The oldest exemplars or copies contained nothing but the Greek text. Learned and unlearned proprietors of them began, however, at an early day to write in the margin explanations, corrections, and remarks, which sometimes extended to something like a regular commentary. Sometimes, the addition was merely a word designed to explain one of some difficulty in the text. Sometimes, it consisted of several words of an exegetical or admonitory nature. From these, words were occasionally transferred to the text, either in addition to or in substitution for the original term. Hence arose another sonrce of corruption and variety, which has perhaps operated in cases not allowed for in ordinary criticism.

We have already hinted at the possibility of the production of a better text. The idea has been put forth by Tischendorf, just mentioned, who, devoting his life to questions of Biblical criticism, gives promise of rivalling even Griesbach. In the pursuit of his intentions, Tischendorf has already enriched the church with publications of great value, among which we may mention one which bears immediately on the point in regard to which we are about to say a few words: Monumenta Sacra Inedita, sive Reliquiæ Antiq. Textus N. T. Gr. ex Novem plus mille ann. Cod. per Europam dispersis. 1846.

Erasmus, in March 1516, presented to the world the first printed edition of the original text of the New Testament. The few manuscripts which he used in its formation were written a thousand and more years after the time in which the compositions first made their appearance. Nineteen years later, near the end of his life, Erasmus published the fifth edition of his Greek Testament, for which he had consulted some fathers of the church and the ordinary Latin version in use among Catholics, but which in leading particulars remained the same as his original publication. Soon afterwards, Robert Stephens, a Parisian printer, put forth an edition of the New Testament without material improvements, which, passing uninjured through the hands of Beza, was published in a beautiful type by the Elzevirs, and honoured with the title of the 'Received Text.' This honourable epithet the Testament of Erasmus and of the Elze. virs has continued to bear, for the most part, with little disturbance. But the attention of the learned world had been called to the condition of the text, and in England, Germany, France, Holland, and Italy, much was done of high importance for the critical study of the subject. Manuscripts written only a few centuries after Christ were discovered and examined; very ancient translations of the Greek into Latin and several Eastern languages were brought forward out of libraries, and carefully gone over; the ancient fathers of the church, with their

citations from Scripture, were investigated aud made use of. In consequence, there appeared editions of the Greek in which were given variations from the Received Text, accompanied by attempts to correct that text under the aid of these various readings. But the Received Text had now gained not only a prescriptive right, but also, on the part of those who did not know or were unable to judge the character of its origin, a certain sacred authority, which made its inviolability a kind of article of faith. Wetstein, an able and indefatigable inquirer, had the intention of putting forth a new edition, as the result of critical investigations made in the course of his travels. A knowledge that, on the strength of ancient authorities, he intended to introduce certain new readings, gave so much offence to his colleagues, the theologians of Busle, that he was compelled to submit the first sheet of his work to a species of inquisition, and after a protracted law-suit he was deprived of his office as deacon, and compelled to seek refuge in Holland. About the same time (1730), the genial critic Richard Bentley was refused by the English Government the remission of the tax on paper which he wished to import from France for printing a new edition of the Greek Testament. His consequent vexation prevented the publication of the work. However, towards the end of the last century, appeared at Jena, in Germany, a theologian, the justly-celebrated Griesbach, who with learning and skill produced a new text, and gave an impulse to the subject which still endures. Yet, as in the case of all great men, his influence has in a degree degenerated into a superstition, and no few there are who would hear with astonishment the opinion uttered, that it is possible to improve on what Griesbach did. Since his day, others, chiefly Germans, as Knapp, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, have, however, laboured in promotion of the same great work. But until the last-named theologian opened a new path, a fundamental error attached to all that was done. The error consists in making a text-that of Erasmus, of a late date, and formed apart from the aid of criticism-the base and groundwork of critical operations, while one of an earlier origin and better character may be had.

Documents of the Greek text as early as the fourth century are in existence in the works of the Christian fathers we have evidences as to the true text, ranging from the second to the fourth and following centuries; of the ancient versions originally made in the first periods, we possess documents which go back nearly to the age when the versions themselves came into existence. Of these witnesses, taken together, it may in general be remarked, that the old text bears a colour dissimilar to that of the new.

Let us suppose that on our right hand lay the ancient documents of which we have spoken; on our left, the modern: would it not be irrational to take the latter for our text, and the former only as a source of corrections? Yet this is what has hitherto been done.

To the established text some support has in appearance been given by the discovery of a kind of families in manuscripts. By the observed prevalence of certain peculiarities in each, classes of these precious remains of Christian antiquity have been formed. Of these classes, one was used in one and another in another part of the world. Hence critics speak of an Oriental or Alexandrine (from Alexandria, in Egypt) text, and a Western or Constantinopolitan (Constantinople, in Turkey) text. To the Alexandrine, it may in general be said, belong the more ancient, to the Constantinopolitan the more modern witnesses. The origin of each class is traced to some learned hand of the third century, while both are affirmed to be free from falsification. By good fortune, it is added, the purer text was taken for the edition of the sixteenth century. But what does impartial inquiry say to this hy pothesis? The most learned men of antiquity, as the Biblical critic Jerome, in the fourth century, knew nothing of this labour in the formation of classes of manuscripts. The so-called Alexandrine text was followed in their citations by the greater number and the oldest of the Christian fathers in Asia, and by the Africans. The manuscripts of the Alexandrine transcribers were at a very early period most valued. Among modern documents there is a great agreement, but only a much less accordance among the ancient ones, though their number is comparatively very small. Finally, the more modern, in many instances, bear the appearance of having been arbitrarily derived from a few ancient manuscripts. From these facts it follows that the theory of Recensions, or classes, can in no way be considered as a primary principle in the work of textual criticism, especially as the most learned theologians differ in the views which they seve rally take on the subject. The most natural proceeding, on the contrary, is, to give the preference to the ancient over the modern documents. The ordinary reader will at once see the bearing of this question on his own interests when he is informed that the English version, in common with others of a recent date, owes all its authority to the Received Text. True, the points of diversity in the manuscripts are for the most part inconsiderable. Yet the smallest matter in regard to a book which is the Magna Charta of Christianity, rises into consequence. When the Biblical critic Mill affirmed, as one result of his labours, the existence of various readings to the number of 30,000, the learned

world was surprised, unlearned Christians were alarmed, and unbelievers uttered a shout of triumph. Better and more widely spread information has shown that there was little reason for any of these undue emotions. The more the matter is rightly apprehended, the more will it appear, to use the words of the learned and eloquent Coquerel, that there exists not a single Greek author the text of which is as certain as that of the New Testament.' In by far the greatest number of cases, the diversities regard purely points of grammar or style. In some, matters of fact and history are affected. In a few instances, passages bearing on received opinions undergo alteration. In regard to the last, we translate the words of Tischendorf himself, who belongs to the Catholic church: In the first epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, iii. 16, there stand in the common Greek text words of which these are the equivalents, God was manifest in the flesh;' for which the oldest authorities among the manuscripts, among the Christian fathers, among the versions, have the reading 'who' or 'which was manifest in the flesh.' The passage is especially important, since in the common reading it affords the best proof that Christ was named God by Paul. The other reading, however, by no means disturbs the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, as unlearned persons have dreamed and weak persons feared; for whether the apostle named the Saviour God or not, the doctrine with him remains as firm as the fact of his conversion. We pass to the famous passage on the Trinity in 1 John v. 7, 8, For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.' Here, according to the testimony of all the ancient Greek manuscripts, all the Greek and the oldest Latin fathers, and all the ancient versions, the words placed within brackets, namely, from 'in heaven' to 'that bear witness in earth,' ought to be struck out of the text. The words stand, however, in the Vulgate authorised by the (Catholic) church, and in our common German versions, although Luther did not receive them into his Translation. This passage is full of importance for the Trinity. Yet, without heeding the passage, Luther had the firmest belief in the doctrine.

There also belongs to the question under consideration the paragraph, in the gospel of John, touching the woman taken in adultery (vii. 53-viii. 11). The strongest critical evidence denies its genuineness, or at least the place it holds in the gospel. The question is of ancient date, for it was treated by Augustine, who declared that only persons weak in the faith could reject it. But this opinion serves to illus

trate the importance of the criticism of the New Testament. Augustine was ignorant of Greek: he was attached to the Latin translation. In consequence, he was prevented from seeing that the whole passage departs from John's manner of writing so decidedly as to be evidently an interpolation' (Reise in den Orient.,' ii. 157, 158).

