externality of the cereMonial law. Almost in identical terms Paul insists upon the need of inward purity, the purity of the inner man of the heart. Once more both lay emphasis upon the fulfillment of our duties to our fellow-men, and both are at one in declaring that man owes to others an even greater debt than duty. Christ\'s principle is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"; Paul\'s injunction is "Owe no man anything but to love one another." Christ transforms morality from a routine into a life; and with Paul also goodness ceases to be a thing of outward rule and becomes the spontaneous energy of the soul. For both all virtues are but the various expressions of a single vital principle. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." The dynamic of devotion according to Christ is, "God\'s love toward us"; according to Paul, "The love of Christ constraineth us."<P>Ideal of Life:<P>And if we turn from the motive and spring of service to the purpose of life, again we find substantial agreement: "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" is the standard of Christ; to attain to the perfect life<66>"the prize of the high calling of God in Christ"<22>is the aim of Paul.<P>(4) Ultimate End.<P>Nor do they differ in their conception of the ultimate good of the world. Christ\'s ethical ideal, which He worked for as the realization of the object of His mission, was a redeemed humanity, a reestablishment of human society, which He designated "the kingdom of God." Paul with his splendid conception of humanity sees that kingdom typified and realized in the Risen Life of his Lord. It is by growing up in all things unto Him who is the Head that the whole body will be perfected in the perfection of its members. And this is what Paul means when he sums up the goal and ideal of all human faith and endeavor<6F>"till we all attain...unto a fullgrown man, unto...the fullness of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,13);">Eph 4:13</a>). Paul everywhere acknowledges himself to be a pupil of the Master and a teacher of His ways (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,17);">1Co 4:17</a>). Without pursuing this subject there can be no doubt that in their hidden depths and in their practical life the precepts of the apostle are in essential agreement with those of the Sermon on the Mount, and have a dommon purpose<73>the presenting of every man perfect before God (compare Alexander, Ethics of Paul).<P>3. The Ethical Ideal:<P>The ethical ideal of the New Testament is thus indicated. The chief business of ethics is to answer the question, What is man\'s supreme good? For what should a man live? What, in short, is the ideal of life? A careful study of the New Testament discloses three main statements implied in what Christ designates "the kingdom of God": man\'s highest good consists generally in doing God\'s will and more particularly in the attainment of likeness to Christ and in the realization of human brotherhood<6F>a relation to God, to Christ and to man. The first is the pure white light of the ideal; the second is the ideal realized in the one perfect life which is viewed as standard or norm; the third is the progressive realization of the ideal in the life of humanity which is the sphere of the new life.<P>(1) Holiness.<P>Holiness as the fulfillment of the Divine will is, as we have seen, Christ\'s own ideal<61>Be ye perfect as your Father; and it is Paul\'s<>This also we wish, even your perfection (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,11);">2Co 13:11</a>). The ideas of righteousness and holiness as the attributes of God are the features of the kingdom of God or of heaven, the realization of which Jesus continually set forth as the highest aim of man; and running through all the epistles of Paul the constant refrain is that ye might walk worthy of God who hath called you unto His kingdom and glory. To walk worthy of God, to fulfill His will in all sincerity and purity, is for the Christian as for the Jew the end of all morality. Life has a supreme worth and sacredness because God is its end. To be a man is to fulfill in his own person God\'s idea of humanity. Before every man, just because he is man with the touch of the Divine hand upon him and his Maker\'s end to serve, lies this ultimate goal of existence<63>the realization of the perfect life-according to the idea of God.<P>(2) Christlikeness.<P>If Godlikeness or holiness is the end, Christlikeness is the norm or standard in which that end is presented in the Gospel. In Christianity God is revealed to us through Jesus Christ, and the abstract impersonal ideas of holiness and righteousness are transmuted into the features of a living personality whose spirit is to be reproduced in the lives of men. In two different ways Christ is presented in the New Testament as ideal. He is at once the Pattern and the Principle or Power of the new life.<P>(a) He is the Pattern of goodness which is to be reproduced in human lives. It would lead us to trench on the succeeding article if we were to attempt here a portrayal of the character of Jesus as it is revealed in the Gospels. We only note that it is characteristic of the New Testament writers that they do not content themselves with imaginative descriptions of goodness, but present a living ideal in the historical person of Jesus Christ.<P>(b) He is also Principle of the new life<66>not example only, but power<65>the inspiration and cause of life to all who believe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,19,20);">Eph 1:19-20</a>). Paul says not, "Be like Christ," but "Have the mind in you which was also in Christ." The literal imitation of an example has but a limited reign. To be a Christian is not the mechanical work of a copyist. Kant goes the length of saying that "imitation finds no place in all morality" (Metaphysics of Ethics, section ii). Certainly the imitation of Christ as a test of conduct covers a quite inadequate conception of the intimate and vital relation Christ bears to humanity. "It is not to copy after Him," says Schultz (Grundriss d. evangelischen Ethik, 5), "but to let His life take form in us, to receive His spirit and make it effective, which is the moral task of the Christian." It is as its motive and creative power that Paul presents Him. "Let Christ be born in you." We could not even imitate Christ if He were not already within us. He is our example only because He is something more, the principle of the new life, the higher and diviner self of every man. "He is our life"; "Christ in us the hope of glory."<P>(3) Brotherhood and Unity of Man.<P>The emphasis hitherto has been laid on the perfection of the individual. But both Christ and His apostles imply that the individual is not to be perfected alone. No man finds himself till he finds his duties. The single soul is completed only in the brotherhood of the race. The social element is implied in Christ\'s idea of the Kingdom, and many of the apostolic precepts refer not to individuals but to humanity as an organic whole. The church is Christ\'s body of which individuals are the members, necessary to one another and deriving their life from the head. The gospel is social as well as individual, and the goal is the kingdom of God, the brotherhood of man. Paul proclaims the unity and equality before God of Greek and Roman, bond and free.<P>4. The Dynamic Power of the New Life:<P>In the dynamic power of the new life we reach the central and distinguishing feature of Christian ethics. Imposing as was the ethic of Greece, it simply hangs in the air. Plato\'s ideal state remains a theory only. Aristotle\'s "virtuous man" exists only in the mind of his creator. Nor was the Stoic more successful in making his philosophy a thing of actuality. Beautiful as these old-time ideals were, they lacked impelling force, the power to change dreams into realities. The problems which baffled Greek philosophy it is the glory of Christianity to have solved. Christian ethics is not a theory. The good has been manifested in a life. The Word was made flesh. It was a new creative force<63>a spirit given and received, to be worked out and realized in the actual life of common men.<P>(1) The Dynamic on Its Divine Side. The problem with Paul was, How can man achieve that good which has been embodied in the life and example of Jesus Christ? Without entering into the details of this question it may be said at once that the originality of the gospel lies in this, that it not only reveals the good but discloses the power which makes the good possible in the hitherto unattempted derivation of the new life from a new birth under the influence of the Spirit of God. Following his Master, when Paul speaks of the new ethical state of believers he represents it as a renewal or rebirth of the Holy Spirit. It is an act of Divine creative power.<P>Without following out the Pauline argument we may say he connects the working of the Holy Spirit with two facts in the life of Christ, for him the most important in history<72>the death and resurrection of our Lord. Here we are in the region of dogmatics, and it does not concern us to present a theory of the atonement. All we have to do with is the fact that between man and the new life lies sin, which must be overcome and removed, both in the form of guilt and power, before reconciliation with God can be effected. The deed which alone meets the case is the sacrifice of Christ. In virtue of what Christ has achieved by His death a fundamentally new relationship exists. God and man are now in full moral accord and vital union.<P>But not less important as a factor in creating the new life is the resurrection. It is the seal and crown of the sacrifice. It was the certainty that He had risen that gave to Christ\'s death its sacrificial value. "If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins." The new creature is the work of Christ. But His creative power is not an external influence. It is an inner spirit of life. All that makes life life indeed<65>an exalted, harmonious and completed existence<63>is derived from the Holy Spirit through the working of the crucified risen Christ.<P>(2) The Dynamic on Its Human Side.<P>Possession of power implies obligation to use it. The force is given; it has to be appropriated. The spirit of Christ is not offered to free a man from the duties and endeavors of the moral life. Man is not simply the passive recipient of the Divine energy. He has to make it his own and work it out by an act of free resolution. When we inquire what constitutes the subjective or human element, we find in the New Testament two actions which belong to the soul entering upon the new world in Christ<73>repentance and faith. These are complementary and constitute what is commonly called conversion. Repentance in the New Testament is a turning away in sorrow and contrition from a life of sin and a breaking with evil under the influence of Christ. If repentance looks back and forsakes, faith looks forward and accepts. In general it is the outgoing of the whole man toward his Lord, the human power or energy by which the individual receives and makes his own the life in Christ. It is not merely intellectual acceptance or moral trust; it is above all appropriating energy. It is the power of a new obedience. As the principle of moral appropriation it has its root in personal trust and its fruit in Christian service. Faith, in short, is the characteristic attitude and action of the whole Christian personality in its relation to the spiritual good offered to it in Christ.<P>5. Virtues, Duties and Spheres of the New Life:<P>It but remains to indicate how this new power manifests itself in character and in practical conduct. Character is expressed in virtue, and duty is conditioned by station and relationships.<P>(1) The Virtues.<P>The systematic enumeration of the virtues is one of the most difficult tasks of ethics. Neither in ancient nor in modern times has complete success attended attempts at classification. Plato\'s list is too meager. Aristotle\'s lacks system and is marred by omission. Nowhere in Scripture is there offered a complete description of all the virtues that flow from faith. But by bringing Christ\'s words and the apostolic precepts together we have a rich and suggestive cluster (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Mt 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'1-\');">6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22,23);">Ga 5:22-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12,13);">Col 3:12-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,18,19);">1Pe 2:18-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,7,8);">4:7-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'5-8\');">2Pe 1:5-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'1-\');">1Joh 3</a>). We may make a threefold classification:<P>(a) The Heroic Virtues:<P>The heroic virtues, sometimes called the cardinal, handed down from antiquity-wisdom, fortitude, temperance, justice. While these were accepted and dwelt upon, Christianity profoundly modified their character so that they became largely new creations. "The old moral currency was still kept in circulation, but it was gradually minted anew" (Strong).<P>(b) The Amiable Virtues:<P>The amiable virtues, which are not merely added on to the pagan, but being incorporated with them, give an entirely new meaning to those already in vogue. While Plato lays stress on the intellectual or heroic features of character, Christianity brings to the foreground the gentler virtues. Two reasons may have induced the Christian writers to dwell more on the self-effacing side of character: partly as a protest against the spirit of militarism and the worship of material power prevalent in the ancient world; and chiefly because the gentler self-sacrificing virtues more truly expressed the spirit of Christ. The one element in character which makes it beautiful and effective and Christlike is love<76>the element of sacrifice. Love evinces itself in humility which lays low all vaunting ambition and proud selfsufficiency. Closely allied to humility are meekhess and its sister, long-suffering<6E>the attitude of the Christian in the presence of trial and wrong. With these again are connected contentment and patience and forbearance, gentle and kindly consideration for others. Lastly there is the virtue of forgiveness. For it is not enough to be humble and meek; we have a duty toward wrongdoers. We must be ready to forget and forgive (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,20);">Ro 12:20</a>). "Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,32);">Eph 4:32</a>).<P>(c) The Theological Virtues:<P>The theological virtues or Christian graces-faith, hope, charity. Some have been content to see in these three graces the summary of Christian excellence. They are fundamental in Christ\'s teaching and the apostolic combination of them may have had its basis in some lost word of the Master (Harnack). These graces cannot be separated. They are all of a piece. He who has faith has also love, and he who has faith and love cannot be devoid of hope. Love is the first and last word of apostolic Christianity. No term is more expressive of the spirit of Christ. Love was practically unknown in the ancient world. Pre-Christian philosophy exalted the intellect but left the heart cold. Love in the highest sense is the discovery and creation of the gospel, and it was reserved for the followers of Jesus to teach men the meaning of charity and to find in it the law of freedom. It is indispensable to true Christian character. Without it no profession of faith or practice of good deeds has any value (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,\'1-\');">1Co 13</a>). It is the fruitful source of all else that is beautiful in conduct. Faith itself works through love and finds in its activity its outlet and exercise. If character is formed by faith it lives in love. And the same may be said of hope. It is a particular form of faith which looks forward to a life that is to be perfectly developed and completed in the future. Hope is faith turned to the future<72>a vision inspired and sustained by love.<P>(2) The Duties.<P>Of the duties of the Christian life it is enough to say that they find their activity in the threefold relationship of the Christian to self, to his fellow-men and to God. This distinction is not of course quite logical. The one involves the other. Self-love implies love of others, and all duty may be regarded as duty to God. The individual and society are so inextricably bound together in the kingdom of love that neither can reach its goal without the other.<P>(a) Duties Toward Self:<P>Duties toward self are, however, plainly recognized in the New Testament. our Lord\'s commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," makes a rightly conceived self-love the measure of love to one\'s neighbor. But the duties of self-regard are only lightly touched upon, and while the truth that the soul has an inalienable worth is insisted upon, to be constantly occupied with the thought of oneself is a symptom of morbid egoism and not a sign of healthy personality. But the chief reason why the New Testament does not enlarge upon the duty of self-culture is that according to the spirit of the gospel the true realization of self is identical with self-sacrifice. Only as a man loses his life does he find it. Not by anxiously standing guard over one\'s soul but by dedicating it freely to the good of others does one realize one\'s true self. At the same time several self-respecting duties are recognized, of which mention may be made:<P class="in15">(i) stability of purpose or singleness of aim;<P class="in15">(ii) independence of other\'s opinion;<P class="in15">(iii) supremacy of conscience and a proper self-estimate.<P>In this connection may be noticed also the Christian\'s proper regard for the body which, as the temple of God, is not to be despised but presented as a living sacrifice; his attitude to worldly goods; his obligation to work; his right to recreation; and his contentment with his station<6F>all of which duties are to be interpreted by the apostolic principle, "Use the world as not abusing it." The Christian ideal is not asceticism or denial for its own sake. Each must make the best of himself and the most of life\'s trust. All the faculties, possessions, pursuits and joys of life are to be used as vehicles of spiritual service, instruments which make a man a fit subject of the kingdom of God to which he belongs.<P>(b) Duties in Relation to Others:<P>Duties in relation to others, or brotherly love, are defined as to their extent and limit by the Christian\'s relation to Christ. Their chief manifestations are:<P class="in15">(i) justice, involving respect for others, negatively refraining from injury and positively yielding deference and honor, truthfulness, in word and deed, "speaking the truth in love," just judgment, avoiding censoriousness and intolerance;<P class="in15">(ii) kindness or goodness, embracing sympathy, service and practical beneficence which provides for physical need, administers comfort and gives, by example and direct instruction, edification;<P class="in15">(iii) patience, comprising forbearance, peaceableness.<P>(c) Duties in Relation to God:<P>Here morality runs up into religion and duty passes into love. Love rests on knowledge of God as revealed in Christ, and expresses itself in devotion. Love to God is expressed generally in<P class="in15">(i) thankfulness,<P class="in15">(ii) humility,<P class="in15">(iii) trustfulness; and particularly in worship (sacraments and prayers), and in witness-bearing<6E>adorning the doctrine by beauty of life.<P>(3) Spheres and Relationships.<P>Of the various spheres and relationships in which the Christian finds opportunity for the exercise and cultivation of his spiritual life we can only name, without enlarging upon them, the family, the state and the church. Each of these spheres demands its own special duties and involves its own peculiar discipline. While parents owe to their children care and godly nurture, children owe their parents obedience. The attitude of the individual to the state and of the state to the individual are inferences which may be legitimately drawn from New Testament teaching. It is the function of the state not merely to administer iustice but to create and foster those agencies and institutions which work for the amelioration of the lot and the development of the weal of its citizens, securing for each full liberty to make the best of his life. On the other hand it is the duty of the individual to realize his civic obligations as a member of the social organism. The state makes its will dominant through the voice of the people, and as the individuals are so the commonwealth will be.<P>6. Conclusion:<P>Absoluteness, Inwardness and Universality.<P>In closing we may say that the three dominant notes of Christian ethics are, its absoluteness, its inwardness and its universality. The gospel claims to be supreme in life and morals. For the Christian no incident of experience is secular and no duty insignificant, because all things belong to God and all life is dominated by the Spirit of Christ. The uniqueness and originality of the ethics of Christianity are to be sought, however, not so much in the range of its practical application as in the unfolding of an ideal which is at once the power and pattern of the new life. That ideal is Christ in whom the perfect life is disclosed and through whom the power for its realization is communicated. Life is a force, and character is a growth which takes its rise in and expands from a hidden seed. Hence, in Christian ethics all apathy, passivity and inaction, which occupy an important place in the moral systems of Buddhism, Stoicism, and even medieval Catholicism, play no part. On the contrary all is life, energy and unceasing endeavor.<P>There are many details of modern social life with which the New Testament does not deal: problems of presentday ethics and economics which cannot be decided by a direct reference to chapter and verse, either of the Gospels or Epistles. But Paul\'s great principles of human solidarity; of equality in Christ; of freedom of service and love; his teachings concerning the church and the kingdom of God, the family and the state; his precepts with regard to personal purity, the use of wealth and the duty of work, contained the germs of the subsequent renewal of Europe and still contain the potency of social and political transformation.<P>LITERATURE.<P>General Works on Ethics: Lotze, Paulsen, Wundt, Green, Sidgwick, Stephen, Dewey and Tufts, Palmer, Bowne, Mezer; Harris, Moral Evolution; Dubois; Randall, Theory of Good and Evil; Calderwood, Handbook of Moral Philosophy; Muirhead, Elementary Ethics; Sutherland, Origin and Growth of Moral Instinct; Simmel, Einleitung in die Moralwissenschaft; Givycky, Moralphilosophic; Guyot, La morale; Janet, Theory Morals (translation); Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics; Eucken, works generally; Hensel, Hauptproblem der Ethik; Lipps, Die ethischen Grundfragen; Natorp, Socialpadagogik; Schuppe, Grundzuge der Ethik u. Rechtsphilosophie; Schwarz, Das sittliche Leben; Wentscher, Ethik.<P>General History:<P>See Histories of Philosophy; Zeller, Erdmann, Windelband, Maurice, Turner, Weber, Rogers, Alexander; Jodl, Geschichte der Ethik in der neueren Philosophic. Works on Theological or Christian Ethics Old Testament: Dillmann, Baudissin, Bertmann, Geschichte der christlichen Sitte; Konig, Hauptprobleme der Altes Testament Religions-Geschichte; Delitzsch, Riehm, Kuenen; Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; Hessey, Moral Difficulties in the Bible; Moore, in Lux mundi; Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture; Robertson, Early Religion of Israel; Caillard, Progressive Revelation; Schultz, Old Testament Theology (English translation); Bruce, Ethics of the Old Testament; N. Smyth, Christian Ethics; Startton; Strong.<P>New Testament and Christianity:<P>Martinsen, Wuttke, Schletermacher, Rothe, Dorner, H. Weiss, Harlen, Hofmann, Frank, Luthardt, Beck, Kiibel, Kahler, Pfieiderer, Schultz, Kostlin; Herrmann, Faith and Morals; Communion of the Christian with God; Thomas, Jacoby, Lemme, Strong, Knight, N. Smyth; Ottley in Lux mundi and Christian Ideas and Ideals; W. L. Davidson, Christian Ethics, Guild Series; W. T. Davidson, Christian Interpretation of Life and Christian Conscience; Mackintosh; Murray, Handbook of Christian Ethics; Maurice, Social Morality; Nash, Ethics and Revelation; Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church; Clark, Christian Method of Ethics; Mathews, The Church and the Changing Order; Freemantle, The World as the Subject of Redemption; The Gospel in Secular Life; Sladden, Applied Christianity; Leckie, Life and Religion; Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Order; Peile, The Reproach of the Gospel; Coe, Education in Religion and Morals; Haering, The Ethics of the Christian Life (English translation); Tymms, Ancient Faith in Modern Light; Harris, God, the Creator; Bovon, Morale chretienne; Wace, Christianity and Morality; Kidd, Morality and Religion; Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita; Hatch, Greek Ideas and the Christian Church; Matheson, Landmarks of New Testament Morality.<P>Works on New Testament Theology:<P>Also contain section on Ethics; Weiss, Holtzmann, Beyschlag; Harnack, Das Wesen, or What Is Christianity?; Stevens; Wernle, The Beginnings of Christianity; Adeney, Gould, Gardner, Bosworth, Briggs; Caird, Evolution of Religion. Works on the Teaching of Jesus: Especially Wendt, Bruce, Stevens, Horton, Jackson, Swete, Latham, Pastor Pastorum; Tolstoy; Julicher. See next article for the works on the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS+OF+JESUS">Ethics of Jesus</a>. Special Works on Apostolic Ethics: Ernesti, Ethik des Apostels Paulus; A. Alexander, The Ethics of Paul; Weinel, Paul; Baur, Paulinismus; Joh. Weiss, Paul and Jesus. History of Christian Ethics:<P>Wuttke, Sidgwick, Ziegler, Luthardt, Thomas; Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory; Gass; Scharling, Christliche Sittenlehre; Lecky, History of European Morals; Pfleiderer.``2';
isbe[3237]='Ethiopia`e-thi-o\'-pi-a (kush; Aithiopia):<P>1. Location, Extent and Population:<P>Critically speaking Ethiopia may refer only to the Nile valley above the First Cataract, but in ancient as in modern times the term was often used not only to include what is now known as Nubia and the Sudan (Soudan), but all the unknown country farther west and south, and also at times Northern, if not Southern, Abyssinia. While Ethiopia was so indefinitely large, yet the narrow river valley, which from the First to the Fifth Cataract represented the main agricultural resources of the country, was actually a territory smaller than Egypt and, excluding deserts, smaller than Belgium (W. Max Muller). The settled population was also small, since in ancient as in modern times Egypt naturally drew away most of the able-bodied and energetic youth as servants, police and soldiers. The prehistoric population of Northern Nubia was probably Egyptian but this was displaced in early historic time by a black race, and the thick lips and woolly hair of the typical African are as well marked in the oldest Egyptian paintings as in the latest. But by the side of these natives of K\'sh, the artist also represents various reddish-brown varieties; for from the beginning of historic time the pure Negro stock has been mixed with the fellaheen of Egypt and with the Sere population of the Arabian coast. The rulers of Ethiopia were generally of foreign blood. The Negroes, though brave and frugal, were slow in thought, and although controlled for centuries by cultivated neighbors, under whom they attained at times high official prominence, yet the body of the people remained uninfluenced by this civilization. The country which we now know as Abyssinia was largely controlled, from the earliest known date, by a Caucasian people who had crossed the Red Sea from Arabia. The true Abyssinians, as Professor Littmann shows, contain no Negro blood and no Negro qualities. In general they are "well formed and handsome, with straight and regular features, lively eyes, hair long and straight or somewhat curled and in color dark olive approaching brown." Modern discoveries prove their close racial and linguistic connection with Southern Arabia and particularly with the kingdom of Sheba (the Sabeans), that most powerful people whose extensive architectural and literary remains have recently come to light. The Sabean inscriptions found in Abyssinia go back some 2,600 years and give a new value to the Bible references as well as to the constant claim of Josephus that the queen of Sheba was a "queen of Ethiopia." The Falashas are a Jewish community living near Lake Tsana, of the same physical type and probably of the same race as other Abyssinians. Their religion is a "pure Mosaism" based upon the Ethiopic version of the Pentateuch, but modified by the fact that they are ignorant of the Hebrew language (Jewish Encyclopedia). It is uncertain when they became Jews. The older scholars thought of them as dating back to the Solomonic era, or at least to the Babylonian captivity. Since the researches of Joseph Halevy (1868), some date within the Christian era has seemed preferable, notwithstanding their ignorance of Talmudic rules. However, the newly discovered fact that a strong Jewish community was flourishing at Syene in the 6th century BC makes it clear that Jewish influence may have been felt in Ethiopia at least that early. Although Abyssinians are noted for their strict adherence to ancient custom, Jewish characteristics are prominent all over the entire country. The opening formula of the king in every official letter<65>"The Lion of the Tribe of Judah has Conquered!"<22>is no more Jewish than scores of ordinary phrases and customs. Although it is barely possible that some rites, like circumcision and observance of the Sabbath, may have been received from the ancient Egyptians or Christian Coptics (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Encyclopedia) yet a strong Hebrew influence cannot be denied. All travelers speak of the "industry" of the Falashas and of the "kindliness and grave courtesy" of the Abyssinians. Besides those named above there are many communities of mixed races in Ethiopia, but the ancient basis is invariably Negro, Semitic or Egyptian<P>2. History:<P>The ancient Greek writers are full of fantastic and fabulous stories about Ethiopia. Sometimes they become so puzzled in their geography as to speak of Ethiopia as extending as far as India; their notes concerning the miraculous fauna and flora are equally Munchausian. Homer praises the Ethiopians as the "blameless race," and other writers rank them first among all men for their religious knowledge. This latter notion may have had its origin from a priestly desire to consider the Ethiopian reverence for the priesthood<6F>which had the power of life and death over the kings<67>as the Divinely ordained primitive custom, or it may have sprung from the fact that the Egyptian "Land of the Gods" was partly situated in Southern Abyssinia. It is suggestive that the Hebrew prophets never fell into these common errors but invariably "gave a very good idea of geographical and political conditions" (W. Max Muller). The oldest important historic document referring to Ethiopia is from the IVth Dynasty of Egypt. when Sneferu laid waste the land, capturing 7,000 slaves and 100,000 cattle. In the VIth Dynasty the Egyptians reached as far south as the Second Cataract and brought back some dwarfs, but did not establish any permanent control. In the XIIth Dynasty Egypt\'s real occupation of Ethiopia began. Usertesen III records his contempt by saying: "The Negro obeys as soon as the lips are opened. They are not valiant, they are miserable, both tails and bodies!" Notwithstanding this satiric reference, these naked Ethiopians clad in skins and tails of wild animals, compelled the Pharaoh to make several campaigns before he could establish a frontier at the Second Cataract beyond which no Negro could come without a permit. That the natives were not cowardly may be seen from the songs of triumph over their subjection and from the fact that every later Pharaoh encouraged them to enlist in his army, until finally the very hieroglyphic for archer became a Nubian. The XVIIIth Dynasty pushed the frontier beyond the Third Cataract into the splendid Dongola district and often boasts of the rich tribute from Ethiopia., in one case 2,667 "manloads" of ivory, ebony, perfumes, gold and ostrich feathers besides cattle, wild beasts and slaves. The chairs of ivory and the jewelry sometimes shown seem barbaric in style but excellent in workmanship. Copper and bronze factories and great iron foundries date also to a very early time in Ethiopia (PSBA, XXXIII, 96). The Ethiopian gold mines where hundreds of criminals toiled, with ears and noses mutilated, made gold in Egypt in the 15th century BC as "common as dust." The choicest son of the Pharaoh, next to him in power, was proud to be called "Prince of Kush." Amenhotep IV (1370 BC), the religious reformer, built his second greatest temple (the only one of his works now existent) in Nubia. The XIXth Dynasty sought to colonize Ethiopia., and some of the most magnificent temples ever built by man can be seen as far south as the Fourth Cataract. For over five centuries Egyptian rule was maintained, until about 1000 BC a war for independence began which was so successful that the victorious Ethiopian kings finally carried their armies against Thebes and Memphis and for a century (763-663) ruled all Egypt from Napata<74>which in religious architecture became the Southern Thebes<65>and for another century (and even at times during the Ptolemaic era) controlled upper Egypt. While the leaders of this revolution were doubtless descendants of exiled priests from Thebes, yet the mixture of Ethiopian blood is plainly discernible and is perhaps also shown in their "Puritan morals" (Petrie, III, 276) and spirit of clemency, so different from the legitimate Pharaohs. Shabaka = So (715-707) and Taharka = Tirhaqah (693-667), both mentioned in the Bible, were the last great kings of Ethiopia. When Tanutamen, son of Shabaka and nephew of Taharka (667-664), was forced by Ashurbanipal to give up his claim to Egypt and retire to the south, the influence of Ethiopia ceased. Cambyses (525-521) made Ethiopia tributary clear to the Third Cataract (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,4);">Eze 30:4</a>), while King Ergamenes, near the close of the 3rd century BC, broke forever the power of the Egyptian priesthood. Though the Romans held a nominal protectorate over Ethiopia, it was of so little importance as to be scarcely ever mentioned. After being expelled from Egypt the Ethiopians still continued to honor the gods of Thebes, but, as foreign influence ceased, the representations of this worship became more and more African and barbaric. Even after Christianity had triumphed everywhere else, the Nubians, as late as the 5th century AD, were still coming to Philae to give honor to the statue of Isis (Erman). In the 6th century AD a native king, Silko, established a Christian kingdom in the Northern Sudan with Dongola as its capital. This raised somewhat the culture of the land. In the next century the Arabs made Nubia tributary, though it took an immense army to do it. For six centuries thereafter Islam demanded a tribute of 360 slaves annually, and other treasure, though innumerable campaigns were necessary to collect it. The Nubian kings refused all overtures to become Moslems, and Christian churches multiplied along the banks of the Nile. In the 8th century Egypt was invaded by 100,000 Nubians to repay an insult given to the Coptic patriarch and to the sacred pictures in the Egyptian Christian churches. In the 13th century, David, king of Nubia, not only withheld tribute but invaded Egypt. He was terribly punished, however, by the Arabs, who sacked churches and tortured Christians clear to the Fourth Cataract. This was the beginning of the end. By the close of the 15th century almost every Christian altar was desolate and every church destroyed.<P>3. Bible References:<P>Winckler long ago proved that the Assyrians designated a district in Northern Arabia by the same name which they ordinarily applied to Ethiopia. Skinner (Genesis, 1910, 208) thinks the Hebrews also made this distinction and were therefore entirely right when they spoke of Nimrod as "son of Gush," since the earliest Babylonian dynasty had as a matter of fact a Semitic origin. There may be other references to an Arabian district, but undoubtedly the African Kush must be the one generally designated. This is referred to once in the New Testament and over 40 times in the Old Testament. Many secular monuments speak of the high honor paid to women in Ethiopia., and Candace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,27);">Ac 8:27</a>) seems certainly to have been an official or dynastic name for a number of Ethiopian queens. One of the pyramids of Meroe was Candace\'s<>her picture can still be seen at Kaga<67>and to her belonged the wonderful treasure of jewelry found in 1834 by Ferlini and now in the Berlin museum. Petronius (24 BC) raided Ethiopia for Rome and stormed the capital, but Candace sent ambassadors to Rome and obtained peace. The "eunuch" who may have been the treasurer of this very queen was probably "no black proselyte but a Jew who had placed the business ability of his race at the service of the Nubian woman" (W. Max Muller). In the Old Testament Ethiopia is spoken of with great respect, and several Bible characters are named Cushi (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,21);">2Sa 18:21</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,14);">Jer 36:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,1);">Ze 1:1</a>); even Moses married an Ethiopian wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,1);">Nu 12:1</a>), and Ebed-melek the Ethiopian is helper to Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,7);">Jer 38:7</a>). It is a great land situated beyond the frontiers of the civilized world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,10);">Eze 29:10</a>), yet with Jews in its farthest district (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,10);">Ze 3:10</a>). It is very rich (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,19);">Job 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,3);">Isa 43:3</a>); is engaged in trade with Arabia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,14);">45:14</a>), and its citizens are proud of their nationality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',87,4);">Ps 87:4</a>). Again and again the relation of Cush with Sheba is mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,7,28);">Ge 10:7, 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,3);">Isa 43:3</a>, etc.), which latter statement is strangely corroborated by the recently discovered Sabean inscriptions throughout Abyssinia. Its typical inhabitants have a color as unchangeable as the leopard\'s spots (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,23);">Jer 13:23</a>), are careless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,9);">Eze 30:9</a>), but very warlike (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,5);">Eze 38:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,9);">Jer 46:9</a>), giving "infinite" strength to Nineveh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,9);">Na 3:9</a>), but who can be resisted by Israel because of Yahweh\'s favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,8);">2Ch 16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,5);">Isa 20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,6);">36:6</a>). Yahweh is interested in the history of Ethiopia as well as Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,3);">Isa 20:3</a>), loves the children of Ethiopia as the children of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,7);">Am 9:7</a>), and the time is coming when Ethiopia shall yet stretch out her hands to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,31);">Ps 68:31</a>). Cush and Mizraim are correctly mentioned as political unit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,4);">Isa 20:4</a>f), and several kings of Ethiopia are mentioned by name<6D>Zerah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,9);">2Ch 14:9</a>), So (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,4);">2Ki 17:4</a>) and Tirhaqah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,9);">2Ki 19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,9);">Isa 37:9</a>). The statements concerning these kings have been pronounced incorrect because it seemed that Zerah could not possibly be an equivalent for Usarkon or So for Shabaka<6B>the known kings of Egypt at those periods<64>and also because the reigns of Shabaka and Tirhaqah did not begin until after the dates at which in the Hebrew records they were called "kings of Ethiopia."<P>Recent, information, however, makes it clear that both Shabaka and Tirhaqah exercised royal authority in the Delta before they were given it farther south, and that the Hebrew transcription of names was very easy and natural. (See W. M. Flinders Petrie, Hist of Egypt, III, 280-309; Egypt and Israel (1911), 76-78.)<P>4. The Church in Abyssinia:<P>Sem influence entered Abyssinia at least as early as the 7th or 8th century BC (see above), and the kings of Axum claimed descent from Menelek, Son of Solomon, but the first certain information concerning the kingdom of Axum comes from the middle of the 1st century AD, at which time Axum was a rich capital, and its ancient sacredness was so great that from that period clear down to the 19th century the kings of Abyssinia would travel there to be crowned. There is no reason to doubt that Frumentius (circa 330 AD) was the first to introduce Christianity. Merope of Tyre, according to the often-told story, when returning from India with his two nephews, was captured and killed off the Ethiopian coast, but the two boys were carried to the Abyssinian king; and although one perished the other, Frumentius, succeeded in converting the king and his people to Christianity, and later was himself consecrated by Athanasius of Alexandria as the first Metropolitan of Ethiopia, taking as his title Abu Salama ("Father of Peace"). From that time until now, with but one single interruption, the Abuna ("Father") has always been appointed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and, since the 13th century, has been by legal necessity not a native Abyssinian, but a Copt.<P>After the Council of Chalcedon (450 AD) condemned all as heretics who did not accept the "double nature" of Christ, both the Egyptian and Abyssinian churches separated themselves from Rome, believing so thoroughly in the Deity of Christ as to refuse to accept His humanity as essential "nature." In the 5th century a great company of monks entered Abyssinia, since which time the monastic tendency has been strongly marked. About 525, Caleb, king of Axum, attacked the Homeritae across the Red Sea<65>either for their persecution of Christians or their interference with his trade<64>and for some half a century controlled a large district of Arabia. At this time Abyssinian trade was extensive. Greek influence was also felt, and the Christian cathedral at Axum was a magnificent work of architectural article The early churches were protected by heavy surrounding walls and strong towers. The invasion of Africa by Islam in the 7th century required 300 years of battle for the preservation of Abyssinian liberty and Christian faith. It alone of all the African states succeeded in preserving both<74>but its civilization was destroyed, and for 1,000 years it was completely hidden from the eyes of its fellow-Christians in Europe. Occasionally during those centuries a rumor would reach Europe of a "Prester John" somewhere in the Far East who was king of a Christian people, yet it was a thrilling surprise to Christendom when Pedro de Cavilham in the 15th century discovered this lost Christian kingdom of Abyssinia completely surrounded by infidel pagans and bigoted Mohammedans. When, early in the 16th century, the Negus of Abyssinia sent an envoy to the king of Portugal asking his help against the Moslems, the appeal was met with favor. In 1520 the Portuguese fleet arrived in the Red Sea and its chaplain, Father Francisco Alvarez, 20 years later stirred the Christian world by his curious narratives. Not long afterward, when the Arabs actually invaded the country, another Portuguese fleet was sent with a body of military, commanded by Christopher de Gama. These 450 musketeers and the six little pieces of artillery gave substantial aid to the endangered state. Father Lobe tells the story. The Abyssinian king must have been grateful for such help, yet presently the strenuous efforts of the Portuguese clergy to convert him and his people to the Roman Catholic faith became so offensive that Bermudez, the most zealous missionary, was compelled to leave the country and the Jesuits who remained were mistreated. Other efforts to win the Abyssinian Christians to renounce the Monophysitic heresy and accept the doctrine and control of Rome were somewhat more successful. Early in the 17th century Father Pedro Paez, an ecclesiastic of much tact, won the king fully to his faith, and under his direction many churches were erected and advantageous government works carried on. However, his successor Mendez lacked his conciliatory ability and, although a punishment of seven years\' chastisement was proclaimed against recalcitrants, the opposition became so violent and universal that the Negus Sysenius finally abdicated in favor of his son Fasilidas, who in 1633 sent all Jesuits out of the country and resumed official relations with the Egyptian church. Since then, although many efforts have been made, no controlling influence has ever been obtained by Rome. Once more, for over a century, Abyssinia became completely hidden from the eyes of the outside world until James Bruce, the explorer, visited the country, 1770-72, and made such a report as to arouse again the interest of Christendom. The translation of the Bible, which was made by his Abyssinian guide, was adopted and published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and in 1829 the Church Missionary Society sent out Gobat and Kugler as the first Protestant missionaries to Abyssinia, who were followed shortly after by some Roman Catholics. Owing chiefly to the opposition of native priests the Protestants were expelled in 1838 and the expulsion of the Roman missionaries followed in 1854. In 1858 a Copt who had been influenced as a youth by a Protestant school, became Abuna, and Protestant missionaries were again admitted, but succeeded in doing little permanent work owing to the political disturbances while King Kesa (Theodore)<29>the Napoleon of Africa<63>was attempting to consolidate native resources and build up an African empire. At this period the influence of Great Britain began to be felt in Abyssinia. After the suicide of Theodore (1868) and especially after Menelek II had succeeded in making himself emperor (1899), this influence became great. During the 20th century missionaries have been able to work in Abyssinia without much danger, but the Moslem influence is so preponderating that little has been attempted and little done. The religion of the Crescent seems now almost completely victorious over the strange land which for so many centuries, alone and unhelped, held aloft in Africa the religion of the Cross. (See especially The Mohammedan World of Today, by Zwemer, Wherry, and Barton, 1907; Missionary World, 1910-11.)<P>5. Beliefs and Practices:<P>In creed, ritual, and practice, the Abyssinian church agrees generally with the Coptic. There are seven sacraments and prayers for the dead, high honor is paid to the Virgin Mary and to the saints; fasts and pilgrimages are in much favor; adults are baptized by immersion and infants by affusion. A blue cord is placed about the neck at baptism. An extract from one of the Gospels, a silver ring, an ear pick and a small cross, often very artistic, are also worn about the neck. No charms or beads or crucifixes ("graven images") are worn. The Jewish as well as the Christian Sabbath is kept sacred, and on an average every other day during the year is a religious holiday. The people are ignorant and superstitious, yet impress observers with their grave kindliness and seem at times eager to learn. The clergy can marry before but not after ordination. Priests must be able to read and recite the Nicene Creed (the "Apostles\' Creed" is not known), but do not understand the Ge\'ez language in which the liturgies are written. They conduct many and long services and attend to the ceremonial purifications. Deacons must also be able to read; they prepare the bread for the Holy Sacrament and in general help the priests. The monastic clergy have chief care of the education of the young<6E>though this consists mainly in Scripture reading<6E>and their head, the Etshege, ranks next to the Abuna.<P>The ancient churches were often basilican, but modern native churches are quadrangular or circular. The Holy of Holies always stands in the center, and is supposed to contain an ark. Tradition declares that the ark in the cathedral at Axum is the original ark from Solomon\'s temple. An outer court surrounds the body of the church, which is freely used by laymen and as a place of entertainment for travelers. Very crude pictures are common. These show both Egyptian and European influence, and are probably not merely decorations but have a relation, as in Egyptian thought, to spiritual advancement in this life or the next (compare Budge, Introduction to the Lives of Maba\' Segon and Gabra Krestos, 1898). The services consist of chanting psalms, reading Scriptures and reciting liturgies.<P>6. Abyssinian Literature:<P>The Abyssinian canon (Semanya Ahadu) consists of 46 Old Testament and 35 New Testament books. Besides the usually accepted books, they count Shepherd of Hermas, Synodos (Canons), Epistles of Clement, Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 4 Ezra, Ascension of Isaiah, Book of Adam, Joseph ben Gorion, Enoch and Jubilees. The Ethiopic texts of the two latter give these books in the most ancient form, and their discovery has led to much valuable discussion. The use of the Ge\'ez language in which these are written dates back to a time shortly before the introduction of Christianity. From the 5th to 7th centuries AD, the literature is almost exclusively translated from Greek writers or adaptations of such writings. Quotations abound from Basil, Gregory, Ignatius, Athanasius, Epiphanus, Cyril, Dioscurus, etc. The second literary period begins 1268, when the old "Solomonic" Dynasty regained its place and continues to the present; it consists mainly of translations from the Arabic. In both periods the topics are few: liturgies, hymns, sermons, the heroic deeds of the saints and their orthodoxy. Each saint uses the four Holy Gospels, as David his four stones, to kill every heretical Goliath (compare Goodspeed and Crum, Patrologia Orientalis, IV, 1908). A large place is given to miracles and magic prayers and secret names (compare Budge, Miracles of the Virgin Mary,1900,and "Magic Book of Disciples," JAOS, 1904). The legends or histories are occasionally well written, as the famous "Magda Queen of Sheba" (English Translation by Mrs. J. Van Vorst, 1907), but usually are as inferior in style as in thought (compare Littmann, Bibliotheca-Abessinica, 1904). A few specimens of "popular literature" and many Abyssinian "proverbs" are extant (JAOS, XXIII, 51-53; XXV, 1-48; Jour. asiatique, IV, 487-95).<P>7. Nubian Literature:<P>The modern Nubian does not write, and his ancient predecessors wrote but little. Even in the days of the Pharaohs the hieroglyphics in most Nubian temples were written so poorly as to be almost unintelligible, and in later pre-Christian monuments put up by native rulers the usual tablets accompanying the Divine tableaux are often left blank. Some centuries before our era the necessary monumental inscriptions began to be composed in the Nubian language, though still written in hieroglyphics. Shortly after the beginning of the Christian era a native cursive writing begins to be used on the monuments, closely resembling the Egyptian demotic, from which undoubtedly its alphabet was derived (F. L. Griffith in Areika). Finally, after Nubia became Christian (6th century), another native system appears written in Greek and Coptic letters. Lepsius found two such inscriptions on the Blue Nile and numbers have since been discovered, but until 1906 these were as unreadable as the other two forms of Nubian writing. In that year Dr. Karl Schmidt found in Cairo two precious fragments of parchment which had been owned by some Nubian Christians of probably the 8th or 9th century. One of these contained a selection of passages from the New Testament<6E>as was ascertained by comparing it with the Greek and Coptic Scriptures. By the aid of bilingual cartouches several proper names were soon deciphered. New inscriptions are now being brought to light every few months, and undoubtedly the translation of this important tongue, which contains the "history of an African Negro dialect for some 2,000 years" and also the religious history of the long-lost Christian church of the Sudan, will soon be accomplished. The other fragment found by Schmidt was a curious Hymn of the Cross, well representing the ancient Ethiopian hymnology:<P>"The cross is the hope of Christians; The cross is the resurrection of the dead; The cross is the physician of the sick; The cross is the liberator of the slave," etc.<p><3E>James H. Breasted in Biblical World, December, 1908; Nation, June 2, 1910.<P>8. Exploration:<P>Scientific observation of Nubia began with Burckhardt (1813), Cailliaud, and Waddington (1821), and especially with Lepsius (1844), but excavation in the proper sense was begun by the University of Chicago (1905-7), followed (1907-10) by expeditions sent out by the Royal Academy of Berlin, University of Pennsylvania, University of Liverpool, and Oxford University.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the works quoted above, among recent Encyclopedias, see especially Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) and New Sck-Herz; and among the more recent books: James T. Bent, The Sacred City of the Ethiopians (1893); Glaser, Die Abessinier in Arabien und Afrika (1895); A. B. Wylde, Modern Abyssinia (1901); R. P. Skinner, Abyssinia of Today (1906); Th. Noeldeke, Die athiopische Litteratur (1906); Louis J. Morie, Les civilisations africaines (1904); Littmann, Geschichte der athiopischen Litteratur (1907); W. Max Muller, Aethiopien (1904); Petrie, Hist of Egypt (1895-1901); J. H. Breasted, Temples of Lower Nubia (1906); Monuments of Sudanese Nubia (1908); A. E. Weigall, Report of Antiquities of Lower Nubia (1906); E. A. W. Budge, The Egyptian Sudan (1907); Kromrei, Glaubenslehre und Gebrauche der alteren abessinischen Kirche (1895); M. Fowler, Christian Egypt (1901); Dowling, Abyssinian Church (1909); "Meroe," the City of the Ethiopians, by Liverpool University Expedition (1909-10); University of Pennsylvania Publications, Egyptian Dept., Eckley B. Coxe, Jr., Expedition to Nubia, I-IV (1909-11); Archeological Survey of Nubia; and Egyptian government reports.``26';
isbe[3238]='Ethiopian Eunuch`e-thi-o\'-pi-an u\'-nuk eunouchos:<P>A man who occupied a leading position as treasurer at the court of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and who was converted and baptized by Philip the deacon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'27-39\');">Ac 8:27-39</a>). Being a eunuch, he was not in the full Jewish communion (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>), but had gone up to Jerusalem to worship, probably as a proselyte at the gate. During his return journey he spent the time in studying Isaiah, the text which he used being that of the Septuagint (compare Professor Margoliouth, article "Ethiopian Eunuch" in HDB). On meeting with Philip the deacon, who was on his way to Gaza, he besought of him to shed light upon the difficulties of the Scripture he was reading, and through this was converted. The place of his baptism, according to Jerome and Eusebius, was Bethsura: by some modern authorities, eg. G A. Smith, it has been located at or near Gaza. The verse containing the confession of the eunuch, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," is omitted either in whole or in part by some texts, but Hilgenfeld, Knowling, etc., regard it as quite in keeping with the context. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Revised Version (British and American) text, etc., uphold the omission. The verse occurs in the body of the King James Version, but is given only as a footnote in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version. The diligence with which the eunuch pursued his reading, the earnestness with which he inquired of Philip, and the promptness with which he asked for baptism<73>all testify to the lofty nature of his character.``88';
isbe[3239]='Ethiopian Woman``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSHITE+WOMAN">CUSHITE WOMAN</a>`1';
isbe[3240]='Ethiopic Language`e-thi-op\'-ik lan\'-gwaj:<P>The language commonly called Ethiopic is the language in which the inscriptions of the kings of the ancient Aksumitic (Axumite) empire and most of the literature of Christian Abyssinia are written. It is called lesana Ge\'ez, "the tongue of Ge\'ez," by the Abyssinians themselves, most probably because it was originally the dialect of the Ge\'ez tribe, who in antiquity must have dwelt in or near Aksum (Axum).<P>The names Ethiopia and Ethiopians have been used in many different meanings by various peoples. To the Greeks, Ethiopia was a country south of Egypt, and in this sense the word is generally used in the histories of Egypt. The Ethiopian kings came from that country which is now called Nubia in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In Hellenistic times the term received a wider meaning, and Ethiopia was the name of all the land between the Red Sea and the Nile, south of Egypt proper. Sometimes "Indian" and "Ethiopian" were synonymous, or Ethiopia was even considered to stretch as far as to the Atlantic Ocean in the west. But of these countries the Greeks and Romans had very little exact geographical knowledge.<P>The fact that Ethiopia at some time meant the country between the Red Sea and the Nile prompted the pagan kings of Aksum in Northern Abyssinia to adopt this name for their own country and to give it a narrower sense than the one which it had at that time. Therefore in the bilingual inscription of King Aeizanas (\'Ezana), the word Aithiopia, is a rendering of the Semitic Chabashat ("Abyssinia," but here more specially referring to Northern Abyssinia). Under this same king, about 350 AD, Abyssinia became Christian; and after the Bible had been translated into the Ge\'ez language, the Abyssinians found that Ethiopia was mentioned there several times. Their national pride was flattered by the thought that their country should be referred to in the Holy Scriptures, and for this reason they were all the more ready to apply the name in question to their own country. Up to the present day they call it Ethiopia (\'Itiopiya), and themselves Ethiopians; their legends speak even of an ancestor Itiopis.<P>We may then, if we choose to do so, speak of a Nubian and an Abyssinian Ethiopia, but the term "Ethiopic language" has come into general usage as an equivalent of lesana Ge\'ez, and should therefore be applied only to the ancient literary language of Abyssinia.<P>This language is closely allied to the languages of Southern Arabia: it represents the southwestern branch of the southern division of the Semitic languages. The most important branch of this division is, of course, the Arabic language, and with this Ethiopic has a great deal in common. On the other hand there are many words and forms in Ethiopic which are not found in Arabic, but in Hebrew or even in Babylonian and Assyrian. It has been held that the home of the Semites was in Africa; and if that were the case, the people who spoke the Ethiopic language may never have migrated very much. But the majority of scholars who have expressed their opinion upon the subject believe that Asia was the home of the Semites; this is the opinion of the writer of this article also. Then the Semitic inhabitants of Abyssinia must have come from across the Red Sea. Their migration must have begun many centuries BC. It has hardly ever stopped, since Arabs in smaller, and sometimes in larger, numbers have been drifting into Abyssinia at all periods.<P>The Semitic conquerors of Abyssinia found peoples of two different races in the country where they settled: (1) African aborigines and (2) Kushites, a branch of the Hamitic family. Their languages were different from each other and, of course, different from that of the Semites also; some of them are spoken up to the present day. When the Semites first came and formed their literary language, they did not allow the languages of the country to influence their own speech very much; but gradually this influence grew stronger and stronger, and it is very evident in the modern Semitic languages of Abyssinia. An outline of the history of the Ethiopic language is as follows: Its oldest monument known so far is the Semitic part of the bilingual inscription of King \'Ezana, which dates from the first half of the 4th century AD. Before that time Ethiopic must have been spoken, without doubt, but it was not written: Greek and Sabean were written instead. At the time of King \'Ezana the knowledge of the Sabean language seems to have been very little; but Sabean script was still used. The Semitic part of the inscription just mentioned is in the Ethiopic language, but carved once in Sabean script and a second time in the native Ethiopic script which had been derived from the Sabean. In the first of these two "editions" two or three Sabean words are used instead of their Ethiopic equivalents. A few other ancient inscriptions found in the Aksumitic empire may also be dated from the same period.<P>Possibly in the same 4th century the translation of the Bible into Ethiopic was begun; and this fact marks the beginning of a real Ethiopic literature. Perhaps the Psalms and the Gospels were translated first, being most needed in the service of the Christian church. The different books of the Scriptures were translated by different men, some of whom rendered literally, some more according to the sense, some having a good, some only a poor, knowledge of the language from which, and the language into which, they translated. Both Testaments were translated from the Greek by men whose mother-tongue was probably Aramaic. This is proved by the presence of Greek and Aramaic words and by the forms in which the Hebrew names appear in Ethiopic transliteration. The oldest influences which the Ethiopic language experienced were therefore:<P>(1) Sabean; a number of technical terms may have been adopted by the ancient Aksumites from the Sabean at the time when this was their literary language;<P>(2) African, i.e. Kushite and native African; the Semitic conquerors found a great many new animals and trees or plants, which they did not know, in their new country, and in many cases they adopted their African names;<P>(3) Aramaic, i.e. Jewish and Christian; these are mostly words referring to religious or theological matters;<P>(4) Greek; some of the Greek words found in Ethiopic refer to religious matters in the same way as the Aramaic, others denote objects or ideas which the ancient Abyssinians received from the civilized world, others again are mere transliterations of Greek words in the Bible and other religious books, which the translators did not understand.<P>The time of the Aksumitic empire was the time when the Ethiopic language flourished. This empire was overthrown probably in the 7th or 8th century AD; and we know very little indeed of the history of Abyssinia from about 700 until about 1300 AD. In 1270 the so-called Solomonic Dynasty came to the throne again; the seat of the empire, however, was no longer Aksum but Gondar, north of Lake Tsana. Meanwhile the literary language had become a dead language; new dialects had sprung up and taken its place in everyday conversation. But Ge\'ez continued to be the sacred language; it was the language of the Bible and of the church, and when in the 14th and 15th centuries a revival of Abyssinian literature came about, the literary language was Ge\'ez. But it was influenced by the new dialects, especially by the Amharic, the language of Amhara, where Gondar was situated and where most of the books were written or translated. This influence affected in particular the spelling of Ge\'ez in those books which dealt with religious matters and which therefore had to be written in pure Ge\'ez. In historical books a great many words were taken from the Amharic; and this language, called lesana tarik, "the tongue of the chronicles," has often the appearance of mixed language.<P>In the 16th and 17th centuries European missionaries came to Abyssinia and tried to convert the monophysite Abyssinian Christians to Romanism. In order to come into close contact with the common people they used Amharic as a literary language, so that everybody, not only the learned, might understand their books. Their example was followed by the defenders of the native church; and since that time Amharic has become a recognized literary language in Abyssinia, although Ge\'ez is still considered the real language of the church.<P>Amharic was derived from a sister language of the Ethiopic; the direct descendant of the Ethiopic language is modern Tigrina; a language derived from a dialect very closely related to Ge\'ez is modern Tigre.<p>LITERATURE.<P>Ludolf, Historia Aethiopica, 1681; id, Commentarius ad suam historiam Aethiopicam, 1691; Dillmann, Grammatik der athiopischen Sprache (translated into English by Crichton) 1907, Intro; Littmann, Geschichte der athiopischen Litteratur, 1907.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHIOPIA">ETHIOPIA</a>`102';
isbe[3241]='Ethiopic Versions`e-thi-op\'-ik vur\'-shuns:<P>Christianity was introduced into Abyssinia by Tyrian missionaries, who probably spoke Greek, about the time of Constantine the Great. The Bible was translated into Ethiopic, or, to use the native name, Ge\'ez, the Old Testament being from the Septuagint, between the 4th and 5th centuries, by various hands, though the work was popularly ascribed to Frumentius, the first bishop. The fact of the Scriptures having been translated into Ethiopic was known to Chrysostom (Hom. II, in Joannem). The versions thus made were revised some time about the 14th century, and corrected by means of the Massoretic Text. The Ethiopic Scriptures contain the books found in the Alexandrine recension with the exception of the Books of Maccabees; but their importance lies in their pseudepigraphic writings, the Asc Isaiah, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. The 1st edition of the New Testament appeared at Rome in 1545-49 (reprinted in Walton), but a critical edition has yet to be made; one issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1830 contains many errors. The Old Testament canonical books and Apocrypha have been edited by Dillmann (the Octoteuch and 1-4 Kings and Apocrypha), Bachmann (died 1894) (Isa, Lam, Ob and Mal), and Ludolph (Pss). The Psalter has been often printed from 1513 on. The Book of Enoch was first translated by Richard Laurence and published at Oxford in 1821, but the standard editions are those of Dillmann (Leipzig, 1853) and R. H. Charles (Oxford, 1893). The importance of this work lies in the fact that "the influence of Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books taken together" (Charles, 41). Not only the phraseology and ideas, but the doctrines of the New Testament are greatly influenced by it. Of the canonical books and Apocrypha the manuscripts are too poor and too late to be of any value for the criticism of the Greek text.``189';
isbe[3242]='Ethma`eth\'-ma (Ethma), the Revised Version (British and American)<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NOOMA">NOOMA</A> (which see).``1';
isbe[3243]='Ethnan`eth\'-nan (\'ethnan, "gift" or "hire"; Ethnadi):<P>A Judahite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,7);">1Ch 4:7</a>).``1';
isbe[3244]='Ethnarch`eth\'-nark (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,32);">2Co 11:32</a> margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOVERNOR">GOVERNOR</a>`1';
isbe[3245]='Ethni`eth\'-ni (\'ethni, "gift"):<P>An ancestor of Asaph, of the Gershom branch of the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,41);">1Ch 6:41</a>).``1';
isbe[3246]='Ethnography; Ethnology`eth-nog\'-ra-fi, eth-nol\'-o-ji.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABLE+OF+NATIONS">TABLE OF NATIONS</a>`1';
isbe[3247]='Eubulus`u-bu\'-lus (Euboulos, literally, "of good counsel," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,21);">2Ti 4:21</a>):<P>One of the members of the church in Rome at the time of Paul\'s second imprisonment in that city.<P>The apostle mentions how, at his first answer to the charges brought against him at the emperor\'s tribunal, the Roman Christians as a whole proved disloyal to him "no one took my part, but all forsook me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,16);">2Ti 4:16</a>). In these circumstances when the desertion of Paul by the Christians in Rome was so disheartening, it is pleasing to find that there were some among them who were true, and Eubulus was one of these. Paul therefore in writing the last of all his epistles sends to Timothy a greeting from Eubulus.<P>Nothing more is known in regard to Eubulus. As his name is Greek, he was probably a Gentile by birth. John Rutherfurd``1';
isbe[3248]='Eucharist`u\'-ka-rist.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD\'S+SUPPER">LORD\'S SUPPER</a>`1';
isbe[3249]='Eumenes II`u\'-me-nez (Eumenes, "well-disposed"):<P>King of Pergamus, son and successor of Attalus I (197 BC). He is mentioned in the Apocrypha (1Macc 8:8) in connection with the league which Judas Maccabeus made with the Romans. As their ally in the war against Antiochus the Great and in recognition of his signal service at the decisive battle of Magnesia (190 BC), Eumenes II was rewarded with such extensive tracts of country as raised him at once from comparative insignificance to be the sovereign of a great state. The statement in the Apocrypha describing his extension of territory differs from those of Livy, Polybius and Appian, and cannot be correct.<P>The Romans are said to have taken "India, and Media and Lydia" from Antiochus and to have given them to Eumenes II. Antiochus never had any possessions in India nor had any earlier king of Syria. He was obliged to give up only the countries on the side of Taurus toward Rome. No suggestion for the reading "India" in the narrative has met with acceptance (it may possibly have been a copyist\'s error for "Ionia"; see Livy xxxvii.44). Eumenes II cultivated the Roman alliance carefully but became suspected in connection with the affairs of Perseus, the last king of Macedonia. He never came to an open rupture with the Romans, and died in 159 BC, after a reign of 39 years.``79';
isbe[3250]='Eunatan`u-na\'-tan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENNATAN">ENNATAN</a>`1';
isbe[3251]='Eunice`u-ni\'-se, u\'-nis (Eunike, is the correct reading, and not Euneike, which is read by the Textus Receptus of the New Testament of Stephen, three syllables: Eu-ni-ke, literally, "conquering well"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>): The mother of Timothy.<P>1. Eunice\'s Home:<P>Her name is Greek and this might lead to the inference that she was a Gentile by birth, but such a conclusion would be wrong, for we read in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">Ac 16:1</a> that she was a Jewess. Her husband however was a heathen Greek She was in all probability a daughter of Lois, the grandmother of Timothy, for both of those Christian women are spoken of, in one breath, by Paul, and this in high terms of commendation.<P>2. How She Trained Her Son:<P>Timothy had not been circumcised in childhood, probably because of his father\'s being a Gentile; but the mother and the grandmother did all that lay in their power to train Timothy in the fear of God and in the knowledge of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. "From a child" Eunice had taught her boy to "know the holy scriptures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,15);">2Ti 3:15</a> the King James Version). It is right therefore to connect this home training of Timothy in the fear of God, with his and his mother\'s conversion to the gospel. His name Timothy<68>chosen evidently not by the father, but by Eunice<63>signifies "one who fears God." The "wisdom" of the Hebrews consisted not in worldly prudence or in speculative philosophy, but in the fear of the Lord, as is shown in such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',111,10);">Ps 111:10</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,\'1-\');">Job 28</a>, and in Proverbs throughout. His name, as well as his careful home training, shows how he was prepared to give a welcome both to Paul and to the gospel proclaimed by him, when the apostle in his first great missionary journey came to Lystra, one of the cities of Lycaonia or Southern (?) Galatia, where Eunice and her family lived. This is implied in the account of Paul\'s second missionary journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">Ac 16:1</a>), where we read that he came to Lystra, and found there a certain disciple named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman who was a Jewess, who believed.<P>3. Her Conversion to Christ:<P>It is therefore certain that Eunice and Timothy were not brought to a knowledge of the gospel at this time, but that they were already Christians; she, "a believer"; he, "a disciple." This evidently means that Eunice, Lois and Timothy had been converted on Paul\'s former visit to Lystra. This conclusion is confirmed in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,11);">2Ti 3:11</a>, where Paul recalls to Timothy the fact that he had fully known the persecutions and afflictions which came to him at Lystra. The apostle repeats it, that Timothy knew what persecutions he then endured. Now this persecution occurred on Paul\'s first visit to that city. Eunice was therefore one of those who on that occasion became "disciples." And her faith in Christ, and her son\'s faith too, were genuine, and stood the test of the "much tribulation" of which Paul warned them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,22);">Ac 14:22</a> the King James Version); and on Paul\'s next visit to Lystra, Eunice had the great joy and satisfaction of seeing how the apostle made choice of her son to be his companion in his missionary work. Eunice is not afterward mentioned in the New Testament; though it is a possible thing that there may be reference to her in what is said about widows and the children of widows in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,4,5);">1Ti 5:4-5</a>.``155';
isbe[3252]='Eunuch`u\'-nuk (caric; spadon; eunouchos):<P>Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where "officer" and "chamberlain" are found as renderings (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,36);">Ge 37:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</a>, where caric is applied to married men; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,4);">Es 4:4</a>). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'23-25\');">Le 22:23-25</a>). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,16);">Le 21:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,24);">22:24</a>). That ban, however, was later removed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',56,4,5);">Isa 56:4-5</a>). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,32);">2Ki 9:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,16);">Jer 41:16</a>), and (2) in military and other official posts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,15);">1Sa 8:15</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,9);">1Ki 22:9</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,6);">2Ki 8:6</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,11);">2Ki 23:11</a> the King James Version margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,12,13);">2Ki 24:12-13</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,19);">2Ki 25:19</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,1);">1Ch 28:1</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',18,8);">2Ch 18:8</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,2);">Jer 29:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',34,19);">34:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,7);">38:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,36);">Ge 37:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,2,7);">40:2, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,27);">Ac 8:27</a>). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,12);">Mt 19:12</a>), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus\' time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature: the married life is the norm of man\'s condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,5,6);">Mt 19:5-6</a>).<P>But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,12);">Mt 19:12</a>), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).<P>How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,7);">Ec 10:7</a>). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham\'s Ant, IV, 9.)<P>It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,17);">Joh 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,11);">8:11</a>). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These "make themselves eunuchs" with a high and holy purpose, "for the kingdom of heaven\'s sake"; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,11);">1Pe 2:11</a>). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual "eunuchism" because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by "the kingdom of heaven" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,4);">Joh 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,29,33);">1Co 7:29, 33</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,5);">9:5</a> and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1ff).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Driver," Deuteronomy," ICC, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>; Commentary on Matthew, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72ff; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294ff; Encyclopedia Brit, article "Eunuch."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>`47';
isbe[3253]='Euodia`u-o\'-di-a (Euodia, literally, "prosperous journey)."<P>1. Women Prominent in Church at Philippi:<P>The Textus Receptus of the New Testament of Stephen reads Euodia, which means "fragrant," <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,2);">Php 4:2</a>. King James Version has transformed Euodia into Euodias, which is a man\'s name. The mistake is rectified in the Revised Version (British and American): A Christian woman, one of the members of the church in Philippi. She and Syntyche, who is named in the same verse, were evidently persons of note, prominent in the work of the church there. At Philippi the gospel was first preached to women <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,13);">Ac 16:13</a>, and the church was first formed among women<65>evidently in the house of Lydia <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,15,40);">Ac 16:15, 40</a>. Paul here makes a request of Euodia and Syntyche. He requests<74>the word is never used of prayer from us to God<6F>he asks, he beseeches. Euodia, and then he repeats the word, he beseeches Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord. Possibly, as Lightfoot suggests, they may have been deaconesses in the Philippian church, but whatever their position in this respect may have been, differences had arisen between them on some subject, we know not what.<P>2. The Difference Which Arose:<P>But whatever the subject in dispute was, it had become so serious that, instead of the breach being healed, matters had become chronic; and news regarding this lack of forbearance between Euodia and Syntyche had been carried to Paul in his captivity in Rome.<P>3. Paul Entreats Them:<P>The state of Christian life in the church at Philippi gave Paul almost unmingled satisfaction. He regarded with joy their faith and steadfastness and liberality. There was no false teaching, no division; among them. The only thing which could cause him any uneasiness was the want of harmony between Euodia and Syntyche. He beseeches them to give up their differences, and to live at peace in the Lord. Such is the motive which he puts before them with a view to bring about their reconciliation; to live in dispute and enmity is not worthy of those who are "in the Lord," who have been redeemed by the Lord, and whose whole life should be an endeavor to please Him.<P>4. The True Yokefellow:<P>Paul proceeds to ask a certain person, unnamed, but whom he terms "true yokefellow" to assist them, that is, to assist Euodia and Syntyche; for each of them, he says, "labored with me in the gospel." It is uncertain what is meant by "true yokefellow." He may refer to Epaphroditus, who carried the epistle from Rome to Philippi. Other names have been suggested<65>Luke, Silas, Timothy. It has been thought by some that Paul here refers to his own wife, or to Lydia. But such a suggestion is untenable, inasmuch as we know from his own words (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,8);">1Co 7:8</a>) that he was either unmarried or a widower. And the idea that the "true yokefellow" is Lydia, is equally wrong, because the word "true" is in the Greek masculine Another suggestion is that "yokefellow" is really a proper name<6D>Syzygus. If so, then the apostle addresses Syzygus; or if this is not so, then he speaks to the unnamed "true yokefellow"; and what he says is that he asks him to help Euodia and Syntyche, inasmuch as their work in the gospel was no new thing. Far from this, when Paul brought the gospel to Philippi at the first, these two Christian women had been his loyal and earnest helpers in spreading the knowledge of Christ.<P>5. The Plea for Reconciliation:<P>How very sad then that any difference should exist between them; how sad that it should last so long! He asks Clement also, and all the other Christians at Philippi, his fellow-laborers, whose names, though not mentioned by the apostle, are nevertheless in the book of life, to assist Euodia and Syntyche; he asks them all to aid in this work of reconciliation. Doubtless he did not plead in vain.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYNTYCHE">SYNTYCHE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=YOKE-FELLOW">YOKE-FELLOW</a>`155';
isbe[3254]='Eupator`u\'-pa-tor (Eupator, "of noble father"):<P>The name given to Antiochus V who had succeeded his father Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), 164 BC, while still a child under the guardianship of Lysias (1Macc 3:32; 6:17). In the absence of Philip, a friend and foster-brother of the child\'s father, whom on his deathbed he had appointed guardian for his son, Lysias continued his duty as guardian, set the king upon the throne and named him Eupator. Shortly after his accession he collected a large army and marched against Jerusalem, accompanied by Lysias, for the relief of a Syrian garrison that was hard pressed by Judas Maccabeus (1Macc 6:19ff). Judas was repulsed at Bethzacharias and after a severe struggle Bethsura was captured (1Macc 6:31-50). The Jewish force in the temple was hard pressed and indeed reduced to the last extremity (1Macc 6:53), when Lysias, hearing that his rival Philip had returned from Persia and had made himself master of Antioch (Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 5f), made a hasty peace and returned to meet Philip, whom he easily overpowered. In the following year (162 BC) Antiochus and Lysias were put to death by Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus, in requital of wrongs inflicted upon himself by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc 7:2-4; 2Macc 14:1,2; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 1).``79';
isbe[3255]='Euphrates`u-fra\'-tez (perath; Euphrates, "the good and abounding river"):<P>The longest (1,780 miles) and most important stream of Western Asia, generally spoken of in the Old Testament as "the river" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,31);">Ex 23:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,24);">De 11:24</a>).<P>Its description naturally falls into 3 divisions<6E>the upper, middle and lower. The upper division traverses the mountainous plateau of Armenia, and is formed by the junction of 2 branches, the Frat and the Murad. The Frat rises 25 miles Northeast of Erzerum, and only 60 miles from the Black Sea. The Murad, which, though the shorter, is the larger of the two, rises in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat. After running respectively 400 and 270 miles in a westerly direction, they unite near Keban Maaden, whence in a tortuous channel of about 300 miles, bearing still in a southwesterly direction, the current descends in a succession of rapids and cataracts to the Syrian plain, some distance above the ancient city of Carchemish, where it is only about 200 miles from the Northeast corner of the Mediterranean. In its course through the Armenian plateau, the stream has gathered the sediment which gives fertility to the soil in the lower part of the valley. It is the melting snows from this region which produce the annual floods from April to June.<P>The middle division, extending for about 700 miles to the bitumen wells of Hit, runs southeast "through a valley of a few miles in width, which it has eroded in the rocky surface, and which, being more or less covered with alluvial soil, is pretty generally cultivated by artificial irrigation....Beyond the rocky banks on both sides is the open desert, covered in spring with a luxuriant verdure, and dotted here and there with the black tent of the Bedouin" (Sir Henry Rawlinson). Throughout this portion the river formed the ancient boundary between the Assyrians and Hittites whose capital was at Carchemish, where there are the remains of an old bridge. The ruins of another ancient bridge occur 200 miles lower down at the ancient Thapsacus, where the Greeks forded it under Cyrus the younger. Throughout the middle section the stream is too rapid to permit of successful navigation except by small boats going downstream, and has few and insignificant tributaries. It here has, however, its greatest width (400 yds.) and depth. Lower down the water is drawn off by irrigating canals and into lagoons.<P>The fertile plain of Babylonia begins at Hit, about 100 miles above Babylon; 50 miles below Hit the Tigris and Euphrates approach to within 25 miles of each other, and together have in a late geological period deposited the plain of Shinar or of Chaldea, more definitely referred to as Babylonia. This plain is about 250 miles long, and in its broadest place 100 miles wide. From Hit an artificial canal conducts water along the western edge of the alluvial plain to the Persian Gulf, a distance of about 500 miles. But the main irrigating canals put off from the east side of the Euphrates, and can be traced all over the plain past the ruins of Accad, Babylon, Nippur, Bismya, Telloh, Erech, Ur and numerous other ancient cities. Originally the Euphrates and Tigris entered into the Persian Gulf by separate channels. At that time the Gulf extended up as far as Ur, the home of Abraham, and it was a seaport. The sediment from these rivers has filled up the head of the Persian Gulf for nearly 100 miles since the earliest monumental records. Loftus estimates that since the Christian era the encroachment has proceeded at the rate of 1 mile in 70 years. In early times Babylonia was rendered fertile by immense irrigating schemes which diverted the water from the Euphrates, which at Babylon is running at a higher level than the Tigris. A large canal left the Euphrates just above Babylon and ran due east to the Tigris, irrigating all the intervening region and sending a branch down as far south as Nippur. Lower down a canal crosses the plain in an opposite direction. This ancient system of irrigation can be traced along the lines of the principal canals "by the winding curves of layers of alluvium in the bed," while the lateral channels "are hedged in by high banks of mud, heaped up during centuries of dredging. Not a hundredth part of the old irrigation system is now in working order. A few of the mouths of the smaller canals are kept open so as to receive a limited supply of water at the rise of the river in May, which then distributes itself over the lower lying lands in the interior, almost without labor on the part of the cultivators, giving birth in such localities to the most abundant crops; but by far the larger portion of the region between the rivers is at present an arid, howling wilderness, strewed in the most part with broken pottery, the evidence of former human habitation, and bearing nothing but the camel thorn, the wild caper, the colocynth-apple, wormwood and the other weeds of the desert" (Rawlinson). According to Sir W. Willcocks, the eminent English engineer, the whole region is capable of being restored to its original productiveness by simply reproducing the ancient system of irrigation. There are, however, in the lower part of the region, vast marshes overgrown with reeds, which have continued since the time of Alexander who came near losing his army in passing through them. These areas are probably too much depressed to be capable of drainage. Below the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, the stream is called Shat el Arab, and is deep enough to float war vessels.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Fried. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 169f; Chesney, Narrative of the Euphrates Exped., I; Loftus, Travels, etc., in Chaldoea and Susiana; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, chapters xxi, xxii; Rawlinson, Herodotus, I, essay ix; Ellsworth Huntington, "Valley of the Upper Euphrates River," Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc., XXXIV, 1902.``198';
isbe[3256]='Eupolemus`u-pol\'-e-mus (Eupolemos):<P>Son of John, the son of Accos = Hakkoz (Akkos; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,4,21);">Ne 3:4, 21</a>, etc.); was one of the two deputies sent by Judas Maccabeus (1Macc 8:17; 2Macc 4:11) to Rome circa 161 BC to ask the help of the Romans against Demetrius. A critical estimate of the narrative (1Macc 8 and Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 6) of the first meeting of the representatives of the Jewish nation and the Romans will be found in Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, III, 350ff, where it is admitted that "inaccuracies of detail only confirm the general faithfulness of the impression." Keil (Comm., 14) further remarks on this point: "that the author of 1Macc wrote from twenty to twenty-five years after the destruction of Corinth (146 BC) by the Romans; and that the Jews of Palestine were not accurately informed concerning the wars of the Romans with the Greeks." Eupolemus has been identified with the historian of the same name quoted by Eusebius (Praep. Ev., IX, 17ff); but there is no evidence that the historian was of Jewish origin.``79';
isbe[3257]='Euraquilo`u-rak\'-wi-lo (the Revised Version (British and American) eurakulon; the King James Version eurokludon; the King James Version Euroclydon, u-rok\'-li-don):<P>The east or northeast wind which drove Paul\'s ship to shipwreck at Melita (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,14);">Ac 27:14</a>). The term seems to have been the sailor\'s term for that particular wind, and Paul uses the word which was used by them on that occasion. The difference in the text is explained by the fact that the term was not in general use and was therefore subject to being changed. The precise name is doubtful, but "the Euraquilo" is more easily explained as a compound of Greek euros, "east wind," and Latin aquilo, "northeast wind," hence, euraquilo, "east northeast wind." This agrees with the experience of navigators in those waters. For a summary of the various readings see Sanday, Appendices ad New Testament, 140. Full discussion of the circumstances are given in the Lives of Paul by various writers.``85';
isbe[3258]='Eutychus`u\'-ti-kus (Eutuchos, "fortunate"):<P>The story of Eutychus occurs in the "we" section of Acts, and is therefore related by an eyewitness of the incidents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'7-12\');">Ac 20:7-12</a>). On the first day of the week the Christians of Troas had met for an evening service in an upper chamber, and were joined by Paul and his company. As he was to leave in the morning, Paul "prolonged his speech until midnight." A youth named Eutychus, who was sitting at the open window, became borne down with sleep owing to the lateness of the hour, and ultimately fell through the opening from the third story. He "was taken up dead." This direct statement is evaded by De Wette and Olshausen, who translate "for dead." Meyer says this expresses the judgment of those who took him up. However, Luke, the physician, is giving his verdict, and he plainly believes that a miracle was wrought by Paul in restoring a corpse to life. The intention of Luke in relating this incident is to relate a miracle. Paul went down and embraced the youth while comforting the lamenting crowd, "Make ye no ado; for his life is in him." The interrupted meeting was resumed, the bread was broken, and the conversation continued till break of day. "And they brought the lad alive, and were not a little comforted."``78';
isbe[3259]='Evangelist`e-van\'-jel-ist:<P>This is a form of the word ordinarily translated "gospel" (euaggelion), except that here it designates one who announces that gospel to others (euaggelistes, "a bringer of good tidings"), literally, God Himself is an evangelist, for He "preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,8);">Ga 3:8</a>); Jesus Christ was an evangelist, for He also "preached the gospel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,1);">Lu 20:1</a>); Paul was an evangelist as well as an apostle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,15);">Ro 1:15</a>); Philip the deacon was an evangelist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,8);">Ac 21:8</a>); and Timothy, the pastor (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,5);">2Ti 4:5</a>); and indeed all the early disciples who, on being driven out of Jerusalem, "went everywhere preaching the word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,4);">Ac 8:4</a> the King James Version).<P>But <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,11);">Eph 4:11</a> teaches that one particular order of the ministry, distinguished from every other, is singled out by the Head of the church for this work in a distinctive sense. All may possess the gift of an evangelist in a measure, and be obligated to exercise its privilege and duty, but some are specially endued with it. "He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." It will be seen that as an order in the ministry, the evangelist precedes that of the pastor and teacher, a fact which harmonizes with the character of the work each is still recognized as doing. The evangelist has no fixed place of residence, but moves about in different localities, preaching the gospel to those ignorant of it before. As these are converted and united to Jesus Christ by faith, the work of the pastor and teacher begins, to instruct them further in the things of Christ and build them up in the faith.<P>At a later time, the name of "evangelist" was given the writers of the four Gospels because they tell the story of the gospel and because the effect of their promulgation at the beginning was very much like the work of the preaching evangelist. In character, the Gospels bear something of the same relation to the Epistles as evangelists bear to pastors and teachers.``69';
