(non supplex)," was the summum bonum of Seneca; "to rise an equal to God," the end and aim of his system.37) St. Paul says that God had made of one blood all the nations of the earth and appointed the bounds of their habitation, "that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might ψηλαφήσειαν find him by groping about [with outstretched hands];" 38) but more than this was vouchsafed the dwellers in ancient Greece. What little remains of their literary productions fairly abounds in passages which illustrate the wonderful insight they possessed into the nature of the Divine Essence. So great is the number of passages which explicitly express a knowledge of the Creator and of His attributes, a knowledge sometimes divested, it seems, of all polytheistic reminiscences, that we occasionally are on the point of losing sight of the idolatrous practices and superstitions of the writers, as members of a people which offered up sacrifice and prayer to "images of corruptible man" at a thousand shrines. This remarkable clarity of religious intuition may be equally observed in the works of the poets, philosophers, and historians, more especially, however, in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Pindar, Demosthenes, Xenophon, of the pre-Socratic philosophers, and of the dramatists. There is no longer any trace of the mythic element in the following specimen -selected from the Orphic hymns:39) "Not one of mortal men might see the Ruler (кpaívovτa) Except an only-begotten one (μovoyεvýs τiç), a descendant, from above (ἀπορρὼς ἀνωθεν), Of the Chaldean race." The author of these lines lived possibly six hundred, certainly not less than three hundred years before Christ. Of the "Ruler" v. 15 said, "There is no other," and in v. 9 he is spoken of as "the immortal maker (τʊлwτýc) of the world," of whom there 37) Epist. 31: "Par deo surges!" Similar expressions are numerous both in the Epistles and in the treatises. 38) Homer has the word (Od. IX, 416), when speaking of blind Cyclops in the cave. 39) II, 22. is "an ancient report" (λóros). The lines are in every way remarkable. Whom did the ancient poet have in mind when he spoke of "the only-begotten one of the Ruler; a descendant, from on high, of the Chaldeans"? The coincidence of "Chaldean people" with the fact that Chaldea was the original home of Israel, need hardly be pointed out. There are passages in the writings of Plato which are quite as mysterious in their consonance with revealed truth. Concerning the work of Creation we read that "the father, having created [the Cosmos], was delighted (ráovŋ);” 40) “God intended to create everything good and nothing evil." 41) The traditional cosmogony has been definitely given up by the author. The world is created "by the word of the everlasting God," 42) who is still "the preserver of us men," 43) and who shall finally "liberate us from our body."44) The existence of One God, of a personal God, is here taken for granted, as generally in Plato, and the simple term o dɛó is applied to him, whom others still sought to recognize in the nature and attributes of Zeus. Red Wing, Minn. THEO. GRAEBNER. (To be continued.) SHEOL PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Any attempt to fix the meaning of the Hebrew term Six (b) seems destined to end in failure in view of the many divergent views that have been advanced by lexicographers, translators, and exegetes as regards the derivation of this term, or its general signification, or its meaning in particular instances. To adduce only one example, and one that must at once strike Lutheran pastors who are using both the German and the English version of the Scriptures in their ministrations: there is no agreement between Luther's trans 40) Timaios 37 C., cf. Genesis 1, 25. 31. 43) Phaidon 62 D. lation of sheol and that of the Authorized Version. There is a further difference between the Authorized Version and the Revised Version. In a total of sixty-five places where sheol occurs in the Old Testament, Luther renders this term "Hölle" in all places except four: Gen. 37, 35; 42, 38; 44, 29. 31. The two English versions give the same rendering for this term in twenty-five passages, but a different rendering in thirty-nine, and in one passage the Revised Version leaves the reader the option between its own rendering or that of the Authorized Version. The latter renders sheol, or its derived forms, by "grave" thirty-nine times, by "pit" three times, by "hell” thirty times, and by "deep" once. The Revised Version renders "grave" fifteen times, "pit" six times, "hell" twelve times, "depth" once, leaves the reader the option between "hell" or "grave" in one place, and in the thirty places remaining it has reproduced the Hebrew is by the transliteration sheol without attempting a translation, which amounts to saying that the English language, in the opinion of the Revisers, has no equivalent that will adequately express the Hebrew is in nearly onehalf the passages in which the term occurs. As regards the signification "grave," both versions agree in fifteen places;1) but differ in sixteen, the Revised Version rendering "sheol" instead of "grave" in fourteen,2) and "hell" instead of "grave" in two places.3) Both versions agree as to the signification "pit" in two places, but differ in one,5) where the Revised prefers "sheol." The signification "hell" has been adopted by both versions in ten passages,) but in fifteen passages) “hell” in the 1) Gen. 37, 35; 42, 38; 44, 29. 