The details into which we have now gone, while they show that God in his wisdom left the New Testament to the influences of his ordinary providence, prove also how effectual the custody has been. The history of literature has no parallel case. A literature springs from the people of a despised and bigoted land, which for seventeen successive centuries excites the deepest interest and engages all the energies of men of the highest culture in each age, and works, meanwhile, moral and social changes of the widest extent and the most benign tendency. See BOOK and CANON.

HANES, a city in Egypt, into which Jewish ambassadors came in order to treat of a union between that country and Judah (Is. xxx. 4). Probably, Hanes is the Egyptian Chnes, the Arabian Ahnas, which is by Herodotus termed Anysis, and is generally known in Greek writers as Heracleopolis. It was the chief city of a district, and lay south of Memphis, on the western bank of the Nile.

HARAN, or Charran, the district out of which Abraham was called to proceed into Canaan. This country has been identified with the place in Mesopotamia, not far from Edessa, named by the Greeks and Romans Carræ. It may be doubted whether this view is correct, for the words of Stephen (Acts vii. 2-4) imply that Haran was out of Mesopotamia. From Genesis it appears that the place lay more to the south-west than the Carræ just alluded to-more towards Canaan. Abraham's father, Terah, dwelt originally in Ur of the Chaldees,' in the northwest of Mesopotamia. Thence he removed with his family to go into Canaan, on which route they stopped in Haran (Gen. xi. 28, 31). Here, in Haran, Abraham received his divine call, and thence they came into Canaan, pursuing a southerly direction (xii. 1-9). From the same district Laban came to Gilead in seven days, and Jacob in tenan impossibility if Haran lay at the foot of the Armenian mountains, a distance of above 400 miles. The true Haran is probably to be identified with Carah (about 150 miles from Gilead), not far north of Damascus, which Thevenot describes as a good town, having a rivulet running by it. There are a great many ruins to be seen there.' thus placing Abraham near Damascus, we are supported by Nicolaus Damascenus, secretary of Herod the Great. Josephus declares that in his time the name of Abraham was honoured in the district of Damascus.

In

Justin, too, makes Damascus the native place of the Hebrews. Near Damascus, if these remarks are correct, we may also place Padan Aram and Aram Naharaim, names which imply a district of similar characters to those of Damascus, namely, a high land with a plain watered by two rivers, the Abana and Pharpar (Gen. xxxi.-xxxiii.; comp. Judg. iii. 8).

us.

HARES are found in great numbers in Western Asia, and of a larger size than with In the holy Scripture they are mentioned only among the animals which might not be eaten, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof' (Lev. xi. 6). Its being ruminant was a long time under debate, but seems now to be admitted. Turks and Armenians avoid its flesh. Hares are said to be liable in summer to a species of mange, and ancient physicians held that their flesh made thick blood, inclining those who eat it to melancholy. These impres sions may have had an influence in causing hares to be accounted unclean.

HARP. See MUSIC.

HARVEST, the, in Palestine takes place in the spring of the year, in the month Abib (ear-month'). In hot plains, as that of Jericho, it commences towards the end of March; in the higher lands, about the end of April; in the greatest part of the country, between these two limits. The labours of the field lasted with the Hebrews for a longer time than with us, because they performed the threshing and winnowing in the open air. Thus happened that, while the commencement of the harvest was celebrated on the second day of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 10-14), it was not till seven weeks later, at the feast of Pentecost, that it was terminated with religions joy (Exod. xxiii. 16. Deut. xvi. 10. Isaiah ix. 3). First came barley harvest (2 Sam. xxi. 9), which was followed by wheat-harvest, at the end of April near Jericho, later in other parts (Gen. xxx. 14. Judges xv. 1). That of spelt followed (Exod. ix. 32. Is. xxviii. 25-not' rye'), and of other grains, of which an inferior bread was made (Ezek. iv. 9). The reapers, who, using the sickle (Deut. xvi. 9), cut down the corn (1 Sam. viii. 12), and, gathering it in their arms (Ps. cxxix. 7), placed it in heaps (Ruth iii. 7), found the labour exhausting, and were refreshed with bread and ordinary wine or beer (ii. 14). Having been threshed, the corn was carried into granaries (Job v. 26. Matt. iii. 12; xiii. 30), which were often natural or artificial caves, though the Hebrews may have also had barns erected on the soil (Luke xii. 18). The corners of the field and the gleanings were left for the poor (Lev. xix. 9). To travellers the privilege was secured of plucking ears with their hands, but were not to use the sickle (Deut. xxiii. 25). See HUNGER, GARNER, and GLEAN.

HAUBERGEON, a diminutive form of hauberg (from the Germ. hals, the throat,' and bergen, to 'cover' or 'protect'), comes to us from the French haubert, a breastplate; but from signifying a defensive, it passed to mean an offensive piece of armour, and is found in our modern halberd, or pike. This is its import in Job xli. 26, where it is mentioned with other weapons of assault. Another term, tahgharah, is the proper Hebrew word for coat of mail, and is found in Exod. xxviii. 32.

HAVILAH, the name of a Hamite tribe, probably to be looked for in the south-east of Africa (Gen. x. 7); of a Shemite family, which may have been settled in the east of Arabia (Genesis x. 29; comp. xxv. 18, and 1 Samuel xv. 7); also of a country celebrated for its gold, which some have fixed in Colchis.

HAVOCK, connected probably with the Saxon hafoc, a hawk,' means destruction. The word, of which the original might be rendered wasted,' is used to describe Saul's persecution of the infant church at Jerusa

lem.

Havock' is thus used by Shakspere in his Julius Cæsar:

'Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of War.'

HAWK (T. falk, falcon), an unclean bird (Lev. xi. 16) of the order raptores, migratory, which in great numbers visit Syria, where, in pigeons and turtle-doves, they find an abundant prey.

HAZEL is the rendering, in Gen. xxx. 37, of loos, which probably means the almond tree. HEAD (T.), stands for a Hebrew word, rosh, whose primary signification is the human head, and hence the top,' 'the chief,' and other allied applications (Gen. xl. 19. Exod. xvii. 9. Numb. xxx. 1). On the head oil was poured in consecrating the highpriests (Lev. viii. 12) and the monarch (2 Kings ix. 3, seq.), and probably on festive occasions (Ps. xxiii. 5; comp. xcii. 10). In token of grief, dust was cast on the head (Josh. vii. 6. 1 Sam iv. 12. Rev. xvii. 19); a custom which is strikingly illustrated by this view, taken from Thebes, of Egyptians bewailing the death of a king.

Swearing by the head (Matt. v. 36) was customary among most ancient nations. So in Virgil (En. ix. 30), 'By this head I swear, by which my father swore before.' This species of oath was employed by the Jews, as appears from these words-'Promise me by the life of thy head.'

HEARTH (T.), a fire-place, is the representative of two Hebrew words which concur in giving the idea that the hearth, with the Israelites, was a heated place or a place for heat, that is, a stone laid on a brazier standing on the ground, to receive the fuel and communicate heat (Ps. cii. 3. Jer. xxxvi. 22, 23. Is. xlvii. 14. John xviii. 18). One Hebrew word, googah, stands for the cakes baked on the hearth,' mentioned as a delicacy in Gen. xviii. 6 (comp. 1 Kings xvii. 13; xix. 6. Ezek. iv. 12). Thin rouud

cakes of the kind are still in the East baked on heated sand or stones, by means of ashes or half-burnt wood laid thereon (comp. Is. xliv. 19), also between layers of cow or camel dung, and eaten by the Arabs as a well-flavoured article of food; specially are they used when there is not time for the longer process of ordinary baking. In order to be done through and avoid burning, they must be turned. To this fact reference is made in Hosea vii. 8. Generally, they are made of wheat-flour (Gen. xviii. 6). Barley was used in cases of dearth; hence Ezek. iv.12.

HEATHEN is the representative of words in the original Scriptures which properly denote people or nation. As the Greeks used the term barbarian of all save themselves, so 'heathen' signifies generally those who are not Hebrews, or those who are not

Christians. As now those nations were idolaters, so the epithet sometimes denotes such as worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, in contrast with the worshippers of the true and only God (Lev. xxvi. 33). The word is often rendered by 'nations' (Numb. xiv. 15; xxiv. 8), sometimes with special reference to the idolatrous Canaanites (Exod. xxxiv. 24). There are occasions in which no immediate reference may be made to religious practices, the word being simply equivalent to our term nation or people-the world as not including Jews (Luke ii. 32), in which case we find the rendering Gentiles (Rom. i. 13). 'Gentiles' also signifies Christians converted from heathenism (Gal. ii. 12, seq. Ephes. iii. 1).