isbe[3260]='Eve in the New Testament`(Eua; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Heua):<P>"Eve" occurs twice in the New Testament and both references are in the Pauline writings. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,\'12-14\');">1Ti 2:12-14</a> woman\'s place in teaching is the subject of discussion, and the writer declares that she is a learner and not a teacher, that she is to be in quietness and not to have dominion over a man. Paul elsewhere expressed this same idea (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,34,35);">1Co 14:34-35</a>). Having stated his position in regard to woman\'s place, he used the Genesis account of the relation of the first woman to man to substantiate his teaching. Paul used this account to illustrate woman\'s inferiority to man, and he undoubtedly accepted it at its face value without any question as to its historicity. He argued that woman is inferior in position, for "Adam was first formed, then Eve." She is inferior in character, for "Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILD-BEARING">CHILD-BEARING</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,3);">2Co 11:3</a>, Paul is urging loyalty to Christ, and he uses the temptation of Eve to illustrate the ease with which one is corrupted. Paul seems to have had no thought but that the account of the serpent\'s beguiling Eve should be taken literally.``62';
isbe[3261]='Eve in the Old Testament`ev, (chawwah, "life"; Eua; the name given, as the Scripture writer says, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,20);">Ge 3:20</a> (Zoe), from her unique function as "the mother of all living"):<P>The first created woman; created secondarily from Adam (or man) as a "help meet for him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'18-22\');">Ge 2:18-22</a>), and later named and designated as the mother of the human race.<P>For the literary type and object of the story of Eve, see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADAM">ADAM, i, 2</a>.<P>1. The Names Given to Her:<P>Two names are given to her, both bestowed by the man, her mate. The first, ishshah, "woman" (literally, "man-ess"), is not strictly a name but a generic designation, referring to her relation to the man; a relation she was created to fulfill in default of any true companionship between man and the beasts, and represented as intimate and sacred beyond that between child and parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'18-24\');">Ge 2:18-24</a>). The second, Eve, or "life," given after the transgression and its prophesied results, refers to her function and destiny in the spiritual history or evolution of which she is the beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16,20);">Ge 3:16, 20</a>). While the names are represented as bestowed by the man, the remarks in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,20);">3:20b</A> may be read as the interpretative addition of the writer, suited to the exposition which it is the object of his story to make.<P>2. Her Relation to Man:<P>As mentioned in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADAM">ADAM</a>, the distinction of male and female, which the human species has in common with the animals, is given in the general (or P) account of creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">Ge 1:27</a>); and then, in the more particularized (or J) account of the creation of man, the human being is described at a point before the distinction of sex existed. This second account may have a different origin, but it has also a different object, which does not conflict with but rather supplements the other. It aims to give the spiritual meanings that inhere in man\'s being; and in this the relation of sex plays an elemental part. As spiritually related to the man-nature, the woman-nature is described as derivative, the helper rather than the initiator, yet equal, and supplying perfectly the man\'s social and affectional needs. It is the writer\'s conception of the essential meaning of mating and marriage. To bring out its spiritual values more clearly he takes the pair before they are aware of the species meanings of sex or family, while they are "naked" yet "not ashamed" <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,25);">Ge 2:25</a>, and portrays them purely as companions, individual in traits and tendencies, yet answering to each other. She is the helpmeet for him (ezer keneghdo, "a help answering to him").<P>3. Her Part in the Change of Condition:<P>True to her nature as the being relatively acted upon rather than acting, she is quicker than the man to respond to the suggestion initiated by the serpent and to follow it out to its desirable results. There is eagerness of desire in her act of taking the fruit quite different from the quasi matter-of-course attitude of the man. To her the venture presents itself wholly from the alluring side, while to him it is more like taking a desperate risk, as he detaches himself even from the will of God in order to cleave to her. All this is delicately true to the distinctive feminine and masculine natures. A part of her penalty is henceforth to be the subordinated one of the pair (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>), as if for her the values of life were to be mediated through him. At the same time it is accorded to her seed to perpetuate the mortal antipathy to the serpent, and finally to bruise the serpent\'s head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,15);">Ge 3:15</a>).<P>4. In Subsequent History:<P>After these opening chapters of Genesis, Eve is not once mentioned, nor even specifically alluded to, in the canonical books of the Old Testament. It was not in the natural scope of Old Testament history and doctrine, which were concerned with Abraham\'s descendants, to go back to so remote origins as are narrated in the story of the first pair. The name Eve occurs once in the Apocrypha, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men"; the text then going on to quote <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,18);">Ge 2:18</a>. In 1Esdras 4:20,21 there is a free quotation, or rather paraphrase, of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>. But not even in the somber complaints of 2Esdras concerning the woe that Adam\'s transgression brought upon the race (see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADAM+IN+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, iii, 2</a>) is there any hint of Eve\'s part in the matter.``66';
isbe[3262]='Eve, Gospel of`A Gnostic doctrinal treatise mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer., xxvi.2ff) in which Jesus is represented as saying in a loud voice, "I am thou, and thou art I, and wherever thou art there am I, and in all things I am sown. And from whencesoever thou gatherest me, in gathering me thou gatherest thyself."<P>Compare Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, 56.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOGIA">LOGIA</a>`1';
isbe[3263]='Even; Evening; Eventide`e\'-v\'-n, ev\'-ning, ev-\'-n-tid\' ("even," "evening," \'erebh; opsia, opse; see Thayer under the word):<P>The words are used in slightly different meanings:<P>(1) The time of sunset, the beginning of the Hebrew day, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-\');">Le 15</a>, where directions are given for the removal of uncleanness, which took place at sunset.<P>(2) Twilight, the time of approaching darkness when lamps are lighted; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,8);">Ex 30:8</a> (literally, "between the two evenings"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,4);">Jer 6:4</a> ("the shadows of the evening").<P>(3) The early part of the night (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,9);">Pr 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,7);">Eze 12:7</a>).<P>The Greek opse is literally, "late" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,19);">Mr 11:19</a>). The Greek hespera, refers evidently to sunset, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,29);">Lu 24:29</a>. "Eventide," \'eth \'erebh, "time of evening" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,2);">2Sa 11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,14);">Isa 17:14</a>). "Evening," used in connection with wolves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,6);">Jer 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,3);">Ze 3:3</a>), is from the Hebrew [\'arabhah], which may mean "darkness" or "dark cloud," but more probably "plain" or "desert."``138';
isbe[3264]='Evenings, Between the`The time of day (the Revised Version (British and American) reads "at even," margin, "between the two evenings") when the Passover lamb was slain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,6);">Ex 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,3);">Nu 9:3</a>), or the offering made of the evening portion of the continual burnt offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,4);">Nu 28:4</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVEN;+EVENING;+EVENTIDE"</a>; EVEN; EVENING; EVENTIDE</a>`1';
isbe[3265]='Event`e-vent\':<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,14);">Ec 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,2,3);">9:2-3</a>, the translation of miqreh, "what happens," "lot," "fate." The English word bore this sense at the time of the King James Version. The meaning of "result," "outcome" ekbaseis, attaches to it in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 8:8</span>, "events of seasons," the Revised Version (British and American) "issues."``1';
isbe[3266]='Everlasting`ev-er-last\'-ing (olam, \'adh; aidios, aionios):<P>"Everlasting," in strictness, is that which endures forever; either that which has no beginning and will have no end (in which sense it is applicable to God only), or that which, having a beginning, will have no end, but henceforth will exist forever (thus of beings created for immortality; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMORTALITY">IMMORTALITY</A>). Figuratively also the term is applied to objects of impressive stability and long duration, as mountains, hills (eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,26);">Ge 49:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a>).<P>Of the terms indicated as rendered by this word, \'olam in the Old Testament and aionios in the New Testament, literally, "age-long," generally bear the full sense of "eternal" (always as applied to God, His mercy, His covenant, His kingdom and to the eternal life of believers). Hence, in the Revised Version (British and American) the rendering "everlasting" in the King James Version is, in the New Testament, uniformly changed to "eternal" (eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8);">Mt 18:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,41,46);">25:41, 46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,9);">Lu 16:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,30);">18:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16,36);">Joh 3:16, 36</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,46);">Ac 13:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,22);">Ro 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,26);">16:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">Ga 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,20);">Heb 13:20</a>). In the Old Testament the rendering "everlasting" is usually retained in the Revised Version (British and American), and sometimes takes the place of other words or phrases, as "lasting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,15);">De 33:15</a>), "ever," "forever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,36);">1Ch 16:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,5);">Ne 9:5</a>), "perpetual" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,5);">Jer 50:5</a>), "of old" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a> margin). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,144);">119:144</a>, on the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American) changes the word to "for ever." In much the larger number of places \'olam is translated "ever" or "for ever."<P>The word \'adh, in the two cases in which it is translated "everlasting" in the King James Version (more frequently "for ever"), is in the Revised Version (British and American), in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6);">Isa 9:6</a>, retained, with margin, "Father of Eternity," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a> is changed into "eternal." Another word, qedhem, with the meaning "ancient time," is rendered "everlasting" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,12);">Hab 1:12</a> ("Art not thou from everlasting?"). With the same meaning it occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>, "The eternal God is thy dwelling-place."<P>The word which strictly answers to "everlasting" in the New Testament is aidios (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,6);">Jude 1:6</a>), rendered by the King James Version in the former passages "eternal," but correctly by the Revised Version (British and American) in both passages, "everlasting." The sense of the word "everlasting," in application to future punishment, is considered in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENT,+EVERLASTING">PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING</a>.<P>The term "everlasting" or "eternal," applied to God, describes Him as filling, or enduring through, all the "ages" of time. It is only thus that we can symbolically represent eternity. In reality, however, the eternity of God is not simply His filling of ever-flowing "ages," but rather that aspect of His being in which He is above time; for which time (the succession-form of existence) does not exist; to which the terms past, present and future do not apply. Yet, while God is not in time (rather holds time in Himself), time-sequence, as the form of existence of the world, is a reality for God.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETERNAL">ETERNAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETERNITY">ETERNITY</a>`132';
isbe[3267]='Evi`e\'-vi (\'ewi, "desire"; Euei):<P>One of the five kings, or chiefs of the Midianites, slain by Israel during their sojourn in the plains of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,8);">Nu 31:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,21);">Jos 13:21</a>).``1';
isbe[3268]='Evidence; Evident; Evidently`ev\'-i-dens, ev\'-i-dent-li cepher; elegchos, phaneros:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,10,11,12,14,16,44);">Jer 32:10-12, 14, 16, 44</a>, cepher, "a writing," is translated (the King James Version) "evidence" (of the purchase of the field in Anathoth), the Revised Version (British and American) "deed"; "evidence" is also the translation of elegchos, "conviction," in the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,1);">Heb 11:1</a>, "Now faith is...the evidence of things not seen," the English Revised Version "proving," margin, "or test," better, as the American Standard Revised Version, "conviction," margin, "or test." The Greek word denotes "putting to the test," examining for the purpose of proof, bringing to conviction (Dr. W. F. Moulton). Thus if "test" or "proving" be adopted, a firm conviction of the reality of things not seen is implied as the result of putting to the proof. Trench remarks (New Testament Synonyms), "in juristic Greek elegchein is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent." Hence, the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) translation argumentum, followed by Wyclif and Rheims version; Tyndale and Cranmer have "certayntie." (The sense of "conviction" appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,46);">Joh 8:46</a>, "Which of you convinceth (elegchei, the Revised Version (British and American) "convicteth") me of sin?"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,20);">Joh 3:20</a>, "reproved," the Revised Version, margin "convicted"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,8);">Joh 16:8</a> the King James Version "He will reprove the world of sin," the Revised Version (British and American) "convict." Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,24);">1Co 14:24</a>.) "Evident" is the translation of \'al panim ("on the face") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,28);">Job 6:28</a>, the King James Version "Look upon me; for it is evident unto you if I lie," margin, "Hebrew before your face," the Revised Version (British and American) "to your face," margin, "And it will be evident unto you if I lie," which is, perhaps, to be preferred to the text; delos, "manifest," is translated "evident" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,11);">Ga 3:11</a>); katadelos, "very manifest," is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,15);">Heb 7:15</a>, the King James Version "far more evident," the Revised Version (British and American) "more abundantly evident"; prodelos, "manifest before-hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,14);">Heb 7:14</a>), "evident." "Evidently" occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,3);">Ac 10:3</a>, as the translation of phaneros, "openly," "manifestly," the Revised Version (British and American) "openly."<P>It is important to note the true nature of faith according to the correct translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,1);">Heb 11:1</a>, as being the well-grounded and assured conviction of things not seen.``185';
isbe[3269]='Evil`ev\'-\'-l, e\'-vil ra\'; poneros, kakos, kakon:<P>In the Bible it is represented as moral and physical. We choose to discuss the subject under these heads. Many of the evils that come upon men have not been intended by those who suffer for them. Disease, individual and national calamity, drought, scarcity of food, may not always be charged to the account of intentional wrong. Many times the innocent suffer with, and even for, the guilty. In such cases, only physical evil is apparent. Even when the suffering has been occasioned by sin or dereliction of duty, whether the wrong is active or passive, many, perhaps the majority of those who are injured, are not accountable in any way for the ills which come upon them. Neither is God the author of moral evil. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,13);">Jas 1:13</a>).<P>1. Moral Evil:<P>By this term we refer to wrongs done to our fellowman, where the actor is responsible for the action. The immorality may be present when the action is not possible. "But if that evil servant shall say in his heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,48,49);">Mt 24:48-49</a>), whether he shall smite his fellow-servants or not, the moral evil is present. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIN+(1)">SIN</A>. "All these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'21-23\');">Mr 7:21-23</a>). The last six commandments of the Decalogue apply here (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'12-17\');">Ex 20:12-17</a>). To dishonor one\'s parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet are moral evils. The spiritual import of these commandments will be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,21,22,27,28);">Mt 5:21-22, 27-28</a>. "But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,23);">Mt 6:23</a>). Words and deeds are coined in the heart before the world sees or hears them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34,35);">Mt 12:34-35</a>). The word ought or its equal may be found in all languages; hence, it is in the mind of all people as well as in our laws that for the deeds and words we do and speak, we are responsible. "Break off thy sins by righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,27);">Da 4:27</a>) shows that, in God\'s thought, it was man\'s duty, and therefore within his power, to keep the commandment. "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,16);">Isa 1:16</a>f). We cannot think of God commanding men to do what He knew they had no ability to do! God has a standing offer of pardon to all men who turn from their evil ways and do that which is right (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'11-14\');">Eze 33:11-14</a>f). Evil begins in the least objectionable things. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'18-23\');">Ro 1:18-23</a>, we have Paul\'s view of the falling away of the Gentiles. "Knowing God" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,21);">21</a>), they were "without excuse" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">20</a>), but "glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,21);">21</a>). "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,22);">22</a>). This led the way into idolatry, and that was followed by all the corruption and wrongdoing to be instigated by a heart turned away from all purity, and practiced in all the iniquity to be suggested by lust without control. Paul gives fifteen steps in the ladder on which men descend into darkness and ruin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,\'19-21\');">Ga 5:19-21</a>). When men become evil in themselves, they necessarily become evil in thought and deed toward others. This they bring upon themselves, or give way to, till God shall give "them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a>). Those thus fallen into habits of error, we should in meekness correct, that "they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,25,26);">2Ti 2:25-26</a>).<P>2. Physical Evil:<P>Usually, in the Old Testament the Hebrew word ra\' is employed to denote that which is bad. Many times the bad is physical; it may have been occasioned by the sins for which the people of the nation were responsible, or it may have come, not as a retribution, but from accident or mismanagement or causes unknown. Very many times the evil is a corrective, to cause men to forsake the wrong and accept the right. The flood was sent upon the earth because "all flesh had corrupted their way" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,12);">Ge 6:12</a>). This evil was to serve as a warning to those who were to live after. The ground had already been cursed for the good of Cain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,12);">Ge 4:12</a>). Two purposes seemed to direct the treatment: (1) to leave in the minds of Cain and his descendants the knowledge that sin brings punishment, and (2) to increase the toil that would make them a better people. God overthrew Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, cities of the plain, making them "an example unto those that should live ungodly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,6);">2Pe 2:6</a>). In the Book of Isaiah the prophet, we find a number of "burdens": the burden of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,\'1-22\');">Isa 13:1-22</a>); the burden of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,\'1-9\');">Isa 15:1-9</a>); the burden of Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,\'1-14\');">Isa 17:1-14</a>); the burden of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,\'1-17\');">Isa 19:1-17</a>); the burden of the Wilderness of the Sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,\'1-10\');">Isa 21:1-10</a>); the burden of Dumah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,11,12);">Isa 21:11-12</a>); the burden upon Arabia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,\'13-17\');">Isa 21:13-17</a>); the burden of the Valley of Vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,\'1-25\');">Isa 22:1-25</a>); the burden of Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,\'1-18\');">Isa 23:1-18</a>); the burden of the Beasts of the South (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,\'6-14\');">Isa 30:6-14</a>); the burden of the Weary Beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,1,2);">Isa 46:1-2</a>). These may serve as an introduction to the story of wrongdoing and physical suffering threatened and executed. Isaiah contains many denunciations against Israel: against the Ten Tribes for following the sin introduced by Jeroboam the son of Nebat; and the threatening against Judah and Benjamin for not heeding the warnings. Jeremiah saw the woes that were sure to come upon Judah; for declaring them, he was shut up in prison, and yet they came, and the people were carried away into Babylon. These were the evils or afflictions brought upon the nations for their persistence in sin. "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Yahweh, that doeth all these things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,7);">Isa 45:7</a>). These chastisements seemed grievous, and yet they yielded peaceable fruit unto them that were exercised thereby (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,11);">Heb 12:11</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPT;+TEMPTATION">TEMPTATION</a>`45';
isbe[3270]='Evil Eye`(ra\' \'ayin, "evil of eye"; ophthalmos poneros):<P>The superstition of the influence of the "evil eye," so widely spread over the earth, has had a mighty influence on life and language in Palestine, though direct references to it are not frequent in the Scriptures (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,9);">De 15:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,54,56);">28:54, 56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,6);">Pr 23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,22);">28:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,15);">Mt 20:15</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,23);">Mt 6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,34);">Lu 11:34</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,22);">Mr 7:22</a>). In the Bible the expression is synonymous with envy, jealousy and some forms of covetousness. In comparing <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,29);">Ro 1:29</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,22);">Mr 7:22</a> we find that ophthalmos poneros corresponds to phthonos. See Trench, New Testament Synonyms, under the word. The eye of the envious (as also the tongue of the invidious by an apparently appreciative word, which, however, only disguises the strong desire of possessing the object of comment or of destroying it for its rightful owner) was supposed to have a baneful influence upon the wellbeing of others, especially of children. Therefore mothers bestowed constant care against the frustration of such fancied designs by means of innumerable sorts of charms. They often allowed their darlings to appear as unlovely as possible, through uncleanliness or rags, so as to spare them the harmful rising of envy in the hearts of others.<P>Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, gives perhaps the most accessible account of this superstition as held at the present day in Egypt, and Thomson, The Land and the Book, does the same for Palestine, while an equal amount of evidence might be collected from every other oriental country. Instances of the same superstition, though possibly slightly disguised, are by no means wanting among ourselves. Compare the expression, "green-eyed jealousy" (Othello, III, iii; Merchant of Venice, III, ii), etc.<P>For certain Biblical phrases referring to the "evil eye" see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENVY">ENVY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EYE">EYE</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>F. T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye, London, 1895.``106';
isbe[3271]='Evil One`(ho poneros):<P>Nearly all peoples who have expressed their religious thought and feeling believe in a spirit that presides over the destinies of men for their good. They believe that there is also a spirit, a person, whose work it is to lead men into temptation: a spirit of light and a spirit of darkness. Feelings and preferences may have much to do with the conclusions. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,37,39,45);">Mt 5:37, 39, 45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,13);">6:13</a>, the King James Version gives "evil," the Revised Version (British and American) "the evil one," margin, "evil," the personal form referring to the enemy of the race known by various terms: Satan, "the adversary" or "the accuser," occurs 50 times; Beelzebub is found 7 times; devil, 35 times; it means "accuser," "calumniator."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SATAN">SATAN</a>`45';
isbe[3272]='Evil Spirit``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEMON;+DEMONIAC;+DEMONOLOGY">DEMONIAC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMMUNION+WITH+DEMONS">COMMUNION WITH DEMONS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SATAN">SATAN</a>`1';
isbe[3273]='Evil Thing`(to kakon, plural in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,25);">Lu 16:25</a>):<P>An evil thing or evil things may be the thoughts of evil men, their plans or their deeds; or the things men suffer for their own wrongs; or the evils consequent upon the errors of others. In the dark picture of fallen men in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,30);">Ro 1:30</a>, "inventors of evil things" appear. "The evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil (poneros) things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,35);">Mt 12:35</a>). Men should not lust after evil (kakos) things (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,6);">1Co 10:6</a>). This fixing the mind upon, with desire, leads to increased wrong. "The mouth of the wicked poureth out evil (ra\') things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,28);">Pr 15:28</a>). The rich man had good things in his life, but did not use them to the glory of God or the good of men. The poor man had evil things: sickness, nakedness, hunger. The scene changes after death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,25);">Lu 16:25</a>).``45';
isbe[3274]='Evil-Doers`e-v\'-l-doo\'-erz mere\'im; from ra\'-a\'; kakopoios, always plural:<P>Malefactors or offenders of God\'s law. Used generally of the ungodly, as, "Fret not thyself because of evil-doers." (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,1);">Ps 37:1</a>). Sometimes also of personal offenders: "He hath delivered the soul of the needy from the hand of evil-doers." (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,13);">Jer 20:13</a>).``1';
isbe[3275]='Evil-Favoredness`e-v\'-l-fa\'-verd-nes<P>The word is the translation of the Hebrew dabhar ra\', lit "evil thing," and refers to the ritual unfitness for sacrifice of any animal which, though included in the class of clean beasts, yet possesses a blemish (see the word), or otherwise lacks beauty of symmetry, or is lean-fleshed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,1);">De 17:1</a> the King James Version; compare "ill blemish," <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,21);">De 15:21</a>). We find these conditions combined in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,3,4,19,20,21,27);">Ge 41:3-4, 19-21, 27</a>, where the seven "ill-favored and lean-fleshed" kine of Pharaoh\'s dream are mentioned.``1';
isbe[3276]='Evil-Merodach`e-vil-me-ro\'-dak; -mer\'-o-dak \'ewil merodhakh; Septuagint Eueialmarodek; so B in K, but B in Jeremiah, and A and Q in both places much corrupted:<P>The name of the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. The Babylonian form of the name is Amelu-Marduk, that is, "man of Marduk." About 30 contract tablets dated in this reign have been found. They show that Evil-merodach reigned for two years and about five months. He is said by Berosus to have conducted his government in an illegal and improper manner, and to have been slain by his sister\'s brother, Nergalshar-ucur, who then reigned in his stead. Evil-merodach is said in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,\'27-30\');">2Ki 25:27-30</a> and in the parallel passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,\'31-34\');">Jer 52:31-34</a> to have taken Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from his prison in Babylon, where he seems to have been confined for 37 years, to have clothed him with new garments, to have given him a seat above all the other kings, and to have allowed him to eat at the king\'s table all the days of his life. It is an undesigned coincidence, that may be worthy of mention, that the first dated tablet from this reign was written on the 26th of Elul, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,31);">Jer 52:31</a> says that Jehoiachin was freed from prison on the 25th of the same month.``196';
isbe[3277]='Evil-Speaking`e-v\'-l-spek\'-ing:<P>Occurs twice in English Versions:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,1);">1Pe 2:1</a> it is the translation of katalalia, "a speaking against," rendered "backbiting" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,20);">2Co 12:20</a>; compare katalalos, "backbiter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,30);">Ro 1:30</a>); the verb katalaleo is rendered to "speak against" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,11);">Jas 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,16);">1Pe 3:16</a>);<P>(2) of blasphemia, "what is hurtful to the good name of anyone," "detraction," "slander" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,31);">Eph 4:31</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "railing"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,4);">1Ti 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,9);">Jude 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,8);">Col 3:8</a>); the verb blasphemeo is rendered to "speak evil of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,16);">Ro 14:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,30);">1Co 10:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,2);">Tit 3:2</a>, etc.); to "speak evil" occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,39);">Mr 9:39</a> as the translation of kakologeo, "lightly (the Revised Version (British and American) "quickly") speak evil of me"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,9);">Ac 19:9</a> the King James Version "spake evil of that way." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,11);">Ps 140:11</a>, we have "evil-speaker" as the translation of \'ish lashon, "a man of tongue"; so the Revised Version (British and American). The wrong thing condemned as evil-speaking seems to be essentially detraction, what is hurtful to the reputation, and it is often too lightly regarded even among Christians.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLASPHEMY">BLASPHEMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAILING">RAILING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLANDER">SLANDER</a>`185';
isbe[3278]='Evolution`ev-o-lu\'-shun:<P>1. The Idea of Evolution:<P>Evolution is a scientific and philosophical theory designed to explain the origin and course of all things in the universe. By origin, however, is not understood the production or emergence of the substance and of the cause or causes of things, but that of the forms in which they appear to the observer. Sometimes the term is vaguely used to cover absolute origin in the sense just excluded. A moment\'s reflection will make it clear that such a view can never secure a place in the realm of pure science. The problem of ultimate origin is not one that science can solve. If it is solved at all, it must be by purely philosophical as distinguished from scientific or scientific-philosophical methods. Evolution, therefore, must be viewed in science purely and strictly as a process of orderly change in the form of things. As such it assumes the existence of substance or substances and of a force or forces working its successive transformations. (NOTE: This position is apparently contradicted in the title of Henri Bergson\'s L\'evolution creatrice. But an examination of Bergson\'s system shows that the contradiction is only apparent. Bergson\'s evolution is neither substance nor efficient cause or principle. The latter is given in his vital impetus (elan vital); the former in his concept of duration.)<P>As an orderly change of the form of things, evolution may be viewed as operative in the field of inorganic matter, or in that of life. In the first, it is known and called cosmic evolution; in the second, organic evolution. Of cosmic evolution again there appear two aspects, according as the process, or law of transformation, is observed to operate in the realm of the lower units of matter (atoms and molecules), or is studied in the region of the great. In the first sphere, it is made to account for the emergence in Nature of the qualities and powers of different kinds of matter called elements. In the second, it explains the grouping together, the movements and transformations of the solar and of stellar systems. Similarly, of organic evolution there appear to be two varieties. The first occurs in the world of life including the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Evolution here accounts for the various forms of living beings building their bodies and passing from one stage to another in their existence as individuals, and for the course of the history of all life as it differentiates into species and genera. The second variety of evolution operates in the higher realm of intelligence, morality, social activity and religion. The idea of a law of orderly change governing all things is not a new one.<P>Historians of science find it in some form or other embodied in the philosophies of Heraclitus, Democritus, Lucretius and Aristotle. There are those who find it also in the system of Gautama (Buddha).<P>2. Recent Origin of Notion:<P>But in none of these was there a sufficiently wide basis of fact inductively brought together, or a thorough enough digestion and assimilation of the material to give the view as presented by them a firm standing. Hegel\'s idealistic theory of Development is kindred to the evolution theory in its essence; but it too antedates the working out of the system upon the basis of the scientific induction of the phenomena of Nature.<P>Until the time of Herbert Spencer, the scientific use of the word evolution was limited to the narrow department of embryology. By him, the term was made synonymous with all orderly change in Nature. The notion that such change is the result of chance, however, was not a part of Spencer\'s teaching. On the contrary, that philosopher held that chance is but the expression of laws undiscerned by the human mind. Yet these laws are just as definite and rigid as those already discovered and formulated.<P>Since the appearance of the inductive method in scientific research, and the rise of the science of biology in particular, the idea of evolution has been elaborated into a great systematic generalization, and proposed as the philosophy of all perceptible phenomena. Beginning as a working hypothesis in a special narrow department, that of biology, it has been extended into all the sciences until all come under its dominance, and it is viewed no longer as a mere working hypothesis, but as a demonstrated philosophy with the force and certainty of fact.<P>3. Evolution and Biblical Truth:<P>It was natural that such an important proposition as the explanation of the present form of the whole universe by theory of evolution should in its course have occasioned much controversy. On one side extravagant claims were bound to be put forth in its behalf, combined with a misconception of its field. On the other a stubborn denial of its sufficiency as an explanation, even in the narrow sphere where it first made its appearance, was destined to confront it. This challenge, too, was the result of the misconception of it as an all-sufficient theory of the universe as distinguished from a law or method of the operation of a cause ulterior and superior to itself. The period of this warfare is now nearly, if not altogether, over. The task which remains to be accomplished is to recognize the bearings of theory on forms of thought arrived at apart from the light thrown on the world by itself.<P>Since such forms of thought are given in the Bible, certain problems arise which must be solved, if possible, in the light of evolution. These problems concern mainly the following topics:<P>(1) The belief in a personal God, such as the Christian Scriptures present as an object of revelation;<P>(2) The origin of the different species of living beings as portrayed in the Book of Genesis;<p>(3) The particular origin of the human species (the descent (ascent) of man);<P>(4) The origin of morality and religion, and<P>(5) The essential doctrines of the Christian faith, such as supernatural revelation, the idea of sin, the person of Christ, regeneration and immortality. Beyond the answers to these primary questions, it will be neither possible nor profitable to enter within the brief compass of the present article.<P>The relation of creation to evolution has been already suggested in the introductory explanation of the nature of evolution. If creation be the act of bringing into existence material or substance which did not previously exist, evolution does not touch the problem. It has nothing to say of a First Cause. The idea of a first cause may be regarded as material for metaphysics or the ground of religious belief.<P>4. Evolution and Creation:<P>It may be speculated about, or it may be assumed by faith. The theory of evolution begins with matter or substance already in existence. A fairly representative statement of this aspect of it is illustrated by Huxley\'s dictum, "The whole world living and not living is the result of the mutual attraction according to definite laws of the powers possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed" (Life of Darwin, II, 210). This statement leaves two things unaccounted for, namely, molecules in the form of a "primitive nebulosity" and "powers possessed by these molecules." How did primitive nebulosity come to exist? How did it come to be composed of molecules possessed of certain powers, and how did there come to be definite laws governing these molecules? The agnostic answers, "We do not know, we shall not know" (ignoramus, ignorabimus, DuBois-Reymond). The pantheist says, "They are the substance and attributes of the Ultimate Being." The theist posits "an uncaused Cause who is greater than they, and possesses all the potentialities exhibited in them, together with much more (therefore at least a personal being), has brought them into existence by the power of His will" (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPICUREANS">EPICUREANS</a>).<P>Thus the believer in evolution may be an agnostic, a pantheist or a theist, according to his attitude toward, and answer to, the question of beginnings. He is an evolutionist because he believes in evolution as the method of the transformation of molecules under the control of the powers possessed by them. Conversely theist (and by implication the Christian) may be an evolutionist. As an evolutionist he may be thoroughgoing. He may accept evolution either as a working hypothesis or as a well-established generalization, even in the form in which it is defined by Herbert Spencer: the integration of matter out of an indefinite incoherent homogeneity into definite coherent heterogeneity with concomitant dissipation of energy. (For the exact definition in its full length, see First Principles, 367.) In this definition, as in every other form of it, evolution is the name of a process of transformation, not a theory of absolute causation or creation ex nihilo. The human mind may leave the problem of initial creation uninvestigated; it may assume that there is no problem by regarding matter and energy as uncaused and ultimate realities or phases of one reality; or it may trace these back to a First Cause which has at least the powers and characteristics perceptible in the universe and particularly in itself as mind (i.e. individuality, intelligence and freedom), or in other words, to a personal God. In any of these contingencies it may hold to theory of evolution.<P>5. Evolution and the Origin of Species:<P>Evolution is strongest in the realm of life. It is here that it first achieved its most signal conquests; and it is here that it was first antagonized most forcibly by the champions of religious faith. Here it proved irresistibly fascinating because it broke down the barriers supposed to exist between different species (whether minor or major) of life. It showed the unity and solidarity of the entire living universe with all its infinite variety. It reduced the life-process to one general law and movement. It traced back all present different forms, whether recognized as individuals, varieties, species, genera, families or kingdoms, to a single starting-point. In this realm the adjective "organic" has been prefixed to it, because the characteristic result is secured through organization. One of its most enthusiastic supporters defines it as "progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces" (LeConte).<P>The proof for organic evolution is manifold. It cannot be given here at any length. Its main lines, however, may be indicated as follows:<P>(1) The existence of gradations of structure in living forms beginning with the simplest (the amoeba usually furnishes the best illustration) and reaching to some of the most complex organisms (the human body).<P>(2) The succession of living forms in time. This means that, according to the evidence furnished by geology, the simpler organisms appeared earlier on the face of the earth than the more complex, and that the progress of forms has been in general from the simpler to the more complex.<P>(3) The parallelism between the order thus discovered in the history of life upon earth and the order observed in the transformations of the embryo of the highest living forms from their first individual appearance to their full development.<P>(4) The existence of rudimentary members and organs in the higher forms.<P>The most striking of these proofs of evolution are the two commonly designated the paleontological and the ontogenetic. The first is based on the fact that in the strata of the earth the simpler forms have been deposited in the earlier, and the more complex in the later. This fact points to the growth in the history of the earth of the later, more complex forms of life, from earlier simpler ones. The second consists in the observation that each individual of complexly constructed species of organisms begins its life in the embryonic stage as the simplest of all living forms, a single cell (constituted in some cases out of parts of two preexisting cells). From this beginning it advances to its later stages of growth as an embryo, assuming successively the typical forms of higher organisms until it attains the full form of its own species, and thus begins its individual post-embryonic life. It thus recapitulates in its individual history the history of its species as read in the paleontological records. This consideration shows that whatever the truth may be as to the species as a whole (for instance of man), each individual of the species (each man) has been evolved in his prenatal life, if not exactly from definitely known and identifiable species (anthropoid individuals perfectly formed), at least from foetal organisms apparently of the same type as those of anthropoids.<P>But assuming organic evolution to be true upon these grounds, and upon others of the same character, equally convincing to the scientific man, it must not be left out of account that it is to be distinguished quite sharply from cosmic evolution. These two phases of the law are identical at their basis, but become very different in their application according to the nature of the field in which they operate. Cosmic evolution works altogether through reactions. These are invariable in their cause and effect. Given material elements and conditions, they always issue in the same results. Their operations are grouped together under the sciences of chemistry and physics. Organic evolution works through processes to which the term "vital" is applied. Whether these are identical with the chemico-physical processes in the ultimate analysis is an open question among scientists. In the field of purely descriptive science, however, which limits itself to the observation of facts, it can scarcely emerge as a question, since the true nature of vitality is beyond the reach of observation. And upon the whole, theory that there is an inner difference between vitality and physico-chemical attractions and affinities is supported by certain obvious considerations. But even if vitality should prove to be nothing more than a series of reactions of a chemical and physical nature, the type of evolution to which it yields is differentiated by broad characteristics that distinguish it from merely molecular attractions and affinities.<P>(1) Vital processes cannot be correlated with the chemico-physical ones. Heat, light, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, chemical affinity, are interchangeable and interchanged among themselves. But none of these can be converted into life as far as now known.