BIBLE QUESTIONS

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 193, 19 September 1914, Page 2

BIBLE QUESTIONS

(Edited by ♦,'AQUILA.") Bible questions will be answered here if sent to the Editor of tins column, accompanied by the names and addresses of the senders. Q. —Is it a fact that the mustard seed is the "least'of all seeds" (Matthew xiii., 33), and that the mustard tree is the "greatest among herbs''"'? I think that many seeds are smaller, and many spores immensely so. The seed of the gum tree is smaller, and the tree is much larger.—BOTANY.

A.—You_ must not. strain forms of speech. All that is meant is that the seed is very small compared with the tree. The seed is small, and the plant, which is an annual, will grow to v a height of, 10ft or 12ft in a season in fat soil. It. has branches-like a tree, and birds perch on eat the seeds. The mustard tree is therefore a striking example of rapid growth, and if not the greatest amongherbs/ is probably easily the greatest known to Palestine. In Luke xiii., 19 it is called a "great tree"; but that again is only comparative. We ourselves speak of a "goosebery tree" and of a "rose tree," and if we had a plant that grew to the size of an apple tree in a single season* we would probably call it a "great tree,'' meaning thereby to call attention to its phenomenal growth.

Q.—l have compared many of the quotations from the Old Testament which abound in the New Testament with the passage supposed to be quoted. I find that there is always a difference in the words, though the meaning may be the Same. How is it -that the quotations are not exactf If verbal accuracy is so important, surely we might expect it here.—ENQUIRER. A.-—Jesus no doubt spoke a degenerate form of Hebrew, known as Aramaic. He probably quoted the Hebrew Scriptures direct. But the Gospels were written in Greek, and a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was'used by the writers. This translation was no doubt that known as the Septuagint. or "the Seventy," owing to a legend that it was made by 70, or rather 72, scholars at the command of the King of Egypt about three centuries B.C. How the version originated does not, however, concern us now. It is certain that there was such a version at the time of Christ, and that we have it now. It is of great value in the understanding of the Hebrew text, but it was rather a' free translation, and not done with the painstaking exactness that marks our present-day translations. Hence, when our translators came to translate, first, the original .Hebrew of, say, Isaiah into English, and then the same passage in the New Testament as it stands in the Greek version, the results are, not identical—in words at least. As. you say, it is a very_,clear proof that the Scriptures themselves do not pncourjjge the thoughtful to worship the letter.

Q.—l find in Matthew 17/ 24, that "They who received the tribute money came to Peter and said, D.oth, not your master pay tribute? He said, Yes. 1 " And when he had ' come into the house, Jesus prevented him," etc. (1) On what grounds was Jesus a.taxpayer, if he had no property and ho fixed 'homo? Was'it a poll tax? (2)\Wtiat is meant by "Jesus prevented him?//,'He certainly did" not prevent him from payipg,

for he directed Peter how to get the monev.—CURIOUS.

A.—This .was not the Roman tribute, which the ''publicans'.' gathered, but an ecclesiastical tax of half a shekel levied on every adult male Jew for the support of the sacrifices, etc., of the Temple. If you read the whole of the incident you will see that it has to do with the Temple. The shekel was worth about 2/9. The word "prevent" simply means, "anticipate"; when Peter came into the house Jesus anticipated what he was going to say—forestalled him. Literally, the word "prevent" means "go before." At the time the Authorised Version was made the meaning was, to go before with a good intention; "The Lord prevented me" meant that the Lord had anticipated my desires. It also meant, as in the text, merely to forestall; but in the course of ■ centuries it has come to mean "to go before with the purpose of hindering."

Q- —A party of us have had an argument as to the date of the mariner's compass, and one man upset all bur theories by showing that it is mentioned in the Bible. He read Acts 28, 13, how Paul and his company sailed in a ship of Alexandria, "whose sign was Castor and Pollux; and landing at Syracuse, we tarried three days, And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium." He said that Paul had been wrecked at Malta, and that the compass had been lpst.a'Kd could not be replaced in such an out-of-the-way spot;, so they called at the important town of Syracuse to get one. After much argument, we to refer the question to you. Was it a mariner's compass that they fetched? —PUZZLED.

A. —Your ingenious friend is simply playing with an old form of speech which mean, We made a circuit. We still say, He fetched him a blow, or,. He fetched a turn to the left, where there is no idea of bringing or fetching anything. You will find the same expression in other parts of the Bible, where <there is no reference to a ship; thuSj"Thou shall not go tip; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees." (ii. Sam./ 5, 23.) The meaning is, .'' Take a circuit :and get into theix rear." Here is another military example: "So the King of Israel'went, and the King of Judah, and the King of Edom; and they fetched a compass of seven days' journey, etc. (ii. Kings, 3, 9.) The mariner's compass ig claimed by the Chinese to have been : known as early as 2600 8.C.,; but the earliest trace of its actual use by n them is about 300 A.D. It is thought by some to have, been brought from China by Marco Polo in. the Twelfth Century. Others contend that, it was. invented in Italv about A.D. 1360. .

Q. —Why does Jesus (Matt, xv.)protest against the washing of "hands before'meat, and yet (Jn. xiii.) lay: stress on the duty of washing of feet?^—D.J.B. A. —He does not protest against the washing of hands regarded merely as an act of cleanliness, but simply against making it a religious duty, binding on the conscience. It is manifest that such a law would in many circumstances make it impossible to eat at all without a sin against conscience. Moreover, it was a 'mere man-made law,' and--against that as an invasion of human liberty he protested. The washing of feet was not a religious observance, but simply an expression of courtesy and politeness. The disciples, in gathering for the last supper, had neglected this, because they were all equal, and none would humble himself to -be the servant of the rest. It was t.o reprove this pride that Jesus washed their feet Himself. .He wished t.hem.to be kindly .and courteous from spontaneous goodness of heart, not from spiritual bondage to -forms.