out. Berosus speaks of eighty-six kings reigning for thirty-three thousand years after the deluge down to the time when the Medes (Elamites?) conquered Babylon. The mythical hero Gisdubar, who was surprised to find Khasisadra, the Babylonian Noah, looking so young after he had been so long among the immortal gods, lived long before Sargon and his son Naram sin. Then whatever adjustments may be found necessary to make the Babylonian chronology harmonize with ours, one thing is fixed even on Babylonian authority, viz., that Naram sin reigned not 1400 years before, but long subsequent to, the Flood.

Now that being settled, it is just as certain that Holy Scripture speaks of this custom of incorporating the name of God into the names of men as existing long before the Flood. Indeed it makes mention of three instances of such names,-two in the line of Cain, viz., Methusael (Man of God) and his father Mehujael (Smitten of God), and one in the line of Sheth, viz., Ma ha la leel (Praise of God), who according to our received chronology was born B. C. 3069, or 1260 years before the Flood. By far the earliest mention of this kind of name then is in the Bible; and so if one must have borrowed from the other, the Babylonian must be the borrower, and the Bible the lender. But what is there to prevent both being independent lines of action? The same reverence for a higher power manifesting itself in the same way in each, but on any supposition that we may form on the matter, the Bible is no borrower from Chaldea, though Chaldea may have done its share in the transmission of documents which were used more intelligently under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, than by those who held according to Berosus that ten kings reigned for 432,000 years between the creation and the Flood! an average of 43,200 years for each !1

It only remains to notice a statement of Professor Sayce, that "the two varying forms of Methuselakh and Methusael should be Mutu sha ilati, the husband of the goddess, i, e., the sun god Tammuz, husband of Ishtar.”2

If an apology is needed for differing from so ripe an Assyrian scholar, he furnishes one himself where he says: "The teacher and the pupil must both alike be learners.....There is no authoritive standard to refer to."3

Then on this point it may be said that the most recent and reliable writers, while admitting a resemblance in names between some descendants of Cain and Sheth (Gen. iv. and v.), yet unhesitatingly deny the identity of the two lines of descent. * Yet Professor Sayce makes one name from the line of Cain, and a different one from the line of Sheth, to refer to the same person and to be represented by the same Assyrian title. Methuselakh, as the Professor writes it, ends in Hheth, not He, a termination never used to denote the feminine, and Methusael ends with a name which is masculine only. The lexicons give no hint of any other gender.

1 Geo. Smith's Ancient History of Babylonia, p. 9. 2 Hibbert Lectures, p. 185, note. 3 Lectures on the Assyrian Language, p. 2.

4 See Kurtz, Hist. of the Old Covenant, Vol. i., pp. 88-95; E. Harold Browne, D.D., in Speakers' Commentary; also the commentaries of Professors C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch, J. P. Lange, and J. G. Murphy.

Muta sha ilati may refer to Tammuz in the inscriptions of Assyria. But on what ground is that meaning transferred to the Hebrew name Methusael? Is it said that the inscriptions sometimes use the masculine itu when speaking of the goddess Ishtar? The Professor gives a sufficient reply to this on pages 253 and 254 of his "Hibbert Lectures," where he tells us that the Accadian name of Ishtar was without gender so that the Shemites who transferred it to their lists were in doubt whether to treat it as masculine or feminine. Indeed one tablet speaking of the planet now known as Venus, but then as Ishtar, calls it "a female at sunset, and a male at sunrise." But what has all that to do with the Hebrew name for God? How would the argument read? “The Assyrians doubtful about the gender of a certain idol spoke of it sometimes as feminine and sometimes as masculine, therefore there is the same uncertainty about one of the Old Testament names of God." The absurdity of such an argument no one needs to point out.

If this was only a question about words and names it would hardly deserve any notice, but it is much more than that; for if in the days of Mehujael, so soon after the creation, men believed in goddesses, why not from the creation itself? In that case polytheism came from Paradise, and man has been climbing up ever since toward the monotheism of the gospel, as some in these days do not scruple to affirm. But the Bible teaches that the one only living and true God revealed himself to Adam, and walked with Enoch and with Noah, and when men in the days of Abraham had gone over to idolatry, because, though God had revealed himself to them, they did not like to retain him in their knowledge, God chose him and his posterity to be the instrument through which he would bring back the race to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The importance of the truth involved must be our apology for calling attention to the mistake of Professor Sayce, and having done so we can safely leave it in the hands of scholars and in his own.

THOMAS LAURIE.

ARTICLE X.

GERMAN PERIODICAL LITERATURE.

THE STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN for the year 1888 presents a long series of original and valuable articles. It is the object of the periodical to embody the "studies and criticisms" of its contributors, as its name indicates. It often embraces articles which are books in their extent, and profound treatises in their nature. The first article of the year is by Professor Köstlin upon "Religion and the New Testament," in which he considers the fundamental ideas as to the nature of religion lying at the base of the recent dogmatical controversies in Germany, particularly in connection with the school of Ritschl. Beyschlag continues with a defence of the Apocalypse "against the latest critical hypothesis," that of a young pupil of Harnack's, Eberhard Vischer, that the Apocalypse is a Jewish document revised by a Christian. Certain shorter essays, as, for example, one upon Zinzendorf's effort to reconcile Halle and Wittenberg, and, among other things, another treatment of the Ritschl question in the form of a review of Hermann's "Communion of the Christian with God," close the first number. One of the papers upon Tertullian with which Nöldechen is sprinkling the German Reviews—this being upon Chastity "—forms a portion of the second number, which contains also the first of a series of studies upon Schleiermacher, by Otto Ritschl, son of the famous head of the new school. Not to mention other articles of this second number, the third has for its principal one, "The Views and Efforts of Luther and Zwingli as to the Reform of Divine Service." The leading article of the fourth number is an essay upon the theology of Hilary of Pictavium. A number of exegetical articles are scattered through the year.

Of a somewhat more popular character is the ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR KIRCHLICHE WISSENSCHAFT UND KIRCHLICHES LEBEN. A feature of this review is a yearly account of the literature of one or more of the principal departments of theological science. In the year 1888 Professor Zöckler did this work for the biblical literature of 1887. The attention paid by him to America is remarkable. We note appreciative references to the Old Testament Student, and Hebraica, as well as the Sunday School Times. It is with the same attentive interest in American learning that we find the "Current Discussions" of the Professors at Chicago warmly commended. For ourselves, we have to acknowledge the steady notice of the Theologischer Jahresbericht, and the Literaturzeitung. In fact nothing can be published by an

American in these days which will not be favorably considered in Germany. Thus we are not surprised to find Professor Delitzsch reviewing Dr. Talbot Chambers' "Essays on Pentateuchal Criticism" in the Zeitschrift at length. Various critical questions in the New Testament are also considered. An article upon "Paul's Missionary Labors and Principles," by G. Schnedermann, and one upon the "Criteria in the Investigation of the Sources of New Testament Writings" deserve a note. Next, if not equally prominent with these biblical subjects, are numerous articles upon historical topics. "The Victory of Christianity in Gaza,” and “The last Papal Election" are such. An article upon the "German Conception of Christianity in the early Middle Ages" endeavors to arrive at a true conception of its theme by original study of the early literature of France (Gregory of Tours), of the Anglo-Saxons, and of the first classic German period. Theological classics, like Anselm of Canterbury, are not forgotten. An article upon " Vitalios of Antioch and his Creed" shows that this document, which has been ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, is Vitalios's. The " Donation of Constantine" and the "Acta Pauli et Thecla " carry us back to the early ages, while three interesting certificates of ordination issued at Wittenberg give us a glimpse at the Reformation. "The Present Condition of Ecclesiastical Archæology" by Victor Schultze gives a review of the field by the foremost authority in that branch of history.

THE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR KIRCHENGESCHICHTE, edited by Professor Brieger of Leipzig, whose specialty is the history of the Reformation, usually presents a large number of articles in that department. In the two numbers for 1888 which have so far come to hand, we find an article upon the "Theophilus Question "—as to whether Theophilus of Antioch did really write a certain commentary upon the Gospels,-one upon the foundation of certain North German bishoprics, and one upon the controversy over the authorship of the "Imitation of Christ," in which new MS. discoveries bring the authorship again into doubt. The last article contains a large portion of the new MS. reprinted, which leads us to the observation that these Reviews are all doing good service in republishing the monuments of antiquity. For example, among the minor articles of this Review, we find two MSS. of Hincmar of Rheims, including the text of one upon the controversy with Gottschalk upon predestination. The "so-called articles of the Münster leader John of Leiden" are another example of the same thing.

With the ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE THEOLOGIE we come into other regions. Edited and largely written by Professor Hilgenfeld of Jena, it reflects the personality of this disappointed, contentious, often erroneous, but patient and laborious scholar. Its general tendency, as far as determined by its editor, is critical and rationalistic, and it deals largely with the early history of the church, both in and out of the New Testament era. Among its more interesting contents for the past year have been other articles of Nöldechen's series upon Tertullian, an article by Hilgenfeld upon Philo's Essenes, one by Egli on the ancient martyrdoms, and one by Dräseke upon Apollinarios of Laodicea. In the volume for 1887, which we

did not at the time notice, is to be found an article upon the text of the Didache. There is also the Greek text of the close of the Shepherd of Hermas (?), discovered by Dräseke in a volume issued some years ago (1859) by Simonides, who has had such a reputation as a forger of ancient MSS., whether altogether justly or not. The text covers eight pages of the review. Harnack has at once declared it a forgery, and in a rather contemptuous way has refused to discuss its claims to acceptance. But Hilgenfeld has accepted it, and has issued a new edition of his Greek text of Hermas, and incorporated it in it. In the opening number of the volume for 1889 Hilgenfeld continues the defence of the fragment.

The JAHRBÜCHer für ProtestANTISCHE THEOLOGIE is a journal of somewhat the same character as the last preceding, also published at Jena. It adds to the critical articles of the other, a series of dogmatic articles in the line of the special theology of its conductor, Lipsius. We note in the volume for 1888 several articles upon the Essenes, —a topic, as our readers have already observed, now attracting much attention in Germany,—an address by Friedrich Nippold, Professor in Jena, upon "Infallibilism and Historical Investigation," and a valuable view by the same author of "The Protestant Dissenters in the literature of 1887," in continuation of the Jahresbericht for that

year.

We may mention at a little greater length an article of the Zeitschrift für Kirchliche WissenschaFT, etc., upon "The Criteria of an objective Investigation of the Sources from which our Evangelists were drawn." We have at various times taken note of the researches of Professor B. Weiss, and while not entirely agreeing with him, and not cherishing the expectation that any great advantage for the theology of the church is ultimately to come out of these investigations, we have expressed the opinion that he is by far the most reliable of the New Testament critics, and that his purpose, not merely to destroy, but rather to construct a positive and a more vivid and useful account of the life of our Lord, deserves the friendly recognition of all lovers of the truth. After the lapse of several years since Weiss's results were first published, the writer of this article takes occasion to express his agreement in general with Weiss's views. He says: "A greater and greater agreement of opinion has been secured among critics as to the main positions of Professor Weiss, and the following three decisive points may be said to have become the incontestable and common property of all those who are actively engaged upon these topics: (1) The assumption that there was an original written source from which our Gospels have been drawn, existing prior to any of them. (2) The acknowledged priority of Mark to the other Synoptists. (3) The theory that there were two sources for the first and third Gospels, viz., the aforesaid original source, and our present Gospel of Mark." The writer of the article before us now thinks that there were different Greek versions of the original Gospel, although the text was at first Hebrew, mixed possibly with Aramaisms. He disagrees with Weiss in holding that it also contained an account of the suffering and the resurrection of the Saviour, although by reason of the