: o : 6 3 % *H i r j LIBRARY (UNIVERSITY OF >RNIA * SAN DIEGO If 0^. "V^S'TY LfSRARY J ^L,.A. CALIFORNIA THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCES truth or iii i : scwrn re VATi >IM>S S T \ T Kli \ N K W . WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE To TIIK IKH'BTS AM> DISCOVERIES OK MODERN TIMES. i\ BOOT I.KfTIRES DEUVZRED IN TIIK OXPORD rSIVKRBITY II 1. 1 IT, IN THE YF-AB K'.i. THE Hampton ForNDATioN. II V GEORGE RAWLINS OX, M.A., I.ATK PKI.I.OW AXI> TUTOR OP EXETKK COI.I.K* 1 : : EDITOR OK "TICK Hl-ToHY OP IIEROIMIT1 - ' KTl . PROM THE LONDON EDITION, WITH THE NOTES TRANSLATED, i-.v RKV. A. X. ARNOLD. NEW YORK LOVELL, CORYELL & COMPANY 43, 45 AND 47 EAST TENTH STREET 2~ 39,t>i THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCES TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 7V) utv yao ahjQtl ninna ovvddti tu vjiao/ovra' ca dt ytevdtl raxi) diaipwvel taki^tg. ajustotle. (for with the true all things that exist are in harmony; bvt with the false the trv'fc at once disagrees.) ' O Xi}* JVOl S tVQVtiig. (TIME IS THE DISCOVERER.) E X T It A C T THE LAST WILL .\XD TESTAMENT OF T II E REV. JOHN BAMPTON, C A X O X O I" S A L I S H L It Y . ... . " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have ami to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the manner following : " I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between VI KXTRACT I l:i)M CANON BAMPTOX'S WILL. the rnnine:] anient of the last month ; n Lent T.".n:. iv.A the end of the third week In Act Term. " Also 1 direct and npnoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall l>e pruached upon either of the following Subjects to confirm and establish t!io Christian Keith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. " Al.-o I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall Ik? always printed, within two months after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put Into the Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not \>e paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed. " AlsC i direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Di'inity Leot :.e Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; ami tliiit the some person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Ser- ons twice." PUBLISHERS' ADVERTISEMENT THE AMERICAN EDITION The present work, though it belongs to the same series, and has the same general design, with Prof. Mansers Lec- tures on the Limits of Religious Thought, deals with very different materials, and employs very different modes of reasoning. Instead of abstruse inquiries into the subtle conditions and laws of thought, the business of our au- thor is with the concrete facts of history, and the explicit records of the past. The two works thus represent the opposite poles of scientific inquiry. They are like - two buttresses, built up of different materials, but of equal strength, on opposite sides of the citadel of our Christian faith. Mr. Rawlinson has been peculiarly happy in the facili- ties which he has enjoyed for combining with his own extensive and accurate knowledge of the literary monu- ments of antiquity the latest results of the remarkable (7) 8 ADVERTISEMENT. discoveries of his distinguished brother and other suc- cessful explorers in those rich mines of history, more precious than of gold, which have so recently been opened in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile. Some gen- eral knowledge of these results, as confirmatory of the historical accuracy of the Sacred Scriptures, has already been widely diffused ; but there was needed a thorough and scholarly work upon this particular subject, which, by combining a complete survey and a logical method with copious specific proofs and illustrations, should stamp with a more unquestionable certainty, and estimate with a more critical exactness, these reputed confirmations of Scripture history. This is the task which Mr. Rawlinson has undertaken in these "Bampton Lectures;" and we are confident that the verdict of his own countrymen, as . to the signal ability and success with which he has ac- complished it, will be fully indorsed by his American readers. But it would be unjust to the author to intimate that the value of his book is measured only by the skilful and exhaustive use which he has made of recent discoveries in the East : the plan of his work covers a broader field, including all the testimonies of ancient literature to the facts of Christianity, and the verncity of the Inspired Volume. But as most of these testimonies of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian writers have become familiarly ADVERTISEMENT. 9 known to those who have studied the Christian evidences, the main interest of these Lectures, for a large class of readers, will probably be found in the fresher contribu- tion which they bring to this subject, from the recently deciphered hieroglyphics of Egypt, and the still more recent excavations on the sites of the ancient cities of Assyria. As this work promises, from its less abstract character, to interest a larger proportion of the reading public than the excellent volume by Prof. Mansel, there was a still stronger reason than in the case of that work for making the valuable Notes intelligible to all, by translating such portions of them as were given in foreign languages in the English edition. These Notes were mostly in tho Greek language; and the translations have been made by the Rev. A. N. Arnold, who was for many years a resi- dent in Greece. The translator has not had access to all the Greek and Latin writers from whom the author lias quoted in his proofs; and hence it is not impossible that some trifling inaccuracies have resulted from the want of that light which the connection would have shed upon these fragmentary sentences. It is a happy omen, that, while so much of the litera- ture of our times is marked by a tone of infidelity, and especially by a disparagement of the evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, there is in 10 ADVERTISEMENT. other quarters an increasing readiness to make the choicest gifts of modern science and learning tributary to the word of God. The eclipse of faith is not total. And it is an additional cause for gratitude to the God of Prov- idence and of Revelation, that, even at this remote dis- tance of time from the date of the Sacred Oracles, new evidences of their credibility and accuracy are continually coming to light. How much may yet remain, buried under barren mounds, or entombed in pyramids and cata- combs, or hidden in the yet unexplored pages of some ancient literature, it were vain to conjecture ; but of this we may be sure, that if any new forms of evidence should hereafter be needed, to meet any new forms of unbelief, and authenticate afresh the word of truth, they will be found deposited somewhere, waiting for the fulness of time ; and God will bring them forth in their season, from the dark hieroglyphics, or the desert sands, or the dusty manuscripts, to confound the adversaries of his word, and to "magnify it above all his name." PREFACE. These Lectures are an attempt to meet that latest phase of modern unbelief, which, professing a reverence for the name and person of Christ, and a real regard for the Scriptures as embodiments of what is purest and holiest in religious feeling, lowers Christ to a mere name, and empties the Scriptures of all their force and practical efficacy, by denying the historical character of the Bib- lical narrative. German Neology (as it is called) has of late years taken chiefly this line of attack, and has pur- sued it with so much vigor and apparent success, that, according to the complaints of German orthodox writers, "no objective ground or stand-point" is left, on which the believing Theological science can build witli any feeling of security. 1 Nor is the evil in question con- fined to Germany. The works regarded as most effective in destroying the historical faith of Christians abroad, have received an English dress, and arc, it is t<> be feared, read by numbers of persons very ill prepared by historical studies to withstand their specious reasonings, alike in onr own country and in America. The tone, moreover, of German historical writings generally is 1 See Keil'a Preface to hi. Comment on Joshua, quoted in Note XXIV. t.. Lecture I 12 PREFACE. tinged w.ih' the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the historical student is liable to be undermined, almost without his having his suspicions aroused, by covert as- sumptions or* the mythical character of the sacred nar- rative, in woiis professing to deal chiefly, or entirely, with profane subjects. The author had long felt this to be a serious and a growing evil. Meanwhile his own studies, which ha\j lain for the last eight or nine years almost exclusively in the field of Ancient History, had convinced him moie and more of the thorough truthful- ness and faithful accuracy of che historical Scriptures. Circumstances had gi/en hini an intimate knowledge of the whole course of recent cuneiform, and (to some extent) of hieroglyphic discovery; and he had been continually struck with He removal of difficulties, the accession of light, and the multiplication of minute points of agreement between the jacred and the profane, which resulted from the advances made in deciphering the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian records. He therefore ventured, at the earliest moment which en- gagements of long standing would allow, to submit to the Heads of Colleges, electors to the office of Bampton Lecturer under the will of the Founder, the scheme of the following Discourses. His scheme having at once met with their approval, it only remained for him to use his best efforts in the elaboration of the subject which he had chosen. Two modes of meeting the attacks of the Mythical School presented themselves. lie might make it his PREFACE. 13 main object to examine the arguments of their principal writers seriatim, and to demonstrate from authentic records their weakness, perverseness, and falsity. Or touching only slightly on this purely controversial ground, he might endeavor to exhibit clearly and forcibly the argument from the positive agreement between Scripture and profane history, which they ignored altogether. The latter mode of treatment appeared to him at once the more convincing to young minds, and the more suitable for a set of Lectures. For these reasons he adopted it. At the same time he has occasionally, both in the Text and in the Notes, addressed himself to the more im- portant of the reasonings by which the school of Strauss and De Wette seek to overthrow the historical authority of the Sacred documents. The Notes have run to a somewhat unusual length. The author thought it important to exhibit (where possi- ble) the authorities * for his statements in full; and o collect into a single volume the chief testimonies to the historical truth and accuracy of the Scripture records. If in referring to the cuneiform writings lie lias on many occasions stated their substance, rather than cited theif exact words, it is because so few of them have as yet been translated by competent scholars, and because in most cases his own knowledge is limited to an acquaint- ance with the substance, derived from frequent conversa- tions with his gifted brother. It is to be hoped that no long time will elapse before some one of the lour sttcan*, Who have proved their capacity to render the ancient 2 14 . PREFA CE. Assyrian, 1 will present the world with a complete trans- lation of all the historical inscriptions hitherto recovered. The author cannot conclude without expressing his ac- knowledgments to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Librarian of the Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring at his instance various foreign works; and to Dr. Pusey, Professor Stan- ley, and Mr. Mansel for some valuable information on several points connected with the Lectures. lie is bound also to record his obligations to various living or recent writers, whose works have made his task easier, as Pro- fessors Keil, Havernick, and Olshausen in Germany, and in England Dr. Lardner, Dr. Burton, and Dean Alford. Finally, he is glad once more to avow his deep obliga- tions to the learning and genius of his brother, and to the kind and liberal communication on his part of full information upon every point where there seemed to be any contact between the sacred history and the cunei- form records. The novelty of the Lbctures will, he feels, consist chiefly, if not solely, in the exhibition of these points of contact and agreement ; and the circumstance of his having this novelty to offer was his chief induce- ment to attempt a work on the subject. It is his earnest prayer that, by the blessing of God, his labors may tend to check the spread of unbelief, and to produce among Scripture students a more lively appreciation of the reality of those facts which are put before us in the Bible, Oxford, November 2, 1859. 1 See the Inscription of Tiglath-Pilcscr I., king of jis3yria, B. C. 1150, as translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Fox Talbot, Ksq., Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Opnert; published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1857. CONTENTS. LECTURE I. Historical character of Christianity as contrasted with other religions its contact, thence arising, with historical science its liability to be tried afresh by new tests and criteria, as historic science advances. Recent advance of historical science rise of the new department of Historical Criticism its birth and growth its results and ten- dencies. Application of Historical Criticism to Christianity to be expected and even desired the application as made first, by the mythical school of De Wette and Strauss secondly, by the histori- cal school Niebuhr himself Bunsen. Intention of the Lectures, to examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side, by the light of the true principles of historical science. Statement of the principles under the form of four Canons. Corollaries of the Canons com- parative value of sources force of cumulative evidence. Further Canon which some seek to add on the subject of miracles, examined possibility of miracles contrary notion, Atheistic peculiarities of the modern Atheism. Occurrence of miracles proved creation a miracle counterfeit miracles prove the existence of genuine ones. Rejection of the additional Canon leaves the ground clear for the proposed inquiry. Two kinds of evidence to be examined 1. That of the Sacred Volume itself, considered as a mass of documents, and judged by the laws of Historical Criticism 1. The external evidence, (15) 16 CONTENTS. or that contained in monuments, in the works of profane authors, in established customs and observances, and in the contemporary writ- ings of believers. Main purpose of the Lectures, to exhibit the external evidence 25 LECTURE II. Two modes of conducting ?n historical inquiry the Retrospective and the Progressive advantages of each preference assigned to the latter. Plan of the Lectures division of the Biblical history into five periods. History of the first period, contained in the Pentateuch question of the genuineness of the Pentateuch argument from the unanimous testimony of the Jews objections answered. Writ- ing practised at the time. Heathen testimony to the genuineness. Internal testimony difficulties of the opposite theory. Authen- ticity of the Pentateuch, a consequent of its genuineness Moses an unexceptionable witness for the history of the last four books. Authenticity of Genesis the events, if purely traditional, would have passed through but few hands to Moses. Probability that Genesis is founded on documents, some of which may have been ante-diluvian. External evidence of the authenticity agreement of the narrative with the best profane authorities. Review of the authorities preeminence of Berosus and Manctho as historians of ancient times Egyptian and Babylonian monuments mode in which the monuments and histories have to be combined. Com- parison of the chronological schemes of Manetho and Berosus with the chronology of Scripture. Account of the Creation in Berosus its harmony with Scripture. Account given by Berosus of the Deluge similar account of Abydenus the difference between the Scriptural and the profane account exaggerated by Niebuhr. Post- diluvian history of Berosus his account of the tower of Babel, and CONTENTS. 17 the confusion of tongues. Ethnological value of the tenth chapter of Genesis. Heathen accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, de- rived from Jewish sources estimate of their value. Three points only of great public importance in the history from Abraham to the death of Moses two of these confirmed from profane sources. Expedition of Chedor-laomer agrees with Berosus, and is distinctly confirmed by the Babylonian monuments. Exodus of the Jews related by Manetho. Historical arguments of importance, which have been omitted for want of space I . The argument furnished by the conclusions of the historical sciences, such as Geology, Physi- ology, Comparative Philology, Ethnology, &c. 2. The argument from the correctness of the linguistic, geographic, and etho logic notices in the Pentateuch modern discovery is continually adding to this kind of evidence geographical illustration. Conclusion. . 19 LECTURE 111. The period of Jewish history from Exodus to Solomon, comprises the extremes of national depression and prosperity. Books of Scrip- ture, containing this portion of the history, are for the most part by unknown authors. Their value not diminished by this, being that of State Papers. Historical character of the books, considered sev- erally. The Book of Joshua written by an eye-witness, who pos- sessed records. The Book of Judges based upon similar documi nts. The Books of Samuel composed probably by writers contemporary with the events related; via. Samuel. Gad, and Nathan. The Books of Kings and Chronicles derived from contemporary works written by Prophets. Commentary on the history furnished by the Davidical Psalms. Confirmation of this period of J wish history from profane sources, during the earlier portion fit the period, rather negative than positive. Weakness of Egypt and Assyria at the 18 CONTENTS. period, appears both from the Scripture narrative, and from the monuments. Positive testimony of profane writers to the conquest of Canaan by Joshua Moses of Chorene, Procopius, Suidas. Supposed testimony of Herodotus to the miracle of the sun standing still. Positive testimony to the later portion of the period Syrian war of David described by Nicolas of Damascus from the records of his native city. David's other wars mentioned by Eupolemus. Connection of Judaea with Phoenicia. Early greatness of Sidon strongly marked in Scripture and confirmed by profane writers Homer, Strabo, Justin. Hiram a true Phoenician royal name. A prince of this name reigned at Tyre contemporaneously with David and Solomon, according to the Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander their accounts of the friendly intercourse between Hiram and these Jewish monarchs. Solomon's connection with Egypt absence of Egyptian records at this time Solomon contemporary with Sheshonk or Shishak. "Wealth of Solomon confirmed by Eupolemus and Theophilus. Indirect testimony to the truth of this portion of the history the character of Solomon's empire, the plan of his buildings, and the style of their ornamentation, receive abun- dant illustration from recent discoveries in Assyria the habits of the Phoenicians agree with the descriptions of Homer, Menander, and others. Incompleteness of this sketch. Summary 78 LECTURE IV. Period to be embraced in the Lecture, one of about four centuries, from the death of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- nezzar importance of this period. Documents in which the his- tory is delivered. Kings and Chronicles, compilations from the State Archives of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Objec- tion answered. Kings and Chronicles independent, and therefora CONTENTS. 19 confirmatory, of each other. The history contained in them con- firmed by direct and incidental notices in the works of contemporary Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, &c. Confirmation of the history from profane sources. The separate existence of the two kingdoms noticed in the Assyrian Inscriptions. The conquest of Judcea by Sheshonk (Shishak) recorded in the great temple at Carnac. ^Zerah the Ethiopian probably identical with Osorkon the Second. Eth- baal, the father of Jezebel, identical with the Ithobalus of Menander mention of a great drought in his reign. Power of Benhadad, and nature of the force under his command, confirmed by the in- scription on the Nimrud Obelisk. Accession of Hazael noticed on the same monument. Mention of Jehu. Interruption in the series of notices, coinciding with an absence of documents. Pul, or Phul, QPa/.u>x,') mentioned byBerosus, and probably identified with a monumental king, who takes tribute from Samaria. War of Tiglath-Pileser with Samaria and Damascus recorded in an As- syrian inscription. Altar of Ahaz probably a sign of sub- jection. Shalmanezer's Syrian war mentioned by Menander. Name of Hoshea on an Assyrian inscription probably assigned to him. Capture of Samaria ascribed to Sargon on the monuments. Harmony of the narrative with Scripture. Sargon' s capture of Ashdod, and successful attack on Egypt. Settlement of the Israel- ites "in the cities of the Modes." Expedition of Sennacherib against Hezekiah exact agreement of Scripture with Sennacherib's inscription. Murder of Sennacherib related by profane writ its Polyhistor, Abydenus. Escape of the murderers " into Armenia" noticed by Moses of Chorcnc. Succession of Esar-haddon confirmed by the monuments. Indirect confirmation of the curious statement that Manasseh was brought to him at Babylon. Identification of So. (Seveh,) king of Egypt, with Shekel;, or Sabaco of Tirhakah with Tchrak, or Taracus of Xecho with Xcku, or NYchao and of Hopnra with liaifra, or Aprics. Battle of Mcgiddo and caiamitoua end of Apries confirmed by Herodotus. Heign of Merodach-llala- 20 CONTENTS. dan at Babylon confirmed by the Inscriptions. Berosus, and Ptolemy. Berosus relates the recovery of Syria, and Palestine by Nebuchad- nezzar, and also his deportation of the Jews and destruction of Jeru- salem. Summary 101 LECTURE V. Fourth period of the Jewish History, the Captivity and Return Dan- iel the historian of the Captivity. Genuineness of Daniel doubted without sufficient reason. Authenticity of the narrative, denied by De Wette and others. Examination of the narrative the Captivity in accordance with Oriental habits confirmed by Berosus. The character of Nebuchadnezzar as portrayed in Scripture accords with Berosus and Abydenus notice of his prophetic gift by the latter. The length of his reign may be gathered from Scripture, and accords exactly with Berosus and the monuments. Condition of Babylonia not misrepresented in Daniel account of the "wise men" illus- trated by recent discoveries " satrapial organization " of the empire possible, but not asserted in Scripture. Internal harmony of Daniel's account. Mysterious malady of Nebuchadnezzar perhaps noticed in an obscure passage of the Standard Inscription. Succession of Evil-Merodach confirmed by Berosus difficulty with regard to his character. Neriglissar identified with " Nergal-Sharezer, the liab- Mag." Supposed irreconcilable difference between Scripture and profane history in the narrative concerning Belshazzar Discovery that Nabonadius, during the latter part of his reign, associated in the government his son, Bil-shar-uzur, and allowed him the royal title. Bil-shar-uzur probably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. " Darius the Mede " not yet identified. Capture of Babylon by the Medo- Persians, during a feast, and transfer of Empire confirmed by many CONTENTS. 21 writers. Solution of difficulties. Chronology of the Capthity confirmed from Babylonian sources. Refistablishment of the Jews in Palestine related in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah their authenticity generally allowed no reason to doubt their genuine- ness. Book of Ezra in part based on documents. Attacks upon the authenticity of Esther reply to them. Author of Esther un- certain. The narrative drawn from the chronicles kept by the kings of Persia. Confirmation of this portion of the history from profane sources. Religious spirit of the Persian kings in keeping with their inscriptions. Succession of the kings correctly given. Stop- page of the building of the temple by the Pseudo-Smerdis, accords with his other religious changes. Reversal by Darius of his reli- gious policy agrees with the Behistun Inscription. Break in the history as recorded by Ezra book of Esther fills up the gap. The name Ahasuerus, the proper equivalent of Xerxes. Truthfulness of the portraiture, if Xerxes is intended. Harmony of the history with the facts recorded by the Greeks. Intimate knowledge of Persian manners and customs. The massacre of their enemies by the Jews has a parallel in the Magaphonia. Character of Arta- xerxes Longimanus length of his reign accords with the statement of Nehemiah. Summary of the whole result, as regards the His- tory of the Old Testament 130 LECTURE VI. Plan of the three remaining Lectures proposal to regard the period covered by the New Testament History as a whole, and to consider the evidence under three heads 1 . The internal Evidence; 2. The Evidence of Adversaries ; and, 3. The Evidence of the early Christian converts. 22 CONTENTS. The Internal Evidence. Number and separateness of the documents. Doubts raised as to the authorship of the Historical Books. The doubts considered severally. Weight of the external testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels and the Acts. Internal evidence to the composition of the Acts, and of St. Luke's and St. John's Gos- pels, by contemporaries. St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels must have been written about the same time as St. Luke's. No reason to doubt in any case the composition by the reputed authors. Our four Gospels a providential mercy. The first three wholly inde- pendent of one another. Their substantial agreement as to the facts of our Lord's life and ministry, an evidence of great weight. ' Failure of the attempt of Strauss to establish any real disagreement. The establishment of real discrepancies would still leave the writers historical authorities of the first order. Confirmation of the Gospel History from the Acts of the Apostles. Confirmation of the History of the Acts from the Epistles of St. Paul exhibition of this argument in the Horce Paulina of Paley the grounds of the argument not ex- hausted. Paley's argument applicable to the Gospels. Confirma- tion of the Gospel narrative from the letters of the Apostles. Firm belief of the Apostles in the Gospel facts from the first, evidenced in the Acts and the Epistles. Impossibility of the sudden growth of myths in such an age and under such circumstances. The mythic theory devised in order to make Christianity untrue, without ascrib- ing it to imposture its failure in respect of this object. No alternative but to accept the statements of the Evangelists and Apos- tles, or to regard them as conscious deceivers. Unmistakable air of veracity and honesty in the New Testament writings. Conclu- sion 155 CONTENTS. 23 LECTURE VII. The Evidence of Adversaries. Contrast between the Old and New Testament the former historical the latter biographical. Conse- quent scantiness of points of contact between the main facts of the New Testament narrative and profane records. Their harmony chiefly seen through the incidental allusions of the New Testament writers. Importance of this evidence. Evidence of Heathens to the main facts of Christianity, really very considerable. That it is not more must be regarded as the result of a forced and studied reticence. Reticence of Josephus. Loss of heathen writings of this period, which may have contained important direct evidence. Incidental allusions considered under three heads (i.) The general condition of the countries which were the scene of the history. " Political condition of Palestine numerous complications and anomalies faithfulness of the New Testament notices. Tone and temper of the Jews at the time. Condition and customs of the Greeks and Romans in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Condition and number of the foreign Jews oratories syna- gogues, &c. (ii.) Representations with respect to the civil govern- ment of the countries. Names and order of the Roman Kmpi rors Jewish native princes Roman Procurators of Palestine Ro- man Proconsuls supposed "error" of St. Luke with regard to the Greek Tetrarch, Lysanias. (iii.) Historical facts, of which, if true, profane authors might have bun expected to make mention. Decree of Augustus taxing of Cyrenius rebellion of Theudas uproar " of the Egyptian famine in the days of < 'laudius, &c. Summary and conclusion ' 24 CONTENTS. LECTURE VIII. The evidence of the early converts. Its abundance, and real weight. Early Christians not deficient in education, position, or intellect. Historical witness of the Christian writers of St. Barnabas of Clemens Romanus of Ignatius of Polycarp of Hermas of Quadratus of Justin Martyr of subsequent writers. Witness of primitive Christian monuments, especially of those in the Roman Catacombs their genuine character their antiquity. Proof which they afford of the enormous numbers of the Christians in the first ages. Proof which they afford of the sufferings and frequent martyrdoms of the period. Evidence which they furnish of the historical belief of the time. Weight of this whole testimony the Greeks and Romans not at this time credulous not likely to think little of the obligations incurred by professing Christianity the convert's sole stay the hope of the resurrection. Evidence to the truth of Christianity from the continuance of miracles in the Church proof of their continuance. Testimony of the early Christians enhanced by their readiness to suffer for their faith. Conclu- sion 206 Notes 229 Additional Note 441 Specification of Editions quoted, or referred to, in the Notes 443 THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. LECTURE I. LET ALL THE NATIONS BE GATHERED TOGETHER, AND LET THE PEOPLE BE ASSEMBLED : WHO AMONG THEM C.VX DECLARE THIS, AM) SHOW IS FORMER THINGS? LET THEM BRINO FORTH THEIR WITNESSES, THAT THEY MAY BE JUSTIFIED : OR LET THEM HEAR, AND SAY, IT IS TRUTH. ISAIAH XLIII. 9. Christianity including therein the dispensation of the Old Testament, which was its first stage is in noth- ing more distinguished from the other religions of tv. world than in its objective <>r historical character. The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, India, Persia, and the East generally, were speculative systems, which did not even seriously postulate an historical basis, [f they seemed to do so to some extent, if tor instance the mythological ideas of the Greeks he represented under the form of a mythological period, which moreover Mends gradually and almost imperceptibly with the historical, still in the minds of the Greeks themselves the periods were separate and distinct, not merely in time, hut in character; and the "i>- jeetive reality of the scenes and events described as he- longing to each was not conceived of as parallel, or even 26 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L similar, in the two cases. ( J ) The modern distinction be- tween the legend and the myth, properly so called, ( 2 ) was felt, if not formally recognized, by the Greek mind ; and the basis of fact, which is of the essence of the former, was regarded as absent from the latter, which thus ceased altogether to be history. Mahometanism again, and the other religious systems which have started with an indi- vidual, and which so far bear a nearer resemblance to the religions of Moses and of Christ, than those that have grown up and been developed gradually out of the feeling and imagination of a people, are very slightly, if at all, connected with any body of important facts, the due attes- tation of which and their accordance with other known facts might be made the subject of critical examination.' We may concede the truth of the whole story of Mahomet, as it was related by bis early followers, and this concession in no sort carries with it even the probable truth of the religion. ( 3 > But it is otherwise with the religion of the Bible. There, whether we look to the Old or the New Testament, to the Jewish dispensation or to the Christian, we find a scheme of doctrine which is bound up with facts ; which depends absolutely upon them ; which is null and void without them ; and which may be regarded as for all practical purposes established if they are shown to deserve acceptance. It is this peculiar feature of Christianity a feature often noticed by its apologists ( 4 > which brings it into such a close relation to historical studies and investigations. As a religion of fact, and not merely of opinion, as one whose chief scene is this world, and whose main doctrines are events exhibited openly before the eyes of men as one moreover which, instead of affecting a dogmatic form, dopts from first to last, with very rare exceptions, the hjs- Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 27 torical shape, it comes necessarily within the sphere of the historical inquirer, and challenges him to investigate it ac- cording to what he regards as the principles of his science. Moreover, as Christianity is in point of fact connected in- timately with certain records, and as those records extend over a period of several thousands of years, and " profess to contain a kind of abridgment of the history of the world," ( 5 ) its points of contact with profane history are (practically speaking) infinite; and it becomes impossible for the historical inquirer to avoid the question, in what light he is to view the documents which, if authentic, must exercise so important an influence over his studies and con- clusions. Christianity then cannot complain if, from time to time, as historical science advances, the question is raised afresh concerning the real character of those events which form its basis, and the real value of those documents on which it relies. As an historical religion, it invites this species of inquiry, and is glad that it should be made and repeated. It only complains in one of two cases when either prin- ciples unsound and wrong in themselves, having been as- sumed as proper criteria of historic truth, are applied to it for the purpose of disparagement ; or when, right princi- ples being assumed, the application of them, of which it is the object, is unfair and illegitimate. It is the latter of these two errors which seems to me to be the chief danger of the present day. Time was and that not very long ago when all the relations of ancient authors concerning the old world wen- received with a ready belief ; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith ac- cepted with equal satisfaction the narrative of the cam- paigns of Caesar and of the doings of Romulus, the account of Alexander's inarches and of the conquests of Scmirnniis. 28 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. L We can most of us remember when in this country the whole story of Regal Rome, and even the legend of the Trojan settlement in Latium, were seriously placed before boys as history, and discoursed of as unhesitatingly, and in as dogmatic a tone, as the tale of the Catiline conspiracy, or the conquest of Britain. " All ancient authors were " at this time, as has been justly observed, "put upon the same footing, and regarded as equally credible;" while "all parts of an author's work were supposed to rest on the same basis." ( 6 > A blind and indiscriminate faith of a low kind acquiescence rather than actual belief embraced equally and impartially the whole range of ancient story, setting aside perhaps those prodigies which easily detached them- selves from the narrative, and were understood to be em- bellishments on a par with mere graces of composition. But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the birth and growth of a new science the science of Historical Criticism. Beginning in France with the labors of Pouilly and Beaufort, ( 7) it advanced with rapid strides in Germany under the guidance of Niebuhr, f8 > Otfried Miiller, ( 9 ) and Bockh, ( 10) and finally, has been introduced and naturalized among ourselves by means of the 'writings of our best living historians. ( n > Its results in its own proper and primary field are of the most extensive arid remarkable character. TLie whole world of profane history has been revolutionized. By a searching and critical investigation of the mass of mate- rials on which that history rested, and by the application to it of Canons embodying the judgments of a sound discre- tion upon the value of different sorts of evidence, the vi^ws of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ^en thousand points either modified or reversed a new anti- quity has been raised up out of the old while much that LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 20 was unreal in the picture of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned to that "Limbo large and broad" into which "all tilings transitory and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation lias in many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dis- solved before the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen systems. Thus the results obtained have been both posi- tive and negative; but, it must be confessed, with a pre- ponderance of the latter over the former. The scepticism in which the science originated has clung to it from first to last, and in recent times we have seen not only a greater leaning to the destructive than to the constructive side, but a tendency to push doubt and incredulity beyond due limits, to call in question without cause, and t distrust what is sufficiently established. This tendency has not, however, been allowed to pass unrebuked ; ( 12 > and viewing the science as developed, not in the writings of this or that individual, but in the general conclusions in which it has issued, Ave may regard it :\.- having done, and as still pre- pared to do, good service in the cause of truth. It was not to be expected nor was it, I think, to he wished that the records of past times contained in the Old and New Testament should escape the searching ordeal to which all other historical documents had been subjected, or remain long, on account of their sacred char- acter, jinscrutinizcd by the inquirer. Reverence may possi- bly gain, but Faith, I believe, real and true Faith greatly loses by the establishment of a wall of partition be- tween the sacred and the profane, and the subtraction of the former from the domain of scientific inquiry. As truth of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory to truth of another, Christianity has nothing to fear from scientific 3* 30 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L investigations; and any attempt to isolate its facts and preserve them from the scrutiny which profane history re- ceives must, if successful, diminish the fulness of our assent to them the depth and reality of our belief in their actual occurrence. It is by the connectior of sacred with profane history that the facts of the former are most vividly apprehended, and most distinctly felt to be real ; to sever between the two is to make the sacred narrative grow dim and shadowy, and to encourage the notion that its details are not facts in the common and every-day sense of the word. When therefore, upon the general acceptance of the principles laid dow~, with respect to profane history by Otfried Miiller and Niebuhr, theological critics in Germany proceeded^ as they said, to apply the new canons of histori- cal criticism to the Gospels and to the historical books of the Old Testament, there was no cause for surprise, nor any ground for extreme apprehension. There is of course always danger when science alone, disjoined from religious feeling, undertakes, with its purblind sight and limited means of knowing, to examine, weigh, and decide matters of the highest import. But there did not appear to be in this instance any reason for special alarm. The great Master-spirit, he to whom the new science owed, if not its existence, yet at any rate its advancement and the estima- tion in which it was generally held had distinctly ac- cepted the mass of the Scripture history as authentic, and was a sincere and earnest believer. ( 13 ) It was hoped that the inquiry would be made in his spirit, and by means of a cautious application of his principles. But the fact has unfortunately been otherwise. The application of the science of historical criticism to the narrative of Scripture has been made in Germany by two schools one certainly 1 Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 31 far less extravagant than the other but both wanting in sound critical judgment, as well as in a due reverence tor the Written Word. It will be necessary, in order to make the scope of these Lectures clearly intelligible, to give an account at some length of the conclusions and reasonings of both classes of critics. The portion of the Scripture history which was first subjected to the application of the new principles was the historical part of the Old Testament. It was soon de- clared that a striking parallelism existed between this his- tory and the early records of most heathen nations. ("> The miracles in the narrative were compared with the prodigies and divine appearances related by Herodotus and Livy. ( 15 > The chronology was said to bear marks, like that 'of Rome and Babylon, of artificial arrangement ; the re- currence of similar numbers, and especially of round num- bers, particularly indicating its unhistorical character. ( ;6 The names of kings, it was observed, were frequently so apposite, that the monarchs supposed to have borne them must be regarded as fictitious personages, ( 17 ) like Theseus and Numa. Portions of the sacred narrative were early declared to present every appearance of being simply myths ;( 18 ) and by degrees it was sought to attach to the whole history, from first to last, a legendary and unreal character. All objections taken by rationalists or infidels to particular relations in the sacred hooks being allowed as .valid, it was considered a sufficient account of such rela- tions to say, that the main source of the entire narrative was oral tradition that it first took a written shape many hundreds of years after the supposed date of the circum- stances narrated, the authors being poets rather than his- torians, and bent rather on glorifying their native country than on giving a true relation of facts and that in places 82 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. L they had not even confined themselves to the exaggeration and embellishment of actual occurrences, but had allowed imagination to step in and fill up blanks in their annals. ( 19 > By some, attempts were made to disentangle the small ele- ment of fact which lay involved in so much romance and poetry from the mass in which it was embedded ; t 20 ) but the more logical minds rejected this as a vain and useless labor, maintaining that no separation which was other than arbitrary could be effected; and that the events themselves, together with the dress in which they ap- peared, "constituted a whole belonging to the province of woetry and mythus." ( 21 > It was argued that by this treat- ment the sacredness and divinity, and even the substantial truth of the Scriptures, was left unassailed ; (~ 2 ) the literal meaning only being discarded, and an allegorical one sub- stituted in its place. Lastly, the name of Origen Avas pro- duced from the primitive and best ages of Christianity to sanction this system of interpretation, and save it from the 'atal stigma of entire and absolute novelty. ( 33) When the historical character of the Old Testament, as sailed on all sides by clever and eloquent pens, and weakly defended by here and there a single hesitating apolo- gist, seemed to those who had conducted the warfare irre- trievably demolished and destroyed, ( 24) the New Testament became, after a pause, the object of attack to the same school of writers. It was felt, no doubt, to be a bold thing to characterize as a collection of myths the writings of an age of general enlightenment ( 25) nay, even of incredulity and scepticism ; and perhaps a lingering regard for what so many souls held precious, ( 26 > stayed the hands of those who nevertheless saw plainly, that the New Testament was open to the same method of attack as the Old, and that an iuexorable logic required that both should be received or LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 33 neither. A pause therefore ensued, but a pause of no long duration. First, particular portions of the New Testament narrative, as the account of our Lord's infancy, ( 27 ) and ot the Temptation, C 28 ) were declared to possess equal tokens of a mythic origin with those which had been previously regarded as fatal to the historical character of Old Testa- ment stories, and were consequently singled out for rejec- tion. Then, little by little, the same system of explanation was adopted with respect to more and more of the narra- tive ;("J till at last, in the hands of Strauss, the whole came to be resolved into pure myth and legend, and the historical Christ being annihilated, the world was told to console itself with a "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an individual, but an idea;"( 30 ) which, on examination, turns out to be no God at all, but mere man man perfected by nineteenth-century enlightenment dominant over nature by the railroad and the telegraph, and over himself by the negation of the merely natural and sensual life, and the substitution for it of the intellectual, or (in the nomencla- ture of the school) the spiritual. "In an individual," says Strauss, "the properties which the Church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures Cod become man, the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remem- bering its infinitude; it is the eliild of the visible Mother and the invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course ol human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his jictive power; it is the sinless existence, for the course of its development is a blameless one; pollution cleaves to the 34 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to Heaven ; for from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever pro- ceeds a higher spiritual life ; from the suppression of its mortality as a personal, national, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrec- tion, man is justified before God ; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of Humanity, the individual man partakes of the divinely human life of the species? '( 31 > Such are the lengths to which speculation, professedly grounding itself on the established principles of historical criticism, has proceeded in our day; and such the conclu- sions recommended to our acceptance by a philosophy which calls itself preeminently spiritual. How such a phi- losophy differs from Atheism, except in the use of a religious terminology, which it empties of all religious meaning, I confess myself unable to perceive. The final issue of the whole seems to be simply that position which Aristotle scouted as the merest folly, that " man is the highest and most divine thing in the universe," C 32 ) and that God consequently is but a name for humanity when per- fected. More dangerous to faith, because less violent in its methods, and less sweeping in the conclusions to which it comes, is the moderate rationalism of another school, a school which can with some show of reason claim to shelter Hself under the gi-eat name and authority of Niebuhr. Not- withstanding the personal faith of Niebuhr, which cannot be doubted, and the strong expressions of which he made use against the advocates of the mythical theory, ( 33) he was himself upon occasions betrayed into remarks which involved to a great extent their principles, and opened a LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 35 door to the thorough-going scepticism from which he indi- vidually shrank with horror. For instance, in one place Niebuhr says, with respect to the Book of Esther, " I am convinced that this book is not to be regarded as his- torical, and I have not the least hesitation in here stating it publicly. Many entertain the same opinion. Even the early fathers have tormented themselves with it ; and St. Jerome, as he himself clearly indicates, was in the greatest perplexity through his desire to regard it as an historical document. At present no one looks upon the Book of Judith as historical, and neither Origen nor St. Jerome did so ; the same is the case with Esther ; it is nothing more than a poem on the occurrences." ( 34) The great historical critic here (so far as appears, on mere subjective grounds, because the details of the narrative did not appear to him probable) surrendered to the mythical inteipreters a book of Scripture admitted that to be "a poem and nothing more" which, on the face of it, bore the appearance of a plain matter-of-fact history put a work which the Church has always regarded as canonical and authoritative on a par with one which was early pronounced apocryphal, not, certainly, moved to do so by any defect in the external evidence^ 35 ) though a vague reference is made to "early fathers;" but on account of internal difficulties, either in the story itself, or in the manner of its narration. I cannot see that it is possible to distinguish the princi- ple of this surrender from that asserted by the mythical school; or that the principle once admitted, any ground can be shown for limiting its application to a single book of Scripture, or indeed to any definite number of such books. Let it be once allowed that we may declare any part of Scripture which seems to us improbable, or which does not approve itself to our notions ol wiiat 36 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. I revelation should be, "a poem and nothing more," and what security is there against the extremest conclusions of the mythologists? One book will naturally be sur- rendered after another, ( 36 ) and the final result will not be distinguishable from that at which the school of He Wette and Strauss professedly aims the destruction of all trust in the historical veracity of the Scripture nar- rative. The partial scepticism of Xiebuhr has always had follow- ers in Germany men who are believers, but who admit the principles of unbelief who rationalize, but who think to say to the tide of rationalism, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." I shall not detain my hearers with a long array of instances in this place. Suffice it to adduce the teaching of a single living writer, whose influence is very considerable both in Germany and in our own country. On the ground that Egypt has a continuous history, com- mencing more than six thousand years before the Christian era, we are required to reject the literal interpretation of the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis, and to believe that the Flood was no more than a great catas- trophe in Western Asia, which swept away the inhabitants of that region, but left Egypt and the greater part of the world untouched. Ham, we are told, is not a person, but the symbolical representative of Egypt; and he is the elder brother, because Egyptian Hamitism is older than Asiatic Semitism. The expression that Canaan is the son of Ham "must be interpreted geographically;" it means, that the Canaanitic tribes which inhabited historical Canaan came from Egypt, where they had previously had their abode. Nimrod is said to have been begotten by Cush ; but he was no more a Cushite by blood than Canaan was an Egyptian ; he is called a Cushite, because LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 37 the people represented by him came from the part of Africa called Cash or Ethiopia (which they had held as conquerors) back into Asia, and there established an empire. C 37 ^ Again, "the family tree of Abraham is an historical representation of the great and lengthened migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, from the mountains of Armenia and Chahhea, through Mesopota- mia, to the north-east frontier of Egypt, as far as Amalek and Edom. It represents the connection between nations and their tribes, not personal connection betioeen father and son, and records consequently epochs, not real human pedigrees? W> The early Scriptures are devoid altogether of an historical chronology. When the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt is said to have been four hun- dred and thirty years, of which one half, or two hundred and fifteen years, was from Abraham's going down into Egypt to Jacob's, the other from Jacob's going down to the Exodus, the number must be regarded as "conven- tional and unhistorical ;" ( 39 > as "connected with the legendary genealogies of particular families ;"( 4 ) as formed, in fact, artificially by a doubling of the tirst period; which itself only "represents the traditionary accounts of the primitive times of Canaan, as embodied in a genealogy of the three patriarchs," (") and "cannot possibly be worthy of more confidence than the traditions with regard to the second period," which arc valueless. ('-< Of course the earlier lists of names and calculations of years are looked upon with still less favor. "The .Jewish tradition, in proportion as its antiquity is thrown hack, bears on its face less of a chronological character," so that "no light is to be gleaned from it" for general purposes. W Even in the comparatively recent times of David and Sol- omon, there is no coherent or reliable chronology; tho 4 88 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. I round number forty being still mot with, which is taken to be an indubitable sign of arbitrary and artificial arrange- ment. ( 44 > Such are some of the results which have, in fact, fol- lowed from the examination by historical critics, possessed of more or less critical acumen, of those sacred records, which are allowed on all hands to be entitled to deep respect, and which we in this place believe to be, not indeed free from such small errors as the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers may have produced, but substan- tially " the Word of God." I propose at the present time, in opposition to the views which I have sketched, to examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side. Leav- ing untouched the question of the inspiration of Scripture, and its consequent title to outweigh all conflicting testi- mony whatever, I propose briefly to review the historical evidence for the orthodox belief. My object will be to meet the reasoning of the historical sceptics on their own ground. I do not, indeed, undertake to consider and answer their minute and multitudinous cavils, which would be an endless task, and which is moreover unnecessary, as to a great extent the cavillers meet and answer one another ;( 45 ) but I hope to show, without assuming the inspiration of the Bible, that for the great facts of revealed religion, the miraculous history of the Jews, and the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as for his miracles and those of his apostles, the historical evidence which we possess is of an authentic and satisfac- tory character. I shall review this evidence in the light and by the laws of the modern historical criticism, so far as they seem to be established. Those laws appear to me to be sound; and their natural and real bearing is to increase instead of diminishing the weight of the Christian LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 39 evidences. It is not from a legitimate and proper applica- tion of them that faith has suffered, but partly from their neglect or misapplication, partly from the intrusion among them of a single unproved and irrational opinion. I am not aware that the laws in question have ever been distinctly laid down in a compendious, or even in an abstract form. They are assumed throughout the writings of our best historians, but they are involved in their criticisms rather than directly posited as their principles. I believe, however, that I shall not misrepresent them if I say, that, viewed on their positive side, they consist chiefly of the four following Canons: 1. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness, and had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage, on the other, that he is less likely than the legal witness to have a personal interest in the matter concerning which he testifies. ( 4fi ) 2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as proba- bly true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical credi- bility. (> 3. When the event recorded is removed considerably from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his information was oral tra- 40 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L dition ; still, if the event be one of great importance, and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or pros- perity, especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice, then it has a claim to belief as probably true, at least in its general outline. ( 48 ) This, however, is the third, and a comparatively low, degree of historical credibility. 4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsup- ported, would have had but small claim to attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of another, especially if a distant or hostile race, the event which has this double testimony obtains thereby a high amount of probability, and, if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance.^ The degree of his- torical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurable with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this is not often the case in fact. In a general -way we may say that the weight of this kind of evidence exceeds that which has been called the third degree of historical probability, and nearly approaches to the second. To these Canons may be added certain corollaries, or dependent truths, with respect to the relative value of the materials from which history is ordinarily composed, important to be borne in mind in all inquiries like that on which we are entering. Historical materials may be divided into direct and indirect, direct, or such as pro- ceed from the agents in the occurrences ; indirect, or such as are the embodiment of inquiries and researches made by persons not themselves engaged in the transactions. The former are allowed, on all hands, to be of primary impor- LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 41 tance. There is indeed a drawback upon their value, arising out of the tendency of human vanity to exalt self at the expense of truth ; but where the moral character of the writer is a security against wilful misrepresentation, or where the publicity of the events themselves would make misrepresentation folly, the very highest degree of credit is to be given to direct records. These may be either public inscribed monuments, such as have frequently been set up by governments and kings; state papers, such as we hear of in the books of Ezra and Esther jt 50 ) letters, or books. Again, books of this class will be either commentaries, (or particular histories of events in which the authors have taken part;) autobiographies, or accounts which persons have given of their own lives up to a certain point; or memoirs ; i. e., accounts which persons have given of those with whom they have had some acquaintance. These are the best and most authentic sources of history ; and we must either be content with them, or regard the past as absolutely shrouded from our knowledge by a veil which is impenetrable. Indirect records the compilations of dili- gent inquirers concerning times or scenes in which they have themselves had no part are to be placed on a much lower footing; they must be judged by their internal char- acter, by their accord with what is otherwise known of the times or scenes in question, and by the apparent veracity and competency of their composers. They often have a high value; but this value cannot be assumed previously to investigation, depending as it docs almost entirely on the critical judgment of their authors, on the materials to which they had access, and on the use that they actually made of them. The force of cumulative evidence has often been noticed. No account of the grounds of historic belief 4* 42 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I. would be complete, even in outline, which failed to notice its applicability to this held of investigation, and its great weight and importance in all cases where it has any place. "Probable proofs," says Bishop Butler, "by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it." ( 51) When two independent writers witness to the same event, the proba- bility of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical but in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but by mul- tiplication. C 52 ) "By the mouth of two or three witnesses,"' the word to which such witness is borne is " established." l And the agreement is the more valuable if it be so to speak incidental and casual; if the two writers are con- temporary, and their writings not known to one another ; if one only alludes to what the other narrates; if one appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on ; if one gives events, and the other the feelings which naturally arise out of them : in these cases the con- viction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced mind is absolute ; the element of doubt which hangs about all matters of mere belief being reduced to such infinitesi- mal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically speaking, to disappear altogether. To the four Canons which have been already enumer- ated as the criteria of historic truth, modern Rationalism would add a fifth, an a priori opinion of its own the admission of which would put a stop at once to any such inquiry as that upon which Ave are now entering. "No just perception of the true nature of history is possible," we are told, " without a perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and of the iirqyossibility of mira- cles? ^ And the mythical interpreters insist, that one of the essential marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it 1 Deut. xix. 15. Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 43 may be clearly distinguished from one which is historical, is, its "presenting an account of events which are cither absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of (ordinary) experience, such as occurrences connected with the spir- itual world, or its dealing in the supernatural." ( 54 ) Now, if miracles cannot take place, an inquiry into the historical evidences of Revealed Religion is vain ; for Revelation is itself miraculous, and therefore, by the hypothesis, impossi- ble. But what are the grounds upon which so stupendous an assertion is made, as that God cannot, if He so please, suspend the working of those laws by which He commonly acts upon matter, and act on special occasions differently? Shall we say that He cannot, because of His own immuta- bility because He is a being "with whom is no variable- ness, neither shadow of turning?" 1 But, if Ave apply the notion of a Law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a legular, fixed, and established rule of His government, as the working ordinarily by what are called natural laws. Or shall we say that all experience and analogy is against mira- cles? But this is either to judge, from our own narrow and limited experience, of the whole course of nature, and so to generalize upon most weak and insufficient grounds; or else, if in the phrase "all experience" we include the experience of others, it is to draw a conclusion directly in the teeth of our data; for many persons well worthy of belief have declared that they have witnessed and wrought miracles. Moreover, were it true that all known experi- ence was against miracles, this would not even prove that they had not happened much less that they are impos- sible. If they are impossible, it must be either from some- thing in the nature of things, or from something in the 1 James i. 17. 44 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I. nature of God. That the immutability of God does not stand in the way of miracles has been already shown ; and I know of no other attribute of the Divine Nature which can be even supposed to create a difficulty. To most minds it will, if I do not greatly mistake, rather appear, that the Divine Omnipotence includes in it the power of working miracles. And if God created the world, He certainly once worked a miracle of the most surpassing greatness. Is there then any thing in the nature of things to make miracles impossible ? Not unless things have an independ- ent existence, and work by their own power. If they are in themselves nought, if God called them out of nothing, and but for His sustaining power they would momentarily fall back into nothing ; if it is not they that work, but He who works in them and through them ; if growth, and change, and motion, and assimilation, and decay, are His dealings with matter, as sanctification, and enlightenment, and inward comfort, and the gift of the clear vision of Him, are His dealings with ourselves; if the Great and First Cause never deserts even for a moment the second Causes, but He who " upholdeth all things by the word of His power," 1 and is "above all and through all," 2 is also (as Hooker says) "the Worker of all in all'M 55 ) then cer- tainly things in themselves cannot oppose any impediment to miracles, or do aught but obsequiously follow the Divine fiat, be it what it may. The whole difficulty with regard to miracles has its roots in a materialistic Atheism, which believes things to have a force in and of themselves ; which regards them as self-sustaining, if not even as self- caused ; which deems them to possess mysterious powers of their own uncontrollable by the Divine Will ; which sees in the connection of physical cause and effect, not a Heb. i. 3. 2 Eph. iv. 6. LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 45 sequence, not a law, but a necessity ; which, either positing a Divine First Cause to bring things into existence, then (like Anaxagoras) makes no further use of Him^ 56 ) or does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but is content to refer all things to a " course of nature," which it considers eternal and unalterable, and on which it lavishes all the epithets that believers regard as appropriate to God, and God only. It is the pectiliarity of Atheism at the present day that it uses a religious nomenclature it is no longer dry, and hard, and cold, all matter of fact and com- mon-sense, as was the case in the last century, on the contrary, it has become warm in expression, poetic, elo- quent, glowing, sensuous, imaginative the " Course of Nature," which it has set up in the place of God, is in a certain sense deified, no language is too exalted to be applied to it, no admiration too great to be excited by it it is "glorious," and "marvellous," and "superhuman," and "heavenly," and "spiritual," and "divine" only it is "It," not "He," a fact or set of facts, and not a Person ; and so it can really call forth no love, no gratitude, no reverence, no personal feeling of any kind it can claim no willing obedience it can inspire no wholesome awe it is a dead idol after all, and its worship is but the "Id nature worship, man returning in his dotage to the fol' lies which beguiled his childhood losing the Creator in the creature, the Workman in the work of his hands. It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as involve a real, though covert Atheism, that miracles arc impossible, or that a narrative of which supernatural occur- rences form an essential part is therefore devoid of an his- toric character. Miracles are to be viewed as in fact a part of the Divine Economy, a part as essential as any other, though coming into play less frequently. It has already 4G HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECr. I been o; served, that the creation of the world was a* mira- cle, or rather a whole array of miracles ; and any true his- torical account of it must " deal in the supernatural." A first man was as great a miracle may we not say a greater miracle ? than a raised man. Greater, inasmuch as to create and unite a body and soul is to do more than merely to unite them when they have been created. And the occurrence of miracles at the beginning of the Avorld established a precedent for their subsequent occurrence from time to time with greater or less frequency, as God should see to b r fitting. Again, all history aboundo in statements that miracles have in fact from time to time occurred; and though wc should sui-render to the sceptic the whole mass of Heathen and Ecclesiastical miracles, which I for one do not hold to be necessary, < 57) yet still fictitious miracles imply the existence of true ones, just as hypocrisy implies that there is virtue To reject a narra- tive, therefore, simply because it contains miraculous cir- cumstances, is to indulge an irrational prejudice a preju- dice which has r.o foundation, either in a priori truths or in the philosophy of experience, and which can only be consistently held by one who disbelieves in God. The rejection of this negative Canon, which a pseudo- critical School has boldly but vainly put forward for the furtherance of- its own views with respect to the Christian scheme, but which no historian of repute has adopted since the days of Gibbon, will enable us to proceed without fur- ther delay to that which is the special business cf these Lectures the examination, by the light of those Canons Whose truth has been admitted, cf the historic evidences of Revealed Religion. The actual examination must, how- ever, be reserved for future Lectures. Time will not per- mit of my attempting to do more in the brief remainder of Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 47 the present Discourse than simply to point out the chief kinds or branches into which the evidence divides itself and to indicate, somewhat more clearly than has as yet been done, the method which will be pursued in the examina- tion of i f . The sacred records themselves are the main proof of the events related in them. Waiving the question of their inspiration, I propose to view them simply as a mass of documents, subject to the laws, and to be judged by the principles, of historical criticism; I shall briefly discuss their genuineness, where it has been culled in question, and vindicate their authenticity. Where two or more documents belong to the same time, I shall endeavor to exhibit some of their most remarkable points of agree- ment : I shall not, however, dwell at much length on this portion of the inquiry. It is of preeminent importance, but its preeminence has secured it a large amount of atten- tion on the part of Christian writers; and I cannot hope to add much to the labors of those who have preceded me in this field. There is, however, a second and distinct kind of evidence, which has not (I think) received of late as much consideration as it deserves I mean the ejrternal evidence to the truth of the Bible records, whether con- tained in monuments, in the works of piof'mc writers, in customs and observances now existing or known to have existed, or finally in the works of believers nearly contem' porary with any of the events narrated. The evidence under some of these heads has recently received important accessions, and fresh light has been thrown in certain cases on the character and comparative value of the writers. It seems to be time to bid the nations of the earth once more "bring forth their witnesses." and "declare" and "show ns" what it is which they record of the "former things" 48 TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. LECT. L that they may at once justify and "be justified" in part directly confirming the Scripture narrative, in part silent but not adverse, content to " hear, and say, ' It is truth.' " "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord" even "the blind people, that have eyes; and the deaf, that have ears" "Ye are my witnesses and my servant whom I have chosen." 1 The testimony of the sacred and the profane is not conflicting, but consentient and the comparison of the two will show, not discord, but harmony. 1 Isaiah xliii. 8, 10. LECTURE II. INQUIRE, I PRAY THEE, OF THE FORMER AGE, AND PREPARE THYSELF TO THE SEARCH OF THEIR FATHERS; (FOR WE ARE BUT OF YESTER- DAY, AND KNOW NOTHING, BECAUSE OUR DAYS UPON EARTH ARE A SHADOW;) SHALE NOT THEY TEACH THEE, AND TELL THEE, AND UTTER WORDS OUT OF THEIR HEART? JOB VIII. VERSES 8 TO 10. Ix every historical inquiry it is possible to pursue our researches in two ways : we may either trace the stream of time upwards, and pursue history to its earliest source; or we may reverse the process, and beginning at the fountain- head follow down the course of events in chronological order to our own day. The former is the more philosophi- cal, because the more real and genuine method of proce- dure: it is the course which in the original investigation of the subject must, in point of fact, have been pursued: ti ! present is our standing point, and we necessarily view the past from it; and only know so much of the past as wo connect, more or less distinctly, with it. I5ut the opposite process has certain advantages which cause it commonly to be preferred. It is the order of the actual occurrence, and therefore has an objective truth which the other lacks. It, is the simpler and clearer of the two, being synthetic ami not analytic; commencing with little, it proceeds by con- tinual accretion, thus adapting itself to our capacities, which cannot take in much at once; and further, it has the advantage of conducting us out of comparative darkness into a Light which brightens and broadens as we keep 60 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II advancing, "shining more and more unto the perfect day." 1 Its difficulties and inconveniences are at the first outset, when we plunge as it were into a world unknown, and seek in the dim twilight of the remote past for some sure and solid ground upon which to plant our foot. On the whole there is perhaps sufficient reason for conforming to the ordinary practice, and adopting the actual order of the occurrences as that of the examination upon which we are entering. It will be necessary, however, in order to bring within reasonable compass the vast field that offers itself to us for investigation, to divide the history which is to be reviewed into periods, which may be successively considered in their entirety. The division which the sacred writings seem to suggest is into five such periods. The first of these ex- tends from the Creation to the death of Moses, being the period of which the history is delivered to us in the Penta- teuch. The second extends from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some por- tions of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. The third is the period from the accession of Rehoboam to the Captiv- ity of Judah, which is treated of in the remainder of Kings and Chronicles, together with portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Zepha.wah. The fourth extends from the Captivity to the reform of Xehcmiah ; and its history is contained in Dan- iel, Ezra, Esther, and Xehemiah, and illustrated by Haggai and Zechariah. The fifth is the period of the life of Christ and the preaching and establishment of Christianity, of which the history is given in the Xew Testament. The first four periods will form the subject of the present and 'Proverbs iv. 18. LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 51 three following Lectures. The fifth period, from its supe- rior importance, will require to be treated at greater length. Its examination is intended to occupy the remain- der of the present Course. The sacred records of the first period have come down to us in the shape of five Books, the first of which is introduc- tory, while the remaining four present us with the history of an individual, Moses, and of the Jewish people under his guidance. Critically speaking, it is of the last importance to know by whom the books which contain this history were written. Now the ancient, positive, and uniform tra- dition of the Jews assigned the authorship of the five books, (or Pentateuch,) with the exception of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses ;W and this tradition is prima facie evidence of the fact, such as at least throws the burden of proof upon those who call it in question. It is an admitted rule of all sound criticism, that books are to be regarded as proceeding from the writers whose nanus they bear, unless very strong reasons indeed can be ad- duced to the contrary. ( 2 ) In the present instance, the reasons which have been urged are weak and puerile in the extreme; they rest in part on misconceptions of the meaning of passages, ( 3 ) in part, upon interpolations into the original text, which are sometimes very plain and pal- pable. W Mainly, however, they have their source in arbi- trary and unproved hypotheses, as that a contemporary writer would not have introduced an account of mira- cles ; C*) that the culture indicated by the book is beyond that of the age of Moses ;( r ') that if .Moses had written the book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third person ;( 7 > that he would have given a fuller and more complete account of his own history;^ and that he would not have applied to himself terms of praise and expression!* 52 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL of honor. ( 9 ) It is enough to observe of these objections, that they are such as might equally be urged against the genuineness of St. Paul's epistles, which is allowed even by Strauss ( 10 ) against that of the works of Homer, Chancer, and indeed of all writers in advance of their age against Caesar's Commentaries, and Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus against the Acts of the Apostles, ( n ) and against the Gospel of St. John. St. Paul relates contemporary miracles ; Homer and Chaucer exhibit a culture and a tone which, but for them, we should have supposed unattaina- ble in their age; Caesar and Xenophon write throughout in the third person ; St. Luke omits all account of his own doings at Philippi ; St. John applies to himself the most honorable of all titles " the disciple whom Jesus loved." 1 A priori conceptions of how an author of a certain time and country would write, of what he would say or not say, or how he would express himself, are among the weakest of all presumptions, and must be regarded as outweighed by a very small amount of positive testimony to author- ship. Moreover, for an argument of this sort to have any force at all, it is necessary that Ave should possess, from other sources besides the author who is being judged, a tolerably complete knowledge of the age to which he is assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the literature of his period. ( 12 ) In the case of Moses our knowledge of the age is exceedingly limited, while of the literature we have scarcely any knowledge at all,( 13 ) beyond that which is furnished by the sacred records next in succession the Books of Joshua and Judges, and (perhaps) the Book of Job and these are so far from supporting the notion that such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced in the age of Moses, that they furnish a very strong argument 1 John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, &c. Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 58 to the contrary. The diction of the Pentateuch is older than that of Joshua and Judges, ( 14 ) while its ideas are pre- supposed in those writings, ( 15 ) which may be said to be based upon it, and to require it as their antecedent. If, then, they could be written at the time to which they are commonly and (as will be hereafter shown) rightly as- signed, ( 1G ) the Pentateuch not only may, but must, be as early as Moses. Vague doubts have sometimes been thrown out as to the existence of writings at this period. ( 17 > The evidence of the Mosaic records themselves, if the true date of their composition were allowed, would be conclusive upon the point; for they speak of writing as a common practice. Waiving this evidence, we may remark that hieroglyphical inscriptions upon stone were known in Egypt at least as early as the fourth dynasty, or B. C. 2450, ( lb) that inscribed bricks were common in Babylonia about two centuries later, < 19 ) and that writing upon papyruses, both in the hie- roglyphic and hieratic characters, was familiar to the Egyj)- tians under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, '*'> which is exactly the time to which the Mosaic records would, if genuine, belong. It seems certain that Moses, if educated by a daughter of one of the Iiamesside kings, and therefore "learned" (as we are told he was) " in all the wisdom of Egypt," ' Mould be well acquainted with the Egyptian method of writing with ink upon the papyrus ; while it is also probable that Abraham, who emigrated not earlier than the ninetecth century before our era from tin- great Chahhean capital, Ur, would have brought with him and transmitted to his descendants the alphabetic system with which the Chaldeans of his day were acquainted. - p There is thus every reason to suppose that writing was ' Acts vii. 22. 54 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL familiar to the Jews when they quitted Egypt ; and the mention of it as a common practice in the books of Moses is in perfect accordance with what we know of the condi- tion of the world at the time from other sources. To the unanimous witness of the Jews with respect to the authorship of the Pentateuch may be added the testi- mony of a number of heathen writers. Hecatseus of Ab- dera, ( ,22 > Manetho, C 23 ^ Lysimachus of Alexandria, ( 24) Eupol- emus,(^ Tacitus, ( 26 ) Juvenal, C 37 ) Longinus, ( 2 *> all ascribe to Moses the institution of that code of laws by which the Jews were distinguished from other nations ; and the ma- jority distinctly ( 29 ) note that he committed his laws to writing. These authors cover a space extending from the time of Alexander, when the Greeks first became curious on the subject of Jewish history, to that of the emperor Aurelian, when the literature of the Jews had been thor- oughly sifted by the acute and learned Alexandrians. They constitute, not the full voice of heathenism on the subject, but only an indication of what that voice was. It cannot be doubted that if we had the complete works of those many other writers to whom Josephus, Clement, and Eusebius refer as mentioning Moses, ( 3 ) we should find the amount of heathen evidence on this point greatly increased. Moreover, we must bear in mind that the witness is unani- mous, or all but unanimous. ( 31 > Nor is it, as an objector might be apt to urge, the mere echo of Jewish tradition faintly repeating itself from far off lands ; in part at least it rests upon a distinct and even hostile authority that of the Egyptians. Manetho certainly, and Lysimachus proba- bly, represent Egyptian, and not Jewish, views ; and thus the Jewish tradition is confirmed by that of the only na- tion which was sufficiently near and sufficiently advanced in the Mosaic age to make its testimony on the point of real importance. LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 55 To the external testimony which has been now adduced must be added the internal testimony of the work itself, which repeatedly speaks of Moses as writing the law, and recording the various events and occurrences in a book, and as reading from this book to the people. C 32 ) The modern rationalist regards it as a " most unnatural suppo- sition," that the Pentateuch was written during the ] ^as- sage of the Israelites through the wilderness;^ but this is what every unprejudiced reader gathers from the Penta- teuch itself, which tells us that God commanded Moses tu "write" the discomfiture of Amalek "in a book;" 1 that Moses "wrote all the words of the law,"- and "took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the people," 3 and "wrote the goings out of the people of Israel according to their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord;" 4 and, finally, "made an end of writing the words of the law in a book, until they were finished;" 5 ami bade the Levites, who bare the ark of the covenant, "take that book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, that it might be there for a witness against the people."" A book, therefore a "hook of the covenant" a book out of which he could read the whole law( 34) was certainly written by Moses; ami this book was deposited in the ark of the covenant, and given into the special custody of the Levites, who bare it, with the stern injunction still ringing in their ears, "Ye shall not add unto the word, neither diminish aught from it ;"' and they were charged "at the end of every seven years, in the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, to read it before all Israel in their hearing;"" and, further, a command was 1 Exod. xvii. 14. * Ibid. xxiv. 4. 3 Ibid. v.t. 7. 4 Numb, xxxiii. 2. s Dcut. xxxi. 24. 6 Ibid. vcr. 26. 7 Deut. iv. 2. b Ibid. xxxi. 10, 11. 56 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IL given, that, when the Israelites should have kings, each king should " write him a copy of the law in a book, out of that which was before the priests the Levites, that he might read therein all the days of his life." 1 Unless, there- fore, we admit the Pentateuch to be genuine, we must suppose that the book which (according to the belief of the Jews) Moses wrote, which was placed in the ark of God, over which the Levites were to watch with such jealous care, which was to be read to the people once in each seven years, and which was guarded by awful sanctions from either addition to it or diminution from it we must suppose, I say, that this book perished ; and that another book was substituted in its place by an unknown author for unknown objects professing to be the work of Moses, (for that is allowed,) ( 35 > and believed to be his work thenceforth, without so much as a doubt being breathed on the subject either by the nation, its teachers, or even its enemies, for many hundreds of years. ( 3G ) It has often been remarked, that the theories of those who assail -Christianity, make larger demands upon the faith of such as embrace them than the Christian scheme itself, marvel- lous as it is in many points. Certainly, feAV suppositions can be more improbable than that to which (as we have seen) those who deny the Pentateuch to be genuine must have recourse, when pressed to account for the phenomena. It is not surprising that, having to assign a time for the introduction of the forged volume, they have varied as to the date which they suggest by above a thousand years, while they also differ from one another in every detail with which they venture to clothe the transaction. ( 3 ~) I have dwelt the longer upon the genuineness of the Pentateuch, because it is admitted, even by the extremest 1 Deut. xvii. 18, 19. LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 57 sceptics, that the genuineness of the work carries with it the authenticity of the narrative, at least in all its main particulars. " It would most unquestionably," says Strauss, "be an argument of decisive weight in favor of the credi- bility of the Biblical history, could it indeed be shown that it was written by eye-witnesses." " Moses, being the leader of the Israelites on their departure from Egypt, would undoubtedly give a faithful history of the occurrences, unless" (which is not pretended) "he designed to deceive." And further, " Moses, if his intimate connection with Deity described in these books" (i. e. the last four) "be histori- cally true, was likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of such connection, to produce a credible history of the earlier periods." ( 37 > If Moses indeed wrote the account which we possess of the Exodus and of the wanderings in the wilder- ness; and if, having written it, he delivered it to those who knew the events as well as he, the conditions, which secure the highest degree of historical credibility, so far at least as regards the events of the last four books, are ob- tained. We have for them the direct witness of a contem- porary writer not an actor only, but the leader in the transactions which he relates honest evidently, for he records his own sins and defects, and the transgressions and sufferings of his people; and honest necessarily, lor he writes of events. which were public and known to all we have a work, which, by the laws of historical criticism, is thus for historical purposes just as reliable as Caesar's Com- mentaries or Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand we have that rare literary treasure, the autobiography of a great man, engaged in great events, the head of his nation at a most critical period in their annals; who commits to writing as they occur the various events and transactions in which he is engaged, wherever they have a national or 58 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL public character^ 38 ) We must therefore consider, even setting aside the whole idea of inspiration, that we possess in the last four books of the Pentateuch as reliable an ac- count of the Exodus of the Jews, and their subsequent wanderings, as we do, in the works of Caesar and Xeno- phon, of the conquest of Britain, or of the events which preceded and followed the battle of Cunaxa. The narrative of Genesis stands undoubtedly on a dif- ferent footing. Our confidence in it must ever rest mainly on our conviction of the inspiration of the writer. Still, setting that aside, and continuing to judge the documents as if they were ordinary historical materials, it is to be noted, in the first place, that, as Moses was on the mother's side grandson to Levi, he would naturally possess that fair knowledge of the time of the first going down into Egypt, and of the history of Joseph, which the most sceptical of the historical critics allow that men have of their own family and nation to the days of their grandfathers. < 39 ) He would thus be as good an historical authority for the de- tails of Joseph's story, and for the latter part of the life of Jacob, as Herodotus for the reign of Cambyses, or Fabius Pictor for the third Samnite War. Again, with respect to the earlier history, it is to be borne in mind through how very few hands, according to the numbers in the Hebrew text, this passed to Moses. ( 4 ) Adam, according to the Hebrew original, was for two hundred and forty-three years contemporary with Methuselah, who conversed for one hundred years with Shem. Shem was for fifty years con- temporary with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed, Moses' mother. Thus Moses might, by mere oral tradition, have obtained the history of Abraham, and even of the Deluge, at third hand ; and that cf the Temptation and the Fall, at fifth hand. The patriarchal longevity had the effect of LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 59 reducing centuries to little more than lustres, so far as the safe transmission of historical events was concerned ; tor this does not depend either upon years or upon genera- tions, but upon the number of links in the chain through which the transmittal takes place. If it be granted, as it seems to be, ( 41 ) that the great and stirring events in a nation's life will, under ordinary circumstances, be remem- bered (apart from all written memorials) for the space of one hundred and fifty years, being handed down through five generations, it must be allowed (even on mere human grounds) that the account which Moses gives of the Temp- tation and the Fall is to be depended on, if it passed through no more than four hands between him and Adam. And the argument is of course stronger for the more re- cent events, since they would have passed through fewer hands than the earlier. ( 42 ) And this, be it remembered, is on the supposition that the sole human source from which Moses composed the Book of Genesis was oral tradition. But it is highly prob- able that he also made use of documents. So much fanciful speculation has been advanced, so many vain and baseless theories have been built up, in connection with what is called the " document-hypothesis " concerning (Jem-sis, - U) that I touch the point with some hesitation, and beg at once to be understood as not venturing to dogmatize in a matter of such difficulty. But both or the extravagant fables of the Chinese. C 50 ) A dim knowledge of certain irn-al events in primeval history as of the I)elug< may indeed In- traced in all these quarters ;( :,1; but the historical element 1 Acts vii. 22. ' Dcut. xviii. 15. 