The expression 'isles of the Gentiles' (Gen. x. 5), is thought to denote the Greek islands in the Mediterranean Sea, of which the Hebrews knew little but the existence and name. In Gen. xiv. 1 we find, Tidal, king of nations;' where nations' may signify a particular people called Gogeem, 'nations.'

HEAVEN (T. from heave, 'up-heaved,' Milton). The place of spiritual blessedness and immortal life bears in the Scriptures several names which are in part figurative, in part literal. It is called, I. Paradise (Luke xxiii. 43), since the paradise or garden of the first man is a figure of the tranquil happiness in which he originally lived; II. Abraham's bosom (Luke xvi. 22), by which a peaceful condition is indicated for the righteous; since intimate commerce with Abraham, the friend of God' and 'the father of the faithful,' excited in the minds of pious Israelites the most soothing and gratifying emotions. Both these names, however, have reference to the dwelling of the good in the lower world before the resurrection, though 'Paradise' is used also of the seat of the third heaven' (2 Cor. xii. 4). After the resurrection there is mentioned, III. 'the heavenly Jerusalem' (Heb. xii. 22; comp. Rev. xxi. 10, seq.), on the ground that the earthly Jerusalem was the place where God made special disclosures of his grace: the words may however denote, not heaven, but the Christian church as the temple and mercy-seat of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The most common expression is, IV. heaven, for which the many mansions in God's house, of John xiv. 2, may be a periphrasis (comp. Luke xvi. 9). Referring to the article ASTROLOGERS, I. 101, we remark that the Hebrews, regarding the skies not astronomically but religiously, and far surpassing, even in their earliest ideas, the Greek conception of an Olympus, conceived of heaven as a wide-vaulted canopy or firmament, the special place and residence of God and his angels, where were Enoch and Elias, and,

་

according to Josephus (Antiq. iv. 8, 48), Moses, but no others of the human race (John vii. 34). This early view was modified, without being improved, in after times. Differences were made and several heavens set forth, in the highest and purest of which, the Empyræum, dwelt the Almighty. Paul makes mention of a third heaven' (2 Cor. xii. 2). In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs the idea is carried further. According to it, the first heaven is the space between the earth and the clouds; the second, the place of clouds, water, hail, and evil spirits; the third is more lofty and more bright, the dwelling-place of the heavenly host of angels; in the fourth dwell the saints; in the fifth, the angels of the Divine presence, i. e. the higher angels, who pray for the pardon of men's sins; in the sixth, the angels who give answer to these prayers; in the seventh, the Thrones and Powers, who praise God day and night. The number varied; a point on which Origen remarks, Whether there are seven heavens, or any fixed number, the canonical writings say nothing.' These notions, however, have found among Christians more or less acceptance. Divines have been divided into two classes -one conceiving of heaven chiefly as a certain definite place, giving happiness and essential to happiness; another, as happiness itself, of the purest kind, enjoyed in any place where God might place his children. With the first, predominated the idea of locality; with the second, the idea of spiritual bliss and freedom. The former notion, which is that of the multitude, is passing into oblivion; the latter gains prevalence. The first makes spiritual good dependent on place; the second makes spiritual good paramount, asserting that heaven is rather a state than a place, and that, so far as place must enter into the idea, it is subordinate both in its effects and its consequences. Heaven, therefore, is that state of spiritual and immortal blessedness to which God will raise his people on their departure from this life, where, in the invisible world of spirits, is Jesus and those whom God gives him (John xvii. 24). And surely the pious Christian can find nothing more soothing or more elevating than the assurance that, after death, he will be where the Father displays his love (xiv. 28), and where Christ is (xiv. 2) beholding his glory (xvii. 24); and 'so shall we ever be with the Lord' (2 Thess. iv. 17), in the exercise and enjoyment of that divine love which is eternal (1 Cor. xiii. 13), in the glorious liberty of the children of God' (Rom. viii. 21), making unceasing progress in knowledge, power, and goodness (1 Cor. xiii. 9-13).

Sitting or reclining at table in the kingdom of God (Matthew viii. 11), is a strong figure to describe the happiness of heaven.