In the NT conception prudence is consistent with sinijilicity, and .should be in.separably associated with it (Mt 10i«, Ho lOi' aKipaioi). In the Test, of the Twelve Patriarchs there is a graphic picture of the man of simplicity. He is not a busybody in his doings, nor malicious and slanderous against his neighbours. He never speaks against any one, nor censures the life of any one, but walks in the yimplicity of his eyes. lie is free from lustful desires ; he is unselfish in his beneficence. ' The simple coveteth not gold, defraudeth not his neigh- bour, longeth not after manifold dainties, de- lighteth not in varied apparel, doth not picture to himself to live a long life, but only waiteth for the will of God, and the spirits of evil have no power against him' (Testament of Issachar, c. 3-4, Sinker's tr.).
Literature. — Sulcer, Tfi^nnuruH', Cremor. Bib.-TheoL Lex.\ Troncli, KT Hyuoiiymtt, pp. '.i)»4-209 ; Kliiiir in Jlerzoj.'^^ vol. Iv. 135, 180 ; Lcuiinu iu llerzog^, vol. v. ihX-i'i^.
John Patkick.
*• SIN.— I. /.v r//^ Old TKsr.iMK.vT.—Prefa- torij. — The doctrine of sin in the OT nnisl be con- sidered as there given ; that is to .say, the historical method forbids our taking into account NT inter- pretations ol it — such, for instance, as St. Paid's comments in Romans on the sin of Adam and its
"Cnpiirlltlit. \:«K. by V
consequences. The same method requires that the chronological order of theOT should be followed, but the attempt to do this precisely would so com- plicate the treatment that it seems best to examine the main divisions of the Heb. Bible as they stand — (1) the Law, (2) the Prophets, (.'J) the Hagio- grapha, leaving open such cjuestions as what amount of the Priestly legislation may be considered to be pre-exilic, and wiiat dates arc to be assigned to Deuteronomy and the Books of Kings.
Sin is a negative conception, and involves a pre- ceding idea to which it is contrary, namely Rights eousness, first attributed to Noah, Gn U'. The righteousness of God is His confornnty to the moral law which is II is nature, and to His cove- nants with num. The righteousness of man is conformity to the same moral law and the same covenants. ' Walking with God ' (Gn 5-') is but an- other phra.se for righteousness. Sin as the contrary of righteousness is disobedience to God, departing from God, self-assertion again.st God. Thus the fundamental GT conception of sin is not sin against other men, or against a man's self, but sin against God. The GT anticipates what modern Christian tluiught has a-sserted, that the nearest relation of the human soul is its relation to God (Miiller, Chr. Duct, of Sill, tr. vol. i. p. 81).
i. The L.vw. — starting with this hypothesis, let us first see how far it is borne out in the tradi- tions of jji-e-JIosaic religion.
(1) There is no occa-sion to enter into the question whether the story of the Fall is to be regarded as both historical and symbolic (Aug. de Civitate Dei, xiii. 21) or merely symbolic (Origen, de Prin. iv. 10). One point comes out clearly : sin is set before us at its very beginning as disobedience to Divine law, an exercise of human free will in con- scious opposition to that law, a departure from an original state. There is, however, nothing to imply that that state was a perfect one, as scholastic theology described it. The free communications with (iod, (ui which much stress has been laid as evidence of a lofty state, continue after the Fall. (On the supposed contradiction between the results of anthropological science and the idea of a Fall, see Illingworth's 2?«m/)<o;i Lectures, Lcct. vi.). It must also be observed that the OT does not any- where teach a corruption of human nature derived from Adam, still less an imputation of his gudt. All that it teaches is the universality of sin in Adam's offspring. But if the descent of all man- kind from Adam is taken as a fact, then the univer- sality of sin may be presumed to have some relation to descent from Adam (see Mozley's Lectures and TheoUxjical Papers, Lect. on ' Original Sin '). And the prevalent feeling that the nation rather than the individual was the subject of sin (see Clemen, Lehre von der Sihide, p. 42 ff.) would prepare the way for the thought of all mankind being involved iu the guilt and penalty of Adam and Kve, when religious thought came to reflect on the relation to God of mankind generally, and not merely of Israel. This reflexion, however, belongs to a later date (2 Esdras and Roma us), ami the absence of reference to the Fall in OT is remarkable. The three passages usually quoted, J(.)b 31-'^ (see RVm), llos (>' (.see RVm). Is 43-" (see Dillmann. ad !oc.), are not to the point. Cf., further, Thackeray, iSt. Paul and Jeicish Thouijht. 31 ff.
(2) The interest of tiie Cain narrative is, (n) that man is not left to himself either before or after sin. There are voices of God warning, promising, con- deuniing. And (/<) sin is already personified ; it has gained a positive existence instead of being a mere negation : ' If thou doest not well, sin couch- eth at the door,' Gn 4" ; cf. Sir 27'".