FOR REFERENCE.

Alexander (S. A.), Christianity of St. Paul, 73.
Alford (H.), Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. ii. I.
Brown (C. J.), The Word of Life, 293.

Coates (G.), The Morning Watch for Soldiers of the King, 270.
Cox (S.), An Expositor's Note-Book, 388.
Fraser (J.), Speeches of the Apostles, 168.

M'Cheyne (R. M.), Additional Remains, 396. Mackenzie (W. L.), Pure Religion, 127. Maurice (F. D.), Acts of the Apostles, 314. Paget (E. C.), Silence, 139.

Potts (A. W.), School Sermons, 228. Reynolds (H. R.), Light and Peace, 53. Robarts (F. L.), Sunday Morning Talks, 213. Williams (T. L.), Thy Kingdom Come, 110.

ZOROASTRIANISM is the only religion known to remote antiquity which gives man a correct conception of the Supreme Being and His relations to His creatures. Further, it is the religion which produced the idea of a pure monotheism. The Gáthás (the oldest collection of hymns in the Avesta) give clear and distinct expression to the doctrine of One living personal God. The followers of Zoroaster are required to meditate on the various names and attributes, the government and will and the wonderful works of the almighty, all-wise, and all-good God. The central and all-absorbing object of faith throughout the whole Avesta is Ahura-Mazda, the creator and moral controller of all things. Manifold are the names under which the Almighty is adored, and in each one of these names nothing is embodied but what is good and holy. The faithful are called on to pronounce these names frequently and with entire devotion, and the promise is made to them that, if they keep His supreme power, wisdom, and goodness continually before their eyes, they shall thereby acquire spiritual strength to overcome all evil.

The Supreme Being is most frequently called in the Avesta by the name Ahura-Mazda; sometimes we find also the name Spenta-Mainyu or Mainyu-Spenishta. The latter term means 'fulness of dispensing spirit' or all-good God. means 'great Creator,' and Ahura 'He who is life.' The shorter expression, 'He who is life' is identical with the designation 'self-existing Being.' Ahura-Mazda thus stands for the Deity and His fundamental quality of self-existence, whereby He

=

1 Part of a paper read at the recent International Congress of Religions at Bâle. The translation is made from the Basler Nachrichten.

is distinguished from His creatures. He is also the prime cause of Manthra-Spenta, physical light, as well as of truth, of which light is the symbol. There are found in the Avesta many words and expressions which attribute to Ahura-Mazda human organs and capabilities, but such expressions are to be taken only figuratively and symbolically. the name Ahura-Mazda we have accordingly the most indubitable evidence that the people of the Avesta and their successors, the Parsis, cherished and still cherish the belief in One supremely great and good Being.

In

The religion of Zoroaster requires its followers to imitate Ahura-Mazda in their moral character; it shows them the way to Garô-nmàna, the highest heaven, the dwelling-place of God, where they are to enjoy perfect felicity. Hence it is that the moral excellences of Ahura-Mazda are set forth so prominently in the Avesta. The latter illustrates the omnipotence, the supreme wisdom, and the infinite goodness of God by abstract notions derived from His works which surround us, in order thereby to lay more emphasis on the truth that Ahura-Mazda is almighty, all-wise, and all-good. It is for this end that we find in the various books of the Avesta so many detailed descriptions of external phenomena, the heavenly bodies, the natural elements, and other great works of the Almighty; while in all these descriptions account is always taken of the Creator. Since these natural objects stand in an intimate relation with the great sum and centre of our adoration, Ahura-Mazda, they serve as material media for extending and purifying our conceptions of Him. How can any one be content to reduce the religion of Zoroaster simply to a worship of nature, a regard paid to natural objects and their qualities and benignant

influences? In this religion Nature never appears as self-existing but always only in subordination to a higher, spiritual power. Metaphor, personificaMetaphor, personification, and allegory are employed in the Avesta just as in the sacred books of other religions.

It remains now to examine the question whether traces are to be discovered in the Avesta of a dualistic religious standpoint. This question is answered in the affirmative by many students of the Avesta, but their conclusion appears to be based on the incorrect conception of Ahura-Mazda and Angra-mainyu contained in the works of Aristotle, Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Eudoxus, Hermippus, and Theopompus. Since these authors understood the Avesta texts only very imperfectly, they alleged that Ahura-Mazda and Angra-mainyu were the two deities-the good and the evil of the ancient Iranians. We have already shown above that in the sacred writings of the Parsis the Supreme Being is called sometimes Ahura-Mazda and sometimes Spenta-Mainyu. The words spenta and mainyu stand at times merely for the holy and all-good spirit of AhuraMazda. Mainyu standing alone is a name both for this spirit of God and for the holy and good spirit of man, implanted by Ahura-Mazda in his heart. Spenta by itself stands for the attribute of goodness on the part either of God or of His creature, man. The compound word Spentamainyu is a predicate attached to Ahura-Mazda and also, as the Avesta texts show, to the good spirit of man. Nowhere in our sacred writings are the words urvan ('soul'), daênâ ('conscience'), varena ('faith.'), etc., employed as predicates of the Supreme Being, but only of man.

are not at all the names of deities, equal or subordinate to Ahura-Mazda; they stand simply for that spirit of temptation, evil, and destruction which opposes itself to Ahura-Mazda. Mainyu means 'spirit,' while angra and dregvant mean 'sinful' or 'evil'; hence angra-mainyu and dregvatô-mainyu both stand for the wicked or sinful spirit in man. There are many passages in the Avesta which show that this is the meaning of these expressions, and not a single passage from which one might suppose that a superhuman evil spirit is referred to. Man is thus responsible for all his evil deeds, alike moral and physical; and the teaching of Zoroaster lays special emphasis on the free determination of the human will.

Finally, I may be allowed to show with all brevity that the view so prevalent that the Parsis are fireworshippers is wholly unjustified. Mithra or light is an attribute and symbol of Ahura-Mazda, who is pure light. The idea of omnipotence is frequently connected closely with brightness and light; for which reason and for it alone the followers of Zoroaster stand with bowed heads before the light, whether artificial or the natural light of sun, moon, or stars. Ahura-Mazda is the supreme truth, and, since light is everywhere recognized as a symbol of the truth, why should not the Avesta people and their successors recognize physical light as an emblem of the Deity, Ahura-Mazda? When we look around on the various religious systems of the world, we find that in many of them light is viewed as repesentative of the Almighty. If none of those religions is accused of fire-worship, why should this charge be brought against the pure doctrine of

Contributions

The Assyro-Chaldaean Sabbath.

PROFESSOR SAYCE deserves our thanks for having called attention (see the December number, p. 140b) to an Assyrian proper name which, so far as I am aware, has hitherto passed unnoticed, and for having recognized its bearing on the Sabbath question (cf. his words, 'it is worth more than a passing notice'). But he is not quite correct in his

and Comments.

explanation of the name in question, umu-VII(D.P.) Ai, as 'the seventh day is  (the sungoddess).' In the first place, the reading is Ai, not Â; secondly, Ai of Sippar is the consort of the sun-god, i.e. the moon-goddess, who was worshipped there side by side with Shamash. Thirdly, with the Assyrians, as is shown by a whole series of other proper names of theirs, Ai stood for their supreme god, being an epithet of the moon god Assur.

All this I have shown in detail in my Grundriss der Geogr. u. Gesch. des Alten Orients (erste Hälfte), 1904. Hence the meaning of ûmu-VII-Ai is 'the seventh day is the god Ai,' i.e. it is sacred to the ancient moon-god Ai. But this name is probably nothing more than the Assyrian explanation arrived at by a kind of popular etymology for the well-known name Shabatai (passim, e.g. in the Murashn tablets, ed. Clay and Hilprecht) = homo Sabbaticus, one born on the Sabbath'; cf. the German expression 'Sonntagskind,' Heb. na (Ezr 1015). Among the Chaldæans and the Assyrians (who were no doubt originally of W. Semitic origin and only afterwards babylonized) the seventh day of each week was a holy day. But it was not so with the Babylonians. On the contrary, they had the week of five days, an arrangement which in early times had gained a footing also among the Assyrians, but was probably followed only on official occasions. FRITZ HOMMEL.

Munich.

The Destruction of the Original of Ecclesiasticus.

My attention has been drawn to an article by Professor D. S. Margoliouth in THE EXPOSITORY TIMES of October 1904, headed, "The Destruction of the Original of Ecclesiasticus.' I consider the discussion regarding the authenticity of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus as closed, and will make

deluge and the generation of the Tower of Babel, whose deeds were corrupt, he rose and hid (1191) it, and prepared it for the righteous in the future to come.' In this connexion we meet often in Rabbinic literature with the expression na 7I8, which means, the stored up light.' A close parallel to it in the sense of storing away is the well-known passage in Baba Bathra 11a, where King Monabaz, reproached for squandering the wealth accumulated by his ancestors in charitable enterprises, answered, 'My ancestors treasured up here below; I hid (or treasured) above (in heaven) ' mhynh mua.

In connexion with books, it is used in the sense of putting away, removing it out of sight, but also implying the fact of preservation; as for instance, the passage in Megillah 26b, where we read, 'A Roll of the Pentateuch (n") which is in a condition of decay, they hide away () (in the grave) of a scholar,' which passage is followed by a statement of R. Acha Bar-Jacob, that the decayed Roll has to be put away in an earthen vessel, as it is said, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel Take these deeds . . . and put them in an earthen vessel; that they may continue many days' (Jer 3214). This proves clearly that the process of 'genizah' did not involve destruction. The passage in Sabbath 115a, if read and understood correctly, just proves that there is a difference between the 'genizah' and the causing of a book to be destroyed. Compare Jerushalmi to this Mishna. Notice especially the words

weakness of his position. There is, however, in the article a point which is of general interest, concerning as it does the right translation of a term that is so often cited in commentaries and introductions to the Old Testament. It is the root (ganaz), into which Professor Margoliouth attempts to smuggle the meaning of 'destroyed,' not as it is usually translated, to hide,' 'to conceal,' according to some also 'to remove out of sight,' and I consider it my duty to protest against such a misleading statement. The word 1 occurs frequently in Jewish literature, and means to hide' or 'to treasure.' Illustrations : Gen. Rabbah xi. 2, where we read, 'The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam could look by it from one end of the world to the other; but when he perceived the men of the generation of the

גנז

(Tosefta, Sabbath 14); compare also Masecheth Sophrim xv., and Müller's comments to it. See also Blau, Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schriften, p. 76, note 4. A similar instance we have in Mishna Sanhedrin 111b. It is with reference to the idolatrous city, where the spoil of it is given over to the flames (Dt 1316). On this the Mishna remarks that of this spoil are excluded the following kinds of property: "The Hekdesh (that is, the property belonging to the Temple) is redeemed; heave offering is allowed to decay; whilst the Second Tithes and Holy Scriptures have to be hidden away (1).' Here the

is just used in opposition to 12p. (Cf. also Siphre, ed. Friedman, 93b). Compare also the

in Mishna Shabbath שמצניעים אותן לגונזן expression

9, 6, with regard to worm-eaten books which they hide for the purpose of subjecting it to the process of genizah, because, as Rashi explains, 'everything.

holy must be hidden'; and thus even the smallest fragment is indestructible and has a certain value.

With regard to Maimonides' rendering of the word to the Mishna (or Baraitha) Pesahim 56a, his translation can only be considered as vague. As to Rashi's interpretation of the word in Pesahim 62b, with the word forgotten, it will be seen by a closer examination of the text that the famous commentator made an exception in this case, because of his assumption that the 'Sefer Yuchasin' referred to in the Gemara means the Book of Chronicles, which was neither destroyed nor hidden. The matter in this case subject to 'genizah' is, as is clear from the text, the haggadic interpretation to the said scriptural Book. (Cf. R. Hannael to this passage, as well as sub-commentators to Rashi.) The Megillath Yuchasin in Jebamoth has as little relation to the Sefer Yuchasin of Jebamoth as the other Megillah Yuchasin mentioned in Jerushalmi Taanith 68a and Genesis Rabbah 98.

I will also draw attention to the following passage in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, i.: First they said that Proverbs and the Song of Songs and the Book of Ecclesiastes were , because they thought they were parables m not forming a part of the Hagiographa Danon, and they rose and hid them, until men of the Great Assembly came and explained them.' The text is not correct in all details. (See Graetz, Commentary to Koheleth, p. 154; Dr. Lewy, Ueber einige Fragmenter aus der Mischna des Abba Saul, p. 24, n. 57; Midrash to Proverbs, ed. Buber, chap. xxv. p. 49a, n. 7, and Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, ibid., version ii. But in one thing all texts agree, that there was a time when they thought that the said Books belonged to the class of '; until they considered the matter more carefully and admitted them into the Canon. This proves clearly that the fact of a book being subjected to the process of 'genizah,' does in no way imply its destruction.

On the real meaning of the passage which Professor Margoliouth gives from Rabbinowics's Varia Lectiones, I would only refer here to Rappoport in Zikkaron Larishonim, ii. (ed. Harkavy), p. 32, who derives from it proof for the very opposite fact which the Professor wants to force on the readers of this review.

In conclusion, let me remark that Professor Margoliouth's assertion of it (the Jerusalem Talmud)

as following the Midrash on Eccles., as well as his other statement that the Jerusalem Talmud follows the Midrash, not only in this place but elsewhere when it speaks of Ben - Sirah, is entirely false. Anybody who has ever made a study of these departments of Rabbinic literature knows that the Midrash to Eccles. belongs to the younger Midrashim, whilst even the oldest of the Midrashim, as the Gen. Rabbah, made ample use of the Talmud of Jerusalem. This is the view of all specialists. See among others: Zunz, Die gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, p. 185, 2nd ed.; Z. Frankel, Introductio in Talmud Herosolymitanum, p. 51b, seq.; and Weiss, Zur Geschichte der Judischen Tradition, vol. iii. p. 253. S. SCHECHTER.

THIS is a confessedly difficult verse; but an interpretation has presented itself to me that appears to suggest a solution. May I venture to ask through your columns an opinion about it?

In Driver's Parallel Psalter, verses 13 and 14 are represented as the words of the women who published the tidings of victory; verse 13 is then, apparently, a taunt by the women to the men around them, who also 'tarried at home.' In Hastings' D.B. i. 620, s.v. 'Dove,' it is noted that to watch the direction of the flight of pigeons was a favourite pastime of men and boys in Syria in the late afternoon. Is it not possible, then, that the women fling back at the men what they suppose will be their reply to the question, 'Will ye lie among the sheepfolds ?' (R.V.); the men being supposed to excuse themselves on the ground of the fascination of a favourite pastime? If this be a true interpretation, it does away with. the necessity of giving 'dove' an allegorical interpretation, as in the commentaries of Delitzsch and (apparently) Kirkpatrick.

CRAYDEN EDMUNDS,

Editorial Assistant, British and Foreign Bible Society.

Hebrew in Roman Type.

Suggestions for a uniform system of transliteration from Hebrew and Arabic into Roman Print.

THE advantage of a uniform and universally accepted system for expressing Hebrew and Arabic in Roman characters is (as was urged in the last issue) very obvious. That it should be not on a phonetic system, but transliteral, is also obvious; for the diversity of pronunciation existing is much to be lamented. Where so much uncertainty exists, the question should be treated as a separate subject, and a common standard accepted for use. Students are at present greatly and unnecessarily hindered, if they have to change teachers or discuss questions with those who have been taught a different pronunciation to their own. The meaning of the Hebrew is all we really want nowadays.

But the system of transliteration presented by Mr. Ansted, although substantially on an unassailable principle, can surely be fundamentally improved in detail. It does not bring out well the important position of the Hebrew consonants; it takes no account of the Shiva, or of the long, short, and semi-vowels; it introduces very unnecessarily two new symbols; it leaves the six 'daghesh'-able consonants with insufficient notation; and puzzles those for whom transliteration is most needed by the suggested new use of j, w, and y.

The present writer has recently adopted the system of putting the consonants in Roman capitals and the vowels in small Roman letters, and ventures to think that it meets or can be made to meet nearly all these defects, by a free use of an ordinary fount of type. The Hebrew consonants stand out prominently, as they should, and show the change of vowels easily; the Shiva can be denoted by a comma, as used for words placed between single inverted commas; the long vowels can be represented by ordinary small Roman letters, the short vowels by the same with a short mark over, and the semi-vowels by italics; the consonants subject to the Dagesh by B, Bh, G, Gh, D, Dh, etc.; the Yod, as customarily heretofore, rightly or wrongly, by the Y, leaving W to denote 'Ayin. To take a few specimens, we should get the following kind of result:- NaDaR; Ně DěR; NěPhěSH; BoQĕR; Y'HoVaH. Again, the capital A will be available for Aleph,