was seen,' that is, they appear to have read my mint 2,—in the mount (i. e. in the extreme pinch of difficulty) Jehovah shall be seen'='Man's extremity is God's opportunity.' Indeed, from the reference which is here made from the name to the proverb, we should rather expect the same form of expression to occur in each, so that in the latter will stand by itself, and be taken as the subject of the verb ', as it is in the former, and this is what we find in the LXX version. Still, however, the agreement is not quite complete; since, as the present Masoretic text stands, (which expresses also the reading of the LXX,) we have in the name, ning, and in the proverb, in, the vowel-points of the verb

being different in the two cases, while the consonants are the same. TUCH (Genesis, p.394) suggests that the original writer meant to be read in both cases, but he supposes that the vowel-points have been changed in the name, so as to refer it to the expression in v.8. Is not the contrary, however, more probable, viz. that the writer meant to be read in both cases, by which the reference is made at once to v.8? Only, on either supposition, the change in the vowel-sounds must have been made at an early age, before the LXX translation was made.

In this proverb, however, there is no kind of prediction, that in that particular mount, at some future time, viz. the days of David, there should be a second remarkable 'appearance of Jehovah.'

(vii) Thus the expression, 'as it is this day,' is to be regarded as a prophetic anticipation, on account of E.xv.17, where this anticipation, the hope of a future and more glorious revelation of God upon the site of the former, is yet more clearly expressed,' Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, Jehovah, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, Jehovah, which Thy hands have established.' ABEN-EZRA's and ROSENMÜLLER's interpretation of the 'mountain [of Thine inheritance],' as the 'mountainous land of Canaan,' deserves no attention. That the mount Moriah, as the place which Jehovah would choose hereafter for the habitation of His Name, is intended, the two following clauses show plainly enough.'

Ans. It is by no means plain that mount Moriah is intended throughout the verse in question. On the contrary, it would rather seem that there is a gradual narrowing of the holy circle, in which God's Presence was specially to be manifested, from the whole land of Canaan, the 'mountain of God's inheritance,' (comp. Jo.xi.16, the mountain of Israel and the valley of the same,') which was holy, to the 'more holy' City, the place which He would choose to dwell in,' and the 'most holy' Sanctuary.

6

But, supposing with HENGSTENBERG that the Temple is referred to throughout, and that the 'mount' here mentioned is mount Moriah, there is not the least reason for regarding this passage as referring to the fulfilment of the (supposed) prediction in G.xxii.14.

(viii) 'It might, to be sure, be said, on the other hand, that the author had transferred to the patriarchal times a name of later origin. But this objection would only have force, if other decisive reasons rendered it necessary to fix the origin of the name Jehovah in a later age. Thus much may be inferred with certainty, from the occurrence of the name Moriah, that the writer never imagined a later origin of the name Jehovah. And, with his authority on our side, we need not be alarmed at every slight attack.'

Ans. There is, as it seems to me, 'decisive' proof of the later origin of the name Jehovah, and proof also that the name was not in common use—if in use at all before the time of the Elohist. Still we cannot, in accordance with our view, assume that, in the passage now before us, a later name has been transferred by the writer to patriarchal times; because the greater part of G.xxii, including v.2, which contains the name Moriah, is, undoubtedly, as we shall see, due to the Elohist, and he could not have employed in this way a name compounded with Jehovah. Thus we are at variance on this point with DE WETTE, who supposes (Einl. in A. T. § 158) that a later name is here transferred to the patriarchal age, taking for granted that reference is here made to the mount on which the Temple was built, and infers that this passage of Genesis must have been written in Solomon's age, with the view of attaching an ancient celebrity to the site of the new Temple.

313. I have shown, as I believe, that the name Moriah, whatever may be its origin and meaning, cannot be compounded, as HENGSTENBERG maintains, of 7 and ', and cannot, certainly, have been given to the place of Abraham's sacrifice, in consequence of that appearance of Jehovah,' which occurred, according to the story, three days, at least, after the occasion, on which the name itself is put into the mouth of the Almighty. It remains now to be considered what may, perhaps, be the real meaning and origin of the name Moriah.

314. And here, first, let it be observed that G.xxii.2 does not speak of any mount Moriah,' but of the land of Moriah,' which is supposed to have been well-known to Abraham, whereas the mount, on which he was to sacrifice his son, was not as yet known to him, but was to be pointed out to him by God Himself:-- Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac,

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.

in л

315. Accordingly, MICHAELIS in the Suppl. to his Heb. Lex. draws attention to the fact, that the prefix may not be, as is generally supposed, the article, since the Hebrews did not say 1, '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 render the expression,

"to the high land;' and it is where the Hebrew text has hi perly, the oak or terebinth) of Tηʊ inλýv, the high oak.'

sacrifice, however, the LXX

by sis tùv yŵv tùv vynλńv, very noticeable that in G.xii.6, jibs, E.V. the plain (more proMoreh,' the LXX has τηv Spûv So in D.xi.30 they translate

by, 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 nien nyạp, 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 Tηvyŵν TηV KATA‡avĥ, ‘to the conspicuous land,' SYMMACHUS, εis Tηv YÊν TŷS ỏπTAσías, 'to the land of the vision,' not

6

(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, D, vision,' instead of "; 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, 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: