Part 24

2 : 13 215 3 : 14, 15 239 3 : 16 217 3 : 28–30 218 7 : 1–9 215 10 : 1, 10 6, 261 10 : 2 6 10 : 9 6, 104 13 : 1 215

ACTS.

2 : 30 238 3 : 3, 10 55 4 : 4 85 6 : 6 85 8 : 18 85 13 : 3 85 14 : 8–14 135 19 : 6 85

1 CORINTHIANS.

3 : 10, 11 162 5 : 7, 8 216 11 : 3 219

2 CORINTHIANS.

2 : 16 228

EPHESIANS.

2 : 20, 21 162 3 : 14, 15 217 5 : 23–33 219

1 TIMOTHY. 4 : 14 85 6 : 7 114

HEBREWS.

6 : 2 85 8 : 8, 9 213 10 : 20 186 10 : 28, 29 218

1 PETER.

2 : 5, 6 162

REVELATION.

6 : 9, 10 25 19 : 6–9 220 20 : 1, 2 240 21 : 1–9, 12, 22–27 221, 240 21 : 10, 11, 13–21 240 22 : 1, 2 115, 240 22 : 14, 15 240 22 : 17, 20 221

SUPPLEMENT.

SUPPLEMENT. COMMENTS OF SPECIALISTS.

Before their publishing, the proof-sheets of this volume were submitted to a number of prominent scholars in Europe and America, for their examination and comment, in order to ascertain if the main thought of the work seemed justified by the facts known to them in their several special fields of knowledge and study. Some of the opinions and suggestions of these scholars as given herewith will have deservedly, in the eyes of many readers, a weight and value beyond anything that could be said by the author of this work.

FROM THE REV. DR. MARCUS JASTROW.

As a Jewish clergyman, and as a conservative Bible scholar, the Rev. Dr. Jastrow is honored on both sides of the Atlantic for his special attainments in Talmudic and Rabbinical lore. His great work, “A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature,” is a monument of his learning and ability in these fields. He writes:

“I have read your interesting work, ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ with great attention, and derived from it more information than I can possibly thank you for.

“As I am unable to form an independent opinion on the bearing of your evidences on the thesis of your work, I can refer only to those parts of it which treat of Jewish customs and ideas, and, here, I feel it a privilege to be permitted to say that I admire your ingenious conception of the passover covenant in Egypt. Especially interesting, and undoubtedly correct, is your interpretation of Exodus 12 : 23, according to which the Lord passes over the threshold in order to visit the Israelitish house, and will not allow the destroyer to enter.

“It may not be out of place here to direct your attention to a passage in Talmud Yerushalmi, Aboda Zara III, 42 d, where it is said about the Philistines: ‘They revered the threshold (_miftan_) more than the Dagon,’ to which is added, ‘All other nations made (worshiped) only one _miftan_, but the Israelites made many _miftanoth_,’ which explains the verse, ‘And I will visit punishment on him who leaps, and on the _miftan_’ (Zeph. 1 : 9). You will observe that the Talmud quotes the verse different from the Massoretic text, which reads, ‘on every one who leaps over the _miftan_.’ I am unable to decide whether the deviation from the Massoretic text is owing to a different text before the Talmudic authority under consideration, or merely to a slip of memory, such as often occurs with those who quote from memory.

“In Talmud Babli, referring to the Philistines in relation to the Dagon, it is said: ‘They let alone the Dagon and worshiped the _miftan_, for they said, His prince (genius) has abandoned the Dagon and has come to sit on the _miftan_.’ All of which proves that there lingered yet in the memory of the Talmudists the traditional recollection of _miftan_ worship.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. HERMAN V. HILPRECHT.

Oldest among civilizations of which we have any sure record is that of Babylonia. Among the foremost scholars in that realm is Dr. Hilprecht, formerly of the University of Erlangen, and now Professor of Assyriology in the University of Pennsylvania. His prominence is recognized in Europe as fully as in America. His labors, in the field and in the study, in connection with the successful Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, and his monumental work, still in course of publication, on the Cuneiform Texts brought to light by that expedition, have added to his reputation on both sides of the ocean, and confirmed his high standing among the best scholars of the world in his special department of knowledge.

It was while on his way to Constantinople, to examine the latest “finds” in Babylonia brought to the Imperial Museum there, with which museum Professor Hilprecht has an official connection, that he examined the proof-sheets of “The Threshold Covenant.” Of the work in its entirety he writes in generous appreciation as follows:

“Your latest book, ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ accompanied me on my trip to Constantinople. Before we had crossed the Atlantic I had studied it three times from beginning to end. I take the first opportunity, at Southampton, to send you these lines, in order to express to you my full appreciation of what you have offered to the scientific world in your magnificent work.

“If in your former book, ‘The Blood Covenant,’ you made [as was suggested by an eminent German theologian] the first successful attempt to write a theology of the blood, you have given us in your most recent work a thorough investigation on the significance and history of the primitive altar upon which blood was shed by men entering into a covenant with God or their fellow-men. Surely your two books ‘The Blood Covenant,’ and ‘The Threshold Covenant’ belong together, and should therefore be studied together. One supplements the other, and the former furnishes the key to a full understanding of the facts presented in the latter; and so again on the other side.

“It must have cost you decenniums to gather all the material which you lay before the reader in such a systematic form. All the nations of the world, civilized and uncivilized, ancient and modern, seem to have contributed their share to your stately structure, which has my full admiration. Viewed in this light alone, your book will always prove a regular storehouse of knowledge for students of primitive rites and religions, and of various other kindred subjects.

“It is, of course, impossible for any specialist in one certain line to fully estimate the hundreds of new features presented in your recent work. It would be bold on my part, at least, to express an opinion on questions with which I am not entirely familiar. As, however, you treat facts which bear closely upon my special line of investigation,–the oldest history, languages, and civilization of the Euphrates valley, and of their rites in general,–I can heartily assure you that, according to my examination, you have proved your main points beyond question.

“It is first of all sure that you are the first who fully recognized, and in fact rediscovered, the world-wide importance and fundamental significance of the threshold in all ancient religions. You have re-established an ancient rite which was practically entirely forgotten by modern scholars. By restoring the threshold to its proper place in primitive religions, you have rendered a great service to comparative religion, archeology, and even philology. Many a statement by ancient writers was obscure to us, many a word puzzling as to its original etymology and significance, and not a few facts brought to light by recent excavations remained incoherent and mysterious, because we had lost sight of the significance of the threshold, which, very appropriately, you style the first altar of the human race.

“In reading your book I could not help wondering that all these combinations which appear quite clear and plausible now were not made a long while ago by other investigators. The earliest inscribed monuments of ancient Babylonia, dating from the fifth millennium before Christ, are door-sockets which bear ample witness to the correctness of your theory. Professor Hommel’s recent ingenious analysis of the Assyrian word for “to pray,” which was a result of his study of your ‘Threshold Covenant,’ is one of the strongest evidences in favor of your arguments. Our own recent excavations of the lowest strata of the temple of Bêl in Nippur, which takes us back to 7000 B.C., testify in the same direction.

“Of the greatest importance for the study of the Old Testament religion is your doubtless correct explanation of the Passover. It is entirely in harmony with ancient customs, with philology, and with common sense. According to the old interpretation this rite hangs, so to speak, in the air, without any connection, and yet we know from many other instances that Old Testament rites of the Hebrews stand in the closest possible connection with those practiced by surrounding nations. In the light of your investigations I regard it as an established fact, and as one of the chief results of your labors, that Jehovah in entering into covenant with his ‘bride Israel’ did not invent a new rite, but took one with which his chosen people were already familiar, and gave to it a new and deeper significance in its new use and relations.

“Your final chapter, ‘Outgrowths and Perversions of this Rite,’ is likewise full of thought and new suggestions. One cannot help wishing you might have gone beyond the scope of your book and expressed yourself more in detail as to the precise connection in which tree and phallus worship stand to the threshold in each of the principal ancient religions, and what _rôle_ the snake played in the further development or determination of the primitive rite so excellently discussed by you. There is no doubt in my mind that all these different rites, however independent of each other they may appear in later times, are but different outgrowths of the same original root and later perversions of original uplifting thought,–search for unity between men and God. But as you yourself have given only brief indications of this, I wisely abstain from entering into details.

“Permit me to congratulate you upon the completion of a work which, in the nature of things, must attract the general attention of scholars. Whatever may be the interpretation of certain details contained in your book, the one fact remains sure: it will always be your great merit to have penetrated into the long-forgotten secrets of one of the most ancient rites of humanity, and, by pointing out its great importance for and its connection with other rites, to have constructed a solid basis for further investigations, and to have put loose facts together, and given them a well-defined place in a regular system.”

It is undoubtedly true that the fresh material from the excavations at Nippur will furnish additional illustrations of the main thesis of this work. Dr. Hilprecht will be sure to note these.

FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.

As an Arabist as well as an Assyriologist, and as a bright thinker and learned scholar, in various departments of knowledge, Dr. Fritz Hommel, Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Munich, has a deservedly high standing. His great illustrated “History of Babylonia and Assyria” is a marvelous treasure-house of information concerning the history of the earlier civilizations of the East; and his later studies in connection with the researches of Dr. Edward Glaser in South Arabia have poured a flood of light on the influence of ancient Arabia in the Oriental world. In the realm of Semitic philology Dr. Hommel is acute minded, and peculiarly alert and suggestive.

Having read the earlier pages of “The Threshold Covenant,” Professor Hommel wrote briefly of his interest in the main thought of the work, and promised further comments when he has completed its examination. The necessity of putting these pages to press forbids the waiting for his valued conclusions. His first comments are:

“I am now reading with great interest the proof-sheets of your new book, which you were kind enough to send me. Although at this moment overburdened with other work, I have already got as far as page 70, and hope in the course of a fortnight to be able to send you my judgment.

“To page 60 I wish now to note that already in the time of Hammurabi disputes were settled at the _gate_, and, indeed, of the gate of the temple. See Strassmaier’s Warka Tablets, 30 (B. 57) in Meissner’s _Beiträze zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 42 f.

“An interesting discovery, of which perhaps you still may make use, I made yesterday. It is that the Babylonian _suppû_ (‘to pray,’ ‘to entreat’) is originally merely the verb formed from the noun _sippu_, ‘a threshold.’ The first sense, indeed, of _suppû_ is ‘to sacrifice,’ because that was done at the threshold. To find a parallel for this transference from the meaning ‘to offer’ to the meaning ‘to pray,’ compare the Arabic _‘ătără_, to sacrifice,’ with the Hebrew _‘ātăr_, to pray.’[713] To this discovery I, of course, came through your deductions with regard to the importance of the threshold.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. A.H. SAYCE.

No Oriental scholar and archeologist is more widely known in Europe and America, and beyond, or is surer of a hearing on any subject of which he writes, from both those who agree and those who differ with him, than Professor Sayce of Oxford University. The numerous published works of Professor Sayce have made him extensively known among scholars, and popularly. Prominent among these are the Hibbert Lectures on “The Religion of the Ancient Babylonians,” “The Ancient Empires of the East,” “Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments,” “The Life and Times of Isaiah,” “The Hittites,” “Patriarchal Palestine,” and “The Egypt of the Hebrews.” He now writes from Luxor, in Egypt, while passing the winter, as usual, on the Nile, in his dahabiyeh Istar:

“A thousand thanks for the advance sheets of ‘The Threshold Covenant.’ Like all your work, it is brimful of accurate knowledge and new points of view, and is written so charmingly that a child could understand and follow you. I need not say I have been devouring the pages and admiring their wealth of references. While I read, you carried me along with you, and, if you had asked my opinion as I went on, I should have said that you had made out your case step by step. But now that I come to look back upon the work as a whole, the skeptical side of my nature comes uppermost, and I have an uneasy feeling that the proof is too complete. That you have made out your case to a large extent is clear, but whether allowance ought not to be made for other elements is not so clear to me. Human nature is complex, and we still know so little about the early history of civilized man! And between civilized and uncivilized man the gulf seems to have always been as great as it is today.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. W. MAX MÜLLER.

As an Egyptologist, Professor Müller is recognized for his scholarship and learning on both sides of the Atlantic. A favorite pupil of Georg Ebers, he continued his studies at the University of Berlin under Adolf Erman, and soon made a mark for himself. His _Asien und Europa nach Altägypt Denkmaller_,–“Asia and Europe from the Egyptian Monuments,”–at once gave him high standing in that field. Expressing his regret that he was not able to give more time to the examination of “The Threshold Covenant” in its proof-sheets, he says:

“You did not hear from me earlier because my too close occupation prevented my studying your book as thoroughly as I wished, and contributing, as I hoped to, something on the threshold question. Even now I have to write hastily.

“I have found your book most interesting and suggestive, so that I heartily recommend its publication. I hope to be able to read it more carefully, and to give a more detailed criticism, after a while.

“A few remarks:

“Page 103.–_Per-ao_ [Pharaoh]–gate, door. Not to be proved. Strangely, the root _pire_ means ‘to go out.’ Originally _pr_ may have been ‘door,’ but not in historic times.

“Page 161.–[Calling the region of Sinai, the ‘land of God’.] A mistake! The ‘land of God’ is only the land on the Red Sea. No such records known of Mt. Sinai.

“Page 180, line 5.–[A memorial stone spoken of as marking the boundary line.] How do you know it was a boundary stone?

“There is rich material of better and earlier passages on boundary stones than that given on page 180.

“_El gisr_ means ‘bridge.’ The dictionaries do not give ‘threshold.’

“Page 184.–Sinai, an ‘Egyptian boundary line’? Still less did the ‘holy mountain’ (p. 185) ever mark the southern frontier. The threshold sacrifices are evidently a mistake. But I do not have at hand Brugsch’s book–a very fanciful and unreliable book.

“I hope that as soon as a very pressing work has been finished, I shall be able to revise all your passages bearing on Egypt. But even if I should find some more of these minor faults, they would not change the good general impression of the book.”

It will be seen that none of the points questioned by Professor Müller are vital to the main thesis of the book, or essential to its illustration of the prevalence of the threshold covenant customs in Egypt. Moreover, it will be observed, by a reference to my authorities at the pages mentioned, that the facts and opinions I have presented at these points are on the authority of Brugsch Bey and other scholars. The scholarship of Professor Müller, of course, gives him the right to question the testimony of any other Egyptologist.

As to the boundary line of Egypt in the Sinaitic peninsula, that simply refers to the famous tablet and inscription, in Wady Maghara, of Snefru, the great king of the fourth dynasty, when he had first extended his dominions thus far.[714] What was then Egypt’s boundary line of conquest in that direction may, indeed, not have continued to be so. The same may be said of the southern boundary of Egypt on the Nubian frontier.[715]

My reasons for giving “the threshold” as a meaning of _el gisr_ are to be found in full in my “Kadesh-barnea,” at pages 50, 339, 341 f.

It is to be noted that Professor Müller had already pointed out to me the existence of a temple at Thebes bearing the name of the “Silver Threshold,”[716] after the days of the eighteenth dynasty. He promises other notes in this direction when he has time for further research.

Footnote 713:

This is the discovery to which Professor Hilprecht refers in his letter, Professor Hommel’s note having been received just before Professor Hilprecht sailed for Constantinople.

Footnote 714:

See Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 468 f.; Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 242, note, 391.

Footnote 715:

See Erman, pp. 467, 503, and Maspero, pp. 484, 490.

Footnote 716:

See p. 127, _supra_.

FROM PROFESSOR DR. C.P. TIELE.

As an Orientalist, and as a student of religions, Professor Tiele, Professor of the History of Religions in the University of Leyden, has a position of eminence before the world. His publications of importance are numerous, prominent among which stand “The Religion of Zarathustra [Zoroaster];” “Comparative History of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian Religions;” “The Place of the Religions of Savages in the History of Religion;” “History of Religions of Antiquity to the Time of Alexander the Great;” and “Babylonian-Assyrian History.” A word from Professor Tiele, on the theme of this book, has exceptional weight. He says:

“I thank you very much for your kindness in sending me your most interesting book, ‘The Threshold Covenant.’... As far as I can judge, you have not only given a clear exposition of the facts pertaining to this widespread custom, but you have also shown the right way to catch the meaning underlying those strange usances.

“Of late I have been mostly occupied by the study of the religions of civilized people; nevertheless, I ever take a lively interest in the study of primitive man and the origin of religious rites. I have to say something on these questions in the Gifford Lectures, which I have been invited to deliver before the University of Edinburgh next term. So your book came just in time to know your meaning on the subject, and to revise my opinion by comparing it with yours.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. E. WASHBURN HOPKINS.

The successor, at Yale University, of Professor William D. Whitney, in the chair of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, is Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, who before held the same chair in Bryn Mawr College. This fact in itself is an indication of his position as a scholar; and his latest work, “The Religions of India,” in the series of “Handbooks on the History of Religions,” bears testimony to his learning and ability in that realm. Of the matters treated in this volume he says:

“I have read your ‘Threshold Covenant’ with great interest and pleasure. The statements made in respect of Hindu rites all appear to me to be correct, and some of them might be made stronger, notably in the case of the functions of the altar.

“I cannot say that I agree with you in all respects in your inductions from the ceremonial of the Door, but I have at least been furnished with much food for reflection and hints for observation in future investigation on these lines. Your work is a storehouse of useful data, and illustrates many strange customs of India by parallels from other countries, though I should hesitate to refer so much to one primitive principle.

“But, at all events, the facts of the religious phase which you emphasize have been set forth clearly, correctly, and fully, as regards India, to whatever conclusion they may point. I have had great pleasure in following your argument through to the end.”

It may be mentioned that the added facts as to the Door, given in the Appendix, were not in the proof-sheets submitted to Professor Hopkins.

FROM THE REV. DR. WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS.