and no more inconvenience felt than in reading the Hebrew characters. The one difficulty, which will require the interchange of opinions, is the representation of the Vau and Yod, when used with points for the long vowels. To be true to the original, they must be represented by Roman capitals, and it is suggested that they be put on these occasions between brackets, as also the A for Aleph, when a vowel stands under it. The use

extension of the system of transliteration be in principle acceptable, doubtless some improvements in detail will be recommended.

J. R. MADAN.

St. Joseph's Foreign Missionary College, Mill Hill.

With regard to Samech, the strong S sound in the X, together with the fact that in Greek it is the old representative, makes it advisable not to displace it by the C with a cedilla. The small h after the five 'daghesh'-able consonants enables easily a distinction to be made between Teth and Tav, and leaves the capital H to denote the fundamental and only sound of Cheth and Teth.

According to this system, the first few verses in Genesis would be transliterated thus

B'ReAShiYTh BaRaA AeLo HiYM AeTh HǎSh-Sha MăYiM V'AeTh Ha-AaRĕTS: V’HaAa RĕTS Ha-Y'ThaH Tho HuV VaBhoHuV V'KhoShě Kh WǎL P'NeY Th'HoVM V'RuVǎCH M'RǎChĕPhěTh WǎL P'NeY HǎM-MaYiM : VǎY-YoAMĕR AeLoHiYM Y'HIY AoVR VaY'HiY AoVR VăY-YǎR'A AeLoHiYM: AĕTh Ha-AoYR KiY ToYBh.

AeLoHiYM

The only rather arbitrary symbol is the W for 'Ayin, and probably GW would be better, as suggesting the guttural sound; but as W is the only Roman letter at all suitable which is unused, the balance seems in favour of its use, as it avoids the introduction of a consonant already necessarily selected for Gimel. However, should the above

I.

AN interesting note on these words, from the pen of Mrs. Gibson, appeared in the May number of THE EXPOSITORY TIMES.

Anything which a writer of such repute has to say on the subject is worthy of attention, and I do not propose to attack the main position of her note, but one or two details admit of some comment.

1. Mrs. Gibson seems to imply that 'in silence' is not a legitimate rendering of ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ; ἡσυχία certainly means 'quietness' sometimes, and strongly suggests 'silence' in Pr 1112, 2 Mac 144, and Ac 223; γυνὴ γλωσσώδης is in antithesis to ἀνδρὶ ἡσύχῳ in Ecclus 2520; ἡσυχάζειν may fairly be translated 'be silent' in Jg 189 (where A reads σɩ¬âтe), Neh 58, Job 321.6, Lk 144, Ac 1118 2114.

2. It is hardly fair to the Translators to say that they 'take no notice of the little word iva, in Eph 533. They apparently do take notice of the fact that it is there preceded by the words ἡ δὲ γυνή ; which fact makes the rendering, 'in order that the wife may reverence her husband,' very strained, to say the least of it. It is questionable whether a parallel case of iva preceded by the subject of the verb it is introducing, could be found anywhere; it is certain it cannot be found in the N.T. On the other hand, the use of iva and the subjunctive, with an imperative force, is not at all uncommon ; e.g. 2 Mac 12, Mk 523, 2 Co 87. 13, Gal 210, Col 416, I Jn 219. See Blass, 644, and Winer, xliii. 5.

3. The Prayer Book undoubtedly does lay stress on the word 'obey' in this connexion, but it is not quite accurate to say that it is never so used in the Bible. St. Peter, in holding up the conduct of Sarah for the imitation of Christian women, says, ὡς Σάῤῥα ὑπήκουσε τῷ ̓Αβραάμ (1 P 3). But even were the word inакоve never applied to a wife's behaviour towards her husband, ὑποτάσσεσθαι would offer a sufficiently severe line of conduct, in view of

IN THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for May, Mrs. Gibson discussed the above and kindred questions. She pointed out an apparent inconsistency between the directions in 1 Co 115 and 1434. 35, and asked for a solution.

According to 115 it seems to be taken for granted that women may engage in public prayer and prophesying; for it lies in the nature of prophesying that it is a public act (1 Co 143.24), and prayer being coupled with it, there can be no doubt that the apostle also refers to public prayer. Mrs. Gibson, I think, must have come to the same conclusion, or she could not speak of 'these opposite directions.' [See also Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 935d.] But did the apostle really give opposite directions? Mrs. Gibson understands that he did: 'women may prophesy; only they must not do it in church' (1434).

