Handbook for Bible Students

“H” Entries

Hammurabi. -Hammurabi was sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The name is taken as a compound of Ammu and rabi, “(the god) Ammu is great.” In the Assyrian period the name was not understood and was mistranslated Kimta-rapastum, “great of family” or “the family is noble.” This fact is a strong re-enforcement of the argument for the foreign origin of the dynasty. By Assyriologists Hammurabi is quite generally identified with the Amraphel of Genesis 14, though the final syllable of the latter word is hard to account for on philological grounds, and some scholars dispute the identification.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. V, art. “Hammurabi and His Code,” p. 135. HBS 221.2

Hammurabi, Code of.—At the end of the year 1901 an important discovery was made among the ruins of Susa-“Shushan the palace,” as it is called in the book of Daniel. There M. de Morgan’s excavations brought to light the three fragments of an enormous block of polished black marble, thickly covered with cuneiform characters. The characters were engraved with the highest artistic skill, and at the top of the monument was a low relief representing the Babylonian king Khammu-rabi, or Amraphel, receiving the laws of his kingdom from the sun god before whom he stands. When the characters had been copied and read, it was found that they embodied a complete code of laws-the earliest code yet discovered, earlier than that of Moses by eight hundred years, and the foundation of the laws promulgated and obeyed throughout Western Asia. [p. 67] ... HBS 221.3

That Babylonian law should have been already codified in the age of Abraham deprives the “critical” theory, which makes the Mosaic law posterior to the prophets, of one of its two main supports. The theory was based on two denials,-that writing was used for literary purposes in the time of Moses, and that a legal code was possible before the period of the Jewish kings. The discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets disproved the first assumption; the discovery of the code of Khammu-rabi has disproved the second. [pp. 69, 70] ... HBS 221.4

Certain German Assyriologists have been at great pains to discover similarities between the codes of Khammu-rabi and Moses, and to infer from this a connection between them. And there are cases in which the similarity is striking. The free man, for example, who had been enslaved for debt, was to be manumitted after three years according to the code of Khammu-rabi, after seven years according to that of Moses. Kidnapping, again, was punished in both codes by death, and there are some curious resemblances in the laws relating to death from the goring of an ox. If the owner of the ox could be proved to have been negligent or otherwise responsible for the accident, the Babylonian law enacted that he should be fined half a maneh of silver, or one third of a maneh if the dead man were a slave; in Israel the penalty of death was exacted in the first case, and a fine of half a maneh in the second. Where, however, the owner was not in fault, he went unpunished in both codes, though the Mosaic code required that the ox should be put to death. HBS 221.5

The difference between the two codes in this last particular is characteristic of a difference which runs through the whole of them, and makes the contrast between them far greater and more striking than any agreement that can be pointed out. The code of Khammu-rabi presupposes a settled state, a kingdom, in short, in which law is supreme and the individual is forbidden to take it into his own hands. The code of Moses, on the other hand, is addressed to a more backward community, which has not yet become a state, but is still in the condition of a tribal confederacy. [pp. 71, 72]-“Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,” A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 67-72. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 222.1

Hammurabi, Code of, Compared with Pentateuchal Laws.—A comparison of the code of Hammurapi as a whole with the Pentateuchal laws as a whole, while it reveals certain similarities, convinces the student that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way dependent upon the Babylonian laws. Such resemblances as there are arose, it seems clear, from a similarity of antecedents and of general intellectual outlook; the striking differences show that there was no direct borrowing. The primitive Semitic custom of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21) is made the basis of many penalties in the Babylonian code.... These similarities only show that Babylonia had a large Semitic element in its population. Again, Hammurapi pictured himself at the top of the pillar on which these laws are written as receiving them from the sun god. The Bible tells us that Moses received the laws of the Pentateuch from Jehovah. The whole attitude of the two documents is, however, different. Hammurapi, in spite of the picture, takes credit, both in the prologue and in the epilogue of his code, for the laws. He, not Shamash, established justice in the land. Moses, on the other hand, was only the instrument; the legislation stands as that of Jehovah himself. HBS 222.2

This difference appears also in the contents of the two codes. The Pentateuch contains many ritual regulations and purely religious laws, while the code of Hammurapi is purely civil. As has been already pointed out, the code of Hammurapi is adapted to the land of the rivers, and to a highly civilized commercial people; while the Biblical laws are intended for a dry land like Palestine, and for an agricultural community that was at a far less advanced stage of commercial and social development. HBS 222.3

Religion is, however, not a matter of social advancement only. In all that pertains to religious insight the Pentateuch is far in advance of Hammurapi’s laws.—“Archoology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 340, 341. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. HBS 222.4

Hammurabi, Code of, and Higher Criticism.—He [Hammurabi] is supposed to be identical with the Amraphel, king of Shinar, mentioned in Genesis 14. The twenty-eight columns of text [of his code] contain a very remarkable series of laws, and the fact that such a wise code should have existed in the time of Abraham has been urged as a proof that the Mosaic law was not a revelation from God, but a copy from Babylon. As we have already noticed, there is clear evidence from God’s words concerning Abraham, that he had already given a “charge,” “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws.” How God gave these laws we do not know.... HBS 222.5

Khammurabi’s code seems to explain several of the customs of the patriarchs, such as Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, Rachel giving Bilhah to Jacob, because they were childless. A provision covering this is in the code. There are also laws concerning the adoption of a slave, thus making him a freeman and the heir of his adopted father, reminding us of Abraham’s reference to Eliezer. There are many laws against theft of any kind, a death penalty being attached to robbery from the palace. This reminds us of the supposed theft of Joseph’s cup, and explains the fear of his brethren. The customs represented in Genesis 24, where Abraham seeks a wife for his son, the giving of gifts, etc., are all in keeping with the code. Another law illustrates the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather Jacob. HBS 223.1

Before this code of Khammurabi was found, the critics had been saying that the book of Deuteronomy was written in the days of Josiah, and the other books of Moses subsequently. “This discovery undermined the very foundations of ‘the critical hypothesis.’ But instead of repenting of their error and folly, the crities turned round, and with amazing effrontery declared that the Mosaic code was borrowed from Babylon. This is a most reasonable conclusion on the part of those who regard the Mosaic law as a purely human code. But here the critic is ‘hoist with his own petard.’ For if the Mosaic law were based on the Hammurabi code, it could not have been framed in the days of Josiah, long ages after Hammurabi had been forgotten. This Hammurabi discovery is one of many that led Professor Sayce to declare that ‘the answer of archeology to the theories of modern “criticism” is complete; the law preceded the prophets, and did not follow them.’ But even this is not all. It is a canon of ‘criticism’ with these men that no Biblical statement is ever to be accepted unless confirmed by some pagan authority; Genesis 14 was therefore dismissed as fable on account of its naming Amraphel as a king of Babylon. But Amraphel is only another form of the name of Hammurabi, who now stands out as one of the great historical characters of the past.”-“The Bible and the British Museum,” Ada R. Habershon, pp. 57-59. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. HBS 223.2

Herod, Time of Death of.—Herod was made king of Palestine by a decree of the senate, Coss. Cn. Domitio Calvino, C. Asinio Pollione (Josephus, Ant., xiv, 14, 5), i. e., u. c. 714, b. c. 40. But he did not obtain quiet possession till three years later, when, aided by the Roman legions, he wrested the actual sovereignty from the hands of Antigonus, Coss. Agrippa, Caninio Gallo, i. e., u. c. 717, b. c. 37 (Josephus, Ant., xiv, 16, 4). In that year, namely, on the day of the Fast (10 Tisri = 4 October), he took Jerusalem by siege. This then is the actual epoch of the reign of Herod. HBS 223.3

But it is the almost invariable practice of Jewish writers to date the years of their kings from the first (Jewish) day or 1 Nisan of the year in which the actual epoch occurred. Therefore the years of Herod bear date from 1 Nisan b. c. 37. HBS 223.4

Now Josephus (Ant., xvii, 8, 1) states that Herod reigned thirty-seven years from the date of his appointment by the decree of the senate, and thirty-four years from the death of Antigonus. If the years were complete, they would end 4th October, b. c. 3; if current, then the statement is satisfied by any date between 1 Nisan b. c. 4 and 1 Nisan b. c. 3. For, since the first year of Herod bears date from 1 Nisan b. c. 37, therefore his thirty-fourth from 1 Nisan b. c. 4. Thus far, then, the year is open to doubt. And it is much to be regretted that Josephus nowhere defines the year of Herod’s death by the names of the consuls. It also unfortunately happens that this portion of Dion Cassius (in whose writings we possess the only connected history of the term of six or seven years during which the Nativity must have occurred) has come down to us in a mutilated state. For there is no reason to doubt that this historian related the death of Herod and the partition of his kingdom under its proper year. Still a careful combination of notes of time which Josephus has preserved will enable us to determine the necessary date with great precision. HBS 223.5

For the death year of Herod is defined by the mention, in Josephus, of an eclipse of the moon (Ant., xvii, 6, 4, fin.). By calculation, it is certain that this eclipse occurred in the night between the 12th and 13th March b. c. 4; for in the year b. c. 4 no other eclipse was visible at Jerusalem, and in the year b. c. 3 no eclipse at all was visible. This eclipse, then, as falling necessarily at the full of the moon, preceded the Passover of b. c. 4 by just one lunation. HBS 224.1

But it is further evident from Josephus that the death of Herod occurred just before a Passover. This must have been the Passover either of b. c. 4 or of b. c. 3. On the one supposition, the eclipse preceded the Passover in question by a period of one lunar month, on the other by a period of thirteen months. In order to settle this point, we must attentively consider the course of events related by Josephus. HBS 224.2

The eclipse took place in the very night after Herod’s execution of certain sophists or zealots, who had thrown down a golden eagle which he had placed over the eastern gate of the temple (Ant., xvii, 6, 4, fin.). From that time Herod’s disease increased in violence. Seeking relief, he crossed the Jordan, on a visit to the hot springs of Callirrhoë, where, as a last resource, his physicians ordered him to be bathed in hot oil. The experiment had nearly proved fatal, and from that time Herod despaired of life. He immediately returned to Jericho. There he received, by the return of his ambassadors whom he had sent to Rome, the imperial rescript which authorized him to put his son Antipater to death. “For a short space,” says Josephus, “he revived; but very soon he relapsed, and, weary of his life, attempted to lay violent hands upon himself. Antipater, in his prison, hearing the shriek which was raised upon this alarm, and hoping that it betokened his father’s death, endeavored to bribe the gaoler to set him at liberty. The gaoler went straightway to Herod with information of Antipater’s design, and the tyrant, in consequence, gave peremptory orders, on the spot, for the execution of his son. This was done: and on the fifth day after the execution Herod breathed his last” (Ant., xvii, 6, 5-7, 1; Bel. Jud., 1, fin.). HBS 224.3

Immediately after the funeral and the seven days’ mourning, Archelaus, who by his father’s last will, made within five days of his death, was nominated king of Judea, went up to Jerusalem (Ant., u. s. §4; Bel. Jud., ii, 1, 1), and just then, at the conclusion of the public mourning (Bel. Jud., ii, 2, 3) was the Passover. All this while, Archelaus was in urgent haste to go to Rome, to obtain the ratification of his father’s last will, on which errand he set sail immediately after the festival. From these details it follows incontestably that the death of Herod preceded the Passover by not more than seven or eight days.... HBS 224.4

Archelaus was deposed and banished in the year u. c. 759. Coss. Aem. Lepido, L. Arruntio (Dion Cass., LV). But Archelaus had reigned full nine years. This becomes evident on comparing Josephus, Ant., xvii, 13, 3, with Bel. Jud., ii, 7, 3, where, relating this event, he mentions a remarkable dream of Archelaus, which a certain Essene had expounded as denoting the term of years during which he should reign; namely, in his dream, Archelaus saw nine ears of corn, which were devoured by oxen. This is the account in the “Wars;” but in the “Antiquities” (written after the “Wars”) the number of ears of corn and years of government is given as ten. The two accounts are easily reconciled on the supposition that the reign of Archelaus lasted nine years complete, and had reached its tenth when he was deposed. A term of nine years reckoned from any date of u. c. 759 leads up to the same date of u. c. 750, b. c. 4. Whereas, if the death of Herod occurred about the Passover of b. c. 3, u. c. 751, nine years of Archelaus were not complete till u. c. 760, and consequently the variation above noticed could not have taken place. HBS 225.1

Again: Herod Philip, Josephus expressly says (Bel. Jud., xviii, 4, 6), died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, i. e., between August a. d. 33 and August a. d. 34, having ruled thirty-seven years. But a term of thirty-seven years complete, from any date between these extremes, leads to the same date between August b. c. 5 and August b. c. 4. The reign of Philip, by our hypothesis, began 1 Nisan b. c. 4; therefore its thirty-seventh year was complete 1 Nisan a. d. 34. In other words, the thirty-seventh year of Philip included about five months of the nineteenth, and seven months of the twentieth, of Tiberius. This note of time, therefore, is perfectly consistent with the former. HBS 225.2

Lastly: Herod Antipas was deposed and banished after the return of Herod Agrippa to Palestine as king of Judea, which latter event took place in the second year of Caius, i. e., after March a. d. 38. When Agrippa was established in his kingdom, Herodias excited her husband, H. Antipas, against him, and at last persuaded him to undertake a voyage to Rome, the issue of which was his banishment. But we learn from Philo the very time of the year at which H. Agrippa arrived in Judea as king, namely, it was about the time of the Etesian winds, i. e., July or August. Hence the voyage of H. Antipas to Rome cannot be placed earlier than a. d. 39. And as Herod found Caius at Baia, where he was to be found in that year no later than August, it follows that the deposal of Herod cannot be placed earlier than the summer of a. d. 39, and certainly it cannot be placed later. HBS 225.3

Now there are in existence three coins of Herod Antipas, with the numeral M[Original illegible] intimating that they were struck in the forty-third year of his tetrarchate, and this is the latest date noted on any of his coins. If his tetrarchate bears date, as we maintain, from 1 Nisan b. c. 4, its forty-third year began 1 Nisan a. d. 39: but if from 1 Nisan b. c. 3, then not till 1 Nisan a. d. 40, half a year after his banishment. HBS 225.4

It seems to me that the death of Herod is hereby fixed incontestably to the date which I have assigned above, namely, a few days before the Passover of b. c. 4.—“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., pp. 26-31. London: John W. Parker, 1844. HBS 225.5

Herodians, A Political Party.—Herodians: a party twice mentioned in the Gospels (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13; 3:6) as acting with the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus. They were not a religious sect, but, as the name implies, a court or political party, supporters of the dynasty of Herod. Nothing is known of them beyond what the Gospels state.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. III, art. “Herodians,” p. 1383. HBS 225.6

Herods of the New Testament, Genealogy of.— HBS 226.1

[Table from Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5) to Agrippa II (Acts 25:13), Berenice (Acts 25:13) and Drusilla, married Felix (Acts 24:24)] HBS 226.2

-“The Companion Bible,” Part V, “The Gospels,” Appendix, p. 153. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 226.3

Herod, Family of.— HBS 227.1

[Table from Antipas or Antipater, an Idumaan, appointed prefect of Judea and Syria by Julius Casar to Bernice (Acts 25:13), Agrippa, junior (Acts 25:13; 26:1, et seq.) and Drusilla (Acts 24:14)] HBS 227.2

Herod, misnamed the Great, by his will divided his dominions among his three sons, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip. HBS 227.3

To Archelaus he assigned Judea, Samaria, and Idumaa, with the regal dignity, subject to the approbation of Augustus, who ratified his will as it respected the territorial division, but conferred on Archelaus the title of Ethnarch, or chief of the nation, with a promise of the regal dignity, if he should prove himself worthy of it. Archelaus entered upon his new office amid the loud acclamations of his subjects, who considered him as a king; hence the evangelist, in conformity with the Jewish idiom, says that he reigned. Matthew 2:22. [p. 109] ... HBS 227.4

Herod Antipas (or Antipater), another of Herod’s sons, received from his father the district of Galilee and Peraa, with the title of Tetrarch. He is described by Josephus as a crafty and incestuous prince, with which character the narratives of the evangelists coincide; for, having deserted his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, he forcibly took away and married Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip, a proud and cruel woman, to gratify whom he caused John the Baptist to be beheaded. [p. 110] ... HBS 227.5

Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, and Batanaa, is mentioned but once in the New Testament. Luke 3:1. He is represented by Josephus as an amiable prince, beloved by his subjects, whom he governed with mildness and equity: on his decease without issue, after a reign of thirty-seven years, his territories were annexed to the province of Syria. HBS 227.6

Agrippa, or Herod Agrippa I, was the son of Aristobulus, and grandson of Herod the Great, and sustained various reverses of fortune previously to his attaining the royal dignity. At first he resided at Rome as a private person, and ingratiated himself into the favor of the emperor Tiberius; but being accused of wishing him dead that Caligula might reign, he was thrown into prison by order of Tiberius. On the accession of Caligula to the empire, Agrippa was created king of Batanaa and Trachonitis, to which Abilene, Judea, and Samaria were subsequently added by the emperor Claudius. [pp. 110, 111] ... HBS 228.1

Herod Agrippa II, or Junior, was the son of the preceding Herod Agrippa, and was educated under the auspices of the emperor Claudius: being only seventeen years of age at the time of his father’s death, he was judged to be unequal to the task of governing the whole of his dominions. These were again placed under the direction of a Roman procurator or governor, and Agrippa was first king of Chalcis, and afterward of Batanaa, Trachonitis, and Abilene, to which other territories were subsequently added, over which he seems to have ruled, with the title of King. It was before this Agrippa and his sister Bernice that St. Paul delivered his masterly defense (Acts 26), where he is expressly termed a king. He was the last Jewish prince of the Herodian family, and for a long time survived the destruction of Jerusalem. HBS 228.2

Besides Herodias, who has been mentioned above, the two following princesses of the Herodian family are mentioned in the New Testament; viz., HBS 228.3

Bernice, the eldest daughter of King Herod Agrippa I, and sister to Agrippa II (Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30), was first married to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis; after whose death, in order to avoid the merited suspicion of incest with her brother Agrippa, she became the wife of Polemon, king of Cilicia.... HBS 228.4

Drusilla, her sister, and the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa, was distinguished for her beauty, and was equally celebrated with Bernice, for her profligacy. [p. 111]-“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. III, pp. 109-111. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 228.5

Higher Criticism, Contrasted with Lower.—Criticism of Scripture (“Biblical criticism”) is usually divided into what is called “lower or textual criticism” and “higher criticism,” the latter a phrase round which many misleading associations gather. “Lower criticism” deals strictly with the text of Scripture, endeavoring to ascertain what the real text of each book was as it came from the hands of its author; “higher criticism” concerns itself with the resultant problems of age, authorship, sources, simple or composite character, historical worth, relation to period of origin, etc. The former-“textual criticism”-has a well-defined field in which it is possible to apply exact canons of judgment: the latter-“higher criticism”-... manifestly tends to widen out illimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, where, often, the critic’s imagination is his only law.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr. M. A., D. D., Vol. II, art. “Criticism of the Bible,” p. 749. HBS 228.6

Higher Criticism, Real Question Involved in.—Here is no question merely of the strict inerrancy of Scripture, of absolute accuracy in unimportant minutiae, of precision in matters of science. This is not the issue raised by the theorizing of that class of Biblical critics with which we contend. And it is no mere question of the mode of inspiration. HBS 228.7

But it is the question whether any dependence can be placed upon the historical truth of the Bible; whether our confidence in the facts recorded in the Pentateuch rests upon any really trustworthy basis; facts, be it observed, not of mere scientific or antiquarian interest, but which mark the course of God’s revelations to the patriarchs and to Moses. It is the certainty of facts which are vital to the religion of the Old Testament, and the denial of whose truth weakens the foundations on which the New Testament itself is built. The critical theory which we have been examining is destructive of all rational certainty of the reality of these truths; and thus tends to overturn the historical basis of the religion of the Bible. HBS 229.1

It is no merely literary question, then, which this style of criticism raises. It is not simply whether the Pentateuch was written by one author or another, while its historic truth and its divine authority remain unaffected. The truth and evidence of the entire Mosaic history are at stake. And with this stands or falls the reality of God’s revelation to Moses and the divine origin of the Old Testament. And this again is not only vouched for and testified to by our divine Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles, but upon this the Lord Jesus bases his own claims. Moses wrote of him. The predictions uttered and recorded by Moses speak of Christ. The types, of which both the Pentateuchal history and the Mosaic institutions are full, point to Christ. But if the predictions are not genuine, and the history is untrue, and the institutions were not ordained of God, but are simply the record of priestly usage, what becomes of the witness which they bear to Christ? And must not the religion of the Old Testament sink in our esteem from a religion directly revealed of God to one which is the outgrowth of the Israelitish mind and heart, under an uplifting influence from above, it may be, but still proceeding from man, not from God? It is then based not on positive truth authoritatively communicated from God to man, but on the aspirations and reflections, the yearnings and longings and spiritual struggles of devout and holy men seeking after God, with such divine guidance and inward illumination as good men in every age may enjoy, but that is all. There is no direct revelation, no infallible inspiration, no immediate and positive disclosure of the mind and will of God. HBS 229.2

The religion of the Bible is not merely one of abstract doctrines respecting God. It does not consist merely in monotheism, nor in right notions of the being and perfections of God as abstract truths. Nor does it consist merely in devout emotions and aspirations toward the divine Being. But both its doctrines and its practical piety are based on positive disclosures which God has made of himself in his dealings with men and his communications to them. It is a historical religion based on palpable outstanding facts, in which God has manifested himself, and by which he has put himself in living relation to men. Appeal is throughout made to the mighty deeds and the great wonders wrought by his uplifted hand and his outstretched arm in evidence that it is the almighty God who has acted and spoken and revealed himself, and no mere human imaginings. To discredit these Biblical statements is to discredit the Biblical revelation. And this is what is done throughout the entire Mosaic period, not by Kuenen and Wellhausen and Stade and Cornill merely, who are avowed unbelievers in a supernatural revelation, but by those likewise who claim to be evangelical critics. HBS 229.3

It is notorious that the long succession of distinguished scholars, by whom the divisive hypothesis has been elaborated in its application to the Pentateuch, have been unbelievers in an immediate supernatural revelation.—“The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,” William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 163-165. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. HBS 229.4

Higher Criticism, In Relation to the Miraculous.—There are three evident indications of God’s immediate presence, which pervade the Scriptures from beginning to end, and are inwrought into its entire structure, and with which they must reckon who recognize in its contents merely that which is natural and human. These are miracle, prophecy, and revealed truth. [pp. 173, 174] ... HBS 230.1

Three different methods have been devised for getting rid of these troublesome factors. [p. 174] ... HBS 230.2

A second mode of dealing with the supernatural, without admitting its reality, is that of the old rationalistic exegesis. This regards it simply as Oriental exaggeration. It is looked upon as the habit of the period to think and speak in superlatives, and to employ grandiloquent figures and forms of expression. In order to ascertain the actual meaning of the writer, these must be reduced to the proportion of ordinary events. Thus Eichhorn, the father of the higher criticism, had no difficulty in accepting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and defending its credibility, while at the same time he discarded the miraculous. [p. 175] ... HBS 230.3

The third mode of banishing the supernatural from the Bible is by subjecting it to the processes of the higher criticism. This is the most plausible as well as the most effective method of accomplishing this result. It is the most plausible because the animus of the movement is concealed, and the desired end is reached, not by aiming at it directly and avowedly, but as the apparently incidental consequence of investigations pursued professedly for a different purpose. And it is the most effective because it supplies a complete antidote for the supernatural in each of its forms. Every reported miracle is met by the allegation that the record dates centuries after its supposed occurrence, leaving ample time for the legendary amplification of natural events. Every prediction which has been so accurately fulfilled that it cannot be explained away as a vague anticipation, shrewd conjecture, or fortunate coincidence, is met by the allegation that it was not committed to writing till after the event. Revelations of truth in advance of what the unaided faculties of men could be supposed to have attained to, must be reconstructed into accordance with the requirements of a gradual scheme of development. The stupendous miracles of the Mosaic period, the farreaching predictions of the Pentateuch, and its minute and varied legislation are all provided for by the critical analysis, which parts it into separate documents and assigns these documents severally to six, eight, and ten centuries after the exodus from Egypt. [p. 176] HBS 230.4

These criticial results are based professedly on purely literary grounds, on diction and style and correspondence with historical surroundings. And yet he who traces the progress of critical opinion will discover that these are invariably subordinated to the end of neutralizing the supernatural, and that they are so managed as to lead up to this conclusion. The development of critical hypotheses inimical to the genuineness and the truth of the books of the Bible has from the beginning been in the hands of those who were antagonistic to supernatural religion, whose interest in the Bible was purely literary, and who refused to recognize its claims as an immediate and authoritative revelation from God. These hypotheses, which are largely speculative and conjectural, are to a great extent based upon and shaped by unproved assumptions of the falsity of positive Scriptural statements. They are in acknowledged variance with the historical truth of much of the Bible, and require, as is freely confessed, the complete reconstruction of the sacred history. They require us to suppose that the course of events and the progress of divine revelation must throughout have been very different from the representations of the Bible. [p. 177]-“The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,” William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 173-177. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. HBS 230.5

Higher Criticism, In Relation to Unbelief.—It is noteworthy that the partition hypotheses [according to which the Pentateuch is a combination of various writings] in all their forms have been elaborated from the beginning in the interest of unbelief. The unfriendly animus of an opponent does not indeed absolve us from patiently and candidly examining his arguments, and accepting whatever facts he may adduce, though we are not bound to receive his perverted interpretation of them. Nevertheless we cannot intelligently nor safely overlook the palpable bias against the supernatural which has infected the critical theories which we have been reviewing, from first to last. All the acknowledged leaders of the movement have, without exception, scouted the reality of miracles and prophecy and immediate divine revelation in their genuine and evangelical sense. Their theories are all inwrought with naturalistic presuppositions, which cannot be disentangled from them without their falling to pieces. Evangelical scholars in Germany, as elsewhere, steadfastly opposed these theories, refuted the arguments adduced in their support, and exposed their malign tendencies. It is only recently that there has been an attempt at compromise on the part of certain believing scholars, who are disposed to accept these critical theories and endeavor to harmonize them with the Christian faith. But the inherent vice in these systems cannot be eradicated. The inevitable result has been to lower the Christian faith to the level of these perverted theories instead of lifting the latter up to the level of a Christian standard. HBS 231.1

According to the critical hypothesis, even in the most moderate hands, the situation is this: The Pentateuch, instead of being one continuous and self-consistent history from the pen of Moses, is made up of four distinct documents which have been woven together, but which the critics claim that they are able to separate and restore, as far as the surviving remnants of each permit, to their original condition. These severally represent the traditions of the Mosaic age as they existed six, eight, and ten centuries after the exodus. When these are compared, they are found to be in perpetual conflict. Events wear an entirely different complexion in one from that which they have in another; the characters of those who appear in them, the motives by which they are actuated, and the whole impression of the period in which they live is entirely different. HBS 231.2

It is very evident from all this why the critics tell us that the doctrine of inspiration must be modified. If these Pentateuchal documents, as they describe them, were inspired, it must have been in a very peculiar sense. It is not a question of inerrancy, but of wholesale mutual contradiction which quite destroys their credit as truthful histories. And these contradictions, be it observed, are not in the Pentateuch itself, but result from the mangling and the mal-interpretations to which it has been subjected by the critics.—Id., pp. 157, 158. HBS 231.3

Higher Criticism and the Prophets.—We saw that the inquisitorial method of the higher critics allows them to cast doubts on anything, and on any one; to prove or to disprove anything they like; to accept or to condemn just as they fancy it. Far from being astounded at having fought shy, to a certain extent, of the prophets, we must rather expect them to declare, in corpore. what at present is said by a few of them, such as E. Havet, M. Vernes, and others; namely, that “the prophetic books, far from having that high antiquity which is attributed to them, were not written before the second century b. c.” HBS 231.4

In fact, the lenience and patience of the higher critics with regard to the prophets is inconceivable. Having victoriously reduced Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David to nice little astral myths, how can they tarry so long over mere prophets; that is, men mostly of lowly origin, with no official character, no particular social status, nor men of independent means. The higher critics, down to Wellhausen, do, it is true, their best to apply to the prophets as many pin pricks as possible. They deny the authenticity of Amos 2:4, 5-just 4, 5; then also 4:13; 5:8; 9:5; etc. HBS 232.1

But is this petty warfare really worthy of men so grand and redoubtable? Smaller enemies than the prophets have long exclaimed, “Sword cuts, if you please, but no pin pricks!” Would it not be more charitable to use against the prophets the full armory of the torture, the full impact of the scientific instruments so carefully determined by the judges in witch trials of the seventeenth century? Would it not be more in keeping with the strict scientific method of higher criticism to say to the prophets: HBS 232.2

“Gentlemen, we regret, but your pretense of having lived in the eighth or the seventh century b. c., and of having written certain prophetic writings, is really quite unacceptable. In the first place, you are fully aware of the fact that you never lived at all, and that your hypothetical existence at present you owe simply to our need of proving that you too are astral myths. Yours is what our teachers would have called a subpotential existence for the sake of argument. True, some people refer to numerous pieces of evidence coming from Assyrian and other independent sources, confirming many a detail in your writings. But is it not evident in your case, as it was in the case of Abraham, that the more local color one can show to exist in your pretended writings, the more certain it becomes that, as our colleague Vernes profoundly said, your local color was probably superimposed by a late and latest interpolator? Quién sabe [who knows]? as our friends, the sagacious Spaniards, say. Interpolators are so wily. HBS 232.3

“But we are more than a match for such wiles. The more subtle the wiles, the more subtle the meshes in which we capture them. The idea of prophets and prophetic writings, we admit, is not quite bad. It suits the agitated times of the eighth century b. c. to perfection. It is just what one might expect in times of great tribulation, and we are not unwilling to credit the interpolator with a large measure of historic finesse. He clearly thought that when the Athenians in times of need solicited the help of Solon-provided they ever did so, which we must leave to the judgment of our philological colleagues; or if the Florentines implored the help of Savonarola, and the Genevans that of Calvin,-then the Hebrews of the eighth century b. c. may also have desired and needed some such help from what in their ignorance they called prophets. But, as already remarked, the very finesse of the interpolator betrays him. So nice a harmony between what is and what is expected to be, is in the highest degree suspicious. Gentlemen, we regret to say that clever interpolators have given you an utterly false impression of your existence.” HBS 232.4

The preceding oration of the higher critics, although not directly quotable from their writings, is, as every student of the matter knows, a true résumé of the drift of their endless arguments about the prophetic writings. The method they use must inevitably lead them to a rejection of the most probable events and persons; and it is no serious exaggeration to say that higher critics, after successfully exterminating the great personalities of history, must, out of sheer lack of persons to be dissolved in air, attack and destroy, without necessarily astralizing one another. Romulus killed Remus; Professor Niebuhr killed Romulus; Professors Gerlach and Bachofen killed Professor Niebuhr; and so in infinitum. HBS 232.5

This preposterous method must, and we confidently trust will, come to its overdue end. It must, at any rate, be made clear to the millions of honest people who want to use their Bible as their strongest and most comforting consolation for life and after-life, that all the arguments of the higher critics have so far not been able to move a stone from the edifice inside which over a hundred generations have sought and found their spiritual bliss.—“The Failure of the ‘Higher Criticism’ of the Bible,” Emil Reich, pp. 174-178. Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, copyright 1905. HBS 233.1

Higher Criticism, The Test of Time Applied to.—We do not always see most clearly the things that are nearest to us. Our estimates of contemporaneous matters often need revision. We must bow to the logic of events, and accept the verdict of history. If in the dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets are obsolete, the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and Paul and his writings set aside to make room for the inerrant productions of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Briggs, and Harper; if the queen of Sheba of that remote period, in her quest for wisdom, shall take a limited through ticket for Chicago, without so much as asking for a stopover at Jerusalem; if it shall be found at last that men have lived in this world for centuries and millenniums, not knowing whence they came or how they got here, until the last half of the nineteenth century-the Creator having kept these things from wise and prudent men like Adam, and Enoch, and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Solomon, and Daniel, and Paul, and Jesus of Nazareth, that he might reveal them to such devout and guileless babes as Darwin, with his “early, apelike progenitors;” Huxley, with his life-producing, jellylike Bathybius, at the bottom of the sea; Haeckel, with his “spontaneous generation” of “organisms without organs;” Tyndall, with his prayer gauge and his agnosticism; and the higher critics, with their conglomerate theories and inventions; and if the experience of twenty centuries shall demonstrate the superiority of the new and inerrant evangel which these men are proclaiming; the world will rejoice in the “survival of the fittest,”-unless, indeed, the higher critics of those times shall dissect and discredit these new Scriptures, and discarding them, produce yet “another gospel,” which shall be entirely their own. HBS 233.2

If it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and tormented, “of whom the world was not worthy,” have gone down before the onslaught of the learned and well-salaried professors of modern universities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of all things and at the peril of life itself, has paled its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular higher criticism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith, and heirs of the kingdom-who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those who suppose that gain is godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to enter the kingdom of heaven? HBS 233.3

But if, from the far-distant mountain peaks of the fortieth century-provided this groaning creation has not ere that time been “delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” and entered upon those dateless cycles of bliss and blessing where centuries are no more numbered-mankind shall still look back beyond Astruc and Wellhausen to Moses and the prophets; if the little tracts of the hunger-bitten apostle to the Gentiles shall still be read, while the huge tomes of well-fed professors are forgotten; if the men who stood alone and faced the lions shall be found to be as clear sighted as their critics who are backed by millions and millionaires; if prophets and apostles still shine “as stars forever and ever,” while learned experts are lost in haze and gloom and darkness; if it be seen that Jesus of Nazareth is still the light of the world, after all that higher critics have said by way of correcting his errors and exhibiting his “limitations;” if the law still goes forth from Zion instead of Chicago, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem instead of from some German university or beer garden; if, instead of pocket editions of the works of the higher critics for use in family worship, in Sunday schools, and in churches, the writings of Moses and the prophets, and Christ and the apostles, are still read in the synagogues every Sabbath day, while the learned lucubrations and ponderous misrepresentations of the higher critics of our times are forgotten-the people who live in those days must accept the conditions they cannot alter, and inquire for the eternal paths, and see where is the good way, and walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16.—“The Anti-Infidel Library,” H. L. Hastings, “More Bricks from the Babel of the Higher Critics,” pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, copyright 1895. HBS 233.4

Higher Criticism, Overthrown by the Excavator’s Spade.—Evolution is the keynote of modern science, both physical and psychological, the magical key with which it hopes to unlock the secrets of the universe. There has been evolution and development in history, as well as in the forms of life, in the systems of the material universe or in the processes of thought. There must have been evolution also in religious and moral ideas, in political conceptions and theological dogmas. If once we could discover its law, we should be able to trace the course it has followed, and know what is first and what is last in the religious systems of the past. HBS 234.1

The disciples of the “higher criticism” have assumed not only that the law is discoverable, but also that they have themselves discovered it. They know precisely how religious ideas must have developed in the past, and can consequently determine the relative age of the various forms in which they are presented to us. [pp. 115, 116] ... HBS 234.2

The “critical assumption,” in fact, is an inversion of the true method of science. We must first know what was the order of the phenomena before we can discover the law of evolution which they have followed. It is only when we have ascertained what forms of life or matter have succeeded others that we can trace in them a process of development. We cannot reverse the method, and determine the sequence of the phenomena from a hypothetical law of evolution. [pp. 116, 117] ... HBS 234.3

In fact, the whole application of a supposed law of evolution to the religious and secular history of the ancient Oriental world is founded on what we now know to have been a huge mistake. The Mosaic age, instead of coming at the dawn of ancient Oriental culture, really belongs to the evening of its decay. The Hebrew legislator was surrounded on all sides by the influences of a decadent civilization. Religious systems and ideas had followed one another for centuries; the ideas had been pursued to their logical conclusions, and the systems had been worked out in a variety of forms. In Egypt and Babylonia alike there was degeneracy rather than progress, retrogression rather than development. The actual condition of the Oriental world in the age of Moses, as it has been revealed to us by archeology, leaves little room for the particular kind of evolution of which the “higher criticism” has dreamed. HBS 234.4

But in truth the archeological discoveries of the last half-dozen years in Egypt and Krete have once for all discredited the claim of “criticism” to apply its theories of development to the settlement of chronological or historical questions. [pp. 118, 119] ... HBS 235.1

The awakening has come with a vengeance. The skepticism of the “critic” has been proved to have been but the measure of his own ignorance, the want of evidence to have been merely his own ignorance of it. The spade of the excavator in Krete has effected more in three or four years than the labors and canons of the “critics” in half a century. The whole fabric he had raised has gone down like a house of cards, and with it the theories of development of which he felt so confident. [p. 121]-“Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,” A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 115-121. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 235.2

Higher Criticism, Two Main Pillars of, Overthrown.—The existence of laws in the books of Genesis and Exodus is evident, though there is no formal record of their delivery. (Cp. Exodus 18:16.) HBS 235.3

Doubtless some were made known to mankind, as such, by God, e. g. (1) the law of the Sabbath, Genesis 2:3.... HBS 235.4

In a. d. 1901, the Code of Amraphel (Khammurabi) (Genesis 14:1) was discovered in Susa by M. J. de Morgan. The latest date for this code is 2139 b. c. HBS 235.5

Eight hundred years before Moses, these laws governed the peoples from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, and from Persia to the Mediterranean, and were in force throughout Canaan. HBS 235.6

This discovery overthrew the two main pillars of the “higher critics,” one of which was that such writing was unknown before Moses; the other, that a legal code was impossible before the Jewish kings.—“The Companion Bible,” Part I, “The Pentateuch,” Appendix, p. 22. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 235.7

Higher Criticism, Results of Assyriology upon.—We may now sum up the results of the latest discovery in Assyriology. It has forever shattered the “critical” theory which would put the Prophets before the Law, it has thrown light on the form and character of the Mosaic code, and it has indirectly vindicated the historical character of the narratives of Genesis. If such are the results of a single discovery, what may we not expect when the buried libraries of Babylonia have been more fully excavated, and their contents copied and read?-“Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,” A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., p. 87. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 235.8

Hinduism.—Hinduism, or Brahmanism, is the religion of the great majority of the people, and Mohammedanism comes next. Of the 294,361,056 inhabitants of India, British and feudatory, in 1901, 207,147,026 were Hindus, 62,458,077 Mohammedans, 8,711,360 aboriginal pagans, 9,476,759 Buddhists (almost all in Burma), 1,334,148 Jains, 94,190 Parsees (chiefly in Bombay), 18,228 Jews. In Bengal there are 25,265,342 Mohammedans to 46,740,661 Hindus; in the Punjab, 12,183,345 to 10,344,469 Hindus. The Sikh religion is professed, according to the census for the Punjab, by 2,102,896 of its inhabitants. The Christians number 2,923,241. Buddhism at one period prevailed very generally throughout India; it is now confined to Bhutan, Sikkim, and Burma. [p. 246] ... HBS 235.9

The Popular Faith.-This must be noted as it is seen among the Hindus today. The triad of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer, is still remembered. One of them (Brahma) has lapsed into an abstraction, and practical adoration is divided between the other two. The Sivaites are chiefly, but not entirely, in the north; the Vishnuites in the south. The Sivaite worship is chiefly attracted by the wife of Siva, under various names-Kali, Dúrga, Parbati, and so forth. Vishnu, again, is almost lost in the worship paid to his two incarnations (avatars), Rama and Krishna. Lesser divinities, such as Hanuman, the “monkey god,” and Ganésh, the “elephant god,” are also honored. The sanctity of the Ganges (Ganga) remains; and when the river is lost in the delta, that sanctity is to some extent continued to the Hugli, flowing past Calcutta. The Nerbudda also is sacred. It is hard to gauge the thoughts of Hindus regarding a future state. They think of a heaven (swarga) and a hell; also of giant demons (rakshas). From their demeanor in the presence of certain death it may be inferred that they expect absorption into the divine essence or entity, through the intervention of the god or gods they have worshiped. HBS 236.1

The Caste System, which is a potent factor in the national life, does not appear to have been a part of the Vedic religion originally. But it arose subsequently with a religious sanction which is still maintained. The Brahman caste, including the priests, is held to have something divine in it. Most of the several millions of Brahmans follow secular employment; but even the humblest of them is hedged round by a certain sort of sacredness. This caste, together with the Kshatri, or warrior caste, and the Vaisya, or trader, caste (including the subdivision of Kayasths, or writers), are held to be twice-born (dwija). This character does not attach to the Súdra caste, which includes the masses. The restrictions in respect of food and drink (water) in the caste system are most severe and narrow. Caste is lost from any of the infringements that are inevitable in foreign intercourse. But restoration to caste, though often expensive, is sufficiently façile. Within each caste as a division of the people there are subdivisions infinitely numerous, which as a whole have been reckoned at several thousands.... HBS 236.2

Buddhism is now for the people only a nominis umbra; probably the words “buddh,” as abstract wisdom, and “nirvâna,” as a haven of celestial quiescence, are remembered. In the east Himalayas, Sikkim, and Bhutan it is really Lamaism, or the medieval corruption of Buddhism, of which the headquarters are at Lhasa, in Tibet, with the Dalai Lama and the incarnations. The representations of Buddha or Gautama have the aspect of ineffable repose which Buddhism has everywhere exhibited. The caste system does not exist, but the monastic order is all-powerful. In Burma the faith is still mainly that which was settled at the last great council of Asoka, in North India, before the Christian era. Here also caste is not acknowledged; but the priestly and monastic orders, though they cannot arrogate a status like Brahmans, are very influential. HBS 236.3

Jainism is believed to have originally sprung from the same school of speculative thought as Buddhism. It has sacred books and saints of its own, in a long line or series, and it promises a future quiescence hardly distinguishable from annihilation. It has an excessive tenderness for animal life. It recognizes caste. Its adherents are largely found in the banking and mercantile classes.—Standard Encyclopedia of the World’s Knowledge, Vol. XIV, art “India,” pp. 246, 248-250. HBS 236.4

History.—General View of Authorities for Ecclesiastical History in the First Eight Centuries. HBS 237.1

Greek Writers
Ecclesiastical	Secular
	Josephus, 37-98
Hegesippus, 120-185
	Dion Casius, 155-235
	Herennius Dexippus, 220-280
Eusebius, 263-340
Athanasius, 296-371
Gelasius, 320-394	Eunapius, 347-415
Philostorgius, 368-430	Zosimus, 370-430
Palladius, 367-431
Philip of Side, fl. 425	Olympiorus, fl. 425
Irenaus Comes, 395-455
Socrates, 380-445
Sozomen, fl. 440
Theodoret, 386-458
Hesychius, fl. 430	Priscus Panites, 420-471
Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 475	Malchus, fl. 495
Basil of Cilicia, fl. 520	Petrus Patricius, 500-562
Zacharias Rhetor, fl. 540	Procopius, 500-565
John of Aega	Agathias, 536-582
Theodorus Lector
Cyril of Scythopolis, fl. 550.	Paul the Silentiary, fl. 563
Evagrius, 536-600	Menander, fl. 580
Joannes Moschus, fl. 610	Theophylact, fl. 620

Latin Writers
Ecclesiastical	Secular
	Tacitus, fl. 110
	Suetonius, fl. 110
	Hist. August. Scriptores
Lactantius, 250-325
Rufinus, 345-410	Sex. Aurelius Victor, fl. 360
Jerome, 342-420
Sulpicius Severus, 363-420	Amm. Marcellinus, fl. 380
Orosius, fl. 410
Hilary of Arles, 400-449
Gennadius, fl. 490
Liberatus, fl. 535
Cassiodorus, 465-565
Gregory of Tours, 544-595
Fortunatus, 530-605
Gildas, fl. 560
Isidore, 560-536
Ildefonso, fl. 660
Julianus, fl. 680	Annales Fuldenses
Beda, 673-735	Annales Laurissenses
Paul Warnefrid, 730-800	Annales Einhardi
Liber Pontificalis	Codex Carolinus

-“A Dictionary of Christian Biography,” Smith and Wace, Vol. III, art. “Historians, Ecclesiastical,” p. 112. London: John Murray, 1882. HBS 237.2