<P>(2) All life is from preexisting life (omne vivum e vivo). Biogenesis still holds the field as far as experimental science has anything to say about it, and abiogenesis is at the most an attractive hypothesis.<P>(3) The vital processes overcome and reverse the chemical and physical ones. When a living organism is constituted, and as long as it subsists in life, it breaks up and reconstitutes forms of matter into new forms. Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, in combination with other elements, are separated from one another and reunited in new combinations in the tissues of the plant and the animal. On the other hand, the moment the vital process ceases, the chemical and physical resume their course. The organism in which the vital process has been annihilated is immediately put under the operation of chemical affinities, and reduced into its first elements. So long as the vital process is on, there seems to be a ruling or directive principle modifying and counteracting the normal and natural course of the so-called chemical and physical forces.<P>(4) The vital process is characterized by the manifestation in matter of certain peculiarities that never show themselves apart from it. These are irritability, assimilation of non-living matter in the process of growth, differentiation or the power in each kind of living organism to develop in its growth regularly recurring characteristics, and<P>(5) reproduction. The result of the vital process is the tendency in the organic product of it to maintain itself as a unity, and become more and more diversified in the course of its life. These features of organic evolution make it necessary to account not only for the origin of the matter and the energy which are assumed in the cosmic form of evolution, but also for the origin and nature of the unknown something (or combination of things) which is called life in the organism, whether this be a unitary and distinct force or a group of forces. (It is interesting to notice the return to the notion of life as primal energy in the philosophy of Bergson (elan vital); compare Creative Evolution. The same view is advocated by Sir Oliver Lodge, Life and Matter.)<P>Furthermore, care must be taken not to confuse any special variety of evolutionary theory in the organic realm with the generic theory itself. Evolutionists hold and propound different hypotheses as to the application of the principle. The Lamarckian, the Darwinian, the Weismannian, the De Vriesian views of evolution are quite different from, and at certain points contradictory of, one another. They assume the law to be real and aim to explain subordinate features or specific applications of it as seen in certain given series of facts. They differ from one another in insisting on details which may be real or unreal without affecting the truth of the main law. Lamarckian evolution, for instance (revived recently under the name neo-Lamarckian), makes. much of the alleged transmissibility through heredity of acquired traits. Darwinian evolution is based largely on the principle of accidental variations worked over by natural selection and the slow insensible accumulation of traits fitting individuals to survive in the struggle for life. Weismannian evolution posits an astonishingly complex germinal starting-point. DeVriesian evolution is built on the sudden appearance of mutations ("sports") which are perpetuated, leading to new species. It is unscientific to array any of these against the other in the effort to undermine the generic theory of evolution, or to take their differences as indicating the collapse of theory and a return to the idea of creation by fiat. The differences between them are insignificant as compared with the gulf which separates them all from the conception of a separate creative beginning for each species at the first appearance of life upon earth. (On some differences between the primitive form of Darwinian and later theories of the same general type, see Rudolph Otto, in Naturalism and Religion (ET).)<P>With these limitations, the law of organic evolution may be taken into the Biblical account of creation as given in Genesis, chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>. The question raised at once is one of the relation of the doctrine to the Biblical account. If the evolutionary conception is true, it naturally follows that the Biblical account cannot be accepted in its literal interpretation. For the one of these accounts pictures the different species and general types as coming into existence gradually out of preexisting ones, whereas the other (literally interpreted) represents them as created by a Divine fiat. This difference it is true may be artificially exaggerated. Nowhere does the Biblical account explicitly ascribe the creation of each species to the fiat of God. The word "created" (bara\'), as used in Genesis, does not necessarily exclude pre-existing matter and form. On the other hand, expressions such as "Let the earth bring forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,11);">1:11</a> the King James Version) indicate a certain mediation of secondary powers in the elements ("resident forces," LeConte) through which organisms came into being. "After their kind" suggests the principle of heredity. "Abundantly" suggests the law of rapid and ample reproduction leading to the "struggle for life," "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." But all efforts to harmonize Gen with science upon this basis lead at the best to the negative conclusion that these two are so far different in their purpose and scope as not to involve radical contradiction. A positive agreement between them cannot be claimed.<P>The difficulty vanishes in its entirety when it is borne in mind that the two accounts are controlled by different interests, treat primarily of different matters and, where they appear to cover the same ground, do so each in an incidental way. This means that their statements outside of the sphere of their primary interests are popularly conceived and expressed, and cannot be set over against each other as rivals in scientific presentation. Upon this basis the Genesis account is the vehicle of religious instruction (not, however, an allegory); its cosmogonic accounts are not intended to be scientifically correct, but popularly adequate. For all that science is concerned, they may be traditional conceptions, handed down in the form of folklore, and purged of the grotesque, purely mythological element so apt to luxuriate in folklore. Between such accounts and the dicta of pure science, it would be absurd either to assume or to seek for harmony or discord. They are parallel pictures; in the one the foreground is occupied by the actual unfolding of the facts, the religious element is concealed deep by the figures in the foreground. In the other the background of haze and cloud is the domain of fact, the foreground of definite figures consists of the religious ideas and teachings. The evolutionary notion of the origin of living forms on the earth can thus in no way be assumed as in contradiction either to the letter or the spirit of the teaching of Gen.<P>6. The Descent (Ascent) of Man:<P>A still more important problem arises when the evolutionary theory touches the origin of man upon earth. Here, too, not simply the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve, and their primitive life in the Garden of Eden as recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a> is affected, but all that is said of man as a child of God, clothed with peculiar dignity and eternal worth.<p>(1) The difference between the Biblical and evolutionary records of the creation of man may easily be resolved if the Biblical account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a>) is not viewed as a literal statement of actual occurrences, but as the vehicle of certain determinative thoughts designed to affiliate man in his proper relation to God. This means that what is essential in the Biblical account is that man as a distinctive and different being in the world came into existence as the result of a special act of will on the part of God, that he was created as the golden summit of the whole upward movement of life. He is not a mere creature of Nature, but the offspring of the Divine will, with power to know his Maker, to hold fellowship with Him and to carry in him the rational and moral image of the Creator of all. Against this view of the origin of man, evolutionary science has nothing to set over. It is concerned with the process through which the emergence of such a being as man was accomplished, and the time and circumstances in which it took place. These points it finds as it finds similar points affecting other living beings.<P>It would be easy of course to take materialistic forms of the evolutionary theory, such as that advocated by Haeckel, Guyeau, Ray Lankester, and establish an irreconcilable discord between them and the Biblical account; but such varieties of theory are distinguished, not by the occurrence of the idea of evolution in them, but rather by the materialistic metaphysics underlying them; when, for instance, Haeckel defines the notion of evolution by excluding from it intelligence or purpose, and by obliterating differences between the lower animal creation and man, he does so not as an evolutionist in science, but as a materialist (Monist of the materialistic type) in metaphysics. The moment the evolutionist determines to limit himself to the scientific side of his task, and the interpreter of the Biblical account to the religious side of his task, the assumed discord in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a> and the evolutionary theory totally vanishes.<P>(2) The more important point of contact between theory of evolution and the Biblical conception of man, however, is that of the notion of the dignity and worth of man. The very existence of a Bible is based on the idea that man is of some consequence to the Creator. And through the Bible this idea not only appears early (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a>), "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," followed by the statement, "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," but is interwoven with every fundamental teaching.<P>It is contended that a representation like this is not compatible with the evolutionary conception of the origin of man from simian ancestors. The contention would be well supported if the evolutionary theory actually obliterated the line of distinction between man and the lower creation; and in any form of it in which such line is ignored, and man is regarded as a being of the same order (neither more or less) as those from which he sprang, it is not capable of being harmonized with the Biblical doctrine. But as a matter of fact, the whole drift and tendency of evolutionary thought ought to be and is the very opposite of belittling man. For according to it, man is the culmination and summit of a process whose very length and complexity simply demonstrate his worth and dignity as its final product. Accordingly, some of the most radical evolutionists, such as John Fiske (Through Nature to God) have extended and strengthened the argument for the immortality of man by an appeal to his evolutionary origin.<P>7. The Origin and Nature of Religion:<P>Kindred to the problem of the origin of man, and, in some aspects of it, a part of that problem, is the further problem of the origin and nature of religion. First of all, according to evolution, religion cannot be an exception to the general law of the emergence of the more complex from simpler antecedents. Accordingly, it must be supposed to have evolved from non-religious or pre-religious elements. But the very statement of the case in this form necessitates the clear conception of the idea of religion. If religion is the sense in the human soul of an infinite and eternal being, or beings, issuing in influences upon life, then it is coeval with man and inseparable from the human soul. There never was a time when man was not religious. The very emergence of this sense in the mind of a prehuman ancestor of man would change the brute into the man.<P>We may speak of the states of the prehuman brute\'s mind as "materials for the making of religion," but not as religion. Their transformation into religion is therefore just as unique as the creation of the man himself. Whatever the mental condition of the brute before the emergence of the sense of an eternal reality and the dependence of itself upon that reality, it was not a religious being. Whatever the form of this sense, and whatever its first content and results, after the emergence of man it became religion. What caused it to appear at that particular moment and stage in the course of the onward movement? This is a question of causes, and its answer eludes the search of science, both pure and philosophical, and if undertaken by pure philosophy, leads to the same diversity of hypotheses as has been found to control the solution of the problem of beginnings in general (Agnosticism, Pantheism, Theism).<P>For the rest, that the general features hold true in the field of religion is obvious at a glance. Religious thought, religious practices, religious institutions, have undergone the same type of changes as are observed in the material universe and in the realm of life.<P>8. The Moral Nature:<P>What is true of religion as an inner sense of a reality or realities transcending the outward world is equally, and even more clearly, true of the moral life which in one aspect of it is the outward counterpart of religion. To speak of the evolution of the conscience from non-ethical instincts is either to extend the meaning and character of the ethical into a region where they can have no possible significance, or to deny that something different has come into being when the sense of obligation, of duty, of virtue, and the idea of the supreme good have appeared.<P>In other particulars, the development of the moral nature of man, both in the individual and in the community, manifestly follows the process discerned in the material universe at large, and in the realm of organized life in particular. As an observed fact of history, the gradual growth of moral ideas and the mutual play of the inner controlling principle of the sense of oughtness ("the voice of God") and of social conditions and necessities, arising from the nature of man as a social being, are so manifest that they could neither be denied nor better explained in any other way than in accordance with the evolutionary view.<P>9. Christianity and Christian Doctrine:<P>But the rise of the evolutionary theory calls for a new consideration not only of the questions of the origin and nature of religion and morality, but also of that of the content of the Gospel.<P>(1) At the basis of Christianity lies the idea of revelation. The God whom Jesus presented to men is supremely concerned in men. He communicates to them His interest in and His wishes concerning them. This fact the followers of Jesus have in general called "revelation." Some have insisted and still do insist that such revelation must be supernatural. Setting aside the consideration that the term "supernatural" does not occur in Biblical phraseology, and that the notion is deduced by a process of interpretation which leaves a large flexibility to it, i.e. a possibility of conceiving it in a variety of ways, revelation itself is not necessarily bound up with any special method of the communication of the Divine will (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION,+1-2">REVELATION</A>). Analogies drawn from human life furnish many different ways of making known to the minds of intelligent fellow-beings the thought of one\'s own mind. These include, first, the pragmatic resort to some act or attitude of a physical nature, as, for instance, the touch of the whip or the point of the spur on the horse; the flown or the smile for the higher class of understanding of the human type. Secondly, the linguistic, wherein by conventional, articulate, highly complex sounds, one tells in words what lies in his own consciousness. All such expression is necessarily partial, indirect and symbolic. Thirdly, the telepathic and mysterious method (whose reality some still doubt) by which communication takes place without the mediation of either language or action. The evolutionary view does not exclude the possibility of any of these methods conceived as ethical and psychological processes. It does exclude any and all of them if understood as magical or preternatural phenomena. There is nothing, however, in a proper interpretation of the facts of Christian revelation to force the magical interpretation of the coming of the Divine message.<P>On the contrary, there is everything in the gradual and progressive method of the formation of the Christian Scriptures to suggest that the law of evolution was not violated here. One of the latest writers in Scripture plainly represents the whole method of revelation from the Divine point of view as a cumulative delivery of knowledge in different and successive parts and aspects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1);">Heb 1:1</a>). Both at its inception and in the course of its history, the gospel shows conformity to this fundamental law.<P>(2) Evolution and incarnation: One of the strongest objections to the idea of an all-comprehensive generalization of the law of evolution has been said to be that such a law would destroy the uniqueness of the personality of Jesus Christ. This is, however, due to a confusion of thought. In reality it is no more a denial of uniqueness to say that the Son of God entered the world in accordance with the laws of the world as ordered by the Father, than to say that He was subject to those laws after He entered the world; for instance, that He hungered and thirsted, was weary and needed rest and sleep, that His hands and feet bled when they were pierced and that He ceased to breathe when His heart failed to beat. It is a denial of uniqueness as to the method of entrance into the world, but not a denial of uniqueness of character, of nature, even of essence in the Nicene sense. It behooved Him, in bringing many sons to perfection, "to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering." The question of the Virgin Birth of Jesus is definitely excluded from the discussion because it is one of historical evidence chiefly, and, in whatever way the evidence may solve it, theory of evolution will have no difficulty to set over against the solution.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VIRGIN+BIRTH">VIRGIN BIRTH</a>.<P>From the evolutionist\'s point of view, the incarnation is the climax and culmination of the controlling process of the universe (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON+OF+CHRIST,+1-3">INCARNATION</a>). Evolution demands such a consummation as the appearance of a new type of person, and particularly the type which appeared in Jesus Christ. This is not saying that other men can be or have been of the same nature and essence as the incarnate Saviour. It is saying simply that through the incarnation God brings into perfection the ideal embodied and unfolded in previous generations partially, and held in view as the goal through the whole process of previous struggle and attainment. In other words, the New Adam, in Jesus Christ, emerges in the course of the upward ascent of man as the Adam of Gen emerged in the upward ascent from the lower creation. Theology from the point of view of revelation must necessarily explain this as the voluntary entrance of the Son of God into humanity for purposes of redemption. In doing so it does not contradict the evolutionary view, but simply presents another aspect of the subject. Assuming, as is done throughout, that the evolution theory concerns not causes and principles, but the processes of transformation of life, the idea of the world is not complete with the creation of man in the image of God. That image must be brought into perfection through the incoming of eternal life. But eternal life is the life of God lived in the species of time and space. It could only come in a personal form through fellowship with God. The bringing of it must therefore be the necessary goal to which all the age-long ascent pointed.<P>The Incarnation fulfills the conditions of the evolutionary process in that it inserts into the world by a variation the new type governed by the principle of self-sacrifice for others. This is a new principle with Christ, although it is constituted out of preexisting motives and antecedents, such as the "struggle for others" (compare Drummond, The Ascent of Man) and "altruism" (in its noble instances in human history). It is a new principle, first, because in its pre-Christian and extra-Christian antecedents it is not real self-sacrifice, not being consciously consummated as the result of the outplay of the motive given in eternal life, and secondly, because it reverses the main stream of antecedent motive. It enthrones love by revealing God\'s supreme character and motive to be love. Thus viewed the Incarnation is the real entrance into the stream of cosmic movement of the Superman. Nietzsche\'s Superman would be exactly the contrary of this, i.e. the reversion of man to the beast, the denial of the supremacy of love, and the assertion of the supremacy of might.<P>(3) Another difficulty met by the harmonist of the Christian system with the evolutionary theory is that of the problem of sin. The method of the origin of sin in the human race, as well as its nature, are given in the Biblical account in apparently plain words. The first man was sinless. He became sinful by an act of his own.<P>As compared with this, according to one common conception of the law of evolution, all the bad tendencies and propensities in man are the survival of his animal ancestry. Cruelty, lust, deceitfulness and the like are but the "tiger and the ape" still lingering in his spiritual constitution, just as the vermiform appendix and the coccyx remain in the physical, mere rudiments of former useful organs; and just like the latter, they are apt to interfere with the welfare of the species later developed. Here, as in every previous stage of our survey, the difficulty arises from the failure to distinguish between that which appears in man as man, and the propensities in animals which lead to acts similar in appearance, but different in their place and function in the respective lives of those animals. As a matter of fact, the tendencies to cruelty, greed, lust and cunning in the brute are not sinful. They are the wholesome and natural impulses through which the individual and the race are preserved from extinction. They are sinful in man because of the dawn in the soul of a knowledge that his Maker is showing him a better way to the preservation of the individual and the race in the human form. Until the sense of the obligation to follow the better way has arisen, there can be no sin. But when it has come, the first act performed in violation of that sense must be regarded as sinful. As the apostle Paul puts it, "I had not known sin, except through the law." "I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived (was made to live) and I died" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,7,9);">Ro 7:7, 9</a>).<P>Instead of militating against the idea of a primitive fall, the discovery of the law of evolution confirms it by showing that at some time, as the moral sense in man arose, in the very earliest stage of his existence as man, by an act of his own will, he set aside the new and better principle of conduct presented to him in his inner consciousness (disobeyed the voice of God), and fell back to the prehuman non-moral rule of his life. If this is not the doctrine of the Fall expressed in the terms of present-day science, it would be hard to conceive how that doctrine could be formulated in modern words.<P>(F. J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FALL,+THE">FALL, THE</a>.)<P>According to this theory, it was possible for man as he first began his career upon the earth to have passed at once into the condition of perfect fellowship with God. Development might have been sinless. But it was not likely. And it was not desirable that it should be (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADAM+IN+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>). For moral character apart from struggle and victory is weak and only negatively perfect. The elimination of sin was to be accomplished by a process which according to the evolutionary philosophy everywhere and always produces higher and stronger types. It is only as progress is achieved by regeneration following degeneration that the best results are secured. Thus "where sin abounded," it was \'in order that grace might superabound\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,20);">Ro 5:20</a>). Yet neither is sin the less sinful nor grace the less supernatural. It would be reading an unwarrantable doctrine into Scripture to say that upon the whole an unfallen race would have been superior to a fallen and redeemed race. The world as it is is not a mistake but the wisest thought of God.<P>The mystery of evil in the world is thus left neither more nor less difficult to understand under the evolutionary conception than under any other. The difficulty of an unbroken continuity between the lower and the higher forms of life, culminating in the free will of man, with the necessary possibility of conflict with the will of God, is not treated by the evolutionary philosophy, even though it may not be materially relieved. To this extent, however, it is relieved, that the Divine action is here understood to be analogous and consistent with itself throughout, even though transcending in scope and extent the human intelligence.<P>(4) In the light of what has already been made clear, it will be easy to dismiss the correlative doctrine of salvation from sin as fully compatible with the idea of evolution. The Christian doctrine of salvation falls into two general parts: the objective mediatorial work of the Redeemer, commonly called the Atonement, and the subjective transforming work of the Holy Spirit, begun in regeneration and continued in sanctification.<P>The idea of the Atonement lies somewhat remote from the region where the law of evolution is most clearly seen to operate. At first sight it may be supposed to sustain no special relation to evolution either as offering difficulties to it or harmonizing with it and corroborating it. Yet in a system whose parts are vitally interrelated, it would be strange if the acceptance of the evolutionary theory did not in some way and to some extent affect the conception. It does so by fixing attention on the following particulars:<P>(a) That with the emergence of man as a personality, the relation of the creature to the Creator comes to be personal. If that personal relation is disturbed, it can be restored to its normal state in accordance with the laws observed in the relations of persons to one another. The Atonement is such a restoration of personal relations between God and man.<P>(b) In achieving the goal of perfect fellowship with Himself on the part of creatures bearing His own image, the Creator must in a sense sacrifice Himself. This Divine self-sacrifice is symbolized and represented in the Cross. Yet the meaning of the Cross is not exhausted in mere external influence upon the sinful creature whose return to the holy Father is thereby aimed at.<P>(c) Since the alienation of the creature by sin represents an offense to the person of the Creator, there is necessity that this offense should be removed; and this is done through the sacrifice of the Incarnate Son identifying Himself with, and taking the place of, the sinful creature.<P>The correlative doctrine of Regeneration stands much nearer the center of the thought of evolution. It has always been conceived and expressed in biological phraseology. The condition of sin postulated by this doctrine is one of death. Into this condition a new life is inserted, an act which is called the New Birth. Whatever life may be in its essence, it overcomes, reverses and directs the lower forces to other results than they are observed to achieve apart from its presence. In analogy to this course of life in the process of regeneration, a new direction is given to the energies of the new-born soul. But the analogy goes farther. Regeneration is from above as life is always from above. It is God\'s Spirit through the word and work of Christ that begets the new Christian life, nurtures, trains and develops it to its full maturity revealed in the image and stature of Christ Himself (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REGENERATION">REGENERATION</a>).<P>10. Conclusion:<P>If the above considerations are valid, the evolutionary and the Christian views of the world cannot logically be placed against each other as mutually exclusive and contradictory. They must be conceived as supplementing one another, and fulfilling each the promise and possibility of the other. Evolution is a scientific generalization which, kept within the limits of science, commends itself as a satisfactory explanation of the great law controlling all the movements of matter, life and mind. Christianity, so far as it enters into the intellectual life, is interested in the idea of God and of man\'s relation to God. It may confidently leave the facts in the lower world of processes of transformation to be schematized under the scientific generalization of evolution.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The literature of the subject is vast. At the basis of the discussion stand the works of Darwin, Huxley, Wallace, Spencer, Weismann, Haeckel, Romanes and others. For a clear statement of theory, see Metcalf, An Outline of the Theory of Organic Evolution, 1905; Saleeby, Evolution the Master-Key, 1907; Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (historical), 1908. On its relation to religion and Christianity, B. F. Tefft, Evolution and Christianity, 1885; E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion, 1893; Le Conte, Evolution; Its Nature, Its Evidences and Its Religious Thought, 1888; McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 1888; Iverach, Christianity and Evolution, 1894. On its bearing on the ideas of man, sin and redemption, Griffith-Jones, The Ascent through Christ, 1900; H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, 12th edition, 1901; Tyler, The Whence and Whither of Man; Orr, The Image of God in Man, 1907; Sin as a Problem of Today, 1910; Hall, Evolution and the Fall, 1910; Murray, Christian Faith and the New Psychology, 1911; T. A. Palm, The Faith of an Evolutionist, 1911.<P>(EDITORIAL NOTE.<2E>It will be understood, that while Professor Zenos has been asked and permitted to state his views on this question unreservedly, neither the publishers nor the editors are to be held as committed to all the opinions expressed.)``199';
isbe[3279]='Ewe`u (rachel, \'ul, seh, "a female sheep"):<P>Rachel (compare pr. note Rachel, and Arabic rachala, "to migrate") is the ordinary Hebrew word for ewe, but is translated "sheep," though with clear indication of sex in context, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,7);">Isa 53:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,6);">So 6:6</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "ewes"). \'Aloth, participle of \'ul, "to suckle" (compare Arabic ghal) is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,71);">Ps 78:71</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,11);">Isa 40:11</a> (the King James Version "are with young," the English Revised Version "that give suck," the American Standard Revised Version "have their young"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,7,10);">1Sa 6:7, 10</a> occurs paroth \'aloth, "milch kine." Seh, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,28);">Le 22:28</a>, while translated "ewe," might from the context be "ewe" or "shegoat" and indeed seems to be used here as a term applying equally to either, being used elsewhere for one of a flock of sheep or goats.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEEP">SHEEP</a>`37';
isbe[3280]='Exact`eg-zakt\':<P>(1) naghas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,2,3);">De 15:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,35);">2Ki 23:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',58,3);">Isa 58:3</a>), to secure by force or pressure interest or money for tribute, and perhaps, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',58,3);">Isa 58:3</a>, labor or toil; but compare the Revised Version, margin "oppress all your laborers"; probably better with a slight change of text, "exact money lent on pledges" (reading for \'abhoT beyedhekhem, \'atstsebhekhem).<P>(2) nasha\', or nashah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,7,10,11);">Ne 5:7, 10-11</a> (the King James Version not the Revised Version (British and American)) <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,6);">Job 11:6</a> (but see below); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,22);">Ps 89:22</a>), to demand interest, to be a harsh and importunate creditor, a practice which Nehemiah asks the Jews to forego. <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,6);">Job 11:6</a> better with the Revised Version, margin for "exact," "causeth to be forgotten."<P>(3) yotse\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,20);">2Ki 15:20</a> (if text is correct)). Menahem secured the tribute which the king of Assyria demanded by levying a tax on the chief men of his kingdom.<P>(4) prassein (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,13);">Lu 3:13</a> the King James Version (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,20);">Da 11:20</a> Septuagint); 1Macc 10:35 the Revised Version (British and American)), to demand money or tribute or taxes of anyone.``13';
isbe[3281]='Exaction`eg-zak\'-shun:<P>(1) mashsha\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,31);">Ne 10:31</a>), a demand for money lent on pledge, which the Jews agreed to forego in the seventh year;<P>(2) gerushah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,9);">Eze 45:9</a>, "your exactions," the Revised Version, margin "expulsions"), eviction from house and home.``1';
isbe[3282]='Exactors`eg-zak\'-ters (noghesayikh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,17);">Isa 60:17</a>, the Revised Version, margin "taskmasters"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,7);">3:7</a>)):<P>Righteousness personified is in Zion to take the place of the officials who oppress the people. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,4);">Isa 14:4</a> the American Revised Version, margin, Babylon is called an "exactress of gold."``1';
isbe[3283]='Exalt`eg-zolt\' (rum, gabhah (mappiq he), nasa\'; hupsoo):<P>The Hebrew word most often translated "exalt," "exalted," is rum; "to lift up," "to be or become high." It is used with reference to both God and man, eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,2);">Ex 15:2</a>, "My father\'s God, and I will exalt him"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,5,9);">Ps 99:5, 9</a>, "Exalt ye Yahweh our God"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,32);">107:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,5,28);">118:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,10);">1Sa 2:10</a>, "Exalt the horn of his anointed"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,4);">Job 17:4</a>, "Therefore shalt thou not exalt them"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,2);">Isa 13:2</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,13);">14:13</a>; gabhah, "to be high," figuratively "to be exalted," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,7);">Job 36:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,19);">Pr 17:19</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,16);">Isa 5:16</a>, etc.; nasa\', "to lift up," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,7);">Nu 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,11);">1Ch 29:11</a>, etc.; other words are calal, "to raise up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,17);">Ex 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,8);">Pr 4:8</a>), saghabh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,11);">Job 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,22);">36:22</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,11,17);">Isa 2:11, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',12,4);">12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,5);">33:5</a>), ramam, "to be high" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,24);">Job 24:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,16);">Ps 118:16</a>).<P>In the New Testament "exalt" is the translation of hupsoo, "to elevate" (not used with reference to God) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,23);">Mt 11:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,12);">23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,33);">Ac 2:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,7);">2Co 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,6);">1Pe 5:6</a>, etc.); also (twice) of epairo, "to lift up, upon or against" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,5);">2Co 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,20);">11:20</a>), once of huperairo, "to lift up above" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,4);">2Th 2:4</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,7);">2Co 12:7</a> bis, this word is translated "exalted above measure," the Revised Version (British and American) "exalted overmuch"; huperupsoo, "to lift up above" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,9);">Php 2:9</a>), is translated "highly exalted"; hupsos, "elevation," is translated "exalted" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,9);">Jas 1:9</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "high estate").<P>For "it increaseth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,16);">Job 10:16</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) gives "and if my head exalt itself"; instead of "God exalteth by His, power" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,22);">Job 36:22</a>), "God doeth loftily in his power"; for "though thou exalt thyself as the eagle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,4);">Ob 1:4</a>), "mount on high"; for "highly esteemed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,15);">Lu 16:15</a>) "exalted"; for "exalteth itself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,5);">2Co 10:5</a>), "is exalted"; for "He shall lift you up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,10);">Jas 4:10</a>), "He shall exalt you." Self-exaltation is strongly condemned, especially by Christ; humbleness is the way to true exaltation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,12);">Mt 23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,11);">Lu 14:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,14);">18:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,10);">Jas 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,6);">1Pe 5:6</a>); the supreme example is that of Christ Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-11\');">Php 2:5-11</a>).``185';
isbe[3284]='Exaltation of Christ, the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRIST,+THE+EXALTATION+OF">CHRIST, THE EXALTATION OF</a>`1';
isbe[3285]='Examine; Examination`eg-zam\'-in, eg-zam-i-na\'-shun:<P>darash, "to follow," "inquire," "make inquisition" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,16);">Ezr 10:16</a>); and bachan, "to test," "investigate," "prove," "tempt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,2);">Ps 26:2</a>). The former was the judicial term. anakrino, "scrutinize," "investigate," "interrogate" (in court), "judge," "search" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,14);">Lu 23:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,9);">Ac 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,19);">12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,18);">28:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,3);">1Co 9:3</a>); and anetazo, "to investigate" (judicially), "examine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,24,29);">Ac 22:24, 29</a>). Also dokimazo, "to test," "examine," "try" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,28);">1Co 11:28</a> the King James Version); and peirazo, "scrutinize," "discipline" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,5);">2Co 13:5</a> the King James Version). The noun anakrisis, "examination," "investigation," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,26);">Ac 25:26</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COURTS,+JUDICIAL">COURTS, JUDICIAL</a>`77';
isbe[3286]='Example`eg-zam\'-p\'-l (tupos, "a pattern," hupodeigma, "copy" "representation" hupogrammos, "a writing-copy," example):<P>A typical, representative, or illustrative case; a pattern or model for imitation (hupodeigma, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,15);">Joh 13:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,10);">Jas 5:10</a>; hupogrammos, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,21);">1Pe 2:21</a>; tupos, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,12);">1Ti 4:12</a> the King James Version) or warning (deigma, "a sample," "exhibition," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,6);">2Pe 2:6</a>; hupodeigma, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,11);">Heb 4:11</a>; tupos, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,6,11);">1Co 10:6, 11</a>). "Ensample" (tupos, 2Macc 6:28,31; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,17);">Php 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,7);">1Th 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,9);">2Th 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,12);">1Ti 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,3);">1Pe 5:3</a>) and "example" have the same meaning, but the former is always suggestive of goodness.``1';
isbe[3287]='Exceed; Exceeding; Exceedingly`ek-sed\':<P>The verb is found in other than its present sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,9);">Job 36:9</a> the King James Version, "They have exceeded" the (Revised Version (British and American)) "behaved themselves proudly"); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,41);">1Sa 20:41</a>, "They...wept...until David exceeded" (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In both these passages the idea is that of going too far, beyond proper bounds (Hebrew, respectively, gabhar, "be strong" (in the Hithpael); gadhal, "be great" (in the Hiphil). "Exceeding" (as an adverb with adjectives and rarely as an adjective) and "exceedingly" occur often as representing various expressions for the superlative in Hebrew and Greek.``1';
isbe[3288]='Excellency`ek\'-se-len-si (ga-on, ga\'awah; huperbole):<P>"Excellency" in the Old Testament is chiefly the translation of ga\'on, "mounting," "swelling" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,7);">Ex 15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,4);">Job 37:4</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',47,4);">Ps 47:4</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,19);">Isa 13:19</a> the King James Version, etc.); ga\'awah, rising, is thrice so rendered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,26,29);">De 33:26, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,34);">Ps 68:34</a>); se\'eth, "rising" (twice) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,11);">Job 13:11</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,4);">Ps 62:4</a> the King James Version); yether, "superabundance" (twice) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,3);">Ge 49:3</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,21);">Job 4:21</a> the King James Version), and chadhar, "honor," "beauty," "majesty" (twice) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,2);">Isa 35:2</a>); gobhah, "uplifted" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,10);">Job 40:10</a>); yithron, "advantage" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,12);">Ec 7:12</a>); si\', "elevation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,6);">Job 20:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "height"). In the New Testament huperbole, "surpassing," "a casting beyond," occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,7);">2Co 4:7</a>, "that the excellency of the power may be of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding greatness"); huperoche, "a holding over" or "beyond," is translated "excellency" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,1);">1Co 2:1</a>), and to huperechon, "the pre-eminence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,8);">Php 3:8</a>), "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ."<P>Instead of "excellency" the Revised Version (British and American) has "pride" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,19);">Isa 13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,21);">Eze 24:21</a>), "majesty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,4);">Job 37:4</a> and the American Standard Revised Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,11);">Job 13:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,23);">31:23</a>), the American Standard Revised Version has "pre-eminence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,3,4);">Ge 49:3-4</a>), "glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',47,4);">Ps 47:4</a>), "dignity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,4);">Ps 62:4</a>); for "the fat of lambs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,20);">Ps 37:20</a>), the English Revised Version has "the excellency of the pastures," with margin, "the fat of lambs"; the American Standard Revised Version retains the King James Version rendering with the English Revised Version in the margin; instead of "Doth not their excellency which is in them go away?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,21);">Job 4:21</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) has "Is not their tent-cord plucked up within them?" margin, "Is not their excellency which is in them removed?"``185';
isbe[3289]='Excellent`ek\'-se-lent \'addir, yattir (Aramaic); diaphoroteros, kratistos:<P>The translation of various Hebrew words, chiefly of \'addir, "great," "honorable" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,1,9);">Ps 8:1, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,3);">16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',76,4);">76:4</a>); yattir, "surpassing," is Aramaic, occurring in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,31);">Da 2:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,36);">4:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,12,14);">5:12, 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,3);">6:3</a>. Other words are bachar, "to glow," "try," "choose" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,15);">So 5:15</a>); ga\'on, "mounting," "swelling" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,2);">Isa 4:2</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXCELLENCY">EXCELLENCY</A>); gadhal, "to make or become great" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,29);">Isa 28:29</a>), and other words occurring singly.<P>In the New Testament we have diaphoroteros, "greater," "better" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,4);">Heb 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,6);">8:6</a>); kratistos, "most excellent," "most noble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,3);">Lu 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,26);">Ac 23:26</a>); ta diapheronta, "things that differ," "are preeminent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,18);">Ro 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,10);">Php 1:10</a>); megaloprepes, "becoming to the great" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,17);">2Pe 1:17</a>, the King James Version "a voice to him from the excellent glory," the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version, margin "the Majestic Glory"); kath\' huperbolen "very surpassing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,31);">1Co 12:31</a>, "Yet I show unto you a more excellent way," the Revised Version (British and American) "most excellent"); pleion, "greater," "fuller" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,4);">Heb 11:4</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABEL+(1)">ABEL</a>).``185';
isbe[3290]='Exchange; Exchanger`eks-chanj\', eks-chan\'-jer.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BANK;+BANKING">BANK; BANKING</a>`1';
isbe[3291]='Excommunication`eks-ko-mu-ni-ka\'-shun:<P>Exclusion from church fellowship as a means of personal discipline, or church purification, or both. Its germs have been found in (1) the Mosaic "ban" or "curse" (cherem, "devoted"), given over entirely to God\'s use or to destruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,29);">Le 27:29</a>); (2) the "cutting off," usually by death, stoning of certain offenders, breakers of the Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,14);">Ex 31:14</a>) and others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4);">Le 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'22-38\');">Ex 30:22-38</a>); (3) the exclusion of the leprous from the camp (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,46);">Le 13:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,14);">Nu 12:14</a>). At the restoration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,7,8);">Ezr 10:7-8</a>), the penalty of disobedience to Ezra\'s reforming movements was that "all his substance should be forfeited (cherem), and himself separated from the assembly of the captivity." Nehemiah\'s similar dealing with the husbands of heathen women helped to fix the principle. The New Testament finds a well-developed synagogal system of excommunication, in two, possibly three, varieties or stages. nidduy, for the first offense, forbade the bath, the razor, the convivial table, and restricted social intercourse and the frequenting of the temple. It lasted thirty, sixty, or ninety days. If the offender still remained obstinate, the "curse," cherem, was formally pronounced upon him by a council of ten, and he was shut out from the intellectual, religious and social life of the community, completely severed from the congregation. shammatha\', supposed by some to be a third and final stage, is probably a general term applied to both nidduy and cherem. We meet the system in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,22);">Joh 9:22</a>: "If any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue" (aposunagogos); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,42);">Joh 12:42</a>: "did not confess... lest they should be put out of the s."; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,2);">Joh 16:2</a>: "put you out of the synagogue." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,22);">Lu 6:22</a> Christ may refer to the three stages: "separate you from their company (aphorisosin), and reproach you (oneidisosin = cherem, "malediction"), and cast out your name as evil (ekbalosin)."<P>It is doubtful whether an express prescription of excommunication is found in our Lord\'s words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,\'15-19\');">Mt 18:15-19</a>). The offense and the penalty also seem purely personal: "And if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican," out of the pale of association and converse. Yet the next verse might imply that the church also is to act: "Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. But this latter, like <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, seems to refer to the general enunciations of principles and policies rather than to specific ecclesiastical enactments. On the whole, Jesus seems here to be laying down the principle of dignified personal avoidance of the obstinate offender, rather than prescribing ecclesiastical action. Still, personal avoidance may logically correspond in proper cases to excommunication by the church. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,14);">2Th 3:14</a>: "Note that man, that ye have no company with him"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,10);">Tit 3:10</a>: "A factious man...avoid" (American Revised Version margin); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,10);">2Joh 1:10</a>: "Receive him not into your house," etc., all inculcate discreet and faithful avoidance but not necessarily excommunication, though that might come to be the logical result. Paul\'s "anathemas" are not to be understood as excommunications, since the first is for an offense no ecclesiastical tribunal could well investigate: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,22);">1Co 16:22</a>, "If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema"; the second touches Paul\'s deep relationship to his Lord: <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,3);">Ro 9:3</a>, "I myself...anathema from Christ"; while the third would subject the apostle or an angel to ecclesiastical censure: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,8,9);">Ga 1:8-9</a>, "Though we, or an angel...let him be anathema."<P>Clear, specific instances of excommunication or directions regarding it, however, are found in the Pauline and Johannine writings. In the case of the incestuous man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'1-12\');">1Co 5:1-12</a>), at the instance of the apostle ("I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit"), the church, in a formal meeting ("In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together"), carrying out the apostle\'s desire and will ("and my spirit"), and using the power and authority conferred by Christ ("and with the power of our Lord Jesus"), formally cut off the offender from its fellowship, consigning (relinquishing?) him to the power of the prince of this world ("to deliver such a one unto Satan"). Further, such action is enjoined in other cases: "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,\'5-11\');">2Co 2:5-11</a> probably refers to the same case, terminated by the repentance and restoration of the offender. \'Delivering over to Satan\' must also include some physical ill, perhaps culminating in death; as with Simon Magus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,20);">Ac 8:20</a>), Elymas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,11);">Ac 13:11</a>), Ananias (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,5);">Ac 5:5</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>: "Hymenaeus and Alexander...that they might be taught not to blaspheme," is a similar case of excommunication accompanied by judicial and disciplinary physical ill. In <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,9,10);">3Joh 1:9-10</a> we have a case of excommunication by a faction in control: "Diotrephes...neither doth he himself receive...and them that would he...casteth out of the church."<P>Excommunication in the New Testament church was not a fully developed system. The New Testament does not clearly define its causes, methods, scope or duration. It seems to have been incurred by heretical teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>) or by factiousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,10);">Tit 3:10</a> (?)); but the most of the clear undoubted cases in the New Testament are for immoral or un-Christian conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1,11,13);">1Co 5:1, 11, 13</a>; perhaps also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>). It separated from church fellowship but not necessarily from the love and care of the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,15);">2Th 3:15</a> (?)). It excluded from church privileges, and often, perhaps usually, perhaps always, from social intercourse (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,11);">1Co 5:11</a>). When pronounced by the apostle it might be accompanied by miraculous and punitive or disciplinary physical consequences (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">1Co 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>). It was the act of the local church, either with (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,4);">1Co 5:4</a>) or without (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,13);">1Co 5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,10);">3Joh 1:10</a>) the concurrence of an apostle. It might possibly be pronounced by an apostle alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>), but perhaps not without the concurrence and as the mouthpiece of the church. Its purpose was the amendment of the offender: "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">1Co 5:5</a>); and the preservative purification of the church: "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>). It might, as appears, be terminated by repentance and restoration (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,\'5-11\');">2Co 2:5-11</a>). It was not a complex and rigid ecclesiastical engine, held in terrorem over the soul, but the last resort of faithful love, over which hope and prayer still hovered.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Arts. in HDB, DB, Jew Eric, DCG; Martensen, Christian Ethics, III, 330ff; Nowack, Benzinger, Heb Archaeol.; Commentary in the place cited.``31';
isbe[3292]='Execute; Executioner`ek\'-se-kut, ek-se-ku\'-shun-er (\'asah, "to do," din,"to judge," "decide"; poieo, "to do"; spekoulator, Latin speculator, "an attendant"):<P>"Execute" in the sense of "executing judgment," "vengeance," etc., is often found in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,18);">De 10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',149,7);">Ps 149:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,3);">Jer 22:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,11);">Eze 25:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,15);">Mic 5:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,12);">Jer 21:12</a>, "Execute justice in the morning") and a few times in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,27);">Joh 5:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,4);">Ro 13:4</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,15);">Jude 1:15</a>). In the sense of punishing capitally, by legal process, it is not found. "Executioner" is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,27);">Mr 6:27</a> the King James Version, where Herod, the king, is said to have "sent an executioner" (spekoulator) to behead John the Baptist, but the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version have instead, according to the stricter meaning of the text, "The king sent forth a soldier of his guard." The office of executioner, however, was a recognized office in all the great nations of antiquity.``47';
isbe[3293]='Exegesis`ek-se-je\'-sis.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INTERPRETATION">INTERPRETATION</a>`1';
isbe[3294]='Exercise`ek\'-ser-siz (\'asah; gumnazo, poieo):<P>"Exercise" (meaning originally, "to drive or thrust out") has different shades of meaning: It means<P>(1) "to do," "to put into action" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,24);">Jer 9:24</a>, \'asah, "to do," "Yahweh who exerciseth lovingkindness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,12);">Re 13:12</a>, poieo, "to do," "He exerciseth all the authority of the first"; Tobit 12:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "do");<P>(2) with violence implied, gazal, "to take away violently," "have exercised robbery" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,29);">Eze 22:29</a>); "to act habitually" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',131,1);">Ps 131:1</a>, halakh, "to walk," "Neither do I exercise myself in great matters" the Revised Version, margin "walk"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,16);">Ac 24:16</a>, askeo, "to work up"; compare 2Esdras 15:8; Ecclesiasticus 50:28);<P>(3) "to train" or "discipline," gumnazo, "to use exercise," "to train up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,7);">1Ti 4:7</a>, "Exercise thyself unto godliness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,14);">Heb 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,11);">12:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,14);">2Pe 2:14</a>; compare 1Macc 6:30; 2Macc 15:12);<P>(4) "to afflict" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,13);">Ec 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',3,10);">3:10</a>, \'anah, "to be afflicted," "exercised therewith," "exercised in it"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,25);">Mt 20:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,42);">Mr 10:42</a>, katakurieuo, "to lord it over," and katexousiazo, "to exercise authority," are translated respectively "exercise dominion" and "exercise authority," the English Revised Version "lord it over" and "exercise authority"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,25);">Lu 22:25</a>, the Greek words are kurieuo, "to be lord over" and exousiazo, "to have power or authority over," the Revised Version (British and American) "have lordship," "have authority." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,8);">1Ti 4:8</a> the noun, gumnasia, meaning gymnastic exercise, occurs (somatike gumnasia), translated "bodily exercise," contrasted with "exercise unto godliness," the Revised Version (British and American) "For bodily exercise is profitable for a little (m "for little"); but godliness is profitable for all things," a saying to which the youth of all times would do well to give heed. In 2Macc 4:9, Jason is said to have set up "a place of exercise" (gumnasion) in Jerusalem. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,2);">1Pe 5:2</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "exercising the oversight" is substituted for "taking the oversight."``185';
isbe[3295]='Exhortation`ek-sor-ta\'-shun (paraklesis):<P>The Greek word translated "exhortation" (paraklesis) signifies, originally, "a calling near or for" (as an advocate or helper who should appeal on one\'s behalf), and carries the twofold sense of "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXHORTATION">exhortation</a>" and "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONSOLATION">consolation</a>" (which see). In the Septuagint of the Old Testament it is used in the sense of "consolation"; but in 2Macc 7:24, it is translated "exhort," the Revised Version (British and American) "appeal." The verb parakaleo is also translated "exhortation" (1Macc 13:3 the King James Version) and "exhort" (2Macc 9:26). In the New Testament paraklesis is translated "exhortation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,15);">Ac 13:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,8);">Ro 12:8</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "exhorting"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,3);">1Co 14:3</a>, the English Revised Version "comfort," the American Revised Version, margin "or comfort"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,17);">2Co 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,3);">1Th 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,13);">1Ti 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,5);">Heb 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,22);">13:22</a>). the American Standard Revised Version has also "exhortation," instead of "consolation" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,1);">Php 2:1</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,18);">Lu 3:18</a>, parakaleo, "to call near or for," is translated "exhortation," "and many other things in his exhortation," the Revised Version (British and American) "with many other exhortations," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,2);">Ac 20:2</a>, parakaleo logo pollo is rendered (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), "had given them much exhortation."``185';
isbe[3296]='Exile`ek\'-sil, eg\'-zil (galah, tsa\'ah):<P>Occurs twice only in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,19);">2Sa 15:19</a> (galah, "to remove"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,14);">Isa 51:14</a> (tsa\'ah, "to be bowed down")). In the Revised Version (British and American) "exile" is substituted for "captivity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,35);">Ezr 8:35</a> (shebhi), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,4);">Eze 12:4</a> (golah)); "go into exile," for "remove and go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,11);">Eze 12:11</a>); "exiles of Ethiopia" for "Ethiopians captives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,4);">Isa 20:4</a>); "He shall let my exiles go free" for "He shall let go my captives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,13);">Isa 45:13</a>); "an exile" for "a captive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,21);">Isa 49:21</a>). "The exile" is in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPTIVITY">captivity</a>" (which see).``1';
isbe[3297]='Exodus, the`ek\'-so-dus:<P>Contents<P><b>I. THE ROUTE</b><P class="in15">1. The Starting-Point<p class="in15">2. Rameses to Succoth<p class="in15">3. Succoth to Etham<p class="in15">4. Passage of the Sea<p class="in15">5. Other Views of the Route<P><b>II. THE DATE</b><p class="in15">1. Old Testament Chronology<p class="in15">2. Date of Conquest of Palestine<p class="in15">3. Date of Exodus<p class="in15">4. Other Views<p class="in15">5. Astronomical Calculations<p class="in15">6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs<p class="in15">7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology<p class="in15">8. A Text of Minepthah<P><b>III. THE THEORY OF LEPSIUS</b><p class="in15">1. 1st Argument: City Rameses<p class="in15">2. 2nd Argument: Manetho\'s Statements<p class="in15">3. Relation of Manetho\'s Stories to the Exodus<p class="in15">4. Greek and Latin Writings<p class="in15">5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah<p class="in15">6. Explanations of Minepthah\'s Statements<P class="in30">(1) Pithore was Heroopolis<P class="in30">(2) Rameses II not Named in Judges<P class="in30">(3) Some Hebrews Were never in Egypt<P><b>IV. THE NUMBERS</b><p class="in15">1. Colenso\'s Criticism of Large Number<p class="in15">2. Increase of Population<P class="in15">3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement<p class="in15">4. Review<hr /><P>I. The Route.<P>1. The Starting-Point:<P>On the 14th Abib (early in April) the Hebrews were gathered at Rameses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,5);">Nu 33:5</a>) where apparently the hostile Pharaoh was also living (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,31);">Ex 12:31</a>). From <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,12,43);">Ps 78:12, 43</a> it appears that the wonders preceding the Exodus occurred in the "field of Zoan," where the starting-point may be placed (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAAMSES">RAAMSES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOAN">ZOAN</A>). Dr. Naville has suggested that the court was at Bubastis, not at Zoan, and that the route lay from near Zagazig down Wady Tumeilat<61>a line well fitted for a people driving flocks and herds. On the other hand, in favor of the starting-point having been at Zoan, we read that the "way of the land of the Philistines" was "near" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,17);">Ex 13:17</a>). This route, which was not taken lest the people should be discouraged by defeat at Gaza where the Egyptians always had troops, reached Egypt at Migdol (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIGDOL">MIGDOL, 2</A>), and ran thence to Daphnai<61>some 15 miles<65>and to Zoan by a second march of the same length. The route from Bubastis to Daphnai (some 50 miles) is less likely to have been described as "near." Although an Arab will march 30 miles in a day on foot, yet when moving camp with camels, who travel only about 2 miles an hour, with women and children and herds, he only covers about 12 or 15 miles a day. We cannot suppose the Hebrew cattle to have covered more than this distance without water on any single march.<P>2. Rameses to Succoth:<P>We are not told how many days were occupied on the way from Rameses to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUCCOTH+(2)">SUCCOTH (2)</a> (which see), though the general impression is that the stages mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a>) represent a day\'s journey each. Measuring back from the first camp after crossing the Red Sea, we find that Succoth probably lay in the lower part of Wady Tumeilat, where there was plenty of water and herbage. The direct route from Zoan leads to Phakousa (Tell Faqus) by a march of 15 miles through well-watered lands. A second march, across the desert to Heroopolis and down the valley to Succoth, would be of the same length. The Hebrews departed "in haste," and no doubt made as long marches as they could. If the whole of the people were not in Rameses, but scattered over Goshen, it is possible that some came down the valley from near Bubastis, and that the whole force concentrated at Succoth.<P>3. Succoth to Etham:<P>The next march (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,20);">Ex 13:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,6);">Nu 33:6</a>) led Israel to Etham, on the "edge of the wilderness" which lies west of the Bitter Lakes, not far from where the Nile water then entered them, and no doubt made them sweet. The intention of Moses probably was to reach the desert of Shur by rounding the head of this stretch of water; but we are told (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,2);">Ex 14:2</a>f) that he was commanded to "turn"<22>evidently to the south<74>and to encamp before "the mouth of the lakes" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PI-HAHIROTH">PI-HAHIROTH</a>), in order that Pharaoh might conclude that the Hebrews were "entangled in the land," and shut in between the lakes on their left and the desert mountains on their right. This camp would seem to have been west of the lakes, and some 10 miles north of Suez. It was perhaps two days\' journey from Etham, since the lakes are 30 miles long; or, if Etham was farther south than the head of the lakes, the distance may have been covered by one forced march of 20 to 25 miles, the beasts being watered from the lakes if they were then filled with fresh water, as they would be when having an outlet to a tideless sea.<P>4. Passage of the Sea:<P>The sea which Israel crossed is not named in the actual account of the journey, but in the Song of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,4);">Ex 15:4</a>) it is called the "Red Sea" in the English Versions of the Bible, following the Septuagint, the Hebrew name being Yam Cuph, or "weedy sea," a term which applied not only to the Gulf of Suez (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,10);">Nu 33:10</a>), but also to the Gulf of \'Aqabah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-\');">De 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>). We are also told that the route chosen was "the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,18);">Ex 13:18</a>). It is generally supposed that the head of the Gulf of Suez at the time of the Exodus was farther north than at present; and, as the Bitter Lakes were then probably filled by the Nile waters flowing down Wddy Tumeildt, they would no doubt have carried the Nile mud into this gulf, which mud had gradually filled up this Nile branch before 600 BC. The probable point of passage was the narrow channel (about 2 miles across) by which the lakes discharged into the sea, and was thus about 10 miles north of Suez. We are told that the water was driven back by "a strong east (or "contrary") wind" in the night (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,21);">Ex 14:21</a>), and the sea (or "lake," as the word yam often means in the Old Testament; see Gesenius, Lexicon, under the word) was thus "divided," a shoal being formed and the waters being heaped up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,8);">Ex 15:8</a>), so that when the wind ceased they rushed back; whereas, during the passage, they were a "wall" or "defence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,22);">Ex 14:22</a>) against any flank attacks by the Egyptians (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,16);">1Sa 25:16</a>, where David\'s men are said to have been a "wall" when defending Nabal\'s shepherds). The effect of the wind on shallow waters can be seen at the mouth of the Kishon, where a shoal exists which is dry with a west wind, but under water and impassable when the wind blows down the river. In 1882, Sir Alexander Tulloch saw the waters of Lake Menzaleh driven back more than a mile by the east wind. Thus, however opportune the occurrence, the drying up of the sea, as described in the Bible, was a perfectly natural phenomenon. The Hebrews crossed in the morning, and a march of 15 miles would bring them to the springs from which Suez is supplied, called \'Ain Naba\' and \'Ayyun Musa ("the gushing spring" and "the spring of Moses"), from which point their wanderings in the desert of Shur would begin (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>).<P>5. Other Views of the Route:<P>This view of the Exodus route is practically the same as advocated by Dr. Robinson, by Dr. E. Naville, by Sir S. Warren, by Sir W. Dawson, and by others who have visited the region in question. The view advocated by Brugsch, according to which the sea crossed was a lagoon near Pelusium, has found no supporters, because it directly conflicts with the statement that Israel did not follow the shore road to Philistia, but went by the wilderness of the Red Sea. Another theory (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SINAI">SINAI</a>), according to which the "Red Sea" always means the Gulf of \'Aqabah, is equally discarded by most writers of experience, because the distance from Egypt to Elath on this gulf is 200 miles, and the Israelites could not have traversed that distance in four marches, especially as the route has hardly any water along it in springtime. As detailed above, the route offers no difficulties that would discredit the historical character of the narrative.<P>II. The Date.<P>1. Old Testament Chronology:<P>The actual statements of the Books of Kings, giving parallel reigns from the time of Solomon\'s death down to the fixed date of the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, place the foundation of the Temple within a few years of 1000 BC. It is true that this interval is reduced, by about 30 years, by scholars who accept the very doubtful identification of Ahabu of Sir-lai with Ahab of Israel; but this theory conflicts with the fact that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser II of Assyria; and, since we have no historical account of the chronology of Hebrew kings other than that of the Old Testament, for this period, and no monumental notice of Israel in Egypt, or of the Exodus, we must either adopt Old Testament chronology or regard the dates in question as being unknown.<P>2. Date of Conquest of Palestine:<P>We have several statements which show that the Hebrew writers believed the conquest of Palestine by Joshua to have occurred early in the 15th century BC, and this date fully agrees with the most recent results of monumental study of the history of the XVIIIth (or Theban) Dynasty in Egypt, as about to be shown, and with the fact that Israel is noticed as being already in Palestine in the 5th year of Minepthah, the successor of Rameses II. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> we read that the Temple was founded "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt," this referring to the Conquest and not to the Exodus, as appears from other notices. The Septuagint reads "440 years," but the details show that the Hebrew text is preferable. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a> the first victory of Jephthah is said to have occurred 300 years after Joshua\'s conquest. The details given for this interval, in other passages of the same book, amount to 326 years; but the periods of "rest" may be given in round numbers, and thus account for this minor discrepancy. Samuel ruled apparently for 20 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,2);">1Sa 7:2</a>), and Saul (the length of whose reign is not stated in our present text of this same book) very probably ruled for 20 years also, as Josephus (Ant., VI, xiv, 9) states. Thus 175 years elapsed between Jephthah\'s victory and the foundation of the Temple<6C>a total of 475 years, or rather more, from Joshua\'s conquest.<P>3. Date of Exodus:<P>The popular belief that many of the judges were contemporary does not agree with these facts, and is indeed in conflict with ten definite statements in Jgs. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,19,20);">Ac 13:19-20</a> we read that after the Conquest there were judges about the space of 450 years, and this rough estimate (including the rule of Samuel) agrees pretty nearly with the 415, or 420, years of the various passages in the Old Testament. According to the Pentateuch and later accounts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25);">Am 5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,30);">Ac 7:30</a>), Israel abode in the desert 40 years. We therefore find that Joshua\'s conquest is placed about 1480 BC, and the Exodus about 1520 BC. According to the revised chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HITTITES">HITTITES</a>), which rests on the notices of contemporary Kassite kings in Babylon, it thus appears that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Thothmes III<49>a great enemy of the Asiatics<63>and the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be Amenophis II or Thothmes IV. If Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus, he must have been born when Thothmes III was an infant, and when his famous sister Hatasu (according to the more probable rendering of her name by French scholars) was regent, and bore the title Ma-ka-Ra. She therefore might be the "daughter of Pharaoh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,5);">Ex 2:5</a>) who adopted Moses<65>no king being mentioned in this passage, but appearing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,15);">Ex 2:15</a>) only when Moses was "grown"; for her regency lasted more than 20 years, till Thothmes III came of age.<P>4. Other Views:<P>As regards this date, it should be remarked that theory of Lepsius, which has been adopted by Brugsch and by many writers who accept his authority, is not accepted by every scholar. E. de Bunsen supposed that the Exodus occurred early in the times of the XVIIIth Dynasty; Sir Peter le Page Renouf said that "no materials have yet been discovered for fixing historical dates in periods of Egyptian history as far back as the Hebrew Exodus"<22>which was true when he wrote. Professor J. Lieblein supposes the Exodus to have occurred late in the time of Amenophis III<49>also of the XVIIIth Dynasty (see Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc.,1890,157-60; 1892, 60-62; 1898, 277; 1899, 53; 1907, 214). Dr. Hommel has also recently declared in favor of the view that the Exodus took place under the XVIIIth Dynasty (Expository Times, February, 1899). Lepsius asserted that the Exodus occurred in 1314 BC, being the 15th year of Minepthah; but this is generally regarded as at least half a century too early for the year in question, and Israel was not in Egypt even ten years earlier in his reign.<P>5. Astronomical Calculations:<P>The approximate dates given by Brugsch for the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties are very close to those which can be deduced from notices of contemporary kings of Babylon (History of Egypt, II, 314). The later dates which Mahler based on certain astronomical calculations of the French astronomer Blot (Academie des inscriptions, March 30,1831,597, 602-4) are not accepted by other Egyptologists. Brugsch says that on this question, "scientific criticism has not yet spoken its last word" (Hist Egypt, I, 36). Renouf (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December,1892,62) more definitely states that "unfortunately there is nothing on Egyptian documents which have as yet come down to us which can, by astronomical calculations, be made to result in a date." This judgment appears to be justified by recent discoveries, since Mahler\'s dates are about a century too late, as shown by the known history of the Kassites of Babylon. Biot\'s calculations were based on recorded observations of the rising of Sirius just before the sun, in certain years of certain Egyptian kings. But Sirius is not in the plane of the earth\'s orbit, and its rising is not constant in retardation. The "heliacal" rising is now about 2 1/2 min. later each year, but about the date in question the retardation was about 12 min., so that a cycle of 1,461 years cannot be used by simple addition. Blot also assumed that the Egyptian observations were as accurate as those made by a modern astronomer with a telescope, whereas, when using the naked eye, the Egyptian observer may well have been a day wrong, which would make a difference of 120 years in the date, or even more. The Babylonian chronology thus gives a far safer basis than do these doubtful observations. On the basis of Biot\'s calculations the Exodus has been placed in 1214 BC, or even (by Dr. Flinders Petrie) in 1192 BC (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December,1896,248). He thus cuts off more than three centuries in the period of the Judges, many of whom he regards as contemporary. Lepsius in like manner, in order to establish his date, accepted the chronology of the Talmud, which is notoriously 166 years too late for the known date of the fall of Samaria, and he endeavored (while rejecting the Old Testament statement as to the 480 years) to base himself on the number of generations before the Exodus, whereas it is well known that the Hebrew genealogies often give only the better-known names and skip several links.<P>6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs:<P>As regards the relation between the earlier date for the Exodus (about 1520 BC) and the chronology of the Hebrew patriarchs, the Hebrew text gives an interval of 645 years, and the Greek text of 430 years between the Exodus and the call of Abraham; and the call would thus be dated about 2165 BC or 1950 BC. Abraham is very generally held to have been contemporary with Hammurabi of Babylon (Amraphel), whose accession dates (according to Dr. F. Peiser) in 2139 BC. Dr. Hommel and Mr. King prefer a later date, about 1950 BC, though Nabunahid (the last king of Babylon) places Hammurabi about 2140 BC. The longer reckoning is reconcilable with the Hebrew text, and the shorter with the Greek text, of Genesis, without disturbing the approximate date for the Exodus which has been advocated above.<P>7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology:<P>There is in fact no discrepancy between the actual results of monumental study and the chronology of the Old Testament. If the Exodus occurred under Thothmes IV, it would have been useless for Israel to attempt the entrance into Palestine by the "way of the land of the Philistines," because at Gaza, Ashkelon and in other cities, the road was still held by forces of Egyptian chariots, which had been established by Thothmes III. But about 40 years later the rebellion of the Amorites against Egypt began, in the time of the Egyptian general Yankhamu, and general chaos resulted in Southern Palestine. The Egyptian garrison at Jerusalem (Amarna Tablets, Berlin, No. 102) was withdrawn in his time<6D>about 1480 BC<42>and it is then (nos. 102-3-4-6, 199) that a fierce people coming from Seir, and called the \'Abiri or Chabiri, are noticed by the Amorite king of Jerusalem as "destroying all the rulers" of the country. They are not named in any of the other Amarna letters (the term gum-gaz, or "man of war," though once applying probably to them, being used of other warriors as well); and the name is geographical for they are called (no. 199) "people of the land of the \'Abiri." The first sign has the guttural sounds \'A and Chronicles, and has not the sound K, which has been wrongly attributed to it, making the word to mean Kabiri, "or great ones." Nor can it be rendered "allies," for it is the name of a people, and quite another word is used for "allies" in this correspondence. The date agrees with that mentioned in the Old Testament for the Hebrew conquest of Palestine, and the only objection to the identification of the \'Abiri (who attacked Ajalon, Lachish, Ashkelon and other cities) with the Hebrews is, that it upsets theory of Lepsius and the popular views as to the date of the Exodus which he maintained.<P>8. A Text of Minepthah:<P>Nor is this the only evidence which destroys his theory; for Dr. Flinders Petrie (Contemporary Review, May, 1896) has published an equally important text of the 5th year of Minepthah, from Thebes. A slab of black syenite, bearing this text, was reused from a temple of Amenophis III. In it Minepthah boasts of his conquest of the invaders who<68>as elsewhere stated<65>attacked the Delta, and penetrated to Belbeis and Heliopolis. He says that "Sutekh (the Hittite god) has turned his back on their chief"; "the Hittites are quieted, Pa-Kan\'ana is ravaged with all violence"<22>this town being otherwise known to have been near Tyre<72>"the people of Israel is spoiled, it has no seed"; "Ruten has become as the widows of the land of Egypt." Thus, so far from the Exodus having occurred in the 15th year of Minepthah, Israel is noticed 10 years earlier in connection with a place near Tyre with Hittites yet farther North. Even if the Hebrews had only just arrived, they must have left Egypt 40 years before<72>in the reign of Rameses II<49>if we attach any value to Old Testament statements; and all the dates variously given by followers of Lepsius are quite upset; whereas the notice of the \'Abiri, two centuries before Minepthah\'s accession, is quite in accord with this allusion to Israel, as well as with Old Testament chronology.<P>III. The Theory of Lepsius.<P>The reasons which influenced Lepsius require, however, to be stated, and the objections to a date for the Hebrew Conquest about 1480 BC (or a little later) to be considered, since theory that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Minepthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus is often said to be a secure result of monumental studies, whereas it is really not so, because the only monumental allusions to Israel and the Hebrews are those just mentioned.<P>1. 1st Argument: City Rameses:<P>The arguments adduced in favor of the later date are as follows: In the first place, Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44) held that no city called Rameses could have been so named, or built by the Hebrews, before the reign of Rameses II, and he placed the site at Heroopolis. This was a very doubtful assumption (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAAMSES">RAAMSES</A>), and his identification of the city is now abandoned. The theory always was vitiated by an objection which he seems to have overlooked: for the "land of Rameses" is noticed in the time of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,11);">Ge 47:11</a>), and since it is impossible to suppose that Jacob lived in the time of Rameses II, the followers of Lepsius are obliged to regard this notice as an anachronism, which destroys their case, as it might equally be an anachronism in the account of the Exodus, though it is probably correct.<P>2. 2nd Argument: Manetho\'s Statements:<P>The second argument is based on the account by Manetho of the expulsion of leprous and unclean tribes from Egypt. Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about 268 BC, and who evidently hated the Jews. His account only reaches us secondhand through Josephus (Apion, I,14,15, 26-31), this Hebrew author rejecting it as fabulous. Manetho apparently said that, after the Hyksos kings had ruled for 511 years, and had fortified Avaris (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOAN">ZOAN</a>), they agreed with King Thummosis to leave Egypt, and went through the desert to Jerusalem, being afraid of the Assyrians (who had no power in Palestine at this time). He continued to relate that, after Armesses Miamon (Rameses II) had ruled 66 years, he was succeeded by an Amenophis whom Josephus calls a "fictitious king"<22>and rightly so since the name does not occur in the XIXth Dynasty. Apparently Minepthah was meant<6E>though perhaps confused with Amenophis II<49>and he is said by Manetho to have sent the leprous people to quarries east of the Nile, but to have allowed them later to live in Avaris where the shepherds had been. They were induced by Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolls, to renounce the Egyptian gods, and this Osarsiph Manetho identified with Moses. They then induced the shepherds who had been expelled by Thummosis to return from Jerusalem to Avaris, and Amenophis fled to Memphis and Ethiopia. His son Rhampses (apparently Rameses III is meant) was sent later to expel the shepherd and polluted people, whom he met at Pelusium and pursued into Syria. This story Josephus discredits, remarking: "I think therefore that I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he followed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the history, but that, when he had recourse to fabulous stories without any certain author, he either forged them himself without any probability, or else gave credit to some men who spoke so out of their ill will to us"<22>a criticism sounder than that of Lepsius, who prefers the libelous account of a prejudiced Egyptian priest of the 3rd century BC, identifying Moses with a renegade priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph, to the ancient Hebrew records in the Bible.<P>3. Relation of Manetho\'s Stories to the Exodus:<P>A thread of truth underlay Manetho\'s stories, but it has nothing to do with the Exodus, and the details to be found on Egyptian monuments do not agree with Manetho\'s tale. The Hyksos rulers were not expelled by any Thothmes, but by Aahmes who took Avaris about 1700 BC, and who reopened the quarries of the Arabian chain. Minepthah, about 1265 BC, was attacked in Egypt by Aryan tribes from the North, who had nothing to do with Hyksos chiefs, being Lycians, Sardians and Cilicians. He repelled them, but they again attacked Rameses III (about 1200 BC), and were again driven to the North. No mention of Israel occurs in connection with any of these events.<P>4. Greek and Latin Writers:<P>The story of the leprous Jews was, however, repeated by other Greek writers. Cheremon (see Josephus, Apion I, 32) says that Rameses, the son of Amenophis, defeated and expelled a diseased people led against him, at Pelusium, by Tisithen and Petesiph, whom he identified with Moses and Joseph. Lysimachus said that a scabby people were led by Moses through the desert by Judea and Jerusalem in the time of Bocchoris (735 BC). Diodorus Siculus (Fr. of Bk, 34) repeats the tale, about 8 BC, saying that lepers were driven out of Egypt, and were led by Moses who founded Jerusalem, and "established by law all their wicked customs and practices," and again (Fr. of Bk, 40) that strangers in Egypt caused a plague by their impurity, and being driven out were led by Moses. Tacitus, about 100 AD (Hist, v. ii), believed the Jews to have fled from Crete to Libya and, being expelled from Egypt, to have been led by their "Captains Jerusalem and Judah." Again he says (v. iii) that under Bocchoris (735 BC) there was sickness in Egypt, and that the infected being driven out were led by Moses, and reached the site of their temple on the 7th day.<P>5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah:<P>No true critic of the present time is likely to prefer these distorted accounts of the Exodus, or any of the Greek and Roman calumnies leveled against the hated Jews, to the simple narration of the Exodus in the Bible. The historic conditions in the 5th year of Minepthah were very different from those at the time of Moses. The invaders of Egypt reached Belbeis and Heliopolis (see Brugsch, History of Egypt, II, 117), and Minepthah states, in his text on the wall of the temple of Amon at Thebes, that he had to defend Hellopolls and Memphis against his foes from the East. The region was then "not cultivated but was left as pasture for cattle, on account of the foreigners. It lay waste from the time of our forefathers." The kings of upper Egypt remained in their entrenchments, and the kings of lower Egypt were besieged in their cities by warriors, and had no mercenaries to oppose them. But Israel, as Minepthah himself has told us now, was in Palestine, not in Egypt, in this year of his reign; and, far from desiring to expel Asiatic pastoral peoples, the same Pharaoh encouraged their immigration into the region of Goshen (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PITHOM">PITHOM</a>) laid waste by the Aryan raid.<P>6. Explanations of Minepthah\'s Statements:<P>Objections to the view that the Exodus occurred two centuries and a half before the reign of Minepthah began, and attempts to explain away the statements on his monuments require some notice.<P>(1) Pithom was Heroopolis. The first of these objections is due to the belief that Pithom was Heroopolis, and was a city founded by Rameses II; but this (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PITHOM">PITHOM</a>) is too hazardous a conclusion to suffice for the entire neglect of Old Testament chronology which it involves, since the site of this city is still very doubtful.<P>(2) Rameses II Not Named in Judges.<P>A second objection is made, that the Old Testament shows complete ignorance of Egyptian history if it makes Rameses II contemporary with Judges because he is not named in that book. But Old Testament references to foreign history are always very slight, while on the other hand it is quite probable that there are allusions, in this book, to the events which took place in the reigns of Rameses II, and of Minepthah. The Hebrews were then confined to the mountains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,19);">Jud 1:19</a>) and the Egyptians to the plains. No Pharaoh is mentioned by name in the Old Testament till the time of Rehoboam. In his 8th year Rameses II took various towns in Galilee including Salem (North of Taanach), Merom, Beth-Anath, Anem and Dapur (Daberath at the foot of Tabor). The revolt of Barak probably occurred about the 25th year of Rameses II, and began at Tabor. In the So of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,2);">Jud 5:2</a>), the first words (bi-pheroa\' pera\'oth), rendered by the Septuagint (Alex MS) "when the rulers ruled," may be more definitely translated "when the Pharaohs were powerful," especially as Sisera<72>who commanded the Canaanite forces<65>bears a name probably Egyptian (ses-Ra, or "servant of Ra"), and may have been an Egyptian resident at the court of Jabin. So again when, about 1265 BC, Minepthah says that "Israel is ruined, it has no seed," the date suggests the time of Gideon when wild tribes swarmed over the plains, "and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,4);">Jud 6:4</a>). The Midianites and Amalekites may have then joined the tribes from Asia Minor who, in the 5th year of Minepthah, ruined the Hittites and invaded the Delta.<P>(3) Some Hebrews Were Never in Egypt.<P>But another explanation of the presence of Israel in this year on the line of Minepthah\'s pursuit of these tribes after their defeat has been suggested, namely, that some of the Hebrews never went to Egypt at all. This of course contradicts the account in the Pentateuch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-5\');">Ex 1:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,41);">12:41</a>) where we read that all Jacob\'s family (70 men) went down to Goshen, and that "all the hosts of the Lord" left Egypt at the Exodus; but it is supposed to be supported by a passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,21);">1Ch 7:21</a>) where we read of one of the sons of Ephraim "whom the men of Gath born in the land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle." Ephraim however was born in Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,52);">Ge 41:52</a>), and his sons and "children of the third generation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,23);">Ge 50:23</a>) remained there. The meaning no doubt is that men of Gath raided Goshen; and there were probably many such raids by the inhabitants of Philistia during the times of the Hyksos kings, similar to those which occurred in the time of Minepthah and of Rameses III. The objections made to the Old Testament date for the Exodus early in the reign of Amenophis III, or in that of his predecessor Thothmes IV, thus appear to have little force; and the condition of Egypt before the 5th year of Minepthah was unlike that which would have existed at the time of the Exodus. The theory of Lepsius was a purely literary conjecture, and not based on any monumental records. It has been falsified by the evidence of monuments found during the last 20 years, and these are fully in accord with the history and chronology of the Old Testament.<P>IV. The Numbers.<P>1. Colenso\'s Criticism of Large Number:<P>The historic difficulty with respect to the Exodus does not lie in the account of plagues natural to Egypt even now, nor in the crossing of the Red Sea, but in a single statement as to the numbers of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">Ex 12:37</a>), \'about 600,000 footmen<65>strong men<65>with many children, and also many wanderers.\' The women are not mentioned, and it has been supposed that this represents a host of 2,000,000 emigrants at least. The objection was urged by Voltaire, and the consequences were elaborately calculated by Colenso. Even if 600,000 means the total population, the "heroes," or "strong men on foot" would, it is urged, have been as numerous as the largest Assyrian army (120,000 men) employed in the conquest of Syria. With an army of more than half a million Moses would have held control over Egypt and Palestine alike; and the emigrants, even in close column of companies, would have stretched for 20 miles; the births would occur every ten minutes; and the assembly before Sinai would have been impossible.<P>2. Increase of Population:<P>It is also difficult to suppose, on ordinary calculations of the increase of population, that in 430 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">Ex 12:40</a>), or in 215 years as given in the Septuagint, a tribe of 70 males (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,26);">Ge 46:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,5);">Ex 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,14);">6:14</a>) could have increased to 600,000, or even 100,000 men. But on the other hand we are specially told (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'7-20\');">Ex 1:7-20</a>) that the children of Israel "increased abundantly," and the comments of Dr Orr (Problem of the Old Testament,1906,363-65) on this question should be studied. A young and vigorous nation might multiply much faster than is now usual in the East. Dr. Flinders Petrie has suggested that for "thousand" we should read "families"; but, though the word (\'eleph) sometimes has that meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,15);">Jud 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,19);">1Sa 10:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,23);">23:23</a>), it is in the singular, and not in the plural, in the passage in question (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">Ex 12:37</a>).<P>3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement:<P>It should not be forgotten that variations in numbers are very commonly found in various texts, VSS, and parallel passages of the Old Testament. Thus for instance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,5);">1Sa 13:5</a>) the Syriac version reads 3,000 for the 30,000 chariots mentioned in the Hebrew and Greek; and the Septuagint (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,11);">1Ki 5:11</a>) gives 20,000 for the 20 measures of oil noticed in the Hebrew text. The probable reason for these discrepancies may be found in the fact that the original documents may have used numeral signs<6E>as did the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites and Phoenicians<6E>instead of writing the words in full as they appear in the New Testament. These numeral signs<6E>especially in cuneiform<72>were apt to be misread, and the sign for "unity" could easily be confused with those denoting "sixty" (the Babylonian unit) and "an hundred"<22>if, in the latter case, a short stroke was added. In the opinion of the present writer the difficulty is due to a corruption of the original statement, which occurred during the course of some fifteen centuries, or more, of continued recopying; but the reader will no doubt form his own conclusions as to this question.<P>4. Review:<P>The general questions of the credibility of that history of the Exodus which is given us in the Pentateuch, and of the approximate date of the event, have been treated above in the light of the most recent monumental information. No reference has yet been found in Egyptian records to the presence of Israel in the Delta, though the Hebrews are noticed as present in Palestine before the 5th year of Minepthah. The Pharaohs as a rule<6C>like other kings<67>only recorded their victories, and no doubt reckoned Israel only as a tribe of those "hostile Shasu" (or "nomads") whom the Theban kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty drove back into Asia. It would be natural that a disaster at the Red Sea should not be noticed in their proud records still extant on the temple walls in Egypt.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`28';
isbe[3298]='Exodus, the Book of, 1`ek\'-so-dus:<P>Contents<P><b>I. IN GENERAL</b><p class="in15">1. Name<p class="in15">2. Contents in General<p class="in15">3. Connection with the Other Books of the Pentateuch<p class="in15">4. Significance of These Events for Israel<p class="in15">5. Connecting Links for Christianity<P><b>II. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES AND ACCORDING TO MODERN ANALYSES</b><p class="in15">1. In General<p class="in15">2. In the Separate Pericopes<P><b>III. HISTORICAL CHARACTER</b><p class="in15">1. General Consideration<p class="in15">2. The Miraculous Character<p class="in15">3. The Legislative Portions<p class="in15">4. Chronology<p class="in15">5. Unjustifiable Attacks<P><b>IV. AUTHORSHIP</b><p class="in15">1. Connection with Moses<p class="in15">2. Examination of Objections<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>(NOTE: For the signs J (Jahwist), E (Elohist), P or Priestly Code (Priest Codex), R (Redactor) compare the article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS,+1-2">GENESIS, 1-2</a>.)<hr /><P>I. In General.<P>1. Name:<P>The second book of the Pentateuch bears in the Septuagint the name of Exodos, in the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) accordingly Exodus, on the basis of the chief contents of the first half, dealing with the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Jews named the book after the first words: we-\'elleh shemoth ("and these are the names"), or sometimes after the first noun shemoth ("names") a designation already known to Origen in the form of Oualesmoth.<P>2. Contents in General:<P>In seven parts, after the Introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-7\');">Ex 1:1-7</a>), which furnishes the connection of the contents with Genesis, the book treats of<P>(1) the sufferings of Israel in Egypt, for which mere human help is insufficient (<span class="noTag">Ex 1:8-7:7</span>), while Divine help through human mediatorship is promised;<P>(2) the power of Yahweh, which, after a preparatory miracle, is glorified through the ten plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and which thus forces the exodus (<span class="noTag">Ex 7:8-13:16</span>);<P>(3) the love of Yahweh for Israel, which exhibits itself in a most brilliant manner, in the guidance of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai, even when the people murmur (<span class="noTag">Ex 13:17-18:27</span>);<P>(4) making the Covenant at Mt. Sinai together with the revelation of the Ten Words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20:1</a>ff) and of the legal ordinances (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,1);">Ex 21:1</a>ff) as the condition of making the Covenant (<span class="noTag">Ex 19:1-24:18</span>);<P>(5) the directions for the building of the Tabernacle, in which Yahweh is to dwell in the midst of His people (<span class="noTag">Ex 24:18-31:18</span>);<P>(6) the renewal of the Covenant on the basis of new demands after Israel\'s great apostasy in the worship of the Golden Calf, which seemed for the time being to make doubtful the realization of the promises mentioned in (5) above (<span class="noTag">Ex 32:1-35:3</span>);<P>(7) the building and erection of the Tabernacle of Revelation (or Tent of Meeting) and its dedication by the entrance of Yahweh (<span class="noTag">Ex 35:4-40:38</span>).<P>As clearly as these seven parts are separated from one another, so clearly again are they most closely connected and constitute a certain progressive whole.<P>In the case of the last four, the separation is almost self-evident. The first three as separate parts are justified by the ten plagues standing between them, which naturally belong together and cause a division between that which precedes and that which follows. Thus in the first part we already find predicted the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh, the miracles of Yahweh and the demonstrations of His power down to the slaying of the firstborn, found in the 2nd part (compare <span class="noTag">Ex 2:23-7:7</span>).<P>In part 3, the infatuation of Pharaoh and the demonstration of the power of Yahweh are further unfolded in the narrative of the catastrophe in the Red Sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4,17);">Ex 14:4, 17</a>). Further the directions given with reference to the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,31);">Ex 25:31</a> taken from P) presuppose the Decalogue (from E); compare eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,16,21);">Ex 25:16, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">31:18</a>; as again the 6th section (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a>ff) presupposes the 5th part, which had promised the continuous presence of God (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,34);">Ex 32:34</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,3,5,7);">33:3, 5, 7</a>ff JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,12,\'14-17\');">33:12,14-17</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,9);">34:9</a> J, with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">25:8</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</a>f P; compare also the forty days in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">34:28</a> J with those in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,18);">24:18</A> P) as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,1,28);">34:1, 28 J and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'11-27\');">34:11-27</a> J refers back to the 4th part, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,1);">21:1</a>ff E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,7);">24:7</a> JE (Decalogue; Books of the Covenant; Making the Covenant). In the same way the last section presupposes the third, since the cloud in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">Ex 40:34</a>ff P is regarded as something well known (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">13:21</a>f JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,19);">14:19</a> E and J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,24);">14:24</a> J). The entire contents of the Book of Exodus are summarized in an excellent way in the word of God to Israel spoken through Moses concerning the making of the covenant: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles\' wings, and brought you unto myself.<P>Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'4-6\');">Ex 19:4-6</a>). Here reference is made to the powerful deeds of God done to the Egyptians, to His deeds of lovingkindness done to Israel in the history of how He led them to Sinai, to the selection of Israel, and to the conditions attached to the making of the covenant, to God\'s love, which condescended to meet the people, and to His holiness, which demands the observance of His commandments; but there is also pointed out here the punishment for their transgression. The whole book is built on one word in the preface to the ten commandments: I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,2);">Ex 20:2</a> E; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</A>f P).<P>3. Connection with the Other Books of the Pentateuch:<P>The events which are described in the Book of Exodus show a certain contrast to those in Genesis. In the first eleven chapters of this latter book we have the history of mankind; then beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,27);">11:27</A>, a history of families, those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Exodus we have following this the beginning of the history of the chosen people. Then there is also a long period of time intervening between the two books. If Israel was 430 years in Egypt (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">12:40</a>f P; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a> J; see III, 4 below), and if the oppression began during the long reign of the predecessors of the Pharaoh, during whose reign Israel left the country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">Ex 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,8);">1:8</a>), then, too, several centuries must have elapsed between the real beginning of the book (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,8);">Ex 1:8</a>ff), and the conclusion of Genesis. Notwithstanding these differences, there yet exists the closest connection between the two books. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-7\');">Ex 1:1-7</a> connects the history of the people as found in Exodus with the family history of Genesis, by narrating how the seventy descendants of Jacob that had migrated to Egypt (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,5);">Ex 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">Ge 46:27</a>) had come to be the people of Israel, and that God, who offers Himself as a liberator to Moses and the people, is also the God of those fathers, of whom Genesis spoke (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13);">3:13</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,15);">3:15</a>f R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,5);">4:5</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">6:3</a> P). Indeed, His covenant with the fathers and His promises to them are the reasons why He at all cares for Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">Ex 2:24</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,8);">6:8</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,1);">33:1</a> JE), and when Moses intercedes for the sinful people, his most effective motive over against God is found in the promises made to the patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,13);">Ex 32:13</a> JE).<P>As is the case with Genesis, Exodus stands in the closest connection also with the succeeding books of the Pentateuch. Israel is certainly not to remain at Sinai, but is to come into the promised land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,17);">3:17</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,8);">6:8</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,20);">23:20</a>ff JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,34);">32:34</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,1);">33:1</a>ff JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,12);">33:12</a>ff J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,9);">34:9</a>ff J and D; compare also the many ordinances of the Books of the Covenant, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,1);">21:1</a>ff E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,11);">34:11</a>ff D and J). In this way the narratives of the following books, which begin again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,11);">Nu 10:11</a>ff P and JE with the story of the departure from Sinai, continue the history in Exodus. But the legislation in Leviticus also is a necessary continuation and supplement of the Book of Exodus, and is prepared for and pointed to in the latter. The erection of the burnt-offering altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,1);">27:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,1);">38:1</a>ff), as well as the mention made of the different kinds of sacrifices, such as the burnt sacrifices and the sin offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,18);">29:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,14);">29:14</a>) and of the heave offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,28);">29:28</a>), point to the promulgation of a law of sacrifices such as we find in <span class="noTag">Le 1-7</span>. The directions given in regard to the consecration of the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'1-\');">Ex 29</a>) are carried out in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>f. The indefinite commands of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,10);">Ex 30:10</a> in reference to the atonement on the horn of the incense altar once every year renders necessary the special ritual of the Day of Atonement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> as its supplement. The more complete enlargement in reference to the shewbread mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,30);">Ex 25:30</a> is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'5-9\');">Le 24:5-9</a>; and even the repetitions in references to the candlesticks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,31);">Ex 25:31</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-4\');">Le 24:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,\'1-4\');">Nu 8:1-4</a>), as also the tamidh ("continuous") sacrifices (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'3-8\');">Nu 28:3-8</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'38-42\');">Ex 29:38-42</a>), point to a certain connection between Exodus and the following books. How close the connection between Deuteronomy and Exodus is, both in regard to the historical narratives and also to their legal portions (compare the Decalogue and the Books of the Covenant), can only be mentioned at this place.<P>4. Significance of These Events for Israel:<P>When we remember the importance which the exodus out of Egypt and the making of the covenant had for the people of Israel, and that these events signalized the birth of the chosen people and the establishment of theocracy, then we shall understand why the echo of the events recorded in Exodus is found throughout later literature, namely, in the historical books, in the preaching of the prophets and in the Psalms, as the greatest events in the history of the people, and at the same time as the promising type of future and greater deliverances. But as in the beginning of the family history the importance of this family for the whole earth is clearly announced (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-3\');">Ge 12:1-3</a>), the same is the case here too at the beginning of the history of the nation, perhaps already in the expression "kingdom of priests" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,6);">Ex 19:6</a>), since the idea of a priesthood includes that of the transmission of salvation to others; and certainly in the conception \'first-born son of Yahweh\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>), since this presupposes other nations as children born later.<P>The passages quoted above are already links connecting this book with Christianity, in the ideas of a general priesthood, of election and of sonship of God. We here make mention of a few specially significant features from among the mass of such relationships to Christianity.<P>5. Connecting Links for Christianity:<P>How great a significance the Decalogue, in which the law is not so intimately connected with what is specifically Jewish and national, as eg. in the injunctions of the Priest Codex, according to the interpretation of Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Mt 5</a>, has attained in the history of mankind! But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>ff Jesus has vindicated for the law in all its parts an everlasting authority and significance and has emphasized the eternal kernel, which accordingly is to be assigned to each of these legal behests; while Paul, on the other hand, especially in Romans, Galatians and Colossians, emphasizes the transitory character of the law, and discusses in detail the relation of the Mosaic period to that of the patriarchs and of the works of the law to faith, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,\'1-\');">2Co 3</a> he lauds the glory of the service in the spirit over that of the letter (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">Ex 34</a>)<29>an idea which in reference to the individual legal institutions is also carried out in the Ep. to the Hebrews. Compare on this subject also the articles <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>. Then too the Passover lamb was a type of Jesus Christ (compare eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,36);">Joh 19:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,19);">1Pe 1:19</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">Ex 12</a> the Passover rite and the establishment of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,24);">24:3-8</a>) are found most closely connected also with the Lord\'s Supper and the establishment of the New Covenant.<P>In the permanent dwelling of God in the midst of His people in the pillar of fire and in the Tabernacle there is typified His dwelling among mankind in Christ Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>) and also the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the Christian congregation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5);">1Pe 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,12);">Eph 4:12</a>) and in the individual Christian (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,16);">1Co 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19);">6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,16);">2Co 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,23);">Joh 14:23</a>). The Apocalypse particularly is rich in thought suggested by the exodus out of Egypt. Unique thoughts in reference to the Old Testament are found in the conceptions that the law was given through angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,53);">Ac 7:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19);">Ga 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,2);">Heb 2:2</a>); further that the rock mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">Ex 17:6</a> followed, and was Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,4);">1Co 10:4</a>); and that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,4);">Heb 9:4</a> the real connection of the altar of incense with the Holy of Holies appears as changed into a local connection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,26,27);">Ex 40:26-27</a>), while the idea found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,4);">Heb 9:4</a> that the manna was originally in the Ark of the Covenant, is perhaps not altogether excluded by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,33);">Ex 16:33</a>; and the number 430 years, found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,17);">Ga 3:17</a>, probably agrees with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40,41);">Ex 12:40-41</a>, in so far as the whole of the patriarchal period could be regarded as a unit (compare on the reading of the Septuagint in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40,41);">Ex 12:40-41</a>, III, 4 below).<P>Continued in next article<6C>[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Exodus,+the+Book+of,+2">Exodus, the Book of, 2</A>]``122';
isbe[3299]='Exodus, the Book of, 2`II. Structure of the Book According to the Scriptures and According to Modern Analyses.<P>In the following section (a) serves for the understanding of the Biblical text; (b) is devoted to the discussion and criticism of the separation into sources.<P>1. In General:<P>(a) The conviction must have been awakened already by the general account of the contents given in I, 2 above, that in the Book of Exodus we are dealing with a rounded-off structure, since in seven mutually separated yet intimately connected sections, one uniform fundamental thought is progressively carried through. This conviction will only be confirmed when the details of these sections are studied, the sections being themselves again organically connected by one leading thought. Since, in addition, the Book of Genesis is clearly divided into ten parts by the ten toledhoth ("generations") (compare also the division made by typical numbers in articles <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>), thus too the number seven, as itself dividing the Book of Exodus into seven parts, is probably not accidental; and this all the less, as in the subordinate parts too, a division is to be found according to typical numbers, this in many cases appearing as a matter of course, and in other cases traced without difficulty, and sometimes lying on the surface (compare 10 plagues, 10 commandments). Yet in all of the following investigations, as is the case in the articles <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS,+1-2">GENESIS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</A> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>, the demonstration of the fundamental thought must be the main thing for us. The division according to typical numbers is to be regarded merely as an additional confirmation of the literary unity of the book. We refer here first of all to a number of cases, where certain numbers independently of the separate chief parts combine the Biblical text into a unity. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,22);">Nu 14:22</a> R, Yahweh states that Israel had now tempted Him and been disobedient to Him ten times: compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,11);">Ex 14:11</a>ff JE(?) (Red Sea); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,23);">15:23</a>f JE (Marah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,2,3);">16:2-3</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,20);">16:20</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,27,28);">16:27-28</a> R (Manna); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">17:1</a>ff JE (Massah and Meribah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,1);">32:1</a>ff JE (Golden Calf); <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,1);">Nu 11:1</a>ff JE (Tuberah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,4);">11:4</a>ff JE (Graves of Lust); <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,2);">14:2</a>ff P and JE (Spies). Most of these cases are accordingly reported in the Book of Exodus, but in such manner that in this particular a clearly marked progress can be noticed, as Yahweh does not begin to punish until <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a>; but from here on He does so with constantly increasing severity, while down to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a> grace alone prevails, and in this particular, previous to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a>, there is found nothing but a warning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,27);">16:27</a>).Ten times it is further stated of Pharaoh, in a great variety of forms of expression, that he hardened his own heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,13);">7:13</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,14);">7:14</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,22);">7:22</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,15);">8:15</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,32);">8:32</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,7,34,35);">9:7, 34-35</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,15);">13:15</a> D); ten times the hardening is ascribed to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,21);">4:21</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,3);">7:3</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,12);">9:12</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,1);">10:1</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,20);">10:20</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,27);">10:27</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,10);">11:10</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4,8);">14: 4,8 P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> P ?). Here already we must note that within the narrative of the miracles and the plagues at first there is mention made only of the hardening by Pharaoh himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,13);">7:13</A> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,14);">7:14</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,22);">7:22</A> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,11);">8:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,15);">8:15</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,28);">8:28</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,7);">9:7</a> JE, i.e. seven times) before a single word is said that God begins the hardening; and this latter kind of hardening thereupon alone concludes the whole tragedy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4,8);">14:4, 8</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> P?). Ten months cover the time from the arrival at Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">19:1</a> P) to the erection of the sacred dwelling-place of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,17);">40:17</a> P). Since, further, exactly three months of this time are employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,10,16);">19:10, 16</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,3);">24:3</a>ff JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,16);">24:16</a> P (ten days); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,18);">24:18</a> P (40 days); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">34:28</a> J (40 days), there remain for the building of the tabernacle exactly seven months.<P>(b) What has been said does anything but speak in favor of the customary division of Exodus into different sources. It is generally accepted that the three sources found in Genesis are also to be found in this book; in addition to which a fourth source is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'3-16\');">Ex 13:3-16</a>, of a Deuteronomistic character. It is true and is acknowledged that the advocates of this hypothesis have more difficulties to overcome in Exodus than in Genesis, in which latter book too, however, there are insufficient grounds for accepting this view, as is shown in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS">GENESIS</a>. Beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">Ex 6</a> the chief marks of such a separation of sources falls away as far as P and J are concerned, namely, the different uses of the names of God, Elohim and Yahweh. For, according to the protagonists of the documentary theory, P also makes use of the name Yahweh from this chapter on; E, too, does the same from <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13);">Ex 3:13</a>ff on, only that, for a reason not understood, occasionally the word Elohim is still used by this source later on, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,17);">13:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,1);">18:1</a>ff. But as a number of passages using the name Elohim are unhesitatingly ascribed by the critics to J, this difference in the use of the name of God utterly fails to establish a difference of sources. To this is to be added, that J and E are at this place closely interwoven; that, while the attempt is constantly being made to separate these two sources, no generally accepted results have been reached and many openly acknowledge the impossibility of such a separation, or admit that it can be effected only to a very limited extent. Peculiarities which are regarded as characteristic of the different sources, such as the sin of Aaron in J, the staff of Moses in E, Sinai in J and the Priestly Code (P), Horeb in E, the dwelling of the Israelites in Goshen in J, but according to E their living in the midst of the Egyptians, and others, come to nought in view of the uniform text in the passages considered. This has been proved most clearly, e.g. by Eerdmans in his Alttestamentliche Studien, III ("Das Buck Exodus") in regard to many of these passages. Narratives of a similar character, like the two stories in which Moses is described as striking the rock to produce water (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">Ex 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">Nu 20:1</a>ff), are not duplicates, but are different events. Compare the different localities in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,7);">Ex 17:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">Nu 20:1</a>, as also the improbability that Israel would without cause in the first passage have put into permanent form the story of its shame, and then in the latter there would have been an uncertainty as to the importance of this locality for the career of Moses; and finally, we must notice the distinction expressly made by the additional statement, "waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'12-14\');">Nu 27:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,51);">De 32:51</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>). Then, too, these occurrences, if we accept the division into J and E at this place, are not reduced to a single event, since both sources would share in both narratives. The same condition of affairs is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'1-\');">Ex 16</a> in so far as JE comes into consideration, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a> in comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'1-\');">Nu 11</a>. In the case of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'1-\');">Nu 11</a> there is express reference made to a former narrative by the word "again" and in the second case all the details in their differences point to different occurrences. Concerning other so-called duplicates in Exodus, see later in this article. But the acceptance of P in contradistinction to the text of JE does also not lead to tangible results, notwithstanding that there exists a general agreement with regard to the portions credited to P. Not taking into consideration certain that are peculiar, the following sections are attributed to this source: <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-7\',\'13-15\');">Ex 1:1-7, 13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23,24,25);">2:23-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'2-\');">6:2</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-13\');">7:13</a>; (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'6-30\');">6:28-30</a> R); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'19-22\');">Ex 7:19a; 21b; 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'1-3\',\'11-15\');">8:1-3, 11b-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,\'8-12\');">9:8-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-20\',28,37,\'40-50\');">12:1-20, 28, 37, 40-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,1,2,20);">13:1-2, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,\'1-4\',\'8-10\',\'15-18\',\'21-23\',29);">Ex 14:1-4, 8-10, 15-18, 21a, 22-23, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'1-3\',\'9-14\',\'15-18\',\'21-26\',31,32,34,35);">16:1-3, 9-14, 15b-18, 21-26, 31-32, 34a, 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">Ex 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1,2);">19:1-2</a>; <span class="noTag">24:15-31:17</span>; <span class="noTag">34:29-40:38</a>. It is claimed that in the Book of Genesis these sources constitute the backbone of the whole work; but this is not claimed for Ex. The sections ascribed to P constitute in this place, too, anything but an unbroken story. In both language and substance they are, to a certain extent, most closely connected with the parts ascribed to JE, and in part they are indispensable for the connection whence they have been taken (compare for details below). It is absolutely impossible to separate on purely philological grounds in the purely narrative portions in Exodus the portions belonging to P. That genealogies like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,14);">Ex 6:14</a>ff, or chronological notices like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40,41,51);">12:40,41,51</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">19:1</A>, or directions for the cults like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">Ex 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>ff have their own peculiar forms, is justified by self-evident reasons; but this does not justify the acceptance of separate authors. It is the result of the peculiar matter found in each case. We must yet note that the passages attributed to P would in part contain views which could not be harmonized with theological ideas ascribed to this source, which are said to include an extreme transcendental conception of God; thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,10);">16:10</a> the majesty of Yahweh suddenly appears to the congregation, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff this majesty takes possession of the newly erected dwelling. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,19);">8:19</A> mention is made of the finger of God, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">7:1</a> Moses is to be as God to Pharaoh. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a> the existence of the Egyptian gods is presupposed and the heathen sorcerers are able to act in competition with Moses and Aaron for a while; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,11,2,22);">7:11,12,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,3);">8:3</A>. P also describes the Passover, which on account of the handling of the blood in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,7);">12:7</a> cannot be regarded in any other light than as a sacrifice in the house, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,7,13);">Nu 9:7,13</a>, this act is expressly called a qorban Yahweh (\'sacrifice of Yahweh\'). Compare also the commands in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,10,43,48);">Ex 12:10, 43, 48</a>. But more than anything else, what has been said under (a) above goes to show that all these sources have been united in a way that characterizes the work of a systematic writer, and declares against any view that would maintain that these sources have been mechanically placed side by side and interwoven into each other. What has here been outlined for the whole book in general must now be applied to the different parts in particular. <P>2. In the Separate Pericopes:<P>(1) <span class="noTag">Exodus 1:8-7:7</span>:<P>(a) Everything that is narrated in this section, which in so worthy a manner introduces the whole book, is written from a standpoint of the Egyptian oppression, from which human help could give no deliverance, but from which the mighty power of Yahweh, working through human agency, offered this deliverance. It is a situation which demands faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,31);">4:31</a>). This section naturally falls into ten pericopes, of which in each instance two are still more closely connected. Nos. 1 and 2</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'8-14\',\'15-22\');">1:8-14,15-22</a>), namely, the oppression through forced labor and the threat to take the life of the newly born males of the Israelites; and in contrast to this, the Divine blessing in the increase of the people in general and of the midwives in particular; Nos. 3 and 4 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'1-10\');">Ex 2:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'11-22\');">11-22</a>), namely, the birth and youth of Moses stand in contrast. The child seems to be doomed, but God provides for its deliverance. Moses, when grown to manhood, tries to render vigorous assistance to his people through his own strength, but he is compelled to flee into a far-off country. Nos. 5 and 6 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'23-\');">Ex 2:23-4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,\'18-31\');">4:18-31</a>) report the fact that also in the reign of a new Pharaoh the oppression does not cease, and that this causes God to interfere, which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'23-25\');">Ex 2:23-25</a> is expressed in strong terms and repeatedly, and this again leads to the revelation in the burning bush (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">3:1</a>ff). And at the same time the narrative shows how little self-confidence Moses still had (three signs, a heavy tongue, direct refusal). The sixth pericope and also the beginning of the last four, describe, from an external viewpoint, the return of Moses to Midian, and his journey from there to Egypt. Here, too, mention is made of the troubles caused by Pharaoh, which God must remove through His power. This deliverance is not at all deserved by Israel, since not even any son in a family had up to this time been circumcised. On the other hand, everything here is what can be expected. Those who sought the life of Moses had died; the meeting with Aaron at the Mount of the Lord; in Egypt the faith of the people. In an effective way the conclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,31);">4:31</a>) returns to the point where the two companion narratives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">2:24</a>f) begin. After this point, constituting the center and the chief point in the introductory section, Nos. 7 and 8 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,\'1-\');">Ex 5:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'2-12\');">6:2-12</a>), everything seems to have become doubtful. Pharaoh refuses to receive Moses and Aaron; the oppression increases; dissatisfaction in Israel appears; Moses despairs; even the new revelations of God, with fair emphasis on fidelity to the Covenant which is to unfold Yahweh\'s name in full, are not able to overcome the lack of courage on the part of the people and of Moses. Nos. 9 and 10, introduced by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,13);">Ex 6:13</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'14-27\');">6:14-27</A> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'28-\');">6:28</A> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-7\');">7:7</a>), show that after Moses and Aaron have already been mentioned together in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,14,27);">4:14,27</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,1);">5:1</a>ff, and after it has become clear how little they are able of themselves to accomplish anything, they are now here, as it were, for the first time, before the curtain is raised, introduced as those who in the following drama are to be the mediators of God\'s will (compare the concluding verses of both pericopes, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,27);">6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,7);">7:7</a>), and they receive directions for their common mission, just at that moment when, humanly speaking, everything is as unfavorable as possible.<P>(b) The unity of thought here demonstrated is in this case too the protecting wall against the flood-tide of the documentary theory. For this theory involves many difficulties. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,13);">Ex 1:13</a>f there would be an account of the oppression by the Priestly Code (P), but the motive for this can be found only in the preceding verses, which are ascribed to JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">2:24</a> speaks of the Covenant of God With Isaac, concerning which P is said to have reported nothing in the Book of Genesis, as in the latter book a reference to this matter is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,\'2-5\');">Ge 26:2-5</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,24);">26:24</a> J. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,2);">Ex 6:2</a>ff Moses and Aaron are mentioned; but as the text of P reads we know absolutely nothing from this source as to who these men are. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">7:1</a>ff Aaron is to be the speaker for Moses before Pharaoh. But according to P neither Moses nor Aaron speaks a single word. The omissions that are found by critics in documents J and E<>which, if they are separated, have lines of demarcation claimed for the separation that are very unsettled<65>we here pass over in silence.<P>On the critical theory, the narratives of the Priestly Code (P), in the Book of Exodus, as also in Genesis, would have discarded many of the stereotyped formulas characteristic of this source (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">Ex 2:23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,2);">6:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">7:1</a>ff), and in both form and contents would be made very similar to the rest of the text <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,9,10,12);">Ex 1:9-10, 12</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,20);">1:20</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">7:1</a> P; and to a great extent expressions similar to these are here found and in part refer to these. The same must be said concerning <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,7);">3:7</a> JE in its relation to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">2:23</A>ff P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6);">6:6</a>ff (sibhloth) P in its relation to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">1:11</A> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,11);">2:11</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,4,5);">5:4,5</a> JE (in contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,13,14);">1:13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">2:23</a>). JE, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,9);">4:9</a> for "dry land," makes use of the term ha-yabbashah, which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,9);">Ge 1:9</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,16);">Ex 14:16</a> is ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), and a different expression is used for this thought by J in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,22);">Ge 7:22</a>. In reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">Ex 7:1</a> P compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,14);">4:14</a> E (?). In reference to the hardening of Pharaoh, which is found in all the sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,3);">7:3</a> P), see above under 1a; in reference to the miracles, and their purpose of making Yahweh known to the Egyptians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'3-5\');">7:3-5</a> P) see the following paragraph. The four generations mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,14);">7:14</a>ff P find their parallel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,16);">Ge 15:16</a> J (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',46,8);">46:8</a>ff); and the sons of Aaron mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,23);">Ex 6:23</a> the Priestly Code (P), Nadab and Abihu, are mentioned also in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,1,9);">24:1,9</a>, ascribed to JE although, except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">Le 10</a> the Priestly Code (P), their names are not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. In reference to the repetitions, it must be said that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,13);">Ex 1:13</a> P is either the continuation (in so far as the Israelites instead of being compulsory laborers became slaves), or is a concluding summary, such as is found frequently. The new revelation of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">Ex 6</a> the Priestly Code (P), according to chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">3</a> JE, finds its psychological and historical motive in the account of the failure described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,31);">5:1</a>ff JE, and in the discouragement of the Israelites and of Moses resulting therefrom. In the same way the renewed mention by Moses of his difficulties of speech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,12);">6:12</a> P; compare with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,10);">4:10</a>ff J and E (?)) is very characteristic of human ways, and this again necessitates the twice repeated consideration of this matter by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,30);">6:30</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,10);">4:10</a>ff J and E (?); concerning the names of God, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS,+1-2">GENESIS; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</A>).<P>One difficulty, which is also not made clear by the proposed division of sources, is found in the name of the father-in-law of Moses; since according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,18);">Ex 2:18</a> J, this name is Reuel, and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,1);">18:1</a> JE, it is Jethro (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,18);">4:18</a> E in the form "Jether"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,29);">Nu 10:29</a> JE is called Hobab and a son of Reuel (the King James Version "Raguel") for all of these passages are ascribed to J or E. It is probable that the name Jethro is a title ("Excellency"); and as for the rest, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,29);">Nu 10:29</a> chothen probably does not mean father-in-law but brother-in-law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,11);">4:11</a>); or in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,18);">Ex 2:18</a> we find father and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,21);">2:21</a> daughter in the place of grandfather and granddaughter; otherwise we should be compelled to accept different traditions, by which view, however, the Mosaic authorship of Exodus would be made impossible (compare IV, below).<P>(2) <span class="noTag">Exodus 7:8-13:16</span>:<P>(a) This section is separated as a matter of course from the rest by the typical number of ten plagues. It is introduced by the transformation of the rod into a serpent in the presence of Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'8-13\');">7:8-13</a>). To explain the fact that there were ten plagues on the ground of the accidental combination of sources, is from the very outset a precarious undertaking. To this must be added the following reasons that indicate a literary editing of the material. All of the plagues are introduced by the same formula (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,12);">7:12</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,1);">8:1</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,12);">8:12</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,16);">8:16</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,20);">8:20</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,1);">9:1</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,8);">9:8</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,13);">9:13</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,1,12);">10:1,12</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,21);">10:21</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,1);">11:1</a> E), and in connection with each plague the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh is mentioned (compare (1a) above); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,22);">7:22</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,11);">8:11</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,15);">8:15</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,28);">8:28</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,7);">9:7</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,12);">9:12</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,34);">9:34</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,35);">9:35</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,1);">10:1</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,20);">10:20</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,27);">10:27</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,10);">11:10</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,15);">13:15</a> D. As is the case in the first section, we find here too in each instance two plagues more closely connected, namely, Nos. 1 and 2 already externally united by the double address of Yahweh (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,14);">7:14</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,19);">7:19</a> P and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,26);">7:26</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,1);">8:1</a> P), but also by the methods of punishment that are related to each other (water changed to blood and frogs); and, finally, by the extension of the plague (the Nile and beyond the river). In 3 and 4 we have to deal with insects (stinging flies and dung flies); in 5 and 6 with a kind of pest (pest among cattle, and boils); 7 and 8 are again formally joined by the repeated command of Yahweh to Moses in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,13,22);">9:13, 22</a> JE and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,1,12);">10:1,12</a> JE, as also by the fullness of the account the two show and their similarity, in both also use being made of the staff (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,23);">9:23</a>f JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,13);">10:13</a>f JE), in the repetition of the emphasis put on the remarkable character of the plague (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,18,24);">9:18,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,6,14);">10:6,14</a> JE). By both plagues vegetation is destroyed; and in the plague of locusts special reference is made also to the hail (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,5,12,15);">10:5,12,15</a>). In the case of 9 and 10, the darkness constitutes a connecting link (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,21);">10:21</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,4);">11:4</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">12:12</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,30,31);">12:30,31</a> JE). By the side of the occasional rhythm formed of two members there is also one formed of three members (after the manner of a triole in a measure of two beats). In the case of each group of three plagues, two are announced beforehand (thus 1 JEP and 2 JP; 4 JE and 5 JE; 7 JE and 8 JE; 10 EJ over against 3 the Priestly Code (P), 6 P and 9 E); the first of each group of three plagues, as 1, 4 and 7, is to be announced by Moses on the following morning to Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,15);">7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,20);">8:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,13);">9:13</A> JE). Also in regard to the impression caused by the plagues a distinct progress can be noticed, in this too, that the Egyptian sorcerers are active only down to the third plague. Naturally, too, over against these facts, further peculiarities can be pointed out in the separate plagues, e.g. the fact that Goshen, or rather that Israel, is spared in the 4th, 5th, 7th through 10th plagues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,22);">8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,6,26);">9:6,26</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,23);">10:23</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,7);">11:7</A> J); and in the mention made of the intercession in the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,8);">8:8</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,12);">8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,28,33);">9:28,33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,17);">10:17</a>f JE) without thereby destroying the artistic construction of the whole that has been described above, or that in each such case of individuality of presenting the matter there is to be found a reason for claiming a separate source.P>(b) In the same way, too, it is not a permissible conclusion, that in the first miracle and in the first three plagues mention is made of the fact that Aaron performed this miracle with his staff (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,8);">Ex 7:8</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,19);">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'5-20\');">8:5-20</a>ff P). At any rate, in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), no absolute uniformity is to be found, since plagues 1 to 3 are commanded to Moses, while the 6th is commanded to Moses and Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,19);">Ex 7:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,1,20);">8:1, 20</a> over against <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,8);">Ex 9:8</a>); and since, further, in the 6th plague (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,8);">Ex 9:8</a>) it is Moses, and in the 10th (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a>) it is God Himself who really carries out the command, and not Aaron, as was the case in the introductory miracles and in the first three plagues. Further, according to JE (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,30);">Ex 4:30</a>), it appears that the presupposition is that we are to consider all of the addresses and actions in general as taking place through Aaron, even in those cases where this is not especially mentioned.<P>Only the 1st plague (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,14);">Ex 7:14</a>ff) furnishes an apparent reason for the acceptance of two sources. In this case mention is made at times of the waters of the Nile only, and then of all other waters being changed into blood; and a separation from this point of view at least could be carried through. But this possibility disappears at once in the case of the 2nd plague (frogs), where the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'1-3\');">Ex 8:1-3</a>, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), which verses contain the consummation of the plague announced in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'26-29\');">7:26-29</a> J (Hebrew), is altogether necessary for this connection; as otherwise the impression made upon Pharaoh by this plague, which is not mentioned in P at all, would be a torso. The similarity in the construction of the 2nd and the 1st plague, however (compare under (a) above), and the same difference in the mention made of the Nile and of the other waters in the 2nd plague, make it possible and even advisable in the case of the first plague, too, to discard the hypothesis of a difference in sources, because in the 2nd plague this difference cannot be carried out. Then, too, there would be other omissions found in P. According to the customary separation of sources, P would not contain the fulfillment of the threatened tenth plague announced in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">12:12</a> at all. In the same way the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,28);">12:28</a> refers to the carrying out of a command, the announcement of which to Israel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,21);">12:21</a>ff would be found in another source. Further in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">12:37a</a> we would have the Priestly Code (P), as when the parts belonging to P have been eliminated, the other sources too would contain omissions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,21);">12:21</A>ff, mostly JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">12:37b</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,3);">13:3</a>ff D. In the same way the announcement of a large number of miracles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,3);">7:3</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,9</a>);">11:9</a> R) is too comprehensive, if these verses refer only to the narratives found in P. In addition, there is a remarkable similarity found in all of the narratives of P with those parts which are ascribed to JE; compare the first miracle in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,8);">7:8</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,2);">4:2</a>ff J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,17);">4:17</a> E. In the Priestly Code (P), too, as is the case with JE, it is stated that the purpose of the miracle is, that Pharaoh, or the Egyptians, or Israel, are to recognize that Yahweh is God and the Lord of the earth, or something to this effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,5);">7:5</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,17);">7:17</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,10);">8:10</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,22);">8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,14,29,30);">9:14,29,30</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,2);">10:2</a> R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,7);">11:7</a> J; compare from the next section, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4);">14:4</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,18);">14:18</a> the Priestly Code (P), which at the same time is also the fundamental thought that forms the connecting link of the whole section). The position of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,\'1-3\');">Ex 11:1-3</a> E between <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,28,29);">10:28,29</a> E and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,8);">11:8</a> J constitutes a difficulty, because in the last-mentioned passages Moses is represented as standing continuously before Pharaoh. The announcement made by Yahweh to Moses, that one more plague is to come, and that the Israelites should borrow articles of value from the Egyptians, must in reality have been made before, but for good reasons it is mentioned for the first time at this place, in order to explain the confident utterance of Moses, that he would not again appear before Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,29);">10:29</a>). But the fact that according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,32);">12:31</a> JE Pharaoh does in reality once more cause Moses and Aaron to be called, can readily be explained on the ground of the events that happened in the meantime.<P>The structure of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">Exodus 12</a>f contains nothing that could not have been written by one and the same author. Only Moses naturally did not at once communicate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,21);">12:21</a>ff) to the leading men of Israel the command given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,15);">12:15</a>ff concerning the unleavened bread, which command had been given for later generations; and not until <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,3);">13:3</a>ff is this command mentioned in connection with the order given to the people in the meantime concerning the firstborn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,1);">13:1</a>f). The further fact, that the story of the exodus reaches a preliminary conclusion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,42);">12:42</a> before the details of the Passover (verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3);">3</a>ff) have been given, is in itself justifiable. As far as contents are concerned, everything in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>f; namely, the exodus, the festival of unleavened bread, the firstborn, and orders pertaining thereto, that the month of the exodus is to be regarded as the first month, etc., are closely connected with the Passover and the 10th plague. Because the latter had to be described more fully than the other plagues, we find already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,9,10);">11:9,10</a>, after the announcement of this plague and its results, a comprehensive notice concerning all the miracles through which Yahweh demonstrated how He, amid great manifestations of power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,4);">7:4</a> P) and with a mighty hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">6:1</a> JE), has led His people forth. <P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'17-\');">Exodus 13:17</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-27\');">18:27</a>:<P>(a) This section finds its connecting thought in the emphasis placed on the love of Yahweh, on His readiness to help, and His long-suffering in the leading of His at times murmuring people on the road to and as far as Sinai. This section covers two months. What is narrated, beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">Ex 16:1</a>, transpires even within a single two weeks (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">Ex 19:1</a>). No. 1</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'17-22\');">Ex 13:17-22</a>), describes the journey to Etham (out of love God does not lead the people the direct way, since He fears that they will become unfaithful in the event of a battle; Joseph\'s bones are taken along, since God now really is taking care of His people (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,24,26);">Ge 50:24, 26</a>); Yahweh\'s friendly presence is shown in the pillar of fire). No. 2</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,\'1-31\');">Ex 14:1-31</a>) contains the passage through the Red Sea (Yahweh the helper; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,10,15);">Ex 14:10, 15</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,13,14,20,21,26,31);">13-14, 20-21, 24, 26f; 31</a>, notwithstanding the murmuring of Israel, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,11);">14:11</a>f). No. 3</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,1);">Ex 15:1</a>ff) contains the thanksgiving hymn of Moses for Yahweh\'s help, with which fact each one of the four strophes begins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,1);">Ex 15:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,6);">6</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,11,16);">11,16</a> bff). No. 4</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,20);">Ex 15:20</a>f) contains Miriam\'s responsorium. No. 5</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'22-27\');">Ex 15:22-27</a>) treats of Marah and Elim (Yahweh proves Himself to be Israel\'s helper and physician (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,25);">Ex 15:25</a>f) notwithstanding the murmuring of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,24);">Ex 15:24</a>)). No. 6</a> introduces the last five pericopes, with a designation of the time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'1-36\');">Ex 16:1-36</a>), and describes the miraculous feeding with manna and quails. (The murmuring is particularly emphasized in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,2,7,8,9,12);">Ex 16:2,7-9, 12</a>. Israel also gathers more than they have been directed to do (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,16);">Ex 16:16</a>f); reserves some for the following day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,19);">Ex 16:19</a>f); collects some on the Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,27);">Ex 16:27</a>); Yahweh, who in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'6-12\');">Ex 16:6-12</a> alone is mentioned in rapid succession no fewer than ten times, at first does not even utter a word of reproach, and when the Sabbath has been violated He does nothing more than reprove.) No. 7</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-7\');">Ex 17:1-7</a>) reports the help of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,4);">Ex 17:4</a>) at the Waters of Contention (Strife). He even appears on the rock (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">Ex 17:6</a>), notwithstanding the murmuring (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'2-4\',7);">Ex 17:2-4,7</a>). No. 8</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'8-16\');">Ex 17:8-16</a>) describes the victory over the Amalekites, which furnished the occasion for the erection of the memorial altar, called \'Yahweh-my-Banner.\' Possibly in this connection Joshua ("Yahweh helps") was changed from Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,16);">Nu 13:16</a>). Compare Hengstenberg, Authenthic. des Pentateuches, II, 395f. No. 9</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-12\');">Ex 18:1-12</a>) shows in a constantly changing variety of expressions that emphasis is laid on the impression which the deeds of God in connection with Israel make on Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, while he was visiting the latter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,1,\'8-12\');">Ex 18:1,8-12</a>). Effective in this connection is also the mention made of the symbolical names of the sons of Moses (Gershom, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"; and Eliezer, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,3);">Ex 18:3</a>f)). Further, the name Mount of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,5);">Ex 18:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,12);">Ex 18:12</a>) probably is a reminder of the fulfillment of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,12);">Ex 3:12</a>. No. 10</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'13-17\');">Ex 18:13-17</a>) shows how God helps Moses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,19);">Ex 18:19</a>) through the advice of Jethro to appoint judges. In this part, too, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'17-\');">Exodus 13:17-18:27</A>, we have ten sections, which can easily be arranged in groups of two and two. Thus Nos. 1 and 2 are connected by their analogous beginnings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,17,18);">13:17,18</a> RE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,1,2);">14:1,2</a> P) and by the cloud of fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">13:21</a>f JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,19,24);">14:19,24</a> J); Nos. 3 and 4 by the responsive hymn; Nos. 5 and 6, which already by the feeling of hunger and thirst are connected in thought, by their reference to the ordinances of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,25);">15:25</a> D; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,4);">16:4</a> JE ?; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,28);">16:28</a> R); Nos. 7 and 8 by the use made of Moses\' staff (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,5,9);">17:5,9</a> JE); Nos. 9 and 10 by Jethro\'s person, and the close connection of their contents in point of time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,13);">18:13</a>). Further, the Biblical text of this place is clearly presupposed in the list of stations, expressly stated to have been prepared at the command of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1\');">Nu 33</a>). This list, as is acknowledged on all sides, has the characteristics of P; and it takes into consideration not only the portions ascribed to this source, but also the text of JE. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,9);">Nu 33:9</a> (Marah and Elim) with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'22-27\');">Ex 15:22-27</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,14);">Nu 33:14</a> (lack of water in Rephidim) with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">Ex 17:1</a>ff.<P>(b) Over against the analysis into different sources the following data in detail can also be advanced. In P the last demonstration of the power of Yahweh over Pharaoh would be indeed endangered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4,15);">Ex 14:4, 15</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,21);">21a</a>, but afterward would not be related. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">Ex 16:1</a> we cannot find in the Priestly Code (P), unless we bring in also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,27);">15:27</a> from JE, how Israel came to be in Elim. On the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,4);">16:4</a>ff (JE?) the promise of bread from heaven is groundless without the preceding verses, which are attributed to P; and without <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">17:1</a> the Priestly Code (P), we do not know to what the word "there" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,3);">17:3</a> belonging to JE refers, and how in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,8);">17:8</A> JE the Israelites had come to Rephidim. How entirely data taken from the language utterly fail here in establishing the separation of sources we see from the fact that in Exodus the distribution of the different portions and verses between P and E becomes a matter of doubt, and also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'1-\');">Ex 16</a> a harmony of view has not been gained as to whether only the Priestly Code (P), or in addition also J, E or JE have contributed to the text. The hymn found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,1);">Ex 15:1</a>ff, which certainly is an old composition, presupposes passages which are assigned to different sources, and in this way speaks for the unity of the text. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,2);">15:2</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,30);">14:30</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,13);">14:13</A> JE (?); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,3);">15:3</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,14);">14:14</a> JE (?); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,25);">14:25</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4);">14:4a</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,9);">14:9</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4);">14:4b</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,7);">14:7</A> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,8);">14:8</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,22);">14:22</a> EP; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,29);">14:29</a> P; with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,9);">14:9</A>. On the other hand, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,19);">Ex 14:19</a> a and b cannot be utilized in favor of a division of sources E and J; but rather the analogous structure of this passage presupposes the same author, and there is only indicated what elsewhere is always a presupposition, namely, that God Himself has taken His abode somewhere in the cloud of fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21,22);">13:21,22</A> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,24);">14:24</A> J; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff P). Just as little are the two commands found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,16);">14:16</A> to be divided between P and E and J, one stating what Moses does, and the other what Yahweh does, since both rather belong together (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,22);">9:22</a>f with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,33);">9:33</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,13);">10:13</A>). At first glance <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,6);">16:6</a>ff does not appear to be in its proper place, as Moses and Aaron in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,6,7);">16:6,7</a> have already told Israel what only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,9);">16:9</a>ff is revealed through the appearance of Yahweh and His injunction to Moses. But these very verses are in harmony with the character of the whole section (compare under a above), since it is here stated that under all circumstances Israel is to be convinced of this, that Yahweh has proven Himself to be Yahweh, and has heard their murmuring. In addition, the appearance of Yahweh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,10);">16:10</a> is clearly announced by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,7);">16:7</a>. Accordingly, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,9);">16:9</a>ff serve only to confirm and strengthen what is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,6);">16:6</a>ff. The fact that not until in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,2);">18:2</a> JE Jethro brings the wife and the sons of Moses, while the latter himself according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,20);">4:20</a> J had taken them along when he joined Israel, finds a satisfactory explanation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,2);">18:2b</A>. He sent them back doubtless because of the conduct of Zipporah on the occasion of the circumcision of her son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,25);">4:25</a> J). The fact that Jethro comes to Moses at the Mount of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,5);">18:5</a> JE), while the latter does not arrive at Mt. Sinai until <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">19:1</a>ff according to P and J, is no contradiction; for by the Mount of God is meant the whole chain of Horeb, which Moses has already reached according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">17:6</a> JE; but Mt. Sinai is a single mountain. The special legal ordinances and decisions mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,20);">18:20</a> JE before the giving of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>ff E and JE) are in perfect harmony with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,25);">15:25</a> D; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,4);">16:4</a> JE (?); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,28);">16:28</a> R.<P>(4) <span class="noTag">Exodus 19:1-24:18a</span>:<P>(a) This fourth section contains the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5);">19:5</a> R at beginning; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,7,8);">24:7,8</a> JE toward the end). The contents cover a period of ten days (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,10,11,16);">19:10,11,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,3,4);">24:3,4</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,16);">24:16</a> P). The text of this section can again be divided into ten pericopes. After the introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'1-8\');">19:1-8</a>), which contains a cardinal feature of Exodus (compare under I, 2 above), nos. 1 and 2 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'9-19\');">19:9-19</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'20-25\');">20-25</a>) report the preparation for the conclusion of the Covenant. No. 2</a> in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,23);">Ex 19:23</a> refers expressly to no. 1, but is distinguished from no. 1 through the new addition in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,20);">19:20</a> after <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,18);">19:18</a>, as also through the express amplified application of the ordinances referring to purifications and the restriction of the prohibition to the priests (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,22);">19:22</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,21);">21</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,24);">24</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,10,12);">19:10,12</A>). Nos. 3 and 4 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-17\');">Ex 20:1-17</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'18-26\');">18-26</a>) contain the Decalogue and the directions for the cults, together with a description of the impression made by the revelation of the law. Nos. 5 and 6 (<span class="noTag">Ex 21:1-23:13</span> expressly circumscribed by a subscription, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'14-19\');">EX 23:14-19</a>) contain legal ordinances and further directions for the cults. Nos. 3-6</a> accordingly contain the laws or the conditions of the Covenant. Now follow in nos. 7 and 8 the promises of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'20-26\');">Ex 23:20-26</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'27-33\');">27-33</a>), which in verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,20);">20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,27);">27</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,23);">23</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,28);">28</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,24);">24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,32);">32</a>f correspond to each other. Nos. 9 and 10 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'3-8\');">Ex 24:3-8</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'9-18\');">9-18a</a>, combined more closely by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,1,2);">Ex 24:1-2</a>) describe the conclusion of the Covenant and the Covenant congregation in different stages. Further, typical numbers at this place also appear in the laws, Nos. 3-6. No. 4 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,18);">Ex 20:18</a>ff) contains five directions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'23-26\');">Ex 20:23-26</a>); No. 6 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'14-19\');">Ex 23:14-19</a>) is divided into 2 X 5 ordinances (compare the anaphoristic addition in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,14);">Ex 23:14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,17);">17</a>), namely, verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,14);">Ex 23:14</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">15a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">15b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">16a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'16-19\');">16b-17,18a, 18b, 19a, 19b</a>. No. 3 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,1);">Ex 20:1</a>ff, the Decalogue) contains, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">Ex 34:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,13);">De 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,4);">10:4</a>, "ten words" margin, according to the two tables doubtless divided into two groups of five each, no matter how in detail we may divide and number them. In the same way no. 5 (21:1-23:13) falls into ten sections, separate in form and contents, yet belonging together; and these again are divided into 2 X 5 groups, as will appear presently. Taken altogether then we have in nos. 3-6</a> (<span class="noTag">Ex 20:1-23:19</span>) 17 X 5 legal ordinances or groups of laws. While in the historical sections the divisions into 5 X 2 pericopes was made, we here find three times the division into 2 X 5, although here too the beginning of the last five pericopes in the second and third sections is particularly noticeable (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,8);">Ex 9:8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">Ex 16:1</a>), and in the same way a new division can be made at <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,18);">Ex 4:18</a>. No. 5</a> (<span class="notag">Ex 21:1-23:13</span>) is, however, divided as follows: I and II (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'2-6\');">Ex 21:2-6</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'7-11\');">7-11</a>) ordinances for the protection of slaves; III and IV (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'12-17\');">Ex 21:12-17</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'18-27\');">18-27</a>) protection of life, or liberty, of the dignity of parents, and hygienic laws; V (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,28);">Ex 21:28-22:3</a>) harm to animals; VI (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'4-16\');">Ex 22:4-16</a>) to property; VII (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'17-26\');">Ex 22:17-26</a>) against witchcraft, against imitating the Canaanites, and lack of mercy; VIII (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'27-30\');">Ex 22:27-30</a>) the relation to God; IX and X (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-5\');">Ex 23:1-5</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'6-12\');">6-12</a>) ethical and humane law practice. I through IV accordingly contain laws pertaining to persons; V and VI those referring to things; VII through X, those referring to religion, morality, and administration of justice. But the chief line of demarcation is to be made after V; for I through V contain each four ordinances, VI through X each seven, which in the original text in almost each case are in their language separated from each other by particular conjunctions or by the construction. Only in VI (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'4-16\');">Ex 22:4-16</a>) one command seems to be lacking; for only <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,4,5,6);">Ex 22:4-6</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'9-13\');">9-13f</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,15);">15</a>f are distinguished by the "ki" in the beginning; but the seventh ordinance is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,8);">22:8</A>. Here too, in each case, II and I, two and two as a rule are more closely connected, after the manner of the division in the first three sections, 1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16; 13:17-18:27; at least this is the case in I and II, III and IV through VII and VIII, IX and X.<P>(b) In this section, too, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">Ex 19:1-24:18</a> a, there is no real occasion for a division into sources. It is claimed that P is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1,2);">19:1,2a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\;15-18\');">24:15-18</a>; but <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1,2);">19:1,2a</a> is indispensable for <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,2);">19:2b</a> on account of the word "there"; and before <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,15);">24:15</a>ff there is an omission, if the preceding verses are to be ascribed to a different source. The duplicates <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,8,9);">19:8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,18,20);">19:18,20</a> are best explained by the assumption of a new beginning in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,9);">19:9</a> at <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,20);">19:20</a> (compare above); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,1,2);">24:1,2</a>, which at the same time introduces <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,9);">24:9</a>ff, is placed before <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,3);">24:3</a>, because in point of time it belongs here. According to the original text, the translation at this place must read: "To Moses he spoke," in contrast to the ordinances which, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,1);">21:1</A>ff, are addressed to the congregation of Israel. Certainly <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'3-8\');">24:3-8</a> is purposely formulated to show in almost the same words that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,3);">24:3</a> reports the Violation and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,4);">24:4</a>ff the writing of the decision to obey on the part of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,3);">24:3b</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,7);">24:7b</a>). It is not perfectly clear to the reader where Moses was during the promulgation of the Decalogue, whether upon the mountain or at the foot of the mountain (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,24);">19:24</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,18);">20:18</a>ff; but also <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,5);">De 5:5</a>). In view of the importance of the matter itself and the vividness of the narrative and the continual change in the place where Moses abode, it is psychologically easily understood that the clearness of the account has suffered somewhat.<P>(5) Exodus 24:18b through 31:18:<P>(a) During the forty days which Moses tarries with God on the mountain, and at the conclusion of which he receives the two tables of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">31:18</A>), God converses with him seven times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,1;">25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,11,17,22,34);">30:11,17,22,34</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,1,12);">31:1,12</a>). No. 1</a> (25:1-30:10) contains directions in reference to the building of the Tabernacle, and laws for the priests serving in it. Nos. 2-6 bring a number of directions supplementing no. 1, namely, no. 2 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'11-16\');">Ex 30:11-16</a>), individual tax; no. 3 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'17-21\');">Ex 30:17-21</a>), copper washing vessels; no. 4 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'22-33\');">Ex 30:22-33</a>), oil for anointing; no. 5(<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'34-38\');">Ex 30:34-38</a>), incense; no. 6 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,\'1-11\');">Ex 31:1-11</a>), the calling of Bezalel and Aholiab to be the master builders; additionally and in conclusion, no. 7(<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,\'12-17\');">Ex 31:12-17</a>), the Sabbath command. It is probably not accidental that the Sabbath idea is touched upon 7 times, namely, in addition to the present passage, also in (a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,5);">Ex 16:5</a> JE (?); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'23-29\');">16:23-29</a> P and R; (b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'8-11\');">20:8-11</a> E; (c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'10-12\');">23:10-12</a> E; (d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,16);">24:16</a> P; (e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,21);">34:21</a> J; (f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,1,2,3);">35:1-3</a> the Priestly Code (P), and that as is the case in this present passage, other passages too, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,16);">24:16</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,1,2,3);">35:1-3</a> P conclude a main section, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'10-22\');">22:10-22</a> a subordinate section, with this reference.<P>The first more complete pericope itself in Exodus (25:1-30:10) is, however, divided into 12 pieces (we cannot at this place enter into details in reference to the typical numbers found so often in the measurements of the Tabernacle, but can refer only to the cubical form of the Holy of Holies on the basis of 10 cubits), namely,<P>(1) contributions for the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-9\');">25:1-9</a>);<P>(2) the holy ark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'10-22\');">25:10-22</a>);<P>(3) table of shewbread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'23-30\');">25:23-30</a>);<P>(4) golden candlesticks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'31-40\');">25:31-40</a>);<P>(5) tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'1-37\');">26:1-37</a>) in which at the same time the articles mentioned from 2 to 4 are placed (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,33);">26:33</a>ff);<P>(6) altar for burnt sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,\'1-8\');">27:1-8</a>);<P>(7) court (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,\'9-19\');">27:9-19</a>) in which this altar stood (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,29,33);">40:29,33</A>);<P>(8) oil for the lights (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,20,21);">27:20,21</a>);<P>(9) sacred garments for the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,\'1-43\');">28:1-43</a>);<P>(10) consecration of priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'1-37\');">29:1-37</a>);<P>(11) the burnt sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'38-46\');">29:38-46</a>);<P>(12) incense altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'1-10\');">30:1-10</a>).<P>The five articles included in 8 to 12 are combined into a contrast to the five in 1 to 7 by their express reference to the priests (compare in addition to 9 and 10 also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,21);">27:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,44);">29:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,7,10);">30:7f; 10</a>). With the incense altar, which was of great importance, and of equal importance with the great altar on the Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,10);">30:10</a>), this section closes (compare (b)).<P>Thus it will under all circumstances be better to search for an explanation for putting oil in the place of the candlesticks and of the incense altar, which at first seems surprising, than in the case of every difficulty to appeal to a redactor\'s working without system or order. However, the entire portion <span class="noTag">Ex 24:18 b through 31:18</span> finds its explanation in the promise of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">25:8</a> that Yahweh will dwell in the midst of Israel (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</a>f). He is enthroned on the ark, in which the accusing law as the expression of the Divine will is deposited (for this reason called ha-\'edhuth; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,16,21);">25:16,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,33,34);">26:33,34</a>), but above the atonement lid, the kapporeth, at which on the Day of Atonement, the atonement ceremony is carried out (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'17-22\');">25:17-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>); see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</A>.<P>(b) This whole section, with the exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">Ex 31:18</a> E (?) is ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), although at this place, though without good reasons, different strata are distinguished. In regard to the contradiction claimed to exist in the different persons to be anointed (high priest, or all the priests; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,7);">29:7</a> over against <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,41);">28:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,21);">29:21</A>), see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</A>. Also the duplicates of the tamidh sacrifice and of the candlesticks (compare I,3,above) are not at all the decisive factor in proof of a difference of sources within the parts treating of the priests, providing it can be shown that each passage stands where it belongs. With regard to the candlesticks, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</A>. In addition compare passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,39);">Mt 10:39</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,25);">16:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,22,24);">10:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,13);">24:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,14);">6:14</a>ff and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,35);">18:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,29);">5:29</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8);">18:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,30);">19:30</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,16);">20:16</a>. But as far as attributing certain passages to P in general is concerned, it is self-evident that ordinances referring to the cults make use of technical terms pertaining to the cults, without this fact justifying any conclusion as to a particular author or group of authors. On the other hand, it could not at all be understood how P could so often call the Decalogue ha-\'edhuth, without having contained this all-important law itself (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,16);">Ex 25:16</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,21);">21</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,33);">26:33</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',34,29);">34:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',38,21);">38:21</a>, etc.). On the other hand, as is well known, the fourth commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'8-11\');">Ex 20:8-11</a>) expressly refers back to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,2,3);">Ge 2:2, 3</a>, that is, to P; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">Ex 23:15</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,20);">12:20</a>.