the official. As the great statements of Christian doctrine which were ultimately registered in the Creeds, were in the minds and language of the people before they were in the symbols, and found their place in the latter only because they had already obtained a place in the former, so it is natural to conclude that the books in question achieved an authority with the people before they were defined as Canonical. How does it stand with the historical verification of this, and how long did the former authority exist before the latter was given? The second question is of still greater importance. What was the principle of Canonicity? On what groundauthorship, intrinsic excellence, historical function or other did certain writings receive the seal of sanctity and authority, while others were denied it? This is the final question as regards the Canon, whether of the Old Testament or of the New. But it is a question rarely grappled with in treatises on the Canon. In his volume on The Early Narratives of Genesis, published in 1882, Professor Ryle faces a different, but not less difficult task. Granting that the traditional interpretation of those chapters has broken down, it is his object to show that there is a way of dealing with them which will at once do justice to the results of science and criticism, and conserve the position due to these narratives as part of the written Word. The difficulties attaching to the two narratives of Creation in the first two chapters of Genesis cannot be met by any "reconciliation" theory, or any of the old devices. The facts amount to a nonhomogeneity which indicates difference in the sources, and points to the working up of two distinct cosmogonies in the one narrative. A comparison with the Babylonian stories of creation leads to the further conclusion that the narratives in Genesis are versions of ancient traditions common to the Semitic race, purged of their polytheistic elements and brought into the service of the pure religion of Israel, popular non-scientific accounts of the origin of things, vivified by the large principles of a monotheistic faith, but not meant to express more than these. The story of Paradise is examined with particular care. The problem created by the fact that there is but the slightest reference to it, if any, in the writings of the earlier prophets is fully recognised. But Professor Ryle does not think it a necessary inference that this narrative was simply borrowed from Babylonia, and did not receive its literary form till after the Captivity. His reasons for so thinking are chiefly these: the improbability that pious Jewish captives should thus take over for religious purposes the legends of their captors; the circumstance that the narrative of the Fall is shown by criticism to belong to a particular group of writings which are known to have existed before the Exile, and to have characteristics which connect it with the earlier section of the Jehovistic writings; and the fact that the indefiniteness of the reference to Assyria in ii. 11-14, the allusion to the fig-tree (which was not a native Assyrian tree), and similar details, do not favour the supposition of direct derivation from Babylonian mythology. In the story of Paradise, therefore, as in others of these early narratives, we have the Hebrew version of a tradition common to the Semitic peoples, which went one way with the Babylonian section and connected itself with polytheistic crudities, and another way with the Hebrew, and was made by the Spirit of God the medium of spiritual instruction. Apart from the question of the validity of some of its conclusions, the great merit of this book is that it shows so clearly how completely the viewpoint from which these questions have to be studied has changed, and how they have become in the first instance literary questions. His most recent work, a Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, makes a worthy addition to the scholarly series to which it belongs, the "Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges." The original unity of these two books, the variations in the name, the process of their composition, their date and authorship, their relation to Chronicles, the language in which they are written, are made the subjects of admirably careful and concise statement. The date, it is held, can "hardly be earlier, and is very possibly later, than 320 B.C."; and the evidence is given at length which favours the supposition that the compiler of Chronicles was also the compiler of Ezra and Nehemiah. The notes are clear and informing. An excellent sketch is furnished of the history of the period, which is followed by a useful chapter on the "Antiquities" of the books, the Persian government, the satraps, the council, the social condition and religious organisations of the Jews, and the like. Not the least valuable section of the book is the chapter on the relation f the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah to other terature; on which, however, we should have elcomed a larger discussion of the questions. onnected with First Esdras. The volume more than sustains Professor Ryle's eputation. It is written with a just appreciation of he interest and importance of these books-books which, as Professor Ryle observes, "record no mighty miracle, no inspiring prophecy, no vision, no heroic feat of arms," but which touch the historical foundations of Judaism, and teach great lessons on the Divine promise, the discipline of disappointment, the hallowing of common life, and the preparation of the Messianic age. Mayor's "Epistle of St. James." BY THE REV. G. H. GWILLIAM, B.D., FELLOW OF HERTFORD COLLEGE, OXFORD. THE February number of THE EXPOSITORY TIMES contained a short notice of Dr. Mayor's exhaustive commentary on the Catholic Epistle of St. James; we are glad to avail ourselves of the editor's kind permission, to insert in the present number a fuller account of this excellent work. Of such an author as Dr. Mayor (the bearer of an honoured name, and the possessor of high academical distinctions) we expect great things; in the work before us, our expectations are entirely satisfied. There are, of course, statements and conclusions not a few, from which many of us would dissent; but distinct utterances on matters of controversy are, like original views, points of excellence in any treatise; and excellently does our author set forth the opinions to which his studies have led him. From the thoroughness of those studies is derived the great value of the present volume. The author has limited himself to a small portion of the Holy Scriptures. This portion has been his constant study during very many years. Researches in many directions have combined to elaborate the details of a well-matured plan. The result is a book, which the author can hardly himself improve, and which will long serve as a model of laborious and exhaustive biblical commentary. From such a work, we may ourselves learn how to work in kindred studies. On the threshold of Dr. Mayor's treatise, we are brought into the presence of controversy; but we do not intend in this review to enter into controversy. (1) In the Preface he states that the text through which he will comment on St. James is almost entirely that of Westcott and Hort. (2) The Epistle of St. James. By Joseph B. Mayor, M.A., Litt. D. Macmillan. In chap. i. the discussion of the authorship of the Epistle necessarily introduces a well-known ecclesi-astical question. The pious belief (if indeed it be not something more) about the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is not shared by Dr. Mayor; for he concludes, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, that the author of the Epistle was the Bishop of Jerusalem, who was called the brother of the Lord, and that that term is to be understood in the usual sense, and does not mean the half-brother, or the cousin. And it must be admitted that our learned doctor has argued with much acuteness for the Helvidian view, which is the one he adopts, even if, in face of other considerations, we do not yet see our way to depart from the position of Pearson and of Mill. As regards the question of Greek text, it would seem from the dogmatic confidence wherewith some handle the subject (and, I may add, from certain results of Oxford teaching, which have recently come to my knowledge) that there are not wanting many who think that the question has passed out of the region of controversy--that Dr. Hort was right, and that those who do not share his admiration for Codex B, or accept his theory about the revision of the Syriac, are wrong. Again, we do not intend to argue, but will, for the present, content ourselves with reminding younger readers of this paper, that there is another side to the question; and that the arguments of the late Dr. Hort have not convinced all who have studied the history of the present text of the Greek Testament. It should be added that Dr. Mayor has at times exercised an independent judgment in the choice of readings. For examples, the reader may refer to the critical foot notes on the variants in chap. ii. 3 and 26. It will be seen that the editor more than once prefers the marginal readings of Westcott and Hort to that which has been admitted to the text of Westcott and Hort. Although Dr. Mayor modestly speaks of his dependence, as regards the text, on the labours of others, we may feel confident that such a scholar as he is, has carefully weighed the evidence; and his acceptance, on the whole, of the text of Westcott and Hort is, whether we agree with him or not, an acceptance of the principles on which that text is constructed. Scholarly readers of the work will be interested in the different forms of the Latin, which are set out by the side of the Greek text. It is chiefly from the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, and of passages in other parts of the New Testament, that the person who addresses us in the name of Jacobus is identified; there remains, however, still the question, whether the Epistle be really authentic, or whether it be not a later forgery, ascribed to the apostle, as Brückner, Davidson, and others have held. To the solution of this question Dr. Mayor applies himself with vigour, and with marked success. The objections to the authenticity of the Epistle are clearly stated and fully answered. The external evidence is well set forth. The date, the occasion, the relation to other writings, are discussed. No point of importance seems to be overlooked; and certainly a very strong case is made out for the conclusion that not only is the Epistle a genuine production of the Apostolic age (as the Catholic Church has always held), but that it is to be classed amongst the earliest writings of the New Testament Canon. Chapter iv. contains a most instructive collection of resemblances between St. James and other parts of the New Testament. It is contended that other writers quote St. James rather than that he quotes from the other Epistles. Internal considerations point to about A.D. 45 as the probable date; and so this Epistle may be prior to even the earliest Gospel, at least in the form in which the Gospels are extant in the Canon. On the famous subject of the relation between the teaching of St. Paul and of St. James our author has delivered himself wisely and well. If there be no striking originality in his remarks, it must be conceded that perhaps all which can be spoken about the "faith" of the one and the "works" of the other has been already often re peated from the different standpoints of different critics. Our author's conviction of the priority of St. James' Epistle to those of St. Paul allows him to assume a clear position. "St. Paul," he says, "writes with constant reference to St. James, sometimes borrowing phrases or ideas, sometimes introducing a distinction for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity, at other times distinctly controverting his arguments as liable to be misapplied, though conscious all the while of a general agreement in his conclusions" (Introd. pp. lxxxviii, lxxxix ; cf. Comment. pp. 201-205). We quote Dr. Mayor's words, but the reader should peruse the elaboration of the argument; and he will find that, though our author speaks of the later writer as controverting the arguments of St. James, he does not suppose that there was any contrariety in essentials of doctrine, or any formal opposition, as some have imagined between a Pauline and a Jacobean school of thought. The grammar, diction, and style of St. James are subjected to a careful examination, worthy in all respects of the scholarship of the editor. He is "inclined to rate the Greek of this Epistle as approaching more nearly to the standard of classical purity than that of any other books of the New Testament, with the exception perhaps of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (p. clxxxix). Of the style he writes in glowing terms, noting its rhythm, its energy, its vivacity, its "Miltonic organ voice." He rightly argues that such Greek must be original; it has not the marks of a translation (chap. x.). But in saying this, he does not commit himself to the unreasonable opinion that Greek was the common language of Palestine, but only supposes that James, as others, including possibly our Lord Himself, had acquired Greek in addition to their Semitic vernacular (p. xli). The arrangement of a Paraphrase and Comment, as distinct from the Text and Notes, has many advantages in affording a clearer view of the meaning of the sacred writer, and the connexion of thought between the several parts of the Epistle. In the Comment will be found many interesting remarks in application of the teaching of the apostle to present day needs and controversies. One can hardly refrain from a smile at discovering on p. 199 "smoking" classed with the sins of "betting and drinking." Perhaps here the writer's prejudices find almost unconscious utterance. So on a greater subject there seems touch of anti-sacerdotalism in what is said about he Anointing of the Sick (p. 219). We must not omit to call the reader's attention o the remarkable list of works in chap. xi., which he author has studied in preparation for his own dition. We ought not, perhaps, to complain, because in chap. xii. (Apparatus Criticus) he repeats he stock assertion about the revision of the Peshitto in the fourth century. We would venture, however, to invite his attention to what has It The Old Testament in the Eight of the Eiterature of Assyria and Gabylonia. BY THEO. G. PINCHES, BRITISH MUSEUM. fact, five pages of the Hebrew Bible, in fair-sized type, hold the whole. In the articles which have appeared in THE | inspired writer has been able to put into them; in EXPOSITORY TIMES under the above title, I have brought forward the passages in the Babylonian versions of the Creation-story which seem to show parallels with the Biblical accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis. In many cases the parallels are striking, but in a few they have to be sought out, and, when examined, do not prove to be wholly satisfactory. Nevertheless, those which have been noted are most interesting and important, and show a close connexion between the two nations with whom they arose. So far, however, I have only brought forward the passages which agree in sense with similar verses of the Bible story. A certain number of lines have been taken from their context, and compared with the corresponding passages in the Biblical account. Our examination of the Babylonian records has therefore been a one-sided one, and would naturally be incomplete without at least a few words on the other side of the question, namely, the differences between the Hebrew and Babylonian versions. As is well known, there are in Genesis two accounts, one occupying the whole of the first chapter and the first three verses of the second (thirty-four verses in all), the other taking up the remainder of the second chapter (twenty-two verses), whilst chapter three is devoted to an account of the temptation and fall (twenty four verses). The Biblical accounts are, therefore, short, and told in as few words as is possible consistent with the amount of detail which the Shortness is not, however, a peculiarity of the longer Babylonian account, for it must have covered about seven closely-written tablets, making fourteen pages of much larger size and more compressed matter than the Hebrew account has, and the forty lines of the recently published Akkadian version almost equal, in themselves, one of the first three chapters of Genesis. In bulk, therefore, we find at the outset a great difference, the Babylonians carrying off the palm as far as amount of text goes. 1 The longer of the two Babylonian accounts (that wholly in the Assyrian or Babylonian language), regarded as having covered about seven tablets, began with a description of the time when heaven and earth were not, when everything existing was brought forth by Mummu Tiamat 2 (MoumisTauthe), but was without order or completeness. This period was followed by that in which the creation of the gods took place. In the break which follows (the text being very imperfect in parts) there was probably described the creation of further deities, as well as the introduction to, and account of the origin of, the fight between Merodach and Kirbiš-Tiamat,3 or Bel and the Dragon. Word of the hostility of Tiamat to 1 See THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for Jan. 1892, pp. 165–167. 2 A better transcription would probably be Tiawat, a form which would account for the Greek Tauthe. See THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for March 1892, p. 267. (col. I, text and note 2). 4 Ibid. p. 269, note 3. the gods seems to have been sent to the latter by Anšar, the personification of the host of heaven.1 All the gods, so the messenger announces, have gone around Tiamat, and seem to call out to each other: "Ye have made her agreement-go to her side!" "12 Then "the strong one, the powerful one," not resting day and night, was called upon to assemble the warriors that they might make battle. Preparations for the fight were made"an unrivalled weapon" (kakki lâ mahri). “The mighty snake is hostile-sharp also (are his) teeth. The unsparing ones I have incited; I have caused poison to fill their bodies like blood; I have clothed dreadful monsters with terrors." Various other fearful creatures are mentioned, among them "scorpion-men" and "fish-men," "wielding weapons, relentless, fearless in battle," and Kingu, her dreaded husband, she raised and made chief among them. In consequence of this, Anu, the god of the heavens, who was sent, was powerless before her; Nudimmud, the god of the sea, feared and turned back. At last, however, Merodach was prevailed upon to undertake the attack, and it is in the last portion of the tablet referring to the arrangements for the fight that the mention of some one enjoying himself in the gardens, eating the divine fruit called ašnan, occurs. This tablet or chapter ends with the statement that the fate of Merodach, the avenger of the gods, had been decided (i.e. that he was to go and do battle with the monster for the gods). The next (the fourth) tablet begins with a description of the honours conferred upon Merodach. Princely habitations were made for him, and he was set as ruler in the presence of his fathers (as the tablet has it). Miraculous powers were given to him; and when Merodach tested them successfully, the gods rejoiced and gave blessing, and proclaimed him king. Merodach then armed himself for the fight with spear, bow, and arrows. He made lightning before him, filled his body with darting flames, and set his net 8 7 1 See THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for Jan. 1892, p. 166. 2 Adi-ša attunu tabnå-ida-ša alka! 3 It seems to be Tiamat who is speaking. Called ušum-gallu, "unique" and "great." 5 See THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for March 1892, p. 268. 6 Ibid. for Dec. 1892, p. 124. 7 So Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 281. 8 See THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for March 1892, p. 267, note I. ready to catch the dragon of the sea. He placed the four winds, so that she should not escape, and roused every other kind of wind and storm to attack her. Kingu, her husband, was soon disposed of, and then she herself was challenged to battle. She cried aloud in her rage, uttered incantations and charms, and begged weapons of the gods of battle. The combatants then drew near to begin the fight, and with the help of the net, a friendly hurricane, and his spear, Merodach soon put an end to her. All her troop, together with Kingu, her husband, was captured, though their lives were spared. The body of the slain dragon was then divided, one portion being a covering for the heavens, whilst the other remained below as the "waters under the firmament." Merodach then set about the ordering of the world in which chaos had thus been destroyed, and with the opening lines describing this the fourth tablet ends. The fifth tablet, as it has come down to us, is only a fragment, and refers to the forming and placing of the heavenly bodies. It is translated in full in THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for March 1892, pp. 269, 270. Then came, apparently, the account of the creation of animals, as translated in THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for June 1892, p. 409; but whether this is a portion of the fifth or of the sixth tablet we do not know, and the contents of the wanting parts, which are considerable, cannot even be conjectured. The imperfection of the ancient record here is greatly to be regretted. A fragment of a tablet, which is probably the seventh and last of the series, is most interesting. Where the text becomes legible, it speaks of the god Zi-probably Merodach as the god of lifewho, in a series of numbered paragraphs, is mentioned, in laudatory wise, as "he who doeth glorious things, the god of the good wind, 10 lord of hearing and obeying; he who causeth glory and riches to exist, who establisheth abundance, who turneth small things to great-(even) in his strong severity we scent his sweet odour. Let him speak, let him glorify, let him 11 pay him homage!" It is probably the paragraph following the above, 9 Ibid. p. 267. Berossus also mentions the division of the woman (i.e. the dragon of the sea), from one half of whom Belus made the earth, and from the other half the heavens. 10 Or "sweet breath" or "odour." 11 Apparently some one mentioned in the lost lines at the beginning. |