Handbook for Bible Students

“T” Entries

Talmud.—Talmud (úöîaa): Name of two works which have been preserved to posterity as the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the amoraic period, which extended from the third to the fifth century c. e. [Common Era]. One of these compilations is entitled “Talmud Yerushalmi” (Jerusalem Talmud), and the other “Talmud Babli” (Babylonian Talmud). Used alone, the word “Talmud” generally denotes “Talmud Babli,” but it frequently serves as a generic designation for an entire body of literature, since the Talmud marks the culmination of the writings of Jewish tradition, of which it is, from a historical point of view, the most important production.—The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Talmud,” p. 1. HBS 470.13

Talmud, Value of.—For both Christians and Jews the Talmud is of value for the following reasons: (1) On account of the language, Hebrew being used in many parts of the Talmud (especially in Haggadic pieces), Palestinian Aramaic in the Palestinian Talmud, Eastern Aramaic in the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud also contains words of Babylonian and Persian origin; (2) for folklore, history, geography, natural and medical science, jurisprudence, archeology, and the understanding of the Old Testament. For Christians especially the Talmud contains very much which may help the understanding of the New Testament. [p. 2905] ... HBS 470.14

The Palestinian Talmud.-Another name, Talmudh Yerushalmî (“Jerusalem Talmud”), is also old, but not accurate. The Palestinian Talmud gives the discussions of the Palestinian Amoraim, teaching from the third century a. d. until the beginning of the fifth, especially in the schools or academies of Tiberias, Casarea, and Sepphoris.... HBS 471.1

The Babylonian Talmud.-The Babylonian Talmud is later and more voluminous than the Palestinian Talmud, and is a higher authority for the Jews.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. V, art. “Talmud,” pp. 2905, 2906. HBS 471.2

Talmud, The Oral Law.—Talmud (i. e., doctrine, from the Hebrew word “to learn”) is a large collection of writings, containing a full account of the civil and religious laws of the Jews. It was a fundamental principle of the Pharisees, common to them with all orthodox modern Jews, that by the side of the written law, regarded as a summary of the principles and general laws of the Hebrew people, there was an oral law, to complete and to explain the written law. It was an article of faith that in the Pentateuch there was no precept, and no regulation, ceremonial, doctrinal, or legal, of which God had not given to Moses all explanations necessary for their application, with the order to transmit them by word of mouth. The classical passage in the Mishna on this subject is the following: “Moses received the (oral) law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue.” This oral law, with the numerous commentaries upon it, forms the Talmud. It consists of two parts, the Mishna and Gamara. HBS 471.3

1. The Mishna, or “second law,” which contains a compendium of the whole ritual law, was reduced to writing in its present form by Rabbi Jehuda the Holy, a Jew of great wealth and influence, who flourished in the second century of the Christian era. Viewed as a whole, the precepts in the Mishna treated men like children, formalizing and defining the minutest particulars of ritual observances. The expressions of “bondage,” of “weak and beggarly elements,” and of “burdens too heavy for men to bear,” faithfully represent the impression produced by their multiplicity. The Mishna is very concisely written, and requires notes. HBS 471.4

2. This circumstance led to the commentaries called Gemara (i. e., supplement, completion), which form the second part of the Talmud, and which are very commonly meant when the word “Talmud” is used by itself. There are two Gemaras: one of Jerusalem, in which there is said to be no passage which can be proved to be later than the first half of the fourth century; and the other of Babylon, completed about 500 a. d. The latter is the more important and by far the longer.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., pp. 672, 673, Teacher’s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. HBS 471.5

Tammuz, Worship of.—Adonis, or Tammuz, which was probably his true name, was a god especially worshiped at Byblus. He seems to have represented nature in its alternate decline and revival, whence the myth spoke of his death and restoration to life; the river of Byblus was regarded as annually reddened with his blood; and once a year, at the time of the summer solstice, the women of Phonicia and Syria generally “wept for Tammuz.” Extravagant sorrow was followed after an interval by wild rejoicings in honor of his restoration to life; and the excitement attendant on these alternations of joy and woe led on by almost necessary consequence, with a people of such a temperament as the Syrians, to unbridled license and excess. The rites of Aphaca, where Adonis had his chief temple, were openly immoral, and when they were finally put down, exhibited every species of abomination characteristic of the worst forms of heathenism.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 109. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 471.6