62 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IL to be detected is in every case so small, it is so overlaid by fable, and intermixed with what is palpably imaginative, that no manner of reliance can be placed upon statements merely because they occur in these pretended histories ; nor have they the slightest title to be used as tests whereby to try the authenticity of any other narrative. The only re- liable materials that we possess, besides the Pentateuch, for the history of the period which it embraces, consist of some fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome of the early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain number of Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and two or three valuable papyri. If it be asked on Avhat grounds so strong a preference is assigned to these materials, the answer is easy. The records selected are those of Egypt and Babylon. Now these two countries were, according to the most trust- worthy accounts, both sacred and profane, ( 52 > the first seats of civilization : in them writing seems to have been practised earlier than elsewhere ; they paid from the first great attention to history, and possessed, when the Greeks became acquainted with them, historical records of an antiquity confessedly greater than that which could be claimed for any documents elsewhere. Further, in each of these countries, at the moment when, in consequence of Grecian conquest and the infusion of new ideas, there was the greatest danger of the records perishing or being vitiated, there arose a man a native thoroughly ac- quainted with their antiquities, and competently skilled in the Greek language, Avho transferred to that tongue, ana thus made the common property of mankind, what had previously been a hidden treasure the possession of their own priests and philosophers only. The value of the histories written by Manetho the Sebennyte, and Berosus Lect. IL truth of the scripture records, 63 the Chaldaean, had long been suspected by the learned ; W but it remained for the present age to obtain distinct evi- dence of their fidelity evidence which places them, among the historians of early times, in a class by them- selves, greatly above even the most acute and painstaking of the Greek and Roman compilers. Herodotus, Ctesias, Alexander Polyhistor, Diodorus Siculus, Trogus Pompeius, could at best receive at second hand such representations of Babylonian and Egyptian history as the natives chose to import to them, and moreover received these representa- tions (for the most part) diluted and distorted by passing through the medium of comparatively ignorant interpret- ers. Manetho and Berosus had free access to the national records, and so could draw their histories directly from the fountain-head. This advantage might, of course, have been forfeited by a deficiency on their part of either honesty or diligence ; but the recent discoveries in the two countries have had the effect of removing all doubt upon either of these two heads from the character of both writers. The monuments which have been recovered furnish the strongest proof alike of the honest intention and of the diligence and carefulness of the two historians; who have thus, as profane writers of primeval history, a preeminence overall others. ( M ) This is perhaps the chief value of the documents obtained, which do not in themselves furnish a history, or even its framework, a chronology ; ('*> but re- quire an historical scheme to be given from without, into which they may lit, and wherein each may find its true and proper position. If we now proceed to compare the Mosaic account of the first period of the world's history with that outline which may be obtained from Egyptian and Babylonian sources, we are strc -k at first sight with what seems an 64 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. II. enormous difference in the chronology. The sura of the years in Manetho's scheme, as it has come down to us in Eusebius, is little short of thirty thousand ; ( 56 ) while that in the scheme of Berosus, as reported by the same author, < 57 ) exceeds four hundred and sixty thousand ! But upon a little consideration, the greater part of this difficulty van- ishes. If we examine the two chronologies, we shall find that both evidently divide at a certain point, above which all is certainly mythic, while below all is, or at least may be, historical. Out of the thirty thousand years contained (apparently) in Manetho's scheme, nearly twenty-five thou- sand belong to the time when Gods, Demigods, and Spirits had rule on earth ; and the history of Egypt confessedly does not begin till this period is concluded, and Menes, the first Egyptian king, mounts the throne. t 58 ) Similarly, in the chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden transition from kings whose reigns are counted by sossi and neri, or periods respectively of sixty and six hundred years, to monarchs the average length of whose reigns very little exceeds that found to prevail in ordinary monarchies. Omitting in each case what is plainly a mythic computa- tion, we have in the Babylonian scheme a chronology which mounts up no higher than two thousand four hun- dred and fifty-eight years before Christ, or eight hundred years after the Deluge, (according to the numbers of the Septuagint ;) while in the Egyptian we have at any rate only an excess of about two thousand years to explain and account for, instead of an excess of twenty-seven thousand. And this latter discrepancy becomes insignificant, i it does not actually disappear, upon a closer scrutiny, \ e five thousand years of Manetho's dynastic lists were re- duced by himself (as we learn from Syncellus) to three thousand five hundred and fifty-five years/ 59 ) doubtless Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 65 because he was aware that his lists contained in some eases contemporary dynasties ; in others, contemporary kin^s in the same dynasty, owing to the mention in them of various royal personages associated on the throne by the principal monarch. Thus near fifteen hundred years are struck off from Manetho's total at a blow; and the chronological difference between his scheme ami that of Scripture is reduced to a few hundred years a discrepancy of no great moment, and one which might easily arise, either from slight errors of the copyists, or from an insufficient allowance being made in Manetho's scheme, in respect of either or both of the causes from which .Egyptian chronol- ogy is always liable to be exaggerated. Without taxing Manetho with conscious dishonesty, we may suspect that he was not unwilling to exalt the antiquity of his country, if he could do so without falsifying his authorities; and from the confusion of the middle or Ilyksos period of Egyptian history, and the obscurity of the earlier times, when there were as yet no monuments, he would have had abundant opportunity for chronological exaggeration by merely regarding as consecutive dynasties all these, which were not certainly known to have been contemporary. The real duration of the Egyptian monarchy depends en tirely upon the proper arrangement of the dynasties into synchronous and consecutive a point upon which the best Egyptologers are still far from agreed. Some of the greatest names in this branch of antiquarian learning are in favor of a chronology almost as moderate as the historic Babylonian; the accession of Menes, according to them, falling about 26G0 B. C, or more than six hundred years after the Septuagint date for the Deluge. ' The removal of this difficulty open- the way to a consid- eration of the positive points of agreement between the G* 63 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II. Scriptural narrative and that of the profane authorities. And here, for the earliest times, it is especially Babylon which furnishes an account capable of being compared with that of Moses. According to Berosus, the world when first created was in darkness, and consisted of a fluid mass inhabited by monsters of the strangest forms. Over the whole dominated a female power called Thalatth, or Sea. Then Belus, wishing to carry on the creative work, cleft Thalatth in twain ; and of the half of her he made the earth, and of the other half the heaven. Hereupon the monsters, w r ho could not endure the air and the light, per- ished. Belus upon this, seeing that the earth was desolate, yet teeming with productive power, cut off his own head, and mingling the blood which flowed forth with the dust of the ground, formed men, who were thus intelligent, as being partakers of the divine wisdom. lie then made other animals fit to live on the earth : he made also the stars, and the sun and moon, and the five planets. The first man was Alorus, a Chaldaean, who reigned over man- kind for thirty-six thousand years, and begat a son, Alapa- rus, who reigned ten thousand eight hundred years. Then followed in succession eight others, whose reigns were of equal or greater length, ending with Xisuthrus, under whom the great Deluge took place. ( 61 > The leading facts of this cosmogony and antediluvian history are manifestly, and indeed confessedly, ( m ~> in close agreement with the Hebrew records. We have in it the earth at first "without form and void," and " darkness upon the face of the dee})." l We have the Creator dividing the watery mass and making the two firmaments, that of the heaven and that of the earth, first of all; we have Light spoken of before the sun and moon ; we have their creation, and that of the stars, 1 Genesis i. 2. LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 67 somewhat late in the series of events given ; we have a divine element infused into man at his birth, and again we have his creation "from the dust of the ground." 1 Fur- ther, between the first man and the Deluge are in the scheme of Berosus ten generations, which is the exact number between Adam and Xoah ; and though the dura- tion of human life is in his account enormously exagger- ated, we may see even in this exaggeration a glimpse of the truth, that the lives of the Patriarchs were extended far beyond the term which has been the limit in later ages. This truth seems to have been known to many of the ancients/ 63 ) and traces of it have even been found among the modern Burmans and Chinese. ( M ) The account which Berosus gives of the Deluge is still more strikingly in accordance with the narrative of Scrip- ture. "Xisuthrus," he says, "was warned by Saturn in a dream that all mankind would be destroyed shortly by a deluge of rain. He was bidden to bury in the city of Sip- para (or Sepharvaim) such written documents as existed; and then to build a huge vessel or ark. in length five fur- longs, and two furlongs in width, wherein was to he placed good store of provisions, together with winged fowl and four-footed beasts of the earth; and in which he was him- self to embark with his wife and children, and his close friends. Xisuthrus did accordingly, ami the flood came at the time appointed. The ark drifted towards Armenia; and Xisuthrus, on the third day after the rain abated, sent out from the ark a bird, which, after flying for a while over the illimitable sea of waters, and finding neither food nor a spot on which it could settle, returned to him. Some days later, Xisuthrus sent out other birds, which likewise re. turned, but with feet covered with mud. Sent out a third * Genesis ii. 7. 68 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL time, the birds returned no more ; and Xisuthrus knew that the earth had reappeared. So he removed some of the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold the vessel had grounded upon a high mountain, and remained fixed. Then he went forth from the ark, with his wife, his daugh- ter, and his pilot, and built an altar, and offered sacrifice; after which he suddenly disappeared from sight, together with those who had accompanied him. They who had remained in the ark, surprised that he did not return, sought him ; when they heard his voice in the sky, exhort- ing them to continue religious, and bidding them go back to Babylonia from the land of Armenia, where they were, and recover the buried documents, and make them once more known among men. So they obeyed, and went back to the land of Babylon, and built many cities and temples, and raised up Babylon from its ruins." ( te ) Such is the account of Berosus ; and a description sub- stantially the same is given by Abydenus, ( 66 ) an ancient writer of whom less is known, but whose fragments are generally of great value and importance. It is plain that we have here a tradition not drawn from the Hebrew rec- ord, much less the foundation of that record ;( fi7 ) yet coin- ciding with it in the most remarkable way. The Baby- lonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances, as the monstrous size of the vessel, and the translation of Xisuthrus ; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history down to its minutiae. The previous warning, the divine direction as to the ark and its dimensions, the introduction into it of birds and beasts, the threefold sending out of the bird, the place of the ark's resting, the egress by removal of the cov- ering, the altar straightway built, and the sacrifice offered, constitute an array of exact coincidences which cannot possibly be the result of chance, and of which I see no LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 69 plausible account that can be given except that it is the harmony of truth. Nor are these minute coincidences counterbalanced by the important differences which some have seen in the two accounts. It is not true to say (as Niebuhr is reported to have said) that "the Babylonian tradition differs from the Mosaic account by stating that not only Xisuthrus and his family, but all pious men, were saved; and also by making the Flood not universal, bin only partial, and confined to Babylonia" ( cc ) Derosas does indeed give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, not only his wife and children, but a certain number of " close friends;" and thus far he differs from Scripture; but these friends are not represented as numerous, much less as " all pious men." And so far is he from making the Flood par- tial, or confining it to Babylonia, that his narrative dis- tinctly implies the contrary. The warning given t> Xisu- thrus is that "mankind" (VoiV u^uw.toj?) is about to lie destroyed. The ark drifts to Armenia, and when it is there, the birds are sent out, and find "an illimitable sea of waters," and no rest for the sole of their feet. When at length they no longer return, Xisuthrus knows "that land has reappeared," and leaving the ark, finds himself "on a mountain in Armenia." It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia, a height which must have been seen to involve the submersion of all the countries with which the Babylonians were acquainted. The account which the Chahhean writer gave of the events following the Deluge is reported with some disa- greement by the different authors through whom it has come down to us. Josephus believed that Berosus was in accord with Scripture in regard to the generations between the Flood and Abraham, which (according to the Jewish 70 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. U. historian) he correctly estimated at ten.( 67 ) But other writers introduce in this place, as coming from Berosus, a series of eighty-six kings, the first and second of whom reign for above two thousand years, while the remainder reign upon an average three hundred and forty-five years each. We have here perhaps a trace of that gradual short- ening of human life which the genealogy of Abraham exhibits to us so clearly in Scripture ; but the numbers appear to be artificial, W and they are unaccompanied by any history. There is reason, however, to believe that Berosus noticed one of the most important events of this period, in terms which very strikingly recall the Scripture narrative. Writers, whose Babylonian history seems drawn directly from him, or from the sources which he used, give the following account of the tower of Babel, and the con- fusion of tongues "At this time the ancient race of. men were so puffed up with their strength and tallness of stat- ure, that they began to despise and contemn the gods ; and labored to erect that very lofty tower, which is now called Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. But when the building approached the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid of the winds, and by their help overturned the tower, and cast it to the ground. The name of the ruins is still called Babel ; because until this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and diverse tongues." ( 69 > At the point which we have now reacherl, the sacred narrative ceases to be general, and becomes special or par- ticular. It leaves the history of the world, and concen- trates itself on an individual and his descendants. At the moment of transition, however, it throws out, in a chapter of wonderful grasp and still more wonderful accuracy, a sketch of the nations of the earth, their ethnic affinities, LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 71 and to some extent their geographical position and bounda- ries. The Toldoth Beni Noah has extorted the admiration of modern ethnologists, who continually find in it anticipa- tions of their greatest discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse the great discovery of Schlegel, (~) which the word Indo-European embodies the affinity of the principal nations of Europe with the Arian or Lido-Persic stock is sufficiently indicated by the conjunction of the Madai or Medes (whose native name was Mada) with Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the Ionians. Again, one of the most recent and unexpected results of modern linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has furnished of an ethnic connection between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who adjoined on Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Baby- lonia ; a connection which (as we saw in the last Lecture) was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist only a few years ago, but which has now been sufficiently established from the cuneiform monuments. ( 71 ) In the tenth of Gene- sis we find this truth thus briefly but clearly stated "And Cush begat Nimrod," the "beginning of whose kingdom was Babel." 1 So we have had it recently made evident from the same monuments, that "out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh"-' or that the Semitic Assyrians proceeded from Babylonia and founded Nineveh long after the Cushite foundation of Babylon. ( T2 > Again, the Hamitic descent of the early inhabitants of Canaan, which had often been called in question, has recently come to be looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evi- dence of Scripture ; < 73 > and the double mention of Slieb.i, both among the sons of Ham, and also among -those of SheiV has been illustrated by the discovery that there are 1 Gen. x. 8 and 10. * Ibid, verse 11. 3 Ibid, verses 7 and 28. 72 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II two races of Arabs one (the Joktanian) Semitic, the other (the Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic. ( 74 > On the whole, the scheme of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth chapter of Genesis is pronounced "safer" to follow than any other ; and the Toldoth Beni Noah commends itself to the ethnic inquirer as " the most authentic recoi'd that we possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document " of the very highest antiquity." ( 75 > The confirmation which profane history lends the Book of Genesis from the point whei*e the narrative passes from the general to the special character, is (as might be expected) only occasional, and for the most part incidental. Abraham was scarcely a personage of sufficient importance to attract much of the attention of either the Babylonian or the Egyptian chroniclers. We possess, indeed, several very interesting notices of this Patriarch and his successors from heathen pens ; ( 7C ) but they are of far inferior moment to the authorities hitherto cited, since they do not indicate a separate and distinct line of information, but are, in all probability, derived from the Hebrew records. I refer par- ticularly to the passages which Eusebius produces in his Gospel Preparation from Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molo, Philo, and Cleodemus or Malchas, with regard to Abra- ham, and from Demetrius, Theodotus, Artapanus, and Philo, with respect to Isaac and Jacob. These testimonies are probably well known to many of my hearers, since they have been adduced very generally by our writers. ( 77 > They bear unmistakably the stamp of a Jewish origin; and show the view which the more enlightened heathen took of the historical character of the Hebrew records, when they first became acquainted Avith them ; but they cannot boast, like notices in Berosus and Manetho, a distinct origin, and thus a separate and independent authority. I shall there- LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 73 fore content myself with this brief mention of them here, which is all that time will allow ; and proceed to adduce a few direct testimonies to the later narrative, furnished either by the native writers, or by the results of modern researches. There are three points only in this portion of the narra- tive which, being of the nature of public and important events, might be expected to obtain notice in the Babylo- nian or Egyptian records the expedition of Chedor-laomer with his confederate kings, the great famine in the days of Joseph, and the Exodus of the Jews. Did we possess the complete monumental annals of the two countries, or the works themselves of Berosus and Manetho, it might fairly be demanded of us that we should adduce evidence from them of all the three. With the scanty and fragmentary remains which are what we actually possess, it would not be sur- prising if we found ourselves without a trace of any. In fact, however, we are able to produce from our scanty stock a decisive confirmation of two events out of the three. The monumental records of Babylonia bear marks of an interruption in the line of native kings, about the date which from Scripture we should assign to Chedor-laomer, and "point to Elymais (or Klam) as the country from which the interruption came." (~*) We have mention of a king, whose name is on good grounds identified with Chedor-laomer, (~ 9 ) as paramount in Babylonia al this time a king apparently of Elamitic origin ami this monarch bears in the inscriptions the unusual ami significant title of Apdu MarttL, or "Ravager of the West." Our (raiment-; of Berosus give us no names at this period; hut his dynas- ties exhibit a transition at about the date required, M,) which is in accordance with the break indicated by the monuments. We thus obtain a doiihle witness to tho 74 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IL remarkable fact of an interruption of pure Babylonian supremacy at this time; and from the monuments we are able to pronounce that the supremacy was transferred to Elam, and that under a king, the Semitic form of whose name would be Chedor-laomer, a great expedition wag organized, which proceeded to the distant and then almost unknown west, and returned after "ravaging" but not, conquering those regions. The Exodus of the Jews was an event which could scarcely be omitted by Manetho. It was one however of such a nature so entirely repugnant to all the feelings of an Egyptian that we could not expect a fair representa- tion of it in their annals. And accordingly, our fragments of Manetho present us with a distinct but very distorted notice of the occurrence. The Hebrews are represented as leprous and impious Egyptians, who under the conduct of a priest of Heliopolis, named Moses, rebelled on account of oppression, occupied a town called Avaris, or Abaris, and having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, made themselves masters of Egypt, which they held for thirteen years ; but who were at last defeated by the Egyptian king, and driven from Egypt into Syria. ( 81 > We have here the oppression, the name Moses, the national name, Hebrew, under the disguise of Abaris, and the true direction of the retreat ; but we have all the special circumstances of the occasion concealed under a general confession of disaster; and we have a claim to final triumph which consoled the wounded vanity of the nation, but which Ave know to have been unfounded. On the whole Ave have perhaps as much as Ave could reasonably expect the annals of the Egyp- tians to tell us of transactions so little to their credit ; and we have a narrative fairly confirming the principal facts, as well as very curious in many of its particulars. C 88 ) LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 75 I have thus briefly considered some of the principal of those direct testimonies which can be adduced from ancient profane sources, in confirmation of the historic truth of the Pentateuch. There are various other arguments some purely, some partly historic into which want of space for- bids my entering in the present Course. For instance, there is what may be called the historico-scientific argument, derivable from the agreement of the sacred narrative with the conclusions reached by those sciences which have a partially historical character. Geology whatever may be thought of its true bearing upon other points at least witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there is no trace in any but the latest strata. W Physiology decides in favor of the unity of the species, and the proba- ble derivation of the whole human race from a single pair. ( 84 > Comparative Philology, after divers fluctuations, settles into the belief that languages will ultimately prove to have been all derived from a common bais. C 85 ) Ethnol- ogy pronounces that, independently of the Scriptural record, we should be led to fix on the plains of Shinar as a common centre, or focus, from which the various lines of migration and the several types of races originally radi- ated. C 86 ) Again, there is an argument perhaps more con- vincing than any other, but of immense compass, dedueible from the indirect and incidental points of agreement between the Mosaic records and the best profane authori- ties. The limits within which I am confined compel me to decline this portion of the inquiry. Otherwise it might be shown that the linguistic, geographic, and ethologie notices contained in the books of .Moses are of the most veracious character/ 87 ' stamping the whole narration with an unmis- takable air of authenticity. Ami this, it may be remarked, is an argument to which modern research is perpetually 76 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II. adding fresh weight. For instance, if we look to the geography, we shall find that till within these few years, "Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar" 1 Calah and Resen, in the country peopled by Asshur 2 Ellasar, and " Ur of the Chaldees," 3 were mere names ; and beyond the mention of them in Genesis, scarcely a trace was discoverable of their existence. C 8 ^ Recently, however, the mounds of Mesopotamia have been searched, and bricks and stones buried for near three thousand years have found a tongue, and tell us exactly where each of these cities stood, ( 89 ) and sufficiently indicate their impor- tance. Again, the power of Og, and his " threescore cities all fenced with high walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled towns a great many," 4 in such a country as that to the east of the Sea of Galilee, whose old name of Trachonitis indi- cates its barrenness, seemed to many improbable but modern research has found in this very country a vast number of walled cities still standing, which show the habits of the ancient people, and prove that the population must at one time have been considerable. W So the care- ful examination that has been made of the valley of the Jordan, which has resulted in a proof that it is a unique phenomenon, utterly unlike any thing elsewhere on the whole face of the earth, ( 91 > tends greatly to confirm the Mosaic account, that it became what it now is by a great convulsion ; and by pious persons will, I think, be felt as confirming the miraculous character of that convulsion. Above all, perhaps, the absence of any counter-evidence the fact that each accession to our knowledge of the ancient times, whether historic or geographic, or ethnic, helps to remove difficulties, and to produce a perpetual 1 Gen. x. 10. 2 Ibid, verses 11 and 12. 3 Ibid. xi. 31 ; xiv. 1. 4 Deut. iii. 5. LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 77 supply of fresh illustrations of the Mosaic narrative ; while fresh difficulties are not at the same time brought to light is to be remarked, as to candid minds an argument for the historic truth of the narrative, the force of which can scarcely be over-estimated. All tends to show that we possess in the Pentateuch, not only the most authentic account of ancient times that has come down to us, but a histoiy absolutely and in every respect true. All tends to assure us that in this marvellous volume we have no old wives' tales, no "cunningly devised fable;" 1 but a "treas- ure of wisdom and knowledge"- as important to the his- torical inquirer as to the theologian. There may be obscurities there may be occasionally, in names and numbers, accidental corruptions of the text there may be a few interpolations glosses which have crept in from the margin ; but upon the whole it must be pronounced that we have in the Pentateuch a genuine and authentic, work, and one which even were it not inspired would be, for the times and countries whereof it treats, the lead- ing and paramount authority. It is (let us be assured) "Moses," who is still "read in the synagogues every sabbath day;" 3 and they who "resist" him, by impugning his veracity, like Jannes and Jainhres of old, " resist the truths * 1 2 Tot. 5. 16. * Col. ii. 3. 3 Acts xv. 21. 4 2 Tim. iii. 8. LECTURE III. WHEN HE HAD DESTROYED SEVEN NATIONS IN THE LAND OF CHANAAN, HE DIVIDED THEIR LAND TO THEM BY LOT. AND AFTER THAT HE GAVE THEM JUDGES ABOUT THE 8PACE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEAKS, UNTIL SAMUEL THE PROPHET. AND AFTERWARD THEY DE- SIRED A KING. ACTS XIII. 19-21. The period of Jewish history, which has to be considered in the present Lecture, contains within it the extremes of obscurity and splendor, of the depression and the exalta- tion of the race. The fugitives from Egypt, who by divine aid eifected a lodgment in the land of Canaan, under their great leader, Joshua, were engaged for some hundreds of years in a perpetual struggle for existence with the petty tribes among whom they had intruded themselves, and seemed finally on the point of succumbing and ceasing altogether to be a people, when they were suddenly lifted up by the hand of God, and carried rapidly to the highest pitch of greatness whereto they ever attained. From the time when the Hebrews "hid themselves in holes," 1 for fear of the Philistines, and w r ere without spears, or swords, or armorers, because the Philistines had said, "Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears," 2 to the full completion of the kingdom of David by his victories over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, and the Amalekiter, together with the submission of the Idumaeans, 3 w r as a space little, if at all, exceeding half a 1 1 Sam. xiv. 11. s Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 3 2 Sam. viii. (78) JZCI. III. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. *M century. Thus wore brought within the lifetime of a nan the highest glory and the deepest shame, oppression and dominion, terror and triumph, the peril of extinction and the establishment of a mighty empire. The very men who "hid themselves in caves and in thickets, in rocks, and in high places, and in pits," ' or who fled across the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, 2 when the Philistines "pitched in Michmash," may have seen garrisons put in Damascus and " throughout all Edom," 3 and the dominion of David extended to the Euphrates. 4 The history of this remarkable period is delivered to us in four or five Books, the authors of which are unknown, or at best uncertain. It is thought by some that Joshua wrote the book which bears his name, except the closing verses of the last chapter ;(') and by others, ( 2 ) that Samuel composed twenty-four chapters of the first of those two books which in our Canon bear the title of Books of Samuel ; but there is no such uniform tradition W in either case as exists respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, nor is there the same weight of internal testimony. On the whole, the internal testimony seems to be against the ascription of the Book of Joshua to the Jewish leader ; W and both it, Judges, and Ruth, as well :is Kings and Chroni- cles, are best referred to the cluss of tfifiila udicnttTa, or books the authors of which are unknown to us. The im- portance of a history, however, though it may he enhanced by our knowledge of the author, docs not necessarily de- pend on such knowledge. The Turin Papyrus, the Parian Marble, the Saxon Chronicle, are documents of the very highest historic value, though we know nothing of the persons who composed them ; because there is reason to 1 1 Sam. xiii. 6. : Ibid, vorsr 7. 3 2 Sam. viii. 14. * Ibid, vers* 3. 80 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IIL believe that they were composed from good sources. And so it is with these portions of the Sacred Volume. There is abundant evidence, both internal and external, of their authenticity and historic value, notwithstanding that their actual composers are unknown or uncertain. They have really the force of State Papers, being authoritative public documents, preserved among the national archives of the Jews so long as they were a nation ; and ever since cher- ished by the scattered fragments of the race as among the most precious of their early records. As we do not com- monly ask who was the author of a State Paper, but ac- cept it without any such formality, so we are bound to act towards these writings. They are written near the time, sometimes by eye-witnesses, sometimes by those who have before them the reports of eye-witnesses ; and their recep- tion among the sacred records of the Jews stamps them with an authentic character. As similar attempts have been made to invalidate the authority of these books with those to which I alluded in the last Lecture, as directed against the Pentateuch, it will be necessary to state briefly the special grounds, which exist in the case of each, for accepting it as containing a true history. Having thus vindicated the historical char- acter of the Books from the evidence which they them- selves offer, I shall then proceed to adduce such confir- mation of their truth as can be obtained from other, and especially from profane, sources. The Book of Joshua is clearly the production of an eye- witness. The writer includes himself among those who passed over Jordan dryshod. 1 He speaks of Rahab the harlot as still " dwelling in Israel " when he writes ; 2 and of Hebron as still in the possession of Caleb the son of 1 Josh. v. 1. 2 Ibid. vi. 25. LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 81 Jephunneh. 1 lie belongs clearly to the "elders that outlived Joshua, which had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for Israel ; " - and is therefore as credible a witness for the events of the settlement in Palestine, as Moses for those of the Exodus and the pas- sage through the wilderness. Further, he undoubtedly possesses documents of authority, from one of which (the Book of Jasher) he quotes; 3 and it is a reasonable supposi- tion that his work is to a great extent composed from such documents, to which there are several references, 4 besides the actual quotation. ( 5 ) The Book of Judges, according to the tradition of the Jews, was written by Samuel. () There is nothing in the work itself that very distinctly marks the date of its com- position. From its contents we can only say that it must have been composed about Samuel's time; that is, after the death of Samson, and before the capture of Jerusalem by David. 0) As the events related in it certainly cover a space of some hundreds of years, the writer, whoever he be, cannot be regarded as a contemporary witness for more than a small portion of them. lie stands rather in the position of Moses with respect to the greater part of Genesis, being the recorder of his country's traditions dur- ing a space generally estimated as about equal to that which intervened between the call of Abraham and the birth of Moses. W Had these traditions been handed down entirely by oral communication, still, being chiefly marked and striking events in the national lite, they would have possessed a fair title to acceptance. As the ease actually stands, however, there is every reason to believe that national records, which (as we have seen) existed in the 1 Josh. xiv. 14. ' Ibid. xxiv. 31. 2 Ibid. x. 13. " Ibid, xviii. U ; xxiv. 26. 82 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IIL days of Moses and Joshua, were continued by their suc- cessors, and that these formed the materials from which the Book of Judges was composed by its author. Of such records we have a specimen in the Song of Deborah and Barak, an historical poem embodying the chief facts of Deborah's judgeship. It is reasonable to suppose that there may have been many such compositions, belonging to the actual time of the events, of which the historian could make use ; and it is also most probable that chronicles were kept even at this early date, like those to which the writers of the later historical books refer so constantly. 1 The two Books of Samuel are thought by some to form, together with the two Books of Kings, a single work, and are referred to the time of the Babylonish captivity ; ( 9 > but this view is contrary both to the internal and to the external evidence. The tradition of the Jews is, that the work was commenced by Samuel, continued by Gad, David's seer, and concluded by Nathan the prophet ; ( 10 > and this is to say the least a very probable supposi- tion. We know from a statement in the First Book of Chronicles, that "the acts of David the king, first and last, were written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer ; " 2 and these writings, it is plain, were still extant in the Chronicler's time. If then the Books of Samuel had been a compilation made during the Captivity, or earlier, it would have been founded on these books, which could not but have been of primary authority ; in which case the compiler could scarcely have failed to quote them, either by name, as the Chronicler does in the place which has been 1 1 Kings xi. 41 ; xiv. 19 and 29; xv. 7 ; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27, &c; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xii. 15 ; xiii. 22 ; xx. 34, &c. 8 J Chron. xxix. 29. LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 83 cited, or under the title of "the Chronicles of David," as he seems to do in another. 1 But there is no quotation, direct or indirect, no trace of compilation, no indication of a writer drawing from other authors, in the two Books of Samuel, from beginning to end. In this respect they con- trast most strongly with both Chronicles and Kings, where the authors at every turn make reference to the sources from which they derive their information. These books therefore are most reasonably to be regarded as a primary and original work the work used and quoted, by the Chronicler for the reign of David and a specimen of those other works from which the authors of Kings and Chronicles confessedly compiled their histories. We have thus, in all probability, for the times of Samuel, Said, and David, the direct witness of Samuel himself, and of the two prophets who were in most repute during the reign of David. The writer of the first Book of Kings derives his account of Solomon from a document which he calls " the Book of the Acts of Solomon;"- while the author of the second Book of Chronicles cites three works as furnishing him with materials for this part of his history "the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboanf the son of Nebat." 3 These last were certainly the works of con- temporaries ;(") and the same may be presumed of the other; since the later compiler is not likely to have pos- sessed better materials than the earlier. We may therefore conclude that we have in Kings and Chronicles the history of Solomon's reign not perhaps exactly in the words of contemporary writers but substantially as they delivered it. And the writers were persons who held the same high 1 1 Chron. xxvii. 24. * 1 Kin^s xi. 41. '2 Chron. ix. 2 L J. 84 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LeCT. IIL position under Solomon, which the composers of the Books of Samuel had held under Saul and David. It is also worthy of remark, that we have the histories of David and Solomon from two separate and distinct authorities. The writer of Chronicles does not draw even his account of David wholly from Samuel, but adds various particulars, which show that he had further sources of in- formation. ( I2 ) And his account of Solomon appears not to have been drawn from Kings at all, but to have been taken quite independently from the original documents. Further, it is to be noted that we have in the Book of Psalms, at once a running comment, illustrative of David's personal history, the close agreement of which with the historical books is striking, and also a work affording abundant evidence that the history of the nation, as it is delivered to us in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, and in Judges, was at least believed by the Jews to be their true and real history in the time of David. The seventy-eighth Psalm, which certainly belongs to David's time, is sufficient proof of this : it contains a sketch of Jewish history, from the wonders wrought by Moses in Egypt to the establish- ment of the ark in mount Zion by David, and refers to not fewer than fifty or sixty of the occurrences which are de- scribed ft length in the historical writings. ( 13) It is cer- tain, at the least, that the Jews of David's age had no other account to give of their past fortunes than that miraculous story which has come down to us in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. We have now further to consider what amount of con- firmation profane history lends to the truth of the sacred narrative during the period extending from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam. This period, it has LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 85 been observed above, comprises within it the two most opposite conditions of the Jewish race : during its earlier portion the Israelites were a small and insignificant people, with difficulty maintaining themselves in the hill-country of Palestine against the attacks of various tribes, none of whom have made any great figure in history : while towards its close a Jewish Empire was formed an Empire perhaps as great as any which up to that time had been known in the Eastern world, and which, if not so extensive as some that shortly afterwards grew up in Western Asia, at any rate marks very distinctly the period when the power and prosperity of the Jews reached its acme. It was not to be expected that profane writers would notice equally both of these periods. During the obscure time of the Judges, the Jews could be little known beyond their borders; and even had Assyria and Egypt been at this time flourishing and aggressive states, had the armies of either or both been then in the habit of traversing Palestine in the course of their expeditions, the Israelites might easily have escaped mention, since they occupied Only a small part of the country, and that part the least accessible of the whole. ( M ) It appears, however, that in fact both Assyria and Egypt were weak during this period. The expeditions of the former were still confined within the Euphrates, or, if they crossed it on rare occasions, at any rate went no farther than Cappadocia and l T pper Syria, or the country about Aleppo and Antioch.( i:,) Ami Egypt from the time of Harnesses the third, which was not long after the Exodus, to that of Shishak, the contem- porary of Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions lit all beyond its own frontier. ("'' Thus the annals of the two countries are necessarily silent concerning the Jews during the period in question ; and no agreement between 8 86 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE L.ECT. IIL them and the Jewish records is possible, except that tacit one which is found in fact to exist. The Jewish records are silent concerning Egypt, from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon ; which is exactly the time during which the Egyptian records are silent concerning the Jews. And Assyria does not appear in Scripture as an influential power in Lower Syria and Palestine till a time considerably later than the separation of the kingdoms ; while similarly the Assyrian monuments are without any mention of expedi- tions into these parts during the earlier period of the em- pire. Further, it may be remarked that from the mention of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram-Naharaim, (or the country about Harran,) as a powerful prince soon after the death of Joshua, it would follow that Assyria had not at that time extended her dominion even to the Euphrates ; a conclusion which the cuneiform records of perhaps two centuries later entirely confirm, ( 17 ) since they show that even then the Assyrians had not conquered the whole country east of the river. Besides the points of agreement here noticed, which, though negative, are (I think) of no slight weight, we possess one testimony belonging to this period of a direct and positive character, which is among the most curious of the illustrations, that profane sources furnish, of the vera- city of Scripture. Moses of Chorene, the Armenian his- torian, ( 18 ) Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, ( 19) and Suidas the Lexicographer, t 20 ) relate, that there existed in their day at Tingis, (or Tangiers,) in Africa, an ancient in- scription to the effect that the inhabitants were the de- scendants of those fugitives who were driven from the land of Canaan by Joshua the son of Nun, the plunderer. It has been said that this story " can scarcely be any thing but a Rabbinical legend, wdiich Procopius may have heard LECT. III. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 87 from African Jews." ( 21) But the independent testimony of the three writers, who do not seem to have copied from one another, is an argument of great weight ; and the expressions used, by Procopius especially, have a precision and a circumstantiality, which seem rather to imply the basis of personal observation. "There stand," he says, "two pillars of white marble near the great fountain in the city of Tigisis, bearing an inscription in Phoenician characters, and in the Phoenician language, which runs as follows." I cannot see that there would be any sufficient reason for doubting the truth of this very clear and exact statement, even if it stood alone, and were unconfirmed by any other writer. Two writers, however, confirm it one of an earlier and the other of a later date ; and the three testimonies are proved, by their slight variations, to be independent of one another. There is then sufficient reason to believe that a Phoenician inscription to the effect stated existed at Tangiers in the time of the Lower Empire; ami the true question for historical criticism to consider and determine is, what is the weight and value of such an inscription.^ That it was not a Jewish or a Christian monument is certain from the epithet of "plunderer" or "robber" applied in it to Joshua. That it was more ancient than Christianity seems probable from the language and charac- ter in which it was written. < 2:,) It would appear to have been a genuine Phoenician monument, of an antiquity which cannot now be decided, but which was probably remote; and it must be regarded as embodying an ancient tradition, current in this part of Africa in times anterior to Christianity, which very remarkably confirms the Hebrew narrative. There is another event of a public nature, belonging to this portion of the history, of which some have thought to 88 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. III. find a confirmation in the pages of a profane writer. "The Egyptians," says Herodotus, C 24 ) "declare that since Egypt w:ts a kingdom, the sun has on four several occa- sions moved from his wonted course, twice rising where he now sets, and twice setting where he now rises." It has been supposed t 25 ) that we have here a notice of that remarkable time when " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day ; " l as well as of that other somewhat similar occasion, when "the sun returned ten degrees" on the dial of Ahaz. 2 But the statement made to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests would very ill describe the phenomena of these two occa- sions, however we understand the narratives in Joshua and Kings ; and the fact which they intended to convey to him was probably one connected rather with their peculiar system of astronomical cycles, than with any sudden and violent changes in the celestial order. If the narrative in Joshua is to be understood astronomically, of an actual cessation or retardation of the earth's motion, ( 2C ) we must admit that profane history fails to present us with any mention of an occurrence, which it might have been expected to notice with distinctness. But at the same time we must remember how scanty are the remains which we possess of this early time, and how strictly they are limited to the recording of political events and dynastic changes. The astronomical records of the Babylonians have perished ; and the lists of Manetho contain but few references to natural phenomena, which are never intro- duced except when they have a political bearing. No valid objection therefore can be brought against the literal truth of the narrative in Joshua from the present want of any profane confirmation of it. Where the records of the 1 Jqsh. x. 13. * Isa. xxxviii. 8. LECT. Ill TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 89 past are so few and so slight, the argument from mere silence lias neither force nor place. The flourishing period of Jewish history, which com- mences with the reign of David, brought the chosen people of God once more into contact with those principal nations of the earth, whose history has to some extent come down to us. One of the first exploits of David Mas that great defeat which he inflicted on the Syrians of Damascus, in the vicinity of the Euphrates, when they came to the assistance of Hadedezer king of Zobah a defeat which cost them more than twenty thousand men, and which was followed by the temporary subjection of Damascus to the Israelites; since "David put garrisons in Syria of Damas- cus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts." 1 This war is mentioned not only by Eu- polemus^ 27 ) who appears to have been well acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures, but also by Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Augustus Caesar, who clearly draws his his- tory from the records of his native place. "After this," says Nicolas, "there was a certain Hadad, a native Syrian, who had great power: he ruled over Damascus, and all Syria, except Phoenicia. lie likewise undertook a war with David, the king of Judaea, and contended against him in a number of battles; in the last of them all which was by the river Euphrates, and in which he suffered defeat showing himself a prince of the greatest courage and prowess." C 38 ) This is a testimony of the same nature with those already adduced from Berosus and Manctho; it is a separate and independent notice of an event in Jewish history, which has come down to us from the other party in the transaction, with particulars not contained in the Jewish account, yet compatible with all that is so 1 2 Sum. viii. 6. Comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 6. 8* 90 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. III. contained, and strictly corroborative of the main circum- stances of the Hebrew narrative. The other wars of the son of Jesse wei-e with enemies of inferior power and importance, as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumjeans, and the Ama- lekites. Eupolemus mentions most of these successes ; f 29 ) but otherwise we have no recognition of them by profane writers, which cannot be considered surprising, since there are no ancient histories extant wherein these nations are mentioned otherwise than incidentally. We have, how- ever, one further point of contact between sacred and profane history at this period which is of considerable interest and importance, and which requires separate con- sideration. I speak of the connection, seen now for the first time, between Jmkea and Phoenicia, which, separated by natural obstacles, C 30 ) and hitherto, perhaps, to some extent by intervening tribes, only began to hold relations with each other when the conquests of David brought Judoea into a new position among the powers of these regions. It was necessary for the commerce of Phoenicia that she should enjoy the friendship of whatever power commanded the great lines of inland traffic, which ran through Coele-Syria and Damascus, by Hamath and Tad- mor, to the Euphrates. ( 31 > Accordingly we find that upon the "establishment" and " exaltation" of David's kingdom, 1 overtures were at once made to him by the chief Phoeni- cian power of the day ; and his good will was secured by benefits of the most acceptable kind the loan of skilled artificers and the gift of cedar-beams " in abundance " 2 after which a firm friendship was established between the two powers, 3 which continued beyond the reign of David into that of Solomon his son. 4 Now here it is most 1 2 Sam. v. 11, 12. 2 1 Chr. xxii. 4. 3 1 Kings v. 1. 4 Ibid, verse 12. LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 91 interesting to see whether the Hebrew writer lias cor- rectly represented the condition of Phoenicia at the time ; whether the name which lie has assigned to his Phoenician prince is one that Phoenicians bore or the contrary ; and finally, whether there is any trace of the reign of this par- ticular prince at this time. With regard to the first point, it is to be observed, that the condition of Phoenicia varied at different periods. While we seem to trace throughout the whole history a constant recognition of some one city as predominant among the various towns, if not as sovereign over them, we do not always find the same city occupying this posi- tion. In the most ancient times it is Sidon which claims and exercises this precedency and preeminence ; C 32 ) in the later times the dignity has passed to Tyre, which is thenceforward recognized as the leading power. Homer implies^ 33 ) Strabo ( 34 > and Justin t 35 ) distinctly assert, the ancient superiority of Sidon, which was said to have been the primitive settlement, whence the remainder were derived. On the other hand, Dius ( 3fi) and Menander, t 37 ) who drew their Phoenician histories from the native records, clearly show that at a time anterior to David, Tyre had become the leading state, which she continued to be until the time of Alexander. (**) The notices of Phoenicia in Scripture are completely in accordance with what we have thus gathered from profane sources. While Sidon alone appears to have been known to Moses, 1 and Tyre occurs in Joshua as a mere stronghold in marked contrast with imperial Sidon, ("great Zidon," as she is called more than once)-' whose dominion seems to extend along the coast to Cannel, ( M) and certainly reaches inland as far as Laish s in Samuel and Kings the case is > Gen. x. 15; xlix. 13. * J<>h. xi. 8 ; xix. 28. 3 Judges xvii. 7 anil 28. 92 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IIL changed ; Sielon has no longer a distinctive epithet ; ' and it is the "king of Tyre" who on behalf of his countrymen makes advances to David, and who is evidently the chief Phoenician potentate of the period. Further, when we look to the name borne by this prince the first Phoenician mentioned byname in Scripture we are at once struck with its authentic character. That Hiram was really a Phoenician name, and one which kings were in the habit of bearing, is certain from the Assyrian Inscriptions W and from Herodotus, ( 41 ) as well as from the Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander. And these last- named writers not only confirm the name as one which a king of Tyre might have borne, but show moreover that it was actually borne by the Tyrian king contemporary with Solomon and David, of whom they relate circumstances which completely identify him with the monarch who is stated in Scripture to have been on such friendly terms with those princes. They do not indeed appear to have made any mention of David ; but they spoke distinctly of the close connection between Hiram and Solomon ; adding facts, which, though not contained in Scripture, are remark- ably in accordance with the sacred narrative. For instance, both Menander and Dius related that "hard questions" were sent by Solomon to Hiram to be resolved by him ;( 42 ) while Dius added, that Hiram proposed similar puzzles to Solomon in return, which that monarch with all his wisdom was unable to answer. ( 43 > We may see in this narrative, not only a resemblance to the famous visit of the " Queen of the South," 2 who, "when she heard of the fame of Solo- mon, came to prove him with hard questions;" 3 but also an illustration of the statement that "all the earth sought to Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his 1 2 Sam. xxir. 6. * Matt. xii. 42. 3 1 Kings x. 1. LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 93 heart." 1 Again, Menander stated that Hiram gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon. C 44 ) This fact is not recorded in Scripture; but still it is illustrative of the state- ment that "King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Mo- abites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Ilittites. . . . And lie had seven hundred wives, princesses."' 2 One of these we may well conceive to have been the daughter of the Tyrian king. The relations of Solomon with Egypt have received at present but little illustration from native Egyptian sources. Our epitome of Manetho gives us nothing but a bare list of names at the period to which Solomon must belong; and the Egyptian monuments for the time are particularly scanty and insignificant. ( 45 ) Moreover the omission of the Jewish writers to place on record the distinctive name of the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married, forbids his satisfactory identification with any special Egyptian mon- arch. Eupolemus indeed professed to supply this omission of the older historians/ 4 '') and enlivened his history with copies of the letters which (according to him) passed be- tween Solomon and Vaphres or Apries, king of Egypt ; but this name is clearly taken from a later portion of Egyptian history, and none at all similar to it is found either on the monuments or in the dynastic lists for the period. The Egyptian marriage of Solomon, therefore, ami his friendly connection with a Pharaoh of the twenty-first dynasty, have at present no confirmation from profane sources, beyond that which it derives from Eupolemus; lint the change in the relations between the two courts towards the (!<. of Solomon's reign, which is indicated by the protection ex- tended to his enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak, 1 1 Kin^s x. 24. * Ibid. xi. 1-3. 94 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LFXT. Ill receives some illustration and confirmation both from the monuments and from the native historian. Shishak makes his appearance at a suitable point, so far as chronology is concerned/ 47 ^ in the lists of Manetho, where he is called Sesonchis or Sesonchosis/ 48 ) and his name occurs likewise in the sculptures of the period under its Egyptian form of Sheshonk. ( 49 ) The confirmation which the monuments lend to the capture of Jerusalem by this king will be con- sidered in the next Lecture. At present, we have only to note, besides the occurrence of the name at the place where we should naturally look for it in the lists, the fact that it occurs at the commencement of a new dynasty a dynasty furnished by a new city, and quite of a different character from that preceding it which would therefore be in no way connected with Solomon, and would not be unlikely to reverse the policy of the house which it had supplanted. The wealth and magnificence of Solomon were celebrated by Eupolemus and ( 5 )Theophilus,(-' 5l Hhe former of whom gave an elaborate account of the temple and its ornaments. As, however, these writers were merely Avell-informed Greeks who reported to their countrymen the ideas entertained of their history by the Jews of the third and fourth centuries B. C, I forbear to dwell upon their testimonies. I shall therefore close here the direct confirmations from profane sources of this portion of the Scripture narrative, and pro- ceed to consider briefly some of the indirect points of agreement, with which this part of the history, like every other, abounds. First, then, it may be observed, that the empire ascribed to David and Solomon is an empire of exactly that hind which alone Western Asia was capable of producing, and did produce, about the period in question. The modern LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRirTURE RECORDS. 95 system of centralized organization by which the various provinces of a vast empire are cemented into :i compact mass, was unknown to the ancient world, and has never been practised by Asiatics. The satrapial system of gov- ernment, or that in which the pi evinces retain their indi- viduality, but are administered on a common plan by officers appointed by the crown which has prevailed gen- erally through the East since the time of its first introduc- tion was the invention of Darius Hystaspis. Before his time the greatest monarchies had a slighter and weaker organization. They were in all cases composed of a num- ber of separate kingdoms, each under its own native king; and the sole link uniting them together and constituting them an empire, was the subjection of these petty mon- archs to a single suzerain. ( 52 > The Babylonian, Assyrian, Median, and Lydian, were all empires of this type mon- archies, wherein a sovereign prince at the head of a power- ful kingdom was acknowledged as suzerain by a number of inferior princes, each in his own right sole ruler of his own country. And the subjection of the interior princes con- sisted chiefly, if not solely, in two points; they were bound to render homage to their suzerain, and to pay him annu- ally a certain stated tribute. Thus, when we lien that "Solomon reigned over all tin kin ;/>/, is from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt" 1 or again, that "he had dominion ove" all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah (or Thapsacus on the Euphrates) to Azzah, (or (iaza, the most southern of the Philistine towns,) over
The brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz, set up in the court of the temple, 2 recall the pillar of gold which Hiram, accord- ing to Menander, ( 59 > dedicated in the temple of Baal, and the two pillars which appear in the coins of Cyprus before the temple of the Phoenician Venus. C 60 ) The " throne of ivory" 3 has its parallel in the numerous ivory carvings lately brought from Mesopotamia, which in many cases have plainly formed the covering of furniture. ( 61 ) The lions, which stood beside the throne, 4 bring to our mind at once the lions' feet with which Assyrian thrones were ornamented, ( 62 ^ and the- gigantic sculptured figures which commonly formed the portals of the great halls. In these and many other points the state and character of art, which the Hebrew writers describe as existing in Solomon's time, receives confirmation from profane sources, and especially from those remains of a time not long subse- quent, which have been recently brought to light by the researches made in Mesopotamia. Once more the agreement between the character of the Phoenicians as drawn in Kings and Chronicles, and that which we know from other sources to have attached to them, is worthy of remark. The wealth, the enterprise, the maritime skill, and the eminence in the arts, which were the leading characteristics of the Phoenicians in Homer's time, are abundantly noted by the writers of Kings and Chronicles; who contrast the comparative ignorance and rudeness of their own nation with the science and "cunning" of their neighbors. "Thou 1 1 Kings vi. 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, &c. 5 Ibid. vii. 15-22. a Ibid. x. 19. * Ibid, verses ll>and20. 9 98 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE L,ECT. Ill, knowest," writes king Solomon to Hiram, " that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like the Sidonians." 1 " Send me a man," again he writes, " cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men which are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide." 2 And the man sent, "a man of Tyre, a worker in brass, filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass, came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work? 3 So too when Solomon " made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, on the shore of the Red Sea," Hiram " sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon." 4 It has been well re- marked, C 68 ) that "we discover the greatness of Tyre in this age, not so much from its own annals as from those of the Israelites, its neighbors." The scanty fragments of the Phoenician history which alone remain to us are filled out and illustrated by the more copious records of the Jews ; which, with a simplicity and truthfulness that we rarely meet with in profane writers, set forth in the strongest terms their obligations to their friendly neighbors. These are a few of the indirect points of agreement be- tween profane history and this portion of the sacred nar- rative. It would be easy to adduce others ; ( 63 ) but since, within the space which an occasion like the present allows, it is impossible to do more than broadly to indicate the sort of evidence which is producible in favor of the authenticity of Scripture, perhaps the foregoing specimens may suffice. It only remains therefore to sum up briefly the results to which we seem to have attained. 1 1 Kings v. 6. * 2 Chron. ii. 7. 1 1 Kings vii. 14. * Ibid. ix. 26, 27. Lect. ILL truth of the scripture records. 99 We have been engaged with a dark period a period when the nations of the world had little converse with one another, when civilization was but beginning, when the knowledge of letters was confined within narrow bounds, when no country but Egypt had a literature, and when Egypt herself was in a state of unusual depression, and had little communication with nations beyond her borders. We could not expect to obtain for such a period any great amount of profane illustration. Yet the Jewish history of even this obscure time has been found to present points of direct agreement with the Egyptian records, scanty as they are for it, with the Phoenician annals, with the traditions of the Syrians of Damascus, and with those of the early in- habitants of Northern Africa. It has also appeared that the Hebrew account of the time is in complete harmony with all that we otherwise know of Western Asia at the period in question, of its political condition, its civilization, its arts and sciences, its manners and customs, its inhabitants. Illustra- tions of these points have been furnished by the Assyrian inscriptions, the Assyrian and Persian palaces, the Pluenician coins and histories, and the earliest Greek poetry. Nor is it possible to produce from authentic history any contra- diction of this or any other portion of the Hebrew records. When such a contradiction has seemed to hi' found, it has invariably happened that in the progress of historical inquiry, the author from whom it proceeds has lost credit, and finally come to he regarded as an utterly untrust- worthy authority. C 64 ) Internally consistent, externally resting upon contemporary or nearly contemporary docu- ments, and both directly and indirectly continued by the records of neighboring nations, the Hebrew account of this time is entitled to be receive. 1 as a true and authentic his- tory on almost every ground upon which such a claim can 100 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Lect. IJL be rested. It was then justly and with sufficient reason that the Proto-martyr in his last speech, 1 and the great Apostle of the Gentiles, in his first public preaching as an Apostle, 2 assumed as certain the simple, literal, and historic truth of this portion of the sacred narrative. Through God's good providence, there is no break in that historic chain which binds the present with the past, the new covenant with the old, Christ with Moses, the true Israel with Abraham. A "dark age" a time of trouble and confusion, undoubtedly supervened upon the establishment of the Israelites in Canaan ; but amid the gloom the torch of truth still passed from hand to hand prophets arose at intervals and the main events in the national life were carefully put on record. Afterwards from the time of Samuel a more regular system was introduced ; events were chronicled as they occurred ; and even the sceptic allows that "with the Books of Samuel, the history assumes an appearance far more authentic than that of the contemporary history of any other ancient nation.'^ 63 ) This admission may well be taken to render any further argument unnecessary, and with it we may properly con- clude this portion of our inquiry. 1 Acts vii. 45-47. * Ibid. xiii. 19-22. LECTURE IV. AND AHIJAH SAID TO JEROBOAM, TAKE THEE TEN PIECES : FOR THUS 8AITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, BEHOLD, I WILL REND THE KINGDOM OUT OP THE HAND OF SOLOMON, AND WILL GIVE TEN TRIBES TO THEE: BUT HE SHALL HAVE ONE TRIBE FOR MY SERVANT DAVID'S SAKE. 1 KINGS XI. 31,32. The subject of the present Lecture will be the history of the chosen people from the separation of the two king- doms by the successful revolt of Jeroboam, to the comple- tion of the Captivity of Judah, upon the destruction of Jerusalem, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The space of time embraced is thus a period of about four centuries. Without pretending to a chrono- logical exactitude, for which our data arc insufficient, we may lay it down as tolerably certain, that the establish- ment of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah on the ruins of Solomon's empire is an event belonging to the earlier half of the tenth century before our era; while the destruc- tion of Jerusalem may be assigned with much confidence to the year B. C. 586. These centuries constitute a period second in importance to none of equal length. They comprise the great devel- opment, the decadence and the fall of Assyria tin' sudden growth of Media and Babylon the Egyptian revival under the Psammetichi the most glorious time of the Phoenician cities the rise of Sparta and Athens to pre- eminence in Greece the foundation of Carthage anil of besides which, the close verbal agreement between certain historical chapters in Isaiah and in Kings, () would suffice to prove that this part of the state history was composed by him. A similar agreement between portions of Kings and of Jeremiah, leads to a similar conclusion with respect to that prophet. 0) Thus Samuel, Gad, Nathan, "Ahij ah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Jehu, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets contemporary with the events, are to be regarded as the real authorities for the Jewish history as it is delivered to us in Kings and Chronicles. " The prophets, who in their prophecies and addresses held forth to the people, not only the law as a rule and direction, but also the history of the past as the mirror and example of their life, must have reckoned the composition of the theocratic history among the duties of the call given to them by the Lord, and composed accord- ingly the history of their time by noting down public annals, in which, without respect of persons, the life and conduct of the kings were judged and exhibited according to the standard of the revealed law."( 8 ) With this judg- ment of a living German writer, there is sufficient reason to concur; and we may therefore conclude that the history in Kings and Chronicles rests upon the testimony of con- temporary and competent witnesses. The only objection of any importance that Rationalism 1 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 105 makes to the conclusion which we have here reached, is drawn from the circumstances of the time when the books were composed ; which is thought to militate strongly against their having been drawn directly from the sources which have been indicated. The authority of the writers of these Books, we are told, W " cannot have been the offi- cial annals" of the kingdoms; for these must have perished at their destruction, and therefore could not have been consulted by authors who lived later than the Captivity. It may be granted that the mass of the State Archives are likely to have perished with Samaria and Jerusalem, if we understand by that term the bulky documents which con- tained the details of official transactions : but there is no more difficulty in supposing that the digested annals which the prophets had composed escaped, than there is in under- standing how the Prophecy of Isaiah and the rest of the Sacred Volume were preserved. At any rate, if there be a difficulty, it is unimportant in the face of the plain and palpable fact, that the authors of the two Books speak of the annals as existing, and continually refer their readers to them for additional information. However we may ac- count for it, the "Books of the; Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah," the different portions of which had been written by the prophets above mentioned, were still extant when the authors of Kings and Chronicles wrote their his- tories, having escaped the dangers of war, and survived the obscure time of the Captivity. It is not merely that the writers in question profess to quote from them; hut they constantly appeal to them as books the contents of which are well known to their own readers. The confirmation which the Books of Kings and Clin, ni- cies lend to each other, deserves some notice while we are engaged with this portion of the inquiry. Had the later 106 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. composition uniformly followed, and, as it were, echoed the earlier, there would have been but little advantage in the double record. We should then only have known that the author of the Book of Chronicles regarded the Book of Kings as authentic. But the Chronicler I use the term in no offensive sense does not seem really in any case merely to follow the writer of Kings. ( 10 ) On the contrary, he goes straight to the fountain-head, and draws his mate- rials partly from the sources used by the earlier writer, partly (as it seems) from contemporary sources which that writer had neglected. He is thus, throughout, a distinct and independent authority for the history of his nation, standing to the writer of Kings as Africanus stands to Eusebius, in respect of the history of Egypt. 1 ' As the double channel by which Manetho's Egyptian history is conveyed to us, renders our hold upon that history far more firm and secure than would have been the case had we derived our knowledge of it* through one channel only, so the two parallel accounts, which we possess in Kings and Chronicles, of the history of Solomon and his succes- sors, give us a hold upon the original annals of this period which we could not have had otherwise. The Chronicler, while he declines to be beholden to the author of Kings for any portion of his narrative, and does not concern him- self about apparent discrepancies between his own work and that of the earlier writer, confirms the whole general course of that writer's history, repeating it, illustrating it, and adding to it, but never really differing from it, except in such minute points as are readily explainable by slight corruptions of the text in the one case or the other. ( 12 ) Further, the narrative contained in Kings and Chronicles receives a large amount of illustration, and so of confirma- tion, from the writings of the contemporary Prophets, who LFXT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 107 exhibit the feelings natural under the circumstances de- scribed by the historians, and incidentally allude to the facts recorded by them. This point has been largely illus- trated by recent writers on the prophetical Scriptures, who find the interpretation of almost every chapter "bound up with references to contemporary events, political and social," and discover in this constant connection at once a " source of occasional difficulty," and a frequent means of throwing great additional light on the true meaning of the prophetical writers. W The illustration thus afforded to prophecy by history is reflected back to history from proph- ecy; and there is scarcely an event in the Jewish annals after the reign of Uzziah which is the time of the earliest of the extant prophetical writings C 14 ) that is not illumi- nated by some touch from one prophet or another. To take the case of a single writer Isaiah mentions the succession of Jewish kings from Uzziah to Hezekiah, 1 the alliance of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, against Ahaz, 2 the desolation -of their country which shortly followed, 3 the plunder of Damascus, and the spoiling of Samaria at this time, 4 the name of the then high priest,* the Assyrian conquests of Hamath, Aradus, and Samaria, the close connection about this time of Egypt and Ethiopia, 7 the inclination of the Jewish mon. archs to lean on Egypt for support against Assyria," the conquest by Sennacherib of the "fenced cities" of Judaic the embassy of Rabshakeh, 10 the sieges of Libnah ami 1 Isaiah i. 1. * Ibid. vii. 1, 2. 3 Ibid, verso 10. 4 Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 Kin^s xvi. 9. 5 Ibid, verse 2. Compare 2 Kinsjs xvi. 10-1G. Ibid. x. 9-11. 7 Ibid. xx. 3-5. 8 Ibid. xxx. 2, 3, &c. ; xxxi. 1-3. ' Ibid, xxxvi. 1. w Ibid, verses 2-22. 108 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. Lachish, 1 the preparations of Tirhakah against Sennache- rib, 8 the prayer of Hezekiah, 8 the prophecy of Isaiah in reply, 4 the destruction of Sennacherib's host, 5 the return of Sennacherib himself to Nineveh, 6 his murder and the escape of his murderers/ Hezekiah's illness and recovery, 8 and the embassy sent to him by Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon; he glances also at the invasion of Tiglath- Pileser, and the destruction then brought upon a portion of the kingdom of Israel, 10 at the oppression of Egypt under the Ethiopian yoke, 11 at the subjection of Judsea to Assyria during the reign of Ahaz, 12 and at many other events of less consequence. About half the events here mentioned are contained in the three historical chapters of Isaiah, 13 which are almost identical with three chapters of the second Book of Kings: 14 but the remainder occur merely incidentally among the prophecies ; and these afford the same sort of confirmation to the plain narrative of Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of St. Paul have been shown to furnish>to the Acts.( 15) Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, contain numerous allusions of a similar character, illustrative of the history at this time and subsequently. Jeremiah, in particular, is as copious in notices bearing upon Jewish history for the time extending from Josiah to the GajDtivity, as Isaiah is for the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Having thus briefly noticed the character of the docu- ments in which this portion of the history has come down to us, and drawn attention to the weight of the scriptural 1 Isaiah xxxvii. 8. 2 Ibid, verse 9. 3 Ibid, verses 15-20. 4 Ibid, verses 22-35. 5 Ibid, verse 36. 6 Ibid, verse 37. 7 Ibid, verse 38. H Ibid, xxxviii. 9 Ibid, xxxix. 1, 2. 10 Ibid. ix. 1. " Ibid. xix. 4, itc. 12 Ibid. xiv. 24-28. 13 Chaps, xxxvi. xxxvii. and xxxviii. ,4 Chaps, xviii. xix. and xx. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 109 evidence in favor of its authenticity, I proceed to the con- sideration of that point which is the special subject of these Lectures the confirmation which this part of the narrative receives from profane sources. The separate existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah is abundantly confirmed by the Assyrian in- scriptions. Kings of each country occur in the accounts which the great Assyrian monarchs have left us of their conquests the names being always capable of easy identification with those recorded in Scripture, and occur- ring in the chronological order which is there given. ( 16 > The Jewish monarch bears the title of " King of Judah," while his Israelitish brother is designated after his capital city; which, though in the earlier times not called Sama- ria, is yet unmistakably indicated under the term Beth- JChumri^ 17 ' "the house or city of Omri," that monarch having been the original founder of Samaria, according to Scripture. 1 The first great event in the kingdom of Judah after the separation from Israel, was the invasion of Judaea by Shi- shak, king of Egypt, in the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shi- shak came up against Jerusalem with "twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen," besides a Lost of footmen who were "without number." 2 He "took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah," and was pro- ceeding to invest the capital, when Iiehoboam made his submission, delivered up the treasures of the temple, ami of his own palace, and became one of the " servants " or tributaries of the Egyptian king:' This success is found to have been commemorated by Shishak on the outside of the great temple at Karnac ; and here in a long list of antured towns and districts, which Shishak boasts of 1 1 Kings xvi. 24. s 2 Chron. xii. 3. 3 Ibid, verse 8. 10 110 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IV, Having added to his dominions, occurs the "Jfelchi Yiicla" or kingdom of Judah, ( 18 > the conquest of which by this king is thus distinctly noticed in the Egyptian records. About thirty years later Judaea was again invaded from this quarter. " Zerah the Ethiopian," at the head of an army of "a thousand thousand" 1 or a million of men who were chiefly Ethiopians and Libyans, 2 made war upon Asa, and entering his kingdom at its south-western angle, was there met by the Jewish monarch and signally defeated by him. 3 In this case we cannot expect such a confirma- tion as in the last instance ; for nations do not usually put on record their great disasters. It appears, however, that at the time indicated, the king of Egypt was an Osor- kon ( 19) a name identical in its root consonants with Zerach / and it appears also that Egypt continued to decline from this period till the time of Psammetichus, a natural residt of such a disaster as that which befell the invading host. The only difficult)' which meets us is the representation of Zerah as an Ethiopian a fact not at present confirmed by the monuments. Perhaps, though an Egyptian, he was regarded as an Ethiopian, because he ruled over Ethiopia, and because his army was mainly com- posed of men belonging to that country. Or perhaps, though M*e have no positive evidence of this, he may have been really of Ethiopian extraction. Osorkon the Second, who is the natural contemporary of Asa, was not descended from the earlier kings of the dynasty. He was the son-in-law of his predecessor, and reigned in right of his wife. It is therefore not at all impossible that he may have been an Ethiopian by birth, and have ruled over both countries. In the succeeding generation, the records of the other ' 2 Chxon. xiv. 9. 2 Ibid. xvi. 8. * Ibid. xiv. 12, 13. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Ill kingdom present us with some points of contact between the Jewish and the Phoenician annals, in which again wo have all the agreement that is possible. Ahab, king of Israel, is represented as having sought to strengthen him- self in the position which his father had usurped, by a mar- riage with a foreign princess, and as having made choice for the purpose of "Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of the Zidonians." l Here again not only have we a genuine Phoenician name, but we have the name of a king, who is proved by the Tyrian history of Menander to have been seated upon the throne exactly at this time. Eithobalus, the priest of Ashteroth (or Venus,) Avho by the murder of his predecessor, Pheles, became king of Tyre, mounted the throne just fifty years after the death of Hiram, the con- temporary of Solomon. C 20 ) Ahab mounted the throne of Israel fifteen or twenty years later, and was thus the younger contemporary of Eithobalus, or Eth-baal, who continued to reign at Tyre during a considerable portion of Ahab's reign in Israel. The only objection that can be taken to this identity which is generally allowed ( 9I turns upon the circumstance that Eth-baal is called in Scripture, not king of Tyre, but "king of* the Zi But we have, in the cuneiform annals 1 1 Kings xvii. 1. 2 Ibid. chap, xviii. 3 Ibid. xx. 1. 4 Ibid. * Ibid, verse 13. 6 Ibid. xx. 25. 7 Ibid, verses 28 and 29. 8 Ibid. xxii. 1-36. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 113 of an Assyrian king, a very cuiious and valuable confirma- tion of the power of Damascus at this time of its being under the rule of a monarch named Ben-hadad, who was at the head of a great confederacy of princes, and who was able to bring into the field year after year vast armies, with which he repeatedly engaged the Avhole force of Assyria. We have accounts of three campaigns between the Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Ilittites, Hamathites, and Phoenicians, united under the command of Ben-hadad, upon the other/ 25 ) in which the contest is maintained with spirit, the armies being of a large size, and their composition and character such as we find described in Scripture. ( 26 > The same record further verifies the historical accuracy of the Books of Kings by a mention of Hazael as king of Damascus immediately after Ben-hadad, ( 2? ) ami also by the synchronism which it establishes between this prince and Jehu, who is the first Israelite king mentioned by name on any Inscription hitherto discovered. Jehu appears by the monument in question to have submitted himself to the great Assyrian conqueror/ 28 ) and it may be suspected that from this date both the Jewish and the Israelitish kings held their crowns as fiefs dependent <>n the will of the Assyrian monarch, with whom it formally lay to "confirm" each new prince "in his kingdom." 1 A break now occurs in the scries of profane notices, which have extended, without the omission of a genera- tion, from the time of David to that of Jehu. During the century which follows on the death of that monarch we are able to adduce from profane sources no mure than one or two doubtful illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. Here, however, it is to be remarked, that the absence of 1 2 Kin^s xiv. 5 ; xv. 11). 10 * 114 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I\ profane confirmation is coincident with, and must fairly b regarded as resulting from, a want of sufficient material^ There is a great dearth of copious Assyrian inscriptions from the time of the monarch who made Jehu tributary to that of the Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture. C 29 ) For this time, too the Tyrian records are an absolute blank, ( 3 ) while the Egyptian are but little better; and moreover there seems to have been no political contact between these countries and Palestine during the period in question. We cannot therefore be surprised at the deficiency here noted ; nor would it be right to view it as having the slightest tern, dency to weaken the force of our previous reasoning. The Hebrew annals touch no foreign country, of which we have any records at all, from the time of Jehu to that of Menahem. In the reign of this latter prince occurs the first direct mention of Assyria as a power actively interfering in Palestine, and claiming and exercising political influence. We are told that in the reign of Menahem, "Pul, the king of Assyria, came up against the land ; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him, to confirm the kingdom in his hand." * There is some difficulty in iden- tifying the Assyrian monarch here mentioned, who not only took this large tribute, but (as appears from Chroni- cles) 2 led a portion of the nation into captivity. In the Hebrew Scriptures he appears as Pul, or rather Phul ; and this is also the form of the name which the Armenian Eu8ebius declares to have been used by Polyhistor, < 3! ) who followed Berosus ; but in the Septuagint he is called Pha- loch, or Phalos, C 32 ) a form of which the Hebrew word seems to be an abbreviation. The Assyrian records of the time present us with no name very close to this ; but there 1 2 Kings xv. 19. 2 1 Chron. v. 26= LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 115 is one which has been read variously, as Phal-hiklia, Vid- lukha, and Iva-lush, wherein it is not improbable that we may have the actual appellation of the Biblical Phul, or Pha- loch. The annals of this monarch are scanty ; but in the most important record which we possess of his reign, there is a notice of his having taken tribute from Beth-KJaunri, or Samaria, as well as from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Idu- maea, and Philistia. t 33 ) Neither the name of the Israelitish king, nor the amount of his tribute, is mentioned in the Assyrian record ; but the amount of the latter, which may to many appear excessive, receives illustration, and a cer- tain degree of confirmation, from a fact which happens to be recorded on the monument namely, that the Assyrian monarch took at this time from the king of Damascus a tribute considerably greater than that which, according to the author of Kings, he now exacted from Menahem. From Menahem he received one thousand talents of silver; but from the Damascene king the tribute taken was twenty-three hundred of such talents, together with three thousand talents of copper, forty of gold, and five thousand of some other metal. C 34 ) The expedition of Pul against Menahem is followed by a series of attacks on the independence of the two kingdoms, which cause the sacred history to be very closely con- nected, for the space of about a century, with the annals of Assyria. The successors of Pul arc presented to us by the Biblical writers, apparently in a continuous and uninter- rupted line Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sen- nacherib, and Esar-haddon, all of them carrying their arms into Palestine, and playing an important pari in the history of the favored race. It happens most fortunately (may we. not say, providentially?) that records of all these monarchs the greatest which Assyria produced have been recov- 216 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. evcd ; and these in some cases are sufficiently full to exhibit a close agreement with the sacred narrative, while throughout they harmonize with the tenor of that narra- tive, only in one or two cases so differing from the Hebrew text as to cause any difficulty. I shall proceed to exhibit this agreement with the brevity which my limits necessi- tate, before noticing the confirmation which this portion of the history derives also from the Egyptian and Babylonian records. The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser in Scripture are his two invasions of Israel once when he "took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Ilazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naph- tali, and earned them captive to Assyria;" 1 and again, when he came at the invitation of Ahaz, and not only chas- tised Pekah, but " took Damascus, and slew Kezin." 2 Of the first of these two campaigns we have no profane con- firmation ; but some account of the second is given in an Assyrian fragment, where Tiglath-Pileser speaks of his defeating Rezin, and capturing Damascus, and also of his taking tribute from the king of Samaria. The monarch indeed from whom he takes the tribute is called Menahem, instead of Pekah; and this constitutes a discrepancy the first that we have found between the Assyrian and the Hebrew records : but the probability is that Pekah is intended, and that the official who composed, or the work- man who engraved, the Assyrian document made a mis- take in the name.C 3 -^ Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Scripture to have been visited at Damascus by the Jewish king Ahaz; and the result of this visit was that Ahaz set up a new altar in the temple at Jerusalem, according to the pattern of an altar 1 2 Kings xv. 29. 3 Ibid. xvi. 7-9. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 117 which he had seen at Damascus. 1 It has been generally supposed that this altar was Syrian ; ( 36 > and its establish ment has been connected with the passage in Chronicles, where Ahaz is said to have " sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him;" 2 but few things can be more improbable than the adoption of the gods of a foreign nation at the moment when they had been proved powerless. The strange altar of Ahaz was in all probability not Syrian, but Assyrian ; and its erection was in accordance with an Assyrian custom, of which the Inscriptions afford abundant evidence the custom of requiring from the subject na- tions some formal acknowledgment of the gods and wor- ship of the sovereign country, t 37 ) The successor of Tiglath-Pileser seems to have been Shalmaneser a king, whose military exploits in these regions were celebrated by Menander in his history of Tyre. ( W J He appears, from the narrative in Kings, to have come up twice against Hoshea, the last king of Israel, 3 on the first occasion merely enforcing the tribute which w:is regarded as due, but on the second proceeding to ex- tremities, in order to punish Hoshea for contracting an alliance with Egypt, laying siege to Samaria, and continu- ing to prosecute the siege for the space of three years. The records of Shalmaneser have been so mutilated by his suc- cessors, that they furnish only a very slight confirmation of this history. The name of Hoshea, however, king of Sama- ria, is found in an inscription, which has been with reason assigned to Shalmaneser;^ and though the capture of Samaria is claimed by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit of his own in his first year/ ,0 > yet this very claim confirms the Scriptural account of Shahnaneser's commencing ihe 1 2 Kings xvi. 10-1G. * ? Chron. xxviii. 23. J 2 Kings xvii. 3 und 5. 118 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE 1,ECT. IV. siege, which begun three years before the capture; 1 and it is easily brought into harmony with the Scriptural account of the actual capture, either by supposing that Sargon claimed the success as falling into his own reign, (which had then begun at Nineveh,) though Shalmaneser was the real captor ; or by regarding (as we are entitled to do) the king of Assyria, who is said to have taken Samaria in the Book of Kings, as a distinct person from the king who commenced the siege. ( 41 ) Of Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon, Scripture contains but one clear historic notice. In the twentieth chapter of Isaiah, we are told that " in the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon, the king of Assyria, sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it,"[ 2 certain directions were given by the Lord to the prophet. It was formerly supposed that Sargon was another name for one of the Assyrian monarchs mentioned in the Book of Kings ;( 42 > but since the discovery that the king of Assyria, who built the great palace at Khorsabad, actually bore this appellation, which continued to attach to its ruins until the Arab con- quest, ( 43 > it has been generally admitted that we have in Isaiah a reference to an Assyrian ruler distinct from all those mentioned in Kings, and identical with the Khorsa- bad monarch, who was the father of Sennacherib. Now of this monarch we find it related in his annals that he made war in Southern Syria, and took Ashdod.W Thus the sole fact which Scripture distinctly assigns to the reign of Sargon is confirmed by the native records; which likewise illustrate the two or three other facts probably intended to be assigned to him by the sacred writers. Isaiah appar- ently means Sargon in the fourth verse of his twentieth chapter, when he prophesies that " the king of Assyria shall 1 2 Kings xvii. 3, 5, and xviii. 9, 10. 2 Isaiah xx. 1. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 119 lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap- tives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." If this be aliowed, we obtain a second illustration of Sargon's reign from the monuments ; which represent him as warring with Egypt, and forcing the Pharaoh of the time to become his tributary, and which also show that Egypt was at this time in just that close connection with Ethiopia C 45 ) which the prophet's expressions indicate. 1 Again, if we may presume that Sargon is intended by the king of Assyria who took Samaria, 2 and carried the Israelites away captive; 15 then there is derivable from the monuments a very curious illus- tration of the statement of Scripture, that the monarch, who did this, placed his captives, or at least a portion of them, "in the cities of the Medes." 4 For Sargon seems to have been the first Assyrian monarch who conquered Me- dia ; and he expressly relates that, in order to complete its subjection, he founded there a number of cities, which he planted with colonists from other portions of his domin- ions. ( 4C > The Assyrian monarch who appears in Scripture as most probably the successor of Sargon is Sennacherib, whom the monuments show to have been his son. Two expeditions of this prince against Hezekiah are related ; and each of them receives a very striking confirmation from a profane source. The sacred writers tell us that on the first occa- sion, Hezekiah having thrown off the allegiance' which the kings of Judah appear to have paid to Assyria at least from the time of Ahaz' message to Tiglath-Pileser, fi " Sennache- rib, king of Assyria, came up against all the fenced cities of Judaic and took them: and Hezekiah, king <>f Judah, sent 1 Ieaiab xx. 3 and 4. - 2 Kin It is needless to particularize the points of agreement between these narra- tives. The only discrepancy is in the amount of the silver which Sennacherib received ; and here we may easily con- ceive, either that the Assyrian king has exaggerated, or that he has counted in a portion of the spoil, while the 1 2 Kings xyiii. 13,. 1}. Compare Isaiah xxxvi. 1, and 2 Chron. xxxii. 1-8. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 121 sacred writer has merely mentioned the sum agreed to be paid as tribute. C 48 ) The second expedition of Sennacherib into Syria seems to have followed very shortly upon the first. In neither case was Judaea the sole, or even the main object of attack. The real purpose of both expeditions was to weaken Egypt ; and it was by his Egyptian leanings that Hezekiah had provoked the anger of his suzerain. 1 No collision appears to have taken place on this second occasion between the Assyrians and the Jews. Hezekiah was threatened ; but before the threats could be put in execution, that miracu- lous destruction of the Assyrian host Mas effected which forms so striking a feature of this portion of the sacred nar- rative. " The angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians" (which was at Libnah on the borders of Egypt) "a hundred fourscore and five thou- sand ; and when they arose early in the morning, they were all dead corpses." 2 It has been generally seen and confessed, that the marvellous account which Herodotus gives of the discomfiture of Sennacherib by Sethos > 49 ) is the Egyptian version of this event, which was (naturally enough) ascribed by that people to the interposition of its own divinities. The murder of Sennacherib by two of his sons,' 1 though not mentioned in the Assyrian Inscriptions, (which have never been found to record the death of a king,) appears to have been noticed by Berosus; from whom were derived in all probability the brief allusions to the event which are met with in the fragments of Alexander Polyhistor and Abydcnus.C 49 ) The escape of the murderers into Armenia 4 is in harmony with what is known of the condition of that 1 2 Kings xvui. 21 ami 24. * Ibid. xix. 35. 3 Ibid, verse 37. 