<P>(6) Exodus 32:1-35:3:<P>(a) God\'s promise to dwell in the midst of Israel, the turning-point in the fifth section, seems to have become a matter of doubt, through the apostasy of Israel, but is nevertheless realized in consequence of the intercession of Moses and of the grace of God, which, next to His primitive holiness, is emphasized very strongly. This entire sixth section is to be understood from this standpoint. As was the case in the preceding section, the forty days are prominent in this too (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">34:28</a> J with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,18);">24:18</a> P). We can divide the contents here also into ten pericopes. No. 1</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-14\');">32:1-14</a>) reports that Yahweh tells Moses of the idolatry with the golden calf, that He is determined to destroy Israel, but is influenced to change this determination by the intercession of Moses. No. 2</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'15-29\');">32:15-29</a>) describes the wrath of Moses and the punishment through him. He breaks the tablets into pieces, grinds the golden calf into powder, reproves Aaron, dissolves through the Levites the curse which had for this reason impended over them since <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'5-7\');">Ge 49:5-7</a> and causes this to be changed into a blessing: three thousand killed. No. 3 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'30-35\');">32:30-35</a>) reports that Yahweh at the petition of Moses will send some of His angels, but later on will punish the people for their sins. No. 4</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'1-6\');">33:1-6</a>) reports that Yahweh Himself no longer accompanies His people, which, on the one hand, is an act of grace, since the presence of God would even harm the people, but on the other hand is a punishment, and is felt as such by Israel. No. 5</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">33:7-11</a>) declares that God meets Moses only outside of the camp in a tent, but communes with him face to face. No. 6 introduces the last six pericopes in a natural way, since God\'s grace is appearing in constantly increasing glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'12-33\');">33:12-33</a>). Here we have the petition of Moses to Yahweh that He in person should accompany him and show him His glory (Yahweh\'s grace is made especially prominent in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,12,12,16,17,19);">33:12,13,16,17,19</a>). No. 7</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-10\');">34:1-10</a>) describes the preparation for the new conclusion of the covenant; Yahweh appears to Moses as the gracious, merciful, long-suffering kind, and faithful God, so that Moses again appeals to His grace. No. 8</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'11-28\');">34:11-28</a>) describes the new establishment of the covenant on the basis of the renewal of the Divine and grandiose promises of ordinances pertaining to religion and cults, and the ten words. No. 9 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'29-35\');">34:29-35</a>) describes how, in consequence of his close communion with God, Moses\' face shines. No. 10 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-3\');">35:1-3</a>) contains the Sabbath command (see (5a)). Nos. 9 and 10 give expression to the renewed covenant relationship. If we again in the larger group 1 to 8 take two and two together we find that each of these four groups contains a petition of Moses: <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,11);">Ex 32:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'30-32\');">33:30-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,12);">33:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,8,9);">38:8,9</a>. The entire section brings out equally prominently the love and the holiness of God, and does this in such a way that both characteristics find their expression in each group of two of these ten numbers. The progress beyond the third section (leading Israel to Sinai) is noticeable, since the murmuring is in each case followed only by an expression of the love of God; but equally this present section stands in contrast to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'1-\');">Nu 11</a>ff, where, on the occasion of the continuous murmuring of Israel the love of God is not indeed ignored, but it must take a place in the background as compared with His punitive holiness, which is particularly apparent in the story of the return of the spies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,11);">Nu 14:11</a>ff. Here is at once seen the great similarity with the present section of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,12,15,16,17);">Nu 14:12, 15-17</a>ff and with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,10,12);">Ex 32:10,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">34:6</a>f; but at the same time the great difference caused by a divergency of the events (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,21);">Nu 14:21</a>ff). In contrast to this, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,34);">Ex 32:34</a> refers back to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,\'1-\');">Nu 14</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,35);">Ex 32:35</a> is a proleptic judgment based on this experience.<P>(b) It is incomprehensible how critics have found in the renewal of the covenant caused by the apostasy of Israel and in the conditions of this renewal, namely, in the Books of the Covenant and in the Decalogue, duplicates, which are distributed between E and J (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,1);">Ex 20:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>ff; <span class="noTag">24:8-34:1</span>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,\'1-\');">28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-26\');">34:11-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,27);">34:27</a>). But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'11-26\');">Ex 34:11-26</a> there is no sign of the number ten being used in connection with the ordinances referring to the religion and the cults. Goethe\'s attempt to find at this place the original Decalogue, which effort is constantly being repeated, is accordingly without any foundation, even in the use of the number ten. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">34:28 b</a>, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,1);">34:1</a> and tradition (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,2,4);">De 10:2, 4</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,12);">Ex 24:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">31:18</a>), Yahweh is to be regarded as the subject. Again <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,4);">Ex 33:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,5);">5</a>ff are not duplicates. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,4);">33:4</A> the people are described as having laid aside their ornaments a single time as a sign of repentance; according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,5,6);">33:5,6</a> the people permanently dispense with these, a state of mind which makes it possible for God again to show His mercy. It is an arbitrary assumption that these ornaments were used in the construction of the Tabernacle, the building of which had been announced beforehand in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, so that in front of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">33:7</a> a parallel account to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>ff P taken from JE would have been omitted. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">33:7</a>ff according to the text the author has in mind a tent already in existence, which up to this time had been standing within the camp and now had to be taken without, because Yahweh for the present can no longer dwell in the midst of the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,34);">32:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,3,5);">33:3,5</a>), until Moses, through his intercession, again makes this possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'15-17\');">33:15-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,9,10);">34:9,10</a>). And the promised tabernacle takes the place of the provisional tent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>ff), which, as is done by the Septuagint, is probably to be preferred to Moses\' own tent. In the Priestly Code (P), to whom <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,29);">34:29</a>ff is attributed, such a provisional arrangement is presupposed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,35);">34:35</a>, since already at this place, and before the building of the tabernacle in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>ff, mention is made of the fact that Moses entered for the purpose of receiving the revelation of God. This accordingly presupposes what is reported in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">33:7</a>ff. Even without the facts mentioned and for other reasons, too, an omission must be accepted before <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,29);">34:29</a>ff; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,29);">34:29</A> speaks of the tables of the Law, concerning the origin of which P has reported nothing; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,32);">34:32</a> concerning the commandments which Moses received on Mr. Sinai and had imparted to the people, which, however, do not refer to the directions that were given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, since these, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,4);">35:4</a>ff, are yet to be expressly communicated to the people.<P>(7) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,4);">Exodus 35:4-40:38</a>:<P>(a) The construction of the Tabernacle. This section is divided into four pericopes, each with four subdivisions (compare Structure of <span class="noTag">Leviticus 16</span> in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</A>). The same principle of division is found also in the history of Abraham and in <span class="noTag">De 12-26</span>. No. I (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'4-\');">Ex 35:4</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36 \'1-7\');">36:7</a>) describes the preparation for the construction:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'4-19\');">Ex 35:4-19</a> appeals for contributions for this purpose;<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'20-29\');">35:20-29</a>, contributions;<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'30-\');">35:30</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,1);">36:1</a>, characterization of the builders;<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'2-7\');">36:2-7</a>, delivering the contributions to the builders.<P>Nos. II and III (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,8);">Ex 36:8-38:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-31\');">39:1-31</a>) report the construction of the Tabernacle and the preparation of the priests garments (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,32);">Ex 39:32</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,1);">1</a>);<P>No. II:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'8-38\');">Ex 36:8-38</a>, dwelling-place;<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">37:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-9\');">38:9</a>, utensils;<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'10-20\');">38:10-20</a>, court;<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'24-31\');">38:24-31</a>, cost of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,1,2,3);">38:1-3</a>;<P>No. III<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'2-7\');">39:2-7</a>, shoulder garment;<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'8-21\');">39:8-21</A>, pocket;<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'22-26\');">39:22-26</A>, outer garment;<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'27-31\');">39:27-31</A>, summary account concerning coats, miter, bonnets, breeches, girdle, diadem.<P>Number IV (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'32-\');">39:32</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,\'1-38\');">40:38</a>) reports the completion:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'32-43\');">39:32-43</a>, consecration of these objects;<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,\'1-15\');">40:1-15</A>, command to erect;<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,\'16-33\');">40:16-33</a>, carrying out this command;<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,\'34-38\');">40:34-38</a>, entrance of the glory of Yahweh.<P>In this way the dwelling of Yahweh, which had been promised in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">25:8</a> the Priestly Code (P), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'32-\');">Exodus 32-34</a> JE had been uncertain, has become a reality. The whole section is closely connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'25-\');">Exodus 25-31</a>, yet is independent in character. The full details found in both groups are completely justified by the importance of the object. It is self-evident that at this place, too, the language of the cults is demanded by the object itself.<P>(b) The attempts to distribute this section among different authors are a total failure in view of the unity of the structure, which is independent also over against <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'25-\');">Exodus 25-31</a>. Since the numbers given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,26);">38:26</A> agree entirely with the numbers gathered later in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,32);">Nu 2:32</a>, it is evident that for the latter the lists for the contributions were used, which in itself is very probable because it was practical. In case this section is ascribed to P it is inexplicable how the writer can in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">Ex 40:34</a>ff speak of the pillar of fire as of something well known, since this has not yet been mentioned in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), but has been in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">13:21</a>f JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,19,24);">14:19,24</a> J.<P>Continued in next article<6C>[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Exodus,+the+Book+of,+3-4">Exodus, the Book of, 3-4</A>]``122';
isbe[3300]='Exodus, the Book of, 3-4`III. Historical Character.<P>1. General Consideration:<P>The fact that extra-Israelitish and especially Egyptian sources that can lay claim to historical value have reported nothing authentic concerning the exodus of Israel need not surprise us when we remember how meager these documents are and how one-sided Egyptian history writing is. Whether the expulsion of the lepers and the unclean, who before this had desolated the country and acquired supremacy over it as reported by Manetho and other historians, is an Egyptian version of the exodus of Israel, cannot be investigated at this place, but is to the highest degree improbable. If Israel was oppressed by the Egyptians for a long period, then surely the latter would not have invented the fable of a supremacy on the part of Israel; and, on the other hand, it would be incomprehensible that the Israelites should have changed an era of prosperity in their history into a period of servitude. Over against this the remembrance of the exodus out of Egypt not only is re-echoed through the entire literature of Israel (compare I,4,above), but the very existence of the people of God forces us imperatively to accept some satisfactory ground for its origin, such as is found in the story of the exodus and only here. In addition, the Book of Exodus shows a good acquaintance with the localities and the conditions of Egypt, as also of the desert. It is indeed true that we are still in doubt on a number of local details. But other statements in the book have in such a surprising manner been confirmed by discoveries and geographical researches, that we can have the greatest confidence in regard to the other difficulties: compare eg. Naville\'s The Store-city of Pithom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>). In general, the opening chapters of Exodus, especially the narratives of the different plagues, contain so much Egyptian coloring, that this could scarcely have resulted from a mere theoretical study of Egypt, especially since in the narrative everything makes the impression of resulting from recent experience. The fact that Israel from its very origin received ordinances in regard to religion, morality, law and cults, is explained from the very conditions surrounding this origin and is indispensable for the explanation of the later development of the nation. None of the later books or times claim to offer anything essentially new in this respect; even the prophets appear only as reformers; they know of the election of Israel, and, on the other hand, everywhere presuppose as something self-evident the knowledge of a righteous, well-pleasing relation with God and chide the violation of this relation as apostasy. Ethical monotheism as the normal religion of Israel is reflected in the same way in all the sources of Israel\'s history, as has been proven in my work ("Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit," in the May,1903, issue of Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie). And the idea that an oriental people, especially if they came out of Egypt, should have had no religious cult, is in itself unthinkable. If all of these norms, also the direction for the cults in the Books of Covenant, of the Priestly Code, or D, at least in the kernel, do not go back to the Mosaic times, then we have to deal with an insoluble problem (compare my work, Are the Critics Right?).<P>2. The Miraculous Character:<P>The Book of Exodus is as a matter of fact from its first to its last page filled with miraculous stories; but in this characteristic these contents agree perfectly with the whole history of redemption. In this immediate and harmonious activity of God, for the purpose of establishing a chosen people, all these miracles find their purpose and explanation, and this again is only in harmony with other periods of sacred history. The reason is self-explanatory when these miracles are found grouped at the turning-points in this history, as is the case also in the critical age of Elijah and Elisha, and in the experiences and achievements of "Jonah," so significant for the universality of the Biblical religion. Above all is this true in the ministry of Jesus Christ; and also again in His return to judgment. And in the same way, too, we find this at the beginning of Israel as a nation (see my article in Murray\'s Dictionary). Compare in this respect the rapid numerical growth of the nation, the miracles, the plagues, in the presence of Pharaoh, the passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous preservation of the people in the desert, the many appearances of God to Moses, to the people, to the elders, the protection afforded by the cloud, the providential direction of the people of Israel and of the Egyptians, and of individual persons (Moses and Pharaoh). The fact that the author himself knows that Israel without the special care and protection of God could not have survived in the desert is in complete harmony with his knowledge of the geographical situation already mentioned.<P>3. The Legislative Portions:<P>If any part of the laws in Exodus is to be accepted as Mosaic, it is the Decalogue. It is true that the ten commandments are found in two recensions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,\'1-\');">De 5</a>). The original form is naturally found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>. Only Moses could regard himself as inwardly so independent of the Decalogue as it had been written by God, that he did not consider himself bound in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,\'1-\');">De 5</a> by its exact wording. The legal ordinances in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,1);">Ex 21:1</a>ff have found an analogy already in Code of Hammurabi, more than 500 years older although moving in a lower sphere. As Israel had lived in Goshen, and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,12);">Ge 26:12</a> Isaac had even been engaged in agriculture, and Israel could not remain in the desert but was to settle down in permanent abodes again, the fact of the existence of this law of Israel, which in a religious and ethical sense rises infinitely above the Code of Hammurabi, is in itself easily understood. And again since the sacred ark of the covenant plays an important role also in the other sources of the Pentateuch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,33);">Nu 10:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,44);">14:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,\'1-8\');">De 10:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,9,25);">31:9, 25</a>) and in the history of Israel (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,\'1-\');">Jos 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'6-8\');">6:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,33);">8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,27);">Jud 20:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,2);">1Sa 6:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,24);">2Sa 15:24</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,15);">1Ki 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,19);">6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,\'1-9\');">8:1-9</a>), then a suitable tent, such as is announced in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, and was erected according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>ff, was an actual necessity.<P>As the Paschal sacrifice, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3);">Ex 12:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,43);">12:43</A>ff P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,21);">12:21</a>ff JE (?) was to be killed in the houses, and this on the 14th of Nisan in the evening (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,6);">12:6</A>), and as P directs that a festival assembly shall be held on the next day at the sanctuary (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,6);">Le 23:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,17);">Nu 28:17</a>ff), these are conditions which can be understood only in case Israel is regarded as being in the wilderness. For this reason <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,5);">De 16:5</a>ff changes this direction, so that from now on the Passover is no longer to be celebrated in the houses but at the central sanctuary. In the same way the direction <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,29);">Ex 22:29</a>, which ordered that the firstborn of animals should be given to Yahweh already on the 8th day, could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert, and is for this reason changed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,23);">De 14:23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,19);">15:19</A>ff to meet the conditions of the people definitely settled after this wandering. Compare my work, Are the Critics Right? 188-89, 194-95.<P>4. Chronology:<P>As is well known, the average critic handles the Biblical chronology in a very arbitrary manner and is not afraid of changing the chronology of events by hundreds of years. If we leave out of consideration some details that often cause great difficulties, we still have a reliable starting-point in the statements found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">Ex 12:40</a>f. According to the first passage, the time that elapsed between the exodus of the Israelites and the building of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon was 480 years; and according to the second passage, the time of the stay in Egypt was 430 years. A material change in the first-mentioned figures is not permitted by the facts in the Book of Judges, even if some particular data there mentioned are contemporaneous; and to reduce the 430 years of the stay in Egypt, as might be done after the Septuagint, which includes also the stay of the patriarchs in Canaan in this period, or to reduce the whole period from the entrance into Egypt to the building of the temple, is contrary to the synchronism of Hammurabi and Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>). The first-mentioned could not have lived later than 2100 BC. The 430 years in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40,41);">Ex 12:40-41</a> P are also, independently of this passage, expressly supported by the earlier prediction of an oppression of Israel for 400 years from the time of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a> J); and the 480 years of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> are confirmed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a>, according to which, at the time of the suppression by the Amorites and of Jephthah as judge, already 30 years must have elapsed since the east Jordan country had been occupied by the Israelites. According to this the exodus must have taken place not long after 1500 BC. And in perfect agreement with this supposition would be the condition of affairs in Palestine as we know them from the Tell el-Amarna Letters dating about 1450-1400 BC, according to which the different Canaanitish cities had been attacked by the Chabiri in the most threatening manner, as this is reported too in the Book of Joshua. As is well known linguistically, too, the identification of the Chabiri with the Hebrews is unobjectionable. Finally, on the well-known Menepthah stele of the 13th century BC, Israel is mentioned in connection with Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Y-nu\'m (= Janoah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,6,7);">Jos 16:6, 7</a>?), and accordingly is already regarded as settled in Canaan. A date supported in such different ways makes it impossible for me to find in Rameses II the Pharaoh of the oppression, and in Menepthah the Pharaoh of the exodus (both between 1300 and 1200 BC). A conclusive proof that the name and the original building of the city Rameses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">12:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,3,5);">Nu 33:3, 5</a>) necessarily leads back to Rameses II can, at least at the present time, not yet be given (compare on this point also, Kohler, Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, I, 238ff).<P>5. Unjustifiable Attacks:<P>All these attacks on the historical character of this book which originate only in the denial of the possibility of miracles, the Christian theologian can and must ignore. Such attacks do not stand on the ground of history but of dogma. Let us accordingly examine other objections. Thus, it is claimed that the number of men in Israel, which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">Ex 12:37</a> is said to have been 600,000, is too high, because not only the desert but Goshen also would not have been able to support two million people, and Israel had been too short a time in Egypt to grow into so populous a nation. Yet Israel, beginning with the time of the oppression, which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">2:23</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,8);">1:8</a> continued many years and hence began before the highest number in population had been reached, had claims for support from the Egyptian corn (grain) granaries; and the 430 years in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">12:40</a> certainly cannot be reduced, as has been shown under (4) above. To this must be added that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,9);">7:9</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,12,20);">12,20</a>f the rapid numerical growth of Israel is represented as the result of a Divine blessing. Then, too, in the company of Jacob and his descendants, doubtless servants, male and female, came down to Egypt (compare the 318 servants of Abraham alone in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>). The figures in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">Ex 12:37</a> P are further confirmed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,21);">Nu 11:21</a> (according to critics from JE) and by the results of the two enumerations, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1</a>f (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,31);">2:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,26);">Ex 38:26</a> (603,550)) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,51);">Nu 26:51</a> (601,730). The attacks made also on the existence of the Tabernacle must be rejected as groundless. According to the Wellhauscn school the Tabernacle is only a copy of the temple of Solomon dated back into the Mosaic times; and the fact that there is only one central seat of the cults is regarded as a demand first made by the Deuteronomistic legislation in the 7th century. Against this latter claim militates not only the impossibility of placing Deuteronomy at this time (compare my work Are the Critics Right? 1-55), but also the legislation of the Book of the Covenant, which, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,17,19);">Ex 23:17, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,23,24,26);">34:23-24, 26</a> presupposes a sanctuary, and which even in the passages incorrectly analyzed by Wellhausen, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a> (compare again, Are the Critics Right ? 19, 48, 161ff, 189ff) speaks only of a single altar (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,14);">Ex 21:14</a>) and not of several existing at the same time. (The matter mentioned here is the building of an altar, according to a theophany, for temporary use.) Against the critical view we can quote the prophetic utterances of Amos, who condemns the cult in the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,4);">5:4</a>f), but teaches that God speaks out of Zion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,2);">1:2</a>; compare probably also, <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,1);">9:1</A>); those of Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,12);">1:12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,2);">2:2</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,5);">4:5</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,18);">8:18</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,7);">18:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,29);">30:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,20);">33:20</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,32);">14:32</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,16);">28:16</A>); also the facts of history (compare especially the central sanctuary in Shiloh, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-4\-);">1Sa 1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,19);">Jud 21:19</a>, which is placed on the same level with Zion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,12);">Jer 7:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',26,6);">26:6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,\'60-72\');">Ps 78:60-72</a>). To this must be added such statements as <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,6);">2Sa 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1);">Jos 18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,39,40);">1Ch 16:39-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3);">2Ch 1:3</a>. All these facts are not overthrown by certain exceptions to the rule (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS</A>). But the whole view leads to conclusions that in themselves cannot possibly be accepted. What a foolish fancy that would have been, which would have pictured the Tabernacle in the most insignificant details as to materials, amounts, numbers, colors, objects, which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,\'1-\');">Nu 4</a> has determined with exact precision who was to carry the separate parts of the tent, while eg. for the service of the Tabernacle, so important for later times, only very general directions are given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,2,4,6);">Nu 18:2, 4, 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,22);">8:22</a>ff. This complete picture would be entirely without a purpose and meaningless, since it would have no connection whatever with the tendency ascribed to it by the critics, but rather, in part, would contradict it. Compare my book, Are the Critics Right? 72ff, 87ff.<P>That particularly in the post-exilic period it would have been impossible to center the Day of Atonement on the covering of the ark of the covenant, since the restoration of this ark was not expected according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,16);">Jer 3:16</a>, has already been emphasized in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>. If God had really determined to give to His people a pledge of the constant presence of His grace, then there can be absolutely no reason for doubting the erection of the Tabernacle, since the necessary artistic ability and the possession of the materials needed for the structure are sufficiently given in the text (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,9,40);">Ex 25:9, 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,30);">26:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,8);">27:8-31:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,30);">35:30</A>ff through <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,35);">12:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,21,22);">3:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,82;">11:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,14);">Ge 15:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,4);">Ex 33:4</a>ff). The examination of the separate passages in Exodus, such as the relation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">20:24</A> (see above) to Deuteronomy, or the ordinances concerning the Passover and the firstborn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">Ex 12</a>f), and other laws in the different codices, goes beyond the purpose of this article (compare however under 3 above, at the close).<P>IV. Authorship.<P>1. Connection with Moses:<P>As the Book of Exodus is only a part of a large work (compare I, 3 above), the question as to authorship cannot be definitely decided at this place, but we must in substance restrict ourselves to those data which we find in the book itself. In several parts it is expressly claimed that Moses wrote them. He sang the hymn found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'1-\');">Ex 15</a>, after the passage of the Red Sea, and it breathes the enthusiasm of what the author has himself experienced. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,13);">Ex 15:13</a>ff do not speak against the unity of the hymn, but rather for it, since the perfects here found as prophetic perfects only give expression to the certainty that the Israelites will take possession of the land of promise. In the course of history the nations often acted quite differently from what is here stated and often antagonized Israel (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,\'39-45\');">Nu 14:39-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,18);">20:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,4,\'21-35\');">21:4,21-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,6);">22:6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'1-\');">Jos 6-12</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,17);">Ex 13:17</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,13,17);">Ex 15:13, 17</a> not only Zion is meant, but all Canaan; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,23);">Le 25:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,34);">Nu 35:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,7);">Jer 2:7</a>; for har, "mountain," compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,7,20);">De 1:7, 20</a> ("hill-country"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,25);">3:25</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,54,55);">Ps 78:54-55</a>. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,14);">Ex 17:14</a> Moses writes in a book the promise of Yahweh to destroy Amalek from the face of the earth. It is absolutely impossible that only this statement should have been written without any connecting thought and without at least a full description of the situation as given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,8);">Ex 17:8</a>ff. And as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,14);">17:14</A> linguistically at least can mean merely \'to write a sheet,\' as <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,23);">Nu 5:23</a>, it yet appears in the light of the connection of a comparison with related passages, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26);">Jos 24:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,25);">1Sa 10:25</a>, much more natural to think of a book in this connection, in which already similar events had been recorded or could at any time be recorded.<P>The Ten Words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,1);">Ex 20:1</a>ff) were written down by God Himself and then handed over to Moses; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,12);">Ex 24:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,1);">34:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">28</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,2,4);">De 10:2, 4</a>). The laws and judicial ordinances beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,4);">24:4</a>, were also written down by Moses himself, and the same is true of the ordinances in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,11);">34:11</A>ff, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,27);">34:27</a>. The proof that formerly had to be furnished, to the effect that the knowledge of the art of writing in the days of Moses was not an anachronism, need not trouble us now, since both in Egypt and Babylon much older written documents have been discovered. But already from the passages quoted we could conclude nothing else than that Moses understood how to make use of different forms of literature<72>the poetical, the historical and the legal<61>unless the different statements to this effect by decisive reasons could be shown to be incorrect. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a>, in the catalogue of stations, there is a portion ascribed to Moses that bears the express characteristics of the Priestly Code; and, finally Deuteronomy, with its hortatory, pastoral style, claims him as its author. Already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,14);">Ex 17:14</a> there were reasons to believe that Moses had written not only this statement which is there expressly attributed to him. Thus it becomes a possibility, that in general only in the case of particularly important passages the fact that Moses penned these also was to be made prominent, if it can be shown as probable that he in reality wrote more, as we find in parallel cases in the writings of the prophets (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,8);">30:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,2);">Jer 30:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,11);">Eze 43:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,2);">Hab 2:2</a>). In addition, we notice in this connection that in the catalogue of stations mentioned above and ascribed to Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a>), the close relation of which to the portions attributed to P is certain, not only this part, but also the other words from JE in the present Bible text from <span class="noTag">Ex 12-19</span> (see above) are regarded as self-evident as Mosaic (as is the case also later with the corresponding historical part), and this is an important witness in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the historical parts. But <span class="noTag">Ex 25-31; 35-40</span> also claim, at least so far as contents are concerned, to be the product of the Mosaic period. The entire portable sanctuary is built with a view to the wanderings in the desert. Aaron and his sons are as yet the only representatives of the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,21);">27:21</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,4,12,41,42,43);">28:4,12,41-43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,4);">29:4</A>ff, etc.). In view of the relationship which <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a> shows with the Priestly Code (P), it is clear, if we accept the genuineness of this part, a matter that is in the highest degree probable, that this style was current in Moses\' time, and that he had the mastery of it, even if other hands, too, have contributed to the final literary forms of these laws. In favor of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Book of Exodus we find a weighty reason in the unity and the literary construction of the work as shown above. This indeed does not preclude the use and adaptation of other sources of historical or legal statements, either from the author\'s own hands or from others, if such a view should perhaps be suggested or made imperative by the presence of many hard constructions, unconnected transitions, unexpected repetitions, etc. But even on the presupposition of the Mosaic authorship, a difference in style in the different kinds of matters discussed is not impossible, just as little as this is the case with peculiarities of language, since these could arise particularly in the course of vivid narration of the story (compare the anacolouths in Paul\'s writings). But still more a reason for accepting the Mosaic authorship of Exodus is found in the grand and deep conception and reproduction of all the events recorded, which presupposes a congenial prophetic personality; and finally, too, the natural and strong probability that Moses did not leave his people without such a Magna Charta for the future. This Mosaic authorship becomes almost a certainty, in case the Book of Deuteronomy is genuine, even if only in its essential parts. For Deuteronomy at every step presupposes not only P (compare Are the Critics Right? 171ff), but also the history and the Books of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,11);">34:11</A>ff) as recorded in Exodus.<P>2. Examination of Objections:<P>Against the Mosaic authorship of Exodus the use of the third person should no longer be urged, since Caesar and Xenophon also wrote their works in the third person, and the use of this provision is eminently adapted to the purpose and significance of Exodus for all future times. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,1);">Isa 20:1</a>ff <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,24);">Eze 24:24</a>, we have analogies of this in prophetic literature. The statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,3);">Ex 11:3</a>) that Moses was so highly regarded by the Egyptians is entirely unobjectionable in the connection in which it is found. That the book was not written for the self-glorification of Moses appears clearly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,\'10-16\');">4:10-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,12);">6:12</A>. In itself it is possible that some individual passages point to a later date, without thereby overthrowing the Mosaic authorship of the whole (compare also under (1)). In this case we are probably dealing with supplementary material. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,35);">Ex 16:35</a> declares that Israel received manna down to the time when the people came to the borders of Canaan. Whether it was given to them after this time, too, cannot be decided on the basis of this passage (compare however <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,12);">Jos 5:12</a>). If the entire Book of Exodus was composed by Moses, then <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,35);">Ex 16:35</a> would be a proof that at least the final editing of the book had been undertaken only a short time before his death. This is suggested also by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,34);">16:34b</A>, since at the time when the manna was first given the ark of the covenant did not yet exist; and the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,35);">32:35</a> takes into consideration the later development as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">Nu 13</a>f. In the same way <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,36);">Ex 16:36</a> could be a later explanation, but is not necessarily so, if the \'omer was not a fixed measure, of which nothing further is known, and which probably was not to be found in every Israelite household, but a customary measure, the average content of which is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,36);">16:36</a>. If we take Exodus alone there is nothing that compels us to go later than the Mosaic period (concerning the father-in-law of Moses, see under II,2,1 (1:8-7:7) at the close). The question as to whether there are contradictions or differences between the different legal ordinances in Exodus and in later books cannot be investigated at this place, nor the question whether the connection of Exodus with other books in any way modifies the conclusion reached under (1).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Books that in some way cover the ground discussed in the article: Against the separation into different sources: Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, III ("Das Buch Exodus"); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. In favor of the construction of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>ff: Merx, Die Bucher Moses und Josua ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher," II, Series, <span class="noTag">number 3</span>). For <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>ff in its relation to the Code of Hammurabi: A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi (with fuller literature); Histories of Israel by Kittel, Konig, Oettli, Kohler, Klostermann, Hengstenberg; Commentaries of Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack; Introductions to the Old Testament by Strack, Baudissin, Driver, Sellin. Against the Wellhausen hypothesis: Moller, Are the Critics Right? (with fuller literature); Orr (see above). Against the evolutionary theory: Orr (see above); Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (with fuller literature). Representatives of other schools: The Introductions of Kuenen and Cornill; the Commentaries of Holzinger and Baentsch; the Histories of Israel by Wellhausen and Stade.``122';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink