There were twenty keys in the set, code-named Horsemen, after the biblical Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER (1828-1901), American biblical scholar, was born at Boston on the 7th of November 1828.
It represents the Biblical Mareshah, the ruins of which exist at Tell Sandahannah close by.
His first work was an inquiry into the authorship of the Commentary on St Paul's Epistles and the Treatise on Biblical Questions, ascribed to Ambrose and Augustine respectively.
A similar translation of Ecclesiastes, followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he was preparing the first sections of his magnum opus, the critical study of the Massorah.
It is a Latin poem in ten books of hexameters, and contains a curious admixture of Biblical history.
IDUMAEA ('160v saia), the Greek equivalent of Edom (aip), a territory which, in the works of the Biblical writers, is considered to lie S.E.
The occupants of Edom during practically the whole period of Biblical history were the Bedouin tribes which claimed 1 A curious etymological speculation connects the name with the story of Esau's begging for Jacob's pottage, Gen.
Biblical tradition tells us nothing more about Melchizedek (cf.
Charles Augustus Briggs, tried for heresy for his inaugural address in 1891 as professor of biblical theology at Union Seminary (in which he attacked the inerrancy of the Bible, held the composite character of the Hexateuch and of the Book of Isaiah and taught that sanctification is not complete at death), was acquitted by the presbytery of New York, but was declared guilty and was suspended from its ministry by the General Assembly of 1893.
In it we find the principles of a general interpretation, formed without the assistance of any particular philosophy, but consisting of observations and rules which, though already enunciated, and applied in the criticism of the profane writers, had never rigorously been employed in biblical exegesis.
The latter view appears to be the most probable, as, according to the Biblical accounts, Jerusalem was partly in Judah and partly in Benjamin, the line of demarcation between the two tribes passing through the city.
First (a), in the earlier biblical writings which describe the state of affairs under the Hebrew monarchy there is not this fundamental distinction among the Levites, and, although a list of Aaronite high-priests is preserved in a late source, internal details and the evidence of the historical books render its value extremely doubtful (1 Chron.
Grew up around this and the other biblical statements.
Its object was to fix the biblical text unalterably.
The critical investigation of these records is the indispensable prelude to all serious biblical study, and hasty or sweeping deductions from monumental or archaeological evidence, or versions compiled promiscuously from materials of distinct origin, are alike hazardous.
A glimpse at Palestine in the latter half of the second millennium B.C. (§ 3) prepares us for busy scenes and active intercourse, but it is not a history of this kind which the biblical historians themselves transmit.
A more general term is" Hebrew " (see Hebrew Language), which, whether originally identical with the Habiru or not (§ 3), is used in contrast to foreigners, and this non-committal ethnic On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical records, see especially S.
Here and frequently elsewhere in biblical history it is necessary to allow that a genuine historical tradition may be clothed in an unhistorical dress, but since many diverse motives are often concentrated upon one narrative (e.g.
Stories of successful warfare and of temporary leaders (see Abimelech; Ehud; Gideon; Jephthah) form an introduction to the institution of the Israelite monarchy, an epoch of supreme importance in biblical history.
- Biblical history previous to the separation of Judah and Israel holds a prominent place in current ideas, since over two-fifths of the entire Old Testament deals with these early ages.
Where the material is fuller, serious discrepancies are found; and where external evidence is fortunately available, the independent character of the biblical history is vividly illustrated.
The various reconstructions and compromises by modern apologetic and critical writers alike involve without exception an extremely free treatment of the biblical sources and the rejection of many important and circumstantial data.'
On the other hand, the reconstructions which allow a gradual settlement (perhaps of distinct groups), and an intermingling with the earlier inhabitants, certainly find support in biblical evidence, and they have been ingeniously built up with the help of tribal and other data (e.g.
But they imply political, sociological and religious developments which do not do j ustice either to the biblical evidence as a whole or to a comprehensive survey of contemporary conditions.'
Without sufficient external and independent evidence wherewith to interpret in the light of history the internal features of the intricate narratives, any reconstruction would naturally be hazardous, and all attempts must invariably be considered in the light of the biblical evidence itself, the date of the Israelite exodus, and the external conditions.