31. 1 Sam. 2, 6. 1 Kings 2, 6. 9. Ps. 141, 7. Prov. 30, 16. Eccl. 9, 10. Song Sol. 8, 6. Is. 38, 10. 18. Hos. 13, 14 (twice). 2) Job 7, 9; 14, 13; 17, 13; 21, 13; 24, 19. Ps. 6, 5; 30, 3; 31, 17; 49, 14 (twice) 15; 88, 3; 89, 48. Prov. 1, 12. 3) Is. 14, 11. Ezek. 31, 15. 5) Job 17, 16. 6) Is. 5, 14; 28, 15. 18; 57, 9. Ezek. 31, 16. 17; 32, 21. 27. Amos 9, 2. Hab. 2, 5. 7) 2 Sam. 22, 6. Job 11, 8; 26, 6. Ps. 9, 17; 16, 10; 18, 5; 116, 3; 139, 8. Prov. 5, 5; 7, 27; 9, 18; 15, 11. 24; 23, 14; 27, 20. Authorized has been supplanted in the Revised by “sheol,” in four passages) by "pit," and in one passage) either "hell" or "grave" are given as the meaning. The Revised Version's "depth" supplants the Authorized Version's "deep" in Jonah 2, 3. It may be of moment also to note that the Authorized gives the rendering "grave" in writings as early as Moses and as late as Hosea, the rendering "hell" or "pit" in writings as early as Moses and as late as Habakkuk. In the Revised the rendering "hell" occurs for the first time in Is. 5, 14, and the rendering "pit" only in five passages earlier than Isaiah: Numb. 16, 30. 33. Deut. 32, 22. Ps. 55, 15; 86, 13. The rendering "sheol" in the Revised occurs only in three books, Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, and in one other place, 2 Sam. 22, 6, which, however, is a strict parallel of Ps. 18, 5. Such is the state of affairs in our English Bibles as regards the present knowledge of Hebrew scholars of the exact meaning of is. Incidentally it might be remarked, that if greater clearness was the object of the Revised, it has certainly failed of its purpose in this instance, as its rendering obscures the meaning of thirty passages which are easily understood in the Authorized, granting even that the Authorized has not exactly rendered them. As a net result, then, of this surface investigation of the matter in hand, it might be stated that the two English versions are partially agreed, viz., to this effect: that is means "hell" or "pit" in one group of passages, and that it means "grave" in another group. They are divided as to its meaning in a third group, the Authorized claiming that it means either "hell" ("pit," "deep") or "grave," the Revised claiming that it means neither "hell" nor "grave" but "sheol," whatever that may import. Or we may briefly state the difference thus: The Authorized believes that is signifies "hell" or "grave," while the Revised believes that it may signify either or something that is neither. 8) Deut. 32, 22. Ps. 55, 15; 86, 13. Is. 14, 15. 9) Is. 14, 9. Philological research directed toward the origin of this term has yielded small results that can be of use to the Old Testament exegete. Gesenius declared the derivation of bi uncertain, and regarded the effort to connect it with an Arabic term denoting to settle, or to form a sediment, like impure water, as far-fetched. 10) Hupfeld, cited approvingly by Cremer,11) holds that it belongs to a family of words which have the and others), and ,נשל שלל שלה,שול,שאל) in common ל letter all of which express in one way or other the idea of looseness (lack of erectness), sinking, yawning, either these acts or the results of these acts; hence is either means declivity, abyss, depth, or cavern, chasm, void space. Luther's derivation from , to demand (hence, signifying the place which continually craves victims, the insatiable place), based on Prov. 27, 20 and 30, 15. 16, is well known. To return to our Bible versions, what prompted our English translators (and in one instance, affecting four passages above cited, even Luther) to vary the translation of this term so frequently? There must have been some strong reason which decided them to render "hell" in one and "grave" in another instance. And this reason must lie in the respective text. The circumstances in the text, surrounding this term, its connection, in other words, the context, must have seemed to them to forbid one or the other rendering. This would explain, though it might not justify, their action. A correct understanding, then, of the context in which sheol is found would seem to be nine-tenths of the labor of determining its intended and actual meaning. It is safe to say that a single circumstance has caused the consistent rendering of "hell" for the Hebrew sheol to appear inadmissible: sheol in the Old Testament is also a place to which godly persons expect to go in the hour of death. In his passionate grief over the loss of Joseph Jacob exclaims: "I will go down into sheol unto my son mourning," Gen. 37, 35. He supposes Joseph to be in sheol, and that, dying of broken heart, 10) Woerterb., sub voce. 11) Woerterb., sub "Aidnç. |