History Between the Testaments.—We will now look at this period of history [the four hundred years between Malachi and John the Baptist], taking for our guide Daniel 11, whose circumstantial details of the first 240 years make it unlike any other Old Testament prophecy. Its picture of Judah’s suzerains passes by a transition hard to mark into a far-reaching vision of the end of the world.... HBS 237.3

Perfect religious liberty and sympathy with their rulers, born of a common monotheism and hatred of idolatry, made the Persian domination one of the happiest periods of Jewish history. Of the century following Nehemiah’s rule we know almost nothing. Then the young Greek conqueror of the world, whose career is vividly pictured in Daniel, and who believed himself to be the Heaven-sent reconciler and pacificator of all mankind, spared and favored Judea, and linked East and West in a bond which has never since been broken, thus preparing the way for Christianity with its Eastern cradle and its Western throne. His work was perpetuated in Alexandria, the city he founded to bear his name, a second capital of the Jewish faith henceforth, and the common portal of the East and West to this day. The spiritual gains of the Persian period were followed by the intellectual gains of the Greek period, and on the banks of the Nile a new Israel, trained in all the wisdom of a new Egypt, arose. HBS 238.1

After Alexander’s death in 323, the maritime regions of Palestine were for some twenty years buffeted in the strife between his successors. Then followed a peaceful century under five Macedonian kings of Egypt, whose capital was Alexandria. All are mentioned as “kings of the south” in Daniel 11. They were, [p. 165] HBS 238.2

1. Ptolemy Soter, 320-283 (Daniel 11:5). HBS 238.3

2. Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-247 (v. 6). HBS 238.4

3. Ptolemy Euergetes, 247-222 (vs. 7, 9). HBS 238.5

4. Ptolemy Philopater, 222-205 (v. 11). HBS 238.6

5. Ptolemy Epiphanes, 205-181 (v. 14). HBS 238.7

Under Ptolemy Soter lived Simon the Just, the greatest high priest between Joshua the son of Jehozadak and Jonathan the Asmonean. He is said to have finished Ezra’s work by completing the Old Testament canon and Nehemiah’s work by fortifying the temple. HBS 238.8

Under Ptolemy Philadelphus was produced the Septuagint. The Greek tongue had already proved itself the most perfect expression of human thought by becoming practically universal, and now God’s Word appeared in what was hereafter to be the language of the New Testament. The Septuagint has been well called “The first Apostle of the Gentiles.” HBS 238.9

Ptolemy Philopater alienated the Jews by forcing his way into the holy of holies and cruelly persecuting them, when a supernatural terror drove him forth. He was then at war with the Syrian king, who had just taken “the well-fenced city” of Sidon. Him the Jews rashly welcomed as a deliverer, and thus passed under the sway of three Macedonian kings of Syria, whose capital was Antioch, and who are mentioned in Daniel 11 as “kings of the north.” They were, 1. Antiochus the Great, 223-187 (Daniel 11:10, 15); 2. Seleucus IV, 187-175 (v. 20); 3. Antiochus Epiphanes, 175-164 (v. 21, etc.). HBS 238.10

Hitherto Israel’s foreign suzerains, while exacting tribute, had respected their customs and left the conduct of their affairs to their own princes and priests. To the Ptolemies their relations had been almost wholly friendly, and they were yielding more and more to the spell of Greek art and culture. But between them and the Syrian kings there was antagonism from the beginning, ending in the wanton attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes (a half-mad despot whose character reappears in great measure in Nero 200 years later) to Hellenize Judea completely, to substitute the heathen “god of fortresses” for the God of Israel, and to extinguish their ancient religion by a ruthless persecution, which proved in the end its truest safeguard. The determined effort to destroy or deface every copy of the Law increased love for God’s Word and zeal for its multiplication; the determined effort to trample out their nation roused an indomitable spirit of patriotism, which gave unity and complete independence to a race that had been a subject race for nearly four and one-half centuries. [pp. 165-167] ... HBS 238.11

Mattathias, a descendant of Eleazar, son of Aaron, had five heroic sons, who achieved Judah’s deliverance and founded a family which ruled for more than a century. From its ancestor Chashmon it was called Asmonean, or Maccabean, from a word meaning “hammer” (comp. Jeremiah 50:23), or from the initials of the first sentence of Exodus 15:11. These priestly rulers were, HBS 239.1

1. Judas, 166-161	Picture:
2. Jonathan, 161-143		sons of Mattathias.
3. Simon, 143-135
4. John Hyrcanus I, 135-106,son of Simon.
5. Aristobulus I, 106-105	Picture:
6. Alexander Jannaus, 105-78		sons of Hyrcanus I.
7. Alexandra, 78-69,widow of Jannaus.
8. Hyrcanus II, 3 months	Picture:
9. Aristobulus II, 69-63		sons of Jannaus and Alexandra.
8. Hyrcanus II, 63-40
10. Antigonus, 40-37,son of Aristobulus II.

Judas is the Wallace of Hebrew history. No one ever united more generous valor with a better cause, and of all military chiefs he accomplished the largest ends with the smallest means. As Israel’s preserver in its extremity, he has a place beside Moses, Samuel, and David. In 168 the standard was raised. In 167 he won decisive victories at Samaria, Bethhoron, and Emmaus in Philistia, and at Bethzur in 166, thus regaining the temple. The crowning conflict of Adasa or Bethhoron, the Marathon of Jewish history, took place in 161, on the scene of Joshua’s greatest triumph in 1450, traditionally also the scene of Sennacherib’s destruction in 701. The army of Judas “advanced to victory,” says the historian, “fighting with their hands and praying with their hearts.” In the same year, the great “Hammer of the Gentiles” fell at Eleasa, the Hebrew Thermopyla, dying, as all his brothers did, a violent death. HBS 239.2

The last undoubted representative of the high priest Joshua fled in 167 from the desecrated temple to Egypt, and at Leontopolis founded a secondary rather than a rival temple, to form a religious center for the Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion, thus professing to fulfil Isaiah 19:18, 19. This lasted for three centuries. Great was the degradation of the high priesthood, when in 162 the Syrians gave it to Alcimus, who had placed himself at the head of the Hellenizing party. In Jonathan, however, a new and noble line of high priests was instituted. But alteration of a succession which had remained unbroken for nearly 900 years, paved the way for further changes, and one rabbi finds an explanation of Proverbs 10:27 in the fact that during 410 years the first temple had eighteen priests, while the second temple, during 426 years, had more than three hundred. HBS 239.3

Simon snapped the last Syrian fetter when in 142 he took the citadel that overawed God’s sanctuary, and his successor saw the issue of a forty-years’ strife in the formal recognition of Judah’s independence in 128. Hyrcanus I also conquered her two nearest relatives and bitterest enemies, Edom and Samaria, and in 109 razed the rival temple of Gerizim to the ground, thus triumphantly closing the sixty years of ecclesiastical commonwealth which form the first and best half of the Maccabean age. HBS 239.4

Seventy years of ecclesiastical monarchy (the last thirty-seven merely nominal) followed. For the last six Maccabean rulers assumed the title, not of “king of Israel,” but of “king of the Jews” (contrast John 1:49 and Matthew 27:37), the new phrase marking the new character of the monarchy. Their Greek names indicate the growing strength of Hellenism. Already in the reign of Hyrcanus the party strife between the two opposed sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, henceforth to play so large a part in Jewish history, had begun. The self-seeking ambition of the later Asmoneans led to family discord and political confusion, till Alexander, grandson of the Simon whose wisdom and valor “had made his honorable name renowned unto the end of the world,” was a detested tyrant, and six years of civil war between his two sons ended in appeal to the arbitration of Rome. That ever-encroaching and irresistible power restored Hyrcanus II to nominal rule, and from b. c. 37 to a. d, 6 an Edomite dependent of Rome and his son held imposing sovereignty over Jacob’s descendants. But practically from b. c. 63 to the awful close of their history as a nation, the Jews had no king but Casar. Aristobulus III, grandson of both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, was the last Asmonean high priest, and his beautiful and ill-fated sister Mariamne, wife to the Herod of Matthew 2:1, and grandmother of the Herod of Acts 12:1, and of Herodias, was the last of her race. [pp. 167-169]-“Clews to Holy Writ,” M. L. G. Petrie, B. A., pp. 165-169. New York: American Tract Society, 1893. HBS 240.1

History, Jewish, Promise of Christ in.—And thus it is that we find the promise of a Christ in Jewish history. We find in that history the foundation and the germ of all that was afterward claimed for Christ and advanced in his name. We find there ages before he came or any such claims were ever advanced, the distinct promise of a seed in which the nations should be blessed. However we interpret that promise, whether of the seed of Abraham or of a certain individual of his family, whether we regard him or his family, or a certain individual of his family, as the channel or as the standard of blessing, it is equally true when applied to Christ. He proclaimed himself, and was proclaimed, as the fountain of life and the one source of blessing to mankind. HBS 240.2

