427
difficulties in the later explanations of the
words un11 ~OO. But I venture to think that the
explanationoffered above removes the difficulties
and makes the meaning of 1Lnv h1LL perfectly clear.
SAMUEL DAICHES.
Jews’ College, London.
’The Mote and the Beam’ and
’The Bates of Hades.’
IN the November number of THE EXPOSITORY
TIMES (p. 91), Dean Webster attempts to revive
Furrer’s proposal that eye in Mt 73~5 Lk 641. ~ is
=
a mistake for the household well. Furrer supported
his emendation thus : ‘ In all Semitic languages
the word eye at the same time signifies well, because
its fundamental idea is that of glimmering surface.’
Although it is true that the Aramaic sounds m’’t?
are used to denote both eye and well, it is un-
certain whether we are dealing with homonyms
from two distinct roots, or with one word in both
a literal and metaphorical use. But if they are
identical the two uses are related, not through
’ glimmering surface,’ but through ’ fount of water.’
For MT means well in the sense of spring, not of
cistern-German QueUe, not Brunnen. This dis-
tinction is fatal to Furrer’s reconstruction of the
origin of the saying.
Incidentally, however, Dr. Webster supports
another emendation suggested by Dr. Bernard in
his Studia Sacra. In an article onThe Gates of
Hades ’ (previously printed in the Expositor, June
i9i6-and cf. Peake’s Commentary, ad loc.), he
suggested that all would be clear in Mt i618 if instead
of gates we had some word meaning waters or jloods.
Rejecting the probability of a corruption between
-, yai and 7rvaac, he adduced two Semitic words
which (he claimed) had the required sense and
might be misinterpreted to mean gates and so be
mistranslated 7r~XaL.
In Dn 82 occurs the phrase 1,~;m 5sat~ ~y’run ’W1
‘ and I was by the river Ulai ’ (E.VV.). The word
translated river (73~) recurs only in Jer 17~ (as
)41’ ; and cf.73’’,Is 3025 q.44). In Daniel apparently
Symmachus alone of ancient Greek translators
understood the word ; the LXX confused it with
the Aramaic Nt~3N, (city-)gate ; and Bernard sup-
posed that the same misapprehension might under-
lie our present Gospel text. He was inclined to
admit that it is hazardous to assume a common use
of this rarely attested word in the imperfectly
known Aramaic of the first century (the reverse
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on July 13, 2015
two confusion would at least have proved that it was
familiar to the translator). But he overlooked a
point of much greater importance-the real mean-
ing of the word. It signifies not a natural stream
of water (still less the torrent or flood which Bernard
desiderated), but conduit or canal, a species of
waterway of which the Ulai was a notable example.
The Semitic root means lead, bring, and occurs
frequently in Akkadian in connexion with the
irrigation system. Bernard adduces abundant
evidence of the ancient conceptions of the over-
whelming floods of Hades ; but where do we hear of
its canals ?
Alternatively, Bernard pointed out that in Is 282
several MSS and editions mistakenly read ~tw~ gate,
for w~h storm ; and he suggested that the same
‘ trifling blunder of eyesight’ led to the intro-
duction of the word gates in Mt 16.
Apart from the improbability of its being a
question of eyesight (the diacritical point is probably
relatively late, and the blunder would therefore be
one of hearing or interpretation), this remedy has
two great weaknesses. First, we must not work
with both a Hebrew and an Aramaic ‘ original ’ for
the Gospels ; with all their near kinship, these
languages are distinct. Now Hebrew is a mixed
language within which we can distinguish at least
two layers - an older akin to Canaanite and
Akkadian, and a younger in closer connexion with
the later Semitic dialects including Aramaic. l~,
storm, belongs to the earlier, non-Aramiac stratum ;
it corresponds with the Assyrian ~anu, and is else-
where only found in New Hebrew. To assume
its presence in Matthew would almost necessitate
the supposition of a Hebrew original.
Secondly, although the ‘ root ’ is used of a storm
at sea in Jonah nl, its meaning is a storm, not of
waters, but of wind. It belongs to a group of words
apparently formed from an original biliteral Dar
or Sar which appears in more than a score of Hebrew
’
roots,’ always with the ground-meaning of move
round, surround, enclose-e.g., 1t~N, gird, encompass ;
1Y.n, suyround ; ~~~, circle, ball, etc. (For internal
triliteralization ’ with P, cf. Y&dquo;vw with ti&dquo;ti1, ~n,
n~-’) etc., all shatter, crush, from the biliteral Ras ;
=
and ~1’v’~, split, divide, with 2U&dquo;~n, think, from
(?)
Shab, split, discern, etc. ; and notice ,-n-o, go round
about, i1;.-IJ-o, Ps 914, buckler, and NT~-T:1, corselet.)
The meaning of ,y1:’ is thus a whirling storm, or
cyclone-turbo (Akkadian s‘aru means wind). To
connect such a word with the floods of the under-
world is highly precarious.
The hypothesis of an Aramaic original is a
valuable adjunct to the exegesis of the Gospels ;
428
but it is a dangerous weapon in the hands of those
who have won their renown in other fields of scholar-
ship. P. L. HEDLEY.
Great Meols, Cheshire.
The Decree of Acts xv.
THE Decree of Acts (i52°~ ~ 2125) is puzzling, as
every one knows. Here appears to be a strange
mingling of the ethical, and the legal or ceremonial ;
of principle and temporary expedient. Prohibi-
tions regarding food-blood and things strangled-
are strangely bracketed with fundamental sins like
idolatry and fornication.
i. Since the Western Text omits and from
things strangled,’ we may be justified in inter-
preting ‘ blood ’ to mean bloodshed, and so making
the Decree wholly ethical; forbidding murder,
idolatry, and fornication.
2. On the contrary, consistency may be obtained
by finding in the Decree laws of observance only.
Supposing, as Dr. Rendel Harris suggests (Sidelights
on N.T. Research ; d. Bentleii Critica Sacra, Ellis),
a scribe has, in copying, put down TTOPNEIA£
where he should have written XOIPEIAI. Then
‘ fornication ’ is an error for swine’s flesh.’ Thus
the Decree would originally refer to pollutions of
idols, swine’s flesh, things strangled, and blood.
All is plain and simple ; here is a Ritual Decree.
3. But the Decree may not be so simple ; it
may contain just that element which is so his-
torically interesting. As it stands, there are the
two ethical commands and the two ritual com-
mands. But the two ritual commands are really
one, or governed by one consideration ; and that
consideration is truly spiritual, to them. To eat
blood, either as such or in things strangled, was not
to the Jewish Christian a breach of ritual law.
It was the mark of the beast. It was cardinally
pagan. To them all, probably not least to Paul
himself, there was an abiding horror in the thought.
As truly as idolatry or fornication, it led back to
darkness. It was impossible to expect any con-
verted Jew to live in Christian amity with fellow-
worshippers who engaged in so religiously shocking
and indecent a practice.
In short, texts and scribes do not open a way
of understanding here. What is required is an
historical appreciation of the singular significance,
for the life of religion itself, of the blood.
Only the other day I met with interesting con-
firmation of this conclusion. In Christian com-
munities drawn from heathenism, as in West
Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Stockholm University Library on July 13, 2015
.
Africa, the native Christian courts (e.g. the kirk-
session) while dealing severely with coarser sins,
yet reserve their sternest censure for reversion to
idolatrous practices. Taking the oath in a law-
court by drinking the ordeal water, instead of
swearing on the Bible, or fulfilling the old custom
of presenting the chief with game taken in hunting
that he may offer part of it in sacrifice, or at wed-
dings or funerals accepting ancient heathen custom
-all these are the most heinous sins. My informant
emphasizes the extreme freshness and appositeness
of the New Testament injunctions to the life of
to-day. To the African these are not ritual ques-
tions ; they go to the very root of faith.
INNES LOGAN.
Ayr.
St. Paul’s ’Infirmity.’
WE shall probably never know with certainty what
St. Paul’s infirmity was. Tradition has it that it
was severe headache, and Dr. David Smith argues
very plausibly that it was malaria, nothing more.
But there is an illness, more elusive than malaria,
without a definite name of its own to this day,
which corresponds to St. Paul’s illness in all its
details. This ’ Migraine,’ as it is usually called, is
peculiar to no one age, sex, nation, or climate, but
persons of an ardent and impulsive nature are most
liable to it. Migraine, in its severe form, prostrates
the sufferer completely without any warning, save
that of sudden paralysis of the optic nerve. We
know that St. Paul’s sight was affected during his
attacks. He reminds the Galatians of their kind-
ness, and says, ’ You would have plucked out your
own eyes and given them to me.’ Migraine attacks
the eyes first of all before any head pain is felt,
malaria does not. In a case I know the following
is the course of the illness. The day before the
attack the sufferer is often particularly active in
mind, full of plans and ideas, and feeling eager and
fit to carry them out. Paul was in this condition
on the journey to Damascus, ‘ breathing out
threatenings and slaughter.’ Quite suddenly the
next day a slanting shaft of light, a sudden move-
ment of something just outside direct vision, a
sharp noise, or some shock or surprise, pleasant or
unpleasant, abruptly causes semi-blindness; nothing
can be from the side of the eyes save a blank
seen
wall ; he is physically hoodwinked. In Paul’s
case the sudden flash of lightning blinded him
entirely. Complete prostration and severe head-
ache follow, the patient is totally disabled, as far as
action and conversation are concerned, though his