4 Ibid. 11 122 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. country at the time; for it appears as an independent state generally hostile to the Assyrian monarchs, in the cunei- form records of this period ;( 50 ) and it is further perhaps worthy of remark, that the Armenian traditions spoke dis- tinctly of the reception of the two refugees, and of the tracts respectively assigned to them.C 51 ) Esarhaddon is distinctly stated in Scripture to have been the son and successor of Sennacherib. 1 As usual, the mon- uments are in complete accordance. ( 52 > Esarhaddon every where calls himself the son of Sennacherib ; and there is no appearance in the native records of any king having inter- vened between the two.( 53 - ) The events belonging to the reign of Esarhaddon, which are introduced by the sacred writers into their narrative, are but few. As his father was contemporary with Hezekiah, we naturally regard him as falling into the time of Manasseh ; and it has therefore been generally felt that he should be the king of Assyria, whose captains "took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon? 1 * The monuments confirm the synchronism which Scripture implies, by distinctly mentioning "Manasseh, king of Judah," among the tributaries of Esarhaddon ; < 54 ) and though no direct confirmation has as yet been found of the captivity and restoration of the Jewish monarch, yet the narrative contains an incidental allusion which is in very remarkable harmony with the native records. One is greatly surprised at first hearing that the generals of an Assyrian king, on capturing a rebel, carried him to Baby- lon instead of Nineveh one is almost inclined to suspect a mistake. 'What has a king of Assyria to do with Baby- lon?' one naturally asks. The reply is, that Esarhaddon, 1 2 Kings xix. 37. Compare Isaiah xxxvii. 38. 8 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 12o and he only of all the Assyrian kings, actually was king of Babylon that he built a palace, and occasionally held his court there C 55 ) and that consequently a captive was as likely to be brought to him at that city as at the metropolis of Assyria Proper. Had the narrative fallen under the reign of any other Assyrian monarch, this ex- planation could not have been given ; and the difficulty would have been considerable. Occurring where it does, it furnishes no difficulty at all, but is one of those small points of incidental agreement which are more satisfactory to a candid mind than even a very large amount of harmony in the main narrative. With Esarhaddon the notices of Assyria in the sacred history come to an end. Assyria herself shortly afterwards disappears^ 56 ) and her place is taken by Babylon, which now for the first time becomes a great conquering power. This transfer of empire is abundantly confirmed by profane authorities ; ( 5 ~) but, as the historical character of the Bibli- cal narrative in this respect has always been allowed, it is unnecessary in this place to dwell upon it. I proceed to consider the agreement between the sacred narrative and the native Egyptian and Babylonian records during the later times of the Hebrew monarchy. Egyptian and Jewish history touch at four points during this period. Hoshea, the contemporary of Shalmaneser, makes a treaty with So, king of Egypt,' shortly before the capture of Samaria, or about the year B.C. 7*2;"). Sennache- rib, not very long afterwards, on attacking the depend- encies of Egypt, learns that Tirhakah, king of the Ethio- pians, is gathering together an army to oppose him.'' Nearly a century later, Pharaoh-Necho invades .Iinhea, defeats and kills the Jewish king Josiah, presses forward to the 1 2 Kings xvii. 4. * Ibid. xix. 9. 124 . HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. Euphrates, takes Carchemish and Jerusalem, leads Jehoa- liaz the son of Josiah into captivity, and establishes his dominion over the whole of Syria ; but is shortly afterwards defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and dispos- sessed of all his conquests. 1 Finally, about twenty years after this, Pharaoh-IIophra is spoken of as encouraging the Jews to resist Nebuchadnezzar, and threatened with the wrath of that monarch, into whose hands it is Baid he will be delivered. 2 Here, then, within about one hundred and forty years, we have the names of four kings of Egypt, one of Avhom is also the sovereign of Cush or Ethiopia. Let us see whether the Egyptian annals recognize the monarchs thus brought under our notice. Neither Manetho nor the monuments present us with any name which at all closely resembles the word " So." If, however, we look to the Hebrew literation of that name, we shall find that the word is written with three letters, which may be (and probably are) all consonants. They may be .read as S, V, II ; and the name of the monarch thus designated may most properly be regarded as Se- vehA 58 ) Now a king of the name of Sevech, or Seveehus, appears in the proper place in Manetho's lists; and the monuments show that two monarchs, (who seem to have been a father and a son,) Shebek I. and Shebek II., ruled Egypt about this period. ( 59 ) The former of the two is familiar to us under the name (which Herodotus assigns to him) of Sabaco ; C 60 ) and it is probably this prince of whom the Hebrew writer speaks. The fact that he came into contact with Assyria is confirmed by the discovery of his seal at Koyunjik ; it had probably been affixed to a treaty 1 2 Kings xxiii. 29-35 ; xxiv. 7. Compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. 2 Jerem. xliv. 30 ; xlvi. 13-26. * LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 125 which, in consequence of his machinations, he had been forced to make with the triumphant Assyrian monarch. ( 61 ) Tirhakah, who appears as king of the Ethiopians, yet at the same time as protector of Egypt, in the second Book of Kings, is manifestly the Tarcus or Taracus of Manetho, ( 2 ) the Tearchon of Strabo,^) and the Tehrak of the monu- ments. ( M ) He succeeded the second tihebtk, and is proved by his remains to have been king of both countries, but to have held his court in Ethiopia. In the Pharaoh-Necho of Kings and Jeremiah, 1 it is im- possible not to recognize the famous Egyptian monarch whom Manetho calls Nechao,' 65 ) Herodotus Neco/ 66 ) and the monuments N^eku^ 1 ^ the son and successor of the first Psammetichus. The invasion of Syria by this prince, and his defeat of the Syrians in a great battle, are attested by Herodotus ; who only commits a slight and very venial error, when he makes Magdolum instead of Megiddo the scene of the encounter. C 08 ) It has been usual to regard Herodotus as also confirming the capture of Jerusalem by Necho;( 69 > but too much uncertainty attaches to the pre- sumed identity of Cadytis with the Jewish capital, to make it wise that much stress should be laid on this imagined agreement. ( 70 > We may with more confidence appeal for a confirmation of this fact, and of the captivity of Jehoahaz, to the fragments of Manetho, who is reported both by Afri- can us and by Eusebius to have mentioned these Egyptian successes.' 71 ) Not less certain and unmistakable is the identity of the Scriptural Pharaoh-Hophra with Manetho's ITaphris, Herod- otus 1 s Apries, and the monumental llaifm-hct or Hai- fra.O-'> Egyptian chronology makes this prince contempo- rary with Nebuchadnezzar ;< 73 ) and if we may trust the 1 Jerem. xlvi. 2-12. 11* 126 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE L.ECT. IV. abstracts which Eusebius and Africanus profess to give ol Manetho, that writer mentioned the flight of the Jews into Egypt upon the destruction of their city, and their recep- tion by Uaphris or Hophra.C 74 ) The miserable end of Hophra, predicted by Jeremiah, is related from Egyptian traditions by Herodotus ; and though it may be doubted whether his account of the occurrence is in its minuter cir- cumstances altogether correct^ 75 ) yet at any rate the facts of the deposition and execution of the Egyptian king must be accepted on his testimony ; and these are the facts which especially illustrate the statements of Scripture. Babylonian and JeAvish history come into contact only at two points in the period under consideration. We are told that in the reign of Hezekiah, Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to that prince, partly because he had heard that he was sick, 1 partly because he wished to inquire concerning the wonder that had been done in the land, 2 when the shadow went back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz. The name of Merodach-Baladan does not at first sight appear to be contained in the authentic list of Babylonian kings preserved to us in Ptolemy. But it is probable that the king in question does really occur in that list under the appellation of Mardoc-empad, or Mardoc- empal;( 76 ) and there is abundant evidence from the inscrip- tions, not only of the existence of such a monarch, but of his having been contemporary with the Jewish king in whose reign his embassy is placed. ( 7 ~) The fact of the em- bassy which seems improbable if we only know the gen- eral condition of Babylon at the period to have been one of subjection to Assyria becomes highly probable when we learn both from Berosus( 78 > and the monuments^ that there was a fierce and bitter hostility between Mero- 1 2 Kings xx. 12. 2 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 127 dach-Baladan and the Assyrian monarchs, from whose op- pressive yoke he more than once freed .his country. The ostensible motive of the embassy to inquire about an astronomical marvel is also highly probable in the case of a country where astronomy held so high a rank, where the temples were observatories, and the religion was to a great extent astral. C 80 ) About a century later, Babylon is found in the Scripture history to have succeeded to the position and influence of Assyria over Palestine, and we have a brief relation, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings, of several campaigns con- ducted by Nebuchadnezzar in these regions. Profane ac- counts are in accordance. The reconquest of Syria and Palestine from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, which is men- tioned by Jeremiah, 1 and glanced at in Kings, 2 was related at length by Berosus ;< 81) his prolonged siege of Tyre, which is spoken of by Ezekiel, 8 was attested by the Tyrian his- torians, who said that it lasted thirteen years ; C 82 ? while his destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and his deportation of vast bodies of Jewish captives, were noticed by the na- tive historian, who said that the captives were settled in convenient places in Babylonia. ( 83 > As the rest of the acts of Nebuchadnezzar fall into our next period, the present review here comes to an end, and we may now close this portion of the inquiry with a brief summary of the evidence adduced in the course of it. The period with which we have been dealing is one of comparative light. We possess, it is true, no continuous history of it besides that which the Sacred Volume fur- nishes; but we have abstracts of the writings of Berosus and Manetho, which contained the annals of Egypt and of Babylon during the space; we have considerable fragments 1 Jcrcra. xlvi. 1-12. * 2 Kin^s xxiv. 7. 3 Ezck. x.vix. 18. 128 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV. of the Tyrian histories of the time ; and in the latter por- tion of it we begin to Cnjoy the advantage of those investi- gations which the inquisitive Greeks pushed into the anti- quities of all the nations wherewith they became acquainted. Above all we possess the contemporary records often in a very copious form of all the great Assyrian monarchs whose reigns fell within the period in question, Avhile we derive likewise a certain amount of information from the monuments of Egypt. All these sources have been exam- ined, and all have combined to confirm and illustrate the Scriptm-al narrative at almost every point where it was possible or at any rate where it was probable that they would have a bearing upon it. The result is a general con- firmation of the entire body of leading facts minute con- firmation occasionally and a complete absence of any tiling that can be reasonably viewed as serious discrepancy. A few difficulties chiefly chronological C 84 ) meet us; but they are fewer in proportion than are found in the profane history of almost any remote period ; and the faith must be weak indeed to which they prove a stumbling-block. Gen- erally, throughout this whole period, there is that " admira- ble agreement^' which Nicbuhr observes upon towards its close, ( 85 ) between the profane records and the accounts of Scripture. "We have not for the most part by any labored efforts to harmonize the two their accord is patent and striking; and is sufficiently exhibited by a mere juxtaposi- tion of passages. The monarchs themselves, the order of their names, their relationship where it is indicated, their actions so far as they come under notice, are the same in both the Jewish and the native histories; which present likewise, here as elsewhere, numerous points of agreement, connected with the geography, religion, and customs of the various nations. C 86 ) As discovery proceeds, these points of LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 120 agreement are multiplied ; obscurities clear up ; difficulties are solved ; doubts vanish. It is only where profane rec- ords are wanting or scanty, that the Sacred Narrative is unconfirmed and rests solely upon its own basis. Perhaps a time may come when through the recovery of the com- plete annals of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, we may obtain for the whole of the Sacred History that sort of illustration, which is now confined to certain portions of it. God, who disposes all things "after the counsel of his own will," 1 and who has given to the present age such treasures of long buried knowledge, may have yet greater things in store for us, to be brought to light at His own good time. When the voice of men grows faint and feeble, then the very "stones" are made to "cry out." 2 "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever; for wisdom and might are his. . . . lie revealeth the deep and secret things : lie knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." 3 1 Eph. i. 11. Luke xix. 40. 3 Dan. ii. 20, 22. LECTURE V. BY THE RIVERS OF BAEYLON, THERE WE SAT DOWN, YEA, WE WEPT, WHEN WE REMEMBERED ZION. WE HANGED OUR HARPS UPON THE WILLOWS IN THE MIDST THEREOF. FOR THEY THAT CARRIED US AWAY CAPTIVE REQUIRED OF US A SONG: AND THEY THAT WASTED US REQUIRED OF US MIRTH, SAYING, " SING US ONE OF THE SOXGS OF ZION." HOW SHALL WE SING THE LORD'S SONG IN A STRANGE LAND? PSALM CXXXVII. 14. We are brought now by the course of our inquiry to the fourth and closing period of the Old Testament History a period which subdivides itself into two portions offering a marked contrast to each other, the time of the Captivity, or servitude in Babylon, and the time of the Return, or gradual reestablishment of the Jews in their own country. From the direct historical writings of the chosen people the former time is omitted. The harp of the Historic Muse refuses to sound during this sad season ; and it would form a blank in the Hebrew annals, did we not pos- sess in the writings of one of the Prophets a personal nar- rative, which to some extent fills up the gap left between Kings and Ezra. Conformably with a custom which we find also in Isaiah and Jeremiah, Daniel combines history with prophecy, uniting in a single hook the visions where- with he was favored and an account of various remarkable events which he witnessed. He does not, however, con- fine himself strictly to the precedent which those writers had set him ; but, as if aware that on him had devolved the (133) LECT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 131 double office of Prophet and Historian, and that future ages would learn the circumstances of this period from his pen only, he gives to the historical element in his work a marked and very unusual prominence. Hence we are still able to continue through the period in question the com- parison (in which Ave have been so long engaged) between the History of the Jews as delivered by their own writers, and the records of those nations with which they came in contact. If the book of Daniel be a genuine work, the narrative which it contains must possess the highest degree of his- torical credibility. The writer claims to be a most compe- tent witness. He represents himself as having lived at Babylon during the whole duration of the Captivity, and as having filled situations of the highest trust and im- portance under the Babylonian and Medo-Persic monarchs. Those who have sought to discredit the Hook, uniformly maintain that it is spurious, having been composed by an uninspired writer, who falsely assumed the name <>f an ancient prophet, 0) or, according to some, of a mythic personage, ( 2 ) but who lived really under Antiochus Epiphanes. The supposed proof of this last assertion is the minuteness and accuracy of the predictions, which tally so exactly with the known course of history, that it is said they must have been written after the events had hap- pened. This objection, which was first made in the third century of our era by the heathen writer Porphyry, n has been revived in modern times, and is become the favorite argument of the Rationalists, < 4 > with whom Prophecy means nothing but that natural foresight whereby the con- sequences of present facts and circumstances arc antici- pated by the prudent and sagacious. I shall not stop at this time to examine an argument which can only persuade 132 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. those who disbelieve in the prophetic gift altogether. ( 5 * Suffice it to observe, that the book of Daniel, like the books of Ezra and Jeremiah, is written partly in Hebrew and partly in Chaldee, which peculiarity may fairly be said to h'x its date to the time of the Captivity : ( 0) and that it was translated into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Phila- delphus, more than seventy years before the accession of Epiphanes. ( 7 ) There is therefore every reason to believe that it belongs to the age in which it professes to have been composed ; while no sufficient ground has been shown for doubting that its writer was the Daniel whose history it records* 8 ) the prince,^ whose extraordinary piety and wisdom were commended by his contemporary, Eze- kiel. 1 0) The authenticity of the narrative has been denied on the ground that ft is irreconcilable with what we know of profane history. According to De Wette, the book of Daniel is full of "historical inaccuracies, such as are con- tained in no other prophetical book of the Old Testa- ment." ( n > These pretended inaccuracies will best be con- sidered in connection with that general comparison of the sacred narrative with the profane records of the period in question, on which (in pursuance of the plan uni- formly adopted throughout these Lectures) we have now to enter. The fundamental fact of the time the Captivity itself is allowed on all hands to admit of no reasonable doubt. Not only do we find, from the monuments of the Assyrian kings ( I2) and the subsequent history of Persia,* 13 ) that such transfers of whole populations were common in the East in Ancient times; but Ave have the direct evidence of Josephus to the fact, that Berosus mentioned the carrying 1 Ezck, xiv. 14 and 20 xxviii. 3. LECT V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 133 off of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar and their settlement in parts of Babylonia. ( 14 ) Profane evidence, however, on this point is unnecessary ; since it cannot be thought that any people would have invented a tale with regard to them- selves which redounded so little to their credit, and from which it was impossible that they could gain any advantage. The character of Nebuchadnezzar, the length of his reign, and the fact of his having uttered prophecies, are points in which there is a remarkable agreement between the sacred record and profane authorities. The splendor and magnificence which this prince displayed, his military successes, his devotion to his gods, and the pride which he took in adorning Babylon with great buildings, are noted by Berosus and Abydenus ; ( 15 > the latter of whom has a most curious passage, for the preservation of which we are in- debted to Eusebius, on the subject of his having been gifted with prophetic powers. "The Chaldoeans relate," says Abydenus, "that, after this, Nebuchadnezzar went ii]> to his palace, and being seized with a divine afflatus, prophesied to the Babylonians the destruction of their city by the Medes and Persians, after which he suddenly dis- appeared from among them." ( I(n The details are incorrect ; but it is at least remarkable that the particular prince, who alone, of all the heathen monarchs with whom the Jews were brought into contact, is said in Scripture to have had the future made known to him by God, 1 is also the only one of those persons who is declared to have had the pro- phetic gift by a profane writer. The length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is stated without any variety by Berosus, Polyhistor, and Ptolemy, ( ,7 > at forty-three years. The Babylonian monuments go near to 1 Dan. ii. 28-9. 12 134 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. prove the same ; for the forty-second year of Nebuchad- nezzar has been found on a clay tablet. ^ 18 ) Here Scripture is in exact accordance ; for as the first year of Evil-Mero- dach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, is the thirty-seventh of the captivity of Jehoiachin, 1 who was taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year, 2 it is evident that just forty-three years are required for the reign of the great Chaldsean monarch. ( 19 ) This agreement, moreover, is incidental ; for Evil-Merodach is not said in Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchadnezzar : we only know tliis fact from profane sources. It has been maintained that the book of Daniel misrep- resents the condition of Babylonia under Nebuchad- nezzar ; ( 20 ) the points to which objection is especially taken being the account given of the Babylonian wise men, the admission of Daniel among them, and the apparent reference to something like a satrapial organization of the empire. ( 2] ) With respect to the first point, it would really be far more reasonable to adduce the descriptions in ques- tion as proof of the intimate knowledge which the writer possessed of the condition of learning among the Baby- lonians, than to bring them forward as indications of his ignorance. The wise men are designated primarily by a word which exactly suits the condition of literature in the time and country a word derived from the root cheret, which means "a graving tool," exactly the instrument wherewith a Babylonian ordinarily wrote, t 22 ) They are also termed Chasdim or Chaldaeans, whereby a knowledge is shown beyond that of the earlier prophets a knowledge of the fact that the term " Chaldaean " was not properly applied to the whole nation, but only to a learned caste o> 1 2 Kings xxv. 27 ; Jer. lii. 31. * 2 Kings xxiv. 12. Compare Jer. xxv. 1. LECT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 135 class, the possessors of the old wisdom, which was written in the Chaldaean tongue. C 23 ) The objection raised to the admission of Daniel among the " wise men," is based on the mistaken notion that they were especially a priestly caste, presiding over the national religion; whereas the truth seems to be that they were a learned class, including the priests, but not identical with them, and corresponding rather to the graduates of a uni- versity than to the clergy of an establishment. (-') Into such a class foreigners, and those of a different religion, might readily be admitted. With respect to what has been called the "satrapial organization " of the empire under Nebuchadnezzar, 1 (and again under Darius the Mede, 2 ) it is to be observed in the first place, that nothing like a general organization of the kind is asserted. We are told of certain "rulers of prov- inces," who were summoned to worship the golden image set up in the plain of Dura;' and we find thai Judaea itself, after the revolt of Zedekiah, was placed under a "governor." 4 But the latter case was exceptional, being consequent upon the frequent rebellions of the. Jewish peo- ple: and in the former we are probably to understand the chiefs of districts in the immediate vicinity oi* Babylonia, who alone would be summoned on such an occasion not the rulers of all the conquered nations throughout the empire. Further, we must remark, that the system of Babylonian administration is but very little known to us; and that it may (<> some extent hurt* been satrapial. Berosus, at any rate, speaks expressly of "the Satrap ap- pointed by Xabopolassar to govern Phoenicia, Cade-Syria, and Egypt; "(^ and it is not impossible that Darius 1 Dan. iii. 2, &c. * Ibid. vi. 1, &c. 3 Ibid, in 1,2. * 2 Kings xxv. 22. Compare Jlt. xl. ami xli. 13G HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. Hystaspis, who is usually regarded as the inventor of the system, may have merely enlarged a practice begun by the Babylonians. ( 2,i ) There is thus no ground for the assertion that the general condition of Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar is incorrectly represented in the book of Daniel. Daniel's representation agrees sufficiently with the little that we know of Babylon at this time from any authentic source, C 27 ) and has an internal harmony and consistency which is very striking. We may therefore resume our comparison of the particulars of the civil history, as it is delivered by the sacred writers, and as it lias come down to us from the Babylonians themselves. Berosus appears to have kept silence on the subject of Nebuchadnezzar's mysterious malady. I cannot think, with Hengstenberg, t 28 ) that either he or Abydenus intended any allusion to this remarkable fact in the accounts which they furnished of his decease. It was not to be expected that the native writer woidd tarnish the glory of his country's greatest monarch by any mention of an affliction which was of so strange and debasing a character. Nor is it at all certain that he would be aware of it. As Nebu- chadnezzar outlived his affliction, and was again "estab- lished in his kingdom," l all monuments belonging to the time of his malady would have been subject to his own re- vision ; and if any record of it was allowed to descend to posterity, care would have been taken that the truth was not made too plain, by couching the record in sufficiently ambiguous phraseology. Berosus may have read, without fully understanding it, a document which has descended to modern times, in a tolerably complete condition, and which seems to oqn^ain, an allusion to the fact that the great king 1 Dan. iy. 3(j. LKCT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 137 was for a time incapacitated for the discharge of the royal functions. In the inscription known as the " Standard Inscription " of Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch himself re- lates, that during some considerable time four years ap- parently all his great works were at a stand "he did not build high places he did not lay up treasures he did not sing the praises of his Lord, Merodach he did not offer him sacrifice he did not keep up the works of irrigation." C 29 ) The cause of this suspension, at once of religious worship and of works of utility, is stated in the document in phrases of such obscurity as to be unintelligi- ble ; until therefore a better explanation is offered, it can- not but be regarded as at least highly probable, that the passage in question contains the royal version of that remarkable story with which Daniel concludes his notice of the great Chaldasan sovereign. For the space of time intervening between the recovery of Nebuchadnezzar from his affliction and the conquest of Babylon by the Medo-Persians, whicll was a period of about a quarter of a century, the Biblical narrative sup- plies us with but a single fact the release from prison of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in the year that lie as- cended the throne of his father. It has been already re- marked that the native historian agreed exactly in the name of this prince and the year of his accession ; lie added, (what Scripture does not expressly state,) that Evil-Merodach was Nebuchadnezzar's son. ( :t0) With re- gard to the character of this monarch, there seems at first sight to be a contrast between the account of Berostis and the slight indications which the Scripture narrative fur- nishes. Berosus taxes Evil-Merodach with intemperance and lawlessness ; ( :tl ' Scripture relates that he hail com- passion on Jehoiachin, released him from prison, and 12* 138 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. " spake kindly unto him " ' allowed him the rank of king once more, and made him a constant guest at his table, thus treating him with honor and tenderness during the short remainder of his life. Perhaps to the Babylonians such a reversal of the policy pursued by their great mon- arch appeared to be mere reckless "lawlessness;" and Evil- Merodach may have been deposed, in part at least, because of his departure from the received practice of the Babylo- nians with respect to rebel princes. The successor of this unfortunate king was his brother- in-law, Neriglissar; who, although not mentioned in Scrip- ture as a monarch, has been recognized among the "princes of the king of Babylon" 2 by whom Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied in his last siege of Jerusalem. A name there given, Nergal-shar-ezar, corresponds letter for letter with that of a king whose remains are found on the site of Baby- lon, t 32 ' and who is reasonably identified with the Neriglissar of Berosus and the Nerigassolassnr of Ptolemy's Canon. Moreover, the title of "Rab-Mag," which this personage bears in Jeremiah, is found attached to the name of the Babylonian monarch in his brick legends ( 33 ) a coin- cidence of that minute and exact kiud which is one of the surest indications of authentic history. Of the son of Neriglissar, who was a mere child, and reigned but a few months, Scripture certainly contains no trace. Whether his successor, the last native king of the Canon, whose name is there given as Nabonadius, and who appears elsewhere as Nabannidochus, Nabonnedus, or Labynetus C 34 ) whether this monarch has a place in the Scriptural narrative or no, has long been a matter of dispute among the learned. That there is no name in the least resembling Nabonadius in the Bible, is granted. But 1 2 Kings xxv. 28. 2 Jerem. xxxix. 3 and 13. LECT. V. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 139 it has been by many supposed that that prince must be identical with Daniel's Belshazzar C 30 ) the last native ruler mentioned in Scripture. The great diversity, how- ever, of the two names, coupled with the fact that in every other case of a Semitic monarch whether Assyrian or Babylonian the Hebrew representative is a near expres- sion of the vernacular term, has always made this theory unsatisfactory ; and Rationalists, finding no better explana- tion than this of the acknowledged difficulty, C 36 ) have been emboldened to declare that Daniel's account of Belshazzar is a pure invention of his own, that it contradicts Berosus, and is an unmistakable indication of the unhistorical char- acter which attaches to the entire narrative. ( 37 > It was difficult to meet the arguments of these objectors in former times. Not only could they point to the want of confir- mation by any profane writer of the name Belshazzar, but they could urge further "contradictions." Berosus, they could say, made the last Babylonian monarch absent from the city at the time of its capture by the Persians. He spoke of him as taken prisoner afterwards at Borsippa, and as then not slain, but treated with much kindness by Cyrus. Thus the two narratives of the fall of Bahylon appeared to be wholly irreconcilable, and some were driven to suppose two falls of Babylon, to escape the seem- ing contrariety. C 38 ) But out of all this confusion and uncertainty a very small and simple discovery, made a tc\v years since, has educed order and harmony in a very remarkable way. It is found that Nabonadius, the last king of the Canon, associated with him on the throne during the later years of his reign his son, liil-shnr-uzur, and allowed him the royal title. ^ There can be little doubt that it was this prince who conducted the defence of Bahylon, and was slain in the massacre which followed 1-10 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE L.ECT. V. upon the capture; while his father, Who was at the time in Borsippa, surrendered, and experienced the clemency which was generally shown to fallen kings by the Persians. If it he still objected that Belshazzar is, in Scripture, not the son of Nahonadius, but of Nebuchadnezzar, 1 and of the Nebuchadnezzar who carried off the sacred vessels from Babylon, 2 it is enough to reply, first, that the word " son " is used in Scripture not only in its proper sense, but also as equivalent to " grandson," or indeed any descendant ; ( 4 ) and secondly, that JBilshar-uztcr (or Bel- shazzar) may easily have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, since his father may upon his accession have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar may have been the issue of this marriage. ( Al > A usurper in those days commonly sought to strengthen himself in the gov- ernment by an alliance with some princess of the house, or branch, which he dispossessed. There still remains one historical difficulty in the book of Daniel, which modem research has not yet solved, but of which Time, the great discoverer, will perhaps one day bring the solution. We can only at present indulge in conjectures concerning "Darius the Mede," who "took the kingdom" after Belshazzar was slain. 3 He has been identi- fied with As.tyages,^ 43 ) with Cyaxares, a supposed son of Astyages, C 43 ) with Neriglissar/ 44 ) and with Nabonadius ; ( 45 > but each of these suppositions has its difficulties, and per- haps it is the most probable view that he was a viceroy set up by Cynis, of whom there is at present no trace in pro- fane history. ( 1G) The fact of the sudden and unexpected capture of Baby- lon by a Medo-Persic army during the celebration of a festival, and of the consequent absorption of the Babylo 1 Dan. v. 11, 18, &c. * Ibid, verse 2. 3 Ibid. v. 31. LECT. V TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 141 nian into the Medo-^Persic Empire, is one of those mani- fest points of agreement between Scripture and profane authors ( 4 ~) which speak for themselves, and on which all comment would be superfluous. The administration of the realm after the conquest by "the law of the Modes and Persians which altereth not," ' is at once illustrative of that unity of the two great Arian races which all ancient his- tory attests, ( 48) and in harmony with that superiority of law to the king's caprice, which seems to have distinguished the Persian from most Oriental despotisms. < 49 ) With respect to the "satrapial organization of the Empire," which is again detected in Daniel's account of the reign of Darius the Mede/ 50 ) and which is supposed to have been trans- ferred to this time from the reign of Darius Hystaspis by an anachronism, it may be observed, that the "one hundred and twenty princes" which "it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom," 2 are not the satraps, perhaps not even pro- vincial governors at all, but rather a body of councillors resident in or near the capital, and accustomed to meet together, 3 to advise the monarch. It is a mistake to sup- pose that Darius the Mede, like the Ahasuerus of Esther, with whom he has been compared,^' 1 ) rules over the East generally. He "was made king over tht realm of (he ChcUdceam"* that is, he received from Cyrus, the true conqueror of Babylon, the kingdom of Babylonia Proper, which he held as a fief under the Medo-Persic Empire. The one hundred and twenty princes are either his council, or at the most provincial governors in the comparatively small kingdom of Babylon; and the coincidence (if such it. is to be considered) between their number and th.it of the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Ahasuerus, 1 Dan. vi. S. ' Uriel, verse 1. 3 Ibid, verses 4-6. 4 Ibid. ix. 1. 142 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. extending from Ethiopia to India, 1 is purely accidental. There is no question here of the administration of an Empire, but only of the internal regulations of a single province. We have now reached the time when the Captivity of Judah approached its close. "In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," - Daniel, who naturally counted the Captivity from the time when he was himself carried off from Jerusalem,' 5 perceiving that the period fixed by Jeremiah for the restoration of the Jews to their own land approached, " set his face to seek by prayer and supplications, with fastings, and sackeloth, and ashes," * that God would " turn away his fury and anger from Jerusalem," 5 and " cause his face to shine upon his sanctuary," c and " do, and defer not." "' It is evident therefore that, according to the calculations of Daniel, a space little short of seventy years had elapsed from the capture of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim to the first year of Darius the Mede. The close agreement of this chronology with the Babylonian is very remarkable. It can be clearly shown from a comparison of Berosus with Ptolemy's Canon, that, according to the reckoning of the Babylonians, the time between Nebuchadnezzar's first con- quest of Judasa in the reign of Jehoiakim, and the year following the fall of Babylon, when Daniel made his prayer, was sixty-eight years, ( 52 > or two years only short of the seventy which had been fixed by Jeremiah as the dura- tion of the Captivity. Attempts have been made to prove a still more exact agreement ; ^ but they are unnecessary. Approximate 1 Esther i. 1. a Dan. ix. 1. 3 Ibid. i. 1. 4 Ibid. ix. 3. 5 Ibid, verse 16. 6 Ibid, verse 17. ' Dan. ix. 19. LECT. V. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 143 coincidence is the utmost that we have any right to expect between the early chronologies of different nations, whose methods of reckoning are in most cases somewhat differ- ent ; and in the present instance the term of seventy years, being primarily a prophetic and not an historic number, is perhaps not intended to be exact and definite. ( 54 > The restoration of the Jews to their own land, and their fortunes till the reform of Nehemiah, are related to us in the three historical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; and receive illustration from the prophecies of Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. The generally authentic character of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah has never been ques- tioned. They disarm the Rationalist by the absence from them of any miraculous, or even any very marvellous features; and the humble and subdued tone in which they are written, the weakness and subjection which they con- fess, mark in the strongest possible way the honesty and good faith of their composers. Under these circumstances the question of their genuineness becomes one of minor importance. If the relations are allowed to be true, it is of little consequence who was their author. I sec, however, no reason to doubt that in the main the two books are the works of the individuals whose names they bear in the Septuagint and in our own Version. That some portions of the book of Ezra were written by Ezra, and that Nehe- miah wrote the greater part of the book of Xehemiah, is allowed even by I)e Wette ; who has not (I think) shown sufficient, ground for questioning the integrity of either composition/ 55 ^ unless in respect of a single passage. The genealogy of the high priests in the twelfth chapter of Nehemiah 1 is a later addition to the book, which cannot have been inserted into it before the time of Alexander. '' > 1 Verses 10 to 22. 144 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. V. It stands to the rest of Nehemiah as the genealogy of the Dukes of Edom ! stands to Genesis, or that of the descend- ants of Jechoniah 2 to the rest of Chronicles. ( 57 ) But apart from this passage there is nothing in Nehemiah which may not have been written by the cupbearer of Artaxerxes Longimanus; while in Ezra there is absolutely nothing at all which may not easily have proceeded from the pen of the "ready scribe" who was in favor with the same mon- arch. It is objected that the book sometimes speaks of Ezra in the third, sometimes in the first person ; and concluded from this fact that he did not write the parts in which the third person is used. ( 58 ) But the examples of Daniel ( 5 ) and Thucydides t 00 ) are sufficient to show that an author may change from the one person to the other even more than once in the course of a work ; and the case of Daniel is especially in point, as indicating the practice of the period. The same irregularity (it may be remarked) occurs in the Persian inscriptions. < 61 ) It be- longs to the simplicity of rude times, and has its parallel in the similar practice found even now in the letters of unedu- cated persons. If then the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are rightly re- garded as the works of those personages, they will possess the same high degree of historical credibility as the later portions of the Pentateuch. Ezra and Nehemiah were chief men in their nation the one being the ecclesiastical, the other the civil head ; and they wrote the national his- tory of their own time, for which they are the most com- petent witnesses that could possibly have come forward. Ezra, moreover, resembles Moses in another respect ; he not only gives an account of his own dealings with the Jewish people, but prefaces that account by a sketch of 1 Gen. xxxvi. 31-43. * 1 Cnron. iii. 17-24. LECT. V. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 145 their history during a period with which he was personally unacquainted. As this period does not extend farther hack than about eighty years from the time when he took the direction of affairs at Jerusalem, ( 62 ) and as the facts recorded are of high national importance, they would de- serve to be accepted on his testimony, even supposing that he obtained them from mere oral tradition, according to the Canons of historical credibility which have been laid down in the first Lecture. C 63 ) Ezra's sketch, however, (as many commentators have seen,) bears traces of having been drawn up from contemporary documents ; ( G4 > and we may safely conclude, that the practice of " noting down public annals," which we have seen reason to regard as a part of the prophetic office under the Kings, ( |i; ') was re- vived on the return from the Captivity, when Haggai and Zechariah may probably have discharged the duty which at an earlier period had been undertaken by Jeremiah and Isaiah. While the historical authority of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is recognized almost universally, that of Esther is impugned by a great variety of writers. Niebuhr's re- jection of this book has been already noticed. ( f,c > Dc Wette regards it as "consisting of a string of historical difficulties and improbabilities, and as containing a number of errors in regard to Persian customs."' (~) CEder, Mi- chaelis, Corrodi, Bertholdt, and others, throw more or less doubt upon its authenticity. C 68 ' The Jews, however, have always looked upon it, not only as a true and authentic history, but as a book deserving of special honor ;( fi!,) and it seems impossible to account for its introduction into their Canon on any other ground than that of its historic truth. The feast of Purim, which the dews still celebrate, and at which the book of Esther is always read, must be 13 146 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. regarded as sufficiently evidencing the truth of the main facts of the narrative ; ( 7(n and the Jews would certainly never have attached to the religious celebration of that festival the reading of a document from which the religious element is absent, or almost absent, ( 71 > had they not be- lieved it to contain a correct account of the details of the transaction. Their belief constitutes an argument of very great weight ; to destroy its force there is needed some- thing more than the exhibition of a certain number of "difficulties and improbabilities," such as continually pre- sent themselves to the historic student in connection even with his very best materials. 0-) The date and author of the book of Esther are points of very great uncertainty. The Jews in general ascribe it to Mordecai; but some say that it was written by the High Priest, Joiakim ; while others assign the composition to the Great Synagogue. (~ 3 ) It appears from an expression at the close of the ninth chapter "And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, and it teas written in tJie book" 1 that the whole affair was put on record at once; but "the book" here spoken of is probably that "book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia," 2 which had been mentioned more than once in the earlier part of the narrative. 3 To this work the actual writer of our book of Esther whoever he may have been evidently had access; and it is a reasonable supposition that in the main he follows his Persian authority. Hence probably that omission of the name of God, and of the distinctive tenets of the Israelites, which has been made an objection by some to the canonicity of this book. (~ 4 ) "We have now to examine the narrative contained in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, by the light which profane 1 Esther ix. 32. 2 Ibid. x. 2. 3 Ibid. ii. 23 ; and vi. 1. LECT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 147 history throws on it, more particularly in respect of those points which have been illustrated by recent discoveries. There are probably few things more surprising to the in- telligent student of Scripture than the religious tone of the proclamations Avhich are assigned in Ezra to Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. " The Lord God of heaven" says Cyrus, "hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem." ' "I make a decree," says Darius, "that these men be not hindered . . . that which they have need of . . . for the burnt-offerings of the God of heaven . . .let it be given them day by d;iy without fail ; that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savors unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons."- "Artaxerxes, king of kings," writes that monarch, " unto Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time . . . Whatsoever is commanded by the God of* heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven ; for why should there be wrath against fl" realm of tin king and his sons ?" 3 Two things are especially remarkable in these passages first, the strongly marked religious char- acter, very unusual in heathen documents; and secondly, the distinctness with which they assert the unity of God, and thence identify the God of the Persians with the d of the Jews. Both these points receive abundant illustra- tion from the Persian cuneiform inscriptions, in which the recognition of a single supreme God, Ormazd, and the 1 Ezra i. 2, 3. Compare 2 Chron. xxxvi. J3. * Ibid. vi. 8-10. 3 Ibid. vii. 12, 23. 148 HISTORICAL EVIDEN'CES OF THE LECT. V. clear and constant ascription to him of the direction of all mundane affairs, are leading features. In all the Persian monuments of any length, the monarch makes the acknowl- edgment that "Ormazd has bestowed on him his empire." ( 75 > Every success that is gained is "by the grace of Ormazd." The name of Ormazd occurs in almost every other para- graph of the Behistun inscription. No public monuments with such a pervading religious spirit have ever been dis- covered among the records of any heathen nation as those of the Persian kings ; and through all of them, down to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, the name of Ormazd stands alone and unapproachable, as that of the Supreme Lord of earth and heaven. The title "Lord of Heaven," which runs as a sort of catchword through these Chaldee transla- tions of the Persian records, is not indeed in the cuneiform monuments distinctly attached to him as an epithet ; but the common formula wherewith inscriptions open sets him forth as " the great God Ormazd, who gave both earth and heaven to mankind." C 76 ) It is generally admitted that the succession of the Per- sian kings from Cyrus to Darius Ilystaspis is correctly given in Ezra.(~ 7 > The names of the two intermediate monarchs are indeed replaced by others and it is difficult to explain how these kings came to be known to the Jews as Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, instead of Cambyses and Smerdis( 78 ) but the exact agreement in the number of the reigns, and the harmony in the chronology ( 79 > have caused it to be almost universally allowed that Cambyses and Smerdis are intended. Assuming this, we may note that the only Persian king who is said to have interrupted the building of the temple is that Magian monarch, the Pseudo-Smerdis, who was .opposed to the pure Persian religion, and who would therefore have been likely to LECT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 149 reverse the religious policy of his predecessors. The Sa- maritans " weakened the hands of the people of Judah and troubled them in building" 1 during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses; but it Avas not till the letter of the Pseudo- Smerdis was received, that "the work of the house of God ceased." 2 The same prince, that is, who is stated in the inscriptions to have changed the religion of Persia, ( 80 > ap- pears in Ezra as the opponent of a religious work, which Cyrus had encouraged, and Cambyses had allowed to be carried on. The reversal by Darius of the religious policy of the Magian monarch, and his recurrence to the line of conduct which had been pursued by Cyrus, as related in Ezra, har- monize completely with the account which Darius himself gives of his proceedings soon after his accession. " I re- stored to the people," he says, "the religious worship, of which the Magian had deprived them. As it was before, so I arranged it."( 81) Of course, this passage refers prima- rily to the Persian Court religion, and its reestablishment in the place of Magism as the religion of the state; but such a return to comparatively pure principles would involve a renewal of the old sympathy with the Jews and with the worship of Jehovah. Accordingly, while the let- ter of the Magus' 5 is devoid of the slightest reference to religion, that of Darius exhibits as has been already shown the same pious and reverential spirit, the same respect for the God of the Jews, and the same identifica- tion of Him with the Supreme Being recognized by the Persians, which are so prominent in the decree of Cyrus. Darius is careful to follow in the footsteps of the great founder of the monarchy, and under him "the house of 1 1 Ezra iv. 4. * Ibid, verse 21. 3 Ibid. iv. 17 to 22. 13* 150 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. V. God at Jerusalem," which Cyrus Mas "charged" to build, 1 is finally "builded and finished." 2 A break occurs in the Biblical narrative between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra, the length of which is not estimated by the sacred historian, but which Ave know from profane sources to have extended to above half a cen- tury. C 82 ) Into this interval falls the whole of the reign of Xerxes. The Jews in Palestine appear to have led during this time a quiet and peaceable life under Persian govern- ors, and to have disarmed the hostility of their neighbors by unworthy compliances, such as intermarriages;"' which would have tended, if unchecked, to destroy their distinct nationality. No history of the time is given, because no event occurred during it of any importance to the Jewish community in Palestine. It is thought, however, by many and on the whole it is not improbable that the history related in the Book of Esther belongs to the interval in question, and thus fills up the gap in the narrative of Ezra. The name Ahasuerus is undoubtedly the proper Hebrew equivalent for the Persian word which the Greeks repre- sented by Xerxes. ( 83) And if it was Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai in the fourth degree, who was carried away from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, together with Jeconiah, 4 the time of Xerxes would be exactly that in which Mordecai ought to have flourished. C 84 ) Assuming on these grounds the king intended by Ahasuerus to be the Xerxes of Greek history, we are at once struck with the strong resemblance which his character bears to that assigned by the classical writers to the celebrated son of Darius. Proud, self-willed, amorous, careless of contravening Persian customs; reck- less of human life, yet not actually bloodthirsty ; impetu- 1 Ezra i. 2. 2 Ibid. vi. 14. 3 Ibid. ix. 2, &c. 4 Esther ii. 5, 6. LECT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 151 ous, facile, changeable the Ahasuerus of Esther corre- sponds in all respects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes, which is not (he it observed) the mere picture of an Orien- tal despot, but has various peculiarities which distinguish it even from the other Persian kings, and which I think it maybe said individualize it. Nor is there as might so easily have been the case, were the book of Esther a romance any contradiction between its facts and those which the Greeks have recorded of Xerxes. The third year of his reign, when Ahasuerus makes his great feast at Shushan (or Susa) to his nobles, 1 was a year which Xerxes certainly passed at Susa, ( 85 ^ and one wherein it is likely that he kept open house for " the princes of the provinces," who would from time to time visit the court, in order to report on the state of their preparations for the Greek war. The seventh year, wherein Esther is made queen/ is that which follows the return of Xerxes from Greece, where again we know from the best Greek authority ( 8,; ) that he resumed his residence at Susa. It is true that " after this time history speaks of other favorites and another wife of Xerxes, namely Amestris," ( 8 ~) who can scarcely have been Esther,^) since the Greeks declare that she was the daughter of a Persian noble; but it is quite possible that Amestris may have been in disgrace for a time, and that Esther may have been temporarily advanced to the dig- nity of Sultana. We know far too little of* the domestic history of Xerxes from profane sources to pronounce the position which Esther occupies in his harem impossible or improbable. True again that profane history tells us nothing of Haman or Mordeeai but we have absolutely no profane information on the subject of who were the great officers of the Persian court, or who had influence with Xerxes after the death of Mardonius. 1 Es-.J. i. 2, 3. * Ibid. ii. 10. 152 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. V. The intimate acquaintance which the Book of Esther shows in many passages with Persian manners and cus- toms, has been acknowledged even by De Wette,( 89) who regards it as composed in Persia on that account. I think it may be said that we have nowhere else so graphic or so just a portraiture of the Persian court, such as it was in the earlier part of the period of decline, which followed upon the death of Darius. The story of the Book is no doubt in its leading features the contemplated massacre of the Jews, and the actual slaughter of their adversaries wonderful and antecedently improbable ; but these are exactly the points of which the commemorative festival of Purim is the strongest possible corroboration. And it may lessen the seeming improbability to bear in mind that open massacres of obnoxious persons were not unknown to the Persians of Xerxes' time. There had once been a general massacre of all the Magi who could be found ; ( 9 ) and the annual observance of this day, which was known as " the Magophonia," would serve to keep up the recollec- tion of the circumstance. Of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes, who appears both from his name and from his time to be the monarch under whom Ezra and Nehemiah flour- ished, ( 91 ) w r e have little information from profane sources. His character, as drawn by Ctesias, is mild but w r eak, ( My task, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, is accomplished. It has, I believe, been shown, in the first place, that the sacred narrative itself is the production of eye-witnesses, or of those who followed the accounts of eye-witnesses, and therefore that it is entitled to the acceptance of all those who regard contemporary testimony as the main ground of all authentic history. And it has, secondly, been made apparent, that all the evidence which we possess from pro- fane sources of a really important and trustworthy charac- ter tends to confirm the truth of the history delivered to us in the sacred volume. The monumental records of past ages Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Phoenician the writings of historians who have based their histories on contemporary annals, as Manetho, LJero- sus, Dins, Menander, Nicolas of Damascus the descrip- tions given by eye-witnesses of the Oriental manners and customs the proofs obtained by modern research of the condition of art in the time and country all combine to confirm, illustrate, and establish the veracity of the writers, who have delivered to us, in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, the history of the chosen people. That history stands linn against all the assaults made upon it; and the more light that is thrown by research and discovery upon 154 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. LECT. V. the times and countries with which it deals, the more apparent becomes its authentic and matter-of-fact charac- ter. Instead of ranging parallel with the mythical tradi- tions of Greece and Koine, (with which some delight to compare it,) it stands, at the least, on a par with the ancient histories of Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, and Assyria; which, like it, were recorded from a remote antiquity by national historiographers. Sound criticism finds in the sacred writings of the Jews documents belonging to the times of which they profess to treat, and on a calm investigation classes them, not with romantic poems or mythological fables, but with the sober narratives of those other ancient writers, who have sought to hand down to posterity a true account of the facts which their eyes have witnessed. As in the New Testament, so in the Old, that which the writers "declare" to the world is in the main "that which they have heard, which they have seen with their eyes, which they have looked upon, and which their hands have handled." 1 It is not their object to amuse men, much less to impose on them by any " cunningly devised fables;" 2 but simply to record facts and " bear their witness to the truth." 3 1 1 John i. 1. 2 2 Pet. i. 16. 3 John xriii. 37. LECTURE VI. THAI WHICH WAS FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH AVE HAVE HEARD, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES, WHICH WE HAVE LOOKED UPON, AND OUR HANDS HAVE HANDLED, OF THE WORD OF LIFE ; (FOR THE LIFE WAS MANIFESTED, AND WE H'VVE SEEN IT, AND BEAR WITNESS, AND SHOW UNTO YOU THAT ETERNAL LIFE, WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER, AND WAS MANIFESTED UNTO US;) THAT WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD DECLARE WE UNTO YOU. 1 JOHN I. 1 S\ The period of time embraced by the events of which we have any mention in the New Testament but little exceeds the lifetime of a man, falling short of a full century. The regular and continuous history is comprised within a yet narrower space, since it commences in the year of Koine 748 or 749, and terminates about sixty-three years later, in the filth of Xero, Anno Domini f>K.(') If uniformity of plan were a thing of paramount importance, it would be my duty to subdivide this space of time into three portions, which might lie treated separately in the three remaining Lectures of the present Course. Such a subdivision could be made without any great difficulty. The century natu- rally breaks into three periods the time of our Lord's life, or that treated of in the Gospels; the time of the rapid and triumphant spread of Christianity, or that of which we have the history in the Acts; and the time of oppression and persecution without, of defection and heresy within, or that to which we have incidental allusions in the later Epistles and the Apocalypse. Or, if we confined our view to the 1155) 156 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. VI. space of time which is covered by the historical Books, and omitted the last of thefe three periods from our considera- tion, we might obtain a convenient division of the second period from the actual arrangement of the Acts, where the author, after occupying himself during twelve chapters with the general condition of the Christian community, becomes from the thirteenth the biographer of a single Apostle, whose career he thenceforth follows without interruption. But on the whole I think it will be more convenient, at some sacrifice of uniformity, to regard the entire space occupied by the New Testament narrative as a single pe- riod, and to substitute, at the present point, for the arrange- ment of time hitherto followed, an arrangement based upon a division of the evidence, which here naturally separates into three heads or branches. The first of these is the internal evidence, or that of the documents themselves, which I propose to make the subject of the present Lec- ture ; the second is the testimony of adversaries, or that borne by Heathen and Jewish writers to the veracity of the narrative ; the third is the testimony of believers, or that producible from the uninspired Christian remains of the times contemporary with or immediately following the age of the Apostles. The two last named branches will be treated respectively in the seventh and eighth Lectures. The New Testament is commonly regarded too much as a single book, and its testimony is scarcely viewed as more than that of a single writer. No doubt, contemplated on its divine side, the work has a real unity, He Mho is with His church "always" 1 having designed the whole in His Eternal Counsels, and having caused it to take the shape that it bears ; but regarded as the work of man, which it also is, the New Testament (it should be remembered) is a 1 Matt, xxviii. 20. LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 157 collection of twenty-seven separate and independent docu- ments, composed by eight or nine different persons, at sep- arate times, and under varied circumstances. Of these twenty-seven documents, twenty-one consist of letters writ- ten by those who were engaged in the propagation of the new Religion to their converts, four are biographies of Christ, one is a short Church History, containing a general account of the Christian community for twelve or thirteen years after our Lord's ascension, together with a particular account of St. Paul's doings for about fourteen years after- wards ; and one is prophetical, containing (as is generally supposed) a sketch of the future state and condition of the Christian Church from the close of the first century, when it was written, to the end of the world. It is with the his- torical Books that we are in the present review primarily concerned. I wish to show that for the Scriptural narra- tive of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as for the circumstances of the first preach- ing of the Gospel, the historical evidence that we possess is of an authentic and satisfactory character. As with that document which is the basis of Judaism, (*> so with those which are the basis of Christianity, it is of very great interest and importance to know by whom they were written. If the history was recorded by eye-wit- nesses, or even by persons contemporaneous with the events narrated, then it is allowed on all hands that the record containing it must have a very strong claim indeed to our acceptance. "But the alleged ocular testimony," we are told, " or proximity in point of time to the events recorded, is mere assumption an assumption originat- ing from the titles which the Biblical books bear in our Canon." C 3 ^ "Little reliance, however, can be placed on these titles, or on the headings of ancient manuscripts 14 158 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VL generally." ( 4 > "The early Jewish and Christian writers' even the most reputable published their works with the substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they w r ere guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing." ( 5 > In "sacred records" and "biblical books" this species of for- gery obtained "more especially;"^) and the title of works of this kind is scarcely any evidence at all of the real authorship. Further, the actual titles of our Gospels are not to be regarded as intended to assert the composition of the Gospel by the person named; all that they mean to assert is, the composition of the connected history " after the oral discourses, or notes," of the person named in the title. This is the true original meaning of the word trans- lated by " according to ; " which is improperly understood as implying actual authorship. ( 7 ) Such are the assertions with which we are met, when we urge that for the events of our Lord's life we have the tes- timony of eye-witnesses, whose means of knowing the truth were of the highest order, and whose honesty is unim- peachable. These assertions (which I have given as nearly as possible in the words of Strauss) consist of a series of po- sitions either plainly false, or at best without either proof or likelihood ; yet upon these the modern Rationalism is con- tent to base its claim to supersede Christianity. This end it openly avows, and it admits that, to make its claim good, the positions above given should be established. Let us then consider briefly the several assertions upon which we are invited to exchange the Religion of Christ for that of Strauss and Schleiermacher. Tt is said, that "the alleged ocular testimony is an assumption originating from the titles which the Biblical books bear in our Canon." I do not know if any stress is intended to be laid on the last clause of this objection ; but LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 159 as it might mislead the unlearned, I may observe in pass- ing, that the titles which the liooks bear in the modern authorized versions of the Scriptures are literal translations from some of the most ancient Greek manuscripts, and descend to us at least from the times of the first Councils ; while titles still more emphatic and explicit are found in several of the versions which were made at an early period. ( 8 ) Our belief in the authorship of the writings, no doubt, rests partly on the titles, as does our belief in the authorship of every ancient treatise ; but it is untrue to say that these headings first originated the belief-, for before the titles were attached, the belief must have existed. In truth, there is not the slightest pretence for insinuating that there was ever any doubt as to the author- ship of any one of the historical books of the New Testa- ment ; which are as uniformly ascribed to the writers whose names they bear as the Return of the Ten Thou- sand to Xenophon, or the Lives of the Caesars to Sueto- nius. There is indeed for better evidence of authorship in the case of the four Gospels and of the .Vets of the Apos- tles, than exists with respect to the works of almost any classical writer. It is a very rare occurrence for classical works to be distinctly quoted, or for their authors to be mentioned by name, within a century of the time of their publication. ( 9 > The Gospels, as we shall find in the sequel, are frequently quoted within this period, and the writers of three at least out of the four are mentioned within the time as authors of works corresponding perfectly to those which have come down to us as their compositions. Our conviction then of the genuineness of the Gospels does not rest exclusively, or even mainly, mi the titles, but on the unanimous consent of ancient writers and of the whole Christian church in the first aires. 160 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VI In the next place we are told that " little reliance can be placed on the headings of ancient manuscripts generally." Undoubtedly, such headings, when unconfirmed by fur- ther testimony, are devoid of any great weight, and may be set aside, if the internal evidence of the writings them- selves disproves the superscription. Still they constitute important prima facie evidence of authorship ; and it is to be presumed that they are correct, until solid reasons be shown to the contrary. The headings of ancient manu- scripts are, in point of fact, generally accepted as correct by critics ; and the proportion, among the works of an- tiquity, of those reckoned spurious to those regarded as genuine, is small indeed. But it is said that in the case of " sacred records " and "biblical books" the headings are "especially" untrust- worthy. This, we arc told, " is evident, and has long since been proved." ( 10 ) Where the proof is to be found, we are not informed, nor whence the peculiar untrustworthiness of what is "sacred" and "biblical" proceeds. We are referred, however, to the cases of the Pentateuch, the book of Daniel, and a certain number of the Psalms, as well known instances ; and we shall probably not be wrong in assuming that these are selected as the most palpable cases of incorrect ascription of books which the Sacred Volume furnishes. We have already found reason to believe that in regard to the Pentateuch and the book of Daniel no mistake has been committed ; ( n ) they are the works of the authors whose names they bear. But in the case of the Psalms, it must be allowed that the headings seem fre- quently to be incorrect. Headings, it must be remem- bered, are in no case any part of the inspired Word ; they indicate merely the opinion of those who had the custody of the Word at the time when they were prefixed. Now LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 161 in most cases the headings would be attached soon after the composition of the work, when its authorship was certainly known ; but the Psalms do not appear to have been collected into a book until the time of Ezra, i 12 ) and the headings of many may have been then first affixed, those who attached them following a vague tradition or venturing upon conjecture. Thus error has here crept in; but on this ground to assume that " sacred records" have a peculiar untrustworthiness in this respect, is to betray an irreligious spirit, and to generalize upon very insufficient data. But, it is said, " the most reputable authors amongst the Jews and early Christians published their works with the substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they were guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing." What is the proof of this astounding assertion? What early Christian authors, reputable or no, can be shown to have thus acted? If the allusion is to the epistles of Hennas and Barnabas, it must be observed that the genuineness of these is still matter of dispute among the learned; if to such works as the Clementines, the interpolated Ignatius, and the like, that they are not "early" in the sense implied, for they belong probably to the third century. 1:,) The practice noted was common among heretical sects from the first, but it was made a reproach to them by the ortho- dox^") who did not themselves adopt it till the teaching of the Alexandrian School had confused the boundaries of right and wrong, and made "pious frauds" appear defensi- ble. There is no reason to suppose that any orthodox Christian of the first century when it is granted that our Gospels were written would have considered himself entitled to bring out under a "venerated name" a work, of his own composition. 14* 162 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VI Lastly, it is urged, " the titles of our Gospels are not intended to assert the composition of the works by the per- sons named, but only their being based upon a groundwork furnished by such persons, either orally, or in the shape of written notes." ( 15 > "This seems to be the original meaning attached to the word x-u," we are told. No example, however, is adduced of this use, which is certainly not that of the Septuagint, where the book of Nehemiah is referred to under the name of " The Commentaries according to Nehemiah;" 1 and it cannot be shown to have obtained at any period of the Greek language. It cannot therefore be asserted with any truth that the titles of the Gospels do not represent them as the composi- tions of the persons named therein. Nothing is more cer- tain than that the object of affixing titles to the Gospels at all was to mark the opinion entertained of their authorship. This opinion appears to have been universal. We find no evidence of any doubt having ever existed on the subject in the early ages.( 16 > Iremeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- andria, and Origen, writers in the latter half of the second or the beginning of the third century, not only declare the authorship unreservedly, but indicate or express the univer- sal agreement of the Church from the first upon the sub- ject. ( 1? ) Justin, in the middle of the second century, sj)eaks of the "Gospels" which the Christians read in their Churches, as having been composed "by the Apostles of Christ and their companions;" and he further shows by his quotations, which are abundant, that he means the Gos- pels now in our possession. ( 18 > Papias, a quarter of a cen- tury earlier, mentions the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark as authoritative, and declares the latter writer to have derived his materials from St. Peter. Thus we are brought 1 2 Mac. ii. 13. Lf.CT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 163 to the very age of the Apostles themselves; forPapias was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. ( 19 ) Further, in the case of three out of the five Historical Books of the Xew Testament, there is an internal testimony to their composition by contemporaries, which is of the last importance. "And he that saw 7," says St. John, " bare record, and his record is time, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe." 1 And again, still more expli- citly, after speaking of himself and of the circumstances which caused it to be thought that he would not die " This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and icrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." 2 Either therefore St. John must be allowed to have been the writer of the fourth Gospel, or the writer must be taxed with that "conscious intention of fiction," which Strauss with impious boldness has ventured to allege against him. C 20 ) That the Acts of the Apostles and the third Gospel have "a testimony of a particular kind," which seems to give them a special claim to be accepted as the works of a con- temporary, is admitted even by this Prince" of Sceptics. The writer of the Acts, he allows, "by the use of the first person identifies himself with the companion of St. Paul," and the prefaces of the two hooks make it plain that they "proceeded from the same author." (- l> This evidence is felt to be so strong, that even Strauss does not venture to deny that a companion of St. Paul may hart written the two works. lie finds it "difficult" to believe that this was act- ually the case, and "suspects" that the passages of the Acts where the first person is used "belong to a distinct memo- rial by another hand, which the author of the Acts has incorporated into his history." But still he allows the 1 John xix. 35. a Ibid. xxi. 24. 164 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VL alternative that "it is possible the companion of Paul may have composed the two works" only it must have been "at a time when he was no longer protected by apos- tolic influence from the tide of tradition," and so was induced to receive into his narrative, and join with what he had heard from the apostle, certain marvellous (and therefore incredible) stories which had no solid or substan- tial basis. C 22 ) To the objection that the Acts appear, from the fact of their terminating where they do, to have been composed at the close of St. Paul's first imprisonment at Pome, A. D. 58, (or A. D. 63, according to someC 23 ) writers,) and that the Gospel, as being "the former trea- tise," 1 was written earlier, Strauss replies, "that the break- ing oft' of the Acts'at that particular point might have been the result of many other causes; and that, at all events, such testimony standing alo/ie is wholly insufficient to de- cide the historical worth of the Gospel." t 34 ) He thus assumes that the testimony "stands alone," forgetting or ignoring the general voice of antiquity on the subject of the date and value of the Gospel, C 25 ) while lie also omits to notice the other important evidence of an early date which the Gospel itself furnishes the declaration, namely, in the preface that what St. Luke wrote was delivered to him by those "which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." 2 If the third Gospel be allowed to have been composed by one who lived in the apostolic age and companied with the apostles, then an argument for the early date of the first and second will arise from their accordance with the third their resemblance to it in style and general char- acter, and their diversity from the productions of any other period. The first three Gospels belong so entirely to the 1 Acts i. 1. 2 Luke i. 2. LECT. VI. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 165 same school of thought, and the same type and stage of language, that on critical grounds they must be regarded as the works of contemporaries ; while in their contents they are at once so closely accordant with one another, and so full of little differences, that the most reasonable view to take of their composition is that it was almost simul- taneous. ( 2C ) Thus the determination of any one out of the three to the apostolic age involves a similar conclusion with respect to the other two ; and if the Gospel ascribed to St. Luke be allowed to be probably his, there can be no reason to question the tradition which assigns the others to St. Matthew and St. Mark. On the whole, therefore, we have abundant reason to be- lieve that the four Gospels are the Avorks of persons who lived at the time when Christianity was first preached and established. Two of the writers St. Luke and St. John fix their own date, which must be accepted on their authority, unless Ave will pronounce them impostors. The two others appear alike by their matter and their manner to be as early as St. Luke, and are certainly earlier than St. John, whose Gospel is supplemental to the other three, and implies their preexistence. Nor is there any reason- able ground for doubting the authorship which Christian antiquity with one voice declares to us, and in which the titles of the earliest manuscripts and of the most ancient versions agree. The four Gospels are assigned to those four persons, whom the Church has always honored as Evangelists, on grounds very much superior to those on which the bulk of classical works are ascribed to particular authors. The single testimony of Irenaeus is really of more Weight than the whole array of witnesses commonly mar- shalled in proof of the genuineness of an ancient classic ; and, even if it stood alone, might fairly be regarded as 166 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE L,ECT. VL placing the question of the authorship beyond all reason- able doubt or suspicion. It' then the Gospels are genuine, what a wonderful his- torical treasure do we possess in them! Four biographies of the great Founder of our religion by contemporary pens, two of them the productions of close friends the other two written by those who, if they had no personal acquaintance with the Saviour, at least were the constant companions of such as had had intimate knowledge of Him. How rarely do we obtain even two distinct original biographies of a distinguished person ! In the peculiar and unexampled circumstances of the time it is not surprising that many undertook to "set forth in order a declaration of the things'" which constituted the essence of the new religion, namely, the life and teaching of Christ ; but it is remarkable, and I think it may fairly be said to be provi- dential, that four accounts should have been written pos- sessing claims to attention so nearly equal, that the Church felt bound to adopt all into her Canon, whence it has hap- pened that they have all come down to us. We should have expected, alike on the analogy of the Old Testa- ment, ( 2T ) and on grounds of a priori probability, a single record. If an authentic account had been published early that is, before the separation of the Apostles, and the formation of distinct Christian communities it is probable that no second account would have been written, or at any rate no second account confirmatory to any great extent of the preceding one. A supplementary Gospel, like that of St. John, might of course have been added in any ease; but, had the Gospel of St. Matthew, for instance, been really composed, as some have imagined, ( 28 ) within a few years of our Lord's ascension, it would have been carried 1 Luke i. 1. LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 107 together with Christianity into all parts of the world ; and it is very unlikely that in that case the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, which cover chiefly the same ground, would have been written. The need of written Gospels Mas not felt at first, while the Apostles and companions of Christ were in full vigor, and were continually moving from place to place, relating with all the fulness and variety of oral discourse the marvels which they had seen wrought, and the gracious words which they had heard uttered by their Master. But as they grew old, and as the sphere of their labors enlarged, and personal superintendence of the whole Church by the Apostolic body became difficult, the desire to possess a written Gospel arose; and simultaneously, in different parts of the Church, for different portions of the Christian body, the three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, were published. This at least seems to be the theory which alone suits the phenomena of the case ; (-'> and as it agrees nearly with the testimony of Ire- iiR'iis, ( :,l) ) who is the earliest authority with regard to the time at which the Gospels were composed, it is well deserving of acceptance. If this view of the independent and nearly simultaneous composition of the first three Gospels be admitted, then we must be allowed to possess in their substantial agreement respecting the life, character, teaching, miracles, prophetic announcements, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascen- sion of our Lord, (") evidence of the most important kind, and such as is scarcely ever attainable with respect to the actions of an individual. Attempts have been made from time to time, and recently on a large scale, to inval- idate this testimony by establishing the existence of mi- nute points of disagreement between the accounts of the three Evangelists. ( :,2 > But the differences adduct-d consiwi- 108 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES* OF THE LFXT. VI. almost entirely of omissions by one Evangelist of what is mentioned by another, such omissions being regarded by Strauss as equivalent to direct negatives. ( 33 ) The weak character of the argument a silenpio is now admitted by all tolerable critics, who have ceased to lean upon it with any feeling of security except under very peculiar circum- stances. In ordinary cases, and more particularly in cases where brevity has been studied, mere silence proves abso- lutely nothing; and to make it equivalent to counter- assertion is to confuse two things wholly different, and to exhibit a want of critical discernment, such as must in the eyes of all reasonable persons completely discredit the writer who is so unfair or so ill-judging. Yet this, I con- fidently affirm, is the ordinary manner of Strauss, who throughout his volumes conceives himself at liberty to discard facts recorded by one Evangelist only on the mere ground of silence on the part of the others. Whatever an Evangelist does not record, he is argued not to have known ; and his want of knowledge is taken as a proof that the event could not have happened. It seems to be for- gotten, that, in the first place, eye-witnesses of one and the same event notice a different portion of the attendant cir- cumstances ; and that, secondly, those who record an event which they have witnessed omit ordinarily, for brevity's sake, by far the greater portion of the attendant circum- stances which they noticed at the time and still remember. Strauss's cavils could only have been precluded by the mere repetition on the part of each Evangelist of the exact circumstances mentioned by every other a repetition which would have been considered to mark collusion or or unacknowledged borrowing, and which would have thus destroyed their value ag distinct and independent wit- nesse LECT. VI. TRUTH OF" THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 1G9 It lias boon Avell observed, ( 34) that, even if all the diffi- culties and discrepancies, which this writer lias thought to discover in the Gospels, were real and not merely apparent if we were obliged to leave them as difficulties, and could offer no explanation of them C 35 * still the general credibility of the Gospel History would remain untouched, and no more would be proved than the absence of that complete inspiration which the Church has always believed to attach to the Evangelical writings. The writers would be lowered from their preeminent rank as perfect and infal- lible historians, whose every word may be depended on; but they would remain historical authorities of the first order witnesses as fully to be trusted for the circum- stances of our Lord's life, as Xcnophon for the sayings and doings of Socrates, or Cavendish for those of Cardinal Wolsey. The facts of the miracles, preaching, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension, would therefore stand firm, together with those of the choice of the Apostles, the commission given them, and the communication to them of miraculous powers; and these are the facts which establish Christianity, and form its historical basis a basis whioi can be overthrown by nothing short of a proof that the New Testament is a forgery from beginning to end, or that the first preachers of Christianity were a set of impostors. For the truth of the Gospel facts does not rest solely upon the Gospels they are stated with almost equal dis- tinctness in the Acts, and are implied in the Epistles. It is not denied that a companion of St. Paul may have writ- ten the account of the early spread of the Gospel which is contained in the Acts of the Apostles. But the Acts assume as indisputable the whole series of facts which form the basis on which Christianity sustains itself. They set forth "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by 15 170 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VI. miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know " ' a man ''who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil"- who "beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, published the word throughout all Judaea; 3 whom yet "they that dwelt at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath day, condemned, finding no cause of death in him, yet desiring of Pilate that he should be slain" 4 who was "taken and crucified by wicked hands"' "hanged upon a tree and slain" then "taken down from the tree and laid in a sepulchre," 7 but " raised up the third day, and showed openly," 8 "by many infallible proofs during the space of forty days," 9 "not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead" 10 and who, finally, "while his disciples beheld, was taken up into heaven, a cloud receiving him out of their sight." 11 The Acts further show that to the chosen " witnesses" the Apostles to whom "the promise of the Father" 1 - had been given, and to those whom they associated with them in the direction of the infant Church miraculous gifts were commu- nicated, so that they prophesied, 13 cured lameness by a word or a touch, 14 spake languages of which they had no natural knowledge, 15 restored the bedridden to health, 10 handled serpents, 17 cast out devils, 18 inflicted blindness, 1 '-' raised the > Acts ii. 22. 2 Ibid. x. 38. 3 Ibid, verse 37. 4 Ibid. xiii. 27-8. 6 Ibid. ii. 23. 6 Ibid. x. 39. 7 Ibid. xiii. 29. 8 Ibid. x. 40. 9 Ibid. i. 3. 10 Ibid. x. 41. ;i Ibid. i. 9, 10. 12 Ibid, verse 4. 13 Ibid. v. 9 ; vi. 27, &c. u Ibid. xiv. 10, and iii. 7. v " Ibid. ii. 4-13. > Ibid. ix. 34. ,7 Ibid, xxviii. 5. w Ibid. xvi. 18, &c. 19 Ibid. xiii. 11. LECT. VI. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 171 dead to life, 1 and finally even in some eases cured men by the touch of their shadows- or by handkerchiefs and aprons from their persons. 3 The substantial truth of the history contained in the Acts so far at least as it concerns St. Paul has been excellently vindicated, by a writer of our own nation and communion, from the undesigned conformity between the narrative and the Epistles ascribed to the great Apostle. Without assuming the genuineness of those Epistles, Paley has most unanswerably shown, that the peculiar nature of the agreement between them and the history of the Acts affords good reason to believe that "the persons and trans- actions described are real, the letters authentic, and the narration in the main true."( 3 ) The Jlorce Paulino estab- lish these positions in the most satisfactory manner. I do not think that it is possible for any one to read them atten- tively without coming to the conclusion that the Epistles oi'St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles bring us into con- tact with real persons, real scenes, real transactions that the letters were actually written by St. Paul himself at the time and under the circumstances related in the history and that the history was composed by one who had that complete knowledge of the circumstances which could only be gained by personal observation, or by intimate acquaint- ance with the Apostle who is the chief subject of the nar- rative. The effect of a perusal of this masterly work will scarcely be neutralized by the bare and unsupported asser- tion of Strauss, that "the details concerning Paul in the Book of the v\cts are so completely at variance with Paul's genuine epistles, that it is extremely difficult to reconcile them with the notion that they were written by a compan- 1 Acts ix. 37-41 ; xx. 9-1 2. 2 Ibid. v. 1 o. 3 Ibid xix. 12. 172 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VI. ion of the Apostle." C 37 ) The Hone PauUnce should have been answered in detail, before such an assertion was adventured on. Boldly and barely made, without a tittle of proof, it can only be regarded as an indication of the litter recklessness of the new School, and of its striking deficiency in the qualities which are requisite for a sound and healthy criticism. It is further to be remarked, that Paley's work, excellent and conclusive as it must be allowed to be, is far from being exhaustive. He has noticed, and illustrated in a very admirable way, the most remarkable of the undesigned coincidences between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles ; but it would not be difficult to increase his list by the addi- tion of an equal number of similar points of agreement, which he has omitted, t 38 - 1 Again, it is to be remarked, that the argument of Paley is applicable also to other parts of the Xew Testament. Undesigned coincidences of the class which Paley notes are frequent in the Gospels, and have often been pointed out in passing by commentators, though I am not aware that they have ever been collected or made the subject of a separate volume. When St. Matthew, 1 however, and St. Luke, 2 in giving the list of the Apostles, place them in pairs without assigning a reason, while St. Mark, whose list is not in pairs,' 5 happens to mention that they were sent out "two and two," 4 we have the same sort of recondite and (hu- manly speaking) accidental harmony on which Paley has insisted with such force as an evidence of authenticity and truth in connection with the history of the Acts. It Avould be easy to multiply instances; but my limits will not allow me to do more than briefly to allude to this head of evif 1 Matt. x. 2-4. 9 Luke vi. 14-16. 3 Mark iii. 16-19. 4 Ibid. vi. 7. LECT. VI TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 173 deuce, to which full justice could not be done unless by an elaborate work on the subject. ( 39 ) Finally, let it be considered whether the Epistles alone, apart from the Gospels and the Acts, do not sufficiently establish the historic truth of that narrative of the life of Christ and foundation of the Christian Church, which it has been recently attempted to resolve into mere myth and fable. The genuineness of St. Paul's Epistles, with one or two exceptions, is admitted even by Strauss ; ( 4() ) and there are no valid reasons for entertaining any doubt concerning the authorship of the other Epistles, except perhaps in the case of that to the Hebrews, and of the two shorter Epis- tles commonly assigned to St. John. ( 41 > Excluding these, we have eighteen letters written by five of the principal Apostles of Christ, one by St. John, two by St. Peter, thir- teen by St. Paul, one by St. James, and one by St. Jude, his brother partly consisting of public addresses to bodies of Christians, partly of instructions to individuals all composed for practical purposes with special reference to the pefculiar exigencies of the time, but all exhibiting casu- ally and incidentally the state of opinion and belief among Christians during the half century immediately following our Lord's ascension. It is indisputable that the writers, and those to whom they wrote, believed in the recent occurrence of a set of facts similar to, or identical with, those recorded in the Gospels and the Acts more partic- ularly those which are most controverted, such as the trans- figuration, the resurrection, and the ascension. "Great is the mystery of godliness," says St. Paul. "God was mani- fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 "Christ," says St. Peter, " suf- 1 1 Tim. iii. 16. 15* 174 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VL fered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that lie might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quick- ened in the spirit." 1 "He received from God the Father lienor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased;' and this voice which came from heaven we hoard, when we were with him in the holy mount." 2 "God raised up Christ from the dead, and gave him glory" 8 " He is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him." 4 "Remember," again St. Paul says, "that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead" 5 "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain" G "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once . . . after that, he was seen of James, then of all the apostles." 7 These are half a dozen texts out of hundreds, which might be adduced to show that the writers of the Epistles, some writing before, some after the Evan- gelists, are entirely agreed with them as to the facts on which Christianity is based, and as strongly assert their reality. We are told, that " the Gospel myths grew up in the space of about thirty years, between the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem." ( 4 ' 2 > But in the Epistles and the Acts there is evidence that throughout the whole of this time the belief of the Church was the same the 1 1 Pet. iii. 18. 2 Pet. i. 17, 18. 3 1 Pet. i. 21. 4 Ibid. iii. 22. 5 2 Tim. ii. 8. 6 1 Cor. xv. 14. ~ : Ibid, verses 3-7. LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 175 Apostles themselves, the companions of Christ, maintained from the first the reality of those marvellous events which the Evangelists have recorded they proclaimed them- selves the " witnesses of the resurrection" 1 appealed to the "miracles and signs' - ' 2 which Jesus had wrought and based their preaching altogether upon the facts of the Gos- pel narrative. There is no historical ground for asserting that that narrative was formed by degrees ; nor is there any known instance of a mythic history having grown up in such an age, under such circumstances, or Avith such rapidity as is postulated in this case by our adversaries. The age was an historical age, being that of Dionvsius, Diodorus, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Valerius Maximus, and Tacitus the country was one where written records were kept, and historical literature had long flourished ; it produced at the very time when the New Testament documents were being written, an historian of good repute, Josephus, whose narrative of the events of his own time is universally accepted as authentic and trustworthy. To suppose that a mythology could be formed in such an age and country, is to contuse the char- acteristics of the most opposite periods to ascribe to a time of luxury, over-civilization, and decay, a phase of thought which only belongs to the rude vigor and early infancy of nations. There is in very deed no other alternative, if we reject the historic truth of the. New Testament, than that em- braced by the old assailants of Christianity the ascrip- tion of the entire religion to imposture. The mythical ex- planation seems to have been invented in order to avoid this harsh conclusion, which the moral tone of the religion and the sufferings of its first propagators in defence of it 1 Acts i. 22 ; iv. 33, &c. 2 Ibid. ii. 22. 176 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. VI. alike contradict. The explanation fails, however, even in this respect ; for its great advocate finds it insufficient to explain the phenomena, and finally delivers it as his opinion, that in many places the authors of the Gospels consciously and designedly introduced fictions into their flarratives. ( 43 ) If then we feel sure that in the hooks of the New Testament we have not the works of impostors, testifying to have seen that which they had not seen, and knew that they had not seen ; if Ave are conscious in read- ing them of a tone of sincerity and truth beyond that of even the most veracious and simple-minded of profane writers ; if we recognize throughout an atmosphere of fact and reality, a harmony of statement, a frequency of un- designed coincidence, an agreement like that of honest witnesses not studious of seeming to agree ; we must pro- nounce utterly untenable this last device of the sceptic, which presents even more difficulties than the old unbelief. We must accept the documents as at once genuine and authentic. The writers declare to us that which they have heard and seen. 1 They were believed by thousands of their contemporaries, on the spot where they stated the most remarkable of the events to have taken place, and within a few weeks of the time. They could not be mis- taken as to those events. And if it be granted that these happened if the resurrection and ascension are allowed to be facts, then the rest of the narrative may well be re- ceived, for it is less marvellous. Vain are the " profane babblings," which ever " increase unto more ungodliness," of those whose " word doth eat like a canker . . . who con- cerning the truth have erred" denying the resurrection of Christ, and "saying that the resurrection" of man "is past already," thus "overthrowing the faith of some." 2 1 1 John i. 3. 2 2 Tim. ii. 16-18. LECT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 177 " The foundation of God standeth sure/' * " Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead" 2 Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is "ascended into the heavens." 3 These are the cardinal points of the Christian's faith. On these credentials, which- nothing can shake, he accepts as certain the divine rai c sion of hie Saviour. 1 2 Tim. ii. 19. 2 Ibid, verse 8. 3 Acts ii. 34. LECTURE Vil. IN THE MOt'TH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES SHALL EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED. 2 CORINTHIANS XIII. 1. The historical inquirer, on passing from the history of the Old Testament to that contained in the New, cannot fail to be struck with the remarkable contrast which exists between the two narratives in respect of their aim and character. In the Old Testament the writers seek to set before us primarily and mainly the history of their nation, and only secondarily and in strict subordination to this object introduce accounts of individuals. O Their works fall under the head of History Proper History, no doubt, of a peculiar cast, not secular, that is, but sacred or theocratic, yet still History in the strictest sense of the term, accounts of kings and rulers, and of the vicis- situdes through which the Jewish nation passed, its suffer- ings, triumphs, checks, reverses, its struggles, ruin, and recovery. In the Historical Books of the New Testament, on the contrary, these points cease altogether to engage the writers 1 attention, which becomes fixed on an individual, whose words and actions, and the effect of whose teaching, it is their great object to put on record. The authors of the Gospels are biographers of Christ, not historians of their nation ; they intend no account of the political con- dition of Palestine in their time, but only a narrative of the chief facts concerning our Lord especially those of (178) Lect. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 179 his public life and ministry. ( 2 > Even the Evangelist, who in a second treatise carries on the narrative from the Ascension during the space of some thirty years to the first imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome, leaves untouched the national history, and confines himself (as the title of his work implies) to the "acts" of those who made the doctrine of Christ known to the world. Hence the agree- ment to be traced between the sacred narrative and pro- fane history in this part of the Biblical records, consists only to a very small extent of an accord with respect to the main facts related, which it scarcely came within the sphere of the civil historian to commemorate ; it is to be found chiefly, if not solely, in harmonious representations with respect to facts which in the Scriptural narrative are incidental and secondary, as the names, offices, and char- acters of the political personages to whom there happens to be allusion ; the general condition of the Jews and heathen at the time; the prevalent manners and customs; and the like. The value of such confirmation is not, how- ever, less, hut rather greater, than that of the more direct confirmation which would result from an accordance with respect to main facts in the first place, because it is a task of the extremest difficulty for any one but an honest contemporary writer to maintain accuracy in the wide field of incidental allusion ;( 3 ^ and secondly, because exact- ness in such matters is utterly at variance with the mythi- cal spirit, of which, according to the latest phase of unbe- lief, the narrative' of the New Testament is the product. The detail and appearance of exactness, which character- izes the Evangelical writings, is of itself a strong argu- ment against the mythical theory; if it can be shown that the detail is correct and the exactness that of persons in- timately acquainted with the whole history of the time 180 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES 01* THE LECT. VII. and bent on faithfully recording it, that theory may be considered as completely subverted and disproved. It will be the chief object of the present Lecture to make it apparent that this is the case with respect to the Evangeli- cal writings that the incidental references to the civil history of the time of which they treat, and to the condition of the nations with which they deal, are borne out, for the most part, by Pagan or Jewish authors, and are either proved thus to be correct, or are at any rate such as there is no valid reason, on account of any disagreement with profane authorities, seriously to question. Before entering, however, on this examination of the incidental allusions or secondary facts in the Xew Testa- ment narrative, it is important to notice two things with regard to the main facts ; in the first place, that some of them (as the miracles, the resurrection, and the ascension) are of such a nature that no testimony to them from pro- fane sources was to be expected, since those who believed them naturally and almost necessarily became Christians ; and secondly, that with regard to such as are not of this character, there docs exist profane testimony of the first order. The existence at this time of one called by his fol- lowers Christ, the place of his teaching, his execution by Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea under Tiberius, the rapid spread of his doctrine through the Roman world, the vast number of converts made in a short time, the persecu- tions which they underwent, the innocency of their lives, their worship of Christ as God are witnessed to by Heathen writers of eminence, and .would be certain and indisputable facts, had the New Testament never been writ- ten. Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Pliny, Trajan, Adrian,^ writing in the century immediately following upon the death of Christ, declare these things to us, and establish, LECT. VII. TRUTH t>F THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 181 so firmly that no sceptic can even profess to doubt it, the historical character of (at least) that primary groundwork whereon the Christian story, as related by the Evangelists, rests as on an immovable basis. These classic notices com- pel even those who set no value on the historical Christ, to admit his existence ; ( 5) they give a definite standing-point to the religion, which might otherwise have been declared to have no historical foundation at all, but to be purely and absolutely mythic ; they furnish, taken by themselves, no unimportant argument for the truth of the religion, which they prove to have been propagated with such zeal, by persons of pure and holy lives, in spite of punish- ments and persecutions of the most fearful kind ; and they form, in combination with the argument from the historic accuracy of the incidental allusions, an evidence in favor of the substantial truth of the New Testament narrative which is amply sufficient to satisfy any fair mind. As they have been set forth fully and with admirable argumenta- tive skill by so popular a writer as Paley, I am content to make this passing allusion to them, and to refer such of my hearers as desire a fuller treatment of the point to the excellent chapter on the subject in the first part of Paley's Evidences. <''''> If an objection be raised against the assignment of very much weight to these testimonies of adversaries on account of their scant number and brevity; and if it be urged, that supposing the New Testament narrative to be true, we should have expected far more frequent and fuller notices of the religion and its Founder than the remains of anti- quity in fact furnish, if it be said (for instance) that Josephus ought to have related the miracles of Christ, and Seneca, the brother of Gallio, his doctrines; that tlu' observant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch, the 1G 182 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OV THE LECT. VIL copious Dio, tlu' exact Arrian, should have made fre* quent mention of Christianity in their writings, instead of almost wholly ignoring it ; ( 7 ) let it be considered, in the first place, whether the very silence of these writers is not a proof of the importance which in their hearts they assigned to Christianity, and the difficulty which they felt in dealing with it whether in fact it is not a forced and studied reticence a reticence so far from being indicative of ignorance that it implies only too much knowledge, having its origin in a feeling that it Av r as best to ignore what it was unpleasant to confess and impossi- ble to meet satisfactorily. Pausanias must certainly have been aware that the shrines of his beloved gods were in many places deserted, and that their temples were falling into decay, owing to the conversion of the mass of the people to the new religion ; we may be sure he inwardly mourned over this sad spirit of disaffection this madness (as he must have thought it) of a degenerate age ; but no word is suffered to escape him on the painful subject ; he is too jealous of his gods' honor to allow that there are any who dare to insult them. Like the faithful retainer of a falling house he covers up the shame of his masters, and bears his head so much the more proudly because of their depressed condition. Again, it is impossible that Epic- tetus could have been ignorant of the wonderful patience and constancy of the Christian martyrs, of their marked contempt of death and general indifference to worldly things he must, one would think, as a Stoic, have been moved with a secret admiration of those great models of fortitude, and if he had allowed himself to speak freely, could not but have made frequent reference to them. The one contemptuous notice, which is all that Arrian re- ports, ( 8 > sufficiently indicates his knowledge ; the entire LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 183 silence, except in this passage, W upon what it so nearly concerned a Stoical philosopher to bring forward, can only be viewed as the studied avoidance of a topic which would have been unpalatable to his hearers, and to himself per- haps not wholly agreeable. The philosopher who regarded himself as raised by study and reflection to an exalted height above the level of ordinary humanity 'would not be altogether pleased to And that his elevation was attained by hundreds of common men, artisans and laborers, through the power of a religion which he looked on as mere fanaticism. Thus from different motives, from pride, from policy, from fear of offending the Chief of the state, from real attachment to the old Heathenism and ten- derness for it the heathen writers who witnessed the birth and growth of Christianity, united in a reticence, which causes their notices of the religion to be a very insufficient measure of the place which it really held in their thoughts and apprehensions. A large allowance is to be made for this studied silence in estimating the value of the actual testimonies to the truth of the New Testament narrative adducible from heathen writers of the first and second centuries. 0) And the silence of Josephus is, more plainly still, wilful and affected. It is quite impossible that the Jewish histo- rian should have been ignorant of the events which had drawn the eyes of so many to Judsea but a lew years before his own birth, and which a large and increasing sect. believed to possess a supernatural character. Jesus of Nazareth was, humanly speaking, at least as considerable a personage as John the Baptist, ami the circumstances of his life and death must have attracted at least as much attention. There was no good reason why Josephus, if he had been an honest historian, should have mentioned the 184 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VII. latter and omitted the former. He had grown to manhood during the time that Christianity was being spread over the world ;( n) lie had probably witnessed the tumults excited against St. Paul by his enemies at Jerusalem; 1 he knew of the irregular proceedings against " James the Lord's brother ;"-'('-) lie must have been well acquainted with the various persecutions which the Christians had undergone at the hands of both Jews and heathen ;( 13 > at any rate he could not fail to be at least as well informed as Tacitus on the subject of transactions, of which his own country had been the scene, and which had fallen partly within his own lifetime. When, therefore, we find that he is absolutely silent concerning the Christian religion, and, if he mentions Christ at all, mentions him only incidentally in a single passage, as, "Jesus, who was called Christ," ( 14) without ap- pending further comment or explanation ; when we find this, we cannot but conclude that for some reason or other the Jewish historian practises an intentional reserve, and will not enter upon a subject which excites his fears, ( 15 ) or offends his prejudices. No conclusions inimical to the his- toric accuracy of the New Testament can reasonably be drawn from the silence of a writer who determinately avoids the subject. Further, in estimating the value of that direct evidence of adversaries to the main facts of Christianity which remains to us, we must not overlook the probability that much evidence of this kind has perished. The books of the early opponents of Christianity, which might have been of the greatest use to us for the confirmation of the Gospel History, ( 1C 5 were with an unwise; zeal destroyed by the first Christian Emperors.C 17 ! Other testimony of the greatest importance has perished by the ravages of time. It seems 1 Acts xxi. 27, et seqq. ; xxii. 22, 23 ; xxiii. 10. 2 Gal. i. 19. LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 185 certain that Pilate remitted to Tiberius an account of the execution of our Lord, and the grounds of it ; and that this document, to which Justin Martyr more than once alludes, ( 18 ) was deposited in the archives of the empire. The "Acts of Pilate," as they were called, seem to have contained an account, not only of the circumstances of the crucifixion, and the grounds upon which the Roman governor regarded himself as justified in passing sentence of death upon the accused, but also of the Miracles of Christ his cures per- formed upon the lame, the dumb, and the blind, his cleans- ing of lepers, and his raising of the dead.C 9 ) If this valua- ble direct testimony had been preserved to us, it would scarcely have been necessary to enter on the consideration of those indirect proofs of the historical truth of the New Testament narrative arising from the incidental allusions to the civil history of the times which must now occupy our attention. The incidental allusions to the civil history of the times which the writings of the Evangelists furnish, will, I think, be most conveniently reviewed by being grouped under three heads. I shall consider, first of all, such as bear upon the general condition of the countries which were the scene of the history; secondly, such as have reference to the civil rulers and administrators who are represented as exercising authority in the countries at the time of the nar- rative; and, thirdly, such as touch on separate and isolated facts which might be expected to obtain mention in profane writers. These three heads will embrace all the most im- portant of the allusions in question, and the arrangement of the scattered notices under them will, I hope, prove con- ducive to perspicuity. I. The political condition of Palestine at the time to which the New Testament narrative properly belongs, was 16* 186 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. VIL one curiously complicated and anomalous ; it underwent frequent changes, but retained through all of them certain peculiarities, which made the position of the country unique among the dependencies of Home. Not having been conquered in the ordinary way, but having passed under the Roman dominion with the consent and by the assistance of a large party among the inhabitants, it was allowed to maintain for a while a species of semi-independ- ence, not unlike that of various native states in India which are really British dependencies. A mixture, and to some extent an alternation, of Roman with native power resulted from this arrangement, and a consequent complication in the political status, which must have made it very difficult to be thoroughly understood by any one who was not a native and a contemporary. The chief representative of the Roman power in the East the President of Syria, the local governor, whether a Herod or a Roman Procurator, and the High Priest, had each and all certain rights and a certain authority in the country. A double system of tax- ation, a double administration of justice, and even in some degree a double military command, were the natural conse- quence ; while Jewish and Roman customs, Jewish and Roman words, were simultaneously in use, and a condition of things existed full of harsh contrasts, strange mixtures, and abrupt transitions. "Within the space of fifty years Palestine was a single united kingdom under a native ruler, a set of principalities under native ethnarchs and tetrarchs, a country in part containing such principalities, in part reduced to the condition of a Roman province, a kingdom reunited once more under a native sovereign, and a country reduced wholly under Rome and governed by procurators dependent on the president of Syria, but still subject in certain respects to the Jewish monarch of a LECT. VII. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 187 neighboring territory. These facts we know from Jose- phust* 20 ) and other writers, who, though less accm-ate, on the whole confirm his statements ;( 2l > they render the civil history of Judaea during the period one very difficult to master and remember ; the frequent changes, supervening upon the original complication, are a fertile source of con- fusion, and seem to have bewildered even the sagacious and painstaking Tacitus. C 22 ) The New Testament narra- tive, however, falls into no error in treating of the period ; it marks, incidentally and without effort or pretension, the various changes in the civil government the sole king- dom of Herod the Great, 1 the partition of his dominions among his sons, 2 the reduction of Judaea to the condition of a Roman province, while Galilee, Ituraea, and Trachonitis continued under native princes, 3 the restoration of the old kingdom of Palestine in the person of Agrippa the First, 4 and the final reduction of the whole under Roman rule, and reestablishment of Procurators'"' as the civil heads, while a species of ecclesiastical superintendence was exercised by Agrippa the Second. 6 C 83 ) Again, the New Testament narrative exhibits in the most remarkable way the mixture in the government the occasional power of the president of Syria, as shown in Cyrenius's "taxing;" 7 the ordinary division of authority between the High Priest and the Proc- urator;" the existence of two separate taxations the civil and the ecclesiastical, the "census " J and the "didrachm;" 1 ' 1 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. -5. 2 Ibid. ii. 22, and xiv. 1 ; Luke iii. 1. 3 Luke iii. 1, et passim. * Acts xii. 1, ot soqq. * Ibid, xxiii. 24 ; xxiv. 27, &c. B Ibid. xxv. 14, et seqq. 7 Luke ii. 2. Compare Acts v. 37. 8 Matt, xxvii. 1, 2 ; Acts xxii. 30 ; xxiii. 1-10. "Ibid. xxii. 17. I0 Ibid. xvii. 24. 188 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LkCT. VII. of two tribunals, 1 two modus of capital punishment/ 34 ) two military forces,- two methods of marking time; 3 at every turn it shows, even in such little matters as verbal expres- sions, the coexistence of Jewish with Roman ideas and practices in the country a coexistence, which (it must be remembered) came to an end within forty years of our Lord's crucifixion. The conjunction in the same writings of such Latinisms as xevivqltov* Xeyswp, 5 7i;jtn.nbt>tot>]'' xovutui- dlitj xr]voo;, B xodouviyg* dr/vuytov, 10 uf/aii^io*', 11 (TTzexoukuTioo, 1 * yguyeXldxjag, 13 and the like/ 25 ) with such Hebraisms as xofjSuy, 1 * ()(tSpouv!, i5 dvo dvu, K Tiouaiul nouuiul, 1 ' 70 3diXv//Ju I John xviii. 28, 32, &c. Matt, xxvii. G4, Go. 3 Luke iii. 1. 4 Lat. ce>itwio = ~E\\g. "centurion." (Mark xv. 39, 44, 45.) 5 Lat. frjr/o = Eng. "legion." (Matt. x.wi. 53; Mark v. 9; Luke viii. 30.) c Lat. prrrtorium, translated " common hall " in Matt, xxvii. 27 ; "judgment hall," or "hall of judgment," in John xviii. 28, 33; xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; "palate," in Phil. i. 13; "pra-torium," in Mark xv. 16. 7 Lat. custodia = Eng. "watch." (Matt, xxvii. G5, GG ; xxviii. 11.) 8 Lat. census=~Eng. "tribute." (Matt. xvii. 25 ; xxii. 17, 19 ; Mark xii. 14.) 9 Lat. quadrant =Eng. " farthing." (Matt. v. 26 ; Mark xii. 42.) 10 Lat. denarius = Eng. "penny." (Matt, xviii. 28; xx. 2, 9, 10, 13 ; xxii. 19 ; Mark vi. 37 ; xii. 15 ; xiv. 5 ; Luke vii. 41 ; x. 35 ; xx. 24 ; John vi. 7 ; xii. 5 ; Rev. vi. 6.) II Lat. assarius = Eng. "farthing." (Matt. x. 29 ; Luke xii. 6.) 12 Lat. sp< culator Tin, "executioner." (Mark vi. 27.) 13 A participle of the verb (j>payi)./.ovv, formed from the Latin verb /?o<7- ellarc = to scourge, or from the noun fiagellum = a scourge. It is translated, " when he had scourged." (Matt, xxvii. 26 ; Mark xv. la.) 14 Ileb- ISl^p = "corban." (Mark vii. 11.) 15 Rabboni, John xx. 16, translated "Lord" in Mark x. 51. 16 Literally, "two, two;" translated "by two and two" in Mark yi. 7. The repetition is a Hebraism. 17 Literally, " onion-beds, onion-beds," that is, " in squares," like a LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 180 77]c tQrjfHbaewg* ( 26 ) was only natural in Palestine during the period between Herod the Great and the destruction of Jerusalem, and marks the writers for Jews of that time and country. The memory of my hearers will add a multitude of instances from the Gospels and the Acts similar in their general character to those which have been here adduced indicative, that is, of the semi-Jewish, semi-Roman con- dition of the Holy Land at the period of the New Testa- ment narrative. The general tone and temper of the Jews at the time, their feelings towards the Romans and towards their neigh- bors, their internal divisions and sects, their confident ex- pectation of a deliverer, are represented by Josephus and other writers in a manner which very strikingly accords with the account incidentally given by the Evangelists. The extreme corruption and Avickedness, not only of the mass of the people, but even of the rulers and chief men, is asserted by Josephus in the strongest terms ;C 37 ) while at the same time he testilies to the existence among them of a species of zeal for religion a readiness to attend the feasts/ 28 ) a regularity in the offering of sacrifice/ 29 ) an almost superstitious regard for the temple, &) and a fanatic abhorrence of all who sought to 'change the customs which Moses had delivered."- The conspiracy against Herod the Great, when ten men bound themselves by an oath to kill him, and having armed themselves with short daggers, which they hid under their clothes, entered into the theatre where they expected Herod to arrive, intending if he garden-plot ; translated " by companies." (Mark vi. 40.) The repeti- tion is Hebraistic, as in the previous instance. 1 "The abomination of desolation." (Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 1-1.7 Borrowed from Dan. xi. .'Jl ; xii. 11. 2 Acts vi. 14. 190 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VII. came to fall upon him and despatch him with their "weapons, ( 3I ) breathes the identical spirit of that against St. Paul, which the promptness of the chief captain Lysias alone frustrated. 1 Many such close resemblances have been pointed out. ( 3 -) We find from Josephus that there was a warm controversy among the Jews themselves as to the lawfulness of "giving tribute to Caesar ; " - ( ;t3 ) that the Samaritans were so hostile to such of the Galiheans as had their " faces set to go to Jerusalem," 3 that, on one occasion at least, they fell upon those who were journeying through their land to attend a feast, and murdered a large number ; ( 34 ) that the Pharisees and Sadducees were noted sects, distinguished by the tenets which in Scripture are assigned to them ; ( 3:> ) that the Pharisees were the more popular, and persuaded the common people as they pleased, while the Sadducees were important chiefly as men of high rank and station ; ( 3fi ) and that a general expectation, founded upon the prophecies of the Old Testament, existed .among the Jews during the Roman war, that a great king was about to rise up in the East, of their own race and country. ( 37 ) This last fact is confirmed by both Sue- tonius C 38 ) and Tacitus, < 39 ) and is one which even Strauss does not venture to dispute. ( 4 ) Important in many ways, it adds a final touch to that truthful portraiture of the Jewish people at this period of their history, which the Gospels and the Acts furnish a portraiture alike free from flattery and unfairness, less harsh on the whole than that of Josephus, if less favorable than that of Philo. ( 41 > It would be easy to point out a further agreement be- tween the Evangelical historians and profane writers with respect to the manners and customs of the Jews at this period. There is scarcely a matter of this kind noted in 1 Acts xxiii. 12-31. 2 Matt. xxii. 17. 3 Luke ix. 51. LECT. VII. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 191 the New Testament which may not be confirmed from Jewish sources, such as Josephus, Philo, and the Mishna. The field, however, is too extensive for our present consid- eration. To labor in it is the province rather of the Com- mentator than of the Lecturer, who cannot effectively ex- hibit arguments which depend for their force upon the accumulation of minute details. The points of agreement hitherto adduced have had reference to the Holy Land and its inhabitants. It is not, however, in this connection only that the accuracy of the Evangelical writers in their accounts of the general condi- tion of those countries which are the scene of their history, is observable. Their descriptions of the Greek and Roman world, so far as it comes under their cognizance, are most accurate. Nowhere have the character of the Athenians and the general appearance of Athens been more truth- fully and skilfully portrayed than in the few verses of the Acts which contain the account of St. Paul's visit. 1 The city "full. of idols" (xurf/(W.o;) 2 in "gold, and silver, and marble, graven by art and man's device,'"'' recalls the ni'iki; 'oi.i, fiuiuu;, oA/y Bvuu ftfot; xul n Mars' Hill and in the market-place, 7 glad to discuss though disinclined to 1 Arts xvii. 15, ct scqq. ! Ibid, xvii. 1G. 3 Ibid, verse 29. * The whole city is an altar the whole a sacrifice to the gods and an oblation. 5 Athens, which has famous images of gods and men, of every variety both of material and style of art. 6 Acts xvii. 21. 7 Ibid, verse 17. 192 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE L.ECT. VIL believe, 1 and yet religions withal, standing in honorable contrast with the other Greeks in respect of* their reverence tor things divine,- are put before us with all the vividness of life, just as they present themselves to our view in the pages of their own historians and orators, t 44 " 1 Again, how striking and how thoroughly classical is the account of the tumult at Ephesus, 3 where almost every word receives illustration from ancient coins and inscriptions, ( 45 ) as lias been excellently shown in a recent work of great merit on the Life of St. Paul! Or if we turn to Rome and the Roman system, how truly do we find depicted the great and terrible Emperor whom all feared to provoke W the provincial administration by proconsuls and others chiefly anxious that tumults should be prevented C 47 " 1 the con- temptuous religious tolerance ( 4S ) the noble principles of Roman law, professed, if not always acted on, whereby accusers and accused were brought " face to face," and the latter had free "license to answer for themselves concern- ing the crimes laid against them" 4 ( 49 ) the privileges of Roman citizenship, sometimes acquired by birth, sometimes by purchase ( 5 ) the right of appeal possessed and exer- cised by the provincials ( 51 ) the treatment of prisoners < 52 ) the peculiar manner of chaining them ( 5:n the employ- ment of soldiers as their guards C 54 ) the examination by torture C 55 '* the punishment of condemned persons, not being Roman citizens, by scourging and crucifixion ( 56 ) the manner of this punishment C 57 " 1 the practice of bearing the cross, C 58 ) of affixing a title or superscription, ( 5y ) of pla- cing soldiers under a centurion to watch the carrying into effect of the sentence, ( 6t) ) of giving the garments of the sufferer to these pe'-sons, ( 61 > of allowing the bodies after i Act? wii. 39, 33. 2 Ibid, verse 22. * Ibw+ ~[ y . jz: 1> ot seqq. * Ibid. xxv. 16. LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 193 death to be buried by the friends f 62 ) and the like! The sacred historians are as familiar, not only with the general character, but even with some of the obscurer customs of Greece and Rome, as with those of their own country. Fairly observant, and always faithful in their accounts, they continually bring before us little points which accord minutely with notices in profane writers nearly contem- porary with them, while occasionally they increase our knowledge of classic antiquity by touches harmonious with its spirit, but additional to the information which we de- rive from the native authorities. C 63 ) Again, it has been with reason remarked, ( 6, > that the condition of the Jews beyond the limits of Palestine is represented by the Evangelical writers very agreeably to what may be gathered of it from Jewish and Heathen sources. The wide dispersion of the chosen race is one of the facts most evident upon the surface of the New Testa- ment history. " Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia and Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, strangers of Koine, Creted, and Arabians," 1 are said to have been witnesses at Jerusa- lem of the first outpouring of the Holy Ghost. In the travels of St. Paul through Asia Minor and Greece there is scarcely a city to which he comes hut has a large body of Jewish residents. C 65 ) Compare with these representa- tions the statements of Agrippa the First in his letter to Caligula, as reported by the .Jewish writer, Philo. "The holy city, the place of my nativity," he says, "is the metropolis, not of Jmhea only, but of most other countries, by means of the colonies which have been sent out of it from time to time some to the neighboring countries oi 1 Acts ii. 9-11. IT 19-1 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIL Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Coelesyria some to more dis- tant regions, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia as far as Bithynia and the reeessoc 01 Pontus ; and in Europe, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, JEtolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, together with the most famous of the islands, Eubcea, Cyprus, and Crete ; to say nothing of those who dwell beyond the Euphrates. For, excepting a small part of the Babylonian and other satrapies, all the countries which have a fertile territory possess Jewish inhabitants ; so that if thou shalt show this kindness to my native place, thou wilt benefit not one city only, but thousands in every region of the world, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa on the continents, and in the islands on the shores of the sea, and in the interior." ( C6 ) In a similar strain Philo himself boasts, that " one region does not contain the Jewish people, since it is exceedingly numerous ; but there are of them in almost all the flourishing countries of Europe and Asia, both conti- nental and insular." ( G ~) And the customs of these dis- persed Jews are accurately represented in the New Testa- ment. That they consisted in part of native Jews, in part of converts or proselytes, is evident from Josephus ; C 68 ) that they had places of worship, called synagogues or oratories, in the towns where they lived, appears from Philo ; that these were commonly by the sea-side, or by a river-side, as represented in the Acts, 1 is plain from many authors ; ( 69 > that they had also at least sometimes a synagogue be- longing to them at Jerusalem, whither they resorted at the time of the feasts, is certain from the Talmudical wri- ters ;( 7 ) that at Rome they consisted in great part of freedmen or "Libertines" whence "the synagogue of the Libertines" 2 may be gathered from Philo ( 71 ) and Tacitus. ( 72 ) Their feelings towards the apostolic preachers 1 Acts xvi. 13. 2 Ibid. vi. 9. Lect. VIL truth of the scripture records. 195 are such as we should expect from persons whose close contact with those of a different religion made them all the more zealous for their own ; and their tumultuous proceed- ings are in accordance with all that we learn from profane authors of the tone and temper of the Jews generally at this period. ( 73 ) II. 1 proceed now to consider the second of the three heads under which I proposed to collect the chief inciden- tal allusions to the civil history of the times contained in the New Testament. The civil governors and administrators distinctly men- tioned by the New Testament historians are the following the Roman Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius the Jewish kings and princes, Herod the Great, Arche- laus, Herod the tetrarch, (or, as he is commonly called, Herod Antipas,) Philip the tetrarch, Herod Agrippa the first, and Herod Agrippa the second the Roman gov- ernors, Cyrenius (or Quirinus,) Pontius Pilate, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Festus, and Felix and the Greek tetrarch, Lysauias. It may be shown from profane sources, in almost every case, that these persons existed that they lived at the time and bore the office assigned to them that they were related to each other, where any relation- ship is stated, as Scripture declares and that the actions ascribed to them are either actually such as they per- formed, or at least in perfect harmony with what profane history tells us of their characters. With regard to the Roman Emperors, it is enough to remark, that Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius occur in their right order, that St. Luke in plaeing the commence- ment of our Lord's ministry in the fifteenth year of Tibe- rius 1 and assigning to its duration a short term probably 11 Luke iii. 1. 196 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIL three years is in accord with Tacitus, who makes Christ suffer under Tiberius ( 74 > and that the birth of our Lord under Augustus, 1 and the accession before the second jour- ney of St. Paul of Claudius, 2 are in harmony with the date obtainable from St. Luke for the crucifixion, and sufficiently suit the general scheme of profane chronology, which places the accession of Augustus forty-four years before that of Tiberius, and makes Claudius reign from A. D. 41 to A. D. 54. No very close agreement can be here exhib- ited on account of the deficiency of an exact chronology, which the Gospels share with many of the most important historical writings ; but at any rate the notices are accord- ant with one another, and present, when compared with the dates furnished by j^rofane writers, no difficulty of any real importance. ( 75 > The Jewish kings and princes whose names occur in the New Testament narrative, occupy a far more prominent place in it than the Roman Emperors. The Gospel narra- tive opens " in the days of Herod the king," 3 who, as the father of Archelaus, 4 may be identified with the first monarch of the name, the son of Antipater, the Idumaean. ( 76 > This monarch is known to have reigned in Palestine contempo- raneously with Augustus, who confirmed him in his king- dom, ( 77 ) and of whom he held the sovereignty till his decease. ( 78 ) Cunning, suspicion, and cruelty are the chief traits of his character as depicted in Scripture, and these are among his most marked characteristics in Joscphus. ( 79) It has been objected to the Scriptural narrative, that Herod would not have been likely to inquire of the Magi at what time they first saw the star, since he expected them to return and give him a full description of the 1 Luke ii. 1-7. 2 Acts xviii. 2. 3 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. * Ibid. ii. 22. Lect. VIL truth of the scripture records. 197 child ; ( 80) but this keen and suspicious foresight, where his own interests were (as he thought) concerned, is quite in keeping with the representations of Josephus, who makes him continually distrust those with whom he has any deal- ings. The consistency of the massacre at Bethlehem with his temper and disposition is now acknowledged ;( 8] ) scepti- cism has nothing to urge against it except the silence of the Jewish writers, which is a weak argument, and one outweighed, in my judgment, by the testimony, albeit somewhat late, and perhaps inaccurate, of Macrobius. C 82 ) At the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom (accord- ing to Josephus) was divided, with the consent of Augus- tus, among three of his sons. Archelaus received Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, with the title of ethnarch ; Philip and Antipas were made tetrarchs, and received, the latter Galilee and Peraea, the former Trachonitis and the adjoin- ing regions. (^ The notices of the Evangelists are confess- edly in complete accordance with these statements. C 84 ) St. Matthew mentions the succession of Archelaus in Judaea, and implies that he did not reign in Galilee; 1 St. Luke records Philip's tetrarchy ; 2 while the tetrarchy of Antipas, who is designated by his family name of Herod, is dis- tinctly asserted by both Evangelists:' Moreover, St. Mat- thew implies that Archelaus bore a bad character at the time of his accession or soon afterwards, which is consist- ent with the account of Josephus, who tells us that he was h;ilcd by the other members of his family, C 85 ) and that shortly after his father's death he slew three thousand Jews on occasion of a tumult at Jerusalem, t 86 ) The first three Evangelists agree as to the character of Herod Antipas, which is weak rather than cruel or bloodthirsty; and their portraiture is granted to be "not inconsistent with 1 Matt ii. 22. 2 Luke iii. 1. 3 Ibid. ; Matt. xiv. 1. 17* 198 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIL his character, as gathered from other sources." ( 8? ) The fads of liis adultery with Herodias, the wife of one of his brothers, ( 88 ) and of his execution of John the Baptist for no crime that could be alleged against him, ^) are recorded by Josephus ; and though in the latter case there is some apparent diversity in the details, yet it is allowed that the different accounts may be reconciled. ( 90 ) The continuance of the tetrarchy of Philip beyond the fifteenth, and that of Antipas beyond the eighteenth of Tiberius, is confirmed by Josephus, ( 91 > who also shows that the ethnarchy of Archelaus came speedily to an end, and that Juda?a was then reduced to the condition of a Roman province, and governed for a considerable space by Procu- rators. C 92 ) However, after a while, the various dominions of Herod the Great were reunited in the person of his grandson, Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus and brother of Herodias ; who was allowed the title of king, and was in favor with both Caligula and Claudius. ( 93 > It cannot be doubted that this person is the "Herod the king "of the Acts, 1 whose persecution of the Church, whose impious pride, and whose miserable death are related at length by the sacred historian. My hearers are probably familiar with that remarkable passage of Josephus in which he records with less accuracy of detail than St. Luke the striking circumstances of this monarch's decease the "set day" the public assemblage the "royal dress" the impious flattery its complacent reception the sud- den judgment the excruciating disease the speedy death. ( 94 ) Xowhere does profane history furnish a more striking testimony to the substantial truth of the sacred narrative nowhere is the superior exactness of the latter over the former more conspicuous. 1 Acts xii. 1. LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 199 On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judaea (as Josephus informs us) became once more a Roman province under Procurators/ 95 ) but the small kingdom of Chalcis was, a few years later, conferred by Claudius on this Herod's son, Agrippa the Second, who afterwards received other terri- tories. W This prince is evidently the "king Agrippa" before whom St. Paul pleaded his cause. 1 The Bernice who is mentioned as accompanying him on his visit to Fes- tus, 2 was his sister, who lived with him and commonly accompanied him upon his journeys. C 97 ) Besides his sep- arate sovereignty, he had received from the Emperor a species of ecclesiastical supremacy in Judaea, where he had the superintendence of the temple, the direction of the sacred treasury, and the right of nominating the High Priests. t 98 ) These circumstances account sufficiently for his visit to Judaea, and explain the anxiety of Festus that lie should hear St. Paul, and St. Paul's willingness to plead before him. The Roman Procurators, Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Fes- tus, are prominent personages in the history of Josephus, where they occur in the proper chronological position, ("J and bear characters very agreeable to those which are assigned them by the sacred writers. The vacillation of Pilate, his timidity, and at the same time his occasional violence/ 100 ) the cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix, ( 101 ) and the comparatively equitable and mild character of Fes- tus/ 1 * 2 ) are apparent in the Jewish historian; and have some sanction from other writers. C 103 ' The character of Gallio, proconsul of AchaiaC 1 ") and brother of the philoso- pher Seneca, is also in close accordance with that which may be gathered from the expressions of Seneca and Sta- tins, who speak of him as "delightful" or " charming." < los ' 1 Acts xxv. 13, et seqq. 2 Ibid. 200 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LSCT. V1L Of Quirinus (or Cy renins) it is enough to say that he was President of Syria shortly after the deposition of Arche- laus, and that he was certainly sent to effect a "taxing" or enrolment of all persons within his province, Palestine included. ( 106 ) Sergius Paulus is unknown to us except from St. Luke's account of him; 1 hut his name is one which was certainly home by Romans of this period, ( 107 ) and his office is designated correctly. ( 108 ) The Greek tetrarch, Lysanias, is the only civil governor mentioned in the New Testament about whom there is any real difficulty. A Lysanias held certainly a government in these parts in the time of Antony ; ( 109 ) but this person was put to death more than thirty years before the birth of Christ, ( 110 ) and therefore cannot be the prince mentioned as ruling over Abilene thirty years after Christ's birth. It is argued that St. Luke " erred," being misled by the cir- cumstance that the region continued to be known as " the Abilene of Lysanias" down to the time of the second Agrippa.C 111 ) But, on the other hand, it is allowed that a second Lysanias might have existed without obtaining men- tion from profane writers ; ( 112 ) and the facts, that Abilene was in Agrippa's time connected with the name Lysanias, and that there is no reason to believe that it formed any part of the dominions of the first Lysanias, favor the view, that a second Lysanias, a descendant of the first, obtained from Augustus or Tiberius an investiture of the tract in question. ( 113 > III. It now only remains to touch briefly on a few of the remarkable facts in the New Testament narrative which might have been expected to attract the attention of pro- fane historians, and of which we should naturally look to have some record. Such facts are the "decree from Caesar 1 Acts xiii. 7-12. LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 201 Augustus that all the world should he taxed" 1 the "tax- ing" of Cyrenius'-' the preaching and death of John the Baptist our Lord's execution as a criminal the adultery of Herod Antipas the disturbances created by the impos- tors Theudas and Judas of Galilee 3 the death of Herod Agrippa the famine in the days of Claudius 4 and the "uproar" of the Egyptian Mho "led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers." 5 Of these events almost one half have been already shown to have been recorded by profane writers whose works are still ex- tant. C 114 ) The remainder will now be considered with the brevity which my limits necessitate. It has been asserted that no "taxing of all the world" that is, of the whole Roman Empire took place? in the time of Augustus ;( 115 ) but as the opposite view is main- tained by Savigny( nc ) the best modern authority upon Roman law this assertion cannot be considered to need examination here. A far more important objection to St. Luke's statement is derived from the time at which this "taxing" is placed by him. Josephus mentions the exten- sion of the Roman census to Judaea under Cyrenius, at least ten years later after the removal of Archelaus,(" 7 ) and seems to speak of this as the first occasion on which his countrymen were compelled to submit to this badge of sub- jection. It is argued that this //tttvt have been the first occasion; and the words of St. Luke (it is said) "this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" show that he intended the taxing mentioned by Josephus, which lie consequently misdated by a decade of years. ( llrt ) But the meaning of the passage in St. Luke is doubtful in the extreme; and it admits of several explana- 1 Luke ii. 1. * Ibid, verso 2. 3 Arts v. 30, 37. 4 Ibid. xi. 28. 5 Ibid. xxi. 38. 202 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIL tions which reconcile it with all that Josephus says. ( ny ) Perhaps the best explanation is that of Winston ( ,20 > and Prideaux ( 121) that the design of Augustus was first fully executed (Lyiveio) when Cyrenius was governor, though the decree went forth and the enrolment commenced ten years earlier. The taxing of Cyrenius of which St. Luke speaks in this passage, and to which he also alludes in the Acts, 1 is (as we have seen) very fully narrated by Josephus. It caused the rebellion mentioned in Gamaliel's speech, which was headed by Judas of Galilee, who "drew away much people after him," but " perished," all, as many as obeyed him, being ''dispersed.''' 12 This account harmonizes well with that of* Josephus, who regards the followers of Judas as numerous enough to constitute a sect, < 122 ) and notes their reappearance in the course of the last Avar with Home, by which it is shown that though scattered they had not ceased to exist. ( 123 ) The disturbance created by a certain Theudas, some time before the rebellion of Judas of Galilee, seems not to be mentioned by any ancient author. The identity of name is a very insufficient ground for assuming this impostor to be the same as the Theudas of Josephus, C 24 ) who raised troubles in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, about ten years after Gamaliel made his speech. There were, as Josephus says,( 125 ) "innumerable disturbances" in Judaea about this time ; and it is not at all improbable that within the space of forty years, during which a number of impos- tors gathered followers and led them to destruction, two should have borne the same name. Nor can it be consid- ered surprising that Josephus has passed over the earlier Theudas, since his followers were only four hundred, and 1 Acts v. 37. 2 Ibid, verse 36. LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 203 since the historian evidently omits all but the most impor- tant of the troubles which had afflicted his country. The " uproar " of the Egyptian who " led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers," * is described at length by the Jewish writer, ( 126 ) the only noticeable difference between his account and that of St. Luke being that Josephus in his present text calls the number of this impostor's followers thirty thousand. From internal evidence there is reason to think that igiGfiigioi is a corrupt reading; ( 12 ~) but even as the text stands, it does not contradict St. Luke ; for the four thousand of St'. Luke are the number whom the impostor "led out into the wil- derness," while the thirty thousand of Josephus are the number whom he " brought from the wilderness" to attack Jerusalem. The " famine in the days of Claudius " 3 is mentioned by several writers. Josephus tells us that it was severe in Palestine in the fourth year of this emperor; Dio, Tacitus, and Suetonius, speak of it as raging somewhat later in Rome itself. ( ia8 > Helena, queen of Adiabene the richest portion of the ancient Assyria brought relief to the Jews on the occasion, as St. Barnabas and St. Paul did to the Christians. 3 The agreement is here complete, even if the words of Agabus's prophecy are pressed for the scarcity seems to have been general throughout the Empire. This review imperfect. as it necessarily is will proba- bly be felt to suffice for our present purpose. We have found that the New Testament, while in its main narrative it treats of events with which heathen writers wire not likely to concern themselves, and which they could not represent, truly, contains inextricably interwoven with that main narrative a vast body of incidental allusions to the eivij 1 Acts xxi. 38. 2 Ibid. xi. 28. 3 Ibid, verses 29, 30. 204 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. VII. history of the times, capable of being tested by comparison with the works of profane historians. We have submitted the greater part or at any rate a great part of these incidental allusions to the test of such comparison; and we have found, in all but some three or four cases, an entire and striking harmony. In no case have we met with clear and certain disagreement ; sometimes, but very rarely, the accounts are difficult to reconcile, and we may suspect them of real disagreement a result which ought not to cause us any astonishment. Profane writers are not infalli- ble; ahd Josephus, our chief profane authority for the time, has been shown, in matters where he does not come into any collision with the Christian Scriptures, to " teem with inaccuracies." ( 129 ) If in any case it should be thought that we must choose between Josephus and an Evangelist, sound criticism requires that we should prefer the latter to the former. Josephus is not entirely honest : he has his Roman masters to please, and he is prejudiced in favor of his own sect, the Pharisees. He has also been convicted of error, ( 130 > which is not the case with any Evangelist. His authority therefore is, in the eyes of an historical critic, inferior to that of the Gospel writers, and in any instance of contradiction, it would be necessary to disregard it. In fact, however, we are not reduced to this necessity. The Jewish writer nowhere actually contradicts our Scriptures, and in hundreds of instances he confirms them. It is evident that the entire historical framework, in which the Gospel picture is set, is real; that the facts of the civil his- tory, small and great, are true, and the personages correctly depicted. To suppose that there is this minute historical accuracy in all the accessories of the story, and that the story itself is mythic, is absurd ; unless we will declare the Apostles and their companions to have sought to palm LECT. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 205 upon mankind a tale which they knew to be false, and to have aimed at obtaining credit for their fiction by elaborate attention to these minutiae. From such an avowal even Rationalism itself would shrink; but the only alternative is to accept the entire history as authentic as, what the Church has always believed it to be, the Truth. "All truth is contained in the Gospel." ( 131 > " It is but just, that he who was worthy of the title of an Evangelist, should be exempt from all suspicion of either negligence or false- hood." ('^ "The Evangelists had perfect knowledge, . . . and if any one docs not yield his assent to them, he contemns those who were partners of the Lord, he contemns Christ himself, he contemns also the Father." x ( 133 ) Such has been the uniform teaching of the Church of Christ from the first and modern Rationalism has failed to show any reason why we should reject it. ' " Veritas omnis in Evangelio continctur." " Ab hoc, qui Evange- lista esse meruit, vel negligentiae vel mendacii suspicioncm aequum est propulsari." Evangelistaj habuerunt perfectam agnitionem . . . qui- bus si quis non assentit. sprni*. quidem partieipes Domini, spcrnit c* ipsum Christum, sperm*, pt PV All these notices moreover occur in a small tract, chiefly concerned with the Old Tes- tament, and extending to no more than ten or twelve ordinary pages. An Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, is allowed on all hands to be genuine. ( 7 ) This work was certainly composed in the first century, before some of the writings of St. John ; and its author, the " fellow-laborer " of St. Paul, 1 must have had frequent com- munication with those who had Avitnessed the great events in Judaaa which formed the foundation of the new religion. The object of the Epistle is to compose existing dissensions in the Corinthian Church, and its tone is from first to last hortatory and didactic. Historical allusions only find a place in it casually and incidentally. Yet it contains a mention of Christ's descent from Jacob, of his great power and regal dignity, his voluntary humiliation, his sufferings, the character of his teaching, his death for man, his resur- rection, the mission of the apostles, their inspiration by the Holy Ghost, their preaching in many lands, their ordination of elders in every city, the special eminence in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, the sufferings of St. Peter, the hardships endured by St. Paul, his distant travels, his many imprisonments, his flights, his stoning, his bonds, his testi- mony before rulers. ( H ) The fact of St. Paul's having written an Epistle to the Corinthians is also asserted ; W and an allusion is made, in connection with that Epistle, to the early troubles and divisions which the great Apostle 1 Philipp. iv. 3. 18* 210 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIII. had composed, when the several sections of the newly- planted Church strove together in a jealous spirit, affirming themselves to he "of Paul," or "of Apollos," or "of Cephas," or even " of Christ." Ignatius, second Bishop of Antioch, who succeeded to that see in ahout the year of the destruction of Jerusa- lem, ( 10 ) and was martyred nearly forty years later, A. D. 107, C 11 ) left behind him certain writings, which are quoted with great respect by subsequent Fathers, but the existence of which at the present day is questioned. Writings under the name of Ignatius have come down to us in various shapes. Three Epistles, universally regarded as spu- rious, ( 12 ) exist only in Latin. Twelve others are found in Greek, and also in two ancient Latin versions ; and of these, seven exist in two different forms a longer, and a shorter one. Most modern critics accept these seven, in their shorter form, as genuine. C 3 ) They are identical with the seven mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome/ 14 ) and they are thought to be free from the internal difficulties, which cause suspicion to attach to the longer recension, as well as to the Epistles which those writers do not name. Doubts have, however, been recently started even with respect to these seven. The discovery in a very ancient MS. of a Syriac version of three Epistles only out of the seven, and these three in a still briefer form than that of the shorter Greek recension, together with the remarkable fact that the few early references which we possess to the writ- ings of Ignatius are to passages in exactly these three compositions has induced some learned men of our own day to adopt the view, that even the shorter Greek recen- sion is largely interpolated, and that nothing beyond the three Epistles of the Syriac version can be depended upon as certainly written by the Antiochian Bishop. ( 15) If we LECT. VIII. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 211 adopt this opinion, the testimony of Ignatius to the histori- cal truth of the New Testament narrative will be somewhat scanty if we abide by the views generally prevalent be- fore the Syriac version was discovered, and still maintained since that discovery by some divines of great learning and excellent judgment, < 16 ) it will be as full and satisfactory as that borne by St. Clement. In the seven Epistles we find notices of the descent of Christ from David his concep- tion by the Holy Ghost his birth of a virgin her name, Mary his manifestation by a star his baptism by John its motive, "that he might fulfil all righteousness" 1 his appeals to the Prophets the anointing of his head with ointment his sufferings and crucifixion under Pon- tius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch his resurrection, not on the Sabbath, but on the " Lord's day " the resurrec- tion through his power of some of the old prophets hi; appearance to his disciples and command to them to "han- dle him and see" 2 that he was not a spirit his eating and drinking with them after he had risen the mission of the Apostles their obedience to Christ their authority over the Church the inclusion of Saints Peter and Paul in their number.* 17 ) If, on the contrary, we confine ourselves to the Syriac version by which the entire writings of St. Ignatius are comprised in about five pages C 18 ) we lose the greater portion of these testimonies, but we still retain those to the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary his manifesta- tion by a star his many sufferings his crucifixion and the apostolic mission of Saints Peter and Paul. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, and a younger contemporary of Ignatius, left behind him a sin- gle Epistle, addressed to the Philippians, which we possess in the original Greek, with the exception of three or four 1 Mutt. iii. 15. 2 Luke xxiv. 3'J. 212 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIIL sections, where the Greek text is wanting, and we have only a Latin version. ( 19 ) In this Epistle, which is a short composition, and, like the other remains of early Christian antiquity, of a hortatory character, we find allusions to the humble life of Christ, his ministering to those about him, the character of his preaching, his sufferings, death upon the cross, resurrection, and ascension to heaven ; his prom- ise to " raise up his disciples at the last day " J the suffer- ings of St. Paul and the other Apostles, the preaching of St. Paul at Philippi, and the fact of his having written an Epistle to the Philippians.t 20 ) We also learn from Irenams that this Father used to relate his conversations with St. John and others, who had seen the Lord, and to repeat what they had told him both of the teaching and miracles of Jesus. ( 21 > A work of the first or earlier half of the second century has come down to us under the name of "The Shepherd of Hennas." Eusebius and Jerome ascribe it to the Hennas who is saluted by St. Paul at the end of Ins Epistle to the Romans 5^) but there are reasons for assigning it to a later Hennas the brother of Pius, who was the ninth bishop of Rome. C 23 ) This work is an allegory on a large scale, and consequently cannot contain any direct historical testimony. Its tone is consonant with the Christian story, and it con- tains some allusions to the mission of the Apostles, their trav- els for the purpose of spreading the truth over the world, and the sufferings to which they were exposed in conse- quence;^ 4 ) but on the whole it is of little service towards establishing the truth of any facts. It was not until the Christian writers addressed them- selves to the world without and either undertook the task of refuting the adversaries of the truth, or sought by Apolo- 1 John vi. 40. LECT. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 213 gies to recommend the new religion to their acceptance that the facts of the Christian story came naturally to oc- cupy a prominent place in their compositions. Quadratus, Bishop of Athens in the early part of the second century, was, so far as we know, the first to write a defence of Christianity addressed to the Heathen, which lie seems to have presented to the Emperor Adrian C 25 ' about the year A. D. 122. This work is unfortunately lost, but a passage preserved by Eusebius gives us an indication of the sort of evidence which it would probably have furnished in abun- dance. " The works of our Saviour," says Quadratus, " were always conspicuous, for they were real; both they which were healed and they which were raised from the dead ; who were seen not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards ; not only while he dwelt on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after it ; inso- much that some of them have reached to our times." ( 26 ) About twenty-five years after Quadratus had presented his "Apology" to Adrian, his younger contemporary, Jus- tin, produced a similar composition, which he presented to the first Antonine, probably about A. D. 148. < 27 ) Soon afterwards he published his "Dialogue with Tryphon" an elaborate controversial work, defensive of Christianity from tin; attacks of Judaism. Finally, about A. D. 165, or a little earlier, he wrote a second "Apology," which he pre- sented to Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate.C 28 ) It has been truly observed, that from the writings of this Father "the earliest, of whose works we possess any con- siderable remains" t 29 ) there "might be collected a tolera- bly complete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with that which is delivered in our Scriptures." 1 : 30 ) Justin declares the marriage of Mary and Joseph their descent from David the miraculous conception of Christ the 214 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIIL intention of Joseph to put away his wife privily the ap- pearance to him of an angel which forbade him the angelic determination of the name Jesus, with the reason assigned for it the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem the birth of our Lord there his lying in a manger his circumcision the extraordinary appearance of a star the coming of the Wise Men their application to Herod their adoration and gifts the warning to them not to return to Herod the descent into Egypt the massacre of the Innocents the death of Herod and accession of Archelaus the return from Egypt the obscure early life of Christ, and his occupation as a carpenter his bap- tism by St. John the Baptist in Jordan the descent of the Spirit upon him in the form of a dove the testimony borne to his greatness by John his temptation by the devil the character of his teaching his confutation of his opponents his miracles his prophecies of the suffer- ings which should befall his disciples his changing Si- mon's name to Peter, and the occasion of it his naming the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges his triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass his institution of the Eu- charist his singing a hymn with his disciples his visit to the Mount of Olives on the eve of his crucifixion, accom- panied by the three favored apostles, and the prayer there offered to the Father his silence before Pilate his being sent by Pilate to Herod his sufferings and crucifixion the mockery of those who stood by the casting of lots I'ov the garment the flight of the apostles the words on giving up the ghost the burial at eventide the resur- rection on the third day the appearances to the apostles the explanation to them of the prophecies the ascen- sion into heaven as they were looking on the preaching jf the apostles afterwards the descent of the Holy Ghost LECT. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 215 the conversion of the Gentiles the rapid spread of the Gospel through all lands. ( 31 ) No one can pretend to doubt but that in Justin's time the facts of the New Testament History were received as simple truth not only by him- self, but by Christians generally, in whose name his Apolo- gies were written and presented to the Roman Emperors. It is needless to carry this demonstration further, or to produce similar lists from Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and others. From the time of Justin the Church of Christ can show a series of writers, who not only exhibit incidentally their belief of the facts which form the basis of the Christian Religion, but who also testify explicitly to the universal reception among Christians of that narra- tive of the facts which we possess in the New Testament a narrative which, as was shown in the last Lecture, ( 32 > they maintain to be absolutely and in all respects true. Those who assert the mythic character of the New Testa- ment history, must admit as certain that its mythic charac- ter was unsuspected by the Christians of the second century, who received with the most entire and simple faith the whole mass of facts put forth in the Gospels and the Acts, regarding them as real and actual occurrences, and appeal- ing to profane history for their confirmation in various most important particulars. To fair and candid minds the evi- dence adduced from uninspired writers of the first century, though comparatively scanty, is (I think) sufficient to show- that their belief was the same as that of Christians in the second, and that it was just as firm and undoubting. The arguments hitherto adduced have been drawn from the literary compositions of the first ages of Christianity. Till recently these have been generally regarded as pre- senting the whole existing proof of the faith and practice of the early Church : and sceptics have therefore been eager to 210 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VIIL throw every possible doubt upon them, and to maintain that forgery and interpolation have so vitiated this source of knowledge as to render it altogether untrustworthy. C 33 ) The eftbrts made, weak and contemptible as they are felt to be by scholars and critics, have nevertheless had a cer- tain influence over the general tone of thought on the sub- ject, and have caused many to regard the early infancy of Christianity as a dim and shadowy cloud-land, in which nothing is to be seen, except a few figures of bishops and martyrs moving uncertainly amid the general darkness. Under these circumstances it is well that attention should be called as it has been called recently by several publi- cations of greater or less research C 34 ) to the monumental remains of early Christian times which are still extant, and which take us back in the most lively way to the first ages of the Church, exhibiting before our eyes those primitive communities, which Apostles founded, over which Apos- tolic men presided, and in which Confessors and Martyrs were almost as numerous as ordinary Christians. As when we tread the streets of Pompeii, we have the life of the old Pagan world brought befoi*e us with a vividness which makes all other representations appear dull and tame, so when we descend into the Catacombs of Rome we seem to see the struggling persecuted community, which there, "in dens and caves of the earth," l wrought itself a hidden home, whence it went forth at last conquering and to con- quer, triumphantly establishing itself on the ruins of the old religion, and bending its heathen persecutors to the yoke of Christ. Time was when the guiding spirits of our Church not only neglected the study of these precious remnants of an antiquity which ought to be far dearer to us than that of Greece or Pagan Home, of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon 1 Ueb. xi. 3^. LECT. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 217 but even ventured to speak of them with contempt, as the recent creations of Papal forgers, who had placed among the arenarice or sandpits of heathen times the pretended memorials of saints who were never born, and of martyrs who never suffered. ( 3: ') But with increased learning and improved candor modern Anglicanism has renounced this shallow and untenable theory; and it is at length admitted universally, alike by the Protestant and the Romanist, that the Catacombs themselves, their present contents, and the series of inscriptions which have been taken from them and placed in the Papal galleries, are genuine remains of primitive Christian antiquity, and exhibit to us imperfectly, no doubt, but so far as their evidence extends, truly the condition and belief of the Church of Christ in the first ages. For it is impossible to doubt that the Catacombs belong to the earliest times of Christianity. It was only during the ages of persecution that the Christians were content to hide away the memorials of their dead in gloomy galleries deep below the earth's surface, where i'ew eyes could ever rest on them. With liberty and security came the practice of burying within, and around, the churches, which grew up on all sides; and though undoubtedly the ancient burial places would not have been deserted all at once, since habit and affection would combine to prevent such disuse, yet still from the time of Constantine burying in the Cata- combs must have been on the decline, and the bulk of the tombs in them must be regarded as belonging to the first three centuries. The fixed dates obtainable from a certain number of the tombs confirm this view; and the style of ornamentation and form of the letters used in the inscrip- tions, are thought to be additional evidence of its cor- rectness. 19 218 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIII. What then is the evidence of the Catacombs? In the first place, it is conclusive as to the vast number of the Christians in these early ages, when there was nothing to tempt men, and every thing to disincline them, towards em- bracing the persecuted faith. The Catacombs are calcu- lated to extend over nine hundred miles of streets, and to contain almost seven millions of graves ! ( 3C ) The Roman Christians, it will be remembered, are called by Tacitus " a vast multitude" (ingens multitudo) in the time of Nero ; ( 3? ) by the age of Valerian they are reckoned at one half the population of the city ;( 38 > but the historical records of the past have never been thought to indicate that their number approached at all near to what this calculation which seems fairly made ( 39 ) would indicate. Seven mil- lions of deaths in (say) four hundred years would, under ordinary circumstances, imply an average population of from five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand an amount immensely beyond any estimate that has hith- erto been made of the number of Roman Christians at any portion of the period. Perhaps the calculation of the number of graves may be exaggerated, and probably the proportion of deaths to population was, under the peculiar circumstances, unusually large ; but still the evidence of vast numbers which the Catacombs furnish cannot wholly mislead ; and we may regard it as established beyond all reasonable doubt, that in spite of the general contempt and hatred, in spite of the constant ill-usage to which they were exposed, and the occasional "fiery trials" which proved them, the Christians, as early as the second century, formed one of the chief elements in the population of Rome. In the next place, the Catacombs afford proof of the daggers and sufferings to which the early Christians were LECT. VIII TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 219 exposed. Without assuming that the phials which have contained a red liquid, found in so many of the tombs, must have held blood, and that therefore they are certain signs of martyrdom, and without regarding the palm- branch as unmistakable evidence of the same t 40 ' we may find in the Catacombs a good deal of testimony confirma- tory of those writers who estimate at the highest the num- ber of Christians who suffered death in the great persecu- tions. The number of graves, if we place it at the lowest, compared with the highest estimate of the Christian popu- lation that is at all probable, would give a proportion of deaths to population enormously above the average a result which at any rate lends support to those who assert that in the persecutions of Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian, and others, vast multitudes of Christians were massacred. Further, the word Martyr is frequent upon the tombs ; and often where it is absent, the inscription otherwise shows that the deceased lost his life on account of his religion. < 41 > Sometimes the view opens on us, and we see, besides the individual buried, a long vista of similar sufferers as when one of Aurelius's victims exclaims "O unhappy times, in which amid our sacred rites and prayers, in the very caverns, we are not safe ! What is more wretched than our life? What more wretched than a death, when it is impossible to obtfin burial at the hands of friends or relatives? Still at the end they shine like stars in Heaven. A poor life is his, who has lived in Christian times !'" ( 42 ) Again, the Catacombs furnish a certain amount of evi- dence with respect to the belief of the early Christians. 1 "O temporal infausta! quibus inter sacra et vota no in eavernis quidem salvari possimus. Quid miserius vita ? Sed quid miserius in morte, cum ab amicis et parentibus sepeliri nequeant ? Tandem ia ccelo coruscant ! l'arum vixit qui vixit in Christianis temporibus." 220 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIII. The doctrine of the resurrection is implied or expressed on almost every tombstone which has been discovered. The Christian is not dead lie "rests" or "sleeps" lit* is not buried, but "deposited" in his grave ( 43 ) and he is always "at peace," (in pace.) The survivors do not mourn Ins loss despairingly, but express trust, resignation, or moderate grief. C 4 ) The Anchor, indicative of the Christian's " sure and certain hope," is a common emblem ; and the Phoenix and Peacock are used as more speaking signs of the Resur- rection. The Cross appears, though not the Crucifix ; and other emblems are employed, as the Dove and the Cock, which indicate belief in the sacred narrative as we possess it. There are also a certain number of pictures in the Cata- combs; and these represent ordinarily historical scenes from the Old or New Testament, treated in a uniform and conventional way, but clearly expressive of belief in the facts thus represented. The Temptation of Eve Moses striking the rock Noah welcoming the return of the Dove Elijah ascending to heaven Daniel among the lions Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego in the fiery furnace Jonah under the gourd Jonah swallowed by the whale and Jonah vomited out on the dry land, are the favorite subjects from the Old Testament; while from the New Testament we find the Adoration of the Wise Men their interview with Herod the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist the healing of the Paralytic the turning of the water into wine the feeding of the five thousand the raising of Lazarus the Last Supper Peter walking on the sea and Pilate washing his hands before the people. ( 45 > St. Peter and St. Paul are also fre- quently represented, and St. Peter sometimes bears the Keys, in plain allusion to the gracious promise of his Master. 1 1 Matt. xiv. 19. LECT. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 221 The parabolic teaching of our Lord is sometimes em- bodied by the artists, who never tire of repeating the type of the " Good Shepherd " and who occasionally represent the Sower going out to sow, and the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. In this way indirect evi- dence is borne to the historic belief of the early Church, which does not appear to have differed at all from that of orthodox Christendom at the present day. If it be still said Why are we to believe as they? why are we in this enlightened nineteenth century to re- ceive as facts, what Greeks and Romans in an uncritical and credulous age accepted without inquiry, or at least without any searching investigation? the answer is two- fold. Allowing that the bulk of men in the first and second centuries were uncritical and credulous with respect to remote times, and to such tales as did not concern action or involve any alteration of conduct, we may remark that it is untrue to represent them as credulous where their worldly interests were at stake, or where any practical result was to follow upon their belief of what they heard. They are not found to have offered themselves a ready prey to impostors, or to have allowed themselves to be car- ried away by the arts of pretenders, where such weakness would have brought them into trouble. We do not find that Simon Magus or Apollonius of Tyana had many fol- lowers. When the slave Clemens gave himself out to be Posthumus Agrippa, though the wishes of most men must have been in favor of his claims, very few appear to have really believed in them.* 46 ) The Romans, and still more the Greeks, had plenty of shrewdness; and there \v:is no people less likely than they to accept on slight grounds a. religion involving such obligations as the Christian. It is important to bear in mind what conversion really meant in 10* 222 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VIII. the early times. It meant the severing of family and social tics the renunciation of worldly prospects abstinence from all gayeties and amusements perpetual exposure to insults cold looks, contemptuous gestures, abusive words, injurious suspicions, a perpetual sense of danger, a life to lead which was to "die daily." 1 "The early Christians," it has been well said, " were separate from other men. Their religion snapped asunder the ties of a common intercourse. It called them to a new life ; it gave them new sentiments, hopes, and desires, a new character ; it demanded of them such a conscientious and steady performance of duty as had hardly before been conceived of; it subjected them to privations and insults, to uncertainty and danger ; it re- quired them to prepare for torments and death. Every day of their lives they were strongly reminded of it by the duties which it enforced and the sacrifices which it cost them."( 47 ) Before accepting such a position, we may be well assured that each concert scanned narrowly the evi- dence upon which he was invited to make a change in every way so momentous. When they first heard the doc- trine of the resurrection, the Athenians "mocked." 2 Yet after a while Dionysius and others "clave to Paul and be- lieved"' 1 surely because they found the evidence of the resurrection of Christ such as could not be resisted. It must be remembered that the prospect of his own resur- rection was all that the new convert had to sustain him. " If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable," says St. Paul. 4 And the prospect of his own resurrection was bound up inseparably with the" fact of Christ's having risen. If Christ were not risen, preaching was vain, and faith was vain 5 then all who fell asleep in 1 1 Cor. xv. 31. 2 Acts xvii. 32. 3 Ibid, verse 34. 4 1 Cor. xv. 19. 5 Ibid, verse 14. LECT. VIII. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 223 Christ perished. 1 The Christian was taught to base his hope of a happy future for himself solely and entirely upon the resurrection and ascent to heaven of Jesus. Surely the evidence for these facts must have been thousands of times closely sifted by converts who could fairly demand to have the assurances on the point of eye-witnesses. Further, we must not forget that the early converts had a second ground of belief, besides and beyond their convic- tion of the honesty and trustworthiness of those who came forward to preach the Gospel, declaring themselves wit- nesses of the "mighty works" 9 which Christ had wrought, and preeminently of his resurrection. These preachers per- suaded, not merely by their evident truthfulness and sin- cerity, but by the miraculous powers which they wielded. There is good evidence that the ability to work miracles was not confined to the apostolic age. The bishops and others who pressed to see Ignatius on his way to martyr- dom, "expected that he would communicate to them some spiritual gift,"W Papias related various miracles as having happened in his own lifetime among others that a dead man had been restored to life. < 49 ) Justin Martyr declares very simply that in his day both men and women were found who possessed miraculous powers. f 505 Quadratus, the Apologist, is mentioned by a writer of the second century as exercising them.( 51 ) Irenaeus speaks of miracles as still common in Gaul when lie wrote, C 58 ) which was nearly at the close of the second century. Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Minucius Felix, authors of about the same period, are witnesses to the continuance to their day of at least one class of miracles. W Thus the existence of these powers was contemporaneous with the great spread of the Gospel; and it accounts for that speedy conversion of 1 1 Cor. xv. 18. a Mark vi. 2. 224 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. VT1L thousands upon thousands that rapid growth of the Church in all quarters which would be otherwise so astonishing. The vast number of the early converts and the possession of miraculous powers which are both asserted by the primitive writers C 54 ) have the relation of effect to cause, and lend countenance to one another. The evidence of the Catacombs, and the testimony of Pagans, confirm the truth of the representations made in the one case. Unless we hold miracles to be impossible, we cannot reasonably doubt them in the other. But the possession of miraculous powers by those who spread the Gospel abroad in the first ages, would alone and by itself prove the divinity of the Christian Religion. God would not have given supernatural aid to persons engaged in propagating a lie, nor have assisted them to palm a de- 3eit upon the world in His name. If then there be good evidence of this fact if it be plain from the ecclesiastical writers that miracles were common in the Christian Church for above two centuries we have herein an argument of an historical character, which is of no small weight and im- portance, additional to that arising from the mere confirma- tion by early uninspired writers of the Sacred Nasrative. We find in their statements with respect to these contem- porary facts, to which they are unexceptionable witnesses, a further evidence of the truth of the Religion whereof they were 1 the ministers a further proof that Christianity was not of man, but of God. And here let me notice that in judging of the value which is to be attached to the testimony of the early Chris- tians, we should constantly bear in mind that all in will, and most in fact, sealed that testimony with their blood. If civil justice acts upon a sound principle, when it assigns special weight to the depositions of those who have the LECT. VIII. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 225 prospect of immediate death before their eyes, Christians must be right to value highly the witness of the first ages. The early converts knew that they might at any time be called upon to undergo death for their religion. They preached and taught with the sword, the cross, the beasts, and the stake ever before their eyes. Most of those in eminent positions and to this class belong almost all our witnesses were martyred. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Quadratus, Justin, Irenaeus, certainly suffered death on ac- count of their religion ; and every early writer advocating Christianity, by the fact of his advocacy, braved the civil power, and rendered himself liable to a similar fate. When faith is a matter of life and death, men do not lightly take up with the first creed which happens to hit their fancy; nor do they place themselves openly in the ranks of a per- secuted sect, unless they have well weighed the claims of the religion which it professes, and convinced themselves of its being the truth. It is clear that the early converts had means of ascertaining the historic accuracy of the Christian narrative very much beyond ourselves ; they could exam- ine and cross-question the witnesses compare their sev- eral accounts inquire how their statements were met by their adversaries consult Heathen documents of the time thoroughly and completely sift the evidence. To assume that they did not do so, when the issue \vas of such vast im- portance when, in accepting the religion, they set their all upon the cast, embracing as their certain portion in this life, shame, contempt, and ignominy, the severance of fam- ily ties, exclusion from all festal gatherings, loss of friends, loss of worldly position, loss of character, and looking forward to probable participation in the crueiest sufferings the rack, the scourge, the pincing-irons, the cross, the stake, the ravening beasts of the amphitheatre to assume 226 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE 1.ECT. VIII. this, is to deny them that average common sense and instinctive regard for their own interests which the mass of mankind possess in all times and countries to look upon them as under the influence of an infatuation, such as can- not be shown to have at any time affected large bodies of civilized men. If we grant to the early converts an average amount of sense and intellect, we must accord to their witness all the weight that is due to those, who, having ample means of investigating a matter in which they are deeply concerned, have done so, and determined it in a particular way. The inquiry in which we have been engaged here termi- nates. We have found that the historical Books of the New Testament are the productions of contemporaries and eye-witnesses that two at least of those who wrote lives of Christ were his close and intimate friends, while the account of the early Church delivered in the Acts was written by a companion of the Apostles that the truth of the narrative contained in these writings is evidenced by their sober, simple, and unexaggerated tone, and by their agreement, often undesigned, with each other that it is further confirmed by the incidental allusions to it which are found in the speeches of the Apostles and in their epis- tolary correspondence with their converts that its main facts are noticed, so far as it was to be expected that they would be noticed, by profane writers, while a comparison of its secondary or incidental facts with the civil history of the times, as otherwise known to us, reveals an agreement which is at once so multitudinous and so minute as to con- stitute, in the eyes of all those who are capable of weighing historical evidence, an overwhelming argument in proof of the authenticity of the whole story that the narrative was accepted as simple truth, soon after it was published, LECT. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 227 in most parts of the civilized world, and not by the vulgar only, but by men of education and refinement, and of good worldly position that it was received and believed, at the time when the truth of every part of it could be readily tested, by many hundreds of thousands, notwithstanding the prejudices of education, and the sacrifices which its acceptance involved and finally, that the sincerity of these persons' belief was in many cases tested in the most searching of all possible' ways, by persecutions of the crudest kind, and triumphantly stood the test so that the Church counted her Martyrs by thousands. We have further seen, that there is reason to believe that not only our Lord Himself and His Apostles, but many (if not most) of the first propagators of Christianity had the power of working miracles ; and that this, and this only, will account for the remarkable facts, which none can deny, of the rapid spread of the Gospel and the vast numbers of the early converts. All this together and it must be remembered that the evidence is cumulative constitutes a body of proof such as is seldom producible with respect to any events belonging to remote times; and establishes beyond all reasonable doubt the truth of the Christian Story. In no single respect if we except the fact that it is miracu- lous has that story a mythic character. Tt is a single story, told without variation, C 5 -") whereas myths are fluc- tuating and multiform; it is blended inextricably with the civil history of the times, which it every where represents with extraordinary accuracy, whereas myths distort or supersede civil history; it is full of prosaic detail, which myths studiously eschew; it abounds with practical instruc- tion of the plainest and simplest kind, whereas myths teach by allegory. Even in its miraculous element, it stands to some extent in contrast with all known mythologies where the marvellous lias ever a predominant character of 228 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. LECT. VIIL grotesqueness, which is entirely absent from the New Testament miracles. C 56 ) Simple earnestness, fidelity, pains- taking accuracy, pure love of truth, are the most patent characteristics of the Xew Testament writers, who e\ i- dently deal with facts, not with fancies, and are employed in relating a history, not in developing an idea. They write " that we may know the certainty of those things " ' L which. were "most surely believed " 2 in their day. They bear record of what they have seen, 3 and assure us that their "testimony is true." 4 "That which they have heard, which they have seen with their eyes, which they have looked upon, which their hands have handled of the Word of Life, that was manifested unto them that which they have seen and heard " declare they unto us. 5 And such as were not eye-witnesses, deliver only " that which they also received." 6 I know not how stronger words could have been used to preclude the notion of that plastic growing myth which Strauss conceives Christianity to have been in Apostolic times, and to convince us of its Historic char- acter. And the declarations of the Sacred writers are con- firmed by modem research. In spite of all the efforts of an "audacious criticism" as ignorant as bold the truth of the Sacred Narrative stands firm, the stronger for the shocks that it has resisted; "the boundless store of truth and lite which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment of humanity" is not (as Rationalism boasts) "dissipated." ( 57 > God is not " divested of his grace, or man of his dignity " nor is the " tie between heaven and earth broken." The " foundation of God " the " Everlasting Gospel " 7 still " standeth sure" 8 and every effort that is made to overthrow, does but more firmly establish it. 1 Luke i. 4. 2 Ibid, verse 1. 3 John xix. 35. 4 Ibid. xxi. 24. s 1 John i. 1-3. " 1 Cor. xv. 3. 7 Rev. xiv. 6. 8 2 Tim. ii. 19. NOTES NOTES. LECTURE I. Note I., p. 26. Herodotus, whose easy faith would naturally lead him to accept the Greek myths without difficulty, still makes a marked distinction between Mythology and History Proper. See b. hi. ch. 122, where the dominion of the sea of Polycrates is spoken of as something dif- ferent in kind from that of the mythical Minos ; and compare a some- what similar distinction between the mythic and the historical in b. i. ch. 5, and again in b. ii. ch. 44, ad fin. A difference of the same kind seems to have been made by the Egyptian and Babylonian writers. See Lecture II., page 64. Note II., p. 26. This distinction was, I believe, first taken by George in his work Mi/thus und Sage ; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Enticicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhdltnisses zum christlichen Glauben. It is adopted by Strauss, (Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 10 ; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman's Translation,) who thus distinguishes the two: My thus is the crea- tion of a fact out of an idea ; legend the seeing of an idea in a fact, or arising out of it." The myth is therefore pure and absolute imagi- nation ; the legend has a basis of fact, but amplifies, abridges, or modi- fies that basis at its pleasure. De Wette thus expresses the difference : "The myth is an idea in a vestment of facts; the legend contains facts pervaded and transformed by ideas." {Einleitung in das alt. Test. $ 136, d.) Compare Professor Powell's Third Series of Essays, Essay iii. p. 340. "A myth is a doctrine expressed in a narrative form ; an ubstract moral or spiritual truth dramatized in action and personifica- tion, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the parable, but in the moral," -32 NOTES. Lect. I. Note III., p. 26. "The mission of the ancient prophets," says Gibbon, "of Moses and of Jesus, had been confirmed by many splendid prodigies ; and Mahomet was repeatedly urged by the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina to produce a similar evidence of his divine legation ; to call down from heaven the angel or the volume of his revelation, to create a garden in the desert, or to kindle a conflagration in the unbelieving city. As often as he is pressed by the demands of the Koreish, he involves himself in the obscure boast of vision and proph- ecy, appeals to the internal proofs of his doctrine, and shields him- self behind the Providence of God, who refuses those signs and wonders that would depreciate the merit of faith, and aggravate the guilt of infidelity. But the modest or angry tone of his apologias betrays his weakness and vexation; and these passages of scandal es- tablish beyond suspicion the integrity of the Koran. The votaries of Mahomet are more assured than himself of his miraculous gifts, and their confidence and credulity increase as they are further removed from the time and place of his spiritual exploits." Decline and Fall, >ol. v. ch. 1. p. 210. Compare with this acknowledgment on the part of an enemy of Christianity, the similar statements of its defenders. (Butler, Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. ; Paley, Evidences, Part II. ch. ix. 3 ; White, Hampton Lectures, Sermon vi. p. 254 ; Forster, Mahome- tanism Unveiled, vol. i. p. 32 ; and Dr. Macbride, Mohammedan Religion Explained, pp. 28-9.) Ockley, a very unprejudiced writer, observes, that " when the impostor was called upon, as he often was, to work miracles in proof of his divine mission, he excused himself by various pretences, and appealed to the Koran as a standing miracle." (Life of Mohammed, pp. 65-6, Bonn's Ed.) He also remarks, that there was no proof of his visions or intercourse with angels beyond his own assertions ; and that, on the occasion of the pretended night-journey to heaven, Ayesha testified that he did not leave his bed. (Ibid. p. 20, note.) Note IV., p. 26. See Butler's Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. ; Paley's Evidences, Part III. ch. viii. ; and Itev. 11. Michell's Bampton Lectures, Lecture iv. pp. 121129. Dr. Stanley tersely expresses the contrast between the Lect. I. NOTES. I?33 Christian and other religions in this respect, when he says of Chris- tianity, that it " alone, of all religions, claims to be founded not on fancy or feeling, but on Fact and Truth." (Sinai and Palestine, ch. ii. p. 155.) Note V., p.' 27. Butler's Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. p. 311. Note VI., p. 28. See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol. i. Introduction, p. 2. Note VII., p. 28. M. de Pouilly's Dissertation sur Vincertitude et Vhistoire des guatre premiers sitcles de Rome, which was published in the ninth volume of the Memoires de V Acadimie des Itiscriptions, constitutes an era in the study of ancient history. Earlier scholars had doubted this or that narrative of an ancient author ; but M. de Pouilly seems to have been the first to "lay down with clearness and accuracy the princi- ples" by which the historic value of an author's accounts of early times is to be tested. His " Dissertation " was read in December, 1722 ; and a second Memoir on the same subject was furnished by him to the Mimoires soon afterwards, and forms a part of the same volume. (See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry, vol. i. ch. i. p. 5, note 11.) M. de Beaufort, who has generally been regarded as the founder of the modern Historical Criticism, did not publish his " Dissertation sur 7 incertitude des cing premiers sitcles de Vhistoire Romaine " till six- teen years after Pouilly, as this work first appeared at Utrecht in 1738. His merits are recognized to some extent by Niebuhr, (Hist, of Rome, vol. i. pref. of 1826, p. vii. E. T. ; and Lectures on lioman History, vol. i. p. 148, E. T.) Note VIII., p. 28. Nicbuhr's views are most fully developed in his " Roman History," (first published in 1811-1812, and afterwards reprinted with large additions and alterations in 1827-1832,) and in his Lectures on the 20* 231 NOTES. LECT. I. History of Rome, delivered at Bonn, and published in 184G. They also appear in many of his Kleine Schriften, and in his Lectures on Ancient History, delivered at Bonn in 1826, and again in 1829-1830, which were published after his decease by his son. Most of these works have received an Engljsh dress, and are well known to stu- dents. Note IX., p. 28. So early as 1817, Karl Otfried Muller, in a little tract, called JEgi- netica, gave promise of excellence as an historical critic. His Orcho- memts rind die Minyer soon followed, and established his reputation. He is perhaps best known in England by his Dorians, (published in 1824, and translated into English by Mr. H. Tufnell and Sir G. C. Lewis in 1830,) a work of great value, but not free from minor blemishes. (See Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 530, &c.) Note X., p. 28. Bockh is best known in England by his book on the Public Econ- omy of Athens, (StaatshaushaUung der Athener,) published in Berlin in the year 1817, and translated into English in 1828, (London, Mur- ray.) But his great work is the Corpus Inscriptionum Grcecarum, in four large folio volumes, published at Berlin between 1825 and 1832. In this he shows himself an historical critic of the first order. Note XI., p. 28. I refer especially to Bishop Thirlwall, Mr. Grote, Colonel Mure, Mr. Merivale, and Sir G. C. Lewis. The name of Dr. Arnold should also be mentioned as that of one to whom historical criticism in Eng- land owes much. Note XII. p. 29. See Colonel Mure's Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote's History of Greece, (London, Longman, 1851 ;) and an excellent article in the Edinburgh Review for July, i856, (No. 211, Art. I.,) in which the extreme conclusions of Sir G. C. Lewis on the subject of early Roman History are ably combated. Lect. I. NOTES. 235 Note XHL, p. 30. The subjoined extract from the correspondence of Niebuhr has been already given in the work of my immediate predecessor in the office of Bampton Lecturer, (see the notes to Mr. Mansel's Lectures, pp. 321-2 ;) but its importance is so great, that I cannot forbear to cite it here. " In my opinion," wrote Niebuhr in the year 1818, "he is not a Protestant Christian who does not receive the histor- ical facts of Christ's early life, in their literal acceptation, with all their miracles, as equally authentic with any event recorded in his- tory, and whose belief in them is not as firm and tranquil as his belief in the latter ; who has not the most absolute faith in the arti- cles of the Apostles' Creed, taken in their grammatical sense ; who does not consider every doctrine and every precept of the New Tes- tament as undoubted divine revelation, in the sense of the Christians of the first century, who knew nothing of a Theopneustia. More- over, a Christianity after the fashion of the modern philosophers and pantheists, without a personal God, without immortality, without human individuality, without historical faith, is no Christianity at all to me ; though it may be a very intellectual, very ingenious phi- losophy. I have often said that I do not know what to do with a metaphysical God, and that I will have none but the God of the Bible, who is heart to heart with us." l The general orthodoxy of Niebuhr with respect to the Old Testament History is plain from his Lectures on Ancient Ilistonj, (vol. i. p. 20, 37, 128, 132, &c. ;) though, as will be noticed hereafter, he is not always quite consist- ent on the point. See below, Notes XXXIV. and XXXVI. Note XIV., p. 31. Eichhorn, in his examination of the Wolfenbtlttcl Fragments, (Re- cension der nbrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke des WolfenbUttlischen Frag- mentisten, in Eichhorn's AUgemeiner Bibliothek for 1787, vol. i. parts i. and ii.,) was, I believe, the first to draw this comparison. "Divine interpositions," he argued, " must be alike admitted, or alike denied, in the primitive histories of all people. It was the practice of all ' Lift and Lrttrrs of B. G. JViebuhr, vol. ii. p. 123. Compare Letter cexxxi. vol. ii. pp. 103-5, and Letter ccexxiz. vol. ii. p. 315. 230 NOTES. LECT. 1, nations, of the Grecians as well as the Orientals, to refer every unex< pected or inexplicable occurrence immediately to the Deity. The sages of antiquity lived in continual communion with superior intelligences. Whilst these representations were commonly understood, in reference to the Hebrew legends, verbally and literally, it had been customary to explain similar representations in the Pagan histories by presupposing either deception and gross falsehood, or the misinterpretation and cor- ruption of tradition. But justice evidently required that Hebrew and Pagan history should be treated in the same way." See the summary of Eichhorn's views and reasonings in Strauss' s Leben Jesic, 6, (vol. i. pp. 15-18, E. T.) The views thus broached were further carried out by Gabler, Schelling, and Bauer. The last-named author re- marked, that "the earliest records of all nations were mythical : why should the writings of the Hebrews form a solitary exception ? whereas in point of fact a cursory glance at their sacred books proved that they also contain mythical elements." See his Hebraische Mytho- logie des alien und neuen Testaments, published in 1820. Note XV., p. 31. See the works above cited, and compare an article in Bertholdt's Kritische Journal, vol. v. $ 235. See also Theodore Parker's De Wette, vol. ii. p. 198. Note XVI. , p. 31. So Vatke (Religion des Alien Testamentes, 23, p. 289 et seqq.) and De Wette, Archaologie, $ 30-34. Baron Bunsen takes the same view. See below, Notes XXXIX. and XLIV. Note XVII., p. 31. Vatke (1. s. c.) regards the " significant names " of Saul, David, and Solomon, as proof of the legendary character which attaches to the Books of Samuel. Von Bohlen argues similarly with respect to the ancestors of Abraham. (Alte Indien, p. 155.) Note XVIII., p. 31. Semler, towards the close of the last century, pronounced the his- tories of Samson and Esther to be myths; Eichhorn, early in the Lect. I. NOTES. 237 present, assigned the same character to the Mosaic accounts of the Creation and the Fall. (See Strauss's Introduction; Leben Jesu, vol. u pp. 21 and 24, E. T.) Note XIX. p. 32. " Tradition," says De Wette, " is uncritical and partial ; its tendency is not historical, but rather patriotic and poetical. And since the patri- otic sentiment is gratified by all that natters national pride, the more splendid, the more honorable, the more wonderful the narrative, the more acceptable it is ; and where tradition has left any blanks, imagina- tion at once steps in and Jills them up. And since," he continues, " a great part of the historical books of the Old Testament bears this stamp, it has hitherto been believed possible," &c. (Kritik der I&rael- itischen Geschichte, Einleitung, 10.) Compare Vater's Abhandlung ilber Moses nnd die Verfasser des Pentateuchs in the third volume of his Comment, ilber den Pentateuch, 660. Note XX., p. 32. This was the aim of the School, called technically Rationalists, in Germany, of which Eichhorn and Paulus were the chief leaders. See Eichhorn's Eink-itung in das Alte Testament, and Paulus's Commentar ilber das neuc Testament, and also his Ijeben Jesu, in which his views are more fully developed. More recently Ewald, in his Geschichte Volkes Israels, has composed on the same principle a complete history of the Jewish people. Note XXI., p. 32. See Strauss, Ijsben Jesu, $ 8, vol. i. p. 29, E. T. This same view was taken by De Wette, Krug, Gabler, Horst, and others. Note XXII., p. 32. An anonymous writer in Horfholdt's Journal (vol. v. 23.5) objects to the rationalistic method of Paulus, that it " evaporates all sacred- ness and divinity from the Scriptures ; " while the mythical view, of which he is an advocate, " leaves the substance of the narrative unas- sailcd," and ' accepts the whole, not indeed as true history, but as a sacred legend." Strauss evidently apnroves of this reasoning. (I^ben Jesu, 8, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.) 238 notes. Lect. L Note XXITL, p. 32. Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 4. The weakness of this argument from authority is indeed allowed by Strauss himself, who admits that Origcn "does not speak out freely," (p. 9,) and that "his rule was to retain the literal together with the allegorical sense," (p. 6) a rule which he only broke in "a few instances," (p. 12.) He also allows that "after Origen, that kind of allegory only which left the historical sense unimpaired was retained in the Church ; and where, subse- quently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of, this refers merely to a trope or simile," (p. 9, note 14.) It is doubtful whether Origen himself ever really gave up the literal and historical sense. That the heretics who sheltered themselves under his name (Origenists) did so is certain ; but they are accused of interpolating his writings. (See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, b. i. ch. hi., note 1 ad fin. vol. i. p. 288, E. T.) Since the above was in type, I have observed that Professor Powell, relying (as it would seem) on the bold assertions of the infidel "Wool- ston, 1 taxes not Origen only, but the Fathers generally, with an aban- donment of the historical sense of Scripture. " The idea," he says, " of the mythic origin of the Gospel narrative had confessedly been applied by some writers, as Rosenmilller and Anton,. to certain portions of the Gospels ; and so limited, was acknoicledged to possess the sanction of the Fathers." {Third Scries of Essays, Essay iii. p. 338.) But the opposite view of Strauss is far more consonant with the facts. The whole subject was elaborately, and, I believe, honestly discussed in one of the celebrated Tracts for the Times, (Tract 89, 3 ; vol. vi. pp. 38-70 ;) and the Fathers generally were completely exonerated from the false charge so commonly preferred against them. Note XXIV., p. 32. The more recent writers of the mythical School, as De Wette, Strauss, and Theodore Parker, assume that the mythological char- acter of great part of the Old Testament history is fully established. (See De "Wette's Einleitung in das Alt. Test. 136; Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 9, et seqq. ; Theodore Parker's Enlarged Transla- 1 Siz Discourses on the Miracles of tur Saviour, publisher! in 1727. J728. and 1729. LECT. I. NOTES. 289 tion of De "Wette, vol. ii., pp. 23-7, et passim.) German orthodox writers bear striking witness to the effect which the repeated attacks on the historical character of the Old Testament narrative have had upon the popular belief in their country. " If," says Keil, " the scientific theology of the Evangelical Church is anxious to strengthen its foun- dations again, it must force rationalism away from the Old Testament, where till the present time it has planted its foot so firmly, that many an acute theologian has doubted whether it is possible to rescue again the fides hutnana et divina of the historical writings of the ancient covenant." (Commentar liber das Bitch Josua, Vorwort, p. ii. " Will daher die wissenschaftliche Theologie der evangelischen Kirche sich wieder fest grtlnden, so muss sie den llationalismus aus dem Alten Testamente verdritngen, in welchem derselbe bis jetzt so festen Fuss gefasst hat, dass nicht wenige tQchtige Theologen daran verzweifeln, die fides humana et divina der historischen Schriften des altes Bundes noch retten zu konnen.") And he complains that the Rationalistic "mode of treating the Old Testament History has been very disadvan- tageous to the believing theological science, inasmuch as it can now find no objective ground or statui- point free from uncertainty ; " (dass sie kcinen objectiv sichern Grund und Standpunkt gewinnen kann. Ibid. 1. c.) Note XXV., p. 32. Strauss evidently feels this difficulty, {Jjcben Jesu, Einleitung, 13 ; vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) He endeavors to meet it by suggesting that "the sun does not shine on all parts of the earth at once. There was en- lightenment in Italy and Greece about the time of the establishment of Christianity, but none in the remote Judaea, where the real nature of history had never even been rightly apprehended." In this there is, no doubt, some truth ; but Strauss forgets that, though Judaea was the scene of the Gospel story, the Evangelical writings were composed chiefly in Greece and Italy ; and he omits to notice, that being written in (J reek the literary language of the time they addressed them- selves to the enlightened circles of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Home itself, far more than to the rude provincials of Palestine. The miracles, too, by which Christianity was spread, were not alone those which occurred in Judaea ; many had been wrought in Home and in the various cities of Greece ; where they challenged the attention of the most civilized and enlightened classes. In Judaea itself, if the Jews 240 NOTES. Lect. I. generally were not " enlightened," in the modern sense of the word, the Roman Governors, and their courts, were. And among the Jews, it must be remembered, the sect which had most power was that of the Sadducees sceptics and materialists. Note XXVI., p. 32. The subjoined passage from Strauss seems to show something of this feeling : " The results of the inquiry which we have now brought to a close, have apparently annihilated the greatest and most valuable part of that which the Christian has been wont to believe concerning his Saviour Jesus, have uprooted all the animating motives which he has gathered from his faith, and withered all his consolations. The boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment of humanity, seems irretrievably dissipated ; the most sub- lime levelled with the dust, God divested of his grace, man of his dig- nity, and the tie between Heaven and Earth broken. Piety turns axcay icith horror from so fearful an act of desecration, and, strong in the im- pregnable self-evidence of its faith, pronounces that, let an audacious criticism attempt what it will, all which the Scriptures declare and the Church believes of Christ, will still subsist as eternal truth, nor needs one iota of it to be renounced." (Leben Jesu, 144, vol. ii;. p. 396, E. T.) Note XXVIL, p. 33. See Bauer's Hebraische Mythohgie des alten und neuen Testaments, Erstc Theil, Einleitung, 3, with Gabler's criticism of it in his Journal filr auserlesene theolog. Literatur, ii. 1, 58. Compare Strauss, Leben Jesu, { 33-43. Note XXVIIL, p. 33. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das neue Testament, 422 ; Theile, Zur Bio- graphie Jesu, 23. Note XXIX., p. 33. ' See the account which Strauss gives of the " Development of the Mythical point of view," in his Leben Jesu, 9-11. "The mythus," he observes, " when once admitted into the New Testament, was long detained at the threshold, namely, the history of the infancy of Jesus, every farther advance being contested. Ammon, the anonymous E. F. Lect. I. notes. 241 in Henke's Magazine, and others, maintained a marked distinction be- tween the historical worth of the narratives of the public life and those of the infancy of Jesus. . . . Soon, however, some of the theologians who had conceded the commencement of the history to the province of tnythus, perceived that the conclusion, the history of the ascen- sion, must likewise be regarded as mythical. Thus the two extrem ities were cut off by the prunmg-knife of criticism," ( 11, pp. 44-5.) Finally the essential body of the history was assailed, and the Gos- pels especially the first three were "found to contain a contin- ually increasing number of mythi and mythical embellishments." (} 9, p. 86.) Note XXX., p. 33. febenJesu, 151 ; vol. iii. p. 437, E. T. Note XXXI., p. 34. Ibid. pp. 437-8. Note XXXII., p. 34. Eth. Nic. vi. 7, 4 : For it is absurd that any one should regard the science of politics, or prudence, as the most important, unless man is the noblest being in the universe." Note XXXIII., p. 34. See above, Note XIII. Note XXXIV., p. 35. Vortrttgc fiber altr Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 158-9. " Dass das Much Esther nicht ah ein liistorisclws zu betrachten sei, davon bin ich (iber- zeugt, und ich stehe nicht im Mindesten an dies hiermit offentlich nuszusprechen ; Vielc sind derselben Meinung. Schon die Kirchen- vatcr haben sic damn geplagt, und der heilige Hieronymus, wie or klar andeutet, in der grossten Verlogenheit befunden, wenn er es als his- torisch betrachten wollte. Gegenwftrtig wird Niemand die Geschichte in Buohe Judith fur historisch ansehen, und wedcr Ori^enes nodi Hieronymus haben dies gethan ; ebrit so rerhtllt es sich mit dem liuche Lither ; es ist ein (Jedicht fiber diese verh/tllnusc." 242 NOTES. Lect. L Note XXXV., p. 35. On the weight of the external testimonies to the authenticity of the Book of Esther, see Lecture V., Note LXIX. Note XXXVI., p. 36. There is reason to suspect that Niebuhr would have surrendered the Book of Daniel, as well as the Book of Esther, to the assailants of Scripture, since he nowhere refers to it as an historical document in his Lectures. Such reference would have been natural in several places. Note XXXVII. , p. 37. See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i., pp. 190- 191, E. T. Note XXXVIII. , p. 37. See the same author's Egypt, vol. i., p. 182, E. T. Ibid. p. 173. Ibid. p. 174. Ibid. p. 173. Ibid. p. 181. Ibid. p\ 180. Note XXXIX., p. 37. Note XL., p. 37. Note XLL, p. 37. Note XLIL, p. 37. Note XLIIL, p. 37. Note XLIV. p. 38. Ibid. p. 179 ; and compare p. 170. Note XLV., p. 38. German scepticism commenced with the school called the Xaturalists, who undertook to resolve all the Scripture miracles into natural occur- rences. The mythical School, which soon followed, very effectually Lect. I. NOTES. 243 demolished the natural theory, and clearly demonstrated its " unnat- uralness." (See Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 9 and $ 12.) The mythical writers themselves oppose one another. Strauss frequently condemns the explanations of Gabler and Weisse ; and Theodore Parker often argues against De "SVette. That the Scripture History is a collection of myths, all of them are agreed ; when and how the myths grew up, at what time they took a written form, when they came into their present shape, what amount of fact they have as their basis, on these and all similar points, it is difficult to find two of them who hold the same opinion. (See below, Lecture II., Note XXXVII.) Note XL VI., p. 39. " Historical evidence," says Sir G. C. Lewis, like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Unless these wit- nesses had personal and immediate perception of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what they undertake to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all ori- ginal witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary ; though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless therefore an historical account can be traced, by prob- able proof, to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility fails." (Credibility of Early Roman History, Intro- duction, vol. i. p. 16.) Allowing for a little rhetorical overstating of the case, this is a just estimate of the primary value of the testimony borne by contemporaries and eye-witnesses. Note XL VII., p. 39. It is evident that an historian can rarely have witnessed one half the events which he puts on record. Even writers of commentaries, like Ca?sar and Xenophon, record many facts which they had not seen, and which they knew only by information from others. Ordinary histo- rians, who have not had the advantage of playing the chief part in the events which they relate, are still more indebted to inquiry. Hence History seems to have received its name, (iirropiu.) When the inquiry appears to have been carefully conducted, and the judgment of the writer seems sound, we give very nearly as full credence to his state- 244 NOTES. Lect. I. merits founded upon inquiry, as to those of an eye-witness. We trust Thucydides almost as implicitly as Xenophon, and Tacitus almost as entirely as Csesar. Sir G. C. Lewis allows that accounts . . . derived, directly or indirectly, from the reports of original witnesses . . . may be considered as presumptively entitled to credit." (Credibility, &c, ch. ii. { 1 ; vol. i. p. 19. Compare p. x 25, and pp. 81-2 ; and see also his Met/tods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, ch. vii. 2 ; vol. i. pp. 181-5.) Note XL VIII., p. 40. The tendency of the modern Historical Criticism has been to dimin- ish greatly the value formerly attached to this sort of evidence. Mr. Grote in some places seems to deny it all weight. (History of Greece, vol. i. pp. 572-577 .) Practically, however, as Col. Mure has shown, (Remarks on Tiro Appendices, &c, pp. 3-6,) he admits it as sufficiently establishing a number of very important facts. Sir G. C. Lewis re- gards oral tradition as a tolerably safe guide for the general outline of a nation's history *' for a period reaching back nearly 150 years." (Credibility, &c, ch. iv. 2 ; vol. i. p. 100.) Special circumstances might, he thinks, give to an event a still longer hold on the popular memory. Among such special circumstances he notices " commemo- rative festivals, and other periodical observances," as in certain cases serving to perpetuate a true tradition of a national event, (ibid. p. 101.) Note XLIX., p. 40. The modern historical critics have not laid much stress on this head of evidence in their discussions of the abstract principles of their science ; but practically they often show their sense of its importance. Thus Niebuhr urges against the theory of the Etruscans being colonists from Lydia, the fact that it had no Lydian tradition to rest upon. (History of Rome, vol. i. p. 109, E. T.) Mr. Kenrick and others regard it as decisive of the question, whether the Phoenicians migrated from the Persian Gulf, that there was a double tradition in its favor, (Kenrick's Phoenicia, ch. iii. p. 46, et seqq.,) both the Phoenicians them- selves and the inhabitants of the islands lying in the Gulf agreeing as to the fact of the emigration. The ground of the high value of such evidence lies in the extreme improbability of an accidental harmony, and in the impossibility of collusion. LECT. I. NOTES. 245 Note L., p. 41. Ezra i. 1 ; v. 17 ; vi. 1-12. Esther ii. 23 ; iii. 14 ; vi. 1. Note LI., p. 42. Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. p. 329. Note LIL, p. 42. Let it be ten to one that a certain fact is true upon the testimony of one witness, and likewise ten to one that the same fact is true upon the evidence of another, then it is not twenty to one that the fact is true on the evidence of both, but 130 to one. And the evidence to the same point of a third independent witness of equal credibility with the others would raise the probability to 1330 to one. Note LIII., p. 42. See Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13, (vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) For a com- plete refutation of this view "the shallowest and crudest of all the assumptions of unbelief " ' see the Bampton Lectures of my prede- cessor, Lecture VI. pp. 170-181, [Am. Ed.] Note LIV., p. 43. See Bauer's llebraische Mythologie des Alien und Xeuen Testaments, quoted by Strauss, Leben Jesu, 8, (vol. i. p. 25, E. T.) Note LV., p. 44. Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I., ch. 3, $ 4. "Those things which Na- ture is said to do, are by Divine art performed, using nature as an instrument ; nor is there any such art or knowledge divine in nature herself working, but only in the Guide of Nature's work. . . . Unto us there is one only guide of all agents natural, and He both the Creator and Worker of all in all, alone to be blessed, adored, and honored by all forever." Compare Dean Trench, Notes mi the Miracles of or.ir Lord, ch. ii. pp. 9-10. 1 Mausel'a Ikimplon Iscturts, Lecture VI. p. 177, [Am. VA 21* 24G NOTES. LECT. I. Note LVI., p. 45. Plato's Pha?do, \ 46-7. "Now when I once heard a pcr-on read- ing from a book, as he said, of Anaxagoras, and affirming that there is a mind which disposes all things, and is the cause of all, I was delighted with this view of the cause of things ; and it commended itself to my judgment, &c. Indeed, my expectations were raised to the highest pitch ; and having with great pains obtained the book, I im- proved the very first opportunity to read it, that I might know as soon as possible the best and the worst. But my wonderful expectations, () my friend, met with a woful disappointment ; for as I read on I saw that the man made no mention of this mind, even when he was assign- ing certain causes for the disposition of tilings, but assigned as causes air, and ether, and water, and many other absurd things." The " Ves- tiges of Creation," and other works of the same stamp, are the modern counterparts of these Anaxagorean treatises. Note LVII., p. 46. On the latter subject see Mr. J. H. Newman's Essay prefixed to a portion of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, and also published in a separate form, (Oxford, Parker, 1843 ;) and compare the views of Dod- well, (Dissertat. in Irerueum, ii. 28, et seqq.,) Burton, (Ecclesiastical His- tory of the First Three Centuries, vol. ii. pp. .5, 230-3, &c.,) and Kaye (Tertullian, p. 104; Justin Martyr, p. 121.) On the supernatural ele- ment in Heathenism, see Mr. Newman's Arians, v eh. i. 3, pp. 87- 91 ;) and compare Trench, Notes on the Miracle*, ch. iii. pp. 21-3 ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 164 ; Hue's Vo r jje dans la Tartar ie, vol. i. pp. 295-G ; and Havernick, Handbuch de> distorisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 23, p. 244, . T Lect. II. NOTES. 247 LECTURE II. Note I., p. 51. See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knoxcledye of Holy Scriptures, ch.ii. 1 ; vol. i pp. 51-6, sixth edition; Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, Lecture I ; Havemick, Handbuch der Historisch-kritis- chen Einleituny in das Alte Testament, vol. i. ch. ii. \ 108 ; Stuart's Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 3, p. 42, &c. This fact is not denied by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. (See De Wette's Einleituny in das Alte Testament, 163 and 164, pp. 203-5.) Note II., p. 51. The history of the controversy concerning the authorship of the Iliad will illustrate what is stated in the text. It cannot but be allowed that arguments of very considerable weight have been adduced by Wolf and others in disproof of the Homeric authorship. Yet the opposite be- lief maintains its ground in spite of them, and is regarded by the latest Critic as fully and finally established. (See Gladstone's Homer and the Homeric Aye, vol. i. pp. 3, 4.) The reason is, that the opposing argu- ments, though strong, are pronounced on the whole not strong enough to overcome the force of a unanimous tradition. Note III., p. 51. For instance, De Wette repeats the old objection of Spinoza, that the author of the Pentateuch cannot be Moses, since he uses the expression * beyond Jordan " as a dweller in Palestine would, whereas Moses never entered Palestine. {Einleituny, &c, \ 147, a 4.) Hut all toler- abb Hebraists are aware that the term 1??2 is ambiguous, and may mean on either side of a river. Huxtorf translates it, "rw, ultra, trans." (lexicon lhbraicum et Chaldaicum, p. 527, ad voc. "123? ) So Gesenius and others. Even De Wette admits in a note that the expression has the two senses ; but the objection maintains its place in his text notwithstanding. De Wette's translator and commentator, Mr. Theodore Parker, re- peats the objection, and amplifies it. He remarks, that in the Penta- NOTES. LECT. II. teuch the expression " beyond Jordan " meanr or. the east side of that river," while "this side Jordan" means "to the west of that river." (Vol. ii. p. 41.) Apparently he is not aware that in the original it is one and the same expression (~C52) which has been rendered in the two different ways. Note IV., p. 51. Examples of interpolations, or insertions into the text by another hand, are, I think, the following: Gen. xxxvi. 31-9; Exod. xvi. 35-6, and perhaps Deut. iii. 14.) (See Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 342, pp. 345-6, and p. 349.) The first of these cannot have Deen, and the others probably were not, written by Moses. They are supplementary notes of a similar character to the supplementary chap- ter of Deuteronomy, (ch. xxxiv.,) in which every commentator recog- nizes an addition to the original document. (Graves, vol. i. pp. 349, 350 ; Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 134, sub fin. vol. i. p. 549; Home's Introduction, &c, vol. i. p. 62 ; &c.) The other passages, which have been regarded as interpolations, such as Gen. xiii. 8, xxii. 14; Deut. ii. 10-12, 20-23, iii. 9, 11, &c, may (I think) have all been written by Moses. Havernick (1. s. c.) maintains, that even the passages mentioned in the last paragraph are from the pen of the Lawgiver, and holds that the Pentateuch is alto- gether " free from interpolation " the last chapter of Deuteronomy alone being from another hand, and constituting an Appendix to the Pentateuch, or even an Introduction to Joshua. He seems to think that if interpolation be once admitted, all is rendered uncertain. " From interpolation to revision," he says, "is so short a step, espe- cially if we conceive of the latter according to the sense and spirit of the East, that we should find it impossible to oppose any barrier to the latter supposition, if the former could be proved." But it is our busi- ness to be guided not by the exigencies of controversy, but by the demands of Reason and Truth. It would be strange if in a book as old as the Pentateuch there were not some interpolations. And all reasonable men will readily see that a few interpolations, whether made by authority, or glosses which have crept in from the margin, do not in the slightest degree affect the genuineness of the work as a whole. (See Home's Introduction, vol. i. ch. ii. p. 62; Graves's Lectures, Ap- pendix, 1, p. 346, and pp. 355-361 ; RosenmQller's Prolegomena, Lect. II. notes. 249 p. 36; Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 434, &c. ; Jahn's Einleitung unci Beitrtige zur Vertheid. der Aechtheit des Pentateuchs, p. 60 ; and Fritzsche's Prufung der Grilnde, &c, p. 135.) Note V., p. 51. De Wette, Einleitung, 145 ; pp. 168, 16-9. Note VI., p. 51. Ibid. 163, p. 204. " Against the authorship by Moses the entire analogy of the language and literary history of the Hebrews bears wit- ness. ... It is folly to suppose that one man could have created in advance the epic-historical, the rhetorical, and the poetical styles in their fullest compass, and also these three departments of Hebrew liter- ature in their contents and spirit, and have left nothing but imitation to all succeeding writers." Note VII., p. 51. Hartmann, Historisch-kritische Forschungen ilber d. Bildung, &c. des Pentateuchs, p. 545, et alibi. Norton, Genuineness of the Gos]iels, vol. ii. p. 444, second edition. The objection is as old as Spinoza. (See his Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, eh. viii. p. 154.) Note VIII., p. 51. De Wette, Einleitung, { 144, p. 167. Note IX., p. 52. Hartmann, 1. s. c. So Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, eh. viii. pp. 154-5. Note X., p. 52. I*ben Jesu, Einleitung, 13, vol. i. p. 60, E. T. The genuineness of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which contains so many refer- ences to miracles, 1 is specially acknowledged, 140; vol. vii. p. 367, E. T. 1 See especially ch. xii. verses 9, 10, and 28-30, ch. xiv. 2, 5, 6, 13, Ac, and cli. xv. 3. 250 NOTES. Lect. II. Note XI., p. 52. Strauss allows, though with evident reluctance, that the Acts are, or at least may be, the work of St. Luke {Leben Jesu, 13, vol. i. p. 60, E. T.) He regards it as "not a little remarkable, that the author makes no distinct allusion to his connection with the most distin- guished of the Apostles." It is certainly very remarkable how com- pletely St. Luke keeps himself, and his own actions, in the back- ground, while engaged in recording the history of events in which he himself took part. But this reticence is a feature of that humility which characterizes the Sacred Writers generally. Note XII., p. 52. It was the existence of considerable remains of Greek literature, ear- lier in date than the latter half of the sixth century B. C and an exact acquaintance with it, which enabled Bentley so thoroughly to establish the spuriousness of the alleged Epistles of Phalaris. In the Homeric controversy, on the other hand, the want of any contemporary litera- ture has rendered the argument, that a single man in such early times could not possibly have composed both the Iliad and the Odyssey, so weak and inconclusive that the opposite opinion still maintains its ground, and on the whole seems tending to become the estabbshed one. (See above, Note II.) Note XHL, p. 52. The only remains of ancient literature which are even supposed to reach as high as the age of Moses, are certain Hieratic Papyri found in Egypt, belonging to the nineteenth or even to earlier dynasties. Two of these have been translated by the Vicomte de Rouge, 1 and several others by the Rev. J. D. Heath. 2 But it is very doubtful whether these translations give much real insight into the originals. As Mr. Goodwin observes, {Cambridge Essays, 1858, p. 229,) "Egyptian phi- lology is yet in its infancy. Champollion got little farther than the accidence of the language ; and since his time not much has been done l See the Rerue Jlrcheolosrique for May 1852. anil the Rtvut Contcmporaine for 185& * The Exoiiuj Papyri, London, 1835. LECT. II. NOTES. 2.">1 in the investigation of the syntax. . . . With an incomplete knowledge of the syntax, and a slender vocabulary, translation becomes guesswork, and the misconception of a single word or phrase may completely con- found the sense." Hence Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Heath often differ as to the entire subject and bearing of a document. (See Mr. Goodwin's Essay, pp. 249, 259, 261, &c.) Note XIV., p. 53. The antiquity of the diction of the Pentateuch has been denied by some critics, 1 among others by Gesenius. (See his Geschichte der llebrdisehen Sprache unci Sc/irift, 8.) But Jahn seems to have estab- lished the point beyond any real controversy. (See Jahn's contribu- tions to Bengel'a Archiv., vol. ii. p. 578, et seqq. ; vol. iii. p. 168, et seqq. Compare Fritzsche, Prufung der Grtlnde, Sec, p. 104. et seqq. ; and see also Marsh's Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, p. 6, et seqq. ; and Stuart's History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, pp. 12-13.) At least De Wette, writing after both Jahn and Gese- nius, is constrained to admit that archaisms exist in considerable num- ber, and has to account for them by supposing that they were adopted from the ancient documents of which the Compiler, who lived later than Solomon, made use. (Einleitung, 157. See also 163, where he allows that the linguistic, as distinct from the literary argument, against the Mosaic authorship, is weak.) Note XV., p. 53. This is abundantly shown by Ilavernich, (Handluch, &c, $ 136 ; pp. 554-564.) Note XVI., p. 53. See Lecture III., pp. 80 and 81. Note XVII., p. 53. Mr. Norton is the writer who in recent times has urged this point with the greatest distinctness, and has given it the most prominent 1 Vater, Jlblinndlung ilber Moses. Sec \ 393; Norton, Authenticity of Ute Gospels, Vol. ii. pp. 441, 442. 2/>2 NOTES. LECT. II. position. In Ins section, headed " Some general considerations re- specting the Authorship of the Pentateuch," he begins his argument against the genuineness with this objection. Moses, he says, lived probably in the fifteenth century before Christ ; certainly not much later. " There is no satisfactory evidence that alphabetical writing was known at this time. If known to others, it is improbable that it was known to the Hebrews. They could not, during their residence in Egypt, have learnt alphabetical writing from the Egyptians ; for the mode of representing ideas to the eye, which the Egyptians employed till a period long subsequent, was widely(?) different from the alphabetical writing of the Hebrews. If they were acquainted with the art, they must have brought it with them into the country. But we can hardly suppose that it was invented, or acquired except by tradition, in the family of Isaac, or in that of Jacob before his residence in Egypt, en- gagt-d as they both were in agriculture and the care of cattle. We must then go back, to Abraham at least for what traditionary knowl- edge of it his descendants in Egypt may be supposed to have possessed. But it would be idle to argue against the supposition that alphabetical writ- ing was known in the time of Abraham." ' That writing was unknown to the Hebrews till the time of the Judges, was, at one period of their lives, maintained by Gescnius and l)e Wette. (See Gesenius, Geschichte der HebrOischen Sprache und Schrift, 140, et seqq., and De Wette's Archdologie, 277.) Both, however, saw reason to change their opinion, and admitted subse- quently that it must have dated at least from Moses. See Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Excursus I. p. 290, (English Translation, 13th edi- tion,) and De Wette's Einleitung, 12, p. 13. The bulk of modern German critics, whether rationalist or orthodox, acquiesce in this latter opinion. See Ewald, Geschichte Volkes Israel, pp. 64-69, Von Een- gerke, Kttnaan, p. xxxv., Havernick, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, { 44, &c. ; and compare the American writer, Stuart, Old Testament Canon, $ 3, pp. 40, 41. Note XVIIL, p. 53. See the statements of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the author's He- rodotus, vol. ii. p. 311, and pp. 43-4. The date assigned to the fourth dynasty rests upon the same authority. 1 Genuine/tens of the OospeU; vol. ii., Appendix, Note D., $ 3 ; pp. 43*-441. Lect. IL notes. 253 Note XIX., p. 53. Sir Henry Rawlinson regards the earliest inscribed bricks in the Babylonian series as dating from about B. C. 2200. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 435 and 440O Note XX., p. 53. See "Wilkinson's statements on this subject in the author's Herodotus, Vol. i. pp. 306, 321, &c. He regards the hieratic character as having come into use " at least as early as the 9th dynasty," (p. 306,) which he places about B. C. 2240. A considerable number of hieratic papyri belonging to the 19th dynasty, and one or two of a still earlier date, arc now in the British Museum. (See Cambridge Essays for 1858, pp. 229, 230.) Some writers urge, that the Jews could not have learnt alphabetic writing from the Egyptians, since " the mode of representing ideas to the eye, which the Egyptians employed till a period long subsequent, was widely different from the alphabetical writing of the Hebrews." (Norton, 1. s. c. Compare Havernick, Einleitung, 42-43.) But the difference was really not very great. It is a mistake to suppose that the Egyptian writing was, except to a small extent, symbolical. Both in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic, as a general rvde, the words are spelt phonetically first, and are then followed by a symbol or symbol, (Sec Mr. Goodwin's Essay, p. 227, and compare Wilkinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 317.) Note XXI., p. 53. Ur, or Hur (-i^s). the modern Mugheir, has furnished some of the most ancient of the Babylonian inscriptions. (See the author's He- rodotus, vol. i. p. 435 ; and compare Loftus's Chald&a and Susiana, eh. xii. p. 130.) It seems to have been the primeval capital of Chaldiea. The inscriptions, which arc either on bricks or on clay cylinders, and which are somewhat rudely executed, have been assigned to about the 22d century before Christ, (see the Herodotus, vol. i. p. 440,) which is at least three centuries before Abraham. Attempts have sometimes been made to determine the questions, whence exactly and when exactly the Hebrews obtained their alpha- 254 NOTES. Lect. II. bctic system. (See Havernick's Einleitung, 44.) It k consider- ably different both from that of Egypt and that of Babylon, -while it is almost identieal with that of Phoenicia ; whence it is inferred that the Hebrews learnt it from the Phoenicians. Of this, how- ever, there is no evidence, since the Phoenicians may equally as well have learnt of them. (See the statement of Eupolemus, quoted in Note XXV.) The probability seems to be, that the family of Abraham brought an alphabetic system from Ur, which may have been modified in Canaan and again in Egypt, 1 and which may not have assumed a settled shape until the writings of Moses fixed it for after ages. The system which they brought may have been either originally common to them with the Aramaic, Phoenician, and other cognate races ; or it may have gradually spread from them to those people. Note XXII. , p. -54. Hecatreus of Abdera lived in the fourth century before Christ. He was a friend of Alexander the Great, and wrote a work upon the history and religious antiquities of the Jews. The following is his testimony to Moses : "When in ancient times Egypt was visited with a pestilence, most of the people referred the cause of the calamity to the divinity. For since many foreigners and strangers dwelt in the country, who used diverse customs in regard to rites and sacrifices, it came to pass that the worship of the gods was very much neglected among them. Therefore the native inhabitants of the country conceived the idea, that there would be no end to their calamities, unless they should rid themselves of the foreigners. They accordingly banished them without delay. The most illustrious and energetic of them betook themselves, as some say, into Greece ; . . . but the mass of th& people fled into what is now called Judea, a country which is mtu- ated not far from Egypt, and which was at that time nothing bu) a desert. The colony was led by a man named Moses, who was dis- tinguished for his great prudence and courage. This man, having taken possession of the country, founded, among otner cities, that one called Jerusalem, which is now very celebrated. He built also 1 It seems scarcely possible that the resemblance between the Hebrew shin and the Ejyptian A can be accidental. A fainter similarity may be traced in some other letters. LECT. II. NOTES. 200 the temple which is so greatly honored by them, and appointed the sacred rites in honor of the divinity, and organized and regulated their civil affairs." After giving an account of the chief points of the law, Hecatams adds, "It is also written at the end of the laws, that Moses heard these things from God, and spake them to the Jews." (See the fragments of Hecataeus in Mons. C. Mailer's Fragmenta RiS' toricoruni Urcecorum, vol. ii. p. 392, Fr. 13.) Note XXIII., p. 54. Manetho, the Egyptian, was also contemporary with Alexander, and wrote his Egyptian History under the first Ptolemy. His words, as reported by Josephus, are, " Now it is said that their state was organized, and their laws established by a priest, a Heliopolitan by birth, named Osarsiph, from Osiris, a god who was worshipped in Heliopolis ; and that when he joined himself to this people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses." (Fragmenta Hist. Grcec. vol. ii. p. 580, Fr. 54.) Note XXIV., p. 54. Lysimachus of Alexandria, a writer (probably) of the Augustan age, abused Moses and his laws. See Josephus, (contr. Apion. ii. 14 :) "Lysimachus and some others, partly through ignorance, but more from ill-will, have discoursed concerning our lawgiver, Moses, and concerning his laws, in a manner which is neither just nor true, calumniating him as a juggler and impostor, and affirming that his laws teach us lessons of vice, and not of virtue." Note XXV., p. 54. Eupolemus is by some thought to have been a Jew ; but the liber- ties which he takes with Scripture seem to mark him for a heathen. Josephus evidently considers him such, since he couples him with Demetrius Phalereus, and speaks of him as unable to follow exactly the sense of the Jewish Scriptures. (Contr. Apion. i. 23.) Ho lived m the latter half of the second century before Christ, and wrote n rt-ork in Greek on the history of the Jews, which was largely quoted Ny Alexander Polyhistor, the contemporary of Sylla. (See Eusebiu* 256 NOTES. Lect. II. Prtrparatio Evangelica, vol. ii. pp. 370-3, 394, 423-433, &c") Polyhistor thus reported his testimony concerning Moses : " Eupolemus says that Moses was the first wise man, and that he first taught the Jews letters ; that the Phoenicians received them from the Jews, and the Greeks from the Phoenicians ; and also that Moses was the first who wrote laws for the Jews." {Fragmenta Hist. Grac. vol. ii. p. 220, Fr. 13.) Note XXVI., p. 54. Histor. T. 4 : " Moses, in order that he might firmly attach the people to himself for the time to come, gave them new rites, contrary to those of the rest of mankind." Note XXVII., p. 54. " Some, having descended from a father who reverenced the Sabbaths, worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of heaven, and think that the swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, is no dif- ferent from human flesh. Besides, they also remove the foreskin. And they are accustomed to despise the Roman laws, while they commit to memory, and observe and reverence, the Jewish law, whatever it be, which Moses delivered to them in a secret volume." Satir. xiv. 9-1026. Note XXVIII., p. 54. Longinus does not mention Moses by name, but it cannot be doubted that he intends him in the famous passage where he speaks of " the Jewish legislator " as a person historically known, and as the writer of Genesis. "Thus also the legislator of the Jews, who was no ordi- nary man, since he worthily comprehended and declared the power of the gods, writing thus at the very introduction to his laws, says, And God said ' what ? ' Let the light be ; and it was ; let the earth be ; and it was.' " De Sublimitate, 9. Note XXIX., p. 54. Hecatseus, Eupolemus, Juvenal, and Longinus. See above, Notes XXII., XXV., XXVIL, and XXVTIL Nicolas of Damascus may be added as a witness to the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses. Lect. II. NOTES. 257 Speaking of a certain man as saved in the Ark at the time of the Great Deluge, he says, "This may also have been he whose history is narrated by Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews." (See Josephus, Antiq. Jud. i. 3, 6.) Note XXX., p. 54. According to some writers, Hellanicus, the contemporary of Herodo- t*us, mentioned Moses. (Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Gentes, 8, p. 13, D. "Those who have written the annals of the Athenians, Hellan- icus, and Philochorus, the Atthidae, Castor, and Thallus, and Alexander Polyhistor, . . have mentioned Moses as a very early and ancient ruler of the Jews." Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum, i. p. 15, D, "Now that Moses was well known to the Greek historians, may be easily seen, from those things which they have written. For Pole- mon has mentioned him in the first book of his Grecian History, and Ptolemy the Mendesian, 1 and also Hellanicus, and Philochorus, and Castor, and others besides these.") As he wrote a work entitled Con- cerning the Nations, or Barbaric Customs, there is no improbability in this statement. It is less easy to see what could have led Philocho- rus (B. C. 300) to speak of him, but we are scarcely entitled on this ground to pronounce (as Mons. C. Muller does, Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. i. p. 385) that Justin misunderstood his author, rolemon of Ilium (ab. B. C. 200) seems to have spoken of Moses leading the Israelites out wf Egypt. (Africanus ap. Euseb. Pr 101. "In a nation which has no consecutive written history, leading events would be per- haps preserved, in their general outlines, for about a hundred years. Special circumstances might, however, give to an event a larger hold on the popular memory." He instances, 1. The attempt of Cylon at Athens, the circumstances of which were remembered in B. C. 432, one hundred and eighty years after, (Thucydid. i. 126 ;) and 2. The battle of the Allia, the memory of which continued (he thinks) among the common people at Rome to the time of the earliest annalists, or one hundred and fifty years. Note XLIL, p. 59. The force of this argument is, no doubt, weakened, but it is not destroyed, by a preference of the Septuagint or of the Samaritan num- bers to those of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint numbers, which are the most unfavorable to the argument, would make the chain between Adam and Moses consist of eight links viz. Mahalaleel, Noah, Salah, Reu, Nahor, Abraham, Jacob, and Jochebed. Note XLHL, p. 59. See above, Note XXXVII. ; and compare Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 111, ( 7, pp. 45-48, E. T.,) and Home, Introduction, &c, ch. ii. $ 1, vol. i. pp. 64-56. Note XLIY., p. 59. Having argued that the Patriarchs were almost sure to have com- mitted to writing the chief facts of the early history, especially those of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the promise of Redemption, and the various revelations which they received from God, Vitringa says " We believe, indeed, that Moses collected these writings and papers of the patriarchs, preserved among the Israelites, arranged them, pre- pared them, filled up their deficiencies, and out of them made up the first ef his own books." {Obso-cationes Sacra, i. 4, 2 ; p. 36.) Lect. II. NOTES. 2C>5 Note XLV., p. 59. Commentaire Littkrale, Preface, vol. i. p. xiii. " Although, strictly speaking, it is not impossible that Moses might have learned from oral tradition all that he has told us concerning the Creation of the World, the Deluge, and the times of the Patriarchs, . . . yet it is highly prob- able that this Lawgiver had access to records and documents -which had been preserved in the families of the Jews. The detailed account of genealogies, the dates of events, and their circumstances, the number of the years of the lives of the Patriarchs, all these things could hardly be learned in a manner so precise and exact, except from writ- ten documents." Compare Havernick, {Handbuch, &c, 115 ; 11, pp. 81-2, E. T.,) who, while he maintains that the narrative of Genesis "has its origin primarily in oral tradition," still allows it to be probable " that in the time of the writer a part of the oral tradition had been already committed to writing," and that " the author makes use of certain older monuments." Note XLVL, p. 59. See above, Notes XIX., XX., and XXI. In estimating the antiquity of alphabetic writing, we must remember, that the earliest extant speci- mens of the Babylonian (which have been assigned to about the 22d century P. C) present indications of previous stages having been passed through, which must have each occupied some considerable period. It is certain that the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, began with picture-writing. 1 But in the most ancient remains this stage has been long past : a few letters only still bear a resemblance to the ob- jects : while the bulk have lost all trace of their original form. The writing too has ceased altogether to be symbolical, and (with the exception of certain determinatives) is purely phonetic, having thus passed the second stage of the art. In Egypt, the hieroglyphics of the Pyramid period, (B. ('. 2450-2300.) sometimes "written in the cursive character, prove that writing had been long in tise." (See Wilkinson's Appendix to Book ii. of the author's Herodotus, eh. viii. 9 ; vol. ii. p. 344.) 1 See Sir H. Raniinson'a Essay. " On the Early Ifistory of Babylonia," in the first Tolum* of the author's Herodotus, Essay vi. pp. 44."., 444. 23 20G NOTES. Lect. II. Note XLVIL, p. 60. See Bishop Gleig's Introduction, in his edition of Stackhouse's His- tory of the Bible, vol. i. p. 20. Compare the article on whiting in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopccdia, vol. ii. pp. 971, 972. Note XLVIIL, p. 61. The Armenian History of Moses of Chorene commences from Adam. Taking the Hebrew* Scriptures for his basis, he endeavors to blend and harmonize with them the traditions of primeval times recorded by Berosus, Abydenus, and especially by a certain Mar Ibas, or Mar Abas, a learned Syrian, said to have lived about B. C. 150. He identifies Adam with the Babylonian Alorus, (i3,) Noah with Xisuthrus, (ibid.,) Shem with Zervan, who (he says) is the same as Zoroaster, (i. 5. ;) Ham with Titan, whence the Titans are the descendants of Ham, (ibid.,) and Nimrod with Belus, (i. 6.) Armenian history is regarded as com- mencing from this time. Hafcus or HaTg, the fifth descendant of Japhet, son of Thaclath or Togarmah, revolts from Belus, or Nimrod, and withdraws from Babylon to Armenia, where he establishes himself. War follows : Hafcus is attacked by Belus, but makes a successful resistance, and Belus falls in the battle, (i. 9, 10.) From this point Moses seems in the main to follow native traditions, which do not appear to have possessed much historical value. It has been conjectured with good reason that "the earliest literature of Armenia was a series of national poems," and that these compositions furnished Moses of Chorene with a great part of his materials. (See Priehard's Physical History of Mankind, vol. iv. p. 2.55 ; and compare Neumann's Versuch eincr Ueschichte der Artnenischen Litcratur, published at Leipsic in 1836.) Michael Chamich and other Armenian writers have chiefly copied from Moses. Note XLIX., p. 61. The two Epic poems, the Ramayana and the MahabhArata, profess to be historical, but are not thought by the best modern authorities to contain more than some "shadow of truth." They are assigned to about the third century B. C. (See Professor H. H. Wilson's Intro- duction to his translation of the Rig- Yeda-Sanhita, pp. xlvi., xlvii.) The attempt to construct from them, and from other Sanscritic sources of Lect. II. NOTES. 2(37 even worse character, by the aid of Megasthenes and of a large amount of conjecture, a chronological scheme reaching to B. C. 3120, which M. Bunsen has made in the third volume of his Egypt, (pp. 518-564,) appears to me a singular instance of misplaced ingenuity. Note L., p. Gl. The Chinese, like the Hindus, carry back the history of the world for several hundred thousand years. Their own history, however, as a nation, does not profess to commence till about B. C. 2600; and authentic accounts, according to the views of those who regard their early literature with most favor, go back only to the 22d century B. 0. (See R6musat, Nouveaux Milanges Asiatiques, vol. i. p. 65. "The history of China runs back \flth certainty to the twenty-second century before our era, and some respectable traditions permit us to carry back the point of departure four centuries earlier, to the year 2637 before Jesus Christ." Compare Mailla, Histoire Gi.nt.ralc de la Chine, vol. i. ; Grosier's Discours Preliminaire prefixed to his Descrip- tion de la Chine, published at Paris in 1818-1820 ; and M. Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 379-407.) The entire isolation of China, and the absence of any points of contact between it and the nations of Western Asia, would render this early history, even if authentic, useless for the purposes of the present Lectures. I confess, however, that I put little fuith in the conclusions of modern French antiquarians ; and that I incline to look with suspicion on all Chinese history earlier than the time of Confucius, B. C. 550-480, when it is admitted that contem- porary records commence. (See Priehard's Physical History of Man- kind, vol. iv. pp. 475-t) ; and compare Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. p. 370.) Note LI., p. 61. The evidences on this head were carefully collected by Mr. Stanley Fabcr in his Hampton lectures for the year 1801, afterwards published as Horcn Mosaicm, ch. iv. pp. 130-184. The most remarkable tradition is *Viat of the Hindus. In the Bhagavat it is related that in the reign of Saliavrata, the seventh king of the Hindus, mankind became almost universally wicked, only Satiavrata and seven saints continuing pious. The lord of the universe, therefore, loving the pious man, and intend- ing to preserve him from the sea of destruction caused by the deprav- 2G8 N T E s . Lect. II. lty of the age, thus told him how he was to act. " In seven days from the present time, O thou tamer of enemies, the three worlds will be plunged in an ocean of death ; but in the midst of the destroying waves, a large vessel, sent by me for thy use, shall stand before thee. Then shalt thou take all medicinal herbs, all the variety of seeds ; and accompanied by seven saints, encircled by pairs of all brute animals, thou shalt enter the spacious ark and continue in it, secure from the flood on one immense ocean without light, except the radiance of thy holy companions. . . . Then shalt thou know my true greatness, rightly named the supreme Godhead ; by my favor all thy questions shall be answered, and thy mind abundantly instructed." After seven days, the sea overwhelming its shores, deluged the whole earth ; while the flood was augmented by showers from immense clouds ; when Satiavrata saw the vessel advancing, and entered it with his compan- ions, having executed the commands of God. After a while the deluge abated, and Satiavrata, having been instructed in all divine and human knowledge, was appointed the seventh Menu, and named Vaivaswata by the Supreme Being. From this Manu the earth was repeopled, and from him mankind received their name Manudsha. (See an Article by Sir W. Jones in the 1st volume of the Asiatic Researches, pp. 230-4. Compare Faber's Horce Mosaicre, eh. iv. pp. 139, 140; Carwithen's Hampton lectures, III. pp. 87, 88 ; and Kalisch's Historical and Critical Commentarij on the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 138, E. T.) The Chinese traditions are said to be less clear and decisive. They speak of a "first heaven" an age of innocence, when "the whole creation enjoyed a state of happiness ; when every thing was beautiful, every thing was good ; all beings were perfect in their kind ; " whereto succeeded a " second heaven," introduced by a great couvulsion. "The pillars of Heaven were broken the earth shook to its founda- tions the heavens sunk lower towards the north the sun, the moon, and the stars changed their motions the earth fell to pieces ; and the iraters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence, and overflowed it. Man having rebelled against heaven, the system of the Universe was totally disordered. The sun was eclipsed, the planets altered their course, and the grand harmony of nature was disturbed." (Faber, Horte Mosaica, ch. iv. pp. 147, 148.) The Armenians accept the Scriptural account, which they identify with the Chaldaean. They can scarcely be said to possess any special Lect. II. notes. 269 national tradition on the subject, except that which continues to the present day the belief that the timbers of the ark are still to be seen on the top of Ararat. The Greek tradition concerning the Hood of Deucalion needs only to be mentioned. Curiously enough it takes the form most closely resembling the Mosaic account in the pages of Lucian, 1 the professed scoffer. Traditions of a great deluge were also found in all parts of the new world, and in some of the islands of the Pacific. (Faber, llorce Mosaicce, ch. iv. ; Kalisch, vol. 1. p. 140, E. T.) Note LIL, p. 62. Sec Gen. x. 10 ; xi. 2-5 ; xxxix., ct seqq. Compare Herod, i. 7 ; ii. 2, 109-142 ; Plat. Tim. p. 22, B. ; Diod. Sic, books i. and ii. ; Justin, i. 1 ; &c. Joscphus well expresses the grounds on which the Egyptian and Babylonian annals are to be preferred to those of all other heathen nations. He ranks the Phoenician histories decidedly below them. (Sec his work Contra Apionem, i. 6: "Now that among the Egyptians and the Babylonians, from the most ancient times the charge of prepar- ing the public records was committed, among the former people, to the priests, who were skilled in this business, and among the Babylonians to the Chaldeans ; and that of the nations which held intercourse with the Greeks, the Phoenicians were the most familiar with letters ; all this, I think, will be granted to me, since it is conceded by all.") Note LIII., p. 63. Scaliger was the first to draw the attention of scholars to the writ- ings of Berosus and Manetho. In his work De Emendations Temporum he collected their fragments and supported their authority. The value of Manetho was acknowledged by Ilecren, {Handbuch der Gcschichtn dcr Stouten des Altcrtltums, i. 2, p. 54, E. T.,) Marsham, {Canon Chronicus, Pref. p. 2, &c.,) and others, before much progress had been made in deciphering the inscriptions of Egypt. Berosus, always quoted with respect by our Divines, did not find much favor with German histor- ical critics till his claims were advocated by Niebuhr. (See t**~ ''ortrtige ilber Alte Ueschichle, vol. i. pp. 16-19.) i De Deh Sfridi, $ 12. 270 NOTES. Lect. IL Note LIV., p. 63. One other ancient writer, had his work come down to us in a com- plete form, or had we even possessed a fragment or two of its earlier portion, might have deserved to be placed nearly on a level with Bcrosus and Manetho : viz., Menander of Ephesus ; who living prob- ably about the same time with them, and having access to the archives of the only nation which could dispute with Egypt and Babylon the palm of antiquity and the claim of inventing letters, composed in Greek a Phoenician history ; which seems, from the few fragments of it that remain, to have been a work of the very highest character. Of these fragments, however, none touch the period between the Creation and the death of Moses ; and it may even be suspected that Menan- der's history did not go back so far. At any rate, if it did, we are completely ignorant what representation he gave of the early times. (See the Fragments of Menander in Mons. C. Mailer's Fragmenta His- toricorum Grmcorum, vol. iv. pp. 445-8, and the testimony to his value borne by Niebuhr, Vortrdge ilbcr Altc Geschichte, vol. i. p. 17, and p. 93, note 1 .) Nothing has been said here of Sanchoniathon, in the first place because it seems more than probable that the work ascribed to hiin was the mere forgery of Philo Byblius ; and secondly, because, though called a " Phoenician History," the fragments of the work which re- main show it to have been mainly, if not entirely, mythological. (See Movers, Jahrbitcher ftir Thcologisch. und Christlich. Philosophic, 1836, rol. i. pp. 51-91 ; Lobeck, Aglaoph., p. 1264, ct seqq. ; Niebuhr, Yortrttgc ilbcr alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 93, note 1 ; and C. Mailer, Fragmcnta His, Gr., vol. iii. pp. 560-1.) Note LV., p. 63. M. Bunsen, speaking of the Egyptian monuments, says, " Such documents cannot indeed compensate for the want of written History. Even Chronology, its external framework, cannot be elicited from them." {Egypt's Place in Cnirersal History, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.) This may be said with at least as much truth of the Babylonian and Assyr- ian records. Lect. IL notes. 271 Note LVL, p. 64. The following is Manetho's chronological scheme, according to Euse- bius, (Chronica, i. 20, pp. 93-107, cd. Mai. :) Years. Reign of Gods 13,900 Reign of Heroes 1,255 Reign of Kings 1,817 Reign of 30 Memphite Kings 1,790 Reign of 10 Thinite Kings 350 Reign of Manes and Heroes 5,813 24,925 Thirty dynasties of Kings (about) 5,000 ' 29,925 Note LVTL, p. 64. The following was the scheme of Berosus, if we may trust Eusebius. (See his Chronica, i. 1, and 4 ; p. 5, and p. 18 :) Tears. 1. Ten kings from Alorus to Xisuthrus reigned . . . 432,000 2. Eighty-six kings from Xisuthrus to the Median conquest 33,080 2 3. Eight Median kings 224 4. Eleven kings [48J 3 5. Forty-nine Chaldean kings 458 6. Nine Arabian kings 215 7. Forty-five kings down to l'ul 526 466,581 Note LVIII., p. 64. Vide supra, Note LVL M. Bunscn (Egypt's Place, ftc, vol. i. p. 70, E. T.) accuses Eusebius of having changed the order of Manetho's numbers, and by a dexterous transposition he seeks to transfer to the 1 Baron Runner) given the sum of tlio yearn of the 30 dynasties as 4922, 49M, or 6329, arvording to variations of reading or statement. (Egypt, vol. i. p. R2, K. T.) 2 In the Armenian the ntimher here is 33,001, tint thia may be corrected from yn- ellus. (Fragm. Hist. Or., vol. ii. p. 503.) * This number is only given in the margin, and is very doubtful. 272 notes. Lect. IL human period a space of nearly 4000 years. He would make the divine period consist of the following : Years. 1. Reign of Gods 13,900 2. Iteign of Heroes 1,255 3. Reign of Heroes and Manes together . . . 5,813 20,968 The human period he represents thus : 1. Kings (no capital mentioned) 1,817 2. Thirty Memphite kings 1,790 3. Ten Thinite kings 350 4. Thirty Dynasties (say) 5,000 8,957 But there is absolutely no ground, beyond gratuitous conjecture, for making this change ; which involves Manctho in the contradiction, that Mattes, the Ghosts of Mortals, exist before there have been any mortals. (See the Fragmenta Historicorum Grwconon of Mons. C. Mtlller, vol. ii. p. 528, where M. Bunsen's theory is rejected.) Note LIX., p. 64. Chronograph ia, p. 52, D. M. Bunscn was the first to call attention to this passage. {Egypt's Place, &c, vol. i. p. 86.) If sound, it is of very great importance, as indicating that Manetho knew and allowed that his kings and dynasties were not always consecutive. It has been recently denied that Manetho did this, and it has been proposed to amend the passage of Syncellus by introducing into it the name of another writer, Anianus, who (it is supposed) made the reduction in question. (See an Article in the Quarterly Review for April, 1859 ; Art. IV. pp. 395-6.) But this emendation is quite inadmissible ; for the clear object of Syncellus in the passage is to show that Manetho's own numbers were at variance with Scripture. Whether Syncellus rightly reports Manetho or no, is another question. If he does not, the argument in the text, so far, falls to the ground ; and we must admit that Egyptian Chronology as represented by Manetho was about 2000 years in excess of the Chronology of Scripture. Still we Lect. II. notes. 273 must bear in mind, that, -whether Manetho allowed it or not, his dynasties were in fact sometimes contemporary, as is proved by the Egyptian monuments. (Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 343, 349, &c. Stuart Poole, Horcc JEgyptiacce, pp. 110, 112, 123, &c.) If therefore he did not in his chronology make any allowance on this account, he could not fail to be in considerable excess of the truth. Note LX., p. 65. See the latest conclusions of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 342-3 ; and compare Mr. Stuart Toole's Horce JEgij})tiac(?, p. 97. See also the extracts from Professor Rask's Egyp- tian Chronology, contained in Dr. Prichard's Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, 6, pp. 91-111. A slight error has crept into the calculation on which the date given in the text (B. C. 2660) is founded. Sir G. Wilkinson places the ac- cession of the 4th dynasty about B. C. 2450, and allows to the 1st, on which he considers the 4th to have followed, 241 years. The date of Menes, according to his views, should therefore have been given as B. C. 2690, instead of B. C. 2660. Note LXL, p. 66. See the fragments of Berosus in Mons. C. Mdller's Fragmenta Histor- icorum Grepcorum, vol. ii. p. 496, Frs. 1, and 5. "lie says there was a time when the universe was but darkness and water, and in these were generated monstrous animals, of strange forms. . . . And besides these there were fishes and reptiles, and a vast number of other won- derful animals. . . . And over all these nded a woman, whose name was Homoroka : now this word in the language of the Chaldees is translated Thalath, but in Greek Thalassa, (i. e. the Sea.) Now, while all things were in this condition, Belus returned, and cutting the woman asunder in the midst, made of the one half of her the earth, and of the other half the heaven, and destroyed the animals. lie says that this is an allegorical cosmogony. For when the universe was in a fluid state, and animals were generated in it, this god cut off his own head, and the other gods mixed the blood which flowed from it with the earth, and so formed men ; whence it came to pass that they are intel- ligent, and partake of the divine wisdom. Then Belus, divining the 27 1 NOTES. Lsct. II. darknoss, separated the earth and the heaven from each other, and brought the world into order ; and the animals that could not endure the power of the light were destroyed. Then Belus, seeing that the place was desolate, though fruitful, commanded one of the gods to cut off his own head, and to mix the flowing blood with the earth, and to form [men and] beasts able to breathe the air. Belus also formed the stars, and the sun, and the moon, and the seven planets." (Ap. Syncell. Chronograph, pp. 29, 30.) "After saying these things, he proceeds to enumerate the kings of Assyria, individually and in order, namely, ten from Alorus, who was the first, down to Xisuthrus, in whose reign occurred that first great deluge which Moses also mentions." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 1, p. 5, ed. Mai.) Note LXIL, p. 66. See Niebuhr's Vortrtlge ilber Alte Gcschichte, (vol. i. p. 20, note.) where he notices the abuse of the parallel mude by some, who main- tained that the Mosaical account of the Creation was derived from the Babylonian. Note LXIIL, p. 67. See the well-known passage of Josephus, where, after remarking on the longevity of the Patriarchs, he says, ' ' All those who have written on the subject of antiquities, both among the Greeks and among the Barbarians, bear witness to the truth of my words. For Manetho, who wrote the chronicles of the Egyptians, and Berosus, who collected those of the Chaldeans, and Molus [read Mofon] and Hestiams, and besides these Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician annals, agree with what I have said. Ilesiod also, and Hecatsrus, Hellanicus and Acusilaus, and besides these Ephorus and Xicolaus, relate that the ancients used to live a thousand years." (Antiq. Jud. i. 3.) Note LXIV., p. 67. See Faber's Horcp Mosatcee, eh. iii. pp. 119, 120; and Home's Intro- duction, vol. i. p. 158. Lect. IL notes. 275 Note LXV., p. 68. Fragmenta Historicorum Grcecorum, vol. ii. p. 501, Fr. 7. "In the reign of Xisuthrus there "was a great deluge. The account is given as follows : ' Kronos, appearing to him in his sleep, declared that on the 15th day of the month Daesius, men would be destroyed by a flood. He commanded the king therefore to commit to writing an account of the principles and progress and issues of all things, and to bury it in Sippara, the city of the sun ; and then to construct a vessel, and to embark in it with his kindred and his intimate friends; also to deposit therein food and drink, and to take in birds and quadrupeds; and having put all things in order to set sail. . . . He therefore, obeying the command, constructed a vessel, whose length was five stadia, and its breadth two stadia ; and after he had gathered into it all things as directed, he embarked with his wife and children and intimate friends. But when the flood came, and forthwith ceased, Xisuthrus let go some of the birds. Not finding, however, any food, or any place to alight, they came again to the ship. After some days, Xisuthrus let loose the birds again ; but they again came back to the ship, having their feet covered with mud. But being let go a third time, they returned no more to the ship. Xisuthrus then understood that the land had appeared, and passing through a certain part of the seams of the ship, and seeing that it had grounded on a certain moun- tain, he went forth, with his wife and daughter, and the pilot, and saluted the ground ; and when he had built an altar, and sacrificed to the gods, he and those who came out of the ship with him disap- peared. Now those who remained in the ship, when Xisuthrus and his companions did not return, went forth to seek him, calling his name aloud. But Xisuthrus himself was never more seen by them ; there came, however, a voice from the air, which commanded them to be dutiful woi>hippers of the gods, since he, in consequence of his piety, had gone to live with the gods. ... It also directed them to go again to Babylon, and, according as it had been decreed, to take up the letters from Sippara, and communicate them to men whom they would find in the country of Armenia. . . . Tiny accordingly came to Babylon, dug up the letters which had been buried at Sippara, restored the temples, and rebuilt Babylon." (Ap. Syncell. Chron., pp. 30, 31. Compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 3, pp. 11-16.) 276 NOTES. Lect. U. Note LXVI., p. 68. fragment. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. p. 280, Fr. 1. "After Euedoreschus, several others reigned, among whom was Sisithrus, whom Kronos forewarned that there would be a great abundance of rain on the loth of Ihcsius. And he commanded him to hide every thing which pertained to letters in Ileliopolis, in Sippara. Sisithrus, having per- formed all these things, immediately sailed towards Armenia. And what the god had foretold straightway came to pass. Now on the third day, when the rain had ceased, he let loose some birds, to try whether they could find any land above the water. But finding noth- ing save a wide-yawning sea, where there w r as no place for them to rest, they came back to Sisithrus. He sent forth others afterwards, with the same result. But when on the third trial he succeeded, (for the birds returned with their feet covered with mud,) the gods snatched him from the view of men, and the vessel, from the fragments of its planks used as amulets, furnished to the inhabitants of Armenia effectual antidotes against poison." (Ap. Syncell. Chronograph., p. 70, A. ; compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 7 ; p. 22, ed. Mai.) But little is known of Abydenus. He is first quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century after Christ ; on which account it has been generally supposed that he did not write till the second or third century of our era. (See Niebuhr's Kleine Schriften, p. 187, note 4 ; and C. Moller's Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. p. 279.) Some, however, regard him as a contemporary and pupil of Berosus, and therefore as not much later than the time of Alexander, (Bauer in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopedia, s. v. Abydenus ; C. O. Moller, History of Greek Literature, vol. ii. p. 490, E. T.) His use of the Ionic dialect favors the earlier date. Note LXVII. p. 68. Buttmann, (Mythologus, i. pp. 190, 200, &c.,) Von Bohlen, (Alte Indian, p. 78, et seqq.,) and Hartmann (Forschungen ilber d. Pentateuch, p. 795. et seqq.) maintain that the story of the flood " sprang up in the soil of India, whence it was brought to the Hebrews through Babylon, after having first received a new coloring there." (See Havernick's Einlei- tung, 120, pp. 266, 267; 16, p. 112, E. T.) But the absence of exaggeration and of grotesqueness from the Hebrew account suffi- Lect. II. NOTES. 277 ciently disproves this theory. It might be argued with much more plausibility that the Babylonians obtained their knowledge from the Jews. Note LXYI. b., p. 69. See Niebuhr's Vortrdge liber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23. "This ac- count differs from the Noachian, so far as it allows to be saved not only the family of Xisuthrus, but all pious persons, and supposes not a universal, but only a Babylonian deluge." Note LXVII. b., p. 70. Antiq. Jud. i. 7, 2 : Berosus mentions our father Abraham, not by name, but after this manner: " In the tenth generation after the flood, there was among the Chaldeans a righteous and great man, who was also skilled in the knowledge of the heavens." Note LXVIII., p. 70. I: has been acutely suggested that the actual scheme of Berosus was probably the following : Years. B. C. 1. Antediluvian dynasty of 10 kings 4*2,000 466,618 to 31,618 to 34,618 * 2,458 W 2. Dynasty of 86 kings (Chaldeans ?) . 34,080 3. Dj -nasty of 8 Median kings . . . 324 2,458 to 2,234 I 4. Dynasty of 11 kings (Chaldeans?) . [258] 1 2,231 to 1,976 5. Dynasty of 49 Chaldean kings . . 458 1.976 to 1,518 re C. Dynasty of 9 Arabian kings . . . 215 1,518 to 1,273 s 7. Dynasty of 45 kings (Assyrians?) . 520 1,273 to 747 ' 8. Dynasty of 8 (?) Assyrian kings . . 122 717 to 625 9. Dynasty of CChaldiran kings . . . 87 625 to 538 , 36,000 1 Tins numW fills up trio Wank in Kuseb. Ckron. 1. 4. p. 18. where 48 Is absurdly suggested In the margin. .ee above. Note LVII. It is conjectural, but it seems re- quired by the native tradition that Babylon was founded 1903 before Alexander's cap- ture of It, or 11. C. 2234. 24 278 NOTES. Lect. IL (See Gutschmidt in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. viii. p. 252 ; who is followed by Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 17 ; and Sir II. Rawlinson in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2 ; p. 218.) If this be a true representation, it would follow that the number 34,080 is purely artificial, being simply the number required to make up the great Babylonian year or cycle of 36,000 years, in conjunction with, the years of the real historical dynasties. The first number, 432,000, is made up of 12 such cycles, (36,000 X 12 = 432,000.) Note LXIX., p. 70. See the Fragments of Abydenus in Midler's Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. p. 282, Fr. 6: "At that time the men of antiquity are said to have been so puffed up with strength and haughtiness, that they despised even the gods, and undertook to build that lofty obelisk which is now called Babylon. And when they had already built it up into the heavens almost as high as the gods, the gods, by the help of the winds, smote the well- contrived but futile work, and prostrated it to the ground. And that rubbish took the name of Babel. For up to that time men relied upon the use of one language ; but then a various and discordant confusion of tongues was sent by the gods upon those who had hereto- fore used but one language." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 8, p. 24.) Com- pare also the subjoined passage, which Syncellus quotes from Poly- histor : " Now the Sibyl says, that when all men were of one speech, some of them built a huge tower, that they might ascend up to heaven. But God caused a wind to blow, and overthrew their design, and gave to each a different language ; wherefore the city was called Babylon. (Chronograph., p. 81, C.) Note LXX., p. 71. The affinity of the Sanskrit with the Persian, Greek, Latin, and Ger- man languages was first remarked by our own countryman, Sir W. Jones ; but it remained for F. Schlegel in Germany and for Dr. Prichard in England to make a scientific use of the material thus provided for them. Schlegel's " Essay on the Language and Philosophy of the Hindoos," and Dr. Prichard's inaugural " Dissertation on the Varieties of the Human Race," were published almost simultaneously ; but Schlegel's work is regarded as the more advanced production. (See Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. p. 50.) Lect. II. NOTES. 279 Note LXXL, p. 71. In 1854 M. Bunsen wrote: " Geographically then, and historically, it is true that Canaan was the son of Egypt ; for the Canaanitic tribes which inhabited historical Canaan came from Egypt. In the same sense, Nimrod is called a Kushitc, which means a man of the land of Rush. The Bible mentions but one Rush, ./Ethiopia ; an Asiatic Kitsh exists only in the imagination of the interpreters, and i.s the child of their despair. Now, Nimrod was no more a Kushite by blood than Canaan was an Egyp- tian ; but the Turanian (Transoxanian) tribe, represented by him, came as a devastating people, which had previously conquered that part of Africa, back into Asia, and there established the first great empire." (Philosophy of Univ. History, vol. i. p. 191.) But in 1858, Sir Henry R&wlinson, having obtained a number of Babylonian documents more ancient than any previously discovered, was able to declare authorita- tively, that the early inhabitants of Southern Babylonia " were of a cognate race with the primitive colonists both of Arabia and of the African Ethiopia." (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 442.) He found their vocabulary to be " undoubtedly Cushite or Ethiopian," be- longing to that stock, of tongues which in the sequel were every where more or less mixed up with the Semitic languages, but of which we have the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of Southern Arabia, and the Gallu of Abyssinia." (Ibid, note 9.) lie found also that "the traditions both of Babylonia and Assyria pointed to a connection in very early times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the cities on the Lower Euphrates." (Ibid.) He therefore adopted the term Cushite as the most proper title by which to distinguish the earlier from the later Babylonians; and reestablished beyond all doubt or question the fact of "an Asiatic Ethiopia," which probably no one now would be hardy enough to deny. (See, besides the Essay referred to above, Essay xi. of the same volume, p. 655, and an elaborate Ar- ticle in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. XV. part 2, pp. 215-259.) Note EXXIL, p. 71. The monuments give distinct evidence of the early predominance of Babylonia over Assyria, of the spread of population and civilization northwards, and of the comparatively late founding of Nineveh. (See 280 NOTES. Lect. IL the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 448, 455, 456, &c.) They do not exactly prove the colonization of Assyria by Semites from Babylonia, but they favor it. (Ibid. pp. 447 and 647.) Note LXXIII., p. 71. The Hamitic descent of the Canaanites is energetically denied by M. Bunsen, (Philosophy of Univ. Hist., vol. i. pp. 190 and 244,) who iden- tifies them with the Phoenicians, and regards their Semitic character as established. But the researches of Sir H. Rawlinson have convinced him, that the Canaanites proper were not Semites. lie holds that they had a "common origin" with the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Libyans, an origin which he calls indifferently Scythic or Hamite. " All the Canaanites," he says, " were, I am satisfied, Scyths ; and the inhab- itants of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic character until quite a late period of history. According to the inscriptions the KJiatta, or Hittites, were the dominant Scythic race from the earliest times, and they gave way very slowly before the Aramaeans, Jews, and Phoeni- cians, who were the only extensive Semitic immigrants." (Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 230, note.) Note LXXIV., p. 72. * See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Univ. Hist., vol. i. pp. 221-230, where, though classing the Himyaric with the Semitic languages, he admits its close resemblance, both in vocabulary and in grammatical forms, to the Ethiopic ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 447, note 4, and pp. 659, 660. Note LXXV., p. 72. See Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Asiatic Society's Journal, 1. s. c. "The Toldoth Beni Noah is undoubtedly the most authentic record we possess for the affiliation of those branches of the human race which sprung from the triple stock of the Noachidae." And again, p. 215, note 3 : "The fragment which forms the tenth chapter of Genesis bears the Hebrew title of Toldoth Beni Noah, or the Genealogies of the Noa- chidae, and is probably of the very greatest antiquity." Compare also the author's Herodotus, (vol. i. p. 445,) where the same ethnologist Lect. II. NOTES. 281 remarks : " We must be cautious in drawing direct ethnological infer- ences from the linguistic indications of a very early age. It will be far safer, at any rate, in these early times to follow the general scheme of ethnic affiliation which is given in the tenth chapter of Genesis." Note LXXVL, p. 72. The passages to which reference is here made will all be found in the second volume of Dr. Gaisford's edition of the work of Eusebius, pp. 370-392. They were derived by Eusebius from the "Jewish History" of Alexander Polyhistor, a heathen writer. It is thought that some of Polyhistor's authorities, as Artapanus, Cleodemus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, were Jews. (See the remarks of C. Mtlller in his preface to the fragments of Polyhistor, Fragment. Hist. Gr vol. iii. p. 207.) If this be allowed, the weight of heathen testimony is of course pro tanto diminished. But reasons have been already given for regarding Eupol- emus as a heathen. (See above, Note XXV.) And the religious char- acter of the other three is at least doubtful. To the writers mentioned in the text may be added. Nicolas of Da- mascus, who spoke of Abraham's emigration from Chaldoea and settle- ment in Canaan. (See the Frag. Hist. Or., vol. iii. p. 373.) Note LXXVIL, p. 72. See especially Faber's Horce Mosaics, ch. v. pp. 225-228 ; and com- pare Patrick's Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 58 ; Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knotcledge of Holy Scripturu, vol. i. p. 174, &c. Note LXXVIII., p. 73. Sir II. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vi. p. 446. Note LXXIX., p. 73. The name of the king whom Sir II. ltawlinson identifies with Chedor-laomer is, in the native (Hamitic) Babylonian, Kudur-Mabuk. Mabuk in Hamitic is found to be the exact equivalent of Laumer in Semitic. This is a very recent discovery. '24 282 NOTES. Lect. II. Note LXXX., p. 73. By means of certain monumental notices it has been proved, with a near approach to certainty, that a Babylonian monarch, whose name is read as Ismi-dagon, reigned about B. C. 1860. Kudur-Mabuk is evi- dently, by the type of writing which he uses, and the position in which his bricks are found, considerably earlier. Now in the year B. C. 1976 a century before Ismi-dagon occurs one of the breaks in Bero- sus' list ; and this break moreover occurs within 60 years of the date (B. C. 1917) commonly assigned to the expedition of Chedor-laomer. These chronological coincidences strongly confirm the argument from the identity of name. Note LXXXL, p. 74. This passage is probably known to most students, but as it is too important to be omitted from the present review of the historical evi- dences, I subjoin it entire. " Manetho . . . introducing a supposititious king, Amenophis, says that he desired to see the gods, as Orus had done, one of those who reigned before him. lie expressed this desire to his namesake Amen- ophis, the son of Paapis, who had the reputation of being a partaker of the divine nature, on account of his wisdom and knowledge of the future. His namesake accordingly told him that he would be able to see the gods, if he should purge the whole country of lepers, and all other polluted men. Delighted with this promise, the king gathered out of Egypt all who had any bodily defect, and placed them in the quarries, on the east side of the Nile, that they might work in them, and be separate from the rest of the Egyptians. He says also that there were among them some of the learned priests afflicted with the leprosy ; but that Amenophis, the wise man and prophet, feared the anger of the gods towards himself and the king, if they should see the gods without their consent. He also declared, that certain men would form an alli- ance with these polluted persons, and would get possession of Egypt, and hold it for thirteen years. But not daring to tell these things to the king, he committed them all to writing, and then destroyed him- self, to the great grief of the king. After this he writes thus, word for word. ' But when those who were sent to the mines had endured their misery for a long time, the king consented to assign to them, for their Lect. II. NOTES. 283 abode and protection, the city Avaris, which had then been abandoned by the shepherds. Now this city, according to the ancient theology, is the city of Typhon. Entering into this city, and having it for a centre of their rebellion, they appointed as their prince one of the priests of the Heliopolitans, named Hosarsiphus, and they took an oath to obey him in all things. He gave them, first of all, this law, not to worship the gods, nor to abstain from any of those animals esteemed most sacred in Egypt, but to kill and destroy them all ; and not to have intercourse with any but those who had taken the oath. Having established these laws, and many others exceedingly contrary to the Egyptian customs, he commanded that many hands should be employed in repairing the wails of the city, and that they should make themselves ready for war with King Amenophis. Then, joining with him the other priests and polluted persons, he sent ambassadors to the shepherds who had been driven out by Tethmosis, to the city called Jerusalem. He declared to them the treatment which he, and those who shared in his dishonor, had received, and asked them to join all their forces in an expedition against Egypt. He promised first of all to lead them back to Avaris, their ancestral city, to furnish their army abundantly with all things necessary, to fight for them, if need should require, and easily to make the country subject to them. The shep- herds were overjoyed, and all eagerly sallied forth, to the number of 200,000, and soon came to Avaris. But Amenophis, the king of Egypt, when he was apprised of their invasion, was not a little troubled, remembering the prediction of Amenophis the son of Paapis. And in the first place gathering the multitude of the Egyptians, and taking counsel with their rulers, he sent for the sacred animals that were chiefly worshipped in their temples to be brought to him, and com- manded the priests in different places to hide the images of the gods as securely as possible. His son Sethos, called also Ramcses, from his father Rhampses, being a child of five years old, he consigned to his friend. He then passed on with the rest of the Egyptians, amounting to 300,000 men skilled in war. When he met the enemy, however, he did not engage in battle with them, but, thinking that this would be to fight against the gods, he turned back, and came to Memphis. Then taking Apis, and the other sacred animals which had been sent thither, he immediately departed into Ethiopia. For the king of the Ethiopians was under obligations to him ; wherefore he received the 284 NOTES. Lect. IL whole multitude, and furnished them with such necessaries of life as the country afforded, and gave them cities and villages sufficient for them to dwell in during the predetermined period of thirteen years while Amenophis was expelled from his kingdom. lie moreover put the Ethiopian army at the service of King Amenophis, for the defence of the frontiers of Egypt. Thus far concerning the Ethiopians. But the Jerusalemites came down with the polluted Egyptians, and treated men with such impious cruelty, that their rule seemed to them who beheld their impieties the very worst possible. For they not only burned cities and villages, and sacrilegiously abused the images of the gods, but, not content with this, they used these images in roasting the animals that were reverenced as sacred, and compelled the priests to be the sacrificers and slaughterers of these animals, and then drove them naked out of the country. It is said also that the priest who gave them their laws, and ordered their civil officers, who was by birth a Heliopolitan, named Osarsiph, from Osiris, the god of Heliopolis, when he had joined himself to this race of men, changed his name, and was called Moses.' " Such things the Egyptians relate concerning the Jews, and many more which I pass over for the sake of brevity. And Manetho says again, that after these things Amenophis came from Ethiopia with a great force, and his son Rhampses with him, he also having an army ; and the two together, engaging in battle with the shepherds and the polluted men, defeated them, and having slain many, drove them even to the borders of Syria." (Joseph. Contra Apionem, i. 26, 27.) Compare with this the briefer account of Cha?remon, who said, "Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep, and blamed him because her temple had been destroyed in the war. But Phritiphantes, the sacred scribe, told him that all cause of alarm would be removed, if he should purify Egypt from men who were polluted. Whereupon he gathered 250,000 of these obnoxious persons, and banished them. Over these were the scribes, Moses and Joseph, who was also a sacred scribe. Their Egyptian names were, of Moses, Tisithen, and of Joseph, Peteseph. These came to Pelusium, and found there 380,000 persons, who had been left by Amenophis, because he did not wish to bring them into Egypt. Forming an alliance with these, they marched against Egypt. But Amenophis, without awaiting their attack, fled into Ethiopia, leaving his wife, who was pregnant. She hid herself in a certain cave, where she brought forth a son, whose name was Lect. n. NOTES. 285 Mcsscnes. He, after he grew up to manhood, drove the Jews, who were about 200,000, into Syria, and brought back his father from Ethiopia." (Joseph., 1. s. c. ch. 32.) Note LXXXIL, p. 74. The name Osarsiph, which, according to Manetho, was the Egyptian appellation of Moses, seems to be a corruption of Joseph, whom Chaere- mon made Moses' companion and fellow-helper. The statement that Moses was "a priest of Heliopolis" which was also made by Apion (Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 2) is either a perversion of the Scrip- tural fact of Joseph's marriage with " the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On," ' or possibly an indication of a fact not recorded in Scripture, that Moses gained his knowledge of the Egyptian wisdom at that seat of learning. The fear of Amenophis for his son's safety recalls to our thoughts the last of the plagues : the forced labor of the Jews in the stone quarries is not very different from the compul- sory brick-making ; the cry of pollution is probably connected with the earlier plagues, or perhaps it is only an exaggeration of the feeling which viewed "every shepherd" as "an abomination." (Gen. xlvi. 34.) The mention of Jerusalem, or rather Salem, (the Salemites,) at this time, confirms Gen. xiv. 18 ; and the occurrence of Rameses as a family name in the dynasty harmonizes with its use as a local designa- tion. (Gen. xlvii. 11 ; Exod. i. 11, and xii. 37.) Note LXXXIII., p. 75. See Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, vol. i. p. 240. " I need not dwell," he says, "on the proofs of the low antiquity of our species, for it is not controverted by any exjicrienccd geologist ; indeed, the real difficulty consists in tracing back the si^ns of man's existence on the earth to that comparatively modern period when species, now his con- temporaries, began to predominate. If there be a difference of opinion respecting the occurrence in certain deposits of the remains of man and his works, it is always in reference to strata confessedly of the most modern order; and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with assem- blages of animals and plants, of which all or even a great part of the species are extinct." This remark will, I conceive, hold good, whatever judgment is ulti- i Gun. xli. 45. 286 NOTES. Lect. II. matcly formed by science of the results which have been recently obtained by Mr. Horner in Egypt, ' by M. Boucher de Perthes in France, 2 and by Mr. Prestwich and others in our own country. The strata examined and said to contain the most ancient human remains hitherto found, are the alluvium of Egypt, and the diluvium or "drift" of Europe ; which are both, geologically, strata of a comparatively modern origin. The rashness of the conclusions as to the minimum antiquity of our race in Egypt, which Mr. Horner drew from his researches, has been ably exposed by a writer in the Quarterly Review, (April, 1859, No. 210, pp. 419-421.) Note LXXXIV., p. 75. The researches and arguments of Blumenbach, Haller, Cuvier, ana, above all, of Dr. Prichard, {Physical History of Mankind, vol. i. pp. 114-376,) have established this point beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the author of the Vestiges of Creation admits " the result, on the whole, of inquiries into what are called the physical history of man," to be, "that conditions such as climate and food, domestication, and perhaps an inward tendency to progress under tolerably favorable circumstances, are sufficient to account for all the outward peculiarities of form and color" observable among mankind. {Vestiges, p. 262, tenth edition.) Note LXXXV., p. 75. "Physiological Ethnology," says Professor Max Milller, "has ac- counted for the varieties of the human race, and removed the barriers which formerly prevented us from viewing all mankind as the members of one family, the offspring of one parent. The problem of the variety of language is more difficult, and has still to be solved, as we must include in our survey the nations of America and Africa. But over the languages of the primitive Asiatic Continent of Asia and Europe a new light begins to dawn, which, in spite of perplexing appearances, reveals more and more clearly the possibility of their common origin." (See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 474 ; and compare pp. 478, 479.) 1 Account of some recent Researches near Cairo, (first published in the Philosophical Transactions,) l>y Leonard Horner, Esq., Parts i. and ii. London, 1855 and 1858. - Jlntiquites Ccltiqu.cs et Antt-diluviennes, par M. Boucher de Perthes, Paris, 1847. Lect. n. NOTES. 287 Note LXXXVL, p. 75. "It is pleasing to remark," says Sir H. Rawlinson, speaking of the different races in Western Asia, "that if we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from ichich the various lines had radiated." (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 232. Compare the statements of the same writer in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 586.) Note LXXXVII., p. 75. The only case in which we can form a judgment of the linguistic accuracy of the Pentateuch is that of the Egyptian terms, since here only have we any sufficient knowledge of the language spoken in the country at the time. I'nder this head come the following : 1. Pharaoh, (ri>**B<) as the title of Egyptian kings (Gen. xii. 15, xl. 2 ; Ex. i. 11,) which has been explained as Ph-ouro, "the king;" but which is more probably Ph-rah, " the Sun," a title borne by the Egyp- tian monarchs from very early times. (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 182, note 1.) 2. Potiphar, (lEiCIB,) or Potipherah, OnE-'S'iE.) which is Pcte- ph-re, " belonging to the Sun " a name common upon the monu- ments, (Ilosellini, Monumenti Storici, i. 117; Champollion, Precis, Table Gencrale, p. 23,) and specially appropriate to a Priest of On, or Heli. opolis. Compare the name Peteseph, "belonging to Seb, (Chronos,) " which, according to Chicremon, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. (Supra, Note LXXXI.) 3. Asenath, (r:21X,) which is, according to Jablonsky, (Opuscula, ii. 208,) Asshe-nrith, " worshipper of Neith," or more probably, as Gese- nius observes, (Thesaurus, ad voc.,) As-neith, " quae Neithffi (est,)" "belonging to Neith." It has been doubted whether Neith was wor- shipped at this early date ; but she seems to have been really one of the primitive deities of Lower Egypt. (Bun sen, Egypt's Place, vol. i. p. 389.) Her name forms an element in that of Nitocris, (Xcith-akri,) a queen of the sixth dynasty. (Wilkinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 165, noie 2.) 4. Zaphnath-Paancah, (w.sZ'TZZI^) the name which Pharaoh gave 288 NOTES. Lect. IL to Joseph, is best explained through the Septuagint Psontho-mphanech, which closely corresponds to the Coptic Psont-mfaneh, " sustainer of the age," or as Jerome says, a little freely, " salvator mundi." (See Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1181.) The first two letters have been trans- posed in the Hebrew, either by accident, or to suit Jewish articulation, and at the same time to produce a name significant to Jewish ears. 5. Moses (fTOft) was undoubtedly an Egyptian name, since it was selected by Pharaoh's daughter, (Ex. ii. 10.) ^Ve are told that it was significant, being chosen "because she drew him out of the water." The real etymology was long since given fully by Josephus, (Ant. Jud. ii. 9, $ 6,) partially by Philo, (De vita Mosis, i. Op. vol. ii. p. 83,) and Clemens Alexandrinus, (Strom, i. p. 412.) Josephus "The Egyptians eall water mo, and those who are rescued from the water uses." Philo " The Egyptians call water mos." Clem. Alex. " The Egyptians call water moti." The last of these forms is the best. Moil is still "water" in Coptic, and the old Egyptian word given by Bunsen as muau ' was similar. According to Jablonsky (Opus- cula, i. 152) oushe in Coptic is "to save." I am not aware whether this root has been found yet in the ancient Egyptian. 6. Besides these names, a certain number of Egyptian words have been detected in the language of the Pentateuch. Such are ^ns< (or ^HIS* i LXX. ax a >) w hich Jablonsky found to signify in Coptic " every green thing which is produced in a pool," (Opuscula, vol. i. p. 45 ;) perhaps i"QFl> (LXX. Qijin,) the word used both for Noah's Ark, and for the small ark in which Moses was placed, (La Croze, Lexicon Egyp- tiacum, sub voc. ;) and "fj13S which is explained from the Coptic as au-rek, "bow every one," or ape-rek, "bow the head." (See Gesenius, Hebrdisches und Chalddisches HandicOrterbueh, ad voc, p. 10, E. T., and compare de Rossi, Etym. Egypt., p. 1.) The geographic accuracy of the Pentateuch has been illustrated by a number of writers. Dr. Stanley, one of the most recent and most calm- judging of modern Oriental travellers, observes with respect to the Mosaic accounts of the Sinaitic desert " Even if the precise route of the Israelites were unknown, yet the peculiar features of the country have so much in common that the history would still receive many remarkable illustrations. . . . The occasional springs, and wells, and 1 Bnsen\s Egypt, vol. i. p. 471, No. 31? Lect. II. notes. 289 brooks, are in accordance with the notices of the ' waters ' of Marah, the ' springs ' of Elim, the ' brook ' of Horeb ; the ' well ' of Jethro's daughters, with its troughs ' or tanks. The vegetation is still that which we should infer from the Mosaic history," &c. (Sitiai and Pales- tine, pp. 20, 21 ; compare pp. 22, 24, 129, &c.) In the account of Egypt the accuracy is seen not only in the general description of the territory its rich meadows and corn-lands ; its abounding river, edged with flags and bulrushes, (Ex. ii. 3 ;) its wealth of waters derived therefrom, ' streams and rivers, and ponds, and pools of water," (Ex. vii. 19;) its wheat, and rye, and barley, and flax, (ib. ix. 31, 32,) and green trees (palm-trees r) yielding fruit, (ib. x. 15 ;) but also in the names and sometimes in the sites of towns. On, (r$,) Pithom, (~'ps,) Harnesses, (cCy-|>) Zoan, (y^^i) and Migdol, (;~3^>) which are among the few Egyptian towns mentioned by Moses, are all well-known places. Of On, the Greek Hcliopolis, it is unnecessary to speak. Pithom is the 1 atumus of Herodotus, (ii. 158,) the city of Thmei, (Justice,) called ' Thmuin " in the Itinerary of Antonine, (p. 9.) Ramesses is Beth- Ranicses, a city of which we have a description in a hieratic papyrus of the 18th or 19th dynasty. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, Art. VI. p. 254.) Zoan, the Tanis of the EXX. whence the " Tanitic nome " of Herodotus, (ii. 166,) and the "Tanitic mouth" of later authors, is the modern San or Zan, evidently a great town in the time of the Rames- side monarchs. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, i. p. 449.) Migdol, the Magdolus of Hecatreus, (Fr. 282,) retains its name in the Itinerary j ? Antonine, (p. 10,) and appears in the position assigned by Moses, on the north-east frontier, near Pelusium. Again, the name by which Egypt itself is designated, Mizraim, (~*~l"' , :>) has a peculiar geographi- cal significancy. The dual form marks the two Egypts " the upper and the lower country " as they are termed in the inscriptions. 1 Equally significant is Padan-nram, (~*S~"|1 5 ,) " the plain Syria " the country stretching away from the foot of the hills, (Stanley's Palestine, p. 128, note 1,) where Harran stood, which was so different a tract from the mountainous Syria west of the Euphrates. Again, the expression, *' the entrance of Hamath," (Numb. xiii. 21,) shows a conversance with the geography of Upper Palestine, whereof this " entrance " is so 1 The common hieroglyphic si^n* f"r the wholn of Keypt are two crowns, tiro water- plants, or tro layers of earth. (Lcpsius, Sur V.llphabct Ilicroglyphiqur, I'lunche 1. Groups vii. col. C. 25 290 NOTES. Lect. IL striking a feature, (Stanley, p. 399,) and with the existence of Hamath at the time, which may be proved from the hieratic papyri of the period. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, p. 268.) Some further geographical points will be touched in Note LXXXIX. The ethological accuracy of the Pentateuch as respects Oriental man- ners and customs generally, has never been questioned. The life of the Patriarchs in Canaan, the habits of those who dwell in the desert, the chiefs and followers, the tents, the wealth in cattle, the " sitting in the door," the salutations and obeisances, the constant migrations, the quarrels for pasture and water, the marriages with near relatives, the drawing of water from the wells by the young maidens, the troughs for the camels, the stone on the well's mouth, the camels kneeling with their burdens and waiting patiently till the troughs are full, the pur- chase by weight of silver, the oaths accompanied by peculiar ceremonies, the ox unmuzzled as he treads out the corn, these and ten thousand similar traits are so true to nature and to fact, even at the present day, (for the East changes but little,) that travellers universally come back from Syria deeply and abidingly impressed with roe reality and truth- fulness of the Pentateuch in all that respects Eastern manners. Ration- alism, in order to meet in any degree the weight of this argument, is forced to betake itself to Egypt, where an artificial system existed in the time of Moses which has now completely passed away. Von Bohlen maintains that in many respects the author of the Pentateuch shows a want of acquaintance with the customs of Egypt, e. g., in his mention of eunuchs at the Egyptian court, {Commentar, p. 360,) in his represen- tation of Pharaoh's daughter as bathing in the Nile, (ibid.,) and in his making wine a product of Egypt, (p. 374.) The objections taken are not particularly happy. (See llosellini as quoted by Hengstenberg, jEgypten una 1 Mose, p. 23 ; and Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. hi. p. 389 ; Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 126.) Were they more important, they would be greatly outweighed by the multitude of passages where an intimate acquaintance with Ancient Egypt may be discerned. The position of the Egyptians with respect to foreigners their separation from them, yet their allowance of them in their country, their special hatred of shepherds, the suspicion of strangers from Palestine as spies their internal government, its settled character, the power of the King, the influence of the Priests, the great works, the employment of for- eigners in their construction, the use of bricks, (cf. Herod, ii. 136, with Lect. H. NOTES. 291 Wilkinson's note ad loc.,) and of bricks with straw in them, (Wilkin- son, 1. s. c. and Camb. Essays, 1858, p. 259,) the taskmasters, the embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation of spices, (Gen. xxxvii. 25,) the violent mournings, (Herod, ii. 85,) the dissoluteness of the women, (ibid. ii. Ill ; Camb. Essays, 1858, p. 234,) the lighting with horses and chariots, (Wilkinson on Herod, ii. 108 ; Camb. Essays, 1858, pp. 240, 241,) these are a few out of the many points which might be noted marking an intimate knowledge of Egyptian manners and customs on the part of the author of the Pentateuch. (For a full treatment of the question, see the work of Hengstenberg quoted above, which exhibits a very good acquaintance with the works of modern Egyptologers.) Note LXXXVIII., p. 76. The uncertainty of geographers as to the sites of these cities, and the weak grounds upon which identifications of them were attempted, will be seen by reference even to works so recent as Winer's RealwOrterbuch (1848) and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, (1856.) Ur was thought by some (Hitter, Kitto) to be Orfa or Edessa (so even Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 366 ;) which according to others (Winer) was Erech : Calneh was supposed to be Ctesiphon, Calah to be Hoi wan ; Ellasar, which should have been in Lower Babylonia, was thought to be the Larissa of Xenophon, on the middle Tigris ; while Accad was cither Sacada or Nisibis. Any slight resemblance of name any late authority of a Talmudical or Arabic writer was caught at, in order to fix what the scanty remains of primeval geography left completely unsettled. Note LXXXIX., p. 76. The following sites seem to have been determined beyond all rea- sonable doubt by the Babylonian and Assyrian Inscriptions : 1. Ur of the Chaldces, at Mughcir, on the right bank of the Eu- phrates, not very far above its junction with the S/iat-rl- 1 fie. This is the true Chaldrea of Scripture and of History, an Armenian Chald.ea being a fiction of the Greeks. 2. Calah at Nimrud, on the left bank of the Tigris, a little above its junction with the Greater Zab. (The Halah of 2 Kings xvii. 6, is a 292 notes. Lect. IL different place.) The province in which it stands long continued to be called Calachene, (Strab. xvi. 1, 1 ; Ptol. vi. 1.) 3. Erech at Warka, (the Greek '0(>/6t;,) on the left bank of the Euphrates, and at some distance from the river, about 35 miles N. W. of Ur. The following identifications, if not certain, are at least highly prob- able : 1. Resen with Kilch-Sherghdt, on the right bank of the Tigris, not very far from its junction with the Lesser Zab. 2. Accad with a town in Lower Babylonia, called Kinzi Accad in the Inscriptions, the site of which is not yet determined. 3. Ellasar with Senkereh, 15 miles S. E. of Warka, on the same side of the Euphrates. 4. Calneh with Niffer, in the same tract with Senkereh and Warka, but much nearer Babylon, and about midway between the two streams. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 313, 447, 592, &c.) Eor a description of the ruins of Ur and Erech, see Mr. Loftus's Chaldcea and Susiana, pp. 128-134, and 162 et seqq. ; for those of Calah, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, ch. ii. et seqq. ; some account is given of Resen {Kileh-Sherghaf) in the same work, ch. xii. ; and of Calneh (Niffer) in the same writer's Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxiv. Note XC, p. 76. See the account which Mr. Cyril Graham has given of his travels in this region in the Cambridge Essays for 1858, pp. 157-162. Compar* Dr. Stanley's Si?iai and Palestine, p. 118. Note XCL, p. 76. See Commander Lynch* s Narrative of the United States Expedition to the River Jordan, and also his Official Report. Compare the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xviii. Artt. 8, 9, and 10, and vol. xx. Art. 15. For a summary of the facts, see Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 276-279, and the Essays appended to the first volume of the author's Herodotus, Essay ix. pp. 548, 549. Commander Lynch gives the following account of the impression made upon himself and his friends by their careful examination of the River and of the Lake in which it ends: " It is for the learned to comment on the facts which we have laboriously collected. Upon ourselves, the result is a Lect. m. NOTES. 293 decided one. We entered upon this sea with conflicting opinions. One of the party was sceptical, and another, I think, a professed unbe- liever of the Mosaic account. After twenty-two days' close investi- gation, if 1 am not mistaken, we were unanimous in the conviction of the truth of the Scriptural account of the destruction of the cities of the plain." (Narrative, ch. xvii. p. 253.) LECTURE III. Note I., p. 79. See Konig, Alttestament. Studien, p. G3, et seqq. ; Jahn, Einleitung, ii. 1, p. 160; and Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 35. Note II., p. 79. See Carpzov, Introductio ad libros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, part i. p. 213, who gives the following list of writers by whom this view has been taken : Thcodoret, Procopius, Gregory the Gnat. Isidore, Eucherius, among the ancients ; among the moderns, Walther. Calo- vius, Hugo, I)e Lyra, Cajetan, Vatable, Sixtus Sinensis, Sanctius, Se- rarius, and Cornelius a Lapide." Note III., p. 79. There is no reference to the Book of Joshua as the work of Joshua in Scripture. It is first assigned to him in the Talmud. The Fathers aro divided in opinion as to its authorship. Athanasius, for instance, includes it among the books "not written by the persons whose names they bear and of whom they treat." (Synops. S. S. 10; Opera, vol. ii. p. 139, B.) Note IV., p. 79. Sec the summary of the arguments in Keil's Commentar liber d. Buch Jo.iua, Einleitung, 3, p. xlvii. Keil's conclusion is, " that the histor- ical references and the peculiarity of style completely disprove the 25* 294 notes. Lect. IIL supposition that the Book of Joshua was written during the captivity ; that they do not point to the times of Samuel, or Saul, or David, as the date of its composition, but rather to those after Joshua, and within a generation of his death. "Who then," he asks, "was the author? Most probably one of the elders, who lived for some time after Joshua, and who had seen all the works of Jehovah which he did for Israel, occupied himself at the close of his life with writing down, partly from recollection, partly from contemporary documents and other written notices, the things which he had himself Avitnessed, and thus composed the work which we possess under the name of Joshua." ' I should be disposed to acquiesce in this view. Note V., p. 81. De "Wette boldly denies this. " The book," he says, " nowhere con- tains any separate contemporary documents," (nicht einmal einzelne gleichzeitige Eestandtheile enthalt es. Einleitung, 169, p. 213.) But RosenmUller, Jahn, and others, seem to have reason on their side when they urge, that the accounts of the boundaries of the tribes, (xv. 21-62 ; xviii. 21-28 ; xix. 1-48,) and of the cities of the Levites, (xxi. 13-40,) have all the appearance of such documents. Such a document is also, as it seems to me, the list of slaughtered kings in chapter xii., (verses 9-24.) It appears by ch. xviii. 1-10, and xxiv. 26, that such records were in use at the time ; and it is a reasonable supposition that they formed the basis upon which the author, who quotes them, com- posed his work. Eichhorn observed long ago " The account of the division of the land bears in many places the marks of a protocol, which from its very nature never gives at once a brief sketch of the whole arrangement, but describes its gradual progress, and relates, one after another, all the alterations, improvements, and additions, that were made from time to time." {Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 36-5.) Keil remarks recently " When we come to the second part of the book, and observe the things of which it particularly treats ; how the history which it contains of the division of Canaan amongst the tribes is accompanied with full descriptions of the boundaries of the territory of each tribe, with catalogues of cities, and so on, we are necessarily led to the 1 In the quotations from Professor Keil's learned and sensible work, I follow the Translation of Mr. J. Martin, which forms the fourteenth volume of Clark's Foreign Theolug-ical Library, New Series, (Edinburgh, 1857.) Lect. m. NOTES. 295 conclusion, that the writer availed himself of written records, if not o! official documents." (Commentar, Einleitung, 4 ; p. 47, E. T.) Com- pare Home, Introduction, vol. v. pp. 36, 37. Note VI., p. 81. t See Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, p. 172, et seqq. ; and compare the quotation from Baba-Bathra in The- odore Parker's Translation of De Wette, vol. i. p. 31. See also Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 42. Note VII., p. 81. Compare Judges i. 21 with 2 Sam. v. G-9. This passage, it is ad- mitted, " seems to belong to the time of David." (Parker's De Wette, yol. i. p. 20G.) Note VIII., p. 81. The chronology of the Book of Judges is involved in great imccr- tainty. Several periods are unestimated, as the time between the death of Joshua and the first servitude, the judgeship of Sham'gar, and some portion of the reign of Abimelech. The servitudes added together occupy 111 years, and the periods during which the land was at rest or under Judges occupy apparently 299 years, or if Samson's judgeship be included in the last servitude, (Jud. xv. 20,) 27!) years. The total is thus 410, or 390.' But in 2 Kings vi. 1, the entire period between the Exodus and the Dedication of the Temple is declared to have been no more than 480 years. Now if we take the lower of the two numbers derivable from Judges, and add the sojourn in the wilderness, (40 years,) the time of Joshua's judgeship, (say 20 years,) the interval between Joshua's death and the 1st servitude, (say 5 years,) the judge- ships of Eli, (10 years,) and of Samuel, (more than 20 years, 1 Sam. vii. 2,) the reigns of Said, (10 years,) of David, (10 years,) and the three years of Solomon's rci^n before the Dedication, we obtain the result of (390 -f- 40 -f 20 + .J -4- 10 -f- 20 -f- 10 -I- 40 + 3 = ) .'598 years. r more than a century beyond the estimate in Kin^s. It is therefore 1 With this nearly agrees St. Paul's estimate of 450 years from the division of the land by lot to Samuel the prophet. (Arts xfil.20;) for 390 + 40 (the time of Eli's jndfte- ship) + 20 (a not improbable estimate for the time between the death of Moses and (he 1st Servitude) = 450 years. 29G notes. Lect. III. thought that the period of the Judges must be reduced ; and the term ordinarily assigned to them, exclusive of Eli and Samuel, is from 300 to 350 years. (See the marginal dates in the English Bible, and com- pare Clinton, Fasti Ilellenici, vol. i. p. 313, note ".) M. Bunscn, with his usual boldness, reduces the time still further, making the period from the death of Joshua to that of Samson no more than 173 years. (See his Egypt, vol. iii. p. 288.) This is effected by giving Othniel and Deborah 8 years each instead of 40, by reducing the time between the 2d and 3d servitudes from 80 years to 7, by shortening Gideon's pres- idency from 40 years to 10, and by regarding the line of Judges from Tola to Abdon as double, whereby 94 years are compressed into 48 ! If chronology be treated in this spirit, it is to be feared that it -will shortly come to be regarded pretty nearly in the same light as the etymology of the last century, in which, it was said, " VoavcIs are good for nothing, and consonants of small account." Note IX., p. 82. Jahn, Einleitung, 46, vol. ii. p. 232, et seqq. Ilerbst, Einlcitung, vol. ii. p. 139, et seqq. ; Graf, Dissertatio de librorum Samuelis et llegum compost tume, &c. A good refutation of Jahn's theory will be found in Kitto's Cyclopadia, in the article on the " Books of Samuel," vol. ii. p. 68 o.) Note X., p. 82. See Carpzov, Introductio, &c, p. 213. Modern critics mostly take the view that the Books of Samuel were merely founded on these doc- uments. (See Ililvcrniek, Einleitung, 161 ; Stuart, History of the Old Testament Canon, \ fi, p. 134 ; Rev. J. Eadie in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, vol. ii. p. 684 ; &c.) Home, however, with Carpzov (p. 215) and Span- heim, {Opera, vol. i. p. 367,) holds to the ancient view. (See his Introduction, vol. v. p. 48.) The difference between the two views is not great Note XI., p. 83. Ahijah the Shilonite is mentioned as a contemporary of Solomon in 1 Kings xi. 29. As the visions of Iddo the seer were "against Jer- oboam the son of Nebat," he must have been, at the latest, contempo.- rary with Solomon's successor. Lect. III. NOTES 297 Note XII., p. 84. De "Wctte says correctly ' ' The history of David, contained in 1 Chron. x.-xxix., is in parts entirely consistent with that in the books of Samuel ; but it is distinguished from that by having severed accounts peculiar to itself, and especially by its Levitical accounts." (Einleitung, 188, p. 241 ; vol. ii. p. 261, of Parker's Translation.} Such accounts are particularly the following 1. The lists of those who joined David at Ziklag and at Hebron, (ch. xii.) 2. David's imstructions to Solomon and the princes with regard to the temple, (ch. xxii. and ch. xxviii.) 3. His offerings and those of the people, (ch. xxix. 1-9.) 4. His thanksgiving, and prayer, (ibid. 10-19.) 5. His great sacrifice and installing of Solomon as king for the second time, (ibid. 20-25.) And, 6. The lists of the Levites, Priests, singers, por- ters, captains, &c, as made out or appointed by David, (chs. xxii.- xxvii.) The remainder of the first book of Chronicles follows Samuel closely, in most passages almost to the letter ; e. g. 1 Chuon. x. 1-10. Now the Philistines fought a- gainst Israel ; and the men of Is- rael fled frcjm before the Philis- t.nes, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines fol- lowed hard after Saul, and after his sons ; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Mal- chi-shua, the sons of Saul. And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him, and he was wounded of the archers, &c, &c. 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-10. Now the Philistines fought a- gainst Israel : and the men of Is- rael lied from before the Philis- tines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines fol- lowed hard upon Saul and upon his sons ; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Mel- chi-shua, Said's sons. And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him ; and he was sore wounded of the archers, &c, &c. Note XIII., p. 84. That the seventy -eighth Psalm is a work of David's time, is apparent from its bringing the history down to him, and then closing abruptly. The title, * Maschil of Asaph," is an external confirmation of this view- 298 notes. Lect. IIL Even Dc "Wette appears to allow that Asaph was the author. (Einici~ twig, 271, p. 36G.) In this Psalm are mentioned the following his- torical facts : (1.) The giving of the law by Jehovah, (verse .5 ;) (2.) The command that it should be made known by fathers to their chil- dren, (verses 5, 6; compare Deut. iv. 9, &c. ;) (3.) the miracles wrought in Egypt, (verse 12 ;) (4.) the turning of the rivers, and (5.) other waters, into blood, (verse 44;) (6.) the plague of flies, (v. 4.3 ;) (7.) of frogs, (ib. ;) (8.) of locusts, (v. 46;) (9.) of hail, (v. 47 ;) (10.) the destruction by the hail of cattle as well as trees, (v. 48 ;) (11.) the death of the first-born, (v. 51 ;) (12.) the employment of angels in this destruction, (v. 49;) (13.) the divine leading of the Israelites out of Egypt, (v. 52 ;) (14.) the pillar of cloud (15.) by day, (v. 14;) (16.) the pillar of fire (17.) by night, (ibid. ;) (18.) the division of the Red Sea, (v. 13;) (19.) the standing of the water in a Jieap, (ibid.; com- pare Ex. xv. 8 ;) (20.) the divine guidance of the Israelites through the sea, (v. 53 ;) (21.) the overwhelming of the Egyptians, (ib. ;) (22.) the frequent murmuring in the wilderness, (verses 17-20;) (23.) the bringing forth of water from the rock. (v. 15 ;) (24.) in vast abun- dance, (v. 16;) (25.) the asking for meat, (v. 18;) (26.) the kindling of a fire against the people, (v. 21 ; compare Numb. xi. 1 ;) (27.) the manna, (v. 24 ;) (28.") its coming down from heaven, (v. 23 ; compare Ex. xvi. 4 ;) (29.) the ampleness of the supply, (v. 25 ;) (30.) the giv- ing of quails, (v. 27;) (31.) which were brought by a wind, (v. 26; compare Numb, xi. 30,) (32.) and let fall "round about their habita- tion," (v. 28; compare Numb. xi. 31;) (33.) the destructive plague which followed, (v. 31,) (34.) "while the meat was yet in their mouths," (v. 30 ; compare Numb. xi. 33 ;) (35.) the various further provocations, (vv. 32, 37, &c. ;) (36.) the punishment by "consuming their days" in the wilderness, (v. 33 ;) (37.) the mercy of God in "not stirring up all his wrath," (v. 38 ;) (38.) the frequent repentances after punishment, and frequent relapses, (vv. 34-42 ;) (39.) the divine con- duct to the border of the Holy Land, (v. 54 ;) (40.) the casting out of the Heathen before them, (v. 55 ;) (41.) the division of the inheritances, (ib. ;) (42.) the cowardice of Ephraim, (v. 9; compare Josh. xvi. 10; Judges i. 29;) (43.) the backsliding and idolatry in Canaan, (vv. 56- 58 ;) (44.) the placing of the tabernacle at Shiloh, (v. 60 ;) (45.) its capture, (v. 61 ;) (46.) the great slaughter at the same time, (v. 62 ;) (47.) the slaughter of priests in the battle, (v. 64 ;) (48.) the punish- Lect. III. notes. 299 ment of the captors by emerods, (v. 66 ;) (49.) the choice of the terri- tory of Judah for the final resting-place of the tabernacle, (v. 68 ;) (50.) the choice of Mount Zion as the place where it should be set up, (ib. ;) (51.) the selection of David to be king, (v. 70 ;) (52.) his being taken " from the sheep-folds," (ibid. ;) and (53.) the integrity and excellence of his rule, (v. 72.) Note XIV., p. 85. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 132, 133. Note XV., p. 85. M. Bunsen supposes that Assyria, from the commencement of its independence in B. C. 1273, was not only a powerful kingdom, but a great empire, holding Syria, Palestine, and even occasionally Egypt in subjection, {Egypt, vol. hi. pp. 269, 289, . &c.) But this view rests entirely upon Ctesias, a writer (as M. Bunsen confesses ') of very low authority ; or rather it rests upon an odd jumble between the facts (?) of Ctesias and the dates of Herodotus and Berosus. Nothing is more plain from the Assyrian inscriptions, the authority of which M. Bunsen admits, 2 than the gradual rise of Assyria to power during the 520 (526) years assigned by Herodotus to the Empire. Tiglath-Pileser I., Avhose date is fixed, with a near approach to certainty, in the latter part of the eleventh century B. C, gives a list of his four ancestors and predeces- sors which must reach back at least to B. O. 1200, wherein he calls the first of them "the king who first organized the country of Assyria;" the second and third kings who were established in the government of Assyria;" and the fourth, his father, "the Bubduer of foreign coun- tries ;" while he calls himself " the illustrious prince who has pursued after the enemies of Asshur and has subjugated all the earth." Yet his campaigns are only in the Kurdish mountains, in Armenia, Cappadocia, and upper Syria about Carchemish. lie does not penetrate to Hamath, to Phoenicia, or to Damascus, much less to Palestine ; while he con- stantly declares that he is engaged with tribes and countries which none of the Assyrian kings had ever before reached. (See the Great 1 EgWt, vol iii. p. 433. * Ibid. p. 430. 300 NOTES. Lect. IIL Inscription, published by the Royal Asiatic Society, 1 pp. 22, 21, 34, 42, &c.) Note XVI., p. 85. See Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 374-376. Com- pare Bunsen, Egypt, vol. hi. pp. 210, 211, 219-221, &c. Note XVII., p. 86. See above. Note XV. Chushan-llishathaim is placed by most Bibli- cal chronologists between B. C. 1400, and B. C. 1350. M. Bunsen puts him a century later. {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 272.) Even according to this latter view, he preceded Tiglath-Pileser I. by above a century. It is quite a gratuitous supposition of M. Bunsen's, that Chushan- Rishathaim was " a Mesopotamian satrap," (1. s. c.,) " the Assyrian satrap of Mesopotamia," (p. 289.) Scripture calls him " king ; " and besides, the cuneiform monuments make it perfectly clear that Assyria did not extend her dominion to Aram-Naharaim (the Aramaic portion of Mesopotamia, or the country between the Khabour and the Eu- phrates) till the middle of the twelfth century. M. Bunsen says, "There can never have been an empire in Eastern Syria coexistent with Assyria and Babylonia," (p. 293.) Why can there not? If the Assyr- ian and Babylonian kingdoms of the early period be rightly appre- hended, there is no more difficulty in supposing a powerful Aramaean state in Western Mesopotamia, than in imagining the country divided up, as we must otherwise regard it, among a number of petty princi- palities. Chushan-Rishathaim, however, it is to be observed, reigned probably before the Assyrian independence was established. Note XVIII., p. 86. Moses says, "When he (i. e. Joshua) was destroying the Canaanites, some fled to Agra, and sought Tharsis in ships. This appears from an inscription, carved on pillars in Africa, which is extant even in our own time, and is of this purport : ' We, the chiefs of the Canaanites, fleeing from Joshua the Robber, have come hither to dwell.' " Hist. Arrnen., i. 18. 1 Printed by J. W. Tarker, West Strand, London, 1857. LECT. III. NOTES. 301 Note XIX., p. 86. Procopius expresses himself as follows. Having mentioned Tigisis, (Tangiers,) a city of Numidia, he proceeds " "Where there are two columns, made of white stone, near the great fountain, having carved upon them Phoenician letters, which read thus in the language of the Phoenicians : * We are they who fled from the face of Joshua the ltob- ber, the son of Nun.' " (L>e Ecllo Vandalico, ii. 10.) This is clearly the language of an eye-witness. Procopius, it must be remembered, had accompanied lielisarius to Africa. Note XX., p. 86. (Suidas ad voc. Xaraitv Canaan.) "And there arc up to the present time such slabs in Numidia, containing the following inscription : ' We are Canaanites, whom Joshua the Ilobber drove out.' " Note XXI. p. 87. Kcil, Commentar liber d. Buck Josua, Einlcitung, 4, p. Ii. ; p. 51, E. T. Note XXII., p. 87. Mr. Kcnrick, who admits the existence of an inscription supposed to have the meaning given to it by the writers above quoted, decides that the inscription must have been mistranslated. {Phoenicia, p. 68.) lie remarks that the explanations of the hieroglyphical and cuneiform in- scriptions which were furnished by those who professed to understand them to the inquisitive Greeks, read us a lesson of distrust ; and suggests that a monument of the time of Joshua would have been unintelligible even to learned archaeologists in the days of Justinian. Hut the monu- ment may have been national and genuine without its dating from with- in a thousand years of the time of Joshua ; and if the cuneiform and hieroglyphical inscriptions were not accurately rendered to the Greeks, it was less through ignorance than through malice that they were per- verted. In this case the translation given by the natives is clearly an honest one ; and its peculiarities seem to me in its favor. The Arama- ism, " in nocownou," l is admitted to be "a plausible argument for the 1 From tho face. 26 302 NOTES. Lect. IIL correctness of the interpretation," (Kenrick, 1. s. c.) The form of the inscription, in which certain persons, not named or described, speak in the first person plural, which is said to be " wholly unlike that of genu- ine lapidary documents," (Kenrick, p. 67,) is no doubt unusual; but as certainly it is not impossible. The early cuneiform documents are commonly in the first person. And if the inscription were set up in a public place in Tingis, it would be sufficiently evident that by " we " was meant the people of the city. Besides, we are not sure that this was the whole of the inscription. The authors who report it are only concerned with a particular passage. There may have been a context, which would have taken away all appearance of harshness and abrupt- ness from the record. Note XXIII. p. 87. Very few Phoenician inscriptions have been found in Africa of a later date than the age of Augustus. (See Gesenius's Monximenta Scriptures Lingiuequc Phoenicia;, pp. 13, 313-328.) The Latin language appears to have by that time almost entirely superseded the Carthaginian for all public purposes. Note XXIV., p. 88. Herod, ii. 142. " Within this period, they say that the sun has four times departed from his usual course, rising twice where he now sets, and setting twice where he now rises." Note XXV., p. 88. " When Herodotus, the father of profane history, tells us, from the priests of Egypt, that their traditions had informed them, that in very remote ages the sun had four times departed from his regular course, having twice set where he ought to have risen, and twice risen where he ought to have set, it is impossible to read this most singular tradi- tion without recollecting the narrative in the book of Joshua, which relates, ' that the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day ;' and the fact related in the history of Hezekiah, that the sun went back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz.' " (Home, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knou-ledge of Holy Scrip- ture, vol. i. p. 176. Compare Goguet, Origines Legum et Artium, vol iii. p. 300.) Lect. UI. NOTES. 303 Note XXVI., p. 88. Three other explanations of the narrative in Joshua have been sug- gested. Grotius, Isaac Peyrerius, Spinoza, and others, conjecture that a miracle was wrought, but not an astronomical one. Divine power caused, they think, an extraordinary refraction of the sun's rays, by which it continued to light up the field of battle long after its disk had sunk below the horizon. Michaelis, Sehultt:, Hess, and Dathe believe that nothing strange took place with regard to the sun, but that it con- tinued to lighten all night, in consequence of which the Israelites were able to continue the pursuit. Finally, Keil has suggested that nothing marvellous or out of the common course is intended in the narrative. The words of Joshua, " Sun, stand thou still," &c, (or " Sun, wait thou," as he translates it,) were, he thinks, spoken in the morning; and the prayer was simply that the sun might not set till the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. The whole passage from verse 12 to verse 15 inclusive, he considers to be quoted from the poem known as "the book of Jasher;" and therefore he feels justified in explaining its language poetically: "If we had had before us simple prose or the words of the historian himself," it would have been neces Bary to admit that the day was miraculously lengthened. But the words of a poet must be understood poetically. He remarks, that there is no reference to the miracle in the rest of Scripture (for he fairly enough questions whether Hab. iii. 11 is such a reference) a strange silence, if so great a miracle a-* that commonly understood at the pres- ent day, was really wrought on the occasion. These views on the part of a learned Hebraist, and of one who has no prejudice against mira- cles, seem to deserve attention. (See Keil's Commentar uber d. Buch Josua, ch. x. pp. 177-1U3 ; pp. 231-209, E. T.) Note XXVII., p. 89. Ap. Euseb. Pra>p. Ev. is. 30. "After this arose the prophet Samuel. Then, by the will of God, through the agency of Samuel, Saul was chosen king ; and he died after having reigned twenty-one years. Then David, his son, took possession of the kingdom, and discomfited the Syrians, icho dwell by the river Euphrates, and subdued Commagene, and the Assyrians and Phoenicians of Galadene." 304 NOTES. Lect. Ill Note XXVIIL, p. 89. Fragmenta Hist. Grcrc, vol. iii. pp. 373, 374, Fr. 31 : " Now a great while after this, one of the inhabitants of the country, whose name was Adad, reigned over Damascus, and the rest of Syria except Phccnice. He made war with David, king of Judaea, and contended with him in many battles : but in the last, fought on the banks of the Euphrates, in which he was defeated, he showed himself the foremost of kings in strength and valor. It may be said that Nicolas, being the friend of Herod the Great, would have ready access to the sacred books of the Jews, and may have drawn his narrative thence. But the fragments of Nicolas do not indicate this. In the very few places where he touches ancient Jewish history, it is always in connection with his own country, and from a Damascene point of view. It is also to be remarked, that while he omits main features of the Jewish narrative, as the fact that the Syrians took part in the war against David as allies of the king of Zobah, he adds features not contained in that narrative ; as the name of the Syrian king, the extent of his dominions, and the occurrence of several battles before the last disaster. These points are quite compatible with the Jewish narrative, but they could not be drawn from it." Note XXIX., p. 90. Eupolemus said, in continuation of the passage above quoted: "He also made expeditions against the Idumeans, and Ammonites, and Moabites, and Itura?ans, and Nabatseans, and Nabdacans." (Euscb. Prcep. Ev. 1. s. c.) Note XXX., p. 90. See Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 262-264. Note XXXI., p. 90. See Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. pp. 119-126; and Kenrick's Phoenicia, pp. 201-205. Note XXXIL, p. 91. The superior antiquity and preeminence in early times of Sidon over Tyre has been disputed. Niebuhr in his Lectures ( Vortrage fiber Alte Lect. IIL notes. 305 Geschichtc, vol. i. p. 94 ; p. 78, E. T.) speaks of it as doubtful. And the writer of the article on Phoenicia, in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, endeavors to prove the contrary, (vol. ii. p. 609.) But his arguments do not appear to me very cogent. It is easy to understand how Tyre, which in later tunes completely eclipsed her neighbor, should have assertors of her superior antiquity in the days of her glory, without supposing that her claim was founded in justice ; but is inexplicable that Sidon should in her lowest depression have succeeded in maintaining her claim against Tyre, unless there had been truth on her side. Mr. Kenrick appears to me to decide the con- troversy aright, when he concludes, that "Tyre was probably at first only a dependency of Sidon." (See his Pliamicia, pp. 340-342.) There is one important argument in favor of the early preeminence of Sidon, which is not noticed either by Mr. Kenrick, or the writer in Smith's Dictionary. Sidon takes precedence of Tyre in the early Egyptian lists. (See M. Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 214 ; and Cam- bridge Essays for 1858, Art. vi. p. 257.) Note XXXIII., p. 91. Homer makes no mention at all of Tyre or the Tynans, while he speaks of Sidon and the Sidonians repeatedly. (Sec Horn. II. vii. 289, 290 ; xxiii. 741-744 ; Od. iv. G18; xv. 117, and 425.) He also in one passage uses " Sidonia " as the name of Phoenicia in general. 1 It has been suggested that he preferred "Sidon" and " Sidonian " to "Tyre" and " Tyrian," because the words are more "sonorous." (See Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography, 1. s. c.) But he would scarcely on that account have so determinedly excluded Tyre, the more important city of the two. at the time when he wrote, from all mention in either of his poems. Notf. XXXIV., p. 91. Strabo in one place (xvi. 2, $ 22) speaks somewhat obscurely on the subject ; but in another (i. 2, $ 33) he distinctly calls Sidon the mother city (rfiv nrjTpoitoXiv) of all Phoenicia. 1 "They have embarked and k"o away to populous Sidonia, but I am li'ft behind with an aching heart." (Od. xiii. 285, 286.) 26* 306 NOTES. Lect. III. Note XXXV., p. 91. Justin says, " The nation of the Tyrians was founded by the Phoeni- cians, who, being annoyed by earthquakes, left their native country, and dwelt first in the Assyrian marsh, but afterwards on the sea-coast. Here they built a city, which they named Sidon, from the abundance of fish ; for Sidon is the Phoenician name for Jish. Many years after- wards, being overcome by the king of the Ascalonians, (i. e. the in* habitants of Ashkelon.) they took to their ships, and landing at Tyr* founded a city there, a year before the overthrow of Troy." (Historian xviii. 3.) Tyre is here made an actual colon} - from Sidon. (Compare Isaiah xxiii. 12, where Tyre is addressed as " daughter of Sidon.") Note XXXVL, p. 91. Josephus calls Dius " a man who is believed to have been very exact in Phoenician history." {Contra Apion. i. 17.) He probably lived soon after the time of Alexander. Note XXXVII., p. 91. Josephus distinctly states that Menander drew his Phoenician history from native sources. See his treatise Contra Apion., i. 18 : " Now this man wrote an account of the acts performed among the Greeks and the Barbarians, under each of their kings, taking great pains to learn thh. history from the national literature of each people." (Compare Ant. Jud. ix. 14.) Dius and Menander appear to have been silent about Sidon, and to have made their Phoenician histories little more than histories of Tyre. (See their fragments in C. Mailer's Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. pp. 398 and 445-447.) Note XXXVHI., p. 91. The preeminence of Tyre over the other Phoenician cities from the time of David to the close of Phoenician history, has never, I believe, been denied. It is indicated in Scripture by the uniform tenor of the prophecies, (Is. xxiii. 1-18 ; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4 ; Ez. xxvi.-xxviii., &c. ;) on the monuments by the precedency assigned to Tyre in the lists of Phoenician towns, (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 356 ; Sir Lect. IIL notes. 307 II. Rawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 30 ; compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470,) and in profane history by the constant mention which is made of Tyre, and the few and scattered notices of Sidon which occur during this period. The only remarkable exception to this consensus is Herodotus, who seems impressed with the superiority of Sidon. (See book vii. ch. 98, where the Sidonian king is given the post of honor ; and chaps. 44, 96, 99, 100, &c, where the Sidonian ships are represented as excelling all the rest.) Perhaps he is unconsciously biassed by his Homeric learn- ing ; or perhaps Sidon did temporarily recover the preeminence from about B. C. 580 to B. C. 480, in consequence of Nebuchadnezzar's siege and destruction of Tyre. Tyre, however, was manifestly once more the leading city at the time of the invasion of Alexander. (Ar- rian, Exped. Alex., ii. 15, et seqq.) Note XXXIX., p. 91. See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 58. Note XL., p. 92. A " Hiram, king of Tyre," is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath- Pileser II. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470.) Note XLI., p. 92. "Mapen, the son of Sirom," (or Hirom,) was king of Tyre at the time of Xerxes's expedition against Greece, (Herodot. vii. 98.) The name also occurs among the Phoenicians of Cyprus, (ib. v. 104.) Note XLIL, p. 92. The following is the passage of Menander concerning Hiram which Josephus has preserved to us : " Now when Abibalus died, his son Hiram succeeded to the kingdom. He lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank on what was called ' the broad place,' and set up the golden pillar in the temple of Jupiter. Moreover he went and cut timber from the mountain called Lebanon, for cedar beams for the roofs of the temples ; and tearing down the ancient temples he built new ones- and consecrated the groves of Hercules and Astarte, 308 NOTES. Lect. IIL and built the temple of Hercules first in the month Peritius, and after- wards that of Astartc, when he had marched against the Tityans, who refused to pay tribute. Having subdued them, he returned. In his reign there was one Abdemon, a very young man, who solved the prob- lems which Solomon, King of Jerusalem, proposed." (Contra Apion., i. 18.) Note XLIIL, p. 92. The words of Dius, as reported by Josephus, are " On the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram became king. This man raised banks in the eastern part of the city, and made it larger, and united to it the temple of Olympian Jupiter, which before stood on an island by itself. He built a causeway between, and adorned this temple with golden offerings. Moreover, he icent up into Lebanon, and cut timber to build temples. Now they say that Solomon, who ruled over Jerusalem, sent riddles to Hiram, and asked to receive riddles from him, on the condition that the one who could not solve them should pay a sum of money to the one who solved them. When Hiram had agreed to this, and was not able to solve the riddles, he paid a large sum of money as a forfeit. The account states, moreover, that one Abdemon, a man of Tyre, solved the riddles proposed, and proposed others himself, which Solomon being unable to solve, he forfeited a large sum to Hiram. (Contra Apioix., i. 17.) Note XLIV., p. 93. See Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 386 : " Hiram gave his own daughter to Solomon ... as Menander of Pergamus says." Compare Tatian, Adrcrsus Grcecos, 37, p. 273. Mr. Kenrick thinks this was a mere " popular tradition," to which the intimate friendship between the two kings gave rise. He argues that Hiram would not have married his daughter to Solomon, " since she could only have been a secondary wife," and he further urges the silence of Scripture. (See his Phoenicia, p. 356.) The latter is always a weak ground, and in the present instance is not fully sustained, since among Solomon's seconda- ry wives are mentioned " Sidonian (i. e. Phoenician) princesses." The force of the former argument will depend on the relative greatness which we assign to the two princes. I should be inclined to regard the power of Solomon as greater, and that of Hiram as less, than Mr. Kenrick imagines. ect. IIL notes. 309 Note XLV., p. 93. Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 375 ; Bunsen, Egypt, vol. ill. pp. 206, 207. Note XL VI., p. 93. See Euseb. Prcpp. Et\, ix. 31-34. The passage is also given among the fragments of Polyhistor, in Muller's Fragmenta Historicorum Graco- rum, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226, Fr. 18. Note XLVH., p. 94. Egyptian chronology has been made out with tolerable certainty from the Apis stelae discovered by M. Mariette, as far as the accession of Tirhakah, which appears to have been in B. C. 690. ("Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 380, 381.) Manetho's dynasties place between Tirhakah and the commencement of the 22d dynasty a space of about 275 years. This would give B. C. 965 as the date of Shi- shak's (or Sesonchis') accession. Assuming from the Canon of Ptolemy B. C. 651 as the date of Evil-merodach's accession, we obtain, by following the line of the kings of Judah, B. C. 976 for the acces- sion of Rehoboam, and B. C. 1016 for that of Solomon. This is as near an agreement as we could reasonably expect, between two chro- nologies both of which are somewhat uncertain. 1 Note XLVIII., p. 94. Sesonchis is the form used by Africanus, Sesonchosis that adopted by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of Manetho, collected by Mons. C. Muller, in his Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 590, Frs. 60 and 61.) Note XLIX., p. 94. See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 377, and Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 241. i The dates furnished by the Apis stela prove that Manetho's lists, as we havo them, are not wholly to ho depended on. In the Scripture chronology of the time, ouo element of doubt is furnished by the difference which sometimes exists between tho I,X \. and the Hebrew text. Another arises from the want of exact agreement botwoou the chronology of the Israelite and of the Jewish kings. 310 NOTES. LECT. III. The 21st, or first Tanite dynasty, belonged to the sacerdotal caste, and in various respects bore a peculiar character. "With Sheshonk, the first king of the 22d, or first Eubastite, dynasty, we have a return to the old character of Egyptian monarchs. (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 375, 376; Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221, and 241.) Note L., p. 94. See Euseb. Prcpp. Ev., ix. 34. Note LI., p. 94. Ibid. 1. s. c. " Now Theophilus says, that Solomon sent the surplus of gold to the king of the Tyrians, and that this last made a life-like statue of his daughter, of full length, and for a covering to the statue a hollow pillar of gold." Note LIL, p. 95. See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vii. pp. 490, 491. Compare Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 634, 635. Note ML, p. 96. Xineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 650 and 655. For an account of the structures at Susa and Persepolis, see Mr. Loftus's Chald&a and Susiana, ch. xxviii. pp. 364-380, and Mr. Fergusson's elaborate work, The Palaces of Xineveh restored, pp. 95-190. Note LIV., p. 96. Fergusson's Palaces of Xineveh restored, pp. 272-276 ; compare Layard's Xineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 649, 650. Note LV., p. 96. Ker Porter says, "The total height of each column is 60 feet; the circumference of the shaft is sixteen ; the length from the capital to the tor, forty-four feet." {Travels, vol. i. p. 633.) In another part of the LECT. III. NOTES. 311 rums, he measured two pillars, the total height of which, including capital and tor, was forty-Jive feet. (Ibid. p. 590.) The measurements adopted by Mr. Fergusson are, for the palace of Darius, 20 feet ; for the hall of the Hundred Columns, 25 feet ; for the Propylaeum of Xerxes 46 feet, 9 inches; and for the Hall of Xerxes, 64 feet. {The Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 108, 125, 158, and 177.) Note LVL, p. 96. See Kugler's Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, p. 81. Note LVII., p. 97. Even Mr. Layard, while admitting that " some of the Assyrian sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Sol- omon's temple," adds in a note, "I cannot, however, but express my conviction that much of the metal called gold both in the sacred writ- ings and in profane authors of antiquity, was really copper, the ori- chalchum of the Greeks, such as was used in the bowls and plates dis- covered at Nimroud." [Nineveh and Babylon, p. 652.) But metal of this slight value would hardly have been torn with violence from a sacred building, as the plating appears to have been from the fourth stage of the Bits Nitnrud. It is further to be remarked, that in the classical accounts the golden beams, &c, are distinctly said to have been far less numerous than the silver ones. Polybius says of the palace at Ecbatana for although it was built entirely of cedar-wood and cypress, yet none of the wood work was exposed, but the beams, and the panels, and the columns in the porches and peristyles were plated, some with silver and some icith gold, and the tiles were all of sih-er. And again, the temple . . . had columns covered with gilding, and there were very many silver titles in it, and there were a fete golden plinths, but a great many silver ones remained. (Bk. x. ch. 27, { 10 and 12.) Note LVIIL, p. 97. For the use of gold in ornamentation by the Phoenicians, see above, Notes XLIII. and LI. ; and compare Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 252, and O. Muller's Handbuch der Archdologie der Kutist, p. 273, 2d edition. 312 NOTES. Lect. IIL For its use by the Assyrians, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 651, 652. For its use by tbe Babylonians, see the last Note, and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 243, note 5 . Note LIX., p. 97. Menander, Fr. 1 : "This man (i. e. Hiram) raised a bank on -what was called ' the broad place,' and set up a golden pillar in the temple of Jupiter." Compare Theophilus, as quoted in Note LI. Note LN., p. 97. See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 252. Note LXL, p. 97. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 195, 196. Note LXIL, p. 97. Ibid. p. 150. Note LXIL b, p. 98. See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 354. Note LXIIL, p. 98. The geographic accuracy of this portion of Scripture is even more striking than that of the Pentateuch. Dr. Stanley says, " It is impos- sible not to be struck by the constant agreement between the recorded history and the natural geography both of the Old and New Testament. To rind a marked correspondence between the scenes of the Sinaitic mountains and the events of the Israelite wanderings is not much, per- haps, but it is certainly something towards a proof of the truth of the -whole narrative. . . . The detailed harmony between the life of Joshua and the various scenes of his battles, is a slight but true indication that we are dealing not with shadows, but with realities of flesh and blood. Such coincidences are not usually found in fables, least of all in fables of Eastern origin." (Sinai and Palestine, Preface, p. xviii.) And Lect. III. NOTES. 313 this detailed harmony he exhibits in his fourth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. Among minute points of agreement brought to light by recent re- searches may be mentioned (1.) the position of the Hagarites or Ha- garenes to the east of the land of Gilead, towards or upon the Euphrates, (1 Chron. v. 9, 10 ;) which is the exact locality where they are found three or four centuries later, in an inscription of Sennacherib. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 476.) (2.) The existence of female sovereigns among the Arabs about this period, which is shown by the mention of certain " Queens of the Arabs" in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser and others. (Ibid. pp. 470 and 473.) (3.) The continued importance of the Moabites and Ammonites which appears by the occurrence of their names ' in the inscriptions among the ene- mies of Assyria. Note LXIV., p. 99. The great Assyrian Empire of Ctesias, which was said to have ex- tended from Egypt to India, and to have lasted about 1300 years, from about B. C. 2182 to B. C. 876, is one of the most palpable contradic- tions of Scripture which profane history furnishes. Hence it was generally accepted and maintained by the French historians of the last century. Equally opposed to Scripture is the Median Empire of Ctesias, commencing in B. C. 876 with the destruction of Nineveh, and continuing to the time of Cyrus. It was for a long time considereu doubtful among historical critics whether the authority of Ctesias or that of Herodotus was to prevail ; but as time went on, as the impor- tance of Berosus's history came to be recognized, and more especially when the cuneiform monuments began to be deciphered, the star of Ctesias began to pale and his credit to sink. Niebuhr long ago re- marked, that his Assyrian history was " wholly to be rejected." (VorMJge liber Alt. CJe.sc/, ic/tt., vol. i. p. 16 ; p. 12, E. T.) M. Bunsen, even while making use of him, allows that he was "a confused and uncritical writer." {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 432.) Col. Mure (Lanr/Hage and Literature of Ancient Greece, vol. v. p. 484) calls him "an author of proverbially doubtful veracity." Even his apologias can now say 1 Moab appears as Makab, (Heb. SO"^.) Ammon as Brth-Ammon, which is probably the chief city, the Kabbah or Rabbatli-Ainnioti of Script an 1 . 27 314 NOTES. LECT. IV. little more in his defence, than that "there is no positive evidence for charging him -with wilfully falsifying history." (See the article on Ctesias in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, vol. i. p. 899.) Note LXV., p. 100. See Norton's Disquisition on the Old Testament in his Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 498. De Wette, after objecting to the miracles and prophecies recorded in Samuel, says, "Elsewhere the narrative bears the marks of a genuine history, and where it is not partly derived from contemporary documents as it is in some places it is yet drawn from an oral tradition, very lively and true, and is only dis- turbed and confused here and there." {Einleitung, 178, p. 222 ; Parker's Translation, vol. ii. p. 210.) He also finds "authentic his- torical accounts " in the books of Kings. (Ibid. 183, p. 232 ; vol. ii. p. 230, E. T.) LECTURE IV. Note I., p. 102. See Lecture III., page 80. Note II., p. 103. Ibid. p. 83. Note III., p. 103. The author of Chronicles refers us either to " the book of the Kings," (2 Chr. xxiv. 27,) or more explicitly to "the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," (2 Chr. xxvii. 7 ; xxviii. 26 ; xxxii. 32 ; xxxv. 27.) But the author of Kings throughout distinguishes between " the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah," (1 Kings xiv. 19 ; xv. 7, 23 ; xxii. 46 ; 2 Kings viii. 23 ; xii. 19 ; xiv. 18, &c.,) and " the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (I Kings xiv. 19; xv. 31 ; xvt. 5, 14, 20, 27 ; xii. 39 ; 2 Kings i. 18; x. 34 ; xiii. 8, Lect. IV. NOTES. 315 12 ; &c.) The most probable explanation of this difference is, that the two documents were originally separate, having been drawn up in and for the two different kingdoms ; but that by the time of the writer of our books of Chronicles they had been united in one, and were known to the Jews under the title which he uses. (See Keil, Apologetischer Versuch liber die BUcher der Chronik, p. 252, et seqq. And compare his Coinmentar Uber die Bilcher der KOnige, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 18, E. T. 1 ) Note IV., p. 104. This seems to be the real meaning of the difficult passage in Chron- icles, (2 Chr. xx. 34,) which our translators have rendered incorrectly in the text, but correctly, so far as the letter goes, in the margin ; ' Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani, who was made to ascend into the book of the kings of Israel " H3Sn ""I3K balia? "^ift *lpD"l33> i. e. who (the author being identified with his work) was transferred or removed to the book of the Kings of Israel. The LXX. interpreters paraphrase rather than translate when they say, " who wrote a book of the Kings of Israel " (oc xuriyQaipt (lipXtof (iaotkiuiv 'laoui'/*..') Compare Keil, 1. s. c. Note V., p. 104. See 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. Our translators have destroyed the force of the passage by following the LXX. and interpolating the word " and." "The rest of the acts of Hezekiah," they say, "and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel." But in the original there is no and : " the passage runs, " the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel." Note VI., p. 104. The 36th, 37th, and 38th chapters of Isaiah are almost identical with a part of the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th chapters of the second Book 1 Commentary on the Books of Klnjfs, by Karl Frledrich Keil, D. D., translated by James Murpby, LL. D. Edinburgh, Clarlc, 1867. 316 NOTES. Lect. IV. of Kings. The slightness of their differences Avill best be seen by pla- cing an extract or two in parallel columns : 2 Kings. Chap, xviii. 17-20. And the King of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and ltab-shakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah, with a great host against Jerusalem. And tliey went up and came to Jeru- salem. And when they icere come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's field. And icJwn tliey had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Sheb- na the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder. And Rab- shakeh said unto them, Speak ye "now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria, AVhat confidence is this wherein thou trustest ? Thou sayest but they are but vain words I have counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me ? Chap. xix. 15-19. And Heze- kiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth : thou hast made heaven and earth. Lord, bow down thine ear and Isaiah. Chap, xxxvi. 2-5. And the King of Assyria sent ltab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto King Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyr- ia, "What confidence is this wherein thou trustest r / say, [sayest thou,] but they are but vain words, I have counsel and strength for war : now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me ? Chap, xxxvii. 15-20. And Hez- ekiah prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cher- ubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth ; thou hast made heaven and earth. Incline thine ear, O Lord, Lect. IV. NOTES 317 hear ; open, Lord, thine eyes, and see ; and hear the word of Sen- nacherib, which hath sent him to reproach the living God. Of a truth. Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone : therefore they have destroyed them. Now, therefore, O Lord our God, / be- seech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only. and hear ; open thine eyes, O Lord, and see ; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God. Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the lands and their countries, and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone; therefore they have destroyed them. Now, therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord, even thou only. Note VII., p. 104. This agreement is chiefly between the last chapter of Jeremiah and the 24th and 25th chapters of the second Book of Kings. It is fully equal to that above exhibited between Kings and Isaiah. Note VIII., p. 104. Keil, Commentar liber die BUcher der KOnigc, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 19, E. T. Note IX., p. 105. De "Wette, Einleitung, 184, p. 234 ; vol. ii. p. 241, Parker's Trans- lation.; Bertholdt, Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 154, et seqq. Note X., p. 106. This has been well shown by Hilverniek, (Einleitung, $ 176. vol. ii. p. 201, ct seqq.,) and Kcil, (Vcrsuch Uber die Bilchcr der Chronik, p. 190, ct seqq.) Kcil, however, appears to me to go too far when he denies that the author of Chronicles made any use at all of Kings, 27* 318 NOTES Lect. IV. (Commenlar ilber die Btichcr der KOnige, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 17, note 1, . T.) Such passages as the subjoined show something more than the mere use of a common authority : 2 Chron. i. 14-17. And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen : and he had a thou- sand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings x. 26-29. And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen : and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand which he placed in the chariot horsemen, whom he bestoiccd in cities, and with the king at Jeru- the cities for chariots, and with salem. And the king made silver the king at Jerusalem. And the arid gold at Jerusalem as plenteous king made silver to be in Jerusa- as stones, and cedar trees made lem as plenteous as stones, and he as the sycamore trees that are cedars made he to be as the syca- in the vale for abundance. And more trees that are in the vale for Solomon had horses brought out abundance. And Solomon had of Egypt, and linen yarn : the horses brought out of Egypt, and king's merchants received the linen linen yarn : the king's merchants yarn at a price. And they fetched received the linen yarn at a price. up and brought forth out of Egypt And a chariot came up and xocnt out a chariot for six hundred shekels of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hun- of silver, and a horse for a hun- dred and fifty : and so brought dred and fifty : and so for all the they out [horses] for all the kings kings of the Hittites, and for the of the Hittites, and for the kings kings of Syria, did they bring them of Syria, by their means. out by their means. 1 Compare also 2 Chron. xiv. 1-4 with 1 Kings xv. 11, 12 ; 2 Chron. XTi. 11-14 with 1 Kings xv. 23, 24 ; 2 Chron. xxii. 10-12 with 2 Kings xi. 1-3 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21 with 2 Kings xi. 4-20 ; and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8-33 with 2 Kings xxiii. 5-20. In almost all these passages, however, the Chronicler introduces points not mentioned by the author of Kings, so that he evidently does not trust to him as his sole authority ; e. g. 1 In the original the resemblance is even closer than in our translation. Tt is the same word which is translated as " placed," and as " bestowed," and the same roots are used where we have to say in the one case "fetched up and brought forth," in the other '" came up and went out." Lect. IV. NOTES. 319 2 Ciiron. xvi. 11-14. And, behold, the acts of Asa, first and last, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was dis- eased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great ; yet in his dis- ease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign ; and they buried him in his own sepulchres which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sxceet odors and divers kinds of sjnees pre- pared by the apothecaries' art; and they made a very great burning for him. And Jehoshaphat, &c. 1 Kings xv. 23, 24. The rest of the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are thej r not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah ? Nevertheless, in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet. And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father ; and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead. Note XI., p. 106. See the remarks of Mons. C. Mailer, prefixed to his collection of the fragments of Manetho in the Fragmcnta Historicorum Gretcorum, vol. ii. pp. 514, 515. Note XII., p. 100. The discrepancies between the books of Chronicles, on the one hand, and the books of Samuel and Kings, on the other, have been largely, il not forcibly, stated by De Wette, {Einlcitung, 190, p. 244, et seqq.,) and his commentator, Mr. Theodore Parker, (vol. ii. pp. 266-305.) A satisfactory explanation of the greater number will be found in Keil's Apologetischer Versuch, to which the student is referred, as well as to Bertheau's Commentar, of which a translation has recently appeared.' 1 Some, however, as the difference of numbers and names, cannot but 1 This translation forms the latter portion of the loth volume of Clarke Foreign Theological Library, New Series., Edinburgh, 1857. 320 NOTES. Lect. IV. remain discrepancies ; in these we may be allowed to suspect corrup- tions of the original text, by carelessness in transcription, or by the insertion of marginal addenda. (See the excellent remarks of Professor Stuart, Defence, of the Old Testament Canon, 6, pp. 143-145 ; and compare the article on Chronicles, in Kitto's Cyclopedia.') Note XIII., p. 107. See Mr. Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Nineveh and the Assyri- ans, p. 76. The special object of this work is to elucidate a certain portion of the prophecies by the light thrown upon them from the con- nected histories of the Assyrians and the Hebrews. Similar efforts have been made in Germany by Hitzig. 1 Otto Strauss, 2 and others. Note XIV., p. 107. Jonah is commonly placed somewhat earlier ; but his work (if it be his, which is doubtful) belongs rather to the historical than the pro- phetical Scriptures. Note XV., p. 108. By Paley, in his Ilorce Paulina, a work which for closeness, clear- ness, and cogency of reasoning, has never been surpassed, and rarely equalled. Note XVI., p. 109. The kings of Israel and Judah mentioned in the Assyrian Inscrip- tions are, Jehu, Menahem, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. Jehu's name appears on the Black Obelisk in the British Museum, a monument of the Old Empire, dating probably from about B. C. 870 ; Menahem is mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser II., the first monarch of the New Empire, who began to reign in B. C. 747 ; Hezekiah occurs among the enemies of Sennacherib, who did not ascend the throne till about B. C. 700 ; and Manasseh is found among the tributaries of Sennacherib's son, Esarhaddon. No doubt the Scriptural names have helped to determine the date of the monuments ; but putting these names aside, and look- 1 Zwblf Kleinen Propheten erklart, Lcipsic, 1838. 2 Nahumi de Nino Vaticinium, Berlin, 1853. Lect. IV. NOTES. 321 ing merely to forms of language, style of writing, character of sculp- ture, and position of the monuments when in situ, I believe no cunei- form scholar would hesitate as to the relative antiquity to be assigned to them. Note XVII., p. 109. The practice of calling cities after the names of their founders has always prevailed in the East. Perhaps the earliest known instance is that of Ramesses the Beth-Barneses of the Hieratic Papyri. (See Note LXXXVIL, on Lecture II., p. 287.) That the Assyrians were acquainted with the practice we know from the case of Sargon, who called the city which he built a little to the north of Nineveh, Beth' Sargina, or Dur- Sargina, "the abode of Sargon." Esarhaddon too, in one of his Inscriptions, says, "A city I built. City of Esarhaddon 1 called its name." ' In more recent times the names Ahmed-abad, Shereef-abad, Hyder-abad, &c, have had a similar origin. Samaria is only called Beth-Khumri in the earlier inscriptions. Frcm the time of Tiglath-Pileser II., the term used is Tsamirin. Ncte XVIII., p. 110. So Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 376. M. Bunsen reads the legend Jutah Malk, and translates (not very intelligibly) ' Judah, King." (See his Egypt, vol. iii. p. 242.) He agrees, how- ever, as to its intention, and views it as a proof of Sheshonk's having made an expedition to Jerusalem. Note XIX., p. 110. There were three Osorkons in the 21st dynasty, according to the monuments, though Manetho mentioned but one. Osorkon I. was the son and successor of Shishak. It is just possible that he may have been the assailant of Asa." Sir fi. Wilkinson, however, regards Osorkon II., who married the great granddaughter of Shishak, as more natu- rally the contemporary of Asa, the ^rcat grandson of Solomon, since Solomon and Shishak were contemporaries. (See the author's Herodo- tus, vol. ii. p. 378.) 1 Sec Mr. Fox Talbot's Assyrian Tats translated, p. 1L * This ia M. Buasen's view, Kgypt, vol. iii. p. 308. 322 n o t :: s . Lect. IV. Note XX., p. 111. Menander said " On the death of Hiram, his son Balcazai (read Balthazar) succeeded to the kingdom. lie lived 43 years, and reigned 7. After him came his son Abdastratus, (read Abdastar- tus,) who lived 29 years, and reigned 9. Against this man the four sons of his nurse conspired, and slew him, whereupon the eldest of these brothers reigned 12 years. After these came Astartus, the son of Deleastartus, who lived 54 years, and reigned 12. His brother Aserymus succeeded him, living 54 years, and reigning 9. He was slain by his brother Pheles, who took possession of the kingdom, but reigned only 8 months, when he was murdered, in the 50th year of his age, by Ithobalus, (i. e. Ethbaal,) the priest of Astarte, who reigned 32 years, and lived 68." (Ap. Joseph. Contra Apionem, i. 18.) We have thus from the death of Hiram, which can- not have taken place till the 26th year of Solomon's reign (1 Kings ix. 10-14,) the following series Balthazar, 7 years; Abdastartus, 9 years; his successor, 12 years; Astartus, 12 years; Aserymus, 9 years ; Pheles, eight months ; total 49 years and eight months. In Ahab's case we have Jeroboam, 22 years ; Nadab, 2 years ; Baasha, 24 years; Elah, 2 years; Omri, 12 years; total 62 years; to which must be added some 10 or 12 years for the excess of Solomon's reign over Hiram's. It thus appears that Ahab ascended the throne about 20 r 25 years after Eth-baal. Note XXL, p. 111. See Kenrick's Phwnicia, p. 362; Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 428; Ken's Commentar, (p. 259, E. T.,) &c. Note XXII. , p. 111. The term " Zidonians " seems to bear the generic sense in 1 Kings xi. 1 and 5 ; and 2 Kings xxiii. 13 ; but the specific in Judges x. 12, and xviii. 7. The early preeminence of Sidon (see Note XXXII. to Lecture III.) sufficiently accounts for the generic use, which was well known to the Greek and Latin poets, (Horn. Od. xiii. 285 ; Sopn. Fr. lxxxii. ; Eurip. Hel. 1429 ; Virg. 2En. i. 446, &c.) Lect. IV. NOTES. 323 Note XXIII., p. 112. See Josephus, Ant. Jicd. viii. 13 : " Menander also mentions thi3 drought, writing thus in the Acts of Ithobalus, king of the Tyrians : Under this man there was a want of rain from the month Hyper- beretseus to the same month of the following year. But when he made supplication, there was a violent thunder storm.'" May we con- nect the " supplication " in tli? last clause with that of Elijah on Mount Carmel, (1 Kings xviii. 42, 43,) which overhung the Tyrian territory ? Note XXIV., p. 112. No continuous history of Syria has come down to us. Nicolas of Damascus, whose influence with Herod the Great and with Augustus must have given him access to any archives that Damascus or the other Syrian towns may have posc?ssed, appears to have introduced a short sketch of ancient Syrian history into the fourth book of his great work, which treated mainly of the early Lydian kings. (See Mailer's preface to the fragments of Nicolas, in his Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. hi. p. 345.) Of this sketch, i.owever, we unfortunately possess but three short fragments, preserved to us by Josephus. 1 The first of these relates the sojourn of Abraham at Damascus, on his way from Chaldaea to Canaan a sojourn deriving some support from the fact that Abraham's steward was a Damascene (Cien. xv. 2) but absurdly makes Abraham " king of Damascus " during his stay, (Fr. 30.) The second has been given at length in the notes on Lecture III. (Note XXVIII.) The third i.: interpreted by Josephus as bearing upon the Syrian war of Ahab ; but its true reference is to that of Baasha. It runs thus : " Now when he died (i. e. Hadad I.) his posterity reigned for ten generations, each one inheriting from his father, together with the roynl authority, the same name also, like the Pharaohs in Egypt. But the third, who wa3 the mightiest of all these, wishing to avenge his grandfather's defeat, marched against the Jews, and took the city now called Samaria." (Fr. 31.) It is evident that Hadad III., who was the grandson of David'** antagonist, cannot have contended against Ahab, 140 years afterwards. Nicolas undoubtedly intends the antag- onist of Baasha, half a centurv earlier, whose inroad was completely suc- - Mnt. Jud. vii. 5. 324 notes. Lect. IV. cessful, and who reduced Samaria to a sort of subjection, (1 Kings xv. 20 ; xx. 34.) With respect to the continuance of the name and family of Hadad on the Damascene throne for ten generations, Nicolas ap- pears to be at variance with Scripture. Seemingly he takes no account of the break in the line caused by the usurpation of Hazael. Perhaps in Syrian history this was glossed over, and Hazael regarded as having had a claim of blood. At any rate it is remarkable that he adopted the family name of the preceding dynasty for his son, who is called Ben-hadad in 2 Kings xiii. 3. Note XXV., p. 113. See the Black Obelisk inscription, which has been very accurately translated by Dr. Hincks, in the Dublin University Magazine for Octo- ber, 1853. Compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 464, 465. Note XXVI., p. 113. " Benhadad, the king of Syria, gathered all his host together ; and there were thirty and tiro kings with him, and horses, and chariots." (1 Kings xx. 1.) "Number thee an army like the army which thou hast lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot." (Ibid, verse 25.) The Syrian armies appear in the Black Obelisk inscription to be com- posed to a very large extent of chariots. As many as 1100 are taken on one occasion. The multitude of petty princes mentioned is also in accordance with the inscriptions generally, which represents the whole country between the Euphrates and Egypt as divided up among a number of tribes and nations, each under its own king or chief. Note XXVII., p. 113. The Black Obelisk king, in his 6th, 11th, and 14th years, contends with Benhadad, but in his 18th his adversary is Hazael. {Dublin Univ. Mag., October, 1853, pp. 422, 423, and 424.) Note XXVIII., p. 113. The Obelisk contains no account of any war with Jehu ; but men- tions him among those who paid tribute to the Assyrian monarch. He is styled " Yahua, the son of Khumri" Jenu, the son of Omrif Lect. IV. NOTES. 325 which causes some difficulty. Jehu is said in Scripture to have been the son of Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, (2 Kings ix. 2, 14.) It is possible, however, that he may have been on the mother s side de- scended from Omri. Or the story of his being so descended may have been invented by the Samaritans, and believed by foreign nations. Or, finally, the Assyrians may merely have assumed that he was a descend- ant of Omri, since he sat on his throne, and ruled in the city known to them by his name. (See above, Note XVII.) His tribute consisted of silver, gold, and articles of various kinds manufactured from gold. Note XXIX., p. 114. Che only remains of this period are an inscription set up by the son of the Black Obelisk king, relating his military exploits during the first four years of his reign, and two or three brief inscriptions of the time of his successor, the most important of which is that noticed below, (Note XXXIII.) The campaigns of the earlier king are in Babylonia, Media, Armenia, and along the flanks of Taurus, but do not touch Syria or Palestine. Note XXX., p. 114. See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 367 : " Our knowledge of the history of Tyre ceases with Dido's flight, at the end of the ninth century, B. C, and we hear nothing of its internal state till the reign of Elula-us, the contemporary of Shalmaneser." In fact we have nothing authentic for the early period but the fragments of Menander, and these fail us en- tirely from the reign of Pygmalion to that of Elulaeus. Note XXXI., p. 114. See Euseb. Chronica, i. 4 ; p. 18, ed. Mai. " After these, he says there was a king of the Chalda-ans whose name was Pul." Note XXXII., p. 114. In 2 Kings xv. 19, the LXX. interpreters render Pul by Phua, (4>orf,) where the terminal a is probably a false reading arising out of the resemblance of A to A. In 1 Chron. v. 26, the reading of the Vatican and most MSS. is VaXu^, but some copies have QaXws. 28 320 NOTES. Lect. IV. Note XXXIII., p. 115. A full account of this inscription, first deciphered by Sir H. Ilaw- linson, will be found in the Atheneeum, No. 1476, p. 174. A general summary of its contents is given in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. \ 467. Note XXXIV., p. 115. See Sir H. Rawlinson's letter in the Athenaeum, 1. s. c. Note XXXV., p. 116. The conjunction of Rezin with Pekah, and the capture and destntc- tion of Damascus, which are noted in the inscription, seem to prove that it is the second expedition that is intended. Whether it be the first, however, or the second, the name of Menahem must equally be rejected. (See 2 Kings xv. 29, and xvi. 9.) It is easily conceivable, that, if the sculptor had been accustomed to engrave the royal annals, and had often before entered the name of Menahem as that of the Samar- itan king, he might engrave it here in his haste, without consulting his copy. Or possibly, Pekah may have taken the name of Menahem, to connect himself with the dynasty which he had displaced. Note XXXVL, p. 117. The older interpreters, as Keil remarks, 1 proceeding on the supposi- tion that the altar was Syrian, and dedicated to the Syrian gods, en- deavored to answer the question why Ahaz chose the gods, not of the victorious Assyrians, but of the vanquished Syrians a question to which it was very difficult to give a satisfactory reply. Among recent writers. Berthcau, (Commentar iiber d. BUoh. d. Chronik, p. 421, E. T.,) Ewald, (Gcschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. hi. pp. 325, 326,) and Vance Smith, (Prophecies concerning Assyria, p. 27.) follow the old view. Keil himself regards the qu^tion as unimportant, since he supposes that no idolatrous rites or ide is were connected with the altar. Ahaz, according to his view, having seen a pattern which he fancied better 1 Commentar iiber d. Bvch. d. Kbnige, \ 2; vol. ii. p. 45, E. T. Lect. IV. NOTES. 327 than that of Solomon's altar, adopted it ; and his sin was " a silly will- worship." (So Buddseus, Hist. Eccles., vol. ii. p. 428.) Note XXXVII., p. 117. See the great inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., pp. 30, 38, 40, 44, 48, &c. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 495. Note XXXVIII., p. 117. Josephus says of Shalmaneser : "The name of this king is inscribed in the archives of the Tyrians. For he made an expedition against Tyre, when Eluleus was king over them. To this we have the testi- mony of Menander, who wrote an account of their chronicles, and translated their archives into the Greek language." (Antiq. Jiid., ix. 14.) Note XXXIX., p. 117. See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 471, note 7 . Note XL., p. 117. Ibid. p. 472. Note XLL, p. 118. Scripture states that Shalmaneser " came up against Hoshea," and besieged Samaria, (2 Kings xviii. 9 ;) but Scripture nowhere expressly states that Shalmaneser took the city. "The king of Assyria," it is said in one place, "took it," (ib. xvii. G ;) in another, "they (i. e. the Assyrians) took it," (ib. xviii. 10.) That Shalmaneser was the captor is only an inference from Scripture a natural inference undoubtedly, but not a necessary one. Note XLII., p. 118. Sargon has been identified with Shalmaneser by Vitringa, Ofrenhaur., Prideaux, Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Gumpach, and M. Niebuhr ; ' with Sen- nacherib by Grotius, Lowth, Keil, and Schrber ; with Esarhaddon by Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaelis. (Sue Winer's RealwOrterbuc/i, ad 1 (jtschirhtc Jissun und Babels seil Phul, p. 160. 328 notes. Lect. IV. voc. Sargon.) His separate personality is now generally admitted. (See Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 64, and Tab. Chron. ad fin. Oppert, Rapport d'une Mission Scientifique en Angleterre, p. 38 ; Vance Smith, Prophecies, &c., pp. 31, 32 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 333, 334 ; Layard, Nineveh aitd Babylon, pp. 618-620, &c.) Note XLIIL, p. 118. See Sir H. Rawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of Babylonia a?id Assyria, p. 19, note 2 , where a passage proving this is quoted from Yaciit, the famous Arabian geographer. Note XLIV., p. 118. See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 473, note 4 ; and compare Vance Smith's Prophecies, &c, p. 35. Note XLV., p. 119. When Sargon took Ashdod, its king (he tells us) fled to Muzr, (Mizraim or Egypt.) which was subject to Mirukha, (MeroC or Ethio- pia.) See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 474. Note XLVI., p. 119. Ibid. p. 473. Note XL VII., p. 120. The translation in the text has been read by Sir H. Rawlinson before various Societies and Public Meetings ; but it has remained, I believe, hitherto unpublished. It will be found to agree in all important points with Dr. Hincks's version, as given by Mr. Layard, {Nineveh and Baby- lon, pp. 143, 144.) Note XLVITL, p. 121. Mr. Layard gives a slightly different explanation, (Nin. and Bab., p. 14-5 :) "There is a difference of 500 talents, as it will be observed, in the amount of silver. It is probable that Hezekiah was much pressed by Sennacherib, and compelled to give him all the wealth that he could Lect. IV. notes. 329 collect, as we find him actually taking the silver from the house of the Lord, as well as from his own treasury, and cutting off the gold from the doors and pillars of the temple to satisfy the demands of the Assyr- ian king. The Bible may therefore only include the actual amount ot money in the 300 talents of silver, whilst the Assyrian records comprise all the precious metal taken away." Note XLIX., p. 121. Herodot. ii. 141. This testimony was first adduced by Josephus, {Ant. Jud. x. 1,) from whom it passed on to the Christian commenta- tors generally. The "chief difficulty" in reconciling Herodotus with Scripture has been generally said to be the scene of the destruction. (See Joseph. 1. s. c., Prideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane His- tory, vol. i. p. 18; M. Niebuhr's Geschichte Assurs tind Babels, p. 179; Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Assyria, Introduction, p. 43.) It has been commonly assumed that the scene was the immediate neigh- borhood of Jerusalem ; but this assumption is not only, as Mr. Vance Smith has shown, {Prophecies, &c, p. 213,) without warrant from Scripture, but it is actually contradictory to Scripture. God's promise to Ilezekiah through Isaiah was : " He (Sennacherib) shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the Lord." (2 Kings, xix. 32, 33 ; compare Is. xxxvii. 33, 34.) Note XLIX. b., p. 121. Eusebius says of Polyhistor "Having already described the rest of the acts of Senecherim, he adds, that he lived [as king] 18 years. . . . until he teas destroyed by a plot formed against him by his son Ardumazan." {Chronica, i. 5 ; p. 19, ed. Mai.) Abydenua gives the name of one of the murderers more correctly, but represents the murder as committed, not on Sennacherib, but on his successor. " Next after him (i. e. Sennacherib) reigned Nergil, whom his son Adramelech slew ; and he in his turn was slain by his brother Axerdis." (Esar-haddon ) (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 25.) 28* 330 NOTES. Lect. IV. Note L., p. 122. Both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon led hostile expeditions into Armenia, which appears to have been at no time thoroughly subjected by the Assyrian monarchs. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 478-481.) Note LI., p. 122. Mos. Choren. i. 22: "When his sons, Adrammelech and Sanasar, had slain him, (i. e. Senacharim,) they fled to us. One of whom, Sanasar, our most illustrious ancestor Sacordius placed near the borders of Assyria, in that part of our country which lies between the west and south ; and his descendants . . . filled . . . that mountain." But Ar- gtunozan obtained a settlement in the same region, between the East and the South. From him this historian (Mar-Abas) reports that the Arzerunii and the Genunii were descended. Note LIE, p. 122. Esarhaddon in his inscriptions frequently speaks of Sennacherib as his father. (See Fox Talbot, Assyrian Texts translated, p. 13, and else- where.) The relationship is also witnessed to by Polyhistor, following Berosus. (Ap. Euseb. Chron. i. v. p. 19 ; compare p. 20, where Euse- bius says, " Having gone through with all this, Polyhistor proceeds anew to relate some of the acts of Senecherib also ; and concerning his son he iciites in quite the same maimer as the books of the Hebrews." Note LIIL, p. 122. Abydenus interpolates a reign between Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, which he assigns to a certain Xergilus, of whom no other trace is to be found. Nergal was one of the Assyrian deities, (2 Kings xvii. 30 ; and see the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 631-633; compare also Dublin Univ. Mag., (Oct. 1853, p. 420,) and cannot therefore have been a king's name. The Assyrian royal names contain most commonly a god's name as an element, but are never identical with the names of deities. It was otherwise in Phoenicia, where Baal and Astartus were monarchs. The account of Abydenus seems therefore unworthy of credit. Note LIV., p. 122. " Manasseh, King of Judah," is mentioned among the subject princes, who lent Esarhaddon workmen for the building and ornamentation o! LECT. IV. NOTES. 331 his palaces. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 483.) It is not sur- prising that we have no account of the expedition against Manasseh, since we do not possess the annals of Esarhaddon, but only some occa- sional inscriptions. Note LV., p. 123. The Assyrians ordinarily governed Babylon through native viceroys. (See Berosus, Fr. 12 ; and the inscriptions, passim.) But Esarhaddon appears to have reigned there in his own person. Bricks found on the site of Babylon show that he repaired temples and built himself a palace there. Consequently in the authentic list of Babylonian kings preserved by Ptolemy, (Magn. Syntax, v. 14,) his name occurs, under the Grecized form of Asaridinus. A Babylonian tablet has been found, dated by the year of his reign a sure indication that he was the actual ruler of the country. No similar facts can be proved of any othel Assyrian monarch. 1 (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 482.) Note LVL, p. 123. There is one only mention of Assyria in the historical Scriptures later than the reign of Manasseh, namely, the statement in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, that in the days of Josiah " Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates." If this expression is to be taken strictly, we must consider that Assyria maintained her existence so late as B. C. 610. I believe, however, that the word " Assyria" is here used, somewhat negligently, for " Babylonia." (C'f. Keil, ad loc, p. 154, E. T.,) and that the Assyrian empire was destroyed in B. C. 625. (See Niebhur, Vortrdge ilber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 47.) The first clear indication which Scripture gives of the destruction is found in Ezekiel xxxi. 3-17 a passage written B. C. 58.5. A more obscure notification of the event is perhaps contained in Jeremiah xxv. 15-26, where the omission of Assyria from the general list of the idol- atrous nations would seem to imply that she had ceased to exist. This passage was written about B. ('. 605. 1 It has been suggested by Dr. Hinc^ and others that the " Arceanus" of Ptolemy's list is Sar^on. But thin in a mere conjecture grounded upon a certain decree of resem- blance in the names. No traces of Sargon have been found in Babylonia. 332 NOTES. Leot. IV. Note LVIL, p. 123. Compare Herod, i. 106 and 178; Ctesias ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 26-28; Abydenus ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 25 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 5. See also Tobit xiv. 15. Note LVIIL, p. 124. The slight authority of the present "pointing" of the Hebrew text is generally admitted. The pointing from which our translators took their rendering of " So " is HID ; if the word were pointed thus &10 it would have to be rendered by " Seveh." (See Keil on 2 Kings xri. 4-6, pp. 52, 52, E. T. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 472, note 2 .) Note LIX., p. 124. See Mr. Birch's note in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, eh. vi. pp. 156-159. Compare Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 217, 218, and 379 ; and Bunsen, Egypt's Place, &c., vol. ii. p. 597. Note LX., p. 124. Herod, ii. 137. Most moderns incline to the view that the second Shebek is the So of Scripture. (See Winer's RealwOrterbuch, ad voc. So ; Keil, Com?ne?itar liber die Bilcher der KOnige, 1. s. c. ; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 157 ; Gesenius, Comment, in Jes., vol. i. p. 696, &c.) The question is one of exact chronology. Tirhakah, it is argued, came against Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah, and So made a league with Hoshea in Hezekiah's third or fourth year. This then must have been in the reign of the second Shebek, to whom Manetho gave not less than 12 years. (See Keil, 1. s. c.) But, in the first place, So's league cannot be fixed to Hezekiah's third or fourth year. A space of several years may intervene between the 4th and 5th verses of 2 Kings xvii. And, secondly, Manetho's numbers (as they have come down to us) cannot be trusted absolutely. According to them Tirhakah reigned 18 or 20 years. (Frs. 64 and 65.) But the monuments dis- tinctly assign him 26 years. (See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 381.) They also appear to fix his accession to the year B. C. 690. The reign of Hoshea was from B. C. 729 to B. C. 721, and his Lect. IV. NOTES. 333 league with the Egyptians cannot have been later than B. C. 724. This is 34 years before the accession of Tirhakah, which is certainly too long a time to assign to the second Shebek. I therefore regard the So of Kings as Shebek I. The difficulty with respect to Tirhakah's chronology will be consid- ered in Note LXIV. Note LXL, p. 125. See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 156-159. Note LXII., p. 125. Tarcus is the form given as Manetho's by Africanus, Taracus that given by Eusebius. See the fragments of Manetho, in Mttller's Fr. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 593 ; Frs. 64 and 65.) The Hebrew word is nplTlt) ; the LXX. give Oapa<6. Note LXIII., p. 125. Strabo, Geogrnph., i. 3, 21 ; xv. i. 6. Note LXIV., p. 125. This is the reading of Sir Gardner Wilkinson. (Sec the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 380.) Bunsen reads Taharuka, {Egypt, vol. ii. p. 598 ;) Rosellini, Tahraka. The consonants, T, II, R, K, are certain, but the vowels doubtful. If Tirhakah did not ascend the Egyptian throne till B. C. 690, how (it may be asked) could he be contemporary with Hezekiah, whose last year was about B. C. 697, or B. C. 696 ? And how, especially, could he oppose Sennacherib, about the middle of Hezekiah' 8 reign, or B. C. 703 ? I venture to suggest that Tirhakah, when he marched against Sennacherib, may not yet have been king of Egypt. He is called "king of Ethiopia;" and he may have ruled in Ethiopia, while the Shcbeks, under his protection, held Egypt. I venture further to doubt whether we can fix the year of Sennacherib's contact with Tirhakah from Scripture. His first invasion of Judeea is said to have been in Hezekiah's 14th year, (2 Kings xix. 13;) but it seems to be a second invasion, falling some years later, which is described in verses 334 NOTES. Lect. IV. 17 to 36. In the marginal notes to our Bible, the two invasions are made to be three years apart. But the number three is purely con- jectural ; and perhaps thirteen or fourteen is as likely. (See the author's Herodotus, p. 479, notes 1, 2, and 9.) Note. LXV., p. 125. Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii. pp. 593, 594 ; Frs. 66 and 67. The form used is Ht^ad. Note LXVL, p. 125. Herodotus (ii. 158) uses the form Nfituif, where the $ is the Greek nominative, and may therefore be cancelled. Note LXVIL, p. 125. Rosellini expressed the monumental name by Neko, but M. Bunsen reads it Nckau or Neku. (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) Note LXVITI., p. 125. On the frequent confusion between the names Migdol 0n3>2> yiay&aXa, MayM.ov) and Megiddo (i'la^j Mayc5<5w, Wlayi&iAv,) see Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 375, note l . Herodotus was not acquainted with the interior of Palestine, or he would have seen how much more suited for the site of a great battle was Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon, than Magdolum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Note LXIX., p. 125. See Prideaux's Connection, &c, vol. i. pp. 56, 57 ; Bunnell's Geography of Herodotus, pp. 245 and 683 ; Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. ch. 4 p. 109, note 2, E. T. ; Dahlmann's Life of Herodotus, ch. iv. p. 55, E. T. ; Bahr's Excursus on Herod, ii. 159, vol. i. pp. 922, 923 ; Smith's Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. ii. p. 17 ; Keil's Commentar liber d. Bilch. d. KOnige, ch. xxiiif p. 159, E. T. ; Home's Introduction, vol. i. p. 208 ; and Kenrick's AncS^nt Egypt, vol. ii. p. 406. Lect. IV. NOTES. 335 Note LXX., p. 125. That the Cadytis of Herodotus was not Jerusalem, but a town upon the Syrian coast, is now generally admitted by scholars, and seems to follow necessarily from Herod, hi. 5. The best authorities incline to identify it with Gaza, or Ghuzzeh, called in the Assyrian Inscriptions Khazita. (See Hitzig, Disputatio de Cadyte urbe Herodotea ; and compare Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 246, note 2 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. hi. p. 418, note ' ; Sir H. Rawlinson, Outlines of Assyrian History, &c. ; and Bertheau, Commentar Uber d. Bitch, d. Chronik, 17, ad fin. ; p. 457, E. T. Note LXXI., p. 125. Africanus and Eusebius both report Manetho to have said of Necho, " This man took Jerusalem, and carried Jehoahaz the king captive into Egypt. (See the fragments of Manetho in the Fraym. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. pp. 593, 594 ; Frs. 66 and 67.) Note LXXn., p. 125. So Sir Gardner "Wilkinson reads the name on the monuments, (Herod- otus, vol. ii. p. 248, note *.) Rosellini read it as Hophre. M. Bunsen gives the strange form, Ra-uah-hat, (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) Note LXXIII., p. 125. Egyptian chronology placed the accession of Amasis 48 years before that of Darius Hystaspis ; for Amasis, according to the consentient testimony of Herodotus, (iii. 10,) Manetho, (ap. Synccll. p. 141, C.,) and the monuments, (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 387,) reigned 44 years, Psammetichus his son, half a year ; Cambyses, (in Egypt,) 3 years,' and the Pseudo-Smerdis a little more than half a year. The last year of Apries would thus be the 49th before Darius. Babylonian chronology made Nebuchadnezzar's last year the 41st before that king. (See the Canon.) As Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years, 1 Or six years. (i'ee. Bunsen'* F.gypl, toI. ii. pp. 610, 611.) 336 NOTES. Lect. rv, and Apries only 19, (or at the utmost 25,) the reign of the latter must nave been entirely included within that of the former. Nebuchadnezzar reigned from B. C. 604 to B. C. 561; Apries, probably from B. C. 588 to B. C. 569. Note LXXIV., p. 126. Manetho is reported to have said of Hophra, (Uaphris,) that he -was the king " with whom the remnant of the Jews took refuge, after Jeru- salem was captured by the Assyrians." (Fragm. Hist. G>:, vol. ii. pp. 593, 594; Frs. 66 and 67.) Note LXXV., p. 126. Herodotus was altogether misinformed about the rank and position of Amasis, who (according to him) deposed Apries and put him to death. (See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 386, 387.) It is therefore less surprising that he should have been kept in igno- rance of the part which, it is probable, Nebuchadnezzar played in the transaction. The Egyptians would naturally seek to conceal from him the fact, that the change of sovereigns was brought about by foreign influence. But nothing is more unlikely than that they should have invented the deposition and execution of one of their monarchs. Thus the passage, ' I will deliver Pharaoh-Hophra into the hands of his ene- mies, and into the hands of those who seek his life" (Jer. xliv. 30,) is confirmed by an unimpeachable testimony. Note LXXVL, p. 126. M. Bunsen was, I believe, the first to suggest that the d in this name had taken the place of /, through the resemblance of A to J. (See his Egypt, vol. i. p. 726.) The restoration of the I brings the two names into close accordance, the only difference then being that in the Greek form one of the original elements of the name, adan or iddan, is sup- pressed. Such suppression is not uncommon. It may be traced in Pul for Phaloch, in Bupalussor for Nabopolassar, (Abyden.,) in Asaridanus for Assur-aM-iddan or Esar-/(addon, and probably in Saracus for Assw-akh-uzur, or some similar word. The identity of the Mardocempadus of the Canon with the Marduk- bal-icidan of the Inscriptions is certain ; and no reasonable aoubt can Lect. IV. NOTES. 337 be entertained of the identity of the latter with the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture. These views are now generally accepted. (See Brandis, Rerum Assyr. Temp, emend., p. 45 ; Oppert, Rapport, &c, pp. 48, 49 ; Hincks in Dubl. Univ. Mag., No. 250, p. 421 ; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 140 ; Keil on 2 Kings xx. 12-19 ; p. 118, E. T. ; &c.) Note LXXVII., p. 126. Merodach-Baladan had two reigns, both noted in the Inscriptions. One of them is marked in Ptolemy's Canon, where it occupies the years B. C. 721-709. His other reign does not appear, since it lasted but six months, and the Canon marks no period short of a year. Polyhistor says (ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 5) that it immediately preceded the reign of Elibus or Belibus, and the Inscriptions show that it was in the earlier part of the same year. This was the year B. C. 702, according to the Canon. As Hezckiah appears to have reigned from about B. C. 726 to B. C. 697, both reigns of Merodach-Baladan would have fallen within the time of his rule. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 502-504.) Note LXXVIIL, p. 126. Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 504 ; Fr. 12. Note LXXIX., p. 126. Sargon relates, that in his twelfth year he made war upon Merodach- Baladan, who had been for twelve years king of Babylon, defeated him, and drove him out of the country. The expelled monarch took refuge in Susiana, with a number of his partisan , ; and Sarijon continued to contend against him and his allies for three years more at the least. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 474 and 503.) Siiinachcrib says, that immediately after his accession he invaded Babylonia, de- feated and expelled Merodach-Baladan, and placed Belib over the land as ruler. (Ibid. p. 476 ; Eox Talbot's Assyrian Texts, pp. 1-2.) Note LXXX., p. 127. The Babylonian Gods may be to a great extent identified with the heavenly bodies. San or Sansi is the Sun ; Hurki, the Moon ; AVfco is Mercury; Ishtar, Venus; Nergal, Mars; Merodach, Jupiter; and proba- 29 338 notes. Lect. IV. bly Nin (or Bar) Saturn. (See the Essay of Sir H. Rawlinson on the Assyrian and Babylonian religious systems, in the first volume of the author's Herodotus, Essay x. pp. 584-642.) The dedication of the great temple at Borsippa to the Seven Spheres shows a similar spirit. Mr. Loftus has found that the temple platforms are so placed that their an- gles exact!;/ face the four cardinal points, which seems to be a sufficient proof that they were used for astronomical purposes. (See his Chalda^a and Susia?ia, ch. xii. p. 128.) On the astronomical skill of the Babylo- nians, see Herod, ii. 109 ; Simplicius ad Avistot. De Cceh, ii. p. 123 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 56 ; Yitruvius, ix. 9, &c. Note LXXXL, p. 127. Berosus said: "When Nabopolassar his father (i. e. the father of Nebuchadnezzar) heard that the Satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele- Syria and Phoenice had rebelled against him, being no longer able himself to endure hardship, he intrusted a certain portion of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was of age, and sent him against the rebel. Nebuchadnezzar, meeting the rebel, and engaging in battle with him, was victorious, and reduced the rebellious country into subjection to himself. . . . Not long after, Nebuchadnezzar, having heard of the death of his father, when he had settled the affairs of Egypt and the adjacent region, and had arranged with certain of his friends to bring to Babylon the captives of the Jeics, and Phoenicians and Syrians and nations near Egypt, came himself, with great haste and with a small company, through the wilderness to Babylon." (Ap. Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 11.) Note LXXXIL, p. 127. See Josephus, Contra Apion., i. 21 : "I will add also the records of the Phoenicians ; for even the superabundance of proofs ought not to be omitted. This is the reckoning of the time. ' Under the king Ithoba- lus, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years.' " Note LXXXIIL, p. 127. In continuation of the passage cited in Note LXXXL, Berosus said : " Assuming the administration of affairs, which had been under the Lect. IV. NOTES. 339 management of the Chaldseans, and the kingdom which had been kep' for him by the most eminent one among them, he succeeded to all his father's dominion ; and when the captives arrived, he appointed colo- nies for them in the most suitable parts of Babylonia." Note LXXXIV., p. 128. The chief chronological difficulty which meets us is connected with the reign of Hezekiah. Scripture places no more than eight years between the fall of Samaria and the first invasion of Judaja by Senna- cherib, (2 Kings xviii. 9 and 13.) The monuments place at least eigh- teen years between the two events ; for Sargon says he took Samaria in his first year, and then gives his annals for fifteen years, while Senna- cherib says that he attacked Hezekiah and took his fenced cities in his third year. Ptolemy's Canon, taken in conjunction with the monu- ments, raises the interval to twenty-two years. According to this, if the capture of Samaria was in Hezekiah's sixth year, the accession of Sennacherib must have fallen in his twenty-fifth, and the first attack of Sennacherib in his 27th year. But our present text of Kings (2 Kings xviii. 9) and of Isaiah (xxxvi. 1) calls it his 14th year. I have sug- gested elsewhere that the original number may have been altered under the idea that the invasion of Sennacherib and the illness of Hezekiah were synchronous, whereas the expression "in those days" was used by the sacred writers with a good deal of latitude. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 479, note *.) Minor difficulties are the synchronism of Tirhakah with Hezekiah, and of So with Hoshea, of which I have already spoken. See Notes LIX. and LXIV. Note LXXXV., p. 128. Vortrdge liber Altc Geschichte, vol. i. p. 126 ; p. 106, E. T. Note LXXXVI., p. 128. A few instances may be noted under each head, as specimens of the sort of agreement. 1. Geographic, (a) In 2 Kings xvii. 6 (compare xviii. 11) it is said that the captive Israelites were placed by the conqueror " at Halah and 34t7 NOTES. LECT. IV. Ilabor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Misled by the last clause, various commentators have struggled vainly to find Ilabor, Halah, and Gozan in or near Media. (See Bochart, Geograph. Sac, iii. 14; Kitto, Bibl. Cyclopedia, ad voc. Gozan; Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 6 ; pp. 54-58, E. T., &c.) But this attempt is quite unnecessary. The true position of Gozan may be gathered from 2 Kings xix. 12, where it is coupled with Ilaran, the well-known city of Mesopotamia. In this locality all the names may be found, not only in old geographers, but even at the present day. The whole tract east of Ilarran about Nisibis, was anciently called Gauzanitis or Gozan, (Ptolemy, v. 18,) of which the better known name Mygdonia is a corruption ; ' the great river of this tract was the Aborrhas or Chaboras, (Habor ;) and adjoin- ing it (Ptol. 1. s. c.) was a district called Chalcitis, (Halah.) Of this district a probable trace remains in the modern Gla, a large mound in these parts marking a ruined city, (Layard, Nin. and Bab., p. 312, note ;) while the river is still known as the Khaboiu; and the country as Kausha?i. 2 The author of Chronicles (1 Chron. v. 26) adds Hara to the places mentioned in Kings, which is clearly Ilaran, or Ilarran, known to the Romans as Carrhte. Undoubtedly the bulk of the Isra- elites were settled in this country, while Sargon selected a certain num- ber to colonize his new cities in Media, (b) In 2 Kings xvii. 24, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim are mentioned together as cities under the Assyrian dominion, and as furnishing the colonists who replaced the transplanted Israelites. Of these Hamath is familiar to us, but of the other cities little has been known till recently. "The site of Cutha," says Winer, 3 " is wholly uncertain." And so Keil : * " The situation of Cuthah cannot be determined with certainty " The discovery, however, of an ancient Babylonian city of the name, at the distance of about 15 miles from Babylon itself, where, moreover, Nergal was especially worshipped, (2 Kings xvii. 30.) seems to remove all doubt on the subject. Cuthah was most certainly the city, whose ruins 1 Mygdonia represents Gozan, with the adjectival or p:\rticipial )2 prefixed. The Greek writers always substituted their J for the Semitic z. Hence Gaza became Cadytis, Achzib became Ecdippa, the river Zab became the ZJiaba; and so M'gozan became Mygdon. 2 So at least Winer says, but I do not know on what authority. (Rcalworterbuck, ad voc. Gosan.) 8 Realvortcrbuch, vol. i. p. 237. * See Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 24 ; vol. ii. p. 67, E. T. Lect. IV. NOTES. 341 are now called Ibrahim. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 632, and vol. ii. p. 587.) With almost equal confidence may -\ve pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town. " of which no trace remains in ancient authors or in modern Oriental topography." 1 Ava, (S^>,) or Ivah, (St^lS,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Xeptune,) which was on the Euphrates at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudi- cal writers Ihi, ("\-p) or with an epithet Ihi-dakira, (ja~pfiT i np>) by Herodotus 7s, ("It,) by the Egyptians 1st, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava (stinst) of Ezra, (viii. 15, 21 ; compare the river Is of Herodotus,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem. (See the remarks of Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 602.) Sepharvaim has less completely baffled the geographers, who have seen that it must be identical with the Sippara or Sipphara of Ptolemy (v. 18) and the city of the Sipparenes of Aby- denus, (Fr. 9.) See Winer and Kitto ad voc. They have not, how- ever, been aide to fix the site ; which the Inscriptions show to have been at Mosaib, a town on the Euphrates between Hit and Babylon. Nor have they given any account of the dual form, Sepharva/m, (Z ;) which is explained by the fact, noted in the Inscriptions, that the city was partly on the right, partly on the left bank of the Euphrates, (c) With Sepharvaim are connected, in 2 Kings xix. 13, the two cities of Hena and Ivah. It is implied that they had recently been united under one king : we must seek them therefore in the same neighborhood. As Ivah, like Sepharvaim, was upon the Euphrates above Babylon, and as the towns in this tract have always been clustered along the banks of the streams, we must look for Hena (Heb. 7:n ; LXX. 'Ar<5) in a similar position. Now on the Euphrates in this region is found in the Inscriptions an important town, Anah or Anat ; which has always borne nearly the same name, and which is even now known as Anah. Hena is thus identified almost to a cer- tainty. 2. Religious, (a) The worship of Baal and Astarte by the Phoeni- cians, almost to the exclusion of other gods, is strongly suggested by the whole history from Judges to Ahaz. (See Jud. x. G ; 1 Kings xi. Realirilrterbuch, vol. i. p. 118. 29* 342 NOTES. Lect. IV. 5 ; xvi. 31, &c.) A marked confirmation of this exclusive, or nearly exclusive, worship is found in the names of the Tyrian kings and judges, which, like those of the Assyrian and Babylonian monarehs, compre- hend almost always a divine element. Their names, so far as they are known, run as follows : Abibaal, Hiram, iia/eazar, Abdastartus, Astartus, Aserymus, Pheles, Eth&aa/, Balezar, Matgen, Pygmalion, Eluloeus, ILth-baal II., Baal, Eeni&aa/, Chelbes, Abbarus, Mytgon, Iterator, Geraitartus, Meria/, and Hiram H. Farther confirmation is derivable from the few authentic notices of the religion which remain, as from the fragments of Dius and Menander, where these two are the only deities mentioned. 1 (&) It has been already noticed that Xergal, who is said to have been worshipped by the Cuthites in Samaria, (2 Kings xvii. 30,) is found in the inscriptions to have been the special god of Cutha. (c) So too it appears from them that the city of Sephar- vaim was under the special protection of two deities, conjointly wor- shipped, Shamas or San, the Sun, and his wife Gula or Anunit. Here we have evidently the Adrammelech and Anammelech of 2 Kings xvii. 31; Adrammelech, "the Fire-king," and Anammelech, "Queen Anu- nit " the latter name being assimilated to the former with insolent carelessness. (See Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 611, 612.) (d) If a satisfactory explanation cannot be given from Babylonian mythology of Succoth-Benoth, Nibhaz, and Tartak, (2 Kings xvii. 30, 31,) it is probably because they are not really the names of Babylonian gods. The first seems to mean "tents of daughters," or small tabernacles in which were contained images of female deities. The second and third are most likely scornful modifications of certain Babylonian names, which I should suspect to have been Nebo and Tir the latter a title by which Nebo was sometimes called. Or they may possibly be gods which have yet to be discovered. 3. Manners, customs, &c. (a) The whole character of the Assyrian wars, as represented in Kings and Chronicles, is in close accordance with what we gather from the Inscriptions. The numerical force of their armies, the direction of them by the monarch in person, the mul- titude of their chariots, (2 Kings xix. 23,) their abundant cavalry, 1 Mr. Kenrick gives the Phoenicians three " national deities," Astarte, Bolus, Her- cules. (Phanicia, p. 345.) But Movers has shown satisfactorily that Melcarth (the Tyrian Hercules) was only another name for Baal. Lect. IV. N T K s . 843 (2 Kings xviii. 23,) their preference of the bow as a weapon, 1 (ib. xix. 32,) the manner of their sieges by "easting banks" against the walls of ciries, 2 (ibid.,) and again the religious enthusiasm with which the wars were carried on, the antagonism maintained between the Assyrian gods and those of the invaded countries, (2 Kings xviii. 33, 34, &e.,) and the practice of carrying off as plunder, and therefore probably of melting down, the idols of the various nations, (2 Kings xix. 18,) are all distinctly marked in the sacred history, and might be abundantly illustrated from the monuments. 3 (6) No less harmonious with Scrip- ture is the representation which the monuments give of the Assyrian political system. Something has been already said on this point. (Lecture III., pp. 94-96.) The empire is one made up of a number of petty kingdoms. ("Are not my princes altogether kings?" Is. x. 8.) Absorption of the conquered districts is not aimed at, but only the extension of suzerainty, and government through native tributary monarchs. Rebellion is promptly punished, and increased tribute is its natural consequence. (2 Kings xviii. 14.) Finally, transplantation is made use of when other means fail sometimes on a larger, some- times on a smaller scale, as the occasion requires. 4 (c) The continued power of the Ilittites, the number of their princes, and their strength in chariots, which appears from 1 Kings x. 29, and again remarkably from 2 Kings vii. 6, is strikingly confirmed by the Black Obelisk in- scription, where we find twelve kings of the Khatti, allied with Syria and Hamath, and fighting against the Assyrians with a force whose chief strength seems to be chariots. Many similar points of minute agreement might be adduced, but this note has, I fear, already extended itself beyond the patience of most readers. 1 Thin appears sufficiently on the sculptures ; but it is even more strikingly evinced in the language of the Inscriptions where the phrase which has to he translated, ''killed in battle," is constantly "'killed villi arrows." (See Dubl. Univ. Mag., 'So. 250, p. 42 J.) * Seo Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 140. Describing a bass-relief of Sennacherib's, he says, " Against the fortifications had been thrown up at many as ten banks or mound.*, compactly built of stones, bricks, earth, and branches of trees." 3 Set' the Great Inscription of Tigla'h Pileter /., pp. 23. SO, 38, Ac. : Dubl. Univ. Mag., No. 250. pp. 423. 421: Fox Talbot's .fa;rin Tezts, pp. 1, 3, 4, 11,29, Ac. Com- pare the author's JFrrodutus, Vol. i. p. 496. 4 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 493. 344 N O T E S . Lect. V. LECTURE V. Note I., p. 131. So Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, p. 560. Note II., p. 131. This is the theory of De Wette (Einleitung, \ 253, p. 342 ; vol. ii. p. 485, E. T.,) who bases the view on the passages of Ezekiel, where Daniel is so highly commended. See below, Note X. Note III., p. 131. See the statements of Jerome concerning Porphyry in the preface to his Comment, in Daniel. {Op., A r ol. iii. pp. 1073, 1074.) Note IV., p. 131. It is urged by Ewald, (Propheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 565 ;) by Knobch Prophetismus der IJebrder, ii. p. 401 ; by Strauss, (Leben Jesu, 13 ; vol. i. p. 56, E. T. ;) by De Wette, (Einleitung, 255 b, p. 346 ;) and by Mr. Theodore Parker, (Translation of De Wette, vol. ii. pp. 491 and 501.) Hence Auberlen observes with justice, " The true argument of all others, even in modern criticism, lies in the dogmatic doubt of the reality oi miracles and predictions." (Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 10, E. T. 1 ) And Stuart, " Nearly all the arguments employed to disprove the genuineness of Daniel, have their basis, more or less directly, in the assumption, that miraculous events are impossibilities. Of course, all the extraordinary occurrences related in the book of Daniel, and all the graphic predictions of events, are, under the guidance of this as- sumption, stricken from the list of probabilities, and even of possibili- ties." (History and Defence of the Canon, 4, pp. 110, 111.) 1 The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John viewed in their mutual relation by C. A. Auberlen, Ph. D. Translated by the Rev. A. Saphir; Edinburgh, Clark, 1866. Lkct. V. NOTES. 345 Note V., p. 132. Undoubtedly a peculiar character attaches to the prophecies of Daniel, if they are compared with those of the other prophets. As Auberlen observes, " his prophecies abound, above all the rest, in historical and political detail." (Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 3, E. T.) But to make this an objection to the authenticity of the Book is to assume, either that we have an a priori knowledge of the nature and limits of prophetical inspiration, or else that the law of such inspiration may be gathered inductively from the other Scriptures, and then applied to exclude the claims of a Book which has as much external sanction as any other. But induction should be from all the instances ; and to exclude the Book of Daniel by a law drawn from the rest of Scripture, is first to assume that it is not Scripture, and then to prove that it is not by means of that assumption. We are quite ignorant beforehand to what extent it might please the Omniscient to communicate to any of his creatures the knowledge of the future, which He possesses in perfection ; and we have no means of determining the question but by a careful study of all the facts which the Bible sets before us. "We have no right to assume that there will be a uniform law, much less that we shall be able to discover it. It is a principle of the Divine Economy that " there is a time for every thing; " and the minute exact- ness which characterizes some of the Prophecies of Daniel may have been adapted to peculiar circumstances in the history of God's people at some particular time, 1 or have otherwise had some special object which we cannot fathom. Note VI., p. 132. See Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, p. 303, et seqq. . The alter- nate use of Hebrew and Chaldee, which is the main linguistic peculiar- ity of Daniel, is only natural at a time when both languages were cur- rently spoken by the Jews ; and is only found in writings of about this period, as in Ezra and Jeremiah. De Wctte's answer to this argument, that both languages were known to the learned Jews at a later date, 1 Auberlen thinks that the minuteness, which Is chiefly in chs. viil. and xi., was " necessary to prepare the people for the attacks ami artful machinations of Antiochus," and that "the glorious struggle, of the Maccabees, so far as it was a pure and righteuui ne, was a fruit of this book."' (pp. 04, 05.) 34(5 NOTES. Lect. V. (Einleitung, 255 c, p. 349,) is a specimen of the weak grounds on which men are content to rest a foregone conclusion. The Hebrew Scriptures were not written for the learned ; and no instances at all can be found of the alternate use, (as distinct from the occurrence of Chaldaisms in Hebrew, or Hebraisms in Chaldee,) excepting at the time of the Cap- tivity. Note VII., p. 132. I have here followed the ordinary tradition, which rests on the au- thority of Aristeas, Philo, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Epiphanius, &c. It is questioned, however, if the Greek version of Daniel was made so early. The book of Esther, according to the subscription to it, was net translated till the fourth year of Ptolemy Philometor, B. C. 178 or 177, a year or two before the accession of Epiphanes. And it is possible that Daniel may have been translated still later. (See Home's Introduc- tion, &c, vol. hi. p. 44.) If the argument in the text is weakened by this admission, it may receive the following important accessions : 1. Passages of Daniel are referred to by Jesus the son of Sirach, who must have written as early as B. C. 180, or before the time of Epiphanes. 1 (See Ecclus. xvii. 17, compared with Dan. x. 20, 21 ; xii. 1 ; and Ecclus. x. 8, compared with Dan. viii. 23, &c.) And, 2. Daniel's prophecies were shown to Al- exander the Great in the year B. C. 332, and inclined him to treat the Jews with special favor. (Joseph. Ant. Jiul. xi. 8.) The authority of Josephus as to the main fact is not discredited by the circumstance, that " the narrative of Josephus is not credible in all of its particulars." (De Wette, Einleitung, \ 255 c, p. 349.) Note VIII., p. 132. The fundamental arguments in favor of this are, 1. The constant representation of Daniel as the author from ch. vii. to the end ; and, 2. Our Lord's words, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet," (Matt. xxiv. 15.) De Wette's arguments to the contrary, besides those noted in the text, seem to be the following, 1 . The mira- cles are grotesque. 2. The apocalyptic tone is unlike that of the proph- 1 Even De Wette admits this. (Einleitung, \ 316, p. 419. " As we maintain at the time of its composition., d. J. 180. v. Chr.") Lect. V. notes. 347 ets belonging to this period. 3. Honorable mention is made of Daniel himself in the book. 4. The language is corrupt, containing Persian and Greek words. 5. The book is placed by the Jews among the Hagiographa, and is therefore later than Malachi. 6. The angelology, christology, and asceticism, mark a late date. 1 Of these the first and last may be simply denied ; the second is reduced to a shadow by De Wette himself when he admits that the style of Ezekiel's and Zechariah's prophesying is not very unlike ("nicht ganz fremd") Daniel's; the third is an objection equally to the Pentateuch, the Gospel of St. John, and some of St. Paul's Epistles, and rests merely upon an a priori con- ception of how prophets should write, not borne out by experience ; the fourth is not urged with any confidence, since it is allowed to be " certainly possible that the Greek words may have been known to the Babylonians at the time," (p. 347 ;) and if so, a fortiori, the Persian words ; and the fifth argument, if it has any weight at all, would make the Book of Job, and the Proverbs of Solomon, later than Malachi ! No wonder Professor Stuart should say "Beyond the objections founded on the assumption, that miracles and predictions are impossi- bilities, there is little to convince an enlightened and well-balanced crit- ical reader, that the book is supposititious." (History and Defence of the Canon, p. 111.) Note IX., p. 132. See Dan. i. 3. Josephus says that Daniel was of the seed of Zedekiah. Ant. Jud. x. 10.) Note X., p. 132. Ewald contends, that the Daniel commended by Ezekiel must have been an ancient hero, like Job and Noah, (Propheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 660,) of whose wisdom and righteousness he knew from some sacred book, with which both himself and the Jews of his time were well ac- quainted. We are not told what has become of this book, or what proof there is of its existence. Nor is it explained how this " ancient hero " comes not to be mentioned in the historical Scriptures at all, or by any writer earlier than Ezekiel. Doubtless if we had no means of knowing to the contrary, we should naturally have supposed from Ezek. xiv. 14 and 20, that Daniel was an ancient historical personage I Einlettung. I 265, pp. 346, 347. 348 NOTES. Lect. V. in Ezekiel's time, having lived between Noah and Job ; but as this is impossible from the absolute silence of the historical books, Ezekiel's mention of him at all can only be accounted for by the fact that he was the great Jew of the day, and that his wisdom and virtue were known to those for whom Ezekiel wrote, the Chaldcean Jews, 1 be it remem- bered, (Ezek. i. 2, 3,) not historically, or from any book, but from personal acquaintance and common rumor. Why Daniel precedes Job, is still a question. Perhaps, because Daniel and Noah are actual men, while Job is not ? Or because the two former are viewed as Jews, Job as a Gentile ? Note XL, p. 132. Einleitung, 255 a, p. 344 ; " full of improbabilities, and even of his- torical errors, such as no other prophetical book of the Old Testament contains." Compare p. 349. Note NIL, p. 132. See above, Note LXXXVI. on Lecture IV. Sargon seems to have been the first king who introduced this practice on a large scale. He was followed by Sennacherib, (Fox Talbot's Assyrian Texts, pp. 3, 4, 7, &c. ;) and Esarhaddon, (ibid. pp. 11 and 17.) Note XIII., p. 132. See Herod, iv. 181 ; v. 15; vi. 20 and 119; Ctes. Pers., 9; Arrian. Exp. Alex., iii. 48 ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 563, 564. The practice continues to modern times. (See Chardin's Voyage en Perse, vol. iii. p. 292 ; and Ferrier's Caravan Journeys, p. 395.) Note XIV., p. 133. Lee Lecture IV., Note LXXXIII. 1 It has been usual to regard Ezekiel as writing in Mesopotamia, the Chebar being supposed to be the Khabour. But we have no right to assume the identity of the words "!33 and "113H. The Chebar is probably the N'ahr Malcha, or Royal Canal, the great / - 03'\ cutting of Nebuchadnezzar. See the article on Chebar iu Smith's (forthcoming) Biblical Dictionary. Lect. V. NOTES. 349 Note XV., p. 133. See the fragments of these writers in the Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii pp. 506, 507 ; and vol. iv. p. 284. Compare with the expression 14 Daniel, ' Is not this great Babylon which I have built r " (Dan, iv. 30,) the statement of Berosus. Nebuchadnezzar . . . repaired the city which had existed from the first, and added another to it ; and in order that besiegers might not again be able, by turning aside the course of the river, to get possession of the city, he built three courses of walls around the inner city, and as many around the outer. Both statements are confirmed by the fact that nine tenths of the inscribed bricks from the site of Babylon are stamped with Nebuchadnezzar's name. Note XVI., p. 133. Ap. Euseb. Prepp. Ev. ix. 41, pp. 441, 442. " Afterwards, as is said by the Chaldaeans, he went up into his palace, where he was seized by some divine influence, and littered these words : ' O Babylonians, I Nebu- chadnezzar announce to you this future calamity. . . . There shall come a Persian mule, using our divinities as allies : he shall bring us into bondage : leagued with him shall be the Mode, the boast of Assyria.' Having uttered these predictions, he immediately disappeared." Note XVII., p. 133. Beros. ap. Joseph. Contr. Apionem, i. 20 ; Polyhist. ap. Euseb. Chron- ica, i. 5, 3, p. 21 ; Ptol. Mag. Syntax., v. 1 1. Note XVIII., p. 134. These tablets are commonly orders on the imperial treasury, dated in the current year of the reigning monarch, like modern Acts of Parlia- ment. They give a minimum for the length of each monarch's reign. but of course by the nature of the case they cannot furnish a maximum. Still, where they are abundant, as in Nebuchadnezzar's case, they raise a strong probability that the highest number found was not much ex- ceeded. 30 350 NOTES. Lect. V. Note XIX.. p. 134. The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar being the first of Jehoiachin's captivity, (2 Kings xxiv. 12,) we must place the beginning of Nebuchad- nezzar's reign seven years earlier ; and the 37th of the captivity being the first of Evil-Merodach, (Ibid. xxv. 27,) the 36th would be Nebu- chadnezzar's last complete year. Now 36 -f- 7 = 43. Note XX., p. 134. So De Wette, (Einleitung, 255 a ; p. 345 c.,) who quotes von Len- gerke, Hitzig, and others, as agreeing with him. Ewald also compares Daniel to Judith, on account of its confusing together various times and countries. (Prqpheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 562.) Note XXI., p. 134. De "Wette gives the first place among his " historical inaccuracies," to the " erroneous representations concerning the wise men of Baby- lon," and the "inexplicable admission of Daniel among the same; " the second to the "mention of the Persian arrangement of Satrapies under Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede." {Einleitung, 1. s. c.) Note XXII., p. 134. The word which we translate "magicians" in Dan. i. 20, ii. 2, 10, &c, is chartummim, or khartummim, (fi^Tap")!"!,) which is derived from cheret, or kheret, (w~!>"I,) " a graving-tool." (See Buxtorf's Lexicon He- braicum'et Chaldaicum, ad voc.) Babylonian documents are sometimes written on clay, where the character has been impressed, before the clay was baked, by a tool with a triangular point ; but they are also fre- quently on stone large pebbles from the Euphrates's bed in which case they have been engraved with a fine chisel. Note XXIDI., p. 135. The Chaldseans in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Ezekiel, are simply the inhabitants of Chaldaea, which is the name ap- plied to the whole country whereof Babylon is the capital. But in Lect. V. NOTES. 351 Daniel the Chaldaeans are a special set of persons at Babylon, having a "learning" and a " tongue " of their own, (Dan. i. 4,) and classed with the magicians, astrologers, &c. Stvabo notes both senses of the term, (xvi. i. 6 ;) and Berosus seems to use the narrower and less common one, when he speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as finding on his arrival at Babylon after his father's death, that affairs were being conducted by the Chaldaeans, and that their chief was keeping the throne vacant for him, (" assuming the administration of affairs, which had been under the management of the Chaldaeans, and the kingdom which had been kept for him by the most eminent one among them, he succeeded," &c, Fr. 14,) while elsewhere (as in Frs. 1, 1 ; 5, 6, 11, &c.) he employs the generic and more usual sense. Compare Herod, i. 181, and vii. 63. The inscriptions show that the Chaldaeans (Kaldi) belonged to the primitive Scythic inhabitants, and that the old astronomical and other learning of the Babylonians continued to be in this language during the later Semitic times. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's note in the author's Herodotu*, vol. i. p. 319, note 8 .) Note XXIV., p. 135. Compare an article on the Chaldaeans in Smith's (forthcoming) Bibli- cal Dictionary. Note XXV., p. 135. See above, Lecture IV., Note LXXXI. Note XXVI., p. 136. I do not intend to assert that this urn* the case. We have no satis- factory proof that the Babylonians ever approached more nearly to the Satrapial system than by the appointment in exceptional cases of a native "governor" in lieu of an hereditary king, as in the case of Gedaliah. The maintenance of Jehoiakim, Jehoiaehin, and Zedekiah on the throne of Judaea seems to indicate the general character of their government. It may even be suspected that Berosus's " Satrap of Egypt and Syria" was really Pharaoh-Necho, whose position Baby- lonian vanity represented in that light. The LXX. translate Daniel's " princes " (&*2E"Hrni<) by oarpanai, but this cannot be regarded as an argument of much weight. Babylonian historical inscriptions arc so 352 NOTES. Lect. V. scanty that we can derive little assistance from them towards determin- ing the question. Note XXVII., p. 136. The extent of the kingdom, (Dan. iv. 22,) the absolute power of the king, (ib. ii. 5, 13, 48 ; iii. 29, &c.,) the influence of the Chaldseans, (ib. ii. 2 ; iii. 8, &c.,) the idolatrous character of the religion, the use of images of gold, (ib. iii. 1 ; compare Herod, i. 183,) are borne out by profane writers, and (so far as their testimony can be brought to bear) by the monuments. The building (rebuilding) of Babylon (Dan. iv. 30) by Nebuchadnezzar, is confirmed in every way. (See above, Note XV.) Again, there is a curious notice in Daniel of a certain peculiarity which may be remarked in Nebuchadnezzar's religion, viz., his special devotion to a particular god. Nebuchadnezzar throughout his inscriptions presents himself to us as a devotee of Merodach. " Merodach, his lord," is the chief almost the sole object of his wor- ship and praise invocations, prayers, and thanksgivings are addressed to him, and him only. (See Sir II. Rawlinson's remarks in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 628, 629, and compare the Inscription of Nebu- chadnezzar in the same work, vol. ii. pp. 585-587.) This peculiarity is casually and incidentally noticed by Daniel, when he says that Nebu- chadnezzar carried the sacred vessels of the temple " into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; and brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god." (i. 2.) Note XXVITL, p. 136. See his Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alt. Test., p. 105. Hengsten- berg has on his side the authority of Eusebius, who so understood the passage, (Chronica, i. 10, p. 21 ;) but Eusebius's arguments appear to me very weak. Note XXIX, p. 137. See Sir II. Rawlinson's translation of the Standard Inscription in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 585-587. The passage to which reference is made in the text runs as follows " Four years (?) . . . the seat of my kingdom in the city . . . which . . . did not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions I did not build a high place of power ; the precious treasures of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Babylon, Lect. V. notes. 353 buildings for myself and for the honor of my kingdom I did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach my lord, the joy of my heart, (?) in Babylon the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my empire, I did not sing his praises, (?) and I did not furnish his altars (with victims), nor did I clear out the canals." Other negative clauses follow. From this literal rendering of the passage, only one or two words of which are at all doubtful, the reader may judge for himself to what event in his life it is likely that the monarch alludes. He should perhaps bear in mind that the whole range of cuneiform literature presents no simi- lar instance of a king putting on record his own inaction. Note XXX., p. 137. Berosus ap. Joseph. Contr. Ap., i. 20 : "Now Nebuchadnezzar, just as he began to build the aforesaid wall, fell sick, and died, after having reigned 43 years. His son, Evil-Merodach, became master of the kingdom." Compare Abyden. ap. Euseb. Chron., i. 10, p. 28 ; and Polyhist. ap. eund. i. 5, 3 ; p. 21. Note XXXI., p. 137. Berosus continues after the passage above quoted "This man, hav- ing used his authority in a lawless and dissolute manner, was slain by conspirators." Note XXXII., p. 138. The Babylonian name is read as Nergal-shar-uzitr ; the Hebrew form Cl2^E~ba~i:) is exactly expressed by our authorized version, which gives Nergal-shar-ezer. The Greek renderings are far inferior to the Hebrew. Berosus, as reported by Josephus, (1. s. c.,) called the king Neriglissoor ; Polyhistor called him Neglissar, (Euseb. Chron., i. 5 ; p. 21 ;) Abydenus, Niglissar, (Armen. Euseb.,) or Neriglissar, (Euseb. Prop. Ev., ix. 41 ;) Ptolemy, {Mag. Si/nt., 1. s. c.,) Nerigassolassar. Note XXXHL, p. 138. The Babylonian vocalization somewhat modifies the word, which is readas in the Inscriptions as Rubu-emga. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's note in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 518, note 3 .) With this the 30* 354 NOTES. Lect. V. Hebrew Rub-mag (W^) is identical in all its consonants ; and there can be no reasonable doubt that it is the same term. Gesenius has translated the title as " Chief of the Magi," (Lexicon, p. 388, E. T. ;) but the Babylonian word which represents the Persian Magi in the Behistun Inscription bears no resemblance at all to the emga of this title. Sir H. Rawlinson believes the signification to be " Chief Priest," but holds that there is no reference in it to Magism. Note XXXIV., p. 138. Abydenus has the form Nabannidochus, (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 10, p. 28,) with which may be -compared the Naboandelus (probably to be read Naboandcchus,) of Josephus, {Ant. Jud. x. 11.) Berosus wrote Nabonnedus (Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 20 ;) Herodotus, Labynetus, (i. 77, 188.) The actual name seems to have been Kabu-nahit in Semitic, Nabu-induk in the Cushite Babylonian. Note XXXV. p. 139. So Josephus, (Ant. Jud. 1. s. c. ;) Perizonius, (Orig. Babylon, p. 359 ;) Heeren, Manual of Ancient History, p. 28, E. T. ; Des Vignoles, (Euires, vol. ii. p. 510, et seqq. ; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 369-371 ; the author of L Art de Verifier les Dates, vol. ii. p. 69 ; Winer, Real- tcOrterbuch ad voe. Belshazzar ; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia ad voc. eand. ; &c. Note XXXVI., p. 139. It has been almost universally concluded, by those who have regarded the book of Daniel as authentic, that the Belshazzar of that book must be identical with one or other of the native monarchs known from Berosus and Abydenus to have occupied the throne between Nebuchad- nezzar and Cyrus. Each monarch has been preferred in his turn. Conringius, Bouhier, Larcher, Marsham, Hupfcld, Havernick, and others, have identified Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach ; Eusebius, Syncellus, and Hales, with Neriglissar ; Jackson and Gatterer, with Laborosoarchod ; but the bulk of commentators and historians with Nabonadius. (See the last note.) In every case there was the .same difficulty in explaining the diversity of name, as well as in reconciling Lect. V. NOTES. 355 the historical facts recorded of the monarch preferred with what Scrip- ture tells us of Belshazzar. On the whole, perhaps the hypothesis of Conringius was the least objectionable. Note XXXVU., p. 139. So De Wette, Einleitung, 255 a, p. 345. Note XXXVIII., p. 139. This view was maintained by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his Chronol- ogy, pp. 323-330.) Note XXXIX., p. 139. Sir H. Rawlinson made this important discovery in the year 1854, from documents obtained at Mugheir, the ancient Ur. (See Mr. Lof- tus's Chaldma and Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 132, 133 ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 525.) Note XL., p. 140. Jehu, though ordinarily called " the son of Nimshi," was really his grandson, (2 Kings ix. 2.) Merodach-Baladan, " the son of Baladan," according to Isaiah, (xxxix. 1,) is in the Inscriptions the son of Yaghia. Baladan was probably one of his more remote ancestors. In Matt. i. 1, our Blessed Lord is called " the Son of David, (who was) the son of Abraham." Note XLL, p. 140. Such marriages formed a part of the state policy of the time, and were sought with the utmost avidity. When Zedekiah's daughters were committed to Gedaliah, (Jcrem. xli. 10,) it was undoubtedly that he might marry them, in order (as Mr. F. Newman justly observes ') * to establish for his descendants an hereditary claim on Jewish allegi- ance." So Amasis married a daughter of Psammctik III. ; * and Atossa was taken to wife both by the Pscudo-Smerdis and by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, (Herod, iii. 68 and 88.) On the same giounds 1 Hebrew Monarchy, p. 361. ' Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 387. 356 NOTES. Lect. V. Herod the Great married Mariamne. (See Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 12, 3.) An additional reason for suspecting that such a marriage as that suggested in the text was actually contracted by Nabonadius, is to be found in the fact, which may be regarded as certain, that he adopted the name of Nebuchadnezzar among his own family names. That he had a son so called, is proved by the rise of two pretenders in the reign of Darius, who each proclaimed himself to be " Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabonadius." {Behistun Inscr. Col. i. Par. 16 ; and Col. iii. Par. 13.) Note XLII., p. 140. Syncellus, Chronograph, p. 438, B ; Apoc. Dan. xiii. ad fin. ; Jack- son, Chronolog. Antiq. vol. i. p. 416; Marsham, Can. Chron. p. 604, et 6eqq. ; Winer, Realwfirterbuch ad voc. Darius ; &c. Note XLHL, p. 140. This was the view of Josephus, {Ant. Jud. x. 11, 4 ;) and from him it has been adopted very generally. See Prideaux's Connection, &c, vol. i. p. 95 ; Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 508 ; Offerhaus, Spicileg. Hist. Chron., p. 265 ; Bertholdt, Exc. ziun Daniel, p. 483 ; Heng- stenberg, Authentic des Daniel, 48 ; Von Lcngerke, Das Buch Daniel, 92 ; Hooper's Palmoni, pp. 278-283 ; and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, ad voc. Darius. But Xenophon is the sole authority for the existence of this personage ; and Herodotus may be quoted against his exist- ence, since he positively declares that Astyages " had no male off- spring." (Herod, i. 109.) Note XLIV., p. 140. By Larcher, (Hirodote, vol. vii. p. 175,) Conringius, Adversar. Chron. c. 13,) and Bouhier, {Dissertations sur Hirodote, ch. iii. p. 29.) Note XLY., p. 140. Syncellus regarded Darius the Mede as at once identical with Astya- ges and Nabonadius. (Chronograph, pp. 437, 438.) Lect. V. NOTES. 357 Note XL VI., p. 140. That Cyrus placed Medes in situations of high trust, is evident from Herodotus, (i. 156 and 162.) He may therefore very possibly have established Astyages, his grandfather (?), as vice-king of Babylon, where the latter may have been known to the Jews as Darius the Mede. The diversity of name is no real objection here ; for Astyages (Asdahages = Aj-dahak) is not a name, but (like Pharaoh) a title. And if it be said that Darius the Mede was the son of Ahasuerus or Xerxes, (Dan. ix. 1,) while Astyages was the son of Cyaxares, it may be answered that, ac- cording to one explanation, Cyaxares is equivalent to Kei-Axares, or King Xerxes. There is still an objection in the age of Darius Medus, who was only 62 in E. C. 538, (Dan. v. 31,) whereas Astyages (it would seem) must have been 75 at that time. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 417, 418.) But as the numbers depend here on the single authority of Herodotus, whose knowledge of Median history was not very great, perhaps they are not greatly entitled to consideration. If, however, it be thought that, for this or any other reason, Darius Medus cannot be Astyages, we may regard him as a Median noble, in- trusted by Cyrus with the government of Babylon. Scripture makes it plain that his true position was that of a subordinate king, holding his crown of a superior. Darius the Mede, we are told, (Dan. v. 30,) "took the kingdom" SCttSb?? b?P that is, "accepit regnum." (Buxtorf. ad voc. JupO "received the kingdom at the hand of an- other." And again we read in another place, (Dan. ix. 1,) that he "was made king over the realm of the Chaldseans ; " where the word used is "ilbfcn, the Hophil of Tjb^, the Iliphal of which is used when David appoints Solomon king, and which thus means distinctly, " was appointed king by another." Note XLVII., p. 141. Herod, i. 191 ; Xen. Instit. Cyr. vii. 5, 15. Note XLVHI., p. 141. See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 401-403. 358 NOTES. Lect. V. Note XLIX., p. 141. Even the tyrant Cambyses, when he wished to marry his sister, be- cause he was intending to do an unusual thing, called together the royal judges, and asked them ij there was any law which allowed one who wished, to marry his sister. (Herod, iii. 31.) And Xerxes, when he had been entrapped, like Herod Antipas, into making a rash prom- ise, feels compelled to keep it, being restrained by the law, namely, that it is not allowable that one who makes a request at the time of a royal feast should be denied. (Ibid. ix. 111.) Note L., p. 141. See De Wette, Einleitung, 255 a, p. 345. Compare Mr. Parker's Translation, (vol. ii. p. 490,) where it is suggested that the author has copied and exaggerated what Herodotus ascribes to Darius Hystaspis. Note LI., p. 141. See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 372 : "The one hundred and twenty princes appointed by Darius (Dan. vi. 1) correspond to the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Ahasuerus, (Esth. i. 1,) and to the enlarged extent of the empire." Note LIL, p. 142. Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Judaea in the reigr. of Jehoiakim which was the occasion on which Daniel became a captive (Dan. i. 1) fell, as appears from the fragment of Berosus quoted in Note LXXXI. to Lecture IV., in his father's last year, which, according to Ptolemy's Canon, was B. C. G05. Nebuchadnezzar then reigned himself 43 years, Evil-Merodach, his son, reigned two years, Neriglissar three years and some months, Laborosoarchod three quarters of a year, Nabonadius 17 years, and Darius the Mede one year. Consequently Daniel's prayer " in the first year of Darius the Mede" (Dan. ix. 1-3) fell into the year B. C. 538, or C8 years after the first conquest of Judaea by Nebuchad- nezzar in B. C. G05. Lect. V. NOTES. 359 Note LIIL, p. 142. See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. pp. 366-368 ; and Mr. Hooper's Palmoni, p. 390. Note LIV., p. 143. In Daniel's prophecy of the weeks, we have (I think) the term of seventy years used first (Dan. ix. 24) as a round number, and after- wards explained accuracy being of especial importance in this proph- ecy as 68i weeks, (ibid. 25-27.) In Ezekiel, the forty years' desola- tion of Egypt (Ez. xxix. 11-13) can scarcely be understood to extend really to the full term. Prophecy is, as Bacon says, " a kind of histo- riography;" but it does not ordinarily affect the minuteness and strict accuracy of human history. Note LV., p. 143. Einleitung, 196, 197, pp. 260-265. It is obvious that the insertion of documents, such as the proclamation of Cyrus, (Ez. i. 24,) the list of those who came up with Zorubbabcl, (ib. ii. 3-67 ; Neh. viii. 7-69 ;) the letters of the Samaritans, the Jews, the Persian kings, (ib. iv. 11-22, &c.,) and the like, does not in the slightest degree affect the unity and integrity of the works. But De Wette does not appear to see this, ( 196 a, p. 260.) Note LVI., p. 143. The number of generations from Joshua to Jaddua, which is six, (Neh. xii. 10-12,) should cover a space of about 200 years. This would bring Jaddua to the latter half of the fourth century B. C. Ex- actly at this time there lived the well-known high priest Jaddua, who received Alexander at Jerusalem, and showed him the prophecies of Daniel. (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xi. 8.) At this time too there was a Darius (Darius Codomannus) upon the Persian throne, as noted in verse 22. The Jaddua of Nehemiah must therefore be regarded as the contemporary of Alexander. Havernick allows this, but still thinks that Nehemiah may have writ- ten the whole book, since lie may have lived to the time of Jaddua ! But as Nehemiah was old enough to be sent on an important mission in 360 NOTES. Lect. Y, B. C. 445, (Neb. ii. 1-8,) he would have been considerably above a hundred before Jaddua can have been priest, and 130 or 140 before the accession of Codomannus. Note LVII., p. 144. Eight Dukes or Kings are mentioned in Genesis xxxvi. 31-39, as having reigned over Edom, "before there reigned any king in Israel." This last clause must have been written after the time of Saul, the first Israelite king ; and it has commonly been regarded as an interpolation. (Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 346 ; Home, Introduc- tion, vol. i. p. 64 ; &c.) But the real interpolation seems to be from verse 31 to verse 39 inclusive. These kings, whose reigns are likely to have covered a space of 200 years, must come down later than Moses, and probably reach nearly to the time of Saul. The whole passage seems to have been transferred from 1 Chr. i. 43-50. In 1 Chronicles iii. 17-24, the genealogy of the descendants of Jechoniah is carried on for nine generations, (Jcchoniah, Pedaiah, Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Shekaniah, Shemaiah, Neariah, Elioenai, and Hodaiah,) who must have occupied a period not much short of three centuries. As Jechoniah came to the throne in B. C. 597, this portion of Chronicles can scarcely have been written before B. C. 300. See De Wette, Einleitung, 189, p. 242, whose argument here appears to be sound. He remarks, that the occurrence of a Shemaiah, the son of Shekaniah, among the contemporaries of Nehemiah, (Neh. iii. 29,) con- firms the calculation, and indicates that the genealogy is consecutive. Note LVIIL, p. 144. De Wette in one place admits that Ezra may have written a chapter (ch. x.) in which the third person is used, but pronounces against his having written the opening passage of ch. vii., (verses 1-10,) chiefly on this ground. (Einleitung, 196 a, p. 261.) Bertholdt and Zunz go farther, and deny that Ezra can have written ch. x. Professor Stuart concludes, chiefly on account of the alternation of persons, that "some one of Ezra's friends, probably of the prophetic order, compiled the book from various documents," among which were some written by Ezra himself. (Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 6, p. 148.) LEOT. V. NOTES. 361 Note LIX., p. 144. The third person is used through the first six chapters of Daniel, and at the opening of the seventh. The first then takes its place to the end of ch. ix. The third recurs in the first verse of ch. x. ; after which the first is used uninterruptedly. Note LX., p. 144. Thucydides begins his history in the third person, (i. 1. ;) but changes to the first after a few chapters, (i. 20-22.) Further on, in book iv., he resumes the third, chs. 104-106.) In book v. ch. 26, he begins in the third, but runs on into the first, which he again uses in book viii. ch. 97. Note LXI., p. 144. See Sir H. Rawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 279, 286, 287, 292, 293, 324, 327, &c. Note LXII., p. 145. The " first year of Cyrus," (Ez. i. 1,) by which we must understand his first year in Babylon, was B. C. 538. The seventh year of Arta- xerxes, when Ezra took the direction of affairs at Jerusalem, (ib. vii. 8,) was B. C. 459 or 458. (See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 378.) Note LXIII., p. 145. See above, Lecture I. page 39, and compare p. 244, Note XL VIII. Note LXIV., p. 145. De Wette, Einleitunt), $ 19G a, p. 260; vol. ii. p. 324, Parker's Translation ; Stuart, Defence of the. Canon, 6, p. 148 ; Home, Intro- duction, vol. v. pp. 64, 65. Note LXV., p. 145. See Lecture IV., p. 104. 31 3G2 NOTES. Lect. V. Note LXVL, p. 145. See Lecture I., pp. 34, 35 ; and p. 241, Note XXXIV. Note LXVIL, p. 145. " Die Erzahlung," says De Wette, " besteht aus einer Reihe geschicht- licher Schweirigkeiten und Unwahrschein-lichkeiten, und enthalt mehrere Verstosse gegen die Persischen Sitten." (Einleitung, 198 a, p. 266.) Note LXVUL, p. 145. CEder, Freien Untersuchungen ilber d. Kanon des Alt. Test., p. 12, et seqq. ; Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, vol. ii. p. 35, et seqq. ; Corrodi, Beleucht. d. Geschicht. d. Jild. Kanona, vol. i. p. 66, et seqq. ; and Bertholdt, Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in sttmmt. kano?i. und apokr. Schriften d. Alt. und Neuen Testaments, p. 2425. Note LXIX., p. 145. See Carpzov's Introductio, xx. 6, pp. 365, 366, where he shows that the Jews place the Book of Esther on a par with the Pentateuch, and above all the rest of Scripture. Note LXX., p. 146. Even De Wette allows it to be "incontestable (tmstreitig) that the feast of Purini originated in Persia, and was occasioned by an event similar to that related in Esther." (Einleitung, 198 b, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 339, Parker's Translation.) Stuart says very forcibly "The fact that the feast of Purim has come down to us from time almost im- memorial, proves as certainly that the main events related in the Book of Esther happened, as the declaration of independence and the cel- ebration of the fourth of July prove that we (Americans) separated from Great Britain, and became an independent nation." (History and Defence of the O. T. Canon, 21, p. 308.) Note LXXL, p. 146. It is remarkable that the name of God is not once mentioned in Esther.. The only religious ideas introduced with any distinctness are Lect. V. NOTES. 3G3 the efficacy of a national humiliation, (Esth. iv. 1-3,) the certainty that punishment will overtake the wicked, (ib. verse 14,) and a feeling of confidence that Israel will not be forsaken, (ibid.) Various reasons have been given for this reticence, (Carpzov, Introduct. p. 369 ; Baum- garten, De Fide Lib. Estheris, p. 58 ; Home, Introduction, vol. v. p. 69, &c. ;) but they are conjectural, and so uncertain. One thing only is clear, that if a Jew in later times had wished to palm upon his countrymen, as an ancient and authentic narrative, a work which he had composed himself, he would have taken care not to raise suspicion against his work by such an omission. (See the remarks of Professor Stuart, Defence of the Canon, p. 311.) Note LXXIL, p. 1 16. The grounds upon which the historical character of the Book of Esther is questioned, are principally the following : (1.) The Persian king intended by Ahasuerus seems to be Xerxes. As Esther cannot be identified with Amestris, the daughter of Otanes, who really ruled Xerxes, the whole story of her being made queen, and of her great power and influence, becomes impossible. (2.) Mordecai, having been carried into captivity with Jechoniah, (in B. C. 588,) must have beeu 120 years old in Xerxes' twelfth year, (B. C. 474,) and Esther must have been " a superannuated beauty." (3.) A Persian king would never have invited his queen to a carousal. (4.) The honors paid to Mordecai are excessive, (5.) The marriage with a Jewess is impossi- ble, since the queens were taken exclusively from the families of the seven conspirators. (6.) Esther's concealment of her Jewish descent, and Hainan's ignorance of her relationship to Mordecai, are highly improbable. (7.) The two murderous decrees, the long notice given, and the tameness ascribed to both Jews and Persians, are incredible. (8.) The massacre of more than 75,000 Persians by the Jews in a day, without the loss (so far as appears) of a man, transcends belief, and is an event of such a nature that " no amount of historical evidence would render it credible." (See Mr. Parker's additions to De Wette, vol. ii. pp. 340-345.) It is plain that none of these objections are of very great weight. The first, second, and last are met and refuted in the text. To the third it is enough to answer, in De Wette's own words, lEinleilung, 198 a, p. 267, that such an invitation is " possible on 364 NOTES. Lect. V. account of the advancing corruption in Xerxes' time, and through the folly of Xerxes himself." To the fourth we may reply, that the honors, being analogous (as I)e Wette observes) to those paid to Joseph, are thereby shown to be not greater than under some circumstances were assigned to benefactors by Eastern monarchs. Nor would any one acquainted with the East make the objection. The fifth objection is met by observing, that when Cambyses wished to marry his sister, which was as much against the law as marrying a Jewess, and con- sulted the royal judges on the point, they told him, that there was no law, so far as they knew, which allowed a man to marry his sister, but that there was a law to this effect, that the Persian king might do what he pleased. The sixth objection scarcely needs a reply, for its answer is contained in the preceding objection. If it was contrary to Persian law that the king should marry a Jewess, the fact of Esther's national- ity would be sure to be studiously concealed. Finally, to the seventh objection we may answer, that the murderous tenor of the decrees is credible (as De Wette confesses) on account of the " base character and disposition of Xerxes " that the length of notice in the first instance was the consequence of llaman's superstition, while the length of the notice in the second instance followed necessarily upon the first and that no "tameness"is proved by the mere silence of Scripture as to the number of Jews who fell in the struggle. "The author of the book," as Professor Stuart observes, "is wholly intent upon the vic- tory and the deliverance of the Jews. The result of the encounter he relates, viz., the great loss and humiliation of Persian enemies. But how much it cost to achieve this victory he does not relate. . . . We can scarcely doubt that many Jews were killed or wounded." (History and Defence of the U. T. Canon, 21, pp. 309, 310.) Note LXXIIL, p. 146. Carpzov, Introductio, c. xx. 4, pp. 360, 361. Note LXXIV., p. 146. Carpzov, 6, pp. 368, 369. This was probably the ground of Lu- ther's objections to the Canonicity of Esther. (De Servo Arbitrio, p. 118, et alibi.) It may also have caused the omission of Esther from some lists of the canonical books in the fathers. (Athanas. Ep. Festal., Lect. V. notes. 365. vol. i. p. 963 ; Synops. S. S., vol. ii. p. 128 ; Mclito ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iv. 26, &c. In recent times the objection has not been much pressed. Note LXXV., p. 148. See Sir H. Rawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 197-200, 273, 274, 280, 286, 291, 299, 320, 324, 327, 330. 335, 338, and 342. Note LXXVL, p. 148. Ibid., pp. 285, 291, 319, 323, &c. Note LXXVII., p. 148. Ewald, Geschichtc d. Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part ii. p. 118; Winer, RealwOrterbuch, ad voce. Ahasnerus and Artachschaschta ; Kitto, Bib~ Heal Cyclopaedia, vol. i. pp. 98 and 229, &c. Note LXXVIIL, p. 148. The Pseudo-Smerdis seems to have been known by several names. According to Darius, {Behist. Inscr., col. i. par. 11,) his true name was Gomates, (Gaumata,~) and he gave himself out for Smerdis, (Bardiya.) According to Justin, (i. 9, { 9,) he was called Oropastes. As Arta- xerxes means " Great King, Great Warrior," (see the author's Herodotus, vol. iii. p. 552,) it may perhaps have been in common use as an epithet of any Persian monarch. The application to Cambyses of the name Ahasucrus (= Xerxes) is still more curious. Cambyses was known as Kembath in Egypt, Kahujiya in Persia, Ka/j/?uo>;c in Greece. It is cer- tainly very remarkable that the Jews should only know him as Xerxes. Perhaps the theory of Mr. Howes {Pictorial Bible, ad loc.) with respect to the Ahasucrus of Ezra iv. 6, viz., that Xerxes is intended, might be adopted, without the adoption of his view that the Artaxerxes of the next verse is Artaxerxes Longimanus. The author may go on in verse 6 to a fact subsequent to the time of Darius, whom he has mentioned in verse 5, and then return in verse 7 to a time anterior to Darius. But Mr. Howes's view of the Artaxerxes of verse 7 is incompatible with the nexus of verses 23 and 24. 81* 366 NOTES. Lect. V. Note LXXIX., p. 148. The reigns are in each case four Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis the Mage, Darius Hystaspis, in profane history Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Ar- taxerxes, Darius, in Ezra. The harmony of the chronology is best seen from Zechariah. That prophet implies that 70 years were not completed from the destruction of Jerusalem in the second year of Darius, (Zech. i. 7 and 12 ;) but that they were completed two years later, in the fourth year of that prince, (ib. vii. 5.) He therefore, it would seem, placed the completion in Darius's 3d or 4th year ; i. e. in B. C. 519 or 518. Taking the latter date, and counting back by the years of the Astronomical Canon, Ave find the first of the seventy years to fall into B. C. 587. Now this appears by the same Canon to have been the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar, which was the exact year of the destruction of Jerusalem, (Jer. lii. 29.) 1 Thus the two chronolo- gies harmonize exactly. Note LXXX., p. 149. See the Behistun Inscript., col. i. par. 14. Note LXXXL, p. 149. Behist. Inscr., 1. s. c. Note LXXXIL, p. 150. The length of the Persian kings' reigns from the time of Darius Hystaspis to that of Darius Nothus is fixed beyond the possibility of doubt. Besides the Greek contemporary notices, which would form a very fair basis for an exact chronology, we have the consentient testi- mony on the point of Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, preserved to us in the Astronomical Canon and in Manetho, as reported by Euse- bius. From both it appears, that from the sixth year of Darius to the seventh of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) was a period of 58 years. 1 In 2 Kings xxv. 8, we find the nineteenth year mentioned as that of the destruction, instead of the eighteenth. I believe the cause of this difference to be, that some reck- oned the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to hare commenced in B. C. 605 the last year of Nabopolassar when Nebuchadnezzar came into Palestine as his father's represen- tative, defeated N echo, and made Jehoiakim tributary. (See Lecture IV., Note LXXXI.) Lect. V. NOTES. 367 Note LXXXIIL, p. 150. The Persian word is read as Khshayarsha. Ahasuerus (SITI'fn^) only differs from Khshayarsha by the adoption of the prosthetic ^, which the Hebrews invariably placed before the Persian Iihsh, and the substitution of ^ for i, a common dialectic variation. Gesenius, (Thesaurus, vol. i. p. 75,) and Winer (ReahcOrterbuch, ad voc. Alias- uerus) admit the identity of the words. Note LXXXIV., p. 150. The construction of Esther ii. 5, 6, is ambiguous. The word "who," (">TK,) at the commencement of verse 6, may refer either to Mordecai, the chief subject of the narrative, or to Kish, the last indi- vidual mentioned in verse 5. If Kish was carried off by Nebuchad- nezzar about B. C. 597, we should expect to find his great grandson living in B. C. 485-465, four generations or 130 years afterwards. Note LXXXV., p. 151. See Herod, vii. 19, 20. Note LXXXVL, p. 151. Ibid. ix. 108. Note LXXXVII., p. 151. De Wette, Einleitung, 198 a, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 337, Parker's Translation. Note LXXXVHI., p. 151. Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, according to Herodotus, (vii. 61 ;) according to Ctesias, of Onophas, or Anaphes, (&rc. Pers., 20.) It has been maintained, that she was Esther by Scaliger and Jahn ; but, besides other objections, the character of Amestris makes this very improbable. (See Herod, vii. 114; ix. 112; Ctes. %xc. Pers., 40-43.) 368 NOTES. Lect. V. Note LXXXIX., p. 152. Einleitung, 199 ; p. 268. The following points of exact knowledge are noted by De Wette's Translator (vol. ii. p. 346) more distinctly than by De Wette himself: 1. The unchangeableness of the royal edicts ; 2. The prohibition of all approach to the king without permis- sion ; 3. The manner of publishing decrees ; 4. The employment of eunuchs in the seraglio ; 5. The absence of women at banquets ; 6. The use of lots in divination ; and, 7. The sealing of decrees with the royal signet. (Compare Herod, iii. 128.) To these may be added, 1. The general character of the Persian palaces, (i. 5, 6 ; compare Loftus's Chaldaa and Susiana, pp. 373-375 ;) 2. The system of posts, (viii. 10 ; Herod, viii. 98 ;) 3. The law that each wife should go in to the king in her turn, (ii. 12 ; Herod, iii. 69 ;) 4. The entry in " the book of records " of the names and acts of royal benefactors, (ii. 23 ; vi. 1, 2 ; Herod, vii. 194 ; viii. 85, 90, &c. ;) and, 5. The principle that all such persons had a right to a reward, (vi. 3 ; Herod, iii. 140 ; viii. 85 ; ix. 107.) Note XC, p. 152. Herod, iii. 79 ; Ctes. Exc. Pers., 15. Note XCL, p. 152. Some writers have supposed that the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra was really Xerxes. So Josephus, (Ant. Jud. xi. 5 ;) who is followed by J. D. Michaelis, (ad loc.,) Jahn, (Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 276,) and others. But there seems to be no good reason for supposing him to have been a different person from the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, who is allowed on all hands to be Longimanus. (See the article on Artaxerxes in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia, where the question is ably argued.) That the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is Longimanus, appears from the length of his reign, (Neh. v. 14,) combined with the fact that he was contem- porary with the grandsons or great-grandsons of those who were con- temporary with Cyrus. 1 1 The length of his reign, 32 years at the least, shows him to have been either Lon- gimanus or Mnemon. But as Eliashib, the grandson of Jeshua, who went from Babylon as high-priest in the first year of Cyrus, (B. C. 538.) is still alive in the 32d year of Nehe- miah's Artaxerxes, (Neh. xiii. 6, 7.) it seems quite impossible that he can be Mnemon, whose 3Sud year was B. C. 374. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 2o0, 251, note 13 .) Lect. VL notes. 369 Note XCIL, p. 152. Ctesias ap. Phot. BMiothec, pp. 115-124. Note XCIII., p. 153. On the non-historical character of the Book of Judith, see the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 245, note 8 . LECTURE VI. Note I., p. 155. On the different views entertained as to the exact year of our Lord's birth, see Olshausen's Biblischcr Commentar, vol. ii. pp. 619-622 ; vol. iv. pp. 334-337, E. T. 1 On the testimonies which determine the death of Herod the Great to the year of Rome 750, see Clinton's Fasti Hel- lenici, vol. iii. pp. 254 and 256. The Nativity thus falls at least as early as A. U. C. 749, and the vision of Zachariah as early as A. U. C. 7 48. Some important astronomical reasons are assigned by Dean Alfortl (Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 7) for believing that the actual year of the Nativity was A. U. C. 747, or seven years before the Christian era. The termination of the history of the Acts has also been variously placed, in A. I). 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65. (See Olshausen, 1. s. c.) I prefer the shorter reckoning on the grounds stated by Dr. Burton. (Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. pp. 277, 278.) Note II., p. 157. See Lecture II., p. 51. Note III., p. 157. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 1 Commentary on the Gospels and the JlcU, by Hermann Olsliausen, P. P. Translated by the Rev. IL B. Creak, A. M. Thinl edition. Ediuburgh, Clarke, 1807. 370 NOTES. Lect. VL Note IV., p. 158. Strauss, Lcben Jesit, 1. s. c. Note V., p. 158. Ibid. 14 ; p. 84, E. T. Note VI., p. 158. Ibid. 13 ; p. 56, E. T. Note VII., p. 158. Ibid. 1. s. c. ; pp. 62, 63, E. T. Note VIII. , p. 159. In the Syriac Version of Matthew, which is undoubtedly very old, net which some regard as of nearly equal authority with the Greek uospel, 1 the title runs, " The Gospel, the Preaching of Matthew." The .rersian has, " The Gospel of Matthew ; " and the Arabic, " The Gos- pel of Saint Matthew the Apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by the in- spiration of the Holy Spirit." (See Home's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 260, 261.; Note IX., p. 159. Herodotus, for example, is quoted but by one author (Ctesias) with- in this period - , (B. C. 450-350.) In the next century (B. C. 350-250) he is also quoted by one author, Aristotle ; in the century following (B. C. 250-150) he is not quoted at all; in the fourth century, he for the first time musters two witnesses, Scymnus Chius and Cicero ; 2 it it not till the fifth century from the time of his writing his history, that he is largely ana commonly cited by writers of the day. (See Mr. Isaac Taylor's recent work on the Transmission of Ancient Books to 1 See Dr. Cureton's recent work, Remains of a very Ancient Rectnsion of the four Gospels in Syriac, London, 1858. 2 I'osidonius should perhaps be added as a third witness belonging to this period, lie quoted Herodotus, not very correctly, in his Treatise concerning the Ocean. (Fr. Hist. Or., vol. iii. p. 279.) LECT. VI. NOTES. 871 Modem Times, pp. 295-299.) The first distinct quotation ' of Thu- cydides seems to be that by Hermippus, Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iii. p. 48, Fr. 54,) who lived about B. C. 200, nearly two centuries after him. Posidonius, writing about B. C. 75, first quotes Polybius, who wrote about B. C. 150. Livy is, I believe, only quoted by Quinctilian among writers of the century following him ; Tacitus, though mentioned as a writer by the younger Pliny, is first cited nearly a century after his death by Tertullian. If the reader will cast his eye over the " Testi- monies," as they are called, prefixed to most old editions of the classics, he will easily convince himself of the general truth of the assertion upon which I have ventured in the text. The argument is one ad- vanced, but without proof, by Paley. {Evidences, Part i. ch. 10 ; p. 104.) Note X., p. 160. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13 ; p. 56, E. T. Note XI., p. 160. See Lecture II., pp. 51-56; and Note VIIL on Lecture V., pp. 346, 347. Note XII., p. 161. See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 113; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 582. Note XIII., p. 161. Sec Grabe, Spicilcgium Valium, vol. ii. p. 225 ; Pearson, Vindicu* lgnatian(F, Pars i. c. 6 ; Burton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. pp. 29, 30 ; and p. 152. Note XIV., p. 161. Constitutiones Apostoliccr, vi. 16; Ircnauis, adv. Uteres, i. 20; &c. Note XV., p. 162. Strauss, Lehen Jem, 13 ; pp. 62, 63 ; E. T. Some writers have main- tained that the expression, " according to Matthew," is exactly equiv- alent to the genitive of Matthew. (See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 1 Crntippui alluded tu the fact that there were no speeches in the Inst Iwk. nnd tliiit the work was left unfinished; hut he did not (so far as wo know) make any ((notation. (Fr. Jlitt. Or., vol. ii p. 76.) 372 NOTES. Lect. VI. 260.) Olshausen observes more correctly, that the expression is am- biguous. It may mark actual and complete authorship, as in the pas- sage quoted from 2 Maccab. in the text ; or it may mean editorship, as in the phrase " Homer according to Aristarchus." The unanimous testi- mony of the early Christian writers proves that, as applied to the Gospels, it was used in the former sense. If it be asked why the simple genitive was not used, Olshausen replies, (rightly, as it seems to me,) because the Gospel was known as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Piety, therefore, made the use of such phrases as " Gospel of Matthew," "Gospel of Mark," "impossible." (Biblischer Commentar, Einleitung, $ 4 ; p. 11, note.) Note XVI., p. 162. Faustus, the Manichacan, did indeed attempt to prove that the first Gospel was not the work of St. Matthew ; but, 1 . He wrote late in the fourth century ; and, 2. It seems that he could find no flaw in the ex- ternal evidence, since he based his conclusion on an internal difficulty the use of the third instead of the first person by the supposed writer, (Matt. ix. 9.) Eichhorn, having ventured on the assertion, that " many ancient writers of the Church doubted the genuineness of many parts of our Gospels," is only able to adduce in proof of it this instance of Faustus. (See his Einleitung in das N. Test., vol. i. p. 145.) Note XVII., p. 162. Irenaeus says " Now Matthew published his treatise on the Gos- pel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and founding the church there. But after their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also wrote down what Peter had preached, and delivered it to us. And Luke also, the follower of Paul, wrote out in a book the Gospel which was preached by that Apostle. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast. he too published a Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Ackers. Hares., iii. 1.) And again, " These things are in accordance with the Gospels, in which Christ is enshrined. For that of John relates his princely birth and glorious lineage from the Father, saying, ' In the beginning was the Word,' &c. And that of Luke, as being more of a sacerdotal character, begins with the priest Zacharias, burning incense to God. . . . Matthew declare* Lect. VI. NOTES. 373 his human birth, saying, ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,' &c. Mark, as partaking more of the prophetic spirit, begins by say- ing, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' &c." (Ibid. hi. 11, 11.) Clement "The digest of the contents of the Gospels should be pre- ceded by an account of their origin. The Gospel of Mark had its origin in this way : When Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome, and proclaiming the gospel under the inspiration of the Spirit, many of those who heard him besought Mark, as having been his follower for a long time, and as having in remembrance what he had heard, to write out the things spoken by Peter. Having thus composed a Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter knew this, he neither strictly forbade nor positively approved. But John, the last one, perceiving that what related to the outward had been exhibited in the (other) Gospels, in compliance with the solicitations of his friends, and under the promptings of the Divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel." (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14.) Tertullian writes "In fine, if it is evident that what is most ancient is truest, that what is from the beginning is most ancient, and that what is from the Apostles is from the beginning, then it will be equally evident, that what has been sanctioned among the churches of the Apostles is handed down from the Apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians imbibed from Paul ; according to what rule were the Galatians corrected ; what did the Philippians read, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians ; what do the nearer Romans say, to whom both Peter and Paul left a gospel sealed with their blood. We have also churches that were under the tuition of John. ... I say therefore that among these, I do not mean the Apostolical churches merely, but among all which are united with them in sacramental com- munion, this Gospel of Luke, which we regard with the highest rev- erence, has been received from the time when it was first published. . . . The same authority of the Apostolical churches supports also the other Gospels which we have received from them, and which we esteem just as they esteem them ; I mean those of John and Matthew ; that also which Mark published we may be allowed to call Peter's, for Mark was his interpreter. Indeed Luke's digest also is commonly ascribed to Paul. For what the disciples publish is regarded as com- ing from the master." (.!p oi'x, l>*oiUvtiv,nuQatptOivTos mi, fi{pov( tou icpoS.) See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, 11 ; and on the general subject, com- pare Philo, De Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1022, 1023. Note XXXI., p. 190. Ant. Jud. xv. 8, { 1-4. Note XXXII., p. 190. See Lardner's Credibility, &c, book i. ch. 9 ; vol. i. pp. 110-121. Note XXXIII., p. 190. Josephus tells us, that when Cyrenius came to take the census of men's properties throughout Juda>a, a controversy arose among the 394 NOTES. Lect. VIL Jews on the legality of submission to foreign taxation. Judas of Gal- ilee (see Acts v. 37) maintained that it was a surrender of the theo- cratic principle ; while the bulk of the chief men, including some considerable number of the Pharisees, took the opposite view, and persuaded the people to submit themselves. {Ant. Jitd. xviii. 1, 1.) Note XXXIV., p. 190. Ant. Jitd. xx. 6, 1 : " Now there arose an enmity between the Samaritans and the Jews, from the following cause : The Galileans were accustomed, in going up to the feasts that were held in Jerusalem, to pass through the country of the Samaritans. At this time there was on the road which they took a village called Ginea, situated on the boundary between Samaria and the great plain. When the Galileans came to this place, they were attacked, and many of them killed." Note XXXV., p. 190. Ibid, xviii. 1, $ 3 and 4. Note especially the following: Of the Pharisees " They believe that souls have an immortal vigor, and that beyond the grave there are rewards and punishments, according as they follow a virtuous or a vicious course of life in this world." Of the Sadducees " But the doctrine of the Sadducees is, that the soul is annihilated together with the body." Compare Acts xxiii. 8. Note XXXVI., p. 190. Ibid. 1. s. c. [The Pharisees] " are very influential with the people ; and whatever prayers to God or sacrifices are performed, are performed at their dictation. The doctrine [of the Sadducees] is received by but few ; but these are the men who are in the highest authority." Note XXXVII., p. 190. Bell. Jud., vi. 5, 4. " But that which most of all roused them to undertake this war, was an ambiguous oracle, . . . found in their sacred books, that at that time a man of their country should rule over the whole earth." Lect. VII. notes. 395 Note XXXYIIL, p. 190. Sueton. Vit. Vespasian., 4: "An ancient and settled opinion had prevailed throughout the whole East, that fate had decreed that at that time persons proceeding from Judaea should become masters of the world. This was foretold, as the event afterwards proved, of the Roman Emperor ; but the Jews applied it to themselves, and this was the cause of their rebellion." Compare Vit. Octav., 94, and Virg. Eclog., iv. Note XXXIX., p. 190. Tacit. Histor., v. 13 : "These things [the prodigies that occurred just before the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans] were regarded by a few as alarming omens ; but the greater number believed that it was written in the ancient books of the priests, that at that very time the East, should become very powerful, and that persons proceeding from Judaea should become masters of the world." Note XL., p. 190. Leben Jem, 34 ; vol. i. p. 220, E. T. Note XLL, p. 190. See Philo, De Legationc ad Caium, p. 1022, D. E. For the portrait- ure of Josephus, see above, Note XXVII. Note XLII., p. 191. This passage is given by Wetsten (A r ou. Test. Gr., vol. ii. p. 563) and Dean Alford (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 17-)) as from Xenophon De Itep. Athenian*, I have not succeeded in verifying the reference. Note XLIII., p. 191. Liv. xlv. 27, ad fin. Note XLIV., p. 192. How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her decline, may be seen from the examples of Cicero, (iermanicus, Pausanias, and others. 396 notes. Lect. VII. (See Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 398, 399.) On the greediness of the Athenians after novelty, see Dcmosth. Philipp. i. p. 43, ("Or tell me, do you wish to go about asking eaeh other in the market place, ' What is the news ? ' And can there be any thing newer, than that the man of Macedon," &e. ;) Philip]}. Epist. pp. 156, 157 ; -Elian. Var. Hist., v. 13 ; Schol. ad Thucyd. hi. 38, &c. On their religiousness, compare Pausan. i. 24, 3, (the Athenians are more serious than others in the worship of the gods ;) Xen. Rep. Atheniens. iii. $ 1, and $ 8 ; Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 11, ("All say, that the Athe- nians are the most religious of the Greeks ; ") Strab. v. 3, 18 ; JElian. Var. Hist. v. 17 ; Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. vi. 3 ; Dionys. Hal. De Jud. Thicc, \ 40 ; and among later authors, see Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. iii. pp. 229-232. Note XLV., p. 192. See the Life and Epistles of St. Paul, by Messrs. Conybeare and IIow- son, vol. ii. pp. 66, et seqq. (1.) The " Great Goddess, Diana," is found to have borne that title as her usual title, both from an inscription, (Boeckh. Corpus Inscript., 2963 C,) and from Xenophon, (Ephes. i. p. 15 : "J invoke our ancestral God, the great Diana of the Ephe- sians. T ') (2.) The "Asiarchs" are mentioned on various coins and inscr ^tions. (3.) The "town-clerk" (yon^arnj) of Ephesus is like- wise mentioned in inscriptions, (Boeckh, No. 2963 C, No. 2966, and No. 2990.) (4.) The curious word vfuxopos, (Acts xix. 35,) literally " sweeper " of the temple, is also found in inscriptions and on coins, as an epithet of the Ephesian people, (Boeckh, No. 2966.) The " silver shrines of Diana," the "court-days," the "deputies" or "proconsuls" (di-Otirnroi) might receive abundant classical illustration. The temple was the glory of the ancient world ' enough still remains of the "theatre" to give evidence of its former greatness. Note XL VI., p. 192. Compare Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 12-15; Acts xxv. 12 and 26; xxvi. 32 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13 and 17. 1 Plin. xxxt 21 ; Strab. xiv. 1 ; Phil. Byz. De Sept. Orb. Spectacuiis. Lect. VII. NOTES. 397 Note XL VII., p. 192. The Roman .rovmces under the empire were administered eitker by proconsuls, or legates, or in a few instances by procurators. The tech- nical Greek name for the proconsul is difli/iraroj, (Polyb. xxi. 8, 11,) as that for the consul is Ciraroj. Proconsuls are mentioned by St. Luke in Cyprus, (Acts xiii. 7,) at Ephesus, (ib. xix. 38,) and at Corinth, (ib. xviii. 12, where the verb " to be a proconsul" expresses the office of Gallio.) In every case the use of the term is historically correct. (See below, Notes CIV. and CVIII.) Other officers are not so distinctly designated. Legates do not occur in the history ; and the Greek pos- sessing no term correspondent to procurator, such officers appear only as i/yiiiovff, (governors,) a generic term applicable to proconsuls also. (See Luke ii. 2 ; iii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Acts xxiii. 24 ; xxvi. 30, &c.) The anxiety to avoid tumults may be observed in the conduct of Pilate, (Matt, xxvii. 24 ;) of the authorities at Ephesus, (Acts xix. 35-41 ;) and of Lysias, (Acts xxi. 32 ; xxii. 24.) The governors were liable to recall at any moment, and knew that they would probably be superseded, if they allowed troubles to break out. Note XLVIIL, p. 192. See especially Gallio's words, (Acts xviii. 14-16.) Compare Acts xxiii. 29 ; and xxviii. 30, 31. On the general tolerance of the Romans, see Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. p. 95, et seqq. Note XLIX., p. 192. In a Rescript of Severus and Caracalla, {Digest, xlviii. 17, 1,) we read, " We have also this law, that the absent must not be condemned ; for indeed the rule of justice does not allow any one to be condemned without having his cause heard." Compare Dionys. Hal. vii. 53, p. 441. The odium incurred by Cicero for proceeding without formal trial against the Catiline conspirators, (jjp. ad Famil., v. 2, p. 60, b,) is an indication of the value attached to the principle in question. Note L., p. 192. Acts xxii. 28. Dio says of Antony, " He collected money from private individuals, selling to some the right of citizenship, and to 34 398 NOTES. Lect. VII. others exemption from taxes." And of Claudius, " Since the Romans were, so to speak, in all things preferred to foreigners, many addressed their petitions directly to him, [for the privilege of citizenship,] and others purchased it f Messalina, and of the Emperor's favorites," (lx. 17, p. 676, C.) Citizenship by birth on the part of a foreigner might arise (1.) from his being a native of some colony or municipium ; (2.) from a grant of citizenship, on account of service rendered, to his father, or a more remote ancestor ; or (3.) from his father, or a more remote ancestor, having purchased his freedom. Dio speaks, a little before the passage last quoted, of many Lycians having been deprived of their Roman citizenship by Claudius. That Jews were often Roman citizens appears from Josephus. {Ant. Jud. xiv. 10, 13, 14, 16, &e.) Note LI., p. 192. Acts xxv. 11. Suetonius says of Augustus, "The appeals of liti- gants belonging to the city he referred every year to the prnctor ; but those of persons belonging to the provinces, to men of consular dignity, of whom he had appointed a separate one over the affairs of each pro- vince." {Vit. Octav. c. 33.) Pliny probably refers to cases where the right of appeal had been claimed, when he says of the Bithynian Chris- tians, "There were others under the same infatuation; but as they were Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to the capital." (/>. ad Traj. x. 97.) Note LIL, p. 192. The humane treatment of prisoners is an occasional feature of the Roman system. (See Acts xxiv. 23, and xxviii. 16 and 30.) Lardner {Credibility, vol. i. p. 128) observes that the treatment of Herod Agrip- pa I. closely illustrates that of St. Paul. Soon after his first imprison- ment, by the influence of Antonia, his friends were allowed free access to him, and permitted to bring him food and other comforts. (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 7.) On the death of Tiberius, whom he had offended, Caligula enlarged him further, permitting him to return and live in his otcn house, where he was still guarded, but less strictly than before. (Ibid. 10 : "He commanded that Agrippa should be removed from the camp to the house in which he had lived before he was impris- oned ; so that now he was free from anxiety with regard to his situa- tion ; for it was, to be sure, one of custody and surveillance, but with Lect. VII. NOTES. 309 much liberty as to his mode of life." Compare the order of Felix with regard to St. Paul "commanding a centurion to keep him, and to let him have liberty," &c. Acts xxiv. 23.) Note LIIL, p. 192. On one occasion we find St. Paul "bound with two chains," (Acts xxi. 33 ;) but commonly we hear of his "chain" (a).wis) in the singu- lar. (Acts xxviii. 20; Ephes. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 16.) Now, it is abun- dantly apparent from Seneca {De Tranquitt. 10, Epist. 5) and other writers, {Tacit. Ann. iv. 28, &c.,) that prisoners were commonly fas- tened by a chain passed from their right wrist to the left wrist of their keeper. Where greater security was desired, a prisoner had two keep- ers, and a second chain was passed from his left wrist to the second keeper's right. The keeper to whom a prisoner was bound was called co-bondman. Note LIV., p. 192. Matt, xxvii. 27; Acts xx. 6; xxiv. 23; xxviii. 1, 16. The military custody {custodia militaris) of the Romans is well known to writers on antiquities. Ulpian says, that when a person was arrested, it was the business of the proconsul to determine "whether the person should be committed to prison, or delivered to the custody of a soldier, or placed in the care of his sureties, or, finally, left to take care of himself." {Di- gest, xlviii. Tit. 3. De Ctustod. et Exhib. Rcor. 1.) Examples of the military custody will be found in Tacitus, {Ann. iii. 22 ;) Josephus, {Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 7 ;) Ignatius, {Ep. ad Roman, v. p. 370 ;) Martyr. Ignat., (ii. p. 450 ; v. p. 544,) &c. Note LV., p. 192. Examining free persons by scourging (Acts xxii. 24) or other torture, was against the spirit, and indeed against the letter, of the Roman law. "The Divine Augustus made a law that the torture should not be applied." {Digest. 48. Tit. 18, $ 1.) liut arbitrary power often broke this law, both at Rome and in the provinces. Suetonius says of Au- gustus, " And he took Quintus Gallius, the prrctor, from the tribunal, and put him to the torture, as if lie had been a slave." {Vit. Octav. 27.) Tacitus of Nero, "Thinking that the body of a woman would 400 NOTES. Lect. VIL not be able to endure the pain, he ordered Epicharis to be scourged." (Annal. xv. 57.) This examination was in part by scourging. Note LVL, p. 192. See Livy xxxiii. 36, (" After they had been scourged, he fastened them to crosses ; ") Val. Max. i. 7, 4 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 14, 9, (" Florus chastised many with scourges, and afterwards crucified them. He had the boldness to scourge men of equestrian rank before the judg- ment-seat, and then to nail them to the cross ; ") &c. These last notices show the practice on the part of the Roman governors of Palestine. Note LVIL, p. 192. The crucifixion of the Orientals has more commonly been impaling, than nailing to a cross. (See Ctesias, ap. Phot. Bibl. Cod. LXXIL, p. 122; Casuabon. Exerc. Antibaron. xvi. 77.) The Romans fastened the body to the cross either by cords or nails. (See Smith's Dictionary of Gr. and Rom. Antiq. p. 370.) It is evident from Josephus, that nailing was the common practice in Palestine. (See the last note, and com- pare Bell. Jud. vi. : "The soldiers, through rage and hatred, fastened their captives to crosses, some in one manner, and some in another, in mockery ; and on account of the great number, there was not room enough for the crosses, nor crosses enough for the bodies.") St. Au- gustine speaks as if nailing was the ordinary Roman method. {Tractat. xxxvi. in Johann. Opera, vol. ix. p. 278 : "When men are tormented with very severe pains, they call them ex-cruciati?iff, a term derived from the cross, (a cruce.) For they who are crucified, being sus- pended on the wood, and being fastened to it with nails, undergo a lingering death.") Note LVIIL, p. 192. Plutarch, de Sera Numinis Vindicta, ii. p. 554, A. : " And each of the malefactors sentenced to capital punishment, carries his own cross." Compare Artemidor. Oncirocrit. ii. 61 : " The cross is also a symbol of death, and he that is about to be nailed to it, first carries it along." Lect. VIL N t) t e s . 401 Note LIX., p. 192. The practice of attaching a small board or placard to criminals, with a notification of the nature of their offence, is mentioned by several writers, and there are many allusions to it in the poets. The technical name of this placard was in Latin " titulus." (Compare the title ot John xix. 19.) See Sucton. Vit. Calig. 34: "At a public feast in Rome, when a slave had stolen a piece of silver from one of the couches, he delivered him at once to the executioner, and his hands being cut off, and hanging upon his breast, suspended from his neck, he was led about through the throng of guests at the feast, carrying before him a title which declared the cause of his punishment." Vit, Domitian. 10 : " He dragged from the theatre a master of a family, because he had said that a Thracian was equal to a gladiator, but unequal to a master of the shows, and cast him to the dogs in the arenas with this title : ' a Parmularian ' who has spoken impiously.' " Dio Cass. liv. p. 523 ; ' When the father of Caepio therefore released one of the slaves who had been banished along with his son, because he had tried to defend the deceased, but led the other one, who had betrayed him, through the midst of the market place, irith a writing declaring the cause of his death, and afterwards crucified him, he was not displeased." Ovid. Fasti, vi. 190, 191 : " He lived that he might die convicted of a crime against the state. Advanced age conferred upon him this title." Com- pare Trist. iii. 1, 47. We have no classical proof that the "titulus" was ordinarily affixed to the cross, unless we may view as such the statement of Hesychius "A board, a door, a plastered tablet, on which accusations against malefactors were written at Athens. It was also placed upon the cross." Note LX., p. 192. Seneca speaks of the " centurion who had the charge of inflicting punishment" as an ordinary thing. (Dc Ira, c. 10, p. 3 J.) Petronius Arbiter says, "A soldier watched the crosses, lest some one should carry off the bodies for burial." (Satyr, c. 111.) i This word meniif", "nn adherent of the party of the Thraciaus, who were armed with a small round shield, called ' parma.' " 34* 402 NOTES. Lect. VIL Note LXL, p. 192. So Alford (vol. i., p. 617) "The garments of the executed were by- law the perquisites of the soldiers on duty." Cf. Digest, xlviii. Tit. 20, 6. Note LXIL, p. 193. Ulpian says, "The bodies of those -who surfer capital punishment are not to be refused to their friends. And the Divine Augustus writes, in the tenth book of his life, that he also observed this rule. But at this day, the bodies of the persons in question are not buried, unless permission has first been sought and granted. And sometimes it is not granted, especially in the case of those condemned for trea- son." (Digest, xlviii. Tit. 21. De Cadav. Punit. 1.) And again "The bodies of those who suffer punishment are to be given to any re- questing them for interment." (Ibid. 3.) So Diocletian and Maximian declare, " We do not forbid that those who are guilty of crimes, after they have been duly punished, should be consigned to burial." The practice of the Jews to take bodies down from the cross and bury them on the day of their crucifixion, is witnessed to by Josephus " lie pro- ceeded to such a degree of impiety, as to cast out bodies unburied, although the Jews took so much care in regard to burials, that they even took down and buried, before the sun went doicn, those who had been condemned and crucified." (De Bell. Jud. iv. 5, $ 2.) Note LXIIL, p. 193. Among minute points of accordance may be especially noticed the following: 1. The geographical accuracy. () Compare the divisions of Asia Minor mentioned in the Acts with those in Pliny. Phrygia, Galatia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Asia, Mysia, Bithynia, are all recognized as existing provinces by the Roman geographer, writ- ing probably within a few years of St. Luke. (//. N. v. 27, ct seqq.) (b) The division of European Greece into the two provinces of Mace- donia and Achaia, (Acts xix. 21, &c.,) accords exactly with the arrange- ment of Augustus noticed in Strabo, (xvii. ad fin.) (c) The various tracts in or about Palestine belong exactly to the geography of the time, and of no other. Juda?a, Samaria, Galilee, Trachonitis, Itunea, Lect. VII. NOTES. 403 Abilene, Decapolis, are recognized as geographically distinct at this period by the Jewish and classical writers. (See Plin. II. N. v. 14, 18, 23 ; Strab. xvi. 2, 10, 34 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 5, 1, &c.) (rf) The routes mentioned are such as were in use at the time. The " ship of Alexandria," which, conveying St. Paul to Rome, lands him at Puteoli, follows the ordinary course of the Alexandrian corn-ships, as mentioned by Strabo, (xvii. 1, 7,) Philo, (In Flacc. pp. 968, 969,) and Seneca, (Epist. 77,) and touches at customary harbors. (See Sueton. Vit. Tit. 25,) Paul's journey from Troas by Neapolis to Philippi presents an exact parallel to that of Ignatius, sixty years later, (Martyr. Ignat. c. 5.) His passage through Amphipolis and Apollonia on his road from Philippi to Thessalonica, is in accordance with the Itinerary of Antonine, which places those towns on the route between the two cities, (p. 22.) (e) The mention of Philippi as the first city of Macedonia to one approaching from the east, (" the chief city of that part of Macedonia," Acts xvi. 12,) is correct, since there was no other be- tween it and Neapolis. The statement, that it was " a colony," is also true, (Dio Cass. li. 4, p. 445, D ; Plin. //. N. iv. 11 ; Strab. vii. Fr. 41.) 2. The minute political knowledge, (a) We have already seen the intimate knowledge exhibited of the state of Ephesus, with its pro- consul, town-clerk, Asiarchs, &c. A similar exactitude appears in the designation of the chief magistrates of Thessalonica as " the rulers of the city," (Acts xvii. 6,) their proper and peculiar appellation. (Boeckh, Corp. Inner. No. 1967.) (b~) So too the Roman governors of Corinth and Cyprus are given their correct titles. (See Notes CIV. and CVIII.) (c) Publius, the Roman governor of Malta, has again his proper tech- nical designation, (" the chief man of the island," Actsxxviii. 7.) as ap- pears from inscriptions commemorating the chief of the Melitans, or * Melitensium primus." ' (See Alford, ii. p. 282.) (d) The delivery of the prisoners to the "captain of the (Praetorian) guard" at Rome, is in strict accordance with the practice of the time. (Trajan, ap. Plin. Ep. x. 65 : " He ought to be sent bound to the praefects of my Praetorian guard." Compare Philostrat. vit. Sophist, ii. 32.) Among additions to our classical knowledge, for which we are in- debted to Scripture, it may suffice to mention, 1. The existence of an Italian cohort (the Italian band) as early as the reign of Tiberius, (Acts 1 The Latin anil the Greek arc precisely equivalent. 404 NOTES. Lect. VIL x. 1.) 2. The application of the term Zifiaarii (Augustan) to another cohort, a little later, (Acts xxviii. 1.) 3. The existence of an Altar at Athens with the inscription, " To the unknown God," (Acts xvii. 23,) which is not to be confounded with the well-known inscriptions to un- known gods. 4. The use of the title arpaTnyo] (Praetors) by the Duum- viri, or chief magistrates of Philippi, (Acts xvi. 20.) We know from Cicero, (De Leg. Agrar. 34,) that the title was sometimes assumed in such eases, but we have no other proof that it was in use at Philippi. Note LXIV., p. 193. Lardner, Credibility, &c., vol. i. p. 60. Note LXV., p. 193. See Acts xiii. 5, 14 ; xiv. 1 ; xvi. 3, 13 ; xvii. 1, 10, 17 ; xviii. 4 xix; 8, &c. Note LXVL, p. 194. " Now, in regard to the holy city, there are some things which I ought to say. It is, as I have said, the place of my nativity ; and it is the metropolis, not of the single country of Judiea, but of a great many countries, by means of the colonies which it has sent out from time to time, some to the neighboring countries of Egypt, Phcenice, Syria proper, and that part called Coele- Syria ; and some planted in the more distant regions of Pamphylia, Cilicia, and many parts of Asia, as far as Bithynia and the recesses of Pontus ; in like manner also in Europe, in Thessaly, Bceotia, Macedonia, -Etolia, Attica, Argos, Cor- inth, and many of the best parts of the Peloponnesus ; and not only are the continental countries full of Jewish colonies, but also the most famous islands, as Euboea, Cyprus, and Crete ; not to speak of those beyond the Euphrates. For excepting a small part of Babylon, and of the other satrapies, all the places which have a fertile territory around them have Jewish inhabitants ; so that if my country shall receive this favor from thee, not one city only, but ten thousand others, situated in every region of the habitable world, will be benefited ; those in Europe, and Asia, and Africa ; those on the continents and in the islands, on the sea shore and in the interior. (Philo Jud. Legal, ad Caium, pp. 1031, 1032.) Lect. VII. NOTES. 405 Note LXYIL, p. 194. For no single country contains the Jews, but they are exceedingly numerous ; on which account they are distributed through nearly all the most flourishing countries of Europe and Asia, both insular and continental ; and they all regard the sacred city as their metropolis." (Ibid. In Flacc. p. 971, E.) Note LXVIII., p. 194. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 2 ; De Bell. Jud. vii. 3, 3 ; Contr. Apion. ii. 36, &c. Note LXIX., p. 194. Philo frequently mentions the synagogues under the name of "places of prayer." (In Flacc. p. 972, A. B. E. ; Legal, in Caium, p. 1014, &c.) Their position by the sea-side, or by a river-side, is indicated, among other places, in the Decree of the Halicarnassians reported by Josephus, {Ant. Jud. xiv. 10, 23,) where the Jews are allowed to offer prayers by the sea-side, according to their national custom. See also Philo, Legat. in Caium, p. 982, D. ; Tertull. ad Nat. i. 13 ; De Jejun. c. 16 ; and Juv. Sat. iii. 13. Note LXX., p. 194. Lightfoot, Hebraic, et Talmudic. Exercitat., not. in Act. Apost. vi. 8 , Works, vol. ii. p. 664. Note LXXI., p. 194. See Legat. in Caium, (p. 1014, C. D.,) where Philo speaks of Transti- berine Home as imrr^o/i/wji' kuI o'tKovftiviiv 7rp6$ '\uviuiuv, 1 and then adds, 'Vuiftaloi &' ?idav (j't itXiiovs iniXtvOipuOlvrtf .* Note LXXII., p. 194. Annal. ii. 85 : " The question of banishing the sacred rites of the Egyptians and of the Jews was also determined ; a decree was made by 1 Occupied and inhabited by Jews. * But the greater part of them were Roman freedmen. 40G NOTES. Lect. VIL the fathers, that four thousand of the class offreedmen, who were tainted with that superstition those being selected who were of suitable age should be transported to the island of Sardinia." Note LXXIIL, p. 195. For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton. vit. Claud. p. 25 ; Dio Cassius, lx. 6 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 8, 1 ; 9, 9 ; xx. 1, 1; &c. Note LXXIV., p. 196. Annal. xv. 44. Tiberius reigned (as sole emperor) 23 years. (Suet. vit. Tib. 73.) His principatus, however, may date from three years earlier, when he was associated by Augustus. (Tacit. Ann. i. 3 ; Suet. vit. Tib. 21.) Note LXXV., p. 196. If our Lord was born in the year of Rome 747, (see above, Lecture VI., Note I.) he would have been three years old at Herod's death ; and 32 years old when he commenced his ministry, in the fifteenth year from the associated principate of Tiberius. This is not incompatible with St. Luke's declaration, that he was about thirty years of age (ii frwv tpi6kovto) when he began to preach ; for that expression admits of some latitude. (See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. pp. 323 and 327.) Note LXXVL, p. 196. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 7, 3 ; xvii. 8, 1 ; Nic. Damasc. Fr. 5. Note LXXVH., p. 196. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 6, 7 ; Tacit. Hist. v. 9. "The victorious Augustus enlarged the kingdom given to Herod by Antony." Note LXXVIIL, p. 196. See Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. pp. 148-151 ; and compare Joseph. Be Bell. Jud. i. 27, 1 ; 29, 2 ; 33, 8 ; Appian. De Bell. Civ. v. p. 1135. LECT. VII. NOTES. 407 Note LXXIX., p. 196. The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the Great, fill many chapters in Josephus. {Ant. Jud. xv. 1, 3, 6, 7, &c. ; xvi. 4, S, 10 ; xvii. 3, 6, 7, &c.) His character is thus summed up by that writer : " He was a man cruel to all alike, yielding to the impulses of pas- sion, but regardless of the claims of justice ; and yet no one was ever favored with a more propitious fortune." {Ant. Jud. xvii. 8, I.) His arrest of the chief men throughout his dominion, and design that on his own demise they should all be executed, (ibid. G, o ; Bell. Jud. i. 33, 6,) shows a bloodier temper than even the massacre of the Inno- cents. Note LXXX., p. 197. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 34 ; vol. i. p. 222, E. T. Note LXXXL, p. 197. Strauss grants the massacre to be " not inconsistent with the disposi- tion of the aged tyrant to the extent that Schleiermacher supposed," (Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. p. 228, E. T .,) but objects, that " neither Josephus, who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the rabbins, who were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the slightest hint of this decree." (1. s. c.) He omits to observe, that they could scarcely nar- rate the circumstance without some mention of its reason the birth of the supposed Messiah a subject on which their prejudices neces- sarily kept them silent. Note LXXXII., p. 197. Macrob, Saturnal. ii. 4 : " When Augustus had heard, that among the children under tiro years of age. whom Herod, the king of the Jews, had commanded to be slain in Syria, there was also one of the king's own sons, he said it was better to be the sow,' than the son of Herod." Strauss contends, that "the passage loses all credit by confounding the execution of Antipater, who had gray hairs, with the murder of the 1 There is in tbe original a play upon the similarity of the Greek words for "ho;;" and "sou," which is partly, at hast, preserved in translation by taking license to sul sti- tute the feminine for the masculine in this word. 108 NOTES. LECT. VII. infants, renowned among the Christians ; " but Macrobius says nothing of Antipater, and evidently does not refer to any of the known sons of Herod. He believes that among the children massacred was an infant son of the Jewish king. It is impossible to say whether he was right or wrong in this belief. It may have simply originated in the fact that i jealousy of a royal infant was known to have been the motive for the massacre. (See Olshausen, Biblsch. Comment, vol. i. p. 72, note ; p. 67, E. T.) Note LXXXIH., p. 197. Josephus says, " "When Ca?sar had heard these things he dissolved the assembly ; and a few days afterwards he appointed Archelaus, not in- deed king, but ethnarch of half the country which had been subject to Herod, . . . and the other half he divided, and gave it to two other sons of Herod, Philip and Antipas ; ... to the latter of whom he made Penea and Galilee subject, . . . while Batana>a with Trachonitis, and Auranitis with a certain part of what is called the House of Zeno- dorus, were subjected to Philip ; but the parts subject to Archelaus were Idumea and Judiea and Samaria." (Antiq. Jud. xvii. 11, 4.) Compare the brief notice of Tacitus : "The country which had been subdued, was governed, in three divisions, by the sons of Herod." (Hist. v. 9.) Note LXXXIV., p. 197. Strauss says, "Luke determines the date of John's appearance by various synchronisms, placing it in the time of Pilate's government in Juda-a ; in the sovereignty of Herod, (Antipas ;) of Philip and of Ly- sanias over the other divisions of Palestine ; in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas ; and moreover precisely in the loth year of the reign of Tiberius, which, reckoning from the death of Augustus, cor- responds with the year 28-29 of our era. With this last and closest demarcation of time all the foregoing less precise ernes agree. Even that uhich 7nakes Annas high-priest together with Caiaphas appears correct, if we consider the peculiar influence which that ex-high-priest retained." (Lebeii Jesu, $ 44 ; pp. 300, 301, E. T.) Note LXXXV., p. 197. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 11, \. "But all vvho. were of the kindred Lect. VII. NOTES. 409 of Archelaus refused to join themselves to him, on account of their hatred towards him." Compare 13, 2. Note LXXXVL, p. 197. Joseph. Be Bell. Jud. ii. 1, 3. Note LXXXVH., p. 198. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 48 ; vol. i. p. 346, E. T. Note LXXXVIII., p. 198. Josephus says, " Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and had now lived with her a long time. But having made a journey to Rome, he lodged in the house of Herod, his brother, but not by the same mother. For this Herod was the son of the daughter of Simon, the high-priest. Now he fell in love with Herodias, this man's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great ; and he had the boldness to propose marriage. She accepted the proposal, and it was agreed that she should go to live with him, whenever he should return from Rome." (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, 1.) And again: "Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high-priest, who had also a daughter Salome ; after the birth of whom, Herodias, in shameful violation of the customs of our nation, allowed herself to marry Herod, the brother of her former husband by the same father, separating from him while he was living. Now this man [whom she married] held the office of tetrarch of Galilee." (Ibid. J 4.) Note LXXXIX., p. 198. Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, $2: "Now some of the Jews thought that the army of Herod had been destroyed by God, in most righteous ven- geance for the punishment inflicted upon John, surnamed the Baptist. For lie taught the Jews to cultivate virtue, and to practice righteous- ness towards each other, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For he declared that this dipping would be acceptable to Him, if they used it, not with reference to the renunciation of certain 35 410 NOTES. Lect. VII. situ, but to the purification of the body, 1 the soul having been purified by righteousness. And when others thronged to him, (for they were profoundly moved at the hearing of his words,) Ilerod feared that his great influence over the men would lead them to some revolt, (for they seemed ready to do any tiling by his advice ;) he therefore thought it much better to anticipate the evil, by putting him to death, before he had attempted to make any innovation, than to allow himself to be brought into trouble, and then repent after some revolutionary move- ment had conmenced. And so John, in consequence of the suspicion oj lloxxl, teas sent as a prisoner to the af ore-mentioned castle of Macheerus, and was there put to death." The genuineness of this passage is admit- ted even by Strauss. {Leben Jesu, 48 ; vol. i. pp. 344-347, E. T.) Note XC, p. 198. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. The chief points of apparent difference are the motive of the imprisonment and the scene of the execution. Josephus makes fear of a popular insurrection, the Evangelists offence at a personal rebuke, the motive. But here (as Strauss observes) there is no contradiction, for "Antipas might well fear that John, by his strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of the tetrarch's life, might stir up the people into rebellion against him." Again, from the Gospels we naturally imagine the prison to be near Tiberias, where Herod Antipas ordinarily resided ; but Josephus says that prison was at Machaerus in Peraea, a day's journey from Tiberias. Here, however, an examination of the Gospels shows, that the place where Antipas made his feast and gave his promise is not mentioned. It only appears that it was near the prison. Now, as Herod was at this time engaged in a war with Arctas, the Arabian rrince, between whose kingdom and his own lay the fortress of Machierus, it is "a probable solution" of the difficulty, that he was residing with his court at Machaerus at this period. (Strauss, 48, ad fin.) Note XCL, p. 198. Philip is said to have retained his tetrarchy till the 20th year of Tibe- 1 Dr. Burton acutely remarks on this expression, that it is a covert allusion to the Christian doctrine of "a baptism for the remission of sins," and shows the acquaintance of Josephus with the teuets of the Christians. (Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 199.) LECT. VII. NOTES. 411 rius. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, 6.) Herod Antipas lost his government in the first of Caligula. (Ibid. ch. 7.) Note XCIL, p. 198. Ant. Jud. xvii. 12 ; xviii. 1 ; Be Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1. " Now, when the territory of Archelaus was formed into a province, a certain procurator, of equestrian rank among the Romans, Coponius by name, was sent to govern it, receiving from Ca\sar the power of life and death." The procurators for this period, mentioned by Josephus, are Coponius, M. Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, and Pontius Pilate. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 2, 2.) Note XCHL, p. 198. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 10, 11 ; 8, 7 ; xix. 5, 1 ; Philo, In Flacc, p. 968, D. E. Note XCIV., p. 198. Joseph. Ant. Jiul. xix. 8, 2 : " Now, after he had reigned three full years over the whole of Judsca, he was at the city of Casarca, which was formerly called Strato's Tower. And there he held public shows in honor of Caesar, having learned that a certain festival was celebrated at that time, to make vows for his safety. Now, at that festival there were assembled a multitude of those who were first in office and authority in the province. On the second day of the shoics, putting on a robe made entirely of siker, the texture of which was truly wonderful, he came into the theatre early in the morning. When the first beams of the sun shone upon the silver, it glittered in a wonderful manner, flashing forth a brilliancy which amazed and awed those who gazed upon him. "Whereupon his flatterers immediately cried out, (though not for his good,) one from one place and one from another, addressing him as a. god, ' Be propitious to us ; ' and adding, ' Although we have here- tofore feared thee as a man, yet henceforth we acknowledge thee to be of more than mortal nature.' The king did not rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. A little after, therefore, looking up, he saw an owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head ; and he immediately un- derstood that it was a messenger of evil, as it had formerly been of good ; whereupon he was overcome with a profound sadness. There 412 NOTES. LECT. VII, was also a severe pain in his bowels, which began with a sudden vio- lence. Turning therefore to his friends, he said, ' I, your god, am now commanded to end my life ; and fate immediately reproves the false shouts that were just now addressed to me : and so I, whom you call immortal, am now snatched away by death. But we must accept the fate which God ordains. And indeed we have not lived ill, but in the most brilliant good fortune.' When he had said this, he was overcome by the intensity of the pain. He was therefore quickly carried to the palace, and the report went abroad to all, that he must inevitably soon die. . . . Being consumed thus for five days in succession with the pain in his belly, he departed this life." Note XCV., p. 199. Ibid. xix. 9, 2 : " [Claudius] therefore sent Cuspius Fadus as i procurator over Judaea, and all the kingdom." Note XCVI., p. 199. Ibid. xx. 5, 2 ; 7, 1 ; and 8, { 4. Agrippa II. bore the title of king. (De Bell. Jud. ii. 12, 8.) Note XCVII., p. 199. Antiq. Jud. xix. 9, 1 ; xx. 7, 3. The evil reports which arose from this constant companionship are noticed by Josephus in the latter of these passages. They are glanced at in the well-known passage of Juvenal, (Sat. vi. 155-169.) "That well-known diamond, made even more precious by being worn on the finger of Berenice. This jewel the barbarian formerly gave to that unchaste woman, and Agrippa gave it to his sister, in that country where kings keep the Sabbath festival with naked feet, and an ancient indulgence allows the old men to eat pork." Compare Tacit. Hist. ii. 2 and 81. Note XCVIII., p. 199. Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 8, 8 ; 9, 7 : " The king had been intrusted by Claudius Ca?sar with the care of the temple." In one passage {Ant. Jud. xx. 1, 3) Josephus says that these privileges continued to be LECT. VII. NOTES. 413 exercised by the descendants of Herod, king of Chalcis, from his de- cease to the end of the war. But he here uses the term "descendants" very loosely ; or he forgets that Agrippa II. was the nephew, and not the son, of this monarch. (See the note of Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 18, note 8.) Note XCIX., p. 199. The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the 12 th year of Tiberius (A. I). 26) to the 22d, (A. D. 36.) See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 2, and 4, 2. Felix entered upon his office as sole procurator in the 12th year of Claudius, (A. D. 53,) and was succeeded by Porcius Festus early in the reign of Nero. (Ant. Jud. xx. 7, 1 ; and 8, 9.) Note C, p. 199. The vacillation and timidity of Pilate appear in his attempt to estab- lish the images of Tiberius in Jerusalem, followed almost immediately by their withdrawal. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 1.) His violence is shown in his conduct towards the Jews who opposed his application of the temple-money to the construction of an aqueduct at Jerusalem, (ibid. $ 2,) as well as in his treatment of the Samaritans on the occasion which led to his removal. (Ibid. 4, 1.) Agrippa the elder speaks of the iniquity of his government in the strongest terms, (ap. Philon. Ijeg. ad Caium, p. 10S4 : "he feared lest they should examine and expose the misdeeds of his former procuratorship, the taking of bribes, the acts of violence, the extortions, the tortures, the menaces, the repeated mur- ders without any form of trial, the harsh and incessant cruelty.") Note CI., p. 199. Tacitus says of Felix, " Antonius Felix exercised the royal author- ity in a manner agreeable to the baseness of his disposition, with all cruelty and wantonness." (Hist. v. 9.) And again : "But his father, whose surname was Felix, did not conduct himself with the same mod- eration. Having been a long time governor of Judiea, he thought lie could commit all crimes with impunity, relying upon his great power." (Ann. xii. 54.) Josephus gives a similar account of his government. (Ant. Jud. xx. 8.) After he quitted office he was accused to the emperor, and 35* 414 NOTES. LECT. VII. only escaped a severe sentence by the influence which his brother Pallas possessed with Nero. Note CIL, p. 199. See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, { 10, 11 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 14, 1. In the latter passage Josephus says, " Now Festus, having succeeded this man in the office of procurator, relieved the country of its greatest scourge. For he captured a large number of the robbers, and destroyed not a few. But Albinus, who succeeded Festus, did not govern after the same manner. For it is not possible to mention any form of evil-doing which he omitted to practise." Note CIIL, p. 199. See above, Notes C. and CI. Note CIV., p. 199. Here the accuracy of St. Luke is very remarkable. Achaia, though originally a senatorial province, (Dio Cass. liii. p. 503, E.,). had been taken into his own keeping by Tiberius, (Tacit. Ann. i. 76,) and had continued under legates during the whole of his reign. Claudius, -however, in his fourth year restored the province to the senate, (Suet. vit. Claud. 35,) from which time it was governed by proconsuls. St. Paul's visit to Corinth fell about two years after this change. Note CV., p. 199. Seneca says of Gallio, " I used to say to you, that my brother Gallio, (whom every body loves as much as I do, although no one can love him more,) while he was free from all other vices, had a special hatred to this." And again: "No other mortal is so dear to any one, as he is to all." (Quasi. Nat. iv. Pracfat.) Statius uses the same epithet, (Sy/v. ii. 7, 11. 32, 33:) "This is more than to have given Seneca to the world, or to have been the parent of dear Gallio." Note CVL, p. 200. See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 12, 5 ; xviii. 1, 1. " Moreover Cyre- nius came also into Judea, which had been annexed to Syria, to make a Lect. VII. NOTES. 415 valuation of their property, and to dispose of the money of Areheltus. But the people, although at first they could hardly endure to hear of an enrolment, at length submitted," &c. The difficulty with respect to the time of the taxing will be considered in Note CX1X. Note CVII., p. 200. There was a Sergius Paulus who bore the office of consul in the year A. D. 94. Another held the same office in A. D. 168. This latter is probably the Sergius Paulus mentioned by Galen. (Anat, i. 1, vol. ii. p. 218 ; De Prcnwt. 2 ; vol. xiv. p. 612.) Note CVIII., p. 200. Cyprus was originally an imperial province, (Dio Cass. liii. p. 504, A.,) and therefore governed by legates or propraetors, (Strab. xiv. 6, 6 ;) but Augustus after a while gave it up to the Senate, from which time its governors were proconsuls. (See Dio, liv. p. 523, B. "At that time therefore he gave up Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis to the people, as having no further need of his arms ; and so proconsuls began to be sent to those nations.") The title of proconsul appears on Cyprian coins, and has been found in a Cyprian Inscription of the reign of Claudius. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 2632.) Note CIX., p. 200. Joseph. Ant. Jtid. xiv. 13, 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 13, 1 ; Dio Cass, xlix. p. 411, B. This Lysanias was the son of Ptolemy, son of Mcn- naeus, and setms to have been king of Chalcis and Itura\i, inheriting the former from his father, and receiving the latter from Mark Antony. See the passages above cited. Note CX., p. 200. Lysanias, the son of rtolemy, was put to death by Antony, at the instigation of Cleopatra, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 4, 1, certainly before the year of Rome 719, B. C. 35. (See Dio Cass. 1. s. c.) Note CXI., p. 200. So Strauss, Lcben Jest(, 44; vol. i. p. 302, E. T. 416 NOTES. Lect. VIL Note CXIL, p. 200. Ibid. p. 301. We cannot indeed prove that, had a younger Lysa- nias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him," &c. Note CXIIL, p. 200. Strauss assumes, without an atom of proof, that Abila (or Abilene) was included in the kingdom of Lysanias, the contemporary of An- tony. It is never mentioned as a part of his territories. Indeed, as Dr. Lee has remarked,' it seems to be pointedly excluded from them. Agrippa the First received "the Abila of Lysanias" from Claudius, at the very time when he relinquished the kingdom of Chalcis, which formed the special territory of the old Lysanias. (Joseph. De Bell, Jud. ii. 12, 8 ; Ant. Jud. six. 5, 1.) Thus it would appear that Josephus really intends a different Lysanias from the son of Ptolemy in these two passages. Even, however, if this were not the case, his silence would be no proof that a second Lysanias had not held a tetrarchy in these parts at the time of John's ministry. That Abila formed once a tetrarchy by itself seems implied in the subjoined pas- sage from Pliny " Tetrarchies, each forming a sort of province, inter- sect these cities, and bind them together, and these again are united into kingdoms, as the tetrarchy of Trachonitis, of Paneas, of Abila," &c. (11. N. v. 18, ad fin.) Note CXIV., p. 201. See above, Notes IV., LXXXIX., and XCIV. Note CXV., p. 201. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 32 ; vol. i. p. 301, E. T. Note CXVL, p. 201. See the Zeitschrift ftlr geschichtliche Rechticissenschaft, vol. vi., quoted by Olshausen in his Biblischer Commentar, (vol. i. p. 125 ; p. 116, E. T.) On the general question, see Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 315. 1 See hi? Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Lecture VIII., p. 403, note*. I am indebted to my friend, Mr. Mansel, for my knowledge of this excellent work. LECT. VII. NOTES. 417 Note CXVII., p. 201. Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, 1. See above, Note CVI. Note CXVIII.. p. 201. Strauss, Leben Jesn, 32, p. 204, E. T. Note CXIX., p. 202. The following explanations of Luke ii. 2, have been proposed : (1.) It has been proposed to take itpdri] ' with iizoypa^fi, 9 to regard Kup^w'ou 3 as a genitive dependent on dnoypaQt),* and f/yiiiovitovros* as equivalent to hyindvoi 6 or hyeov'toavTou 1 The passage is then translated, "This was the first assessment of Cyrenius, once governor of Syria." (See Lard- ner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 173-175.) (2.) Only slightly different from this is the view of Beza 8 and others, which takes " first " in the same way, but regards fjytfiovtiovroi Kup^w'ou 9 as a genitive absolute, and renders the verse, "This first assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Both these explana- tions suppose that Cyrenius made two assessments, one before he was actual President of Syria and one afterwards. The former regards Cyrenius as designated by his subsequent title ; the latter supposes that he may have been called " governor " when strictly speaking he was not so, but had a certain degree of authority. Two objections lie against both views. 1. The ordo verborum does not allow us to take "first" with "taxing." 2. No writer hints at Cyrenius having been twice employed to make a census in Palestine. (3.) A third explanation is, that rpiinj' is for wpor/pa," and that the genitive Kvpnviov 12 depends upon it, the construction used being analo- gous to that of St. John, in irp, 13 (i. 15.) The meaning is, then, " This assessment was made before the time when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." (Lardncr, Credibilitij, vol. i. pp. 165-173 ; Alford, Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 314.) 'First. * Taxing, or enrolment. * Cyrenius. 'Taxing. Governing, or lining goyernor. * Governor. 1 Having been governor. 8 See Lanlner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 171. note d. Cyrenius governing, or when Cyrenius was governor. ,0 First. 11 Former. n Of Cyrenius. " For he was before me. 418 NOTES. Lect. VII. ^4.) Finally, it is maintained that iyiviro* should be regarded as emphatic and that St. Luke means, as I have suggested in the text, that while the enrolment was begun a little before our Lord's birth, it was never fully executed until Cyrenius carried it through. Both this and the preceding explanation seem to be allowable they are compat- ible with the Hellenistic idiom, and do no violence to history. As Lardncr has shown, there is abundant reason to believe that an enrol- ment was actually set on foot shortly before the death of Herod. (See the Credibility, vol. i. pp. 151-159.) Note CXX., p. 202. See his Short View of the Harmony of the Evangelists, Prop. xi. pp. 145-149. Note CXXL, p. 202. Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 505. Note CXXIL, p. 202. Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, 1. After speaking of Cyrenius as sent from Rome for the express purpose of effecting a census, Josephus adds, " Now Judas, a Gaulonite, of the city named Gamaia, taking as his accomplice the Pharisee Sadduc, rushed into rebellion, saying that the imposing of the tribute was nothing short of downright slavery, and summoning the people to a struggle for freedom." He then speaks of the success of Judas's efforts, and his formation of a sect, which Jo- sephus puts on a par with those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. " Of the fourth of these sects of philosophy, Judas the GaliUtan became the leader." (Ibid. 6.) Note CXXHL, p. 202. De Bell. Jud. ii. 17, \ 8. The followers of Thcudas ' were scattered and brought to nought," (Acts v. 36,) but those of Judas the Galilseap " were dispersed." (Ibid, verse 37.) It is in exact accordance with this distinction that the latter reappear in the Jewish war, while of the former we hear nothing. See Dean Alford's note ad loc. Was made, or took place. LfcCT. VEL NOTES. 419 Note CXXIV., p. 202. Antiq. Jud. xx. 5, 1. Note CXXV., p. 202. lb. xvi. 10, 4 : " But at this time Judaea was agitated by ten thou- sand other tunudts, and many from all quarters rushed to arms, either in the hope of their own advantage, or out of enmity to the Jews." Note CXXVI., p. 203. De Bell. Jud. ii. 13, 5 : " But the Egyptian false prophet brought upon the Jews a heavier woe than this. For this impostor came into the country, and persuaded the people that he was a prophet, and assembled about 30,000 misguided men. Leading them about from the wilderness to the mount called the Mount of Olives, he thought he would be able from that position to force an entrance into the city, and having overpowered the Roman garrison, to oppress the people, with the help of the soldiers that would break into the city with him. But Felix, meeting him with his Roman soldiers, anticipated his attack, and all the people joined him in his defensive operations ; so that when an engagement took place, the Egyptian fled with a small company, and the greater part of those who were with him were either destroyed or captured. But the rest of the multitude were dispersed, and each sought his own home as secretly as possible." Compare Antiq. Jud. xx. 8, $ 6. Note CXXVII., p. 203. In the parallel passage of the Antiquities, (1. s. c.,) Josephus says that Felix slew 400 and captured 200 of the Egyptian's followers. If he had really estimated their whole number at 30,000, he would scarcely have said, that " very many (zhiaroi) were killed or taken prisoners," when the loss in both ways was no more than 600 men. It has been sagaciously conjectured that the reading rpiaftvpior^ should be replaced by TirpaKia-^iXlovf, 2 having arisen from the ready confusion of,.* 3 with i, 4 or ,A 3 with ,&.* (Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 227.) 1 80,000. ' 4,000. > The Creek letter which stands for 30,000. * The Greek letter which stands for J,0(X>. 420 NOTES. Lect. VIII. Note CXXVIIL, p. 203. Ant. Jud. xx. 2, 6. Compare Dio Cassius, lx. pp. 671, 672 ; Tacit Ann. xii. 43 ; Sueton. vit. Claud. 18. Eusebius mentions a famine in Greece during the same reign. {Chronica, pars. ii. p. 373, Ed. Mai.) Josephus calls the famine in Judaea, to which he refers, " the great famine." {Ant. Jud. xx. 5, 2.) Note CXXIX., p. 204. Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 53. Note CXXX., p. 204. See an article " on the Bible and Josephus," in the Journal of Sacred Literature for October, 1850. Note CXXXI., p. 205. S. Ambrose, Comment, in Psalm, cxviii. 37. {Opera, vol. i. p. 1206.) Note CXXXIL, p. 205. Ibid. Explic. Luc. x. 171. {Opera, vol. i. p. 1542.) Note CXXXIII., p. 205. Irenaeus, Advers. Hceres. iii. 1. {Opera, vol. ii. p. 6.) LECTURE VIII. Note I., p. 207. Of all our writers on the Evidences, Lardner is the only one who appears to be at all duly impressed with a feeling of the value of Chris- tian witnesses. He devotes nearly two volumes to the accumulation of their testimonies. (See his Credibility, vols. i. ii. and iii.) Paley does Lect. VIII. NOTES. 421 not make any use of Christian writers to prove the facts of Christianity ; he only cites them as witnesses to the early existence and repute of our Historical Scriptures. Butler in a general way refers to the evidence of the "first converts," (Analogy, part ii. ch. 7, p. 291 ;) but omits to "enlarge on the point. And this is the general spirit of our Apologists. Note II., p. 207. So Celsus, (ap. Origen. Contr. Cels. iii. 44.) Strauss endeavors to diminish the authority of the Apostles, and first preachers of Chris- tianity, by contrasting the darkness of Galilee and Judaea with the enlightenment of "highly civilized Greece and Rome." (Leben Jesu, 13, sub fin. ; vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) Note III., p. 208. Stromata, ii. pp. 464, 489, 490 ; v. p. 677 ; vi. p. 770. Clement believes the writer to be the companion of St. Paul. (See Strom, ii. p. 489 : "I have no need to multiply words, for I have the testimony of the Apostolic Barnabas. Now he was one of the seventy, and was a co-worker with Paid." He then quotes from the extant Epistle.) Note IV., p. 208. Contra Celsum, i. 63 ; p. 378, B. ; De Princip. iii. 2, 4 ; p. 140, E. Note V., p. 208. Professor Norton assigns the Epistle of Barnabas to " the middle of the second century," (Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 347 ;) but on very insufficient evidence. Lardner gives A. D. 71 or 72 as the proba- ble date of its composition. (Credibility, vol. i. p. 285.) M. Bunsen, while rejecting the view that it was written by the com- panion of St. Paul, puts its composition "about 15 years before that of the Gospel of St. John," or some time before the close of the first century. (Hippolytus and his Aye, vol. i. p. 54.) The genuineness of the Epistle has been well defended by Dr, Lee, who thoroughly exposes the common fallacy, that, if the work of the Apostle, it must have formed a portion of Canonical Scripture. (See his Lectures on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Appendix E., pp. 472-477. J 3G 422 NOTES. Lect. VIIL Note VI., p. 209. See the subjoined passages "In fine, by teaching Israel, and per- forming such wonders and sig?is, and preaching, he showed his great love to Israel. But when he chose his own Apostles, to preach his gospel . . . then he showed himself to be the Son of God." ($ 5, p. 15.) "Now the servant? who perform this sprinkling, are they who preach to us the remission of sins, and the purification of the heart. For he gave them authority to proclaim the gospel ; and they are twelve in number, for a testimony to the tribes ; for the tribes of Israel are twelve." ( 8, p. 25.) " He himself wished to suffer thus . . . for he who prophesied of him said . . . ' Behold, I hare given my back to the scourges, and my checks to buf- fetings.'" ( 5, p. 1C.) "Then they shall see him in that day, having about his body the scarlet robe reaching down to the feet, and they shall Fay, Is not this he whom we set at nought, and cmcified, and pierced, and mocked?' " ( 7, p. 24.) " The Son of God suffered, that his wound might give us life ; . . . moreover, when he was crucified, they gave him vinegar and gall to drink." ( 7, pp. 20, 21.) " And again Moses made a type of Jesus, [showing] that it was necessary that he, whom they believed to have perished, should suffer, and should so become the author of life." ( 12, p. 39.) " What then does the prophet say? 'The as- sembly of the wicked encompassed me ; they surrounded me, as bees around the comb ; and they cast lots upon my raiment.' Thus were foreshown the sufferings of him who was about to be manifested and to suffer." ( 6, p. 18.) " Wherefore we spend the eighth day in gladness, on which also Jesus rose from the dead ; and when he had shown him- self, he ascended to heaven." ( 15, p. 48.) Note VII., p. 209. Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 289, et seqq : Burton, Eccles. History, vol. i. pp. 342, 343 ; Norton, Genuineness, &c, vol. i. pp. 336-338 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 44-47 ; Jacobson, Prcefat. ad S. Clem. Ep. p. x.-xvii., prefixed to his Patres Apostolici. Note VIII., p. 209. The following are the passages to which reference is made in the text: " From him (i. e. Jacob) came the Lord Jesus Christ, as to his Lect. VIIL notes. 423 flesh." ( 32, p. 114.) "The sceptre of the majesty of God; our Lord Jesus Christ came not with noisy boasting and pride, although lie could have done so, but with humility." ( 16, pp. 60, 62.) " His sufferings were before our eyes." ({ 2, p. 12.) " Especially when we remember the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake, teaching gentleness and long- suffering. For thus he spake : ' Be merciful, that ye may receive mercy ; forgive, that ye may be forgiven ; as ye do, so shall it be done to you ; as ye give, so shall it be given to you ; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged ; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be shown to you ; with what measure ye measure, with the same shall ye be measured.' " ( 13, p. 52.) "Let us look to the blood of Christ, and let us observe how precious to Gnd is his blood, which was shed for our salvation." ( 7, p. 34.) " For the love which he had to us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his blood for us, according to the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls." ( 49, p. 178.) "That there should be a future resurrection, of which he made our Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits, by raising him from the dead." ( 24, p. 98.) " Now Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ." ( 42, p. 148.) " With the full assurance of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles went forth, preaching that the kingdom of God was about to come. Preaching thus through many countries and cities, from the first fruits of their labors, after having proved them by the Spirit, they appointed bishops and deacons." (ibid. pp. 148, 150.) "Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and inost just pillars were persecuted, and came to a violent end. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. Peter, through an unrighteous envy, suf- fered, not one, nor two, but many troubles, and so becoming a martyr at last, he went to the fitting place of glory. Through envy also Paid won the reward of patience, seven times wearing bonds, being compelled to fee, being stoned, becoming a preacher to the East and to the West; and he gained a noble renown by his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world ; and having penetrated to the farthest west, he suffered martyrdom under the emperors," &c. ({ 5, pp. 24, 28.) Notk IX., p. 209. Ep. ad Cor. 47, p. 168 : " Take up the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. "What did he write to you first, in the very beginning of the gospel. Truly he gave you a spiritual charge concerning him- 424 notes. Lect. MIL self, and Cephas, and Apollos ; for even then ye were given to par- tialities." Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10-12. Note X., p. 210. See Burton's Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. pp. 197 and 357. Note XI., p. 210. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Pearson's Disputatio de Anno quo S. Ignatius a Trajano Antiochiee ad Bestias erat condemnatus, (printed in Dr. Jacobson's Patres Apostolici.) vol. ii. pp. 524-529. Pearson places the Martyrdom in A. D. 116 ; M. Bunsen in A. D. 115. {Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 89.) Note XII., p. 210. Two of these Epistles are addressed to St. John, and the third to the Virgin Mary. They exist in several MSS., and were printed at Paris as early as A. Ti. 1495. Burton says of them, "Two Epistles to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, which only exist in Latin, do not deserve even to be mentioned." (Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 29, note.) So far as I know, they are not now defended by any one. Note XIII., p. 210. Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 314, 315 ; Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 29, 30 ; Schrockh, Christl. Kirch. Geschichte, vol. ii. p. 341, et seqq. ; Neander, Geschichte der Christl. Religion, vol. ii. p. 1140; Kiste in Illgen's Zeitschrift filr historische Theologie, II. ii. pp. 47-90 ; Jacob- son, Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 262-470 ; Hefele, Patrum Apostolico- rum Operc, 3d edition, Prolegomena, p. lviii. Note XIV., p. 210. Euseb. Hist. Eccle.t. iii. 36 ; Hieronym. De Viris Illustr. c. xvi., (Op. vol. ii. p. 841, ed. Vallars.) The brief account given m the text of a very complicated matter, requires a few words of elucidation, and per- haps, to some extent, of correction. The twelve Epistles in their longer form exist both in Greek and in an ancient Latin version. Eleven Epistles out of the twelve are found in a second Latin version, Lect. VIII. NOTES. 425 likewise ancient, which presents numerous important variations from the other, and is in general considerably shorter. Of these eleven Epis- tles, the first seven, and a fragment of the eighth, were found in Greek in the famous Medicean manuscript, which evidently gave the original text of the shorter Latin translation. The seven (complete) Epistles of the Medicean MS. are nearly, but not quite, identical with the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. They consist, that is, of six out of the seven (viz., the Epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrnseans, and Polycarp,) together with a letter to a Christian woman, Maria Cassobolita ; and there is also in the MS. a fragment of the Epistle to the Tarsians. The Epistle to the Romans, which is placed at the end of the shorter Latin recension, is not in the Medicean MS. ; but this is explained by the fact that that MS. is a fragment. As it observes the exact order of the shorter Latin version, and seems to be the text oidy somewhat corrupt from which that version was made, we may conclude, that it contained ori- ginally the same eleven letters. Thus we cannot base any argument on the identity of the Eusebian and Medicean Epistles. It is not an exact identity ; and the approach to identity is perhaps an accident- Note XV., p. 210. See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, Introduction, pp. xxxiv.- lxxxvii. ; Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. pp. 98-103. Note XVI., p. 211. Sec Dr. Jacobson's Preface to the third edition of his Patres Apos- tolici, p. liv. ; Hefele's Prolegomena, 1. s. c. ; Professor Hussey's Univer- fity Sermons, Preface, pp. xiii.-xxxix. ; Vhlhorn in Niedner's Zeitschrifl fUr historische Theologie, xv. p. 247, et seqq., and ('anon Wordsworth in the English Review, No. viii. p. 309, et seqq. The shorter Greek Recen- sion is also regarded as genuine by the present Regius Professor of He- brew in the University of Oxford. Note XVII., p. 211. The subjoined are the most important of the Ignatian testimonies to the facts of Christianity: "Come together in one faith, even in Jesus 30* 426 NOTES. Lect. VIIL Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son of man and Son of God." (Ep. ad Eph. xx. p. 302.) " For Jesus Christ our God was born of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit. He was born, and teas baptized," &c. &c. (Ibid, xviii. pp. 296-298.) "Three notable mysteries were kept secret from the prince of this world, the virginity of Mary, and the birth and death of the Lord." (Ibid. xix. p. 298.) " How then was he manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven, brighter than all the other stars, and its lustre was indescribable, and the novelty of its ap- pearance caused great wonder." (Ibid. xix. p. 300.) " Our Lord . . . was truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, and was truly nailed to the cross in the flesh for us, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch." (Ep. ad Smyrn. i. p. 410.) "We love the prophets also, because they too announced gospel tidings, and hoped in him, and waited for him ; in whom also they believed, and were saved in the unity of Jesus Christ, being holy men, and worthy of love and admiration, to whom also Jesus Christ bore testimony." (Ep. ad Philadelph. v. pp. 394-396.) " On this account the Lord received the ointment upon his head, that he might breathe upon his church the odor of immortality." (Ep. ad Ephes. xvii. p. 296.) " He suffered truly, as he also truly raised himself from the dead." (Ep. ad Smyrn. ii. p. 418.) " We no longer keep the Sabbath, but we live a new life on the Lord's day, on which also our life arose with him." (Ep. ad Magnes. ix. p. 324.) "The prophets looked for him us their teacher : and therefore he whom they justly expected, when he came, raised them from the dead." (Ibid. 1. s. c.) "For I saw him in the flesh even after his resurrection, and I believe that he still exists. And when he came to Peter and his com- panions, he said to them, ' Take, and handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless spirit.' And immediately they touched him, and believed." (Ep. ad Smyrn. iii. p. 420.) "Now after his resurrection he ate with them and drank with them, as one in the flesh." (Ibid. 1. s. c.) " Sub- mit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, in his human nature, and as the Apostles to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit." (Ep. ad Magnes. xiii. p. 328.) " It is neces- sary therefore to submit to the company of presbyters, as to the Apos- tles." (Ep. ad Trail, ii. p. 334.) " Not as Peter and Paul do I command you : they were Apostles, I am a man under sentence." (Ep. ad Rom. iv. p. 368.) LECT. VIII. NOTES. 427 Note XVIII., p. 211. See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, pp. 227-231 ; and M. Bunseris Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 92-98. Note XIX., p. 212. See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 484-512. This work is admitted to be genuine, even by M. Bunsen. {Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 225-227.) Note XX., p. 212. See especially the following passages : " Servants . . . walking ac- cording to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all." ( 5, p. 494.) " We remember also what the Lord said in his teaching, ' Judge not, that ye be not judged .- forgive and it shall be forgiven you : be merciful, and ye shall receive mercy : with what measure ye measure, it shall be measured back to you : ' and, ' blessed are the poor, and they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.' " ( 2, pp. 488-490.) " Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in his men body on the tree ; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; but he endured all for us, that we might live through him." ($ 8, p. 502.) " Whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil." ({ 7, p. 500.) ' Our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to be brought even to death for our sins ; whom God raised, loosing the pains of Hades." ($ 1, p. 486.) " We believe in Him who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a throne at his right hand." ($2, p. 48G.) "Whom (i. e. the Lord) if we shall please in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, as he promised us, that he would raise us from the dead." (5, p. 496.) "I beseech you all therefore ... to exercise all patience, which also ye see exempli- fied before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among you, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the Apostles. For ye may be assured that none of these ran in vain, but that they are all in the place that is fitting for them, with the Lord, for whom also they suffered." ( 9, pp. 502-504.) " The blessed and illustrious Paul, who visited in person the men that then lived among you, and taught the word of truth in a correct and certain manner, and also, ichen he was absent, wrote you a letter," &c. (J 3, p. 490.) 428 NOTES. LECT. VIII. Note XXL, p. 212. See the Epistle of Irenscus to Florinus, preserved in Eusebius's Ec- clesiastical History, (v. 20; vol. i. pp. 359, 360:) "The lessons of childhood are incorporated with the mind, and grow with its growth, so that I can tell even the very place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse, and his going out and coming in, and the nature of his life, and the appearance of his person, and the discourses which he delivered to the multitude, and how he related his intercourse vrith John, and with the rest of those tcho had seen the Lord, and how he remembered their words, and what he had heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles ; how Polycarp declared all these things in a manner agreeable to the Scriptures, as he had received them from those who were eye witnesses of the word of life." Note XXII., p. 212. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 147 ; Hicronym. De Viris Illustr. x. p. 831, ed. Vallars. Compare Origen. ad Rom. xvi. 13. Note XXIIL, p. 212. See the " Canon" published by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italics Medii JEvi, 1 where the writer (Hegesippus ?) says, that -'the book of the Shepherd was written very lately, in our own times, by Hermas, while his brother Pius presided over the Roman Church as bishop." And compare Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 104 ; Alford, Greek Testa- ment, vol. ii. p. 441 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. p. 184 ; and Norton, Genuiiwiess of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 341, 342. Note XXIV., p. 212. Hermas mentions the mission of the Apostles " Such are they who believed the apostles, whom God sent into all the world to preach." (Past. iii. 9, 25, p. 122.) Their travels throughout the world "These twelve mountains which you see are twelve nations which occupy the whole earth. The Son of God therefore is preached among them, by 1 Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854. Lect. VIII. NOTES. 420 those whom he sent to them." (Ibid. 17, p. 120.) Their sufferings are indicated in the following passage : "I said to him, ' Sir, I wish to know what they have endured.' 'Hear, then,' he said ' wild beasts, scourges, prisons, crosses, for the sake of his name.' " (Ibid. i. 3, 2, p. 78.) Note XXV., p. 213. See Burton's Eccles. Hist., vol. ii. p. 73 and p. 496. Note XXVI., p. 213. Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 3 ; vol. i. p. 230 : " Now the works of our Saviour were always conspicuous ; for they were real. They who were healed, and they who were raised from the dead, were seen not only when they were healed, and when they were raised, but they were always visible afterwards ; not only while the Saviour sojourned among us, but also after he departed, and for a long time, insomuch that some of them have reached even to our own times." Note XXVII., p. 213. Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. Ill ; Norton (Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 126) says A. D. 150. So the Benedictine Editors. Bunsen and others date it eleven years earlier, A. D. 139. (See Hip- polytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 216. Compare Bishop Kayc, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, pp. 11, 12; who, however, declines to decide between the earlier and the later date.) Note XXVIIL, p. 213. Burton, E. II., vol. ii. pp. 128, 129. According to its title, the second Apology was addressed to the Senate only, (to the Senate of the Romans ;) but it contains expressions which imply that it was addressed to an emperor, and Eusebius tells us that it was actually offered to M. Aurelius. Note XXIX., p. 213. Kaye, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch. i. p. 3. 480 NOTES. Lect. VIII. Note XXX., p. 213. Paley, Evidences, part i. ch. vii. p. 75. Professor Norton remarks " From these works of Justin might be extracted a brief account of the life and doctrine of Christ, corresponding with that contained in the Gospels, and corresponding to such a degree, both in matter and words, that almost every quotation and reference may be readily as- signed to its proper place in one or other of the Gospels." Note XXXI., p. 215. The following are among the most important of Justin's testi- monies : 1. " Now Joseph, who was espoused to Mary, wished at first to put away his betrothed, thinking that she had become pregnant by inter- course with a man, that is to say, by fornication. But he was com- manded in a dream not to put away his wife ; and the angel who appeared to him told him, that what she had conceived was by the Holy Ghost. Struck with awe, therefore, he did not put her away ; but when there was an enrolment in Judaea, which then took place for the first time under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he dwelt, to Bethlehem, whence his family originated, in order to be enrolled ; for his family was of the tribe of Juda, which inhabited that part of the land. And he, together with Mary, was commanded to go forth into Egypt, and to be there with the child, until they should receive divine direction to return to Judaea. Now the child was born at that time in Bethlehem, and since Joseph had not any place to lodge in that village, he lodged in a certain cave, in the neighborhood of the village. Thus, then, it happened, while they were in that place, that Mary brought forth Christ, and put him in a manger; where the Magi from Arabia found him when they came; . . . and when the Magi from Arabia did not return to Herod, as he had requested them to do, but departed into their own country another way, as they were com- manded, and when Joseph, with Mary and the child, had already gone into Egypt, as they were divinely directed, Herod, not knowing the child which the Magi had come to worship, commanded the children in Bethlehem to be destroyed without distinction." (Dialog, cum Tryphon. k 78, p. 175.) LECT. VIII. NOTES. 431 2. "It was necessary that [the sacrifices] should cease, according to the will of the Father, at the coming of his Son Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin of the race of Abraham, and the tribe of Judah, and the family of David." (Ibid. 43, p. 139.) 3. " The power of God came upon and overshadowed the virgin, and caused her, though a virgin, to conceive ; and the angel of God, who was sent to this virgin at that time, announced to her glad tidings, saying, Behold, thou shaH conceive in thy womb by the Holy Ghost, and shalt bring forth a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Most High, and thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins." (Apolog. i. 13, p. 64.) 4. " Then said Trypho, ' So you grant to us, that he was circumcised, and observed the other rites enjoined by Moses.' I answered, ' I have granted it, and I grant it now.' " {Dial, cum Tryphon. $ 67, p. 164.) 5. "Now this king Herod inquired of the elders of your people, when the Magi from Arabia came to him, and said ' We have learned, from a star that has appeared in heaven, that a king has been born in your country, and we have come to worship him.' Then the elders said that it should take place in Bethlehem, because it is thus written in the prophet : And thou, Bethlehem,' &c. Now when the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem, and had worshipped the child, and offeree] him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, inasmuch as by a revela-. tion from heaven . . . they were commanded not to return to. Herod," &c. (Ibid. 78, pp. 174, 17-5.) 6. " And there (i. e. in Egypt) [Joseph and Mary] remained ir\ exile, until Herod, who slew the children in Bethlehem, had died, an<\ Archelaus had succeeded him." (Ibid. 103, p. 198.) 7. " Now that the Christ, who was born, should be unknown tQ other men until he should be grown, as it actually happened, hear what was foretold on this point." (Apolog. i. 35, p. 65.) 8. " Jesus, when he came to Jordan, was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and was regarded as a carpenter, for he performed the works of a carpenter when he was among men, making ploughs, and yokes," &c. (Dial, cum Trijj>hon. 88, p. 186.) 9. " And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John wnx baptizing, Jesus went down into the water, and a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and as he came up out of the water, his apostles have testified in writing, that the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, lighted upon him." (Ibid. 88, pp. 185, 186.) 432 NOTES. Lect. VIIT. 10. "For while John was making his abode on the banks of the Jordan, and preaching the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and a garment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild honey, men suspected that he was the Christ. But he cried out to them, ' I am not the Christ, ' but the voice of one crying ; for he that is mightier than I will come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.' " (Ibid. 1. s. c. p. 186.) 11. "Now when [Christ] became a man, the devil came to him, that is to say, that power which is called the Serpent and Satan, tempting him, and striving to cause him to fall, by demanding that he should worship him. But on the contrary he was himself destroyed and cast down, for Jesus proved him to be wicked, in demanding, contrary to the Scriptures, to be worshipped as God, whereas he was an apostate from the will of God. For he answered him, ' It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' " (Ibid: 125, p. 218.) 12. " Now that it was foretold of our Christ that he should heal all diseases, and raise the dead, hear the words that were spoken. They were these : ' At his coming the lame shall leap as a hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall speak plainly : the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed, and the dead shall be raised, and walk.' Now that he did these things, you can learn from the acts that were drawn up under Pontius Pilate." (Apolog. i. 48, p. 72.) 13. " And from these things we know that Jesus had foreknowledge of what was to be after him, and also from many other things which he ioretold as about to occur to those who believed on him, and confessed him to be the Christ. For even what we suffer, in having all things taken from us by our kindred, this he foretold as about to come upon us, so that in no respect does there appear to be any failure in his word." (Dial, cum Tryphon. 35, p. 133.) 14. "For Christ the Son of God, knowing by revelation from his Father, one of his disciples formerly called Simon, gave him the name of Peter." (Ibid. 100, p. 195.) 15. "For his changing the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, . . . as well as his changing the names of two other brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, and whom he called ' Boanerges,' which means ' sons of thunder, was a significant intimation that he was the Messiah." (Ibid i 106, p. 201.) Lect. VIII. NOTES. 433 16. "A certain foal of an ass was standing at the entrance of a vil- lage, tied to a vine. This he commanded nia friends to bring to him at that time ; and when it was brought he sat upon it, and came into Jeru- salem." (Apolog. i. 32, p. 63.) 17. "The apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have reported to us that Jesus enjoined this upon them. Taking bread, he gave thanks, and said, ' This do in remembrance of me : this is my body ; ' and taking the cup likewise, he gave thanks, and said, ' This is my blood.' And he distributed these to them only." (Ibid. 66, p. 83.) 18. " On the day on which he was about to be crucified, taking three of his disciples to the mount called the Mount of Olives, which lies near to the temple in Jerusalem, he prayed, saying, ' Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' And after this he said in his prayer, ' Not as I will, but as thou wilt.' " {Dial, cum Tryphon. 99, p. 194.) 19. "The power of this same mighty word . . . had a suspension; . . . for he was silent, and did not wish to answer any one a word, when he was examined before Pontius THate." (Ibid. 102, p. 197.) 20. "Now Herod succeeded Archelaus, and assumed the authority that was conferred upon him. To him rilate, in order to do him a favor, sent Jesus bound," &c. (Ibid. 103, p. 198 ; compare Apolog. i. 40, p. 67, C.) 21. "Now Jesus Christ, when he was crucified by the Jews, had his hands extended, ... as said the prophet, . . . ' They pierced m/ hands and my fcet,' referring to the nails by which his hands and his feet were fastened to the cross. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his raiment." (Ibid. $ 35, p. 65 ; compare $ 38, p. 66.) 22. "After he was crucified, and all his friends had forsaken and denied him, after that, having risen from the dead, and being seen by them, he taught them to study the prophecies, in which it was foretold that all these things should come to pa*s ; and when they had seen him ascend to heaven, and believed, and had received from thence the power which he sent upon them, they went to men of every race, and taught these things, and were called Apostles." (Ibid. $ 50, p. 73.) 23. "And when he yielded up his spirit on the cross, he said, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.'" {Dial, cum Tryphon. 105, p. 300.) 37 434 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 24. " For the Lord remained upon the tree almost until the evening ; and towards evening they buried him : afterwards he arose, on the third day." (Ibid. 97, p. 193.) 25. ' For there is no race of men whatever, whether barbarians or Greeks, or by whatsoever other name they may be called, whether liv- ing in wagons, or houseless wanderers, among whom there are not offered prayers and thanksgivings to the Father and Maker of all, through the name of the crucified Jesus." (Ibid. 117, p. 211.) Note XXXII., p. 215. See pages 204 and 205. Note XXXIII., p. 216. See especially Baur, in the Tubinger Zeitschrift filr Theohgie, 1836, fasc. iii. p. 199 ; 1838, fasc. iii. p. 119 ; and in a pamphlet Ueber den Crsprung des Episcopats, Tubingen, 1838, pp. 148-185. Also compare his work, Die Ignatianischen Briefen tmd ihr ncuester Kritiker, eine Streitschrift gegcn Hemn Bunsen, 8vo., Tobingen, 1848. Schwegler and others have followed in the same track. Note XXXIV., p. 216. I refer especially to the labors of Signor Marchi and Mons. Ferret the former in his Monument i delle AUe Cristiane Primitive nella Metropoli del Cristiancsimo, (lto, Rome, 1844,) the latter in his magnificent work, Lea Catacombes de Borne, (6 volumes folio, Paris, 1852-1857.) In our own country two useful little works have appeared on the subject Dr. Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, (London, 1847,) and Mr. Spencer Northcote's Boman Catacombs, (London, 1857.) An able Article in the Edinburgh Bevietc for January, 1859, (Art. iv.,) to which I must here express myself as under considerable obligations has made the general public familiar with the chief conclusions established by modern inquiry. Note XXXV., p. 217. See Bishop Burnet's Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 and 1686, (llotteraam, 1687,) pp. 209-211. Lect. VIII. NOTES. 435 Note XXXVI., p. 218. Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, p. 4. Note XXXVII., p. 218. See Note IV. on Lecture VII., p. 383. Note XXXVIII., p. 218. Edinburgh Review No. 221, p. 106. Note XXXIX., p. 218. The grounds upon which Mr. Spencer Northcote bases his calcula- tion are these : 1. The incidental notices in the old missals and office books of the Roman church, and the descriptions given by ancient writers, mention no less than sixty different Catacombs on the different sides of Rome, bordering her fifteen great consular roads. Of these about one third have been reopened, but in only one case has there been any accurate measurement. Father Marchi has carefully meas- ured a portion of the Catacomb of St. Agnes, which he calculates at one-eighth of the entire cemetery, and has found the length of all its streets and passages to be about two English miles. This gives a length of 16 miles to the St. Agnes' Catacomb ; and as that is (appar- ently) an average one certainly smaller than some as well as larger than some the 60 Catacombs would contain above 900 (960) miles of streets. 2. The height of the passages varies in the Catacombs, and the layers of graves are sometimes more, sometimes less numerous, occasionally not above three or four, in places thirteen or fourteen. There are also interruptions to the regular succession of tombs from the occurrence of chapels, and monuments of some pretension, (arcosolia.) Allowing for these, it is suggested that we may take an average of ten graves, five on each side, to every seven feet of street ; and this calcula- tion it is, which, applied to the 900 miles of street, produces the result of nearly seven millions of graves. Note XL., p. 219. Perret, Catacomb*-* de Rome, vol. vi. p. 101, et scqq.; Spencer North- cote, Roman Catacombs, pp. 29, 30. For arguments to the contrary, see Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 142-151. 436 NOTES. Lect. VIIL Note XLL, p. 219. Thus we find such inscriptions as the following : "In the time of the Emperor Adrian, the young man Marius, a general in the army, who lived long enough, since he sacrificed his life for Christ by a bloody death, rested at last in peace ; and was buried with merited tears and respect." (Maitland, p. 128.) And, " The wave of death has not dared to deprive Constans of the crown to which he was entitled by giving his life to the sword." (Ibid. p. 129.) And again, eHCrwPAHANYCfAAAHENYNCIIYC HYrrAATYCnPwHAECYM*AMHA HArwTAQYIlECCYNTHNnAKE TEaxMIAAANCHAAA'tECHT which may be thus explained OtjC Toipirjavv; Ta).Xt]t vvvCrjVf tjvyvXaTVf irpw aftt]X- rja Tiiira qvrjtacvvr t)v iraxt TtoxpriXa avCijXXa " He had now becomo a man," stays Mr. Layard of a young Bedouin, " for ho was about fourteen yearn old." (J\~inerek and Babylon, p. 2(5.) * Joeeph. Ant. Jud. xiv. '.>. ? '-'. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. vol. i. p. 182. (441) 442 NOTES. in the government when he was fourteen, which would have been in his own fifteenth year. This youth would then, in the seventeenth and last year of his father's reign, have entered on the third year of his own joint rule, as we find recorded of Belshazzar in Daniel. 1 Another way of meeting the difficulty has been suggested. Nabona- dius, it is said, may have been married to a daughter of Nebuchadnez- zar before he obtained the crown. It is only an inference of Abydenus, and not a statement of Berosus, that he was entirely unconnected with Laborosoarchod. This is undoubtedly true. But the inference, which Abydenus drew from the text of Berosus, seems to me a legitimate one. Berosus, who has just noticed the relationship of Neriglissar to the son of Nebuchadnezzar, whom he supplanted, would scarcely have failed to notice that of Nabonadius to his grandson, if he had known of any relationship existing. At any rate he would not have called the new king, as he does, "a certain Nabonnedus of Babylon," (Xo(?ovf^ ml tu>* me Ba/iu/(iio{,) had he been the uncle of the preceding monarch. My attention has been further drawn to a very remarkable illustra- tion which the discovery of Belshazzar's position as joint ruler with his father furnishes to an expression twice repeated in Daniel's fifth chapter. The promise made 2 and performed 3 to Daniel is, that he shall be the " third ruler" in the kingdom. Formerly it was impossible to explain this, or to understand why he was not the second ruler, as he seems to have been under Nebuchadnezzar, 4 and as Joseph was in Egypt, 5 and Mordecai in Persia. 6 It now appears, that, as there were two kings at the time, Belshazzar, in elevating Daniel to the highest position tenable by a subject, could only make him the third personage in the Empire. This incidental confirmation of what was otherwise highly probable, is a most valuable and weighty evidence. 1 Dan. viii. 1. s Verse 16. s Verse 29. * Dan. ii. 28. Gen. xli. 41-43. Esth. x. 3. INDEX OF AUTHORS, SPECIFICATION OF THE EDITIONS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING NOTES. A. Abydenus, Fragments of, in C. Mailer's Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. ed. Didot, Paris, 1851. _, 1839. Beaufort, Incertitude de l'Histoire Romaine, Utrecht, 1738. (443) 444 INDEX OF AUTHORS. Bexgel, Archiv, Tubingen, 1816-1821. Berosus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. Bkktheav, Comment on Chronicles, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, Clark, 18.57. Beutholpt, Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apocryphische Schriften des Alt. und Neu. Test., Erlangen, 1812-1819. Biuks, Hora; Apostolical, attached to his edition of Paley's Horse Paulinae, London, 1850. Bochart, Geographia Sacra, ed. 4ta, Leyden, 1707. Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828-1843. Bouhier, Recherches sur l'histoire d'Hcrodote, Dijon, 1746. Braxdis, Rerum Assyriarum Temp. Emendata, Bonn, 1853. Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Halae Magd. 1744- 1752. Bixsex, Egypt's Place in Universal History, (translated by Cockerell,) Lon- don, 1818, &c. lii'NSF.s, Hippolvtus and his Age, London, Longman, 1854. BrxsKN, Philosophy of Universal History, London, Longman, 1854. Burnet, Bishop, Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 and 1686, Rot- terdam, 1687. Burton, Canon, Eccles. History of the First Three Centuries, Oxferd, Parker, 1833. Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, Oxford, 1833. Buttmanx, Mythologus, Berlin, 1828, 1829. Blxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, Basle, 1676- c. CaLMET, Commentaire Litteral, Paris, 1724-1726. Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1721. Carwithbx, Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1809. Casauhon, L, Exerc. Antibaror.., folio edition, London, 1614. Cn amtollion, Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens, Paris, 1828. Chardix, Voyage en Perse, Amsterdam, 1735. Cicero, Opera, ed. Priestly, London, 1819. Clemens Alexaxdrixus, ed. Potter, Venice, 1757. Clemens Romaxvs, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, Oxford, 1840. Clixtox, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1830-1841. INDEX OF AUTHORS. 445 CoxRlNGlt'S, Adversar. Chronolog. in Gravius's Syntagma variarum Disser- tationum rariorum, Ultraj. 1701. Constitutiones Apostolicse, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, (vol. i.,) ed. 2da. Amsterdam, 1724. Conybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul, London, Long- man, 1850. Cokkodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jtldischen und christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792. Cratippcs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. Ctesias, Fragmenta, ed. Bahr, Frankfort, 1824. Ci'RETON, Canon, Corpus Ignatianum, London, Rivingtons, 1849. Cyrilias Alexandrinus, ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638. D. Dahlmann, Life of Herodotus, (translated by Cox,) London, 1845. Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1846-1849. Des Vionoles, Chronologic de l'Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738. De Wette, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, 7th edition, Berlin 1852. De Wette, translated by Theodore Parker. (See Parker.) De Wette, Archaologie, 3rd edition, Berlin, 1842. Digesta seu Pandecta, Florence, 1553. Dio Cassiis, Hist. Roman., Hanover, 1606. Dio CHRY80STOM, ed. Morell, Paris, 1604. Diodorts Sicrtrs, ed. Wtsseling, Bipont. 1793, &c. Dionysivs Hamcarnassvs, folio edition, Oxon. 1704. Dirs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 185 J Dodwell, Dissertat. in Irenoeum, Oxford, 1689. E. Eichhorn, Allgcmeinc Bibliothek, Leipsic, 1787-1800. Eichhokn, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, Leipsic, 1787. Eichhohn, Einleitung in das Neu. Testament, Leipsic, J 804-181*. EpiCTETrs, Dissertationes, ed. Schweigha-user, Leipsic, 1796-1800. EPIPHANIVS, Opera, ed. Schrey et Meyer, Cologne, 1682. Ersch and Grvber, Algeineine Encyclopadie der Wissenschuft und Kunst, Leipsic, 1818, &c. EV8EP.IU8, Chronica, ed. Mai, Milan, 1818. Evsebivs, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1838. 38 446 INDEX OF AUTHORS. ErsEBirr, . ra*pnratio Erangelica, cd. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843. Ewald, Oeschichte des Volkcs Israel, 2nd edition, Gottingen, 1851-1858. EWALD, Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1840. F. Faber, Horae Mosaica?, Oxford, 1801. Feilmoser, Einleitung in die Btlcher d. Neues Testaments, Tubingen, 1830. Ferousson, Palaces of Nineveh Restored, London, Murray, 1851. Ferrier, General, Caravan Journeys, London, Murray, 1856. Forster, Mahometanism Unveiled, London, 1829. Fritzsche, Aechtheit der Bucher Mosis, Rostock, 1814. G. Galen, Opera, ed. Kuhn, Leipsic, 1821-1833. George, Mythus und Sage, Berlin, 1837. Gesenius, Geschichte der Hebraische Sprache und Schrift, Leipsic, 1815. Gesenius, Lexicon Hebraicum, (Engl. Translation,) Cambridge, 1852. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, (Engl. Translation,) London, Bagster, 1846. Gesenius, Scriptures Lingua>que Phoenicia? Monumenta, Leipsic, 1857. Gesenius, Thesaurus Pbilologicus Ling. Hebr. Leipsic, 1829. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3rd edition, London, 1777-1788. Gladstone, Homer and the Homeric Age, Oxford, 1858. Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, editio altera, Oxford, 1714. Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 2nd edition, London, Cadell, 1815. Grosifr, Description de la Chine, Paris, 1818-1820. Grote, History of Greece, London, Murray, 1846-1856. H. Hales, Analysis of Chronology, London, 1809-1812. Hartmann, Forschungen flber d. Pentateuch, Rostock, 1831. Haevernick, Handbuch des historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alt Testament, Erlangen, 1837. Haevernick, Introduction to the Old Testament, (English Translation,} Edinburgh, Clark, 1852. Haevernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch, (English Translation,) Edin- burgh, Clark, 1&50. INDEX OP AUTHORS. 447 Hecatveus Abderita, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. Heerex, Asiatic Nations, (English Translation,) Oxford, Talboys, 183. Heerex, Manual of Ancient History, (English Translation,) Oxford, Tal- boys, 1833. Hefei.e, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3rd edition, Tubingen, 1847. Hexostexberg, Aegypten und Mose, Berlin, 1840. Hexcstexberg, Egypt, &c, (translated by Mr. Robbins, with additional notes by Dr. Cooke Taylor,) Edinburgh, Clark, 1845. Hexgstexbeug, Authentic des Daniel und Integritiit des Secherias, Ber- lin, 1831. Herbst, Historisch-kritische Einleifur.g in d. heilig. Schriften des Alt. Testaments, (published by Welte after his decease,) Karlsruhe, 1840-1844. Hermas, Pastor, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) ed. 2da, Am- sterdam, 1724. Hermippl'8, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1849. Herodoti \s, ed. Bahr, Leipsic, 1830-1835. Herodotus, (translated by the Author,) with copious Notes and Appen- dices, London, Murray, 1858-9. Hesychivs, Lexicon, ed. Albert, Leyden, 1746. Hixcks, Dr., Translation of Black Obelisk Inscription, in Dublin Univer- sity Magazine for October, 1853. Hieronymis, Opera, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1693. Hitzio, De Cadyte urbe Herodotea, Gottingen, 1829. Hitzio, Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklart. Leipsic, 1838. Homer, Iliad, ed. Heyne, Leipsic, 1802. HOMER, Odyssey, ed. Lowe, Leipsic, 1828 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Keble, Oxford, 1836. Hoover, Palmoni, an Essay on the Chronological and Numerical Systems of the Jews, London, Longman, 1851. HoRNE, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Cth edition, London, Cadell, 1828. Hue, Voyage dans la Tartaric, Paris, 1853. Hissey, Sermons mostly Academical, Oxford, Parker, 1849. I. J. Jarloxsky, Opuscula, Leyden, 1804. Jackbox, Chronological Antiquities, London, 1752. 448 INDEX OF AUTHORS. Jaiin, Acchthcit dcs Fcntateuch, in Bengel's Archiv, (vol. iii. part i.,) TO> bingcn, 1816-1821. Jahn, Einleitung in das alte Testament, Vienna, 1792. IoxATli'8, S., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. Inscription, Behistun, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. ii. (See Hehodotvb.) Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., as translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Mr. Fox Talbot, Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert, published by Royal Asiatic Society ; London, Parker, 1857. Inscription, Nebuchadnezzar's Standard, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. iii. (See Herodotus.) Inscription on the Nimrud Obelisk, translated by Dr. Hincks. (See Hincks.) Inscriptions of three Assyrian Kings, translated by Mr. Fox Talbot. (See Talhot.) Inscriptiones Gra'cac, BOckh's Corpus Ins. Gr. (See Boeckh.) JoSEPHl'S, Opera, ed. Havercamp, Amsterdam, &c, 1726. Josefucs, translated by Dr. Traill, with notes and essays, published in I parts, London, 1847. Iken.eus, Advers. Hareses, ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1857. Itinerarium Antoninum, in Bertius's Ptolemy. (See Ptolemy.) Justin, Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 1760. Justin Martyr, Opera, Hague, 1742. Juvenal, ed. Ruperti, Leipsic, 1819-1820. K. Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary, English edition, London, Longman, 18.55, &c. Kate, Bishop, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, 3rd edition, London, Rivingtons, 1853. Kaye, Bishop, Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1829. Keil, Commentar uber das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847. Keil, Commentary on Joshua, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. Keil, Apologetischer Versuch uber die Bucher der Chronik, Berlin, 1833. Keil, Commentar uber die Btlcher der KOnige, Berlin, 1846. Keil, Commentary on the Books of Kings, (translated by Murphy,) Edin- burgh, Clark, 1857. Kenkick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850. INDEX OP AUTHORS. 449 Kexrick, Phoenicia, London, 1855. Ker Pouter, Sir R., Travels, London, Longman, 1821-1822. Kitto, Biblical Cyclopaedia, (Burgess's edition,) Edinburgh, Black, 1856. K.XOBEL, Der Prophetismus der Hebraer, Breslau, 1837. Kioi.er, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1842. L. Lacroze, Lexicon ^Egyptiaco-Latinum, Oxford, 1775. Larcher, Histoire d'Herodote, Paris, 1786. Lardner, Dr., Credibility of the Gospel History, Works, London, 1815. L'Art de verifier les Dates, 8vo edition, Paris, 1819-1844. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, London, Murray, 1849. Lavard, Nineveh and Babylon, London, Murray, 1853. Lee, Dr., Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 2nd edition, London, Riving tons, 1857. Lepsius, Dr., Lettre sur l'Alphabet Hieroglyphique, Rome, 1837. Lewis, Sir G. C, Credibility of Early Roman History, London, Parker, 1855. Lewis, Sir G. C, Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, Lon- don, Parker, 1852. Liohtfoot, Dr., Works, folio edition, London, 1684. Livy, ed. Twiss, Oxford, Talboys, 1840. Loheck, Aglaophamus, Regimont, 1829. Loftvs, Chalda.'a and Susiana, London, Nisbet, 1857. Loxoixrs, De Sublimitate, Edinburgh, 1733. Lucian', Opera, cd. Hemsterhuis, Bipont. 1789, &c. LyeLL, Sir C, Principles of Geology, 4th edition, London, Murray, 1835. LYNCH, Capt., Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the River Jor- dan and the Dead Sea, London, Bentley, 1852. Lysimachus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1819. M. MaCBRIDE, Dr., Mohammedan Religion Explained, London, IS57- Mackoiuts, Saturnalia, cd. Gronovius, Leyden, 1670. Maitland, Dr., The Church in the Catacombs, London, Longman, 1846. Manetho, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1849. M ansel, Bampton Lectures for 1858, London, Murray, 1858. Marchi, Monumenti delle Arti Cristiane primitive nella Metropoli del Cristianesimo, Rome, 1844. 38* 450 INDEX OF AUTHORS. Marsh, Bishop, Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, in his Lectures on Divinity, London, 1810-1823. Maksham, Canon Chronicus, folio edition, London, 1672. Martyrium Ignatii, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions, Paris, 1729, &c. Menander, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 1851. Michaelis, J. D., Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, Frankfort, 1771-1783. Michell, Bampton Lectures for 1849, Oxford, Parker, 1849. Minucius Felix, Octavius, Oxford, 1627. Moses Chorenensis, Armenian History, ed. Whiston, (Armenian and Latin,) London, 1736. Mosheim, Historia Ecclesiastica, editio altera, Helmstadt, 1764. Mosheim, De rebus ante Constantin. Magn. gestis, Helmstadt, 1753. Movers, Die Phonizier, Berlin, 1849, &c. Mueller, C. O., History of Greek Literature, completed by Dr. Donaldson, London, Parker, 1858. MuRATORl, Antiquitates Italicoe Medii JEri, Milan, 1740. Mure, Col., Literature of Ancient Greece, London, Longman, 1850, &c. Mure, Col., Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote's History of Greece, London, Longman, 1851. N. Neaxder, Allgemeine Geschichte d. Christliche Religion und Kirche, 4th edition, Hamburg, 1847, &c. Neumaxn, Versuch einer Geschichte der Armcnisch. Literatur, Leipsic, 1836. Newman, F., History of the Hebrew Monarchy, London, Chapman, 1847. Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, Rivingtons, 1833. Newman, J. H., Essay on Miracles, Oxford, Parker, 1843. Newton, Sir I., Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended, London, 1728. Nicolaus Damascenus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1849. Niebuhr, B. G , History of Rome, (Hare and Thirlwali's translation,) Cambridge, 1831-1842. Niebuhr, B. G., Kleine Schrifter.. Bonn, 1828. INDEX OF AUTHORS. 451 Niebuhr, B. G., Lectures on Ancient History, (translated by Dr. Schraitz.j London, 1852. Niebuhk, B. G., Life and Letters of, London, Chapman, 1852. Niebuhk, B. G., Vortrage Ober Alte Geschichte, Berlin, Reimer, 1847. Niebuhk, Makccs, Geschichte Assurs und Babels seit Phul, Berlin, 1857. Northcote, J. Spencer, The Roman Catacombs, second edition, London, 1859. Norton, Professor, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd edition, London, Chapman, 1847. o. Ockley, Life of Mohammed, in his History of the Saracens, London, Bohn, 1847. Offerhaus, Spicilegia Historico-Chronologica, Groningae, 1739. Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar uber sammtl. Schriften d. Neuen Testa- ments, 3rd edition, KOnigsberg, 1837. Olshausen, Commentary on the Gospels, (translated by Fosdick,) 3rd edi- tion, Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. Oppert, Dr., Rapport d'une Mission scientifique en Angleterre, Paris. 1856. Orioen, Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1733-1759. OR08IU8, Historia adv. Paganos, Cologne, 1536. Ovid, ed. Soc. Bipontina, Strasburg, 1807. P. Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 25th edition, Glasgow, 1816. Paley, Horse Paulina;; Works, edited by Rev. R. Lynam, vol. i. London, 1828. Parkf.r, Theodore, Enlarged Translation of De Wette's Einleitungin das Alt. Test., Boston, 1843. Patrick, Bishop, Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testa- ment, 4th edition, London, 1732. Pausanius, ed. Siebelis, Leipsic, 1822. Pearson, Vindicice Epistolarum S. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672. Perizonius, Origines Babylon ica: et ^Egyptiaca?, editio altera, Duker, Utrecht, 1736. Perret, Les Cataconibes de Rome, folio, 6 volumes, Paris, Gide, 1851-1855 Petronius Arbiter, ed. Burmann, Utrecht, 1709. 452 INDEX OP AUTHORS. Philo Jrn.T.rs, ed. Hoeschcl, Frankfort, 1691. Philostkatis, ed. Olcarius, Leipsic, 1709. Photics, Bibliothcca, cd. Hoeschcl, Rouen, 1653. Plato, Phtrdo, ed. Stanford, Dublin, 1834. Pliny, Hist. Nat., (ex Otficiis Hack.,) Leyden and Rotterdam, 1G69. Pliny the younger, Epistola>, ed. Cortius, Amsterdam, 1734. Phtarcii, Opera, ed. A. Stephanus, Paris, 1624. PoLYBirs, ed. Schweigha-uscr, Oxford, Baxter, 1823. Polycakp, Epist., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. Poole, R. Stuart, Hora? JEgyptiaca?, London, Murray, 1851. Powell, Professor, Order of Nature considered in reference to the Claims of Revelation, a Third Scries of Essays, London, Longman, 1859. Phichakd, Dr., Physical History of Mankind, 3rd edition, London, 1836. Pkichakd, Dr., Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, London, 1838. Prideaix, Dr., Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament, 4th edition, London, 1718. Procovivs, Opera, in the Corpus Hist. Byz., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833-1838. Ptolemy, Geograph., ed. Bertius, Amsterdam, 1618. Ptolemy, Magna Syntaxis, Basle, 1538. R. Rask, Professor, Egyptian Chronology, in Prichard's Records of Ancient Egypt. (See Pkichakd.) Rawlinsox, Sir II. C, Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1846-1849. Rawlinsox, Sir H. C, Commentary on the Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylon, London, Parker, 1850. Rawlixsox, Sir H. C, Notes en the Early History of Babylonia, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part ii. London, Parker, 1856. Ravlinson, Sir H. S., Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. (See Herodotus.) Remusat, Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, Paris, 1829. Rexxell, Geography of Herodotus, 4to edition, London, 1800. Rosei.lixi, Monumenti dell' Egitto, parte prima, monumenti storici, Pisa, 1832-1841. Rosexmueller, Scholia in Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1821, &c. Rossi, Etymologia: -Sgyptiacae, Rome, 1808. INDEX "OF AUTHORS. 453 Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, folio, Geneva, 1629. Seneca, ed. Elzevir, Amsterdam, 1672. SiMPLlClUS, Comment, ad Anstot. De Coelo, folio, Venice, 1526. Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 2nd edition, London, 1853. Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 1850. Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, 1854. Smith, G. Vance, Prophecies relating to Nineveh, London, Longman, 1857. Sockates, Hist. Ecclesiastica, Cambridge, 1720. Sophoci.es, ed. Valpy, London, 1824. Si'anheim, Introductio ad Chronologiam et Historiam Sacrain, Amster- dam, 1694. Spinoza, Tractatus theologo-politicus, 2nd edition, (no place or publisher's name,) 1674. Stackhotse, History of the Bible, Gleig's edition, London, Longman, 1817 Stanley, Professor, Sinai and Palestine, London, Murray, 1856. Status, pocket edition, Amsterdam, 1624. STKABO, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847-1852. Stkaiss, Leben Jesu, 4th edition, Tubingen, 1840. S thai 88, The Life of Jesus, translated into English, London, Chapman, 1846. StiarT, Professor, History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, ed- ited by the Rev. P. Lorimer, London, 1849. Sietonii s, ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipsic, 1816. Sdidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1834. Svnci.i.i.i s, in the Corpus Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829 T. Tacitis (Brotier's), ed. Valpy, London, Whittakcr, 1823. TAI.BOT, H. Fox, Assyrian Texts translated, London, 18ofi. Tatian, Oratio adv. Grn-cos, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742 Taylor, Transmission of Ancient Books, London, 1859. Tertvllian, Opera, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1675. Tf.kti i.m AN, Bishop Kaye's, Ecclesiastical Hist., illustrated from Tertul- lian. (Sec KaYE.) Theii.i:, Zur biographic Jesu, Leipsic, 1 HTJ7- THEormi.ts, ad Autolycum, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742. 454 INDEX OF AUTHORS. Tut cvninES, ed. Bekker, Oxford, Parker, 1824. Trench, Dean, Notes on the Miracles, London, Parker, 1846. V. V.U.EUIV8 Maximts, Leyden, 1670. Vater, Commentar Qber den Pentateuch, Halle, 1802-1806. Vatke, Religion des Alt. Testaments nach den kanonischen Buchern entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. Vestiges of Creation, 10th edition, London, 1853. Vitringa, Observationes Sacra?, Franequerae, 1711, 1712. Vitrlvius, ed. De Laet, Amsterdam, Elzevir, 1649. Von Bohlen, Alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. Von Lenoerke, Kenaan, Konigsberg, 1844. Von Lenoerke, Das Buch Daniel, Konigsberg, 1835. w. Wetstein, Nov. Testament. Grsecum, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. Whiston, Short View of the Harmony of the four Evangelists, Cambridge. 1702. White, Bampton Lectures for 1784. Oxford, 1784. Wilkinson, Sir G., Ancient Egyptians, London, Murray, 1837-1841. Wilkinson, Sir G., Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. (See Hr.HODorrs.) Wilson, Professor H. H., Translations from Rig-Veda-Sanhita, London, 1850. Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, 3rd edition, Leipsic, 1847, 1848. Woollston, Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, London, 1727- 1729. X. Xenophon, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxford, 1817, &c. THE END. 17203 k 'X mmmmi^ m ^^m FACILITY M 000 063 314 c >- j^ ^ 4f - ^ ^ if 4L m *\ 5s^^ * 9PEMHi ^ J^ /^