We find there the distinct promise of a great prophet, who should stand like Moses between God and man. In the whole cycle of history there is no name but one on behalf of which any such claim can be advanced. Christ may not have been that great prophet, but at least there was none other greater than he; and in that case the promise which has existed for three thousand years, and is still a promise, has signally failed, and though history has revealed and confirmed its truth, it must be pronounced a lie. HBS 240.3

But we find there also the distinct promise of a king whose throne is to be established forever; and yet before many centuries the kingdom of David is overthrown, and in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate we hear the people of David crying aloud, “We have no king but Casar;” while One who claimed descent from the son of Jesse was led away to be crucified, and the superscription was written over him, containing the indictment upon which he suffered, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews;” and before he was born, we are told that it had been said, “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” HBS 240.4

And, lastly, we find there from beginning to end the deep impress of a sacrificial system, which must have been unmeaning and selfimposed, and is consequently an unexplained phenomenon in history, if it did not lead upward and point onward to the perfect priesthood and sacrifice of One who should be called, not after the order of Aaron, but after the power of an endless life.—“The Religion of the Christ,” Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., pp. 90-92. New York: Pott, Young & Co., 1874. HBS 241.1

Hittites.—It is now known that this people is to be identified with the Kheta of the Egyptians and the Khatti of the Assyrians. It will be recalled that the Egyptians under Tehutimes III waged war against the Kheta, as did Seti in a later succeeding generation.... HBS 241.2

At a slightly later period, when the new Assyrian Empire was waxing strong, the Hittites found an enemy on the other side in Tiglathpileser, who defeated them in a memorable battle, as also a few centuries later did Ashurnazirpal. The latter prince, it would appear, completely subjected them and carried their princes into captivity. Yet they waxed strong again, and took up arms in alliance with Ben-Hadad of Syria against Shalmaneser II in the year 855; and though again defeated, their power was not entirely broken until the year 717 b. c., when Sargon utterly subjected them and deported the inhabitants of their city of Carchemish to a city of Assyria, repeopling it with his own subjects. HBS 241.3

All these details of the contests of the Hittites against the Egyptians on the one hand and Assyrians on the other were quite unknown until the records of the monuments of Egypt and Assyria were made accessible through the efforts of recent scholars. But it now appears, judged only by the records of their enemies, that the Hittites were a very powerful and important nation for many centuries, and more recent explorations of Asia Minor have brought to light various monuments, which are believed to be records made by the Hittites themselves.—“The Historians’ History of the World,” edited by Henry Smith Williams, LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 391, 392. New York: The Outlook Company, 1904. HBS 241.4

Hittites, Modern Discoveries Concerning.—A few years ago there was no one who suspected that a great empire had once existed in Western Asia and contended on equal terms with both Egypt and Assyria, the founders of which were the little-noticed Hittites of the Old Testament. Still less did any one dream that these same Hittites had once carried their arms, their art, and their religion to the shores of the Agean, and that the early civilization of Greece and Europe was as much indebted to them as it was to the Phonicians. HBS 241.5

The discovery was made in 1879. Recent exploration and excavation had shown that the primitive art and culture of Greece, as revealed, for example, by Dr. Schliemann’s excavations at Mykena, were influenced by a peculiar art and culture emanating from Asia Minor. Here, too, certain strange monuments had been discovered, which form a continuous chain from Lydia in the west to Kappadokia and Lykaonia in the east. The best known of these are certain rock sculptures found at Boghaz Keui and Eyuk, on the eastern side of the Halys, and two figures in relief in the Pass of Karabel, near Sardes, which the old Greek historian, Herodotus, had long ago supposed to be memorials of the Egyptian conqueror Sesostris, or Ramses II. HBS 241.6

Meanwhile other discoveries were being made in lands more immediately connected with the Bible. Scholars had learned from the Egyptian inscriptions that before the days of the exodus the Egyptian monarchs had been engaged in fierce struggles with the powerful nation of the Hittites, whose two chief seats were at Kadesh, on the Orontes, and Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and who were able to summon to their aid subject allies not only from Palestine, but also far away from Lydia and the Troad, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Ramses II himself, the Pharaoh of the oppression, had been glad to make peace with his antagonists; and the treaty which provided, among other things, for the amnesty of political offenders who had found a shelter during the war among one or other of the two combatants, was cemented by the marriage of the Egyptian king with the daughter of his rival. A century or two afterward Tiglath-Pileser I, of Assyria, found his passage across the Euphrates barred by the Hittites of Carchemish and their Kolkhian mercenaries. From this time forward the Hittites proved dangerous enemies to the Assyrian kings in their attempts to extend the empire toward the west, until at last, in b. c. 717, Sargon succeeded in capturing their rich capital, Carchemish, and in making it the seat of an Assyrian satrap. Henceforth the Hittites disappear from history. HBS 241.7

But they had already left their mark on the pages of the Old Testament. The Canaanite who had betrayed his fellow citizens at Beth-el to the Israelites, dared not intrust himself to his countrymen, but went away “into the land of the Hittites.” Judges 1:26. Solomon imported horses from Egypt, which he sold to the Syrians and the Hittites (1 Kings 10:28, 29), and when God had sent a panic upon the camp of the Syrians before Jerusalem, they had imagined that “the king of Israel had hired against them the kings of the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians.” 2 Kings 7:6. Kadesh itself, the southern Hittite capital, is mentioned in a passage where the Hebrew text is unfortunately corrupt. 2 Samuel 24:6. Here the Septuagint shows us that the officers sent by David to number the people, in skirting the northern frontier of his kingdom, came as far as “Gilead and the land of the Hittites of Kadesh.” In the extreme south of Palestine an offshoot pf the race had been settled from an early period. These are the Hittites of whom we hear in Genesis in connection with the patriarchs. Hebron was one of their cities, and Hebron, we are told (Numbers 13:22), “was built seven years before Zoan,” or Tanis, the capital of the Hyksos conquerors of Egypt. This suggests that the Hittites formed part of the Hyksos forces, and that some of them, instead of entering Egypt, remained behind in southern Canaan. The suggestion is confirmed by a statement of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who asserts that Jerusalem was founded by the Hyksos after their expulsion from Egypt; and Jerusalem, it will be remembered, had, according to Ezekiel 16:3, a Hittite mother.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 87-89. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 242.1

Hittites, Facts Concerning.—Some years ago the so-called “higher critics” of the day used to refer to the Bible mentions of this people as one of the evidences of the imagined inaccuracies of the Bible. They themselves knew nothing about the Hittites, therefore the Hittites could not have existed! They have had to give up this point of attack. The Bible has been proved absolutely correct on this subject as on others. The Hittite remains, with the quaint picture writing, “unknown hieroglyphics,” as the description upon the monuments calls them, prove the existence of a great nation or group of nations. Other discoveries corroborate the Bible accounts, and show that the Hittites were a powerful people. [pp. 16, 17] ... HBS 242.2

Many are the references to the Hittites in the Bible. HBS 242.3

Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from “the people of the land, even the children of Heth,” and from “Ephron the Hittite.” HBS 242.4

Their city “Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.” HBS 243.1

They also founded Jerusalem, for we read, “Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem, Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite;” and it was “the land of the Hittites” that was promised to the children of Israel for an inheritance. HBS 243.2

Esau married “Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.” HBS 243.3

Ahimelech the Hittite and Uriah the Hittite were among the followers of King David. HBS 243.4

Toi, king of Hamath, a Hittite city, sent his son Joram with a present of “vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass; which also King David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued.” [p. 17] HBS 243.5

Solomon had horses and chariots brought out of Egypt for the kings of the Hittites; and “he loved many strange women,” among them “women of the Hittites.” Thus he disobeyed all the three commandments given to those who should be “set king” over Israel. “He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, ... neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” HBS 243.6

“As for all the people that were left of the Hittites and (other nations) which were not of Israel, ... them did Solomon make to pay tribute.” HBS 243.7

The incident related in 2 Kings 7 shows that even later the Hittites were a powerful people, for when the Syrians besieged Samaria and the Lord interfered in the behalf of Israel, he “made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians to come upon us.” The Hittites and the Egyptians are thus put on an equality, and the Syrians were so smitten with terror that they fled precipitately. [p. 18]-“The Bible and the British Museum,” Ada R. Habershon, pp. 16-18. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. HBS 243.8

Holy Roman Empire, Meaning of.—The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the empire of Charles; and it rested (as will be shown in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of a. d. 800. But a revival is always more or less a revolution: the one hundred and fifty years that had passed since the death of Charles had brought with them changes which made Otto’s position in Germany and Europe less commanding and less autocratic than his predecessor’s. With narrower geographical limits, his empire had a less plausible claim to be the heir of Rome’s universal dominion; and there were also differences in its inner character and structure sufficient to justify us in considering Otto (as he is usually considered by his countrymen) not a mere successor after an interregnum, but rather a second founder of the imperial throne in the West.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., p. 80. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. HBS 243.9

