66 rance of a total oblivion of intermediate time, becomes a Divine solace for "present afflictions," causing them to appear "light and momentary" in view of the imminent approach of the resurrection." For though our outward man perish, the inward man "—the new man, growth of the new birth-" is renewed day by day" in this very expectation that "worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory!" Therefore "we faint not!" Reading. H. GOODWYN. 1. OUR KING AND FATHER. UR great Creator, Thou eternal King, 4. Undying song for this surpassing grace, THETA. EVEN LIGHT FROM THE EAST. VEN the secular newspaper is ever and anon throwing light on the Book and its story. And it is worth the labour of the Christian student to take up the scraps of intelligence from Bible lands which come to hand from time to time. Here is one from the Daily Telegraph: "About five weeks ago a fire broke out in the little town of Urfa, better known to the European public by its Biblical name of Ur, and highly venerated throughout the Orient as the birthplace of Abraham. The house in which that celebrated patriarch was born is still standing in Urfa; it is called 'Bet Chalil Allah,' the house of God's friend-and hundreds of pious pilgrims visit it annually. "When the conflagration took place on the 24th of January, many of the inhabitants of Urfa took refuge in Abraham's dwelling, and carried thither all their valuables, persuaded that the flames would respect the structure in which so holy a personage first saw the light of day. Strange to say, their faith in the inviolability of this ancient sanctuary was justified by events; for while the fire raged all night long in Urfa, destroying a large number of houses in the vicinity of Bet Chalil Allah,' that edifice, as well as one or two buildings immediately adjacent to it, remained absolutely unharmed. This triumphant vindication of its protecting virtue has, so it would appear, greatly enhanced its reputation for sanctity; and doubtless the pecuniary results of the present year's pilgrimages will enable the Urites to surmount their losses by fire in a highly satisfactory manner.' Among the different names which the birthplace of the father of the faithful has borne three deserve notice: Ur, Edessa, and Urpha. When Terah, the father of Abram, left it to go towards Canaan it bore the first name. It was "Ur of the Chaldees." When Christ and His apostles were engaged in active ministry it was called Edessa, and was the royal residence of a race of kings called the Algari, a name which was common to them, like Pharaoh to the Kings of Egypt. The name bears on its front the meaning-Father of strangers or sojourners. Was it given them because of their paternal treatment of a people dwelling among their subjects, whose real home was far away in a distant land? It would seem so. Now ever since the carrying captive of the ten tribes of Israel, and then the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, a great many of the Hebrews clung to Mesopotamia, and in that land, what place was so likely to draw them to itself as Ur, where their venerated father Abram was born? Surely no spot, out of the holy land, could have such tender associations clinging round it as Edessa. Nor could the men to whom the command was given, "Go ye to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," overlook that part of the flock which dwelt in and about Ur, alias Edessa. Besides those ancient names there is the modern one, for the town is now called Urpha." This is a restoration with an added syllable, pha. Grecian dominion over those lands had given rise to the new name, Edessa; but the time came when the mixed race, whom we know as Saracens, cast out the Greek of the sons of Japhet with great ease, and restored the ancient language to its due place. Then it was the "Ur" reappeared in its modern form "Urpha." There are three classes of people who claim filial relation to Abram. Tracing their genealogy to Ishmael, the eldest son of Abram, the Arab upholders of Mohamedanism claim Abram as "the father of the faithful." Then the literal seed of Jacob are most emphatic in the assertion, "We have Abraham to our father." Besides these, the intelligent Christian has the authority of Paul for saying, "Since we are Christ's we are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise" (Gal. iii. 29.) Is it then a thing to reject with contempt, when we are told that the house in which the great natural and spiritual patriarch of Arabs, Hebrews, and Christians, was born is held in such esteem that pilgrimages are made to it every year? The relationship of that great man is not even exhausted when we have named the three people above enumerated. Besides Ishmael and Isaac, he was the father of Zimram and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah. These settled in the east of Canaan, and we know that Midian became a very considerable people. In an age like ours, when the solidarity of peoples is so much talked of, and special stress is laid upon breed and birth, as tending to seek unity, it ought not to surprise a thinker to learn that in a land where so much of Abram's blood is circulating his name is held in honour. Since human nature is what it is, can we despise a pedigree which these Eastern people trace back nearly four thousand years? But this very pedigree takes its rise in Ur of the Chaldees, near the head waters of the Euphrates, and not far from the place where the Romans and Crassus their general met with a disastrous defeat from the Parthian army. We shall perhaps be reminded that a very wide gap existed in the flow of this sympathy for Abram's birthplace, during the time from his leaving it, to the time when his posterity were carried captive into that region. We are prepared to admit the fact, but this raises the question, "How came the connection to be restored "? In answer to this question we ask the reader to admit, just as a working theory," that when the Hebrews found themselves captives in Mesopotamia they remembered that it was the land of Abram's nativity; that they found out the very place where he was born; and that when the Persians overthrew the Chaldean power the Hebrews became free to change their place of abode in the land, or to leave it altogether. We know that many of them chose to remain there. Then is it not reasonable that many of them would gather to the spot where their father was born and cluster round its site, or if the house was yet standing, for the art of building lasting edifices was early known in that land, would see to its repair? Is there any after light to support this view? We maintain that there is. A Bible containing all the Scriptures accepted by Protestants as of Divine authority, with small exceptions, is now in our hands in the Hebrew tongue, as Luke, John, and chief Rabbi Adler all call its language, which the Syrian Christians have always stated to be the product of the joint exertions of Jude the apostle, whom they call by his surname Thady, and Abgarus, King of Edessa, his contemporary. This Bible is called the Peshito, or the open, plain record of the Word of God. Nothing has ever induced these Syrian Christians to vary in their tradition of the origin of their Bible, or caused them to swerve from their attachment to it. For even now, where their congregations do not all understand its language, they have it read aloud and then interpreted to them. The New Testament was finished last for this edition, and yet this part was completed before Peter wrote his second letter, before John's latter two epistles were written, and even before Jude, its editor, wrote his short original letter. No scholar who contends strongly for its having been translated from Greek, can produce the original from which it is said to have been made. Nor can he tell what became of it. Further, he can find no ancient author who says he had seen the Greek original which supplied the text of the Peshito. And, once again, we hold that none of the Greek critics can lay his hand upon one of the six hundred and seventy MSS. which have been collated to supply a Greek text for our revisers and say, “Here is a manuscript codex used in translating the Peshito." Well may it be so, when there never existed such a codex. It must be so, if not the preaching of the Gospel only, but its collected writings were given to "the Jew first" as they must have been. It was Jesus who spake the words, "Behold I send you prophets, wise men and writers, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." To whom were these words spoken? Not to Gentiles; they never were admitted between the temple and the altar. It is to the multitude at Jerusalem who had come to the Passover from every land of their dispersion, that Jesus Christ is speaking. Writers were to appear in time to test their character as well as preachers before their overthrow; but the war which ended in that overthrow began A.D. 66. By this time they ought to have had the writings before them. And so they had in the Peshito. But an edition suiting this prediction must have appeared too early for the Revelation, written A.D. 96. Nay, it would need to be out before 2nd Peter was written, which indicates that he had obtained a copy of "all Paul's letters and the other Scriptures." Does he not urge believers to be mindful both of the prophets' words and those of the apostles? But as the former must be sought in their writings, does it not become a natural conclusion that the words of the latter must be so too? This is most reasonable when compared with 2 Peter i. 12, 15, where he is intent on securing copies of both his letters to be perused when he is dead. Why then is the first epistle in the Peshito and not the second epistle? Simply because there was urgent reason to issue the Testament before he was moved to write the second letter. And that urgent reason, it seems to us, rose out of the great cause Sanhedrim versus Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, which lasted five or six years, and moved the whole Roman Empire. Then must the story of Christ's life, death and resurrection be sent forth for perusal where preachers could not go. And especially must the Hebrews have the means of testing his claims by comparing the New Testament with the Old. Then such efforts had been made to damage Paul, even with Hebrew Christians, that the story of his labours and samples of his teaching accompanied by the writings of Peter, James and John were needed by the Hebrew believers to enable them to know his worth and appreciate his work. All this the Peshito would serve to accomplish among them, and then remain of permanent service. Now, this being so, we come upon the time of Jude's alleged activity in securing the edition in Syriac, so we may account for additional notes at the end of John, for these editors are inspired men; also for the "Acts" being sent out with such a tantalizing conclusion. It could not wait to tell how Paul would fare at Rome when before the High Court. A later document briefly notices his first appearance before the Cæsar; but Luke's history was earlier in the work and could not wait for the trial. Even the last two verses of Acts, like the two last of John, may be from the Editor's pen, for they reach two years later than the verse before them. Now, so noble a Bible would suit Hebrews at Edessa and enable them to become confirmed in the faith of Christ and to learn what that faith involved as taught by Paul. Is there evidence that the written word bore marked fruit ? Scholars who hold the view that the Peshito was only a translation made by uninspired men, nevertheless state" that the Syrian churches flourished most in the latter part of the first century, and in the earlier part of the second, and the Christians at Edessa had a temple for divine worship erected after the model of that at Jerusalem." (T. H. Horne, Vol. II., Part 1. Ch. 3, § 3.) At this point may we not see the budding forth of Hebrew interest in the native home of Abram ? Who but Hebrew converts would choose to build a temple like "the holy and beautiful house now in ruins? Gentile converts might not have cared for such a model, but Hebrew ones would, and their influence is here seen. Then how comes this temple to be built on the ground once occupied by Abram's family? We read not of any other reproduction of the ruined temple in any other city or country except of that of Onias in Egypt long before, which never was cordially accepted by the Jews at large, nor by any of them until he had brought from the Word seeming support for its erection and use. Why, then, a Christian temple like the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, at Ur of the Chaldees, and not elsewhere? Now admit that this place had become a favourite settlement of the exiled Hebrews, when the Gospel reached Edessa, |