True, women are enjoined silence. But neither can this injunction be taken as absolute in the sense of their being forbidden to open their mouths at all (literal sense of λadeîv); nor can it have reference to the question of a female ministry or women's teaching in public (in which case λadeîv would have to be taken in the sense of διδάσκειν). But the context (v.35) indicates that the women, in their desire to learn, must often have taken the liberty of beginning a conversation either. with the men present or among themselves, and that the men had evidently permitted this state of things. The apostle had, therefore, to draw their attention to the general practice in this respect of all the churches (v.33b seems to be logically connected with v.34 rather than with v. 33a).

Now such a prohibition exactly fits the conditions found in newly formed congregations on the mission field. There it often happens that women will, even in the middle of a sermon, make loud remarks, either explaining to others a point they have grasped or referring to any mundane sub

ject that just then happens to occur to them. Occasionally, also, a woman may interrupt the speaker by taking up the thread of his discourse as if it devolved upon her to relieve him of carrying on a one-sided discussion, or by trying to change the subject, asking for information in an altogether different direction, or she may even take advantage of the public meeting to vent a grievance real or imaginary. Oriental women, suddenly emancipated from the conventional restrictions of heathen custom, are in danger of overstepping the bounds of decorum, and uneducated as they mostly are (as were also those in ancient Greece), may think themselves, after having attained to some enlightenment, competent to take part in public discussions. Conditions in the West are so different that they do not help us to realize what the apostle wanted to prevent by making those prohibitions and injunctions. But the East gives the proper setting. To my mind, then, the apostle here forbids women to interrupt the season of worship and instruction by question or comment or private conversation. That is, they must not 'talk,' a rendering the permissibility of which Dr. Adeney at least suggests in connexion with this passage (D.B. iv. 936a).

It is much more difficult to say whether didάokeLV in 1 Ti 211. 12 refers to private or public teaching. I am inclined to agree with Mrs. Gibson that 'this passage refers to the behaviour of Christian women towards their husbands.' The change from the plural yvvativ in v.10 to the singular yuvaukì in vv.11 and 12 [the omission of the article, which occurs frequently before nouns indicating relationship, should not militate against this view]; the words ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ, which could only be required of wives in relation to their husbands according to the strict Eastern notions of morals, and ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, which evidently corresponding to ἐν ok of 1 Co 1435, may, or ought to, be rendered in quiet' (ie. the quiet of the home), but not 'gentleness,' which is covered by the larger phrase, ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ; and the reference to Adam and Eve (1 Ti 213), the first husband and wife-not merely unconnected representatives of the two sexes, -would suggest the interpretation that the apostle had married women in view, which contention seems to be further borne out by v.51, which otherwise would be out of place here. But even so, didáσkew is still open to a dual interpreta

tion. While the apostle may have merely meant to prohibit wives assuming a didactic and dictatorial (av evreiv) attitude towards their husbands, it is only a logical consequence to assume that married women, owing to their special relation of submission to their husbands, were also prevented from teaching in public. This would leave the question open whether women who were not in such a relation of submission, such as 'deaconesses' and 'widows,' had to submit to similar disabilities, or whether they had more latitude allowed them, especially in the absence of men able to speak or teach in public (cf. Bengel's remark to 1 Co 1434, 'præsentibus viris, qui loqui possunt').

Interpreting these passages as above, it would seem then that all women were allowed to pray and prophesy in public; that some women belonging to the orders of deaconesses or widows were probably allowed to engage in public teaching on a limited scale, the extent of which would, however, have to remain an open question, and that married women were debarred absolutely from teaching both in public and at home, even when a husband was less advanced in religious knowledge and experience.

G. ENGEL. Australian Presbyterian Mission, Fusan, Korea.

THE Massoretic pointing of these words (Is 307) is certainly wrong, and we cannot now say with absolute certainty what the correct reading may be. The prophet had a great fondness for describing by a suitable name, and here we have his view of Egypt gathered up in a nickname of three words. Isaiah was a most vigorous opponent of the pro-Egyptian party in Israel, one of his reasons being the untrustworthiness of Egypt, and this was the reason which would appeal most to the people.

The permanent foreign policy of the Nile land was to keep the peoples of Syria as buffer states between herself and Assyria; hence her ambassadors were always at work amongst them stirring up dissatis

faction with the overlord, and making great promises of help. History shows how rarely Egypt was able to implement these promises. It is to this the prophet refers in the name he applies to Egypt, and its most probable reading is therefore Rahabham-Shobheth, a dragon—a roarer —a do-nothing.' The name Rahab is given very frequently to Egypt, and indeed may be a compound of the divine name Ra, although there is a Hebrew word of the same form. Ham is the participle of the verb 'to roar' like the sea, which was itself generally regarded as a great dragon; while Shobheth is the participle of the verb 'to rest,' 'to do nothing,' the word from which the name Sabbath comes. This gives a most fitting nickname for Egypt. She is a great unwieldly dragon, from whose roaring one would expect terrible things; but when it comes to the need of doing anything, the dragon can do nothing. In the modern proverb, Egypt is a dog that can bark but cannot bite.

University of Toronto.

Ross G. MURISON.

The Preface of the Authorized Version.

A QUERY.

Is there any commented edition of this noble Preface,' as it is justly styled in the new catalogue of the Bible-Collection of the British and Foreign Bible Society'? This preface is so full of learning, that without comment it is impossible fully to appreciate it. The new English translation of the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, which is now in course of publication under the editorship of Paul Haupt, gives in each part 'Extracts from the Preface of the A. V.,' as 'no words of ours can so befittingly, or so eloquently, set forth the motives which have guided us, or so amply justify our translation,' as these extracts. 'Three hundred years have not veiled their truth, and they encourage us to-day in tones as commanding as when the pious translators first uttered them.'

As most English Bibles go out at present without this preface, it would be certainly a merit to publish a separate edition of it, with a commentary

leaving out of account 111 and similar passages where the reading 'son of God' is to be assumed) is no doubt exampled, it by no means follows from this that the designation of Israel in whole or part by this honorific title is either possible or an actual fact in the case before us.

(2) In order to make his reading possible, Kraetzschmar is compelled to have recourse to the form Σαρβανέλ, although he and all expert exegetes must admit that it is really untenable, because poorly attested. Kautzsch, too (Apocryphen des A.T., p. 25), points this out, and is only induced by Kraetzschmar's proposal to modify his opinion in the words 'unless it may be after all that Zapẞaveéλ has sarê nê underlying it' (S.K., 1903, p. 333 n.). The other arguments that may be urged against Kraetzschmar's view I have sought to indicate in S.K. as cited above. Kautzsch thus follows the argument of Kraetzschmar as expressed in THE EXPOSITORY TIMES (l.c. p. 95a): 'The only form with which anything can be accomplished is Zapßav., as by far the majority of interpreters have rightly felt.' But this is precisely the question, whether it is only with this form that one can operate. It surely wears the aspect of a violent measure, to be resorted to only in case of extreme necessity, when one gives the preference to a poorly attested reading solely on the ground of the (apparent) help it affords. Nor is the position strengthened by the fact that Kraetzschmar and Kautzsch find a third to join their attempt in the person of Schürer (G.J.V. i. 429), to whom Kraetzschmar straightway appeals on the ground of his reference to Σαραμέλ.

as

(sepher beth shebb né hayil, 'Book of the House [or Family] of the sons of valour [or heroes]').

Kraetzschmar's work is characterized by its almost complete enumeration of all the attempts at explanation hitherto made, and by great acuteness in defending his own proposal. But the latter appears to be itself anything but unobjectionable, as I have ever been convinced afresh in the course of repeated examinations of it which I have carried on for a considerable time past. At the same time, I have come to feel always new confidence in my own solution of the problem, and it seems not unseasonable to subject Kraetzschmar's view to criticism once more. Perchance it may be possible in this way to discover a solution of the problem which shall be at least provisionally satisfactory, provisionally, i.e. until new facts are adduced.