Holy Roman Empire, Charlemagne.—Charlemagne, or Charles the Great (Latin. Carolus Magnus), founder of the Holy Roman Empire, was the son of Pepin, the first of the Carolingian line of Frankish kings, and grandson of Charles Martel, the powerful mayor of the palace under the last Merovingian king. He was born c. 742, perhaps at Aachen or Ingelheim; died at Aachen, Jan. 28, 814. With his father and younger brother, Karlman, he was anointed king of the Franks by Pope Stephen II in 754. He ruled jointly with Karlman after Pepin’s death in 768, and alone after Karlman’s death in 771. He was crowned emperor of the Romans at Rome by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800. In both civil and ecclesiastical matters Charlemagne carried out with consummate ability the policy of his father.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Charlemagne,” p. 13. HBS 243.10

Holy Roman Empire, Duration of.—The year 888 is the birth year of modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, stood distinct as three separate units, with Burgundy and Lorraine as debatable lands, as they were destined to remain for centuries to come. If the conception of empire was still to survive, the Pope must ultimately invite the ruler of the strongest of these three units to assume the imperial crown; and this was what happened when in 962 Pope John XII invited Otto I of Germany to renew once more the Roman Empire. As the imperial strength of the whole Frankish tribe had given them the empire in 800, so did the national strength of the East Frankish kingdom, now resting indeed on a Saxon rather than a Frankish basis, bring the empire to its ruler in 962.... Begun in 952, the acquisition was completed ten years later; and all the conditions were now present for Otto’s assumption of the imperial throne. He was crowned by John XII on Candlemas Day 962, and thus was begun the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted henceforth with a continuous life until 1806.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. IX, art. “Empire,” pp. 351, 352, 11th ed. HBS 244.1

Holy Roman Empire, Papal Idea of.—As God, in the midst of the celestial hierarchy, ruled blessed spirits in Paradise, so the Pope, his vicar, raised above priests, bishops, metropolitans, reigned over the souls of mortal men below. But as God is Lord of earth as well as of heaven, so must he (the Imperator calestis) be represented by a second earthly viceroy, the emperor (Imperator terrenus), whose authority shall be of and for this present life. And as in this present world the soul cannot act save through the body, while yet the body is no more than an instrument and means for the soul’s manifestation, so must there be a rule and care of men’s bodies as well as of their souls, yet subordinated always to the well-being of that which is the purer and the more enduring. It is under the emblem of soul and body that the relation of the papal and imperial power is presented to us throughout the Middle Ages.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., pp. 104, 105. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. HBS 244.2

Holy Roman Empire, The Double Aspect of.—Thus the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality; manifesting itself in a mystic dualism which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. As divine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom souls have been intrusted; as human and temporal, the emperor, commissioned to rule men’s bodies and acts.—Id., pp. 106, 107. HBS 244.3

Holy Roman Empire, Two Vicars in.—The German king was the emperor, the medieval head of the Holy Roman Empire, the “king of the Romans.” Some idea of what underlay the thought and its expression may be had when one reads across Albert Dürer’s portrait of Maximilian, “Imperator Casar Divus Maximilianus Pius Felix Augustus,” just as if he had been Trajan or Constantine. The phrase carries us back to the times when the Teutonic tribes swept down on the Roman possessions in Western Europe and took possession of them. They were barbarians with an unalterable reverence for the wider civilization of the great empire which they had conquered. They crept into the shell of the great empire and tried to assimilate its jurisprudence and its religion. HBS 244.4

Hence it came to pass, in the earlier Middle Ages, as Mr. Freeman says, “The two great powers in Western Europe were the church and the empire, and the center of each, in imagination at least, was Rome. Both of these went on through the settlements of the German nations, and both in a manner drew new powers from the change of things. Men believed more than ever that Rome was the lawful and natural center of the world. For it was held that there were of divine right two vicars of God upon earth, the Roman emperor, his vicar in temporal things, and the Roman bishop, his vicar in spiritual things.” This belief did not interfere with the existence either of separate commonwealths, principalities, or of national churches. But it was held that the Roman emperor, who was the lord of the world, was of right the head of all temporal states, and the Roman bishop, the Pope, was the head of all the churches.—“A History of the Reformation,” Thomas M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., pp. 31, 32. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906. HBS 245.1

Note.—There is in the Church of the Lateran at Rome a ninth-century mosaic in which Pope Leo III and the emperor Charlemagne are represented as kneeling at the feet of St. Peter, the Pope on Peter’s right hand, the emperor on his left, in which position the saint gives to Leo the stole of the bishop, signifying spiritual power, and to Charlemagne the banner of Rome, the symbol of temporal or political power. For a printed miniature of this noted work of art, see Myers’ “Mediaval and Modern History,” edition 1905, p. 112.—Eds. HBS 245.2

Holy Roman Empire, A Turning Point in Medieval History.—This alliance between the most powerful representative of the Germanic world and the leader of Roman Christendom in the West, was one of the most eventful coalitions in the history of Europe. It was the event upon which all medieval history turned. It created a new political organization in Western Europe with the Pope and German emperor at the head. For centuries, it affected every institution in Western Europe. After Pepin, each new pope sent a delegation with the key and flag of Rome and the key of St. Peter’s tomb to the Frankish rulers for confirmation of the election and to give the king the oath of allegiance. Thus, the strongest Western king assumed the same prerogative over the church which the Eastern emperor had exercised.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 306, 307. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909. HBS 245.3

Holy Roman Empire, Its Influence upon the Relation Between Church and State.—While the idea of a holy empire was influencing both the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of society, it did not fail to affect the mutual relations of the two. Though it may seem paradoxical to say so, that idea, in itself so grand and inspiring, could only be realized as long as it was imperfect: two rival authorities intrenching on each other’s province could only exist side by side when the reins of all authority hung loosely. But when society became more settled and better regulated, one of the two rival powers must stand, and the other must fall. The idea itself was clung to with extreme tenacity for more than two centuries, until men had come to perceive that the popes, by encroaching on civil matters, were undermining the foundations of all settled political government. When Philip of France wrote to Boniface VIII, “Render to Casar the things that are Casar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” he exposed the untenableness of the idea of the ecclesiastical state; but before that blow was dealt it had given rise to many an internal struggle. HBS 245.4

Such was that struggle in which the two heads of the holy empire, the Pope and the emperor, were brought into collision with each other. The religious character of the emperor gave him a religious sanction for interfering in matters connected with the Papacy, and thus popes in the imperial interests were raised up to dispute the see of Rome with popes in the Roman interest. On the other hand, the Pope, owing to his relations to the world, had reasonable grounds for interfering in the affairs of the empire, and on more than one occasion set up a rival emperor, when his claims to authority had been denied by those in power. HBS 246.1

For more than a century-from the decree of Nicolas II to the decree of Alexander III-the Papacy was disturbed by antipopes, Honorius II, Clement III, Gregory VIII, Victor IV, Paschal III being set up and supported by the emperors Henry IV, Henry V, and Frederic Barbarossa. For nearly two centuries-from the time of Henry IV to the fall of the House of Hohenstaufen-the empire was distracted by rival emperors, Rudolph of Swabia, Conrad and Henry, Henry Raspe, William of Holland-emperors whom the popes had approved, and whom they had put forward in their own interests. The antipopes and the rival emperors were counterparts to each other. Both were a consequence which might have been easily anticipated from the attempt to realize the idea of the holy empire.—“The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 300-302. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. HBS 246.2

Humanists, Equivalent of Classicists in Luther’s Time.—The exact point in time when the term “Humanist” was first adopted, escapes our knowledge. It is, however, quite certain that Italy and the readoption of Latin letters as the staple of human culture were responsible for the name of Humanists. Litera humaniores was an expression coined in conscious contrast, at the beginning of the movement, into current medieval learning, to the end that these “letters,” i. e., substantially the classic literature of Rome and the imitation and reproduction of its literary forms in the new learning, might stand by themselves as over against the Litera sacra of scholasticism. In the time of Ariosto, Erasmus, and Luther’s beginnings, the term umanista was in effect an equivalent to the terms “classicist” or “classical scholar.” ... HBS 246.3

Petrarch is the pathfinder as well as the exemplar of the new movement. He idealized the classical world, he read into such Latin letters as he had, or extracted as he could, profound and surpassing verities. His classicist consciousness and his Christian consciousness are revealed in his writings like two streams that do not intermingle though they flow in the same bed. The experiences of life constantly evoke in him classic parallels, reminiscences, associations. [p. 401] ... HBS 246.4

The Italian Humanists were not concerned in the reformatory movements of the fifteenth century. They drifted into a palpable paganism or semipaganism, curiously illustrated in the verse, e. g., of Politian, especially his Greek verse, and of him even the lax Giovio writes; “He was a man of unseemly morals.” They all more or less emphasized “vera virtus,” by which they meant “true excellence,” the self-wrought development of human faculties and powers. Still they knew how to maintain friendly relations with those higher clerics who had resources with which to patronize the new learning.... As they greatly exceeded the corruption of the clergy in their own conduct, they could not take any practical interest in any spiritual or theological reformation.... At best a mild deism or pantheism may be perceived in their more serious writings.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. V, art. “Humanism,” pp. 401, 402. HBS 246.5