DR. SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. A Dictionary of the Bible: its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History. Edited by William Smith, LL.D. Vol. I. 8vo. Murray, 1860. THIS is a great and important work. It has a right to that character, inasmuch as it deals with the most weighty of all subjects, and is formed, for the most part, of the contributions of a considerable number of eminent men. Among the "writers," a list of whom follows the title page, we find, "Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury; R. W. Browne; G. E. L. Cotton, bishop of Calcutta; C. J. Ellicott; Ernest Hawkins; Lord Arthur Hervey ; J. H. Howson; J. J. S. Perowne; George Rawlinson; H. J. Rose; William Selwyn; Arthur P. Stanley; W. Thomson, provost of Queen's College, Oxon; with others of nearly equal rank. The book, therefore, must have value; and it demands a respectful consideration. Our readers will expect from us a calm and dispassionate account of its merits and demerits; and we hasten to give such an account, at the earliest period consistent with a proper examination of the work. First, then, let us do justice to its merits. It is, unquestionably, taken all together, one of the largest and most valuable contributions to biblical literature that has been made in modern times. Several men of great learning, judgment, and powers of research have given their minds, heartily and laboriously, to the investigation of a multitude of questions connected with Holy Scripture, and have brought together the results of their inquiries in this volume. Thus, we have one of the best scholars in the British Museum discussing the question of Chronology; Dr. Thomson, the head of Queen's College, Oxford, treats at some length the Gospels, their discrepancies, and their agreements; Isaiah is defended from the German critics by Mr. Huxtable, the sub-dean of Wells; and several valuable papers are contributed by dean Alford and Mr. Arthur Stanley. Let it be observed, that this consecration of learning and talent to the highest of all studies is in some sort new. Forty years ago, the defence and elucidation of Holy Scripture was left, in the main, to such men as Thomas Scott and Thomas Hartwell Horne. Now, all honour be given to these men ; and let no word drop from our pen to depreciate their labours. But it is well known that neither of them could lay claim to what is usually termed "a learned education." The men of highest mark in Oxford and Cambridge were at that time chiefly occupied with Greek history, or annotated editions of Eschylus or Plato. Even on the episcopal bench, the most distinguished names for scholarship were such as Maltby, Blomfield, Monk, and Thirlwall; all of whom had gained distinction more by their secular than their sacred studies. The present primate, with his brother, and Dr. Kaye, were, we believe, a quarter of a century back, almost the only prelates who had earned the character of theologians. It must, therefore, be regarded as a favourable symptom, that our greatest scholars are now beginning to discover that the highest of all studies is the study of God's word. Nor is the present volume to be overlooked, in this view of the subject, exhibiting, as it does, more signally than any similar work, the readiness of men of learning to apply themselves to this study; and also the great advantage which students of the Bible may derive from such a dedication of learning and intellect to the service of the sanctuary. Our duty, however, as critics and public reporters will not be performed if we content ourselves with a general verdict as to the high literary rank of this book. Our readers will expect to be told whether it has any serious faults; and the compounders or constructors of the volume may also claim to be informed, whether, in our opinion, it is still susceptible of improvement. Hence, having freely admitted its clainis to a place in the highest rank among works on biblical interpretation, we turn to the more unpleasing part of our duty, the indication of its faults, defects, and wrong-doings. And first, let us speak of the persons concerned in the production of this important work. For there are, in this point of view, several singular features connected with its history. Its editor, projector, and, we suppose, proprietor, is " William Smith, LL.D.," editor of the "Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Antiquities," &c., and, we believe, "Classical Examiner to the London University." We know not of any other qualifications entitling Dr. Smith to take upon himself this high office; and we feel quite at a loss to account for the fact, that the bishop of Calcutta, the dean of Canterbury, the provost of Queen's College, Oxford, and professors Stanley, Browne, Ellicott, and Selwyn, should have placed themselves, in some sort, under his command. He is said to be "a dissenting minister without a charge; " but of what religious body he is a member, and whether orthodox or heterodox, we have never heard. He may be a very good man, and a sound theologian; but we cannot divine how he contrived to make this known to the fifty-two gentlemen who have helped him to construct this Dictionary, without, at the same time, imparting the same knowledge and satisfaction to the public at large. Or if he be, as we have once or twice suspected, a gentleman of "no particular religious opinions," then we feel still more wonder that bishops and deans, professors and prebendaries, should have embarked under a captain who hoists no flag, and fights for no intelligible cause. A second subject of surprise is, the association of men in this work, who are not, we believe, agreed on the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Between dean Alford, professor Browne, Mr. Howson, Mr. T. T. Perowne, and Dr. Thomson, on the one side, and Mr. Llewellyn Davies, Mr. Farrar, and Mr. W. A. Wright, on the other, there is, we apprehend, a great and important disagreement, known and appreciated on both sides; and we are quite unable to understand how men can agree to work together in biblical interpretation, who differ so widely from each other on great and essential points, as these two classes are known to do. But having thus indicated what appears to us to be an intrinsic cause of weakness and internal discordance, let us now proceed to offer several remarks upon the work itself. 1. And, first of all, let us express our regret at the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the general plan of the work. : The book is heavy, both in bulk and in price and anything tending to increase its size and its cost is to be deprecated; the more especially since, large as it is, several important matters have been omitted-we conclude from want of room. Hence it seems to be a just ground for regret, when, at nearly every page, we meet with such items as these: "ALEMA (1 Maccabees v. 26). APAME (1 Esdras iv. 29).. Such articles, with their explanatory details, occupy a considerable space, and tend to increase the price of the work. But we object to their insertion on another ground, namely, that the Apocrypha is no part of the Bible; and that no good reason can be assigned for thus mingling these old Jewish legends with the word of God, which would not justify the inclusion of the writings of Josephus. We strongly recommend the exclusion of all these articles from the next edition. 2. The bulk of the work is also augmented by the insertion of many articles on subjects not necessarily included in the plan. Thus, after seven columns on the Apocryphal book of ECCLESIASTICUS, comes an article on the ECLIPSE OF THE SUN. A few pages further, we have three columns on EDUCATION. Then an article on ENGINE; three columns on FABLE; seven columns on Food; and ten on HANDICRAFT. The same system runs through the book. At the very opening, we stumble on two columns on ALLIANCES, one on ALMS, and four on ARMY. A little further on, we come to two columns on CHILDREN, seven on COLOURS, and two on COTTON. None of our readers, we believe, would ever have thought of consulting a Dictionary of the Bible for instruction on cotton, or on food; and we believe that if these unnecessary articles were omitted, it would effect an important reduction in the size and price of the book. 3. But then, on the other hand, there are serious omissions. The articles which the reader would rationally expect, but which he will not find, contrast singularly with the needless ones which are inserted. Thus, the reader is offered a paper upon COTTON, but he finds none upon the DELUGE. He meets with an essay on EDUCATION, but he finds none on the FALL. On HANDICRAFTS there is an article of ten columns, but on INSPIRATION not a word. The paper on FooD occupies seven columns, but on the ATONEMENT there is none at all. Thus, if the unnecessary articles excite surprise, that feeling is doubled when the reader comes to observe what important topics have been quite forgotten. 4. We pass on to the more important questions, of the intrinsic character of the principal portions of the work. The mere dictionary of proper names we may safely assume to be compiled in a creditable manner, since that is Dr. Smith's own peculiar excellence. But there are very many topics on which controversy has long existed, and respecting which it was scarcely possible to be entirely silent. And here we see, at once, one of the natural results of the employment of a staff of writers, who are not themselves in agreement on the main articles of the Christian faith. The book contradicts itself: its articles teach one thing on page 50, and exactly the opposite on page 100. A few instances of this will explain our meaning. (1.) The cause of the rejection of Cain's offering has latterly been brought into question,-Mr. Maurice and his followers maintaining a view which is entirely opposed to that which had previously prevailed in the church. The Dictionary adopts both views; regardless of the impossibility of believing, at the same moment, two statements which contradict each other. Under the head of ABEL we read "Jehovah showed respect for Abel's offering, but not for that of Cain, because, according to the epistle to the Hebrews, Abel, 'by faith, offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.' The expression 'sin,' i. e. a sin-offering, lieth at the door,' seems to imply that the need of sacrifices of blood to obtain forgiveness was already revealed.” But, when we turn to the article on CAIN, we are told, that— "He is described as a man of a morose, malicious, and revengeful temper; and that he presented his offering in this state of mind is implied in the rebuke in verse 7. . . . . . The narrative implies that his offering was rejected on account of the temper in which it was brought." (2.) Even in plain matters of history there is the same discrepancy. Thus, under the head of HAM we find "HAM: The name of one of the three sons of Noah, apparently the second in age." Yet, a few pages further, we read "JAPHETH: one of the three sons of Noah. From the order in which their names invariably occur, we should naturally infer that Japheth was the youngest; but we learn from ix. 24, that Ham held We infer, therefore, that Japheth was the second (3.) On such an important question as the Creation, there is the same discrepancy. Thus, under the head of EARTH, we are told that, That a "Moses assigns the work of creation to six days..... natural day is represented under the expression, evening was, and morning was,' admits, we think, of no doubt. . . . No analogy of language admits of our understanding the term in any other than its literal sense." But, when we turn to the article on GENESIS, we there read that "With regard to the six days, no reasonable doubt can exist, that they ought to be interpreted as six periods, without defining what the length of those periods is. No one can suppose that the Divine rest was literally a rest of twenty-four hours." (4.) Once more: under the head of BROTHER, we find, rather unexpectedly, a discussion respecting the "Brethren of the Lord;" in which we are told that, "The arguments for their being our Lord's uterine brothers are numerous, and, taken collectively, to an unprejudiced mind, almost irresistible. The arguments in favour of their being the actual brothers of our Lord are cogent; and the tradition on the other side is not sufficiently weighty or unanimous to set them aside.” But when we proceed to the article on JAMES, we are informed that, "Of James's father we know nothing, except that he married Mary, the sister of the Virgin Mary; and had by her four sons and three or more daughters. . . . It is probable that these cousins, or, as they were usually called, brothers and sisters, of the Lord, were older than himself." The editor, in his preface, " considers it an advantage to have the arguments stated from different points of view." We believe that the bulk of his readers will be of a different opinion, and will feel that it gives a doubtful and unsatisfactory complexion to the whole work, to know that, although it declares a certain thing to be black in one place, it may perhaps assert it to be white in another. 5. But now we come to that which is, after all, the main defect of the book. It is composed, it is true, by writers of different schools of theology, and it, very naturally, contradicts itself in a multitude of places. But the preponderance is on the wrong side. The balance is not fairly kept;-if balance between truth and falsehood could ever be rightly maintained. In fact, there is |