of the call of Moses. In Ex 315 Jahweh is called 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'; and so in 63 the Divine announcement is to the effect that the God who reveals Himself to Moses is identical with the God of the three patriarchs. Who, again, does not at once recall the words, 'Get thee out of thy native land, etc., into a land that I will show thee, and there will I make thee to be a great people' (Gn 121.)? In all these passages, that is to say, the descent of Israel from Abraham is mentioned not only as a genealogical feature, but as a fact of religious significance. Moreover, two of these passages (Gn 121-3 and Ex 315) belong, even according to the more recent critical analysis of the Pentateuch, to the older deposit of recollections which Israel retained from the time of Abraham and Moses. All the less can it be regarded as justifiable to say, in opposition to the biblical tradition, that the descent of Israel from one ancestral father became only 'in later times' a religious conviction of this people.

What right, again, has Dr. Jeremias to speak of this element in Israel's religious consciousness as 'a fateful dogma'? This language implies, in the first place, that the O.T. statements about the place of Abraham in the history of redemption are products of human dogma - construction. But such a view is irreconcilable either with the demonstrably well-founded character of Israel's historical tradition or with the personal testimony of the prophets as to the origin of their oracles. For, in the light of not a few indications in the historical books of the Old Testament,1 which speak positively in favour of their reliability, the people of Israel cannot be credited with having inscribed the blank pages of their annals with the products of their own imagination. The prophets, again, whose words are preserved in the O.T., protest most emphatically against the notion that these were simply the product of their own minds. Consequently the development of this alleged later religious dogma should not be attributed to them.

Why, once more, is the O.T. statement of the religiously significant relation of Abraham to Israel characterized by Dr. Jeremias in the above sentences as a 'fateful' dogma. The first reason alleged is that it led to particularism.' But it had not this effect with competent representatives of the O.T. principle. At the very starting - point, in the

1 See these testimonies collected in my recent booklet, Glaubwürdigkeitssturen des Alten Testaments.

passage which is fundamental as to the destiny of Abraham, we read: 'In thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed'; and how clearly in harmony with this is the prophecy that all peoples are to flock to the mountain of the house of Jahweh, etc. (Is 22-4, Mic 41-3, Zec 823). Further, in contiguity with the passage (Is 512) cited by Dr. Jeremias, stands also the consoling word: 'I have set thee for a light to the heathen, that thou mayest be the bearer of my salvation to the ends of the earth' (496); and, again: 'My house shall be called an house of prayer for all peoples' (567); while he in whose person O.T. prophecy closed its mouth when its mission was accomplished, declared as the interpreter of his God: 'Great is my name among the nations' (Mal 11). Hence it is not in accordance with historical truth when the fundamental O.T. view of Abraham's religious position is set down simply as a 'fateful dogma which led to particularism.' Whom, let us ask, did that view lead to a particularistic frame of mind? Narrowminded men, who thought it necessary to restrict the far-reaching scope of the Divine plan of salvation. They were willing to hold by only the one part of this plan, namely, that the real posterity of Abraham, like a vineyard (Is 51-7), should become. the nursery of the true religious and moral system. The other part of the plan, the idea that Israel should become at last the central point of a Kingdom of God comprehending humanity-they in their narrow-mindedness forced into the background.

Finally, what means the appeal in this connexion to John the Baptist and to Christ? Is the O.T. statement of the religious significance of Abraham in relation to Israel proved to be 'a fateful dogma' because, as Dr. Jeremias alleges, 'it was energetically combated by the preaching of John the Baptist and of Jesus'? No. John, it is true, warned the Pharisees and the Sadducees that came to him not to rest their hopes of salvation upon their Abrahamic descent (Mt 39), since God was 'able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.' But in all this he meant to combat only a false exploiting of this hope. Those alone were to quail who thought it possible to combine this hope of salvation with immoral conduct. But the hope itself was in no way declared thereby to be an ungodly one.

As little ground would there be for Dr. Jeremias' conclusion even if Jesus spoke of the sphere of

expansion of the true religion of His Gospel, without taking any account of Abraham. The history of the true religion exhibits stages of development. Christ not only fulfilled' (i.e. spiritualized or gave an inward character to) the requirements of the Old Covenant, but also transfigured many features of O.T. prophecy. Did He not, for instance, strip the Messianic kingdom completely of its worldly character (Jn 1886)? But it is not the case that Jesus fixed the destiny of the redemption procured by His death without any regard to Abraham's religious significance. Looking forward in spirit to the successors of that Roman centurion who distinguished himself by the strength of his faith, He declares, keeping the O.T. in view, that they would sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt 811). But He spoke also of the children to whom the bread of the Gospel must first be offered (1526), and declared that 'salvation is of the Jews' (Jn 422).

The fundamental O.T. view of the place of Abraham in the history of redemption is thus not characterized by our Lord's words any more than by those of the Baptist as 'a fateful dogma.' On the contrary, we think we have adduced sufficient proof that the sentences quoted from Dr. Jeremias at the beginning of this note serve not to illustrate but to obscure and rob of value the religious contents of the Old Testament. Once more, then, the attempt to treat the O.T. as simply one constituent in a great general picture has led to a failure to recognize its own true character.

The Study of the English Bible.

I SHOULD earnestly hope that there are many University colleges where the real study of Holy Scripture is encouraged.

I would venture to name the London College of Divinity (now in existence for some forty years). As a former student of some five-and-thirty years ago, I can testify that a thorough knowledge of the text of Holy Writ is fostered there; but also accompanied by the most necessary study of ancient history and of the geography of the lands which have formed the dwelling-places of the human race. For forty years I have myself endeavoured with a paragraph Bible to delve into this exhaustless mine; and I have found a little accurate general knowledge of history and of geography in

its true aspects to be the handmaids of divine study. But, above all, a paragraph arrangement of Holy Scripture prevents one falling into the crevasses of narrow readings, and keeps the leading sense clear and full. J. GARFORTH. Spexhall Rectory.

Balaam's Prayer.

PROFESSOR ADDIS is undoubtedly right in his reading of n in Nu 2310 as 'posterity.' The same word should stand also at chap. 2420 instead of 'latter end,' as in R.V. (!). The writer's meaning would spring into eye at once, if the verse read (as it ought): 'Let me die the death of righteous (men), and let my posterity (or future) be like his.' To the English reader 'his' seems to refer to 'righteous,' whereas it points back to 'Jacob Israel,' as just described.

A similar correction of the text should be made in Ps 3737, where one or other of marginal readings 'future' or 'posterity' should take the place of 'latter end.' Indeed there seems to be no example of latter end'=' death.' A. THOM.

Tullibody.

St. James and Hermes.

THE Epistle of James defines Opηoκcía 'pure and undefiled.' As an illustration see at the end of chap. 12 of the Iloμávdpns of Hermes Trismegistos, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ θεός, τὸ πᾶν . . . τοῦτον τὸν λόγον, ὦ τέκνον, προσκύνει καὶ θρήσκευε. θρησκεία δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ μία ἐστί, μὴ εἶναι κακόν. Et hoc deus est, universum . . . hoc verbum, o fili, adora et cole. Cultus autem dei unus est, malum non esse' (Gustav. Parthey, Berol. 1854). C. TAYLOR. Cambridge.

The Almond.

WHEN it is said that the oil bowls of the holy lamp were to be almond shaped (Ex 2533), it cannot mean that this form was chosen for ornamental purposes merely. Everything used in the sanctuary was symbolical, or would be made so by the masses, and at the time of writing the dislike of images was too strong to permit of any having a place in the shrine except those which long usage had endeared to the people, and which meant so

much to them they could not be removed. The cherubim on the Ark and the almond bowls of the lamp are examples of this. The symbolism expressed by the almond was probably life, either in the abstract or in some of its manifestations. This plant blossoms very early in the spring, hence its Hebrew name, its flowers appearing before the leaves; it is thus very noticeable, and would become connected with the spring, as the swallow has in Britain (cf. Jer 111. 12). But, as is seen in the nature myth, 'The Descent of Ishtar to Sheol, the spring was regarded by the Semites as a returning to life, and of this the almond tree is the earliest forerunner. It would thus easily and readily become a symbol of life, and as the light which burned perpetually in the sanctuary was the symbol of the presence of the Ever-living and Lifegiving One, so the bowl which held the light was an associated symbol. It is noteworthy that Aaron's rod which budded bare ripe almonds (Nu 178, He 1723).

The almond

If this view be correct, it will explain the saying, 'The almond tree shall blossom' (Ecc 125). The verb here nowhere else has this meaning, but means 'to despise,' 'reject,' 'cast off,' with most likely in regular use many related meanings. tree casts of, i.e. its flowers or fruit. The old man falls off like ripe fruit from a tree. Or if the verb be taken as a passive, we get an even better meaning. The almond tree is discarded, the man is cast off by life, he is growing old and decrepit, and

will soon sink into his grave. It may be that the almond here is the bowl of the lamp representing man himself; as the flame sinks down and goes out, so the life in an old man burns dimly for a while, and is finally extinguished. This interpretation gives a meaning in consonance with the figure of the caper-berry (marg. 'desire'), one of the three figures used in this verse, and which certainly refers to the extinction of the virile strength in an old man. The middle figure, 'The grasshopper shall be a burden,' is impossible, unless the word 'grasshopper' be a euphemism of which the translation has been lost. It is most likely a euphemism, but is connected with the Arabic word. of the same consonants (), which means 'to be concealed.' In the Republic of Plato reference is made to the same marks of declining life. The figure of the almond may thus refer to the decay of life in the whole man, while the third, and probably the second, figures refer to particular manifestations of the decease of the powers of a man in old age, which must soon end in the total death of which they are the forerunners.

University of Toronto.

Ross G. MURISON.

1 The Talmud (Tract Sabbath), in explaining why even the Sabbath lamp may be put out to benefit a sick person, says: "The light is called Ner and the soul (life) of man is called Ner. It is better that the lamp made by man should be extinguished than the lamp which belongeth unto the Holy One, blessed is He.'

MANY students of Scripture now possess the Dictionary of the Bible. But, in spite of that, there will be a great circulation of Dr. Sanday's new book. For, although it is practically his article on JESUS CHRIST taken from the second volume of the Dictionary, it is that article in a most convenient form, and enriched with a most valuable new map of Palestine. For the new map Professor Sanday has made use of the articles on ROADS AND TRAVEL by Professors Buhl and W. M. Ramsay in the Extra Volume of the Dictionary. Dr. Sanday has given his book the title of Outlines of the Life of Christ (T. & T. Clark; 5s. net). It is a fine handsome volume. It will whet the

appetite of every real student for that 'larger work on the same subject' which Dr. Sanday promises, but which he says is not likely to appear for some years.

Two years ago Sir Henry Jackson, the Governor of Fiji, having discovered that Dr. Lorimer Fison had made a thorough and unique investigation into the customs of Land Tenure among the Fijians, begged an account of it, read it, and sent it to Mr. Chamberlain, then Colonial Secretary. 'I consider,' wrote Mr. Chamberlain, that the Colony owes Dr. Lorimer Fison a debt of gratitude.' Dr. Fison has rewritten his narrative for THE EXPOSI

What

TORY TIMES. It is published in this issue. have we to do with Land Tenure in Fiji? We have to do with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

How much of the Bible is read in the pulpit? A Methodist local preacher, writing to the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine for March, says that, with the exception of a few favourite chapters, the pulpit Bible is a sealed book. The editor of the magazine is in favour of the preparation of a Methodist lectionary.

The editor of the Preacher's Magazine, which is also Methodist, is also in favour of a lectionary. But he seems to think that there is a more pressing need in the pulpit than Lessons to read. He means a man who will take the trouble to read them. Every preacher,' he says, 'ought to feel that the most solemn and impressive part of his public ministration is the careful reading of the Lessons'; and he is at one with the late Dr. Pope, who advised his Didsbury students to read the appointed Lessons in Hebrew and Greek in their studies before they read them in the pulpit.

The Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Vicar of St. Paul's, Portman Square, London, has been appointed Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

Why is it that in England the Reformation began at the top, while in Scotland it began at the bottom? Why is it that in England there have been no heresy hunts worth the historian's attention, while heresy hunting has been Scotland's history? Why is it that the difference between Homoousion and Homoiousion and the idea of men dying for it, is a subject of mirth in England, while in Scotland men do not laugh but die?

These queries and others have been awakened by a re-reading of Mr. Henderson's Religious Controversies of Scotland. It is a book worth reading twice. It is a book to be proud of. The movements it describes are great movements, the men are great men. It is a national tribute. For religious controversy is the inevitable outcome of religious life. We may not have the one without the other. And if we are really done with controversy in Scotland we have entered upon another reign of Moderatism.

Young Scotland is an unofficial magazine for the youth of the United Free Church of Scotland. It

has reached its third number in March. The worst thing about Young Scotland is the paper upon which it is printed. The paper is the only bad thing. All the rest is good. And the page entitled 'When Lecturing' is very good.

What is the difference between a Presbyterian and an Episcopalian in Ireland? The difference is that the one calls the first day of the week Sabbath, the other calls it Sunday. And both are wrong. The ancient and honourable name of the day is Dies Dominica, the Lord's Day. They have found that out. The Episcopalians have found it out. Henceforth, the editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette hopes, the Church of Ireland will use the proper title, and give a lead to all the world.

We are not at the end of the Babel-Bibel busi

ness yet. Professor Delitzsch has been freely handled but not put to silence. He has just published another lecture. He reasserts his former assertions, and claims that in all essentials his position stands. He ventures upon new assertions. And this time it is the New Testament that is under a debt to the mythology of Babylon. To the new lecture Professor Ed. König has already replied. His reply is found in a pamphlet hot from the press of Edw. Runge in Berlin, its title being Die babylonische Gefangenschaft der Bibel als biendet erwiesen (M.1.20). And that we may not miss the points newly raised, Professor Prášek of Prague will contribute an article shortly to THE EXPOSITORY TIMES.

Now concerning the collection. At a conference of clergy in Halle last year, Pastor Zeller of Magdeburg delivered an address on St. Paul as Missionary Collector.' A summary of the address is published in the Church Missionary Intelligencer for March. Pastor Zeller asks the question, What made St. Paul a good collector? And he answers, Chiefly this, that he worked on behalf of his collection. He deliberated, arranged, wrote letters, made practical suggestions, designated people to whom the cause was to be entrusted, and set limits of time within which the collection was to be made

Printed by MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED, Tanfield Works, and Published by T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. It is requested that all literary communications be addressed to THE EDITOR, St. Cyrus, Montrose.