I. I shall first of all notice in order the various points in which it appears to me that exception may be taken to Kraetzschmar's solution.

ii. The main difficulty, however, Kraetzschmar discovers in the word Zapßne. (1) In proposing, however, to read here sepher 'arba'ath (sārê), he assumes a somewhat precarious abbreviation to have taken place. That Origen and Eusebius did not understand Hebrew is certain. From this it follows that they had not the reading of themselves, but took it over from some one. But this some one must have understood Hebrew, and in any case attached some meaning to the form he read. if he actually found nyans 'D, he must have so read this and so reproduced it that both he himself understood what he said, and that any one who listened to it understood also. It is quite true that the reading might have become unintelligible before it came down to Origen. But in any

But

case Kraetzschmar's assumption is oppressed with difficulties that are really insuperable. The parallels, moreover, which have been adduced of similar instances, where an abbreviation has been misunderstood, all belong to a different category. But the questionable reading is absolutely excluded by the following consideration :

(2) The title Book of the four princes of the sons of God' (or, better, 'heroes'), does not correspond with the contents of the First Book of Maccabees. I do not mean here to justify once more in detail my suggestion (Z.c. p. 336 f.) that (at least originally, for, as is there shown, this has much in its favour) only one prince, namely, Judas, can have been in view. But in any case, the First Book of Maccabees could not possibly have been called 'Book of the four Heroes,' seeing that it deals at length only with three, namely, Judas, Jonathan, Simon. The so-called fourth, John Hyrcanus, is referred to only in a brief concluding note (1 Mac 1623f.), which points to a different source. Hence the book must have been called 'Book of the three Heroes.' This objection is really fatal to Kraetzschmar's theory. He sees this himself, and suggests that 'The author dispensed with carrying his account [of Hyrcanus] further, which he could all the more readily do, seeing that a special historical work dealing with the reign of Hyrcanus had already appeared' (p. 95a). Very good; but even this, as every unprejudiced reader must see, could not justify speaking of a 'Book of four Heroes.'

II. We have seen, then, that manifold difficulties oppose Kraetzschmar's solution. But these may be overcome, and that quite readily, by adopting my explanation.

i. I propose to read b'nê hayil instead of nê 'El. The latter expression (cf. 'ish hayil and gibbor hayil)='heroes,' 'combatants,' 'warriors,' is well known as a favourite one in the historical books of the Old Testament (cf. Dt 318, Jg 182, 2 S 27 1328 1710, 2 K 216, 1 Ch 267.9. 30. 32, 2 Ch 2617 286, etc.). It is especially worthy of notice that this form of expression occurs with growing frequency in the later books, especially Chronicles.

Now it so happens that, in more than one passage in 1 Maccabees, Judas is glorified as a ben hayil: 206 ἰσχυρὸς δυνάμει, 3 γίγας, 921 δυνατός. In all these three passages ben hayil, or a synonym, is to be assumed in the Hebrew original. For, to cite

at least a few of the passages that are most to the point, the LXX renders gibbôr hayil by lơxvpòs Suváμe in 1 K 1128, 2 K 51, 1 Ch 524 72 840; ben hayil by duvarós, e.g. in Dt 318 and 1 Ch 269, or by (viòs) duvarós in 2 S 27, 1 Ch 267.32, 2 Ch 2617. One or other of the Hebrew expressions cited should no doubt be assumed also as the original of yiyas, since the Hebrew language has no word for 'giant.'

Taking a conjunct view of all this, we must admit that the reading b'nê hayil is at least very probable. probable. And it needs not to be pointed out, on the other hand, that it presents no difficulty of its own, while it avoids the difficulties raised by Kraetzschmar's reading.

ii. There is no need to assume that an abbreviated' for DD was misread. If this word was read (2 Ch 216) or [the segholate form DD is in all probability an artificial construction of the Massoretes], and the modified in pronunciation to bor v or f(a frequent phenomenon in New Hebrew), the might very readily drop out altogether or at least be inaudible in pronunciation; and there is no difficulty in supposing that, once it had ceased to be pronounced, it soon dropped out also in writing.

Without, then, repeating all the arguments adduced (ll. cc.) by Kraetzschmar and by me for DD, by me for bêth (instead of 'arba'ath) and b'nê ḥayil (instead of binê 'El), we may now draw our conclusion. This is to the effect that the sub-title (not the original name, as Kraetzschmar implies by the title of his article; see S.K. p. 332 f.) is to be read Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ = η υ ' DD, 'Book of the Family of Heroes.' This reading

is in correspondence with: (1) the original offered us by tradition (with which it tallies most closely, almost letter for letter); (2) the contents of the First Book of Maccabees; (3) the linguistic usage of the O.T. with regard to the three main con