whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. As BLEEK observes, Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p.520-524,—

It is very arbitrary to suppose that, whereas it is said, v.14, that Abraham called the place 'Jehovah-Jireh,' yet the writer meant it to be understood that he did not really call it by this name, but by the other name, Moriah, by which the whole district round was already known.

315. Accordingly, MICHAELIS in the Suppl. to his Heb. Lex. draws attention to the fact, that the prefix in 1 may not be, as is generally supposed, the article, since the Hebrews did not say na, 'the land of Canaan,' but, and there

if אֶרֶץ הַמּוֹרִיָה and not ,אֶרֶץ מוֹרִיָה fore might be expected to write

they wished to express the land of Moriah; and observing further the LXX and Syr. versions of 2Ch.iii.1, which are given in (312.iv.Ans.), he adds,—

'I cannot approve of the phrase being rendered 'land of the Amorites,' for this would require, and not ; but I leave it doubtful whether the is part of the name, or a prefix.'

316. In the case of Abraham's sacrifice, however, the LXX

,v עוד עוף עוד by sis אל-ארץ המוריה,render the expression

'to the high land;' and it is very noticeable that in G.xii.6, where the Hebrew text has hi jib, E.V. the plain (more properly, the oak or terebinth) of Moreh,' the LXX has τǹv Spûv Tηv inλýv, the high oak.' So in D.xi.30 they translate nb ibs byx, E. V. beside the plains (rather, terebinths) of Moreh, by πλησίον τῆς δρυὸς τῆς ὑψηλῆς, ' near the high oak, and in Ju.vii.1, they render en nya, E.V. "by the hill of Moreh, by ἀπὸ Γαβααθαμωραί.

Again, in G.xxii.2, AQUILA has, instead of to the land of Moriah,' eis Tηvyĥν Tǹν KATAþavĥ, 'to the conspicuous land,' SYмMACHUS, Eis Tv YŶν Tηs oπтaσías, 'to the land of the vision,' not

(N.B.) of the appearance of Jehovah,' and so also the Vulgate has, in terram visionis, to the land of vision.'

It would seem that the two latter versions must have been made from a reading, , vision,' instead of л"; and, possibly, AQUILA and the LXX may have read the same, deducing from it the notion that the land in question was 'far-seen,' 'conspicuous,'' high,'' lofty.' And this seems rather to be confirmed by the Samaritan text, which has, as it were, a mix

.מוראה,ture of the two readings

248

CHAPTER X.

MOUNT GERIZIM THE MOUNT OF ABRAHAM'S SACRIFICE.

317. AGAIN, it will be observed that HENGSTENBERG'S argument rests mainly on the assumption that the mount Moriah,' which he supposes to be indicated in G.xxii.2, is the same as that actually mentioned in the Hebrew text of 2Ch.iii.1, viz. the hill at Jerusalem on which the Temple was built, and where, as he imagines, the second appearance of Jehovah' took place. But the fact is, that in only one single place of the O. T., viz. in the above passage of the Chronicles, written two hundred years after the Captivity, is the name п”, whatever may be its meaning, applied to the Temple Hill at all. As BLEEK observes:

In all earlier writings after the time of Solomon, in the later Psalms, and in the Prophets, the hill, on which the Temple stood, is without exception called Zion. Wherever mention is made of the Sanctuary, Jehovah's earthly dwellingplace, Zion is invariably named, never once Moriah.

318. The following are some of the passages which prove, beyond a doubt, that the Temple, as well as the Tabernacle, was built on Mount Zion. We omit many, where 'Zion' may be understood as standing for the whole city of Jerusalem, and also a multitude of passages which occur in the Psalms since it might be disputed whether these were written before or after the days of David. But THRUPP observes very justly, Ancient Jerusalem, p.24:

MOUNT GERIZIM THE MOUNT OF ABRAHAM'S SACRIFICE. 249

It cannot be denied that the idea of 'holiness' is inseparably connected with the name Zion; and, if Zion was the Temple-hill, it is easily seen why Jerusalem, as the holy city, should be called by this name; but, had Zion been exactly the part of the city in which the Temple did not stand, then the use of the name Zion, to convey the idea of holiness, becomes absolutely inexplicable.

319. But the following passages from the Prophets were certainly written while the Temple was still standing, and they refer plainly to the Sacred Hill itself, and not to the city.

'Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain.' Joel ii.1. 'So shall ye know that I am Jehovah your God, dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain.' Joel iii.17.

"Upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness.' Ob.17. 'Jehovah of Hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.' Is.viii.18.

'The place of the Name of Jehovah of Hosts, the Mount Zion.' Is.xviii.7. 'Jehovah shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.' Mic.iv.7.

In the following passages Mount Zion is expressly distinguished from the whole city of Jerusalem.

In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance.' Joel ii.32.

'When Jehovah hath performed His whole work upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem.' Is.x.12.

'When Jehovah of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem.' Is.xxiv.23. So too, after the return from the Captivity and the rebuilding of the Temple, we read, Zech.viii.3—

'Thus saith Jehovah, I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth, and the mountain of Jehovah of Hosts, the holy mountain,'—

where the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry shows that 'Zion' is the 'mountain of Jehovah, the holy mountain.'

320. So too, in the time of the Maccabees we read:

'Upon this all the host assembled themselves together, and went up into Mount Sion; and when they saw the Sanctuary desolate and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing up in the courts, as in a forest or in one of the mountains, yea, and the Priests' chambers pulled down, &c.' 1M.iv.37,38.

'So they went up to Mount Sion with joy and gladness, where they offered burnt-offerings, &c.' 1M.v.54.

'After this went Nicanor up to Mount Sion, and there came out of the Sanctuary certain of the Priests, &c. 1M.vii.33; see also 'I will burn up this House,' v.35.

'So then they wrote it on tables of brass, which they set upon pillars in Mount Sion,' 1M.xiv.27: comp. v.48, 'So they commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set up within the compass of the Sanctuary in a conspicuous place.

321. It is true that in this age the city of David' was evidently distinguished from 'mount Zion '; since the Syrian king's forces held a strong 'tower' in the city of David,' 1M.ii.31, vi.26, vii.32, xiii.49,52, xiv.7,36, while the Jews fortified mount Zion,' 1M.iv.60, vi.7,26,48,51,54,61,62, x.11, xiii.52; whereas Zion is called the city of David,' in 2S.v.7, 1K.viii.1, 1Ch.xi.5. For the discussion of this question see THRUPP's, Ancient Jerusalem, p.12-30. Perhaps, the city of David' with its 'tower' occupied the site of the old Jebusite fortress upon the northern end of Mount Zion; whereas the 'Sanctuary Sanctuary' was built upon the southern eminence of the same Mount; and hence we read, 1M.xiii.52, of the hill of the temple that was by the tower.' But, however this apparent discrepancy may be explained, and whatever view may be taken of the Chronicler's solitary note of the name 'Moriah' being given to the Temple-hill, it may be considered as certain, from the above evidence, that both the Tabernacle and Temple were built on mount Zion, which fact will be found of some importance, as we proceed, in considering the age of certain of the Psalms.

322. Although, therefore, Moriah may have been commonly used for the Temple Hill in the Chronicler's days, (though this must be considered doubtful,) yet the fact above stated by BLEEK leads us at once to two conclusions:---

(i) In opposition to DE WETTE, that no writer of Solomon's days could have written this story of Abraham's sacrifice, introducing the name Moriah, in order to attach celebrity to the Temple-Hill; since such a writer would surely have sought to attach such honour to the name of Zion;

(ii) In opposition to HENGSTENBERG, that the Jews, from David's time and downwards, never could have understood the