Targum.—Targum signifies, in general, any version or explanation; but this appellation is more particularly restricted to the versions or paraphrases of the Old Testament, executed in the East Aramaan or Chaldee dialect, as it is usually called. These Targums are termed paraphrases or expositions, because they are rather comments and explications, than literal translations of the text: they are written in the Chaldee tongue, which became familiar to the Jews after the time of their captivity in Babylon, and was more known to them than the Hebrew itself; so that when the law was “read in the synagogue every Sabbath day,” in pure Biblical Hebrew, an explanation was subjoined to it in Chaldee, in order to render it intelligible to the people, who had but an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew language. This practice, as already observed, originated with Ezra: as there are no traces of any written Targums prior to those of Onkelos and Jonathan, who are supposed to have lived about the time of our Saviour, it is highly probable that these paraphrases were at first merely oral; that, subsequently, the ordinary glosses on the more difficult passages were committed to writing; and that, as the Jews were bound by an ordinance of their elders to possess a copy of the law, these glosses were either afterward collected together and deficiencies in them supplied, or new and connected paraphrases were formed. HBS 472.1

There are at present extant ten paraphrases on different parts of the Old Testament, three of which comprise the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses: 1. The Targum of Onkelos; 2. That falsely ascribed to Jonathan, and usually cited as the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan; and, 3. The Jerusalem Targum; 4. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, (i. e., the son of Uzziel) on the Prophets; 5. The Targum of Rabbi Joseph the blind, or one-eyed, on the Hagiographa; 6. An anonymous Targum on the five Megilloth, or books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah; 7, 8, 9. Three Targums on the book of Esther; and, 10. A Targum or paraphrase on the two books of Chronicles. These Targums, taken together, form a continued paraphrase on the Old Testament, with the exception of the books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (anciently reputed to be part of Ezra); which being for the most part written in Chaldee, it has been conjectured that no paraphrases were written on them, as being unnecessary, though Dr. Prideaux is of the opinion that Targums were composed on these books also, which have perished in the lapse of ages.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 198, 199. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 472.2

Targum.—After the exile, Aramaic became the language of trade and commerce in Palestine, and a considerable number of the Jews after a time were more familiar with it than with the sacred tongue. Hence the practice arose of accompanying the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues by an interpretation in the popular Aramaic. Nehemiah 8:8 is often incorrectly adduced in proof of this practice. For the Jewish theologians of the Middle Ages were anxious to cite, Scripture authority for all their arrangements and institutions, even for those which came into existence subsequent to the Persian period, just as Christian divines have similarly attempted to establish dogmas and practices of later development from passages of the New Testament, which, rightly understood, have no such meaning. Luke 4:17 ff. is often adduced to prove that the practice of interpreting the Scriptures in Aramaic was at least not universal in the time of our Lord. That practice may, however, then have been in use in parts of the country, and it was firmly established as a general custom before the great insurrection in the days of Hadrian. The Aramaic paraphrase sometimes adhered closely to the original text, but at other times was embellished with additions of various kinds. The reader of the Law and the Prophets in reading was forbidden to add anything to the sacred text, or to repeat any text from memory. He was directed when reading strictly to keep his eyes on the words. The meturgeman, or translator, was, on the other hand, forbidden to make any use whatever of manuscript, but was wholly to depend on memory. [pp. 40, 41] ... HBS 472.3

All “interpretations”-and the word “Targum” ([Hebrew word]) properly signifies such-have a tendency, whether more or less literal, in the process of time to become uniform. The interpreters among the Jews became in time a sort of guild. While, therefore, Böhl has gone too far in maintaining that there was in existence in our Lord’s time an Aramaic translation or paraphrase of the Scriptures, which was cited by New Testament writers, it is not improbable that large portions of the Scripture in Aramaic were early committed to writing. [p. 42] ... HBS 473.1

The theology set forth in the Targums proves, as Strack observes, their great antiquity. None, however, of the Targums now known are of higher antiquity than the third or fourth century after Christ. But they are based to a large extent upon similar works of a much higher antiquity. HBS 473.2

The extant Targums are: HBS 473.3

1. The Targum of Onkelos ([Hebrew word]), which is the most literal, and comprehends the entire Pentateuch. It is uncertain who this Onkelos was, or at what time he lived. The Onkelos spoken of in the Talmud as contemporary with Gamaliel, and whose translations are there mentioned, can be identified with Aquila ([Hebrew word]), the Greek translator. Geiger is probably correct in maintaining that the Targum which adhered most literally to the Hebrew text was called that of Onkelos, not because it was edited by him, but as indicating that it was executed with something like the same literality for which Aquila’s Greek version was remarkable. The name describes the nature of the work, and not the author. The Targum of Onkelos does not appear to have been the work of a single author or editor, but the production of a school. In its present shape it probably originated in Babylon, and it has often been questioned whether that Targum is as early as the older portions of the two Targums next to be mentioned. HBS 473.4

2. The Targum of Jerusalem, I, embraces the Pentateuch, and is commonly known as the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, owing to the fact that it was incorrectly ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, the pupil of Hillel.... In its present form it is probably not older than the seventh century. HBS 473.5

3. The Targum of Jerusalem, II, also termed the Fragmentary Targum, embraces only portions of the Pentateuch. It is older than the former, and probably a production of the Palestinian school. It contains more of an Haggadic, 1. e., homiletic nature. This Targum is often cited in the Jerusalem Talmud and in the Midrash Rabba. HBS 473.6

4. The Targum of Jonathan embraces the Prophets. This paraphrase is generally ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who, according to the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah, 3a), composed a Targum on the Prophets. Passages, however, of this Targum are ascribed in the Talmud to a later scholar, R. Joseph bar Chiyyah (died 333), who may have revised and re-edited the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel.... It is likely that this Targum also was the product of a school of interpreters, and not the work of any single author. HBS 474.1

5. The Targums on the Hagiographa were composed by different authors, and are more modern. The authors of those paraphrases probably worked also on the lines of former translators. No Targum. is extant on the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, while there are two Targums on the book of Esther. According to Nöldeke, the Targum on the Proverbs is a Jewish working-up of the Syriac (Peshitto) translation. The same might also be affirmed of the Targum on the Psalms, which, from its allusions in the rendering of Psalm 108:11 to Rome and Constantinople as the two capitals of the world, has been considered to have been composed prior to a. d. 476; while, on the other hand, the references to the Hungarians in Psalm 83:7 point to the ninth century. Such phenomena seem to show that the translation of the Psalms was the work of very different periods. HBS 474.2

6. Besides the above, a few fragments are extant of other Targums on the Prophets, which need here only be alluded to.—“An Introduction to the Old Testament,” Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., Ph. D., pp. 40-45. New York: Thomas Whittaker. HBS 474.3

Targum, Use of.—As an interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Bible, the Targum had its place both in the synagogal liturgy and in Biblical instruction; while the reading of the Bible text combined with the Targum in the presence of the congregation assembled for public worship, was an ancient institution which dated from the time of the second temple.—The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Targum,” p. 57. HBS 474.4

Temple, Time of Building of.—Note that the number is ordinal (not cardinal) = the 480th year of some longer and larger period, viz., the 490 years from the exodus to the dedication of the temple; the difference of ten years being made up of seven years in building (1 Kings 6:38) and three years in furnishing. Dedicated not in seventh year, for completion took place in the eighth month of one year (v. 38), and the dedication in the seventh month of another (8:2). The chronological period was 40 years in wilderness + 450 years under judges + 40 years of Saul + 40 years of David + 3 years of Solomon (v. 1) = 573 (from 1490-917). The mystical period of 480 years is obtained by deducting the period of 93 years, when Israel’s national position was in abeyance. Thus: 8 (Judges 3:8) + 18 (Judges 3:14) + 20 (Judges 4:3) + 7 (Judges 6:1) + 40 (Judges 13:1) = 93. (N. B.—The eighteen years of Judges 10:7, 9, was local and beyond Jordan. It did not affect the national position.) Hence 573-93 = 480 (from 873-93).—“The Companion Bible,” Part II, “Joshua to Job,” p. 456. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 474.5

Temple of Solomon, Site of.—It is proved, I think, without doubt, that the “Dome of the Rock,” or the Mosque of Omar, covers the true site of Solomon’s temple. Able men have written exhaustive books to endeavor to prove that the site was elsewhere; for instance, as to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. But most of these books were written before the excavation works of Sir Charles Warren, though it is true of the late Mr. Fergusson, that he held his views to the last. No evidence contrary to his opinion had any effect upon him; but surely the stubborn belief of an able man, formed, be it remembered, before the spade and pick revealed so much of old Jerusalem, cannot outweigh facts. So we must take it for proved that this “Dome of the Rock” and the “Haram” inclosure really cover the site of Solomon’s temple. “The plateau is about 1,500 feet from north to south, 900 feet from east to west, sustained by a massive wall rising on the exterior from 50 to 80 feet above the present level of the ground. The general level of this plateau is about 2,420 feet; but toward the east at the Golden Gate, it is not filled up to this level by some twenty feet or so.” HBS 474.6

“Almost in the center of this plateau is an irregular four-sided paved platform, rising some sixteen feet above the general level of the plateau, and above the center of this platform the sacred rock crops out, over which is built the celebrated Dome of the Rock. There is no question but that within the present noble sanctuary the temple of Herod once stood, and that some part of the remaining wall is on the site of, or actually is, a portion of the old wall of the outer court.” HBS 475.1

It is proved that the Holy City is built upon a series of rocky spurs, and that in early days the site of Jerusalem was a series of rocky slopes; therefore, when we get to the rock, we see it just as it was before the city was built. The rock levels examined by means of shafts and tunnels show that the ridge of rock at the northeast angle is 162 feet below the sacred rock; at the northwest angle, 150 feet below this same rock; southwest angle, 163 feet. The temple was not placed in a hole; it was to be a conspicuous building-the building, in short, of Jerusalem. So it must have stood on this platform which was raised by means of walls, arches, the spaces being used as storerooms, secret passages, underground cisterns to hold water, to store both the spring water and the rain water-one cistern so large that it is called the “underground sea.” This platform was raised and carried across to the highest point of rock, which, remember, was the threshing floor of Araunah, the Jebusite, by which “floor” the angel’s foot had stayed. HBS 475.2

The lower ridge of rock having been selected, black mould was cut away at an angle. In this black mould no stone chippings were found, but fragments of potsherds. The mould varied in depth from two feet to eight or ten feet. The rock in which the foundation stones stand is found to be very soft. This rock was cut through to the extent of two feet, to insure that the prepared stone had a secure position. All these details have been proved by the shafts dug by Sir Charles Warren-shafts which varied in depth from 85 to 120 feet. It is curious to notice that at the southeast angle a hole was found cut in the natural rock. This hole was only one foot across and one foot deep. In the hole a little earthenware jar was found standing upright. For what purpose it was so placed, who can tell? It may have contained the oil to consecrate the corner-stone, or it may only have been a quaint fancy of some Phonician workman. Anyhow, it was discovered after an interval of 3,000 years. Now we note the Bible passage, “that no tool was heard” during the erection of the house of God. The absence of stone chippings proves that this statement is true. Any one who has watched the erection of a house will have noticed the constant clang of the iron tools, and the heaps of brick or stone debris lying close to the foundation. But where was the stone prepared? HBS 475.3

Come with me to the Cotton Grotto, which is the modern name of the old quarry. The entrance till lately was near the Damascus Gate, over a rubbish heap; and some feet below the level of the ground you found the opening to the quarry. This opening was accidentally discovered in 1852. The entrance was so small, owing to the rubbish, that it could only be entered by stooping and letting yourself drop downward to the floor. First came a rough floor of earth, and then stones. Quite in the heart of the quarry was found a rude basin or cistern, partly full of water. Huge stones lie scattered about-stones cut thousands of years ago. Masons’ marks abound. From them you can tell the size and shape of the tools these old workers used. The marks are quite fresh, and remind you of those quarries at Assouan, in Egypt. You quite fancy it must be the dinner hour, and that the workmen will return erelong. Some stones still remain which are only partially cut away. From the mass of stone chippings it is quite plain that the stones were “dressed” here. The absence of stone chips near the foundation stones-the black earth being quite free of them-and their presence here, prove to the very hilt the truth of the Bible statemnt. HBS 475.4

And then the red marks! These mysterious letters and marks in red paint sorely puzzled the explorers in the tunnels they drove along the foundation wall. These red marks are Phonician lettering and numerals-instructions, in short, from the master builder to the workmen where to lay each stone; and we can fancy Hiram, the great master mason of the Phonicians, standing on this black earth and seeing that his Sidonian workmen and the subject races of Canaan placed each stone in due order according to his plan. HBS 476.1

Here, again, we have a most wonderful, unlooked-for confirmation of the Bible statement. The Bible says that Phonician builders built the temple. We find, after digging shafts from 85 to 120 feet, that red marks of Phonician meaning are on the foundation stone. Then that “no tool was heard,” and no chips are found. And who that has seen-or, if not seen, realized from description-the size of the stones, the great foundation stone at the southeast angle, will not say that the words “costly stones” is but a true and apt description, and that the words “great stones” is no exaggeration? When we recollect that stones estimated to weigh 100 tons are in the foundation wall, that in length they can be found 38 feet 9 inches, as in the southeast angle, surely we must admit that the account is but sober truth. HBS 476.2

The inquiry may have arisen, Why this great wall? this expenditure of stone, labor, skill? There is one factor we must not overlook. The temple was to be erected over the threshing floor of Araunah. This is imperative; that was a sacred spot, because the angel had stayed his foot there; that must be left. But Eastern threshing floors are always, and were always, at the highest points of the ridge, and so the problem is complicated. They cannot cut down the highest point, and so obtain a large area for the proposed temple. That is impossible; all that remains is to leave the sacred threshing floor intact, and by building this huge wall, arches, and other supports, so get an enlarged area, big enough for the temple and the temple courts. In this way they solved the problem. We can even see how they did it-those Phonician builders. HBS 476.3

And what do we see now on entering the “Dome of the Rock”? I do not propose to describe the richness and beauty of the interior-only the one object for which this mosque was erected; and that is a huge mass of rock untouched, or nearly so, by chisel. Here, undoubtedly, was the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite-a threshing floor probably long before, for the word “Jebusite” is said to mean “threshing-floor people.” From Zion David could look down on this ridge. And it has other memories too, for was not this “Moriah,” that hill on which Abraham offered Isaac? So this unshaped mass of rock has very special sanctity.—“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 277-282, 4th edition. London: Alexander P. Watt, 1891. HBS 476.4

Tiglath-Pileser, Por, Pul.—With Rimmon-nirari the power of the older dynasty of the Assyrian kings came to an end. His successors were scarcely able to defend themselves against the attacks of their neighbors on the north and south; diseases and insurrections broke out in the great cities of the kingdom, and finally, in b. c. 746, there was a rising in Calah; the king either died or was put to death, and before the year was over, in the month of April, b. c. 745, the crown was seized by a military adventurer, named Pul, who assumed the title of Tiglath-Pileser II. Tiglath-Pileser I had been the most famous monarch and most extensive conqueror of the older dynasty, and had reigned over Assyria five centuries previously; by assuming his name, therefore, the usurper wished to show that he intended to emulate his deeds [p. 101] ... HBS 477.1

Two years after his accession (b. c. 743), Tiglath-Pileser II turned his attention to the west. Arpad, now Tel-Erfad, near Aleppo, was the first object of attack. It held out for three years, and did not fall until b. c. 740. But, meanwhile, the kingdom of Hamath had been shattered by the Assyrian arms. Nineteen of its districts were placed under Assyrian governors, and the Assyrian forces made their way as far as the Mediterranean Sea. Azriyahu, or Azariah (Uzziah), the Jewish king, had been the ally of Hamath, and from him also punishment was accordingly exacted. He was compelled to purchase peace by the offer of submission and the payment of tribute. The alliance between Judah and Hamath had been of long standing. David had been the friend of its king Tou, or Toi; and at the beginning of Sargon’s reign the king of Hamath bears a distinctively Jewish name. This is Yahu-bihdi, or, as it is elsewhere written, Ilu-bihdi, where the word ilu, “god,” takes the place of the name of the covenant God of Israel. It is even possible that Yahu-bihdi was a Jew who had been placed on the throne of Hamath by Azariah. At any rate, the alliance between Judah and Hamath explains a passage in 2 Kings 14:28, which has long presented a difficulty. It is now clear that Jeroboam is here stated to have won over Hamath to Israel, though previously it had “been allied with Judah.” But after Jeroboam’s death, Jewish influence must once more have gained an ascendancy among the Hamathites. HBS 477.2

Two years after the fall of Arpad, Tiglath-Pileser was again in the west. On this occasion he held a levée of subject princes, among whom Rezon of Damascus and Menahem of Samaria came to offer their gifts and do homage to their sovereign lord. The tribute which Tiglath-Pileser states that he then received from the Israelitish king was given, according to the book of Kings, to Pul. We may infer from this, therefore, that the Assyrian monarch was still known to the neighboring nations by his original name, and that it was not until later that they became accustomed to the new title he had assumed. The inference is further borne out by the statement of an ancient Greek astronomer, Ptolemy. When speaking of the eclipses which were observed at Babylon, Ptolemy gives a list of Babylonian kings, with the length of their reigns, from the so-called era of Nabonassar in b. c. 747, down to the time of Alexander the Great. In this list, Tiglath-Pileser, after his conquest of Babylon, is named Poros or Por, Por being the Persian form of Pul.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 101-104. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 477.3

Transubstantiation, Decree of.—And because that Christ our Redeemer declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the church of God, and this holy synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 74. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. HBS 478.1

Transubstantiation, Canons Concerning.—Canon I. If any one denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. HBS 478.2

Canon II. If any one saith that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood-the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema. HBS 478.3

Canon III. If any one denieth that, in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema. HBS 478.4

Canon IV. If any one saith that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.—Id., pp. 81, 82. HBS 478.5

Transubstantiation, Roman Catholic Teaching Concerning.— HBS 478.6

20. How does our Lord become present in the eucharist? HBS 478.7

Our Lord becomes present in the eucharist by transubstantiation; i. e., by the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood. HBS 478.8

21. Is it then true that after consecration there is neither bread nor wine on the altar? HBS 478.9

Yes; after consecration nothing remains but the body and blood of Christ. HBS 478.10

22. What remains of the bread and the wine after consecration? HBS 478.11

After consecration nothing remains of them but the species or appearances. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine have been changed into the substance of the body of Jesus Christ and the substance of his blood. HBS 478.12

23. Are the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine annihilated when the host is consecrated? HBS 478.13

No, but they are changed into the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ. If they were annihilated, there would be no change. Now, the church expressly teaches that there is a change. HBS 478.14

24. Is Jesus Christ, whole and entire, present in the eucharist? HBS 478.15

Yes, Jesus Christ, whole and entire, is present under the appearance of bread, as he is also whole and entire under the appearance of wine. HBS 478.16

26. Is Jesus Christ contained whole and entire under each particle of the species of bread and wine, when these species have been divided? HBS 479.1

It is of faith that, if the sacred species be divided into several parts, no matter how great their number, Christ is present, whole and entire, in each particle of the host and in each drop of the precious blood. HBS 479.2

28. Do the eucharistic species retain their natural properties? HBS 479.3

The sacred species have the same properties as their substance had before transubstantiation. In other words, they are sensible, divisible, nutritive, corruptible, and, in a word, susceptible of all those changes of quality which bread and wine undergo. HBS 479.4

29. When do the species cease to be sacramental? HBS 479.5

They cease to be sacramental species when they have become so altered that, if their substances did exist, these substances would no longer be bread and wine. HBS 479.6

30. What then occurs? HBS 479.7

Christ withdraws from the sacrament, and the species return to the ordinary course of nature’s laws. HBS 479.8

33. What worship ought we to pay to Jesus in the tabernacle? HBS 479.9

It is of faith, as defined by the Council of Trent, that Jesus in the tabernacle should be adored with a worship of latria [“that which is given to God alone”]. HBS 479.10

34. Should we adore nothing but Christ present under the species? HBS 479.11

We should adore the entire sacrament, which contains both our Lord and the consecrated species.—“Manual of Christian Doctrine,” by a seminary professor (R. C.), pp. 419-422. Philadelphia: John Joseph McVey, 1914. HBS 479.12

Transubstantiation, Father of the Doctrine of.—The doctrine of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, as enunciated by Pope Innocent III, was dogmatically propounded and proclaimed for the first time in the history of Christianity in the year 831, as far as any existing records show, by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corbey; and this, because he became the first pronounced apologist and exponent of an interpretation of the Lord’s Supper which already existed in the minds of many Christian believers, makes him virtually the father of the doctrine of transubstantiation.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 102. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 479.13

Transubstantiation, First Mention of.—Up to the time of Walafridus Strabo (who wrote about a. d. 840), no change of substance was admitted in the eucharist. For he writes plainly: “Christ delivered his body and blood to the disciples in the substance of bread and wine.” The very first writer (it is believed) who used the barbarous term adopted at Trent was Stephanus Eduensis, who flourished a. d. 950, and paraphrased the words of our Lord-“Panem quem accepi in corpus meum transubstantiavi [The bread which I have taken I have changed into my body].”-“Romanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,” Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, M. A., p. 146. London: The Religious Tract Society. HBS 479.14

Transubstantiation, A Late Doctrine.—The doctrine of the change of elements in the Lord’s Supper, as it was determined in opposition to Berengarius, was by no means universally received in the twelfth century.... It received, under Innocent III, its first confirmation by a general council; nevertheless reason long pulled at this new chain; and thus even after this confirmation a manifold controversy rose up on this point. The higher view of this sacrament caused many alterations in the celebration. In order to remove all danger of profanation, the communion of children was discontinued. In the administration of the cup more anxious solicitude was shown to provide against spilling, and in the twelfth century the custom began in different places of withholding it altogether from the laity. However, this withholding of the cup, although it was much extended, especially after the time of Thomas and Bonaventura, was not yet in this period of time a universal custom in the church. Further, it was the practice in the thirteenth century to adore the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements; and Urban IV even appointed in the year 1264, that a festival which had risen up in the diocese of Liége, dedicated solely to the honor of the consecrated host (the festum corporis Domini [the feast of the Lord’s body]) should be observed by the whole church. After the death of this Pope the new festival was discontinued; but afterward in the year 1311, it was established forever in the church by Clement V. HBS 479.15

Since, down to this time, the conception of a sacrament had been very fluctuating, a more positive definition of the word and the enumeration of seven sacraments, was introduced by Hugo de St. Victor, and ratified by Peter Lombard, and generally established; although at first a significant distinction was recognized among them, with regard to their institution as well as their importance. Thomas Aquinas brought the sacramental system of the church to its consummation.—“A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,” Dr. John C. L. Gieseler, Vol. III, pp. 313-329. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1853. HBS 480.1

Transubstantiation, In Medieval Times.—The doctrine of tran-substantiation in which it was believed that the miracle of the incarnation was continually repeated and through which the dignity of the priesthood by whom the miracle was performed reached its culmination, was so much the center of the medieval religious system that it was the least doubted of any point. Aquinas endeavored to prove its necessity; either Christ must be present by a change of place, or since this is not admissible, by transubstantiation. Only thus we can conceive of a real presence of Christ, and since the host is adored, without transubstantiation adoration would be paid to a created thing. We do not find the necessity of this doctrine so absolutely maintained by Duns Scotus. In his judgment the language of the Bible might be understood to mean something else than transubstantiation. For this meaning he gives no other reason than the decision of the church as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, by which we must abide.—“Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas,” Dr. Augustus Neander, translated by J. E. Ryland, M. A., Vol. II, p. 591. London: George Bell and Sons, 1882. HBS 480.2

Transubstantiation, Dogma of, Established in 1215.—Before the Lateran Council [of 1215] transubstantiation was not a dogma of faith.—John Duns Scotus (R. C.), quoted by Bellarmine in his treatise, “On the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” book 3, chap. 23. HBS 480.3

Transubstantiation, Catechism of Trent on.—There are three things most deserving of admiration and veneration, which the Catholic faith unhesitatingly believes and confesses to be accomplished in this sacrament by the words of consecration. The first is, that the true body of Christ the Lord, the very same that was born of the Virgin, and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this sacrament; the second, that, however alien to, and remote from, the senses it may seem, no substance of the elements remains therein; the third, which is an easy inference from the two preceding, although the words of consecration express it principally, that the accidents which are discerned by the eyes, or perceived by the other senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see; they, however, inhere in no substance, but exist by themselves; whereas, the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the very body and blood of the Lord, that the substance of bread and wine altogether ceases to exist.—“Catechism of the Council of Trent,” translated by J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C.), p. 200. Dublin: James Duffy, Sons & Co. HBS 480.4

Note.—This is the only authoritative catechism issued by direction of a Roman council.—Eds. HBS 481.1

Let pastors ... first of all, teach them [“the faithful”] that the mind and understanding must, as much as possible, be withdrawn from the dominion of the senses; for, were the faithful to persuade themselves that in this sacrament is contained nothing but what they perceive by the senses, they must be led into the greatest impiety, when, discerning by the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, nothing else but the appearance of bread and wine, they would come to the conclusion that in the sacrament there is only bread and wine. Care must, therefore, be taken that the minds of the faithful be withdrawn, as much as possible, from the judgment of the senses.—Ibid. HBS 481.2

Transubstantiation, The Evident Meaning of the Words, This is My Body.”—There is no figure more usual in every language than that whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing signified.... As this is an ordinary figure in common speech, so it is peculiarly so in the language of Scripture. In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there are either no words which express to mean, signify, or represent, or at least such words are of exceedingly rare occurrence. Thus, “The seven kine are [i. e., represent] seven years.” Genesis 41:26. “This is [represents] the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.” “The ten horns are [signify] ten kings.” Daniel 7:24. “That rock was [represented] Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4. We also find this idiom running through the Greek language. Thus, “The seven stars are [represent] the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are [represent] the seven churches.” Revelation 1:20. “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John 15:5. Our Lord did not say, “Hoc est corpus meum,” as he did not speak in the Latin tongue, though so much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate version, as if the original had been in Latin. Now as our Lord spoken in the Chaldaic or Chaldaio-Syriac, he spoke according to the idiom of that language. And any man speaking in that language would say, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” when he intended to convey the meaning that the bread and wine represented the body and blood of Christ.—“Delineation of Roman Catholicism,” Rev. Charles Elliott, D. D., Vol. I, book 2, chap. 4, pp. 241, 242. New York: George Lane, 1841. HBS 481.3

Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Host.—Catholics firmly hold that in the sacrament of the altar Christ is truly present, and indeed in such a way that Almighty God, who was pleased at Cana, in Galilee, to convert water into wine, changes the inward substance of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. We therefore adore the Saviour mysteriously present in the sacrament.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 235, 236, 5th edition. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. HBS 481.4

Transubstantiation, Not Proved by Scripture.—Secondly, he [Scotus] says that there is not any passage of Scripture so clear that, apart from the declaration of the church, it plainly compels one to admit transubstantiation. And this is not at all improbable. For even though the scripture which we have cited above seems to us so clear that it can compel any man who is not refractory [to believe this doctrine], nevertheless it so happens that it can be reasonably doubted, since most learned and acute men, such as was Scotus before all, think the contrary.—Bell., “De Sacramento Eucharistia,” lib. iii. cap. xxiii [Bellarmine (R. C.), “On the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” book 3, chap. 23]. HBS 481.5